HomeMy WebLinkAbout03178 - Technical Information Report - Geotechnical I
I
�
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
OIL CAN HENRY'S QUICK LUBE
138TH AvENUE SE
RENTON,WASHINGTON
G1662
� Prepared
For
Ms. Marsha Emerson
OCH International, Inc.
1200 NW Naito Parkway, Suite 600
Portland, Oregon 97209
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
13240 N.E. 20th Street, Suite 12
Bellewe, WA 98005
Phone: (425)649-8757
�
, Geotechnical Engineers,Geologists
ro u p N o r t h w e s t, I n c• 8 Environmental Scientists
June 17, 2003 Project No. G-1662
Ms. Marsha Emerson
OCH International, Inc.
1200 NW Naito Parkway, Suite 600
� .
Portland, Oregon 97209
Subject: GEOTEC�INICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
, Proposed Oil Can Henry Quick-Lube
138�' Avenue SE
Renton, Washington
Dear Ms. Emerson: '
� We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Oil Can
__ Henry Quick Lube, 138'� Avenue SE, Renton, Washington." The purpose of this study is to
evaluate the geotechnical issues regarding the proposed construction of an Oil Can Henry quick-
lube facility on the property.
The main geotechnical considerations for the project site include evaluating the soil conditions,
,.. addressing earthwork considerations, including structural fill, trench bacl�ill and the suitability of
the on-site soils for use as structural fili, providing geotechnical design parameters for retaining
walls, basement walls and building foundations design criteria, addressing drainage considerations,
and evaluating the existing ecology block retaining wall along the t�orth property line. Our scope
of service included a visual reconnaissance of the site, subsurface exploration by drilling two
borings, review of the area geologic map, and preparation of this geotechnical report.
This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests and engineering
analysis. The site soils consist of glacial till, a dense mixture of sand, silt and gravel, deposited
and overridden by the advancing glacier during the glacial period some 12,000 years ago. The
site soils encountered consist of Silt with gravel and fine sand and silty Sand with some gravel.
Subsurface water was not encountered and is not anticipated during construction.
cirv
RE�EIEVED
13240 NE 20th Street,Suite 12 • 8el�euve,Washingto�98005 JAN ?3 ?004
Phone425/649-8757 • FAX4251649-8758 ��i1�1�)!NG �������
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138`� Ave. SE, Renton Page ii
Geotechnical Engineering Study
�
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, the proposed quick-lube building can be
supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on the dense site soils, or on
structural fill that extends down to the dense soils. The parking lot soil subgrade should be
compacted and proof-rolled with a loaded dump truck to verify that the subgrade is dense and
� unyielding prior to paving.
The site soils contain silt and will be highly moisture sensitive during wet weather. The subgrade
should be protected during wet weather. Generally, silty Glacial Till soils are not be usable as
structural fill during wet weather unless the material is protected from moisture infiltration and
'' absorption. The glacial till site soils should not be planned on for use as structural fill material
during wet weather. During wet weather we recommend importing a free-draining granular pit-
run material having less than 5 percent fines (silt and clay size particles).
The stability of the existing ecology block retaining wall is questionable. We recommend it be �,
removed during excavation and construction of the building basement, then be rebuilt or replaced � �
after completing the backfill around the basement. To prevent the new retaining wall from
� imposing an additional surcharge load on the basement wall, we recommend it be moved 5 feet
north and be supported by undisturbed glacial till soils. If the retaining wall will be replaced with
_, . a modular block wall (eg. Keystone wall), a rockery retaining wall, or a conventional concrete
retaining wall, design recommendations for the new wall type can be provided upon request.
�� Our geotechnical recommendations are discussed in more detail in the attached report. We
appreciate the opportunity to perform this geotechnical study and look forward to working with
you during the construction phase. If you or other members of thefdesign team have any
questions about the content of this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please call.
Respectively Submitted
GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC.
William Chang, P.E.
Principal
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
G-1662
1.0 INTRODUCTION Pa�e
1.1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
� 1.2 Scope of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS
2.i Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Subsurface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2.1 Geologic Map Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
� 2.22 Field Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2.3 Site Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.4 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.0 SEISMICITY
3.1 Puget Sound Seismic History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2 Liquefaction Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �
3.3 Uniform Building Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2 Assessment of Existing Retaining Wa11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3 Site Preparation And General Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3:1 Erosion Control &Wet Weather Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.2 Use of Native Site Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.3 Structural Fill Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.4 Subgrade StabilizaLion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4 Excavationsand Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5 Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6 Basement Walls And Conventional Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.7 Slab-on-grade Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.8 Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.8.1 Surface Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.8.2 Footing Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.8.3 WallDrainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.9 Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.10 Pavement Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
SA LIMITATIONS & ADDITIONAL SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
ILLUSTRATIONS: Plate 1 - Vicinity Map
Plate 2 - Site Plan
Plate 3 -Typical Basement Wall and Footing Drain Detail
APPENDIX A: USCS Legend&Boring Logs
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
OIL CAN HENRY'S QUICK—LUBE
138TH AvENUE SE
RENTON,WASHINGTON
� G-1662
� 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located on 138`�Avenue SE, north of the intersection of NE Sunset Blvd and ,
13 8�` Avenue SE, as indicated on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The site is currently an undeveloped '
fenced gravel parking lot. Based on the preliminary site plan by Lundin Cole Architects, the site
development plan includes constructing a two-bay quick-lube building, a trash enclosure, new
driveways and parking. The proposed new building will be 28 feet wide by 45 feet long (1260 '
square feet} with a full basement. �
1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
_ We performed this study in general accordance with our proposal dated May 1 S, 2003. On this
basis, our scope of services include:
— Sub urface ex 1 r ' n ri 1' � Q �
s p o atto by d 1 in� two borin�s in the vicinity ot the proposed building to I
depths of 12 feet. ,
_ L '
ogging of the bonngs, laboratory testing ot the soil samples for moisture content, and �
preparation of boring logs. '
r '
— Engineering analysis and geotechnical design parameters for retaining walls, basement wall '
and building foundations, grading considerations, drainage, slab-on-grade floors, subgrade I
stabilization, pavement section design, utility trench bacl�illing, and earthwork criteria t;�� ''
(`I1—ti1�C 1I�C� 'i11�1(lrjtC� �.`1�� �`.3�113i1��i1 ;`t t}ll' :\I�fiI'�LI :'c�11Ci'�tC t'!�i�C� f�t:'.lil1P,�> `.�;3(i Ii
_ ). � rl, � r� � � 'i•�� > > � �
{ �:�t����I:i`1��i�1 .`�f �;�1� _�l?1���i[,I�.J '�F �'( . ;11�'�ii�_I�?�_ _ ... .1�;. .:I1��. .�i�lj:i� �. �..ii��iL',It)Ii� ��illij
TCC(lI?�Iilc'[l(j�lTli)Il�
GEO Group \orthwest, 1
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138`�Ave. SE, Renton Page 2
Geotechnical Engineering Study
� 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS �
2.1 SURFACE I�
� The subject vacant lot is rectangular in shape, measuring approximately 85 feet by 218 feet, as ;
shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2. The property is bounded to the east by 138`� Avenue SE (Duvall
Avenue NE), to the south by an ARCO gasoline station, to the west by a new car wash facility
, that was under construction at the time of this study and to the north by single family residences. �
There is minimal grade difference across the lot from north to south and east to west. A 7 foot �!,
tall concrete block earth retaining wall is located about 15 feet south of the north property line. �i
2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
� I
2.2.1 Geologic Map Review I'�
According to the "Prelimii�arv Geologic Map and Brief Description of the Coal Fields of King
County, Washington," by�W. C. Warrren, et al., dated 1945 and published by the United States
Department of the Interior Geological Survey (LJ.S.G.S.), the surficial soil unit covering the
subject site and adjacent areas is classified as Glacial Drift (Qg). A more recent geologic map
entitled "Preliminarv Geolo ig,c Map of Seattle and Vicinity, Washin�ton," by Howard H.
