The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit MI02-107 - MUSEUM OF FLIGHT - VAULTMUSEUM OF FLIGHT 9404 E MARGINAL WY S M 1102407 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206) 431.3670 Parcel No.: 3324049019 Address: Suite No: MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT 9404 EAST MARGINAL WY 5 TUKW Permit Number: Issue Date: Permit Expires On: MI02 -107 03/03/2003 08/30/2003 Tenant: Name: MUSEUM OF FLIGHT Address: 9404 EAST MARGINAL WY S, TUKWILA WA Owner: Name: KING COUNTY MUSEUM Address: 9404 E MARGINAL WAY S, SEATTLE WA Contact Person: Name: JULIE LAWTON Address: 1201 THIRD AV,#2350, SEATTLE WA Contractor: Name: SELLEN CONSTR CO INC Address: PO BOX 9970, SEATTLE, WA Contractor License No: SELLEC *372ND Phone: Phone: 208. 828.3160 Phone: 200. 882.7770 Expiration Date: 08/01 /2003 DESCRIPTION OF WORK: INSTALL WATER QUALITY VAULT. Value of Construction: Type of Fire Protection: Type of Construction: $40,000.00 Fees Collected: $925.04 Uniform Building Code Edition: 1997 Occupancy per UBC: Public Works Activities: Curb Cut/Access /Sldewalk/CSS: N Fire Loop Hydrant: N Flood Control Zone: N Hauling: N Land Altering: N Landscape Irrigation: N Number: 0 Size (Inches): 0 Start Time: End Time: Volumes: Cut 0 o,y. Fill 0 c.y, Moving Oversize Load: N Start Time: Sanitary Side Sewer: N Sewer Main Extension: N Private: Public: End Time: Storm Drainage: Y Street Use: N Water Main Extension: N Water Meter: Channelizatlon / Striping: Private: ** Continued Next Page ** Public: doc; Miscperm M102-107 Printed: 03.03.2003 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206) 431.3670 Permit Center Authorized Signature: 44fee.e. Date: I hereby certify that I have read and examine his permit and know the same to be true and correct, All provisions of law and ordinances governing this work will be complied with, whether specified herein or not. The granting of : permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local laws regulating c • •/ or t e o •.: :rice of w r . lam authorized to sign and obtain this mechanical pe mit. Signature: ,�, .�,. i 0 h, / Date :_ Print Name: ' 41111L/i This permit shall become null and void If the work Is not commenced within 180 days from the date of issuance, or If the work Is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days from the last inspection. doe: MIscperm M102.107 Printed: 03.03.2003 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206) 431.3670 PERMIT CONDITIONS Parcel No.: 3324049019 Permit Number: MI02 -107 Address: 9404 EAST MARGINAL WY 8 TUKW Status: ISSUED Suite No: Applied Date: 07/12/2002 Tenant: MUSEUM OF FLIGHT Issue Date: 03/03/2003 1: ** *BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS *" 2: No changes will be made to the plans unless approved by the Engineer and the Tukwila Building Division, 3: All permits, Inspection records, and approved plans shall be available at the job site prior to the start of any construction. These documents are to be maintained and available until final inspection approval Is granted, 4: When special Inspection is required either the owner, architect or engineer shall notify the Tukwila Building Division of appointment of the inspection agencies prior to the first building inspection. Copies of all special inspection reports shalt be submitted to the Building Division In a timely manner. Reports shall contain address, protect name, permit number end type of inspection being performed. 8: The special Inspector shall submit a final signed report stating whether the work requiring special Inspection was, to the best of the Inspector's knowledge, In conformance with approved plans and specifications and the applicable workmanship provisions of the UBC. 8: All construction to be done in conformance with approved plans and requirements of the Uniform Building Code (1997 Edition) as amended, Uniform Mechanical Code (1997 Edition), and Washington State Enorgy Code (1997 Edition). 7: Notify the City of Tukwila Building Division prior to placing any concrete, This procedure Is in addition to any requirements for special Inspection. 8: Validity of Permit. The issuance of a permit or approval of plans, specifications, and computations shell not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of the building code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. No permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code shall bo valid. 9: * "PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS "* 10: Contractor shall notify Public Works Utility Inspector Mr. Greg Villanueva at (208)433.0179 of commencement and completion of work at least 24 hours In advance. I hereby certify that I have read these conditions and will comply with them as outlined, All provisions of law and ordinances governing this work will be complied with, whether specified herein or not. The granting of this permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provision of any other work or local laws regulating con ion or the performance of work. Signature: Print Name: a• Date: 1 doc: Conditions M102 -107 Printed: 03 -03 -2003 CITY OF T(CWILA Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 431 -3670 STAFF USE ONIY Project Number: Permit Number: Miscellaneous Permit Application Application and plans must be complete in order to be accepted for plan review. Applications will not be accepted through the mail or facsimile. P or a NamefTenant: /. .. // :. 4' / / Description of work to be done (please be specific): i,; IM.34# 41.44., At,* ii*//A .ed,ode/10/ ',PA, 002. ad/ / /0.6z •aZy ....._a.. Will there be storage of flammable/combustible hazardous material in the building? ❑ yes no Attach list of materlala and store a location on se innate 8 1/2 X 11 ra (Indfeaffn uantities it Material Safety nta Sheets ��_ V.Iue of Construction: ,• a 01 i Sit. Address : . //, " 1 - / / Cit State/Zip: , Tax Parcel Number: ;, is - , 2 -a I .. _ o - ; Property Owner: ir / /. •_!;/.1 Phone: ( ) e Street Address: ..�,.. City State/Zip: Fax #: (r.!!(r ) 7b • viz. C traa /( r: �%��J /r/ Phone: (0) 27 Za Street Address: / /L7 111041W,Z Jv, /v /d1 9/e/ 4 City State/Zip: $/I,z_ Fax #: vin )d9G OAS" • 7i. 22- Architect: JihBA2 _„ Phone: (MP ) 4 !d • sS?Y/ eddre`l / City State/Zip: Fax #: 2 , tS�7 /�S Engineer: kSemi3.._ Phone: (� ) 1'L. /Zed Street Address. /r/ ,/, 4:1 , ./ .✓/ i / City, tate/Zi.: a Fax #: (ZDG, ) Co .ac P on Phone: (2410 ) )ytAdj, City S te/ ip: Fax #: (t4) ` MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT REVIEW AND APPROVAL RE • UESTEDt (TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT) Description of work to be done (please be specific): i,; IM.34# 41.44., At,* ii*//A .ed,ode/10/ ',PA, 002. ad/ / /0.6z •aZy ....._a.. Will there be storage of flammable/combustible hazardous material in the building? ❑ yes no Attach list of materlala and store a location on se innate 8 1/2 X 11 ra (Indfeaffn uantities it Material Safety nta Sheets ��_ wari Above Ground Tanks Antennas/Satellite Dishes Bulkhead/Docks Commercial Reroof ❑ Demolition ❑ Fence ❑ Manufactured Wousin •Replacement only ❑ Parking Lots ❑ Retalnin; Walls ❑ Tem or Facilities I Tree Cuttin; LJ Channallzatlon/Striping ❑ Flood Control Zone ❑ Landscape Irrigation Storm Drainage ❑ Water Motor /Exempt N_ ❑ Water Meter /Permanent ❑ Water Meter Temp # ❑ Miscellaneous APPLICANT RE • UEST FOR MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC WORKS PERMITS Curb cut/Access/Sidewalk Fire Loop/hlydrant (main to vault)#: Slzelt): ❑ Land Altering: 0 Cut cubic yards 0 nil cubic yards sq, ft,gratiing/cloaring ❑ Sanitary Side Sower 0 :. 0 Sewer Mahn Extension Private 0 Public ❑ Street Use ❑ Water Mein Extension 0 Private 0 Public Size(s): 0 Deduct 0 Water Only Size(s): Sings): Est, quantity: gal Cf1717g Oversized Load/Hauling MONTHLY SERVICE (BILLINGS TO: Name: Schedule: Address: Phone: CltylState/Zlp: fr. -es 371111,,fel11,18. SIC II 1,,,11=1171111171•011111,1rIMINMVMMIIMMIM 0 Water 0 Sewer 0 Metro 0 Standby WATER METER DEPOSIT/REFUND BILLING: Name: Phone; Address: •A. City /State/Zip: MOO WIWI. Value of Construction • In all cases, a value of construction amount should be entered by the applicant. This figure will be reviewed and is subject to possible revision by the Permit Center to comply with current fee schedules. Expiration of elan Review • Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days upon written request by the applicant as defined in Section 107.4 of the Uniform tuilding Code (current edition). No application shall be extended more than once. Date application accepted: Date application expires: // -ate 9/9/99 miscpmtdoc • Applica *retaken by: (initials) fey WITH THI fOIIOWING: > ALL DRAWINGS SHALL BE Al A LEGIBLE SCALE AND NEATLY DRAWN > t1 1. it 11 * UTILITY PLANS ARE TO BE COMBINED D ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS REQUIRE STAMP BY WASHINGTON LICENSED ARCHITECT > STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS AND DRAWINGS REQUIRE STAMP BY WASHINGTON LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER D CIVIUSITE PLAN DRAWINGS REQUIRE STAMP BY WASHINGTON LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER (P.E.) ❑ S1)13'0IF AFT! I(ATIONAND RF(11IIRF[) ( III( KI ISIS ITT PERMIT REVIEW Above Ground Tanks/Water Tanks - Supported directly upon grade exceeding 5,000 gallons and a ratio of height to diameter or width which exceeds 2:1 Submit checklist No: M -9 r3 Antennas /Satellite Dishes Submit checklist No: M -1 0 ,Bulkhead /Dock. Submit checklist. No: M -10 0 Commercial Reroof ' Submit checklist No M -6 D Demolition ` Submit checklist No: M -3 El Fences - Over 6 feet in Height Submit checklist No: M -9 ' ❑ Land Altering /Grading/Pretoads Submit checklist No: M -2 © Miscellaneous Public Works Permits Submit checklist No: H -9 ❑ Manufactured Housing (RED INSIGNIA ONLY) • Submit checklist No: M -5 © Moving Oversized Load/Hauling .o.., - Submit checklist No: M -5 ❑ Parking Lots .' Submit checklist No M-4 Retaining Wails - Over 4 feet In height Submit checklist No: M -1 ❑ Temporary Facilities Submit checklist No: M -7 ❑ Tree Cutting Submit checklist No: M -2 ❑ Current copy of Washington State Department of Labor and Industries Valid Contractor's License. If not available at the time of application, a copy of this license will be required before the permit is issued, unless the homeowner will be the builder OR submit Form H4, "Affidavit in Lieu of Contractor Registration ", guiding :Owner /Authorizod Agent If the applicant Is other than the owner, registered architect/engineer, or contractor licensed by the State of Washington, a notarized letter from the, property owner authorizing the agent to submit this permit appllcatIon and obtain the permit will be ro uired aas part of this submittal. v I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED'THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND 1 AM AUTHORIZED TO APPLY FOR THIS PERMIT, ®Itll {,,'•• , •, • ., w r• .Iti ►7j NT: _ ____ 1M0�� 11IMI 11- Mom r 4) 1' .9''l 1 y 9/'9/99 rniupnU.doc g vO p r-44 City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206) 431 -3670 oft) Parcel No.: 3324049019 Address: 9404 EAST MARGINAL WY S TUKW Suite No: Applicant: MUSEUM OF FLIGHT RECEIPT Permit Number: MI02 -107 Status: PENDING Applied Date: 07/12/2002 issue Date: Receipt No,: R020000957 Initials: 8LH User ID: ADMIN Payment Amount: 385.61 Payment Date: 07/12/2002 12:48 PM Balance: $514.43 Payee: MUSEUM OF FLIGHT TRANSACTION LIST: Amount Type Method Description Payment Check 27182 385.61 ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Description Account Code Current Pmts BUILDING - NONRES 000/322.100 PLAN CHECK - NONRES 000/345.830 doc: Receipt 32.82 352.79 Total: 385,61 .A7119 ig Printed: 07. 12.2002 City of Tukwila 8300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (208) 431.3670 Parcel No.: Address: Suite No: Applicant: 3324049019 9404 EAST MARGINAL WY 8 TUKW MUSEUM OF FLIGHT RECEIPT Permit Number: Status: Applied Date: Issue Date: M 102.107 APPROVED 07/12/2002 Receipt No.: R03.00282 Initials: SKS User ID: 1165 Payment Amount: Payment Date: Balance: 539,43 03/03/2003 02 :15 PM $0,00 Payee: MUSEUM OF FLIGHT TRANSACTION LIST: Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 29678 ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Description Account Code 539.43 Current Pmts BUILDING - NONRES INBP FEE - STORM DRAIN PLAN CHECK - UTILITY STATE BUILDING SURCHARGE 000/322.100 912/362.400 000/345.830 000/386.904 509.93 19.00 10.00 4.50 Total: 539.43 �'.'. .W05 0716 TOTAL doo: Receipt Printed: 03- 03.2003 INSPECTION NO, CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit ER (206)431.3670 ro ect: O sin t _ A ype o Inspection: , V*t ress: -✓ Date Ca e•: — pec a nstruct ons: i ate ' ante : . D,„. 07 equester; Phone No Approved per applicable codas. El Corrections required prior to approval. COMMENT i 1 1111,11111MilinnWia riorw Itl_ _pJy /_L,' i $47. WNW ION ION FEE REQUIRED. Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 So thcenter Blvd., Suite 100, CaII to schedule reinspection. Receipt No.: Date: Inspect ? INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431.3670 roject: pe 1 spectlon: Addra * , / 0 pec a ns ructions: - ' / ''•ate "ante .. eie ale / i ' .0° MM. 4111411 . (Rimier: ono '0 Approved per applicable codes. Corrections required prior to approval. AFAISIWAI - lowly $47 • f • EINSPECTI• N FEE R QUIRED.,Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter alvd„ Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection. Receipt No.: Date: 11 1 SPECTION NO. CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431.3670 INSPiCTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit PERMIT �rq�gc`: ti ha ! f( Typo of IreTction: %�' i �t • • e : (0( y k. Date Ga • pQC a nstruct ons: �� t c4 ell /C)/ii ": dm Qquost r: M► ong. `or ti (3U. -_fso 7911 El Approved per applicable codes. DCorrections required prior to approval, COMMENTS: r l $47.00 REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED. Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Cali to schedule reinspection. Receipt No.: Date: ti INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit I ION N PE M NO. CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter BIvd,, #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 =3670 W • I k,t. (..)f , r - 4 ypo 0 nspection: . �s;, Date Ca e • : 0 i ,, pec a nstructionss 1 *ate "ante : t t t a.m. p.m, Requester: one o: ElApproved per applicable codes, svi Corrections required prior to approval, svunguAmmimerssi • 1117/17111111FIRFAII 0 $47.00 REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED, Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter blvd„ Suite 100, Call to schedule reinspection. } INSPECTION NO, CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd,, #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431.3670 INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit 146.Z-Ion PERMIT NO, r'� j c': ' ►, �1 yp ofln pecuton: A . ress: I+ ..�. Date Ca ed: or, pec a nstruct ons: or P ate "ante. ' 1C) d3 a.m. p.m, Request = ; :6 0 M - 6' 444 (6 Phone pit ,b 4 cl 0 Approved per applicable codes. O Corrections required prior to approval, • r r • E1I till • 1111=Mil 4111rMAMNIPSIIIUIIIIIIIIIIINIMIMIMIIA imaimmmummiiiimilim. 0 WAD REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED, Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. Cali to schedule reinspection. Receipt No.: Date: IN SPEC ?ION O. CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit PERMIT NO, 6300 Southcenter Bivd., #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431.3670 roect: /� eUm to ° i ype o spection: rtie A'_ 1 .3 cr . ., re s: 0 C rnItc; Irv.c.t (et rMw Ca ed: 02 ,. pec a nstruct ons: ' ate "ante : O- )6 (Jot' a.m p,. agues er. .hone o: tO6 7Sc,= f,// ElApproved per applicable codes. D Corrections required prior to approval. COMMENTS: f inspector: 6\...1 Date: .3 $47.00 REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED. Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter blvd., Suite 100, Cali to schedule reinspection, Receipt No,: Date: r o. INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431.3670 Meet: l / ype o inspection: S d . fess: Date Ca od: pec a nstructlons: jaw "ante . : a.m. p.m. equest r: one o: Approved per applicable codes. 0Corrections requir prior to approval. COI a It E 1 13171MMII. $47.00 REINSPECs'ION FEE REQUIRED. Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection. MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS, INC August 11, 2003 City of Tukwila Building Department 6200 South Center Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 -8188 Attn,: Bill Rambo Re: Museum of Flight 9404 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, WA MTE Project No. E2151 Gentlemen: Everett Office 917.134th Street SW Suite A.1 Everett, WA 98204 ph 426.742.9360 tax 426145.1737 RECEIVED Thorne Office 10020 S. Tacoma Way Suite £.2 AUG 13 2003 Tacoma, WA 95499 ph 253.584.3720 COMMUNITY fax 263584.3707 DEVELOPMENT Portland Office 7911 NE 33rd Drive Suita 190 Portland, Ot 91211 ph 503.28147616 AL LETTE - fax 503.2811579 Permit No. This Is to inform you that registered special inspections have been completed for this project as per our reports, copies of which have been sent you. To the best of our knowledge, all work Inspected was either performed In accordance with, or corrected to conform to, the city approved drawings, or engineer approved changes. Special inspection was provided for: 1. Epoxy Grout 2, Reinforcing Steel We trust that this provides you with the information that you require, Should you have any questions, give us a call, Sincerely, MAYES TESTIN ENGINES 81 INC. Michael S. Dolder, P.E, Vice President Cc: Julie Lawton- Seneca Group Rich Olander Sellen Construction MSD :rsm AUG--15--2003 FR 1 02:48 PH SHANNON AND WILSON INC FAX NO, 206 633 6777 601 SHANNON &W1LSON, INC. Ct :C N1 c L A ND � a M EN T Al C ONSULTANTS August 15, 2003 Ms. Julie Lawton The Seneca Group 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2350 Seattle, WA 98101 •4 A06. 2 5 20a c Us REVISED FINAL REPORT, GEOTRCILNICAI, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION, MUSEUM OF FLIGHT EXPANSION, PHASE 1 MILITARY GALLERY, PERMIT NOS. D02.067, M102.076, AND MI02.107, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Dear Ms, Lawton: P. 02 This is our revised final geotechnicnl report regarding construction of the Phase 1 Military Gallery for the Museum of Flight Expansion in Tukwila, Washington, Shannon & Wilson, Inc,, provided on +call geotechnlcal services for the following tasks: ► Retaining wall footing subgrude evaluation ► Water quality vault subgrnde evaivation ► Test and production pile installution (pile driving) observation ► Vibration monitoring during pile driving near existing structures ► Review of contractor submittals Mayes Testing observed the backfill compaction and drainage for the project. Our specific observations and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of construction are discussed in our project memoranda that were mailed to you throughout our involvement in the project. The majority of our work was completed during the summer of 2002; however, our field observations extended from June 19, 2002, to April 1, 2003. While we were not continuously present during all construction operations, it is our opinion, based on our site visits, that the geotcchnical construction casks listed above have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with 400 NOR 11-1 34T1-1 STREET* $IJITE 100 P.O. 80X 2003a3 SEAT1 LC, WA aHINCTON 98103 2064132.60 ?a FAX 302.006.6777 Tat]: pAno.1333.1+3tia RECEIVED Pau 18 2003 DEPARTMENT MTO l07 2]- 1- 09383.012 AUG -15 -2003 FRI 02:48 PM SHANNON AND WILSON INC Ms. Julie Lawton The Seneca Group August 15, 2003 Page 2 FAX NO, 206 633 6777 P. 03 SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. the approved project plans and specifications. We look forward to working with you on the upcoming phases of expansion, Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. mairm Carole LB. Mitchell, P,E, Senior Principal Engineer CLBM :CAR /clbm g -15-03 Mr. Anrney Mansavagge, NDI3J Mr, Rich Olender, Se11en Construction Mr, Andy Fry, MICA 21.I,O9 3.011.1.61.N1ko 21 -1 -09383 -012 flUli -1 b-2UUS Hi I U2:4 f PM SHANNON AND WILSON INC FAX NO. 206 633 6777 =ID SHANNON &WILSON, INC! 400 N. 341" STREET, SUITE 100 ■ GEO?CCHNICAL AND ENVItiONMENTAL CONguLTANTB P.O, Box300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 SEATTLE • RICHLAND • FAIRBANKS • ANCHORAGE • ST. LOUTS • BOSTON 206.6328020 FAX 206.695.6777 FAX TRANSMISSION P. 01 Attn Jim Kesl Fax 763 -9606 Company Sellen Construction Phone Location Tukwila Date August 15, 2003 From Subject Carole Mitchell Revised Final Letter, Phase 1 Time Job No. 21 -1. 09383.012 Jim - TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover sheet) __, Attached is our revised final letter.1 will be mailing this out today. Please call if you have questions. Carole The original of this flux x-.,., will will nor be mailed, NOTE; The attached information is proprietary in its entirety and is intended for the use of only the individual to whom it is transmitted. It may contain privileged and /or confidential information. Any reproduction or use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited, If you have received this facsimile in error, lease notif Shannon & Wilson immediatcl . Water Quality Wet Vault Phase Al Permit Set Museum of Flight Tukwila, Washington SKIIIIKG WARD MAGNUSSON @ARKSHIRE Conwelog Wham! .nd (MI Eo,lnoors 1301 Fifth Awouw Suite 3200 Stottle, WA 98101,2695 Ph, 206/ 292.1200 Fox 206/ 292.1201 httpi /w,Mw.skillinp.com D E ©ElVE SEP 0 B 2002 REID MIDDLETON July 10, 2002 CITY OF TUKWILA APPROVED FEB 2 1 2003 kz.. As .ikv ritomot4 iota/ EMPIRES 01/22/ 6 JUL 1 2 2002 PERMIT CENTER ion SKIIIIHG MIRO MAGNUSSON BARKSHIRE Consulting Structural end Civil Engineers Design Sheet V". -r s`, -,Nom few x-- -tttes ,.-, (ce, m`s) .k1, veel CSa.v 7''.� Nir/ s/ 4-ei 14-S =" - V r =/ 9 ' t-,n49.. ./a4-;4 ,L ,a /4 )( (7c/s) =(7)6/8i,f0D)(,"4 rGo-3 Veh".-e 6/6\ 6 ! = L i'r =(3'(Y /cp) ; / Sx d-? 6 7 wc41/4, e, AQ- W Ch,lo►'rr 7 .. 4 cr , Flow etp__ r/ ,p P`!r,j' = c G P rr ci ) to e 0 (...S'etro (7-: - fy) 1 SARONG WARD MAGNUSSON BRAKSHIN( Consulting Structural and Civil £nQIIIIr Design Sheet noita lOCATION t,t) CLIENT OAR /t OZ. BY n De-7&12,(41 mc. Reza S"/ 2c 4..verr." (4v t7 4.4.11M1111.1111011111111e:MIM 01 .11 • . ■11 111111111111111111111111111111M zsw 1? r 00 thr,. / eore?.), r, C re/e 2 7?) t, ill ,Ir.r...171011311..1111001.1.9.1..11MAIVIIIII...1,14, , it •,..,..., , „. • • ' • rs * t 16•1111111:11111131MM.ItgemslorT=.••---JOX•e•VIL`OR ?e) 1 Cie) lotic,Pscie,s0 7/10/02 10:51:5 am Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire page 1 Museum of Flight Expansion Water Quality Flow ftftaftftftftftft BASIN RESULT SUMMARY OASIM VOLUMg•••• •RATg. ••••TfMg Nydrogreph Area 10 ---of-- Ae•ft ••efe• -min- hours Methodology -•Re- MoPM0 10406 0,24 0.67 400 COO 59UM Method 2.71 flpimil 1 UTILITY VAULT COMPANY PAGE OF PROJECT SY PRODUCT CLIENT DATE CHECKED DATE WrrIAL STRUCTURAL. DESIGN_ CALCULATI.ONS: - APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS NOT ED THIS APPROVAL DOES NOT RELIEVE THE SUBCONTRACTOR OR MATERIAL SUPPLIER FROM RESPONSIBILITY RO AWINGS AND OR DEVIATIONS SELLEN CO DATE it•S•OZ Svdr+��Yfr�� * S *' Moo. o01 BY PANEL VAULT: 100' -0 "Lx 20' -0"Wx 11'•3 "H WATER QUALITY WET VAULT MUSEUM OF FLIGHT EXPANSION - SEATTLE, WA MERLINO CONSTRUCTION DESIGNED BY: KEN LEE, P,E. OCTOBER 29, "2002 BENISON a division 01 0 Masotti* Poocatt,' Y c CITY OF TU WILA APPROYUO FEB 2 1 2003 NOV 2 -6 2002 RE ID MLDDtErMI - RECEIVED ,NOV 07?0(17. SWMB INC ,-SEATTLE • r• rztarm • R8/08 I# PROJECT MUSEUM OF FLIGHT EXPANSION - SEATTLE) WA PRODUCT PANEL VAULT: 100'Lx 20'Wx 11' -3 "H Oldcastie Precast° CLIENT MERLINO CONSTRUCTION WATER.4UALITY WET VAULT. PAGE OF BY KHL DATE 07/12/02 CHECKED DATE i .E v A MATERIALS; CONCRETE: 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, fc =8,000 pal, REBAR: ASTM A816 GRADE 80 WWF: ASTM A186 GRADE 86 SPECIFICATIONS: DESIGN: ACI. 318.02 BUILDING CODE, LOADS: ASTM C890 "MINIMUM STRUCTURAL DESIGN LOADING FOR MONOLITHIC OR SECTIONAL PRECAST CONCRETE WATER AND WASTEWATER STRUCTURES" AA8HTO H8.20 WHEEL LOAD, P■10,0k 30% IMPACT LOADING FOR SOIL COVER LESS THAN 3'4" 120 pct BOIL DENSITY 40 pcf E.F.P. LATERAL SOIL PRESSURE ABOVE WATER TABLE 80 pcf E,F,P. LATERAL SOIL PRESSURE BELOW WATER TABLE LIVE LOAD SURCHARGE OF 2' ADDITIONAL SOIL COVER TOP OF VAULT 13" TO 24" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. WATER TABLE 6'4" BELOW FINISHED GRADE The design submitted Is the property of and is for the proprietary use of Utility Vault Co,, Inc. only, and shall be used on product manufactured only by Utility Vault Co,, Inc, OLD 315 R9ri07) 1 L 1 1 CATE BT W2.9 x W2.9 4/2 MESH STIRRUPS �, TOP 1111On MItta :11....11...... #4 BAR 0 12" O,C. -\\ #4 BAR 012"O.C.� SIDE WALL BASE TOP #4 BAR 0 12" O.C. //4 BAR 0 12" O.C. END WALL BASE #6 BAR © 6" O.C. #5 BAR 0 12" O.C. #6 BAR 0 5" O.C. #6 BAR 0 12" 0,C. 6 BAR 05"0.C. #6 BAR 0 12" U.C. #6 BAR 0 12" O,C, #4 BAR 0 12" 0,C, SECTION VIEW (THRU VAULT IN WIDTH DIRECTION) W2,9 x W2.9 4/2 ., r #6 BAR 0 3" 0,C, MESH STIRRUPS '�, (IN EACH 10" BEAM) �#6 BAR 06 "O.C. #5 BAR 0 12" 0.C. #8 BAR 0 3" 0.C. (IN EACH 10" BEAM) 10" SECTION VIEW (THRU VAULT IN LENGTH DIRECTION) Ircu I (UANl1Y SALES INFORMATION FAR I C {::CIFLO .. . ,1 - tot tT LES BILL OF MATERIAL C'STauR NERUNO CONSTRUCfON SALES TR `S:0 WATER QUALITY WET VAULT PANEL VAULT; iQ0' 0'L x 20' -0'W r 11' -3'H (INSI E) NUSEUV OF FUGHT EXPANSION - SEATTLE, WA ORAoh yLF L++E J SCALE 3/16.014-0' A°PnQ \EC CnECKEO CAtE 07/15/Q2 SnEEt 1 Of 1 nE=Cnt OrG NM 0. A-0005 REv. mos CO%.MYI ■$ 1..E FRCFERIT N. QbGSAE FREC4.51. PC a •4 AHEM ttD iCN FULRENCE PPRPOSE1 GAT AhD I4414 401 K 0U0 P4 AVE PAP 14A404/1 t9 u,E P4tEFESi Ci SW W14/4w1. CoP010•1 $ IPPS 01x4414 P,114411L Nc u 44$ P414440 UV UTILITY VAULT" old 561 & P4. R castle Pracast,�nc. tgu Pa 1410-1R-116 fox 151.715.4E01 a!✓. at r q.a.*. a 1 4.4411. 0 t .••••• • ,•!•.. • •••• ca» • S•x.,.. ., ig !I! PI Oldcastle I Precast° PROJECT, PRODUCT 405com eft- f-l-1(011 0(11AtOU.ty-Y..) -664.r74BY Ki4L v Pm) ' t t :t" , DATE 'lilt b'Z.. PAGE OF 1 CLIENT N-ted.A.,t PsJO 1.,01■JST(C.I.J0 tJ 1 CHECKED DATE ikS, , tprzaicaa_s1112 l'NASAtt g-tt ut1iL Lt3A stoiu ttApA(..mr tl• mtkumtriv‘ tL (4vtg,.. , usE (Ai t 4„, LkAO Dts-tetskYttv,), 9e4N)=); 1.v0.. so tAir4LEL 10 et, t0"., r.0", Aft Ors-te..1.601-CP Loelb1100 01A-leit)SIONA wit.t., fit 61a...41,15 IS)12) z 1,42,1 ' i.1S Clti/Z) V..1011.Vr CA SA L b A DI tk.) (I fis( mAritiqi.ST OC.E `Divt• I St St- I 0.1‘.) (t, t1i P.7(11 Pit t /ST S) %Do ?ltSc 1 1-co.1•' bidt.„ALL. lammaaatommaznat lorikolowtopow.,=•,,,,. • • vrema • t 7, ?. 4.4 VAL /946 "MCC LOAD St.K. LAD • Q.Z.X t 4.Ii t) SoLL UrA 0 `, Q.Z:K.Zwo ositc, % oit St) KW. wttte. ' 1.6 C(.3)161‘. ,Z,CA motet- 1) VIZIGATC coN) (4Z" tAdtoE fotn pe,thl%) 74 ,Z= _ SNTrr 7717.r‘ , J1,1" 5" ATTAICtI D SAP AIN L‘i S)% toc.tt" a : V1 V' IA. "144.14k.,• r ■LSF "ct partmi Moo' OLD 315•R9/00 Oldcastle Precast' pthaal 'ern inf mere PAGE OF PROJECT AUSi. uM, f-Lt lAT .Ni(PA-tJS to0 SCAT-IL( I BY 1G. L4 L PRODUCT 97)1 ts-IEL SIAULT e O i. 0. 0. t • 1" ;4 DATE 1( 1%1 ot CLIENT MEttLi kit Li:5%1Si etx-i-4.0.N) CHECKED 1 DATE qy apL______\ST ■,Altbit'et Lfrf:b*G. tAD AQ Ca PO r‹, 444% ...177.7&3737Si- ea, - 434 43" 2.0" 410,44ii d INTTAIctl Et, SAO 20'M ftte,.. AwALM Alt G.) a' lc,16 0.,S(1*A‘t ' 1 (Glo-tro4)°' ISS ri■•- SOY (.4 471 1 (4 414 4.0 '/75,s;) 5. Ittkok. 0113 315- R970.5 Th-47- SAP2000 7/12/02 9:06:57 .01 -(..41 SAP2000 v7.44 - e: eam_ moment - Frame Span Loads (LOAD1) - Kip -ft Units SAP2000 t �,N ALt ` t S 't Sti C T.5 7/12/02 9:07:02 • NASSr^ 7Z.76 k- F T CAN) at c pvc z) €:)4e 1 C/ 3 5? SE c Ak) wC A LC bit (1, it t v 11)7 t b r A -2000 v7.44 - File :beam,..moment - Moment 3-3 Diagram (LOAD1j = Kip -ft Units pli SAP2000 7/12/02 9:20:55 Q_Kk-Tk (At_ LbNbi t\)(..1 LA5--mv- u KA:7i FoK. co ovrtALL $1 co.ff" SAP2000 v7.44 - File:beam..moment - Frame Span Loads (LOAD1) - Kip-ft Units SAP2000 7/12/02 9:20:58 a�A cs� 4.3,4• k, OW C3C (.6 Luc. a ; 6Y I f { s.s7 rc BEctetuse wc4 AU. Cdi\Ji vc ,MGR.. t,„ t CM SEAM, S P ' 00 v7A4 e :beam_mament - Shear Force 2 -2 Diagram (LOAM) - Kip -ft Units PROJECT MUSEUM of rt.t OH ' EI< PAWSttoo - S A1' t€ BY (`1}L PRODUCT PA-�Et. vAut„'C ' ( trtz,•. o'L kZ..o'.c,vu,.) "tt'.S ",j 'DATE 7 fig I of a I C H E C K E D PAGE OF ! Oldcastle CLIENT tikEe. l.t Ocb Lt-raSTIC,v L31 Ts,,) Precast® S7� t.(.1 tQ do u.0%- cc-ft,. `. t Ateks. S' -b" 4,C L0-1.0 N,y,s k4 c b CckA 1e 'CGP t • vAot: G r z4." Lou.) itskAsti-t) Ctat4b DATE R'/ Q, a'-c a'-ce b tl,oki NL %mt.. CJ:NUL fofe,, Lt vE LOAhb SULC. e. CAE 1u Y I.tit a, ' o t ` .,, t:�, ti +?Ly�� :� It-sr ¢,qG a ∎I,AI . 15,t`i p b*IZ', d° 1: (z."4 3/4" t 3/b "0 ► 5,16(6r. S ,t f o,c , As = 4` tEtiL' Z 1 m'rci,�N' 4i' 645■ (o ,15 On 5,1)% ;■ r r >■. Z.(54)0.44)11/ t t SS f51. OW 315.89149 ig A I4 t B & T DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC, P.O, SOX 595 • ISSAQUAH, WA 98027 (425) 557-0779 • (425) 557 -0765 (FAX) STRUCTURAL FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS FOR SPECIAL PANEL / DETENTION VAULT STRUCTURE [STANDARD PRODUCT] PRECAST MANUFACTURER: UTILITY VAULT COMPANY A division of OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC. P. O. BOX 588 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -0588 'OFFICE: (800) 892.1538) MARCH 14, 2002 GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA: SOIL DENSITY: 130 P.C.F. SOIL STL FENESS: Ka • 75 kcf -150 kcf LIVE LOAD: HS-20 [AASII'TO LOADING] CONCRETE DENSITY: 150 P.C.F. • ACT - 31849 BUILDING CODE AND COMMENTARY ASTM C890 a • 76 KCI• • 43 PCI 61. 11 . e. 6s-0" R420 • 16.0k PSOIL • 010 PCF r 1 214" CASE I: HS20 + 7'I-0" SOIL + IMPACT Ka • 160 KO • 86 PCI• ova 3/14/02 VAULTLOAOS B & T DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC. 175 1st PLACE NW SUITE 8 • ISSAQUAH, WA 98027 1425/ 507-0779 • (425) 557-0705 IFAXI PROJECT TITLE : SPECIAL PANEL DETENTION VAULT JOE NO. ; 01143 DATE : 3/14/02 DRAWN : NH GHKD : JT SHEET ; 1 Ka • 75 KM* • 43 PCI 61-0" " 8',0" -Ntos 17.8k NOM • 384 PCP r ..... 11,:a Sai .......... At iS tat .3G JOB = Mt Si St At Mt it Si at, AEI At Mt Tat itt it Al ti• 21•" 22: T'"r""nn"C"'""'"'"'"''"'""":ItttL.,CIC";1"'''''""n''"n"'"'"""'""'"" ..■OMM"""""7"n"""'"'"""""""''"""'"" Ka • 160 KCI• • 86 PCI CASE 11: + 2'-11" SOIL + IMPACT (10°4L 3/14/02 VAULTLOAOS B & T DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC. 175 1.1 PLACE NW SUITE 8 • ISSAQUAH. WA 98027 (425) 567-0779 • (425) 557-0765 (FAX) PROJECT TITLE : SPECIAL. PANEL DETENTION VAULT JOB NO. 01143 DRAWN : NH DATE 3/14/02 CHKD JT SHEET ; Ks • 76 KC?' 43 PCI 0 8'- " 2'0" 8' 1 PH20' 20.8k Paoit. • 130 PCF r SO a >a a= aa aals ask csua: :.,.a,.....:..aSaSa Jos ,c6a15 saa maxMtMaaszas si 21'.0" Ke ■ 150 KCI' • 86 PCI CASE 111: HS20 + 1' -0" SOIL + IMPACT (30%) 3/14/02 VAULTLOADS B & T DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC. 175 lit PLACE NW SUITE 8 • ISSAQUAH, WA 98027 4261 657.0779 • (4251 557.0705 IF A X I PROJECT TITLE : SPECIAL PANEL DETENTION VAULT JOS NO. 01143 DRAWN : NH SHEET : DATE : 3/14/02 CHKD : JT atru tune PC 'S1 ive %Midler.NItUd SIMidgs'`iiippotii,i hk SIMItijts %uppish. Vim 1'ultulltil Iickis Slab Na114 \lan All .% Stnlr',I,ds,. I lie 1 nod III.Ates 1 lath, 1 ociaeJ 1( i ('tJttmu arel N•ill 1111014iis lI l s Slab, MINI ISM NM MN N ft �S 7 f)esiyu it Ent/illee►inY. Inr... - Vaud -111 floor- Wednesday February 1:3. 2002 Fine Engineering Structure Perspective 1 8 & T Design & Engineering, Inc. Floor Analysis and Design of Concrete Slabs Vault Design Lid Deign - 3 Wheel Load Cases Fine Engineering 717 - 212th Place Southwest Lynnwood, WI 98036 riokanoongineering.com Vse>1o411.11eer ewes Wednesday yeYresery !s• lees noun O 10034001 Bowan COL HAH, lac, v1 NNW ISM 011110 NEM NM IMO . B & r Design & Enginoadng, Inc, - Vaultrlli,floor- Wadnasday Febniaiy 13, 2002 Re ort Contents REPORT COVE* REPORT CONTorra SNTNA UNrra CONCRETE MUMS REINFORCING BARS KL.EMENT MESH PLAN SLAV SUMMARY PLAN SUPPORT SUMMARY PLAN DEAD LOAD 1 PLAN DEAD LOAD II PLAN DEAD LOAD III PLAN LIVE Loa !PLAN LIVE LOAD 11 PLAN LIVE LOAD III PLAN SERVICE LC 1 DEFLECTiON PLAN FACTOTUM LC 1 Mx PLAN FACTORED LC 1 MY PLAN FACTORED LC 1 Vx PLAN FACTORED LC 1 W PLATT BIAS FACTORED LC 1 TORITION PLAN FACTORED LC 1: DESIGN SECTION SUMMARY FACTORED LC 1: DESIGN SECTION CRRBRIA FACTORED LC 1: DESIGN SECTION FORCES FACTORED LC 2: DESIGN SECTION SUMMARY FACTORED LC 2: DESIGN SECTION CRITITRIA FACTORED LC 2: DESIGN 1DECT$oN FORCES FACTORED 1.0 2 Mx PLAN FACTORED LC 2 MY PLAN FACTORED LC 2 Vx PLAN FACTORED LC 2 W PLAN FACTORED LC 8: MEe1GN SECnON SUMMARY FACTORED LC 3: DEVON SECTION CRTTER&A FACTORED LC 3: DESIGN SECTION Forme FACTORED LC 8 MX PLAN FAC mnED LC 8 MY PLAN FACTORED LC 8 Vx PLAN FACTORED LC 8 W PLAN %IAA FACTORED LC 8 TARSLON PLAN ToP REINFORCING SUMMARY PLAN 8QTTOM REINPORCINQ SUMMARY PLAN REINFORCING SUMMARY RP.JNPORCING SUMMARY PLAN LANG TERM DEFLECTION DEF'I.Ec nQN PLAN Fine Engineering Report Contents 3 lo.Htw Leads 7-70 r ."11-14-7 —• laflw Lairds -- 4.14 ® cap !entire *eaollaas /4-1-14„ PET' Pursall 011111, _Paw Nog ® & T Deslgn & Englneering, Inc. - Vault- 111.11o0r- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Ping I+n9k Wering Signs 4 Units Cloarnairy Units — — — PLAN DIMKNOIONS:INCHKS SUPPORT DIMINgIONE Wel= ILKVATIONE *MHO SLAWTHICKNUSKSSI IPICH SUPPORT MOWS: PELT ANGUS: MORRO — Loading and Reaction Unfti POINT FORCE KIPS RW,PORT AO MOO KIPS UNK FORCE KIPS/FT RKPORT AS TgRO:0 KIPS/PT ARIA FORCE KV REPORT AS 211,0:0 1110■••lift POINT MOMONTI RKPORT AK Z1110:0 UN MOMKNY: KIPS REPORT AS 7gROIO AREA MONKNTI RIPS/FT KV REPORT AS 7000 10P+T KIPS KIPS/PT — Spring Siliteess Units POINT FORCK SPRING: KIPS/IN LINK FORM: SPRING: KSI AREA FORCK SPRING: PCI POINT MOMENT SPRINCI WWI WIC MOMENT SPRING; Kie ARRA MOMENT EIPRINO: K/Pri — Slab Analysis Units — FORCE KIPS HIPORT AS KgRO:0 KIPS femur Kirwr WORT ZgRO:0 KIPFT CONCRSTK OINK= PSI REPORT AS 7g00:0 FORCB PgR WORE KIPS/FT MIPORT AS zrwo MOMENT Inn WIDTH: KIPS REPORT AS ZgRO;0 CIEFLKOTIONI WICKS PI REPORT A 7-gRO:0 KIPS/PT KIPS INCHES Materials Units - - - CONCRKTK VOLUME CU, YRS PT WEIGHT: POUNDS PT FORCE: KIPS TENDON PROFILE: INCHES REINFORCING AREA: Q. MAR WEIGKII TONS REINFORCING STRESS: Ks1 COVER: INCHES 13 & T Design & Enolneedng, Ina Vaull4111loor - Wednesday Febnialy 13, 2002 Fine Engineering Units 5 1 1 ... s_�.a.�'�...,.... Units Continued (2). —Miscellaneous Units Fioor Aft SO, Ft, BLONAATIONS: INCNCs T[NDON ANemff9 fPOH rrncnoN1t RATitANf MINTY: PCP :^ i ;A A" fain' P4;! • 8 & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Vault- III.tloor- Wednesday Febninry 13, 2002 Fine Engineering Units 6 J L.1601___ Pm, Fong Fowl Plaail pm", Pawl :Saw' 8 & r Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault•IJl.floor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Concrete Mixes — 4000 psi Wca 160 pia ■ 4000 4 lC A V■ 0.18 PCP re Fcu 6 6000 Pit PIN PCU • 7600 PNi iPom oN'8 RATIO O re • 88WCI estric (A01810) • LC • 87000I'C PA (AC1 810) O L0 841000cu Pai (88 8110) O LC (30700#40 + 1000000XWc/ 144)' SPIN (CAN•A23.11) O Lc p 842004Fc PIN (CAN,ASa.$) O LC "265000 (Pc + 11001"Pm (LNNV 1002+11 O Lo • 011,2W011 *(04 pit (AO 3000.20011 OLCI.11300000 Pa LC ■8000000 PSI Fine Engineering Concrete Mixes 7 Reinforcin Bars --- M2 V ns• 0.11 FY• 80 act N. 20000 K6 KM Um • As• 0.2 �Y M 80 FF#8 A6. 0.70 60, IN. Bo IN 20000 Ka Y • CO KM UGC • 1 110. IN. Bs ■ 20000 K61 K91 1.201111 1 A & T Design & EngIneering, Inc. - Vault- 1100er- Wsdnesdey Febrtiery 13, 2002 Fine Engineering Reinforcing Bars F� _ups _offs Element Mesh_ Plan MN POOR INN ormq --N maw lima IMO NMI MIN MIMI & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Vault-110w- Wednesday February 13, 2002 StilkftittP6Iftl SolossauppoittLine SprluSrlSupponr;Ats Spdv;Walls Ildew SIab;Cotunwr tidnw S16;Wsllr Alww 316b,Colaur a Abnw SIab,Sirbs,Slab edges; Sale I JO AMIIA Frar AOsat TVS Fine Engineering Element Mesh Plan 9 .~ ��^ �� K� Summary Plan ,`.` °°"^� � Fa"U Mu19 ?mai Pool fowl ��| �� U ��N ��| ��U ��| ' - --�- �& T Design & Enginoeting, Inc, ^Vam11-111.floor ~ Wodnesday Fobruaty 13, 2002 0prIngeolmumm Dam, N1e10/1110 Above 8hrts;Colmniti Abmo31414816Q�m�� Seals 1:30 —_~- .me ^~^~~~~^' �~"~~�`~~--`—~•��-~---~~-~'`~~ m�m�°� ��.^ Rift, .~~9C,~. 14 I) '4114 I! mgi �4 ^~^~'^'^^"'^~~'~^^''~~'^'~~'''^^'^^~~~^^~^`. n""^1~=.,........"....~.~.......=......~ :OS Ittilt7tItt, 0W8�."~~..~~... --' .,~~•..~~.,~., *4 0114,14 . '4 4 22,22~12,4~^_ ..~..tit,."~.^~~~' ~~~~~ 1,43" 00 ~~~.^ `'^~—�~~—^`--`--~^^'`^~^~`--~''—'~---~ .~ ^~^~'•~^^~~`~~~~^~^"`-~'~~ — ...—~'~~,.~~~. ..".,~~.~, ^~'~^~ ~^~~^~~~^"^^~~'^~'~ '^~~sV ~,~ ',Al P111121224 ~^111:22^~ ~��~~—�~`• ~".—~._ ,,,, ~''' ~`~~ --- .-- —~' _ ,• ~'—` .. ,....... .k°W TON°14 PM*. ~' --0-14M '.` —',_--- •.f ,,, ,114.,,,—,..--_,,, — ^''^^'^^^^` _. ' , ^^^'`'~~—' —_-- .... ~ . ^ . , '~^•~~ ' .—'_~.----- '' — -------'—'' ' . . . . I —' ' � .,—,-- ~~�~__--~~~�~~ , .. ^`'^ ' .. r# 108^1.1 '— �`� 1844 . _—' �|w TAW°|f—' .• 01.11991‘'• . . '`� '`� . 1-.14 Ti ~ —'^'~ 4 . 1+ 1444 . -- '—~-- ' —.—.. (441,11111yY4,1 -----�'--`------^ ^ 14,14 2 `' 14 _ —,— ^~ '~--` .~.` ~'~•~'~'^^`~~^~~'~^^ ,.__' '.,, —'`~_. --- `__,. ''~ ~. .. —�. • ^^'' . . -_ _ - — ' ^^'`^' ` '... '~~,,.___`,.~' _� ____—,_ —.—.• —'_yWuuy� ... 134 . . ��4 ��'| ,~ �i- °1* Fine Engineering Slab Summary Plan 10 Immo emu MN 8 & T Design & Engineering, ine. - Vau11- 111,lloor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Support SummarvPlan Sttuelipt Sado &.30Mai SptlegaluppuMe;&1n, SpringWiluppoeu;Ates sprityle ;W�ib &slow Slikeolwtrte MI MI/ 9lekWelb Above Sleb,Coluuwe Above SIebAbib 14gee; 1.10 1•10 Slip e�t0o .,_:.,.AI, ..>.:,,.,<::,:-:.:. r..::::: a.:.::<::.::.:: t :: :.:.::.::..::.::- ::::.: :.:: ::.. . r. :::._-..,:.::::...:: :- ...: ::.. : ::. ... ........ -.. :a ..... ,. _ .. _ :... Dial pet ti .:: am:.> r: r.: x:::v:svv:eao•.•.- -vru : : ::::a:: =:a::::a:::: :1 ::::: :: : :: _. :;:s ...• - s._ ::::.: r .r - e .. . s .. .... ,.. ..>.. .. r. -. e: . . . 1St t:: : S . = :wa::m oaaca _ :w:tu r.•, ecs•ame :::.3v vss:::r:<r:, 3:4::u1 u asrt r . • .. rz z > = trr -x:s It = : r::. -r.r> • SW I:S> et" it( • .:• r-:: :.• ,, -fl r:::::ay..s•; .:•.:. >ror,. -.s e . ns�r-a sera x• rw•arxz ^sr x•m :rxs Mr, rrte •xer L-s•• S..', ": • .. .. ,, _r.. s -. r ... .. , :- .. .. r ar- ,X>:.:.,U t:gx4.>B ,UEf•>:r.,•:•,.:ttt, •r=, :: Sp:, • r>,,::r,Y.,- Is •• rt, Ss, .f. •r.Y.:,n [' .v. ,.. ... t' ._. .. .. f . .. .. .. x , , sx .. : :. .x .. ".IM. !" trtl•U,=,r•••.l r, /Y.,U:x. WI" •.....y..'.. . q.y..•.:,>';L>.y.y... t. ,.r... .Za.,,..r ........:. • ..i t• .... .... ,.. ... .. ... . „ ...a.. .. r.... .ctastr >sses:rt-- >....t... xz:ter•,- .t,.•,,,srra_ _.._rr_�_�..R .....,.r .,. :... .... .. .. .. _ .. .. - _... .. r-. _..._ ,ur WI,' =rratrn SS•• •r::,: n•••• mr.: r••••,s,u=•r.:xv.t•x•.rx•.r•••••sra. .as t ,•.••et... • -' •.•••. ... .....,•. - ._ ... •. .... .... _ ., ,..._ ... r• . .r. r.x..xr....a +•r•nr. •xt >•, e,....n•s,e:••tx..,, .... ."..... .._....,. ... ,..,.._,... - ,.... ,... Fine Engineering Support Summary Plan 11 Dead Load I Plan bud Lead 1.PolrA Leibtls;Utw Leadr,Atta Look attuctortWalls Below Below Irlr,WaIli Abova 51th;Colnamo Abet, lalt,Slab V4gei Seek 1:30 . PIM PIM! 0111.114 . . ... ..1011 & T Design & Englneadng, Inc. Vaulldltfloor. Wednesday Februaty 13, 2002 1 4111...71 . ..:44174%. . .11.1.0 4 08...1.18 S .. . . . 8.:: 44S i ; . .. . . - .._ - - - . - _ • ' " ■ . 7 7 : : 7 7 : t _ 1.• 4 a; .4,:i : 1 1 Fs 0 091 Fine Engineering Dead Load I Plan 12 rk Amyl Dead Load 11 Plan Dad Lead Mint Lerdxt/or Lordr;Atw Lode; Sotut Wide Dale* lleb;Cduner tWew,teb;W Ife Avow Sirb;Celaaw Abow MAMA gips; girls 140 wig B & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Veul!•ill.noor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Ps .. •A 031 . :.. .. . .. 11�� r� ........:................... ,: ,- :•.:.,:,r::.x:::,:.,::..::.:: .::: :,,: ,.,::: ►xr::r.a>u -u,Vnn ,..,.• weer .,.,�..,.,.r: r..rx s.. ...,,....,. :7,1:77:: , Lr .,.,..,:,,.:::,,..,.::,r:<,:.:. .. '. .. y,.rn, v, ,n, 7.777, ..x. •, •rsr y,,,..,,...,.� r.....,> a::. ,:.x>,:.r,,.,...r,>:.<.,<r:.::, : ,:::,,: :::x : n.n• wn.r.n•.,,r 7777. . . ,n u• v•,:,s.,..s x: s ,..er•rr.,.....e „•• .r.rru ^r•s +, u,"sra,sa .............r.,• ..,..,....... ......._.�_........,..�.._.._.. “1:::.:,. :,8:0,.:13:.• ,r,»,U r,,, .. .. .. •v '1,rnr -r ,,;..,r,.,.• s..x ,.,,,.,..,..,•.....,,..., .117:777.:7, :::, 7::x:::7:.:0:.: x„xrr :. -u . �>,,;. ,.. .. .. r,r,rr,- •nc,..., xs. .r• ,,.•,,,.-..,....rr.,.;..... e , .. r,,.,,,,,,t "., ....._.. n+.. �..... :._ > : :: , .:. r <•,r: .. .. ,,..,r •,,,...,.,,........, .. 7777.._. I. �... o«..._. 7777.77:77 :7::7:77 VI:" ,:::. .: ... ,+ ,.. .. 1 7777..:x .. :.. 111111 ..i 7777.., .. 7777. ,. ,.. , . w.. �. e.. .m..... ..............�....__... 7:77:7., .:::.:.:: :. .,. ...•� :rr _ .. .. .. ..._ ... , r .,.... ., X• ... r.. ....,....- ! ,..: :.::.: :• r 1 i .... .;... .. �. ` i 777. , .. . ••.• ..,..... e+�•'.... .. 7777. ' .. :. ,:.. = i i ... .. -... ... , ..r 7777 .::.r::_....,.........,.:.,, - . , .. 7777 7777... - .WSm�q . H .. . . a . .. -.. .:.., 7777. .. .• .r r.,. s 7777. , .. .. 7777 o. .. r .r, 777. ... ,,..1177 7777... 7777.. .. 7777. r ............. .r .., : ... .._ . .. .. ... 7777 7777 ..s... • .. 1 , • 1 II i i 11160111 Fx *Ad: Fine Engineering Dead load II Plan 13 Dead Load 111 Phan Deed tad W aolei LeakUoe LoedMMn toads; ibto rerWsib Wow sIakeeluww Below 01614Wells Mew glab;Colnaw Abew SWAM Mget: Sale 1:30 B & T Design & Engineering, Inca - Vaull- Illtnoor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 F * -O,13 ir:t: trrt 0 • P tt,.,. s t,. : :, tilts:. :Yens. •. .' t,t t,,. a.rtasta:a t4aats:sa 1.11,7 t•r i t trttrk:t/t t e r a• as t,zsttttai the r.,t .., .,.•ttx et t. ,.. ',WAS", . state,...:tuts aa:aittti :e ti t:: : :: a : tetr :left St 1.17 ft t t s :Ste 'tte•tetat•t .,.•tit...,, aetiaetat•e art• , esttsttt ,Betts• esarwat ratatttatiut att•stetttx t: Bosh: res:•tiat _. .es, : :t,.t ett t•stivyt SOS... tVettlt:rf staet -. et': t e•:. •:'t t ,tttettetret•at f:ttt• : Otte staters.••n.. tnt <, ...e... .. .. t,•t• etttttrtastittt.ar. :r : :Mt..Sit ia Mbtl •attrta.ts e f. :.t •. 's•:tt,eel • tt•t•res.•• • „t•• tftt,tf,t-t = :zits t:.t: :Vs...Se. - is :sal. : ::ti R: .rat,taet trtere+ Orr .•. •, < .r.. •• : .. r•orts sr, t•tel.• ••,tt•u•t,rr,... .. <t••.r tt•,te,r•tt,isa Itt...ee..• :: t:. t.• . e:ti::m' r i 71 I' tt • •_t• r....t :u: :sits.,: s:: se S•SSI :. :r - :: ,„ I. • • • > :rr.•• • a,' 1-i •• . •.t.... ..,.•..• • r. t ! Ss 11 st.:.: :...:- :: a :x :: • • a -.... ,.• n •t ... •• •T ......... .: :.. ... t: ... t l t.• 111 g3 .......• :: 7 .. t :� } i ; ..... P' .. i .. .!. :..:t : ... e . ..... .... a.. .... ... .. t _ .._ s a _. .. x S 1 a ,' :�'•i i # ...... t.. •t f .... :: ... .... - :et. ••'xer .. .. y <, t . t_a......:...s i. ....... :... IIS .. -.. ,. t • t - P ...t... .... _• 1•:.: ."'... ..... ••..:•• . ! . 13 ! Ft +�4i Ft 3 . Finn Engineering Dead load 111 Plan 14 4 _ Jong leamil 1101111 Live Ldg �'. Ian 8 8 T Design 8 Englnaering, lne. Veult•lIJ,>Jaar- Wadnesday February 13, 2002 Ike Lord kPolw Loads;Uar Lool ;Ate i Leads; SGuetur+rzPolal SprlasaiSuppotU;Uar SptiesaiSuppotU;Arrr Spdatt;Wrilr Bela* Sleb;Colunras HelawSlab;Wrib Above Sieb;Calturets Above Slab-Alab Pdga; Soh Id° ,t a Fiat/1522 •r•s••a•■ s, la, tr::: laa..rttax:l.:a:::ast11,:•:a.:3 •aa.., l., a.::. a.,.> <.:r,:,a >::r:>:.:r.r.:.:.:_:::1 .,::::.::.:.::.: : ..::.::... ..:.:....1' ...r _.:..1...1...._ .........,...r ...:........11.....::1: ..lt P114001' ::0107t:::x ::: 0:=1:0:x= >:a:<.:xa:a <:<:.._.... ..... :.::.. a . ..... ... ...........:... x:.. 0:::2ttlt :a s-ft n•titti .v:as:t: t::: -s:asastssr ata:t•a::::tsr lrls :::St. .1.au 1 . ::111 ... .._. • .. :: :: :: :. .... .. .... ... z ... x - ... . . ..z.: ..:.t 1.. s.... 3 tt..., _..1. ..1St 1 ' etnn:it• 2,11•••• eaursmr•ttunsrr ,tt:tt11s•:1: 17e:tentt■ti"ra lt, , ',•s; ••••- —1 r • .,: ... • x s.. • r . ... •.. • ,. .22 • . , .. J. es- , rrte:„ tl 17/1221/ tl!':1 tits � :Tr:[talJl'O'WS , [,•111Yilli r: i"Jt,:tx:L i•••rt,• .r••. iIt 1,1• •:,_: .t.. •. :•• v.... 1 .. •. .... I r -. ...• .• .. x .. i. j ... r,. .. i I i 7t t. 17t 12,111" ,:t! ,:t,,,:,t,1 211 ,:111•112 >tt,r:,,It •.,:•t:Ott! •Ce „: IMO. .,,111,t,t1,t••r•t••,•,1•••... ..r,:,,.,,,_ ............. ,..... ....... ..,........_ _ . , . 1: _ r e... , tea•we•a1 ,a•ts•■ssess • erz l•• rt nv r ,!•nesvtetseerz:e••atn:rz•,tt”. •” r.:„ .. t•• Lett,,,,,-•--- •, -tt:.. *. t.2t•..,•s... ... ... . x ! • . -.. ....' ...• ... *. .. .... is a r. r. -sy• .r . 1 1 •11.1••••••• ..••t•• n1t- s•• ..... • e••• 1• •t.•1••,•t•••e••t•rt.•t,rt•.••.• t•,•••� •••••r .••• :. _ ..... ............. (.... .... .. -.. . . .. .... . • .. . . . . !a;* x Fine Engineering Live Ldg I Plan 15 • OS WA Ma INN Poi limmg lasoll Paammq PwNl Pmm°, @"'"U Pawl Pa �0��o� 0wm�N� �m�m� ~— . . B &T Design & Engineering, Inc. ~Veull-RJfloor -Wednesday 13, 2002 Live Load II Plan Aboty SlakeoltutrmAbow SlabWtab &Ned; Seals I:30 ... Fine Engineering Live Wad II Plan 16 '41,1 AS tat YE2 waqtYgl ;tat ".,..^....~.~..~~~..~~~~..~~~..~~.~...~~.~.~~.^ "~~~ ~"~..~~~'..,.~..".~~.,.....~~'~..~.~~~ .� — ~~~~�~ ^~.....^...~^.^....'~~.'....^ .~.....`.,.~~~.~ ' ^. '.. — .~�~___'___- ^. • .~~^'.^~.^..~. ..'., .^.~.^^.....~~.. ` . ^'.. .. .,.� . . .,. .. ..~...' .' .~.~ Fie 0674 V1=0474 t~ ~.Oa~^ °~~.. ~....~~~...~..~.~.~~..~~~....~~~....~'..• ~~~~ ''~.`~~^~~ °.~". ..".^.."~...~..~~.~.. . get ~ ~"~^-~~~^~~~~''.~~'~'''•~~^~~~t~'''^~~''~^-f~ .•=.•~~.".~- 0 Ilan 0.674 ' ~~.~.. Ha=u674 ....'~...~~..^...^..~. .,~. -. _...—'.] .... ...~. '. .. ' ilia w 067 ^.. ...... — • lis^o674 . ~. . .'^^.~.~^ .' • ...'~,..~. � ^`^—'''^�—�_— .`...` ....~...~.~.... '' '' 14=0674 ..~..~..^,..~, `~~~~~'`—'`~`' �x~u67 ....^.... ..•. . '~~.'~.~. . • . .. ^^~~t Hm0A67N `Vn=�87 . _ _____'--_ -_.___~___ — ,. ..~...~~.~~.~.~..°~..~,...,~—.,tr '`~`--'~-^~'~--. ~`^-`'-^-.'._.'.---- -~.----_--.,•-_-_ . _ t _ .___.__. ___,_____, _____—_— | J Fine Engineering Live Wad II Plan 16 '41,1 AS tat YE2 waqtYgl ;tat Live Load 111 Plan the Loki MAN LeMuM IM+MvAto Lo+dE; Wall, flow SIj Celrn s Wow BWs;WalI, Abate dW ealom L4 Mow SWAM Ed" Sala 1130 cz x ltiitiil:t stiittt[: :ii:t:ti::.l:i:f : s•: tt::,::1t:::t ta:i.is:J: s:t fl,J3 i:::: t:: i::Y tY:: :rtzsanzz 110.1, • , MH,i&:tt. 3HYS$:zt mt:t a:<ISJi t, : :txa: pima, mug MOM Mal B & fi Deslgn & Eng/naming, Inc, = Vaulhlllillacr • Wednesday February 13, 2002 tti`t #lir: ,•Mttftrrtff't•ft,n,,, ttntttt' 0.0.1:,0. f, tit :,'KS•.trt „0.Y, "ft:tt:•A,t,'t't «t trwf•tf' s Taft: stttt'f,•titttt,alrtt,ift*,t:tt trtts„t:t,tttfit is•t!• „t„t,v.. f+ . t,.. ... t.t..ftef,ft•t, r..,....t. • ...'1...0..... • Fine Engineering Live load III Plan 17 1010111111 pa” S ervice LC 1 Deflection Plan y WWI . 13 & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Veuit•111,floar-- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Mama LC 1 bV.�tleal Uegeedoa Plat (wI cunt arowhtn6 }(1 Centaur w 0.02 lathe); Seals truetuttPelnt Spdaganupporte ;UneSpdagi/Suppo04 ;Ara Spdnp Well* ticlaw Sletr,Colutani U.iawslab ;Wake Abort 31hb ;Cohutrw Ahem 31ib;3leb Naga; Mobutu Woo 0.0.09 indi ® (338, 311); Mexlmum Value M 0.686 Intl m 6(303, 351), c 0 , I Oil 011 01 01 al 1 I l.. �1 1 011 Al 1 .. . 8i 02 ..I, 09 02 . , 2 , 2 . ::4,444,..:: , , „ 1 Q7 „ 12 0.1 a2 03 , :, 0.I I 03 03 „ , . - , 0 , 013 0.3 ,03 3 ., 3 , 3 •• „ .• , ,: „ , ,. ,• ,. „ 04 , 014 04 ::«« 0�4 1 014 „ „ �4 °4 44 44 „ :, „ ,....Ou.3...., .. 05 .. , OS ,.. 3 ', 5:., .. ,,: .< ,.:, „44 ,.. ,., ,., ■,,, 4444 08 .. ng ,�� :0, .:06 06 0,o 016 4444 0,6 .:. :_ : , 1 _� :4 _ :::::. .., . , „ ,, .• .., _ ,:.. ,,;,,,,,;,,,,, , , , ,•„•„ r ,,,. ,.. .. , ,,,,, 4444,. 4444, ...T ,, .... _ . .,, •,,,• • ......,•,. ... .. .. .. . , 4 444, ... . ......... , - .,. 06 i6 lib O6 0A G6 0 �s.. I • 6 Olb 0a _ bS' I> n5 I 05 t+5 :I b b 0 S, (1 4444. 0I5 45 I ....... .. . • 0II l ., G 4 4 4 4, 03 01 03 of 43 Q3 0.2 d2 02 0' 2 0.2 0:3 02 03 012 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 -1 0.1 1 Fine Engineering Service LC 1 Deflection Plan 18 OW lag WIN lawali WM" WWI lommill OMNI Passi WWI Wog **111 10111._. 111111111 MEN B & T Design & Englnooting, Inc. - Vault-110mo Wednesday Fobtvaty 13, 2002 Factored LC 1 Mx Plan negated LC 11%seetupptittmaioiltnenctingstArtAweenIsuppottililveiPlott ours smoothltd(1 * 5 Kip* ditedionl Stnietufeloini Spriter,Welli Helm Steit,Colunvie Below Slab-Naas Above Sletsgolontns Akre 514k9leb Baas 00 Minimum Value * 49 Kips 0 07,1, MU Maximum Value • 4:73 gips 0 OK 40M I I 1L0 As Tor0 As Topa.° ,1,31[1.1••33tIS3. :OS:1 23,3 33S t381.a33333312•3331:33333•1•43310.•••••••■••• •■•••4:,.+ :::a : : pre•secett 71,17"-- on ....„................., +1.4.S.S.L.STS3.3.assusrss• ASSTIMPC1SISSSTS-S2 sass. I 0 X• e1 ssassai 4 IGS .2 s• p1 t= ras • W•.... :m :a ., t a.s11 s =a siMt pI D . .3 .33•431.27s.4 . : _ -sr :::■■■: 1St /1st 4 “Sgifl:tiiii I-' 4 r _,•,.,„il o e •C - 4.t :SI IS i I 3 S SI • ... — ATor0 . 4 . MT p"0 r0 ti-1 ... .: — Oil "will, = "...S i 4 aine Ii4 It . .att s.a,rs- aa f -. : _ —,.,, 1t .3 •11ir4 tx. ,-,..- T. . : . ,„:„., t 4 4 ii. •...,,,,,,,,' ="•••.,,,,••,,,t ,•7 7,12,•, / tr7•1311,14.1111.4014., =Mae I •,, <51,2 Arsaleonorsj, war* t, e :a •, 1, faes.....ampowyri...... 4 4 A$ Topto 0 l' i,1•=t•I” Z, .*:1 "1 g ?1,02.,1"..TS,VII, TI t -I t• 35331,1 • IT I STITs.•••••••as 1.1Cre I II • l• • • • . • .. 02•2••••••=1MITim COW* 0 • ' ' rels•SIIelm.i....,:r.IV • ' ..... • • 1r* i, ...-11 4 4 4 .-1,--.... ilroa-4.--..,--.111 itrsarr r... . = .......,...,, ll,r•-,.." ...AST.. rwT• 4 4 it 4 I, 4 I. •,t,tr 0 sets, 1 f !IT ,1 T•a •• slt••• II ,t Tx, rt• ?A • t It, It,* t 1,i , 111.31MeMr•Of IMMO 11, • • 1, P. • ,',0■••==,......i......... • , • ' ' - • - ' •••,•••,........”.0 • 4 4 A4 Topw0 4 4 T:11,,•111SIS•••13t •S •• 1r •• IT! r•• 1,1. •IT x ••,,,,,,,,...,..,,,,,............ ....33, , 3. T. • 33,•••••••••••••14••••• • II •3 • - T VISISalse•••••4413isrl.• ... ' ''• •• • ...............tsilt.”. ' '•.' . 4 ir. Ai Tope° 0 ik 4 Tr • • 4 Top*0 • Fine Engineering Factored W 1 Mx Plan 19 vortttt 01111141 .�. Filif woof 1• 1 4'8*i ("mai Factored LC 1 My Plan PSI w rrs+�r j im1001101 11.1111111 MUNI 1111111111 & T design & Englneelfng, Ind. - Vault-111,11w- Wndneadny Pobrunry 13, 2002 1 I ctoted LC l NiIgn Sections ilasdirtg Moreau Plot;(wl slims anoerldn6(1 Contour m 5 Kips),(y ditedien); 3tnxtun:Polnt SprtngS►9upports;Line $p rinsp/Suppotu Mei Springs;Wdb below 51.b,Colunns Belem S1614Wd11 Abate Shibrolisttitu Above SIsb;Sirb iidga, Sale 130 Minion Value *4.43 Kips 6(329, 3S1); MAXIMUM VAN" 1S1 Kips (4 (205,47I) 3 ■0.49 1 042 t 2 2 : . '14 r4 . . T A lt,%t._ 1- As list-4 50= 071 WO 29 !'•1, jy 4 ( 4f7J �) it ,l7 L t 7� t Q I 125 `> 77. rtl, :A f) f . 1 kinossiamikvir 1�it1•' —' 110 calif/Ai _.A% Dal -0.54S- _fi . Fine Engineering Factored LC 1 My Plan 20 ig en.101.0.1 r01011611011 Factored LC 1 c Plan cwwry r NMI am au B & T Design & Engineering, Inc. • Vau11•1lLfloor• Wednesday Fobnrary 13, 2002 httated LG I:Detlp Suetieeii Vatl al Shut Plet,(w/ awe smoothing) (l Cahoot 2 klpsIA },(it diteetie4 Sit r Point Sp1n�p/Suppo+ttj.hw Sptinp19upputicA a SpHttgs,Walls Ilelaw flW Catumnt Wlaw SisktYsils Above SI.b,Columns Abaci 5Isb,.il b 1Mgess Minkawn Vuhie w •S2.! WWI ® (109, 43T Mudmum Vitus r S0.4 kipWfI f pot, 286); Fine Engineering Factored LC 1 Vx Plan 21 r 1- 8 & T Design Factored LC I Vv, Flan Woad LC 1:Dmir SeetkvitVatlat Moir Pld;(w/ cum ,(I Contour MI 2 kips01),tl' ditcction} sintemooent 9ptttO3uppotti;l.it'w Sptini l up ,c+u+AMea�dlc Below Sktr,Cohrn ti Below Shi r,Wil . Above sisb,Cdluoms Above slstr,0leb !1dges; Vitus Sale 'JO Mime -.217 k l p s i A ( 9 5 . 4 , 404); Wham WIN N 27,9 klps/A ® 012, 44$ j, M7 1"1""1 - -- - • - NM & Engineering, Inc, - Vault- Moor - Wednesday February 13, 2002 012 1 e _ Y� .�.._ �� :..�O� y, � ! . t�„r,. Ell"--ii-v"'"wir".41.....,, 1 It ' j j I { -,i l Miq i �QA i �p �. { i t,. w =1 -- :: ....I w -..� 0—ft I , i i 071 9 .14•Kowisrsa "T i it I .. 01, r-, . 1--"11,--- 1 (1 Fine Engineering Factored LC 1 Vy Plan 22 Slab Factored LC 1 Torsion Plan hooted LC I:Dulgn WON rvien Mot;(*/eww rmoothind),(1 Contour 6= 0.2 Kips).(ntu ode direction). Snixturt:Wtiil Below SItb;Coluntta Now blatr,Welb Above Statr;C.oltunne Abort SIab;Slab Woe; Stair Is30 Minimum Value*, 04137 Kips 0 (771, 4I9) Matlmom Value ¢ 71.1 Kips 0 (203, 471); 1 r & T design & Engineering, Ina, • Vault= III.Ilaor- Wednesday Fobnlaly 13, 2002 'ril y. v v r o • , it 11,.,.1, i►t� w�ktt @CO�e��tl��daUt \�':it�'(',',� ... Fine Engineering Slab Factored I.0 1 Torsion Plan 23 Factored LC : resi n Section Summa�y # AgTOP CONTROWN0 AM DOT CoutnOWNA WWI S` rn t'CO CON111OLUNO STATUS %O.INJ (00. 00 050.1,0 GNCNEA) 1 0.028 ACI 10.2 0 0 INF 2 0 0.0208 ACI 10.2 0 INP 3 0 0.0063 ACI 10.2 0 INF 4 0 00883 ACI 10.2 0 ow 5 0 0.0001 ACI 104 0 INF O 0 0.0732 ACI 10.2 0 INF 7 0 0,0040 ACI 10.2 0 INF O 0.0270 ACI 10.8 0 0 INP O 0 0.401 ACI 104 0 INF 10 0 1 ACI 10.2 0 INF 11 0 0.000 ACI 10,2 0 INP 12 0 1 ACI 1042 0 INP 13 0 0.40 ACI 10.8 0 QIP 14 0 0.01 ACI 10.2 0 INP 10 0 0,0706 ACI 10,2 0 INF 10 0 0.0230 ACI 10,2 0 INF 17 0 0.0105 ACI 10.2 0 imp 10 0 0,111 ACI 10.2 0 I/IF 10 0 0.0200 ACI 10.2 0 INF 20 0 0.0417 ACI 10.2 0 any 21 0 0,1 1 ACI 10.2 0 INF 22 0 0,0717 ACI 10,2 0 INF 29 0 0,0370 ACI 10.2 0 INF 24 0 0,0904 ACI 10.2 0 INF 20 0 0.0217 ACI 10.2 0 INF 20 0 0 .0270 ACI 10.2 0 INF 27 0 0.129 ACI 10.2 0 INF 20 0 0 .0370 ACI 10,2 0 INF 20 0 0 .0900 ACI 10.2 0 INF 30 0 0,117 ACI 10,2 0 INF 31 0 0.0004 ACI 10.2 0 INF 32 0 0.07. ACI 10.2 0 INF 33 0 0.110 ACI 10,2 0 INF 34 0 0,0043 ACI 10,2 0 INF 39 0.0027 ACI 10,2 0 0 INF 30 0 0.0030 ACI 10,2 0 INF 37 0 0.0330 ACI 10,2 0 INF 38 0 2.3 AOI 10,2 0 INF 30 0 4,00 ACI 10,2 0 INF 40 0 4,08 ACI 10,2 0 INF 41 0 4.00 ACI 10,2 0 INF 42 0 2.24 ACI 10.2 O INF 43 0 0.017 AOl 10.2 0 INF 44 Q 0.0952 AOl 10,2 0 INF 49 0 0.0000: ACI 10,2 0 INF 40 0 0,0603 ACI 10.2 0 INF 47 0 0.103 ACI 10.2 0 INF "Fi iATuS" INPK AfF,£ Wli Th R F1.QQ8 11AS FQUNO A FF-AS1UI4 601 -4n10N TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA SELECTED FOR 'MIS SECTION. OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK B & 1' Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault.11I.I aor - Wednesday February 13, 2002 Fine Engineering Factomd LC 1: Design Section Summary 24 ig ig Paul Pawl MMIN IMO NMI , 1111111._ MI • B & 7' Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault- 111,110er- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Factored LC 1: Design Section Summary - Continued * AMP CONTROWN0 ASOOT CONTHOWNI AMINq SThPS'C0 CONTNOWNO STAR A (fit, it') M. IN.) Cno. IN.) WK Hrn) 40 0 0.0020 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 40 0 0.0442 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 80 0 0.184 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 81 0 0.0188 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 82 0 0,047 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 83 0 0.0010 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 84 0 0.0388 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 85 0 0.00887 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 56 0 0.0980 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 87 0 0.0170 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 80 0 0,0344 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 50 0 0.123 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 60 0 0.038 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 81 0 0,001 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 02 0 0,0001 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 03 0 04743 AC 10.2 0 INP OK 04 0 0,0428 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 08 0 0.0841 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 80 0 0.044 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 87 0 0.848 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 66 0 1.09 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 00 0 Loa AC 10,2 0 INF OK 70 0 1.00 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 71 0 0,828 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 72 0.0388 ACI 104 0 0 INF OK 98 0 0,0802 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 74 0 0,0708 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 78 0 0,0949 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 70 0 0.104 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 77 0 0.079 AC 10.2 0 INN OK 79 0 0,0040 AC 10.2 0 IN? OK 76 0.0450 ACI 10.2 0 A INF OK "STATUS" INDICATES WEINER FI.AQR HAS POUND A FEA$IWIA 4O1.1.MQN TO SATISFY TIM CRITERIA SEI -ECTEP FOR THIS SECTION. Fine Engineering Factored LC 1: Design Section Summary 25 B & T Design & Engineering, Ina, - Veult•III, loos- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Factored LC 1: Design Secti Crime 1 Mon Commit Ter 042 Ow Om Son 042 Top Covdia1 M 00. 'V D4►TliU . 0.11h?1L9PAM LatiI (4MCHt6) bowies) (NICHtS1 (swim) tociitS) 1 AC1 10.2+ 11.9 NO Ne N9(1 1,29 178 0 0 240 2 ACI 10211.51 tie 0e N3U 1.29 2.75 0 0 240 9 ACI 10,2;11.3 NO NO 0911 1,211 2,78 0 0 240 4 ACI 10.211.3 NA NO N211 1.25 2.75 0 0 240 5 AC1 101; 11,9 NO No 02U in 2:78 0 o 240 6 AC1 10.2;11.9 NO 08 N91,1 1,25 2,95 0 0 240 'f ACI 10.2;111 00 10 nu 1,25 2:95 0 0 240 O ACI Iax 11.3 N8 NO N9U 1.28 2,7U 0 0 240 O AC1 10.2 NO NO N$U 1.25 2,75 0 0 240 10 ACI 10.2 NO NO IOU 1,25. 