HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscDRAINAGE REPORT
Longacres Business Center
Site Location:
The site is located on the west side of Naches Avenue 5. W. south of 5. w.2r• St. (Strander Blvd.)
Renton, Washington
Prepared by:
WHPac1fic
12100 NE 195th Street, Suite 300
Bothell, WA 98011
(425) 951-4800
Project Manager, Ted Everage PE 425-951-4887
teverage@whpacific.com
Prepared:
March 24, 2015
RECEIVED
MAR 2 6 2015
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING OIVIS\ON
Drainage Report
Longacres Business Center
March 2015
Project Overview
Existing Conditions Summary
Discharges
Offsite Conditions
Flow Control
Conveyance
Erosion and Sediment Control
Maintenance and Operation
Financial Guarantees
Water Quality
Table of Contents
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Site vicinity Map
Drainage Area Map
Uniform Flow Analysis Calculations
Backwater Analysis Calculations
Copy of the geotechnical report
3-4
4
4-5
5-6
6
6-7
7
7
7
7
Page 2
Drainage Report
Longacres Business Center
March 2015
Project Overview
Location:
The site is located west of Naches Avenue S. W. and south of S. W. 27th Avenue (Strander Blvd.) within
the city of Renton, Washington. The project is more particularly described as: Lots, B, C, and D of LUA-
11-049-LLA and also Lots, 29 and 31 of LUA-07-068-LLA.
Description:
The current site is located in a vacant commercial development created by the Boeing Company. The
Boeing Company entered into a development agreement with the city of Renton when he parcels were
created. The property is bordered on the west by the Burlington Northern Railroad, to the south by the
Bank of America Operations center, and the stormwater treatment basin created with the original
development for the use of the lots within the development. To the east is the Federal Reserve Bank,
and to the north is 27th Street, and additional unimproved commercial properties. Naches Avenue was
constructed at the same time as the two bank facilities. The stormwater treatment facility was also
constructed at that time.
The drainage system consists of a pipe network located in Naches Avenue with service stubs to each of
the parcels in the development. The pipe network discharges into a stormwater treatment basin near
the southeast corner of our project that discharges the treated storm water into the lowland wetland
south of the basin.
Our project is approximately 11.8 Acres in size and will consist of the following improvements:
• Construction of a 2 story 100,000 sf building and a 3 story 140,000 sf building
• Construct drive isles and parking to support the buildings.
• Construct utility services for the buildings.
• On-Site Stormwater Conveyance system
• Curb gutter and sidewalk improvements on the north and west sides of Naches Ave.
No additional phases of work are expected on this project site.
The project is not adjacent to any critical protection areas.
Stormwater Improvements:
The project site was included in the design of the existing storm drainage treatment system located
across Naches Avenue to the south and east of the project.
The drainage system proposed for the project consists of multiple pipe networks to convey stormwater
to the system in Naches Road. The on-site systems will consist of: A network to collect water that may
Page 3
Drainage Report
Longacres Business Center
March 2015
accumulate at the base of the buildings footings. A network to collect roof runoff and carry it away from
the building structures, and a system to collect the runoff from the surface parking facilities.
Existing Condition Summary
Topography, Land use and ground cover.
This site is currently vacant. The ground cover includes primarily grass/pasture and low growing
vegetation, there are some "volunteer" trees and bushes growing on the site. The site has been filled
and partially leveled at some time in the past.
The site is immediately bordered by two surface roads, a commercial building and the
Burlington Northern Railroad. There are no up stream flow contributors from the site as the site
contains a highpoint located approximately 150' -200' from Naches Avenue, and the adjacent sites are all
lower than the site. The railroad and Naches streets could generate some stormwater runoff, but it will
run parallel to their improvements and will not flow onto this site. The site has been filled and partially
leveled at some time in the past.
Locations of sensitive and critical areas:
There are no known, Vegetative buffers, Wetlands, Steep slopes, floodplains, Geologic Hazard
areas, Streams, Creeks, Ponds, Ravines or Springs on the project. There is a lowland wetland south of
the detention basin approximately 100' south of Naches Avenue, which is the discharge location for the
stormwater once it is routed through the treatment facility.
Superfund areas in the vicinity of the project:
There are no know Superfund areas within or adjacent to the project site.
The project is not in a flood plain protection area.
A 100-year Flood hazard zone is located approximately 700 feet southeast of the site as
measured from the southeast corner of the project.
Discharges:
The discharge point shall be at the Natural location:
Historically the site would have drained to the south to the area of the lowland wetland. With
the development of the project a stormwater treatment facility was constructed to accommodate the
runoff from the parcels in the development. That system ultimately discharges to the historic
downstream location.
Page4
Drainage Report
Longacres Business Center
March 2015
Existing Conveyance system:
An existing conveyance system exists in Naches Street that was provided when the parcels were
created to accommodate the runoff from this project site. The conveyance system collects the
stormwater runoff and directs it to the treatment facility and eventually to the historic discharge
location.
Offsite Analysis
1. Qualitative Analysis
A. Upstream
There is no upstream surface flow onto the site. Runoff from the properties north of
the site (across 27th Street) flows to a man made wetland north to their north. The 27th
Street R/W is adjacent to the site, and it drains to the west into a collection system
constructed with the roadway underpass. Naches Avenue and the adjoining sites are part
of the same master plan as the site and drain to the basin to the southeast. The Storm
drain Basin will not be modified as part of this project.
B. Downstream
Runoff from the site will enter the storm drain system located in Naches Avenue. The
system has multiple service lines stubbed into this property for connection. The system
uses a lowland wetland to finish the water quality treatment and for storage. The capacity
of that system is quite large and we have not received reports of downstream flooding
problems. So since the site was originally intended to discharge to the system and an
agreement with the city exists reserving capacity in that system for these parcels, so we are
assuming that this system is acceptable for connection.
2. Quantitative Analysis
A. Upstream
No upstream flow, Analysis not required.
B. Downstream
The drainage system treatment basin was sized to treat the water from this project
and there is no evidence was provided that it was not adequately sized or constructed. We
are not reanalyzing the capacity or effectiveness of the existing basin. We did however
review the construction plan that was provided and determined that in the event that
there is a storm that creates more runoff than the system can store, bypass systems were
designed in to protect the system from excessive damage.
Page 5
Drainage Report
Longacres Business Center
March 2015
Assumptions/Criteria used
Rational method was used to determine peak runoff from the site-Water flow levels to
be maintained below Grate Elevation
Tail water assumed to be at the overflow elevation for the settling basin.
There are no known capacity issues with this system.
It was assumed that the peak runoff volume will arrive at the subsystem inlet at the
same time as the peak from upstream flows hit the catch basin.
Results:
The results show that an 18-inch Storm drain line needs to be installed crossing Naches
Avenue connecting the site to the existing basin inlet.
The remainder of the site will discharge through the multiple storm drain connections
provided to this project.
The foundation drain will connect directly to the storm drain in Naches to reduce the
possibility of water backing up into the footing drain system.
The roof drain lines will be connected into the surface parking drain system.
Flow Control
Qualitative Analysis
The stormwater treatment facility constructed with the land division project that created
these parcels contains a system established to control the flow of water from the facility into
the detention system. (Lowland Wetland)
Area Specific Flow Control Standard
The project site was located in a Peak Rate Flow Control area as defined in the city of
Renton's Flow control map. With that requirement the Enhanced Basic Water Quality treatment
was triggered for this project. As the original land development project was approved,
constructed and accepted, it is believed that the criteria was followed in the design and
implementation of this requirement.
Conveyance Requirements
Existing Onsite Conveyance Systems
The existing conveyance system consists of a pipeline installed in Naches Street that has
service stubs to the parcels of this project. This project is designed to connect to those system
connections where practical. The stormwater flows on the site will be combined and directed
into the system in an effort to reduce the impact on the downstream system. Since the system
was originally designed to carry the runoff from this project we do not believe that the proposed
connections to the system will result in excessive erosion of flooding.
Page 6
Drainage Report
Longacres Business Center
March 2015
Conveyance System Implementation
The conveyance system is designed to provide hydraulic capacity to convey peak flows for
the 25yr peak flow. A copy of the uniform flow analysis is included in the appendices. A copy of
the backwater analysis is also included for the layout that is currently in use. The analysis may
need to be run again if it is determined that there are significant changes to the catchments and
sub basins.
Erosion and Sediment Control
ESC Measures
The ESC measures, and implementation requirements as specified, will be included in the
Stormwater Pollution Control Plan and NPDES Permit as required by the State of Washington
Department of Ecology.
Maintenance and Operation
Drainage Facilities to be maintained by Private Parties
The drainage conveyance system constructed as a part of this project will be owned and
maintained by the property owner or their assigns. The maintenance requirements established
for such facilities by King County will be followed.
Financial Guarantees and Liability
Financial Guarantees
The financial guarantees for restoration and stabilization will be provided as required. No
guarantee for the maintenance will be posted as the system will be privately owned and not
turned over to a public entity.
Water Quality
Implementation
The water quality treatment is accomplished via a two chamber sedimentation basin located
on the south side of Naches Street near the southeast corner of the project. The basin collects
water from the project site and from Naches Street. The existing facilities on Naches street
appear to have separate treatment facilities. The system was designed and constructed when
the project pa reels were created.
Page7
APPENDIX A
APPENDIXB
• • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
I
I
1-L _____ ~-----
.,
ol
'
i 1_
r o~o-,------0-0 --
1
' '
IC
+~i;,,
' •
I
/
APPENDIXC
Project#:
Date:
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE CALCULATION SUMMARY
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
0006568W
1/5/2015
The stormwater runoff associated with this project will be collected and piped to the
existing storm drainage facility located south and east of the project site. This
property was included in a development agreement between the city of Renton and
the Boeing Company when the property was parceled.
The conveyance system will be sized to convey a 1 Oyr storm event.
The site is broken into 24 separate collection basins. The basins are grouped
together into 5 piping systems that discharge into the multiple collection locations that
were extended to the property with the original construction. In addition to the 24
collection systems there is a footing drain line that will also be piped to the disposal
system.
SYSTEM AREA Tc actual
1 40,792 6.54 mm
2 28,375 4.00 min
3 14,926 4.00 min
4 12,951 4.00 min
5 16,565 1.83 min
6 14,497 1.90 min
7 9,172 1.56 min
8 8,051 1.46 min
9 9,344 1.42 min
10 11,019 1.66 min
11 8,380 1.43 min
12 21,620 5.53 min
13 20,049 4.95 min
14 7,867 2.76 min
15 13,947 2.35 min
16 21,029 2.39 min
17 20,935 2.09 min
18 51,905 0.00 min
19 33,531 5.03 min
20 62,075 0.00 min
21 11,313 2.73 min
22 8,131 3.13 min
23 5,961 2.41 min
24 8,439 3.08 min
Summary 1
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE CALCULATION SUMMARY
Preliminary design assumes that each system in a network time peaks at the same time that
the cumulative peak flow from the systems upstream reach the node. This will yield an
preliminary design for pipe sizing.
Pioe Network 1 contains svstems 1-5
Node SystemT0 System Q 0101a1 Description
1 6.54 1.59 1.59
2 4.00 1.13 2.72
3 4.00 0.59 3.31 move to 15" pipe
4 4.00 0.52 3.83
5 1.83 0.66 4.49
Outlet 4.49
Pioe Network 2 contains svstems 6-12
Node SystemT0 System Q Q total Description
6 1.90 0.58 0.58
7 1.56 0.37 0.94
8 1.46 0.32 1.26
9 1.42 0.37 1.64
10 1.66 0.44 2.08
11 1.43 0.33 2.41
12 5.53 0.86 3.27 move to 15" pipe
Outlet 3.27
Pipe Network 3 contains svstems 13-19
Node SystemT0 System Q Ototal Description
13 4.95 0.80 0.80
14 2.76 0.31 1.11
15 2.35 0.56 1.67
16 2.39 0.84 2.51 move to 15" oioe
17 2.09 0.83 3.34
18 0.00 2.07 5.41 roof drain line assume 6.3 min
19 5.03 1.34 6.75 move to 18" oioe
Outlet 6.75
Pioe Network 4 contains svstems 20 & 21
Node SystemT0 System Q 0101a1 Description
20 0.00 2.47 2.47 roof drain line assume 6.3 min
21 2.73 0.45 2.93
Outlet 2.93
Pioe Network 5 contains svstems 22 & 24
Node SystemT0 System Q Q total Description
22 3.13 0.32 0.32
23 2.41 0.24 0.56.
24 3.08 0.34 0.90
Outlet 0.90
Summary 2
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
WEIGHTED C value
Total Site Area=
Impervious Site Area=
Landscape Area=
Site constants
513,904 sq. ft.
432,379 sq. ft.
81,525 sq. ft.
(C ;mp•Area ;mp)+(C land ·Area laod)
Cweighted= -~--=~~=--=~-----
Areatotal
C weighted = 0.80
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 *i 10
i 10 = (a,a)T/'101
P,o= 2.90
a,o= 2.44
b,o= 0.64
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
T,= T 1+T2 + ... T,
T,= --..,.;:Lc..,...--
60V
V= k(So
kpave=
kbare=
krn=
k1awn=
S,=
20.0
10.1
4.7
7.0
velocity factor Table 3.,
Constants
Figure 3.2.1 B 10 yr. 24 hr lsopluvials
Table 3.2.1B
Table 3.2.1B
L = Length of run
sheet flow pave and shallow gutter
nearly bare ground
fallow or min. tilled ground
short grass, pasture, lawns
slope in ft/ft
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 1
A= 0.94 acres System Area
Cw= 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw*l10*A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow Tc= T1+T,+ ... T 0
T,
L L1= 108 Length of run (ft)
60V s.1 = 0. O 15 It/ft pavement
V= kr-So k= 20 value from pp2
V 1 = 0.96 fps
T1= 1.9 min
Gutter Flow L1= 275 Length of run (ft)
v-k -So
-' s.1 = 0. 005 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.99 fps
T,= 4.7 min
Tc= 6.54 min ifTc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10= 2.44 inches from Constants
. ( )T <-s > /10= 81Q C 10 b 10= 0.64 inches from Constants
P10= 2.90 inches from Constants
i 10= 0.734
I 10 = 2.128
PEAK RUNOFF RA TE
Q= Cw*l 10 *A cfs
Q= 1.59 cfs
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume fiowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 213,..5112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q _ -·-12 12
o-n Ao= 0.785 area 12" pipe
R 213=
p 0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
5112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
o,. 3.62 cfs assume pipe slope at this
Q 0>Q=> OK time.
_Q
Vo-A
V= p 2.02 fps L= 11 Length of pipe
T,= 0 .09 Min Time in pipe
System 1
LONGACRE$ BUSINESS CENTER
System 2
A= 0.65 acres System area
C = w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw*l 10 *A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow T0 = T 1+T2+ ... T,
T,=
L L,= 108 Length of run (ft)
60V S01= 0.013 ft/ft pavement
V= k ,-so k= 20 value from pp2
V,= 0.96 fps
T,= 1.9 min
Gutter Flow L,= 126 Length of run (ft)
V-k -So
-' s D1: 0.005 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.99 fps
T2= 2.1 min
Tc= 4.00 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10= 2.44 inches from Constants
j 10 = (a10)T/',al b10= 0.64 inches from Constants
p 10 = 2.90 inches from Constants
j 10 = 0.751
I 10 = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RA TE
Q= Cw*l 10*A cfs
O= 1.13 cfs
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 213 *S 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q _ -·-12 12
P-n Ap= 0. 785 area 12" pipe
R 213_ p -0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
5112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
O,= 3.62 cfs assume pipe slope at this
Op>Q=> OK time.