Waldron, et al., dated 1962 and published by the U.S.G.S., classifies the surface soils just west of
the project site as Vashon Till (Qt). Accordingly, Vashon till consists chiefly of a compact,
. frequently concrete-like, poorly-sorted mi�cture of clay, silt, sand, pebbles, and cobbles, with
-- occasional large boulders. Vashon till was deposited directly by th� ice as it advanced over
bedrock and older Quaternary sediments during the last glacial period some 12,000 years ago.
� 2.2.2 Field Investigation
Geo Group Northwest conducted a site reconnaissance and explored subsurface soil conditions by
drilling two borings on Jui�e 6, 2003 with a Mobile B-61 drilling rig. The borings were drilled to
a depth of 12.5 feet. The borings were located in the vicinity of the proposed two-bay oil change
building, as shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2. Soil samples were collected at 2.5 to 5 foot intervals
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
June 17, 2003 G-1662
� OCH - 138`� Ave. SE, Renton Page 3
Geotechnical Engineering Study
' by driving a 2-inch O.D. split spoon sampler with a 140 pound hammer and 30-inch drop
(Standard SPT). The number of blows required to drive the sampler 1-foot (N-value) are
recorded on the Boring Logs, Appendix A. The soils were ciassified and returned to our
laboratory for moisture testing.
� 2.2.3 Site Soils
Based on the subsurface exploration, the site soils consist of Glacial Till, consisting of dense to
very dense, gray, SII,T with some gravel and fine sand to silty fine SAND and varying amounts of
gravel. Laboratory testing on representative soil samples included determination of moisture
content. The moisture content results are included in the Boring Logs, Appendix A. For a more
detailed description of the soil c�nditions encountered, please refer t� the Borin<� I,o��s
2.2.4 Ground��,�[ei
Gr��und�iatci ���as r�ut �ticount�reu in thc Lurin�,s_ Oxidizc;d zuncs indicatir,�� p�tential ���at�r
bearing zones were not encountered. During the wet winter months it is possible stratified zon��
of sand and gravel within the Glacial Till may contain limited perched water. Subsurface water
seepage levels and the amount of seepage may fluctuate, depending on the season, amount of
� rainfall, surface water infiltration, runoff and other factors.
� 3.0 EI I TY
S SM CI
,�
-,
3.1 PUGET SOUND SEISMIC HISTORY
� The greater Puget Sound area has experienced a number of small to moderate earthquakes and
occasionally strong shocks in the brief historical record of the Puget Lowland area. The following
significant earthquakes have been recorded in the Puget Sound region:
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138"' Ave. SE, Renton Page 4
Geotechnical Engineering Study
� EARTHQUAKE AISTORY
Location Date Richter Magnitude
Olympia April 13, 1949 7.1
Seattle-Tacoma April 29, 1965 6.5
Maury Island January 29, 1995 5.0
Bainbridge Island June 23, 1997 4.9
Duvall May 2, 1996 5.4
Nis ualh� Februarv 28, 2001 6.8 I
Historically, major earthquakes in the region were believed to be associated with deep-seated I�
_ plate tectonic activity. The U.S. Geologic Survey has identified a west trending"Seattle Fault" ',
consisting of a broad zone of three or more south-dipping reverse faults that extends across the
� densely populated Puget Lowland from Lake Washington through the Seattle downtown area to
Dyes Inlet north of Bremerton. Quaternary sediment has been folded and faulted along all faults
within the zone. A Holocene marine terrace, with up to 7m of uplift, has been documented at
� Restoration Point on southeast Bainbridge Island. Analysis of growth strata across the northern
most fault indicate minimum Quaternary slip rates of about 0.6 mm/year, with slip rates across the
entire zone estimated at 0.7 to 1.1 mm/year. Modeling has concluded that earthquakes of
magnitude 7.6 to 7.7 are possible, and has inferred that the Restoration Point displacement was
� associated with a Seattle Fault earthquake (Magnitude >7) that occurred about 900 AD. Since
1970, when the regional seismic network hecame operational, the lazgest two earthquakes
associated with the Seattle Fault zone include the magnitude 5.0 e�ent that occurred 17 km below
Point Robinson on Maury Island on January 29, 1995, and the magnitude 4.9 event that occuned
at a depth of 7 km beneath Point White on southwest tip of Bainbridge Island on June 23, 1997.
The Seattle Fault is cut into two main segments, 30-40 km long, by an active, north-trending,
strike-slip fault zone with a cumulative dextral displacement of about 2.4 km. Faults in the north-
trending zone truncate and warp the Tertiary and Quaternary strata and locally coincide with
bathymetric lineaments. Cumulative slip rates on these faults may exceed 0.2 mm/yr. Although
segmentation could limit the ruptured area in some Seattle Fault earthquakes, the event that
GEO Group Nortfiwest, Inc.
. 7une 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138`� Ave. SE, Renton Page 5
Geotechnical Engineering Study
1 occurred around 900 AD appears to have involved both segments.
3.2 LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where loose granular materials below the water table temporarily
behave as a liquid due to strong shaking or vibrations, such as earthquakes. Clean, loose and
saturated granular materials are the soils susceptible to liquefaction phenomena. Based on the
subsurface site conditions, it is our opinion that the project site has a minimal potential risk of soil
' liquefaction during a seisrnic event.
3.3 UMFORM BUILDING CODE
Foundations for the proposed development will be supported by very dense Glacial Till soils. The
1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), classifies western Washington as Seismic Zone 3 (Figure
16-2), and assigns a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.30 (Table 16-I), The site soils best correspond
to a Soil Profile Type of S� - Very Dense Soil Profile Type (Table 16-n. Based on a Seismic Zone
Factor (Z) of 0.3 and a Soil Profile Type of S�, the Seismic Coefficient Ca is 0.33 (Table 16-Q)
and the Seismic Coefficient Cv is 0.45 (Table 16-R) for the site.
- r
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138�' Ave. SE, Renton Page 6
Geotechnical Engineering Study �
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMIVIENDATIONS Ili
� I
4.1 GE1vE�. '
Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the lot is geotechnically suitable for the
proposed development. The main geotechnical issues to be addressed include an assessment of
the existing block retaining wall, site preparation, erosion control, temporary excavations, design
criteria for foundations and basement walls, and drainage. Specific geotechnical
recommendations are presented in the following sections: '
We estimate that the depth of the basement excavation will be about 9 feet (�). If the building is
to be located adjacent to the existing ecology block wall, as shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2, the
excavation would intrude into the soil bearing pressure wedge supporting the existing ecology i
block wall. Intruding into the pressure wedge potentially could cause the ecology block wall to '
fail. To prevent this, we recommend removing the ecology block wall and using temporary open
cuts along the north property line, or redesigning the site layout so temporary cuts will not
encroach into the 1H:2V pressure wedge below the wall. Temporary cuts should be sloped in
accordance with the recommendations in Section 4.4, Excavalions and Slopes. The basement
wall structural design will need to consider the added surcharge as discussed in Section 4.6,
Basement Walls and Conventional Retaining Walls. The ecology block wal( can be
rebuilt/replaced after backfilling against the basement walls.
