HomeMy WebLinkAbout29_FAA Renton Geotech Letter Report
8410 154th Avenue NE
Redmond, Washington 98052
425.861.6000
September 5, 2014
Unico Properties, LLC
1215 4th Avenue, Suite 600
Seattle, Washington 98161
Attention: Julie Currier
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
File No. 9061-009-00
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of GeoEngineers’ preliminary geotechnical engineering services for the
proposed FAA Regional Campus project located at 1601 Lind Avenue SW in Renton, Washington. The site
is bounded by SW 16th Street to the north, Lind Avenue SW to the east, private property to the south, and
Raymond Avenue SW to the west. 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 preliminary geotechnical engineering conclusions and
recommendations for the design of a new open two-story parking structure with an at-grade level, a new
five-story office building, and renovation of an existing five-story office building. The site consists of three
King County parcels (parcel numbers 334040-4003, 334040-4004, and 334040-4006) and covers
approximately 8.80 acres. GeoEngineers’ geotechnical engineering services have been completed in
general accordance with our services agreement dated August 15, 2014.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
GeoEngineers understands that the planned development consists of construction of a new two-story
parking structure, a new five-story office building, and renovation of an existing five-story office building.
The purpose of our work is to provide information to the design team regarding the soil and groundwater
conditions that will have a significant impact to the constructability and scope of this project. Our
preliminary design recommendations will assist the project team in determining the conceptual design
and preliminary cost estimate for the development. After our team is selected by the FAA, GeoEngineers
will complete a design level geotechnical study.
Unico Properties, LLC | September 5, 2014 Page 2
File No. 0000-001-00 File No. 9061-009-00
FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING
Field Explorations
The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by drilling four borings, GEI-1 through GEI-4, to
depths ranging from approximately 50½ to 101½ feet. A monitoring well was installed in one of the
borings, GEI-4, to observe groundwater conditions. The well was also equipped with an automated
datalogger to provide continuous groundwater measurements over time. The approximate locations of
the explorations are shown in 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 the grain size distribution, fines
content, moisture content, and plasticity limits (Atterberg Tests). A description of the laboratory testing
and the test results are presented in Appendix B.
PREVIOUS EXPLORATIONS
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. The existing subsurface information
includes the logs of seven borings (B-1-89 through B-7-89) completed by Dames & Moore in 1989.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The site is bounded by SW 16th Street and a Puget Sound Energy substation to the north, Lind Avenue SW
to the east, private property to the south, and Raymond Avenue SW to the west. The site is currently
occupied by the existing five-story FAA office structure in the eastern portion of the site. The northwest
corner of the site is currently occupied by a single-story child daycare center. The remainder of the
site is currently occupied by surface parking. Site grades are relatively flat, ranging between about
Elevations 20 and 25 feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD 88]) across the site.
The northern site property boundary wraps around a Puget Sound Energy substation, which is situated
along SW 16th Street and just to the west of the existing FAA building. Buried utilities consisting of
sanitary sewer, storm sewer, power, gas, and water are shown on the site survey. Overhead power is
present in the City right-of-way adjacent to the site.
Subsurface Conditions
GeoEngineers’ understanding of subsurface conditions is based on review of existing geotechnical
information and the results of four new borings (GEI-1 through GEI-4) drilled as part of this study. The
approximate locations of the previous and recent explorations are presented in the Site Plan, Figure 2.
Unico Properties, LLC | September 5, 2014 Page 3
File No. 0000-001-00 File No. 9061-009-00
The soils encountered at the site consist of relatively shallow granular fill, overlying alluvial deposits that
extend to depths of about 25 to 30 feet below grades. Dense sand and gravel representing a competent
soil bearing layer are present below the alluvial deposits.
Fill was encountered in each of the four borings completed for this study. The fill encountered generally
consists of medium dense to dense pit run sand and gravel with variable silt content. The thickness of fill
ranged between 4½ to 6½ feet below grade.
Alluvial deposits were encountered below the fill in each of the borings and generally consists of
interbedded layers of very soft to stiff silt with variable sand and gravel content and very loose to medium
dense sand with variable silt and gravel. The alluvial deposits extend to between 23 and 28½ feet below
grade. An approximate 5-foot-diameter wood log was encountered in the alluvial deposits in boring GEI-3
at a depth of approximately 12½ feet.
A dense sand and gravel layer was encountered below the alluvial deposits and extended to the depths
explored. The dense sand and gravel layer consists of dense to very dense silty sand or gravel with sand
and variable silt content. The deeper borings (GEI-1 and GEI-3) encountered a stiff/loose to medium
dense zone of silt with sand and silty sand between depths of 70 to 80 feet, and 75 to 83½ feet in
borings GEI-1 and GEI-3, respectively.
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
A monitoring well was installed in boring GEI-4 to observe the depth of groundwater at the site.
Measurements completed approximately 1 week following the well installation indicate that the site
groundwater level is about 10 feet below existing grades.
The table below provides a summary of the monitoring well and groundwater measurements at the site.