2,95 0 0 240 11 AC! 10:2 NO NO 03U 1,25 175 0 A 240 12 ACI t02 NO NO 12 1:26 2:75 0 0 240 13 AC1 102 NO in 03U 1:35 2:75 0 0 240 14 ACI 14.E M 84Ad 04 $14 03U 2:25 1 0 0 24 15 AC1 10164221 rta 04 04 NaU 2:25 1 0 0 24 16 ACI10.2:MIRM N4 04 29U 125 I 0 0 24 17 ACI 10:124211640 04 14 03U 2:96 1 0 0 24 10 ACI 10,2;41111126 14 04 03U 210 1 0 0 24 13 AC1 10,2; M RLA9 N4 04 03U 215 I 0 0 24 20 AC1 10,14426 a 04 04 03U 215 1 0 0 24 21 AC1 10,2;/4301.43 N4 14 13U 215 1 0 0 24 22 AC1 10.2;4381.43 N4 N4 13U 2.20 1 0 0 24 21 ACIIOa;MQ(AU 04 N4 02U 125 1 0 0 24 24 AC1 I02242 61,Aa 14 04 N9U 2:26 1 0 0 24 20 ACI la2; Al SLAB N4 14 NJU 2,76 1 0 0 24 26 AC1 satAO61.Aa 24 N4 0211 2,25 1 0 0 24 27 ACI Ia2;M84Aa 24 N4 13U 2.26 1 0 0 24 28 ACIIa2;M6lAa 14 24 2311 216 I 0 0 24 au ACI 10,21428640 24 24 113U 2,26 1 0 0 24 20 ACI 10.212410w 24 24 03U 3.26 1 0 0 24 31 ACI 10,2:4301:22 04 04 03U 2.22 1 0 0 24 39 ACI 10,2 M atm 24 24 113U 2.25 1 0 0 24 33 AC1 10,22420440 14 14 09U 2.26 I 0 0 24 34 AC1 10.2;426t241 24 24 N3 U a.2U 1 0 0 24 95 AC1 10,2; M 6tAS 04 114 03U 2.20 1 0 0 24 30 ACI 101;4261,A2 04 24 43u 2.20 1 0 0 24 37 AC1 10.3; M 66Aa 04 04 49U a20 1 0 0 24 90 ACI 10,3 18 NO N2 U 1.20 2.70 0 0 240 59 ACI 10,2 06 NO 03U 1.25 2,76 0 0 240 40 ACI 10.2 00 08 03U 1,20 2.70 0 0 240 41 AC1 10.2 NO 28 N3U 1,20 2.75 0 0 240 42 ACI )02 NA 20 03U 1,20 2.72 0 0 240 43 ACI )0..2 ;AsGLAD 14 i44 03U 2.2b 1 0 0 24 44 ACI )0.2; As 96A41 M4 14 12U 2.20 1 0 0 24 42 AC1 1 Q.2; As 91,.1 14 14 13 U 2.20 1 0 0 24 'TAP aft" RtP4CATI$ TN1TOPR11► IFORCWGPAHTYP1THATFIQORWIt. I. USEWN10ESSIWYTOEATI ;iFYTN1CRffERU S1t.ECTEO FOR THIS S CTIQH "190719AR" 119ICAT):GTN1 RUTTQM RF.IHFQRGWR RAH TYPE THAT Fi.QQR wiu..1)111, 1,1EC155ARY TO ■TISFY mg CRITERIA $Et.EGTgp FQR THIS strcTION. "Ow UAW INIMCATESTH1 SWAN RBWFQRCWG UAR TYP1 THAT FM.QQR WK. , USE W N10E5SARY TQ SATISFY TH4 CRfTERIA SELECTED FQR nos SEC'nQN. 13, T. pr m" uloscArgs TH1 Dent AF THE TAP AF THE &IW THAT FI.QQR 1GNQRIS WN4N CAW4t.ATUNG STRENGTH AND STRESSES FOR TN* 51C,7iQN. "Ia. R. DPTH" IHDIGATR&TH1 Gern1 OF TH11)QTTAM OF THE UAL) THAT FI.OQR *HOBO WHEN CALCULATING STRENGTH AHD bTI S$ES FQR THIS SECTION. "SPAN 1.4TH" MMAPATE1 T 11 SPAR { -NtiTH AHD F4 QNI.Y US1D To c14411A111JMt17N41T11159E1 IN UN@QN11U TENDONS (SECTION 119.7.2). TQ CALCULATE MINIMUM REINFQRCMENT(agC : nOH 18.9.3.3) OM To F.ff114ATE REAM QUAH1Til1S. Fine Engineering Factored LC 1: Design Section Crltede 26 • M 11I11IM__ -. -___ .. . B & i Design & &nglneering, Inc. - Vault-111,1100r - Wednesday February 13, 2002 Factored LC 1: Design Section Criteria. • Continued 2 M CttNAH Comm* TOP UM1 @OT ®AA IiHU ®AR Too COVti1BYFOM fitl, t 11i$ . U. t» 11+5pA11 Lotto GfiCNtB1 ONCHLO) UNCHE i (.ucH€s1 (*etas) 48 AC1 18,Z Matra N4 04 13 U 2.211 1 0 0 24 47 ACI 10.2 N 9IAN 14 04 N3 U 126 1 0 0 24 4e ACI 10.2; N SLAM 04 #4 M3 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 40 ACI I OA A9$oAN *4 04 N3U 2,20 1 0 0 24 DO AO 10.a;NOwl 04 04 Ha an 1 0 0 24 51 AC1 10,2 N BLAN 04 04 03 U 2.29 1 0 0 24 02 ACI 10,2;ADMAN 04 04 N3U 126 1 0 0 24 63 ACI IO2N ®LAN 14 14 MaU 2,20 1 0 0 24 e4 ACI 10.2;Arnim 04 04 la 2,20 1 0 0 24 50 ACI 102;Amami 04 H4 N3U a,29 1 0 0 24 5o AC1 10,2;NDIAN 04 04 03U 220 1 0 0 24 e7 ACI 10,Z Angus 04 N4 Ma U P20 1 0 0 24 5e ACI 10,Z Maim 114 24 MEU 2:50 I 0 0 24 50 ACI IQ2;NMAN 04 04 1911 2:20 1 0 0 24 00 ACI 10a;Maim N4 N4 03U 2.2b 1 0 0 24 ei ACI 10,a;Maim 24 N4 0311 2:20 1 0 0 24 e1 ACI IO.ZNOLAN N4 N4 0311 2,20 1 0 0 24 03 ACI 10.11; N IRAN 04 04 N3 U 2 26 1 0 0 24 04 AC$ 10,ZNOW N4 04 #311 2:20 1 0 0 24 40 ACI 10.ZNOLAN 114 04 N3U 2,20 1 0 0 24 00 ACI to,2NOw *4 04 $2U Z20 1 0 0 24 07 ACI 10,2 00 NO N3U 1,20 270 0 0 240 08 AC1 10,2 NO NO 0311 1,20 236 0 0 240 00 ACI ma N0 NO 03U 1.20 871 0 0 240 70 ACI 182 NO 00 119 U I <20 2.70 0 0 240 71 ACI 10,2 N0 NB 29 1,20 2,70 0 0 240 72 ACI 10.2;11.9 NO 08 09 U 1,20 2.70 0 0 240 79 ACI I0,211,3 NO NO N3U 1.211 2,70 0 0 240 74 ACI 10,2;11.3 N0 NO 913 1,20 2,70 0 0 240 70 ACI 10,2;11,9 00 NO 09 U 1.20 270 0 0 240 70 AC$ 10.211.0 NO 10 0311 1,20 2,70 0 0 240 77 AC1 10.2:11.3 10 10 0311 1,20 230 0 0 240 78 ACE 10.2; 11,3 10 10 0311 1,20 2.70 0 0 240 70 ACI 10,2; 11.9 NO 19 03U 1.28 2.70 0 0 240 wroP AI!R" ININCATKO TH€ TQF RONFQRCING OAR TYPE THAT FLOOR WILL USE IP NECEEWARY TO RAT$SFY T11i CRR'ERIA Og- CTEP FOR TNIS SECTION, 6QT OAR, INQIGATE4 T•B QQTTQM REINFORCING OAR TYPR THAT FLOOR Wu., USE IF NECESSARY To FATISFY THE CRR -ERIA SELOL -TOP FOR THIS SEC ION. "5NR UAW INOCAT€5 TOO OHM REINFORCING OAR TYPE THAT FLOOR WILL USE if NEGRSSARY TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA SEI.ECTEQ FOR THIS StC,TIQN. '9G, T. PPTH" INPICATOG THB ;EPTH OF THE TOP OF THE SIAR THAT FI.4QR IQNQROO WHEN CALCULATING STRENGTH ANC STRESSES FOR Tin* SECTION. "Ili, B. CIFTH" INpt&ATEO T O DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM QF THE SAAR THAT FLOOR IGNORES WHEN CALCULATING STRENGTH ANO STR€BSES FOR THIS SECTION. "SPAN Lane Pomona Ttsz SPAN LENGTH ANC 1$ ONLY MOO TO CAUGULATE WIUTWG STRESSES IN UNUQNPEP TEHpone 1SECTIOt1 18.7.2). TO CALCULATE M!NUIUM RIONFQRCIAENT (Svc TIQN 18 0.9.3) ma TQ E$IIMATE REQAR QUANTrms. Fine Engineering Factored LC 1; Design Section Criteria 27 1: Meg Factored LC 1: Desi n Section Forces ray 1 !lA�M _ - - . - 11111111 - MON D & T Design & EngIneering, Inc.. Vaul1•I11.floor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 O AX1AL LAMM, Vai111CA1, TOfl91ON Elgutma Mx PT roses 1d0NDltio CAp • VtttIICAL CAP 0(11€8 Nast (KIfa (xu ((T, rr) (KiPr (Kit (Klt't) (10 .6) 1 7,33 •18.3 4.80 4,2 •1.84 •1.83 (0,0) 41.134,0.22) 21.6 2 2.87 13,1 2.40 •1,11 1.44 0.33 (0,0) (0.430,1.44) 213,3 3 10,1 •10.1 7,81 •1,21 3,13 4,20 (0,0) (9,013,3,18) 211,9 4 10,0 19.0 13,7 0,320 4.28 8,77 (00) 41,20,4.28) 24,3 3 10,7 .17.7 . 4.80 0,47 4.33 4,87 (0,0) 41.31,4,30) 20.3 O 10.3 10.2 7.36 1.23 3.83 0.80 (0,0) 41.06,3.84) 20.3 7 8.70 •10 11 2,00 2,03 407 (0,0) (9,796,244) 20,3 O 7.47 18,2 4,0 4.17 .1.33 1,82 (0,0) 41,84,0,22) 21,6 O 10.2 7,03 .10,7 1.04 22,0 .1,70 (0,0) (e,12,23) 10 30,9 0,047 47.3 0,2 40,4 1.00 (0,0) 412,4,40,9) 11 34.7 0,898 •37.3 •0.038 40,2 1.77 (OA) 412,4,48,7) 12 30,5 •1,08 47,2 •1.44 40.9 1.03 (0.0) 412.4.47) 13 10.3 4,0 .19,8 •1.07 22.9 1,80 (0,0) (0.11,23) t 4 •1 4,09 2.34 4,499 0,124 1.20 (0.0) (9,0604,0,124; 15 •1.88 1.43 0.772 4,670 0.002 0,101 (0.0) (9,39,0004) 18 •1.27 6.99 •2,00 0.34 0,201 1.03 (0,0) 40.139.0:2011 17 •1,40 4.33 3.31 0,100 0,204 1.31 (0,0) (0,0920,0,20I 10 42.4 1,04 0,020 .1.04 1.30 0.320 (0.0) (0.01,1,30) 10 •1.97 9.09 4,2 0,207 0,284 1,2 (0,0) (0,118A.205) 20 •1,71 407 2.19 0,340 0,013 1,00 (0,0) 19.293,0,014) 21 4,10 2,01 0,000 .1.7 1,34 0,424 (0.0) 19400,1,36) 22 •1.70 7.94 O,40 •1.00 0,870 1.41 (0,0) (9,380,0:870) 29 •1.90 4,1 1.39 1,77 0,401 1.23 (0,0) 19,21,0,4021 24 .1.01 2.04 0,700 •1,73 1,04 0,440 (0,0) (0,47,1.0b) 2® •1.03 7,00 •1,02 •1.00 0,207 1.41 (0,0) (O.122,0.'2107) 20 .0,000 4.00 147 .1,40 0,34 0,340 (0,0) (0.164,0.941) 27 •1.73 0.904 2,70 0,240 1,40 0,0176 (0A) (0,07.1,9) 20 •1.17 1.70 •1,49 1,42 0,400 0,250 (0,0) (9,2124,407) 28 .1,37 .2.04 1.0 •1.90 0,080 0.900 (0A) (0.317,0,7) 90 •1.00 0.903 0.104 •1.96 1.42 0,141 (0,0) (0,04.1,49) • 31 4.90 2,2 •1.313 •1.09 0,048 0.50 (0,0) (0,304,0.001) • 32 •1.99 •2.21 1.34 1.02 0,090 0,553 (0.0) (0,300,0.908) • 93 .1,01 0.701 0,229 •1,05 1.41 0.109 40) 40,030,1.421 • 34 '1,49 2.45 •1,49 •1,09 0,707 0,677 (0,0) (-0.357.0.709) • 95 .1.02 •1.00 ' 9,8 0.0304 0,0122 0,907 (0,0) (Q.0102.O.O30, • 30 •1,65 0,945 Q,t1Q9 .1 .07 1.14 0,2 (O.Q) (0,517,1,15) • 37 •1.09 22.5 •1,52 .1.85 0.417 0,623 (0.0) (0,19,Q.41A) • 30 68,9 0.0315 •0,747 0.194 05,9 •14.1 (0.0) (0.95.01 39 100 •Q,Q0034 •1,10 0.00447 101 0.703 (Q,Q) (0,11)1) • 40 105 0,00520 •1,1.4 0,0214 191 =9,3(30 (0.0) (0,191) • 41 111 0.01309 0,333 0.400 100 •0,765 (0,0) (0.190) 42 01,0 •0,0112 0.192 0,0331 94.0 15.3 (0,0) (0,94.0) , 43 •0.907 2.40 2.47 0,402 0.209 =0,437 (0,0) (0,0953,0.21) _ 44 •1,53 •0.549 0.577 1.94 1,16 0.177 (0,0) (-0.624,1.16) _ 45 •1.00 •1.90 •3,45 0.207 0.0747 -0,41 (0,0) 00.0341.0.0741= "PT FARCr" WDICATERTHE POSTTTrNSIQNING FORCES THAT FLOQR USED FOR WIPING PESIGN; THE TWQ FORGES USIEQ Me FOR OPPOSITE CURVATURES. "OT;NAINQ CAP," INQIGATE6 THE CAPACITY OF THE S1;CTION FOR M;GAT1Vf: AND PQSIf1V1: MQMENT; "=' INPICATESTHAT NO CAPACITY WAS CAI- CULAT &Q. "VERTIGAI, CAP. " INDICATF8 nit: GAPACI'fY OF THT: SECTION FOR VFRTICAI, SHEAR; "_" INDICATES THAT NQ CAPACITY WAS CALCULAT>rD. Fine Engineering Factored LC 1: Design Section Forces 28 ti El & T Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault-Meer- Wednesday Febniery 13, 2002 Factored LC l: Design Sectiion Forces Continued (21 5 AXIAL (.AMIA1. VENTICAL TOR911ON MOM Mt 11 FORC2 80401140 CAP - VPIi11CAL CAP (KrM O(It81 WINO 0art9 (cn ri ) (KIPrt1 OW (XIWiFt) wig) 46 .1,68 2.97 0.277 •1.27 1.013 4.884 (0,0) (0.475,1,051 • 47 •1.0 -0,800 -0003 0,825 1,28 4,119 (0,0) lO.6e &,1.261 • 48 .1,7 4,84 0,177 1.28 1.13 0.033 (0,01 ( -0,512,1.14) • 40 .1.40 2.09 2,521 0.624 03642 -0,361 (0,01 (0,249,0.E1441 • 50 •2.16 •1.09 3.02 0.0406 1.06 -0,08 t (0,0) (8.633, 1.67) • 51 •1.26 .2.28 4.98 80474 0,191 4,474 (0,0) (8,0660,0,121: • 52 •1,22 2.06 1,23 1.9 0.677 0,237 (0,0) (0.202,0,570) • 53 •1,55 •1.11 0,405 •2.01 1.12 0.00413 (0,0) (0005,1.1a) • 54 •1.03 .2.45 •1.41 .1,07 0.436 4959 (0.0) 40.108,0,4371 • 55 .1.02 7.42 2,44 •0.512 0,0024 .1,41 (0.0) (40370,0:0(321• 50 •1.821 •1,50 1.54 1.10 1.2 -0,2011 (0,0) (0,542,1,21) • 57 .1.20 8,05 •2.30 0.026 042 .1.22 (0,0) 15.1,0,112) • 58 •1,80 7.28 2.3 -0,538 0,423 •1,43 (0,0) (0.103,0,424) • 00 •2.44 •2.01 1,57 1,09 1,40 -0,280 (0,0) (0,07,1.6) • 00 •1.70 •834 •2,42 0,031 0,431 •1,33 (0,01 (O.10O,O,438) • 01 •2.04 7,05 0,153 1,04 0000 •I,OO (0.01 (0,447,0.991) • 02 .2.10 .2.73 0,605 0.087 1.1 0,231 (0.01 00.400,),11 • 63 •1.57 •0,04 425 .1.07 0,000 •1.20 (0.0) (0.411,0,011) • 64 .1.4 0.00 1.07 1.05 0,522 0,050 (0.0) (0,237,0.523) • 45 .1,40 .2.06 .1,70 .0.101 0.009 4.908 (0,0) (0,301,0,000) • 00 .1.12 8,10 .0.204 •1,22 0.54 •1,92 (0,0) (0,246,0,041) • 09 10,8 .7,00 18.0 •1.92 25.2 •2,20 (0,0) ('6.00,250) • 68 90.5 •1.10 37 -0,190 00,2 2.24 (0,0) ('19,9.60,13) • 08 387 0.513 37 0,017 50.1 107 (0,0) 013.9,00,7) • 70 30.3 2,39 97 1.40 50,2 1,50 (0,0) 019.9,5001 • 71 17 7,0 19,0 1,67 24.13 1,09 (0,0) (0,5,24,8) • 72 7.40 17 4,85 0.02 •1.91 4,90 (0,0) 01.(10,0,29) 27.4 73 21,7 .15,0 •4.07 110 2,42 •3.013 (0,0) (0.799,2.43) 41 74 10,9 18 7,11 9.55 3.65 12 ( 0,0) (1,10,9.00) 41 75 5.3 .14.3 .7,34 10,1 4,65 •0.25 (0.0) 01.97,4,051 41 70 11.2 18,8 8,92 1,03 5 12.9 (0,0) 01.62.501) 41 77 4.44 113,9 X800 9,09 9.77 421 (0,0) 01.14,3,77) 41 78 9.89 20,5 11.4 40310 2,05 8.0 (0,0) (0,002,2,011) 41 79 2.2 •12.5 19,4 •25.3 4,00 1.05 (0.0) (4,06,0,353) 27,4 "FT Forme', IHDICATE'STHE POSTTgNSIONING FORGES THAT FLOOR USED FOR SENDING DESIGN: THE TWO FORCES WSIED ARk FOR OPRQSITS CURVATURES. "I3ENPINO CAP." INDICATES THE CAPACITY OF THE SECTION FOR NEGATIVE; AND PQSI IVE MOMENT; "•" INDICATES THAT NO CAPACITY WASH CAI..CULATaD. "VRITIICAI. CAP." INDICATES THE CAPACITY OF THE SECTION FOR VSRTICA4 OMAR: "4" INDICATES THAT NO CAPACITY WAS CALCULATED. Fine Engineering Factored 1.01: Design Section Forces 29 factored LC 2: Design Section Summary owl _ INN MON & T Design & Engineering, Inc, = Vault -lI!. lvar- Wednesday February 13, 2002 $ AMP CONYROW140 As Oar CONmOUJNO AS £111R b1NIi9PC0 COm1iOWN0 JT, Aru (sQ. IN.) M. 'NJ (BO, IN.) Moms) 1 0 0.0210 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK 2 0 0.0219 ACI 10,2 0 INP OK 3 0 0.120 ACI 102 0 INP OK 4 0 0,117 ACI 10,2 0 INP OK 8 0 0,110 ACI 10,2 0 111E OK 8 0 0.138 ACI 10,2 0 INP OK 7 O8246 ACI 102 0 0 INP OK O 0 0,0218 ACI 10,2 0 INP OK O 0 0,386 ACI 10,2 0 INP OK 10 0 0.870 ACI 10.2 0 INP OK 11 0 0,810 ACI 10,2 0 INP OK 12 0 0.670 ACI 10,2 0 INP OK 18 0 0.304 ACI 10,2 0 RIP OK 14 0.0006 ACI 102 0 • 0 INF OK 16 0 0.0311 ACI 102 0 INF OK 18 0 0,0014 ACI 10,1 0 INP OK 17 0 0.0100 ACI 10.2 0 RIP OK 10 0 0,150 ACI 102 0 INP OK 10 0 0,12 ACI 10.2 0 INP OK 20 0 0,14 ACI 10,2 0 INP OK 21 0 0,147 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK 22 0 O,O04 ACI 10,2 0 INP OK 23 0 0071() ACI 102 0 INF 014 24 0 0.0305 ACI 10.2 0 INF OK 26 0,0767 ACI 102 0 0 INF OK 20 0,100 ACI 10.2 0 0 INF 014 27 0 0,0044 AC 10,2 0 INF AK 24 0 0.0078 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 20 0 0,0404 AC 102 0 INF OK 90 0 0,102 AC 10,2 0 INF 014 31 0 0,196 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 32 0 0.149 AC 102 0 INF OK 33 0 0.104 AC 10.2 0 INP 01< 34 0 0,040 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 36 0 0.0004 AC 10.2 0 INF 014 30 0 0,0310 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 37 0,0002 ACI 10,2 0 0 INF OK 39 0 1.69 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 30 0 3,26 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 40 0 3.33 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 41 0 3.23 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 42 9 1,66 AC 10.2 0 INF 01< 43 0.114 ACI 10,2 0 0 INF OK 44 0 0,9467 AC 10,2 0 INF OK 43 0 003001 AO 10.2 0 INF OK 40 0 0.0422 AC 10.2 0 INF OK 47 0 9.169 AC 10.2 0 INF 014 "STATLIG" INDICATES WHETHER F{.QQR HAS FOUND A FEMME SQWTION TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA SELECTED FOR THIS SECTION. Fine Engineering Factored LC 2: Design Section Summary 30 fi±1+`tadC�, faillE4 NUM IOW OWL — - Mal IMO E & T Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault- Ill,floor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Factored LC 2: resi n Section Summer W Continued (2� f1) AMP CONTROWNO AMBO? CONTROWNO ASSUR S TIPI CO CONTROLLING STA`ll9 (9Q. INJ (9O, tNJ 04.04J GNCHrof 48 0 0.21 ACI 10.2 0 my 40 0 0.108 ACI 10.2 0 INF 50 0 0.107 ACI 10.2 0 INF 51 0 0.0123 ACI 101 0 INF 02 0 08934 ACI 10,2 0 INF e3 0 0.0300 ACI 10,2 0 INF 54 0.0048 ACI 10,2 0 0 INF 05 0,0880 ACI 10,9 0 0 INF 00 0 0.0501 AC 10,2 0 INF 57 0 O.O509 AC 10,2 0 INP 50 0 0,0995 AC 10,2 0 INF 50 0 0.100 AC 10.2 0 INF 00 0 0.131 AC 10,2 0 INP 81 0 0,171 AC 10,2 0 INF 02 0 0.125 AC 10,2 0 INF 09 0 0,001 AC 10.2 0 INF 04 0 0,0740 AC 10.2 0 INF 00 0 0.0100 AC 10.2 0 INF 00 0.0450 ACI 10,2 0 0 INF 07 0 0.4a0 AC 10,2 0 INF 00 0 0,740 AC 10,2 0 INF 00 0 0.070 AC 10.2 0 INF 70 0 0,744 AC 10.2 0 INF 71 0 0,410 AC 10.2 0 INF 72 0 0,0912 AC 10,2 0 INF 79 0 0,0912 AC 10.2 0 INF 74 0 0,144 AC 10,2 0 INP 70 0 0.11 AC 10.2 0 not 70 0 0.127 AC 10,2 0 HIP 77 0 0,119 AC 10.2 0 INF 79 0 0.0312 AC 10,2 0 INF, 70 0.0350 ACI 10.2 0 0 INP OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK "STATUS" INDICATES WHETH R FLOOR HAS FOUND A FEASIUL.E SQWBQN TO SATISFY THE CilITERIA SELECTED FOR Tins SECTION. Fine Engineering Factored LC 2: Design Section Summary 31 Factored DesiSection Criteria N °MON C#fftk14 TOP nAR tint OHM OM 991111119 1111011111 Amon 1111111_, MIL B & T Design & Englnooring, Inc, - Vault- 111,f1oor- Wodnesday Fobniary 13, 2002 TOP COVlt iOM No. T. tiPTILIb. b. OPT1f3PAN Lori (INCHf,b1 (NICHE) (sHcti 3 (mitts) tUIGHEs1 1 ACI 102113 NO 00 NaU I,28 2,78 0 0 240 2 ACI 10211.3 NO *0 Na U 1.28 178 0 0 240 8 ACt 10:111.8 NO NO 12 U 1.28 9:78 0 0 240 4 ACI 10211.9 On NO 22 1,28 27M 6 0 240 9 ACI 10.111.8 NO NO N9U 1,28 218 0 0 240 6 ACI tat 112 NO 10 N9U 125 2,78 0 0 240 7 ACI 10.111.8 MO NO 22 1,28 178 0 0 240 O ACI 10,111.8 00 NO NNU 1,28 2.78 0 0 240 O ACI 10.2 NO NO 22U 1.28 3.78 0 0 240 to ACI 10,2 NO NO 19U 1.28 2.78 0 0 240 11 ACI 102 10 NO 22U 1,98 178 0 0 240 12 AC110,9 20 NO N9U 1,28 2.78 0 0 240 19 ACI 101 10 NO N9u 1,90 8:70 o 0 240 14 ACI 10:* M 04A0 04 N4 09U an 1 0 0 24 15 AC1102AOOW 04 04 02U 228 t 0 0 24 I0 ACI 10.1 An nus 04 04 02U 128 1 0 0 24 17 ACt 10,1 Maim N4 04 02U 9:28 1 0 0 24 10 ACI wit AsOva 04 04 02U RIO 1 0 0 24 10 ACI I0,12MOtAO 04 14 02U 8:28 1 0 0 34 20 ACI 102 As OtAo 14 24 03U 3:20 1 0 0 24 21 ACI 10.1 M MAD 04 24 22U 120 1 0 0 24 22 ACI 10,1 ASWAN N4 04 02U Z25 1 0 0 24 23 ACI Io2;MOIAN N4 04 N9U 3.20 1 0 0 24 24 ACI 10,3; M OIAN 24 24 23U 2,20 1 0 0 24 20 ACI 10,3;MBLAB 04 114 03U 2,90 1 0 0 24 26 ACI 102 M IKAN 24 24 03U 190 1 0 0 24 27 ACl10.3;MOIAII 04 N4 191.1 2.20 1 0 0 24 20 AC110,ZMOIAN 04 N4 11911 2.25 1 0 0 24 20 ACI 10.2; M ULAU N4 24 23U 8.20 1 0 0 24 90 ACI10,1MOIA9 N4 04 N9U 220 1 0 0 24 91 ACI IO,2;M SLAB 04 14 N3U 220 1 0 0 24 92 ACI 10.21A501.50 N4 N4 03U 230 1 0 0 24 33 AC110,1M01A5 14 N4 09U 3,20 1 0 0 24 94 ACI10;2;M6IAa 04 N4 03U 3.20 1 0 0 24 90 AC$ 10,2;4401410 04 N4 N9U 2,20 1 0 0 24 90 AC1102;MI31A5 N4 N4 09U 2.25 1 0 0 24 37 AC110,24M01A0 N4 N4 N9U 2.20 1 Q 0 24 2a ACI Ilia NU a 03U L25 270 0 0 240 98 ACI 10.2 NO NO 03U 1.20 2.76 0 0 24Q 40 ACI 10.3 NO NIi $3U 1,213 2.76 0 0 240 41 AC110,2 NA NO 09U 1.26 270 0 0 240 42 ACI 10,2 N5 NO 09U 1.25 2.70 0 0 240 49 ACI10.3;M131AO 04 04 1$9U 2.25 1 0 0 24 44 AC1 10.1 AS 010%5 #4 04 03 U 2.20 1 0 0 24 40 ACI 10.Z AN 51Ae 44 04 03U 2.28 1 0 0 24 "TOT' EU1RM ItioCATER THR TOP RgIHFORGIHG OAR TYPE THAT FLOOR WILL UIiE IF NECF.$SARY TO GATISFY THE CRffBRIA 5El -ECTfP FOR THIS SfQTIQN " UQT OAR" INAICATE6 THE DIATOM REINFQRC W G OAR TYPE THAT FLOOR WILL LISC IF NEC MARY TO SATISFY THE CR/TEMA SEI.EQTKQ FOR THIS SECTION. ".$HR I11AW INPICATESTHE WEAR REINFORCING OAR TYPE THAT FIAQR WW, USK IF NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA. SEI EGTEQ FOR THIS SECTION. 15.T, PPTN" ININCATK$ THK 0010 OP THE TOP OF THK *As THAT FLOOR IGNORES WHEN CALCULATING STRENGTH ANn STRESSES FOR THIS SECTION. PIG. 13. PPT11" INOIGATES THE GgPTN OF THE OQTTQM OF TNK SIAS THAT FLOOR IGNORESWNF.N CALCUTATWG STRENGTH AND STRESSES FOR THIS SECTION. "SPAN I-570" INDICATESTHg SPAN LENGTH AND IS ONLY USED TO CALCULATE UMIf HG STRESSES W UNoONDED TEN Doris (sgcitoN 1 8.7.2). TQ CALCULATE MINIMUM RggifORCMKNT (SECTION 10.0.3.3) AND TO ESTIMATE REMIT QUANTITIES. Fine Engineering Factored LC 2: Design Section Criteria 32 NUMIIMit 6 t T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Vaulhlll,lioor- Wednesday Febnrary 13, 2002 Factored. LC 2: Des i n Section Criteria Continued (21 N 0tb10N CMRtAIA 46 AC 10,2MOL.M 04 04 NS 228 1 0 0 24 47 AC 10,2MSLAG 04 N4 03U 9,45 1 0 0 24 48 AC t0,2MOust 04 14 N3U 2.211 1 0 0 24 4D AC IO.2MGum 04 04 N3U 128 1 0 0 24 50 AC 10,2; As MAD 14 N4 03 U 120 1 0 0 24 51 AC I0.2M11IAI 04 14 N3U 2211 1 0 0 24 52 AC 10,2 M Ova 14 N4 19 U 2:25 1 0 0 24 53 AC 10,2MOIA 14 14 N3U 2,25 1 0 0 24 54 AC 10,2 MOW 04 14 13 U 225 1 0 0 24 55 AC 10,2AS SIAS 14 14 NSU 225 1 0 0 24 58 AC 10.2 AN 51A2 14 114 N3U 2,25 1 0 0 24 57 AC 10,2 A/51141 04 N4 NSU an 1 0 0 24 58 AC 10,2;MBLM N4 *4 NSU 225 1 0 0 24 58 AC 10.2ANOLAN 04 04 09U 2:75 1 0 0 24 80 AC 10,2M8W 14 114 N3U 225 1 0 0 24 61 AC 102MOW 14 04 W2U 7.25 1 0 0 24 82 AC 10,0AN MAD 14 14 12U 275 1 0 0 24 89 AC 102 M 81.Aa 14 *4 OS U 7:15 1 0 0 24 04 AC110.2As Sum N4 $4 N3U 2,25 1 0 0 24 80 AC 10,2 Mews N4 14 NSU 2.25 1 0 0 24 88 AC 10,2;M8u0 04 04 N3U 225 1 0 0 24 07 AC 10,2 NO 10 13U 1,25 275 0 0 240 00 AC 10.2 NO HO 03U 1,25 2,75 0 0 240 8D AC 10.2 NO NO N3U 1.22 2,75 0 0 240 70 AC 10.2 NO NO N3U 1.25 2.70 0 0 240 71 AC 10.2 00 NO NaU 1,25 275 0 0 240 72 AC 10,2; 11.3 10 NO 13U 1,10 2,70 0 0 240 73 AC 10,2;11.3 NO NO 13 U 1.25 275 0 0 240 74 AC 10.2;11.3 NO NO 09 U 1.25 275 0 0 240 75 AC 10.2;11.8 NO NO 13 U 120 2:70 0 0 240 90 AC 10,2; 11,9 $2 10 12U 140 072 0 0 240 77 AC 10.211.3 NO N0 13U 1,20 270 0 0 240 70 AC 10,2; 11.3 NO 10 1311 125 2,75 0 0 240 70 AC 10.2;11.9 10 NO 13U 1,20 2.70 0 0 240 '1't51+ 111U1 BOY t:IAM BM UM TOO Cc/wear/0m (16. t tii+t iki. U. P11+t$tSfiAI Lt»I( (*4C11 GNCNt i (10C114.0 (MIC14E51 (rr+CHO/ 'TOP OAR" (HQICATER THE TOP RF.INFOIU HQ DAR TYPE THAT F1AQR WILL, OSE IF M E4444ARY TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA SE1.GT €D FOR THIS S €GT1914, "ROT BM" " INDtCATE4 THE BOTTOM RONFORCINQ SAR TYPE THAT FLOOR Wtt.t. USE IF N ECESSARY TO SATISFY THE GRUVRIA 6€1.€4740 FOR THIS SECTION. "SHR OAR" INDICATORTH4 SH€AR RLLINFORGING BAR TYPETHAT FWQR 4111.1, 1.144 IF NECESSARY TO SATISFY 'MS RRRERIA SEL4CTF.O FOR THIS SECTION. "IQ. T. LWIW' INDICATES TH4 PPM OF 711E TOP OF THE SLAB THAT nowt IGNORUS WHEN CALCULATING 4111411g711 MW STRESS ES FOR THIS SECTION. "IG. O.0PT ' INDICATE6 THE W7?( OF THE BOTTOM QFTME 6t.AR THAT FI,OOR IGNOR€$ WHEN CALCULATING SrR4114-Hi Arm muEG64S FOR TWO SECTION. "SPAN LOTH" IHOIGATF.RTMS SPAN IYNGTH AND IS ONLY USED TO CALCULATE MUTING STRESSES IN UNBOND €D TENDONS (SECTION 1 0.7.2). TO I:AL.CUMTE mamma R4,INFORcMENT (SE PON 1 d.8. $.$) AND TO ESTIMATE KRUM QUAN1711441. Fine Engineering Factored LC 2: Design Section Criteria 33 rwmoi Factored C 2: Design Section Forces 8 & r Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault•IlI,floor • Wednesday February 13, 2002 O Aft(AL LAMM), VetrICAL TORSION ®ENS NI MY P1' PORCH tirNOINO CAP % tsa110At, CAt• 001 0 (Ktps1 (Ktl i1 (,w&,n (itl1'P0 (KfaitN (KWP$1 (f0tt►f=t1 (Komi 1 080 •13,3 03.94 3.08 0.414 .1.72 (0,01 (1.318,1.041 203 2 2.7© 10,3 2.00 10,7 0.021 •1.1 (0,01 0.3113, t .04) 201.3 3 10.7 •13,8 7.02 872 8,17 41.08 (0,0) (.1,04,0,10) 2a3 4 11.1 10.0 8,0 3.03 8.68 8,24 (0,0) (.1,80,8,87) 20,3 8 i 1 •10,0 8,00 .3.42 072 •0.11 (0.0) (4.71.5,94) 20,3 8 10.0 13,9 8.0 41,60 8,04 9.12 (0,0) 01,05,0,011) 20,3 7 001 •12 0.01 .7,03 0,234 4.06 (0,0) (.1 .30,0,103) 21,0 O 0.77 13.1 0,77 4.08 0,418 1.04 (0,0) ti,a 1 t3.1,04) 20.9 O 12.0 0118 •11.7 •1.73 10.1 0,005 (0,0) t4,08,10,2) • 10 211,1 5.83 402 4,30 31,0 4,07 (0,0) (0,02,32,21 • 11 21,2 0,306 •28,8 0.455 20.1 1.10 (0,0) (0 2,20.3) • 12 20,2 4130 48,2 004 31.0 •1,00 (0.0) (8.0,32.1) • 13 ILO 491 •11.0 170 10 0767 (0.0) ( 4:07, 10,2) • 14 0,836 •4.00 L12 0.100 0,504 0001 (0.0) 00,509,1,01) • 15 4,02 1.43 61,04 0,104 03113 0.108 (0.0) (0,1713,0,3E15) • 16 0,702 4.40 41211 0,484 0162 0.030 (0,0) (0,341,0, 7114) • 1'7 0,030 a 1,83 320 0.33 0240 0,064 (0,0) (0.114,0248) • 10 •I.a3 1.9 0,301 4008 1,01 0,25 (0,0) (0.000,1,03) • 10 0002 401 •1.11 0,0003 1.40 0,006 (0.0) (0,1350,1,47) • 20 0.071 •4,00 0,707 0.104 1.00 0.010 (0,0) (0.78,11) • as •1,29 1,74 1.44 •1,23 1,78 0,200 (0.0) 00.700,1.70) • 22 *104 0,05 4.09 A021 0.711 1,02 (0,0) (0323,0,713) • 23 •0,911 •4,00 0,.370 1.04 0,079 0,969 00,O) (0,3911,0:670) • 24 •101 1.71 1,23 .1.04 0.370 0,20 (0,0) (0,17,0,9701 • 25 •0,00 0,19 •1.03 •1,05 0.400 0,980 (0,0) (0,002,0644) • 20 4710 4,03 2,04 •1.14 41002 0,240 (0,0) (0,086,1.13) • 27 •1,10 0,024 0,501 0,271 0,700 0A301 (0,0) (0.9137,0.701) • 29 0,700 1,50 0,4711 1,07 1,00 0:20 (0,0) (4401,1.07) • 20 092 •1.7 2.92 0,007 0.480 0,240 (0,0) (0.220,0,400) • 30 4.21 0,010 0,720 0,077 2.19 0,160 (0.0) (0, 076,2,2) • 91 0.926 2,00 0,39 0,607 2,26 0,430 40) ( 4.01,2,27) • 32 0.023 4.1 0.977 0,001 2,20 0,434 (0,0) (4.01,2,27) • 39 •1.21 0.040 1,0 0,980 2,02 a156 00),0) (-0,203,2,031 • 34 '0.920 2,01 •2,71 •1.21 0564 0.400 (0,0) (0,200,0,005) • 30 0,010 *1.47 1,07 0.0907 Q,079 0.32 (0.0) (0,308,0,081) • 30 •14)9 01320 1.41 •1,71 0,309 0,141 (0,0 (13,177.0.38) • 37 0,73 1,0 •1,73 *1,67 0,049 0,57 (0,0) (0,649,1,09) • 30 41,4 •0,00052 0,013 •0,11 00,7 4,81 (0,0) (0.08.1) • 30 77,0 •0,00234 0,040 0,102 130 •1.48 OM (0,142) 40 70,1 0,00400 0-0928 0,00400 133 -0,233 (0.0) (0,146) 41 73.2 0.0420 O.0320 0.103 190 0.382 (0,0) (0,141) 42 43,2 0.0204 0, 136 .0.01385 00 10.7 (0,Q) (0,00.4) • 43 0.038 1,71 2.5 0.201 0,751 0.299 (0.0) (- 0.708,1.203) • 44 -1.1 0.001 - 0.E189 1,21 0.579 0,104 (0.0) (0.20,0.575) - 4€ 0653 -1.67 0.1304 0.0364 0.734 -0.340 (0.0) (0.334,0.739) "PT FQRC1;' INDIGATF,ISTNE PQST'1 NSIQNING FORCES THAT Fs.OQR USEP FOR HENPING DESIGN; THE TWO FORCES USIEP ARE FOR OPPOSITE CURVATURES. "000300 GAP." INPICATEI;!THE CAPACITY OF THE SEG710N FOR NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE MOMENT,' INPICATESTIIAT NO CAPACITY WAS CALCULATED. "VERTICAL CAP," INDICATES THE CAPAGRY CIF THE saCTIQN FAR VERTICAL SHEAR;' •" INDICATES THAT PIO CAPACITY WAS CALCULATED. Fine Engineering Factored LC 2: Design Section Forces 34 rawui 8 & T Dosign & Englnoodng, lno, - Vault- I11,fioor- Wednesday Fobnioty 13, 2002 Factored LC 2: Design Section forces 4 Continued (2) 1 AXIAL LATERAL VE'R'TICAL TORSION MOMS ME 1t FORCE BENS CAP _ VERTICAL CAP (KIPA) (KIPS) (KIPS) WWI) (KIMIT) ttdt#P't) Kris) (Kltirt) ()CPO 48 0,1301 2,27 1,07 0.904 0,782 0,397 (0,0) (41346,0.784) • 47 •1.16 4.838 •1,2 0,201 2,03 0,132 (0,0) (0.009,2.04) • 48 43,01 •2,33 0.23 0,803 2.131 0,420 (0.0) (.1.1 2,2.83) • 40 0.770 1.99 0.026 0,200 1,90 4,331 (0,0) (.0,080,2) - 80 •1.93 .0.781 3.17 0,157 2.38 43,104 (0,0) (.1,06,2.90) • 51 0.724 •1,8 .4.07 0.104 0.161 .0,381 (0,0) (4.0801,0,101; • 52 0.753 118 41777 1.413 1.14 4230 (0,0) (0.914,1.14) • 53 •1.00 41604 1,20 •1,54 0,377 0.00654 (0.0) (0.172.0,377) • 54 •0.798 •1,71 •1,81 •1.63 0,621 0.243 (0,0) (4,827,1,06) • 55 0,637 5,01 2.15 0,000 0.602 0,048 (0.0) (0:668,0.087) • 66 •1.19 •1.57 0.0701 0.567 0,618 0.107 (0,0) 40,270.0.010) • 57 0.70 •4,09 0.37 0.277 0,070 0,051 (0,0) (0,908,0,60) 59 •1,04 5,27 2.84 4,57a 0,413 .1.04 (0,0) (0,101),0,414) • 60 •1.5 .1.01 0.103 0,876 1,00 0,100 (0,0) (0,001,2) • 60 •1.00 45,06 41011 0.205 1.6O •1,00 (0.0) (0,71 1,1, 30) • 61 .1.23 588 0.100 0,450 2.00 0,000 (0,0) (43.022,2.07) • 62 •1.96 •1A 0.677 0.10 1,65 0,147 (0,0) (0.600.1.60) • 03 .1.14 4102 •1.40 0.301 0.747 0,059 (O.0) (0.390.0.740) • 84 01147 481 4.582 1.89 0,014 •0.780 (0.0) (0.419,0,017) • 86 .0.031 •1.7 40.017 0.0502 0,134 0.222 (0.0) (0.001.0,134) • 06 0,704 45.64 0,406 4.768 .0,304 01105 (O,01 (0,300,0.5131 • 67 19,8 45.81 11.0 1.72 20 •1,20 (0,0) (5.47,20,2) • CO 20.0 .4.93 20 0.90 99 4.02 (0.0) (0,80,30.3) • 00 22.0 0.350 26,6 0,440 31.0 1,9 (0.0) (0.01,92.1) • 70 20.7 0.11 20.1 43.47 94.0 •1.09 (0,0) (4).87.91),2) . 71 13.7 0.67 11.8 •1.74 I0,0 1.03 (0,01 413,37,1 0,0) • 72 1176 14 1101 •2.71 0.534 3,71 (0,0) (0,460,1.01) 41 78 9.11 .12.2 . •3.07 •3.0 1.1 0.672 (0,0) (0,460,1,51) 41 74 11,5 14.1 0,0 4161 0,02 12.0 (0,0) (2,07,6,02 41 70 0,05 .0.04 •6,06 4.6 0,20 46.00 (0,0) (• 1.0,0,9) 41 70 11.4 . 11.6 5.00 1164 6.11 11.1 (0.0) (•1.64.0.12) 41 77 6,33 •6,20 4.50 10.6 5.46 •d,AA (0.0) (1,64.0.40) 41 79 13.72 19,9 5,21 0.9 0,117 3.12 (0,0) (0,4 00.1,01) 41 79 1.5 0,09 10.2 •10,4 0,711 0,007 (0,0) (•1,00,0.20) 27.4 "PT FORCE" INDICATES THE POSTTENSIQNINQ FQRCESTNAT FLOOR USED FOR PENPINQ DESIGN; THE TWQ FORCES LISTED ARE FOR OPPOSITE CURVATURES, "EIENpINQ CAP." INDICATES THE CAPACITY OF THE SECTION FOR NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE MOMENT; " *" INDICATES THAT NO CAPACITY WAS CALCULATED. •'VERI1CAL. CAP." INDICATES THE CAPACITY OP 111F, SECTION FAR VERTICAL SHEAR; H." INDICATES moo' NO CAPACITY WAS CALCULATED. Fine Engineering Factored LC 2: Design Section Farces 35 ireawsil •-•.•••••••-34 14111711.1111L !7•7111 Factored LC 2 Mx Plan Padowd LC 21281.11ketitwOendlogMandni llot,(*/ ono imoothlwa,(1 Contour 6' 2 110,04140100; Situates:Wall* Woo SiolY,Coksorm Now Illair,Walls Above SW:gotten Abow Stab;Stab Edda, Soak I JO Minimum Voles • .2.47141 (942, 436% Maximum Yalta • 7.02 gips en A, 4i4) rmari Pousi Iwo( - 1111111111- INN B & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Vault-Woo,- Wednesday February 13, 2002 I I 1 .....•••••All T = .-- —1--- 4------ -....1 As Torn less,a+/"Is,:itsrs,s.s.a.- t:rtni4“1."•:$,I:usstst•assos aro su:.: ast:astuma...... as..41..,,, ,-,',.••■.............. ..... ' "'''' ' ...-........ ....., " • "crr. . '"'" " "*". "1.. ' ". """ "" ." • iIr 1g4 •a•g•s•* ■•■0 Tr o 4 4 4 d ,... ti. 13 • . i • t . . t i It z 2 U: : z • z ** 7, : • a..**=Z 7*r• .-2* t 1 a = : --------- - • : * * *1 la ,,r4q1.1.1:i.• 4 g Al T 4 4 t 4 ......1.—. ...... motot.•••• ••evor ... vs....s...rd=s• • •••• I . tars srs=••.• 4 4 1 1 Ti. II': 2:0 212•1",1121.3•al •■/1".. 1.2. n I, a 21471 11Pnownw[Ime I mail ,, (9 a t :e lorry...se awry e ■ - --1 ■ r - Ilrassaararrr I. werz.... . , I •r,..^:1-**43.• I. MM. • : • , " • Izz . 1 ., I- iltzt•rz 4 g Ai Tort 4 4 Wt.:stars*. ssz.:ast•t: ote“ :Is. tut•-.. :.:Uml•warroarmwee ***If *,z.,•,* - Ir••••••...** ...• Oarrazreumsaart,...•••• 1 1 "rt..," zz • • • .1•11,1XIS ti z • t. t• r I • • v tt .. • rte sprorsoraver 1.• gam* , 1- > $t - , 11.******.**1....*'" " ,,,,,,..1.4kor.rarr-jt .. • .....1.1.0 .=''''''''..i.lt • I. • t 4 4 4 4 it I t. 01•■• Z• 11 TV." ••.• :.-TSl -25s•ez•Iterl•••••11tr.r* 1•1•••••MMIDZIODIN rsrar1111 • r • • I- 'I. 10...•,-..---•---.-- ***I' --. , , ,- , 0.--,-...... - • --r--- is rs•• 4 4 A4 Toro g 4 1,.../1",•11-zott*Illt r el••••”11.1•,•tt ft•it• IA et 1 ra z .. 1 •.**.*****we t• I • • e .... ••••••••••=618 V•22•Z • , '•, V 1111. • lir T.. _ t 1-4 1,4 4 it. 4 ti, 4 • **ma 1.4,.....,......, 00.......onnorreAr 4 0.13.. rr,,......... 4 00 re■ virenr.e......01)n 11. ..,,rt . a ....ar...0 1. t • • • ....... • . t • P V • • • • • V • • II -01•••/**04** •-••••• • , .... • * • • •• •01 •e,rIner .,—* , • • *^••••••■ • ...-,,,,.r T. **--• Tor0 Fine Engineering Factored LC 2 Mx Plan 36 ami NMI MI 1 B & T design & En0ineering, Inc. - Vault•ill,floor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Factored LC 22 M Plan Vitiated LC 2iWmign Sestionttletiiiing Moment 14o4(wl cove smoothing(' Contour 2 tripe), (Y diredlanl, Stnudurt:WrlIe NM* SWr;Cdnnme Wow SWW,,Watls Above SIrb,Columns Above S1rf Sirb Mom, Bale 1JO Minim i 'Ms = .1:42 Kip ®p29, 4I 1 r, Maximum vdue =11 s kin 6 (2111, 4 u); 10 M Boiv3 2 Ii! F _t 124 II liMIIMA Fine Engineering Factored LC 2 My Plan 37 mgr Factored LC 2 Vx Plan restated LC Wee Seatient,Vatiad Sheet 1iu* (w/ sum ento.tsdrg(t Contour ia 2 k1pe/A)-,01 d &tealon); Stnraare.Weils Below SI.b,Celtwtne Iklow SIib,Wrlla Above SI.b,Columns Above SIe1r,Sirb Ud6er, Sclo110 Minimum Value •37,2 kips/A ® (109, 437), Minimum V.lue • 36 klps/A ® (300, 4161 woo 8 & T Doslgn & Fnglnooting, Ino. - Vault- I10oor- Wodnosday Febnaery 13, 2002 Fine Engineering Factored LC 2 Vx Plan 38 1 I t Factorecn feetettfl LC 21)ftlipf SteffoniNettleel Sheaf Plot(tv/ outvs elnootfil*,(1 Contour 2 lars/1);(y &teflon), ffibuettne.Welle Now Slib;Columne Below IllabAtells Above Illstr,Columne Above Slekfileb Edge; Sods 110 Wino= Vshis • 40.1 44 (a (93.4, 434); Malmo Value 20.6 kips/fl (1) (301, 437); N 3 1 142 wog woo mg ma am ion MINN B & T Design & Englnaeting, Inc. = Vault-11141am- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Fine Engineering Factored LC 2 Vy Plan 39 • III kbl . 111, , t-vomm-asiss pW-412,- .. lb 1 • "s. .... 101114.1.11•1■1.10122209 op - Iry Am*. .. - 0 TT , , 1 sot , 14 { , 1..esuireasmsa iprms 0 or-u—s .....a s• , x tts:e et: t r. t t t 6411.11,S, = t t , .: = . ...,.........." 01...tmmatmato,...* i n•O "r7e r , I •......,40. I t .. ips.r....F. .44. t ,3 i 5 ` ,f 1 . — - I 1 1 : ... 0 X .• '. '..r ."'1 1 . . lasm a6loctb 04 .s§.2 11 1 ''. ' JP 1 • •tt 4 t , A ...4% . . • 44p ' - • . , , ' . . . 0'14-'f4 , "NO 1 -414 , • , • • • t".1 Z) 4 „ ,.. ,..1 • 1 1 , i t " • 6 .....,.,..,..;........0,zill I • I I i . io 1 1 , . , W - • • • , • • ..,,,..1 , ,, / :s 1 4 { Ir ri 1 1 ll li . . illi' ' 0 . Vs,er Ertel,* fa 1g* :214 6114 4•441 O=. 1 1 4 a 1 0 ............... _ /4. 41*.I\.L. . :!,. 1 ,,r, P • 7 re 1 1 „14 1 ' " ' • I o i i I --- ' " ■ 4 -.4,14 1 1Pemone V 1 - 1 r—,—.4 ........-,..-.- II 0 es.,- i 1 "I, • yril trAill s,,,.,, , .--;---4;;:-.46.-0-,,--,,---------4 vi::,-,---- .......0 -_,___ ,,, ,_,..•-■%_. __________4!=:`1, Fine Engineering Factored LC 2 Vy Plan 39 • Factored LC 3: Design Section Summary 1 2 3 4 9 8 7 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 Ie 18 17 18 10 20 21 22 29 24 25 20 27 29 26 90 31 92 33 34 35 30 97 39 99 40 41 42 43 44 45 45 47 AsToP Comnotima Uho.1N.1 0 0,0202 0 0 0 0 0,0903 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.0027 0 0.0775 0 0 0 0 0,0323 0 0,0070 0,120 0,170 0 0 0.100 0 0 0 0 0,104 0 0,0173 0.173 0 0 0 0 0 0.184 0 0 0.155 0 ACI 10,2 ACI 10,2 ACI 10.2 ACI 10.2 ACI 10.2 ACI 10,2 ACI 10,2 ACI 10,2 ACI 10,2 ACI 10.2 ACI 10.2 ACI 10,2 ACI 10.2 ACI 10,2 AOI 10.2 AO Om (11q, IN,) 0,0218 0 0,133 0,2 0,201 0.130 0 0.0217 0,340 0,8 0.458 0,500 0.340 0 0 0.044 0 0,101 0.302 0.320 0.15 0 0,0516 0 0 0 0.0201 0.0000 0 0.23 0.450 0.450 0.172 0 0,041 0 0 1.22 2.50 2.01 2.54 1.21 0 5OQ71 f ACI 0.0448 ACI Q 0.221 ACI CON`mowu(i A0 SRN S11ia OFCd CONTROw n $tATh (80.IH.1 UNCNr,6i ACI 10,2 0 INF O INF ACI 10,2 0 INF ACI 10,2 0 INF ACI 10.2 0 INF ACI 10,2 0 INF O INF ACI 10,2 0 INF ACI 10.2 0 INF ACI 10.2 0 INF ACI 10,2 0 nor AC1 10,2 0 INF ACI 10.2 0 INF O INF O INF ACI 10.2 0 INF O INF ACI 10.2 0 INF ACI 10.2 0 INF ACI 10.2 O INF ACI 10.2 0 INF O INF ACI 10.2 A INF O INF A INF O 1141' AC1 10,2 0 111F ACI 10,2 0 114E O INF ACI 10.2 0 1141' ACI 10.2 0 INF ACI 10.2 0 INF ACI 10.2 0 INF A INF ACI 10.2 0 INF O INF O INF ACI 10.2 0 INF ACI 10.2 0 INF ACI 10.2 A INF API 10.2 0 INF AC1 10.2 0 INF O INF 10.2 0 INF 10.2 0 INF O INF 10.2 0 INF OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Olt OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK 0K OK OK OK MO NUM nal _ MINN ®d T Consign & Fnginoottng, Ina, - Vault lll,hoor- Wednosdny February 13, 2002 "STAIR'S" INDICAT 2 WHETHER FLOOR HAS FOUND A FEASII3I.E SOI U11QN TO SATISFY 'ME CRITERIA $ELECTED FOR THIS SECTION. Fine Engineering Factored LC 3: Design Section Summary 40 1 B & T Design & Engineering, Inc. • Vault- Ill.flnor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Factored LC 3: Desi Section Summa - Continued 2 0 A9 TOP (60. $Na 48 0 49 0 80 0 81 0,218 ACI 10,2 82 0 83 0.010 ACI 10,2 84 0,189 ACI 10,2 88 0.133 ACI 10,2 88 0 87 0 80 0.0473 ACI 10,2 89 0 00 0 01 0 82 0 03 0.0168 ACI 10.2 04 0 08 0,0329 ACI 10.2 00 0.101 ACI 10,2 07 0 00 0 09 0 70 0 71 0 72 0 73 0,0388 ACI 10,2 74 0 78 0 70 0 77 0 78 0.0410 ACI 10.2 70 0 Coumo JNO AS DOT CouniOWN0 A9 MIR 0fiP 0Pc i CONtROLUNO STA111§ (60, 01.) (f0, IN.) IINCN6SO 0.4133 ACI 10,2 O MP OK 0.418 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK 0.199 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK O 0 INF OK 0,0716 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK O 0 INF OK O 0 INF OK O 0 INF OK 0,0147 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK 0,0303 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK O 0 INF OK 0.103 ACI 10,2 0 IHF OK 0,308 ACI 10,2 0 stir OK 0,307 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK 0.132 ACI 10,2 0 stir OK O 0 INF OK 0,084 ACI 10,2 0 IHr OK O 0 INF OK O 0 INF OK 0.86® ACI 10.2 0 INF OK 0.080 ACI 10.2 0 INF OK 0.408 ACI 10,2 0 IHr OK 0,080 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK 0,361 ACI 10.2 0 INF OK 0,0312 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK O 0 INF OK 0.144 ACI 10.2 0 INN tilt 0.173 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK 0205 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK 0.109 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK O 0 INF OK 0 ,0912 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK "SUDAN INPICATF;;< WRSTHSR FI-OOR HAS FOUND A FF,ASIRI..S SALMON TO SATISFY IRS CRITERIA Sgt -gCI P FOR THIS SECTION. Fine Engineering Factored 1.0 3: Design Section Summary 41 ipLIMPPly Factored LC 3: Design_Section Criteria Jowl m ■M 11111111 _. MI__ NMI INC . SIMI B & T design & Engineering, Ina. - Vaull•III floor- Wednesday February 93, 2002 1 O31Ata4 Cntro IA T0P dui Oar Ws Sun Dm Tao Covttiorrdu O6, T, begot*. U. bptidau1 LG111 (n4cUE$i (nmCHtt) GNCi Si Wut:l (niCHSst 1 ACI 10.211.3 08 Nd *au 1,211 2.75 0 0 248 2 ACI 10.21I.. NO N1I N3$1 1.28 2.79 0 0 240 3 ACI 10.2;11.3 Nd N9 /3U 1.29 2.79 0 0 240 4 ACI t0.2 11,2 N11 NO Nau 1,28 2,79 0 0 240 8 ACI 10,2;11,2 NO NO Nau 1.29 Z78 0 0 240 6 ACI 10.21 t.3 NO 08 Nau 1.28 2.78 0 0 240 7 ACI 10.2 1 t.$ NO Nd 02U 1,25 278 0 0 240 O ACI 10,9;11.3 NO NO N211 1,28 2.78 0 0 240 O ACI 10.2 NO HO N3U 1,28 2,78 0 0 240 10 ACI 10.2 Nd NO 13U 1.28 278 0 0 240 11 ACI 10,2 NO 00 NaU 1,29 178 0 0 241) 12 ACI 10,2 Ne NO 113U 1,28 278 0 0 240 11 ACI 10,2 NO Ne 13U 1,28 239 0 0 240 14 : ACI 10.2; AO 01.ss 04 04 12U 129 1 0 0 24 19 ACI 10,2; Asat m N4 04 N3U 2:20 1 0 0 24 10 ACI10,2:M111ra 04 04 N2U 2,28 1 0 0 24 17 ACI IO:a:As$L4a 04 04 03U 120 1 0 0 24 10 ACI10:2;AOUW N4 N4 NFU 2,28 1 0 0 24 10 ACI10.tMOW N4 04 03U an 1 0 0 24 20 ACI I0.2; M CIA$ 14 04 N3 U 128 1 0 0 24 21 ACI10,8;Aa0W 04 04 N3U 2.20 1 0 0 24 22 ACI 10.2;MuIAu 14 0M N3U 2,20 1 0 0 24 23 ACI 10.'3; M WA 114 H4 03U 2.20 I 0 0 24 24 ACI t0,2AsOLAM N4 #4 03U 2,20 1 0 0 24 25 ACI10,2;NBW9 04 14 03U 2.28 1 0 0 24 20 ACI I0,ZAReL 2 04 04 #3U 229 1 0 0 24 27 ACI 10,2:A*OIAN 04 14 #9U 229 I 0 0 24 20 AC110,2:Al1eim 04 04 H3U 220 1 0 0 24 10 ACI 10,2; MIRAN 04 04 NSU 2.28 1 0 0 24 30 ACI I0.2; M 61.As 04 #4 09U 2,20 1 0 0 a4 91 ACI 10,2; MeiAa 04 #4 N9 U 2,20 1 0 0 24 32 ACI 10.8; As eLA6 14 N4 03U 2,20 1 0 0 24 93 ACI IO,ZMULAa #4 #4 19U 2.20 1 0 0 24 94 AC110,2:AOeLAe 04 04 #9U 128 1 0 0 24 98 ACI10,2;MBI,Aa #4 #4 #9U 2,25 1 0 0 24 98 ACI 10,2; As 51AB 04 #4 #3 U 220 I 0 0 24 97 ACI 10.2: M 2LAm 04 Ito #3 U 2.20 1 0 0 24 90 ACI 102 #a #0 09U 1,20 2,76 0 0 240 29 ACI 10.2 10 NO #9U I,25 2,75 0 0 240 40 ACI 10,2 #o #0 09 U I.20 2.70 0 0 240 41 ACI 10,2 08 10 09 U 1.20 2,70 0 0 240 42 ACI 102 #6 06 #3U 1,26 2,76 0 0 240 43 ACI 10.2:AB814140 04 04 #2U 2.20 1 0 0 24 44 AC$ 10.2; AS I36RA 04 #4 #3 U 2.26 1 0 0 24 45 ACI 10.2; As 0IAa #4 #4 #8 U 2.26 1 0 0 24 "TQP BAR" INPICATIQ THL TOP RIINPQRGW G PAR TYPR THAT FLOOR WI14. Usg IF NgCESSMY TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA SELECTED FOR THIS SgCT1QU. "Par UAR" MNPICATFA THE PQ ITOM RWIFORCIHP PAR TYPE THAT FLOOR W114. USS IP NECESSARY TO SATISFY TNg CRITERIA SEIJ:CTEU FOR THIS SECTION. "SHR MR" INp1OATg5 TIM SHIRR RIIIPQRCING PAR 11(P€ THAT F..QOR W114. USE IP NECESSARY TO SATISFY THg CRITERIA Gel- TOP FOR TIPS 41G77QN. "10.T. Dom" INQIGATF.S Pig PgPTH OP THg TOP OF rig SI►P THAT FLOOR IGNPRgS WHEN CALCULATING STRENGTH AHP STRESSES FOR THIS SECTION. "IG. U. CPTI1" INPICATISTHE PEM'MH of THE SOUGH OF 7Ng SLAP THAT FI-00g IGNORES WHEN CALCULATING STRENGTH AHP STRESSES FOR THIS SECTION. "SPAN (.ATH" INMATES THE SPAN LgNOTH ANO IS ONI•Y USRO TO CALCULATE 1JM11I140 STRESSES IN UNPONPED TENDONS (SECTION 113.7.2). TO CALCULATg MINIMUM REWPQRCILENT (5gcTIQN 18.0.3.3) ANQ TO ESRMATE RgPAR QUA/MI-WS. Fine Engineering Factored I.0 3: Design Section Criteria 42 1 1 .... . ,. . y_. rftf,1 "=1 .. ± f t °w! 1 + 1 asap NM NMI .... MS __. 11111V. . B & r Design & Engineering, Ina, = Vault- Iil.Boor- Wednesday Fobniaiy 13, 2002 Factored I,C 3: Design Section Criteria - Continued (2� N DESIGH CflfTENIA TOP DAN I9ef 13AN ONN EiAN TOP COVi00170M tit). T, 0Pitilo. it bptH5PAH Lt l4 (NCHLO WICKS, (M(KHES1 UHCHE§) (NCH €§1 46 AC110.2M8tAa 04 114 02U 225 1 0 0 24 47 AC$ 10,L As OtM 14 *4 NJ U 2.20 1 0 0 24 4$ ACI 10,2 M Sum 04 *4 eau 2:211 1 0 0 24 40 AC1 10.2 M $iM N4 14 N2 U 220 1 0 0 24 50 ACI10,ZAM8iAn 14 14 02U 120 1 0 0 24 51 ACI10,2M$LAN 14 04 N2U 125 1 0 0 24 62 AC1 10.2MOW 14 NA $2U 2.20 1 0 0 24 52 ACI 10.2M$LM 04 14 eau 220 1 0 0 24 54 AC1 10,2M&As 04 14 eau 290 1 0 0 24 55 ACI10,2M$LM 14 04 N3U 120 1 0 0 24 56 ACI10,2MOIM 04 04 N;)U 225 1 0 0 24 57 AC1 10.2 M OLM 14 14 12 U 125 1 0 0 24 SO AC110,2M$tM $4 04 N2U 226 1 0 0 24 50 AC1 10:2 M OtAD 24 14 12U a2 0 1 0 0 24 60 AC110;21M$LM 14 04 12U 1:15 I 0 0 24 61 AC110.2MOtM 14 04 N2U 125 1 0 0 24 62 ACI10,>2A$OtM 14 14 N2U 1.25 1 0 0 24 63 AC110,aMOLAD 1M $4 $9U 1.10 1 0 0 24 64 ACI 10.2 M $iM 04 14 02U 2:25 1 0 0 24 65 AC1 10:2 M QM 04 114 $2 0 2:20 1 0 0 24 06 ACI I0,2; M OtM 04 04 N2 U 2:20 1 0 0 24 07 AC1 10,2 NO NO 09U 1.25 2,70 0 0 240 CO ACI 10,2 NO 10 09U 1.20 9,70 0 0 240 60 AC1 10,2 110 NO 09U 1,20 230 0 0 240 70 ACI 10,2 NO 011i N3U 1,20 2,70 0 0 240 71 ACI 10.2 00 NO N2 U 1,22 2,70 0 0 240 72 ACI 10,1;11.9 NO 09 NIU 1,20 270 0 0 240 72 . ACI 10,2;11,9 NO NO 12U 1,20 2,70 0 0 240 74 ACI 10,2;11.3 NO NO 1911 1,10 235 0 0 240 75 ACI 10.$114 00 NO 02U 1,20 230 0 0 240 70 ACI 10.3:11.9 00 00 N9U 1,20 2.70 0 0 240 77 ACI 10.1,11.9 NO 12 23U 1,25 27H 0 0 240 70 AC1 10,21I.9 09 NII 09U 1,20 2,713 0 0 240 79 ACI 10.2;11.3 NO NO $2U 1,20 216 0 0 240 01.0P PAR" MANDATED THE TAP REINFORCING DAR 1YPE THAT FLOon WIL1, URE IF NECESSART TQ SATISFY THE CRITERIA SEI- 1€FTEP FOR THIS SEr„T1QH. • TT EMAR" MIDICATF4 60TTQN RIUNFQRCMIR BAR TYPE THAT F(.QQR WU.1. WE IF NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE CRRERIA RE1 -€CTEO FOR TNIS 5EC71OH. "8HR OAR'' INDICATES THE &MAAR REINFORCING PAR TYPE THAT FI.QQR W44, USE IF NECEGSARY TO SATISFY 711E CRITERIA SELECTED FOR THIS SECTION, "10. T. PPTH" INDICATES THE REPTH OF THE TOP OF THE 51-AB THAT FLQQn IGNORES WHEN GALOUMTING ETREHDTH AND STRE$SE$ FAR THIS SECTION. No. 0, APTH" INDICATE$ THE DEPTH OF THE POTTOM OF THE SLAP THAT FtAQR W NQRkS WHEN GAt- CU4.ATM19 FTREH4TU AND 4TRESSE5 FOR THIS SECTIQH "SPAN (, M" Wp1GATE$ THE $PAN LERDTH AND 14 ONlY USED TO GA3. UMTE LIME U14 &T8ESSES IH UHRONDEQ TENPOHS (5$CTIQN 1 8.7.2). TO CAL[;UtATE MW MUM RTNNFQRGMijtfr( CTION 1 H.Q•9 8) ANDTQ ESTIMATE REpAR QUANTffE$. Fine Engineering Factored 1.0 3: Design Section Criteria 43 P.114 Pam, Pm! Fl"161 F Pam"! WWI "OM 11110110 Factored ,C 3: Design Section Forces moo an =I MINI MI B & T Design & Englneeling, Inc. - Vault•Illf1oor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 # AXIAL LA'1@NAt, VERTICAL TORSION t3ENOINtl MZ PT FORCE OENt31NI3 CAP VERTICAL CAP ROPE) (KOP81 (KIP') (Wiart) 000r0 (ICWP,') (KIP/0 (1OP-rt) (KIP81 1 4,02 •12.1 8630 007 1.04 •1.63 (0,0) 40.3 t 8,1.0131 28,3 2 2,87 0.88 3.18 108 .1.01 4.08 (0,01 (• 1.61,0,23) 21.0 3 11.3 .12.9 8.14 18,0 0.42 48.81 (0,0) 41.92,8.431 28.3 4 13 8.1 a 0,39 11,0 0,6 8.13 (0,01 (.2,08,9,821 20,3 8 12.0 41,01 0,31 •11,4 0,88 43,02 (0,0) (•2.88,9,67) 28,3 8 11,6 13 8.13 •18,8 8.80 7.80 (0,01 (.1,90,8.80) 20.3 7 4.00 49.28 1.10 .12.7 •237 1,13 (0,01 (•2,77,0,307) 21.0 1 4,80 12.1 0,62 0.04 1.08 1,84 (0,01 40,317,1.081 28.3 O 11.7 4,0 021 •3.I0 18,4 0828 (0,01 (.4,07.18,61 10 21.7 0,07 •10,2 .14 20.3 0,88 (0,01 (.7,99,28.13) • 11 18,8 4.310 •30.0 41832 21,7 0,077 (0,0) 48.22,21.131 • 12 22 48,00 •10,2 13,4 20.2 .3,02 (0,0) (.7.07,28:4) 19 11.7 •1,08 41,24 9,11 10,4 0444 (0,0) 44,66,18,01 14 4,400 •3.88 1.08 .0,0810 4,003 0,881 (0.0) (0912,1.04) I 0 •0.71 1.34 •1.8I 0.00610 4,002132 0,109 (0,0) (00102,0,00 10 .0.407 3.01 0,207 0,130 0,041 0.7 (0,01 (0,2413.0,042) 17 0.970 •3,02 4,11 0,710 4.81 0,078 (0,01 (0,613,00041 10 4143 2,00 .3.013 0,033 220 0.90 (0.0) (.1.02.2,31) ID 0.877 0,01 2.32 0,100 3.130 1.20 (0,0) 41,87,3,61) 20 4,024 •0,21 •2,40 0,237 3.06 1.22 (0,0) (.1.00,3,9) 21 .0,710 0.773 3,32 •1.00 1,01 0.231 (0,01 (0:0 13,1:021 22 0,471 4.41 •2,78 •1,27 43.216 0.137 (0,0) (9,217,0,904) 23 0611 •4.18 0.737 0,738 0,038 0,777 (0,0) (4,2813,0,030) 24 41720 1,21 1.21 •1,02 0,0624 0.217 (0,0) (9.052500(371 20 40,464 4.01 •1.92 •1.5 4,020 0,720 (0,0) (4, ©97,1.411 26 40,500 •1.19 Lea • l ,oa .1.14 0.107 (0,0) (.1 . 0,1.071 27 4060 0,046 0,1 13 0,204 0.246 0.0223 (0,0) (9,1 13,0,24Q1 20 4,400 1.30 0.027 0.00 0,017 010 (0,01 19.97,0,019) 20 .0.521 •1,09 0,04 0.737 •1.00 0,330 (0,0) (.1,00,1,09) 30 .0,7 0.441 4.48 4.102 2.74 4,0902 (0,0) (41.22,2.77) 31 •0.207 O.ee 1 2.89 0,41 0.23 0.100 (0,0) 42,20,13,331 32 4.251 0.001 •2,90 •0.417 0,23 0.100 (0.0) (2,26,6.33) 93 4.702 0.109 4,40 4,007 2,07 0.130 (0,0) (0020,2.00) 34 0.071 1,27 •4,54 0070 •1.00 0.40 (0,01 •1.07,1,61) • 35 0,426 •1,92 • 0,430 0,0070 0,503 0.303 (0,0) (A.220,0.004 • 30 0049 0,335 1.40 •1,0 .01 10 O,09 (Q,0) (0,1 17,0,105) _ 37 4,3133 1.4 •1,0 •1,135 •1,11 0,203 (0,0) 41,12,1,0) 98 99.3 .0,00112 0620 43,0594 03.2 •7,07 (0,0) (0,54,7) - 30 02.0 0.0291 9,097 0,13 1 1 .1,9 (0,0) (0,114) 40 09.7 0.011 0,108 .0,0235 1 13 '0.293 (0,0) (0.1 16) 41 05.0 4.00501 •0,517 0,104 1 10 1.03 (0,0) (0,113) • 42 34,7 0.0212 0.0002 •0.0039 52.0 13.02 (0,0) (0.54.1) • 43 .91053 1,3 2.3 0.233 •1,17 00.232 (0,0) (• 1,19,2.02) 44 •Q,1344 •0,61 =1,14 0.995 0.0807 9.1 1 a (0,0) (O.o4O6,o.oesl - 45 -0.471 =1.49 0.214 .0,0230 0.546 0.320 (0,0) (-O.241,O.549) "PT FORGE" INDICATES THE PQSTTENSIONING FORGES THAT FLOOR WSW FOR SENDING DESIGN: THE TWO FARCES LISTED ARE FOR OPPOSITE CURVATURES. "DENPINO CAP." IRRIGATES MC CAPACITY OF THE SECTION FOR NEGATIVE AND POSITVE MOMENT; INPICATESTHAT NO CAPACITY WAS CALCULATED. "VERTICAI, CAA." INDICATES THE CAPAGnYOFTHE SECTION FOR VERTICAL. SHEAR :' INDICATES TT1AT No CAPACITY WAS CALCULATED. Fine Engineering Factored LC 3: Design Section Forces 44 mom, 101.1 9 & T nasltn & Engineering, Inc, - Vault-111.floor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 1 Factored LC 3: Design Section Forces - Continned X21 N AXIAL LATERAL VERTICAL TORSION RENOIR() M2 P'1' FORCE BENDING CAP ' VErn1GAL CAP (KIPS) (KIP6) (Kips) Warr) (qPrH (IOpp,) (Kips) batiKO (Kips) 46 4.03 1.40 4,38 4,756 4.090 .0,468 (0.0) (1,01.1.71) • 47 4.83 4,038 4,08 •0.0230 2.63 0.0017 (0,0) 01.17.2,8E0 • 48 •0,317 .1,23 2.00 4,367 0.01 4,244 (0.0) 02,38,8,421 • 49 4235 0,702 4.00 0.336 4,70 4,100 (0,0) 42,09,4.(14) • 60 •1.14 0,317 0.22 0,0420 2,30 0.224 (0,0) (4.08,2,4) • 01 0.880 .1.14 4.20 0.0071 .1.34 41386 (0,0) (4.37.2.33) • Da 41634 1.00 .1,2 1.34 0.874 4,20 (0,0) (0,308,0.077) • 03 4,800 4.421 1,34 •1.30 4.12 043202 (0,0) (0,121,0,202) • 04 4.089 .1.3 •1.40 •1.37 .1.00 410 (0,0) 01,1,1.671 • 55 0,440 3,04 1.08 4.668 4.ti80 0.717 (0.0) (O.0O0,1,47) • 50 0.770 .1.40 4,170 0.327 0,101 4106 (0,0) (0,0024,0,101: • 07 0.400 4,04 04402 0.0014 0.47 4.787 (0,0) 40,214,0,471) • 00 4.404 4.1 3.42 4,048 4314 0,740 40) (0,310,0020) • 50 4.870 4.14 4.70 0.004 2,31 4.282 (0,0) (4 ,03,2,33) • 00 4.030 4.09 2.30 4104 3,0 .1.31 (0,0) 01.00,3.081 01 0,018 0.00 4,01 8,200 4.17 .1,21 (0,0) 01,89,4,23) • 82 .0,075 4.040 2,20 0,242 1,0 04640 (0,0) (0,72,1,01) • 03 4.03 403 •2.90 0.0716 0124 •0,070 (0,0) (0.124,0,200) • 64 4,540 4.1 .0,870 1.30 0.002 •0,00 (0,0) (4.301,0.004) • 00 4,040 .1.10 4074 0.180 43,22 4.188 (0,0) (4221,0,37) • 00 4407 .4,20 4/203 400 43,00 4.07 (0,0) (0,800,1,12) • 07 12.4 408 8,02 3,13 10,2 4.030 (0,0) (4,0 I ,19,3) • 06 22,0 400 10 14 31 0.30 (0,0) 00,00,31,2) • 00 17 0.201 37,3 0,403 23,0 1.08 (0,0) (4.74,23,7) • '70 23.1 7,3 18 013,3 80,0 4,09 (0.0) (0,00,31.1) • 71 12,0 4.80 8,03 4,10 17.0 0.734 (0,0) 04,04.19) • 72 4.03 13 0.28 •7 1.90 9.08 (0.0) (0,460, I,i11) 41 73 2.04 •11.2 .4.03 •t2,4 4,463 0,781 (0,0) •1.90,0,269 27.4 74 1211 13.2 5.9 •17.3 0,08 13.0 (0.0) 42,06,0.98) 41 70 8.28 •0.80 483 0,u l 9.92 4.2 (0.0) (2.40,0,3h) 41 70 13,4 1184 0.40 10.7 0.10 11.9 (0.0) 42,94.9,67) 41 77 0.09 4.30 45,27 213,1 4.00 479 (0,0) (.1.5,4.97) 41 70 3.82 10.4 1.12 14.0 4,20 4,0048 (0,0) 42,29,3,926) 27,4 70 0,889 .7.81 0.04 •4,10 0.0100 1,00 (0,0) K7,460.1,511 41 1 "17r FORCE" INPICATESmS PQSTTENSIQNING FORCES THAT Ft-AS R USED FOR BENDING RE-SIGN; THE TWO FORCES U$T P ARE FOR oPPQSnr CURVATURES. "BENDING CAP." INDICATES THE CAPACITY Or THE %EGl -QN FOR NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE MOMENT: "•" INDmATES Tt1AT HO CAPACITY WAS CALCULATED. "VERTICAL, OAP." INDICATES ME CAPACITY OF m€ SECTION FQR VERTICAL, SHEAR; "•" INDICATES THAT NQ CAPACITY WAS CALCULATED, Fine Engineering Factored LC 3: Design Section Forces 45 • T:_1 r pum.sit hw" plasm, loam soft! Wel NNW • B & T Design & EnqInoirfng lno - Vau11-111,floor -Wednesday February 13, 2002 Factored LC 3 Mx Plan Putorld LC i;DisIgn SectlankilendingMammt tilet;(*/ cum imoothIni),(1 COMOUt " 2 laps1,(* dirolon)-, Sfiticture:Wilis Below SlakColuntris Below 01.1r,Welbi Above Sle,Columne Mors Sibtr,Slab Sign; Stil4 120 Minimum Vitus as .192 Kip (943, 4S2V, Maimum Volta 19.4 'Up (95.4, 404) :01.11117.171• SSSSSS 000"—'11" I 1.11. tIt tett .C.1 SIIIMO11111312 11•1111 tiltita,111.11.11411.....1{1.111. 42 it-11 00 anws 4,t o• two • :40eNsmaavie tss4/ • " - • wasa..uss /qr. 8 0' * 1 . • . : — • = a1.g1 4• 1 1Tkt t ..—... 0.. . 0... .....10 .3at 0; g. 4.m . Tops 1 . i" =co S S : . • it.:11s , , .r 4 II iTs 4 r -41 z “ Mblg- 4-I.ii. _—ooms/' t 0 9 Aq, pew* ,rtr,,treottIlimessail "MO Irrara'sxml tvis.■ • I IT1-* 4 ti try•z .1110.100MMIN 1.4 ,•:• • •• 09to 0 's g j„461„,„„„,.,„.,„,.„,.,„,„ ,, , ,, ,.,„„„,—,.,„„ , . 4.".0—........0.......t. N..000 ft -....---------....,„......igit ,,,•••„.,,,,,,,,•. 1.-- murii,,.. .0 —ILAs Tor02_ 1, • I . . • I 4 7, ? 4-- 14 , ,, Tr-V OU re•••••■•••-..., try. • • 1 Fine Engineering Factored LC 3 Mx Plan 46 Factored LC 3 My P 1 an Nested LC 11keiis tletiiontnetid tg MameM Pk4 wI ems emdrnhlttgt(1 Centaur " 2 Kiretty direction); S1nkuttWslb Below Sleke.oluevo Below Sleb Widis Above slsb,Colunrw A6 .3W Slt4 tW4ye; Saba 1.10 Malmo Valve * 474 Kips (a (129.411), Maximum Value 96.1 Kits (4 (212, 412); r 011 BORG 341 1 °.�M•MM� . ! 04� B & T Design & EnglnootIng, Inc, - Vault-110w- Wodnesday February 13, 2002 Tit 011 Ike-0 311 L! i ON F1 41 M804'241 II Co .Ri 1— Dot -2 56 t '�': ". _ALL• C, 1 C c. 1;t> 249 m» Dor I in Fine Engineering Factored LC 3 My Plan 47 1 Factored LC 3 Vx Plan Factored LC 33kalpn Sectiana;Vertkal Shea PIot;(w/ cum amoathing),(l Contour a 2 kip3rfl),(x direction), 81M t1 :Walla Below Slab,Columns Below SIab,Wella Above Siab,Colunuls Above Slab,Slab t1dga; Seale I JO Minimum Value .33 kipNft (91.4, 4161 Maximum Value + 391 kiparA a (OL, 407), hE ! fmbeimi 1 INN 1.11111 NMI SW B & T Design & Engineering, Inc. = Vault=UGIloor= Wednesday February 13, 2002 a 11Sibisall nitth ( 041 PI trn • t. �s.� fie"". s i I� It di if 1 �. A100U0 Fine Engineering Factored LC 3 Vx Plan 48 'actored L 3 `V Plan PsNared LC Maly 9ertiot r,Vetilal new P$ot,(w/ erww wnO thinsk I Contour kw 2 klps/A),(y diteotian% A fWdb Below Slg, columns !Mow AIob,Wills Above �b Alob,Colomee Above 91 l,b Mot Sok Mlnllwi Vsl06 .44.9 hips 01.4, 3M MAXIMUM Wks ■ 212 WA ® (301, 417y,, N3 s MIOt . — EMI INN !EM : MP_ , NMI 8 & T Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault44I1.1loor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 0413 s.Y-_..x i �a;.'1rwHlraeNe �a. g elm/ • s 140 WW e ,, sc n44'N 49 i Fine Engineering Factored LC 3 Vy Plan 49 U s M- MINI H & T design & Engineering, Inc. • Vaulhlll.floor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Slab Factored LC 3 Torsion Plan Pietoted LC Ines* 9W161%1bnlan MMali* /eww waoelhtagt,(1 Coeleur++0.! KI ),(snin gait ditecliont semtmr&Watb tldew 5tab;Cdumaa tletow 516b;Walla Abew slekeol eurw Abe*. 5tab;5lab IWgei; Salo 130 Miaimam Who ig 0.0361 Kips (131, del); Minimum Vatw 46.4 Kips 0 (333, 416}, '4.s .3. 4 :.3.Y 4 4 A A ; 2.:.5 f 2S ] r? 2. t../.00» ) i 7 » x► Fine Engineering Slab Factored 1.0 3 Torsion Plan 50 - --... .,• =7A...1 "° tom. . ".. ' • 8 & T Design & Enrinneting, Inc, - Vnulf- 111,11oor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Top Reinforcing Summa Plan Rainkteing Sommtwyktinidteing Section ttup ow; tOl StruotuttWills Now A Wr,Colunw &law Alelr,WrlIs Above II leb;Col+rnna Above 5k r inalsb My r, Soak �1.•�. NillSs• • •.• t..N iNNNs.aN, ^ " i.... :.r.sa.it� sa,•1 :.: [:. s:.... ... : :: ,. .::.:: :l:l _ia ar, ~za St � .4L. — [�, ,tt,ts Nil at1N,N a...8 $ 4,,N:i«•�s.ass,■os. t. ti:.as.: a s memos= INS •.a► ::. :- �•.�,t..m• .. - •"••�.�ssS )us vsr•ap Is••■Jtassao -1 •u's:Tasscomair! • =za:; 1:4 s- r. rH - y eurx•Nrsa•[ ucraattN.rt es• . tx,ureta :a[tu401:0 a: e:Ne• c, e:.:::::e:.... .•-- •--.1a msr::: (way. :i[ e,• ,000:s:, :1s,,rts 00.020. 011:::.:, s•.rietaimmo. :s::t:. : y a -e♦. • :. .. ..' —.. t .. : I* :::' : :.: �.• •.• ..• .. • •... .• .s . : a:4 s- «a»-. -, e.: :: ' ♦ZSUCSSS6iq _ • `�'''s'� j :. — •-.. TM fl.. •nrtlfi M W r• * •,, _ _ , , , , ,.,,...0 ._ „e , [,,,,•x.>t,.f.trt•tttttaft• Nt N.t ttt,.' t. te,.:.[ t en: r,•.-«.rmosom........ :e.e ref rxit,=• .,. ..u,. •n,f•u,arr.ataeun,NUr•N ^fee;n •..re ...un:.....NIMMINriumermarr•ee u:.fe,n.021•15.01-MS•••••m•• _....33.11000- : . .- �.=o - -e > ••.- ..._ -... __. _.,ems —» ._.__'.- _.. _._.__ ...- •'..,emereea.am•x•• •asez0110 -. , p •, Ift711 '0*ttt•,s.t1t„',••1.!tt, >,e, 4ee•1 f 1• »YRt•t ". tl,es... �.s..•...•, ••.•fS,C+ssele fl .. •.. PO w+ 1••rf,It!:tf>.,,tR`,Ilt•!ft•eei ! t!1,i • tte let.t.tn •,f •. s,e l',[.Y �•,e, t.•••!e••• ...�....�. ........ m•• • sr_z=• as•• .. ... .. •..•02rtaites, --. • .. >. •••r......�s -J -aC. t f..•• ••,••r ••. •. ,.••• M N Y. .. -. l,Nroormerrtbs� if • ,w..: ; r. .,.uw „!t...,..., ,•.•., t,,,.., ...................t•!t. +•R...+*:.•e, • • �+t -=,'.. in, f• .--- t- '- '-- -+—s.. .... ...__. ...+ -•-e --.. .. _..�...._, t 1-* —'� r� Fine Engineering Top Reinforcing Summary Plan 51 • ••,,,,,,*4riliv..0,..4wrAAfrmoli,. • , „ r tekeeke Sl o omis Sala WN erfl l peal , I WIN MIN X .•••42 M X . ." l 2.■412 •• I BottomReinforcing SummaryP 1 an SobtaierXtinktebe SeetIontllot Haw, 1141fibuetwelettlels Below SkI4Cohenns Below SWANS* Above Slatteolumne Above SleltSleb1141" Seek 1d0 Nla Ail a. 44 ill ila.ailit taINIaalOS ISAlv:a111.4.01.7t Ilinettitsttzseir.“.1“11.11tratt::.:s tet:1,0•ElsoMMU re alt,” Dili Ili V N43 .11.3 1 41 041 11 NI a & r Dosign & Englneoring, Inc, - VnultllI,floor- Wodnesday February 13, 2002 .02sanamasaa .1187alotteStitt• 1.2..16 g zONS $10.40311",1177.t ill 7W:21SM 11.• 1111.1t12110" 1011.14.•..ttlreatiti gpoloommeas J wiry 2 a 412 0 a:II ..._.4.... a x.... 4 . •, 0...4_ u ......., „ 63 ii V II •••• lif voi loomame.41 .... 0 ... O 1111•IMMIM 0 ••••= e MS l•MC.C.• th it i 116 .1."- ll3 0 a * e"L ,2117,2211., ,20:2S TS "la 2S,: 21112 ttttt !Vat/ '• V 11-. X *to". tttttt •181t. I tr*,/,,,,,t.",./.11■1010•MIMIll .101-111. trt imommanse tam* • 1 „ , firs* g 21 tt :t ■•• tti,:tti flat � gh 069 106 00 11.3 071 00 . 1 e . 4 : : 0 . 2 2 a a a m a r l 1.11.22.2: :4,42 a 1. 1., • V.422,..224,1,3 7,2 .2 22. it V x : • •.: a2M.:222.22:•:2; tit0 011 Imairmaas ss : ra aanaess r • $11/ tt t. ”Itttt,t 4 att. 71.7tt• L•tttt.t..1) saS2722211112011211.2 441 1 —6 ,,,4,......... —Ir... ,t1-assr f 4 a -r-,my ill a a a ;I 6,—,...,.,,,„.",".”,,,t11.1,.■,•"#•."8,4,2-,,I WissemeamU 11.1i ...0 • •■• t I se 7• • • • ipstarraaap• U AI Is11, s , •.1 .... ,. illesIrmerrsr 1 sr -str. • •■• • •• •• • • • *--1,-..wzr t "Irv-II • • • • • , • t s .... - ., • • • • , - , 7 RI al 039 001 4 Ni Dv6 NV .11,"”tiltiltt."111ti••••..”, ttttt •t••••/•11•1t,t,•,,t111•1018 iir.11.1MMel if a ••••,•11•"}•,•.Merrt•INTW alotPer•••••• • 't • tettraINC•1111011, 0 4tell rev • I 1 • ft • • t• . • it) +.11 " " 41-monernrve 1Z u r1 v, ”.111.. • kis . tttt • • •• . #„. .. . (—V! NW 1 ' Fine Engineering Bottom Reinforcing Summary Plan 52 Reinforcing Snmmary O TOP 8AR4CONTTfOWNO Sot 8ARCOU1ntoWN3 1 1 00 2 1 00 3 NoN: 4 NON: b NON: O NON: 7 1 00 O 1 00 O NON: 10 NOW 11 NON: 12 NON: 19 NON: 14 1 04 I!! 104 10 NON: 17 1 04 18 NON: 10 NON: 20 NON: 21 NON: 22 1 04 23 NON: 24 1 04 20 104 20 1 04 27 NON: 20 NONE 20 1 04 30 NON 31 NON: 32 NONE 99 NQNR 34 1 04 90 1 04 36 1 04 97 1 04 30 NONE 39 NONE 40 NONE 41 NONE 42 NONE 43 1 #4 44 NONE 46 NONE 40 104 47 NANI; FACTONEO LC 1 N 1 •ACI 11 1 FACTonto Lc 3 N,ACI 111 1 1 1 1 FACTonro LC 3 07•ACI It 1 FACTONtD LC 1 MACE 111 1 2 2 2 PACTORtD LC 9 N 14ACI FAOTORID LC 3 0 1 UACI FAOTORIO LC 9 01744C1 PAOTOR:D LC 3 #22•ACI PAOTORFD LC 9 #244CI PACTORID LC 3 #26ACI FAOTORID LC 9 #204CI FACTORED LC 3 020.ACI rM origo 1.0 9 #3444I FACTORED LC 1 #9 -ACI FACTongo LC 3 080-ACI FACTORED LC 3 #97•ACI FAI»ronED LC 3 #43•ACI FACTORED LO 3 04e•AC1 Sttem 00 FACTOAto LC 3 N 1 •ACI 11 NONE NO FACTOR :o LC 1 024CI 1t Nott( 00 FAC10NK0 LC 3 #3•ACI 11 NON( 08 FAorOR(o LC 3 #4ACI fluorin 00 FACTORto LC 3 0 ACI 11 NON: 00 PACTOp :D LC 3 NO•ACI 11 NON( 00 PACTOND LC 1 07•ACI 11 NON( 00 PACTon(D LC 3 00,ACI 11 NON( N0 FACTORED L C 1 #fi•ACI I t NON #0 FACTORED LC 1 01OACI NON( N0 PACToQ(o LC 1 01 1•ACI NON( 00 FACTORED LC 1 0 12•ACI NON( #0 PACTORffo LC 1 013.A1 I NON( 04 FACTORED LC 1 014441 NON( #4 PACTOND LC 1 N 1 8AC1 NON 04 PACrofID LC 2 018ACI HON( #4 PAaroR(n LC 2 0 17•ACI Non( #4 PACTon D LC 3 018,ACI NON( 2 #4 FACTORED LC 3 N10•ACI NON( 2 04 PACTon o LC 9 O24ACI HONE 1 04 PAcrongo LC 9 Na 1 •ACI NONE 1 04 PACTORID LC 1 02241CI NONE: 1 #4 PACTONAO LC 2 029•ACI NON( 1 04 PAC1'ORtD LC 1 024AC1 NONE 1 04 PACTORIwo LC 1 025 -ACI t10N 1 04 FACTORED LC 1 02 0•ACI NONE 1 04 PACTOR(D LC 1 #2741C1 NONE 1 04 FACrORIn LC 2 #ZBACI NONE 1 #4 PAcTORED LC 1 020 ACI NON( 2 04 FACTORED LC 9 030-ACI NONE 3 04 PACTORSD LC 9 #31•ACI Hong 3 04 FAaroHgo LC 9 #92•ACI NONE 1 04 FACTARIu LC 3 #39•AC1 NONE; 1 04 FACTORED LC 1 #34•ACI NONE 1 04 FACTORED LC 2 #30ACI NONE 1 04 FACTORED LC 1 096•ACI NAND 1 04 FACTORED LC 1 #37•ACI NANI; 3 ON FAcTon o LC 1 #93A01 NON: 0 #Q FACTORED LG 1 039ACI NONE 0 #Q FACTORED LC 1 #40 ACI Norm 0 08 FACTORED LC 1 #41 •ACI NONE 9 #6 FACTORED LC 1 #42•AC1 NONE 1 #4 FACTORED IX 1 #49 -AC1 Norm 1 04 FACTORED LC 1 #44•AC1 NONE 1 04 FACTORED LC 2 #4b -ACI NONE 1 #4 FACTORED LC 1 #46•ACI NONE 2 04 FACTORED LC 3 #47•ACI NONE "STATUS" INDICATES WHETHER FLOOR HAS PEEN APLE TO FIND A FEASIPLE SQLUt1ON FOR THIS SECTION. more 81:11112 rig moil Min ... MN_._. -- B & T Design & Engineering, Ina, . Vaull =IILlfoor- Wadneaday February 13, 2002 CE3Nmotitft6 8fAtu9 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Fine Engineering Rainfarcing SummAry 53 fowl Mole Reinforcing Summary - Continued (2) # TOP BAROCONTROW Ho GOT. BARCONTUOWJNG SHEAR BAgg 48 NON! 314 FACTORED LC 9 #48&ACI NONE 40 NONE 9 04 PACrofED LC 3 #49.ACI NONE 80 NONE 1 04 FACTORED LC 3 080ACI Noma 51 2 04 PAcronto LC 3 051.ACI 1 14 PAC'ronaD LC 1 081.ACI 1101 411 82 NONE 1 14 FACTORED LC 2 #82.ACI NONE 83 1 04 PACroRgD LC 3 053•ACI 1 04 PAcromao LC 1 #83ACI Non! 84 1 14 FACO+oREO LC 3 0844C1 1 04 FACronii LC 1 084ACI HONK 88 1 04 FACTORED LC 3 006ACI 1 #4 PACTORgo LC 1 #50AC1 Nena 56 NONE 1 04 FAOronED LC 1 #80,ACI NoNg 87 Neu 1 #4 FAcroflao LC 2 #137MACI NOtIK 88 1 04 FACTORED LC 3 08GACI 1 14 FACTORED LC t 050ACI HONK 80 NONE 1 #4 FACTORED LC 3 N69aACI t4ot1E 00 NONE 2 #4 FACTORED LC 3 #OOACI NONE 01 NONE 2 04 FACTORED LC 3 #61 WI HONK 02 NONE 1 #4 FACTOREDLC3 #02.ACI NONE OS 1 04 FACTORED LC 3 NO3ACI 1 04 FACTORED LC 1 003•ACI Nona 64 NONE 1 04 PAcroMEo LC 2 #04`ACI NoNg 08 1 #4 FACTORED LC 3 N66ACI 1 #4 FACTORED LC 1 #OLACI Hong 00 1 04 FACTORED LC 3 0OO4CI 1 04 FACTORED LC 1 NO6ACI NON 07 NONE 1 N8 FAcroRKo LC 1 #07.AC1 NONE 00 NONE 2 08 FACTORED LC 1 #08ACI NONE 09 NoNg 2 N8 FACTORED LC 1 000ACI NoNg 70 HONE 2 00 FAcTo gD 1.0 I #70-ACI Norm 71 NONE 1 08 FACTORED LC 1 071•ACI NONE 72 1 00 FACroNEO LC 1 072•ACt 1 Na FACTORED L.0 2 #72.ACI NONE 79 I 00 FACTORED LC 9 N7&ACI 1 #8 FACTORED LC 1 N79`ACI NONE 74 NONE 1 NO FACTORED LC 3 #74`ACI NONE 70 NONE 1 N8 FAcrongu LC 9 #7U-ACI NONE 70 NONE 1 NO FACTORED LC 9 076ACI NONE 77 NONE 1 #8 FACTORED LC 2 #77•ACI NONE 78 1 #8 Moron= LC 3 #7I3ACI 1 #8 FACroREO LC 1 N70.ACI NONE 79 1 08 PACronEO LC 1 #76ACI 1 #O FACTORED LC 9 #7D'ACI NONE "STATUS" INDICATES WHRTHRR FLOOR HAS PEEN ARL.E TO FINO A FEASIUL.R SOLUTION FOR THIS egGT1ON. MIN IMINN B & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Vault-111 Am- Wednesday February 13, 2002 CON7gouiuo StA11J OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Fine Engineering Reinfarring Summary 64 ig ,r;"•*,..t‘•totfIlt*,4 • • Pia" timeNI ta" Pall" fa", Pi", Pi"! UMW OM NM Mai MIMI INN n & r Daalun & Engineering, Inc. Vaullditfloor. Wodnesday Fobrunty13, 2002 Reitifbruna Nut Rthiating Outamariteinibreing Seetiongep BMA* Harr Dm% Otructutsi.ohil Sprinp/Suppartains OptinpfaupportgAtss SptingWath Mk* Slikeolutam WOW MIRAN Mon Slikeoltom Above Siatr,Sisb Rage; Sada 1 dO D.3 fl It IS IV • oeurn,,C44.0....4.11a al ass.••••••1 -• - 011 vie"' "1:1-4 V V atssossmaxat 1"4 :Mitt t M.. • AMU., I t 41.5.11=t D6. n VS IV IV :“StaiiiiiiiiiiiII*00.11• St.:; "[tit 14:.Atiti.iiiiii#111.411011.t., T. , : • •,..: Mani • Ai 0.1 " f sr. its= xwassorlowli 11 •• • 1/.11.rrr• • : ..23 .11,1 ifb • X 3111 ..... V V .irr-••••• ..•••1 ,..,......”.,,,,,..,.,,.....”.111M1t7,.."!II,St1,1,1*".1.1071=1111111111MINME awe* r•71,,V21.•11MNIMINIIIMIITMIUT: •SOStfti/Lftt rt•••• '1. • :• Alk.17.1.1.11117t..Tr. i•i HI „„:itIffIr t.ft•taresttstx",”"St2,21 Liftiti.20112 g p a r m o s e m s e e r • sc. .1 • , • • , . ,,,teausseem '," r • ••=,..-==. .- V • •troaatn. Sam, NC/CM/ail esersa it V „•„,,.•• 00 WY • t, ./.•ta :ft I i3,0=0111.12.11, X IN!. TV,t•r• ,1111"nerammsge ir T ere•s• • • • •t • • • • =IV t •• • V • 11.1 ill 11 lb 1 10114,1t11,1ifitttt•ilii• fffffffffffff •Itritirti,t11171fitt•-tfrtne.....c ed roc.. • Tr • r • •••• • ..1•••••ne=ang •• • r 111 VI Zma:oor. "-am lit atera .ftrie g ".. I r •v• • • • • o•,• • m.-11.•, • • • •• • - NI 011 0.3 IS .04 raMI1170=7110-iP,..3:F9C 1 I O. •tr-s•,,,•'•,,•■•T't•••• . .. . TV", 4 Fine Engineering Reinforcing Summary Ran 55 Foy, "gal Pim, Pavel Pagel Pawl wog woo amp was am IMO MN B & T Design & EV/mating, Inc, - Vault-Moor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Long Term Deflection Deflection Plan Loft Tenn Dellatien !Nettles/ Dellmiee Mo1(wleww tittoothlitg);(1 Callow 460,03 Ind; WetuttWells Below 81afr,Column illib;Walle Aboti Slab,Coltums Abe/vs 1118.11ab Edsed■ Seals 130 811rtInsve Vslos .0119 Intim 6) (331, 371); Multnam Woe id. 1,82 Inch*. 4) (203, 331); 1,23 1 ?3 1 ai 1,35 (; 1. 0 0173 1 1 1 07$ 0 75 0.I 0 0 03 o 03 .75 0 05 0.75 1 1 0.7 05 015 0 21 $ Fine Engineering Long Tenn Deflection Deflection Plan 56 Structure Perp�cti ve mow •111111 B & T bti!;I Il & Endlrlaennlj, Inc. = Vault I :We,llber (recovered) j Wednesday l=abrun►y 13, 2002 Litt load I.Atrs tooth; Sttuttut►t.tlrti►n Slxtuga S►N►h►►►ta ;I.in� Slth►gOlupp ►tti,Atet+ Sptingt,Willi Ileluw 51at►.('►dun►na ttel►n► 51ah,% aIla -Moor Mah,t •nlwnu. , t$ i SI ►ih.Siale . (Mhet lhad I.Jtc Atu Luis; Fine Engineering Structure Perspective 1 ► s & z Design & Engineering, Inc. Floor Analysis and Design of Concrete Slabs Vault Foundation Base w/Max. Vert. Load ks a TS kaf . Empty Fine Engineering 717 . Math Place Southwest wood, WA 98036 eengineering.aom V.ulkila...f s r W.i..+.y l'obre•ry 1s, toes FLOOR O 10052001 OOMMgn C068MA11, INa. LOU Report Contents REPORT COVER REPORT COMP RI SIGNS WAS COMORE= MIXKS RaNFORCINO OARS LOADINGS AND LOAD CASKS DRAWING SYMBOLS AND ABORKVNTIONS ELSMENT MEM PLAN BLAB SUMMARY PLAN • On$CR DUD LOG PLAN WI LOAD 1 PLAN 8111WICK DKFLKCnoN PLAN SKRVIC1 LOAD BOIL RtAC IONS LOAD CASs 1 MK PLAN LOAD CAS[ 1 MY PUn LOAD CASK I V11 PLAN LOAD CASt IVY PLAN LOAD CASK 1: OKSIOH 8R31 ION SUMMARY LOAD CASK 1: MAKIN SUCTION CRRIRIA LOAD CASK II DKSON SUCTION FORCLS TOP RWNFORCINO SUMMARY PLAN BOTTOM REINFORCING SUMMARY PLAN RKINFORCINO SUMMARY RKINFORCWO SUMMARY PLAN PP", am! am! Mimi Wel Mimi !am! wog Owl . ; MIR MIN RINI B & T Design & Engineering, Ine, - VaulLBase,floor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Fine Engineering Report Contents 3 P MN Poi Pose Won isnot WI Pall NM PUN Mil NMI NMI MUM NMI MEN INN Si s Positive Loads -0/ -- Positive analysis ri 41 Positive iteaaliaru 1E7 B 8 T Design 8 Engineering, Ina, - VaulL®aso lloor • Wednesday Febnrary 13, 2002 Fine Engineering Signs 4 Units — Geometry Units M11111 00104 MINN PM MGM Mr MN BBB NM MIN Mil MI SRA MINI 8 & T Design & Engineering, Ina, - Vault_Baso.11oar- Wednesday February 13, 2002 PLAN TMRNSIONS: INCHES SUPPORT OIM!NS10NS INCHES HLEVATIONMC ! NCHES SLAB PHILI NQ8 8: INC1189 SUPPORT NEIOMrn: ricer ANOLE0 :6EOREBS Loading and Reaction Units POINT Pons: KiP1 Strom As2ERCEO KIPS LINK FORGE: Kips/Fr Wolff AS ZIno:0 IQP9/ITT AREA PONCE: KV REPORTASisso :O KtP Spring $t1Rneaa Unfts POLAR Poici SPRING :IQPs$ /IN UNFi PORCC Smarm Kai MICA PONCE SPRING: PCI POINT Mow= KIPF T REPORT AS7ERO :O LINK MoMEFr KIPS REPONT AS ZERO :O AREA MOMCNT: KiPA /Pr REPORT As Mob POINT MOMEIR SPRUNG: KPT /• LINE MOMBNTSPRING: K/" ARRA MOMENT SPRING: K/PT° Blab Analysis Units POROC: KIPS Worm AS2ERo :0 KIPS MoMCNn KIP►rr REPonTMZgNo ;O twwr CONCReT•C OTRFAC PSI RePORTASzRRA;O PSI Pones PER Wlanc KIPS /Fr REPORT Au ZCRO:O MOMENT PgR WI0111: KIPS REPORT AS ZERO:O OCFLEC rION: INCiiEs REPORT M URO ;A KIPS /PT KIPS INCHES Materials Units CONCRgIE VOLUME: Cu. Yos3 Fr wwIaHT: POUNDS PT FORCE: KIPS TRNPOH PROFa.e:INDHCC REINFORCING AREA: SEQ. IN. ROAR We1ANT TONS REINFORCING STRESS: KM COVER: INCHES F.:E:a «r ire: L..