4.2 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING RETAIMNG WALL
s
Topographically, the project site area generally slopes gently to the south. The subject property
appears to have been leveled by cutting into the existing slope and constructing an ecology block
� retaining wall along the north property line. The retaining wall is located about 15 feet south of
the north property line with a height of up to 9 feet. The wall is constructed of concrete ecology
blocks, stacked up to five high. The blocks measure 6 feet long by 2 feet tal( by 2 feet deep. The
basal block is keyed into the ground from a few inches up to 18 inches.
Glacial till typically has a weathered zone, about 3 feet in thickness, at the surface. The
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138"' Ave. SE, Renton Page 7
Geotechnical Engineering Study
underlying dense glacial till site soils are generally self-supporting, even when cut near vertical.
Because the retaining wa11 faces glacial till soils the wall should be capable of supporting the cut,
however, we observed portions of the retaining wall where the wall face is battered back slightly
into the cut and other portions where the wall face is vertical and other portions where the wall
face leans out slightly at the top. Using a carpenter's level, the wall face is battered from
0.25H:6V (Horizontal:Vertical) into the cut to 0.135H:6V away from the cut (top leans out).
The wa11 may have been built this way or it's possible the wall was originally built with a slight
batter and portions of the wall have bulged slightly, indicating possible instability. Bulging can be
caused by placing unreinforced fill behind the wall, a lack.of drainage, or a combination of the
'�� two. We were not able to evaluate the drainage behind the existing wail.
Ecology block walls over two ecology blocks high should be battered at 1H:6V, the basal blocks
be embedded a minimum of 12-inches and the wall be properly drained. Without knowing the
source of the wa11 inconsistencies, we recommend that the wall be removed during excavation and
construction of the building basement (for safety reasons), then rebuilt or replaced after
completing the backfill around the basement. We recommend relocating the retaining wall five
feet north so that it does not impose an additional surcharge load on the basement wall. The
retaining wall could be rebuilt using the ecology blocks, or be replaced with a modular block wa11
(eg. Keystone wall), a rockery retaining wall, or a conventional concrete retaining wall, depending
on the desired aesthetics. If the existing wall is to be left in-place, we recommend that the
stability of the wall be monitored, especially during and after peciods of wet weather. Design
recommendations for a new wall type or for monitoring the e}cisting wall can be provided by Geo I
Group Northwest, upon request. ,
r II
4.3 SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL EARTHWORK '�
Site grading plans were not available for our review, however minimal changes are anticipated to I
the existing site grades. Prior to the start of construction, we recommend temporary erosion
control measures be implemented as discussed in Section 4.3.1. Temporary excavation slopes
should not exceed 1H:4V in the dense cemented glacial till as discussed in Section 4.4-
Excavations and Slopes. New spread footing foundations should be supported on the dense,
undisturbed Glacial till site soils, or on structural fill that e�ends down to suitable bearing soils, as
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138'� Ave. SE, Renton Page 8
Geotechnical Engineering Study
discussed in Section 4.5-Foundations. Disturbed soils under footings should be removed prior
to pouring concrete. Soils supporting pavements should be compacted in-place and proof-rolled
with a piece of heavy construction equipment, such as a fully loaded dump truck, under the
direction of the geotechnical engineer. Soft or yielding subgrade soils should be stabilized prior to
paving, as discussed in Section 4.3.4 -Subgrade Stabilization.
4.3.1 Erosion Control & Wet Weather Considerations
To prevent sediment-laden surface runoff from being discharged off-site during wet weather we
recommend installing temporary sediment control traps, filter fabric silt fences, check dams, straw
mulch, stabilized construction entrances, wash pads, and other erosion control devices and
techniques as needed to provide temporary erosion and sediment transport control. Temporary
erosion control measures should be installed prior to the start of site excavation and grading.
The native site soils contain moisture sensitive Silt. We recommend that site grading a.nd
earthwork be performed during dry weather, if possible. During the wet seasoq special
precautions will need to be taken to protect the subgrade and the use of free draining impoRed fill
materials will be required for structural fill. Construction traffic should be minimized on the final
subgrade soils. We recommend placing 4 to 6-inches of 1-1/4 inch minus crushed rock underlain
by a woven geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi SOOX, on the final subgrade to mitigate impacts from
traffic and weather. In concentrated traffic areas we recommend using a thicker layer of quarry
spalls, or 2 to 4 inch crushed rock. To protect footing subgrade soils we recommend pouring a 2-
inch layer of lean mix concrete or controiled density fill (CDF) on the subgrade if it's to be
exposed to weather for an extended period of time. i.
4.3.2 Use of Native Site Sails ,
The native site soils should be usable as a structural fill during dry weather. Due to its silt '�,
content, the site soils are highly moisture sensitive and generally will not be usable as structural fill �,
material during wet weather. During wet weather plan on importing a granular free-draining ��
material suitable for wet weather conditions, or cement treating the site soils by mixing/tilling in '
dry Portland cement. If the site soils are to be� stockpiled for later use as structural fill, th� pile
C;��C3 (;rci_�� ��iorih�est. Inc.
! .
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138"' Ave. SE, Renton Page 9
Geotechnical Engineering Study
should be thoroughly covered to prevent rainwater infiltration.
4.3.3 Structural Fill Specifications
All fill material used to achieve design site elevations adjacent to basement walls and below
foundations, slabs, sidewalks, and pavement areas is considered to be structural fill. The native
onsite soils are moisture sensitive and may not be suitable for use as structural fill during wet
weather. During wet weather, material to be used as backfill or structural fill for the project
should have the following specifications:
1_ Be free draining, granular material, which contains no more than five (5) percent fines
(siit and clay-size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve);
2. Be free of organic and other deleterious substances;
3. Have a maximum size of three (3) inches.
All structural fill material should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. The
optimum moisture content is the water content in soil that enables the soil to be compacted to the
highest dry density for a given compaction effort. During dry weather, any compactable non-
organic soil meeting the above ma�mum size criteria may be used as structural fill. �
Structural fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding ten (10) inches in loose
thickness. Each lift should be compacted to the minimum percent�ges shown in the table below. j
Compaction requirements for the project site should be determined by ASTM Test Designation
D-1557 (Modified Proctor).
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138`� Ave. SE, Renton Page IO
Geotechnical Engineering Study
STRUCTURAL FILL RECOMMENDATIONS
MINIMUM COMPACTION
APPLICATION % of Maa�imum Dry Density
ASTM D-1557 (Modified Proctor)
Soil Below Pavement, Exterior Sidewalks, 95% for the top 12-inches
and Basement Wall Backfill 90% below the top 12-inches
Soil Below Foundation Footings, Slab-On- 95%
Grade Floors, and Basement Wall Backfill
Supporting Retaining Walls. .
Maximum Lift Thickness 10-inches (loose)
4.3.4 Subgrade Stabilization
The native site soils are moisture sensitive and may prove to_be unsatisfactory as a subgrade base -
if earthwork takes place during wet weather and the native soils become wet and disturbed. If
needed, we recommend the geotechnical engineer provide specific subgrade stabilization
recommendations based on the observed site conditions at the time of construction. If traffic will
be on the subgrade during wet weather the soils should be protected. In traffic areas we
recommend protecting the subgrade with a minimum of 6-inches of 2-inch minus crushed rock
underlain by woven geotextile, such as Mirafi SOOX, if the site soils have not been disturbed.
