No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutL2S Black River Bridge Geotech Draft DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL, BLACK RIVER BRIDGE RENTON, WASHINGTON HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 June 30, 2015 Prepared for: Parametrix, Inc. June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 Parametrix, Inc. 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Ms. Jenny Bailey Subject: REVISED DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL, BLACK RIVER BRIDGE RENTON, WASHINGTON Dear Jenny: Enclosed is our revised draft geotechnical report for the proposed Black River Bridge on Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail in Renton, Washington. To stabilize the river banks during a design earthquake event per AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, ground improvement treatment is recommended. In particular we recommend the Deep Mixing Method for ground improvement. The bridge could then be supported on shallow foundations. We appreciate the opportunity of providing geotechnical services on this project. We look forward to receiving your review comments on this draft report. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Sa H. Hong, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1  1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................1  1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES AND AUTHORIZATION .....................................................1  2. FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS ..................................................................1  2.1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS .....................................................................................1  2.2 LABORATORY TESTING ...................................................................................2  3. SITE CONDITIONS .........................................................................................................2  3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................2  3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ..................................................................2  3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..............................................................................3  3.3.1 Soil Stratigraphy .............................................................................3  3.3.2 Ground Water ..................................................................................4  4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................5  4.1 SEISMIC DESIGN .............................................................................................5  4.1.1 General ...........................................................................................5  4.1.2 Regional Seismicity .......................................................................5  4.1.3 Seismic Considerations ..................................................................6  4.1.4 Soil Liquefaction ............................................................................6  4.1.5 Ground Fault Hazard ......................................................................7  4.2 SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATIONS ....................................................................7  4.2.1 Static Slope Stability Analyses .......................................................7  4.2.2 Pseudo-Static Slope Stability Analyses ..........................................8  4.2.3 Post-Liquefaction Slope Stability Analyses ...................................8  4.2.4 Lateral Spreading and Sliding .........................................................9  4.2.5 Global Stability after Ground Improvement ...................................9  4.2.5.1 Static Slope Stability Analyses ....................................................9  4.2.5.2 Pseudo-Static Slope Stability Analyses .......................................10  4.3 GROUND IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES (GIT) ..................................................10  4.3.1 Deep Mixing Method ......................................................................11  4.3.2 Stone Columns ................................................................................14  4.4 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................14  4.4.1 Spread Footing Bearing Capacity for Bridge Support ....................15  4.4.2 Sliding Resistance on Existing Fill for Cast-In-Place Concrete Footings .........................................................................................15  4.4.3 Passive Earth Pressure Component of Sliding Resistance for CIP Concrete Footings ..........................................................................15  4.5 BRIDGE ABUTMENTS, FOOTINGS AND WING WALLS.......................................15  4.5.1 Lateral Earth Pressures - Static Condition ......................................15  4.5.2 Lateral Earth Pressures during Seismic Loading ............................16  June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 4.5.3 Abutment Wall Backfill ..................................................................17  4.6 EMBANKMENT SLOPES ..................................................................................17  4.7 STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIALS AND COMPACTION .......................................18  4.8 SITE DRAINAGE AND EROSION ........................................................................18  4.8.1 Surface Water Control ....................................................................18  4.8.2 Erosion Control ...............................................................................19  4.9 WET WEATHER EARTHWORK ..........................................................................19  5. CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................20  6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................22  LIST OF TABLES Table 1 ........................................................................................................................6 Table 2 ........................................................................................................................8 Table 3 ........................................................................................................................10 LIST OF FIGURES (FOLLOWING TEXT) Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3 Cross Section A-A’ Figure 4 Proposed Ground Improvement Areas APPENDICES Appendix A: Field Exploration Figure A-1 Legend of Terms and Symbols Used on Exploration Logs Figures A-2 – A-3 Logs of Boreholes BH-1 and BH-2 Appendix B: Laboratory Testing Figures B-1 – B-4 Particle Size Distribution Test Results Appendix C: Slope Stability Analyses Results REVISED DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL, BLACK RIVER BRIDGE RENTON, WASHINGTON 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) performed a geotechnical study for the proposed Lake to Sound Trail Segment A, Black River Bridge in Renton, Washington. The location of the site and the general project layout are shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1) and the Site and Exploration Plan (Figure 2), respectively. The purpose of this geotechnical study was to explore and evaluate surface and subsurface conditions at the site and provide recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the project. According to preliminary design plans, the new trail pedestrian bridge will consist of a single- span steel or concrete girder structure with a minimum span of approximately 114 feet over the Black River. The new bridge is being designed in accordance with AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methodology. We understand construction impacts will need to be mitigated to protect the wetland located north of the trail alignment, as well as the Black River channel. 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES AND AUTHORIZATION Geotechnical engineering services were authorized in a subconsultant agreement dated November 7, 2014. Our scope of work included collecting and reviewing available geotechnical and geologic information in the vicinity of the project site, and performing subsurface explorations at the proposed ends of the bridge span to determine soil and ground water conditions. Our work also included coordinating the field activities with the project team; performing laboratory testing and engineering analyses to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed improvements; and preparing a geotechnical report. 2. FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 2.1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS Two exploratory borings were drilled on November 10, 2014 and January 6, 2015. Borehole BH-1 was drilled on the north side of the river to a depth of 60 feet, and BH-2 was drilled on the south side to a depth of 86.5 feet. Both borings were drilled utilizing hollow-stem auger methods. The explorations were supervised and logged by a geologist from HWA, who June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. observed the exploratory work on a full time basis. A detailed discussion of the field exploration methodologies and the equipment used is presented in Appendix A, along with the borehole logs and a legend of terms and symbols used on the logs. The exploration locations are shown on Figures 2 and 3. 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to characterize relevant engineering and index properties of the site soils. Laboratory tests included determination of in-situ moisture content, and grain size characteristics. The tests were conducted in general accordance with appropriate American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. The test results and a discussion of laboratory test methodology are presented in Appendix B, and/or displayed on the exploration logs in Appendix A, as appropriate. 3. SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed bridge alignment is located approximately 80 feet (south end) to 230 feet (north end) east of Monster Road Bridge in the City of Renton. The river banks in this area are inclined at approximately 2H:1V. We understand the bridge approaches will be slightly above the original ground surface on the embankments. Both banks are armored with rip-rap rock having maximum diameters ranging from 12 to 24 inches. 