AttD6 - 225 Roy Geotech Report

Geotechnical & Earthquake
Engineering Consultants
February 23, 2018

PanGEO Project No. 16-116
225 Roy Street LLC

c/o Washington Holdings
600 University Street, Suite 2820
Seattle, WA 98101
Attention: Ms. Maria Barrientos
Subject: Geotechnical Report

Proposed Development
225 Roy Street, Seattle, Washington
Dear Ms. Barrientos:

PanGEO, Inc. is pleased to present this report to assist the project team with the design and
construction of the proposed development in Seattle, Washington. PanGEO previously
issued a report dated June 5, 2017. In light of additional groundwater information that
became available after our previous report was issued, it was necessary to revise our 2017
report. This report supersedes the 2017 report. The revisions contained herein are
anticipated to affect the structural and civil designs of the project.
In summary, it is our opinion that the site may be developed generally as planned. Because
of the groundwater conditions at the site that is likely to generate high volume of discharge
that cannot be entirely discharged into the public system, we understand the proposed
basement will be designed as a watertight structure to resist the hydrostatic pressure. The
use of a mat foundation will be necessary.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Siew L. Tan, P.E.

Principal Geotechnical Engineer
________________________________________________
3213 Eastlake Avenue East, Suite B
Seattle, WA 98102
T. (206) 262-0370
F. (206) 262-0374
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 GENERAL .................................................................................................................1
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .....................................................................1
3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS ...........................................................................1
3.1 HISTORIC STREET GRADING PROFILES ............................................................1
3.3 NEARBY EXPLORATIONS .................................................................................2
3.4 SITE-SPECIFIC EXPLORATIONS ........................................................................3
3.5 SOIL CONDITIONS............................................................................................3
3.6 GROUNDWATER ..............................................................................................4
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................5
4.1 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................5
4.1.1 IBC Seismic Site Class ....................................................................5
4.1.2 Liquefaction Potential.....................................................................5
4.2 BUILDING FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................5
4.2.1 Groundwater Discussions and Foundation Design Approach .......5
4.2.2 Allowable Bearing Pressure ...........................................................6
4.2.3 Uplift Resistance .............................................................................7
4.2.2 Lateral Resistance...........................................................................7
4.2.3 Subsurface Drains ...........................................................................7
4.2.4 Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Over-Excavation ..............7
4.3 RETAINING AND BASEMENT WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS ..............................8
4.4.1 Lateral Earth Pressures ..................................................................8
4.4.2 Surcharge ........................................................................................8
4.4.3 Wall Backfill....................................................................................9
5.0 TEMPORARY SHORING AND DEWATERING....................................................9
5.1 SOLDIER PILE WALL .......................................................................................9
5.1.1 Wall Design Parameters .................................................................10
5.1.2 Tiebacks ..........................................................................................10
5.1.3 Tieback Testing ...............................................................................11
5.1.4 Lagging ...........................................................................................12
5.1.5 Groundwater and Potential Caving Soils .......................................12
5.1.6 Surcharges from Heavy Construction Equipment ..........................13
5.2 BASELINE SURVEY AND MONITORING ............................................................13
5.3 TEMPORARY SLOPED EXCAVATIONS ...............................................................13
5.4 CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING ........................................................................14
6.0 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................14
6.1 STRUCTURAL FILL AND COMPACTION .............................................................14
6.2 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION .....................................................................15
6.3 PERMANENT CUT AND FILL SLOPES ................................................................15
6.4 EROSION CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................16
16-116 225 Roy Report R2 - 2018.02.23 Page 1 PanGEO, Inc.

Geotechnical Report
Proposed Development: 225 Roy Street, Seattle, Washington
February 23, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES .......................................................................................16

8.0 CLOSURE .................................................................................................................16
9.0 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................19
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site and Exploration Plan
Figure 3 Design Lateral Pressures, Temporary Soldier Pile Wall Cantilevered or with
One Tieback
Figure 4 Design Lateral Pressures, Temporary Soldier Pile Wall, Multiple Level
Tieback
LIST OF APPENDICES:
Appendix A Borings 1, 2 and 3 (Geotech Consultants)
Appendix B Boring TB-7 (Shannon and Wilson)
Appendix C Wells OW-2 and PW-2 (HWA GeoiSciences)
Appendix D Soil Profile (Twelker Associates)
Appendix E Borings SOP-1, 2 and 3 (Herrera)
Appendix F Geoprobes WH1 to WH27 (AMEC Foster Wheeler)
Appendix G Boring/Well Logs MW-1 and MW-2 (Environmental Partners Inc)
Appendix H Groundwater Study (Bender Consulting)

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
225 ROY STREET, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
1.0 GENERAL
As requested, PanGEO, Inc. is pleased to present this report for the proposed development at 225
Roy Street in Seattle, Washington. Our scope of services included reviewing readily available
geologic and geotechnical data, observed the drilling of test borings completed by your
environmental consultant, conducting a site reconnaissance, performing engineering analyses, and
preparing this report.
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The subject site is the city block located between Second Avenue North to the west, Third Avenue
North to the east, Mercer Street to the south, and Roy Street to the north. The approximate location
of the project site is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The total change in ground surface elevation
across the site is about 13 feet, between about Elevation 123 feet at its northwest corner, and
Elevation 110 feet at its southeast corner.
It is our understanding that the proposed development will include the construction of two new
mid-rise buildings with underground parking. The lowest floor will be about 25 feet deep at the
northwest corner of the site, and about 15½ feet deep at the southeast corner of the site. The
foundation subgrades are anticipated to be two to three additional feet deeper.
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on our understanding of the
proposed development, which is in turn based on the project information provided. If the above
project description is incorrect, or the project information changes, we should be consulted to
review the recommendations contained in this study and make modifications, if needed.
3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
3.1 HISTORIC STREET GRADING PROFILES

To gain a better understanding of previous grading that may have occurred at or adjacent to the
site, we reviewed City of Seattle street grading profiles adjacent to the project site. The following
summarizes our review.
Second Avenue North: between Roy Street and Mercer Street - In general, the street
grading profile indicates that approximately 2 to 7 feet of fill was placed along this section of

Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
Second Avenue North, adjacent to the western boundary of the project site. The deepest fill
appeared to be near the middle of the west property line. Similar fill thickness should be
present in the western portion of the property.
Third Avenue North: between Roy Street and Mercer Street – In general, according to
the street grading profile, the existing street grade is approximately one to 10 feet lower than
the original ground surface. As such, native soils should be near the existing ground surface
along the east side of the property. However, nominal amount of fill should be anticipated
from previous site developments and utility installation.
Roy Street and Mercer Street: between 2nd Avenue North and 3rd Avenue North – In
general, according to the street grading profiles, the existing street grade along Roy and
Mercer Streets are approximately two to three feet lower than the original ground surface
along the north side of the property. As such, native soils should be near the existing ground
surface along the north side of the property. However, nominal amount of fill should be
anticipated from previous site developments and utility installation.
In summary, our review of the original street grading profiles adjacent to the site suggest that up
to about 10 feet of fill may be present along the western side of the subject site, but no significant
amount of fill was placed along the other three sides of the site for street construction. It may be
noted, however, that previous developments at the site and within the street right-of-ways may
have resulted in more fills than are shown on the street grading profiles.
3.3 NEARBY EXPLORATIONS

Previous test borings completed in the vicinity of the site were collected and reviewed.
Specifically, the following previous explorations were reviewed:
• Borings B-1, B-2 and B-3, previously completed for the development located to the north
of the site (summary logs in Appendix A);
• Boring TB-7 (see Appendix B) and monitoring wells PW-2 and OW-2 (see Appendix C),
previously completed along the south side of the property for the Mercer Street tunnel
project; and
• Borings CD-1 and CD-2 previously completed for the adjacent parking garage to the east
by Twelker Associates (see Appendix D);
In addition to the previous test borings outlined above, PanGEO completed two test borings (PG-
1 and PG-2) in September 2017 for an adjacent property located southwest of the project site.

Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
The approximate locations of these nearby explorations are indicated on the attached Figure 2.
3.4 SITE-SPECIFIC EXPLORATIONS

In 2016, Herrera completed three environmental test borings (SOP-1, SOP-2 and SOP-2) at the
site for the Phase II environmental site assessment, at the approximate locations shown in Figure
2. These test borings were drilled using hollow stem augers, but with non-standard penetration
tests using wireline downhole hammer. The summary logs were provided for our use, and are
included as Appendix E of this report for reference.
In June 2017, AMEC Foster Wheeler completed an environmental study for the subject property.
The study included a series of probes (WH-series). The approximate locations of these
explorations are shown in Figure 2, and the summary logs are included in Appendix F of this
report.
In September 2016, Environmental Partners Inc (EPI) completed three test borings (B-1, MW-1
and MW-2) for Seattle Opera. These borings were drilled using hollow stem augers and SPT
sampling. The approximate locations of these explorations are shown in Figure 2, and the
summary logs are included in Appendix G of this report.
3.5 SOIL CONDITIONS

In general, the test borings encountered 3 to 10 feet of fill over competent native soils. The
following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings:
Fill: Approximately 3 to 11 feet of fill was encountered in the borings completed at or near
the site. The fill appears to be the thickest in the approximately northwest quadrant of the
site. The composition of the fill appears highly variable, and ranged from sandy silt to sand
with gravel. Brick fragments were also encountered within the fill layer. This soil unit is
considered not appropriate for structural support. Given that the proposed basement
excavation in the northwest corner of the site will be about 28 feet deep, it is anticipated that
the basement excavation will extend below the existing fill.
Native Soils: The native soils underlying the fill appeared quite complex, and generally
consisted of a sequence of sand with silt layers, in turn underlain by very stiff to hard clay.
The top of the stiff to hard clay, which appears to be consistent with the mapped Lawton Clay
at the site, was encountered at 25 to 35 feet below the ground surface in the borings SOP-1
through SOP-3 (approximately north half of the site), and was at about 20 feet deep in PW-2
Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
and OW-2 (southeast corner of the site), but was only about 3 feet deep in TB-7 (southwest
corner of the site). The native soil layer located above the clay (and below the fill) generally
consisted of medium dense to dense sand with gravel, with medium stiff to stiff silt layers.
This layer appeared consistent with the Ice Contact Deposits mapped near the site. In
summary, there appears to be an east-west trending sandy/gravelly channel located in the
approximately south half of the site (approximate area of the channel shown in Figure 2).
North and south of the sandy/gravelly channel and below the granular soils in the channel, the
native soils are anticipated to consist of generally fine-grained soils (i.e., silt and clay).
Please note that soil conditions between exploration locations may vary from those encountered.
The nature and extent of variations between exploratory locations may not become evident until
construction. If variations do appear, PanGEO should be requested to reevaluate the
recommendations in this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with
earthwork and construction.
3.6 GROUNDWATER
Based on the currently available subsurface data, the groundwater conditions at the site appear
very complicated. In summary, there appears to be a channel of water-bearing sand and gravel
that extends from the SW corner to generally the NE portion of the site where significant amounts
of flows could occur in the proposed excavation. The approximate outline of the wet sand channel
is estimated and is shown on the attached Figure 2.
In November 2017, PanGEO completed a slug test program using the existing monitoring wells
(MW-1 and MW-2), and performed an analysis to estimate long term groundwater discharge rate.
Based on our preliminary analysis, we estimated that the long-term discharge rate likely to be in
the range of 30 to 60 gpm. As such, we recommended a large-scale pump test be completed at the
site to provide an estimate of the flow rate.
In February 2018, Bender Consulting completed a pump test program to estimate the permeability
of the site soils, and completed a construction dewatering design. The report from Bender
Consulting is included in Appendix G of this report. Bender Consulting estimated that the long-
term groundwater discharge likely to be more than 40 gpm, and may be as high as 70 gpm. This
is consistent with our previous estimate.
The groundwater levels appear to generally range from Elevations 98 to 104 feet, except in one of
the dewatering wells installed by Bender Consulting (dewatering well DW-1) that shows localized

Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
groundwater level at Elevation 110 feet, which Bender Consulting attributed that anomaly to
possible artesian pressure in a semi-confined aquifer.
Geotechnical design recommendations associated with the site groundwater conditions are
discussed in Section 4.2.1 of this report.
It should be noted that there will be fluctuations in groundwater level depending on the season,
amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level is higher and
seepage rates are greater in the wetter, winter months (typically October through May).
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
4.1.1 IBC Seismic Site Class

The 2015 International Building Code (IBC) seismic design section provides a basis for seismic
design of structures. Based on our understanding of the subsurface conditions at the site, it is our
opinion that Site Class D is appropriate for the site.
4.1.2 Liquefaction Potential

Liquefaction is a process that can occur when soils lose shear strength for short periods of time
during a seismic event. Ground shaking of sufficient strength and duration results in the loss of
grain-to-grain contact and an increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid.
Soils with a potential for liquefaction are typically cohesionless, predominately silt and sand sized,
loose, and below the groundwater table.
The site is predominantly underlain by dense sand and very stiff to hard silt and clay. It is our
opinion that the liquefaction potential of the site is low and design considerations related to soil
liquefaction are not necessary for this project.
4.2 BUILDING FOUNDATIONS
4.2.1 Groundwater Discussions and Foundation Design Approach

Based on the data currently available, the anticipated long-term groundwater discharge rate is quite
high (i.e., in excess of 40 gallons per minute) and hence the current design approach is to construct
a watertight basement in lieu of installing an under-slab drain as previous envisaged.
Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
For design purposes, we recommend that groundwater level be assumed at Elevation 105 feet. To
prevent groundwater from raising above the design level, we assume that a collection system be
installed at that elevation.
We envision that the collection system to consist of the following:
1. Install a narrow horizontal strip of drain mat around the outside of basement wall
perimeters, between Elevation 104 and 106 feet. This is to allow groundwater that come
up to that elevation to get into the drain mat, and free to flow horizontally around the
building perimeters inside the drain board.
2. The lowest ground surface outside the building is at the SE corner, near Elevation 107 feet.
We then install a conventional footing drain (4-inch perforated pipe), on the outside of the
building, 2 feet deep (down to Elevation 105 feet), to provide an outlet for the groundwater
that may be present inside the drain board. The footing drain will be of limited length, say
about 5 feet long along the south wall, and will be below the plaza level. The pipe is not
anticipated to have flows, but just as a safety against spikes in GW level in the event of
heavy rains.
4.2.2 Allowable Bearing Pressure

With the basement designed as a water-tight structure to resist the hydrostatic pressure, the
building will be supported on a concrete mat. The mat should bear on the undisturbed native soils
that should be encountered at the construction subgrade elevation. A structural mat foundation
can be evaluated using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 250 pounds per cubic inch (pci).
Localized concentrated loads can be evaluated using an allowable soil bearing pressure of 6,000
psf.
The recommended allowable soil bearing pressure is for dead plus live loads. For allowable stress
design, the recommended bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient loading,
such as wind or seismic forces.
Foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the above recommendations should
experience total settlement of less than ½ inch. Most of the anticipated settlement should occur
during construction as dead loads are applied.

Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
4.2.3 Uplift Resistance

The concrete mat foundation will be subjected to hydrostatic uplift forces when the groundwater
level outside the structures is higher than the base of the mat slab. For design against hydrostatic
uplift, a groundwater elevation of 105 feet should be assumed.
Structures should be designed to resist this upward force and to prevent possible heave and cracking
of foundations and slabs.
4.2.2 Lateral Resistance

Lateral loads on the structure may be resisted by passive earth pressure developed against the
embedded portion of the foundation system and by frictional resistance between the bottom of the
foundation and the supporting subgrade soils. For foundation elements bearing on the native soils,
a frictional coefficient of 0.35 may be used to evaluate sliding resistance developed between the
concrete and the subgrade soil.
Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid weight of 175 pcf below the
groundwater table (assume groundwater level at Elevation 105 feet for design) and 300 pcf above
the design water table, assuming foundations are backfilled with structural fill. The above values
include a factor of safety of 1.5. Unless covered by pavements or slabs, the passive resistance in
the upper 12 inches of soil should be neglected.
4.2.3 Subsurface Drains

Footing drains are not needed as long as the basement walls and foundation are designed for the
hydrostatic pressure.
4.2.4 Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Over-Excavation

All foundation subgrade should be in a dense, unyielding condition prior to setting forms and
placing rebar. Any loose or softened soil should also be removed from below the foundation. The
adequacy of the foundation subgrade soils should be verified by a representative of PanGEO, prior
to placing forms or rebar.
At the bottom of the excavation, the exposed foundation subgrade is anticipated to consist of
mostly silt and clay, with localized areas of wet sand and gravel. It should be noted that some of
the site soils, especially the clayey soils, are very moisture sensitive and can be easily disturbed by
excavation activities and inclement weather. If needed, the exposed subgrade should be compacted

Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
with a jumping jack to a firm and unyielding condition. If the excavation will be completed in wet
weather conditions, it may also be necessary to protect the exposed foundation subgrade with a rat
slab to facilitate the installation of waterproofing and foundation construction.
4.3 RETAINING AND BASEMENT WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS

Retaining and basement walls should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures exerted by
the soils behind the wall. Unless the walls are designed to resist hydrostatic pressure, proper
drainage provisions should also be provided behind the walls to intercept and remove groundwater
that may be present behind the wall. Our geotechnical recommendations for the design and
construction of the retaining/basement walls are presented below.
4.4.1 Lateral Earth Pressures

For the design of the basement wall, as discussed above, the design groundwater elevation should
be assumed at Elevation 105 feet.
• For basement walls constructed directly against a pile walls, an active earth pressure of 35
pcf may be used above Elevation 105 feet, and 82 pcf below Elevation 105 feet; or
• For basement walls constructed using conventional cut and fill, an earth pressure of 50 pcf
may be used above Elevation 105 feet, and 88 pcf below Elevation 105 feet.
For the seismic condition, we recommend a uniform lateral earth pressure of 8H psf (where H is
the retained height) be added to the static pressure for sizing the basement walls for the ultimate
condition. The recommended lateral pressures assume that adequate wall drainage will be
incorporated into the design and construction of the walls to prevent the development of
hydrostatic pressure.
4.4.2 Surcharge
The basement walls should be designed to accommodate surcharges from nearby structures,
potentially including the building to the south, and traffic. The lateral pressure acting on the wall
from surcharge loads may be determined using the surcharge diagram found on the attached Figure
3.

Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
4.4.3 Wall Backfill

Where wall backfill will be needed, the wall backfill should consist of imported free draining
granular material, such as Seattle Type 17 or a soil meeting the requirements of Gravel Borrow as
defined in Section 9-03.14(1) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and
Municipal Construction (WSDOT, 2016). In areas where space is limited between the wall and
the face of excavation, pea gravel may be used as backfill without compaction.
Wall backfill should be moisture conditioned to near its optimum moisture content, placed in loose,
horizontal lifts less than 12 inches in thickness, and systematically compacted to a dense and
relatively unyielding condition as verified by PanGEO personnel, or to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D-1557. Within 5 feet of the wall,
the backfill should be compacted with hand-operated equipment; a compaction level of 90 percent
of the maximum dry density is considered acceptable within 5 feet of wall.
5.0 TEMPORARY SHORING AND DEWATERING

In our opinion, based on the anticipated subsurface conditions at the site, soldier piles with timber
lagging is likely the most appropriate option. Where the wall heights exceed about 12 to 15 feet,
tiebacks likely will be needed.
The shoring system should be designed to provide adequate protection for the workers, adjacent
structures, utilities, and other facilities. Excavations should be performed in accordance with the
current requirements of WISHA. Construction should proceed as rapidly as feasible, to limit the
time temporary excavations are open.
Easements – For soldier piles taller than 12 to 15 feet, tiebacks are often used to achieve a more
economical design. Temporary construction easements will need to be obtained from the
neighboring property owners in order to install tiebacks. We recommend that the easements from
private property owners be obtained as early in the design process as feasible. The project costs
could be significantly impacted without the construction easements.
5.1 SOLDIER PILE WALL

A soldier pile wall consists of vertical steel beams, typically spaced from 6 to 8 feet apart along
the proposed excavation wall, spanned by timber lagging. Prior to the start of excavation, the
steel beams are installed into holes drilled to a design depth and then backfilled with lean mix or
structural concrete. As the excavation proceeds downward and the steel piles are subsequently

Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
exposed, timber lagging is installed between the piles to further stabilize the walls of the
excavation. In general, tiebacks are typically used for wall heights greater than about 12 to 15 feet
to achieve a more economical design. For the maximum excavation of about 28 feet, we anticipate
that one or two levels of tiebacks will likely be needed.
5.1.1 Wall Design Parameters

We recommend the earth pressures depicted on Figures 3 and 4 be used for design of soldier pile
walls for this project.
Vertical Capacity – The vertical capacity of the soldier piles should be determined using an
allowable skin friction value of 0.5 ksf for the portion of the pile below the bottom of the
excavation, and an allowable end soil bearing capacity value of 10 ksf.
5.1.2 Tiebacks
Where tiebacks will be used, the first row of tiebacks should be located no more than about 8 to
10 feet below the pile top unless steel beams of sufficient size will be used to limit the magnitude
of the cantilever deflection before the tiebacks are locked off.
The manner in which the tieback anchors carry load will depend on the type of anchor selected,
the method of installation, and the soil conditions surrounding the anchor. Accordingly, we
recommend use of a performance specification requiring the shoring contractor to install anchors
capable of satisfactorily achieving the design structural loads, with a pullout resistance factor of
safety of 2. The shoring contractor should verify that the assumed value can be achieved with the
installation method they intend to use, or a different value should be proposed by the contractor.
For planning and permitting purposes, the anchors may be sized for an allowable friction value of
2.5 kips per lineal foot of anchor bond length, assuming that small diameter (about 5 to 6 inches)
pressure-grouted tiebacks will be used, and the bond length will be entirely located within native
soils (assuming 10 feet of fill for design purposes). One or more rounds of post-grouting will
likely be needed to achieve the design capacity.
Tiebacks should have a minimum bond length of no less than 15 feet. A bond breaker shall be
constructed in the no load zone when the installation procedures use single stage grouting.
All tiebacks should be installed by experienced personnel. Based on the potential for encountering
groundwater seepage, the contractor should be prepared to case the tiebacks to maintain an open
hole.

Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
The use of compressed air to flush the drill cuttings must be properly controlled, as the use of
excessive amount of compressed air while drilling tiebacks could lead to reduction of soil strength
and ground movements.
5.1.3 Tieback Testing

The capacity of tiebacks should be checked with 200 percent verification tests. At least two 200-
percent tests should be performed in each soil type prior to installing production anchors. The
contractor may use production tiebacks for verification tests at its own risk.
All production anchors should be proof tested to 130% of the design load. The anchor installations
should be conducted in accordance with the latest edition of the Post Tensioning Institute (PTI
2004) “Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors”. Elements of the testing are as
follows:
Verification Tests (200% Tests)
▪ Prior to installing production anchors, perform a minimum of two tests each on each anchor
type, installation method and soil type with the tested anchors constructed to the same
dimensions as production anchors.
▪ Test locations to be determined in conjunction and approved by the geotechnical engineer.
▪ Test anchors, which will be loaded to 200% of the design load, may require additional
prestressing steel (steel load not to exceed 80% of the ultimate tensile strength) or
reinforcing of the soldier pile.
▪ Load test anchors to 200% load in 25% load increments, holding each incremental load for
at least 5 minutes and recording deflection of the anchor head at various times within each
hold to the nearest 0.01inch.
▪ At the 150% load, the holding period shall be at least 60 minutes.
▪ A successful test shall provide a measured creep rate of 0.04 inches or less at the 150%
load between 1 and 10 minutes, and 0.08 inches or less between 6 and 60 minutes, and a
creep rate that is linear or decreasing with time. The applied load must remain constant
during all holding periods (i.e. no more than 5% variation from the specified load).
Proof Tests (130% load tests on all production anchors)

Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
▪ Load test all production anchors to 130% of the design load in 25% load increments,
holding each incremental load until a stable deflection is achieved (record deflection of the
anchor head at various times within each hold to the nearest 0.01inch).
▪ At the 130% load, the holding period shall be at least 10 minutes
▪ A successful test shall provide a measured creep rate of 0.04 inches or less at the 130%
load between 1 and 10 minutes with a creep rate that is linear or decreasing with time. The
applied load must remain constant during the holding period (i.e. no more than 5%
variation from the 130% load). Anchors failing this proof testing creep acceptance criteria
may be held an additional 50 minutes for creep measurement. Acceptable performance
would equate to a creep of 0.08 inches or less between 5 and 50 minutes with a linear or
decreasing creep rate.
Verification tested anchors or extended creep proof tested anchors not meeting the acceptance
criteria will require a redesign by the contractor to achieve the acceptance criteria.
5.1.4 Lagging
Lagging design recommendations are presented on Figure 3. Lagging located within 10 feet of
the top of the shoring which may be subjected to surcharge loads from construction equipment or
material storage should be designed for an additional uniform lateral surcharge pressure of 200
psf. This pressure approximately corresponds to a vertical uniform surcharge load of 500 psf at
the top of the wall.
Point loads located close to the top of the wall, such as outriggers of heavy cranes, may apply
additional loads to the lagging. These loads should be individually analyzed by the shoring
designer, with input from the contractor regarding loading conditions.
Voids behind the lagging should be backfilled with CDF.
5.1.5 Groundwater and Potential Caving Soils

The drilling of soldier piles and tiebacks is anticipated to encounter fill, wet sand, and very stiff to
hard silt and clay, and caving could occur during drilling. As a result, the drilling contractor should
be prepared to stabilize the holes by using temporary casings, hydrostatic pressures (i.e., flooding
the hole), or drilling fluids.
We anticipate that water to be present in some the drilled holes during soldier pile installation. As
such, lean concrete or structural concrete backfill should be placed with tremie pipes.
Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
5.1.6 Surcharges from Heavy Construction Equipment

Cranes and pump trucks will likely be used during construction. These equipment are often
supported with outriggers with high concentrated load placed near the shoring wall. The shoring
designer should consult with the contractor regarding the loads and the placement of these
outriggers such that the shoring walls can be properly designed.
5.2 BASELINE SURVEY AND MONITORING