` �%. nrt),$ fR ':P"7raf•!e. <r•FaRrc:t:�yra;•v �lrka ^�': +vme e�+:A*u�u Fine Engineering • Units 5 Units - Continued (2) Mba.l saeous Units FLOOR ARIA: 9Q. PT. DHNIUTV: PCP BLONOATtONB: tNCNMts MOON Ma= trou rntc noN1: RADIANS aim am WO MN INN 8 & T Daslgn & Engineering, Ino. - Vault Base.floor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Fine Engineering Units 6 Concrete Mixes — .000 pal WC. 180 P'ct • 4000 P'C ■ 8000 V IN 0.10 (P0II80N'8Ilkno) 0 Ira • 33W0 "Ott PSI • HC P 1:7000*'C P01 0 Ea • 541004Pcu Pa 0 Co is (3070ofr'C + 1000000W/c/14411. 0 3C • 5420000 PAI 0 as • 202000 (Po + t 180) I /a Ps1 0 8a•31,aWsaI°°faµPL OEM .2300000 PM KC •3500000 PW Pool Poutal PCP PSI PO PCUI. 5000 PC11 . 7000 PSI Pal (.40131©) (401310) 036 01101 b POI (CANA23.3) (CAN.A23.3) ((INV 1002.1.1) (148 3800.2001) r Pawl : MEI MN MN in 9 & T design 8, Engineering, Inc. - VautBase.tloor- Wodnosday February !3, 2002 Fine Engineering Concrete Mixes 7 Reinforcing Bars isv AR. 0.11 IN - 60 99094 Ism, 90, IN. Ea M 20000 Ks Kin L.[09 ti a MIMS 100 AA al 0,44 OQ, IN, CO w 29000 Kw PY • 00 101 1.900 • 1 pawl 1611111 NM -. B & T design & Lnglneering, Ine, - VauILBnse.0oor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Fine Engineering Reinforcing Bars 8 Loadings and Load Cases e.Lc 0 x BtL FarlAD LOADING X LuvK LOAD 1 -- Load Cui Y 1on! F-1 r Pisum Paglui X OMtn DEAD LDO 1.4 X StLFDgAD LOADING 1.7 X LIVE LOAD 1 t .4 X OMR DOD LOO POOR 00.14 IMMO NM 1111•11 En NM ® & T Doalgn & Englnondng, Ina. - Vault Elone.door- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Fine Engineering Loadings and Load Cases 9 ,..� !awl Mug .��. poon4 Molt PI", Drawing Symbols and Abbreviations — Load and Reaction icons 4— —4 X•Axis FORCE Y-AXIS FORCE Z-AXIS FORCE X-AXIS MOMENT YAXIB MOMENT ZAXIt3 MOMENT — Spring loons reD Pr c1, X-AXIS FORCE YAxie FORCE ZAXt8 FORCE *Axis MOMENT Y•AXIt3 MOMENT bowN Up it • MIN i MO alial 8 & r Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vnu1L9nsd.1►oor - Wodnosdny Fobroary 13, 2002 ciP ( 0 algid Support loons 1> A X -AXIS FORCE Y•AXIB FORCE Z•AXIB FORCE X•Axia MOMENT Y-AXIS MOMENT — Structure Layer Abbreviations ---- -- AN= 11 CMPROG D EL FU ti Kra KPP Y SPRING MOLE NE MIKEN R8 AND XY AMER KPZ in COLUMN MIDI KMR ■ SUPPORT t9 VEITTICALLYCOMPRIRIBIBLE KM9 w COLUMN DEP111 OR DIAMETER PIN • SPRING OR SUPPORT ELEVATION ABOVE SLAG BOPFRIOID . SUPPORT ROTATIONALLY FUN TO 84AD (NEAR,PAn)uIIEAR P SUPPORT HEIGHT SLIP w PORCH SPRING BTIPPNEBB IN R DEMOTION T ▪ FORCE SPRING BTIPPNE9H IN 8 DIRECTION TOO • FORCE SPRING OrYPNEBB It4 Z DEDICTION 0 MOMENT SPRING BTWPPNCER ABOUT R Nog ti MOMENT HPRIt1A QIIFFNKO9 ARAIIT S AXIS so SUPPORT ROTATIONALLY PINNED TO BL,AU OfRAR,PARI M SUPPORT IB INFINITE &Y MIFF VEHTICM:tY +� WALL RRETRAMB SLAB HORIZONTALLY e SLAG FREE TO MOVE HORIZONTALLY AT WALL WALL OR BIM TIIICKNEEN a TOP OP BLAB ELEVATION -°– PT Layout Layer Abbreviations F NTRN00N FORCE ESP a EFPEC I1VE t iiiEfu FACTOR T �+ TENDONS (NUMBER OP) Loading Layer abbreviations EL M LOAD ELEVATION MOW SLAG SURPACR FX • FORCE COMPONENT IN X DIRECTION FY d FQRCR COMPONENT IN Y DIRECTION Load Cass Layer JIbbrevi ttoas FZ MX MY w FORCE COMPONENT IN Z DtRRC110N a MOMENTCQMPQNt~NTAAQUT X AXIO w MOMENT COMPONENTAtiQUT Y MIS AR DOT a ARCA OF BOTTOM REINFORCING As 8NR • AREA OF &MAR REINFORCING AR TOP a AREA OF TOP REINFORCING AXIAL a HORIZONTAL. FORCE NORMAL TO SECTION 10, R, DPTHF. TOP DEPTH OF BAGMAN IGNORED FAR STRESSES MP STRENGTH IQ, T. DM a BOTTOM DEPTH OF SECTION (GNQREP FOR SMEARS A(U 0 SfiiENGT1 I LATERAL w HORIZONTAL FORC;T; PARALVILTO Sl•,CTIQN `{ MZ H SECTION MOMENT AEoUTZ MIS SOT CQVR w CLEAR COVER QP UQTTOM REINFORCING (M 11:R IG.S RP $PCR0 STIRRUP SPACING SENDING • MOMENT ABOUTSRCTIQN AXIS TOP CQVR w CLEAR COVER or TOP REINFORCING (Ay-mil IG. T, FWD ) CENTROID A CENTRQIQ OP SECTION IN (X,Y,Z) CQQRQINATE8 TORSION a MOMENT AROUT PERPENOICUtAR•TO-SECTION MIS VERTICAL, a egq11011 FQRC,E IN Z QIREGIIQN T iteiatoraiug Summary Layer Abbreviations D n Bor t M REINFQRC,NQ 80T CQVR w TOTAL. UOTTQM CLEAR COVER S • SHEAR REINFORCING t4 TOP REINFORCING TQPCOVR RTOTAL, TOP CLEAR COVER Fine Engineering Drawing Symbols and Abbreviations 10 It It • ....: mai Pawl� Pim NI Wit Element Mesh Plan littieturtiofei Sp►i(►OYpp®ib:Llne 3 p d n g s M o p p e ftWalu ft * Slikeoirr-q taw S1eb:Wrll! Abaw Sfakeolum Above 3lrb-SIa$* ;3ieb Ne,■ Aral* WO pisieu MI ma PIM IMIM MI INN IMO ® & T Design & Engineering, Inc, = VaulLBasodloor - Wednesday February 13, 2002 Fine Engineering Element Mesh Plan 11 Slab Summa Plan Pow, 011"14 Piing WW1 Mai mil“ NM MIN t� d T Design 8 Engineering, Inc. - VaulLBano.floor• Wednesday Fnbnaary 13, 2002 fitotiottimPoisi Sprlogsluppetisakie Spdafoi9uppoitsAsu IsppMH s Wd11 below Sirb;Coiunru 1W w SI*b WWUr Above Nl.b;Colunnr Abaw Slbslob Woe; Rh• i i#j �/� .141.9.011.a=1/14... _... f f R *10 Poi Fine Engineering Slab Summary Plan 12 1 L.4 Other Dead Ldg Plan NM N 1111111 MIN INN IMO 13 & i design & Engineering, Inc, - VnuIL Bnse,l'loor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Other Dud Ld4Pdel Looktlee h.erdr,Ara Lee; 9a11 PeinlSprinillupperb;LbeSe+l eepos icArwSprlep; Wetle1tdewS1dr, GolerreihklewSlebNeltrAbeaSlek eelrxrruAlgaSleb,SlobEdger; Fine Engineering Other Dead Ldg Plan 13 1 } Live Loacli 2,km Uw taad IIdiel LerdrtJN teada;Anar •• g nktw waliaBelowSlab,CotunsaBelowd lskWaihAbasedl tikeoinrae,AbewSlab$l0,fld�a; Salt 1:29.2 Pi Mimi Mimi Simil Pool 6.1•4 MEN NM INN MN MI NMI 8 It T Design & Engineering, Inc. - VautBase,door- Wednesday February 13, 2002 *UM Fa* 37 1.57 h 0,71147114 Fs'_11_, Fine Engineering Live Load 1 Plan 14 <•4 Se ice Def,..a......jscsiotI Plan - • - PIM", Pan., rall°161 Waal, 0111114 11.8611 NMI ram MI MI MN Mil & r Doslon & FngIneetIng, Inc, Vatitflaso.floor. Wednesday Februnty 13, 2002 Sages Lattaileal Medico Plo1;(*/ avve smothinA(1 Contour " 0.0110theil attveltrePolot SptIngaupporttilni SpdatsitlupportgAres SpilditiValls &dew Olab-,Coluttes Delos Slrfp,WhIls Abell 0100;Coldtmi Abow 31104iSlab P.401di Soda 1 dO Minimum Wks ..0J22 MAN 4� (771, 411): Maximum Volpe le 0.01114 Inaba (21S, 3J1); 1 I I 1 . 11 . , . . A . . 111 1 . 43 1 .. 21 3 . 4) . _ . .01 i . 1 4. I 411 .0.1 I ! .. I 1 4? xep .0.0 0 1 ! 1 a 5 OAS ‘ 0 05 0 AS 0 r _......----\... 1 0 05 i OAS 1 0 05 A 1 0 01 — 0 .._.. A A. 40 \0 (a .ift P,-.‘ 41.1 4 . .1 1 :111 41 I 1 01 \.0. . . .01 4) 3 t 412 41 Fine Engineering Service Deflection Plan 15 Fent maiiq own' room Service Load Soil Reactions Lead Cue LCelumn eed Will P sc l ee; SmK w. Willi Wow SIrb;Columne Below Slsb;Wdle Above Sltlr,Calumae Abew bIab;slib Mies; Sen4a tC:AtN Sptl ft Venleel Realms Mw01 CORMS 0,1 kitty, Sale 1:90 Minimum Value - •1.44e29 lag (249,471y, Malmo Value • 1,44629tef ®(331,423); woo mew "INN NMI EMI NEI 11111111 INS B & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - VaulLBasefgoor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Fine Engineering Service toad Soil Reactions 16 1 111111,1111), ' ,'iI ifl' I aj II 1 II 1114.111r i I �1�� i ' 0 ,, �V i I, r� T . , 043 °5 i , ,............1,=, ( \I ' d;��I, Ills( i it Ill / II I, I�� Fine Engineering Service toad Soil Reactions 16 Load Case I Mx Plan rams swier4 mai _MN _MN _BIN OMNI 8 & T Donlgn & Bnglnewing, Ina. - VaulLBeso.floor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Led Can IDe 4 n Sectlanttiending Moment PLAN eutve mladhln4?,(1 Combat 0.5 Klp),(*t dlledian); Salo t;0� 5 �t� s Sptinp-,Wii�b Wow gl tr,Cohu�w Wow ffiidr,Weib Above SIsb Colimms Above 81.b,giob Edda, Minhouv V o w 6,.1.113 Kip ® (163, 404 Madmum Vei a 10) Kips ® pub, 405); Fine Engineering load Case I Mx Plan 17 I1 ) �x ixti .s_ r---'7 ' O. II It isms 1 0 f 0 N 3 1 '41/4.. 1 0 lii i \ — 0 or Fine Engineering load Case I Mx Plan 17 11P1 4411114 oad Case I M Plan 8 & T Design & Engineedng, Ina, - VaulLBaso,lloor- Wednesday Fab/uary 13, 2002 i tird C.le t>ierlst Sections-Mending > MAX*/ eon ;( *0.3 � i30 Spr int np►Supprett; rw S �ifb & 3lakeoi blow SiebiWelle Abut" Sleb;CoIumne M**. SiethOlrb tip: Minimum VAN **MS Kip ® (144 415); Maximum Value - 03s Kip ® (371, 471), Fine Engineering load Case I My Plan 18 dr?iC:� „...�...::,;ag:�rF;at_'�2 LU?' =. ".�.7;1�"r'•.a';; i.a+,,;.,.�:ak;3s-F =;..:. ..�.a..,� Wait "WO 01"611 SI% Load Case I Vx Plan • NM 13 & T ©o Ign & Engineering, Ina. - VeulLBaae,tloor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 teat Coe 1Deh f Se lon,Vahla! Sheet NI jw/ tam un dt1t J,' Centaur • 0.3 &IP4/AMx dW.dk d p1+ ieduPp +, ee Spiv/Supports-Au Sptinse,Welle Below Sleb,Coluwne Mt* SIab,Wilie Above Slab,Coluneu Above SIak,Sl.b , Stele 120 Wow VAN ■ •10,71I1W11 6016,4711 Molten Value • 14.1 Idpe/ ® (19.1, 471), Fine Engineering Load Casa 1 Vx Plan 19 '' --` -Pool _••_,r Load Case l wlan Wei magi gemill ammo ammo orimi lin B & T design & Bnglnooring, Inc. - VaultBasefloor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 toe, Ceee iDalgn Ratio/00t1at Shur Plot;(wl curve enwothing}(I Contour w O,S ktpe l}(y dttealon); StrueturtPoini s ,mti j ortg SAri '3t o w. l+a Spdnr;Wdle ilelo* Sbb;CCoolumne Below Sieb;Wrlle Above Sieb,Cohanne Above JIeb;Sleb E4Jger, MWtmrn Value ° •21 klpelA (11.2, 335% MAtitnwn Velw 222 IIpNA @ (17.7, 467); Fine Engineering load Case I Vy Plan 20 { fammili Pm, Pm", NM alb 1 IMIN a & T Design A Engineering, Ina, - VaultBase.11aar- Wednesday February 13, 2002 o : ! Case I• Desi Section S mma 0 AM 1'o COM01 .INO A9 Oer CONTROLUN0 AIi Wt. a SILO CON` OWNei fA (no. NoJ out no (. o, au. Gucuc9i 1 0 O.O8a4 ACI 10.2 0 Mr OK 2 1.00 ACi 10.2 0 0 UWW OK 8 1.14 ACI 10.2 0 0 INF OK 4 0 0.127 ACI 10,2 0 INr OK 0 7.00 ACI 102 0 0 INN OK 0 0.02 ACI 10.8 0 0 INF OK 1 7,71 ACI 10,2 0 0 m#? OK 0 0.807 ACI 101 0 0 KNF OK 0 0,78 AC110.2 0 0 oar OK 10 0 0,102 ACI 101 0 IHF OK II 1.04 ACI 10.2 0 0 Mr OK 11 1,00 ACI 101 0 0 INF OK 19 0 0,0203 ACI 101 0 MIF OK "gIlAT1Jr'' INDICA= WHNTIMR FLOOR HAS FAUNA A FgAISIRI4 bOWJ1ON TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA 5 =.€CM FOR THIS sgCTION. Fine Engineering Load Case 1: Design Section Summary 21 i oad Case I: Desi Section Criteria 1 Comma CNrv1 lA 1 ACI 10.2;11.01 N Stag 2 ACI 10.2;11.9:NSLAM 3 . AC( 10,2;11,11;Nat j 4 ACI 10,2; t 1.3:A O e ACI10,2:114MM...9 e ACI 10.2;11.3: N 6LAU 7 ACI 10,2;1 I.Y;AgfIA O AICI 10.2; 11.3;NYLML+ O ACI t0.2;11.9;NULaa 10 ACI10.2:11.9,;N06Au 11 AC1I0,2:11,3:NYLMY 12 'ACI 10.2; 11,E N e6AN 13 ACI 10,2! 11.3:NYt. TOP 8AR aOY SAO 13HR 6AR N6 116 116 06 *6 NO NO NO M6 Me NO MO MO MO Me MO N6 Me MO MO MO MO 10 NO MO MO Mau Hall 09 U NOU M3 u /au Hsu 03U MN U 03 U N3U Na ti 831.1 1,6 1 1 1 2,13 1.5 1,5 7:19 1.6 1,09 1 2,13 1,5 1,9 9:13 ® & T' Donlon & I 'nglnooring, Ino, - Vault,,Daaofloor- Wadnoaday Fobrunly 13, 2002 QQ, T. OMR), 0, b )19PNI LOTH (NICHES/ (*C11991 (NiCHEA) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202 262 202 262 202 262 252 262 262 262 252 202 267 "TOP amr RIQICATES THE TOP RENIFORCINQ OAR TYPE THAT FLOOR WI14. USE IF NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA SEI -ECTED FOR TIES SECTION. "OAT SAR" INDICATES THE bOTTQM REINFORCING BAR TYPETHAT FI.QQR WIU. USE IF NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA SELECTED FOR THIS SECTION. "0H1$ HAH" INDICATIC0 THE SHEAR REINFORCING OAR TYPE THAT FLOOR WIt1. USE IF NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA SELECTED FOR THIS SECTION. "IQ, tam" INDICATES THE DEPTH OF 'THE TOP QFTNE SCAN THAT FLOOR IGNORES WHEN CALCULATING STRENGTH MO SrRE51E0 FOR THIS SECTION. "IQ. H. PPM' N4QICATEIS THE DEPTH Of THB 6QTTQM OF THE SLAM THAT FLOOR IGNORES WHEN CALCULATINQ STRENGTH MO STRESSES FOR THIS SECTION. "SPAN LATH" *IQIGATESTHE SPAN LENQTII AND IS ONLY USED TO CALCU .ATE LIMm NG STRESSES IN UNAONQED MOONS (SECTION 16.7.2). TO OALCULATE MINIMUM REINPQRCMRNT UNCTION !acme) AND TO ESTIMATE MBAR QUANTITIES. Fine Engineering toad Case 1: Design Section Criteria 22 NMI PEW OM MME OWN MN NMI IMMI NMI MIN MN UMW ONIMIs Load ase C is Desi n Section Forces It AXIAL. LAITRAL VP: mcAL. 00p10 0(spi0 (KIPS 1 1.94 0.015 0.200 2 0,000510 .1.0024 02.5 3 .0.106 0.135 .105 4 .4.02 0.00020 17 5 .0,000207 4,000016.2.72 O 0.00049 '000122 .14.3 7 0,00202 0.00000.0.71 O 8,36 .0.042 0.00 O 0,000135 0,00005104,07 10 .4.40 0.104 7.72 11 4,000740 0,000300.70.1 12 4.00184 0,00510 30,5 13 1,7) 4.0400 0.14 TORSION 06no io Mx PTF0Rc2 (iaptr) Gal (lo r,) (KIM .0.0045 0,015 0.0110 (0,0) 4,00 .20.7 .0.000051 (0.0) 33.3 .41.4 .0.027 (0,0) •16,1 4,02 3,03 (0,01 0.0584 •273 4100004 (0,01 4,04 460 0,00201 (0,0) 4,904 •212 0.0127 (0,0) •21.0 1,00 4.18 (0.0) 4.854 .107 0.000) 0 (0,0) 5,01 3.44 •2.40 (0,0) .1.54 4971 .0,000007 (0,0) 4.0 •28.6 .0,00005 (0,0) 0.0035 0,000 0.803 (0,01 Benbif/0 CAP OoprO (0.275,0,0171 (.20.9,8.04) 041.5,0,36) 01,54,4,021 (270,01 (.207,0) 02)7.0) (0.2.65) (.101.0) 01.18,3,451 (.2 7,0,(1,0/) (40,7,0,01 (0:117,0,0001 B & r Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault_Baseiloor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 VERTICAL CAP (KIP41 0.43 90.® 125 71.4 120 100 100 70,3 100 71,4 120 00,0 ©:20 "P1' FQRCe" INDICATES 71(R PQSTTLH8IO0IN0 FQRGI;S THAT FI.QQR USi;Q FQR AENPINR PESIGN; rig TWQ FORCE$ USTTP ARE FOR OPPQ$ffe CURVATURES. "PgROINQ GAP," INPICATP.€ THE CAPACITY QF Tt1R eEGTlQN FOR NgOATIVC ANP PORMVg MCMPNT, "." INITICATUe THAT NO CAPACITY WAS CALCUI- ATl~P. 'VERTICA1. CAP,' INPIGATee THE CAPACITY QP THe SgCTIQN FOR VgRTICAI. WAR; "4" INPIRATgS THAT NO CAPACITY WAS GALCI L,ATEP. Fine Engineering Load Case 1: Design Section Forces 23 MN MON To Reinforcing Snmmary Pian s f tkws %yfl LAbow aIeb,Coluanu Abaw MOM f3dpe�; MINN NMI MN MINI Mme. MINI .... ..... IMO ..__.. Mut. . L3 & T Design & Engineering, The. - VaulL®nmo,f/oor-Wednesday February 13, 2002 41.4 441 !tS � 11441 ® 661 'frM6 S.41 f1 To. 6 ill Fine Engineering Top Reinforcing Summary Plan 24 ..: Bottom Reinforcing Summary Plan g�oW 1lolow it+bs . Et W L A m. Slikeolunvis Above tilek9lrb lid" Seals 1d0 10.0 MIN Mil 1111111 MIN an awe 8 8 T Design & Engineering, Ino, - VaulL8ase,floor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Fine Engineering Bottom Reinforcing Summary Plan 25 ...= n, SYiXei. r�+ s.: wrwr+ �. �..•. arwspx 'fnp.Ye+.e.tCi[,n.a:SC"�7;Nux �.t+!;in. �v.' /. ll XS ■41101.3rra, 6 Ni pia M, .W4� p = 0 Fine Engineering Bottom Reinforcing Summary Plan 25 ...= n, SYiXei. r�+ s.: wrwr+ �. �..•. arwspx 'fnp.Ye+.e.tCi[,n.a:SC"�7;Nux �.t+!;in. �v.' /. UMW 1L1IMI NMI- Mill lir Reinforcing Summary SWAMI WI MEIN 111•1111 1111111 NMI -. _.. -ter -- 1 TOP OAfliCCEN NOWNO 50Y. UARCONTnouiNO 1 NONK 2 a 08 WOAD CAflrt I N2ACI 10,2 2 8 08 LAD CABS 1 NSACI 10.2 4 NONE D 10 N8 LAtl CABS I 05,ACI 10,2 8 22 00 WOAD CABS I NL1AC, 10,2 7 10 NO LAO CABE I N7,ACI 10,2 0 110 WOAD CABs 1 NOACI 10,2 0 10 10 LAD CABs I N0AC1 10.2 10 NONE 11 3 08 WOAD CAU1 1 N 11.ACI 10.1 10 11100 LOAD CAR I N I R.ACI 10.1 13 NONB 108 NONE NONE 1 NO NCNB NONE NONB NONE NONB 1 NO NON NONE 1 10 SHUR 1MARS LAD CABS I N MCI 10,2 NONn NONB NONB LOAD CASK I N4ACI 10,2 NONE NMI NONE NONE NONE NONB LOAD CABs I N 1 OACI 10,1 NONE NONE NON/4 LOAD CAN I HI SACI 10.1110N1 VIA'1US" INPICATIV WHBTHER FI.QQft MAR At:EN 14444 TO FlNQ A FEASIRIA €101-UTIQN FOR THIS FACTION. B & T Design & Englneering, ino. - VauIL Base,/loor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 CON'TROI.UNO STATUR OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Fine Engineedng Reinforcing Summary 26 Reinforcing Summary Plan ' - r Mew MMN MIN MIN . MIN ISM 8 & T De skin & Enginne►ing, Inc. - VauILBasof?oor- Wodnesdny Folmar), 13, 2002 Rainlbtekg lelAtelngSeallankTopllersAst. U.rtaheernere; SWedrt SpdrplSuppoilil lne Sprinpaupp ArN Sprinp:Welle Wow 9WW1r,C,o$Um IJ Udow Slelr,Wa1li Moro SIab,Colustou Mow 314141 61, der, Saris 1:30 1ow31 it 16 Tell;141 T43 Al M106 T41 OA T W .1 _v. al..111W 13 7. Al l'w 94 Fine Engineering Reinforcing Summary Plan 27 Po4 Fj UTILITY VAULT COMPANY PAGE OF PROJECT BY PRODUCT CLIENT DATE CHECKED DATE • STRUCTURAL DESIGN CAL__OILNI‘CU 0 FILE COPY • I uncistststvil.bat re =he.ti. fk:q,r'.= 11 ' 1 • to (-)frit6 *;-;,roValS Ptre kydtov.:11 Of r.1 !Atli • , 1..4! • 4. 4: PANEL VAULT:100'-0"Lx 201-0'Wx 1V-TH (INSIDE) , WATER QUALITY vver VAULT MUSEUM OF FLIGHT EXPANSION.SEA'TTLE, WA MERLINO CONSTRUCTION ; 2 „ . . i i • I : . . : : e ; . 2 r A : ; ; ! • i1 • i I ' ,. ; • i . 1 i • 1 1 ; : I !, 2 .; 1 ! 1 .. : ! c ; 7 ,. -I - • ; f. ' : .. i . • ,. : • i-l• 7. t , i ! ! ! • ! , t : ! . • . : ; i : ! . , '''• , : 1 . , - ; l• !.! • I• !!, • 1U i i ! ! ! : ! ; . " I • .. ; . , . 4 r . : 4 „ : r. 4 : i DE8K3NED BY: KEN LEE; PE, 'REV, - „ . 00.5y, jo.40,2 • i ; • - , i, !.• • i • a division 01 CI Okleastio Precast: Vc.. • ; ; 'Olt( Of TIAIIA e4PPROVED' FEB I2 1 2003 fris pwiLu —5117, • JAN 1 3 2003 REID MIDDLETON 0,w‘ezt.;;;. `lw • • 141; _ 4,1* 4, •1 Magagli-Yil mated un 010 3151 - R8/90 my-444w Old6castle Precast° PAGE OF 1 PROJECT MUSEUM OF FLIGHT EXPANSION - SEATTLE, WA BY PRODUCT PANEL VAULT: 100'Lx 20'Wx 11' -3 "H CLIENT MERLINO CONSTRUCTION DATE CHECKED KHL WATER QUALITY WET VAULT DATE KEV MATERIALS CONCRETE: 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, Pc =8,000 pal. REBAR: ASTM A815 GRADE 80 WWF: ASTM A185 GRADE 65 SPECIFICATIONS: DESIGN: ACI. 318.02 BUILDING CODE. LOADS: ASTM C890 "MINIMUM STRUCTURAL DESIGN LOADING FOR MONOLITHIC OR SECTIONAL PRECAST CONCRETE WATER AND WASTEWATER STRUCTURES" AASHTO H8.20 WHEEL LOAD, P ■18,0k 30% IMPACT LOADING FOR SOIL COVER LESS THAN 3' -0" 120 pct SOIL DENSITY 40 pcf E.F.P. LATERAL SOIL PRESSURE ABOVE WATER TABLE 80 pct E.F.P. LATERAL SOIL PRESSURE BELOW WATER TABLE LIVE LOAD SURCHARGE OF 2' ADDITIONAL SOIL COVER TOP OF VAULT 13" TO 24" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. WATER TABLE 5' -0" BELOW FINISHED GRADE rw..dw n.7iGdp.�,r. The design submitted Is the property of and Is for the proprietary use of Utility Vault Co., Inc. only, and shall be used on product manufactured only by Utility Vault Co., Inc. OLD 315 • R9 /00 #4 BAR @ 12" O.C. #4 BAR 0 12" O.C, DA DATE 1 Sr W2.9 x W2.9 4/2 MESH STIRRUPS TOP 116 BAR © 12" O.C. #6 BAR 0 5" 0.C. \ #6 BAR 0 12" 0,C. #4 BAR 0 12" O.C. SECTION VIEW (THRU VAULT IN WIDTH DIRECTION) W2.9 x W2.9 4/2 a� #6 BAR 03 "0.C. MESH STIRRUPS ON EACH 10" BEAM) #4 BAR 0 12" 0.C, #4 BAR 0 12" 0,C. END WALL BASE ' #6 BAR 0 6" 0.C. #5 BAR 012 "0.C, #9 BAR 0 3" 0.C. ON EACH 10" BEAM) SECTION VIEW (THRU VAULT IN LENGTH DIRECTION) POT CCSCAFt oN cvi,Nn TY BILL OF MATERIAL 1014,'. iT S. SALES INFORMATION aslcg UERUNO CONSTRUCTION SALES TR S.O WATER QUALITY WET VAULT PANEL VAULT: 100' -01 x 20'-VW (INSIDE) MUSEUM OF FUGHT EXPANSION - SEATTLE, WA DpA2M MLF SCALE 3 /t6•R1' -Q' APFtc12o CANED cA1E 07/15/02 t s s, oac "o. 0005 0CA411h1 rS 1.( FYCilRtt Of OL0C SU SAGS% *C. 11 IS 21•46 TED 1014 tt/G.'[N:E %*3SES CAA' 910 SANI y0I K LIK4 1 we ur MOMA 10 1,.E MOW Cf SAO =0/9■Y Oci'*c.: e ID25 Cucap, Fracoat wc. Y CS; tn✓. 4 UV lITIL1TYVAULT" ar�DEla 01.. M A w f101l.O M Oldcastl� Pf@�Ibt,'Inc. Prc 100-M2 -1510 fac 213.713-4201 0 .wn (l 1 M. q 7 / ha.W 41 /.wnr.s • +a-+, •.s.a. • Fs t.. • S.x•.r .• 1§ Oldcastle Precast® PAGE OF PROJECT. h 05 tot" oft t-Lt (H't PAN .t - 4+CArr(,f, PRODUCT oP1'J:.l„ v AU LT • t 015' -0 "LL, g p' -O" ,c it • It CLIENT MU—Lt Na LOPSTIr uL f Lb A.) BY K J.4 DATE 1(tLlb7. CHECKED DATE (t,S..•/ A. tse l[.4 t0_ 'to tI ASAtd 14-lb w tME.F L. LbAb ,Pt 1010 LtkPACr a" tcttti►mvm St)( t.OvEf . USE Wtta`F c. Lb AD DIST e% 8011 tvo weALEL toLi&rt toy.. moo''. Afie- ►t b s -TttAt tfTED L Abf'.)(, , c�t►ut*n�StoN , Wt L L tit 0.$3" 4 t .'15 (t S) t Z) z.-"IS' 1 . tc ,'" 4 t .1 S (11//t) ' 3, . 5'? ' W 01..s.T CASA Lb A DI N (4 MAME LIT SE. Pott-E -rt • Strt urn.) C vb vs% 0E 00171 Parr ic: s) SOIL Aklb b�4C L Ab 20" 1 1 'i.o,1 AVft�At:t. S t , h r 3 ..oAD (mil.Z.X t4.l1C) p. IS4 Q.Zt tiSF S0L 1/4.0A 0 -t) t Z o st) gSr- Wtk"4 0,1)161‘ ,ZCA 1(2,73)(3.5 1 ) wI t hraR. to VI It SVCLON) (43 (i DE c f 40J%) larrtni JIM 7!1 - ►Z" 74 t�+�+rrA'CC :iEta SRO' 2-cm fer6. ,kA VVtc -Arr II'JALM $)% a• tor" - (1.5" 4 /z..) ; 1t,. ,,,`b. ►1ST' ` - 6)3 4 t' /3,51i 0e,t4a k -Fr '7(14,1 Mt A.4; 1.50;,,x' r PROJECT AWSEutA C41-1t E.XPA #JS t f30,) • SCA T 7L( PRODUCT 4ANEL Awt_ i ,top' -o' t ti 'Z 0..O' „J Oldcarstle Precast° CLIENT ME� �tt.Jo t toS -tk00% PAGE OF BY tC. N DATE l 11t l a2. CHECKED DATE q,y A. AGIC. tbp L-0\71 MAD) vA5-11,S1 LAsf - -_ 1. t3 .D ► &►G r( S nth u_q•••4 "� ++ gQ4t4'. t•:$ S" g , Pronctt s r, Zap few.. sFAr Air... AFJALM Si t*.tfk it A 1C G) .t,' Atry i `! k c' w\ sQeeti thh t S Al. 4c� k. ('i3. + ► w ! ,, k 4V. 4)44 5 Z (61 trou) '”' ► I S S f pawed W rw).4dyyer OLD 315 • R0100 1 SAP2000 7/12/02 9 :06:57 v7.aa - FIIe :beam. moment - Frame Span Loads (COAD1) Kip•ft Units •• • �rt� t... L c.A t) L c.Ar t.. z r. -J t�r,� C' C.� a R AI t CO r� c�~rZ, 4111 ..a ■ f CO VO CO C • 'gyp -x.41 .1 CO CO • /1. 7 S" SA 7'' � 11 �1t.,,O^ r� �1/ v7.aa - FIIe :beam. moment - Frame Span Loads (COAD1) Kip•ft Units SAP2000 7/12/02 9 :07 :02 Z • J N 6■,1 1 ck /3ls -r zECAosc (AA me„, f-o-trr ot76 ATM AI LC s1 IN , $ P2- v7.44 = Fiia;beam_moment = Moment 3-3 Diagram (E0 ?1T- k p- t Units SAP2000 7/12/02 920:55 co cAk-T■ cPst, L 1.41 CA5N1\-3 t Ct u xyLvIc (v\.) co 00 43" ovfitALL. 41' " re) 03 SAP2000 v7.44 - Fileteam_moment - Frame Span Loads (LOAD • Kip-ft Units • . - • it SAP2000 7/12/02 9 :20 :58 at�C, A Std E-Ark kris lr.`i S (S S O L r S, z LP) Ue lcu c 4'1 � r i 1, s� F z BE- C roi k : 0.)r tf st (diva Ci piErL t D 'QM for- SE Am S • P2000 v7•44 - File:beam_,moment - Sear Force 2 -2 Diagram (LOA 1) - Kip -ft Units • Oldoastle Precast° PAGE OF PROJECT FAUSEti IA of Ct..% 61-yr ExPAosi too - 4.....;CArttt BY t<141.- PRODUCT VAtott_ vAucr itt% IL ts' -t:o.to DATE //HI 0 t CHECKED DATE TP.,S.V CLIENT 14 e...L.1 a0t5 LIZ)14,51.0 CtI CJ 1cL 5-(:)" LotA) (akAly TbP tsr• VAOL7 tS" "t') "M." eAt..ok) Cd2ADC ist5Ditowy.. sotL fok. LINE LGb ,94.C..tiNLCE w. 5• I .‘,( %.16ckti s sr t ______ 4014- . 4,.v. 4 II. to I )5. t't )C.Fr p94 t.ilt," d' cr. (t".4 S/4" 45/b"): 5.%E h: 0.G044%.‘• e kba tic,c0,0 t to 0 ct, ' t.eo s, 6.t■ 444 ‘..5■ o 4/5 (a) .1)% Z.(51,0orz11t I I Sc OLD 315 - R9100 4 ■ 4 1• B & T DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC, P.0. BOX 595 • ISSAQUAH, WA 98027 (425) 557-0779 • (425) 557-0765 (FAX) STRUCTURAL FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS (SPECIAL SPRING LOADED FIXITY AT TOP SLAB BEARING] FOR SPECIAL PANEL / DETENTION VAULT STRUCTURE [STANDARD PRODUCT' PRECAST MANUFACTURER: UTILITY VAULT COMPANY A division of OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC. P. 0. BOX 588 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071-0588 [OFFICE: (800) 892-15381 [CONTACT: KEN LEE, PLANT ENGINEER' JANUARY 10, 2003 ANALYSIS GENERAL DESIGN SOIL DENSITY: 130 P.C.F. SOLL STTFFENESS: Ks mg 75 kr— 150 kcf LIVE LOAD: US-20 (AASIITO LOADINGI CONCRETE DENSITY: 150 P.C.F. ACI.318-99 BUILDING CODE AND COMMENTARY ASTM C890 .4.‘" Kgt$ T V. ei. • ."' 4 1101/4i.7.4 1:61r,.....---,,,'... KNAL. \:;:.,'. "Wt.TIrtr-V; EXP=:; 40 / I Oil •• Mill PIM NMI OM Structure Perpective atruclute l'oltd ilikingsliapprectkve gpringeStnvorts,Atto Nfirtrgs,Watis tJe.iw Slab,rolomns !ilato,Colittrutv Atpuro livE load 111 AM LOWS, 1.040.61 Le i.Cokstwi fitta Wati Reaction, !Wow Slab, MIMI MUIR MOM NM MN 8 & 1 bosIgn & Engineonny, Inc. - Wadnesday January 08, 2003 ' Fine Engineering Structure Perspective 1 7,On Tati X120 a 20.8k 130 PCP s�78KCI' 43 PCI 1/ 10/03 41143,2 =5 8 & T DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC, 175 16t PLACE NW SUITE 8 • ISSAQUAH, WA 96027 14251 557.0779 • 14251 557.0765 (PAX) PROJECT TITLE s SPECIAL PANEL DETENTION VAULT ILCIIII J05 NO, : 01143.2 DRAWN : NH PATE : 1/10/03 CHKD ; JT SHEET 1/10/03 01143.2.6 W2.0 X W2.0 4/2 MESH TIES N .1 8" LAP (2) #6 TOP W2.0 X W2.0 4/2 MESH TIES FOR 2' -8" ells" _ b • • b (iii �r :i•- iu- 5�5�i'� -�I A B 13) #8 BOTTOM VAULT WALL SECTION A/6 W2,0 X W2.0 4/2 MESH TIES FOR 2 ► -a" N 3/4" • 1'•0" (3) 08 BOTTOM 10" x-13) 08 BOTTOM tAe • 1.07 ln2. PAGE 403 SECTION B/6 3/4" = 1' ■0" 8 & T DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC. 175 1st PLACE NW SUITE t3 • ISSAQUAH, WA 88027 (426) 557.0779 • 1425) 557.0705 (FAX) PROJECT TITLE ; SPECIAL PANEL DETENTION VAULT ILCIIII Job NO. 01143.2 DATE : 1/10/03 DRAWN : NH CHKD SHEET ; mam pawl • B & T Design & Engineering, Inc. Floor Analysis and Design of Concrete Slabs Vault Design Lid Design - 3 Wheel Load Cases - Spring Supports Fine Engineering 717 212th Place Southwest fii Report Contents Repo_ Cover R_por1 Ca Pinta Signs Untie Concrete MTh Reinforcing eve Qiomant MW Pion Slab Summary Pion Support Summary Plan Deed Load 1 Plan Deed Load II Plan Deed Load III Pion Live Ldp I Pion Live Load II Pion Live Load III Pion Sendai LO 1 DeMation Plan Faolomd LC 1 Mx Pion Factored LC 1 My Plan Fedond LC 1 Vx Plan Factored 1.01 Vy Pion Slab Factored LC 1 Torsion Plan Factored 1.0 1: Design Didion flummery Factored LO 1: IMO Section Maeda Factored 1.01s Design aeollon Form Factored 1.0 3; Design Section Summery Factored LO fl: Design Section COIN%% Factored 1.0 2; Design Section Foray Factored 1.0 2 Ms Pion Factored LO 2 My Plan Factored LO 2 Vs Plan Factored LO 2 Vy Plan Factand LC 3; Design Section Summary Factored LC 3; Design Section Crawls Factored LC 3: Design Section Forces Pacto id LC 3 Mx Pion Factored 1.0 3 My Pion Factored 10 3 Vs Pion Factored 1.0 3 Vy Pion Slab Factored LC 3 Torsion Pies Top Reinforcing Summary Plan Doll= Reinforcing Summery Plan Rehforcing Summary Roinbrckng Summary Pion Long Term Deflection Dofleglon Plan am mos NEN ill NMI 111111 8 & T DosIgn & Engineering, Inc. - Vnult I!I.Spr door- Wednesday January 08, 2003 Fine Engineering Report Contents E OM Mg paw! PIM Signs, — Positive Loads -- Positive Analysis 6 Posillve bullets es on IM 8 & T Design 8 Engineering, Inc, - Veu1W11•Spr floor- Wednesday January 08, 2003 Fine Engineering Signs 111.1 MI WM mil Nam Units —Geometry petite -- 11.111 PON NEIN NM O NMI MN NM MN NM NMI Plan Dimensions: inches Support Dimensions: inches Elevations: Inches SlebThicknesses: inches Support Heights; hot Angles: degrees Lording and Reaction Unite Point Pores; Kips Report As ZeroO Kips Lino Fore; klpsM Report As Zero<0 kipsm Arw Fora; ksf Report As Zero ;O ksf Point Moment; klpdt Report As Zaro:O Lino Moment; Kips Report As Zero,O Arse MOVIE klpsM Report As taro:° —Spring Stiffness UMW Point Fame Spring: kips/In Lino Pomo Spring: kW Area Pate Spring: poi Point Moment Spring; k•M Lino Moment Spring: kl Area Moment Spring; kW —Slab Analysis U.U. Porn; Kips Report As Zom;O Moment; kip'A Report As Zero ;O Concrete Stress; psi Report As T.9ro;0 Pore Per Width: kipsm Report As Zoro;O Moment Per Width; Kips Report As Zoro:O Dolloction; inches Report As Zoro:O kipsM Kips inches Concrete Volume; cu, yds PT Weight; pounds PT Force; Kips Tendon Profile: inches Ron►lorcing Area: sq. In. Robes Weight: tons Rokdorctng Stress: ksi Cover, inches 8 8, T Design & Englneoting, Ina, = VVultdll =Spr,floor- Wodnesdny January 08, 2003 Fine Engineering Units 111,1 rttrl, Units Continued (2) — Mbeelioneone Units — aloor Ares;.q, n. HbngMlonc Inches Donley: pd Tendon Angles (for *WO raWanf 8 8 T Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault•111 =Spr floor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 Fine Engineering Units NM PER IMO Mil Wm! Pon Ausgi Con eretie Mixes 6000 psi wo • 160 pd fa • 4000 pal rain • 6000 pal fa • 6000 pal fat • 7600 psi v • 0.16 (Pobaon'a 18113) O Io • 33We a ilfo psi (ACI 316) Io.$7000dfo psi (ACI 616) o 60.66100.1ou pal (0116110) O 30 • (36700 ifo t 1000000KWo/144)t o psi (OAN.A23,3) O 36 • 14200i pal (CAN•A23:3) O to • 262000 (is * 1160►" psi (INV 1002.14) O Io.33:2Woll•Ilom psi (Ad 3000.2001) O 361.2300000 psi 30.3000000 pal ppm u mg MIN all MIN MIN NMI B & i Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault•lll•Sprfloor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 Fine Engineering Concrete Mixes MI MINI INN PIM RN Rercmars �- N3 As * 0,11 • e0 v— f 4 As • 0,2 ky V. 00 °- 8 As * 0,75 N * 00 sq, In ksl sq. In. ksl 6s at 20000 ksl Leos • 2 Es * 20000 ksl Leos • 1 sq. kn, is ■ 20000 ksi ksJ Leos * 1 Poill ! Wel Ismil Mg MEN MUM MUM NM ® & T Design & Engineering, Ine. - Veult•llISpr floor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 Fine Engineering Reinforcing Ears MP Mal MINI PINNI Pte! F Om, P Element Mesh Plan NS MOM 111•11 111110 8 & Y Design & Engineering, Inc, - Vauih111•Spr floor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 SavepueloiM Sprinp/inppnvts;tlne SpiMISuppoNSSAue SprMde,Wede Below Sleb,Cobnnns Delo* 1116,Wells Above SIeb,Columns Above Sl.b$i.btAleb l deee, Seale 1J0 4-0 ..< - s. ., x ex ,,, ...« c a a r „ , .....X twwa•\ -a sxu m _> - : 4 :.ys: *, , .: y .►1 y... f ' ,'c • • .l t `t...... ..... . aj I /�. ` s� .1 4 ;. T - •_ , _ . • 'i - rr _, .� �% Z .. AL iii ' 111 Iwsf 1 ! ,# / T l: >. y \ _`, uu ' ' IfY p,u / ' s { 1 . t I' 1) t I ' `�, fi /1 • 4 (� \• '\ ka - . ' f ! t y . 1`'(j X /1 ,' M .�i r t .. I , r ,. '/ t,; ./. / ♦ . r ' I� tx� • 1 � I A •, 4 Fine Engineering Element Mesh Plan MM. OM NM PEN MO 011111111 Pm, Pine OMNI MIMI MI Slab Summary Ala lln�lwei'elill +al $ Ofte.1lie Spoleediopee1f;AMe Sp ingkerlimini Delo* Stalo,Wils Menu giekeeirens9 Ave ir Sleto,§e1, Week NAM 1i10 aidt k4 1"i 1 '14 FiA• 14 1-11 rR °11 8 & T Design & Engineering, Ina a Vnuit-ill•Spr Moor- Wednesday January 08, 2003 7 =11 _ 1'A 11 1 1: 1 jlisg4 1141111 ; rt. 43'11 (OW IN !Jost pi Nisi 1,4 . 11 14!.411,4 • I 1'11 TL,$ °11 skyai i1/44 1 "11 (10S'I I . j�h'1i111Y Fine Engineering Slab Summary Plan ".*A,KP.a<o4•,,,t,:,41-:.(;A:4;344, • pai um um imp pool jowl mil ommq pi. Ire—i oug ow OM MI MN 8 & T Design & Englneeting, Ino Vault-III-Sprfloor. - Wednesday January 08, 2003 Support Sgunrna Plan Strodute Point Spriertguppoliaine SptiestSuppottliAtea Spriege,Weth Below Illeb,Cclutens Bylaw 516,Welle Above Slakeokonee Above Slab,Sieb &Igo, Seale WO ttz 1 ' ots. astisermialumausukeruex sr .... r ..4-......a.s,a4at. .. .—.-..ass.r.acs—,-c -,•,-. •-,-, acor.s..1,,,..a.',c—daci. - a.... ...4 6' IiitiO .1.1,411 isle Po 1 .143-nmr., 4ret+Ca.,.6,' Fine Engineering Support Summary Plan OM NM MI PM PIM Wig Pus, Smog tammi Dead Load HI Plan Dud Low mpd. t o4titie LaAdt.,Ans task ftroetwr.W *M fhlew $Wb,Cdwrni Below NANA Abate lgeb,Cdrmae Abe+e 81e•Aleb &Ilek deals 11:30 1 NM MIN 8 8 T Design & Engineering, Inc. - VeulI•III-Spr floor - Wednesday Jemmy 08, 2003 Fine Engineering Dead Load I!! Plan INN Mil INN 1111i1 Elie MEI limn an am ow am iiii mai mi Nom mei Nue StreetattiVelk akh11 , i rF.." g i „ .„ –• W.. - t4.i ... Y4 „i. . . . 7. 3 g * •& – • 0A 117- 4 1 D. — 4e0 s- 1 i g- n & Engineerng, Inc, - Vau1.11.PFSii p* * rA A l''t4 , i I , , o f *oA r - ” Wi 1 i ednesI i 1 i 1 i ! i 1 i i t i ■ 1 i d ay Jan uaory 08 , 2003 ! 1 i i i : 7 Li e Load 111 P lan the oa 11Pali Lmiike LakAte Lk &kw Sdeaiees Ww MOM Aim keie AwSheSa w n n – ----, i 1 i , 1 1 .• -- - , 1 1 ! I %elk Seek 1 IA _ • 1:ArtgArk•Se4.45.,2Q1,..e*.ar...., trt-- Fine Engineering Live Load ill Plan MM. MEM 1.1111 irrup psis prom, primal pm, Owl mil NEM MIMI MI B 8 T Design & Engineering, Inc. • VauII.III Spr,ilaor = Wednesday January 08, 2003 Factored LC 3: Design Section Summary 1 As Top ConitellIno As Sot Confiding As Of Shp Spcg Controlling Status (811.111,/ M. M,) (sq, iril (In them) 1 0 0.0367 ACI 10.2 0 Inf OK 2 0 0,0016 ACI 10,2 0 Mf OK 3 0 0,101 ACI 101 0 Mt OK 4 0 0137 ACI 10,2 0 Mt OK 5 0 0,330 ACI 10,2 0 Mt OK 6 0 0.223 ACI 10.2 0 MI OK 7 0.0246 ACI 101 0 0 MI OK 8 0 0,0360 ACI 10,2 0 MI OK 0 0 0,100 ACI 10:2 0 Mt OK 10 0 0,201 AC1102 0 ad OK 11 0 0,144 ACI 10,2 0 MI OK 12 0 0,210 ACI 10:2 0 MI OK 10 0 0.107 ACI 101 0 Inf OK 14 0.19 ACI 101 0 0 MI OK 16 0 0,00406 AOI 10:2 0 Mf OK 16 0 00461 ACI 10,2 0 In( OK 17 00011 ACI 10,2 0 0 Mt OK 11 0 0,196 AC110,2 0 Mt OK 19 0 0,311 AC110,2 0 Mt OK 20 0 0,335 ACI 101 0 MI OK 21 0 0,164 ACI 10,2 0 Int OK 22 0,0200 ACI 101 0 0 Mt OK 13 0 0,0521 ACI 10,2 0 MI OK 24 000764 ACI 10,2 0 0 MI OK 26 0,120 ACI 101 0 0 MI OK 30 0.177 ACI 10.2 0 0 MI OK 27 0 0,0160 ACI 101 0 Mt OK 10 0 0,000 ACI 101 0 Int OK 29 0,101 ACI 10,2 0 0 Mf OK 30 0 0.232 ACI 10,2 0 Inf OK 31 0 0.467 ACI 10.2 0 Mt OK 32 0 0457 ACI 101 0 Mt OK 33 0 0,174 ACI 10.2 0 MI OK 34 0,10 AC110.Z 0 0 Inf OK 36 0 0,0461 AC110.2 0 Inf OK 30 0,010 ACI 10.2 0 0 MI OK 37 0,173 ACI 10,2 0 0 MI OK 36 0 0,907 ACI 10.2 0 Of OK 39 0 `)5E `..) bAR. 1.92 ACI 10.2 0 MI OK 40 0 r(3 T01A1.� .ice ACI 10.2 0 Inf OK 41 0 1,91 ACI 10.2 0 Mt OK 42 0 0.697 ACI 10.2 0 Int OK 43 0,181 ACI 10.2 0 0 It OK 44 0 0.00495 ACI 10.2 0 Mt OK 46 0 0.0471 ACI 10.2 0 Inf OK 46 0.162 ACI 10.2 0 0 Inf OK 47 0 0.221 ACI 10.2 0 WI OK "Status' Indicates whether Floor has found a feasible solution to satisfy the criteria selected for this section. Fine Engineering Factored LC 3: Design Section Summary ■ Mil MEM IOW p•mji Rail MIN MIN MI NM INN NMI MIN 13 & T Design & Enginaaring, Inc, - Vault-111-Spriloor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 Fact red LC 3: Desi tQSultna - Continued 2 0 As Top Control** As Ocit Controlling As Shr Stro Spop Controlling Slaws 04, WO (i43,111.) (q, in) (Inches) 4$ 0 0.417 ACI 10.2 0 Int OK 49 0 0.417 A01 10,2 0 Inf OK SO 0 0,104 AC1 10.2 0 Inf OK 61 02 ACI 101 0 0 MI OK 62 0 0.0664 ACI 10.2 0 Alf OK 03 0022 ACI 10.2 0 0 Inf OK 54 0,171 ACI 101 0 0 kit OK U 0,120 AC 1 10.2 0 0 int OK U 0 0.00142 ACI 10,2 0 Inf OK 117 0 003110 ACI 102 0 Int OK SI 0.04011 ACI 101 0 0 it OK SO 0 OM ACI 101 0 Of OK •0 0 0,300 ACI 101 0 Int OK $1 0 0347 ACI 10,2 0 It OK GI 0 0.131 ACI 10.2 0 Int OK $3 0.0282 ACI 101 0 o inf OK s4 0 00477 ACI 10,2 0 Int OK VI 0,030$ ACI 101 0 0 inf OK SO 0,100 ACI 101 0 0 Inf OK 07 0 00150 A01 10,2 0 Inf OK 01 0.0122 ACI 101 0 0 int OK 09 0110 AC1 101 0 0 Int OK 70 00131 ACI 10,2 0 0 Inf OK 71 0 0,0119 AC 10,3 0 it OK 72 0 00632 AC 10.2 0 Int OK 73 0 0.0312 AC 10,2 0 Inf OK 74 0 0.106 AC 10.2 0 Inf OK 76 0 0.231 AO 10.2 0 Int OK 76 0 0,272 AC 102 0 int OK 77 0 0132 AC 10.2 0 Int OK TO 0,0335 ACI 101 0 0 Inf OK 79 0 0.0355 AC 10,2 0 int OK "Stolus” Indicdtel *ether Fkx* his found • feasible solution to satisfy the criteria selected for this section. Fine Engineering Factored LC 3: Design Section Summary ass Isom wig pr. RION t palm' M„""y fairool swami /mom aims mg NM MN Mill B & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Vault•111- Sprfloor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 Factored Design Section Criteria 0 Onion Crtierta Top Orr Dal Oar Sty Oar flop Cow U6tleln Caig fi. bpth 13 O. boat Span Lott ( +ts.1 Mao) Oath's) "het) (thee) 1 AC 10.2;1.3 /0 18 13 U 1.28 2.76 0 0 240 2 AC 102 ;11,3 WO NO 13 U 1.26 2.75 0 0 240 3 AC 10.2;11.3 NO oa N3 U 1.26 2.78 0 0 240 4 AC 10.2;11:9 NO NO 13 U 1.25 275 0 0 240 8 AC 10.2 ;11,9 NO M N3 U 1.28 2.76 0 0 240 0 AC 102;11,3 NI 10 13 U 1.26 2.16 0 0 240 7 AC 10.2;11,3 NS NO 13 U 126 2.75 0 0 240 1 AC 10.2:11,3 10 OS 03 U 1.25 2 715 0 0 240 0 AC 10 2 be NO 13 U 1.26 2 76 0 0 240 10 AC 102 NO 18 13 U 126 216 0 0 240 11 AO 10 2 OS NS 03 U 126 2 76 0 0 240 12 AC 10 2 NS NO 13 U 146 2.78 0 0 240 13 AC 10 3 NS IS 03 U 128 2.75 0 0 240 14 AC 10:2,MSlab 14 04 13U 246 1 0 0 24 16 AC 10.2'; As Slab 14 14 13 U 28 1 0 0 24 10 AC 10.2, A411144 14 14 13U 226 1 0 0 24 17 AC 103, As Slob 14 14 03 U 2 26 1 0 0 24 11 AC 10.24M Slab N4 14 13 U 2 25 1 0 0 24 11 AC 102;M Slab 14 14 13U 225 1 0 0 24 20 AC 102; As Slab 14 14 13 U 2 25 1 0 0 24 21 AC 10,3; M Stab 14 14 13 U 2 48 1 0 0 24 22 AC 10.2; As Slab 04 14 13 U 246 1 0 0 24 23 AC 10 2; M Slab 14 04 13 U 2 25 1 0 0 24 24 AC 10 2; M 14 14 44 03 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 26 AC 10 2; M Slab 14 114 13 U 2 25 1 0 0 24 20 AC 10 2; As blab 14 14 43 U 2.26 1 0 0 24 27 AC 102;As Slab 14 14 13U 225 1 0 0 24 20 AC 102; M Olab 14 14 13 U 2.36 1 0 0 24 20 AC 10.2; As Slab 14 14 13 U 3.26 1 0 P 24 30 AC 102; M (Stab 14 14 13 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 31 AC 10 2; M Mob 14 14 13 U 2.26 1 0 0 24 32 AC 10.2; As Slab 14 14 42 U 2.26 1 0 0 24 33 AC 102; As blab 14 14 13 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 34 AC 10 3; M Slab 14 44 13 U 2 26 1 0 0 24 35 AC 10.2; As Slab 14 14 13 U 3.25 1 0 0 24 30 AC 10.2; M Glob 14 14 13 U 2,25 1 0 0 24 27 AC 10 4; M Web 14 14 13 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 34 AC 102 00 so 13 U 1.25 2.75 0 0 240 30 AC 102 10 I8 13 U 1.25 2.75 0 0 240 40 AC 102 111 06 N3 U 1.25 2.76 0 0 240 41 AC 10.2 08 WO 03 U 1.25 2.76 0 0 240 42 AC 10.2 18 00 13 U 1.25 2.75 0 0 240 43 AC 102; As OW 14 04 03 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 44 AC 10.2; M Oleb 14 04 13 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 45 AC 102. M $tap 14 04 03 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 'Tap oat' k►dlcetes the top reinforcing bar type that Floor will use if nocessery to nutty the criteria *elected for This section. "oat oar k4c4e4) the boUom rein/arcing bar type that Flow will use U necessay to satisfy tine critede selected for this section. "6hr oat kWicates the steer reinforcing bar type Owl Flex will use U necessary to satisfy the criteria selected for this section. lg. T. PpUf' Indicates Ma depth of the lop of the slob that Flow Ignores when calculating strength and stresses for this eectlon. "q. 0. Dpth" Indicates the depth of the bottom of the slab that Floor Ignores when calculating strength and strosns for this section "Span t.gth" Indicates tho span length end Is ady 1400 10 calculate limiting stresses In unbonda4 tendons ( section 10 JP, lo celcutate minimum reWorcment (section 15.9.3.3) and to estimate raper quantities. Fine Engineering Factored L.0 3: Design Section Criteria ass ins Poi wool boa 0111111 pima MIR NMI Mill MI B & T Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault•III•Spr,goor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 Factore•B.0 3: resin Section criteria - ©ntin�ed C2) 0 D*lldn Cr otlo 46 ACI 10.2; As Slab 47 ACI 10.2; M Mob 46 ACI 10.2 M Slob 40 ACI 10.2; MOW 80 ACI 10.2 M ONb 11 ACI 10.2; As Obit 52 ACI 102 M Slob 52 A01 10.2; M ONb 64 ACI 10.2; As Slat 66 ACI 102; M Mob 66 ACI 10.2; M Slob 11 301 101; M Sbb M ACI 102; As Slab 61 ACI IO 2 As Lab 00 ACI 102 MSlab 11 ACI 102 M Slob 62 ACI 102 M Slob 63 ACI 102 M Slab 64 ACI 10 2, As Mob 66 AM 10 2; M Slob 00 ACI 10 2; M Mob Or ACI 102 01 ACI 102 06 ACI 102 70 AC$ 10 3 71 ACI 10.2 73 ACI 102;11,3 73 ACI 10.3,113 74 ACI 102 ;11.6 76 ACI 1021;11,3 7O ACI 12211,0 71 ACI 10.2;113 76 ACI 121;113 79 ACI 122;11,1 Top Ow Boo Bst Shr Bon SaoSSSSMMS22222Z2ZIE Z122221EX2.222 SSS 'SSSSSanSamtmet2tt2rtzaaveziatt Top Con MOM Cob t Dpih 10. B. O ith Spun Loth (inches) (within) Mom) (withal) (w am) a ll 2.26 1 0 0 24 13 U 225 1 0 0 24 a ll 2.26 1 O 0 24 au 228 1 0 0 24 1311 226 1 0 0 24 2311 226 1 0 O 24 13 U 2.26 1 0 0 24 23 2.26 1 0 O 24 13 U 2.26 I 0 0 24 63 U 226 1 0 0 24 au 226 1 0 0 24 03 226 1 0 0 24 13U 226 1 0 0 34 13 U 2.18 1 0 0 24 au 226 1 0 0 24 all 226 1 0 0 24 a0 3D 1 0 0 24 all 2 26 1 0 0 24 13(1 226 1 0 0 24 03 220 1 0 0 24 au 225 1 0 0 24 •3U 1.28 2 76 0 0 240 a u 1211 2 76 0 0 240 13 u 1.26 3.73 0 0 240 13 U 1.30 2.70 0 0 240 13 U 1.26 2.76 0 0 240 13 U 126 276 0 0 240 03 u 1.20 2.76 0 0 240 13 U 1.20 276 0 0 240 a U 1.26 2.76 0 0 240 a u 1.26 2.76 0 0 240 a U 1.26 276 0 0 240 a U 120 2.76 0 0 240 02U 1.20 2.76 0 0 240 "Top oaf" Wiwi** the lop relnractng ter type that Foot will use If n ec*ssery to piety the criteria selected for Uite section. "Not Oar' indicates the bQlom *niacin() ten type Uu14 Floor will use U necessary to satiety the criteria selected far Mil section. 131v Bar" indicates the show reinforcing bw type lh l Floor wW us* 11 r»+cessery to satisfy the criteria selected for this section 10. T. Dpth" Indicates the depth of the top of the slab that Floor Owe; whin calculating strength and stresses for Inn season. Q. DpU1" indicates the depth of the bottom d the slab Ural Floor ignonn whin Caladati g etrergih and stresses for his whorl. "Span 4gth" Indicates the span length end 1; on/y uad t4 cakutate timWng stresses In unbonnded tendons (section 18.7.2), to calculate minim= retnJor;ment (section 10.0.3.3) end to (Wimple rotor quantiti*s• Fine Engineering Factored LC 3: Design Section Criteria !m mg INIIN ▪ MN 1M paimq jowl Wm' 1111111 NOM NM/ INIIN MOM MEI IMO NM § Factored LC 3: Design Section Forces 0 Atdal (Kips) 1 4 2 3.0 3 121 4 16.3 5 10,2 0 13 7 4,34 1 4.03 0 1,30 10 13 11 1.11 12 13,2 13 1.31 14 .0.46 16 4.687 16 -0.450 17 -0,332 11 -0,011 19 •0,629 20 •0.660 21 4,654 22 -0,417 23 4.407 24 .0,71 26 4,450 20 •0554 37 4 143 20 4441 29 •0,417 30 •0.075 31 •0,123 32 .0.117 33 -0.600 34 •0 554 35 .0,35 30 •0.021 37 •0550 31 20,1 30 40 40 45.9 41 40.9 42 27.2 43 .0.54 44 •0.500 46 4,420 Wong (Kips) 4,36 6.00 4.63 3.66 •7.40 6,76 .1,70 1:33 4.12 7,27 4:212 .7,75 .4,13 .2:14 1,43 3.63 •2,0 2,66 6.41 4.70 0,370 3:64 .3,07 0,73 3,16 •0400 0052 1,02 •029 0,372 0,407 4 410 •0,142 0.505 •0,959 4,0030 0.012 .1.202 •0.127 0.0111 0,140 0.20 1.97 •0.005 •1.91 Vodka! (Kips) 5,11 2,73 1.03 0.61 0,76 1,07 2.0 6,11 .7.32 •17,3 44,9 .17.3 .7,33 1:71 .1,43 0.422 3,70 •3.07 2,06 .2:01 3.3 4,95 •0,744 1.19 .1.3 1,01 422 0:970 4.97 •4.45 2.99 •7,99 4.47 .4.52 0.0595 1,42 •1,57 0.201 0.090 1,79 1.03 0.030 2.1 .1.14 0.140 Torsion (kl6) 5.45 14,5 12.0 12,4 -12:3 .12,5 .12.6 4.48 .3,2 . 13 4.448 12,6 3,22 0.00423 0,0764 0.406 0.004 0,902 0,210 •0,102 •1.39 •1,07 0.407 •1,34 . 1,23 0,011 0,24 0,77 .1.625 0.15 0.714 .0,721 .0.542 •0.059 •0.0702 •1.3 .1.26 0.0642 0,470 .0.0306 •0.309 .0.16 0.141 0.002 • 0.0453 Bending (MI A) 1.77 0:475 10.0 16,1 16.2 10.7 .0.641 1,70 9,41 13.0 002 136 0,35 .0.872 0.0192 0:600 0,400 2.33 3.00 3,92 1:00 •0,102 0.030 •0.0507 •0010 •1,13 0,105 0,607 .1.03 2,75 5,24 5.24 2,09 .1.03 0.554 •0.127 •1,1 40,7 66.7 07,7 05.4 40.2 .1.10 0.0503 0.677 Alt P7 Force (kip-h) (Knps) .1.04 (0,0) .1,06 (00) •7.70 (0,0) 6.46 (0,0) 4.36 (0,0) 6.04 (0,0) 0,706 (0,0) 1.0 (0,0) 0.0006 (0,0) 6,30 (0,0) 0.607 (0,0) .4.20 (0,0) 4121 (0,0) 0:613 (0,0) 0,107 (OA) 0.664 (0,0) 0 04 (0,0) 0,360 (0,0) 1.21 (0,0) 1,10 (0,0) 0,17 (0,0) 0:630 (0,0) 0.731 (0,0) 0,101 (0,0) 0,572 (0,0) 00504 (0,0) 0.0202 (0,0) 0,195 (0,0) 0.21 (0,0) 40992 (0,0) 0,0941 (0,0) 0.0947 (0,0) .0177 (0,0) 0.311 (0,0) 0.233 (0,0) 0.0444 (0,0) 0.16 (0,0) .0.12 (0,0) .1.06 (0,0) 4.161 (0,0) 1.10 (0.0) 6.02 (0,0) -0.357 (0,0) -0.123 (0.0) -0.412 (0,0) 8 & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Vault- Ill- Spr,floor- Wednesday January 08, 2003 flooding Cap Weikel Cop (k pM) (Kips) (0.530,1.77) 20.3 (•0.315,1.04) 26.3 (.3.14,10.0) 20.3 (471,16:2) 28.3 (472,10.2) 20.3 (4,10,10,7) 26.3 (1:35,0,103) 21.0 (.0.630,1,76) 20.3 (4.72,0.45) (.4 07,14) • (4.06,0 03) (406,13:0) (4:72,0.42) (0.511,1:40) • (0.0270,0.0512) • (.0.261,0.547) • (4411,0.691) • (404,2,36) • 001,3,71) • (•1.72,3:97) • (0135,1.07) • (0.193,0,323) (•020,004) • (0:0500,0,0049) • ( 4027,1,4) • 0,15,1,05) • (40002,0,100) • (4306,0.01) • (406,1,77) (•1 =23,2,70) (4.27,6,34) (2.27,5.34) • (0.934,2.1) • 0.04,1,76) • (4261,0.565) (.0.120,0214) • (.1.12,1.9) • (0,41.6) (0,07.0) (0,09.0) (0,07.2) (0,41) (.1.17,1.99) . ( 4.0279,0.0612) • (4.262.0.079) 'PT Force' Indicates the post-tensioning forces that Floor used for bonding design; oho two tacos listed are for opposite curvatures. 'Oonding Cap." indicates the capacty of the section for negative and positive moment; ." Indicates that no capacity was catwtatod. 'Vertical Cap' Indicates the capacity of the section for vortical Ow; ".' indicates that no capacity was catcutatad. Fine Engineering Factored LC 3: Design Section Forces Mil NM Ell 1111 NM 11111 11111 11111 MN MINI INN MI 11111 MUM NM 11111 NMI Mil RN B & 7 Design & Engineering, Inc, a VauII =IlhSpr Ioor- Wednesday January 0A 2003 Factored LC 3 I Section or�ce� - Continued (2) 0 Aldet Latent VMical Taetan 8endtng Mt PT tome Deriding Cep Vortical Cap (Kbe) (KIM) (KIPS) MA) WO (WO (KW) (kIP4) (KIPS) 48 4.736 2,10 414 =0.537 .1.04 4.661 (0,0) (1.05,1:70) • 47 4724 4.886 •4.33 4.126 2.84 0.0414 (0,0) 0,16,2.87) • 48 4.10 •1.8 2,76 4864 6.46 4:331 (0,0) (•2.36,6.68) • 40 4,123 1.3 •2.81 0,220 411 4.287 (0.0) (4.09.4.9) • 60 •103 .4828 8,76 0.0603 212 0.108 (0,0) (•1.04,214) _ 51 .0111 •1.74 463 0,114 •1,27 .0002 (0,0) (420,2:19) • 82 4414 213 •1.19 1.03 0.135 4.339 (0.0) (0,379,0.630) • 83 .0.633 .0733 111 =1,02 =0,147 .0.0084 (0,0) (0.147,0,247) • 64 0176 401 •1,48 •1,03 •1.00 4318 (0,0) 0,11,1:88) • 66 -0,432 4,43 102 4869 4,131 .0124 (0,0) (0.147,1,43) • 66 4,713 •1,87 4068 0:0080 0,104 4208 (0,0) (00474,0,104) • 07 4404 4b 0,236 40373 0:437 .0.864 (0,0) (0,109,0.438) • 6. 4206 418 31 416 4311 4838 (0,0) (4313,0124) _ 69 4872 498 407 •0:788 2,23 4,314 (0,0) (0.990,216) • 80 4,636 482 2,61 4.313 316 4,4 (0,0) (.1,68,313) • 81 4.894 7,84 =210 0,0111 4,08 •1,31 (0,0) (•1.70,4,12) • 82 4090 •1,03 2.8 0376 110 .0121 (0.0) ( 4,713,1,8) • 63 -0.366 4.19 •2:69 0312 4,169 -0.777 (0,0) (0,19,0.317) • 64 4,466 4,66 •0142 1,04 1610 •0,704 (0,0) (4 2861688) • 66 .0.014 •1,36 .0,24 0,204 -0,204 .0,196 (0,0) (4.206,0:343) • 68 .0,477 .4,01 •0047 4.333 4712 .0,777 (0,0) (4,710,1,21) • 87 318 4,6 7.90 3,90 0,762 0,466 (0,0) (4,228,0:763) • 61 3,00 412 10,0 131 462 6,24 (0,0) (462,0041) • 09 4,60 0,166 36 0,446 •12,4 •0,0018 (0,0) 02,4,1,71) • 70 301 7,16 19,6 •131 •4,62 •6,11 (0,0) (•4,62,0041) • 71 3:02 201 7,96 4,90 0673 4646 (0,0) (0,174,0,674) • 72 219 3,0 5,03 •1 217 2,61 (0,0) (0776,3,67) 41 73 2,44 .3 •1,70 =14,2 0,0001 •00224 (0,0) (4.460,1.61) 41 74 9,92 2,63 3.72 •9,03 6,93 12,2 (0,0) (4071,96) 41 76 L14 0.933 •4 4,06 11.1 4,14 (0.0) (4,31,111) 41 70 11.6 =147 9,02 20,1 13,1 10.6 (0,0) (•317,13.1) 41 77 6.76 1,26 .419 19,1 017 4.33 (0,0) (•1.91,037) 41 78 1,73 0.209 1.1 17.9 •1.39 *0903 (0,0) (•1.90,0.28) 27.4 79 1210 4616 4.0 12,1 1,71 •0,132 (0,0) (0.619,1.72) 41 'PT Face' indicate; the post-tensioning force; that Floor used for pending design, the two forces listed are for opposite curvatures• Vending Cop." Indicates the copecity of the ;octlon for negethre and positive moment; N' Indicates that no capacity was calculated. "Vertical Cep" Indicates the capacity of the section for vertical ;hoar,'.' indicate; that no capacity was celorrlated. Fine Engineering Factored LC 3: Design Section Forces , , • NEM PI NI MIN WM Pool P•mli raj Pm" Mm! Pam, folgo4 161114 IMMO IMO NMI 1.4-4- -17r I -II/ • LiSir - • t, . Factored LC 3 Mx Plan ?Meted LC 3D461#1114‘00ffaukk1 Memel M(*/ tune wilooding)41 Nowt *2 1:100,0 diseti100L tivelutr.Wdi belew MWiL Aboom /1114,Colatitd Altos 81&14141,11dgti, kele 1110 Malmo Valas • 4.01 kips (II (112, 112)j MrsImins %h. * 14,2 Kip if (#1 4, 404), 8 & T Design & Engineering, Inc - Vaull-111-Sprfloor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 - .1. 011 1 .:_...,..14._. i ,0 ....„,...4„....,.....v....4.4uv.i.„......„....„.........,,,.„........ (1 Trrliv r •,..--,... Z %...,, , , _... 1 tft„.,...L.r..........011 tr.-4 - . • 0.4:: -Qt.-- ..T....i . — V 0-- I •'---1 I- ''''' 4 .110 ' ''''''''''t t.;"1-'''''''''...."'''''•=,--,...4-•,--,,,,,•'-'"'';°1 L. (..A4,11: rit A 4, i e P411 f 4 4 I Acr, tro • • —II t..,-, • ..''''' 4 Ws"' it • ,..-,, *.r....** ..e,,-,,e* .,,eess.,,,yes e*erar*,,i,,,....•_ ,„,,1 .... , . ' t."4 7...*•,4:;;;---'' 4 1 4 Z 4 Z 4 f (-/ ii. .m......i.. :...* I tr'"""N' 12:ZZII, 147".:4t,'" 43).*f "......•tp........„,4,.....1...4..44.. turs,e4r"" "'""""‘Siit 4.'N ii, I ; to for A4 Torii 0032 -1 I '-'-jr' i4 t--- • ' -4-- e t- n Tt ' „I:A-J. ' ; t. ' 4 I 1,........--#;*t.-------i-aiia-o----1, _,.. foOrt.0119%......4r.....4,,, k,„-,:eiers..0.1),1-00.040( , t, ;;;411•014. 4 4 Ei 4 4 n r-z—'-rj ' - . I I $ IMS-4aircriV1 Fine Engineering Factored LC 3 Mx Plan Alr.,05,Y1 MN MN MEN NMI. Factored LC 3 Min Pteiertd LC i.iltalgm Stetiuma,gEnding Ma n+en1 pp�,,lwt turw'madame.° Cunww ■ 2 k 1)i.(r dmteooa), Ewuwre.Wtb below 81tb,Ceiumns tlelew S1eb,WEN% Abn i Ebb,Co&imma Abow Slab:Slab hdgea, Sisk lib Hokum Valo om.L11 (219, MaainwmVdwit 77.1Kip§ (a(Ili,4161, ma ems mu NM NM MINN NM INN 8 & fi Deakin & Engineering, Inc> - Vault - I11- Spr,0oor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 Fine Engineering Factored LC 3 My Plan IMO Mil IMO MIMS NM Factored LC 3 Vx Plan Meetoted LC 2:t2e46 8eecdoekVenial Wm Plo ;(w/ cunt unaahinee),(I Commit + 2 144/11),(4 dilation), SvueluttWart Below SItb,C mne ttek,w sob, tib Abaw Slab,Columnt About St4b;Sltb Udgik stele !JO Minimum Who Y •12.6Ilpim § (101, 416), h(eebnunr Vtlue * 32.1 kip✓II 40 (203, 401), MOM mill mum sow MIMI MIMI INN B & T Design & Engineering, Ina, - Vault.III.Spr boor- Wednesday January 09, 2003 Fine Engineering Factored LC 3 Vx Plan !II mop mg NEN moo pm, pm, ms! prat oral or' MI NM NM MIMI 111111111 F c to re cgrni NONA Le "balm kaidosiVentai nal MA*/ tar* tadoo4Idik),(1 COMM* 2 kipirlit(y 4ifottind)-, Sininits.itig4 h Sisb.Coloodts Beim SIdiNialle Abate Stsb,Cdatiro Atom 11/01141, BAK lute 130 MWwm V11,11* 44 #9 (OSA, 402) Nahiw Valid* XI tifitil fi 01.4, 421). Ili j,..■••■•••••••""isr--*--r'..""°•""einifflegester"*""""..41F4411.amil$"e4 1. • si azz,, • 8 & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Vault-III.Sprfloor - Wednesday January Oa 2003 11 f 00 CI 144.444 •.•,...11i;.1.111: ;kat., sapt 1,erf:07.11P • e.se rumacl...• • for • V • zr-Ata '=",- • fol r0 4:: u " * II • ) Nns°9.G".kie ' 17. \ ameeeneverom■seromeneeepreet evelesol l • •ri:47:,. exememeesme 4. • g W;•., • "";.7.1. ••••4.1.• 11 004 4 4 --I- Vit ...—r.,-•,-•• •:•436 --V - .,•.•-• -, _ i______\ 4 • gN r,,,4. i/ 1 rne.,0-..-. , 1 e 0 ie v1. ,, . - owl _______..„ ..?..,_ ts 0 . 1- nr...................... ii"41.....,04,01..0.-.0"'• .1‘....1.-.,: 7. ..1..- i';,-.-,•44-----..-.40"-" t' re.,;,t)-<''. ; '-okii i;•••• U.2 r/,,.. . .... ■•••-••■•—•.- •••”•,,,r.•,—...--,•-•"*.401 ).did 4•4 --ig•••r'"Ivr r . • 1.1. Fine Engineering Factored LC 3 Vy Plan Slab Factored ,C_ 3 Torsion Plan Palmed LC 1D.i 0 i ktNaes,••?onion Pkt,(14/ apt ettiaedlie),(1 C 0.3 Ki*);(mu **i ditettinn), Suutlute:Wdk Ulm bi.b,Cdumns Odle* b;Wilb Above ib,Columne Above 116141) b Oddet; k.k 110 141it1mum V.h • 0.074 Kip (119,191), M.tknum Value • 701 Kip 0 (114, 407), INN MAO MI NM NM MN B & T Design & Engineering, Inc: • Veult•III.Spr Iloor - Wednesday January 09, 2003 Fine Engineering Slab Factored LC 3 Torsion Plan • • HMI INC 010 '11.'44 'Mambo, 0 - ---SYHOM OVISfitl - - - 4-14 - - adisi-Ng5iTturcialloisso-7- , .d'16000 0 la eetteMe e --- A13031:1 • I • • 1 - asps .214.2...4.44,22.2 .4 • - a. • : • • •, „ • • . • ? 4a. ali..a.a.a...avaaaia.a.• a••••2 1,V.a...v.a42-T• .1.4 a • aa••••• .a..12••••••■•••••2'02•22:2.,-I.L. A • .... • • • . • .. .4 .J •■■•••••••■ - sataA.O.1.0.4145. • 4s - -1•12....... -4 4...al.... F.- : 4.4 i.......a. 2.24-24-.6•12.44,14•121.1a.....2a2v.... 2.-••• sas via. ........ ................................. 1- - a -.a.. .... -a: ... ... as.. • -.a-a .4. 44 • .13.- 4 - ...... ••••• ....att... - tut. A.... .4.. 1. ......... -as.... , . . ... ,...• ',.. .............-• pa•4422.1-almlar.--i .42.a•-•12.42.1 4...... -ay. -4- • •• ,,...• -••■,•••...t••••••••■ AL•••••••142.1........tai....2. 7.......■ ....db.... co.••••.....«a pa-. s. • ....- ......4.4,...........c. - ---,,...... ia.t...................4- 4414.1•■••444.41. 44.. .•■■••■■••••11....- .. -.... as ..... -a.. a .. .. .. . . ... , t ... ••■•• ...... ....... ina • a IS 21...21.24.....4.2.1420.2•2•142.4.111.42 aaa. ././.4 sa . pa mar • a....2•2. • •-••••••••••••••••••• ...2.22•••••-•••••••••42202............... • 2 - • • • • ......- • • . . - 5••••• ay.,* a rt. .......tutt. a /t-aa. . tat At., . • ...... st att., Ma t ...-■ -4, 1414.4. • 1 . • t . a. 15 a. •.,,, • its ati t alaaaaliir.di 212.2.11;.a4 t.... 2 • a .31 •,-,. . a i a a .4 • allasita aaragaw .0 • a Vaaa :" • ...0 7. • . •-•...... a • - • - a ; -.1 • a .1 . •P • , .22.2114, a a: a a . , a ...,..7 4 a 4 . Pa aa a 4 t.*.* al! a a- 49, a a 4 .. a . 2,12. s . a a ... -1 • 22 4.5t a ..... .4. i .2.4 • .. 2 .■ . I ..a • . Z. •.. -a . .1.• 414 .44 i t. g . S. .I. • ..ia••••• A . S • I - ; a 4 aa 2 • •.. • L2a . ,s 4 4 • , a - . • ...04ta 2..54 WW sa4 1, t • 5 ••• ...4•.ai •■: . ,• a• • . - . : 4A 1.: as .. • A••••..•• ag• A ••1,. 11. c t a .. , .. . . ,.1 .-..• a . S., • 4 a a. .1 'a 4am.a saa222. ... . 2-tap... • -,.... 4 ....,... , -Al P a..02 ...V.P.22214EY.2122,,,ppasesays..A., s,043.* .- 2 s-:".- • 22 2 .2.- 4.42, ••• • Pa • 22 . . 4...2. 2.12 4 A 4. .-.1 . Pa,: ... • . ...P. a 1. a La . 1.221 :Ma a aulri '02.22, a II 222 Java 2 • -a a 2.4.- .2.2.....ILIEV.2224.1.2....., dial ram= XS a. sa, ala a . ; • .. .. . .4 . as :a - vas. 2 , AU AI it SS .2 • 2 ....a ass •I‘ AO 4,2.• • • ■ .. JA••• 1 . 122 PIS . 5 .1•1•••••• A at AP-....222: • va a 4i . a 4. - asp a .. Oa.. lairaass SE W.. as... as- siva P. 3.44 • • , x .: - :. . .2 2.4 .2.. sat., v....a. a. , 2 .22.1222.:.. a 2 say.2 .. ..J• • - 4 : a • ..• ....WIC ...It ..•••• c.a. • 1 .2 • •221222.2S. P ACP ,21122.4122.1•2 ,, x .,... s .2 avaa.v. 2 . 4...: • S. : a. • A .i1 - , - ,,. • * • S. A • 1. . • •••• ag • • -'I • I 1 • • 4.‘ . . • 4. • • • X ', •• ....,•••■-- ,, , • • .414.•;,...1.... . ; : , . .. , ••• ; ; :a it a . 4 • . A. • a.. . . • a :a ; • . -. •• • 1 vl .414121.• ••••12.'”: : vs, a : . . v t • : 4as „I a . Oka ..er s - , t. tatrcttts ,6.. a 4 7, ..," S.! VS At: • 1.1, " 42 2: , :I Va a IR . ,42+12'., z 12.2,11/ ••• Pat al, I sa •22 al al P ? M V4P.I2V.2,..-Is 7 a • .21 IX' 2 p , s: • ..; JP 2 1 s' 2 .22 Pp a • :IL. Jr .1:. •st; at ZS... 3 5 Pc..t - Z,. P . 2 1. • • • Pa aP2a2:-. 2s, sc• . • - .0. 6041 • - MZ 't Z- . =VIM. • . 741: a: • ; • .32 • a ava • • • •.„ „ • v. ra. Pas • • '• • • 2 V • .2••. 4A • s• t • NOLLOAVI9NO0 ONlitiag sN vd x '11.i on 'Jo ifilnasnIN:* - 03A0lide • .• • iinvn 13M kuivno,asiva, -V11011 40 _ He-3 1. xmeoz nool, :rinvn 13NVd '' ° ""'„" ' • .yurrvi.,,-,i,;-1.4.1 mm.44 • p. p., • 7.1fjpti Itt . ‘ ••,•• Art ri■TS• 12...Vm• 1.. ;4f4ti ..Aft; 9°1.14'10.1'9W/tit; • Oa, •Saaar.• ••••••••••• jjiO /Ide41 • tdi e Pt:1;! lat1CFIC '''--epun eii3-61eA0i fig„, dUvr)PDX1P.tg.04/- •,, i • • • • •-•.e.• ^an* •-••• *wasp. xftp. Inrx ta e • •••••••freAVIPP•v* •• • •••• ••••• ',Vt...., - - -N01930 ivan.Lontu.s • IVII••••• •-• -1••• • Pr• avve -•••••• QUM° IN3110 lonoowd AO 1031'01:Id JO BOVd ANIMWOO finVA Alma jI 114 111 1,1 • ••• O ldcastle Cast PAGE OF PROJECT MUSEUM OF FLIGHT EXPANSION- SEATTLE, WA PRODUCT PANEL VAULT: 1001x 20'Wx 11' -3 "H SY DATE 2.141O3 CLIENT MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CHECKED REV (�y WATER QUALITY WET VAULT MATERIALS: CONCRETE: 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, fc =8,000 psi, REBAR: ASTM M15 GRADE 60 WWF: ASTM A185 GRADE 65 SPECIFICATIONS: DESIGN: ACI. 318.02 BUILDING CODE. DATE LOADS: ASTM C890 "MINIMUM STRUCTURAL DESIGN LOADING FOR MONOLITHIC OR SECTIONAL PRECAST CONCRETE WATER AND WASTEWATER STRUCTURES" AASHTO HS -20 WHEEL LOAD, P ■16.0k 30% IMPACT LOADING FOR SOIL COVER LESS THAN 3'4" 120 pot SOIL DENSITY 40 pcf E,F.P. LATERAL SOIL PRESSURE ABOVE WATER TABLE 80 pcf E.F.P. LATERAL SOIL PRESSURE BELOW WATER TABLE ' LIVE LOAD SURCHARGE OF 2' ADDITIONAL SOIL COVER TOP OF VAULT 13" TO 24" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. WATER TABLE 5'4" BELOW FINISHED GRADE The design submitted Is the property of and Is for the proprietary use of Utility Vault Co., Inc, only, and shall be used on product manufactured only by Utility Vault Co., Inc. rrwwiw mru10►rw, OLD 315 * R91OQ 11 W2.9 x W2.9 4/2 MESH STIRRUPS Rt 1 cN OAR I 5r #6 BAR C4 12" 0.C. TOP #4 BAR 0 12" O,C, #4 BAR ® 12" O.C. SIDE WALL BASE #6 BAR 0 6" O.C. #5 BAR 0 12" O.C. #6 BAR 0 5" O.C. #6 BAR 0 12" O.C. #6 BAR 0 5" O.C, #6 BAR 0 12" 0.C. #4 BAR 0 12" O:C. SECTION VIEW (THRU VAULT IN WIDTH DIRECTION) W2,9 x W2.9 4/2 #6 BAR 0 3" O.C. MESH STIRRUPS (IN EACH 10" BEAM) 1 #4 BAR ®12 "O.C.\ #4 BAR ® 12" O.C. I SECTION VIEW (THRU VAULT IN LENGTH DIRECTION) SALES INFORMATION 04t00EI uERUNO coNSRucnoN `um TR i¢. j p WATER QUALITY WET VAULT PANEL VAULT: 10V-01. x 20 -0A x 111 3'H (INS1QE) NUSEVU Or Nair EXPAN$1ON - $ ATTLE, WA Lt1' thy tx4 SCALE 3/16'.1'�Q• AMMO of Eo OAF 07/15/02 M OOO.Wit u Id H0101n Of 4Ot+31tf KIWI. K I1 0 woe tO KA 41010•2 ROOKS NAMIKUS tO 4 " 0 1111f r Wa $440 w 1 Ay.t1ts•M ) tuH NOOK t t WO I AM -0005 UTILITY VAULT" O ki 311 YAA, 4 No:1.O3M .t$31 he n341 .$O1 0 Oldeaatls Prime*. .wr• WI /11.1.4.* ! . Na..r U • Max.. • tt••••••■ • .y..... • h Nos • 1'.••4• G. ti UTILITY VAULT COMPANY PAGE 4- OF 'r PROJECT I ,x)SCtiM Of fLt CA WI' EXP14 NVSl COO BY Of L. PRODUCT 9/WC-L. VAULT (O"v' L X Z.O ILA) x It '- S" W DATE 214.1 O3 CLIENT i, F 1/L...,L uJ0 Lair D ST 2 OCT T t pA,) CHECKED R .E. t/, g wAlt. ( cit %hat Lt Tai wG.-r ✓►AUL1 DATE _ % A A :EC ' L ►!'"L �c._t4 :... D�:j�,rR•4r!f�i1rCL�1 ._ ; . �E .y .¢.0_..D ►.QU_- (Zn_r� %. • �5 : _ .._ ...._._`.� ..a. _. SLAG . 1. Z (, L') 0.15b WAtt - ,b L1 r3)*L+a- 4 3.3.2�It,. ( 7 - X 4 2 - . ' -, .0 . S %c..( 10.0.7 5) 4' b , Z'a•;;:to • 0,t5` fl 43 t Ic:S4 4.' wtCKI Sf..c ILtrN $UP! 'rS .: .4E% wAa '4)a. CA_ Zo,7S z)L r, �•� ' .� � .fir -T .. .. .. G ` • : >. .. . <..,..n .13.RZ.: 3o.3°J CO3, 1.C.F.T,, sS ,.. A••t13'.. • 356 (o .Z ..... i f1;1a.:...C,G 106 to ,Rz5 C I z'' t'L 4 t 31 tSSrSt: 4,3" s 16 ,S" 14 l' ; �. , -T -, .' _ . a& Won 01 ao++w.wmartIrv. Cl prim,,. 0103151 •R8/9 \WI rnok4 paptr 1g Oldcastle PAGE $ OF PROJECT. &t.t)SCCM trf FLtVt4 t PAA.}.ts6.)-64A`r`t(f. BY Kfi L PRODUCT Oksift,L, VA+ULi ' t 0V-Owt.. Zt5' - o "tA.) sc 3" DATE 2,141 CLIENT n.-t ..t.1 tiro GONIVrif,-,u Lt L &) CHECKED I2j v. g DATE CtiF �tCsi� •�Ci'A (f_t►t 'toes') Pc ASA'ti t.t- Za w tt1LV L t..tab .ft t ,c, k., solo tmPACT' t3" t1/4,11#4‘ M Sd t l t..N/L IZ. LhA() D15t L.tes tt w . SPA)3 : Z.6 i o., -4. ,s" .� S.. WrLf.t. 40 .(rdit L© ", APrC,(. Dis -ricra Tii) LOAD /NG t Dot-idiv tom S. wttt. St O,•3" 4 1.15 (13)42) W 8isT (A1: Lb A bi t4 su Fmk, F. Nit m.E ki Peritc rj1STC16tht1 CZ.0' •4 port P‘iAriSs) t.1'S (.110..)' 6' Std Lo +D (.t (tQ.1iL) o. 1S4 SOtL uoio ('.Z Z-o' o. tto tNN1 -Et. a. 1,6 (.1.3)1‘14, 'ILEA /(2.73X.3.5"7 wet, tiVrR.4(9V'Ct+oN (4." t,4.0t0E fatrx GM %) Zi St 4 6.ii63 tut' 71 ATTAIctiEl, SAP Z f- .. WT A'J A �� s)% . 'Sg A- - --,3 "a c. A.s = 3.t tA» : (1/3.51) Z 1.16 k -pr I • Wit? i�,�' OLD 315 • R9I00 { J Oldcastle Precast° PAGE 4, OF PROJECT MUSSus df W..t 4 Wr ExAkoS c ' r- 'AT7tr. PRODUCT PPrNE.(. iAuL i c bc.)'7 4" c k Z o'.p• W x 11 ''1°‘ i•L CLIENT tM E2,Lt &it ii51n) Q.Ocr_ BY K0!. DATE 21 L o3 CHECKED gv b DATE v.rstsc LAsh LC,Ptb ►N(4 1b-r( S+fF --A'a. MI, W''3 to lrA1AX._ ._A• /•.iii 21' 434 43" 2g" 4,111... Its-cvs-ccr+E0 SAo f c AwALN w s , twex '.;�t\.cpt1C 6) ai wP'M fe_ovV\ svtletIC,TS 1 4.14.0L( ,s7) ivy / 015( VS p.“ NK % 2 (cal rvo)s4 1 l S S OLD 313 • R9100 SAP2000 (AcL l.. b D t wJ(1 C-* t C.o.) R,+q1 t G r� co co No No 7/12/02 9:05 :57 43" 2 7" 43" 43 2‘ 910 to 15 vf LL co - a: • eam_momen - rame pan oa • s ns i SAP2000 7/12/02 9:07:02 v . e: • eam_momen omen - ' agram ••. ns SAP2000 b co co 7/12/02 9 :20:55 coo f0,44" V 1 4 T M ••••11•-1 SAP2000 v7.44 - File :beam moment - Frame Span-Loads (WADI) - Kip -ft Units J 1 1 g SAP2000 7/12/02 9:20 :58 St`1 CA -C.,. Sts R r: 30(.1. Z • SMAA.,, 0= 13C r.E. fluc,C'� &f I 3„s1 f r BEGAu3F wr; St(i lNG tikd k 'tub\ *plc SEAM , AW2000 v7.44 - File:beam..;moment - Shear Force 2 -2 Diagram (LOAD1) - Kip -ft Units .f, Old castle Precast° PAGE t I of PROJECT MUSEUM LIVt4r EXPAoSt •,,,.C-ADtLE BY K14 PRODUCT 'An3E1.. VAULT , Lab'. et.. +4. Z.o'.tto * u •.g "�� DATE t. 44 b3 CLIENT' t1EE,.l.1rJC) LtsvS17Z.octi CHECKED as/ g DATE SSE 1(,t, vo-P,LL t,,,ars-t .tp f. -b" gCLou) ftet.Jts 4 (14,40( 'MP vA ot7 to 'e¢" & LM' .) F i &AS KO Ci RiA DF. 'sL°S tuf LW . W f► .SVitt- b vQ, CQ C IL tAC *AA% "go(14 0 "C r t't • $ r 41. t.6 p . I Zt3 2.b ?' tl.ot ' (3, bb k•Fr ‘011tL„ ` .C. As = 0. €66n.t him % t.(4. Log tt,O• _.t.$) * t, = __ fit'- '' ,r tio0 c4 ‘.•41 t, 1 / 4 1 o .7 S (t n S . eb % r 11 �►- �`,��. Svcs Z6j CM) /,t , tSS f OLD 315 • R9/00 ise 41 B & T DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC. P.0. 