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The geology of the Puget Sound region includes a thick sequence of glacial and non-glacial soils overlying bedrock. Glacial deposits were formed by ice originating in the mountains of British Columbia (Cordilleran Ice Sheet) and from alpine glaciers which descended from the Olympic and Cascade Mountains. These ice sheets invaded the Puget Lowland at least four times during the early to late Pleistocene Epoch (approximately 150,000 to 10,000 years before present). The southern extent of these glacial advances was near Olympia, Washington. During periods between these glacial advances and after the last glaciation, portions of the Puget Lowland filled with alluvial sediments deposited by rivers draining the western slopes of the Cascades and the eastern slopes of the Olympics. The most recent glacial advance, the Fraser Glaciation, included the Vashon Stade, during which the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet advanced and retreated through the Puget Sound Basin. Existing topography, surficial geology and hydrogeology in the project area were heavily influenced by the advance and retreat of the ice sheet. June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 3 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Surficial geological information for the site area was obtained partly from the published maps, “Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington” (Mullineaux, 1965) and “Geologic Map of the Des Moines Quadrangle, King County, Washington” (Booth and Waldron, 2004). The maps indicate that the uplands to the southwest and immediate north consist of Tertiary igneous bedrock predominantly mantled by Pleistocene Vashon till, while the valley floor is covered by alluvial deposits. The bedrock consists of highly jointed and faulted andesite. The till was deposited as a discontinuous mantle of ground moraine beneath glacial ice on the eroded surface of older deposits. Soils defined as Vashon till consist of an unsorted, non-stratified mass of silt, gravel, and sand in varied proportions. The till is of high density/strength due to glacial over-consolidation, and typically has low permeability. The 1965 map, which includes the subject site, indicates the valley floor is covered by alluvium deposited by the White River and Green River, prior to historical diversion of the White River south into the Puyallup in 1906. According to the map this alluvium consists of silt and fine sand at the surface, becoming medium to coarse sand with depth. Black volcanic sand is typical of White River deposits in the valley. The Black River formerly was the outlet for Lake Washington, prior to completion of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1917. Very little sediment would be expected to exit the lake; therefore Black River deposits would consist primarily of reworked sediment of the Cedar River and White River. 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.3.1 Soil Stratigraphy Our interpretations of subsurface conditions were based on the results of field exploration, our review of available geologic and geotechnical data, and our general experience in similar geologic settings. It should be noted that in-situ tests performed during drilling, e.g. Standard Penetration Tests represented by N values, identified liquefiable fine sandy silt layers within both borings. For reference, the blow count values recorded during tests are included on the boring logs and are plotted on the penetration resistance chart on each log. Soil density descriptions on the boring logs are based on our observations of soil granularity vs. cohesiveness in addition to the recorded penetration values. In general, the area of the proposed bridge site is underlain by a sequence of layers of recent silty and sandy alluvium deposited by the historical White River and Black River. This alluvium is underlain by either bedrock or glacial till. Suitable bearing material for bridge foundations was encountered at a depth of approximately 45 feet on the north bank (glacial till, over bedrock in BH-1) and at 67 feet at the south bank (glacial till in BH-2). The soil units encountered in the borings are described separately and in more detail below. The conditions are also summarized June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 4 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. in Figure 3. Appendix A contains detailed summary logs of subsurface conditions encountered at the individual exploration locations.  Fill - Both borings encountered fill at the ground surface to depths of 7.5 feet in BH-1 and approximately 25 feet in BH-2. The fill consisted of medium dense to dense, gravelly silty sand in the upper 4 to 7 feet, then medium dense to loose sandy silt to silty sand with variable gravel content. In BH-2 this latter material had the appearance of alluvium with fine bedding below 17.5 feet; however, a chunk of rubber in the sampler obtained from 20 feet indicated the material was fill to approximately 25 feet. Based on this depth of fill, we speculate that it originated as dredge tailings fill from channel modifications to the Black River. The protective surficial layer of fill on both banks of the river consisted of loosely placed riprap rocks.  Loose Alluvium - Recent alluvial deposits were encountered beneath the existing fill in both borings. The upper portion of alluvium in BH-1 consisted of fine sandy silt and silty sand. It was very loose with N values ranging from 0 to 5 and extended from approximately 7.5 to 30 feet deep. In BH-2, loose alluvium consisting of slightly silty sand and sandy gravel was encountered from 25 to 40 feet deep.  Medium Dense to Dense Alluvium - Gravelly, silty sand was encountered below the loose alluvium in BH-1 from approximately 30 to 40 feet. In BH-2, medium dense, clean to slightly silty sand was encountered from approximately 40 to 67 feet, with the upper 5 feet consisting of dense sandy gravel.  Glacial Till - Glacial Till was encountered below the alluvium in both borings, and consisted of unsorted, non-stratified dense to very dense, sandy, gravelly silt to silty, gravelly sand.  Bedrock - Bedrock was encountered at a depth of approximately 55 feet in borehole BH-1 at the north bank, but was not encountered within BH-2 at the south bank. This is also a pile foundation bearing strata at the site. The bedrock consisted of fractured basalt, becoming less weathered and stronger with depth. 3.3.2 Ground Water Ground water was observed during drilling in both borings, at depths of approximately 13.5 and 19 feet below the existing ground surface at BH-1 and BH-2, respectively. Because of relatively high permeability of the fill soils and silty sand, it is expected that ground water levels will be reflective of river level. The observed ground water levels during drilling are indicated on the boring logs and on Figure 3. The ground water conditions reported on the exploration logs are for the specific dates and locations indicated and, therefore, may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. Furthermore, it is anticipated that ground water conditions will June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 5 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. vary in response to other factors such as rainfall, time of year, local subsurface conditions, and other factors. 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The possibility of lateral spreading of the riverbanks due to soil liquefaction during a design seismic event became evident after completion of the subsurface exploration program. This was in contradiction to conditions observed by others in borings conducted for the adjacent Monster Road Bridge (Golder, 1995). The alluvium encountered in our borings was very loose to medium dense, as opposed to medium dense to dense as encountered in the Monster Road Bridge borings. Our analyses indicate the looser soils will liquefy during a design-level earthquake, resulting in lateral spreading of the riverbanks. Therefore we recommend the bridge abutment areas be stabilized through Ground Improvement Techniques (GIT). Geotechnical recommendations are provided below for bridge seismic design, ground improvement to minimize potential liquefaction and lateral spreading damage, slope stability, bridge foundations, bridge abutments and earthwork, and site drainage. 4.1 SEISMIC DESIGN 4.1.1 General Based on the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition (AASHTO, 2014), potential secondary effects of earthquakes on the proposed bridge include soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismically-induced settlement, and ground faulting. The following sections provide additional discussions and recommendations pertaining to these seismic issues for use in design of the bridge. 4.1.2 Regional Seismicity The seismicity of northwest Washington is not as well understood as other areas of western North America. Reasons for this include: (1) incomplete historical earthquake records; (2) deep and relatively young glacial deposits and dense vegetation which obscure surface expression of faults (Hall and Othberg, 1974); and (3) the distribution of recorded seismic epicenters is scattered and does not define map-able fault zones (Gower, et al., 1985). Historical records exist; however, of strong earthquakes with local Modified Mercalli Intensities up to VIII (indicative of structural damage such as cracked walls and fallen chimneys). Since the 1850's, 28 earthquakes of Magnitude 5 (Richter Scale) and greater have reportedly occurred in the eastern Puget Sound and north-central Cascades region. Five events may have exceeded Magnitude 6.0. Researchers consider the North Cascades earthquake of 1872, centered near Lake Chelan, the strongest (Magnitude 7.4) historical earthquake in the region. June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 6 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Earthquakes of Magnitude 7.2 occurred in central Vancouver Island in 1918 and 1946. The most significant recent event, the Nisqually Earthquake, occurred on February 28, 2001, near Olympia and had a magnitude of 6.8. Other significant historical earthquakes in the region include a 1949 event near Olympia (Magnitude 7.2), and a 1965 event centered between Seattle and Tacoma (Magnitude 6.5). These latter three were intraplate Benioff Zone earthquakes, occurring at a depth of about 30 miles within the descending subducted oceanic plate. Potential sources of earthquakes that may be significant to the site include: (1) the Cascadia subduction zone, along which the Juan de Fuca oceanic plate is being thrust under the North American plate; and (2) shallow crustal faults that may generate earthquakes in the site vicinity (McCrumb et al., 1989). The latest subduction zone earthquake in the Pacific Northwest had been determined from Japanese tsunami records to have occurred in 1700, and recent offshore sedimentological research has indicated that the entire length of the subduction zone slipped at once, which would result in an earthquake of around Magnitude 9.0. 