Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03238 - Technical Information Report - Geotechnical . . ' G E O T E C H 13256 NE 20th Street,Suite 16 P.O. Box 205�3 'i M Bellevue,WA 98d05 Tacoma,WA 98401 �U � CONSULTANTS, INC. 206-747-5618 FAX 747-8561 206-627-5990 FA`C 6?'-�:1� � � � �� m August 26, 1997 JN 97281 Dally Homes 3316 Fuhrman Avenue, Suite 100 Seattle, Washington 98102 Attention: Charlie Laboda Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Mixed-Use Building 2XX Logan Avenue South Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Laboda: We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed mixed-use building to be constructed in Renton, Washington. The scope of our work 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, and pavements. You authorized our work by accepting our proposal, P-4293, dated August 6, 1997. , The subsurace conditions of the proposed building site �vere explored with four test borirgs that encountered loose fill and alluviaf soils overlying dense, gravelly sands. Due to the potential for . unacceptable settlement if conventional foundations were to be used, we recommend that the building loads be carried on deep foundations. On-grade slabs can be used, but should be reinforced with steel bars to reduce cracking due to differential settlement. Pavement sections should be supported over imported, gravelly structural fill. The on-site soils will not be useable for structural fill, including utility backfill. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further assistance during the ', design and construction phases of this project. ' Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. � �� � ��� - I� ��'�������._.. Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. � ,._, Associate C�� 1 � �9� DF�ECUp M R M:a I t crry�F R���N�N�, � ,238 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Mixed-Use Building 2XX Logan Avenue South Renton, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnicai engineering study for the site of the proposed mixed-use building in Renton. The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. We were provided with a conceptual site plan and a lot map. These plans showed the property dimensions and a potential layout for the building. Based on the provided plans, and on discussions with Charlie Laboda of Dally Homes, we anticipate that the site development could consist of a large structure containing four floors of apartment units over a main floor occupied by retail space and a parking garage. The main floor would be close to the existing site grades, with no basement planned for the development. On-grade parking will be provided in the Seattle pipeline right-of-way that abuts the southern boundary of the site. It appears that some street improvements may be made in Logan Avenue South. SITE CONDITIONS I, Surface I The site is a relatively large, irregularly-shaped parcel situated on the northern portion of downtown i Renton. The provided lot map indicates that the property consists of at least two lots. Morris Avenue South and Logan Avenue South abut the west and east sides of the property, respectively. I The angled southem boundary of the site adjoins a Seattle pipeline right-of-way. The ground , surface on the property is relatively flat, with an apparent slight grade down toward the south. At the time of our explorations the site was covered with asphalt, concrete, and gravel. The northern and western portions of the property were being used for temporary storage of automobiles. The southeastern corner of the site was asphalt-paved and had apparently been used in the past for an automobile lot. A small, wood frame building that had been used by a past dealership was still present in this area. Much of the site was surrounded by chain link fences. Existing development in the vicinity of the site is a combination of commercial and residential. The area south of the site is paved for parking within the Seattle pipeline right-of-way. South of this are older commercial and retail buildings. Immediately north of the western two-thirds of the property is an older single-family home and a detached garage. Within several feet of the north