HomeMy WebLinkAbout03172 - Technical Information Report - Geotechnical 4 I ^
j ' I
E � L_
_ .I�`��''r � '', �✓
J
N
�
.
M
' � i
�-
;
� �
� �
Report
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Surg�ry Center and Site lmprovements
Valley Medical Center
Renton, Washington ,
January 22, 2004 I
For
Valley Medical Center
�ITv C�F F:ENT:�'�
RECEIVED
APR 0 2 2004
��:i�� r���i� n��,�sio�
GEOENGINEERS�
3 / 7Z
r
GEOENGINEERS�
January ?2, ?004
Vallev Medical Center
c/o NBBJ Architects
111 South Jackson Sveet
Seattle, Washington 9810�
Attention: Tim Carter and Grant Gustafson. A.I.A.
We are pleased to present two copies of our "R,,r�rr r� • � • ; � � . � • � � - � �- c • • . r� �
and Site Improvements, Renton,Washingtor.
Our services were completed in general accordance with the scope oi services presented in our proposa,
dBteCi T�., ,i�h.�.- 1� '�(1(l: '�nr7 �llr{�,���i��rl }��, Tr.�� ��r ��;�rt r,f `'-jll.� ?��.�,-1� -�1 ('.,�ir.,r n.� T>.� •T��1�.�{- '2(
2(�j.
We appreciate tn:, �pp�i�tunit;� to be ut �er��i�a tu you un tnis pr���ct. t'ie:�se caii us it }`ou i�uve any
questions regarding the contents of this report or when we may be of further service.
Yours very truly,
GeoEn ineers, In . ` ,
�
McFadden,PE,LEG
ssociate
KGO:JJM:ab
SEAT:\OO�F'ina1s�2 2020 1 900R.doc
Attachments
cc: Trevor Hart (one copy j
Valley Medical Center
400 South 43rd Street
Renton,Washington 98055
Jaime Saez, PE(two copies)
Magnusson Klemencic Associates
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, «'ashin�ton 98101
Earth Science+Technology 600 Stewart Street eeievnone 206.728.2674
Srite 1420 hcs�mile 206.728.2732
Saattle, WA 98101 vees�er www.geaengineers.com
CONTENTS
Paqe No.
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................1
SCOPE..........................................................................................................................................................1
SITEDESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................................................3
GENERAL 3
SURFACE CONDITIONS 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3
Site Explorations 3
Laboratory Testing 4
Soil Conditions 4
Groundwater Conditions 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................5
GENERAL 5
SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK 5
Site Preparation 5
Excavation Considerations 6
Stripping, Clearing and Grubbing 6
Erosion and Sedimentation C�ntrol 6
Subgrade Evaluation 7
Use of On-Site Soil 7
Structural Fill 7
Temporary Excavation Slopes 8
Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes 9
PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUBGRADE PREPARATION 9
Subgrade Preparation 9
Asphalt Concrete Pavement 9
Portland Cement Pavements 10
CAST-IN-PLACE RETAINING WALLS 10
General 10
Lateral Soil Pressure 10
Footing Design 11
Settlement 1 1
Lateral Resistance 11
SOLDIER PILE AND TIMBER LAGGING WALLS 11
General 1�
Lateral Earth Pressures 12
Lagging 12
Monitoring During Construction 13
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH 13
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FOUNDATION DESIGN
ENTRY PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS
General
Interceptor/Collector Drain System
Hardscape
SEISMICITY
General
Uniform Building Code (UBC) Site Coefficient 15
International Building Code (IBC) Site Coefficient 15
G e o E n g i n e e r s 1 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Paqe �_
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
Construction Drainage
Wall Drainage
Surface Drainage
FIGURES Fiqure i
VICINITY MAP
SITE PLAN
EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM
i�!T�p(`�pTnq�rr�i i ��Tnn r?R41�!
APPENDICES Paqe f�
APPENDIX A—FIELD EXPLORATIONS..................................................................................................A-1
APPENDIX A FIGURES Fiqure No.
SOIL CLACIFlCATION SYSTEM A-1
KEY TO LOG SYMBOLS A-2
LOG OF BORING A-3...A-6
LOG OF HAND BORING A-7...A-8
APPENDIX B-LABORATORY TESTING................................................................................................B-1
GENERAL B-1
MOISTURE CONTENT TESTING B-1
SIEVE ANALYSES B-1
ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTING B-1
APPENDIX B FIGURES Fiqure No.
SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS B-1
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS B-2
APPENDIX C- REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE........................................C-1...C-4
G e o E n � i ❑ e e r s 1! File No. 2202-019-00\01220�1
REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
SURGERY CENTER AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS
VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
FOR
VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for design and construction
of the proposed Surgery Center and site improvements at the Valley Medical Center Campus located
northwest of the intersection of South 43rd Street and Talbot Road South in Renton, Washington. The
project site is located imrnediately south of the existing Surgery Center at the south end of the campus and
is shown relative to surrounding physical features on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 and the Site Plan,
Figure 2.
We understand that the proposed Surgery Center and site improvements include constructing a new
parking lot in the helicopter landing pad area and a new pedestrian bridge connecting the Surgery Center
and Rapid Care facility located below the north portion of the helicopter landing pad. The proposed
parking lot will occupy the present helicopter landing pad and an area that will cut into the present slope
just east of the helicogter landing pad. The west portion of the proposed parking area will be at the same
grade as the existing landing pad. The parking lot will slope up to[he east at about 1 percent and require
cuts ranging frcm about 2 to 15 feet for the east portion of the parking lot and the parking lot access road.
Cast-in-place concrete cantilever retaining walls have been planned for the cut along the east and south
sides of the proposed parking lot, however, a cantilever soldier pile with lagging retaining wall is being
considered along the southeast corner of the proposed parking lot where utilities are located ver� elo�� �o
the back of the planned wall.
The proposed pedestrian bridge between the Surgery Center and Rapid Care facility will be supported
by the existing north structural wall footing for the Rapid Care facility and the Surgery Center to th�
north. We understand that the design allowable bearing pressure for the existing structural wall fooiing a�
the Rapid Care facility is 6,000 pounds per square foot (ps�. The required bearinR pressure for th�
structural wall footing with the loads of the proposed pedestrian bridRe is �.00�psf.
SCOPE
The purpose of our geotechnical engineering services will be to complete explorations as a basis f �
developing design recommendations for the proposed retaining walls and allowable soil bearing pressur
for the existing north wal] footing at the Rapid Care facility. We understand that the allowable s�
bearing pressure for the existing Rapid Care facility footing needs to be evaluated to deternune if ��
design allowable bearing capacity can be increased to support the loads of the proposed pedestrian brid`
Our scope of ser�rices is in general accordance with the "Required Geotechnical Data" sheet provided
MKA. Our specific scope of services includes the following tasks:
1. Review our in-house files for readily available information relative to the site, and copies of other
geotechnical studies that we have been provided.
G e o E n � i n e e r s 1 File No. 2202-019-OQ\012204
2. Explore soil and groundwater condition at the si[e by completing four exploratory borings (B-1
through B-4) ranging in depth from about 10'/z to 261h feet. In addition we completed two hand hole
explorations (HH-1 and HH-2) to depths of about 2 to 4'/x feet to expose the foundation supporting
the north wall of the Rapid Care facility.
3. Evaluate pertinent physical and engineering characteristics of the foundation soils based on laboratory
tests performed on samples obtained from the borings. The laboratory tests include moisture content
deternunations, sieve analyses, and Atterberg limits detemvnations.
4. Describe site geology, soils and groundwater conditions.
�. Provide recommendations for earthwork including the following:
• Requirements for stripping,removal of soft,organic or other unsuitable material.
• Suitability of on-site soil for use as structural fill.
• Imported structural fill specifications.
• Placement and compaction of structural fill for support of structures and adjacent roadway and
walkway areas.
• Utility trench backfill placement and compaction.
• Evaluate the effects of weather and conswction equipment on the site soils.
• Temporary and permanent dewatering requirements if necessary.
9. Provide recommendations for allowable temporary cut slope inclinations, and permanent cut and fill
slope inclinations.
10. Provide general recommendations for alternative retaining wall design for suppoR of the cuts being
planned along the southeast and east sides of the parking lot.
11. Develop recommendations for concrete cast-in-place cantilevered retaining walls for support of
slopes along the access driveway and the parking azea. This will include allowable soil bearing
pressures, settlement estimates,lateral soil pressures and base friction values.
12. Provide recommendations for permanent cantilevered solider pile and lagging shoring for support of
cuts along the southeast portion of the pazking area where existing utilities are located close to the i
back of the planned walls. We also provided lateral modulus of subgrade reaction for evaluation of
wall deflections.
13. Provide recommendations for allowable bearing pressures and settlement estimates for the existing
shallow spread footings supporting the north wall of the Rapid Care facility.
14. Provide recommendations for seismic design in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building
Code (UBC)and 2003 Intemational Building Code (IBC).
1�. Provide recommendations for temporary and permanent drainage improvements, as necessary. This
includes recornmendations for back�rainage for the retaining walls.
16. Provide recommendations for subgrade preparation in walkway and pavement areas. This includes
recommendations for base course and a California Bearing Ratio(CBR) value for pavement design.
17. Provide recommendations for surface and subsurface drainage systems. This includes
recommendations for footing and retaining wall drainage systems based on the groundwater
conditions encountered or expected.
18. Provide a written report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations, along with
supporting field and laboratory data.
G e o E n � i n e e r s 2 File No. �202-019-001012?.l�
SITE DESCRIPTION
GENERAL
The site is located on the east side of the Kent valley and is part of a greater west-facing slope above
the valley floor. We reviewed portions of the report for the main hospital building and studies in our files
for nearby projects. We researched the surf'icial geology at the project site by reviewing the United States
Geologic Survey's "Geologic Map for the Renton Quadrangle, Washington" dated 1965. Ground
moraine deposits(Qgt)that are mostly ablation and lodgement till consisting of sand, silt, clay and gravel
are mapped at the project site. Ground moraine deposits are typically poorly drained. Renton Formation
(Tr) deposits of sandstone, mudstone and shale and Undifferentiated deposits (Qu) of till, sand, silt, clay
and gravel are also mapped near the project site. In addition, we reviewed the United States Department
of Agriculture "Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington" dated November 1973. The soil survey
identified deposits of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam(AgC) at the project site. The Alderwood gravelly
sandy loam is a sandy soil with varying amounts of silt and gravel that is very well to moderately well
drained and is generally found in upland areas.
SURFACE CONDITIONS
The proposed Surgery Center and site improvements project is located at the south end of the campus
immediately south of the existing Surgery Center. The site is currently the location of the helicopter
landing pad and the Rapid Care facility, which is located below the north portion of the helicopter landing
pad. The helicopter landing pad and Rapid Care facility are boarded by the Surgery Center to the north, a
parking lot to the west, and South 43`d Street to the south. The ground surface in the existing helicopter
landing pad ranges from about Elevation 95'/2 feet along the west edge to about Elevation 98 feet alon�
the east edge. The area east of the helicopter landing pad consists of a landscaped azea whieti slopes .�p
toward the east at about a 10 percent slope. The ground surface in this portion of the project area ranges
from about Elevation 95 '/z feet at the helic�pter landing pad to about Elevation 108 feet along the east �
side of the proposed access road. '
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Site Explorations
Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions were explored by completing four borings (B-1 through
B-4)and two hand holes (HH-1 and HH-2)on December 31, 2003 and January 9, 2004. Borings B-1 and
B-2 were completed at the east end of the proposed parking lot to evaluate conditions in the area of
proposed retaining walls. Boring B-3 was completed near the west edge of the helicopter landing pad.