4.1.3 Seismic Considerations Earthquake loading for the proposed Black River bridge structure was developed in accordance with Section 3.4 of the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Bridge Design, 2013. For seismic analysis, the Site Class is required to be established and is determined based on the average soil properties in the upper 100 feet below the ground surface. Based on our explorations and understanding of site geology, it is our opinion that the proposed alignment is underlain by soils classifying as Site Class D. Table 1 presents recommended seismic coefficients for use with the general procedure described in the AASHTO, 2013, which is based upon a design event with a 7 percent probability of exceedance in 75 years (equal to a return period of 1,033 years). Ground motions for the site are based on probabilistic earthquake hazard mapping efforts including those conducted by the United States Geological Survey. Accordingly, a Seismic Design Category D, as given by AASHTO, 2013, should be used. Table 1. Seismic Coefficients for Evaluation Using AASHTO Specifications Site Class Peak Ground Acceleration PGA, (g) Spectral Bedrock Acceleration at 0.2 sec Ss, (g) Spectral Bedrock Acceleration at 1.0 sec S1, (g) Site Amplification Coefficients Design Acceleration Coefficient As, (g) Fpga Fa Fv D 0.446 0.993 0.331 1.05 1.1 1.74 0.470 4.1.4 Soil Liquefaction Liquefaction occurs when saturated and relatively cohesionless soil deposits such as silts, sands, and fine gravels temporarily lose strength as a result of earthquake shaking. Primary factors controlling the development of liquefaction include intensity and duration of strong ground June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 7 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. motion, characteristics of subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions and the depth to ground water. Potential effects of soil liquefaction include temporary loss of bearing capacity and lateral soil resistance, and liquefaction-induced settlement and deformations, with concomitant potential impacts on the proposed bridge and embankment fills. Based on the saturated loose nature of the alluvium noted below fill in BH-1 and BH-2, liquefaction shall be a design consideration for this project. Based on the methods by Seed and Idriss (1971) and Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992), liquefaction for the loose alluvium/fill layer, 20 feet thick, below the upper medium dense fill will liquefy during PGA=0.446g and a Mw=7.5 earthquake. 4.1.5 Ground Fault Hazard The Seattle and Tacoma Faults are probably the most serious earthquake threat to the populous Seattle–Tacoma area. The Black River Bridge site is located between these faults. A study in 2005 (EERI and Washington Military Dept.) of bridge vulnerability estimated that a magnitude 6.7 earthquake on the Seattle Fault would damage approximately 80 bridges in the Seattle– Tacoma area, whereas a magnitude 9.0 subduction event would damage only around 87 bridges in all of western Washington. The same study also found that with failure of just six bridges (the minimum damage from a Benioff M 6.5 event) there could be at least $3 billion lost in business revenue alone. Seismic retrofitting would likely reduce damage to key bridges. 4.2 SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATIONS The proposed pedestrian bridge abutments are to be constructed above the top of the river bank slopes. The stability of these slopes was evaluated using limit-equilibrium methods utilizing the computer program SLIDE 5.0 (Rocscience, 2010). Limit equilibrium methods consider force (or moment) equilibrium along potential failure surfaces. Results are provided in terms of a factor of safety, which is computed as the ratio of the summation of the resisting forces to the summation of the driving forces. Where the factor of safety is less than 1.0, instability is predicted. With limit equilibrium, the shear strength available is assumed to mobilize at the same rate at all points along the failure surface. As a result, the factor of safety is constant over the entire failure surface. 4.2.1 Static Slope Stability Analyses The static factors of safety calculated along Cross Section A-A’, Figure 3, was evaluated with Spencer’s method, Janbu’s Simplified method, and Bishop’s Simplified method with the observed site conditions. The factor of safety of the slope at the southern abutment, under static loading, is approximately 1.26 and for the northern abutment is approximately 1.1, as shown on Figures C-1 June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 8 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. and C-4 of Appendix C, respectively. These analyses indicate that the factor of safety is slightly greater than 1, which means that the slopes are marginally stable under the static condition with the current condition of the slopes. 4.2.2 Pseudo-Static Slope Stability Analyses Cross Section A-A’ was evaluated using pseudo-static methods to evaluate the response of the slope under earthquake loading prior to the onset of liquefaction. Spencer’s, Janbu’s Simplified, and Bishop’s Simplified methods were used in this evaluation. Pseudo-static slope stability analyses model the anticipated earthquake loading as a constant horizontal force applied to the soil mass. For our analyses, we used a horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.235g, which is one- half of the peak ground acceleration (PGA or As, in Table 1). Pre-liquefaction strengths were used for all materials in this analysis. The results of these analyses indicate a factor of safety of approximately 0.65 and 0.62, for the southern and northern abutments, respectively, as shown in Figures C-2 and C-5 of Appendix C. These analyses indicate that slope instability is likely to occur during the design seismic event, prior to the onset of liquefaction. As a factor of safety less then 1.0 was calculated, we expect the existing slopes to undergo lateral spreading upon the onset of liquefaction. 4.2.3 Post-Liquefaction Slope Stability Analyses Additional stability analyses were completed for the slopes depicted in Cross Section A-A’ to determine the response of the slopes after the onset of liquefaction. The post liquefaction residual shear strengths for the liquefiable soils were used to model the anticipated loss of shear strength during a seismic event. The results of these analyses indicate a factor of safety of approximately 0.31 and 0.19, for the southern and northern abutments, respectively, as shown in Figures C-3 and C-6 of Appendix C, respectively. As a factor of safety less than 1.0 was calculated, we expect the existing slopes to undergo large lateral spreading upon the onset of liquefaction. A summary of the anticipated factor of safety for global stability at the abutments are provided below in Table 2. Table 2. Global Stability Analyses Results Without GIT Factor of Safety South Side North Side Static 1.26 1.10 Pseudo-Static 0.65 0.62 Post Liquefaction 0.31 0.19 June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 9 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 4.2.4 Lateral Spreading and Sliding Lateral spreading occurs cyclically when the horizontal ground accelerations combine with gravity to create driving forces which temporarily exceed the available strength of the soil mass. This is a type of failure known as cyclic mobility. The result of a lateral spreading failure is horizontal movement of the partially liquefied soils and any overlying crust of non-liquefied soils. We would expect displacements associated with lateral spreading to be on the order of 10 feet at this site. Bartlett and Youd (1992) used a large data base of lateral spreading case histories and developed an empirical formula. According to the research, we calculated a yield acceleration (ay=0.2g) by means of a trial and error method for the existing bank slope (2H:1V) and Newmark’s sliding block slope stability analyses. When an earthquake magnitude Mw=7 occurs, the estimated lateral spreading ranges from about 24 to 134 inches depending upon assumed epicenter distances, 60 km (Tacoma Fault) and 6 km (Seattle Fault) away, respectively. Although the results vary widely, the analyses demonstrate that large lateral spreading is likely during a significant seismic event. To mitigate these liquefiable soil conditions, we recommend that the strength of the slopes be increased by in-situ ground improvement techniques (GIT). See Section 4.3 for a discussion of GIT methods: Deep soil mixing method (DMM) and Stone column treatment (SC). 4.2.5 Global Stability after Ground Improvement 4.2.5.1 Static Slope Stability Analyses The static factors of safety calculated along Cross Section A-A’ were evaluated with Spencer’s method, Janbu’s Simplified method, and Bishop’s Simplified method assuming ground improvement was performed per Section 4.3. The factor of safety of the slope at the southern abutment, under static loading assuming stone columns as GIT, is approximately 1.30 and for the northern abutment is approximately 1.24, as shown on Figures C-7 and C-8 of Appendix C. These analyses indicate that the factor of safety increases slightly after the application of stone columns as GIT. These factor of safety magnitudes confirm that the composite shear strength properties achieved from the utilization of stone columns as GIT are not adequate for the stabilization of the slope. The factor of safety of the slope at the southern abutment, under static loading assuming deep soil mixing (DMM) as GIT, is approximately 3.5 and for the northern abutment is approximately 2.5, as shown on Figures C-9 and C-10 of Appendix C. These analyses indicate that the factor of safety increases significantly after the application of deep soil mixing (DMM) and that global slope instability is not likely to occur under static loading conditions. June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 10 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 4.2.5.2 Pseudo-Static Slope Stability Analyses Cross Section A-A’ was evaluated using pseudo-static methods to evaluate the response of the slope under earthquake loading prior to the onset of liquefaction, after the application of GIT. Spencer’s, Janbu’s Simplified, and Bishop’s Simplified methods were used in this evaluation. Pseudo-static slope stability analysis model the anticipated earthquake loading as a constant horizontal force applied to the soil mass. For our analyses, we used a horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.235g, which is one-half of the peak ground acceleration (PGA). Pre-liquefaction strengths were used for all materials in this analysis. The results of these analyses assuming stone columns as GIT indicate a factor of safety of approximately 0.77 for the southern abutment and 0.68 for the northern abutment, as shown in Figures C-11 and C-12 of Appendix C. This indicates that slope instability is likely during a seismic event, prior to the onset of liquefaction. As a factor of safety less than 1.0 was calculated, we expect the SC-treated slopes to undergo minor lateral spreading (non- catastrophic) upon the onset of liquefaction. These factor of safety magnitudes confirm that the composite shear strength properties achieved from the utilization of stone columns as GIT are not adequate for the stabilization of the slope. The results of these analyses assuming deep soil mixing (DMM) as GIT indicate a factor of safety of approximately 1.6 for the southern abutment and 1.2 for the