HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-07-077_MiscTECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT
Proposed Harper Engineering Building and Parking Lot
NWC -S.W. 7th Street and Seneca Avenue S.W.
Renton, Washington
Prepared for:
Harper Engineering Co.
206 South Tobin Street
Renton, WA 98055
July 6, 2007
Our Job No. 12948
-7-0 J
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 ·6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX
BRANCH OFFICES + OLYMPIA, WA + TACOMA, WA + SACRAMENTO, CA + TEMECULA, CA
www.barghausen.com
1.0 INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION/GENERALINFORMATION
The proposed project site is approximately 2.21 acres in size located on the northwest comer of
S. W. 7th Street and Seneca Avenue S.W. within the City of Renton. More particularly, the site is
located within a portion of the Southwest quarter of Section 18, Township 23 North, Range 5
East, Willamette Meridian, City of Renton, Washington.
The site is fairly triangular in shape with a large curving side located along the northern property
line of the site, which is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way. S.W. 7th Street forms the project
site's southern boundary and there is an existing development located east of the project site. This
is a redevelopment project currently consisting of parking lot and landscaping areas. The
proposal for this development is to modify the parking lot to construct a new building for the
proposed Harper Engineering manufacturing and office space located in the central portion of the
project site. Portions of the parking lot will remain intact and portions of the parking lot will be
replaced with new parking lot surfacing. The total area of impervious surface subject to vehicular
traffic will be substantially reduced with this project. There is already an existing conveyance
system located on the site that routes all stormwater runoff into a detention vault sized in
accordance with the 1990 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM)
in March of 2001. Please refer to the grading and drainage plan located on the next page of this
report for an explanation of how the site will be configured under the new developed conditions.
Since this project site is not increasing the amount of impervious surface by more than
5,000 square feet, and since it is also decreasing the amount of impervious surface subject to
vehicular traffic, there are no modifications proposed to the detention vault located in the center
portion of the project site, which discharges into S.W. 7th Street. As mentioned previously,
minor modifications will be made to the conveyance system and, since catch basins are being
added, the conveyance system will likely be more than sufficient to convey runoff from the
project site to the existing conveyance system since all pipes are proposed to be 12-inch. The
Technical Information Report for the original parking lot development is attached herewith in
Appendix A. Please refer to that document for how the on-site facilities were sized for this
project. The total increase in impervious surface with this project is 3,563 square
feet= 0.08 acre.
12948.001.doc
GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN
z
<(
....J a..
w
0
<( ~ z
<( uJ
"' a: ~ 0 z
::'2 ~
a: ~ ~ Ji
z
CJ) ~ 0 z st ;:a-
<( ~
0 z
0
<( a:
0
I'
0 0 N'
·' ~.
0
!l>id',c
iHdS\'
83t
Bv6ZL Bv6ZL ON sor 3:::>B
!
t .
,,/
APPENDIX A
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT
Puget Sound Electrical
Apprenticeship and Training Program
Renton, Washington
March 19, 2001
Our Job No. 7976
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENT AL SERVICES
18215 72NDAVENUE SOUTH, KENT, WA 98032 • (425) 251-6222 • (425) 251-8782 FAX
www.barghausen.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
A. Technical Infonnation Report Worksheet
IL PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY
III. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
A. Upstream Drainage Analysis
B. Downstream Drainage Analysis
IV. DETENTION VAULT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
A. Detention Vault Calculations
B. Pre-Developed and Post-Developed Basin Area Maps
C. Wet Vault Calculations
V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
A. Piped Conveyance Calculations
B. Conveyance Area Map
C. Miscellaneous Conveyance Calculations for Overflow Spillways, Stand Pipes, etc.
VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
VII. BASIN AND COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS
VIII. OTHER PERMITS
IX. EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN
X. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
A. Retention/Detention Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch
XI. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS MANUAL
7976.003 [DED/mmlkn)
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed project is located in the southwest quarter of Section! 8, Township 23 North, Range 5 East,
Willamette Meridian, within the city of Renton, Washington. More specifically, the site is located along
S. W. 7th Street near the intersection with Thomas Avenue. The site is approximately 2.2 I acres in size,
and is triangular in shape with approximately 260 feet of frontage along S.W. 7th Street. The site is
generally flat, sloping gently toward the north comer. The site is bounded along the north and west sides
by existing Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. The existing vegetation on site consists ofbrush
and low growing ground cover. The site is currently not being used, and contains no existing structures.
The proposal for this parcel of land is to construct a new parking lot containing 200 parking stalls. This
parking lot will be used by an adjacent building that is being expanded and is requiring additional
parking. The stormwater runoff created from this parking lot addition will be handled using a piped
conveyance system. Once stormwater enters this conveyance system, it will then be conveyed to a
detention vault that is located on site. This underground vault will provide water quality and detention,
releasing the stormwater at pre-developed rates. Please see Section IV of this report for further details
regarding the storm system and calculations.
7976.003 [DED/mm/lcn]
A. TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT WORKSHEET
King County Department of Development and Environmental Services
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Project Owner Puget Sound Electrical
Apprenticeship and Training Trust
Address 5700-6th Avenue South. Suite 200
Seattle WA 981 08
Phone _ __,_(2ee0e,6c..l_,_7"'63"--_,_7,..,75,,,5'--------
Project Engineer Hal P. Grubb P.E.
Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Inc.
Address/Phone 18215 -72nd Avenue South
Kent. Washington 98032
(425) 251-6222
Project Name Puget Sound Electrical
Apprenticeship and Training Trust
Location
Township. __ _,2,,3e.cN,__ ____ _
Range ___ ~5~E'-------
Section. ___ _.:;18"'------
Project Size. __ ~2=.1~ac=r=es,,__ _____ _
Upstream Drainage Basin Size O acres
Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS ANO PERMITS .
.
APPLICATION
D Subdivision HPA D DFWHPA D Shoreline Management
D Short Subdivision D COE 404 D Rockery
• Grading D DOE Dam Safety • Structural Vaults
D Commercial D FEMA Floodplain 0 Other
D Other D COE Wetlands
Part 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN
Community
Green River Valley
Drainage Basin
Green River
7976.003 [OED/mm/kn]
0 River
0 Stream
0 Critical Stream Reach • Depressions
0 Lake
0 Steep Slopes
Part7 SOILS
Soil Type Slopes
0 Additional Sheets Attached
Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS
REFERENCE
o. _____________ _
o. ____________ _
o. _____________ _
o. ____________ _
0 Additional Sheets Attached
Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
DURING CONSTRUCTION
0 Sedimentation Facilities
• Stabilized construction Entrance
• Perimeter Runoff control
0 Clearing and Grading Restrictions
• Cover Practices
• Construction Sequence
0 Other
.
-~·
0 Floodplain
0 Wetlands
0 Seeps/Springs
0 High Groundwater Table
0 Groundwater Recharge
0 Other
.
Erosion Potential Erosive Velocities
LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT
· ..
•
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
AFTER CONSTRUCTION
• Stabilize Exposed Surface
.
.
• Remove and Restore Temporary ESC
Facilities
• Clean and Remove all Silt and Debris
• Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities
0 Flag Limits of SAO and open space
preservation areas
0 Other
7976.003 [DED/mmlkn]
.
0 Grass Lined Channel 0 • Pipe System • 0 Open Channel 0
0 Dry Pond 0 • Wet Vault 0
Tank 0
Vault 0
Energy Dissipater 0
Wetland 0
Stream 0
Infiltration
Depression
Flow Dispersal
Waiver
Regional
Detention
Method of Analysis
SBUH
Compensation/Mitigation
of Eliminated Site Storage
Brief Description of System Operation Stormwater controlled by catch basins and conveyed via pipes
to underground vault for detention and water quality.
Facility Related Site Limitations
Reference Facility
Part 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
0 Cast in Place Vault
0 Retaining Wall
0 Rockery >4' High
0 Structural on Steep Slope
0 Other
Limitation
Part 12 EASEMENTS/fRACTS
0 Drainage Easement
0 Access Easement
.
0 Native Growth Protection Easement
0 Tract
0 Other
Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
.... ~-·. -. _ _.,-·:_
I or a civil engineer under by supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were
incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information
provided herey;,ur~~
~g /., ~--,. z.v .. 1:> /
Signed/Date
7976.003 IDED/mm/kn]
II. PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY
II. PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY
There arc no conditions for this project.
7976.003 [DED/mm/kn]
ill. OFF-SITEANALYSIS
III. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
A. UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
The existing topography around the site is such that the site receives very little upstream drainage.
As previously mentioned, the site is bounded on the north and west sides by an existing railroad,
which sits higher in elevation than the subject property. However, there is only a small amount
of area between the site and the existing railroad tracks that actually drains onto the subject
property. The adjacent parcel to the east is currently developed and contains all stormwater runoff,
with the exception of a small portion at the north side along the existing railroad tracks. Along the
south side of the subject property is S.W. 7th Street, which is developed and has storm drainage
system that contains all stormwater runoff.
B. DOWNSTREAMDRAINAGEANALYSIS
The existing topography of the site is such that there is no downstream drainage system. Currently,
the stormwater appears to infiltrate on site. If the stormwater was to pond on site, it would
eventually overflow at the southwest corner of the site ( which is the lowest elevation along the
boundary) into the existing storm system in S. W. 7th Avenue.
Stormwater that is collected on site will be detained and treated prior to being released into an
existing 60-inch concrete storm line within S. W. 7th Street. We are currently in the process of
obtaining specific information about this downstream system. Once this information is available,
it will be included within this report.
7976.003 [OED/mm/kn]
IV. DETENTION VAULT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
IV. DETENTION VAULT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Storm drainage that will be produced by the new parking lot will be controlled and conveyed via
underground pipes to an underground detention vault located on site adjacent to S. W. 7th Street. This
underground vault will provide the required water quality treatment and detention. More specifically,
this system has been sized using the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The enclosed
calculations show that the system has been designed to detain the 2-year post-developed storm while
releasing the 2-year pre-developed storm, and to detain the 10-year post-developed storm while releasing
the JO-year pre-developed storm, along with a volume increase of 30 percent. Calculations have also
been provided to verify that the 100-year post-developed storm event will be adequately conveyed
through the proposed system.
The water quality portion of this vault has also been sized using the same manual. The proposed project
will create greater than 1 acre of new impervious area subject to vehicular traffic. Typically, a bioswale
along with a wet pond is required; however, with the proposed layout, a bioswale is not feasible. We are
proposing an increase in the wet pool volume to compensate for not providing a bioswale. This increase
is 1.5 times the required volume. We had a similar situation on a recent City of Renton project that was
approved. Please see the enclosed calculations for further details.
Based on U.S. Department of Agriculture maps, the soils classification for this site is Wo (Woodinville
silt loam). For the drainage calculations, this converts to a hydrologic group "D."
7976.003 [DED/nnnlkn]
iwl~
4/26/01 12:48:43 am
DETENTION VAULT CALCS
FILE No. 7976-VLT
Shareware Release
PSEA&TP
page 1
----------------=---------======----------====-=-=---------------=-==
BASIN ID: Al
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA ....... :
RAINFALL TYPE .... :
PRECIPITATION .... :
TIME INTERVAL .... :
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
TcReach -Sheet L:
TcReach -Shallow L:
PEAK RATE: 0.19 cfs
BASIN SUMMARY
NAME: 2YR PRE-DEV
2.21 Acres
KC24HR
2.00 inches
10. 00 min
BASEFLOWS:
AREA .. :
CN .... :
TC .... :
o.oo cfs
PERV
2.21 Acres
86.00
64.39 min
0.20
300.00
80.00
VOL:
ns:0.2400 p2yr: 2.00
ks:11.00 s:0.0079
0.16 Ac-ft TIME:
s:0.0079
500 min
BASIN ID: A2 NAME: lOYR PRE-DEV
-:s=-=B=-=UH="""'M=-==E=TH=o-=Dc::0:-::L-:O:-:G=:Y-:-----------------.
TOTAL AREA ....... : 2.21 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
RAINFALL TYPE .... : KC24HR PERV
PRECIPITATION .... : 2.90 inches AREA .. : 2.21
TIME INTERVAL .... : 10.00
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.42 cfs VOL:
BASIN ID: A3 NAME:
SBUH METHODOLOGY
min CN .... : 86.00
TC .... : 64.39
0.29 Ac-ft TIME:
lOOYR PRE-DEV
Acres
min
490 min
TOTAL AREA ....... : 2.21 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
RAINFALL TYPE .... : KC24HR PERV
PRECIPITATION .... : 3.90 inches AREA .. : 2.21 Acres
TIME INTERVAL .... : 10.00 min CN .... : 86.00
TC .... : 64.39 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
EEAK RATE: 0.70 cfs VOL: 0.45 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min
BASIN ID: Bl
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA ....... :
RAINFALL TYPE .... :
PRECIPITATION .... :
TIME INTERVAL .... :
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
TcReach -Sheet L:
TcReach -Shallow L:
TcReach -Channel L:
rcReach -Channel L:
PEAK RATE: 0.94 cfs
NAME: 2YR POST-DEV
2.21 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
KC24HR PERV
2.00 inches AREA .. : 0.42 Acres
10.00
0.20
50.00
125.00
297.00
90.00
VOL:
min CN .... : 90.00
TC .... : 8.81 min
ns:0.1500 p2yr: 2.00
ks:27.00 S:0.0100
kc:21.00 s:0.0062
kc:21.00 S:0.0239
s:0.0600
0.30 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
IMP
o.oo Acres
0.00
0.00 min
IMP
0.00 Acres
0.00
0.00 min
IMP
0.00 Acres
0.00
0.00 min
IMP
1. 79 Acres
98.00
8.81 min
4/26/01 12:48:43 am
DETENTION VAULT CALCS
FILE No. 7976-VLT
•
Shareware Release
PSEA&TP
page 2
-==--=====--===-=====-===----=========----=====-====--=====--==----==
BASIN SUMMARY
BASIN ID: B2 NAME: lOYR POST-DEV
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA ....... : 2.21 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
RAINFALL TYPE .... : KC24HR PERV
PRECIPITATION .... : 2.90 inches AREA .. : 0.42 Acres
TIME INTERVAL .... : 10.00 min CN .... : 90.00
TC .... : 8.81 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 1.43 cfs VOL: 0.46 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
BASIN ID: B3
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA ....... :
RAINFALL TYPE .... :
PRECIPITATION .... :
TIME INTERVAL .... :
NAME: lOOYR POST-DEV
2.21 Acres
KC24HR
3.90 inches
10.00 min
BASEFLOWS:
AREA .. :
CN .... :
TC .... :
o.oo cfs
PERV
0.42 Acres
90.00
8.81 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 1.97 cfs VOL: 0.65 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
BASIN ID: Cl NAME: 64% 2YR POST-DEV (WETVAULT)
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA ....... : 2.21 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
RAINFALL TYPE .... : KC24HR PERV
PRECIPITATION .... : 0.67 inches AREA .. : 0.42 Acres
TIME INTERVAL .... : 10.00 min CN .... : 90.00
TC .... : 8.81 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.23 cfs VOL: 0.08 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
IMP
1. 79 Acres
98.00
8.81 min
IMP
l.79 Acres
98.00
8.81 min
IMP
l.79 Acres
98.00
8.81 min
4/26/01 12:48:43 am
DETENTION VAULT CALCS
FILE No. 7976-VLT
Shareware Release
PSEA&TP
page
-----=========---=================================-----------------==
HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY
PEAK TIME VOLUME
HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib
NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area
cfs min. cf\AcFt Acres
==========-------========================-===
1 0.193 500 6811 cf 2.21 '2. Y,t. Pit€.
2 0.417 490 12652 cf 2.21 IOY!l ~
3 0.696 490 19702 cf 2.21 I ooY/2. f'0....