Boring B-4 was completed in an existing parking area located northwest of the Rapid Care facility. The
borings extended to depths ranging from 10'/s to 26'/2 feet below ground surface and were completed
using track-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling equipment. The two hai�d holes (HH-1 and HH-2) were
completed to depths ranging from about 2 to 4'h feet below ground surface along the north edge of the
Rapid Care facility. The hand holes were completed by a geologist from our firm using hand equipment.
Locations of the explorations �vere determined in the field by measuring distances with a tape from
G e o E n �, � ❑ e e r s 3 File tio. �20�-019-(�\01�?04
existing site features. The locations of explorations are shown in Figure 2. The details of our field
exploration program and exploration logs are presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory Testing
Soil samples were collected during the drilling and were taken to our laboratory for further
examination. Selected samples were tested for moisture content, sieve analysis, and Atterberg limits
detemunation. A description of the laboratory testing and the test results are presented in Appendix B.
Soil Conditions
Sod and rootmass (about 6 inches thick), and topsoil were encountered at the ground surface in
borings B-1 and B-2 to depths ranging from about 2'h to 3 feet. The topsoil was underlain by medium
! stiff silt in boring B-1 to a depth of about 6 feet. Stiff to hard clay with variable silt, sand, and gravel
content was observed below the silt to the bottom of the boring at a depth of about 26'/z feet below the
surface. The topsoil was underlain by stiff to hard clay in Boring B-2. A 3 to 4 foot thick layer of silty
gravel was observed within the clay unit in boring B-2 about 9 feet below the surface. The clay in boring
B-2 was underlain by very dense sand with silt that contained a 2 to 3 foot thick layer of hard silt about
20 feet below the surface. Boring B-2 was terminated in the very dense sand with silt at a depth of about
26�h feet.
Approximately 2 inches of asphalt concrete pavement was encountered at the surface in borings B-3
and B-�. The asphalt was underlain by 8 to 12 inches of base consisting of gravel with silt and sand. The '
b avel base was underlain by stiff to very stiff sandy silt and sandy clay in boring B-3 that extended to a I
depth of about 91/z feet. The boring was terminated in a layer of very dense silty sand with gravel at about
11'/2 feet below the surface. A layer of inedium dense siity sand with gravel, approximately 2 to 3 feet
thick, was observed below the gravel in boring B-4. The sand was underlain by hard silt with sand and
gravel. The boring was terminated in the silt layer a[about 10'/z feet below the surface.
Two hand holes, HH-1 and HH-2, were completed along the north edge of the Rapid Care facility to
evaluate the soil below the footings. A layer o:topsoil about 2 to 6 inches thick was present at the ground I,
s�srface in each of the hand holes. The topsoil was underlain by about 1�/z feet of fill consisting of gravel
with sand and variable silt. The gravel fill in hand hole HH-1 was underlain by very stiff silt about
3'/2 feet below the surface. The building foundation was observed to be supported on the very stiff silt at
a depth of 3'h feet below the ground surface. Hand hole HH-2 was temunated in the gravel fill about
2 feet below the surface at the top of the concrete footing. We were unable to find the edge of the
foundation because it extends a few feet north of the building wall into the landscaping.
Groundwater Conditions
We did not encountered groundwater in borings B-1 through B-4 during the drilling. Groundwater
was not observed in hand auger hole HH-1. A small amount of perched groundwater was encountered
above the footing in hand auger hole HH-2. Groundwater conditions should be expected to fluctuate as a
function of season, precipitation and other factors.
G e o E n � i n e e r s 4 File No. Z?0?-019-00\01220d
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
Based on the results of our explorations, it is our opinion that the proposed Surgery Center site and
improvements can be conswcted as proposed provided the considerations and recommendations in this
report are incorporated in the project design. The primary geotechnical considerations for the project are
as follows:
■ Pedestrian Bridge Foundation
Based on our understanding of the anticipated design loads and our analyses, we conclude that the
allowable bearing capacity for the existing wall footing of the Rapid Care facility can be increased to
support the additional load resulting from the pedestrian bridge with post-conswction settlement of
less than '/a inch.
■ Cast-in-Place Concrete Retaining Walls
It is our opinion that the proposed cast-in-place concrete retaining walls can be utilized to retain the
existing soil east of the proposed parking lot. Adequate drainage must be provided to prevent the
build up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall.
■ Alternate Retaining Walts
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls may also be considered for portions of the access road
construction.
■ Soldier Pile with Lagging Wall
We conclude that a cantilevered soldier pile with lagging wall can be constructed at the southeast
comer of the proposed parking lot. Adequate drainage must be provided to prevent the build up of �
hydrostatic pressure behind the suldier pile wall.
■ VVet V�'eather Construction
We recommend that site preparation and earthwork be completed during the drier summer months if
possible to reduce grading costs. The on-site fill and silty native soils contain a high percentage of
fines (silt and clay), are moisture-sensitive, and will likely not be suitable for use as structural fill. It
will be difficuli, if not impossible, to properly compact these soils if they are too wet or during
periods of wet weather. We therefore recommend that the on-site soils not be considered for use as
structural fill and that imported structural fill should be used as wall foundation suppon, wall backfill, i
utility trench backfill,and to support pavement loads. !
Further details on specific geotechnical issues are presented in the following sections. I
SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK ,
Site Preparation '
We expect that site preparation and earthwork will include removal of the existing helicopter landing
pad, landscaping within the work area, and excavation to achieve design subgrade elevation in the parking
lot and access road areas. Excavation depths at the east end of the parking lot will likely range up to j
about 15 feet. Some fills will likely be required in localized areas to replace unsuitable fill or native soils
below proposed wall footings and pavement areas. Suitable cut slopes, as described in a subsequent ��i
section of this report, should be used to protect adjacent improvements and reduce the risk to workers I
within the excavations. I
G e o E n e i n e e r s 5 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
Excavation Considerations
Glacially consoldiated deposits were observed in the explorations. We anticipate that these soils can
be excavated with conventional excavation equipment, such as trackhces or dozers. Although not
encountered in the explorations,cobbles or boulders are periodically found in glacially deposited soils.
Stripping, Clearing and Grubbing
We recommend that the organic-rich soils (sod, rootmass and topsoil) and vegetation, be stripped and
stockpiled for later use as topsoil for landscaping purposes. Based on ow observations, we anticipate that
stripping depths in landscaped areas will generally range from about 6 inches to 3 feet. The deeper
deposits of topsoil were observed in borings B-1 and B-2 near the east edge of the proposed parking lot.
Stripping depths will be locally greater if large vegetation or trees are cleared and grubbed.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Potential sources or causes of erosion and sedimentation depend upon construction methods, slope
length and gradient, amount of soil exposed and/or disturbed, soil type, construction sequencing and
weather. Implementing an erosion and sedimentation control plan will reduce the project impact on
erosion-prone areas. The plan should be designed in accordance with applicable city, county and/or state
standards. The plan should incorporate basic planning principles includicig:
� • Scheduling grading and construction to reduce soil exposure.
• Retaining existing asphalt whenever feasible.
� Revegetating or mulching denuded areas.
• Directing runoff away from denuded areas.
• Reducing the length and steepness of slopes with exposed soils. '
• Decreasing runoff velocities.
• Preparing drainage ways and outlets to handle concentrated or increased runoff.
• Confining sediment to the project site.
• Inspecting and maintaining control measures frequently.
In addition, we recommend that sloped surfaces in exposed or disturbed soil be restored so that
surface runoff does not become channeled. Some sloughing and raveling of slopes with exposed or
disturbed soil should be expected.
Temporary erosion protection should be used and maintained in areas with exposed or disturbed soils
to help reduce erosion and reduce transport of sediment to adjacent areas. Permanent erosion protection
should be provided by landscape planting.
Until the permanent erosion protection is established and the site is stabilized, site monitoring should
be performed by qualified personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures and to
repair and/or modify them as appropriate. Provisions for modifications to the erosion control system
based on monitoring observations should be included in the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
G e o E n � i ❑ e e r s 6 File Na 220�-019-00�012204
Subgrade Evaluation
We recommend that site preparation and earthwork be completed during the drier summer months, if
possible, to reduce grading costs. The existing soils at the site generally consist of silty sand, silt, or clay
and have a relatively high fines content (material passing the U.S. S[andard No. 200 sieve) and are
moisture sensitive. Operation of equipment on these soils will be difficult, if not impossible, during
periods of wet weather and this material will be readily softened when construction traffic operates on it.
Deterioration of the shallow subgrade soils exposed after cuts are made should be expected, especially if
site preparation work is done during periods of wet weather. The exposed subgrade should be evaluated
before placing structural fill or base course material. Proofrolling with heavy rubber-tired construction
equipment should be used for this purpose. The site should be proofrolled only during dry weather.
Probing should be used to evaluate the subgrade during periods of wet weather. Any soft areas noted
during proofrolling or probing should be excavated and replaced with compacted str�ctural fill.
Use of On-Site Soil
The native soils encountered in our explorations contain a significant amount of fines (particles
smaller than the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve) and are therefore moisture sensitive and will be di�cult to
compact. It will be especially di�cult to compact these soils during wet weather. We therefore
recommend that imported sand and gravel be planned for structural fill to support structures and where
compaction to 95 percent of maximum dry density is required. However, we recommend that the on-site
soil be considered for use as wall backfill where the retaining walls will be supporting landscaped area
and compaction is not critical. The recommendations for wall drainage and backfill presented in the
Drainage Considerations section include an alternate system of wall drainage that allows the use of native
soil in the backfill.
Structural Fill
New fills placed in the pavement areas and as wall backfill should be placed and compacted as
structural fill. In our opinion, the near surface soils contain a relatively high moisture content and fines
content (material passing the US No. 200 sieve). The on-site soils will be difficult if not impossible to
compact to inore than about 90 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) unless they can be properly
moisture conditioned. The on-site soils will not be suitable for use as fill during periods of wet weather.
We therefore recommend, that the project be planned to include importing granular swctural fill for
backfill of walls and footings,and in utility trenches. However, the on site soils may be used for retaining
wall backfill in landscaped areas as described above.
We recommend that wall drainage backfill consist of free draining imported structural fill composed
of sand and gravel containing less than 3 percent fines (material passing U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve) by
weight relative to the fraction of the material passing the 3/a-inch sieve. This material should be free of
debris, organic contaminants and rock fragments larger than 6 inches.
As a minimum, structural fill placed behind retaining walls supporting pavement or sidewalks, to
construct pavement or sidewalk areas, to backfill utility trenches and retaining wall footings, and to
support wall foundations should meet the criteria for common borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(3)
G e o E n g i n e e r s 7 File No. 2202-019-00\01220d
of the current Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications.
