HomeMy WebLinkAbout03267 - Technical Information Report - Geotechnical G E O TE C H ` 13256 Northeast 20th Street,Suite 16
CONSULTANTS, INC. Bellevue,V�ashington 98005
(425)747-5618 Fr1R(4251 747-8561
September 29, 2004
JN 03415
Colpitts Development Company, LLC
2256 —38th Place East
Seattle, Washington 98112
Attention: David Niefsen
Subject: Transmittal Letter—Geotechnical engineering study
Proposed Parkside at 95 Burnett Building
95 Bumett Avenue South
Renton, Washington
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed Parkside at 95
Burnett building to be constructed in Renton. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site
surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for
general earthwork and design criteria for foundations, retaining walls, pavements, and temporary
shoring. This work was authorized by your acceptance of our confirming proposal, JN 03415,
dated October 9, 2043.
The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact
us if there are any questions regarding this report, or for further assistance during the design and
construction phases of this project.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Gerry D. Bautista, J�.
Geotechnical Engineer
cc: TSA Architects— Kent Smutny
via facsimile: (425) 401-0630
GDBIMRM: mjj � O`�/�/�/1
����
�1iirOFREMON
f�=��CE11tE[�
� ��� - �IAR 2 4 2005
������
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
- --- -
il
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY I'
Proposed Parkside at 95 Burnett Building
95 Burnett Avenue South
Renton, Washington
This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnicai engineering study for �
the site of the proposed Parkside at 95 Bumett building, to be located in Renton. '
We were provided with a preliminary set of architectural plans for the proposed development, '
Sheets A1.0 through A6.1. TSA Architects prepared these plans, which are dated March 15, 2004.
We were also provided with a topographic survey of the subject property that was performed prior
to the existing buildings being demolished. Baseline Engineering prepared this survey, which is
dated August 10, 2000. Based on these plans and conversations with Kent Smutny of TSA
Architects, we understand that a new apartment building consisting of four sto�es of residential
space overlying two levels of parking will be constructed on the property. The proposed building
footprint will cover virtually the entire property, with proposed setbacks of 1.5 feet from the south
property line, 2.5 feet from the west p�operty line, and 7.5 feet from the north property line. Cuts of
only approximately 5 feet are anticipated to reach the planned excavation bottom.
We previously performed a geotechnical engineering study of the subject site for a different
planned development, dated May 20, 1999.
If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we shouid be provided
with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of
#his report are warranted.
S1TE CONDITIONS
SURFA CE
The �cinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The site is a relatively large,
rectangular-shaped parcel situated on the no�thern portion of downtown Renton. It occupies
approximately 340 feet of frontage along the eastem side of Burnett Avenue South. The relatively
level site is currently vacant and covered with gravel parking and turnaround areas, and tall grass
and brambles. At the time of explorations done for our geotechnical engineering study of the
subject site in 1999, the majority of the site was covered with the Lande Feed Mill building, asphalt,
or concrete.
Existing development adjacent to the subject site is a combination of commercial and residential.
An on-grade house and commercial garage border the site to the south. Some diagonal cracking
was observed on the facing of the garage. The lot to the north of the sut�ject site is undeveloped,
and north of this lot is a four-story seniors' apartment building. Between the site and the adjacent
north lot is a 15-foot sewer easement. A City of Renton park borders the site to the west.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
i
Colpitts Development Company, 4LC JN 03415
September 29, 2004 Page 2 �
SUBSURFACE i
The subsurface conditions were explored by driiling seven borings to supplement the four borings
performed for our 1999 geotechnical engineering study. The approximate locations of these
borings are shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on
the proposed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during �
exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal.
The recent borings were drilled on October 14, 2003, using a trailer-mounted, hollow-stem auger I
drill. Samples were taken at 5-foot intervals with a standard penetration sample�. This split-spoon
sampler, which has a 2-inch outside diameter, is driven into the soil with a 140-pound hammer �
falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an i
indication of the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the �
drilling process, logged the test borings, and obtained representative samples of the soil '
encountered. The Test Boring Logs are attached as Plates 3 through 9. The logs of the previous �I
borings are included in the Appendix. ;
Soil Conditions I
The seven recent borings encountered from 7 to approximately 25 feet of loose, sandy silt
and silty sand directly underlying a thin layer of topsoil. These upper soils appear to be a ,
combination of previously placed fill and alluvium (river deposits). Beneath these loose
soils, the borings found medium-dense to very dense sand and gravelly sand. These dense
to very dense soils were encountered to the maximum explored depth of the borings. Test
boring depths ranged from 20 to 35 feet below existing grade. The soils encountered
during our subsurface explorations are similar to the soils encountered during our
explorations for our 1999 study of the subject site. As is evident from the boring logs, the
thickness of loose soils was highly variable ac�oss the site. This is typical for sites in
Renton, where old river channels meandered through the area.
No obstructions were revealed by our explorations. However, debris, buried utilities, and old
foundation and slab elements are commonly encountered on sites that have had previous
development.
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of 8 to 17 feet. The borings were left open
for only a short time period. Therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the
location of transient water seepage and may not indicate the static groundwater level.
Groundwater levels encountered during drilling can be deceptive, because seepage into the
boring can be blocked or slowed by the auger itself. It should be noted that groundwater
levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. Based on our observations, the
regionai water table found throughout downtown Renton was at a depth of 13 to 15 feet
below the existing grade at the time of our borings.
