HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 Report - Associated Earth Sciences (Dated August 3, 2005)Geotechnical Engineering
Water Resources
Solid and HazardousWaste
Ecological/Biological Sciences
Geologic Assessments
ssociate
art
ciences
Inc.
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
TUKWILA STATION
Tukwila, Washington
Prepared for
Pacific Commercial Properties, Inc.
Project No. KE05127A
August 3, 2005
ECEIVED
JUL 1 2 2006
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
woC-041
DO6 30.9
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
August 3, 2005
Project No, KE05127A
Pacific Commercial Properties, Inc.
P.O. Box 53405
Bellevue, Washington 98015
•••
Attention: Mr. Ken Kester
Subject: Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Tukwila Station'
Tukwila, Washington
Dear Mr. Kester:
We are pleased to present the enclosed copies of the above -referenced report. This report
summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical
engineering studies and offers recommendations for the design and development of the
proposed project.
We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations
presented in this report will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should
have any questions or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Kirkland, Washington
G. Aaron McMichael P.E., P.E.G.
Associate Engineer
GAM/Id
KE05127A5
Projects \2005127 \KEMP
Kirkland 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 • Phone 425 827-7701 •Fax 425 827-5424
Everett 29111/2 Hewitt Ave., Suite 2, • Everett,WA 98201 • Phone 425 259-0522 • Fax 425 252-3408
ACE E
GEOTEC
0
,
TION, GEOLOGIC
CAL ENG E G
Tukwila, Washington
Prepared for:
Pacific Commercial Properties, Inc.
P.O. Box 53405
Bellevue, Washington 98015
Prepared by:
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
911 5th Avenue, Suite 100
Kirkland, Washington 98033
425-827-7701
Fax 425-827-5424
August 3, 2005
Project No. KE05127A
PO T
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
][ PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS ......,...-..',~~~'—'`-^-~^~`^~.^_'—''~-''}
1.0 ~^-~-~-,-.—..-~-'-,~--.-^.^..'~.--'~-`,.°`..-,^-~~~'1
1.2 Authorization -_.-,^..~''.-'._."."-^^~.'~-.~.-~_.=-~_-..-^=~...`~..2
2L0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION .~-`-"~~^~~`''''''''^—''--^''--^''°~'2
3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION...._-.~~.~.^`~..°... .~.'..-._.'--.._``--~`.3
3`1 ..'~-``--^,.—_,,_-~~~.^.~~......,..—....~--.._.-.-3
_ ^
3L2Cone Tests .................................................. ...~^^=_,, 4
3.3 Laboratory Tests ............................................................................. d`
4`() SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ,--..-....._~^^^^^~^.^.-'-.~~`-.^~~`°~..-.~..5
Alluviom. ..`-._...-~-.^~^...~`.__,-,,-~~_--'-''—''-''''`^--~~^. 5
4.7 Hydrology .._...'.,-...-.~~.-.~.~~~.-...—........,-..^~,..-..~..-~,-,...J6
TZ GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND .................................................... 7
5.0 SLOPE STABILITY HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ...........7
6.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ..........................7
6,1 ........................ ............................ ~.~^'.J
6.2 Seismically Induced Landslides ^.-~_^.._-^_^'^'^~.~-"-~'^^,-,-=,=.---^U
6.3 ~^^.....~,.. .-_--,.^,. ~-~---_._..._.—'~~...—..''.—_.']8
6.4 Ground Motion ...................................................................... ........ g
7^{) EROSION HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION .~~_._.~..'....... 9
M. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ..,-~.....'.....-_..._.^^-~-..._.--'.,.'..-.... 11
8]0 INTRODUCTION._._^....~,_.`~,....'-°~^,,-,~~-.,.._........................... 11
9.0 SITE .,,,,__--...-..~-.'-.'~........'_,-.-...__~.-... 13
10.0 STRUCTURAL FILL ......................................................... °............... 14
1]0 SURCHARGING AND ................................................... 15
12.[) FOUNDATIONS ,,.--........~^-._..^~. .-~..-.-'~-,-.-`.', ,.^,,..,~'- 16
12.1 Augercast Piles ,,.. _~~_,,',"._.,.~^.,__-..-_.-~-.......-..—.'---.. 17�
12'2 Group Effects ...~-~~.—....~.~~--......°-.... ~..`' ^-..^..-^,,..-~~ ~- 18
12.3 Shallow Storm Water Vault ............................................1g
12~4 Passive Resistance and Friction Factors .............................................. 20
12.5 Buoyant Conditions ~,^,^~~_,,_,,,_,__._~,_`__,__~..__^,.......,,~, 20
13.0 FLOOR SUPPORT -,.,°_,..",.,,,~'.—.-''''.`~~-`'.''._^"~-^'"^,^.'—,-- 21
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC,
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
14J0.^..-~'.,.~,''..._~~,'.._,_~,____~=,21
14.1 Temporary Sheet Pile Walls ............................................................ 21
14,2 Permanent Vault Retaining Walls ..................................................... .22
15.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS __^,,~°. ,`.,. -..",-,~~ ........... ........ 2]
I6^0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ..'^~—`~--^.`--_.-^-~^^-^-~'° .~23
17.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ,__,..__,,,_~,,~~24
LIST OF TABLES
Table }. Selected 5
Table 2. Ground Water Depths and Elevations ............................................ 6
7,ablec[ Augercast Pile Recommendations ...................................................... 18
Table 4` ...,'..^-',~`,. ......,_-'....---_._.,`.°_., 29
LIST OF FIGURES
- --g_r- '
- }. �Yao �_'�
Figure 2. Site and Exploration Plan
Figures 38, - 3o, Liquefaction Analysis
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix. Exploration Too
CPT Results
Laboratory Testing Results
August 3,2005
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Project and Site Conditions
I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS
This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and
geotechnical engineering study for the proposed new Tukwila Station retail/multi-family
development to be located in Tukwila, Washington. The site location is presented on Figure 1,
Vicinity Map. The proposed building location and approximate locations of the explorations
accomplished for this study are presented on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. In the
event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the structure are planned, the
conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or
verified, as necessary.
1.1 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be utilized in the design and
development of the referenced project. The study included drilling four exploration borings
and installing one ground water monitoring well, advancing four cone penetrometer tests
(CPTs), and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and
physical properties of the subsurface sediments and ground water conditions. We also
reviewed the following geotechnical reports for project sites in the immediate project vicinity'
Associated Earth Sciences Inc. (AESI), "Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Geotechnical Engineering Report, Tukwila Family Fun Center Proposed New Hotel
and Office Building," November 15, 2000;
AESI, "Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Report, Tukwila Family Fun Center, Proposed New Office Building," July
22, 2003; and
• GeoEngineers, Inc., "Report Geotechnical Engineering Services and Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Exhibition Center, Tukwila, Washington,"
August 1990.
Geologic hazard evaluations and geotechnical engineering studies were also conducted to
determine suitable geologic hazard mitigation techniques, the type of suitable pile foundation,
pile design recommendations, anticipated settlements, floor support recommendations,
detention vault retaining wall lateral earth pressures and uplift pressures, pavement design
criteria, and site preparation, structural fill, and drainage considerations. This report
August 3, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
SGB/Id - KE05127A5 - ProjectsI20051271KEIWP Page 1
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Project and Site Conditions
summarizes our current fieldwork and offers geologic hazard mitigation and development
recommendations based on our present understanding of the project.
1.2 Authorization
Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Pacific Commercial
Properties, Inc. Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work
letter dated March 3, 2005. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Pacific
Commercial Properties, Inc. and their agents for specific application to this project. Within
the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance
with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in
this area at the time our report was prepared. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a
means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. No other warranty, express or
implied, is made.
2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on a topographic survey,
Topography Survey by Eastside Consultants, Inc. dated January 2005, and civil engineering
details contained in the Preliminary Grading and Utilities Plan dated April 12, 2005 provided
by Pacific Engineering Design, LLC. We understand that the project will consist of the
development of a five -story, retail/multi-family residential building with a ground -floor
parking area. The building footprint will cover an approximate area of 120,000 square feet.
The building will be rectangular in shape with dimensions of approximately 900 feet north to
south by about 130 feet east to west. The project structural engineer estimates that building
column loads will be in the range of 500 kips (250 tons) per column. Stoini water detention
vaults will be located at the north end of the building and near the southeast building corner
and will be approximately 7 to 8 feet deep. The detention facilities will be constructed with
bottom of footing elevations 7 feet below existing grade within the north vault and 3 feet below
existing grade within the south vault. Approximately 1 to 4 feet of fill soil will be added to the
site to reach the proposed site grades.
The building site is located just west of the intersection of South Longacres Way and the
Boeing Access Road, and northwest of the future site of the Sounder and Amtrack Cascades
Station. The site is bounded by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad track
embankment to the east, a Union Pacific railroad track embankment to the west, a City of
Tukwila construction yard and Interstate 405 to the north, and South Longacres Way to the
south. The proposed building area consists of a flat, open field approximately 2 feet above the
street elevation of adjacent South Longacres Way. Site grades within the flat portion of the
August 3, 2005
SGB/ld - KE05127A5 - ProjectsI20051271KEIWP
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Page 2
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Project and Site Conditions
site range from elevation 14 feet to elevation 18 feet along the east and west perimeters,
respectively. The railroad embankments slope steeply upward from the site to the track levels,
which are approximately 10 feet above the surrounding ground surface. A large drainage ditch
is located along the east perimeter of the site.
3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Our field study included drilling four exploration borings to 90 to 100 feet below existing
grades, installing one ground water monitoring well, and collecting soil samples with a trailer -
mounted drill rig to gain subsurface information about the site. In addition, four CPT
explorations were advanced to depths of 75 to 90 feet to help characterize subsurface
conditions. Our explorations were approximately located in the field by measuring from
known site features shown on Figure 2. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths
where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented
in the Appendix to this report. Results of the CPTs are also included in the Appendix and
generally agree with soil types and strength data indicated by the soil borings. The depths
indicated on the boring logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations
between sediment types in the field as demonstrated by the CPT results. If changes occurred
between sample intervals in our borings, they were interpreted.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the eight
explorations completed for this study. The number, type, locations, and depths of the
explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of
exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field
explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions are
sometimes present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by
past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field
explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that
time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make
appropriate changes.
3.1 Exploration Borings
The exploration borings were completed by advancing a 33/8-inch, inside -diameter, hollow -
stem auger with a trailer -mounted drill. Below the water table, borings were completed with
mud -stabilization drilling techniques. During the drilling process, samples were obtained at
generally 2.5- or 5-foot-depth intervals. The borings were continuously observed and logged
by a geotechnical engineer from our firm. The exploration logs presented in the Appendix are
based on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples obtained.
August 3, 2005
SGB/Id - KE05127/15 - Projectsl20051271KEIWP
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Page 3
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Project and Site Conditions
Disturbed but representative samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) procedure in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):D
1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard 2-inch, outside -diameter,
split -barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free -falling
a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is recorded and the
number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the Standard
Penetration Resistance ("N") or blow count. If a total of 50 is recorded within one 6-inch
interval, the blow count is recorded as the number of blows for the corresponding number of
inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of
granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils; these values are plotted on the
attached boring log.
The samples obtained from the split -barrel sampler were classified in the field and
representative portions placed in watertight containers. The samples were then transported to
our laboratory for further visual classification and laboratory testing, as necessary.