Common borrow will be suitable for use as structural fill during dry weather conditions only. If structural
fill is placed during wet weather, the structural fill should consist of gravel borrow as described in Section
9-03.14(1)of the 2004 WSDOT Standazd Specifications.
Structural fill should be mechanically compacted to a firm, non-yielding condition. Structural fill
placed below wall foundations should be compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD (per ASTM D 1557).
Pavement area fill, including utility trench backfill and fill to support walkways should be compacted to
at least 90 percent of MDD (ASTM D 1557), except for the upper 2 feet below finish subgrade surface,
which should be compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD (ASTM D 1557). Retaining wall backfill
should be placed and compacted to between 90 and 92 percent of MDD (ASTM D 1557) using hand
equipment to avoid overstressing the walls.
Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 to 10 inches in thickness. Each lift
should be conditioned to the proper moisture content and compacted to the specified density before
placing subsequent lifts. We recommend that a representative from our firm be present to perform
in-place moisture-density tests in the fill to evaluate whether the compaction specifications are being met,
and advise on any modifications to procedure which might be appropriate for the conditions encountered.
Temporary Excavation Slopes
All temporary excavation slopes must comply with the provisions of Title 296 Washington
Administrative Code (WAC), Part N, "Excavation, Trenching and Shoring." The contractor perfomung
the work has the primary responsibility for protection of workmen and adjacent improvements.
We anticipate that unshored temporary cuts will be used along the east side of the proposed parking
lot. The stability of cut slopes is a function of soil type, groundwater conditions, slope inclination, slope
height and nearby surface loads. Oversteepened temporary cut slopes could impact the stability of
adjacent work areas, existing utilities, and endanger personnel. All cut slopes and temporary excavation
support, if necessary, must be constructed or installed, and maintained in accordance with the
requirements of the appropriate local, state and federal safety regulations.
We recommend temporary cut slope inclinations of 1'/ZH:1V (horizontal to vertical) in the upper soft
topsoil (to a depth of 2 to 3 feet) and 3/aH:1 V in the underlying stiff to hard soil deposits encountered at
the site. Some areas of caving/sloughing of the cut slopes may occur at this inclination. The inclination
may need to be flattened by the contractor if significant caving/sloughing occurs.
Alternatively, shotcrete flashcoating may be used to control face stability. The need for flashcoating
should be determined when the cut slopes are exposed during construction. These cut slope
recommendations apply to fully dewatered conditions.
For open cuts at the site we recommend that:
• No traffic, construction equipment, stockpiles or building supplies be allo�+�ed at the [op of the cut
slopes within a distance of at least 10 feet from the top of the cut.
• Exposed soil along the slope be protected from surface erosion using «�aterproof tarps or visqueen or
flashcoating with shotcrete.
• Construction activities be scheduled so that the length of time the temporary cut is left open is
reduced to the extent practical.
G e o E n g i n e e r s g File I`o. 2202-019-OOW12204
• Erosion control measures be implemented as appropriate such that runoff from the site is reduced to
the extent practical.
• Surface water is diverted away from the excavation.
• The general condition of the slopes be observed periodically by GeoEngineers to confirm adequate
stability.
Since the contractor has control of the construction operations, the contractor should be made
responsible for the stability of cut slopes, as well as the safety of the excavations. The contractor should
take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of the workers near slopes.
Permanent Cut and Fili Slopes
We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be constructed at 3H:1 V, or flatter. Flatter slopes
might be considered for ease of maintenance.
Unprotected cut and fill slopes will be subject to erosion until a protective vegetative cover is well
established. Therefore, we recommend that slope surfaces be mulched and planted as soon as practical to
minimize the potential for erosion.
Appropriate drainage measures, as described below under the "Drainage Considerations" section of
this r����rt, should h;� implemented te� colie�t und control surfac� runoCf an�l �round���at�r seepa��.
PAVEMENT REC01�1��9ENDATION5 AND SUBGRADE PREPARATION
Subgrade Preparation
Parking areas, wal} , _ _ _
previously in the Earthwork section of this report. In addition to these requirements, we recommend that
the prepared subgrade be proofrolled with heavy rubber-tired construction equipment thoroughly prior to
paving to locate any soft or pumping soils. Proof rolling should be completed during dry weather only.
Probing should be used to evaluate the pavement or walkway subgrade during periods of wet weather. If
soft or pumping soils are encountered, such unsuitable subgrade soils should be overexcavated and
replaced with adequately compacted structural fill. The depth of overexcavation should be determined by
GeoEngineers. Assuming that the pavement subgrade has been prepared and satisfactorily evaluated as
described above, a CBR(California Bearing Ratio)of 20 could be used for pavement design purposes.
Asphalt Concrete Pavement
In light-duty pavement areas such as automobile parking, we recommend a minimum pavement
section consisting of 2 inches of Class B asphalt concrete (AC) over a 4-inch thickness of densely
compacted crushed rock base course. In heavy-duty pavement areas (e.g., driveway entrance and
materials delivery), we recommend a minimum pavement section consisting of at least 3 inches of
Class B asphalt concrete (AC) over a 6-inch thickness of densely compacted crushed rock base course.
Thicker asphalt sections may be needed if the anticipated traftic loads and intended use are greater than
described above.
The asphalt concrete and crushed base materials, and placement and compaction requirements should
generally conform to the current WSDOT Specifications for Roads, Bridges and Municipal Construction.
G e o E n ; i n e e r > 9 File No. 2'_02-019-U01p1�20.1
I �,
Asphalt treated base (ATB) may be used in place of the crushed rock base course. Typically, the
design thickness of ATB is about one-half of the thickness of crushed rock base course. However, the
design thickness will vary depending on site-specific subgrade soils, traffic loads, and ATB mix design.
We can provide specific ATB thickness recommendations for the site if requested.
Portiand Cement Pavements
We recommend that PCC supported on properly prepared subgrade be designed based on a subgrade
modulus of 300 pounds per cubic inch. Additional recornmendations for PCC pavements are presented
below in the En[ry Plaza Improvements section.
CAST-IN-PLACE RETAINING WALLS
General
The lateral soil pressures acting on cast-in-place retaining walls will depend on the nature, density
and configuration of the soil behind the wall. We understand that retaining walls will be required along
the east access road and a portion of the south side of the proposed parking lot. At this time, a cast-in-
place wall is being considered for this application. The base of the retaining wall will likely be located
within the dense sand or very stiff to hard silticlay soils encountered in our explorations. It is especially
important that the wall subgrade soils are properly prepared. It is important that the exposed subgrade
soils be compacted to an unyielding condition. It may be desirable to place compacted crushed rock fill
to protect the subgrade and support the wall footing of a cast-in-place wall. Subgrade preparation may
also require a 1- to 2-foot deep overexcavation below the design bottom of wall, depending on exposed
subgrade conditions, particularly in areas where a wall transitions into an existing wall and the design
bottom of wali elevation may be located in fill associated with the existing wall. A GeoEngineers
representative should evaluate the exposed subgrade soils to deternune the appropriate overexcavation
depth. ,
Lateral Soil Pressure
Cast-in-place walls will likely be used for the retaining walls along the east access road and a portion
of the south sides of the proposed parking lot. Cast-in-place retaining walls that are allowed to rotate
outward at the top (at least 0.001 times the wall height) should be designed for active earth pressures
computed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pc fl. This assumes that the
oround surface supported behind the wall is maintained at a slope of about 10 percent consistent with the I
existing conditions. If the ground surface supported by the wall rises at an inclination of 3H:1V to 2H:1V
or the wall is restrained from rotating outward, then the wall should be designed using an equivalent fluid �
density of 55 pcf. These values are based on the requirements that adequate drainage is provided behind �
the walls, as discussed below in the"Drainage Consideration"section. I
The recommended lateral soil pressures do not include the effects of surcharges such as construction I
traffic or seismic loads. We recommend a construction vehicle surcharge equivalent to a uniform lateral
pressure of 75 pounds per square foot (ps� be applied to the full height of the walls for this construction
traffic surcharge condition. We also recommend that a uniform lateral pressure based on 8H in psf, where j
i
G e o E n g i n e e r s 1� Fle No. 2202-019-001012204
H is the wall height, be applied to the full height of the wall when taking seismic loading into
� consideration. We further recommend that any other surface loads be considered as appropriate.
We recommend fill within 5 feet of the back of cast-in-place retaining walls be compacted to between
90 and 92 percent of MDD. Over-compaction near the wall should be avoided to prevent build-up of
excessive lateral pressures on the wall.
Footing Design
We also recommend that shallow foundations be founded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent
existing grade. The bottom of shallow foundations will likely be supported in the dense sands or stiff to
hard silt/clay soils encountered in our explorations.
Footings supported on adequately compacted native dense sand or stiff to hard silticlay as
recommended above may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 6,000 psf for the total of all
dead and live loads. Footings supported on structural fill may be design for an allowable bearing pressure
of 4,000 psf. This value is exclusive of the weight of the footing and any overlying backfill. The
allo�vable bearin� pressure may be increased by one-third when considering wind or seismic loads.
Settlement
We estimate that post-construction settlements of retaining wall footings, if founded on undisturbed,
firm, and unyielding native soil or properly compacted structural fill extending to the undisturbed, firm
native soil, as recommended above, will be less than '/z inch. We expect that differential settlements
along continuous ��all foetings will not exceed about !�'a inch measured along ?5 feet of c�ntinuous
footin��.
Lateral Resistance
The available resistunee [o lutcral fuundation lua�lin<_ is u fun�tiun of the irictional resistanc� that can
be developed on the base, and the passive resistance that can develop on the face of below-grade
elements. The allowable frictional resistance for shallow foundation elements may be computed using a
ccefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to vertical dead-load forces. The allowable passive resistance on the
face of wall footings may be computed using and equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf (triangular
distribution)for structural fill. The above passive resistance applies if the soil extending out from the face
of the foundation element for a distance at least equal to two and one-half times the height of the element
consist of structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD or dense undisturbed native soil. The
above ccefficient of friction and passive equivalent fluid density value includes a factor of safety of
about 1.5.
SOLDIER PILE AND TIMBER LAGGING WALLS
General
We understand that the retaining wall located at the southeast corner of the proposed parking lot will
likely consist of a soldier pile and timber lagging shoring system. We also understand that a cast-in-place
retaining wall is not being considered due to the close proximity of existing utilities to the back of the
wall. We further understand that a concrete facing will be constructed in front of the lagging as a
G e o E n � i n e e r s 11 File No. '_20�-0 1 9-0010 1 2 204
permanent wall facing. A soldier pile and timber lagging wall system combines wide flange steel sections
embedded in concrete filled below-grade shafts, and timber lagging spanning between adjacent soldier
piles within the depth of the excavation. The concrete and steel section solider piles are typically
positioned at a center-to-center spacing of 8 feet or less.
As an alternate, the soldier pile spacing can be reduced to 6 feet on center and temporary lagging can
be eliminated within the dense/stiff soils encountered below a depth of about 4 feet in our explorations. It
will likely be necessary to place lagging in the upper portion of the wall excavation to support the upper
soils. This alternate system for temporary support is described below.