Well ID Ground Surface Elevation
(feet)
Depth to Bottom of
Casing (feet below
ground surface [bgs])
Well Screen Interval
(feet bgs)
Measured
Groundwater Depth
(feet bgs)
GEI-4 22 25 15 to 25 10 (8/29/14)
An automatic datalogger was installed in the monitoring well to observe the variability in groundwater
levels seasonally and following significant rainfall events. Additional groundwater measurements will be
taken during the design phase of the project to further assess variations in groundwater elevations.
Groundwater levels are anticipated to vary as a function of location, precipitation, season and other
factors.
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our subsurface explorations and available subsurface information, the following
preliminary recommendations are appropriate for the site:
■ The alluvial deposits consist of layers of sand and silt that will be susceptible to liquefaction during
the design seismic event. We estimate liquefaction-induced settlement to be on the order of 4 to
10 inches for the design earthquake loading.
Unico Properties, LLC | September 5, 2014 Page 4
File No. 0000-001-00 File No. 9061-009-00
■ Due to the presence of liquefiable soils, the site meets the criteria for IBC Site Class F per the 2012
International Building Code (IBC), requiring that a site specific response spectrum be developed. We
recommend that the site specific response spectrum match 80 percent of the IBC Site Class E
spectrum. The values for site class, short period spectral response acceleration (SS), 1-second period
spectral response acceleration (S1) and seismic coefficients (FA and FV) for the project site presented
in the following table (the values in the table are the values for Site Class E and have not been
factored by 80 percent).
2012 IBC Parameter Recommended Value
Site Class E
Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration, SS (percent g) 144
1-Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration, S1 (percent g) 54
Seismic Coefficient, FA 0.9
Seismic Coefficient, FV 2.4
■ Foundation support for the new office building and parking structures can be provided by augercast
piles or by shallow foundations bearing on ground improved with concrete rigid inclusions
(unreinforced augercast piles).
We estimate that 18-inch augercast piles extending about 10 feet into the dense sand and
gravel can be designed with a preliminary downward axial allowable capacity of 200 kips.
Rigid inclusions can be installed with a diameter of 18 inches and a preliminary capacity of
about 100 kips per element and should extend about 3 feet into the dense sand and gravel.
Shallow foundations supported on rigid inclusions installed at a rectangular spacing of about
4 to 5 feet (7 to 11 percent area replacement ratio) can be designed for an allowable bearing
pressure of 4 to 6 kips per square foot (ksf).
■ Based on a review of available information, we understand that the existing office building is
supported by 16-inch augercast piles extending to a depth of approximately 40 feet and that the piles
were designed with an allowable capacity of 50 tons (100 kips) downward resistance and 15 tons
(30 kips) uplift resistance. In our opinion, these design values are appropriate for the current
structural evaluation of the existing building.
■ Lateral loads can be resisted by passive soil pressure on the vertical piles (augercast pile alternative)
and by the passive soil pressures on the foundations or pile cap.
We completed preliminary analysis of the lateral capacity of single 18- and 16-inch-diameter
augercast piles using the computer software program LPILE Plus 5.0 produced by Ensoft, Inc.
The lateral pile analyses for the 18-inch-diameter piles are for new piles supporting the
garage or the new office building. The lateral pile analyses for the 16-inch-diameter piles are
to assess the lateral resistance of the existing 16-inch diameter piles supporting the existing
office building. In our analyses, seismic conditions control the lateral pile capacities because
of the effect of the liquefiable soils. Figures 3 through 8 present the deflection, shear, and
moment versus depth for both free- and fixed-head conditions for a single 18-inch augercast
pile subjected to a range of lateral loads. Figures 9 through 14 present the deflection, shear,
Unico Properties, LLC | September 5, 2014 Page 5
File No. 0000-001-00 File No. 9061-009-00
and moment versus depth for both free- and fixed-head conditions for a single 16-inch
augercast pile subjected to a range of lateral loads.
Piles spaced closer than eight pile diameters apart will experience group effects that will
result in a lower lateral load capacity for trailing rows of piles with respect to leading rows of
piles for an equivalent deflection. We recommend that the lateral load capacity for trailing
piles in a pile group spaced less than three pile diameters apart be reduced by a factor of
0.6. Reductions of the lateral load capacity for trailing piles at spacings greater than three
pile diameters but less than eight pile diameters apart can be linearly interpolated between
0.6 and 1.0.
We recommend that the passive soil pressure acting on the pile cap or shallow foundation be
estimated using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) where the soil
adjacent to the foundation consists of adequately compacted structural fill. This passive
resistance value includes a factor of safety of 1.5 and assumes a 3- to 4-foot-deep pile cap or
footing and a minimum lateral deflection of 1 inch to fully develop the passive resistance.
Deflections that are less than 1 inch will not fully mobilize the passive resistance in the soil.
■ Design of the at-grade slabs should consider site settlements. In addition to being susceptible to
liquefaction, the alluvial deposits are compressible and can be anticipated to settle under new loads.
As mentioned above, seismic settlements resulting from liquefaction of up to 10 inches are
anticipated for the design earthquake scenario. Static settlements will depend on the magnitude of
slab loading.
■ For slab-on-grades with loading up to 250 pounds per square foot (psf), static settlements are
anticipated to be less than 1 inch for subgrades prepared as described below. For higher slab
loading, additional subgrade preparation may be required.