Ground movements will occur as a result of excavation activities. As such, ground surface
elevations of the adjacent properties and city streets should be documented prior to commencing
earthwork to provide baseline data. As a minimum, optical survey points should be established at
the following locations:
• The top of every other soldier pile. These monitoring points should be monitored twice
a week as required by SDOT. The monitoring frequency may be reduced based on the
monitoring results.
• The curbs and the centerlines of adjacent streets. These monitoring points should be
spaced no more than 20 feet apart. These monitoring points do not need to be regularly
surveyed unless the top of wall deflections exceed about ½ inch.
• The north face of the adjacent building located immediately south of the subject
property.
The monitoring program should include changes in both the horizontal (x and y directions) and
vertical deformations. The monitoring should be performed by the contractor or the project
surveyor, and the results be promptly submitted to PanGEO for review. The results of the
monitoring will allow the design team to confirm design parameters, and for the contractor to make
adjustments if necessary.
We also recommend that the existing conditions along the public right of way and the adjacent
private properties be photo-documented prior to commencing earthwork at the site.
5.3 TEMPORARY SLOPED EXCAVATIONS

Where space is available, temporary sloped cuts can be used to reduce the height, extent and cost
of temporary shoring. For planning purposes, temporary excavations may be sloped as steep as
1H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical).
Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
Temporary excavations should be constructed in accordance with Part N of the WAC (Washington
Administrative Code) 296-155. The contractor is responsible for maintaining safe excavation
slopes and/or shoring.
Temporary excavations should be evaluated in the field during construction based on actual
observed soil conditions. If seepage is encountered, excavation slope inclinations may need to be
reduced. During wet weather, the cut slopes may need to be flattened to reduce potential erosion
or should be covered with plastic sheeting.
5.4 CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING

A dewatering design has been completed by Bender Consulting, based on the results of a pump
test program completed at the site. The results of the pump test and dewatering design are outlined
in a report prepared by Bender Consulting, and is included in Appendix H of this report. In
summary, a series of well points will be installed to lower the groundwater table during
construction. We also anticipate that the well points will likely need to be supplemented by sumps
and pumps at the bottom of the excavation.
The dewatering and lowering of the groundwater will occur primarily in medium dense to dense
sand with gravel. As such, we anticipate the potential settlement from the dewatering will be
relatively minor. In the immediately vicinity of the site, the dewatering-induced settlement is
anticipated to be less than ½ inch, and the potential impacts will decrease with distance from the
site.
6.0 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 STRUCTURAL FILL AND COMPACTION

The on-site soils should not be used as structural fill. Imported structural fill, if needed, should
consist of City of Seattle Type 17, crushed surfacing base course as specified in WSDOT Section
9-03.9(3) (WSDOT, 2016), or an approved similar material.
Structural fill should be moisture conditioned to near its optimum moisture content, placed in
loose, horizontal lifts less than about a foot in thickness, and compacted to a dense and unyielding
condition as verified by PanGEO personnel, or to at least 95 percent maximum density, determined
using ASTM D-1557 (Modified Proctor).

Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
The procedure to achieve proper density of a compacted fill depends on the size and type of
compacting equipment, the number of passes, thickness of the lifts being compacted, and certain
soil properties. If the excavation to be backfilled is constricted and limits the use of heavy
equipment, smaller equipment can be used, but the lift thickness will need to be reduced to achieve
the required relative compaction.
Generally, loosely compacted soils are a result of poor construction technique or improper
moisture content. Soils with high fines contents are particularly susceptible to becoming too wet
and coarse-grained materials easily become too dry, for proper compaction. Silty or clayey soils
with a moisture content too high for adequate compaction should be dried as necessary, or moisture
conditioned by mixing with drier materials, or other methods.
6.2 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION

General recommendations relative to earthwork performed in wet weather or in wet conditions are
presented below. The following procedures are best management practices recommended for use
in wet weather construction:
• Earthwork should be performed in small areas to minimize subgrade exposure to wet

weather. Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soil should be followed promptly by
the placement and compaction of clean structural fill. The size and type of construction
equipment used may have to be limited to prevent soil disturbance.
• During wet weather, the allowable fines content of the structural fill should be reduced
to no more than 5 percent by weight based on the portion passing the 0.75-inch sieve.
The fines should be non-plastic.
• The ground surface within the construction area should be graded to promote run-off
of surface water and to prevent the ponding of water.
• Geotextile silt fences should be installed at strategic locations around the site to control
erosion and the movement of soil.
• Excavation slopes and soils stockpiled on site should be covered with plastic sheeting.
6.3 PERMANENT CUT AND FILL SLOPES

Based on the anticipated soil that will be exposed in the planned excavation, we recommend
permanent cut and fill slopes be constructed no steeper than 2H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical).

Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
6.4 EROSION CONSIDERATIONS

Surface runoff can be controlled during construction by careful grading practices. Typically, this
includes the construction of shallow, upgrade perimeter ditches or low earthen berms in
conjunction with silt fences to collect runoff and prevent water from entering excavations or to
prevent runoff from the construction area leaving the immediate work site. Temporary erosion
control may require the use of hay bales on the downhill side of the project to prevent water from
leaving the site and potential storm water detention to trap sand and silt before the water is
discharged to a suitable outlet. All collected water should be directed under control to a positive
and permanent discharge system.
Permanent control of surface water should be incorporated in the final grading design. Adequate
surface gradients and drainage systems should be incorporated into the design such that surface
runoff is collected and directed away from the structure to a suitable outlet. Potential issues
associated with erosion may also be reduced by establishing vegetation within disturbed areas
immediately following grading operations.
7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

To confirm that our recommendations are properly incorporated into the design and construction
of the proposed development, PanGEO should be retained to conduct a review of the final project
plans and specifications, and to monitor the construction of geotechnical elements. The City of
Seattle SDCI, as part of the permitting process, will also require geotechnical construction
inspection services. PanGEO can provide you a cost estimate for construction monitoring services
at a later date.
8.0 CLOSURE
We have prepared this report for 225 Roy Street LLC and the project design team.
Recommendations contained in this report are based on a site reconnaissance, a subsurface
exploration program, review of pertinent subsurface information, and our understanding of the
project. The study was performed using a mutually agreed-upon scope of services.
Variations in soil conditions may exist between the locations of the explorations and the actual
conditions underlying the site. The nature and extent of soil variations may not be evident until
construction occurs. If any soil conditions are encountered at the site that are different from those
described in this report, we should be notified immediately to review the applicability of our

Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
recommendations. Additionally, we should also be notified to review the applicability of our

recommendations if there are any changes in the project scope.
The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions. Our
recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors’ methods, techniques, sequences or
procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Additionally,
the scope of our services specifically excludes the assessment of environmental characteristics,
particularly those involving hazardous substances. We are not mold consultants nor are our
recommendations to be interpreted as being preventative of mold development. A mold specialist
should be consulted for all mold-related issues.
This report has been prepared for planning and design purposes for specific application to the
proposed project in accordance with the generally accepted standards of local practice at the time
this report was written. No warranty, express or implied, is made.
This report may be used only by the client and for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time
from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both off and on-site), or other factors including
advances in our understanding of applied science, may change over time and could materially
affect our findings. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after 24 months from its
issuance. PanGEO should be notified if the project is delayed by more than 24 months from the
date of this report so that we may review the applicability of our conclusions considering the time
lapse.
It is the client’s responsibility to see that all parties to this project, including the designer,
contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of information
contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor’s option and risk.
Any party other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify PanGEO of such intended
use and for permission to copy this report. Based on the intended use of the report, PanGEO may
require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be reissued. Noncompliance
with any of these requirements will release PanGEO from any liability resulting from the use this
report.

Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
Sincerely,
PanGEO, Inc.
Siew L Tan, P.E.

Principal Geotechnical Engineer

Geotechnical Report
February 23, 2018
9.0 REFERENCES
City of Seattle, 2016, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridges, and Municipal Construction.
International Code Council, 2015, International Building Code (IBC), 2015.
Post Tensioning Institute (PTI), 2004, Recommendations for Pre-Stressed Rock and Soil
Anchors.
Troost, K.G., Booth, D. B., Wisher, A. P., Shimmel, S. A., 2005, The Geologic Map of Seattle-
A Progress Report, Seattle, Washington – U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2005-
1252, scale 1:24,000.
United States Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, Interpolated Probabalisitic
Ground Motion for the Conterminous 48 States by Latitude and Longitude, 2008 Data,
accessed via:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php
WSDOT, 2016, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, M 41-
10.