The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification
lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration
locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can
vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the
locations tested. If a transition in soil type occurred between samples in the borings, the depth of
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Co/pitts Development Company, 4LC JN 03415
September 29, 2004 Page 3
the transition was interpreted. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the
b�ring loqs are interpretive descriptiors based on the conditions cbserved during drilling.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
THlS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF DUR STUDY A1VD FINDIIVGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A
GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPEClFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSlONS ARE
CONTAINED !N THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD
READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT
The borings conducted for this study and our previous work encountered loose fill and alluvium
overlying medium-dense to dense sands and gravelly sands. The loose soils are highly
compressible and are potentially liquefiable below the water table. To prevent unacceptable
foundation settlement under static building loads, and in the event of a moderate to large
earthquake, we recommend that the proposed building be supported on deep foundations
embedded into the dense, native soils. Due to the presence of potentially caving near-surface soils
and groundwater, it appears that augercast piers are the most suitable deep foundation option.
The plans show that the proposed building will be set back as close as 2.5 feet from the western
property line. Cuts of up to 5 feet are anticipated to reach the planned excavation bottom along the
westem edge of the building. Allowing at least 2 feet of working space outside of the walls would
require these cuts to be at the property line. We recommend that the existing soils may be cut
back at a slope no steeper than 1.5:1 (Horizontal: Vertical). In order to make this excavation safely
without using temporary shoring, the location of the building will need to be shifted to the east, or
an easement will need to be obtained from the City of Renton to extend the necessary excavation
on the park property. If neither of these options is possible, then we recommend using sho�ing to
make #he necessary excavation. Because of the relatively shallow proposed depth of excavation,
shoring can likely consist of driven pipe piles and wood lagging. Shoring should also be used if
cuts will extend below a 3:1 (Horizontal: Vertical) imaginary zone sloping downward from adjacent
existing foundations. Ecology blocks could be used to share cuts of up to 5 feet away from existing
structures and other settlement-sensitive elements. It is important to remember that the blocks
take up 2 feet of space, and have to be battered backward an additional one foot. This will require
more room than pipe pile shoring. All ecology blocks should be bacicfilled with quarry spalls or
ballast rock, not on-site soils.
Slabs-on-grade may also experience noticeable differential settlement relative to the foundations.
If some settfement is allowable in the lowest parking floor, a slab-on-grade could be used. This �
slab should be reinforced with steel bars to limit the potential for excessive cracking when
settlement occurs. Number 4 rebar at 18-inch centers placed both horizontal and vertical in the ,
slab is typically sufficient. Wherever possible, the slab should be isolated from the pier-supported '
walls and columns. An exception to this is where interior and exterior slabs and walk lead up to �
doorways. At these locations, the slab's reinforcement should be tied in to the pier-supported '�
foundation. This lessens the chance that a sharp downset (i.e., a trip hazard) will form at the door
threshold. Areas of soft subgrade soils should be excavated beneath slabs and replaced with
structural fill.
The area around the site is underlain by soft compressible soils. Strong ground �ibrations should
be avoided to reduce the risk of causing settlement in surrounding on-grade elements. This
GEOTECH CONSUITANTS,INC.
Colpitts Development Company, LLC JN 03415
September 29, 2004 Page 4 I
�
includes siabs, walkways, planters, and pavements. The general and earthwork contractors shouid
be made aware of this concern. Large vibratory compactors, such as rollers or hoe-packs, should
not be used at the site. Regardless of these measures, there is always a potential that neighbors
will claim some settlement or damages as a result of new construction work. For this reason, we
recommend the following:
• Prior to construction, an extensive photographic and visual survey of the project vicinity
should be completed. This documents the condition of buildings, pavements, and
utilities in the immediate vicinity of the site in order to protect you from unsubstantiated I
claims by surrounding property owners. I
• Adjacent on-grade elements and foundation should be monitored during construction to I
detect soil movements. To monitor their performance, we recommend establishing a
series of survey reference points to measure any vertical deflections. The accuracy of ,
this monitoring is typically 118-inch. The benchmarks should be monitored at least once 'I
a week, until the excavation and pile installation are completed and it is determined that
no settlement is occurring. We can provide recommendations for this monitoring if it '
becomes necessary. ,
The on-site soils are silty, and thus are moisture-sensitive. To prevent disturbance to the
excavation bottom during periods of wet weather, we recommend that the bottom-of-excavation be
protected with a mat of crushed rock. The excavated on-site soils will generally not be reusable as
structural fill or wall backfill, due to their high silt content. We anticipate that all structural fill will
need to be imported for this project.
The drainage and/or waterproofing recommendations presented in this report are intended only to
prevent active seepage from flowing through concrete walls or slabs. Even in the absence of active
seepage into and beneath structures, water vapor can migrate through walls, slabs, and floors from
the surrounding soil, and can even be transmitted from slabs and foundation walls due to the
concrete curing process. Water vapor also results from occupant uses, such as cooking and
bathing. Excessive water vapor trapped within structures can result in a variety of undesirable
conditions, including, but not limited to, moisture problems with flooring systems, excessively moist
air within occupied areas, and the growth of molds, fungi, and other biological organisms that may
be harmful to the health of the occupants. The designer or architect must consider the potential
vapor sources and likely occupant uses, and provide sufficient ventilation, either passive or
mechanical, to prevent a build up of excessive water vapor within the planned structure.
Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the
recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan
review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include
revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical
constraints that become more evident during the review process.
We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report
should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and
recommendations.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Colpitts Development Company, L�LC • JN 03415
September 29, 2004 Page 5 '
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC). in accordance with Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, the site soil profile within
100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type So (Stiff Soil). Under the
2003 International Building Code (IBC) the Site Class wouid be D. The loose soils beneath the
water table are potentially susceptible to seismic liquefaction during a moderate to large
earthquake. The use of deep foundations to support the building should mitigate the risk of
catastrophic foundation settlement that could result from seismic liquefaction.
AUGERCAST CONCRETE P/ERS
Augercast piers are installed using continuous flight, hollow-stem auger equipment mounted on a
crane. Concrete grout must be pumped continuously through the auger as it is withdrawn. This
allows the piers to be installed where caving conditions or significant groundwater are anticipated.