V = .Q
P A
v-p-1.44 fps L= 188 Length of pipe
T= p 2.18 Min Time in pipe
System 2
LONGACRE$ BUSINESS CENTER
System 3
A= 0.34 acres System area
C= w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw*l10"A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow Tc= T 1+T2 + ... T 0
T,-L L,= 108 Length of run (ft)
60V So1 = 0.013 ft/ft pavement
V= kr-So k= 20 value from pp2
V' = 0.96 fps
T,= 1.9 min
Gutter Flow L,= 126 Length of run (ft)
V= k,-so 801 = 0. 005 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.99 fps
T,= 2.1 min
Tc= 4.00 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
f 10 = p 1D *j 10 a 10 = 2.44 inches from Constants
. ( )T t-t l 110= a10 C 10 b 10 = 0.64 inches from Constants
Pm= 2.90 inches from Constants
i 10 = 0.751
I 10 = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw*l 10*A cfs
Q= 0.59 cfs
PIPE SIZING 15 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49•A ·R 213 •s112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q =-·-12 12
P n Ap= 1.227 flow area pipe
R 213_ p -0.461 hydraulic radius full pipe
s"'= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
Op= 6.57 cfs assume pipe slope at this
Op>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
P A
V -p-0.48 fps L= 236 Length of pipe
T= p 8.11 Min Time in pipe
System 3
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 4
A= 0.30 acres System area
C= w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cv;l 10 A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow T 0 = T,+ T,+ ... T,
T,= L L,= 108 Length of run (ft)
60V S01 = 0.013 ft/ft pavement
V-k -So
-' k= 20 value from pp2
V,= 0.96 fps
T,= 1.9 min
Gutter Flow L,= 126 Length of run (ft)
V= k,-so Sa1 = 0.005 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.99 fps
T,= 2.1 min
T = C 4.00 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10 = 2.44 inches from Constants
i 10 = (a,o)T /b10 1 b 10 = 0.64 inches from Constants
P,o= 2.90 inches from Constants
j 10 = 0.751
I'°= 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw*l 10 *A cfs
Q= 0.52 cfs
PIPE SIZING 15 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 213 *S 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q = -·-12 12
p A= 1.227 area 12" pipe n p
R 213= p 0.461 hydraulic radius full pipe
5112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
Oo= 6.57 cfs assume pipe slope at this
Q 0>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
o A
V= p 0.42 fps L= 160 Length of pipe
T= p 6.34 Min Time in pipe
System 4
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
Svstem 5
A= 0.38 acres System area
Cw= 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw*l 10 *A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow T0 = T 1+T2+ ... T 0
T, L L1= 104 Length of run (ft)
60V S01 = 0.018 ft/it pavement
V-k -So
-' k= 20 value from pp2
V,= 0.95 fps
T,= 1.8 min
Gutter Flow L1= 0 Length of run (ft)
V-k -So
-' So1 = 0.005 ft/ft gutter
V2= 0.99 fps
T2= 0.0 min
T = C 1.83 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10= 2.44 inches from Constants
-( )T 1-• I /10= a1Q C 10 b 10= 0.64 inches from Constants
P,o= 2.90 inches from Constants
i 10= 0.751
I ,o = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw *1 10 *A cfs
Q= 0.66 cfs
PIPE SIZING 15 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 213 *S 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q _ -·-12 12
,-n A,= 1.227 area 12" pipe
R 213_ p -0.461 hydraulic radius full pipe
s'12= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
o,= 6.57 cfs assume pipe slope at this
Qp>O=> OK time.
V=Q
P A
V,= 0.54 fps L= 50 Length of pipe
T,= 1.55 Min Time in pipe
System 5
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 6
A= 0.33 acres System area
C = w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw*l10*A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow T, = T 1+ T 2 + ... T,
T,
L L,= 108 Length of run (ft)
60V s 01: 0.018 ft/ft pavement
V= k,-so k= 20 value from pp2
V,= 0.95 fps
T,= 1.9 min
Gutter Flow L,= 0 Length of run (ft)
V= k,-sa 801 =. 0.005 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.99 fps
T,= 0.0 min
T,= 1.90 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
f 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10= 2.44 inches from Constants
. ( )T 1-b > 110= a10 C 10 b10= 0.64 inches from Constants
P,o= 2.90 inches from Constants
i 10 = 0.751
I 10= 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw*l 10 *A cfs
Q= 0.58 cfs
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1.49* A *R 213 *S 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q =-12 12
P n A-0.785 area 12" pipe p-
R 213= p 0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
s'12= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
Q= p 3.62 cfs assume pipe slope at this
Oe>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
P A
v,= 0.74 fps L= 122 Length of pipe
T= p 2.76 Min Time in pipe
System 6
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 7
A= 0.21 acres System area
C= w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw'l 10A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow T, = T 1+ T2 + ... T,
T,= L L,= 88 Length of run (fl)
60V S01 = 0.02 fl/fl pavement
V= k,-So k= 20 value from pp2
V,= 0.94 fps
T,= 1.6 min
Gutter Flow L,= 0 Length of run (fl)
V= k,-So S01 = 0.005 fl/fl gutter
V,= 0.99 fps
T,= 0.0 min
T = 0 1.56 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10 = 2.44 inches from Constants
. ( )T <·' I /10= 810 C 10 b 10: 0.64 inches from Constants
Pro= 2.90 inches from Constants
j 10 = 0.751
I 10 = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RA TE
Q= Cw*l 10*A cfs
Q= 0.37 cfs
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 213 *8 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q _ -·-12 12
p-n Ap= 0.785 area 12" pipe
R 213= p 0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
5112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
Oo= 3.62 cfs assume pipe slope at this
Op>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
P A
V= p 0.47 fps L= 40 Length of pipe
Tp= 1.43 Min Time in pipe
System 7
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 8
A= 0.18 acres System area
C= w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw'l1o'A els
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow Tc= T1+T2+ ... Tn
T,= L L1= 83 Length of run (ft)
60V So1 = 0.018 ft/ft pavement
V-k -So
-' k= 20 value from pp2
V 1 = 0.95 fps
T1= 1.5 min
Gutter Flow L1= 0 Length of run (ft)
V= kr-So S01 = 0.005 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.99 fps
T2= 0.0 min
T = C 1.46 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10 = 2.44 inches from Constants
i 10 = (a1o)T/'101 b 10 = 0.64 inches from Constants
P10= 2.90 inches from Constants
j 10 = 0.751
I ,o= 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw"'l 10 ,.,A els
Q= 0.32 els
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49'A 'R 213,5112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q = _._ 12 12
P n A,= 0.785 area 12" pipe
R 213= p 0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
s112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
O,= 3.62 els assume pipe slope at this
Q,>Q=> OK time.
V=_Q_
P A
V = p 0.41 fps L= 91 Length of pipe
T,= 3.71 Min Time in pipe
System 8
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 9
A= 0.21 acres System area
C= w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw*l10*A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow T, = T1+ T2 + ... T,
T,= L L,= 80 Length of run (ft)
60V S01 = 0.02 ft/ft pavement
V= k,"'0 k= 20 value from pp2
V' = 0.94 fps
T,= 1.4 min
Gutter Flow L,= 0 Length of run (ft)
V= k,"'0
S01 = 0. 005 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.99 fps
T,= 0.0 min
T = ' 1.42 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 "i 10 810 = 2.44 inches from Constants
. ( )T c-0 l 110= a10 C 10 b 10= 0.64 inches from Constants
P10= 2.90 inches from Constants
i 10 = 0.751
I 10 = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RA TE
Q= Cw*l 10*A cfs
Q= 0.37 cfs
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 213 *S 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q = -·-12 12
o n Ao= 0.785 area 12" pipe
R 21,_
p -0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
s',,= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
Oo= 3.62 cfs assume pipe slope at this
Q 0>Q=> OK time.
V=Q o A
Ve= 0.47 fps L= 76 Length of pipe
T= p 2.67 Min Time in pipe
System 9
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 10
A= 0.25 acres System area
C = w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw*l10*A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow Tc= T 1+T2+ .. T,
T,
L L,= 95 Length of run (ft)
60V s 01 = 0.015 ft/ft pavement
V= kr-So k= 20 value from pp2
V' = 0.96 fps
T,= 1.7 min
Gutter Flow L,= 0 Length of run (ft)
V= k,-so S01 = 0.005 ft/ft gutter
V2= 0.99 fps
T2= 0.0 min
T = C 1.66 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
J 10= Pro *i10 a 10 = 2.44 inches from Constants
. ( )T 1-b l / 10 = a10 C 10 b 10= 0.64 inches from Constants
P,o= 2.90 inches from Constants
i 10 = 0.751
I 10 = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw*l 10 *A els
Q= 0.44 cfs
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 213 *S 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q =-·-12 12
P n A= 0.785 area 12" pipe p
R 213=
p 0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
5112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
O,= 3.62 els assume pipe slope at this
O,>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
P A
V,= 0.56 fps L= 100 Length of pipe
T= p 2.98 Min Time in pipe
System 10
LONGACRE$ BUSINESS CENTER
System 11
A= 0.19 acres System area
C = w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw*l10*A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow Tc= T 1+ T 2+ ... T,
T, L L,= 83 Length of run (ft)
60V S01 = 0.01 ft/ft pavement
V= k,-so k= 20 value from pp2
v, = 0.97 fps
T,= 1.4 min
Gutter Flow L,= 0 Length of run (ft)
V= k ,"50
S01 = 0.005 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.99 fps
T,= 0.0 min
T = C 1.43 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10 = 2.44 inches from Constants
. ( )T (·b I 110= a10 C 10 b 10= 0.64 inches from Constants
P,o= 2.90 inches from Constants
j 10 = 0.751
I ,o = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RA TE
Q= Cw*l 10*A els
Q= 0.33 els
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 213 *S 112 n= 0.009 from !bl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q =-·-12 12
P n A,= 0. 785 area 12" pipe
R 213_ p -0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
8 112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
a,= 3.62 cfs assume pipe slope at this
O,>Q=> OK time.
_Q v,-A
v-.-0.43 fps L= 154 Length of pipe
T= p 6.04 Min Time in pipe
System 11
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 12
A= 0.50 acres System area
C= w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw *1 10 *A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow T,= T 1+T2+ ... T,
T, L L,= 90 Length of run (ft)
60V So1 = 0.01 ft/ft pavement
V= kr-So k= 20 value from pp2
V,= 0.97 fps
T1= 1.5 min
Gutter Flow L,= 230 Length of run (ft)
V= kr-So S01 = 0.013 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.96 fps
T,= 4.0 min
T,= 5.53 min ifTc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
J 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10= 2.44 inches from Constants
· ( )T 1-b I 110= 810 C 10 b 10= 0.64 inches from Constants
P,o= 2.90 inches from Constants
i 10 = 0.751
J 10 = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw*l 10 *A cfs
Q= 0.86 cfs
PIPE SIZING 15 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49* A *R 213*S 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q _ -·-12 12
,-n A,= 1.227 area 12" pipe
R 213_
p -0.461 hydraulic radius full pipe
8 112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
Q= p 6.57 cfs assume pipe slope at this
O,>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
P A
V,= 0.70 fps L= 28 Length of pipe
T= p 0.66 Min Time in pipe
System 12
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 13
A= 0.46 acres System area
C = w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw *110 *A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow T0 = T 1+T2+ ... T,
T, L L,= 20 Length of run (ft)
60V S01 = 0.015 ft/ft pavement
V= k,-so k= 20 value from pp2
V' = 0.96 fps
T,= 0.3 min
Gutter Flow L,= 270 Length of run (ft)
V= kr-So s., = 0. 008 ft/ft gutter
V2= 0.98 fps
T,= 4.6 min
T,= 4.95 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10= 2.44 inches from Constants
. ( )T (-b I J10= a10 C 10 b 10 = 0.64 inches from Constants
Pro= 2.90 inches from Constants
j 10 = 0.751
I 10 = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw*l 10*A cfs
Q= 0.80 cfs
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume fiowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 213 *S 112 n= 0.009 from !bl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q _ -·-12 12 ,-n A,= 0. 785 area 12" pipe
R 213= p 0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
s'1'= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
o,= 3.62 cfs assume pipe slope at this
Qp>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
' A
V,= 1.02 fps L= 90 Length of pipe
T,= 1.47 Min Time in pipe
System 13
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 14
A= 0.18 acres System area
C= w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw*l10*A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow T, = T 1+ T2 + ... T,
T,= L L,= 44 Length of run (ft)
60V So1 = 0. O 15 ft/ft pavement
V-k -So -' k= 20 value from pp2
V,= 0.96 fps
T,= 0.8 min
Gutter Flow L,= 118 Length of run (ft)
V= k,-So S01 = 0.005 ft/ft gutter
v,= 0.99 fps
T,= 2.0 min
T = ' 2.76 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
f 10 = p 10 *j 10 a 10 = 2.44 inches from Constants
-( )T t-b I /10= a10 C 10 b ,o= 0.64 inches from Constants
P10= 2.90 inches from Constants
j 10 = 0.751
I ,o = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw*l 10 *A cfs
Q= 0.31 cfs
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 213 *S 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q = _._ 12 12
P n A,= 0.785 area 12" pipe
R 213_
p -0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
5112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
O,= 3.62 els assume pipe slope at this
O,>Q=> OK time.
_Q
V,-A
V,= 0.40 fps L= 65 Length of pipe
T,= 2.71 Min Time in pipe
System 14
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 15
A= 0.32 acres System area
C= w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw '1 10 'A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow Tc= T 1+T2+ ... T0
T, L L1= 135 Length of run (ft)
60V S01 = 0.015 ft/ft pavement
V-k -So
-' k= 20 value from pp2
V1= 0.96 fps
T,= 2.4 min
Gutter Flow L1= O Length of run (ft)
V= k,-so So1 = 0.005 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.99 fps
T,= 0.0 min
.
