014 Pavement Analysis ReportEarth Science + Technology
Geotechnical Engineering Services Report
Weyerhaeuser Way South, 320th Street to SR 18
Weyerhaeuser Campus Property
Federal Way, Washington
for
Federal Way Campus, LLC
August 29, 2017
Geotechnical Engineering Services Report
Weyerhaeuser Way South, 320th Street to SR 18
Weyerhaeuser Campus Property
Federal Way, Washington
for
Federal Way Campus, LLC
August 29, 2017
1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200
Tacoma, Washington 98402
253.383.4940
August 29, 2017| Page i
File No. 22247-004-00
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ........................................................................................ 1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................... 1
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 2
3.1. Geology Review ........................................................................................................................................... 2
3.2. Surface Conditions...................................................................................................................................... 2
3.3. Existing Pavement Conditions .................................................................................................................... 2
3.3.1. Existing Pavement Section ......................................................................................................... 2
3.3.1. FWD Testing ................................................................................................................................ 2
3.3.2. Visual Condition Survey .............................................................................................................. 3
4.0 PAVEMENT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 3
4.1. Anticipated Vehicle Loading ....................................................................................................................... 3
4.2. Pavement Analysis and Design Parameters ............................................................................................. 4
4.2.1. Pavement Design Criteria ........................................................................................................... 4
4.2.2. Subgrade and Material Strength Coefficients ........................................................................... 4
4.3. Estimated Remaining Design Life .............................................................................................................. 5
5.0 PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 5
5.1. General ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
5.2. Alternative 1 – Fully Reconstructed or New Pavement ............................................................................ 5
5.2.1. General ........................................................................................................................................ 5
5.2.2. Alternative 1 Discussion and Construction Considerations ..................................................... 6
5.3. Alternative 2 – Overlay ............................................................................................................................... 6
5.3.1. General ........................................................................................................................................ 6
5.3.2. Alternative 2 Discussion and Construction Considerations ..................................................... 6
5.4. Alternative 3 – Grind and Overlay .............................................................................................................. 7
5.4.1. General ........................................................................................................................................ 7
5.4.2. Alternative 3 Discussion and Construction Considerations ..................................................... 7
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 8
7.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A. FWD Results and Data
Appendix B. Visual Condition Survey Summary
Figures B-1 through B-4– Site Photographs
Appendix C. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
August 29, 2017| Page 1
File No. 22247-004-00
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
GeoEngineers is pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the Weyerhaeuser Way
Improvement project in support of the Weyerhaeuser Campus Property in Federal Way, Washington. The
project will ultimately include roadway improvements on two segments of Weyerhaeuser Way. The southern
segment will be from the eastbound State Route (SR) 18 on and off ramps to the roundabout that connects
to 33rd Place South. This segment will support the development of Warehouses A and B. The northern
segment of the project will be from South 336th Street to South 320th Street. For this phase of the project,
only improvements of the southern segment are being analyzed and designed. A Vicinity Map of the
approximate project boundaries is provided as Figure 1. A Site Plan is provided as Figure 2. The bridge over
SR 18 is not part of this study.
We understand that the City of Federal Way has required that the design team “…perform pavement
analysis per AASHTO along the truck route to ensure the existing pavement can accommodate the expected
truck load.” Based on information provided by ESM and TENW the proposed traffic with the expected truck
load will be based on the existing daily traffic volume with an additional 400 truck and trailers per day. The
purpose of our services is to evaluate the impact of this additional truck traffic in order to address this
comment.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of our services is to investigate the existing condition of the pavement, estimate remaining
design life and to provide recommendations for pavement improvements or overlays. Our services have
been provided in general accordance our signed Confirming Agreement (dated and signed June 14, 2017).
A summary of our specific scope of services is provided below.
1. Reviewing readily available published literature and in-house files regarding soil and groundwater
conditions in the project vicinity.
2. Obtaining a street use permit from the City of Federal Way to perform pavement tests within the right-
of-way (ROW).
