HomeMy WebLinkAbout03253 - Technical Information Report - Geotechnical � 5*' n�..:;; ,i��. -yr� .•y �` ^�'�q.� �,� ;��i`��� �,r��'! j� ���1�'�y,,yr��`� y �D ���" ' "�,� � .i o-k�t�R:�. ��;a,a�"",�,i�`_
rj . .� r/. '�+ .Y: �:.'���'t ;r•��, a��..�� k.rF��'�y�,♦ !li. �� .ki �T��.A�X F e �� d ix,Y``�� �Sd�.i'.�i� y
,�f►, {G�:s r'-,y � ;S t �.F''}..,`�.' �'�% {;6 s°'��.,�.�,,.r���, �a�,v .{ a � .,i ,�' �f . 'r�w �' � �',�,yr""i;
, ,; ,; l�
. .1.�'t°_�'�qC�'.1. 1', ..S;�,W.. g�'r; m;t,: �+ac `;.!..*r {_ 1.�!..!,�'. � r y'.T'"; N ^,!�!�rq„ •i �:r5.. � A ,��'! k^sf:� ��C w�"- -�41%`
.,r�.���,i.aw��IJ`.,"Y�'.., �,� �n"�_ ,.'A!r}� �2- '}. : .�"" t� '.`t�,,,,:5 t,�ti`ar,. .�`,�.: :,�!', I e� '.i �, �w•. ��k" ...�r., � *`� e'.
s
.
�� �� .� x !�s � .�
�..&' �n.a h l� , .- , . ,.;, rS �«� " �*'.+.'i�'° ± ':-^�*f.� � i,y+ ,nrr� <i � �, �.� � rr,", � ..s'
� i� �t ��', � ,�. � ��„ ��.�� �-` Y r �J �' ;u"�:yt .n. ,y ��' r�, ��, t y iW. P a t a a.,r' „�
':.1;34.,��I {'i� :a;: �'�,.� �� M�q S,��.,,��: „t .r, .,��- +e�+`r�'r ,,:{ ,rr., fi
�j'� � , 4 k�. �.�.J��' y.,.�� .L,a 1+.,.'f�, t� �3`�: ::°i-..s�. `':s�: '.r.,� �..f� ,....+c' /,''r� �
. , ;.,,,. �ay t�; j
i ;. . a �'e*_ �.
�^f!i��..',�» �'� :�� 5a " k�.-.. �3�� ' � �'��,�.%,• ...� d ,....,,1< •'�,��;.}y' - r�"�:k. ��+�, �i :.�i. �+�w: �y�;f ':� E, y,� �..,y.yr,,.: �"�
, �t
n {.'�.�..�y4 Y. _ 14 ��1 :.b �x .�-,� �¢r �'µ��t�..iy.,,f, y. �,5`"r. l�� �.F �:�',. „�y�.� r��l .�4p� A' ¢,h _�_�
N ,'J rN,�. �/� ����" d'r' 'k 3'S' k.
f, :`4t°.` �'t c f�' ,��' .,.�F�� �.i �..., S�'� i�',. 'u��yc.P: .� ��.�, t y�f. �';��� .. :r� �,r.`' �.- r e y+ww'+ ,�+n."r.':.`9"�:,�.
'�k� .� s.� �.4� a� .{',y{�. -�� `.Pgy., Iy �� � ��"ir r � � ;rv' ,rh��-.M.��r.'�� Tt ''�t ,�: ¢,y1 ;� �
.��."w� ��� 4+�,?, 1 T�i } 1'V�[ (�V' vY8 t�.M'.' i '1..`�� ,�y� .q"� t��`..,`i.' t1'e' r't �,pp��4y i�.
t < ` w�".v. �,.`.'. :�;i. �., �, ` ',�_ r.� .... ��.,... ...b.�+ e� r. �'F^ k � f'W+d ''"t t���. ..,,j+`k . rv•..r,. `J. '' � �i�is4: fi �,y,w=4'M�c�M,..
�� ''I
� 3,. r ��.3 1 h �i.Y �, d� M y+.,�,; ;"�'� .�i � f�. t � ,..A
��. �q: t" s' r.t d'�'u�. r r�1"i..; '4r.�� .,� °�V,q.�y � ,��r ,.a���'y�"{; p.'rY��'�� w�,ra, �.,��� .�'��«�'li! �r"'��a;;'�.,.
.r�. ��'. i;p� ;:. � j , "'�' �k ,� �„� - - ,.f�.
� '� �, - .. � � ; R,� b�,.. a� 7 y .��.._ f., ;'P'�$ �.:.�.. B v �" �{��'Sit#�>.� .. •,.,
� ai � q q.'�r ,� f .f �� �SI'I�F� �h�' � �'��� �.R t t .,� y :Y�M.� ° <� ��x.� �,X'h�".. d a r
'�`� „�4. .i" �%' �Si 1. �L�r�� �•, ��� ,'�.�� �.,��Y� i� _$'6�� � �� ,' :�`�i d�^,������
- i� ,�. ;.i'� �d x. +r a :���p ��X`, �� �,�'?t ^C�..4 ,.p�+y��' ro; � � 3�axS� .:,7§ +7 �,t.,,r,p,.
„
_ �.
e
� �, i�t��. p as�,� ".f�:�_� �^'�� tY. ii. �t .�� �+. .;r�. '��` /� �` .�`i'
t ,''`�' t r''�q�,9r.�,�Cr'a ,y�5 j.,rv � tl k r � ! �¢ ;`."��;.,'�' r , r; ,�, '�)7 r
Y� T �t�fy���a ..yl:.' ��� n�yqt ��f � !," .4 . � i]p; ;�''t- � ��� ",G'1 �'k �rI'.
� ��,� �� �' `4'�. .�,�4�� ��n'.° r :.^ 1L� �j�;�4 ,��1� ��'- r,:3 �'�', - ."'� ,:a.. +�
R . _
�+ h'S., 1�
� ���� �" .�x' E �':Y'�"� .{" ;� �f'.. 'A � '✓�� 1 't a FR��'Y '�n i r�l.'y �. �t��'e
� � r�, t,t,� ,�, , ]�Prb. ,r��`�Ey�? .r .�>.`.�1 F,k.��r�..�P�;
�;X���"� � }� l �;, ,a- �� �� w, '�^ � a. t-�*s
.Mr ��� ,r �.�
x � , ��� , �M� Y, raa � •r'��� '+
. ��
�J T `�a
,y�, ��c�. "r,'-j .�. o, ,iiy�i�z, �� ^�"t$i': ll'^j.��.. e1'� c "� ��A. r,t,,,._ ��:;,, �, fw,'T' � '!"_:�:
�
, y
,.
� n. -,n ,.,"�". `tt w
{.. � ,. ,. � ,,. „I . , ,-
�'� ��r,�f t .�. �. y .... �::r�r, .��{.:�? �..�,£ Z��y....yM�'"�ri,f ��7 q' ��'.. �.�x.; '��JP � `:r ?,i.� :'A°���
� : ,
; ,.� �- , ,
, �
S;
�• }„ t�. i b. _ , �1;�. '� � i . ,��� .f,':� �'S ....� yk-�wd.�.'` ��� �'' ., .�,�i ��7= �.rtrr,-J,, . �""
� r '`�?;;.i�,, �. '. _.•-. ,Y';.y�',t�'- ,.� ,-,J,r ,. `:.'�J��+�n.�,..�:is x� ti "'� f-'" � �x+w��' ''�. s...:b';" t«M:.
�a.. . .,��4 ' . .d?'.«y..�IL�. . � �.;�' ...'n, ''1..:?�r b ..�� �.'�fb`- k�f i [ '1���r' .+�� !��
`�(� Y"*� J'S . .� .. •. t� ;� � F �`1� 4,�.,,�7""�*•,y',f�� ''� � .'r ; � �, a� �' �t r'. '"�.;�.
k.� � $.. i ��. tg� 1y �{�'7 f� '7 ��� ,�v` '4 r t�••� � � t:�- '��'"���:.�� z"r '�' �„�,{�G�7;,�.
(� , '. „'
r w � � .., ' .���� �'. __� �� .;.Yr k �.. 3 �.`: 4 a, q1; a'" r" ��, y w;. �''+���s r;�: S_�� �-"�'
� a� � 7_ ,S d�. �' ,c3,.',. �,i��•., x; r a �,�. 4 y y, � t ��,p.&� �`�eL;;"`�w .�
�� � � t .� ;� f ��. # i- �"� t�i�� ( �.. ''Kv.�
.: : .._� . . y ,; .,�gy
������'.�" � �"��. � F— J� C`.�V �� 't a a r,� n'�"�7���,y�;P% , � �; �.3� .�y.r,' +, r rr.�y'.. 4' .:r b .�+*t'y*"�s,M✓'�"i�'��°.