Tc= 2.35 min ifTc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
110 = P 10 *i 10 a 10 = 2.44 inches from Constants
i10= (a1o)T/\01 b10 = 0.64 inches from Constants
P10= 2.90 inches from Constants
j 10 = 0.751
I 10= 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw*l 10 *A cfs
Q= 0.56 cfs
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49'A *R 213 *S 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q = -·-12 12
P n A= 0. 785 area 12" pipe p
R 213_
p -0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
5112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
Q= p 3.62 cfs assume pipe slope at this
Op>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
P A
V,= 0.71 fps L= 81 Length of pipe
T= p 1.91 Min Time in pipe
System 15
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 16
A= 0.48 acres System area
C = w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw *1 10 *A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow T0 = T 1 +T2 + ... T,
T, L L,= 135 Length of run (ft)
60V s 01 = 0.021 ft/ft pavement
V= kr-So k= 20 value from pp2
V 1 = 0.94 fps
T,= 2.4 min
Gutter Flow L,= 0 Length of run (ft)
V= kr-So S01= 0.005 ft/ft gutter
V2= 0.99 fps
T2= 0.0 min
T = C 2.39 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10= 2.44 inches from Constants
i 10 = (a1o)T /°,,1 b10 = 0.64 inches from Constants
P10= 2.90 inches from Constants
i 10 = 0.751
I ,a= 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw*l 10 *A cfs
Q= 0.84 cfs
PIPE SIZING 15 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49•A ·R 213 •s 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q = -·-12 12
P n A,= 1.227 area 12" pipe
R 213_ p -0.461 hydraulic radius full pipe
5112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
O,= 6.57 cfs assume pipe slope at this
O,>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
P A
V= p 0.68 fps L= 126 Length of pipe
T,= 3.07 Min Time in pipe
System 16
LONGACRE$ BUSINESS CENTER
System 17
A= 0.48 acres System area
Cw= 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw*l10*A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow T0 = T 1+T2+ .. T,
T,
L L,= 120 Length of run (ft)
60V So1 = 0.015 ft/ft pavement
V= k ,-so k= 20 value from pp2
V' = 0.96 fps
T,= 2.1 min
Gutter Flow L,= 0 Length of run (ft)
V-k -So
-' S01 = 0.005 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.99 fps
T2= 0.0 min
Tc= 2.09 min ifTc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 '*i 10 a 10 = 2.44 inches from Constants
. ( )T 1-b I /10= 810 C 10 b,o= 0.64 inches from Constants
P10= 2.90 inches from Constants
i10= 0.751
I ,o = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw*l 10 *A cfs
Q= 0.83 cfs
PIPE SIZING 15 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 2!3*5112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q _ -·-12 12
,-n A= 1.227 area 12" pipe p
R 213_ p -0.461 hydraulic radius full pipe
s'12= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
O,= 6.57 cfs assume pipe slope at this
Q,>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
P A
V= p 0.68 fps L= 158 Length of pipe
T,= 3.87 Min Time in pipe
System 17
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 18
A= 1.19 acres System area
C= w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw*l 10 *A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow T, = T 1+ T2+ .. T,
T,
L L1= O Length of run (ft)
60V So1 = 0.013 ft/ft pavement
V= k ,-so k= 20 value from pp2
V,= 0.96 fps
T1= a.a min
Gutter Flow L1= 0 Length of run (ft)
V= k,-so 801 = 0. 005 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.99 fps
T2= a.a min
T, = 0.00 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10 = 2.44 inches from Constants
i 10 = (a1o)T/"10 1 b10 = 0.64 inches from Constants
P10= 2.90 inches from Constants
i 10 = 0.751
I 10 = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw*l 10 *A cfs
Q= 2.07 cfs
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49* A *R 213 *S 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q = -·-12 12
P n A= 0.785 area 12" pipe p
R 213= p 0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
5112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
Q= p 3.62 cfs assume pipe slope at this
Q 0>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
P A
Vo= 2.63 fps L= 130 Length of pipe
T= p 0.82 Min Time in pipe
System 18
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 19
A= 0.77 acres System area
C= w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw'l 10 'A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow T0 = T 1+ T 2 + ... T,
T, L L,= 44 Length of run (ft)
60V So1 = 0. O 15 ft/ft pavement
V= k,-so k= 20 value from pp2
V,= 0.96 fps
T,= 0.8 min
Gutter Flow L,= 252 Length of run (ft)
V= k,-so S01 = 0. 005 ft/ft gutter
V2= 0.99 fps
T,= 4.3 min
T = C 5.03 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = P 10 *i 10 a 10 = 2.44 inches from Constants
· ( )T 1-0 I /10= 810 C 10 b 10 = 0.64 inches from Constants
P10= 2.90 inches from Constants
j 10 = 0.751
I 10= 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw'l 10A cfs
Q= 1.34 cfs
PIPE SIZING 18 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 213 *S 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q = -·-12 12
P n A,= 1. 767 area 12" pipe
R 213=
p 0.52 hydraulic radius full pipe
5112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
O,= 10.69 cfs assume pipe slope at this
Op>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
' A
v,= 0.76 fps L= 54 Length of pipe
T= p 1.19Min Time in pipe
System 19
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 20
A= 1.43 acres System area
C = w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw"l,o"A els
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow T, = T 1+ T 2 + ... T,
T,= L L,= O Length of run (ft)
60V s 01::::: 0.013 ft/ft pavement
V= kr-So k= 20 value from pp2
V,= 0.96 fps
T,= 0.0 min
Gutter Flow L,= 0 Length of run (ft)
V= k,-so So1 = 0.005 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.99 fps
T,= 0.0 min
T, = 0.00 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10= 2.44 inches from Constants
· ( )T (-b I 110= B10 C 10 b10= 0.64 inches from Constants
P,o= 2.90 inches from Constants
i 10 = 0.751
I ,o = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RA TE
Q= Cw*l 10 *A cfs
Q= 2.47 cfs
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 213 *S 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2. 1 D for swpe Q = -·-12 12
P n Ap= 0. 785 area 12" pipe
R 213= p 0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
S112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
Q= . p 3.62 els assume pipe slope at this
Op>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
P A
V= p 3.15 fps L= 72 Length of pipe
T= p 0.38 Min Time in pipe
System 20
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
Svstem 21
A= 0.26 acres System area
Cw= 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw*l,,A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow Tc= T 1+ T2+ ... T 0
T,
L L,= 68 Length of run (ft)
60V So1 = 0.015 ft/ft pavement
V= k ,"50 k= 20 value from pp2
v, = 0.96 . fps
T,= 1.2 min
Gutter Flow L,= 90 Length of run (ft)
V= k ,-so s,, = 0.009 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.97 fps
T,= 1.5 min
Tc= 2.73 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
"J 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10 = 2.44 inches from Constants
· ( )T (-b I /10= a10 C 10 b 10 = 0.64 inches from Constants
P,o= 2.90 inches from Constants
i 10 = 0.751
I ,o = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cv,*1 10A cfs
Q= 0.45 cfs
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 213 *S 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q _ -·-12 12
,-n A,= 0. 785 area 12" pipe
R 21,_
p -0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
5112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
O,= 3.62 cfs assume pipe slope at this
O,>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
P A
V = p 0.57 fps L= 48 Length of pipe
T,= 1.39 Min Time in pipe
System 21
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
System 22
A= 0.19 acres System area
Cw= 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw *110 *A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow Tc= T,+ T 2+ ... T0
T,= L L,= 68 Length of run (ft)
60V So1 = o. o 15 ft/ft pavement
V-k -So
-' k= 20 value from pp2
v, = 0.96 fps
T,= 1.2 min
Gutter Flow L,= 115 Length of run (ft)
V= k,-so So1 = 0. 004 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.99 fps
T,= 1.9 min
T = C 3.13 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10 = 2.44 inches from Constants
i10= (a,o)T/'10
1 b 10 = 0.64 inches from Constants
Pro= 2.90 inches from Constants
i 10= 0.751
I 10 = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw*l 10 *A els
Q= 0.32 els
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume fiowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49'A 'R 213 'S 112 n= 0.009 from tbl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q =-·-12 12
P n A,= 0.785 area 12" pipe
R 213_ p -0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
5112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
O,= 3.62 cfs assume pipe slope at this
Q,>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
' A
V,= 0.41 fps L= 1 O Length of pipe
T,= 0.40 Min Time in pipe
System 22
LONGACRE$ BUSINESS CENTER
Svstem 23
A= 0.14 acres System area
Cw= 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw*l10*A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow Tc= T,+ T,+ .. .T0
T,. L L,= 68 Length of run (ft)
60V So1 = 0.017 ft/ft pavement
V= k;so k= 20 value from pp2
V,= 0.95 fps
T,= 1.2 min
Gutter Flow L,= 72 Length of run (ft)
v-k -So -; So,= 0. 004 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.99 fps
T,= 1.2 min
Tc= 2.41 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10= 2.44 inches from Constants
· ( )T (-b I 110= a10 C 10 b 10= 0.64 inches from Constants
P,o= 2.90 inches from Constants
i 1Q = 0.751
I ,o = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RA TE
Q= Cw*l 10*A cfs
Q= 0.24 cfs
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume flowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 213,..5112 n= 0.009 from !bl 4.2.1 D for swpe Q _ -·-12 12
,-n A,= 0. 785 area 12" pipe
R 213=
p 0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
5112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
O,= 3.62 cfs assume pipe slope at this
0 0 >Q=> OK time.
-.Q V,-A
V= p 0.30 fps L= 183 Length of pipe
T,= 10.08 Min Time in pipe
System 23
LONGACRE$ BUSINESS CENTER
System 24
A= 0.19 acres System area
C = w 0.80 sq. ft.
Q= Cw *110 *A cfs
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow T, = T 1+ T2+ ... T,
T,
L L,= 72 Length of run (ft)
60V Sa1 = 0.013 ft/ft pavement
V= k,-s, k= 20 value from pp2
V' = 0.96 fps
T,= 1.2 min
Gutter Flow L,= 108 Length of run (ft)
V= k,-so S01 = 0.006 ft/ft gutter
V,= 0.98 fps
T,= 1.8 min
Tc= 3.08 min if Tc< 6.3min use 6.3 min
STORM INTENSITY FACTOR
I 10 = p 10 *i 10 a 10= 2.44 inches from Constants
-( )T 1-b I /10= 81Q C 10 b 10= 0.64 inches from Constants
P10= 2.90 inches from Constants
j 10= 0.751
I 10 = 2.179
PEAK RUNOFF RATE
Q= Cw*l 10*A cfs
Q= 0.34 cfs
PIPE SIZING 12 "Dia Pipe Assume fiowing full
0.5 % pipe slope
1 49*A *R 213 *S 112 n= 0.009 from !bl 4.2.10 for swpe Q = -·-12 12
P n A= 0. 785 area 12" pipe p
R 213= p 0.397 hydraulic radius full pipe
8112= 0.071 hydraulic slope of the run
O,= 3.62 cfs assume pipe slope at this
O,>Q=> OK time.
V=Q
' A
V,= 0.43 fps L= 15 Length of pipe
T= p 0.58 Min Time in pipe
System 24
TABLE 3.2.I.A RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS· "C'' VALUES FOR THE RATIONAL METHOD
General Land Covers Single Family Residential Areas
Land Cover C Land Cover Density C
Dense forest 0.10 0.20 DU/GA (1 unit per 5 ac.) 0.17
Light forest 0.15 0.40 DU/GA (1 un~ per 2.5 ac.) 0.20
Pasture 0.20 0.80 DU/GA (1 un~ per 1.25 ac.) 0.27
Lawns 0,25. 1.00DU/GA 0.30
Playgrounds 0.30 1.50 DU/GA 0.33
Gravel areas 0.80 2.00 DU/GA 0.36
Pavement and roofs • 0.90 2.50 DU/GA 0.39
Open water (pond, 1.00 3.00DU/GA 0.42
lakes, wedands) 3.50DU/GA 0.45
4.00DU/GA 0.48
4.50DU/GA 0.51
5.00DU/GA 0.54
5.50 DU/GA 0.57
6.00 DU/GA 0.60
' Based on average 2,500 square feet per lot of impervious coverage_
For oombinations of land oovers listed above, an area-weighted "C,:x A," sum should be computed based on the
equa~on C.; x A,= (C 1 x A,) + (C2 x A2 ) + ... +(c. x A.), where A1 = (A 1 + A2 + ... +A.), the total drainage basin area.
TABLE 3.2.1,B COEFFICIENTS FOR THE RATIONAL METHOD '~•" EQUATION
Design Storm Return Frequency a• "•
2years 1.58 0.58
5years 2.33 0.63
10 years 2.44 0.64
25 years 2.66 0.65
50 years 2.75 0.65
100 years 2.61 0.63
TABLE 3.2.1.C k, VALUES FORT, USING THE RATIONAL METHOD
Land Cover Category k,
Forest with heavy ground litter and meadow 2.5
FaUow or minimum tillage cultivation 4.7
Short grass pasrure and lawns 7.0
Nearly bare ground 10.1
Grassed waterway 15.0
Paved area (sheet flow) and shallow gutter flow 20.0
1998 Surface Water Design Manual 9/l/98
3-13
•
•
•
• • •
I FIGURE 3.2.1.B IO-YEAR24-HOUR ISOPLUYIALS
(
(
/
i
-.
,,
'•'
',
,.
WESTERN
KING COUNTY
10-Year 24-Hour
Precipitation
in Inches
!998 Surface Water De.rign Manual
.".!,'.."',..
G/ ' •· 1· .......
0
~
0 2 4Uil~
3.15
"
5"0'" lllli.H t;!.IUNT~
--~ K<rti;;;~,';'NTf
4.0
-.
4.S
~ ,/""'4.0 . ,< •
_,)
"'~
9/1198
911/98
V = J.49 R113 S"'
n
or use the continuity equation, Q =AV, such that:
Q = 1.49 A If" 5 ,a
n
where Q = discharge (cfs)
V = velocity (fps)
A = area (sf)
(4-1)
(4-2)
n = Manning's roughness coefficient; see Table 4.2.1.D below
R = hydraulic radius = area/wetted perimeter (ft)
s = slope of the energy grade line (ft/ft)
For pipes flowing partially full, the actual velocity may be estimated from the hydraulic properties shown
in Figure 4.2.1.G by calculating Q,.. and Vr,n and using the ratio Q.,,,,JQftd/ to find V and d (depth of
flow).
Table 4.2.1.D provides the n,commended Manning's "n" values for preliminary design using the
Uniform Flow Analysis method for pipe systems. Note: The "n" values for this method are 15% higher in
order to account for entrance, exit. junction, and bend head losses.
TABLE4.2.1.D MANNING'S "n" VALUES FOR PIPES
Type ol Pipe Material Analysis Method
Uniform Flow Backwater Flow
(Preliminary (Capacity
design) Verificaton)
A. Concrete pipe and LCPE pipe 0.014 0.012
B. Annular Corrugated Metal Pipe or Pipe Aroh:
1. 2-2/3" x 112• corrugatlon (riveted):
a. plain or fully ooated 0.028 0.024
b. paved invert (40% of circumference paved):
1) flow at fl.Ill depth 0.021 O.Q18
2) flow at 80% fl.Ill depth O.Q18 0.016
3) flow at 60% full d<!pth 0.015 0.013
c. treatment 5 O.Q15 0.013
2. 3" x 1· corruga~on 0.031 0.027
3. 6" x 2" com.igation (field botted) 0.035 0.030
C. H,;lical 2-2/3" x 1/2" corrugation and CPE pipe 0.028 0.024
D. Splral rib metal pipe and PVC pipe 0.013 o.o, 1
E. Ductile iron pipe cement fined 0.014 0.012
F. SWPE pipe (butt fused only) 0.009 0.009
1998 Surface Water Design Manual
4-18
I
APPENDIXD
Project#:
Date:
BACKWATER CALCULATION SUMMARY
LONGACRES BUSINESS CENTER
0006568W
3/25/2015
The stormwater runoff associated with this project will be collected and piped to the existing
storm drainage facility located south and east of the project site. This property was included
in a development agreement between the city of Renton and the Boeing Company when the
property was parceled.
The background calculations are from the uniform calculations created as a preliminary sizing
calculations. The basins and runoff are taken from those calculations and shall be considered
part of the final calculations as well.