■ For slabs-on-grade designed for up to 250 psf loading, the subgrade should consist of a minimum of
18 inches of granular fill compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D
1557. Based on review of the boring logs for the site, existing granular fill greater than 18-inches
thick is present at the site. As a result, it is anticipated that the existing fill can be re-compacted
where new slabs-on-grade are planned. Prior to placing capillary break material, the subgrade should
be proof-rolled with heavy rubber tired equipment to confirm that the subgrade is firm and unyielding.
Areas where deflections greater than ½ inch are observed during proof-rolling should be removed and
replaced with properly compacted structural fill.
■ If the seismic settlement of slabs-on-grade is not acceptable the following options for slab support
can be considered:
For the augercast pile foundation alternative, construct a slab that is structurally supported
by grade beams with additional augercast piles, as needed. For this condition, consideration
should be given to supporting utilities from the slab so that they do not settle away from the
structure and be designed with flexible connections at the building interface. This alternative
will mitigate against static and liquefaction-induced settlement.
For the rigid inclusion ground improvement option, install additional 18-inch-diameter rigid
inclusions below the slab at a rectangular spacing of 6 to 8 feet (3 to 5 percent area
replacement ratio). This alternative will mitigate against static and liquefaction-induced
settlement. This alternative does not require that utilities be hung from the slab.
Unico Properties, LLC | September 5, 2014 Page 6
File No. 0000-001-00 File No. 9061-009-00
For the existing building with a slab-on-grade, the seismic settlement can be mitigated
through the use of compaction grouting ground improvement. For preliminary design,
compaction grouting spaced on a 10-foot rectangular grid pattern with a targeted
improvement zone ranging from 10 to 25 feet below existing grades can be assumed.
An area replacement ratio of 3 to 5 percent can be assumed to estimate grout quantities.
Monitoring should be completed to prevent excessive heave within the existing building
during compaction grouting.
■ The feasibility of infiltration was assessed at the site through review of near surface soil
conditions and groundwater levels. Due to a relatively shallow groundwater table (10 feet below
grade and likely shallower seasonally) and the presence of low permeability silt soils near the
ground surface, we conclude that infiltration will be difficult/impractical at this site.
■ New pavements can be assumed to consist of 2 inches of hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavement over
4 inches of crushed surfacing base course material (CSBC) for areas with passenger vehicle
loading. In areas where truck traffic is planned, the pavement section should consist of 3 inches
of HMA over 6 inches of CSBC. Similar to slabs-on-grade, the existing granular fill noted in the
borings is anticipated to provide adequate support for pavements. Subgrade preparation should
consist of proof-rolling with heavy rubber tired equipment to confirm that the subgrade is firm and
unyielding. Areas where deflections greater than ½ inch are observed during proof-rolling should
be removed and replaced with properly compacted structural fill.
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Unico Properties, LLC. and their authorized agents
for the FAA Regional Campus project in Seattle, 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 D titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for additional information
pertaining to use of this report.
REFERENCES
Dames and Moore, 1989, “Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Office Building,
Lind Avenue SW and SW 16th Street, Renton, Washington.”
International Code Council, 2011, “International Building Code.”
U.S. Geological Survey, 2013, “U.S. Seismic Design Maps” web application, Version 3.1.0-07/11/2013.
LongacresRacetrack
Black RiverBlack RiverRiparianRiparianForestForest
TukwilaTukwilaParkPark
FortFortDent ParkDent Park
SSeeaattttllee
Seattl
eSeat
t
leEastEast
B la c kRiver B la c k
R iv e rG
re
e
n
Riv
e
r
Black River Ren to nRentonC
M
St P a
n
d
P R
ailro
a
dCMSt
P
and
P
R
ailroad
CMSP and P RailroadC M S P a n d P
R a ilro a d
BN Railroad¨§¦405
ST167
ST167
WA-167 SWA-167NP
o
w
ell
A
v
e
S
W89thAve SS 7th St
S 134thSt
S 33rd Pl
S3rd St
S 28th Pl64thAve SS22nd Pl
S W 1 3 t h S t
CedarAve SES 143rd St
S 20th PlFortDentWaySW5thCt
S 144thSt
S 32nd PlHardieAveSWOaksdaleAve SWTreck Dr
Jackson
Pl S
W
Smit
h
e
r
sAv
e
SS 2 2nd
Ct
S36th StPowellAve SWNW 2nd St
SmithersAve SS 9thSt
Industry DrS23rd St
SW 29th St
S Tillicum St
MillAve SS 18thSt
S 2ndSt
S 21stSt
S W G ra d yW a y
S 31s tSt
S164thSt GrantAve SS 36thStMainAveSStarfireWay
S 7th St
Be n
sonDrSH ouserW ay SBurnettAve SSW 16thSt
W ValleyHwyS W 1 2 t hSt MorrisAve SBakerBlvd Li
ndAveSWSW27thSt
SW4thPl
NachesAveSWE ValleyRdSW4th P l
S RentonVillagePl
JonesAve S
B
eaco
n
W
ay S
SW 23rdSt
CedarAveSPowellAve SWS23r
d
St
Tal
b
otRd