Lake
Union
Site PlanP.grf w/ file.dat 10/10/16 (09:15) TEA2
Note:
Not to Scale Base map modified from Google Maps Terrian View
Proposed Development VICINITY MAP

225 Roy Street
Seattle, WA
16-116 1
ft
150
120 f
t B-1
ft
140
B-3 B-2
ft
ft 120
130
ft
ROY STREET
130
PROJECT
LOCATION
WH14 WH15 WH16 CD-1

WH21
B-1
2ND AVE N
WH22 WH13 P4
WH12
ft
120
MW-1
WH20 SOP-2 WH9 WH10 P3
WH11
P2
3RD AVE N
APPROXIMATE ZONE OF
WH19 WH8
WET SET AND POTENTIALLY WH7
SIGNIFICANT GROUNDWATER FLOW
WH21
P1
WH17 MW-2
ft
WH5
0
SOP-1 WH24
11
WH6
WH4 WH23
WH25
SOP-3
PG-1 WH26 CD-9
LEGEND
WH27
B-# Soil Boring by Geotech Consultants, Inc. (Appendix A)
TB-7 Soil Boring by Shannon & Wilson. (Appendix B)
PW-2 / WH3 WH2 WH1
OW-2
Soil Boring by HWA GeoSciences. (Appendix C) PG-2
ft
0
CD-# Soil Boring by Neil Twelker & Assoc. (Appendix D) CD-4

12
CD-2
SOP-# Soil Boring by Herrera. (Appendix E) TB-7 PW-2
WH# Direct Push Boring by AMEC. (Appendix F)
OW-2
B-1 /
MW-#
Soil Boring by Environmental Partners Inc. (Appendix G)
P# Direct Push Boring by Herrera.
MERCER STREET
PG-# Soil Boring by PanGEO, Inc.
NOTES
Proposed Development
1. Aerial imagery & topography obtained from Seattle DPD GIS website. SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN
GIS features are provided for relative information only and are not substitution for field survey. 50' 0 25' 50' 225 Roy Street
I N C O R P O R A T E D
2. Location of borings are approximate and based on the relative locations of known site features. scale in feet Seattle, Washington
3. Vertical Datum: NAVD '88 Scale: 1" = 50' 16-116 2
Footing
Surcharge = q
Bf
1 1H:1V Temporary Cut

(if applicable)
x X
15 feet max
Level Backslope
0.4(1 - X/H) q Assumed

No-Load Soldier Pile Wall with H Groundwater
Zone Timber Lagging Depth for Shoring
Design = 14 feet
60 deg
from existing ground
3Bf
Min. Bond Length

> 15 ft
Street Traffic Surcharge: Footing Surcharge
80 psf uniform pressure Apply only to above
Apply only to above bottom of excavation
bottom of excavation Base of Excavation
40 pcf (1H:1V backslope)
35 pcf (level backslope) H/4,
but > 5ft 300 pcf
1 1
20 pcf (1H:1V backslope) 200 pcf

18 pcf (level backslope)
1
1
Active Pressure Passive Pressure
Notes:
1. Minumum embedment should be at least 10 feet below bottom of excavation.
2. A factor of safety of 1.5 has been applied to the recommended passive pressure values.
No factor of safety has been applied to the recommended active earth pressure values.
10/25/16 (14:53) TEA2
3. Active pressures should be applied over the full width of the pile spacing above the
base of the excavation, and over one pile diameter below the base of the excavation.
4. Surcharge pressures should be applied over the entire length of the loaded area.
5. Passive pressure should be applied to two times the diameter of the soldier piles.
6. Use 50% of the active and surcharge pressures for lagging design with soldier piles spaced
at 8' or less.
file.grf w/ file.dat
7. Refer to report text for additional discussions. DESIGN LATERAL PRESSURES

Proposed Development TEMPORARY SOLDIER PILE WALL
225 Roy Street CANTILEVERED OR WITH ONE TIEBACK
Seattle, Washington
Project No. Figure No.
16-116 3
Footing
Surcharge = q
Bf
0.65xH1
H1
X
x No-Load
Zone
15 feet max
0.4(1 - X/H) q Assumed
Soldier Pile Wall with H Groundwater
23H psf Depth for Shoring
Timber Lagging
Design = 2 feet
60 deg
3Bf below bottom of
excavation
Min. Bond Length

> 15 ft
Street Traffic Surcharge: Footing Surcharge
80 psf uniform pressure Apply only to above
Apply only to above bottom of excavation
bottom of excavation Base of Excavation
H/4,
but > 5ft 300 pcf
1
200 pcf
1
Active Pressure Passive Pressure
Notes:
1. Minumum embedment should be at least 10 feet below bottom of excavation.
2. A factor of safety of 1.5 has been applied to the recommended passive pressure values.
No factor of safety has been applied to the recommended active earth pressure values.
2/23/18 (08:46) TEA2
3. Active pressures should be applied over the full width of the pile spacing above the
base of the excavation, and over one pile diameter below the base of the excavation.
4. Surcharge pressures should be applied over the entire length of the loaded area.
5. Passive pressure should be applied to two times the diameter of the soldier piles.
6. Use 50% of the active and surcharge pressures for lagging design with soldier piles spaced
at 8' or less.
file.grf w/ file.dat
7. Refer to report text for additional discussions. DESIGN LATERAL PRESSURES

Proposed Development TEMPORARY SOLDIER PILE WALL
225 Roy Street MULTIPLE LEVEL TIEBACK
Seattle, Washington
Project No. Figure No.
16-116 4
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
APPENDIX E
SOIL BORING AND MONITORING WELL
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Boring # SOP-1
Total depth 50’
Sheet 1 of 3
Project name SOP Phase II Drilling Contractor Cascade Drilling method Hollow Stem Auger
Project number 16-06245-001 Location SW portion of Parking lot Sampling method D+M Sampler
Client WA Holdings Ground elevation -
HEC rep. B. Carpenter Start date 4/13/16 Air monitoring (Y/N) Yes
Compl. date 4/13/16 Instrument(s) Mini RAE PID
Instrument Sample Depth Water

reading type, % Blow (feet, level Soil
(ppm) interval recovery counts BGS) (feet) group Soil description
Asphalt 5”
1 Brown gravelly SAND
2
Concrete, brick rubble- old road surface, fill
3
5
5 SM Dark brown silty gravelly SAND,
0 44 7 6 brick fragments, concrete, moist, fill
8
7
10
4 As above
0 100 3 11 CL White gray clayey SILT,
4 non plastic, organic material
12 moist, iron oxide staining
Soil sample SOP1-10 at 8:30
13
14  SWL
14.2
15
8 As above
0 100 13 16 SW Gray f-c gravelly, f-c SAND. tr. silt, wet
9
17
18
19
20
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Boring # SOP-1
Total depth 50’
Sheet 2 of 3
Instrumen Sample Depth Water

t reading type, % Blow (feet, level Soil
27 SM Brown silty SAND, wet, tr. gravel
0 100 18 21 poorly graded f-sand
20 Soil sample SOP1-20 at 8:45
22
23
24
25
15 8” as above, wet
0 100 8 26 2” white-gray clayey silt low-med plastic
10 SM Gray silty SAND, f-c gravel, damp
27 Temporary well
set screen 15’-25’
28 Water sample SOP1-W at 9:05
29
30
5 CL Gray silty CLAY, non-plastic, moist
0 100 6 31
10
32
33
34
35
0 100 8 36
13
37
38
39
5 40 CL Gray silty CLAY, non-plastic, moist

0 100 10
14 41
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Boring # SOP-1
Total depth 50’
Sheet 3 of 3
Instrumen Sample Depth Water

t reading type, % Blow (feet, level Soil
42
43
44
45
0 100 9 46
10
47
48
49

0 100
51
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Boring # SOP-2
Total depth 30’
Sheet 1 of 2
Project number 16-06245-001 Location NE portion of parking lot Sampling method D&M Sampler

Asphalt 5”
1 SW Brown gravelly SAND,
5
2 ML Brown sandy gravelly SILT
0 100 4 6 moist, brick fragments, fill
3
7
10
3 ML Light brown clayey SILT with
0 100 5 11 sand seams, moist, iron staining
4 f-c gravel
13
14
15
10 SM Brown silty gravelly SAND, moist-wet. f-c gravel, cobble
0 100 12 16 2” clayey silt
15
17
18
19
20
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Boring # SOP-2
Total depth 30’
Sheet 2 of 2

13 ML Gray silty SAND, wet
0 100 15 21 3” clayey silt
22
23
24
25
8 CH Gray silty CLAY, medium to high plastic, moist
0 100 8 26
10
27
28
29
30
5 CH Gray silty CLAY, medium to high plastic, moist
0 100 6 31 Soil sample SOP2-30 at 13:25
10 No measurable ground water level when boring
32 completed
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Boring # SOP-3
Total depth 50
Sheet 1 Of 3
Project number 16-06245-001 Location SE of Teatro ZinZanni Building Sampling method D&M Sampler