4 0.938 480 13205 cf 2.21 tY~ FW>f
5 1.429 480 20234 cf 2.21 1o'((l f'l>S.-r
6 1.974 480 28132 cf 2.21 /00~ f'OS(
7 0.228 480 3287 cf 2.21 1,,,1,1-nt Pof>f"
8 0.193 670 13205 cf 2.21 1. -rie (2w"1't.()
9 0.417 540 20234 cf 2.21 IO 'ft. (Zo\.)'flc
10 0.177 770 13205 cf 2.21 '2. \"12. Fi r-'M..
11 0.343 550 20234 cf 2.21 l (l'C(l fi ,..r/n.,
12 1.974 490 21066 cf 2.21 I llb'ft.-C,Afp-
3
4/26/01 12:48:44 am
DETENTION VAULT CALCS
FILE No. 7976-VLT
Shareware Release
PSEA&TP
STAGE STORAGE TABLE
RECTANGULAR VAULT ID No. 1
Description: VAULT {W/0 30%) '--'---,=',-Length: 75.00 ft. Width: 18.00 ft. voids: 1. 000
STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE---->
(ft) ---cf-----Ac-Ft-(ft) ---cf-----Ac-Ft-(ft) ---cf-----Ac-Ft-(ft) ---cf-----Ac-Ft-
page
==-----=-------------------~~=~~~--~:~=-~~~~~~=~~-----=-=------------=---~---~-------------------~~-----
16. 00 0.0000 0.0000 17.70 2295 0. 0527 19 .40 4590 0 .1054 21.10 6885 0.1581
Hi.10 135.00 0.0031 17,80 2430 0.0558 19 .50 4725 0.1085 21.20 7020 0.1612
16.20 270.00 0.0062 17. 90 2565 0.0589 19.60 4860 0 .1116 21.30 7155 0.1643
16 .30 405.00 0. 0093 18.00 2700 0.0620 19. 70 4995 0.1147 21.40 7290 0.1674
16.40 540. 00 0.0124 18.10 2835 0.0651 19.60 5130 0.1176 21.50 7425 0 .1705
16. 50 675.00 0.0155 18 20 2970 0.0682 19.90 5265 0 .1209 21.60 7560 0.1736
16. 60 810.00 0.0186 18 . 30 3105 0. 0713 20.00 5400 0.1240 21 . 70 7695 0.1767
16.70 945.00 0.0217 18.40 3240 0.0744 20. 10 5535 0.1271 21. BO 7830 0 .1798
16.80 1080 0.0248 18.50 3375 0.0775 20. 20 5670 0.1302 21.90 7965 0.1829
16. 90 1215 0.0279 18.60 3510 0.0606 20.30 5805 0.1333 22.00 8100 0.1860
17 .00 1350 0.0310 18. 70 3645 0.0837 20.40 5940 0.1364 22.10 8235 0.1890
17 .10 1485 0.0341 1.8.80 3780 0.0868 20.50 6075 0.1395 22 .20 8370 0.1921.
17.20 1620 0. 03 72 1.8. 90 3915 0.0899 20 .60 6210 0.1426 22 .30 8505 0.1.952
17.30 1755 0.0403 19 .00 4050 0.0930 20.70 6345 0.1457 22.40 8640 0.1.5183
17.40 1890 0.0434 19.10 4185 0.0961 20.80 6480 0.1488 22.50 8775 0.2014
1.7.50 2025 0.0465 19.20 4320 0.0992 20. 90 6615 0.1.5151
1.7. 60 2160 0.0496 19 .30 4455 0.1023 21. 00 6750 0.1550
4
4/26/01 12:48:44 am
DETENTION VAULT CALCS
FILE No. 7976-VLT
Shareware Release
PSEA&TP
page
---------------------------------------------------------------------
STAGE STORAGE TABLE
RECTANGULAR VAULT ID No. 2
Description: VAULT (W/ 30%)
Length: 98.00 ft. Width: 18.00 ft. voids: 1. 000
STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGB <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE---->
(ft) ---cf-----Ac-Ft-(ft) ---cf-----Ac-Ft-(ft} ---cf-----Ac-Ft-(ft) ---cf-----Ac-Ft-
======================================================================================================~~
16.00 0.0000 0.0000 17.20 2117 0.0486 18.40 4234 0. 0972 19. 60 6350 O.l.458
16.10 176 .40 0.0040 17.30 2293 0.0526 18.50 4410 0.1012 19. 70 6527 0.1498
16.20 352. 80 0.0061 17 .40 24?0 0. 0567 18.60 4586 0.1053 19. 80 6703 0, 153 9
16.30 529.20 0.0121 17.50 2646 0.0607 18.70 4763 0 .1093 19.90 6880 0.1579
16.40 705. 60 0.0162 17.60 2622 0.0648 18.80 4939 0 .1134 20 .OD 7056 0.1620
16.50 882.00 0.0202 17.70 25199 0.0688 18.90 5116 0 .1174 20.10 7232 0.1660
16.60 1058 0. 0243 17 80 3175 0.0729 19 00 5292 0.1215 20 20 7409 0.1701
16.70 1235 0.0283 17. 90 3352 0.0769 19. 10 5468 0.1255 20 . 30 7565 0 .·1741
16.80 1411 0. 0324 18.00 3528 0.0810 19 20 5645 0. 12 96 20.40 7762 0.1782
16. 90 1588 0. 0364 18 .10 3704 0.0850 19.30 5821 0 .1336 20.50 7938 0 .1822
17.00 1764 0.0405 18. 20 3881 0. 0891 19.40 5998 0 .1)77
17.10 1940 0.0445 18. 30 4057 0.0931 19.50 6174 0.1417
5
4/26/01 12:48:44 am
DETENTION VAULT CALCS
FILE No. 7976-VLT
Shareware Release
PSEA&TP
page
---------------------------------------------------------------------
STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE
MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No.
Description: VAULT STANDPIPE
Outlet Elev: 16.00
Elev: 14.00 ft
Elev: 18.80 ft
STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE
(ft) ---cfs---------(ft}
Orifice
Orifice 2
<--DISCHARGE--->
---cfs---------
1
Diameter:
Diameter:
2.0771
2.4785
STAGE <--DISCHARGE--->
(ft) ---cfa---------
in.
in.
STAGE
(ft)
1..'lq,"
1..'/1:'
<--DISCHARGE--->
---cfs---------
========================================================================================================
16-00 0.0000 17.20 ~-l.283 18 .40 0.1814 19.60 0 .3713
16.10 0.0370 17,30 0.1335 18. so 0.1851 19 70 0.3834
16 20 0.0524 17.40 0.1385 18.60 0.1888 19 80 0.3949
16 30 0.0641 17. so 0 .1434 18.70 0 .1924 19.90 0.4061
16.40 0.0741 17 .60 0.1481 18. 80 0,1959 20.00 0.4168
16.50 0.0828 17.70 0 .1527 18.90 o. 2521 20.l.0 D.4271
16 .60 0.0907 17 80 0.1571 19. 00 0. 2773 20.20 0. 4372
16.70 0.0980 17. 90 0 .1614 19 .10 0.2975 20. 30 0.4470
16. 80 0 .1047 18 00 0.1656 19. 20 0.3149 20.40 0.4565
16.90 0 .1111 18 .10 0.1697 19. 30 0.3306 20.50 0.4657
17.00 0 .1171 18.20 0.1737 19.40 0. 3450
17 ,10 0.1228 18 .30 0.1776 19.50 0. 3585
6
4/26/01 12:48:44 am
DETENTION VAULT CALCS
FILE No. 7976-VLT
Shareware Release
PSEA&TP
page
---===========---------------==================-------===============
STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE
RISER DISCHARGE ID No. 2
Description: lOOYR RISER OVERFLOW CHECK
Riser Diameter (in}: 15.00
Weir Coefficient ... : 9.739
Orif Coefficient ... : 3.782
elev:
height:
increm:
20.00 ft
20.50 ft
0.10 ft
STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE'---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE--->
(ft) ---cfe---------{ft) ---cfs---------(ft) ---cfs---------(ft) ---cfs---------
20.00 0.0000 20.10 0.3850 20.30 2.0004 20.50 4.3041
20.00 0.0000 20.20 1.0889 20.40 3.0797
7
4/26/01 12:48:46 am
DETENTION VAULT CALCS
FILE No. 7976-VLT
Shareware Release
PSEA&TP
page
----=====-===---===----==----====--===----====--===---=====--========
LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY
MATCH INFUlW -STO--DIS-<-PEAK·>
<--------DESCRIPTION---------> {cfa} (cfa) --id---id-<-STAGE> id
2YR ROUTED
lOYR ROOTED
2YR FINAL ..
lOYR FINAL ..•..
lOOYR Q.F. CHECK
0.19
0,42
0.19
0.42
0.00
0.94
1.43
D. 94
l. 43
1.97
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
18. 73 8
20.00 9
18.29 10
19 3 9 11
20 30 12
OUTFLOW STORAGE
{cfs) VOL (cf)
o.19 3681.15 cf
o.42 5405.69 cf
0.18 4043.17 cf
0.34 5975.18 cf
1.97 7580.84 cf
9
I 1' {__ e
V
Ii I ,
I
I
i
i
i
I
i
i "'
"'
-f ~~a (J
I \
\ ____ _::,
/' }) ')
/ / I / I/ ! /
L./
/
/
i
! "' • ~ ...
;
/
'
\
\
\
> I
i----
~
"""'-' "''""' ,-;:-----.. __
I
I
\
\
-')~
/
<F''"'"'s-
!---
-
D
I
i
i
i
j
: 7JJ'
! "" l
H
I.\J:
\I!
I. / r
I!", 1·,if ~
A!PHAi.T J
F,\\ID,t[NT /) , I' lJ I ' ti--•'
--r-"'' --=i-~ . . 7-~-~-1 'l=f====u o:JIC_
.
/
\
i
/
'----.
~S.--"'l·V~f
<'',_'<I\;~.;,
., , .,. f}/1,,,l'}'
--~~-... ---,, ,,,,,,. ~ '-:::._git:)/~:,,~\ --. ' I
-0-""' -=-----------\
I\ ~!7~0.,1,__q It ~iii~~
I
\i;ll,'Oi · '< ',UC~H'·
1i'1~_M••1:i.g
\ le!!" (i!E)-1~:t
';[lt' (S) •'1!s:.s'
• '
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Wo
2~
R. 4 E. R. 5 E .
.--:.:.
't'oil'
So
~ • Tu • ~
~
I
SOIL CO:'SlRVAllON S(RVIC[
\
SOIL LEGEND
Ti.,. f;,-., cop;r0 1 1.,.,.,, ;, ,h.,, ;,.,;,..,I.,.,...., oi rh.e ,o;I """"' A u:co.-..:1 co::,,cl 1,. .. ,.,.
A, B. C. D. E:, <>< F. ;nd,ca,.,, ,t>.e clo,s of slO\X". Symbols _;,t,ou< o sl.;,:c 1 .. ,..,,
o•e rl-.o~e of ,...,ody 1.,.,...,1 ,od,
SYMBOL
A98 -.c
AgD
"' •~•
A...C
A•
s.c
8<0 ...
Bh
e,
""
(1,
Eo
Ed
E,B
E.C
C.D
E..C
••• lnC
In()
...
N<C ...
Nk
No
Pc
"" Pv
Py
HAME
Al.de,---ood gro..-,elly sandy loo ... , 0 lo 6 pcr.::<::nl ,lop<::s
Ald..-,-ood 9<ovc,lly ,o.ondy loam, 6 to l.S p<N"ce-nt slopc-:1;
Al~ooJ 9<0 ... e-rly soncfy loa .... JS to 30 pc«:..,m· slope-:1;
Al-de,---ood ond Kilsop so;!,:, "'ffy stc...,,p
Ar-e-nts, Akkrwood onotc,tiol,0 lo 6 pc,«:;e-nr slopes.•
Ati!nts., Ald., ..... oo,;J ..-.::tlfffol, 6 lo IS pe,rcc,nl sl""'f'""'s •
Arenls., f ... ....-.,11 ,r,olefiol •
·Beovsile g,o ... .,Uy sQn(fy loam, 6 lo 15 ll)C:f<"nl slopes
S.:0...SII"' gro-lly sondy loo"', 15 10 30 PffCC-tu slopes ·
e~-.i. ... 9' ....... ,~ .. "'=---..<!,· k::""', ~ •= :r~ ;:.-...-~.:..,, d::...--,~
e..·llinghom stl, loo"'
S,-iscot sH, 1-...
Bve_Ucy ,.;I, loom
foo-'-:,nr silt e-...
Edg,-•d• ,._, sondy loo.,.
fv,r,.,tf 9f"O...clly ~y loom, 0 lo S pe,t.::"nf slopes
[__,-cit ~lfy S9f:ldy loo•,. S IO 15 pHC,e,nl slc:,pes
f..-,,,...'l!U Sf"O.....,lly sondy loo"', IS,.,. JQ p,e.-c-enl sl~s
f......,,..c-N-Aldc""'vod' ~lly sondy loo<n$, !:, to IS .....-.::e-nt 5loi,u
lt-od+ono&o '-r '"'-' soncl, Oto4 p,c-rce:nt .. lope:-s
t,,,J.-.o&o ,_...,. f;n. sond • .C to IS pc-,-ctm slope-,-
1nd'oonolo ._..,.. fine sond, IS to JO ,...n::ent sSop..s
K>fsop sih ~. 210 8 perce,w slope-s
Kitsop sih 1--. 8 to JS pef"Cent slopes
Ki,_p sih loo., 15 tq JO petcenf slopes
Klovs ~lly IOOflt)" sond. 6 to 15 pncflU ,slopes
N.e,ihon --,.vv-lly !oon,y ,sond, 2 to IS PffCe-nt -s~s
Newbff-g sih loon,
Noobo,clo: sih to.,.,
N..-""O sondy f-oo,..
Orcos pcot
Ood.o sih 1-
0-U g,«1..-lly tootR. Oro 15 pncenr slope1-
0..0II 9"l""""lly loo"", 1S to 2S PffCenl s~s
0-11 go'VYtlty i-... -40 to 15. p,c-tctf"II -slope-1,
Pikhud, Joo...,. (j...., sond
Pilc:h,..clt f....., son6,<..S-
Puge-1 silt)' cloy loo"'
Puy,ollup ,,_ -..-dy lo,g.,.
Ro( R09ftoo-f;"" 1--0ndy IOOffl, 6 10 IS p,c-rce-n1 slope-s
RoO R09..oo-fine: w,...dy Jo,g.,., lS to 25 ,.......cc-n1 sic:,pe-s
RdC Rognoo--lndiootolo assocOQ1io,1. sk,ping •
RdE Rog._-.tMionqlo ossociori .... "'Ode-.. oiely ue•p •
Re Renton slh toe,.,.
Rh Rt ... e,,_s.._
So Solol sib loc-
Sh S--.,.;;sh sill~
si. S..--..ntc -.,.,1,,
S,.. 9-.okOf _.1,
s,. s• s a, loci..,
!,a ~i5h ,_;h la:1m
Sr ~ish 1,h 1-.... th.iclt •urfoc"° .,..,..;o .. ,
Su Svho" s;h l,:,c:-
Tv Tvl.-,lo .-..-cc.
~\\'o
• 11..-CO-pos•••~oi 0 ""f1.4" ''""'> ,1. n~"4" ,..~,;,;,t,1., ,...,,, •ho• ,•I 11><·
;., ,he-o, .. o. ~ .... ;, 1,c~ ~ ....... ,-..... ,cu .. c-,-11 , .• ,.-..,;ii-.,, ......... ""~',.,.·--
.. ~,-·( •,nJ ,.1-,r "'' ,1-w-,.:,!1-
KING COUNJY AREA. v.
, .. ,
4:,,.
' .,
S-, ••
~ ....
·-···
':,...•c•••
i'--.-..
~ ......
·---•t-
,.,..:.
"l ... ,,,
.,,
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DES I G N MAN UAL
121 CN values can be area weighted when they apply to pervious areas of similar CN's (within 20
CN points). However, high CN areas should not be combined with low CN areas (unless the
low CN areas are less than 15% of the subbasin). In this case, separate hydrographs should be
generated and summed to form one hydrograph.
