HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.31 Garage - VMC Geo ReportGeotechnical Engineering Services
Valley Medical Center FY 2017
Proposed Parking Garage
Renton, Washington
for
Valley Medical Center
August 2, 2016
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Valley Medical Center FY 2017
Proposed Parking Garage
Renton, Washington
for
Valley Medical Center
August 2, 2016
8410 154th Avenue NE
Redmond, Washington 98052
425.861.6000
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING ........................................................................................................... 1
Field Explorations................................................................................................................................1
Laboratory Testing ..............................................................................................................................1
PREVIOUS SITE EVALUATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 2
SITE CONDITIONS........................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Regional Geology ................................................................................................................................2
Surface Conditions..............................................................................................................................2
Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................................................2
Fill…………. ....................................................................................................................................3
Glacially Consolidated Soils ...........................................................................................................3
Sandstone Bedrock.......................................................................................................................3
Groundwater Conditions ......................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 3
Earthquake Engineering ......................................................................................................................4
Liquefaction .................................................................................................................................4
Lateral Spreading .........................................................................................................................4
Surface Rupture ...........................................................................................................................4
Other Seismic Hazards ..................................................................................................................4
2012 IBC Seismic Design Information ............................................................................................5
Excavations ........................................................................................................................................5
Excavation Considerations.............................................................................................................5
Temporary Cut Slopes ...................................................................................................................5
Soldier Pile and Tieback Walls .......................................................................................................6
Shallow Foundations ...........................................................................................................................9
Allowable Bearing Pressure ...........................................................................................................9
Settlement .................................................................................................................................10
Lateral Resistance ......................................................................................................................10
Construction Considerations ........................................................................................................11
Slab-on-Grade Floors .........................................................................................................................11
Subgrade Preparation .................................................................................................................11
Design Parameters .....................................................................................................................11
Below-Slab Drainage ...................................................................................................................12
Below-Grade Walls ............................................................................................................................13
Permanent Below-Grade Walls .....................................................................................................13
Other Cast-in-Place Walls.............................................................................................................13
Drainage ....................................................................................................................................14
August 2, 2016 | Page i
File No. 2202-024-00
Table of Contents (continued)
Earthwork.........................................................................................................................................14
Stripping, Clearing and Grubbing..................................................................................................14
Erosion and Sedimentation Control ..............................................................................................14
Subgrade Preparation .................................................................................................................15
Structural Fill ..............................................................................................................................15
Permanent Slopes ......................................................................................................................17
Pavement Recommendations ............................................................................................................17
Subgrade Preparation .................................................................................................................17
New Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement....................................................................................................18
Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services ................................................................................18
LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................................... 18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site Plan
Figure 3. Earth Pressure Diagrams – Permanent Soldier Pile & Tieback Wall
Figure 4. Earth Pressure Diagram – Permanent Below Grade Walls
Figure 5. Recommended Surcharge Pressure
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Field Explorations
Figure A-1 – Key to Exploration Logs
Figures A-2 through A-8 – Log of Borings
Appendix B. Laboratory Testing
Appendix C. Boring Logs from Previous Studies
Appendix D. Ground Anchor Load Tests and Shoring Monitoring Program
Appendix E. Report Limitations and Guidelines
August 2, 2016 | Page ii
File No. 2202-024-00
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of GeoEngineers’ geotechnical engineering services for the Valley Medical
Center (VMC) FY 2017 Parking Garage project in Renton, Washington. The site is irregular in shape and is
located in the northern portion of the VMC campus at 400 South 43rd Street. The site is bordered to the
west by an existing parking garage, to the north by a steep-sided ravine, to the east by medical office
buildings and to the south by a VMC campus access road off Talbot Road South. The site is shown relative
to surrounding physical features on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 and the Site Plan, Figure 2.
The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations for the
design and construction of the planned parking garage development. GeoEngineers’ geotechnical
engineering services have been completed in general accordance with our signed agreement executed on
March 21, 2016.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
GeoEngineers understands that the Parking Garage project will be an expansion of the existing parking
garage at the north end of the campus. The new garage will be directly east of the existing garage and will
be up to eight levels above-grade. The lowest levels of the garage will be partially below grade adjacent to
the existing garage and may require excavations up to 25 feet below grade along the north end of the
garage.
Additionally, based on our understanding of the project temporary and/or permanent soldier pile retaining
walls will be used to support some of the excavations. We also understand that the permanent wall, where
present, will be offset 3 to 5 feet from the new garage structure.
Variable soil conditions are present at the anticipated foundation elevation; therefore, shallow foundations
bearing on native or structural fill are anticipated for foundation support.
FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING
Field Explorations
The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by drilling seven borings, GEI-1 through GEI-7, to
depths of approximately 15½ to 35¾ feet below existing site grades. The approximate locations of the
explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Descriptions of the field exploration program and the
boring logs are presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory Testing
Soil samples were obtained during drilling and were taken to GeoEngineers’ laboratory for further
evaluation. Selected samples were tested for the determination of fines content and grain-size distribution
(sieve analysis). A description of the laboratory testing and the test results are presented in Appendix B.
August 2, 2016 | Page 1
File No. 2202-024-00
PREVIOUS SITE EVALUATIONS
In addition to the explorations completed as part of this evaluation, the logs of selected explorations from
previous site evaluations in the project vicinity were reviewed. The logs of explorations from previous
projects referenced for this study are presented in Appendix C.
SITE CONDITIONS
Regional Geology
Published geologic information for the project vicinity includes a geologic map of the Renton Quadrangle
(Mullineaux 1965). The geologic map of the project area identifies subsurface soils to consist primarily of
glacial till deposits of the Vashon Drift. Also mapped in the area are Renton Formation sandstone with
interbeds of siltstone, claystone and coal.
Glacial till typically consists of a heterogeneous mixture of sand, gravel, cobbles and occasional boulders
in a silt and clay matrix that was deposited beneath a glacier. Because glacial till has been overridden by
thousands of feet of ice, it is typically dense to very dense.
Renton Formation sandstone consists of irregularly cemented arkosic sandstone, mudstone and shale and
locally contains coal deposits. Geologic map notes maximum thicknesses of approximately 2,500 feet.
Subsurface soils encountered in our explorations are consistent with the geologic mapping. Specific details
of subsurface conditions encountered in the field explorations are presented in the “Subsurface
Conditions” section below.
Surface Conditions
The site is currently occupied by asphalt and gravel surface parking, landscaped parking islands and several
mature coniferous and deciduous trees. The site steps down from east to west, with a total change in
elevation of approximately 20 feet.
Generally, the site appears to be clear of public utilities. The utilities on site consist of private stormwater,
power for the parking lot lights, and sewer services.
Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by completing seven geotechnical borings (GEI-1
through GEI-7) completed for the current study, and reviewing logs of explorations completed by others
immediately adjacent to the project site. The approximate locations of the explorations in the site vicinity
are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.
The geologic units encountered in the explorations consist of fill, glacially consolidated soils and sandstone
bedrock. Each of these units is described below in order of deposition starting with the most recent.
August 2, 2016 | Page 2
File No. 2202-024-00
Fill
Fill was encountered below the asphalt pavement or gravel in the explorations completed for this study and
previous studies. The fill typically consists of loose to dense silty sand or medium stiff to very stiff sandy silt
with variable gravel content and extends to depths ranging from 3 and 14 feet below existing site grades.
Glacially Consolidated Soils
The glacially consolidated soils encountered below the fill consist of weathered and unweathered glacial
till. The glacial till encountered consists of silty sand or sandy silt with variable gravel content. A medium
dense to very dense weathered zone nearer the surface transitions to the dense to very dense unweathered
glacial till below. The transition between weathered and unweathered glacial till was observed at depths
ranging from approximately 5 to 12 feet below site grades.
Glacial till extended approximately 22 to 24 feet below site grades in borings GEI-1, GEI-2 and GEI-5 and to
the depths explored in borings GEI-3, GEI-4, GEI-6 and GEI-7.
Sandstone Bedrock
Sandstone bedrock (Renton Formation) was encountered below the glacially consolidated soils in borings
GEI-1, GEI-2, and GEI-5 and consists of very dense cemented silty sand with occasional coal deposits.
Where encountered, the Renton formation extended to the depths explored.
Groundwater Conditions
Perched water was encountered at various depths in borings GEI-2, GEI-3, and GEI-4. The groundwater
observed in these borings was confined to wet, loose soils overlying dense to very dense soils with relatively
high fines content. The perched groundwater encountered is likely associated with seasonal rainfall.
Perched groundwater is expected to fluctuate as a result of season, precipitation, and other factors.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A summary of the primary geotechnical considerations is provided below. The summary is presented for
introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the complete recommendations
presented in this report.
■ The site is designated as Site Class C per ASCE/SEI 7-10 and the 2012 International Building Code
(IBC).
■ The groundwater table is likely well below the base of the excavation. Minor seepage inflows may be
expected where excavations intercept perched groundwater zones. We estimate flow rates from
incidental seepage may be on the order of 5 to 10 gallons per minute (gpm).
■ Temporary excavations may be completed with open cuts or with temporary and/or permanent soldier
pile and tieback walls. Soil nail walls are not recommended due to the thickness and variability of the
existing fill soils.
August 2, 2016 | Page 3
File No. 2202-024-00
■ Shallow foundations may be used and shall bear on either dense to very dense glacial till and/or
sandstone bedrock, on structural fill extending down to dense to very dense glacial till and/or
sandstone bedrock, or on a 2-foot-thick layer of structural fill placed over the existing fill and highly
weathered glacial soils:
For shallow foundations bearing directly on dense to very dense glacial till or sandstone
bedrock, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 10 kips per square foot (ksf) may be used.
For shallow foundations bearing on structural fill extending down to dense to very dense glacial
till or sandstone bedrock, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 6 ksf may be used.
For shallow foundations bearing on a 2-foot-thick layer of structural fill placed over the existing
fill and highly weathered glacial soils, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3 ksf may be used.