boundary of the eastern one-third of the site is a commercial building that contains a tire dealership. The surrounding commercial and retail buildings are primarily of concrete masonry (CMU) construction. We observed indications of significant differential settlement in several of the neighboring buildings. This was most obvious in the structures situated south of the pipeline right-of-way, where we observed several large cracks extending the fult height of the building walls. Subsurface The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling four test borings at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration program was based upon the proposed construction and required design criteria, the site topography and access, the subsur�ace GEOTC-CH COtiSL'LTAVTS,INC. Dally Homes JN 97281 August 26, 1997 Page 2 conditions revealed during drilling, the scope of work outlined in our proposal, and on time and budget constraints. The borings were drilled on August 12 and 13, 1997, using a truck-mounted, hollow-stem auger drill. Samples were taken at 5-foot intervals with a standard penetration sampler. 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 sampier a given distance is an indication of the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the drilling process, logged the test borings, and obtained representati�e samples of the soil encountered. The Test Boring Logs are attached as Plates 3 through 6. The four borings encountered 11 to approximately 25 feet of loose, sandy silt and silty sand below . the surface cover of gravel or asphalt. These upper soils appear to be a combination of fill and alluvium (river deposits). The geologic maps for Renton indicate that much of the area in the site vicinity has been modified by past grading activities. River channels have meandered through various portions of Renton since the last glaciers receded. Boring 2 encountered a log in the alluvium at a depth of approximately 22 feet. Beneath the alluvium and fill, the borings found dense sand containing varying amounts of gravel. These sands were revealed to the bottom of the borings. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs. 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. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test boring logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during drilling. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of 8 to 18 feet. The test 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. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General It is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The test borings conducted on the site encountered loose fill and alluvium overlying dense sands. The loose soils are 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 building be supported on deep foundations embedded into the dense sands. Due to the presence of potentially caving near- surface soils and groundwater, it appears that augercast piers are the most suitable deep foundation option. Vibrations from driven piling could potentially damage surrounding structures. GEOTECH COVSULTANTS. [VC. Dally Homes JN 97281 August 26, 1997 Page 3 Ground improvements methods, such as dynamic compaction or gravel columns, do not appear feasible for this project. If some differential settlement is allowable in the lowest floor, which will be used primarily for parking, a slab-on-grade could be used. This slab should be reinforced with steel bars to limit the potential for excessive cracking. Number 4 rebar at 18-inch centers both way in the slab are 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 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. trip hazard) will form at the door threshold. Areas of soft subgrade soils should be excavated beneath slabs and replaced with structural fill. As evidenced by the settlement and relatively poo� performance of many pavements in the surrounding area, the near-surface loose soils do not provide good subgrade support. Gravelly structural fill should be provided beneath pavement sections to improve their performance. The near-surface soils are generally silts, which are unsuitable for reuse as structural fill due to their sensitivity to moisture. Utility backfill and other structural fill will need to be imported in order for proper compaction to be achieved. The moisture-sensitive soils will be susceptible to disturbance under equipment and foot traffic, particularly when they are wet. Quarry spalls or a similar gravelly material should be used to construct access roads and working pads where heavy equipment traffic is expected. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final deve!opment 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. Augercast Concrete Piers Augercast piers are installed using continuous flight, hollow-stem auger equipment. Concrete grout must be pumped continuously through the auger as it is withdrawn. 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 fest into dense strata. For transient loading, such as wind or seismic loads, the allowable pier capacity may be increased by one-third. We can provide design 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 25 to 40 feet 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 order 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- GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,[NC. Dally Homes JN 97281 August 26, 1997 Page 4 loads are applied. We estimate that differentiai 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 at 10 feet below the ground surface for the computation of lateral load resistance. The loose soil against the piers can be assumed to have a design passive earth resistance of 100 pounds per cubic foot (pcfl acting on two times the pier diameter. This relatively low passive pressure is intended to account for the potential that some soil liquefaction could occur adjacent to piers during an earthquake. 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 fluid with a density of 200 pcf. Seismic Considerations The site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1994 UBC, the site soil profile is best represented by Profile Type S3. The loose soils beneath the water table are susceptible to seismic liquefaction during a moderate to large earthquake. On-grade elements, such as slabs and pavements, would likely undergo significant differential settlement where liquefaction occurs. The use of deep foundations to support the building should prevent catastrophic foundation settlement that could result from seismic liquefaction. Slabs-on-Grade The subgrade soil beneath on-grade slabs must be in a firm, non-yielding condition at the time of slab construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported, structural fill. The use of reinforcing steel is recommended to reduce the potential for differential slab settlement and c�acking. 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 later in Permanent Foundation and Retaininq Walls. In areas where the passage of moisture through the slab is undesirable, a vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, should be placed beneath the slab. Additionally, sand c�uld be used in the fine-grading process to reduce damage to the vapor barrier, to provide uniform support under the slab, and to reduce shrinkage cracking by improving the concrete curing process. Permanent Foundation and Retaininq 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 design parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: GEOTECH CO:VSULT.-��TS,I�C. Dally Homes JN 97281 August 26, 1997 Page 5 Parameter Desiqn Value Active Earth Pressure* 40 pcf Soil Unit Weight 130 pcf Where: 1. pcf is pounds per cubic foot. � �, 2. Active earth pressures are computed ' using the equivalent fluid densities. ' ' 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 above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level, structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning 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 surcharge slopes or loads, such as vehicles, will be placed behind the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil pressures. Also, if 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. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls 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 be accomplished with hand-operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction. Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free-draining, structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The near-surface soils are not free-draining. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall 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 pe-colate into GEOTECH CONSL"LTA�ITS,INC. the backtili. The sub-section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contair recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaininc and foundation wails. The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof th� below-grade walls. If some seepage through the walls or moist conditions are nc� acceptable, damp-proofing or waterproofing should be provided. This could include limiting cold-joints and wall penetrations, and possibly using bentonite panels or membranes on th� outside of the walls. Applying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion is not considere waterproofing, but it will only help to prevent m���`��•P ^A^Ara'A�' {��m ��-=+a• ��a��� caoillarv action frcro seeoincr throuoh the concref� Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and nation� safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted �ertically unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. Based upon Washingtc Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil type above the groundwater table would t classified as Type C. Therefore, temporary cut slopes cannot be excavated at an inclinatic steeper than 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom a cut. Temporary excavations that encounter caving soils or seepage will need to be shored and may require dewatering. 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. Utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. Drainaae Considerations We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of footings, where (1) crawl spaces or basements will be below a structure, (2) a slab is below the outside grade, or {3) the outside grade does not slope downward from a building. Drains should also be placed at the base of all backfilled, earth-retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch- minus, washed rock and then wrapped in 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. Drainage should also be provided inside the footprint of a structure, where (1) a crawl space will slope or be lower than the surrounding ground surface, (2) an excavation encounters significant seepage, or (3) an excavation for a building will be close to the expected high groundwater elevations. We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should they become necessary, during excavation and foundation construction. 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 7. For the best long-term performanc�, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. I GEOT�CH CO�SULT:1\TS.f\C. Dally Homes JN 97281 � August 26, 1997 Page 7 Groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perfo�ated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. I 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 buildings should �I slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Pavement Areas All pavement sections should be supported over at least 8 inches of imported, yravelly structural fill. Additional structural fill or fabric may be needed to stabilize soft, wet, or unstable areas. We recommend using Supac SNP, manufactured by Phillips Petroleum Company, or a non-woven fabric with equivalent strength and permeability characteristics. In most instances where unstable subgrade conditions are encountered, 12 inches of granular, structural fill will stabilize the subgrade, except for very soft areas where additional fill could be required. The subgrade should be evaluated by Geotech Consultants, Inc., after the site is stripped and cut to grade. Recommendations for the compaction of structural fill beneath pavements are given in a later sub- section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill. The performance of site pavements is directly related to the strength and stability of the underlying subgrade. The pavement section for