FIGURE 3.5.2A HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP OF THE SOILS IN KING COUNTY
SOIL GROUP
HYDROLOGIC
GROUP* SOIL GROUP
HYDROLOGIC
GROUP*
f--------·-------1-----------+------------+---------I
Alderwood
Arents, Alderwood Material
Arents, Everett Material
Beausite
Bellingham
Briscot
Buckley
Coastal Beaches
Eartmont Silt Loam
Edgewick
Everett
Indianola
Kitsap
Klaus
Mixed AlllNial Land
Neilton
Newberg
Nooksack
Normal Sandy Loam
C
C
B
C
D
D
D
Variable
D
C
A/B
A
C
C
Variable
A
B
C
D
Orcas Peat
Oridia
Ovall
Pilchuck
Puget
Puyallup
Ragnar
Renton
Riverwash
Salal
-Sammamish
Seanle
Shacar
Si Sill
Snohomish
Sultan
Tukwila
Urban
-~Woodinville
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP CLASSIFICATIONS
D
D
C
C
D
B
B
D
VariabJe
C
D
D
D
C
D
C
D
-Variable
0-
A. (Low runoff potential). So,ls having high infiltration rates, even when thoroughly wetted, and consisting
chiefly of deep, well-to-excessively drained sands or gravels. These soils have a high rate of water
transmission.
B.
C.
D.
•
(Moderately low runcff potential). Soils having moderate infiltration rates when thOroughly wetted, and
consisting chiefly of moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of
water transmission.
(Moderately high runoff potentiai). Soils having slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, and
consisting chiefly of sons with a layer that impedes downward movement of water, or soils with moderately
fine to fine textures. These soUs have a slow rate of water transmission. ·
(High runoff potential). Soils having very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wened and consisting
chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a
hardpan or clay layer at or near the surface. and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. These soils
_have a very slow rate of water transmission.
From SGS, TR-55, Second Edition, June 1986, Exhibit A-1. Revisions made from SCS, SoD Interpretation
Record, Form #5, September 1988.
3.5.2-2 11/92
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TAilLE 3.5.2ll SCS WESTERN WAS HIN GT ON RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS ------~-------=-='-'-====---·--------
SCS WESTERN WASHINGTON RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS (Published by SCS in 1982)
Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural. suburban and urban land use Jor Type 1A
rainfall distribution. 24-hour storm duration.
·-·
CURVE NUMBERS BY
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP
LAND USE DESCRIPTION A B C D
Cultivated land(l ): winter condition 86 91 94 95
Mountain open areas: low growing brush and grasslands 74 82 89 92
Meadow or pasture: 65 78 85 89
Wood or forest land: undisturbed or older second growth . 42 64 76 81
Vilood or forest land: young second grmvth or brush 55 72 ~, 00
Orchard: with cover crop 81 88 lc/2 94
Open spaces. lawns, parks, goJf courses, cemeteries,
landscaping.
good condition: grass cover on 75%
@] or more of the area 68 80 86
fair condition: grass cover on 50%
to 75% of the area 77 85 90 92
Gravel roads and parking lots 76 85 89 91
Dirt roads and parking lots 72 82 87 89
Impervious surfaces, pavement, roofs, etc. 98 98 98 12§..l
Open water bodies: lakes. wetlands, ponds, etc. 100 100 100 100
Single Famiy Residential (2)
Dwelling Unit/Gross Acre % Impervious (3)
1.0 DU/GA 15 Separate curve number
1.5 DU/GA 20 shall be selected
2.0 DU/GA 25 for pervious and
2.5 DU/GA 30 impervious portion ..
3.0 DU/GA 34 of the site or basin
3.5 DU/GA 38
4.0 DU/GA 42
4.5 DU/GA 46
5.0 DU/GA 48
s.s·DU/GA 50
6.0 DU/GA 52
6.5 DU/GA 54
7.0 DU/GA 56
Planned unit developments, % impervious
condominiums, apartments, must be computed
commercial business and
industrial areas.
(1) For a more detailed descr1pt1on of agricultural land use curve numbers refer to National Eng,neenng
Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology. Chapter 9, August 1972.
(2) Assumes roof and driveway runoH is directed into street/storm system.
(3) The remaining pervious areas (lawn) are considered to be in good condition for these curve numbers.
3.5.2-3 11/92
K I N G C O U N T Y, W A S H I N G T O N, S U R F A C E W A T E R D E S I G N M A N U A L
FIGURE 3.5.lC 2-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS
·'
I .'
,.
\-·-·---!.
.\
.\ l1---
7.~ ...... ./
l~
1.i
ll;J
lf!
/
/
~'--'--cv
2-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION
.-3.4 -ISOPLUVIALS OF 2•YEAR 24-HOUR
TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mll.s
1: 300,000 3.5.1-8 1/90
\\ I ,
; '"':;
K I N G C O U N T Y, W A S H I N G T O N. S U R F A C E W A T E R D E S I G N M A N U A L
FIGURE 3.5.IE 10-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS ----
2.T
22
<3
\
\
10-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION
3.4-ISOPLUVIALS OF 10'YEA8 24-HOUR
TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 MIios
1: 300,000
(
K I N G C O U N T Y, W A S H I N G T O N, S U R F A C E W A T E R ·o E S I G N M A N U A L
G,
\
•-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION
ISOPLUVIALS OF 25-YEAR 24-HOUR
TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES
0 1 Z 3 .C 5 6 7 8 Mll*I
1: 300,000
3.5.1-11
' '
....
1/90
K I N G C O U N T Y, W A S H I N G T O N, S U R F A C E W A T E R D E S I G N M A N U A L
FIGURE 3.5.IH 100-YEAR 24-IIOUR ISO PLUVIALS
6
\
JO-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION
-ISOPLUVIALS OF 100-YEAR 24-HOUR
TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES
0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Miles
.l: 300,000
3.5.1-13
~ It O·
1/90
~l~~ \NE,TVlrtJLT
4/26/01 1:0:20 pm
DETENTION VAULT CALCS
FILE No. 7976-VLT
Shareware
PSEA&TP
BASIN SUMMARY
BASIN ID: Cl
SBUH METHODOLOGY
NAME: 64% 2YR POST-DEV (WETVAULT)
TOTAL AREA ....... :
RAINFALL TYPE .... :
PRECIPITATION .... :
TIME INTERVAL .... :
2.21 Acres
KC24HR
0.67 inches
10.00 min
BASEFLOWS:
AREA .. :
CN .... :
TC .... :
o.oo cfs
PERV
0.42 Acres
90.00
8.81 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.23 cfs VOL: 0.08 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min
page 1
IMP
1.79 Acres
98.00
8.81 min
4/26/01 1:0:20 pm
DETENTION VAULT CALCS
FILE No. 7976-VLT
Shareware Release
PSEA&TP
page 2
-------------------------------=================================-==--
HYD
NUM
2
3
4
5
PEAK
RUNOFF
RATE
cfs
TIME
OF
PEAK
min.
HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY
VOLUME
OF
HYDRO
cf\AcFt
Contrib
Area
Acres
----7 0.228 480 3287 cf
9
10 cf
2.21
2.21
2.21
• fjtJD ffG 1 D \JlJL,\Ylv'\£.. ~ VSU\l~:
-ffo~c 11,U>\J. NZfA <t~ ttiftN l A<-·
-No (l.-omJ\ ~ t,10~
-IN C.(2€.AS£_ ~fl:ol... \JtiLl.Jl\A..£, BY [.<; 1D
~ foie-. ~ BtD'i.~ .
-?1 2-81 y; \.'?"" 4-,4~.':0 CF ~·D
_ \lCiLOME. ~~ cc 0,Z..42. l.F ~
• 'ti NJ:) SofJ-ffr:l.£.. M'iA OF ~"'I·,
~ 'D .: l t. o~ I IMf\J ~~ -:. "11,412. "'IC \ ·; • ~ '1fp £-F
~t::li):)-= <=t~' ")C l '8 ' '::> l 1 loll.-SF ~
I -
V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Enclosed are typical calculations necessary for sizing of the pipe facilities proposed on this project. The
rational method and Mannings formula were used for sizing purposes. Conveyance pipes have been sized
to accommodate the 100-year storm event at the flowing full condition. The intent of the pipe system
within the parking lot is to convey stormwater runoff into the detention vault. The proposed vault has
not been sized to accommodate any off-site development.
7976.003 [DED/mmlkn]
JOB NAME:
JOB#: 7976
REVISED: 3115101
A= Contributing Area (Ac)
C= Runoff Coefficient
Tc= Time of Coneentration (min)
11;1 Intensity at Tc (In/hr)
d• Diameter of Pipe (In)
L• Length of Pipe (ft)
D• Water Depth at Qd (in)
FROM TO A s
797
BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS· PIPE FLOW CALCULATOR
using the Rational Method & Manning Formula
KING COUNTY DESIGN FOR 100 YEAR STORM
NOTE: ENTER DEFAULTS AND STORM DATA BEFORE BEGINNING
DEFAULTS I C• 0.851 n= 0.012 I
Qd= Design Flow (els)
Qt,.: Full Capacity Flow (efs)
Vd .. Velocity at Design Flow (fps)
Vfo Velocity at Full Flow (fps)
s• Slope of pipe (%)
n• Manning Roughness Coefficient
Tt= Travel Time at Vd (min)
L d Tc n 0
d• 12 Tc-10
COEFFICIENTS FOR THE RATIONAL METHOD "l~·EOUATION
STORM Ar Br
2YR 1.58 0.58
10YR 2.44 0.64 PREOIP= 3.9
25YR 2.66 0.65 Ar= 2.61
50YR 2,75 0.65 Br= 0,63
100YR 2.61 0.63
SUMA A"C SUMA"O I Qd Qt Qd/Qf
====cs ••==== =1;1•1;1== =====m c:aaea ••••-=====•= ====== •m==== ====== ====•• ••===o::=s """"""=== ::acasm =====::i:: :•ua=====
086 C85 0.47 0.62 97 12 10.0 0.012 0.85 0.47 0.40 0.40 2.39 0.95 3.04 0,314
085 082 0.56 0.62 200 12 10.5 0.012 0.85 1.03 0.48 0.88 2.32 2.03 3.04 0.668
0134 082 0.37 1.00 97 12 10.0 0.012 0.85 0.37 0.31 0.31 2.39 0.75 3.86 0.196
083 082 0.34 1.00 85 12 10.0 0.012 0.85 0.34 0.29 0.29 2.39 0.69 3.86 0.179
082 CB1 0,48 2.39 66 12 11.3 0.012 0.85 0.48 0.41 1.89 2.21 4,17 5.96 0.700
081 VAULT 0.00 2.39 26 12 11.4 0.012 0.85 0.48 0.00 1.89 2.20 4.14 5.96 0,696
VAULT EX60" 0.00 0.50 40 15 11.5 0.012 0.85 0 0.00 1.89 2.19 4.13 4.95 0.836
:ge 1
Did D Vf Vd I Tt
•••••• ====== ====== ==•==•
0.383 4.60 3.87 3.42 0.47
0.597 7.17 3.87 4.14 0.81
0.296 3.55 4.92 3.78 0.43
0.283 3.40 4.92 3.71 0.38
0.617 7.40 7.60 8.23 0.13
0.613 7.36 7.60 8.21 0.05
0.697 10.46 4.03 4.51 0.15
/
I
I
i
!
!
i i 20·
"'
,<,SPHALT
PA\a,IO,IT
I
J
ii L,
i
! I I
i \ !
,7·-
"' "'
(
I I~ ,_
'> \
\
' ,/.';
A~A<.l
pAR;!(•',C,
VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
Miscellaneous reports and letters have been included for review.
7976.003 [DED/mmlkn]
VII. BASIN AND COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS
VII. BASIN AND COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS
The project is located within the Green River Drainage Basin. The community plan area is called "Green
River Valley."
7976.003 [DED/mmlknl
I I,
~
I / ilJ I
,·!
I'
'/I
,1JI
I
I,
I
!
ll --11'
111 j' ~./1 'J _/_ .. ,..,: 11
I L,.
7, ,J;.
10 ,,
'I
L
,,.
.,,-
-·_--;:"·~-·,
I:
C
~ si
!'-;;
l, ;J
I 'I
If
I.
I \ l 'l 11 1 .. I
I I
,' .··
,·' L
• i
l ;
u.
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
~
... ..
~
• ..,
"
~
0
.•
,,
' .,
. '·'"
' .Ip j)
>
'jl\
JJ···
l,
j,
<
:I'. ·~
'•. i' .,.,. ;
.' 0
j -v; j(
\
. /1"·····
"
.-· \; ' .
"
i, _,
,.,,., .. ,
·~· ...
,: ,' ~. \
JI'
.,.
; : , ..
JJ . ~\ I
'
' ' "
' ,, I· ,;
' l
G ,,
a: w > ... ... ' -( I a: l
' ,,1, , ...
~ul '~~."-,;I" . ,• :::>
a..
/.'
'·.';
.r' ...
'·
ii
' JJ' I'
' '
l
H
l/1
.''1i
'
N
i
r.i;
..
?r·;
j ., ~.!
··.y
'··· .....
en z -t/J
c( m ?: e w sill C, l!'-c( i2 z -~
C
' 1.,>j··_' :;
> ~J>
,,,,. -· .. ..... Ji' !,
i::' ca ~ "O ca C "O ::, C s ::, s I: 'iii C
&l I ...
0 ..0 'iii' ::, ~ (J)
I
• • e
< l: -~ ~ ·'a.! ; g; .,,
?:~
§ 11 8 .. l!'E
;; .2· .. o 3 ... "i ~~
.. •If' .
/FI
f'
I~
jf
. (
,,,/
\. , .
'}
,;;·-' ·,, ...
. .I 'f..,
.~1 \
..1·
( ··'to-
,•' .,
... '\
>
I:
I·
'
i
\'
f
f
j ..
~
~
~
•
"'
N
0
, I
/ I ;1
i
:•
' 1
'
0
0
0
6
0
"'
~
t·
' \ \
\
.I 1
vm. OTHER PERMITS
VIII. OTHER PERMITS
At this time. the pennits anticipated for this project are as follows:
• Roadway and Drainage Construction
• Grading Pennit
7976.003 [DED/mm/kn]
IX. EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN
IX. EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN
'!be limits of clearing have been shown on the construction plans to encompass the entire site area. Silt
fences have been shown on the plans to protect the adjacent properties from any possible sediment runoff.
Since the site is only approximately 2 acres in size, and currently infiltrates all on-site storrnwater, we
do not feel that it is necessary to provide any form of sediment traps or ponds. As construction
progresses, silt fences will be maintained, and catch basin protection will be installed to ensure that all
storrnwater leaving the site is clean and free of sediment. Once the underground detention vault is
installed, it will act as a sediment trap, which will ensure that not sediment laden water will leave the site.
7976.003 [DED/mmlkn]
X. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
X. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
A. RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITY SUMMARY SHEETS AND SKETCHES
7976.003 [DED/mmlkn]
K I NG C O U NT Y, WAS H _I N GT O N, S U R FA C E WATER D ES I G N MA N U A L
RETENTION/DETENTION SUMMARY SHEET
Development f'UC,'i.:r ~ £L£cnzt£AL APP(2€,sTJC£5!-hP Date ::> / 1s / b I
NJb~rJJ;.fb f12-llv.eAw'i
Location S. ll-.l, l nf ~ ::r:H:fMA.s -P<-!5:-~~~ _____________ _
ENGINEER
Name H*L ./,(2.uB'B
· DEVELOPER 12-,
Name l2t U-1~ "'-' Sf.t2-
Firm "BAf'-f,tft\:UYiN
Address l '62..1'5 72 ,-rt, /l(vf., S
k'."f..NI ~ "l&o'3z..