We recommend that augercast piers be installed by an experienced contractor who is familiar with
the anticipated subsurface conditions.
An allowable compressive capacity of 50 tons can be attained by installing a 16-inch-diameter,
augercast concrete pier at least 10 feet into dense, native soils. For transient loading, such as wind
or seismic loads, the allowable pier capacity may be increased by one-third. We can provide de-
sign criteria for different pier diameters and embedment lengths, if greater capacities are required.
The minimum center-to-center pier spacing should be three times the pier diameter. Based on our
test boring information, we estimate that pier lengths of about 30 to 40 feet below existing grade will
be required to achieve adequate penetration into the bearing soil.
We estimate that the total settlement of single piers installed as described above will be on the or-
der of one-half inch. Most of this settlement should occur during the construction phase as the
dead loads are applied. The remaining post-construction settlement would be realized as the live
loads are applied. We estimate that differential settlements over any portion of the structure should
be less than about one-quarter inch.
We recommend reinforcing each pier its entire length. This typically consists of a rebar cage
extending a portion of the pier's length with a full-length center bar. Each pier can be assumed to
have a point of fixity (point of maximum bending moment) at 12 feet below the top of the pier for
design of the reinforcing. The loose soil against the piers can be assumed to have a design
passive earth resistance of 200 pounds per cubic foot (pcfl acting on two times the pier diameter.
Passive earth pressures on the grade beams will also provide some lateral resistance. If structural
fill is placed against the outside of the grade beams, the design passive earth pressure from the fill
can be assumed to be equal to that pressure exerted by an equivalent �luid with a density of 200
pcf. These passive earth resistance values include a safety factor of 1.5.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Colpitts Development Company, LLC JN 03415
September 29, 2004 Page 6
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures
imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain
level backfill:
. ,
Active Earth Pressure ` 40 pcf
Soil Unit Weight 130 pcf
Where: (i) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (ii) active and
passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid
pressures.
' For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times its
height,a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height
of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid
pressure.
The values given abo�e are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only.
The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety
factor. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overtuming and sliding, when using the ',
above values to design the walls. ',
The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the
walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent !
foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added '
to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need ',
to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate ,,
design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be ',
accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid �
density. ,
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within ,
a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the wails are designed for the additional lateral
pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be ',
well compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should i
be accomplished with hand-operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by th�
higher soil forces that occur during co��F�action
Refainin_q Wall Backfil!
Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free-drainir
structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent s
or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage �
particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The uppermo.
soils are generally not free draining. The later section entitled Drainage Considerations
should also be reviewed for recommendations related to subsurface drainage behind
foundation and retaining walls.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Colpitts Development Company, L,LC J N 03415
September 29, 2004 Page 7
The ur ose of these backfill re uirements is to ensure that the desi n criteria for a
P P q 9
retaining wali are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the
wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively
impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also
slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into
the backfill. The section entitled General Earthwork and Strucfural Fill contains �
recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining �I
and foundation walls. '�
The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof below-grade walls, or to
prevent the formation of mold, mildew or fungi in interior spaces. Over time, the
performance of subsurface drainage systems can degrade, subsurface groundwater flow
patterns can change, and utilities can break or develop leaks. Therefore, waterproofing
should be provided where future seepage through the walfs is not acceptable. This typically
includes limiting cold-joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite panels or
membranes on the outside of the walls. There are a variety of different waterproofing
materials and systems, which should be instafled by an experienced contractor familiar with
the anticipated construction and subsurface conditions. Applying a thin coat of asphalt
emulsion to the outside face of a wall is not considered waterproofing, and will only help to
reduce moisture generated from water vapor or capillary action from seeping through the
concrete. As with any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is
important to prevent a build up of water vapor that is commonly transmitted through
concrete walls from the surrounding soil, even when seepage is not present. This is
appropriate even when waterproofing is applied to the outside of foundation and retaining
walls. We recommend that you contact a specialty consultant if detailed recommendations
or specifications related to waterproofing design, or minimizing the potential for infestations
of mold and mildew are desired.
The General, Slabs-On-Grade, and Drainage Considerations sections should be
reviewed for additional recommendations related to the control of groundwater and excess
water vapor for the anticipated construction.
SLABS-ON-GRADE
The General section should be reviewed for slab support considerations. All slabs-on-grade
should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness
of coarse, free-draining structural fill with a gradation similar to that discussed in Permanenf
Foundation and Retaining Walls. This capillary break/drainage layer is not necessary if an
underslab drainage system is installed. As noted by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in the
Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Sfructures, proper moisture protection is desirable immediately
below any on-grade slab that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or
any moisture-sensitive equipment or products. ACI also notes that vapor retarders, such as 6-mil
plastic sheeting, are typically used. A vapor retarder is defined as a materiai with a permeance of
less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (psfl per hour, as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible
that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, although the manufacturers of the admixtures �,
should be consulted. Where plastic sheeting is used under slabs, joints should overlap by at least I
6 inches and be sealed with adhesive tape. The sheeting should extend to the foundation walls for
maximum vapor protection. If no potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor
barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. I
Colpitts Development Company, 4LC JN 03415
September 29, 2004 Page 8
rate of 0.00 perms per square foot per hour when tested in accordance with ASTM E 96.
Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement.
In the recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well-graded
compactable granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be
placed over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection of the retarder or barrier and as a "blotter" to
aid in the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose.
However, the use of material over the �apor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI
literature because of the potential that the protectioNblotter material can become wet between the ,
time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement.
which is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur u p
through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barrier/retarder
Therefore, if there is a potential that the protection/blotter material will become wet before the slab
is installed, ACI now recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then
recommends that, because there is a potential for slab cure due to the loss of the blotter material,
joint spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and "other
measures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of
Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs"
generally agrees with the recent ACI literature.