+�� ,� � � r{� �� '� � N � ��.� " _�n M � �t�' t ��w.+ *` � ywtYu�
� �� � 5 +" W �.. �a��k3` �P'. 5`x't ��' i �k�n ! > .^L �,'� '=f c'�. � �.
����. ry d . ���y� w � � � .,k k� '� �r
� � e:',hf�z� `�� Y• rky��'- � � W LL O �n* r � �� � �'� � �t �, '.��'� �a'� � �'.' vs A �tM" y�+ ���M � ?:{'�r�,?i�+
�„, My� � � r— a,�+�d�. �4�,r r� � t Q ��t � ""�` ��`q �+q
.
'_t� I.l. � /A � �� � ,W � � . f ���`� i r. ¢' � 4 �' 4" � f ..�d'1� � ��S �L:'fi
�,Al:"r� F j i, '- f vi w W � ."C Z '.;a� y t " :?'� �;z i7;.�� j't ,� ,.,���°,k, �p �... "z, y�. �,nr�� ..•:, �,s ., ��. �.-��:�w �- r .: i�.m r "�;�^•.4'�;
I t� +��x.��� _ V Z � `.r � � ��"t 1; .s '.+s '"'�r.� � .fti"�tR+'�"1" �y, t '"yy, �fi s',� '�.'�;' . � rc��
� T'"' T� ` Z Q � _ �V-- # , $� r �,, }�-,. y y s .. °� ti�- '� 'w :.t '2 '�.X 1 �. '�s`
�. �� —1 r; .x
ni.� � a � f-�� �;,. �� .< k,� t � �. �, � t� ��� ;��� ,,; � ����
�*. �� �,�,. W � o � ��� ��;� �`� :�'�� " ;�,�1I �: .a; ���,� � `�� ,��< �� � ,�a,�E ��s�+'T��. � ,��� '
Npr e � � W W W � � ��kr:. �I ,�yy�, "� �tl y� Y � 1 � K+t'a.�i4
+ . .T ;c a M� J '�` �. "'' ��.` .. ,� '.C' � �� .
5 at {�•:'� � m � O = � ..�f�'tl � �"�t�; �. � �� 1 '°s r t i.� +° �.���j.�'�Y -�..
���,�}� :� k �1�1 � W LL' � N ` �t'Y Y�v� � `���' �i y `' 7� ;;'�a � � �`:�,,, q�yi�' �' �,
���w3'� � n'��. .� V a l-- } a1.- tr.. M h �w� ��� Y a;Kr `k,.. `�`��v�y �� M ��pA�i
'T� o�..1 Z Q D � r .:'��r . . . �nL� b 9 t t '4K h;.;kt5��'�G,`�;"°' n:V•
���., �,�,�' , � w i�, � � ��� �.If R 4 Y Np ,y�. �,� t�,,.:".
• �.
_ e
. � : . ;
.
r+';.�,` , R �,;, W J N � r— r::, xr� � , '1� � ' a `� �. "; �'��..a,� `° . .'�.y e;
; , , ' _
• 7.
. ,
y1, '
� y 7y� � Q � � �.... � ��'e�� i , '�y,��. �„' .u��yy���n
�{ L ' k� , ' � � . � ; ; � x �+
k�M' �y +�t
'('J� \ 1 ,fi' � , t�` .. �y('.
� '�1 �� �'� v1���,, Q � a W Z t ; 'I ',?� � j � p C��' J. 1�f ��°-�,�� ���S µ-ir
l,�� � �p�"� �� �'°.y�� 'o /� � _ �, �+� d � t'. � �k t �<'� �^�'S a�"'h*'.,ra3+i ,:�a �*� c, rl+,
�. l�^II��f ��'q V 0 z � O �� �d,• � s � �1 �i.: r� «� a _ k�s,°;� '� i u,v -,t t"r«���,,.,d4�� z ��"'��`'di�
� - '�t� +�,r�'�., O Q �' �..� �� "�6' � � i� � i � r r ,, :. ; ,:1a"�`�'�" -<��:.
�e,�ps r� ;M1 i� r•�.7�' Z � Z C.,. �� l � . �, ' a � h � '� � ���..h� �.
�` r" � O W t . 1 � v � }4 I 9S` 1 �� � A' �r�
1
4 {�
.1�,� � � �r�.if'��, (,� � � Z � �� ��,. ..,�'�^1 a�,� y � d� X'^` ° .�. " � '�' j + ��to- a.�� ���r.��. � ��t
Mt < E. / �
r x � f P[' �h�i'r_: Lt�L� W � VI� 's�+ 1� ,, ,T 'k'fw� 'b� ;°�.i' �� w � .' k eF F e x e''4.", � y�i
� t r }tk�u",��+�� f� O �: �'�°� i � '��- �� +;:' �y�,�r , p+`'"'� ...�� f'kL;� ,� t i'� �a � Z i.A w t :,�iF �'�
�*.�� �4� ��.h $ d,"'. O � �. .�� �� � 't� ` rw+� �i t, t # ' ,y A`,��.
�
� �'
rn y1:..` -t�i ��' '."l�i9'`{`.�� ry � � ri� �K r;�{`'ja�, ;" � x �,+,
�� � � r4� ° t�. v � . � z�k`�� � 7 '�p � Y �'� t�}�, t ' � �: � � Y�,, r}ro �n�
i
'�,�� i y � �� i i �; ���r :4� r�K�``� 3��y- '.� 4t 1 t ,��i '� ,� . ��� ��f� ..
r �.+"" .J C +p� .��m�N� e+ _i dy,R,Sn �..,,y r ., i� l� � y .
� +, �� �4�4 f,-"�T.,�'. �rt+`/ x i�'�' Sn }y�'i F� t�., 'rr, r �` ;i x+� . t T4��` a,.R�. t�a ; '�`+:'� ��`�
r ° ' + �r ''�'.y� 1 I'. r t r ti,4 � y i , aa � � q; , ��
;y .)9� ..�y < � �I '�'',. M �,4V�);.�.: �"$�, � A . �1n '1 �:�"�r, �'��"` 4 C •�[U1�. �
'd ,.,i Eff% �rtFa�P`N t �`" r+�. � P�te,^tl�' � ,e r�'S::�s\ �' :ti d �w f kkf t �.i�� �{ � �f� ��lw w,.:�
, � � �
v� .
� ',� `,.� t�. � . e � .� •�<a � * n� 1,'� ,, k fi:r'�� �t� �s*2 ;�' g a � �%'s �,,r ,+��*�.. .�,'" �> M
k, � ,.y�. i� ' .�Y��` k�� .Jt a���� s) -, ✓ �° ^.. a t a r,'° � � '�`a'�' � .�:.
. . $�.... y.',� . .+ �. .. � "k$d�. i.-. � �'_� zl h�. � �o �( T M '+`
� :
, �'n� .7 .. na't.. .'+ k s �_� �. �.. ..�, p R'p�7" d�.;+,1 f ,L.d4Y�JY�: '.�i� � 3. S ,y....;��,f� i:' "` ,_k YYk:
:
F mr � +'y�8 Y
P' ! A�
�T�t 2 `�� A ,Y ' .Y4� 4 y� ri��csK R 4,iy� ,7t �. i-r �:C
. , +� ,
- r.
. .
t S .t� ;
-�y,�: ttyyi r x :��S�.c� k .i; t ..�s { '',�.�`�?�l. P` � •n r "+�,kY�z .S�,Xt�� y :�r �Y'�A k,:v�.q ",'4 , w�-.
...p. � r ,r � a�;F-��..n� `, , ,�. �,
,ai ,r.�•,�1' �t'" Y' '.,o k�'.A. � Y.,:. F r�``rr� °. Y t. ?r, 4, '� �Y ''�rSA'c 7��i+'�Y'' �y `.w` y,vr' x A4"':Y�. �d �k�:"`�.
* , i��' u. Y �',, a.: .�,„ '�-1�,xw,. -.'., "4 dv +a✓ `��i�� i ;� ,�� '�"+ ��� •v,rx4�,.� s, ,�,a
x�.� � ' y. ��: � �a �+ ��r �'`t ^ +�;� �1
� . ,.
` , ���'�' ,.,.. ,� � ���' ti"' ' � r, :�s.:. w d R'. vr�r��. .t �, ��d �Wy "� r ':t�i ^`�.gv`..r�':`�'�`''�?,�.`�, �
,:Y. lel�.�.. fj � �q�.;.ry. .�{
a` .{' � :�`..h '�Yt-^ �} R�"�W�� .J� r{.l I` _±;R ��". . �,�iyi."k'�~ '� I h�'�.�h'W��; ��'h,�',�,�'L 1 �;""_,
�..
, ° .. ,- .. . .�- .
�..I .���i .: l�y#�"� :��'PH r �'rc,� ' 4 �-� tt�+,kY�.. '�,,.�. �.t�'�' �•'�St r� ,3•� s
,. �
a•� �'-�y''y^ ,{ y �" ���� a ��' � S il•, .. �. t � '� ` _
�'.'a�. �>r,iy•��a r. �`+ '�� 'S ,'.� �:d.:: hF "+ .�L a. Y�� �" Y�,� ��t .�.;�r-�'"^����f Y�;�:�4' 'a,..
