HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP2702738(2)
W-7867-01
Geotechnica/ Report
Oakesdale Avenue S. W. Extension
Phase 1
S. W. 27th Street to
s S. W. 16th Street
Renton, Washington
November 1997
Kato & Warren, Inc.
2003 Western Avenue, Suite 555
Seattle, Washington 98121
a
SHANNON 6WILSON,E U t-41 U H N;.-A L A>. ra J N U N h-,c N f A� �;U N S INC.0 l_i A N(..
400 N. 34th St. Suite 100
P.O. Box 300303
Seattle, Washington 98103
{ 206■632 .8020
s
SHANNON 6WILSON INC. �EA����E
RICHLAND
."Mill � atic;r;oa.n�
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS SAI'rTLOJIS
eo"TON
November 7, 1997
Kato & Warren, Inc.
2003 Western Avenue, Suite 555
Seattle, Washington 98121
Attn: Mr. Barry S. Knight
RE: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT, OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W.
EXTENSION, PHASE 1, S.W. 27TH STREET TO S.W. 6TH STREET,
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Enclosed are the original (unbound) and nine copies (bound) of our geotechnical report for
the above-referenced project. This report presents the results of field explorations and
laboratory testing, and provides geotechnical engineering recommendations for the design
and construction of Phase 1 of the proposed extension. A draft report was submitted on
August 8, 1997, This report has incorporated comments on the draft report provided by the
City of Renton.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions
on this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
SHANNON & WH SON, INC.
Ming-Jiun ( ' u, P.E.
Vice President
HJS:JW/Ikd
Enclosure: Geotechnical Report (original, unbound; nine copies, bound)
W7867-01.11r/W7867-Ikd/Ikd
400 NORTH 34TH STREET• SUITE 100 W-7867-01
P.O. BOX 300303
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103
206.632.8020 FAX 206.633.6777
TDD: 1.800.833.6388
SHANNON 6WIISON,INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1 Current Explorations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2 Previous Explorations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.0 GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.0 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.0 BRIDGE FOUNDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2 Axial Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.3 Lateral Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
► 8.4 Spring Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.4.1 Deep Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.4.2 Abutment Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.0 FILL EMBANKMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2 Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.3 Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.4 MSE Wall Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.5 Impact on Existing Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.1 Design Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.2 Subgrade Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.3 Pavement Design Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.0 POLE DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12.1 Drilled Shaft Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12.1.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12.1.2 Methods of Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1.2.1 Dry Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1.2.2 Casing Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1.2.3 Wet Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
W-7867-01
i
SHANNON&WILSON,INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
12.1.3 Drilled Shaft Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.1.4 Monitoring of Drilled Shaft Installations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.2 Augercast Piles Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.3 Embankment Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12.4 Embankment Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
12.5 Monitoring Existing Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
12.6 Temporary Excavation for Vault Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
13.0 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
LIST OF TABLES
Thble No.
1 Recommended Parameters for Development of P-Y Curves
Using LPILE
2 Recommended Pavement Sections
3 Recommended Parameters for Luminar Lighting Pole Design
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
1 Vicinity Map
2 Site and Exploration Plan (2 sheets)
3 Generalized Subsurface Profile A-A'
4 Estimated Capacity of 6-foot-diameter Drilled Shaft, South Abutment
5 Estimated Capacity of 6-foot-diameter Drilled Shaft, North Abutment
6 Estimated Capacity of 14-inch-diameter Augercast Pile, Bridge Over
SPU Water Line
7 Vertical Spring Constants for Deep Foundations
8 Passive Lateral Earth Pressures vs. Movement
9 Estimated Total Settlements, Approach Embankments
10 Recommended Geotechnical Properties, MSE Wall Design
11 Estimated Total Settlements, Beneath Existing Sanitary Sewer Lines
12 Settlement Plate Schematic
13 Utility Monitoring Point
14 Subsurface Deformation Monitoring Point
W-7867-01
ii
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A CURRENT FIELD EXPLORATIONS
APPENDIX B PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATIONS
APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
APPENDIX D IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL
REPORT
W-7867-01
iii
SHANNON bWILSON,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. EXTENSION
PHASE 1
S.W. 27TH STREET TO S.W. 16TH STREET
RENTON, WASHINGTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Renton proposes an extension of Oaksdale Avenue S.W. from a cul-de-sac at
S.W. 31st Street at the south end to S.W. 16th Street at the north end in Renton,
Washington. The proposed extension will be accomplished in two phases. The first phase,
Phase 1, covers the extension between S.W. 27th Street and S.W. 16th Street and the second
phase, Phase 2, covers the remaining portion of the proposed extension, from the cul-de-sac
to S.W. 27th Street. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared for the
project. As part of the EIS, a geotechnical study was performed by Woodward-Clyde
Consultants (WCC) of Seattle, Washington. Results of the WCC study were presented in a
geotechnical report titled, "Geotechnical Presdesign Report, Oaksdale Avenue Extension,
Renton, Washington," dated June 28, 1995.
This geotechnical report is prepared as part of the plan, specification, and estimate (PS&E)
for Phase 1 of this project. It presents the results of our review of previous subsurface data
in the project vicinity, and the result of our field explorations and laboratory testing
performed for this study. The report also presents geotechnical recommendations developed
from engineering studies performed for the project.
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed alignment of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension is located on land that once
formed a part of the old Longacres Race Course, east of Interstate I-5 and south of Interstate
SR 405, in Renton, Washington, as shown on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. The proposed
alignment of Phase 1 of the project extends from approximately Station 14+50 at S.W. 27th
Street to approximately Station 52+55 at S.W. 16th Street.
W-7867-01
1
SHANNON&WILSON.INC.
Between approximately Stations 14+00 and 45+00, the proposed Phase 1 alignment crosses
relatively flat areas consisting of open fields, unpaved parking lots, and paved roadways.
Existing ground surface elevations for this position of the alignment range between 14 and
19 feet. North of approximately Station 45+00, the existing topography along the proposed
alignment slopes down to an approximate elevation of 10 feet. It then rises back up to about
elevation 18 feet. It crosses, then, Springbrook Creek and a paved parking lot before
connecting to the existing Oakesdale Avenue S.W. at S.W. 16th Street.
As indicated previously, the proposed extension of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. is divided into
two phases. Phase 1, which is addressed in this report, extends from S.W. 27th Street to
S.W. 16th Street. Phase 2 extends from S.W. 31th Street at an existing cul-de-sac to S.W.
27th Street. Another study is underway that is addressing certain considerations affecting
Phase 2 of the project.
We understand that Phase 1 would also be accomplished in two stages, Phase lA and Phase
1B. Phase IA would design and construct a new three-lane roadway with a sidewalk on the
west side of the roadway between Station 15+20 and Station 36+00, and a new five-lane
roadway with a sidewalk and a bike lane on each side of the roadway for the remainder of
the alignment. A new bridge with approach embankments over Springbrook Creek would
also be included in Phase IA. During Phase 1B, the three-lane roadway, between Station
15+20 and Station 36+00 would be widened to five lanes.
The proposed bridge would consist of an approximately 137-foot-long, single-span structure.
It would be constructed to its ultimate five-lane configuration during Phase IA. Drilled
shafts are under consideration to support the proposed bridge. The proposed approach
embankments will have maximum heights of about 12 feet south of the bridge and 6.5 feet
north of it. Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls are under construction to retain the
approach roadway fills.
Several existing utilities are present directly below and in the vicinity of the proposed
alignment of the extension. Some of these utilities will be relocated, or removed.
However, three major lines will be left in place and are taken into consideration during the
design and construction of the project. The first two lines are 72- and 108-inch-diameter
King County/Metro sanitary sewer (SS) lines that run beneath the proposed alignment south
W-7867-01
2
SHANNON&WILSON.INC.
of approximate Station 45+50. North of this station, the SS lines run to the west and away
from the alignment. The third line is a 60-inch-diameter Seattle Public Utility (SPU) water
line. This water line runs in east-west direction and crosses the proposed alignment around
Station 26+00. A bridge crossing would be used to span the new roadway over the SPU
water line.
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS
3.1 Current Explorations
Five borings, designated B-1 through B-5, were drilled for this study to help identify
subsurface conditions at the project site. These borings supplement subsurface information
obtained from previous explorations performed in the vicinity of the proposed alignment of
the extension. A discussion on the previous explorations is presented in the next section.
Approximate locations of borings B-1 through B-5 are shown on Figure 2, Site and
Exploration Plan. Borings B-1 and B-2 were drilled within the proposed south approach
embankment area. Borings B-3 and B-4 were performed in the vicinity of the south and
north abutments of the proposed bridge structure, respectively, and boring B-5 was located
within the proposed north approach embankment area.
All five borings were drilled using mud-rotary drilling techniques with a truck-mounted drill
rig. A more detailed description of the drilling and sampling procedures, and logs of the
five borings are presented in Appendix A, Current Field Explorations.
3.2 Previous Explorations
As described above, borings B-1 through B-5 were drilled in the approach embankment and
bridge areas of the alignment. Previous explorations performed within and in the vicinity of
the proposed alignment were reviewed. They provided supplemental information to borings
B-1 through B-5 in the approach embankment and bridge areas. Previous explorations were
the only source of subsurface data in other areas along the proposed alignment.
W-7867-01
3
SHANNON MLSON,INC.
Previous explorations, reviewed for this study, were performed as part of the following four
projects located in the vicinity of the proposed alignments:
No. South Interceptor Sections 1 and 2 by Metropolitan Engineers (Metropolitan) in
1967.
► Boeing Longacres Park by GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) in 1991.
IN. 108-inch-diameter Metro Sewer by Golder Associates, Inc. (Golder) in 1992.
IN. Oakesdale Avenue Extension by WCC.
Geotechnical reports by Golder and WCC were available for our review. On the other
hand, review of the field explorations performed by Metropolitan and GeoEngineers was
limited to information included in the Golder and WCC reports. Copies of subsurface
profiles along the proposed alignment, from the WCC 1995 report, are included in
Appendix B, Previous Field Explanations, of this report.
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING
Geotechnical laboratory tests were performed on selected samples retrieved from the borings
to determine index and engineering properties of the soils encountered along the proposed
alignment. The tests were performed at the Shannon & Wilson, Inc., laboratory by an
experienced technician and included visual classification, natural water content, Atterberg
limits determinations, and grain-size distribution tests. Atterberg limits and grain-size
distribution tests were performed on selected samples. A description of the test methods and
summaries of the tests results are presented in Appendix C: Laboratory Testing Procedures
and Results. The Atterberg limits and natural water content test results are also shown on
the individual boring logs included in Appendix A.
Two relatively undisturbed thin-walled (Shelby) tube samples were attempted in each of
borings B-1 through B-3. The first tube in each of these borings did not recover any
sample, and the sample in each of the remaining tubes consisted mostly of silty sand and
sandy silt. The purpose of obtaining the Shelby tube samples would have been to evaluate
W-7867-01
4
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
the engineering properties of cohesive subsoils along the proposed alignment. Therefore,
none of the Shelby tubes produced relatively undisturbed samples for testing.
5.0 GEOLOGY
The project is located in the former flood plain of the Green River. The Green River valley
is a broad, glacially-carved trough bounded by upland areas to the east and west. Isolated
outcrops of bedrock occur within and on either side of the valley. Where not exposed, the
bedrock is covered with glacial and non-glacial soils deposited during or subsequent to four
different glacial episodes. At the project site, bedrock may be on the order of 300 feet
below the ground surface.
The soils encountered in the subsurface explorations were all deposited since the end of the
last glaciation of the Seattle area approximately 13,000 years ago. The soil in the uppermost
20 to 30 feet consists of fill and alluvial deposits. The alluvium includes both channel and
overbank deposits. The channel deposits consist primarily of sand and silty sand with some
sandy silt and gravelly layers. The finer-grained overbank material was deposited during
flooding and consists of silt and clay.
Below the fill and alluvium (below an elevation of about -1- to -15) are sand and gravel
deposits of the Cedar River delta. The deltaic material was deposited in the ancestral
Duwamish embayment and includes some shell fragments.
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface conditions encountered in the five borings drilled for this study are
generalized on the subsurface profile A-A', presented on Figure 3. More detailed
subsurface conditions are shown on the individual boring logs presented on Figures A-2
through A 6 in Appendix A.
Borings B-1 through B-3 were drilled south of Springbrook Creek. Generally, these borings
encountered an overbank deposit, over layers of channel deposits, over deposits of the Cedar
W-7867-01
5
SHANNON bWILSON,INC.
River delta. The overbank deposit consists of a layer of soft to very stiff, slightly sandy,
clayey silt and silty clay. Thickness of this deposit ranged from about 9 feet in boring B-1
to about 12 feet in boring B-2. It is underlain by interlayered channel deposits consisting of
loose to medium dense silty fine sand and fine sandy silt. Thicknesses of these deposits
ranged from about 3 feet in boring B-1 to about 10 feet in boring B-2.
Borings B-4 and B-5, which were drilled north of the creek, generally encountered a fill
layer, over channel deposits, over deposits of the Cedar River delta. The fill layer consists
mainly of medium-dense to dense, silty fine sand. Underlying the fill layer, at approximate
depths of 7 and 5 feet, respectively, both borings encountered channel deposit consisting of a
loose, silty, fine sand. This loose sand layer extended to approximate depths of 10 feet in
boring B-4 and 12 feet in boring B-5, and it is underlain by another channel deposit
consisting of medium dense to very dense, silty sand and gravel to approximate depths of
19.5 feet in both borings.
Underlying the interlayered sand and silt deposits in borings B-1 through B-3, and the sand
and gravel layer in borings B-4 and B-5, all borings encountered other channel deposits
consisting of medium dense to dense, clean to silty, fine to medium sand with a trace of
gravel. This sand layer extended to depths ranging from about 19.5 feet in borings B-1 to
about 31 feet in boring B-2. The sand layer is underlain by deposits of the Cedar Creek
delta. These delta's materials consist of layers of medium dense to very dense, clean to
slightly silty sand and gravel. They extend to the bottom of all borings.
As mentioned previously, field explorations for this study were located in the bridge and
approach embankment areas of the proposed alignment. Evaluation of subsurface conditions
along the remainder of the alignment was based on previous field explorations. Subsurface
profiles prepared by WCC for the entire alignment are included in Appendix B. Subsurface
conditions encountered in the previous exploration are summarized as follows:
P. Stations 14+50 and 29+00: Along this portion of the alignment, very soft to
stiff, silt and clayey silt deposits were encountered to approximate depths
ranging between 4 feet around Station 21+00 and 8 feet around Station
28+00. These deposits are underlain by loose to dense, black sand layer with
thicknesses ranging between 20 and 30 feet. Underlying the black sand layer,
loose to dense, gray sand was encountered.
W-7867-01
6
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
► Stations 29+00 to 43+00: Approximately the upper 11 feet of this portion of
the alignment consisted of very loose to loose silty sand. The silty sand layer
is underlain by black sand and gray sand layer, similar to those described
between Stations 14+50 to 29+00.
Depths of groundwater encountered in the field explorations fluctuated throughout the
proposed alignment. They ranged from about 1.5 feet in boring B-1 to about 10 feet in
boring B-4.
7.0 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
It is our understanding that the bridge will be designed in accordance with the provisions
contained in the 1996 standard specifications for the design of highway bridges as outlined
by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
The AASHTO design Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) for a bridge site is intended to be
consistent with an acceleration level that has a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a
50 year interval (475-year return period). According to AASHTO maps, the design PGA
for this area is about 0.30g.
We recommend that the site be characterized as an AASHTO Soil Profile Type II with a
corresponding site factor of 1.2. This soil type is characterized by a subsurface profile over
200 feet thick of stable, stiff or dense soils. While we estimate that scattered zones of
liquefiable soil may occur under an 0.30g PGA, it is our opinion that the overall response of
the site may be characterized by a soil Profile Type II.
Reduction in soil shear strengths for the liquefied soil and effects on foundation capacities
are addressed in subsequent sections in this report.
W-7867-01
7
SHANNON&WILSON,INC.
8.0 BRIDGE FOUNDATION
8.1 General
Phase 1 of the proposed Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension includes the construction of two
bridges. The first bridge will be a single span structure, constructed over Springbrook
Creek. Six-foot-diameter drilled shafts are being considered to support the abutments of this
bridge. A second bridge structure is under consideration to span the proposed roadway over
the existing 60-inch-diameter SPU water line around Station 26+00. A substructure
consisting of 14-inch-diameter augercast piles are being evaluated for support of this bridge.
The following sections present the results of our analyses regarding axial capacity and lateral
resistance for 6-foot-diameter drilled shafts and 14-inch-diameter augercast piles.
8.2 Axial Capacity
Axial capacity analyses were performed using soil parameters for the different soil
conditions encountered along the proposed bridge alignments in order to calculate the total
side friction and end bearing of the deep foundations. The soil parameters were estimated
based on soil conditions, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values encountered in the borings
drilled at the site, and laboratory test results. Soil parameters for the proposed bridge over
Springbrook Creek were based on subsurface conditions encountered in borings B-3 and B-4,
performed for this study. Soil parameters for the proposed bridge over SPU water line were
based on subsurface conditions encountered in borings BWC-5 and BH-7, performed by
WCC and Golder, respectively.
Results of axial capacity analyses for the design of 6-foot-diameter drilled shafts supporting
the south and north abutments of the proposed bridge over Springbrook Creek are presented
graphically on Figures 4 and 5, respectively, and for 14-inch-diameter augercast piles
supporting the proposed bridge over the SPU water line are presented on Figure 6. These
figures show the estimated allowable compressive capacity and ultimate skin friction versus
base/tip elevation. Estimated capacities provided on Figure 4 through 6 have taken into
consideration reductions in soil shear strengths due to localized liquefaction. Borings with
generalized subsurface conditions considered at each location are also provided on the
figures.
W-7867-01
8
SHANNON&WILSON.INC.
Allowable compressive capacity is a summation of allowable skin friction and allowable end
bearing. A factor-of-safety (FS) of 2.0 was applied to the estimated ultimate skin friction
values for drilled shafts and augercast piles. An FS of 2.0 was also used to estimated
ultimate end-bearing values for augercast piles. Estimated allowable end-bearing values for
drilled shafts were obtained by assuming that the base of the shaft would settle
approximately 1/2 inch, and then estimating the percentage of the ultimate end bearing that
would be mobilized resulting from this assumed base settlement.
Allowable uplift capacities may be obtained by applying an adequate factor-of-safety to
estimated ultimate skin friction values presented on Figures 4 through 6.
We recommend that the piles/shafts be spaced no closer than three pile/shaft diameters,
measured center-to-center. At this pile/shaft spacing, a group reduction factor is not
warranted when estimating the group axial capacity.
8.3 Lateral Resistance
The computer program LPILEPLus (Reese and Wang, 1993) would be used to generate P-Y
curves for the lateral resistance analysis of drilled shafts. Based on subsurface conditions as
interpreted from the explorations accomplished along the new bridge alignment, over
Springbrook Creek, the recommended parameters for input into the LPILE program are
given in Table 1.
The recommended efficiency (reduction) factors due to pile group action are listed below.
The efficiency factors are based on recent developments proposed by Professor Dan Brown
of Auburn University (Brown, 1991).
W-7867-01
9
SHANNON&WILSON,INC.
EFFICIENCY FACTORS FOR PILE/SHAFT GROUPS
Pile or Shaft Efficiency Factor
Spacing Combined Front and Back Row
6D* 0.9
5D 0.8
4D 0.65
31) 0.5
2D 0.4
* D = pile/shaft diameter.