We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these
issues and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance
on the use of the protection/blotter material. Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all
means should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission.
EXCAVATlONS AND SLOPES
Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government
safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in
unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be
made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as
Type C. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height cannot be excavated at an
inclination steeper than 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the
bottom of a cut.
The above-recommended temporary slope inclination is based on what has been successful at
other sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a �,
relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. ',
Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. The cut slopes '�,
should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. ',
Please note that loose soil can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and '
utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. I
All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:�. Water should not '
be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently
exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and
improve the stability of the surficiaf I ayer of soiL
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Colpitts Gevel�p,mer,! Company�, L�C JN Q3415
September 29, 2004 Page 9
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
We recommend that foundation drains be installed at the base of ali foundation and earth-retaining
walls. These drains should consist of 4-inch, perforated PVC pipe surrounded by at least 6 inches
of 1-inch-minus, washed rock wrapped in a non-woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac
4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as
the bottom of the footing, and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains
must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this
report as Plate 12. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for
all subsurface drains.
If the structure includes an elevator, it may be necessary to provide special drainage or
waterproofing measures for the elevator pit. If no seepage into the ele�ator pit is acceptable, it will
be necessary to provide a footing drain and free-draining wall backfitl, and the walls should be
waterproofed. If the footing drain will be too low to connect to the storm drainage system, then it
will likely be necessary to install a pumped sump to discharge the collected water. Alternatively,
the elevator pit could be designed to be entirely waterproof; this would include designing the pit
structure to resist hydrostatic uplift pressures.
Drainage inside the building's footprint should also be provided if the excavation encounters
significant seepage. We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should they become
necessary, during excavation and foundation construction.
As a minimum, a vapor retarder, as defined in the Slabs-On-Grade section, should be provided in
any crawl space area to limit the transmission of water vapor from the underlying soils. Also, an
outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water that may bypass
the footing drains.
Groundwater was observed during our fieldwork. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it
should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French
drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of
the excavation.
The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away
from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations,
slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to a building should
slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided
where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AIYD STRUCTURAL FILL
All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and
other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any
materials to be used as structural fill, but they cou!d �e used in non-structural areas such as
landscape beds.
Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building.
behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs
to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at.
Colpitts Development Company, LiC JN 03415
September 29, 2004 Page 10
near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that
results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and
rnust be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. As discussed in the Genera!
section, the on-site soils are not suitable for reuse as structural fill, due to their high moisture and
silt contents.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction
equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness
should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not
sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the
need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents I
recommended relative compactions for structural fill: I
� s� � � � '
� � '
Beneath slabs or 95% '
walkwa s '
Filled slopes and behind 90%
retainin walls
95% for upper 12 inches of
Beneath pavements subgrade; 90% below that
level
Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio,expressed in
percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry
density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test
Designation D 1557-91 {Modified Proctor).
Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse granular soil with a silt or
clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve
should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three-quarter-inch sieve.
L/MITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as
they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions
encountered in the borings are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the
subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those
observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions
and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are
commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil
samples in borings. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such
unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly
constructed project. It is recornmended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to
accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all
projects.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Colpitts Development Company, LLC, and
its representatives, for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and
conclusions are based on observed site materials and selective laboratory testing. Our conclusions
and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of
GEOTECH CONSU�TANTS, INC.
Colprtts Development Company, LLC JN 03415
September 29, 2004 Page 11
practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is
expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction
safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods,
techniques, sequences, or p�ocedures, except as specifically described in our report for
consideration in design. Our services also do not include assessing or minimizing the potential for
biological hazards, such as mold, bacteria, mildew and fungi in either the existing or proposed site
development.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES I
Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and ,
observation ser�ices during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are '
consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation
construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this
report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ
from those anticipated prior to the start of construction_ However, our work would no# include the
supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job
and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor.
During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services only
when requested by you or your representatives. We can only document site work that we actually
observe. It is stiil the responsibility of your contractor or on-site construction team to verify that our
recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not.
The following plates are attached to complete this report:
Plate 1 Vicinity Map
Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan
Plates 3 - 9 Boring Logs
Plates 10 -11 Grain Size Analyses
Plate 12 Typical Footing Drain Detail
Appendix Boring Logs from 1999 Study
GE�TECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Colpitts Development Company, 4LC JN 03415
September 29, 2004 Page 12
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this p�oject. If you have any questions, or if we
may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Gerry D. Bautista, Jr.
Geotechnical Engineer
�t'° 11i_c�
��,�o� VI�As�l�C,r�,�
� Fr� �J ' .�� ✓'
�
9`,`
•C ,Q, ,*�
'Q� ,Q 27845 �� �.�?`
�'�, �GISTER'ti 4�'�
sS1aNAL��� 9 ,••; , �
� ' ,
EXPIRES �0/25 I�y :r
Marc R. McGinnis. P E
PrinciFa
GDBIMRM mjj
!