The wall system is typically designed to resist lateral soil loads by cantilever action through the
lateral restraint provided by the embedded portions of soldier piles. Additional lateral restraint can be
provided by tie-backs, if necessary.
The advantage of this wall system is that no mass excavation is necessary to install the wall. The
solider piles are first drilled into the existing ground, and the remainder of the wall is subsequently
constructed below ground with the solider piles providing soil restraint during construction.
Lateral Earth Pressures
We recommend that soldier pile walls be designed using the appropriate earth pressures based on the
final configuration of the retaining wall. The Earth Pressure Diagram presented in Figure 3 summarizes
the design parameters for a cantilevered, permanent soldier pile wall. Design of permanent shoring must
include potential surcharge loads from construction traffic as well as seismic loads. Figure 3 includes a
recommended uniform surcharge pressure for constivction traffic of 75 psf. In addition, we recommend a
uniform lateral pressure based on 8H in psf,where H is the wall height, be applied to the full height of the '
wall when taking seismic loading into consideration.
We recommend that the embedded portion of the soldier piles extend a su�cient distance below the '
base of the excavation to provide equilibrium. We recommend that the passive pressure be calculated by �
assuming a rectangulaz distribution of 1000 psf and a triangular distribution of 400 psf which act over
2 times the soldier pile diameter or the soldier pile spacing whichever is less.
Cobbles and/or boulders may be present in the glacial soils. The contractor should be prepared to
address the presence of cobbles and/or boulders during construction. ;
Lagging
We recommend that the lagging be designed for uniform pressures equal to one-half the active lateral
earth pressures presented in Figure 3. This pressure reduction is based on a maximum center-to-center I
pile spacing of 8 feet. If a wider spacing is desired, we should be consulted for revised lagging pressures.
Lagging should be installed between the soldier piles to retain the soils. Permanent lagging may I
consist of timber or concrete. If timber is used, it must be ade uatel treated for rotection a ainst water
9 Y P g
and biodegradation. We recommend that treated timber lagging be used to prevent rotting that can lead to
potential long-term settlement and loss of support behind the wall where utilities are present. Lagging
should be installed with a'/a-inch gap between lagging sections to allow for groundwater to flow through
G e o E n g i n e e r s IZ File No. 2202-019-00\012204
the shoring system and to be collected by the drainage system installed in front of the lagging, as
discussed in Drainage Considerations section of this report.
We conclude that temporary lagging may be eliminated within the dense/stiff soils if the soldier pile
space is reduced to 6 feet on center or less. We recommend that the soils above the dense/stiff soil be
supported by lagging or laid back to a stable slope (about 1-1/2H:1V). We also expect that the soldier
piles will be placed in drilled holes at least 2 feet in diameter that are b outed up to the level of the
lagging or cut slope.
Monitoring During Construction ',
We recommend that GeoEngineers observe the installation of the soldier piles and lagging during �
construction to verify that the assumed design conditions aze encountered during conswction. In �',
addition, observations with respect to groundwater, excavation stability can be monitored to verify that
the conditions are as planned.
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH
We understand that MSE or segmental block retaining walls may be considered for the east access
road because they are less expensive than a cast-in-place wall and can easily be removed for future
campus expansions. GeoEngineers can provide the wall design plans and specification; however, this
type of walls can be designed by the wall manufacturer or contractor. If the wall manufacturer or
conuactor provide the design, we strongly recommend that GeoEngineers review their plans and
specifications, to verify the design assumptions and construction details. The following paragraphs
include our general recommendations for MSE wall design.
The base of the retaining walls will generally be located within the stiff to hard silt and dense sand
and gravel encountered in our exploration. It is especially important that the subgrade is properly
prepared. Subgrade preparation will require a 6-inch deep overexcavation below the design bottom of
wall, compaction of the exposed subgrade soils to an unyielding condition, and placement of properl}�
compacted crushed rock fill to support the lowest course of block. The crushed rock fill placed at the
base of the wall should conform to WSDOT specification 9-03.9(1) for ballast or 9-03.9(3) for crushed
surfacing base course(CSBC). Based on our experience on other similar MSE retaining wall projects, the
drainage material behind the wall may consist of the same crushed rock fill as used at the base of the w��l l
or may consist of free-draining gravel that conforms to WSDOT specification 9-03.12(2) for gra�_�'
bacl:fill for walls. The reinforced fill behind the wall must be compacted to at least 95 percent of [
MDD. The reinforced fill should consist of imported sand and gravel that conforms to «'ST�!
specification 9-03.14(1)for gravel borrow.
The following soil parameters may be used in the design of segmental block walls for this proj��l:
Soil Unit Weight,y Angle of internal
Soil Tvpe/Location (pounds per cubic foot,pcf� Friction,�(degrees)
Wall Foundation Soil 120 30
Infill Soil 140 34
Retained Soil 120 30
Final design of the retaining walls should include an evaluation of the global stabilitv of each wall.
G e o E n g i n e e r s 13 File'�o. 220'_-019-00\01220.1
,;_; ,.. ;r ,,:. � ,�_ � - � ��
-� � �� �: �. .� �::;: .� �..
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FOUNDATION DESIGN
Based on the subsurface explorations completed near the existing footings along the north side of the
Rapid Care facility (HH-1 and B-4), we conclude that the footings are founded on very firm glacially
consolidated soil. The bottom of the wall footing is at about Elevation 77 feet. We expect that the
glacially consolidated soils below the footing can provide the adequate bearing capacity to support loads
on the order of 8,000 psf without appreciable compression of the underlying soil. It is our opinion that
wall footing subgrade can provide the desued bearing capacity for the increased loads from the proposed
pedestrian bridge. Furthermore, we estimate that settlement that may be caused by the increase in load
will be less than '/ inch.
ENTRY PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS
Generai
We understand that improvements to the southeast entry to the Surgery Center will include hardscape
and landscaping improvements at the Entry Plaza. We have been asked to provide recommendations for
intercepting surface water the will flow across the landscaping toward the east building wall (basement
wall). The ground surface in landscaping area will slope gently toward the building. The details
regarding building bacl�ill and foundation drains are not known, therefore an additional
interceptor/collector drain will be added to reduce the risk of water infiltrating along the basement wall.
In addition, new Portland cement concrete (PCC) surfacing will be added at the entry plaza and our
recommendations for support of the hardscape were requested. Our recommendations are included below.
tnterceptor/Collector Drain system
We recommend that the interceptor/collector drain include a 4-inch diameter rigid, smooth-walled,
perforated polyvinyl chloride (PVC)pipe sunounded by a zone of washed drain rock that is wrapped in a
non-woven geotextile. A PVC membrane should be placed along the face of the basernent wall and
extend below the zone of drain rock for a distance of about 4 feet to prevent water from infiltrating the
existing backfill located along the basement wall. The details of the recommended drain system are
shown in Figure 4.
Hardscape
We understand that the additional pavement at the Entry Plaza will consist of a 6-inch Ihickness of
PCC overlying 6 inches of compacted crushed rock. In our opinion, this section should be su�cient for
the anticipated lightly-loaded vehicles entering the facility, provided the subgrade soils are firrn and
unyielding prior to placement of the pavement section. We recommend that the subgrade be prepazed as
recommended above in the Site Preparation and earthwork section, and that a representative of
GeoEngineers observe the subgrade before the crushed rock is placed.
SEISMICITY
General
The Puget Sound area is a seismically active region and has experienced thousands of earthquakes in
historical time. Seismicity in this region is attributed primarily to the interaction between the Pacific,
G e o E n g i n e e r s 14 File No. 2202-019-00\012204
Juan de Fuca and Norch American plates. The Juan de Fuca plate is subducting beneath the North I
American Plate. Each year 1,000 to 2,000 earthquakes occur in Oregon and Washington. However, only �
a few of these are typically felt because the majority of recorded earthquakes are srnaller than Richter �I
magnitude 3.
In recent years, three large earthquakes occuned which resulted in some liquefaction in loose alluvial
deposits and significant damage to some structures. The first earthquake, which was centered in the
Olympia area, occurred in 1949 with a Richter magnitude of 7.1. The second earthquake, which occurred
in 1965, was centered between Seattle and Tacoma and had a Richter magnitude of 6.5. The most recent
earthquake, which occurred in Februar� ?001, ���as centered in the Nisqually area and had a Richter
ma�nitude of about 6.8.
Uniform Building Code (UBC) Site Coefficient
The Puget Sound region is designated as a Seismic Zone 3 in the 1997 edition of the Uniform
Building Code (UBC). For Zone 3 locations, a Seismic Zone Factor (Z) of 0.30 is applicable. In our
opinion,the soil profile at the site is best characterized as Type S� (1997 UBC).
International Building Code (IBC) Site Coefficient
In our opinion, the soil profile at the site is best characterized in the ?003 edition of the International
Buildin� Code as Site Class C (2003 IBCI.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
Construction Drainage
Depending on the [ime .�t ���ur. ���: �����t th:�t s}�all���� p,r�h���l ��z���un�i���.�t��r n�u� b�� en:<�unt�r��
during excavation. We anticipate that this water can be temporarily handled during construction 1
ditching and pumping from sumps, as necessazy. All collected water should be safely routed to suitat
dischar�e
..::;. _.�...��:.
Cast-in-place Walls We expect that some of the retaining walls will support parking areas and some
will support landscaped areas. Backfill placed behind walls supporting pavement must be compacted to a
higher standard than walls supporting landscaping. We therefore recommend that walls supporting
pavements be backfilled using imported sand and gravel. The on-site native soil rnay be used as wall
. backfill where landscaping is planned and the areas are not settlement sensitive. The following
paragraphs present recommendations for wall drainage for both situations.
Wall drainage when backfilling with native soil should include at least a minimum 12-inch thick zone
of free draining sand and gravel with less than 3 percent fines placed against the back of the retaining
walls. The zone of free draining backfill should extend from the base of the wall to within 1 foot of the
finish ground surface. The upper 1-foot should consist of relatively impermeable on-site soil or be
capped with pavement to reduce surface water infiltration. A non-woven geotextile fabric such as Mirafi
140N, Polyfelt TS600, Trevira 1112, or other as approved by the geotechnical engineer, should be placed
G e o E n � i n e e r s IJ File No. �202-019-00\01?243
between the wall backfill and the retained native soils to prevent movement of the fine-grained soils into
the wall drainage system. A smooth-walled, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) drain pipe at least
4 inches in diameter should be placed within the bottom of the 12-inch wide zone of free-draining gravel
at the base of the wall.
Wall drainage when backfilling with imported sand and gravel should also include a 4-inch diameter
smooth-walled,perforated,PVC drain pipe. However, the drain pipe should be located within an 18-inch
wide and 18-inch high zone of drain rock located at the bottom of the wall. The drain rock should be
enclosed (entirely wrapped) in a non-woven geotextile to prevent the migration of soil into the drainage
systern. Backfill above this drainage material must consist of imported sand and gravel as described
above in the Structural Fill section.
The drain pipe should be connected by a tightline system sloped to drain to an appropriate disposal
point. The drain pipe should include clean-outs to access the pipe if maintenance is required.
The wall drainage pipes should be installed along the entire length of the wall and discharge to an
appropriate tibhtline collection s}�stem.
