Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit MI98-0130 - PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK - RETAINING WALLSCity of Tukwila (206) 431 -3670 Community Development / Public Works • 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT WARNING: IF CONSTRUCTION BEGINS BEFORE APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRES, APPLICANT IS PROCEEDING AT THEIR OWN RISK. Parcel No: Address: Suite No: Location: Category: Type: Zoning: Const Type: Gas /Elec.: Units: Setbacks: Water: Wetlands: 092304 -9367 12421 PACIFIC HY S OTHR MISCPERM C /LI KR314E SEC923 329 000 North: 125 Permit No: Status: Issued: Expires: MI98 -0130 ISSUED 08/24/1998 02/20/1999 Occupancy: UBC: 1997 Fire Protection: N/A .0 South: .0 East: .0 West: .0 Sewer: RAINIER VI Scopes: Y Streams: Contractor License No: SABEYC *141PH OCCUPANT PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK 12421 PACIFIC HY S, TUKWILA WA 98168 OWNER WELCH JOHN T Phone: (206)000 -0000 12421 PACIFIC HIGHWAY S, SEATTLE WA 98168 CONTACT HAYNES LUND Phone: 206 281 -8700 101 ELLIOTT AV W SUITE 330, SEATTLE WA 98119 PROJECT PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK 12421 PACIFIC HY S, TUKWILA WA 98168 ENGINEER NELSON - BOURDAGES Phone: 425 827 -5995 512 SIXTH ST S SUITE 202, KIRKLAND WA 98033 CONTRACTOR SABEY CONSTRUCTION INC. Phone: 206 281 -8700 101 ELLIOTT AVENUE WEST #330, SEATTLE, WA 98119 **************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Permit Description: CONSTRUCTION OF EIGHT (8) KEYSTONE RETAINING WALLS ON THE PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK SITE. **************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Construction Valuation: $ 170,000.00 PUBLIC WORKS PERMITS: *(Water Meter Permits Listed Separate) Eng. Appr: Curb Cut /Access /Sidewalk /CSS: N Fire Loop Hydrant: N No: Flood Control Zone: N Hauling: N Start Time: Land Altering: N Cut: Landscape Irrigation: N Moving Oversized Load: N Start Time: End Time: Sanitary Side Sewer: N No: Sewer Main Extension: N Private: N Public: N Storm Drainage: N Street Use: N Water Main Extension: N Private: N Public: N **************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *k * * * * * * * * * * ** TOTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FEES: $ 2,045.96 *************************************** k*********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Size(in): .00 End Time: Fill: Permit Center Authorized Signature: Date: -2P I hereby certify that I have read and examined this 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 this permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provision of any other state or local laws regulating construction or the performance of work. I am authorized to sign for and obtain this development per Signature:_ Print Name:__ ,cam ___L=. . Date: Alta 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. r: -:` ;\sy CITY OF TV ICWILA o Permit Center '1,- 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 . (206) 431 -3670 FOR TAFF USE ONLY Project Number" P R U -6 Permit Number: � `0. Miscellaneous Permit Application Application and plans must be complete in order to be accepted for plan review. Applications will not be accepted through the mall or facsimile. Project Name/Tenant: 1c. i �yd OFFicg ��.RK Description of work to be done: Coo Cite A.14oet►R.Y ONly- ea- m.40 /46r vv.4 L(,S - ` 14ey Si-c e UJa t 1 S Value of Construction: 6) 70, 000 Site Address: 2421 F IC4 10 PI IC?3.4Wa+r % � City Sta a /Zi Tu4GV,rIt.A~ 1111 9�1bB Tax P reel Numbe :O'iZ.304 -1307: g4 ;ex �Ce�i - I-4' �� ° Z °4- 903' -04 Property Owner: JOH Weukl Name: Phone: Fax 8: 20‘ - 14 Z - 5504 204 - ? 4 Co- 2234 Street Addre+ r 24 21 I A.f..0I F tc I-11 c rtt-4 W (4k(" So . City State /Zip: iu tc.w 1 u.../WA9610.2 Cgntact Person: RAYni 1 -..u0D ilibef CeeFOR Ircon) Phone: ZoC0 - 2 Q,1 - ei oo Street Address: � toj Etrt.lmr'tti 1 & ti 3-50 City State /Zip: seoielva WAcii51 19 Fax 11: tot, - 2:51 - o°1,Z0 Contractor: ' j( Coos- rzOartoa Ikac. 1 Phone: 20(O - 'Z 7I - LFsoo Street Address: 101 F�.�1.o-r'r, V Suvre, 3.50 City Sta e /Zi � �fTL�3 9�11°� Fax 8: 2010 - 281 - 0 1 W Architect: Re -1;4ml i 1-to 1 yre -ors IA /WA Phone: AcKh— 821- 2100 Street Addre s: 14990 v3��c.ac c.,. .re City Sta /Zip: u�w'14,1- �ttgeook Fax 8: _ �28'"��°19 / gineer: �� - �ou�tc/1/4.c 5 Phone: 425- 821 - 5995 Street Six-n.1 dre SO) �uf71;3202 kiR,k. . J' State/Zip: 3 Fax 8: 425 -13L -4850 MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT REVIEW AND APPROVAL REQUESTED: '(TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT) ::: Description of work to be done: Coo Cite A.14oet►R.Y ONly- ea- m.40 /46r vv.4 L(,S - ` 14ey Si-c e UJa t 1 S Will there be storage of flammable /combustible hazardous material in the building? ❑ yes ❑ no Attach list of materials and storage location on se•arate 8 1/2 X 11 •a•erindicatin. •uantities & Material Safet Data Sheets • Above Ground Tanks ■ Antennas /Satellite Dishes ■ Bulkhead /Docks ■ Commercial Reroof ❑ Demolition ❑ Fence ❑ Mechanical ❑ Manufactured Housing - Replacement only ❑ Parking Lots taining Walls El Temporary Pedestrian Protection /Exit Systems El Temporary Facilities El Tree Cutting APPLICANTREOUEST FOR MISCELL'ANEOUSPUBLIC WORKS .PERMITS' ❑ Channelization /Striping ❑ Flood Control Zone ❑ Landscape Irrigation ❑ Storm Drainage ❑ Water Meter /Exempt 8 in Curb cut/Access /Sidewalk ❑ Fire Loop /Hydrant (main to vault)1t: Size(s): ❑ Land Altering: 0 Cut cubic yards 0 Fill cubic yards 0 sq. ft.grading /clearing in Sanitary Side Sewer 8: ❑ Sewer Main Extension 0 Private 0 Public ❑ Street Use ❑ Water Main Extension 0 Private 0 Public 0 Deduct 0 Water Only Size(s): ❑ Water Meter /Permanent ft Size(s): ❑ Water Meter Temp 8 Size(s): Est. quantity: ❑ Miscellaneous ❑ Moving Oversized Load /Hauling gal Schedule: MONTHLY SERVICE BILLINGS TO: ; .;:' .,.;, ,< •,.' '..'.. Name: Phone: Address: City /State /Zip: 0 Water 0 Sewer °Metro 0 Standby WATER METER DEPOSIT /REFUND BILLING: Name: Phone: Address: City /State /Zip: 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 Plan 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 Building Code (current edition). No application shall be extended more than once. Date application accepted: —1 - 1 9 Date application expires: (� - Application taken by: (initials) k F ALL MISCELLANEOUS_ • ERMIT APPLICATIONS MUST BE S .' ITTED WITH THE FOLLOWING: f>, ➢ ALL DRAWINGS S 4.L BE AT A LEGIBLE SCALE AND NEATLY DRAWN ➢ BUILDING SITE PLANS AND UTILITY PLANS ARE TO BE COMBINED ➢ ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS REQUIRE STAMP BY WASHINGTON LICENSED ARCHITECT ➢ STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS AND DRAWINGS REQUIRE STAMP BY WASHINGTON LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ➢ CIVIL/SITE PLAN DRAWINGS REQUIRE STAMP BY WASHINGTON LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER (P.E.) fl SUBMIT APPLICATION AND REQUIRED CHECKLISTS FOR PERMIT REVIEW Submit checklist No: M -9 'Above Ground TankslWater Tanks - Supported directly upon grade exceeding 5,000 gallons and a ratio of height to diameter or width . which exceeds 2:1. a Antennas /Satellite Dishes Submit checklist No: M -1 0 Awnings/Canopies . -• No signage Commercial Tenant Improvement Permit Bulkhead /Dock °:.: Submit checklist.., No: M -10 Commercial.Reroof Submit checklist ' No: M -6 Demolition • Submit checklist No: M -3, M -3a 0 Fences - Over 6 feet in Height Submit checklist No: M -9 El Land Altering /Grading /Preloads Submit checklist No: M -2 El Loading Docks Commercial Tenant- Improvement Permit. , Submit checklist No: H -17 0 Mechanical &Commercial) . Submit checklist No.: M -8,'° Residential :only. -.H-6; H -16 Miscellaneous;,PublicliVorks Permits f Submit checklist No H -9 . . Manufactured' Housing (RED INSIGNIA ONLY) ' : Submit checklist .: No M -5 Moving "Oversized.Load /Hauling ' Submit checklist No: M -5 ' ri Parking Lots Submit checklist No: M -4 0 Residential'Reroof - Exempt with following exception! If roof structure to be repaired or. replaced . . Residential Building Permit Submit checklist No: M -6 Retaining Walls -' Over 4 feet in height Submit checklist No M -1 fJ Temporary, Facilities Submit checklist :. No: M -7 : 71 Temporary'Pedestrian.Protection /Exit Systems `• • Submit checklist No M -4 .. 0 Tree:Cutting Submit checklist No: M -2 ' 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 H -4, "Affidavit in Lieu of Contractor Registration ". Bullding:Owner /Authorized Agent If the applicant is other than the owner, registered architect/engineer, or. contractorlicensed by the State of Washington,. a notarized letter from the property.,owner authorizing the agent to submit this permit application and obtain the permit will be required as part of this submittal. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT / 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 I AM AUTHORIZED TO APPLY FOR THIS PERMIT. BUILDING OWN R AUTHORIZE GENT pate: 1 Jut�,'C 9 e" Signaturo: Print name: pAvieArev, u Phone' ' _ 2.81_87oo Fax #:204-zibi - oizo Addross: lol Et.I.toTT X VB W Burt'$' 33o City/State/Zip:� kA �t119 MISCPMT.DOC 7/11/96 0 ; d d r,(? w t ; ^ .12 4 : i. P W (: •i i° 1 tc 117 t; '1eri,a n 1 :vc1e M1 L ;i : :I'E:'(thi 1,af`ce•i it„ f.92 3 0 41...9 3 6 'At At Ak•k• *,:* * *•. •A * is. it n4. *1::* *1.k•i. Permit .Coriti'i t i,7r15 l; .;_. Tethpc r iry e're 'io,n .ren1.,ro 1. the :i:3lli'f' z 'aIva l 1 Ute '11i;AI t?iGCnI-.ed a s . 1,he f 11rx ;i, o r d,:ir of: bu i rt lii tats •t;p .Etle tert li, e. cl...i 0 eln t a t 1ori off ': s i .te or' i IltCt .e;(1 a'1:,111a Et ritr' idJ chT,n Lp `4,tc lr';i i 1 e5 110 i..'hai "sties w i 1 1 1c',piad'`e Cr wlrrIey r' • I aIhs`""krrr .tA'£.t,0``.,E)brc vecl I:fv the } (: 1'1 r) 1 n c. t? 1' a Il d r u Irrkli, l0 p 4l 1 1 ((h1 110 I l.) 1 w A •1 () I i . `rr ,1,:' '1 4 tt 1 • 1 U c: (' ri • i t: , i,tti' ip i c t 1r o ri N,�r .. cPr cl ti frill cl ,ii c1 li 1 t1 of . d n,1; `�{ r4 s� R, f i X11 1 • ii v , i 1 ii hi e' a l,`r � 1'r .? l.gfti.t7 S '1 r {1 U Y`kr.`I O I S4 e •,,b 13,,t 5 �k( 'it , ifo F .a-40V - i.) Il 41,,_,:,,,,,,,, s; t r' U c't. 1 o I'1 , 5 ? 'Fr e t7, ci (. ' i :th eh t £, a 1 n t cS b ' m it 1;11 V 1 11 E4 tl Ar. Cl "d1. rlt k/ CC "1 : 1 b I c?' • i.t r1 bl,'e,1; ; ' ill c ' t : : 1p zip r (. (• 1,(D i t t : D q 1 `,D t! ci I l,' (11 Fx !l e•cI' r £iak.clrtt rl.€ Fc)r •etiFir cttrttin i,rIrs 1 -(.(d 14hai Or c1 iriaae+,, b.$cay.'t.iG11'1 • '(:O1UDac„,74.1,•,0 n • antis f i ,I r14?ctu,1 r'' ernC?rril ? Iha1 1 r,crit'+'Iji^,Jn X7,11}Jt'1 (7.4' 1 ti ,,;K: k,h i ti, (' C1 IA ili e1(t d s4;;1; I ci rI t_, a 1; ' C I 1 . i 1 . 1 2 Fief s' o •11 1:> Lt,t .e! O r' t u ,1 it 10 i t v t,',41,> C 1.t r ik i'C6.e • i)1' () t }:,1 0,fi(S 1 i•' r `o I"1 i Il 4' • , a I) Drl 1'? ve`d `If I ii rl :'i Ii it 1 �I . • b e .o I) s e ry L Cl �s,' i ZI * r4'R firial,'ticcer~'tnce 1:ette4 ., fr�oni t�Pr.e`''nuirrer:r• •of 1°ec`ar,d ,shl�i1,1 :'t" • • r0ciity.e.11.} ii .,,a . • cor,ditiarl of f,l rial wi'r�spection aopr^otir�1=bVt� §`�'' Tul',wi;1a'rf.tu.11di;hu Divis ors s.';{ •,:, y 1 c,'h `done! ` }irk carifp'irn Irrcet with: • aprik,uv ,d ��. All,Fer,nsti ^ur.,tiraYr t�°�� is j, ..t r.'a111 ,Eiu1 1 i rru' Cody',:, (it' 9 t: +1 #r(� ..art d. � a`�ui r �'m�:pt i Of ,�tille i�Cr, f:` � Edition) a alrri nde.d t , fshe'itat�e ofq Washirruturt. :1, i• •� 6 .Va41,;idi t v o.f Reef')i t, : The i C,irar C'fi . C f � a.�;pF, lit or` tip pr ova.l',�ofi,4�`i • p1"a.r'rP., v '�•c-i icattiorta, "1arrd ;:corrlo,utr� +t 1ori5 *�h *11 riot b c911 ,= {i, stk'kAed tb':,br a pa�+rnit fo1 ors art a poi naval .of, arnv v1..ala�tl,on of t'a �v of tiha`;,r>'r'uvi`sioris ,iof. tila,, \,b ii 1diria c bd,e `or of,," athv 'o.th; ;°r\ uilddi,1rian'ce raf; ttie iur ~isd.ict'i;rin N'o Dprrnnt `.01 sur6,ifej aive'3atuthor^`i v4 ,to ,viol ate, or 'carc.e1l trie.,- rrovls$ianaa oi'''::' .hi. c;r,de., •hiskl,1 xb,e• va11 :d. ',••' k ■ ti d .L.. . 2 ... .... .f.,. \' .q. , r . J. 1 ''I' 1:I T .'i iii <: w. is L r. rlrarir it i4C.,: 14S..1{ 7. 0:19 t) ;31; a U. I '.t1 i_I Is :I. }, . ADG1 1 Ci ()7f I. A, A . A. A * •A :k A. A •A. ;A. •A •A •A :t h k A' * k A. 4. •• sl k ,k !: v ? fi d: ok A •,k A. •h .h. , A• ,1 k. A- A h r: A 'A PLAN REVIEW /ROUTING SLIP ACTIVITY NUMBER: 18- 0 130 DATE: -1' I- 9 8 Pact-F)'c eu3 C - c i-)arK PROJECT NAME: Kc\isi Of€ ,)CU I. Cgs Original Plan Submittal Response to Incomplete Letter Response to Correction Letter # Revision After Permit Is Issued DEPARTMENTS: Building Division Publ•c Works ll,�Ll.�'15�tfi a Preventi on 'Structural Plank) /0 6, Permit Cdordinator DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS: (Tues, Thurs) DUE DATE: PJ 1 A Complete n Incomple a Not Applicable ❑ Comments. A./ TUES /THURS ROUTING: Please Route No further Review Required Routed by Staff ❑ (if routed by staff, make copy to master file and enter into Sierra) REVIEWERS INITIALS: DATE: APPROVALS OR CORRECTIONS: (ten days) DUE DATE: e -1 Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved (attach comments) ❑ REVIEWERS INITIALS: DATE. CORRECTION DETERMINATION: DUE DATE: Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved (attach comments) REVIEWERS INITIALS: DATE: \PR•ROUTE.000 INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit INSPECTION NO, CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 o ect: (1 C V I �� Ty ;,gf��speotion: t (LILY) Addres : I .Xiot 7 . IL 21. Date called: (0 ft-a?DiC)0 Date wanted:,,, r `° joZ�IUu a.m. p.m. Special l instructions: C(24...1) • -�-- , 13- Requ er U(G1 (OM Phon Approved per applicable codes. Corrections required prior to approval. insp Ddte ri $47.00 REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED. Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. CaII to schedule reinspection. 'Receipt No: Date: INSPECTION NO. INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100, Tukwila, WA 9818 X? n/3,a. PERMIT NO. (206)431 -3670 P oject: 1�ACIF-) G V'1et1/ "L- Type of Inspection: t,11 Lt]ItJei riNA►_.. Address: /9 /o/ T, ..--.6 Date called: 5-- 6 c) Special instructions: i r - , ''.6 / j me , , i./ I /5 II Date anted: 5-- / p - o(� (! m p.m. Requester: 66,--441/4t4477.4) A. -c. /4,491/ ne: 8a y° 20 _ .7 y1- �. 7 4i S ,2,.. ,g 'ice • .; g4.. ElApproved per applicable codes. ,'Corrections required prior to approval. COMMENTS: 0 .4("S '7i .yam C'elA¢-Cl� d 47C�la , 8t65 eiv,leGS , -'*ie .BE=do<( 66,--441/4t4477.4) A. -c. /4,491/ 7 4i S ,2,.. ,g 'ice • .; g4.. 0 ? ,t.107rS %1 J . -+A .(,� t' //5✓ 9 G/6SS c C/ / 4 ( C(/ (.ter .h iotl ter-BPS Cam . 6/�'r .-e4i _ , / Dat5 $47.00 REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED, Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection. Receipt Nn: Date: %i7—x7,... ,? ;vvrt -t 3...m,`"'ri'r nr.'h'j4i'yi"�,!.;.J'!SS INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit %3.0,30 PERMIT NO. INSPECTION NO. CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100; Tukwila, WA 98188 1, (206) 431 -3670 Project: cpw Type of ins•ection: Address. Date - ed: Specia instructions: Date wanted:// ..2, Requester Phone No.: Approved per applicable codes. Corrections required prior to approval. Inspector: Date: I $42.006'RETNSPECTIO / FEE - EQ IRED. Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcen er Blvd,, Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection. COMMENTS: (I SLR/ Sr CPS' ,Gh Cd• 15:// Z 5k-1.-----/----/Z3,-44— 49A4 s-�- // Li .,re // 4, 60 i.-0,240 s C, (i- el l)l .'L,t'Garc.,z ,. 4.4 �A ,I- !L evil ' A J "7 r/` '`', Aq ilvoop i .x S -r 6 , ,. 4/A/ 2S 1 /7 C - - -•r!G znr l /, --4ZI I `._ kiol elC 'w Inspector: Date: I $42.006'RETNSPECTIO / FEE - EQ IRED. Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcen er Blvd,, Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection. * A*********- k.*: F.** A*** A•• AA***. F **'hA*:FA*A * **A ***A**.i.**hA'** * *•Atk* *ti• ** CITY OF TU1(i4ILA WA 'TRriN8al3.T :k*:k**AA.h *A. *I't,.AA•Ak IttF *:k * :sr •A;k.A•,F:4A•A**:k*ofA1e• A •A***AAAAhA. A** ;F:.A•A** **A*Aft TRANSM1S Number: R9700816 Amount,: 1.`,._44.75 08/24/96 30:60 P•eynt-6ti4ethod :'' CHECK ' UOtEttion.: 3ARLN. CIJRPORATIO • .In.It: 13LH !,- .I?N.r,in1t No 14128-0130 Type: ISIZNFRM M 3CliLLAUfiOUS NAAFI.. . Parre 1 NO : 092304, -9367 •`=‘,, I -H:13.1 _ te `(address: 1.3431 PACIFIC I'. S %, ,. ` . 4 . . . .Rote1 1�eO.1X 2 04,,E 96 1'1i 7.r Payme.rit •� 1.:'.44.75 Tot '1'1 AC.I. Put 2 045 Ati *•**A AA4 lit, A**A** 4ak.* h **-J:h*icAit A*A *A *ItA,A.*AAAA *A A: * * * A * A * A A * A :A * *•h .*A ** I4ccoent Code DP,sc1' i pi:■14n ", '•-7 7-- Amour t 000/322.100 . 13U11.1)ING .-' N0MRE: ' • . 1,237 M'25" 000 /341,3..1330 H AN CHI_'CH - NONWES 3.00. • Si(?0/op6'N904 . • S'fAIE: 11111,.. DING >:'t1RCi•IARCiE 4.50 \ it;IF J * 1. 14 * is •/‘ it * •A ,01 it 1k *4. * 44: 11 IV * iv * ;‘, r:),TY 1)}1.; WO . ONS.Pi IT * k k * *A :ev * k * * •*k * # 1. .k * * * * it t * it iv #: Y.U.111her,Z ii970()801 Amount: 801..21 (>7/271'98 -., Paymprit Method: 1015 Nottiort: onyzt) soon, init: TKF': • Perisit. Na: M198.--pi0 Tyne: 14):SCPERI■Imr.$cELLAricgps PaOcel No: 092304-9367- Site Address: 1242.1 'PACIF3:C S ' Total Fees: 2.0.451'.96 This l'avmerit ALL Pints: 801.21.‘:c I1arcc ' 4-**oi**:A;‘,4i.a../44,1kA-.‘ *Ivo. k•Alti iv** 4:$4*-Alki—A*“:***■Or A.A4-#41tA7CIViviiicfr**444itif., Ar:count, C „ ode Description Amount, 000/::45.83o- F)1..f)N CHECK - NONRES ' : 1)01 21 06/09/2000 06:16 2068813656 FA date: to: ' ph: fax: attn: re: Dear I aynes, KEYSTME NDC PAGE 01 F ho,(4 -c IJrg, Sht #1 of 2 June 8, 2000 Sabcy Construction 101 Elliott Ave West Suite 400 Seattle, Wa. 98119 206 - 241 -8223 206, 1rr 2S(- 0120 Haynes Lund International Gateway Corporate Park Tukwila, Wa. fkAZ-- 0/.30 Please forward the following copy of our original letter to Mark Velasquez regarding closeott of the project. Several copies have been sent to the Sabey site previously, but Mark Ass not received them. Rather than take a clinace he received recent copies, I wiould appreciate your help forwarding this letter. Thank byou in advance r your help in this matter. Sincerely, Stan N . Rochlin AM/AIA OCEA /KeyStone and Strata FDCC Representing: OCEAN/KeyStone of Tilbury Lehigh Cement Sox/ KeyStone Retaining Wall Systems of the Contech Corp. at Northstar Design P.O. Box 47 Kirkland, Wa. 98083 ph: 206- 680 -8907 fax: 425- 881 -3656 e-mail:roehstar@earthlink.net off+; 14441 a irthstar P.O. ox 47 Kirkland, We. 98083 ph: 2 6 -680 -8907 fax: 425- 881 -3656 e-mail; rochstar @earthlink.net Dec r 12, 1999 Sabe Construction 101 E liott Ave West Ste 4 Seattl , Wa. Attn: Mark Velasquez Re: International Gateway Corporate Park Project Closeout Review Dear ark, Upon eview of all the project "Geotechnical Engineer of Record" reports (Both Earth Consultants, Inc. and Geo Tech Consultants, Inc.), the site (before, during and after constrfiction), City of Tukwila Building Inspection Reports and LandTech's field notes. We hai'e determined that the KeyStone Retaining Wall Systems at The International Gateway Corporate Park conform to the design by KeyStone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. with Minor field modifications as reviewed and approved by both the wall design engineers and field geotechnical engineers as stated in field reports. Shouli you have any further questions regarding ardin our observations and review of all final docunt6nts for project closeout, please feel free to call me at 206 -680 -8907. Thank ou again. Sinter ly, Stan , Roc A KeySt ne Retaining Wall Systems and Strata Geogrid GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98119 -4220 Attention: Doug Schumacher 1325&dau bE h2er,e Li9963c 1 h Bellevue, Washington 98II05 (425) 747.5618 FtX 811747 -8561 Subject: Summary of Geotechnical Observations During Earthwork International Gateway Corporate Park 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Schumacher: Geotech Consultants, Inc. has provided geotechnical engineering observation and testing services during the early stages of earthwork and foundation construction at the International Gateway Corporate Park in Tukwila, Washington. Pursuant to your direction, as of October 19, 1998 our firm is no longer the geotechnical engineer of record for this project. This letter summarizes the observation and testing work that we completed prior to that date. Our first visit during site grading and construction occurred on August 5, 1998, with our final visit being completed on October 19, 1998. Our work included the following duties: a) Observation of excavation and slopes, b) Conducting density tests on imported structural fill in Building A and on non - structural fill around Building A. c) Observation of soil bearing beneath foundations in Building A. d) Observation of augercast pier installation in Building A. e) Monitoring construction of Keystone walls. An extensive amount of earthmoving was accomplished during the time of our involvement with the project. Generally, the soil conditions encountered in the excavations for Building A and the various Keystone walls were similar to what was anticipated from our previous explorations. Varying thicknesses of old, uncontrolled fill were found overlying native soils consisting of glacial till, silt, and colluvium. The composition and thickness of the fill varied dramatically over the site. Only limited groundwater seepage was encountered in excavations. Most of the excavated soil was hauled off -site, as it was unsuitable for reuse as structural fill or wall backfill. During our early involvement, we completed density tests on compacted, imported pit -run sand and gravel placed over a geotextile fabric in the Building A slab area. Approximately 2 feet of this imported fill was placed over the existing fill or native soils. Based on our density Sabey Corporation November 25, 1998 JN 98063 -1 Page 2 tests, this fill was compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Only foundation work for Building A (southern building) was occurring during our involvement, and had not been completed by the time of our last visit. Construction of the annex for Building A, in addition to Buildings B and C, had not yet started. We observed dense, native soils suitable for the 5,000 psf design bearing pressure at the following locations in Building A: A -Line retaining wall (western wall) B -Line retaining wall (west wall of lower floor) Column footings along Grid 3 Shear wall footing along Grid 4 between B and D Lines Grid 12 (northern) from A -Line to 15 feet east of C -Line Excavation for footings in the southern end of the building had started at the time of our last site visit. A total of 18 augercast concrete piers were installed to support a portion of the northeastern corner of Building A. These piers extended along the Grid 12 wall between Lines C.9 and G, and along the G -Line wall between Grids 8.7 and 12. The pier lengths varied from 17 feet to 48 feet below the bottom of the grade beam, with the longest piers occurring in the northeast corner, at G -12. We observed that the piers achieved sufficient embedment into dense, native silt to support the design compressive capacity of 40 tons. Geotech Consultants, Inc. observed construction of three Keystone retaining walls (Walls 1, 2, and 6) during our involvement. Wall 6, the tall wall north of future Building C, was constructed directly on dense, native silt. Walls 1 and 2, which are shorter walls, were supported on a combination of native silt, and medium - dense, existing fill. These fill walls were constructed using imported, granular soil for the reinforced backfill zone, including the triangular wedge of soil between the reinforced zone and the temporary cut slope. Geogrid reinforcement was laid within the reinforced zone, as the fill was placed and compacted in lifts. Density tests revealed at least 95 percent relative compaction was being achieved on the reinforced backfill. At the time of our last site visit, the following portions of the three walls were completed: Wall 1: Wall was substantially complete from STA 4 +50 to STA 11 +50. Wall 2: The entire height of the Keystone blocks had been placed, and all geogrid layers were installed in the compacted fill. The upper lift of fill had not been compacted at the time of our last visit during construction. Wall 6: This wall was substantially complete over its entire length. For all three of these walls, the ground surface behind the wall remained to be graded away from the face, and be paved or sealed to divert surface runoff from the backfill behind the walls through the winter. As a result of grading for the parking area west of future Building C, the eastern face of the existing concrete rubble buttress was trimmed back to a flatter inclination. Based on our observations, there was at least a 10- foot -wide buttress of rubble remaining after this grading. This appears adequate for long -term stability, considering that available documents indicate the backfill behind the buttress was compacted to rebuild the landslide that occurred there in 1988. Sabey Corporation November 25, 1998 JN 98063 -1 Page 3 To the best of our knowledge, the work which we observed, was generally performed in conformance with our recommendations, our understanding of the approved plans, and verbal instructions from the Structural Engineer of Record. Field reports regarding our observations have previously been transmitted to both Sabey Corporation and the City of Tukwila. In specific response to City of Tukwila's November 3, 1998 letter, we have the following comments: • Geotech Consultants' Field Report Dated October 13, 1998: In this field report we discussed at length, considerations for drainage and compaction characteristics necessary for the backfill of the western wall of Building A. Our primary concerns were that low compaction of the wall backfill would result in higher lateral soil loads on the wall, and excessive settlement would occur beneath pavements and on -grade sidewalks built over the fill. We understand that these issues have been addressed by Earth Consultants, Inc., the new geotechnical engineer of record, who oversaw the actual backfilling of the wall after our final site visit. • Geotech Consultants' Field Report Dated October 7 and 8, 1998: We observed the center bars installed into the augercast piers that were drilled beyond a length of 30 feet. This conforms with our recommendations, and discussions with the Structural Engineer. • Geotech Consultants' Field Report Dated October 6, 1998: This field report discusses several options for constructing on -grade foundations in the area of old fill and loose, native soils in the north end of Building A. As summarized above, the foundations that we observed were constructed on dense, native soils or augercast piers. We anticipate that Earth Consultants, Inc. will be verifying adequate bearing conditions for the remainder of the foundations. • Geotech Consultants' Field Reports Related to Backfill for Keystone Walls: Several of our field reports contain comments regarding the suitability of the imported granular fill that was utilized for the Keystone retaining walls. These comments were communicated with the project engineer in our firm following the completion of the field reports. In response to these comments, our project engineer reviewed samples of the backfill and sieve analyses completed by both our firm and the material suppliers. Based on this, the granular fill used behind the - Keystone walls was acceptable, and meets with the intent of both our recommendations and the specifications contained on Keystone's plans. This finding was transmitted previously to Sabey Corporation in a memorandum, but unfortunately was not summarized in a field report. Sabey Corporation November 25, 1998 Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. JN 98063 -1 Page 4 EXPIRES 1O/25/ q4 .11 Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Associate James R. Finley, P.E. Principal MRM /JRF: alt 4k'&44/... Earth Consultants Inc. (w gm hnlc nl 1 inginrors, (;cvinglscs 4 1 in%'irc nnnrnud tic It l inscti February 10, 2000 E -8499 Sabey Construction c/o International Gateway Field Office 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington 98168 Attention: Mr. Mark Velasquez Subject: Final Report - Revised International Gateway Corporate Park Tukwila, Washington Reference: Geotech Consultants, Inc. Summary Letter JN 98063 -1 Dated, November, 25 1998 Dear Mark: In accordance with your request, Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) provided construction monitoring services during the earthwork and foundation phases of construction for Buildings B and C, and during the later stages of Building A. ECI has been visiting the site on a part -time and full -time basis, as necessary, during the earthwork phases of construction. The involvement of ECI during the'earthwork phases of construction began in October of 1998. Geotech Consultants provided earthwork monitoring services during the initial stages of construction for Building A, and during construction of Keystone Walls 1, 2, and 6. Our services during the earthwork and foundation phases of the project included monitoring the site grading and fill compaction operations, verifying soil bearing capacity, and observation of the subsurface drainage installations. Soil bearing verification 8,000 psf. ECI observed the foundation soil for Buildings B and C. Dense to very dense undisturbed native soils were observed at the footing locations. The soils observed were suitable for the recommended 8,000 psf allowable soil bearing capacity. As indicated in the referenced letter, Geotech Consultants observed the installation of augercast piles throughout portions of Building A, and observed the foundation soils for the continuous and spread footings. 1805. 136th Place RE., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (425) 643.3780 FAX (425) 746.0860 Toll Free (888) 739.6670 Sabey Construction c/o International Gateway Field Office E -8499 February 10, 2000 Page 2 Structural fill placement and compaction Field density tests were conducted on structural fills, as necessary, behind the foundation walls for Buildings A, B, and C, and in utility trench areas. All tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D -2922 (Nuclear Gauge Method). The structural fill tested was compacted in accordance with our recommendations, and the specified relative compactions were achieved. Relative compactions of at least 90 percent (Modified Proctor) were achieved in the fill and backfill areas. Keystone Walls As indicated in the referenced summary letter by Geotech Consultants, adequate compaction was achieved in the backfill zones for the keystone walls that were constructed during their involvement on the project. Walls 1, 2, and 6 were substantially completed during Geotech's involvement. ECI observed the geogrid and backfill placement for Walls 3, 4, 5, and 7. ECI also observed geogrid and backfill placement for the south portions of Keystone Wall 1. The geogrid was placed in accordance with the design recommendations, and relative compactions of at least 90 percent were achieved in the backfill zones. Based on our observations and testing, it is our opinion the Keystone walls have been constructed in accordance with the design recommendations. ECI visited the site on February 7, 2000 to observe site conditions and the Keystone Walls. Based on our observations, the walls appear to be performing as intended. No indications of wall movements or settlements were observed. Subsurface drainage installation ECI observed the installation of the perimeter drains for Buildings A, B, and C. Installation of the drains for Keystone Walls 3, 4, 5, and 7 were also observed. Based on our observations, the drains were installed in accordance with our recommendations. Based on our observations and testing, to the best of our knowledge, the earthwork operations at the site were performed in accordance with our recommendations and the approved plans. Earth Consultants, Inc. Sabey Construction c/o International Gateway Field Office February 10, 2000 E -8499 Page 3 We trust this letter meets your needs. If you have any questions, please call. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. fr. Ray fond A. Coglas, P.E. Project Engineer RAC /KRC/bkm Kyle R. Campbell, Manager of Geotec EXPIRES % !t9I0D 3NI1 H31VY■ 00'0Z 8 0018 JO ON3 83N803 11VM Snit IN J M) O H1d30 3N138 0 05'9Y N M II W 1 I n I 1 J 1 f 1 1 I 1 11 11 1 1 1 al 1 1 1 1 I 1 { 111 1 11 111 .1..1.1.1 0 N (/1 w 01— Z w Z w 0 Cr: II W 11VM NI038 00'00 9 0 0 LAJ I11 n1•1 X11111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 V N O m co O( 1 O (C n n n n N N N N N NOIIVA313 O 0 0 O z - O Q o co Y - - w U m Q w o � V1 h 8 LJ ▪ _ z u, � 0 J w o o O () w 0 co O cv 0 o 0 WALL /1 ELEVATION 3811 HOIVW 00.062 v;:.xxaac,44w e... — ..,,.. 000181d01W SC6 t Z dA1 1N138 V SL'LPI 3N11 HOIV1 00'02 I O 2 O 0 O W EL = 118.83 I I I I I I I n O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ✓ N J CG N O fa ••1 l h N N N N N N NOIIVA313 — On - o O _ z O _ Q > 0 L&J - W 1.1.1 U O La- g ¢ - I— Z O - CO Z - I _ ul r 7 - o J J t. J _ Z —2 0 0 - cn w - O - 0 0 — n WALL it ELEVATION (CONT) 2 M N v Y CO 0 CO 3NI1 H31VI 00.09f 8 0018 JO 0N3 SZ'Sff (FG EL = 121. FINISHED GRADE AT BOTTOM OF WALL 3NI1 H31VYV 00.0YZ 1[ 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 ri G CO v W N 0 m M M N 0 N N N N NOIIVA3l3 I W 0 0 (STANDARD UNITS - NEAR VERTICAL SETBACK) 0 — 0 WALL #t ELEVATION (CONT) rn s A V } c A m - o 0 �- N 6 s 3NI1 H01V11 00'006 H4430 !NU it 2 0 —1 - o ac VOL118,1". 1 0 EL = 129.83 3NI1 HO1VI1 00'09C ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oa00000000 n 0 N N N N 0 CO 1 NOILVA313 WALL j1 ELEVATION (CONT) A A 1 EL = 128.50 ▪ 0 0018 40 0N3 SCKG 3N11 HOLVY9 00'OBY EL ! i I ( I0 in ol ry CO 10 e a 0. o o ti s 8 Id i 6 E 1 I N- I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 00 , O 0 0 °o , , 0 oo ' 0 c0i o0 0N N N- .1 N .v- N011VA313 N II W 0 2 O 0 m d ca 0 tn 0 0 LO - o — - m0 — O W 0 I— z ce - o > ] o — z - �I I _ — z - D 0 MJ < - w z (n - w - o - o - — - - o l0 v WALL #1 ELEVATION (CONT) n 0. a wQ U3 o W 0 t_ aa b api A 4 • 3NI1 HO1VW 00'0U EL = 130 50 H1d30 JNI311 C7 SZ'S99 3 0018 ld 0ir SZ'OS9 3NI1 HOIVYI 00'009 ai • 0 0 00 N o IM on 03 03 N I^oe O 1.0 1 $ 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p 1 I O O O p O O O 0 0 M M N co N N N- NOI1VA313 u W • FINISHED GRADE AT BOTTOM OF WALL 0 0 0 0 0 1. 0 O 0 z 0 a Ow— W 0 m WALL #1 ELEVATION (CONT) t1 11!7":7.--71M151r u 3N11 H31VNI 00'009 H1d30 414138 ' 00'n9 EL = 135.17 f N LJ 0 .0 to 11 Li ..c $:,,cr?., 4-. 0 ..'.:,::::',.,...,...0.-1. La c,..; ..1, • 0 N • Lo 0 3 0010 40 ON3 H1d30 JN138 V GrgSZ. 3N11 HOlVri 00.0ZL 0 to 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-1 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 qqqoqoqqoqqo N 0 Co LC; N 0 CO LO 11 *I NNNNN NO IIVA313 10 1. 0 1. 0 KEYSTONE WALL WALL 81 ELEVATION (CONT) 01 2 cJ A 1 3N11 HO1VN 00'096 m M N N N O 0 0 0 8 8 0 8 M M m m 6 h u M w A H1d30 JN1321 0 00'199 3NIl HOMY 00'049 EL = 135.17 -� - }- w EL = 112.83 0 W I-1-1 771-1 I I 1 1 1 i I'-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 go 0 0 0 0 0 0 go 0 0 0 O O 00 6 O N O m 10 N O m 10 Y N I ) N .- .• .- NOi1VA3"13 0 co (STANDARD UNITS - NEAR VERTICAL SETBACK) 0 n 01 0 001 0 01 00 01 z 0 liJ J W W U Lei 1- Z 0 l.i 0 N co m 0 J WALL g1 ELEVATION (CONT) 0 n 3N11 N310r1 000901 EL = 121.50 EL = 140.50 Hic130 3N132J V 0c9/.6 3N11 HaLVII 00096 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 00 o oo o o oo 0 00 0.0 Q000qqq0q0 q q N co ID 1Ni o N ci co LO a a el cc) 1*-1 1) N N N N NOLLVA313 CO A 8 t z 1— Z O - • 0 — o 0 77 0 0 0 z 0 0> ZI) W ." uJ 0 0 01 0 01 • L. KEYSTONE WALL WALL fl 1 ELEVATION (CONT) 2 0 A 1 ,v, I1VM ON3 SL'6611 l) N H100 1NI3d p II 00'9/11 -J w II W 1-11d30 Alin p 0.o1 1 H1d30 4N1311 V OSTZ l 1 N 0 II 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 H1d30 4NI3!1 p ` I1 OS'960l 3NI1 H31VIV 00'0801 4 I.1•l11 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 �1 1 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 - •1 --1- EL 11 11 1 11 1 1 1 CI 1 1 .:1 11 1 1 1 1 I I I I 11 1 1 1 C1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 m 1111111 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000go000000o lV O IO 10 a N 0 00 LO Y N 0 Y Y I'1 M M N N N N N NOIIVA313 FINISHED GRADE AT BOTTOM OF WALL 0 0 0 E 0 - o 0 0 KEYSTONE WALL N 0, CO a a w C 5 A 1 E �IlS VI ..i,16.14.ML1AYluMNM.r iwrLacc J o• Ln V) WZN n0 LLI CA 1— Cox 1-Q 0 12 Z: WI Z u Q W 1=- Q X00 na CY °i �8 W � Z W� Id F2 ew g WE Wz0 Y 2 i- `1 3NIl HOLWI 00'OL l� M 0 01 00 93Nd00 TIM OS'49 H1d30 3NI321 V SL'L4 TIM NI039 00'00 I I I I I 1 8 8 0 8 .0 0 o 0 0 m 16 Y N 0 00 m01 .o101 01 co NOI1VA313 FINISHED GRADE AT BOTTOM CF WAL 0 40 r. - o 0 OI 0 w ELEVATION WALL N N .0 abf 3Y gfr� .� oy • t !z 1 NO ;et igp MI • =li 4 Pi 3 13x0 Phi lh IIVM 0N3 05'£5Z q H1d30 4NI3N V 5Z'££Z W 3NI1 HD.VY1 00.0Z 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 FINISHED GRADE AT BOTTOM OF WALL O ul 0 1C (STANDARD UNITS - NEAR VERTICAL SETBAC �t,II o 3(+1,11. •!' H N U` 1 O - o — •r 0 -- 0 - N - o - 0 law WALL 12 ELEVATIGN (CONT) r K (n W 1-- O z J w z w • � J xaa in ~ m z 0u °o 2� MO z z „ 1_ W u O 0 W IA X W fn N O O 2 W F Z Q 4 ix W W ¢ V U w z0 N 11YM 0N3 06'001 BUTT TO BLDG C trit 1: 1I 213NE10311VM H1d30 .4NI31! V OWOZ 11YM NI0313 00'00 M m IJ �r• r-m- -1 0 0 ui 2 'Airi` O 0 O O •OI ONI O 4- 0 0 0 _S 0 -- O NOI1VAJ13 iSo o .13 v 10 1?0 De� ->LhA a p „O ( ?, „.11 Q � ,yy Li z 0 a N 1 0, 10) t 1 1 11VM ON3 00'S£ I 2J3N2103 IIVM SZ'61 I H1430 JNl321 V 06'£L 0 0 0 W n 0 rn L = 109.00 11VM N1038 00'00 1 gIu n n I I I l 000$.8888 N O m V7 0 0 0 0 WALL j4 ELEVATION 2 yr VU .n 1 V (1 0 J w^ ti^ NN V• w U Z r ❑ N V ^ J A 11VM O•3 SCZ£ 1 1:13NHO0 11VM 05'901 0 0 0 O II W 0 0 -J 11VM NI03O 00'00 ox z 1 10 5 o QI O O m 6 EL = 91.00 A -J 0 ILJ Q Z 12 2 2 O 0 O - z -. 0 0 - w - -J w -e O FRONT FACE N - 0 f 1 1 II 1 1� 0 0 0 o O u O 0 0 0 0 0. Z O 00 C71 0O1 01 001 001 O4 4s- NOM VA l3 mf WALL #5 ELEVATION 0+ Ln Ya () w I- 0 z J w z 0 = W O eIK '"w o= 00 or u to 9 • < coX ~2 Ins" R5 zz 02 o wU d w � c2 N Lair 002 o wao o a 0 10 3NI1 MOWN 0 0 . 0 I EL H1d30 4NI38 v 00.ZOI 83NlJ00 IIVM 00'06 88888000 11 H1d30 .JN13H W OS'.0L H1d30 414138 0 05'01, H1d30 41,1138 0 00'81 IIVM N1038 00'00 M 0 II u EL = 10t.50 11 1 1 111; 111 0 11 w • o rn 11 m W II w 111 II j1 11 11 I1; 1 1 I'1 �I 1 11 II 1 C1 1 11 C1 11 1 11 C1 1 11 1 11 1 1 11 11 1 00)) IT1 11 1 I I r 1 F-1-1-1 $ $$0858$5$$$ ••• 0 0 0. 0 0 00)) 0011 0011 00)) 01 03 W m NOI1VA313 M to ID 11 J 0 0 0i CC • O - — oo o _ o n FACE ELEVATION — o 1 0 w Q m 1' X n Q) 01 a 1 a 3N11 H01VW_ 00.062 1-11d30 .N1321 V 05'6ZZ 3d1,1 416321V 00'991 H1d30 3N1321 V SCZC t 3N11 H01VW 00'021 1 1 1 1 1 1 ITrrrrrrr , 1 rr 885.$888$8888$$8885_8$8 N N N O M^ O O O tn O O 01 001 001 CT 01 03 cn CO m. NOIIVA313 0 01 0 - 01 w - 0 L H z - 0 - 0 4 0 4 0 - o - o 0 — n t'. FACE ELEVATION H z 0 WALL #6 - L' IIVM 0N3 • SVC= H1d30 JN138 v 00'99f H1d30 4NI38 SL' l5f 113N1100 IIVM 00'S6f H1d30 JN1323 v SCUT Hiroo 41JI7w t7 SZ'61f snow, ON3 SC06Z snlova N1038 SL'9LZ H1d30 JNI311 V OOTLZ 3NIl HO1V19 oo'ova - II W EL = 129.50 11 11 EL = 119.83 8 '2 III^ 11 11 II 11 I EL = 12750 1 1 1 1 1 11 01 0 0 o co 11 1 1 11 11 1 1 1 ca 0 Jn 1 1 11 1 1 I 11 1 1 1 III Iil 11 11 II 1 111 1 111111 O of • 8 • S 1 y, I m O 11 -J 1 1 1 I 1 1-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- 1-1 -1-1 8 00 0 8 °o, 0 8 1N � 1N f1 MN j o o S S S o N N O n 10 01 NOIIVA313 STRATA FINISHED GRADE AT EOTiOM OF WALL O 01 ri 0 O 01 O N 0 ID _ 0 M ELEVATION O .-- N o N 0 N 0 • • pCv 0 01 V1 V cc b ie 11;i cit ri ark° iN "fri g e rjg S "r ;IryF :. 611 di!t (1. GENERAL NOTES: re 1=-w 80 LI 0 0 =Y V w 0 m� o° 0P' Z O 0 ID II 83Na03 11VM 001,13 H1d30 3N138 7/ 0018/ sntova 0N3 BZ•69 EL = 86.67 sniavH, Nio3e _ 05'BS a3N803 11VM OS' lc H1d30 4NI38 00'LZ 11VM NI03e 00'00 FINISHED GRADE AT BOTTOM OF WALL .71 .1 LI 1 II 000 0g000 •• m • •D Y r..1 .D D 1 01 01 01 01: 01 co CO . CO NOI1VA313 O N (STANDARD . UNITS - NEAR VERTICAL SETBACK) • N a... off.'- • WALL ?7 ELEVATION 0 0 z. m 11 0 ..a 4- 11 "t2 r 0 SrApwr v*JALL 1- CO ENV WALL— o+,91`,5 May 5, 2000 city of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Haynes Lund 101 Elliot Ave W Suite 330 Seattle Wa 98168 RE: Permit Status MI98 -0130 12421 Pacific Hwy S Dear Mr Lund: In reviewing our current permit files, it appears that your permit to construct 8 keystone retaining walls, issued on August 24, 1998, has not received a final inspection as of the date of this letter by the City of Tukwila Building Division. Per the Uniform Building Code and /or Uniform Mechanical Code, every permit issued by the building official under the provision of this code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit, or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of 180 days, Based on the above, if a final inspection is not called for within ten (10) business days from the date of this letter, the Permit Center will close your file and the work completed to date will be considered non - complying and not in conformance with the Uniform Building Code and /or Mechanical Code. Please contact the Permit Center at (206)433 -7165 if you wish to schedule a final inspection. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Bill Rambo Permit Technician Xc: Permit File No. M198.0130 Duane Griffin, Building Official 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington Reid iddleton August 13, 1997 File No. 24 -98- 022 - 007 -03 Mr. Duane Griffin City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Building Permit Plan Review - Final Submittal Pacific View Office Park - Keystone Walls (D98444}) M mete -op Dear Mr. Griffin: R ECEIVED AUG 1 4 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELQPNMENT We reviewed information for the proposed project for compliance with the structural provisions of the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Building Code as amended and adopted by the City of Tukwila. It appears the applicant has responded successfully to our previous review letter, dated August 7, 1998. We therefore have no additional comments. Enclosed are the drawings, structural calculations, geotechnical report, and correspondence from the engineer for your records. A copy of this letter has been forwarded to the architect, Freiheit & Ho Architects Inc. PS, for your convenience. If you have any questions or require any additional clarification or information, please call. Sincerely, Reid Middleton, Inc. Al? 94 y 'e K. Y matsuka, E.I.T. Pla Review Engineer David B. Swanson, 1, ' Project Manager bjr\ wl\planrevw\tukwila \98\t007r3.docybf Enclosures cc: Mr. Haynes Lund, Sabey Corporation Mr. Rich Gardner, Freiheit & Ho Architects Inc. PS (Fax) Engineers Planners Surveyors Reid Middleton, Inca 728 134th Street SW Suite 200 Everett, Wsr.hington 98204 Ph: 425 741.'3800 fax: 42S 741 -3900 Reid iddleton July 20, 1998 File No. 24 -98- 022 - 007 -01 Mr. Duane Griffin City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED JUL 21 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Building Permit Plan Review - First Submittal Pacific View Office Park - Keystone Walls () A4Iq$ --0130 Dear Mr. Griffin: We reviewed information for the proposed project for compliance with the structural provisions of the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the City of Tukwila. The following comments should be addressed: 1. A calculated bearing pressure of 5455 psf is shown for the design of Wall #1 at 920 feet; however, a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 5000 psf is recommended in the addendum to the geotechnical engineering study, dated June 9, 1998. 2. The calculated bearing pressure of 6013 psf for the design of Wall #6 at 285 feet exceeds the recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure. See comment above. 3. A geogrid Strata 300 is called out for layer four, Wall #1 at 1,075 feet, Sheet 12; however, a geogrid Strata 500 is required according to the calculations. 4. Geogrid layer 5, Wall #4 at 10 feet, is located at a height of 8.66 feet above the base of the wall (elevation 100.67 feet). Refer to Sheet 16. Layer 5 should be located 9.33 feet above the base of the wall according to the design calculations. 5. Geogrid layer 6, Wall #6 at 102 feet, is located at a height of 12 feet above the base of the wall (elevation 85.87 feet). Refer to Sheet 18. Layer 6 should be located 12.67 feet above the base of the wall according to the design calculations. Engrnerrt Plann_r Surcri'orr 6. Calculations qualifying the design of Wall #6, between 102 feet and 132.75 feet, Reid Middleton, Inc. should be submitted for our review. Refer to Sheet 18 and 19. 728 134th Street SW Suite 200 Everen, Washington 98204 Ph: 425 741.3800 Fax: 425 741.3900 Mr. Duane Griffin, Building Official City of Tukwila July 20, 1998 File No. 24 -98- 022 - 007 -01 Page 2 7. Geogrid layer 1, Wall #6 at 230 feet, is located at a height of 1.33 feet above the base of the wall (elevation 95.87 feet). Refer to Sheet 20. Layer 1 should be located .67 feet above the base of the wall according to the design calculations. 8. The geogrid type at elevation 117.18, Wall #6 at 285 feet, is not called out on Sheet 20. It appears geogrid Strata 500 is required according to the calculations. 9. Calculations qualifying the design of the upper Wall #8, between 0 feet and 71.5 feet, should be submitted for our review. Refer to Sheet 24. The review comments listed above should be responded in itemized letter form. We recommend that the permit applicant have the Structural Engineer of Record, Nelson - Bourdages, respond to the above comments and resubmit two copies of revised drawings and one copy of supplemental structural calculations directly to our office. We forwarded a copy of this letter to the architect, Freiheit & Ho Architects Inc. PS, for your convenience. Please note that corrections or comments made during the review process do not relieve the project applicant or designer from compliance with requirements of codes, 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. Sincerely, Middleton, Inc. David B. Swanson, Project Manager K)lie K. Y matsuka, E.I.T. Plan Review Engineer bjc\ wt\ planrevw\tukwila\984OO7r1.docybf cc: Mr. Haynes Lund, Sabey Corporation Mr. Rich Gardner, Freiheit & Ho Architects Inc. PS (Fax) 08/12/98 WED 14:36 FAX 206 281 0920 AUG 1 4 19P, COEllWIi.l N DFVELOPMENT Saber Construction Corp 21001 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL /5f-RECEIVED AUG' r 19933 DATE/TIME: 08/12/08 YES, BY: Mall: X Overnight Delivery TO: GAVIG SWAN5ON FIRM: f'EII7 MIr7Gl.E1'ON, INC. FAX NO.: 425 -741 -'900 PHONE NO.: 425 -74I -5800 02:24 PM ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW: NO FROM: HAYNt5 LUNG PROJECT: FACING VIEW OFFICE PARK Number of pages, Including this cover sheet: Transmitting from fax number (206) 281 -0920, Phone (206) 281.8700 Please call Sarah Bruinooge at 281 -8700 if you do not r +tceive all pages. Message: Please find attached a letter from keystone Retittlnlnp Wall Systems which we are submlttln sp p to reond to the comment In your Plan Review fitlrttsr dated 11/7/0B. Please 01811 me If you haw any question* or require any further !information. This facsimile communication la Intended only for tits use of the IndMNduel or entity to which It a+ addressed and may contain information that la prlyilsdad and and confidential. If the radar or thla cover papa is not the addressee, on the emelt/N or spent of Mite addressee, please b t advised that any dlornlrtation, distribution, or copying ofd* oornmuniosdon Is etrlody prohibited. 11 you receive this facsirhlle In ungr, please notify us Imo edietely by teiephons and mall thin facsimile to us at the address below. Thank you. BABY CORPORATION 101 Elliott Avenue Weal • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA 11115 • Tel; 20112114Ir700 • Pax: 2011211 .0520 Wk4FNti*HO.WKI 08/12/98 WED 14:56 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabel Construction Corp l002 SAJE3EY SA9 O RPORATION ARCHITECTURE GROUP 101 iOTT AVE. WEST, SUITE 330 (XX;l'()1i,A1'K)N PHQNEE 201/A20i -0700 EVEIBINMINIMMIMINI FAX 20B.281.0920 TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET To DAVID SWANSON Reid- Middleton 728134th Street SW Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 RE; DATE: 08/121)8 PROJECT 0: 98:70, 21 PROJECT; P001/14 VIew office park Keystone Retaining Wells Permit application 0098.0130 WE ARE SENDING YOU: fl ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ❑ PRINTS ❑ ORIGINALS Q VIA OVERNIGHT © VIA MAIL ❑VIA HAND DELIVERY Ej VIA COURIER ❑ SUBMITTALS © LETTER ri SAMPLES E] DOCUMENTS FOR YOUR: n INFORMATION AND USE © APPROVAL REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑] AS REQUESTED ❑ FOR SIGNATURE AND RETURN [❑ NO ACTION REQUIRED OP u• rI 11 L, Keystone Retaining Wall Systems with_o>;>tleulatlons page NOTE: IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE. REMARKS: This letter is submitted In response to the Pear Review comment letter from_ eld• Mlddieton dated 817/98. BY: .J aidne3 Zuni cc: File, Nelson- Bourdages TMITyR•M.WK4 08/12/98 WED 14 :56 FAX 206 281 0920 AUG, 12. 1998 1:3e?M x 'y'1'UN 44 I August 11, 1998 Mr. Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation 101 Elliot Avenue West, Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 Sabey Construction Corp (.i Irv, uolu +, ,■ c Q1003 Re: Plan Review Comments International Gateway Corporate Park Tukwila, Washington Dear Sir, We have reviewed the plan review comments furnished by Reid: Middleton, Inc that you forwarded to this office on August 10, 1998. Attached is a revised calculation page that addresses the detailing conflict noted and confirms that the plan design is correct. Inadvertently, a supers :ded computer calculation sheet was included in the computation set which was in error. Please feel free to call me if there any additional questions. Sincerely, Ci i g D. lvl or11z, P. E. Director of Engineering Atta,chement cc: Stan Rocklin -K?NW d.Ur t West Tech Street liluenvn iron Aluuwrrb):>S�J� nr• Pro" ry`dlt'l$r•Aeivh 08/12/98 WED 14.57 FAX 208 281 0920 All% IL. 10P l i aorm +u � cva�G Based on Rankine (modified sail interfecc) Methadologr Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 .ONE +RITALNING V!A11 • Sabey Construction Corp •• • • V V l J 21004 rt.-3V o act: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. fro.: 98 -159 Deai, Parameters 11 Parameters Reinforced F1111 4 Retained F111: 28 Foundation Pill: 28 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit P111: Crushed Stone, 1 inch rains Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection 0 0 Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Rein rains Parameters: Strata -Grid Geagride Tult SRFer 1ZFd t Tr Strata-300 2997 1,61 "TO- Streak-50o 4396 1.61 1.10 1.10 Strat? -600 7393 1.61 1.10 1.10 Y125 120 120 LTDS 1539 2257 3195 Date: 8/11/98 C,.,, 1%41,1 .,./ ......-it 11 w+V 2.00 1.50 1.50 Bearing: 2.00 ,Serviceability: N/A 1.50 1504 1.00 1.00 1.50 25.10 L00 1.00 Analysis: Wall M6 ® 385' Cue: Case 7 Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Wa11 Fatter 0.00 deg. Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 32.33 ft , embedment: 4,00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform cur :hare offset -- 3,00 ft; Load Width.. 100.00 ft Results: Factors of Safety: Sl1.93 ovo3tyrpipg s� .8 �, Calculated Hearing Pressure: 6076 psf Mfg 93 6677 3 8 Eccentricity at base: 3.50 R Allow. Rein J�D�rcing: (ft & 1bs /R) Calculated Tenslon pa 'cr t cleht Lima Temkin Ptent. Tv & 15 2933 23.0 331 Strata -3t� 1026 ok 14 26,67 23,0 551 Strnta400 1026 ok 13 24.00 23.0 842 Strata -300 1026 ak 12 21i3 23.0 1125 Strata -500 1504 ok 11 18.67 23.0 1396 Strata -500 1304 ok 10 16.00 23.0 1438 Strata -500 1504 ok 9 14.00 23.0 1392 Strata -500 1304 ok 8 12.00 23.0 1537 Strata -600 2530 ok 7 10.00 23.0 1682 Strata -600 2530 ok 6 8,00 23.0 1201 Strata -600 2530 ok 5 7.33 23.0 943 Strata -600 2130 ok 4 6.00 23.0 1651 Strate.600 2330 ok 3 4.00 23.0 1751 Strata -600 2330 ok 2 2.67 23.0 1412 Strate.600 2530 ok 1 1,33 23,0 1536 Strata -600 2530 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste Included): (Efciencya 64 % ) Strata -600: 20.44 sy /ft Strata -500: 10.22 ay /ft Strata -300: 7.67 sy /ft C :1P ram PIleslke wedge \Pacific View - Revised 3.sav • 1 - Peak Servlceabllty Connection Conneetlon o.lc 1162 elk N/A 1332 ok N/A 1532 ok N/A 1532 ok N/A 1332 c.k N/A 1332 ok N/A 1863 ok N/A 1865 ask N/A 1865 r k N/A 1865 ask N/A 1865 ci k N/A 1865 a k N/A 1865 ak N/A 1865 ok N/A Pullout FSM ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok PS >10 ok F5 >10 ok PSs►10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok PS >10 ok FS >10 ok RET:EIVED AUG 1 4,998 SPEY 27- ca-022 -061 -02. CORPORATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 5, 1998 David B. Swanson Project Manager Reid Middleton, Inc. 728 134th St SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 RECEt /EL, AUG nau RE: Pacific View Office Park Building Permit Application for Keystone Retaining Walls (D98 -0130) Dear Mr. Swanson: We are enclosing herewith 2 copies of the revised drawings and calculations, dated 7/31/98, for the Keystone retaining walls for the above referenced project. Included with this material is a letter dated 8/4/98 itemizing the response of our structural engineer to the issues raised in your letter of July 20, 1998. You will note that we have reduced the amount and height of the Keystone walls from the original submittal. These changes have rendered moot some of your previous comments. We believe you will find the responses to the remaining comments satisfactory. Your letter requests that the Structural Engineer of Record should respond to your comments. We have not done that since Keystone Retaining Walls are a proprietary product. The manufacturer provides the structural design for each specific application of their system. This application is submitted under the responsibility of Craig Moritz who is a registered professional engineer in the State of Washington. Nelson - Bourdages, the structural engineer of record for this project, has no responsibility for the engineering design for these walls. We trust that this revised submission will resolve all the comments from your letter of 7/20/98. Your reviews of the submissions for this project have been very timely in the past, and we hope that will continue with this submission. The City of Tukwila has worked very closely with us to expedite their reviews to help ensure the success of this significant new development. These retaining walls are on the critical path for an extremely tight construction schedule, so your efforts to rapidly complete your review will be greatly appreciated by all. Haynes Lund, AIA Project Architect CC: File, Schumacher, Duane Griffin EMAYNESL 98.70\INTEROTEIWMRDMD05AU.LTR architecture • construction • development • management 4 n, ❑111..44 A....... ... 1A/ - c due 9.2/1 _ evetNe VOA _ rQi i a_A00n - 9nR /OGi _a7rtn . Cc..t onainon nne, KEYSTONE I 7 1 I ' 1. • .1f I. August 4, 1998 Haynes Lund Sabey Construction Architectural Group 101 Elliot Avenue West, Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 AUG 1 4 199F.; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Pacific View Office Park • First Submittal Building Permit Comments Tukwila, WA►. Dear Mr. Lund: We will address each comment raised by Reid Middleton, Inc. at the first submittal building permit plan review. This letter is to be included with the revised drawing submittal package previously sent to you. 1. The calculated bearing pressure of Wall #1 at 920' has been reduced to approximately 4,600 psf, which is below the maximum allowable bearing pressure of 5,000 psf. This is due to a reduction in the wall height. 2. The calculated bearing pressure of Wall #6 at 285' (approximately 6,100 pst) exceeds the 5,000 psf allowable bearing pressure, in this area, there may be some foundation soil improvements required as directed by the site gcotechnical engineer to increase the allowable bearing pressure of the foundation soil up to the anticipated wall loading. The 5,000 psf allowable bearing capacity provided by the geotechnical engineer typically includes a factor of safety of 3, which yields an ultimate bearing capacity of 15,000 psf. A safety factor of 2 or 2,5 is more typical for MSE wall systems (6,000 -7,500 psf). 3. Wall #1 has been revised. See new calculation package. 4. New calculations have been provided. 5. New calculations have been provided. 6. A calculation has been provided that falls within the requested limits (0120'). 7. New calculations have been provided. 8. The Strata S00 geogrid has been properly labeled. 9. Wall #8 has been deleted. Please feel free to contact this office if there is additional questions. Since l 01 I Mic . Johnson, P.E. Staff Engineer 4444 Won 78th Slreei RInnminnInn Minnuanln SA■' KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYS I EMS -1, f,F- -7 - (444e_ RECEIVED AUG 1 4 1998 COMMUNITY. MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 1998 TO: Haynes Lund — Sabey Construction FROM: Michael Johnson, P.E. RE: Pacific View Office Park Retaining Walls Tukwila, WA Enclosed are three sets of revised preliminary drawings for the Pacific View Office Park retaining walls. The approximate quantities are as follows: Wall Quantities: Wall # Wall Area (FT''): Strata 300 (FT): Strata 500 (YD2): Strata 600 (YD2): 1 17,475 5,700 1,950 1,325 2 1,400 290 3 700 175 4 1,200 530 5 1,175 300 6 8,425 2,930 7 825 200 Totals: 31,200 10,125 The block and grid quantities are neat quantities. Design Assumptions: 2,100 2,525 4,050 3,850 Keystone Standard Units, near vertical setback, 4" cap units Strata 200, 500 & 600 Geogrid Rankine Design Analysis 250 PSF Traffic Loading as required Top and Toe Slope vary for each wall ».s» iNost 161h Stlee. Rlnrn❑nrinn Al:nnrct.!.t A;11; Ie KEYSTONE RETAINING WALT. SYSTEMS .'fDgn Properties: Reinforced Soil Retained Soil Foundation Soil 444.1 %VBSI 731!i Street 7 C 34° 125 PCF 0 28° 120 PCF 0 28° 120 PCF 0 C GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Memo 13256 NE 206 Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 747 -5618 FAX 747 -8561 JN: 98063 To: Haynes Lund Frown Marc R. McGinnis Company: Sabey Corporation Date: May 18, 1998 Address: 101 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 330 FAX: (206) 281-0920/ Seattle, Washington 98119 -4220 Phone: (206)281 -4200 RE: Additional Considerations for Wall and Foundation Design Pacific View Office Park Tukwila, Washington R E 7 EIVED 11,'l 19198 SabE orp0 RECEIVED JUL 1 3 )c a This memo is an addendum to our March 16, 1998 geotechnical engineering study. The following items are addressed by this addendum: • Reuse of on -site soils as structural fill. • Recommended foundation types for the three buildings following the recently- conducted supplemental test pits. • Design parameters and backfill considerations for the permanent building walls. As we have discussed in our meetings, the on -site soils could be reused as structural fill on a very limited basis. The fine- grained silt soils, which will constitute most of the excavated material, must be moisture - conditioned, then be compacted in thin layers using a sheepsfoot roller to achieve 85 to 90 percent compaction. If these soils are treated with kiln dust or cement to aid with moisture conditioning and to add compressive strength, they can be used as structural fill beneath pavements. These soils should not be used beneath foundations, as compaction results can be variable. Where the treated soils are used for backfill of foundation walls, at least 3 feet of free - draining gravel should be placed against the walls. The on -site soils cannot be used for geogrid- reinforced fill walls, regardless of whether or not they are treated with kiln dust or cement. Attached are copies of, the footprints of the three buildings ,(labeled A to C from south to north) On these plans are approximate locations of the test pits and borings that have been conducted, and the estimated elevations of dense or hard bearing soils at each location. Where the bearing is noted to be below an elevation, this is the lowest elevation explored at that location, and suitable bearing soils were not encountered. Augercast concrete piers will likely be needed for the northeastern portion of Building A and the southeastern portion of Building B. The explorations in these areas found deep fill extending at least 10 feet below the planned footing grades. This depth is excessive for overexcavation and structural fill. The extent of the actual extent of the piered sections can only be determined accurately at the time of building excavation. At least a portion of each of the western extensions of the buildings, west of the basement floors, will need to be supported on piers, Supporting all of these portions of the buildings (slabs and walls) on piers, prevents the foundations from adding surcharges to the basement walls. As summarized below, the basement walls will need to be designed for much higher soil pressures if piers are not used for the western extensions. Less stringent compaction of backfill below the westem extensions would also be possible if piers were used. Sabey Corp. Page 2 May 18, 1998 JN 98063 Design parameters for piers and conventional foundations are presented in our previous report. The high bearing pressure (5,000 psf) can be used for footings that bear on competent soils, or on overexcavations that are backfilled with lean concrete. A lower bearing pressure must be used where footing overexcavations are backfilled with imported granular structural fill (on -site soils, even when treated with kiln dust or cement, are not acceptable for structural fill beneath footings). Three scenarios exist for the design soil pressures behind foundation walls: Scenario 1: The basement walls are constructed as permanent soldier pile walls having a 2.5:1 (H:V) backslope until the permanent concrete walls are constructed. This will be necessary where adequately- sloped cuts cannot be made without encroaching into the steep, westem slopes. As discussed, the benefit of using the shoring walls is that the amount of the excavation behind the basement walls is drastically reduced. This is a significant consideration due to the difficulty of reusing the excavated soils as on -site fill. Active earth pressure - 50 pcf Scenario 2: Foundation walls are backfilled with imported free - draining granular fill compacted to 95 percent compaction to support foundations above. Active earth pressure - 40 pcf plus a uniform pressure equal to 10 psf multiplied by the wall height to account for restrained walls. Surcharge pressure from western footing of west extension (if not carried on piers) - 200 psf uniform pressure over entire height of wall. Scenario 3: Foundations walls are backfilled with a minimum 3 -foot width of free - draining gravel, then kiln dust - treated on -site soils compacted to at least 90 percent (piers would be used to support foundations on the backfill zone). Active earth pressure - 50 pcf plus a uniform pressure equal to 10 psf multiplied by the wall height to account for restrained walls. Surcharge pressure from westem footing of west extension (if not carried on piers) - 200 psf uniform pressure over entire height of wall. Please call with any questions. - t1• _.._ rf___L /InC1 ena 4OCn .1 q J 1 • et GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256 NE 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 747 -5618 FAX (425) 747 -8561 Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 330 Seattle, Washington 98119 -4220 Attention: Haynes Lund Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Pacific View Office Park 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Lund: • March 16, 1998 JN 98063 We are pleased to present this preliminary geotechnical engineering report for the proposed office complex to be constructed along Pacific Highway South in Tukwila, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork, and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. You authorized our work by accepting our confirming proposal dated February 16, 1998. The subsurface conditions of the proposed building site were explored with seven test pits and eight borings that encountered a variable thickness of fill and loose soils overlying glacially - compressed soils. Conventional footings can be used for the buildings where the excavation will be close to the glacially- compressed soils. Augercast piers should be planned in areas of deeper fill and for the western extensions of the buildings over the garage wall backfill. The marginal stability of the steep slopes, and the possibility of future slope movement, must be considered in the site configuration and final grading. The on -site soils ,are not acceptable for reuse as structural fill or wall backfill, which will require importing of most fill. The site soils are sensitive to moisture, which will make wet weather grading more costly and difficult. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. MRM: alt Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Absociate PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Pacific View Office Park 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed offjce complex in Tukwila. The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. We were provided with Sheets CO and SK8 -1 dated February 13 and 10, 1998, respectively. These plans were developed by the Sabey Corporation Architecture Group. The provided plans showed the property dimensions, existing topography on 5 -foot contours, the location of existing structures, and the location and finish floor elevations for the proposed buildings. We anticipate that the site will be developed with four office buildings, each of which will have three floors of tenant space. Beneath the middle two buildings (Buildings B and C) will be a daylight basement parking garage. The northern building (Building D) is to have a daylight basement garage and one more floor of parking beneath the three floors of office space. Paved, on -grade parking will cover most of the remainder of the property. No parking is indicated west of the southern building (Building A), where the building will be cut into the toe of a steep slope. No final grades for the parking areas were available at the time of this report. However, cuts into the toe of the western slope appear likely for construction of the parking west of proposed Buildings B, C, and D. We understand that the configuration of the buildings and pavement areas, as well as final site grading, are still being evaluated, with possible modification from what was indicated on the plans that were provided. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site is a long, relatively- narrow property that abuts the western edge of Pacific Highway South. At the time of this study, the property was developed with several structures and was being used by Valley Truck and Equipment. This business has an address of 12421 Pacific Highway South. Two of the existing buildings are metal structures located west of proposed Building B, and inside the footprint of proposed Building A. A one -story woodfrarne office for the business is situated immediately east of the southern metal building. On the northeastern portion of the site is a small sanitary sewer lift station, with several manholes around it. This lift station is operated by the ValVue Sewer District. While not indicated on the provided plans, we understand from discussion with sewer district personnel that the inlet pipe for this lift station crosses onto the site from Pacific Highway South over 100 feet south of the lift station. The outlet pipe generally follows the north property line, extending up the slope toward the west. We understand that all, or a portion, of the sewer system located on the property will be moved or reconfigured in the near future, but possibly not before starting the proposed office complex. It is our understanding that a gas station may once have existed on the site along Pacific Highway South, in the southern portion of the property east of proposed Building B. The property has obviously undergone significant regrading in the past. The ground surface generally slopes down toward the northeast to Pacific Highway South. Three benches have been • ;;iiYIGCI 1 CU`.il't.•t'Ati rs. t \C . Sabey Corporation March 16, 1998 JN 98063 Page 2 constructed on the northern approximately two- thirds of the property. These benched areas provide access and parking for trucks and equipment that are being sold and repaired. Between the lower two benches is a short slope having a height of 5 to 10 feet. Between the upper two benches is a taller slope having a height of 25 to 30 feet and an inclination of 60 to 70 percent. These slopes appear to have been constructed by filling. West of the upper bench, the ground slopes steeply up to the adjacent western property, which is developed with an apartment complex. This slope is covered with small- to moderate -sized deciduous trees. Several shallow ditches have been cut across this slope lo carry surface water, in addition to seepage that exits the slope. In the ditch that crosses the southwestern corner of the site, we observed loose, silty sand and fractured silt overlying glacial till and glacially- compressed silt. The ground surface on the southeastern portion of the site, where the existing office is located, slopes gently down to the edge of Pacific Highway South. This area is covered with asphalt and provides access to the property. The site grade rises above Pacific Highway South over the northern approximately one -half of the property. Near the sewer lift station at the northeast property corner, the slope down to Pacific Highway South from the eastern property line is approximately 15 to 20 feet tall and has an inclination of 50 to 60 percent. History of Slope Instability on Site In 1988, a large landslide affected the northern end of the site, extending upslope onto the adjacent western apartment property. We have been provided with a copy of documents prepared previously by Associated Earth Sciences (AES) and GeoEngineers related to the investigation and repair of this landslide. Based on this information, it appears that a large slump occurred on the steep slope northwest of proposed Building D. The headscarp of this landslide was located approximately 70 feet west of the western property line. Test borings conducted by AES in the slide mass found up to 20 feet of slide debris overlying glacially - compressed silt. An inclinometer installed in the upper portion of the slide found that the slope movement extended to a depth of 15 feet. Two borings (EB -4 and EB -5) were drilled at the base of the slide mass, on the northern end of the upper bench of the site. Stabilization of this landslide consisted of constructing a large concrete rubble buttress at the toe of the slide, with unclassified fill being placed upslope of the buttress to create a final slope of approximately 40 percent. The buttress and this regraded area are still visible. As a part of this slope stabilization, the slope between the upper and middle benches had to be regraded, with a smaller buttress constructed at the toe of this regraded slope in the northern end of proposed Building D. During the course of our site visits, we have observed indications of previous smaller landslides and slope movement elsewhere on the site. The topography on the western slopes above the upper bench is hummocky, and some older tension cracks and scarps were observed. In the vicinity of proposed Building A, there are several small slides at the toe of the slope that have been buttressed with rock fills. In the northern end of the site is a shallow ravine. Downslope of this ravine is a mound of soil that has either resulted from past slope movement or from erosion of soil in the ravine. Subsurface The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating seven test pits and drilling eight borings at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration Sabey Corporation March 16, 1998 JN 98063 Page 3 program was based upon the proposed construction and required . design criteria, the site topography and access, the subsurface conditions revealed during excavation and drilling, the scope of work outlined in our proposal, and on time and budget constraints. The test pits were excavated on February 18, 1998 with a tracked excavator. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained • representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 through 6. The borings were drilled on February 16 and 17, 1998, using a truck - mounted, hollow -stem auger drill. Samples were taken at 5 -foot intervals with a standard penetration sampler. This split -spoon sampler, which has a 2 -inch outside diameter, is driven into the soil with a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an indication of the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the drilling process, logged the test borings, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. The Test Boring Logs are attached as Plates 7 through 14. Generally, the explorations conducted on the site encountered a varying thickness of loose fill or colluvium overlying dense, glacially- compressed silts. Colluvium is soil that has been deposited by erosion or sloughing from the slopes above. Thorough visual evaluation of the samples of glacially - compressed silts that were retrieved showed no indications of significant fracturing or disturbed zones. Slickensides resulting from either stress relief or small slope movement after the glaciers receded were noted in some of the samples. Several of the explorations (B -1, B -2, and B -5) found remnants of glacial till, a glacially- compressed mixture of gravel, silt, and sand, overlying the dense silts. Boring 3, which was drilled on the eastern side of proposed Building B, revealed loose to medium -dense fill to the 17 -foot depth of the boring. This fill is apparently the result of backfilling an excavation for removal of underground storage tanks associated with a previous gas station. Test Pits 3, 4, and 5, excavated in the western portions of proposed Buildings C and D, and in the north end of the site, found fill and unsuitable native soils to the maximum depth of 10 to 13.5 feet that could be explored. Explorations conducted near the toe of the western slope, south of Building D, found several feet of loose fill overlying dense silt. Test Pits 4 and 5, and Borings EB -4 and EB -5 conducted by AES, revealed upwards of 10 feet of old landslide debris overlying dense silt. As discussed previously, borings conducted in the landslide mass northwest of proposed Building D encountered upwards of 20 feet of old slide debris over the glacially- compressed silt. Based on the results of the borings, and our, observations of the soil exposures on the southern portion of the site, it appears that the depth of old landslide debris is greatest on the northern approximately one -half of the property. For clarity, the soil conditions encountered in the explorations are summarized as follows for each of the four buildings: Building A: Up to 4 feet of loose fill or colluvium was encountered overlying dense silt or • glacial till. Building B: Test Pit 7, excavated near the northwest building corner, found approximately 5 feet of fill overlying dense silt. The boring drilled east of the building found fill to a depth of 17 feet without encountering competent, native soils. Sabey Corporation March 16, 1998 JN'98063 Page 4 Buildings C and D: The borings conducted in, and near, the eastern portions of these buildings encountered dense silt or glacial till within 5 feet of the existing ground surface. The test pits excavated on the west sides of the buildings were not able to extend through the fill that was encountered to a depth of 10 to 13.5 feet. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. If a transition in soil type occurred between samples in the borings, the depth of the transition was interpreted. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit or boring logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation and drilling. The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services, Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was observed in Boring 3, and in Test Pits 1 and 7. The depth of seepage .in these explorations varied between 2.5 and 5 feet. The seepage encountered in Boring 3 appears to be groundwater that has filled the previous tank excavation, with the soils being wet over the entire depth of the exploration. Seepage in Test Pits 1 and 7 appears to be the result of groundwater that is perched above the glacially- compressed silt, which is relatively impermeable. The explorations were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the lack of seepage observed in the remaining borings and test pits, does not necessarily indicate that no groundwater is present. It is common to encounter groundwater perched above the silt and glacial till, and in sandier zones within these soils, particularly following extended periods of heavy rainfall. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on our observations, and the results of the explorations, the proposed development appears feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. Because the final site configuration and grading are still not finalized, the conclusions and recommendations of this report should be considered preliminary. Conventional foundations bearing on the glacial till or dense silt can be used to support a majority of proposed Buildings A, C, and D, Overexcavation will likely be necessary to expose competent soils in portions of these buildings. If these overexcavations are backfilled with lean concrete, instead of structural fill, the higher allowable bearing pressure recommended below can be used for the foundation design. Due to the depth of unsuitable fill encountered by Boring 3 in proposed Building B, it does not appear that overexcavation to expose competent soils will be feasible for this structure, Therefore, we recommend that deep foundations be planned for this building. However, if competent soils are PncnunterPd in a mainrity nf this huildina excavation at the time nf the Sabey Corporation March 16, 1998 JN 98063 Page 5 construction, it is possible that portions of the foundation could be constructed using conventional footings. Augercast concrete piers appear to be one of the most feasible deep foundation systems for use on this building, considering'the potential that caving soil and seepage will be encountered in the drilled holes. The western portions of the four buildings will extend over the backfill placed behind the western walls of the below -grade floors. Footings should not be supported on this backfill, as a large surcharge would be exerted on the backfilled walls. For this reason, we suggest that deep foundations consisting of augercast piers be used to support the western extensions of the buildings. The foundation design for all of the buildings should include options for both conventional footings and piers, in order to compensate for varying soil conditions without requiring a redesign of the foundations. Slab -on -grade floors are possible over the existing loose fill or native soils, but some noticeable slab settlement relative to the foundations must be expected. Cracking of the slabs due to settlement can be reduced, but not eliminated, by reinforcing them with a grid of steel bars and by placing at least 12 inches of imported structural fill beneath the slabs. Typically, a grid of No. 4 rebar on 12- to 18 -inch centers is adequate reinforcement. The structural fill should be a well - graded, gravelly fill, such as crushed rock or pit -run sand and gravel. Backfill behind the western basement wall must be well- compacted to limit settlement of the slab floor in the western extensions of the buildings. The steep slopes west of the proposed development have experienced landslides in the past, and will likely be affected by soil movement again in the future. This will occur regardless whether or not the site is developed as planned. Future slope movement on the southern portion of the site appears most likely to occur as mudflows, as the loose, near - surface soils are observed to be relatively thin overlying the glacial till and dense silt. The western slopes are underlain by a significant thickness of old landslide debris on the northern portion of the site. Based on this, and the landslide that occurred in 1988, it appears that deeper slope movement is possible on this portion of the site. The height and inclination of the western slopes makes stabilization impractical. Therefore, the development should be configured in such a way as to minimize the potential for damage to at least the buildings from slope movement. The northern three buildings appear to be adequately set back (over 30 feet) from the toe of the steep slopes to protect them from serious damage from landslides. If proposed Building A cannot be moved at least this far from the toe of the steep slopes, it will be necessary to construct a catchment wall between the building and the slope. The purpose of this catchment wall would be to slow and divert a mudflow traveling down the steep slope. The size and design of this wall would depend on the proximity of the building to the steep slope, but possibly could be incorporated into the western building wall itself. We can provide recommendations for this wall when the final site configuration is determined. The near - surface soils on the western slope are likely standing near their angle of repose. Cutting them at a steeper inclination will likely not be successful for permanent slopes. If it is necessary to grade them steeper, the potential for slope movement and future repair, such as the buttress that was constructed in 1988, will be increased. Cuts at the toe of the steep slopes should be retained by engineered structures that are designed to resist shallow movement on the south portion of the site, and deeper movement on the northern portion. These retaining structures should be founded on the glacially- compressed soils to function properly. Design of retaining structures for these cuts will depend on the final configuration and grading in the parking areas. We understand that rockeries are proposed for these cuts. Generally, rockeries are not intended to retain loose soils, and it is likely that episodes of slope movement would carry away major portions of rockeries over time, Regardless of the type of retaining structure utilized, soil movement upslope is to be Sabey Corporation March 16, 1998 JN 98063 Page 6 anticipated, requiring periodic maintenance, regrading, and revegetation of the slopes. The majority of the steep slope lies on the upslope apartment complex's property, so slope maintenance would likely be conducted in cooperation with the adjacent western property owner. The parking area east of proposed Buildings C and D will extend dose to the crest of the steep slope that drops to Pacific Highway South. Soil movement on this slope is possible in the future, but the slope appears to lie entirely on Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) property. This would indicate that maintenance of the slope, and repair of landslides, would likely be mainly their responsibility. However, the proposed project must not increase the potential for movement on this slope. Paving the area above the slope, and directing collected surface water to a storm sewer, will have some positive effects on the stability of this slope. No fill or debris should be placed on, or above this slope. The parking lot grading must account for this. Disturbance of the steep slope, and the existing vegetation, must be avoided. Catchbasins and storm sewer pipes, and other utilities, should be moved as far from the crest of this northeastern slope as possible. This reduces the potential for leaks and damage in the event of slope movement. The recommendations of this report are not intended to protect the proposed structures from damage due to falling trees. Attempting to incorporate mitigation for this hazard into the buildings would be very difficult. Wherever possible, sickly or undermined trees should be cut down, and their roots left in place, to reduce the hazard. Water from the existing ditches that extend down the western slope will need to be collected and directed to an appropriate stormwater outfall. This water is originating from groundwater, and from surface runoff from the upslope property. A swale with catchbasins incorporated into it should be constructed upslope of the retaining structures that will be constructed below the western toe. This will collect other surface runoff not intercepted by the existing ditches. Proper drainage will be important behind the below -grade building walls to reduce the potential for future seepage. Free - draining, imported granular fill should be used as backfill. The silty, on -site soils are not acceptable for use as wall backfill. Performance of all subsurface drainage systems will degrade over time. Therefore, as a minimum, waterproofing should be used for below -grade areas that will be occupied, or for areas that will serve as mechanical, electrical, or storage spaces. The silt encountered in our explorations was originally deposited as lake sediment before being glacially consolidated. These deposits usually contain bedding planes that are often not horizontal. Bedding that dips down into an excavation can sometimes cause localized soil failures in the excavation face. Flatter, temporarily cut slopes, shoring, or buttressing of cut slopes may be necessary, depending on the bedding encountered during excavation. Our personnel can assist with remedial procedures, if the bedding becomes a significant consideration during excavation. The on -site soils will not be suitable for reuse as structural fill or wall backfill due to their high silt and moisture contents. Imported granular fill should be planned, including for utility trench backfill in pavement or slab areas. Grading and earthwork on this site will certainly be more costly and difficult during wet weather, as the on -site soils are highly sensitive to moisture. Excavated footing subgrades should be protected with a thin (3 to 4 inches) layer of crushed rock or lean concrete to protect them from disturbance during placement of forms and reinforcement for the foundations. All disturbed and softeried soils would need to be removed prior to pouring concrete, which can be a difficult process once the reinforcing steel is in place. Sabey Corporation March 16, 1998 JN•98063 Page 7 The silty subgrade soils will soften easily under pavements unless gravelly imported fill is placed beneath pavement sections. Generally, 9 inches of structural fill should be planned beneath pavement sections in parking and light traffic areas. At least 12 inches of imported structural fill should be used in heavy traffic areas, such as main entrances and drivelanes, and around dumpsters and other possible areas of truck traffic. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be involved in the design of site retaining structures once the sit grading has been finalized. We should also be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. Conventional Foundations Conventional footings to support the proposed buildings must bear on undisturbed, glacial till or dense silt, or on imported, granular structural fill placed above these competent, native soils. Footings bearing on structural fill will need to be designed for a lower allowable bearing pressure. See the later sub - section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. They should be bottomed at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface for frost protection. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. Overexcavation will likely be required below portions of the foundations in each building to expose competent, native soil. Unless lean concrete is used to fill an overexcavated hole, the overexcavation must be at least as wide at the bottom as the sum of the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width. For example, an overexcavation extending 2 feet below the bottom of a 3 -foot -wide footing must be at least 5 feet wide at the base of the excavation. If lean concrete is used, the overexcavation need only extend 6 inches beyond the edges of the footing. The following allowable bearing pressures are appropriate for footings constructed according to the above recommendations: Bearing Condition Allowable Bearing Pressure Bearing directly, or on lean concrete, above competent native soil 5,000 psf Supported on structural fill placed above competent native soil 1 3,000 psf Where: (I) psf is pounds per square foot, Sabey Corporation March 16, 1998 JN 98063 Page 8 A one -third increase in the above design bearing pressures may be used when considering short - term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post - construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thickness, will be less than two - thirds of an inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -half inch in a distance of 50 feet along a continuous footing. Larger differential settlements could occur where more than 5 feet of structural fill is used beneath foundations. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or surrounded by level, structural fill. We recommend using the following design values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Parameter Design Value Coefficient of Friction Passive Earth Pressure 0.40 } 300 pcf Where: (1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (11) passive earth pressure Is computed using the equivalent fluid density. • If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above design values. Auqercast Concrete Piers Drilled piers should be used to support the buildings in areas of deep fill, such as beneath proposed Building B, or where the western sides of the buildings will extend over backfill for the parking garage walls. These piers should be constructed using augercast methods, which allows pier installation where caving soils or groundwater are present. Augercast piers are installed using continuous flight, hollow -stem auger equipment. Concrete grout must be pumped continuously through the auger as it is withdrawn. We recommend that augercast piers be installed by an experienced contractor who is familiar with the anticipated subsurface conditions. An allowable compressive capacity of 40 tons can be attained by installing a 16- inch - diameter, augercast concrete pier at least 10 feet into dense, native soil. For 15 feet of embedment, an allowable capacity of 50 tons is appropriate. For transient loading, such as wind or seismic Toads, the allowable pier capacity may be increased by one - third. We can provide design criteria for different pier diameters and embedment lengths, if greater capacities are required. The minimum center -to- center pier spacing should be three times the pier diameter. We estimate that the total settlement of single piers installed as described above will be on the order of one -half inch. Most of this settlement should occur during the construction phase as the dead loads are applied., The remaining post- construction settlement would be realized as the live - loads are applied. We estimate that differential settlements over any portion of the structures Sabey Corporation March 16, 1998 JN 98063 Page 9 We recommend reinforcing each pier its entire length. This typically consists of a rebar cage extending a portion of the pier's length with a full - length center bar. Each pier can be assumed to have a point of fixity at 10 feet below the ground surface for the computation of lateral load resistance. The loose soil against the piers can be assumed to have a design passive earth resistance of 150 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting on two times the pier diameter. Passive earth pressures on the grade beams will also provide some lateral resistance. If structural fill is placed against the outside of the grade beams, the design passive earth pressure from the fill can be assumed to be equal to that pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid with a density of 200 pcf. Seismic Considerations The site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No, 16 -2 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 16 -J of the 1994 UBC, the site soil profile is best represented by Profile Type S2. The glacially- compressed silts and silty sands that will support the foundations are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction. Slabs -on -Grade All slabs -on -grade should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4 -inch thickness of coarse, free- draining, structural fill with a gradation similar to that . discussed later in Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls. In areas where the passage of moisture through the slab is undesirable, a vapor barrier, such as a 6 -mil plastic membrane, should be placed beneath the slab. Additionally, sand should be used in the fine- grading process to reduce damage to the vapor barrier, to provide uniform support under the slab, and to reduce shrinkage cracking by improving the concrete curing process. We recommend placing concrete slabs over at least 1 foot of structural fill to provide more uniform support for the slab where the subgrade is soft or settles more rapidly than the surrounding ground. Isolation joints should be provided where the slabs intersect columns and walls. As discussed above in the General section, rebar should also be used in the slabs to reduce cracking from differential slab settlement. Control and expansion joints should also be used to control cracking from expansion and contraction. Saw cuts or preformed strip joints used to control shrinkage cracking should extend through the upper one - fourth of the slab. The spacing of control or expansion joints depends on the slab shape and the amount of steel placed in it. Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended design parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: Sabey Corporation March 16, 1998 Parameter Design Value Active Earth Pressure * 40 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Soil Unit Weight 130 pcf Where: (1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (11) active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid pressures. • For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times Its height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure. JN 98063 Page 10 The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level, structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads, such as vehicles, will be placed behind the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid density. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be well - compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be accomplished with hand - operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction. Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation. walls should be coarse, free - draining, structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The silty, on -site soils are not free - draining and should not be used for retaining wall backfill. Additionally, • due to their low compacted strengths, the on -site soils would exert a much higher lateral load on the walls than is recommended above) The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build -up of hydrostatic pressure behind the Sabey Corporation March 16, 1998 JI4 98063 Page 11 wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into the backfill. The sub - section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof the below -grade walls. If some seepage through the walls or moist conditions are not acceptable, damp - proofing or waterproofing should be provided. This could include limiting cold - joints and wall penetrations, and possibly using bentonite panels or membranes on the outside of the walls. Applying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion is not considered waterproofing, but it will only help to prevent moisture, generated from water vapor or capillary action, from seeping through the concrete. Excavations and Slopes Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil type at the subject site would generally be classified as Type C. Therefore, temporary cut slopes should not be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1.5 :1 (Horizontal :Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. Due to the loose, occasionally wet condition of the near - surface soils, and the likely presence of inclined bedding or fracture planes in the glacially - compressed silts, it is likely that additional measures may be necessary to provide stable temporary cut slopes in some areas. These measures could consist of flatter cut slopes, shoring, or constructing rock buttresses. The above recommended temporary slope recommendations are based on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. The cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. All permanent cuts into the near- surface, loose native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2.5:1 (H :V). In areas of excessively poor soil, it may be necessary to use flatter permanent slopes, or to reconstruct and buttress the cut slope using quarry spells or a similar fill material. Fill slopes constructed of imported granular fill should not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2:1 (H:V). To reduce the potential for shallow sloughing, fill must be compacted to the face of these slopes. This could be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final inclination. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. Sabey Corporation March 16, 1998 Drainage Considerations JN 98063 Page 12 We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of all perimeter footings and at the base of all backfilled, earth- retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1 -inch- minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non - woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing, and it should be sloped for drainage. Drainage should also be provided inside the footprint of a .structure, where (1) a crawl space will slope or be lower than the surrounding ground surface, (2) an excavation encounters significant seepage, or (3) an excavation for a building will be close to the expected high groundwater elevations. We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should they become necessary, during excavation and foundation construction. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate '15, For the best Tong -term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. Groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Water from roof, storm water, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes; it should be tightlined to a suitable outfall located away from any slopes. General Earthwork and Structural Fill All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non - structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content, The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not compacted to specifications, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed, This eliminates :1, 1'! i � i'�. :; t • •I'.l � � . 1. :. Sabey Corporation March 16, 1998 JN 98063 Page 13 the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: Location of Fill Placement Minimum Relative Compaction Beneath footings, slabs 95% or walkways Behind retaining walls 90% Beneath pavements ( 95% for upper 12 inches of subgrade; 90% below that level Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio, expressed In percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined In accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557 -78 (Modified Proctor). The on -site soils are not suitable for reuse as structural fill due to their high silt and moisture contents. Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three - quarter -inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil encountered in the test pits and borings is representative of subsurface conditions on the site. if the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits and borings. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks, This is a standard recommendation for all projects. The recommendations presented in this report are directed toward the protection of only the proposed structures from damage due to slope movement. Predicting the effects of development on the stability of slopes is an inexact and imperfect science that is currently based mostly on the past behavior of slopes with similar characteristics. ' Landslides and soil movement can occur on steep slopes before, during, or after the development of property. The owner must ultimately accept the possibility that slope movement could occur, resulting in possible Toss of ground or damage to the facilities around the proposed building. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Sabey Corporation, and its representatives, for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials, and selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints, No Sabey Corporation March 16, 1998 J■ 98063 Page 14 warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not'lnclude services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents so the contractor may be aware of our findings. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plpn Plates 3 - 6 Test Pit Logs Plates 7 - 14 Boring Logs Plate 15 Footing Drain Detail Attachments Previous Boring Logs Sabey Corporation March 16, 1998 JN'98063 Page 15 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Associate MRM /JRF: alt J / f.- 1 / /1 / / / ■ � / `'°S B -4 �- i f -� -� ' —/ �— / - /' J _ -� .� / i `4' /fir / / - // /-, .// /"-• 1 �� �▪ ."-' / / ' ' lc! / /,i i • /Gi iP"2 O '�/ . / / — I $/ / / / r TP 1 / / / / / 0, - - / / / / / / r v. / / 160 / l40 -i i / / 1 .'1 - �� ,—, , 1 —� X12TP -5 ,�a / �/' EB-50 t. EB -� - --', %4. 1 i , TP -4 -. .. oe i� i� / ..-- _ --- • - t TP -2 '60 B -4 • B -6 - i i • ▪ -- - - i / �� B -3 so��N �G N`G� PG�F LEGEND: C PROPOSED BUILDINGS r --1 L _ J EXISTING BUILDINGS APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATIONS FOR CURRENT STUDY S APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS FOR CURRENT STUDY ® APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS BY ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES (MAY 1998) GEOTECH CONSULTANTS SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 12421 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH TUKWILA, WA ' > N +^ s ▪ e.,ATOH sr S g. r9 OWAY tte,' Z 11 1j\s • vElE� z .%., w s 94TH ST (reM�I _ o i n is4 rr 6I r M •• • ) I Q 7. 1'OJ1I * c �� "79 \' \\ 7:::, , I ir al ;R:rci .: I G41'1 r 5 iL1 r+,ra • n 0 ▪ $t Ri 3 S ` otjz1vI T7 ii" 4 7 n 'n 'S 7S UU7r /S•:J w ter\ s apV10 <I - ,S :a.M Sens_. ? _._ r. _. ._ '.`t.. iy. : " C i� r $ r.,aar st t,,,f t; z ▪ S 8 Or10 2 ST I N ( I I TH ". >t I .I' r 1 ,CjH Z S 10rsr ST n`+ a `\ I ▪ 1 vi 4. = • ,,,.o 1 tz. 5 10340 ST Y, S'1081'1 116TH' 117TH ST 51161• 117rn Tn 73 s ^. vcr•• s• • `.` 3 s 1 f ACCESS RO \ S BOEI4G • ` q,,,_1”...0 .•II aF — — ---- -5 TH$rr a i ,^ I SN 109rHc iT \tt S'111TH 5:.151" TI ti 5 IISTH sr sl'?H j;ll2 *" STI s'.11.1111Ay 51, cs c, S IlSrll YST ' •� \ S f lI T" T \ . �`H� 6o o S r ' Sr N `' � N . s u JOS ela I177n a Es '6 5 IIBr. T •: \\ 1 TH ST 129'H 130TH $ 13144 s co 5 133Hp 134tH 5 135TH ST 136TH 1.610 0 r M IJ)TH ' 9 a•I Q G Y.a$ 14.10 H 1.') l] 3 1J 10 14 S I /1(n $ 45TH mT iT i :10 IM 5 1413T, 5 ISSTH 41 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS VICINITY MAP 12421 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH TUKWILA, WA 1--- . e e i6r 10 15 5 10 TEST PIT 1 Description MEI MEI Ayti Dark brown SAND and SILT, with organics, wet, soft (ri4L it Brown, sandy SILT, very moist, soft to medium -stiff (Colluvlum) . Brown SILT, with some gravel, moist, dense to very dense ML • Test Pit was terminated at 8 feet on February 18, 1998. • Moderate groundwater seepage was observed at 2.5 feet during excavation. • Caving was observed from top to 2.5 foot during excavation. TEST PIT 2 Description N MI MAO IWO r MOS WOE WIN RIM NEM 15-- FILL II Crushed concrete with organics (FILL) 111 I Brown, slightly sandy SILT, low plasticity, moist, very dense ML IIIII ML. 1 Gray SILT, low plasticity, moist, very dense • Test Pit was terminated at 5 feet on February 18, 1998. • No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. • No caving was observed during excavation. Atif GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOG 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington Job No: I Date: !Logged by: IMate: 98063 February 1995 DOG TEST PIT 3 9 CP Description, 10 15— 5 10 , N.6 FILL Brown SAND and SILT, with organics (FILL) Brown SILT, very moist to wet, soft (FILL) FILL FILL Dark gray, sandy SILT, with some gravel and organics, soft to medium -stiff (FILL or Colluvlum) • Test Pit was terminated at 10 feet on February 18, 1998. • No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. • Caving was observed during excavation. TEST PIT 4 Description • IMEN IMMO VIES MPS 15— Brown -gray, sandy SILT with some gravel, very moist, soft (FILL) FILL Dark gray, sandy SILT, with organics and Togs, soft (FILL or Slide Debris) FILL • Test Plt was terminated at 13.5 feet on Fobruary 18, 1998. • No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. • Minor caving was observed during excavation, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOG 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington Job No: 98063 I DaFobruale: ry 19981 Logged by: 'Hate: DBG 4 r. G 10 INN IMO 15-- 5 10 15 FILL TEST PIT 5 Description Concrete rubble, with brown, sandy SILT (FILL) AML Brown -gray, sandy SILT, with organics, moist to very moist, medium - stiff (Slide Debris) - 6 foot diameter log encountered OL PT Dark brown, organic SILT to PEAT • Test Pit was terminated at 12 feet on February 18,1998. • No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. • No caving was observed during excavation. TEST PIT 6 Description FRO MIN IMO Crushed rock and cobbles, with brown, silty SANE) (FILL) FILL FILL Dark brown to gray, silty SAND, with some gravel, wet, medium -dense (FILL) - hydrocarbon odor L 1 II Brown SILT, low plasticity, moist, very dense • Test Pit was terminated at 7.5 feet on February 18, 1998. • No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. • No caving was observed during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOG, 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington Job No: t Date: 'Logged by: 1Plate: 98063 I February 1998 DBG 5 , 10 1 2, CPS `0,S 45 TEST PIT 7 Description. MIN P OO 5— Brown SAND and SILT, with wood debris, moist, medium -dense (FILL) FILL Brown SILT, low plasticity, moist, very dense I�ML, • Test Pit was terminated at 7 feet on February 18, 1998. • Minor groundwater seepage was observed at 5 feet during excavation. • Nb caving was observed during excavation. TEST PIT LOG, 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington IJob No: 1 Date: I Logged by: _ IRate: 98063 February 1998 DBt9 • ., 5 10 ti <4 #21i: q4 \(2, BORING 1 Description . Imo r ✓ 15— 20 25 - 30 -- NMI 35 -- FEN MOO 40-- 70 75/6" 65/6" 95 75/11" Brown, gravelly, silty SAND, moist, very dense (Glacial Till) SM Gray SILT, low plasticity, massive, moist, very dense ML • Boring was drilled to 26 feet on February 16, 1998. • No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling, BORING LOG 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington 'Job No: Date: 'Logged by: 98063 February 1998 13130 Plate: 10 15 20 25 30 35 o� 5 111111 111111 111111 111111 111111 MEI r YEW NMI YON WWI 40-- 23.0% 80/11" 78 80 82 75/6" 9 ISM' 111111 BORING 2 Description . Gray, gravelly, silty SAND, moist, very dense (Glacial 7710 ML Tan to gray, clayey SILT, with occasional slicicensides, moist, hard LL= 37.1, P1 = 14.1 - becomes sandy, non - plastic, very dense • Boring was drilled to 30.5 feet on February 16, 1998. • No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington Job No: 98063 Date: February 1998 Lotted by: DBG Plate: 8 • rr 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 BORING 3 Description, 9 18 59 3 FIL1. Dark brown to gray, gravelly, silty SAND, with some wood debris, wet, loose to medium -dense (FILL) - hydrocarbon odor - becomes very gravelly • Boring was drilled to 17 feet on February 16, 1998. • Water level measured In monitoring well on February 18, 1998 at 4.5 feet. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG • 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington Job No: I Date: 'Logged by: I 98063 February 1998 DBO Plate: 9 ` BORING 4 442,',,s.,cf.,4_,.c>:;\04,09edi 2.,,• ° '1'1'1'1'1' ;I Brown, silty SAND, fine- grained, moist, medium -dense SMj :1 IIIIIIIIIIIII - 10— 15 20 IMO 25 IINNA 30 35 40 24.0% 85/10" 80 74 80 50/6" 50/4" e 5 0 Description ML Brown SILT, low plasticity, massive, moist, very dense - becomes gray LL = 38.8, P1 = 14.8 - becomes wet ML II Light brown, sandy SILT, low plasticity, moist, very dense • Boring was drilled to 31 feet on February 17, 1995. • No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling. BORING LOG ■ 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington Job No: I Date: Logged by: T Plate: 98063 February 1998 1 DBG 10 10 15 20 25 30 35 �• � • o-�� ��5 <4° ti � 0 e' BORING 5 f Description Non MRS Mee N MI NEM lone Iwo 40-- 23.5% 23.3% 50/6" 78 71 75 2 3 to Brown to gray, silty, gravelly SAND, moist, loose (FILL) FILL Old Topsoil ;1,1;11; SM ML !11111 Gray, silty SAND, with trace of gravel, moist, dense to very dense Brown, sandy SILT, non - plastic, moist, very dense LL=33.8, PI =10.3 • Brown, gravelly, silty SAND, fine -grained, moist, very dense (Glacial 7111) SM ML Gray SILT, low plasticity, massive, very dense LL= 32.1, P1 =8.8 • Boring was drilled to 31 feet on February 17, 1998. • No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling. BORING LOG 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington Job No: Date: Loomed by: 98083 February 1998 DBG Plate: 11 DO t c 5 10 MOB 15 IMO IMO 20 IMENI mie 25 35 INNS MOO 40 80 79 80 1 2 FILL BORING 6 Description Brown, gravelly, silty SAND, tine- grained, very moist, loose (FILL) Brown, sandy SILT, non - plastic, moist, very dense ML • Boring was drilled to 16 feet on February 17, 1998. • No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington Job No: 98063 Date: !Logged by: February 19981 DBl3 Plate: 12 • 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 ,v BORING 7 5. � KaY � �g Description MIN NON MON 25.0% 79 87 50/8" 78 75 3 0 50 Brown, very silty SAND, very moist, loose (FILL) FILL Brown, sandy SILT, low plasticity, moist, very dense - becomes gray with occasional gravel Gray, clayey SILT, with occasional slicitensides and fractures, medium- plasticity, moist, hard MLJ LL=36.4, PI =11.4 L Gray SILT, low plasticity, moist, very dense • Boring was drilled to 26 feet on February 17, 1998. • No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 98063 February 1998 DB(i 13 It • NNW IMO 10 15 20 WWI 25 30 MOM 35 ORIN 40 22.5% 78 80 74 70 79 FILL BORING 8 Description Dark brown, gravelly, silty SAND, very moist, medium -dense (FILL) Brown, slightly sandy SILT, low plasticity, moist, very dense ML Gray SILT, low plasticity, massive, moist, very dense LL=37.3, P1 =9,8 ML • Boring was drilled to 31.5 feeton February 17,1998. • No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. t BORING LOG 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington Job No: I Dale: 1Logged by: Illate: 98063 I February 1998 DEG 14 1 S /ope bockfil/ away from foundation. T /GHTL/NE ROOF DRAIN Do no/ connect to fooling drain. BACKF /L L See lex/ for requiremen /s. WASHED ROCK VAPOR. BARRIER + r. <,, 4 min. FREE - DRAIN /NG SAND /GRAVEL 6 'inin. NONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC 4" PERFORATED HARD PVC PIPE Inver/ al leas/ as /ow as fooling and /or crow/ space. Slope to drain. P /oce weepholes downward. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL 12421 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH TUKWILA, WA 1 '88 06/20 09l4t •E TECT04 Co ORATION BORING .LOG EB -4 QRAPH1 0 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION DEPTH i I •TANOARD 1**TRAflOR IItIIITAMe1 • ho.yn+., 10 20 30 40 Damp, brown and grey, mottled, slightly oxidized, "gravelly, silty,, fine to coarse sand with occassional organics, .. r.... 5 _l_. 1 I IL 1 I 1 Z 7 • • \ i . Dry to damp, brown and grey, mottled, slightly oxidized, silt with occassional clay and very fine sand . --.10Z '" -- 15 —'20 w —'25 � , -30 —35 A Becoming dark grey to light grey silt. • ♦ • a 8804 -11 ' May 1988 1 1 • C '88 06/20 09142 THE TECTOH Co 12 EXPLORATION BORING LOG EB -4 a. . a 0 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION DEPTH R 1 • STANDARD MMLTRAT'MM R[IIITANC! ' K..,nv., 10 20 30 40 As above 45 50 55 60 Z z with thin interbeds of very fine sand and clay - -• A 55 65 70 75 52 60 Wet, grey, eguigranuaar fine sand with some gravel and thin beds of dark grey and light grey silt, ■ 50/2 • '88 06/20 09t42 .+v ,,�E TECTO!t Co 13 LORATION BORING LOG EB -4 • GRAPH il uses SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION DEPTH E ; �TAMOAl10 10 >4MLTRATION s0 4...+/.0•31 30 I1t111TAMCt 40 Wet, grey, fine to coarse sand and grovel.. _ 85 90 ' • • A • B0H 84' • _., —• -- H — `...........T_ ' anhA-11 ' Mgau 10 PQ iI 1 • • '08 06/20 09x43 tHE TECTC4 Co EXPLORATION BORING LOG EB -5 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION DEPTH 14 lTAMDA 1MITIIAT?4M Rl1I5TAW ! MHfitfHT 10 20 $0 40 Damp, brown and grey, mottled, slightly oxidized,.gravelly, silty, fine to coarse sand, with minor organics 15 20 25 Damp, brown and grey, slightly oxidized, silt with occassional very fine, pond . _ Becoming grey silt with occassional very fine sand. BOH 23 1/2' 8804 -11 May 1986 1 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256 NE 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 747 -5618 FAX 747 -8561 Memo JN: 98063 To Haynes Lund Rte Marc R. McGinnis Company. Sabey Corporation Date: June 9, 1998 Addteaa: 101 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 330 FAX: (206) 281 -0920 Seattle, Washington 98119 -4220 Phone: (208)281 -4200 RE Additional Considerations for Wall and Foundation Design Pacific View Office Park Tukwila, Washington RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA .JUN 1 6 "1998 PERMIT CENTER RECEIVED JUL 1 61998 This memo is an addendum to our March 18, 1998 geotechnical engineering study. The following items are addressed by this addendum: • Reuse of on -site soils as structural fill. • Recommended foundation types for the three buildings following the recently- conducted supplemental test pits. • Design parameters and backfill considerations for the permanent building walls. As we have discussed in our meetings, the on -site soils could be reused as structural fill on a very limited basis. The fine- grained silt soils, which will constitute most of the excavated material, must be moisture - conditioned, then be compacted In thin layers using a sheepsfoot roller to achieve 85 to 90 percent compaction. If these soils are treated with kiln dust or cement to aid with moisture conditioning and to add compressive strength, they can be used as structural fill beneath pavements. These soils should not be used beneath foundations, as compaction results can be variable. Where the treated soils are used for backfill of foundation walls, at least 3 feet of free - draining gravel should be placed against the walls, The on -site soils cannot be used for geogrid- reinforced fill walls, regardless of whether or not they are treated with kiln dust or cement. Attached are copies of the footprints of the three buildings (labeled A to C from south to north) On these plans are approximate locations of the test pits and borings that have been conducted, and the estimated elevations of dense or hard bearing soils at each location, Where the bearing is noted to be below an elevation, this is the lowest elevation explored at that location, and suitable bearing soils were not encountered. Augercast concrete piers will likely be needed for the northeastern portion of Building A and the southeastern portion of Building B. The explorations in these areas found deep fill extending at least 10 feet below the planned footing grades. This depth is excessive for overexcavation and structural fill. The extent of the actual extent of the piered sections can only be determined accurately at the time of building excavation. At least a portion of each of the westem extensions of the buildings, west of the basement floors, will need to be supported on piers, or on deep overexcavated trenches backfilied with lean concrete. Supporting all of these portions of the buildings (slabs and walls) on deeper foundations allows less stringent compaction of backfill below the western extensions. As summarized below, the basement walls will need to be designed for much higher soil pressures if the westem extensions are not supported on piers or lean concrete - filled trenches. The piers or lean concrete- filled trenches must extend 1 ♦ ....0110 w Sabey Corp. Page 2 June 9, 1996 JN 98063 below a 1.5:1 (H:V) zone that slopes up from the base of the lower garage wall to avoid adding a lateral surcharge pressure in addition to the active soil pressure. Design parameters for piers and conventional foundations are presented in our previous report. The high bearing pressure (5,000 psf) can be used for footings that bear on competent soils, or on overexcavations that are backfilled with lean concrete. A lower bearing pressure must be used where footing overexcavations are backfilled with imported granular structural fill (on -site soils, even when treated with kiln dust or cement, are not acceptable for structural fill beneath footings). Three scenarios exist for the design soil pressures behind foundation walls: Scenario 1: The basement walls are constructed as permanent soldier pile walls having a 2,5:1 (H:V) backslope until the permanent concrete walls are constructed, This will be necessary where adequately - sloped cuts cannot be made without encroaching into the steep, westem slopes. As discussed, the benefit of using the shoring walls is that the amount of the excavation behind the basement walls is drastically reduced. This is a significant consideration due to the difficulty of reusing the excavated soils as on -site fill. Active earth pressure - 50 pcf Scenario 2: Foundation walls are backfilled with imported free-draining granular fill compacted to 95 percent compaction to support foundations above. Active earth pressure - 40 pcf equivalent active fluid density for cantilever walls, or 55 pcf for restrained walls. Surcharge pressure from western footing of west extension (if not carried on piers or lean concrete - filled trenches) - 100 psf uniform pressure over entire height of wall. Scenario 3: Foundations walls are backfilled with a minimum 3-foot width of free - draining gravel, then kiln dust-treated on -site soils compacted to at least 90 percent (piers would be used to support foundations on the backfill zone). Active earth pressure - 50 pct equivalent active fluid density for cantilever walls, or 60 pcf for restrained walls. Surcharge pressure from westem footing of west extension (If not carried on piers or lean concrete - filled trenches) - 100 psf uniform pressure over entire height of wall. Please call with any questions. oa Nelson- Eourdages - Robert Bourdages (425) 82&4850 07/06/98 LION 07:58 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Construction Corp ij001 SBEY CORPORATION f tt :I I I1 l 11 Jf;f (,H( tl III FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 0 6 158 PERMIT CENTER DATE!T1ME: 07106198 08:03 AM ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW: NO X YES, BY: Mail: Overnight Delivery Courier TO: n1JNJ GC;IPPIN FIRM: 11�CWILA 17Epf Of COMMUNMY I�EVELOPMENV FAX NO.: 206 - 431.3665 PHONE NO.: 2O6- 431 -3670 FROM: NAYN�5 LUNG' PROJECT: PACIFIC VIf=W Office PAPJC Number of pages, including this cover sheet; 7 Transmitting from fax number (206) 281-0920, Phone (206) 281.8700 Please call Sarah Brulnooge at 281 -8700 if you do not receive all pages. Message: Attached Is the 1090 Report on Keystone Retaining Wall System. should have clean copies to bring to tomorrow's meeting, but this Information should be sufficient to provide to the Structural Engineers who are reviewing this portion or the work. Please call I} you have any questions or require any further Irllbrmatlon. r This facsimile communication Is Intended only for the use alb* IndMdual or entity to which It K addressed and may contain nform.don that le privileged and and confidential. If the reader of this cover page Is not the addressee, or the employee or agent of the addressee, phase Ix advlaed that any aluemlnaron, distribution, or copying or tnis communication Is strictly prohibited. If you receive this facsimile In error, please notify ua Imm. Wi sly by telephone and mall Ills facsimile In us at the address below. Thank you, wkIFAX•TUKW.WKI RECEIVED JUL 1 61998 SABEY CORPORATION 101 Elliott Avenue West • suite 330 • Seattle, WA 0119 • T.I: 201/2114:700 • FU: 2011/291.920 � ao rnaqoi3o 07/06/98 MON 07:59 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Construction Corp a002 ICBO Evaluation Service, Inc. 5360 WORKMAN MILL ROAD • WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA 90601 -2299 A subsidiary corporation of the International Conference of EVALUATION REPORT Copyright m 1997 iCBO Evaluation Service, Inc. Building Officials ER -4599 Reissued May 1, 1997 Filing Category; DESIGN—Concrele (038) KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS, INC. 4444 WEST 78TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 1.0 SUBJECT Keystone Retaining Wall System. 2.0 DESCRIPTION 2.1 General: The Keystone Retaining Wall System utilizes modular concrete units for the construction of gravity or reinforced-soil retaining walls. The wall system is assembled in running bond without mortar or grout, utilizing high- strength fiberglass pins for shear connection and alignment. The system may include horizontal layers of structural geogrid reinforcement in the backtilled soil mass. Keystone concrete units are available in three basic configura- tions: Standard. Compac and Cap. Standard units weigh 110 pounds (50 kg) with normal- weight aggregates and have either a straight or three -plane split face: 21.5 inches (546 mm) deep nominal, 8 inches (203 mm) high, and 18 inches (457 mm) wide at the exposed face, tapering to 11 Inches (280 mm) at the tail. Compac units weigh 85 pounds (40 kg) with normal - weight aggregates and have either a straight or three -plane split face: 12 Inches (305 mm) deep nominal, 8 inches (203 mm) high, and 18 inches (457 mm) wide at the ex- posed face, tapering to 12.5 inches (317 mm) at the tall. Cap units weigh 45 pounds (20 kg) and have either a straight or three -plane split face; 10.5 inches (266 mm) deep nominal, 4 inches (102 mm) high, and 18 inches (457 mm) wide at the exposed face, tapering to 13.75 Inches (350 mm) at the tall. Cap units are 1/2- height units with- out pin holes in the top of the surface. Full- height cap units may also be utilized. The unit weights noted above will vary between fabrica- tors because of mix design and aggregate weights. Actual unit weights are to be used in design. Standard and Compac units have lour holes each for installation of fiberglass connection pins. See Figure 1 for typical unit configura- tion. All units comply as Grade N. Type 1, in accordance with UBC Standard 21 -4, with a minimum 28 -day compressive strength of 3,000 psi (20 MPa) on the net area and a maximum water absorption of 8 percent. Unit tolerances comply with Section 21,406 of U8C Standard 21-4. A pultruded fiberglass pin is used to provide alignment of the units during placement, positive placement of the geogrld reinforcement, and inter -unit shear. The angle of wall inclination Is determined by location of the fiberglass pin placement during assembly, See Figure 2. The pin placement in the rear pin hole in every course provides a minimum wall inclination of 7.1 degrees from vertical towards the backlit' (1 Inch (25 mm) minimum setback per course]. The pin placement alternating between the front and rear pin holes on verti- cally adjacent rows provides a wall inclination of approximately 3,6 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 061998 PERMIT CENTER degrees from vertical towards the backfill (1 /2 inch (13 mm) mini- mum setback pe:' course). The pin placement during assembly in the front pin hole provides a near - vertical wall inclination of approxi- mately 0.5 degre: from vertical toward the backlit( (1 /e inch (3 mm) minimum setback per course]. Fiberglass connection pins are made of pultruded fiberglass 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) in diameter and 5.25 Inches (133 mm: long, with a minimum short beam shear strength of 6400 psi (44 141Pa). Core fill is a1/2. inch to 3/e -inch (12 mm to 20 mm), clean, crushed - stone material that is placed between and behind the units. The core fill provides addi°ional weight to the completed wall section for sta- bility, local draini:ige at the lace of the structure, and a filter to keep the backlit' soils from filtering out through the face between units. Core fill is required in all the structural units and extends back 2 jeet (600 mm) from rim face of the wall. Geogrld soil reinforcement is re- quired to Increase the height of the Keystone wall system above the height at which tile wall is stable under its self - weight as a gravity system. Geogrid.: are synthetic materials specifically designed for use as soil reinfo: cement. Geogrids are manufactured from polyes- ter (PET), high- donsity polyethylene (HOPE), or polypropylene (PP) polymers. Geogrid reinforcement materials specifically tested for use with the Keystone retaining wall system are manufactured by the follow- ing companies: 1. Tensor Corporation — HOPE'UX series' geogrids — PP 18X series' geogrids 2, Nlcolon/Mirafi Group —PET - Miragrid' geogrids 3. Strata Systems, Inc. — PET'Stratagrid" geogrids 4. Amoco Fabrics and fiber -- PP woven geotextile Geogrids must be stored at temperatures higher than -10 °F (- 20 °C), Contact with mud, wet cement, and epoxy or other adhesive materials must bra avoided. Prolonged exposure to sunlight of geo- grid materials should be avoided because they are subject to ultra- violet (UV) degradation. 