20-101386-Geotechnical (Soils) Report-05-07-2020-V2Earth Science + Technology
Geotechnical Engineering Services Report
Proposed Greenline Warehouse A Project
Federal Way, Washington
for
IRG, LLC
March 9, 2017
Geotechnical Engineering Services Report
Proposed Greenline Warehouse A Project
Federal Way, Washington
for
IRG, LLC
March 9, 2017
1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200
Tacoma, Washington 98402
253.383.4940
March 9, 2017| Page i
File No. 22247-001-02
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1
SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................... 1
SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Surface Conditions............................................................................................................................................... 3
Mapped Geologic Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 3
Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Groundwater ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 4
General ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Site Development and Earthwork ....................................................................................................................... 5
General .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Stripping and Clearing .................................................................................................................................. 5
Subgrade Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Excavation ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Excavation Support ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Wet Weather Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 7
Fill Materials ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
On-site Soils ................................................................................................................................................... 8
Select Granular Fill ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Pipe Bedding ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Crushed Rock ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Fill Placement and Compaction .......................................................................................................................... 9
General .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Area Fills and Bases ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Building Pad Subgrade .............................................................................................................................. 10
Trench Backfill ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Temporary and Permanent Slopes .................................................................................................................. 10
Groundwater and Drainage Considerations .................................................................................................... 11
Seismic Design Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 11
2015 IBC Seismic Design .......................................................................................................................... 11
Foundation Support .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Shallow Foundations .................................................................................................................................. 12
Bearing Capacity ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Footing Subgrade Preparation .................................................................................................................. 12
Foundation Settlement .............................................................................................................................. 12
Lateral Resistance ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Building Pad and Floor Slabs .................................................................................................................... 13
Retaining Structures ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Pavement Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 14
Pavement Design ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Stormwater Infiltration Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 15
March 9, 2017| Page ii
File No. 22247-001-02
LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 15
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site Plan Existing Conditions
Figure 3. Site Plan Proposed Conditions
Figure 4. Schematic Drawing Hillside Fill
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing
Figure A-1 – Key to Exploration Logs
Figures A-2 through A-7 – Logs of Borings
Figures A-8 through A-20 – Logs of Test Pits
Figures A-21 through A-24 – Sieve Analysis Results
Appendix B. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
March 9, 2017| Page 1
File No. 22247-001-02
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the Proposed Greenline
Warehouse A, to be located on a 19-acre parcel within the former Weyerhaeuser property in Federal Way,
Washington. The proposed development site is bordered to the west by Weyerhaeuser Road, to the north
and east by Weyerhaeuser Way, and to the south by forested ground. Figure 1 shows the site location.
Figure 2 shows the approximate current layout of the site.
The parcel is presently forested and mostly undeveloped. The site contains relatively flat ground in the east
and west, separated by a low slope, which descends downward to the east. Two north-south oriented and
one east-west oriented gravel-covered driveways/trails are located within the site. We understand that
these features were access roads to a residential development that occupied the north part of the site until
about 1978. Recently deposited fill soils and organic debris and concrete bunkers associated with a former
landscaping operation are located in the east-central part of the site (Figure 2).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Our understanding of the proposed project is based on information provided by ESM, Inc. and our project
meetings. The information includes a preliminary site plan dated February 17, 2017 and two preliminary
design cross sections through the site. We completed a geotechnical study in June 2016 for a previously
considered warehouse development (Victory) on this parcel. The proposed Victory warehouse was to cover
about 314,000 square feet. This included a 239,000-square-foot by 60-foot-high bay area of freezer rack
storage
We understand that the currently proposed development will comprise a new warehouse, asphalt-concrete
(AC) pavement and Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement in parking and access areas. We understand
the building will cover about 225,950 square feet and will be about 44 feet in vertical height. Parking for
up to 264 vehicles is planned for the development. The proposed building footprint is located within the
approximate north 2/3 of the previously considered Victory structure footprint.
The final floor slab is planned to be at about Elevation 403 feet. This will require cuts of up to 10 feet in
height on the west side and up to 11 feet of fill in the southeast corner of the building pad. Cuts and fills
will also be required for the parking areas. We understand that 2H:1V (horizontal:vertical) cut slopes will be
used to establish planned grade along the west site boundary. Similarly inclined fill slopes are planned for
the east perimeter of the site. Structural retaining walls (maximum height of 8 feet) for fills are planned for
the site entrance at the southeast project corner. The wall types had not been specified at the time of this
report. The proposed Greenline Warehouse A project layout is shown in Figure 3.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of our services is to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the planned
development, based primarily on subsurface explorations completed for a previous study at the site. Our
services have been provided in general accordance with the confirming agreement dated March 9, 2017.
Specifically, GeoEngineers scope includes:
March 9, 2017| Page 2
File No. 22247-001-02
1. Reviewing proposed Greenline project plans provided by the design team. This includes a proposed
clearing and grading plan and site cross sections.
2. Comparing the Greenline project plans with the June 2016 Victory plans.
3. Performing a brief geologic reconnaissance to evaluate current (March 2017) surface conditions at
accessible portions of the site.
4. Reviewing subsurface data from explorations completed by us during the Victory phase of the project.
Logs of these explorations and laboratory data are attached to this report.
5. Describing site conditions based on our site observations, review of published maps/aerial
photographs and laboratory test results, and on the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions
encountered in the borings and test pits.
6. Developing recommendations for site preparation and earthwork based on the data and our
understanding of the proposed site development. This includes an evaluation of the suitability of on-
site soil for use as fill including structural fill beneath the building and pavement areas, and gradations
criteria for imported fill. A discussion of possible adverse effects of weather on construction activities
and suitability of on-site soil during wet weather conditions is also provided.
7. Providing recommendations for temporary and permanent slopes.
8. Providing recommendations for shallow foundation support, including footing size, allowable soil
bearing pressure and estimated post-construction settlements.
9. Discussing footing construction considerations including excavation, bearing surface preparation,
material requirements and compaction requirements.
10. Providing subgrade preparation recommendations and modulus of subgrade reaction for design of
slabs-on-grade.
11. Evaluating lateral earth pressures for design of below-grade structures, such as, dock-high walls and
stormwater vault walls.
12. Providing recommendations for seismic design in accordance with 2015 International Building Code
(IBC) and local standards. This includes an assessment and discussion of liquefaction potential and
estimated ground settlement, and a discussion of potential remedial measures, as applicable.
13. Providing recommendations for pavement subgrade preparation and AC pavement design sections for
both automobile and truck traffic areas.
14. Discussing drainage considerations for construction based on the conditions encountered in our
explorations.
15. Developing a preliminary opinion regarding feasibility of stormwater infiltration based on the soils
encountered in our prior explorations. Our opinion is based on empirical relationships between the
laboratory data and soil permeability and our experience.
March 9, 2017| Page 3
File No. 22247-001-02
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The site occupies two relatively level areas, which are separated by a slope that descends downward to the
east. The slope is located in the approximate center of the site and is oriented generally north to south.
Existing ground surface ranges from about Elevation 419 feet in the northwest to about Elevation 380 feet
in the southeast. The existing site layout is shown in Figure 2.
The site is currently vegetated with a thick stand of second or third growth fir, cedar and deciduous trees
with a moderate to thick understory of brush. Isolated small wetland areas are mapped in the east portion
of the site, in a general north-south line, as shown in Figure 2. We observed evidence of a north-south
oriented drainage in the area of the wetlands during our site visits. Surface water was not observed in the
drainage areas during our April-May 2016 site visits. We observed surface water in some of these areas
during our March 2017 site reconnaissance. We observed dark, organic-rich soils exposed at the ground
surface within the wetland and drainage areas at the time of our site visits.
Stockpiles of soil fill, organic materials and concrete bunkers associated with a former landscaping
operation were observed in the east-central portion of the site. The fill soils appeared to have been end-
dumped from dump trucks. Evidence of older fill stockpiles were also observed in this area. We observed
remnants of downed trees in this area during our March 2017 site reconnaissance. The approximate
location and extent of these features are shown in Figure 2.