Soldier Pile and Lagging �i'all We unders[and that a concrete facing will likely be installed over the
wood lagging for the soldier pile wall. A suitable drainage system should be installed to prevent the
buildup of hydrostatic groundwater pressures behind the soldier pile and lagging wall. If timber lagging
is used, drainage may be accomplished by spacing the timbers with a vertical gap of approximately
1/a inch. Strips of drainage material, such as Miradrain, should also be installed in front of the lagging.
The strip drains should be at least 24 inches wide and extend the entue height of the wall. '�
The space behind the lagging should be filled with free draining material as soon as practical. The II
free draining material will help reduce the risk of voids behind the wall and provide addiUonal drainage of '
potential groundwater seepage. The free draining material should be well graded with no particle larger ,
than 1/4 inch nor smaller than the U.S. Standard No. 40 sieve. We recommend that strip drains be
connected to a drainage system installed along the base of the wall and that collected water be routed to a
suitable discharge point. '
Surface Drainage '
Permanent drainage systems should intercept surface water runoff at the top and/or bottom of cut
slopes to prevent it from flowing in an uncontrolled manner across the site. ,
LIMITATIONS '
We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Valley Medical Center and their authorized �,
agents for the proposed Surgery Center and Site Improvements project. The data and report should be �'
provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions j
and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions.
j
_ I
G e o E n g i n e e r s 16 File No. 2202-019-00\012204 '
i
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance
with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this
report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions,express or implied, should be understood.
Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or
figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original
document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.
Please refer to Appendix C titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional
information pertaining to use of this report.
� � ►
We trust this report provides the information you require at this time. We appreciate the opportunity
to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us should you have any questions concerning our
findings or recommendations, or should you require additional information or services.
� Yours very truly,
S. McF ( Geo gineers, Inc.
� wns ( /
� `:
� ` �
, w� �
� �,� mball . Ols n
r0 eote hnical E in
26693 � �v
�CI3TER�' .�'�''
G �
s`SIONALE� zz�0�
� 1
EXPIRES 3 4 O S McFadden,PE,LEG
ssociate
KGO:1JM:ab
S EAT:1001FinaIs1220201900R.doc
Attachments
Two copies submitted
CopyrightQ 2004 by GeoEn�ineers,Inc. All rights resen•ed.
�� �l
� ,
� �_�
� ,__,
G e o E n � i ❑ e e r s 17 Fle No. 2 202-01 9-0010 1 2 204 �
•!��-, � ! � / �� 1 i�� ���
`� ��I � t�, .1�► '� I
' 1
� �: • ` ,'�7 � ���,11s�s��,i
� � • ��e:� ):�; -�
I II �� — �����';. � . ������►. �
6 :_... � , , `- '-
: ��.���j� � ,
� �4�� ��. � � ► , ��-
1 .,.
, ���� �� �� ,j .��
, , ,� .� � ��
;�.� �.: I, !,; , � `�. ��
3� ,. �� , ►� 1�, � .l�
� :,� ��
, � �� �'�1� ` �
� �I ; '��1 � � � ► �.
' II I�I �- "
l I _ ( p'; \`�r;�
ai ` •. .
� �� ; � �P� �.
� '�_ � ;.-; � � J
1i� • -- �� , �'l�
.,� -----_. _�� r�, ��a � ��
Ili� � II..��IiC�.JI_a�l,� ��'-�1i `�,"` �jr�'��� �
e I i �� , i'� I
/'
. , �i� o�;. ��_; ��,�,� �
� �
f�L��f� l���� , ,��y,,�
��.. . �.�.�.._- .��Ilw —._ ___ — �— ��__ �rr t _►'� ' r �� 1�
�,.� ,� �II't ' "' 'j'�' : � ^ ` �1r.*��1 �
'� � , �� r �� �' ��. i��..�
+ . I�, :, � �.. � �.;" !��
� � � ■
��� ��,�1 r �y 1 �
;f ,�, t�� , � �
• p� � / \
- ' ' �;� � �
-
,�� �r. ,
� 'I' '"; -- �•-- -, --- '
� � li,� _ ___ r _ _ �� _ �
_ �� ; � �
� 1i��; � � "
, -- � �.�� , � 1� �
- • �. . � �u., � _ -=--- ' _ .r.. �
I ��,`���� ��`�� �} � .� `1� :,
� �
p�---- -- - - ��;� o�►� ..��%� o
�,,,, � .�'� ,c� ,�- .
� �� �` -- � ��'�� :
, '�� , � .. ��,�'iI' � ��,� '1
. � �� ��� !� fl I �� ,,�€ � �' �., �4 ��■
�, �� j a _ �
_
:
� . ��. • ...
�����
.
• •
�
.
- - .... .. . .. . . - .. . . - -. .. .
•
. �
. .�
-� �' � i _�:
i �\ ���,\ � ,
%p / �� ��/ � _ � ,
/ �� /
/ ��� • � // '`�� \ �
r / . ��' _ � � , _ i
� f � - _ `
� � `� � \7 / \� / ` __
_ � � \ / �_ "�`
�� `�b �' �� / '' . / a �
�� -,I, �� ��, , , , `� '_�-',
_ \ �` ``� r \_`��''\\���� ' � / / 95 L' - . ./� �' ,`'
� ��'' - �J i � - . .,
�� �� � —� ` � � �=� PROPOSED \�J'�,� SURGERY CENTER �j
_,_ �`\
- ,, ��� �,�„
, �, �_. _ , ` �� ` PEDESTRIAN r° - ,` ,i �
$o \y r,`__ >z ,� BRIDGE �� ,'':�� ��;�i
=� � _.. �,: __, „ ,, � _ � ^ �
_ ;� `�_ ��'\ . ''=- e / / o
�- ��_n� � . !/ ^ /
\ �� �\ I �
\
. � � �8� ��� �
) %
� 8S� � . ��:�. ��� "� _ (9g
� - -- � ;, ,,?'���/�� �� _ > lt RADIATION :�
� - - �;:\_\ � _ �,J; - - - _ �� ONCOLOGY 'i
� _,�.:` �aoj;:\ �f , , _� . i�'� BUILDING -i- .
� � �_ , :
.� , _ ;
� � f _ � . / ,� �.
� �, .
� /_,. , j
�� _ �(10.3') � � _ ` �so� � ! �
, �
�� f - ' - H H-1 ! ��` � � � � � � _: '/ �j /
/ �- � � 1,_ �- ' _ � . /
�� . ,,:' � . � � _ � `-�.�` ' . - " j 4�"� �
� _ �
10 �� _ , _ r. . � ����,\_ � - � � /. /�
-. - ; •
,% , <. � -�. _ = _ -
, _. , _ _,� � HH
.• , �� 4
_ , .�. � 2� � ,
R . �- �`, . _ i
; , . .
, ,
, .. � / `.` �� �
-� 9 _ '�/�j� �o - � O .
. ,
i � ° ' FqC Cq : = ° _ - '� � ;"_ � �
� � _ � `� B-s� ���)yRE - -- '� -.�— `, „ ;'
,
,
,- � .
. � _ , . 1 - i
{1 5 ) , �� ; 0 � ,
•� - �' � _ .
, .,
_
l _ , _•- �:
._
�
. , _
. ,
�,. , , ' �
oa)
,
, � ,. -
_ _ -._.
- �� B-1 � } �r/ � l
c� , � : `- _ - , '.
. . � _ .
.,�
-
, - �C
� �.i '__ � `.- - - ' • . (26.5 } _ _ � �� i /�
N � -i� `� - - L�� 3 PAR�IN�S LOT ` " ' . � �, 5a� : �, ,,; � .;_ . . ` i
� / l�}' �� � EXPLANATION:
o '� � - _ / ` '� Lp� 1 r - �'i zo� --�
_� � ' . > __ ; , '/ ;
� � , � _.., % � �� � l HH-1 � HAND HOLE
--� i� .'�� -♦ �.�
'. °�, �.. o t I . � \ _ . . - �'O _ . �1 . � " r .'
p] '— �.._-.__�-x_ ' ; � _ p �
Q � _ ---�._._ _. ` ' r - _ ' � - L : 't� ' �_ . -f.., �� � B-1 -�- BORING & DEPTH
, -_
_ _ , _ -
� .
, . �., N t� ' -._ . . . R \ !
. __ ._.' _�..' ...� ....._ �� •. �� �� ' ��i I\�
! f
__.._
� "'o. . - . _' . , ._. . _____ ' � �� , __ . `�� .� r
' , i f
.
_ �.., , � .'_ .. __. . -_-�..— ..., . . � � '., � �h ��. . • � - '� _"__.� ._. . . � � . . _ . ' _
'
__ � ;` ! 25'
_ -�-B 2 � F' ' �
.. __ — —. --
___ _ _ _,
' (26.5') " I- r��
� � �8� - -- _ -� . . �.-. .. _ - — -- � - `- r,
� -`_ _: -` - . ,�a� �
_ . ,_ -_- -= -__- _ ,�___ : .
_. - _ `.- :` • � . =". .
' � ; �
.._..___..__._. ` - . :
r . ,:
._.._.._. �, �
_ _. --- � • - -
._ . _ �_
` ,
� �- _. ..- -- ----=-_ _ - - • __ . _ . - .. . - f;,
, o ,
, . : , _. -' - i
,, .
,
„
3 ,. �. � _ , ... _
:
o - +' �.� . _ _ �_ . (105) - � I �- --
• - -- � : ' , -' -- _ , �
, _ ,.
Q __. � _ . _— - , . - - - . - _ - > -----�-'--
o - _ ' -- --------
o ----- ; - _ __---. _ `.
--------------------
o, - -----—-------------- _ _ ._ _ . _ - - _ -- ----------------- 1
-----�--------- ---
--------------=-` .
� .� o---------------- --- � �- 1 ,Lg�
o ------=----------- . , o ------- ----- ------------- ---- --
_""'j"_""__' s "'
� _""' i . ""_ '
�
N -- ------------- ----�-SOUTHWEST � ---- -------------------- ----
_ � . -
. .
. .
- . ------t------�- 43RD
, ,
, ,
, ,
L,
. � ,
o . , ; ;
N '-�--- � . � � . � � � .
STREET`------- ---------- ----- � � - � �
---- ---------------- , , :
N -�" . � � - - .: . ---- '
� —'—'—'---'—�—�—�——'—.___ � , , � -------
--'-----'--- ' � .
� —'----- ---' <Y
. ---- ---- - -
. .. ---�----�-----
. -----------r----------- ------- —— ,
: � s --------- -------------- ———�=—�—— r- --_.——————— --------
,
�
^ . ;
,
---- �- � � �.-.J
, ,
, ,--- - - - - -- - - -- , ,
- o ------------------- ----------- -�
- -- -- --- ---- - ---- -- --- - ---=------------ -- r � r-._.
j Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. � 0 50 100
°' 2. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features �
� discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data SCALE IN FEET
� sources do not guarantee these .data are accurate or complete. There may have been updates to the
j data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The master hard SITE PLAN
� r copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of �e�o�d. GEOENGINEERS�
w Refe�ence: Drawing entitled "Volley Medicol Center, Exponsion Project, Site Poving & Grading Plan" EarthScience+Technobgy FIGURE 2
� dated 12/19/03 by NBBJ.