''�; k�.�,a ;,�{��^. ;�•��{'�.. �' '�i; �"�y . y� �r� � us ;c �"9 i`..i� v$���i.i�v 'a�^y,�d`�, ,.;r KA.3.
�y�"', .r . :�' �;! '`�a A .� :,' ' ,` w B�'; , r. �;: Sp�s 4. t ,��`^y t.a 1
p7�,� ,Mt k y� .,� , �,., y� {y;,,� � ,� '�, ,��I•, �. � e;� �.
�y��'rF. '�'. tf b•• c'�' d~� D.. jj":� e r� . �w,i �' e i,l`i q;� .� � ��s 5'�". i.�t.1
a' ��' y .� �� p :�w t i. h� ..w��� i ���,�' , :�j� ��'x`v-. `d..., n� ...� d .w:r r
►�w ,,, ��,�r "4�{ r; ,r,r����� „�� A N: $ y;� "k� .,�.�,� �s�uM,, 1 � �.y.3 � i�. "^`
,.,
�,:
, � .
� s'Y+;' x.Fla'a " ' i , "'x „�4� '� , �;' f �� �.� .'�'� k"� x,
y: r� ,�;� „��i;�� }6 :& i. � �,��a .� �+�, �;, � ..,��M �".if ""�I°y�' YSy,�. � s�� .:�.. ��
r � 'q y���.,,{�.'� Y +� '�,. .f, '�,�� ` t sµ � w r:�a k �+�'= �
°;� Y {�, s�,''4 t Aa�� $�I¢,�,.3.�:. �' '�. °',� G� � iG"..1,+ y�M� r��a _ Z ro1u� `,,.: ..4. .p� �,.'.�'- Yn yz�, r �f `��"t'. r ,.
� � 'll. � y . � I �} � y� � h
.f � 1+. l�.� A� pl � ry��. � ��uK 14
� .`;, tit tt.' t k a.;,x� s�4. � �„yt • � b'�, „�.q5 �� �S°'rt`� 4:�:,�`�; � � x}t
I y* r5 ap� r � � '� W rC :�,:, , y. � !s'( \ n t' ,�,;�p ��"�"� lf x s�,� �
�S SS � r:', 4J R7�+ S�'° �''�t1� cp� ,� ��,e .�, �"Z�)m a T ,4� ��- r n`y � "`h :`� ��;. p�.n.
.(' •,�A•, .�,�� ���;� �.y. �s�- �^ � ,�' s �''� t• ,tM'�ti �' ,.+'b�;ti: `� :�.i#+; �"^` ^ ,�"�` g f,4�,. f�;�"`�
:"� 1$`� 1ss; ��4'rw . , ".T�.,'"_"��. ;�ti,t�. . �,F;'Y r :,r .. � �' u`jr�'�' s�¢�*,`�,,s, A
� ��• i. :t �1 :� . . �ti+�; :G�i � r . �n� � . x �! +�i�� .��"���. ; i��
,
.
.-� �����:�� ,�'�* ,. �!, 3 « �,� M
�. � � ,t'b;�.�.ir;� �i ,..�.� . •� � ,� I",� t"_M1�:�..�1.°�.���1.��L1`.,. .�.�-� �+�.? . �� . -...Y' +.,i.k" ,.,.iia.::.,,j;� ..�n�����:k��,.�a�stn � y. ��,.
t
. ..r 'R ��� . ' ' ,anc..�
. �
�•
•
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED AMBER LANE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
5409 NORTHEAST FOURTH STREET
RENTON, WASHINGTON
E-11126
�
April 15 2004
PREPARED FOR
SEA-PORT DOZING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC.
T� -�
��
Steven T. Swenson
Staff Geologist
�`���w��F w I
x� �'�f �,r� �•n
,� :? ~o �f
�:1 �'� p p
� ��� 2
�� ,p�,,33t62 p �`�►
�s ���
F�.YP�FS dZ-03-D S �!�s/�y
Kristina M. Weller, P.E.
Project Manager
Earth Consultants, Inc.
1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201
Bellevue, Washington 98005
1425) 643-3780
Toll Free 1-888-739-6670
` ` IMPORTANT INFORMATION
�.
. ABOUT YOUR
` GEOTECHN�CAL ENGINEERING REPORT
More construction probfems are caused by site subsur- technical engineers who then render an opinion about
face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as overall subsurface conditions, their likely reaction to
subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent proposed construction activity, and appropriate founda-
have been lessened considerably in recent years, due in tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual
large measure to programs and publications of ASFEj conditions may differ from those inferred to exist,
The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how
the Geosciences. qualified,and no subsurface exploration program, no
The foliowing suggestions and observations are offered matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by
to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, earth, rock and time. The actual interface between mate- i
cost-overruns and other costly headaches that can rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report
occur during a construction project. indicates.Actual conditions in areas not sampled may ,I
differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to nrevent tfie ,
unanticinated, but stens can 6e taken to he(n minimize their !
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their
REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET 9Qotechnicaf consultants through the construction stage, to iden-
tify variances,conduct additional tests whic�i may be
OF PROJECT SPECIFIC FACTORS needed,and to recommend solutions to problems
encountered on site.
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur-
face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
set of project-specific factors.These typically include:
the general nature of the structure involved, its size and CAN CHANGE
configuration; the location of the structure on the site
and its orientation; physical concomitants such as Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly-
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities, changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi-
and the level of additional risk which the dient assumed neering report is based on conditions which existed at
by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory, the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions
program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the >E��uld not be based on a geotechnical engineering re�ort whose
geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors adequacy mau��ave heen affected by time. Speak with the geo-
which change subsequent to the date of the report may technical consultant to learn if additional tests are
affect its recommendations. advisable before construction starts.
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and
otherwise, your geotechnica!engineering report shoutd not natural events such as floods,earthquakes or ground-
be used: water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions
•When the nature of the proposed structure is and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical
changed, for example, if an office building will be report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept
erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refriger- apprised of any such events,and should be consulted to
ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- determine if additional tests are necessary.
frigerated one;
•when the size or configuration of the proposed GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE
structure is altered; PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES
•when the location or orientation of the proposed AND PERSONS
structure is modified;
.when there is a change of ownership, or Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet
•for application to an adjacent site. the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre-
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibi�ity for problerns }�arecf for a cansuiti�g civil engineer may not be ade-
which may deve(op if they are not consulted after factors consid- quate for a construction contractor, or even some other
ered in their report's develonment have changed. consulting civil engineec Unless indicated otherwise.
this report was prepared expressly for the client involved
and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use
MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" by any other persons for any purpose, or by the client
ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES for a different purpose, may result in problems. No indi-
vidual other than the client should appl y this report for its
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions intended purnose without�irst conferring with the geotechnical
only at those points where samples are taken,when engineer. No persnn shou(d apply this report for any nurnose
they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- other t�ian that originally contemplated without jirst conJerring
sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- with the geotechnicaf engineec
�
• .
.r
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER(NG der the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming re- . �
REPORT IS SUBJECT TO sponsibility for the accuracy oE subsurface information
MISINTERPRETATION always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing
the best available information to contractors helps pre-
Costly problems can occur when other design profes- vent costly construction problems and the adversarial
sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate
of a geotechnical engineering report. 'Ib help avoid scale.
these problems, the geotechnical engineer should be READ RESPONSIBILITY
retained to work with other appropriate design profes-
sionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to CLAUSES CLOSELY
review the adequacy of their plans and specifications
relative to geotechnical issues. Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively
on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other
design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly
unwarranted daims being lodged against geotechnical
BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE consultants. 'Ib help prevent this problem,geotechnical
engineers have developed model clauses for use in writ-
SEPARATED FROM THE ten transmittals.These are not exculpatory dauses
ENGINEERING REPORT designed to foist geotechnical engineers' liabilities onto
someone else. Rather, they are definitive cla�ses which
Final boring logs are developed by geotechnical engi- identify where geotechnical engineers responsibilities
neers based upon their interpretation of field logs begin and end. Their use helps alt parties involved rec-
(assembled by site personnel)and laboratory evaluation ognize their individual responsibilities and take appro-
of field samples. Only final boring logs customarily are priate action. Some of these definitive dauses are likely
included in geotechnical engineering reports. These logs to appear in your geotechnical engineering report, and
should not under any circumstances be redrawn for indusion in you are encouraged to read them closely.Your geo-
architectural or other design dra�a�ings, because drafters technical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank
may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. answers to your questions.