3.2 Cone Penetrometer Tests
The CPTs were completed by advancing a 36-millimeter-diameter, 60-degree point angle cone
through the soil to depth. The cone is attached onto the end of a friction sleeve. As the cone
penetrates the soil, the ratio of sleeve resistance to cone resistance is measured. Changes in
this ratio are used to estimate soil strength (Qc) and type. Correlations can then be made to
standard penetration test N-values described above.
3.3 Laboratory Tests
We performed the following tests on selected samples collected from our borings to aid in our
pile calculations, settlement estimates, and liquefaction analysis. The test results are included
in the Appendix.
• Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve (ASTM:D 1140)
Moisture Content (ASTM:D 2216)
• One Dimensional Consolidation Test (ASTM:D 2435-92)
• Specific Gravity (ASTM:D 854)
Atterberg Limits (ASTM:D 4318)
The following table lists results of the percent soil fines passing the No. 200 sieve and
moisture content test.
August 3, 2005
SGB/Id - KE05127A5 - Projects120051271KEIWP
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Page 4
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Project and Site Condidons
Table 1
Selected Laboratory Test Results
Exploration
Location
Depth
(feet)
Moisture Content
(percent)
Percent
Fines
EB-4
3.5
42.3
88.5
EB-4
13.5
47.2
98.7
EB-4
23.5
26.2
2.7
EB-4
33.5
27.0
4.0
EB-4
43.5
21.2
6.5
EB-4
53.5
26.9
5.4
EB-4
63.5
35.1
20.3
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The encountered soils were consistent with the geology mapped in the site area as shown on
the Geologic Map of King County, Washington by Booth et al., 2002. This map shows the site
area is mantled by alluvial soil.
4.1 Stratigraphy
Fill
Man -placed fill consisting of silty sand with gravel was encountered in all explorations to
depths of roughly 4 feet. The fill is currently in a medium dense to dense condition. In
general, the soil moisture content of the surface fill soils were wet of optimum at the time of
our site exploration. However, during summer season construction, the fill soils may be
reused for structural fill where soil moisture contents are near the optimum moisture content
necessary to achieve adequate compaction.
Alluvium
Sediments encountered beneath fill generally consisted of about 20 feet of soft to medium stiff,
gray, compressible silt overlying black, fine to medium sand with occasional lenses of silty
sand and gravel. In general, the sand was in a medium dense condition to a depth of roughly
75 to 80 feet with localized areas of dense soil below 50 to 60 feet. The deeper sand deposits
also contained shell fragments and a few organics. We interpret these sediments to be
representative of recent alluvium deposited by the Green River within the last 10,000 years.
August 3, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
SGB/ld - KE05127A5 - ProjectsI20051271KEIWP Page 5
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Project and Site Conditions
It should be noted that the alluvial silt soils are above their optimum moisture content for
compaction and are moisture -sensitive and easily disturbed. Their reuse as structural fill
during all but the driest times of the year will be difficult and require significant aeration and
scarification to facilitate reduction of moisture levels to achieve compaction.
4.2 Hydrology
Ground water was generally encountered at a depth of about 11 feet below the existing ground
surface within the borings and several of the cone penetrometers during exploration. We also
measured the static water level in monitoring well MW-1 at 5.4 feet on April 13, 2005. Please
refer to Table 2 showing ground water levels correlated with site elevation.
Table 2
Ground Water Depths and Elevations
Exploration Boring
and Monitoring
Location
Ground Water
Depth Below
Existing Ground
Surface ADT(1)
(feet)
Ground Surface
Elevation
(feet)
Ground Water
Elevation ADT(1)
(feet)
EB- 1
11
17
6
EB-2
11
16
5
EB-3
11
15
4
EB-4
6
15
9
MW-1
11
17
6
5 .4(2)
17
12(2)
1) ATD = At time of drilling
(2) Stabilized reading 5 days after drilling
It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to the time
of the year and variations in rainfall and adjacent river levels. For design and potential
dewatering plans, we recommend setting the ground water elevation at a depth 3 feet below
existing site grades since ground water levels have been suppressed due to below-noimal
2004/2005 winter precipitation.
August 3, 2005
SGB/ld - KE05127A5 - Projects120051271KEIWP
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Page 6
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
IL GEOLOGIC
11
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Geologic Hazards and Mitigations
S AND MITIGATIONS
The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and
ground water conditions as observed and discussed herein. The discussion will be limited to
seismic, landslide, and erosion hazards, including sediment transport.
5.0 SLOPE STABILITY HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION
Reconnaissance of this site was limited to the area shown on Figure 2. The site topography is
relatively flat to gently sloping except for the approximately 10-foot-high fill embankments that
provide support for the railroad tracks. Although no tests were performed on these fill
embankments, they have existed for many years without obvious signs of slope instability,
erosion, or seismically induced lateral spreading into the drainage ditch adjacent to the east
embanlanent. Therefore, in our opinion, the risk of landsliding is low and no mitigation
measures are warranted.
6.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION
Earthquakes occur in the Puget Sound Lowland with great regularity. The vast majority of
these events are small and are usually not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur
as evidenced by the most recent 6.8-magnitude event on February 28, 2001 near Olympia
Washington; the 1965, 6.5-magnitude event; and the 1949, 7.2-magnitude event. The 1949
earthquake appears to have been the largest in this area during recorded history. Evaluation of
return rates indicates that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 is likely within
a given 20- to 40-year period.
Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic
events: 1) surficial ground rupture; 2) seismically induced landslides; 3) liquefaction; and
4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed
project is discussed below.
6.1 Surficial Ground Rupture
Generally, the largest earthquakes which have occurred in the Puget Sound/Seattle area are
sub -crustal events with epicenters ranging from 50 to 70 kilometers in depth. For this reason,
no surficial faulting or earth rupture as a result of deep, seismic activity has been documented
to date in the site vicinity. Therefore, it is our opinion, based on existing geologic data, that
August 3, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
SGB/1d - KE05127A5 - ProjectsI2005127IKEIWP Page 7
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Geologic Hazards and Mitigations
the risk of surface rupture impacting the proposed project is low and no mitigations are
recommended.
6.2 Seismically Induced Landslides
Reconnaissance of this site was limited to the area shown on Figure 2. The site topography is
relatively flat to gently sloping except for the fill embankments that provide support for the
railroad tracks. Although no tests were performed on these fill embankments, they have
existed for many years without obvious signs of instability. Therefore, in our opinion, the risk
of landsliding is low and no mitigation measures are warranted.
6.3 Liquefaction
We performed a liquefaction hazard analysis for this site in accordance with guidelines
published in Seed & Idriss, 1982; Seed et al., 1985; and Kramer, 1996. Our liquefaction
analysis was completed with the aid of LiquefyPro computer software Version 4.3 by
CivilTech Corporation. Liquefaction occurs when vibration or ground shaking associated with
moderate to large earthquakes (generally in excess of Richter magnitude 6.0) results in loss of
internal strength in certain types of soil deposits. These deposits generally consist of loose to
medium dense sand or silty sand that is saturated (e.g., below the water table). Loss of soil
strength can result in consolidation and/or lateral spreading of the affected deposit with
accompanying surface subsidence and/or heaving.
The liquefaction potential is dependent on several site -specific factors, such as soil grain size,
density (modified to standardize field -obtained values), site geometry, static stresses, level of
ground acceleration considered, and duration of the event. The recommended design -level
earthquake parameters (a magnitude 7.5 earthquake occurring directly beneath the site with a
peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.30g) are set forth in the 2003 International Building
Code (IBC) guidelines. However, a magnitude 6.5 to 7.0 earthquake with a peak ground
acceleration of 0.20g, such as used for the current analysis, is typically used by most area
municipalities for determination of seismic hazards, such as liquefaction.
Figure 3a considers a maximum ground water table of 5 feet during a magnitude 7.0 event for
existing site conditions. Figures 3b and 3c consider the existing site soil conditions with the
addition of between 1 and 4 feet of new structural fill in accordance with planned grade revisions.
. . Our analysis indicates that under existing conditions, the site soils have a high risk of liquefaction
above a depth of 70 feet. Settlements ranging from roughly 15 to 19 inches were calculated for
the site soil profile. With the addition of 1 foot of structural fill, Figure 3b shows that only a
slight reduction in settlement is predicted. With the addition of 4 feet of new structural fill,
Figure 3c shows the predicted settlement is reduced by about 4.5 inches. Therefore, we
August 3, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
SGB/ld - KE05127A5 - Projects12005127IKEIWP Page 8
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Geologic Hazards and Mitigations
recommend that all building elements, including floor slabs and both vault structures, be
supported on pile foundations if the building and vault structures cannot tolerate the estimated
liquefaction -induced settlements. The vault structures could be supported on a structural mat
foundation if designed to function with the estimated settlements. Pile foundations that extend to
the minimum depths described in the Design Recommendations section of this report should
reduce seismically induced structure settlement to tolerable levels.
6.4 Ground Motion
Design of the project should be consistent with 2003 IBC guidelines. In accordance with the
2003 IBC, the following values should be used for the site:
Site Class "F"
Ss = 142% (Figure 1516[1])
= 49% (Figure 1516[2])
7.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION
To mitigate and reduce the erosion hazard potential and off -site soil transport, we recommend
the following:
All storm water from impermeable surfaces should be tightlined into an approved stolid
water drainage system or temporary storage facilities and kept away from the proposed
work areas.
2. If possible, construction should proceed during the drier periods of the year and
disturbed areas should be revegetated, paved, or otherwise protected as soon as
possible.
3. Clearing beyond the construction areas should be kept to a minimum.
4. Temporary silt fences should be provided along the lower margins of cleared/disturbed
areas and upslope from the existing ditch.
5. Temporary sediment catchment facilities should be cleaned out and maintained
periodically, as necessary, to maintain their capacity and function.
August 3, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
SGBfid - KE05127A5 - Projects120051271KEIWP Page 9
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Geologic Hazards and Mitigations
6. Soils, which will be stockpiled at the site, should be stored in such a manner as to
reduce erosion. Protective measures may include, but are not necessarily limited to,
covering with plastic sheeting or the use of straw bales/silt fences.
7. Temporary construction entrances should be constructed with quarry spalls or
equivalent according to King County and City of Tukwila standards.
August 3, 2005
SGB/ld - KE05127A5 - Projects12005127IKEIVVP
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Page 10
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
8.0 INTRODUCTION
Subsuiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Design Recommendations
III. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint provided the
recommendations contained herein are properly followed. Based on our subsurface
exploration, the site contains significant risk of foundation settlement if conventional spread
footings are utilized to carry the proposed heavy column and wall loads. The weight of the
proposed structural fill and concrete slab -on -grade floors would also induce site settlements.
Foundation and slab settlement would occur due to the presence of approximately 20 feet of
soft compressible silt underlain by approximately 50 feet of saturated, loose and medium dense
granular soils susceptible to liquefaction during a design -level earthquake. To mitigate the risk
of foundation and slab settlement, we recornrnend the use of pile foundations for support of
these structures. It is our understanding that the project owner has elected to utilize a pile
supported foundation and post -tensioned slab -on -grade floor within the ground floor parking
area. Therefore, we have provided recommendations for pile foundation design criteria within
the Foundations section of this report. To mitigate development of differential settlement
between the pile -supported slab -on -grade floor and the adjacent parking areas susceptible to
post -construction settlement, concrete aprons will be extended from the entrances to the ground
floor slab -on -grade and allowed to hinge in proportion to the settlements.