�� � I`� p53'�v� �� �,;_ I �a, . .� y„ ,.�.,, v, „ �� �� , i
i�-� " , .ad !.MS �d �' v �,,. \:,I _ I
�al�NS..' � �r ;53H7VN �= � °r�� i s�, BOTH AV S J
,�
�i � ' ak<c��'��- �s��� _ ��� en i .,�v s I
-- POWELL V —
:-., � ;� � S _,� . .. ;oowi _ �� "v �c�' � L J � ■ I
S4AY��y��' -mi
, '�u1�J�4RA Np ��� AV SW ,��5 � ��. y o�r�w A�Sw�i�,i A�' Cd ' ;;N:ND ;�vs N �'i
� ti I .,,� ' j
�
_�_ R4E� ' �
o � � R5E -—- -�.�1- '.�,�� �,�- ' - - �-�M ��-�— ---�• _:� a��_A� s �Y���� ��; ,.�.n ;
I � � � ;� 5 ,: � '- "� -� i;i���o .,
�-y {� ���v� v4u .�rsr ii la f!� � .AY �g :'4. �n �i 4' p�le i `
�4 T .-� i - t� SENELA i e� p' G �Ct � -� y��� �r�, � r' aN�`d�� e in�,
l J O SW � o,� � �i AV SW. 'Z'`� �i,b, N �PC y�, � �ENEG Dt NN J'f Ar v71N� �Y , `
O � L ND'V�V � . � N �71rr �.��.rT��i
C r �1900 .-� � � � !�M� '�G� r1 AV� SM ��- '�' � �,
� � � rn �� ,nl/� 700 �. . ...E g; � F . STEVENS A V s����,'I vui
yI ��<,� ,,�:
� .CnD i N = � �E �� � �£ � ��� p � L ND aoo
.W . AV SM'� i .sy �.�llxo Invsw N�N AV NW ,� ���
� N .. ,, O ' �\ oyVN �... r � �: d1
� I j� �� �� �na�� a ���.�� ', -'c --•�--Lr✓ A �'��� Q�R`�.�. � 5 v 8 hl4PLE AV � �r �p�� .£ �v r�u
C� o LEY ."'-I ��^ � < � ��110�d • �L ,�' g�I r�rioa � ��v � = rN,a ���" ^,
� � p � d n� � ti ��{(E AY y�,� >� ♦ � � �n?-
� '.� WA➢lE� t`'' tl3�'�� R�� �4�i. � .JaT At� {UAOIf��V�h4 =i �p!I
� \ 1 � ' AY Sll� 11' ' � �t }.:r y kti e�� �1� e } � ;��
� x m , � I�l3�l ll $, - , `
�, b
N cn g N AN 213INItM �'N �d 2f31NZV�
� N � AV �N � .. � l �� !A 1�Si • •.y��n �; � W W(CSAV IIAKE:Ny y
? .... W M�MS �d 51�V�..i��`., O -c� ���-. $HNnUCK '�';AV � .T7 S N yr�a N F � ��——�.�"_'_—
y t23 � �5���,������V - p � �Nroscs ixs�Irnna 400 j�� � �0 S3 � �
(n �SNATNCK AV � �''" �w � � � — -��-�----
_ __
-t1 I-� N s ar s � s �s A �i a
� � 5!�. . 1500 Iin 1 �3 �� � �� v�y�i�pRR15� �tn � � ��' o '�' --1
` Co'. , Wina�N. .� . AV
IS AV S ' � i '�� � � S � -�
O (D i S�Y 5 3P T . �� I�... .... ' I_�iquiss � �;� �� � "-�ISMITHER� 'ry :AY LO N °�° ���i�n.i�
MdtRI n�
o a � �„� i.� �''� !, �, I �� , � ;� � � �� s ,A ,� caN av Z S � �
�s��7�[as N a�'�_ � I s117HERs�~ im � BU �7 � �� � �d ��• �
s _ (
� O C ������ s N ��N I S���i= �r s r � .a�' �MILLIAMS�x� N AV ��x �S�F� �(''qN ' ,. 3�° A
U1 ' v � � ! � � ;� ! ^ � � ��`� �� --I S � Bl1RNFTT JCb . S
� O� 1 -� NELLS i� AVa`a 8 � � .6�V N- AV N
� ��h �Ei�s'ct s � S S B SON RD 5� 500 ; AV`� yg N 5 '�}� WILlIM1S � .,AV= 1 �
QO q w n,r 5 a, ' �SN38 �AIN �-�� � . N�
� � CD O ��;,cti �, ,a0 � N , M 12�R� � -1 S�i� N wElls_� av �, N
� � � (�'� �' � C�f' 1 . � CEUAR � �i�AV��51� �V„�N MIL= AY 5 � � PELLY z AV = N i
z
l
Ri �—q{�---+ea
' � � r,�„p � /� �-�i. o .,�.--`--pEfl N --��-- A�4-�—�„r,��' �,9m B -�N-
N l J O S � �i S .j� S e ti 30 'w � j, -�
O ? � �..� � ` ����. GRANT I� AV S l '�� 700 `'S�� � `� , GAROE � 8 s `�no �
O ���yyy A� y
A � � GRAN7 � oot[, HIGH� AV ! S . l�' il;. �g M�' Av �on N
S � � 18110�I �� . ....^v '�1NdU9 700��-�-ti� ;���. �� S z ' FAC70 ' AV N
Z `� y o � � S JONES� AV S I.s.�' � . �-. . . R � N
° N � � o' ,��,� � /, � = y Qri
- � n i
D y� �f 3s `� �,� ❑ �� ,�' �
—i �. � ' �+ � 's��wf ..�?snxor�laax_. u � �� .�� °tls ���1 I � SO,ys ,�," �
o ,� •R,��1F� '�`'' ��S � , � rb',
fA � �.,�5 g', ��.��sa�.t�� �uc�sc . ,�a� � ��1 sc, B��'0'�GSFR
n = uucoisRst�� �;c �usv_u Q�:�� '�'�f�l� . , �'"!� ~ m N-•-\
� O C �ai1EPFtIR.SE�\ •1y�14��vu a s� �� 3 �nr r�a�Ni1 I,) ►pNTEREY, NE :� - WY N
CD � �___.��- rn iN::%p �'� S . �) . , PR . �''.�.Z SdA9
� � 0
f�D rCi-
�
� O
� � �
.C.-_.. �.-"-
/ �
/.—� N
r,,,� � �"
I - �',� - - ` c� � �+ � a
LOW�E�GARAGE ENTRANCE ,�oaec,s,uwe,.,�,..wo,urc„ar — —� UPPER GARAGE ENTRANCE �� � �
�FROM BURNETT AVE.SOUTH W���6 �ow�a�N a�u�r FROM BURNETT AVE.SOUTH� O �� °'
� �
C
� � ;� o
� .� .pp � '� 6.5� �"
i N
k> � �s.��� � --� Q c� z
� -_ � � � � 5 � ��
I -.� � I � � I ; � 0 L � �
I (�� I I � � � � � � m° �
� ��- �, � � N "�
I I I � ; � w rn� p
I I � i =
I � � ,�� I e� �,�$ � Q �.�,., � �,
I _ �I `I � P ED B � �3 � Q M.,� f� �.—
N i PRO OS UILDING l� Z�
! �
�I I � �owmouuae►r_u.a � � 1-- � �O
I �I �I � � `
I � � o �
�- t� � � � ; �
� � � �
I �� I � i � � . . ..i. � ; 4
�= I p � � �
;.��� ..,....�,d� � %���„ ,.'°�' `�
�,�...... .�.�.�_�... . ... .�.�.,�.�..�.�. .�.�..�..�..�.�. ,�.�..�.�..�.�..�. . �..�. ..��..�_.__.�_ .__.__.__.__.�,....�.� x �
� ��T � V �
" ��f a a, � . . �
W� a. O
-- ^' "�� GI?T PAI21C � a ' � . ., , � v d � � �
, �
-- , o- ��� L/PDECAPfY3' 6 . � �
� ' ' � � q ' � � LNbEf.�Po-Y � � O �
C �
> �
� �,��� � . o W z
� C� ° �
_ J
BURNETT PLA�E SOUTH
___._- — _______
_ _._... _ .