Topsoil
1
SM Fill brown silty SAND w/ f-c gravel, fill, moist
2
5
0 100 50/6” ML Gray clay SILT, moist
6
10
0 100 70/6” ML Gray clay SILT, moist
11 Soil sample SOP3-10 at11:15
12
13
14
15
0 100 100/6” SW Gravel- med. SAND w/f-c gravel moist-wet
16  Soil sample SOP3-15 at 11:30
16.7
17
Set temporary well screen from 17.5’ to 22.5’ bgs
18 Water sample SOP3-W at 12:50
19
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Boring # SOP-3
Total depth 50
Sheet 2 Of 3

readings type, % Blow (feet, level Soil
20
0 100 100/6” GW Gray f-c GRAVEL, rounded w/ f/med SAND, tr. Silt, wet
22
23
24
25
0 100 100/5” SM/ML Gray fine silty SAND, wet, transition into gray sandy
SILT
26 moist-wet, non-plastic
27
28
29
30
1.5 100 100/5” ML Gray sandy SILT, tr. Gravel, non-plastic
31 moist-wet
Soil sample SOP3-30 at 13:30
32
33
34
35
0 100 50/5” ML Gray F. sandy SILT, tr., moist-wet
36 bottom 2” had clayey SILT
37
38
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Boring # SOP-3
Total depth 50
Sheet 3 Of 3

39
40
0 100 29 ML As above low to no plastic, moist
50/5” 41
42
43
44
45
0 100 50/5” ML As above, moist
46
47
48
49
50
0 100 32 ML As above, moist
50/6” 51
Appendix F
Appendix G
BORING ID: MW-1
SITE ADDRESS CLIENT: CASING MATERIAL AND SIZE:
225 Roy St Seattle Opera 2-inch PVC
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: PROJECT #: SCREEN SIZE:
Cascade 72501 0.010
DRILLING EQUIPMENT: DATE: SCREEN INTERVAL:
CME 55 7/18/16 10-25 ft bgs
DRILLING METHOD: GROUND SURFACE ELEV. FT AMSL: FILTER PACK:
Limited Access HSA Not Measured 10-20 Silica Sand
LOGGED BY: BOREHOLE SIZE: TOTAL DEPTH: FILTER PACK INTERVAL:
E. Webber-Bruya 2 inches 25 ft bgs 8-25 ft bgs
% Recovery
Depth (feet)
PID (ppm)
Interval &
Description
USCS
Blows per 6" Well Construction

USCS name; Color; Moisture; Density; Sample
Plasticity; Dilatency; EPI description; Other
0 ORGANIC SOIL
1
2
OL-OH
3
4
Insufficient to
5 WELL-GRADED SAND WITH SILT; grayish sample
8.5
brown; moist; dense; well-graded sand with silt 20 50/6"
6 and trace gravel
7
8
9 SW-SM
10 MW-1:10
20 50/6"
11
12
13 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL; brown; moist;
dense; medium plasticity; silty sand with minor
14 large gravel 14.51
15 MW-1:15 10
20 50/5"
16
17 SM
18
19
20 MW-1:20 8.6
15 50/6"
21 WELL-GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL;
grayish brown; wet; dense
22
23 SW
24 30 50/5"
25 MW-1:25 5.6
26
NOTES:
1 of 1
BORING ID: MW-2
SITE ADDRESS CLIENT: CASING MATERIAL AND SIZE:
225 Roy St Seattle Opera 2-inch PVC
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: PROJECT #: SCREEN SIZE:
Cascade 72501 0.010
DRILLING EQUIPMENT: DATE: SCREEN INTERVAL:
CME 55 7/18/16 10-25 ft bgs
DRILLING METHOD: GROUND SURFACE ELEV. FT AMSL: FILTER PACK:
Limited Access HSA Not Measured 10-20 Silica Sand
LOGGED BY: BOREHOLE SIZE: TOTAL DEPTH: FILTER PACK INTERVAL:
E. Webber-Bruya 2 inches 25 ft bgs 8-25 ft bgs
% Recovery
Depth (feet)
PID (ppm)
Interval &
Description
USCS
Blows per 6" Well Construction

USCS name; Color; Moisture; Density; Sample
Plasticity; Dilatency; EPI description; Other
0 Cement
WELL-GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND
1 GRAVEL; brownish-gray; damp; very dense;
well-graded sand with silt and large rounded
2 gravel
3
4
SW-SM Insufficient to
5 sample
7.2
10 50/5"
6
7
8
9 POORLY-GRADED SAND; brownish-gray;
damp; dense; no odor; poorly graded sand
10 with trace silt and trace gravel MW-2:10 12
10.67
20 50/5"
11
12
13
14 SP
15 MW-2:15 8.5
30 50/6"
16
17
18
19 SILTY SAND; gray; wet; dense; non-plastic;
fine grained silty sand with trace angular gravel
20 MW-2:20 13
10 50/5"
21
22 SM
23
24 40 50/5"
25 MW-2:25 7.8
26
NOTES:
1 of 1
Bentonite Chips
2 inch
0 Asphalt
1 Concrete
WELL-GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL; dray;
2 loose; well-graded sand wiht gravel and trace
3 silt
SW
4
5 B-1:5 13
SILT WITH GRAVEL; reddish-brown; damp; 60 2-1-1
6
medium plasticity; silt with gravel and few sand
7
ML
8
9
10 Increasing sand
B-1:10 10
100 5-5-5
11
12
13
14
15 SILT; gray; damp-dry; dense; low plasticity;
B-1:15 14
gray dense silt 100 4-3-3
16
17
18
19
20 8
100 5-7-10
21
22
23
24
25 ML B-1:25 8.3
100 8-10-10
26
27
28
29
30 B-1:30 8.2
100 10-17-17
31
32
33
34 100 4-12-13
35 B-1:35 14
36
NOTES:
1 of 1
Appendix H
February 4, 2018
Mr. Ben Margoles

Washington Holdings
600 University Street, Suite 2820
Seattle, Washington 98101
Draft 225 ROY STREET DEWATERING DESIGN, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Dear Ben:
This letter presents our dewatering design recommendations for construction of the 225 Roy Street
building in Seattle, Washington. This letter is intended to provide the basis of design, and design
recommendations for site groundwater control. This letter does not detail the specific equipment
intended for construction of the system, specific dewatering component cut sheets, layout, or schedule.
This plan has been prepared based on the project geotechnical reports, the plans, site testing, and our
conversations with you.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is located at the intersection of Roy Street and 3rd Avenue North, and is bordered on the
south by Mercer Street. The southwest corner of the block is owned by another party. The
proposed building will have dimensions of about 100 by 130 feet, with the southwest corner removed
from the square footprint. The excavation will be shored by soldier pile and lagging methods with pile
spacing generally on about 8-foot centers.
The proposed base of excavation elevation will be 93.5 feet near the northeast corner, sloping up to
elevation 98.5 on the west side and elevation 97.8 feet on the south. Two elevator pits, one in the
northeast and one in the south, will have base of excavation elevations of 91 feet. No information was
provided on the elevation of the crane pad. Ground surface elevation at the site slopes from about
elevation 123 feet on the northwest down to elevation 110 feet on the southeast. As such, the excavation
will be between depths of 32 and 19 feet.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The soil and groundwater conditions for the site are provided in a Geotechnical Report prepared by
PanGeo, Inc., dated June 5, 2017. This report compiled existing boring logs from various investigations
over time at the site. PanGeo also later supplied boring logs performed on the adjacent property on the
southwest corner of the block.
Amec Foster Wheeler also presented a draft Environmental Site Assessment report in June 2017 for
the site. About 27 push probes were performed as a part of the environment investigation with target
depths between 20 and 25 feet, but some of these encountered refusal at shallower depths.
Bender Consulting, LLC 1733-01
D:\1733-01 Roy Street\225 Roy Street Dewatering Design.docx