Although photographic reproduction eliminates this
problem, it does nothing to minimize the possibility of OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO
contractors misinterpreting the logs durin�bid prepara-
tion. When this occurs,delays,disputes and unantici- REDUCE RISK
pated costs are the all-too-frequent result. Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to
To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta- discuss other techniques which can be employed to mit-
tion, give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical igate risk. In addition, ASFE has developed a variety of �
engineering renort prepared or authorized for their use. materials which may be beneficial. Contact ASFE for a ,
Those who do not provide such access may proceed un- complimentary copy of its publications directory. II
Published by '
THE ASSOCIATION
OF ENGINEERING FIRMS
PRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES
8811 Coles�ille Road/Suite G 106i Silver Spring, Maryland 20910/(301) 565-2733
0788/3�d
. .
� ��rrr� Co��lsultants, Inc.
. �,�:. _
, ..,.
c�xttcxluik�ilt:ii�;i�uxr�,(;���k�};i5t5&I����ir�Huixytt��lticiciuis�ti hStcl�)�IS�If'(� 1975
C[)I lSl f l I('IKII l 7(.SI111};&ICI 1()!��'i113()III.S'�xY'l l(Nl S(YV'NYLS
April 9, 2004 E-11126
Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 3015
Renton, Washington 98056
Attention: Mr. Robin Bales
;
Dear Mr. Bales:
Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) is pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical
Engineering Study, Proposed Amber Lane Residential Development, 5409 Northeast
Fourth Street, Renton, Washington". This report presents the results of our field
exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and
scope of our study were outlined in our April 5, 2004 proposal.
In general, our study indicates the site is underlain by native medium dense to dense
silty sand with varying amounts of gravel.
Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the site can be developed generally
as planned. The proposed single-family residences should be supported on
conventional spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent
native soil or on newly placed structural fill used to modify site grades,
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, or if
we can be of further assistance, please call.
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Scott D. Dinkelman, LEG
Associate Principal
STS/SDD/KMW/csm
1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue,WA 98005 :
Bellevue f425)643-3780 FAX(4251 746-0860 Toll Free (888) 739-66'0
� .
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-11126
PAGE
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1
General ....................................................................................................... 1
Scopeof Services ........................................................................................ 1
Project Description ...................................................................................... 2
SITECONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 3
Surface ....................................................................................................... 3
Subsurface .........................................................................................�....... 3
Groundwater........................................................................................�........ 4
LaboratoryTesting ....................................................................................... 5
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 5
General ....................................................................................................... 5
Site Preparation and General Earthwork........................................................... 6
Foundations................................................................................................. 7
Slab-on-Grade Floors..................................................................................... 8
RetainingWalls ........................................................................................... 8 '
Seismic Design Considerations....................................................................... 9
GroundRupture ....................................................................................... 9
Liquefaction ............................................................................................ 10
Ground Motion Response.......................................................................... 10 '
Excavations and Slopes................................................................................. 10
SiteDrainage ............................................................................................... 1 1
Utility Support and Backfill ............................................................................ 12
Pavement Areas ........................................................................................... 13
LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................... 13
AdditionalServices....................................................................................... 14
Earth Consultants, Inc.
• �.
• TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued
E-11126
ILLUSTRATIONS
Plate 1 Vicinity Map
Plate 2 Test Pit Location Plan
Plate 3 Retaining Wall Drainage and Backfill
Plate 4 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
Appendices ,
Appendix A Field Exploration
Plate A 1 Legend
Plates A2 through A5 Test Pit Logs
Appendix B Laboratory Test Results
Plate B1 Grain Size Analyses
Earth Consultants, Inc.
�•
. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED AMBER LANE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
5409 NORTHEAST FOURTH STREET
RENTON, WASHINGTON
E-11126
INTRODUCTION
General
This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by
Earth Consultants, Inc. IECI) for the Proposed Amber Lane Residential Deveiopment,
5409 Northeast Fourth Street, Renton, Washington. The general location of tiie site is
shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1 .
The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site and,
based on the conditions encountered, to develop geotechnical recommendations for the
proposed single-family residence development.
Scope of Services
We performed this study in general accordance with the scope of services outlined in
our April 5, 2004 proposal. On this basis, our study addresses:
• Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions;
• Site preparation, grading, and earthwork procedures, including details of fill
placement and compaction;
� The suitabi�ity of using on-site materials for use as structural fill, and providing
recommendations for imported fill materials;
• Foundation design recommendations, including bearing capacity and lateral
pressures for walls and structures;
• Utility trench excavation and backfill recommendations;
• Seismic design criteria, including an evaluation of potential liquefaction hazard;
� Short-term and long-term groundwater management and erosion control
measures;
Earth Consultants, Inc.
. '.
. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Inc. E-1 1126
April 15, 2004 Page 2
• Potential total and differential settlement magnitudes; and ',
• Temporary slope recommendations. ,
Project Description '
We understand it is planned to develop the approximatety 1 .3-acre, irregularly shaped, i
property with a single-family residence development. Based on preliminary project
information provided by the client, the proposed development will include �,p to five
single-family residence lots, a stormwater detention tract, a wetland tract; and an
arterial roadway extending to Lyons Avenue Northeast. At the time our study was
performed, the site and our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the
Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. �
Based on our experience with similar projects, we anticipate the single-family
residences will be two stories in height and will be of relatively lightly loaded wood-
frame construction with a combination of slab-on-grade and wood joist floors. Wall
loads will likely be on the order of 2 to 3 kips per lineal foot, with column loads of 20
to 30 kips, and slab-on-grade floor loads of 150 pounds per square fo�t (psf).
We estimate cuts and fills of five feet or less will be required to reach construction
subgrade elevations within the site.
The conclusions and recommendations in this study are based on our understanding of
the proposed development, which is in turn based on the project information provided
us. If the above project description is incorrect or the project information changes, we
should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this study and make
modifications, if needed.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Sea-Port Dozing and Development, inc. E-11126
April 15, 2004 Page 3
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The subject site consists of an approximately 1 .3-acre, irregulariy shaped, property that
includes an existing residential lot located at 5409 Northeast Fourth Street, Renton,
Washington. The approximately 1 .i-acre, roughly rectangular, portion of the site to be II
developed lies immediately south of the existing residential lot. The area to be �
developed extends roughly seventy-five (75) feet west, two hundred twenty-ftve (225)
feet east, and one hundred sixty-three (163) feet south of the southwest property ,
corner of the existing residential lot (See Plate 1 , Vicinity Map?. The site is bordered to
the north by Northeast Fourth Street, to the south by an existing residential
development, to the east by single-family residences and Lyons Avenue Northeast, and
to the west Chuck's Donut Shop and an existing single-family residence. The site
contains an existing single-family residence located in the northern portion of the
property and a north-south running drainage located in the western portion of the
property. We understand that the existing residence is to remain.
The site topography is relatively level with a maximum elevation change on the order of
four feet.
The site is primarily vegetated with short grass and scattered growths of blackberries.
The site is also vegetated with sparse, medium to large diameter pouglas fir, maple,
cedar, and cottonwood trees.
Subsurface
Subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by excavating four test pits at the
approximate locations shown on Plate 2, Test Pit Location Plan. The test pits were
excavated to a maximum depth of eleven and one-half (11 .5) feet below existing
grade. Please refer to the Test Pit Logs, Plates A2 through A5, for a more detailed
description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of
the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. The following is a generalized
description of the subsurface conditions encountered.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Inc. E-11126
April 15, 2004 Page 4
At our test pit locations, we encountered a surficial layer of topsoii and grass. The
topsoil and vegetation layer was typically three to six inches thick but ranged up to one
and one-half feet thick as encountered in Test Pit TP-4. The topsoil and vegetation layer
was characterized by its dark brown color, loose consistency, and the presence of
abundant roots and organic debris. The topsoil and vegetation layer is not considered
suitable for support of the proposed foundations. In addition, it is not suitable for use as
structural fill, nor should it be mixed with material to be used as structural fill.
Underlying the topsoil and grass, we encountered medium dense native soil cor�wprised of
silty sand with varying amounts of gravel (Unified Soil Classification SM). � The soil
became dense at two to four feet below existing grade and remained dense to the
maximum depth explored in Test Pits TP-1 through TP-3. In Test Pit TP-4, the dense silty
sand (SM) became medium dense at approximately six feet below existing grade.
Medium dense poorty graded sand with silt (SP-SM1 was encountered from approximately
ten and one-half (10.5) feet below grade to the maximum exploration depth of eleven and
one-half (1 1 .5? feet.
Groundwater
We encountered moderate to heavy groundwater seepage at our test pit locations at
depths ranging from one and one-half �1 .5) to ten and one-half (10.5) feet below existing
grade. The observed seepage is likely indicative of seasonal perched groundwater
collecting along the contact between the overlying medium dense soils and underlying
dense soils encountered at our test pit locations.
If earthwork is conducted during the wet season, it is likely moderate to heavy
groundwater seepage will be encountered. If seepage is encountered, the contractor
should be prepared to address seepage in excavations. Based on observed conditions at
the site, groundwater levels at the site will likely fluctuate, depending on the season,
amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level is
higher and seepage rates are greater in the wetter winter months (typically October
through May).