8.4 Spring Constants
8.4.1 Deep Foundations
The vertical spring constant of deep foundations may be calculated assuming linearly
varying skin friction along the pile/shaft in accordance with the formula presented in Case 3
on Figure 7. Other spring constants for lateral load and moment resistance to develop the
stiffness matrix for the deep foundations under seismic loading may be estimated using the
results of LPILE analysis, discussed in Section 8.3.
8.4.2 Abutment Walls
Spring constants to estimate abutment wall stiffness under seismic loading conditions
can be determined from an iterative approach using the procedure outlined on Figure 8,
which relates foundation deflection to mobilized passive earth pressure. We recommend that
an ultimate passive pressure coefficient, Kp, value of 6.2 and curve A on Figure 8 be used
to calculate spring constants. An approach to analyze abutment wall stiffness would be to
assume a Kp value, determine the force, and calculate a spring constant from Figure 8; input
this spring constant value into a dynamic analysis; and compare computed deflection with
the Kp value from Figure 8 and, if necessary, repeat the analysis until the force and
deflection converge.
W-7867-01
10
SHAANNON&WILSON,INC.
9.0 FILL EMBANKMENTS
9.1 General
New fill would be required almost throughout the entire alignment of the proposed roadway
extension. As much as 3 feet of new fill would be needed to achieve the desired new
roadway grades between S.W. 27th Street and approximately Station 44+00. The south
approach embankment would have a maximum height of about 12 feet around Station
46+00, and the north approach embankment would have a maximum height of about 6.5
feet near the north abutment of the bridge. Some types of MSE walls would be used to
retain some sections of the approach embankments. Proposed locations of the MSE walls
are indicated on Figure 2. Side slopes of 3 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (3H:1V) or flatter are
proposed for the remaining sections of approach embankments and roadway.
Engineering studies were conducted to estimate the settlements and to evaluate the stability
of new embankment fill for the proposed roadway extension. The following sections present
the results of our studies.
9.2 Settlement
Engineering analyses were performed to estimate settlements beneath the proposed roadway
extension. The analyses were based on the geometry described in previous sections and the
subsurface conditions described in Section 6.0. Total estimated settlements were determined
by using the consolidation and elastic theory, and estimated stresses in the subsoil layers
were determined using Boussinesq stress distribution theory.
Results of our analyses indicate that the new roadway fill between S.W. 27th Street and
approximately Station 44+00 would cause total settlements of about 1.5 to 3 inches. We
estimate that about 80 percent of the estimated settlements would occur within a period of
one to two months following the fill placement.
Estimated settlements beneath the approach embankments are presented in Figure 9. These
results indicate a maximum estimated settlement of about 10 inches occurring around Station
45+50. About 80 percent of the estimated settlements beneath the approach embankments
W-7867-01
11
SHANNON&WILSON.INC.
are estimated to occur within a period of two to three months after construction. Estimated
total settlements should be considered when determining the final grade elevation of the
roadway. Lateral movements due to the fill embankment is estimated to be approximately
half of the vertical settlement.
9.3 Stability
Slope stability analyses were performed to evaluate the static and dynamic stability of the fill
embankments. The geometry of the embankments and the subsurface conditions along the
alignment was reviewed. Two sections were selected for our stability analyses as
representative of the most critical sections. These two sections are located at Stations
45+00 and 46+00. During evaluation of embankment stability, three modes of failure were
considered: (1) overall bearing capacity, (2) lateral spreading, and (3) internal stability.
Based on the proposed heights for the approach embankments, and using the finite difference
computer program FLAC (Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.), which utilized a Mohr-Coulomb
elastic-plastic model, the FS against overall bearing capacity failure for both embankments is
greater than 2.0. Lateral spreading or sliding of the proposed embankments was evaluated
for failure along a surface through the foundation soils. The FS was determined by
estimating the driving force as an active earth pressure and by calculating the resisting forces
provided by the existing fill. The results of the analyses indicate an FS against sliding of
greater than 2.0 for the approach embankments.
Internal slope stability of the proposed approach embankments was evaluated using the
Modified Janbu method of analysis and the computer program PC STABL SM (Purdue
University, 1988). Stability analyses were performed for two conditions: (1) static
conditions and (2) seismic condition. For the seismic condition, a pseudo-static analysis
employing a seismic coefficient of 0.15 was used. Results of the stability analyses indicate
an FS greater than 2.0 for the static condition, and an FS greater than 1.15 for the seismic
condition.
The internal stability analyses described above do not consider the compaction strength gain
of the existing fill and the consolidation strength gain of alluvial deposits due to the
W-7867-01
12
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
placement of the proposed fill embankments. Such strength gain would result in higher FSs
than those given above.
9.4 MSE Wall Design
An MSE wall is a reinforced soil system which can be used to retain an embankment or
slope. The reinforcement layers are typically spaced vertically at 6 to 10 inches and the
reinforcing segments typically extend a horizontal distance behind the face of the wall equal
to about 70 percent of its height. As mentioned previously, the proposed MSE walls for the
roadway extension are indicated on Figure 2.
The detailed design of an MSE wall, including an internal stability and required geosynthetic
properties, is typically performed by the vendor of the wall system. We have developed
recommendations for geotechnical properties to assist the designer of the MSE walls. A
summary of these properties is presented in Figure 10. The unit weight, cohesion, friction
angle, and allowable bearing pressure were estimated for the foundation soil under the most
critical loading condition, end-of-construction. The unit weight, cohesion, friction angle,
and static and seismic lateral earth pressures were determined for the reinforced/retained fill,
as presented in Figure 10. We based our static analysis on the Coulomb theory of earth
pressures, which includes soil-wall friction. For the seismic analysis, we used the
Mononobe-Okabe equation (Mononobe, 1929; Okabe, 1926), which was derived from the
Coulomb theory.
The static, active earth pressures on the walls may be based on an equivalent fluid density of
32 pounds per cubic food (pcf). The total active earth pressures should include a dynamic
load increment equal to 40 percent of the static, active earth force. This 40-percent load
increment should be applied as an uniform load to the MSE wall, with the resultant force
acting at the midpoint of the wall height. A 40-percent load increase for seismic conditions
is consistent with a pseudo-stasis analysis using the Mononobe-Okabe equation for lateral
earth pressures and a seismic coefficient of 0.15 g.
W-7867-01
13
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
9.5 Impact on Existing Utilities
As mentioned previously, existing 72- and 108-inch-diameter SS lines run beneath the
proposed alignment of the extension, south of approximately Station 45+50. Engineering
analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of constructing the new roadway on these
existing utilities.
Engineering analyses were performed to estimate settlements beneath the two SS lines.
These analyses were performed using the elastic theory, and they were based on the
geometry of the new roadway and the subsurface conditions described in Section 6.0.
Estimated total settlements beneath the SS lines are presented on Figure 11. As shown, a
total settlement of about 1/3 and 1/2 inches could be anticipated beneath the 72- and 108-
inch-diameter SS lines, respectively. The maximum settlements are estimated to occur
around Station 45+50. About 90 percent of the estimated settlements beneath the existing
SS lines would occur within a period of two to three months after construction.
Additional loads on the existing SS lines due to the construction of the new roadway, as well
as, due to traffic load were estimated using the Marston method (Moser, A.P., 1990).
Additional loads due to roadway construction were estimated for a maximum embankment
height of 12 feet. The analyses indicate about 12 and 15 kips per foot (kip/ft) would be
imposed by the new roadway fill on the 72- and 108-inch-diameter SS lines, respectively.
Additional load due to traffic was evaluated for two extreme conditions along the proposed
alignment. The first condition is beneath a 12-foot-high new embankment. Due to the large
distance between the top of the roadway and the top of the SS lines, additional loads due to
traffic are estimated to be negligible. The second condition is beneath the areas where the
proposed grade is equal to existing grade. For this condition the top of the 72- and 108-
inch-diameter SS lines are about 9.5 and 6.5 feet beneath new roadway grade. The
additional load due to traffic is estimated to be about 1 kip/ft on the 72-inch-diameter SS line
and 2.5 kip/ft on the 108-inch diameter SS line.
W-7867-01
14
SHAANNON&WILSON,INC.
10.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN
10.1 Design Approach
The recommended asphalt pavement design thicknesses presented in this report are based on
the AASHTO's Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (1986). The procedure
recommended by AASHTO for design of flexible pavements is based on the results of an
extensive American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) road test conducted
in the late 1950s and early 1960s. This road test introduced the concept of functional failure
of a roadway. Such a failure is defined to occur when the roadway cannot carry traffic
safely and smoothly from one point to another. AASHTO's procedure represents the
damaging effect of the passing of an axle of any mass by number of 18-kip equivalent single
axle loads or ESALs. In order to convert a mixed traffic stream into ESALs, load
equivalency factors (LEFs) are approximated for each vehicle type.
In order to quantify the functional description of a roadway, serviceability and performance
factors were introduced into the design procedure. The serviceability factor "p" is a
measure of how well a road is serving its intended function at a particular point in time. It
ranges between 0 (very bad) and 5 (excellent). Performance is the ability of a pavement to
satisfactorily serve traffic over a period of time. Variances associated with the performance
of the pavement design and with the predicted traffic volume are represented in the design
analysis by an estimated overall standard deviation value, "S,,."
AASHTO's method also requires identifying an appropriate design reliability level "R" for a
roadway. This reliability level depends primarily on the projected level of usage and the
consequences associated, for example, with basing the pavement design on a low initial cost
and high future maintenance (thinner pavement thickness). The following table provides
AASHTO's recommended reliability levels for various functional classifications:
W-7867-01
15
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
.
Recommended'Level;of.Reliability (%)
Functional Classification Urban it
Interstate and Other Freeways 85 - 99.9 80 - 99.9
Principal Arterials 80 - 99 75 - 95
Collectors 80 - 95 75 - 95
Local 1 50 - 80 1 50 - 80
AASHTO's methods treat drainage of a pavement section by considering the effect of water
on the properties of the pavement layers and the consequences to the structural capacity of
the pavement. This effect is represented in the design by applying modified layer
coefficients "m" to the untreated base and subbase materials of the flexible pavement. These
m coefficients are functions of the quality of drainage and the percent of time during the
year the pavement structure would normally be exposed to moisture levels approaching
saturation.
In addition to these factors, AASHTO's design procedure incorporates the effects of the
traffic, construction materials, and subgrade soils. A discussion on subgrade soils at the site
is presented in the following section. A list of the factors used in our design is given in
Section 10.3.
10.2 Subgrade Strength
Based on field explorations performed within and in the vicinity of the proposed roadway
alignment and available project design information, subgrade soil conditions beneath
pavement structures were divided into four groups. The first two groups describe subgrade
materials in areas where proposed grade level of new roadway is at or below existing ground
surface. Based on results of field explorations, subgrade materials in the areas generally
consist of either silt/clayey silt, or silty sand.
The remaining two groups describe sections along the proposed alignment where new fill
would be required. The first of these two groups represent areas where thicknesses of new
fill are less than 24 inches, and the second group for areas with fill thicknesses greater than
24 inches.
W-7867-01
16
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values assumed in our pavement design analyses are listed in
Mle 2, Recommended Pavement sections. These CBR values assume that
recommendations presented in this report regarding subgrade preparation and other roadway
and embankment construction considerations are followed.
10.3 Pavement Design Section
Listed below are the parameters used in our pavement design analyses:
20 year ESAL = 1.5 million
CBR Subgrade Value = See Table 2
Serviceability Factors, "p" = 4.2 at beginning of life cycle.
= 2.0 at end of life cycle.
Standard Deviation, "So" = 0.44.
Reliability Level, "R" = 90 percent.
Modified Layer Coefficient, "m" = 1.00 for base and subbase courses.
Based on the input parameters described above and the methodology presented in
AASHTO's 1986 Guide, our recommended flexible (asphalt concrete) pavement sections are
presented in Table 2. The recommended pavement sections are provided for different areas
along the proposed alignment, based on subgrade conditions described in previous sections.
However, based on their past experience on other city streets, the City of Renton expressed
a preference for a stronger pavement section than those recommended in Table 2. Based on
the suggestions made by the City, the following pavement section would be adopted for the
entire length of the project (Phase 1 and Phase 2):
► Surfacing: 2 inches Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Class B, per WSDOT
Standard Specifications 5-04 and 9-03.
6 inches Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Class E, per WSDOT
Standard Specifications 5-04 and 9-03.
IN. Base: 2 inches Crushed Surfacing Top Course per WSDOT Standard
Specifications 9-03.9(3).
4 inches Crushed Surfacing Base Course per WSDOT Standard
Specifications 9-03.9(3).
W-7867-01
17
SHANNON&WILSON,INC.
► Subgrade: Replace unsuitable material and use Mirafi 160N, or equivalent,
Geotextile Filter Fabric (where required on native silty and/or
cohesive soils).
The estimated depth of frost penetration in the vicinity of the project site is 12 inches, which
is less than the thickness of the pavement section proposed by the City of Renton.
11.0 POLE DESIGN
This section provides geotechnical recommendations for the design of traffic signal poles at
S.W. 16th Street and luminar lighting poles along the alignment. We understand that the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) would be used to design the proposed poles. 'Table 18-I-A,
UBC, 1997 edition, lists allowable foundation pressure and lateral bearing pressure for
various classes of subsoils for the design of the pole foundation.
Based on the results of the field explorations performed along the proposed alignment, we
recommend an allowable foundation pressure (AFP) of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf)
and lateral bearing (LB) of 100 pounds per square foot per foot (lb/ft2/ft) be used to design
the traffic signal poles at S.W. 16th Streets, and AFP and LB values given in Table 3 be
used for the design of the luminary lighting poles. The recommended AFP and LB values
assume a horizontal ground surface around the poles. If a sloped ground surface is present,
these values should be reduced accordingly.
12.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
12.1 Drilled Shaft Installation
12.1.1 General
Construction of a drilled shaft requires boring a hole of a specified diameter and
depth and then backfilling the hole with reinforced concrete. The selection of equipment
and procedures for constructing drilled shafts is a function of the shaft dimensions, the
foundation soil characteristics, and the groundwater conditions. Consequently, the design
and performance of drilled shafts can be significantly influenced by the equipment and
construction procedures used to install the shafts. In particular, shaft friction would be
W-7867-01
18
SHANNON 6WILSON.INC.
impacted by the procedures used for construction and also by the method of placement and
properties of the concrete. Construction procedures and methods are of paramount
importance to the success of the drilled shaft installations at this project site.
Drilled shaft contractors who participate on this project should be required to demon-
strate that they have suitable equipment and adequate experience in the construction of large-
diameter drilled shafts.
12.1.2 Methods of Construction
In general, there are three typical methods of installing drilled shafts: the dry
method, the casing method, and the wet method.
12.1.2.1 Dry Method
In the dry method of construction, the excavation is normally carried to its
full depth without casing or slurry through dry clay or dry, dense sand where groundwater is
not encountered. Following cleanout and inspection, concrete is placed through a drop chute
to minimize segregation. Such conditions are not anticipated at this site, and we recommend
that the dry method of construction not be considered for this project.
12.1.2.2 Casing Method
The casing method is applicable where seepage or caving soil conditions
are encountered and a casing can be pushed or driven into an impermeable, firm stratum
below the caving soil. The hole is generally drilled as in the dry method until caving,
squeezing soil, or excessive seepage is encountered. Bags of bentonite clay are either placed
in the hole and mixed with wet soil to develop a slurry, and/or bentonite slurry is added to
the hole. The latter procedure is normally preferred for quality control purposes. Drilling
would then continue until an impermeable layer is encountered. The top of the slurry must
be maintained above the groundwater level. Casing is then placed into the shaft and pushed
or driven into an impermeable layer to form a seal. The slurry is then bailed out with a
cleanout or mud bucket and drilling proceeds in the dry. The impermeable firm stratum
must have sufficient thickness to resist hydrostatic pressures below this zone when the shaft
is dewatered. For this method to be effective, the casing must be clean and smooth.
W-7867-01
19
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
If the soil profile is such that only a thin zone of caving soil exists within
the shaft excavation, it may be possible to eliminate use of the slurry as discussed above.
For this situation, the casing should be placed into the hole as soon as the caving material is
encountered. The casing is then pushed and twisted through the caving zone into an imper-
meable soil layer below. Excavation is then continued in the dry.
Upon completion of the shaft excavation, the hole is cleaned and the
reinforcing steel is installed. For the casing method of construction, the reinforcing steel,
typically a rebar cage, is usually placed to the bottom of the hole, because it is difficult to
keep a partial-length cage in position by a hoist line as the casing is withdrawn. The
reinforcing steel should therefore be designed to accommodate both the structural require-
ments of the completed shaft and the stability requirements for its placement, concrete
placement, and casing withdrawal.
After the reinforcing steel is placed, the hole should be filled with
concrete. Under no circumstances should the casing be withdrawn until the concrete
produces a hydrostatic pressure greater than the groundwater and/or slurry that is sealed by
the casing. The casing should be pulled slowly and smoothly so that the concrete flows out
of the base of the casing to displace the trapped slurry. All voids or annular spaces that
may exist between the casing and the subsurface materials should be filled with concrete
during this process.
Improper casing extraction could result in an unacceptable drilled shaft.
Casing may tend to adhere to the subsurface soils. Attempts to knock the casing loose take
time and may allow the concrete placed in the shaft to set. The concrete may then separate
when the casing is pulled, resulting in voids in the shaft. Therefore, the casing should be
left in place if the concrete appears to be setting up and extraction becomes difficult. When
this situation occurs, frictional resistance would be altered and the load-carrying capacity of
the shaft would have to be reevaluated. It is anticipated that if the casing is left in place
during construction, the lateral load capacity of the shaft would be minimal, unless some
remediation such as post grouting outside the casing is performed.
The position of the steel reinforcing cages should be maintained when the
casing is pulled. As the concrete column is placed in the hole with sufficient head to resist
hydrostatic forces from the groundwater and/or slurry, downward forces could be exerted on
W-7867-01
20
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
the steel cage. The magnitude of this force will depend on the slump of the concrete, the
flow velocity, and the volume of reinforcing steel. These forces should be considered in the
design of the rebar cage.
The presence of "running" or "caving" formations will require close
monitoring of the concrete level during casing extraction. Failure to maintain a positive
head of concrete during casing extraction could result in a contaminated mix or presence of
voids in the shaft.
12.1.2.3 Wet Method
The wet method of construction generally involves the use of a slurry.
The subsurface conditions where the wet method of construction is applicable include any of
the conditions described above for the casing method. In instances where heavy seepage or
caving conditions are encountered and the hole cannot be sealed, the wet method of
construction may be the only feasible way to stabilize the shaft walls while drilling is
continued. If an impermeable soil zone is not encountered in which to.form a seal, or there
is a potential for bottom heave or blowout, it would be required to complete the excavation
in the wet with a slurry.
After the hole is completed to its full depth, the slurry must be processed
to meet specifications prior to concrete placement. If there is too much sediment in
suspension, material can settle to the bottom of the excavation before concrete is placed,
resulting in a soft base. The allowable volume of sediment remaining at the base of the
excavation prior to concrete placement would generally depend on the actual shaft design
and the amount of settlement that can be tolerated. For designs where end bearing is high, a
clean, firm bottom is required. The American Concrete Institute (ACI 336,.3R 72)
recommends that in no case should the volume of loose material and spoil at the base of the
shaft exceed that which would be required to cover 5 percent of the base area to a depth of 2
inches (ACI, 1985).