RECOMMENDED EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM
FOR CANTILEVER SOLDIER PILE WALL
G�°�r e S°�ese
�S\oP
1
I
�,
�
34
H
1
� 34H � �BH� �75 _ I
+� (psf) psf psf}1
Active Seismic Construction
400 Pressure Pressure Traffic
� Surcrarge
D �
�
0
�
CO i
\ �
0
g i---- 400(D-2'j (psf) � 1,000 � ,
�
I �PS`� �I
�
� Fassive Pressure
� \OT TO SCALE
� EXPIANATION:
m
o H = HEIGHT OF EXCAVATION, FEET
�
o D = SOLDIER PILE EMBEDMENT :=E��
N
O
N
N
/
� Notes: 1 . Passive pressures are assumed to act over 2 times the
o soldier pile diameter or the soldier pile spacing, whichever is less.
0 2. Active earth pressures assumed to act over pile spacing.
� 3. Passive pressures inciude e factor of safety of 1 .5.
0
N
0
� EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM
� GEOENGINEERS�
�
W EarthScience+Technology FIGURE 3
�
^- -g �T
i �T
�
%
, 'To P S o t�-.
��''� � Z�" �_
I �� i �'
,z �, _ 3t, i
O F ca��i S F�ED
�--``-- W A S t��U '�o c K
Rac�� F3��aw r�oN-woU�r-y G�-o-��lts
P�n� � �' D�•4 , 'P�.fLFpf?�4�c�L' f�� PE
�1�t�('CI�cAQ}�� r'�_�21?I C�
?
� \ • L l t�E'L�f
� � Fov�r�s� ,—rotl cr�.1�� ri
�
�
�
0
�
N
\
O
�`i O T�S � -
! . i�JA S N�D 4Zc� C !� S N�U L� ��`�T v�1 S �p T S�C, �'-0 3 .12�5�
Q ,� �P��� L- 8AC 1G�L G L t�2 DQ`r 1�1J��-LS �� a-r �P�20t/�D
� �.Q V� V�c LE N!.
� �. w2�P w�s��D P_oc►c � r r� ftdN - (,�JC��/�N G�T`�?Ci1 L�
r�1 j 2t��� 1�1� N , o(' �P P(�U�� ��cJ�v����1 i' �
3 • =1-�P��!"tE� P..,L� r�j/4�Q1�2. 5�-1 ot�� �7 P c �D t-�t L
'� �/C �'PO N D L� N C`►zJ j Cr �4 Q P�v�� �V 1 V/�L�1V j
L( . 'Pt rL�a n.�--r� P,A�. 5 f--�-�t��0 6 G <I - ��v c r-i p�A rt�-T��
� 2��it�� 5�'100?�1- WALL�D
� ��� �
a
0
I
N
N INTERCEPTOR/COLLECTOR DRAIN
GEOENGINEERS�
Q Earth Science+Technology F I G U R E 4
w
�
'; . - *��� ;. .�rr, '�"-:'�f ��'^'° "�-� 'i P q �' � r, �.i �A .�; .
7 L�, j5. ., k. �+.,.�•..`Ry�J'�'�.`�1�3_� '��.7 '�n' "+ . � r /1 .
p y '�,..y�,g �� ,�'��' { F L ... �
^ R�v+'��G,.�'��a���6Y�a�Yr �A'» �v'� _ p'��i�',�N. ,,,a,!�,,: � I �, ��N�1'�f��� � .�j+,+,�,t d ��f li'y �� i.i
�I..4��^C '+, ����}����$1SY �°�l
� t ��, ! ',(},+' '
�•�°•�� .�� � ��.{���#��'S, +.� `yti}�r r �y�l�w'�� ', �1 �
%�1�;����:+.^.,�� ���r��`c�4 ,r�..��.: �-�-- ���, ��„r� .
I dl��-i'S �:�+�'�W j,`�y�£x.� or,�.��...� �.. „w t�y��y�S;`,t�;��d�,�C�� '�1°'r;v��r� �.�.;� �y`�S� .,:' 3i '.J,"" 5 .' >
� Y y�,t` ',� �y v�,n�Y'W,"w�" `' �,!u 4.aF.1�"`'�'�6+"�''�d..d�'g,`ii�;�"���;'�s� "'�''.r t �', ,�.F �t (/�I
' �, P��4 �r� ;�l�'v�:,` :p..'aa*n.. x'»,.,�. �x�x�+ti a9id.�#'e �v� $,� x � � 'G 1 ; ..i "k J � �"�� � '� >, �
;,'7 �C li c y �F' :�fiT�'. y�n,l,y_*R;.y.'a,y,�a .�^..* ..,s� NC,wde�.c. �y�.�;��y3�'S�'�.r »�.(�� �R .- Y �� .., ,. r F
� �` C`�,��;�,:r4������.C.�.��. t�� .f�-�ni�,4��¢y,;,�y��'�"�ie n u �',b ,,,� wSd���7r,u"��'V1��1����i+,',A�fi�"Y+ i"��'.��} �+,P�. c��y � � T l.,.) ir.li ;i
L f� ac '4`�'�'r xa'� sz�- W •` +� i �1 � f t� L r t�,
„/� '� � `"�, 30 j w. h � w .: �4A ..,r;'rvv�'�' /t�l� n. v'' .' �" � t �r,� i ,� �d' / s
� kJ ,��,*� } �',, r �Oc�"�e �°' ;
)�s,�"r t y r. �'..�r � �i:��ff m{ .y � ����.y��}�'+'�R^.I�yr�R.�°'4yT!'1'�i '� G /:r ,�r' �=ixt3lk �'i���`'a�b (p�.�._I y.rVA tt ,.,tt i �
,•�4f Vy;n&yR.W�a 'WF-'�y .�mc +�a,�' o-.'r-, n�` ...�.0 w, d � �Y c �_y�
J �C '1P � k 5r�A.v�4� �j �M L 1 L',W.N '�.� � �
.� Sy� : �5 ��� ..} 3• �'4M�i�{ 'wF ~'� 4`h� �' _ . '
� s.��^ . .._ a �'�.2^` .. , . . . .. .. . . . . )t .4 �'�-.(�1' 'i/Y't�`T' �1'i' . . . . � _ . .. . . . .
N
Z
O
a c
x �
0 0
z �
w a
a x
a w
a o
J
W
LL
�n,'
�
�
�
�
Z
ll�
�
�
O
�
G.�'r
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions were evaluated by completing four borings (B-1 through
B-4) and two hand holes (HH-1 and HH-2) on December 31, 2003 and January 9, 2004. The borings
were completed using track-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling equipment owned and operated by
Boretec Inc. The borings were completed to depths ranging from 10'/z to 26'/z feet below ground surface.
The two hand holes were completed to depths ranging from abou[ 2 to 4'/2 feet below ground surface.
The hand holes were completed by a geologist from our firm using hand equipment. Locations of the
explorations were deternuned in the field by measuring distances with a tape from existing site features.
The locations of explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.
Representative samples were obtained of each soil type encountered in the borings using a 2-inch
outside diameter split-banel standard penetration test (SPT) sampler. The sampler was driven into the
soil a total of 18 inches using a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of about 30 inches. The
hammer was operated using a rope and cathead system. The number of blows required to drive the
sampler the last 12 inches, or other indicated distances, is recorded on the boring logs.
The borings and hand holes were continuously monitored by a geologist from our firm who visually
examined and classified the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples, observed surface and
groundwater conditions and prepared a detailed log of each exploration. Soils encountered were visually
classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A-1. A key to the
boring log symbols is presented in Figure A-2. The boring logs are presented in Figures A-3 through '
A-6. The hand hole logs are presented in Figures A-7 and A-8. The logs are based on our interpretation
of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils encountered. They also.indicate the
depths at which the soils or their characteristics change, although the change might actually be gradual.
The densities noted on the boring logs are based on correlation to the blow counts. The densities noted on ,
the hand hole logs are based on the difficulty of digging and our judgement. The ground surface
elevations presented on the exploration logs are based on topographic information included in Figure 2. I
The borings were backfilled in general accordance with local regulatory requirements.
G e o E n e i n e e r s A-1 File No. 2 202-0 1 9-0010 1 2 20•l
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME
SYMBOL
GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL,FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL
COARSE GP POORLY�'aRADED GRAVEL
GRAINED More Than 50%.
SOILS of Coane Frection GM SILTY GRAVE�
GRAVEL
Retained yyITH FINES
on No.4 Sieve GC CLAYEY GRAVEL
SW WELL-GRADED SAND,FINE TO COARSE SAND I
SAND CLEAN SAND �
More Than 50% SP POORLY�'aRADED SAND
Retained on
More Than 50X
No.200 Sieve SM SILTY SAND
of Coarse Fnction SAND
Passes WiTH FINES
SC CLAYEY SAND
No.4 Sieve
ML SILT
FINE SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC
GRAINED CL CLAY
SOILS
Liquid Limit
ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT,ORGANIC CLAY
Less Than 50
MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY,ELASTIC SILT
More Than SD�. SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC
Passes CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAY
No.200 Sieve
Liquid Limit
ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY,ORGANIC SILT
50 or More
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT
NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
1. Field classification is based on visual ezamination of soil in Dry- Absenee of moisture,dusty,dry to the touch
genenl accordance with ASTM D2486-90.
2. Soil elassifieation using laboratory tests is in general
Moist- Damp,but no visible water
accordance with ASTM D2487-90. Wet- Visible free water or saturated,usually soil is obtained irom below
S. DescripBons of soii dansity or consistency are based on water table
interpretation of blow count data,visual appearanee of soils,
andfor test data.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
GEOENGINEERS�
FIGURE A-1
t'soila-1 do:
LABORATORY TESTS SOIL GRAPHICS
AL Atterberg limits
CA Chemical analysis
CP Compaction
CS Consolidation $M Soil Group Symbol
DS Direct shear (See Note 2)
GS Sieve Analysis
%F Percent fines Distinct Contact Between Soil
HA Hydrometer analysis —� Strata
SK Permeability Gradual or Approximate
SM Moisture content Location of Change Between
MD Moisture and density ,
ST Swelling test —� Soil Strata
TX Triaxial compression
UC Unconfined compression Approximate Location of
---- ___ Change Within a Geologic
�`_Unit-----------
� Measured groundwater level
� Groundwater encountered
_ during drilling/exploration
= Perched water encountered
- during drilling/exploration
Bottom of Boring
BLOW-COUNT SAMPLE GRAPHICS
O
O
^ Btows required to drive sampler Location of sample obtained in general
� 12 inches using a 140-pound � �s � accordance with Standard Penetration Test
� hammer falling 30-inches (ASTM D-1586) procedures
N
N
W m Location of SPT sampling attempt with no
" recovery
�
a
c7
0
0
rn
0
N
O
N
�
N
J
Q
Z
LL
O
O
o NOTES:
� 1. The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text, the Key to Log Symbols and the exploration logs for
� a proper understanding of subsurface conditions.
u:
m2. Soil classification system is summarized in Figure A-1.