80X 595 • ISSAQUAH, WA 98027 (425) 557 -0779 • (425) 557 -0765 (FAX) STRUCTURAL FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS (SPECIAL SPRING LOADED FIXITY AT TOP SLAB BEARING] FOR SPECIAL PANEL / DETENTION VAULT STRUCTURE (STANDARD PRODUCT( CASE I - 7.0 FT. SOIL COVER W/ HS20 LOADING CASE 11— 2.95 FT. SOIL COVER W/ HS20 LOADING CASE 111 — 2.0 FT. SOIL COVER W/ HS20 LOADING PRECAST MANUFACTURER: UTILITY VAULT COMPANY A division of OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC. P. O. BOX 588 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98071 -0588 (OFFICE: (800) 892-15381 (CONTACT: KEN LEE, PLANT ENGINEER] JANUARY 10, 2003 ANALYSIS GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA: SOIL DENSITY: 130 P.C.F. SOIL STWFENESS: Ks NI 75 kcf— 150 kcf LIVE LOAD: HS -20 IAASHTO LOADING] CONCRETE DENSITY: 150 P.C.F. ACI- 318 -99 BUILDING CODE AND COMMENTARY ASTM C890 tif .1QtYVAL Vtviviro / 11/0 MU WNw.wW w� Mh 1=.XP1rZE� i� 2/ Will d & T Design & Engineering, Inc, = Vaull- 111-5pr.lioor = Wednesday January 00, 2003 Structure Perspec *maws tbMA SpeiftgaorpstkUne §pingiMappaib,Atea tlittitoWA4 lido/ SdsbrA tats Delo* 9iab,CoMwstI4 Abp dab dab„ Lite L M III Ana Look, t.tioted LC I.tAinin NA WAN Remora tlelew !fl►b, Fine Engineering Structure Perspective �e Og tig semi 14- 12 " TYP • eeNTeR WALLS" �•78KCP • 43 PCB N 6' -0" z 2' -0" 2' -0" 0 PH1O. 20.8k PSO1L • 130 PCP 0 Q 21'4' r � 0" TYP • CASE III: HS20 + 2' -O" SOIL + IMPACT 1/10/03 . 0114 3.2.5 b•180kCP • 86 PC! 30Y. B & T DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC. 175 lit PLACE NW SUITE $ • ISSAQUAH, WA 98027 1425) 557.0779 • (425) 557.0765 (FAX) PROJECT TITLE SPECIAL PANEL DETENTION VAULT ILCIII! 408 NO.: 01143.2 DATE : 1/10/03 DRAWN : NH CHKD : JT SHEET : W2.0 X W2.0 4/2 MESH TIES eN� LAP (2) 06 TOP W2.0 X W2.0 4/2 MESH TIES FOR 2'4" 1- 1/10/03 01143.2.6 (3) 08 BOTTOM VAULT WALL ACTION ALL. W2.0 X W2.0 4/2 MESH TIES I'OR 2' -4" N 3/4" s 1' -0" (3) 06 TOP SECTION 616 (3) 08 BOTTOM (3) 08 BOTTOM CA, • 1.07 1n2, PAGE 403 3/4" s V -0" B & T DESIGN di ENGINEERING, INC. 175 1st PLACE NW SUITE 8 • ISSAQUAH, WA 98027 (425) 557.0775 • (425) 557.0755 (FAX) PROJECT TITLE : SPECIAL PANEL DETENTION VAULT ILCIII) JOS NO.: 01143.2 DATE : 1/10/03 DRAWN : NH CHKD : JT SHEET ; B & T Design & Engineering, Inc. Floor Analysis and Design oMConcrets Slabs Vault Design Lid Design • 3 Wheel Load Cases » Spring Supports Fine Engineering 717.212th Mace Southwest Rep, ort Contents Regal Cover Ro on UM.* Signs ilrah Cormto Mixee Rehkrdng can Moment Mesh Plan Slob Shimmy Plan Support Summary Plan Deed Loud 1 PMn Deed Load 11 Pi Deed Load 111 Plan LAre Ldg 1 PMn LM Lori II Plan LM Lord III Pim SeMoe 101 Deflection Plan F$oland LO Mx Plan Faodaed LO 1 My Plan Factored LO 1 Vx Plan Factored LO 1 Vy PMn Slob Paoiond LO 1 Toulon Plan F_olond 401: Design Section Summary Pedaled 101: Deepn (Motion OrNarla Feolond LO 1: Design Section Forges Peolond LO 3: Design Section Summery Factored LO 3: Design Section OdIsds Wired 1O 3: Design Section Faces Factored 10 3 Mx Pin Paotaed 10 3 My Plan Faotaed 1.0 3 Vx PMn Factored 10 3 Vy Plan 'WNW 10 3: Design Section Summary Factored 1O 3: Design Section Crash Factored 10 3: Dun ection Fags Factored 10 3 Mx Plan Foclaed LO 3 My Plan Finland 10 3 Vx Plan Paclond 10 3 Vy Pion Blob Feclond 1O 3 Torsion Pion Top Rehtcrdng Summary Pion Shorn Rehk ing Summary Pion Roiniorcb g Gummy Reinforcing 6ummery Pion Lang Term P*c$io a OMesdion Plan PRIM PM 00114 F NMI MINI =I NMI 8 & T design & Engineering, Ina. - Vault411- Spr.loor- Wednesday January 08, 2003 Fine Engineering Report Contents 1 PINws beads 1—/-70 / 17-11-14-37. Positive Aaslyid CEP — PION. ttsstlNNi em 't 11"°"4 Plumi r ri i ling WM NM NO MIMI Nib Mil MN & T Design & Engineering, Inc.. VauIt4II- Spr,Ooor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 Fine Engineering Signs • ON NM MIMI NM Xi= PINII MN PIM MOM NMI SIMI 11111111 MINI NM IMO NM MIN NM IOU Units — ueemeary vein Plan Dinensiont inches Support Dimensions: Inches Illevettons; inches - • ItiebThIcknesses: Inches Support Heights: bet Angles: degrees - - - - - - —Loading And Resell°. Unlit Point Mom Kips Report As Zany.° Line Force Idps/11 Repoli As Zere0 Arse ram kst Report As Zere0 Kips *ern kat Point Maned: NINA Report As Zerot Line Moment: Kips Ripon As Zwo;0 Arne Moment; alpid Repel As Zee° Villa EMMIIONNIMP 110.11 Kips kipstti — Spring Stiffness Unite Point Poem Spring: kipstIn Line Pores liming; kil Arne Force Opting: pal • . . _ Point Moment Spring: 11.1tio Line Moment epring: kis Area Moment Spring: WV . .. —Slab Analysis Units FINN: Kips Nepal As Zere0 Moment: 14)4 Repoli As Z11(0:0 Concrete flimsy poi Report As Zero:0 Kips kili4 psi Morse Per Width: IlipsM Report As Iero:0 Moment Per Width; Kips Report As Zem.0 Detection; Mhos !Upon As Zee° kipsnt Kips inches —1ialorisis Units Cone** Volume; cu. yds PT Weight: pounds PT Force; Kips Tendon MIAs; inches Reinforcing Ares; sq. in. Reber Weight; tons Reinforcing Sims; kW Cow inches ' ? " ,Mig,"01 irtit‘rii,k1;%itovel4t,ft...0,,,,,0 • & T Deign & Engineering, Inc,. Veu1t411-Sprf1oor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 Fine Engineering Units EN SIM MN In MN am on N IM NM NMI MI MI NMI MI MI MI B & T design & Engineering, Inc, • Veult•I11.Spr.tioor- Wednesday January 03, 2003 Units - Continuedi2) MIeeellimms Usk, Floor Anr: eq. ll. Hbngsiions: Miss Minsky: pd Tendon Angles (for Won): rndNns Fine Engineering Units 0 1111101 MI. MS loll PIM WEI Pall imam prig magi PM PIN. NMI MIMI OM OMNI MOM MN 8 6 T Design 6 Engineering, Inc, - Vault•lll•Sprrfoor • Wednesday January 08, 2003 Concrete Mixes ..... Ms( wo • 160 13d td • 4000 pal fall • 6000 1311 to • 8000 1311 tom • 71100 1311 v • 0.16 (Poisson's Ratio) Q No • 83Wou *o pal (ACI 318) • to • 17000" psi (ACI 016) Q 8e ■ 8410003u psi (88 6110) O [o • (08700410 ♦ 1000000)(Wo/144)i 1311 (CAN.A66,3) O 10* 8420043 p11 (CAN.A28,0) Q 110 • 282000 (b + 11$0)In psi (IINV 1102.1.1) Q to • $$,*Wo1:! psi (A$ $100 4001) Oen O !d *2800000 psi !o •800000 1311 • Fine Engineering Concrete Mixes einforcingBars —N3 U M. 0.11 y • 00 N4 M. 0,2 Pi* I0 — M• M. 0.70 y. Go 'Al. h. /r • 20000 kri Loos • 2 eq. N. Is . 20000 kri 1.s.1 kid Is • 20000 1111 I.eO$ • 1 8 & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - VeuM•111•Spr.floor • Wednesday January 08, 2003 Fine Engineering Reinforcing ears an an me rrr ow me rr NMI rr r NM MIN Eli MI rr MN ow min rr B & T Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault•111- Spr.Roor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 Element Mesh Plan ae,Sbu�e inlaid flpY►pupp�atu'J.MI SprM uppartatti Sp Wilt below l $ib;Cdume. below Slab"�WdN Above Slab,Cr iummi Abase Shbillebi;S4b @Jdei; 1 JO . _IF a-:s n _ 11 -s.... -.aacsxs = x _ , -, --* — x a s ._ SO. rr ♦l � ,y�>'f. • c:�.s_ �s 2 _ _ _.: (. -.i s:. - f- -,�s_� ..-. .__ _.__ � a zsm s_. .. __ 111 .. - ss-�s �! ' . r6 a s t -°_. is . i axz'`�s � mi cs a^ x.x --...,.. 'r -a a`j z ...c. - a: -a Y x - z� '� Q a .st _ Jr/j � Y� j z t a a '' '�[;� , a ! - a � : � _- _ +, i �� !{ � % i, . � ik •` a a t .. i — , a� 3� . -r• ._ a t _ _ =W.. --r y -- ,i`- _ _ a aO za ,• a a v-.$ ''k• 4 V 4A � • 414 ,�/` r` -: y /Ts., �. � -- ..�� _•, � — A.A.A .44 , -,44 '4016410Aja _ r ___.. __ Y _-fir. -_ :.�,.• -. ._.t.._ !y' - T Fine Engineering Element Mash Plan Slab S ummary Plan NM PIM MIMI MIN NM MI MR MINI MI N NMI IIIIII B & T Design & Engineering, Inc. = Vault•Ill•Sprfloor. - Wednesday January 08, 2003 SY11MY thim SpblplSuhelii l im Spies Soplatit;Ala $pdrdedgefie Below SIAY;Wde Above SIeb;Cdurine Above Steb;lil+b ildeee; Sala MI i I *11i C4 :::< ::: 14 1! IYIRMI4 is 41 A1014 je: arm am am ma MI lila NMI MO Mil OM NM INN II= MIMI EMI MIMI Mil NM B & T Design & Engineering, Ino. - Vault- 111 -Spr tiaor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 Support Summ Plan Swawepabl iptioptauppottilka Sptbpr/SuppottkAne SptbSr;Wellr drbw IbsCabwlu Below Slsh Wdb Abaw SIib,Cabinlnr Abow SIrb,Slrb Usk Serb lie YJ! xc tea..._ -" l:ht • SO(*) i...t gl, •!I Ai* 04 W44Ng1 nano Fine Engineering Support Summary Plan Fowl fims, 1"14 Irk IMMI r-1 INN M B & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Vault-III- Spr.floor- Wednesday January 08, 2003 Dead_ Load III Plan Mid Lead MANI La1tLise f a/glosp La/ IN *utW.M Below llrb;Calmo Below *$.b .l. Abete. SYr cdJau Above lMI$$.b SW% Soh 1 J ...�.,,. -. :...SC,IM..':.p r,3" Alair Fine Engineering Dead Load 111 Dian , MN MN MON r1 : LveLoadIl��'lan Um Lad Union lwwwcWat. %low 11VY,Coiwsr llrbw 116: Walls Aboy wtifetirm a Abow WO Usk kilo WO ISM MI NM MN MIN NMI NMI MUM 0 & r Design & Engineering, Ina. - Vault - ill -Spr Hear - Wednesday January 08, 2003 Fine Engineering live Load 111 Plan • t t - = x.•;•:e: i .wt. :..:> . { Plerts 'o•d71 � x -i_::= �.: = '0'1 --_- -' _ ET , ._::_:_ . _r j� pa f61? _.a ti , x. j ., r n ,_x.�, AA ,T tb71 �11 ..0T1 • t t 7 iF 1 Fine Engineering live Load 111 Plan limn" peiggil prim m rl mom iimaq owl Ally ma AM MN Factored LC 3 Design Section Summary a As Top Conks:aria As Oaf Controlling As Chr l31rp epcg Controlling MMus 04.10 (44.1114 (sq, M.) (Inches) 1 0 0.0367 ACI 10,2 0 InI OK 2 0 0,0215 ACI 10.2 0 Mt OK 3 0 0.221 ACI 10.2 0 Mt OK 4 0 0237 ACI 10.2 0 Inf OK 5 0 0,335 ACI 10,2 0 Mt OK 6 0 0,223 ACI 10,2 0 Inf OK 7 0.0246 ACI 10,2 0 0 Int OK 5 0 0.0311 ACI 10,2 0 Mt OK 9 0 0.156 ACI 10,2 0 Inf OK 10 0 0.291 ACI 10,2 0 kit OK 11 0 0.144 ACI 10,2 0 Int OK 12 0 0,210 ACI 10,2 0 Mt OK 16 0 0,197 ACI 10.2 0 Mt OK 14 0.135 ACI 10,2 0 0 Int OK 16 0 0,00495 ACI 10.2 0 Int OK 16 0 0,0461 ACI 10.2 0 Mt OK 17 0,0615 AC1 10,2 0 0 MI OK 11 0 0,195 ACI 10,2 0 Mt OK 19 0 0,311 ACI 102 0 Mt OK 20 0 0 235 ACI 10,2 0 Int OK 21 0 0,164 ACI 10,2 0 if OK 22 0,0255 ACI 102 0 0 Inf OK 23 0 0,0521 ACI 10.2 0 Inf OK 24 0,00764 ACI 102 o o Mt OK 26 0,120 ACI 10.2 0 0 Mt OK 26 0.177 AC1 10,2 0 0 Inf OK 27 0 0,0169 ACI 10,2 0 Int OK 25 0 0,060 ACI 10.2 0 Mt OK 25 0,161 A0110,2 0 0 Mt OK 30 0 0,232 ACI 10,2 0 MI OK 31 0 0,467 ACI 10,2 0 Mt OK 32 0 0,467 ACI 10.2 0 Int OK a3 0 0.174 ACI 10.2 0 Int OK 34 0.19 ACI 10.2 0 0 ht OK 36 0 0,0461 ACI 10.2 0 Int OK 30 0,019 ACI 10.2 0 0 Mt OK 37 0,173 ACI 10,2 0 0 Mt OK all 0 0107 ACI 10,2 0 Mt OK 39 0 1,92 ACI 10.2 0 Int OK 40 0 1,97 ACI 10.2 0 Int OK 41 0 1.91 ACI 10.2 0 Mt OK 42 0 0.697 ACI 10.2 0 Mt OK 43 0.161 ACI 10.2 0 0 Mt OK 44 0 0,00495 ACI 10.2 0 inf OK 45 0 0.0471 ACI 10.2 0 Int OK 46 0,162 ACI 10.2 0 0 fit OK 47 0 0.221 ACI 10.2 0 Int OK "81elus" Mdicales whether Floor has found a fusible sokillon to satisfy the criteria selected for Oils seclion. B & T Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault- 111•Spr.floor- Wednesday January 08, 2003 Fine Engineering Factored LC 3: Design Section Summary s al. WM NM NMI MN MN •.• UM MI MIN MMI NEM MN MI 111111 1111 111111 11111 1111111 1111 8 & T Makin & EnglnactIng, Inc, - Vaulf-111-Sprfloor. Wednesday January OA 2003 actorec....11C3: 1.__)ssigpSsctioiry( J Summary - Continued 2 • As Top Controlling As Sal Controlling Al SW Strp Spey Confronting Mahn (61, Vi) 04,1114 (M. IN (WNW 48 0 0.477 ACI 10.2 0 int OK 4• 0 0.417 ACI 102 0 Int OK 50 0 0.104 ACI 102 0 hlf OK SI 0,2 ACI 10,2 0 0 Int OK 52 0 0,0664 ACI 102 0 IM OK 82 o‘on ACI 101 0 0 Int OK 64 0.171 ACI 10,2 0 0 int OK IS 0.119 A01 101 0 0 Int OK 11• 0 aooen ACI 10.2 0 Int OK 67 0 0,0358 ACI 10.2 0 int OK IS 0.0468 ACI 101 0 0 Int OK 69 0 0,11111 ACI 101 0 int OK GO 0 0206 AC1 102 0 Int OK 61 0 0,347 ACI 102 0 Int OK II1 0 0,131 ACI 101 0 Int OK 63 0.0281 ACI 10,1 0 0 Int OK •4 0 00477 ACI 10,2 0 Int OK 65 0.0308 ACI 101 0 0 Int OK 11 0.109 ACI 102 0 0 Int OK •7 0 0,0168 ACI 10,2 0 Inl OK SS 004122 ACI 10,2 0 0 Int OK 69 0,115 ACI 102 0 0 int OK 70 0,0112 ACI 101 0 0 kit OK 71 0 0,0119 AC 102 0 int OK 72 0 0.01131 AC 10,2 0 Int OK 73 0 0,0312 AC 102 0 int OK 74 0 0.185 AC 102 0 Int OK 75 0 0,231 AC 102 0 Int OK 78 0 0,272 AC 10,2 0 int OK 77 0 0,132 AC 102 0 Int OK 78 0,0365 ACI 10.2 0 0 Int OK 79 0 00355 AC 102 0 Int OK Indkales tether Floor has found a fsasible solution la lottsfy the ;Mork seleotad for this sectkin. Fine Engineering Factored 1.03: Design Section Summary g. 1 ma ion MN NM NMI MIN MIMI M MI NM 6 & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Vault lll•Sprfloor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 Factored LC 3: Design Section Criteria • Dalian Canada Top 8w Sof der 6hr ear Top Cow wile n Coq. T. tipttt b. S. Dpltt Span loth (ice) (inches) ( ) (inches) (inches) 1 AC 10.2;11.3 08 00 t 3 U 1.26 2.76 0 0 240 2 AC 10.2;11.3 00 08 03 U 1.26 2.75 0 O 240 3 AC 10.Z 11.3 00 b 03 U 1.26 2.78 0 0 240 4 AC 10.2;11.3 08 06 03 U 1:26 275 0 0 240 8 AC 10.2;112 00 00 03 U 1.25 2,76 0 0 240 6 AC 10.2;11,$ 00 M 03 U 1:26 2,76 0 0 240 7 AC 10.2;112 11 06 03 U 1.26 228 0 0 240 • AC 10.Z 112 OS 00 03 U 1:26 2:76 0 0 240 0 AC 10.2 •1 OS 03 U 1:26 176 0 0 240 10 AO 10.2 03 OS 03 U 1.25 275 0 0 240 11 AC 10.2 011 03 03 U 1.26 276 0 0 240 12 AC 102 08 00 03 U 1.25 276 0 0 240 13 AC 102 00 18 03 U 1:26 276 0 0 240 14 AC 10,2; M Slab 14 04 03 U 2:26 1 0 0 24 15 AC 10.2; M Slab 04 M 03 U 2.26 1 0 0 24 111 AO 10.Z M Slab 04 04 03 U 2:25 1 0 0 24 11 AC 10.2; M Slab 04 04 03 U 226 1 0 0 24 111 AC 10:2; M Blab 14 04 03 U 2.26 1 0 0 24 10 AC 10.2; As Slab 04 04 03 U 2.n 1 0 0 24 20 AC 10.2; M Slab 04 04 03 U 2 26 1 0 0 24 21 AC1 10 2; M Lab 04 N 03 U 326 1 0 0 24 n AC 10:2; M Slab 04 04 03 U 2,25 1 0 0 24 23 AC 102; M Slab 04 04 03 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 24 AC 10.2; M Slab 04 04 03 u 2.n 1 0 0 24 35 AC 102; M Bab 04 04 03 U 2,20 1 0 0 24 2• AC 10.2; M Blab 04 04 03 U 3,26 1 0 0 24 27 AC 102; As Bab 04 04 03 U 2:26 1 0 0 24 If AC 10 2; M Bab 04 04 03 U 1n 1 0 0 24 211 AC 10,2; As 610 M 04 03 U 2.26 1 0 0 24 30 AC 10.2; M Slab 04 04 03 U 2 26 1 0 0 94 31 AC 102; M Slab 04 04 03 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 33 AC 102; As Slab 14 04 03 U 2.26 1 0 0 24 33 AC 10,2; As Blab 04 14 03 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 34 AC 102; As Sab 04 04 03 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 36 AC 102; As Slab 04 04 03 U 2,26 1 0 0 24 33 AC 142; M Bab 04 04 03 U 2.26 1 0 0 24 37 AC 102; As Slab 04 04 03 U 2.16 1 0 0 24 30 AC 102 05 00 03 U 1.16 2.75 0 0 240 39 AC 102 00 08 03 U 1.26 2.75 0 0 240 40 AC 10.2 05 00 03U 1.25 2.70 0 0 240 41 AC 10.2 06 0 03 U 1.26 2.76 0 0 240 42 AC 10.2 00 06 03 U 125 2.75 0 0 240 43 AC 10.2; As Stab 04 04 03 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 44 AC 10.9; NSW 04 04 03 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 45 AC 10.2; As Mob 04 04 03 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 'Top Bar' hdkate• One top reinforcing bar type the Floor will use M necessary to satisfy the criteria selected for this section. 10 Bar" Indicates the bottom rstnfarcIng bar type that Floor will use if necessary to satisfy the criteria selected for No section "SW Per indicates the sheer reinforcing bar type that Floor will use If necessary to satisfy the criteria selected for this section 1g. T. DOW indicates the depth of the top of the slab that Flow Ignores when caaulating strength and stresses for this section. "Ig. B. Dpth" Indicate§ the ds Ih of the bottom of the slab that Floor ignores when calculating strength and stresses for this section "Span I.9th" ndicelas to span length and Is only used to colou1414 limiting susses; In limbo nded tendons (section 18.7.2). to calculate minimum miniortonanl ($.clton 16.0.3.3) and to ootimoto rsbar quantMN.. Fine Engineering Factored LC 3: Design Section Criteria 11111 VIII NM 11111 111111 11111 NEI 1111111 WWI SIMI MINI 111111111 MUM MEI am imp mmi MIN Ns 8 & T Design & Englnee►ing, Ine, - Veult.11I.Spr.floor- Wednesday January 08, 2003 � actored LC 3; Design Section Criteria - Continued (2) • Galan CrWs Top bit Dal Sat SW eat Ibp Cow Se*Om C. 7, Opth ft S. OF1ft Span loth (Whoa) (Wm) (rem) press) per) 4S AC 10.7 M Slab 14 14 NU 2.26 1 0 0 24 47 AC 10.2; As Slab 04 N4 13 U 226 1 0 0 24 46 AC 10,2; As Sib 04 NU 72$ 1 0 0 24 40 AC 10.2; Al Slab 04 14 13 U 126 1 0 0 24 50 AC 10.7 M Slab 04 14 13 U 2.25 1 0 0 24 51 AC 10.2MSlab 04 M •3U 226 1 0 0 24 $2 AC 10 2 Aa Cab 04 14 13 U 2.26 1 0 0 24 63 AC 102; M Slat 04 14 NU 2.26 1 0 0 24 54 AC 102; As Obi 14 14 03U 226 1 0 0 24 N AC 102; M flab 14 14 03 U 226 1 0 0 24 60 AC 30.2; M Slab 14 M NU 2.25 1 0 0 24 57 AO 10.2; As Slab i4 M4 03U 2:26 1 0 0 24 M AC 10.2 M Slab 84 14 03 U 2 21 1 0 0 24 M AC 10.2; Al Glob 04 4 13 U 2.26 1 0 0 24 60 AO 10:2; M Slab 64 N U 2.26 1 0 0 24 61 AOl10.2;MSlab 114 04 t3U 28 1 0 0 24 $2 AC 102 M Slab 14 14 03 U 2 26 1 0 0 24 63 AC 102; M Slab 14 04 13 U no i 0 0 24 M AC 102;MU* 14 14 13U 28 1 0 0 24 06 AC 10.2 M Stab 04 14 nu 2:26 1 0 0 24 M AC 10:2; Al Slab 04 4 13 U 2:25 1 0 0 24 07 AC 102 10 10 13 U 145 2 76 0 0 240 66 AC 10,3 10 10 13 U 126 2.76 0 0 240 00 AC 102 N 10 13 U 145 2.76 0 0 240 10 AC 101 10 00 03U in 216 0 0 240 71 AC 102 10 10 13 U 125 2,76 0 0 240 72 AC 10.2;113 1/ 10 nu 145 2.76 0 0 240 73 AC 102;11,3 11 1/ 13 U 1.26 246 0 0 240 74 AC 102;11,3 11 10 13 U 1.26 2.75 0 0 240 76 AO 102;11,3 10 11 13 U 1,26 3.70 0 0 240 70 AC 102 11,3 10 10 13 U 146 276 0 0 240 7? AC 10:2;11,3 10 1/ 13 U 136 2.15 0 0 340 76 AC 102;11,3 1e 00 03 U 126 276 0 0 240 76 AC 102;11,3 10 00 13 U 1.26 2.76 0 0 240 "Top 6ttr" ktdkafas 111 lop rm4itarctnp bar type M it Floor will watt b n csswry to satisfy the aitw►a istsctsd for Ws auction. lot Oar" k►4ic* • the botlonl rttbdorebrg bar Iwo prat Floor will use if nowelory to sausy ila atterla wl*ctad for this sscllon. "016 Sr' MOWN the $haw rNnforcbnp bar type that Floor will oil a nsceawry to satisfy the anode *elected for We w4tion. "Ip T D I" Indica Ihs 00110 IM top of Ow *lab that Floor towel whin cttIprtetbrg 4Usngth end etrasw* for this ;action. 'V 0.Opth' k *Maps the depth of Ihs bottom of the Nab Ural Float ignore* when calculating strength and strewn for thle *action. Tim "kidica 0014 span $sngth and Is only used to calculate limiting strww• h unborxlsd tendon* (aoctIon 10.7.2), lo calculate minimum rebdormnent (wilco 10.0.231 end to WWII* mbar quaralthte. • m"5'!b9: !%t^.Y 4etk:la"w�.e+:'s:: `t�4nt:gx.::Y.krc'4e'rt°t ✓t, ^.4 rt.u�wlv�as.:w.tvw.+1 > ^3x: v ".m'.: �. A.4 N.,..r,rc: +td. Fine Engineering Factored LC 3: Design Section Criteria IMO MN MUM MN NMI MI MI Factored Forces 0 Aldel 1 4 2 3,0 3 12.8 4 18.3 6 16,2 8 13 7 4,34 8 4,03 9 9.35 10 13 11 608 12 13:2 17 8,30 14 .0,41 18 .0.617 16 .0A61 17 -0.432 1/ -0,681 10 4.029 20 .0.600 21 .0,964 22 •0.417 23 •0,417 24 •0.71 25 4.468 10 •0,554 27 .0143 20 •0.441 29 •0.417 30 •0,975 31 4,123 33 4.117 33 -0.688 34 4684 35 •0,39 30 4.121 37 4,600 38 20,1 39 40 40 48,9 41 419 42 27,2 43 •0,64 44 •0.000 45 .0.420 LMete1 Nankai (Kbe) (Kips) •6,38 5,11 6.06 2.73 4.68 1.03 3.65 9.81 440 0,76 0,76 1.91 • 4.30 2:0 0,33 6.11 4,12 .7.32 7,27 .17.3 4:212 44.9 . 7.75 .17,3 .4.13 4,33 4,94 1.71 1.43 .1.43 313 0:412 4.0 3,78 2,68 407 6,41 1.05 •6,71 4.01 0.371 3,3 3,64 •2.00 •3.17 .0.744 0.73 1.10 3,16 •1.5 .0.408 1.01 0.152 4.22 1.02 0,976 • 0:20 4,97 0.372 .4.46 0.407 3.99 4,411 4.99 4.142 4.47 0.500 4.12 4,919 0.0595 4,0030 1,42 0.012 •1.57 4,202 0211 4,127 0.090 0.0111 1.79 0,140 1.03 0.20 0.038 1.97 2.1 4.080 •1.14 •1.91 0,130 Torsion (k8) 1A6 14.6 12.6 12,4 •12,3 .12.5 •12,0 •6.46 4.2 .13 4441 12:0 3.22 000423 0.0764 0.406 0.014 0.902 0.210 4,112 . 1,39 •1,07 0,407 .1.34 .1,23 •0,111 0,24 0,77 . 0.625 0,15 0.714 0.721 4.543 4,060 0.0702 .1.3 •1.25 0,0042 0.470 4.0300 •0,309 •0.10 0.141 0.602 •0.0453 Bending 1,77 0.476 10.6 16.1 10,2 10.7 .0141 1,71 0.41 130 9,92 13,8 0,31 4:171 0.0102 0,586 4A09 2.33 3.68 3,92 1,00 •0.192 0.030 0.0607 4,119 .1.13 0.168 0101 .1,03 2,70 5,24 5.24 2,09 .1.03 0.654 .0,127 .1.1 40,7 06,7 07.7 65.4 40.2 .1,10 0.0603 0.577 Mt PT Force (k) (Knee) .1.04 (0,0) .1,00 (0,0) .7,70 (0,0) 0.49 (0,0) 4,38 (0,0) 0.54 (0,0) 0.708 (0,0) 1.0 (0,0) 00105 (0,0) 6,39 (0,0) 0.607 (0,0) 4,20 (0,0) 4.128 (0,0) 0,613 (0,0) 0.101 (0,0) 0.664 (0,0) 0:64 (0,0) 0,360 (0,0) 1,21 (0,0) 1.10 (0,0) 0.17 (0,0) 0,539 (0,0) 0,731 (0,0) 0,101 (0,0) 0.572 (0,0) 0,0694 (0,0) 0.0202 (0,0) 0,195 (0,0) 0,21 (0,0) .0,0992 (0,0) 0.0041 (0,0) 0.0947 (0,0) •0,177 (0,0) 0.311 (0,0) 0.233 (0,0) 0.0444 (0,0) 0,15 (0,0) •0,12 (0,0) •1,05 (0,0) •0.101 (0,0) 1.10 (0,0) 6.02 (0,0) •0.367 (0,0) •0.123 (0,0) 4.412 (0,0) MIN INN 11111111 OM NM MIMI NNW NNW MIMI 8 & T Design & Engineering, Inc, • Vaul.11l.Spr,floor- Wednesday January 08, 2003 Bending Cep Veflket Cap (kipan) (Kbe) (.0036,1.77) 20.3 (.0.315,1.04) 20.3 (4,14,10.0) 20:3 (•4,71,16.2) 20:3 (473,18:2) 28:3 (4,16,10.7) 25:3 (.1,35,0,103) 21,8 (0:539,1.78) 28:7 (2,72,0,46) (4.07,14) (400,6,93) (4,05,13:9) ( =2,72,9:42) (4.011,1,40) • ( -0:02701:0812) ( 4267,0187) • (4.411,0.691) • (.1.04,2:31) • (•1.01,3.71) • (.1.72,317) • (0:135,1.07) • (4.193,0:323) (.029,0:04) • (.0,0500,0,0849) • (4.827,1,4) • (1.15,1,95) • (•0:0092,0,190) • (4,300,0:01) • (1,05,1.77) • 0.23,2,70) • (4.37,5.34) • (4.27,0,34) • (.0.934,2,1) • 0.04,1.70) • (4.251,0.555) (0,121,0.214) (1,12,1,9) (0,41.6) (0,07.6) (0,69.0) (0,07.2) (0,41) 0.17,1.09) • (0.0270,0.0412) • (0.202,0.579) • • • • • 'PT Face' Indicates the post - tensioning faces that Floor used for pendhg design; the two forces listed are for opposite curvatures. '9mdhg Cep' ktdiceles the cepecity Mite section for neguUvs end positive moment; indicates Owl no opacity was catwiated. "Vertical Cep." indicates the rapacity of the section for vortical shear; indicates Wet no capacity was cekuleted. Fine Engineering Factored LC 3: Design Section Forces NM M MI ISM NM an N 1111 Inn 0 & T Design & Engineering, Inc. • Vault•111•Spr.floor • Wednesday January 08, 2003 Factored LC 3: resi n Section_ orces - Continued (21 a AidM Lateral Writes! Torsion Bending Mt PT Fore* Banding Cap Wiliest Cap (Kip+) (Kips) (Kips) MHO (k)p.a) (MA (Kips) (I0) (Kips) 46 4.736 2.10 454 4.637 .1.04 .0,661 (0,0) (.1,05,1.70) • 47 4,724 4686 4.33 .0.126 1.64 0.0414 (0,0) (•1,16,1,07) • 41 .0.10 4.1 2,76 4124 6.46 41:331 (0,0) (446116) • 49 4,113 1.3 4.61 0,110 4.61 .0,267 (0,0) (4,00,41) • 60 .1.03 .0.626 616 0.0193 242 0,196 (0.0) 0:04,1,34) • 51 4,611 .1.74 413 0,114 4,17 0.401 (0,0) (•1,19,2.10) • 12 4.414 2,03 4.19 1.03 0,636 .0330 (0,0) (4,370,0.670) • 63 0,133 .0.733 1.31 4.02 4.147 400164 (0,0) (0,147.0.147) • 64 .0.676 4,01 •1.46 .1.03 4,09 4.311 (0,0) 0.11,1.11) • 0 .0,432 4,42 1,62 4,669 4,131 4,124 (0,0) (0,647,1.43) • 56 -0,713 .1.17 .0,661 0,0966 0,104 42011 (0,0) (.0,0474,0,104) • 57 .0,404 4,6 0,236 4,0372 0.437 4484 (0,0) (4,199,0436) • MI 4.296 411 1,2 4.75 .0111 .0136 (0,0) (0,313,0:614) • 69 •0.177 416 4,07 4,711 2,23 4314 (0,0) (4,009,346) . 60 4,631 4,01 2,61 41.313 3,61 .14 (0,0) (.1.61,313) • It 4.014 7.54 416 01111 4,08 .1,31 (0,0) (•1,71,4.12) • 62 4499 •1.03 2,5 0371 1.59 .0126 (0,0) (0.710,1.8) • 63 4.966 4.19 .3,59 0112 4,119 4177 (0,0) (0.191,317) • 64 4.460 4.60 4142 1.04 0,616 4104 (0,0) ( 4,266,0116) • 65 4,614 4.31 .0,24 0104 4,204 .0.195 (0,0) ( .0,205,0443) • 66 .0.477 4.91 .0.447 4133 .0,712 0,777 (0,0) (0.710,1,21) 87 310 46 7.90 311 0.752 0466 (0,0) (.1301.763) • N 3,00 412 103 13,0 4,62 1,24 (0,0) (4621.641) • 19 4.59 0,155 31 0446 .124 4,0016 (0,0) (.12,4,1.71) • 70 341 7.10 19.1 •19,2 4,62 .5,11 (0,0) (4,62,0441) • 71 812 211 7.90 •9,96 0.673 4.546 (0,0) (4,174,0174) • 72 2,29 3,35 611 .1 2,67 2,61 (0,0) (0170,2.67) 41 79 344 4 .1.79 44,2 01001 4,0224 (0,0) (0,468,1,61) 41 74 912 2,03 1.72 4,00 8,93 131 (0,0) (2,07,0,96) 41 76 0,14 0,033 .4 4.311 11.1 4,74 (0,0) (451,11,2) 41 70 11.5 .1.57 9.02 20.1 13.1 10.8 (0,0) (4.87,13.1) 41 77 6.71 1.26 .4,29 10.1 0,07 .7.32 (0,0) (1,911.37) 41 71 1.73 .0.209 1.1 171 .1.39 .0,903 (0,0) (1,90,0,20) 27.4 79 0,216 4,916 44 12.1 1.71 4,132 (01) (.119,1.72) 41 "PT Force' indicates the post4ensloning faces that Flow used for bending design; the two forces listed ere for opposite curvatures. "Bending Cep." Indicates the capacity of the section for negative end positive moment; ." Indicates that no capacity was calculated. "Vertical Gap" Indicates the cepocily of the section for vertical shear, .• Indicates that no capacity was calculated. Fine Engineering Factored LC 3: Design Section Forces Pal" piall Factored LC 3 Mx Plan rifted LG i.Dair bedeittlestiri Watts Plot ((wr atm woodiiej,(1 CoM1ew i 2 K1,4);(4 411441140); Srrtlrl .W0s4 Wow &UAW* &low SloY;Wdb Atom Slab,Colow Mow MAW iYtra; Salo 1:40 &M ow Vu144 o .1.01 Kips ® (112, iffy, Modem Valuer 14.2 Kips I§ (91.4, 4041; ii) 1111111 EN= MIMI PIM NMI 8 & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Vault111- Spr.floor- Wednesday January 08, 2003 112 15 Topy4) 0 itz4-aurt., 114—, -T4 Vt ii.,11%NriMINI lire* •aralmess 4 0.411 Ctir 4 h t 17:1:4 f� ►IA a As Tv* 4 s -- 4°%"' . � f �- %., . ' j.t.m..MTpirk 14 I • r �� 038 A4Topa °(M2 ni As Tap-0 lr Fine Engineering Factored LC 3 Mx Plan NMI MN! MN PIM O • MN MI OM la NMI ION {=111 I= IMO MIN B & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - VnuII ill- Spr,fioor- Wednesday January 08, 2003 Factored LC 3 My_Plan P.Nond LC /Dale %eedons .adios Memtat M t.(w/ eww smoeddapt(1 COMM' • 2 Klos),(y dlr.atb.) stw.MutWs1411s1ew Slsb,Casatfts Udow 8141•Malls Abow S4b,CM umas Above 84b,s4b Kedam 8•414 130 MWmum V4144 st 47.7 Kips ij (719, 41S); Mu4ium Value ie 77.1 Kips 40 (I1 4, 416), Fine Engineering Factored LC 3 My Plan U3 1'% ig Factored LC 3 Vx Plan raeleted LC 1:Da0ra ila0ea Venal Okat wl eons weat iil I1,(1 Name • 21144M2,(* 1xk�); 14iw$wr.Walb 8alow SIA,Cu oven Ui w 21■0; db Abort Ebb,C4wa►at Moo SIA, b Ed" !art IJO 241010000 Valve •11.0 kip/ (101, 4I2), Wilma Value 12.1 kipst (iOS, 4071, ei L. r"k r MIN 1111111111 NM NOM 8 & T Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault- 111- Spr.floor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 if v W ■'l' �� i 16 14r ��r�� T,:rr- ...r�r.�.�r... �....wr rr+� �...�i�r.rMtir 11•.: Y� ..t�.,:' �� 4..._ _ .. ,.,� " i . , Fine Engineering Factored LC 3 Vx Plan ig 111111 111111 111111 alla Mal NMI MEI NEN EMI UMW MIN 1111111 MI NMI NMI imm lam 8 & i Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault111- Spr.tloor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 Factored LC 3 Vy Plan kW/NW ditettle4); , W� 11i10w 111*Cdine lilooww 1141,Wah Abe!' Co mi AAbo a 11141∎ * *b 1.1; Sufi 110 Wow Vales • .24 I p M 8 (01.4, 4021; Mlxbnwn Vdw • 20.1 klpg0 A 102.0.4211; V - -- i.e -lam-. 4.. • r�u Fine Engineering Factored LC 3 Vy Plan . ets 11 MIN MU Mill MN UM MOS NMI INN Slab Factored LC 3 Torsion Plan named LC fCulp 11tedelt;'twtion (+ka.(wlCAM* rnoodilgg).(l Contour • 0.3 Kbs),(muit W. direction), Slrutlure:Willi Below Bleb,cowmu 9elow 10 /1M Above 1iib,C4 uma Abow S4b;11tb FM Sate 190 MMlmwn Vela' • 0.011 KIp1 A (ID, i9$); Mutnmunt Yalu' • id 1 Kips 0 (114, 407), 4111 MU DD) U) )) RPONMI parggfir j. s: 2 �. e M MIMI Mel MN MO MIN MUM MIMI B & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Vauit•111•Spr,lloor - Wednesday January 08, 2003 M, jay Win Fine Engineering Slab Factored LC 3 Torsion Plan cp 1 g 1 INN OM NM 11111111 MN MN g & r Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vau11•111-Spr floor- Wednesday January 08, 2003 Long Term Deflection Deflection Plan Loy Term 17/11udos 1:Veti11I DeteeOari MM (wl eww moadIb ,(I Cts4'ur • 0.02 l.et/I} luwmn:Wal1 Below lkb,CoAau1 below Ekb;Wepe Above * ab, 11 Above S1rtr,9teb ti4u We 110 MW.vm Woe // 4269 Who (771, 411); Mu1mi n VAN 1:2111/!a 0 (20), 411) 1 Il �ii 1 U 1 1 1:1 13 I.3 3 1,? 1.3 1.3 If 1; I 1:1 I.1 I li 0t .11 1 A 3 1 t„ tl °I h 4 3 .3 413 1 iA Fine Engineering Long Term Deflection Deflection Plan tS ' so ma elm Me Eel Ems am ma ins ism sem ass wai INN No ine mon B & r Design 8 Engineerin0, Inc. - Vault Bese,noer- Tuesday May 29, 2002 Structure 'erspec Live Loed hAra Leeds; Senreture :Point Springs/Supperts;Llne Springs/Suppotts;Ara Springs;Wails Hrlew SIab;Ceiumns below SIab;Walls Above Slgb;Columns Above Slab;Slat% Other Deed idrArea Lads; Fine Enalneerinp Stnicture Perspective ti MINN MI PUMP MI PIM MEI INIM MIN NMI MIMI MN NEI NMI MI MINI MI MIN PP wood, WA 98036 trick oolagfnooring.com Vaulejleee.11eer 11•22 We i.eei y February Its, sees FLOOR O 1005.2001 00MMIR COI.CMAN, U4A. v1.00 euort Contents REPORT COVER REPORT COMORO SANS UNflg COMMON MIMI REINFORCING OARS LOADING! AND LOAD CASE! DRAWING NVMSMa AND ASRREVIATnONS ELEMENT MIEN PLAN ELMS SUMMARY PLAN OMER DEAD LOG PLAN LNL LOAD 1 PLAN S ERYIOL DEFLECTION PLAN B ERM LOAD SOIL REACTIONS LOAD CAM I MX PLAN LOAD CASE I MY PLAN LOAD CAN I VX PLAN LOAD CASE 1 W PLAN LOAD CASE b DESIGN SWOON SUMMARY LOAD CAst 1: MOON SE MON CRn'IMA LOAD CASE 1; 01 ON SECTION FORCES TOP REINFORCING SUMMARY PLAN (OTTOM REINFORCING SUMMARY PLAN REINFORCING SUMMARY REINFORCING SUMMARY PLAN Oa MN ISM UMW /MN 1111111 MIN MIMI 1111111 INN 8 & T Design & Engineering, Ino, - VaulLBaso, lour- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Fine Engineering Report Contents amm was tons plum mu PIM PIIIIII SIM MIN INN INN MIN INN NMI 8 & T Design & Engizteering, Inc. floor' analysis and Design of Concrete Slabs Vault Foundation Base w/Max. Vert. Load ks a 75 Ica • Empty Fine Engineering 717 212th, Place Southwest M Pali OM ORM MN Mill NM NMI Mil MIN MIMI SIM MS NMI 8 & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Vault Baser %or - Wednesday February 13, 2002 Sim Positive Loads 7—"° 7-16 —11=1 — Positive £*ay.fs rar EOP — Positive Rogations 2-1-14x Fine Engineering Signs POMO Mlle OM PIM POI Mai OMR SIMMI OM INN INN MIN SIM NM MI MIN 1111111 8 & T Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault Basedloor - Wednesday Febniery 13, 2002 Units oars GIOnlietrir Daft. armerrarra. PLAN DIMENSIONIE INCHES SUPPORT DIMENSIONS: INCHES ELEVATIONS: INCHES SLASTIOCKNEEME INCHES SUPPORT HEIGHTS: prim MIMIC CEORCES — Luang and Itsaation Ualte POINT FORCE: KIPS REPORT AS 7.1110:0 KiPipo UNI FORCE: KIPS/PT REPORT AS zoom KIPS/PT AREA POO= KS, new VINCE0 POGO MOMENT: KIPPT REPORT AS ZERO:0 LINE MOMENT: K1PO REPORT AS unao ARCA MOMENT: KIPS/PT REPORT AS ZgRO:0 KIPPT KIPS KIPS/PT Ilpirg Mums Unite POINT FORCE SPRING: lOPII/IN UNE FORCE SPRING: KM AREA FORCE SPRING: POI POINT MOMENT SPRING: Iwo* UNE MOMENT SPRING: K/s AREA MOMENT SPRING: K/PTe — Ilah Analysis UM. "" PONE: KIPS REPORT AS ZER010 MOMENT: KIPPT REPORT AS ZERO:0 catmint STREW POI REPORT AO 7,1110:0 KIPS WPM' FORCE PER WOMC KIPO/PT WONT Au zoo* MOMENT PER WIDTH: KIPS RIPON!' AO ZER0:0 DEFLECTION: MCKIM POI REPORT AO ZERO:0 KIPS/PT KIPS INCHES Materials Mails CONCRETE VOLUME: CU. YDS WIGHT1 POUNDS PT FORCE: KIPS TENDON PROFILE: INCHES REINFORCING AREA: SQ. IN. ROAR WEIONT: TONG REINFORCING OTRESS: KSI COVER: INCHE5 Fine Engineering • Units 41- U) r WOO PM Units - Continued 2) --- 1Mlic.Uia..rs Volts FLOOR AREA: ata. r . MIMI MN MI N NM MI NM MEI 1111111 _ 8 & T Design & Engineering, Ino, - VaulLBnoo floor • Wednesday February 13, 2002 DeN€it1Y: PCF LLOHQA1 ONE INCHES TENDON ANGLES (FOR RRIG71ONd: AMMO Fine Engineering Units .111111 MI IN 11111 MI NMI MN MI MI RIM IWO IMP INN 1111111 MI NMI Mill NMI OM 13 & TDoslgn & Engineering, Inc. - Vault Base,floor - Wednesday Febtvery 13, 2002 Concrete Mixes 11000 wc 160 PCP F'Ci • 4000 P01 FCtil • 5000 PM PIC es 6000 p rcu • 7600 y • 0.16 (9cosoNis RATIO) O Itc • 33WC1'54100 (A01310) • Irc • 570004PC PM (A013111) O Ea • 541004rcu psi (656110) is (307004ro 1000000M641 44)r11 WANA23129 0 EC � 54200'c re (CANA23,3) 0 Ito • 2620000m + 1160)113ro (ENV 1002+1) 0 Ec 33,2Wc134,CM PM (All 3600.2001) Oirc,iia00000 to Itc • 3500000 P11 Fine Engineering Concrete Mixes MIMI 111111111 111111111 01111111 MIN Ilan IMO MINI MN Mill MN NMI NMI SIM MN MO Reinforcing Bars r r03 o ".0.11 Yr 60 NI so. IN, IUD ■ 20000 KM KM L4011. 2 AO fil 0.44 .0. IN, to • 20000 ICI FY i 60 IIOI LOAD ■ 1 B & T Deslgn & Englnenring, Inc. - Vault _Base,lloor• Wednosday February 13, 2002 Fine Englneedng Reinforcing Bars 8 gm me pm' poi mum mop woo sums pow ani gm OMNI NMI MIN MN MS B & T Design & Englneerfng, Ino. - Vault BanoJloor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Loadings and Load Cases uLC 1 x 80,431140 Lamina X WIC LOA) 1 1 x °Ma MAD Loo -- Load Case i 1.4 x 8tL OIA) LoADINO 1.7 x LUVR LOAD I 1.4 x Onoto Ohio Loa Fine Engineering Loadings and Load Cases Ere me mu ma mem no 1a no seem mei IMO NM NMI O IIIII B & T Design & Engineering, Inc. = Vault Base,floor= Wednesday February 13, 2002 Drawing Symbols and Abbreviations — Lead gad Reaction loos .• -a 4 1' DOWN ur o 0.43 cfp X-AXIS FORCE Y-AXIS FORCE Z -AXIS FORCE X -AXIS MOMENT Y-AXIS MOMENT Z -AXIS MOMENT — orru, ammo W 0 9- XrAXIB FORCE Y-AXIS FORCE Z-AXIS FORCE X-AXIS MOMENT Y •AXIS MOMENT -- Rigid Import Tees c A N 1 A X-AXIS Ponce Y -AXIS FORCE 7.-AXIS FORCE X-AXIS MOMENT Y•AXIB MOMENT Nructun Layer Abbreviations ANGLE • SPRING ANGLE BETWEEN RS AND XY AXED KFt • FORCE SPRING STIFFNESS IN Z DIRECTION 0 • COLUMN WIDTH 10411 • MOMENT SPRING STIFFNESS ABOUT R AXIS CMPRM • SUPPORT IS VERTICALLY COMPRESSIBLE KMS • MOMENT BPRINO BflPFNEIS Afl!OtIT 8 MIS D • COLUMN DEPTH OR DIAMETYN PIN • SUPPORT ROTATIONALLY Finnan TO BLAB (NEAR,FAR) EL • SPRING OR SUPPORT ELEVATION ABOVE $L#$I $OFFRKIID • SUPPORT IS INFINITELY STIFF VERTICALLY FIX • SUPPORT ROTATIONALLY PITIED TO BLAB (NEAR,FAR)SNEAR • WALL RESTRAINS SLAB HORIZONTALLY N • SUPPORT HEIGHT SUP • SLAB FREE TO MOVE HORIZONTALLY AT WALL OR • FORCE SPRING BTIPFNESB IN R DIRECTION T • WALL. OR BLAB THICKNESS KPs • FORCE SPRING STIFFNESS IN 8 DIRECTION TOS • TOP OP SLAB ELEVATION viatieMS >O... • - PT wy.Trt Layer *bbr F • TENDON FORCE T • TENDONS DIMMER OF) B$F • EFFECTIVE STRESS FACTOR I eudl gLayeribbr.vtattos._�_____� EL • LOAD ELEVATION MOVE BLAB SURFACE PI • FARCE COMPONENT IN DIRECTION IN • FORCE COMPONENT IN X DIRECTION Mx • MOMENT COMPONENT *flour X MIS rev AB•PARER COMPONENT IN Y DIRECTRAN MY • MOMENT COMPONENT ABOUT Y AXIS Lead Case Layer dbbrvtatlor►s AS SOT • AREA OF BOTTOM REINFORCING AS $HR • AREA or SHEAR REINFORCING IA, B. °NTH• TOP DEPTH OF SECTION IGNORED FAR STRESSES AND STRENGTH 10, T. DM • BOTTOM DEPTH OF SECTION IGNORED FOR STRESSES AND 6TRENAT11 AS TOP • AREA OF TOP REINFORCING LATERAL • HORIZONTAL FORCE PARALLEL TO SECTION AXIAL. • HORIZONTAL FORCE NORMALTO SECTION MZ • SECTION MOMENT ABOUT 2 MIS SOT COVR • CLEM COVER OF BOTTOM REINFORCING (AFTER IG,6TRP Snags STIRRUP SPACING BENDING • MOM MTAPOI!r SECTION MIS To Covn • CLEAR COVER OF TOP REINFORCINQ (AFTER la, T, PPTt ) CENTROIO • CENTROIP OF SECTION IN (X,Y.Z) COORDINATES TORSION • MOMENT ABOUT PERPENDICULAR-TO-SECTION MIS VERTICAL • SECTION FORCE IN Z DIRECTION = Iltelatercilig Summary Layer Abbreviations B • BOTTOM REINFORCING T • TOP REINFORCING DOT COVR • TOTAL. BOTTOM CLEAR COVER TOP COVR fi TOTAL. TOP CLEAR COVER 6 • SHEAR REINFORCING Fine Engineering Drawing Symbols and Abbreviations Pliall M MI MI NM MN PIM PIIIN OM MIMI NM MIMI MIMI MN INN NMI MIMI NMI A & T Design & Englneering, Inc, - Vault Onse,floor- Wednesday Febrvnry i3, 2002 Element Mesh Plan 2ltAme Polet llprteBrldupporte;Uee 1prleplsuppawrWa i Below $W, Caluaru Below lSleb;WaHU Abow!lleb;Cotwne Above 5tetr;9lebe$leb Edge; Seale 1:30 Fine Engineering Element Mesh Plan MN Min MN Mai PON PON MAUI OM MIMI MI MN OM . NMI NMI B & ?Design d Engineering, Inc. = VaulL8ase.floor. = Wednesday February 13, 2002 Slab Summary Plan 111terwraPdat gpiligiolupperteMse Svrl dune++ EAnrSMARR& WewSlikeelumnatlelawSir b; W. UAbate 11144 61unintAbawSlrtrslrbEdger; Bah 140 /Chi r 1h V011•10 MOO pill I*S Rh m f00011 mon pi 04 fa I 1 =10 F6l1 *It► X10 ■10 1 r�000 pi le ,s10 n d000Pid NV°mi -10 w� PI WOO pa I. wp l 1i I* I 1.45601 VW pi 1010 Toa.I0 (w= ,l., Pi 1*11 1 "10 T 1 1 , O , � - au) lift 116 b 10 pei Fine Engineering Slab Summary Plan E Ian NMI MI INN MIMI Ma MIR NM NMI all NM MN 1111111111 111111 11111 1 OtKer 14 Plan El & T DosIgn & Engineering, Inc. - Veutenselloor- Wednesday Febwery 13, 2002 Odor Deihl bisPoisi Labitaine Laidgiltea task Stnociwrioint liptinplhippotts;Uso SpdageSappottgAms SpefassNMIs Below §lab;Colurnm fitlow SisktValli Abet, glakeolurnm Abe*, Slabillitb PAlisa; Seth WO • Fine Engineering Other Dead Ldg Plan oi 1 MIN MINI Mill PM MI gag aro map NM Mil MI Me MN MI B & T Design & Engineering, Inc. - VeulLBase,lloor- Wednesday Feb►uary 13, 2002 Livg Load i Plan the Lead 1:Pole1 Loo kuae Le.kA,u Lode; 1d .ob.sWdl, Below lll ether, Below11,�;Wa1, Abow 1144Coluere, Abets 1larlt b wile,; 1,ao 10,2 Fs 137* 137 V U7 Pi . 0.711711 Ft 0.71 Fine Engineering live load 1 Plan all MIN .NM NMI PM MM PIM 1111111 IMO SIM Mal EMI EMI 11111111 MIN NMI MIMI MI B & T Design &engineering, Inc. - VaulLBAse.11oor - Wednesday February 13, 2002 Service Deflection Plan 1We' UlVerdal DOWN Met;(wr eon" enoodilegq(1 &Mout a 0.011edNr); sale Spdep1uppoltrllw Spt1np/Snppottr;Atu ptnp;Walle Delow Slab;Colunru tlelowStsb Welb Above sleb;Colwme Above SIab;3leb Edger; Mlelaeum Vohs 4,322 Inks ® (77,2, 411); Maitlteum Value '. 0.0114 indiae ®I (213, 331); Fine Englneering Service Deflection Plan 4.4 .0 . 4f 40 p3 4 . 4. I 43 423 .0 �►33 33 l ii .o 41 1 .0. II -0\.I) .0.1 II 41 `'M -0;, .0 0 I .0.o .0o 0'3 o` oos �� 0.05 t) 0 OS M.S.. _ oe3 Dos I 0 !; 0 01 ►3 0OS , ! I 0 u . oy & I' I 4) -0 I X11 I d1.1 �I III 4'1 t a 1: dl 433 4135 43 -0d ,Q Fine Englneering Service Deflection Plan .1111 NMI 11111111 MUM MR MN NM MN WIN IMP NM ow mu ma an & T Data & Englnooting, Inc, Vautense.floor. Wednesday Febniary 13, 2002 kujgglodloil Reactions Lead Cam teak odd Waft Itmelend gindionolVofte New Slikeelemse Meow ShinWafts Mow gWenhoned Akio SolSe** 1.0.And Spdes %IOW ft/iodine Plek(1 Camera 0,1 kelk e 00 Mlakdos Woe ae .1A4409 WV (let 471k Madam Woe • 1,4449 WO (ill, 423) 1 , \ ' I 1 il ill a 1 1 I ' I 1 1 ) I 1 II C I 1 t'::\' 1 • 1 I 11 15 1 • ! I. 1 It :t I - • / . 0 I 1 - s 5 " cks 01 , \"°43"---.4)-- .,,) f , 3 5 1 I I' lilt lis 1111 I II 1 I 1.1 ill 1 11 111112" 2 I 5, 11 I 1 1I 11. i""'"O'•••••......1 Fine Engineering Service Load Soil Reactions E MI Load Case I_Mx Plan E SRI MN MI tall ® MIS NMI r NNW MUM 8 & Tanta & Englneering, lno, - VVUlLBnsn floor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Lad Cass Mee Seedonr,Bendb Moment Plot;(w/ emus smooth I Cantor • 0.5 K(PS ,(4 &sedan%k Swot relo M S�,LIM SPdnN/Suppotte;Ara Springs-NAle Below Sleb,Coiumne Below Shat,Wette above Illekeolumro Above SIeb,Sbb tidNee; MNhmrn Woe • •1.17 Kips A (165, 401); Mexdmum Value a, 5,07 Kips 0 (75/, ,OS), � N1 1 `, IS O �f � N6 M1 r tH \ Si G N Ito .r i 1 0 PA G Fine Engineering Load Case 1 Mx Plan 111111 MIMI I= NM HIM OM NMI gm am am isim aim on No am amp mg mg B & T Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault Bese.11oor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Loa& Case I My Plan Lod Coe We* Seeitoturllwwift* Woolf Mot;(w/ arw iM0006041 Caitew ■ b.S IGipd},(y ditu3len); :;rSptinge/suppottsLim 1plr*9uppatrMa Spbp*illi &law S16b,Cabarmd Mow IlldbbWd1r Above SIdb;Cohwwtd /J o . ThbSb fidget 1 MWsdrn Value as •r.) Kips ®(I40, 4I Sr Hachure value = o lS Kip ® (531, 471); Fine Engineering load Case I My Plan SIM NMI 11111111 INN 11111 Mill INN EMI MOM BIM RIM MN M MN MPS 8 & ?New) & Englnooling, Ina. - Vault_Base.tloor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Load Case l Vx P1an Lase Caw tDa * Saktt n Vrrttat tlkw Pkl;(w/ cum smoadanW(1 Contour • 05 klpwf);(x d1tadic &swim:him SIdnWSuppottr,LYM Satnrrsuppeau;a+s Spiny-Alb Below SIrb,Cotunru Below 81610/6114 Abew Shib,CohmrN Above Slitr gl.b 8 dw, Soh 1:30 MM1.wn %so • .10,7 kip /A ® (318, 471% Matbarn Vitus • 14,1 ktp.JA Qa (89,1, 47l); Fine Engineering Load Case / Vx Plan t9 r 1 t 1 N EMI NO Mal in MI Mal NM MN In NMI OM IMO NM INN 8 & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - VauILBase,lloor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Load Case I Yy Plan, Lad Cne Mahn Seaiane;Vatlal Sher Plek(*/ are aeoothlost(1 Centaur O.S � l h1,(y d dek StroohwPodtt Srelo a SuppottrLlne 3prlr�SuppotrNa SptinseWlle Below SWrm ne Below SWr,Wdts Above SWteohme Above S16,8lrb lger, Sale 110 Minimum V e l w • 4,1 klpell! ®(t/.2, 4SS); Maxi m m % w m 2,22 k1 /lt (1, Cfl 7, 461), Fine Engineering Load Case 1 Vy Pion 1111111 ENO NM MN NM NMI MN MN eg. amm gm mum Imp am gm am 8 & T Design & Englneering, Inc. - Vault.easofloor- Wednesday Febnrary 13, 2002 �,uad Case I: Design Section Summary 1 AS TOP CONTTlOLLINO A9 HOT CONTROUJNO A9 SHR 877113 EIPCO CONTROLUNO STATUS (60. IN.) (80. 04 On iu.) Omuta) 1 0 00334 ACI 10.2 0 INF OK 2 1.00 ACI 10,2 0 0 INF OK 3 1.14 ACI 10.2 0 0 INF OK 4 0 0.137 ACI 10.2 0 INF OK O 7.00 ACI 10.2 0 0 INF OK 6 0,83 ACI 10,2 0 0 INF OK 7 7,71 ACI 10,2 0 0 INF OK O 0.207 ACI 10.2 0 0 INF OK O 8,73 ACI 10,2 0 0 INF OK 10 0 0.t030 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK 11 1.04 ACI 10,2 0 0 INF OK 12 1,00 ACI 10.2 0 0 INF OK 13 0 0.0203 ACI 10,2 0 INF OK "STATUS" INDICATES WH TtWR FLOOR HAS FOUND A FEASIUU: SoLU11oN TO SATISFY rig CRITLRIA SgIRCTSD FOR THIS SfiCTIQN. • Fine Engineering load Casa l: Design Section Summary INN MN 11111111 NMI MI NMI NM r_ mai me Me Num — Nog l r r ■m Load Case I: Desi¢n Section Criteria O D[MSN CRWIRIA 1 ACI10.211,2;Aaaus 2 AC1 10,211.* M Sum a AC 10.2 11.2 M Owe 4 AC1 10.211.>*Maw 5 AC1 10,2 11.1kMaua 6 AC1 10,1811,1;M8 a 7 AC1 10,211.x; M Owe e ACI 10.1t 11.1; M ams O ACI10,2II,a;Mau►s 10 AC1 10411.2; As 11 AC1 10`181 I.2 M Sim (2 AC1102:11.1;Maus 13 ACI10431I.3AUw TAP OAR OOf OAR OUn OAR TOP COV11)0170 ,4 (*ma) Omuta 06 08 03U 1.8 1,6 06 06 03U 1,5 1,8 06 N6 03U 1,8 06 06 03U 2.12 RD 06 N2U 1,8 06 08 03 1 NO 1116 03 U 1 06 06 02U 1,62 06 18 02U 1 10, 06 N3 U 9,13 id NO *au 1,8 ND 06 0211 1,5 06 NO N$ U 2.13 1,9 2:13 1.9 1 1.62 1 2.13 1,8 1,8 2:13 8 & T Design & Engineering, Inc. • VaulLBase,floor• Wednesday February 13, 2002 QA 'T. &TRI O. ()MGM LOTH OUCHES) t1NCHtM1 t'4CU 3 O 0 O 0 O 0 O o O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 282 292 282 282 282 282 292 292 252 293 292 292 292 'TQP em 111OICATES TIM TOP ROWFQRGNIQ BAR TYPO THAT FLOOR WM. USE IF HECESNARY TO Balm THE CRIfER A SEI.ECTEA FQR THIS SEGTWH. "DOT 6AW WINGATRO THE NQTTQM RENIFQRCPig NAR TYPO THAT F1AQR W W. USE IF HECE§SARY TQ BATISFY THO CRITERIA SE4&CTEQ FOR THIS SECTION. "$HR fmM" 1NDICATIN THE SHEAR RENIFQRCIHG YAR TYPO THAT FLOOR W114. 11§g IF NEC MARY TO SATISFY THE CRIYFRIA SE4.€CTEA FAR THIS S€6T QU. '70. T. DPW' ININCATYS THO DEPTH OF THE TOP OF ME SMR THAT PIAQR IGNORES WHEN CA44u4,ATIH4 4TREHRTH AH4 STR €§§ES FAR THIS SEGTIQN. 14, 6. DPTH" MIGIGATES THO DEPTH OF TMO 49TTQM OF THO SLAP THAT FI QQR 14NQRES WHEN CN.UI,ATU#4 €STRENGTH ANI) WrRE€+SE$ FOH THIS SEGTIOH. "SPAR IATH" * QlCA RS THB SPAN 14144TH AHQ lS QHI.Y USES TO CA1.0MTE l MfrW 4 M RO IN UNUONGEQ TTUPQMS (SI:GTIGN 16.7.,2.1, TO CAI.GUIMTR wNwUM ROINFQRCMiNT *OWN 15.e.9.3) mum ESTMIATt Rom QUANTtfIIIS• Fine animating Load Case l: Design Section Criteria VIM .0 IIIIII MI N® 111101 111111 ® 111111 INN MI Load Case 1: Des gn. Section Forces MI NM IIIIIII SIN B & T Design & Engineering, Inc. - Vault_Base.nnor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 0 AXIAL LA tnAL VERTICAL TORSION BENDING M2 PT PONCE BENDING CAP VE(tI1CAL CAP (0P6i (KIPS) (KUPBJ Go'n Ocip-r6 O r'r (KIM GaPr) (KIPS 1 1.84 0.018 0.288 0.0948 0.915 0.0110 (O,0) (0.278,0,917) 8,43 2 0,000819 .1.09E4 62.8 •3,89 49.7 0,000981 (0,0) (.20.0,8,94) 98.8 3 .0.166 4.136 .108 33.3 41.4 4827 (00) (.41.8,9,30) 128 4 4,82 4,00926 17 .16.1 4,62 803 (0,0) (.1.6404,02) 71,4 6 4.000287 4.000016 4.72 0,0864 .273 .0,00064 (0,0) (278,0) 128 8 0.00047 4.00122 •14.3 .1.04 .260 0,00291 (0,0) (267,0) 106 7 040282 0,000099 4,71 0,804 .212 0.0127 (0,0) (.217,0) 106 8 6.36 4,042 6,00 41.0 •7.98 4,18 (0,01 (8,2.08) 70.3 0 0.000136 0.000061: 4,07 0,884 .187 0.000010 (0,0) (101,0) 106 10 440 0,104 7,72 ;6.81 3.44 4,40 (0,0) (1.16,3.48) 71.4 11 .0.000749 4.000308.70.1 ' • 1.64 47.7 0,000007 (0,0) (.37.8,8.87) 120 12 .0.00134 0,00816 36.8 •3,8 48.6 0.00008 (0,0) (.20.7,8,0) 08,6 13 1.71 44400 0.14 0,0833 0,800 0,0303 (0,0) (0.317,0.800) 8,26 "PT FORCE" INDICATES THg POSf•TF.NSIONING FORM THAT F4.OQR USER FOR UENQINQ PESI',N; Dig TWO FORCES USTEP ARE FOR OPPOSITE CURVATURES. "DEWING CAP." INDICATES THE CAPACITY OF THE SECTION FOR NEGATIVE ANP POSITIVE MOMENT' ." INDICATES THAT NO CAPACITY WAS CA4.CULSTEP. "VERTICN. CAP." INDICATE$ THE CAPACITY OP THE SECTION FOR V4RTICA1. SHEAR; "•" INDICATES THAT NO CAPACITY WAS CAI- CM -ATEP. Fine Engineering load Case l; Design Section Forces J 111111 111111 Ilia M am ma A aa B & T Design & Engineering, Ina, • VaulLBese,lloor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Toop Reinforcing Summary Plan rwtlb Below 91ekCo unnf Wow WNW& Arrow 9l.bAlunw Mow 91rb,916b Bd�e, 46� IA NS 414 T■ /64661 T.16 07 5.41 T *06 61i To06� 9.14 7464 i 50.7 E M 013 46.1 T•06 ((I 50:3 Fine Engineering Top Reinforcing Summary Plan • 7- .• • MIN MN ISM MINI INN MI alla au e MN gis gma on 8 & TDoslgn & EngInneting, Ino - Vautensefloor • Wednesday February 13, 2002 Bottom Reinforcing3ummamPjan Itairiseing Duswerilebtlinkis Sullanktiot, NM Spats StnicaittWills Below nigt,CONNIMI Now 8144Wella Abet" Shkeehms Abets SUfr.nlab Wile; Sok 130 Id i IS ti 7 au PI 10Lanment...zesiess, I at wowswow■as 2 1 sa-amesera.asil, sorsiesserce= 0 1 N Fine Engineering Bottom Reinforcing Summary Plan ig • VeZ4:17c0V.W.44,11:MA .444....44P+Iii,fi•Otetl., 41 0a, aall :1111111111 Mal MN nal an SIM Mal Mal NMI NMI nal Inn NMI Ilan MN MN an r { Reinforcing Summary M TOP BARICOH1 OLUNO Sot OARCONTfOLUNO 1 2 a 4 Q 8 7 8 0 10 11 12 13 Honk 308 a08 NONm 1018 22 Me 1808 108 1808 NONE a M8 a M8 NONE 1 M8 LOAD CASt 102•ACI 10.2 NON: LOAD CA061 M3,AC 1 10.2 NONE 1 08 LOAD CAOg 1 NSACI 10,2 NONE LOAD CASE 10 AC1 10,2 NONE LOAD CA8C 1 M7,ACI 10,2 NONE LOAD CAM I MB ACI 10,2 NONE LOAD CAU 1 MOACI 10.2 NM 1l►1 08 LOAD CASE 1011.ACI 10,1 NONE LOAD CASE 1012,ACI 10,1 NONE 1 06 LOAD CASE 1 M 1,ACI 10,2 NON: NON NON: LOAD CASt 1 0444C1 10,2 NON: NONE NONC NONE NONE NONE LOAD CASE 1110.ACI 10,1 NONE NONE NONt LOAD CASs I M I OACI 10,1 NONE "STATUS" INDICATES WNETHBR FLOOR IiAR 655N A61.5 TO FIND A F5ASI51.6 SOLUTION FOR THIS 55C11ON. B & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - VeulLBase,lloor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 CONTROLLING 8TAfl 9 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Fine Engineering Reinforcing Summary MI nal Min Mai 11111111 PM PIM MI N INN NM MN MI =II INN INN 8 & T Design & Engineering, Inc, - Veult,8ase,lloor- Wednesday February 13, 2002 Reinforcing Summary Plan Unlinks Sumeoryitainforeing aealo top Dahl& Berr,Bheer Barr, Scale J01 ni L4w Sptb JSupportaMa SprN4r,Wi1Ii Below 9bb.Colunw Below Slib,Wrlle Above SlattColumns Above Slrb,Mlrb fidget, Fine Engineering Reinforcing Summary Plan . T•11' i N6 T-2 OS Toll 1-- M Nd T 6 aw�a-a Nd Tp3 z. hi I T•� q Na Na T. Fine Engineering Reinforcing Summary Plan . Final Geotechnical Report Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington November 2001 CITY Of TUIVt4ILA APPROVED FEB 2 1 2003 t tt.0 Itt I �.IL14rC.iiY.biYfw.e! Sit' utrR4ixYX• -qp ". v'.`.6fiu;tN:.f.YdC?:.+^..bF::. ,%I ,Shannon ter Wilton. our ml.+.+Iu►r is to he it prr►g►rs Ivr, OW= nntnaged pnilet.tlnnnl tv►n.tulting /)rn, in thr/rrhn a/ engineering and apl►Nrd earth .trlr►nce.t: Otte goal It to perform inn' tereier.t with the higlneat degree tI pnojettianrnli.tun with due tnn.thlrrrttinn to the l►ett !n►tetett t of the public, our rllet►t.t, and our ennl►loyera, INCOMPLETE CITY oEF TUKW ►LA AUG 2 8 2002 PERMIT CENTER Submitted To: Bart Meath The Seneca Real Estate Group, Inc, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2350 Seattle, Washington 98101 By: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 400 N 341h Street, Suite 100 Seattle, Washington 98103 21 -1. 09383.001 Marauld 7 P IV 0.;1'.'1.t. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report contains the results of our geotechnical field explorations and engineering studies performed for the Museum of Flight Expansion project. The expansion may include an enclosure (roof) over the existing Red Barn, the 2 -story Military Gallery at the north end of the existing structure, a pedestrian bridge over East Marginal Way South, and the Commercial Gallery on the west side of the roadway. Phasing studies continue, and some changes in the development program may result. This report addresses the early expansion plans and is applicable to alternatives as of November 2001. Subsurface Conditions. In general, the subsurface soils consist of fill, alluvial, estuarine, and lacustrine deposits. The near surface variable fill material is underlain by loose Duwamish River alluvial deposits and soft lacustrine deposits extending to depths of about 95 feet below the existing ground surface. Estuarine deposits of medium dense to very dense sand underlie the lacustrine layer. In our nearby King County International Airport air traffic control tower boring, the dense estuarine sand layer was about 30 to 35 feet thick and was underlain by a stiff to very stiff clay and silt. At the Museum of Flight, groundwater was encountered variably, between elevations 6 and 12 feet. Effect on Design and Construction. The effect of these subsurface conditions on the design and construction of the Museum of Flight Expansion can be briefly summarized as follows: ► The upper loose to medium dense soils are susceptible to earthquake - induced liquefaction and settlement ► The deeper dense sand unit (estuarine deposit) will support high capacity foundation piles ► Groundwater encountered during shallow excavations and stripping should be limited and controllable Seismic Design. The project is located in a moderately active seismic zone. The largest historical earthquakes in the region are the magnitude 7.1 Olympia earthquake of April 13, 1949, the magnitude 6,5 Seattle - Tacoma earthquake of April 29, 1965, and the recent magnitude 6,8 Nisqually earthquake of February 28, 2001. The subsurface soils beneath the project have a high susceptibility to liquefaction to a depth of about 35 feet and would lose considerable strength down to a depth of about 70 feet during a large earthquake. Liquefaction- induced ground surface settlements are estimated to be on the order of half a foot to a foot. 21•1•09383•001.rl.doc/wp /ect i 21 -1- 09383.001 1 § In accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code (013C), the site is classified as a Soil Type Sp due to the presence of potentially liquefiable soils. The U13C requires a site - specific evaluation for Sp sites. Based on our field explorations in the area, and our detailed seismic analysis of the King County International Airport air traffic control tower, we have developed design earthquake ground motions (including response spectra) consistent with the current UBC criteria. Foundation Design. We recommend that the proposed structures be supported on deep foundations such as driven or drilled piles bearing in the underlying, dense estuarine deposit. The seismic loading conditions control the pile design. Driven piles, either 24 -inch, octagonal, prestressed, concrete or 24- inch - diameter, closed -end steel pipe piles, would have a design load of 125 tons per pile. Drilied 18- inch - diameter augercast concrete piles would have a design load of 65 tons per pile. All three pile types would be on the order of 100 feet long in order to achieve the required capacity during and after the design earthquake event. Geotechnical parameters are provided for the lateral resistance analysis of the piles using the computer program LPILEPLus. Subgrade Preparation. For floor slabs and exterior pavements, we recommend excavating the site as needed, then compacting the upper 18 inches of the subgrade to 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. After compacting and proof rolling the surface, an 18- inch -thick layer of compacted, permeable, well- graded, imported material would be used beneath interior concrete slabs for slab support and as a capillary break. Above the vapor barrier, an additional 6 inches of capillary break material should be placed (per Scllen Construction). For exterior pavements. base course material would be placed and compacted on top of the prepared subgrade. Building Performance, These recommendations will result in different support characteristics and a potential for different long -term performance of the expansion compared to the existing structure. These different performance characteristics result from the evolution of seismic design criteria and apply only to earthquake loading conditions. Flexible Pavement Design. Asphalt pavement sections for the areas that will handle aircraft traffic and those for buses- or autos -only were developed using the 1995 FAA program LEDFAA and the 1993 AASFITO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, respectively. The recommended pavement sections assume that the subgrade will be prepared and compacted to 1.1.09383 *001 •r1 •doc/wp/cct 11 21.1 -09383 -001 wi increase the strength from the presently unimproved condition. The design pavement sections for the aircraft areas and the bus -only areas provide for full -depth frost protection, while the design for the auto -only areas provide limited frost protection. 21.1.09383.001. r I .doc /wp /ee t 111 21- 1- 09383 -001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM 3 5.0 GEOTECFINICAL LABORATORY TESTING 4 6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 7.0 ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 7.1 Analyses Based on Observed Conditions and Design Requirements 6 7.2 Earthquake Engineering 7 7.2.1 Ground Motions 7 7.2.2 Earthquake Hazards 8 7.3 Deep Foundations 10 7.3.1 Pile Design Requirements 10 7,31 Axial Pile Capacities 10 7.3.3 Existing Facilities' Foundations 12 7.3,4 Other Foundation Alternatives 13 7.3,5 Lateral Pile Resistance 13 7.3.6 Estimated Pile Settlements 13 7.4 Retaining Wall Footings 14 7,5 Lateral Earth Pressures on Walls and Lateral Resistance for Wall Footings 14 7.6 Slabs -on -grade Subgrade Recommendations 15 7.7 Flexible Asphalt Pavements 16 7.7.1 Design Approaches 17 7.7.1.1 AASHTO Design Method 17 7.7,1.2 FAA Design Method 18 7.7,2 Subgrade Strength 18 7,7,3 Aircraft and Vehicular Traffic Loads 19 7,7,4 Pavement Design Sections 21 7.7.4.1 AC PVMT Type I Areas 21 7,7.4.2 AC PVMT Type II Areas 22 7,7.5 Frost Protection 23 7.8 Permanent Groundwater and Surface Water Drainage and Control 24 21•1•09383.001.r1.doc/wp/eel iv 21-1-09383-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont,) Page 7,9 Backfill Material, Placement, and Compaction 24 7,10 Site Grading, Excavation, and Temporary Cut Slopes 25 7.10.1 Site Preparation 25 7.10.2 Excavation and Temporary Groundwater Control 27 7.10.3 General Excavation and Temporary Cut Slopes 28 8,0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 28 8,1 Driven Pile Installation 28 8.1.1 Pile Driving Equipment 28 8.1,2 Pile Driving Conditions 29 8.1.3 Wave Equation Analysis 29 8,1.4 Monitoring Pile Driving 30 8,1.5 Pile Driving Vibrations, Movement Monitoring, and Noise Levels.., 30 8.2 Augercast Concrete Pile Installation 31 8.3 Test Pile Program 32 8.4 Wet Weather Earthwork 34 8.5 Construction Observation 34 9.0 LIMITATIONS 35 10.0 REFERENCES 37 LIST OF TABLES Table No. 1 Recommended Parameters for Lateral Resistance Analysis Using LPILEP1.us 2 Pile and Driving Equipment Data Sheet LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 1 Vicinity Map 2 Site and Exploration Plan 3 Generalized Subsurface Profile A -A' 4 Recommended Design Response Spectrum 5 Estimated Seismic Capacity 24 -inch Octagonal Prestressed Concrete Pile 21•1•O9383•OOI.r1.dac /wp/eet v 21 -1 -09383 -001 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) LIST OF FIGURES (cont.) Figure No 6 Estimated Seismic Capacity 24- inch - diameter Closed -end Pipe Pile 7 Estimated Seismic Capacity 18- inch - diameter Closed -end Pipe Pile 8 Estimated Seismic Capacity 24- inch - diameter Augercast Concrete Pile 9 Typical Easement Wall Perimeter Drain and Eackfill LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Field Explorations B Ceotechnical Laboratory Testing C Liquefaction Potential D Heavy Falling Weight Defiectometer (HWD) Test Results E Important Information About Your Geotcchnical Report 21 .1 •Q9383•QQ I .r $.doc/wp/cct vi • 21- 1- 09383.001 rip FINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT MUSEUM OF FLIGHT EXPANSION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1,0 INTRODUCTION This final geotechnical report presents the results of our field explorations, laboratory testing, and engineering design recommendations and conclusions for the proposed Museum of Flight Expansion, located adjacent to and across the street from the existing Museum of Flight. Refer to the Vicinity Map, Figure 1, for the regional project location. We understand that planning and phasing discussions are still underway, but that the Museum of Flight Expansion may consist of the following elements: ► Enclosure over the existing Red Barn. ► Two -story Military Gallery with basement level with classroom space immediately north of the Red Barn. ► Pedestrian sky - bridge over East Marginal Way South. ► Commercial (or West) Gallery on the west side of East Marginal Way South. The Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2, illustrates the locations of these project features. We understand that the Military Gallery and Red Bam enclosure will have relatively heavy column loads while the Commercial Gallery and pedestrian bridge will be lightly loaded. 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose and scope of our work was to explore the subsurface conditions, summarize the exploration and laboratory test data, and provide geotechnical recommendations for the foundation, pavement, and seismic design of the proposed Museum of Flight Expansion. Our services included the following: ► Identifying and reviewing existing geotechnical information. ► Drilling and sampling two deep soil borings (designated 13 -1 and 13-2). ► Drilling and sampling four shallow soil borings (designated 13 -3 through 13-6). 21-1-09383,00 1. r I . d oc/wp/ee t 1 21-1-09383-001 ► Drilling and installing two shallow observation wells (designated OW -1 and OW-2). ► Performing three deep piezocone probes (also called cone penetration tests or CPTs, and designated CPT-2, CPT-4, and CPT -6). ► Performing three deep seismic CPTs (designated CPT -1, CPT -3, and CPT -5). ► Performing a series of Heavy Palling Weight Deflcctometer (HWD) tests for the Commerciai Gallery. ► Preparing a subsurface profile through the project site. ► Conducting engineering and seismic analyses. ► Summarizing our conclusions and recommendations in two preliminary design memoranda, a draft report, and this final report. We also completed hazardous materials surveys for affected buildings. A separate report of those conditions is in preparation at the time of this writing. We reviewed the following existing Museum of Flight gcotechnical reports: ► "Proposed Museum of Flight, Soils and Foundation Investigation ", letter report for Ibsen Nelson, Architect by Nell H. Twelker & Associates Consulting Soils Engineers, dated June 22, 1979. ► "Pacific Museum of Flight Phase I, Seattle, Washington, Soils and Foundation Investigation ", letter report for Ibsen Nelson and Associates by Neil H. Twelker & Associates Consulting Soils Engineers, dated August 15, 1980. ► "Pacific Museum of Flight Phase II, Soils and Foundation Investigation ", letter report for Ibsen Nelson & Associates by Neil H. Twelker & Associates Consulting Soils Engineers, dated October 31, 1980. ► "Pacific Museum of Flight Phase II, Seattle, Washington, Soils and Foundation Investigation ", letter report for Ibsen Nelson and Associates by Neil H. Twelker & Associates Consulting Soils Engineers, dated August 24, 1983. In addition, we reviewed the available geotechnical information from surrounding Boeing buildings, data in our files on other major Boeing Field -area projects, and the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment report for the Commercial Gallery portion of the project by GeoEngineers entitled "Report, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 9725 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, Washington, dated March 12, 2001." 