SYSTEM AREA Tc actual
1 40,792 6.54 min
2 28,375 4.00 min
3 14,926 4.00 min
4 12,951 4.00 min
5 16,565 1.83 min
6 14,497 1.90 min
7 9,172 1.56 min
8 8,051 1.46 min
9 9,344 1.42 m,n
10 11,019 1.66 min
11 8,380 1.43 min
12 21,620 5.53 min
13 20,049 4.95 min
14 7,867 2.76 min
15 13,947 2.35 min
16 21,029 2.39 min
17 20,935 2.09 min
18 51,905 0.00 min
19 33,531 5.03 min
20 62,075 0.00 min
21 11,313 2.73 min
22 8,131 3.13 min
23 5,961 2.41 min
24 8,439 3.08 min
BACKWATER CALCULATION SUMMARY
Preliminary design assumes that each system in a network time peaks at the same time that
the cumulative peak flow from the systems upstream reach the node. This will yield an
preliminary design for pipe sizing.
Pipe Network 1 contains systems 1-5
Node SystemT0 System Q Q,otal Description
1 6.54 1.59 1.59
2 4.00 1.13 2.72
3 4.00 0.59 3.31
4 4.00 0.52 3.83
5 1.83 0.66 4.49
Outlet 4.49
Pipe Network 2 contains systems 6-12
Node SystemT0 System Q Q total Description
6 1.90 0.58 0.58
7 1.56 0.37 0.94
8 1.46 0.32 1.26
9 1.42 0.37 1.64
10 1.66 0.44 208
11 1.43 0.33 2.41
12 5.53 0.86 3.27
Outlet 3.27
Pipe Network 3 contains systems 13-19
Node SystemT0 System Q 0101a1 Description
13 4.95 0.80 0.80
14 2.76 0.31 1.11
15 2.35 0.56 1.67
16 2.39 0.84 2.51
17 2.09 0.83 3.34
18 0.00 2.07 5.41 roof drain line assume 6.3 min
19 5.03 1.34 6.75 switched to 15" pipe
Outlet 6.75
Pipe Network 4 contains systems 20 & 21
Node SystemT0 System Q 0101a1 Description
20 0.00 2.47 2.47 roof drain line assume 6.3 min
21 2.73 0.45 2.93
Outlet 2.93
Pipe Network 5 contains systems 22 & 24
Node SystemT0 System Q Ototal Description
22 3.13 0.32 0.32
23 2.41 0.24 0.56
24 3.08 0.34 0.90
Outlet 0.90
,t
3: i __:_:_
~~§
-
-
' ~ ~
0 -
~
~~ r~
~
i
0 0
~~~ggg
000000
:;; 0 0 ~ 0 <O <C
:::: ::;i ~ ;t ~ ~ ~
0 .-< ,._ 0 0 0 .-<
ci ci ci ci ci O 0
' ~;i;:J;?;~l!J;:'.;
g ~ ~
0 0 0
:;:p·~.5;~~tfltf;
~;::::;:i;;~;Q;'.';
" ;::: ;:.: ~ ;:J ~ ~ ~
~888888
ociooooci
.
;g g g ;g c:!;
C!C!C!C!C!
0 0 0 0 0
~ ;Q ;Q ;Q )!j )!j ;
0 0 0 0 0 C! C!
0 0
,... ,... ,.. 0 0
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci
ci ci ci ci ci 0
0 0
~~~<>j~~~
;'.';;Q;Q;Q~).';j).';j
0 0 ci
Osososo:=::=::=:os
ci ci ci ci ~ 0 ~
c
0 0
N N N N N N N
"'1 "'1 <'l O Om 0 .....
~ ~ ~ :::i ~ :;1l "!
0
0 ci O ci ci ci ci
ci ci ci ci
• ;:J;:; ;Q l!U:l :,!; ~
ci ci
LL
-L..
ci 0
LL
ci ci
' '
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :=: :=: ~ ~ ~ ;:J ~ ;Q ;Q )!j ).';j ;:J ~
,lo • " ci Q C
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 "'! 0 8 0
0 0 0 0 ci ci ci
LL
L..L..
LL
LL
I-L..
•
""
LL
8 8
ci ci
I-L..
'-'-
"! "l "!
000
ci O 0
ci d ci
0 C! 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
APPENDIXE
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Long Acres Business Park
SW 27th Avenue and Naches Avenue SW
Renton, Washington
Project No. T-7159
Terra Associates, Inc.
Prepared for:
Ryan Companies
Phoenix, Arizona
January 26, 2015
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
Mr. Joel Wage
Ryan Companies
3900 East Camelback Road, Suite I 00
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
Subject:
Dear Mr. Wage:
Geotechnical Report
Long Acres Business Park
SW 27thAvenue and Naches Avenue SW
Renton, Washington
January 26, 2015
Project No. T-7159
As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. The attached report
presents our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction.
Our field exploration indicates the site is generally underlain by one to three inches of topsoil overlying three to
nine feet of medium dense to dense inorganic fill material overlying alluvial silts and sands. The upper alluvium
is composed predominantly of loose to medium dense silt, sandy silt, and silty sand. CPT data indicates highly
variable interbedded alluvial soils composed of silts, clays, and silty sand layers are present to a depth of 15 to 28
feet followed by dense to very dense silty sand and sand to the termination depths of the CPTs, 50 feet. In
general, where fine grained sediments (silt and clay soils) are indicated, correlated N60 values, indicate
consistencies in the medium stiff to stiff range. Where cohesionless (sand) sediments are indicated, correlated N 60
values indicate relative densities in the medium dense to dense range. Groundwater was observed at a depth of 2
to 15 feet below current site grades in the test pit excavations at the time of our field work. Cone penetration test
data indicate groundwater within 12 feet of the current surface. Previous studies indicate the groundwater is
within seven feet of the surface.
In our opinion, the medium dense and soft alluvial soils will not be capable of supporting moderate to heavy
building loads using spread footing foundations. To provide suitable support, without risk of detrimental
differential building settlement, we recommend supporting the buildings on pile foundations or other ground
improvement. For light building loads, spread footing foundations can be considered following application of a
surcharge program to pre-consolidate the compressible soils to limit post construction settlements to tolerable
levels.
12.525 Willows Road NE, Suite JO'!, Kirkland, Washington 98034
Phone (425) 821-7777 • Fax (425) 821-4334
Mr. Joel Wage
January 26, 2015
Detailed geotechnical engineering recommendations regarding these issues along with other geotechnical design
and construction considerations are swnmarized in the attached report.
Project No. T-7159
Page No. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................. !
3.0 Site Conditions ................................................................................................................ 2
3.1 Snrface ................................................................................................................ 2
3.2 Soils .................................................................................................................... 2
3.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................................... 3
4.0 Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................................ 3
4 .1 Seismic Considerations ..................................................................................... .3
4.2 Erosion Hazard Areas ......................................................................................... 4
4.3 Landslide Hazard Areas ..................................................................................... 5
5.0 Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................................. 5
5.1 General ............................................................................................................... 5
5.2 Site Preparation and Grading ............................................................................. 5
5.3 Preload/Surcharge .............................................................................................. 7
5 .4 Excavation .......................................................................................................... 8
5.5 Foundations ..................................................................................................... : .. 8
5.6 Slab-on-Grade Construction ............................................................................. I I
5.7 Lateral Earth Pressures for Wall Design .......................................................... 11
5.8 Drainage ........................................................................................................... 12
5.9 Utilities ............................................................................................................. 12
5.10 Pavements ......................................................................................................... 12
6.0 Additional Services ....................................................................................................... 13
7.0 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 13
Figures
Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................... Figure I
Exploration Location Plan ................................................................................................... Figure 2
Approximately Location of Old Stockpile .......................................................................... Figure 3
Typical Wall Drainage Detail ............................................................................................. Figure 4
Settlement Marker Detail .................................................................................................... Figure 5
Appendix
Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing .................................................................... Appendix A
Geotechnical Report
Long Acres Business Park
SW 27th Avenue and Naches Avenue SW
Renton, Washington
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will consist of developing the approximately 12-acre site with a 2-story 60,000 square-foot
office/warehouse building, a 3-story 46,666 square-foot office building along with associated access, parking, and
utility improvements. The site plan dated December 5, 2014 shows the 3-story building in the northwest portion
of the site and the 2-story building in the southeast portion of the site. The two buildings will likely be connected
by a covered walkway.
Both structures will be constructed using precast concrete wall panels with interior columns supporting upper
level floors and the roof structure. As we understand, the three-story building will have perimeter wall loads
ranging from 8 to 10 kips per foot with interior columns carrying 400 to 500 kips. Structural loading on the two-
story building will likely include perimeter wall loads ranging from 6 to 8 kips per foot with interior columns
carrying 100 to 200 kips. Uniform distribution of product loading on the slab-on-grade floors is not expected to
exceed 150 pounds per square foot (psf).
The recommendations in the following sections of this report are based on our understanding of the design
features outlined above. We should review design drawings as they become available to verify that our
recommendations have been properly interpreted and to supplement them, ifrequired.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
Our work was completed in accordance with our proposal dated September 5, 2014. On January 7, 2015, In-Stu
Engineering, under subcontract with Terra Associates, Inc., performed 3 cone penetration tests (CPTs) to depths
of 50 feet below existing surface grades. On January 8, 2014, we excavated 10 soil test pits to depths of 7 to 15.5
feet below current site grades. Using this data, along with the soil data obtained from previous studies, we
preformed analyses to develop geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction. Specifically,
this report addresses the following:
• Soil and groundwater conditions
• Seismic Site Class per 2012 International Building Code (IBC)
• Geologic Hazards per City of Renton Municipal Code
• Site preparation and grading
• Surcharge/preload
• Excavation
• Foundations, including pile and ground improvement recommendations
• Slab-on-grade floors
• Earth pressure parameters for design of below-grade walls and lateral restraint.
• Drainage
• Utilities
• Pavement
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 Surface
January 26, 2015
Project No. T-7159
The project site is rectangular shaped, consisting of 5 tax parcels totaling approximately 12 acres located south
and west of the intersection of SW 27th Avenue and Naches Avenue SW in Renton, Washington. The
approximate location of the site is shown on Figure I.
The .site is currently undeveloped and covered with a moderate growth of brush, weeds, and grass. Site
topography is generally flat with a slight slope that descends to the north. There is a drop off in the northeast
corner of the site and along the northern property line where the previous grading was stopped. The grade drops
approximately four to five feet in this area. There is also a retaining wall in the northeast corner that was
constructed with SW 27th Avenue was extended. The site was graded in 2007/2008 when the detention pond to
the south and roadway to the east were constructed. At that time approximately five feet of fill was placed on the
northern portion of the site. Also, a large stockpile of material was removed and the material was placed around
the site.
3.2 Soils
In general, soil conditions we observed at the test pits consisted of one to three inches of topsoil overlying three to
nine feet of mectium dense to dense inorganic fill material overlying alluvial silts and sands. The upper alluvium
is composed predominantly of loose to medium dense silt, sandy silt, and silty sand. CPT data indicates highly
variable interbedded alluvial soils composed of silts, clays, and silty sand layers are present to a depth of 20 to 28
feet followed by dense to very dense silty sand and sand to the termination depths of the CPTs, 50 feet. In
general, where fme grained sediments (silt and clay soils) are indicated, correlated N 60 values, indicate
consistencies in the medium stiff to stiff range. Where cohesionless (sand) sediments are indicated, correlated N60
values indicate relative densities in the medium dense to dense range.
The Geological Map of the Renton Quadrangle, Washington, by D.R. Mullineaux (1965) maps the site as
Alluvium (Qaw). This mapped description is consistent with the native soil we observed at depth in the test pits
and indicated by the CPT data.
The preceding discussion is intended to be a brief review of the soil conditions observed at the site. More detailed
descriptions are presented on the Test Pit and CPT Logs attached in Appenctix A.
Page No. 2
3.3 Groundwater
January 26, 2015
Project No. T-7159
Minor to heavy groundwater seepage was observed in two test pits, TP-3 and TP-10 at 4, 15, and 2 feet below
current site grades, respectively. The shallow groundwater observed (2 and 4 feet) appears to be perched
groundwater within the existing fill stratum. The deeper groundwater (15 feet) observed is likely more
representative of the groundwater table associated with the site.
We also evaluated groundwater conditions at the site by perfonning a pore water dissipation test at CPT-2 at 15
feet below current site grades. A pressure transducer mounted behind the tip of the cone measures the pore water
pressure as the cone is advanced. Dissipation testing consists of terminating cone advancement and allowing the
pore water pressure to stabilize. Once stabilized, the pressure reading represents the head of water above the cone
tip. The results of the dissipation testing are included with the CPT Log attached in Appendix A.
Dissipation testing indicated the static groundwater table was at a depth of about 12 feet. This is consistent with
the deeper groundwater seepage we observed in Test Pit TP-3. Considering the time of year our study took place,
in our opinion, the static groundwater level indicated likely represents the near seasonal high level that could be
expected at the site. Previous studies indicated the groundwater level was at seven feet below existing native site
grades at that time which is consistent with current conditions.
4.0
4.1
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Seismic Considerations
Section 4-3-050 J. l .d of the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) defines a seismic hazard as either "i. Low
Seismic Hazard (SL): Areas underlain by dense soils or bedrock. These soils generally have site coefficients of
types SI or S2, as defined in the International Building Code.
ii. High Seismic Hazard (SH): Areas underlain by soft or loose, saturated soils. These soils generally have site
coefficients of types S3 or S4, as defined in the International Building Code. (Ord. 5450, 3-2-2009)"
Based on the soil and groundwater conditions observed, the site would be mapped as a High Seismic Hazard (SH)
per the RMC.
Based on the soil conditions encountered and the local geology, per Section 16 of the 2012 International Building
Code (IBC) for seismic conditions, site class "D" should be used in design of the structure. Based on this site
class, in accordance with the 2012 IBC, the following parameters should be used in computing seismic forces:
Seismic Design Parameters ([BC 2012)
Soectral response acceleration ( Short Period), SMs 1.439
Spectral response acceleration (1 -Second Period), SM, 0.804
Five oercent damoed .2 second oeriod, Sos 0.959
Five oercent damped 1.0 second period, S01 0.536
Values detennined using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Ground Motion Parameter Calculator
accessed on January 19, 2015 at the web site http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.
Page No. 3
Soil Liquefactio11
January 26, 2015
Project No. T-7159
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in
pore water pressure induced by vibrations from a seismic event. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent
deposits of fine-grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Soils of this nature derive their strength from
intergranular friction. The generated water pressure or pore pressure essentially separates the soil grains and
eliminates this intergranular friction; thus, eliminating the soil's strength.
As described earlier, the soils indicated at the site by the CPT data consist of highly variable interbedded layers of
fine grained sediments (silts and clays) and cohesionless layers composed of silty sand, sandy silt, and relatively
clean sand. The consistency of the fine grained sediments indicate that they would exhibit sufficient undrained
strength to offset shear stresses imposed during an earthquake and would resist the liquefaction phenomenon. The
indicated relative density of the coarser alluvial sediments also indicates that these layers have likely liquefied
during past seismic events, thus increasing their relative density and making them more resistant to liquefaction
during future events.
We completed a liquefaction analysis using the computer program LiquifyPro following procedures outlined by
Seed and Idriss. The analysis was completed using a ground acceleration of .32g, which represents acceleration
that could be expected for an earthquake having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (return
period ofonce per 500 years).