�
>
�
° KEY TO LOG SYMBOLS
>
w
o Project: Surgery Center and Site Improvements
o Project Location: Renton, Washington
GEOENGINEER� Figure: A-2
� Project Number: 2202-019-00 Sheet 1 of 1
N
Date(s) Logged Checked
Drilled 12/31/03 By RNM gy JJM
Drilling Drilling Sampling
concraaor Boretec Me�� Hollow Stem Auger Methods SPT
Auger 3 1/4 inch I.D. Hammer 140(Ib) hammer/30 (in) drop Drilling EC-55 Track-mounted Rig
Data DaW Equipment
Tota� 26.5 S"�� Approx. 107 Leeln(ft bgs)
Depth(ft) Elevation(ft)
Datuml
System
SAMPLES
o -� ; o � OTHER TESTS
�� � � o J � MATERIAL DESCRIPTION _ ..- ANo rvoTEs
�, � �
� � �� z � o N � n �� �°' ��
W� O w � j GVi O � � �j O T � O Z'G7
5 Z � m � C�.� C�cA �U ��
� ML Dark brown sandy silt,trace roots(soft,moist)(topsoil)
ML Grades to dark bro�m sandy silt with occasional gravel
(medium stiff,moist)
5
1 12 9
CL Brow�n sandy clay with gravel(stiff,moist) �g pL
CL-ML Gray silty clay(hard,moist)
10
2 18 33
15
3 1 S 25 Grades to very stiff,no gravel content 13 AL
20
v 4 6 73 With gravel,grades to hazd Grave]in shoe
0
N
N
F
0
�
N
N
w 25
� 5 IS 52
a Vv ith occasional gravel
c�
0
$
b
N
O
N
�
�
J
Q
Z
LL
O
O
�
O
N
O
N
�
�
a
0
H Note:See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols
c�
z
c
0
m
� LOG OF BORING B-1
W
o Project: Surgery Center and Site Improvements
oProject Location: Renton, Washington
ry �7EOENGINEER� Figure: A-3
� Project Number: 2202-019-00 Sheet 1 of 1
Date(s) 12/31/03 Logged RNM B�ecked ��M
Drilled By
Drilling Boretec Drilling Hollow Stem Au er �mpling SPT
Contractor Method 9 Methods
Auger 3 1/4 inch I.D. Hammer �40(Ib)hammer/30(in)drop Drilling EC-55 Track-mounted Rig
Data Data Equipment
Total 26 5 Surface Approx. 106 Levelndwater
Depth(ft) Elevatlon{ft) (ft.bgs)
DatuM
System
SAMPLES
� �
° � > MATERIAL DESCRIPTION � � OTHER TESTS
'� � �' o � � - r _ AND NOTES
m � o c c
> a... � � > y r aa �a� �L
LL1� �� � � y o m m rn o T m o Z.'m
� Z � m � C7J C9tn �U o�
� b1L Dark brown sandy silt,trace roots(soft,moist)(topsoil)
CL Grades to dark brown sandy clay with occasional gravel
(stiff,moist)
5
� �g 27 CL Brown sandy clay with gravel(very stiff,moist) �4 AL
, GM Gray silt��gravel with sand(ver}•dense,moist)
�� 2 3 50/6"
0
CL Gray clay with gravel and sand(hard,moist)
15
3 12 91/9" 10 AL,GS
20 SP-SM Grav fine sand with silt(verv dense,moistj
4 5 SO/s" ML Gray sandy silt(hard,moist)
e
0
N
N
o � SP-SM Gray fine sand with silt(very dense,wet)
c�
N
N
w 25
� 5 ]4 87
'a
c�
c �
0
rn
0
N
O
N
�
h
J
Q
Z
�
O
O
�
O
N
O
N
�
�
a
0
N Note:See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols
c�
z
�
0
� LOG OF BORING B-2 I
W ,
o Project: Surgery Center and Site Improvements
o Project Location: Renton, Washington
� GEOENGINEER� Figure: A-4
� Project Number: 2202-019-00 Sheet 1 or�
N
I Date(s} Logged Checked
Drilled 12131l03 By RNM gy JJM
Driliing Boretec Dr�ling Hollow Stem Au er Sampling SPT
Contracior Method g Methods
Auger 3 1/4 inCh I.D. Hammer 140(Ib) hammer/30(in) drop Drilling EC-55 Track-mounted Rig
Data Data Equipment
7otaf 11.4 Surtace APProx. 96 �e�el���gs�
Depth(ft) Elevation(ft)
Datum!
System
SAMPLES
� �
° � � MATERIAL DESCRIPTION = .� OTHER TESTS
'� s � � o J � � .� _ AND NOTES
a��i a� aai� Z � o `� a� a �� �?°= �m
Ww �4? � � a�i o � �° p � T � o Z'�m
0 Z � m � C7� t7tA �U ❑�
o AC 2"as haltic concrete
o GP-GM Gray fine gravel with sand and silt(medium dense,
ML moist fill
Dark browm sandy silt(stiff,moist)
CL Gray sandy clay occasional gravel(very stiff,moist)
5
1 10 19 13
�p SM Brown to gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel
2 15 90/11" (very•dense,moist)
� i
0
N
� I
� I
�
N
� I
L11
�
a'
c�
c
0
rn
o I
N
O
N
� I
J
Q
2
LL
g I
rn
0
N
O
N
�
�
a
0
� Note:See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols
�
z
�
0
m
� LOG OF BORING B-3
w
o Project: Surgery Center and Site Improvements
o Project Location: Renton, Washington
N �] EOENGINEER� Figure: A-5
� Project Number: 2202-019-00 Sheet 1 of 1
N
Date(s) Logged Checked
pr���� 12/31/03 By RNM By JJM
Driiling Drilling Sampling
convaccor Boretec Method Hollow Stem Auger Mecnods SPT
I
� Auger 3 1/4 inch I.D. . Hammer 140(Ib) hammed 30(in) drop Drilling EC-55 Track-mounted Rig
Data Data Equipment
Tota� 103 Surface Approx. 801/2 �evel(�bgs)
Depth(ft) Elevation(ft)
DatuM
System
SAMPLES
2 �
� L � g � MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ' _� �qND NOTESS
� �
a�i a� m a� Z � o `� � a �� a�:? �rn
w w �� � � � o m m rn o � ia o ��a�
0 Z � [� � C�.° C�tA �i U ��
o AC 2"As halt concrete
GP-GM Gray brown fine gravel with sand and silt(medium
SM dense moist fill
Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel(medium
dense,moist)
ML Gray silt with sand and gravel(hard,moist)
5
1 18 64
10 �
<
0
N
N
H
�
�
N
N
�
W
�
a
c�
0
0
� 'i
0
N
O
N
�
�
J
Q
Z
LL
O
I O
�
O
N
O
N
�
�
a
0
� Note:See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols �
c�
z
�
o �
� LOG OF BORING B-4 �'
w
o Project: Surgery Center and Site Improvements I
oProject Location: Renton, Washington
� C]EOENGINEER� Figure: A-6
N Project Number: 2202-019-00 sneec i or i
i
i
Date Excavated: 12/31/03 Logged by: �M
Equipment: Hand Tools Surface Elevation (ft)_ Approx. 81
�
o � o � OTHER TESTS
�� L z MATERIAL DESCRIPTION _ �- AN� rvoTEs
� N V C �C
N N �N a N a j� w`y,:: �p�
Illw �� E E ia cao� oE m �
c
Q � � � C�� (�tn �U ��
Dark brown sand�silt,trace roots soft.moisf to soil
° GP-GM Gray fine to coarse gra��el with sand and silt(medium dense,
° moist)(fill)
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ML Grav silt with sand and ravel verv stiff moist
Concrete foundation at 1.5'
Bottom of concrete foundation at 3.5'
Boring completed at 4'on O1/09/04
5 No groundwater encountered
a
0
N
N
� �O�
F
0
�
N
�
W
C7
a
c�
0
rn '
0
N
O
N
�
�
J
Q
'L
L�
O
O
Of
O �
N
O
N
N
�
a
o �5 I
N Note:See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols
�
a
�
w I
r i
� LOG OF HAND BORING HH-1 '
W
o Project: Surgery Center and Site Improvements '�
oProject Location: Renton, Washington '
� GEOENGINEER� Figure: A-7 ,
� Project Number: 2202-019-00 Sheet 1 of 1
N I
.-___ . ._. I
Date Excavated: 12/31/03 Logged by: �M
Equipment: Hand Tools Surface Elevation (ft)� Approx. 81 1/2
�
a
� Z MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o � OTHER TESTS
� s �, �, � � �- AND NOTES
n.�
NN � a� a `y a �� �� �rn
ww? �w m m ia � o � � mo Z•'�
O cn [n ?i (7� C�cn �U ��
Dark brown sandy silt,occasional gravel and roots(soft,moist)
to soil
Gh� Gray to brown silh�fine to coarse gravel with sand,trace roots
° (medium dense.moist)
Becomes wet at 1.5'
0
Concrete foundation at 1.9'
Boring completed at 1.9'on 12/31/03
Perched groundwater encountered at 1.5'
5
i
� �,
� I
� ,
0
N I
N �O l
~
�
�
N
� I
� � I
� I
O �
m
� I
N
N I
� I
� I
J
¢ I
Z I
� � I
O
� I
�
O
N
O I
cV
� I
� �
a
� �5
N I�ote:See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols �I
�-
a
�
�
� LOG OF HAND BORING HH-2 I
w
o Project: Surgery Center and Site Improvements
oProject Location: Renton, Washington
� GEOENGINEER� Figure: A-8 �
N Project Number: 2202-019-00 Sheet 1 of 1
N
j�� �r � F':' � t ")„¢@ z':e"=.: � a.y,:k;�ti�M - �37•'.;y�',�� z F ���r i {� r � � "`,.'4 r� ^� l
�
t .� E � �p.y�A .��A�y6�if. �� �k _.� .. � d'��4F* �y�r 1.��5� d P� � ' f
�}���`S pi7" �' �� .Aj.G:,at,'� �!y��ry�.., ��ncpn���y� FVy#Yr� - ����,� � �,.1q�ir � 1 Y � i�,� �yk �Vi lr.p ri
� ..F,4�d.� ,� .,� � �,AaW . �: n;'+ :; �'.- � d %A'fV p N7Yj}a�����' �tia 'I j� � � w ��-'
5 .�+,� 4��"��.��* ���a" `.�"�,�".�+i ?V����yk� �'�i.i .5�+�4�Y��� #,t l f�Y,� `�3� .�.� Y 7.�%!I �Y �., ���
�r:..i�+,,,5' da ✓ �,. . '�au ��°a�+...^t 1. �i ty t -rW .:.h
� �`.� il',�,,j�:y'�� , �a �'�x,;Rn'�r`%�.,,`� �,o � �"k P, �w� n �� � �;/"�.�,d ��l :a � ;�,r n �� � �.;".'
' + '} .. . . .- ' .. ' , �R�?i wsy �j �•,i�t 7�t`� x„�:, 7k� �4. 4�y�'N r/ i�J ' s.