In addition to spoil at the base of the shaft, the sediment in suspension
could also settle to the top of the concrete column as the pour is progressing. This material
could coat the rebar and sidewalls of the shaft, reducing the bond strength. Such issues need
W-7867-01
21
SHANNON 6WILSON.INC.
to be addressed in the contract specifications and will require careful inspection and quality
control during shaft construction.
12.1.3 Drilled Shaft Considerations
It is our opinion that installation of drilled shafts at the project site could generally
proceed using a combination of the casing and wet methods of construction. If the casing
method is used, it is anticipated that there will be excavations that cannot be sealed because
of blowouts or bottom heave. Such blowout conditions could occur near the base of the
installed casing, or at a depth below the sealed zone. Based on experience by others, some
conditions may exist where casing is required to stabilize a shaft excavation that proceeds
using the wet method. This may occur at depths where water-bearing, clean granular zones
are anticipated and in the surficial fill and natural soils where obstructions may be
encountered.
To minimize the potential for ground loss, we recommend that the
specifications state that where obstructions, caving conditions, or excessive water seepage is
encountered in the drilled hole, or where there is a potential for heaving conditions or loss
of ground, which, in the opinion of the Engineer, impacts the construction of the drilled
shafts or adjacent existing facilities, no further drilling shall be allowed until the Contractor
implements measures to prevent caving, water inflow, ground loss, and/or bottom heave.
The proposed drilled shafts are to be located adjacent to the existing
Springbrook Creek. Obstructions such as wood logs, concrete blocks, boulders, and other
debris could be encountered during the drilled shaft installation. The potential encounter of
obstructions should be stated in the specifications. Obstructions could be defined in the
specifications as any natural or man-made object greater than two feet in size, and that
cannot be drilled using earth augers with soil or rock teeth, drill buckets, and/or under-
reaming tools with the drilling equipment operating at maximum power, torque, and down
thrust. The contractor should provide a unit cost to remove obstructions.
Because of the soft and loose nature of the fill deposits and most of the
overbank deposits encountered in boring B-3 and B-4, we recommend that permanent casing
be installed to about elevation -5 feet at the south abutment and elevation +5 feet at the
W-7867-01
22
SHANNON&WILSON.INC.
north abutment, and left in place to maintain the integrity of the shaft after completion of
installation.
After completing the installation of drilled shafts, we recommend that
nondestructive testing, such as Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL), be used to evaluate the
integrity of the installed drilled shafts. Tubes should be installed in the drilled shafts to
provide access for the ultrasonic equipment. If any voids or other defects are detected in the
CSL testing, the test findings should be analyzed to determine if the installed drill shafts
satisfy the design requirements.
12.1.4 Monitoring of Drilled Shaft Installations
Installation of drilled shafts should be monitored by an experienced and
qualified geotechnical engineer familiar with the subsurface conditions of the project site.
Construction of the shafts by the wet method will prevent downhole visual
inspection. Inspection and identification of soil mucked from the hole.or retrieved from
auger flights should be accomplished by an experienced and qualified geotechnical
engineer/geologist familiar with subsurface conditions along the alignment and at the bridge
site. These observations should confirm that the subsurface conditions assumed for design
are actually present.
In addition to a description of the subsurface conditions encountered, the
excavation methods, steel reinforcing and concrete placement operations, and casing
extraction procedures should be monitored and documented. As a minimum, a report should
be prepared for each shaft that includes the criteria recommended in the Drilled Shaft
Inspector's manual (Deep Foundation Institute, 1989).
12.2 Augercast Piles Installation
Augercast concrete piles are installed with a crane-mounted, continuous-flight, hollow-stem
auger. The auger is rotated to a predetermined depth. When this depth is reached, a high-
strength sand-cement grout is pumped, under controlled pressure, through the center of the
pile as the auger is slowly withdrawn. By maintaining pressure in the grout line and slowly
extracting the auger no faster than an equivalent volume of grout is pumped, a continuous
W-7867-01
23
SHANNON&WILSON.INC.
column of concrete is formed. Reinforcement can be installed through the hollow-stem of
the auger and/or a reinforcing cage can be placed within the column of wet grout. A
reinforcing cage should have guides for centering it in the hole.
The quality of augercast concrete piles is dependent not only on the type of soil and
groundwater conditions, but also on the procedure and workmanship of the Contractor who
installs them. We recommend that an experienced soils engineer or his/her representative
monitor the installation of augercast piles to evaluate the adequacy of the construction proce-
dures.
It is a normal practice to install a pressure gage on the pump discharge line and a counter on
the grout pump. The counter is used to determine the approximate volume of grout pumped
by counting the number of strokes of a displacement-type pump. The pump should,
therefore, be calibrated for each specific project prior to its use. The pressure gage is used
to monitor the pressure of the grout to determine the rate at which the auger should be
retracted. Low pressure readings would indicate the auger is being retracted too fast, and
vice-versa. The pressure gauge would also help determine if the auger or hoses are
plugged. It is recommended, therefore, that a properly functioning pressure gage and
counter be provided on the grout pump to assist in monitoring augercast pile installation.
The auger should be withdrawn with slow positive rotation at a slow steady pull. The auger
should not be pulled until the grout has reached the tip. Also, the grout level should be kept
at least 5 feet above the tip of the auger during the entire auger withdrawal process. In
addition, the Contractor should be required to establish accurate methods of determining the
depth of the auger at all times. We recommend that the leads be marked at 1-foot intervals.
12.3 Embankment Construction
The construction of the fill embankments are to consist of (1) clearing, grubbing, and
roadside cleanup, (2) removal of existing structures and obstructions, (3) subgrade
preparation, (4) fill placement and compaction, (5) pavement installation, and (6) completion
of other miscellaneous construction details. The aforementioned items should be
accomplished in accordance with those included in Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge,
and Municipal Construction (M 41-10) prepared by WSDOT and American Public Works
Association.
W-7867-01
24
SHANNON&WILSON.INC.
We recommend that an instrumentation program be implemented to monitor the performance
of the embankments and the surrounding soils during construction and after completion of
the project as described in the following section.
12.4 Embankment Instrumentation
To monitor performance of approach embankment during and following construction, we
recommend that settlement plates be installed and monitored and the results analyzed. A
sketch and details of installation for settlement plates are shown on Figure 12.
The recommended locations of instrumentation are at about Stations 45+50 and 48+00 and
50+50 for the south and north approach embankments, respectively. At each station, the
recommended that three settlement plates be installed. One settlement plate should be
located near the center, one near the shoulder of the slope side, and one near the MSE wall
on the wall side of the embankment.
12.5 Monitoring Existing Utilities
As discussed in Section 9.5, the existing 72- and 108-inch diameter SS lines would
experience settlement due to the construction of the new roadway. We recommend that
instrumentation be installed to monitor the vertical and horizontal movements of the existing
utilities and the surrounding grounds.
Vertical and horizontal movements of the existing utilities could be measured using utility
monitoring points as shown on Figure 13. Vertical movement of the surrounding ground
could be measured using subsurface deformation monitoring points as shown on Figure 14.
We recommend that monitoring of these instrumentation begin immediately before the
construction of the new roadway and extend a minimum of three months after its
completion.
12.6 Temporary Excavation for Vault Reinforcement
We understand that an existing vault is located around Station 45+00 of the proposed
roadway alignment. Concrete walls of the existing vault will be reinforced to resist
additional pressures resulted by the new roadway. An approximately 15-foot-deep
W-7867-01
25
SHANNON&WILSON,INC.
excavation would be required to reinforce the vault. Based on the results of the field
explorations, these excavations would encounter loose, fine sandy silt over very loose to
medium dense, silty fine sand.
In our opinion, open-cut excavations could be made at a slope flatter than 2H:1V. This
recommended slope should be used only as a guide and should not be shown on the plans.
The actual slope should be made the responsibility of the Contractor who has the control of
construction operations and is continuously present at the jobsite to observe the nature and
occurrences of the subsurface conditions encountered, including groundwater. It is also
recommended that the excavation and other construction activities be performed in
accordance with applicable local, state, and federal standards. In addition, the Contractor
should be made responsible for the adequate control of any ground or surface water
wherever encountered. In this regard, sloping, slope protection, ditching, sumps,
dewatering, and other measures should be employed as necessary to permit proper
completion of the work.
Excavated material, or stockpiles of construction materials or equipment, should be placed
no closer than a distance equal to the depth of the excavation from the top edge of the
excavation.
13.0 LIMITATIONS
The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based upon site
conditions as they presently exist, and further assume that both current and previous
explorations are representative of subsurface conditions throughout the site, i.e., the
subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the
field explorations.
If, during construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the field
explorations are observed, we should be advised at once so that we can review these
conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. If there is a substantial
laps of time between the submission of this report and the start of work at the site, or if
conditions have changed due to natural causes or construction operations at or adjacent to the
site, it is recommended that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the
conclusions and recommendations.
W-7867-01
26
SHANNON&WILSON,INC.
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Kato & Warren, Inc., City of Renton, and
the design team. It should be made available to prospective contractors and/or the
Contractor for information on factual data only, and not as a warranty of subsurface
conditions included in this report. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. has prepared a document named
"Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report" to assist you in the
use and limitation of this report. This document is presented in Appendix D.
The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or evaluation
regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil,
surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. If additional study
regarding this potential contamination is required, Shannon & Wilson, Inc., maintains a staff
of engineers, geologists, and hydrogeologists who are qualified and experienced in the
hazardous waste fields.
Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by
merely taking soil samples from borings. In addition, chemical testing was not performed
for this study, potentially contaminated soils may be encountered during construction. Such
unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a
properly constructed project. Therefore, some contingency fund is recommended to
accommodate such potential extra costs.
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
JIU
pi
Sr1�TWAShrf�C`Y
`VASHitil�lj� �� o
cl' y Z
15845
'd 29138
ANAL
�sSf�NAL�G EXPIRES 1/20/
EXPIRES 4/1/ g�j
Hisham J. Sarieddine, P.E. Ming-Jinn (Jim) Wu, P.E.
Principal Engineer Vice President
HJS:JW/hjs
11-7-97/W7867-01.RPr/W 7867-lkd/j if
W-7867-01
27
SHANNON bWILSON,INC.
REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1986,
Guide for Design of Pavement Structures; Washington D.C,. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1992,
Interim specifications bridges 1992: Washington, D.C., 2 v.
American Concrete Institute, 1985, Standard design and construction procedures for pier
foundations: Detroit, Michigan, ACI 336.3R-72(85).
Brown, D.A., and Shie, C.F., 1991, Modification of p-y curves to account for group effects
on laterally loaded piles, in Geotechnical Engineering Congress, Boulder, Colorado,
1991, Proceedings: New York, American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical
Special Publication 27, p. 479-490.
Deep Foundations Institute, 1989, Drilled shaft inspector's manual: Sparta, New Jersey.
Golder Associates Inc., 1992, "Geotechnical Engineering Study for Proposed 108-inch
Diameter Metro Sewer Boeing-Longacres Park Development, Renton, Washington."
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier,
Calif., International Conference of Building Officials, 3 v.
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. FLAC-Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua. Version 3.22.
Mononobe, N., 1929, Earthquake-proof construction of masonry dames, proceedings:
World Engineering Conference, v. 9, p. 275.
Moser, A.P., 1990, Buried pipe design, McGraw Hill, pp. 10-13.
Okabe, S., 1926, General theory of earth pressure: Journal, Japanese, Society of Civil
Engineers, v. 12, no. 1.
Purdue University, 1988, User Guide for PC STABL 5M, December 15.
Reese, L.C., and Wang, S.T., 1993, Documentation of computer program LPILEPLus:
Austin, Texas, Enosoft, Inc.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes
in Agbabian, M.S., ed., Monograph series - engineering monograph on earthquake
criteria, structural design, and strong motion records: Oakland, Calif., Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute.
W-7867-01
28
SHANNON&WILSON,INC.
Seed, R.B. and Harder, L.F., 1990, SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure generation
and undrained residual strength in Duncan, J.M., ed., H. Bolton Seed Memorial
Symposium, May 1990, Proceedings: Vancouver, British Columbia, BiTech, p. 351-54.
Washington State Department of Transportation, 1994, Standard specifications for road,
bridge, and municipal construction: Olympia, Washington. -
Washington State Department of Transportation„ 1993, Bridge design manual: Olympia,
Washington.
Washington State Department of Transportation and American Public Works Association,
Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (M 41-10).
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1995, "Geotechnical Predesign Report, Oakesdale Avenue
Extension, Renton, Washington."
W-7867-01
29
SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
TABLE 1
Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension; Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
Recommended Parameters for Development of P-Y Curves Using LPILE
Effective uniti Modulus of Subgrade .
Upper Lower Weight,Y Cohesion,�c Ftiction Angle, Reactioh,k
Approximate Boundary Boundary (pcf) (pst) (,) (pcl),
Plea Location Boring Elevation. .Elevation Elevation: SoR Type KSQIL I'.? ST/. ' EQ is ST CY/EQ S.T/CY EQ ST
&Boring Number (feet) (feet) (feet) CY�?1.:: (LQ);(?) (LQ) ( Q) ('!o):
South Abutment 18 7 Soft Clay 1 110 110 600 300 0 0 400 160 160 2
Boring B-3 18 7 -2 Sand 4 53 53 0 0 30 20 25 25 15
-2 -32 Sand 4 62 62 0 0 36 25 65 65 45
-32 -60 Sand 4 67 67 0 0 38 38 125 125 125
-60 - Sand 4 72 72 0 0 42 42 150 150 150
North Abutment 18 8 Sand 4 120 120 0 0 30 30 40 40 40
Boring B-4 18 8 -12 Sand 4 62 62 0 0 36 36 65 65 65
-12 - Sand 4 67 67 0 0 38 38 125 125 125
Notes
(1) KSOIL=Input Code for soil profile
(2) ST=Static Loading Case;CY=Cyclic Loading Case due to Wind,Temperature,&Wave Action;EQ=Eathquake Loading Case;LQ=Liquefied Soil Case.
(3) c5o=Strain at one-half the maximum total principal stress difference.
(4) Parameters given above do not reflect effect of deep foundation group action. See text regarding recommendations for group action.
(5) Scattered zones of soil may liquefy under earthquake loading.
8/6P)7;LPILTDL.XLS-hjs W-7867-01
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
TABLE 2
Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension; Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
Recommended Pavement Sections
Recommended Pavement
- Layers (inches)
Assumed Station Subgrade Material Estimated ACP CSTC CSBC SB
ESAL Description CBR-ValueClass B
1.50E+06 14+00 to 19+50 SILT/Clayey SILT 2 4.5 2 8 16
6 2 6 12
19+50 to 22+00 New Fill (< 24" thick) 10 4 2 5.5 -
4.5 2 4 -
22+00 to 26+50 SILT/Clayey SILT 2 4.5 2 8 16
6 2 6 12
26+50 to 37+50 New Fill ( > 24" thick) 15 3.5 2 4.5 -
4 2 2.5 -
37+50 to 43+00 Silty SAND 4 4.5 2 4 11.5
6 2 2 7
43+00 to 52+50 New Fill ( > 24" thick) 15 3.5 2 4.5 -
4 2 2.5 -
Notes:
1. Pavement design based on AASHTO Method.
2. Assumed design Life of Pavement=20 years.
3. ACP= Asphalt Concrete Pavement.
CSTC = Crushed Surfacing Top Course.
CSBC =Crushed Surfacing Base Course.
SB= Pit Run Sand and Gravel Subbase.
4. We recommend that the pavement structure has a minimum thickness of 12 inches
to account for frost action.
5. New Fill should be structural fill as recommended in the text.
6. Based on their past experience, the City of Renton may adopt stronger pavement section
than resulted from our analyses. See Section 10.3 of the text.
10rz3/97innsaT02A s-nis W-7867-01
SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
TABLE 3
Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension; Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
Recommended Parameters for Luminar Lighting Pole Design
NATIVE SOIL
Allowable'
Station Subsoil Foundation Lateral
Description Pressure Bearing
s Ib/ftz/ft
14+00 to 26+50 SILT/Clayey SILT 1000 100
14+00 to 26+50 SILT/Clayey SILT 1000 100
26+50 to 45+50 Silty SAND 1500 150
45+50 to SILT& CLAY 1000 100
South Abutment
North Abutment to Silty SAND 1500 150
S.W. 16th St.
IMPORTED STRUCTURAL FILL
Allowable Foundation Pressure Lateral Bearing
sf lb/ft2/ft
2000 200
Notes:
1. Subsoil description based on results of field explorations.
2. Allowable Foundation Pressure and Lateral Bearing values derived from
Table 18-1-A of the UBC, 1997 edition.
ionsinnxx.r:xts-i�js
W-7867-01
aL
zl�
Z14
I
12811j' 2 S Sr
S
S I
krR
ORT wr
S 13zs: Sr Z r1ur ;.ST
240 S
S S
r■ 14 ST ST 18
R— IN
1�,, -w 13
All FOSW -- L�CK a S 2ND
B
GOLF
I 1E
V -F EK :S3 R
s
BLACK 9 SUN
s6 c, I'.
N
5r
S 144T I il ST 10 P
1 -1 s ST
w)N s 77H st i
a LISI Z
S Il47r4L ES >
vILL
Sri CEN v cLm4
1� ST. Gpj"U,
■
s VILL
p; tNTW\V�
r E r
e ST
�23
Me ST
9- 1 lsz.c PL sla I ST W iL
.r T—1 -X 5-1 S7 43o s
I SU 0) 7 of S
slat
9
S I
CH Su 19rH ST ST
A 19rm
LLI
? cz: Lr)
Cr pe
ST,
cy"
23RD
PROJECT I
rl I/ X 0
L------ -j LOCATION
STPANCER Y BLVO
Zl lul IT cc -R -NTON - zrrH i ST
�Zcx jm�,&
T 26 T SCLIWENTER P
CNA NCTION Z97H ST
A
n CX- 25 30
SS T I tu 30TH
M > FS ST
13RD ST
Ccfnp.Ajt i i S S Ir
i I S
pry
Sr TH ST 34-A
CCPPCRA;
DR
I sLyo I o A
L4
MST 7rf ST
M'"D C4 Td 394H ST cr
T— +
. .........
41ST ST
IT178TH SW 11
P.RI LLA. sI
0 1/4 1/2 1 Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
I --- I Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
Scale in Miles Renton, Washington
NOTE VICINITY MAP
Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS.MAPS®.
This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS.MAPSS. it is unlawful July 1997 W-7867-01
to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof,whether for personal
use or resale,without permission. All rights reserved. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. I
Geotechnkal and EnvironrnenW consultants
J
0
RLP Ou;—,�LL Irr 21.
--s
4
_c C64 7,13L
MSE
BA- c:1i WX "4
r,7
Retaining
�.' NCPT-13
..........
—.7
-A-V I-
44+00.,,�OAKESDAjYE
43TOO t— v.- -
R ��W -
H-1 2-1 71
46+D0
�'--_47:�00
—A-
- — — — — — — — — — — -- —
J 7— 5�4
'4�
Ile,
Y I
-W
B I
MSE
NCO an
Retaining Vail
a:.f
LINE '756'511'MATCH
A 0
I R - 1750.00'
1 f N'A
>
T - 15233-
5;2
L 303.8
BW 7
ell
C
"ZZ'\ ♦ b-1
—
—7-
F%IL fM
4
04 —
f
-'z
TCH -LINE
RELAANARY' If \S1 < -7 0
cC-Xz 15 \ �f // 0'r-
I PE)IEW OM�Y- 4 C� "VARY 2.1 .4
0 20 40 80
Scale in Feet
LEGEND
Boring Designation and Approximate Location Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
E" (Completed by Shannon&Wilson, Inc.) Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St.to S.W. 16 th St.