�
._. _.---------- _ . c
_ __ _..__
. .. . . ___._ . . .. . _ . �L
�
m
�O �
W O
N
W �
C7
w
J
{ y oo'� BORING 1 - 20�3
a�'e�� tio� <4 �� 5
�a� � � c�a� ��a�' Description
I ; � Grass over
' i ; I Orange-brown,slightiy sandy SILT, low plasticity,very moist, soft
I �
2 � , ML �
5 m=27 8% , ; I '
� �
j � )
i �
2� 2 J Brown,gravelly SAND, fine-to medium-grained, moist, medium-dense
10 � ::: ; : ::
SP
� �
11 3 ' ' - becomes gray, very moist to wet
15
4 4 ' I I Gray,sandy SILT,with lenses of black,fibrous peat, non-plastic,wet, bose
20
ML
I � '
; � I
10 5 � Brown to gray SAND,fine-grained,wet,loose to medium-dense
25 -
. SP�::
�� -becomes gravelly,fine-to coarse-grained,wet,very dense
=�s.�% 50/5" 6
30 - '
" Test boring was terminated at 30 feet during drilling on October 14, 2003. I
"' Groundwater seepage was encountered at 13.5 feet during drilling. I
35
40
BORING LOG
� � GEOTECH 77 & 95 Burnett Avenue South
� CONSULTANTS,nvc. Renton, Washington
� ��-�— Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate:
03415 Se t 2004 GDB 3
� y �� BORING 2 - 2003
�°'���,e�ti°� <4 fi4�� `'
,�a � 5a �' Description
; Grass over
Orange-brown, sandy SILT, low plasticity, moist, soft
� i
5 1 '
5
ML
1 I
m=Ts.2% 24 2 ' I j - becomes brown, non-plastic,wet, medium-dense
10 �
�
:: Gray,gravelty SAND,fine-to coarse-grained,very moist, medium-dense
28 3 ........_...
15 '
1 �" �
44 4 SP � -becomes wet,dense
' ::
20
47 5 �. :
25 , : ::::::::::
* Test boring was terminated at 25 feet during drilling on October 14, 2003.
* Groundwater seepage was encountered at 8 feet and 18 feet during drilling.
30
35
40
BORING LOG
� GEOTECH 77 & 95 Burnett Avenue South
CONSULTAN'IS,nvc. Renton, Washington
-- Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate:
03415 Se t.2004 GDB 4
� y �� BORING 3 - 2003
�°''�ro�,e�ti°�' �4 �`e 5
�a � 5a �� Description
iGrass over
Orange-brown,sandy SILT, bw plasticity,very moist, loose
i ML
=2s.s% 3 � ' �
5 �
�
, I �,
Brown,gravelly SAND, fine-to coarse-grained, moist, medium-dense
17 2 '
10
SP �:`
Z :�'.
15 m=3.1% 50 3 _becomes wet, dense to very dense
� ::'::::':'::
48 4
� ::;:::: :
20
* Test boring was terminated at 20 feet during drilling on October 14, 2003.
; Groundwater seepage was encountered at 13 feet during drilling.
25
30
35
40
BORING LOG
� GEOTECH 77 & 95 Bumett Avenue South
CONSULTANZ`5,INC. Renton, Washington
--- - Job No: Date: Logged by: Plafe:
03415 Se t 2004 GDB 5
oti BORING 4 - 2003
a�'��,e tio�5 t4� �e 5
`�,Sp.ro � � � �a� Description
I ' Grass over
� Orange-gray,sandy SILT,non-plastic, moist, loose
I
8 � ' ML
5 �
I
�';;::� Gray silty SAND/sandy SILT, fine-grained, very moist to wet, loose
4 2 ML
10 ' SM :
,:,:::: :
Gray SAND,fine-to coarse-grained, very moist to wet, loose
8 3
15 ' ````�````:;i;
�
11 4 -becomes fine-grained, wet, medium-dense
' ;_:':=:;:s��:
20
SP _:
2$ 5 � -becomes gravelty, medium-to coarse-grained,wet, medium-dense
25 =��.�% ' ::':::::::':
6 :::::-:� -log
30 � ;:=:::;::<:
35 55 71
* Test boring was terminated at 35 feet during drilling on October 14, 2003.