Shallow ground water may complicate design and construction of storm water detention vault
facilities and site utilities where they extend beyond approximately 5 feet below the existing
site ground surface. Where the proposed excavations are anticipated to encounter ground
water, the project design should consider dewatering, mitigation of soft soil bearing support,
and control of potential buoyant uplift forces on these structures. These issues will likely need
to be addressed for construction of the northern vault, which we anticipate will require
excavating approximately 2 to 3 feet below the seasonal high ground water surface. Deep site
utility trenches may also require dewatering and use of trench box shoring during construction.
Pavement support on structural fill overlying the existing fill is possible with near -surface
remedial grading and compaction improvements. Both the existing surface fill soils and the
underlying alluvial soils that will be excavated for construction of the storm water detention
vaults, utilities, and pavement areas are moisture- and disturbance -sensitive, and will require
careful control of their moisture content if they are to be used as structural fill. Use of site
soils for structural fill will only be feasible during the driest periods of the year, and even then
the use of the alluvial silts underlying the surface fill soils will be very difficult.
August 3, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
SGBIld - KE05127A5 - Projects120051271KEIWP Page 11
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Design Recommendations
We understand the driveway and parking areas around the building will be constructed
approximately 1 to 4 feet above existing grades. The addition of fill to the site will induce
immediate primary settlement within the underlying soils, and continuing long-term secondary
settlement. One option to mitigate these settlements would include surcharging the site with
temporary fill soil in addition to the structural fill necessary to achieve planned grades.
However, we understand that the owner of the project does not intend to complete a surcharge
program. As an alternative option, some mitigation of the estimated primary settlement can be
gained by placing the proposed fill soil on -site early in the construction sequence to "preload"
the pavement areas, allowing most of the primary settlements to occur before final
construction. However, the post -preload secondary settlement should be expected and will
require future maintenance and repair of asphalt pavements and possibly utilities. To mitigate
damage to utility pipes from the estimated settlement, restrained and flexible connections
should be used, particularly at the connection with pile -supported structures. Further,
increasing the slope gradient of gravity flow lines is recommended to make them less sensitive
to settlement damage.
Excavations for the storm water vaults and utility excavations below a depth of 5 to 11 feet are
expected to encounter ground water. This ground water may be under hydrostatic pressure,
and sheet piling or dewatering wells may be necessary to dewater the excavation if volumes
cannot be adequately controlled with small excavation pumps. Typically, excavation
dewatering using pumped wells is a contractor design. An initial assumption of well size
spacing and pump capacity is made and the wells installed. If desired drawdown is achieved,
the excavation proceeds. If desired drawdown is not achieved, additional wells are installed
until the desired effect is achieved. We are available to help estimate the depth, number, and
capacity of dewatering wells, if desired, for cost -estimating purposes. Full-scale dewatering
design is beyond our current scope of work. However, we have included preliminary sheet
pile design criteria in the Wall Design Parameters section of this report. In addition, the vaults
will require appropriate design and sizing to accommodate full hydrostatic and buoyant forces
considering empty tank conditions and a static ground water surface located 3 to 5 feet below
existing grade (approximate elevations of 14 to 12 feet). Ground water monitoring well MW-1
is currently in place. We recommend periodic monitoring of the ground water levels within
this well to refine current ground water level design assumptions.
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon the assumption that
installation of the foundations for all structures, backfilling of the retaining walls for the
detention vaults, and grading construction for site utilities and pavement are observed by a
representative from our firm to ensure that our geotechnical recommendations have been
adequately incorporated into the project design and construction. The following sections of the
report discuss the above -mentioned design considerations in more detail and offer site
preparation and construction recommendations.
August 3, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
SGB/ld - KE05127A5 - Projects120051271KEIVVP Page 12
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
9.0 SITE PREPARATION
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Design Recommendations
Site preparation of planned building and road/parking areas that will not be supported by pile
foundations should include mowing and removal of all grass and brush growth, construction
debris, and any other surficial deleterious materials that are not part of the planned project.
The existing thin layer of grass sod/topsoil may be left in place blow the planned fill soils to
provide a more stable working surface. Areas where loose surficial soils exist due to
construction traffic disturbance or grubbing operations should be considered as fill to the depth
of disturbance and treated as subsequently recommended for structural fill placement. The
monitoring well (MW-1) installed for the current study should be properly abandoned in
accordance with Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) regulations subsequent to
vault construction.
The fill encountered in our explorations was in a medium dense to dense condition. However,
the density, thickness, and rubble content of the fill across the site may be highly variable. We
anticipate that any upper loose surficial fill soils, once recompacted or replaced with new
structural fill required to achieve site grades, will be suitable for support of pavement and
other surfacing, such as sidewalks. However, there will be a risk of long-term damage to
these surfaces including, but not limited to, rutting, yielding, cracldng, etc. if any uncontrolled
loose fill is not adequately recompacted to a firm and unyielding condition, or replaced with
compacted structural fill. Utilities founded above loose uncontrolled fill or fill that contains
abundant rubble are also at risk of settlement and associated damage. Use of restrained pipe
connections and flexible connections at the building interface should be considered to limit
damage to utility connections from settlement. For grade -sensitive storm sewer and sanitary
sewer pipes, increasing pipe slopes is also recommended.
The extent of stripping necessary in areas of the site to receive structural fill for placement of
external surfacing, such as sidewalks and pavement, can best be determined in the field by the
geotechnical engineer or his representative. We recommend proof -rolling the road and parking
areas with a loaded dump truck and systematic hand probing to identify any soft spots. These
soft areas should be overexcavated and backfilled with structural fill.
The on -site fill soils contain a high percentage of fine-grained material which makes them
moisture -sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The contractor must use care during
site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not softened. If
disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to grade with
structural fill. Consideration should be given to protecting access and staging areas with an
appropriate section of crushed rock or asphalt treated base (ATB).
August 3, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
SGB/Id - KE05127A5 - Projects12005127IKEIWP Page 13
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Design Recommendations
If crushed rock is considered for the access and staging areas, it should be underlain by
engineering stabilization fabric to reduce the potential of fine-grained materials pumping up
through the rock and turning the area to mud. The fabric will also aid in supporting
construction equipment, thus reducing the amount of crushed rock required. We recommend
that at least 10 inches of rock be placed over the fabric; however, due to the variable nature of
the near -surface soils and differences in wheel loads, this thickness may have to be adjusted by
the contractor in the field.
10.0 STRUCTURAL FILL
All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill type and
placement, and compaction of materials as discussed in this section. If a percentage of
compaction is specified under another section of this report, the value given in that section
should be used.
After any stripping, planned excavation, and any required overexcavation have been performed
to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer or his representative, the upper 12 inches of
exposed ground in areas to receive fill should be recompacted to 90 percent of the modified
Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. If the subgrade contains silty
soils and too much moisture, adequate recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain
and should probably not be attempted. In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should
be blanketed with clean crushed rock or quarry spalls to act as a capillary break between the
new fill and the wet subgrade. Where the exposed ground remains soft and further
overexcavation is impractical, placement of an engineering stabilization fabric may be
necessary to prevent contamination of the free -draining layer by silt migration from below.
After recompaction of the exposed ground is tested and approved, or a free -draining rock
course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fill is defined as
non -organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts
with each lift being compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using
ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. In the case of roadway and utility trench filling, the backfill
should be placed and compacted in accordance with current City of Tukwila codes and
standards. Adjacent to slopes (drainage ditch or raised grade edges) the top of the compacted
fill should extend horizontally outward a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the location of the
roadway and parking area edges before sloping down at an angle of 2H:1V (Horizontal:
Vertical).
The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by AESI prior to their
use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of the material 72 hours in advance to
August 3, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
SGB/ld - KE05127A5 - Projects120051271KEIWP Page 14
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Design Recommendations
perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard. Soils in which the amount
of fine-grained material (smaller than the No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5
percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be considered moisture -sensitive.
Use of moisture -sensitive soil in structural fills should be limited to favorable dry weather
conditions. The on -site soils generally contained significant amounts of silt and are considered
moisture -sensitive. In addition, construction equipment traversing the site when the soils are
wet can cause considerable disturbance. If fill is placed during wet weather or if proper
compaction cannot be obtained, a select import material consisting of a clean, free -draining
gravel and/or sand should be used. Free -draining fill consists of non -organic soil with the
amount of fine-grained material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the minus
No. 4 sieve fraction with at least 25 percent retained on the No. 4 sieve.
A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during
placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in -
place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling
progresses and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand
that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or
acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a
suitable monitoring and testing program.
11.0 SURCHARGING AND PRELOADING
As mentioned previously, it is our understanding that the owner has elected not to surcharge
the parking areas outside the pile -supported building and ground floor parking slab, and is
willing to accept future maintenance/repairs associated with post -construction settlement.
However, we have provided a discussion of a surcharge program in the event that design plans
change.
Temporary surcharge fills have been widely used as an economical means to reduce post -
construction settlements to acceptable levels. The site soils consist of soft to medium stiff
compressible silt underlain by saturated, loose to medium dense liquefiable sand. We
understand the driveway and parking areas around the building will be constructed
approximately 1 to 4 feet above existing grades. Our settlement estimates indicate that primary
site settlements in the range of 1 to 4.5 inches would likely be induced within the first 30 to 60
days after placement of the proposed new fill loads if surcharging is not performed. Secondary
settlement over the next 20 years is estimated to be in the range of an additional 2 to 4 inches.
Therefore, it would be advantageous to surcharge the proposed deeper fill areas in order to
reduce future maintenance associated with settlement of the soft alluvium.
August 3, 2005
SGB/ld - KE05127A5 - Projects120051271KEIWP
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Page 15
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Design Recommendations
A typical surcharge program consists of surcharging the proposed pavement areas with an
excess amount of fill soils for a relatively short period of time in order to cause pre -
construction primary settlements to occur in the soft soils within a shorter time period, and to
decrease the amount of long-term secondary settlement. Once the rate of settlement indicates
that secondary settlement has been reached and is proceeding at an acceptable rate, the excess
fill is stripped off of the surcharged area and could be placed as structural fill or removed from
the site.
Generally, except in the case of lightly loaded structures with heavy surcharge fills,
surcharging does not eliminate all long-term settlement, but places it within acceptable ranges.
With any surcharging program, the amount of post -construction settlement to be expected
depends on several factors including: 1) height of surcharge; 2) time of surcharging;
3) subsurface soil characteristics; and 4) anticipated site loads. Within limits, the greater the
surcharge intensity, the less time is required.
We anticipate that the time required for the majority of the primary settlement to occur would
be on the order of 30 to 60 days. To monitor the progress of the surcharge program and
minimize the time the surcharge would remain in place, settlement markers would be placed
prior to filling and monitored on a weekly basis up to and including the first month after
completion of the surcharge fill. Thereafter, bi-weekly readings would provide adequate data.
Considering the subsurface conditions and the time schedule proposed above, we recommend
that at least 3 feet of fill be placed on the proposed pavement areas. Thus, the total fill height
above existing grade would be the thickness of the permanent fill plus 3 feet of temporary
surcharge fill resulting in total fill depths of 4 to 7 feet.
Without the use of a surcharge program, some mitigation of the primary settlements can be
achieved by placing the fill necessary to raise grades early in the construction sequence to
allow some of the primary settlements to occur prior to construction of site utilities and
pavements.
12.0 FOUNDATIONS
To mitigate post -construction building and ground floor slab settlement and the effects of
seismically induced liquefaction, a pile foundation system is recommended. For this project,
we recommend the use of 18- or 24-inch-diameter augercast piles. The following sections
provide augercast pile recommendations based on the assumed column loads described
previously.
August 3, 2005
SGB/1d - KE05127A5 - Projects120051271KEIWP
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Page 16
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
12.1 Augercast Piles
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Design Recommendations
We recommend that the construction of piles be accomplished by a contractor experienced in
their installation. Although significant amounts of debris was not encountered within the fill
soils covering the site, fill soils can have concrete, brick, wood, and other demolition waste in
them, and soils of alluvial origin may have gravel lenses or logs present in them. It may be
necessary to have a backhoe present during pile installation to dig out obstacles and backfill the
excavation prior to drilling piling. If obstacles are encountered at depths where removal with a
backhoe is not feasible, it might be necessary for the project structural engineer to modify the
pile layout to replace piles that cannot be completed according to the original design.
Observation of pile installation by AESI is important to verify that the subsurface conditions
observed at pile locations are consistent with the observations in our subsurface explorations,
and consistent with assumptions made during preparation of the recommendations in this
report. The City of Tukwila will likely require such inspections of foundation piles.
The augercast piles will gain support primarily from end bearing with a smaller component
resulting from skin friction. The pile lengths recommended in this report are based on
anticipated depths where suitable soils for end -bearing capacity were encountered in our
explorations. Augercast piles are formed by drilling to the required depth with a continuous
flight, hollow -stem auger. Fluid grout is then pumped down the hollow stem under pressure as
the auger is withdrawn. Reinforcing steel cages are then lowered into the unset grout. A
single reinforcing bar is installed for the full length of the pile for transfer of uplift loads.
Since the grout is placed under pressure, actual grout volumes used are typically 15 to 50
percent greater than the theoretical volume of the pile. Actual grout volumes for piles
constructed through some types of fill and peat can be much more. The pile contractor should
be required to provide a pressure gauge and a calibrated pump stroke counter so that the actual
grout volume for each pile can be determined. Typically, a nine sack, minimum 4,000 pounds
per square inch (psi) grout mix is used for augercast piles.
Once complete, the piles would then connect to a pile cap and grade beam system comprising
the building foundation. Allowable capacities for the augercast piles are given in Table 3.
Development of the design capacities presented in Table 3 requires a minimum overall pile
length of at least 15 pile diameters.
To satisfy required length -to -diameter ratios, 18-inch piles are limited to 75 feet in length.
Allowable design axial compressive loads may be increased by one-third for short-term wind
or seismic loading. Anticipated settlement of the pile -supported foundations will generally be
on the order of 1/2 inch.
August 3, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
SGB/ld - KE05127A5 - Projects12005127110EIWP Page 17
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Design Recommendations
Table 3
Augercast Pile Recommendations
Pile Diameter
(inches)
Minimum
Allowable
Vertical
Compressive
Load
(tons)
Allowable
Lateral
Load
(tons)(')
Depth of
fixity
(feet)(2)
Allowable
Uplift Load
(tons)(3)
Length
(feet)
18
50
35
10
21
20
18
75
60
10
21
45
24
50
50
20
26
35
24
75
85
20
26
60
1) Allowable lateral loads are for fixed -headed conditions (incorporation into pile caps and grade beam
system), and 1/2 inch of deflection at the ground surface. Greater lateral capacities are possible for
greater allowable deflections.
(2) The depth of fixity includes the code -required 20 percent increase for reinforcing cage design.
(3) Allowable uplift loads are based on minimum pile length of 50 feet.
Piles with lateral spacing less than 6 pile diameters from another pile along the direction of
force should be considered to be in the zone of influence, and the lateral capacity and the
reduction factors presented below should be used. If the lateral contribution of the piles is
critical to the design of the structure, we can provide a comprehensive lateral pile analysis.
Such an analysis would present lateral pile capacities taking into account the interaction
between piles.
Based on the loose conditions of the soils through which the augercast piles are to be installed,
care should be taken in construction planning to allow grout time to set prior to drilling
adjacent piles. Typically, 24 hours of set time is recommended for piles closer than 3
diameters or 10 feet, whichever is greater. The 24 hours can be reduced for adjacent piles
drilled on different workdays.
12.2 Group Effects
Where piles are installed in groups and subject to lateral loading, reductions in lateral capacity
to account for group effects should be included in design. The effects of group performance
should be considered where piles are spaced closer than 6 pile diameters center -to -center and
are aligned in the direction of loading. Piles should not be spaced closer than 3 diameters
center -to -center to achieve full vertical and uplift capacity. If piles are staggered in the x and y
directions a minimum of 3 pile diameters, there is no reduction in lateral loading.
August 3, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
SGB/1d - KE05127A5 Projects120051271KEIWP Page 18
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Design Recommendations
For the determination of individual capacities for load application parallel to the line of
spacing, the following spacing and reduction factors presented in Table 4 should apply. The
last pile in a row can be assumed to develop the full lateral capacity.
Table 4
Lateral Reduction Factors
Pile Spacing
Reduction Factor
6 diameters
1.0
5 diameters
0.8
4 diameters
0.6
3 diameters
0.4
12.3 Shallow Storm Water Vault Foundations
Stoiin water detention vaults will be constructed at the north end of the building and near the
southeast building corner, and will be approximately 7 to 8 feet deep. The detention facilities
will be constructed with bottom of footing elevations 7 feet below existing grade within the
north vault and 3 feet below existing grade within the south vault. Approximately 1 to 4 feet
of fill soil will be added to the site to reach the proposed site grades within the north and south
vault areas, respectively. It appears that the north vault excavation will extend approximately
2 to 3 feet below the surface of the existing water table, while the south vault excavation will
extend to within 2 feet of the existing ground water surface. We recommend that the vault
foundations be designed to accommodate ground water elevations located at a depth of 3 feet
below existing site grades since ground water levels have been suppressed due to below -normal
2004/2005 winter precipitation.
Although the vault excavations will remove soil weight roughly equal to the imposed stored
water and vault structure weight, potential vault settlement may still occur due to placement of
structural fill around the vault and potential earthquake -induced liquefaction. To mitigate the
effects of the fill and earthquake -induced liquefaction settlement, we recommend supporting
the vault structures on pile foundations. However, if the design team is willing to accept the
risk of these settlements, which are estimated to be similar to those discussed previously, we
recommend that the vaults be constructed on mat foundations bearing on 2-foot-thick structural
fill pads placed and compacted as previously discussed. Construction of the structural fill pads
beneath mat foundations is intended to provide a prism of uniform bearing material, which will
reduce the effects of differential settlement. An allowable bearing pressure of 500 pounds per
square foot (psf), including both dead and live loads, and a coefficient of subgrade reaction of
August 3, 2005
SGB/Id - KE05127A5 - ProjectsI20051271KEIWP
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Page 19
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Design Recommendations
20 pounds pcf may be utilized for design purposes for mat foundations placed on the
recommended structural fill pads. An increase of one-third may be used for short-term wind
or seismic loading. The mat foundations should not be founded directly on existing native
soils.
12.4 Passive Resistance and Friction Factors
Lateral loads on the foundations caused by seismic or transient loading conditions may be
resisted by a combination of passive soil pressure against the side of the foundation and
frictional resistance along the base. An allowable base friction value of 0.25 and an allowable
passive earth pressure of 185 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) is recommended for vertical
foundation elements cast "neat" against undisturbed earth or structural fill placed around vault
mat foundations or building foundation grade beams. Below the ground water surface, a
passive earth pressure of 75 pcf should be used. These values are allowable and include a
safety factor of at least 1.5. All fill placed against building grade beams and vault footings
must be compacted to at least 90 to 92 percent of ASTM:D 1557.
12.5 Buoyant Conditions
Where the vaults extend below the ground water surface, the foundations should be designed
for submerged buoyant conditions. Buoyant uplift force may be calculated by multiplying the
volume of ground water displaced by the vault by the unit weight of water. The uplift force
can be resisted by the dead weight (vault empty) of the vault structure, and by the weight of the
soils located above the vault. Native soils placed as structural fill compacted to at least 90 to
92 percent of the ASTM:D 1557 can be assumed to have a moist unit weight of 110 pcf.
Imported fill soils can be assumed to have a moist unit weight of 120 pcf. Testing during the
backfill procedure is recommended to confirm that this unit weight is achieved. It should be
noted that the unit weight of the foundation material and backfill soils below the water table
will be reduced to buoyant unit weights.
Buoyant forces can also be resisted by the frictional shear resistance of the soils located along
the perimeter of the foundation element. These shear forces would be mobilized when the
foundation experiences uplift conditions. To calculate the soil uplift shear resistance on the
vault sidewalls above and below the ground water surface, the following equations may be
used:
August 3, 2005
SGB/ld - KE05127A5 - Projects120051271KEIWP
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Page 20
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Design Recommendations
Uplift Resistance = FsL Fs = 101122 + 41112 + 20112111
Where:
F5 =-- shearing resistance of soil to foundation sidewalls (lb/ft of foundation wall)
H2 = depth of foundation above ground water surface (ft)
Hi = depth of foundation below ground water surface (ft)
L = perimeter of foundation sidewalls (ft)
Additional uplift resistance can be achieved by extending the base of the vault mat foundation
beyond the sidewalls. In this case, the following equation may be used.
Uplift Resistance = FsL Fs = 151122 + 61112 + 29H2111
The structural engineer should apply an adequate factor of safety to these equations.
All vault foundation areas should be inspected by AESI prior to placing concrete to verify that
the design bearing capacity of the soils has been attained and that construction conforms to the
recommendations contained in this report. Such inspections may be required by the City of
Tukwila.
13.0 FLOOR SUPPORT
As discussed earlier in this report, existing site soils are considered to be settlement -prone and
we therefore recommend that floor slabs be designed as structural slabs and supported on pile
foundations. Floor slabs should be cast atop a minimum of 4 inches of clean, washed, crushed
rock or pea gravel to act as a capillary break. The slab should also be protected from
dampness by an impervious moisture barrier at least 10 mils thick. The impervious barrier
should be placed between the capillary break material and the concrete slab. We recommend
that samples of the capillary break material be submitted to AESI for approval prior to
placement.
14.0 WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS
14.1 Temporary Sheet Pile Walls
Temporary sheet pile walls may be necessary for vault construction if ground water flow
cannot be controlled and well point dewatering is not feasible. Sheet pile embedment depths
August 3, 2005
SGB/ld - KE05127A5 - Projects2OO5J27iKEiWP
ASSO CIA TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Page 21
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Design Recommendations
should satisfy moment equilibrium conditions plus a factor of safety of at least 1.5. They
should be designed by a qualified structural engineer using the following recommended earth
pressures. Sheet pile walls that are free to yield laterally at least 0.1 percent of their height
may be designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 40 pcf. Fully restrained, rigid walls, which
cannot yield, should be designed for an equivalent fluid of 60 pcf. Below the water table, an
equivalent fluid of 82 and 100 pcf should be used for yielding and restrained conditions,
respectively. These values include hydrostatic fluid pressures. To account for construction
traffic adjacent to walls, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil should be added to the wall
height in determining lateral design forces. Surcharges due to equipment loads or material
stockpiles should also be added to the wall loads, as applicable. An allowable passive
equivalent fluid pressure of 185 pcf should be used to calculate lateral resistance above the
water table, and 75 pcf below the water table. These values are allowable values and include a
safety factor of at least 1.5.
14.2 Permanent Vault Retaining Walls
All backfill behind concrete cast -in -place vault retaining walls should be placed as per our
recommendations for structural fill and as described in this section of the report. Design loads
given above for temporary sheet pile walls may be used for design of the vault retaining walls.
In addition to these loads, a coefficient of friction of 0.25 can be used to determine base sliding
resistance.
As required by the 2003 IBC, permanent retaining wall design should include a seismic
surcharge pressure in addition to the equivalent fluid pressures presented above. Considering
the site soils and the recommended wall backfill materials, we recommend a seismic surcharge
pressure of 4H and 8H psf where H is the wall height in feet for the "active" and "at -rest"
loading conditions, respectively. The seismic surcharge should be modeled as a rectangular
distribution with the resultant applied at the mid -point of the wall.
The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform backfill
consisting of imported free -draining structural fill compacted to 90 percent of ASTM:D 1557.
A higher degree of compaction is not recommended as this will increase the pressure acting on
the walls. A lower compaction may result in settlement of the slab -on -grade or other
structures supported above the walls. Thus, the compaction level is critical and must be tested
by our firm during placement. Cast -in -place retaining wall backfill is recommended to consist
of free -draining granular material. All free -draining backfill should contain less than 5 percent
fines (passing U.S. No. 200 sieve) based upon the fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve with at
least 50 percent retained on the U.S. No. 4 sieve and a maximum aggregate size of 21/2 inches.
(On -site soils are not suitable for this use.) The primary purpose of the free -draining material
is reduction of hydrostatic pressure above the water table and to facilitate compaction.
August 3, 2005
SGB/ld - KE05127A5 - Projects120051271KEIWP
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Page 22
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Design Recommendations
Surcharges from adjacent footings or heavy construction equipment, or sloping backfill must
be added to the above values.
Perimeter footing drains should be provided for all retaining walls as discussed under the
section on Drainage Considerations unless the walls are designed to resist hydrostatic
pressures. It is imperative that proper drainage be provided so that hydrostatic pressures do
not develop against the walls unless the walls are designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. This
would involve installation of a minimum, 1-foot-wide blanket drain to within 1 foot of finish
grade for the full wall height using imported washed gravel against the walls.
15.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
All exterior building grade beam foundations and vault mat foundations (if they will be
drained) should be provided with a drain at least 12 inches below the base of the adjacent
interior slab elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
pipe surrounded by washed pea gravel. The drains should be constructed with sufficient
gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the structure. Roof and surface runoff should
not discharge into the footing drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid,
tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward
away from the structure to achieve surface drainage.
16.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The majority of the parking and access areas are planned for those portions of the site
underlain by fill materials overlying loose soils. Where planned fill and liquefaction -induced
settlement can be tolerated, site soils can be used to support sidewalks, pavement, or other
similar structures contingent upon adequate remedial preparation and understanding of
uncertainties in settlement performance. Hardscape or pavement should be supported on at
least 2 feet of structural fill consisting of existing fill soil or imported material compacted to 95
percent of ASTM:D 1557.
To reduce the depth of overexcavation required to achieve a suitable subgrade for support of
the pavement, we recommend that an engineering stabilization fabric be placed over the
subgrade prior to filling if silty, soft, loose, or wet soils are encountered.
The addition of an engineering stabilization fabric permits heavier traffic over soft subgrade
and increases the service life of the system. The fabric acts as a separator between relatively
fine-grained surficial materials on the site and the load -distributing aggregate (sand or crushed
August 3, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
SGB/ld - KE05127A5 - Projects120051271KEIWP Page 23
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Design Recommendations
rock). The high tensile strength and low modulus of elongation of the fabric also act to reduce
localized stress by redistributing traffic loads over a wider area of subgrade. In addition, the
recommended method of installation (proof -rolling) identifies weak areas, which can be
improved prior to paving.
An engineering stabilization fabric, such as AMOCO 2002 or equivalent, should be placed
over any encountered soft/loose subgrade that cannot be recompacted to a firm, non -yielding
condition with the edges overlapped in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
Following subgrade preparation, clean, free -draining structural fill should be placed over the
fabric and compacted to 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. Where fabric is exposed, spreading
should be performed such that the dozer remains on the fill material and is not allowed to
operate on uncovered fabric. When 12 inches of fill has been placed, the fabric should be
proof -rolled with a loaded dump truck to pretension the fabric and identify soft spots in the fill.
Upon completing the proof -rolling operation, additional structural fill should be placed and
compacted to attain desired grades.
Upon completion of the structural fill, a general pavement section consisting of 21/2 inches of
asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) underlain by 2 inches of 5/8-inch crushed surfacing top course
and 4 inches of 114-inch crushed surfacing base course is the recommended minimum. Within
driveway areas and areas serviced by delivery and garbage trucks, a pavement section
consisting of 3 inches of ACP underlain by 2 inches of 5/8-inch crushed surfacing top course
and 6 inches of 11/4-inch crushed surfacing base course is the recommended minimum. The
crushed rock courses must be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. Given the
potentially variable in -place density of the existing fill subgrade, some settlement of paved
areas should be anticipated unless the existing fill is entirely removed and replaced with
structural fill.
17.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
At the time of this report, site grading, structural plans, and construction methods have not
been completely finalized. We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as
the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based.
We recommend that AESI perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design
completion. In this way, our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly
interpreted and implemented in the design.
We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during
construction. The integrity of the pile foundation system and vault construction depends on
proper site preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may
August 3, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
SGB/Id - KE05127A5 - Projects12005127IKEIWP Page 24
Tukwila Station
Tukwila, Washington
Subswface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,
and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Design Recommendations
have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become
apparent. Construction monitoring services are not part of this current scope of work. If these
services are desired, please let us know and we will prepare a cost proposal.
We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations
will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions or
require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Kirkland, Washington
Susan G. Beckham, P.E., P.G., P.Hg.
Project Engineer
cc: Pacific Engineering Design, LLC
4180 Lind Avenue SW
Renton, Washington 98055
Attn: Mr. Greg Diener
Rutledge Maul Architects
19336 47th Avenue NE
Seattle, Washington 98155
Attn: Mr. Bill Rutledge
G. Aaron McMichael, P.E., P.E.G.
Associate Engineer
August 3, 2005
SGB/ld - ICE05127A5 - Projects120051271KEIWP
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Page 25
41,449,7,4EF,' rTs'aqvitPAteg-t--71';'-"oegr,g,"%-e 4-0 "ow "'lg."' -4' .•-•°` —
A":t.L.tratiriVanbr - 1+0.0.
ri •
"
*---14..terwww %71
*If -Wolit.
<-1
0
cn
0
z
‘-•
0
LL
01
ted Earth
DATE 04/05
PROJ. NO. KE05127A
J pp A!upn LI9O UO eisri LI5O
Site and Explr.cdr TaskA
CONNECT
EX WA TER
E-BURLINGTO NORTHERN RJR
EX. SSIdiir
INV 8°6=11.78
- -
PROPOSED DOWALL
NOFITI-42S-'4,1
LEGEND
EB-1 Approximate location of exploratic
CP-1 Approximate location of cone pen,
MW-1
0
Approximate location of monitorin,
Reference: Pacific Engineering Design, LLC
0 100
SCALE IN FEET
.,5-• /0,41P
05127 TukStation 1
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
ate
FIGURE 2
DATE 04/05
PROJ. NO. KE05127A
o
*ft)
0
— 15
— 30
— 45
— 60
— 75
— 90
-
— 105
Tukwila Station
Hole No.=EB-4 Water Depth=5 ft Surface Elev.=15
Soil Description
Silty SAND w/gvl & cbls (FILL)
Gray SILT w/organics
.•
..
.
•
.
..
.
.
•
.
.
Black fine SAND w/organics few silt
•
Black silty SAND w/orgaincs
. .
Black SAND w/silt and organics
• .
. .
Black SAND trace silt
Black SAND trace silt
Raw Unit Fines Shear Stress Ratio
SPT Weight % 0
25 125 15
9 105 88
4 105 88
5 105 99
4 105 99
15 110 3
20 115 4
35 120 6
24 118 5
18 115 5
16 110 5
8 108 20
13 110 5
22 117 5
39 125 5
40 125 5
fs= .00
Magnitude=7
Acceleration=.20g
Factor of Safety Settlement
0 1 5 0 (in.)
11 Ili!
CRR CSR
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
50
Wet— Dry—
S = 19.09 in.
CivilTech Corporation KE05127A
Figure 3o-
g
— 15
— 30
— 45
— 60
— 75
— 90
— 105
Tukwila Station
Hole No.=EB-4 Water Depth=5 ft Surface Elev.=15
Ground Improvement of Fill=1 ft
Soil Description
. Silty SAND w/gvl & cbls (FILL)
Gray SILT w/organics
•
.
.
. .
. .
::::..:...
..........
Black fine SAND w/organics few silt
,
..
.
. .
Black silty SAND w/orgaincs
:
Black SAND w/silt and organics
. ,
...:
Black SAND trace silt
Black SAND trace silt
Raw Unit Fines Shear Stress Ratio
SPT Wei,ght % 0
25 125 15
9 105 88
4 105 88
5 105 99
4 105 99
15 110 3
20 115 4
35 120 6
24 118 5
18 115 5
16 110 5
8 108 20
13 110 6
22 117 5
39 125 5
40 125 5
CRR CSR
Magnitude=7
Acceleration=.20g
Factor of Safety
0 1 5
Settlement
0 (in.) 50
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Wet— Dry —
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential S = 17.93 in.
CivilTech Corporation KE05127A Figure 31,
0
—15
— 30
— 45
— 60
— 75
— 90
- 105
Tukwila Station
Hole No.=EB-4 Water Depth=5 ft Surface Elev.=15
Ground Improvement of Fill=4 ft
Soil Description
Silty SAND w/gvl & cbls (FILL)
Gray SILT w/organics
.•'•
.
'•
.
. •
Black fine SAND w/organics few silt
'•':!
Black silty SAND w/orgaincs
....'
. .
Black SAND w/silt and organics
....:: ..
.....
,••..•.••
•,•,..
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .
. . .
::•::•::::.?:::::
Black SAND trace silt
Black SAND trace silt
Raw Unit Fines Shear Stress Ratio
SF'T Weight % 0
25 125 15
9 105 88
4 105 88
5 105 99
4 105 99
15 110 3
20 115 4
35 120 6
24 118 5
18 115 5
16 110 5
8 108 20
13 110 6
22 117 5
39 125 5
40 125 5
fs=
.00
Magnitude=7
Acceleration=.20g
Factor of Safety Settlement
1 0 1 5 0 (in.) 50
V
CRR CSR
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential S = 14.52 in.
1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I
Wet— Dry—
CivilTech Corporation KE05127A Figure 3Q_
a)
as
0
z
c
0
0
rcro
eo
c
-0
cTs
0
cis
ea0
0
Fine -Grained Soils - 50% Wor More Passes No. 200 Sieve
blacks1log_key.dwg 11/02/01
0
0
Lt.
St. 0
>
O 0
O 5
Z.1^. 0
o Z
C
in 0
C
t2)
-C .0
o
en
a)(9
tu
u_
tr)
Nni
D C:20
0 o 0
0
„ 0 0
D C2.
6'0 'PO
Cre O.
o o o
O 0 c.
00 00
GW
Well -graded gravel and
gravel with sand, little to
no fines
GP
Poorly -graded gravel
and gravel with sand,
little to no fines
0
(,) CO
>t -C
(000
as
_j
C
ZJ-
.6 -13
0'
0
E co
(0 —
CO al 0
'•1)
0
D Ca)
cc
C
D
1:1
GM
Silty gravel and silty
gravel with sand
GC
Clayey gravel and
clayey gravel with sand
Coarse -
Grained Soils
Fine -
Grained Soils
Terms Describing Relative Density and Consistency
(
SPT2) blows/foot
0 to 4
4 to 10
10 to 30
30 to 50
>50
SPT(2)blows/foot
0 to 2
2 to 4
4 to 8
8 to 15
15 to 30
>30
Density
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Consistency
Very Soft
Soft
Medium Stiff
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Test Symbols
G -= Grain Size
M =-- Moisture Content
A = Atterberg Limits
C = Chemical
DD = Dry Density
K = Permeability
sw
SP
• :
M L
CL
---_--_— 01.
M H
CH
OH
Well -graded sand and
sand with gravel, little
to no fines
Poorly -graded sand
and sand with gravel,
little to no fines
Silty sand and
silty sand with
gravel
Clayey sand and
clayey sand with gravel
Silt, sandy silt, gravelly silt,
silt with sand or gravel
Clay of low to medium
plasticity; silty, sandy, or
gravelly clay, lean clay
Organic clay or silt of low
plasticity
Elastic silt, clayey silt, silt
with micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sand or
silt
Clay of high plasticity,
sandy or gravelly clay, fat
clay with sand or gravel
Organic clay or silt of
medium to high
plasticity
Peat, muck and other
highly organic soils
Descriptive Term
Boulders
Cobbles
Gravel
Coarse Gravel
Fine Gravel
Sand
Coarse Sand
Medium Sand
Fine Sand
Silt and Clay
Component Definitions
Size Range and Sieve Number
Larger than 12"
3" to 12"
3" to No. 4 (4.75 mm)
3" to 3/4"
3/4" to No. 4 (4.75 mm)
No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm)
No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 10 (2.00 mm)
No. 10 (2.00 mm) to No. 40 (0.425 mm)
No. 40 (0.425 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm)
Smaller than No. 200 (0.075 mm)
(3) Estimated Percentage
Percentage by
Weight
Trace <5
Few 5 to10
Little 15 to 25
With - Non -primary coarse
constituents: > 15%
- Fines content between
5% and 15%
Component
Moisture Content
Dry - Absence of moisture,
dusty, dry to the touch
Slightly Moist - Perceptible
moisture
Moist - Damp but no visible
water
Very Moist - Water visible but
not free draining
Wet - Visible free water, usually
from below water table
Sampler
Type
2.0" OD
Split -Spoon
Sampler
(SPT)
Bulk sample
Grab Sample
Symbols
Blows/6" or
portion of 6"
Sampler Type
Description
3.0" OD Split -Spoon Sampler
3.25" OD Split -Spoon Ring Sampler
3.0" OD Thin -Wall Tube Sampler
(including Shelby tube)
Portion not recovered
Cement grout
surface seal
Bentonite
(4) seal
Filter pack with
blank casing
section
Screened casing
or Hydrotip
with filter pack
End cap
(I) Percentage by dry weight
(2) (SPT) Standard Penetration Test
(ASTM D-1586)
(3) In General Accordance with
Standard Practice for Description
and Identification of Soils (ASTM D-2488)
(4) Depth of ground water
ATD = At time of drilling
SZ. Static water level (date)
(5) Combined USCS symbols used for
fines between 5% and 15%
Classifications of soils in this report are based on visual field and/or laboratory observations, which include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, and
plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field or laboratory testing unless presented herein. Visual -manual and/or laboratory classification
methods of ASTM D-2487 and D-2488 were used as an identification guide for the Unified Soil Classification System.
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
rom
I "I
/.4101111
11,811644
FIGURE
A- 1
27A.GPJ August 1, 2005
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Exploration Log
Project Number
KE05127A
Exploration Number
EB-1 (vault)
Sheet
1 of 3
PINy
�•�
Name Tukwila Station Ground Surface Elevation (ft) 17'
Project
Tukwila. WA Datum WM
Location
Bortech HSA Date Start/Finish 4/7/05,4/7/05
Diller/Equipment
Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) 6"
Hammer
Depth (ft)
Q
S E
T ,'
Graphic
Symbol
DESCRIPTION
1 Well
Completion
Water Level
`Q. en
o
m
10
Blows/Foot
20
30
40
Other Tests
— 5
-
— 10
— 15
— 20
— 25
— 30
_
— 35
_
—
S-1
—
S 2
S 3
—
S-4
S-5
_
—
S-6
—
— S 7
—
S-8
—
S 9
—
S-10
.'.
=
±
'
•
:
.
.
1 Grass and Thin Topsoilr
8
9
3
3
4
1
3
3
3
44
1
3
6
4
622
11
17
15
19
q,
18
5
A6
A5
10
A19
18
A34
A32
FiII
Loose, moist, brown -gray, silty fine to medium SAND with gravel and
cobbles (SM).
Moist, gray, silty fine to medium SAND with gravel and cobbles and some
organic matter (SM).
— — -- -- Alluvium
Very moist, gray, very fine sandy elastic SILT (MH).
Very moist, gray, very fine sandy elastic SILT, becomes mottled at 10 1/2'
(MH).
_
Saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND with silt (SP).
-----------
Saturated, interlayered fine SAND, peat, and fine sandy organic SILT
(SP/PT/OL).
Saturated, black, fine SAND (SP).
Saturated, black, fine to medium SAND with occasional coarse sand and
orange feldspars (SP).
Becomes mostly fine SAND.
Saturated, gray, SILT with peat interlayers (ML/PT).
Saturated, black, fine to medium SAND with coarse sand with occasional
thin peat layers (SP).
Saturated, black, fine SAND (SP).
Saturated, black, fine to coarse SAND with fine gravel (SW).
------
Sampler
Type (ST):
_— 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT)
I 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M)
8 Grab Sample
_ No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: SGB
1 Ring Sample Q Water Level O Approved by:
r Shelby Tube Sample -T. Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
0
0
0)
n.
0
0
0
co
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Exploration Log
Project Number
KE05127A
Exploration Number
EB-1 (vault)
Sheet
2 of 3
`r.+�tti'
�"--"'
�; q
Tukwila Station Ground Surface Elevation (ft) 17'
Project
Name
Tukwila. WA Datum WM
Location
Bortech HSA Date Start/Finish 4/7/05,4/7/05
Driller/Equipment
Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) 6"
Hammer
Depth (ft)
-�
Samples
Graphic
Symbol
DESCRIPTION
a
o
—-Co
E
0
"
1 Water Level
i„
o
CO
10
Blows/Foot
20
30
40
Other Tests
—45
— 50
— 55
— 60
L 65
— 70
— 75
1 S11
II S12
13
IIS
I 14
IIS 15
1
II S16
IIS17
S 18
`
Saturated, black, fine to medium SAND (SP).
Saturated, black, fine tosmedium SAND with few fine gravel (SP).
Saturated, fine to medium SAND with coarse SAND and fine gravel (SP).
9
2
7
11
57
11
B'
18
18
4
7
13
15
9
�s
15
s
13
14
9
17
A18
11
18
A28
A27
A33
28
A30
Saturated, fine to medium SAND with occasional shell fragments and
coarse SAND (SP).
Shell fragments increase.
Saturated, fine to medium SAND with, occasional shell fragments and
coarse SAND (SP).
Saturated, fine to medium SAND with occasional shell fragments and
coarse SAND (SP).
Saturated, fine SAND with medium sand and few shell fragments (SP).
Saturated, fine SAND with medium sand and few shell fragments (SP).
Sampler
Type (ST):
_ 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT)
I 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M)
Grab Sample
_ No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: SGB
1 Ring Sample S7. Water Level O Approved by:
/ Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
AESIBOR 05127A.GPJ
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
EX lol'at o11 o
%..
ZA
I-+►+1
.ftiR
Project Number
KE05127A
Exploration Number
EB-1 (vault)
Sheet
3 of 3
Project Name Tukwila Station Ground Surface Elevation (ft) 17'
Location Tukwila, WA Datum WM
Driller/Equipment Bortech HSA Date Start/Finish 4/7/n.5 4/7/05
Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) F"
Depth (ft)
Hrn
Samples
Graphic
Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Well
Completion
Water Level
y
0
in
Blows/Foot
10 20 30
40
Other Tests
-85
90
- 95
—100
-105
-110
-115
—
S 19
—
S 20
—
—
S-213000
—
S-22
—
'.. ,
'.' .
D o
0 0
0 0
3 0
0 0
D 0
0 0
0 0
D o
0 0
D o
'--0"o
Saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND with coarse SAND and few shell
fragments (SP).
Saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND with coarse SAND and few shell
fragments, increasing shell fragments (SP).
Saturated, black -gray, sandy fine gravel (GP).
Saturated, black, gravelly fine to medium SAND with coarse sand (SP).
19
13
26
27
15
29
22
17
25
26
15
16
A31
A53
�s1
53
Bottom of exploration poring at 100 feet
Sampler
Type (ST):
— 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) _
I 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) ❑
Grab Sample
No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: SGB
Ring Sample Q Water Level () Approved by:
Shelby Tube Sample T. Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
0
O_
at
0
N
0
0
ca
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Exploration Log
j� j
�.
��+
+9►'"
t
Project Number
KE05127A
Exploration Number
EB-2 (north)
Sheet
1 of 3
Project Name
Tukwila Station Ground Surface Elevation (ft) 16'
Location
Tukwila. WA Datum WM
Driller/Equipment
Bortech HSA Date Start/Finish 4/7/fl5 4/7/05
Hammer WeightiDrop
140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) R"
Depth (ft)
cn
Samples
Graphic
Symbol
DESCRIPTION
o
o
=
o
"
Water Level
`3
w
o
co
Blows/Foot
10 20 30 40
Other Tests
Grass and Very Thin Topsoil
— S-1
'.
Fill
Loose, moist, brown -gray, silty fine to medium SAND with gravel and
cobbles and various organics (SM).
5
A9
— 5
_1
=
— 10
_
— 15
-
— 20 —
— 25 —
—30 —
_
-. 35 —
—
Is2
S_3
S-4
— S 5
—
S-6
—
—
S-7
S8
S 9
S-'10
S-11
:
•
. ':
Alluvium
Wet, gray, slightly sandy elastic SILT with organics (MH).
Occasional thin sand stringers and less organics at 7'.
Saturated, gray, fine SAND with silt (SP).
Becomes mostly gray, fine SAND (SP).
Saturated, brown -gray, slightly sandy SILT with organics (ML).
Saturated, black, fine SAND (SP).
Saturated, gray, fine SAND.
Occasional medium to coarse SAND in sample.
Increasing fine sand content and less medium to coarse sand.
4
1
1
7
3
7
B
8
B
2
2
3
10
12
ii
13
17
2
B
15
5
12
A2
AB
A
A1E
A14
A22
A23
A2E
A30
Sampler
_
I
Type (ST):
2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT)
3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M)
Grab Sample
_ No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: SGB
1 Ring Sample Q Water Level O Approved by:
Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
June 10, 2005
AESIBOR 05127A.GP
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Exploration Log
II
47•�
;`4
Project Number
KE05127A
Exploration Number
EB-2 (north)
Sheet
2 of 3
Project Name Tukwila Station Ground Surface Elevation (ft) 16'
Location Tukwila, WA Datum WM
Driller/Equipment Bortech HSA Date Start/Finish 4/7/fl.Fi 4/7/05
Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) 6"
Depth (ft)
�ri)
Samples
Graphic
Symbol
DESCRIPTION
O
o
-
E
o
"
Water Level
N
o
m
Blows/Foot
10 20 30 40
Other Tests
— 45
- 50
- 55
-60
- 65
- 70
- 75
S-12
—
—
S-13
—
—
S 14
—
S-15
S-16':
—
— S-17
--
—
S-18
—
S-19
:' "
. , :.
.
`.
.' '; ',
: • ' `,
Saturated, gray, fine to medium with occasional. coarse SAND, few fine
gravel and trace organics (SP).
Less medium SAND and fewer organics.
Becomes coarser with occasional small shell fragments.
Increasing shell fragments.
Few fine gravel.
13
10
12
7
9
12
7
16
7
12
16
4
10
17
12
15
17
16
15
19
10
20
A22
•21
Sze
'26
28
A32
A34
A48
Sampler
Type (ST):
_ 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT)
I 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M)
Grab Sample
_ No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: SGB
Ring Sample Z Water Level O Approved by:
Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
a
0
D
0
O
0
o
co
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Exploration Log
►�,
�:
I=
xi
`
Project Number
KE05127A
Exploration Number
EB-2 (north)
Sheet
3 of 3
Project Name Tukwila Station Ground Surface Elevation (ft) 16'
Location Tukwila. WA Datum WM
Driller/Equipment Bortech HSA Date Start/Finish 4/7/05,4/7/05
Hammer'Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) H"_
a
o
°'
S E
T rn
_
,_
DESCRIPTION
c
E
o
"
w
�
_
N
o
co
Blows/Foot
10 20 30 40
)
t—
r
°
— 85
— 90
— 95
—
S-20
-.
S 21
—
S 22
—
S-23
]. °
° °
0
D 0
4,
'
•
•26
.
..
° Saturated, gray -black, sandy fine GRAVEL (GP).
0
Saturated, gray, silty sandy fine GRAVEL and silty gravelly fine to coarse
SAND with shell fragments (GM/SM).
Saturated, gray, gravelly fine to coarse SAND with shell fragments (SW).
3" thick layer of very compact peat or wood at 99'.
28
13
15
18
5
18
18
15
16
10
25
28
A33
33
A42
43
—100
—105
—110
—115
—
Bottom of exploration boring at 100 feet
Sampler
Type (ST):
_ 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: SGB
I 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) Ring Sample 57 Water Level (j Approved by:
0 Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
0
0
0
(0
0
0
m
w
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Exploration Log
i►''
r• t
=.
�-
i+►�1
+��°
ProjectP
Number
KE05127A
Exploration Number
EB-3 (middle)
Sheet
1 of 3
Project Name Tukwila Station Ground Surface Elevation (ft) 15'
Location Tukwila. WA Datum WM
Driller/Equipment Bortech HSA Date Start/Finish 4/7/05,4/7/05
HammerWeight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) An
.
o
5 E
T
p —
E T
0°
DESCRIPTION
c
O
-
a
O
"
ar
?
B
_
'
-
O
m
Blows/Foot
10 20 30 40
coo
N
t
S 1
Fill
Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, silty SAND with gravel and cobbles.
(SM)
No sample, pounding on rocks.
Moist, brown, silty SAND with gravel and cobbles, little recovery. (SM)
9
7
A1z
— 5
- 10
— 15
20
_
— 25
— 30
_
— 35
—
S-2
S-3
-
-
S-4
S-4
�
_
S5
—
S 6
—
—
S -7
—
— S 13
—
S 9
`
'
Alluvium
Soft to medium stiff, black, elastic SILT with sand and organics. (MH)
Wet, black, elastic SILT with fine sand, peat stringers and sand lenses to
6" thick. (MH/PT)
Saturated, black, elastic SILT with organics. (MH/OL)
Poor recovery - sand in tube - sample disgarded
Saturated, black, SAND with silt. (SP)
Saturated, gray, elastic SILT with fine sand and trace organics and
volcanic ash. (MH/CL)
Sandy elastic SILT. (MH)
Sandy elastic SILT. (MH)
Saturated, gray, elastic SILT with fine sand, trace organics. (MH)
Saturated, black, fine to medium SAND, trace silt. (SP)
Saturated, black, fine to medium SAND, trace silt. (SP)
Saturated, black, fine to medium SAND, trace silt. (SP)
Saturated, black, fine to medium SAND with coarse sand and gravel, trace
silt. (SP)
Saturated, black, medium SAND, few coarse sand, trace silt. (SP)
i
3
4
4
2
3
5
3
5
5
5
s
10
15
15
7
��
14
9
10
10
7
11
Aa
A14
A19
12
•20
30
Sampler
Type (ST):
_ 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: SGB
I 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) 1 Ring Sample Water Level O Approved by:
Grab Sample ^ Shelby Tube Sample T. Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
m
N
0
0
m
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Exploration Log
11
II.
. %
l
Project Number
KE05127A
Exploration Number
EB-3 (middle)
Sheet
2 of 3
Project Name Tukwila Station Ground Surface Elevation (ft) 15'
Location Tukwila, WA Datum WM
Driller/Equipment Bortech HSA Date Start/Finish 41 05 A/71t15
Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter(in) A'
-...
O
°'
') as
E
T
0
L
t
0 u)
DESCRIPTION
c
2
—��
°'a
o
o10
5
N
u
3
m
Blows/Foot
20 30 40
)
N
icp
r
— 45
— 50
— 55
- 60
— 65
—70 II
75 115-16:
S 10
1131
"S 12
"S 13
S 14
S-15
S-17 ':
".
:' .�` •`
•
' .
Saturated, medium SAND, few coarse sand, trace shell fragments. (SP)
Saturated, medium SAND, few coarse sand and gravel and wood
fragments. (SP)
Trace wood and few shell fragments.
Saturated, black, medium SAND with coarse sand and gravel, few silt,
shells and wood, (SP)
No wood.
Gravel reported by driller:
Saturated, gray, gravelly medium to coarse SAND with silt. (SP)
8
17
17
9
17
15
8
14
8
12
11
8
13
1s
11
12
15
8
19
21
15
A22
A23
A27
A 4
A32
28
A40
A41
Sampler
Type (ST):
2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT)
I 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M)
Grab Sample
_ No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: SGB
Ring Sample Water Level O Approved by:
-� Shelby Tube Samples Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
cL
0
0
w
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Ex oration Lo
is: --r
=`'
,"'
1 %
iif-'
Project Number
KE05127A
Exploration Number
EB-3 (middle)
Sheet
3 of 3
Project Name Tukwila Station Ground Surface Elevation (ft) 15'
Location Tukwila, WA Datum WM
Driller/Equipment Bortech HSA Date Start/Finish 4/7/05„4/7/05
Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) H"
a.`°a
O
T in
L 5
C0
DESCRIPTION
:2
�,
`So
"
N
_I
�m
[O
N
Blows/Foot
10 20 30 40
(0
1
c
-
-
— 85
— 90
— 95
—100
-
S-18
—
S-19
—
I S-20
S-21
—7
S 22
—
•
`.•
-
:
-
_.
1!
Saturated, gray, fine to medium GRAVEL with sand, few silt. (GP)
Saturated, gray, medium to coarse SAND with gravel and silt and few shell
fragments. (SP)
Saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND with coarse sand and gravel. (SP)
Peat with gray SILT. (ML/PT)
Gray SILT with fine sand. (ML)
Gray, silty fine SAND with organic (peat) seams. (PT/SM)
26
15
15
18
20
16
14 20
9
6
s
5
14
. 13
23
A30
. 36
-
54
—105
—110
—115
Bottom of exploration boring at 101.5 feet
40
Sampler
Type (ST):
_ 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT)
I 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M)
Grab Sample
No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: SGB
1 Ring Sample Water Level O Approved by:
: - Shelby Tube Sample T. Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
0
N
a.
0
"4
0
CC
0
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Exploration Log
!��►ijy
`'*��
Project Number
KE05127A
Exploration Number
EB-4 (south)
Sheet
1 of 3
Project Name Tukwila Station Ground Surface Elevation (ft) 15'
Location Tukwila, WA Datum WM
Driller/Equipment Bortech HSA Date Start/Finish 3/23/05,3/2: /05
Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) 5"
....
a S
T
co
a
E
(5'
52 3
a
E >,
DESCRIPTION
C
O
—
a
.T)_
N
a
o
co10
Blows/Foot
20 30 40
N
fn
1�
cu
Grass and Topsoil
Fill
Brown, medium dense, moist, silty SAND with gravel and cobbles, trace
boulders. (SM)
— 5
— 10 —
— 15 —
— 20 —
—
S-1
—
S-2
S-3
S-4
Alluvium
Moist, gray, elastic SILT with fine to medium SAND. (MH)
Becomes wet.
Wet, gray, elastic SILT with fine sand. (MH)
Saturated, gray, elastic SILT with fine SAND and peat stringers. (MH/PT)
Saturated, gray, elastic SILT with fine sand. (MH)
-T
5
4
2
2
1
2-
3
1
2
2
A.
A4
s
4
_
— 25
-
— 30
35
S-5
—
T S-6
—
[S7
S-8 .'
Saturated, black, fine to medium SAND trace coarse sand and silt. (SP)
3
7
8
4
7
12
6
11
8
A
♦19
19
20
Sampler Type (ST):
- 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: SGB
I 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) 1 Ring Sample Q Water Level O Approved by:
Grab Sample I Shelby Tube Sample t Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
0
0
N
0
0 a
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Exploration Log
!'
`
`a
11 71
`
•�
Project Number
KE05127A
Exploration Number
EB-4 (south)
Sheet
2 of 3
Project Name Tukwila Station Ground Surface Elevation (ft) 15'
Location Tukwila. WA Datum WM
Driller/Equipment Bortech HSA Date Start/Finish 1/71/05,3/73/05
Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) 5"
pT
°1
0v)
DESCRIPTION
c
— N
Eo
"
o
J
0m
y
Blows/Foot
10 20 30 40
G)
co
F-
t
— 45
— 50
— 55
-
— 60
_
— 65
— 70
— 75
S-9
--
S-10
—
S11
—
S 12
—
S 13
—
S-14
—
S 15
—
S-16
'.
%:
,`.:'
:.
: -
'. '.
:
Saturated, black, fine to medium SAND with silt, few coarse sand.
(SP-SM)
Saturated, black, medium SAND with few shell fragments. (SP)
Saturated, black, silty fine to medium SAND with wood, trace organics and
shells. (SM)
Saturated, black, fine SAND with silt, trace shells, trace gravel and coarse
sand. (SP-SM)
Saturated, black, fine to medium SAND, few silt, gravel and coarse sand.
(SP)
11
s
97
18
1
14
5
7
11
47
9
5
a
6
7
a
io
12
6
A1
s
A13
A24
18
A22
A3E
39
Sampler
Type (ST):
_ 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) _ No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: SGB
I 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) Ring Sample Water Level O Approved by:
k Grab Sample ' Shelby Tube Sample _L Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
AESIBOR 05127A,GPJ
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Exploration og
6
=.'
�`�,°
■
Project Number
KE05127A
Exploration Number
EB-4 (south)
Sheet
3 of 3
Project Name Tukwila Station Ground Surface Elevation (ft) 15'
Location Tukwila, WA Datum WM
Driller/Equipment Bortech HSA DateStart/Finish 3/73/05,3/73/05
Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) Fi"
Depth (ft)
m
S E
T rn
Graphic
Symbol
DESCRIPTION
c
2
—u,
gg
0
"
Water Level
zo
a
m
Blows/Foot
10 20
30
40
I Other Tests
-
— 85
— 90
— 95
—100
—105
—110
—115
S-17
—
S-18
—
', '
.'
..
Saturated, black, fine to medium SAND, trace silt and shell fragments.
(SP)
23
11
18
22
11
16
21
40
7
Bottom of exploration boring at 90 feet
Sampler
_
Type (ST):
2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT)
3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M)
Grab Sample
No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: SGB
$ Ring Sample V. Water Level O Approved by:
Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
EE
0
z
0
cv
_J
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Geologic & Monitoring Well Construction Log
..:
, ip 10,
•
,
Project Number
KE05127A
Well Number
MW-1
Sheet
1 of 1
Project Name Tukwila Station
Location Tukwila, WA
Elevation (Top of Well Casing) 15' Surface Elevation (ft)
Water Level Elevation Date Start/Finish 4/8/05,4/A/05
Drilling/Equipment Bortech HSA Hole Diameter (in) 6"
Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30"
_c
IL •••
Tu
>
3
g
WELL CONSTRUCTION
co
s co
T
o —
_=.0
0 co
DESCRIPTION
1
'
Flush monument
Grass and Thin To soil
-
—10
-
—15
-
4
/
/
/
7
/
7
,.,
0
7A
0
#
0
#
0
/e<
.-.
'.
- .
-
.
..
Bentonite Chips
-
2" ID. Schedule 40 PVC
machine slotted well screen -
0.010" slots
-
-
_
_
Fill
Loose, moist, brown -gray, silty fine to medium SAND with gravel and
cobbles (SM).
Moist, gray, silty fine to medium SAND with gravel and cobbles and
some organic matter (SM).
Alluvium
Very moist, gray, very fine sandy elastic SILT (MH).
Very moist, gray, very fine sandy elastic SILT, becomes mottled at
10 1/2' (MH).
Saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND with silt (SP).
Saturated, interlayered fine SAND, peat, and fine sandy organic
SILT (SP/PT/OL).
— 20
— 25
— 30
_
_
— 35
-
..
—
Boring terminated at 20 feet on 4/8/05
Samp er Type (ST):
2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT)
I 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M)
N Grab Sample
No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: SGB
11 Ring Sample V Water Level (April 13, 2005) Approved by:
0 Shelby Tube Sample T Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
AESI
Tip Resistance
QtTSF
0
0
10
20
30
40
Depth 50
(ft)
60
70
80
90
100
Operator: Brown
Sounding: CPT-01
Cone Used: DSG0880
Friction Ratio
Fs/Qt (%)
300 0 4
I 1
I r
, I
1 i
1
1 sensitive fine grained
2 organic material
3 clay
Maximum Depth = 74.97 feet
4 silty clay to clay
5 clayey silt to silty clay
6 sandy silt to clayey silt
*email behavior type and SPT based on data from UBG-1983
CPT Date/me: 3/21/2005 9:19:40 AM
Location: Tukwila Station
Job Number. KE05127A
Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type*
Pw PSI Zone: UBC-1983
-10 30 0 12
't _1
i tl `l
1 1 I
1 J 1
1 I``4
5'
I I
i ids
1`1 1
I 1
1 1 1 1
__I _1- J_
1 1 1 1
1 —
1
1
1
1
Depth Increment 0.164 feet
7 silty sand to sandy silt
8 sand to silty sand
9 sand
Northwest Cone Exploration
SPT N*
60% Hammer
0 50
10 gravelly sand to sand
11 very stiff fine grained (*)
12 sand to clayey sand (*)
AESI
Tip Resistance
QtTSF
0
o I --;--;-I I
10
20
30
40
Depth 50
(ft)
60
70
80
90
100
i
Operator. Brown
Sounding: CPT-02
Cone Used: DSG0880
300
Friction Ratio
Fs/Qt'(%)
0 4
1
J
Ie.-.1-_ L.--
Maximum Depth = 80.54 feet
1 sensitive fine grained 4 silty day to clay
2 organic material 5 clayey silt to silty clay
3 clay 6 sandy silt to clayey silt
" ail behavior type and SPT based on data from UBG-1983
CPT Date/Time: 3/21 /200510:20:38 AM
Location: Tukwila Station
Job Number. KE05127A
Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type` SPT N*
Pw PSI Zone: UBC-1983 60% Hammer
0 30 0 12 0 50
.r L J
I 1
1 1
II
II
1 1
11
11
11
Depth Increment = 0.164 feet
7 silty sand to sandy silt
8 sand to silty sand
9 sand
Northwest Cone Exploration
10 gravelly sand to sand
11 very stiff fine grained (*)
12 sand to clayey sand (*)
AESI
Tip Resistance
Qt TSF
0
0
10
20
30
40
Depth 50
(ft)
60
70
80
90
100
I I -Is t�-� I
— ! I
T
1 I
I
1
1
1 1
I
I
3 I I I
I I
Operator. Brown
Sounding: CPT-03
Cone Used: DSG0880
300
1 sensitive fine grained
2 organic material
3 clay
Friction Ratio
Fs/Qt (%)
0 4
- - 1 r
1
1
1-I
-1
Maximum Depth = 96.78 feet
4 silty clay to clay
5 clayey silt to silty clay
6 sandy silt to clayey silt
--oil behavior type and SPT based on data#rom UBC-1983
CPT Date/Time: 3/21/2005 1:37:21 PM
Location: Tukwila Station
Job Number: KE05127A
Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type*
Pw PSI Zone: UBC-1983
-10 30 0 12
Ji
Depth Increment = 0.164 feet
7 silty sand to sandy silt
8 sand to silty sand
9 sand
Northwest Cone Exploration
SPT N'
60% Hammer
0 50
10 gravelly sand to sand
11 very stiff fine grained (*)
12 sand to clayey sand (*)
AESI
Tip Resistance
Qt TSF
0
0
10
20
30
40
Depth 50
(ft)
60
70
80
90
100
Operator: Brown
Sounding: CPT-04
Cone Used: DSG0880
Friction Ratio
Fs/Qt (%)
300 0
1 sensitive fine grained
2 organic material
3 clay
Maximum Depth = 82.68 feet
4 silty clay to clay
5 clayey silt to silty clay
6 sandy silt to clayey silt
•Qoil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983
CPT Date/me: 3/21/2005 2:54:09 PM
Location: Tukwila Station
Job Number: KE05127A
Pore Pressure
Pw PSI
-10
30
-1-
1:
Soil Behavior Type* SPT N*
Zone: UBC-1983 60% Hammer
0 12 0
Depth Increment= 0.164 feet
7 silty sand to sandy silt
8 sand to silty sand
9 sand
Northwest Cone Exploration
50
J
10 gravelly sand to sand
11 very stiff fine grained (*)
12 sand to clayey sand (")
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
got
Percent Passing #200
ASTM D 1140
Date Sampled
4/13/2005
Project
Tukwila Station
Project No.
KE05127A
Tested By
SGB
Location
EB/EP No.
Depth
Soil Description
Sample I.D.
Wet Weight
Dry Weight
Water Weight
Pan
Actual Dry Weight
Percent of Water Weight
After Wash Weight
Percent Passing #200
EB-4 3.5'
386.7
338.2
48.5
223.7
114.5
42.4
13.1
88.6
EB-4 13.5'
408.4
350.7
57.7
228.4
122.3
47.2
1.5
98.8
EB-4 23.5'
498.3
439.7
58.6
216.2
223.5
26.2
217.5
2.7
Sample I.D. EB-4 33.5' EB-4 43.5' EB-4 53.5' EB-4 63.5'
WetWeight 526.4 473.6 476.3 504.9
DryWeight 461.5 430.6 423.4 431.9
WaterWeight 64.9 43.0 53.0 504.9
Pan 221.8 228.4 226.9 224.3
Actual Dry Weight 239.8 202.2 196.5 207.6
Percent of WaterWeight 27.1 21.2 27.0 243.2
After Wash Weight 230.1 189.1 185.9 165.5
Percent Passing #200 4.0 6.5 5.4 20.3
911 5th Ave., Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 425-827-7701 FAX 425-827-5424
1.8
0.1
1 Pressure (psf1000) 10
100
0-
0
0
1.0
0
0
0
0
0.1
co
co
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.2
BORING
NUMBER
EB-2
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(FEET)
7.5-9.5
SOIL
CLASSIFICATION
Gray elastic silt (MH)
INITIAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
66.1
INITIAL DRY
DENSITY
(LBS/FT3)
57.0
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE
Job Name: AESI
Date:
Consolidation Test Data Summary
4/20/2005 Tested By: Jake
Boring #: EB-2 Sample #:
Soil Description:
Gray elastic silt
MH)
Job #: 6840-042-00
N/A Depth: 7.5-9.5'
Load
(psf)
Initial dial
gauge
reading (in)
Final dial
gauge
reading (in)
Average
sample height
(in)
t90
(min)
Cv
(In.2 min)
Cv
2
(ft. Day)
1600
0.0260
0.0486
0.9627
0.18
1.0916
10.92
3200
0.0491
0.1027
0.9241
0.16
1.1315
11.31
Moisture
Dry
Specific Gravity
Soil
Content
Density
Type
(%)
(pcf)
Vinitial
(MH)
66.1
57.0
2.49
27.56
Pressure
Consolidation
(ksf)
(in)
VI = Vt - Delta V
Vv = VI -Vs
e = VvNs
0.20
0.0005
75.09
47.53
1.7244
0.40
0.0028
74.92
47.35
1.7181
1.00
0.0255
73.21
45.65
1.6562
1.60
0.0486
71.47
43.91
1.5933
3.20
0.1027
67.41
39.85
1.4458
0.80
0.0941
68.06
40.49
1.4692
0.20
0.0726
69.67
42.11
1.5278
0.80
0.0886
68.47
40.91
1.4842
1.00
0.0903
68.34
40.78
1.4796
1.60
0.0951
67.98
40.42
1.4665
3.20
0.1114
66.76
39.19
1.4221
6.40
0.1517
63.73
36.17
1.3122
1.60
0.1421
64.45
36.89
1.3384
0.40
0.1090
66.94
39.38
1.4286
GeoEngineers, Inc. 5/3/2005
0
6840-042-00 JVJ : HMS : jvj 4-26-05 (Atterbergs
I
0
0
%
.
%%.
.
o
I
.
X
0
%.,
*. . . .
.
,%.
,
.
• %
. . . ...
. . . .
`,.
...
..•
. . .1
0
lia
0
.,..
%.
7....
—J
."...
—1
0
a CD CD a
co
X3GNI A11011Stfld
0)
CD
a
o
a
CD
LIQUID LIMIT
SOIL DESCRIPTION
al M.
0- )-
2 al
ul a
0
Z
w
X
Gray elastic silt (MH)
It
r--
0
co
2
ATTERBERG LI ITS TEST RESULTS
FIGURE
Specific Gravity Test
Job Name: AES1 'Date: 4-25-05
Job #: 6840-042-00 Tested By: Jake
Boring#:
Flask No
Temperature nfWater and Soil (C)
Pan No.
Pan and Dry Soil
Pen
Dry 'Soil (VVo)
Flask and Water atT(C)(Vybw)
VVo+VVbvv
Flask and Water and Immersed Soil (VVbv«s)
Displaced Water, Vyo+VVbw-VVbws
Correction Factor 0d
Specific Gravity
(GS)=VVo°PJ\8/ +VVbvv48/bwo
B
23
250.06
226.37
23.69 _
341.43
365.12
355.62
9.50
0.9993
-