NOTES Renton, Washington
BWC-7 OBoring Designation and Approximate Location
(Completed by Others) 1 This figure was derived from a drawing provided
CPT-13 Cone Penetration Test Designation and by Kato&Warrenjnc.dated June 1997. SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN
Approximate Location (Completed by Others) 2. Vertical Datum=NGVD 1988. July 1997 W-7867-01
SHANNON&WILSON,INC. FIG. 2
GedefticW and Envirwwtal Consuftants Sheet 1 of 2
0"4-M G1
CPT-1 4 ".rr CF w1a
'
C't
Py 7 Lj
:20
I'V4_1 A!Ili
rwiL_.Vf X#
wa
to
Le-.,L zm-
4—Z
-; Ix co,r--
V
48
7 N,
22-52* a.w:;7=,
-3 06.
_700.00
I �-1 4 1.
L---279 3' — `/ * . i All
vp
17"Do;/,
z — -�!, " �I��,I�:I I I� — __:%,7"
/111 - __ . �191 t ill I / —
200, MSE
�j
5* wall
�, " j 11 1%)A
Retaining
06
N
000,
or
"fit! C.—
51�oo �2
MSE 59
<
Retaining Wall i,,� —52+bo
C: OAKESDALE Mt—SW.
T7
-5
'�-LINE- ---------
MATCH
-�47+80-'
-.-STA
Z;
B-4
�A
SE
Retaining Wall
/*
N
-8 BWC
r., 7.
L L,�jr�r
;w
C.-.�T I G� J'`I I 'i1f�. I (: f
M UWARY
RIEVIEW ONLY--"l �IL
0 20 40 80
Scale in Feet
LEGEND
El Boring Designation and Approximate Location Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
orff
(Completed by Shannon&Wilson, Inc.) Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16 th St.
NOTES Renton, Washington
BWC-7 Boring Designation and Approximate Location
-41
(Completed by Others) 1. This figure was derived from a drawing provided SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN
CPT-13 Cone Penetration Test Designation and by Kato&Warren,lnc. dated June 1997. July 1997 W-7867-01
Approximate Location (Completed by Others) 2. Vertical Datum=NGVD 1988.
SHANNON&WILSON,INC. FIG. 2
Geotechnicd and Enviromwtsl Cwwftants Sheet 2 of 2
A A'
South PROPOSED North
40 E-- BRIDGE 40
STRUCTURE
B-1 B-18 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5
S.W. 16th Street
BH-12 137-7 __--I———
I------------ _ — CL
20 _ ---------- -" ---- ---- 20
Springbrook Medium dense to dense,silty fine SAND with
Existing 108" �_1� Loose,fine sandy SILT(Fill). Soft to very sti f,slightly 6 21 31 layers of clayey silt and trace of gravel(Fill).
? 23 sandy,clayey SILT and silty 5 Creek ? 17 6
Diameter Metro SS Very loose to medium dense, 2 4 CLAY with occasional gravel 7 5 Loose silty fine SAND with trace
12 ———— siltYfine SAND_ 3 and wood debris. ? 59 10 of gravel,silty seams,and roots.
--5 ----r 9 ? 42
----- ------- ---------- `_�--- ---J t ��9 16 Medium dense to very dense,
0 — — — o 19 Loose to medium dense,silty 4 '34 26 silty SAND and GRAVEL. 0
—11 ? 7 t ; 20 fine SAND and fine sandy SILT. 13 1
-- --- -- --- 23 24
12
—
26 34 — ?Medium dense,fine to medium 19 ?
_ Existing 72" SAND with trace of sill, 28 35 35 31 15 37 Medium dense,clean to
Diameter Metro SS a2 scattered gravel,and organics. 6 ? slightly silty,fine to medium
m A D
LL ? 1 s ' ? 52 5o/s' 34 S N with trace of gravel. ti
34
c Layers of very loose,
20 sandy SILT and soft to 31 Medium dense to dense, 26 51
o stiff,silty CLAY with 26 38 slightly silty to sitty,fine to 47 -20 6
organics. Layers of medium dense, (47) 33 medtum SAND with trace of 29 75 a1
> clean to sli htl si SAND 25 >
� g y �1' a2 coarse sand and gravel. �
W and GRAVEL. 25 62 34 53 W
Scattered 49
27 F gmeelnts 22 Layers of medium dense
21— 42 to very dense,clean to 28 42
i 40 69 51 slightly
GRA EL. and 53 53/6'
-40
75
51/6' 57 43
68
24 85
77
671 64
-60 301 55
-60
50/6' 50/5'
50/6• 41
50/6• 52/6•
-80 1 1 I 1 41 I 1 -80
43+00 45+00 47+00 Stationing 49+00 6 51+00 53+00
LEGEND
B-1 Boring Location and Designation 0 10 20 40 0 80 1¢0
-- --' Proposed Ground Surface for New Roadway Vertical Scale in Feet Horizontal Scale in Feet
Current Ground Surface Vertical Exaggeration=4X
Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
Groundwater Level During Drilling NOTES Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St.to S.W. 16th St.
24 or Sample Taken During Boring, Standard 1. This profile is generalized from materials encountered in the borings drilled Renton, Washington
52/6• Penetration Resistance in Blows per at site, including borings performed by others. Variations between the
Foot or Blows per Inches Driven profiles and actual conditions may exist. GENERALIZED
Pushed Sample 2. Current and proposed ground surface, and Metro storm sewer locations SUBSURFACE PROFILE A-A'
are based on drawing provided by Kato&Warren, Inc.,dated June 1997.
? ? Approximate Geologic Contact July 1997 W-7867-01
3. For clarity,the exploration logs shown on the profiles have been
Bottom of Boring abbreviated and simplified. For detailed logs,see Appendix A. SHANNON&WILSON,INC. FIG. 3
Geobftical and Fmironmental Constdtart4s
GENERALIZED
SUBSURFACE
PROFILE ESTIMATED DRILLED SHAFT CAPACITY(tons)
(Based on boring B-3)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
20
18'
Soft to very
stiff, slightly 15
sandy clayey
SILT 10
7 Loose to medium 5 t Allowable Compressive Capacity
dense, silty SAND — — Ultimate Skin Friction
and sandy SILT t
y 0
1.5 Medium dense to 4- t
v
dense, slightlysilty Z -5
to silty fine to O
g.S medium SAND Q 10 —
LLI
Medium dense to J -15 --
very dense, W
clean to slightly LU
silty SAND and Q -20 ,
GRAVEL m
-25 ` — - ---
ILL
a
N -30LU
`
J -35 — - --
J
-40 - —— — -
-50 E
♦
♦
-55
A
s
60
NOTES
1. Allowable compressive capacity is a summation of allowable skin friction and
allowable end bearing. A factor of safety of 2.0 was applied to estimated ultimate
skin friction values. Allowable end bearing values were obtained by estimating
the percentage of the ultimate end bearing capacity that would be mobilized by an Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
assumed settlement of 1/2 inch at the base of the shaft. Phase 1 -S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
2. Allowable uplift capacity can be obtained by applying an appropriate factor of Renton, Washington
safety to ultimate skin friction plot given above.
ESTIMATED CAPACITY OF
3. Estimated capacities assume that if a casing is used during installation,it will be
removed during placement of concrete. If,however,the casing is left in place, 6-FOOT-DIAMETER DRILLED SHAFT
grouting should be used to fill all potential voids around the casing and the
estimated capacities given above should be re-evaluated. SOUTH ABUTMENT
4. Estimated capacities were based on subsurface conditions encountered in boring July 1997 W-7867-01
&a SHANNON&VALSON, INC.
Geotech cal ard Enviormentel Considtants FIG.4
GENERALIZED
SUBSURFACE
PROFILE ESTIMATED DRILLED SHAFT CAPACITY(tons)
(Based on boring B-4)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
20
18 Medium dense
to dense,silty, 15 —
SAND (Fill)
11 Loose, silty fine 10
8' SAN D
Medium dense to 5 Allowable Compressive Capacity —
very dense, silty
Ultimate Skin Friction
SAND and
1.5' GRAVEL a) 0 ----
Medium dense,
clean to slightly ZO -5
silty SAND
-9' Q -- -
-10
Medium dense to >
W ♦
very dense, J 15 —
clean to slightly W ♦♦
LU
silty SAND and W
20
GRAVEL m ♦♦
E" -25 -- ♦ -— —--
LL
Q I♦
-30 -- -
J -35 ♦ --
LU _
-40 -- ♦; --------
-45 --- — — --f -----♦- -- -
-50 -- — - — --
-55 1
{
-60
I ♦
NOTES
1. Allowable compressive capacity is a summation of allowable skin friction and
allowable end bearing. A factor of safety of 2.0 was applied to estimated ultimate
skin friction values. Allowable end bearing values were obtained by estimating
the percentage of the ultimate end bearing capacity that would be mobilized by an Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
assumed settlement of 1/2 inch at the base of the shaft. Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
2. Allowable uplift capacity can be obtained by applying an appropriate factor of Renton, Washington
safety to ultimate skin friction plot given above.
ESTIMATED CAPACITY OF
3. Estimated capacities assume that if a casing is used during installation,it will be
removed during placement of concrete. If,however,the casing is left in place, 6-FOOT-DIAMETER DRILLED SHAFT
grouting should be used to fill all potential voids around the casing and the NORTH ABUTMENT
estimated capacities given above should be re-evaluated.
4. Estimated capacities were based on subsurface conditions encountered in boring July 1997 W-7867-01
13-4.
SHANNON &WILSON, INC. FIG 5
GeotechicW and Ernicn nental CmsWtants
GENERALIZED
SUBSURFACE
PROFILE ESTIMATED PILE CAPACITY(tons)
(Based on boring 131-1-7& BWC-5)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
20
17'
I
15
Soft to stiff,
SILT/ clayey 10 ---------- V-.. ---------------------------------------- Allowable Compressive Capacity ------------ ----------------------
SILT
` — — Ultimate Skin Friction
5 -
♦ I I
1 Dose to me wm
o
dense, black '•;
4, SAND i
w
-5 .... - - s -- -- .....- --•- -- - ............- - ... -
Medium dense OZ
to dense, black _
SAND Q 10 1`
W
J
Uj 157. `
IL_
~ -20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------..................... ......--.........------.........--- ---------------
W
J i �
i
I I
-30
i
1
-35 ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------.--' -------------.............-...............................- --- - - -------------------
I
-40 —
-45
NOTES
1. Allowable compressive capacity is a summation of allowable skin friction and Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
allowable end bearing. A factor of safety of 2.0 was applied to estimated ultimate
skin friction and ultimate end bearing values. Phase 1 -S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
Renton, Washington
2. Allowable uplift capacity can be obtained by applying an appropriate factor of
safety to ultimate skin friction plot given above. ESTIMATED CAPACITY OF
3. Estimated capacities were based on subsurface conditions encountered in 14-INCH-DIAMETER AUGERCAST PILE
borings BWC-5 and BH-7,performed by Woodward Clyde and Golder
Associates,respectively. BRIDGE OVER SPU WATER LINE
July 1997 W-7867-01
SHANNON&WILSON, INC. FIG. s
Gedech-wal and EnAonmental Conagtants
Case 1 = Point Bearing Drilled Shaft:
Kv= AE
L
Case 2 = Drilled Shaft with Constant Skin-Friction:
Kv=2AE
L
Case 3** = Drilled Shaft with Linearly Varying Skin-Friction:
Kv=3AE
L
Case 4 = Drilled Shaft Partially Embedded in Soil:
a. Kv= AE
(1 -2)L
b. Kv= AE
(1 - 3F/L
** Case 3 is recommended for this project.
P
A
Drilled Shaft Stress
LEGEND
Kv = Vertical Spring Constant j: Top of Soil
A = Cross-Sectional Area L j
E = Young's Modulus
a. Linearly Varying
L = Length FL i Skin Friction
P = Vertical Load
i
b. Constant
/ Skin Friction
Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
Renton, Washington
VERTICAL SPRING CONSTANTS
FOR DEEP FOUNDATIONS
July 1997 W-7867-01
SHANNON&WILSON,INC. FIG. 7
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE ON ABUTMENT WALLS EFFECT OF WALL MOVEMENT ON PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURES
OR FOOTINGS UNDER STATIC LOADING CONDITIONS
Passive Earth Pressure Distribution
� Ground Surface SOLUTION
77777T7 Abutment Wall X of Foundation Member p
Vertical Reaction Surface Ultimate passive resistances per foot of width are as follows:
� h Kp h Kp=6.76
y Vertical Reaction
Surface Pp =1 p 1 Kp y (h 2 h 2)=19.013
SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW
hw Pp2 = Kpyhw(H-hw)=17,745 Ibs.
Abutment
Wall H P where X=minimum dimension of vertical reaction surface Pp3 = 1 Kpy(H-hw)2 =1,901 lbs.
P 2
Direction of t
Applied Lateral Load o 100
---------- w Total ultimate passive resistance 38,659 Ibs/ft.of width
I a: 90
pv=) Cn 80
PP 3 2 ¢ a 7o Curve for Loosely Compacted ill
a = For a design lateral movement of 0.5 inch and the minimum
Kpy hw H � cap dimension X=8 ft =96 inches, the ratio of 0.5 to 96
cr a Curve for Densely Compacted ill o
w w (or strain)=0.5/96=0.55/o.
Kpy(H-hw) w j
U)a a a 30 From the"Effect of Wall Movement on Passive Earth
Pressures"diagram,at 0.55%movements in dense backfill,
Deep Foundation a- w g
z a 20FNJWall
r Bound Pressure for the design passive earth pressure is equal to about 55%of
w ti 10 Movement(Ko the ultimate. Therefore, Design Pp =0.55 x Ultimate Pp =0.55
o ? 0 (Based on NAVFAC.1971 x 38,660=21,260 Ibs/ft of width.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DESIGN LATERAL MOVEMENT %
MINIMUM CAP DIMENSION X(ABOVE)
Total ultimate soil passive resistance against cap in Ibs/ft.
of width, Pp = PP1+ Pp2+ Pp3
=2Kpy(hy h2)+ Kpyhw(H w)+h2 p KY(H-hw)2 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
where:
K p =Static passive earth pressure coefficient= (cos 20) PROBLEM
2 Determine passive resistance of cap for 0.5-inch lateral movement using the
sin(0+S)sino 9
cos( S) 1 - following data:
cos(-S)
y
=Total unit weight of soil,pcf h=2 ft., hw=7 ft., H=10 ft.(8 ft.thick pile cap) NOTE:
y=125 pcf, �=62.5 pcf, y -62.5 pcf Refer to Section 8.4.2 of Text for ultimate Kp values.
=Submerged unit weight of soil,pcf w-
yw=Unit weight of water,pcf 0=340, S=0/2=171 Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
0 =Angle of internal friction of soil Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
ASSUMPTIONS Renton, Washington
g =Angle of friction between structure and soil= 0/2
1. After installation of cap, granular backfill and natural on-site soils within at
h =Depth to top of cap,feet least 8 feet surrounding the cap are to be densified or compacted to PASSIVE LATERAL EARTH
w=Depth to groundwater level,feet minimize liquefaction potential. If this is not done, use curve B. PRESSURES vs MOVEMENT
h
2. Groundwater surface around the cap is level so there is no differential October 1997 W-7867-01
H =Depth to bottom of cap,feet hydrostatic pressure.
SHANNON&WILSON,INC. FIG. 8
Geotechrlical and Environmental Consultants
Toe
Shoulder
1.4 4:5
N
Centerline
® -4.. .0
Shoulder 2. 4.5 3.4
Toe ----- — .0
3 _ 3.8
nn■■■■u■■ .1.3
............... ................................
::::::::.:: Wall
aU 48888
■ r■■■■■.t+■.■■■..
0.4
of ::.::..................::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: • —
.....::::::::::::::...
•......�.9 ,� 0.6
Wall
I
43+00 44+00 45+00 46+00 47+00 48+00 49+00 50+00 51+00 52+00
ROADWAY STATION
LEGEND Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
1.4 Estimated Total Settlement in Inches. Renton, Washington
® Proposed Settlement Plate Location.
(See Figure 12) ESTIMATED TOTAL SETTLEMENTS
APPROACH EMBANKMENTS
August 1997 W-7867-01
co
SHANNON&WILSON,INC. FIG. 9
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Foundation Soil Properties South North
Approach Approach
Unit Weight 110 pcf 120 pcf
Cohesion 600 psf 0 psf
Friction Angle 00 300
Allowable Bearing Pressure 2400 psf 3,000 psf
(Factor of Safety=1.5)
Wall
Mechanically
H Stabilized Soil PAE
PA T
f 0.5H
0.33H
l
32H I---a
Static 6.5H
(Seismic Increment)
NOTES LEGEND
1. The MSE wall earth pressures were H Height of Wall in Feet
analyzed using the Coulomb theory of earth
pressures and the Mononobe-Okabe PA Static, Active Earth Force in Pounds
equation with a seismic coefficient of 0.15g. Per Foot of Wall
2. The seismic increment shown above Seismic, Active Earth Force Increment
corresponds to about 40 percent of the PnE in Pounds Per Foot of Wall
static, active earth force.
3. The soil properties and allowable bearing Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
pressure for the foundation soil were Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
determined for the most critical loading Renton, Washington
condition: end of construction.
STATIC AND SEISMIC
4. Friction angle and cohesion values for EARTH PRESSURES
foundation soil should only be used to MSE WALLS
check sliding.
July 1997 W-7867-01
SHANNON&WILSON,INC. FIG. 10
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
0
■ 0.05 ♦ 0.04
cn 0.1 ■ 0.09
(D
s
U
C
0.2
m
■ 0.23
E ♦ 0.26
a)
0.3
m
♦ 0.35
0.4
E
w ♦72-inch-diameter Metro SS
W 0.5
■ 108-inch-diameter Metro SS ■ 0.52
0.6
43+50 44+00 44+50 45+00 45+50 46+00 46+50
Roadway Station
Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
Renton, Washington
ESTIMATED TOTAL SETTLEMENT
BENEATH EXISTING SANITARY
.n SEWER LINES
August 1997 W-7867-01
1
1
SHANNON&WILSON,INC. FIG. 11
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Cap
2-inch Diameter 4-inch Diameter
PVC Riser Pipe
Steel Pipe Screwed
into Base Plate
Connections (Typ.)
'•.FILL:�';•:�:.�.�'.,�:':.�:':,�:':.�:':.':':.�:':.�.�'
7\X//
; ;
1'Avg.
k_ § M
Original Ground
Surface
Trench Backfilled
with One-Site Sand
1/4-inch Thick
Steel Base Plate
(3-foot-square)
No Scale
Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
Renton, Washington
SETTLEMENT PLATE SCHEMATIC
July 1997 W-7867-01
SHANNON&WILSON,INC. FIG. 12
Geotechnical and Environmental consultants
Ground Surface Flush-Mount
Monument
Side of
6-Inch Diameter PVC Pipe - f— Excavation
(Should Be Vertical and Cap
Centered Around
Stainless Steel Ball)
Stainless Steel Ball
Bottom of PVC Pipe Should and Spacer Epoxied
be Flush with Top of Pipe to to Top of Pipe
Prevent Soil From Running
or Flowing into Pipe
Backfill Around Bottom 6-Inches
of PVC Pipe with Sand to Hold
Pipe in Place
Existing Utility
UTILITY MONITORING POINT
Not to Scale
Bottom of Reference Rod
(Used During Surveying
of Monitoring Point)
Steel Washers Epoxied
to Bottom of Rod
(Holes in Washers Should be Approx.