■ The majority of the on-site soils generally contain a high percentage of fines and are highly
moisture-sensitive. The on-site soils may be used as structural fill during dry weather conditions only
(typically June through September) provided the soils are properly moisture conditioned for compaction.
Imported granular soils with a low percentage of fines should be used as structural fill during wet
weather conditions and during the wet season (typically October through May).
Our specific geotechnical recommendations are presented in the following sections of this report.
Earthquake Engineering
Liquefaction
Liquefaction refers to the condition by which vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from earthquake
forces, results in the development of excess pore pressures in saturated soils with subsequent loss of
strength. In general, soils that are susceptible to liquefaction include very loose to medium dense, clean to
silty sands that are below the water table. Our analysis indicates that the soils that underlie the proposed
building area have a low risk of liquefying because of the density and gradation of these soils.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading involves lateral displacement of large, surficial blocks of soil as the underlying soil layer
liquefies. Because the buildings will bear on non-liquefiable soils, the potential for lateral spreading is
considered to be low for the project site.
Surface Rupture
The Renton Formation has many small faults with generally low displacement (Mullineaux 1965). However,
the nearest mapped fault, the Sunbeam fault is approximately ½ mile north of the site. Based on the
distance to this known fault zone, and lack of other known fault zones near the site, it is our opinion that
there is a low to moderate risk of surface rupture at the site.
Other Seismic Hazards
Due to the location of the site and the site’s topography, the risk of adverse impacts resulting from
seismically induced slope instability and differential settlement is considered to be low.
August 2, 2016 | Page 4
File No. 2202-024-00
2012 IBC Seismic Design Information
The following 2012 IBC parameters for site class, short period spectral response acceleration (SS),
1-second period spectral response acceleration (S1) and seismic coefficients (FA and FV) are appropriate
for the project site.
TABLE 1. 2012 IBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
2012 IBC Parameter Recommended Value
Site Class C
Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration, SS (percent g) 140.1
1-Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration, S1 (percent g) 52.2
Seismic Coefficient, FA 1.0
Seismic Coefficient, FV 1.3
Excavations
We understand that the planned building will have up to two below-grade levels and that the excavations
may extend up to 25 feet below site grades. Temporary cut slopes may be used for shallow excavations or
where there is sufficient space to complete cut slopes. Temporary shoring may also be used for excavations
where there is not sufficient space for cut slopes. The following sections provide geotechnical design and
construction recommendations for temporary cut slopes and temporary shoring, specifically soldier pile and
tieback walls. We understand that permanent soldier pile walls with tiebacks may be used along the
northern portion of the new garage. We provide geotechnical recommendations for permanent soldier pile
walls with tiebacks below.
Excavation Considerations
The site soils may be excavated with conventional excavation equipment, such as trackhoes or dozers.
It may be necessary to rip the glacially consolidated soils locally to facilitate excavation. The contractor
should be prepared for occasional cobbles and boulders in the site soils. Likewise, the surficial fill may
contain foundation elements and/or utilities from previous site development, debris, rubble and/or cobbles
and boulders. We recommend that procedures be identified in the project specifications for measurement
and payment of work associated with obstructions.
Temporary Cut Slopes
Temporary slopes may be used around the site where space allows, to facilitate early installation of shoring,
or in the transition between levels at the base of the excavation. We recommend that temporary slopes
constructed in the fill be inclined at 1½H:1V (horizontal to vertical) and that temporary slopes in the glacially
consolidated soils be inclined at 1H:1V. Flatter slopes may be necessary if seepage is present on the face
of the cut slopes or if localized sloughing occurs. For open cuts at the site, we recommend that:
■ no traffic, construction equipment, stockpiles or building supplies be allowed at the top of the cut slopes
within a distance of at least 5 feet from the top of the cut;
■ exposed soil along the slope be protected from surface erosion by using waterproof tarps or plastic
sheeting;
August 2, 2016 | Page 5
File No. 2202-024-00
■ construction activities be scheduled so that the length of time the temporary cut is left open is reduced
to the extent practicable;
■ erosion control measures be implemented as appropriate such that runoff from the site is reduced to
the extent practicable;
■ surface water be diverted away from the slope; and
■ the general condition of the slopes be observed periodically by the geotechnical engineer to confirm
adequate stability.
Because the contractor has control of the construction operations, the contractor should be made
responsible for the stability of cut slopes, as well as the safety of the excavations. Shoring and temporary
slopes must conform to applicable local, state and federal safety regulations.
Soldier Pile and Tieback Walls
Based on the subsurface information obtained from the borings, we recommend temporary or permanent
cantilever soldier pile walls or soldier pile with tieback walls be used for excavation support where
temporary slopes are not possible. Soil nail walls are not recommended due to the thickness and variability
of the existing fill soils. We provide geotechnical design and construction recommendations for cantilever
soldier pile and soldier pile with tiebacks walls below.
Soldier pile walls consist of steel beams that are concreted into drilled vertical holes located along the wall
alignment, typically about 8 feet on center. After excavation to specified elevations, tiebacks are installed,
if necessary. Once the tiebacks are installed, the pullout capacity of each tieback is tested, and the tieback
is locked off to the soldier pile at or near the design tieback load. Tiebacks typically consist of steel strands
that are installed into pre-drilled holes and then either tremie or pressure grouted. Timber lagging is typically
installed behind the flanges of the steel beams to retain the soil located between the soldier piles.
Geotechnical design recommendations for each of these components of the soldier pile and tieback wall
system are presented in the following sections.
Soldier Piles
We recommend that temporary and permanent soldier pile walls be designed using the earth pressure
diagrams presented in Figure 3. The earth pressures presented in Figure 3 are for full-height cantilever
soldier pile walls and soldier pile walls with single or multiple levels of tiebacks, and the pressures represent
the estimated loads that will be applied to the wall system for various wall heights.
Seismic earth pressures are included in Figure 3 for design of permanent walls. The seismic earth pressure
does not need to be included in the design of temporary walls.
The earth pressures presented in Figure 3 include the loading from traffic surcharge. Other surcharge loads,
such as buildings, cranes, construction equipment or construction staging areas, should be considered on
a case-by-case basis in accordance with the recommendations presented in Figure 5.
We recommend that the embedded portion of the soldier piles be at least 2 feet in diameter and extend a
minimum distance of 10 feet below the base of the excavation to resist “kick-out.” The axial capacity of the
soldier piles must resist the downward component of the anchor loads and other vertical loads, as
August 2, 2016 | Page 6
File No. 2202-024-00
appropriate. We recommend using an allowable end bearing value of 40 ksf for piles supported on the
glacially consolidated soils. The allowable end bearing value should be applied to the base area of the
drilled hole into which the soldier pile is concreted. This value includes a factor of safety of about 2.5.
The allowable end bearing value assumes that the shaft bottom is cleaned out immediately prior to
concrete placement. If necessary, an allowable pile skin friction of 1.0 ksf may be used on the embedded
portion of the soldier piles to resist the vertical loads.
For permanent walls, the exposed portion of the solider pile (e.g. if exposed to weather) should be painted
with a coat of inorganic zinc primer to reduce the risk of corrosion. Additionally, structural concrete should
be used for the embedded portion of the soldier pile.
Temporary Lagging
We recommend that the temporary timber lagging be sized using the procedures outlined in the Federal
Highway Administration’s Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4. The site soils are best described as
competent soils. Table 2 presents recommend temporary lagging thicknesses (roughcut) as a function of
soldier pile clear span and depth.
TABLE 2. RECOMMENDED TIMBER LAGGING THICKNESS
Depth
(feet)
Recommended Lagging Thickness (roughcut) for clear spans of:
5 feet 6 feet 7 feet 8 feet 9 feet 10 feet
0 to 25 2 inches 3 inches 3 inches 3 inches 4 inches 4 inches
Permanent Lagging
Permanent lagging may consist of timber, cast-in-place concrete or pre-cast concrete. If timber is used for
permanent lagging, it must be adequately treated for protection against water and decay. We recommend
that the permanent lagging be designed for a pressure equal to two-thirds the pressures depicted in
Figure 3. Surcharge loading should also be considered as appropriate. The one-third pressure reduction is
based on a maximum center-to-center pile spacing of 8 feet. If a wider spacing is desired, GeoEngineers
should provide guidance on modifying the lagging pressures.
Lagging Installation
Lagging should be installed promptly after excavation, especially in areas where perched groundwater is
present or where clean sand and gravel soils are present and caving soils conditions are likely. The
workmanship associated with lagging installation is important for maintaining the integrity of the
excavation.
The space behind the lagging should be filled with soil as soon as practicable. Placement of this material
will help reduce the risk of voids developing behind the wall and damage to existing improvements located
behind the wall.
Material used as backfill in voids located behind the lagging should not cause buildup of hydrostatic
pressure behind the wall. Lean concrete is a suitable option for the use of backfill behind the walls. Lean
concrete will reduce the volume of voids present behind the wall. Alternatively, lean concrete may be used
for backfill behind the upper 15 to 20 feet of the excavation to limit caving and sloughing of the upper soils,
with on-site soils used to backfill the voids for the remainder of the excavation. Based on our experience,
August 2, 2016 | Page 7
File No. 2202-024-00
the voids between each lean concrete lift are sufficient for preventing the buildup of hydrostatic pressure
behind the wall.
Tiebacks
Tieback anchors can be used for wall heights where cantilever soldier pile walls are not cost-effective.
Tieback anchors should extend far enough behind the wall to develop anchorage beyond the “no-load” zone
and within a stable soil mass, as shown on Figure 3. The anchors should be inclined downward at 15 to
25 degrees below the horizontal. The inclination of the anchors should match or exceed the inclination of
the adjacent slope. The anchors should have a minimum of 5 feet of vertical soil coverage above the strands
throughout the length of the anchor and at least 10 feet of horizontal soil coverage at the tip of the anchor.
Additional vertical and horizontal coverage may be required if the tiebacks will be post-grouted.
Double corrosion protection is required for the permanent tieback anchors. Corrosion protection is not
required for temporary tieback anchors.