3. Coordinating traffic control services for use during pavement testing.
4. Performing subgrade testing using a Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD).
5. Performing a visual evaluation of the roadway surface based on the U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Pavement Moisture Accelerated Distress Identification System
as outlined in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide
for Design of Pavement Structures.
6. Providing a general discussion of site conditions based on our review, observations, and testing.
7. Providing an estimate of the expected remaining life of the existing pavement. Estimates will be based
on the results of FWD testing and our observation and will be quantified in terms of Equivalent Single
Axel Loads (ESALs). We also converted traffic data provided by TENW to estimated ESALs per year in
order to estimate remaining life of the existing pavement in terms of years.
August 29, 2017| Page 2
File No. 22247-004-00
8. Developing options for pavement repairs and overlays; including overlays of the existing pavement
section, partial removal of the pavement section, and full pavement replacement.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1. Geology Review
We reviewed the Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties,
Washington (Booth, D. B., Waldron, H. H., and Troost, K. G.: U.S. Geological Survey SIM-2854, scale
1:24,000).
The mapped geologic unit across the entire project area is Vashon till (Qvt). Vashon till deposits are
considered glacially consolidated soils as they were deposited below glacial ice. Glacially consolidated soils
are typically dense to very dense due to being compressed (consolidated) by the weight of the overlaying
glaciers. Glacial till typically consists of a homogenous mixture of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders.
3.2. Surface Conditions
Weyerhaeuser Way South is in southeastern Federal Way, Washington; the project area discussed in this
report is between 33rd Place South on the north side and the SR 18 eastbound on and off ramps. The
roadway is two traveled lanes in each direction with a left-turn lane and is bordered with concrete gutters
on the east and west edges over a majority of the site. The southern portion of Weyerhaeuser Way South
crosses over SR 18 with an approximate 200-foot span overpass. The site is generally level with a slight
increase in elevation as the road progresses south near the SR 18 overpass section of the road and the
elevation decreases south of the overpass. The overall topography of the surrounding area slopes
downward from the southwest to the northeast. The lower side of the slope on the west side of the road is
well below the roadway elevation; indicating portions of the west side of the road was constructed on fill.
3.3. Existing Pavement Conditions
3.3.1. Existing Pavement Section
Based on plans from the most recent construction, dated August 25, 1999, on Weyerhaeuser Way South
the existing pavement has two different profiles. The inside (left) lanes have 2.5 inches of newer asphalt
overlaying the previous asphalt section, while the outer (right) lanes have 6 inches of asphalt underlain by
a 2-inch thick base coarse. We did not core the pavement. These thicknesses have not been independently
confirmed.
3.3.1. FWD Testing
Deflection testing by means of FWD was completed by Pavement Services Inc. (PSI) on June 7, 2017. Tests
were performed in the left and right lanes in the north and southbound directions at approximate 200-foot
intervals. Test results were normalized to a 9,000-pound load. A summary of the back-calculated subgrade
modulus and pavement structural numbers for each lane in each direction are summarized in Table 1.
below. FWD test data and back-calculations are included in Appendix A of this report.
August 29, 2017| Page 3
File No. 22247-004-00
TABLE 1. FWD RESULTS SUMMARY
Travel Direction and Lane Subgrade Modulus (Mr) (psi) Effective Structural Number of
Existing Pavement Section (SNeff)
Northbound Right Lane 7,600 2.12
Northbound Left Lane 9,100 1.85
Southbound Right Lane 10,000 2.13
Southbound Left Lane 10,000 1.92
3.3.2. Visual Condition Survey
We completed a visual condition survey of the existing pavement generally following the techniques
described in the AASHTO/FHWA Pavement Moisture Accelerated Distress Identification System.