21.1•09383.00L.r .cloc/wpk I 2 21 -1 -09383 -001 ; • 6 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Museum of Flight Expansion project is located adjacent to and nearby the existing Museum of Flight, southwest of the King County International Airport at Boeing Field, and along East Marginal Way South. The approximate locations of the existing and proposed project features are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. A major arterial, East Marginal Way South bisects the project site. The Commercial Gallery will be 144,500 square feet, the Military Gttliery will be 153,600 square feet (on 3 floors), and the Red Barn enclosure with a basement will be 84,000 square feet. The project site is located within the Duwamish River valley and is relatively flat with maximum topographic relief of about 6 feet across the entire site. Several existing structures are located on the approximately 7 -acre site along the east side of East Marginal Way South, including the existing Great Gallery of the Museum of Flight, the Red Barn, and two King County (KC) Internationai Airport hangars (Hangars A and B). The two aircraft hangars will be relocated about 1/3 of a mile north of the site in order to provide additional parking for the museum; the hangar relocation site is known as lots 13 and 14. We have prepared a separate geoicchnicai report for the hangar site. The 5.5 -acre Commercial Gallery site located to the northwest across East Marginal Way South currently consists of a large asphalt parking area and an existing two - story concrete Boeing building. The Commercial Gallery has a planned future triangular - shaped expansion on the north side of the proposed gallery (see Figure 2). The Commercial Gallery will be just above the grade of East Marginal Way South. The site slopes gently down towards the northwest; therefore, fill will be required to achieve the final grade of 19.5 feet, The Military Gallery and Red Barn enclosure areas will be excavated to elevation 12,4 feet, The excavations will require removal of about 3 to 6 feet and about 9 feet of soil at the gallery and enclosure, respectively. The Military Gallery will have a basement level and two upper floors, The Red Barn enclosure will have a basement level and a main level. The Red Barn enclosure basement level (elevation 9 feet based on the old datum equals elevation 12.4 feet on the new datum) will match the existing Red Barn basement. 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM Subsurface conditions at the Museum of Flight Expansion project were interpreted from 6 soil borings (2 deep and 4 shallow), 2 observation wells, 6 CPTs, and a series of FWD tests. The 2 1.1 •U9383.00I •r1.doc /wp /eet 3 21 -1 -09383 -001 'I i__S. :L.fi:, :i'i..,.. locations of the borings, observation wells, and CPTs are shown on Figure 2. The borings and wells were drilled with a combination of hollow -stem auger and mud rotary techniques. The shallow borings were drilled to 5 feet below the existing grade; the deep borings were drilled to depths of 122 and 102 feet in 13 -1 and 13 -2, respectively, The observation wells were about 15 feet deep, and the CPTs ranged from 92 to 118 feet deep. The logs for the borings, wells, and CPTs are presented in Appendix A, Field Explorations, as Figures A -2 through A45, A description of the field methods and procedures used during drilling, sampling, and pushing the cones are included in Appendix A, The HWD tests were performed to evaluate the modulus of subgradc reaction for designing rigid concrete slabs -on -grade and resilient modulus for designing flexible asphalt pavements. Pavement Consultants, Inc. (PCI) performed the work under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Appendix D presents PCI's report, which describes their field methods and procedures, and presents the test results, Our scope did not initially include environmental services except that we screened the boring and observation well soil samples that were above the water table with a photoionization detector (P®) to determine if there were petroleum -based volatile organic compounds present. We also took extra near- surface samples in boring 13-1 (south of the Red Barn) in order to screen for volatiles. No volatiles were observed during our screening. Subsequently, Shannon & Wilson was contracted to conduct a hazardous materials survey at affected buildings. The results of that survey are presented separately from this report. 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING Geotechnical laboratory tests were performed on selected samples retrieved from the borings and observation wells to determine soil index and engineering properties encountered at the site, The tests were performed in the Shannon & Wilson soils laboratory by an experienced technician or engineer. The soil tests included visual classification, natural water contents, grain -size distributions, and Atterberg Limits tests, Descriptions of the test methods and summaries of the test results are presented in Appendix B, Geotechnical Laboratory Testing. The natural water contents and Atterberg Limits are also shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. 21.1.09383,001.r 1 •dci.Jwpkci 4 21-1-09383-001 • • •, ^. 6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on the soils encountered during the subsurface explorations, the Museum of Flight Expansion site is underlain by fill which, in turn, is underlain by Duwamish River alluvial deposits as well as estuarine and lacustrine deposits. The subsurface conditions inferred from the field explorations are generalized on the subsurface profile on Figure 3; more detailed soil descriptions are presented on the boring, well and CPT logs in Appendix A. The site is covered by fill encountered to approximate depths ranging from 4 to 19 feet below the existing ground surface. These deposits consist of very loose to medium dense, and soft to stiff, intermixed silty fine sand, fine sandy silt and clayey silt. The fill appears to be thinner in the vicinity of the existing Museum of Flight, and thicker towards the northwest. Below the fill, a relatively thick deposit of loose to medium dense, clean to silty, fine to medium sand was encountered to a depth of 58 feet in the vicinity of boring B -1 and to 36 feet at CPT -5. The upper portion of the sand deposit may include hydraulic fill placed during early development of the site. The hydraulic fill could be similar in appearance and density to the underlying alluvial sand deposit. Underlying the upper sand deposit is an interbedded alluvial layer of loose to medium dense, slightly silty, fine to medium sand and fine sandy silt, with soft, clayey silt seams. This layer is approximately 10 feet thick in the vicinity of boring 13-1 and thickens to the northwest to approximately 28 feet in the vicinity of CPT -5. Abundant organics were encountered within this layer. Underlying the relatively coheslonless deposits described above, very soft to soft, clayey silt with a trace of fine sand was encountered to depths of 86 to 93 feet below the ground surface. This is a lacustrine deposit. The clayey silt deposit is underlain by a relatively thin (less than 5 feet thick) layer of very loose to medium dense, silty, fine to medium sand. Cone penetration tests CPT -2, CPT -3, CPT -4, and CPT -6 encountered thin lenses of soft to medium stiff, clayey silt underlying the very loose to medium dense sand; this silt unit was not encountered in the other borings and CPTs performed for this project. 21.1.09383.001.r 1.dos /wp/eet 5 21 -1 -09383 -001 =# • . f. 1• _,_.LJi h li�ii.,. The very loose to medium dense sand is underlain by an estuarine deposit consisting of dense to very dense slightly silty to silty, fine to medium sand, with a trace of gravel. This unit begins at about elevation -80 feet, Abundant shell fragments were encountered in both sand units. In addition to our field explorations for the museum expansion, we are also utilizing information from our recent deep boring at the King County International Airport air traffic control tower (KC tower), In that deep boring, which was drilled to a depth of 211 feet, the dense sand layer was about 30 to 35 feet thick and was underlain by a stiff to very stiff, slightly clayey, fine sandy silt. Groundwater observations were made during drilling. Where mud - rotary methods were used to drill, groundwater levels were difficult to identify. Piezometers were installed in OW -1 and OW -2 to monitor groundwater levels. The groundwater levels in the CPTs were also noted. In general, groundwater was encountered between 5 and 12 feet below the existing ground surface during our field exploration program, varying between elevations 6 and 12 feet. However, we anticipate that site groundwater levels may fluctuate a foot or two with seasonal variations in rainfall. 7.0 ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Analyses Based on Observed Conditions and Design Requirements Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the field explorations and our understanding of the project, engineering studies were performed to develop conclusions and recommendations regarding the following: (1) seismic design criteria, (2) seismically- induced geologic hazards, (3) deep foundations for the proposed structures, (4) lateral earth pressures and resistance, (5) pavement design parameters for the interior concrete slabs and pavement design sections for exterior asphalt pavements, (6) drainage, (7) backfill material, and (8) temporary cut slopes. A discussion of our studies, analyses, conclusions, and recommendations are presented in the following sections. The deep foundations section also includes a discussion of the existing facilities' foundations and other foundation alternatives that were conceptually evaluated by the design team. 21.1•09383•001.r 1 •doe /wp/cci 6 21 -1 -09383 -001 4 ,•1 .. t i /IL, 7.2 Earthquake Engineering 7.2.1 Ground Motions •t, 71 .t�., The project is located in a moderately active seismic region. While the region has historically experienced moderate to large earthquakes (i.e., April 13, 1949, magnitude 7.1 Olympia Earthquake; April 29, 1965, magnitude 6.5 Seattle - Tacoma Earthquake; February 28, 2001, magnitude 6.8 Nisqually Earthquake), geologic evidence suggests that larger earthquakes have occurred in the recent past and will continue to occur in the future (e.g., magnitude 8 t/ to 9 Cascadia Subduction Zone Interplate events, magnitude 7 1/2 Seattle Fault events). We understand that the project will be designed in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997). The UBC requires that the seismicity of the region be considered in building design by requiring that structures be designed for earthquake ground motions with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years (475 -year recurrence), Accordingly, the UBC indicates that the project site is located in Seismic Zone 3 (peak ground acceleration on rock of approximately 0,3g). More recent regional ground motion studies conducted by the USGS (Frankel et al., 1996) indicate that the peak ground acceleration (PGA) for a 475 -year recurrence in the vicinity of the site for "soft" rock conditions would be approximately 0.33g. In addition to seismicity, the UBC also requires that the response of the subsurface soils at the site be considered in developing design earthquake ground motions. Subsurface conditions beneath the site correspond UBC Soil Profile Type Sp due to the presence of potentially liquefiable soil. The UBC requires that a site - specific evaluation be conducted for this Soil Profile le Type. Shannon & Wilson recently completed a site - specific ground motion study for the KC Air Traffic Control Tower (Shannon & Wilson, 2001), located 1.2 miles north- northwest of the site. Based on the comparison of subsurface conditions at each site (including shear wave velocities from the seismic CPTs at the site), it is our opinion that the results of the analyses are applicable to the Museum of Flight site. The site - specific ground response analyses performed for the KC Air Traffic Control Tower included the following steps: (1) Development of a target rock uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) for ground motions with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years based on probabilistic ground motion studies by the USGS (Frankel et al., 1996), 21•1.09383•001.r1.doc/wp/cct 7 21 -1 -09383 -001 (2) of the individual response spectra closely match the target rock UI-1S. Selection of rock input motions from previous earthquakes such that the average (3) Development of profiles for soil response analyses including characterization of shear wave velocity, dynamic soil properties, soil layer thickness, and unit weights. (4) Use the equivalent - linear program ProShake (EduPro Civil Systems, 1999) and recordings from the BOE ground motion recording station from the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake to back - analyze the profiles to develop a best estimate soil profile (BOE station is located approximately 4,000 feet north - northwest of the Museum of Flight). (5) Calculation of surface response using ProShake, the best estimate soil profile, and the selected rock input motions from (2). (6) Calculation of surface response using the nonlinear program WAVE (Horne, 1996, and Arduino et al., 2001), the best estimate soil profile, and the selected rock input motions from (2). (7) Development of a recommended design spectrum from the results of (5) and (6). The results of the site response analyses outlined above, including the recommended smoothed response spectrum is shown on Figure 4. Because of the importance of the air traffic control tower, the recommended smoothed spectrum was developed to conservatively envelope the range of ground motions calculated from the site response analyses and the motions recorded at the BOE station from the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake. 7.2.2 Earthquake Hazards Earthquake induced geologic hazards that may affect a given site include landsliding, fault rupture, settlement, and liquefaction and associated effects (loss of shear strength, bearing capacity failures, loss of lateral support, ground oscillation, lateral spreading, etc.). Because of the flat topography at the site the risk of landsliding is very low. The potential for fault rupture is also relatively low. The nearest mapped fault (Johnson et al., 1999) is the southernmost strand of the east-west trending Seattle Fault Zone. The Seattle Fault Zone is approximately 2 V:- to 4 -miles wide (north - south). The site is located about 2 miles south of the southernmost strand. No evidence of Holocene rupture (i.e., no movement within the last 10,000 years) has been observed on the southernmost strand; however multiple Holocene ruptures on the Toe Jam Fault farther north in the Seattle Fault Zone have been observed. 21.1.09383.0Ol .r 1 •doe /wp/eet 8 21 -1 -09383 -001 1e 1 0 o Liquefaction and related effects appear to pose the most likely and significant earthquake - induced geologic hazard at the site. Factors -of- safety against liquefaction were calculated for boring SPT N -value and CPT data for both the design earthquake ground motions and the Nisqually Earthquake ground motions recorded nearby at the 130E station. A description of the calculation methods and factors of safety versus depth are provided in Appendix C. Based on these calculations much of the alluvial sediments above the lacustrine deposit (i.e., above a depth of 60 to 70 feet) have a factor -of- safety against liquefaction of less than 1 and are susceptible to liquefaction under the design earthquake ground motions, We note that historically, most observed liquefaction and liquefaction damage has been due to liquefaction of soils within about 30 feet of the ground surface. There is more uncertainty in estimating soil liquefaction potential of significantly deeper depths (e.g., 60 feet or greater) by extrapolation of the empirical calculation procedure. In general, the factors -of- safety for the soils below a depth of approximately 35 feet are higher than those above this depth. Similarly, the reduction in soil shear strength as a result of liquefaction would be greater in the soils above a depth of about 35 feet than the soils below. Therefore, it is assumed in subsequent foundation analyses presented in this report that the soils above a depth of 35 feet have no significant shear strength under seismic conditions while the shear strengths below this depth are reduced from their static strength. In addition to reduction in soil shear strengths and corresponding reductions in vertical and lateral pile capacities, the effects of the liquefiable soil beneath the site could include lateral spreading (permanent lateral ground displacement) and settlement. Using the empirical procedures by Bartlett and Youd (1995) and the subsurface data in borings B -1 and B -2, free - field lateral displacements west and south, towards the Duwamish River could be on the order of 1 to 4 feet for the design ground motions. The actual lateral ground displacement at and around the existing pile supported structures at the site will likely be Tess than the estimated free -field displacements but could nevertheless be on the order of several tens of inches. While the range of potential permanent lateral ground displacement ranges over several tens of inches, the difference in lateral spread estimates (i.e., differential movement) between borings 13-1 and B -2 is about 3 inches, The relatively small difference in the estimated lateral displacements for these borings is consistent with the uniform subsurface conditions across the site (in terms of liquefaction potential) and the relatively large distance to the Duwamish River from the site. Consequently, we would expect the differential movement across the site to be similar to that 2 1 =1 .09383.001 • r 1 •dac /wp/eci 9 21 -1 -09383 -001 •; ∎ 11' .: i' 1:.. indicated by the difference in estimated movement between borings B -1 and B -2, or on the order of about 3 inches. Free -field ground surface settlements, estimated using the procedures by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987), are on the order 7 to 11 inches. For comparison, we calculated the potential for liquefaction and associated permanent lateral and vertical ground movements during the recent 2001 Nisqually earthquake. The calculated factors of safety against liquefaction for the Nisqually earthquake for the boring SPT N -value and CPT data are presented in Appendix C. In general, the factor -of- safety calculations indicate that liquefaction would have occurred in scattered zones. Consequently, it would be expected that the existing pile foundations in the site area would have seen little significant reduction in vertical or lateral capacity during the Nisqually Earthquake. Horizontal free -field ground displacements would have been estimated to be on the order of 1 to 2 inches, with actual displacements at and around pile supported structures likely to have been less. Free -field ground surface settlements would have been estimated to be on the order of 1 inch or less. 7.3 Deep Foundations 7.3.1 Pile Design Requirements Currently, there are four types of deep foundations under consideration for the Museum of Flight Expansion project: 24 -inch octagonal prestressed concrete piles, 18 -inch- and 24-inch- diameter closed -end steel pipe piles backfilled with concrete, and 18- inch - diameter augercast concrete piles. Single column Toads are as high as 250 kips, and suppon of those columns using a single high - capacity pile could be an economical approach. Combination column support locations may require multiple piles. Our recommendations are intended w provide the optimum pile type, size, and capacity for the actual column load conditions. 7.3.2 Axial Pile Capacities Based on the results of our liquefaction analysis described above, it is our opinion that the seismic condition will control deep foundation design. During a design earthquake, the soil surrounding the pile foundations would likely liquefy to a depth of about 30 to 35 feet, resulting in a temporary loss of skin friction. The liquefied zone will provide little or no skin friction during liquefaction. The material between about 35 and 70 feet deep could have a significantly reduced frictional capacity, because some of it is potentially liquefiable and is, in turn, underlain by soft clayey silt which provides relatively little frictional capacity under either static or seismic 21.1,09383- AO1.ri •doc/wp/FCI 10 21 -1 -09383 -001 I 1 .•�;•�:l'I, 1:''iid. loading. Therefore, we recommend that the proposed piles be founded in the underlying dense to very dense sand layer beginning at a depth of about 90 to 95 feet below ground surface, or elevation —80 to —85 feet. Estimated maximum, allowable pile capacities are: ► 18- inch - diameter, closed -end, steel pipe (concreted - filled) ► 24- inch - diameter, closed -end, steel pipe (concrete filled) ► 24 -inch octagonal, prestressed concrete ► 18- inch - diameter augercast concrete 80 tons 125 tons 125 tons 65 tons The pile foundations would, in effect, be end - bearing piles during the design earthquake event. Immediately following liquefaction, we anticipate that the liquefiable soils will settle several inches as described previously. This liquefaction- induced settlement would likely extend to about 60 feet below the ground surface and would result in a temporary downdrag condition on the piles. The estimated tons of downdrag are presented in the pile capacity plot notes on Figures 5 to 8; the applied downdrag loads should not affect pile performance. Under static loading conditions, the piles would have a surplus of axial capacity. We recommend a pile embedment of at least 5 feet into the bearing layer; however, we also recommend a maximum pile embedment of 10 feet into the bearing layer so that the pile tip is sufficiently above the underlying softer material, us shown on Figures 5 to 8, The design tip elevation for all piles is therefore about —90 feet. Deeper penetration into the bearing layer could lead to lower capacities and greater settlement. Proper pile embedment is critical to pile performance and will require careful observation of pile installation. We recommend that a test pile program be conducted to confirm that the design pile capacity can be achieved at the design pile tip elevation. Our analysis was performed using an in -house computer program that determines ultimate axial compressive capacity by summing ultimate skin friction along the side of the pile and ultimate end bearing at its tip. We applied a factor -of- safety (FS) of 1.5 to the ultimate seismic compressive values. Our analyses were performed for a single pile; no group effects were considered. We recommend that the new piles be spaced no closer than three pile diameters measured center -to- center from either new or existing piles. At this spacing, a group reduction factor is not warranted when estimating group axial capacity. Also, full end bearing within the dense to very dense sand (the bearing soil) is not achieved until the pile has a 21 .l .09383 OO1.r l .doe /wp /eet 11 21 -1 -09353 -001 1 g tie minimum penetration of 5 feet into the deposit. The results of our analyses are presented in terms of plots of pile tip depth (penetration) versus allowable seismic compressive and ultimate uplift capacity; the seismic compressive capacities include an FS of 1.5. Each pile type has a separate plot; these plots are presented in Figures 5 through 8. For static loading conditions, we recommend an FS of 2.5 be applied. 7.3.3 Existing Facilities' Foundations The existing facility was built in phases and is founded on a combination of driven timber piles and augercast concrete piles; these piles are about 40 feet long and have a design load of about 20 to 40 tons per pile. We understand that buildings in the surrounding area are also founded on 40- to 50- foot -long augercast piles and have design loads on the order of 50 tons. These nearby buildings as well as the existing museum were built in the early to mid -1980s or before. According to the available geotechnicai reports for the surrounding buildings, the seismic design during the mid -1980s was based on a PGA of 0,15g, which resulted in a lower prediction of liquefaction potential compared to our current seismic design standard. The four Museum of Flight geotechnical reports from 1979 through 1983 did not address seismic design or PGA values. Our analyses indicate that 40- foot -long museum piles may lose a majority of their capacity due to liquefaction during the design earthquake event. In addition, the post - liquefaction settlement may cause the piles to settle as much as half a foot to a foot. Therefore, it is likely that the existing facility would not perform at the same level as the proposed structure that will be designed for a larger earthquake. We recommend that the project design consider the significant differential settlements that may occur between the new and existing structures during and after a design -level earthquake. To reduce the potential for damage to the existing building foundations, we recommend that new driven piles be installed at least 10 feet away from the existing piles. Vibration and settlement monitoring should be performed during pile driving; monitoring recommendations are provided in Section 8.1,5. If the piles are installed within 10 feet of existing foundations, detailed vibration and settlement monitoring should be performed to determine the effect of driving on the foundations, 2 1.1.0938 OO 1.r1 •doc/wp/cet 12 21 -1 -09383 -001 7.3.4 Other Foundation Alternatives Several foundation alternatives were discussed during conceptual design but ruled out due to technical and/or economical reasons. Besides the deep foundations described above, the alternatives included shallow piles with a capacity of 45 tons and spread footings bearing on improved ground (stone columns). Although they would achieve the capacity requirements during static loading, similar to the existing Museum of Blight, the shallow piles would not have adequate capacity during the design earthquake due to liquefaction. In addition, the shallow piles would likely experience significant downward movement due to liquefaction - induced settlements. ` Stone columns consist of a vertical column of compacted gravel and are typically 3 feet in diameter and spaced between 6 and 10 feet on center depending on site specific requirements. The stone column ground improvement would allow the columns to be supported on spread footings. Stone columns can either be constructed at column locations only, or can be constructed across the entire building footprint. Widespread stone column construction can mitigate shallow liquefaction, reducing the expected settlements during the design seismic event, The soil improvement would increase the overall shear strength of the soil and would allow high pore pressures generated by earthquake shaking to dissipate. We understand that a cost comparison was made and deep foundations were deemed more economical than stone columns /footings. 7.3.5 Lateral Pile Resistance We understand that for this study the computer program LPNLBPLus (Reese and Wang, 1997) would be used to generate P -Y curves for the lateral resistance analysis of the proposed piles. Based on subsurface conditions as interpreted from the explorations accomplished for the expansion, the recommended parameters for input into the LPILBPLus program are given in Table 1 at the end of the main report text. No efficiency (reduction) factors due to pile group action have been provided, 7.3.6 Estimated Pile Settlements Based on the subsurface conditions at the site, the deep foundation piles would likely extend into dense to very dense soils, Settlement of piles would typically be due to the elastic compression of the pile and settlement of granular soils and consolidation of cohesive soils (stiff 2 1.1.09383.00 I .r 1 •doc/wp /eet 13 21 -1 -09383 -001 to very stiff silt) below the pile tips. We based our settlement analysis on the static loading conditions. During static conditions, a majority of the pile load would be taken up by skin friction above the pile tip; therefore, the underlying cohesive layer would not experience a significant increase in pressure due to the piles. In our opinion, the pressure increase on the underling cohesive layer would not be sufficient to cause consolidation settlement. During a design -level earthquake, the majority of the load would be transmitted to the pile tip; however, this loading condition would be temporary and would not have enough time to cause consolidation settlement, in our opinion. Our analyses and conclusions were based on the assumption that the pile tips would be embedded 5 to 10 feet into the bearing layer and that the bearing layer is 30 to 35 feet thick. In our opinion, total settlement for the prestressed octagonal concrete and closed -end steel pipe piles would be on the order of i/ to 3/ inch, with differential settlements of about half the total settlement. Total settlement of the augercast concrete piles would be on the order of 3/A to 11/2 inches, with differential settlements of about 1/2 to 34 inch, Due to the granular nature of the bearing soils, these settlements would be primarily elastic settlement and would occur essentially as the load is applied. 7.4 Retaining Wall Footings We understand that concrete or segmental concrete, cantilevered, retaining walls may be used on the project; their size, depth, and locations were unknown at the time of this report. Therefore, our subsequent recommendations for retaining wall footings are general in nature. If the retaining wall footings bear in existing fill near the ground surface, we recommend an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf), which corresponds to an ultimate bearing capacity of 4,000 psf. The allowable value can be increased by one -third to account for wind and seismic loading conditions. The allowable bearing capacity is based on the assumption that the footing subgrade preparation recommendations in this report are followed. We recommend a minimum embedment of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade (for frost protection). We also recommend a minimum footing width of 18 inches for continuous footings. 7.5 Lateral Earth Pressures on Walls and Lateral Resistance for Wall Footings Lateral earth pressures may act on buried portions of the building and retaining walls. For buried walls, we recommend that a static, active, lateral earth pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid weight of 30 and 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for compacted, imported, structural fill and 21.1 .093$3.001 •rl.doc/wp/eet 14 21 -1 -09383 -001 `1 `1).li'3�... compacted on -site soil, respectively. These values are based on the assumption that proper drainage is provided so that no buildup of hydrostatic pressure occurs and there is a horizontal ground surface behind the wall. The total active earth pressure should be analyzed for seismic loading conditions using a dynamic load increment equal to 30 percent of the static, active, earth force for both the imported fill and on -site soil cases, This percent load increment should be applied as a uniform load to the wall, with the resultant force acting at the mid -point of the wall height. A 30 percent load increase for seismic conditions is consistent with a pseudo - static analysis using the Mononobe- Okabe equation for lateral earth pressures and a horizontal seismic coefficient of 0,13g. The seismic coefficient is not necessarily equivalent to the site peak ground acceleration (described in a previous section of this report), as the magnitude of this coefficient accounts for the fact that the peak ground acceleration is experienced only a few times within the record of earthquake shaking, and that the actual earthquake ground motion is cyclic in nature, as opposed to a static force. Values of the seismic coefficient are typically one -third to one -half the value of the peak ground acceleration that may be experienced at a site. These pressures assume drained conditions and a horizontal ground surface, For retaining walls founded on footings, lateral loads may be resisted by a combination of base friction and passive pressure against the footings and buried portions of walls, We recommend that the base sliding resistance be determined based on an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 for on -site soil. We recommend an allowable passive pressure of 520 pcf and 300 pcf for imported structural fill and on -site soil used as fill, respectively; both of these values are for soil that is above the groundwater table. If the buried portions of the walls are below the groundwater table, we recommend an allowable passive pressure of 250 pcf and 130 pcf for imported structural fill and on -site soil used as fill, respectively. Both the coefficient and passive pressure values above include a factor -of- safety of 1.5. 7.6 Slabs•on -grade Subgrade Recommendations At the Commercial Gallery the finished floor elevation is 19.5, requiring placement of fill in some areas to achieve the final grade. At the Military Gallery to Red Barn Enclosure the finished floor elevation is 12.4 feet, requiring excavation. For a rigid concrete slab built on a subgrade that is improved as described subsequently, we recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 100 pounds per cubic foot (pci). Section 7.10 describes the subgrade 21.1- 09383.001.r 1.doc /wp/cet 15 21 -1 -09383 -001 1 a� 1I $i improvements we assumed for this recommendation. Where 4 feet of new structural fill is placed, a k of 300 pci could be used to design slabs on grade. As a comparison, the I-IWD test data indicated that a k of 75 pci could be used to design slabs-on-grade over an unimproved subgrade (the mean minus one standard deviation of the I-IWD test results). We can provide recommendations for other alternatives to improve the subgrade, such as cement stabilization, stone columns (previously described), and using a bituminous stabilized base. if desired. These alternatives could provide higher k values, If a slab -on -grade is used, it would require a design that can tolerate settlement from the structural loads as well as liquefaction- induced settlement; the liquefaction- induced settlements are significantly higher than what we would anticipate for the static slab settlement and would therefore control the design. We estimate, during a 500 -year design earthquake, that the liquefaction- induced settlement could be on the order of half a foot to a foot, Differential settlements over a 20 -foot span may be about 50 to 75 percent of the total settlement, Major ground improvement, such as through the use of stone columns, would be required to mitigate liquefaction- induced settlements. New and existing slabs -on -grade may behave differently during a design seismic event due to potentially different subgrade preparation techniques used, slab age, etc. Differential settlement should be expected between the floor slabs in the existing museum and those newly constructed for the expansion. 7.7 Flexible Asphalt Pavements Pavement recommendations for flexible asphalt pavements were developed for areas designated as AC PVMT Type 1 and AC PVMT Type 11 on drawings C101 and C221, dated September 14, 2001, provided to us by SWMB, According to handwritten notes on these drawings by SWMB, AC PVMT Type 1 indicates areas where the design vehicle is an HS -20. AC PVMT Type 11 includes areas that will be traveled by HS -20 type vehicles and wide -body aircraft (up to 1 -737- 900) during ceremonial rollouts. Design pavement sections for the AC PVMT Type 1 area were developed using American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) procedures. For the areas that will accommodate aircraft movements, the pavement section was designed using the computer program LEDFAA- Layered Elastic Airport Pavement Design, which generally 2 1.1 •Q9383•QO1 •r1 •dam /wp/cct 16 21- 1 -Q9383 -001 incorporates (with some modifications) the requirements of FAA Advisory Circular AC 150 /5320 -6Di Details of the two design methods, the subgrade strength, traffic loads, and the recommended pavement sections are discussed below. 7.7.1 Design Approaches 7.7.1.1 AASHTO Design Method The recommended asphalt pavement design thicknesses presented in this report for AC PVMT Type 1 areas are based on the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (1993). The procedure recommended by AASHTO for design of flexible pavements is based on the results of an extensive AASHTO road test conducted in the late 1950s and early 1960s. This road test introduced the concept of functional failure of a roadway. Such a failure is defined to occur when the roadway cannot carry traffic safely and smoothly from one point to another. The AASHTO procedure represents the damaging effect of the passing of an axle of any weight by a number of 18 -kip equivalent single axle loads (ESALs). To convert a mixed traffic stream into ESALs, load equivalency factors (ELAFs) are approximated for each vehicle type. To quantify the functional description of a roadway, serviceability and performance factors were introduced into the design procedure. The serviceability factor "p" is a measure of how well a road is serving its intended function at a particular point in time. It ranges between 0 (very bad) and 5 (excellent). Performance is the ability of a pavement to satisfactorily serve traffic over a period of time. Variances associated with the performance of the pavement design and with the predicted traffic volume are represented in the design analysis by an estimated overall standard deviation value, "So." The AASHTO method also requires identifying an appropriate design reliability level "R" for a roadway, This reliability level depends primarily on the projected level of usage and the consequences associated, for example, with basing the pavement design on a low initial cost and high future maintenance (thinner pavement thickness). The following table provides AASHTO's recommended reliability levels for various functional classifications: 21.1.09383.001 .r l .doc/wp /cet 17 21 -1 -09383 -001 f : <: kiln' al .dais ltiCaHOtt Recommended bevel of Reliability__ % . Urban ±' Rural .:s ; :-' Interstate_and Other Freeways ... �... 85 - 99.g_. S0= 99.9 Princi'al Arterials 80 a- 99 75 - 95 Collectors 80 - 95 75 - 95 Local 50 - 80 50 - 80 The AASHTO methods treat drainage of a pavement section by considering the effect of water on the properties of the pavement layers and the consequences to the structural capacity of the pavement. This effect is represented in the design by applying modified layer coefficients "m" to the untreated base and subbase materials of the flexible pavement. These "m" coefficients are functions of the quality of drainage and the percent of time during the year the pavement structure would normally be exposed to moisture levels approaching saturation. In addition to these factors, the AASHTO design procedure incorporates the effects of the traffic, construction materials, and subgrade soils, which are discussed in later sections, 7.7.1.2 FAA Design Method For AC PVMT Type 11 areas, the design pavement sections were developed using the program LEDFAA- Layered Elastic Airport Pavement Design (FAA, 1995). The program implements layered elastic theory based design procedures developed under the sponsorship of the FAA as well as incorporates empirical design methods. The required inputs to the program include the aircraft mix (type of aircraft, gross weight, annual departures, tire and gear spacing, tire pressure); the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the subgrade soil; and the resilient moduli (MR) of the asphalt concrete, crushed aggregate base, and uncrushed aggregate subbase. Details of the subgrade properties, pavement properties, and aircraft mix are presented in the following sections. References for specific details of the LEDFAA design procedures include Barker and Brabston, 1975 and Barker and Gonzalez, 1991. 7.7.2 Subgrade Strength The subgrade strength at the proposed Museum of Flight Expansion site was estimated from non - destructive strength testing using a Heavy Falling Weight Deflectometer (HWD). 21•1•093113•001.r1.doc/wp/ec1 18 21 -1 -09383 -001 Pavement Consultants, Inc. conducted the HWD measurements at the site on May 18, 2001. A report showing the test location points and a summary the results by Pavement Consultants Inc. is included in Appendix D. The deflections measured during the HWD testing were used by Pavement Consultants to backcalculate the resilient modulus (Ma) of the subgrade soils. These backcalculations were made using the computer program ELMOD based on the deflection basin measured in the field from the HWD test and the measured asphalt layer thickness. Because of the large number of tests and expected variability in the test data, design values for a specific area are commonly determined from the mean of the measurements minus one standard deviation. The mean MR of the existing (unimproved) subgrade soils is about 8,700 psi. An Ma of 6,800 psi was assigned to the unimproved subgrade materials, representative of the mean minus one standard deviation value. However we assumed in our analyses using the AASHTO design method that the subgrade soils would be prepared, as described in Section 7.10 to achieve a higher level of strength with an Ma of 10,000 psi. For the FAA design method, subgrade strength is represented by the California Bearing Ratio (CBR). CBR may be estimated from the MR from the following relationship: CBR =MR /1500 Based on the MR derived from the HWD measurements, a CBR value of 4.5 was assigned to the unimproved subgrade materials, representative of the mean minus one standard deviation value. However, we assumed in our analyses using the FAA design method that the subgrade soils would be prepared, as described in Section 7.10, to achieve a higher level of strength with a CBR value of 6.7. 7.7.3 Aircraft and Vehicular Traffic Loads Estimates of aircraft and vehicular traffic loads were provided to us by SWMB and a report by David I. Hamlin and Associates (2001), respectively. For the AC PVMT Type I area, the design vehicles include school buses, tour coaches, and automobiles. Based on the drawings provided by SWMB, it appears that there are areas of AC PVMT Type I that will be primarily traversed by autos, while other areas (e.g. drop -off area) will primarily accommodate buses. Thus we developed pavement design recommendations for 2 cases: predominantly auto traffic 21- I,09383•OOI.r I .doc/wp/cet 19 21 -1 -09383 -001 tat • '.' %�} +1 is :wt1•+.1 or predominantly bus traffic. We assumed the following vehicles, number of trips, and axle loads: ASSUMED TRAFFIC LOADING FOR AC PVMT TYPE I AREAS l��# i, at � 1 yea Vehlccie Type u -7't, }earl � ' ' A e ` .Load' ` ` � l` ' (k i$ . Axle Type :°(gin a or` � tandem .'= 1V arnalir or trlpg per day t7 auto only/ �a f ( ✓ tj4}i • - area ' � _ ,x xf, a� ' Number of ,r =per day ** , }t : .S If'�`"`;� (bui o'n1y areaa)A Passenger can 2 (front) 3 rear Single 3067 0 35.ft school bus (full) 12.5 (from) 22 (rear) Single 2 32 40.ft. tour bus full 12,4 (front) 22.6 rcnr Single 0 • 31 * Axle loads estimated by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. from published sources. ** The number of trips per day Is based on future estimated total vehicles during peak season by David 1. Hamlin and Associates (2001). We averaged Hamlin's daily and Saturday estimates for a total of 3130 vehicles per day. Hamlin's report also estimates that 75 percent of attendees arrive by car, with the remaining arriving by bus. Assuming 3 persons per car and 50 persons per bus results In 3067 cars and 63 buses. We assumed that the bus traffic is evenly divided between school buses and tour buses. A growth factor of one perccnt per year was assumed. In addition, we assumed that 100 percent of the traffic is repeated upon a given spot on the pavement in each bus or auto area, For the AC PVMT Type II areas, we assumed the following mix of traffic based on general information provided by SWMS: ASSUMED TRAFFIC LOADING FOR AC PVMT TYPE II AREAS 2, '' Yet i Alrcralt Type ; 4 ' }.,'. } YSi Gross,. '� , weight* - ', I i , s s"' ♦�tip'1 .� i, r4. /it t�w r A►aa ll De ;unities ` >. IIIIIIMMININ IiiiiiiMEMINI 1/11 r BoeIn: 707 305 Boein: 727 156 Boein: 737.100 85 Uoein. 737.900 150 10 Concorde 395 2 ** * Calculated from maximum taxi weight minus weight of full load of passengers ** Pavement design performed with and without the Concorde A growth factor of zero percent was assumed. 2 1.1.09383.001 •rl.doc/wp/eet 20 21 -1 -09383 -001 to 7.7.4 Pavement Design Sections The life of a pavement depends on many factors including the maintenance undertaken. Even if the asphalt section is constructed as recommended below, routine maintenance will be required after the pavement is placed. Such maintenance should include sealing pavement cracks as soon as possible after observation. In addition, it should be anticipated that a general sealing will be required after a few years of service. 7.7.4.1 AC PVMT Type 1 Areas Listed below are the parameters used in our pavement design analyses using the AASHTO method. . AASHTO In ut : 7" Estlm fed Value 20 year Equivalent Single Axle Loads (RSAL) 140,000 (auto only areas) 1.2 million (bus only Wrens) Serviceability factors 4.2 at beginning of life cycle 3 at end of life c de Standard deviation S 0.45 Reliability Level, R 55% 9 Modified Layer Coefficient. m 10 for base and subbase COMM Subgrado strength prepared according to Section 7.10 Ms si 10 ksi CDR al 6.7 Unimproved subgrade MR • 6.8 ksi CDR :4.5 Asphalt Concrete 450 ksi Base Course 30 ksi Subbase 18 ksi i...1 Based on the input parameters described above and the methodology presented in the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (1993), our recommended flexible (asphalt concrete) pavement sections for the AC PVMT Type I areas are as follows: RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT THICKNESS FOR AC PVMT TYPE 1 AREAS n Materiel , Layer_Thickness , for, Auto only`; : areas inches ' . Layer Thicknes = for Bus only • ' ' areas inches • .: . ��','::'$ „ _ ;WSROT Standard. S ' citicatlon ' :.;. :• Asphalt Concrete 5.04.2. Class B Crushed Rock Base 6.5 6 9.03.9(3) Subbase 0 9.03,14(1) 21.1.093 83.001. r 1. daclwp/cc t 21 21- 1- 09353001 1 i '�`..�. t Pavement construction, including asphalt concrete, lift thickness and compaction requirements, should conform to Section 5.04 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. 7.7.4.2 AC PVMT Type 11 Areas Listed below are the material pavement design parameters used in the FAA Fts analysis method, ' "t • Ma values specified by LEDPAA program and are not changeable. Based on the aircraft input parameters described above and the methodology presented in the FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5320-6D (1995), our recommended flexible (asphalt concrete) pavement sections for the AC PVMT Type II areas for a design life of 20 years are as follows: RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT THICKNESS FOR AC PVMT TYPE II AREAS Material Estimated Value ' P -401 AC Surface* M . = 200 ksi P•209 Crushed A. *relate* 63 ksi P.154 Uncrushed n. . re . nte* 21.4 ksi�r Subgrnde Ma = 10 ksi CBRSt 6.7 Poisson's ratio all materials 0.35 • Ma values specified by LEDPAA program and are not changeable. Based on the aircraft input parameters described above and the methodology presented in the FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5320-6D (1995), our recommended flexible (asphalt concrete) pavement sections for the AC PVMT Type II areas for a design life of 20 years are as follows: RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT THICKNESS FOR AC PVMT TYPE II AREAS Material �{ hhlclf i i r r [lncliudoi { = .f Concorde] , Inches ! INY�M o i ♦rt� twit ut � It� ' ' Concoide . Inchar . ; tx. ' .� ♦.r r �iyy # a, a;'� t 3 • Z';J:flt'MJri.t 4 rtr "# «ft Y.� +a+t +, x �)� Ityy 4 i f � M. f {1�p . j 1^ 4 ? i ' .�t-' t� ��' : f >'.FAA S Iflcation . #,' 1 � Et�i-0tW..t'i t II1a • �? j j f a r .S # r ;`i�, �at �►'i "h S 1e p c�' rSry tt fi ; ;, ,, , t 1 ♦ �, +4, �1 ' WSDOT ° Standard ' 'S celfcatlont ' f Wilde-at Asphalt Concrete 4 4 P.401 Plant Mix Bituminous Pavements No equivalent for bituminous materials, mix design, and construction For aggregate only, WSDOT Class A is a suitable equivalent Crushed Rock Base Subbase 12 12 P•209 Crushed aggregate 9.03.9(3) 13 7 P-154 Uncrushed a : 1re :ate 9.03.14(1) 2 1.1.09383 d)o 1.ii .doc /wp/cct 22 21 -1 =09383 -001 ig to 7.7.5 Frost Protection Frost- susceptible soil is generally regarded as having greater than 3 percent finer than 0.02 mm. Soil with a fines content not exceeding 7 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the minus 3/4 -inch fraction , can normally be expected to have 3 percent or less finer than 0.02 mm, Any fines should be nonplastic. Crushed rock material with less than 10 percent nonplastic fines are also usually non - frost - susceptible. Based on the grain -size analyses, presented in Appendix 8, it is our opinion that the existing on -site native soil is frost - susceptible. According to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Pavement Guide (1995), the maximum frost depth in the Seattle and Tacoma area in fine - grained soil is about 10 to 12 inches. Pavement can be designed for complete frost protection by providing a pavement section that is equal to, or thicker than the maximum anticipated frost depth. The pavement section includes asphalt concrete and non - frost - susceptible base and subbase materials. Alternatively, limited subgrade frost protection can be provided with a sufficient pavement section thickness to restrict surface deformation to an acceptable value with a thaw weakened subgradc. WSDOT requires that the total depth of pavement structure equal one -half the expected depth of frost to limit surface deformation. The recommended pavement sections for the AC PVMT Type 11 areas and the AC PVMT Type 1 bus traffic areas presented above account for complete frost protection, i.e. the total pavement section thickness equals or is thicker than the anticipated maximum frost depth of 12 inches. The recommended pavement section for the AC PVMT Type 1 auto traffic only areas will not provide complete frost protection; however, they meet or exceed the WSDOT criterion of total pavement thickness equal to one -half of the expected frost depth. If this alternative is selected for the auto traffic only areas, the reliability expected following long periods of freezing weather should be evaluated. Thicker sections could be built with additional subbase material if increased or total frost protection is desired. In our opinion, the recommended pavement sections should not freeze except during an exceptionally cold winter. If an extremely cold winter occurs, limiting heavy traffic during the thawing period could reduce frost damage. Light traffic from passenger vehicles probably would not damage the pavements during the thawing period. z 1.1.09383•Q01.r 1.dc /wp/cct 23 21 -1- 09383 -001 Fa r 4 4 tw. 7.8 Permanent Groundwater and Surface Water Drainage and Control At the Commercial Gallery no underslab or perimeter drains are required because the area will be at or above the surrounding grade. In the Military Gallery and fled Barn Enclosure where below -grade levels are planned, perimeter foundation drains will be required. The underslab drainage layer must be hydraulically connected to the drains to reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressure below the slab. This approach is apparently the same as at the existing Red Barn and Great Gallery. We understand sump pumps at each facility cycle to remove accumulated water, but we do not know the flow rates or cycling frequency. We have some information, but it is not from the wet season. The floor slabs in these areas are close to, if not just below, the groundwater level. To control surface water, provisions should be made to direct it away from structures and prevent it from seeping into the ground adjacent to the structures or excavations. The ground surface should be sloped away and surface and downspout water should not be introduced into site backfill. Surface water should be collected in catch basins, and, along with downspout water, should be convoyed in a nonperforated pipe (tightline) into an approved discharge point. 7.9 Backfill Material, Placement, and Compaction All fill placed beneath areas to be paved or against below grade walls (building or retaining walls) or other foundation elements should consist of structural fill. Structural fill should be placed on subgrade material that has been proof - rolled to a dense, unyielding condition. Structural fill should meet the Washington State Department of Transportation specification for Gravel Borrow (Section 9.03.14 (1)) but should have a maximum particle size of about 3 inches. During wet weather or wet conditions it should not contain more than about 5 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 mesh sieve) by weight, based on the minus 3/4 -inch soil fraction. Structural fill should not contain organics or deleterious material. It should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of its Modified Proctor maximum dry density (American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTMJ D 1557, Method C or D), and should be deemed to be in a dense and unyielding condition. The thickness of loose lifts should not exceed 8 inches for heavy equipment compactors, and 4 inches for hand - operated compactors. In landscaping areas, the backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. 2 1.1.O9383.001 •r l .doIwp/cct 24 21 -1- 09383 -001 All utility trenches beneath flexible asphalt pavements and sidewalks should also be backfilled with Gravel Borrow; however, it should have a maximum diameter of 2 inches and should not have more than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve (wet sieve analysis, ASTM D 1140). Any fines should be nonplastic. The trench backfill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 4 inches if compacted with hand - operated equipment or 8 inches if compacted with heavy equipment. Each lift should be compacted to a dense, unyielding condition and to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) 18 inches or more below the pavement and/or sidewalk subgrade. We recommend a minimum cover over utilities of 2 feet from the crown of the pipes or conduits to the top of the pavement subgrade. Catch basins, utility vaults, and other structures installed flush with the pavement should be designed and constructed to transfer wheel loads to the base of the structure. Subgrade preparation for new utilities should follow the same general procedures outlined for asphalt pavement. We recommend that retaining and basement walls be backfilled with free - draining soils and that backfill for basement walls be connected hydraulically to perimeter drains. The ground surface should be sloped away from the buildings to prevent ponding against them. Our recommendations for drainage behind permanent basement walls and retaining walls are presented in Figure 9. These recommendations include compaction criteria and gradation requirements of drainage materials. In our opinion, some of the fill soil at the site may be suitable for re -use as structural fill providing the moisture content is sufficiently close to optimum and work is conducted under dry conditions. Otherwise the silt content would render it unsuitable for use as structural fill. However, separating out the reusable material from the unsuitable material may be difficult. 7.10 Site Grading, Excavation, and Temporary Cut Slopes 7.10.1 Site Preparation We recommend that retaining wall footings founded on existing fill subgrades be prepared as follows: ► Compact the upper 1.5 feet of exposed subgrade with heavy vibrating drum rollers (or equivalent) to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) 21.1.09383.001.r1.doc/wp/ect 14 Its 25 21-1-09383-001 taa _ • • ► Remove any soft/loose zones noted during rolling and replace those areas with structural fill material placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 7.9. A geotechnical engineer should observe the soft/loose zones to determine the extent of overexcavation required. We recommend preparing the subgrade for flexible asphalt pavement that will be constructed adjacent to the Museum of Flight Expansion as follows. ► Compact the upper 18 inches of soil with heavy vibrating drum rollers (or equivalent) to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) 18 inches or more below the subgrade. This level of compactive effort should result in improved subgrade conditions below 18 inches, as assumed in our pavement calculations. ► Remove any soft/loose zones noted during rolling and replace those areas with structural fi11 material constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 7.9. These soft/loose zones should be observed by a geotechnical engineer. For estimating purposes, the owner should anticipate that a maximum overexcavation of 18 inches could be necessary at any soft/loose area. ► Place and compact base course material that meets the requirements of WSDOT Standard Specification 9- 03.9(3). The on -site base course material could be tested to determine if it meets the WSDOT requirements. The base course material should be placed and spread in accordance with WSDOT Standard Specification 4-04. The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). For the Museum of Flight Expansion we recommend the following subgrade preparation for rigid concrete slabs -on- grade: ► Remove material from the building footprint to establish the required subgrade elevation. ► Compact the exposed upper 1.5 feet of soil with heavy vibrating drum rollers (or equivalent) to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) 18 inches or more below the subgrade, To effectively use heavy compaction equipment, dewatering to 5 feet or more below the compacted surface may be required. ► Remove any soft/loose zones noted during rolling and replace those areas with structural fill material constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 7.9. These soft/loose zones should be observed by a geotechnical engineer. ► At the Commercial Gallery, where fill is required to achieve the final grade, first break up and then compact the existing asphalt pavement before placing new fill, but removal of the asphalt is not required. ► Place densely compacted, free - draining, well- graded, imported sand and crushed gravel or clean, crushed rock fill in the upper 18 inches beneath the proposed vapor barrier to increase the subgrade modulus of the subgrade. If used to provide a capillary break and 21.1.093$3.00I•r1.doc/wp/e t 26 21 -1 -09383 -001 drainage layer, the upper 6 inches of the fill material should have less than 3 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve by wet sieving of the minus 3/a -inch fraction, and should have a maximum size of 4 inches. Compact all structural fill to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density, ► Install a vapor barrier if a crushed rock capillary break is used, the vapor barrier may have to be thicker than it would be for a sand and gravel capillary break in order to resist puncture and/or tearing. ► Piace an additional 6 inches of capillary break material on top of the vapor barrier (per Sellen Construction). The design civil engineer should determine if sand for concrete curing is required between the vapor barrier /upper capillary break and the concrete slab. We recommend that the external grade be sloped away from the structure. 