lightly-loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of 2 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 4 inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or 3 inches of asphalt-treated base {ATB). We recommend providing heavily-loaded areas with 3 inches of AC over 6 inches of CRB or 4 inches of ATB. Heavily-loaded areas are typically main driveways, dumpster sites, or areas with truck traffic. The City of Renton may have additional requirements for pavement improvements in city right-of-ways. The pavement section recommendations and guidelines presented in this report are based on our experience in the area and on what has been successful in similar situations. Some maintenance and repair of limited areas can be expected. To provide for a design without the need for any repair would be uneconomical. General Earthwork and 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 could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under 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, or near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry GEOTECH CO�SULTA`TS.ItiC. Dally Homes JN 97281 August 26, 1997 Page 8 density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controiled during the filling and compaction process. The allowab►e 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 compacted to specifications, 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 recommended relative compactions for structural fill: � Minimum Location of Fill Placement Relative Compaction Beneath footings, slabs, 95% or walkways Behind retaining walls 90% Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of 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 1557-78 (Modified Proctor). LIMITATIONS The analyses, 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 encountered in the test borings is 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 test 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 recommended 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 Dally Homes 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 and engineering analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. Dally Homes JN 97281 August 26, 1997 Page 9 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 procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents so the contractor may be aware of our findings. ADDITIONAL SERVICES In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services 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 not 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. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 6 Test Boring Logs Plate 7 Footing Drain Detail GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,[VC. Dally Homes JN 97281 August 26, 1997 Page 10 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. 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 4,G oM� I wnsjf�G rjr � �`�' •� �'�,�,� ��T `� � � $/w197 � .. � �o ,� vsas � ww ��, �CIST£R4' 1� ss��N A L F.r G �vnioFS ;4 �'�� 1'�7 Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Associate ���� �� � James R. Finley, P.E. Principal MRM/JRF:aIt GEOTFCH COVSULTA`'TS.[NC. y _ "w�,"� .'�rr�,�r r ti4r �, ;� �i ti .�., ,, i y i POWELL t� SW � - N �v S� ry aN° ���y � �C ,. Iv , � �n_ ]00 � � o� 2p . v y--- --- �� t� ° � N N `�"°"_ ,^� R4E �' r���,s � Su�� � S A�S �� � o .� - �� �� �tl _ � '����� � _ __ RA ND �i AV SW � _ 700 _ M � A w`F e�ni�v s �_ N -' �' � I < < o �_�� rtl..� , .;,=� � I �, � -_—--- v -—�— R5E -- -� � z � r � � ';'" 'n 2 � ,�� ize �(�_`� �n w z 5 NECA AV Sw = 5 �r N 4 �v �.s� y ��i µ '� '" Y�' -�o �, 5!'NECA G 8� �� �n �� �. „ � es x N AV SW �� L N D V � �'�W �' ��b z �tra�S4 � � Nf�w nu� `��fr ri�+ av s� 'r` N 19U0 � N � � �� !00 N�F F>v �1 � 1 SI! ���~ STFVEN$�AY N�Ny ' B7 1 `D N � �LE �-I � AV YSW= �� -/ AV 5�. b l IND �$y � � ND AV 4OU � Y I (/�)A � g � _ ^' O = �o �����+ O R�' � � MAPIE AV � HV O�¢�V� �vhu • ` �� 1 i -i uj y � N � � A ■ � �� � � fAYLON� �' a� ..a 1d '1`�i,o.M1$+ A O ` E VA LEY � � £ a HAHIIIF�y„�� � � "v F `.-� ". � R -� � '�€ �� Z S t'IURIIIE ,��? �� N •� h*T � INNOI[g -'^iAV� E �O� � AY Sv T � !Y ���R'�� � ��.." '.,�,�� � c � �-���d n :_�� ��zN �,�� �, N N z � �`�._.,\""1131N1`�r- �� N �� �n f= ,J �QS�, __. o'X . � ' j w IAKf AV L�KC AVu� r _t.'