Generally soft subgrade soils below pavement areas can bridged with an 18-inch minimum
thickness of 2-inch minus crushed rock, or a 24-inch thickness of Class A pit-run. Woven
geote�ile fabric should be laid below the bridging soils to provide base reinforcement, separation
and stabilization. Areas of additional rock or pit run thickness may be needed depending on the
subgrade conditions at the time of construction. Standing water should be pumped or drained
prior to placement of the geotextile and bridging soils.
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138�` Ave. SE, Renton Page 11
Geotechnical Engineering Study !�
Disturbed or unsuitable bearing soils below foundations should be replaced with either structural
fill or crushed rock that e�ends down to suitable bearing soils. Alternatively, foundations may be
extended down to the undisturbed dense native soils. To_protect exposed foundation bearing
subgrade soils during wet weather we recommend pouring 2-inches of lean mix concrete directly
on the dense undisturbed soils.
4.4 EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES
Underground utilities should be located prior to site excavation. Under no circumstances should
temporary excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national
government safety regulations. Temporary open cuts greater than four feet in depth in the dense
cemented glacial till may be sloped at an inclination of up to 1H:4V(Horizontal:Vertical),
provided the slopes are stable. In weathered or loose to medium dense soils we recommend
temporary cuts of 1H:1 V. Temporary shoring will be required if excavation slopes of these
inclinations or flatter cannot be constructed due to property line, or other constraints.
If groundwater seepage is encountered during construction, excavation of cut slopes should be
halted and the cut slopes evaluated by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. Surface runoff should not be
allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of slopes into the excavated area. During wet weather
temporary cut slopes should be covered with plastic sheets to minimize erosion.
We do not anticipate permanent open cuts or fill slopes. Permanent fill and cut slopes should not
exceed 2H:1 V. Slopes exceeding these recommendations should be reviewed by the geotechnical
engineer prior to the start of site work. �
4.5 FOUNDATIONS
� Based on the encountered site conditions, a conventional spread footing foundation bearing on the
dense Glacial Till can be used to support the proposed structure. Individual spread footings may
be used for supporting columns and strip footings for bearing walls. Our recommended design
criteria for spread footing foundations are as follows:
GEO Group Northwest,Inc.
�_�
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138`� Ave. SE, Renton Page 12
Geotechnical Engineering Study
- Allowable bearing pressure, including all dead and live loads: ',
Undisturbed glacial till and structural fill = 2,000 psf �,
- Minimum depth to bottom of perimeter footing below '
adjacent final e�erior grade: = 18 inches
- Minimum depth to bottom of interior
footings below top of floor slab: = 12 inches
- Minimum width of wall footings: = 16 inches
- Minimum lateral dimension of column footings: = 24 inches
- Estimated post-construction settlement: _ '/4 inch
� - Estimated ost-construction differential settlement�
P �
across building width: _ '/4 inch
A one-third increase in the above allowable bearing pressures can be used when considering short-
term transitory wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads can also be resisted by friction between the
foundation and the supporting compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure acting on the
buried portions of the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" ajainst
the eacisting undisturbed sail or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of
structural fill. Our recommended parameters are as follows:
- Passive Pressure (Lateral Resistance)
• 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight for structural fill and�dense glacial till soils
— Coef�icient of Friction (Friction Factor)
• 0.35 for structural fill and dense glacial till soils
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138�' Ave. SE, Renton Page 13
Geotechnical Engineering Study
4.6 BASEMENT WALLS AND CONVENTIONAL RETAIN�NG WALLS
The proposed oil change facility will have a full basement. Basement walls restrained horizontally
on top are considered unyielding and should be designed for a lateral soil pressure under the at-
rest condition; while conventional reinforced concrete walls free to rotate on top should be
designed for an active lateral soil pressure. To account for vehicle weight acting vertically on the
basement walls, we recommend adding an equivalent of one foot of soil surcharge to the
following earth pressures.
At-Rest Earth Pressure
Walls supported horizontally by floor slabs are considered unyielding and should be
designed for lateral soil pressure under the at-rest condition. The design lateral soil
pressure should have an equivalent fluid pressure of:
• 45 pcf for level ground behind permanent unyielding retaining walls
Active Earth Pressure
Conventional reinforced concrete walls designed to yield an amount equal to 0.00? times
the wall heig�t, should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an
equivalent fluid with a unit weight of:
• 3 S pcf for level backfill behind yielding retaining walls
The above values are based on the wall bacl�ill being fully drained� They do not include the
effects of surcharges. We recommend relocating the e�sting ecology block retaining wall five
feet to the north so that it is does not impose an additional surchazge load on the buildings
basement wall. If the retaining wall is not moved, on a preliminary basis we recommend the
basement wall design include a surcharge load equivalent to 50 percent of the soil height above
the wall in addition to the above soil pressures. If the retaining wall is supported on dense glacial
till soils there may not be an additional surcharge on the basement wall so we recommend that
Geo Group Northwest review the site plans and evaluate the geometry between the building
basement walls and the retaining wall.
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138`�Ave. SE, Renton Page 14
I
Geotechnical Engineering Study
Passive Earth Pressure and Base Friction
The available passive earth pressure that can be mobilized to resist lateral forces may be
assumed to be equal to 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight in both undisturbed soils and
engineered structural backfill. The base friction that can be generated between concrete
and undisturbed bearing soils or engineered structural backfill may be based on a friction
coefficient of 0.3 5.
The walls should be drained to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. We recommend using
a vertical drain mat or granular free-draining backfill material to facilitate drainage as discussed in
the Drainage section of this report.
Backfill material behind basement walls and retaining wa11s should be compacted as specified in
the Structural Fill section of this report with hand held equipment or a backhoe "hoepack."
Heavy compacting machines should not be allowed within a horizontal distance equivalent to one
half the wall height, unless the walls are designed with the added surcharge.
4.7 SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOORS
� Our recommendations for preparing the subgrade below stab-on-grade floors are specified in the
Site Preparation and General Earthwork section of this report. In preparing the subgrade, native
soils disturbed by construction activity should be either recompacted to structural fill
specifications, or excavated and replaced with compacted, structural filI material.
To avoid moisture build-up on the subgrade, slab-on-grade floors �hould be placed on a capillary
break, which is in turn placed on the prepared subgrade. The capillary break may consist of a
minimum of six (6) inch thick layer of free-draining gravel or crushed rock, containing no more
than five (5) percent fines passing the 200 sieve, based on the fraction passing the No. 4 (1/4-
inch) sieve. We do not recommend using pea gravel as a capillary break material, as it will run
and undermine the slab if future trenching is required below the slab to repair plumbing, etc. A
10-mil plastic vapor barrier is recommended to be placed over the capillary break beneath the slab
to reduce water vapor transmission through the slab. Two to four inches of sand may be placed
over the barrier membrane to protect it during construction,
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
June 17, 2003 G-1662 '
OCH - 138�' Ave. SE, Renton Page I S ',
Geotechnical Engineering Study '
4.8 DRAINAGE
i 4.8.1 Surface Drainage
During construction, water should not be allowed to stand in areas where footings, slabs or
pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by
compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils.
4.8.2 Footing Drains
We recommend exterior footing drains be installed at the base of the basement walls. The drains
should consist of a four(4) inch minimum diameter, perforated or slotted, rigid drain pipe laid at
or near the bottom of the footings with a gradient sufficient to generate flow, as illustrated on the ,
Typical Basement Wall and Footing Drain Detail, Plate 3. The drains should be bedded on,
surrounded by, and covered with washed gravel. The washed rock and drain line should be
completely sunounded by a non-woven geote�ile filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N, or
equivalent. Footing drains should be separately tightlined to the storm drain.