�s��1',� a ¢.T.. �Is � w s"..*ay�.a iF
� x� .�,.�' �, , � �.� �� �
;�;'§" �'' ' �e "'""w"�'�"„� , ,,�
.:/ f Y�:; '�^ys"'� �,r�.�?�r.. . ' � . !`''�, � , 'Rpi'�`s w nzi' "'+ ��- �" �k.i {�`a)�tp�,'xr,,��,��c{t�F. .p�� r°J � o `.x a� e 7 > '�
jy✓'.�,�� C✓r. �',Y','�"�,�e-�.i ^� ��� '�^�4"sapq.S.�4y°�"q°qr`'�"w"`k�' +.�, pn�:.t:kt y��h'��;.,:�,��a b n�f'�,1"S L `::� ��.e��. �i 4 1 � � ���::"�e � � ���`. .
,� a.;,a ,4 y.� ...u�(U, ����y�Y��� .'� ��'�7:��ykt,"iy^*a„2i, .. neeeevlID. @.;! +� 9,. }� ,�@^x � � J /: '`yi
���f 7> G, yR"„ 4 t� s' Wfi ��,+��,,,` Q y.'�.'�u. � i4�i so}, gt + �' yF�'��� C` 7 '�l j k ���a �Y � r Y :y /
� R��.r '7J�d°CA.^�T'y+�1 f�y:,T`(�� ��k"�Tr"'�'K�Oi��"k�.a� n"�''; �. .f t.TL�A'�cr���r yE �s.�i�� t �'r � . J f"' �� r :Y/ry ) .
� ','7.:. `�as�y,'�>r^3' .l. t'�,^ �!�.'��'��°�;z�"�: .�. � tc��.^ t .LF ��,h,�ra s x ,�.f.,.d a �'� c i ;�{r "::' �1n
1���1�F�d,''Y� x,°�>nt'�'ri5 c 9 �L�� ��y'g�iM�+�t+4 aLu* '" � "`�. �• 'srs �n �i�y s fi "'"Yt .c� i � �r,�k� .ys ,y l e �l� Fw
����5t;�.�r/ i a.l�.$ 1�iW4�„�� � �.� �,�+.�t+�2����.M �� °� kx �.w i,:,�. F�d �{�rd �tf� `.:@ � L -,:: + �,t'
.
l���� .� , ,�.�� $�`,�`." 4i`p�'����i d�''� +P ����'�4,� s �"�`°j`.a . i ..
1 ,� . . , � i�„ , . . �N� . .. �� . � �
�i iF� . � .:. p . .,. .i. : ..�5 ��� �f,,., � Ji '��,a " � �w
, . ..t
,
. �"
.
. . �
. . .:
.
! i � . ,. .�., ., . , „ ... � .: ., . .n, ' �.
. .. ., ,. . ., ,... � . ���� � ,
, �
V
Z
H
m N
W
X f-
� �
W O
a a
a o�
0
m
a
J
�r°.,`
19T,
�:
L�11
L.Li
Z.
�
�
�
�
�1,N
If �
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
GENERAL
Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to our laboratory and examined to
confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering properties of the soil samples.
Representative samples were selected for laboratory testing consisting of moisture content determination,
sieve analysis, and atterberg limits determination. The tests were performed in general accordance with
test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials(ASTM) or other applicable procedures.
The results of the laboratory tests are presented in Figures B-1 and B-2. The results of the moisture
content determinations are presented on the exploration logs at the respective sample depth in
Appendix A.
MOISTURE CONTENT TESTING
Moisture contents tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 for representative
samples obtained from the explorations. The results of these tests are presented on the exploration logs in
Appendix A at the depths at which the samples �vere obtained.
SIEVE ANALYSES
Sieve analyses were performed on selected samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The
wet sieve analysis method was used to detemune the percentage of soil greater than the U.S. No. 200
mesh sieve. The results of the sieve analyses were plotted, classified in general accordance with the
USCS, and presented in Figure B-1.
ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTING
Atterberg limits testing was performed on selected fine-grained soil samples. The tests were used to
classify the soil as well as to evaluate index properties. The liquid limit and the plastic limit were
estimated through a procedure performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. The results of the
Atterberg limits testing are summarized in Fi�ure B-?.
G e o E n e i n e e r s B-1 File Va 2'_0:,-019-00\0132Q3
, �
2202-019-00 JJM:YA:jrs O1/09/04(Sieve.ppt)
� U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
m 3" L5" 3/4" 3/R" �t4 tll0 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
0 100
m -- - ---
z 90 - _ _
� ---- - _ _
— � 80 ---- - - - _ _
Z � --
^' � �o - - -
m - - - --- -_ _
_ _ _ _ ._ _ _ . ---
t1t m 60 --- - -- - -
c� — — — —
Z 50 - - -
�
� __ __ - - -_ __.
� 40 - — - --
� 30 -- ---
U
� 20 _ _ -- - - - . -
10 -- --
N 0
� 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
m
-n z GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETEAS
� a
C r
� �
m N
� N GRAVEL SAND
=► m COBBLES COARSE FINE COARSE MEDNM FINE SILT UR CLAY
N
C
r
-�
N SYMBOL EXPLORATION DEPTH SOIL CLASSIFICATION
NUMBER ft
♦ B-2 15.5' Gray siity sand(SM)
2202-019-00 JJM :CTS:jvj 1-10-04(Atterbergs.ppt)
� PLASTICffY CHART
m
0 60
rn
z :
:
an 50 ..
Z
m CH or OH
rn '
:
:
7� w 40 �
V� Z P����
� �
:
30 �
--- — _ _ - - •
v - � — -- _ ---
F
�
� JV
g OH or MH
:
n- 20 �
:
�CL r OL
:
10 •
__ _ _____-- ----- --
�
'i ML or OL
m
�
� 0
m
� 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
� �
C � LIQUID LIMIT
� �
m v�
a �
N N SYM80l EXPLORATION SAMPLE MOISTURE LIQUID PLASTICITY
—{ NUMBER DEPTH CONTENT(%) LIMIT(%) INDEX(%) SOIL DESCRIPTION
�
m
�
C
� � B-1 6.0' 19.2 31 11 Brown clay(CL)
tn � B-1 16.0' 13.3 22 6 Gray silty clay(CL-ML)
8-2 6.0' 13.6 26 8 Light brown clay(CL)
• B-2 16.0' 9.6 22 7 Dark gray clay(CL)
,
•_ �h
� � ������� �.
���t }'_v+���'�IR��Q._`����.
^ �,�.�a�, ��„��• �
tFv
"��LoP�"��f�s .
'•�St?;'v7�°' � �-
.��l� ��
{
_� �F��NC�NEE�S ;r�`/°'
� �
s
�
s
�
APPENDIX C
REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE
�
/��rs,
i:.:
��,�¢��i�, � i
- �`�� �
��a�'..i�'��'� �I
, � ���t�{',I
������73E t�.7�,�;
��t; �d�Q�p s ��
y�P ,� ����;gg��r %'�� I
��,����'.�a���
�q.����s�., � ��
-:'�'*��'��+'�`.����,
,3 3rf��':` I
>
��r�s�99�'s`�', I
.„� s � F �'� .
� "���tf�f �t i
5
J{�s f rf .• s I,
; T /'�tK�. ,
Yy � : _� I
V ) t:�;�
���� ����}� � 'il
2
A s�.vS u�'l�. �'.
A �'.'��'.:a. ,i
� -�2 5 I4 K�i���-- '�
- ��iS#�����? �,
F ,�
���y.����`�. I
���`�5
������ .
•--:
�.�,� � �
, } .�
���
��
����� � �
,
��'�� �:
— ��� �� �
;�, ,�„,��.��.��`�
��.
��� �,.��:�''`�;,
�.�" f �_ -
..a.s„�`��� ��� _
�.,w�-__
-��:.._,,��.�
-.`ti..- ����.
�i l
'�L.'�'!= -.��;}J.'-..
� _ _ _,f,� �tA
T F '� �.:�9 �M' _
. �fJ �-�f k �' �tr`� :
�� .4a .fa Y`�.4�
� '�' a"*�'��>,..
����. �At� �� .
:� ' ,R .'sy��t+
� Y� k
F ��.y �K��� .
L "� .i< ��f�s 4 -'_
. . . -�� �6.-� _.
,. � - m
t
� T=`' �' �
V '
=�
APPENDIX C
REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE'
This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this
report.
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES,
PERSONS AND PROJECTS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Valley Medi�al Center and their authorized
agents. This report may be made available to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating
purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the
subsurface conditions. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein
is not applicable to other sites.
GeoEngineers swctures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a
geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a
construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project.
Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report
is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive
use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to
such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended
liability claims by third parties with which there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with
our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this
report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one
originally contemplated.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT IS BASED ON A UNI(�UE
SET OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS
This report has been prepared for the Surgery Center and Site Improvements Project located at the
Valley Medical Center Campus in Renton, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique,
project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. i'nl�ss
GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was:
• not prepared for you,
� not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
� completed before important project changes were made.
� Developed based on material provided by ASFE,Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences;www.asfe.org.
G e o E n e i n e e r s C-1 File No. 2'02-019-00101320�i
i
For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure;
• elevation,configuration,location,orientation or weight of the proposed swcture;
• composition of the design team; or
� project ownership.
If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the
opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or
confirmation, as appropriate.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE
This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was
performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by
manmade events such as conswction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods,
earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying
a report to determine if it remains applicable.
MOST GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS ARE PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS
Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced
sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data
and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout
the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this
report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the
subsurface conditions.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT FINAL
Do not over-rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These
recommendations are not final,because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers' professional
judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or
liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation.
Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during
construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the
explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the
work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in
accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this
project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
G e o E n g i n e e r s C-2 File No.2202-019-00�012204
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT COULD BE SUBJECT TO
MISINTERPRETATION
Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You
could lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans
and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report.
Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and by
providing construction observation.
DO NOT REDRAW THE EXPLORATION LOGS
Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their
interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent enors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other
design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that
separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
GIVE CONTRACTORS A COMPLETE REPORT AND GUIDANCE
Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated
subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems,
give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly
written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes
of bid development and that the repoR's accuracy is limited;encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers
andlor to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre-
bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study.
Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while
requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and
schedule.
CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE SAFETY ON THEIR OWN
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods,
schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for
managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and to adjacent properties.
READ THESE PROVISIONS CLOSELY
Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience prac�ices
(geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science
disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to
disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations" provisions
G e o E n g i n e e r s C-3 File No.2202-019-001012204
in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these
"Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use"apply to your project or site.
GEOTECHNICAL, GEOLOGIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS SHOULD NOT BE
INTERCHANGED
The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly
from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a
geotechnical engineering or geologic report dces not usually relate any environmental findings,
conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Similarly,environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic
concems regarding a specific project.
BIOLOGICAL POLLUTANTS
GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention, or
assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants in or around any structure. Accordingly, this report
includes no interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions for the purpose of detecting,
preventing, assessing, or abating Biological Pollutants. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is
not limited to, molds, fungi, spores,bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts.
G e o E n � i n e e r s C-� File No.�20 2-0 1 9-0010 1_'_'0-1