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Inc. E-11126
April 15, 2004 Page 5
Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples to verify or modify the
field soil classifications and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering
characteristics of the soil encountered. Visual field classifications were supplemented
by grain size analyses on representative soil samples. Moisture content tests were
performed on all samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific
samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual test pit
logs or on a separate data sheet contained in Appendix B. It is important to a�ote that
these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. Our
geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results.
ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others.
In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil
samples for this project will be discarded after a period of fifteen (15) days following
completion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on the results of our study, in our opinion, the proposed single-family residences
should be supported on conventional spread and continuous footing foundation
systems bearing on competent native soil or on newly placed structural fill used to
modify site grades. Slab-on-grade floors should be similarly supported. If loose native
soil is encountered at construction subgrade elevations, it should be compacted in-
place to the requirements of structural fill to a depth of at least twelve 112) inches
below the proposed subgrade elevation.
This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a
manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other
members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for
the exclusive use of Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Inc. and their representatives.
No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report, in its entirety, should be
included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
. .
.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Inc. E-1 1126
April 15, 2004 Page 6
Site Preparation and General Earthwork '
Building, pavement, and areas to receive structural fill should be stripped and cleared of '
surface vegetation, organic matter, and other deleterious material. Based on the
thickness of the topsoil and vegetative layer encountered at our test pit Iocations we
estimate a stripping depth of approximately three to six inches for the majority of the
site with localized areas extending to twelve (12) inches below existing grade.
Stripped materials should not be mixed with materials to be used as structuraL fill. The
stripped materials may be wasted on-site in landscaping or yard areas.
Following the stripping operation, an ECI representative should observe the ground
surface where structural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed. Soil in loose or soft
areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with
structural fill. The optional use of a geotextile fabric placed directly on the overexcavated
surface may help to bridge unstable areas. ECI can provide recommendations for
geotextiles, if necessary.
Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, floor slabs,
pavements, or other load-bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs, footings and
pavements should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in
loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum
dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91
(Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at their optimum moisture
content. The top twelve (12) inches of fill under floor slabs and pavements should be
compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density.
Based on the results of our laboratory tests, the on-site soils, at the time of our
exploration, appear to be at or above their optimum moisture content and may require
moisture conditioning to be suitable for use as structural fill. Laboratory testing
indicates the site soils have between 18 and 33 percent fines passing the No. 200
sieve. Soil with fines in excess of 5 percent will degrade if exposed to excessive
moisture, and compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases
significantly above its optimum level,
Earth Consultants, Inc.
.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Inc. E-1 1126
April 15, 2004 Page 7
During dry weather, any non-organic compactable granular soil with a maximum grain
size of four inches can be used. Fill for use during wet weather should consist of a
well graded granular material having a maximum grain size of four inches and no more
than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction.
A contingency in the earthwork budget should be included for this possibility.
Foundations
Based on the results of our study and provided our recommendations are fol�owed, in
our opinion, the proposed single-family residences should be supported on conventional
spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent native soil or
on newly placed structural fill used to modify site grades.
Exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18)
inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations should be placed at a
minimum depth of twelve (12► inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas,
where interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of eighteen
(18? inches.
With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable soil bearing
capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) psf should be used for competent
native soil, native soil compacted in place to the requirements of structural fill, or for
newly placed structural fill used to modify site grades. Continuous and individual
spread footings should have minimum widths of sixteen (16) and eighteen (18) inches,
respectively. Loading of this magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor-of-
safety in excess of 3.0 against shear failure. For short-term dynamic loading
conditions, a one-third increase in the above allowable bearing capacities can be used.
With structural loading as expected, and provided the above design criteria are ��
followed, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated with differential I,
settlement of about one-half inch. Most of the anticipated settlements should occur '
during construction as dead loads are applied. ��
Earth Consultants, Inc.
,
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Inc. E-11 126
April 15, 2004 Page 8
Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the
supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of
the foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be poured "neat" against the
competent native soils or backfilled with structural fill. For frictional capacity, a
coefficient of 0.35 should be used. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance
should be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of three hundred fifty (350)
pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The lateral resistance value is an allowable value, a factor-
of-safety of 1 .5 has been included. As movement of the foundation element is
required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance should be �weglected
if such movement is not acceptable. �
Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI, prior to placing
forms or rebar, to verify that conditions are as anticipated in this report.
Slab-on-Grade Floors
Slab-on-grade floors should be supported on competent native soil or on structural fill
used to modify site grades. Loose or disturbed subgrade soil must either be
recompacted or replaced with structural fill.
Slabs should be provided with a minimum of four inches of free-draining sand or gravel.
A vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab.
Two inches of damp sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during
construction and to aid in curing of the concrete.
Retaining Walls
If retaining walls are planned for this project, they should be designed to resist the lateral
earth pressures from the retained soils and applicable surcharge loading. Walls that are
designed to yield can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by an
equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pcf. If walls are to be restrained at
the top from free movement, the equivalent fluid weight should be increased to fifty (50)
pcf. These values are based on horizontal backfill conditions. Surcharges due to backfill
slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads or other surcharge loads are
assumed to not act on the wall. If such surcharges are to apply, they should be added to
the above design lateral pressure. The passive pressure, allowable bearing capacity, and
friction coefficient previously provided in the Foundations section are applicable to the
retaining wall design.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
, •
.�
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Inc. E-11126
April 15, 2004 Page 9
To reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressures to build up behind the walls, retaining
walls should be backfilled with a free-draining material extending at least eighteen (18)
inches behind the wall. The remainder of the backfill should consist of structural fill.
The free d�aining backfill should consist of sand and gravel with a fines content of less
than 5 percent, based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. A rigid, schedule 40, perforated
PVC or SDR 35 drain pipe should be placed at the base of the wall and should be
surrounded by a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot with one inch drain rock.
The pipe should be placed with the perforations in the down position. The remainder of
the backfill should consist of structural fill. A typical retaining wall backfil� detail is
provided on Plate 3.
Seismic Design Considerations
The Puget Lowland is classified as a Seismic Zone 3 in the 1997 Uniform Building Code
(UBC1. Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with regularity, however, the majority
of these events are of such low magnitude they are not felt without instruments.
Large earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude earthquake in
the Olympia area and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area and the
2001 , 6.8 magnitude Nisqually earthquake.
There are three potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic
event at this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, and ground motion response.
Ground Rupture
The strongest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events,
ranging in depth from thirty (30) to fifty-five (55) miles. Surface faulting from these
deep events has not been documented to date. Therefore, it is our opinion, that the
risk of ground rupture at this site during a strong motion seismic event is negligible.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
• I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Sea-Port Dozing and Development, inc. E-11126 '
April 15, 2004 Page 10
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of
time during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of
grain-to-grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to
behave as a fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless
with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt); it must be
loose; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient
magnitude and duration of groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may� be large
total and/or differential settlement for structures founded in the liquefying soils.
In our opinion, the potential for widespread liquefaction-induced settlement at this site
is negligible. The absence of a shallow groundwater table and the generally medium
dense to dense condition of the soils is the primary basis for this conclusion.
Ground Motion Response
The 1997 UBC Earthquake regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic
force procedure for design-base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil
conditions, it is our opinion soil profile type Sc, Very Dense Soil or Soft Rock as defined
in Table 16-J should be used to characterize the site soils.
Excavations and Slopes
The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no
circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming
responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility
is not being implied and should not be inferred.
The inclination of temporary slopes is dependent on several variables, including the height
of the cut, the soil type and density, the presence of groundwater seepage, construction '
timing, weather conditions, and surcharge loads from adjacent structures, roads, and
equipment. Because of the many variables involved, the inclination of temporary
excavation slopes should be further evaluated during construction, as the actual soil and '
groundwater conditions become more apparent.
Earth Consultants, Inc. ,
' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Inc. E-11 126
April 15, 2004 Page 1 1
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state
(WISHA), and Federal (OSHA) safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from
our subsurface exploration, the medium dense soils encountered in the upper two to four
feet at our test pit locations would be classified as Type B by OSHA/WISHA. Temporary
cuts greater than four feet in height in Type B soils should be sloped at an inclination of
1 H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical). The underlying dense soils would be classified as Type A by
OSHA/WISHA. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in height in Type A soils should be
sloped at an inclination of 0.75H:1 V. If seepage is encountered in site excavations, the
soil should be considered a Type C soil by OSHA/WISHA. Temporary cuts graater than
four feet in height in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclination of 1 .5H:1 V. �
If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, temporary shoring may be
necessary. ECI should observe temporary excavations during construction to verify the
OSHA Soil Type.
Shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection
for workers in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to
provide shoring design criteria.
Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1 V. Cut slopes
should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated.
Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability,
including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains.
Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation
to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil.