The impact to the site should liquefaction occur will be in the form of surface subsidence or settlement.
Estimated total potential settlement from our analysis is in the range of two to three inches. Given the variability
of the soils, all of this settlement could be differential in nature. In our opinion, this amount of settlement would
not structurally impact the building but could result in damage of a cosmetic nature.
4.2 Erosion Hazard Areas
Section 4-3-050 J.l.c of the RMC defines an erosion hazard as either "i. Low Erosion Hazard (EL): Areas with
soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as
having slight or moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than fifteen percent (15%).
ii. High Erosion Hazard (EH): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more
steeply than 15 percent."
The soils observed on-site are classified as Newberg Silt Loam, Woodinville Silt Loam, and Puget Silty Clay
Loam by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly
the Soil Conservation Service. Over most of the site with the existing slope gradients, these soils will have a
slight potential for erosion when exposed. Therefore, the site is considered a low erosion hazard area by the City
of Renton. Regardless, erosion protection measures as required by the City of Renton will need to be in place
prior to starting grading activities on the site. This would include perimeter silt fencing to contain erosion on-site
and cover measures to prevent or reduce soil erosion during and following construction.
Page No. 4
4.3 Landslide Hazard Areas
January 26, 2015
Project No. T-7159
Section 4-3-050 J. l .b of the RMC defines a landslide hazard area as either "i. Low Landslide Hazard (LL): Areas
with slopes less than 15 percent.
ii. Medium Landslide Hazard (LM): Areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent and underlain by soils
that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till.
iii. High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with slopes greater than 40 percent, and areas with slopes between 15
percent and 40 percent and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay.
iv. Very High Landslide Hazards (LV): Areas of known mappable landslide deposits."
Based on the existing site topography there are no slopes that are greater than 15 percent, therefore, it is our
opinion that the site is a low landslide hazard as defined by the RMC.
5.0
5.1
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on our study, m our op1mon, development of the site as proposed is feasible from a geotechnical
engineering standpoint. The primary geotechnical concern at the site is the presence of compressible soil strata
susceptible to consolidation under the planned building loads. For the heavier three-story building, in our
opinion, mitigating potential settlement-related impacts would best be accomplished by supporting the structure
on piles or on spread footings bearing on groWld conditions improve by installation of ranW1ed aggregate
piers/stone columns. For the lighter loaded two-story building, support on conventional spread footings could
also be considered following completion of a building fill surcharge program.
The soils observed at the site contain a significant amount of fines and will be difficult to compact as structural
fill when too wet. The ability to use native soil and existing fill soils from site excavations as structural fill will
depend on its moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. If grading
activities will take place during winter, the owner should be prepared to import clean granular material for use as
structural fill and backfill. Alternatively, stabilizing the moisture in the native and existing fill soils with cement
or lime can be considered.
Detailed recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical design considerations are provided in the
following sections. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings and
construction specifications.
5.2 Site Preparation and Grading
To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious material should be
stripped and removed from the site. Surface stripping depths ranging from one 10 three inches should be expected
to remove the organic surface soils. Organic topsoil will not be suitable for use as structural fill, but may be used
for limited depths in nonstructural areas.
Page No. 5
January 26, 2015
Project No. T-7159
Once stripping operations are complete, cut and fill operations can be initiated to establish desired building
grades. Prior to placing fill, all exposed bearing surfaces should be observed by a representative of Terra
Associates to verify soil conditions are as expected and suitable for support of new fill or building elements. Onr
representative may request a proofroll using heavy rubber-tired equipment to determine if any isolated soft and
yielding areas are present. If excessively yielding areas are observed, and they cannot be stabilized in place by
compaction, the affected soils should be excavated and removed to firm bearing and grade restored with new
structural fill. If the depth of excavation to remove unstable soils is excessive, the use of geotextile fabrics, such
as Mirafi 500X, or an equivalent fabric, can be used in conjunction with clean granular structural fill. Our
experience has shown that, in general, a minimum of 18 inches of a clean, granular structural fill place and
compacted over the geotextile fabric should establish a stable bearing surface.
If buildings will be supported on conventional spread footings the footings must bear on a minimum of two feet of
structural fill. The existing fill material observed at the site generally meets these criteria. As there is three to
nine feet of existing medium dense to dense fill material at the site overexcavation and replacement of existing
soils may not be required under the foundations. As recommended, this should be confirmed by observation
during site grading and preparation activities.
The ability to use native and existing fill soil from site excavations as structural fill will depend on its moisture
content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. If wet soils are encountered, the
contractor will need to dry the soils by aeration during dry weather conditions. If grading activities are planned
during the wet winter months, or if they are initiated during the summer and extend into fall and winter, the owner
should be prepared to import wet weather structural fill. For this purpose, we recommend importing a granular
soil that meets the following grading requirements:
U.S. Siev_e Size Percent Passin2
6 inches 100
No.4 75maximum
No. 200 5 maximum*
* Based on the 3/4-inch fraction.
Prior to use, Terra Associates, Inc. should examine and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural
fill.
Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding I 2 inches and compacted to a minimum of
95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction
should be within two percent of its optimum, as determined by this ASTM standard. In nonstructural areas, the
degree of compaction can be reduced to 90 percent.
Page No. 6
5.3 Preload/Surcharge
January 26, 2015
Project No. T-7159
For building column loads of up to 200 kips, in our opinion, the building could be supported on conventional
spread footing foundations with potential differential foundation settlement mitigated by implementation of a
surcharge program. The surcharge program consists of placing fill material over the building footprint to pre-
consolidate the compressible soils. The amount and rate of settlement is monitored and once primary settlements
have occurred the surcharge is removed and building construction can commence. The proposed location of the
2-story building is within the area of a large stockpile of material that was removed in 2007/2008. The new
surcharge can be limited to the area outside of this old stockpile. A figure showing the approximate location of
the old stockpile and new building outline is attached as Figure 3.
Following preparation of the foundation subgrade as outlined in Section 5 .2, we recommend placing a minimum
of five feet of fill above the finished floor grade in the building area. The surcharge fill does not need to meet any
special requirements other than having a minimum in place unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot (pct).
However, it may be advisable to use a good quality fill that can be used to raise grades in other portions of the
site, such as parking and driveway areas, if necessary. The surcharge fill should extend a minimum of five feet
beyond the edge of the perimeter building footings.
We estimate that total settlement under the surcharge fill will be in the range of four to five inches. It is estimated
that 90 percent of the consolidation settlement will occur in about four to six weeks following full application of
the surcharge.
To verify the amount of settlement and the time rate of movement, the surcharge program should be monitored by
installing settlement markers. The settlement markers should be installed on the existing grade prior to placing
any surcharge fill. Once installed, elevations of both the fill height and marker should be taken daily until the full
height of the surcharge is in place. Once fully surcharged, readings should continue weekly until the anticipated
settlements have occurred. Monitoring data should be forwarded to us within two days after it is obtained for
review and comment. A typical settlement marking detail is shown on Figure 4.
It is critical that the grading contractor recognize the importance of the settlement marker installations. All efforts
must be made to protect the markers from damage during fill placement. It is difficult, if not impossible, to
evaluate the progress of the pre load program if the markers are damaged or destroyed by construction equipment.
If the markers are impacted, it may be necessary to install new markers and extend the surcharging time period in
order to ensure that settlements have ceased and building construction can begin.
Following the successful completion of the surcharge program, with foundations supported on a minimum of two
feet of granular structural fill and dimensioned as recommended in Section 5.5 of this report, you should expect
maximum total and differential post-construction settlement of about one-inch and one-half inch, respectively.
Floor slab settlements of less than one-fourth inch are estimated for areas subjected to a uniform slab loading of
150 pounds per square foot (psf).
Page No. 7
5.4 Excavation
January 26, 2015
Project No. T-7159
All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches, must be completed in
accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. Based on regulations outlined in the Washington
Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA), the native soils would be classified as Type C soils. Temporary
excavation side slopes in Type C soils can be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1.5:1
(Horizontal:Vertical). If there is insufficient room to complete the excavations in this manner, using temporary
shoring to support the excavations may need to be considered. A properly designed and installed shoring trench
box can be used to support utility trench excavation sidewalls.
Based on conditions we observed, groundwater will be encountered within excavations extending depths of 7 to
12 feet below existing surface grades. For excavation depths that extend two feet below the groundwater table,
dewatering using conventional sump pumps along with collector trenches should be capable of maintaining a
relatively dry excavation and would not be expected to impact the stability of the excavation when completed, as
described above. For deeper excavating, dewatering by well point or deep pumped wells will be required to
maintain a dry and stable excavation. The dewatering system should be designed and implemented by an
experienced dewatering well contractor.
This information is provided solely for the benefit of.the owner and other design consultants, and should not be
construed to imply that Terra Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that job
site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor.
5.5 Foundations
In our opinion, following the successful implementation of the surcharge program, as outlined in Section 5.3 of
this report the 2-story building can be supported on conventional spread footing foundations. If the owner is not
willing to accept some risk with respect to building settlement, or static dead plus live column loads exceed 200
kips, then we recommend supporting the building on piles or ground improved using rammed aggregated piers
/stone columns. Recommendations for design of pile foundations follow recommendations for spread footings.
Spread Footings
In our opinion, following successful completion of a surcharge program, the 2-story building may be supported on
conventional spread footing foundations bearing on a minimum of two feet of structural fill, as recommended in
Section 5.2 of this report. Foundations exposed to the weather should bear at a minimum depth of 1.5 feet below
adjacent grades for frost protection. Interior foundations can be supported at any convenient depth below the
floor slab, provided immediate support is obtained on a minimum of two feet of structural fill.
We recommend designing foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. For short-term loads,
such as wind and seismic, a one-third increase in this allowable capacity can be used. Following successful
completion of the surcharge program with the expected building loads and this bearing stress applied, in general,
total and differential settlements should not exceed one-inch and one-half inch, respectively.
Page No. 8
January 26, 2015
Project No. T-7159
For designing fow1dations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.35 can be used. Passive earth
pressures acting on the sides of the footings can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral
resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pcf. We do not recommend including the upper 12 inches of
soil in this computation because it can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value
assumes the fow1dation will be backfilled with structural fill, as described in Section 5.2 of this report. The
values recommended include a safety factor of 1.5.
Augercast Piles
Augercast piles are constructed by advancing a hollow-stem auger into the ground to a predetermined tip
elevation. When the bearing depth is achieved, grout is injected under pressure through the stem of
the auger, which is then slowly extracted from the ground. Reinforcing steel, as required, is then set
into the completed grout column.
We recommend that augercast piles obtain end bearing support in the dense to very dense sand layer
observed at depths of 20 to 28 feet below current site grades. With piles advanced to these elevations, the
following allowable axial pile capacities for 18-inch pile diameters can be used in design:
Pile Diameter Axial Capacity
(ki os) (inches)
Comnression Unlift
18 77 45
These allowable capacities are provided with a safety factor of2.0.
Following the successful installation of the augercast piles, maximum total settlements of about one-
inch should be expected.
Lateral Pile Capacity Analy.,is
Lateral pile load capacity analyses were performed for a single pile. The analyses assume that the pile will act as
a beam under vertical loading. The vertical loading follows the allowable pile capacities above. For the analyses,
we used the computer program LPilE Plus 5.0.
The design lateral load available will be dependent on the allowable lateral deflection than can be tolerated. The
following table provides single pile lateral capacities for deflections of one-inch at the top of the pile for both free
and fixed head conditions for 18-inch piles:
Lateral Pile Capacity
Lateral Pile Capacity Lateral Pile Capacity
Pile Head Deflection Free-Head Condition Fixed-Head Condition
(kips) (kips) (inches)
Pile Diameter Pile Diameter
18 inches 18 inches
1.00 6 15
Page No. 9
January 26, 2015
Project No. T-7159
The maximum moment in the piles or poim of zero shear occurs at a depth of seven feet for the freehead
condition. The point of zero shear occurs at a depth of 15.6 feet for the fixed head condition. Fixing moment at
the pile cap/grade beam connection for the fixed-head condition is 130 ft-kips.
In addition to the lateral pile capacities, additional lateral resistance will be provided by passive earth pressure
acting adjacent to the buried portions of the pile caps and grade beams. Passive resistance equivalent to a fluid
weighing 200 pcf can be used to calculate this lateral resistance.
Full single-pile capacities may be used provided pile spacing is a minimum of three-pile diameters. For closer
spacing, there may be a slight reduction in the allowable capacity due to group effects particularly for lateral
loading effects. The amount of reduction will depend on the number of piles in the group and their spacing. We
should be contacted to provide this information, if required.
Construction Considerations
The auger should be extracted slowly and uniformly below a sufficient and consistent head of grout. If the auger
is extracted too quickly, the pile may neck down and soil may collapse into the pile, reducing its structural
integrity. At a point along the injection line, the piling contractor should use a pressure gauge to monitor the
grout pressure during construction.
The pressure used to inject the grout and construct the pile column will compress the soils immediately adjacent
the pile. As a result, the amount of grout needed to form the pile will be greater than tbe computed grout volume.
There will also be excess grout used to construct the piles because of the head of grout in the hollow stem auger
that is required to construct the pile. Minimum grout takes should typically exceed the theoretical grout volume
by 10 to 15 percent. Accounting for compression of the soils, maximum grout takes of 1.5 to 1.8 times the
theoretical volumes should be expected. The contractor must take this into consideration in estimating grout
volumes. The grout pump should be calibrated with a stroke counter to allow for monitoring and verifying the
amount of grout used to construct the pile.
The pile installation sequence should be such that piles are constructed at a minimum spacing of five diameters.
Once the grout has achieved its initial set, usually in 24 hours, installation between these locations can be
completed.
Ground Improvement Alternative
As an alternative to surcharge or piles, consideration can be given to using ground other improvement techniques
to establish suitable support for conventional spread footing designs. Methods that could be considered include
vibrated stone columns or GeoPiers (aggregate rammed piers). Both of these methods create highly densified
columns of graded aggregate that would extend through the upper softer soils a short depth into the underlying
dense sands. Because of the methods used to construct the columns some improvement of the adjacent soils is
also realized. Once constructed, conventional spread footing foundations can be designed to bear immediately
above the stone colurnn/GeoPier locations.
Page No. 10
January 26, 2015
Project No. T-7159
These b'Tound improvement techniques are typically completed on a design/build approach with both design and
construction completed by a specialty contractor. We can assist in contracting and selecting the specialty
contractor, if desired.
5.6 Slab-on-Grade Construction
Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on subgrades prepared as recommended in Section 5.2 of this report.
Immediately below the floor slabs, we recommend placing a four-inch thick capillary break layer of clean, free-
draining, coarse sand or fine gravel that has less than three percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This material will
reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting
of the floor slabs.
The capillary break layer will not prevent moisture intrusion through the slab caused by water vapor transmission.
Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, such as covered floor areas, a common practice is to place a
durable plastic membrane on the capillary break layer and then cover the membrane with a layer of clean sand or
fine gravel to protect it from damage during construction, and aid in uniform curing of the concrete slab. It
should be noted that if the sand or gravel layer overlying the membrane is saturated prior to pouring the slab, it
will be ineffective in assisting uniform curing of the slab, and can actually serve as a water supply for moisture
transmission through the slab and affecting floor coverings. Therefore, in our opinion, covering the membrane
with a layer of sand or gravel should be avoided if floor slab construction occurs during the wet winter months
and the layer cannot be effectively drained. We recommend floor designers and contractors refer to the 2003
American Concrete Institute (AC!) Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 2, 302.lR-96, for further information
regarding vapor barrier installation below slab-on-grade floors.
5.7 Lateral Earth Pressures for Wall Design
The magnitude of earth pressure development on below-grade walls will partly depend on the quality of the wall
backfill. We recommend placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill as described in Section 5.2 of this
report. To guard against hydrostatic pressure development, wall drainage must also be installed. A typical
recommended wall drainage detail is shown on Figure 5.
With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended, and drainage properly installed, we recommend
designing unrestrained walls for an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pounds per cubic foot
(pcf). For restrained walls, an additional uniform load of 100 psf should be added to the 35 pcf. To account for
typical traffic surcharge loading, the walls can be designed for an additional imaginary height of two feet (two-
foot soil surcharge). For evaluation of wall performance under seismic loading, a uniform pressure equivalent to
8H psf, where H is the height of the below-grade portion of the wall should be applied in addition to the static
lateral earth pressure. These values assume a horizontal backfill condition and that no other surcharge loading,
sloping embankments, or adjacent buildings will act on the wall. If such conditions exist, then the imposed
loading must be included in the wall design. Friction at the base of foundations and passive earth pressure will
provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in Section 5.5 of this report.
Page No. 11
5.8
Surface
Drainage
January 26, 2015
Project No. T-7159
Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the site at all times. Water must not be
allowed to pond or collect adjacent to foundations or within the immediate building areas. We recommend
providing a positive drainage gradient away from the building perimeters. If this gradient cannot be provided,
surface water should be collected adjacent to the structures and disposed to appropriate storm facilities.
Subsurface
We recommend installing perimeter foundation drains adjacent to shallow foundations. The drains can be laid to
grade at an invert elevation equivalent to the bottom of footing grade. The drains can consist of four-inch
diameter perforated PVC pipe that is enveloped in washed pea gravel-sized drainage aggregate. The aggregate
should extend six inches above and to the sides of the pipe. Roof and foundation drains should be tightlined
separately to the storm drains. All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations.
5.9 Utilities
Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA),
or City of Renton specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill,
as described in Section 5.2 of this report. The native alluvial soils will likely be excavated in a wet condition and
would not be suitable for use as trench backfill unless dried back to a moisture content that will facilitate proper
compaction. If utility construction takes place during the wet winter months, it will likely be necessary to import
suitable wet weather fill for utility trench backfilling.
Excavations into the native soils below the groundwater table will likely expose soft soils that will be unstable
and would not provide suitable support for the utility pipes when backfilled. When soft unstable soils are
exposed, the utility contractor should be prepared to overexcavate and remove the soils and replace them with
crushed rock or bedding aggregate to establish a stable pipe foundation. Given conditions indicated by the CPTs,
we would not expect overexcavation and replacement of soils for establishing stable pipe foundations would
exceed two feet.
5.10 Pavements
Existing granular fill soils should be suitable as a subgrade soil for support of pavements. Pavement subgrades
should be prepared as structural fill as described in Section 5.2 of this report. Regardless of the degree ofrelative
compaction achieved, the subgrade must be firm and relatively unyielding before paving. The subgrade should be
proofrolled with heavy construction equipment to verify this condition.
We anticipate traffic in the parking areas will mainly consist oflight passenger and commercial vehicles with only
occasional heavy traffic in the form of buses, delivery, and refuse removal vehicles. Based on this infomiation,
with a stable subgrade prepared as recommended, we recommend the following pavement sections:
• Two inches of hot mix asphalt (HMA) over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB)
• Four inches full depth HMA
Page No. 12
January 26, 2015
Project No. T-7159
For travel lanes that will be subjected to regular bus or other heavy vehicle traffic, we recommend increasing the
thickness of the HMA surfacing to three inches and five inches, respectively.
The materials used to construct the pavement section should conform to the current edition of the Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOD Standard Specifications for Yi-inch class HMA and CRB.
Long-tenn pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. A poorly-drained pavement section will be
subject to premature failure as a result of surface water infiltrating the subgrade soils and reducing their
supporting capability. For optimum performance, we recommend surface drainage gradients of at least two
percent. Some degree of longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over
time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks as they occur.
6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Terra Associates, Inc. should review the final design drawings and specifications in order to verify that earthwork
and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in project design. We should
also provide geotechnical services during construction to observe compliance with our design concepts,
specifications, and recommendations. This will allow for design changes if subsurface conditions differ from
those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is the copyrighted property of Terra Associates, Inc. and is
intended for specific application to the Long Acres Business Park project. This report is for the exclusive use of
Ryan Companies and their authorized representatives.
The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from the CPTs performed
and test pits excavated on the site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not
become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to
reevaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction.
Page No. 13
Tittl< llr :
/ 1 ,lll h·/' i ~
&\·. i·.
.
'1.f ~ i <
,, -§ -~ ..
!:I: SOUTHCEIHER
,,._
f
~
,1-
:l Coa.lco@
I
REFERENCE: GOOGLE MAPS 2015
. Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnica! Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
i
: I
i
f ..
~ I
I
I
0 i
(
l
'
1000
PROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
VICINITY MAP
LONG ACRES BUSINESS PARK
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Proj. No.T-7159 Date JAN 2015 Figure 1
., ... :. l''t!-' • ml. 111 i
•ill I i'I I ..-~ , : I
: 'j-,
11 I
·--~~-· '/''' -f F" -i'"
'. '~~~ \_.;_=:-=--'--~=~:~r--~~-.:,~-r-;---;=;:-~----~~::---_-::,,~ .... =---j;--r ·--
,i-11,~/ ,i--~~-r:::-"----~,~-=u~ 11 11---C1;r_ _____ --... " ________ , 1 ___ --~-i:~ __ .!---
<0 -Q~.:·-----0, .. -~~-_}.,.r~-: 1,LJ'---~:r~'J':~:~~:,:_:r.:"J.t~':. ::""_~R~---..
\ ~ \ ;t t \" ' -TP~==-=~---------:lF ----------"~~---;CPT-J
;1,I I \ \ \ i TP-9 --'] \\ l'-~1 I '----; \ i--....,.---~ -~
... t ...... . -+,,-
\ 'i \1lii .n••·· : t'\. II ,.,, ingg
111 l,1 ,§,
'I
~
,, \ ' ' ,, ' ' ',\ I "\ I l'iil\ I ~----',
'1' , . , o ,, nl , , .a:J .: u n·. "/ g' 1 ~ \__ '-. ! -----r -l \ \ . \1 i I ' ilf" '1 . : ! I' : , '6 I; 11 !! :--~--"O -----~ : , \ ,1 ., -< '··,, '7 --+-' I , \•"l
1
., = li l~c8 ~ , ..-0 ,,( . .; _ , < \' I' ~ i : 1/ ' I ! '-,:: I ~ U. as~ ~ ~ 8 V"l : is 0
i··~
I " 1-r-ilH
..._ ..... .,, .. ..,.
,ii 11
11.
111
NOTE:
. -· ,. ,a-
.ii
!' ~-
fl!!~
i"m ....
~
I t i : : . ' ' . ) '°%· II / '""" /§'3 E = '"" O , -is , i: 1 \ \ ..... /,. ... .--.~----., i ~' /1 : I) v§;S ~-20.I ~~':;~ ! -~ 5
1 , -\ r--;-' rl 1 / n ( n,"" • . ,~ ~\£---::~i~ j!; " , -j i
idi: -_ \ \ LJ: '. ! u---:~( : 1 u{ rJ 4 rn ~I _f(~il',~'-. I ~~:I
1!1 ..... I I .--/ // I-..-r-fi~u..-<( '-'Oq~
1j \, I ) ___ Y Ir _ _ L __ , -----~:il<
1 , I , ; ! 0, I jJ a ffi , I I I '----,', ,.-1 I -' I I I ' U_;_ \ ~-:-.._ ~r / \ I l \~--~'!::::!
1:1-
1
/. l\ -~-' --.... ..-..-~~j...........,_ :::__ -\ / I ·\ ___ ::::2 -, \ ' I
' 1n . 1 ,+-_,--TPe '-..,., , , , \ ~I J 1:,-·-\-· ,,,._,_ 1 :.
• -. 1: I, l'iil , '..L _]_ . -['"'Y u· , , 'it l I, I' ~ \:, I --I , I ,'" \,, Ii -l -1, 1 111,! __ -----Lr_. .,:! 11 ~' ,'/ 11 / \I\ d O I ~ F ' ,,, ~ ~ i ' ll
~' :;/' : \\\ I -!11! \ /J \ ls~ ;iii 1' .. __ -</_../ '<\ \ i a/,--, '..._ ,.f._j l,._ , l \\ 1 §:, -'""' ,---t11v1; !ii
1
'In i , n ;;q _ -r-1 1. ri---
," -~ [_ \ \ j gE ~ L.. ) t1'(J ~g i:I I -/ LJ ; i u / § \ ~ LJ 1\ LJ il'.\ ' mO<j ---n: l5~ ~l!~ ~P-':,1·, / ,./"' '" \ /' \
tt I ~~l e \lt11 t: CPT-· _;1~·-~:J/_ i [ _ . rf, ~ ____ .. -----~~~---__ _; /_ I . / ' fii2 I \ ,'.~' .) r
-.~ (' t1 l _ ____ __ _____ , 1J-,l., ....
1
n. I 'i--l I -0J~
(',,J\' L -'s .,c::~ := ~' '-11~,=:~1 :~ ,<,. '_j L • u .. ,, I_J -~------u I~ ,,.J.
~ \<:_~~\< · ·, u '. ~-;~/-:-_ · .-~<] ~-:~~T~:-=~~~~::~--,:~-·~:~~~rf:-=.;-FI =-~;;-r;;,,-::::~?~=~f-~-:-~:~~~-f~~~~=~;~:~-~r
LJ-_ u>.::_-' :-:=:.-_ ;·:;;_:n+:'.:+~-;:;/Pl}:-----'.Tf-·t ·-:-;:t(~-t-~:rr:·':J_'":~-·'"11 ~;·, j' ': ' , ;/' LJ ' ' l'iil • / , ·--~1 ,, ,
.-u , '' ~\ '. /sl , ~-)I', \{,: --/·--·-! 'iit--_-----..,.~-----~--.... '\~~----~~k-1/i~ sf
,I '· , '-I , ... ..11 _ _,_,_: , · --''ll:+' · c-c , -f,--t!ll_. -----/L~~'i.lt 1!~
~
,''"
i in
~
-~b]\;11 _. ...
. ' :~ TP-3 ---\
".~//
D
11!11
!:1i1
§/
·-'-----'-'.-------H H• ~ i
~f±-y~-------.. __________ ,,,,
\~:-;
LEGEND:
~ APPROXIMATE CONE PENETRATION TEST LOCATION THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND
DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIM<\TE. IT IS INTENDED FOR
REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR
DESIGN DR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. ~ APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION
REFERENCE:SITE PLAN PRO\IIDED BY W.H. PACIFIC, ANO COLLINSWOERMAN.
---"s--=
so '60
-
Terra
Associates Inc.
Conwllants In Geotechnlcal l:nglneer1ng
EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN
LONG ACRES BUSINESS PARK
RENTON, WASHINGTON
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Envlro=~ ~:;'u, Sciences Proj. No.T-7159 Date JAN 2D15 Figure 2
~ •
' il
(
,),
i·1 "i 1,.
!xi
i
---------i
NOTE:
• .•
!I I \ Jii Q;
'i..... ·~-?" V
"-'-J ' . I -------.;---< -. ---. I
/ t~'!:salO'lw~
11 . !!! m n r-• Jam -~ ~~ >''/'-, .. _,._ ____ -..._..::·:__::-.:_:_-~=-~ I
'.f. -
~ =-·-·---
:.!!! -• . I II"~• -,----r-' .-
~~-u·-:--;-;
[r-0
-\ \ u ' '
t 11nl! .:u
iLJ 0 li-0
•;;
}!I I
. n ,
,-:i-i ! ! '
I: I:'·-.. -l.t;··'"ti
I_
D
l1.c___01 I , I · I
•O
~:
JL '\frr '11~~ ~·_-:,_ bl
'. !---\ §~i -·wbi J . -: .. <...'J~ ~-lllt!I!-r-~t,;J;
LEGEND:
r·:
--·~ ... ~
>• -,.m, , c ·:::u~" ..,
'1· t· " • 'C '. ii ,, (, Ql .!=' o ~,·u~ i a:iu.. , E-O '. i~-::-. ; tu J ~
i ,.;¥:'.( i i~ il' c 1,
' -~~ ~{i,~:,1?_ fil ~
,"2
•
Ol8_ ~~\I
Co ,ii'QC,/ji'i, it o -il"slVu. , ~-
~~ 111 ----, 'i\3f-
.---' ~~ !,1 ' 0 \ ____ ------' §8_ :,r§.,
i '
;-·--·
0 !
o:-,o
THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. All LOCATIONS AND ! ·_:::::::·-_._:::::_:_::) APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF NO SURCHARGE
~, 1~1-:: L
. l ,l -
' ;
10
. ' D
I
D
DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR
REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED F~
DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
REFERENCE: SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY W.H. PACIFIC. ANO COLLINS WOERMAN. 0
--. -----.;;;;;;:
"' '"
-
Terra
Associates Inc.
Consultanll! In Geoleohnk:al lngiieeMng
Geology and APPROXIMATE SCALE tN FEET Environm8fllal Earth Sci.,nces
" !I .f~ii ....
111
1~ftli!
jl• ,,1,
i• .§, ,,
--.. , ......
l',)d"~
\"3m I \ ::•1M /
I ~~
}~/
_,,
' m~ lt
APPROX. LOCATION OF OLD STOCKPILE
LONG ACRES BUSINESS PARK
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Proj. No.T-7159 Date JAN 2015 Figure 3
SURCHARGE
OR FILL
STEEL ROD~=
.
.
HEIGHT VARIES
(SEE NOTES)
' '
PROTECTIVE SLEEVE
SURCHARGE
OR FILL
I ;• ... / ·,,--.:,/.·';,.'-.-. , __ ,.v7 :-··--.---,· ,.,,·--:.c---.~--,--~~-~-----c:;:,::;,~,=;::::r,-----~
LJ
NOTTO SCALE
NOTES:
1. BASE CONSISTS OF 3/4" THICK, 2'x2' PLYWOOD WITH CENTER DRILLED 5/8" DIAMETER HOLE
2. BEDDING MATERIAL, IF REQUIRED, SHOULD CONSIST OF CLEAN COARSE SAND.
3. MARKER ROD IS 1/2" DIAMETER STEEL ROD THREADED AT BOTH ENDS.
4. MARKER ROD IS ATIACHED TO BASE BY NUT AND WASHER ON EACH SIDE OF BASE.
5. PROTECTIVE SLEEVE SURROUNDING MARKER ROD SHOULD CONSIST OF 2" DIAMETER
PLASTIC TUBING. SLEEVE IS NOT ATTACHED TO ROD OR BASE.