Former residential street access roads were observed at the site, as also shown in Figure 2. The roadways
appeared to be surfaced in gravel, however, it also appeared that asphalt-concrete pavement underlies the
gravel in some places. We understand that a residential development occupied the north part of the site
from between 1943 and about 1978, based on a review of aerial photos.
Mapped Geologic Conditions
General geologic conditions in the site vicinity were evaluated by reviewing “Geologic Map of the Poverty
Bay 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington, 2004” prepared for the United States
Geological Survey (USGS). Native geologic materials mapped at and in the site vicinity consist of Vashon-
age Glacial Till (map symbol Qvt). Vashon till was deposited by and directly beneath the advancing Vashon-
age glacier as it moved south through the site area. The deposit typically consists of a dense to very dense
mixture of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles and some boulders.
Subsurface Conditions
Six borings and 16 test pit explorations were completed at the site between May 24 through May 27, 2016
as part of our study for the originally planned Victory development concept. Additional explorations were
not considered necessary based on the proposed location of the Greenline Warehouse, relative to the
previously completed borings/test pits.
Details of the field exploration and laboratory testing programs completed for the previous Victory
development study are summarized in Appendix A. The exploration logs and results of the laboratory testing
program are also presented in Appendix A. The approximate locations of all the explorations are shown in
Figures 2 and 3.
March 9, 2017| Page 4
File No. 22247-001-02
Fill, consisting of brown to black silty sand with wood and plastic debris was encountered in test pit TP-13
to a depth of about 5.5 feet. A thin layer of gravel fill was encountered at ground surface in borings B-3, B-4
and B-5 to a depth of 1.5 to 2 feet.
Varying thicknesses of forest duff and/or topsoil and sod were encountered from ground surface in the
other explorations. The organic material/duff layer ranged from about 6 inches to about 2.5 feet thick in
the explorations. All explorations encountered and were terminated in glacial deposits. Dense to very dense
glacial till was encountered beneath loose to dense or medium stiff to stiff weathered till and/or fill in the
explorations. The unweathered glacial till, where present, was encountered to depths ranging from about
2.5 feet to about 8 feet below existing ground surface (bgs) in the explorations. The glacial till deposits
typically consist of a mixture of silty gravel and silty sand with varying amounts of gravel and occasional
cobbles and boulders. Layers or lenses of stiff to hard silt with sand and gravel are occasionally present
within the weathered and unweathered glacial till at some locations.
Laboratory testing on select samples of the glacial soils yielded fines contents (material passing the U.S.
#200 sieve) ranging from 18 to 72 percent. In-place moisture contents ranged from 6 to 35 percent.
Groundwater
Groundwater was observed in B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-6 at depths ranging between about 6 feet and 19 feet
bgs. Minor groundwater seepage was observed in TP-3, TP-7, TP-8 and TP-9 at depths ranging between
about 1.5 and 10 feet bgs.
A seasonal, perched groundwater table often forms in glacial deposits. Based on the site geologic
conditions, our experience and recent observations, we expect groundwater seepage amounts and the
depths at which it occurs will vary with season and precipitation. Larger zones of perched groundwater
should be expected/ anticipated during the wetter winter and early spring months.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and testing program, it is our opinion that the site is
suitable for the proposed development. A summary of the primary geotechnical considerations for the
proposed warehouse facility is provided below. The summary is presented for introductory purposes only
and should be used in conjunction with the detailed recommendations presented in this report.
■ The native soils contain a moderate to high percentage of fines and are very sensitive to small changes
in moisture content. These soils are susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic when the
moisture content is more than a few percent above the optimum moisture content for compaction.
These soils will be difficult, if not impossible, to work or compact when wet or if earthwork is performed
in wet weather. Therefore, it is more economical to perform earthwork during the normally drier periods
of the year. Moisture conditioning of site soils will be required in order to obtain the required
compaction.
■ We anticipate that the native soils and existing site fill will only be suitable for use as structural fill
during extended periods of dry weather. We recommend imported granular soils be used for structural
fill if construction occurs during periods of wet weather.
March 9, 2017| Page 5
File No. 22247-001-02
■ Some cutting and filling is planned to establish site grades. We recommend graded areas be protected
before the onset of rainy weather because of the highly moisture sensitive character of much of the on-
site soil.
■ We recommend constructing temporary haul roads underlain by quarry spalls or coarse crushed ballast
material to help protect subgrades from disturbance and degradation under construction traffic.
■ The proposed warehouse structure may be satisfactorily supported on continuous and isolated shallow
foundations supported on native soils or compacted structural fill that extends to undisturbed native
soil. We recommend a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf)
for design of footings.
■ Floor slabs may be supported on-grade. We recommend floor slabs be underlain by a capillary break
layer consisting of a 4-inch thickness of well-graded sand and gravel or crushed rock with a maximum
particle size of 3/4 inch and less than 5 percent fines (portion passing the U.S. Standard #200 sieve).
Site Development and Earthwork
General
Site development work will include removing existing trees and vegetation, stripping of forest duff, topsoil
and root layer, cutting in the west part of the site and placing fill in the east/southeast portions of the site
to achieve a level building pad. The site soils are highly moisture sensitive due to high fines content. Grading
and reuse of the on-site soils is more practical during the dry season (typically July through September).
Moisture conditioning necessary to obtain proper compaction of on-site soil will likely not be practical during
the cooler and wetter winter months, and may still present challenges during the normally dry summer
months. We recommend a contingency be included in the project budget and schedule for export of
unsuitable wet on-site soil and import of select granular soil if earthwork will be performed during periods
of wet weather, which normally occurs in the winter months.
The following sections provide our recommendations for earthwork, site development, and fill materials.
Stripping and Clearing
The existing trees, shrubs, topsoil, unsuitable native soils and unsuitable fill soils should be stripped and
removed from all proposed building and pavement areas. Based on our explorations, the depth of stripping
to remove unsuitable surface organic materials should generally vary between 6 and 24 inches. Greater
stripping depths will be required to remove localized zones of loose or organic rich soil and tree roots. The
primary roots systems for trees and shrubs should be completely removed. Required stripping depths
should be evaluated based on observations during the stripping operation. Stripped organic material should
be transported off site for disposal or processed and used as fill in landscaping areas.
Unsuitable existing fill materials were encountered in some of our explorations. Unsuitable fills should be
anticipated in the north part of the site where residential development formerly existed. The contractor
could encounter debris, septic tanks and other unsuitable materials in these areas. We recommend that
these materials be removed. The contractor might also encounter domestic water wells in this area and
should be prepared to abandon these features in accordance with Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology) regulations.
March 9, 2017| Page 6
File No. 22247-001-02
Unsuitable organic-rich native soils should be expected in wetland areas and within the drainage area within
the east part of the site. These soils may contain a high percentage of organic materials and must be
removed where present in areas of the site where fills, pavements or structures are planned.
The stockpiled fill soils and organic-rich materials within the landscape materials storage area should also
be removed from the site. Asphalt concrete within existing trail areas should also be removed. Abandoned
subgrade utilities beneath these trail areas should be anticipated and removed as necessary.
Subgrade Evaluation
After stripping, and excavation to planned subgrade is complete we recommend the exposed soil be
proofrolled or probed and then compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. If dry weather conditions
persist, we recommend that the subgrade be evaluated by proofrolling with a loaded dump truck or similar
heavy rubber-tired construction equipment to identify soft, loose or unsuitable areas. Proofrolling must be
conducted prior to placing fill. If the subgrade is prepared during or exposed to wet weather, we recommend
that it be evaluated by probing with a steel probe rod.
The proofrolling/probing should be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer, who will evaluate the
suitability of the subgrade and identify any areas of yielding, which are indicative of soft or loose soil. If soft
or otherwise unsuitable areas revealed during proofrolling cannot be compacted to a stable and uniformly
firm condition, we recommend that: (1) the subgrade soils be scarified (e.g., with a ripper or a farmer’s
disc), aerated and recompacted; or (2) the unsuitable soils be excavated to firm soil and replaced with
structural fill, as recommended by the geotechnical engineer.
Excavation
We anticipate large dozers with rippers may be required for mass grading where the subgrade comprises
unweathered glacial till. Conventional earthmoving equipment in proper working order should be capable
of making necessary excavations for utilities and footings. We recommend that footing and trench
excavations be performed using a smooth-blade bucket to prevent excessive disturbance of the excavation
base.