The primary types of pavement distress observed in our visual survey included: fatigue (alligator) cracking,
depressions, longitudinal cracking, patch deterioration, and potholes. Table B-1 in Appendix B summarizes
the severity of distress observed along Weyerhaeuser Way South during our visual survey. Definitions of
the different distress types are provided in Table B-2 and photos showing examples of some of the distress
types observed are provided as Figure B-1 through Figure B-4 in Appendix B.
Based on our evaluation, it is our opinion that average section of existing pavement is showing signs of
“medium” distress severity with some isolated areas showing signs of “high” distress. Based on AASHTO
criteria, this is consistent with asphalt that is on average about 60 to 70 percent the strength and resilience
of new asphalt. This is consistent with the measurements made from the FWD testing. As a comparison,
crushed rock or completely deteriorated asphalt still provides about 30 percent of the strength and
resilience of new asphalt.
Little to no rutting was observed with exception of the pavement surrounding a manhole located about
150 feet north of the eastbound off-ramp in the right-hand turn lane. Moderate to severe rutting was
observed in this area. The rutting surrounding the manhole is likely due to deeper depths of under
compacted fill, leading to isolated settlement of the pavement subgrade in these areas.
4.0 PAVEMENT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
4.1. Anticipated Vehicle Loading
Traffic volumes were provided by TENW. Existing traffic conditions were based on a field traffic count
performed from June 13, 2017 to June 20, 2017. TENW also provided estimated growth rates and the
estimated increase in truck traffic as a result of the proposed development. These estimates include the
predicted effects of both the Warehouse A and B sites.
The AASHTO design methodology quantifies traffic loading in terms of 18-Kip ESALs. In order to evaluate
the pavement and provide a design we converted the traffic estimates to ESALs. We assumed that every
automobile (bicycles, cars, and light trucks) applies an average of 0.0013 ESALs. We assumed that the
trucks would be carrying standard shipping containers or similarly weighted trailers. We used a typical truck
weight and a standard distribution of shipping container weights (developed by Port of Long Beach) to
August 29, 2017| Page 4
File No. 22247-004-00
calculate an average loading per truck. Based on this method, we estimate that every truck applies an
average of 1.2 ESALs.
The existing daily traffic counts shows that trucks make up 3.8 percent of the total daily traffic. Based on
guidance from TENW we assumed the proposed traffic would increase by an additional 400 trucks
(200 each way) per day.
It is common to include a growth rate for existing traffic counts to account for typical increase of traffic over
the design life. Because the proposed development will cause additional traffic on top of the additional
truck traffic, a higher growth rate was used to determine the ESALs for this case.
The estimated ESALs over the entire design life were determined by calculating the current daily ESAL value,
based on the existing traffic counts, and extending the daily value over a 20-year design life with the
corresponding growth rates.
The variables provided to us by TENW and the resulting ESAL calculations for a 20-year design period are
summarized in Table 2 below.
TABLE 2. DESIGN ESAL SUMMARY
Design Condition Total Daily Traffic
(One Way)
Daily Truck Traffic
(One Way) Growth Rate Total EASLs
(20 years)
Anticipated Traffic
without proposed development 11,130 200 2% 2,676,000
Anticipated Traffic
with proposed development 11,530 400 4% 7,793,000
4.2. Pavement Analysis and Design Parameters
The pavement design parameters we used in our analyses are summarized below. The parameters we used
for our analysis are based on guidance and data from AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures
1993 (AASHTO), Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Pavement Policy June 2011
(WSDOT), and the results from the FWD testing (FWD).