Site Drainage
Moderate to heavy groundwater seepage was encountered at our test pit locations
excavated as part of this study at depths ranging from one and one-half (1 .5) to ten and
one-half (10.5► feet below existing grade. The observed seepage is likely indicative of
seasonal perched groundwater collecting along the contact with the underlying dense
soils encountered at our test pit locations.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
• GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Inc. E-11126
April 15, 2004 Page 12
Based on the conditions observed during our subsurface exploration, perched
groundwater seepage will likely be encountered in excavations if the grading is conducted
during the wet season. If grading is conducted during the dry season, the potential and
magnitude of seepage should decrease. If seepage is encountered in foundation or utility
excavations during construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or
more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a
positive and permanent discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the
magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by a
system of connector trenches. ,
During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is directed off the
site. Water must not be allowed to stand in areas where buildings, slabs, or
pavements are to be constructed. Loose surfaces should be sealed by compacting the
surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades
must allow for drainage away from the residence foundations. The ground should be
sloped at a gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the
building, except in paved areas, which can be sloped at a gradient of 2 percent.
Footing drains should be installed around the residence perimeters, at or just below the
invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is
provided on Plate 4. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be
connected to the footing drain system. Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined
to an approved discharge. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow
for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems.
Utility Support and Backfill
Utility trench backfill is a key concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility
alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility line
is adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to
provide support around the pipe haunches. Fill should be carefully placed and hand
tamped to about 12 inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction
equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in
lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve (12) inches and compacted to the
appropriate structural fill requirements.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
• GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Sea-Port Dozing and Development, �nc. E-11126
April 15, 2004 Page 13
Pavement Areas
The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying
subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should I
be treated and prepared as described in the Site Preparation and General Earthwork I
section of this report. This means at least the top twelve (12) inches of the subgrade '�
should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1557-91 ). ',
It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist ,
after this process. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed roc�c may be
needed to stabilize these localized areas. ' '
The following pavement sections are applicable to parking and drive areas that will be
subjected to primarily passenger vehicles and occasional truck traffic:
• Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC} over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB)
material, or
• Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material.
We can provide pavement recommendations for areas that will receive heavy traffic, if
needed. Pavement materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. The use of a
Class B asphalt mix is suggested.
LIMITATtONS
Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed,
selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided
us, and our experience and engineering judgment. The conclusions and
recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that
level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently
practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
• • �I
•• I�i
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Inc. E-11126
April 15, 2004 Page 14
The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from
the test pits, laboratory test data, and our visual observations. Soil and groundwater
conditions between test pits may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent
of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until
construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to re-evaluate the
recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to
proceeding with the construction.
Additional Services ,
As the geotechnical engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general
review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and
foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the
design and in the construction specifications.
ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This
is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations
and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those
anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the
performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the
construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and
testing services.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
. :i __ � _
t * �"' `'- ,� x � , �,'�� • :
�f ,� ;
`� � �l -.r _. '�' �`� . .� 1 � � --� .- , �� I
`� ,. t C . i If _ 1 �v� _."_'
� �' .. _ r�iL �' • ' �.�l t.�- � l , � I
� ��.a..�.. ,.#,�-��� __�_. �..v„�:;,-- �..
� _jL, �
� �� � _�►;_ �- ` L� . I
� I
".j r�� .s�'� � ;r r_ �,_ . - . E � _ _ .
d��, i
: ' n'-�F
� � � E � � � -. - - � .
-� _ � c j� _.• '} .i.- .�_. •I �
� .
)
. .. - •1' '1 . _ �. 1
... . . ,`_' l 1��� :� , ._ � �i� _ � . .' -: �
� � -- _ - �i' - �
; - ` :
I : , i � -_ _. _ ,_ �_� __ _
i Pj
� `'�'/'^'� ( SJ � �•��� ,. � ' _
I ' '���S�._� F �e./ � , .� � F � . . . � I
� . F ' e
, , �
� ; ' : � " � , :
. � _ _.__.. _ ._ . ,,, >--:• :. �,_ : ' :
- _. `" - ... s
I .� � ` �, �.. Y� " : � .
}t i
�1;� j:4
t�': ... . . _._ _ .. � . i�." . �� .
-- � \ ' \'� ` . - . -
. - -� ;i'•: _ ! `-'a', . . . ,
�,-.e � ���'? tii� . .,_ �_. . _ _ �ti `.x ,� .. _ ., . ._,. ..
. `"�\ . t _ _T��...i , . _
:t:' J- .. � •� ... . . � . . - _ _
�e4;.A•
• _ .. . - •_ • . �\`�-' ' _. � .. •,��:.1 . _ . •. v _
. j1..J�:. ':�[_ l�tr . . ... . , .��- .).•. � _ _'_�... ....___ . � - .. . . .. . .. ..
��
f� y!��������_�5-d'���, \'\-" .. .
... t .E�i 'i� _ •.. .. . . . � I
v�
'�\
.. . .• _ > .. �\�� .
i ... . ' • _ . .. � `a , _
i . ' - ,'`t.. � � �` ::} ' .__- _ �._
. . 4�t:' +`� - .
I � : .'f _ _ ' "+ :�1 .. -:.
•
.. ..: . . . �.. . -
. .. �
�� ,
�....._� �.':.. :� .; -`:: � �:. .. ... � - e ��•�l,~�� � _
4 -�� "
� .;�' _ _ - ._ � L " � _
1 - _ _ _ a;�. _
I - . '; ':r. ry 5 .. _ - �. � % � _
�
` �
I - C � ' — ... .. ,. �� ..
' .. . - ���\r� _
` ' ` .. � � . � _ ,, .. `'., ra f .�
:..' - _ ,;.. ' _ �.
.. 4 . .: . .. . .
.. .� � _ __ .. ,. � 1
. . . . '�• . � ,
-. ..i .,_ • . •= ,. -- . z ;:-`• � ��°�����._ .
I � .... _ . } , . . . -
� .. _" '. . • .f�':-1�. ' . <.. . .-�� .. ... .. —''
_ i - .. . .. . " ' _ :
� ._ ' . ' _ .... . 1 . � f:� . -.
.. .. _ .. . � . . ".. ' ..-i _ . - ,- . • - - �'/-:"
r�.�:
� Earth Consultants, tnc.
�Geotechnical En�neering.Geology.Em�ronrr�enfal Sciences
Reference: � Construction Testing&ICBO/WABO lnspecrion Services
King County °��;".�
Map 656
By Thomas Brothers Maps Vicinity Map
I Dated 2004 Amber Lane
Renton, Washington
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color.
ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent ��'^rn• GLS Date April 2004 Proj. No. 11126 �
misirrterpretation of the information resulting �
from black&white reproductions of this plate. Checked STS Date 4R/04 Plate ` 1
'. N.E. 4th STREET
� Existing
House
r___i �
i 5409 i
i i
�----�
�
4
TP-41
—�—
I
�TP-2
—■_
f ,
TP�I � �r TP-1 I
—•— - - -
I �3;���`�� �
� ���
�— .1G a
� a. _ '��
i,,
�l i ,I_.
1��/
a 3-
LEGEND �
����.
TP-1—�—Approximate Location of ��
I ECI Test Pit, Proj. No. v
E E-11 i2fi, April 2004 Not - To - Scale
Subject Site �'`�
� �� Earth Consultants, Inc.
i Geotectvrical En�neerhng Geology.Envirorunernal Sdc�nces
•.� ��� Wetland Area ��, , .�� Const[�tlonTesringh ICBO!WABOIrLspectionServices
��=� ''� (Detineated By Others) �-�--''
Test Pit Location Plan
Lot Number Amber Lane
Renton, Washington
; NO'TE: This plate may contain areas of cobr.
ECt cannot be responsible for any subsequerrt ��►• GLS Date Aprii 2004 Proj. No. 11126
misiMerpretation of the information resulting
from bladc 8�white reproductions of this plate. Checked STS Date 4J7/04 Plate . 2
I
` ,� -- - - -- -- - -- ----
� I
i Free Draining 1 S inches min.
i Backfi II --�.
°u�� - - :•:; I •��=.:� 111=111=111=
Min 2"Dia. flo o° o� 12 inches :�=:�:��:'.;: ::�':`;"':�:::�:::' IIIIII III
;r•;:- :s. . '.c:--�.:..:~�'•••:��
Weep Hole o 0 0°� .�� ,::•,; :•:•;;• ?:;:
00 00 -�.o.. •. .D o• o00 �o�'�-o- ;:;-,-:
0 ��. � o °�co� �o o c� o " .
p�� o a o '� •�."'O
�oo � ° C�' t0�0� � � oo Oo�00 '�1."J.p'' �
; `b � � o o a oo��� �•0.0 . .Q .
Min. 6" :o�oo oo� 1"Drain �oo�Op ° ooO o°eo 0 0, +•;:o=;�
p 1� 0
��o�� o� R�il� 00 �oO O ��O�oo �.�p;� :�i '
��I��I�� � o 0 0 0 0 0 � o o •� •' �--��vated Sbpe
o�o � o � �o°oa o o •
00o cbo 000 ° o a�' •�{.