northern abutment, as shown in Figures C-13 and C-14 of Appendix C. The results shown in Figures C-13 and C-14 are for a sliding surface passing beneath the deep soil mixing depth. Additional to these analyses, we evaluated potential sliding surfaces that pass through the deep mixed zone and shallow sliding surfaces as is recommended by FHWA design manual for deep soil mixing (FHWA 2013). These analyses indicate that global slope instability is not likely during the design seismic event. The summary of the stability analyses is summarized in Table 3, below. Table 3. Global Stability Analyses Results after GIT Factor of Safety South Side North Side SC DMM SC DMM Static After GIT 1.3 3.5 1.2 2.5 Pseudo-Static After GIT 0.77 1.6 0.68 1.2 4.3 GROUND IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES (GIT) The bridge foundations should be designed to withstand liquefaction-induced lateral and down- drag loading as well as liquefaction-induced lateral spreading. To mitigate liquefaction conditions and densify the loose sand layer noted below the fill, we recommend ground June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 11 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. improvement techniques (GIT) be applied. Based on our analyses we recommend the deep mixing method (DMM). Slope stability analyses of modeled conditions post-application of DMM present factors of safety greater than 1.0 for static and pseudo-static conditions for both abutments. Additionally, the deep mixing method reduces the potential of adverse construction impacts to the river, in comparison to stone columns. The particular methods are described in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 below. The section on stone columns is included for comparison, but we recommend against using stone columns due to inadequate factors of safety against static slope instability and lateral spreading, and greater (and partly unmitigatable) construction impacts to the river and adjacent wetland. 4.3.1 Deep Mixing Method The deep mixing method (DMM) is an in-situ method in which the physical properties of weak soils are improved by mechanically mixing in wet or dry cement. Specialized augers and mixing paddles are used to mix the soil in a column. DMM is achieved by a rotating motion with no vibration applied, such that accidental slope failure during DMM construction will not be likely. We recommend 4-foot diameter columns. Rows of overlapping soil mixed columns oriented in the direction of the possible soil movement (perpendicular to river) would resist sliding and lateral spreading. As a result of DMM, the treated rows will behave like shear walls at the bridge abutments to resist lateral movement. The rows of overlapping columns should be spaced with a 2-foot gap in between rows (6 feet center to center). The DMM treatment area should begin above the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and extend to 4 feet behind (opposite the river from) each abutment. The width of treatment area should be 16 feet, making 3 rows of overlapping columns (see Figure 4).The columns should overlap at least 1 foot along each row. The ground improvements should be conducted in the dry summer months to take advantage of lower water levels. The treatment depths should extend to EL -2 and EL -14 at the north and south banks, respectively. The loose alluvium to be treated is about 15 to 23 feet thick, extending to depths of approximately 32 feet below ground surface on the north side and 42 feet below ground surface on the south side. These depths include a 2-foot penetration into the medium dense sand layer. Installation of the first columns should begin just above OHWM and progress away from the river. A temporary three-sided sheet pile containment wall would be necessary for each abutment area, along OHWM and perpendicular to the bank along the sides of the GIT areas. The sole purpose of the containment wall is to prevent any wet spoils generated from the GIT operations from entering the river. This wall should be designed by the contractor who will be performing the GIT. We anticipate the sheet pile wall would be embedded approximately 10 feet with a stickup of about 7 feet. We recommend a 5-foot setback distance from the sheet pile wall to the DMM columns. June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 12 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. We recommend that DMM replacement ratio per volume be on the order of 40 percent. The cemented soil columns provide high shear strength to resist lateral movements. Typical DMM unconfined compressive strength (qdm,spec) within columns ranges from 100 to 300 psi depending upon the sand/silt contents. We recommend a minimum compressive strength of 150 psi be achieved by the contractor. The actual strengths should be verified by taking core samples and testing in the laboratory. DMM treated ground should produce a resultant shear strength (sdm) of 60 psi or higher, for the areas treated with DMM columns and untreated soil in the vicinity combined. The resultant shear strength of 60 psi was used for the slope stability analyses. The specialty contractor should submit laboratory cement slurry mix-design with the unconfined compressive strength. Medium dense to dense fill soils were encountered from the surface to depths of 7.5 feet to 17 feet, at the north and south bank, respectively. We recommend that this surface crust (Fill) be predrilled for each DMM column in order to facilitate the deep mixing method. The existing river banks are armored with riprap stones which should be removed prior to pre-drilling. The cost associated with predrilling, removal and restoration of riprap on the slopes should be included for estimating the cost of the project. Riprap restoration is still needed after DMM because untreated areas between DMM will be vulnerable to erosion. DMM will bring up wet, silty and cementitious spoils to the surface from the mixing process. This will tend to flow towards the river and will need to be contained by means of a short sheet pile wall as noted in Section 4.3, and lined with plastic sheeting. For the extent of ground improvement proposed, a local specialty contractor estimated about 1,500 cubic yards of soil- cement spoils would need to be hauled off for disposal. We recommend that shallow spread footings resting on the deep soil mixed columns be used to support the bridge (see Section 4.4). Construction Considerations The existing rip-rap will be an impediment to driving sheet piles for the temporary containment wall, as well as to drilling for deep soil mixing. The uncertainty of rip-rap size and thickness, and therefore the relative difficulty of driving / drilling vs. excavating out the rip rap, poses a significant cost risk to the project. The risk can be greatly reduced by evaluating the rip-rap size and thickness in advance, so that the cost of removing the rip-rap can be estimated for budgeting, and contractors can bid for rip-rap removal on an even basis. All rip-rap within the proposed treatment areas would need to be removed, as selective removal for each DMM shaft would remove most of the rip-rap anyway but at greater effort than removing all. The rip-rap size and thickness should be investigated during design with a trackhoe having at least a 30-foot reach. The contract should state that rip-rap shall be removed prior to driving sheets and drilling for deep soil mixing. It will need to be done in such a way as to avoid increasing the turbidity of the river. Assuming removal of rip-rap will be from OHWM and up, the work should not be done June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 13 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. during high tides, e.g. a buffer between the excavation work and river level should be maintained. The depth limitation of DMM is about 130 feet. The intended ground improvement depths, in the range of 30 to 40 feet, are well within the range of maximum depth. The abutment work space needs to be large enough to accommodate a large crane, other auxiliary equipment, concrete truck, and pump truck. Adjacent property ownership and land use (wetland, river and narrow foot print of embankment) constrain the available work areas. The north side work area is particularly constrained to a narrow width at the proposed bridge site, but in our opinion and based on conversations with a ground improvement contractor, there is adequate room for construction. The crane would operate from the level area above the bank crest. Based on the presence of medium dense granular fill at the surface to a depth of 7 feet, it does not appear that the north side would require ground mitigation for crane support. However, timber crane mats may be desirable. The contractor should provide a submittal regarding equipment type and size, support, and slope stability evaluations, as well as general staging procedures. Potential turbidity impacts to the river include siltation from removing rip-rap close to the water line, and runoff from spoils with cement from wet-mixing. These can be mitigated by installing a sheet pile wall on each river bank just above OHW, lined with visquene, to catch loosened soils and cement and allow for removal with heavy equipment for disposal off site. The walls would need to be embedded 10 feet and stickup approximately 7 feet. The purpose of the sheet pile walls is to contain drilling spoils and stormwater runoff only; it would not stabilize the slope. Even with predrilling of the columns through the medium dense upper soils, spoils consisting of excess soil and cement slurry will come to the ground surface and need to be contained and disposed of continuously as DMM progresses. The volume of material could potentially be up to, or greater than, the cement replacement volume, e.g. 40 percent of shaft volume. Assuming a 4-foot diameter for DMM columns, the lowermost columns would need to be at least 5 feet from the sheet pile wall to prevent destabilization of the wall. By standard procedure, adjacent column rows would not be installed on the same day, to allow for curing of the cement before installation of adjacent rows. Constraints to installation sequencing should be provided to bidders, who will need to provide submittals regarding means and methods including sequencing. After all DMM columns are installed and rip-rap reestablished on the banks, the sheet pile walls would be removed. Installation and removal of the sheet pile walls would be conducted with a crane-suspended vibratory hammer, such that the piles can be installed on a slope distant from where equipment actually sits. We recommend that the wet rotary method be specified, and the wet jet method prohibited. With the wet jet method, which utilizes high-pressure water during drilling and injection of cement June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 14 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. slurry, there is a higher risk of turbid water eruption at the ground surface or within the river. Also, slope stability could be compromised during installation of the lower columns. We do not anticipate impacts to ground water flow from DMM. Alkalinity increases will be temporary during cement treatment and curing of soil columns. 