SS W 1 2 t h S tHardie AveSWS 2nd St
N achesA veSWN 1st St
SW 34th St
S 19th St HouserWayNLakeAve SS 6th St
WValleyHwyLakeAveSMillAveSMorrisAve STalbotCrestDr S
H ouserW aySLindAve SWLakeAveSBrons o n
WayN
ThomasAve SWBensonDrSLongacresDrSWMa
uleA
v
e
SS32n d StNelsonPlChristensenRd Mill
Av
eS
OakesdaleAveSW
SW5 thPlS 7th St
WValleyHwyS 36t h P lWA-515
MartinLuth
erKingJrWay SS 5th St
105th Ave SES 1 4 t h St
MinklerBlvd
Tukwila Pk w y PowellAveSWS134thSt
RentonAve S
S W 1 0 th S t StevensAveSWS Tobin St
S 15th St65
t
hAv
e
SSW 3rd Pl68thAveS
Morris
AveS
106thAve SESG r a dyW a yS 4th St
SW 34th St E Valley RdWValleyHwySW 19th St HardieAveSWIndustryDrSou t h c e n te rBlvdGrantAveSS134thSt
Bea
c
onCoalMi
neRdSS 133rd St
SWLangstonRd
S 135th St
Strander Blvd WellsAveSWValleyHwy
S 3rd St
S 132nd St
Oakes
d
al
eAveSWRainierAveSRa
i
n
i
e
rAveS
SW 27th St SPuget Dr
I
n
t
e
r
ur
banAv
e
S
EValleyRdBe
n
s
on Dr SSW 16th St
ChristensenRdSW 7th St
LindAve SWS W G rady
W ay
AndoverPark WAndoverParkEMonsterRdSW
SW SunsetBlvd
TalbotRd
SOakesdaleAveSW Be
n
s
o
nRdSµ
Vicinity Map
Figure 1
FAA Regional CampusRenton, Washington
BellevueBellevueSeattleSeattle
¨§¦5
¨§¦405
¨§¦90UV518
UV99
UV18
UV509
UV520
UV3
UV167UV16 2,000 2,0000
Feet
Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps, Street Maps 2005
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 northOffice: RedmondPath: \\red\projects\9\9061009\GIS\906100900_F1_VicinityMap.mxdMap Revised: 8/28/2014 ELSite
NOT A PART OFTHIS SURVEYGEI-4
GEI-2
B-6-89
GEI-3
GEI-1
B-7-89
B-3-89
B-4-89
B-1-89
B-2-89 B-5-89
FEET
080 80
W E
N
S
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 theaccuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is
stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official
record of this communication.
Reference: Base survey by Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc.
dated 9/11/14.
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
Site Plan
Figure 2
Notes Legend
Boring Completed for this Study
Monitoring Well Completed for this Study
Previous Boring
GEI-1
GEI-4
B-1-89
Lateral Deflection vs.Depth
18-inch Augercast Pile, Free-Head
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
Figure 3
Shear Force vs.Depth
18-inch Augercast Pile, Free-Head
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
Figure 4
Bending Moment vs.Depth
18-inch Augercast Pile, Free-Head
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
Figure 5
Lateral Deflection vs.Depth
18-inch Augercast Pile, Fixed-Head
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
Figure 6
Shear Force vs.Depth
18-inch Augercast Pile, Fixed-Head
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
Figure 7
Bending Moment vs.Depth
18-inch Augercast Pile, Fixed-Head
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
Figure 8
Lateral Deflection vs.Depth
16-inch Augercast Pile, Free-Head
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
Figure 9
Shear Force vs.Depth
16-inch Augercast Pile, Free-Head
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
Figure 10
Bending Moment vs.Depth
16-inch Augercast Pile, Free-Head
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
Figure 11
Lateral Deflection vs.Depth
16-inch Augercast Pile, Fixed-Head
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
Figure 12
Shear Force vs.Depth
16-inch Augercast Pile, Fixed-Head
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
Figure 13
Bending Moment vs.Depth
16-inch Augercast Pile, Fixed-Head
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
Figure 14
APPENDIX A Field Explorations
GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 9061-009-00
Unico Properties, LLC | September 5, 2014 Page A-1
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions were evaluated by drilling four borings (GEI-1 through GEI-4)
at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. A monitoring well was installed in boring GEI-4 to
evaluate groundwater levels. Locations of the explorations were determined in the field by taping and
pacing, and ground surface elevations were estimated using an existing site survey.
Borings
Four borings (GEI-1 through GEI-4) were drilled on August 18 through 22, 2014 to depths ranging from
50½ to 101½ feet below the existing ground surface. The borings were drilled by Holt Services, Inc. of
Edgewood, Washington, using a truck-mounted B-59 Mobile drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer.
The borings were advanced using mud-rotary drilling techniques. Drilling services were subcontracted to
GeoEngineers, and the borings were advanced under the full-time observation of a representative from
our firm.
The soils encountered in the borings were typically sampled at 2½- to 5-foot-vertical intervals with a
2.0-inch outside-diameter split-barrel standard penetration test (SPT) sampler. The 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 is recorded. The blow count
(“N-value”) of the soil is 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 preclude driving the full 18 inches, the
penetration resistance for the partial penetration is entered on the logs. The blow counts are shown on
the boring logs at the respective sample depths.