4.2.1. Pavement Design Criteria
■ Standard Deviation = 0.45 (new pavement); 0.49 (overlay) (AASHTO)
■ Reliability = 85 percent (WSDOT)
■ Initial Serviceability = 4.2 (AASHTO)
■ Terminal Serviceability = 2.5 (AASHTO)
4.2.2. Subgrade and Material Strength Coefficients
■ Subgrade Modulus (Mr) = 8,500 pounds per square inch (psi) (FWD)
■ Crushed Surfacing Base Course (Mr) = 30,000 psi (WSDOT)
■ Crushed Surfacing Base Course Structural Coefficient = 0.13 (WSDOT)
■ Existing Asphalt Structural Coefficient = 0.30 (FWD)
August 29, 2017| Page 5
File No. 22247-004-00
■ New Asphalt Structural Coefficient =0.45 (WSDOT)
4.3. Estimated Remaining Design Life
We estimate that the pavement currently has a remaining serviceable life of about two to three years, if no
rehabilitation of the roadway is performed. This estimate is based on our visual assessment of the surface,
the FWD results, and the measured traffic volumes without accounting for additional traffic from the
proposed development. This is consistent with a pavement section with a 20-year design life constructed
around 1999 or 2000.
5.0 PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. General
We developed pavement sections for three improvement alternatives, for each traffic loading condition and
are described briefly below. Detailed recommendations for each alternative are provided in the subsequent
sections. Our recommended pavement sections were developed in general accordance with AASHTO 1993
Flexible Pavement Design Standards.
Alternative 1: Remove existing pavement, compact existing subgrade soils in place and construct uniform
pavement section across the site (Fully Reconstruct Pavement).
Alternative 2: Repair highly damaged areas and overlay existing pavement (Overlay).
Alternative 3: Remove upper layers of the existing pavement by grinding (cold planing), repair highly
damaged areas, and overlay existing pavement. (Grind and Overlay).
It is our opinion that all three alternatives will be required for pavement rehabilitation. Different approaches
will be used in different locations. In areas where there are no adjacent curb and gutter or where the curb
and gutter will be rebuilt, an overlay is appropriate and likely the most efficient option. In our opinion, an
overlay should be used wherever practical. In areas where there are transition to existing infrastructure
such as curbs, gutters, and driveways, the overlay will need to be transitioned by first grinding or planing
the existing asphalt. These transitions can also be made in low traffic areas, such as bike lanes, without
impacting the resilience of the main roadway. In highly damaged areas, newly paved areas, or in areas
where the reconstructed pavement must adjoin existing infrastructure and a grind and overlay is impractical
due to site grading, a fully reconstructed or new pavement section will be required.
5.2. Alternative 1 – Fully Reconstructed or New Pavement
5.2.1. General
The design pavement section for Alternative 1 assumes that the entire existing pavement section will be
removed, the existing subgrade soils will be compacted in place, and a new pavement section will be built
on top of the existing subgrade soils.
Alternative 1 Recommended Pavement Section – Existing Traffic Condition
■ 5.5 inches AC (Minimum Class ½ inch PG 64-22; WSDOT Standard Specifications 5-04, 9-02, and
9-03).
August 29, 2017| Page 6
File No. 22247-004-00
■ 10.0 inches of Crushed Surfacing Base Course (WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.9(3) compacted
to 95 percent of Maximum Dry Density [MDD]. Contractor may choose to use Crushed Surfacing Top
Course in the upper 2 inches of the section to assist with grading).
Alternative 1 Recommended Pavement Section – Proposed Traffic Condition
■ 6.5 inches AC (Minimum Class ½ inch PG 64-22; WSDOT Standard Specifications 5-04, 9-02, and
9-03).
■ 11.5 inches of Crushed Surfacing Base Course (WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.9(3) compacted
to 95 percent of MDD. Contractor may choose to use Crushed Surfacing Top Course in the upper
2 inches of the section to assist with grading).
5.2.2. Alternative 1 Discussion and Construction Considerations
The subgrade soils should be thoroughly compacted to a uniformly firm and unyielding condition prior to
constructing the roadway section or placing structural fill. We recommend that subgrades be proof-rolled
or probed, as appropriate, to identify areas of yielding or soft soil. Proof-rolling should be accomplished with
a heavy piece of wheeled construction equipment such as a loaded dump truck or grader.