2.2 Dislgn: The system Is designed as a gravity or reinforced -soil retaining wall that depends on the weight and geometry of the mass to resist lateral earth pressures aid other lateral forces. Lateral earth pressures are determined using either Coulomb or Rankine earth pressure theory. See Figure 1, The design must include evaluation of both external and internal stability of the structure and Include consideration of ex- ternal loads such is surcharges and seismic forces. External stability analyses are similar to those required for conventional retaining walls. Minimum safety factors are 1.5 for sliding and 2,0 for over- . turning (1.5 for aye/turning on gravity walls), and 2.0 for bearing ca- pacity. Internal stibility analyses of reinforced soil structures must consider the maximum allowable reinforcement tension, pull-out re- sistance of the reinforcement behind the active failure zone, and the connection strength of geogrid reinforcement to the Keystone unit. Table 1 shows allowable design strength, (T1), for the geogrids. The design strengths hi the table have been reduced by a safety factor of i x:veluadon reports of 1E80 Evaluation Service, Inc., are iuued solely to provide &firmation to Class A mem 'ers o1ICiO, milking the code upon which the more bared. Evaluation reports are not to be construed as representing aesthetics or any other atrsibutes not specifically addressed nor as an 'adornment or rteommen• .cation for use of the subject report This report it bated upon independent setts or other technical data submlotd by the applicant. The /CiO Enuhhation Service, Inc., technical staff has reviewed She test raider and/or other data, but doer not possess tat facilities to needle an ledependent verification. There Is AO warranty by ICAO Evaluadan.Serare, Inc., asprms or implied, as to any "Findins" or other salter In the report or as to any produce d by the report. Tide ellc4iairner ineluda, bid is net limited to, acerehanMbillq. Page 1 of ri 07/06/98. UON 07:59 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabe3r fI003 Construction Corp 1.5, Additional safety factors that L. been incorporated Into the table include the creep reduction factor, and factors considering chemical and blotogical damage and installation damage. Soil inter- action and direct sliding coefficients are described in Table 2. inter - unit shear capacity equations are described in Table 3. Walls over 6 feet (1829 mm) high installed in Seismic Zones 3 or 4 are also designed for seismic loads. A pseudo -static design proce- dure is utilized for internal, extemal, and wall shear analyses. Seis- mic safety factors are 75 percent of the minimum allowable static safety factors. A foundation Investigation in accordance with Section 1804 of the code is required for each site, except for landscaping applications. The foundation investigation determines the soil properties and rec- ommended values for design. The design of the Keystone wall is based on accepted geotechnicai principles for gravity and soil rein- forced structures. Specifics of design are found in the Keystone De- sign Manual dated November 1995. Keystone retaining wall systems are designed as follows: 1. Gravity retaining walls: The gravity wall system relies on the weight and geometry of the Keystone units to resist lateral earth pressures, Gravity wall design is based on standard engineering principles for modular concrete retaining walls. The maximum height of Keystone Standard and Compac units Is shown in Fig- ure 3 for different soil and backslope combinations. Typical de- sign heights are 2.5 to 3 times the depth of the unit being used. 2. Geogrid- reinforced retaining walls: The geogrid reinforced soil system relies on the weight and geometry of the Keystone units and the reinforced soil mass to act as a coherent gravity mass to resist lateral earth pressures. The design of a reinforced soil structure is specific to the Keystone unit selected, soil reinforce- ment strength and soil interaction. sail strength properties, and structure geometry, The maximum design height Is theoretically unlimited; however, the general practical height limit is approxi- mately 50 feet (15 m). Figure 1 shows a free body diagram for a reinforced soil retaining wall. Figure 4 shows typical compo- nent details. 2.3 Structural Analysis: Structural calculations must be submitted to the building official for each wall system installation, Structural analysis is based an accept- ed engineering principles, the Keystone Design Manual dated No- vember 1995, and the code. The analysis must include all items noted in Sections 2,3.1 and 2.3.2 and follow the design methodology of the Keystone Design Manual dated November 1995. 2.3.1 External Stability Analysts: 1, The length of the reinforced mass is 0.6 times the height of the wall (as measured from top of leveling pad to top of wall) or as required to satisfy a safety factor of 1.5 on sliding at the base, whichever is greater. 2. The minimum safety factor for overturning the reinforced mass is 2.0, considering the mass as a rigid body rotating about the toe of the wail. 3. Global stability analysis must be provided for walls with slopes below the toe of the wall, wales on soft foundations, walls that will be designed for submerged conditions, or tiered waifs, 4. After completion of the internal stability analysis and geogrid layout, sliding along each respective geogrld layer must be checked, including shearing through the connection at the wall face. 2.3.2 Internal Stability: 1. Geogrid spacing is based on local stability of the Keystone units during construction. A safety factor of 2 Is used for cantilevered units overturned by the soil torces alone, Vertical spacing is typi- cally 2 times the depth of the unit, 2. Tension calculations tor each respective layer of reinforcing must be provided. Tension is based on the earth pressure and surcharge load calculated from hallway to the layer below to halfway to the layer above. Calculated tensions must not exceed Ta for each respective layer. See Table 1. ER -4599 , 3. Connection capacity shall be checked for each geogrid -to -Key- stone connection. The calculated connection capacity must be equal to t:r greater than the calculated tension for each layer. 4. A calculation check must be made on pullout of the upper la,. of reinforccing from the soil zone beyond the theoretical Ran failure plane (45+4/2). The pullout capacity must be equal to or greater than the calculated tension after applying the adjustment factors shown in Table 2. 2.4 Installation: The instailatlen of the Keystone Retaining Walt System is as fol- lows: 1, Excavate for leveling pad and reinforced fill zone. 2. Inspect excavations for adequate bearing capacity of foundation soils and observation of groundwater conditions by a qualified geotechnicel engineer. 3, install a 6 -inch -thick (150 mm) leveling pad of crushed stone, compacted to 75 percent relative density as determined by ASTM D 4534. (An unrein(orced concrete pad in accordance with Section 1923 of the code may be utilized in place of the crushed stone pad.) 4. install the firet course of Keystone units, ensuring units are level from side to side and front to back. 5. Install the fiberglass pin In the proper alignment hole for batter selection, Fill the units tvith core fill, 6. 7. Clean the top surface of the units to remove loose aggregate, 8. At appropriate levels, install geogrld reinforcing, connecting over the pins. All geogrid reinforcement is installed by placing the geogrid over the fiberglass pin at design elevations to prop- erly position tiie reinforcement. The roll or warp direction is the direction of primary design strength of the reinforcement. Adja- cent rolls are paced side by side: no overlap is required. 9. Pull taut to remove slack from the geogrlds before placing back - fill. Pull the entire length of the geogrid taut to remove any fok or wrinkles. 10, Place and comeact backliil over the geogrld layer. 11. Repeat placement of units, corefill, backlit!, and geogrids as shown on plans to finished grade. 12. Sackfill used in the reinforced fill mass must consist of suitable fine- grained or coarse- grained soli placed In lifts compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM 0155;' (95 percent per ASTM D 698). The backfill soil properties, lift thickness, and degree of compaction shall be de- termined by the .:.oils engineer baud on site - specific conditions. In cut wall applications, if the reinforced soil has poor drainage properties, a granular drainage layer or synthetic drainage com- posite should be installed to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pres- sures behind the reinforced soil mass. Provisions for adequate subsurface draimage must be determined by the soils engineer. 13. Stack and align t.'nits using the structural pin connection be- tween vertically adjacent units at the design setback batter, The completed wall is built with alignment tolerances of 1.5 inches (40 mm) in 10 feel (3 m) in both the horizontal and vertical direc- tions, 14, When required by the design, geogrld reinforcement is placed ,at the elevations specified in the design. The reinforced backlit! must be placed and compacted no tower than the top of the unit elevation where geogrld placement Is required. 2.5 Special Inspection: For walls 6 feet (1829 inm) high and higher, a special inspector is engaged to monitor lcundatian and reinforced fill soils, uncom- pacted lift thickness, ard compaction procedures. Special inspec- tion for geogrid placement also includes verification of proper place- ment with respect to geogrid type, elevation, and orientation; proper tensioning of geogrlds to remove slack; and tilt placement proce- dures over geogrids. 2.6 identification: A letter of certification must be provided for the Keystone units Indi- cating the manufacturers name and address, name of the product, 07/06/98 MON 08:00 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Construction Corp rage :1 01 to r the unit type, and the evaluation repor, 'number, for each project. Each roll of geogrid is identified by the manufacturer's name and ad- dress, the name of the product. and the product designation. Rber- glass pins are provided with each shipment, with a letter of certifica- don by Keystone. 3.0 EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Descriptive literature, calculations, and test reports. 4.0 FINDINGS That the Keystone Retaining Wall System compiles with the 1990 Uniform Building Coda ", subject to the following condlUons: 4.1 The system is designed and installed In accordance with this report the Keystone Design Manual dated November 1995; manufacturer's instructions; and accepted engineer- ing principles. li004 ER -4599 4.2 The Keystone Design Manual, dated November 1995, Is submitted lo the building official. 4.3 The wall design calculations must be submitted to and ap- proved by the building official. 4.4 Keystone units comply with this report and UDC Standard 21 -4 as Grade N. Type 1. 4.5 A foundation investigation In accordance with Section '1804 of the code Is provided for each project site. 4.6 Special inspection is required for foundation conditions, reinforced backfill placement, and structural geogrld installation in accordance with Section 1701 of the code: Section 2.5 of this report; and the Keystone Design Manual dated November 1995. 1996 Accumulative Supplement: This report is unaffected by the supple- ment. This report Is subject: to re- examination in one year. TABLE 1— GEOGRID DESIGN STRENGTH DATA AND CONNECTION DATA (FACTORED FOR WORKING STRENGTH DESIGN VALUES) TENSAtt aliOGIYD DESIGN DATA - r. own ) B X 1200 336 (4:9) UX0100SB 476 (60) . UX01405a 762 (11,1) UX0150SB 1270 (185) UX1400SB 889 (1a) ' UX 150QSB 1460 (21.3) 'NAAR MIRAGRIO DEMON DATA T. PA.) Si' 838 (121) 7T 1069 (15.6) 8T 1668 (24.3) 101' 2199 (32 1) STRATA SYSTEMS STRATAOMO DESIGN DATA T° PAL Strata 200 828 (17.1) Strata 300 1026 (150) Strum 500 1506 (220) Strata 600 2532 (36.9) AMOCO 204 Fannie O4SIGN DATA T° Muni Amoco 2044 616 (9.0) For Sl: 1 Ib /ft. = 68.6 kN /m. TABLE 2 GEOGRID INTERACTION AND SUDING COEFFICIENTS, Cl/CDs SOIL TYPE .1 ta'CDs Crushed stone, gravel (GW. GM) Sand. gravel, silty'sands (SW. SM, SP) Sandy silt. clayey sand (SC. ML) Sandy clay, lean clay (CL) Other clays • >34° m >32° a >28° a >26' toQ6° 1,0 0.9 0.8 0,7 0.6 See Figure 1 and Keystone Design Manual. TABLE 3 —INTER •UNIT SHEAR RESISTANCE' Summed Unit Po 1600 + 0.37 N (Fv23 +0.11 M coma urn F=513 +0,34N (F :7.3 +0.11 M The inter -unit shear resistance, F (1b/linear foot (kN/m)), of the Keystone units IL any elepth is a function of the pin strength and normal pressure. N [lb/square foot (IoM /ma)]. of Keystone units detc nl isted from laboratory tut results in accordance with the above equation, 07/06/98 MON 08:01 FAX 206 281 0920 hn-H SabeY Construction Corp hn :Jiff ! rced EC ass myw weir 5 = Angle of Inclination Interne] b = 2/3 b External b • Min ($ Petri, 0 Ret) 0 • angle of Internal friction hi 1/2 Refer b Keystone Design Manual (November 1995) for design procedures. FIGURE 1 --FREE BODY DIAGRAM STANDARD UNfT 110 lb. (50kg) CAP UNIT rs Ib.. (20kg) FIGURE 2 07/06/98 MON 08:01 FAX 206 281 0920 SabeY Construction Corp 11oo6 ER -4599 Total Height Slope 1 Retained Soil Type NEAR VERTICAL WALL (Minimum setback per unit) Total Height Slope Retained Soil Type ONE INCH (25mm) SETBACK WALL (25mm (1 ") min. setback per unit) STANDARD UNITS MAX. HGT. Backslope Soil Type Level 4H:1V 3H:1V 211:1V Sand/Gravel 52' (1.6m) 4.7' (1.4m) 4.6' (1.4m) 4.1' (1.2m) Silty Sand tY 4.7' (1.4m) 4.3' (1.3m) 4.1' (12m) 3.6' (1.1m) Silt/Lean Clay Y 4.4' (1.3m) 3.9' (1.2m) 3.7' (1.1m) 2.9' (0.9m) COMPAC UNITS MAX. HGT. Backslope Soil Typo Level 4H:1 V 3H:1V 2H:1V Sand/Gravel 2.9' (0.9m) 2.6' (0.8m) 2.5' (0.8m) 2.3' (0.7m) Silty Sand 2.6' (0.8m) 2.4' (0.7m) 2.3' (0.7m) 2.0' (0.6m) Siit/Lean Clay (0.7m) (0 6m) (0.6m) (0.5m) STANDARD UNITS MAX. HGT. Level Backslope r 4H :1 V r 31-1:1V 2H:1V Soil Type Sand/Gravel 6.8' (2.1m) 6.2' (1.9m) 5.9' (1.8m) 5.3' (1.6m) Silty Sand tY 6.1' (1.9m) 5.5' (1.7m) 5.2' (1.5m) 4.4' (1.3m) • Silt/Lean Clay i (1.6m) (1.4 ' m) (1.2m) 4.1' (.0m) COMPAC UNITS MAX. HGT. Backslope Soil Type Level 4H:1 V 3H:1V 2H:1V Sand/Gravel �,1 , 3.8' 2m) 3.4' (1.0m) 3.3' (1.0m) 2.9' (0.9m) Silty Sand (1.0m) (0.9m) (0.9m) (0 7m) Silt/Lean Clay .:'0.9m) 3.0' (0.8m) (0.8m) (0.6m) Notes: Calculations assume a unit weight of 18.9 kN /sqm for all soil types. Assumed f angles for earth pressure calculations are: Sand/Gravel=34', Silty Sand40 °, and Sandy Silt/Lean CIay26'. Minimum SF >1.5. No surcharge loadings are included. Surcharges or special loading conditions will reduce maximum wall heights. Sliding calculations assume a 150mm (61 crushed stone leveling pad as compacted foundation material. FIGURE3 07/08/98 J10N 08:02 FAX 208 281 0920 �yv r v1 u (J Sabe9 Construction Corp 007 ER -4599 Keystone Units Setback/Batter Wall Height Total Finished Grade .rr„vWY„ Embedment _ _j Depth Leveling Pad Finished Grade --1 Back;;►ope or Surcharge Geosynthetic Reinforcement Unit Core FilUDrainape • Drainage Collection Pipe (if required) Permeability Soil 1 1 1 FIGURE 4-- TYPICAL WALL SECTIONS (Retained Soil Zone Limit of Excavation (Rough cut) KEYSTONE 7 tit,0/6- '75- • DESIGN CALCULATIONS FOR PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK TUKWILA, WA rtgibeiP010 't- 0130 4444 West 781h Street 3loomington, Minnesota 55435 612/897-1040 500/747-6971 Fax 612/897-3858 6/8/98 MRJ RECEIVED JUL 1 6 1998 RECEIVED CITY .OF TUKWILA JUN 1 5 1998 PERMIT CENTER trit”Ar. 61 0 1.1.?:?:1 Cre Of WAS.t11•711`':'::::s ..t tt •% %.2■31'0:::/,,;:;,./.., 4:41, ')IGNAL Savata'• i?LIA;: r,C,\'.'.\L.` S;C \IS KEYS TONE RETAINING WALL DESK( B cd on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methoouiogy Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 `oject: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -XXX Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 1.10 LTDS 1539 2257 2.00 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/7/98 T2..• 11AD T = _1 8 7 6 5 4 j Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A FS Tal Ci 1.50 1026 1.00 1.50 1504 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 120' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 21.67 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- Case: Case 4 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Sliding Overturning 1.77 3.22 Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 4401 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.62 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 9 20.00 15.0 159 8 17.33 15.0 409 7 14.67 15.0 690 6 12.00 15.0 987 5 9.33 15.0 1262 4 6.67 15.0 1324 3 4.67 15.0 1295 2 2.67 15.0 1441 1 0.67 15.0 1041 Strata -500 1504 ok Bearing 3.43 Allow. Peak Tension Connection Reinf. Type Tal Tcl Strata -300 1026 ok 648 ok Strata -300 1026 ok 991 ok Strata -300 1026 ok 1332 ok Strata -300 1026 ok 1332 ok Strata -500 1504 ok 1532 ok Strata -500 1504 ok 1532 ok Strata -500 1504 ok 1532 ok Strata -500 1504 ok 1532 ok 1532 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -500: 8.33 sy /ft Strata -300: 6.67 sy /ft ( Efficiency= 74 % ) C: \Program Files\keywedge \Pacific View.sav - 1 - Shear Bending 9.31 11.73 Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS 10.00 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS >10 ok FS >10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok KEYSIO Y.L 1,1C,;C.ti 1`.'AL:. SYS:1NIS Ced on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 • KEYSTONE RETAINING: WALL UESI ir�e..,d -1 60444,- alta/Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -XXX Design Parameters Soil Parameters _i_- c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, I inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr • RFd RFid Strata-300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 1.10 LTDS 1539 2257 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/7/98 T]... 114D T 8 7 6 5 4 L J. Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal 1026 1504 Ci 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 550' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 19.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 3981 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.39 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 8 18.00 13.0 96 7 15.33 13.0 345 6 12.67 13.0 621 5 10.00 13.0 785 4 8.00 13.0 845 3 6.00 13.0 997 2 4.00 13.0 1147 1 2.00 13.0 1294 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata - 500: 2.89 sy /ft Strata -300: 8.67 sy /ft Case: Case 3 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear 1.71 3.05 3.40 7.76 C: \Program Files\keywedge \Pacific View.sav Allow. Peak Tension Connection Reinf. Type Tal Tcl Strata -300 1026 ok 562 ok Strata -300 1026 ok 905 ok Strata -300 1026 ok 1248 ok Strata -300 1026 ok 1332 ok Strata -300 1026 ok 1332 ok Strata -300 1026 ok 1332 ok Strata -500 1504 ok 1532 ok Strata -500 1504 ok 1532 ok ( Efficiency= 67 % ) Bending 11.73 Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS 8.61 ok 8.45 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok KEYSTONE SYs ; L'.15 KEYSTONE RETAINING; WALL DESI( Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 .61,401:- To lw4 -- oject: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -XXX Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr • RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 1.10 LTDS 1539 2257 FS 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/7/98 T].r. 114D T 8 7 6 5 4 s 1 Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal 1026 1504 Ci 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 550' Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 3981 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.39 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 8 18.00 13.0 96 7 15.33 13.0 345 6 12.67 13.0 621 5 10.00 13.0 785 4 8.00 13.0 845 3 6.00 13.0 997 2 4.00 13.0 1147 1 2.00 13.0 1294 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -500: 2.89 sy /ft Strata -300: 8.67 sy /ft STANDARD (21.5 in) Crushed Stone 19.00 ft Case: Case 3 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Sliding Overturning 1.71 3.05 C: \Program Files\keywedge \Pacific View.sav Allow. Tension Reinf Type Tal Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -500 1504 ok Strata -500 1504 ok ( Efficiency= 67 % ) - 1 - Bearing 3.40 Peak Connection Tcl 562 ok 905 ok 1248 ok 1332 ok 1332 ok 1332 ok 1532 ok 1532 ok Shear Bending 7.76 11.73 Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS 8.61 ok 8.45 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok '�'. .':!'..;'.• ",l_:_ SYS :L \IS KEYSTONE REI"AINING WALL DESI(!., ,r Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 oject: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -XXX Design Parameters Soil Parameters Reinforced Fill: 34 Retained Fill: 28 Foundation Fill: 28 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection cast 0 0 0 Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids • Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 Strata -500 Strata -600 2997 1.61 1.10 4396 1.61 1.10 7393 1.61 1.10 y pcf 125 120 120 RFid LTDS 1.10 1539 1.10 2257 1.10 3795 Date: 6 /7/98 D•r• 11,fD T = � r 110 9 8 5 y L 2.00 1.50 Bearing: 2.00 1.50 Serviceability: N/A FS 1.50 1.50 1.50 Tal Ci 1026 1.00 1504 1.00 2530 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 765' Case: Case 1 Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 24.33 ft embedment: 3.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Shear Factors of Safety: 1.82 3.36 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 4818 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.84 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 10 23.33 17.0 96 9 20.67 17.0 345 8 18.00 17.0 621 7 15.33 17.0 914 6 12.67 17.0 1194 5 10.00 17.0 1265 4 8.00 17.0 1245 3 6.00 17.0 1392 2 4.00 17.0 1537 1 2.00 17.0 1682 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -600: 3.78 sy /ft Strata -500: 7.56 sy /ft Strata -300: 7.56 sy /ft C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View.sav Reinf. Type Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -500 Strata -500 Strata -500 Strata -500 Strata -600 Allow. Tension Tal 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok 1504 ok 1504 ok 1504 ok 1504 ok 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok ( Efficiency= 68 % ) Bearing 3.45 Peak Connection Tcl 561 ok. 904 ok 1248 ok 1332 ok 1532 ok 1532 ok 1532 ok 1532 ok 1865 ok 1865 ok Bending 6.27 11.48 Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok KJEysTcx\E SYS : L \IS (EYSTUNE RE'I'ALINING WALL DESK( Baked on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 ir 444' rolect: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -XXX Design Parameters Soil Parameters .i._ c psf y Dcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 RFid 1.10 1.10 LTDS 1539 2257 FS 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/7/98 T]... 11 TD T Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal 1026 1504 Ci 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 850' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 19.00 ft Level Backfill Case: Case 7 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Factors of Safety: 1.98 4.06 Calculated Bearing Pressure: Eccentricity at base: 2.21 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Laver Height Length, 7 16.00 15.0 6 13.33 15.0 5 10.67 15.0 4 8.00 15.0 3 5.33 15.0 2 2.67 15.0 1 0.67 15.0 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste Strata -500: 6.67 sy /ft Strata -300: 5.00 sy /ft Bearing 4.43 3589 psf Allow. Peak Calculated Tension Connection Tension Reinf. Time Tal Tcl 331 Strata -300 1026 ok 819 ok 552 Strata -300 1026 ok 1162 ok 842 Strata -300 1026 ok 1332 ok 1126 Strata -500 1504 ok 1532 ok 1396 Strata -500 1504 ok 1532 ok 1439 Strata -500 1504 ok 1532 ok 912 Strata -500 1504 ok 1532 ok included): ( Efficiency= 73 % ) C: \Program Files\keywedge \Pacific View.sav Shear Bending 6.38 3.63 Serviceablity Connection Pullout Tsc FS N/A FS> 10 ok N/A FS> 10 ok N/A FS> 10 ok N/A FS >10 ok N/A FS> 10 ok N/A FS> 10 ok N/A FS> 10 ok •'.L . \1 I (; \:'. \!.._ ' •' 1. .t Based on Rankine (modified soil interface Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 ���,4f -'7o ii141+4- "ar41"Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -XXX Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 Strata -600 7393 1.61 1.10 RFid LTDS 1.10 1539 1.10 2257 1.10 3795 Methodology 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/7/98 D..• AAA T Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal Ci 1026 1.00 1504 1.00 2530 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 920' Case: Case 6 Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 27.67 ft embedment: 3.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Factors of Safety: 1.82 3.33 3.30 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 5455 psf Eccentricity at base: 3.18 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Laver Heieht Length, Tension 11 24.67 19,0 332 10 22.00 19.0 552 9 19.33 19,0 842 8 16.67 19.0 1126 7 14.00 19.0 1397 6 11.33 19.0 1661 5 8.67 19.0 1667 4 6.67 19.0 1586 3 4.67 19.0 1731 2 2.67 19.0 1875 1 0.67 19.0 1329 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -600: 12.67 sy /ft Strata -500: 4.22 sy /ft Strata -300: 6.33 sy /ft C: \Program Files\keywedge \Pacific View.sav Allow. Tension Reinf. Tvpe Tal Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -500 1504 ok Strata -500 1504 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok ( Efficiency= 66 % ) Shear Bending 8.15 3.63 Peak Serviceablity Connection Connection Pullout Tel Tsc FS 819 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 1163 ok N/A FS>10 ok 1332 ok N/A FS >10 ok 1532 ok N/A FS >10 ok 1532 ok N/A FS >10 ok 1865 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 1865 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 1865 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 1865 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 1865 NG N/A FS >10 ok 1865 ok N/A FS> 10 ok KJEYSTONE • ` •11' It , Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 •Tolws#- oject: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -XXX Design Parameters Soil Parameters ,i, c psf v pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 Strata -500 Strata -600 2997 1.61 1.10 4396 1.61 1.10 7393 1.61 1.10 RFid LTDS 1.10 1539 1.10 2257 1.10 3795 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/7/98 Dlr. 114D Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal Ci 1026 1.00 1504 1.00 2530 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 1025' Case: Case 10 Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 23.67 ft embedment: 3.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Sliding Overturning Bearing 1.87 3.53 3.66 Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 4608 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.74 ft Allow. Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Tension Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. Tvne Tal 8 20.67 17.0 332 Strata -300 1026 ok 7 18.00 17.0 552 Strata -300 1026 ok 6 15.33 17.0 842 Strata -300 1026 ok 5 12.67 17.0 1126 Strata -500 1504 ok 4 10.00 17.0 1397 Strata -500 1504 ok 3 7.33 17.0 1661 Strata -600 2530 ok 2 4.67 17.0 1921 Strata -600 2530 ok 1 2.00 17.0 1893 Strata -600 2530 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 71 % ) Strata -600: 5.67 sy /ft Strata -500: 3.78 sy /ft Strata -300: 5.67 sy /ft C: \Program Files\keywedge \Pacific View.sav Peak Connection Tcl 819 ok 1163 ok 1332 ok 1532 ok 1532 ok 1865 ok 1865 NG 1865 NG Shear Bending 6.38 3.63 Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok C,, CEYSTGNE RE PAINING WALL DESIGC,. Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 To (•,.- oject: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -XXX Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf 1 pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 Strata -500 Strata -600 2997 1.61 1.10 4396 1.61 1.10 7393 1.61 1.10 2.00 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/7/98 D,,. AAD T 6 5 4 3 2 1 Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci 1.10 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.10 2257 1.50 1504 1.00 1.10 3795 1.50 2530 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 1075' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 19.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 3981 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.39 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Calculated Laver Heieht Length, Tension 6 16.00 13.0 331 5 13.33 13.0 552 4 10.67 13.0 842 3 8.00 13.0 1126 2 5.33 13.0 1396 1 2.67 13.0 1660 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -600: 1.44 sy /ft Strata -500: 4.33 sy /ft Strata -300: 2.89 sy /ft Case: Case 5 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Sliding Overturning Bearing 1.71 3.05 3.40 C:\Program Files\keywedge \Pacific View -1.sav Allow. Tension Reinf. Tvpe Tal Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -500 1504 ok Strata -500 1504 ok Strata -500 1504 ok Strata -600 2530 ok ( Efficiency= 65 % ) Peak Connection Tel 819 ok 1162 ok 1532 ok 1532 ok 1532 ok 1865 ok Shear Bending. 6.38 3.63 Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS 6,86 ok 9.64 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok KEYSTONE ;,1i' ;I', ; '. ._ `i ") I '.15 ` ;' ZEYS'I'UNE RETAINING WALL DESIG( 1. Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 •.se, - 1(Qni+ - ioject: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -XXX Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 1.10 LTDS 1539 2257 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/7/98 Dlr. %ADT l 4 2 1 Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal 1026 1504 Ci 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 1125' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 13.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= Results: Sliding Factors of Safety: 1.60 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 2867 psf Eccentricity at base: 1.79 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. 4 10.67 9.0 237 Strata - 3 8.00 9.0 481 Strata - 2 5.33 9.0 767 Strata - 1 2.67 9.0 1056 Strata - Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -500: 1.00 sy /ft Strata -300: 3.00 sy /ft Case: Case 6 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge 100.00 ft Overturning 2.80 3 75 8.65 Type 300 300 300 500 C:\Program Files\keywedge\Pacific View -1.sav Bearing Shear Bending 5 6.01 Allow. Tension Tal 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok 1504 ok ( Efficiency= 55 % ) Peak Serviceablity Connection Connection Pullout Tel Tsc FS 733 ok N/A 4.73 ok 1076 ok N/A 7.24 ok 1332 ok N/A 9.28 ok 1532 ok N/A FS> 10 ok KEYSTO SY51p.1S �d �, . -'T i•,.e-- 'oject: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters __ c psf •r pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: Connection Peak: ,CEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN` ? Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 16 Mar, 1998 Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 RFid 1.10 1.10 LTDS 1539 2257 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/9/98 By: JMF Tal 1026 1504 Ci 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #2A © 110' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 21.00ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250psf uniform surcharge Results: sliding Factors of Safety: 1.70 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 4433psf Eccentricity at base: 2.62ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Layer Height Length Reinf. Tel 8 19.33 14.0 Strata -300 7 16.67 14.0 Strata -300 6 14.00 14.0 Strata -300 5 11.33 14.0 Strata -300 4 8.67 14.0 Strata -500 3 6.00 14.0 Strata -500 2 4.00 14.0 Strata -500 1 2.00 14.0 Strata -500 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -500: 6.22 sy /ft Strata -300: 6.22 sy /ft Case: Case 1 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 2.00ft DL -- Opsf uniform surcharge Overtuminq Bearing Shear Bending 2.96 2.12 6.17 11.48 647 991 1026 1026 1504 1504 1504 1504 Efficiency= Tension 59 408 690 986 1262 1323 1294 1441 75 %) FS Conn 6.11 3.64 2.90 2.03 1.82 1.74 1.78 1.60 Tcl 647 991 1332 1332 1532 1532 1532 1532 FFSpoo 7.50 8.74 FS >10 FS >10 FS >10 FS >10 FS >10 FS >10 K : \i I`JG KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGi .' Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 16 Mar, 1998 'I'""'P'roject: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters . c psf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 Retained Fill: 28 0 Foundation Fill: 28 0 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overtuming: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 RFid 1.10 1.10 v pcf 125 120 120 LTDS 1539 2257 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/9/98 By: JMF Tal 1026 1504 Ci 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #2A © 48' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.51n) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 17.67ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250psf uniform surcharge Results: sliding Factors of Safety: 1.68 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 3774psf Eccentricity at base: 2.27ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Laver Height Length Reinf. 8 16.67 12.0 Strata -300 7 14.00 12.0 Strata -300 6 11.33 12.0 Strata -300 5 8.67 12.0 Strata -300 4 6.67 12.0 Strata -300 3 4.67 12.0 Strata -300 2 2.67 12.0 Strata -500 1 0.67 12.0 Strata -500 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -500: 2.67 sy /ft Strata -300: 8.00 sy /ft Case: Case 2 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 2.00ft DL -- Opsf uniform surcharge Overtuminq Bearing Shear Bending 2.95 2.26 7.76 11.73 Tal Tension 562 96 905 345 1026 621 1026 786 1026 845 1026 998 1504 1147 1504 847 Efficiency= 62 % ) - 1 - FS Conn 8.75 3.93 3.01 2.54 2.36 2.00 2.00 2.71 Tcl 51 905 1248 1332 1332 1332 1532 1532 FSSpoo 7.07 7.64 9.45 FS >10 FS >10 FS >10 FS >10 FS >10 RE 1'; 1:1. SYS1EMS Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 16 Mar, 1998 roject: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters .J c psf Y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overtuming: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 Date: 6/9/98 By: JMF Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #2A @ 27' Case: Case 3 Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5in) Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 13.67ft embedment: 2.00ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250psf uniform surcharge DL -- Opsf uniform surcharge Results: sliding Overturning Bearin Shear Bending_ Factors of Safety: 1.71 3.17 2.74 12.66 11.73 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 2854psf Eccentricity at base: 1.80ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Layer Height LL1nO.0 h Strata- 300 648 Tension n FS 6.10 nn 6-4 Tcl FS 0 5 9.33 10.0 Strata -300 991 409 3.64 991 8.48 4 6.67 10.0 Strata -300 1026 588 3.40 1332 FS >10 3 4.67 10.0 Strata -300 1026 687 2.91 1332 FS >10 2 2.67 10.0 Strata -300 1026 845 2.36 1332 FS >10 1 0.67 10.0 Strata -300 1026 648 3.08 1332 FS >10 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 54 % ) Strata -300: 6.67 sy /ft - 1 - fi5 jl KEYSf0 :,11'.,',!; ...1:.:. ')'i I '.1•3 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESJG� Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 16 Mar, 1998 oject: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters Retained Fill: Foundation Fill: c psf 28 0 28 0 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50' Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Analysis: WALL #2 @ 5' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 2.33ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250psf uniform surcharge Results: sliding Factors of Safety: 4.11 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 325psf Eccentricity at base: 0.18ft Y pCf 120 120 2.00. 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/8/98 By: JMF ervicea • i i Case: Case 10 Wall Batter. 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.33ft DL -- Opsf uniform surcharge Overtuming Bearing Shear Bending 4.91 13.8t N/A N/A K! ' il`:I',G :. (� r KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN'` Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 16 Mar, 1998 roject: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters A.. c psf ocf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overtuming: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 2.00 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/8/98 By: JMF LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #2B @ 10' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 5.67ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 100psf uniform surcharge Results: sliding Factors of Safety: 2.06 Calculated Beanng Pressure: 944psf Eccentricity at base: 0.59ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) 2 La er Height LLeengthh Reinf. Tal Tension FS Conn Tci Elko 4.00 5.0 Strata -300 648 159 6.10 6471 2.83 1 1.33 5.0 Strata -300 991 290 5.13 991 7.47 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 22 % ) Strata -300: 1.11 sy /ft Case: Case 4 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.00ft DL — Opsf uniform surcharge Overturning Bearing Shear Bending 4.65 4.59 13.21 11.73 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGfc Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 16 Mar, 1998 ' % 01 oject: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters Retained Fill: Foundation Fill: .A_ ,c psf Y pcf 28 0 120. 28 0 120 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: Pullout: 1.50 Connection 1.50 Overtuming: Uncertainties: Peak: Analysis: WALL #2C @ 5' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 3.67ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 100psf uniform surcharge Results: sliding Factors of Safety: 2.09 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 661psf Eccentricity at base: 0.48ft 2.00 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/8/98 By: JMF Case: Case 5 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.00ft DL — Opsf uniform surcharge Overturning Bearing Shear Bending 1.86« 5.33 -N//A« N /A« KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGri / Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 16 Mar, 1998 '% ra'P'roject: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters Retained Fill: Foundation Fill: 28 Y120 f 28 0 120 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: Connection Peak: Analysis: WALL #2D © 5' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 3.67ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -• 100psf uniform surcharge Results: sliding Factors of Safety: 2.09 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 661 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.48ft 2.00 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/8/98 By: JMF ery cea•i1 Case: Case 5 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.00ft DL -- Opsf uniform surcharge Overtuming 1.86« Bearing Shear Bending 5.33 N/A« N /A« \I \i'4!, ','.'.1:.:. S'(ti: L• `.1S '� ^P'ioject: PACIFIC VI Pr Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodolo Beta Vers., 16 Mar, 1998 EW OFFICE PARK Pro' No., 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters Reinforced Fill: 34 cOsf y125 f Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: Connection Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 2.00 1.50 1.50 gy Date: 6/8/98 By: JMF RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds 1.10 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #3 Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: Level Backfill Surcharge: LL 100' STANDARD (21.5in) Crushed Stone 8.33ft 250psf uniform surcharge Case: Case 5 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.33ft DL -- Opsf uniform surcharge Results: sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending_ Factors of Safety: 1.70 3.48 3.30 10.03 12.60 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1662psf Eccentricity at base: 1.16ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Layer Height L 7.0 Strata- 300 561 Tension FS8.7 non 561 FS 0 7.33 2 4.67 7.00 Strata -300 904 345 3.93 904 87,5544 1 2.00 7.0 Strata -300 1026 527 3.55 1248 FS >10 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 31 % ) Strata -300: 2.33 sy /ft KL :,UNINc; SYS IS KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 16 Mar, 1998 '„7 raP'roject: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters ..j.. c psf v pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: Connection Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 2.00. 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/8/98 By: JMF RFid LTDS FS Tal Cl Cds 1.10 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #3 @ Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 19' STANDARD (21.51n) Crushed Stone 5.67ft 250psf uniform surcharge Results: sliding Factors of Safety: 1.54 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1039psf Eccentricity at base: 0.79ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Laver Height Lenqth Reinf. 2 4.67 5.0 Strata -300 562 1 2.00 5.0 Strata -300 905 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= Strata -300: 1.11 sy /ft Case: Case 6 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.33ft DL -- Opsf uniform surcharge Overturning Bearing Shear Bending 3.18 4.46 15.40 13.24 Tal Tension FS Conn TcI FLSpo 96 8.75 562 3.82 289 4.71 905 7.10 19 %) KEYSIO �:. :MAIN/ WALL. SYSIE : ?.IS x-70 441 ioject: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGf Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 16 Mar, 1998 Soil Parameters ..1_. c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 2.00 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/8/98 By: JMF RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds 1.10 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #4 @ 10' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 10.33ft BackSlope Geometry: 26.50 deg. slope, 40.00 ft long Surcharge: LL - 250psf uniform surcharge Results: sliding Factors of Safety: 1.56 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1983psf Eccentricity at base: 0.34ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Layer Heiht g Reinf. 5 9.33 12.0 Strata -300 4 6.67 12.0 Strata -300 3 4.67 12.0 Strata -300 2 2.67 12.0 Strata -300 1 0.67 12.0 Strata -300 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -300: 6.67 sy /ft Case: Case 2 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.33ft DL -- Opsf uniform surcharge Overturning Bearing Shear Bending 4.23 5.02 10.49 9.00 Tal Tension 561 141 904 424 1026 588 1026 796 1026 646 Efficiency= 51 % ) FS Conn 5.97 3.20 2.96 2.51 3.09 TcI 561 904 1162 1332 1332 FSpo FS>10 FS >10 FS >10 FS >10 FS >10 KEYSTO KL',ll.NI`.G 1'.'.t :. SYs L11S KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIG11' Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 16 Mar, 1998 oject: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf y...pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overtuming: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 Date: 6/8/98 By: JMF Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #4 © 55' Case: Case 4 Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5in) Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 9.00ft embedment: 1.33ft BackSlope Geometry: 26.50 deg. slope, 40.00 ft long Surcharge: LL -- 250psf uniform surcharge DL -- Opsf uniform surcharge Results: sliding Overturnin4 Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 1.50 4.01 4.96 12.41 22.23 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1732psf Eccentricity at base: 0.35ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Laver Height Length Reinf. TM Tension FS Conn TcI FSao 4 8.00 10.0 Strata -300 5b 104 8.11 62 FS >10 3 6.00 10.0 Strata -300 819 312 3.94 819 FS >10 2 4.00 10.0 Strata -300 1026 519 3.11 1076 FS >10 1 2.00 10.0 ' Strata -300 1026 727 2.75 1332 FS >10 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 40 % ) Strata -300: 4.44 sy /ft - 1 - KEYSTONE ','.',1:.L. SYS x S C -To x•144— 'roject: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters _, c psf 'I ocf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overtuming: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGt' Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 16 Mar, 1998 Date: 6/8/98 By: JMF Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #4 @ 86' Case: Case 3 Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5in) Wall Batter. 0.00 deg. Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 7.00ft embedment: 1.33ft BackSlope Geometry: 26.50 deg. slope, 40.00 ft long Surcharge: LL -- 250psf uniform surcharge DL - Opsf uniform surcharge Results: sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 1.50 4.16 5.65 13.13 4.08 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1311 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.23ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) gth La er H4 ht L 8 0 Strata- 300 33 Tension FS Conn T 9Sp9 2 2.67 8.0 Strata -300 991 450 3.30 991 FS >10 1 0.67 8.0 Strata -300 1026 415 4,51 1248 FS >10 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 37 % ) Strata -300: 2.67 sy /ft 1 RL \;.V: `3Y1/4): PAS C~ KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGf% Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 16 Mar, 1998 ^✓"Project: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters .J._„ c psf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 Retained Fill: 28 0 Foundation Fill: 28 0 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: Connection Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 125 120 120 2.00 1.50 1.50 RFid LTDS FS Date: 6/8/98 By: JMF Tal CI Cds 1.10 1539 1.50 Taff 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #5 @ Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 55' STANDARD (21.5in) Crushed Stone 10.33ft 250psf uniform surcharge Results: sliding_ Factors of Safety: 1.68 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 2140psf Eccentricity at base: 1.42ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Laver Height Length Reinf. Tel Tension FS Conn TcI FSpo 4 9.33 8.0 Strata -300 561 96 Bus 561 6.56 3 6.67 8.0 Strata -300 904 345 3.93 904 7.37 2 4.00 8.0 Strata -300 1026 621 3.01 1248 9.23 1 1.33 8.0 Strata -300 1026 660 3.03 1332 FS >10 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 42 % ) Strata -300: 3.56 sy /ft Case: Case 1 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.67ft DL - Opsf uniform surcharge Overturning Bearing Shear Bending 3.23 2.99 7.76 11.73 KYSTO '.� :xNI G WALL. SYS :1\IS 'KEYS 1UNE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 1 May, 1998 •.l�am -i ( - Troject: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters .J_ c psf ,pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 0 Reinforce Fill Type: 0.75" minus crushed stone or gravel Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata-300 2997 1.61 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 RFid 1.15 1.15 LTDS 1472 2159 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/9/98 D., A!'HR Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal 981 1439 Ci 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #6 @ Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 102' STANDARD (21.5 in) Crushed Stone 21.66 ft Case: Case 1 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 5.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft sliding Overturning 1.77 3.22 Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 4296 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.56 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 10 20.00 15.0 125 9 18.00 15.0 8 16.00 15.0 7 14.00 15.0 6 12.67 15.0 5 10.00 15.0 4 8.00 15.0 3 6.00 15.0 2 4.00 15.0 1 2.00 15.0 258 400 441 665 975 1008 1162 1313 1461 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -500: 6.67 sy /ft Strata -300: 10.00 sy /ft C:1KeyWedge MAYS \RID.sav Reinf. Type Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -500 Strata -500 Strata -500 Strata -500 Allow. Tension Tal 981 ok 981 ok 981 ok 981 ok 981 ok 981 ok 1439 ok 1439 ok 1439 ok 1439 NG ( Efficiency= 67 % ) Bearing Shear Bending 0.00« 7.21 11.87 Peak Serviceablity Connection Connection TcI Tsc 647 ok N/A 904 ok N/A 1161 ok N/A 1332 ok N/A 1332 ok N/A 1332 ok N/A 1532 ok N/A 1532 ok N/A 1532 ok N/A 1532 ok N/A Pullout FS FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS >10 ok 4i '∎%1 SY"; I: IS Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 1 May, 1998 4-ir41.4044-4 oject: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf t pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 0 Reinforce Fill Type: 0.75" minus crushed stone or gravel Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: Connection Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.15 1472 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 1.15 2159 Strata -600 7393 1.61 1.10 1.15 3630 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/9/98 Ow. A re ,f Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal Ci 981 1.00 1439 1.00 2420 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #6 @ Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 4956 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.91 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Layer Height Length Tension 12 24.00 19.0 237 11 21.33 19.0 470 10 18.67 19.0 721 9 16.00 19.0 851 8 14.00 19.0 903 7 12.00 19.0 1060 6 10.00 19.0 1212 5 8.00 19.0 1363 4 6.00 19.0 1511 3 4.00 19.0 1658 2 2.00 19.0 1493 1 0.67 19.0 945 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -600: 6.33 sy /ft Strata -500: 8.44 sy /ft Strata -300: 10.56 sy /ft 230' STANDARD (21.5 in) Crushed Stone 26.33 ft Case: Case 1 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 5.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending 1.90 3.64 0.00« 10.74 6.02 C :\KeyWed a MAYS \RID.sav Allow. Peak Serviceablity Tension Connection Connection Pullout Reinf. Type Tal Tel Tsc FS Strata -300 981 ok 733 ok N/A FS >10 ok Strata -300 981 ok 1076 ok N/A FS> 10 ok Strata -300 981 ok 1332 ok N/A FS >10 ok Strata -300 981 ok 1332 ok N/A FS >10 ok Strata -300 981 ok 1332 ok N/A FS >10 ok Strata -500 1439 ok 1532 ok N/A FS >10 ok Strata -500 1439 ok 1532 ok N/A FS >10 ok Strata -500 1439 ok 1532 ok N/A FS >10 ok Strata -500 1439 NG 1532 ok N/A FS >10 ok Strata -600 2420 ok 1865 ok N/A FS> 10 ok Strata -600 2420 ok 1865 ok N/A FS> 10 ok Strata -600 2420 ok 1865 ok N/A FS> 10 ok ( Efficiency= 69 % ) KM-Fa } L;,11NING \,'AL.. SYS LMS C •1 1' • „ Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 1 May, 1998 roject: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters c of y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: 0.75" minus crushed stone or gravel Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 Strata -600 7393 1.61 1.10 RFid LTDS 1.15 1472 1.15 2159 1.15 3630 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/9/98 n.,• Ar1,r Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal Ci 981 1.00 1439 1.00 2420 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #6 @ Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 285' STANDARD (21.5 in) Crushed Stone 32.33 ft Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 6013 psf Eccentricity at base: 3.46 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. Type 15 31.33 23.0 70 Strata -300 14 29.33 23.0 261 Strata -300 13 26.67 23.0 533 Strata -300 12 24.00 23.0 787 Strata -300 11 21.33 23.0 1060 Strata -500 10 18.67 23.0 1344 Strata -500 9 16.00 23.0 1400 Strata -500 8 14.00 23.0 1363 Strata -500 7 12.00 23.0 1511 Strata -600 6 10.00 23.0 1658 Strata -600 5 8.00 23.0 1804 Strata -600 4 6.00 23.0 1950 Strata -600 3 4.00 23.0 1735 Strata -600 2 2.67 23.0 1460 Strata -600 1 1.33 23.0 1524 Strata -600 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -600: 17.89 sy /ft Strata -500: 10.22 sy /ft Strata -300: 10.22 sy /ft Case: Case 1 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 5.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft sliding Overturning 1.93 3.67 C: \KeyWedge MAYS \RID.sav Allow. Tension Tal 981 ok 981 ok 981 ok 981 ok 1439 ok 1439 ok 1439 ok 1439 ok 2420 ok 2420 ok 2420 ok 2420 ok 2420 ok 2420 ok 2420 ok ( Efficiency= 69 % ) - 1 - Bearing 2.68 Peak Connection Tcl 561 ok 819 ok 1162 ok 1332 ok 1532 ok 1532 ok 1532 ok 1532 ok 1865 ok 1865 ok 1865 ok 1865 NG 1865 ok 1865 ok 1865 ok Shear Bending 8.70 12.63 Serviceablity Connection Pullout Tsc FS N/A . FS> 10 ok N/A FS >10 ok N/A FS> 10 ok N/A FS >10 ok N/A FS >10 ok N/A FS >10 ok N/A FS> 10 ok N/A FS> 10 ok N/A FS> 10 ok N/A FS> 10 ok N/A FS> 10 ok N/A FS> 10 ok N/A FS >10 ok N/A FS> 10 ok N/A FS> 10 ok Ri: ".1 :NI` G \NALL SYS ; L'+IS KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIG4. Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 17 Apr, 1998 _o._ (1406- To 41441- 4'7 P'''E‘ PACIFIC VIEW Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters ,iL c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 ' 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: Connection Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 2.00 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/9/98 By: DLM LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #7 @ Unit Type: Leveling Pad: WaII Ht: Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 190' STANDARD (21.5 in) Crushed Stone 15.00 ft • Case: Case 1 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.30 ft 50 psf uniform surcharge DL - 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 0.00 ft; Load Width= 0.00 ft Results: sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 2,37 5.08 3.37 7.59 2.87 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 2410 psf Eccentricity at base: 1.16 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibslft) Layer Height Length Reinf. Tal Tension FS Conn Tcl 5 12.00 11.0 Strata -300 819 --T6-2- 3.39 819 4 9.33 11.0 Strata -300 1026 533 3.27 1162 3 6.67 11.0 Strata -300 1026 784 2.55 1332 2 4.00 11.0 Strata -300 1026 1035 1.93 1332 1 1.33 11.0 Strata -300 1026 941 2.12 1332 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 71 % ) Strata -300: 6.11 sy /ft E'S pa 4.47 8.13 FS >10 FS >10 FS >10 KEYSTO _SYSTEMS Project: PACIFIC VIEW Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters C • I Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 17 Apr, 1998 Soil Parameters _L c psf pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 2.00 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/9/98 By: DLM LTDS FS Tal CI Cds 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #7 © 335' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 15.67 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 50 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 0.00 ft; Load Width= Results: sliding Factors of Safety: 2.26 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 2576 psf Eccentricity at base: 1.26 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Laver Height Length Relnf. 6 14.67 11.0 Strata -300 5 12.00 11.0 Strata -300 4 9.33 11.0 Strata -300 3 6.67 11.0 Strata -300 2 4.00 11.0 Strata -300 1 1.33 11,0 Strata -300 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= Case: Case 1 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.30 ft DL - 0 psf uniform surcharge 0.00 ft Overturning Bearing Shear Bending 4.62 3.10 7.39 12.52 Tal Tension 562 113 905 345 1026 596 1026 848 1026 1099 1026 989 65 %) Strata -300: 7.33 sy /ft FS Conn 7.47 3.93 3.14 2.36 1.82 2.02 Tci 562 905 1248 1332 1332 1332 FFSg 2.95 5.61 8.08 FS >10 FS >10 FS >10 P. :, INI ".c; ■L:_ ; 's : LNIS REYSTONERETATNINTWALEMESIGI Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 17 Apr, 1998 (AAA- To ( #*- 'ect: PACIFIC VIEW Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters _L c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: Connection Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 .1.10 2.00 1.50 1.50 LTDS FS Date: 6/9/98 By: DLM Tal CI Cds 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #7 @ 600' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone WaII Ht: 12.30 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 50 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 0.00 ft; Load Width= Results: sliding Factors of Safety: 2.98 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1835 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.80 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Layer Hei ht Length Reinf. 5 11.3 11.0 Strata -300 4 8.67 11.0 Strata -300 3 6.00 11.0 Strata -300 2 3.33 11.0 Strata -300 1 0.67 11.0 Strata -300 Case: Case 1 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.30 ft DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge 0.00 ft Overturning Bearing Shear Bending 7.92 4.69 10.26 12.77 Tal Tension 357 110 901 342 1026 593 1026 844 1026 655 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 50 % ) Strata -300: 6.11 sy /ft FS Conn 7.63 3.95 3.15 2.37 3.05 Tcl 337 901 1244 1332 1332 FSpo 6.68 9.14 FS >10 FS >10 FS >10 KEYSIONE RETAINING 14.1L:. SYS ; I_ MS 4 -To (m Project: PACIFIC VIEW Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters C. KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIG - Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 17 Apr, 1998 Soil Parameters _c psf y_p_cf. Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overtuming: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 2.00 1.50 1.50 Date: 6/9/98 By: DLM RFd LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds 1.10 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: WALL #8 © 130' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 15.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- Case: Case 1 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.30 ft 50 psf uniform surcharge DL - 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 0.00 ft; Load Width= 0.00 ft Results: sliding Overturning Bearing Factors of Safety: 2.37 5.08 3.37 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 2410 psf Eccentricity at base: 1.16 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Laver Height Length Reinf. 6 12.67 11.0 Strata -300 733 5 10.00 11.0 Strata -300 1026 4 7.33 11.0 Strata - 300 1026 3 5.33 11.0 Strata -300 1026 2 3.33 11.0 Strata -300 1026 1 1.33 11.0 Strata -300 1026 Tal Tension 263 471 618 682 824 794 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 59 % ) Strata -300: 7.33 sy /ft Shear Bending 9.11 4.47 FS Conn 4.18 3.43 3.23 2.93 2.43 2.52 TcI 733 1076 1332 1332 1332 1332 FFSpo 4.33 7.52 FS >10 FS >10 FS> 10 FS >10 KEYSPONE RETAINING WALL SYS LENS .34.14 w4st 761n Strew. • . • Bk)olivngtoli M•ont:sv.15a.v35 • , . . • • '•••• • •] ,6 113t.u3. RECENT3o AUG 1 4 1998 COMMUNITY DEVE:LOPMENT DESIGN • CALCULATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY CORPORATE PARK TUKWILA WASHINGTON 7/31/98 '.i.r!'./.11 i'?"•:;;;;7'.4 . . " RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 �.�-' 11. . IF %a "- '/ +`'"Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 LTDS 1539 2.00 1.50 1.50 Date: 7/31/98 D.,. WAD f / 3 2 1 Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A FS Tal Ci 1.50 1026 1.00 Cds 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 46' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 10.33 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= Results: Sliding Factors of Safety: 1.68 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 2140 psf Eccentricity at base: 1.42 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. 3 8.00 8,0 237 Strata - 2 5.33 8.0 481 Strata - 1 2.67 8.0 767 Strata - Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata - 300: 2.67 sy /ft Case: Case 5 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge 100.00 ft Overturning Bearing Shear Bending 3.23 4.89 8.65 6.02 Type 300 300 300 C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised.sav • Allow. Tension Tal 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok ( Efficiency= 48 % ) - 1 - Peak Connection Tel 733 ok 1076 ok 1332 ok Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS 6.02 ok 8.27 ok FS> 10 ok • f KFYSIONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS KIJYS I ONE RITAINTIVGIVALTIIESTGIN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 �.�-, J.614/4i--1-6- l -- -1 ''Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters ,J_, c psf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 Retained Fill: 28 0 Foundation Fill: 28 0 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 y pcf 125 120 120 RFid LTDS 1.10 1539 1.10 2257 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 Date: 7/31/98 �,.. WAD i 5 i 4 .3 .2 1 Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal 1026 1504 Ci 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 110' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 15.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.0 Results: Sliding Ove Factors of Safety: 1.59 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 3355 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.03 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 5 13.33 10.0 159 4 10.67 10.0 408 3 8.00 10.0 690 2 5.33 10.0 986 1 2.67 10.0 1262 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -500: 1.11 sy /ft Strata -300: 4.44 sy /ft Case: Case 6 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Oft rturning Bearing Shear Bending 2.71 3.35 7.45 11.63 Rein f. Type Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -500 1504 ok Allow. Peak Serviceablity Tension Connection Connection Pullout Tal Tcl Tsc 1026 ok 647 ok N/A 1026 ok 991 ok N/A 1026 ok 1332 ok N/A 1026 ok 1332 ok N/A 1532 ok N/A C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised,sav ( Efficiency= 63 % ) FS 4.35 ok 6.63 ok 8.69 ok FS >10 ok FS> 10 ok RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS }-, .61411. -15 _. _1 ' ", Prroject: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters ._L c psf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 Retained Fill: 28 0 Foundation Fill: 28 0 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection KEYSTONE ONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 • pef 125 120 120 LTDS Date: 7/31/98 A,,• IUD! / • =1 4 3 ,2 1 2.00 1.50 Bearing: 2.00 1.50 Serviceability: N/A FS Tal Ci Cds 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 420' Unit Type: STANDARD (21,5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 11.67 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= Results: Sliding Factors of Safety: 1.92 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 2256 psf Eccentricity at base: 1.50 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. 