Boulders and large cobbles are often present in glacial till deposits in the area and will likely be encountered
during grading and/or utility excavations. Accordingly, the contractor should be prepared to remove
boulders, if encountered. Boulders may be removed from the site or buried in landscape areas. Voids
caused by boulder removal must be backfilled with structural fill.
Excavation Support
Shallow excavations (4 feet or less) in dense glacial deposits should stand at near vertical inclinations,
provided groundwater seepage is not present in the cut face. Excavations deeper than 4 feet must be
shored or laid back at a stable slope if workers are required to enter.
Shoring for utility excavations must conform with the provisions of Title 296 Washington Administrative
Code (WAC), Part N, “Excavation, Trenching and Shoring.” Regardless of the soil type encountered in the
excavation, shoring, trench boxes or sloped sidewalls will be required under Washington Industrial Safety
and Health Act (WISHA). While this report describes certain approaches to excavation and dewatering, the
contract documents should specify that the contractor is responsible for selecting excavation and
March 9, 2017| Page 7
File No. 22247-001-02
dewatering methods, monitoring the excavations for safety and providing shoring, as required, to protect
personnel and adjacent structures.
Wet Weather Recommendations
Trafficability of the on-site soils will be severely limited during wet weather, or if the subgrade moisture
content is more than a few percentage points above optimum. When wet, the on-site soils are susceptible
to disturbance and generally will not provide adequate support for construction equipment. The on-site soils
will be difficult, if not impossible, to adequately work or compact during periods of wet weather.
Site Grading
If site grading and fill placement occurs during wet weather conditions the following recommendations
should be included in the development plan. Stripping and site preparation should be accomplished using
track-mounted equipment and subgrade protection measures should be used. For example, a track-
mounted excavator equipped with a smooth-edged bucket could be used working from a developed surface
or a granular pad and loading into trucks supported on granular haul roads or working outward from the
stripped surface. If the site subgrade is wet, it should be evaluated by probing with a steel rod, rather than
by proofrolling. Soil that is disturbed during site preparation activities during wet conditions, as well as soft
or loose zones identified during probing, should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill.
Granular Haul Roads and Working Blankets
Wet weather construction in the silty native or fill soils will require granular haul roads and granular pads
under the building structures to protect the subgrade. If the pavement areas are constructed during wet
weather, they will also require a granular working blanket.
The use of granular haul roads will be necessary for support of construction traffic during the rainy season
(typically from October through June). Based on our experience, 18 to 24 inches of sand and gravel (which
could be gravel base or fill material), crushed rock or quarry spalls with little to no fines will be necessary
to provide support for construction equipment. Use of a geotextile fabric can reduce mixing of the subgrade
and road support materials. It also may reduce the thickness of surfacing required. If gravel base material
is used, the temporary roads could be constructed above the finished subgrades and extra material bladed
onto other areas of the site when the roads are no longer necessary.
Wet-Weather Fill
We recommend fill placed during wet weather be select granular fill (pit run) or crushed rock as described
in the “Fill Materials” section of this report.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
The site will be susceptible to erosion during wet weather conditions, particularly if large segments of
exposed subgrades are exposed to rainfall. Development, implementation and adherence to an Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Plan should reduce the project impact on erosion-prone areas. The Plan should
be designed in accordance with applicable city, county and/or state standards. The Plan should incorporate
basic planning principles, including:
■ Scheduling grading and construction to reduce soil exposure.
■ Re-vegetating or mulching denuded areas.
■ Directing runoff away from exposed soils.
March 9, 2017| Page 8
File No. 22247-001-02
■ Reducing the length and steepness of slopes with exposed soils.
■ Decreasing runoff velocities.
■ Preparing drainage ways and outlets to handle concentrated or increased runoff.
■ Confining sediment to the project site.
■ Inspecting and maintaining control measures frequently.
Some sloughing erosion and raveling of exposed or disturbed soil on slopes should be expected, particularly
if the work is completed during the wet season. We recommend that disturbed soil be restored promptly so
that surface runoff does not become channeled.
Temporary erosion protection should be used and maintained in areas with exposed or disturbed soils to
help reduce erosion and transport of sediment to adjacent areas and receiving waters. Permanent erosion
protection should be provided by paving, structure construction or landscape planting.
Until the permanent erosion protection is established and the site is stabilized, site monitoring may be
required by qualified personnel who will evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures and
recommend repairs and/or modifications as appropriate. Provision for modifications to the erosion control
system based on monitoring observations should be included in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Plan.
Fill Materials
The workability of material used as structural fill depends on the gradation and moisture content of the soil.
As the amount of fines (material passing the U.S. #200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive
to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult, if not impossible
to achieve. We recommend that select granular fill or crushed rock be used as structural fill during the rainy
season. The following paragraphs summarize the material requirements for fill and backfill.
On-site Soils
The native glacial till soils may be considered for use as structural fill during periods of extended dry
weather, provided they can be properly moisture conditioned. The native soils may require moisture
conditioning even during dry weather conditions. The on-site soils will be difficult, if not impossible, to work
or adequately compact during periods of wet weather or if the in-place moisture condition of these soils is
over optimum. On-site materials used as structural fill must be free of roots, organic matter and other
deleterious materials and particles larger than 3 inches in diameter.
Select Granular Fill
Select granular fill (pit run) must consist of imported well-graded sand, sandy gravel, or crushed rock with
a maximum particle size of 3 inches and less than 5 percent passing a U.S. #200 sieve. Organic matter,
debris, or other deleterious material must not be present. Granular fill used during periods of prolonged dry
weather may have up to 12 percent passing a U.S. #200 sieve.
March 9, 2017| Page 9
File No. 22247-001-02
Pipe Bedding
Trench backfill for the bedding and pipe zone must consist of well-graded granular material with a maximum
particle size of 3/4 inch and less than 5 percent passing the U.S. #200 sieve. The material must be free of
roots, debris, organic matter, and other deleterious material.
Crushed Rock
Crushed rock fill must consist of clean, durable, crushed angular rock that has a maximum particle size of
4 inches, is well graded between coarse and fine sizes, and has less than 5 percent fines (material finer
than a U.S. #200 sieve). A smaller maximum particle size will be required for some applications as
discussed in other sections of this report. Gravel materials should be crushed to have at least two fractured
faces. Organic matter, debris, or other deleterious material must not be present.
Fill Placement and Compaction
General
Fill soils should be compacted at a moisture content near optimum. The maximum allowable moisture
content varies with the soil gradation, and should be evaluated during construction. Clayey soils and other
fine granular soils may be difficult or impossible to compact during persistent wet conditions.
Fill and backfill material should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts, and uniformly densified with vibratory
compaction equipment. The maximum lift thickness will vary depending on the material and compaction
equipment used, but should generally not exceed 10 inches in loose thickness. We recommend that density
testing of the placed structural fill be completed by a qualified geotechnical engineer to check that the
structural fill compaction requirements presented in this report are achieved.
Relatively thin lifts will likely be required to adequately compact excavated native material, if used for
structural fill. Loose-lift thicknesses on the order of 3 to 4 inches should be expected to adequately compact
the native materials. Thicker lifts can generally be used when the structural fill comprises select granular
fill as described earlier in this report.
Area Fills and Bases
General
Fill placed to raise site grades and aggregate base materials under foundations, slabs, and pavements
should be placed on a prepared subgrade that consists of firm, inorganic native soils or compacted fill. Fill
must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) determined by ASTM
International (ASTM) Test Method D 1557 (modified Proctor).
During wet weather or in areas that are particularly sensitive to subgrade disturbance, we recommend
placing a woven geotextile between the subgrade and the first lift of fill. For this application, the first lift
must comprise select granular fill. We recommend a 10-inch lift thickness and densification by static rolling
for the initial lift.
Slope Fill Placement
Based on our review of preliminary grading plans, it appears that earth fills are to be placed on the eastern
portion of property on and adjacent to slopes inclined up to about 15 percent. The east and southeast
March 9, 2017| Page 10
File No. 22247-001-02
portions of the proposed structure will be supported by the earth fill. The fill material should be placed and
compacted using hillside grading techniques, as provided below.