�o 00 O o,-,l1 Qoo •• .
a a O Q Q �v-Ope o �.O.��a
� �o ����� ���0'�a �r �
. ��,��
O O� � O o�0 o Oa D O,��.••
WEEP HOLE DETAIL °� ° � �°` � °� .�= �
a a o0 0
aoa 000aoopq,o�o '
0o a o a o 0 0�0 0 0 '. Perforated Pipe
111=111=111 a° °o 0 0 o a o° o .°:': Wrapped with
1 foot min.I 'o"_�� ��• ° Fiter Fabric
,� -
ii foot min.Compacted Subgrade
i �--- �
1 '
I �
STANDARD NOTES 1 FrFNQ '
1) Free Draining bacl�ill should consist ot .:: '.�: Surface Seal; Natnre Soil or other Low
granular soil having no more than 5 �::;'��'�=:; peRneability Material
per+�ent passing the#200 sieve and
no particles greater than 4 inches in o°o 0 0o Free Draining Backfill
dameter.The percentage of patticles
passing the#4 sieve should be between
o.:-
25 and 75 peroent �a`;:-:o- Stn�ctural Fiil compacted to 90 pe�errt
d--
' - ' relative compaction
2) Structural backfill should be free of o 0 0,a
organics,clayey soils,debris and other o000�ea 1 inch Drain Rock
deleterious materials. It should be
placed at or near the optimum moisture
corrtent.
SCHEMATIC ONLY- NOT TO SCALE
3) Where weep holes are utilized,surround NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
each weep hole with 3 cubic feet of 1 inch �
drain rock. Maximum horizorrtal spacing �
of weep holes should be 6 feet. �� Eartrl COI(1SUItaI1tS, Inc.
-.Geaechnical Engineers.Geobgists 6 Environrtiercal Scientiscs
4) Drain pipe;perforated or slotted rigid ,I Construction Testing 6 ICBO J WABO Itispection Services �
PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots
facing down;tight jointed;with a positive RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL
gra�errt. Do not use fle�dble corrugated Amber Lane
plastic pipe. Drain line should be bedded Renton, Washington
on and surround with free draining 1 inch
drain rock.The drain rodc may be
er�capsulated with a geotechnical drainage Drwn. GLS Date April 2004 ProJ. Na. 1112fi
fabric at the engineers discreLion.
Checked STS Date 4/8/04 Plate 3
- i
.
, -- _ --- ---�
.
i
,I ;
i
i �r
I -
Slo e To Drain . .•�
�----___ P _ -::.::i:;:'•
- - •...:a, :,: 'ti.� �': I
6 inch min. �%r �"t� •�f~. �:�.f- � I
.:c ;.ti.. ~.; ;:_'• ;.::`:_: ..:� :::-
�.�:�. � .:���1��:•• •��:•.•�•�•.::��yi.•i� • ':•:�:i..::'• I
•..;:•.: •.... '�' ' � �r:•• .� �•::.:�:''��'r'=�:• i
•o=o'�'�'ep�o•O"v��o�o��'Lv�uoOlS� oo"O o��p°a I i
0 � o O p O�00 Op O a��p Qo�D Op O o��Qa I I
04� aoo ° a� o�y° o00 ° 00 ooc� oo� � i81flCf1 I
o e �po o �� o o ao o �0 o a �o '.
�o o� c o� �a o�000 o� �� 4�oo min. ��
� UQ �°O�o° D �OoUO �v O o� O �flo�p �a O a
UO � a � o p o0 � o � o p o�� � o I'
o po�a00 � o Oo0o00 a o—po0
0 0 0 0O 0 o e a � � a o 0 0 !
I � p o oa�. °O � � p a o �O � � p o o '��.
O°� w0 O� �� a po0 �OD�p�o o ° �oo � I
� 4 inch min. °o°a�o a�o°u ���o�o 00 0 o a o 0 ona �
� O ° o O o D � D � o O o p ° � ° a �.
; Diameter o°°°o o � a` °o°°°o o � ° ° �
;
Perforated Pipe o o��o 0 0� �oo°��o o ; �
� oaa a o 0 ooa o
Wrapped in Drainage �° � °o°°o °�o �� a °o
i Fab17C a �o° � � °�oo o00 0� � '
�o 0 0��o ° �—
IQO O�O O �
° o
o � �
_ n �
� i 2 inch min.
2 inch min./4 inch mau_
12 inch
min.
iF��Nn
::r':��' Surface seal;native soil or other SCHEMATIC ONLY- NOT TO SCALE
'� �� NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
bw permeability material.
0
a°° °�° 1�Drain Rock
� ���o
i '
i
Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid �`"'�: I�
I �
� O PVC pipe laid with perforations or � �, Earth Consultants, Inc. �
i slots facing down; tight jointed;with a a Geolechnical Engineers,Geobgsts�EnvironmeMal Scient�sts �
positive gradient Do not use fle�able Construction Testing 6 1CB0/wnBO lnspecrion 5ervices �
,s ,p'
corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie
building downspout drains into footing �P�CAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL
lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Ftter Fabric Amber Lane
or equivalent. Renton, Washington
Drwn. GLS Date April 2004 Proj. No. 11126
Checked STS Date 4/8/04 Plsbe 4
. �'
.
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
E-11126
Our subsurface exploration was performed on April 6, 2004. The subsurface
conditions at the site were explored by excavating four test pits to a maxim�m depth
of eleven and one-half (11 .5) feet below existing grade. Test pits were excavated with
a John Deere 310 SE rubber-tired backhoe, provided by the client.
Approximate test pit locations and elevations were estimated based on pacing from
existing features depicted on a preliminary site plan provided by Core Design,,lnc. The
locations and elevations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the
degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the
Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2.
The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our firm who
classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained
representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site
features. The samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil ,
Classification System (USCSI, which is presented on Plate A1 , Legend. Representative
soil samples were collected and returned to our laboratory for further examination and
testing.
Logs of the test pits are presented on Plates A2 through A5. The final logs represent
our interpretations of the field logs and the results of our laboratory examination and
testing. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries
between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual.
I
Earth Consultants, Inc.
I
' MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
ISYMBOL SYMBOL
Gravel e e o
(aN/ Weil-Graded Gravels,Gravel-Sand
And Clean Gravels a a b gw Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
Gravelly (little or no fines) r r
Coarse Soils . � , GP Poorly-Graded Gfavels,Gravel-
Grained � � � gp Sand Mixtures,Little Or No Fines
Soils More Than GM Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand-
50°r� Coarse Gravels With gm Silt Mixtures
Fraction Fines(appreciable
Retained On amount of fines) CiC Clayey Gravels,Gravel-Sand-
No.4 Sieve gC Clay Mixtures
Sand � o ' SW Well-Graded Sands. Gravelly
And Clean Sand � o�o��' o o SW Sands, Little Or No Fines
Sandy (little or no fines) y, � ;:
More Than Soils 6 }:A o ' sP Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly
50°o Material ,,4.; A*.,,.�!;;:` Sp Sands, Little Or No Fines
Larger Than More Than
No.200 Sieve 50°6 Coarse SM Silty Sands, Sand- Silt Mixtures
Size Sands With S�l'1
Fraction Fines ;appreciable
S eveng No.4 amouM of fines; � i//;,J SC SC Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures
II II ML Inorganic Silts&Very Fine Sands,Rock Flo�r,Sitty-
m�' Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts w/Slight�lasticity
Fine Silts Liquid Limit CL Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity,
Grained �d Less Than 50 � C� Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, SiltY Clays, Lean
Soils Clays
� I � I � I QL Organic Silts And Organic
� I � I � I O� Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity
' MH Inorganic Silts, hlicaceous Or Dfaiom2ceous FirE
More Than mh Sand Or Silty Soils
50°6 Mater�al Silts
Smaller Than q�d Liqcid Limit , CH Inorganic Ciays Of High
No.200 Sieve Clays Greater Than 50 C�'1 Plasticity, Fat Clays.
Size // //
����j QH Organic Clays Of Medium To Fligh
Ofl Plasticity, Organic Silts
`��� �"� �"� pT Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils
Highly Organic SoiVs
�, ��, ���, ��r pt With High Organic Contents ,
Topsoll �y'�'y�'� Humus And Duff Layer II
Fill Hiyhly Variable Constituents II
The discussion in the text oi this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature
of the material presented in the attached logs.
DUAL SYMBOLS ere used to indicate bwderline soil clessification.
C TORVANE READING,tsf T 2"O.D. SPLiT SPOON SAMPLER
qu PENETROMETER READING,tsi �
W MOISTURE, %dry'weight � 24"I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
P SAMPLER PUSHED
* SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED i WATER OBSERVATION WELL
pcf DRY DENSITY,Ibs. per cubic ft.