The basement walls should be water-proofed. If e�erior footing drains cannot gravity flow to the
storm drain due to elevation differences, a sump pit should be installed and the footing drain water
pumped to the storm drain.
[.Tnder no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain I
system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to disct}arge. We recommend that '
sufficient cleanouts be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the ',
footing drains and downspout tightline systems.
4.8.3 Wall Draina e
g
We recommend that the basement walls be sealed. A free-draining granular material such as a pit-
run gravelly sand, crushed rock, or crushed concrete (no minus) can be used to facilitate drainage
against the walls, or a vertical drain mat, such as Miradrain 6000 or equivalent, can be used. With
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138`�Ave. SE, Renton Page 16
Geotechnical Engineering Study
Miradrain 6000, the drain mat core is placed against the basement wall with the geote�ile filter
fabric side facing the backfill. The drain mat should extend from the finished surface grade, down I
to the footing drain. The drain mat should be secured to ihe wall and the top of the drain mat '
should be pinned to the wall with a bar to prevent soil during the backfill operation from entering '
between the wall and drain mat. The wall backfill soils should be compacted as recommended in
the Structural Fill Section of this report, or to a minimum of 90 percent of the materials
maYimum dry density to prevent clogging of the filter fabric on the drain mat.
If free-draining material is used instead of the drain mat, the material should be free of organic or
other deleterious substances and contain no more than five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve
based upon the fraction of material passing the No. 4 sieve. The free-draining material should
extend out from the wall a minimum of 18-inches. The top twelve (12) inches of bacl�ill should
consist of compacted and relatively impermeable soil or pavement. The cap material can be
separated from the underlying granular drainage material by a layer of geotextile.
4.9 UTILITIEs
Aithough no specific utility plans were available at the time of this study, utility trench excavations
are anticipated for water, gas, electrical, storm and sanitary sewer lines. Due to safety
considerations, utility trench excavations should follow the criteria described in the Excavations
and Slopes section of this report, or the contractor should provide trench shoring. It is the
contractor's responsibility to maintain a safe work environment.
Trench backfill beneath pavement areas and sidewalks may consist,of native soils provided the
backfill can achieve the specified compaction requirements. During wet weather, we recommend
a pit-run sand/gravel with 100 percent smaller than three inches and with less than 5 percent
passing the No. 200 sieve. Trench backfill should be placed in thin lifts and compacted as
described in the Structural Fill section of this report. '
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138"`Ave. SE, Renton Page 17
Geotechnical Engineering Study
4.10 PAVEMENT SECTION
The adequacy of pavements is strictly related to the condition of the underlying soil subgrade and
rock base material. If this is inadequate, settlement or movement of the subgrade will be reflected
up through the paving. In order to avoid this situation, we recommend the subgrade be treated
and prepared as described in the Site Preparation and General Earthwork and Structural Fill
sections of this report. If proof-rolling identifies soft, wet, or unstable subgrade, we recommend
over-excavation of the unsuitable materials and replacement with a compacted structural fill or
crushed rock as described in the Subgrade Stabilization section of this report.
For concrete driveways, including the trash enclosure, we recommend a 6-inch concrete thickness
and reinforcement with concrete wire mesh. For asphalt pavement, we recommend the heavy
traffic driveway pavement section design consist of the following:
Heaw Traffic Areas Minimum
Class "B" Asphalt Concrete (AC) 3-inches
Crushed Rock Base (CRB) 6-inches
For the light duty parking areas the pavement section design may consist of:
Light Traffic Parkin� Areas Minimum
Class 'B" Asphalt Concrete (AC) 2-inches
Crushed Rock Base (CRB) 4-inches
r
If pavements are underlain with asphalt treated base (ATB) we recommend a minimum ATB
thickness equal to one-half the CRB thickness. The minimum material thicknesses may no#be
acceptable if the subgrade is yielding or unstable. In the event of poor or unstable subgrade
conditions, Geo Group Northwest should be notified so that our soils engineer can review the
changed conditions, provide subgrade stabilization recommendations and/or redesign the
minimum pavement section specifications.
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138'� Ave. SE, Renton Page 18
Geotechnical Engineering Study
� 5.0 LIMITATIONS & ADDITIONAL SERVICES
This report has been prepared for the specific application to this project for the exclusive use of I��
OCH International project design team. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, he I
included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Our
recommendations and conclusions are based on the site soils observed, engineering analyses, and
our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are
professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily
exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this
area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Soil and groundwater conditions may
vary from those anticipated. If variations appear, GEO Group Northwest, Inc. should be
requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in
writing prior to proceeding with construction.
We recommend that GEO Group Northwest, Inc. perform a general review of the final design and
specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly
interpreted and implemented in the construction plans and specifications. Geo Group Northwest,
Inc. should be consulted to review the validity of the recommendations contained in this report if
there are changes to the proposed site development plans as.described herein. .
GEO Group Northwest, Inc. should be retained to provide monitoring and testing services for
�eotechnical-related work during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design
concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface
conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of constr�ction. We recommend the
following items be monitored by the project's geotechnical engineering firm:
• Evaluation of proposed structural fill materials, including import and onsite soils;
• Observation of structural fill placement and compaction testing;
• Proof-rolling of the pavement subgrade;
• Subgrade stabilization, including over-excavation, recompaction or replacement;
• Groundwater seepage;
• Utility trench backfill and compaction testing;
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
June 17, 2003 G-1662
OCH - 138`� Ave. SE, Renton Page 19
Geotechnical Engineering Study
• Soil bearing capacity verification for foundation footings;
• Placement of lean mix concrete or CDF;
• Installation of perimeter footing and wall drains; _
• Installation of drain rock and geote�ile fabrics.
Please call if you or your design team have any questions regarding this report.
Respectfully submitted,
Was�;'
GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. �e° � ,
� fo
y �
LiC.J �J` �
- { . E"W�rt��C Ci�.^daJ+R �.
'�P 1116 4�`'
Wade J. Lassey
�sad Gao�o
Engineering Geologist Wade J. Lassey
' `�,ti.� w ��
�� A���
William Chang, P.E. �. �► ,y
Principal
� ,����
�0l1TAL. "
EXP ES: 2/19/
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
i
ILLUSTRATIONS
G 1662
r
GEO Group Northwest, Inc.
� '`tl "'`aza'�:�;,: .��+ ..,„+(���.... �� � '':'. '"M��-»��_"�._:.� . � �._. xw.r',., ��t.�, �„ ...• ��.
Fi �. � F' WIQAL@ '�:. NE������� ,`'�,..
� a
� � C�1� NnaRrrvq�o�� u' ,�� N� � ��_ _� W 4� ��� � �'�� nv's`
r� C � � NA�RI (�� r`Ay: , �v � �,}�� � � �- AV ,�� �p� ft4�rHcr� � � � ��, ^�z -'S
� J• . � :��� � :i`� j'.: 9�.
I II �- `� � f .% �� '� •� F•�Y`,�t`': � .w INqEX^ �?� C}R � pt_N � `° �" � � '`^^ as �
���� fb � � O �lY . 'W ' � � p l 1 ��SF
~ � e t �„ �m �i, '�i Y ' � ��'F �>re J�FFEI�SON A ~����t�cers � `y'� ` w 1 ni i
� � �1 v � b �.�� � E � v� �N Ef�ERrQN AV NE �.,.�`��� t h�'�� ��P'r QI�� ,
� ro KIRKLA b O _ KIRK N �,„W"y � �.f ���' " �a .,
� � r �� �.:... � �:` � NE ''��� ��,� ��". � .��__(' y`� �-� � , 5 r,' � �.