Firm "Fli"1f[ Slltr~fJ UU·f(ZJCl\1....-/'if'ff20:Sr1t£S!IP
Address 07Vo 60 M, S. $0 J'TL-Zoo
S£1<7Ilk.. IPA '18JO~
Phone 4?-0 -'2$1 -i,Z:z.z__ Phone 'Zolo -1b3 -'71S<:,
• Developed Site Z. 2.. acres Number of Lots -
• Number of Detention Facilities On Stte -~I __ _
• Detention provided in regional tacilfty D
Regional Facility location ---------------~----
• No detention required D
Acceptable receiving waters
• Downstream Drainage Basins
Immediate
Basin A ----------
Basin B ----------
Basin C ----------
BasinD _________ _
TOTAL
I Drainage Basin(s)
'l. • 'Z-I OnstteArea -Off site Area
\/l>(VL--r
Type of Storage Facility
Live Storage Volume I., r'i~D
Predeveloped Runoff Rate 2year
10 year
Postdeveloped Runoff Rate 10o·year
2year
10year
DevelopedO 100year
Type of Restriction
Size of Orifice/Restriction
Orifice/Restriction No.1
No.2
No.3
No.4
No.5
Major Basin
Gl?f0:-? 12:W ve.-
INDIVIDUAL BASIN
A B C
-z :z.' --C .
V/1<\Jt.f'
l?,'l~ .
D. lob
D. '5£}1
(7.91i
0,'lll'J'
l. St"!
2.114-
~~ct..
z 1/i " -:, ·1~·
D
.
XI. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS MANUAL
K I NC CO U NT Y, \\' ,\ S 11 I N (, T () N, S U i( F 1\ C E \VAT E !( D F S I G N M A N U A L
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES
NO. 1 • PONDS
Maintenance
Component
General
Side Slopes of
Pond
Storage lvea
Emergency
Overllow/Spillway
-------------
Dtlfecl
Trash & Debris
Poisonous
Veg&lalion
Pollution
Unmowed Grass/
Ground Cover
Rodent Holes
Insects
Tree Growth
Erosion
Sediment
Rock Missing
Conditions When Maintenance
I• Neitci&d
My trash and debris which exCEted 1
cubic foot per 1C()() square feet (this is
about equal lo the amount ol trash it
would take lo lill up one standard size
office garbage can). In general, there
should be no visual evidence of dumping.
Any poisonous veg elation which may
conslilule a hazard lo County personnel
or tho public. Examples of poisonous
vegetation include: tansy ragwort, poison
oak, stinging nettles, devils club.
Oil, gasoline. or other contaminanls of
one gallon o, more .Q! any amount round
thal coukl: 1) cause damage to plant,
animal, o, marine life; 2) constitute a fire
haz8rd; or 3} be flushed downslream
during _rain storms.
H facility is located in ptivate residential
area. mowing is needed when grass
exceeds 18 inches in height tn other
areas, the general poHC)' is lo mi.ke the
pond site malch adjacent ground cover
and terrain as long as there 1s no
interference with the function of the
facility.
Any evidence of rodent holes if facility is
-acting as a dam °' betm, or any evidence
of water piping through dam or berm via
rodent holes.
'Nhen insects such as wasps and homets
interfern with maintenance activities.
T tee growth does not allow maintenance
access or interferes with maintenance
activity {i.e., slope mowing, silt removal,
vactoring ot equipment movements). tf
treH are not interfering with access, leave
treH atone.
Eroded damage over 2 inches deep
whate cause of damage is still present or
where there is potential for continued
erosion.
Accumulaled sediment that exceeds 10%
of the designed pond depth.
f':~y pJ~ :' ~:-__ ' '-:.:'.: '.'" ,:: : ... :::..;-,j ~
inches lower 1han the design elevation.
Only one layer of rock exists above native
soil in area live square feet o, larger. or
any exposure ol native soil.
.-... -1
---------
Reaults Expected
Vo/hen Maintenance Is. Performed
Trash and debris cleared Imm site.
No danger of poisonous vegetation where
County personnel or the public might
normally be. (Coordination with
Seattle/King County Health Department)
No contaminants present other than a
surface film. (Coordination wilh
Seattle/t<Jng County Health Departmenl)
When mowing Is needed, gtass/ground
cover should be mowed to 2 inches In
height.
Rodents destroyed and dam or berm
repaired. (Coordination with Seattle/
King County Health Department)
Insects destroyed or remo~ed from site.
Trees do not hinder maintenance
activities. Selectively ct.iltivate trees such
as alders for fitewood.
Slopes should be stabilized by using
appropriale erosion control measure(s):
e.Q-. rock reinforcement, planting of
grass, compaction.
Sediment cleaned out to designed pond
shape and depth; pond reseeded if
necessary 1o contml erosion.
;:;.;;.,o :,.,...,.,;l,l Utt Ou1h oack to mu oc~1~u
elevation.
Replace rocks to design standards.
i/.1<.;
K l N (j C O U N T \' 11· ,\ S H N (; T O N, S U R F /\ C E W /\ T l, 1, D L ~ I (, N M ,\ N U /\ L
NO. 2 -INFILTRATION
Malntonenca
Component
GenMal
Sto,age Alea
Filter Bags
Rock FlUe,s
Trash & Deb,is
Poisonous
Vegetation
Pollution
Unmowed Grass/
Ground Cove,
Rodeol Holes
Ins.sets
Sediment
f"eet Cover
(tt Applicable)
Sump Filled With
Sediment and
Debris (H
Applicable)
Filled with
Sediment and
Deb!iS
Sediment and
Debris
CondltJona 'Nhon Maintenance
la N&oo&O
See ·Ponds.· Standard No 1
See ·ponds· Standard No.
See ·Ponds· Standard No.
&te "Ponds· Standard No.
See ·Ponds· Standard No. 1
A pe,,oolation test pit or test of facility
indicates facility is only working at 90% o1
its designed capabilities.
Sheet cover Is visible and has more than
lhcee 1/4--inch holes in it.
Any sediment and debris filling vault to
10% of depth from sump bottom to
bottom of outlet pipe o, obstructing flow
into the connector pipe.
Sediment and debris fill bag more than
1/2 full.
By visual Inspection littJe or no water
flows through filter during heavy rain
storms.
A-7
Rc•ulta f..xp,K-tcd
'When Maintenance la Performed
·--· -----------------
Sae "Ponds S1anda1d No 1
Soe "Ponds S1anda1d No
See "Ponds Standard No.
See "Ponds S1andard No
See "Ponds S1anda'rd No. 1
See "Ponds S1anda1d No. 1
&.diment is removed and/or facility is
cleaned so that infiltration system works
according to design.
Sheet cover repaired or replaced.
Clean out sump to design depth.
Replae& filter bag or redesign system.
Replace g,avel in rock tilter.
1/90
K I N G CO U N T Y, \I' A S H I N G TO N, S lJ R r A C L W A T E R D E S I G N M A N l' A L
NO. 3 CLOSED DETENTION SYSTEMS (PIPES/TANKS)
Maintenance
Cornponent
Storage Alea
Manhole
Catch Basins
D<tloct
P1ugged Air Vents
Debris and
Sediment
Joints Between
Tank/Pipe Section
Tank/Pipe Bent
Out of Shape
Cover not in Place
Locking
Mechanism Not
Working
Cove, Difficult to
Remove
Ladder Rungs
Unsafe
Conditions When Maintenance
Is Needed
One-hall ol the cross s.eclion ol a vent is
blocked at any point wilh debcis and
sediment.
Accumulated sediment depth exceeds
10% of the diameter ol the slorage area
for 1/2 length of storage vault o, any
point depth exceeds 15% of diame1er
Example: 72-inch storage tank would
require cleaning when s.ediment 1eaches
depth. of 7 inches for more than 1/2
length of tank.
My ctack allowing material 1o be
transported into facility.
Any part of tank/pipe is bent out of shape
more than 10.% of its design shape.
Cover is missing or only partially in place,
Ally open manhole requires maintenance.
Mechanism cannot be opened by one
maintenance pe,son with proper tools.
Bolts into frame have less than 1 /2 inch
of thread (may not apply to sell-locking
lids).
One maintenance person cannot remove
lid after applying 80 pounds of lift. Intent
is 10 keep cover from sealing off acoess
to maintenance. ·
King County Safety Offioe and/or
maintenance person judges that ladder is
unsafe due to mls.sJng rungs.
mlsallgnment, rust. or ccacks.
See ·eatch Basins· Standard No. 5
i\-J
Rcuulb Expectod
When Maintenance Is Performed
Vanis ltae ol debris and sedimenl
All sedimenl and debris removed from
slorage area.
AJI joints between tank/pipe sections are
seated.
Tank/pipe 1epaired or replaced to design.
Manhole is closed,
Mechanism op.,ns with proper tools.
Cover can bo removed and reinstalled by
one maintena!lce person.
Ladder meets design standards and
atrows maintenance persons safe access.
See ·eatch Basins· Standard No. 5
I iW
K I N G CO U NT Y, W A S H l N G T O N, S U R F A C E W A T E R D E S I G N M A N U A L
----· -------
NO. 4 · CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR
Maintenance
Component ~feet
Conditions Whi&n M.alntenance
Is Needed
Results bp<t<;ted
',','hen Maintenance ls Performed
···------------.----------------------
Goner al
Cleanout Gato
Orifice Plate
CNerflow Pipe
Manhole
Catch Basin
Trash and Deb£is
(includes
Sedimonl)
Structu1al Damage
Damaged or
Missing
Damaged 01
Mis.sing
Obstructions
Obstructions
Dislanca between debris build-up and
bottom of orifice plate is less than 1-1/2
feet. ·
Structure is not s.ecurely attached to
manhole wall and outlet pipe structure
should support at least 1,COO pounds ot
up or down pres.sure.
Structure is not in upright position (allow
up to 10%. from plumb}.
Connections to outlel pipe are not
watertight and show signs of rust.
Any holes -other than designed holes -
in the struciuro.
Oeanout gale is not watertight or is
missing.
Gate cannot b6 moved up and down by
one maiiltenanoe person.
Chain leading to gate is missing or
damaged.
Gate 1,. rusted over 50% of its surface
area.
Control devi~ Is not working properly
due to missing. o~t of plaoe, or bent
orifice plate.
My trash. debri,.. sediment. or vegetation
blocking the plate.
My trash °' debris blocking {0< having
the potential of blocking) the overflow
pipe.
Soe "Cloud Detention Systems· Standard
No.3.
See ·Catch Basins• Standud No. 5.
.AJI 1rasti and debris remo,.,ed.
Structure securely attached lo wall and
oullet pipe.
Strue1ure in corre~t position.
Connections to outlet pipe are watertighl;
structure repaired Of replaced and works
as designed.
Structure has no holu other than
designed holes.
Gate is watertight and wori<s as designed.
Gate moves up and down easily and is
watertight.
Chain is in place and works as designed.
Gate is repaired oc replaced lo meet
design standards.
Plate is In place and works l!S designed.
Plate is free of an obstructions and works
as designed.
Pipe is heo of all obstructions and works
as designed.
See paosed Detention Systems.· Slanda,d
No.3.
See ·Catch Basins• Standard No. 5.
1 /()0
KI NG C CJ li NT Y. \VAS HING TON, SUR r-ACE \\'ATER DES I G N MANUAL
NO. 5 CATCH BASINS
Mlllntenance
Componcmt
Gene,al
Defect
Trash & Dobris
(Includes
Sed1menl)
Structural Damage
to frame and/or
Top Slab
Clacks in Basin
Walts/Bottom
Settlement/
Misalignment
Fire Hazard
Vegetation
Pollution
Conditions Whon Maintenance
la Needed
Trash or deb1is of more than 1/2 cubic
·foot which is located immediately in Iron\
or lhe catch basin opening o, is blocking
capacity ol basin by more lhan 10%
Trash or debris (in the .basin) that
exceeds 1/3 the depth horn the bottom
ol basin to invert of the lowest pip·;-·-
Of out ol lhe basin.
Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe
blocking more than 1 /3 ol ils height.
Dead animals or vegetation that could
generate odOfs that would cause
complaints or dangerous gases. (e.g ..
methane).
Deposits of garbage, exceeding 1 cubic
foot in volume.
Corner of frame extends more than 3/4
inch past"curb race·into the street [if
applicable).
Top slab has holes larger than 2 square
inches Of ciacks wider than 1/4 inch
Qntent is to make sure all material is
running into the bas.in).
Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e .•
separation of more than 3/4 inch of the
frame from the top slab.
C,acks wider 1han 1 /2 inch and longer
than 3 feet, any evidence of soil particles
entering catch basin through cracks, or
maintenance person judges that structure
is unsound.
Cracks wider than 1 /2 inch and longer
than 1 fool at the joint of any inletfoutlet
pipe °' any evidence of soil particles
entering catch basin through cracks.
Basin has settled more than 1 inch or has
rotated more than 2 inches out of
align(nent.
Presence of chemicals such as natural
gas, oil. and gasoline.
Vegetation ·growing across and blod:ing
010<0 than 10% of the basin opening.
Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe
joints: lhat is more than six inches tall and
loss u1c11 ::., .... 111..:nes. apart.
Nonflammable chemicals of more than
1 /2 cubic fool per th1ee feet of basin
leng1h.
Result& Expected
When Maintenance I.a Performed
No 1rash or debtis located immediately in
lront ol ca\ch basin opening.
No trash 01 debris in the catch t;>asin.
Inlet and outlet pipes free of trash or
debris.
No dead animals or vegetation p,esent
within the catch basin.
No condition present which would att,act
01 support the breeding of insects or
rodents.
frame is even with curb.
Top slab Is free of h~les and aaeks.
Frame is sitting 11ush on top slab.
Basin replaced or repaired to design
standards.
No cracks mote than 1 /4 inch wide at the
joint of !nletfoutlet pipe.
Basin replaced or repaired to design
standards.
No flammable chemicals present.
No vegetation blocking opening to basin.
No vegetation or rool growth present.
No pollution present other than surtace
lilm.
1/90
K I N G C U U N T Y, \\' A S H I N C T O N, S U R FA C E W A I E R l) ES I G N M A N U A L
NO. 5 -CATCH BASINS (Continued)
Malntonancc
Componont
Condition• \Vhen Malnt,on.once
la Naod•d
Reoulh. Expo<:lod
Vr'hen Malntonanco la Porform(ld
------·------"-------
Catch Oasin Cover
ladder
Metal Grates
~r applicable)
Cover Not in Place
Locking
Mechanism Not
Working
Cover 0.t1icult ·')
Remove
Ladder Rungs
Unsafe
Trash and Debris
Damaged or
Missing
Cover is missing or only partially in place
My open ~tch basin requires
maintenance.
M-echanism cannot ba opened by one
maintonanco person wilh proper tools.
Bolts into frame have less than 1 /2 inch
ol thread. ·
One maintenance person cannot remove
lid after applying BO Jb.s~ ol lift; intent is
keep co ... e, ffom sealing off access to
maintenance.
Ladder Is unsafe due to missing rungs,
misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp
edges.
Grata with opening wider than 7 /8 inch.
Trash and debris lhat is blocking more
than 20% of grate surface.
Grate missing or broken member(s) of
the grate.
!\ r:.
Catch basin cover is closed
Mechanism opans with proper tools.
Covar can be rem9ved by one
maintenance persOn.
Ladder meets design standards and
allows maintenance person sa.fe access.
Grate openings meet design standards.
Grate free of trash and debris.
Grate is in place and meets design
standards.
1/Q(l
K I N C CO LI NT Y. IV AS 1-l I NG TO N, S \J R FACE IV ATER D ES I G N MA NU A L
NO. 6 -DEBRIS BARRIERS (e.g. Trash Racks)
Malnt~nance
Cornpon(ln\
General
Metal
[}(, f ocl
T,ash and Deb1is.
Damaged/ Missing
Bars
Condt-tlona \Vhen Malntcnnnce
h No-&ded
.T,ash Of dobris lhat is plugging more
than 20% of the openings in the bar1ier.
Bars are bent out of shape more than 3
inche-s.
Bars are missing or entire barrier is
missing.
Bars arc looso and rust is causing 50%
dete,io,ation to any part of barrier.
A-7
A<1 •uth Exp«:tc-d
'Nhen Maln1enanco Is Performed
Barrier clear to receive capacity flow_
Bars. In plaet1 with no bends more than
3/4 inch.