* Groundwater seepage was encountered at 17 feet during drilling.
40 .
BORING LOG
� GEOTECH 77 g� g5 Burnett A�enue South
CONSITI.TAIVZS,INC. Renton, Washington
— Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate:
034'15 Se 2004 GDB 6
� BORING 5 - 2003
0
�°''`ro��°�y<4o ��e 5
�p,�' �' � �p. ��' Description
Grass over
I� ! Orange-gray, sandy SILT, non-plastic to low plasticity,very moist, loose
�
ML
5 m=35.3% 5 � � � I
,I ,
� I
�.�_�'.'. �
' Brown,gravelly SAND, fine-to medium-grained, moist, medium-dense j
10 15 2 � ;: ,
SP : i
�:
43 3 - becomes dense
95 ' ':.:..�,.._..
......
,__..:._.
Z = --- -- -- - _ _ -
Gray SAND,fine-grained,wet, loose
9 4
� � SP._..
20 �::
Brown, gravelly SAND, medium-to coarse-grained,wet, medium-dense
28 5
25 ' :.`_:.':'::
SP
30 77 6 -becomes very dense
� `. °;.:,� ,
* Test boring was terminated at 30 feet during drilling on October 14, 2003.
* Groundwater seepage was encountered at 17 feet during drilling.
35
40
BORING LOG
� GEOTECH 77 8� 95 Burnett Avenue South
CONSULTAN'I'S,INC.
� Renton, Washington
' Job No: Date: Logged by. P/ate:
03415 Se t_2004 GDB 7
� BORING 6 - 2003
�a�b�eg�°~Jy�4�fi4�� 5
,�a � c�a �}� Description
FILL Gray,gravelly SAND, fine-to medium-grained, moist, loose (FILL)
� i Orange-gray, sandy SILT,non-plastic to low plasticity,very moist, soft
5
=s2s% 5 � � ML I
ii �
- - — -- -- -- --- ----- - ---- _ -- - -
Orange-brown SAND, fine-grained, moist, loose
9 2
10 ' "
1 - -
29 3 -becomes brown, graveUy, very moist to wet, medium-dense
15 ' ''
26 4 SP ' -becomes gray, gravelly,wet
=1 L396 ' ^: �
20
44 5 s:;� -becomes brown,dense
25 ' � ```'=
* Test boring was terminated at 25 feet during drilling on October 14, 2003.
* Groundwater seepage was encountered at 13 feet during drilling.
30
35
40
BORING LOG
� GEOTECH 77 & 95 Burnett Avenue South
corrsui.T.vv�-s,nvc. Renton, Washington
- --- -- -- Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: $
034'15 Se t.2004 GDB
ti BORING 7 - 2003 '
�a��o�e �'°�y�4�fi4�e G5 I
�a � � � �5 Description I
Grass
� � Orange-gray, sandy SILT,low plasticity, very moist, soft
ML
� �s s� 4 1 ' , I I
Brown, gravelly SAND, fine-to coarse-grained, moist, medium-dense
18 2 � ,
10
64 3 -becomes gray(blows overstated due to gravel)
15 ' '
� : SP ::
Zg 4 � -becomes brown,wet, medium-dense
' :::=:::::-::
20
25 m=5.5%
71 5 ' i -becomes very dense
* Test boring was terminated at 25 feet during drilling on October 14, 2003.
" Groundwater seepage was encountered at 17 feet during drilling.
30
35
40
BORING LOG
� GEOTECH 77 & 95 BurnettAvenue So��th
* CONSULTANIS,nvc. Renton, Washington
�e..`�--�_ Job No: Date: Logged by: P/ate:
03415 Se t.2004 GDB 9
Sleve Opening�mm.)
0
0 0 0 0
o � o 0
0
100
� \ � 9D
.\
�
I ` \
� � �
; ����
, — �° �
, �
�
� � � �
� + , � . w
a
I � a
� � I a
. 40
\
�
� �� �
�
i � p
t
� \
♦
♦
10
. _--�—=--- _ � I
� w � . � # � * � �'—'- 0
a A °D o 0 0 0
0 0
Sieve Opening(US standxd)
� --�---&7,28'.m=19.196 —�----&2.13,m=3.1% —�—8�t.Z3,m=13.1%
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
� � GEOTECH 77 & 95 Burnett Avenue South
corrs�,T�rrs,nvc. Renton, Washington
�
� � Job No: Date: Plate:
03415 Seprt.2004 10
Sieve Opening(mm.) ��
0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
tOD
�`,
ti �
—�- , �
: ` �� i
i `� i
i
� � �
\
1
1 `�� �
� \ � 70
i 1
i \ ��
i � �
1 l i �
3 � � �
3
I � ' I � a
� \ m
� � � qp a
� �� i
I i
I ! �
�
��
f p
� � \ \
e 10
� � �
;-1-1- \ � I `
�' � � � � # � , � � — �
l P m O O O O
N �
= o 0
Sfeve Opening(US sta�dard)
--�—&S.28',rtr-9.T% —�--8-6.18',m=11.3% —i— &7,23'.m�.5%
� GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
� GEOTECH 77 & 95 Burnett Avenue South
corrsvr.-rarrrs, nvc. Renton, Washington
�
' � ��r Job No: Dafe: Plate:
I� 03415 Sept. 2004 11
S1ope backfili away from
foundation. Provide surface
drains where necessary.
Tightline Roof Drain
(Do not connect to footing drain)
Backfill �
{See te�for �
requirements) � c
O
- ,a Vapor Retarder
Nonwoven Geotextile � or Barrier
�
Filter Fabric �
Washed Rock u' SLAB '
�7IV�� CT�II�. SIZP.� _ __ - .G.`,,p .c:y",p c;.-�.p..cG.,�. .c.:�'.p,.a I
� . . . _ _ c�,n �,rc _C�c ��cC` .,��cCc•.��cC .C!C
_ � ____ _ ',�. �o . �, � , ��,. �o_ `�'. ^ _ �.