6. ADDITIONAL SECTIONS OF STEEL ROD CAN BE CONNECTED WITH THREADED COUPLINGS.
7. ADDITIONAL SECTIONS OF PLASTIC PROTECTIVE SLEEVE CAN BE CONNECTED WITH PRESS-FIT
PLASTIC COUPLINGS.
8. STEEL MARKER ROD SHOULD EXTEND AT LEAST 6" ABOVE TOP OF PLASTIC PROTECTIVE SLEEVE.
9. PLASTIC PROTECTIVE SLEEVE SHOULD EXTEND AT LEAST 1" ABOVE TOP OF FILL SURFACE.
SETTLEMENT MARKER DETAIL
LONG ACRES BUSINESS PARK
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Proj. No.T-7159 I DateJAN2015 I Figure 4
GRAVEL SLOPE TO DRAIN
12" MINIMUM 314" h
MINUS WASHED
12"[f:7t.' ~~==:::'.::~~~
COMPACTED
STRUCTURAL FILL
SEE NOTE EXCAVATED SLOPE
(SEE REPORT TEXT
FOR APPROPRIATE
INCLINATIONS)
[ 3" BELOW PIPE
4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE
.
NOTTO SCALE
NOTE:
MIRADRAIN G100N PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE PANELS OR SIMILAR
PRODUCT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE 12-INCH WIDE GRAVEL
DRAIN BEHIND WALL. DRAINAGE PANELS SHOULD EXTEND A MINIMUM
OF SIX INCHES INTO 12-INCH THICK DRAINAGE GRAVEL LAYER
OVER PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE.
Terra
Associates, Inc.
TYPICAL WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
LONG ACRES BUSINESS PARK
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No.T-7159 Date JAN 2015 Figure 5
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Long Acres Business Park
Renton, Washington
On January 8, 2015, we completed our site exploration by observing soil conditions at 10 test pits. The test pits
were excavated using a trackhoe to a maximum depth of 15.5 feet below existing site grades. On January 7, 2015,
we perfom1ed additional site exploration by performing 3 cone penetration tests. The test pit and cone penetration
test locations are shown on Figure 2. The test pit locations were approximately detennined by measurements
from existing site features. The Test Pit Logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-11. The cone penetration
graphs are presented on Figures A-I 4 through A-16.
A geoteclmical engineer from our office conducted the field exploration. Our representative classified the soil
conditions encow1tered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative soil samples, and recorded water
levels observed during excavation. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) described on Figure A-1.
Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in closed containers and taken to our
laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is
reported on the Test Pit Logs. Grain Size Analyses were performed on selected samples. The results of the Grain
Size Analysis are shown on Figures A-12 and A-13.
InSitu Engineering, W1der subcontract with Terra Associates, Inc. conducted 3 electric CPTs at locations selected
by Terra Associates, Inc., which are shown on Figure 2. The CPTs were advanced to depths of 50 feet below the
surface. The CPT is an instrumented approximately I Yi-inch diameter cone that is pushed into the ground at a
constant rate. During advancement, continuous measurements are made of the resistance to penetration of the
cone and the friction of the outer surface of a sleeve. The cone is also equipped with a porous filter and a pressure
transducer for measuring groW1dwater or pore water pressure generated. Measurements of tip and sleeve
frictional resistance, pore pressure, and interpreted soil conditions are summarized in graphical form on the
attached CPT Logs.
Project No. T-7159
MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL
Clean GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines.
GRAVELS Gravels (less
L
More than 50%
than 5%
Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. II) Q)
fines) GP _, 0,
L Q) of coarse fraction i5 ~ N
II) ~ -~ is larger than No. GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines.
0 Q) > 4 sieve Gravels with w -Q) fines z "'·-GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. ~ E "' 0
,!i!O
C) 0 ('J
Clean Sands SW Well-graded sands, sands with gravel, little or no fines. "' 0 w C: z SANDS (less than II)
"' C: 0:: £"' More than 50% 5% fines) SP Poorly-graded sands, sands with gravel, little or no fines. <( Q) .c 0 L-of coarse fraction
(,) 0 ::e is smaller than
Sands with SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines.
No. 4 sieve
fines SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines.
L
~ ML Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight plasticity. '" ., II) E N SILTS AND CLAYS _, ~ ·oo
Liquid Limit is less than 50% CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity. (Lean clay) i5 .~ ~ II) 2 ,g? 0 "' "' OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. w Eo z ~~ ~ 0 . MH Inorganic silts, elastic.
"' 0 C) C: z SILTS AND CLAYS w "' C: CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity. (Fat clay) .c "' Liquid Limit is greater than 50% z -.c
ii: Q) -L
0 OH Organic clays of high plasticily. ::e
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat.
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS
en Standard Penetration I 2' OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPILT SPOON SAMPLER en Resistance in Blows/Foot w Density _,
I 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR z
0-4 0 Very Loose SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER iii Loose 4-10 w Medium Dense 10-30 ::c I WATER LEVEL (Date) 0 Dense 30-50
(,) Very Dense >50 Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf
Standard Penetration Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf
Consistancy Resistance in Blows/Foot w DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot > iii Very Soft 0-2 w Soft 2-4 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent ::c
0 Medium Stiff 4-8
(,) Stiff 8-16 Pl PLASTIC INDEX
Very Stiff 16-32
Hard >32 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot
~Terra UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
t,~!t~n~L~!!!in!i~9n;
LONG ACRES BUSINESS PARK
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Geology and Proj. No.T-7159 I Date JAN 2015 I Figure A-1 Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-1 FIGURE A-2
PROJECT NAME: Long Acre_~_E\usiness Park PROJ. NO: H~1~5-9 ___ _ LOGGED BY: AJ_Q ___ _
LOCATION: Renton Washington SURFACE CONDS: 0G~r~a=v=el~-----APPROX-ELEV: ,N~l~A~-
DEPTH TO CAVING: __ NIA DATE LOGGED: ..J.anuar:y B 2015 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: ~N~t~A __ _
2-
5
6
ci z
w ..
"-" " .,
DESCRIPTION
FILL: brown sand and gravel mixed with brown silty sand
with gravel, fine to coarse grained, moist. (SM-SP)
Gray silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, moist,
moderately cemented. (SM/ML)
CONSISTENCYJ
RELATIVE DENSITY
Dense
Dense
?+--"--+-----------------+-------,
8
9-
10
11 ·
14
15
Test pit terminated at approximately 7 feet.
No groundwater seepage observed.
NOTE: This subsurface Information pertains only to this test pit location and should
not be interpreted as being Indicative of other locations at lhe site.
REMARKS
10.3
20.0
36.6
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Georogyand
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-2
PROJECT NAME: ..L!mgA!;rei; Business Park PROJ. NO: T-7159
LOCATION: ~n Washington SURFACE CONDS: Weeds/Grass
DATE LOGGED: January 8 2015 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 0N/=A~--
~ ci z
FIGUREA-3
LOGGED BY: -1AJ:>.LLDL_ __
APPROX. ELEV: ~N~/A~--
DEPTH TO CAVING: NIA
le. w
i!: ... n.
n. "'
DESCRIPTION CONSISTENCY/
RELATIVE DENSITY REMARKS
w
C
1J
2
3
4
5
6-
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
< "
2
(3 inches of SOD)
FILL: brown and gray silty sand with gravel, fine to
medium grained, moist. (SM)
•upper 18 inches are loose.
Gray silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, moist to wet.
(SM/ML)
*Occasional decomposed wood from 5 to 6 feet.
Test pit terminated at approximately 8 feet.
No groundwater seepage observed.
NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test p!t location and should
not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the si1e.
Loose
Dense
Medium Dense
I
I
18.6
30.9
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnk:al Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-3 FIGURE A-4
PROJECT NAME: Long Acres_Business Park PROJ. NO: I-IlliiL ·---LOGGED BY: _AJJ:l~--
LOCATION: --8enlo_n..\'Y..ll:Sbington SURFACE CONDS: .'lieJ,(j~LGrnru; APPROX. ELEV: J',1/A.._ __
DATE LOGGED, .J;,nuary 8 2015__ DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 4 & 15 Feet DEPTH TO CAVING: .WA. __ ··-
f. ci z -I w
:i: ....
>-.. .. " w ~ Q
1~
2-1 t.
3
DESCRIPTION
(3 inches of SOD)
FILL: brown sandy silt, fine grained, moist. (ML)
(Plastic sheeting at 2 feet}
CONSISTENCY/
RELATIVE DENSITY
Medium Dense
REMARKS
23.2
'!" 4 ---···--······--·-········-----···--·· 15.1
'!"
FILL: brown silty sand with gravel, fine to medium
grained, moderately cemented, wet. (SM) Dense
5 .. ···························· .... ..... . , ............................. ,
:~
i
.:1
4
11
12
13-
5
14~
151-.
I 6
16.J I
'
17-
18
19
20
Gray sandy SILT, fine grained, moist. (ML)
+Soil becomes brown at 10 feet.
Brown silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM)
······-····· ---·-··· ···-···
Gray silty SAND to sandy Sil T, fine grained, mottled,
saturated. (SM/ML)
Test pit terminated at approximately 15.5 feet.
Moderate groundwater seepage observed at about 4 and
15 feet.
NOTE: Thi~ subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should
not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site.
Medium Dense
to Dense
Medium Dense
20.3
38.2
27.9
,1--------1 31.4
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-4 FIGUREA-5
PROJECT NAME: Long AcreJLB.uIDDJlSS.Pad< PROJ. NO: T-7159
LOCATION: __Benton Washington SURFACE CONDS: .,'1Lru11:ls1Gras~----
LOGGED BY: AJQ__·~-
APPROX. ELEV: ~N~/A,,_ __
DATE LOGGED: January 8 2015 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: NIA DEPTH TO CAVING: _NulucA,___ __ _
1-1
0 z
w
-' n.
" < .,
2-1-----<
3
4
5,+~--+
6
7-+----J
8-
9
10
12
13-
14 I
15
DESCRIPTION
{3 ;nches of SOD)
FILL; brown and gray silty sand with trace gravel, fine
grained, moist.
FILL: brown silty sand with gravel, fine to medium
grained, moist. (SM)
Brown silty SAND, fine grained, moist to wet. (SM)
·-------······---
Brown sandy SILT, fine grained, moist to wet. (ML)
Test pit terminated at approximately 11 feet.
No groundwater seepage observed.
NOTE: This subsurface Information pertains only to this test pit location and should
not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site.
CONSISTENCY/
RELATIVE DENSITY
Medium Dense
Dense to
Very Dense
Dense
REMARKS
23.2
20.5
39.6
30.3
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-5 FIGUREA-6
PROJECT NAME: Long Acres Business Park PROJ. NO: ~I~-7~1~5=9 ___ _ LOGGED BY: ~A~J~P~--
LOCATION: Renton Washington SURFACE CONDS: Weeds/Grass APPROX. ELEV: .MA_ ___ _
DATE LOGGED: Januaey 8 2015 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: NIA DEPTH TO CAVING: N/A
1-
i 2_J
3
1
4-
DESCRIPTION
(3 inches of SOD)
FILL: brown silty sand v-Ath gravel, fine to medium grained,
moist (SM)
CONS1$TENCYJ
RELATIVE DENSITY
Loose
Dense
5 ., +~--+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FILL: gray silt wilh sand, fine grained, moderately Dense
1-~-< -.. __ cemented, moist.__(SP-ML) _________________ ----------------------------·· _. --------------------------···
6
7-
8-
9-
10-
11
12-
13-
14-
15-
'
•
Brown sandy SILT, fine grained, moist. {ML)
Test pit tenninated at approximately 11 feet.
No groundwater seepage observed.
NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should
not be Interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site.
Medium Dense
17.8
31-1
36.8
34.6
REMARKS
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-6 FIGUREA-7
PROJECT NAME: J.Qng Acres Business Pa,:L__ PROJ. NO: H.159 ·---LOGGED BY: A!D __ _
LOCATION: Renton Washington SURFACE CONDS: Grass/We_eij_,..__ ___ _ APPROX. ELEV: iN~/A~--
DATE LOGGED: .Jan11acy 8 2015 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: NIA DEPTH TO CAVING: _N11". ___ _
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9-
10
11
12
13·
14
15
DESCRIPTION
(3 inches of SOD)
FILL: brown silty sand, fine grained with wood debris and
fine roots, moist to wet. (SM)
*Upper 1-foot loose.
'"Steel post at 3 feet.
·Cable at 3.5 feet.
FILL: gray and brown silty clayey sand, fine grained, wet.
mottled.
(SC-SM)
Test pit tenninated at apprioximately 7.5 feet.
No groundwater seepage observed.
NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should
not be interpreted as being indicalive of other locations at the site.
CONSISTENCY/
RELATIVE DENSITY
Loose
Medium Dense
Medium Dense
Medium Dense
REMARKS
29.7
38.9
20.9
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-7 FIGUREA-8
PROJECT NAME: _L9119Acres Busine.s.s.E'arlL .... PROJ. NO: L.7-1,~'i9~---LOGGED BY: A.ID
APPROX.ELEV:1'/LA __
DEPTH TO CAVING: _t,j/A_
LOCATION: .fuloJQn WashjngjQ!l_
DATE LOGGED: January 8 2015.. ..
SURFACE CONDS: .GJ:aYelB,uo.,adu_ ___ _
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: NIA
,, I 0 ... ' z !;, I w :,: .... ... .. .. " w < Q "'
2
3
4
5+-.-,
6
7
8-+--<
10~
I
I
11 -j
12J
13
14
15
4
DESCRIPTION
FILL: brown sand and gravel with some silt, medi1.Jm
grained, moist (SP-GP)
FILL: brown silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained. moist.
(SM/ML)
Brown and gray silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained,
moist. (SM/ML)
Dark gray silty SAND, fine grained, saturated. (SM)
Test pit terminated at approximately 8.5 feet.
No groundwater seepage observed.
NOTE: This subsurface Information pertains only to tllis test pit location and shoLilcl
not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site.
CONSISTENCY/
RELATIVE DENSITY
Dense
Dense
Medium Dense
Medium Dense
ii:'
"' !:. z
l w .. REMARKS ... ~ w
"' '-' 0 ..
6.2
27.5
27.9
35.4
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants if! Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
En¥ironmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-8 FIGUREA-9
PROJECT NAME: J.png Acres Business Park PROJ. NO: T-7159
LOCATION: ~ton Washington SURFACE CONDS: Grass/Weeds
DATE LOGGED: Januar:y B 2015 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: ~NculuA __ _
LOGGED BY: ~A»,LJ.!PL.. __
APPROX. ELEV: NIA
DEPTH TO CAVING: ..NI
3
4
6
7
8
10
12
13
14
15
0 z
~
Q. ..
;1i
DESCRIPTION
(3 inches of SOD)
FILL: brown silty sand to sandy silt, fine to medium
grained, wet, some gravel. (SM/ML)
·upper 1-foot loose.
FILL: gray sllty sand 'Mth gravel, fine to medium grained,
moist. {SM)
*Asphalt pieces at 6 feet.
FILL: gray silty sand, fine grained, numerous fine to
medium roots, moist (SM)
*Sode straw at 7 feet.
Gray silty SANO to sandy SILT, fine grained, moist.
(SM/ML)
Test pit terminated at approximately 11 feet.
No groundwater seepage observed.
NOTE: This subsurface Information pertains only to this test pil location and should
not be interpreted as being indicatlYe of other locations at the site.