If soft or otherwise unsuitable areas are revealed during proof-rolling that cannot be compacted to a stable
and uniformly firm condition, we recommend that: (1) the unsuitable soils be scarified (e.g., with a ripper
or farmer’s disc), aerated and recompacted; or (2) the unsuitable soils be overexcavated and replaced with
compacted aggregate for gravel base, effectively increasing the pavement section. Overexcavation should
extend until uniformly firm soils are encountered as determined by a representative from our firm.
5.3. Alternative 2 – Overlay
5.3.1. General
An overlay could be considered to extend the life of the existing pavement. Following design methodology
presented in the AASHTO 1993 Flexible Pavement Design manual we estimate that an asphalt concrete
(AC) overlay of 4 inches will be necessary to accommodate the existing traffic volumes and 5.5 inches for
the proposed traffic will be necessary to accommodate the design traffic volumes over a 20-year design
life. Even with a thicker overlay, there is still a potential for reflective cracking to occur, so ongoing
maintenance (crack sealing) of the overlay could be required.
5.3.2. Alternative 2 Discussion and Construction Considerations
Prior to an overlay, we recommend that that highly deteriorated pavement sections and sections with ruts
receive a full depth replacement following our recommendations for Alternative 1. Based on our visual
assessment we expect that most of these full depth repairs will occur in 2-foot wide segments in the wheel
tracks. We recommend that for preliminary budgeting purposes you assume that about 2,500 linear feet
of wheel track (about 5,000 square feet) will need to be repaired. Actual repair limits should be based on
a more detailed evaluation of the pavement condition just prior to construction.
A relatively thin overlay, on the order of 4 to 5.5 inches as is recommended, will provide short-term
improvements to the roadway; however, reflective cracking is likely to occur along existing pavement cracks
and in areas where the existing pavement sections are deteriorating. The onset of reflective cracking will
be influenced by the thickness of the overlay and the traffic loading. Generally, the thicker the overlay, the
longer the duration before reflective cracking begins to occur. We anticipate that some reflective cracking
could begin to propagate into the overlay within about a year of placement. Additional roadway strength,
August 29, 2017| Page 7
File No. 22247-004-00
resistance to reflective cracking, and extended service life of the overlay section could be achieved by
incorporating a fiberglass reinforcement grid into the overlay. If included, we recommend that the overlay
be placed in two or three lifts and the reinforcement grid be installed between the first two lifts. Installation
of the fiberglass reinforcement should follow the manufacturer’s recommendations. For product reference,
we recommend GlassGrid 8511 TF by Tensar International or a similar product. This product has an integral
tack film on it that is supposed to eliminate the need for a tack coat and adhere to the new pavement.
Glass grid can also be used to provide pavement strength and reduce the thickness of an overlay. However,
more advanced analysis techniques, beyond the standard AASHTO analysis, would be needed to confirm
and design this alternative. We can provide additional information on the use of fiberglass reinforcement if
requested.
5.4. Alternative 3 – Grind and Overlay
5.4.1. General
Alternative 3 assumes that the existing pavement section will be ground down or planed at least 3 inches,
prior to placing the new asphalt overlay. Planing should be performed in accordance with WSDOT Standard
Specification 5-04.3(14) Planing Bituminous Pavement.
Alternative 3 Recommended Pavement Section – Existing Traffic Condition
■ 6 inches asphalt concrete (Minimum Class ½ inch PG 64-22; WSDOT Standard Specifications 5-04,
9-02, and 9-03)
■ 3-inch thick cold plane asphalt pavement removal with full rebuild of isolated areas.
Alternative 3 Recommended Pavement Section – Proposed Traffic Condition
■ 7.5 inches AC (Minimum Class ½ inch PG 64-22; WSDOT Standard Specifications 5-04, 9-02, and 9-03)
■ 3-inch thick cold plane asphalt pavement removal with full rebuild of isolated areas.
5.4.2. Alternative 3 Discussion and Construction Considerations
Pavement damage, including minor to moderate cracking and sever alligator cracking is expected to be
exposed once the upper asphalt layers are removed. These exposed cracks are expected to result in some
reflective cracking after rehabilitation. As described in the overlay alternative, glass grid can be used to
mitigate these effects or reduce the overlay thickness.