7.10.2 Excavation and Temporary Groundwater Control The top of slab elevation for the Military Gallery area is 12.4 feet. Excavation to about elevation 10.5 feet will be required in the slab areas, Excavations of about 9 to 11 feet will likely be required to reach the bottom of the deepest pile caps, to elevation 6 to 8 feet, The deeper excavations will probably encounter groundwater, and sumps or well points will be needed to control the groundwater and allow for an accessible excavation, In addition, residual soil contamination may affect groundwater quality and disposal alternatives, As mentioned above, slab subgrade preparation would require dewatcring to 5 feet below the compacted surface. Throughout the excavated areas, the on -site soil contains enough fine - grained material to make it moisture sensitive; therefore, control of surface and groundwater will be necessary to maintain the desirable dense nature of the material and a firm working platform. Lean concrete or control density fill may be placed beneath the proposed pile cup to provide a stable working surface or as backfill to replace unsuitable exposed soil. The contractor should be responsible for the control of ground and surface water within the contract limits, but we should review all dewatering plans in the context of continued existing facility stability. Deeper dewatering efforts adjacent to existing slabs -on -grade may cause slab settlement; the proposed dewatering plan should include a slab monitoring program, In this regard, sloping, slope protection, ditching, sumps, dewatering, and other measures should direct water away from the structures and parking lots to prevent ponding of water next to these facilities. 21.1.09383.001.r I.doc /wp/cct 27 21 -1 -09383 -001 tp 7.10.3 General Excavation and Temporary Cut Slopes For safe working conditions and prevention of ground loss, excavation slopes should be the responsibility of the contractor because he /she will be at the job site to observe and control the work. All current and applicable safety regulations regarding excavation slopes and shoring should be followed. Note that some area excavation will be governed by the site environmental requirements. We can work with those requirements to ensure that the environmental and geotechnical needs do not conflict and that unnecessary dollars are not spent, At all times during excavation, the contractor will need to be prepared to segregate any soils suspected of containing contaminants. Excavations can be accomplished with conventional excavating equipment, such as a dozer, front -end loader, or backhoe. For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary unsupported open cut slopes be no steeper than 1.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (1.5H:IV) in the near - surface fill soils. Flatter cut slopes may be required where loose soils or seepage zones are encountered. We recommend that all exposed cut slopes be protected with a waterproof covering during periods of wet weather to reduce sloughing and erosion. We understand that temporary shoring will not be used and that all excavations will be made with cut slopes. Excavated material (or stockpiles of construction materials or equipment) should not be placed closer to the edge of any excavation than the depth of the excavation, unless the excavation is shored and such materials are accounted for as a surcharge load on the shoring system. 8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 8.1 Driven Pile installation 8.1.1 Pile Driving Equipment An air -, steam -, or diesel - powered hammer may be used for driving the proposed piles. All pile- driving equipment should be designed, constructed, and maintained in a manner suitable for the work to be accomplished for this project. If, in the opinion of the owner, the driving equipment is inadequate or deficient, the owner may direct that it be removed from the job site, All costs for re- mobilizing, removing, or replacing such equipment should be at the contractor's expense, The contractor should furnish the manufacturer's specifications and catalog for the 2 1.1.09 383.001.r 1.doc/wp/cct 28 21 -1 -09383 -001 P P . 1.70 hammer proposed. As a minimum, the contractor should furnish the information required on the Pile and Driving Equipment Data sheet, shown on Table 2, seven days in advance of the scheduled pile driving. 8.1.2 Pile Driving Conditions In our opinion, pile installation for the proposed structures would encounter moderate driving conditions in the upper sand materials, very soft driving conditions in the soft clayey silt deposits, and moderate to hard driving conditions in the bearing sand layer. The soft driving conditions through the clayey silt deposits may result in high tensile stresses in the piles, which would be a concern for prestressed concrete piles. To minimize the possibility of damage to prestressed concrete piles during soft driving conditions, we recommend they be driven with a hammer that allows variable energy settings, such as diesel hammers or hydraulic hammers. Low energy should be used to drive the prestressed concrete piles through the clayey silt deposits. The energy could be increased to drive the piles into the dense bearing sand deposits. 8.1.3 Wave Equation Analysis To establish driving criteria for pile installation, we recommend the Wave Equation Analyses for Pile driving (WEAP) be performed. This method allows edaluation of driving stresses so that an appropriate pile- driving hammer size can be selected to obtain the desired pile capacity without damaging the piles. This analysis also provides an estimate of the ultimate pile capacity for a given driving resistance. Typically, an FS of 2.0 is applied to the WEAP analysis, with test pile confirmation, We recommend that all piles be driven to the estimated pile tip elevations and to the required final driving resistance for the last foot as determined by WEAP, In the event the pile driving resistances are less than the minimum values obtained from WEAP under continuous driving conditions, as they approach the minimum penetration depths, the contractor should continue driving the piles until they reach the required driving resistances, except that the pile driving should stop when the piles are 6 inches above the final cutoff elevations. For these piles, pile driving should be discontinued for a minimum of 24 hours and then redriven for 6 inches or less penetration, recording the blows for each inch of penetration. The acceptable redrive resistance should be twice the specified minimum driving resistance. If the restrike resistances do not meet the specified values, the engineer will determine the acceptability of the piles and the subsequent procedures to be taken. 21.1,09383.001.r 1.doc /wp /eet 29 21- 1- 09383 -001 j 1• ti.•-•• l i Should the required minimum driving resistance be achieved before piles reach the estimated tip penetrations, the piles should be driven to "refusal." We can estimate "refusal" driving with WEAP. In order to avoid over- stressing the pile section for refusal conditions, a higher yield strength steel (greater than 36 kips per square inch) may be necessary. WEAP can determine the pile stresses due to pile driving, 8.1.4 Monitoring Pile Driving Shannon & Wilson personnel should observe all pile driving by taking a continuous driving record of each pile, For this purpose, the contractor should be required to mark the pile in 1 -foot increments, During restrike, additional 1 -inch increments between the 1 -foot marks would be required, The pile - driving record will include hummer stroke (diesel hammers), blows per foot, time, date, reasons for delays, and other pertinent information, In addition, the record will include tip elevation, specified criteria, and the initials of inspectors making final acceptance of the pile, The pile - driving records should be reviewed on a daily basis. It is often difficult to estimate visually the energy delivered by diesel hammers. The Saximeter, developed by Pilo Dynamic, Inc., can be used to record hammer strokes and provide an estimate of the driving energy of diesel hammers. If the contractor selects a diesel hammer, we recommend that a Saximeter be used during pile driving, 8.1.5 Pile Driving Vibrations, Movement Monitoring, and Noise Levels There is often a potential for damage to existing nearby structures and utilities due to vibrations caused by pile driving operations. For this site, there is some risk to shallow adjacent utilities and existing piles. If the piles are within 10 feet of existing utilities or structures, we should develop and implement pile driving vibration criteria for those existing structures and utilities. The criteria should consider the type and frequency of the vibrations, the structural design and existing condition of the structure, and the vibration effects on people. Particle velocities can easily be measured during construction using a vibration monitor (seismograph) at the nearby structures, utilities, and at any other critical facilities, Depending on the allowable vibration levels established for each existing structure and utility located in the project vicinity, we recommend that existing structural condition surveys be 21.1.09383,001.r 1 •doc/wp/ect 30 21 -1 -09383 -001 1 V • ,.i'It .1...~. performed for facilities located within 50 feet of the pile driving activities. Documentation should include photographs, videos, sketches, and/or written comments. We could recommend vibration threshold values as the design progresses. If there are any cracks in the existing structures, we recommend that crack gages be installed on each crack to measure potential changes in crack widths. The aforementioned measurements, existing structural condition surveys, and crack gage installations should be established well in advance of construction so that a set of baseline data can be developed. This information will be invaluable in assessing the need for mitigating measures, as well as resolving potential disputes. We recommend that horizontal and vertical movement monitoring be performed on the existing structures, adjacent utilities, pavements, and other movement - sensitive facilities. We further recommend that the monitoring be set up prior to start of construction and continued during pile driving and excavation. If recorded movements are higher than the established limits, alternate construction methods should be utilized. Noise levels during pile driving may be unpleasant to humans nearby but are not likely to cause damage. The noise levels can be moderated during pile driving with various damping techniques. 8.2 Augercast Concrete Pile Installation Careful installation is critical to the success of long and large diameter augercast piles. Augercast concrete piles are installed by rotating a continuous - flight, hollow -stem auger to a predetermined depth. After the auger is rotated to the predetermined depth, a high - strength, sand - cement grout is pumped under controlled pressure through the center of the shaft as the auger is slowly withdrawn. By maintaining pressure in the grout line and extracting the auger no faster than an equivalent volume of grout is pumped, a continuous column of concrete is formed. A single reinforcing rod can be placed through the hollow -stem of the auger and/or a reinforcing cage with centering guides can be placed in the column of wet grout. Where piles are expected to experience tensile /uplift forces, the central reinforcing rod should be extended for the full length of the pile. The quality of the augercast concrete piles depends on the procedure and workmanship of the contractor who installs them. We recommend that Shannon & Wilson personnel observe the 2 1.1.09383•W 1.r t.doc /wp/eet 31 21 -1 =09383 -001 installation of augercast piles on a full time basis to evaluate the adequacy of the construction procedures. We recommend that the contract documents require the contractor to install a pressure gage on the pump discharge line and a counter on the grout pump. The approximate volume of grout pumped is computed by counting the number of strokes of a displacement -type grout pump. The pressure gage is used to monitor the pressure of the grout to evaluate the rate at which the auger should be extracted, and to check if the auger or hoses are plugged. If insufficient grout is pumped into the auger, a proper grout column will not be formed. If the pressure in the grout line is not maintained, or if the auger is withdrawn too rapidly, the auger hole may cave, creating a discontinuity in the grout column. Either condition will reduce the load-carrying capacity of the pile. Therefore, the pump should be calibrated in the presence of the geotechnical engineer prior to its use, and the pressure gage should be checked for proper functioning. The auger should not be pulled until the grout has been pumped at least 5 feet above the auger tip. It should then be withdrawn with slow, positive rotation at a slow, continuous, steady pull. The 5 -foot head of grout should be maintained at all times during the withdrawal operations. The contractor should be required to establish accurate methods of determining the depth of the auger at all times. We recommend that the leads be marked at 1 -foot intervals. The ratio between the volume of grout pumped and theoretical volume of each augercast pile hold should be at least 1.10. Based on experience with similar projects, grout takes could be large, being on the order of 25 to 35 percent more than the total net pile volume. If contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered during the augercast pile installation, the drilling spoils should be separated out, placed on plastic sheeting, and covered until environmental testing is completed and a suitable disposal location can be determined. 8.3 Test Pile Program The preliminary recommendations for pile foundations and in particular, the recommendations for pile penetrations and capacities are based on theoretical and empirical data, subsurface conditions encountered at the site, and our engineering judgment and experience, In order to substantiate our recommendations and justify the relatively low safety factors and high allowable seismic capacities, we recommend that a test pile program be undertaken, The test pile program could be completed either during the design phase or during construction prior to production pile 21-1,09383-001.r I . dc/wp/cc t 32 21- 1- 09383.001 4 11 installation. If the program is completed during the design phase it will allow any necessary adjustments to pile size and/or length to be made prior to ordering the production piles. If the program is completed during construction, its purpose would be to confirm the design pile capacities. The test pile program could consist of one of the following options: ► For driven steel pipe and/or pre - stressed octagonal concrete pile, we recommend driving indicator piles and performing dynamic pile tests using a Pile - Driving Analyzer (PDA). We recommend that a minimum of three piles be driven as indicator piles. The indicator piles should be driven at appropriate locations within the footprint of the enclosed area south of the Red Barn, the Military Gallery and the Commercial Gallery. During the indicator pile driving, we recommend that dynamic measurements, using a PDA, be taken and Case Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP) be performed on each test pile. We recommend that a CAPWAP restrike be taken on all three test piles after an appropriate setup time has passed. Based on our experience, dynamic pile tests are one of the most cost - effective methods for determining the total ultimate capacities and load distribution of the piles. Test piles may be used as production piles if they meet the specified installation procedures and requirements. ► For augercast concrete or either driven pile, we recommend performing static load tests. Pile load tests yield accurate load deflection relationships and would probably result in a higher pile design capacity. We recommend that a minimum of three static load tests be performed for the proposed expansion, one in the enclosed area south of the Red Barn, one in the Military Gallery, and one in the Commercial Gallery. Each load test setup would consist of both test and reaction piles. We recommend that an oversized casing be installed down to the top of the bearing layer and cleaned out (for driven piles). The test pile would be installed within the casing and into the bearing layer. This setup would allow the end bearing of the test pile to be adequately evaluated without the interference of significant side friction within the upper, potentially liquefiable soils. We further recommend that the load test pile be performed in general accordance with "Quick Test" in the ASTM D -1143 guidelines. Pile driving vibrations should be monitored during test pile installations. In addition to the test pile program, we also recommend that dynamic measurements be performed on at least five percent of the production piles and on production piles with questionable driving results. Such measurements would help evaluate the integrity of the driven piles, the adequacy of the pile driving criteria, confirm the capacity of the piles, adjust the pile driving equipment if required, and alter the pile installation techniques or the pile driving criteria, if necessary. 2 1.1.09383 •Q01,r l .doc/wpleet 33 21 -1 -09383 -001 tI 8.4 Wet Weather Earthwork In this area, wet weather generally begins in October and continues through about May although rainy periods may occur at any time of the year. Earthwork performed during the wet weather months will cost more and take longer to complete. Groundwater levels will also be higher during the rainy season, although significant variations are not expected. Groundwater and surface water runoff could enter into site excavations and would need to be intercepted by drainage ditches, trench drains, or otherwise removed. The soils at the site generally contain sufficient silt to produce an unstable mixture when wet. Such soils are susceptible to softening when wet, Standing water on the soil surface, along with construction activity, will result in disturbance and an unacceptable bearing surface requiring overexcavation. The following recommendations are applicable for pile caps, general excavation, floor slabs, or pavements: ► If there is to be traffic over the exposed subgrade, the subgrade should be protected from disturbance, A lean concrete pad, about 2 or 3 inches thick (a "rat slab" or "mud slab "), could be placed immediately following excavation on the undisturbed soils. This could be done as needed to protect the exposed soils and act as a working surface. Overexcavation may be needed to accommodate this lean concrete pad. ► The ground surface in the construction area should be sloped and sealed with a smooth - drum roller to promote rapid runoff of precipitation, to prevent surface water from flowing into excavations, and to prevent ponding of water. ► Construction should be observed on a full -time basis by Shannon & Wilson personnel to determine that all unsuitable materials are removed and suitable drainage is achieved, and an appropriate bearing surface results. ► Covering work areas with plastic and/or sloping, ditching, pumping from sumps and other dewatering measures should be employed as necessary to permit proper completion of the work. The above recommendations apply for all weather conditions, but are most important for wet weather earthwork. They should be incorporated into the contract specifications for foundation and pavement construction. 8.5 Construction Observation We recommend that Shannon & Wilson be retained to review those portions of the plans and specifications that pertain to foundations, pavements, and earthwork to determine if they are 21.1 .09383•QO I .r 1 •doa/wp /cot 34 21 -1 -09383 -001 to • >it1• consistent with our recommendations. The specified methodology and/or performance criteria in the subgrade preparation sections will be critical to the success of the pavement construction and performance. We also recommend we be retained to observe the geotechnical aspects of construction, particularly the test pile program, pavement subgrade preparation, drainage, foundation installation, and backfill. This observation would allow us to verify the subsurface conditions as they are exposed during construction and to determine that the work is accomplished in accordance with our recommendations. 9.0 LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based upon site conditions as they presently exist, and further assume that the explorations are representative of the subsurface conditions at the Museum of Flight Expansion project (that is, the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the explorations). Within the limitations of the scope, schedule, and budget, the analyses, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering principles and practice in this area at the time this report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. Our conclusions and recommendations were based on our understanding of the project as described in this report and the site conditions as interpreted from the explorations. If, during final design and construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the field explorations are observed or appear to be present during pile installation, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. If there is substantial lapse of time between the submission of this report and the start of work at the site or if conditions have changed due to natural causes or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, it is recommended that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations concerning the changed conditions or the time lapse. We recommend that we review those portions of the plans and specifications that pertain to deep foundation installation, pavements, drainage, and backfill to determine if they are consistent with our recommendations. 21.1.09383.Q01 •r1.doclwp/eet 35 21- 1- 09383 -001 et S - ANi'JON 6\'V1LSON, This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Museum of Plight and their design team. It should be made available to prospective contractors for information on factual data only, and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions such as those interpreted from the exploration logs and presented in the discussions of subsurface conditions included in this report. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot fully be determined by merely by taking soil samples from test borings or pushing CPTs. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain properly constructed projects. Therefore, some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs. The scope of our geotechnical services did not include any environmental assessment or evaluation regarding the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air, on or below the site, or for evaluation of disposal of contaminated soils or groundwater should any be encountered, except as noted in this report. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. has prepared a document, "Important Information About Your Oeotechnical Report," to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our reports. This document is included in this report as Appendix E. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. COWIE 6/16/ Carole L,E. Mitchell, P,E. Senior Principal Engineer 11-7-o( SWC:WJP:CLEM:CAR:ACW /clbm 2 1.1 •O9a83•txll .rt.doc/wp/cct 36 David C. Winter, P.E. Vice - President 21 -1 -09383 -001 10.0 REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1993, Guide for design of pavement structures, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2001, Annual book of standards, Construction, v. 4.O8, Soil and rock (I): D 420 - D 4914: West Conshohocken, Pa. Arduino, P., Kramer, S.L., Li, P,, and Baska, D.A., 2001, Dynamic stiffness of piles in liquefiable soils, draft research report, Washington State Transportation Center, University of Washington, 149 pp. Barker, W.R., and Brabston, W.N., 1975, Development of a structural design procedure for flexible pavements, Report No. FAA -RD -74 -199, September. Barker, W.R., and Gonzalez, C.R., 1991, Pavement design by elastic layer theory, proceedings of the conference: Aircraft/Pavement Interaction An Integrated System, ASCE, Kansas City, Missouri. Bartlett, S.F., and Youd, T.L., 1995, Empirical prediction of liquefaction - induced lateral spread: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, v. 121, no 4, p. 316 -329. David I. Hamlin and Associates, 2001, Draft traffic impact assessment, Museum of Flight, Tukwila, Washington. EduPro Civil Systems, Inc., 1999, ProShake ground response analysis program, version 1.10: Redmond, Wash. Ensoft Inc., 1998, Design of deep foundations: piles and drilled shafts under lateral and axial loadings, a seminar /workshop featuring computer programs from Ensoft, Inc., Austin, Texas, April 23 -24, 1998: Austin, Tex. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 1995, Airport pavement design and evaluation, Advisory Circular 150/5320 -6D. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 1995, program LEDFAA, version 1.2. Frankel, A.; Mueller, C.; Bamhard, T., and others, 1996, National seismic- hazard maps, June 1996; documentation: U,S. Geological Survey Open File Report 96 -532. GeoEngineers, Inc., 2001, Report, Phase II environmental site assessment, 9725 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, Washington: Report prepared by GeoEngineers, Inc., Seattle, Wash., March 12. 21.1 .O93$3.001 •r 1.dac /wp/ceI 37 21 -1 -09383 -001 I: Horne, J.C., 1996, Effects of liquefaction- induced lateral spreading on file foundations, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 371 pp. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Universal building code, Three- volume set, r�l Whittier, Calif. P. Johnson, S.Y; Dadisman, S.V.; Childs, J.I .; and Stanley, W.D., 1999, Active tectonics of the Seattle fault and Central Puget Sound, Washington — implications for earthquake hazards in Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 111, no. 7, p. 1042 -1053, July. Neil H. Twelker & Associates Consulting Soils Engineers, 1979, Proposed Museum of Flight soils and foundations investigation: Letter report prepared by Neil 1°1, Twelker & Associates, Seattle, Wash., for Ibsen Nelson, architect, June 22. Neil H. Twelker & Associates Consulting Soils Engineers, 1980a, Pacific Museum of Flight Phase 1, Seattle, Washington, soils and foundations investigation: Letter report prepared by Neil H. Tweikcr & Associates, Seattle, Wash., for Ibsen Nelson and Associates, August 15. Neil 1=1. Twelker & Associates Consulting Soils Engineers, 1980b, Pacific Museum of Flight Phase 11, soils and foundations investigation: Letter report prepared by Neil H. Twelker & Associates, Seattle, Wash., for Ibsen Nelson and Associates, October 31. Neil H. Twelker & Associates Consulting Soils Engineers, 1983, Pacific Museum of Flight Phase 1i, Seattle, Washington, soils and foundations investigation: Letter report prepared by Neil 11. Twciker & Associates, Seattle, Wash., for Ibsen Nelson and Associates, August 24. Reese, L.C., and Wang, S.T., 1997, Documentation of computer program LPILEPLUS, Version 3.0: Austin, Tex., Ensoft, Inc. Shannon & Wilson, Inc„ 2001, Gcotcchnical engineering report, airport control tower seismic upgrade, King County International Airport, Seattle, Wash. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2001, Gcotcchnical report, hangar site, Museum of Flight expansion, Tukwila, Wash. Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking: Journal of Gcotcchnical Engineering, v. 113, no. 8, p. 861 -878. Washington State Department of Transportation and American Public Works Association, 1998, Standard specifications for road, bridge, and municipal construction (M41 -10). Washington State Department of Transportation, 1995, Pavement Guide. 21 •I #9383•001.rl •doc/wp/cct 38 21- 1- 09383 -001 MIMI MN III SHANNON & WILSON, INC. TABLE 1 RECOMMENDED PARAMETERS FOR LATERAL RESISTANCE ANALYSIS USING LPILE" i 7 i , III ji +i( ij ,jti �i. 1 �° , 4111111111 ' 1 I i , � 1 1 i i j i 1 i i I'� .��o��, iil• ��1 i; i 7 ,i ili it i'i'i �I r I ! t iiin t!it ii iloni7, jji,�i�l�nrt. •it 7= j" ji .jii 'j j. ii 1• ii. 1 i � ii � i i 7 �,i it b 1 j�� 1 i , i � 3` i 7 i 'i7 a i i,, � t; i, ,j ii, a ,, ,1, js. •t.ji ii; ti i .7 i 7 ljUi}� .thi i i ,, •t i• '7i ,I� ��i�lbl�i�i _? ,: souk „ .'4 •;,., u 2cic ;� �i rati �. 7 t .7 �7t i3 7 7i' 7• .,' 1 i7 � , ��;�: .7':. j� t7� :; •1 ► t ruin ntato i•h..., RI MI'•n! cv ct . • • .. fcct , C,t PI So1I t'Yt! o i �•e�inti .� M r 1 �t to N'rlct on A d "i� es • a Iv toff eta n i U ii Weigh � c �:[ � dN 4010.. ''t+ illodulu9 ti'�uN� •de: . B R acilon icl •( '/e),. Stiitic •• Lt ucf.' � :Slpttc IJl uer, � •Static /Lt tact. q auntie 1,1 uaf,•; q Borings 9 -I and B -2 & Cone Penetration Tests CPT -1 throu h CPT -6 0 33 17 to .16 Sand 0 0 30 5 58 58 40 60 4 30 33.68 -16 to -51 Sand 0 0 30 10 —51 to -76 Soft Clams 100 100 0 0 38 10 10 3 68.93 93.97 -76 to -80 Sand 0 0 30 30 58 30 30 97. 120 -80 to -103 Sand 0 0 42 42 63 150 150 NOTES (1) Static static case, Liquof liquefied case (2) pecan pounds per square foot (3) pcf in pounds per cubic foot (4) pci pounds per cubic inch (5) cso a, strain at ono half the maximum principal stress difference (6) No group effect reductions have been considered. (7) If applicable, modifications to the p•y curves for sloping ground conditions should be determined In accordance with the LPILRNLu's (1997) manual. (8) Groundwater was encountered approximately 5 to 12 feet below the existing ground surface, or about elevation 6 to 12 feet, iIawilP•iI49)$3 CaIarae XU Ct.BM 21.1-09383.001 Contract No.: Protect: County: TABLE 2 Pile and Driving Equipment Data Q HAMMER RAM Manufacturer: Type: Serial No,: Rated Energy: Q Explosive Force: Structure Name and/or No,: Pile Driving Contractor or Subcontractor: (piles driven by) Model: ( or these hammers Ram Weight_ Ram Length: Ram Cross Sectional Area: ANVIL (with dle161 maims) Material :_ CAPBLOCK Thickness: Modulus of Elasticity • E: Length of Stroke (tor diesel hammers Anvil weight: PILE CAP Area: (psi) Coefficient of Restitution • e :. Helmet Bonnet Weight: Anvil Block Drlvehead Cushion Material: CUSHION Thickness: Modulus of Elasticity • E Coefficient of Restitution • e: PILE Type: Pile Size: Length (in leads): Diameter: Wall Thickness: Material: Design Pile Capacity: Description of Splice: Area (psi) Taper: Weight/Ft,: (tons) Tip Treatment Description:, 21 -1- 09383401 CtOVERDALE■ '^ r�:►rt 4 S ON 0DD 4t 5ER531 rJ MItt- EP `< rM1.1 ?il f t la 1 Psi PROJECT LOCATION r,: 0 1/4 112 1 . ___.�.. . Scale in Miles NOTE Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS, MAPS ®. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS, MAPS®. 11 is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resalo, without permission. All rights reserved. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington VICINITY MAP October 2001 21- 1.09383.001 SHANNON a and Environmental W SONS INC. FIG. 1 File: MI02 -0107 35mm Drawing ig 11 10 5 c 1,0 8 cu a 0.5 O 0.1 0,06 0.01 0.01 . 'C.A.. 'A ,. ,40. . • i ' . �` Damping = 5% I rte_ ��` . �� .1 / ..1 • . • • 1` 4 { 00. O� 0.05 0.1 0.5 PERIOD - seconds LEGEND Recommended Design Spectrum ProShake (total stress analyses) WAVE (nonlinear, effective stress analyses fIOTa, 1. Response spectra are from site - response analyses con- ducted for the Boeing Field Air Traffic Control Tower (approx. 1.2 miles north of the MOF) with similar subsurface conditions. 2. Response spectra represent free -field horizontal motion at the ground surface. 3. The vertical spectrum may be assumed to be two - thirds of the recommended horizontal spectrum. 1.0 5 — .» Nisqually BOE east component __- Nisqually BOE north component 10 Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington RECOMMEND DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM October 2001 21- 1- 09383.001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. 4 t1 :.a gs pilcap6p(v2)4018 /01.Octa9onal Concrete fiinet.zls GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PPrirlt (Based on borings B -1 & B -2) 17' •113 •51 •76' .80 -104' •110' -123' Liquefiable, loose to medium dense SAND Loose to dense SAND (liquefiable with residual strength) W Very soft, clayey SILT Medium dense SAND / Donee to vary dense SAND Bottom of boring 0.1 Thickness of layer __,05,9 tower boring ,,, Stiff to very stiff, slightly clayey, sandy SILT (KC tower boring) 20 40 50 100 120 140 ESTIMATED AXIAL PILE CAPACITY (tons) =..10041.44p: -s Ultimate Uplift Resistance -- ro•AHow bie Total Capacity 0 50 100 EMU 1, Allowable compressive capacity is a summation of allowable skin friction and allowable end bearing, A factorof =safety (FS) of 1.5 was applied to the ultimate skin friction and end bearing values, 2, We recommend that the allowable uplift resistance be obtained by applying an FS of 1,5 for transient loading conditions, 3, Calculations assume liquefied soil conditions, 4, Calculations assume ground water is at about elevation 6 to 12 feet. 5 To obtain the estimated capacities above, we recommend a minimum pile spacing of 3 diameters. 6 WO recommend a minimum pile embedment of 5 feet into the bearing layer. 7 We estimate that the liquefaction-Induced downdrag would be •40 tons. powndrag Is not shown on the abovo plot. but should be anticipated in design. 150 200 251 Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington ESTIMATED SEISMIC CAPACITY 24•INCH OCTAGONAL. PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILE October 2001 21.1.09383.001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC, Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. 5 ti 111 pi=capep(v2)40 /8 /01•Pipe Pile rinal.xls GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE pant =tt F (Based on borings B -1 & B -2) 17' SZ- •16' •5 Liquefiable, loose to medium dense SAND Loose to dense SAND (liquefiable with residual strength) Very soft, clayey SILT •76.o um oneo .80' \....13AND .104' •110' •123' Dense to vory dense SAND Bottom of boring 13•1 Thickness of layer (KC towor boring) Stiff to very 1101, slightly clayey, sandy 81LT (KC towor boring) 20 40 00 80 100 120 140 ESTIMATED AXIAL PILE CAPACITY (tons) • ' p�iq..p......... _... =...1... ..._ :... r • r Ultimate Uplift Resistance ■— •■•■••Allowable Total Capacity 0 50 100 Min 1. Allowable compressive capacity Is a summation of allowable akin friction and allowable end bearing. A factor•of•safety (FS) of 1.5 was applied to the ultimate skin friction and end bearing values, 2. We recommend that the allowable uplift resistance be obtained by applying an FS of 1,5 for transient loading conditions, 3. Calculations assume liquefied soil conditions. 4, Calculations assume ground water is at about elevation 6 to 12 feet. 5 To obtain the estimated capacities above, we recommend a minimum pile spacing of 3 diameters. 6 We recommend a minimum pile embedment of 5 feet Into the bearing layer. 7 We estimate that the liquefaction - induced downdrag would be -35 tons. Downdrag is not shown on the above plot, but should be anticipated in design. 150 200 250 Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington ESTIMATED SEISMIC CAPACITY 24-INCH-DIAMETER CLOSED -END PIPE PiLE October 2001 21.1.09383.001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. 1 FIG, 6 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants F4t I t! 141 iN I It oliCao8ofv2)•10 /8/01•Pipe Pita 18 inch final.xis GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PRnwli r (Based on borings B -1 & 8-2) 17' .10' .78' ,80' .104' .110' .123' Liquefiable, loose to medium dense SAND Loose 10 dense SAND (liquefiable with residual strength) Very soft, clayey SILT Medium donso \ SAND Donso to very donso SAND Bottom of boring 13.1 Thickness of layer (KC tower boring) Stiff to very stiff, slightly clayey, sandy SILT (KC tower boring) eat 0 20 40 80 1 80 100 120 140 1 ESTIMATED AXIAL PILE CAPACITY (tons) P11e..0 • r r r Ultimate Uplift Resistance Allowable Total Capacity 0 20 40 60 1, Allowable compressive capacity Is a summation of allowable skin friction and allowable and bearing, A factor•of•satety (FS) of 1.5 was applied to the ultimate skin friction and end bearing values. 2. We recommend that the allowable uplift resistance be obtained by applying an FS of 1.5 for transient loading conditions, 3, Calculations assume liquefied soil conditions. 4. Calculations assume ground water is at about elevation 6 to 12 feet, 5 To obtain the estimated capacities above, vie recommend a minimum pile spacing of 3 diameters. 6 We recommend a minimum pile embedment of 5 feet into the bearing layer. 7 We estimate that the liquefaction- Induced downdrag would be .25 tons. Qowndrag is not shown on the above plot, but should be anticipated in design. 80 100 120 140 160 Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington ESTIMATED SEISMIC CAPACITY 18 INCH•DIAMETER CLOSED -END PIPE PILE October 2001 21 -1. 09383.001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. GeoteChnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. 7 i r r pilcap6p(v2)-10 /8 /01•Augercast Concrete finat.zis GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE panatt (Based on borings B -1 & B -2) 17' -18' Liquefiable, loose to medium dense SAND Loose to dense SAND (liquefiable with residual strength) Vary soft, clayoy SILT Modlum donso SAND � /' 100 Donee to very donee SAND 0 ESTIMATED AXIAL SHAFT CAPACITY (tons) r r r Ultimate Uplift Resistance �-— Allowable Total Capacity ZZZZZ ‘,4 XS 41z Bottom of boring B.1 ' 1" Hass o ayor (KC tower boring) Stiff to very stiff, slightly dopy, sandy SILT (KC tower boring) . 123' 0 20 40 00 80 NOTES 1, Allowable compressive capacity Is a summation of allowable skin friction and allowable end bearing. A factor. of•safoty (F8) of 1.5 was applied to the ultimate skin friction to obtain the allowable skin friction. The allowable end bearing was obtained by esUmating the percentage of the ultimate end bearing that would be mobilized by 1/2 Inch of aetUement at the base of the pile, 2, We recommend that the allowable uplift resistance be obtained by applying an F8 of 1,5 for transient loading conditions, 3, Calculations assume liquefied soil conditions. 4, Calculations assume ground water is at about elevation 8 to 12 feet. 5 To obtain the estimated capacities above, we recommend a minimum pile spacing of 3 diameters. 6 We recommend a minimum pile embedment of 5 feet into the bearing layer. 7 We estimate that the Iiquefaction•induced downdrag would be .15 tons. Downdrag is not shown on the above plot, but should be anticipated in design. 100 120 Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington ESTIMATED SEISMIC CAPACITY 18NINCH•DIAMETER AUGERCAST CONCRETE PILE October 2001 21- 1.09383.001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG, 8 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants 111 11 1 w Pavement or 18" Impervious Soil Backfill Meeting Gradation Requirements for Structural Fill (See Note 2) Excavation Slope Contractor's Responsibility Sloped to Drain Away from Structure ►b 0 0 18" •► Min. 6 0 b e► .d b ►- ► tl .0 o' : 0'e Drainage Sand and Gravel or Washed 3/8" to No. 8 Pea Gravel Damp Proofing Weep Holes (See Note 1) Floor Slab Vapor Barrier 8" Min. '6 ' ; O'b ° d o e 0 30 Min', � e' i 18" Min, Capillary Break (See report text) 12" Min, Cover of Pea Gravel (6" Min. on Sides of Pipe) Perimeter Drain Pipe MATERIALS Drainage Sand & Gravel with the Following Specifications: Man 1.1/2" 3/4" 1/4" No, 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100 (by wet sieving) % Paisino pv Welsh( 100 9010100 7510 100 85 to 92 20 to 55 5 to 20 0to2 (non-plastic) PERIMETER DRAIN PIPE 4" Min, 4" minimum diameter perforated or slotted pipe; tight Joints; sloped to drain (6•1100' min. slope); provide clean -outs, Perforated pipe holes (3/16" to 3/8" dia.) to be in lower half of the pipe with lower quarter segment unperforated for water flow. Slotted pipe to have 1/8" maximum width slots. Not to Scale a '. ' ' __o NOTES 1, Capillary break beneath floor slab should be hydraulically connected to perimeter drain pipe. Use of 1•inch diameter weep holes as shown is ono applicable mothod. Wo estimate that the woop holes would need to bo spaced approximately every 8 feet along the wails. 2. Structural fill should moot WSDOT Gravel Borrow Specification 9•03,14(1) but should have a maximum slzo of 3 Inches, and should not have moro than 5% fines (by weight based on minus 3/4" portion) passing No, 200 sieve (by weight sieving) with no plastic fines during wet conditions or wet weather, 3. Backfili within 18" of wall should be compacted with hand-operated equipment. Heavy equipment should not be used for backfill, as such equipment operated near the wall could Increase lateral earth pressures and possibly damage the wall. 4. All backflll should be placed In layers not exceeding 4" loose thickness for light equipment and 8" for heavy equipment and densely compacted. Beneath paved or sidewalk areas, compact to at least 95% Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM; D1557, Method C or D), Otherwise compact to 90% minimum. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington TYPICAL BASEMENT WALL PERIMETER DRAIN AND BACKFILL October 2001 21 -1 -09383 -001 SHANNON 8 WILSON, INC. t3a FIG. 9 otacrvik�al and EnvImnmontai Consultanti APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS 21- 1- 09383 -001 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A.1 INTRODUCTION A -1 A,2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION A -1 A.3 GEOLOOIC UNITS AND DESCRIPTION A -1 A.4 BORINGS A -2 A.4.1 Drilling Procedures A -2 A.4,2 Soil Sampling A -3 A.4.3 Observation Wells A -3 A.4.4 Boring Logs A-4 A.5 CONE PENETRATION TESTS A -4 A.6 REFERENCES A -5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. A -1 Soil Classification and Log Key (2 sheets) A -2 Log of Boring B -1 A -3 Log of Boring OW -1 A -4 Log of Boring OW -2 A -5 Log of Boring B -2 A -6 Log of Boring B -3 A -7 Log of Boring B -4 A -8 Log of Boring B -5 A -9 Log of Boring B -6 A -10 Log of Probe CPT -1 (2 sheets) A -11 Log of Probe CPT -2 (2 sheets) A -12 Log of Probe CPT -3 (2 sheets) A -13 Log of Probe CPT -4 (2 sheets) A -14 Log of Probe CPT -5 (2 sheets) A -15 Log of Probe CPT -6 (2 sheets) 21.1.09383.001 .App.Nwp/lkd A -i 21 -1- 09383 -001 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS A.1 INTRODUCTION 1. • The field exploration program consisted of drilling six borings and two observation wells as well as pushing six cone penetration tests (or CPTs). Borings B -1, OW -1, and OW -2 and CPT -1 and CPT -2 were completed on the east side of East Marginal Way South and borings B -2 through B -6 and CPT -3 through CPT -6 were completed on the west side of the street. The locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 2 in the main text of the report. The exploration locations and ground surface elevations of the borings and CPTs were determined from the topographic survey information provided by Bush, Roed & Hitchings (BRH). A grid of Falling Weight Deflectometcr (FWD) tests were performed in the Commercial Gallery area; the explanation of the FWD tests and their results are provided in Appendix D. A.2 SOiL CLASSIFICATION An engineer and/or geologist from Shannon & Wilson, Inc., was present throughout the drilling and sampling operations for the borings and wells. Our representative retrieved representative soil samples and prepared a descriptive field log of the explorations. Classification of the boring and well samples was based on American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 2487 -98, Standard Test Method for Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes, and ASTM D 2488 -93, Standard Recommended Practice for Description of Soils (Visual- Manual Procedure). The boring and well logs in this report represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs. Figure A -1 of Appendix A presents a log key to the terms and symbols used in our classification of the materials encountered, A.3 GEOLOGIC UNITS AND DESCRIPTION Prior to performing the field explorations, a list of anticipated geologic units was developed for the project. In the field, geologic units were defined based on their geologic history and engineering properties. The list, which was confirmed during our field exploration program, was used to maintain consistency between the Museum of Flight Expansion location and the hangar site when defining geologic units encountered in the explorations. These geologic units are interpretive and based on our opinion of the grouping of complex sediments and soil types into 2 1 1.09383.00 t . App. Nwp/Wd A -1 21 -1 =09383 =001 cia units appropriate for the project. These geologic unit designations are shown on the Generalized Subsurface Profile (Figure 3) and in the descriptions on the boring logs in Appendix A. A.4 BORINGS The subsurface conditions at the Museum of Flight Expansion site were explored with two deep soil borings, designated B -1 and B -2, which were drilled and sampled to 121.5 and 101.5 feet, respectively. Four shallow borings, designated 8-3 through B -6, were drilled to depths of approximately 5 feet. Two additional borings were drilled for observation well installation; the wells were designated OW -1 and OW -2. Observation well OW -1 was not sampled due to its proximity to boring 8=1, but the well was installed to a depth of 14 feet. Observation well OW -2 was sampled and was installed to a depth of 16.5 feet. All of the soil borings and observation wells were completed by Geo -Tech Explorations, Inc., of Kent, Washington, under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson, Inc., between April 23 and 26, 2001. The locations of the six borings and two observation wells were surveyed by I3RH under subcontract to The Seneca Real Estate Group, Inc., and are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2, BRIM recorded horizontal positions as northings and castings according to the North American Datum (NAD 83/91) and vertical positions by elevations measured according to the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD 88). The soil samples above the groundwater level were screened with a photoionization detector (PID) to determine if there were petroleum -based volatile organic compounds present; the PID did not indicate the presence of volatiles. A.4.1 Drilling Procedures A truck - mounted, B -59 drill rig was used to advance borings B -1 through B -6 and wells OW -1 and OW -2, using a combination of hollow- stem -auger (HSA) and open -hole, mud - rotary techniques. HSA drilling was performed in OW -1 and OW -2 and in the upper 15 feet of B -1 and B -2. Shallow borings B -3 through 13.6 were also drilled using the HSA method. HSA drilling consists of advancing continuous - flight augers to remove soil from the borehole. Samples are obtained by removing the center bit and lowering a sampler through the hollow stem. The HSA drilling method was utilized at the project site for purposes of identifying potential soil contamination and to try and observe the groundwater level. 21.1•09383.OQi.App.Nwp/Ikd A -2 21-1-09383-001 In borings 13-1 and 13-2, below I-ISA drilling, an open -hole mud - rotary drilling technique was used. Open -hole mud rotary borings are advanced by circulating thick drilling mud from the rig down through standard 2 5/8 -inch outside - diameter (O.D.) NX rods to a 3 7 /8- inch - diameter tri-cone bit at the bottom of the borehole. Steel casing was not used to advance any of the borings. A mixture of bentonite powder and water comprised the drilling mud. Cuttings were transported from the bottom of the borehole to the surface by drill mud flowing between the drilling rods and the sides of the open borehole. The cuttings were deposited in a settling tank at the ground surface and the mud was recirculated. A.4.2 Soil Sampling Disturbed soil samples were obtained during drilling in conjunction with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). SPTs were performed in general accordance with ASTM Designation D 1586, Standard Method for Penetration Testing and Split - Barrel Sampling of Soils. SPTs were performed at 2.5- to 5 -foot intervals to the bottom of the borings, with the exception of B -3 through B -6, which were continuously sampled to approximately 5 feet. The sampling intervals are shown on the boring and well logs. The SPT consists of driving a 2 -inch O.D., split -spoon sampler a distance of 18 inches into the bottom of the borehole with a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required for the last 12 inches of penetration is termed the Standard Penetration Resistance (N- value). This value is an empirical parameter that provides a means for evaluating the relative density, or compactness, of granular soils and the consistency, or stiffness, of cohesive soils. Generally, whenever 50 or more blows were required to cause 6 inches or Icss of penetration, the test was terminated, and the number of blows and the corresponding penetration was recorded. The N- values are plotted on the boring and well logs presented in this appendix. A.4.3 Observation Wells Observation wells were installed in borings OW -1 and OW -2. Observation well OW -1 was drilled to a depth of 14.7 feet adjacent to boring B -1 and was not sampled. Observation well OW -2 was drilled and sampled to a depth of 16.5 feet. A combination of solid and slotted 2 -inch- diameter PVC piping was installed. Flush- mounted monuments were installed at the ground surface. The construction details for the observation wells are shown graphically on the boring logs in this appendix. 21.1.09383,001. App.Aiwpad A -3 21 -1 -09383 -001 A.4.4 Boring Logs The boring and well logs for this project are presented in Appendix A. A boring log is a written record of the subsurface conditions encountered. It graphically shows the geologic units (layers) encountered in the boring and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) symbol of each geologic layer. It also includes the natural water content (where tested), blow count, and the Atterberg limits of soil samples at various depths within the boring log where tests were performed. Other information shown on the boring logs includes the May 2001 groundwater level measurements, groundwater level observations made during drilling, approximate surface elevation, types and depths of sampling, and PID readings for measurement of potential soil contamination. A.5 CONE PENETRATION TESTS Six CPTs were completed by Northwest Cone Exploration under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson, Inc., between April 23 and 27, 2001, as part of our subsurface exploration program. These tests, designated CPT -1 through CPT -6, are located within the proposed footprint of the Museum of Flight Expansion, as shown on Figure 2 in the main text of this report. Northwest Cone Exploration provided experienced field personnel to perform and log the probes using a portable Hogentogler system. The tests were performed in general accordance with procedures outlined in ASTM Designation D -3441, Standard Method for Deep, Quasi- Static, Cone and Friction -Cone Penetration Tests of Soil. Logs of the CPT probes are presented in Figures A -10 through A -15. The purpose of the CPTs was to develop a continuous subsurface profile of the soils encountered at the proposed building site. Using this kind of testing, soil samples are not obtained. In the CPT test, steel rods with a cone tip on the end are pushed with a hydraulic ram into the soil at a relatively constant rate of approximately 2 centimeters per second (cm/sec). The hydraulic ram apparatus is mounted on steel frame, which is, in turn, mounted on a truck The cone tip is connected to a stationary friction sleeve and has a surface area of 10 square centimeters (cm2) and an angle of 30 degrees from the axis, The stationary friction sleeve has a surface area of 150 cm2 and a diameter of approximately 3.8 cm. Two load cells connected in series and a pore pressure transducer are located inside the cone tip. Prior to testing, a plastic filter element that has been saturated under vacuum in glycerin is placed between the cone tip and the stationary friction sleeve, This filter element transmits pore pressures to the pressure 21.1.09383.001 •App•A/wp/lkd A -4 21- 1- 09383 -001 141 transducer located within the cone tip. The load cells measure end resistance on the cone tip and friction resistance on the stationary friction sleeve. As the cone penetrates through the soil, measurements of tip resistance, sleeve friction, and pore pressure are electrically transmitted through wires to the ground surface, and then displayed and recorded on a portable computer at 2 -inch intervals. Termination of the testing results when the penetration resistance exceeds the capacity of the hydraulic system or the target depth is reached. Seismic cone tests were performed at 1 -meter intervals in probes CPT —1, CPT -3, and CPT -5. In this test, a 10- foot -long steel 14 -beam is pinned between the ground and the hydraulic jacks on the rig. When the cone tip is at a stationary depth in the hole, the 11-beam is hit on one side with an instrumented sledgehammer, thus creating a shear wave. A geophone located within the cone tip then measures the resulting shear wave at the cone tip. The data is displayed and recorded on a portable computer in the form of a force -time plot. Using this data, shear wave velocities can be estimated using a pseudo -time interval method. Using the estimated arrival times of the shear waves, estimates of shear wave velocity are calculated. This test provides information that is useful for the earthquake engineering studies for the project. The CPT results consist of plots of cone tip resistance, sleeve friction, friction ratio (ratio of sleeve friction to cone tip resistance), and pore pressure versus depth. This data was processed and interpreted using the computer program CPTINT (Campanella, 1992). Soil description, cone tip resistance, friction ratio, and pore pressure, as well as the estimated soil properties of friction angle, cohesion, and equivalent N -value are plotted versus depth and presented on the CPT logs. The results of the seismic cone tests are also presented on the appropriate probe logs; the logs have a plot of shear wave velocity versus depth. A.6 REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2001, Annual book of standards, Construction, v. 4.08, Soil and rock (1): D 420 - D 4914; West Conshohocken, Penn. Campanella, R.G., revised by Wong, T., 1992, CPTINT — CPT cone data interpretation program, version 4.2, Civil Engineering Department, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, May 31. 21.1•09383.001.App•A/wp/lkd A -5 21- 1- 09383 -001 f.4 raa a Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S &W), uses a soil classification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Elements of the USCS and other definitions are provided on this and the following page. Soll descriptions are based on visual-manual procedures (ASTM d 2488.93) unless otherwise noted. S&W CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL CONSTITUENTS • MAJOR constituents compose more than 40 percent, by weight, of the soil. Major consituents are capitalized (Le., SAND). • Minor constituents compose 12 to 50 percent of the soil and precede the major constituents (1.e„ silty SAND). Minor constituents preceded by `slightly` compose 5 to 12 percent of the soil (I.e., slightly silty SAND). • Trace constituents compose 0 to 5 percent of the soil (1.e., slightly silty SAND, trace of gravel). MOISTURE CONTENT DEFINITIONS Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist Damp but no visible water Wet Visible free water, from below water table ATD Elev. ft Fo0 NSA ID in Ibo Mon, N NA NP OD OVA PID ppm PVC S8 SPT USC WLI ABBREVIATIONS At Time of Drilling Elevation foot Iron Oxide Hollow Stem Auger Inside Diameter inchoo pounds Monument cover Glows for last two 8.inch increments Not applicable or not available Non plastic Outside diameter Organic vapor analyzer Photo•ionization detector parts per million Polyvinyl Chloride Split spoon sampler Standard penetration test Unified soil classification Water level indicator GRAIN SIZE DEFINITION DESCRIPTION SIEVE NUMBER AND /OR SIZE FINES < #200 (0.8 mm) SAND' • Fine - Medium - Coarse #200 to #40 (0.8 to 0.4 mm) #40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm) #10 to #4 (2 to 5 mm) GRAVEL' • Fine • Coarse #4 to 3/4 inch (5 to 19 mm) 3/4 to 3 inches (19 to 70 mm) COBBLES 3 to 12 inches (78 to 305 mm) BOULDERS 12 inches (305 mm) • Unless otherwise noted, sands and gravels, when prowl, range from tine to coarse in grain size. RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY COARSE•ORAlNED SOILS FINE•ORAINED SOILS N, SPT, RELATIVE N, SPT, RELATIVE DIMS/EL fENSIt BLOWELET# CQ_NS_ ,NCY 0.4 Very loose Under 2 Very soft 4.10 Loose 2.4 Solt 10.30 Medium dense 4.8 Medium stilt 30.50 Dense 8.16 Still Ovor 50 Very dense 15.30 Very still Over 30 Hard WELL AND OTHER SYMBOLS ®1® CIDtJ r1 Cement/Concrete Bontonllo Grout Bentonite Seal Silica Sand PVC Screen Vibrating Wire Asphalt or Cap Slough Ash Bedrock Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND LOG KEY October 2001 21.1.09383.001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotectuucal and Environmental Consultants FIG. A•1 Sheet 1 of 2 18 gs FF r k.� ifw 14 III UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) (From ASTM D 2487-98 & 2488 -93) MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC SYMBO TYPICAL DESCRIPTION COARSE. GRb ND E (more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve) Gravels (more than 50% of coarse fraction rosined on No. 4 sieve) Clean Gravels (less than 5% fines) ow • 1• Well-graded Gravels gravels, grave san ixturest,'iitt a or no lines op) Vs e � . ► 0 Poorly g raded gravels, gravel =sand mixtures, little or no fines Gravels with Pines (more than 12% fines) GM 414 CA M Silty gravels, gravel•sand•sill mixtures ©C bJ.2:., � .#.6.i.•. :.;:. . IX u y ravels, gravel =sand clay Mr Sands (&O% or more of coarse fraction passes the No. 4 slava) Clean Sands (loss than 596 fines) SW Weotl or andd ands, gravelly sands, SP • ,_,,.. ;.';,','...,. 4 as, ' A. Poorly graded and gravelly sands, twe r Ines Sat1th With Ines (more than 12% linos) SM Silty sands, sand.silt mixtutou 8C Fir Clayey sands, sand=clay mixtures FIN .QRNNED SolLs (50% or mom passes Iho N o. 200 stove Silts and Clays a1 /5 0) Inorganic ML Ili I • licn10 DU1D Q _•p'y /a Diil ►m Av► I ii�°i;korrlC�+ayoy sl D wltt slight CL IB aio to medium Das y rav ysyD, Dar clays, itcY s n Organic 01. n : Organic end organic silly clays of 8111e and Clays (liquid ho it 60 or Inorganic MH 1 JI III or row or . at Dino sands or slty O aal N CH �j 1 o anb or 'radium to hih Paamity, army I I clay, or gravelly fat Organic OH P plasticity, organic medium to high 401)46 Primaril organic mo ter, dark in color, and organic odor P� Peat, umu , swamp tl i h hI organ ca con (see M IJ 4�igi; 1, Dual symbols (symbols separated by a hyphen, 1.0., SP.SM, slightly silty line SAND) are used for soils with between 5% and 12% fines or when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL•Mt. area of the plasticity chart. 2. 8orderline symbols (symbols separated by a slash, i.e., CUML silty CLAY/clayey SILT; GW /SW, sandy GRAVEUgravelly SAND) indicate that the soil may fall into one of two possible basic groups. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND LOG KEY October 2001 21.1. 09383.001 SHANNON & I WILSON, INC. FIG. Ail Geotechn cal and Environmental Consultants Sheet 2 of 2 SOIL DESCRIPTION r r c .° 0 c E E G Ground Water Depth (ft) Standard Penetration Resistance \TOPSOIL /— 0 0.3 • • of o 0 0 5 • Dense, dark gray to dark brown, trace to slightly silty to silty SAND, trace of ' • .. _ Medium dense, dark gray-brown, trace ; _, . -.. . - -- .. ! . .0 ... Loos., dark graybrown, slightly silty to 1 • ° - . z.... :.tea =: r : :a =y :.,.,_.._.+.::emu= r rte. - :, Medium donee, dark graybrown, — - .� 3 - 1 ... , . . �: _ _ __ _ . LEGEND 0 20 40 60 • Sample Not Hoovered • % Water Content T 24nch O.O.8pfd Spoon Sample around Water Level ATO Plastic Limit I-4--1 Liquid Limit I I f f• rig ialk SOIL DESCRIPTION o - o a a P PID (ppm) Ground Water Depth (ft) Standard Penetration Resistance 58.0 ; ,•.* ;. 1 14 I • S5 .. • . . .... , . . . . Interbedded, loose, dark gray-brown, . irl • • .. Dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine , t> --- • • . . Soft to very soft, dark gray, clayey 1 1eI —' � • ~ to Ito • • • g 1 _ + • �. ~ nI • 90 W Wiltagatt=7.- a —a ...a. � �. Medium dense, gray, silty, line to 8 • : :4 05 _ _,_ Very dense, gray, slightly slily to to sil 0 „ „EpEND 0~_ 20 40 80 IS 4 ti it Skit r SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 21 Ft. (NAVD $8) Depth (ft) I N a . co to o. v. o a Ground Water Depth (ft) Standard (140 Ib. • 0 20 • . 1 Penetration Resistance weight, 30•inch drop) Blows per foot 40 60 abundant shell fragments; (He) SP•SM /SM. 10'.0 121.5 . . .�• • ;; . ,..... .... .,...� ' ;" '4.". ;'..,.. ..1 '+ ! r ,i- 25-L 20= 2iT 2e 105 110 115 120 126 130 140 145 50 /4 "A • 50/6 "-A ...... 50/6 ,. Very dense, gray, trace to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; locally trace at fine gravel, scattered shells and organic fragments; (He) SP•SM. _.. • • ..... 87,E --- -� •--- -• •--- ° - --- ■ I I BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED ON 04/24/2001 Nolo: Boring drilled to 17 foot with 8•Inch (O.D,) hollow•alom augur, then mud rotary (3 7 /8•inch Iacono bit) to the bottom of tho boring '- . :.= ¢,-x_ • . ....... . - ----- - - - .xx. ----- _ _ — 1 5 iii n LEGEND around water Level MD boundaries between soil types, fora proper understanding of specified and may vary. and selected 0 20 40 00 • % Water Content Plastid Limit I-4,--1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content ' swot Nat recovered g 1 2-inch 0.0. Split Spoon Sample 3'inch 0.0. Shelby Tube Sample ii 3.0' 0.1). Osterberg Sample WIZ 1. The stratification lines represent the approximate and the transition may be gradual. 2. The discussion In the t+xt of this report Is necessery the nature of the subsurface materials. 3. Groundwater level, II Indicated above, is for the date 4. Refer to KEY for explanation of 'Symbols' and definitions. 5. ABCs designation is based on visual - manual classification laboratory Index tenting. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B -1 October 2001 21.1.08383.001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Goolechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. A -2 Sheet 3 of 3 SOIL DESCRIPTION D Depth (ft) Symbol d P PID (ppm) Ground Water Depth (ft) Standard Penetration Resistance Notes: 1. Boring OW-1 was not 2 44 . 2 . . . .. ... .. . .. .. . ......... ... . .. .... ... . .. • .... . ....... ,....... __.:_:. 18 _ _� .o_o , • -__ r__ 1.022112 4 Surface Seat • 4 20 40 80 1 2dnch 0.0> Split Spoon Sample 6t3Mfat A II 3•Inch 0.0. Shelby Tube Sample l.1 P Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington 1 1 �4f Gal A SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 17 Ft. (NAVD 88) Depth (ft) E >, Samples §. o. a- Ground Water Depth (ft) Standard Penetration Resistance (140 Ib. weight, 30-inch drop) • Slows per foot 0 20 40 60 - ASPHALT CONCRETE ,-. 0.3 1110 10.8 ; ;. .. ,: :.: , , ;,', :. . V . ■ �` . V .. M . . , , .� N r .. ; . .� V j ` ;•C �.. , i i--- 2 a , 0 0 o 0 ; ' I •. i, . - R „, .lit , 1, .., ,, •- . .” ! - _ I :� y; 2 _: 10 14 10 18 20 : _ — : Medium dense, dark brown to dark gray, trace to slightly silty, slightly fine gravelly, SAND; moist; massive to faintly bedded, abundant andesite grains; (Ha) SP•SM /SP. • • • . .. ....... - : : - . . . . . . ____ .__ ._•_.__ , .... . Loose, dark brown 10 dark gray, trace to slightly silly, lino to medium SAND, trace of line gravel; wet; faintly bedded, abundant andosilo grains; (Ha) SP•SM /SP. • lino sandy slit seam at 18.0 loot • slightly silty to silty, lino and from 18.1 to 18.5 loot •. :.' ...._.... , . _ .. .. ... . - , ; : �- --- ' 00170M OF BORING COMPLETED 04/23/2001 Notes: 1. Boring drilled using an 8•Inoh (0.13.) hollowitem auger, 2. On 6/4/2001, the water level In the woll was approximately 0.6 loot, , .. ' :. s�_ .- - "-- o --7-7------7- 0 20 40 60 LEQUILI • Sample Not Recovered Surface Seal • °/v Water Content 1 2•inch O.D. Split Spoon Sample Mal Annular Sealant Plastic Limit 1—•—I Liquid Limit 7T 3•Inch 0,0, Shelby Tube Sample CEO Pierometer Screen Natural Water Content CEO Grout X Ground Water Level ATO 3: Ground Water Level In Well Man 1. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. and the transition maybe gradual. 2. The discussion in the text of this report Is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials. 3. Groundwater level, if Indicated above, 15 for the dale specified and may vary. 4. Refer to KEY for explanation of 'Symbols' and definitions. 5. uSCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected laboratory Index testing. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING OW-2 October 2001 21 =1.08383.001 SHANNON IL WILSON, INC. 1 Georecrmkal and Environmental Consultant , FIG A -4 l 1 1 1 g is 1 SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 16 Ft. (NAVD 88) r w o Symbol ' n 0 0 E B p n- Ground Water Depth (ft) Standard Penetration Resistance (140 Ib. weight, 30-inch drop) • Blows per foot 0 20 40 60 -\ASPHALT CONCRETE. , 0.5 12,5 40,0 t 0 0 ° o 5 10 15 20 25 3D •4• 45 • 1 Medium dense to very loose, black to graybrown, intermixed silty, fine SAND and fine sandy SILT; most to wet; mottled, scattered to abundant gravel in upper 1 foot, scattered organics, scattered to numerous Iron•oxide stains in upper 4 feat; (HI) SM /ML, Medium dense to dense, dark gray, trace to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; massive to bedded, locally trace of coarse sand, scattered to abundant organics, scattered gilt lenses; (Ha) SP/SP-SM. • • . ' ::. .,. , .,., ,,‘,1 , 2 J� . . ^! 1 . - .. _ :1'n , ;i: ,.r; .',, a':'.: ,r , i :, „ . r „r .:.:11 ''+ , • ::rt ,. Q+, i: :.r; i :rf r i,r• _ _ • , . 1 . ___ —. _ ...._ . • . 4 I -.. •-� f �� Interbedded, medium donso to dense, t dark gra•brown, silly, lino SAND, lino ' sandy SILT, and clayey SILT; wet; 1 abundant organic fragments; (Ha) SM /ML. • •■ IN • N XT P + r ' .' , to I III •. .. ... .. __ - __ _ LEGEND 0 20 40 60 • Sample Not Recovered • % Water Content X 2•Inch 0.0, 6ptit Spoon Sample Ground Water Level ATD Plastic limit 1-411--I liquid Limit 31 3•inch 0•D, Shelby Tube Sample Natural Water Content 5 1. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition maybe gradual. 2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of a the nature of the subsurface materials. 1 3. Groundwater level, If Indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 4. Refer to KEY for explanation of `Symbols' and deflNtions. E5. USCS designation la based on visual-manual classification and selected laboratory index testing. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B•2 October 2001 21.1.003834Q0 1 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG, A•5 Sheet 1 of 3 Oat toe SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 16 Ft. (NAVD 88) d 0 Symbol Samples E a o n. Ground Water Depth (ft) Standard Penetration Resistance (140 Ib. weight, 30-inch drop) • Blows per toot o 20 40 60 :; 53'0 ; :: : ::A 83.0 :■ ed,0 03.0 Ground boundaries for a proper specified 12 ; � - .,, • 1a I NA. N 141 1s 1a 111 10'T` J` , •' ; 4: , f?0 `';., . Iti ; . , i1 : ", : '' Water Level between soil understanding and may and selected T vary. AID types, of 55 85 70- 78 80 85 08 Medium dense to loose, dark gray, silty, tine SAND and fine sandy SILT; wet; faintly bedded, scattered silt seams, cohesiontess; (Ha) SM /ML. • . . . . . . _..._._._._- . • ......_ ._....__._.._� ` - Very soft, dark gray, clayey SILT, trace of fine sand; wet; faintly bedded, slightly fine sandy at top, scattered shell fragments at bottom; (HI) ML, • scattered light gray, clayey silt seams (ash) between 70.0 and 71.8 feet • 4•Inoh•thlok seam of light gray, silty clay at 80.0 loot • 2•inch-thick seam of Tight gray, silty clay (ash) at 81,1 loot ___._ — - -.. . — a � .. • — -__ - �•°�_ -� Very loose, gray, silty, lino SAND, trace of medium sand; wet; bedded 1 with biotufbstlon, abundant shell fragments, scattered sill soame; (Ho) 1 `'\$M, / .� • . ' .... Donee, gray, silty SAND, trace of lino I gravel; wet; massive, abundant shell fragments; (Ho) SM. 1 CONTINVe0 NeXT PAGE 0 20 • Plastic Limit Natural • 40 % Water Content --^-1 liquid Water Content , . .. Limit . 60 {„REND, Sample Not Recovered 1 = 2snch 4.0} $ t3p1it spoon sample 3•inch 0.0, Shelby Tube Sample 1 Varga 1. The atrabfication lines represent the approximate and the transition maybe gradual. 2. The discussion In the text of this report is necessary the nature of the subsurface materials. 3. Groundwater level, if Indicated above, is for the date a 4. Refer to KEY for explanation of 'Symbols' and definitions. 5. USGS designation is based on visual-manual ciassHicatbn v laboratory Index testing. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B -2 October 2001 21.1.09383.001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. 1 GeotechnicaI and Environmental Consultants FIG. A•5 f Sheet 2 of 3 irg 1 0 20 40 60 • Semple Not Recovered • % Water Content T 2•Inch 0,0, Split Spoon Sample Orour►tf • Water Level I1T0 Plastic Limit Liquid Limit TE 3•Inch 0,0, Shelby Tube Sample Natural Water Content i 1 Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington tOlgel 1, The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between WI types, and the transition may be gradual. 2. The discussion In the text of this report Is necessary for a proper underatandia9 of LOG OF BORING B -2 the nature of the subsurface materials. 3. Groundwater level, If Indicated above, to for the date *pacified and may vary. October 2001 21.1.09383.001 4. Refer to KEY for explanation of Symbols' and definitions. 5. USCS deaipnation is based on visual•manual ctasalfication and selected laboratory Index testing. SHANNON do WILSON, INC. I FIG, A•5 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 3 SOIL DESCRIPTION D Depth (ft) Symbol vi E E G Ground Water Depth (ft) Standard Penetration Resistance 60 grades to silly, sandy gravel at 101,2 1f�1.� �fl{ 2 221 • 105 •1 . .. 1 . . BOT'T'OM OF BORING COMPLETED ON 04/25/2001 1 . .... . .. . . . ... . .. .. ... . — __ : t�1 1r t ig SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 17 Ft. (NAVD 88) Depth (ft) o E a d a iv N S a O a Ground Water Depth (ft) Standard Penetration Resistance (140 Ib. weight, 30-inch drop) • Blows per foot 0 20 40 60 Concrete. ' : 2'4 •- 8,1 ,•• x ' • .4. • �. t ..._. 2 3 ..-... o 0 0 1 2 4 e 8 10 12 18 } :... • , : . 54,E Very dense, brown, silty, gravelly SAND; moist; massive (base course); (Ht) SM. — . : :: :.... ... :::: ' :.: .... . I Medium dense, dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, trace of fine gravel; oist; massive, scattered silt cleats, r3.4 smcottered organics; (Ha) SM. ... .... / : :: .... ::: :::.: -'-'-_- Loose, dark brown, sandy SILT; moist to wet; massive, decreasing sand toward bottom, scattered organics; Ha ML. - . . __ ... ........ .... . .. _ ...... ..,. BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 04/20/2001 Nolo; Boring drilled using 8•Inch O.D. hotiow•stem auger. =- .a._ a -- 711.0 .z. . _ M.. .= ..116IFICIIIMESIV11,t 1 rr la. LEGEND • sample Not Recovered Water Level ATO 1 2 *inch O.D. Split Spoon Sample Ground It 3•Inch O.D, Shelby Tube Sample time 1. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. 2. The discussion In the text of this report Is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials. 3. Groundwater level, if indicated above, Is for the date specified and may vary. 4. Refer to KEY for explanation of 'Symbols' and definitions. 5. USCS designation Is based on visual-manual classification and selected laboratory Index testing. 0 20 40 80 • % Water Content • Plastic Limit I-411-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B -3 October 2001 21.1.09383.001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. aeoteceriieai and Environmental Consultants FIG. A•6 ig Ape 1 SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 16 Ft. (NAVD 88) Depth (ft) >, Samples n d a Ground Water Depth (ft) Standard Penetration Resistance (140 Ib. weight, 30-inch drop) • glows per toot 0 20 40 60 -`Asphait. /- 0.2 1'g 4.7 : i z o 0 2 4 10 12 14 10 . . G3 Very dense, brown, silty, sandy GRAVEL; moist; massive; (Ht) CAM. Medium dense to loose, brown, slightly silty, fine SAND; moist; massive, salt end pepper appearance; (I-t) SP-9M, ___.__.. ___ ____, -- -- ---- -- .: BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 4/2812001 Note: Boring drilled using H•inch O.D, hollow•stom auger. 1 - -. — =max =z=_: z _ s - : ��. . . _, _ .�. x:_._. -. Z0 40 00 • LECIEtila San'/ Not Recovered $,: °round Water Level ATO • % Water Content 1 1 24Inch 0.0. 80i Spoon Sem* Pletitio Limit 1- Liquid Limit If 3,inch 0.0. SJty Tube Sample Natural Witter Content 1, The strepficetiQn linos represent the approximate boundaries between sal types, and the transition may bo (Wiest. 2. The discussion In the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of 3 the nature WIN subsurface materials. 3. Grbobweter level, if indic+tted above. is tor the date specified end may vary. 2 a a. Refer to KEY for explanation of 'symbols' and definitions. s asad on visual -manual classification and selected labortQry Index testing. Museum of Flighi Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B -4 October 2001 21.1.00383.001 ... _ ,,. SHANNON WILSON, INC. o ,cand , ! wt t$ . . FIG. A -7 1 Wi 4 SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 16 Ft. (NAVO 88) Depth (ft) Symbol E 03 rn E a 0 n. Ground Water Depth (ft) Standard Penetration Resistance (140 Ib. weight, 30-inch drop) • Blows per foot 0 20 40 60 -� sphalt concrete. ,--. 0,3 2.1 4.6 ' ' ,• •, • I A ,' r 2 3 o 0 0 2 4 8 10 12 14 18 .. • ... ... • Medium dense, brown and orange mottled, slightly clayey, silty, sandy GRAVEL; moist; massive, abundant wood fragments, scattered iron-oxide r stains; (Hf) GM, _ / • • ' �-i■`-i - ... Medium dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; moist; massive, abundant black and white grains; (HI) SP•SM, . BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 4 /28/2001 Notes Boring drilled using 8-Inch O.D. hollow-stem auger. a . . . :.:: �� .. _..... _ _. : : � : : y . . ._.. a.... .. _. . --- . r ,- Q..,;_ . .•r., ,mr.�_.x L 0 20 40 00 • Sample Not R^cowred • % Water Content Water i.evel ATD PIa6tia LImIt I--•--°I Liquid Limit T 2•Inch 0,0, split Spam Sample around • ti IC 3•Inch 0,0, Shelby Tube Sample Natural Water Content i 1 1. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. N 2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface meteiials. 3. Groundwater level, If indicated above, Is for the date specified and may vary. 4. Refer to KEY for explanation of 'Symbols' and definitions. 5. USCS designation is based on visual- manual classification and selected laboratory Index gating. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B -5 October 2001 21.1.09383.001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG A•8 ti ig F SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 17 Ft. (NAVD 88) . 0 .0 ›'. Samples i a. a 0 Ground Water Depth (ft) Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30-inch drop) • Blows per foot 20 40 60 ,,Asphalt concrete. .-- 0.3 0.6 4,8 ..:;:, *S.1 . , „•„, , . , „ o,..a A A ' ‘.. I. Yi 1: — 0 0 0 2 10 12 14 10 18 . . , ' • • . . ' . . A Medium dense, brown, silty, sandy i \GRAVEL; moist; (HI) GM. Medium dense, dark gray, trace to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; moist; massive to bedded; (Ha) SP/SP-SM. BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 4/28/2001 Note: Boring drilled using 8•Inch O.D. hollow.sfem auger. • - . ' . .. .. . . , . . . ____ . . • — ---------7 . .. _ -------- -------- - . -------- - , . - • ..—..— 717121.t.17.-1.1.,151t z 7 11=aw.s. z s s , 3 • , saw .ssom—a.mszsc • , , , . . , . , ... . . . ... - . -- . -- - - =MI • Barn(*) Not Roomed '7 Around Water Level ATO X 2.1nottO.O, Spilt Spoon Sample 31 3,Inch O.C. Shelby Tube Swop* 141.0 1.The ovatikotion lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and 2. Tde ansioition n my t be gra INduS a rl. e POr le necessary for o proper understanding of I the nature of Me subsurface materials. 3. Groundwater level, If Indicated above, Is for the date specified and may vary. 4. Refer to KEY for explanatkm of 'Symbols' and derinitiOne. 5. USCS designation Is based on visual•manual classification and selected laboratory index testing. , - 20 40 60 • % Water Content Plastic Limit 1-.--ii-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF BORING B-6 October 2001 21-1.09303.001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. A-9 • I NM WIN ESTIMATED SOIL PROFILE Surface elevation: Apptex. 10.00 1 4 II :,.. 1 CORRECTED CONE (tons/aware , •„,,, • t.t '4 BEARING, 4 loot) •t' FRICTION RATIO RI (%) , pone PRESSURE u (1() • . SHEAR VELOCITY V, (111000) , ;,t,,, 482 ESTIMATED SOIL PROPERTIES Friction (degrees) t Angle t ;.. Undrained Strength I Shear ((e) Uncorr. N.value (blows/loot) • : ' , s '..21111"1":Milhil...'"." M-\stitiLdium dense le dense, silty ,. 1.6 6 6 11 a 10 _ • . _. __ jimpw._ - = _. .. . .... 1 1 1 I I ,„ . " - IF e• •• 00 4,0, f•S 11 •SAHA , .,,, „ . . 1.1. . 1 . . 1 . 1.1, .1 1. t a . . sl, t' i; t * ,t8s.t I.: . to , • sa .: t pt.. .. i'i ' .. ,,,.,, .. . .„, . , 1,1, : ::: ,011.1 . 0,1 • . . , ly, ,,,,,, ,,y, . , . • . : ::: . - - • _ - -- - - . _ . . • ,* ' ' -4-4 1 0 4 .,., '.0 .. „. .. . .. . . --- - ' __ 4 . .. -, ...., .... . I' : • I - •-- I... ' • 1 •, .:4 -- .1 . o.... i ./. I Oil 1:1. (41' ft. II fi . 'v 4 ' .I . ..6 . S% . , -, - — Po . . , 0 4 .... 4 et • r* ." 4 .• ( . ; • • . 11% • ,i ..., ....." • — • •8 ' I% 1 401 .0111 - 1 i ' i'• 7 , i ■ ' Sett to medium soft clayey 911.T lo saly CLAY Wes tones of 111ViiLT, - ..t . . • . - - ----- . - . . Medum dense 10 donee _ . . 1 j . _ , ti i? I 30 6 ae $6 es at. ---- II sr _ _ , „.... _ _ _ _ _ • , ._ . . Madura dints SAND b any SAND, Medium dense 10 dense SAND, Loose to medium dense SAND 10 Oily SAND/sandy SILT With maimed clayey ;orbs. 511 ---,mu ----- -111 NOTES; 1, The searificedon lines 10P(050111 the approximate boundaries between soli typee; the transition may be greduai. 2. The estimated soil propene); we bawl on analyses performed using the computer program CPTINT (Version 5.0). The method used for estimating the properties listed above are: ei01111,1 bi310641 Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila. Washington LOG OF PROBE CPT-1 October 2001 21-1,09383-001 1! • -11 ro sli C) A■mair Friction Angie Clurgunogiu 1 MitcheU Uncorrected N•Value (N00) Robertson & Campanella Undrained Shear Strength qc • 0 v where: qc • Measured Cone Bearing Nk Nk = 12.5 a v wr Total Overburden Stress O. Log of probe is bawl on plesocone probe data provided by Northwest Cone Exploration. • The pore pleasure was measured behind the tip of the penetrometer. Hydrostatic pore pressure based on the estimated groundwater depth Is also shown above (dashed line). SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geolechnical and Environmental Consultanti FIG. A-10 Sheet 1 of 2 • , • . CPT Se10 4101 214)0363.0PJ SUM WI INN e � O 1 ESTIMATED SOIL PROFILE Surface Elevation: Approx, 18.0 ft g CORRECTED CONE (10ns/square BEARING, q, loot) FRICTION R, RATIO (%) PORE PRESSURE u (ISt) SHEAR VELOCITY V, OVUM) ESTIMATED SOIL PROPERTIES Friction Angle (degrees) Undtained Stour Strength (tit) Uncorr. H v+akre (biaw§RooU = ____ ._ _ ___= _ ::.. .. _ .. - -- tkill414 - -.. — -- -- - -Y -- • - .. -. ._, -. - -- . _._._..___ :: - - -- . - , • •• 1 • r • - - 1 1 ,_ �_ - - - _ _ , Soft lo medium stilly , clayey SILT with sandy &I1 zones. 70 Ile 7 n.1 q 104 110 110 120 126. °° ' : .. Medium dense to dense SAND -41untitaiStill : x. . _ :, .. „:.._- —.- BOTTOM OP PRODS COMPLETED 04.23.2001 —.a• - T.: . __ . . - - r -r ...... .. . . _ - .---_ _ . _ -_ .. . , ..... _ .. .. . _ -. - °- __ .._.._... ,-. ._ ..._. S,S. .,.- a.... x. -_... T ..>_ • • -- _______ -,.R -> ..7 - —- . , NOTES; 1. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soli types; the transition may be gradual. 2. The estimated soli properties are based on analyses performed using the computer program CPTINT (Version 5.0)• The method used for estimating the properties listed above are: tdssiJ>l?S Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF PROBE CPT -1 October 2001 21.1.09383.001 —". . ro R. 1D Friction Angle 0urgunoglu & Mitchell Uncorrected N•Value (N60) Robertson & Campanella Undrained Shear Strength gc • a y where: qc a Measured Cone searing Nk Nk =12.5 a v a Total Overburden Suess 3. Log of probe b based on piesocone probe data provided by Northwest Cone Exploration. 4. The pore pressure was measured behind the tip of the penetrometer. Hydrostatic pore pressure based on the estimated groundwater depth is also shown above (dashed line). SHANNON & WILSON, INC. iieolechrucal and Environmental Consultants . . FIG. A-10 Sheet 2 of 2 NMI WM INN SSW qwereweadweeitsww■ ESTIMATED SOIL PROFILE Sutface Eirtatiott: Ammo, 16.0 ft (NAVD SO) g common° CONE (Ions per square SEARING, qt foot) .• .3S9 400 ...............wwwwww. FRICTION RATIO RI (%) 0 6 pone PRESSURE u (t) s 2_, 4 4.111■11■1•1•111111111112/LI I ESTIMATED SOIL PROPERTIES Friction (degrees) • -- - - - - -,. • Angle or 0 WO nr 114 : 01 -- - • , r -- - . .... -.- — "limmomonommr. Undralned Strength • V* — - - - so :t, • • - .. • . - . ... - Shear (1st) /19 • • • - - ' - . : , • ' • , . . . . ...--...,. - _t _ Uncor t, N.value (blowsnoot) 30 er0 . 4. ' . . . ° 4'. • .. ' II • • , I , . , • '.• • 4 al h • le I ■ .• . 4' 4, N. el f' , 1 11.1 i 'I - • • 0 .. - - , ,, • ''N • , i • •• ' * 6 . ' ‘, ; , . . ... - . • •) , .1 t, i 11 11 i . . ■ si I ,,, s. • .:, . ..! , .. • 'f. ik,' . ■ 211011011111C9M6--- 1.5 3 0 12.0 N 6 30 33 0 40— 50 5 015 030 i ._ -. , •4111111 - ---- ------ 1 _________. --- - - --- - ___ Medium dense to very dense, SAND to oily 'NeAtiaNithrintillaantilmOlu■•■■••.•Mor Loose to dense, Ink:named, SAND and ollty SAND, Medium dense 53 dittos SAND, , , , , •::: ..... . ,I , '. /:' ,t 040 ... peg,. • , 01.0 .. ..1..... ,,, ,,,t.. t 1 1.110 . .. ,. ....,.. . . • , . , , ,• ''. • a . .. ' 1 1 is. .. .... 1 1 IIP" 1 1 I . - -- - • _... ____ -----! -1=.b . ..-- - ..... . _ _._ _ . ---- ..._ ._____ 1= .. .:.._ _ _ _._ ._.. _ Loose 10 medium dims, inky SAND; Nada id Name col loft to stiff, clayey NI , . -, . "°11-0, .. A... ,,,, 1 1 ,1 1 :.: ., . 1 : I. 1 11" . ., ,,,, . , . .' i. ., .., 1 ,, .. 1 .., . .. 1 .1:e : • 11 ..., , , . Loots to medium dense, SAND to oily SAND with scattered sandy i$$ layers, Loos* IQ medium dents, sandy 61LT/silty SAND to m1111.T. • . 8MR. , . '#'i' •••,* -.ASIIIMSINIII - V loosnimain==oose. SILT to claw SILT. NOTES: 1. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; the transition may be gradual. 2. The estimated NV properties we based on analysea performed us the ing computer program CPTINT (Version 5.0). The method used for estimating the properties sited above we: MOW Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF PROBE CPT-2 October 2001 21-1.09383.001 1 '4 » • • INA =A ....... Friction Angle Durguncglu & Mitchell Uncorrected N•Value (N60) Robertson E. Campanella Undrakied Shear Strength qc • nv, where: qc al Measured Cone Bearing Nk Nk T• 12.5 �v s Total Overburden Stress 3. UM 01 Probe is based on pluck:one probe data provided by Northwest ConeNorthwest Cone Exploration. 4. The pore pressure was measured behind the tip of the penetrometer. Hydrostatic pore pressure based on the estimated groundwater depth is also shown above (dashed Ike). SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Goolechnkal and Environmental Consultants FIG. A-11 Sheet 1 of 2 CPT MAWNI 0100383.0PJ SHANrWIL ©Of 1 NEN ESTIMATED SOIL PROFILE Surface Elevation: Approx.10.0 ft (NAND B0) € a17.0 CORRECTED , CONE (Ions par equate ,,, BEARING, foot) ../ qt ;. —_� -- FRICTION AI ; RATIO (%) PORE PRESSURE to (Ill) , + ,; : •. ~ s 8.* ESTIMATED SOIL PROPERTIES Friction (degrees) - -_ ..- _... ____ _. - ..- .---- Angle , :,} __ - �y7 -_ - _ _ _.-.._____ - -__-_ Undraped Strength , • _ r . _ ---- -- - _ Shear (Isf) • . _ _ _—__ _.______.. -_. Uncorr. (blowsrloot) , 1 ,e' 1, t i • ... _. _. __._.- _ -__. _____.-___. N =value -,S, • , . . - - Loose to nwdltim nde se SAND to fifty SAND. Very loft 10 madlum stiff, clayey SILT, _ .__,.__._.___..._ _ Medium dense Io dace BAND to pnvetiy BIND, ° N O 106 110 HD. 120 126 �rs._— vm.vc: BOTTOM OP PROBE COMPLBfKO04.244001 __ ._. _.... ._....__.._..... -,-- - _ _ . _ - _ ______ _ _. -- - .r. - ---_ - - - -- NOTR5; 1, The stratification Ones represent the approximate boundaries between sou types; the transition may be gradual. 2, The estimated sal properties we based on analyses performed using the computer program CPTINT (Version 6.0). The method used tor estimating the properties listed above we: &O n* t ltd Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF PROBE CPT -2 October 2001 21.1.09383 001 1 N �r $, +s.► N "'' Friction Angle Durgunogiu & Mitchell Uncorrected N•Value (N60) Robertson a Campanella Undraped Shear Strength cq . ov where: qo t* Measured Cone Bearing Nk Nk =12.5 a v . Total Overburden Stress 3. Log of probe le based an ptesocone probe data provided by Northwest ConeNorthwest Cone Exploration. �, The pore pressure was measured behind the tip of penetrometer. Hydrostatic pore pressure based on the estimated roundwater de th la also shown groundwater depth above (dashed line). SHANNON & WILSON INC. INC Geotechrucal anti Environmental Consultants IG, A -11 Sheet 2 of 2 CPT _g111f;M1C1 21•O9363GPJ 911AN MI MINI ESTIMATED SOIL PROFILE Surface Elevation: Approx. 10.011 W CORRECTED CONE (tons/squaro SEARING, q, 10431) FRICTION R• RATIO (%) PORE PRESSURE u (NI) SHEAR VELOCITY V, (II /sec) —___. __._ -__ ESTIMATED SOIL PROPERTIES Friction An (degrees) Unthawed Shear Strength (1st) Uncvrr. N•vafue (blowsnooi) Predated • NO DATA 7.0 13 o Is I? o Os 40 >_ :...: - - — --- _� .. s� ._,.— ._> _ s : < :�. ... —:.. 1 l°, 1 I I 1r -- ; -- t II ; . ! , ,.. „i art '4'1 ; ;; �' ' S,, : i `' , • — _ ►. • • _ 1 • • • • h - - -- - . _:.. • ' (• '4 A il i so •se Y • j •SAND. , t • Loose lo medium demo sly BAND lo s4ndy 81LT w11I saeMned clayey tones. Medium dense 10 dense SAND with scatbred INN and tones. Loose to medium dente, sMly SAND, SAND, Medium dense 10 dens a--- — �--- ----�+ —.� _- -- � M • t •. • • ; ; 1, • • 1 .% • � . -, --- •t • -- - -_. _ 1.00$e 10 medium dense BAND to say BAND/sondy SILT with acenered tton•e of clayey 11111. ,_. tie - k NOTED; 1. The attstificetlon lines represent the approximate boundaries between sou types; the transition my be gradual. 2. The estimated soil properties are based on analyses performed using the computer program CPTINT (Version 5.0). The method used for estimating the propertiee listed above we: Pasteril1 Mcdtiod Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington — - LOG OF PROBE CPT -3 October 2001 21.1.09383.001 '�""' mss[ • A , NN Friction Angle Ourgunoglu & Mitchell Uncorrected N•Value (N50) Robertson & Campanella Undralned Shear Strength gc . a V where: qo a Measured Cone Dearing Nk Nk a 12.5 3. Lag of probe 15 based on plez000ne probe data provided by Northwest Cone Exploration. a v = Total Overburden Stress 4. The pore pressure was measured behind the tip of the penetrometer. Hydrostatic pore pressure based on the estimated groundwater depth Is also shown above (dashed line). SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geolochnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. A -12 Sheet 1 of 2 CPT t3El$AMC1 21- IWia3.OPJ SNAN VII I ESTIMATED SOIL PROFILE Surface Elevation: Approx, 111.0 h . .. CORRECTED CONE SEARING, (lons/squnro fool) ! ., q, :' FRICTION R, . RATIO (%) PORE PRESSURE u (1st) SHEAR VELOCITY V, (WVsOc) , •,., v, ESTIMATED SOIL PROPERTIES Friction Angle (degrees) ., Undrakted Shear Strength (fel) , Un©ott. N.vafue (blows►foot) '.I, ea 1 70 190 too - -'} .. • . _ - ., s.:_ - . _ :_.__ :- — .- .___ I ..0 { . 1 I �'�� , ,•,• _.._ _., _ _ _ ..._.__ - - - - -- _ '. �• ____._ - - : -: _ _, ; _ . _ _ -- ,_._ -_- �•� •f• : • .:.. _ • , _.._ _____ . . . _ _ - . -- _ -= : . ._. . _ . _... __.- -- ,.. �. f < • .N0 v, • . , ti , ;,.(f• f_r .__ ___...... ..._._- _.. . r .. •- - - - - - -- - - - -- .----- - - - - -- Son a medium stiff, clayey SILT b candy SILT, SonbnedlurtlGSM, clayey b LA, S C __ _._ .:_ .. .. __-_-_-. II Son silty CLAY b CLAY. —.,� . -_w � -..�.. =r= . .z., -ate -_ < = -_:: _:._ -�. _.: s.,,�_ , ==r _..._ _ Bona medium Olin, dlyey SILT. � 101 100 Oi p es N 0 = _ ._ - — b • .-. _� --�_- - 4...i....42„,, I — - - _. _�_. Loose 10 medium dense SAID ii !y BANi�Iundy B:LT. /" ______ r ..T..-- _ .. .. Soft ft, medium stiff CLAY to =NemD. . _ ...._ .. _ MMedium dense (shell SAND fragments?), 106 tN1110 116 INO Its BOTTOM OF PRODS COMPI. TgD 04434001 — ._. w__._. _____ _ __.. _.. __._... -... 4-. NOT,: 1. The sViWlcsUon tines represent the approximate boundaries between sou types; the transition may be gradual. 2. The estimated soil properties are based on analyses performed using the computer program CPTINT (Version 5.9). The method used for estimating the properties listed above are: Ewa* West Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF PROBE CPT -3 October 2001 21.1.09383-001 N N N Friction Angle Ourgunoglu & Mitchell Uncorrected N•Va1ue (N60) Robertson & Campanella Undrained Shear Strength gc • a Y where: tic Measured Cone Dearing Nk Nk m 12.5 a v = Total Overburden Stress 3. Log of probe Is based on pieaocone probe data provided by Northwest Cone Exploration. A. The pore pressure was measured behind the tip of the penetrometer. Hydrostatic pore pressure based on the estimated groundwater depth Is also shown above (dashed line). SHANNON &WILSON, INC, Geolechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. A•12 Sheet 2 of 2 CPT MAINI 4100la9.GP! SNAN_WI INN Essi 11110 § 1 ESTIMATED SOIL PROPILS Surface Elevallow Approx.17.0 fl (NAVD M) F CORRECTED CONE 9EAAING, qt (Ions per square looq , ,•, .: .., ,, PRICTlON At , (RATIO (%) PORE PRESSURE u (1st) , ESTIMAtED SOIL PROPERTIES Friction Angle (degrees) , Undranad Strength Sttoar psry Urlcort. N =value (blovarfool) , ' Pi.dr . No oATA 7.0 120 IS 100 10 1e 0 Ii 05 03. _ _ a " '! —,.-, ... .. 1 1 l f . I'•'; �C .•,.,0.• , ti` ;,►; 901140' 0,`,00, a0 .. '':,' .9• • "' II 1''s' .4•.140 1,011 1111,,,, x;11;, 4011 � ' , ;. , 11.11, ' • . , • : `' I %:: ; ; , ' .— ryr . _ . _. .. • , n r --. _._ , , • ..,; _ -r l• ,?: fi 4; r� •o _ . , ,r +- i,_..; ,� ; . �•' ,' r , •, • ; ., ,1 ••,, .. ,, , , .. . 1 _ 1 t �_.. 1 __..__ .. itlit AUDiaavNht.SAND- �_ - -- Medium dense Medium SAND 10 tOfy SAND with scattered sandy sill tones, Medium dense SAND. �'-- - -___ ___ _... . _ . _ . _ ._ _ _- _ _ . ___ . -__ .___ _ �aLoose b rlledkrrtl dense, sthy SAND to sandy Medium dense SAND b suty SAND with suffered loose sandy sllVcsyey sill layers, Gott lo medium stiff, clayey 811.7. NOTEOi 1, The stratification Ones represent the approximate boundaries between sou type;; the transition may be gradual. 2. The estimated sou properties are based on analyses performed using the computer program CPTINT (Version 5.0). The method used for estimating the properties listed above are: qty Maio d Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF PROBE CPT-4 October 2001 21.1.08383.001 li i 3111 N °' Friction Angle Aurgunoglu fi Mitchell Uncorrected N•Vaiue (N60) Robertson & Campaneua Undrelned Shear Strength qc • ov, where: qc : Measured Cone Searing Nk Nk =12.5 3. Log of probe Is based on ple;acone probe data provided by Northwest ConeNorthwest Cone Exploration. 0 v >: Total overburden Stress 4. The pore pressure was measured behind the tip of the penetrometer. Hydrostatic pore pressure based on the estimated groundwater depth Is also shown above (dashed line). SHANNON & WILSON, INC. o,otechntcal and EnvUa mt ntat Consultants , FIG. A•13 Sheet 1 of 2 (WeiXtk • CPT MA041 litmus GraJ SHAN WILGOI itY9rOt mime OM MIN Ma GSTIMATED SOIL P4OPlL Surface Elevation: Approx. 17.0 11 (NAVO OS) g 11 CORRECTED CONS DEARING, 41 to per equate foot) ■ .„; .4... '4,.., 9.1 FRICTION Al . RATIO (%) FORS PRESSURE u (tat) . ESTIMATED SOIL PROPERTIES Friction (degreee) # Anglo . ,P Undrained Strength f Shoat (1st) .1 liner's', tidealtre (blows/foof) I .. '-■■•/ 91 8 ni v xt, ..,-- tm. __ .. ... 1..... - ° ,- • 1 - . ,. _ . - ‘11•11-..-- .... .. .1 • # ... ..... . ,. ___,-..- _. .._ . I i .. f , S- - lie , • . . . . .. . . ........ . .. . . ... _...... .. .. .... ^r , . -, . 1 . I I_ 02 0 - : , .- . 00 7 100 102-1 100 110 111-- 120 120 PO 49: ..._ ., . • I i .1 • II i■ _ _ .... •. .., . -, _ �OTTOM 01' P8001 -- — INIIMMININIMPO.111011111MM•1111110011M1.1 Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington NOTES; 1. The Shalification Oriel represent the Approximate bounded., between salt types; MO transition may be erectus'. 2. The estimated WI properties are bated On PAINS perforated u; the computer program CPTINT (Version 5.0). The method used to estimating the properties listed above are: Eiondit Mitiblist LOG OF PROBE CPT-4 October 2001 21.1-09383.001 1 to imp it 1 " n a 63 ....■ Friction Angle Ourgynogla & Mitchell Uncorrected N•Value (N00) Robertson & Campanella Undralned Shear Strength asz91 where: qc n Measured Cone Searing Nk Nk n 12.5 o v n Total Overburden stress 3. Log of probe Is based on plecocone probe data provided by Northwest ConeNorthwest Cone Exploration. 4. The pore pressure was measured behind the tip of the penetrometer. Hydrostatic pore pressure based on the estimated groundwater depth Is also shown above (dashed line). SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotochnical and Envaonmental Consultants FIG. A-13 Sheet 2 of 2 CPY_SEISM101_et•093e3.OPJ AN OM Mini NM! ESTIMATED SOIL PROFILE Surface Elevation: Approx. 10.0 h , . • : : CORRECTED , CONE BEARING, q, (Ions/square tool) .., ,,, ,,,1 ,, FRICTION RATIO R, (%) , ; PORE PRESSURE u (tsf) , . SHEAR VELOCITY V• Mee) ! ,,,, ,,, _ _ __ ESTIMATED SOIL PROPERTIES Friction Angle (degrees) , , :,, Undreined Shear Strength (NI) , Uncorr. N•value (blows/fool) , 4. Meddled • NO DATA i e s 7.e 10 11.a 15 s 10 it — s__ —a_ _.a.�_T, �u `._ _ _ . __ _�z�a _- - _ __..__ _ .. .r_ .___ — = - -�, _ i ' . _ __ _ I_._ __ , - -- ______ -- - -. -- I ... --- .._.___ , __._..._._ - - - - -_- I _ , �S `''' ..` ,� �'' : ; „ �: i 1 i .._...— ... ! , i of 1 ■ " ■ 1 - ____ • •• • • . �...� ■ • t , • .„ . j,• , '41 ' • • • ,, s' • '� • , , ,; • .• YL•t, :1 ' •+'._. ).,,,:;,, 04 . 't ' � , . I, �• ' 1 . • .' y ; 1 . t s .. .._ . ',te ; �p_. ,. ... ' �y�' '��'+ , .__.._.._.. {� • .'' I+' Very loose, sensitive or o• rganl _ : , _ __ .___. - - - -- Medium dense to dense, stffy . ' Soft lo stiff , , slily CLAY /clayey Medlwn dense to dense 1 , • Medium dense SAND to silty /` - Loose lo medium dense, silty . :.•. ..,_:tx, �` Medium dense to dense SAND, ! Inlerisyered loose lo medium dense SAND, eANt�/e•ndy e`IL with sea r wv sill some. e 110 0 60 GOOe0 -�,� �.. _._. _ -- -• — — _ e_._ __ _. - .� 130t1 1•3 medium stiff, clayey Medium dense BAND to silt BAND: x-11.8 Interlsyered, loose tamedium dense, silty 8ANDisandv SILT and soft 10 still, clayey SILT, .. _._ - __..._.__ — — . Very soft to stiff, clayey SILT with scattered sandy sodas, NATI.; 1. The stratification lines represent the approximate bowtderies between soil types; the transition may be gradual. 2. The estimated soil properties are based on analyses performed using the computer program CPTINT (Version 5.0). The method used for estimating the properties listed above are: P-100e40 M9ll100 , Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF PROBE CPT -5 October 2001 21.1.09383.001 .4 • .. 46 Friction c ed N•Val Angle Robertson 8 C Mitchell Uncorrected N•Value (Nt3o) Robertson $ Campanella Undrained Shear Strength gc • 0 v where: qc • Measured Cone Bearing Nk Nk as 12.5 a v ,: Total Overburden Stress 3. Log of probe Is belied on plexocone probe data provided by Northwest Cone Exploration. 4. The pore pressure was measured behind the tip of the penetrometer. Hydrostatic pore pressure based on the estimated groundwater depth is also shown above (dashed line). SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geolechnical and Environmental Consultants I FIG. A -14 Sheet 1 of 2 MIMI INN e=l CP'T=St1914101 21 Af3f3.OPJ SitAN \ ESTIMATED SOIL PROFILE Surface Efevahon: Approx.,10.O It CORRECTED CONE (lons/fquate BEARING, loot) tl, FRICTION R RATIO (96) PORE PRESSURE u (Iff) SHEAR VELOCIN V, ((Used) ESTIMATED SOIL PROPERTIES Friction Anglo (degrees) Undrafned Shear Strength (1st) Uncotr. Weak* (blows/loot) 070 e0 0 110 e3 1 p 100 100 110 116 110 IN- __._____ ... _.. ..— _.. _.. -.__ .... �-- .. ti . ,•,• , - _, _ __. ______ _.-___ _ - _- _________ -- _ ____.— ._,F_.___ __ _ ____ —_____ .- ..__- ..__ - -- ._-__. _____.____ '� �•., •. - ..... ._ _._..._ i 1 i _. _...._.._._l_...._._.._. _...-_.._._—_i-_.__._...- 3 • _.,_. ----- ._____,.__ --- -- _:..< .... _ _ 1 awa 11MKIIMMINM Loose b medium dense SAND Medium dense t0 dense I$AND 10 gravely SAND (shoe -.trt1 — 60ftOMOPPA06d COMPLETID 04.244001 • = _ --- ____,_� _ - . -. -. __ -_ ..__.. ___. ,._ ____.,.. _ _w _ _.. . NOTUS; 1. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; the transition may be gradual. 2. The e¢drnated we properties are bawd on analyses performed using the computer program CPTINT (Version 5.0). The method tised for estimating the properties listed above are: Meted Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF PROBE CPT -5 October 2001 21.1.09383.001 "- .- 1 Sr' ra % v Is) 46 Friction Angle Durgunogiu a Mitchell Uncorrected N•Vaiue (N40) Robertson & Campaneua Urxirained Shear Strength qc • a y where: qc = Measured Cone Bearing Nk Nk * 12.5 a v = Total Overburden Stress 3. Log of probe is based an plexocone probe data provided by Northwest Cone exploration. 4. The pore pressure was measured behind the tip of the penetrometer. Hydrostatic pore pressure based on the estimated groundwater depth is also shown above (dashed tine). SHANNON Sr WILSON, INC. Geolechnical and Environmental Constatants FIG, A-14 Sheet 2 of 2 CPT MAINS 41.00349.OPJ SHANsWI NMI Min Mil MIN f ESTIMATED SOIL PROFILE Surface Elevation: Approx.17.0 ft (NAVD 88) g CORRECTED CONE (Ions per square BEARING, qt fool) FRICTION RI RATIO (%) PORE PRESSURE u (Isf) mot. A ESTIMATED SOIL PROPERTIES Friction Angie (degrees) Undrained Shear Strength (fs) Uneorr. N =value (bktwsrfoot) t t .5 135 le o 20 QQ O 25 zs:: — .: -_�__. ... _. T_ �— ., .. _�_ _:_ -� _: �. -_ -- T.._..„.... —�. __._.._..__. = ___ _. :.:: m. �.,. -. r._r . _._.______... .•...:".•: :. �1':. �� 1 _ _ r,,._ • . • •, • • I ., . � • • + o ' i 1' ; . , _ _ I __ _.. _ f .. . ._ . _ ..._._ * • > ik • / �•• Z _+, t" ,4 , �,`,' ' •tit • • i • . •. t;; #1., ��` • � r r' ,: _ �' '' • ; �r i i , _ l. • ; - t . la A � _ .. . =+ 1 Medium dense to dense SAND. I Medium silly BAND. I , :: I I .. ,._.._ ....._ ..... ;"V;� t Loose to medium dense, any BANG Soft to medium still CLAY to silty CLAY, % , , . r, X11 LOON lo medium dense SAND, �.� 350 35 15 400 sQ O 60 0z0 5�.o 60 02.2 = .. ' ,' • �i ��..�.. Loots to medium dense, aiy SAND/sandy HILT with scattered clayey zones. I L.._.- I ' ' ',• Medium dense BAND. • • , " . . Very loon to medium dense, sandy GILT /sly SAND with c4yeysitzoniL Medium dense BAND, Very loose to medium dens, aAy 8AND/sendy SILT with scattered clayey zones. __.._.._._.____.. __ . , soft to stiff, clayey 8141' to sandy GILT. NOTES: 1. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundartea between soil types; the transition may be gradual. 2. The estimated soil properties are based on analyses performed using the computer program CPTINT (Version 5.0). The method used for estimating the properties listed above are: EtoatutX Wad Museum 01 Flight Expanaion Tukwila. Washington LOG OF PROBE CPT -6 October 2001 21.1.08383.001 P q, ii N CA Friction Angle Durgunoglu & Mitchell Uncorrected N•Value (N60) Robertson & Campanella Undralned Shear Strength sz_oyv where: qc ; Measured Cone Dearing Nk Nk :12.5 3. Log of probe is based on piezocone probe data provided by Northwest ConeNorthwest Cone Exploration. u v = Total Overburden Stress e. The pore pressure was measured behind the tip of the penetrometer. Hydrostatic pore pressure based on the estimated groundwater depth is also shown above (dashed line). SHANNON & WILSON, INC. GeotechnIcal and Enviiorunenlal Consultants FIG. A•15 Sheet 1 of 2 ti v.a CPt_MAIU$ Q1,043.1.AOJ IINANWtt.00T t0�dt IMMIC § �t Og ESTIMATED SOIL PROFILE Surface ElaysSon: ApproL 17.0 fl (NAVO 88) COARECTED , CONE (Ions per square , , SEARINO, M lobs) . ,., , , FRICTION RATIO RI ( %) PORE PRESSURE u (fah ESTIMATED SOIL PROPERTIES Edelson Angte (degree!) ,, ,� Unclaimed Shear Strength (t!l) , Uncorr. N•value (blowl/loot) , 70 710 7a-- as so o p N7 100 IOY 0 I pa 1100 110?'!' 11 a 0 116 $ 17.7 tt0 1 25 - - - - .-� - -- — ._-- -...._ .— -- -_:— =.. : _ _ - - _ -- - -. _ _. - - - -,- - -- .. - . _ ,,_es — __.__. _ r _ _.. ._--- -._.._ _ __ _. _ -- ___.___ .___ — _._ z .- ._ -.. _ I i __ .. — _I i I , . ;,'� � r '!'t 4 t -- -- .....----- . _ z - ..... ....- .._... -- .-- - - --- . ° ; •• • - .. __... _..- __._...._......_.. ► s ,. .....__ ...._ . • • _ . .. .. • _ ... ..- ..._- .._....._.._... sr n ) 1 1 r,, • , , 1 .. `. ,, II Bch CLAY b sl y CLAY, I ; . I /oh to medium sort, clayey SILT, _.. -- I',,►;H -I. I i t Medium dense SAND, Medium dense b dense SAND b gravelly SAND (Mee fragments?), - _... ___-- .--- ,- — Medium sell to sIIfl, clayey SILT to sandy SILT, P'... �+_+ Medium dense b dell! BAND b gravelly SAND traarr BOTTOM OP PAO06 ^~ COMPIgTE004.27.2001 — ._ NOTEfi; 1. The stratification ores represent the approximate boundaries between and types; the transition may be erectual. 2. The estimated soli properties are based on analyses performed using the computer program CPTINT (Version 5.0). The method used for estknating the propenies Nett) above are: Maga Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LOG OF PROBE CPT -6 October 2001 21.1.093 83.001 N 4, � N Friction Angle DurQunoglu4Mitchell Uncollected N,Value (N60) Robertson 4 Campanelia Undraped Shear Strength gc . av where: qc - Mua5ured Cone Bearing Nk Nk .r 12.5 a v - Total Overburden Stress 3. 444) of probe is based on pteiocone probe data provided by Northwest ConeNorthwest Cone Exploration. 4. The pore pressure was measured behind the Up of the penetrometer. Hydrostatic pore pressure based on the estimated groundwater depth is also shown above (dashed line). SHANNON &WILSON, INC. OeoteMnical and Envkonmental Consultants FIG. A -15 Sheet 2 of 2 APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING 21- 1- 09383.401 APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 8.1 INTRODUCTION B -1 B.2 VISUAL CLASSIFICATION B -1 B.3 WATER CONTENT DETERMINATION B -1 B.4 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION B -1 B.5 ATTERBERG LIMITS DETERMINATION B -2 B.6 REFERENCE B -2 Figure No. B -1a B -lb B -2 B•3 LIST OF FIGURES Grain Size Distribution, Boring B -1 Grain Size Distribution, Boring B -1 Grain Size Distribution, Boring B -2 and OW -2 Plasticity Chart 21.1.09383.001 .App•s/wp/Ikd B -i 21 -1- 098383.001 APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING 13.1 INTRODUCTION This appendix contains descriptions of the procedures and the results of laboratory tests performed on the soil samples obtained from the field explorations for the design of the Museum of Flight Expansion in Tukwila, Washington. The samples were tested to determine the basic index properties and the engineering characteristics of the site soils. Laboratory testing was performed at the Shannon & Wilson, Inc. laboratory in Seattle, Washington, during May 2001. B.2 VISUAL CLASSIFICATION Soil samples obtained from the explorations were visually classified in the laboratory using a system based on American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation: D 2487, Standard Test Method for Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes, and ASTM Designation: D 2488, Standard Recommended Practice for Description of Soils (Visual - Manual Procedure), This visual classification allows for convenient and consistent comparison of soils from widespread geographic areas. The sample classifications have been incorporated into the soil descriptions on the exploration logs presented in Appendix A. B.3 WATER CONTENT DETERMINATION Moisture content determinations were performed in general accordance with ASTM Designation: D 2216, Standard Method of Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil, Rock, and Soil - Aggregate Mixtures on all of the soil samples. Water contents are plotted on the boring logs presented in Appendix A. 13.4 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Grain -size analyses were completed on selected samples to determine the grain -size distributions. The test were performed in general accordance with ASTM Designation: D 422, 2 1.1.09383 =001. A pp. B /wp/I kd B -1 21 -1 -09383 -001 • Standard Method for Particle -Size Analysis of Soils. Generally, the grain -size analyses consisted of the coarse - grained fraction of the samples only, and were obtained by sieving (sieve analysis). The grain -size distributions were used to assist in classifying soils, to provide correlations with soil properties, and to assist in the liquefaction potential analyses. Results of the grain -size analyses are plotted on the grain -size distribution curves presented in Figures 13-10,13-lb, and B -2. Along with the grain -size distributions is a tabulated summary containing the sample descriptions and the natural water contents. B.5 ATTEREERG LIMITS DETERMINATION The Atterberg Limits were determined on selected samples of fine- grained soil obtained in the borings in general accordance with ASTM Designation: D 4318, Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. The Atterberg Limits include Liquid Limit (LL), Plastic Limit (PL), and Plasticity Index (PI =LL -PL). They are generally used to assist in classification of soils, indicate soil consistency (when compared with natural water content), and provide correlation to soil properties including compressibility and strength. The results of the Atterberg Limits determinations are shown on the boring Togs in Appendix A and shown graphically on the plasticity chart presented as Figure B -3. B.6 REFERENCE American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2001, Annual book of standards, Construction, v. 4.08, Soil and rock (I): D 420 - D 4914: West Conshohocken, Pa. 21.1.09383.001 •App • ti/wp/Ikd B -2 21- 1•O9383 =001 SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS PORING AND SAMPLE N0. SIZE Of MESH OPENING IN INCHES NO. OP MESH OPENINGS PER INCH, U.S. STANDARD GRAM SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I/ PI P4 �r $ COARSE COARSE MEDIUM $ o i 0 1i 4 8 g iK t0 20 0 w , INlMR• �:-�"" �,EM�_ �..�.�� •B••I.- - w i1t�tN _ .a. VI=M,_ M 111RtA1111It1!I�1 d 11Ir5a 11MI 1 8E5 1 _I■Ir__ �M• ��. 00 .aIomoltt■1•9 •••••1l1••1_II_ PM I�1D■111�� '._ i�lt_. I••�� w w! �ji1��,,�� '*'�"• ._. ii_ i"•�� =.91 _ Li_ . PMI;I=MEM i- up.... . t#Rra.. �� - 1 -�1 8 ,, :. R �! � iniimE • E =2: - PI�11� w . - = . 11 ...� - !I9 tw ilia ._ _ _ _.1 E. ... I . . 10 MI ____ 1 a i _.. . . III . 1_`_. �� f: . _...., ....__ i.101 Iai.�Imi f10 p IV M Ella= • OEM r.I"��Ill� l�t`+II.I Dili r rlrlt w �l t_._. ■ti.■� -w ttt�r MINIM t-V -MNWIN M i= �� I:.r... fmrtllr �i" tII M IMai wl�w- N Imol MIrlN t::iir il�I�i NIMI rl�i - --L -I — r= �: IMENe="liiing •mow. ir I r■tlrli r irr�- — ._.lOmmo . - .I._. MIII■A. r■.1.: � r��11 III '��i= IC .. Iti m - _. igig�"1 �' __ i : ri= good �■1.Ir� 1lw i .r w= r��IIIww: ... ow hi, Miommil �1s�til�li Iril» ANN U'1afliil�i I inlii r� arihi I =i 9 �p 4 e tl Q �Q �y is w I9 ID m1 N N ^ 0 W K it ry '' R$ c4 0 R q Il I A 0 Z5 a • B•1, S•2 • B•1, S•5 • H•1, S•7 ♦ B•1, S•9 O B•1, S•11 ORAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLER COARSE COARSE MEDIUM EWES SILT OR CLAY GRAVEL SAND DEPTH 5.0 12.5 17.5 25.0 35.0 u- S.O.S• SYMBOL SP SP•SM SP•SM SM SP•SM SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Dark gray SAND, trace of gilt and gravel Blown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND Black, slightly silty, line to medium SAND Black, silty, tine SAND Black, slightly silty, line to medium SAND FINER 3.7 9.4 9.5 17.5 8.8 NAT. W.C. % 6.4 27.6 31.4 39.5 31.3 PI Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Boring B -1 October 2001 21. 1.09383.001 SHANNON & WILSON. INC. I FIG. B-la Q]EMkQ tni r no.MaM)/ 1 SIEVE ANALYSIS NO. OP MESH OPENING PEN INCH, U.S. StANtAND SItt OP MESH OPENING IN INCHES WWWW HYDROMETER ANALYSIS WINN SIZE IN MILLIMEUENS arab Pi e Pr e4 : a, COARSE ° MEDIUM �r d g S 8 S to 20 !••+11•1111.111l11Mil — 1111 l NNIIMI IMMIsrl®•r4Mil inns - ---^ Ilr 1•ts ®Bete ■sae�ewe� nemomm1l1. pe ��eee C'ia ri ��L�lelell FMB INV8 ILI° MEN •SPIr 1. • • A� _ _ ® _ 11E=MIINE (� .�.I■.l a - — t!!!1! !!■� miN0 1•MIt�1 ---ice ..�[...I�...,_ -r 70 . �A _ a a !1 PApolo Pons MI hi PM mg esteems M �� rr•M�ii reer>,Q� ,A�� .� 40 E—s Ni,-__—_ ' a ._ �w 0 . _ 11_ .. ... -_ ...._- .. ...— .. .._ _.- _._..... . _. �._ _ _= _.._.__ 40 ___ ,..�= it ........ M _. - - g imi � � . . . so 00 M=mi howl .. �� - wliw r..i _ ttiil�i _ =Md. Mai I r. Pm IN ' mod - �: ® mg .. Nwiw n _ - Irolod ad Mil lid or Nod - ii.ftiiiij .. `Mllem - ohs MINI -__ ._- .__ lir�w)Ir�iEl tr ii hr Mi �ilile>•i -■.■ N1 �ri1w hd _ loOmmoll hood hoodlll�hiloodlwi NOM hid imell rl�.ire.ilrww MI awl dill WM hi .. ill hod _ . 11 Ma ifi f�ii iir�li NUM 11111 Erl Pi lI■rio■i 1.•�e_lwiiw 1.w 1w �rlww r� MO °ih■1 id lid MIN 1i■�■ ili�w ._._ irr leiri ilr ii.w w rrrS tl p +o R r d i.iloomm i .._._ . �� iWil=d lir � MrMw_ 1irr� irwiMill wilkNI Mod - Ali=`- - lie.li i 11. 11� � �ilh =WNI -dill trlltl�irrnitiill A I� lw 14111 - M1iriri�idime _ 1wlinirl N tillltllit!�tii11 N hill rr .' �p y �1 g '�{ g $. fl �R t n r W. a t4 It n ry °• 5 8 3 5 �d Q 1 1 Q I GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COMMIES COARSE COARSE MEDIUM �r FINES; SILT OR CLAY GRAVEL SAND PORING AND SAMPLE NO. DEPTH U.S C.S. peep SYMBOL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FINES 4 NAT. W.C. % PL % PI • 0.1,S•13 ■ 0•1, 9•15 • 84, S•17 • 8.1, S•28 45.0 55.0 65.0 115.0 SM SM SP-SM SP•SM Slack, silty, lino SAND; scattered organics Black, silty, lino SAND Dark gray, slightly silly, line SAND Gray, slightly silty SAND 16.1 34.0 10.7 6.1 34.9 30.1 29.6 23.0 Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Boring B -1 October 2001 21.1.09383.001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. OootochnliN and sarhonnontol CCnsuItsnli FIG. B -1 b 1 SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS NO. OF MESH °PENlf>dS pep INCH, U.S. STANDAgti °riAIN Slit IN MILLIMETEr19 q/P1 hi t. ~ ?J a q_ ?/ .� 0 • COARSE MEDIUM o d g b ti 0 10 0o MOM lUral trf�,iflll� IRMI NI !i .. 1 .r�� ;NV: SUN �®lflM MN i�l�� ®.� I ��w0 --— ��ElsltII l�� felil �� NOMINEES r�1 � luxa� * . .• Aamw�l ■■trtt� �_ j littltltf! � i NI �t1! !It!1!!! � - -- = 111111.4E (� — �. l�S. !! fE�J fA f1�1!■�lllleE 01=asumpai ®� 1 . �.•f A a. m�,fR �■ , B 1 -- ti_ f• ,, - m. Ct~ - E_ i 1 _ I E ElEing lik 111 i 1 -- 1 .1 11:1E i . .....orintaNWR 40 a �o To 00 90 m Eigiiii 31■16=1■Obli 2 SENJ■lt --� i...�■� - Ems - . _ _ MI _ NW ____■i �■� i t0 10 p . ` 111 wrt ilr il�il Eilli.wirog ww� l- W — `t ill Pei .. WNW lt�i r iii l�i�rirr.rrw..i' �frw r�ilwii tlim _ ft�ii.� i�i�Ii1� .. `r■� '�'11111M=11111111tiling —1 rapt ----- r- -� - . .. rl. tri...l r..r r�a.rt.ilrtlrli i...l► �w..r ii 1 wiatft l Wool � _fr`: _iff�i IIM� -� i � =ow re _-. ��i =r w _. =i witl® `'` = ffifi iiti risewwnii7rrrMillirEira iii w1111�Ih wirll■iiisilliri liirf� mnillIifiiii�i �.i0MINI Mill ■11111l11=E ell W S r'1 N ,. Q 'o f 17 N el t4 1 c'1 N ° A H 3 H R $ a li A t $10 Seg GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES COARSE COARSE MEDIUM FINES; SILT DR CLAY GRAVEL SAND IMMO INN SORINO AND SAMPLE NO. DEPTH u.6 C.5. (1•91) SYMBOL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION PINES % NAT. W.C. PL P1 % • B•2, 8.4 • 8.2, 8.6 • B•2, S -10 • 8 -2, 8.12 O B•2, 8.13 O Ow•2, S.1 10.0 20.0 40.0 50.0 55.0 2.5 SM SP SM SM ML SP Brown, silty, fine SAND Black, line to medium SAND, trace of sill Black, silty, line SAND Black, silty, line SAND Dark gray, line sandy SILT Dark brown, slightly gravelly SAND, trace of silt 32.6 2.4 42.0 18.5 76.8 3.5 38.4 31.5 36.0 30.4 31.0 4.0 Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Boring B -1 and OW -2 October 2001 21- 1.09383.001 ua SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I O otechnIcel and Environmental Coneullenle FIG. B -2 3 .1 .... fries 1 1 15 i =mg �i ` G 1 CL: Low plasticity Inorganic 1 11 clays; sandy and silty clays CH: High plasticity Inorganic clays ML or OW Inorganic and organic silts and clayey sills of low plasticity O MH or OH: Inorganic and organic slits and cioyoy silts of high plasticity 2 CL•MLt Silty clays and cioyoy slits • 40 00 40 LIQUID LIMIT U. ( %) OORINO AND SAMPLE NO. DEPTH U.6 C.6. (fe41) SYMBOL SOIL CLASSIFICATION • 134, 0.21 • R•2, S47 50.0 ML 75.0 ML Gray, clayey SILT Dark gray, clayey SILT LI. PL PI NAT. % % % W.C. % 39 27 12 45.1 39 20 11 46.6 PASS. 4200. % Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington PLASTICITY CHART October 2001 21.1.09383 -001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I Ueotechnlcal end Environmental Coneultenle FIG. 8 -3 APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 21- 1- 09383 -001 I# APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Page C,1 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL C -1 C.2 REFERENCE C.2 Figure No. C -1 C -2 C -3 C-4 C -5 C -6 C -7 C-8 C -9 C -10 C -11 C -12 C -13 C -14 C -15 C -16 Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction 21. 1.09383.001.8 1 •AC, DOC/WP /LKD LIST OF FIGURES Analyses, Analyses, Analyses, Analyses, Analyses, Analyses, Analyses, Analyses, Analyses, Analyses, Analyses, Analyses, Analyses, Analyses, Analyses, Analyses, Design Earthquake, Boring B -1 Nisqually Earthquake, Boring B -1 Design Earthquake, Boring B -2 Nisqually Earthquake, Boring B -2 Design Earthquake, CPT Probe CPT -1 Nisqually Earthquake, CPT Probe CPT —1 Design Earthquake, CPT Probe CPT -2 Nisqually Earthquake, CPT Probe CPT -2 Design Earthquake, CPT Probe CPT -3 Nisqually Earthquake, CPT Probe CPT -3 Design Earthquake, CPT Probe CPT -4 Nisqually Earthquake, CPT Probe CPT -4 Design Earthquake, CPT Probe CPT -5 Nisqually Earthquake, CPT Probe CPT -5 Design Earthquake, CPT Probe CPT -6 Nisqually Earthquake, CPT Probe CPT -6 C -i 21 -1 -09383 -001 f 14 • APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL C.1 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Liquefaction potential from the boring data was estimated by utilizing the SPT N- values for samples obtained in the borings and their estimated fines content. Based on Seed's simplified empirical procedure and in accordance with NCEER technical report NCEER - 97.0022 (Youd and Idriss, 1997), the factor of safety against liquefaction was determined for each SPT. Liquefaction potential was also estimated from the penetration resistance data obtained in conjunction with CPTs. The liquefaction potential was also evaluated in accordance with NCEER technical report NCEER -97 -0022 (Youd and Idriss, 1997). Factors of safety were calculated for ground motions consistent with the recommended design ground motions (i.e., earthquake magnitude of 7.5 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.26g). In addition factors of safety were calculated for the February 28, 2001 Nisqually Earthquake. For this earthquake, a magnitude 6.8 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.198 were used. A peak ground acceleration of 0.19g was recorded at the BOE ground motion recording station located approximately 4,000 feet north- northwest of the Museum of Flight with likely similar subsurface conditions, The calculated factors of safety for each boring and CPT for both the design and Nisqually earthquakes are plotted on Figures C -1 through C -16. 21 .1.09383•W 1.R 1.AC.DOC/WP /LKD C -1 21-1- 09383 -001 C.2 REFERENCE RENCL' Youd,, T, and Idriss, LM,, 1997, Proceeding of the NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, NCEER technical report NCEER -97 -0022, 21.1 •Q9383.Q01.R 1.AC.DOC/WP /LKD 21 -1 -09383 -001 C -2 10/8/01.21.1.09393 Museum of Flight 9.1.x1s•authot SUBSURFACE PROFILE (Based on Boring B -1) Loose to medium dense, slightly silty to silty, fine SAND Very soft to soft, clayey SILT Medium dense to very dense SAND to silty SAND FACTOR•OF•SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) 0.0 01 02 03 01 10 20 3d 10 !0 80 TO 10 !0 100 110 tm NOTES: os oe o7 oe og to t.t 1.2 13 1.1 15 • S • i S i t o • • a • • • i • • S i • • • • • • • • x s z • • • • s • • • • • . s a s • • • • s • •sss • AAAA zass•••izs•. • aa_ats • • • • • • s • z • t • • s • • z of • z • d • • • i a•••• s• s s s s s s s s• s s•••• t• t• t t t S t t• a, t t t[ t, . . • , . , • a.SSS ;,t t t t t[• t t• t t •t , t, t , s • , , • • ,•,t,,,tt,tt „ t! • S46 s • • s s • •tS • • • A AAA ttt_,ttt,t••t•tt X t , • , , , •,a • • , .. ! ! ! t ! ! ■ t , t t t ! t ! t , at,,,,,. !,•,,.,,,1,,,,,,R,,, 1. Reference: Youd, T.L. and idriss, I,M., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1990 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 2. The analysis was performed for an earthquake with a magnitude of 7,5 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.25g. 3. The liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on its density and fines content. The fines content was estimated based on selected grain -size analyses and engineering judgement. =t= 4,ttl,,, ! =t • • • • • Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES DESIGN EARTHQUAKE BORING B•1 October 2001 21- 1.09383.001 F d voeta INC, ieotmnical and Consultants FIG. C -1 • 1 0 1941 t� 108/01.21.1 -09383 MOF 8.1 Nisqually,xls•authot SUBSURFACE PROFILE FACTOR-OF-SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) (Based on Boring B -1) Loose to medium dense, slightly silty to silty, tine SAND Very soft to salt, clayey SILT Medium dense to very dense SAND to silty SAND 1. 00 01 02 03 0.4 OS 06 01 09 o. - - to 20 20 40 SO 00 20 00 00 100 uo 110 100 NOTES I At 1 0.9 1.0 1.1 h.2 1.3 1.4 15 i • • • • • • • • • • • 0 6 ••• _••.••X • • • • p • • • •,•,,.•• • . . • • • q • • • • It • • • • • • ••• • • Reference: Youd, T.L. and Idriss, t.M., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1998 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 2. The analysis was performed for the February 28, 2001 Nisqually Earthquake (magnitude 8.8 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.199). 3, The liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on its density and Tines content. The fines content was estimated based on selected grain•size analyses and engineering Judgement. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES NISQUALLY EARTHQUAKE BORING B -1 October 2001 21-1-09383-001 SHANNON EBirWmeSaOs u }NC. FIG. C -2 10/8/01.21.1.09383 Museum of Flight B.2.xls•author SUBSURFACE PROFILE (Based on Boring B -2) Very Loose to dense, silty, fine SAND to fine to medium SAND Very soft, clayey SILT Very loose to dense, silty SAND 1. FACTOR-OF-SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 0 ' 10 20 30 40 - 60 70 80 00 - 100 - I aa ...t... =.. • • • i Arts / . . . r . . . r . . . t . . . 1 SO ..... s s s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s . s s . a . . s • • • ... -... q as s d. s. d. s. s+ Arts,_.. ''.4,,. ...1:.. . • . V • S S t,. d • • Reference: Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I,M„ 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, 2. The analysis was performed for an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.5 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.26g. 3. The liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on its density and fines content. The fines content was estimated based on selected grain•size analyses and engineering judgement. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES DESIGN EARTHQUAKE BORING B -2 October 2001 21 -1- 09383.001 (eote- iccaal °NEnnwonmenttaa�lCConnsultaants FIG. C -3 IR f0 to 10/8101•21.1.09383 MOF 8.2 Nisauatly.xts•authoa SUBSURFACE PROFILE (Based on Boring B -2) Very Loose to dense, silty, fine SAND to fine to medium SAND Very soft, clayey SILT Very loose to dense, silty SAND 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 80 100 110 NOTES: FACTOR-OF-SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 a s s 2 2 2 x 2 2 2 a . s 1 s s s 1 2 2 / 4 4 4 J a s a J a a s 1 s s s 221.22. aaa,aaa,aaa:,saa 1 2 2 s 4 1 4 a a s a. s r r a a s.. s s r. s s s..... a, x s . 2 t x r a . x x r . x x S i t s : I • sssaasss • so 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 X i s / * 5 : 0 : . . 2 X 2 f a t s x s r r r• x rrr It 2 ter x x x 4 x x 20 • • • s r . r, r . . r x . s • • 1. Reference: Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I,M., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 2. The analysis was performed for the February 28, 2001 Nisqually Earthquake (magnitude 6.6 and a peak ground at.ceieration of 0.199). 3. The liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on Its density and fines content. The fines content was estimated based on selected grain•size analyses and engineering judgement. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES NISQUALLY EARTHQUAKE BORING B -2 October 2001 ZE - 09383.001 (Te. "tecii►itcal�dEnv wtVinleenttaalCConnsu }tans' I FIG. C-4 t I0/9!01tp11 bq_500.xis•authur SUBSURFACE PROFILE (Based on Probe CPT -1) Soft to m. stiff, clayey SILT /silty CLAY Medium dense to dense SAND to silty SAND Soft to medium stiff CLAY to silly CLAY /clayey SILT M. Dense to dense SAND to gravelly SAND 0 10 20 FACTOR -OF- SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 30 W V t40 N Z I50 a0: 0 70 NO. 80 00 100 • •• • L • •• • G. •1•;•• ••S.•. r= :• •• • • • flow, • • • • ••s• t •-,•�• ••. •, • "40 • to • • • • • A. •• ;4,•••i~ • •: •S ;• • • • •• �• •• ill; •• • • .• •• .... fell ,• • • 10., • • fell • r••$ • y Is• • • ., • • • • • • . • • •�• • • %• s _ _ . . t/ . . s i : 22 s : . . • : VS... - • 1. Reference: Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I,M., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1898 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 2. The analysis was performed for an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.5 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.26g. 3. The liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on its grain size, density, and fines content. Interpretations of soil type, density, and fines content were estimated from empirical relationships to CPT tests. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES DESIGN EARTHQUAKE CPT PROBE CPT -1 _October 2001 21-1-09383.001 g ceot ui � dIEBv onme taIOC nsu}tant FIG. C -5 ,.s 14 tII 10!9/01 •tpi t_Oq_Nisqually.xls•autha SUBSURFACE PROFILE (Based on Probe CPT -1) Soft to m. stiff, clayey SILT /silty CLAY Medium dense to dense SAND to silty SAND Soft to medium Miff CLAY to silty CLAY /cloyoy SILT M, Dense to dense SAND to gravelly SAND FACTOR -OF- SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 1. Reference: Youd, T,L. and Idriss, i.M., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils; Summary Report from the 1990 NCE R and 1998 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on /;valuation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 2. The analysis was performed for the February 28, 2001 Nisqually Earthquake (magnitude 6.8 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.199), 3. The Liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on its grain size. density. and fines content. Interpretations of soil type, density, and fines content were estimated from empirical relationships to CPT tests. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES NISQUALLY EARTHQUAKE CPT PROBE CPT -1 October 2001 21- 1- 09383.001 0"e" ieclini alato468uW1 tStu�NniC' I FIG. C -6 u§ ti P r t4 iI tai r 10/8/01 •cDI2 lia_500.xls•author SUBSURFACE PROFILE (Based on Probe CPT -2) Med. dense to dense SAND to silty SAND /SILT Medium dense to dense SAND Intei1 yered SAND, sandy SILT /silty SAND !silty CLAY Loose to medium dense SAND to silty SAND Very soft to medium stiff slily CLAY /cloyoy SILT M. Dense to dense SAND to gravelly SAND 0 10 20 30 W 40 N O Z I 70 80 00 100 110 FACTOR -OF- SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 1. Reference: Youd, T,L. and Idrtss, I,M., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 2. The analysis was performed for an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.5 and a peak ground acceleration of 0,26g. 3. The liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on its grain size, density, and fines content. Interpretations of soil type, density, and fines content were estimated from empirical relationships to CPT tests. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES DESIGN EARTHQUAKE CPT PROBE CPT -2 October 2001 21-1-09383-001 t ech lcNal� dIEnwoame ttaiiCConsul antts' FIG. C -7 gts a 10- 141 I. r 10/ 81 01- cpt2_Iiq„NisquaIIy.xis•author SUBSURFACE PROFILE (Based on Probe CPT -2) Med. dense to dense SAND to silty SAND /SILT Medium dense to dense SAND Interlayered SAND, sandy SILT /silty SAND 6 silty CLAY Loose to medium dense SAND to silty SAND Very soft to medium stiff silty CLAY /clayey SILT M. Dense to dense SAND to gravelly SAND FACTOR -OF- SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20 - 30 40 - 50 80 70 80 00 100 110 BOIL a a . _ a a 4 2 2 •• •• d a a a a a a s • s a •.�.�•••• •• • •• • • • • ••' ea N PI° to lop • • • • •• • a.aaa- • • •4 tee• •• • • •• • •• • • • •= .• •. • aaa aaa..aaaaaa • ••• • ..i•• • •• • •____ •• ••• • • ••• • • • 48• • • •. • F i 1. Reforenco: Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCSSR and 1998 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 2. The analysis was performed for the February 28, 2001 Nisqually Earthquake (magnitude 6.8 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.19g). 3. The liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on its grain size, density, and fines content. Interpretations of soil type, density, and fines content were estimated from empirical relationships to CPT tests. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES NISQUALLY EARTHQUAKE CPT PROBE CPT -2 October 2001 21 -1. 09363.001 e•" tecitmcalOand�nn Wme a oniull ► . FIG. C'S 10/8/0 1 -cpt3 11q_500.xis•suthor SUBSURFACE PROFILE (Based on Probe CPT -3) Loose to med. dense silty SAND/ sandy SILT Loose to dense SAND to silty SAND /sandy SILT Sort to medium stiff CLAY to silty CLAY /cloyoy SILT M. Dense to dense SAND to gravelly SAND 10 20 30 40 50 70 80 90 100 110 NOTES: FACTOR -OF- SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 $06 f • •: os. •e 6 : . 00.0 •, • • •• ••� • 011o • • •r,,, , • • r, • • r •• =8 0: •li ,•• •••t • • .. • • 0 •• • • 0•0•4115 •• IP • •r • if is •• • ••• • • ••• • • • • Odd •_100 • • • • • ,' I. • i. • •!s ~• iii' i •+ • ;2121 «!>•• =s • • :1221.,,.. ,1111. .2212_...•,.,. • • M•; • if XV • • 01• •• • •$ • 1, Reference: Youd, T.L. and idriss, I.M„ 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 2. The analysis was performed for an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.5 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.26g. 3. The liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on its grain size, density, and fines content. Interpretations of soil type, density, and fines content were estimated from empirical relationships to CPT tests. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES DESIGN EARTHQUAKE CPT PROBE CPT -3 October 2001 21-1-09383-001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC, Geote nical and Environmental Consultants FIG. C -9 C)§ r r r 1* 10/801•ept3 Uq Nisqualty.xls•author SUBSURFACE PROFILE (Based on Probe CPT -3) Loose to med. dense silty SAND/ sandy SILT Loose to dense SAND to silty SAND /sandy SILT Soft to medium stiff CLAY to silty CLAY /clayey SILT M, Dense to dense SAND to gravelly SAND W 0 10 20 30 FACTOR -OF- SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 40 - 80 Z 80 70 80 90 100 110 NOM 4114.60 • ; • � � �••i • •• • • •• •is •• , • •�• • :• • • • •:0 •• • • • • • • -.•• • • •:4• •• • ;• • • • • • b _ •. •, ••;•••: • • • • , • • S • • • �' • • • • ti • • • ' • 1• •• • • • • } • •tr ••P • • g• • t • 55 • •• • • we • • • •• • • • ' • 1, Reference: YQUd, T,L. and Idriss, I.M., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 2. The analysis was performed for the February 28, 2001 Nisqually Earthquake (magnitude 6.8 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.190). 3. The liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on its grain size, density, and fines content. Interpretations of soil type, density, and fines content were estimated from empirical relationships to CPT tests. • • • • *•• ;8 • • Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES NISQUALLY EARTHQUAKE CPT PROBE CPT -3 October 2001 21.1. 00383.001 SHANNON WILSON, INC. FIG. C -10 eoie i l and I 1 M 1018101.epI4 lia_S00.xls•author SUBSURFACE PROFILE (Based on Probe CPT -4) Loose to dense SAND to silty SAND/ sandy SILT Soft to medium stiff CLAY to slay CLAY /clayey SILT M. Dense to dense SAND to gravelly SAND V to 0 10 FACTOR -OF- SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 20 - 30 - 40 70 eo 00 100 - 110 NOTES;, SW• 14 •.•;1. .,._.l •1 •• J• es SIX et If P • ••• • orw• ,• • •I %% • • • A.~ .001; • • 0 is , • i/ • . • , • . ? •••ijs• • • • • . %,•. ;• •,i•• 1 •; • ;•• • ` 6•,• • • • • t• , • • • • •% i s s s s : i s: s • • • • tttttt ttt 2X1 IS.S112.22 Y i "SS Y,YY!IYYY I Y•• s s: s. s r. : s s s s 1, Reference. Youd,T.L. and ldriss, I.M., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1990 NCEER and 1990 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 2. The analysis was performed for an earthquake with a magnitude of 7,5 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.209. 3. The liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on its grain size, density, and fines content. Interpretations of soil type, density, and fines content were estimated from empirical relationships to CPT tests. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES DESIGN EARTHQUAKE CPT PROBE CPT-4 October 2001 21 -1- 09383.001 IS•Ft Ni N and En ILSCOLIIN FIG. C -11 ig 10/8/01 -cp14 Iiq_Nlsqually.xls•aulhor SUBSURFACE PROFILE (Based on Probe CPT -4) Loose to dense SAND to silty SAND/ sandy SILT Soft to medium stiff CLAY to silty CLAY /clayey SILT M. Dense to dense SAND to gravelly SAND FACTOR -OF- SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0- 10 20 30 - W 40 ......... a 14 70 80 90 100 110 NOTES: • .% f•; . •• • •, • • • ,• r , • •. 00 • 11 •▪ • ••• O• 0:e :.%set...10:_ • '•• fp- r. ..... ..•. 'AP � • _ ..• .;.•• • • •• : •: • • 0. • :• • •• • :• •• • • • : • $ • • • • • • �♦ • ,• ;` •' • , f• •Il • •: SOD • : • • • .,.. 1, ..•...,. < < <.•..,•.<•..,,..•. • • : �• N • • •• • • • • •• • 1111.1. t II It • .•..• • • ............. • • • •4•'• 4 • •• • •• 1, Reference: Youd,T,L, and Idriss, I,M., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 2. The analysis was performed for the February 28, 2001 Nisqually Earthquake (magnitude 6.8 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.19g). 3. The Liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on its grain size, density, and fines content. Interpretations of soil type, density, and fines content were estimated from empirical relationships to CPT tests. 0 *. • Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES NISQUALLY EARTHQUAKE CPT PROBE CPT-4 October 2001 21-1-09383-001 �Si ANNION 8, WILSON, INC. eo and Environmental Consultants FIG. C -12 r r r 111 I I k =� II I Ia 10/6/01. ptS_Hq_500.xts•authof SUBSURFACE PROFILE (Based on Probe CPT -5) Soft to m. stiff, clayey SILT /silty CLAY Medium dense to dense SAND to silty SAND /sandy SILT Interloyered SAND, SILT, and CLAY Med, dense SAND to silty SAND Very soft to stiff, silly CLAY /clayey SILT M. Dense to dense SAND to gravelly SAND FACTOR-OF-SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0 10 20 30 40 80 00 70 80 80 100 MEE 2.0 • • • Oadip I , • • •• • • 22..2222222 •• • taxa • . 2 2 . . t 22. t 21=22 • • s. • • ; • • •:•% ; .80 • • , • • :s* •1•'• • • .I1# • • S• 4••• • • WIFOC 2,;2� 222.222 ti :• r x'22, • S - : 2 t 2,2 . 2 2 2 2 • • ••• ♦ • : • • N • • i t 2 s 222 2 5 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 tar"! a Z2 - :222212.222 t e s t . , 2 t 2 . t a f t i t tt 2 2 t: 2 r r - S t f = i 7 i f t T t 2 t t 2 ;• t•I t t t t ••t t t_ t 2 t 2 VT tt t t t t t t 221222 a l o f t tttttt 2ttTttt55552 t t . t t t t - t t = • 1. Reference: Youd, T.L, and Idriss, I.M., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1988 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 2, The analysis was performed for an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.5 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.26g. 3. The liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on its grain size, density, and fines content. Interpretations of soil type, density, and fines content were estimated from empirical relationships to CPT tests. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES DESIGN EARTHQUAKE CPT PROBE CPT -5 October 2001 n 21.1- 09333.001 eaetotcaand En' at sutt FIG. C -13 r r r 10/8/01.cpt5 lia_Nisqually.xls•aulhor SUBSURFACE PROFILE (Based on Probe CPT -5) Soft to m. stiff, clayey SILT /silty CLAY Medium dense to dense SAND to silty SAND /sandy SILT Interlayered SAND, SILT, and CLAY Mod, donso SAND to silty SAND Vary soft to stiff, silty CLAY /clayoy SILT M. Donee to dense SAND to gravelly SAND 0 10 20 30 W 40 N Z 3 60 m 60 FACTOR•OF- SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 70 60 90 100 2.0 1, Reference: Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I,M., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 2. The analysis was performed for the February 28, 2001 Nisqually Earthquake (magnitude 6.8 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.19g). 3. The liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on its grain size, density, and fines content. Interpretations of soil type, density, and fines content were estimated from empirical relationships to CPT tests. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES NISQUALLY EARTHQUAKE CPT PROBE CPT -5 October 2001 21 -1 -09383 -001 SeoH�iechnccaalaandlEnvirwme ttalCConsulanttss' FIG. C -14 r r 10/8/01.ept8_11q_500.x1s•authOr SUBSURFACE PROFILE (Based on Probe CPT -6) Loose to dense SAND to silty SAND /sandy SILT Soft to med. stiff CLAY - silty CLAY Very loose to medium dense SAND to silty SAND/sandy SILT Very loose to medium dense silty SAND/sandy SILT to clayey SILT Soft CLAY to silty CLAY M, Dense to dense SAND to gravelly SAND M. Stiff to stiff clayey SILT M. Dense to dense gravelly SAND 0 FACTOR -OF- SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 10 - - • • •� +- 20 30 40 70 100 110 - 120 Ii •• , •- r • .0•i • • • 1,•• : •• ` • ♦• i . .. • • • • :•+ 5 . : • • • • it • : • • • .• is , • • , • . • .••. • • • T sr" T 2322i 2322 =2223= %11 •: �' 04, • • V TT" 0.0 eipeter • I. AJ • if 2222222222222222 ••%• • `• Ts s __,....'Tyr .............. • •• :• • • • •: M : „ t.,•i,<..�a r d • •• 1. Reference: Youd, T,L. and 'dries, I,M„ 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1990 NCEER and 1990 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 2, The analysis was performed for an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.5 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.26g. 3. The liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on its grain size, density, and fines Content. Interpretations of soil type, density, and fines content were estimated from empirical relationships to CPT tests. • TT • w Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington L IQUEFACTION ANALYSES DESIGN EARTHQUAKE CPT PROBE CPT -6 October 2001 21 -1- 09383.001 $(1*p�INON &.WILSON, INC. Geate-ctiriical and Environmental Consultants FIG. C -15 rs rtl 1048!0 i.cpl8_liq_Nisqually.xls- author SUBSURFACE PROFILE (Based on Probe CPT -6) Loose to dense SAND to silty SAND /sandy SILT Soft to med. stiff CLAY • silty CLAY Very loose to medium dense SAND to silty SAND /sandy SILT Very loose to medium dense silty SAND /sandy SILT to clayey SILT Soft CLAY to silty CLAY M. Donee to dense SAND to gravelly SAND M. sun to stiff clayey SILT M. Dense to dense gravelly SAND 0 10 20 30 40 80 70 80 90 100 110 120 4i E FACTOR•OF- SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION (FS) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 I • • %;i► :•� j1 • ••• • • #111 It a- z ... 04•4t. ♦ - ': -0 <..f..•..0... "• •• ••• ' • s_• • •• • •• • • •11'• • i • ;,, •r•• • • • •• • • • • • • • • I. r • . • • • ! •••�•••_• • • • • • •• %•w• j=i • • • 4 II•W • • r. • • • • 1. Reference: Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I,M., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/ NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 2. The analysis was performed for the February 28, 2001 Nisqually Earthquake (magnitude 6.8 and a peak ground acceleration of 0.19g). 3. The liquefaction resistance of a soil is dependent on its grain size, density, and fines content. Interpretations of soil type, density, and fines content were estimated from empirical relationships to CPT tests. • • ANPWPWIIMMIMMINIMPOINW •• • • •• h S•s•N • • m....4., ,., Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES NISQUALLY EARTHQUAKE CPT PROBE CPT -6 October 2001 21- 1.09383.001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Ge• a nical and Environmental Consultants FIG. C -16 J� APPENDIX D HEAVY FALLING WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER (HWD) TEST RESULTS AF: &K?:k�dG2M1.tl23nshA GfXNkis r!'s0k:'Yxe;.dh ; i:- ...f`.::M -Y.Y: 4�,�= '.rVEC:G :'a.r+[{.t�Jj. ''oy. • 21 -1 -09383 -001 ► 1 Museum of Flight Expansion Project Non- Destructive Strength Testing Prepared by: Pavement Consultants Inc. 7530 Roosevelt Way N,E ttle; WA 98115.4221 _____ ____ ' (Jerome Lyons, engineer) „ (Jay Sharma, P.E.) 21)01 (Today's Date) Prepared for: Shannon & Wilson Inc, 400 North 34th Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98103 INTRODUCTION As a part of the ongoing expansion of the Museum of Flight, located at Boeing Field in Seattle, a site is under consideration for location of an additional building Just across the street, on the northwest corner of South 94th Place and East Marginal Way (general location shown at right). Currently this site is occupied by Boeing Building #9-04 and the adjoining parking lot. An early objective of the project is to evaluate the support capability of the subgrade material currently in place. Because the parking lot covers roughly three - quarters of the site, nondestructive testing can be used to aid in the determination of the strength of this subgrade material in the paved areas. WORK SCOPE Pavement Consultants Inc. has been employed by Shannon & Wilson Inc. to provide an analysis of the subgrade bearing strength of the paved area of the project site. This Includes performance of the necessary non - destructive strength testing at the site and provision of a summary report complete with test results and analysis. It should be noted that the testing was limited to areas accessible to the testing equipment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS NONDESTRUCTIVE DEFLECTION TESTING A Dynatest Model 8081 Heavy Falling Weight Deflectometer (HWD, shown at right) was used to conduct the nondestructive deflection testing on the parking lot pavement. Although the HWD is used to determine strength characteristics of all pavement layers in a cross - section, the relevant results of this testing process are those concerning the subgrade, The HWD is the state -of -the -art in nondestructive deflection testing equipment. It is an impulse - loading device that was developed to apply a load to the pavement surface, and to measure pavement response to this applied load. The equipment operates by lifting a series of weights to a pre - determined height and then dropping the weights. The "falling weights" strike a Heavy Falling Weight Deflectometer. V r., i specially designed plate, imparting an impulse force to the pavement. The load magnitude and characteristics can be varied by changing the drop height, the number of weights, or the load plate size. The load plate used at the project site was 12 inches in diameter. Seven velocity transducers were used to measure pavement response to the applied load. These seven transducers are mounted on a bar and automatically lowered to the pavement surface along with . the load plate. The seven measured deflections, and their distance from the applied load, define a deflection basin that is used to estimate pavement and subgrade layer material properties. A computer located in the tow vehicle controls the entire operation and records the data measured by the load pressure cell and the velocity transducers. The nondestructive deflection testing was conducted on 18 May 2001. The pavement was tested at load levels ranging from 14,000 to 25,000 pounds force. Test points were taken across the pavement in a grid pattern of roughly 50 -foot intervals. A small portion of the parking lot was covered by automobiles and miscellaneous piles of construction materials and was not accessible for testing. Therefore, some areas have an uneven concentration of test points. An exact layout of the test points is shown in Figure 1 at the end of this report. MATERIAL PROPERTY EVALUATION The strength of each pavement layer (surface, base, and subgrade) was estimated using the deflection data collected with the HWD. The pavement layer strengths, in terms of dynamic elastic modulus, were estimated by inputting the field- measured HWD deflection basin and pavement layer thicknesses into the ELMOD computer program, This program "backcalculates ", or estimates, the elastic modulus of each pavement layer by matching the program - predicted deflection basin to the field- measured deflection basin. Subgrade California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and moduli of subgrade reaction (k- value) were estimated from the subgrade elastic moduli calculated using ELMOD, by applying standard relationships to the moduli. The relationships used were developed by the Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi, For CBR, the standard relationship developed by the Corps was CBR = Ms /X. The range of values for "X" was 750 to 3000. Based on experience with the soils common in California, the following calibrated equation was chosen for use: CBR = MR/1500 where: CBR California Bearing Ratio ( %) MR o resilient/elastic modulus (psi). The standard relationship used to estimate k- values is: k = (MR /26)°77" Where: k = modulus of subgrade reaction (pci) MR 0 resilient/elastic modulus (psi) The material properties are summarized by test number in Table 1 on the next two pages. 2 It r Table 1. Material Properties from NDT. Test Numbers Station Resilient/Elastic Modulus (ksi) CBR Subgrade K -Value Subgrade K -Value At Surface AC Surface Base Subgrade 1 . 23 1,385 36 7 4.7 78 246 2 72 2,248 56 9 6.0 95 321 3 100 603 26 6.7 103 232 4. 124 417 39 12 8.0 119 258 5 154 620 27 11 7.3 111 246 6 178 451 38 7 4.7 78 202 7 199 268 48 6 4.0 69 181 8 225 358 34 11 7.3 111 232 9 1 470 10 10 6.7 103 191 10 24 472 38 8 5.3 87 211 11 50 786 48 9 6.0 95 264 12 77 590 35 10 6,7 103 248 13 101 995 43 9 6.0 95 14 152 1, 006 48 11 7.3 111 291 15 1 766 47 11 7.3 111 , 280 16 27 244 42 8 5.3 87 201 17 54 698 59 10 8.7 103 278 18 1 986 47 10 6.7 103 287 19 27 398 26 13 8.7 126 246 20 48 957 18 9 8.0 95 235 21 1 425 270 27 54 8 7 4.0 4.7 ' 89 78 181 192 22 25 23 53 634 20 10 6,7 103 231 24 77 272 29 8 5.3 87 185 25 107 540 41 8 5.3 87 223 26 1 1,477 30 8 5.3 87 267 27 25 546 49 8 5.3 87 235 28 _ 51 76 555 699 18 26 8 9 5.3 6.0 87 95 197 231 29 30 99 335 16 8 5.3 87 178 31 125 281 17 7 4,7 78 166 32 146 327 27 8 5.3 87 190 - 33 1 393 498 • 26 23 R 7 8 4.7 5.3 78 87 192 209 34 24 35 54 485 • 23 9 6.0 95 211 36 78 366 27 7 4.7 78 182 r--- 37 99 • 287 25 5 3.3 60 152 38 125 166 27 7 4.7 78 160 39 154 373 30 7 4,7 78 187 40 175 293 26 11 7.3 111 220 41 222 230 45 8 5,3 87 200 42 251 312 35 9 6.0 95 214 3 Table 1. Material Properties from NDT - continued, Test Numbers Station Resilient/Elastic Modulus (ksi) CBR Subgrade K -Value Subgrade K -Value At Surface AC Surface Base Subgrade 43. 276 286 32 10 6.7 103 219 44 305 280 50 9 6,0 95 221 45 322 534 58 8 5.3 87 239 46, 24 521 24 7 4.7 78 199 47 78 269 17 5 3.3 60 146 48 127 574. 37 9 6.0 95 239 49 174 232. 48 9 6.0 95 213 50 225 324 52 8 5.3 87 215 51 277 380 37 10 6.7 103 225 52 1 281 26 8 5.3 87 153 53 51 250 50 12 8.0 119 163 54 102 152 36 2 1.3 29 227 55 148 163 20 8 4.0 69 241 56 202 516 39 11 7.3 111 199 57 263 286 29 11 7.3 111 207 58 25 446 36 10 _ 6.7 103 209 59 78 427 24 9 6.0 95 224 60 124 388 19 8 5.3 87 223 61 176 320 18 12 8.0 119 199 62 226 606 29 10 6.7 103 207 83 298 2,386 26 7 4.7 78 213 64 1 82 161 558 20 22 7 7 4.7 4.7 78 78 212 225 65 66 113 257 11 9 6.0 95 164 67 154 420 ' 19 9 .. 6.0 95 246 187, 208 68 250 396 8 7 4.7 , 78 69 306 431 20 9 6.0 95 70 25 446 30 ..� _ 7 4,7 78 186 71 85 377 24 10 6,7 103 210 72 117 504 31 11 7.3 111 231 73 173 356 2S 7 4.7 . 78 245 74 226 27 234 482 18 • 24 8 8 5.3 5.3 87 87 170 169 75 76 _• 48 262 32 11 7.3 111 261 77 99 - 493 19 9 6.0 95 205 78 1 221 16 8 5.3 87 189 79 25 473 27 8 5.3 8.0 87 119 243 80 1 295 28 12 97 81 56 267 22 14 9.3 134 139 82 103 351 24 _ 11 7.3 111 256 83 217 516 46 8 87 221 . 4 File: MI02 -0107 35mm Drawing ig #3 3 : +'1'13i "i 1'�i, !NC. APPENDIX E IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAI. REPORT 21 -1 -09383 -001 amoliii SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Attachment to and part of Report 21.1.09383 -001 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Date: November 6, 2001 To: Bart Heath The Seneca Real Estate Group, Inc. Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS. Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant. THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT - SPECIFIC FACTORS. A gcotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project - specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property Involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the recommendations, Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: (i) when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors which were considered in the development of the report have changed. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE. Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotcchnicaVonvironmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally. Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such us floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnlcaVenvironmental report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary. MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS. Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, The data were 710 extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from o those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can work together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect. A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY. The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's Page 1 of 2 1/2001 ig recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable recommendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction. THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION. Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretation of a geotechnical/environmental report. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other project design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical, geological, hydrogeological, and environmental findings, and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to these issues. BORING LOGS AND /OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED PROM THE REPORT. Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical/environmental reports. These final logs should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom the report was prepared, and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared. While It contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss the report with your consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY. Because geotechnicaVenvlronmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, It is far less exact than other design disciplines, This situation has resulted In wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants, To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports and other documents. These responsibility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant% liabilities to other parties; rather, they aro definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions. The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the ASFE/Associatlon of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Oeosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland Page 2 of 2 1/2001 itt r 4 !-kJ January 22, 2003 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Julie Lawton 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2350 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: CORRECTION LETTER #1 Development Permit Application Number MI02 -107 Museum of Flight — Stormwater Vault 9404 Fast Marginal Way S Dear Ms. Lawton: This letter is to inform you of corrections that must be addressed before your development permit can be approved. All correction requests from each department must be addressed at the same lime and reflected on your drawings. 1 have enclosed comments from the Public Works Department. At this time, the Building Division, Fire Department and Planning Division have no comments. Please address the attached comments in an Itemized format with applicable revised plans, specifications, and /or other documentation. The City requires that four (4) glimbig sets of revised plans, specifications and /or other documentation be resubmitted with the appropriate revision block. In order to better expedite your resubmittal, a'revision sheet' must accompany every resubmittal. I have enclosed one for your convenience. Corrections /revisions must be made in erson and will not be cu cented through the mail or by a messenger service. If you have any questions, please contact me at (206)431.3670. Sincerely, t4 Brenda Holt Permit Coordinator encl u: 11110 No, M102.107 6300 thcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206431.3670 • Fax: 206.431.3665 CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS DATE: October 1, 2002 PROJECT: Museum of Flight Addition (Phan 1) 9404 E. Marginal Way South PERMIT NO: MI02 -107 PLAN REVIEWER: Contact David McPherson at (206) 433 -0179, ext.1638, if you have any questions regarding the following comments. 1. Water quality wet vault, as shown on Utility Vault plan sheet CM -0510, shall match Civil plan sheet C303, including the number and type of grate inlets — portion enclosed. 2. Oil /water separator, as shown on Utility Vault plan sheet CH -1305, shall include ladders. 3. Provide detailed information and label ladders to be placed inside of wet vault and oil /water separator. See King County Standards (KCRS Dwg. No. 2 -006) and City of Tukwila standard detail D -6, - enclosed. 4. Provide note on plan sheet place "confined space" warning sign /plate (per OSHA Standards) within each access opening. 4 1 1§ July 17, 2002 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Ms, Julie Lawton 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2350 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Letter of Incomplete Application #1 Development Permit Application Number M102 -107 Museum of Flight — 9404 P. Marginal Wy South Dear Mr. Leung: This letter is to inform you that your permit application received at the City of Tukwila Permit Center on July 12, 2002, is determined to be incomplete. Before your permit application can begin the plan review process the following items need to be addressed: ®ulldlna Denartment: Ken Nelson, at (206) 431 -3670, if you have questions concerning the following: We will require the following: 1. Soils report 2. Structural calculations 3. Plan to reflect structural calculations Please address the attached comments in an itemized format with applicable revised plans, specifications, and/or other documentation. The City requires that four (4) awl sets of revised plans, specifications and/or other documentation be resubmitted with the appropriate revision block. In order to better expedite your resubmittat a `Revision Submittal Sheet' must accompany every resubmittal. I have enclosed one for your convenience. Revisions must be nude In person and will not be accepted through the mail or by a messenger service. If you have any questions, please contact me at the Permit Center at (206) 433 -7165. Sincerely, ' .plog.(44t, Stefania Spencer Permit Technician end File: Permit File No, M102.107 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206.431.3670 • Fax: 206.431.366S 18 Reid irlrlletrrrr January 14, 2002 File No. 26 -02- 005- 012 -03 Mr. Bob Benedicto City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Building Permit Plan Review - Final Submittal Museum of Flight — Stormwater Vault (MI02 -107) Dear Mr. Benedicto: We reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the structural provisions of the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Code as amended and adopted by the City of Tukwila. The applicant has responded successfully to our comments. Enclosed are one complete set of the structural drawings (bound with the originally submitted civil drawings) and an additional copy of the revised structural drawings. We are also forwarding the structural calculations, geotechnical report, and correspondence from the engineer for your records. If you have any questions or require any additional clarification, please cull. Sincerely, Reid Middleton, Inc. Phili R. Brazil, P.E., S.E. Senior Engineer sct126sc\planrcvwltukw11 a1021t0 t 2r3,doe\prb Enclosures cc: Project Contact, Company Project Engineer, Company Engineers Plsnners Sarreyors Washington Oregon Moska Reid Middleton, Inc 728 134th Street SW Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 Ph: 425 741.3800 Fox 425 741.3900 e ]UTILITY VAR; a division or ��kIC*Stk! Precast Inc. www.oldcastle•precast.com PO Box 588 • Auburn, WA 98071.0588 January 10, 2003 Mr. Phillip R. Brazil, P.E., S.E. Reid Middleton 728134'" Street, Suite SW 200 Everett, WA 98204 Subject: Building Permit Plan Review - Second Submittal Museum of Flight- Stormwater Vault (MI02 -107) Dear Mr. Brazil, Phone (253) 839.3500 loll Free (800) 892.1538 Fax (253) 735.4201 ken.leegotdcastleprecast.com The following letter is our response to the structural peer review by Reid Middleton dated Dec 23, 2002. The responses are presented in itemized letter form: 1, Two copies of revised structural drawing and one copy of supplemental calculations have been resubmitted along with this letter, 2. On drawing CM -0510, sheet 5 of 10, three #8 bottom bars are generally specified at each web of the top cover (see Section A -A). The calculations have been revised by our consulting engineering firm, B &T Engineering, Inc. The bars that were specified initially have been confirmed to satisfy the calculations. Upon our review, we have reanalyzed the load cases and determined that the worst case scenario is indeed the 2' -0" soil case and have included supporting calculations. if you have any questions regarding this resubmittal, please contact me at the number above, Sincerely, Utility Vault Company Ken Lee, P. Engineer C:VNisc custamerletterOphilbrazil.doc - o2--oo5— 012.- a?-) U1k use LAN OF VIA etrir it NOV -19 -2002 10 :25 • , P.O. Box $S8 Auburn. WA 98071 24341913500 .. 253434201 Pout November 15. 2002 N88J • ..« •._. • •••■• 0/4110 .•w UTY VAULt • • ••ra •.•d Mr. Cams Nakamura Gary Mating, Coeatruw iO0 Company. Inc. 72$130 Street SW neAttic. WA 98108 Re: Minton of Flight Water Quality Vault 12062235018 reid I*J%J 10 .00 CMS Precast Mc. • • • Pasta' Pax Wes /6/ r' • +41 1 4.:,,•....••.4....••::.i • .w... . new '1h 1 o As: zos.:1 2.07aa6 NA, r .r•r.r•r.ri .. •M...n■•••••■ RECEIVED NOV 15 2002 SA11en Construction Co. Dear Mr. Nskarntua, This inter is Utility Vault's response to the letter from Reid Middleton addressed to Mr. Bob Benadienn (011ie City ufTukwila doted September 21. 2002 presentwl in Itemized letter Nun 2 Vert that Derail d /Ci01.,. Addt+ied by Skillint Ward Mannus on ltakshin: (SWMB). 3. ''hit scope of Nor work should be clarified.. This has been previously addressed. The K•submin.al includes only the panel vault. 4. The water quality wet vault . 'this has been addressed by NB L •S. dll concrete dhnentioru omd,,, Dimensions and reinforcement for the wet vault ACV frown on drawings. Detail of crnsnection of elements are included. Please: r re-submittal dritwin s. 6. Clear distances to steel reinforcement... Clear distances are shown in rhr. dr14wi,1:. Noise scc re.submitral drawings. 7 it appears that ii8 bars The bars arc confirmed as K6 hsrs. S. 84,T t)c Apse h Frnguurerrng' er uenrral finite element calculations... Nf itiJ and SWMB w verity that subgrade wider wet vault yields a stiffness of up ru 86 pci. J • .p, • A ea �e 01 NOV- 19-2002 10:25 12052235018 P.O. Box SOS A stbnnia.WA 90071 14394500 P ime , tne, 9 The following comments regarding the 61 ?•CPS 676 LA, one/ 6601.E vaults should be addwxied This Ni has been ken esre of from A difforent submittal. sisurely, tidily vault Company IMP la Knr8 Lot, P P.0:S :43:1 i 4 t ..x k ! �4 ils.if: a 1,1 /1. tai i ►q • t. is e. Page 1 of 1 Front Bernard Mansavage (bmansavage @nbbj.comj Sentt,t ; Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:22 PM To: Julie Lawton (E= mall), Bob Ormsby (E-mail) Subject water quality wet vault Julie; I would like to respond to Review Comment #4 in the letter from ReidMiddleton dated September 27, 2002 for the Vault Permit NM102 -107. . Comment #4 asks for verification that the water quality wet vault Is not located in taxi areas or In the path of a plane traffic since it is not designed to withstand the Increased loading." The vault location as shown Is below a museum car parking area and is separated by fence from any designated airplane transfer areas as well as from the path of airplane traffic from any nearby airport hangars. In addition we have verified with the Museum of Flight that the proposed location is not in the path of any airplane movement areas used by the museum as part of their exhibits or events operations. Thank you Barney Mansavage Bernard A. Mansavage Studio 03 111 South Jackson Street Beetle, WA 98104 F) 208 223 6171 208 223 5018 Winona ,.• .Warm �tta�ll�edac.nb.Ion) 11/21/2002 14040 /4uut 14:01 rAS L000g4Louo n et b Alta M. Or Pi Mndpl rnlectJtnq.c1m Nowlin iirudws' esf bell tiijvw s 1301 Fi01 tines %ire 3100 Swale.* 00101'490 Pk 201;1202.1200 fa 20W 202.1201 Mtp1 /waskil ietom November 15. 2002 Ms. Julie Lawton Sertiece Group 1201 Third Avenue. Suite 2350 Seti►tt , Washington 98101 of I sly OPINION Subject: O* aabblifie Re: Response to Building Permit Plan Review Stonrwator Wet Vault iieIuvfh, uut Dew Julie: Skilling Ward Magnusson Berkshire (Skilling) has reviewed the comments made by Reid Middleton on the wet vault submittal, The following we Skiiling'e response. to the civil comments made In their letter dated September 27. 2002, Civil Comment 2 We have reviewed Utility Vault's Sheet CM.0510 for conformance to the wet vault Detail 4 shown on Skilling's Shoot C303f The clew dimensions shown on the Utility Vault plan we consistent with the minimum clear dimensions for the wet vault shown on the Skilling detail. Civil Comment 3 It Is our understanding that other vaults in addition to the wet vault were submitted by Utility Vault for review which were not intended to be reviewed as part of this permit, Skilling has not received any vault drawings for review other than those for the wet vault, Please call if you have any questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, tikNlirlt N wd Maego sea Irbil*. lee. to M. Greene RMt3/dah cc; Mr. Barney Manaavago - NBBJ Design t worrcocaMSwtrvan,.wsc v+cui ►ttp..t 1 t60Z.1v ctvc 20'd 111101 Jule Lawton F�,: Carole Mitchell ICfM@shanwilecomj Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:43 AM bmensaveg nbbj,com; JulieLeSenecaOroup.com Ca e� : Tom Gur owsiki Sublaat: Response to review comment 08 on water quality wet vault et the Museum of Flight Barney and Julie, As requested, we are responding to Reid Middleton's review comment #8 from their September 27, 2002, letter to the City of Tukwila. Reid Middleton Indicated that the structural finite element calculations employed a soil stiffness ranging from 43 to 66 psi, Our November 2001 report recommended a soil stiffness of 75 pci for slabs•on•grode on unimproved soil, Reid Middleton requested verification that the subgrads under the wet vault would have a soil stiffness up to 86 pci, In our opinion, the soil stiffness below the wet vault is not an issue because the vault (a concrete box with water inside) will be lighter than the soil it Is replacing, Therefore, even when the vault Is full of water, It will not bs loading the subgrade more than whet the subgrade already experienced prior to vault installation: If you have any questions, please let ms know, Carols Mitchell, P.E. Sailor Principal Engineer Shannon 4 Wilson, Inc, 206.695 -6869 cbmOshanwil.com t df104v3 tiO3N3S 3H1 S0:0t Z00 Reid iticiletee December 23, 2002 File No. 26- 02- 005 - 012 -02 RECEIVED DEC 2 6 2002, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Bob Benedicto City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Building Permit Plan Review - Second Submittal Museum of Plight — Stormwater Vault (M102 -107) Dear Mr. Benedicto: We reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the structural provisions of the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Cole as amended and adopted by the City of Tukwila. Several of the previous review comments (review letter dated September 27, 2002) have not been addressed completely in the recent submittal. The following list of comments supersedes the revious review comments and outlines remaining issues that require additional consideration. Copies of this letter were forwarded to the Project Contact and Engineer for your convenience. 1. The following list of comments should be responded to in itemized letter form. The permit applicant should have the Engineer of Record respond and resubmit two copies of revised structural drawings and one copy of supplemental calculations, All information should be submitted directly to Reid Middleton, Inc. 5. On Drawing CM -0510, Sheet 5 of 10, three #8 bottom burs are generally specified at each web of the top cover (see Section A -A). However, the calculations determine that six #8 bottom bars are needed (see the Bottom Reinforcing Summary Plan, page 52). Please verify the required number of bottom bars. Corrections and comments made during the review process do not relieve the project applicant or designer from compliance with code requirements, conditions of approval, and permit requirements; nor is the designer relieved of responsibility for a complete design in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. This plan review check is for general compliance with the Uniform Building Code as it relates to the project. If you have any questions or require any additional clarification, please call. Wu hington Sincerely, Oregon Ale kA Reid Middleton, Inc. P Philip ' . Brazil, P.E., S.E. Senior Engineer set\ 26se\ planrevwltukwila \02\t012r2,doc\prb cc: Julie Lawton, Seneca Group Rita Greene, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Reid Middleton, Inc, 728134th Street SW Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 Ph: 425 741 -3800 Fax 425 741-3900 i 1 I p Reid ttltlICtrrn September 27, 2002 File No. 26 -02- 005 - 012 -01 Mr. Bob Benedicto City of Tukwila 6300 Southccnter Blvd,, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED SEP 3 0 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Building Permit Plan Review - First Submittal Museum of Plight = Stormwater Vault (M102 -107) Dear Mr. Benedicto: We reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the structural provisions of the 1997 Edition oldie Uniform Building Code as amended and adopted by the City of Tukwila. The permit applicant should address the following comments. Copies of this letter were forwarded to the Project Contact and Engineer for your convenience. 1. The following list of comments should be responded to in itemized letter form. The permit applicant should have the Engineer of Record respond and resubmit two copies of revised structural drawings and one copy of supplemental calculations, MI information should be submitted directly to Reid Middleton, Inc. Civil 2, Verify that Detail 4/C303, referenced on Sheet C242, indicates the same clear dimensions as shown on Utility Vault's Sheet CM -0510, 3. The scope of the work should be clarified. Utility Vault drawings for the water quality wet vault, 612 -2 -CPS oil /water separator vault, and the 676 LA and 660 LA vaults have been provided. The 676 LA and 660 LA vaults do not appear to be referenced on the Civil drawings. Structural 4. The water quality wet vault is designed to accommodate H-20 vehicular loading per Utility Vault (UV) Sheet CM-0510 and the supporting structural calculations. Civil Sheet C242 shows a one -story hanger approximately 300 feet west of the wet vault. Verify that the vault is not located in taxi areas or in the path of airplane traffic since it is not designed to withstand the increased loading, Engineer" Planner' Sttrtrj ort Washington Oregon Aloska Reid Middleton, inc. 728134th Sheet SW Suite 200 Eve!ett, WA 98204 Ph: 425 741.3800 Fax 425 741-3900 1 g Mr. fob I3endicto City of Tukwila September 27, 2002 File No. 26-02-003-012-01 Page 2 5. The general layout and overall dimensions of the wet vault are shown on Sheet CM -0510. All concrete dimensions and reinforcement for the wet vault (including the base, walls, and lid) should be specified on the drawings. Refer to Drawing AM -0005 in the calculations, Details showing the connection of elements should also be included on the drawings. 6. Clear distances to steel reinforcement should be specified on the drawings. Concrete cover should be in accordance with UBC Section 1907.7. 7. It appears that #8 bars are required for the vault roof planks per the submitted calculations; however, #6 bars are specified on Drawing AM -0005. 8. B & T Design & Engineering's structural finite element calculations employ a soil stiffness ranging from 43 pci to 86 pci. Page 15 and 16 of Shannon and Wilson's gcotechnical report (dated November 2001) recommend a soil stiffness of 75 pci for slabs -on -grade over an unimproved subgradc. Verify that the subgradc under the wet vault yields a soil stiffness up to 86 pci. ;Pt/ 9. The following comments regarding the 612-2-CPS, 676 LA, and 660 LA vaults should be addressed; a) All drawings containing structural information should be sealed and signed by the Engineer of Record per UBC Section 106.3.4 and WAC Section 196.24 -097, b) Concrete dimensions and reinforcement for the vault should be specified on the drawings. Details showing the connection of elements should also be included on the drawings. c) Calculations qualifying the design of the vaults should be submitted for our review. Corrections and comments made during the review process do not relieve the project applicant or designer from compliance with code requirements, conditions of approval, and permit requirements; nor is the designer relieved of responsibility for a complete Reid iddleton Mr. fob 8endicto City of Tukwila September 27, 2002 Pile No. 26.02- 005- 012.01 Page 3 design in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. This plan review check is for general compliance with the Uniform Building Code as it relates to the project. If you have any questions or require any additional clarification, please call. Sincerely, Reid Middleton, Inc. ie K. Yamatsuka, P.E. oject Manager sJs %26selplanrevw\tukw11a1021t012r 1.doc\f me cc: Julio Lawton, Seneca Group Rita Greene, PE, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Florendo Cabudol, Jr. Design Engineer • .4 9 0 y ' ■ �' F ,t\ r 1908 Ciy of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director February 13, 2003 Phil Brazil Reid Middleton 728. 134th Street SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 RE: Structural Review Museum of Flight — Stormwater Vault Dear Mr. Brazil: Please stamp the second set of plans for the above referenced project. The date you approved the plans was on 1- 14.03. Please return this set of plans as soon as possible, as wo are ready to issue this permit. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact meat (206)431 -3672. Brenda Molt, Permit Coordinator end! xc: Permit Pile No, M102-107 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206.431.3670 • Fax: 206.431.3665 City of ThkWIla Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director September 3, 2002 Dave Swanson, P.E. Reid Middleton 728 - 134th Street SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 RE: Structural Review Museum of Flight — Stormwater Vault (M102 -107) Dear Mr. Swanson; Please review the enclosed plans and documents for structural compliance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. If you should have any questions, please feel the to contact me at (206)431 -3672. Sincerely, Brenda Molt, Permit Coordinator end xc; Pannit FIN N4. M102•t07 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206.431.3670 • Fax: 206. 431.3665 PLAN REVIEW /ROUTING SLIP ACTIVITY NUMBER: M102 -107 DATE: 02/1.2/03____ PROJECT NAME: Museum of Hi ht Stormwater Vaults SITE ADDRESS: _e._ 9404_East_ Marginal ^Way_S^_.___._._ti_____..,___ _. Original Plan Submittal __Response to Incomplete Letter # X , Response to Correction Letter # 1 _ _�tevlsion # After Permit Is Issued DEPARTMENTS: Building Division ❑ Fire Prevention Publi rks w 14 Structural ❑ Planning Division ❑ Permit Coordinator DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS: (Tues., Thurs.) Complete d Comments: Incomplete ❑ DUE DATE: 02/13/03 Not Applicable ❑ Permit Center Use Only INCOMPLETE LETTER MAILED: LETTER OF COMPLETENESS MAILED: Departments determined incomplete: Bldg 0 Fire ❑ Ping ❑ PW 0 Staff InI:ials;, TUES/THURS ROUTI G: Please Route Structural Review Required ❑ No further Review Required ❑ REVIEWER'S INITIALS: DATE: M'PROVALS OR CORRECTIONS; Approved ❑ Approved with Conditions Notation:,,„ REVIEWER'S INITIALS: DUE DATE: Q 1 ;(Q,. Not Approved (attach comments) ❑ DATE: Permit Center Use Only CORRECTION LETTER MAILED: Departments issued corrections: Bldg ❑ Fire ❑ Ping ❑ PW Q Staff Initials: Documents/routin6 slip.doc 2.26 -02 PERMIT COpR CpeY PLAN REVIEW /RSUTING SLIP ACTIVITY NUMBER: MI02 -107 DATE: 08 -28 -02 PROJECT NAME: MUSEUM OF FLIGHT SITE ADDRESS: 9404 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH Original Plan Submittal X Response to Incomplete Letter # 1 Response to Correction Letter # Revision # After Permit Is Issued DEPARTMENTS: Buil Pu II Fire Prevention Str c ural Q10ERM1NAT QN F COMPLETENESS: (Tues., Thurs.) Complete Cer Comments: Incomplete 0 Planning Division Permit Coordinator DUE DATE: 0829.02 Not Applicable ❑ Permit Center Use Only INCOMPLETE LETTER MAILED: LETTER OF COMPLETENESS MAILED: Departments determined incomplete: Bldg ❑ Fire ❑ Ping ❑ PW ❑ Staff Initials:.v_�.� TUES/THURS ROUTING: Please Route (Ti Structural Review Required j ' No further Review Required in REVIEWER'S INITIALS: �.a__.. .._ -- DATE: AffSPYAL59A cP FCTIONS: Approved ❑ Approved with Conditions ❑ DUE DATE: 09.26- 02, am" Not Approved (attach comments) L.,,/ Notation: REVIEWER'S INITIALS: DATE: Permit Center Use Only CORRECTION LETTER MAILED; Departments issued corrections: -c'! Bldg ❑ Fire ❑ Ping ❑ PW Staff Initials: Wt„.1 Documemshoutin$ slip.doc 149-02 PERMIT COORD COPY t~�I� MIT COORD COPY PLAN REVIEW /ROUTING SLIP ACTIVITY NUMBER: M102 -107 PROJECT NAME: MUSEUM OF FLIGHT . SITE ADDRESS: 9404 E. MARGINAL WAY, SOUTH xx Original Plan Submittal DATE: 07 -12 -02 Response to Incomplete Letter # Response to Correction Letter # # After Permit Is Issued DEPARTMENTS: � Ryi �ng I1 vs "C 1� u lie Works [� 512 Ritt. 1" Ib'*L Nl�.. 1- f0 -0z- Fire Prevention © Planning uivision Structural ❑ Permit Coordinator le D ERMINATION Q COMPLETTEN.ESS: (Tues., Thurs.) Complete ❑ Comments: Incomplete DUE DATE: 7-164)2 Not Applicable ❑ Permit Center Use Only INCOMPLETE LETTER MAILED :? City of Tukwila Department of Community Development permit Center 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 Revision submittals must be submitted In person at the Permit Center. Revisions will not he accepted through the null, fax, etc. Date:/2._AO a.3 Plan Cheek/Permit Number: M102-107 ❑ Response to Incomplete Letter # Response to Correction Letter # I ❑ Revision N after Permit is issued Project Name: MUSEUM OF FLIGHT — STORWMATER VAULTS Project Address: 9404 East Mar Contact Person: Julie Lawton Summary of Revision: f inal W S Phone Number: , / zff f AIMMIVIr /1221M I rid ■ .&/_. /41: 4d/ r 4/ Aril /..119111r CITY OF Ttoomi A FEB 1 2 2003 PERMIT CENTER Sheet Number(s): "Clonal" or highlight all areas of revision Wading date of revision Received at the City of Tukwila Permit Center by: (a Entered in Permits Plus on ��J 01/22/03 City of Tukwila Department oJ'Community Development - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 Revision submittals must be submitted in person at the permit Center. Revisions will not be accepted through the mall, fax, de. Date: Plan Check/Permit Numbers M102 -107 (g Response to Incomplete Letter # I ❑ Response to Correction Letter # ❑ Revision # afer Permit is Issued Project Name: Museum of Flight Project Address: 9404 East Marginal WAY South Contact Person: Lawton Phone NLsmberd/1 ) Summary of Revision: RECEIV. • • PERMIT CENTER Sheet Number(s): "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revision including date of revision Received at the City of Tukwila Permit Center by: J• Entered in Sierra on 07/17/02 File: MI02 -0107 35mm Drawing #1-Z I 0 Inch 1 2 I 1/16 3 a I , u . r 'iV /r''eNrpnors•nry , st vt t tt t ul II t VIII �lllllIII IIIIIII �lIIII III �IIII illlllllllllllllllI III III VIII III�llllllII iiIII IlllII I lliIIIIIIlII I I 0 N C O 0 m W9383-001121-1-09383-001 Fl C a PROPOSED COMMERCIAL GALLERY (WEST GALLERY) Future Expansion Z�— CPT-4 Existing Boeing 2 -Story Concrete Building PROPOSED CPT -3 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROPOSED ENCLOSED AREA 0 200 400 I I Scale in Feet S B -5 ER OW-2 ® CPT -5 LA LEGEND Boring Designation and Approximate Location Observation Well Designation and Approximate Location Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Designation and Approximate Location Subsurface Profile Designation and Approximate Location NOTES 1. Figure based on electronic file provided by Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. entitled "2001047.dwg ". 2. Hangars A and B to be relocated to Lots 13 and 14, approximately 1/3 mile north of this site (refer to geotechnical report titled "Museum of Flight Expansion, Hangar Relocation, Tukwila, Washington ", dated 6 -2001. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN October 2001 21 -1 -09383 -001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. GeotechnIca! and Environmental Consultants FIG. 2 0 Inch S l VI. 1111111111 111111111 1.• I I• ' 1' 1' 1 1/16 1 • 61. III1IIII1�I1IIIIIII �I 1. 3 E_Sr . Z IIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIII� rWIIIIIIIII�IIIIIII II�IIIIJIIII�IIIIJIIII�IIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIII��I1I1IIII 6 t o IIIIIIIIIh IIIII��1 u- 109383-001121-1-09383-00 9 Approximate Elevation in Feet A 40 — 20 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 CPT -5 Offset = 33 Ft N. ? B -5 Offset = 47 Ft N. 13 15 Approximate Location of Existing Boeing 2 -Story Concrete Building B -2 Offset = 73 Ft S. B -6 Offset = 86 Ft N. CPT -2 Offset = 185 Ft N. CPT -3 Offset = 29 Ft S. 12 4 28 - -- 29 04.28.2001 Very loose to medium dense, intermixed silty, fine SAND and fine sandy SILT; scattered seams of soft, dayey silt; moist to wet; (Fill) Interbedded, loose to medium dense, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, fine sandy SILT and soft, clayey SILT; wet; abundant organics; ( Lacustrine and Alluvium) Very soft, dayey SILT, trace of fine sand; wet; ( Lacustrine) ( 200 04-24 -2001 112 Loose to medium dense, clean to silty, fine to medium SAND with some dense 114 zones; wet; (Alluvium) 112 j 32 131 Approximate Limits of Red Barn B -1 Offset = 0 Ft Dense, slightly silty to silty SAND, trace of gravel; moist; (Fill) A' —40 115 I 111 I I I I I I I Very loose to medium dense, silty, fine SAND; wet; abundant shell fragments; (Estuarine) 1 32 35 04-25-2001 Medium dense to very dense, trace silty to silty, fine to medium SAND, trace of gravel; wet; abundant shell fragments; (Estuarine) qt (Is0 04-23-2001 200 04-242001 200 Loose, slightly silty to silty, fine SAND; wet; (Alluvium) ? Loose to medium dense, slightly silty to silty, fine SAND, wet; (Alluvium) Soft to very soft, clayey SILT, trace of fine sand; wet; (Lacustrine) Loose to medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; ziabundant shell fragments; (Estuarine) 28 j 24 1 18 123 12 -- 112 1 1 14 ? 9 Soft to medium stiff, clayey SILT; wet; ( Lacustrine) 04-24-2001 0 100• 200 0 20 40 Horizontal Scale in Feet Vertical Scale in Feet Vertical Exaggeration = 5x 20 0 -20 -40 -60 - 80 - 100 -120 Approximate Elevation in Feet LEGEND B -1 - Boring Designation Offset = 86 Ft S. --- Offset from Profile with Direction 30 1 50/4• Standard Penetration Resistance in Blows /Foot Standard Penetration Resistance in Blows /Inches Driven Osterberg Tube Sample Approximate Groundwater Level G'"� at Time of Drilling Approximate Groundwater Table Based on Explorations Approximate Geologic Contact ? ? ----- Approximate Contact of Bearing Layer 0426-2001 CPT-3 Offset = 29 Ft N. UCCS Designation (See Appendix A Figure A -1) Bottom of Boring Date Completed Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Designation Offset from Profile with Direction ? - Approximate Geologic Contact ? --- Approximate Contact of Bearing Layer --- Bottom of CPT c11(14 —.--- Corrected Cone Bearing 04-23 -2001 --- Date Completed NOTE This subsurface profile is generalized from materials observed in soil borings and inferred from cone penetration tests. Variations may exist between profile and actual conditions. Museum of Flight Expansion Tukwila, Washington GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE A -A' October 2001 21 -1- 09383 -001 0 Inch 1/16 St V'j hiiikiiihiiiiiii I, ! 3 %irt1r�+P��r�,rrn T vWES _r L t i, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII0lllli111111III II IIII1IIIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIII IIII IIIllllllI iII IIIIIIIIII 6 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnlcal and Environmental Consultants FIG. 3 File: MI02 -0107 35mm Drawing #3 I'II, 0 Inch 1/16 _WIi.^ <1rir(wrre . yW v.7, 5 • i Figure 1. Hon—Destructive Pavement Test Point Layout. Museum of Flight Expansion Project. South 94th Place Drawing Date: 21 May 2001 Building 9 -04 09 010 011 012 013 08 026 033 01 027 031 046 028 035 02 029 036 047 3 021 030 :3387 04 022031 048 5 023°32 039 06 024 040 049 07 025 014 018 019 020 015 016 017 041 050 042 043 051 044 045 0S2 064 058 070 0 53 0 0 82 080 81 \ , 065 059 011 0 75 054 060 055 061 056 066 067 072 073 062 074 057 068 East 063 0 69 arginal Nay 076 077 018 079 Random points taken in fenced -off area. (approximate location) 0 50 100 200 eg PAVEv ENT CONSULTA TS INC. �.� ' 0 Inch 1/16 �. I i I I I { IIIi!iiiiiIIIII1i11 3 24,Virt Trorrwr, TV.� if T. L !, L I 0 I 1iiliiii iiiiliiii III IIIIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJ III I IIII