It is critical that the constructed fill is benched into the existing slope face. Bench excavations should be
level and extend into the slope face until a vertical step of about 3 feet is constructed. The upper 1- to
3-foot thick layer of organic soil beneath the existing slope face should be removed and wasted. The
remaining soil excavated from each bench can be spread into the next lift of structural fill. A typical cross-
sectional drawing of slope fill is shown on Figure 4.
Building Pad Subgrade
The building pad will transition from cut to fill. In order to limit differential settlement to within 1/2 inch in
50 feet and provide uniform slab support we recommend the upper 1 foot of the pad subgrade be
constructed with select import fill (granular soil with less than 5 percent fines). The select granular fill must
be underlain by properly compacted on-site soil or undisturbed native soil prepared as recommended
herein.
Trench Backfill
Backfill in the bedding and pipe zone should be compacted to 90 percent of the MDD as determined by
ASTM Test Method D 1557, or as recommended by the pipe manufacturer.
In nonstructural areas, trench backfill above the pipe zone should be compacted to at least 85 percent of
the MDD as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. Suitable native soils or select granular soils should
be acceptable in non-structural areas.
Within structural areas, trench backfill placed above the pipe zone must be compacted to at least
92 percent of the MDD as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 at depths greater than 2 feet below
the finished subgrade, and to 95 percent within 2 feet of finished subgrade. Trench backfill in structural
areas should consist of select granular fill or crushed rock as described in the previous sections.
Temporary and Permanent Slopes
We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V. Flatter cut slopes
may be necessary in areas where persistent groundwater seepage or zones of soft or loose soils are
encountered. Temporary cut slopes should be inclined no steeper than about 1-1/2H:1V. Surface loads
should be kept at a minimum distance of at least one-half the depth of the cut away from the top of
temporary slopes.
As previously stated, temporary cut slopes and shoring must comply with the provisions of Title 296 WAC,
Part N, “Excavation, Trenching and Shoring.” The contractor performing the work must have the primary
responsibility for protection of workmen and adjacent improvements, determining whether shoring is
required, and for establishing the safe inclination for open-cut slopes.
Fill slopes should be carefully compacted on the slope face. Alternatively, the fill embankment can be over-
built and cut back to the design inclination.
To reduce the potential for erosion, newly constructed slopes should be planted or hydroseeded shortly
after completion of grading. Some sloughing and raveling of the slopes should be expected until the
March 9, 2017| Page 11
File No. 22247-001-02
vegetation is established. This may require localized repairs and reseeding. Temporary covering, such as
heavy plastic sheeting, jute fabric, loose straw, or excelsior matting should be used to protect unvegetated
slopes during periods of rainfall.
Groundwater and Drainage Considerations
We recommend that pavement surfaces be sloped so that surface drainage flows away from the building.
We recommend that all roof drains be collected in tightlines and routed into the storm drain system.
Perched groundwater will likely develop on top of the very dense glacial till in unpaved areas during the
rainy season.
Seismic Design Considerations
2015 IBC Seismic Design
General
We recommend the parameters in Table 1 for use in seismic design in accordance with 2015 IBC.
TABLE 1: SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
2015 IBC Seismic Design Parameters
Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods (SS) 1.28g
Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Periods (S1) 0.49g
Site Class C
Design Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) 0.50g
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods (SDS) 0.85g
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Periods (SD1) 0.43g
Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction refers to a condition where vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from earthquake forces,
results in development of excess pore pressures in loose, saturated soils and subsequent loss of strength
in the deposit of soil so affected. In general, soils that are susceptible to liquefaction include loose to
medium dense sands to silty sands that are below the water table. Based on the soil type, and relative
density of the soils encountered, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction at this site is low.
Lateral Spreading Potential
Lateral spreading related to seismic activity typically involves lateral displacement of large, surficial blocks
of non-liquefied soil when a layer of underlying soil loses strength during seismic shaking. Lateral spreading
usually develops in areas where sloping ground or large grade changes (including retaining walls) are
present. Based on our understanding of the subsurface conditions and current site topography, it is our
opinion that the risk of lateral spreading is low.
Ground Rupture
Because of the anticipated infrequent seismic event recurrence, the site location with respect to the
nearest known active crustal faults and the presence of thick glacial deposits overlying bedrock, it is our
opinion that the risk of ground rupture at the site due to crustal faulting is low.
March 9, 2017| Page 12
File No. 22247-001-02
Foundation Support
Shallow Foundations
The proposed warehouse building can be supported on continuous wall or isolated column footings
established on undisturbed native soils or structural fill placed over undisturbed native soils. Isolated
column and continuous wall footings should have minimum widths of 24 and 18 inches, respectively.
The exterior footings should be established at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The
recommended minimum footing depth is greater than the anticipated frost depth. Interior footings can be
founded a minimum of 12 inches below the top of the floor slab.
Bearing Capacity
We recommend that footings founded as recommended be proportioned using a maximum allowable
bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. This bearing pressure applies to the total of dead and long-term live loads
and may be increased by one-third when considering earthquake or wind loads. This is a net bearing
pressure. The weight of the footing and overlying backfill can be ignored in calculating footing sizes.
Footing Subgrade Preparation
Footing excavations should be performed using a smooth-edged bucket to limit bearing surface
disturbance. Loose or disturbed materials present at the base of footing excavations should be removed or
compacted. Foundation bearing surfaces should not be exposed to standing water. If water infiltrates and
pools in the excavation, it must be removed and the bearing surface reevaluated before placing structural
fill or reinforcing steel.
We recommend that an experienced geotechnical engineer observe all foundation excavations before
placing reinforcing steel in order to confirm that adequate bearing surfaces have been achieved and that
the soil conditions are as anticipated. Unsuitable foundation subgrade soils must be removed and replaced
with structural fill as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. It may be prudent to place a thin mud
mat of lean concrete to protect the bearing surface if footing excavations are to remain open in wet weather.
Foundation Settlement
We estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as recommended will be less than
3/4 inch, for the anticipated loading conditions. Differential settlements between comparably loaded
isolated column footings or along 50 feet of continuous footing will be less than 1/2 inch. Settlement is
expected to occur rapidly as loads are applied
Lateral Resistance
The ability of the soil to resist lateral loads is a function of frictional resistance which can develop on the
base of footings and slabs and the passive resistance which can develop on the face of below-grade
elements of the structure as these elements tend to move into the soil. For footings and floor slabs founded
in accordance with the recommendations presented above, the allowable frictional resistance may be
computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.35 applied to vertical dead-load forces. The allowable passive
resistance on the face of footings, grade beams or other embedded foundation elements may be computed
using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for undisturbed on-site soils or structural
March 9, 2017| Page 13
File No. 22247-001-02
fill extending out from the face of the foundation element a distance at least equal to two and one-half
times the depth of the element.
The passive earth pressure and friction components may be combined provided that the passive
component does not exceed two-thirds of the total. The passive earth pressure value is based on the
assumptions that the adjacent grade is level and that groundwater remains below the base of the footing
throughout the year. The top foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive lateral earth
pressures unless the foundation area is covered with pavement or is inside a building.
The lateral resistance values include a safety factor of approximately 1.5.
Building Pad and Floor Slabs
A modulus of subgrade reaction of 300 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used for designing the building
floor slab provided that the subgrade consists of structural fill that has been prepared in accordance with
the “Building Pad Subgrade” section. Settlements for the floor slab designed and constructed as
recommended are estimated to be less than 3/4 inch for a floor load of 1,200 psf. We estimate that
differential settlement of the floor slabs, will be 1/2 inch or less over a span of 50 feet providing that the
fill below the slab is compacted as specified. The subgrade soils are non-expansive, so heave is not
anticipated beneath the floor slab.
We recommend that on-grade slabs be underlain by a minimum 4-inch-thick capillary break layer to reduce
the potential for moisture migration into the slab. The capillary break material should consist of a well-
graded sand and gravel or crushed rock with a maximum particle size of 3/4 inch and have less than
5 percent fines. The material should be placed as recommended in the “Fill Placement and Compaction”
section.
A vapor retarder should be used as necessary to control moisture penetration through the slab. This is
especially important in areas where floor coverings, adhesives or tiles are planned.