�'._ ���4 w- y� I v� �� ''�y -��1 Y ."� � ■ SIIAT tUCK i� �„ '� N Iv��, N ^ �' �— /�MU_ �� � Ad ��t i•' � AV � --� �n � D �.�.,. �.,,:.,� ��,e _ �� - - /%' �-�--T ii e�rr��ae lo 'ne x S Atl S1�V0 ca � p,flt- - aoo p. $ O �D A fi b� ��"1 � � � ". '^'{� G� �. utw A 5 �� � .v x ���1,:,�p•a.:♦zq�y:•_.r:+�.�;..� � ,a N� N M'`' � �' 1500 v� ��C'11 0 .y p - MRRIS �n � yyA � ' t2n� � y b° , . � t iiy. * � ~ MORNIS AV 5 �A�wq� /" ' r^•,Q �Y V - S '� -� �b� u �, � 5�ti��s���"' r�iwAi ci s T,��e i N a �.v c:� � ^ �� �.`�� SMI1 ERS AY S � � -� � 7015pn� N �k � �:•� `✓'� �i' .al��.r;,� SMITIIFP$ AV ry AD -Ni� �V� N $Milll(flS � � �� iy S 3� LOGAN A1/Z � ..•� IF � �L �' ��J!..��i NIIINIM�• n C'� . -i � � �- i'� $ .�y ~ F,AV S G) Ci y,y.�f�i BU ETT4'� N (!1 S ( 's � n. y �" b�� � � �� _ ' `� �, �'" AV AvS�.� �''� ' �'+4N � � �� z ., ii� � J �,5 n� I�i C�.�.� ��.".� ,y.. 5 �-�"i � � WIILIAMS i ����'i J' ■,�: b.yt�F!!:'�'i y£ j � u W'' ��Sua�o�W��e.:;uiitiu�s �v s : � j -�- �� WELLS -�+ � � x 5 S �� BUR -n�W Y `� AV N r Z 3 � � �, +� S MAI 50o A r - S �a�' " a NI LIAMS� N �--• , is�v s^ ,n c��" �� r s gpd OSN3�1 N AV f�." `� `'� "ti �.AV z ��� �• �, � 13 N =� S I� _ :°' ti5��'s �-N. �sr .„a-ti �" 3,0 y o ; CCDARnAV p!S �' � f� � Hui,,, r� \ � M LL AY N+��°� !v� ELLS_. qy N o� ty� --,lOaTH- Y-S - �b c�f c�:oaR } AV S �'" +� � � S lo0 2 PELLY - AV N � 1 � �� •• � AV M1 B� .. p�• '"1 5TH q��V�.�SE �'�i', S g y c, 'P S �,b,r.. 7 i N "' ',lr� - ,� ��� r,RAN7 �V S\,,d,�0 ua ' F,�,'���ys o~GARD o o x� A�y y � ]0 TH AV SF �'�zf N ^ � oOIT ,y,IIIGII AV S � � � �'� AV 900 N 16GUJ f w y I �ti, GRANT ,�` ^ � ���FR MEA N 7 x b f� 1 �❑v� � c �&lU N JONCS r,V1W -• I� �� .ti f,'...r�.�. ��.\ FAC70R AV �' N � r. � r- C ' -� ' G `P � SE �'``� •m. e o . s -m-��s �Nc ~ ���' : :'� � , a�ti#4,.ro�j^ � \ ��� � L� m � n � ��yn�� l0i 9711.�.��AV Sf�^ p,,aor ,S n s�Hor�S ux s m p �o� � ��'A��' �s` S� '� N ' � � � y� ,,....,,- �`^ �� a�S7wOP it� Ki n Icc CT St �•. �i 1 ��•�',�, B(�� A � � �' r r °i ��r �i' 1 0?-T ti, �'f W � � o m ;;� � INCoIx PI -'^. s�,rx„ ucn� � '� ��. -. l�� � �� �I � � � 11 n?.- � / s[ �u u u cr sc i � Ni.[�n w ranru� ci sc te,. �ii�i �v rF e qD / MONiEREY pp HE y O Z � -�� 111T11� AV SE ��„�.. o-� � � � f.. mblq0 �� ^�N %'.'� � x A � r A Oi �t'r 1v, ^7� F/f� C) . Il4! " � v s � 1�� �ST ,F EF,y�� ,�^, �i � �� HE'"� z . BRONSON � o ` m y, - =113TH n AV SE 1 t3 i �v se �•�;;" ^F��{u�Mf��'�0(/y 9UINC CT$C F � a4 ^ B�q�,y ~ m ��NF� � �¢; p =? 411AV� ^4 114T11 AVSE �. %' Q�i�r r� �'~C � "� �'f' 2~ O�.\P�y� � [o• "5' 9�yF' t� o �y N ��^ �yN! �+�� : � � � �' 115TII AV SCo, �'^ I ..ra`y M'Ty�����J'� N ^� �\� �����jIi PO ��� `�' un� �y 0 � �� N� ~ ~ � � �� - fll �� �i �' a �'a���l 4?' �Jo�.. ,li� `c /,V y'� . ��' � ' /� .1'!" .�r^ r W � m �� i�uuo �� S� �...c AV E �'R ^.� A � ��,� m e O � e�„ (n � �i�iiii ri ^.'^ � tiW ���n� �v sr�•t�' � s yq �u �� -�- � OMO �� a`" . � iirrn ,,:Se "'�.'+� m [�o •.�'�, �- d:3�' 0``� � C��Y 0''� NDS AV NE '+i' �r�i r,�r� � ��., q ( '�. �^' � •, `t -'��ii�i o � 1�°` ; W'4^,'K'~,lr�t , a `' '� ^,Sa ti `'}�� r ��° �� .,, r " � � c' 9�y Y^,�. ` ,��Q � .� 1//� b �i m o ���� c�� �;U�N� �u� b� -�1 lTll AV Sf �i t .rF�� .\� ��i .,���` '� � a� �J` � „ w�+� t � 1 I70111 J�I:YIIII AV. � : l� y Z l �+ � i1 4MIW Ay � 77'- � � J sa, �� �1,f W,���+, � a4 �v sr -�.�� . 120TI AV SE''e � :' � i� �,v ,, ,W � �,y / p �:" t SI ,AV S( y� `J �/7 �„ � � �� R�� � y�� � IURRINGIO Y NC 15�V N �� �i� -i 1115I AV SF 1115i � / �y '�y \:� S�♦ ' j0 tp d}� a�,H m J' � 4 ^. � � 1. �, '�..'- tn INpE1I►L INOCK AV � D V SE ^i:exn, _� - � AV SE 5 4^� �a o� m NF ,�, �., ... 1; '� ' ir:Nn , var � �l ���. �+..