��,, �_�„ ���,, �a�,
��,' - - '��� _•��` ��
_ -- - _i� —;If' r�-+
�y �
6" min. `�- - —<<ii�i !�� �
__ -
Free-Draining Gravel
(if appropriate)
4" Pertorated Hard PVC Pipe
(Invert at ieast 6 inches below
slab or crawl space. Slope to
drain to appropriate outFall.
Place holes downward.)
rvorEs:
(1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that
bypasses the perimeter footing drains.
(2) Refer to report text for additional drainage and waterproofing considerations.
FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL
_ � GE�TECH 77 & 95 Burnett Avenue South
CONSULTANl'S,�rrc. Renton, Washington
�
• o o: Date; ca e: Plate:
� ��— 03415 Sept.2004 Not to Scale 12
Test Borin�Lo�s from Previ.pus Studv
95�urnett Avenue South
Renton, Washington
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
� BORING 1
ti� . r �e,{ ,�,�4°� tiz
`���5`�' `��a���4'�� 4e 5a�� �5�� Description
FI LL Asphalt over brown SAND with fine gravel, rnoist, loose (F/LL}
2 � � � � �' ' � Brown to gray, sandy SILT, moist, soft
� ML
5 � ' {
4 2 F� ' � - becomes more sandy
� I � I
13 3 � { gp Brown SAND, slightly oxid�zed, with trace of silt, fine- to medium-grained,
10 � ! moist, medium dense
23 4 a ! Brown, gravelly, SAND, fine-to coarse-grained, wet, medium dense
�
� SW
i
15 20 I
5 � 1, � : - becomes more gravelly
�
, I
20
� !
11 6 � ML � Grayish-brown SILT with fine sand, wet, stiff
� I
2� �. �. � Brown, silt GRAVEL with sand, fine-to coarse- rained, wet,
21 7 � . GM . Y 9 'I
rnedi um-dense �
41 8 � •� •� • - becomes dense III
30 I!
* Test borfng was terminated at 29 feet during dritling on April 23, I999.
35 '� Groundwater seepage was encountered during drilldng at IO feet
40
BORING LOG
� G E O T E C H 95 Burnett,4venue South
CONSULTANTS, INC.
� Renton, Washington
��� Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate:
�� 99132 May 1999 TAJ 3
� BORING 2
o -
��'� ����' a�'�ti� tio��{4� ��e �,5
`��e� `�,�ab � � 5d� �5 Description
FILL 2" asphait over 6" concrete over brown, silty SAND with
some gravel, damp, loose (FILL)
� � ; �
� M� Brown SILT with sand and gravel, moist, soft
5 � � � � . .; �
• • Brown, sandy GRAVEL to graveliy SAND, moist, dense
SP
GP .,
. ,,
14 23 2 � '. �. ' No sampie
� .' . .
. .
.. f .
. <,.:!
(�' ` Brown, sandy GRAVEL with trace of siit, fine-to coarse-grained, moist,
I �5 58 3 � u very dense
I
�
�
I
2Q * Test boring was ter»unated at 1 C�S feet during drilling on Apri123, 1999.
* No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling.
25
,
;
30
35 � I
40
BORING LOG
� � G E O T E C H 9S Burnett Avenue South
CONSULTANTS, INC.
* Renton, Washington
i � Job No: Date: Logged�: Plate:
i _ ��1C
99132 May 1999 TA 4
� BORING 3
o .
��'�'��� o-�'�tie Lo`�` �,t�� ��� 5
`��e5 `�,�a� � 4 �afi �5G Description
Brown organic iapsoil over
� SM Brown, silty SAND, fine-grained, trace af organics, moist, loose
4 � �;
5 � �:, � ML Brownish gray with orange mottling, SILT with sand, very moist, soft
2 2 ��i '
S� + Gray, silty SAND, fine-grained, wet, very loose
E.; SP I
5 3 �;� I - becomes less silty
10 . ;
10 4 .; �� Gray, sandy SILT with organic layers, ocxasiona( gravel, we#, stiff
�
� I "
�� 8 5 �;;': SP Brown SAND with trace of silt, fine-to medium-grained, wet, loose
�
20 :I - becomes gray
5 6� Gray, sandy SILT with thin organic layers, wet, loose
ML
�
' - becomes hard
25 ' 1
50/6" �� Gray, sandy GRAVEL with trace af sitt, wet, very dense
30 * Test boring was ter»unated at 26 feet during drdlding on April 23, 1999.
'� Groundwater seepage was encountered at 6 feet during drilling.
35
40
BORING LOG
� � G E OT E C H 95 Burnett Avenue South
CONSULTANTS, �Nc. Renton, Washington
�
e�� Job No: Date: Logged�: Plate:
�� 99132 May 1999 T 5
i' ti BORING 4
1 ° .
�eti tia,�' �a'`�rotie���,o��{�� �,4�'� ��a
9e ,�a � 5a �5 Description
FILL Bcown, fine sand (Top Soi� over
brown to orange, silty SAND with gravel, moist, loose (�ILL)
`' i
5 I �M�� Brown SILT to silty SAND, with some gravel, moist, loose
3 1 � i ' �
j � ,' j - becomes gravelly
i; .r t,
:� ,
10 g� 2 � ,, SP !' grown, graveliy SAND, medium-to coarse-grained, moist, dense
� �;
�� * Test boring was terminated at 12.f'eet during drilling on April 23, �999.
* No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling.
20
Z5
30
35
40
Bo�nvG LOG
� G E O T E C H 95 Burnett Avenue South
CONSULTANTS, lNC.
� Renton, T�Ijashington
� ' Job No: Date: Logged by: Plare: �
� 99132 May 1999 TAJ 6 ,
I