After the grinding and prior to an overlay, we recommend that highly deteriorated pavement sections and
sections with ruts receive a full depth replacement following our recommendations for Alternative 1. Based
on our visual assessment we expect that most full depth repairs will occur in 2-foot wide segments in the
wheel tracks. We recommend that for preliminary budgeting purposes you assume that 3,000 linear feet
of wheel track (about 6,000 square feet) will need to be repaired. Actual repair limits should be based on
a more detailed evaluation of the pavement condition prior to construction. This is a larger estimate than
provided for the overlay. Pavement that is already highly damaged can be further damaged by grinding or
planing the surface, accordingly the repair sections could need to be expanded.
August 29, 2017| Page 8
File No. 22247-004-00
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
Based on our observations and analysis, it is our opinion that pavement in the project area is approaching
the end of its useable life. It will likely require significant repairs or need to be rebuilt within the next two to
five years, depending on the City’s tolerance for the condition of the pavement and the ride quality of the
road. This repair or replacement will be required even without the increase in traffic from the proposed
development.
The proposed development is expected to nearly triple the loading on the pavement (in terms of EASLs).
However, this additional traffic loading only results in an additional 1 to 2 inches of asphalt than would be
required for a repair or replacement to accommodate the existing traffic loading conditions.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for Federal Way Campus, LLC, for the Weyerhaeuser Way South, 320th Street
to SR 18 Weyerhaeuser Campus Property located in Federal Way, Washington. Federal Way Campus, LLC,
may distribute copies of this report to owner’s authorized agents and regulatory agencies as may be
required for the Project.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with
generally accepted practices for geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared.
The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report are based on our professional
knowledge, judgment and experience. No warranty, express or implied, applies to the services or this report.
Please refer to Appendix C titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for additional information
pertaining to use of this report.
µ
SITE
Vicinity Map
Figure 1
Weyerhaeuser Way Pavement EvaluationFederal Way, Washington
2,000 2,0000
Feet
Data Source: Mapbox Open Street Map, 2017
Notes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.
Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N
P:\22\22247004\GIS\MXDs\2224700400_F01_SouthSite_VicinityMap.mxd Date Exported: 07/28/17 by cchelf
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Weyerhaeuser Way SWeyerha
e
u
s
e
r
W
a
y
S 33rd Pl SS 344th St28+00
SR 18SR 1810+00
18+00
20+00
24+00
26+00
22+00
16+00
14+00
12+00
Site Plan
Weyerhaeuser Way Pavement EvaluationFederal Way, Washington
Figure 2
µ200 0 200
Feet
Legend
FWD Analysis Point
!(Northbound Left Lane
!(Northbound Right Lane
!(Southbound Left Lane
!(Southbound Right Lane
E
Approximate Project Stationing as Established by Pavement Services, Inc.
Notes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet
P:\22\22247004\GIS\MXDs\2224700400_F02_SouthSitePlan.mxd Date Exported: 07/28/17 by cchelf
Data Source: Aerial from King County 2015
10+00
APPENDIX A
FWD Results and Data
Weyerhaeuser WayFederal Way, WAAASHTO Backcalculation Analysis ResultsProject No. 17019Index No.Test Station LaneCorrected Subgrade Mr, psiPavement Modulus (Ep), psiSNeff1 11+00 NB LL 13,830174,9051.512 14+98 NB RL 9,570643,0672.333 15+02 NB LL 12,714213,2611.614 16+55 NB RL 7,197245,5031.695 17+00 NB LL 8,277204,8161.596 18+00 NB RL 6,450-28,074-0.827 19+00 NB LL 8,452163,9461.488 20+00 NB RL 5,700255,5861.719 21+00 NB LL 8,788386,5801.9710 22+11 NB RL 8,8471,065,9182.7613 25+00 NB LL 9,115624,4152.3115 27+00 NB LL 2,527762,9862.4717 10+76 SB LL 15,870192,6181.5618 11+09 SB RL 13,874179,9661.5219 14+59 SB LL 9,308424,9242.0320 16+33 SB LL 10,165167,6801.4921 17+00 SB RL 10,708138,4571.4022 18+00 SB LL 9,427216,7731.6223 19+00 SB RL 9,848111,4131.3024 20+00 SB LL 8,528669,1942.3626 22+00 SB LL 9,529341,4661.8928 23+99 SB LL 6,836812,8042.5229 25+00 SB RL 8,0901,369,4783.0031 27+00 SB RL 8,1901,039,7432.7433 29+01 SB RL 9,1151,144,2062.82Pavement Services, Inc.