`'� � � �.- � a�" ��°
� � NNW00 Ay, M � � � '�Ys �'�` r� ���v �v�� ;�
� ��N��� , , T�. ( SF � � �.
a � � � ,� ...,....9��� N� r � _ _ �� � � ��l ,���
� �� � . . � � .
Crf Ge m � _��, r�i*�m ��, FihN tiA_ .._.,...NE � � u "-
9 W f wr�� W . 1 � .. . .����,� � 1 ��, 1�.
� � � tlLYMP A . N AV 3 � � NE' � �� � � ^d .111V,� . ^ �� rr�b,? N ��� ji+',
. ,w. _,�.
� g �'o ��" �y�e �� � � ��—•,•-�- .S . ti �, ,� 35 ._. _.... ,n �n 1 _ ..� ��,, .�,
O� � � t! � pIERC . � �, � r '� r, ��'I - , ,,, .. �Il 21 0 l'"...m� ( ° `' i
O ts C .o ' t�i , , I�'-RCE � �� 1 � V �5. ny _. - � � .r� � �
w � � Q N t� r� �ti rt. ! +�i€ ,. � ��� �.._..
� �,,;� N �i ✓,,.. x ,. _.., nd N l � � \
- ,., _ �nn� Pi sr ��''�
a$ � a� �W �i i ;� a5 N ; ..
a .. o REDMON �AY �F _N �p AV � ` `-'1 — — 17N(H AV )SE � " `` `
�. ._.
w �(r�9�, ��i �� ... .... . �..,4,�Z�
� � f : �, , �� , ; , �� �� � L �,.�,iz9r '�>�' �; A~� ,- 1
_ .. �
�
� n sN �v ��;'�,' ' � ,�N�� Hb1��NY � ��� ��� �j A4 5f �;� ' �� �
� �'�w ,.� � ���w,.� sF��ro A �eE � � i 3 nv �
� �., .�•'� �^ ,r � G :
� E �� �j � �+� , s�, �� � ' � AV � � �� � � i 1-- s a�
� �LL , ^ ;. , � � �� .: � o , ,. _�.�._ AV _SF .,
132ND
�� .w. � � � .� y�.. �� � � �� ., asHoi+ cr . � i `.
� ;� i = , ,, �' � ��,���H �± � � �o He �, ������ nsHON cr N�� ,r,ha� �
>,
x � vnsno �� �". ' � y � VASy�N UNibH cr �,�=� � �_ � ��'��� ,6
� '`'� �i1HaN � �� � AV N� �
i �. � 1'r� . _ ii N Ct N a47H , �; t �
nNnr ut+cokrCs , � � 3N AV 5E r�- ��,�„, � o
� .,� kTES , y NL Q ,� �._`� �- nN2� � , , � ,9
7p bR [RtO� T ME AV E � a,A' I�F' L 7L 'C
� o � r 1 3�H �v � NE � rnt�s n �: O R�M E a t O N w y � `" � � COAL CREEK K �.
, _ _
� C _ .. _ . � � � � . , �— �� � � � � S �
97 G �y ��ATH _t�:• -•� n. . AV $E C� � ' � � F b �r�'w— � .�t ,�;. � ' �
t, 7 W � � 138 i .1G� ' 139 T H �, ..� a � `C� iR �., `a � ' e��i '-.
� O °� r � , '��� ^v �t � �,, � 13 r � AV i S � � m v�
z � '- ��tn ln �x � b�. .,;�.� . �.�tn ItNill AV CF . !9 O
. � : .. � �.. �.� - '� O
,' r. �..., ,.....-. . �.._ ...,.. ��...�.�_ . ._�..�_..._.._�.__ L�.�..I� . �.� . i r
1� v� ri
o � y � � � �, �.iaori�... 4Y.. � �:..�... '�' -z,
e �'7 �� �.,� j `�� e �E r� F1EL AV.NE.. . � •� Q
. . ;...
� �1 `� � N � �� lAlST AV $ � N
n � � � � N� ' � � =r - .- �1a j `u�a � a r�r
�
�. r _..a 142NU `�' " {�. � 1 � � �� N �., � r.._ II
� ��-3 �'�i9 � N --...._. ... . ..:.,_.4. .. ,�_. AV.._,....� __ St�� ��� 92 OLjI m , ` m . r �-+
. - 4 �uNµ 143RD AV .� � o
c•� p � 1 ,��i � �� : � _......_....,.... ......,. SE
� o
rQ L-.. �"�
n � ''� -=-- �. _',`'`N�� P.1 N� , � � g
� y� 144IH\ 7 s l :+ o
�o t" N O �y�� �, cn ; � I
� � IASM � = r�
N
v
H t�r1 ''si'� '" �-' �"....._ r 146T11 AV SE �
..
� � 1', ._�. _. _ � --- _...
� a � o :� JJ'9 � �� o m
��� � r....
� ;,.._ _. _ ._..._.. ,
��s��� �� er � � p - o �o , ,. �
� :r p G �1 �g�r�� n�r o
� 9 __. .__.._.._._, -1 i , � t
�, ��lI1�N� AV SE 'y SE T ' � ,�1 I �
� I �__'___........_.... _ _.._ ..__ .._. . ! . � -
L
�w..- - - _�..�.� Li ((22,, Z
T Z � f�� � LJ �.
+- �
� � ` �- t z W Wu�� !
Ui Q _i � F- �(�}
__ }._,., �
} fl ".""�,�.� � __�`�it� �n � �
_ .�:
�l " v T�,r t�j �
� �1��� l
. �: - )��"=`�s7tilYiwiy - -. �� -�.
__-_�_— �r�' O t
' _�-�--- �
��s 1:� -- ---------- -�_ _ � _._�,�__-.�_� _ _ - _ _
� � � ` —�_� , _ �p ------- - � � i
rv � a
- -_ .����t��� � t ���_ � — -}•
� ui --."X� �_�i""' _"` --- - �
M_�-- e -- - -�` , 'L_ -�.T_.�' ,�•=�� ;,,,�~ �
.�--- �=�.. '.��--=_�- ---�-r����`=�r- . -- - _ _ � }•� '
.. , . ----�, �- �--� _.' _ - - - - � �:, o o' o
. :T'`
::_ - �r � ,. f:;�tji:.',�, 6
..� . . - � . . 3
, ... � '
' _ _ - , . .-� � P r � t � ; � Scale: 1 inch =30 feet r
, � - �_ -�Y � -� - � _ f :-� ��.� } -
� _ __ - �( ( � �' f fl�_ . .
� _ _ R Z� f ✓f��� ' ;r ` �t �� , ; 1
u �� ' � �� f '` � --_ - '.4� ~ �
.. �y.� .� �Q C., � "'� .� �
� � _ ..si� _ _"- . --' .'O� � .-�O� ' � �t �` � �
. �"� � - _ ; �. ... _ � aQ � B 1 � _ _ Y''�_ � �
_ .
. ,
, � .--. � � _ � ., ,� � ,.
� �; � .� LEGEND
� f '��- ' �; c�. �
: � � _ � BORING NUMBER&
\� - � � �' - ���f' `!`:� �� - -�. � � � -�- APPROXIMATE LOCATION
, -- _ �:•= - r� � i B-1
�'�:; ��:=.= � =
.
, .
-.._
_.--:-
. .,
._. . .
.._;:
, .:_.:_..._..
, �� -- �' � .'" � � ' �
, ._:� _
---y----_....:.