Centralizers should be used to keep the tieback in the center of the hole during grouting. Structural grout
or concrete should be used to fill the bond zone of the tiebacks. A bond breaker, such as plastic sheathing,
should be placed around the portion of the tieback located within the no-load zone if the shoring contractor
plans to grout both the bond zone and unbonded zone of the tiebacks in a single stage. If the shoring
contractor does not plan to use a bond breaker to isolate the no-load zone, GeoEngineers should be
contacted to provide recommendations.
Loose soil and slough should be removed from the holes drilled for tieback anchors prior to installing the
tieback. The contractor should take necessary precautions to minimize loss of ground and prevent
disturbance to previously installed anchors and existing improvements in the site vicinity. Holes drilled for
tiebacks should be grouted/filled promptly to reduce the potential for loss of ground.
Tieback anchors should develop anchorage in the glacially consolidated soils. We recommend that spacing
between tiebacks be at least three times the diameter of the anchor hole to minimize group interaction.
We recommend a preliminary design load transfer value between the anchor and soil of 4 kips per foot for
glacially consolidated soils and 1.5 kips per foot for fill deposits.
The tieback anchors should be verification- and proof-tested to confirm that the tiebacks have adequate
pullout capacity. The pullout resistance of tiebacks should be designed using a factor of safety of 2. The
pullout resistance should be verified by completing at least two successful verification tests in each soil
type and a minimum of four total tests for the project. Each tieback should be proof-tested to 133 percent
of the design load. Verification and proof tests should be completed as described in Appendix D, Ground
Anchor Load Tests and Shoring Monitoring Program.
The tieback layout and inclination should be checked to confirm that the tiebacks do not interfere with
adjacent buried utilities.
Drainage
Drainage for soldier pile and lagging walls is achieved through seepage through the timber lagging. Seepage
flows at the bottom of the excavation should be contained and controlled in order to prevent loss of soil
from behind the lagging. Drainage should be provided for permanent below-grade walls as described below
in the “Below-Grade Walls” section of this report.
August 2, 2016 | Page 8
File No. 2202-024-00
Construction Considerations
Temporary casing or drilling fluid may be required to install the soldier piles and tiebacks where:
■ loose fill is present; and
■ the native soils do not have adequate cementation or cohesion to prevent caving or raveling; and/or
perched groundwater is present.
GeoEngineers should be allowed to observe and document the installation and testing of the shoring to
verify conformance with the design assumptions and recommendations.
Shallow Foundations
Subgrade soils at foundation elevation level for the project will be dependent on the depth of excavation
and the finish floor elevation. The soils at the anticipated foundation elevation vary across the site and may
consist of existing fill or glacially consolidated soils and sandstone bedrock, as such, the bearing capacity
and subgrade preparation will vary. Where foundations bear on competent glacially consolidated soils or
bedrock a high allowable bearing capacity value can be used. Where fill is present at foundation subgrade
elevation, a lower allowable bearing capacity should be used.
Where the west side of the proposed garage is adjacent to the existing garage, the planned shallow
foundations should extend to a depth such that the loads are not transferred to the existing garage
foundations. A line of influence extending at a 1H:1V slope from the bottom of the planned garage
foundations should not intercept the existing garage foundations or structure. A controlled density-fill (CDF)
bearing pad can be used below the planned garage foundations to lower the effective bottom of foundation.
The CDF bearing pad shall extend a minimum of 2 feet beyond the edges of the new footing.
More detail regarding recommended subgrade preparation and allowable bearing pressures for shallow
foundations are presented below.
Allowable Bearing Pressure
We recommend using an allowable bearing pressure of 10 ksf for mat foundations and isolated spread
footing foundations bearing on the dense to very dense glacially consolidated soils or sandstone bedrock.
For foundations bearing on properly compacted structural fill extended down to dense to very dense
glacially consolidated soils or bedrock, an allowable bearing pressure of 6 ksf may be used. The estimated
depth to the dense to very dense glacially consolidated soils are summarized in Table 3.
TABLE 3. ESTIMATED DEPTH TO DENSE TO VERY DENSE GLACIALLY CONSOLIDATED SOILS FOR
FOUNDATION SUPPORT
Exploration Number
Approximate Depth to Competent Glacially Consolidated Soils1
(feet)
GEI-1 10
GEI-2 14
GEI-3 10
GEI-4 12
GEI-5 11
August 2, 2016 | Page 9
File No. 2202-024-00
Exploration Number
Approximate Depth to Competent Glacially Consolidated Soils1
(feet)
GEI-6 5
GEI-7 5
Notes:
1Depth below existing ground surface
Where foundations are planned to bear on existing fill or highly weathered glacial soils (elevations higher
than shown in Table 3), we recommend a minimum of 2 feet be overexcavated below the foundation
elevation and replaced with compacted structural fill. Existing fill or highly weathered glacial soils will still
remain for this condition; therefore, we recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 3 ksf be used.
The zone of structural fill below the foundation should extend beyond the faces of the footing a distance at
least equal to the thickness of the structural fill. The zone of structural fill should be compacted to at least
95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. If loose existing
fill is encountered, further overexcavation may be necessary.
The allowable soil bearing pressures provided above apply to the total of dead and long-term live loads and
may be increased by up to one-third for wind or seismic loads. The allowable soil bearing pressures are net
values.
We recommend that conventional shallow foundations be a minimum of 36 inches wide and continuous
wall footings be a minimum of 16 inches wide. Exterior footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches
below the lowest adjacent grade. Interior footings should be founded a minimum of 12 inches below top
of slab.
Settlement
Provided that all loose soil is removed and that the subgrade is prepared as recommended under
“Construction Considerations” below, we estimate that the total settlement of shallow foundations will be
about 1 inch or less. The settlements will occur rapidly, essentially as loads are applied. Differential
settlements between footings could be half of the total settlement. Note that smaller settlements will result
from lower applied loads.
Lateral Resistance
Lateral foundation loads may be resisted by passive resistance on the sides of footings and by friction on
the base of the shallow foundations. For shallow foundations supported on native soils or structural fill, the
allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to vertical
dead-load forces.
The allowable passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 390 pounds per
cubic foot (pcf) (triangular distribution). This value is appropriate for foundation elements that are poured
directly against undisturbed glacial till or surrounded by structural fill. The allowable passive resistance for
structural fill assumes that the structural fill extends out from the face of the foundation element for a
distance of at least equal to 2½ times the height of the element and is compacted to at least 95 percent
of the MDD in accordance with ASTM D-1557.
August 2, 2016 | Page 10
File No. 2202-024-00
The above coefficient of friction and passive equivalent fluid density values incorporate a factor of safety
of about 1.5.
Construction Considerations
We recommend that the condition of all subgrade areas be observed by GeoEngineers to evaluate whether
the work is completed in accordance with our recommendations and whether the subsurface conditions
are as anticipated.
If foundation construction is completed during periods of wet weather, foundation subgrades are
recommended to be protected with a rat slab consisting of 2 to 4 inches of lean or structural concrete.
If soft areas are present at the footing subgrade elevation, the soft areas should be removed and replaced
with lean concrete or structural fill at the direction of GeoEngineers.
We recommend that the contractor consider leaving the subgrade for the foundations as much as 6 to
12 inches high, depending on soil and weather conditions, until excavation to final subgrade is required for
foundation reinforcement. Leaving subgrade high will help reduce damage to the subgrade resulting from
construction traffic for other activities.
Slab-on-Grade Floors
Subgrade Preparation
The exposed subgrade should be evaluated after site grading is complete. Proof-rolling with heavy,
rubber-tired construction equipment should be used for this purpose during dry weather and if access for
this equipment is practical. Probing should be used to evaluate the subgrade during periods of wet weather
or if access is not feasible for construction equipment. The exposed soil should be firm and unyielding, and
without significant groundwater. Disturbed areas should be recompacted if possible or removed and
replaced with compacted structural fill.
The site should be rough graded to approximately 1 foot above slab subgrade elevation prior to foundation
construction in order to protect the slab subgrade soils from deterioration from wet weather or construction
traffic. After the foundations have been constructed, the remaining soils can be removed to final subgrade
elevation followed by immediate placement of the capillary break material.
In areas were existing fill is present below buildings, the existing soil may be left in place below the slab
provided the slab is founded on at least 1 foot of structural fill compacted to 95 percent of the MDD in
accordance with ASTM D1557. The upper foot of existing fill should also be recompacted to a firm condition
prior to placement of the 1-foot-thick layer of structural fill.
Design Parameters
Conventional slabs may be supported on-grade, provided the subgrade soils are prepared as recommended
in the “Subgrade Preparation” section above. For slabs designed as a beam on an elastic foundation, a
modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for slabs supported on
glacial till. For slabs supported on a 1-foot layer of structural fill overlying existing fill soils, we recommend
a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci.
August 2, 2016 | Page 11
File No. 2202-024-00
We recommend that the slab-on-grade floors be underlain by a 6-inch-thick capillary break consisting of
1½-inch minus clean crushed gravel with negligible sand or silt meeting the requirements Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specification 9-03.1(4)C, grading No. 57 or Mineral
Aggregate Type 22 (¾-inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16.
Provided that loose soil is removed and the subgrade is prepared as recommended, we estimate that
slabs-on-grade will not settle appreciably.
Below-Slab Drainage
We expect the static groundwater level to be located well below the slab-on-grade level for the proposed
building; however perched groundwater may be present above the slab subgrade elevation. We recommend
installing an underslab drainage system to remove water from below the slabs-on-grade. The underslab
drainage system should include an interior perimeter drain and one or more longitudinal drains with
transverse pipes placed at a nominal spacing of 20 feet. The location of the longitudinal drain(s) will depend
on the foundation and below-grade structure design and may need to be modified to two or more transverse
drains or drains located behind interior cast-in-place walls. The civil engineer should develop a conceptual
foundation drainage plan for GeoEngineers to review.