4 10.00 10.0 159 Strata - 3 7.33 10.0 409 Strata - 2 4.67 10.0 690 Strata - 1 2.00 10.0 848 Strata - Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -300: 4.44 sy /ft Case: Case 4 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge 100.00 ft Overturning 4.13 'rope 300 300 300 300 Allow. Tension Tal 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok ( Efficiency= 51 % ) Bearing Shear Bending 5.46 13.40 11.73 Peak Con nection Tel 648 ok 991 ok 1332 ok 1332 ok Serviceablity Con nection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok C: \Program Files\keywedge \Pacific View - Revised,sav KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DLS1GN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 .614106-- IF' 44011.-- "it-I'Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters ,k c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 1539 • 2.00 1.50 1.50 Date: 7/31/98 17... IUD T 4 3 .2 1 Bearing,: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A FS Tal Ci Cds 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall 01 @ 420' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 11.67 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Slidin Overturning Factors of Safety: 1.92 4.13 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 2256 psf Eccentricity at base: 1.50 ft Allow. Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Tension Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. Type Tal 4 10.00 10.0 159 Strata -300 1026 ok 3 7.33 10.0 409 Strata -300 1026 ok 2 4.67 10.0 690 Strata -300 1026 ok 1 2.00 10.0 848 Strata -300 1026 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -300: 4.44 sy /ft Case: Case 4 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft uniform surcharge Bearing Shear Bending 5.46 13.40 11.73 ( Efficiency= 51 % ) Peak Serviceablity Connection Connection Tcl Tsc 648 ok N/A 991 ok N/A 1332 ok N/A 1332 ok. N/A Pullout FS FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised.sav 'KIA7ST3NE ;RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS KEYSTONE.RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 ,60,6_0-4- 4,44- Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters _L, c psf y pef Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 • 1.10 1.10 LTDS 1539 2257 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 Date: 7/31/98 Der• 11AD 1 i 6 / 5 / 4 3 _! 2 1 Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal 1026 1504 Ci 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 750' Case: Case 8 Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 17.00 ft embedment: 3.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Factors of Safety: 1.73 3.15 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 3531 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.16 ft Allow, Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Calculated Tension Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. Type Tal 6 14.00 2.0 331 Strata -300 026 ok 5 11.33 2.0 552 Strata -300 026 ok 4 8.67 2.0 842 Strata -300 026 ok 3 6.00 2.0 1126 Strata -500 504 ok 2 3.33 2.0 1207 Strata -500 504 ok 1 1.33 2.0 987 Strata -500 504 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 66 % ) Strata -500: 4.00 sy /ft Strata -300: 4.00 sy /ft uniform surcharge Bearing Shear Bending 3,68 6.38 3.63 C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised.snv Peak Serviceablity Connection Connection Pullout Tel Tsc . FS 819 ok N/A 7.03 ok 1162 ok N/A 9.79 ok 1332 ok N/A FS >10 ok 1532 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 1532 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 1532 ok N/A FS> 10 ok +Ii 1 AININC WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 1.10 LTDS 1539 2257 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 Date: 7/31/98 A..• SAD =/ 6 5 4 3 2 3. Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal 1026 1504 Ci 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 775' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 17.67 ft Level Backfill Case: Case 7 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Beari Factors of Safety: 1.96 4.01 4.50 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 3366 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.09 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 7 16.67 14.0 - 96 6 14.00 14.0 345 5 11.33 14.0 621 4 8.67 14.0 915 3 6.00 14.0 1195 2 3.33 14.0 1266 1 1.33 14.0 1028 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -500: 6.22 sy /ft Strata -300: 4.67 sy /ft surcharge ng Shear Bending 6.27 11.48 Reinf. Type Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -500 Strata -500 Strata -500 Strata -500 504 ok ( Efficiency= 60 % ) Allow. Tension Tal 026 ok 026 ok 026 ok 504 ok 504 ok 504 ok C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised.snv Peak Connection TcI 562 ok 905 ok 1248 ok 1532 ok 1532 ok 1532 ok 1532 ok Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS >10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok KEIO RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 (' Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Date: 7/31/98 Soil Parameters _k_ c psf y pcf _ Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 - 9 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 = 8 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 - / b Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands = / 5 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus = ,/ 9 --c ' L 1 Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 1539 Strata -500 4396 1.61 • 1.10 1.10 2257 Strata -600 7393 1.61 1.10 1.10 3795 2.00 1.50 Bearing: 2.Oo 1.50 Serviceability: N/A FS 1.50 1.50 1.50 Tal Ci 1026 1.00 1504 1.00 2530 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 910' Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: Level Backfill Surcharge: LL - Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 4620 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.74 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 9 22.00 8.0 237 8 19.33 8.0 481 7 16.67 8.0 767 6 14.00 8.0 056 5 11.33 8.0 329 4 8.67 8.0 594 3 6.00 8.0 609 2 4.00 8.0 537 1 2.00 8.0 682 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -600: 8.00 sy /ft Strata -500: 4.00 sy /ft Strata -300: 6.00 sy /ft STANDARD (21.5 in) Crushed Stone 24.33 ft Case: Case 9 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Sliding Overturning 1,93 3.77 uniform surcharge Allow. Tension Reinf. Type Tal Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -500 1504 ok Strata -500 1504 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok ( Efficiency= 64 % ) C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised•sav Bearing 3.86 Peak Connection TcI 733 ok 076 ok 332 ok 532 ok 532 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok Shear Bending 8.65 6.02 Serviccablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok • KEYS-ni\E" RETAI1r'1NG WALL SYSTEMS • .. Based on Rankine (modified soil interface Beta Vers,, 26 May, 1998 '/ +`Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters Reinforced Fill: 34 Retained Fill: 28 Foundation Fill: 28 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection c psf 0 0 0 Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: y pcf 125 120 120 Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 1539 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 1.10 2257 Strata -600 7393 1.61 1.10 1.10 3795 Methodology 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 1.50 Date: 7/31 /98 1140 r / 7 E / •6 / 5 E / 4 2 1 Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal Ci 1026 1.00 1504 1.00 2530 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 1020' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 20,33 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- Case: Case 10 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Sliding Overturning 1.99 4.10 Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 3809 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.32 ft Reinforcing: (ft 8: Ibs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 7 17.33 6.0 331 6 14.67 6.0 551 5 12.00 6.0 842 4 9.33 6.0 1125 3 6.67 6.0 1396 2 4.00 6.0 1660 1 1.33 6.0 1416 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -600: 3.56 sy /ft Strata -500: 3.56 sy /ft Strata -300: 5.33 sy /ft Allow. Tension Reinf. Tyne Tal Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -500 1504 ok Strata -500 1504 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok ( Efficiency= 66 % ) C: \Program Fiies'keywedge \Pacific View - Revised.snv Bearing Shear Bending 4.38 8.15 3.64 Peak Connection TcI 819 ok 1162 ok 1332 ok 1532 ok 1532 ok 1865 ok 1865 ok Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok KRTSTO ;RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS KEYS '1 ONE RE! AINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 lor 4144-- '''/ i`t'Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters _L, c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 • 1.10 1.10 .LTDS 1539 2257 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 Date: 7/31/98 Der. WAD 1 Bearine: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal 1026 1504 Ci 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #1 @ 1150' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 10.33 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= Results: Sliding Factors of Safety: 2.10 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1928 psf Eccentricity at base: 1.34 ft Allow. Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Tension Laver Height Length Tension Rein f. Tvpe Tal 4 8.67 10.0 158 Strata -300 1026 ok 3 6.00 10.0 408 Strata -300 1026 ok 2 3.33 10.0 689 Strata -300 1026 ok 1 0.67 10.0 584 Strata -500 1504 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 40 % ) Strata -500: 1.11 sy /ft Strata -300: 3.33 sy /ft Case: Case 1 Wail Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge 100.00 ft Overturning Bearing Shear Bending 5.05 6.56 13.41 11.82 C: \Program Files\keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 3.sav - 1 -. Peak Connection Tcl 647 ok 990 ok 1332 ok 1532 ok Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok { KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 �ver4 444-- Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters .k, c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 2.00 1.50 1.50 Date: 7/31/98 D.,. /OD 2 Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #2 @ 68' Case: Case 6 Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 6.33 ft embedment: 1.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 2.00 ft; Load Width= 50.00 ft Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending 1.73 3.90 4.46 12.95 11.82 1302 psf Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: Eccentricity at base: 0.99 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 2 4.67 6.0 158 1 2.00 6.0 367 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -300: 1.33 sy /ft . Allow. Peak Serviceablity Tension Connection Connection Reinf. Type Tal Tcl Tsc Strata -300 1026 ok 647 ok N/A Strata -300 1026 ok 990 ok N/A ( Efficiency= 26 % ) C: \Program Files\keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 2.sav - Pullout FS 6.72 ok 9.13 ok KEYSTO RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS KEYS IONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 —/ +"'Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 Retained Fill: 28 0 Foundation Fill: 28 0 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: Connection Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 RFid 1.10 y pcf 125 120 120 LTDS 1539 Date: 7/31/98 u.,. 1141,1 2.00 1.50 Bearing: 2.00 1.50 Serviceability: N/A FS Tal Ci Cds 1.50 1026 1.00 1,00 Analysis: Wall #2 @ 235' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 4.33 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform Offset = 2.00 ft; Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 832 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.72 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 1 2.67 5.0 0 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -300: 0.56 sy /ft Case: Case 7 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.00 ft surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width= 50.00 ft Sliding Overturning 1.78 4.70 Allow. Tension Reinf. Tvpc Tal Strata -300 1026 ok ( Efficiency = 0.00067 C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 2.say. • Bearing Shear Bending 6.42 36.09 11.82 Peak Connection Tel 647 ok %) Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A Pullout FS FS >l0 ok "TM ;RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS C KEYS "ONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters 'A__ c psf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 Retained Fill: 28 0 Foundation Fill: 28 0 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overtuming: Uncertainties: Peak: Y pcf 125 120 120 Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 1539 2.00 1.50 1,50 Date: 7/31/98 Mir. ?,AD T 2 1 Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A FS Tal Ci Cds 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #3 @ 15' Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: Level Backfili Surcharge: LL -- STANDARD (21.5 in) Crushed Stone 5.67 ft Case: Case 4 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.33 ft 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Sliding Overturning 1.54 3.18 1039 psf Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: Eccentricity at base: 0.79 ft Allow. Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Tension Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. Type Tal 2 4.00 5.0 159 Strata -300 1026 ok 1 1.33 5.0 283 Strata -300 1026 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 22 % ) Strata -300: 1.11 sy /ft Bearing Shear Bending 5.55 13.40 11.73 Peak Connection Tcl 648 ok 991 ok Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A Pullout FS 4.20 ok 9.44 ok C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 3.sav 1. -. KEYSTO1 E RE'I A INC; WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters _L c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 Date: 7/31/98 D... T D r 1 2.00 1.50 Bearing: 2.00 1.50 Serviceability: N/A LTDS FS Tal 1539 1.50 1026 Ci Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #3 @ 95' Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- STANDARD (21.5 in) Crushed Stone 8.33 ft Case: Case 3 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 3.00 ft 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Factors of Safety: 1.70 3.48 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1662 psf Eccentricity at base: 1.16 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 3 6.67 7.0 158 2 4.00 7.0 408 1 1.33 7.0 489 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata - 300: 2.33 sy /ft Allow. Tension Reinf. Type Tal Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok ( Efficiency= 34 % ) C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 3.sav Bearing Shear 6.00 9.32 Peak Connection Tel 647 ok 990 ok 1332 ok Bending 11.82 Serviceablity Connection. Tsc N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS 6.48 ok 8.05 ok FS>10 ok KE1O , RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS i` KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN` Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Bearing: 2.00 Connection Peak: 1.50 Serviceability: N/A Date: 7/31/98 D.r. %AD 1 4 3 2 1 Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd ' RFId LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #4 @ 20' Case: Case 1 Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 11.00 ft embedment: 1.00 ft BackSlope Geometry: 26.40 deg. slope, 50.00 ft long Surcharge: LL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 50.00 ft; Load Width= 0.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 1.54 4.21 6.60 9.40 4.70 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 2131 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.36 ft Allow. Peak Serviceablity Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Calculated Tension Connection Connection Pullout Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. Tyne Tal Tcl Tsc FS 4 8.67 13.0 304 Strata -300 1026 ok 733 ok N /A FS >10 ok 3 6.00 13.0 602 Strata -300 1026 ok 1076 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 2 3.33 13.0 923 Strata -300 1026 ok 1332 ok N/A FS >10 ok 1 0.67 13.0 740 Strata -300 1026 ok 1332 ok N/A FS>10 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 63 % ) Strata -300: 5.78 sy /ft C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised2.sav 1 - if .,REi'A N1NG WALL SYSTEMS KEYS CONE RE GAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Date: 7/31/98 A... A,TD 2 I1 Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Bearing: 2.00 Connection Peak: 1.50 Serviceability: N/A Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds Strata -300 2997 1.61 1,10 1.10 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #4 @ 75' Case: Case 2 Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 9.67 ft embedment: 1.00 ft BackSlope Geometry: 26.40 deg. slope, 50.00 ft long Surcharge: LL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 50.00 ft; Load Width= 0.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 1.50« 4.04 6.45 9.39 4.68 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1872 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.36 ft Allow. Peak Serviceablity Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Tension Connection Connection Pullout Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. Type Tal Tci Tsc FS 3 7.33 11.0 304 Strata -300 1026 ok 734 ok N/A FS >10 ok 2 4.67 11.0 602 Strata -300 1026 ok 1077 ok N/A FS >10 ok I 2.00 11.0 791 Strata -300 1026 ok 1332 ok N/A FS >10 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 55 % ) Strata -300: 3.67 sy /ft C: \Program Files\keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 2.sav - 1 - KSIO RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS KEYSTONE RE I AINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 4144- "Itt"Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Date: 7/31/98 D... AD 2.00` 1.50 Bearing: 2.00 1.50 Serviceability: N/A Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 1539 1.50 1026 Ci Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #4 @ 120' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 6.33 ft BackSlope Geometry: 10.00 deg. slope, 50.00 ft long Surcharge: LL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 50.00 ft; Load Width= 0.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Factors of Safety: 2.41 6.15 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 948 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.32 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 1 2.67 6.0 417 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -300: 0.67 sy /ft Case: Case 3 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.00 ft Allow. Tension Reinf. Type Tal Strata -300 1026 ok 904 ok ( Efficiency= 41 % ) Bearing Shear Bending 7.53 8.96 2.38 Peak Serviceablity Connection Connection Tcl Tsc N/A Pullout FS 4.68 ok C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 2.sav KEYSTONE RE FAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 (4144- 'Itilroject: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: 2.00 1.50 1.50 Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 1539 1.50 Date: 7/31/98 DI.. AAD I= • / 3 2 Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal Ci Cds 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #5 @ 20' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 9.67 ft Level Backfill Case: Case 4 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.00 ft Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 1.00 ft; Load Width= 50.00 ft Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending 1.54 2.75 2.44 7.27 2.90 2364 psf Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: Eccentricity at base: 1.51 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 3 6.67 7.0 419 2 4.00 7.0 656 1 1,33 7.0 673 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -300: 2.33 sy /ft Allow. Tension Rcinf. Type Tal Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok ( Efficiency= 57 % ) Peak Connection Tcl 819 ok 1163 ok 1332 ok Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS 3.35 ok 6.07 ok FS>10 ok C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 2.sav 1 ,. • •••t. KFIO RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS (euv roject: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters Reinforced Fill: 34 Retained Fill: 28 Foundation Fill: 28 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection KEYS -I ONE RE PAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 c psf y pcf 0 125 0 120 0 120 Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 2.00 1.50 1.50 RFid LTDS FS 1.10 1539 1.50 Date: 7/31/98 D... A.fD 1 = / / = / =/ 9 7 6 5 4 2 1 Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal Ci Cds 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #6 @ 68' Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- STANDARD (21.5 in) Crushed Stone 17.67 ft 250 psf uniform Offset= 5.00 ft; Case: Case 5 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.00 ft surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width= 50.00 ft Sliding Overturning 1.82 3.46 Results: • Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 3418 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.10 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 9 16.00 110 126 8 14.00 13.0 259 7 12.00 13.0 400 6 10.00 13.0 541 5 8.00 13.0 691 4 6.00 13.0 850 3 4.00 13.0 1009 2 2.00 13.0 958 1 0.67 13.0 625 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -300: 13.00 sy /ft Reinf. Type Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -300 Allow. Tension Tat 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok ( Efficiency= 59 % ) Bearing Shear Bending 3.10 11.94 11.73 Peak Serviceablity Connection Connection Pullout Tcl Tsc FS 648 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 905 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 163 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 332 ok N/A FS >10 ok 332 ok N/A FS >10 ok 332 ok N/A FS >10 ok 332 ok N/A FS >10 ok 332 ok N/A FS >10 ok 332 ok N/A FS> 10 ok C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 2.sav RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS KEYS *I ONE RE PAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology • Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 1'Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 Retained Fill: 28 0 Foundation Fill: 28 0 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 Strata -500 Strata -600 2997 1.61 1.10 4396 1.61 ' 1.10 7393 1.61 1.10 y pcf 125 120 120 RFid LTDS 1.10 1539 1.10 2257 1.10 3795 Date: 7/31/98 D. T fDT = / = / I _r 11 I 2.00 1.50 Bearing: 2.00 1.50 Serviceability: N/A FS 1.50 1.50 1.50 Tal Ci 1026 1.00 1504 1.00 2530 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #6 @ 120' - Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 23.67 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 5.00 ft; Load Width= 50.00 ft Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear 1.87 3.53 4.14 Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 4522 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.68 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. Type 11 22.00 7.0 126 Strata -300 10 20.00 7.0 259 Strata -300 9 18.00 7.0 400 Strata -300 8 16.00 7.0 541 Strata -300 7 14.00 7.0 691 Strata -500 6 12.00 7.0 850 Strata -500 5 10.00 7.0 1009 Strata -500 4 8.00 7.0 1162 Strata -600 3 6.00 7.0 1313 Strata -600 2 4.00 7.0 1462 Strata -600 1 2.00 7.0 1610 Strata -600 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -600: 7.56 sy /ft Strata -500: 5.67 sy /ft Strata -300: 7.56 sy /ft Case: Case 10 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 4.00 ft DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 2.snv Allow. Tension Tal 026 ok 026 ok 026 ok 026 ok 504 ok 504 ok 504 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok ( Efficiency= 50 % ) - 1 - Peak Connection Tel 648 ok 905 ok 163 ok 332 ok 532 ok 532 ok 532 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok Bending 11.15 11.73 Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok' AASTO RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS KEYS' ONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 1.41.4,1,-, lir( - Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Prod. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 Retained Fill: 28 0 Foundation Fill: 28 0 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 Strata -500 Strata -600 2997 1.61 1.10 4396 1.61 1.10 7393 1.61 1.10 Y pcf 125 120 120 RFid LTDS 1.10 1539 1.10 2257 1.10 3795 Date: 7/31/98 U..• r4A I / 11 lu J J .1. 2.00 1.50 Bearing: 2.00 1.50 Serviceability: N/A FS 1.50 1.50 1.50 Tal Ci 1026 1.00 1504 1.00 2530 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #6 @ 187' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 25.67 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge Case: Case 5 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 4.00 ft DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending 1.95 3.81 4.21 10.78 3.63 Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 4837 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.86 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 11 22.67 9.0 332 10 20.00 9.0 466 9 1 8.00 9.0 577 8 16.00 9.0 741 7 14.00 9.0 896 6 12.00 9.0 1048 5 10.00 9.0 1 196 4 8.00 9.0 1343 3 6,00 9.0 •1489 2 4.00 9.0 1634 1 2.00 9.0 1779 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -600: 8.44 sy /ft Strata -500: 8.44 sy /ft Strata -300: 6.33 sy /ft Allow. Tension Reinf. Type Tal Strata -300 026 ok Strata -300 026 ok Strata -300 026 ok Strata -500 504 ok Strata -500 504 ok Strata -500 504 ok Strata -500 504 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok ( Efficiency= 60 % ) C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 3.sav Peak Connection Tcl 819 ok 163 ok 332 ok 532 ok 532 ok 532 ok 532 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS >10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok' l' ir( - Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 • 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 1539 Strata -500 4396 1.61 ' 1.10 1.10 2257 Strata -600 7393 1.61 1.10 1.10 3795 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 1.50 Date: 7/31/98 n.,. heD t 13 1L 11 1V Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal Ci 1026 1.00 1504 1.00 2530 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #6 @ 250' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 29.67 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- Case: Case 9 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 4.00 ft 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 5658 psf Eccentricity at base: 3.29 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. Tvpe 13 26.67 2 .0 332 Strata -300 12 24.00 2 .0 552 Strata -300 11 21.33 2 .0 842 Strata -300 10 18.67 2 .0 1126 Strata -500 9 16.00 2 .0 1208 Strata -500 8 14.00 2 .0 1196 Strata -500 7 12.00 2 .0 1343 Strata -600 6 10.00 2 .0 1489 Strata -600 5 8.00 2 .0 :634 Strata -600 4 6.00 2 .0 1779 Strata -600 3 4.00 2 .0 1592 Strata -600 2 2.67 2 .0 1345 Strata -600 1 1.33 2 .0 1409 Strata -600 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -600: 16.33 sy /ft Strata -500: 7.00 sy /ft Strata -300: 7.00 sy /ft Sliding Overturning 1.90 3.58 AIIow. Tension Tal 026 ok 026 ok 026 ok 504 ok 504 ok 504 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok ( Efficiency= 63 % ) C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 3.sav - 1 - Bearing Shear Bending 3.81 10.44 3.63 Peak Connection Tel 819 ok 163 ok 332 ok 532 ok 532 ok 532 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok ' FS >10 ok FS>10 ok �.� -,if -To (a44-- _/ ^''Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters KEYSTONE KE'I AIMING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 Soil Parameters ,S- c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 Strata -600 7393 1.61 1.10 RFid LTDS 1.10 1539 1.10 2257 1.10 3795 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 1.50 Date: 7/31/98 D... 714D T = f Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal Ci 1026 1.00 1504 1.00 2530 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #6 @ 260' Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone WaII Ht: 29.67 ft Level Backfill Case: Case 6 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 4.00 ft Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Factors of Safety: 1.90 3.58 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 5658 psf Eccentricity at base: 3.29 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. Type 13 26,67 2 .0 332 Strata -300 12 24.00 2 .0 552 Strata -300 11 21.33 2 .0 842 Strata -300 10 18.67 2 .0 126 Strata -500 9 16.00 2 .0 208 Strata -500 8 14.00 2 .0 196 Strata -500 7 12.00 2 .0 343 Strata -600 6 10.00 2 .0 489 Strata -600 5 8.00 2 .0 634 Strata -600 4 6.00 2 .0 779 Strata -600 3 4.00 2 .0 592 Strata -600 2 2.67 2 .0 345 Strata -600 1 1.33 2 .0 409 Strata -600 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -600: 16.33 sy /ft Strata -500: 7.00 sy /ft Strata -300: 7.00 sy /ft C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 3,sav Allow. Tension Tal 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok 1504 ok 1504 ok 1504 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok ( Efficiency= 63 % Bearing Shear Bending 3.81 10.44 3.63 Peak Connection Tel 819 ok 163 ok 332 ok 532 ok 532 ok 532 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok KEYSTONE RE I"AINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 " `'"'Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 Strata -600 7393 1.61 1.10 RFid 1.10 1.10 LTDS 1539 3795 2.00 1.50 1.50 FS 1.50 1.50 Date: 7/31/98 D.,. 114D 1 I 15 1't 1J 1L J.J. 1V Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal 1026 2530 Ci 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #6 @ 285' - Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 32.33 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- Case: Case 7 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 4.00 ft 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Slidin Overturning Factors of Safety: 1.93 3.67 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 6076 psf Eccentricity at base: 3.50 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 5 29.33 23.0 331 4 26.67 23.0 551 3 24.00 23.0 842 2 21.33 23.0 125 1 18.67 23.0 396 0 16.00 23.0 438 9 14.00 23.0 392 8 12.00 23.0 537 7 10.00 23.0 682 6 8.00 23.0 X201 5 7.33 23.0 943 4 6.00 23.0 1651 3 4.00 23.0 1751 2 2.67 23.0 1472 1 1.33 23.0 1536 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -600: 33.22 sy /ft Strata -300: 5.11 sy /ft Allow. Tension Reinf. Type Tal Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok ( Efficiency= 54 % ) C: \Program Files\keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 3.sav - 1 - Bearing Shear Bending 3.80 8.15 3.64 Peak Serviceablity Connection Connection Pullout Tcl Tsc FS 819 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 162 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 658ok N/A FS >10 ok 865 ok N/A FS >10 ok 865 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 865ok N/A FS >10 ok 865 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 865ok N/A FS >10 ok 865 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 865 ok N/A FS >10 ok 865 ok N/A FS> 10 ok 865ok N/A FS >10 ok 865ok N/A FS >10 ok 865ok N/A FS >10 ok 865 ok N/A FS> 10 ok • i• Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 .�i►,a„f" -7r 4144i--- 1"Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 . Design Parameters Soil Parameters A_ c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 Strata -600 7393 1.61 1.10 1.10 LTDS 1539 3795 Date:. 7/31/98 D,,. 