:�`
,
_r -
- - _ - -- - -�:.:_�, ;-.�i:�:c.... - - - ��:�:c.:-� -_ - - �
- - - - - - �c-Ww.�" - -
� - -- - - - - - - � ::�3- - - -
- - - — Q �S
-.:z.:.. _
---- ..�.•
- - - - - C
.rx�t'
- - �- - - - i;t�.�.:._:'`;::`ic�.:..: - -
..........� __
. ....... _..
�,-=�-� .ti'._�r.
._..__
'"a :.sf
.......... . .c..:�.~
..._... _.. �
, - ..�.� ' - ---- - - - � a�'
_ - _ "'-�-�.:..�..:..... - - �`7: -- _ - - - �c
..... _..�. _
. ....
� ........
._. ..._.. _ �:
,' :. ........ ... . - -
i --•.....------- ., n.....,. ._.. -::- . .:- - - "-- �-
.._... ......---_ �.��:'- "� _ "-- - �
....,._---.__._ ,.
! - -- - ��€� -- - =�::::� " �� �
. ._......... .
, .:.:....:.:..:..�:: �-
_ . .
: _ �
W��:yt r a - x -- --~ V
.;- _,,
.. _
�
^_ . i: ... .. ... ...::. , ::= , ..:_. ...... . :. ....s,�
U7 4!:�CJ / ' C� '. t � � �
A.���}- fr I � � � ,�' �'� i? � �
�"���l�J J � ' �.. {` ��`� � �
�UR�� � � `7 � �..`.�..`„..� �.,�� � �
C1J f i i� � .C�7 F-
Ki
j � � {n � � �� t�_i�s� _� �� � ��►�' � � � � �
� 2 � �u] O � x :1. __r �Qwz t.1Z � � —
� �+� �- w �C� fL�� ��� � c �.� �
ltl_ � r�- U k- � ..o
� � 1fLi Q �� � J Qiti� �W W � - � : J
Cf �X C.}l.aJ � ��� �iil - �
iC ��� �� � � �� �� �
`� �� � u�-� �
d z �
� � �' � � �` �i�
�" :. z a � �'_ }I
� � � � � � ��
� � 4- °
� #�
� � � � ��
, � �
�. _ g-- - -- 4---_._� - - - -- �_.____.-_- - .�. �
— SITE PLAN
�], i Group Northwest, IItC. PROPOSED OIL CAN HENRY'S QUICK LLiBE
� :�eotechncal Esgineers,Geob9�sts,8 138TH AVENUE SE -
Site Plan Adapted From"Two-Bay Schematic Site P►an" by Lundin Cole Architects, PC, dated 3I06/03 EnvironmentalScientiss RENTON,WASHLNGTON
SCALE 1" = 30' DATE 6/16/03 MADE W7L CfII�D VVC 3oB No. G-1662 PLATE 2
i B���t
warr
�
Slope to drain '
Vertical Drain�1dat
0 0 � o (Maradrain b000
0
o O or equivalent)
0 0 o O '
1 O ' o BACgFILL MATE�IAL _
(Compacted to 90%Max �
1 � o DryDensity)
� o �
�\\ o
\ � o
� � o
�
� � � o — I
o '
O O I
� � I�
� � o �„,�-..,..,,�r.�r'- . ,: :.- . . �� �-;g::
O /r:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:_:• . .' � �.
� U /:•:•:.•.•.•••••.•.•.••.••••'•••:.•.•�•�•.•.'.•.•. - . .� . �.�J�.l�R}'
ti
�•.'.'.•:.•.•�{�}�'�'���'.�.•:.•. -.
o � .... .. FOOTING B�K
� � �:�.; ::� .
..:.::...... ...�
FODTING DRAIN
GEOTF�77LE ,�Irnimum 4-inch diameter rigid slotted, or
FILTER FABRIC perforated PVC pipe with positive gradient to
/Mimfi 140 V or discharge
equivalent)
Free Draining Matenal
(Washed grave!)
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
1.) Do not replace rigid PVC pipe with flexiible corrugated plastic pipe.
2.) Perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be tight jointed and laid with I
perforations or slots down,with positive gradient to discharge. F
3.) Do not connect roof do«nspout drains into the footing drain or under slab drain system. I�
�.) Basement wall backfill to be compacted to 90%of maxunum dry density based on '�
Modified Proctor(ASTM D-1557-91). The top 12-inches to be compacted '
to 9�%of maYimum dry density if backfill is to support sidewalks, drivewav, etc.
, TYPICAL BASEMENT WALL AND
I � FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL
� Group Northwest, Inc.
Geotechncal Engineers,Geobgists,8 PROPOSED OIL C�'V AE:VRY'S QCICK LUBE
_� EnvronmeMal ScieMsts 138TH AVE�IUE SE
LRENTON,WASHIIYGTON
SC.�I.E NONE DATE 6/16/03 A1ADE V1�.lI. CHKD WC JOBNO. �'i-1fi62 PLATE 3
APPENDIX A-
BORING LOGS
G 1662
r
I:EU (�roup Northwest, ln
LEGEND OF SOIL CLASSiFICATION AND PENETRATION TEST
UNIFiED SOIL CLASSIFiCAT10N SYSTEM (USCS)
�
;
MAJOR DM510N I �� 7YPICAL DESCRIPTION LABORATdtY CLASSIFlC11TION GRR�tlA
I
M � WELL GRAD�GRAV�S,GRA1lQSAND Cu={D60!D'10J qrevter than 4
l QEAFI � GY1!