The drains should consist of perforated Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes with a minimum
diameter of 4 inches placed in a trench at least 12 inches deep. The top of the underslab drainage system
trenches should coincide with the base of the capillary break layer. The underslab drainage system pipes
should have adequate slope to allow positive drainage to the sump/gravity drain.
The drainage pipe should be perforated. Perforated pipe should have two rows of ½-inch holes spaced
120 degrees apart and at 4 inches on center. The underslab drainage system trenches should be
backfilled with Mineral Aggregate Type 22 or Type 5 (1-inch washed gravel), City of Seattle Standard
Specification 9-03.16, or gravel backfill for drains in conformance with WSDOT Standard Specification
9-03.12(4). The material should be wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric meeting the requirements of
construction geotextile for underground drainage, WSDOT Standard Specification 9-33. The underslab
drainage system pipes should be connected to a header pipe and routed to a sump or gravity drain.
Appropriate cleanouts for drainpipe maintenance should be installed. A larger diameter pipe will allow for
easier maintenance of drainage systems. The flow rate for the planned excavation in the below-slab
drainage and below-grade wall drainage systems is anticipated to be on the order of 5 to 10 gpm.
If no special waterproofing measures are taken, leaks and/or seepage may occur in localized areas of the
below-grade portion of the building, even if the recommended wall drainage and below-slab drainage
provisions are constructed. If leaks or seepage is undesirable, below-grade waterproofing should be
specified. A vapor barrier should be used below slab-on-grade floors located in occupied portions of the
building. Specification of the vapor barrier requires consideration of the performance expectations of the
occupied space, the type of flooring planned and other factors, and is typically completed by other members
of the project team.
If partial below-grade waterproofing is specified (for instance, for elevator pits), the waterproofing should
extend to at least the elevation of the lowest finished floor so that the waterproofing will be located above
the elevation where foundation drainage is provided.
August 2, 2016 | Page 12
File No. 2202-024-00
Below-Grade Walls
Permanent Below-Grade Walls
Permanent below-grade walls constructed in front of temporary shoring walls should be designed using the
earth pressures presented in Figure 4. Foundation surcharge loads and traffic surcharge loads should be
incorporated into the design of the below-grade walls using the surcharge pressures presented in Figure 5.
Other surcharge loads, such as from construction equipment or construction staging areas, should be
considered on a case-by-case basis. We can provide the lateral pressures from these surcharge loads as
the design progresses.
The soil pressures recommended above assume that wall drains will be installed to prevent the buildup of
hydrostatic pressure behind the walls, as described above in the “Excavation Support” section of this report,
and tied to permanent drains to remove water to suitable discharge points.
Other Cast-in-Place Walls
Conventional cast-in-place walls may be necessary for small retaining structures located on-site or where
temporary open cuts are used for excavation support. The lateral soil pressures acting on conventional
cast-in-place subsurface walls will depend on the nature, density and configuration of the soil behind the
wall and the amount of lateral wall movement that can occur as backfill is placed.
For walls that are free to yield at the top at least 0.1 percent of the height of the wall, soil pressures will be
less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing. Assuming that the walls are
backfilled and drainage is provided as outlined in the following paragraphs, we recommend that yielding
walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf (triangular
distribution), while non-yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fluid
density of 55 pcf (triangular distribution). For seismic loading conditions, a rectangular earth pressure
equal to 14H pounds per square foot (psf) (where H is the height of the wall in feet) should be added to
the active/at-rest pressures. A traffic surcharge pressure of 70 psf should also be included in the design,
as appropriate. Other surcharge loading should be applied as appropriate using the recommendations
provided in Figure 5.
We recommend that below-grade wall or other retaining wall foundations be designed using the foundation
recommendations provided above under “Shallow Foundations.” For retaining walls independent of
building structures (grade-transition walls), the retaining wall footings may be supported on 2 feet of
structural fill placed over the existing fill soils. The upper foot of existing fill should also be recompacted to
a firm condition prior to placement of the 2-foot-thick layer of structural fill. An allowable bearing pressure
of 3 ksf may be used for this foundation support condition.
Lateral resistance for conventional cast-in-place walls can be provided by frictional resistance along the
base of the wall and passive resistance in front of the wall. For walls founded on native soils or structural
fill, the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to
vertical dead-load forces. The allowable passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid
densities of 390 pcf (triangular distribution). The allowable passive resistance for structural fill assumes
that the structural fill extends out from the face of the foundation element for a distance of at least equal
to 2½ times the height of the element and is compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD in accordance
August 2, 2016 | Page 13
File No. 2202-024-00
with ASTM D-1557. The above coefficient of friction and passive equivalent fluid density values incorporate
a factor of safety of about 1.5.
The above soil pressures assume that wall drains will be installed to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic
pressure behind the walls, as discussed below.
Drainage
Positive drainage should be provided behind cast-in-place retaining walls by placing a minimum 2-foot-wide
zone of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, with
the exception that the percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve is to be less than 3 percent. Alternatively, the
2-foot-wide zone of material may consist of gravel backfill for walls in conformance with WSDOT Standard
Specification 9-03.12(2).
A perforated drainpipe should be placed near the base of the retaining wall to provide drainage. The
drainpipe should be surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (¾-inch crushed
gravel) or Type 5 (1-inch washed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or gravel backfill
for drains in conformance with WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4). The material should be wrapped
with a geotextile filter fabric meeting the requirements of construction geotextile for underground drainage,
WSDOT Standard Specification 9-33. The wall drainpipe should be connected to a header pipe and routed
to a sump or gravity drain. Appropriate cleanouts for drainpipe maintenance should be installed.
A larger-diameter pipe will allow for easier maintenance of drainage systems.
Earthwork
Stripping, Clearing and Grubbing
We recommend that all new pavement and structure areas be stripped of organic-rich soils (sod, grass,
topsoil), and vegetation. Based on our observations, we anticipate that stripping depths will generally be
about 6 to 12 inches. Stripping depths will be locally greater where large trees are cleared and grubbed.
The stripped organic soil may be stockpiled for later use as topsoil for landscaping purposes.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Potential sources or causes of erosion and sedimentation depend upon construction methods, slope length
and gradient, amount of soil exposed and/or disturbed, soil type, construction sequencing, and weather.
The project’s impact on erosion-prone areas can be reduced by implementing an erosion and sedimentation
control plan. The plan should be designed in accordance with applicable City and/or county standards.
The plan should incorporate basic planning principles including:
■ scheduling grading and construction to reduce soil exposure;
■ retaining existing vegetation whenever feasible;
■ revegetating or mulching denuded areas;
■ directing runoff away from denuded areas;
■ minimizing the length and steepness of slopes with exposed soils;
■ decreasing runoff velocities;
August 2, 2016 | Page 14
File No. 2202-024-00
■ confining sediment to the project site;
■ inspecting and maintaining control measures frequently;
■ covering soil stockpiles; and
■ implementing proper erosion control best management practices (BMPs).
Temporary erosion protection should be used and maintained in areas with exposed or disturbed soils to
help reduce the potential for erosion and reduce transport of sediment to adjacent areas. Temporary
erosion protection should include the construction of a silt fence around the perimeter of the work area
prior to the commencement of grading activities. Permanent erosion protection should be provided by
reestablishing vegetation using hydroseeding and/or landscape planting.
Until the permanent erosion protection is established and the site is stabilized, site monitoring should be
performed by qualified personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures and repair
and/or modify them as appropriate. Provisions for modifications to the erosion control system based on
monitoring observations should be included in the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
Subgrade Preparation
The exposed subgrade in structure and hardscape areas should be evaluated after site excavation is
complete. Disturbed areas below slabs and foundations should be recompacted if the subgrade soil
consists of granular material. If the subgrade soils consist of disturbed soils, it will likely be necessary to
remove and replace the disturbed soil with structural fill unless the soil can be adequately moisture-
conditioned and compacted.
Structural Fill
Fill placed to support structures, placed behind retaining structures, and placed below pavements and
sidewalks will need to be specified as structural fill as described below:
■ Structural fill placed within utility trenches and below pavement and sidewalk areas and below
foundations should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of
Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or WSDOT common borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(3).
Common borrow is only suitable for use during dry weather. If fill is placed during wet weather, WSDOT
gravel borrow should be used, as described in Section 9-03.14(1).
■ Structural fill placed as capillary break material should meet the requirements of Type 22 (¾-inch
crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or Section 9-03.1(4)C, grading No. 57
of the WSDOT Standard Specifications (1½-inch minus crushed gravel).
■ Structural fill placed behind retaining walls should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17
(bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or WSDOT gravel backfill for walls
Section 9-03.12(2).
■ Structural fill placed around perimeter footing drains, underslab drains and cast-in-place wall drains
should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 5 (1-inch washed gravel) or Type 22 (¾-inch
crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or WSDOT gravel backfill for drains
Section 9-03.12(4).
August 2, 2016 | Page 15
File No. 2202-024-00
■ Structural fill placed as crushed surfacing base course below pavements and sidewalks should meet
the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 2 (1¼-inch minus crushed rock), City of Seattle Standard
Specification 9-03.16, or Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications.
On-site Soils
The on-site soils are moisture-sensitive and generally have natural moisture contents higher than the
anticipated optimum moisture content for compaction. As a result, the on-site soils will likely require
moisture conditioning in order to meet the required compaction criteria during dry weather conditions and
will not be suitable for reuse during wet weather. Furthermore, most of the fill soils required for the project
have specific gradation requirements, and the on-site soils do not meet these gradation requirements. If the
contractor wants to use on-site soils for structural fill, GeoEngineers can evaluate the on-site soils for
suitability as structural fill, as required.
Fill Placement and Compaction Criteria
Structural fill should be mechanically compacted to a firm, non-yielding condition. Structural fill should be
placed in loose lifts not exceeding 1 foot in thickness. Each lift should be conditioned to the proper moisture
content and compacted to the specified density before placing subsequent lifts. Structural fill should be
compacted to the following criteria:
■ Structural fill placed in building areas (supporting or adjacent to foundations or slab-on-grade floors)
should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD estimated in general accordance with
ASTM D 1557.