The borings were logged by a geotechnical engineer from our firm who identified the boring locations,
classified the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples and maintained a detailed log of
each boring. The soils encountered during boring operations were visually classified in the field in general
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), ASTM D 2488, and the system described
on Figure A-1. Representative soil samples were obtained from the borings, logged, placed in plastic
bags, and transported to our laboratory in Redmond, Washington. The field classifications were checked
in our laboratory.
In addition, pertinent information including soil sample depth, stratigraphy, and groundwater were
recorded. Groundwater levels were estimated by observing soil samples and the drill rods. The drilling
operation was also monitored for indication of various drilling conditions, such as hard and soft drilling.
At completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled in accordance with the procedures of the Washington
State Department of Ecology.
Summary boring logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-5. A key to the symbols and terms used on
the logs are included on Figure A-1. These logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory
data and indicate the various types of soils encountered. They also indicate the approximate depths at
which the soils or their characteristics change, although the change may be gradual. If a change occurred
between samples in the borings, it was interpreted.
GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 9061-009-00
Unico Properties, LLC | September 5, 2014 Page A-2
Monitoring Wells
A groundwater monitoring wells was installed in boring GEI-4. The monitoring well was constructed using
2-inch-diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing. The depth to which the casing was installed was selected
based on our understanding of subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered during drilling.
The lower portion of the casing was slotted to allow entry of water into the casing. Medium sand was
placed in the borehole annulus surrounding the slotted portion of the casing. A bentonite seal was placed
above the slotted portion of the casing. The monitoring well was protected by installing flush-mount steel
monuments set in concrete. Completion details for the monitoring well is shown on Figure A-5.
Groundwater levels in the monitoring wells were measured on August 29, 2014, as summarized in the
main body of the report.
The groundwater monitoring wells should be abandoned during construction in accordance with the
procedures of the Washington State Department of Ecology.
Sheen Classification
NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface
conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they arenot warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
CC
Asphalt Concrete
NSSS
MSHSNT
Shelby tube
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS
%FALCA
CPCS
DSHAMC
MDOCPM
PIPPPPM
SATXUC
VS
Graphic Log Contact
Distinct contact between soil strata orgeologic units
Approximate location of soil strata
change within a geologic soil unit
Approximate location of soil stratachange within a geologic soil unit
Measured groundwater level in
exploration, well, or piezometer
Measured free product in well orpiezometer
GRAPH
Topsoil/
Forest Duff/Sod
Direct-Push
Crushed Rock/Quarry Spalls
Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number
of blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (ordistance noted). See exploration log for hammer weightand drop.
A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of thedrill rig.
FIGURE A-1
2.4-inch I.D. split barrel
SYMBOLS TYPICAL
KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS
CR
Bulk or grab
Piston
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
DESCRIPTIONSLETTER
Distinct contact between soil strata orgeologic units
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
AC
Cement Concrete
Sampler Symbol Descriptions
Groundwater Contact
Material Description Contact
No Visible SheenSlight Sheen
Moderate SheenHeavy SheenNot Tested
Laboratory / Field Tests
Percent finesAtterberg limits
Chemical analysisLaboratory compaction testConsolidation test
Direct shearHydrometer analysisMoisture content
Moisture content and dry densityOrganic contentPermeability or hydraulic conductivityPlasticity indexPocket penetrometer
Parts per millionSieve analysisTriaxial compression
Unconfined compressionVane shear
1
2
3
4
5AL
6
7%F
8
9%F
10
6
10
12
6
15
15
15
7
15
14
34
16
4
2
2
5
22
10
27
2 inches asphalt concrete
4 inches crushed rock base course
Brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel, pitrun-like matrix (medium dense, moist) (fill)
Gray silty fine to coarse gravel with sand(dense, wet)
Blackish brown silty fine sand with occasionalgravel, organic odor (medium dense, moist)
Dark brownish gray silt with gravel (mediumstiff, wet) (alluvial deposits)
Dark brownish gray silt with sand (soft, wet)
Dark brownish gray silty fine sand (very loose,wet)
Becomes loose
Gray silty fine gravel with sand (medium dense,wet)
Dark brown silty fine to medium sand,occasional lenses of silt (medium dense,
wet)
Gray fine to coarse sand with silt and gravel(medium dense, wet) (dense sand andgravel)
Gray fine to coarse sand with silt and gravel(dense, wet)
AC
CR
SM
GM
SM
ML
ML
SM
GM
SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
Drilling fluid in sample
Slight organic sheer
Groundwater encountered at 7 feet during drilling
AL (non-plastic; MC = 47)
%F = 26; MC = 35
Driller added mud
Driller notes gravel at 20 feet
%F = 17; MC = 26
TotalDepth (ft)
HammerData
SystemDatum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
LCFDrilled
Notes:
KMS
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Mobile B-59
Holt Services DrillingMethod Mud Rotary101.5
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
DrillingEquipment
8/19/20148/18/2014
Drilled with mud. Not able to observegroundwater during drilling.