3/4-Inch in Diameter)
E—Approx. 1/2-Inch
Steel Spacer
(1-Inch Thick) Stainless Steel Ball
Epoxied to (1-Inch Diameter)
Top of Main Welded to Steel Spacer Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
Top of Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
Existing Main Renton, Washington
f UTILITY MONITORING POINT
MONITORING POINT DETAIL October 1997 W-7867-01
Not to Scale
SHANNON&WILSON,INC. FIG. 13
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Ground Flush-Mount
Surface Monument
Cap
6-Inch-Diameter
PVC Pipe
Riser(1/2-Inch-Diameter
Rebar or 1-Inch-Diameter
Steel Water Pipe)
Centralizer
PVC Pipe Should be 2 ft. Existing Utility
Placed on Top of Soil Max.
Cuttings, Not into Grout
0.5 ft. SoilCuttings
1.0 ft.
Thick Grout
SUBSURFACE DEFORMATION MONITORING POINT
Not to Scale
Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
Renton, Washington
SUBSURFACE DEFORMATION
MONITORING POINT
October 1997 W-7867-01
SHANNON&WILSON,INC FIG. 14
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants I —a
Q
_X
0
Z
W
a
a
a
SHANNON bWILSON,INC.
APPENDIX A
CURRENT FIELD EXPLORATIONS
W-7867-01
SHAANNON&WILSON,INC.
APPENDIX A
CURRENT FIELD EXPLORATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A.1 GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
A.2 DRILLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Al
A.3 TESTING AND SAMPLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 2
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
A 1 Soil Classification and Log Key (two pages)
A 2 Log of Boring B-1
A 3 Log of Boring B-2
A-4 Log of Boring B-3
A 5 Log of Boring B-4
A-6 Log of Boring B-5
W-7867-01
A-i
SHANNON&WILSON,INC.
APPENDIX A
CURRENT FIELD EXPLORATIONS
A.1 GENERAL
Five borings, designated B-1 through B-5, were drilled for this study to help identify
subsurface conditions at the project site. These borings supplement subsurface data obtained
from previous explorations performed in the vicinity of the proposed alignment of the
extension. A discussion on the previous explorations is presented as Section 3.2 of the main
text, and a copy of subsurface profiles from WCC 1995 report is included in Appendix B,
Previous Field Explorations.
Approximate locations of borings B-1 through B-5 are shown on Figure 2 of the main text.
Borings B-1 and B-2 were drilled within the proposed south approach embankment area.
Borings B-3 and B-4 were performed in the vicinity of the south and north abutments of the
proposed bridge structure, respectively, and boring B-5 was located within the proposed
north approach embankment area. The boring locations were determined by our field
engineer by taping from existing site features. Logs of borings B-1 through B-5 are
presented on Figures A-2 through A-6, respectively. A Soil Classification and Log Key is
presented on Figure A-1 as a reference for symbols and information presented on the boring
logs.
A.2 DRILLING
All borings were drilled by GeoTech Explorations, Inc., of Tualatin, Oregon, under
subcontract to Shannon & Wilson, Inc., using a truck-mounted rotary drill. The rotary
drilling procedure consists of drilling the soil materials and removing the cuttings by
circulation of drilling mud. The drilling mud used was a mixture of bentonite and water.
The cuttings were deposited in buckets at the ground surface, and were disposed off at
locations assigned by Boeing Company on their properties. After each boring was
completed, the hole was filled with a mixture of cuttings and bentonite chips.
W-7867-01
A-1
SHANNON&WILSON,INC.
The borings were accomplished between June 23 and 27, 1997. They were drilled to
approximate depths ranging between 41.5 feet for boring B-5 and 101.5 feet for boring B-4,
for a total drilling footage of about 356 feet. The drilling operations were accomplished in
the presence of an engineer from our firm, who, for each boring, prepared a log and
collected representative samples at each sampling interval. The samples were placed in air-
tight plastic jars and returned to our laboratory for testing.
A.3 TESTING AND SAMPLING
Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were performed in the borings, generally at 2.5-foot
intervals in the upper 20 feet and at 5-foot intervals thereafter in general accordance with
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation D 1586, Standard Method
for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. This test consists of driving a
2-inch outside-diameter split-spoon sampler a total distance of 18 inches into the bottom of
the borings with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to
cause the last 12 inches of penetration is termed the Standard Penetration Resistance
(N-value). When penetration resistances exceeded 50 to 100 blows for 6 inches or less of
penetration, the test was terminated. The penetration resistances were recorded by our field
representative and are plotted on the boring logs presented in Figures A-2 through A-6.
These values provide a means for evaluating the relative density or compactness of
cohesionless (granular) soils and the relative consistency (stiffness) of cohesive soils as
described in the following table:
SOIL DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY TERMINOLOGY
+Cohesionless (granular) Soils _, Cohesive (clayey) Soils
Relative!Density Penetration Resistance Relative Consistency Penetration Res►stance
(blows/foot) (blows/Coot)
Very Loose 0 - 4 Very Soft Under 2
Loose 4 - 10 Soft 2 - 4
Medium Dense 10 - 30 Medium 4 - 8
Dense 30 - 50 Stiff 8 - 15
Very Dense Over 50 Very stiff 15 - 30
Hard Over 30
W-7867-01
A-2
SHANNON bWILSON,INC.
The Standard Penetration Resistance values are plotted on the boring logs along with the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) letter and symbols, as shown on Figures A 2
through A 6.
The split-spoon sampler used during the penetration testing recovers a disturbed sample of
the soil, which is useful for identification and classification purposes. The samples were
field classified and recorded on the logs by our field engineer. The samples were sealed in
jars and returned to our laboratory for testing.
Relatively undisturbed, thin-walled (Shelby), steel tube samples were attempted in general
accordance with ASTM D 1587, Standard Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils.
This sampling method employs a thin-walled steel tube connected to a sampling head that is
attached to the drill rods. The tube is carefully pushed by the hydraulic rams of the drill rig
into the soil below the bottom of the drill hole and then retracted to obtain a sample. Two
Shelby tube samples were attempted in each of the borings B-1 through B-3. Recovering the
first sample in borings B-1 through B-3 was not successful, and the samples recovered in the
remaining tubes consisted mainly of silty sand and sandy silt. Therefore, none of the Shelby
tubes provided relatively undisturbed samples for testing.
W-7867-01
A-3
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1990, Annual book of ASTM
standards: Soil and Rock, Building Stone, Geosynthetics: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
V.04.08.
10-17-97/Appendix.A/W7867-Ikd/1kd
W-7867-01
A-4
Key Rev.1 7-12-96
Shannon&Wilson, Inc. (S&W), uses a soil GRAIN SIZE DEFINITIONS
classification system modified from the
Unified Soil Classification (USC) System. DESCRIPTION SIEVE SIZE
Elements of the USC and other definitions FINES <#200(0.08 mm)
are provided on this and the following page.
Soil descriptions are based on visual- SAND'
manual procedures (ASTM D 2488-93) •Fine •#200-#40(0.4 mm)
unless otherwise noted. •Medium •#40-#10(2 mm)
•Coarse •#10-#4(5 mm)
S&W CLASSIFICATION GRAVEL'
OF SOIL CONSTITUENTS •Fine •#4-3/4 inch
•Coarse •3/4-3 inches
• MAJOR constituents compose more than 50
percent,by weight,of the soil. Major COBBLES 3-12 inches
constituents are capitalized(SAND).
BOULDERS >12 inches
• Minor constituents compose 12 to 50 percent Unless otherwise noted,sand and gravel,when present,
of the soil and precede the major constituents range from fine to coarse in grain size.
(silty SAND). Minor constituents preceded by
'slightly'compose 5 to 12 percent of the soil
(slightly silty SAND).
RELATIVE DENSITY/CONSISTENCY
• Trace constituents compose 0 to 5 percent of
the soil(slightly silty SAND,trace of gravel). COARSE-GRAINED SOILS FINE-GRAINED/COHESIVE SOILS
N,SPT, RELATIVE N,SPT, RELATIVE
MOISTURE CONTENT DEFINITIONS BLOWS/FT. DENSITY BLOWS/FT. CONSISTENCY
0-4 Very loose <2 Very soft
Dry Absence of moisture,dusty,dry to 4-10 Loose 2-4 Soft
the touch 10-30 Medium dense 4-8 Medium stiff
30-50 Dense 8-15 Stiff
Moist Damp but no visible water Over 50 Very dense 15-30 Very stiff
Over 30 Hard
Wet Visible free water,from below water
table
ABBREVIATIONS WELL AND OTHER SYMBOLS
ATD At Time of Drilling
• Elev. Elevation
Cement/Concrete Asoalt or PVC Cap
ft feet ® Bentonite Grout U771 Cobbles
HSA Hollow Stem Auger
ID Inside Diameter Bentonite Seal ® Fill
in inches Slough 7 Ash
Ibs pounds
Mon. Monument cover Silica Sand ® Bedrock
N Blows for last two 6-inch increments
2'I.D.PVC Screen Gravel
NA Not Applicable or Not Available (0.010-inch Slot)
OD Outside Diameter
OVA Organic Vapor Analyzer
PID Photoionization Detector Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
ppm parts per million Phase 1 - S.W.27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride Renton, Washington
SS Split Spoon sampler SOIL CLASSIFICATION
SPT Standard Penetration Test AND LOG KEY
USC Unified Soil Classification
WLI Water Level Indicator
July 1997 W-7867-01
SHANNON &WILSON, INC. FIG. A-1
GeotechNcal and Environmental consultants Sheet 1 of 2
Key Rev.1 7-12-96
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
(From ASTM D 2488-93&2487-93)
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
Well-Graded Gravels,Gravel-Sand
Clean Gravels(' GW o O o Mixtures,Little or No Fines
Gravels (less than
(more than 50% 5%fines) GP I Poorly Graded Gravels,Gravel-Sand
ofcoarse Mixtures,Little or No Fines
fraction retained
Coarse-Grained on No.4 sieve) Gravels with(D GM Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand-Sift Mixtures
Soils(more than Fines(more
50%retained on than 12%fines) GC . Clayey Gravels,Gravel-Sand-Clay
No.200 sieve) Mixtures
Well-Graded Sands,Gravelly Sands,
Clean Sands'O SW
Little or No Fines
Sands (less than
(50%or more 5%fines) SID Poorly Graded Sand,Gravelly Sands,
of coarse Little or No Fines
(Use Dual Symbols fraction
for -12%Fines passes the Sands with'O SM Silty Sands,Sand-Silt Mixtures
(i.e.GP-GM)]+O No.4 sieve) Fines(more
than 12%fines) SC Clayey Sands,Sand-Clay Mixtures
.po
Inorganic Silts of Low to Medium
MIL Plasticity,Rock Flour,or Clayey Sifts
Sifts and Clays Inorganic with Slight Plasticity
(liquid limit Inorganic Clays of Low to Medium
less than 50) CL Plasticity,Gravelly Clays,Sandy Clays,
Silty Clays,Lean Clays
Fine-Grained Soils Organic OL — Organic Silts and Organic Silty Clays of
(50%or more = Low Plasticity
passes the Inorganic Clays of Medium to High
No.200 sieve) CH Plasticity,Sandy Fat Clay,Gravelly Fat
Clay
Sifts and Clays Inorganic 1/'00Inorganic Silts,Micaceous or
(liquid limit MH Diatomaceous Fine Sands or SiftysSoils,
50 or more) Elastic Sift
Or anic OH j/ Organic Clays of Medium to High
g ��/ Plasticity,Organic Silts
Highly Organic Primarily organic matter,dark in Peat,Humus,Swamp Soils with High
Soils color,and organic odor PT Organic Content (See D 4427.92)
Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
NOTES Phase 1 - S.W.27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
1. Dual symbols(symbols separated by a hyphen,i.e., Renton, Washington
SP-SM,slightly silty fine SAND)are used for soils
with between 5%and 12%fines or when the liquid
limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML SOIL CLASSIFICATION
area of the plasticity chart.
AND LOG KEY
2. Borderline symbols(symbols separated by a slash,
i.e.,CUML,silty CLAY/clayey SILT;GW/SW,sandy July 1997 W-7867-01
GRAVEUgravelly SAND)indicated that the soil may
fall into one of two possible basic groups.
SNANNON &WILSON,INC. FIG. A-1
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 2 of 2
MASTERLG 10/14/97
SOIL DESCRIPTION LL 75 a -v LL Standard Penetration Resistance
s Q = °: (140 lb. weight, 30" drop)
STA.:46+08 OFFSET: 36 Ft. Right a M - Q A Blows per foot
Surface Elevation:Approx. 9.00 Ft. tD CD
N p 0 20 40 60
Medium stiff to stiff, gray to =
grayish-brown, clayey SILT to slightly fineCD
sandy, clayey SILT; moist to wet; ML. 2-H .
9.0 3 H .
Loose, dark gray/black, fine sandy SILT; 4= m 10 -•-- _ �:. ......-.........:....:.
wet; scattered organics; ML. 12'0 5 •
Z . . . . . ` . . . . . . . . .
Dense, dark gray/black,/black, slightly silty to 6 r . . . . . .9 Y 9 Y =
silt fine to medium SAND; moist to wet; 7
Y 5 19.
trace of medium to coarse sand; SM. 9= 20 -............... ....-................_....... .
........_.-............
.........._.........-----.._.._._.
Dense, gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL; wet; . . . . : : . . . ! . . . . . . : : . : : : : : : :
1.5-foot-thick layer of dense, silty fine to 9= : : : : : : : : i : : : : : : : :
medium sand; scattered wood; GM. : : : : : l : : : : : : : :
1 o= 30 — .:-.......... .—............-..................................._.._.._..._...__... .-.........;....
! . . . . .
32.5
Very dense, gray, silty, fine to medium . . . . . . .
SAND; wet; occasional silt pockets and 11= . . . . . .�i . . . . . . . 6
gravel; SM. 3s.o j . . . . . . . . . .
- - - _ ._._ ....-___.!........................-_........_............_
Medium dense, gray, silty fine to medium 42 0 12= 40 -
j . . . . .
SAND; wet; trace of gravel; numerous : l[�
. . . . .
shells and scattered organics; SM. 137 69
Very dense, gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL;
_ ............. ...... ............................................. .................. .........
wet; layers of silty, fine to medium SAND; 14 50 : : : " : ; ; 75
GM. 15= .
61.5 t s= 60 .......... .'.-- ——..........................! ....._......................
BOTTOM OF BORING . : : : : : . . .
COMPLETED 6/27/97
. . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70 .................._.................... .__-............._._.........
80 ...__.._._.___...-.......__.u......_................................_................._..........._.. ._......_........._...._......
. i . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
90 _..._....... ........................................_
LEGEND 0 20 40 60
6 % Water Content
Sample Not Recovered Surface Seal
= 2" O.D.Split Spoon Sample ® Annular Sealant Plastic Limit I--� I Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
H 3" O.D. Shelby Tube Sample Piezometer Screen
® Grout
Q water Level Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
i Low Water Level Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
Renton, Washington
NOTES
1.The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between
soil types, and the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B-1
2.The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper
understanding of the nature of subsurface materials.
3.Water level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary. July 1997 W 7867-01
4. Refer to KEY for explanation of"Symbols" and definitions. SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
5.USC letter symbol based on visual classification. Geote hnical and Env'ronmental Consultants FIG. A-2
MASTERLG 10/14/97
SOIL DESCRIPTION u 76 (D - L U_ Standard Penetration Resistance
(140 lb. weight, 30" drop)
STA.:47+32 OFFSET: 6 Ft. Right a i• m o a A Blows per foot
Surface Elevation:Approx. 16.00 Ft. a) fn U) pa) 0 20 40 60
Soft to very stiff, grayish-brown to
reddish-brown, slightly sandy, clayey 1= . . . . . . . . .
SILT; moist to dry; scattered roots and 2= . . .
iron-oxide stains; ML. 3-� . . . . E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 .................�_..._......--------...._...._. ..._...._.-----..............
11.5 a� . . . . .
Medium dense, dark gray/black, silty fine 6= j
SAND; moist to wet; SM. 6= . . . ; : i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7Z
= 20 .........._................................................ ...................
--------- --
23.0 . .
Dense, dark gray/black, slightly silty to
silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; trace of : : . . .
gravel; SM. 31.0 10= 30 .....:.....:.....:......._ .............._ ....:..._:_............:.._.:_.:....:...._._.._:..... .- _._.:__.:...:
Dense, gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL; wet; : : : : : : : : : : : . . : :
GM.
38.0 . . . . . . . . . € .
Dense, slightly silt ray, sli , fine to coarse
9 9 Y Y 40 --.._...---..._.. ..._..._... ..:.....:.....:..._.....:..._.
SAND; wet; trace of gravel; SW. 12=
13= �: : : . . . . . .
47.0
Dense to very dense, gray, slightly silty to
silty, sandy GRAVEL; wet; GM. 14= 50 -._:...........�- -__. _..:_..:_._ �.:..._:..__!_'.___.:_.....:....:...............
.
. . . . . . . ; . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . .
61.0 16= 60 ........... ........_.._......_................_.__.�..._...--._.....i_...___............:5:1.16"
BOTTOM OF BORING : : : : : : : : :
COMPLETED 6/26/97
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
: : : : : : I : : : : : : : : . : : : : :
70 ......................................._......_................_._....................-._...._......--......_...-- .._......_..........
. . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . .
80 .....................--............_.............................................._....._....._........_...........---..._........._..........
. . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
90
LEGEND 0 20 40 60
• % Water Content
• Sample Not Recovered Surface Seal
= 2" O.D.Split Spoon Sample ® Annular Sealant Plastic Limit i �—i Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
ZL 3" O.D. Shelby Tube Sample f Piezometer Screen
® Grout
V Water Level Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
i Low Water Level Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
Renton, Washington
NOTES
1.The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between LOG OF BORING B-2
soil types, and the transition may be gradual.
2.The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper
understanding of the nature of subsurface materials.
3.Water level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. July 1997 W 7867-01
4. Refer to KEY for explanation of"Symbols"and definitions. SHANNON &WILSON, INC. q
5.USC letter symbol based an visual classification. Geotechnical and Env'onmental Consultants FIG. A—J
MASTERLG 10/14/97
SOIL DESCRIPTION LL o a v U. Standard Penetration Resistance
r a � °3 2 (140 lb. weight, 30" drop)
STA.:48+50 OFFSET: 12 Ft.Left CL 3 a A Blows per foot
Surface Elevation:Approx. 18.00 Ft. v7 p 0 20 40 60
Medium stiff, grayish-brown, slightly
sandy to sandy, clayey SILT; moist; 1= . . . . . . . .
occasional gravel; scattered roots; ML. 2=
3-IL . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
11.0 q 10 _....--........
_._. _ __......,.___..-...._.__.i_.................................................
Interlayered loose to medium dense, dark ..: : : :
brown, slightly silt to silt fine SAND and 5= . . . . ' ' . ' .
9 Y Y Y 5= . . . . . ... . . . . . .� : : : : : .
dark brown to gray, fine sandy SILT; wet;
7= . . . . . . . . . . . . � : : : ` : : : : : : : . :
occasional wood debris; SM/ML, 19.5 i . . . . . . '
$= 20 —___ — . . . . ................._...._...........................................
Medium dense to dense, dark gray/black, : : : . . . . . . . . .
slightly silty to silty fine SAND; wet; trace : : : : : : . ! .
of medium sand; SM. 27.5 9= : : I : : : : : : : :
I . : : : : : : : : : :
Medium dense to very dense, gray, clean 10= 30 ---- .. . . ---'-- -
to silty, sandy GRAVEL; wet; GM. . . . . . . . . . { . . . . . . . .
= 40 ..._.---- ...........:....:.... ......
:.....:.....:.....:.....:.....:.....:.....
43.0 _ . . .
Medium dense to dense, gray, slightly silty : :
13=
to silty, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND;
. . . . . .
wet; SM. . . .
50 ._....._—_� .................
52.0 1a= . . . . . . . . .
Medium dense to very dense, gray,
slightly silty to silty, sandy GRAVEL with 15=
trace of silt; wet; GM/GW.
60 .
_. ._�_ _._.......: . . . .
19= 70 . . . .�: . . . ; . . . . . :._..._...........
...........:............................67
. . ' ' . . . . . .
19•=
. . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . .
:; . . .
20= 80 ...----16.._—........_ ........._.........._...................._.......;..._........_.50/6
z1= : : : : : : : : : : : : : 50/6"
. . .
90.5 22= 90 _ _.__ �._.__..._...__...... : ......._........... .-50/6
BOTTOM OF BORING
COMPLETED 6/26/97
LEGEND 0 20 40 60
• % Water Content
" Sample Not Recovered Surface Seal
= 2" O.D.Split Spoon Sample ® Annular Sealant Plastic Limit f--�—� Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
ZL 3" O.D.Shelby Tube Sample Piezometer Screen
® Grout
Water Level Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
i Low Water Level Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
Renton, Washington
NOTES
1.The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between LOG OF BORING B-3
soil types,and the transition may be gradual.
2.The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper
understanding of the nature of subsurface materials.
3.Water level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary. July 1997 W-7867-01
4.Refer to KEY for explanation of"Symbols"and definitions. SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
5.USC letter symbol based on visual classification. Geotechnical and Envionmental Consultants FIG- A—'Fw
MASTERLG 10/14/97
SOIL DESCRIPTION LL o a it Standard Penetration Resistance
r a c Y (140 lb. weight, 30" drop)
STA.:49+58 OFFSET: 58 Ft. Right CL �, ca - o. ♦ Blows per foot
Surface Elevation:Approx. 18.00 Ft. 0 p� 0 20 40 60
Medium dense, brown to reddish-brown,
silty fine SAND; moist; layers of clayey silt '_
and trace of gravel; occasional ash; (Fill) 7.0
2=
3= �: .
. . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . .
SM. 10.0 10 ...............�._..��: -. . . ------
4= _
Loose, brown, silty fine SAND; moist; e= : : : : : : : : : : : :
roots; SM. 8= ._s : : : : : : . .
17.5 . . . . . . s . . . . . . . .
Dense to very dense, brown, silty, sandy 7= o
..---...._.._.................. ......_..........................._ _.—....._.................._.
GRAVEL; wet; GM. 8= ,c 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . .
Medium dense, grayish-brown to dark = o : : : : : : : :
kbrown,, clean to slightly silty fine to 27.0 9 : : : . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .ediu SAND; wet; trace of gravel andt; SM. . . . . . . . . .
Very dense, gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL;
wet; GM. i : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
12= 40 .....:.....:.....:.._.. .:............._..........__._._...._ r ._..._.! . .:. . ._�.5....
42.5 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dense to very dense, gray, slightly silty to . . • .
, fine to medium SAND; wet; trace of
:�: : : : : : : :
silty, 13 ;
coarse sand; scattered shells; SM. i _.. :. :
50 ..._........__.......................—_......,....�.....— ..._ ._,.
..... ...... ..
14 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
53.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dense to very dense, gray, silty to clean, 15— �: : : : : . : . . . . . . : : : : : :53/67
sandy GRAVEL; wet; GM/GW.
16= 60 ......................f............................_............_.................:.—_..._:._:....:... _
n= : : 85
. . _.. i. :.:. :. :. :.
18= 70 ....... ..
...... ..................................
....................... ...............................64._
is=
20= 80 ..................... ._._._....................................._.................................__................
...50/5
21=
90 ............. .....:—.:.._.._..j............_..._............:_..._._.....:.....i............_...._._ . . . .
22 S 5276"
23=
tot.5
2a= 100 ---.--.... ......_.._..._..1..__.........._........_......_._............j...................................fi.8
BOTTOM OF BORING
COMPLETED 6/24/97
LEGEND 0 20 40 60
Sample Not Recovered Surface Seal 0 % Water Content
= 2"O.D.Split Spoon Sample ® Annular Sealant Plastic Limit 1--0 Liquid Limit
ZL 3" O.D. ShelbyTube Sample Natural Water Content
p � Piezometer Screen
® Grout
E Water Level Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
i_ Low Water Level Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
Renton, Washington
NOTES
1.The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between
Soil types,and the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B-4
2.The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper
understanding of the nature of subsurface materials.
3.Water level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary. �UIy 1997 W-7867-01
4.Refer to KEY for explanation of"Symbols"and definitions. SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
5.USC letter symbol based on visual classification. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG- A-5
MASTERLG 10/14/97
SOIL DESCRIPTION U_ -aa -0 i Standard Penetration Resistance
t a :' r (140 lb. weight, 30" drop)
STA.: 50+27 OFFSET: 14 Ft. Right a i m o cu Q A Blows per foot
Surface Elevation: Approx. 18.00 Ft. CD 0 p
fn N a) 0 20 40 60
Dense, brown, silty fine SAND; moist to
dry; (Fill) SM. 1= . . . . . . . .
5.0
_
Loose, brown to reddish-brown, silty fine 2
SAND; moist; silt seams and pockets;
3'= . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iron-oxide stains; trace of gravel; SM. 12.0 4= 10 ...................... _._._._........._........._.....
Medium dense, mottled brown and gray, _
slightly gravelly, slightly silty to silty s . . . . . . . . .
SAND and silty, sandy GRAVEL; wet; GM. 19.5 7=
= 20 ................................................................. ......._......................._. ._
Medium dense, dark gray, slightly silty 9 : : : : . . . . . . .
23.0 l
fine SAND; wet; trace of medium sand, o 0 : .
SM/SP. 9= . . . . . . . . .
Dense, gray, slightly silty, sand GRAVEL;
9 Y 9 Y Y Y o 10= 30 ..................--.....�. __._..._........... ;........-..._........_.:.._:.....:..............
wet; GW. . . . . . . : : : : . . ' : : '
38.0 . . . . . . .
Medium dense, gray, gravelly SAND; wet;
41.5 °°°° 12= 40 ............_—__.............__.�...._......:....:... ....._...._.....---...W..:.........................._.._...._.....
trace of silt; SW. : : : : : :
BOTTOM OF BORING
COMPLETED 6/23/97
. . ; . . . . . . . .
50 —... —..................._............................................._.._...i...__..._...._.............._...........
.
60 . . . . . . i . . . . ..........................
. ; .
70 ...............................--................__
..................—............. _ ... ----------—...
80 —.____..__.._.._.:..._.__.............._.__.._.........__....j..................................................__....
90 ........................_.............. ...........---........--- .? .........._._...................
._
. . . . . . . : : . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . j . . . . .
LEGEND 0 20 40 60
• % Water Content
Sample Not Recovered Surface Seal
= 2" O.D. Split Spoon Sample ® Annular Sealant Plastic Limit a�--� Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
ZL 3" O.D. Shelby Tube Sample Piezometer Screen
® Grout
SZ Water Level Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
3E Low Water Level Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
Renton, Washington
NOTES
1.The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between
soil types, and the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING B-5
2.The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper
understanding of the nature of subsurface materials.
3.Water level, if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary. �UIy 1997 W-7867-01
4. Refer to KEY for explanation of"Symbols"and definitions. SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
5.USC letter symbol based on visual classification. Geotecnncal and Environmental Consultants FIG- A-s
m
x
0
z
w
a
a
a
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
z
APPENDIX B
PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATIONS
Note: Subsurface Profiles Reproduced from "Geotechnical Predesign
Report, Oakesdale Avenue Extension, Renton, Washington,"
prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants in 1995.
W-7867-01
4 IN I
3
fill
I,!,t.............
r
----------
>
r f
f 1 0
Q.
f
rri
/*
+
Cn.
-T-
0
- ----- -------------
J Wip—
iE
4— a5�__
P:
2 49 a, B., 33(M
P
- 4,
3+,00 C— -1
ER)
Qv,
—-------------------—BEGIN BRIDGE (PIE a
4.
0,13+00
t4N I
END BRIDGE
0
TI
ON
0
?
-------------
__
'FIE!
9
0
jj
H-11
LEGEND
Approximate location of boring
performed by Woodward-Clyde Iv
Consultants
Approximate location of boring An4_R-nA nwr
performed by others
0 50 100 200 Feet Prot Number
Approximate location of cone 944048NA 7- Figure
penetration test performed by Oakesdale Roadway Alignment Plan Al
others Scale: 1" 100' AUL 2
Woodward-Clyde Consultants 4W
SOURCE: BASE MAP BY INCA
ENGINEERS. INC. 1995
DATUM: NASDA. 1929
------......
•
oCi
.......... J
Yj ------
C9
I� art
r
'D
'A
--—---------- ----------
...........
-------—-------------
--------------/ ----—---------
tc?
> i jk, Q
-------------------------------- ITU
C) i '
----------------
y!�, te• A 1': �' j ra I y, i D
ifl� it Z P 0
rn /'I
'17 4,
...........
A"
nz
jE
R
ILI ......
Of*.
Si
-Z,
—----- -----
r N.
------------- --------
, . .....
C_
18+90, .2-
A A-i
no
CPT-6
1-Yi, T-5
CPT-8
Al _77
WC-4
..' 'o BR21i V,,
M,
%
f
Mi
4'M 4 .V#1E hN4 F� "Z/
Zr_
k
'It
N
r
%
if
>/
r!
c,
TED L
.7--------—--.........
1AJ
LEGEND
Approximate location of boring
performed by Woodward-Clyde Iv
Consultants
Approximate
roximate location of boring
69 performed by others DA048-09 nwr
Project Number Oakesdale
Approximate location of cone 0 50 100 200 Feet A Oakesdale Roadway Alignirment Plan A2 Figure
penetration test performed by "M 944048N
others Scale: V 100, A" (Page 1 of 2) 3
fiE
C�
B
ZF�
I rC
SOURCE: BASE MAP Y INCA Woodward-Clyde Consultants MW
ENGINEERS. INC. 1995
DATUM: NASDA 1929
TJ
(
_-IY f 1`, •I �� I "� `�� i Y V /•rr_• �c`, ^ r.i :i �, i\. i ^'i f` r' !,�'i A'' tit I Ij
#_.—J �� ''{�, rN• ,} I `f I \1���, F!___-_•.--r./'` �q'• /r .',^ r. rJJJ i( i r• A .�;;:i r'%I '15, 1 I t tF.
' ; ' r, ';t 1 \� I ti`•.• ,i ') ;� '� t ' \I r i, i i•� % ` r lil t
Il- '•.�� 1, —._. i ; ''1 / 1 r• r Jl•.i I n / J r r , '-'ni
i 1 1 II, ! 4 '.. 1 � �,i� I. - t �/� ``� I •`'r I /J�t i i .r ' :'r''X. rrcr r j.''L%^ t
T ` :� t it 1 I � ':;\ •\ �'', rr., [ �'.�- i�r ; '•� rl � �% /,•' ,f :�t �"'�< j,
�{ 'w—1 1 � 1 t l r � ') ,I ',`'I r ., '11 I }•, 7 rJ f /�. I�\. �� 1 tl' '.1 �'; /' {,' J, \`�tir�i/i:$r/f<': %
t ,F.'> .1 r •i i 1" ir'r•'I � l i � � ,'r ?� t `. i � ��iJi.• i 1 � .'c r � (,,�
e
1 I
i 1 I � ,J t � � i. I C) r1 11 r i •'\ rr i � .r � _._ r``+'-__-_-_ - f � 1 r f •!,;•,''�'�J r
1 { i � 1 O� ., r�. i 1 c �: 1 1 -� U '',{'' '�i__.__.f�J' I �� I i lr/! i I,•r ';;,, _ :�_,1?• _____
--
%.• t11 1i�i/ '_' r\ I ++�� ., '\ `f•I '-j�, .f Ir l.Sr�HL�.I[! ,t '` �.1, i' I I ? i- !r !r r� ;r r�/ri r r r %/�,•'P f�l�\�� (r(:�'
�i. v ti_.,,/ � I .l } 1 i'. I r �.• 1 .? ? r'J ,J r r' 'nr' r r % I / `�>''�1
r.
•- ---•-..__.__.k ,.) �o' i .r .J CO•rr I '`� �+' i n j I I i) I i �.' / i ���'»._T-___w.
I c ..1
�� 1!tr�-•-
i
..ter
- _
-_•______-i:� - II \ r � � �t � I !'�1 ,r I'I %ter, J( itit
/�t1
_._�_, .____ �/ .____�, _-•_ � � / li Irirt
i t 1 r• I � 1
C.r,;r:. __-________,.,_ _ ,_ _ _ ___»________—__,____'____.__—_ _.t_._—_____.____,— t �/r t �� ,•i 1 It II� j r t I I tit:jylt
r:rrC. I c 1tc,1 f. c,ta:.l / I to• I �,J' ( '. 1 �t r ?1 II I I P 44U j I i Ef 1
• O '� .! .ice _.r r.. 1r ': 1 :Y ..] �' i ) J. ? rfii �� !:k w•� ? 1 � 1 'j
_ .,�
D ..ter = 1� r`, .I I '�/% ,.�..r � j' ! t..\ •-_•____. '.r_';•f-1•••-•--•I•� �� II� I �l,llt il t�;,•,'..�_5�I` ( 'r
t
J '� ''t ! f I i J 1! �. a.; , �' t I ,,l t t 11 1\1, ,p ;; 4'�tS• ill�, l ii„mot:.l
o �'-
ti I f i
r11-Z ___-•_ \�.
(� t i 1�/ ? i r ,1 i i 1 I/ ^ 't `ti •. \ �t. .,,t: + i
/ t 1 '� i r .•J1 =1i::,��' �.( 1 \'� \ •.•..\, :;?,^•.r li 1 ')t.�. 1
7 � i `�••\ t i f� �'J i r i � • '� .t ` >':}, i`:\�
" I K, I ii p , •,'ti�c.s � ;', i.
1 / l U_9 ? —.— Jli % i / /y�� \ I It \W�`•;' '',4 ': ,\•. 1`�•., \�i
�N 1 r- \ ) ri ❑ frlC✓ �r �1J�� r{_. �,it i \� �ti� 4µ: � `�l LZ
cr it I ` L._.- ..c t__._-__ _ -. 1� '''i 0.'i:. 5 •� �' �`�':�a"ti.,,,� ` �^' .
./J ^6`� ���• , ( 1 rr i// L'l.:=.1__"-- r t',r t -t/'..!'»• ;,.ti\•`\�� Wit. t``� ` t.
........�.•�---! �-_ / `�:' _�.. .. S if ( -----72-�..:-�....s:.w. w.e l I1�. ";�tiJ.�•: ` ti.�`t ;� '��>rx.- '.3'S"+�
-Lk_L�-t}-.')s1.4 - 'v C+-Gti. < ;w__t2 v .— -(t«fi t�_ft :z �-:� ' j I
--t - -- _»_ _ —._ -�f ��•�_��� �J I rl t�1� t� J .\ � !�';w U{tt.\ rii
____ _ »-,,,�» r'^V'—"'- _ -'______. ,.., .._•___,_.-_.._ �.t; -"`_• 41 r"�``�f t l:.;f *: t �..� �-" sa� Y�i ��. 'Ir C.7J / I t i 1
- -�-'ae--wirer :.. ., `-_- _ ��_.__ s .__. �:.:-...•�•_-_"__'ice':?="_ :-'tic,,.�'�--_ _,.�-.:==:::t�_._.s__.. —.........- ..._ ... _ '-.'...�`_ .a.._�"..�` -
CPT-8 _�---~� _ v -- _---_ -__. -��.r_ �yf-r_� fly;i \�- - r.'M1'•f. ::ti" i `R":` hr jt�
_..�..�_�--1 i'_'._.--•-••••- _.-..____.-._____._._..-_iti._., `,- -•^��� \'? �`� �t � �' 3. r�// .�. %%r'o-�,(f Y'r�� � »•_. •• ..,�` -+,.,_-_ ..cam..
NIK
_ {. CPT 11
' / / �„�_ � _ _ ��'_'_'__.^``-""' _`"i __.»._•-__a�yaa�idtit7llFkt'Y� � � i \ �/ � / 1 ,� / n v/ \\ (\\
! �'!/ .I`_'"'_"__-_,_ w_--•"''� "�•, ,_.-�'--���__�`"`��- =.::A�'�� `?n `mow�``'f:'`\ � "���1%J t' /r Y' � R !' � r(r f •~� i r' '��.v:,~f;.p\...
."-- ._...-•^'_.—t5_,_»__.._• '��,—_.__'._-_-`.._••'_•,.r' ..�\ ~�.1 ���`�`�'`,Y`r5 ��'��,\�,�� ,�a �}�; r/�?Itf? �!^ff y R�, f'.t:�citiy/ llo
Nlt %� � I', i.r !�y (� r/ •!•2'` ro`Q� r`r,'�.�'`T•� \�:�C'��'�
;'/ .ram' \ mat' \ �': ` •''t 1`s f !/ J / .__` J� � I ? I t .� J� r:'%+ •>:., ,.
.� t 1 i ii J •"�'e` r �'' /• // i /'.j I 1 /.' J,��j' /. / i ,•�.\i:�. � f'�
r i' t rr /+''� r '•` tl t It [ {\•J ! .r'� -^� ri f �l ���� % Ij,J•J+r r i 1 't
'' 1y1 �I r !1J• �J�r/ •/:'i•i%- i� 1 � J'' is i;�� t ��.,, `. �
t i+[(4 k_..`�c./_L�_1__<.r.��/ . '!t i j ? (t t� i (,J ,;;� � ( �•• ) 'ti �� �
I 1 13—1 0 `r' ,/', _� , '�� Ji/ !1 it r , j-'.(I i! i / rr i r �.t I ':i i, ri/ f r !'- --. to J:���) \r.
t ,I 1r 'r '�.it. tr i I '� ? 11.?` :! .:i.•'/.
LEGEND
Approximate location of boring *I
performed by Woodward-Clyde IV
Consultants
Approximate location of boring _
performed by others
Project Number Oakeadale
Approximate location of cone 0 50 100 200 Feet 944048NA OakeSdale Roadway Alignment Plan A2 Figure
penetration test performed by (Page 2 Of 2) 4
others Scale: V = 100' A" g
Woodward-Clyde Consultants�
SOURCE: BASE-MAP BY"INCA
ENGINEERS, INC- 1995
DATUM: NASDA 1929
l ' / //i�i / r' i!f - •a4;- _•!_ +, tl1"1 ,�; 11 ' •
r •
AvI
Pi
a '� i i ' /jr`/1 f !�• ii' i:f}lrrr ! ���� .F'' i .t „� - 21 .c .�`_ `.<` t'fi' _ tx+-.....G� •
1 l,:f l t /,:ri`ty�;Y ; rr;1�; �' )•� .._:..J`' ?i
r ! i ', !' �,: �'triY i:•r:'1ilff t 1 f !s{
I �' r rS'�:r i• i,rr/ rr / r •'� -_-csF• t!-! •:_!� .!� a( { {' 'i:'f i; �� �.�✓'
f I / rl• r /. d { =::��?33i. :' _ rr }. F _-r ; - ;•; ?•; f J 1i' i
! I '� F F `f /r.Ml/r ry�i1) 1 ' ;� i r ,i' , r _ram.._.-••-• i• f is ` <
'.;5._.»._. _ cv
I j rr? I 1 I! f /t/qtl::/ ;�t,�,�.�., ,t � ;'r 1 .1. �=�- -';�•��•�::;::-.......W:�•--• ..._» -t'::-'--_-�-:= �, �, 1•I � t
i - f ( 1� I t�w' /'P..---•� 5>. , ..•...� ,•t _ :. i t•. I
Al y 1 ( r: r / 1 .�• _ - --�}(���•+"-�'• - '� ` ;� r i
:•rr 1 ( 1 i I �, r .-^ il7v^,. � tg._»_._......._• •�r h ��� � { 4, % /��'
L.I '*iV ( 1 i, / iZ2FSi
1 1. I i / r
_t'.11! J ..m� I I ) _ (, 1 D' �' ..»» II ........ -•' !r !` r �-,1" �t
.,.ram x t ,r- { ( , '�'`�...W i:h.,. •yJ. s ...._. , ».vtt2....,,,.,.,,.,.. '•=Fu_::•2::`:
t t Ilri :i --r"! •_- - �i. :a ,. ��:: 3 €�'i;::•---
� ....... ». ,..tiC lKt__._ �c'• i' F , I ¢
(+ tt � i'�i�i •�,._ �►S iSi t ��� ( �" � s:'f.'ct:l.;(-.
�,•; .,' ..� ,,S,}�:.Y_�ii"iiL. ' .y'•. f.,+..._._..>«...«....�«,,., 1-./, _ .+�.«.,....«..«,.,, s.««...«.«i. i� •a b ' } ti
_ •� � t i 1,.„� `?,,, ,� _. 1=j .�___- __ ^�5 • I s, �Cr' ,) 1 �M
jl n YI 1 \'.>;a ;+t +y.; �' i;t,..l t-' �•
-r (( �' ,1�t'�"t \� 1 \ ,•�..Via; ` t+,,i,lw
y� i ` +•�, \,. ,:ti, ,�• i tt , 7
l •, sa, ,•`\•, .`.t,��� \` `i`t:rtF^,�� i �(• ! i�n �n..._:�' ':li_ .'.�y_.._1...�. __}tis.______-_ ?' !(.•''J /,/j f .+{`.L.� 1, I: F _^
•f (I `� �,,6 �' '�'�`.'a•.�`•'� tL''i�::it �;'"r,�''w' \ �:a,r'.Yi,� Fes• s. .1{1 �17.1:.t '� ,s. .{a. .,r,''� i t� �tr'.f' �� .t''�,
� ( Sr' •,,, ,'.,.-:_���: L..�',t,�, :i 1: •�,;� /I � �.•_ �-i�'S., �r '/{';',;r-=i""�r�ir.• K- I ��,. -t-. 1 S\
p•a
`7 } l 1( - _lMk,_--� -- •a„«..,......« _ ?;}., 'i777iTS :r - j I ( i �� n l+ _.-
'C i \\ �• f� •� \'2:- , r `�!' 'ir r 1-IJA
— I• -- L•: - 7•l' ` } --j ..a I: ). ' '` �•"..._�•
�Z'-' .\ `f �``:`'`! arc t�l_ r ` r 1^ '^_ -: :ti _ dt�� l � i \.✓
I +' I - 7• - ,�1 ^�^ :,=�.:�� �:. �„ ,� (� '1 '•.F t»_,it:_t'f.'r.Ft...._..G'..Y.._ _._..._:tt_t,_t_•......__...._,..i. ....9.;X".�'a.�.:C i•• -_..c'� ir
::ss�_ __^- _ v r
t '1�• rl '1 ,,•j•1• ,��J �' ,9�•, ,,f" .i j;_.�.r.r_ L+"'�aC.l ::•�.'•...'_��'�•;__.-......._ •v�?:r_z• •s..=:'V. '_��:.^'• Tf J' --•• •' t f
+ l/ ( ,l _ _✓ ! •�ti L,\ H ! r.�•�`�`,t +, .r..... _ ,T:,�..�..«jtiK.,,.... .T..:--_ - ."• +. tt a...i re.w:+: r t.a..- •"'C;
�c. •\;\.�. ,:j p '(C"('i t� •� t t , `� I ,(� .Y-:� ,r ..� _ _.____.- ' � �K_.:_....___r
7 '�"'... ;, `:s _ '� I , '' tx m:morr_-,___ ::tit::::::_:_.____ =. ::.:-�a-».:_ ^ - . —= f - ;�::p; ~•sr: ,rrCL
fit,
`'. l �` '• � `'�`� ' 1 t 'j'` �'i \ .•- _"' 1R7>xi4._.. - ._. "'=::.�: 1m+[i.::_= .'- .wiMGl::':•_...::::��+ ' �,.1' •!i -1
3•`..tt` _-='•i .S• wit t _ /I 7 l ', i \'•:'1,` !"'E " : it j� t f i= __4t ..• _ _ :E� .. F hl� C C�K 4ly' try
_... .�`,w•- t+,`;('�ti:f., '_�'•'�... .. / 11 •-•}•'` .a ` � �« ��-_i- --,e-•:i:i'..c^..t:t•l,'---� __,_.-,•:,•;T 'err"""_"'^::•�•. y_F._ -:...s t.�.. `e: ' `/±'•.E.NR..J
_._.J `�:—..tom .y..._�,1 �a-✓•�._. __ •''r..• ::'"-i,J,.. � � -" —_�. �Yt��; �
:'.'.}i:liM Tom,:.��.. _ ... �,t\� ._^\.r__•• 1 r" '„nr s •`--
"_-`Y., '" __. •.•_•_%I•-_•—_••`` �� � •'7"_,•' •fir-, ..._yf•,__••_1.�."7"' '� >�� � � `'�'-�....-. �_7»-�.�::_-r.-�-�:��„—__v„grt....•ar_3c•__ w� ...^:...'—•:, �
� •'G•^�,:..•.---....... _ _ �=__•� � ��--±--�T- t4J j�7'jY.'y��r a.:+:+s_r � �'\'�"c -'(�,r ity^'y""�r�'w"f•"-�•`a,•:'-= ---nrr_+`I�t _,^r"�����._x-'��,��'"y�'= , ..ii:.�T K �J Z f �
V.
'�tx'•!_ ".' \
p x, �`t'fr'` ,. �.. ( —' ���,;^� ` /'����1�.,�`. ;•�'c��X� ��'�l',' �_.-=�•`T,,�� l_••y,-yF� ��;yM��-�• .� t � �
I N�., \ •„• �'� It t,.�� ��~�\•`. ,\�� >.rC` -""1� �/"� � > � ~) {
r ! i f J , //t p f••r•'i�`mr t��.'`,i;,t.\�•.`�'�-� i j _H I 1�y \�,�tii .y`•li'�' •��. ..-�,�.+ Q"-•'� - } `y^t �l 1' 1
`ti l 1 � fi,%if/ ,ti�.�y� •\ �.`�\\� •.�`•` ! .�: /!! r �! r r''�^` o�.?,�� �5 �'` `\..�...-•^.�"-,_r_��,•.,"� i%" ._,� •N � � � �r �' r' `� •� `Tlt � �
_ f////�� f� J// �, � .,�• \.\. j\ �j f//1 ' �. �j y.: , �l�t i� �-- !_/�' i ,r;� ��� f t Y a '
�NI`r,/'fI"Ply r :�::=.�r^:" I"/ / \ �_''7 '�%•. �I t �/ + \ x a�+ `; ! 7'
r F 1
i , /�! ( !�( ;:`4�\ \`,�;1:\ M_ � ' /i'' %: ��=• '" END BRIDGE
co z
J r r \ j , r'•_`� ---fir �i' r 1 ''��^'`.r" �`)i � '��----_._- :�
..- i�
�'�• ; !{ /
( �. � iii1,f .r '!!�13 ��'I''. ,� -jl�j( 1 (fi•��`~ ��1`• r,` �///�f J�'����'�.% � •!i'7'O7".t7t7/' I
1 t {l;i (./ il't ii.l Mt �t'"l `ti\�a``�\'�•1 ,. � ./' f !/i' ,� r �'� +� /,'+/ ,t ( i•'I
(�� ( �t i 1t• t iliti�ti,t!t,i,�,tl 3 �'`; ;�,•� '+� _}'�;_--'--�''!%r'' � /'ffr f��� 'il ! r
� Bwc-8 � r , I
F 1 ti l titrt,1 �{%./ �•:>�-- .% %
.t,� i �ti•.t;ii� t '' ,. (PIEZOMETER) flj i
. I
is i t
LEGEND
Approximate location of boring
performed by Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
65 Approximate location of boring
performed by others A - w
Approximate location of cone 0 50 100 200 Feet Pro}act Number Oakesdale
penetration test performed by 944048NA
Oakesdale Roadway g Figure
others Scale: 1" : 100 v y Alignment Plan A3
Woodward-Clyde Consultants �' 5
SOURCE: BASE MAP BY INCA
ENGINEERS. INC. 1995
DATUM: NASDA 1929
B-33 (M) BH-1 CPT-2
CPT-3 B-23 (M)
BWC-1 (Projected 30' E) (Projected 55' E) (Projected 55' E) (Projected 55' E) (Projected 35'E) BWC-2 BH-4
20 — — — Q� 69 60' E)fed 20
60/4 SM (FILL) _ (3) ML (FILL)
(3) SZ SM (FILL)
SZ — 7
ML �(5) ML 7 CL 2 -
4 ?- - - - - - -?- - - - - -? SM
IM
s ?- - - - - -
0 23SP zl — — —? ?— — — SM/ML 5 ML 0
n - -?- - - - -? P/IIf
7 8 ML SM ?- - ? 5 ?- -?
19
36
sP (7) SW 35 m _L � sP tsm
21 SP—SM 21
RJSH CL 14 —20
?— — —? ?— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —? ?- - - -- - - - - - - - - ?- - - - - - - ?- - - - - - -� ?- - -?
3 7
9 SM 5 W
W SM c2sf W
W
PUSH (8) (8) 5 SM/ �
zp —40 7 SP—SM 21 sP—sM —40 0
• Q 27 10 Lil
L j SP SOIL TYPES _ LEGEND 24 w
(1) Wood shavings (FILL) Approximate location of boring 27
—60 (2) SILT (FILL) 3o Staniard Penetration Test (SPT) 22
(3) Silty SAND (FILL) with N-Value at depth indicated -
(4) SAND (FILL) Is0, 3.25" O.D. ring samples with 20
(5) SILT/Clayey SILT blow count for final 1' 33
(6) Silty SANG
57 Measured groundwater level in
(7) Black SAND piezometer (if installed) or at
(8) Grey SAND time of drilling (if not installed)
$p ? ? Assumed geologic contact for —�
stratigraphy between explorations
(for graphical purposes only)
— —Proposed ground surface for
constructed roadway
Currrent ground surface
—100 1 -100
Approximate location of boring Vertical Scale: 1" = 20'
performed by others
Horizontal Scale: 1" - 100'
Approximate location of cone
penetration test performed by Note: This generalized soil profile was compiled from available
others subsurface information in the vicinity. It is interpretive in nature; actual
soil conditions between borings may vary fiFom those shown.
2+50 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 14+50
STATION (feet)
A 4 — 1
Project NumberF Oakesdate
944048NA Oakesdale Subsurfac,a Profile Al Figure
v 9
Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1W
B-151M)
BWC-3 IProjected 30' EI CPT-5 BWC-4 B-11(M) CPT-6
20 (Projected 10' W) (Projected 0') ■ (Projected 30' WI 0' W BWC-5 pro ee(Projected 20' W)
■ � IProjected 40' W) (Projected 90' W) �t 20
sM (FILLGa —
13) SM IFI )
?I
ML (FILL) a 3) ?— —?12
SM 1 _ Q g? M? SM s ML IFILL?! CL
�I MUSM - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - 5 Q 4 PUSH
?_ -- - - ?— _ _ CL
0 SPa �� -- — _ _- —' 3 '— —PUSH MH —. _o SP-SM 0
SP s 10 SP 10 9
8
(7� 25 (7) 34 SP 27
158) SP-SM SP
37 SP 38 34
-20 - - - - - - -?— - - - - - - -?- - - - - - - -? 25 ?_ — .- - - - 38
SM. — 7- - - - - - -?- - - - - - - - -' - - -? -20
19 '26
(8) 139117
SM IS) SM SM
t`
W
_ SM SP-SM LL
40 z
-40 0
SP—SM Q
J
SOIL TYPES LEGEND SP SP w
J
111 Wood shavings (FILL) Approximate location of boring W
(2) SILT (FILL)-60 3o Standard Penetration Test {SPT)
(3) Silty SAND (FILL) with N-Value at depth indicated SP-SM -60
sm (4) SAND (FILL) 130) 3.25" O.D. ring samples with
(5) SILT/Clayey SILT blow count for final 1'
(6) Silty SAND SM
17) Black SAND � Measured groundwater level in
piezometer (if installed) or at
SP (8) Grey SAND time of drilling (if not installed)
-80
? ? Assumed geologic contact for SP -80
stratigraphy between explorations
(for graphical purposes only)
— —Proposed ground surface for
constructed roadway
100 Currrent ground surface
Approximate location of boring Vertical Scale: 1" = 20' -100
performed by others
Horizontal Scale: 1" = 100'
Approximate location of cone
penetration test performed by Note: This generalized soil profile was compiled from available
others subsurface information in the vicinity. It is interpretive in nature; actual
soil conditions between borings may vary from those shown.
14+50 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 2'3+00 27+00 28+00 29+00
STATION (feet)
A048-02.DWG
Project Number Oakesdale
944048NA Oakesdale Subsurface Profile A2 (Page 1 of 2) Figure
10
Woodward-Clyde Consultants�
CPT-8 B-11 B-10 BH-9 BWC-6 B-9 CPT-10 B-8 B-17 (M) CPT-11
(Projected 45' W) (Projected 410' E) (Projected 190' W) (Projected 60' W) (Projected 440' E)�(Projected 125' E) (Projected 60' W) (Projected 195' E) (Projected 40' W) (Projected 60' W)
20 F 61 I • 20
JJJ ML IF-ILLI ML
WIL
��77
161 e (FILL?) ?— s (131 SM �lel (FILL?)
V (21 ML 12) ML 3 SM/ML ,L 2 (2) 16) Q ML
57
(6) SM/ML (6) (2) P H (9) SM(4) SM/SP-SM (6) (a)
�- - -�
- -? - -� ? - - - - -? 6 ?_ - - SM
?
0 (8) ?- - - - - (18) 14 19) —? ?- - - -? 01) ?—? ?- - - - -? ?- - - - - - -
(29) SP-SM SP-SM SP
1201 to 9 114
1 SM (s)
(25) (7) 1341 SP3C It41
18 SP SP/SP-SM (7)
1211 S P
(31) SP 1361 16 (18)
1291 (9)
-20 ?- - -?(21) ? - - - - - - - ? - - - - - -? ? - - -?,s ?- - - - - - - - - - - - -? —� - - - - - - - - - - - - - -?
(14) 116) (35) SP-SM— — — -- — -20
(21) t8 SP-S
(30) 1251 (8) 1351
w (29) SP-SM (81 (291 SP 25 (35) SM SP-SW/
w (25) SP w
LL (44) w
(46) 142)
ZO -40 (19) (22) (32) SW SP-SM/SM -40 z
O
t—
SW/GW
Q 451
1331 a
w (40) SW (421 SOIL TYPES LEGEND �
w
(671 (1) Wood shavings (FILL) Approximate location of boring
-60 (28) SP 121 SILT (FILL) 30 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
depth indicated -60
with N-Value at de
(3) Silty SAND (FILL) P
(4) SAND (FILL) 130) 3.25" O.D. ring samples with
(5) SILT/Clayey SILT _ blow count for final 1'
(6) Silty SAND
- S_ Measured groundwater level in
(7) Black SAND piezometer (if installed) or at
(8) Grey SAND time of drilling (if not installed) `
80 ?--? Assumed geologic contact for -80
stratigraphy between explorations
(for graphical purposes only)
— —Proposed ground surface for
constructed roadway
---100 Currrent ground surface
Approximate location of boring -100
performed by others Vertical Scale: 1" = 20'
Horizontal Scale: 1" = 100'
Approximate location of cone
penetration test performed by Note: This generalized soil pro-ile was compiled from available
others subsurface information in the vicinity. It is interpretive in nature; actual
soil conditions between borings may vary from those shown.
29+00 30+00 3H-00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 4140 42+00 43+00
STATOR (feet)
A —
Project Number Oakesdale
944048NA Oakesdale Subsurface Profiki A2 (Page 2 of 2) Figure
Woodward-Clyde Consultants W 11
CPT-14 B-3
BH-12 BWC-7 8-18 (M) CPT-13 (Projected 185' E) BWC $ (Projected 250' E)
20
(Projected 10' E) (Projected 10' W) (Projected 140' E) (Projected 160' E) BH-15
—_ (4) � (Projected 160' E)
s M (FILL) (2) ML (1 1LL ML ?— —?a MC- — _? 'z� 20
17 ?- - - - - -? 2 ?- -
1z — 15) 2 7
SM 2 SM SM Q (6) 5 SM ML 2 SM
q ML SP 13)
ML 7
0 11 CL ?- - - -?- - - ?3 Mk - - -? — _ o ?— — — — — — — — — — — — —
? ?- -?9 0- -� IaJ SM
28 19 15
r SM (7) 20 SP (24) SP 0
SM (7) SP-SM ?— —? ?_ _?40
28 —? ? — —38 117)
4 - - -? ? — — —? ?- - - - — SW 28 SW
? — — — —. 16 SP/ 117)16
-20• 26 SP-SM SP (8) (25)
(8) SP (,a)3z GW/SW
(47)
25 36 1331 -20
~ SM
w
27 35
w ISP
� (19) �
2 SM z SM u
0 -40 u
~Q SP -40 C
>
w
w SOIL TYPES LEGEND u
(1) Wood shavings IFILL) Approximate location of boring u
-60 (2) SILT (FILL) 3o Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
(3) Silty SAND (FILL) with N-Value at depth indicated -60
(4) SAND (FILL) (30) 3.25" O.D. ring samples with
(5) SILT/Clayey SILT blow count for final 1'
(6) Silty SAND
(7) Black SAND Measured groundwater level in
piez-)meter (if installed) or at
(8) Grey SAND time of drilling (if not installed)
-80
? ? Assumed geologic contact for -80
stra'igraphy between explorations
(for graphical purposes only)
— —Proposed ground surface for
constructed roadway
-100 Currrent ground surface
61 Approximate location of boring -100
performed by others Vertical Scale: 1" = 20'
Approximate location of cone Horizontal Scale: 1" _ 100'
penetration test performed by Note: This generalized soil profile was compiled from available
others subsurface information in the vicinity. It is Interpretive in nature; actual
_ soil conditions between borings may vary from those shown.
43+00 44+00 45+00 46+00 47+00 48+00 49+00 50+00 51+00 52+00 53+00 54+00
STATION (feet)
A 4 — 4 W
Project Number Oakesdale
944048NA E Figure
Oakesdale Subsurface Profile A3
_ Woodward-Clyde Consultants 12
U
X
8
Z
W
a
a
a
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
W-7867-01
SHANNON&WILSON,INC.
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
C.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
C.2 VISUAL CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
C.3 WATER CONTENT DETERMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
CA ATTERBERG LIMITS DETERMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2
C.5 GRAIN-SIZE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
C-1 Plasticity Chart, Borings B-1, B-2, and B-3
C-2 Grain-Size Distribution, Boring B-1
C-3 Grain-Size Distribution, Boring B-2
C-4 Grain-Size Distribution, Boring B-3
C-5 Grain-Size Distribution, Boring B-4
C-6 Grain-Size Distribution, Boring B-5
W-7867-01
C-i
SHANNON&WILSON,INC.
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
C.1 INTRODUCTION
This appendix contains descriptions of the procedures and results of laboratory tests
performed on soil samples obtained from the borings drilled for this study along the
proposed Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension-Phase 1 alignment. The samples were tested to
determine the basic index properties and the static strength characteristics of the foundation
soils.
The laboratory testing was performed at the Shannon & Wilson, Inc. laboratory in Seattle,
Washington.
C.2 VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
All of the soil samples recovered from the borings were visually reclassified in our
laboratory using a system based on ASTM Designation D 2487, Standard Test Method for
Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes and ASTM Designation D 2488, Standard
Recommended Practice for Description of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). This visual
classification method allows for convenient and consistent comparison of soils from
widespread geographic areas.
The individual sample classifications have been incorporated into the boring logs presented
in Appendix A.
C.3 WATER CONTENT DETERMINATION
The natural water content of all soil samples recovered from the field explorations was
determined in general accordance with ASTM Designation D 2216, Standard Method of
Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil, Rock, and Soil-Aggregate
Mixtures. Comparison of natural water content of a soil with its index properties can be
useful in characterizing soil unit weight, consistency, compressibility, and strength.
W-7867-01
C-1
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
Water contents are plotted on the boring logs presented in Appendix A.
C.4 ATTERBERG LIMITS DETERMINATION
The Atterberg Limits were determined on selected samples of fine-grained soil obtained in
the field explorations in general accordance with ASTM Designation D 4318, Standard Test
Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. The Atterberg Limits
include Liquid Limit (LL), Plastic Limit (PL), and Plasticity Index (PI=LL-PL). They are
generally used to assist in classification of soils, to indicate soil consistency (when compared
with natural water content), and to provide correlation to soil properties, including
compressibility and strength.
The results of the Atterberg Limits determination are shown on the boring logs and are
shown graphically on the plasticity chart presented as Figure C-1. A tabulated summary of
LL, PL, and PI values, along with sample description, natural water content, and percentage
of fines passing the No. 200 sieve, is also included on the plasticity chart figure.
C.5 GRAIN-SIZE ANALYSIS
Grain-size analyses were performed on selected samples of granular soil in general accor-
dance with ASTM Designation D 422, Standard Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils.
Three general procedures to determine the grain-size distribution of a soil include sieve
analysis, hydrometer analysis, and combined analysis. For this project, grain-size
distribution tests consisted of sieve analyses only.
Grain-size distribution is used to assist in classifying soils and evaluating their liquefaction
potential, and to provide correlation with soil properties, including permeability and
capillarity. Results of the grain-size analyses are plotted on grain-size distribution curves
presented in Figures C-2 through C-6. Along with each grain-size distribution is a tabulated
summary containing the sample description, percentage of fines passing the No. 200 sieve,
and natural water content.
W-7867-01
C-2
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1990, Annual book of ASTM
standards: Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone; Geosynthetics: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
v. 04.08.
Casagrande, A., 1936, The determination of the pre-consolidation load and its practical
significance: International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
1st, Harvard University, Proceedings, v. 3, p. 60-64.
Casagrande, A., and Fadum, R.E., 1940, Notes on soil testing for engineering purposes:
Soil Mechanics Series, Harvard University Graduate School of Engineering, no. 8,
January.
10-17-97/Appendix.B/W7867-lkd/lkd
W-7867-01
C-3
NcopLsTY 8n/97
70
- - — C L — __ __ CH -
-- -- - - -_ - - _ �•__I_I_. _, �� LEGEND
so
- - - CL: Low plasticity inorganic
- -- - - — --- - --"" clays; sandy and silty clays
60
: High plasticity inorganic
o ._._.....-....____. _._ ..._..._.._._._ _ .- _ -_ ._ .__ ._._._._ _.._...._....__ .. _ -- -- clays
FL 40 I I _- ML or OL: Inorganic and organic silts
w -.._..__ ._. __ _....._. _- _ _ .... I._.. _ -�--_. _.._---..l-..I_.._._.._.___..._._.._.._. and clayey silts of low
.._- plasticity
Z
MH or OR Inorganic and organic silts
cJ 30 clayey silts It o f
►- __......_.._ .._ _... .. __.___ .._i_ _._. �.Lw._ I ... ._.__._.__ __.l_..._...._.........._..._ _ g
plasticity
Y
CL
_._............I......_..._...... ._ _...-....__._....__ _._. I ____. _. _._ ._ .__.._. _ CL-ML: Silty clays and clayey silts
20
_...._...._ .� !.._......._ _._.._.._._.._ �..__....._....._.. --i- -
i
.............
—
CL=MLA` MC _...
......... ..__... ._...._._.__...__._._...._ _I;..I.^:__ ._......... ....._._..._��..._.
MH . rO. ____ -Ij
0
0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 6o 80 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT- LL(°hl
BORING AND NAT. PASS.
SAMPLE NO. DEPTH,FT. U.S.C. CLASSIFICATION LL,% PL,% PI, % W.C. % #200, % Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
• B-1, S-1 2.5 ML Gray,slightly sandy, clayey SILT. 40 30 10 38.5 Renton, Washington
■ B-2, S-2 5.0 ML Gray-brown,slightly sandy,clayey SILT. 45 31 14 40.5 PLASTICITY CHART
A B-3, S-2 5.0 ML Brown,sandy, clayey SILT. 40 26 14 29.5
Borings B-1 , B-2, and B-3
W-7867-01
n SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG.
t
�..1 Geotechnical and Environmental Coneultente
NCDGRAIN 9/7/97
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIZE OF MESH OPENING IN INCHES NUMBER OF MESH OPENINGS PER INCH,U.S.STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
} p p p p
r V m N m O O O O 0 8 O O O 8
N V m
100 I _ 0
so _l—� — i! — --- 10
-1_,.so __
z
70
W
_.....
._.......
--------- —
I .._..•' (�_�__ _._....
cc
Z 50 I I _ , 0 Q
._......_..._.... _..___— __ _ O
L{r
Z
Uj
}
cc T
U 40 —1_ _! t 1 -
it
LLJ
a ...... —. __._ _
LU
30 0
I
_ ......
..
20
80
10 I I ! —^ ---- 0
O O 8 W O a N O m m V �•1 N r m O •t N N O O O O O O S S S S S S
c� GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
FINES: SILT OR CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BORING AND % NAT. LL PL PI Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
SAMPLE NO. DEPTH,FT. U.S.C. CLASSIFICATION FINES W.C.%
Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
• B-1, S-4 10.0 ML Dark gray, sandy SILT; scattered organics. 56.7 38.2 Renton, Washington
■ B-1, S-12 40.0 SM Gray,silty SAND;trace of gravel. 14.9 27.2 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
T Boring B-1
W-7867-01
n
SHANNON &WILSON, INC. r
N Gaotachnical and Envionmental Cor ftanta FIG.• C-2
NCOGRAIN 8/7f97
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIZE OF MESH OPENING IN INCHES NUMBER OF MESH OPENINGS PER INCH,U.S.STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
7t T �'! 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 , ,a 0 8 8 8 8
100 0
90 . 10
......................................... ................................... .............
so 20
..........
70 30 m
14 63
............... --—-----
LLJ
60 40
C13
1 4
_4
03 EEE Et__ ............
—----- ............. Uj
cc V)
LU .............
60 50
U_
0
.............. L)
----------
z ------ ..I ...........
Uj z
U 40 60 LLI
cc .......... L)
LLJ ............ .._,._... .._._. ....._..................._....._.__....I... X
.............—- Uj
t (L
30
............... 70
20 so
...............................
................. ......
_mL
10
........... .................................
0 100
0 0 (0 40 V C-) C4 0
N 0 0
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE FINES: SILT OR CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BORING AND % NAT.
SAMPLE NO. DEPTH,FT. U.S.C. CLASSIFICATION FINES W.C. % LL PL pf Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
* B-2,S-5 12.5 Sm Gray-brown,silty SAND. 33.1 28.4 Renton, Washington
* B-2,S-1 4 50.0 GW-GM Gray,slightly silty,sandy GRAVEL. 5.9 10.3 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
-n Boring B-2
W-7867-01
SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
FIG.Geotechnical sm!Envionme tal Coneuftants I
NCDGRAIN en197
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIZE OF MESH OPENING IN INCHES NUMBER OF MESH OPENINGS PER INCH,U.S.STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
N p
.- a co N O O O O O 8 S m v O N $ S g S S S
O V Pl N - 8 1n �'! -- V N O to N O O O O O
100
0
. ....._....._..._..._...---C -- ---.-. ___._ _ t_.._._._i:_ - - .
90
10
-............
..._........... ...._.....__..._...._......_......__._..._.i._..i - -----------
.__......._...-..........._......__..__...._....- _ :#::::_..._:::::::.-::::_:::=::::--1:1 =
s0 • -_— —� _____I p
�� - ._._.f..._....._.._....._ - f_-_ .. ---- --_- _-=--
i............
I._... ....__._ .............
_...._..._..._._..._._._._. _._... __. .. _
70
__.. .............
,.._.._......_I.._. ....._.................__......_i...__..__._...--- , ;'—--,._.. _.__.I _. 1................;............;........._......._........_..................i..... ,... -
1. �--___.._._.._._ _. ._..._ _.....
—.—�-- --�_.__ _!.__... .._... ...._...........__.......__...--- --...,...._.__..._.. ..__. ..............._1....._.j..._.....1........_._........__..._.._.._.._....!_.,._}..._ �._ __.._..._..'..
w I I {.. I --.._.._.._.._._1 �..-- - I..._..}_... ..
--- -}- —I_.... .._.._... ..._._.__ ._......_... ...._.__.. _ ,__.....- --- I_......_..._ E ..._......._.... 1...I...i._:_._.......t_..._ .._._ _..._ _....__....._._..
4..
60 1
t - _.�_._._ _
40
— -- _ ---1-...._ �..--I .. _......:........._.._.................._....._....._._.......,._ ._......_......_..._..__....._.-..._._....�..--...... _.
F 1_ t i I.._:......a.... ....:.. _...r......_.._...._....__.{...I.. �... i _....
-i-- f__.._.... ........__..............__......._...__._._._.-..._......._:....._._..--� --- - - - . 1_._ m
i._._..............._....._......_....._ I 1 _.._....._...._._......_..;...._.._........_....E.......__..}_.__...__...---�...i._.,.. r I I !. .......... w
__— } _..
u, I r_.. _.cc
... _ 1--- — -w--- _..._._ - _ cn
cc
- _. _ — - ---.}._..._..... ; ...._..._._.........._.... o
_ __ I—..._.__.
.T...._......._. 1-._-_.___..._.._...__ ___
:..._j....._.I_._.._f__......_.. _. v
Z -- -_ — - - - -- —- i_......_......---._ i t.__....__..
_.... ._...... _..__ 1.---. {- _. _ .... ...... .. L---'-— F-
_...
---- ---1 __.1._._....:...._.....-' --._4.._.._....1_._..-1......_._.......1.__............_..... ..........._......:...._.......-........_........_.._._._........._...._._._.._.._......_............_.i..._...._.__.._.................1...._....._..1......_...._......._.....................__..__. _.._ _..._._..__._..
i }............1_......__I_._{.. U
w —. -- --__. _...__..._.... __._..I.............._....._....................._... .._....._..............._._...__.._.. _.—... .._.__..__. - -.. _ l....._�._.. cc
_...
30
70
i
_. _.__._. - --.. ----------__..._..___...- . .... _.__ _ .. - - —.__.--....
20 so
- - -
-- I- - . . - - - _.- --- - F
—. .-— — —_.. - - - - - - - -- -.. _._.._}__.._._..__..-.__.. ...... {---......_i....._.................._1_........_..__..•.' -*--.. 1-._._.....__...
41
10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �`......._..._...._. so
N
m to cqi N o m fo v n N m ao V e� N co0 0 0 R 0 $ g 6 g g g
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
COBBLES FINES: SILT OR CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BORING AND DEPTH,FT. U.S.C. CLASSIFICATION FINES W.C.
SAMPLE NO. % LL PL PI Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
• B-3,S-4 11.3 ML Brown,sandy SILT. 57.7 33.9 Renton, Washington
■ B-3,S-7 17.5 SP-SM Dark brown,slightly silty SAND. 10.3 30.9 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
A B-3,S-1 1 35.0 GP Dark gray, sandy GRAVEL. 3.4 9.1
-n O B-3,S-18 70.0 GW-GM Gray,slightly silty,sandy GRAVEL. 5.5 10.5 Boring B-3
W-7867-01
C) SHANNONE&rWILSON, IINC. FIG. C-4
NCOGRAIN 811/97
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIZE OF MESH OPENING IN INCHES NUMBER OF MESH OPENINGS PER INCH,U.S.STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
co W It M
0 0 0 8 8 8 8 N 8
-4 M to Cl
100 0
............. L
..........
............. .......... ......
F1
90 10
............
.................
...................
................. j:'::
..........................
................
80 if
20
..........
.............. .........
t .........
70 1-_�- _ 30 X:
................................................... ................. 0
-4—
........................ ....................... --------- ...... Uj
............. -------
LLJ
...................................
I
..................
_4 - .......................... ......... . ......... ...........I ............... . ............. ...........
Ujj
— .. - .. ... ... .........
50
60
LL. ........ ...... ....
0
.......................-4.-_�:::j
.......... .....................I............. U
z ........................
F ...... 1:4_
LLI
40 60 z
........... ........................ .......... ..... L)
W ...... ..........
................... ................
.......... ........ ...........................
70
30 .............
............... ...........�
............................
_-d _4..............
.................... ................................
20
80
-4- ......... ................
............ .............
....................*
90
10 ....... ......................................
................ ............. L------
0 L' L 100
0 0 0 0 0 W .4 M C-4 co W m 00 Q0 C4
Go 4D -1 c') C-4 C! C!
C4 8 8 8 8 8
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE FINES: SILT OR CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BORING AND % NAT.
SAMPLE NO. DEPTH,FT. U.S.C. CLASSIFICATION FINES W.C.% LL PL PI Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
* B-4,S-3 7.5 Sm Brown, silty SAND. 13.9 20.4 Renton, Washington
* B-4, S-7 17.5 SP-SM Brown,slightly silty SAND;trace of gravel. 11.2 24.1 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
* B-4,S-8 20.0 SP Dark brown SAND;trace of silt and gravel. 4.9 22.5
-n Boring B-4
G) W-7867-01
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
FIG. C-5 G�twhnical and Envionmental Comultente
NCDGRAIN 817197
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIZE OF MESH OPENING IN INCHES NUMBER OF MESH OPENINGS PER INCH,U.S.STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
N
v co e= m a 8 8 0 0 0 o g 0 g 0 0
N a m ^ '4 '
1DD �..._.._.__.. _
i
1
10
90
_._.
._._......__............._............... .............._........_....G..-- —........._..— ...._....__... __..._..1..__....__....__...._....._._..._.....__ ....a..... -
---_ -- - - --�--- - - -..._..._._..._... _ _ __.........., ----- --- f=_-: : - - ...._ -- - -- ----
!
..... .............._.._—---,--- — _._...__.. f..:
_
so 20
30
W _•. .__- i_—._.. ._....... .. _ :.._.....j_................._.{...__.....__._.,_.t...4-, ..__..f...__..._.._t..:.._..:_.1.--..........: 3
........_....-.
3 !— ....t......__....'_ __�
so __...__._.. ..._._.__......_._._._._......_....._._..._....__......__...__.._._.__...._..... . -- _... _....__....._ __ __r_ ....._ i_.—•-- -- ao m
_±___ __ _► _ _._r — ....�._..---- . __ —__I ..—_.....� —_....._.....— — :__ _;:_ ___ !,_a ,___. ; �__ _Y_ CC
w
_ _ i _ —
1
Q
t , so
Z LU
60
—}
LU
!__ _
LLJ
LU
30 70
_. ..._....__. . ....._................._..._...._..._.._. .... --..... ..... .....1......._
....
_ �.
20 ..._...........____________ __ _ _.._._ BG
90
10
. ......................__............_....
0 _ $ y _100
m NN m t1 N 8 S O O O S O O O O S
m N
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
FINES: SILT OR CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
BORING AND % NAT. LL PL PI Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension
SAMPLE No. DEPTH,FT. U.S.C. CLASSIFICATION FINES W.C.%
Phase 1 - S.W. 27th St. to S.W. 16th St.
• B-5,S-4 10.0 SM Brown, silty SAND;trace of gravel. 12.2 18.8 Renton, Washington
■ B-5,S-7 17.5 SW-SM Brown, slightly gravelly,slightly silty SAND. 7.7 16.7 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
♦ B-5,S-12 40.0 SP Gray,gravelly SAND;trace of silt. 2.0 17.3
-n Boring B-5
W-7867-01
n SHANNON &WILSON, INC-
Geote hnicel end Envwonmentel Co ttente FIG. C-6
a
X
0
Z
W
a
a
a
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
APPENDIX D
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
W-7867-01
W-7867-01
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Attachment to Report Page 1 of 2
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Dated: November 7, 1997
To: _ Kato & Warren. Inc.
Attn: Mr. Barry S. Knight
Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report
CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS.
Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be
adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your
report expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its
intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that
originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS.
A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project-
specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size
and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations
imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to
the date of the report may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be
used: (1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a
parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or
near the site); (2) when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orienta-
tion of the proposed project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site.
Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors which were considered
in the development of the report have changed.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.
Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental
report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a
report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before
construction starts; for example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may
also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant
should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.
MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS.
Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The
data were extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions
The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates Actual conditions in areas
not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your
consultant can work together to help reduce their impacts Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction opera-
tions can be particularly beneficial in this respect.
Page 2 of 2
A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY.
The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that condi-
tions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface
conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and
to provide conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to
determine whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is
abiding by applicable recommendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for
the adequacy of the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION.
Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretation of a geotechnical/envir-
onmental report. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other project design professionals
to explain relevant geotechnical, geological, hydrogeological, and environmental findings, and to review the adequacy of their
plans and specifications relative to these issues.
BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT.
Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test
results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final boring logs and data are customarily
included in geotechnical/environmental reports. These final logs should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion
in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.
To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to the
complete geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or authorised for their use. If access is provided only to the
report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the
specific persons for whom the report was prepared, and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific
purposes for which it was prepared. While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party,
the contractor should discuss the report with your consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to
obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that
simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability.
Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes
that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY.
Because geotechnical/environmental 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 consultants To help prevent
this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports and other documents These
responsibility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant's liabilities to other parties; rather, they are
definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recog-
nize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your
report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your
questions
The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the
ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland
1/97