11401 14 1i 1L / 11 1V F. V 0 2.00 1.50 Bearing: 2.00 1.50 Serviceability: N/A FS 1.50 1.50 Tal 1026 2530 Ci 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #6 @ 300' Case: Case 8 Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. Leveline Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 30.33 ft embedment: 4.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge • Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 2.04 4.13 4.31 6.17 11.48 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 5507 psf Eccentricity at base: 3.20 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 14 28.67 23.0 158 13 26.00 23.0 408 12 23.33 23.0 689 11 20.67 23.0 986 10 18.00 23.0 1262 9 15.33 23.0 1529 8 12.67 23.0 1553 7 10.67 23.0 1489 6 8.67 23.0 1634 5 6.67 23.0 "1778 4 4.67 23.0 1265 3 4.00 23.0 991 2 2.67 23.0 1731 1 0.67 23.0 1456 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -600: 30.67 sy /ft Strata -300: 5.11 sy /ft Reinf. Type Strata -300 Strata -300 Strata -600 Strata -600 Strata -600 Strata -600 Strata -600 Strata -600 Strata -600 Strata -600 Strata -600 Strata -600 Strata -600 Allow. Tension Tal 1026 ok 1026 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok 2530 ok Strata -600 2530 ok ( Efficiency= 52 % ) C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 3.sav - 1 - Peak Serviceablity Connection Connection TcI Tsc 647 ok N/A 990 ok N/A 483 ok N/A 833 ok N/A 865ok N/A 865 ok N/A 865 ok N/A 865 ok N/A 865 ok N/A 865 ok N/A 865 ok N/A 865 ok N/A 865 ok N/A 865 ok N/A Pullout FS FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS> 10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok KESTO RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS --KEYSTONE-RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 -6 - ir 44 44-- ^^'Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Prol. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters _L c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 1.50 Connection 1.50 Overturnin g : Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata-300 2997 1.61 1.10 Strata -500 4396 1.61 1.10 Strata -600 7393 1.61 1.10 RFid LTDS 1.10 1539 1.10 2257 1.10 3795 FS 1.50 1.50 1.50 Date: 7/31/98 L1... 11.TD 5 _ � >i E E ! b i 5 4 i • 2 Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: N/A Tal Ci 1026 1.00 1504 1.00 2530 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #6 @ 335' Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- STANDARD (21.5 in) Crushed Stone 23.67 ft Case: Case 10 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 4.00 ft 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Sliding Overturning Bearing 1.87 3.53 4.04 Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 4608 psf Eccentricity at base: 2.74 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension Rcinf. Type 9 22.00 7.0 159 Strata -300 8 19.33 7.0 409 Strata -300 7 16.67 7.0 690 Strata -300 6 14.00 7.0 987 Strata -300 5 11.33 7.0 1262 Strata -500 4 8.67 7.0 1529 Strata -500 3 6.00 7.0 1791 Strata -600 2530 ok 2 3.33 7.0 1780 Strata -600 2530 ok 1 1.33 7.0 "1392 Strata -600 2530 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 68 % ) Strata -600: 5.67 sy /ft Strata -500: 3.78 sy /ft Strata -300: 7.56 sy /ft Allow. Tension Tal 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok 1026 ok 1504 ok 1504 NG C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 3.sav Peak Connection Tel 648 ok 991 ok 332 ok 332 ok 532 ok 532 ok 865 ok 865 ok 865 ok Shear Bending 5.66 11.56 Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS FS >10 ok FS>10 ok FS>10 ok FS >10 ok FS >10 ok FS >10 ok FS >10 ok FS >10 ok FS>10 ok �r^ KEYS'T'ONE- RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 '/ ^Project: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters .1.. c psf y pcf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 125 Retained Fill: 28 0 120 Foundation Fill: 28 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands i Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus .). i Date: 7/31/98 D... NAD r 2 Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 2.00 1.50 Bearing: 2.00 1.50 Serviceability: N/A RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds 1.10 1539 1.50 1026 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #7 @ 25' Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- STANDARD (21.5 in) Crushed Stone 7.00 ft 250 psf uniform Offset= 2.00 ft; Case: Case 9 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.00 ft surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width= 50.00 ft Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1496 psf Eccentricity at base: 1.08 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 2 4.00 6.0 352 1 1.33 6.0 415 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -300: 1.33 sy /ft Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending 1.63 3.35 3.75 10.06 3.63 Allow. Tension Reinf. Type Tal Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok ( Efficiency= 37 % ) Peak Serviceablity Connection Connection ' Tcl Tsc 819 ok N/A 1162 ok N/A Pullout FS 4.99 ok FS> 10 ok C:Program Files\keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 2.sav .6t4.497- (a4-0- mit`A/P roject: Pacific View Retaining Walls Proj. No.: 98 -159 Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf Reinforced Fill: 34 0 Retained Fill: 28 0 Foundation Fill: 28 0 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection KEYS 1 "ONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified soil interface) Methodology Beta Vers., 26 May, 1998 Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid Strata -300 2997 1.61 1.10 1.10 Y pcf 125. 120 120 Date: 7/31/98 n.,. Leo 1 / :3 2.00 1.50 Bearing: 2.00 1.50 Serviceability: N/A LTDS FS Tal 1539 1.50 1026 Ci Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Wall #7 @ 50' Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: Level Backfill Surcharge: LL -- STANDARD (21.5 in) Crushed Stone 9.00 ft Case: Case 8 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 1.33 ft 250 psf uniform surcharge DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 2.00 ft; Load Width= 50.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Factors of Safety: 1.61 3.08 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1989 psf Eccentricity at base: 1.34 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Laver Height Length Tension 3 6.67 7.0 237 2 4.00 7.0 509 1 1.33 7.0 585 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Strata -300: 2.33 sy /ft Allow. Tension Reinf. Type Tal Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok Strata -300 1026 ok ( Efficiency= 43 % ) Bearing Shear 3.36 8.06 Peak Connection TcI 733 ok 1076 ok 1332 ok Bending 6.01 Serviceablity Connection Tsc N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS 5.12 ok 7.14 ok FS>10 ok C: \Program Files \keywedge \Pacific View - Revised 2.sav July 15, 1998 C City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Dave Swanson, P.E. Reid Middleton 728 - 134th Street SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 RE: Structural Review Pacific View Office Park - Keystone Walls (MI98 -0130) Pacific View Office Park - Retaining Walls (MI98.0131) Pacific View Office Park - Shoring Walls (MI98 -0132) Dear Mr. Swanson: John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Please review the enclosed plans and documents for structural compliance with the 1994 Uniform Building Code. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 206 -431 -3671. Sincerely, Brenda Holt Permit Technician encl Xc: MI98 -0131 MI98 -0132 6300 Southcenter Boulevar4 Suite #100. • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4131 -3670 • Fig• (206) 431 -3 07/06/98 MON 07:58 FAX 206 281 0920 SabeY Construction Corp 11001 SABEY CORPOR }ION i t I IIII ' .TI li,f ( ,I.• .I IL, FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 06 1998 PERMIT CENTER DATE/TIME: 07/08/98 08:03 AM ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW: NO X YES, BY: Mall: Overnight Delivery Courier TO: t2UAN aIrFIN FIRM: TUKWILA IJFP1 Of COMMIJNI1Y veVEL PMENf FAX NO.: 206 - 431-3665 PHONE NO.: FROM: HAYN5 LUNn PROJECT: PACING VIf;W OFFla PAPJ: 206 -431 -3670 Number of pages, including this cover sheet; 7 Transmitting from fax number (206) 281 -0920, Phone (206) 281.8700 Please call Sarah Brulnooge at 281 -8700 if you do not receive all pages. Message: Attached Is the 1OBO Report on Keystone Retaining Wall System. 1 should have Olean copies to bring to tomorrow's meeting, but this information should be sufficient to provide to the 8truotural Engineers who are reviewing this portion of the work. Please oall I} you have any questions or require any further Irllformation. This facsimile communication Is Intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which It la addressed end may wain nfornetion that la privileged and and confidential. If the reader of this cover page Is not the addressee, or the employee or agent of the addressee, please bo adviaed that any alueminatlon, distribution, or copying dulls communication Is strictly prohibited. If you receive thla facsimile In error, please notify us Immtdlately by telephone and mall this facsimile to us at toe addross below. Thank you. wirap*X.TUKW.WK4 SABEY CORPORATION 101 Elliott Avenue West • Suits 330 • Seattle, WA 11110 • T.I: 201(211(700 • Pa,: 2001201 -00020 pgEqf'oIo tkIAB'0130 07/06.198 3MON 07:59 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Construction Corp ICBO Evaluation Service, Inc. 5360 WORKMAN MILL ROAD • WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA 91)601 -2299 A subsidiary corporation of the International Conference of Bu EVALUATION REPORT Copyright m 1997 ICBO Evaluation Service, Inc. e) 002 ilding Officials ER -4599 Reissued May 1, 1997 Filing Category; DESIGN --- Concrete (038) KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS. INC. 4444 WEST 78TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 1.0 SUBJECT Keystone Retaining Wall System. 2.0 DESCRIPTION 2.1 General: The Keystone Retaining Wall System utilizes modular concrete units for the construction of gravity or reinforced -soil retaining walls. The wall system is assembled in running bond without mortar or grout, utilizing high- strength fiberglass pins for shear connection and alignment. The system may include horizontal layers of structural geogrid reinforcement In the backfilled soil mass. Keystone concrete units are available in three basic configura- tions; Standard. Compac and Cap. Standard units weigh 110 pounds (50 kg) with normal - weight aggregates and have either a straight or three -plane split face: 21.5 inches (546 mm) deep nominal, 8 inches (203 mm) high, and 18 inches (457 mm) wide at the exposed face, tapering to 11 inches (280 mm) at the tail. Compac units weigh 85 pounds (40 kg) with normal - weight aggregates and have either a straight or three -plane split face: 12 Inches (305 mm) deep nominal, 8 inches (203 mm) high, and 18 inches (457 mm) wide at the ex- posed face, tapering to 12.5 inches (317 mm) at the tail. Cap units weigh 45 pounds (20 kg) and have either a straight or three -plane split face; 10,5 inches (266 mm) deep nominal, 4 inches (102 mm) high, and 18 inches (457 mm) wide at the exposed face, tapering to 13.75 Inches (350 mm) at the tail. Cap units are 1 /2- height units with- out pin holes in the top of the surface, Full- height cap units may also be utilized. The unit weights noted above will vary between fabrica- tors because of mix design and aggregate weights. Actual unit weights are to be used in design. Standard and Compac units have four holes each for installation of fiberglass connection pins. See Figure 1 for typical unit configura- tion. All units comply as Grade N. Type 1, In accordance with UBC Standard 21 -4. with a minimum 28 -day compressive strength of 3,000 psi (20 MPa) on the net area and a maximum water absorption of 8 percent. Unit tolerances comply with Section 21,406 of U8C Standard 21-4. A pultruded fiberglass pin is used to provide alignment of the units during placement, positive placement of the geogrld reinforcement, and inter -unit shear. The angle of wall inclination is determined by location of the fiberglass pin placement during assembly, See Figure 2. The pin placement in the rear pin hole in every course provides a minimum wall inclination o17.1 degrees from vertical towards the backfill (1 Inch (25 mm) minimum setback per course]. The pin placement alternating between the front and rear pin holes on verti- cally adjacent rows provides a wall inclination of approximately 3,6 RECEIVED CiTY OF TUKWILA JUL 0 6 1996 PERMIT CENTER degrees from vertical towards the backfill (1/2 Inch (13 mm) mini- mum setback per course). The pin placement during assembly in the front pin hole provides a near - vertical wall inclination of approxi- mately 0.5 degre: from vertical toward the backfill (t /e inch (3 mm) minimum setback per course]. Fiberglass connection pins are made of pultruded fiberglass 0.5 inch (12,7 mm) in diameter and 5.25 inches (133 mm. long, with a minimum short beam shear strength of 6400 psi (44 MPa). Core fill is a1/2. inch to 3/4 -inch (12 mm to 20 mm), clean, crushed - stone material th•it is placed between and behind the units. The core fill provides addi.ional weight to the completed wall section for sta- bility, local drainirge at the face of the structure, and a filter to keep the backfill soils from filtering out through the face between units. Core fill is required in all the structural units and extends back 2 feet (600 mm) from the face of the wall. Geogrid soli reinforcement is re- quired to Increas':l the height of the Keystone wall system above the height at which the wall is stable under its self-weight as a gravity system. Geogride are synthetic materials specifically designed for use as soil reinfo, cement. Geogrids are manufactured from polyes- ter (PET), high- dlrnsity polyethylene (HOPE), or polypropylene (PP) polymers. Geogrid reinforcement materials specifically tested for use with the Keystone retaining wall system are manufactured by the follow- ing companies: 1. Tensor Corporation — HOPE 'UK series' geogrids — PP "8X series" geogrids 2, Nlcolon/Mirei Group —PET 'Miragrid" geogrids 3. Strata Systems, Inc. — PET "Stratagrid" geogrids 4. Amoco Fabri :s and Fiber — PP woven geotextile Geogrids muss. be stored at temperatures higher than —10 °F (- 20 °C). Contact with mud, wet cement, and epoxy or other adhesive materials must be avoided, Prolonged exposure to sunlight of geo- grid materials should be avoided because they are subject to ultra- violet (UV) degradation, 2.2 Design: The system Is designed as a gravity or reinforced -soil retaining wall that depends on the weight and geometry of the mass to resist lateral earth pressures a.id other lateral forces. Lateral earth pressures are determined using either Coulomb or Rankine earth pressure theory. See Figure 1, The design must include evaluation of both external and internal stability of the structure and include consideration of ex- ternal Toads such is surcharges and seismic forces. External stability analyses are similar to those required for conventional retaining walls, Minimum safety factors are 1.5 for sliding and 2,0 for over- turning (1.5 for oeertuming on gravity walls), and 2.0 for bearing ca- pacity. Internal s1 :llbllity analyses of reinforced soil structures must consider the maximum allowable reinforcement tension, pull -out re- sistance of the reinforcement behind the active failure zone, and the connection strength of geogrld reinforcement to the Keystone unit. Table 1 shows alf:.lwable design strength, (T4), for the geogrids. The design strengths in the table have been reduced by a safety factor of i Evaluation reports of ICAO Evaluation Service, Inc., are Wired solely to provide LS finnotion to Class A mtmi'ers of ICBO, utilizing the code upon which the report bated. Evaluation reports are not to be construed as representing aesthetics or any other attributes not spcc(I?colly addressed nor as an endorsement or reconunen- ration for use of the subject report This report it based upon independent tests or other technical data submitted by the applicant, The ICAO Evmhation Stevie*, inc., fechnkal staff has reviewed She test results and/or other data, but does not possess test facilities to make an independent verification. There is no warranty by ICAO Evaluation Service, Inc., Wass ar implied, as to any "Finding" or other matter in the report or as to any .product covered by flee report rids ills: Winer includes, but it nN limited it, mtrehantabil'q. Page 1 of i 07106198. MON 07:59 FAX 206 281 0920 1.5, Additional safety factors that have ucen incorporated Into the table include the creep reduction factor, and factors considering chemical and biological damage and installation damage. Soil inter- action and direct sliding coefficients are described in Table 2. Inter - unit shear capacity equations are described in Table 3. Walls over 6 feet (1829 mm) high installed in Seismic Zones 3 or 4 are also designed for seismic loads. A pseudo-static design proce- dure is utilized for internal, external, and wall shear analyses. Seis- mic safety factors are 75 percent of the minimum allowable static safety factors. A foundation investigation in accordance with Section 1804 of the code is required tor each site, except for landscaping applications. The foundation investigation determines the soli properties and rec- ommended values for design. The design of the Keystone wall is based on accepted geotechnical principles for gravity and soil rein- forced structures. Specifics of design are found in the Keystone De- sign Manual dated November 1995. Keystone retaining wail systems are designed as follows; 1. Gravity retaining walls: The gravity wait system relies on the weight and geometry of the Keystone units to resist lateral earth pressures. Gravity wall design is based on standard engineering principles for modular concrete retaining walls, The maximum height of Keystone Standard and Compac units Is shown in Fig- ure 3 for different soil and backslope combinations. Typical de- sign heights are 2.5 to 3 times the depth of the unit being used. 2. Geogrid- reinforced retaining walls: The geogrid reinforced soil system relies on the weight and geometry of the Keystone units and the reinforced soil mass to act as a coherent gravity mass to resist lateral earth pressures. The design of a reinforced soil structure is specific to the Keystone unit selected, soil reinforce- ment strength and soil interaction. soil strength properties, and structure geometry. The maximum design height is theoretically unlimited; however, the general practical height limit is approxi- mately 50 feet (15 m). Figure 1 shows a free body diagram for a reinforced soil retaining wall. Figure 4 shows typical compo- nent details. 2.3 Structural Analysis: Structural calculations must be submitted to the building official toe each wall system installation, Structural analysis is based on accept- ed engineering principles, the Keystone Design Manual dated No- vember 1995, and the code, Tits analysis must include all items noted in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 and follow the design methodology of the Keystone Design Manual dated November 1995. 2.3.1 External Stability Analysts: 1. The length of the reinforced mass is 0.6 times the height of the wall (as measured from top of leveling pad to tap at wall) or as required to satisfy a safety factor of 1.5 on sliding at the base, whichever is greater. 2. The minimum safety factor for overturning the reinforced mass Is 2.0, considering the mass as a rigid body rotating about the toe of the wall. 3. Global stability analysis must be provided for walls with slopes below the toe of the wall, walls on soft foundations, walls that will be designed for submerged conditions, or tiered walls. 4. Atter completion of the internal stability analysis and geogrid layout, sliding along each respective geogrid layer must be checked, Including shearing through the connection at the wall face. 2.3.2 Internal Stability; 1. Geogrld spacing is based on local stability of the Keystone units during construction. A safety factor of 2 Is used for cantilevered units overturned by the soil forces alone, Vertical spacing is typi- cally 2 times the depth of the unit. 2. Tension calculations for each respective Layer of reinforcing must be provided. Tension is based on the earth pressure and surcharge load calculated from halfway to the layer below to halfway to the layer above. Calculated tensions must not exceed ; for each respective layer. See Table 1. Qj 003 Sabey Construction Corp ER -4599 3. Connection capacity shall be checked for each geogrid- to -Key- stone connection. The calculated connection capacity must be equal to r: r greater than the calculated tension for each layer. 4. A calculation check must be made on pullout of the upper Ia• • • of reinforcing from the soil zone beyond the theoretical Ran failure plane (4544/2). The pullout capacity must be equal to or greater than the calculated tension after applying the adjustment factors shown in Table 2. 2.4 Installation: The installation of the Keystone Retaining Walt System is as fol- lows: 1, Excavate for leveling pad and reinforced till zone. 2. Inspect excavations for adequate bearing capacity of foundation soils and oeservation of groundwater conditions by a qualified geotechnic:i engineer. 3. Install a 6 -lath -thick (150 mm) leveling pad of crushed stone, compacted to 75 percent relative density as determined by ASTM 0 4534. (An unreinforced concrete pad in accordance with Section 1923 of the code may be utilized in place of the crushed stoile pad.) 4. install the first course of Keystone units, ensuring units are level from side to side and front to back. 5. Install the fiberglass pin In the proper alignment hole for batter selection. 6, Fill the units with core fill, 7, Clean the top surface of the units to remove loose aggregate, 8. At appropriate; levels, install geogrid reinforcing, connecting over the pins. All geogrid reinforcement Is installed by placing the geogrid over the fiberglass pin at design elevations to prop- erly position the reinforcement. The roll or warp direction is the direction of primary design strength of the reinforcement. Adja- cent rolls are l:laced side by side; no overlap is required. 9. Pull taut to remove slack from the geogrids before placing back - fill. Pull the entire length of the geogrid taut to remove any foil or wrinkles. 10. Place and com;ract backfiil over the geogrld layer. 11. Repeat placement of units, corefill, backfill, and geogrids as shown on plane to finished grade. 12. Backlill used in the reinforced fill mass must consist of suitable fine- grained or coarse- grained soil placed in lifts compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM 0155;' (95 percent per ASTM 0 698). The backlit soil properties, lift thickness, and degree of compaction shall be de- termined by the; oils engineer based on site - specific conditions. In cut wall applications, if the reinforced soil has poor drainage properties, a granular drainage layer or synthetic drainage com- posite should be installed to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pres- sures behind the reinforced soil mass, Provisions tor adequate subsurface drain :.tge must be determined by the soils engineer. 13. Stack and align units using the structural pin connection be- tween vertically a tjacent units at the design setback batter, The completed wail is built with alignment tolerances of 1.5 Inches (40 mm) in 10 feel (3 m) in both the horizontal and vertical direc- tions. 14, When required by the design, geogrid reinforcement is placed at the elevations specified in the design. The reinforced backfill must be placed and compacted no lower than the top of the unit elevation where geogrid placement is required. 2.5 Speciallnspecffort: For walls 6 feet (1829 inm) high and higher, a special inspector Is engaged to monitor fcundation and reinforced fill soils, uncom- pacted lilt thickness, and compaction procedures, Special inspec- tion for geogrid placement also includes verification of proper place- ment with respect to geogrid type, elevation, and orientation; proper tensioning of geogrids 10 remove slack; and fill placement proce- dures over geogrids. 2.6 Identification: A letter of certification must be provided for the Keystone units Indi- cating the manufacturer',; name and address, name of the product, 07 /06-/98 MON 08:00 FAX 206 281 0920 -.t•aste b Sabey Construction Corp the unit type, and the evaluation report'number, for each project. Each roll of geogrid is identified by the manufacturer's name and ad- dress, the name of the product. and the product designation. Fiber- glass pins are provided with each shipment, with a letter of certifica- tion by Keystone. 3.0 EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Descriptive literature, calculations, and test reports. 4.0 FINDINGS That the Keystone Retaining Wall System complies with the 1994 llellorrn Building Code' , subject to the following condlUons: 4.1 The system Is designed and installed In accordance with this report: the Keystone Design Manual dated November 1995; manufacturer's instructions; and accepted engineer- ing principles. ICJ 004 ER -4599 4.2 The Keystone Design Manual, dated November 1995, Is submitted to the building official. 4.3 The wall design calculations must be submitted to and ap- proved by the building official. 4.4 Keystone units comply with this report and UBC Standard 21 -4 as Grade N. Type 1. 4.5 A foundation investigation In accordance with Section 1804 of the code Is provided for each project site. 4.6 Special inspection is required for foundation conditions, reinforced backfill placement, and structural geogrid Installation in accordance with Section 1701 of the code; Section 2.0 of this report; and the Keystone OesIgn Manual dated NaveInbar 1995. 1996 Accumulative Supplement: This report Is unaffected by the supple- ment. This report is subject: to re- examination In one year. TABLE 1— GEOGRID DESIGN STRENGTH DATA AND CONNECTION DATA (FACTORED FOR WORKING STRENGTH DESIGN VALUES) TENSAR 0e00RID DESIGN DATA r peen.) 8X1200 336 (4:1) UXOI OOSB 476 (6:.1) UX0140513 762 (11,1) ' UXOISOSB 1270 (183) UXI400SB 889 (1 ,) ' UXt500SB 1460 (213) ISRAR MIRAGRID DESIGN DATA r° (bdP.) ST 838 (12.2) 7T 1069 (15.6) 8T 1668 (24.3) IOT 2199 (32 1) STRATA SYSTEMS STRATAOAIO DESIGN DATA r, (IOJIt.I Strata 200 828 (12.1) Strata 300 1026 (15D) Strata 500 1506 (22.0) Stara 600 2532 (36.9) AMOCO 2044 FASIMC Noon DATA re (15*) Amoco 2044 616 (9.0) For 511: 1 Iblft. = 68.6 kN /m, TABLE 2— GEOGRID INTERACTION AND SLIDING COEFFICIENTS, Cl/CDs SOIL TYPE •t .. Crushed stone, gravel (GW, GM) Sand. gravel, siltpsands (SW. SM, SP) Sandy silt. clayey sand (SC. ML) Sandy clay, lean clay (CL) Other clays • >34° 0 >32° m >28° • >26° e46° 1.0 0.9 0.8 0,7 0.6 'See Figure 1 and Keystone Design Manual. TABLE a— INTER -UNIT SHEAR RESISTANCE' Simone Unit F a 1600 +0.37 N (Fc23+031 N) canoe um F =513+0.34N (F=7.3,0.1I W) The inttr-unit shear resistance, F (lb/Ilnear foot (kN/m)], of the Keystone units u any clepth is at functioo of the pin strength and normal pressure. N (lb/equate foot (kN /m3)). of Keystone units determined (mm laboratory test results In accordance With the above equations. 07/06/98 MON 08:01 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Construction Corp 5= Angle of Inclination Internal 5= 2/3 External 5 • Min (4, Rein, $ Ret) • • angle of internal friction Z005 ER -4599 Refer b Keystone Design Manual (November 1995) for design procedures. FIGURE 1—FREE BODY DIAGRAM STANDARD UNIT 11010. (SOW CAP UNIT 45 b. (Eft) FIGURE 2 07/06198 MON 08:01 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Construction Corp Lio06 ER -4599 1 Total akalezi Height Slope 1 Retained Soil Type EMI NEAR VERTICAL WALL (Minimum setback per unit) 1 Total Height Slope Retained Soil Type ONE INCH I25mm) SETBACK WALL (25mm (1") min. setback per unit) STANDARD UNITS MAX. HGT. Backslope Soil Type Level 4H:1V 3H:1V 2H:1V Sand/Gravel 52' (1.6m) 4.7' (1.4m) 4.6' (1.4m) 4.1' (1.2m) Silty Sand ty 4.7' (1.4m) 4.3' (1.3m) 4,1' (1.2m) 3.6' (1.1m) Silt/Lean Clay (1.3m) (11.2m) (1.1m) 3.7' (0.9m) COMPAC UNITS MAX. HGT. Backslope Soil Type Level 41-1:1V 3H:1V 2H:1V SandJGravel 2.9' (0.9m) 2.6' (0.8m) 2.5' (0.8m) 2.3' (0.7m) Silty Sand 2.6' (0.8m) 2.4' (0.7m) 2.3' (0.7m) 2.0' (0.6m) Silt/Lean Clay (0 7m) (0 6m) (0.6m) (0.5m) STANDARD UNITS MAX. HGT. Backslope Soil Type Level 4H:1V 3H:1V 2H:1V Sand/Gravel 6.8' (2.1m) 6.2' (1.9m) 5.9' (1.8m) 5.3' (1.6m) Silty Sand 6.1' (1.9m) 5.5' (1.7m) 5.2' (1.6m) 4.4' (1.3m) Silt/Lean Clay (1.6m) (1.4 ' m) (1.2m) 4.1' (1..Om) COIVIPAC UNITS MAX. HOT. Backslope Soil Type Level 4H:1V 3H:1V 2H:1V Sand/Gravel i:3.8' m) (1.0m) (1.0m) (0.9m) Silty Sand 3.4' 1:1.0m) 3.0' (0.9m) 2.9' (0.9m) 2.4' (0.7m) Silt/Lean Clay ,3.0' m) (0.8m) (0.8m) (0.6m) Notes: Calculations assume a unit weight of 18.9 kN /sqm for all soil types. Assumed t angles for earth pressure calculations are: Sand/Gravel=346, Silty Sanda30 °, and Sandy Silt/Lean CIay.6'. Minimum SFa1,5. No surcharge loadings are included. Surcharges or special loading conditions will reduce maximum wall heights. Sliding calculations assume a 150mm (6") crushed stone leveling pad as compricted foundation material. FIGURE 3 07/06/.28 MON 08:02 FAX 206 281 0920 SabeY Construction Corp a1007 • •,r- " ( ER -4599 Keystone Units Setback/Batter Total WaI Height Finished Grade Finished Grade Backslope or Surcharge �s+"i"i +i +i +i +i +i +i + + +i ♦i�+ EMined Soil Zone) Low Permeability Soil Embter.•..ed\ * Depth Leveling Pad U pit Core FilwDrainage Limit of Excavation (Rough cut) Drainage Collection Pipe (if required) Setback/Batter Wall Height Total Finished Grade —\ Embedment t Depth Leveling Pad Finished Grade Rotained Soil Zone) Unit Core FiIUDraine pe . Drainage Collection Pips (if required) FIGURE 4— TYPICAL WALL SECTIONS Limit of Excavation (Rough cut) 05/07/98 THU 15:58 FAX 208 281 0920 Sabe9 Construction Corp DEP ;MMEM' OF LABOR AND INDUST • •REGISTERED AS PROVIDED BY LAW AS CONST CONT GENERAL `I^ 1*iQ''.TIt1LTI4N I7MBEf�:;lut.,�;L; ; tC0 .1; +'',rz�;'ISiABEYG*'21PH 12/•3: i9;981 kB F)E,.. k 'j 'I ' •M.'TS' i. l; ;i,; : :.10 %A8f 198x6,; ' ' SABEY '.CORPORATION 101 ELLIOTT W STE 330 SEATTLE WA 98119 x001 tk25 -032•rJ00 (8/971 — Detuch And Display Cetlflieau State of Washington County of Kdd ►9 I certify that this is a true and correct copy of a document in the possession of 1 Cgi oL as of this date. Dated: 511Icrii CONNIE J. TAYLOR STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC NT comma EDGES$ 4 -16-Ot (Si ure) Title /'j My appointment expires `t'140 05/07/98 TRIJ 15:58 FAX 208 281 0920 . Saber Construction Corp •74:81048aaa=matamaimerainisimrma=611( m ' DEP •....smtrri. OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES • , • . . . . , • . . . . . REGISTERED AS PROVIDED BY LAW AS CONST CONT GENERAL . . _ . . . • ., • . igii.g.Ctitatilittgii.0 11001.0 ' • NVidi E 1 T.lialill ' , 4tatiIi"';;iii),IAtiEdi,v141;i?1%,.; 1 2 /..3.V1i9"9'tee • , .. AFFECTIVW,1 A :1 .08'.18 1,- .A..i..,:w...).a..lit.alni....,;■nr.f...:yw,:-......,..7.41;•.,:::::..t.,:-.:1.44htu.e.p.b.,,:insi.o.:1 ' • . . .. . . . . SABEYr,CORPORATION . . . . 101 ELLIOTT W STE 330 . • SEATTLE WA 98119 s. 2001 M25432,000 (8/971 • Detach And Display Certificate State of Washington County of Kir141 I certify that this is a true and correct copy of a document in the possession of1yulArP*4i4A- as of this date. paced: 51.lLc CONNIE J. TAYLOR STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY -0- PUBLIC NT COMMIS MIES 4-S-02 Title My appointment expixes