23
NAVD88
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 IntervalElevation (feet)20151050-5-10Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-1
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
9061-009-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-2
Sheet 1 of 3Redmond: Date:9/5/14 Path:P:\9\9061009\GINT\906100900.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARDREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
11SA
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
10
6
16
9
12
10
5
16
34
57
54
33
36
50/4.5"
52
12
20
Becomes very dense
Becomes dense
Gray silty fine to coarse gravel with sand, siltyfine to medium sand lenses (dense, wet)
Becomes very dense
Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (verydense, wet)
Black silt with sand, dilatant, organic odor (stiff,wet)
Gray silty fine sand (medium dense, wet)
GM
SM
ML
SM
SA (%F = 11; MC = 10)
Driller notes 8-inch sand/silt seams where rod felleasily
Harder drilling, drillers added mud
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75 IntervalElevation (feet)-15-20-25-30-35-40-45-50Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-1 (continued)
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
9061-009-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-2
Sheet 2 of 3Redmond: Date:9/5/14 Path:P:\9\9061009\GINT\906100900.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARDREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
20
21
22
23
15
0
11
8
12
42
50/3"
50/6"
56
53
Becomes dense
Brown-gray silty fine to coarse gravel with sand(very dense, wet)
Gray-brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel(very dense, wet)
GM
SM
Driller added more mud
No recovery, likely due to a large rock
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)80
85
90
95
100 IntervalElevation (feet)-55-60-65-70-75Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-1 (continued)
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
9061-009-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-2
Sheet 3 of 3Redmond: Date:9/5/14 Path:P:\9\9061009\GINT\906100900.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARDREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
3
4AL
5
6%F
7A
7B
8%F
9
10
6
10
0
15
0
18
15
15
12
0
60*
9*
1
0
0
15
29
40
71
2 inches asphalt concrete
3 inches crushed rock base course
Brown gravel with silt, sand and cobbles(medium dense, moist) (fill)
Gray silt (soft, wet) (alluvial deposits)
Becomes very soft
Gray sandy silt, dilatant (very soft, wet)
Gray silt with trace organics, organic odor (stiff,wet)
Dark gray silty fine sand (medium dense, wet)
Blackish gray fine sand with silt (medium
dense, wet)
Becomes dense
Gray fine gravel with silt and sand (dense, wet)
Gray fine to coarse gravel with silt and sand(very dense, wet) (dense sand and gravel)
AC
CR
GP-GM
ML
ML
ML
SM
SP-SM
GP
GP-GM
*Blow count overstated due to cobble
*Blow count overstated, chasing cobble from 2.5to 5 feet
AL (LL = 45; PI = 15; MC = 40)
No recovery
%F = 97; MC = 45
%F = 9; MC = 27
Driller notes harder driller at 28.5 feet
No recovery
TotalDepth (ft)
HammerData
SystemDatum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
LCFDrilled
Notes:
KMS
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Mobile B-59
Holt Services DrillingMethod Mud Rotary50.5
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
DrillingEquipment
8/20/20148/19/2014
Drilled with mud. Not able to observegroundwater during drilling.
22
NAVD88
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 IntervalElevation (feet)20151050-5-10Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-2
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
9061-009-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-3
Sheet 1 of 2Redmond: Date:9/5/14 Path:P:\9\9061009\GINT\906100900.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARDREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
11SA
12
13
14
10
12
6
43
38
27
40/6"
Becomes dense
Brown-gray silty fine to coarse sand with gravel,trace organic matter, homogenous (mediumdense, wet)
Gray silty fine to coarse gravel with sand (verydense, wet)
SM
GM
SA ( %F = 8; MC = 10)
Driller notes caving, gravel sloughing into hole at
35 feet; mud is thickened
Broken gravel in sampleHydraulic line broke on drill rig
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)35
40
45
50 IntervalElevation (feet)-15-20-25Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-2 (continued)
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
9061-009-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-3
Sheet 2 of 2Redmond: Date:9/5/14 Path:P:\9\9061009\GINT\906100900.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARDREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8%F
9SA
10%F
6
9
6
12
12
18
18
12
9
12
45*
17
13
7
36
64
24
35
36
2 inches asphalt concrete
3 inches crushed rock base course
Brown fine to medium sand with gravel, pitrun-like matrix (dense, moist) (fill)
Gray fine to coarse gravel with sand (dense,moist)
Greenish gray sandy silt with gravel, traceorganic matter (very stiff, moist) (alluvialdeposits)
Dark brown-gray silty fine to medium sand withorganic matter, organic odor (mediumdense, wet)
Becomes loose
Brown-gray elastic silt with organic matter,organic odor (soft, wet)
Wood, grain perpendicular to sampler, log
Gray fine to coarse sand with occasional gravel(medium dense, wet)
Gray fine to coarse sand with silt and gravel(dense, wet) (dense sand and gravel)
Brownish gray fine to coarse gravel with silt andsand (dense, wet)
Gray fine to coarse gravel with sand (dense,wet)
AC
CR
SP
GP
ML
SM
MH
WOOD
SP
SW-SM
GP-GM
GP
Sample appeared "washed"*Blow count may not be representative
Driller notes that gravel transitions to sand at 4.5feetThickening mud at 5 feet
Groundwater encountered at 7 feet during drilling
Driller added mud
%F = 6; MC = 13
SA (%F = 8; MC = 11)
%F = 5; MC = 11
TotalDepth (ft)
HammerData
SystemDatum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
LCFDrilled
Notes:
KMS
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Mobile B-59
Holt Services DrillingMethod Mud Rotary90.5
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
DrillingEquipment
8/22/20148/21/2014
Drilled with mud. Not able to observegroundwater during drilling.