Retaining Structures
Retaining structures for loading docks or other building walls that are free to rotate slightly around the base
should be designed for active earth pressures using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 35 pcf. This value is
based on the following assumptions:
1. The walls will not be restrained against rotation when the backfill is placed.
2. The backfill is level.
3. The backfill for a distance of at least 12 inches behind the wall consists of free-draining granular
materials.
4. Hydrostatic pressures will be controlled by a back drain.
If retaining walls are restrained against rotation during backfilling, they should be designed for an at-rest
equivalent fluid unit weight of 55 pcf. Surcharge loads applied closer than one-half of the wall height should
be considered as uniformly distributed horizontal pressures equal to one-third of the distributed vertical
surcharge pressure. Footings for retaining walls should be designed as recommended for shallow
foundations.
March 9, 2017| Page 14
File No. 22247-001-02
Backfill should be placed and compacted as recommended in the “Fill Placement and Compaction” section
of this report. The backfill should include drainage provisions to prevent hydrostatic pressures from
developing behind walls. Measures should be taken to prevent overcompaction of the backfill behind the
wall. This can be done by placing the zone of backfill located within 5 feet of the wall in lifts not exceeding
6 inches in loose thickness and compacting this zone with hand-operated equipment such as a vibrating
plate compactor or jumping jack.
Settlement of up to 1 percent of the wall height commonly occurs immediately adjacent to the wall as the
wall rotates and develops active lateral earth pressures. Consequently, we recommend that flat work
adjacent to retaining walls be postponed until settlement is complete.
We understand that the fill walls on the east perimeter of the site will reach heights up to about 8 feet.
Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls may be used for fill applications. However, structural
foundations should not be located on the wall. They should be set back about 0.9h where h is the height of
the wall. If on-site soil is used to construct the MSE wall, a friction angle of 27 degrees and a dry density of
125 pcf should be used in design. Higher strength values will result in excessive wall strain after
construction.
We understand that rockery retaining walls may be used to protect cuts in the west part of the site. If
requested, GeoEngineers can assist in retaining wall selection and design once the grading plan is finalized.
Pavement Recommendations
Pavement Design
General
Based on our experience, we provide typical AC and PCC pavement sections below. These pavement
sections are typical for commercial facilities in this area but may not be adequate for heavy construction
traffic loads such as those imposed by concrete transit mixers, dump trucks or cranes or for unusual design
traffic conditions. Additional pavement thickness may be necessary to prevent pavement damage during
construction or if anticipated truck traffic for this facility is higher than typical. We can provide a specific
design if detailed truck traffic loading information is provided. The recommended sections assume that
final improvements surrounding the pavement will be designed and constructed such that stormwater or
excess irrigation water from landscape areas does not accumulate below the pavement section or pond on
pavement surfaces.
Pavement subgrade must be prepared as previously described. Crushed surfacing base course and
subbase must be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least
95 percent of MDD (ASTM D 1577).
Crushed surfacing base course must conform to applicable sections of 4-04 and 9-03.9(3) of the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications. Hot mix asphalt must
conform to applicable sections of 5-04, 9-02 and 9-03 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. PCC must
conform to applicable sections of 5-05, 9-01 and 9-03 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications
Standard-Duty ACP – Automobile Driveways and Parking Areas
■ 2 inches of hot mix asphalt, class 1/2 inch, PG 58-22
■ 4 inches of crushed surfacing base course
March 9, 2017| Page 15
File No. 22247-001-02
■ 6 inches of subbase consisting of select granular fill to provide uniform grading and pavement support,
to maintain drainage, and to provide separation from fine-grained subgrade soil
■ Native subgrade or structural fill prepared in accordance with the “Site Development and Earthwork”
section
Heavy-Duty ACP – Areas Subject to Truck Traffic
■ 3 inches of hot mix asphalt, class 1/2 inch, PG 58-22
■ 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course
■ 6 inches of subbase consisting of select granular fill to provide a uniform grading surface and pavement
support, to maintain drainage, and to provide separation from fine-grained subgrade soil
■ Native subgrade or structural fill prepared accordance with the “Site Development and Earthwork”
section
PCC Pavement – Areas Subject to Heavy Truck Traffic
■ 6 inches of PCC pavement (28-day compressive strength of 6,000 pound per square inch [psi] and a
modulus of rupture of 600 psi)
■ 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course
■ Native subgrade or structural fill prepared accordance with the “Site Development and Earthwork”
section
Stormwater Infiltration Evaluation
As previously described the site soils generally consist of weathered till over unweathered till. Grain-size
distribution analyses of these soils indicate fines contents ranging between about 18 and 72 percent. The
unweathered till is typically in a dense to very dense condition and has very low permeability with respect
to the vertical flow of water.
Based on the soil gradation data, and our experience, it is our opinion there is very limited infiltration
potential at this site. Because of these factors we recommend that stormwater detention be used for site
development.
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this geotechnical report for use by Federal Way Campus LLC and their agents for the
Proposed Greenline Warehouse A project in Federal Way, Washington. The project agents may distribute
copies of this report to authorized agents and regulatory agencies as may be required for the project. The
intent of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions and provide a brief summary of the primary
geotechnical considerations.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with
generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was
prepared. No warranty or other conditions express or implied should be understood.
Please refer to Appendix B titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for additional information
pertaining to use of this report.
µ
SITE
Vicinity Map
Figure 1
Proposed Greenline Warehouse A Project
Federal Way, Washington
2,000 2,0000
Feet
Data Source: Mapbox Open Street Map, 2016
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\22247001\GIS\MXDs\2224700102_F01_VM.mxd Date Exported: 03/08/17 by cchelf
B-1B-2B-3B-4B-5B-6Test Pit 1Test Pit 2Test Pit 3Test Pit 4Test Pit 5Test Pit 6Test Pit 7Test Pit 8Test Pit 9Test Pit 10Test Pit 11Test Pit 12Test Pit 13B-6
TP-6
B-1
B-3
B-4
B-5 B-2
TP-5
TP-4
TP-13
TP-11
TP-10
TP-12
TP-3
TP-2
TP-1
TP-8
TP-7
TP-9
Figure 2
Proposed Greenline Warehouse A Project
Federal Way, Washington
P:\22\22247001\CAD\01\Geologic-Hydrogeologic Evaluation\2224700101_F02_Site Plan.dwg TAB:F02 Date Exported: 03/06/17 - 10:12 by hmaraSite Plan
Existing Conditions
WENSLegend
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.
Data Source:
Background PDF from ESM Consulting Engineers, dated 05/05/16.Feet
0120 120
B-1
TP-1
Loop Road
Weyerhaeuser Way S(Future Public Road)S 336th StreetBoring Number and Approximate Location
Test Pit Number and Approximate Location
Site Boundary
Wetlands Mapped by Others
Area of Soil Piles/ Organic Debris
B-1B-2B-3B-4B-5B-6Test Pit 1Test Pit 2Test Pit 3Test Pit 4Test Pit 5Test Pit 6Test Pit 7Test Pit 8Test Pit 9Test Pit 10Test Pit 11Test Pit 12Test Pit 13B-6
TP-6
B-1
B-3
B-4
B-5 B-2
TP-5
TP-4
TP-13
TP-11
TP-10
TP-12
TP-3
TP-2
TP-1
TP-8
TP-7
TP-9
Figure 3
Proposed Greenline Warehouse A Project
Federal Way, Washington
Site Plan
Proposed ConditionsW
ENSFeet
0150 150
P:\22\22247001\CAD\01\Geologic-Hydrogeologic Evaluation\02224700101_F03_Site Plan Proposed Conditions.dwg TAB:F03 Date Exported: 03/01/17 - 18:15 by hmaraLegend
Boring Number and Approximate Location
Test Pit Number and Approximate Location
Site Boundary
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.
Data Source: Base CAD files provided by ESM Consulting Engineers,
dated 02/14/2017.
Projection: WA State Plane, North Zone, NAD83, US Foot
Proposed Greenline Warehouse A
Water Quality and
Detention Pond Loop Road
Weyerhauser Way SWeyerhauser Way S
Loop Road
B-1
TP-1
Bench Drain
Not to Scale
Not to Scale
Backfill: Freedraining Sand and/or Rock. Minimum 1'
Enclosure of Pipe, Balance of Backfill Below Cap
Should be Sand or Rock.