Bars in place according lo design.
Repair-or replace barrier 10 design
standards.
i/';JU
K I N G C O U N T Y, WA S II I N G TO N, S U R .-1\ C E W ,\ T L R D [ S I c; N M A N U A L
NO. l -ENERGY DISSIPATORS
Me.lnt<"Jnl'lnce
Component
Rock Pad
Dispersion Trench
Internal:
Manhole/Chamber
[Mfoct
Missing or Moved
Rock
Pipe Plugged with
Sediment
Not Discharging
Wate, Properly
Perforalions
Plugged
Waler PJWs OJI
Top oi ·Distributor·
C'.atch Basin
Receiving Alea
Oler-Saturated
Worn or Damaged--
Posts, Baffles.
Sides of Chamber
Other Defects
Condition• WlHH\ Malntennnce
la Needctd
Only one 18.yer of rock exisls above native
soil in area five square fEtet or larger, or
any exposure of nalive soil.
Accumulated sedim&nt that exC&eds 20%
of the design depth
Visual evidence ol water discharging et
concentrated points along trench (normal
condition is a ·sheet floW of waler along
trench). Intent is to prevent erosion
damage.
Over 1 /2 of perforntions in pipe are
plugged with debris alld sediment.
Maintenance person observes water
flowing out during any st0<m less than
ths design storm or it Is causing or
appears likely to cause damage.
Water in receiving area is causing or has
potential of causing landslide problems.
Structure dissipating tlow deleriorates to
1/2 or original size or any ronoentcated
worn spot exceeding one square foot
which would make structure unsound.
See ·eatch Basins· Standard No. 5
.,, . 0:
Re1ut1a Exp«ted
When Mzdntonanc~ h Pedormod
fl.eplac.e rocks to design standard
Pi~ deaned/flushed so lhal ii matches
design.
Trench must be tedasigned or rebuilt to
standard. ~
Clean or replace pertorated pipe.
Facility must be rebuilt or redesigned to
slandatds.
No danger of landslides.
Replace structure to design standards.
S&e "Catch Basins· Standard No. 5
1/90
f; I N c; CO UN T Y, WAS 1-l I N GT ON, S U R r 1\ C E W ,\TE R DES I G N M A NU A L
NO. 8 -FENCING
Maintenance
Component
General
Wire Fences
Missing or Broken
Palis
Erosion
Damaged P.1H1s
Dete,iorated Paint °' Protective
Coating
Openings in Fabric
Condition• \Vhen Malntonance
I• Need&d
My defect in the fence lhat pormils easy
-entry lo a facility.
Paf'ls broken or missing.
Erosion mou!I than 4 inches high and 1 2~
18 inches wide permitting an opening
under e fonca.
Posts out of plumb moro than 6 inches.
Top rails bent more than 6 inches.
My part of fence (Including posts, top
rails, and fabric) more than 1 foot oul of
design alignment.
Missing or loos.e tension wire.
Missing 0< loose barbed wire that is
sagging more than 2-1/2 inches between
posts.
Extension arm missing, broken, or bent
out of shape more than 1-1 /2 inches.
Part or parts that have a rusting or scaling
condition that has affected structural
adequacy.
Openings in fabric are such that an a,.
inch-diameter ball could fit through.
1\.·':.J
Re,ult• Expected
\'/hen Malntentmce le Performed
Parts in place to provide adequate
security.
&oken or missing par13 teplaced.
No opening under the fence thal exceeds
4 inches in height.
Posts plumb to wilhin 1-1/2 inches.
Top rail lrne ot bends greater than 1 inch.
Fence is aligned and meets design
standards.
Tension wire in place and holding fabric_
Batbed wire in place with less than 3/4-
inch sag between posts.
Extension arm in ptace with no bends
lai'ger than 3/4 inch.
Sttucturally adequate posts or parts with
a uniform protective coating.
No openinQs in fabric.
1, ·,, ,.,-
KING C Cl UN TY. IV AS II ING TON, SURFACE IV ATER DES I G N ~I AN U A 1.
NO .. 9 -GATES
Malnlenaoce
Component
Genoral Damaged o,
Missing Members
Openings In Fabric
-"---·~ ---------~
Condition• W'hen Maintenance
la Ne+<lo-d
Mis.sing gate or locking devices
Btoken o, missing hinges such lhat gato
canno1 be easily opened and closed by a
maintenance person.
Gate is out o1 plumb more than 6 inches
and more than t foot out of design
alignment.
Missing stretche, bar, stretcher bands,
and ties.
See 'Fencing· Standard No. 8
Reaulh E:xp-o-ch,d
Vlhen M.alnlenanc111 Is Potlotmed
Gates and locking devices in plaC-8_
Hinges intact and lubed. Gate is wo,king
freely.
Gale is aligned and vertical.
Stretcher bar, band~. and ties in place.
See "F~ncing· Standard No, 8
K I N G C O U N T Y, WA S H I N GT O N, S U R FA C E W A T E R D E S I G N M A N U A L
------------------------------··
NO. 10 -CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS (Pipes & Ditches)
M.!!lntenAnce
Componenl
Pip6S
Open Ditches
Catch Basins
Debris Barciers
(e.g., Trash Rack)
Def&ct
&ldiment &. Debris
Vegetalion
Damaged
Tcash &. Debris
Sediment
V&gotation
Erosion Damage to
·slopes
Rock Lining Out of
P1ace or Missing {H
ftpplicable)
Condition• When Maintenance
la Needed
Accumulated sedimonl that exe<Jeds 20%
ot lhe diameter of the pipe.
Vegetation that reduces free mov<1ment of
wa16r through pipes.
Proteciive coaling is damaged; rust is
causin~ more than 50% delerioralion 10
any part of pipe.
Any dent that decreases the cross section
area of pipe by mar~ than 20'%.
Trash and debris exceeds t cubic foot
per .1.000 square feet of dilch and slopes.
Accumulated sediment that exceeds -20%
~f the design depth.
Vegetation 'that reduces freo movement of
water through ditches.
See ~Ponds· Standard No. 1
Maintenance person can see native-soil
beneath the rock lining.
S&e "Catch Basins· Standard No. 5
See ·oe:bris Barriers· Standard No. 6
A-11
Reaulta E.xpil'Cl&-d
\.Vhen Mtilntenance l:s Performed
Pip-e cletl.ned of all sediment and debris.
AJI vegeta1ion removed so waler flows
lreety th10ugh pipes.
Pipe repaired o, replaced.
PipG repaired or replaced.
Trash and debris cleared from ditches.
Ditch cleaned/flushed of all sediment and
debfiS s.o lhat it matches design.
Water flows freely through ditches.
Seo ·Ponds· Standard No. 1
ReplaC6 rocks lo do sign standard.
See ·Catch Basins" Standard No. 5
See ·Debris Barriers· Standard No. 6
J,90
KI NG CO U NT Y, WASH I NG TON, SUR FACE WAT ER D ES I G N MA N U A L
NO. 11 -GROUNDS (Landscaping}
\1alntonance
Component
General
T,ees and Shrubs
Weeds
(Nonpoisonous)
Sarety Ha2.a1d
Trash or Litter
Damage
Condition• When Malntonanco
I• NH<l&d
Weeds growing in more than 20% ol the
landscaped area (trees and shrubs only).
Any presence of poigon Ivy or olher
poisonous vegetalion.
Paper, can, bottles, lolalling more than 1
cubic toot within l!I landscap~d area (trees
and shrubs only} of 1,0CIO squarf:I feel.
Limbs or parts of \fees or shrubs thal are
split or broken which affect more than
25% of tho total foliage of the tree or
shrub.
Trees or shrubs Ulat have been blown
down or knocked over.
Trees or shrubs which are nol adequalely
supported or are loaning over, causing
exposure of the roots.
... J...'.
-------------------
A", u tta E.x p-3-Cte-d
\.'lhen Maintenance Is Performod
Weeds present in less than ~% of lhe
lends.caped area.
No poisonous vegetalion pie sent in a
landscaped area.
Alea clee, of litter.
Trees and shrubs with less than 5% of the
total foliage with split or broken limbs.
Tree or shrub in place flee of injury.
Treo or shrub in place and adequatety
supported; remove any dead or diseased
trees .
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DES I G N MANUAL
-------~--------
NO. 12 -ACCESS ROADS/EASEMENTS
Maintenance
Componont
General
Road Surface
Shouldets and
Ditches
Defect
T1ash and Debris
Blocked Roadway
Sottlement,
Potholes, Mush
Spots, Ruts
Vegetation ln Road
Surface
Erosion Damage
Woods and &ush
Condition& \l.'hen Malnt,onance
la Heeded
Trash and debris e)(ceeds 1 cubic loot
per UXX) square feet, i.e .. trash and
debris would fill up one standard size
garbage can.
Debris which could damage vehicle tires
(glass or metal)
Ally obstructions which reduce clearance
above road surface to less than 14 feet.
Any obstructions restricting the access lo
a 10-lo 12.foot width for a distance of
mo,e t_han 12 feet or any point restricting
access to less than a 10-foot width.
W'hen any surface defect exceeds 6
Inches in depth and 6 square feet in area.
In gonoral, any surface defect which
hinders or prevents maintenance access.
Weeds g1owing in the road surface that
are more than 6 inches iall and le~ than
6 Inches apart wilhin a 400--square-foot
area.
Erosion within l--foot of the roadWay more
than 8 inches wida and 6 inches deep.
Weeds and brush exooed 18 inches. In
height or hinder maintenance access.
A-13
Re~ult~ Ex~1e-d
'When Malnlenance Is Perlormed
Trash and debtis cleared from site.
Roadway free of debris which could
damage tires.
Roadw~y overhead clear 10 1 "I feet high.
Obstruction removed to allow at least a
12-foot access.
Road surface uniformly smooth with no
evidence of settlemenl. potholes, mush
spots. or ruts.
Road surface free of weeds taller than 2
inches.
ShoUlder fre8 of erosion and matching
the s·orrounding road.
Weeds and brush cut to 2 fnches in
height or cleared in such a way as to
allow maintenance ac:cess.
1/90
Geotechnical Engineering Design Study
Harper Engineering Building
Renton, Washington
Prepared for
Harper Engineering
July 18, 2007
7508-02
-..
---------------
11/JRTCRoWSER
.. ..
HIJRTCRoWSER
Geotechnical Engineering Design Study
Harper Engineering Building
Renton, Washington
Prepared for
Harper Engineering
July 18, 2007
7508-02
I EXPIRES 03-12-0 j I I
J. Jeffrey Wagner, PE
Principal, Geotechnical Engineer
I 910 Fairview Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102-3699
Fax 206.328.5581
Tel 206.324.9530
CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION 1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK 1
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 2
The Site 2
The Proposed Building 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2
Site Soils 3
Groundwater 4
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4
General Considerations 4
Site Preparation 5
Structural Fill 6
Settlement Monitoring Program 7
Building Foundations 8
Floor Slab Design 11
Seismic Considerations 11
Drainage Considerations 12
Temporary Excavations 13
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 14
USE OF THIS REPORT 1 s
FIGURES
Vicinity Map
2 Site and Exploration Plan
3 Settlement Plate Installation Detail
Hart Crowser Page i
7508-02 July 18, 2007
CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATIONS METHODS AND ANALYSIS
Explorations and Their Location
The Use of Auger Borings
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedures
Previous Explorations
FIGURES
A-1 Key to Exploration Logs
A-2 Boring Log HC-1
A-3 Boring Log HC-2
A-4 Boring Log HC-3
A-5 Test Pit Log TP-1 and TP-2
A-6 Test Pit Log TP-3 and TP-4
A-7 Test Pit Log TP-5
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Soil Classification
Water Content Determinations
Atterberg Limits (AL)
Grain Size Analysis
FIGURES
B-1 Unified Soil Classification (USC) System
B-2 Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report
B-3 Particle Size Distribution Test Report
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-2
A-2
B-1
B-1
B-1
B-1
B-2
Page ii
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN STUDY
HARPER ENGINEERING BUILDING
RENTON, WASHINGTON
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical
engineering design study for the proposed Harper Engineering Building to be
located at 770 SW 7th Street in Renton, Washington.
We have organized this report into several distinct sections as follows:
• Introduction;
• Purpose and Scope of Work;
• Project Understanding;
• Subsurface Conditions;
• Geotechnical Engineering Conclusions and Recommendations;
• Recommendations for Additional Geotechnical Services; and
• Use of This Report.
Figures follow the main text. Figure 1 is a Vicinity Map. Figure 2 is a Site and
Exploration Plan that shows the proposed structure and the locations of our
explorations. Figure 3 presents construction details for proposed settlement
plates. These are followed by appendices addressing field explorations
(Appendix A) and laboratory tests (Appendix B).
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK
Hart Crowser
7501>-02 July 18, 2007
The purpose of our work is to provide Harper Engineering and their design
consultants with geotechnical engineering recommendations related to the
design and construction of the proposed facility.
Our scope of work for this project included the following:
• Reviewing subsurface information from previous explorations by Hart
Crowser;
• Advancing three borings to a maximum depth of 71 feet;
• Performing laboratory tests including visual classifications, Atterberg limits,
and grain size analyses;
• Performing geotechnical engineering analyses; and
• Preparing this report.
Page 1
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The Site
Figure 1 is a Vicinity Map that shows the location of the site, located at 770 SW
7th Street in Renton, Washington. It is approximately triangular in shape, with
leg dimensions of about 450 and 250 feet, and covers an area just over 2 acres.
It currently is an asphalt-paved parking lot. The site is relatively flat.
The Proposed Building
Figure 2 is a Site and Exploration Plan that illustrates the layout of the proposed
structure. We understand that current plans call for a 20,000-square-foot light
manufacturing building with a portion of the structure used as an office. The
building footprint will be about 210 feet in a north-south direction and about 85
feet in an east-west direction. The structure will be situated in the eastern
portion of the triangular site. The remainder of the site will remain as an asphalt-
paved parking lot.
We understand that the new building will be a one-to two-story slab-on-grade
structure with the finished floor elevation very near the existing parking and
street level. No significant grade changes or excavations are planned.
We understand that foundation loads will be relatively light and typical for a
building of this size. Perimeter wall loads will be on the order of 1,500 pounds
per linear foot. Maximum interior column loads will be about 95 kips. Floor
loads will be relatively light, less than 100 pounds per square foot.
For seismic considerations, based on our conversations with the structural
engineer, the building has a fundamental period of 0.2 second and the building
will be designed per IBC 2006 design criteria.
The site surrounding the proposed building will remain as an asphalt-paved
parking lot. No grading or modifications to the asphalt surface are planned. We
understand that there are no settlement-sensitive structures or utilities within 20
feet horizontally of the proposed building footprints. We understand that any
existing storm lines within this area will be removed as part of construction.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
Our understanding of the subsurface conditions at the site is based on materials
encountered in explorations conducted by Hart Crowser for the current study
Page 2
Site Soils
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
and on our review of existing exploration logs (test pits) prepared by Hart
Crowser for previous site work in 2000 (Project No. 7508 dated December 18,
2000). Our explorations for the current study consisted of three borings. The
locations of these subsurface explorations are presented on Figure 2, Site and
Exploration Plan.
Subsurface soil conditions interpreted from the explorations formed the basis for
developing the conclusions and recommendations contained within this report.
The nature and extent of variations between explorations may not become
evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary
to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. Details of conditions
observed in the explorations are presented in Appendix A and should be
referred to for more specific information.
In general, the upper portion of the site, beneath the parking lot pavement and
subgrade section, is underlain by very soft Silt and Clay that contain variable
amounts of fine sand. These soft compressible soils generally extend to a depth
of about 7 to 17 feet. Beneath this highly compressible zone, we encountered
loose to medium dense Sand with varying amounts of gravel. Generally, this
Sand becomes medium dense at a depth of 13 to 24 feet and then dense at a
depth of about 25 to 35 feet. At a depth of about 64 feet, we encountered
hard, sandy Silt.
A more detailed description of subsurface soil types is as follows:
• Compressible, Very Soft Silt and Clay. This is the prevalent soil type in the
upper portion of the site. Laboratory tests indicated these soils to be of low
plasticity. These soils will generally govern the design of the preload/
surcharge and the shallow footing foundations.
• Sand. The upper portions of the Sand were generally in a loose condition
and contained only trace amounts of organic material. With depth, the Sand
becomes increasingly more dense and gravelly. The Sand is relatively much
less compressible than the overlying Silt and Clay.
• Hard Silt. Our deep boring, at a depth of about 64 feet, encountered and
terminated in hard, sandy Silt with ash pumice. This layer is not expected to
be a factor in the design of shallow foundations, but would provide very
good support of deep foundations if they become necessary.
Page 3
Groundwater
It is important to note that as we reviewed the field samples in our laboratory,
we noted that several of the gravelly sand samples from borings HC-1 and HC-3
(at depths of about 17.5 to 25 feet) exhibited a petroleum-like odor. Screening
tests performed in the "head space" of the plastic sample jars in our laboratory
indicated the presence of volatile organic compounds. We did not sample or
preserve these samples with the intent of performing environmental laboratory
tests, so these test results should not be relied upon for environmental purposes.
We recommend that this condition be investigated further.
Additionally, we noted a sheen on the groundwater within the split-spoon
sampler at depths of about 15 to 30 feet in borings HC-1 and HC-3.
We encountered groundwater in each of our three borings at a depth of about
10.5 to 11.5 feet below the ground surface. These groundwater observations
are representative of the conditions at the time of the field explorations.
Fluctuations in groundwater may occur as a result of variations in rainfall,
temperature, season, and other factors. Previous test pits encountered
groundwater as shallow as 8 feet below grade. Also, the amount of
groundwater that seeps into a boring or excavation depends on the length of
time that the boring or excavation remains open as well as the material in the
boring or excavation sidewalls. The color of many of the soils samples in the
upper portions of the borings has been described as "mottled," which is an
indicator of a fluctuating groundwater level.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section of the report presents our conclusions and recommendations
regarding the geotechnical aspects of design and construction. We have
developed our recommendations based on our current understanding of the
project. If the nature or location of the building is different than we have
assumed, Hart Crowser should be notified so we can change or confirm our
recommendations.
General Considerations
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
One predominant characteristic of the site with respect to geotechnical issues is
the upper unit of very soft, compressible Silt and Clay that underlies the area.
This will affect earthwork techniques, site preparation, and selection of the
foundation type for the proposed structures. During construction, the site soils
will provide poor support for earthwork equipment if they are exposed in a wet
Page 4
or disturbed condition. After construction, loads from fills and structures applied
at the ground surface will cause consolidation of these soils, resulting in surface
settlements. As such, these soils will generally drive construction procedures as
well as the geotechnical design.
Another predominant characteristic of the site is the potential liquefaction of site
soils at depth due to a design seismic event. It is likely that these soils will
liquefy and cause settlement of the ground surface and building footings.
Provided that the owner is prepared to accept significant building and floor
settlements resulting from soil liquefaction, building loads may be supported by
shallow footings. However, this approach will also require:
• Site preloading; and
• Overexcavation of compressible soils and placement of structural fill beneath
footings.
Site Preparation
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
In preparation for construction, we recommend the following for site
preparation in the building area:
• Break up the existing pavement in the proposed building area in preparation
for subsequent surcharge preload/placement. The lateral extent of the
pavement demolition should extend 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the
new building footprint;
• Place preload/surcharge fill as described herein;
• Remove preload/surcharge fill and asphalt pavement;
• Beneath footings, overexcavate a minimum 4 feet beneath building footings
and replace with 4 feet of compacted structural fill (refer to the Structural
Fill section); and
• If large areas of the original ground surface or the exposed subgrades
beneath footings are unusually soft or disturbed, use of a geotextile
stabilization fabric beneath the fill layer or a greater thickness of fill may be
necessary to achieve a stable working surface.
Groundwater was encountered in our explorations at depths of about 8 to 11.5
feet. Groundwater elevations may fluctuate. Therefore, the contractor should
be prepared to deal with groundwater during site preparation, excavations, and
Page 5
Structural Fill
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 1 e. 2007
foundation installation. We recommend that ditching and sumping first be used
to control groundwater. Other methods of groundwater control may be
required during construction.
Selection, Placement, and Compaction Criteria
For imported soil to be used as Structural Fill, ideally, we recommend using a
clean, well graded sand or sand and gravel with less than 5 percent by weight
passing the No. 200 mesh sieve (based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction).
Compaction of material containing more than about 5 percent fine material may
be difficult if the material is wet or becomes wet during rainy weather.
We recommend the following regarding placement and compaction of the fill:
• Prior to placement of the preload/surcharge fill, prepare the site as
previously recommended herein;
• Proof roll the ground surface with a heavy static roller prior to placing fill;
• Place fill in maximum 12-inch loose lifts;
• Compact the preload/surcharge fill to at least 90 percent of the maximum
dry density as determined by the modified Proctor test method (ASTM D
1557); and
• After removal of the preload/surcharge fill, compact structural fill beneath
footings and slabs on grade to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry
density as determined by the modified Proctor test method (ASTM D 1557).
Use of On-Site Soils as Structural Fill
The suitability of excavated site soils for compacted structural fill will depend on
the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount
of fines (that portion passing the No. 200 sieve) increases, the soil becomes
increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate
compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. Soil containing more than about
5 percent fines cannot be consistently compacted to a dense non-yielding
condition when the water content is greater than about 2 percent above or
below optimum. Reusable soil must also be free of organic and other
deleterious material.
Page 6
In general, our explorations indicated that the on-site soils consist of fine-grained
silt and clay with varying amount of organic material. We recommend against
using this material for structural fill. It may be possible to use this material in
landscaped areas that will not be required to support pavements and that do not
require compaction. It would be very difficult to achieve even minimal
compaction or work with this material if it is wet when it is excavated or if it
becomes wet during construction.
PreloadfSurcharge Fill Height
In the building areas, place fill to an elevation 6.5 feet above the top of the
proposed building floor slab. In these areas, the top of the surcharge fill should
extend outside the building perimeter a distance of 10 feet and slope downward
at an angle of 1.SH:1 V or flatter.
Duration of PreloadlSurcharge
The appropriate duration that the preload and surcharge fills should remain in
place is difficult to accurately predict. Based on our experience with preloads in
the project area, we anticipate that the duration for the preload may be on the
order of 3 months.
It is very important that the preload/surcharge fill settlement be monitored
carefully as recommended herein.
Settlement Monitoring Program
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18. 2007
For the settlement monitoring program, we recommend the following:
• Install settlement plates at strategic locations in the building and pavement
areas. We recommend that at least eight settlement plates be evenly
distributed across the building area.
• Install settlement plates as shown in the typical installation detail (Figure 3).
• Monitor settlement with conventional survey techniques. The settlement
plates should be installed after preparing the subgrade and prior to placing
any fill.
• A surveyor should obtain initial settlement plate elevations immediately after
placement of the plates and prior to placement of any fill. Obtain readings
by standard differential leveling to the nearest 0.01 foot. The surveyors must
establish a benchmark that will be outside the area of settlement influence; a
Page 7
minimum distance of 100 feet is sufficiently far from the project site to
obtain reliable survey readings.
• During the first two weeks, obtain readings three times per week. After the
first two weeks, the frequency may be reduced to twice per week. After
four weeks, the frequency may be reduced further; to once per week, but
modifying the frequency of the readings may be done only upon the
recommendation of the geotechnical engineer reviewing the survey data.
• Hart Crowser should review the settlement plate data on a regular basis as
they are obtained. This will allow us to make recommendations regarding
surcharge duration.
Building Foundations
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
General Considerations and Design Approach
Existing near-surface site soils generally consist of highly compressible, very soft
Silt and Clay. As such, they are not suitable for direct support of building
foundations and slabs-on-grade. Under static loading conditions, it is feasible to
support the structures on shallow footings and slabs-on-grade provided that a
minimum thickness of granular structural fill is placed beneath the footings and
slab, above the underlying natural soils. If footings were placed directly on the
soft, natural soils, there is a potential for a bearing capacity failure of the shallow
footings.
In addition to being highly compressible, the natural site soils are also prone to
liquefaction and loss of strength during a design seismic event. As such, if the
structures are supported on shallow footings, the buildings must be able to
tolerate considerable settlement and damage during a seismic event without risk
to the occupants, and the owner must be willing to accept significant damage to
the structures that may make the facilities unusable until extensive repairs could
be made.
If such settlements are not acceptable, the alternative is to support the structures
on piles that would extend to a considerable depth. Through previous
discussions with the architect, we understand that supporting the structure on
shallow footings and a slab-on-grade is the desired approach to be addressed by
this report. The following paragraphs present our geotechnical design
recommendations based on this approach.
Page 8
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
If the owner desires another approach that will perform differently during the
design seismic event, we can address deep pile foundations, which is beyond
the scope of our current study.
The foundation design recommendations contained herein regarding static
settlement assume that the surcharge material to be placed over the proposed
building footprints will be allowed to remain in place until the underlying soft,
compressible material achieves at least 90 percent consolidation.
We recommend that Hart Crowser be retained to review settlement survey data.
Removal of the surcharge load prior to 90 percent consolidation may cause
excessive continued settlement of the subgrade, resulting in potential hazard for
the proposed structures.
Shallow Foundation Design
Foundation support may be provided using shallow pad or continuous footings
bearing on the minimum thickness of imported structural fill placed directly
above the existing natural soils.
We recommend the following:
• Found shallow footings on a minimum 4-foot thickness of imported structural
fill.
• The minimum lateral extent of the fill material should be defined by a plane
extending outward and downward from the outside edge of the footing to
the top of the native soils at an angle no steeper than 1 H:1 V.
• Design footings using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1,000
pounds per square foot (psf).
• Allow an increase in the allowable soil bearing pressure of up to one-third for
loads of short duration, such as those caused by wind or seismic forces.
• Design individual footings to have a minimum width of 3 feet.
• Design continuous footings to have a minimum width of 24 inches.
• Place the base of the footings at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent
finished grade for consideration of frost penetration.
Page 9
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
• Found footings outside of an imaginary 1 H:1V plane projected upward from
the bottom edge of adjacent footings or utility trenches.
• For resistance to lateral loads, use an equivalent fluid density to represent the
passive resistance of the soil. For a typical footing poured against the
structural fill, use an ultimate passive equivalent fluid density of 400 pounds
per cubic foot (pcf). Use a factor of safety of at least 1.5 when calculating
soil resistance to lateral loads.
• Use an ultimate coefficient of friction to resist sliding equal to 0.40 for
footings poured neat against granular structural fill. Use a factor of safety of
at least 1.5 when computing resistance to lateral loads.
• Retain Hart Crowser to observe and document footing and backfill subgrade
conditions during construction, prior to placement of the footings.
Foundation Settlement
For foundations designed and constructed as described herein, we estimate that
the total post-construction settlement of individual and strip footings under static
conditions will be less than 1 inch. We estimate that differential settlement
between adjacent footings will be about one-half to three-fourths of the total
settlement. These foundation settlement estimates assume that careful
preparation and protection of the exposed subgrade will occur prior to structural
fill and concrete placement.
Any loosening of the materials during construction or the presence of loose
material beneath footings could result in larger settlements than those estimated
herein. It is important that the foundation excavations be cleaned of loose or
disturbed soil prior to placing any concrete and that there be no standing water
in any foundation excavation.
Provided that our preload/surcharge recommendations are followed during
construction, long-term settlements due to continued consolidation of the
compressible site soils and decomposition of organic material beneath the
buildings are expected to be minor and generally fairly consistent across the
footprint of the structure. As such, we do not anticipate long-term differential
settlement to be an issue.
Estimated settlements as a result of a seismic event are discussed subsequently.
Page 10
Floor Slab Design
The floor slabs may be constructed as slabs-on-grade. We recommend the
following:
• Design floor slabs to bear on a minimum 18-inch-thick layer of imported
structural fill material above the natural soils.
• At least the uppermost 6 inches of this structural fill layer should consist of
free-draining capillary break material. This free-draining layer should contain
less than 3 percent by dry weight passing the No. 200 sieve (based on the
minus 3/•-inch fraction of the material).
• For design of the floor slab, use a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100
pounds per cubic inch (pci), as measured on a 1-foot-square plate. This
assumes that the construction is accomplished as described above.
• In finished interior areas, such as the office, provide a vapor barrier beneath
the slab.
• Retain Hart Crowser to observe and document the exposed slab subgrade
prior to slab construction to verify suitable bearing surfaces.
We estimate that maximum settlement of the floor slabs, under the expected
static loading, will generally be less than 1 inch provided that they are designed
and constructed in accordance with our recommendations. In the event of an
earthquake, floor slabs are likely to experience settlements similar to the building
footings, as discussed subsequently.
Seismic Considerations
Hart.Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
When cyclic loading occurs during a seismic event, the shaking can increase the
pore pressure in loose to medium dense saturated sands or soft to medium stiff
silt and cause liquefaction or temporary loss of soil strength. Such conditions are
present at the project site. This can lead to bearing capacity failure (if footings
bear directly on these soils) and surface settlement.
In our opinion, the site soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. As such, we
recommend that footings bear on a minimum thickness of structural fill as
discussed above to alleviate the bearing capacity issue as previously addressed.
However, widespread settlement across the site is likely and must be considered
in the design of the structures. In our opinion, settlement due to liquefaction as
Page 11
a result of a seismic event may be on the order of 10 to 15 inches. Given the
relatively consistent site conditions, we anticipate that such settlements would
be fairly uniform across the length and width of the buildings but could vary
because of more localized seismic effects.
We understand that the seismic design of the proposed building will be
performed in accordance with the 2006 International Building Code (IBC). The
basis of design for this code is two-thirds of the hazard associated with an
earthquake with 2 percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year window of
time, which corresponds to an average return period of 2,475-years. We
obtained the seismic hazard from the United States Geologic Survey 2002
National Seismic Hazard Maps for Latitude 47.473 and Longitude -122.22 7.
Below, we provide parameters for seismic design in accordance with this code.
• Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration at Short
Periods, S, = 1.428 g;
• Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration at Short
Periods, S, = 0.489 g; and
• Site Class F.
It is our understanding that the building period is 0.2 second. Because of this,
according to the IBC, a site-specific analysis is not required and site class E may
be used since this is the site class without regard to liquefaction.
Although the site soils pose a risk from seismic-induced settlement, the
probability of other seismic hazards at the project site, such as lateral spreading,
ground rupture, and landslide, are very low.
Drainage Considerations
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
Temporary Drainage during Construction
We understand that no large, deep excavations are planned for this project
Therefore, general site dewatering is not anticipated to be necessary. Also, we
expect that excavations for footing construction will occur above the elevation
of the encountered groundwater. As such, we do not expect groundwater
control to be a significant issue. However, some control of surface runoff may
be necessary during construction.
Page 12
Permanent Slab and Footing Drainage
We recommend the following:
• Install perimeter footing drain around the new structures. The drains should
consist of minimum 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe surrounded by at least 6
inches of free-draining material.
• Design the foundation drainage system to drain by gravity, sloping
downward toward an appropriate discharge, independent of other site
drainage systems.
• The slabs should be underlain by free-draining material as described above.
• At this time, we do not anticipate the need for cross drains beneath the
structure given our understanding of the site and our expectation that
building grades will be above the groundwater level. However, the need for
cross drains should continue to be reviewed and assessed during
construction.
Temporary Excavations
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
We do not anticipate that construction will require temporary excavations
greater than 4 feet deep. We present general guidelines below if such
excavations do become necessary. However, if such excavations are needed,
Hart Crowser should be notified to address them more specifically.
The stability and safety of cut slopes depends on a number of factors, including:
• The type and density of the soil;
• The presence and amount of any groundwater/seepage;
• Depth of cut;
• Proximity of the cut to any surcharge loads near the top of the cut, such as
stockpiled material, traffic loads, structures, etc. and the magnitude of these
surcharges;
• Duration of the open excavation; and
• Care and methods used by the contractor.
We make the following general recommendations for open cuts:
• Protect the slope from erosion by using plastic sheeting;
Page 13
• Limit the maximum duration of the open excavation to the shortest time
period possible;
• Place no surcharge loads (equipment, materials, etc.) at the top of the cut
within a horizontal distance equal to the depth of the cut; and
• Temporary cut slope should be the responsibility of the contractor. For
planning purposes, we recommend a temporary cut slope no steeper than
1.SH to 1V.
The recommendations presented above are very general in nature. Because of
the variables involved, actual slopes required for stability in temporary cut areas
can only be estimated prior to construction. We recommend that stability of the
temporary slopes used for construction be the responsibility of the contractor,
since the contractor is in control of the construction operation and is
continuously at the site to observe the nature and condition of the subsurface.
All excavations should be made in accordance with all local, state, and federal
safety requirements.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
Hart Crowser should be consulted during the remainder of the design phase of
the project to refine our recommendations as more information about the
project requirements becomes available.
Before construction begins, we recommend that Hart Crowser be retained to:
• Meet periodically with design team as the design plans become more
complete.
• Review the final foundation design plans (to calculate settlement) and
specifications to confirm that the geotechnical engineering
recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented into the
design.
During the construction phase of the project, we recommend that Hart Crowser
be retained to observe the following activities:
• Site preparation and placement of structural fill;
• Placement of preload/surcharge fill;
Page 14
• Assessment of surcharge settlement monitoring data;
• Construction of the shallow footing foundations and slabs-on-grades;
• Installation of drainage systems; and
• Other geotechnical consideration that may arise during the course of
construction.
The purpose of these observations is to determine compliance with the design
concepts, specifications, or recommendations and to allow design changes in
the event that subsurface condition differ from those anticipated prior to the
start of construction.
USE OF THIS REPORT
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
Hart Crowser completed this work in general accordance with our proposal
dated June 8, 2007. We performed this work for the exclusive use of Harper
Engineering and their design consultants for specific application to this project.
We accomplished our work in accordance with generally accepted professional
practices in the same or similar localities, related to the nature of the work
accomplished, at the time the services were performed. No other warranty,
express or implied, is made.
J:\Jobs\750802\Harper Geotech Report.doc
Page 15
w ! -·-f-· .. .!.~
-·-~-~ 1.iTti .SI_
·,'
I
i
~-
V) ~. SW qRO_ ST_
1!i
~ ;:: .... :i '.
i
S".j33Ril ST ,: I ..,
:<t.:~.--=-::.~~j_T/1~==-. !==-=tL.:
I I ~I
.Sl/1larn S1 ! ~ l
~, I
0 1/2
Approximate Scale in Miles
7508-02 --
I RENTON
: ! ..J -l 1/,,4;_
.L,'!.\ __ l,~Lrr ..
3~00 i
!6
; CTI/
···~ff-, ! li/P
Harper Engineering Building
Renton, Washington
Vicinity Map
7107
Figure
111.tRTCROWSER 1
20'
p~____)
[~~'~
I
I
~ t l;
ti ~ ~ ~ 0:)2
I.---'" L TP-4
I "·""--...!!. . -D ~ le ~ ..,,,---,
.l " -/ I
I __ _::-/\ Q<% I re0 \,, \\I
( ;i. \-~
'1 \\
J .-.... > ............ , " ,.,,
1 ~0 ) <Q>""QA
I/ ~
___ .J !'iii T;P~
'U
00 , ,
.l . ~llv
""' "1
" ~
C ,// I
!i/ --/-----!----------
L __ J
"' %,
0
" $
----22-00 ----
~~lb~
S HC-02
!'iii TP-1
Boring Location and Number (Current Study)
Test Pit Location and Number (Hart Crowser Study, 2000) ' \
8
{,;"
~
l
,__ ___ :rl'
lj
'00"19'331_ %5.42' (4§
V-·~
Proposed Building
(Approximate)
"'~
!'iii t'R,2 ·23.o:,, ____ _
HC-02S
Existing Parking Area
(to remain)
8
t;i
!'iii TP-3
so1·2r10·w 115.02·
~~e ~ ~
!
i
oo II ~ :i «< :,; 'u
:> ~ °' ' :,:I',
~~
·g ii.. ·~
' t
I I ol ! I
' o II i I
I I
t-)J I :
01 [ ________ j ________
,------·r-------' ' ' I -~! '
§ 1.:1 ! I i I •
~.
II
;; ~, ....
ffi
N
w
\.,
0
ll
I~ •
0
~ " ~ ~ ~ . " ~ -
I
'
I
'
I I •
'
I
'
~ I 8
'
I Ji~
'
: I I ;J~
:rfi.
'
lw
I
').;' i5 ii!2
~~8
l :~;s o<~
"
?:l • --------------\ --a: fti"?
"·---... ---... --... --... -... -... -
0
N
--,c:_z __ _.
80
7508-02
Harper Engineering Building
Renton, Washington
Site and Exploration Plan
7107
Figure ~ I o 40
F Source: Base map prepared from electronic file provided by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, dated 05-17--01. . fl l Scale m Feet HIIHIOIOW 1 2
"'
I i
Additional Pipe and i-._ ' I
Coupling as Required ~ _I
r'
I
J
/ Install Plate and 5' Pipe Riser
to this Point before Placing Fill
Existing
Ground Surfac\ -./ See Detail Below
l F==L. ~· L ~n;.
_ Concrete Sand l 1
Ci.
'
2' x 2' 1/4" Platej
~ ~ 2" Standard Pipe
~ ~ ~ , ~ Pipe Coupling
7508-02
Harper Engineering Building
Renton, Washington
Settlement Plate Detail
7107
Figure
3
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATIONS METHODS AND ANALYSIS
<C
-~
'tl
C:
[
0.
<C
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATIONS METHODS AND ANALYSIS
This appendix documents the processes Hart Crowser used in determining the
nature of site soils. The discussion includes information on the following
subjects:
• Explorations and Their Location;
• The Use of Auger Borings;
• Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedures; and
• Previous Explorations.
Explorations and Their Location
Subsurface explorations for this project included three borings. The exploration
logs within this appendix show our interpretation of the drilling, sampling, and
testing data. They indicate the depth where the soils change. Note that the
change may be gradual. In the field, we classified the samples taken from the
explorations according to the methods presented on Figure A-1 -Key to
Exploration Logs. This figure also provides a legend explaining the symbols and
abbreviations used in the logs.
Location of Explorations. Figure 2 shows the location of explorations, located
by hand taping or pacing from existing physical features. The ground surface
elevations at these locations were interpreted from elevations shown on a site
topographic map provided by the project architect. The method used
determines the accuracy of the locations and elevations of the explorations.
The Use of Auger Borings
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 1 B, 2007
We drilled three hollow-stem auger borings, designated HC-1 through HC-3, to
depths ranging from 31.5 to 70.8 feet below ground surface. The borings were
completed between June 18 and 19, 2007. The borings used a 4-inch inside
diameter hollow-stem auger and were advanced with a truck-mounted drill rig
subcontracted by Hart Crowser. A geologist from Hart Crowser continuously
observed the drilling. Our geologist prepared detailed field logs of each boring.
Using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), we obtained samples at 2-1 /2-to 5-
foot-depth intervals.
The borings logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-4 at the end of this
appendix.
Page A-1
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedures
This test is an approximate measure of soil density and consistency. To be
useful, the results must be used with engineering judgment in conjunction with
other tests. The SPT (as described in ASTM D 1586) was used to obtain
disturbed samples. This test employs a standard 2-inch outside diameter split-
spoon sampler. Using a 140-pound hammer, free-falling 30 inches, the sampler
is driven into the soil for 18 inches. The number of blows required to drive the
sampler the last 12 inches only is the Standard Penetration Resistance. This
resistance, or blow count, measures the relative density of granular soils and the
consistency of cohesive soils. The blow counts are plotted on the boring logs at
their respective sample depths.
Soil samples are recovered from the split-barrel sampler, field classified, and
placed into watertight jars. They are then taken to Hart Crowser's laboratory for
further testing.
Previous Explorations
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
Our 2000 study included excavation of five test pits at the project site. We have
included copies of the logs of those test pits on Figures A-5 through A-7.
J:\jobs\750802\Harper Geotech Report.doc
Page A-2
lu
!I!
0
>
Key to Exploration Logs
Sample Description
Classification of soils in this report is based on visual field and laboratory
observations which include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, and
plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field nor laboratory testing
unless presented herein. Visual~manual classification methods of ASTM D 248S
were used as an identification guide.
Soil descriptions consist of the following:
Densilylconsistency, moisture, color, minor constituents, MAJOR CONSTITUENT,
additional remarks.
Density/Consistency
Soil density/consistency in borings is related primarily to the Standard
Penetration Resistance. Soil density/consistency in test pits Is estimated based
on visual observation and is presented parenthetically on the test pit logs.
SAND or GRAVEL Standard SILT or CLAY Standard Ag proximate
Penatratlon Penetration S ear Strength
Density Reaiatance (N) Conalstenfy Rni.tance (N) In TSF
In Blows/Foot In Blows/Foot
Very loose 0 IC 4 Very soft O lo 2 <0.125
Loose 4 1010 Soft 2 lo 4 0.125 lo 0.25
Medium dense 10 1030 Medium stiff 4 lo 8 0.25 IO 0.5
Dense 30 lo50 Stiff 8 1015 0.5 to 1.0
Very dense >50 Very stiff 15 to 30 1.0 to 2.0
Hard >30 >2.0
Sampling Test Symbols
~ Splil Spoon E8:l Grab (Jar)
[I] Shelby Tube (Pushed) 121 Bag
[lil Cuttings D Core Run
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS
GRAPH LETTER
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
COARSE
GRAINEO
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
lNIOEltYIWI
NO. ::a SIEVE
FINE.
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE. Ttwll !'all.
Ol'MATERIAI.IS
""""" """ N0.2CKISIE'IE
""
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
l,IQIQ:T-51N "'"""' .. ''"""" RETAt,eDONNO
•6EVE
SAND
AND
SANDY
SOILS
"""'""""' OF COARSE
'""""'' PASSINO ON NO .. ..,.
SILTS
ANO
CLAYS
SILTS
AND
ClAYS
CLEAN
GRAVELS -•I'•' GW
. ,vu
IUTTl.EORHOFINl:S) { D00
GRAVELS WITH
FINE.$
CLEAN SANOS
tumE OR NO FINES)
SANOS WITH
FINES
..
.,-, '• .. ··.:,:.::. ···:.:
·.·.··:.•
(APPRECIA8l..E r ~ .• 7",;/o'
AMOUNT°" FINES) V 7..4
----
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
OL
wa..t..0RADE0 GRAVELS. GRAVEL·
SAN0lol)(1VRE5, lITTLE OR NO
'""
POORLY-GRADED af!AVELS,
Gl'L\VEL ·SNIDM~ES. LITTLE
ORHOFNES
SLTYGAAVELS, GRAVEL -SANO·
ISI.TMIXTI.RE$
CLAYEY GRAVQ.S. 8AAVEL • SMO •
CLAYWll\JRES
WEU-GRADIED IHI06, GRAVElLY
SNfDS, lITTlE OR NO FINES
POORLY.oRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SANO, unu. OR NO
'''"
S,.. TY So'.NDS, SANO • SILT
MIJl:TUIIE&
ORGN«: SILTS IHJ OllOJIHC 8lL TY
CU.VS OF LOW PlASTICllY
I IIIOAaN«MTS,MICACEOUSOR
MH ~iv~FINESANODA
ua1.11ol1M1T f-C-H-1-'-"°"-"""--"-'"_"_"_'"----<
GREATER THAN SO --PLASTICITI'
--. OH -. OROANICCLAYSOF liolEDIUMTO
HIGH PV,STIOTY. OAGANII; 51.:r.;
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT, HUMUS, SW1'MP SOllS WITH
HGH OR<WaC CONTENTS
!ii:! NOTE: DUAL SYtilEIOl.6 ARE \ISEDTOINDCATE BORDERLWE SOllCLASSF!CATIONS
. Moisture
Dry Little perceptible moisture
Damp Some perceptible moisture, likely below optimum
Moist Likely near optimum moisture content
Wet Much perceptible moisture, likely above optimum
Minor Constituents Estimated Percentage
Trace <5
Slightly (clayey, silty, etc.) 5 • 12
Clayey, silty, sandy, gravelly 12 -30
Very (clayey, silty, etc.) 30 • 50
Laboratory Test Symbols
GS Grain Size Classification
CN Consolidation
UU Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial
CU Consotidated Undrained Triaxial
CD Consolidated Drained Triaxial
QU Unconfined Compression
OS Direct Shear
K Permeabillty
PP Pocket Penetrometer
Approximate Compressive Strength in TSF
TV
CBR
MD
AL
PIO
CA
OT
Torvane
Approximate Shear Strength in TSF
California Bearing Ratio
Moisture Density Relationship
Atterberg Limits
I • I Water Content in Percent
I~ Liquid Limit
Natural
Plastic Limit
Photoionization Detector Reading
Chemical Analysis
In Situ Density in PCF
Groundwater Indicators
Groundwater Level on Date
or (ATD) At Time of Drilling
Groundwater Seepage
(Tesl Pits)
Sample Key
Sample Type , Sampe Recovery
-'-
S-1 IX
Sample_} '-
Number
-..
12
23
5'('3"
\_ Blows per
6-inches
IIJJRTCROWSER
7508-02
FlgureA-1
6/07
Boring Log HC-1
Location: See Figure 2.
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 23 Feet
Horizontal Datum
Vertical Datum:
Drill Equipment: Hollow Stem Auger
Hammer Type 140 lb SPT
Hole Diameter: inches
Logged By: C. Brown Reviewed By: J. Wagner
STANDARD
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
LAB
TESTS
& (PID)
'
USCS Graphic
Class Log Soil Descriptions
ML Very soft, wet, gray, slightly sandy SILT to
clayey SILT
t-Very soft, wet, gray CLAY with trace affine
sand and organic material.
Depth
in Feet
0
-
_, 5
-
-
-10
-'1. -~,I -ATD
~-------------------Very soft, wet, gray, sandy SILT. -15
-SM--. .-~--------------------· Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, medium to ' . fine SAND. Petroleum-like odor noted at -
20-foot depth.
-20
SW-SM· Medium dense, wet, gray, slightly silty, -·, gravelly to very gravelly SAND.
Petroleum-like odor noted at 25-foot depth. -
'
25
'
' ;
'· -
' -30
Sample
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8*
S-9'
' S-10•
Bottom of Boring at 31.5 Feet.
Started 06/18/07.
Completed 06/18/07. -
" Sheen observed on groundwater in sampler -35
at sample depths of 20, 25, and 30 feet.
-40
1 . Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols.
2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual.
3. uses designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise
supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487).
4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary
with time.
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
7
'
2
6
12
12
13
13
7
9
10
a Blows per Foot
0 10 20
' ..
.
• •·
•
. •
• ' .
·• -\ -
\
·\
-\
• ~
• : . ---
----
0 20 40
30
60
• Water Content in Percent -..
40 50+
(0.5)
-GS
:--..(20.3)
"""(1.4)
80 100+
HIJRTCROWSER
7508-02
FigureA-2
6107
Boring Log HC-2
Location: See Figure 2.
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation 23 Feet
Horizontal Datum:
Vertical Datum:
Drill Equipment: Hollow Stem Auger
Hammer Type: 140 lb. SPT
Hole Diameter: inches
Logged By: C. Brown Reviewed By: J. Wagner
STANDARD
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
LAB
TESTS uses Graphic
Soil Descriptions
Depth
in Feet Class Log
--M-L-~m-v_e_ry_s_o_ft_, _w_e_t_, o_r_a_n_g_e_m_o_tt_le_d_g_r_a_y_, _s_a_n_d_y---o
SILT.
SP-SM·
SP Ii.
. ·•· I•>\
> ii
1> -:·.··
· .. ··
:
'1-foot-thick, moist, brown, medium to fine
SAND layer.
f-5
f-10
f-
1-Loose, wet, gray, slightly silty, medium to fine 1-
SAND with trace of organic material. 1-
>--20
-------------------+ Medium dense, wet, gray, slightly silty,
gravelly SAND with wood debris. 1-25
Medium dense to dense, wet, brown to gray, 30
trace to slightly silty, gravelly to very gravelly e
SAND . e
f-
f-
>--35
e
e
r
f-
~•o
1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols.
2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual.
Sample
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
s-s·
s-s·
S-7'
s-s·
S-9
S-10
S-11
3. uses designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise
supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487).
4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary
with time.
0
' '
' 2
2
0
0
'
0
0
0
' 2
3
2
' 5
5
8
2
' 0
10
9
12
14
12
12
12
10
15
18
• Blows per Foot
0 10 20 JO
~ •
·• -'
fHo
•
• -
-\ ..
•
-\ -
\
• \
-
•
\ -
• }
I
0 20 40 60
• Water Contenl in Percent .. ..
7508-02
Figure A-3
40
.•
80
50+
-AL
-GS
100+
6/07
1/2
Boring Log HC-2
Location: See Figure 2.
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 23 Feet
Horizontal Datum:
Drill Equipment Hollow Stem Auger
Hammer Type 140 lb. SPT
Hole Diameter: inches
Vertical Datum: Logged By: C. Brown Reviewed By: J. Wagner
~ ~
~
~
0
0
~ ~
0 c> ' c>
I
,:
0
~ m s m
0 ~
0
0
~
0 z
~
0 m
~ w z
USCS Graphic
Class Log
SP
Soil Descriptions
Medium dense to dense, wet, brown to gray,
trace to slightly silty, gravelly to very gravelly
SAND. (cont'd)
· 'Silty
ML Hard, wet, gray-brown, sandy SILT with ash
pumice.
Bottom of Boring at 70.8 Feet.
Started 06118/07.
Completed 06119/07.
* Samples obtained from supplemental
boring drilled -10 feet from HC-2 using mud
rotary drill method.
1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols.
Depth
in Feet
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual.
Sample
S-12
S-13
S-14
S-15
S-16
S-17
S-18
3. uses designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise
supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487).
4. Groundwater level. if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary
with time.
15
16
21
15
STANDARD
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
• Blows per Foot
0 10 20
r • ' r
30 40
r
\ C
\
-\
• •
I
-•: . I._
\
c• ..
C
• . '
LAB
TESTS
50+
"GS
C \ C
r
50/3 " •
r
-
-
-
r
C
C
"
0 20 40 60 80 100+
• Water Content in Percent .. ..
HIJRTCROWSER
7508-02
FigureA-3
6107
212
Q
r
~
r
D
" ~
~
D <.>
<.>
I
;;:
" ~ m
N
0 ro
0 ~ r
~
0 ~
" z
~
D m
~ w z
Boring Log HC-3
Location: See Figure 2.
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 21 Feet
Horizontal Datum:
Vertical Datum·
Drill Equipment: Hollow Stem Auger
Hammer Type: 140 lb SPT
Hole Diameter: inches
Logged By: C. Brown Reviewed By: J. Wagner
STANDARD
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
LAB
TESTS
& (PIO)
'
uses Graphic Depth
Class Log Soil Descriptions in Feet Sample
ML Very soft to soft, wet, orange mottled gray 0
SILT.
S-1
5
S-2
SM Loose, wet, red-brown, trace to slightly silty S-3 SAND with interbedded silt lenses.
'° IZ
ATD S-4
SP Medium dense, wet, gray to brown, gravelly
SAND. S-5
15
S-6*
'-Slight petroleum-like odor at 17.5-foot depth. S-7
'',Sandy gravel with wood fragment (4-inch). 20
S-8
~Trace of wood fragments.
Becomes dense. 25
S-9
30
S-10
Bottom of Boring at 31.5 Feet.
Started 06118107.
Completed 06/18107.
"'Sheen observed on groundwater in sampler 35
at sample depth of 15 feet.
40
1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols.
2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual.
3. uses designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise
supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487).
4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary
with time.
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
'
1
2
'
6
' 12
4
6
9
4
5
3
9
15
19
8
13
19
• Blows per Foot
0 10 20 30
~
~
~ •
C : f,< -+
~
-•
•
. "
-• ~ . ..
-
: I
·K
• -/
: .. ..
~
~
• " -
• -
-
-
-
-
-
0 20 40 60
• water Content in Percent -..
7508-02
FigureA-4
40 50 +
CAL
.
(5.3)
(5.9)
80 100+
6/07
Test Pit Log TP-1
Location: See Figure 2.
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 21 Feet
'
Logged By: Reviewed By:
USCS Graphic
Class log
ML
ML
ML
ML
Soil Descriptions
(Soft), moist, brown, slightly sandy SILT with organic
material.
(Medium stiff), moist, brown and gray with orange mottling,
slightly sandy SILT with organic material.
(Medium stiff to stiff), moist, gray and brown with orange
mottling, clayey SILT with abundant wood pieces.
(Medium stiff), wet, dary gray, fine sandy SILT.
Bottom of Test Pit at 9.0 Feet.
Started 12/01/00.
Completed 12/01/00.
Test Pit Log TP-2
Location: See Figure 2.
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 23 Feet
Logged By: Reviewed By:
uses Graphic
Class Log Soi I Descriptions
ML {Soft), moist, light brown, slightly sandy SILT wtth abundant
organic material.
SM/ML (Loose to medium dense), damp, very silty SAND with
interbedded SILT and organic material.
SP Ii (Loose), dry, gray and brown, fine SAND.
ML (Medium stiff to stiff), moist, gray with orange mottling,
slightly sandy, clayey SILT with wood debris.
Bottom of Test Pit at 9.0 Feet.
Started 12/01/00.
Completed 12/01/00.
1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols.
Horizontal Datum
Vertical Datum:
Depth
in Feet
0
r
r
f-5
r
r
f-10
f-
r
Sample
S-1
S-2
S-3
J/. S-4
ATD
Horizontal Datum:
Vertical Datum:
Depth
in Feet
0
-
5
-
-10
-
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
Sample
2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual.
3. uses designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise
supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487).
4. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at time of excavation. Conditions may vary with time.
Water Content
in Percent
41
52
50
39
Water Content
in Percent
29
30
5
62
.. ..
7508
Figure A-5
PIO
PIO
12100
LAB
TESTS
LAB
TESTS
'
Test Pit Log TP-3
Location: See Figure 2. Horizontal Datum:
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 23 Feet
Logged By: Reviewed By
USCS Graphic
Class Leg Soil Descriptions
ML (Soft), moist, light brown, slightly sandy SILT with abundant
organic material.
ML (Medium stiff), moist, gray and light brown with orange
mottling, slightly sandy SILT with organic material.
ML (Medium stiff to stiff), moist, light gray with orange mottling, 1 clayey SILT.
Bottom of Test Pit at 10.0 Feet.
Started 12101100.
Completed 12101/00.
Test Pit Log TP-4
Vertical Datum:
Depth
in Feet
0
-
-5
-
,-10
-
S-1
S-2
S-3
Sample
Location: See Figure 2. Horizontal Datum:
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 21 Feet Vertical Datum:
Logged By: Reviewed By:
USCS Graphic
Class Log Soil Descriptions
ML (Soft to medium stiff), moist, dark brown, slightly sandy
SILT. with abundant organic material.
SP > (Loose), moist, brown and gray, fine to medium SAND.
ML (Soft), damp, light brown and light gray with orange
mottling, slightly sandy SILT.
ML (Medium stiff). moist to wet, gray with orange mottling,
slightly sandy, clayey SILT with some organic material.
ML (Medium stiff), moist to wet, dark gray SILT.
Bottom of Test Pit at 10.0 Feet.
Started 12101100.
Completed 12/01/00.
1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols.
Depth
in Feet
0
r
5
a
f-
'Si. 10 ATD
a
"
2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual.
3. uses designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise
supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487).
4. Groundwater conditions. if indicated, are at time of excavation. Conditions may vary with lime.
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
Sample
Water Content
in Percent
30
38
41
Water Content
in Percent
37
15
24
35
38
.. ..
7508
Figure A-6
PID
PID
12/00
LAB
TESTS
LAB
TESTS
Test Pit Log TP-5
Location: See Figure 2.
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation 20 Feet
Horizontal Datum·
Vertical Datum:
Logged By· Reviewed By:
USCS Graphic
Class Log Soil Descriptions
ML
Ill
(Soft to medium stiff), moist. dark brown, slightly sandy
SILT with abundant organic material.
SP (Loose), moist, grat and brown, fine SAND.
ML (Soft to medium stiff), dry to damp, light brown with orange
mottling, slightl~ sandy SILT.
ML (Medium stiff to stiff), moist to wet, gray with orange
mottling, clayey SILT with organic material.
ML (Medium stiff), wet, dark gray, fine sandy SILT.
Caving
Bottom of Test Pit at 10.0 Feet.
Started 12/01/00.
Completed 12/01/00.
1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols.
Depth
in Feet
0
c
c -, 5
-
!l. 10 ATD
-
2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual.
3. uses designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise
supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487).
4. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at time of excavation. Conditions may vary with time.
Sample
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
Water Content
in Percent
40
8
20
38
35
.. ..
7508
Figure A-7
LAB
PIO TESTS
12100
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Ill -~ 'Cl
C
4)
Q
Q
<(
APPENDIX B
.LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
A laboratory testing program was performed for this study to evaluate the basic
index and geotechnical engineering properties of the site soils. The tests
performed and the procedures followed are outlined below.
Soil Classification
Field Observation and Laboratory Analysis. Soil samples from the explorations
were visually classified in the field and then taken to our laboratory where the
classifications were verified in a relatively controlled laboratory environment.
Field and laboratory observations include density/consistency, moisture
condition, and grain size and plasticity estimates.
The classifications of selected samples were checked by laboratory tests such as
Atterberg limits determinations and grain size analyses. Classifications were
made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification (USC) System,
ASTM D 2487, as presented on Figure 8-1.
Water Content Determinations
Water contents were determined for most samples recovered in the explorations
in general accordance with ASTM D 2216, as soon as possible following their
arrival in our laboratory. The results of these tests are plotted or indicated at the
respective sample depth on the exploration logs. In addition, water contents are
routinely determined for samples subjected to other testing. These are also
presented on the exploration logs.
Atterberg Limits (AL)
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18, 2007
We determined Atterberg limits for selected fine-grained soil samples. The liquid
limit and plastic limit were determined in general accordance with ASTM D
4318-84. The results of the Atterberg limits analyses and the plasticity
characteristics are summarized on the Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report,
Figure 8-2. This relates the plasticity index (liquid limit minus the plastic limit) to
the liquid limit. The results of the Atterberg limits tests are shown graphically on
the boring logs as well as where applicable on figures presenting various other
test results.
Page 8-1
Grain Size Analysis (GS)
Hart Crowser
7508-02 July 18. 2007
Grain size distribution was analyzed on representative samples in general
accordance with ASTM D 422. Wet sieve analysis was used to determine the
size distribution greater than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve. The results of the
tests are presented as curves on Figures B-3, plotting percent finer by weight
versus grain size.
J:\jobs\750802\Harper Geotech Report.doc
Page B-2
Unified Soil Classification (USC) System
Soil Grain Size
~--------·-------·---~-~---
Size of Opening In Inches Number of Mesh per Inch Grain Size In Minimelres ~--------__________ --~~----~i=us~s'='"='="=''~-----~------____ _
Grain Size in Millimetres
COBBLES I GRAVEL I SAND SILT and CLAY
-·-----
Coarse-Grained Soils Fine-Grained Solis
Coarse-Grained Soils
G w I G p I G M I G C s w I s p I. s M I s .. ,,., C
Clean GRAVEL <5% fines \ GRAVEL with >12% fines Clean SAND <5% fines y SAND with >12% fines
GRAVEL >50% coan;e fraction larger than No. 4 SAND >50% coarse fraction smaller than No. 4
Coarse-Grained Soils >50% larger than No. 200 sieve
(
1D00 \>4 for G W
GWandSW -0 ) 1 SW
\ 101 >6 or
(
(D )' \
& 1~ .
30
/ ~ 3 ,D 10 X Doq,
G Mand S M Atterberg limits below A line with Pl <4
-----
G P and SP Clean GRAVEL or SAND nol meeting
requirements for G W and SW
G C and S C Atterberg limits above A Line with Pl > 7
* Coarse-grained soils with percentage of fines between 5 and 12 are considered borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols.
D10 , 0 30 , and D60 are the particles diameter of which 10, 30, and 60 percent, respectively, of the soil weight are finer.
Fine-Grained Soils
ML CL OL MH CH OH Pt
SILT CLAY Organic SILT CLAY Organic Highly
Or9.anic
Soils with Liquid Limit <50% Soils with Liquid Limit >50% Soils
-
Fine-Grained Soils >50% smaller than No. 200 sieve
60 ~--~---,~--~---,----,----,----,----,----,----,50
50
-8 40
E f 30
20
10
CL
M HorO H
-CL-ML
0 ""----l-----'------'--------'-----'------'-----'---.....L-------'------'
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90
Liquid Limit
SRF G,_, SJn (B-1).cdr 3"0d
-..
7508-02
Figure B-1
50
40
30
20
10
6/07
Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report
/
/
Dashed line indicates the approximate /
upper limit boundary for natural soils ~~-+---~/'
I----+--/ --,-'/---+----+o~ -7"-=+----+----1 50
40
X w
Cl
~
~30
0
~
Q.
20
10
• Source: HC-2
SILT
• Source: HC-3
SILT
Remarks: •
•
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ o"' v~
I----+~/_/__ o"~-1----+---+---+---+---+----1
o<.
v" .
•
ML orOL MH or OH
30 50 70
LIQUID LIMIT
Location + Description LL PL Pl
Sample No.: S-3 Depth: 7.5
46 37 9
Sample No.: S-2 Depth: 5
48 33 15
Project: Harper
Client: Harper Engineering
Location: Renton, Washington ..
IIJ!RTCROWSER.
90
-200
7508-02
Figure 8-2
110
uses
ML
ML
61712007
Particle Size Distribution Test Report
~ ' ' 0 0 e e -~ ~ • ~ g al ii • . " -::: . • • • .
100 \ls-
• •
90 '\ ' \ '\ . \
80 .\
• ~\ ,:
. . \: 1" 70
"" et: . I'~ ~ . '
LU 60 "'~ z
LL \ f-"-._ I'
z 50
LU u
\ I\ I et:
LU 40 Q_
I . \
30 \ : \ \:
\ . \ ~
\
20 \ \,
.
'• "-
. \ . "' 10
"'t---c ~
0 ~
100 10 1 0.1 0,01 O.Ou
GRAIN SIZE -mm
Vo COBBLEf %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY
• 0.0 41.0 53.1 5.9
• 0.0 25.2 64.4 10.4 .. 0.0 41.6 56.3 2.1
:x LL Pl D,. o,. o,. o,. D,. o,. c, C,
• 20.388 5.067 3.311 1.387 0.506 0.257 1.48 19.75
• 9.107 1.109 0.58 0.263 0.127 0.87 15.48 .. 16.053 5.211 1.161 0.351 0.222 0.176 0.13 29.67
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION uses NAT.MOIST.
• Slightly silty, very gravelly SAND SW-SM 13.1%
• Slightly stlty, gravelly SAND SP-SM 22.1%
• Very gravelly SAND SP 19.0%
Remarks: • Project: Harper Engineering Building
Client: Harper Engineering
a Wood in sample • Source: HC-1 Sample No.: S-9* Depth: 25.0 to 26.5
• Source: HC-2 Sample No.: S-9 Depth: 25.0 to 26.5
" Source: HC-2 Sample No.: S-13 Depth: 45.0 to 46.5
" -.. 7508-02 61712007
HI.IRTCROWSER Figure B-3