22
NAVD88
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 IntervalElevation (feet)20151050-5-10Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-3
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
9061-009-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-4
Sheet 1 of 3Redmond: Date:9/5/14 Path:P:\9\9061009\GINT\906100900.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARDREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
11%F
12
13
14
15SA
16
17
18
19
18
18
15
18
12
3
4.5
10
12
47
34
30
35
76
50/3"
50/4.5"
35
23
Gray fine to coarse sand with silt and gravel(dense, wet)
Dark gray fine to medium sand with silt and
occasional gravel, lense of organic matter(dense, wet)
Gray fine to coarse sand with gravel, gravelinterbeds (dense, wet)
Gray fine to coarse gravel with silt and sand,organic odor (very dense, wet)
Becomes dense
Interbedded gray silty fine sand and silt, 1-inchlense of compressed peat (loose/stiff, moist
SP-SM
SP-SM
SP
GW-GM
SM/ML
%F = 3; MC = 8
Driller notes thin layers of gravel interbedded insand
SA (%F = 7; MC = 8)
Thicken mud
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75 IntervalElevation (feet)-15-20-25-30-35-40-45-50Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-3 (continued)
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
9061-009-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-4
Sheet 2 of 3Redmond: Date:9/5/14 Path:P:\9\9061009\GINT\906100900.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARDREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
20
21
22
18
12
10
69
50/5"
to wet)
Interbedded gray silty fine sand and sandy silt,occasional organic silt lenses (loose/stiff,wet)
Gray silty fine to coarse gravel with sand (very
dense, wet) (glacially consolidated soil)
ML
GM
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)80
85
90 IntervalElevation (feet)-55-60-65Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring GEI-3 (continued)
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
9061-009-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-4
Sheet 3 of 3Redmond: Date:9/5/14 Path:P:\9\9061009\GINT\906100900.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARDREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
6
9
12
3
12
12
12
12
9
9
33
14
10
10
7
14
16
13
39
2 inches asphalt concrete
3 inches crushed rock base course
Brown fine to coarse gravel with sand andcobbles, pit run-like matrix (medium dense,
moist) (fill)
Brown silty fine to coarse gravel with sand(dense, wet)
Blackish gray silty fine to medium sand, organicodor (medium dense, moist to wet) (alluvialdeposits)%F = 22; MC = 20
Gray silt, lenses of dark gray organic silt, thinfine sand (stiff, moist)
Dark gray sandy silt, stratified, trace organicmatter (roots) (stiff, wet)%F = 42; MC = 28
Dark gray silty fine sand, occasional siltlaminations, trace organics (loose, wet)%F = 25; MC = 41
Gray fine sand with silt and brown silt interbeds(medium dense/stiff, wet)
Gray fine to medium sand with silt (mediumdense, wet)
SA (%F = 8; MC = 27)
Gray fine to coarse gravel with silt and sand(medium dense, wet)
Gray silty fine to coarse gravel with sand
(dense, wet) (dense sand and gravel)
AC
CR
GP
GM
SM
ML
ML
SM
ML
SP-SM
GP
GM
1
2
3%F
4
5%F
6%F
7
8SA
9
10
1.5
3.0
13.0
15.0
25.0
27.0
Concrete surfaceseal
Sand
2-inch Schedule40 PVC wellcasing
Bentonite chips
Sand
2-inch Schedule40 PVC screen,0.010-inch slotwidth
Logged By
LCFDrilled
Date Measured
DrillingMethod8/22/2014 8/22/2014
Horizontal
Datum
Vertical Datum
DOE Well I.D.: FAA-W4A 2 (in) well was installed on 8/22/2014 to a depth of 27 (ft).
8/29/2014Easting (X)
Northing (Y)
DrillingEquipment
51.5
Top of CasingElevation (ft)21.6
Start End
Checked By
10.4
Mobile B-59
Elevation (ft)
Groundwater
Driller
Depth toWater (ft)
KMSTotalDepth (ft)Mud Rotary
Notes:
HammerData
Surface Elevation (ft)22NAVD88
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
Holt Services
11.6
Steel surfacemonument
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 IntervalElevation (feet)20151050-5-10Collected SampleRecovered (in)Blows/footGraphic LogMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelSample NameTestingWELL LOG
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)Log of Monitoring Well GEI-4
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
9061-009-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-5
Sheet 1 of 2Redmond: Date:9/5/14 Path:P:\9\9061009\GINT\906100900.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_WELL
15
18
18
15
29
43
36
56
Gray fine to medium sand with silt andoccasional gravel, occasional silt lenses(medium dense, wet)
Brown to gray fine to coarse sand with silt andoccasional gravel (dense, wet)
%F = 10; MC = 13
Brownish gray silty fine to medium sand withoccasional gravel, stratified (dense, wet)
Gray fine to coarse gravel with silt and sand(very dense, wet)
SP-SM
SP-SM
SM
GP-GM
11
12%F
13
14
51.5
Grout backfill
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)35
40
45
50 IntervalElevation (feet)-15-20-25Collected SampleRecovered (in)Blows/footGraphic LogMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelSample NameTestingWELL LOG
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)Log of Monitoring Well GEI-4 (continued)
FAA Regional Campus
Renton, Washington
9061-009-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-5
Sheet 2 of 2Redmond: Date:9/5/14 Path:P:\9\9061009\GINT\906100900.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS8.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_WELL
APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing
GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 9061-009-00
Unico Properties, LLC | September 5, 2014 Page B-1
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
General
Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to our laboratory and examined to confirm
or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering properties of the soil. Representative
samples were selected for laboratory testing consisting of moisture content determinations, percent fines
content, sieve analysis, and Atterberg limits. The tests were performed in general accordance with test
methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other applicable procedures.