CONSISTENCY/
RELATIVE DENSITY
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense to
Very Dense
Medium Dense
Dense
22.5
16.8
25.3
.:-
~ z w
Q.
1-w
~
REMARKS
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-9 FIGURE A-10
PROJ. NO: I,_7~-----LOGGED BY: ~A~J~P~--
LOCATION: Renton -.W..a.shin.,g~to~o~----SURFACE CONDS: Weeds/Gr<i,~s~s ___ _ APPROX. ELEV: .lll/A__ __
DEPTH TO CAVING: N/A DATE LOGGED: _Jarnu,[)Ll!.2015 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: NIA ...
2-
3
4
5
8-
11-1
12
13
14
15
DESCRIPTION
(3 Inches of SOD)
FILL: brown silty sand with gravel, fine to medium
grained, moist (SM)
FILL: gray silty sand with gravel to sandy silt with gravel,
wet. (SM/ML)
FILL: gray sand and gravel with trace silt, fine to coarse
grained, moist to wet. (SP-GP)
"Woven geotextile at 7 feet.
Test pit terminated at approximately 9 feet.
No groundwater seepage observed.
NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this lest pit location and should
not be interpreted as being Indicative of other locations at the site.
CONSISTENCYJ
RELATIVE DENSITY
Dense lo
Very Dense
Dense
Medium Dense
Medium Dense
REMARKS
19.4
23.7
9.7
30.5
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
~
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-10 FIGURE A-11
PROJECT NAME: Long Acres Busjness Park PROJ. NO: T-7159 LOGGED BY: ~A_J_D~--
LOCATION: Renton Washington SURFACE CONDS: Grass/Weeds APPROX. ELEV: ~N-IA __ _
DATE LOGGED: _.i.anuai:y 8 2015 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 2 Feet DEPTH TO CAVING: ~N=/~A __
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10~'-·
11
12
13
14
15
DESCRIPTION
(3 inches of SOD)
FILL: brown silty sand with gravel, fine to medium
grained, wet (SM)
*Woven geotextife at 3 feet.
"Becomes medium dense at 3.5 feet.
21 ... FILL: gray silty sand to sandy silt, fine to medium grained, wet. (SM/ML)
FILL; gray silty sand to sandy silt. fine grained with fine to
medium roots. (SM/ML)
•Broken glass at 8.5 feet.
Gray silty clayey SAND to sandy clayey SILT, fine
grained, wet, mottled. (SM~SC/ML-CL)
Test pit terminated at approximately 10 feet.
Heavy groundwater seepage observed at 2 feet.
NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should
not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site.
CONSISTENCY/
RELATIVE DENSITY
Loose to
Medium Dense
Dense
Dense
Medium Dense
REMARKS
19.3
16.3
33.5
35.4
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
Particle Size Distribution Report
c c: .E . c 0 0 0 .E _!:; .E ~ 0 --0 0 g a' 0 0 ~ 0 --ro ~ N ;c ; ~ ~ M .; N ro .; .; N ro M " " " " 100 I ,...
N" '11 1'
I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I : ll II
!
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I ~b '1 I I ' I I I 80 I
1,
. I I I
11
......
I I I I I I " I I I I I
I 'i I I I I I I I I I I 70 I ,1 I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I 'J I \I I
a:: 60 I f I I I I I I I I I I w I I I I I I I I I ~ I 11 I z I I I I I I I I
:1 ~ I U::
f--I I I I I I I I I I z 50 I I I I I I I I I I I I w
() I I I I I I I I I I I I a:: I I I I I I I I I I I w 40 a. I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I t,
I I I I I 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1, I ' I I
11
I I I I
1:
I I I I I I
I ' I I I 20
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
11
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I 10
I I
1!
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 I ' I
' ' 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm.
% Gravel % Sand % Fines % +3"
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Slit Clay
0 0.0 2.8 14.8 5.8 14.4 18.7 43.5
D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 64.6 35.2
IX LL PL Dftc D~n Den Dftft D« D,n c,. c ..
0 6.8841 0.3458 0.1272
D 0.1984 0.1230 0.1010
Material Description uses AASHTO
o Silty SAND with gravel SM
D Silty SAND SM
Project No. T-7159 Client: Ryan Companies Remarks:
Project: Long Acres Business Park oTested on 1112/15
Renton, Washington oTested.on 1/12115
o Location: Test Pit TP-3 Depth: -4' Sample Number: 2
o Location: Test Pit TP-7 Depth: -8.5' Sample Number: 4
Terra Associates, Inc.
Kirkland. WA Figure A-12
Tested By: ..,F_,Q,,__ ________ _
Particle Size Distribution Report
I
I
" C: .£ . c 0 0 8 I .5 .5 .5 i " ·-0 ~ !l 0 0 0 v
N :_ :;: ~ ·-" v .; ,! ~ .; .; N ~ M ;SM ~ ~ ~ 100 I N--I I I I I I I :::J.... I I I I I I I I I
I I I I l"' I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I
I I I I I I i' ~-I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I ..... I I I I I I
I 80 I
II I I ......... I I
I I I I
1
1 I I I I I I 'i I I I I I I I ~~ 'I:; .. I I I I 70 I I I I I I r' ~ I I I I , ....
I I I I I I I i' I ~: I
a:: 60 I I I I I I I I I I I w I I I I I I I I I I I 'l I z
[i: I I I I I I I I I I I I
I-50 I I I I I I I I I I I I z I I I I I I I I I I I I I w u I I I I I I I I I I I I I a:: I I I I I I I I I I I I w 40 0.. I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
30 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
1:
I I I I I I I I I I I
20 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
1!
I I I 1'
1:
I I I I I I
I I I I I 10
I I I I I I I I I I I I 1, I
I I II I I I I
1!
I I I I
:1
I
0 I I I I I I
100 10 1 0.1 O.Q1 0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm.
%+3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines ·~ Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Slit I Clay
0 0.0 5.9 7.3 3.6 10.5 21.2 51.5
D 0.0 5.3 8.9 5.0 11.3 18.7 50.8
I
IX LL PL Doe DM D•h D•h D,o D•h C., c ..
0 3.3144 0.1219
D 4.2218 0.1370
Material Description uses AASHTO
o Sandy SILT ML
D Sandy SILT ML
Project No. T-7159 Client: Ryan Companies Remarks:
Project: Long Acres Business Park oTested on 1112/15
Renton, Washington oTested on 1112/15
o Location: Test Pit TP-8 Depth: -2' Sample Number: 1
o Location: Test Pit TP-10 Depth: -5' Sample Number: 2
Terra Associates, Inc.
Kirkland. WA Figure A-13
Tested By: .!F_,Q,,_ _______ _
Terra Associates
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
Tip Resistance
Qc:TSF
~T
~ i
... '.
I
' '
' ,.
------,---. --,--
1 sensitive fine grained
ii. 2 organic material
• 3 clay
lnSitu Engineering
' --
'
-' -
'
Operator: Brown
Sounding: CPT-01
Cone Used: DDG1263
300
Friction Ratio
Fs/Qc (%)
0 6
' -1_· '
-1-j -.. -
I.. _,_ -',-
' .. .
. ' .,,·
• _I _ _J -
'.· , ..
'
.
'
' ,.
I I I I ,--,--,-,-,
'
' : ,.·
'-,--, -
' '
' "
Maximum Depth= 50.20 feet
• 4 silty clay to clay a 5 clayey silt to silty clay
• 6 sandy silt to clayey silt
•5oy beha11ior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983
CPT Date/Time: 1/7/2015 12:45:39 PM
Location: Long Acres Business Park
Job Number: T-7159
Pore Pressure
PwPSI
-10 50
' "
' L -1 ., -J
' f-· (.
,_
' '
·'
'·
' '
' r -, -·· 1
Soil Behavior Type*
Zone: UBC-1983
0 12
,, 111 l 1'
i,.;...~1-1-1-t • -·
''' '' ,_.
I
o I I I 111,
! . 111,IJ'
t, 1111 I,,
'' '
'
-; T T
rr rr,,1~,
! , 11 l I I• I
i 1 J I I I " I, 11111
I, I l 111'
1..i 111111
»ii Pi I in
''
Depth Increment"' 0.164 feet
SPTN'
60%Hammer
D 50
' a "
'''
'
.
'
l:"r
I ·.'.I
'" ,J,
-,---,
~ J J..., _
'
,1, l
L -l. J J _I-·.'
1: ,,,
J"·< I I
11
'' '' ,, ' '. ., ' ' ' ,,,
·' '
' '
.'_
+-: -:-:-'-:f _'
I I l I I I
,.,,
l-\J
, • .::1
,;,
' '-.-,-
"!(1., -. -,
'''
'' '
• 7 silty sand to sandy slit • 1 O gravelly sand to sand
8 sand to silty sand
!·i 9 sand
• 11 very stiff fine grained (•}
• 12 sand to clayey sand (~)
Terra Associates
Depth
(fl)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
Tip Resistance
QcTSF
. '
. ,.
'
---.l -
i.
' ' _,_:__; _ _[ ____ j
]_·---'---
'
' ----"'j .,
' '. ' ----r
Operato,: Brown
Sounding: CPT-02
Cone Used: DDG1263
300 0
Friction Ratio
Fs/Qc (%)
' ' _ ,_ , _ •:
' '• ' i
" ' ' ' '. '
''
" '
'-.J
' '
' I. J -L
'I l I
' ' '
' .:·,/ I
' ' 1' -,
'
' '
' ' . ' ., ' J:
I I 1 I 1 ----,,--1--,-,·r
' I I I ,:
'
l I l I
·1 1-o --, • I
:; ,,
'
' .,
.j ,,
r--,-
'
'.
'
6
Maximum Depth= 50.36 feet
• 4 silty clay to clay
• 5 clayey silt to silty day
• 6 sandy silt to clayey silt
1 sensitive fine grained a 2 organic material
• 3 clay
lnSitu Engineering
•soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983
CPT DatefTime: 117/2015 1:32:45 PM
Location: Long Acres Business Park
Job Number: T-7159
Pore Pressure Soll Behavior Type•
Zone: UBC-1983
SPTN"
-10
PwPSI
' '
Ii I
-'-
' ' L:_
·' '
I I;
C '
60% Hammer
50 0 12 0 50
' -
'
'
' Li
I Ll'l)_,"ft
I •'rJ·l;l f I 1
I .-·r j •·i'I 1 ,
11 I I I I I I I
(II I 111 > 1
I> l·ll 1111
i t, ff l_'f I I I I
11 f I.I •• I I 1 I
µ_Ll~I.JJ..)J, L
l r 11-l·l·I It
11f'1i . .'t'11-1
1_'11·1:1::,·, ! ,
! 1 ·1-c l I t I -1· I
I ,I t,, .,.j_ l'_! T
I 1 __ 1,;1,_1;, t ~ .' -i:
•
"('"','": j
'' 111·1_1 f I<, I I ·:· -; I I.I" l'I,, I
1! I I
I '1'.Ll
''' ' '' '' I I L..~
1,1
~ "J'"
lr-l I
<"
'
\' '' 'i' ' ' '' 1: I ,,,
,. '
f
'
'' .l',-l '__j -"'
I'
'
j J ,;
'' ,(' ,.,
,,, ,·,
I .• ,
I 'J ,:, -' _, ',, '_, : ;~
'-' '' ' I 1 .. al
r : I'.~ :
11,-,-1--
1 111
'I
'' I f"T I
I I, t
1 -i._.t. I I
, , r 1-J.
1 : ; : : : >~.l ',,,-,-,-,-.--
1 I 1 1 :1:
i
''
. '
; i
'
Depth Increment= 0.164 feet
silty sand to sandy silt
sand to silty sand
sand
• 1 O gravelly sand lo sand
• 11 very stiff fine grained (*)
• 12 sand to clayey sand (*)
Pressure
(psi)
4
3
2
1
0
Terra Associates
Operator Brown
Sounding: CPT-02
Cone Used; DDG1263
--------' ' I
CPT Date/Time: 1/7/2015 1:32:45 PM
Location: Long Acres Business Park
Job Number: T-7159
I I I L
' ' --------r -----------------.---------r--------T·------
---,. .
'
a -
'
' _,
' j ------
' --i -
'
Selected Depth(s)
(feet)
16.732
: : : : ::: : l :: :: :: : : : :: : : : : : : :'::: :: :: :·: --·:: :: : ;: ::: :: : : ~ -•::::: ::: ::: : : : : j
' ________ ,. ____ -------------,---------.------·-~--------------------------
'
' --------L--------•··•-----~---------L--------l--------~-----•---~-
--------------------------' --------'--
-C -
' '
' ' -' -
'
--~-----r-------~---------·----
---~----L--------·--------~---------L
' '
' · 1·
------•------------------~-------
' ---L--------~---------~-------
--------' ------------------------' --(--------:--------'_ ---·--------
'
,-
' ' --'
'
---t
-------L-------------L--------~------------------:--------~
' --------f ---------_, ------·_ ---._ ------------;-----
. -1·
' --------r--------~--------,---------r--
-,--
'
' ' -
' --r-------------
---------~--------~--------~---------~--------~------------------,------
'
' ' --I ------------->---------L--------~--------~--------------
' ' ' -'---------'
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time: (minutes)
1
16
Terra Associates
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
Tip Resistance
QcTSF
---,---
' I ' I -----,--~ -, --
' --,-. ,
'
_,
' -T --
-' -
' ' --
'
Operator: Brown
Sounding: CPT-03
Cone Used: DDG1263
300
Friction Ratio
Fs/Qc (%)
0 6
' ,_
'
'
, ... ,
' .,
'
·:1 -. ..i·.c..-.
·"
' ' I .. I
' ,:-
'
' ' . l.--1-.J,. j -
,.
'
,,
I•
'
" '
' '
' '
_I_ -'
! : __ ,_
!~
' '
' ' ; -'
L______'.__ __ '---~------~
Maximum Depth = 50.03 feel
1 sensitive fine grained
• 2 organic material
•3 clay
lnSitu Engineering
• 4 silty clay to clay
• 5 dayey silt to silty clay
• 6 sandy silt to clayey silt
'Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-19B3
CPT Datemme: 1/7/2015 2:27:27 PM
Location; Long Acres Business Park
Job Number: T-7159
Pore Pressure
PwPSI
Soil Behavior Type•
Zone: UBC-1983
SPT N°
60% Hammer
-10 50 0 12 0 50
'
-I----1 -~
' ,,
·"-..J.
:J,
' ,,
" ,,
'
" '
'
,_
' ,_ -J -
U_
,,
"
,,
'
'
' '
' ' ' --,-,-,
' ,· '
,-'
'
'' '
'
-'
t:·-''
I I I, I
I --l --'t -
' ' '" 1.1' I
'
.£;'
'' '
'' 1'11
'' 1!1
'
I cf
J I+., 1
1.LJI
1·1 I
J J_,U
''' 11!
' ,,
' !:
-I -_1_
: 1:
I :1
'I
'' I I I II'
'I I I ' ,['
' I c IL
>-------, I l f
' ' '
,,, ,,
I
' ' ''
,,,
Depth Increment :. 0.164 feet
silty sand to sandy silt
sand to silty sand
sanct
• 1 O gravelly sand to sand
• 11 very stiff fine grained (")
• 12 sand to clayey sand(·)