■ Structural fill placed within 10 feet of the back of subgrade and retaining walls should be compacted
to between 90 and 92 percent of the MDD. Care should be taken when compacting fill against
subsurface walls to avoid over-compaction and hence overstressing the walls. Structural fill beyond this
10-foot zone should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD.
■ Structural fill in new pavement and roadway areas, including utility trench backfill, should be
compacted to 90 percent of the MDD, except that the upper 2 feet of fill below final subgrade should
be compacted to 95 percent of the MDD.
■ Structural fill placed as crushed rock base course below pavements should be compacted to
95 percent of the MDD.
We recommend that GeoEngineers be present during probing of the exposed subgrade soils in building and
pavement areas, and during placement of structural fill. We will evaluate the adequacy of the subgrade
soils and identify areas needing further work, perform in-place moisture-density tests in the fill to verify
compliance with the compaction specifications, and advise on any modifications to the procedures that
may be appropriate for the prevailing conditions.
August 2, 2016 | Page 16
File No. 2202-024-00
Weather Considerations
The on-site soils contain a sufficient percentage of fines (silt and clay) to be moisture-sensitive. When the
moisture content of these soils is more than a few percent above the optimum moisture content, these
soils become muddy and unstable, and operation of equipment on these soils is difficult. Additionally,
disturbance of near-surface soils should be expected if earthwork is completed during periods of wet
weather. During wet weather, we recommend that:
■ The ground surface in and around the work area should be sloped so that surface water is directed
away from the work area. The ground surface should be graded such that areas of ponded water do
not develop. The contractor should take measures to prevent surface water from collecting in
excavations and trenches. Measures should be implemented to remove surface water from the work
area.
■ Slopes with exposed soils should be covered with plastic sheeting or similar means.
■ The site soils should not be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Sealing the surficial soils by
rolling with a smooth-drum roller prior to periods of precipitation will reduce the extent to which these
soils become wet or unstable.
■ Construction traffic should be restricted to specific areas of the site, preferably areas that are surfaced
with materials not susceptible to wet weather disturbance.
■ Construction activities should be scheduled so that the length of time that soils are left exposed to
moisture is reduced to the extent practicable.
Permanent Slopes
We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be constructed no steeper than 2H:1V. To achieve
uniform compaction, we recommend that fill slopes be overbuilt slightly (1 to 2 feet) and subsequently cut
back to expose properly compacted fill. We recommend that the finished slope faces be compacted by track
walking with the equipment running perpendicular to the slope contours so that the track grouser marks
help provide an erosion-resistant slope texture.
To reduce erosion, newly constructed slopes should be planted or hydroseeded shortly after completion of
grading. Until the vegetation is established, some sloughing and raveling of the slopes should be expected.
This may require localized repairs and reseeding. Temporary covering, such as clear heavy plastic sheeting,
jute fabric, loose straw, or excelsior or straw/coconut matting, should be used to protect the slopes during
periods of rainfall.
Pavement Recommendations
Subgrade Preparation
We recommend that the subgrade soils in new pavement areas be prepared and evaluated as described
in the “Earthwork” section of this report. We recommend that the subgrade be compacted to at least
95 percent of the MDD per ASTM D 1557 prior to placing pavement section materials. If the subgrade soils
are loose or soft, it may be necessary to excavate the soils and replace them with structural fill. A layer of
suitable woven geotextile fabric may be placed over soft subgrade areas to limit the thickness of structural
fill required to bridge soft, yielding areas. The depth of overexcavation or fabric placement should be
evaluated by GeoEngineers during construction.
August 2, 2016 | Page 17
File No. 2202-024-00
New Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement
At a minimum, paved areas exposed to automobile traffic only should consist of 2 inches of hot-mix
asphalt (HMA) (Class ½ inch, PG-58) over 4 inches of crushed surfacing base course. In areas of truck
traffic, new pavement sections should consist of at least 3 inches of HMA over 6 inches of crushed surfacing
base course. The crushed surfacing base course should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 2
(1¼-inch minus crushed rock), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or Section 9-03.9(3) of the
WSDOT Standard Specifications.
Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services
GeoEngineers should be retained to review the project plans and specifications when complete to confirm
that our design recommendations have been implemented as intended. Any changes in design, especially
the incorporation of elements that deepen the required depth of excavation, will likely go below the water
table and could require additional temporary construction dewatering measures.
During construction, GeoEngineers should observe the installation of the shoring system, review/collect
shoring and groundwater monitoring data, evaluate the suitability of the foundation subgrades, observe
installation of subsurface drainage measures, evaluate structural backfill, observe the condition of
temporary cut slopes, and provide a summary letter of our construction observation services. The purposes
of GeoEngineers construction phase services are to confirm that the subsurface conditions are consistent
with those observed in the explorations and other reasons described in Appendix E, Report Limitations and
Guidelines for Use.
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Valley Medical Center and their authorized agents for
the VMC FY 2017 Parking Garage Project in Renton, Washington.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with
generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was
prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood.
Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table and/or figure), if
provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored
by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.
Please refer to Appendix E titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for additional information
pertaining to use of this report.
REFERENCES
City of Seattle, 2014, “Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction.”
International Code Council, 2012, “International Building Code.”
Mullineaux D.R., 1965 “Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington.” USGS
August 2, 2016 | Page 18
File No. 2202-024-00
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration, 1999, “Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No. 4, Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems,” FHWA Report No. FHWA-IF-99-015.
U.S. Geological Survey – National Seismic hazard Mapping project Software, “Earthquake Ground Motion
Parameters, Version 5.0.9a,” 2002 data, 2009.
Washington State Department of Transportation, 2014, “Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and
Municipal Construction.”
August 2, 2016 | Page 19
File No. 2202-024-00
FIGURES
!
µ
Vicinity Map
Figure 1
Valley Medical CenterRenton, Washington
2,000 2,0000
Feet
Data Sources: Open Street Map, 2016.
Notes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission.
Transverse Mercator, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1983North arrow oriented to grid northPath: P:\2\2202024\GIS\220202400_F1_VicinityMap.mxdMap Revised: 4/19/2016 glohrmeyerSite
Talbot Road SouthProposed Parking Garage
Proposed MOB
23
22
21 25 24
28
27
26
B-2
B-1
B-2
B-4
B-6
B-7
B-5
B-3
GEI-3
GEI-4
GEI-2
GEI-6
GEI-7
GEI-8
GEI-9
GEI-10 GEI-11
GEI-5
HA-2
HA-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-1
1
GEI-1
Main
Hospital
Building
Talbot
Professional
Building
Psychiatry Wing
Northwest Pavilion
Building
Parking
Garage
Medical Arts Center
Olympic
Building
Valley Professional
Center North Building
60
65
70
75
80
85
9090
85807550407555100
95W E
N
S
Feet
0100 100
P:\2\2202024\CAD\00\Geotech\2202024-00_F02_Site Plan.dwg TAB:F2 Date Exported: 05/06/16 - 12:39 by cstickelValley Medical Center
Renton, Washington
Site Plan
Figure 2
Projection: NAD83 Washington State Planes, North Zone, US Foot.
Notes:
1.The locations of all features shown are approximate.
2.This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing
features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot
guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored
by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.
Data Source: Base aerial photo for Microsoft bing map server.
Legend
Boring by GeoEngineers, 2016
Boring by Terra Associates, 1989
Boring by Converse Consultants NW, 1987
Boring by Converse Consultants NW, 1989
Test Pit by Converse Consultants NW, 1987
B-1
1
B-2
GEI-1
21
Proposed Building
HA-1
B-1 Boring by GeoEngineers, 2001
Hand Auger by GeoEngineers, 2001
.
.
...
No Load Zone
to Uppermost Tieback, Feet
Height of Excavation, Feet
Distance From Ground Surface
Horizontal Load in Uppermost Ground Anchor
Maximum Apparent Earth Pressure
Pounds per Square Foot
Legend
Soldier Pile Embedment Depth, feet
Figure 3
Valley Medical Center
Renton, Washington
Earth Pressure Diagram
Soldier Pile & Tieback Wall
P:\2\2202024\CAD\00\Geotech\2202024-00_F03-F05_EPDs.dwg TAB:F3 Date Exported: 08/02/16 - 12:32 by cstickel..
Load Case Static Seismic
Passive Pressure
Coefficient (X)390 520
Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient (See Table)
..
1. Active, apparent earth pressure and surcharge act over the pile spacing above the base of the excavation.
2. Passive earth pressure acts over 2.5 times the concreted diameter of the soldier pile, or the pile spacing,
whichever is less.
3. Passive pressure includes a factor of safety of 1.5
5.This pressure diagram is appropriate for temporary soldier pile and tieback walls. If additional surcharge
loading (such as from soil stockpiles, excavators, dumptrucks, cranes, or concrete trucks) is anticipated,
GeoEngineers should be consulted to provide revised surcharge pressures.
Notes:
4. Additional surcharge from footings of adjacent buildings should be included in accordance with recommendations
provided on Figure 5.
Not to Scale
6. Seismic earth pressure to be included for design of permanent walls.
.
NOT TO SCALE
Legend
Notes
.
1.This pressure diagram is appropriate for permanent
basement walls. If additional surcharge loading (such as
from soil stockpiles, excavators, dumptrucks, cranes, or
concrete trucks) is anticipated, GeoEngineers should be
consulted to provide revised surcharge pressures.
2.The static earth pressure does not include a factor of
safety and represents the actual anticipated static earth
pressure.
Maximum Static Earth Pressure Pounds
per Square Foot
Height of Basement Wall, Feet
Foundation Embedment Depth, Feet
Figure 4
Valley Medical Center
Renton, Washington
Earth Pressure Diagram
Permanent Below Grade Walls
P:\2\2202024\CAD\00\Geotech\2202024-00_F03-F05_EPDs.dwg TAB:F4 Date Exported: 05/06/16 - 12:19 by cstickel
1. Procedures for estimating surcharge pressures shown above are based on Manual
7.02 Naval Facilities Engineering Command, September 1986 (NAVFAC DM 7.02).
2. Lateral earth pressures from surcharge should be added to earth pressures
presented on Figures 3 and 4.
3. See report text for where surcharge pressures are appropriate.
Definitions:
.
Point load in pounds
Line load in pounds/foot
Excavation height below footing, feet
Lateral earth pressure from surcharge, psf
Surcharge pressure in psf
Radians
Distribution of in plan view
Resultant lateral force acting on wall, pounds
Distance from base of excavation to resultant lateral force, feet
Notes:
Figure 5
Valley Medical Center
Renton, Washington
Recommended Surcharge Pressure
P:\2\2202024\CAD\00\Geotech\2202024-00_F03-F05_EPDs.dwg TAB:F5 Date Exported: 05/06/16 - 12:19 by cstickel
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Field Explorations
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
Subsurface conditions were explored at the site by drilling seven borings (GEI-1 through GEI-7). The borings
were completed to depths of approximately 15½ to 35¾ feet below existing site grades. The borings were
completed by Geologic Drill, Inc. on April 4, 2016.
The locations of the explorations were surveyed by Bush Roed & Hitchings, Inc. as part of the general project
survey. The exploration locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.
Borings
The borings were completed using track-mounted, continuous-flight, hollow-stem auger drilling equipment,
owned and operated by Geologic Drill, Inc. of Spokane, Washington. The borings were continuously
monitored by a geotechnical engineer or geologist from our firm who examined and classified the soils
encountered, obtained representative soil samples, observed groundwater conditions and prepared a
detailed log of each exploration.
The soils encountered in the borings were generally sampled at 2½- and 5-foot vertical intervals with a
2-inch outside diameter split-barrel standard penetration test (SPT) sampler. The disturbed samples were
obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound automatic hammer free-falling
30 inches. The number of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration was recorded. The blow count
("N-value") of the soil was calculated as the number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration.
This resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils and the relative
consistency of cohesive soils. Where very dense soil conditions precluded driving the full 18 inches, the
penetration resistance for the partial penetration was entered on the logs. The blow counts are shown on
the boring logs at the respective sample depths.
Soils encountered in the borings were visually classified in general accordance with the classification
system described in Figure A-1. A key to the boring log symbols is also presented in Figure A-1. The logs of
the borings are presented in Figures A-2 through A-8. The boring logs are based on our interpretation of the
field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils and groundwater conditions encountered.
The logs also indicate the depths at which these soils or their characteristics change, although the change
may actually be gradual. If the change occurred between samples, it was interpreted. The densities noted
on the boring logs are based on the blow count data obtained in the borings and judgment based on the
conditions encountered.
Observations of groundwater conditions were made during drilling. The groundwater conditions
encountered during drilling are presented on the boring logs. Groundwater conditions observed during
drilling represent a short-term condition and may or may not be representative of the long-term groundwater
conditions at the site. Groundwater conditions observed during drilling should be considered approximate.
August 2, 2016 | Page A-1
File No. 2202-024-00
AC
Cement ConcreteCC
Asphalt Concrete
No Visible SheenSlight Sheen
Moderate SheenHeavy SheenNot Tested
NSSS
MSHSNT
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS
Measured groundwater level in
exploration, well, or piezometer
Measured free product in well or
piezometer
Graphic Log Contact
Groundwater Contact
Material Description Contact
Laboratory / Field Tests
Sheen Classification
Sampler Symbol Descriptions
NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurfaceconditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are
not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
GRAPH
Topsoil/
Forest Duff/Sod
Crushed Rock/Quarry Spalls
FIGURE A-1
2.4-inch I.D. split barrel
SYMBOLS TYPICAL
KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS
CR
DESCRIPTIONSLETTER
TS
GC
PT
OH
CH
MH
OL
GM
GP
GW
DESCRIPTIONS
TYPICAL
LETTER
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT
OF FINES)
MAJOR DIVISIONS
POORLY-GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SAND
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILSWITH HIGH ORGANICCONTENTS
CLEAN SANDS
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
CLEAN
GRAVELS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
SANDANDSANDY
SOILS
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
FINEGRAINED
SOILS
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
SW
MORE THAN 50%OF COARSEFRACTIONRETAINED ON NO.4 SIEVE
CL
WELL-GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SANDS
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND- SILT MIXTURES
LIQUID LIMITGREATER THAN 50
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILTMIXTURES
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNTOF FINES)
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
LIQUID LIMITLESS THAN 50
SANDS WITHFINES
SP(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
ML
SC
SM
NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications
MORE THAN 50%OF COARSEFRACTIONPASSING NO. 4SIEVE
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - CLAY MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAYMIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS, ROCKFLOUR, CLAYEY SILTS WITHSLIGHT PLASTICITY
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANICSILTY CLAYS OF LOWPLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUSOR DIATOMACEOUS SILTYSOILS
ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OFMEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGHPLASTICITY
MORE THAN 50%PASSING NO. 200SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%RETAINED ON NO.200 SIEVE
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TOMEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLYCLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTYCLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
GRAPH
SYMBOLS
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Shelby tube
Piston
Direct-Push
Bulk or grab
Continuous Coring
Distinct contact between soil strata
Approximate contact between soil
strata
Contact between geologic units
Contact between soil of the samegeologic unit
%F%G
ALCA
CPCSDS
HAMCMD
OCPMPI
PPPPM
SATXUC
VS
Percent fines
Percent gravelAtterberg limitsChemical analysis
Laboratory compaction testConsolidation testDirect shear
Hydrometer analysisMoisture content
Moisture content and dry densityOrganic contentPermeability or hydraulic conductivity
Plasticity indexPocket penetrometerParts per million
Sieve analysisTriaxial compressionUnconfined compression
Vane shear
Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the numberof blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or
distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weightand drop.
A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of thedrill rig.
A "WOH" indicates sampler pushed using the weight ofthe hammer.
Rev. 02/16
1A%F
1B
2
3%F
4
5
6
18
18
18
18
17
18
14
13
22
66
85/11"
71
3 inches asphalt concrete pavement
3 inches base course
Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel(medium dense, moist) (fill)
Brown to gray sandy silt (stiff, moist)
Brown silty fine to medium sand (mediumdense, moist)
With occasional gravel
Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel(medium dense, moist) (weathered glacialtill)
Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very
dense, moist) (glacial till)
AC
GP
SM
ML
SM
SM
SM
Oxidation staining, till-fill
53
46
35
13
TotalDepth (ft)
HammerData
SystemDatum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
DTMDrilled
Notes:
SJB
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Diedrich D50 Track Rig
Geologic Drill, Inc.DrillingMethod Hollow-Stem Auger26.5
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
DrillingEquipment
4/4/20164/4/2016
Not encountered
76.39
NAVD88
1298928.83
165386.17
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)7570656055Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-1
Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 100
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-2
Sheet 1 of 2Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\02202024.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
71783/11"
White to light gray fine to medium sand (verydense, moist) (Renton FormationSandstone)
SM Smoother drilling at 22 feet
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)25 IntervalElevation (feet)50Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-1 (continued)
Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 100
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-2
Sheet 2 of 2Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\02202024.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
3
4%F
5
6
7
8
10
3
14
18
18
18
19
27
50/3"*
12
14
75
54
1 inch crushed gravel surfacing (parking lot
surface)
Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel andorganics (medium dense, moist) (fill)
Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel(medium dense, moist)
Becomes gray
Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasionalgravel (very dense, wet) (glacial till)
Becomes moist
GP
SM
SM
ML
Oxidation staining/orange mottling, till-fill
Oxidation staining
*Blowcount overstated, sampler bouncing on
rock during sampling
Water in sampler
3414
TotalDepth (ft)
HammerData
SystemDatum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
DTMDrilled
Notes:
SJB
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Diedrich D50 Track Rig
Geologic Drill, Inc.DrillingMethod Hollow-Stem Auger31
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
DrillingEquipment
4/4/20164/4/2016
See remarks
90.28
NAVD88
1299094.03
165403.44
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)9085807570Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-2
Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 100
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-3
Sheet 1 of 2Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\02202024.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
8
9
18
11.5
61
50/5.5"
White to light gray silty fine to medium sandwith interbedded black coal (very dense,moist) (Renton Formation Sandstone)
Gray to brown silt with trace interbeds of blackcoal (hard, dry)
SM
ML
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)25
30 IntervalElevation (feet)6560Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-2 (continued)
Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 100
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-3
Sheet 2 of 2Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\02202024.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1MC
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
18
12
9
18
10
14
3
25
12
50/3"
48
84
78
1.5 inches crushed gravel surfacing (parking lot
surface)
Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel(very loose to medium dense, moist) (fill)
With occsaional gravel and occasional coalfragments
Grades to gray
Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional
gravel (dense to very dense, moist) (glacialtill)
GP
SM
SM
Orange mottling
Wet sampler
20
TotalDepth (ft)
HammerData
SystemDatum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
DTMDrilled
Notes:
SJB
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Diedrich D50 Track Rig
Geologic Drill, Inc.DrillingMethod Hollow-Stem Auger31.5
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
DrillingEquipment
4/4/20164/4/2016
See remarks
87.92
NAVD88
1299048.22
165275.15
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)85807570Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-3
Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 100
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-4
Sheet 1 of 2Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\02202024.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
8
9
8
13
41
76
Transitioned to sandier layer
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)25
30 IntervalElevation (feet)6560Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-3 (continued)
Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 100
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-4
Sheet 2 of 2Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\02202024.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1%F
2
3A
3B
4A4B
5
6
18
18
18
11
8
3
6
9
6
20
38
50/3"
1 inch crushed gravel surfacing (parking lot
surface)
Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel(loose, moist) (fill)
Gray to brown silt with sand (medium stiff,moist to wet)
Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel(medium dense, moist) (weathered glacialtill)
Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel(dense to very dense, moist) (glacial till)
Obstruction encountered
GP
SM
ML
SM
SM
Perched water
Oxidation staining
Perched water
Boring could not be advanced further; practicalrefusal met
4920
TotalDepth (ft)
HammerData
SystemDatum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
DTMDrilled
Notes:
SJB
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Diedrich D50 Track Rig
Geologic Drill, Inc.DrillingMethod Hollow-Stem Auger15.5
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
DrillingEquipment
4/4/20164/4/2016
Not encountered
96.7
NAVD88
1299202
165242.05
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15 IntervalElevation (feet)959085Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-4
Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 100
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-5
Sheet 1 of 1Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\02202024.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
3%F
4A
4B
5%F
6
8
10
12
13
10
10
10
6
19
28
92/11.5"
56
1 inch crushed gravel surfacing (parking lot
surface)
Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel andtrace organic debris (roots/wood) (loose to
medium dense, moist) (fill)
Brown silty fine to medium sand withoccasional gravel (medium dense, moist)(weathered glacial till)
Becomes brownish orange
Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasionalgravel (medium dense, moist) (glacial till)
Becomes very dense
GP
SM
SM
SM
Oxidation staining
Silt lenses
35
24
14
7
TotalDepth (ft)
HammerData
SystemDatum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
DTMDrilled
Notes:
SJB
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Diedrich D50 Track Rig
Geologic Drill, Inc.DrillingMethod Hollow-Stem Auger35.8
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
DrillingEquipment
4/4/20164/4/2016
Not encountered
98.02
NAVD88
1299210.26
165309.34
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)95908580Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-5
Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 100
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-6
Sheet 1 of 2Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\02202024.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
7
8
9
11.5
10
10
50/5.5"
50/4"
50/4"
White to light gray silty fine to medium sand(very dense, moist) (Renton FormationSandstone)
SM
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)25
30
35 IntervalElevation (feet)757065Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-5 (continued)
Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 100
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-6
Sheet 2 of 2Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\02202024.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2%F
3
4
5
6
12
12
5
18
18
18
29
36
37
52
75
65
3 inches asphalt concrete pavement
2 inches base course
Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel(medium dense, moist) (fill)
Brown silty fine to medium sand withoccasional gravel (medium dense, moist)(weathered glacial till)
Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasionalgravel (dense, moist) (glacial till)
Becomes very dense
Increasing gravel content
AC
GP
SM
SM
SM
Oxidation staining
3910
TotalDepth (ft)
HammerData
SystemDatum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
DTMDrilled
Notes:
SJB
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Diedrich D50 Track Rig
Geologic Drill, Inc.DrillingMethod Hollow-Stem Auger21.5
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
DrillingEquipment
4/4/20164/4/2016
Not encountered
75.8
NAVD88
1298925.69
165180.99
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)7570656055Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-6
Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 100
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-7
Sheet 1 of 1Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\02202024.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2%F
3
4
5
6
5
18
0
6
12
14
50/6"*
60
50/3"
50/5"
50/6"
56
2 inches asphalt concrete pavement
1.5 inch base course
Brown silty fine to coarse sand and gravel (verydense, moist) (fill)
Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel(very dense, moist) (weathered glacial till)
Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (verydense, moist) (glacial till)
Becomes with occasional gravel
AC
GP
SM
SM
SM
*Sampler bouncing on rock, blowcountoverstated
Oxidation staining
No recovery
Slow drilling
Rougher drilling
2810
TotalDepth (ft)
HammerData
SystemDatum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
DTMDrilled
Notes:
SJB
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Diedrich D50 Track Rig
Geologic Drill, Inc.DrillingMethod Hollow-Stem Auger30.8
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
DrillingEquipment
4/4/20164/4/2016
Not encountered
87.53NAVD88
1299051.08
165090.91
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)85807570Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-7
Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 100
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-8
Sheet 1 of 2Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\02202024.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
7
8
6
10
50/5"
50/4"
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)25
30 IntervalElevation (feet)6560Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-7 (continued)
Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 100
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-8
Sheet 2 of 2Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\02202024.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to GeoEngineers’ laboratory and evaluated
to confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering properties of the soil samples.
Representative samples were selected for laboratory testing to determine the moisture content, percent
fines (material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) and sieve analyses. The tests were performed in general
accordance with test methods of ASTM International (ASTM) or other applicable procedures.
Moisture Content
Moisture content tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 for representative
samples obtained from the explorations. The results of these tests are presented on the exploration logs in
Appendix A at the depths at which the samples were obtained.
Percent Passing U.S. No. 200 Sieve (%F)
Selected samples were “washed” through the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve to estimate the relative percentages
of coarse- and fine-grained particles in the soil. The percent passing value represents the percentage by
weight of the sample finer than the U.S. No. 200 sieve. These tests were conducted to verify field
descriptions and to estimate the fines content for analysis purposes. The tests were conducted in
accordance with ASTM D 1140, and the results are shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the
respective sample depths.
August 2, 2016 | Page B-1
File No. 2202-024-00
APPENDIX C Boring Logs from Previous Studies
APPENDIX C
BORING LOGS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES
Included in this section are logs from previous studies completed in the immediate vicinity of the project
site:
■ The logs of four borings (GEI-8 through GEI-11) completed by GeoEngineers and presented in the Valley
Medical Center FY 2017 Medical Office Building Geotechnical Report dated May 6, 2016 as task two
of this study.
■ The log of one boring (B-1) and eight test pits (21 through 28) completed by Converse Consultants NW
in 1987 for the Valley Medical Center Garage project;
■ The log of one boring (B-2) completed by Converse Consultants NW in 1989 for the Valley Medical
Center Garage Phase II project;
■ The logs of seven borings (B-1 through B-7) completed by Terra Associates in 1987 for the Valley
Medical Center Office Building project; and
■ The logs of four borings (B-1 through B-4) and two hand augers (HA-1 and HA-2) completed by
GeoEngineers in 2001 for the Warehouse Office Building project.
August 2, 2016 | Page C-1
File No. 2202-024-00
1SA
2%F
3
4
5
16
12
15
6
18
56
50/6"
73
50/5"
65
3 inches asphalt concrete pavement
3 inches base course
Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (verydense, moist) (glacial till)
Becomes with occasional gravel
AC
GP
SM
Light oxidation staining31
21
8
5
TotalDepth (ft)
HammerData
SystemDatum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
DTMDrilled
Notes:
SJB
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Diedrich D50 Track Rig
Geologic Drill, Inc.DrillingMethod Hollow-Stem Auger21.5
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
DrillingEquipment
4/5/20164/5/2016
Not encountered
82.72
NAVD88
1298995.48
165009.65
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)80757065Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-8
Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 200
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-2
Sheet 1 of 1Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:W:\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\0220202400.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2%F
3
4
5MC
12
11.5
15
10
18
35
50/5.5"
90/11"
65
65
1.5 inches asphalt concrete pavement
5.5 inches base course
Brown to gray silty fine to coarse sand withgravel and occasional coal fragments(dense, moist) (weathered glacial till)
Gray sandy silt with occasional gravel (hard,moist) (glacial till)
Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (verydense, moist)
Large boulder obstruction
Becomes wet
AC
GP
SM
ML
SM
Light oxidation staining
Drilling on rock at 12 feet bgs
Moved over 5 feet to complete boring
Perched water
569
12
TotalDepth (ft)
HammerData
SystemDatum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
DTMDrilled
Notes:
SJB
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Diedrich D50 Track Rig
Geologic Drill, Inc.DrillingMethod Hollow-Stem Auger25.8
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
DrillingEquipment
4/5/20164/5/2016
See remarks
91.83
NAVD88
1299121.94
165017.35
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)9085807570Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-9
Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 200
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-3
Sheet 1 of 2Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:W:\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\0220202400.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
6950/3"
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)25 IntervalElevation (feet)Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-9 (continued)
Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 200
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-3
Sheet 2 of 2Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:W:\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\0220202400.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2SA
3
4
5
6
18
18
18
18
18
11
10
11
29
48
82
50/5"
1.5 inches asphalt concrete pavement
4 inches base course
Brown/orange silty fine to coarse sand withgravel (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill)
Gray silty fine sand with occasional gravel(medium dense, moist)
Becomes wet
Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional
gravel (dense, moist) (glacial till)
Becomes very dense
Gray silty fine to medium sand (very dense,moist) (Renton Formation Sandstone)
AC
GP
SM
SM
SM
SM
Oxidation staining
Perched water
4117
TotalDepth (ft)
HammerData
SystemDatum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
DTMDrilled
Notes:
SJB
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Diedrich D50 Track Rig
Geologic Drill, Inc.DrillingMethod Hollow-Stem Auger20.9
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
DrillingEquipment
4/5/20164/5/2016
See remarks
86.23
NAVD88
1298928.15
164820.19
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)85807570Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-10
Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 200
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-4
Sheet 1 of 1Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:W:\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\0220202400.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2%F
3
4
5
18
15
7
10
8
52
50
50/1"*
50/4"
50/6"
1.5 inches asphalt concrete pavement
Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel(medium dense, moist) (fill)
Brown to gray silty fine to medium sand withoccasional gravel and coal fragments (verydense, moist) (weathered glacial till)
Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (verydense, moist) (glacial till)
Increasing gravel
AC
SM
SM
SM
No base course
Oxidation staining
*Sampler bouncing on rock, blowcountoverstated
3812
TotalDepth (ft)
HammerData
SystemDatum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
DTMDrilled
Notes:
SJB
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Diedrich D50 Track Rig
Geologic Drill, Inc.DrillingMethod Hollow-Stem Auger26.5
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
DrillingEquipment
4/5/20164/5/2016
Not encountered
91.62
NAVD88
1299044.81
164830.36
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)9085807570Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-11
Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 200
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-5
Sheet 1 of 2Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:W:\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\0220202400.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
61041
With interbeds of coarse sand and trace gravel
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)25 IntervalElevation (feet)Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-11 (continued)
Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project
Renton, Washington
2202-024-00 Task 200
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-5
Sheet 2 of 2Redmond: Date:5/6/16 Path:W:\PROJECTS\2\2202024\GINT\0220202400.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
APPENDIX D Ground Anchor Load Tests and Shoring Monitoring Program
APPENDIX D
GROUND ANCHOR LOAD TESTS AND SHORING MONITORING PROGRAM
Ground Anchor Load Testing
The locations of the load tests shall be approved by the Engineer and shall be representative of the field
conditions. Load tests shall not be performed until the tieback grout has attained at least 50 percent of the
specified 28-day compressive strengths.