4.3.2 Stone Columns The stone column (SC) method is a method by which vertical columns are made of compacted aggregate extending through a deposit of loose soil, and result in increased shear resistance of the slope and relief of pore-water pressure during the design earthquake event. Using the dry method, SCs are installed with a vibratory probe and a deep stone feed tube, forcing the aggregate radially into the loose soil zones, compacting the stone as well as any granular zones formed in the surrounding soil. Typical diameters of stone columns are 2 to 4 feet. Stone columns provide dissipation of excess pore pressure during strong shaking and the treated soil layer will not liquefy. As indicated in the previous sections of slope stability analyses, SC would not completely eliminate the slope instability problem during the design earthquake event, but it would prevent liquefaction of the loose alluvium layer, and thereby reduce lateral spreading (Bohn and Lambert, 2013). The wet, top-feed method can create “geysers” of silty water coming up from the ground in random, unwanted locations. If constructed in an improper order, e.g. progressing toward the river instead of away, then vibrations may cause local liquefaction and accidental embankment failure. Based on the higher risks of slope instability as well as turbidity impacts to the river and adjacent wetlands, we recommend against using the SC method. 4.3.3 Ground Improvement Verification Tests DMM Verification Tests After DMM treatment, two borings should be made at each abutment site with core samples retrieved for unconfined compressive strength tests. The average strength should be approximately 150 psi. The geotechnical engineer of record should evaluate the DMM strength improvement. The boreholes should be backfilled with grout after coring. 4.4 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS Shallow strip and square footings, as recommended below, can be used to support the bridge structure after DMM treatment is implemented. June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 15 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 4.4.1 Spread Footing Bearing Capacity for Bridge Support Shallow strip and square footings supporting the bridge abutment and bridge approach fills on level ground that has been treated with DMM per the recommendations above can be designed with a net bearing capacity (qn) of 12,000 psf and on sloping ground (2H:1H) 5,000 psf with a 2- foot minimum width. A resistance factor, b = 0.5, shall be applied for the design. Total settlement under the load will be one inch or less. The depths of the footings should not be less than 18 inches below ground surface for frost protection. Footings located on slopes should have a minimum embedment depth of 36 inches. Footing subgrades should be compacted to the densities as specified in Section 4.7. The resistance factor for the extreme and service cases shall be 1.0. While earthwork and concrete work for the footings can begin as soon as the next day after completion of ground improvement, we recommend that 14 days be allowed for curing of the DMM columns before installation of the bridge. 4.4.2 Sliding Resistance on Existing Fill for Cast-In-Place Concrete Footings The friction coefficient at the base of footings should be 0.4. Resistance Factor =0.8 shall be used. The resistance factor for the extreme and service cases is 1.0. 4.4.3 Passive Earth Pressure Component of Sliding Resistance for CIP Concrete Footings The passive earth pressures for static and dynamic cases shall be estimated per Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2, respectively. 4.5 BRIDGE ABUTMENTS, FOOTINGS AND WING WALLS 4.5.1 Lateral Earth Pressures - Static Condition Lateral earth pressures used for design of bridge abutments under static loading conditions should be equivalent to that generated by a fluid weighing 55 pcf. The above recommendations assume properly compacted, well-drained granular fill adjacent to the abutments. Traffic surcharge loads should also be included in the abutment design. Lateral loads at bridge abutments can be resisted by passive resistance of buried structural elements. However, the passive resistance of soil or structural fill above design scour elevation should not be included in design. If the abutment vertical loads are to be carried by deep foundations, frictional resistance along the base of the abutments should not be included in calculating resistance to lateral loads. Passive resistance may be evaluated using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf. The upper two feet shall be ignored for the passive resistances. We recommend a passive pressure resistance factor, ep, of 0.45 be used in design for the strength limit state. For the extreme event limit state, the corresponding factor should be 1.0. The passive resistance value assumes the existing June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 16 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. structural fill extends laterally beyond the structural element for a distance equivalent to at least twice the height of the element. If the soils do not extend the required lateral distance, we recommend the passive resistance be ignored when evaluating lateral restraint. In addition, structural elements will need to be able to move sufficiently to generate the full passive resistance. The lateral movement required to generate 100 percent of the passive pressure is a function of the type of soil bearing against the footing and the thickness of the footing. We estimate structural elements founded against undisturbed structural fill would need to move laterally a distance of 0.02H, to generate 100 percent of the passive pressure, where H represents the height of the structural element. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications state that surveys of the performance of bridges indicate that horizontal abutment movement less than 1.5 inches can usually be tolerated by bridge superstructures without significant damage. It appears therefore that, for abutments with heights not exceeding 6.25 feet, full passive resistance can be mobilized by allowing the abutment to move laterally the distance equal to 0.02H. For abutments higher than 6.25 feet, linear interpolation should be used to estimate the passive pressure contribution if lateral movement is limited to 1.5 inches, or less than the 2 percent of the abutment height required to mobilize the full force. The recommended design parameters presented above assume level ground surface at the top and base of the abutment walls. The above values for passive pressure do not incorporate a factor of safety. Suitable factors of safety should be incorporated in evaluating lateral resistance of bridge abutments. 4.5.2 Lateral Earth Pressures during Seismic Loading During a seismic event, active earth pressure acting on bridge abutments will increase by an incremental amount that corresponds to the earthquake loading. To determine the increase in lateral earth pressure under seismic loading, the Mononobe-Okabe analysis was utilized, as formulated by Richards and Elms (1992). For use in design of abutment walls with level backfill under seismic conditions, a uniform, rectangularly distributed, seismic pressure of 20H psf, where H equals the height of the abutment wall in feet, should be used in place of the active earth pressure recommended in Section 4.5.1. Lateral loads applied to the bridge structure under seismic loading may be partially resisted by passive pressure of soils adjacent to abutment walls. Properly compacted fill shall be placed against the sides of abutment walls and pile caps or footings, and the ultimate passive earth pressure resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid weighing 450 pcf. The full passive resistance will only be mobilized if the wall moves laterally a sufficient distance. The above values assume level ground surface at the top and base of the abutment wall under consideration. Passive pressure resistance factors, ep, of 0.45 and 1.0 should be used as applicable in design for the strength limit and extreme event limit states, respectively. However, June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 17 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. we recommend the passive resistance be ignored for the design, unless a sufficient inspection is achieved to make sure that all soils are compacted at the toe of walls. 4.5.3 Abutment Wall Backfill Abutment wall design and construction should be in accordance with applicable WSDOT Standards. Wall backfill materials should consist of Gravel Backfill for Walls (WSDOT 9- 03.12(2)), or Gravel Borrow (WSDOT 9-03.14), as described in the WSDOT Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2014). Placement and compaction of fill behind walls shall be in accordance with WSDOT 2-09.3(1) E, with the exception that the compaction standard referenced in Section 2-03.3(14) D should be Modified Proctor, per ASTM D 1557. Wall drainage systems should also be designed and constructed in accordance with the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Provisions for permanent control of subsurface water should at a minimum consist of a perforated drain pipe behind and at the base of the wall, embedded in clean, free-draining sand and gravel. The base of the drain pipe should be a minimum of 12 inches below the base of the adjacent ground surface at the toe of the wall. The drain pipe should be graded to direct water away from backfill and subgrade soils and to a suitable outlet. 4.6 EMBANKMENT SLOPES We recommend that the planned compacted fill slopes or bank slopes be constructed/restored no steeper than 2H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). For fill slopes constructed at 2H:1V or flatter, and comprised of fill soils placed and compacted as structural fill as described above, we anticipate that adequate factors of safety against global failure will be maintained. Measures should be taken to prevent surficial instability and/or erosion of embankment material. This can be accomplished by conscientious compaction of the embankment fills all the way out to the slope face, by maintaining adequate drainage, and planting the disturbed slope face with vegetation as soon as possible after construction. To achieve the specified relative compaction at the slope face, it may be necessary to overbuild the slopes several feet, and then trim back to finish grade. In our experience, compaction of slope faces by “track-walking” is generally ineffective and is, therefore, not recommended. Even after ground improvement treatment, riprap rocks should be installed on the banks from the toe level of the slopes to the design flood level of the river. The riprap rocks removed from the slopes can be re-used. Riprap rocks (18” minus in diameter) meeting WSDOT 9-13 and 9- 13.4(2) should be underlain by a 12-inch layer of 4-inch minus Quarry Spalls, per WSDOT 9- 03.6. If rip-rap is not allowed by the agencies, bioengineered erosion protection should be incorporated into the slope restoration, the design of which is beyond our current scope of work. June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 18 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 4.7 STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIALS AND COMPACTION In our opinion, the existing fill on site will be suitable for use as structural fill, provided it is free of fine-grained (silt and clay) or organic rich material. In addition, cobbles and boulders should be screened out. If required, imported structural fill should consist of relatively clean, free draining, sand and gravel conforming to the Gravel Borrow specification, Section 9-03.14 (Gravel Borrow) of the 2014 WSDOT Standard Specifications. If earthwork is performed during extended periods of wet weather or in wet conditions, the structural fill should conform to the recommendations provided below in Section 4.9, Wet Weather Earthwork. In general, the backfill should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a dense and unyielding condition, and at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density, per test method ASTM 1557:D. The thickness of loose lifts should not exceed 8 inches for heavy equipment compactors and 4 inches for hand operated compactors. The procedure to achieve the specified minimum relative compaction depends on the size and type of compaction equipment, the number of passes, thickness of the layer being compacted, and on soil moisture-density properties. We recommend that the appropriate lift thickness, and the adequacy of the subgrade preparation and materials compaction, be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant during construction. A sufficient number of in- place density tests should be performed as the fill is being placed to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. 4.8 SITE DRAINAGE AND EROSION 4.8.1 Surface Water Control Surface runoff can be controlled during construction by careful grading practices. Typically, these include the construction of shallow, upgrade, perimeter ditches or low earthen berms and the use of temporary sumps to collect runoff and prevent water from damaging exposed subgrades. Also, measures should be taken to avoid ponding of surface water during construction. The use of Ground Improvement Techniques will require the use of a sheetpile containment wall for each treatment area during GIT construction. Permanent control of surface water should be incorporated in the final grading design. Adequate surface gradients and drainage systems should be incorporated into the design such that surface runoff is directed away from structures and pavements and into swales or other controlled drainage devices. June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 19 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 4.8.2 Erosion Control In our opinion, erosion at the site during construction can be minimized by implementing the recommendations presented in Wet Weather Earthwork, Section 4.9, and by judicious use of straw bales, silt fences and plastic sheets. The erosion control devices should be in place and remain in place throughout site preparation and construction. Potential problems associated with erosion may also be minimized by establishing vegetation within disturbed areas immediately following grading operations. Vegetation with deep penetrating roots is the preferred choice, since the roots tend to maintain the surficial stability of slopes by mechanical effects and contribute to the drying of slopes by evapotranspiration. 4.9 WET WEATHER EARTHWORK The on-site fill is considered moderately moisture sensitive and may be difficult to traverse with construction equipment during periods of wet weather or wet conditions. Furthermore, the near- surface soils may be difficult to compact if their moisture content significantly exceeds the optimum. General recommendations relative to earthwork performed in wet weather or in wet conditions are presented below.  Earthwork should be performed in small areas to minimize exposure to wet weather. Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soil should be followed promptly by the placement and compaction of clean structural fill. The size and type of construction equipment used may have to be limited to prevent soil disturbance. Under some circumstances, it may be necessary to excavate soils with a backhoe to minimize subgrade disturbance that may be caused by equipment traffic.  Material used as structural fill should consist of clean granular soil with less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve, based on wet sieving the fraction passing the ¾-inch sieve. The fine-grained portion of the structural fill soils should be non-plastic.  The ground surface within the construction area should be graded to promote run-off of surface water and to prevent the ponding of water.  The ground surface within the construction area should be sealed by a smooth drum vibratory roller, or equivalent, and under no circumstances should soil be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture.  Excavation and placement of structural fill material should be performed under the full-time observation of a representative of the geotechnical engineer, to determine that the work is being accomplished in accordance with the project specifications and the recommendations contained herein. June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 20 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.  Bales of straw and/or geotextile silt fences should be strategically located to control erosion and the movement of soil. 5. CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Parametrix, Inc. and King County in design of a portion of this project. The report and any other applicable geotechnical data should be provided in its entirety 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. Experience has shown that subsurface soil and ground water conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations and may not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, HWA should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between the submission of this report and the start of construction, or if conditions have changed due to construction operations at or near the site, it is recommended that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations considering the changed conditions and time lapse. This report is issued with the understanding that the information and recommendations contained herein will be brought to the attention of the appropriate design team personnel and incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and the necessary steps will be taken to verify that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, HWA attempted to execute these services in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology in the area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made. The scope of our work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous substances in the soil, or surface water at this site. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor’s operations, and cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site. As such, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein unsafe.  June 30, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100-21 Task 200 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 21 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Brad W. Thurber, L.G, L.E.G. Sa H. Hong, P.E. Senior Engineering Geologist Principal Geotechnical Engineer 22 6. REFERENCES AASHTO, 2014, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition. Bartlett, S.F., Youd, T.L., 1992, Empirical analysis of horizontal ground displacement generated by liquefaction-induced lateral spread, Tech report NCEER-92-0021. Bohn Cecilia and Lambert Serge, 2013, Case Studies of Stone Columns Improvement in Seismic Areas, 3rd Conference, Maghrebine en Engenierie Geotechnique. Brandenberg et al, 2011, Recommended Design Practice for Pile Foundations in Laterally Spreading Ground, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. EERI and Washington Military Dept. – Emergency Management Division, 2005, Scenario for a Magnitude 6.7 Earthquake on the Seattle Fault. Ensoft, Inc (2002), Documentation of Computer Program LPILE. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2013, Deep Mixing for Embankment and Foundation Support, Pub. No. FHWA-NRT-13-046, October 2013, McLean, VA. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1983, Design and Construction of Stone Columns Volume I, Report No. FHWA/RD-83/026, December 1983, McLean, VA. Golder Associates Inc., 1995, Geotechnical Engineering Study - Monster Road Bridge Replacement, Renton, Washington. For INCA Engineers, Inc. dated January 23, 1995. Gower, H. D., J.C. Yount and R.S. Crosson, 1985, Seismotectonic Map of the Puget Sound Region, Washington, U. S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I- 1613. Hall, J.B. and K.L. Othberg, 1974, Thickness of Unconsolidated Sediments, Puget Lowland, Washington, State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W., 2007, SPT and CPT based relationships for the residual shear strength of liquefied soils, Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Proc., 4th International Conf. on Earthq. Geotech. Engineering. Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M., 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits following Liquefaction during Earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, Vol 15, No. 1, pp 29-44. McCrumb, D.R., et al., 1989, Tectonics, Seismicity, and Engineering Seismology in Washington, Engineering Geology in Washington, Vol. 1, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Bulletin 78, pp. 97-120. Rocscience Inc., 2013, Slide, Version 5.044, Computer Software. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I. M. 1971, Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2011, Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM), M 46-03.06. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2014, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction. FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. Approximate Project Site Location NORTH NOT TO SCALE BASE MAP FROM GOOGLE MAPS- DATA MAP © 2015 VICINITY MAP BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WASHINGTON 1 2010-100 T200 102+00103+00 15+00 16+0017+0017+67 202+00203+00 BH-2BH-1BLACK RIVER BRIDGELAKE TO SOUND TRAILRENTON, WASHINGTONPROPOSED GROUNDIMPROVEMENT AREASDRAWN BYCHECK BYDATE:FIGURE #PROJECT #EFKBT06.30.152010-100TASK 2004HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.S:\2010 PROJECTS\2010-100-21 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL\TASK 200 BLACK RIVER BRIDGE\CAD 2010-100 T200\HWA 2010-100 T200.DWG <Wall Design> Plotted: 7/1/2015 2:42 PM010203040Scale: 1"=20'BORING APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND DESIGNATIONBH-2 Summer highest daily high 12' Summer highest daily high 12' MONSTE R R O A D Sheet pile wallSheet pile wallBLACK RIVER APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 A-1 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Two geotechnical borings were drilled for the proposed Black River Bridge, on November 10, 2014 and January 6, 2015. These borings were designated BH-1 and BH-2, and were drilled at the top of the river banks in the general centerline of the proposed bridge alignment. The borings were drilled to maximum depths ranging from 61 to 86.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The exploration locations were located in the field by taping distances from known site features and plotted. The locations of the borings are indicated on Figures 2 and 3. The borings were drilled by Holocene Drilling, Inc. of Puyallup, Washington, under subcontract to HWA Geosciences Inc. The borings were advanced using a track-mounted, Dietrich D50 drill rig equipped with hollow stem augers. Each of the explorations was completed under the full- time supervision and observation of an HWA geologist. Soil samples were collected at 2.5- to 5-foot intervals using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) methods in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. SPT sampling consisted of using a 2-inch outside diameter, split-spoon sampler driven with a 140-pound drop hammer using a rope and cathead. During the test, a sample is obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil with the hammer free-falling 30 inches per blow. The number of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration is recorded. The Standard Penetration Resistance ("N-value") of the soil is calculated as the number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration. This resistance, or N-value, provides an indication of the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. HWA personnel recorded pertinent information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and ground water occurrence. Soils were classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A-1, which also provides a key to the exploration log symbols. Representative soil samples were taken to our laboratory for further examination. The summary logs of boreholes are presented on Figures A-2 and A-3. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. Moreover, the soil and ground water conditions depicted are only for the specific locations and dates reported and, therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. A-12010-100-200 Renton, Washington Black River Bridge Lake to Sound Trail SYMBOLS USED ON EXPLORATION LOGS LEGEND OF TERMS AND to 30 over 30 Approximate Undrained Shear Strength (psf) <250 250 - No. 4 Sieve Sand with Fines (appreciable amount of fines) amount of fines) More than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve Size Sand and Sandy Soils Clean Gravel (little or no fines) More than 50% of Coarse Fraction Retained on No. 4 Sieve Gravel with SM SC ML MH CH OH RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Very Dense Dense N (blows/ft) 0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 over 50 Approximate Relative Density(%) 0 -15 15 -35 35 -65 65 -85 85 -100 COHESIVE SOILS Consistency Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard N (blows/ft) 0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 15 15 Clean Sand (little or no fines) 50% or More of Coarse Fraction Passing Fine Grained Soils Silt and Clay Liquid Limit Less than 50% 50% or More Passing No. 200 Sieve Size Silt and Clay Liquid Limit 50% or More 500 500 -1000 1000 -2000 2000 -4000 >4000 DensityDensity USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Coarse Grained Soils Gravel and Gravelly Soils Highly Organic Soils GROUP DESCRIPTIONS Well-graded GRAVEL Poorly-graded GRAVEL Silty GRAVEL Clayey GRAVEL Well-graded SAND Poorly-graded SAND Silty SAND Clayey SAND SILT Lean CLAY Organic SILT/Organic CLAY Elastic SILT Fat CLAY Organic SILT/Organic CLAY PEAT MAJOR DIVISIONS GW SP CL OL PT GP GM GC SW COHESIONLESS SOILS Fines (appreciable LEGEND 2010-100-200.GPJ 2/20/15 FIGURE:PROJECT NO.: Coarse sand Medium sand SIZE RANGE Larger than 12 in Smaller than No. 200 (0.074mm) Gravel time of drilling) Groundwater Level (measured in well or AL CBR CN Atterberg Limits:LL = Liquid Limit California Bearing Ratio Consolidation Resilient Modulus Photoionization Device Reading Pocket Penetrometer Specific Gravity Triaxial Compression Torvane 3 in to 12 in 3 in to No 4 (4.5mm) No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) COMPONENT DRY Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch. MOIST Damp but no visible water. WET Visible free water, usually soil is below water table. Boulders Cobbles Coarse gravel Fine gravel Sand MOISTURE CONTENT COMPONENT PROPORTIONS Fine sand Silt and Clay 5 - 12% PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS Clean Slightly (Clayey, Silty, Sandy) 30 - 50% Components are arranged in order of increasing quantities. Very (Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly) 12 - 30%Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly open hole after water level stabilized) Groundwater Level (measured at 3 in to 3/4 in 3/4 in to No 4 (4.5mm) No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) PL = Plastic Limit DD DS GS K MD MR PID PP SG TC TV Dry Density (pcf) Direct Shear Grain Size Distribution Permeability Approx. Shear Strength (tsf) Percent Fines%F Moisture/Density Relationship (Proctor) Approx. Compressive Strength (tsf) Unconfined CompressionUC (140 lb. hammer with 30 in. drop) Shelby Tube Small Bag Sample Large Bag (Bulk) Sample Core Run Non-standard Penetration Test 2.0" OD Split Spoon (SPT) NOTES: Soil classifications presented on exploration logs are based on visual and laboratory observation. Density/consistency, color, modifier (if any) GROUP NAME, additions to group name (if any), moisture content. Proportion, gradation, and angularity of constituents, additional comments. (GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION) Please refer to the discussion in the report text as well as the exploration logs for a more complete description of subsurface conditions. Soil descriptions are presented in the following general order: < 5% 3-1/4" OD Split Spoon with Brass Rings (3.0" OD split spoon) TEST SYMBOLS SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS COMPONENT DEFINITIONS SM ML ML SM SM 6-9-10 9-9-8 4-5-5 2-2-3 0-0-0 1-0-1 0-0-0 1-1-1 1-2-2 3-6-10 6-10-10 GS GS GS GS GS Medium dense, gray, silty to slightly silty, fine SAND, moist. BLocky texture, light brown at surface, trace organics and burnt wood bits. (FILL) Medium dense, dark grayish brown, sandy SILT, moist. Very loose to medium dense, gray, fine sandy SILT, moist to wet. Trace organic bits and layers, some laminar bedding. (ALLUVIUM) Blow counts are weight of hammer only. Sample is wet at tip of sample. Ground water seepage was observed at 13.5 feet below ground surface. Abundant organics in sample. Laminar layers or organics. Lots of heave encountered, 4-5 feet cleaned out of auger. Loose, grayish brown, silty, fine SAND, wet. No recovery of sample. Medium dense, gray, silty, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, wet. Wood bits and organics observed. (ALLUVIUM) S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-10 S-11 BORING 2010-100-200.GPJ 2/20/15 FIGURE:PROJECT NO.:2010-100-200 Renton, Washington Black River Bridge Lake to Sound Trail DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D-50 track rig with HSA SAMPLING METHOD: SPT Autohammer LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 11/10/2014 DATE COMPLETED: 11/10/2014 LOGGED BY: D. ColtranefeetSURFACE ELEVATION: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. 26.50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40DEPTH (feet)DEPTH(feet)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 BH-1 PAGE: 1 of 2(blows/6 inches)A-2GROUNDWATEROTHER TESTSPlastic Limit BORING: and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.PEN. RESISTANCENOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated DESCRIPTION (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) Blows per foot Liquid LimitSYMBOL010203040 50 0 20 40 60 80 100SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE NUMBERNatural Water ContentUSCS SOIL CLASSWater Content (%) Standard Penetration Test SM 9-7-16 12-27-44 26-13-15 12-10-25 50-50/2" GSMedium dense to very dense, light brown, gravelly, silty, fine to coarse SAND, wet. Angular gravel and sands, blocky texture. (GLACIAL TILL) Bluish gray, moderately weak, highly weathered, fractured, basalt. Speckled coloring. (WEATHERED BEDROCK) Bluish gray, moderately strong, moderately weathered, fractured, BASALT. Speckled coloring. (TUKWILA FORMATION) Boring was terminated at 61 feet below surface in bedrock. Ground water seepage was observed at 13.5 feet below ground surface. S-12 S-13 S-14 S-15 S-16 BORING 2010-100-200.GPJ 2/20/15 FIGURE:PROJECT NO.:2010-100-200 Renton, Washington Black River Bridge Lake to Sound Trail DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D-50 track rig with HSA SAMPLING METHOD: SPT Autohammer LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 11/10/2014 DATE COMPLETED: 11/10/2014 LOGGED BY: D. ColtranefeetSURFACE ELEVATION: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. 26.50 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80DEPTH (feet)DEPTH(feet)40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 BH-1 PAGE: 2 of 2(blows/6 inches)A-2GROUNDWATEROTHER TESTSPlastic Limit BORING: and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.PEN. RESISTANCENOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated DESCRIPTION (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) Blows per foot Liquid LimitSYMBOL010203040 50 0 20 40 60 80 100SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE NUMBERNatural Water ContentUSCS SOIL CLASSWater Content (%) Standard Penetration Test SP SM ML SM SM SP GP SP 20-18-19 9-12-15 4-5-7 5-10-10 3-6-6 5-7-8 2-2-2 30-1-2 1-2-4 3-3-3 4-3-3 Grass at surface. Dense, light brown, slightly silty, slightly gravelly, SAND, moist. Broken gravels and concrete. (FILL) Medium dense, gray, slightly gravelly, very sandy SILT, moist. Wood bits observed. Loose, gray and brown, interbedded fine to medium SAND with SILT layers, moist to wet. Ground water seepage observed at 19.0 feet during drilling. Loose, gray, slightly silty SAND, wet. Initial 6-inch blow count is from chunk of rubber in sampler. Loose, gray, sandy, fine GRAVEL, wet. (ALLUVIUM) Loose, gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, wet. S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-10 S-11 BORING 2010-100-200.GPJ 2/20/15 FIGURE:PROJECT NO.:2010-100-200 Renton, Washington Black River Bridge Lake to Sound Trail DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D-50 track rig with HSA SAMPLING METHOD: SPT Autohammer LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 1/6/2015 DATE COMPLETED: 1/6/2015 LOGGED BY: D. ColtranefeetSURFACE ELEVATION: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. 