The results of the laboratory tests are presented in Figures B-1 through B-3. The results of the moisture
content determinations are presented on the exploration logs at the respective sample depths in
Appendix A.
Soil Classifications
Soil samples obtained from the explorations were visually classified in the field and/or in our laboratory
using a system based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM classification methods.
ASTM test method D 2488 was used to visually classify the soil samples, while ASTM D 2487 was used to
classify the soils based on laboratory tests results. These classification procedures are incorporated in
the exploration logs shown in Figures A-2 through A-5 in Appendix A.
Moisture Content Determinations
Moisture contents tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 for representative
samples obtained from the explorations. The test results are presented on the exploration logs in
Appendix A at the respective sample depths.
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.
Sieve Analysis
Sieve analyses were performed on selected samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The wet
sieve analysis method was used to estimate the percentage of soil greater than the U.S. No. 200 mesh
sieve. The results of the sieve analyses were plotted, classified in general accordance with the USCS, and
presented on Figures B-1 and B-2.
GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 9061-009-00
Unico Properties, LLC | September 5, 2014 Page B-2
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg limits testing was performed on selected fine-grained soil samples. The tests were used to
classify the soil and to estimate index properties of the soil. The liquid limit and the plastic limit were
performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. The results of the Atterberg limits are summarized
in Figure B-3. The plasticity chart relates the plasticity index (liquid limit minus the plastic limit) to the
liquid limit.
FIGURE B-1 SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTSEXPLORATION
NUMBER
DEPTH
(ft)SOIL CLASSIFICATION
GEI-1
GEI-2
GEI-3
GEI-3
35
35
25
55
Fine to coarse sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM)
Fine to coarse gravel with silt and sand (GP-GM)
Fine to coarse sand with silt and gravel (SW-SM)
Fine to coarse gravel with silt and sand (GW-GM)
9061-009-00 SAS: SAS 08-29-2014
SYMBOL
3/8”3”#20 #200#40 #60 #1001.5”#10#43/4”
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT .GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
SAND SILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVEL
COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSEFINEBOULDERS
FIGURE B-2 SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTSEXPLORATION
NUMBER
DEPTH
(ft)SOIL CLASSIFICATION
GEI-4 20 Fine to medium sand with silt (SP-SM)
9061-009-00 SAS: SAS 08-29-2014
SYMBOL
3/8”3”#20 #200#40 #60 #1001.5”#10#43/4”
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT .GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
SAND SILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVEL
COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSEFINEBOULDERS
FIGURE B-3 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS9061-009-00 SAS: SAS 8-29-14
EXPLORATION
NUMBER SOIL DESCRIPTIONSAMPLE
DEPTH (ft)MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
LIQUID
LIMIT (%)
PLASTICITY
INDEX (%)
GEI-2 5 40 45 15 Silt (ML)
SYMBOL
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100PLASTICITY INDEX LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY CHART
CL-ML ML or OL
CL or OL
OH or MH
CH or OH
APPENDIX C Boring Logs from Previous Studies
GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 9061-009-00
Unico Properties, LLC | September 5, 2014 Page A-1
APPENDIX C
BORING LOGS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES
Included in this section are relevant logs from the following report completed for previous campus
development:
Dames and Moore, 1989, “Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Office Building, Lind Avenue
SW and SW 16th Street, Renton, Washington.”
APPENDIX D Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 9061-009-00
Unico Properties, LLC | September 5, 2014 Page D-1
APPENDIX D
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 use by Unico Properties and their authorized agents. This report may
be made available to agencies and prospective contractors for review. 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. No other party except Puget Sound
Energy and their authorized agents may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to
such reliance and the additional party of reliance agrees, in writing, to be bound by the terms and
conditions under which these services have been performed. 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 evaluation of the proposed FAA Regional Campus site located 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.
1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org.
GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 9061-009-00
Unico Properties, LLC | September 5, 2014 Page D-2
For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect:
■ the function and condition of the structures;
■ elevation, configuration, location, or orientation of the structures;
■ 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
GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 9061-009-00
Unico Properties, LLC | September 5, 2014 Page D-3
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.
Do Not Redraw The Exploration Logs
Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and test pit 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
GeoEngineers, Inc.
File No. 9061-009-00
Unico Properties, LLC | September 5, 2014 Page D-4
regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or
geologic concerns regarding a specific project.
Biological Pollutants
GeoEngineers’ Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention, or
assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants in or around any structure. Accordingly, this report
includes no interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions for the purpose of detecting,
preventing, assessing, or abating Biological Pollutants. The term “Biological Pollutants” includes, but is
not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts.