The URL can be used to link to this page

315 ADMIRAL WAY.PDF13772 315 ADMIRAL WAY 0 0 ADDRESS: A. 7T CV VNI V Lkj TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS : - DETERMINATION: El Conditional Waiver El Study Required E) Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT ft'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATE] EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: -,A i-,Ou SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: LATEMP\DS'rs\Fomis\Street File Checklist.doe 4,_ MEMO TO: Ilarry-Whitcutt . .Building'Official FROM. SUBJECT: Richard H. Allen A__ 4 - 4.-'-4. r, _I �.. r.- _21 — - __ F140 Coll Vj*I wlts� :top After review of-the.sdbjec�t building'permit application, we have the-folloWing comments: F� WA '-UTILITIM' S LWIY_ CF VHi 2'. LLDI DRAI WAIG9 ON S! , % ilk f LIN a , 10 P-a lb I V PqF 5 '0, W Ifted a M DATE 1 17( PERMIT ADDRESS W LEGAL DESCRIPTIF�N BUILDING PERMIT RFVIEW - ENsINEERING DEPARTMENT CHECK LIST Instruction: Check Accuracy of Legal Description Check Against Assessor's Map for Legal Subdivision Does it"conform to City Approved Subdivision? Reviewer's Initials 1. This lot included in Suhdivisi 2. Site Inspection made on: 3. Uhat are around water and soil conditions? —W LMI W14-M eAjofj!5�, 4. Sit6 9,riin'aqp rhecked? 5. Storm Sewer Availability: -Y'SS Sht. rZof Nq. N-6- J---Zk�-T Project L. I C-�) Roadside Ditch 6. Grading & Final Contours:15EK Wi fsG V R-M 7. Septic Tank System Design Approved: B. Sanitar ' v Sewer Availability "�-R!'ZZ Sht. e-Z, of FA -in. No. =.Project W 0 -7 Side sewer availability: 9. Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees? M7 I $I 10. I'later Mains A Fire Hydrants (Indicate Size Main) C$=) Check Fire Dept.'s Comments 11. Sidewalks: (Site ins2ection shows conditions of sidewalks as follows) 12PF11zbkD 1 12. Curbs: ST I Curb Cuts/PrivPways (Check driveways for safety, Incation, grade and width): &JIG 13. Underground Ifiring:— Street Lights: 14. Street Right-of-way A PIdq. setbacks:IE7� 609Sht. of nfficial Street Map. 15. Existing Utility Easements? nto 16. Access Easements: 17. Site Plan checked for accuracy? 18. Special Require monts listed in Memo to Bldg. Pept. — 19. Commercial & Apt. Requirements form completed?__ — 20. Drawings stamped & notations made? Ve — 21. All Items filled in on Bldg. Permit Application?— 2-1 `7 4& - 22. Bonds posted for site work? NON fg. — 23. Right-of-way Invasion Permit required? —�J- Am COMMENTS: Rev. 7/1/76 STREET FiLE% C I T Y 0 F E D M 0 N D S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - Routing of Building Permit, Plat, or Subdivision Applications Proposed Property Address: 315 Admiral Wa DEPARTMENT COWFNTS INITIAL & DATE W A T E R S E W E R S T R E E T L /,E 71- /jx-- �/2 0 Al -7-1 V Z111 I:Z / _ /L/ /2.- C3 T. B U I L D I N G 0 R P L A N N I N G ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: .1/ 7 z USE PERMIT ZONE NUMBER RECEIVED �f. V I N G DEPARTMEN Applicant Fill PER MIT APPLICATION side Heavy Lines — JOB F ADDRESS -0 1 1976 W z 0 NA�E (K NAME OFBUS ' I ON�, C A�j 6 VARIANCE OR. COND. USE NO. ADB NO. Opublic HEIGHT Works Vept. MAILI CITY x TELEPHONE NUMBER 0 RD S I 75 tqr 2 7 �0 PROPOSED YARDS FRONT SIDE REAR, 1170 T COVERAGE. SIGN AREA __71RONMENTAL ALLOWED P ROPOSEO REVIEW 0 1 1 COMPLETE El EXEMPT z I- W u a: NAME C? IA)C REMARKS z IL ADIUSS % PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL DATE 5;6�T Y Am 1� I TELEPHONE NUM13ER LEGAL LOT E)YES EIN8 LOT AREA SUBDIVISION NO. 0 z 0 u NAME A �mPg_ i _k AIRS STREET R/W EXISTING STREET R/,W FT. DEFICIENCY THIS PROPERTY. COMP. PLAN ST. R/W FT. FT. ADDIIESS CITY q 1 _5 TELEPHONE NUMBER REMARKS STATE LICENSE NUMBER 4 M �Z CITY LICENSE NUMBER CHECKED BY I w z IL W 13 Legal Description of Property (Show Below or Attach.Four Copies) r STREET AND/OR UTILITY WORK REQ'O. YES NO' R/W PERMIT REQUIRED YES NO W UN,-DERGROUND WIRING REQ'D. DYES El NO z W TYPE CONNECTION EJ. YES.IVERIF1 SANITARY SEWER NO ED By SEPTIC, SYSTEM YES APPVD BY CITY ENG. El NO P ERMIT NUMBER REMARKS ME I TER SIZE ISERVICE SIZE ICLEARANCE CH ECKED BY W z 2 u III 0 m 0 RESIDENTIAL. GAS NEW . 0 LINE NON-RESIDENTIAL SIGN' ADD El DEMOLISH RETAINING EXCAV . ATE WALL El ALTER FENCE OR FILL X—F.) PRE -MOVE swim F1 REPAIR EJ INSP. POOL REMARKS FIRE ZONE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION ICODE SPECIAL INSPECTOR REQUIRED YES NO 7�EA OCCUPANCY GROUP . CUP ANT 'PLAN CHECKED BY THIS SITE IS LOCAT ED IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS. LOCAL SALES TAX S HOULD BE CODED 31,04. Pr REMARKS J NUMBER OF- STORIES 1. NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS m NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE PLAN CHECK NO. VALUATION t FEE TROPOSED USE QP� PO-T FAB-P I Q iTTI 0, A� PLOT PLAN (INDICATE BUILDI14G SETBACKS, ABUTTING STREETS) BUILD I ING P PLUMBING HEAT & GAS LINE FENCE r SIGN S JE RETAINING WALL S S WIMMING POOL RECSIVED JAN 0 4 1996 PERMIT COUNTER Report Geotechnical Design Services Proposed Marine Support Buildings Port of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington -�3 1 �� - ikbm I 1��R L W� December 8, 1995 Prepared for Port of Edmonds Edmonds, WA Prepared by LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. SO TREET FILE 23107 100th Avenue W * P.O. Box 1029 - Edmonds, WA 98020-9129 * (206) 778-0907 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental and Geotechnical Services IDecember 7, 1995 Makers Architecture and Urban Design Smith Tower - Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: Mr. Eric Anderson RE: GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT PROPOSED MARINE SUPPORT BUILDINGS PORT OF EDMONDS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. Anderson: This report presents the results of Landau Associates geotechnical design services for the proposed Port of Edmonds marine support buildings to be located in Edmonds, Washington. The project site was investigated by drilling three borings within the footprint of each of the proposed buildings to depths of about 211/2 to 41 'Aft below existing site grade. Based on the site explorations, foundation support of the proposed buildings may be provided by deep foundations, consisting of either treated timber piles, augercast piles, prestressed concrete piles, or steel pipe piles. Geotechnical recommendations have been developed for design of deep foundations, floor slab support, and asphalt pavement. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Ed Heavey or me. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Dennis R. Stettler, P.E. Principal DRS/Ijd No. 173005.10 12/07/95 JA 173 \005\ DESIGN. RPT Distribution: Makers (3 copies) Port of Edmonds, Attn: Bill Toskey (2 copies) Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage, Attn: David Pierce (2 copies) P.O. BOX 1029 - EDMONDS. WA 98020-9129 - (206) 778-0907 - FAX (206) 778-6409 SPOKANE: (509) 327-9737 - FAX (509) 327-9691 /TACOMA: (206) 926-2493 - FAX (206) 926-2531 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.2.1 Soil 3.2.2 Groundwater 3.3 PERCOLATION TESTING 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 SITE GRADING 4.2 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 4.3 FOUNDATIONS 4.3.1 Pile Capacities 4.3.2 Resistance to Lateral Loads 4.3.3 Pile Foundation Construction Considerations 4.4 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT 4.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES 4.6 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA 4.7 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS 4.8 STORMWATER INFILTRATION SYSTEM 4.9 PAVEMENT 5.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS 6.0 USE OF TFUS REPORT REFERENCES 12/07/95 jA173\00.;\DES1GN.RPT ii 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 6 7 7 8 8 10 10 11 12 12 13 13 14 15 LIST OF FIGURES Figige Title 1 Vicinity Map 2 Site and Exploration Plan LIST OF TABLES Table Title 1 Groundwater Levels 2 Recommended Maximum Allowable Pile Capacities 3 Passive Resistance vs. Wall Deflection 4 Recommended Pavement Sections 12/07/95 J:\173\005\DESIGN.RPT iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of Landau Associates field investigations and provides geotechnical engineering design recommendations for the proposed Port of Edmonds marine support buildings in Edmonds, Washington. The project location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2, shows the project area and location of the borings. The purpose of these geotechnical services was to obtain subsurface information and to develop geotechnical recommendations for design of the proposed buildings. 1.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES Landau Associates was contracted by the Port of Edmonds to provide geotechnical services to support the project. Our services were provided in accordance with the scope outlined in our proposal dated August 21,1995, and the supplemental proposal dated September 21,1995. , Our scope of services included the following specific tasks: A field exploration program to characterize the subsurface conditions. Explorations included drilling six boring-s to depths of about 211/2 to 411/2 ft below existing site grade. Three percolation tests were completed to determine the percolation rate for design of the storm water disposal system. Preliminary geotechnical engineering analyses to develop conceptual geotechnical engineering recommendations for evaluation of alternative foundation systems. The evaluation was summarized in a technical memorandum dated October 6, 1995. Geotechnical engineering analyses and recommendations for the preferred foundation alternative. Recommendations were developed for: - Site preparation, including clearing and grubbing, excavation and fills, fill placement and compaction criteria, and installation of onsite utilities - Pile foundations, including estimated pile tip elevations, maximum allowable axial downward capacity and uplift capacity for driven timber, prestressed concrete, steel pipe piles, and cast -in -place augercast piles; criteria for determining lateral load capacity of piles; estimated total and differential settlements of pile foundations; and construction considerations - Floor slab support - Equivalent fluid pressures for active and passive resistance of soil and coefficient of friction 12/07/95 J:\173\005\DMGN.RPT LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Seismic design criteria, including site liquefaction potential, dynamic lateral earth pressures, and UBC site coefficient Paved area subgrade preparation and recommended pavement sections Site drainage considerations Design percolation rate and design groundwater level for the onsite stormwater disposal system Construction monitoring. Submittal of this geotechnical report summarizing our findings, discussions, and recommendations. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the project consists of constructing two office buildings on the east side of Admiral Way in Edmonds, Washington. Each building will have two stories above grade and be about 120 ft by about 60 ft in plan dimensions. The first floor elevation is planned at about 1 ft above existing site grade. Parking will be provided on the north and south sides of the complex with a semicircular drive between the buildings. Foundation loads provided by the structural engineer are in the range of 25 to 60 tons per column. 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The project site is situated along the eastern side of Admiral Way in Edmonds, Washington across from the Edmonds Marina. The site is bounded on the northern side by Dayton Street, on the eastern side by the Burlington Northern Railroad (BNRR) right-of-way, and on the southern side by a boat storage yard. 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS The topography of the site is relatively flat with ground surface elevations ranging from about 14 ft mean low low water (MLLW) in the southeast comer of the site to.about 17 ft along the west edge of the site. The site is currently being used as a boat maintenance yard. Two 12/07/95 J:\173\005\DESIGN.RPT 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. small storage sheds and miscellaneous equipment are located in the southern portion of the site. The entire site is covered with 11/4-inch minus crushed surfacing. 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDMONS Subsurface conditions at the site of the proposed Port of Edmonds marine support buildings were explored on August 30, 1995 by completing six borings, B-1 through B-6, drilled within the footprint of the buildings. The borings were drilled by Cascade Drilling, Inc. of Woodinville, Washington, to depths of between 211/2 and 411/2 ft below the existing ground surface. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2. Borings were located in the field by taping from existing site features. Ground surface elevations were estimated from the survey base map prepared by Reid Nfiddleton, dated September 1995. Details of the field exploration program are summarized in Appendix A of this report, and summary logs of the conditions encountered in the borings are presented on Figures A-2 through A-7 in Appendix A. A key to the terms and symbols used on the summary logs is included as Figure A-1. 3.2.1 SOIL Subsurface conditions observed in the borings consisted of a sequence of fifl, beach deposits, and pre-Vashon age glacial outwash deposits. An approximately 1-ft thick layer of crushed surfacing (11/4-inch minus crushed rock) covered the site. Fill was encountered in the borings below the crushed surfacing and generally consisted of brown, medium dense, gravelly,. fine to coarse sand. The fill was observed to extend to a depth of between about 51/2 ft to 8 ft below existing site grade. Beach deposits, consisting of gray, medium dense, fine to medium sand with occasional gravel and wood fragments were encountered beneath the. fill in the borings and extended to depths of about 13 ft below existing site grade. Pre-Vashon glacial outwash deposits were encountered beneath the beach deposits.and extended to the bottom of the borings. The glacial outwash deposits generally consisted of very dense, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse sand with gravel; and fine to medium sand. 3.2.2 GROUNDWATER Groundwater levels were measured on September I and 6, 1995 in the piezometers installed in borings; B-2 and B-5 during high and low tides to check for tidal influence on groundwater levels at the site. Gro--mdwater levels measured on September 1,, 1995 were 12/07/95 JA173\005\DF-STGN.RPT 3 ILANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. I obtained within a few hours after the occurrence of high tide (12:03 p.m.), and groundwater levels measured on September 6, 1995 were obtained at about the time low tide occurred (8:15 a.m.). Groundwater levels were also measured on October 3,1995. Measured groundwater levels are summarized in Table 1. Groundwater levels appear to be independent of tide fluctuations. In addition, groundwater data from groundwater monitoring wells MW-2, MW-3, and MW-5, installed at Harbor Square east of the project site and across the BNRR tracks, were reviewe d for this project. Groundwater levels measured at Harbor Square varied from about 5 to 51/2ft above the groundwater levels measured at the project site. Long-term groundwater monitoring at Harbor Square indicated that the groundwater table fluctuates about I to 2 ft between summer and winter, with the maximum high groundwater level occurring in the winter. We would expect that groundwater fluctuations at the project site would be similar. 3.3 PERCOLATION TESTING . Percolation tests, P-1 through P-3, were performed on October 6, 1995 at three locations along the eastern edge of the existing boat repair yard. The approximate locations of the percolation tests are shown on Figure 2 and were determined in the field by taping from existing site features. Details of the field testing methods are summarized in Appendix A and the results of the percolation test are presented in Table A-1. Summary logs of the s oil conditions observed in the test holes excavated for the percolation tests are presented as Figure A-8 in Appendix A. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The fill and beach deposits underlying the site are potentially liquefiable during a strong motion earthquake. The near -surface fill could also be of variable density which could result in differential settlement. Landau Associates evaluated various foundation support alternatives, including pile foundation support, shallow footings below a basement level, shallow foundations after overexcavation and replacement of the loose soil, and ground improvement by vibroflotation. These alternatives were summarized in a technical memorandum prepared by Landau Associates dated October 6, 1995. The alternatives were further analyzed by the 1 12/07/95 JA173\005\13ESIGNAPT 4 ILANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. I architect and structural engineer with the pile foundation alternative recommended by the design team and selected by the Port. Foundation support of the proposed buildings may be provided by driven or drilled piles bearing in the very dense glacial outwash soil underlying the site. Recommendations are presented in the following sections for site grad ing, foundation support, floor slab support, lateral earth pressures, seismic design considerations, drainage considerations, and pavement construction. 4.1 SITE GRADING Site grading is anticipated to consist of demolishing or moving existing small structures at the site, placement of fill materials to establish planned subgrade elevations, installation of onsite utilities, and subgrade preparation for pavement and slab -on -grade floors. The first step of site preparation will consist of demolishing or moving the. existing structures located at the south end of the site and removal of existing utilities. All incidental excavations to remove existing foundation elements and site utilities should be backfilled in accordance with the recommendations contained in this section. The existing crushed surfacing will be suitable to support fill provided it is properly prepared. Prior to fill placement, the exposed surface should be proof rolled and compacted to a depth of at least 12 inches to achieve at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 test procedure. Fill material will be required to establish the planned subgrade elevations for pavements and floor slabs, which are expected to be about 1 ft above existing site grade. Since construction is planned for the winter months, an all-weather imported fill will be needed. Imported fill should consist of clean, well -graded sand and gravel material free of trash, wood waste and organics, or other deleterious material. The maximum particle size should not exceed 3 inches and the material should contain less than 5 percent fines (material passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve) based on the 3/4-inch minus fraction. Fill should be placed in relatively uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 to 10 inches thick, loose measure. Each lift should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). It is expected that the excavated material for site utilities should consist of relatively clean sand and gravel. This material would be suitable for trench backfill provided it can be placed and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. If the onsite soil cannot be 12/07/95 JA173\005\DES1GN.RPT 5 11 LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. utilized for trench backfill, then imported fill, meeting the requirements above, should be used for trench backfill. Trench backfill should be placed in relatively uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 to 10 inches thick, loose measure. Each lift should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). Trenches deeper than 4 ft should be appropriately sloped back or provided with adequate shoring, such as a trench box. Soil expected within the trench zone would be classified as Type B [Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155-664). If groundwater seepage is present, the soil would be classified as Type C (WAC 296-155-664). Surcharge loads on excavation support systems from construction equipment, stockpiled materials, and vehicle traffic should be included in the design of the shoring system. If cohesionless soil is allowed to dry, surface sloughing may occur. If groundwater is flowing or seeping into the excavation, an unstable condition and relatively rapid erosion of the sideslopes of the trench may develop. In addition, precipitation can cause erosion of the sideslopes of the trench. Actual trench configurations should be the responsibility of the contractor. All applicable local, state, and federal safety codes should be followed. All open cuts should be monitored by the contractor during excavation to detect any evidence of instability. - If instability is detected, the contractor should flatten the sideslope or install temporary shoring. 4.2 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL The medium dense, granular fill and beach deposits below the water table have the potential for liquefaction and strength loss during a major seismic event. The characteristics of a liquefaction -prone soil include: uniform grain size, low relative density, low plasticity, inorganic composition, and saturated condition. The saturated fill and beach deposits underlying the site have many of the characteristics of a liquefaction -prone soil. During a seismic event, ground shaking causes the buildup of excess porewater pressure and a decrease in the shear strength of the soil. With sufficient intensity and duration of ground shaking, the porewater pressure can become equal to or greater than the overburden pressure and the soil looses strength or liquefies. The liquefaction potential of the site soil was analyzed using the method of Seed (Seed, et al. 1983). Based on published data regarding seismic risk (Algermissen, et al. 1982), a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 30 percent of gravity (0.30 g) and a magnitude 7.5 earthquake 12/07/95 JA173\005\DES1GN.RPT 6 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. was assumed for this analysis. The computed factor of safety against liquefaction varied from over 1.5 to as low as 0.7 depending on location and depth. A factor of safety of 1.0 or less implies that liquefaction would occur during the design seismic event. The analyses also indicated that the liquefaction potential was non -uniform across the site. Liquefaction will tend to be confined to localized areas. If liquefaction of the saturated fill and beach deposits that underlie the site were to occur, ground settlement would likely occur as a result of post -liquefaction consolidation of the saturated fill and beach deposits. Based on the empirical methods to estimate liquefaction - induced ground settlements, we would expect ground surface settlements of about 1 to 11h inches. This settlement is expected to be nonuniform with potential differential settlement equalling the total settlement. At lower intensities of ground shaking, liquefaction of the saturated fill and beach deposits may not occur, but seismically induced ground shaking can result in surface settlement caused by particle rearrangement and consolidation of the granular soil underlying the site. 4.3 FOUNDATIONS Because of the liquefaction potential at the site, conventional spread -footing foundations could experience loss of support and adverse settlements during a seismic event. Liquefaction is expected to be confined to localized areas, resulting in a potential for. significant differential settlements between individual foundation members. To mitigate the potential of damage to the structure as a result of seismically induced ground settlements, we recommend the buildings be supported by pile foundations penetrating into the dense to very dense, glacial outwash deposits that underlie the site. The borings completed at the site indicated that suitable foundation. soils underlie the site at a depth of about 13 to 15 ft below existing site grades. 4.3.1 PILE CAPACITIES Pile foundations could consist of driven treated timber with a minimum tip diameter of at least 8 inches, 12-inch square prestressed concrete, 10-inch, 12-inch, or 16-inch diameter steel pipe piles, or 16-inch diameter cast -in -place augercast piles. Assuming a minimum pile penetration of between 7 to 10 ft into the bearing stratum, pile lengths will be about 20 to 23 ft below existing site grade. The recommended maximum allowable single pile capacities are summarized in Table 3. The maximum allowable downward and upward capacities include a 1 12/07/95 JA173\005\13ESIGNAPT 7 ILANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. factor of safety of 3.0 applied to the assumed frictional strength of the soil. Individual piles within a pile group should have a center -to -center spacing of at least 3 pile diameters. Pile foundations constructed as recommended in this report are expected to settle less than 1/2inch. Differential settlements between individual pile groups should be less than 1/4 inch. The majority of the settlement will occur during construction as the piles are loaded. 4.3.2 RESISTANCE To LATERAL LOADS Lateral loads will be resisted by passive earth pressure acting against piles, grade beams, and pile caps. For design purposes, the passive resistance acting against piles, the sides of the grade beams, and pile caps may be computed based on an equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic ft (pco. This value assumes drained conditions and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Below the water table (depth of about 5 ft), an equivalent fluid density of 100 pcf should be used for passive soil resistance against piles. The passive resistance can be assumed to act over 2 pile diameters or 1 pile spacing, whichever is less. Passive resistance will act over the width of the grade beams and pile caps. The allowable passive resistance values are based on the assumption of a horizontal surface of at least two times the depth of embedment in the direction of movement. The upper 12 inches of passive resistance should be neglected if the soil is not covered by floor slabs or pavement. If future plans call for the removal of the soil providing resistance, then passive resistance should not be considered. The allowable passive pressure has been reduced by 50 percent of the ultimate value to limit deformations to less than 1 percent of the embedded portion of the foundation. Recommendations for passive resistance against dynamic loads are presented in Section 4.6 of this report. 4.3.3 PILE FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Though not encountered in the borings completed at the site, cobbles and boulders may be present within the fill, beach deposits, or glacial outwash deposits; logs may be present within the beach deposits; and debris (such as wood and/or concrete) may be present within the fill. Any of these materials could be an obstruction to pile installation. If an obstruction is encountered near the surface, it may be possible to locally excavate to remove the obstruction prior to continuing with pile installation. For deeper obstructions, the pile may need to be abandoned and relocated, or possibly incorporated into the structure at a reduced capacity. 1 12/07/95 J:\173\005\DESIGN.RI'T 8 ILANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. I Timber piles should meet the requirements of ASTM D 25 and should be treated to resist decay. To prevent damage during driving, we recommend that the tips and butts of the timber piles be double -banded with steel straps to prevent brooming of the pile. Once the contractor has submitted the type of driving equipment to be used, Landau Associates should perform a wave equation analysis of pile driving (WEAP) to determine the required driving resistance (blows per ft) to achieve the design pile capacities, and to check that tensional and compressive stresses in the pile during driving are within tolerance. Pile driving is a dynamic process, and it is not uncommon for pile tip depths, as determined by driving resistance, to differ from the depths estimated by static methods of analysis. If the actual pile tip depth, as determined by driving resistance, were to exceed the estimated tip depth, then longer piles would be needed in the field. Since timber and concrete. piles cannot be easily spliced, it may be prudent to have the contract documents provide for installation of at least four test piles (two at each building location) to evaluate driving performance and to determine the required production pile length. Test piles are typically 10 ft or more longer than the pile length based on the estimated tip depth. Test piles are installed prior to production piles and may be incorporated into the final structure if they meet the required driving resistance. Augercast piles are installed by drilling to the required tip depth with a continuous flight auger mounted on leads. As the auger is withdrawn, grout is pumped under pressure out through the tip of the auger. During withdrawal of the auger, a head of about 10 ft of grout is typically maintained to prevent necking of the column of grout. After the auger is withdrawn, a rebar cage is inserted into the column of grout. Grout pressures and equipment loads during pile installation can disturb recently installed piles. It is recommended that no trucks or heavy equipment or new augercast pile construction be allowed within 8 ft of an augercast pile that is less than 12 hours old. Since the completed augercast pile is below ground and cannot be directly observed, judgement and experience must be used to aid in determining the acceptability of a completed augercast pile. This includes the observer's experience and the experience of the augercast pile contractor. The observer and contractor should work together to use past experience under normal operating procedures, as well as procedures established by the contractor for the current job, including such factors as installation sequence, auger withdrawal rate, grouting pressure, and quantity of grout used per pile. Variations from the established pattern, such as low grout pressure, excessive settlement of grout in the completed pile, etc., make the pile susceptible to 12/07/95 J:\173\005\DESIGN.RPT 9 I LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. I rejection. In order to provide an evaluation of the augercast pile installations, we recommend that the contractor be required to provide a pressure gage in the grout line between the pump and the auger, and some means of determining the quantity of grout used per pile (such as a stoke counter on the grout pump). We recommended that the installation of driven or drilled piles be observed by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist familiar with the pile foundation design. The geotechnical representative would evaluate the contractor's construction procedure, collect and interpret the installation data, monitor variations in subsurface conditions, and confirm the required penetration depths. 4.4 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT The floor slab could be'constructed as a conventional concrete slab -on -grade, provided the subgrade is prepared as recommended in Section 4.1 of the this report. However, a conventional slab -on -grade could be subject to seismically induced settlement. Support of the floor slab may also be provided by piles, or if seismically induced settlement of the floor slab is not tolerable. Regardless of the type of floor slab support, the floor slab should be underlain by at least 6 inches of compacted, clean, free -draining sand and gravel with less than 5 percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. The purpose of this layer is to provide uniform support for a slab -on -grade floor and a capillary break for either a slab -on -grade floor or a structural slab. Provisions should be made to allow this layer to drain freely to the foundation drainage system, which is described in Section 4.7 of this report. 4.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES Lateral earth pressures which develop against below -grade structures, such as retaining walls, utility vaults, and maintenance holes, will depend on the method of backfill placement, degree of compaction, backfill slope, type of backfill materials, drainage provisions, and the degree to which the wall can yield laterally during or after placement of backfill. When the wall is restrained against lateral movement or tilting, the soil pressure exerted is the at -rest soil pressure. Wall restraint may develop if a rigid structural network is constructed prior to backfilling or if the wall is inherently stiff or is restrained from rotation. However, if the wall 12/07/95 JA173\005\DM1GN.RPT 10 I LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. is allowed to rotate or yield so the top of the wall moves an amount equal to 0.002 times its height, the soil pressure exerted will be active soil pressure. We recommend that yielding walls with level backfill under drained conditions be designed for an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf for active soil conditions. Non -yielding walls under drained conditions should be designed for an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf for at -rest conditions. Design of any subsurface walls should include appropriate lateral pressures caused by any adjacent surcharge loads. For uniform surcharge pressures, a uniformly distributed lateral pressure of 0.30 and 0.40 times the surcharge pressure should be added for yielding and nonyielding walls, respectively. For undrained conditions, an equivalent fluid density of 80 pcf for the active case and 95 pcf for the at -rest case should be used to compute lateral earth pressures. The backfill placed behind below -grade walls should be free -draining sand and gravel with a maximum particle size not exceeding 3 inches and less than 5 percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve, based on a wet sieve analysis of that portion passing the U.S. No. 3/4 inch sieve. 4.6 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA The following values may be used in the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC) analysis of earthquake loads: seismic zone factor, z = 0.30; site coefficient, S2 = 1.2; ground motion response spectra given in UBC Figure 16-3 for Soil Type 2. Dynamic lateral pressures as a result of a 1-in-100 year seismic event (40 percent probability of occurrence in a 50-year period) should be. included in the design of below grade walls. A peak horizontal ground acceleration of 20 percent of gravity (0.20 g) was assumed in computing the dynamic earth pressures. A uniform lateral pressure of 4H psf (H is the vertical height of the wall in ft) should be added to the static lateral earth pressures. Dynamic lateral loads will be resisted by dynamic passive earth pressure. An ultimate dynamic passive resistance of 385 pcf should be used in place of the static passive pressure given in Section 4.5 and applied as an equivalent fluid density on the below -grade portion of the wall or foundation. The dynamic passive pressure assumes horizontal surface of at least twice the depth of embedment in the direction of movement and no groundwater. Below the groundwater table (depth of 5 ft), an ultimate passive resistance of 200 pcf should be used. No factor of safety is included in the above dynamic passive earth pressures. 1 12/07/95 JA173\005\DESIGNAPT I I F� LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. In order to mobilize the ultimate passive resistance, lateral displacements on the order of 5 to 10 percent of the embedment depth must occur. Because such deformations are usually not acceptable for most structures, it is common practice to reduce the ultimate value depending on the amount of tolerable deformation. Table 4 summarizes wall displacements, in terms of embedded wall height, required for mobilization of passive resistance. 4.7 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS We recommend that an exterior, footing drain system be constructed around the perimeter of the building foundations and behind any subsurface retaining walls. The drainage system should consist of a 4-inch diameter, smooth -walled, PVC perforated pipe placed in an envelope of 5/8-inch nominal drain gravel. The drain gravel should be completely surrounded by a non -woven geotextile material such as Nhrafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or equivalent. The footing drain should discharge to the site storm drainage system. Screened weep holes, 2 to 3 inches in diameter, should be provided through the exterior foundation stem walls to allow drainage of the underslab drainage layer. The screened weep holes should be higher than the exterior footing drain. The surface of the fill around the building should be properly graded to direct stormwater runoff away from the building. Roof drainage should not be introduced into the perimeter footing drain, but should be discharged directly to the stormwater system or other appropriate outlet by means of a tightline. Surface water should not be allowed to pond and infiltrate into the ground surface near buildings or paved areas. 4.8 STORMWATER INFILTRATION SYSTEM The percolation test rates presented in Appendix A are the actual field -measured values. It is appropriate to select an infiltration rate for design that considers the range of test results and soil types, and that also incorporates an appropriate factor of safety. The test results from test P-3 appear to be influenced by a gravel layer at the test depth. The more prevalent soil type appears to be fine to medium sand that was present in percolation test holes P-I and P-2 and above the gravel layer in P-3. For selection of a design infiltration rate, we recommend discounting the results from test P-3. The average of tests P-1 and P-2 with a factor of safety of 2.0 applied (consistent with conventional design practice) yields a design infiltration rate of 2.0 inches/hour. 1 12/07/95 JA 173 \005 \DESIGN. RPT 12 ILANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. Perched groundwater was encountered in the test holes at depths between 40 inches and 50 inches. We recommend that a depth to groundwater of 3.5 ft below the existing ground surface be assumed for design of the stormwater infiltration system. 4.9 PAVEMENT We understand that site paved areas will generally be used for pedestrian traffic and for car and light truck parking and drive areas. With preparation of the pavement subgrade as specified in Section 4.1 of this report, the recommended flexible pavement sections are summarized in Table 5. Base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) and meet the requirements for Crushed Surfacing in Section 9-03.9(3) of the 1994 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the American Public Works Association (APWA). 'Asphalt treated base (ATB) material should conform to the requirements of Section 4-06 of the 1994 WSDOT/APWA standard specifications. Asphaltic concrete should consist of Class B aggregate material and conform to the requirements in Section 5-04 of the 1994 WSDOT/APWA, standard specifications. 5.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS We recommend that Landau Associates be retained to review those portions of the plans and specifications that pertain to earthwork and foundation construction to determine if they are consistent with the recommendations presented in this report. We recommend that monitoring, testing, and consultation be provided during constructi on to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by our explorations; to provide expedient recommendations should conditions be revealed during construction that differ from those anticipated; and to evaluate whether geotechnical-related activities comply with project plans and specifications and the recommendations contained in this report. Earthwork and foundation activities include subgrade preparation, fill placement, and compaction; installation of pile foundations; and other related earthwork activities. Landau Associates would be pleased to provide these services for you. 12/07/95 JA 173 \005 \DESIGN. RPT 13 ILANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. I I 6.0 USE OF THIS REPORT This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Port of Edmonds and their design team for specific application to this project. The findings, recommendations, and opinions presented herein are based on the field explorations and observations. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, the analyses, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. We make no other warranty either express or implied. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project and look forward to continued involvement. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. DRS/EJH/ No. 173005.10 12/07/95 J:\173\005\DESIGN.RPT LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 X—zpc' 7" Edward J. Heavey, P.E. Senior Project Engineer and e s�' - —': - /' , �� Dennis R. Stettler, P.E. Principal 14 ILANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. REFERENCES Algermissen, S.T., Perkins, D.M., Thenhaus, P.C., Hanson, S.L., and Bender, B.L., 1982i Probabilistic Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity in Rock in the Contiguous United States, United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 82-1033. EPA. 1990. Design Manual, Onsite Waste Water Treatment and Disposal. U.S. Envirorunental Protection Agency. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Arango, 1., 1983, Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using Field Performance Data, journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 3, March, pp. 458-482. 12/07/95 J:\173\005\DESIGN.RPT 15 0 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. T CHERRY ST -T 13! Ptl PUGET. DR MELODY LN PROJECT LOCATION Biobim( Sy 'C A S P ST EACH SArLR VI e'p< i5 GLEN ST 0 Em 4 ISH— i.GL J- f A IT SPRAG�[ 2F 'T A I B rLL F1 ST A 0, Pi- ST MAI N I Y t=l' ST YbiT PARMA MAPLE ST ALDE WALNUTI WILDLIFE DA CEDAR ST CEW 'ft, SAACWY HOWELL W1Y �PA �R I R SPRUCE e ST ZE C) PI'v LLJ U. Zi --ST EDWOS P PT 6MEACN' -PC- MAXM F1 ST 26 BELLA COMA Lm E ST f iT I R QC: 2 0 D -mAL f I KUL -GOMWIN 226TH ST a- I e," - � -. . P 19 r DEER..�.. PARK RESERVE S VL 1/2 Scale in Miles Vicinity Map I Figure 1 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 13-3 0 Proposed Building A B-2 113-11 8NRR RR Tracks RR Tracks (spur) P-3 S 8-6 Admiral Way Proposed Building B Existing Paved Parking CL KEY CL 3 B-1 Approximate Borino Locotion 0 60 120 Op Approximate Percolation Test Location Scale in Feet :Iroposed Site and Expl6ration Plan Figure 2 TABLE I GROUNDWATER LEVELS Groundwater Elevation (ft) Boring No. 9/1/95 9/6/95 10/3/95 B-2 (top of casing at 7.4 7.5 7.4 Elevation 15.7 ft) B-5 (top of casing at 7.3 7.2 7.1 Elevation 15.4 ft) TABLE 2 RECOMMENDED MAMMUM ALLOWABLE PILE CAPACITIES Maximum Allowable Maximum Allowable Downward Capacity Uplift Capacity Pile Type (tons) (tons) Driven timber pile (minimum 8-inch 33 8 diameter tip) 16-inch diameter augercast pile 60 11 12-inch square prestressed concrete pile 76 10 10-inch diameter steel pipe pile 43 6 12-inch diameter steel pipe pile 60 7 16-inch diameter steel pipe pile 100 11 12/07/95 JA173\005\DES1GN.TAB LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. TABLE 3 PASSIVE RESISTANCE vs. WALL DEFLECTION I Wall Displacement (percent of embedment) Percent of Ultimate Passive Resistance >5 100 5 90 2 75 1 50 0 to 1 30 TABLE 4 RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS Asphaltic Concrete Base Thickness (inches) Thickness (inches) Crushed Rock Asphalt -Treated Base Car and light truck 2 4 2.5 parking and drives Truck drives 3 6 4 12/07/95 J:\173\005\DESIGN.TAB LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX A, e -Ek lor tion. -,;".�.Fi Id' a I APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS I BORINGS Subsurface conditions at the site were explored on August 30,1995 by drilling six borings witl-dn the footprint of the proposed buildings to obtain representative soil samples for visual logging and laboratory testing. The borings were completed to depths of about 211/2 to 411/2 ft below the existing ground surface by Cascade Drilling, Inc. of Woodinville, Washington with a truck -mounted CME 75 drill rig advancing a 4 1/4-inch inside diameter (ID), hollow -stem auger. The approximate location of the borings are shown on Figure 2. The exploration locations were determined in the field by taping from existing site features, and ground surface elevations at the boring locations were estimated from the survey base map prepared by Reid Middleton, dated September 1995. Field logging of subsurface soils and drilling conditions was carried out by a geotechnical engineer from Landau Associates, who continuously observed the explorations.and coordinated the field work. Representative soil samples from the borings were obtained at 2-1/2 ft and 5-ft intervals to the bottom of the boring. Samples were obtained with a 1 3/8-inch ID, split -spoon sampler driven 18 inches (or a portion there of) with a 140-pound, dowz-thole hammer on a wireline with a manual release, dropped from a height of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6 inches of penetration (or portion thereof) was recorded on the field logs. The. number of hammer blows to drive the 1 3/8-inch ID split -spoon sampler the last 12 inches (or portion thereof) of the 18-inch drive is termed the standard penetration test resistance (SPT) and is shown on the summary logs in this appendix. This resistance, or blow count, provides a qualitative measure of the relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency of a cohesive soil. Upon completion of drilling, borings B-1, B-3, B4, and B-6 were backfilled to near the surface with bentor�te chips and then capped with soil. A standpipe piezometer was installed in borings B-2 and B-5 for subsequent groundwater level measurements. Details of the piezometers are shown on the summary logs in this appendix. All soil encountered was described using the Soil Classification System presented on Figure A-1, in general accordance with ASTM D 2488 Standard Recomniended Practice for Description of Soil (Visual -Manual Procedures). Collected soil samples were placed in polyethylene 12/07/95 J:\173\005\DESIGN.AI'A A-1 ILANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. bags, sealed, labeled, and transmitted to our laboratory for evaluation and appropriate testing. The subsurface conditions are described in boring logs on Figures A-2 through A-7. Information presented in the summary logs depicts subsurface conditions only at the specified location and at the date designated on the log. Soil and water conditions at other locations may differ and changes also may result with the passage of time. FIELD PERCOLATION TESTING Percolation tests, P-1 through P-3, were performed on October 6, 1995 at three locations along the eastern edge of the existing boat repair yard. Percolation. tests were completed in accordance with the procedure outlined in Table 3-8 in EPA Design Manual, Onsite Waste Water Treatment and Disposal (1980). The percolation tests were completed by a geologist from Landau Associates. The approximate locations (shown on Figure 2) were determined in the field by taping from existing site features. Three test holes, P-1, P-2, and P-3, were excavated to depths of 53, 50 and 43 inches, respectively, and the soil conditions logged. The test holes were terminated when groundwater seepage was encountered. Summary logs of the soil conditions observed in the test holes are presented on Figure A-8. The test holes were about 9 inches in diameter and the bottom of each hole was lined with 2 inches of clean gravel. At least 12 inches of water was added to the holes and the water level was maintained for the required 4-hour soak period in test holes P-1 and P-2 prior to completing the percolation test. The water level in test hole P-3 could not be maintained because of rapid infiltration. Water was continually added to test hole P-3 for a period of about 1 hour prior to completing the percolation test. After the required soaking period, slough that had accumulated in the test holes was removed and water was added to 6 inches above the top of the gravel. The drop in water level was measured and recorded after a 30-minute period in P-1 and P-2. Because of the rapid infiltration at tes t hole P-3, the water level was measured and recorded after a period of 10 minutes. Immediately after measuring the water level, the water level in the test holes was adjusted to 6 inches above the gravel and allowed to percolate for a 30-minute period in P-1 and P-2, and a 10-minute period in P-3. This cycle was repeated until the percolation rate stabilized. The percolation rate was considered to be stable when the difference in the measured water level drop per time period was less than 1/16 inch from the previous cycle. The percolation rate was 12/07/95 J:\173\005\DESIGN.APA A-2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. I calculated based on the final reading. The results of the percolation tests are summarized in Table A-1. At the end of the testing, the holes were filled and the ground. surface restored to the original level. I 1 12/07/95 JA173\005\DESIGN.APA A-3 ILANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. o a o Soil Classification System uscs MAJOR GRAPHIC LETTER TYPICAL (2)(3) DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL(l) DESCRIPTIONS CLEAN oy Q.:0:,0 6%9 0 � 6., GW Well -graded grovel; grovel/sond mixture(s); GRAVEL AND GRAVEL little or no fines Q, 070voc *0. 6 GRAVELLY SOIL (Uttle or no fines) GP Poorly graded grovel; grovel/sond mixture(s); (More than 50% �,00 .0 0 - little or no fines GRAVEL NTH FINES � 'i of coarse fraction GM Silty grovel; grovel/sand/slit mixture(s) E retained on No.4 sieve) (Appreciable . * 0 Z CD CD amount of fines) 00 -0 - GC Clayey grovel; grovel/sand/cloy mixture(s) X C! c� 0 w in = SAND AND CLEAN SAND . .:.: �: I . I.. �.:. S W Well -graded send; gravelly send; little or no fines 0 SANDY SOIL (Little or no fines) SP Poorly graded send; gravelly sand; little or no fines 7.: 0 C, L) (More than 50% t of coarse fraction SAND NTH FINES a a SM Silty sand; sand/sUt mixture(s) passed through (Appreciable amount No.4 sieve) of fines) sc Clayey send; sand/cloy mixture(s) .9 ML Inorganic silt and very fine sand; rock flour; silty or 75 clayey fine send or clayey silt with slight plasticity 6 W SILT AND CLAY CL Inorganic cloy of low to medium plasticity. gravelly E 'FA (Liquid Limit less than 50) cloy, sandy cloy, silty cloy, lean day -6 CD C� OL Organic silt; organic. silty cloy of low plasticity X CD 0 r MH Inorganic silt; micaceous or diatomaceous fine sand 0 or silty soil u Z3 SILT AND CLAY CH Inorganic cloy of high plasticity. fat day (Liquid Limit greater than 50) OH Organic cloy of medium to high plasticity, organic silt HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL PT Peat; humus; swamp soil with high organic content OTHER AC Pavement; Asphalt or Concrete Notes: 1. USCS letter symbols correspond to the symbols used by the Unified Soil Classification System and ASTM Classification methods. Dual letter symbols (e.g., SM-SP) for a send or grovel indicate a soil With on estimated 5-15% fines. Multiple letter symbols (e.g.,ML/CL) indicate borderline or multiple soil classifications. 2. Soil classifications are based on the general approach presented in the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedurej, as outlined in ASTM 02488. Mere laboratory index testing has been conducted, soil classifications are based on the Standard 7est Method for Classification of Soils for Engineering Pufposes. as outlined in ASTM 02487. 3. Soil description terminology is based on visual estimates (in the absence of laboratory test data) of the percentages of each soil type and is defined as follows: Primary Constituent: >50% - *GRAVEL,' 'SAND," "SILT," "CLAY," etc. Secondary Constituents: >30% and _00% - *very gravelly," "very sandy,* "very silty.' etc. >15% and --' 30% - 'gravelly.* *sandy," 'silty," etc. Additional Constituents: >5% and -<,15% - *with grovel," "with sand," *with sit.' etc. �5% - 'trace grovel,* "trace send," *trace silt," etc.. or not noted. Key SAMPLE NUMBER & INTERVAL Sample Recovery Depth Interval Identification 01 Sample Depth Interval Number Portion of Sample Retained for Archive or Analysis LM7F/21 TEST DATA Code Description SAMPLER TYPE Code Description a 3.25-inch O.D.. 2.42-inch I.D. Split Spoon Sampler b 2.OD-inch O.D., 1.50-inch I.D. Split Spoon Sampler c Shelby Tube d Grob Sample e 3.00-inch I.D. Core Barrel Sampler 1 300-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop 2 140-lb Hammer. 30-inch Drop 3 Pushed 4 350-lb. Hammer. 30-inch Drop OTHER _V Approximate Water Elevation At Time of Drilling (AM) AM or On Date Noted Soil Classification System and Key Figure A-1 I LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. B-1 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE E N E 0 M Drilling Method: 4-1/4- HSA/SPT n z z 0 C N (n E > Q. Q. LL Cn Ground Elevation MI: 16.2 E _Z E Q. 0 m to U) -0 m cn .2 do cn S �Q� GW, 1-1/4- crushed SURFACING SP SM Brown. gravelly. fine to coarse SAND with silt 1 2b 31 2.6 (dense. moist) Ifill) 2 2b 13 3.5 4 Grades medium dense SP Geay, fine to medium SAND, scattered wood ATD 10 3 :�Ta 2b 17 fragments (medium dense. wet) Ibeach deposits) SW Gray. gravelly. tine to coarse SAND 4 YL 2b 48 11.7 (dense. wet) (glacial outwash deposits) 20 5 YC_ 2 b 50 _j 6- ........... Grades less GRAVEL. very dense 6 2b 6- Trace gravel 4 Sp Gray. fine to medium SAND with gravel and trace 30 7 2b 78 20.4 silt (very dense. wet) (glacial oulwash depositsl 4 8 ]F] 2b 49 Grades to fine sand. dense 40 9 TM 2b 48 Z - so M Z 1— 60 Bottom of boring at depth 41.5 ft; Backfilled with bentonite chips with soil cap Boring Completed 08/30/95 Total Depth : 41.5 It. Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text lof an explanation of subsurface conditions. 2. Refer to -Soil Classification System and Key- figure to( explanation of graphiCS and symbol& Boring B-1 Figure A-2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. B-2 SAMPLE ATA SOIL PROFILE E CL >. Z E 0 jo E Drilling Method: 4-1/4" HSA/SPT D Z 7a 0 LL 0 CL CL z (1) Ground Elevation Ift): 15.7 E E CL co 0 U).6 V) to 2 0 D 0 - GW, 1-1/4- Crushed SURFACING SP Brown. gravelly fine to coarse SAND (medium 1 2b 20 4.8 dense. moistl (fill) 2 2b 11 7.3 SP Dark gray. fine to medium SAND. 1-inCh 9-6-9! —10 - 3 jk 2b 14 bed of fine sandy silt Imedium dense. wet) (beach deposits) WELL DETAIL 6- -1 =177concrate ,Bentonite Chips a 9-1-95 10-3-95 SP Gray. fine to medium SAND with trace fine Sand Pack gravel (very dense. wet) (glacial outwash 4 2b 63 deposits) 2-inch Diameter Schedule_ 80 PVC Screen (0.02-inch Slot) —20 - 5 2b 61 LLLJ Gray. gravelly. fine to coarse SAND (very dense. wet) (glacial outwash deposits) Boring Completed 08/30/95 Well Completed 08/30/95 1 Total Depth = 21.5 It. I 30 40 50 5 60 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. Boring B-2 Figure A-3 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. SAMPLE DATA CL Z 0 E >� 0 E 3 1.- Z Z zz 0 0 > - LL s s? Q Q. CL E E 41) W m 0 V) -a U) M D —0 SP 1 ]�; 2b 11 4.6 2 ]j� 2b 16 15.4 Tru 10 3 2b 1 34 Sp SVY 4 2b 48 20 5 2b 79 7.5 ............ 50 6 2b SP 50 30 7 2b ...... 5.5" 50 40 50 C3 C3 60 0 0 0 B-3 SOIL PROFILE Drilling Method: 4-1/4- HSA/SPT Ground Elevation (ft): 15.5 1-114" crushed SURFACING Brown. gravelly fine to coarse SAND (medium dense. moist) (fill) Gray. silty. fine to medium SAND with gravel. scattered bits of wood Imedium dense. wet) (beach deposits) ATD Dark gray. fine to medium SAND (dense. wetj Ibeach deposits) Gray. gravelly. fine to coarse SAND with trace silt Idense. wet) (glacial outwash deposits) Gray. fine to medium SAND Ivery dense. wet) Iglacial outwash deposits) 0 2b — I .... � 1 1 5" Bottom of boring at depth 35.9 ft; / Al Am I Backfilled with bentonite chips with soil cap Boring Completed 08/30/95 Total Depth = 35.9 ft. Notes: 1. Straligraphic contacts are based on lield interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 2. Refer to -Soil Classification System and Key- figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. Boring B-3 Figure A-4 LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. SAMPLE DATA 'i .0 CL Z 0 .0 E 0 .0 Z z Z 0 >. W E > W;5 U. 11 V CLZ E U) rz s— cn .0 1 U) .12: 03 2 !a! (D D —0 SIR 61 ...... 1 3W 2a — 6- 3.1 2 ];� 2b 14 11.4 SIA Sp —10 3 2b 15 25.8 Sp 4 2b 23 —20 51W 2b 50 5" 6 IjE 2b 50 5" 30 7 2b 50 6" 8 2b 50 22.5 5" 40 9 ]jj 2b 50 50 M 60 0 / 11A, F/AW L*-jV I SOIL PROFILE Drilling Method: 4-1/4- HSA/SPT Ground Elevation (ft): 15.0 1-1/4" crushed SURFACING Gray. gravelly. fine to coarse SAND (medium dense. moist) (fill) Brown. gravelly. fine to coarse SAND (medium dense. wet) (fill) Gray. medium SAND (medium dense. wet) (beach deposits) Gray. fine to medium SAND with gravel (medium dense. wet) (glacial outwash deposits) Grades very dense Grades with fine gravel Grades fine to medium sand Bottom of boring at depth 41.3 ft; ' Backfilled with bentonite chips with soil cap Boring Completed 08/30/95 Total Depth : 41.3 ft. _V ATD Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 2. Refer to -Soil Classification System and Key- figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. Boring B-4 Figure A-5 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. B-5 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE WELL DETAIL 10 .0 E :1.a CL �-% z Z E 0 .0 E Drilling Method: 4-1/4" HSA/SPT Z > 0 LL 0 :1. W Q -a Ground Elevation Ift): 15.4 EZ E 3: Q 'n 6" 0 Cn .6 Cn to 2 (5 S —0 -.JQZ� GW, 1-1/4" crushed SURFACING Concrete 1 2b 12 5.4 ::::: SP Brown. gravelly fine to coarse SAND (medium dense. moist) (fill) 2 .2b 50 — 4.4 6' Bentonite Chips SP Gray. fine to medium SAND (medium dense. -�z 9-1-95 9-6-95 —10 3 2b 13 wet) (beach deposit) 1 - - 5 SW Gray. fine to coarse SAND with fine gravel (dense. wet) 1glacial outwash deposits) Sand Pack 4 2b 31 2-inch Diameter Schedule 80 PVC Screen ...... (0.02-inch Slot) —20 5 2b 55 ....... Boring Completed 08/30/95 Well Completed 08/30/95 Total Depth z 21.5 It. 30 40 S-50 60 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 2. Refer to "Soil Classilication System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. Boring B-5 Figure A-6 LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. Mi. SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE E Mz Q Z E 0 10 E Drilling method: 4-1/4- HSA/SPT Z 0 LL 0 U) cn r CL -a 0 cn Ground Elevation (ft); 15.1 E E CIL -a W U) .2 00 2 D 0 GW, 1-1/4- Crushed SURFACING 2b 11 3.9 SID Brown. gravelly fine to coarse SAND Imedium dense, moist) (fill) 2 2b 27 11.3 10 3 -K I 2t) 1 32 4 :jj; 2b 68 20 5 ]�; 2b 67 20.7 6 JE I 2b 1 71 1 20.3 "V Gray. fine to coarse SAND with gravel. AT[ wood fibers (dense. wet) lbeach depositsl Gray. gravelly. fine to coarse SAND (very dense. well (glacial oulwash deposits) �ip Gray. fine to medium SAND with silt and trace .SM fine gravel (very dense. wet) (glacial oulwash I deposits) 30 7 JE 2b 52 SP Gray. tine to medium SAND with silt Ivery dense. 8 k 2b 65 Sm wet) 11glacial. outwash deposits) Bottom of boring at depth 36.5 ft; 40 Backfilled with bentonite Chips with soil cap Boring Completed 08/30/95 Total Depth : 36.5 ft. so 60 Notes: 1. Straligraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text lot an explanation of subsurface conditions. 2. Refer to -Soil Classification System and Key- ligure for explanation of graphics and symbols. Boring B-6 Figure A-7 J ! LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. ir 5 5 0 U) 0 E P-1 Unified Soil Classification Depth System (ft) Symbol Description 0-12 GW Gray -brown, angular GRAVEL with sand and silt (dense, moist) (crushed surfacing) 12-35 SP Brown, gravelly, fine to medium SAND with trace silt (medium dense, moist) (fill) 35-53 SP Light brown, fine to medium SAND with gravel and trace silt (medium dense, moist) (fill) Becomes wet at about 50 inches Test hole completed to 53 inches on 10/6/95. Groundwater seepage encountered at 50 inches. P-2 Unified Soil Classification Depth System M Symbol Description 0-7 GW Gray -brown, angular GRAVEL with sand and silt (medium dense, moist) (crushed surfacing) 7-43 SP Brown, gravelly, fine to medium SAND with trace silt (medium dense, moist) (fill) 43-50 SP Brown, fine to medium SAND with gravel and trace silt (medium dense, moist) Becomes wet at 50 inches Test hole completed to 50 inches on 10/6/95. Groundwater seepage encountered at 50 inches. P-3 Unified Soil Classification Depth System M Symbol Description 0- 11 GW Gray -brown, fine to medium GRAVEL with sand and sift (medium dense, moist) (crushed surfacing) 11 -37 SP Brown, gravelly, fine to medium SAND with trace silt (medium dense, moist) (fill) 37-43 SP Brown, medium GRAVEL with sand and trace silt (medium dense, moist) Becomes wet at 40 inches Test hole completed to 43 inches on 10/6/95. Groundwater seepage encountered at 40 inches. Note: Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. Refer to Soil Classification System figure for additional information on symbols and terminology. I FZ 3A � Log of Percolation Test Holes Figure A-8 LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. TABLE A-1 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS Depth Percolation Rate Test No. (inches) (min/in) Soil Type P-1 53 12.0 Light brown, fine to medium sand with gravel, trace silt P-2 50 18.5 Brown, fine to medium sand with gravel, trace silt P-3 43 3.5 Brown, medium gravel with sand, trace silt 12/07/95 J:\173\005\DESIGN.APA LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 'APPENDIX'B- L or Ato to es in ly- I APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were conducted in our laboratory on representative samples for the purposes of classification and determination of their physical properties. The work was performed in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard test procedures. The samples were checked against the field log classifications, wl-dch were updated where appropriate in general accordance with ASTM D 2487, Standard Test Method for Classftation of Soils for Engineering Purposes. NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT Natural moisture content determinations were performed on selected soil samples in borings, B-1 through B-6, in general accordance with ASTM D 2216. The results are shown at the respective samples depths in the column labeled "Moisture Content" on the boring logs in Appendix A. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES Sieve analyses were performed on selected samples in accordance with ASTM D 422 to determine the grain size distribution of soil retained on the U.S. No. 200 sieve (particle sizes larger than 75 pm). The results of the grain size analyses are included in this appendix on Figures B-1 through B-3. I I I I 1 12/07/95 JA173\005\DESIGN.APB B-1 I LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. M M M M M M M = = = = = = = M M = = = 1 12' 100 90 80 70 60 50 LL- - 40 C: Q) U 30 Q- 20 10 n 1000 LooDort BuildinQ/Geotech. Report (A) 11/95 U.S. Standard Sieve Size 3- 1-1/2' 3/4' 1/2- 3/8- 1/4- 4 810 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 Z ... ..... .... .. .......... .... .... F 11"', -T- I"'JI . ..... I T V .... ....... ..... ... .......... .. .. .. .. UI.... ... ..... .... I ... .......... .. . ..... ff 1"" .... ....... 1* —T ....... ............... .. I ... I ... ..... ... ....... . *11, 4 1 .... ..... 4. ...... I:. I ... . .... .. . N . ..... .. I V. .... ....... .. ... . ..I .. .......... .... .. .... ..... ...... .. ..... .. . I\ .... ...... ........ ... ..... * . ......... .... .... ...... I V, I I' T .... ...... . ..... .... .......... I I I I I F . .. I I j ....... T'.. I .. I I ... I .... ..... . ... **I**" .. .......... * 3i I . I- "T 11. . T ... I . .... ... .. ...... I T . .. .1. . .. ... ... .... ........ .. .1 .... ... .......... I J. .1 A .... ..... I ....... i 100 10 1.0 0.1 Grain Size in Millimeters IBoulders Cobbles I I Grovel I Sand Silt or Cloy I Coarse F—Fine 1coorsel Medium I Fine 601oration h f)"; "d Soli be crip q�n umber t4 M et PAP,,! It M B-1 1 2.5 — 4.0 sm—Sw Gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with sil t 3 A"--& B-1 4 15.0 — 16.5 SP Gravelly, fine to coarse SAND 12 G---El B-1 7 30.0 — 31.5 SID Fine to coarse SAND with grovel 20 *—X B-5 1 2.5 — 4.0 SP Gravelly. fine to coarse SAND 5 Gradation Curve 911 _FFigure B-1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C, rn 173005.10 Port of Edmonds Marine 12' 100 90 80 (�m 70 60 50 .C: LA- 40 30 20 10 n 1000 Support Buildings/Geolech. Report (A) 11/95 U.S. Standard Sieve Size 3- 1-1/2' 3/4- 1/2'3/8'1/4' 4 810 16 20 30 Ald 50 60 100 140 200 ............ ....... ...... .... . ...... ....... . ..... .... .... ....... .. ..... I ... ..... .... .. .......... .. . ..... I ...... 1:. fl .. .. .... .. ..... . ... ... . I.... . V .... ....... I .... .. I I I ... ..... ... I .. .......... .. ..... ...... .. ... .... ... . ....... .... ... .... 1. T. .. .. . ..... ..... I., P . .. ... ... . ... . ...... .... ....... ....... ... ..... ... I. .. .......... .... ..... I ...... V. .1 .. .. .... ..... ....... ..... ....... 1... .4 .... ........ I I... I ..... I ... I .. ..... .... I ... .......... ...... 1., .4 . .. .. .... ... . ..... . .... .. .......... ... ... r I . V .... ....... ....... .. ..... .... I .. .......... -1 .. ..... . . ...... 'T' f T I . .... ... I .. ...... ... ... .... .... ........ ....... ..... .... ..... .......... ..... . ..... ....... .. .. ... .... .... . .... . ...... . W-I 11 A.. .... ........ M.......... A ..... .... 1. ... .... ....... .1 .......... ........ ........ . ...... .... 100 10 1.0 0.1 0.01 Grain Size in Millimeters 0.001 IBoulders Cobbles I I Grov Sand Silt or Cloy I Coarse I Fine ICoarsel Medium I Fine rnbol �i E lion xplora Obrnber 1:. .Nu Oeptlk Un! 6d So!! Wfi OV" h C , 0 $oO 'Description .: t Ufa B-3 5 20.0 — 21.5 GP —S Fine to coarse sandy GRAVEL 8 B-4 3 10.0 — 11.5 P Fine to Medium SAND 26 G---El I B-4 8 1 35.0 — 35.2 SP—Sm Fine to medium SAND with silt 23 911 Gradotion Curve Figure B-2 il Port of E 100 90 80 70 60 50 LA- , 40 c Q) U 30 20 10 o AJ 1000 /Morine Supply Building/Caotech. Report (A) 11/95 U.S. Standord Sieve Size 12- 3- 1-1/2' 3/4-1/2-3/8-1/4' 4 810 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 2DO 100 10 1.0 0.1 0.01 Groin Size in Millimeters IBoulders Cobbles I I Grove Sond Silt or Clay I Coarse I Fine lCoorsel Medium I 'Fine S�Imbol xPloratlon D�Oth (it)* 46: 1 UnIfIdd Soil Soil''D e*icr*ipklo'n" G----o B-6 6 25.0 — 26.5 Sm -Silty, Fine to medium SAND 21 & --- a B-6 8 35.0 — 36.5 SIVI—Sp Fine to medium SAND with silt 20 AlGradation Curve Figure B-3