Native Soil Cap
Ground Surface
6"Ø Pipe HDPE or PVC Perforated
Variable
2'
Final Fill Surface Profile
8' MIN.
Keyway
Conceptual Arrangement of
Bench Cuts Into Native Soil.
If Seepage Encountered
During Benching, Place
Drain At This Location.
Drain Detail is Shown Above.
Native Building Subgrade
Pre-development Ground Surface
Fill Soil
Native Soil
Figure 4
P:\22\22247001\CAD\01\Geologic-Hydrogeologic Evaluation\2224700101_F04_Schematic Drawing Hillside Fill.dwg TAB:F4 Date Exported: 03/06/17 - 10:18 by hmaraSchematic Drawing Hillside Fill
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.
Data Source:
Drawing created from sketch provided by GeoEngineers' personnel.
Proposed Greenline Warehouse A Project
Federal Way, Washington
APPENDIX A
Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing
March 9, 2017| Page A-1
File No. 22247-001-02
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING
Field Explorations
Subsurface conditions at the site were previously explored by drilling a total of 6 borings and excavating
13 test pits. The explorations were completed between May 24 and 27, 2016. Borings were drilled to
depths of 20 to 21.5 feet. Test pits were excavated to depths ranging from 8.5 to 11.5 feet below ground
surface (bgs).
The site explorations were continuously monitored by a member of GeoEngineers geotechnical staff. Our
representative maintained a detailed log of the soils encountered, obtained soil samples and observed
groundwater conditions. Figures 2 and 3 show the approximate locations of the explorations. Explorations
were mapped using commercial-grade GPS equipment and should be considered accurate only to the
extent implied by the method used.
Soil samples were obtained from the borings using Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) performed in general
conformance with ASTM International (ASTM) Test Method D 1586. The sampler was driven with a
140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches
or other indicated distance, into the soils is shown adjacent to the sample symbols on the boring logs.
Disturbed samples were obtained from the split barrel for subsequent classification and index testing. Bulk
soil samples from the test pits were collected directly from the trackhoe bucket and placed in plastic bags.
Soils encountered in the borings were classified in the field in general accordance with ASTM Standard
Practice D 2488, the Standard Practice for the Classification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), which is
described in Figure A-1. Soil classifications and sampling intervals are shown on the exploration logs.
Inclined lines at the material contacts shown on the logs indicate uncertainty as to the exact contact
elevation, rather than the inclination of the contact itself. Figures A-2 through A-20 present the exploration
logs.
Laboratory Testing
Soil samples obtained from the explorations were brought to our laboratory to confirm field classifications.
Selected samples were tested to determine their moisture content and grain-size distribution in general
accordance with applicable ASTM standards.
The moisture content of selected samples was determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method
D 2216. The test results are presented in the respective exploration logs in Appendix A. Grain-size
distribution (sieve analyses) was conducted in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 422. The
results of the grain-size sieve analyses are presented in Figures A-21 through A-24.
AC
Cement ConcreteCC
Asphalt Concrete
No Visible Sheen
Slight Sheen
Moderate Sheen
Heavy Sheen
Not Tested
NS
SS
MS
HS
NT
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS
Measured groundwater level in
exploration, well, or piezometer
Measured free product in well or
piezometer
Graphic Log Contact
Groundwater Contact
Material Description Contact
Laboratory / Field Tests
Sheen Classification
Sampler Symbol Descriptions
NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface
conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are
not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
GRAPH
Topsoil/
Forest Duff/Sod
Crushed Rock/
Quarry Spalls
FIGURE A-1
2.4-inch I.D. split barrel
SYMBOLS TYPICAL
KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS
CR
DESCRIPTIONSLETTER
TS
GC
PT
OH
CH
MH
OL
GM
GP
GW
DESCRIPTIONS
TYPICAL
LETTER
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT
OF FINES)
MAJOR DIVISIONS
POORLY-GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS
WITH HIGH ORGANIC
CONTENTS
CLEAN SANDS
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
CLEAN
GRAVELS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
SAND
AND
SANDY
SOILS
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
SW
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE
CL
WELL-GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SANDS
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND
- SILT MIXTURES
LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILTMIXTURES
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT
OF FINES)
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50
SANDS WITH
FINES
SP
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
ML
SC
SM
NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
PASSING NO. 4
SIEVE
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
SAND - CLAY MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK
FLOUR, CLAYEY SILTS WITH
SLIGHT PLASTICITY
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW
PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS
OR DIATOMACEOUS SILTY
SOILS
ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OF
MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
MORE THAN 50%
PASSING NO. 200
SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%
RETAINED ON NO.
200 SIEVE
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY
CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
GRAPH
SYMBOLS
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Shelby tube
Piston
Direct-Push
Bulk or grab
Continuous Coring
Distinct contact between soil strata
Approximate contact between soil
strata
Contact between geologic units
Contact between soil of the same
geologic unit
%F
%G
AL
CA
CP
CS
DS
HA
MC
MD
OC
PM
PI
PP
PPM
SA
TX
UC
VS
Percent fines
Percent gravel
Atterberg limits
Chemical analysis
Laboratory compaction test
Consolidation test
Direct shear
Hydrometer analysis
Moisture content
Moisture content and dry density
Organic content
Permeability or hydraulic conductivity
Plasticity index
Pocket penetrometer
Parts per million
Sieve analysis
Triaxial compression
Unconfined compression
Vane shear
Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number
of blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or
distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight
and drop.
A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the
drill rig.
A "WOH" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of
the hammer.
Rev. 02/16
1
2
3
SA
4
5
4
18
10
17
18
74
54
43
50/4"
55
Dark brown silty fine to medium sand with
gravel and organic matter (loose, moist)
(weathered till)
Gray silty sand with gravel (very dense, moist)
(glacial till)
Gray silty sand with gravel (dense to very
dense, moist) (glacial till)
Grades to very dense
Brown/gray silt with sand, organic matter (wood
fibers) and occasional gravel (hard, moist)
SM
SM
SM
ML
Groundwater observed at approximately
18 feet during drilling
236
Total
Depth (ft)
Hammer
Data
System
Datum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
SWHDrilled
Notes:
CDL
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth to
Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)
Northing (Y)
Track-Mounted L-10-1 Landa
Holt Drilling Drilling
Method Hollow-Stem Auger21.5
Autohammer
140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
Drilling
Equipment
5/24/20165/24/2016
See Remarks
468
NAVD88
1277850.15
111995.64
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)465460455450Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring B-1
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-2
Sheet 1 of 1Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
SA
3
SA
4
5
16
17
12
10
5
62
48
60
50/4"
100/5"
Gray silty sand with occasional gravel (very
dense, moist) (glacial till)
Gray silty sand with gravel (dense to very
dense, moist) (glacial till)
Gray silty sand with gravel (very dense, moist)
(glacial till)
SM
SM
SM
Water/moisture on sampler at approximately
5 feet during drilling
Increasing amount of silt/fines
Gravel stuck in sampler
Groundwater observed at approximately 19
feet during drilling
42
32
11
10
Total
Depth (ft)
Hammer
Data
System
Datum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
SWHDrilled
Notes:
CDL
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth to
Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)
Northing (Y)
Track-Mounted L-10-1 Landa
Holt Drilling Drilling
Method Hollow-Stem Auger20.8
Autohammer
140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
Drilling
Equipment
5/24/20165/24/2016
See Remarks
448
NAVD88
1277673.44
112111.02
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)445440435430Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring B-2
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-3
Sheet 1 of 1Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
SA
2
3
SA
4
5
14
10
12
8
8
42
54
39
50/4"
50/5"
Brown gravel with cobbles (loose, moist) (fill)
Brown/gray silty fine to medium sand with
gravel (dense, moist) (weathered till)
Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel
(dense to very dense, moist) (glacial till)
Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very
dense, moist) (glacial till)
GP
SM
SM
SM
Possible cobbles
Possible groundwater observed at
approximately 9½ feet during drilling
30
35
9
9
Total
Depth (ft)
Hammer
Data
System
Datum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
SWHDrilled
Notes:
CDL
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth to
Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)
Northing (Y)
Track-Mounted L-10-1 Landa
Holt Drilling Drilling
Method Hollow-Stem Auger20.9
Autohammer
140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
Drilling
Equipment
5/24/20165/24/2016
See Remarks
464
NAVD88
1277734.72
111818.94
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)460455450445Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring B-3
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-4
Sheet 1 of 1Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
SA
3
4
5
16
12
18
18
5
36
52
28
53
65/6"
Brown gravel with cobbles (loose, moist) (fill)
Gray silty sand with gravel (dense, moist)
(weathered till)
Gray silty sand with gravel (medium dense to
very dense, moist) (glacial till)
Grades to medium dense
Grades to moist
Gray silty fine sand with gravel and fractured
cobble (very dense, moist)
GP
SM
SM
SM
Possible groundwater observed at 5 feet
Gravel in end of sampler
Hard drilling at approximately 19 feet;
possible cobbles/boulder
4212
Total
Depth (ft)
Hammer
Data
System
Datum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
SWHDrilled
Notes:
CDL
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth to
Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)
Northing (Y)
Track-Mounted L-10-1 Landa
Holt Drilling Drilling
Method Hollow-Stem Auger20.5
Autohammer
140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
Drilling
Equipment
5/25/20165/25/2016
See Remarks
474
NAVD88
1277753.63
111713.67
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)470465460455Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring B-4
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-5
Sheet 1 of 1Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
SA
2
3
4
5
14
6
18
9
10
59
50/4"
64
50/5"
100/10"
Gray gravel with organics (loose, moist) (fill)
Gray silty sand with occasional gravel (very
dense, moist) (glacial till)
Gray silty gravel with sand (very dense, moist)
(glacial till)
Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very
dense, moist) (glacial till)
GP
SM
GM
SM
Possible cobbles
Gravel in end of sampler
Possible cobbles
37
39
7
8
Total
Depth (ft)
Hammer
Data
System
Datum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
SWHDrilled
Notes:
CDL
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth to
Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)
Northing (Y)
Track-Mounted L-10-1 Landa
Holt Drilling Drilling
Method Hollow-Stem Auger21
Autohammer
140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
Drilling
Equipment
5/25/20165/25/2016
See Remarks
472
NAVD88
1277676.09
111517.75
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)470465460455Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring B-5
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-6
Sheet 1 of 1Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
3
4
5
0
14
18
9
10
13
29
83
50/3"
75/4"
Gray silt with sand, gravel and organic matter
(topsoil?)
Gray silty sand with gravel and organics
(medium dense, moist) (weathered till)
Gray silty gravel with sand (medium dense,
wet) (weathered till/outwash)
Gray silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (very
dense, wet) (glacial till)
TS
SM
GM
SM
No recovery
Harder drilling below 5 feet
Groundwater encountered at approximately
6 feet during drilling
Hard drilling at 13 feet
Total
Depth (ft)
Hammer
Data
System
Datum
Start End
Checked By
Logged By
SWHDrilled
Notes:
CDL
Surface Elevation (ft)
Vertical Datum
Driller
Groundwater Depth to
Water (ft)Date Measured Elevation (ft)
Easting (X)
Northing (Y)
Track-Mounted L-10-1 Landa
Holt Drilling Drilling
Method Hollow-Stem Auger20.8
Autohammer
140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
Drilling
Equipment
5/25/20165/25/2016
See Remarks
410
NAVD88
1278027.56
111879.51
WA State Plane,North
NAD83 (feet)
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
FIELD DATA
Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 IntervalElevation (feet)405400395390Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)Graphic LogCollected SampleBlows/footMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
GroupClassificationWater LevelLog of Boring B-6
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-7
Sheet 1 of 1Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FREMARKS
FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
SA
2
3
4
ML
SM
Brown sandy silt with gravel and organic matter (roots down
to 2 feet) (medium stiff, moist) (weathered till)
Gray/brown silty sand with gravel and cobbles (dense,
moist) (glacial till)
Becoming moist to wet at 10½ feet; no visible water
Test pit completed at 11½ feet
No groundwater seepage observed
No caving observed
20 55
Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-1
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-8
Sheet 1 of 1
Date Excavated:
Equipment:
Logged By:5/26/2016
Track Excavator Total Depth (ft)
CDL
11.5
Testing SampleDepth (feet)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SAMPLE
Graphic LogElevation (feet)472471470469468467466465464463462Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
3
4
SA
SM
SM
GM
Brown silty sand with gravel, roots and organic matter (fill)
(loose, moist)
Brown-gray silty sand with gravel and cobbles (weathered
till) (medium dense, moist)
Gray silty gravel with sand and cobbles (dense to very
dense, moist) (glacial till)
Pockets of silt with sand and gravel; large cobbles (dense)
Test pit completed at 11 feet
No groundwater seepage observed
No caving observed
10 30
Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-2
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-9
Sheet 1 of 1
Date Excavated:
Equipment:
Logged By:5/26/2016
Track Excavator Total Depth (ft)
CDL
11.0
Testing SampleDepth (feet)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SAMPLE
Graphic LogElevation (feet)470469468467466465464463462461460Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
#200 Wash
3
4
TS
SM
ML
ML
ML
6 inches topsoil/forest duff
Brown silty sand with gravel (pockets of silt) (loose to
medium dense, moist) (weathered till)
Brown silt with sand (stiff, moist) (glacial till)
Brown/gray silt (stiff, moist) (glacial till)
Brown/gray silty fine to coarse sand with gravel and cobbles
(hard, moist to wet) (glacial till)
Test pit completed at 8½ feet
Slow groundwater seepage at 7 feet
No caving observed
Roots at 2 feet1272
Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-3
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-10
Sheet 1 of 1
Date Excavated:
Equipment:
Logged By:5/26/2016
Track Excavator Total Depth (ft)
CDL
8.5
Testing SampleDepth (feet)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SAMPLE
Graphic LogElevation (feet)406405404403402401400399Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
3
4
SA
TS
SM
GM
Topsoil/roots/forest duff
Brown silty sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (fill)
Gray/brown silty gravel with sand and cobbles (dense to
very dense, moist) (glacial till)
Becomesg moist to wet at 8 feet
Test pit completed at 11 feet
No groundwater seepage observed
No caving observed
Metal pipe observed in pit sidewall
Roots to 2 feet
9 20
Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-4
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-11
Sheet 1 of 1
Date Excavated:
Equipment:
Logged By:5/26/2016
Track Excavator Total Depth (ft)
CDL
11.0
Testing SampleDepth (feet)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SAMPLE
Graphic LogElevation (feet)430429428427426425424423422421420Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
3
SA
4
SM
SM
SM
Brown-red silty sand with organic matter (coal/charcoal)
(loose, moist) (topsoil)
Brown silty sand with gravel and cobbles (medium dense to
dense, moist) (weathered till)
Gray silty sand with gravel and cobbles (dense to very
dense, moist) (glacial till)
Test pit completed at 11 feet
No groundwater seepage observed
No caving observed
Roots to 1½ feet
9 18
Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-5
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-12
Sheet 1 of 1
Date Excavated:
Equipment:
Logged By:5/26/2016
Track Excavator Total Depth (ft)
CDL
11.0
Testing SampleDepth (feet)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SAMPLE
Graphic LogElevation (feet)414413412411410409408407406405404Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
3
4
TS
SM
SM
Brown silty sand with organic matter (roots) (loose, medium
dense, moist) (forest duff/topsoil)
Brown silty sand with gravel and cobbles (medium dense to
dense, moist) (weathered till)
Gray silty sand with gravel and occasional cobbles (dense
to very dense, moist to wet) (glacial till)
Test pit completed at 11 feet
No groundwater seepage observed
No caving observed
Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-6
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-13
Sheet 1 of 1
Date Excavated:
Equipment:
Logged By:5/26/2016
Track Excavator Total Depth (ft)
CDL
11.0
Testing SampleDepth (feet)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SAMPLE
Graphic LogElevation (feet)418417416415414413412411410409408Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
3
-200 Wash
TS
GP-GM
ML
GM
Topsoil/roots (forest duff)
Brown sandy gravel with silt (medium dense to dense, moist
to wet) (weathered till)
Brown/gray silt with sand and gravel (stiff, moist) (glacial till)
Gray silty gravel with sand (very dense, moist) (glacial till)
Test pit completed at 11 feet
Slow groundwater seepage observed at approximately 1½
feet
Caving observed above 6 feet
35 67
Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-7
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-14
Sheet 1 of 1
Date Excavated:
Equipment:
Logged By:5/26/2016
Track Excavator Total Depth (ft)
CDL
11.0
Testing SampleDepth (feet)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SAMPLE
Graphic LogElevation (feet)452451450449448447446445444443442Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
3
SM/OH
SM
SM
Dark brown silty sand and organic silt (loose/soft, moist)
(forest duff)
Brown silty sand with gravel and cobbles (medium dense to
dense, moist) (weathered till/)
Gray silty fine to coarse sand with gravel and occasional
cobbles (very dense, moist to wet) (glacial till)
Test pit completed at 11 feet
Slow groundwater seepage observed at approximately 8½
feet
No caving observed
Wet at 8 feet
Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-8
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-15
Sheet 1 of 1
Date Excavated:
Equipment:
Logged By:5/26/2016
Track Excavator Total Depth (ft)
CDL
11.0
Testing SampleDepth (feet)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SAMPLE
Graphic LogElevation (feet)450449448447446445444443442441440Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
3
SA
4
OH
SM
GM
Brown organic silt and with sand (topsoil/forest duff)
Brown silty sand with gravel (medium dense, moist)
(weathered till)
Gray silty gravel with sand (dense to very dense, moist to
wet) (glacial till)
Test pit completed at 11 feet
Groundwater seepage observed at approximately 10 feet
No caving observed
Boulder at 2 feet
Hard at 6 feet
Gravel lenses
6 8
Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-9
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-16
Sheet 1 of 1
Date Excavated:
Equipment:
Logged By:5/27/2016
Track Excavator Total Depth (ft)
CDL
11.0
Testing SampleDepth (feet)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SAMPLE
Graphic LogElevation (feet)439438437436435434433432431430429Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
3
4
OH
ML
SM
Organic silt with sand (medium stiff, moist)
Orange/gray silt (stiff, moist) (glacial till)
Gray silty sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till)
Test pit completed at 11 feet
No groundwater seepage observed
No caving observed
Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-10
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-17
Sheet 1 of 1
Date Excavated:
Equipment:
Logged By:5/27/2016
Track Excavator Total Depth (ft)
CDL
11.0
Testing SampleDepth (feet)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SAMPLE
Graphic LogElevation (feet)420419418417416415414413412411410Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
-200 Wash
3
TS
SM
SM
Topsoil/forest duff, organic matter (roots)
Brown silty fine sand with gravel and occasional organic
matter/roots (medium dense, moist) (weathered till)
Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel and occasional
cobbles (very dense, moist) (glacial til)
Test pit completed at 11 feet
No groundwater seepage observed
No caving observed
Metal pipe and electrical line at 1.5 feet
10 39
Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-11
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-18
Sheet 1 of 1
Date Excavated:
Equipment:
Logged By:5/27/2016
Track Excavator Total Depth (ft)
CDL
11.0
Testing SampleDepth (feet)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SAMPLE
Graphic LogElevation (feet)448447446445444443442441440439438Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
3
4
SOD
SM
ML
SM
Sod
Brown silty sand, occasional gravel with organic matter
(loose, moist) (topsoil)
Brown/gray silt with sand and gravel (stiff, moist)
(weathered till)
Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (dense to very
dense, moist) (glacial till)
Test pit completed at 11½ feet
No groundwater seepage observed
No caving observed
Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-12
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-19
Sheet 1 of 1
Date Excavated:
Equipment:
Logged By:5/27/2016
Track Excavator Total Depth (ft)
CDL
11.5
Testing SampleDepth (feet)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SAMPLE
Graphic LogElevation (feet)429428427426425424423422421420419Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
1
2
SA
3
4
SM
SM
SM
SM
Brown silty sand with gravel (dense, moist) (fill)
Black silty sand with debris (wood/plastic infill) (dense,
moist) (fill)
Becomes brown
Brown/gray silty sand with gravel (dense, moist) (weathered
till)
Gray silty sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till)
Test pit completed at 11 feet
No groundwater seepage observed
No caving observed
28 50
Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.
The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot.Tacoma: Date:6/17/16 Path:P:\21\21644001\GINT\2164400100.GPJ DBTemplate/LibTemplate:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US.GDT/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FLog of Test Pit TP-13
Proposed Victory Unlimited Project
Federal Way, Washington
21644-001-00
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:Figure A-20
Sheet 1 of 1
Date Excavated:
Equipment:
Logged By:5/27/2016
Track Excavator Total Depth (ft)
CDL
11.0
Testing SampleDepth (feet)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SAMPLE
Graphic LogElevation (feet)406405404403402401400399398397396Sample NameTestingGroupClassificationEncountered WaterMATERIAL
DESCRIPTION REMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)MoistureContent (%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
SAND SILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVEL
COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSEFINE
Exploration
Number
Depth
(feet)Soil Description
B-2
B-3
5
2.5
Silty sand with gravel (SM)
Silty sand with gravel (SM)
Symbol
Moisture
(%)
11
9
3/8”3”1.5”#4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #1003/4”Figure A-21Sieve Analysis Results21644-001-00 Date Exported: 06/03/16
Note:This report may not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval of GeoEngineers,Inc.Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they were
performed,and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times,depths or locations,or generated by separate operations or processes.
The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913.
#200
Proposed Victory Unlimited ProjectFederal Way, Washington
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
SAND SILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVEL
COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSEFINE
Exploration
Number
Depth
(feet)Soil Description
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-5
10
5
3
10
Silty sand with gravel (SM)
Silty sand with gravel (SM)
Silty sand with gravel (SM)
Silty gravel with sand (GM)
Symbol
Moisture
(%)
9
12
7
9
3/8”3”1.5”#4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #1003/4”Figure A-22Sieve Analysis Results21644-001-00 Date Exported: 06/03/16
Note:This report may not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval of GeoEngineers,Inc.Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they were
performed,and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times,depths or locations,or generated by separate operations or processes.
The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913.
#200
Proposed Victory Unlimited ProjectFederal Way, Washington
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
SAND SILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVEL
COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSEFINE
Exploration
Number
Depth
(feet)Soil Description
TP-1
TP-2
TP-4
TP-5
1.5
8
8
4
Sandy silt with gravel (ML)
Silty gravel with sand (GM)
Silty gravel with sand (GM)
Silty sand with gravel (SM)
Symbol
Moisture
(%)
20
10
9
9
3/8”3”1.5”#4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #1003/4”Figure A-23Sieve Analysis Results21644-001-00 Date Exported: 06/03/16
Note:This report may not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval of GeoEngineers,Inc.Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they were
performed,and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times,depths or locations,or generated by separate operations or processes.
The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913.
#200
Proposed Victory Unlimited ProjectFederal Way, Washington
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
SAND SILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVEL
COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSEFINE
Exploration
Number
Depth
(feet)Soil Description
TP-9
TP-13
5
3
Silty gravel with sand (GM)
Silty sand (SM)
Symbol
Moisture
(%)
6
28
3/8”3”1.5”#4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #1003/4”Figure A-24Sieve Analysis Results21644-001-00 Date Exported: 06/03/16
Note:This report may not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval of GeoEngineers,Inc.Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they were
performed,and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times,depths or locations,or generated by separate operations or processes.
The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913.
#200
Proposed Victory Unlimited ProjectFederal Way, Washington
APPENDIX B
Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
March 9, 2017| Page B-1
File No. 22247-001-02
APPENDIX B
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 Greenline Warehouse A project
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 March 9, 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 Proposed Federal Way Campus, Greenline Warehouse A project located
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.
For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect:
■ the function of the proposed structure;
1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org.
March 9, 2017| Page B-2
File No. 22247-001-02
■ 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
cannot assume responsibility or liability for the recommendations in this report if we do not perform
construction observation.
March 9, 2017| Page B-3
File No. 22247-001-02
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.
March 9, 2017| Page B-4
File No. 22247-001-02
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.