I ��S 1 MDCfURE.LITTIE OR NO FiP�S DEfERA�tlNE �_�)/(�'��'T�1 beaneen 1 and 3
I P9�C8�ffAGES OF
GRAVELS (litlls a no � POORLY GRAD�GRAVBS,AND GRAVaSANO GRAVEL AND SANO
i (More Than NaIF �) � plSTRt8U170N NOT NI�TRJG ABOVE REflIJIREMEMS
MOCTi1RE5 LliTLF OR NO FiJES R20M GR/UN 5¢E
COARSE-
Coarx G+ains CURVE ATTHZB@2G IAYTS HBOW
GRARdE7 SQILS{��r 7}an Na�
��� DIRTY Gfrt SL7Y GRAVBS,GRAVH.SANDSil7 MDCTi1RES ��T 'A"UNE
�Ayg,g � or P.L LESS 7HAN 4
OF�iNES
(wrtif sort�e i CAYEY GFtAVELS,GRAV6.SI1JD11AY_
EXG�DS 12% ATTERBQ2G LtAMTS ABOVE
GC � rnua�x C,Rqq,�� "A'LWE
fl� � � gp�g q� ! or P.L MORE 7tUW 7
I �5 ( CLEIW gW W ElL GRADm SANDS,GRAVBLY SANDS, �AS Cu=(��0/D1�groata than 8
�� UTTLE OR NO HNES Ca=(D30�)/(D10•OBO�betMesn�and 3
1 ����
Than HeM �a� �°w no SP POORIY GR/1DED SAND$GRANBLY SANOS. <5°i F�r Grair� NQT M�T1NG ABOVE REQUIREJNB�ITS
�y���y� Smaller Than No. �� lfTfLP OR NO RMES GW,GP,S1N.SP
Thcn Na 200 4��'°� ATf6tBERG LIhrTS BH.OW
>1296 Fne Grynerk
Siere DIRTY SM S�TY SAND3,SANDSILT MIXRIRES GM.GC.SM.SC C�NTBNT OF "A'UNE
g�Npg i wdh P.L LESS7HAN 4
FI�S
�� � - 5 Eo 1276 Fne EXCEEDS 12% A7TERBH2G l�MTS ABOVE
�� SC CLAYEY SANDS.SA►�-CLAY MDCiLJRES Graine�usa duai wah P.t MORE TNAN 7
��
SILTS �d Vmit INORCANIC SL75.ROGC ROUR SANDY SILTS �
��/��e q� <''rii � OF Sl1GFfT PlAS71CITY � ,
( ��Y ChvC Pl�1sclCtTY CtinRT n-Lina
Flt�-GRAWED I Neytipible Vquid Limit � INORGANIC SILTS,hMCACEOUS OR � FOR 508.PASSING
SOILS { �9��1 >50% � DIA70MAC�01.5.F1NE SANDY OR 9L7Y SdL � NO.40 SEYE CH a OH
I
INORGANIC CU1YS OF LWV PLASi1CfTY� X qp 1 I
CLAYS �+4�� a, i GRAVaLY,SMIOY.OR SY.TY CLAYS.CLEMr p i
(Abaa A-line on ��
PlastidtY Clt�k yZ � � �
�a° Liquid Limit � � WORGANIC CLAYS OF H�(',FI PIASTi[7TY,FAT M—� � �
�9��1 >5p% CLAYS U CL w OI. i
F- �
Mo�e 71ran iiaif by at�� � I
Waight Laryet Liquid L"vrut ORGANIC SiLTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF a MH ar OH �
Than Na 200 ORG/1NIC SILTS <50% � L01N PIASTK;fTY
� CLAYS 10
i (Below A-Lina on 7
` ��Y�9 ��� � OH ORGANIC CUYS OF HIGH PI�STIq'TY 4 Ol
0
� I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
HIG�$Y oRCANIC SOI.S � Pt I PEAT AND OTt-tER HIC�1lY ORGAPDC SaiLS UQU1D L9YST'(%)
�
SOIL PARTICLE SRE GENHiAL GUID/WC£OF SOIL E3�1GWffRING
U.S STANDARD SIEYE PROPERTIES FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST(SPTI
FRACTION Passing Rctained SANDY SOILS SiLTY 3 CLAYEY SOILS
�ic SRe unccrdned '
Sleve (mm) si� (�) Co�� D� � Descrip0on C«�r� �� i �P�
SN.71 CLAY X200 Q075 N % �,dege° N q�.� �
SAND 0-4 0-15 � Very Loost <2 <0.25 Yery soR
FlNE !40 0.4?S d200 0.075 4-10 15-35 � 2B-30 Laos� 2-4 Q25-�.50 SaR
M�IUM #10 200 if40 � 0.475 �0-30 35-66 � 28-35 Medium Dense 4-8 450-1.00 Medium Stdf
COARSE Cd 4.75 #10 i 20D 3U-50 65-SS I 35-42 Dense 8-15 1.00-200 StYf
GRAVEL � >50 85-100 I 3H-48 Very De:rse �5-30 2W-4.00 Very Stilf
FlNE 79 #4 4.75 >30 >4.00 Hard
i
CDARS� I 78 �9 �__
I�BBL�g i 7B mm to 2IXi mm
�� , ,�� ! � Group Northwest, Inc.
I �� ceoacnncmenQneer�,GsoWgisb,a
ROq( >78 mm .� Envaonmental ScierKlsts
FRAGi18R3 132401�E 2Llth SheeC SuiEs 12 8alew0.WA 98005
� �o.�e���,� �►,«,°c°�'�' �„c°�:,'� P LATE �1
Bo�vG No. B-1
Logged By: WJL Date Drilled: 616/03 Surface Elev.
D� sa�r� srr�rp sa;� �;n;,,�s��,g
�ft> uscs Soil Description B�o,,,,s�. Moisture �«,,,�;��
6-inches Content Observatia�s
Type No. %
Graveled surface
SM Silty fine SAND,gray, some gravel,dense, damp
Boulder&Refusal at
(Glacial Till)Grab Sample 2.5 feet. A grab soil
---- -- --- - - ------- --- ------- - = sam Icwascoilected
Sl 50/0" 5.9 P
(Boulder) (Grab) from the cuttings
above 2.5 feet
The hole was moved
g SILT, gray,very dense,with gravel and 4 feet east and
ML some fine sand,occasional cobbles& = s2 50/4° 6.0 �1�
boulders, damp(Glacial Till) Y=>ioo ',
Hard drilling from
surface to the total
depth of the boring.
= S3 50/5" 7,6
• N=>100
10 ',
� SII,T, gray,very dense,with gravel and I'I
some fine sand, damp(Glacial Till) �,
= S4 50/4" (,.g I
N=>100 �I
Total Drilling Depth= 12.5 feet. ��
15 Total Sampling Depth= 12.8 feet.
No w�ater seepage or groundwater encountered.
No hydrocarbon odor or staining identified in the soil
samples collected. F
r
Drilling Co: R&R Drilling
Drilling Mett►od: Hollow Stem Auger
Rig: Mobile B-61
20 Sampling: SPT with 1401b.hammer.
LEGEND: � 2-inch O.D.Spiit Spoon Sample Interval N: :Vumber of blow counts for 1 foot of
Sampler driven Hith 1401b.Hammer(Standard SP"1� saznpier advancement.
_ BORING LOG
-
�� OIL CAN HENRY'S QUICK LUBE
1 Group Northwest, Inc. 138THAVENUESE
-
� Geotechnical Fngineers,Geobgists,8 RENTON�WASHINGTON
Envronrtental Scient6ts
JOB NO. G-1662 DATE 6/16/03 PLATE A2
BORING NO. B-2
Logged By: WJL Date Drilled: 6/6/03 Surface Elev.
Depth Sr1MPLE SPT(2� Soil �lling/Sampling
cn> uscs Soi] Description B��� '�'�°'s`"n` �'�u��
6-�� c«n�n o���
Type No. %
Graveled surface
Si�t,with fine sand and occasional vel, dense, Smooth drilling to 3
� feet.
ML damp(Possible Weathered Till or Till Fill ?)
- - -- - - - ------- - - -- --- -- ------ � Sl 20,50/3" 93
N=>1o0 Hard Gravelly
Drilling at 3 feet
5 � SILT,gray,very dense, with some gravel and fine
sand,occasional cobbles,damp(Glacial Till) = sz so�6• s.o
v=>1oo
= s3 soia� s.s
x=>ioo
-- - - -- - -------- - -- ------- ----
Siltv fine Sand. Smooth Dnlling from
10 SM gray, dense, damp,interbed(Grab �.i 8.5 to 11 feet(f).
Sample of Cuttings) Cuccin�
Grab
- - -- - -- - --- - - -- - ----- -- -- - - - - Sample
� SILT, gray,very dense,with fine sand and some
gravel, damp(Glacial Till)
= S4 50/3" g.�
N=>100
Total Drilling Depth= 12.5 feet.
15 Total Sampling Depth= 12.7 feet.
No water seepage or groundwater encountered. �
No hydrocarbon odor or staining identified in the soil
samples collected.
Drilling Co: R&R Drilling r
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Rig: Mobile B-61
20 Sampling: SPT w�th 1401b.hammer.
LEGEND: � 2-inch O.D.Split Spoon Sample Irnerval N: Number of blow counts for 1 foot of
Sampler drive�with 140]b.Haznmer(Standard SP7') sampler advancecnent.
_ BORING LOG
�� OIL CAN HENRY'S QUICK LUBE
Group Northwest, Inc. 138TH AVENUE SE
Geotechnical Fngmeers,Gecwg�sts.a RENTON,WASHINGTON
Environmental Scientists
JOB NO. G-1662 DATE 6/16/03 PLAT'E A3
l _