�' ,x�r vw� . .,. -i�l ��' s�'. ," ,.,.. ti s � 'N - - - _ � B_�- > � 6-�3 a , cn _ � i B-2 , oc ' � ' � , cr� � W > . Q Z Q C7 ,� p ; � � I SFq_TTZ II'I F a�P� c IN� R! I GyT �F `� II W,q y , L'EGEND: � APPROXIMATE BORtNG COCATlONS ' SITE EXPLORaTfON PLAN ___ � GEOTECH 2XX LOGAN aVENUE S CONSULTANTS � RENTON, WA �, � �. .Jod No.r Lbts: P/ol�� ""�"�'�"�- 9728t AUG 1997 � . . y`�`{��,���`1 `� �S �o�` 6 O R I N G � Ot `�'t \y'�Q 0`� { � L� S� �� Q� USCS Descri tion FILL Cn�shed rock(FILL) Reddish-brown, sandy SILT, moist, loose s I 5 ML - becomes gray, less sandy io ' 2 is 36 ' Reddish-brown, aravelly SAND, medium-grained, wet, dense � �o ' - becomes less �ravelly 66 �s I -coarser-jrained, Qravelly 56 - SP so 65 ' ' 3s ' . - becomes sli;htly silty 82 �o g� I Test borinQ was ter►ninated at 41.5 feet below arade on 8-13-97. Groundwater seepa�e was encountered at 17 feet durin��drillina. TEST BORING LOG `._- � GEOTECH 2XX LOGAN AVENUE SOUTH CONtiUL"1'��;��rs, i�c. RENTON, WASHINGTON � �� Job No: Date: Logged by: Plaie: `�� 9728T AUGUST 1997 JHS 3 . ,�,�� ..��1 `� S o�� BORING 2 o•`' �,`�' �1Q o�, t� � L° S� �` Q�" USCS Descri tinn FILL Brown, silty SAND, very moist, loose (FILL) ::: Brown, low plasticity SILT, with fine SAND, very moist, loose � -becomes sandier 5 4 ' a :: s�� ':�_becomes ara wet ve loose titL � y> > '�' io 2 � Gray and brown SAND, medium-arained, with trace silt, wet, is 18 ' , _ medium-dense SP ` � ,� 14 �'�'''"':: Brown SAND, with wood, tine- to medium-�rained, wet, medium- dense ' ���������� - loj encountered �5 32 ...sNt :: � 00 a�o�o�a�o 30 4� ;°o°°°a°o° Brown, slijhtly silty, gravelly SAND, wet, dense � a0000 a,o,o,o,o, �o�o o�o�a a,o,o,o,a, Q,o,o,o,o, �a�o a�o�o ss o0o SP oo -becomes coarser-arained, heavily iron stained 71/10 ` 000a�o �o o�o�o�o op00000aoo ' o po 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 0 000000000a 0000000000 ;lQ °o�o°o�o°o 88 �,°o°o°,�o° Test borinQ was terminated at 41.5 feet below arade on 8-13-97. Groundwater seepaje was encountered at 18 feet durin; drillin�. TEST BORING LOG � _- .� GEOTECH 2XX LOGAN AVENUE SOUTH cc��sut.�•,��Ts,��c. RENTON, WASHINGTON �. � Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 97281 AUGUST 1997 JHS 4 � �1 � I', y�`,t`z,,. ,� ,S �oo BORiNG 3 0 0,� �,.�4 `o"�,� � G S � Q USCS Descri tinn Elevation: 2" AC/2" CRB/2" Concrete I Reddish-brown, silty SAND, fine- to medium-grained, moist, loose (FILL) ' -becomes less silty ' 5 46 ' -becomes gravelly, dense FILL ' ia 47 ' ; - : Brown, SAND, fine- to medium-grained, wet, dense is 37 ' � -becomes aravelly �o S3 � sp �5 - with some silt _ 9a I 30 80/5" � Test borin; was terminated at 31 feet below�grade on 8-12-97 due to drill refusal. Groundwater seepaae was encountered at 18 feet durin� drillina. � 35 y 40 TEST BORING LOG I � _- � GEOTECH 2XX LOGAN AVENUE SOUTH � covsu�.�'�r�rTs,�vc. RENTON, WASHINGTON � � Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: g72g� AUGUST i997 JHS 5 `S��.i`�,`��1 Q�� `yS 40�� B O R I N G 4 �o Go,� 5�,.�` ��,o �t Q USCS Descri tion Elevation: 2" AC/3" CRB Brown, very silty SAND, fine-arained, moist, loose (FILL) -becomes very moist s 5 � FILL � -becomes gray, �vet � io ' 11 ����=::Brown, silty SAND, with iron stains, fine- to medium-grained, "�S� �� moist, medium-dense :�: is ' Gray SAND, fine- to medium-grained, wet, medium-dense 24 � SP ' . �p - Wilil Sulllt; �i;l�it1Ci il'011-StailiCC1 Ic;ils�s 1g � .,_ °o°o°;°;°Gray and brown, Qravelly SAND, wet, dense _� 41 ' o0000 � o�o o�o�o o�o�o�o�e o�o o�o 0 o�o�o�a�a 0 o�a a�o 0 o�a�a�o o�o�o�o�o o�o o a�o 30 46 ' ,�o�o o�o o�o o�a�o o�o�o�o�o ,0000, ,�sw �, I o gp °o o°o �o o°o°a°o 0 35 o°a°o°o 0 g� ' o°o°a°o°o o°o°o°o 0 a°o°o°o 0 a°o°o°o 0 a°o o°o°o o°o o°o°o o'a°o°o°o o'o o°a°o 40 ' o�o�o°o 0 59 0�0 0�0�0 Test borinQ was terminated at 41.5 feet below grade on 8-12-97. Groundwater seepa�e was encountered at 8 feet durin� drillin�. TEST BORING LOG � _- _� GEOTECH 2XX LOGAN AVENUE SOUTH CUNtiliL"I'.1N'fti,�vc. RENTON, WASHINGTON � � � Job No: Date: Logged 6y: Plate: g72g> AUGUST i997 JHS 6 S/ope bockfi/1 owoy fiom foundalion. � � � T/GHTL/NE ROOF ORA/N � Do nol connect fo foo/ing d�ain. � BACKF/L L See Iex/ fo� V.4POR BARR/ER requi�emenls. SLAB t _L WASHED ROCK .o.° '.'o�•- "�:�� ���� `;., 4��min. •.o'.o: , %.` � � ��: .•a: ,d� n i i�� 6 min. •:,. ..: � � FREE-DRA/N/NG NONK'OVEN GEOTEXT/LE SAND/GRAVEL F/LTER FABR/C 4'�PERFORATED HARD PVC P/PE /nverl o/ %os/ as /ow os fooling and/or ' craw/ spoce. S/ope 10 drain. P/oce weepho/es downwo�d. ; � FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL _�_�� GEOTECH 2XX LOGAN AVENUE S �°; CONSULTANTS � RENTON, WA � :� , ✓od No.� Oa!!� Sco/e P,�ofe �� � � 97281 AUG 199T N.T.S. �