LL LIQUID LIMIT, % � DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
PI PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION
I SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/DATE
Fc�11�I1 COI"lSUltal�tS II1C. LEGEND
(���uieil�niatl lhig'n��r�:rs.Ga3lugLtls 51fivlrunincnial5c;uil�sis
Proj. No, iii26 Date APrii zoo4 Plate Al
• • Test Pit Log
� Projea Name: snea or
', Amber Lane 1 1
Job No. Loc,�ed by: Date: Test Pit No.:
11126 STS 4/6/04 TP-1
E�avation Contactor: Ground Surfaoe Elev�ion:
Client Provided 435'
Naes:
Genera� w " 8 L m u, B suAace conditions: Depth of Topsoil 8�Sod 6": short grass
Notes �/, " T °' " m � �.
( ) c� cn � �n � �n
SM Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist
� -trace grav�el and charcoal fragments
2 SM Light brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
3 -iron obde staining
i
10.1 4 �
-18.6%fines
5 -trace cobbles
s
�
e -increase in moisture content
13.3 9
10
Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below e�asting grade. Groundwater
seepage encountered at 8.5 feet during e�acavabon.
NOTES:
Test pits were e�acavated using a John Deere 310 SE rubber tired
backhoe provided by the client.
Test pit elevations estimated based on topographic data shown on the
Site Plan provided by the Client.
e
:
0
�
U
W
�
Q
CJ
� Test Pit Log
�(7 Earth Consultants Inc. Amber�ane
O Ccx�cYmh:al Fnghx�n�,Gc-[W�g�sA k FiMmnn�r�ra;ticlrntt+"+
� Renton,Washington
a
�
F Proj.r�o. 11126 Dwn. GLS Date Ap�il 2004 Chedced STS oate 4/7/04 Plate A2
Subsurface condRions depicted represent our observations at the time and location af this e�loratory hole,modified by engir�ing tests,analysis and
�txigrrrent. They are nd r�ecessariy represeMative aF dher times and locatans.We cannd acoept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
..F,,.,.,�.�..,..,.�a..��,,.,.ti��w, -
' � Test Pit Log
' Projed Name: Shee1 of
� Amber Lane 1 1
Job No. Loc�ged by: Darte: Test Pit No.:
11126 STS 4/6/04 TP-2
Ezcava2ion Ca�tador. Ground Surface Elevation:
Client Provided 436'
Na�:
o $ L a � � surface canditions: Depth of Topsoil 8�Sod 6": short grass
General W
Notes (��) 1O E. p " � � i.
� � � �
SM Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist to w�et
�
-contains gravel
2
3 SM Light brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
�
4 �
5 -iron o�dde staining
�o� -contains cobbles
s
� -moderate caving of test pit walls due to seepage
8 -increase in moisture
s
��.� �o
�� Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet below ebsting grade. Groundwater
seepage encountered at 2.5, 4.0 and 7.0 feet during e�avation.
0
�
<
0
�
U
w
�
a
�
� Test Pit Log
� F�lrtrl COY1SUItaY1tS II1C. Amber�ane
�
O c�xwrtic�kalFiigtnrcxn,c�tsn�t�vlrtnnx-nra��ernrt+s Renton, Washington
�
a
�
w Proj.No. 11 126 Dwn. GLS Date Ap�il 2004 Chedced STS Date 4/7/04 Plate A3
Subsurface condRions depided represent our observations at the time and location of this e�loratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis and
judgment. They are nd r�eoessariy representative of dher times and locations.We cannot accept responsib�lity for the use or interpretatron by others of
�fnrmefir�n rvmnnfo'1 nn{hi�IM
� , Test Pit Log
' Project Narrie: Sheet af
�� Amber Lane 1 1
Job No. Logged by: Date: Test PR No.:
11126 STS 4/6/04 TP-3
Ewcavatian Contador: Graund Surfaoe Elevation:
Client Provided 434'
Mates:
� — m surfaoe condicions: Depth of Topsoil 8�Sod 3": short grass
General W t $ = a `n g
Notes (%) 1O i. p � m � i.
(7 m u� cn
SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist
� -contains grav�el and organics
�e 2 -increase in moisture,28.6%fines
3 -moderate caving of test pit walls due to seepage
4 -becomes light brown, iron obde staining ':
5 -becomes dense
s
� Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below e�usting grade. Groundwater
seepage encountered at 2.5 feet during e�a;avation.
�
a
0
�
U
W
�
a
�
� Test Pit l.og
(7 Earth Consultants Inc. Amber Lane
p C<»le�.cimk`al Fnghwryti,GKikxQtilA h F�MrC�nir.nf,�l ticlnifltit� Renton, Washington
H
a
�
W Proj.t�o. 11126 Dwn. GLS Date April 2004 Chedced STS Date 4/7/04 Plate A4
Subsurface conddions depicted represent our observations at the time and location ofi this e�loratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis and
judgment. They are not necessarily representative of dher times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
„�,,.,,,�«�.,,,.v�e..r�,,.,�tiM i,�,
` � Test Pit Log
, Project Narrte: Shee� of
' Amber Lane 1 1
Job No_ Logged by: Date: Test Pit No.:
11126 STS 4/6/04 TP�
E�,avation Contador: Ground Surfaoe Elevation:
Client Provided 434'
Wates: ,
� — m Sur�ace conda�ons: Depth of Topsoil 8�Sod 18": short grass �I
L L a �
Notes' (� 10 $ p " � � $ II
� � � N ,
,y TPSL TOPSOIL and organics
� �
y
2 SM Brown silty SAND with grav�el, medium dense, moist to wet
3 -becomes light brown and dense
4 -contains cobbles, iron obde staining �
5
s -increase in moisture, becomes medium dense
11.3
� -moderate to heavy caving of test pit walls due to seepage
8 -increase in sand content,decrease in gravel content
s
�o -33.4%fines "
17.5
SP-SM Brown poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, wet, heavy
o : �� seepage at 10.5'
Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet below e�asting grade. Groundwater
seepage encountered at 1.5 and 10.5 feet dunng e�acavation.
0
�
�
0
�
U
w
�
a
N Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc. Amber Lane
� cr.ai�imkalFiighx�xs.cm�0.v�1�fYMmnnienra��itt� Renton, Washington
H
a
�
W Proj.No. 11126 Dwn. GLS Date April 2004 Checiced STS Date 4/7/04 Plate A5
Subsurface condRions depided represent our observations at the time and location of this e�loratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis and
judgment_ They are nok necessarily repre,sentative o�f ather times and locations.We cannot accept responsibil"ity for the use or interpretation by others of
n4.,rrr.aFiiv,nrncnnlcrl nn fhic liv.
r `
,Y` I
i
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
E-11126
Earth Consuitants, Ina
( _
f �
. Particle Size Distribution Report
., �
� � � C Sc Y � Q 5� g �j ii
m n �v � c e� � �! ii if i� i �i s
�� 'I, ' i, �i I � i i i i I i
I
� il I i �I
i ;,
i � '
i �
� '
� � I
70
� 1' � ;�
Z � ' I; i + � �
� I i �
F- �
Z �
U �� ' i � , '
a � ' ' i
s
30 -
I i
� ! �
20 �'
�; : I
�; , �
!� ��
10 I I i ;i f i ;I
0 � ' �
200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE- mm
96 C08BLES %GRAVEI. %SAND 96 SILT 96 CLAY USCS AASHTO PL LL �
� 26.3 55.1 18.6 SM
0 19.1 52.3 28.6 SM
� 3.8 62.8 33.4 SM
SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER SOIL DESCRIPTION
inches C ❑ G number � r , O TP-1:4'-SM
1 5 100.0 100.0 100.0 S#4 73.7 80.9 96.2 Light brown silty Sand with gravel, 10.1%
3/4 100.0 10�.0 100.0 #8 67.7 72.1 90.1 moisture
3/8 82.8 89.2 99.7 #16 62.7 G6.1 gs,� �TP'3:z�-sM
�30 522 61.0 �g.j Brown silty Sand wtith gravel(contains
#50 41.7 S 1.5 62.9 organics),26.8%masture
#l00 28.4 38.5 43.4 �TP�= 10'-Shs
f1200 18.6 28.6 33.4 Light brown silty Sand, 17.5%moisture
GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:
�gp 0.966 0.545 0.271 o STs
�30 0.164 0.0836 ,
p�� ❑STS
COEFFICIENTS
i
C� � STS
GU
o Source: Sample No.:TP-1 Elev./Depth:4'
❑Source: Sample No.:TP-3 Elev./Depth: 2'
� Source: Sample No.:TP-4 Elev./Depth: 10'
EARTH Client:
i Project: Amber Iane,Renton '
CONSULTANTS, INC. pro' No.: E-11126 Plate B1
, •
_+
DISTRIBUTION
E-11126
4 Copies Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 3015
Renton, Washington 98056
Attention: Mr. Robin Bales
�
Earth Consultants, Inc.