APPENDIX B
Visual Condition Survey Summary
August 29, 2017| Page B-1
File No. 22247-004-00
APPENDIX B
VISUAL CONDITION SURVEY SUMMARY
Table B-1 below summarizes the primary pavement distress types we observed during our visual condition
survey. Definitions of different distress types for asphalt concrete are provided in Table B-2. The distress
definitions are taken from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Distress Identification Manual
(Publication No. FHWA-RD-03-031, June 2003). Photographs of some of the distress types are provided as
Figure B-1 through Figure B-4.
TABLE B-1. OBSERVED PAVEMENT DISTRESS
Observed Distress
■ Low to severe fatigue cracking*
■ Low depression
■ Low to severe longitudinal and transverse cracking*
■ Low to moderate patch deterioration
■ Low to moderate potholes*
■ Moderate rutting near storm drain*
Note:
* Photos of distress provided in Figure B-1 through Figure B-4 in Appendix B.
TABLE B-2. ASPHALT CONCRETE DISTRESS DEFINITIONS
Distress Type Definition
Fatigue Cracking A series of small, jagged, interconnecting cracks caused by failure of the AC surface
under repeated traffic loading (also called alligator cracking).
Depression Localized pavement surface areas with elevation slightly lower than those of the
surrounding pavement.
Longitudinal Cracking Cracking parallel to the centerline of the pavement.
Patch Deterioration Distress occurring within a previously repaired area.
Potholes A bowl-shaped hole of various sizes in the pavement surface.
Rutting Longitudinal surface depressions in the wheel paths.
Figure B-1
Pavement Distress Photo:
Fatigue Cracking of AC Pavement
Weyerhaeuser Way South
Federal Way, Washington
22247-004-00 Date Exported: 080417
Figure B-2
Pavement Distress Photo:
Longitudinal Cracking
22247-004-00 Date Exported: 080417Weyerhaeuser Way South
Federal Way, Washington
Figure B-3
Pavement Distress Photo:
Potholes
Weyerhaeuser Way South
Federal Way, Washington
22247-004-00 Date Exported: 080417
Figure B-4
Pavement Distress Photo:
Rutting/Settlement
22247-004-00 Date Exported: 080417Weyerhaeuser Way South
Federal Way, Washington
APPENDIX C
Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
August 29, 2017| Page C-1
File No. 22247-004-00
APPENDIX C
REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1
This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report.
Read These Provisions Closely
It is important to recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology and
environmental science) rely on professional judgment and opinion to a greater extent than other
engineering and natural science disciplines, where more precise and/or readily observable data may exist.
To help clients better understand how this difference pertains to our services, GeoEngineers includes the
following explanatory “limitations” provisions in its reports. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you need to
know more how these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” apply to your project or site.
Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects
This report has been prepared for Federal Way Campus, LLC and for the Project(s) specifically identified in
the report. The information contained herein is not applicable to other sites or projects.
GeoEngineers structures its services to meet the specific needs of its clients. No party other than the party
to whom this report is addressed may rely on the product of our services unless we agree to such reliance
in advance and in writing. Within the limitations of the agreed scope of services for the Project, and its
schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with Federal Way
Campus, LLC dated June 14, 2017 and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time
this report was prepared. We do not authorize, and will not be responsible for, the use of this report for any
purposes or projects other than those identified in the report.