Letter to Mr. Ben Margoles
February 4, 2018
Page 2
The site has undergone both cut of native soils and placement of fill. Up to 10 feet of fill has been
placed in the western part of the site. The native soil beneath the fill, or directly below ground surface
is quite variable. In much of the northern and southern halves of the site a silty sand/sandy silt and silt
were encountered to depths of about 15 or 20 feet; though there is some indication that a silty sand and
gravel was encountered at depths below 15 feet in some of the borings. However, in a rough swath
extending in about the middle of the site from east to west PanGeo indicated a channel of silty sand to
poorly graded sand may be present to depths of 30 feet or more. This pervious sand was underlain by
silt. PanGeo had also performed two borings on the neighboring property on the southwest corner of
the block and had encountered this pervious sand to depths of up to 51 feet.
As part of our work, we observed the installation of two small-diameter wells installed by Kulchin
Foundation Drilling, Inc. DW-1, installed near the eastern border of the property, encountered pervious
slightly gravelly to gravelly sand to a depth of 35 feet; the boring then encountered dry silt. DW-2,
located on the western border of the property, encountered about 14 feet of low permeability silt
underlain by pervious fine to medium sand to a depth of 27 feet; this sand was then underlain by silt.
Based on the borings the site was originally occupied by low-energy silt and silty sand that was
deposited an impounded water body, this is likely post-glacial advance. As the glacier melted, runoff
from the surrounding area cut one or more channels through the site depositing sand and gravel. There
may have been multiple episodes of ponding and runoff which have various depositional patterns
vertically and horizontaly. PanGeo’s site and exploration plan with their annotation of a possible sand-
filled channel is shown in Figure 1. We have added to this plan the locations of DW-1 and DW-2, and
our consideration of the rough borders of a channel. The areas outside of the postulated channel
boundaries all appear to consist of low permeability silt and sand; however, a few of these borings
encountered refusal at depth, which could mean that there are pervious soils underlying.
Groundwater levels were measured prior to our performing a pumping test at the site. The following
provides the groundwater elevations on January 22, 2018 (ground surface elevation estimated for MW-
1 and MW-2):
MW-1: 98.4 feet
MW-2: 103.6 feet
DW-1: 100.0
DW-2: 110.0
There is considerable variation in the data; this is directly related to the complicated geology at the site.
It would be expected that MW-1, DW-1, and MW-2 would all have similar groundwater elevations
due to their proximity to one another. Through review of the boring log, MW-2 would appear to be in
a perched aquifer on silt; the pumping test results below indicate that the water is not solely perched.
MW-1 and DW-1 reflect a weakly confined (pressurized) aquifer that may also be connected to the
perched aquifer to some degree. DW-2 is completed in a confined aquifer that likely is connected to

February 4, 2018
Page 3
the DW-1 location, however the 10 feet difference in groundwater elevation is unusual and would
suggest a more complicated hydraulic connection.
A pumping test was performed at the site at DW-1. Pumping tests are controlled discharge rate tests
that measure drawdown in monitoring wells, and aquifer permeability, transmissivity, and storage are
then estimated from the test results. A 24-hour pumping test was performed starting January 23, 2018;
once complete, groundwater recovery was monitored for a period of 6 days. There was significant
rainfall during and after the test period. The pumping rate was about 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm).
The test water level data are shown in Figures 2 through 5; the analysis results are shown in Table 1.
The data indicate that there are two aquifers at the site: a deeper semi-confined aquifer and a shallow
perched aquifer. The arithmetic plots from DW-2 and MW-2 show periodic rises in groundwater levels
in response to recharge from precipitation; while DW-2 showed only a weak response to pumping,
MW-2 initially showed an ideal response before recharge, and indicates the well is screened in both
aquifers. DW-1 and MW-1 had ideal responses to pumping, but the recovery data showed significant
recharge from precipitation. These data indicate that the aquifer system is complex and interconnected,
and that recharge from precipitation will provide a near immediate source of water to the excavation.
Based on the analysis, it is our opinion that the permeability of the deeper semi-confined aquifer is
between 0.009 and 0.015 feet per minute (ft/min); this is equivalent to a low to moderate permeability
aquifer. Though the data were insufficient to analysis of the permeability of the upper aquifer (due to
interference from precipitation) it is our opinion that the permeability is on the order of 0.01 ft/min.
The data indicate that the two water-bearing zones are weakly to moderately hydraulically connected.
GROUNDWATER CONTROL APPROACH AND RATE ESTIMATIONS
The following presents the groundwater control approach and design calculations for the work. The
site is located in an area of low permeability soils, but a channel of more moderate permeability soils
likely crosses the site. This channel has likely experienced a number of erosive and depositional events
which has resulted in at least two pervious sections within. Dewatering will need to be performed in
the channel areas to reduce seepage to the excavation and to maintain a stable subgrade during
excavation.
Based on the measured groundwater elevations and topography it appears that groundwater flow is
from west to east. We assume a static water elevation of 105 feet for the calculations, but this can
certainly vary across the site and due to precipitation events.
Assuming a static groundwater elevation of 105 feet and a deepest base of excavation of 91 feet, about
16 feet of dewatering may be required to lower the groundwater to 2 feet below the base of excavation.

February 4, 2018
Page 4
Given the presence of a nearly uniform layer of low permeability silt along the northern boundary of
the site (see WH5, 8, 9, 13-21, OW-2, PW-2, TB-7), the lack of wet sand in PW-2 and OW-2, and the
absence of sand in TB-7, it appears that the principle areas of dewatering should focus within the areas
outlined in Figure 1.
It is our opinion that vacuum-based well points are the most appropriate dewatering method for the site.
Well points can provide an effective cutoff with the soil geometry at the site, and the required head lift
is within the limits of a vacuum system. Vacuum-based well points have a practical design head lift
limitation of about 18 feet; since the depth to subgrade is as much as 32 feet, they cannot be installed
from the surface. The well points will be installed through the shoring wall at an elevation about 1 to
2 feet above the water table. The well points will be installed through the lagging mid-way between
the soldier piles.
The dewatering design calculations were performed using analytical methods by Theis and Jacob. Well
points were placed on 8-foot centers along most of the east wall and parts of the west wall as shown in
Figure 6; 58 well points were modeled though additional wells may be needed based on site conditions,
or fewer well points may yield water. The calculated discharge rate from the system was between
about 100 and 145 gpm in the first 7 days of operation. Note that though initial yields may reach this
level, actual rates should be significantly less. The calculations assume a continuous aquifer; if the
assumption that a pervious channel cuts through a site bounded by low permeability soils is true, the
aquifer is actually quite small, and we would anticipate rates maybe half of those calculated. Discharge
rates will continue to decline with time.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Groundwater control at this site will be performed using well points. Well points will be placed one
per bay along the east and west walls as shown in Figure 6. As discussed, the soil conditions at this
site are very complex; as such, it will be important for the dewatering system drillers to carefully
monitor the soils during drilling and shorten or add well points as necessary. Well points should be
shortened when a continuous layer of silt is encountered; well points should be added if pervious sand
and gravels continue to be found beyond the extent shown in Figure 6.
Sumps will also be required to remove perched water or residual seepage.
The well point system will essentially act as a cutoff system for groundwater residing in the outwash
channel. Once the channel is largely dewatered, discharge rates from the system will decrease
significantly. Tuning of the system by the dewatering contractor may be required frequently in this
scenario. Note that precipitation events recharge the soils rapidly, and some adjustments to the system
performance may be required at those times.
Proper operation and maximizing the performance of a well point system requires frequent tuning of

February 4, 2018
Page 5
each well point, particularly in the first few days of operation; access will be required to maintain the
well points. Advance system operation time is critical to the work, and we recommend a minimum of
5 days advance dewatering prior to substantial excavation below the water table.
The following provides specific information for construction and operation of the system.
Well Points: The well points should be installed about 1 to 2 feet above the groundwater table as
identified by drilling of the soldier piles or test pits within the excavation. Well points should be
constructed of 2-inch-diameter PVC and have a 3-foot long 30-slot screen section and interior suction
pipe to the bottom of the well point. Well points should be drilled through the wall at an angle of 60-
degrees below horizontal to a maximum depth of 23 feet; we anticipate that most well points will be
shallower. If a continuous silt, clay, or other low permeability soil is encountered near the end of the
boring, the boring should be terminated, and the well point installed above that depth with less than 6-
inches of the well point being below the contact with the low permeability soil. We understand that the
borings will be drilled with a Klemm.
A Colorado Product 10-20 washed, rounded sand filter pack should be placed in the annular space
between the borehole wall and well point casing up to the static water table. A bentonite pellet seal
should be placed between the top of the sand pack and ground surface. The seal should be hydrated.
Well point swing hoses should be new or clean enough that the operator and site staff can clearly see
the amount of air and water passing through the hose.
All well points should have valves placed in-line to control vacuum pressure and flow at each well
point. This project will require frequent valve adjustments, gate or ball valves are recommended.
Well points should be installed in accordance with WAC 173-160.
Vacuum Pump: A vacuum pump capable of creating at least 22-inches (Hg) of vacuum across each
well point should be provided. The pump should have a continuous power supply and be capable of
providing continuous vacuum in the system throughout the length of the project.
Provide a vacuum gage on the end of the header pipe furthest from the pump. Vacuum pressures should
be above 18-inches at the gage at all times.
An auto-dialer should be connected to the pump to notify personnel of a pump failure and a spare
vacuum pump should be available for installation within 4 to 6 hours of a pump malfunction. Failure
of vacuum pumps is very rare, but this contingency should be performed for pump failure could result
in significant impacts to adjacent property
Development: The well points should be developed immediately upon completion. Development
methods should utilize flow surging. Development will improve the hydraulic connection with the

February 4, 2018
Page 6
aquifer and should provide a clean dewatering effluent with time. Development water should be
discharged to the treatment system.
Piping and Discharge: The discharge piping from the pump should be minimum 6-inch diameter
HDPE or PVC. The discharge piping will be routed to the treatment tank. The pump and piping should
be hung from the shoring wall and should be protected from damage. Air leaks in the piping and
components must be minimized such that there is greater than 18-inches of vacuum at each well point
at all times.
Flowmeter: A flowmeter should be installed on the mainline discharge from the dewatering system.
The flowmeter should be installed such that there is a full pipe of water and that some backpressure is
exerted on the meter. Flow meters should be installed according to manufacturer’s recommendations
on distances to joints, elbows, etc.
Power: We understand that power will be supplied by portable generators or diesel driven pumps.
Sumps: Sumps may be required during excavation. Sumps should be cased in a perforated housing or
well screen surrounded by a washed, rounded gravel pack to avoid pumping of fines. Sump discharge
should be to a settling tank separate from the dewatering system effluent.
Well Decommissioning: The well points should be decommissioned according to WAC 173-160.
Monitoring: The static water level in the well points and existing monitoring wells should be measured
prior to dewatering. Discharge rates should be monitored daily. The system should be checked daily
for air leaks and all well point headers be adjusted to minimize air flow into the system and to maximize
vacuum at the well point. Pump failures or irregularities should be reported to the dewatering contractor
immediately.
The existing monitoring wells and test dewatering wells at the site should be maintained until
dewatering is verified and/or complete. The monitoring wells should be measured once per day during
the drawdown period and then twice per week thereafter. Water levels and flow rate data should be
maintained in an on-site log.
Operation: The systems should be operated continuously. Dewatering should commence a minimum
of 5 days prior to excavation below the water table. The systems should be regularly inspected for
piping leaks and pump malfunctions.
The dewatering design recommendations provided herein have been oriented to the various soil
conditions observed at the site, further variations may exist. As such, we recommend that our staff be
present during initial system installation and startup. Should well discharge rates and groundwater level
drawdown not be similar than presented herein, we should be contacted so that we may observe the
system performance and revise our design recommendations as necessary.

February 4, 2018
Page 7
This design has been prepared to meet the groundwater levels required by the work. Potential impacts
to off-site structures or facilities has not been considered as part of this work. If there are potential
affects to structures, such as groundwater drawdown inducing ground settlement, then the Owner is
responsible for identifying these risks and what constraints they may have on operation of the
dewatering system. This design has not considered the effects or liabilities associated with pumping or
migration of contaminated groundwater; as stated above, the design has been provided only to meet the
specified drawdown criteria and we hold no liability for adverse effects related to groundwater and soil
contamination.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Please call us at (360) 631-5600 should you have any
questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Scott F. Bender L.H.G., C.G.W.P.
Enclosures: Table 1. DW-1 Pumping Test Results

Figure 1. PanGeo, Inc. Site Plan
Figure 2. DW-1 Pumping Test Curves
Figure 3. DW-2 Pumping Test Curves
Figure 4. MW-1 Pumping Test Curves
. Figure 5. MW-2 Pumping Test Curves
Figure 6. Well point Locations for Calculation
Figure 7. Calculated Dewatering Groundwater profile and Discharge Rates

Table 1. DW-1 Pumping Test Results
Pumping Start 1/23/2018 8:01
Pumping End 1/24/2018 9:29
Recovery End 1/30/2018 10:43
Discharge Rate 2.4 gpm 0.3 ft3/min
Monitoring Point Radius (ft) b Theis Jacob Recovery Geometric Mean (no recovery)
(feet) T S Kh T S Kh T Kh T Kh S
2 2 2
(ft /min) (ft/min) (ft /min) (ft/min) (ft /min) (ft/min) (ft2/min) (ft/min)
DW-1 1 21 0.05 0.003 0.02 0.001 0.05 0.003
DW-2 165 13 3.65 7.0E-03 0.281 4.52 6.7E-03 0.347 recharge from precipitation
MW-1 20 14 0.14 2.8E-03 0.010 0.11 1.8E-03 0.008 0.02 0.002 0.12 0.009 2.3E-03
MW-2 25 14 0.21 5.4E-03 0.015 0.22 5.5E-03 0.016 0.28 0.020 0.22 0.015 5.5E-03
Possible limits of
channel
DW-1
DW-2
Possible limits of
channel
Project Number
225 Roy Street Boring Locationsand possible Limits of 1733-01
Dewatering Design Recommendations
Washington Holdings
Sand-filled Channel Figure 1
Project Number
225 Roy Street 1733-01
Dewatering Design Recommendations DW-1 Pumping Test Results
Washington Holdings Figure 2
Project Number
Dewatering Design Recommendations DW-2 Pumping Test Results
Project Number
Dewatering Design Recommendations MW-1 Pumping Test Results
Project Number
Dewatering Design Recommendations MW-2 Pumping Test Results
Well Point
Location (typ)
Project Number
Dewatering Design Recommendations Well Point Locations for Calculation
105.0 ---- Static Water Table Surface ---
103.0
101.0
Groundwater Elevation (feet)
99.0
97.0
95.0
93.0
91.0
89.0
87.0
85.0
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Stationing (feet)
K = 0.015 ft/min at 2.5 gpm per well point, Total Discharge = 145 gpm
K = 0.01 ft/min at 2 gpm per well point, Total Discharge = 116 gpm
K = 0.007 ft/min at 1.7 gpm per well point, Total Discharge = 98 gpm
Project Number
225 Roy Street Calculated Groundwater Profile across 1733-01
Dewatering Design Recommendations
Washington Holdings
Center of Excavation Figure 7

AttD6 - 225 Roy Geotech Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AttD6 - 225 Roy Geotech Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical & Earthquake

February 23, 2018

225 Roy Street LLC

Subject: Geotechnical Report

Dear Ms. Barrientos:

Siew L. Tan, P.E.

16-116 225 Roy Report R2 - 2018.02.23 Page 1 PanGEO, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES .......................................................................................16

16-116 225 Roy Report R2 - 2018.02.23 Page 2 PanGEO, Inc.

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

3.1 HISTORIC STREET GRADING PROFILES

16-116 225 Roy Report R2 - 2018.02.23 Page 1 PanGEO, Inc.

3.3 NEARBY EXPLORATIONS

16-116 225 Roy Report R2 - 2018.02.23 Page 2 PanGEO, Inc.

3.4 SITE-SPECIFIC EXPLORATIONS

3.5 SOIL CONDITIONS

16-116 225 Roy Report R2 - 2018.02.23 Page 4 PanGEO, Inc.

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

4.1.1 IBC Seismic Site Class

4.1.2 Liquefaction Potential

4.2 BUILDING FOUNDATIONS

4.2.1 Groundwater Discussions and Foundation Design Approach

We envision that the collection system to consist of the following:

4.2.2 Allowable Bearing Pressure

16-116 225 Roy Report R2 - 2018.02.23 Page 6 PanGEO, Inc.

4.2.3 Uplift Resistance

4.2.2 Lateral Resistance

4.2.3 Subsurface Drains

4.2.4 Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Over-Excavation

16-116 225 Roy Report R2 - 2018.02.23 Page 7 PanGEO, Inc.

4.3 RETAINING AND BASEMENT WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS

4.4.1 Lateral Earth Pressures

16-116 225 Roy Report R2 - 2018.02.23 Page 8 PanGEO, Inc.

4.4.3 Wall Backfill

5.0 TEMPORARY SHORING AND DEWATERING

5.1 SOLDIER PILE WALL

16-116 225 Roy Report R2 - 2018.02.23 Page 9 PanGEO, Inc.

5.1.1 Wall Design Parameters

16-116 225 Roy Report R2 - 2018.02.23 Page 10 PanGEO, Inc.

5.1.3 Tieback Testing

Verification Tests (200% Tests)

▪ Test locations to be determined in conjunction and approved by the geotechnical engineer.

▪ At the 150% load, the holding period shall be at least 60 minutes.

Proof Tests (130% load tests on all production anchors)

16-116 225 Roy Report R2 - 2018.02.23 Page 11 PanGEO, Inc.

▪ At the 130% load, the holding period shall be at least 10 minutes

5.1.5 Groundwater and Potential Caving Soils

5.1.6 Surcharges from Heavy Construction Equipment

5.2 BASELINE SURVEY AND MONITORING

5.3 TEMPORARY SLOPED EXCAVATIONS

5.4 CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING

6.0 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 STRUCTURAL FILL AND COMPACTION

16-116 225 Roy Report R2 - 2018.02.23 Page 14 PanGEO, Inc.

6.2 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION

• Earthwork should be performed in small areas to minimize subgrade exposure to wet

6.3 PERMANENT CUT AND FILL SLOPES

16-116 225 Roy Report R2 - 2018.02.23 Page 15 PanGEO, Inc.

6.4 EROSION CONSIDERATIONS