Where temporary casing of the unbonded length of test tiebacks is provided, the casing shall be installed
to prevent interaction between the bonded length of the tieback and the casing/testing apparatus.
The testing equipment shall include two dial gauges accurate to 0.001 inch, a dial gauge support, a
calibrated jack and pressure gauge, a pump and the load test reaction frame. The dial gauge should be
aligned within 5 degrees of the longitudinal nail/tieback axis and shall be supported independently from
the load frame/jack and the shoring wall. The hydraulic jack, pressure gauge and pump shall be used to
apply and measure the test loads.
The jack and pressure gauge shall be calibrated by an independent testing laboratory as a unit. The
pressure gauge shall be graduated in 100 pounds per square inch (psi) increments or less and shall have
a range not exceeding twice the anticipated maximum pressure during testing unless approved by the
Engineer. The ram travel of the jack shall be sufficient to enable the test to be performed without
repositioning the jack.
The jack shall be supported independently and centered over the tieback so that the tieback does not carry
the weight of the jack. The jack, bearing plates and stressing anchorage shall be aligned with the tieback.
The initial position of the jack shall be such that repositioning of the jack is not necessary during the load
test.
The reaction frame should be designed/sized such that excessive deflection of the test apparatus does not
occur and that the testing apparatus does not need to be repositioned during the load test. If the reaction
frame bears directly on the shoring wall facing, the reaction frame should be designed so as not to damage
the facing.
Verification Tests
Prior to production tieback installation, at least two tiebacks for each soil type shall be tested to validate
the design pullout value. All test tiebacks shall be installed by the same methods, personnel, material and
equipment as the production anchors. Changes in methods, personnel, material or equipment may require
additional verification testing as determined by the Engineer. At least two successful verification tests shall
be performed for each installation method and each soil type. The tiebacks used for the verification tests
may be used as production tiebacks if approved by the Engineer.
August 2, 2016 | Page D-1
File No. 2202-024-00
The allowable tieback load should not exceed 80 percent of the steel ultimate strength. Tieback design test
loads should be the design load specified on the shoring drawings. Verification test tiebacks shall be
incrementally loaded and unloaded in accordance with the following schedule:
Load Hold Time
Alignment Load 1 minute
0.25 Design Load (DL) 1 minute
0.5DL 1 minute
0.75DL 1 minute
1.0DL 1 minute
1.25DL 1 minute
1.5DL 60 minutes
1.75DL 1 minute
2.0DL 10 minutes
The alignment load shall be the minimum load required to align the testing apparatus and should not
exceed 5 percent of the design load. The dial gauge should be zeroed after the alignment load is applied.
Nail/tieback deflections during the 1.5 Design Load (DL) test load shall be recorded at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 20,
30, 50 and 60 minutes.
Proof Tests
Proof tests shall be completed on each production tieback. The allowable tieback load should not exceed
80 percent of the steel ultimate strength. Tieback design test loads should be the design load specified on
the shoring drawings. Proof tiebacks shall be incrementally loaded and unloaded in accordance with the
following schedule:
Load Hold Time
Alignment Load 1 minute
0.25 Design Load (DL) 1 minute
0.5DL 1 minute
0.75DL 1 minute
1.0DL 1 minute
1.33DL 10 minutes
The alignment load shall be the minimum load required to align the testing apparatus and should not
exceed 5 percent of the design load. The dial gauge should be zeroed after the alignment load is applied.
Nail/tieback deflections during the 1.33DL and 1.5DL test loads shall be recorded at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and
10 minutes.
Depending upon the tieback deflection performance, the load hold period at 1.33DL (tiebacks) may be
increased to 60 minutes. Tieback movement shall be recorded at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 minutes. If the tieback
deflection between 1 and 10 minutes is greater than 0.04 inches, the 1.33DL load shall be continued to
be held for a total of 60 minutes and deflections recorded at 20, 30, 50 and 60 minutes.
August 2, 2016 | Page D-2
File No. 2202-024-00
Test Nail/Tieback Acceptance
A test tieback shall be considered acceptable when:
1. For verification tests, a tieback is considered acceptable if the creep rate is less than 0.08 inches per
log cycle of time between 6 and 60 minutes and the creep rate is linear or decreasing throughout the
creep test load hold period.
2. For proof tests, a tieback is considered acceptable if the creep rate is less than 0.04 inches per log
cycle of time between 1 and 10 minutes or the creep rate is less than 0.08 inches per log cycle of time
between 6 and 60 minutes, and the creep rate is linear or decreasing throughout the creep test load
hold period.
3. The total movement at the maximum test load exceeds 80 percent of the theoretical elastic elongation
of the unbonded length.
4. Pullout failure does not occur. Pullout failure is defined as the load at which continued attempts to
increase the test load result in continued pullout of the test nail/tieback.
Acceptable proof-test tiebacks may be incorporated as production tiebacks provided that the unbonded
test length of the tieback hole has not collapsed and the test tieback length and number of strands are
equal to or greater than the scheduled production tieback at the test location. Test tiebacks meeting these
criteria shall be completed by grouting the unbonded length. Maintenance of the temporary unbonded
length for subsequent grouting is the contractor’s responsibility.
The Engineer shall evaluate the verification test results. Tieback installation techniques that do not satisfy
the tieback testing requirements shall be considered inadequate. In this case, the contractor shall propose
alternative methods and install replacement verification tiebacks.
Shoring Monitoring
Preconstruction Survey
A shoring monitoring program should be established to monitor the performance of the temporary and/or
permanent shoring walls and to provide early detection of deflections that could potentially damage nearby
improvements. We recommend that a preconstruction survey of adjacent improvements, such as streets,
retaining walls, utilities and buildings, be performed prior to commencing construction. The preconstruction
survey should include a video or photographic survey of the condition of existing improvements to establish
the preconstruction condition, with special attention to existing cracks in streets, retaining walls or
buildings.
Optical Survey
The shoring monitoring program should include an optical survey monitoring program. The recommended
frequency of monitoring should vary as a function of the stage of construction as presented in the following
table.
August 2, 2016 | Page D-3
File No. 2202-024-00
Construction Stage Monitoring Frequency
During excavation and until wall movements have stabilized Twice weekly
During excavation if lateral wall movements exceed 1 inch and until wall
movements have stabilized Three times per week
After excavation is complete and wall movements have stabilized, and before
the floors of the building reach the top of the excavation Twice monthly
Monitoring should include vertical and horizontal survey measurements accurate to at least 0.01 feet.
A baseline reading of the monitoring points should be completed prior to beginning excavation. The survey
data should be provided to GeoEngineers for review within 24 hours.
For shoring walls, we recommend that optical survey points be established: (1) along the top of the shoring
walls and (2) on existing buildings located within a horizontal distance of the shoring walls equal to the
height of the wall. The survey points should be located on every other soldier pile along the wall face for
soldier pile and tieback shoring and the points along the existing buildings should be located at an
approximate spacing of 20 feet. If lateral wall movements are observed to be in excess of ½ inch between
successive readings or if total wall movements exceed 1 inch, construction of the shoring walls should be
stopped to determine the cause of the movement and to establish the type and extent of remedial
measures required.
August 2, 2016 | Page D-4
File No. 2202-024-00
APPENDIX E Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
APPENDIX E
REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1
This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report.
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Valley Medical Center (VMC) and other project team
members for the VMC FY 2017 Parking Garage Project. This report is not intended for use by others, and
the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites.
GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical
or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction
contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project. Because each
geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report is unique,
prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our
Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance
in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third
parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of
scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the
Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. This
report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.
A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Is Based on a Unique Set of Project-specific
Factors
This report has been prepared for the VMC FY 2017 Parking Garage Project in Renton, Washington.
GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of
services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on
this report if it was:
■ not prepared for you,
■ not prepared for your project,
■ not prepared for the specific site explored, or
■ completed before important project changes were made.
For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect:
■ the function of the proposed structure;
■ elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure;
1 Developed based on material provided by GBA, GeoProfessional Business Association; www.geoprofessional.org.
August 2, 2016 | Page E-1
File No. 2202-024-00
■ composition of the design team; or
■ project ownership.
If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the opportunity
to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as
appropriate.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed.
The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by manmade events
such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope
instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying a report to determine
if it remains applicable.
Most Geotechnical and Geologic Findings Are Professional Opinions
Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling
locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface
tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then
applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site.
Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our
report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions.
Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not over-rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These
recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers’ professional
judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers’ recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability
for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation.
Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during construction to
confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide
recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those
anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our
recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most
effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation
Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could
lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans
and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce
that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing
construction observation.
August 2, 2016 | Page E-2
File No. 2202-024-00
Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs
Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation
of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical
engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design
drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs
from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated
subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems,
give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for
purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with
GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or
prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform
additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information
available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated
conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget
and schedule.
Contractors Are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects
Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor’s procedures, methods,
schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for
managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and to adjacent properties.
Read These Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices
(geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science
disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to
disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory “limitations” provisions in
our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these “Report
Limitations and Guidelines for Use” apply to your project or site.
Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Reports Should Not Be Interchanged
The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from
those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical
engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or
recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated
contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns
regarding a specific project.
August 2, 2016 | Page E-3
File No. 2202-024-00
Biological Pollutants
GeoEngineers’ Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment
of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations,
recommendations, findings, or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of
Biological Pollutants and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants, as
they may relate to this project. The term “Biological Pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi,
spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts.
If Client desires these specialized services, they should be obtained from a consultant who offers services
in this specialized field.
August 2, 2016 | Page E-4
File No. 2202-024-00
Have we delivered World Class Client Service?
Please let us know by visiting www.geoengineers.com/feedback.