A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report is based on a Unique Set of Project-Specific
Factors
This report has been prepared for the proposed Weyerhaeuser Way improvement project in support of the
Weyerhaeuser Way South, 320th Street to SR 18, Weyerhaeuser Campus Property in Federal Way,
Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the
scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, it is
important not to rely on this report if it was:
■ not prepared for you,
■ not prepared for your project,
■ not prepared for the specific site explored, or
■ completed before important project changes were made.
1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org.
August 29, 2017| Page C-2
File No. 22247-004-00
For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect:
■ the function of the proposed structure;
■ elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure;
■ composition of the design team; or
■ project ownership.
If changes occur after the date of this report, GeoEngineers cannot be responsible for any consequences
of such changes in relation to this report unless we have been given the opportunity to review our
interpretations and recommendations. Based on that review, we can provide written modifications or
confirmation, as appropriate.
Environmental Concerns are Not Covered
Unless environmental services were specifically included in our scope of services, this report does not
provide any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations, including but not limited to, the
likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed.
The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by man-made events
such as construction on or adjacent to the site, new information or technology that becomes available
subsequent to the report date, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or
groundwater fluctuations. If more than a few months have passed since issuance of our report or work
product, or if any of the described events may have occurred, please contact GeoEngineers before applying
this report for its intended purpose so that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the
continued reliability or applicability of our conclusions and recommendations.
Geotechnical and Geologic Findings are Professional Opinions
Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling
locations at the site. Site exploration identifies the specific subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data
and then applied its professional judgment to render an informed opinion about subsurface conditions at
other locations. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from the opinions
presented in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations are not a warranty of the actual
subsurface conditions.
Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations are Not Final
We have developed the following recommendations based on data gathered from subsurface
investigation(s). These investigations sample just a small percentage of a site to create a snapshot of the
subsurface conditions elsewhere on the site. Such sampling on its own cannot provide a complete and
accurate view of subsurface conditions for the entire site. Therefore, the recommendations included in this
report are preliminary and should not be considered final. GeoEngineers’ recommendations can be
finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers
August 29, 2017| Page C-3
File No. 22247-004-00
cannot assume responsibility or liability for the recommendations in this report if we do not perform
construction observation.
We recommend that you allow sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation during construction by
GeoEngineers to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the
explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes if the conditions revealed during the work
differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork activities are completed in accordance
with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most
effective means of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. If another party performs
field observation and confirms our expectations, the other party must take full responsibility for both the
observations and recommendations. Please note, however, that another party would lack our project-
specific knowledge and resources.
A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation
Misinterpretation of this report by members of the design team or by contractors can result in costly
problems. GeoEngineers can help reduce the risks of misinterpretation by conferring with appropriate
members of the design team after submitting the report, reviewing pertinent elements of the design team’s
plans and specifications, participating in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and providing
construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs
Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation
of field logs and laboratory data. The logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Photographic or electronic
reproduction is acceptable, but separating logs from the report can create a risk of misinterpretation.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance
To help reduce the risk of problems associated with unanticipated subsurface conditions, GeoEngineers
recommends giving contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, including these
“Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use.” When providing the report, you should preface it with a clearly
written letter of transmittal that:
■ advises contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that its
accuracy is limited; and
■ encourages contractors to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the
specific types of information they need or prefer.
Contractors are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects
Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor’s procedures, methods,
schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for
managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and adjacent properties.
August 29, 2017| Page C-4
File No. 22247-004-00
Biological Pollutants
GeoEngineers’ Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment
of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations,
recommendations, findings or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of
Biological Pollutants, and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants as
they may relate to this project. The term “Biological Pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi,
spores, bacteria and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts.
A Client that desires these specialized services is advised to obtain them from a consultant who offers
services in this specialized field.