29.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40DEPTH (feet)DEPTH(feet)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 BH-2 PAGE: 1 of 3(blows/6 inches)A-3GROUNDWATEROTHER TESTSPlastic Limit BORING: and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.PEN. RESISTANCENOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated DESCRIPTION (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) Blows per foot Liquid LimitSYMBOL010203040 50 0 20 40 60 80 100SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE NUMBERNatural Water ContentUSCS SOIL CLASSWater Content (%) Standard Penetration Test GP SP SP SM GM 6-16-19 4-8-11 2-11-10 7-10-11 6-10-13 6-20-19 9-11-20 Dense, gray, slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL, wet. Broken gravels in sampler. Medium dense, black, fine to medium SAND, wet. Bits of wood noted in samples. No sample recovery, shells noted in cuttings. Medium dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, wet. Shells observed. Drilling becomes gravelly. Poor recovery; broken gravel. Dense, gray, slightly sandy, gravelly, SILT, wet. Broken gravels in sampler. (GLACIAL TILL) S-12 S-13 S-14 S-15 S-16 S-17 S-18 BORING 2010-100-200.GPJ 2/20/15 FIGURE:PROJECT NO.:2010-100-200 Renton, Washington Black River Bridge Lake to Sound Trail DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D-50 track rig with HSA SAMPLING METHOD: SPT Autohammer LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 1/6/2015 DATE COMPLETED: 1/6/2015 LOGGED BY: D. ColtranefeetSURFACE ELEVATION: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. 29.00 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80DEPTH (feet)DEPTH(feet)40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 BH-2 PAGE: 2 of 3(blows/6 inches)A-3GROUNDWATEROTHER TESTSPlastic Limit BORING: and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.PEN. RESISTANCENOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated DESCRIPTION (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) Blows per foot Liquid LimitSYMBOL010203040 50 0 20 40 60 80 100SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE NUMBERNatural Water ContentUSCS SOIL CLASSWater Content (%) Standard Penetration Test 12-13-17 50/4" Becomes medium dense, broken gravel in sampler. Very dense, gray, sandy, gravelly SILT, wet. Most likely driven on boulder. Boring terminated at 86.5 feet below ground surface due to refusal. Ground water seepage was observed at 19 feet below ground surface during the exploration. S-19 S-20 BORING 2010-100-200.GPJ 2/20/15 FIGURE:PROJECT NO.:2010-100-200 Renton, Washington Black River Bridge Lake to Sound Trail DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D-50 track rig with HSA SAMPLING METHOD: SPT Autohammer LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 1/6/2015 DATE COMPLETED: 1/6/2015 LOGGED BY: D. ColtranefeetSURFACE ELEVATION: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. 29.00 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120DEPTH (feet)DEPTH(feet)80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 BH-2 PAGE: 3 of 3(blows/6 inches)A-3GROUNDWATEROTHER TESTSPlastic Limit BORING: and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.PEN. RESISTANCENOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated DESCRIPTION (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) Blows per foot Liquid LimitSYMBOL010203040 50 0 20 40 60 80 100SAMPLE TYPESAMPLE NUMBERNatural Water ContentUSCS SOIL CLASSWater Content (%) Standard Penetration Test APPENDIX B LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 2010-100 T200 DR rev3 B-1 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to characterize relevant engineering and index properties of the site soils. Because of the predominantly coarse- grained nature of the encountered soils, the collected and tested samples should not be considered representative of the existing soils. For the same reason, only a limited number of laboratory tests could be performed on the obtained soil samples. HWA personnel performed laboratory tests in general accordance with appropriate ASTM test methods. We tested selected soil samples to determine moisture content and grain-size distribution. The test procedures and results are briefly discussed below. Moisture Content Laboratory tests were conducted to determine the moisture content of selected soil samples, in general accordance with ASTM D-2216. Test results are indicated at the sampled intervals on the appropriate boring logs in Appendix A. Grain Size Analysis The grain size distributions of selected soil samples were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 422. Grain size distribution curves for the tested samples are presented on Figures B-1 through B-4. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 BH-1 BH-1 BH-1 5.0 - 6.5 7.5 - 9.0 12.5 - 14.0 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL % MC LL PL PI 90 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.05 5/8" 70 1.7 0.7 #10 40.4 21.7 15.0 (ML) Dark grayish brown, Sandy SILT (ML) Dark grayish brown, SILT with sand (ML) Gray, SILT with sand #20 Fine Coarse DEPTH (ft)SYMBOL Gravel % Sand % Fines % 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 10 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 S-2 S-3 S-5 16 23 36 50 SAMPLE B-1 0.00050.005 CLAY #100 0.5 50 Medium Fine 57.9 77.6 85.0 3/8" 5 Coarse #60#40 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 2010-100-200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2010-100-200.GPJ 2/20/15 FIGURE: Lake to Sound Trail Black River Bridge Renton, Washington 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 BH-1 BH-1 BH-1 17.5 - 19.0 25.0 - 26.5 40.0 - 41.5 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL % MC LL PL PI 90 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.05 5/8" 70 15.3 #10 20.4 71.8 39.4 (ML) Gray, SILT with sand and organics (SM) Grayish brown, Silty SAND (SM) Yellowish brown, Silty SAND with gravel #20 Fine Coarse DEPTH (ft)SYMBOL Gravel % Sand % Fines % 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 10 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 S-7 S-9 S-12 56 38 25 50 SAMPLE B-2 0.00050.005 CLAY #100 0.5 50 Medium Fine 79.6 28.2 45.3 3/8" 5 Coarse #60#40 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 2010-100-200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2010-100-200.GPJ 2/20/15 FIGURE: Lake to Sound Trail Black River Bridge Renton, Washington 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 BH-2 BH-2 BH-2 7.5 - 9.0 15.0 - 16.5 45.0 - 46.5 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL % MC LL PL PI 90 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.05 5/8" 70 1.2 3.2 5.7 #10 46.8 44.2 89.9 (ML) Dark grayish brown, sandy SILT (ML) Dark grayish brown, sandy SILT (SP) Black, Poorly graded SAND #20 Fine Coarse DEPTH (ft)SYMBOL Gravel % Sand % Fines % 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 10 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 S-3 S-6 S-13 19 18 29 50 SAMPLE B-3 0.00050.005 CLAY #100 0.5 50 Medium Fine 52.0 52.7 4.3 3/8" 5 Coarse #60#40 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 2010-100-200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2010-100-200.GPJ 2/20/15 FIGURE: Lake to Sound Trail Black River Bridge Renton, Washington 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 BH-2 BH-2 BH-2 60.0 - 61.5 75.0 - 76.5 86.0 - 86.5 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL % MC LL PL PI 90 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.05 5/8" 70 0.9 27.7 12.3 #10 92.0 22.7 23.5 (SP-SM) Dark gray, Poorly graded SAND with silt (GM) Gray, Silty GRAVEL with sand (ML) Gray, SILT with sand #20 Fine Coarse DEPTH (ft)SYMBOL Gravel % Sand % Fines % 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 10 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 S-16 S-18 S-20 23 21 21 50 SAMPLE B-4 0.00050.005 CLAY #100 0.5 50 Medium Fine 7.1 49.6 64.2 3/8" 5 Coarse #60#40 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 2010-100-200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2010-100-200.GPJ 2/20/15 FIGURE: Lake to Sound Trail Black River Bridge Renton, Washington APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES, COMPUTER CALCULATION RESULTS STATIC STABILITY: SOUTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA C-1 2010-100-21 FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. SEISMIC STABILITY: SOUTH ABUTMENT (DESIGN EVENT) BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA C-2 2010-100-21 FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. POST LIQUEFACTION STABILITY: SOUTH ABUTMENT (DESIGN EVENT) BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA C-3 2010-100-21 FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. STATIC STABILITY: NORTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA C-4 2010-100-21 FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. SEISMIC STABILITY: NORTH ABUTMENT (DESIGN EVENT) BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA C-5 2010-100-21 FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. POST LIQUEFACTION STABILITY: NORTH ABUTMENT (DESIGN EVENT) BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA C-6 2010-100-21 FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. STATIC STABILITY AFTER GROUND IMPROVEMENTS: STONE COLUMNS - SOUTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA C-7 2010-100-21 FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. STATIC STABILITY AFTER GROUND IMPROVEMENTS: STONE COLUMNS - NORTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA C-8 2010-100-21 FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. STATIC STABILITY AFTER GROUND IMPROVEMENTS: DEEP SOIL MIXING - SOUTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA C-9 2010-100-21 FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. STATIC STABILITY AFTER GROUND IMPROVEMENTS: DEEP SOIL MIXING - NORTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA C-10 2010-100-21 FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. PSEUDO STATIC STABILITY AFTER GROUND IMPROVEMENTS: STONE COLUMNS- SOUTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA C-11 2010-100-21 FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. PSEUDO STATIC STABILITY AFTER GROUND IMPROVEMENTS: STONE COLUMNS- NORTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA C-12 2010-100-21 FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. PSEUDO STATIC STABILITY AFTER GROUND IMPROVEMENTS: DEEP SOIL MIXING - SOUTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA C-13 2010-100-21 FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. PSEUDO STATIC STABILITY AFTER GROUND IMPROVEMENTS: DEEP SOIL MIXING - NORTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA C-14 2010-100-21 FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO.