Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLD2006-00481 Geotechnical Report Guo(-1Q - FILE COPY 1 ' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT HAUPTMAN RESIDENCE FOUNDATION i REPAIR 685 LUDLOW BAY ROAD PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON JEFFERSON COUNTY PARCEL # 969000006 PREPARED FOR: I MR. DWIGHT HAUPTMAN BY: 1 OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. ORA JOB No. 06-124, REPORT No. 1 1 1 I') ECEIVED i i JEffERSDN CDUNIY DO 1 - OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection &Materials Testing 1 1 r • OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Inspection&Materials Testing 6747 M. L. King Way South, Seattle,Washington 98118-3216 USA Tel: (206) 725-4600•Toll Free: (888)OTTO-4-US• Fax: (206) 723-2221 WBE W2F5913684•WABO Registered Agency• Website:www.ottorosenau.com August 26, 2008 Dwight and Mary Ann Hauptman 685 Ludlow Bay Road, Port Ludlow, WA 98363 Re: Final Letter of Geotechnical Inspections Hauptman Residence Foundation Repair 685 Ludlow Bay Road Port Ludlow, Washington Jefferson County Parcel # 969000006 Reference: "Geotechnical Engineering Report, Hauptman Residence Foundation Repair, 685 Ludlow Bay Road, Port Ludlow, Washington, Jefferson County Parcel # 969000006", prepared by Otto Rosenau and Associates, Inc. dated May 19, 2006 Otto Rosenau and Associates, Inc. (ORA) has completed the observation services for the installation of driven steel pin piles and helical anchors for the above referenced project. The installation of 2- and 3-inch diameter pin piles was completed between June 6, 2007 and June 20, 2007. 2-inch Schedule 80 steel pin piles were installed using a 140-pound pneumatic post driver. 3-inch Schedule 40 steel pin piles were installed using a 650-pound hydraulic hammer mounted on a mini excavator. The installation of pin piles was ceased along the west side of the residence when movement of the existing rockery wall was observed on June 14, 2007. Higher capacity, 12-inch diameter, single helix, helical anchors were subsequently installed as a substitute for the driven, 3-inch pin piles along the west side of the residence. We witnessed the installation of a total of eighteen 2-inch diameter pin piles, three 3-inch diameter Schedule 40 steel pin piles and sixteen, 12-inch diameter, single helix Dixie Anchor- brand, helical anchors. Based on our observations and evaluations, it is our opinion that the foundation underpinning was completed in general accordance with approved project plans and the recommendations that we provided during the course of construction. • Final Letter of Geotechnical Inspections — Foundation Repair 1PA Project Number 06-0124 August 26, 2008 If you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, k l G eel OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. df it Anthony G. Coyne, P.E. 9/�/� Geotechnical Engineer l NW A `.0,/ ` Otto Rosenau &Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 2 • OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Inspection&Materials Testing I6747 M. L. King Way South, Seattle,Washington 98118-3216 USA Tel: (206)725-4600•Toll Free: (888) OTTO-4-US• Fax: (206) 723-2221 WBE W2F5913684•WABO Registered Agency• Website:www.ottorosenau.com May 19, 2006 Mr. Dwight Hauptman U 685 Ludlow Bay Road Port Ludlow, Washington 98363 IRe: Geotechnical Engineering Report Hauptman Residence Foundation Repair I 685 Ludlow Bay Road Port Ludlow, Washington Jefferson County Parcel # 969000006 IORA Project Number: 06-124, Report 1 I Dear Mr. Hauptman: We are pleased to provide this report for the referenced project. Based on our subsurface 111 explorations and our analyses, it is our opinion that the settlement at the residence is likely a result of consolidation of poorly-compacted fill under the weight of the existing structure. I Based on the results of our slope stability analyses, it is our opinion that the settlement is not likely a result of slope instability. Furthermore, it is our opinion that the proposed foundation repair structure can be completed satisfactorily with minimal risk of adversely impacting the I stability of site slopes, or adjacent properties provided that the work is completed in accordance with the recommendations of this report. IIt is our opinion that the proposed residential structure can be satisfactorily underpinned with the hydraulically advanced, Grip-Tite pier and bracket system or with a conventional, driven 3-inch I pin piles and bracket system. IDetailed underpinning, slope stability, and earthwork recommendations are presented in the attached report and plan sheet. If you have any questions, or if we may be of additional service, please contact us: w- - �Y G O w k ,0 ' i► �',, Sincerely, .� �V ' ipo'A �• Otto Rosenau &Associates, Inc. 1. t , 't:;.,,, 3785. 1 L. e r .t;1/ ei' / /06 Anthony G. Coyne, P.E. �L/. Geotechnical Engineer ICopies to: Address E ex,,, " I • , TABLE OF CONTENTS I1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 3. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 4. SITE CHARACTERIZATION 2 I 5. SURFACE CONDITIONS 2 6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 I7. LABORATORY TESTING 3 8. DISCUSSION 4 I 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 9.1 General 4 I 9.2 Underpinning 4 9.2.1 General 4 9.2.2 Grip-Tite Piers 5 I9.2.2 Pin Piles 5 9.3 Seismic Considerations 6 I9.4 Slope Stability 6 9.5 Erosion and Sedimentation Control 8 I9.6 Temporary Cut Slopes 8 9.7 Drainage 8 I 9.7.1 Dewatering 8 9.7.2 Surface Drainage 8 I 9.8 Construction Observation and Testing g 10. REPORT LIMITATIONS 9 APPENDIX I Vicinity Map A-1 Site Plan A-2 IBoring Logs A-3 Boring Log Notes A-5 IUnified Soil Classification System A-7 Calculations, Hauptman Residence, Foundation Repair A-8 I Slope Stability Analysis Results A-15 I I I . GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RESIDENTIAL FOUNDATION REPAIR I685 LUDLOW BAY ROAD I PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON JEFFERSON COUNTY PARCEL # 969000006 IPrepared for I Mr. Dwight Hauptman by Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. IMay 19, 2006 I1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the residence at 685 I Ludlow Bay Road in Port Ludlow, Washington. The location of the approximate site is shown on the Vicinity Map on page A-1 of the appendix. I 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the west side of the existing residence has experienced up to 4 inches of differential settlement. The existing residence consists of a two-story, wood-framed structure with a I crawl space beneath the living areas and a slab-on-grade at the attached garage. The west side of the residence is located in close proximity to an existing rockery that is typically 15 feet in height at I locations adjacent to the residence. The foundations along the west side of the residence appear to be supported on fill retained by the rockery. IBased on a review of a report prepared by Northwestern Territories, Inc. titled "Homesite Preparation- Port Ludlow Bay" dated April 23, 1985, we understand that 10- to 12-inch diameter, "drilled-in-place" I reinforced concrete piles at an eight foot spacing were recommended to support the existing structure. It was recommended that the piles extend through the fill retained behind the rockery and several feet into the "firm in-place gravelly-sand soils". I 3. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services included a reconnaissance of the site by the geologist, a review of geologic Iliterature, and witnessing the drilling of two borings (B-1 and B-2) at the approximate location shown on the Site Plan on page A-2 of the appendix. Soil samples were taken of the subsurface soils at the I depths shown on the boring logs presented on pages A-3 through A-4 of the appendix. I I ' Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Inspection&Materials Testing ' Hauptman Residence ORA Project No.:06-124 May 19,2006 Page 2 of 9 The engineering recommendations and advice presented in this report have been made in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the area. The recommendations are based on our understanding of the geology of the area and on experience with similar projects. The geotechnical engineering services were performed by Otto Rosenau and Associates, Inc. (ORA) to provide the following information: • existing conditions of the foundation and rockery made during a visit to the site, ' • available geologic information, • suitability of use of Grip-Tite piers, or driven pin piles for the proposed foundation repair, • recommended spacing of the Grip-Tite piers, or driven pin piles based on estimated building loads, • evaluation of the rockery and recommendation for repair or reconstruction, if necessary. 4. SITE CHARACTERIZATION We reviewed the "Geologic Map of Washington, Northwest Quadrant, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Geologic Map GM-50, 2002 compiled by Dragovich, Joe D., Logan, Robert L., Schasse, Henry W., et al. The soils at the project site are predominantly mapped as "Fraser Age glaciation advance and undifferentiated outwash and till deposits" (Qga, Qgo, and Qgt). Qga deposits typically consist of glaciofluvially deposited sand and gravel and lacustrine clay, silt, and sand deposited during the advance of the glaciers. Qgt deposits typically consist of unsorted, unstratified, ' highly compacted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders deposited by glacial ice. Qgo deposits typically consist of recessional and proglacial stratified sand, gravel, and cobbles with minor silt and clay interbeds deposited in delta, ice contact beach and melt water stream environments. The ' Crescent Formation Basalts (Evc) are mapped to the west of the site. The Evc deposits are thoeleiitic basalts flows, basaltic flow breccia, filled tubes and volcaniclastic conglomerates from the lower Eocene to Middle Eocene Epochs (54.8 million years ago to 45 million years ago). 5. SURFACE CONDITIONS The site is located along the south shore of Ludlow Bay. The site grades slope gently downwards to the north from approximately Elevation 60 feet along Ludlow Bay Road to about Elevation 40 feet to the north of the existing residence. The site grades slope steeply downwards towards Ludlow Bay to the north and towards a ravine to the west at the north end of the site. The site grades along the east side of the property continue evenly across onto the adjacent lot to the east. A rockery is present along a significant portion of the west property line. The rockery appears to have been constructed as part of the development of the site to provide a relatively level building pad area. The rockery is up to 15 feet in height at locations adjacent to the existing residence. Overall, the rockery appears to be in good condition. The rockery is inclined at an angle ranging from about 5 to 10 degrees from vertical. We did not observe indications of on-going instability at the rockery location such as bulging or loss of stones or partial collapses. We also did not observe the presence of drainage material between the retained Otto Ro senau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Inspection&Materials Testing ' Hauptman Residence ORA Project No.:06-124 May 19,2006 Page 3 of 9 fill and the rockery. The stone used in the rockery appears to be generally sound and the quality of the construction and fitting of the stones was good overall. The west side of the house is located between 8 feet and 25 feet from the front of the rockery. The site grades in front of the rockery slopes downwards to a ravine located to the west of the residence. ' 6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS We evaluated the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions by completing two boring (B-1 and B-2) ' at the site using a man-portable, hollow-stem auger drill rig on March 28, 2006. The borings were completed along the west side of the residence. Both borings were completed to a depth of 26.5 feet beneath the existing ground surface. Please refer to the Site Plan on page A-2 of the appendix for the ' approximate location of the boring. The details and explanations of our explorations are presented on pages A-3 through A-7 of the appendix. Similar soil conditions were observed at each boring location with several feet of very loose to medium dense sandy fill placed over the native subgrade soils. The surface conditions at B-1 and B-2 consisted of bark, groundcover plants, and loose, light brown, fine to medium SAND with Silt (SP-SM) with I organics. Very loose to loose, brown, fine to medium SAND with Silt (SP-SM) fill was encountered beneath the bark at B-1 from depths of about 0.3 to 14 feet below the existing ground surface. Medium dense to very dense, native, brown and gray sand with less than about 12 percent fines (SP and SP- SM) was encountered beneath the fill to the bottom of the exploration at a depth of about 26.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Very loose to loose, brown, fine to medium SAND with Silt (SP-SM) and fine to coarse (SW-SM) fill was ' encountered beneath the bark at B-2 from depths of about 0.3 feet to 6.3 feet below the existing ground surface. Medium dense to dense, light brown and brown fine to medium SAND with Silt (SP-SM) and fine to coarse (SW-SM) was encountered beneath the upper fill layer from depths of about 6.3 to 18 feet below the ground surface. A wet, medium dense Silty SAND (SM) layer was encountered at depths of approximately 18 to 20.5 feet and was underlain by a medium dense fine SAND with Silt (SP- SM) to a depth of about 23 feet below the existing site grade. Very dense, gray fine to coarse SAND (SW-SM) with silt was encountered from a depth of about 23.0 feet to the bottom of the exploration at a depth of about 26.5 feet below the existing ground surface. 7. LABORATORY TESTING We performed moisture content determinations on each sample collected from the borings. The results of moisture content determinations are presented on the boring logs. 1 Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Inspection&Materials Testing Hauptman Residence ORA Project No.:06-124 May 19,2006 Page 4 of 9 ' 8. DISCUSSION The recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the project as ' presented in the Project Description Section and on the assumption that the subsurface conditions are as assumed herein. Project conditions, regarding type and location of structures and foundation loads can change, and subsurface conditions are not always similar to those encountered during the ' subsurface exploration. Therefore, if discrepancies are noticed, the geotechnical engineer must be contacted for review and for possible revision of the recommendations. 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 GENERAL It_ is our opinion that the settlement at the residence is likely a result of consolidation of poorly- compacted fill under the weight of the existing structure._The consolidation of the poorly-compacted fill could have been accelerated by poor drainage caused by roof downspouts that._have discharged clue ' to the foundation walls. Based on the results of our slope stability analyses, it is our opinion that the settlement is not likely a result of slope instability. We did not observe the presence of piles beneath the existing footings during our brief site visit. It is possible that the drilled-in-place piles, which were recommended in the report prepared by ' Northwestern Territories, Inc., were not installed, or were not installed in accordance with the recommendations of the original report. It is our opinion that the current condition of the existing, perimeter foundation elements is suitable for underpinning. It is also our opinion that the installation of underpinning at the perimeter foundation locations will allow the structure to be stabilized to reduce the risk of future settlement at perimeter foundation element locations and re-leveled, if desired. The areas recommended for underpinning is based on our discussions with the owner and our observations while on site. The installation of ' underpinning along the perimeter will not reduce the risk of settlement of the interior floor slabs or interior column footings that support the floor beams under the residence. The stabilization of individual ' column footings in the crawl space is possible, but is likely unfeasible, due to the significant amount of disruption to the main floor flooring and subfloor that would be caused. It is our opinion that the existing rockery is relatively stable based on its performance over the last 20 years. However, the wall was not built in accordance with current accepted practice, which typically includes drainage behind the rockery.. We recommend_that long-term monitoring of the rockery be 1 p erformed at several locations to monitor for movement. In general, rockeries__require__periadic. maintenance. 9.2 UNDERPINNING 9.2.1 General: It is our opinion that the perimeter foundation elements of the residence may be ' successfully underpinned using a proprietary hydraulically-pushed pier and bracket system known as Otto Rosenau & Associates , Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Inspection&Materials Testing ' Hauptman Residence ORA Project No.:06-124 May 19,2006 Page 5 of 9 Grip-Tite piers, or with conventional, 3-inch diameter pin piles that are driven using a hydraulic, hammer. The 3-inch diameter pin piles should also be attached to the existing foundation with a ' bracket, which allows for post-installation adjustment, if necessary. Certain locations will need to be underpinned using conventional, 2- or 3-inch diameter, driven, pin piles due to an insufficient amount of structural weight being available to install hydraulically-pushed piers, such as at the porch column footings and at the northwest corner of the residence and at the covered enclosure area at the southwest corner of the residence. Driven pin piles may also be required to underpin the column footing between the two garage doors. For planning purposes, we anticipate that the Grip-Tite pier and pin pile installation depths should not ' exceed 25 feet, and may be significantly less depending on the thickness of fill present beneath the residence. Our supporting calculations for Grip-Tite piers and pin pile underpinning are presented on pages A-8 through A-14 of the appendix. 9.2.2 Grip-Tite Piers: The Grip-Tite piers consist of 3-inch diameter, high-strength steel tubing that is advanced to refusal using a hydraulic ram that bears against a bracket in contact with the bottom of the foundation element. Sections of steel tubing are installed using slip-joint connectors until practical refusal is achieved. The bracket is then locked off to the pier to prevent future movement. Post- installation adjustments can be made if additional settlement occurs after installation. ICC-ES Legacy Report 22-02 presents design recommendations for the use of the Grip-Tite piers and brackets. The ' Grip-Tite pier and bracket system are designed to support a maximum allowable downward load of 16,500 pounds per pier. A minimum of one Grip-Tite pier shall be load tested in general accordance with the ASTM D1143-81 test procedure. The installation of Grip-Tite piers should be monitored by an ' ORA representative. ' 9.2.3 Pin Piles: Pin pile underpinning consists of a 2- or 3-inch diameter steel pipe that is driven to refusal and is attached by a bracket to the foundation element. 2-inch diameter pin piles should consist of Schedule 80 Grade A53 A steel. 2-inch diameter pin piles should be installed by driving with a pneumatic jack hammer weighing no less than 90 pounds, or with a hydraulic hammer approved by the geotechnical engineer. 3-inch diameter pin piles should consist of Schedule 40 Grade A53 A steel. 3- inch diameter pin piles should be driven to refusal with a hydraulic hammer that weighs no less than 650 pounds. The geotechnical engineer should be contacted for specific refusal criteria for pin piles based on the type of hammer to be used. 2—inch diameter pin piles driven to refusal can provide an allowable downward capacity of 4,000 pounds per pile. 3—inch diameter pin piles driven to refusal can provide an allowable downward capacity of 12,000 pounds per pile. A minimum of one 3-inch diameter pin pile shall be load tested in general accordance with the ASTM D1143-81 test procedure. The installation of pin piles should be monitored by an ORA representative. I Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Inspection&Materials Testing ' Hauptman Residence ORA Project No.:06-124 May 19,2006 Page 6 of 9 9.3 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 2003 (JLC Sc Is µ,t - 2 v T bz_- iS c ua.12 (— The seismic design of structures in the Jefferson County is governed by the requirements of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). According to Figure No. 16-2 of the UBC the project site is located in Seismic Zone 3. According to Table 16-J of the UBC, the site soil profile is best represented by a Soil Profile Type Sc. The soils encountered in our exploration at the site are generally not susceptible to liquefaction. 9.4 SLOPE STABILITY We performed a visual reconnaissance of the slopes along the west side of the site to evaluate the current slope stability conditions at the site. We did not observe indications of on-going slope instability at the site. We did not observe tension cracks, sag ponds, slump blocks or other common indicators of slope instability at the site. We observed settlement of the house, and what appears to be distortion ' (sagging and bending) of a chain link fence running along the top of the rockery near the southwest corner of the residence. There are several possible reasons for the distortion of the chain link fence at the top of rockery, which may include one or more of the following: ' • Slope instability; • Lack of proper rockery drainage resulting in occasionally increased lateral earth pressures; • Settlement of the residence and adjacent covered enclosure resulting in an increased lateral earth pressure pushing on the rockery wall; • Activity above the wall disturbing the fence. 111 It is our opinion that the likelihood that slope instability has caused the distortion of the chain link fence is small. Instead, it is our opinion that the distortion of the chain link fence is more likely a result of a ' lack of rockery drainage, and settlement of the adjacent residence exerting and possibly surcharge loading from the nearby foundation elements. ORA performed a computer-based slope stability analysis using XSTABL. We used the information from the two field-generated cross-sections A-A' and B-B' indicated on the Site Plan on page A-2 of the appendix and from the subsurface explorations as a basis for input into the slope stability analysis. Cross-section A-A' is located approximately 18 feet south of the northwest corner. Cross-section B-B' is located at the west side of the residence approximately 9 feet north of the southwest corner. We ' assumed that the existing residence is supported on conventional spread footings in our slope stability analyses. We evaluated the following two cases for this project at each cross-section location: 1. Static Loading Conditions - No earthquake forces applied, existing site conditions. 2. Seismic Loading Conditions - 30% g - earthquake with 500 year recurrence interval. The existing slope was modeled assuming the presence of two soil layers - the upper loose SAND fill layer and the dense, native SAND layer. The following soil parameters were assumed: I Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Inspection&Materials Testing I Hauptman Residence ORA Project No.:06-124 May 19,2006 Page 7 of 9 I .Soil Unit Description Assumed Unit Weight, y, Angle of Internal Friction, (I), Cohesion (pcf) degrees (psf) IUpper Fill Unit (SP-SM) 100 pcf dry 32 50 115 pcf saturated I Lower SAND Unit (SP- 115 pcf dry 36 50 SM) 125 pcf saturated The results of our slope stability analysis are presented on pages A-15 through A-35 of the appendix. A summary of the results under the various loading conditions is presented in the following table: ILocation Loading Condition Estimated Minimum Recommended Minimum Factor of Safety Factor of Safety I Section A-A' (West Case 1 - Static 1.4 1.3 wall NW corner of residence) ISection A-A' (West Case 2 — Seismic 0.3 g 1.1 1.1 wall NW corner of (500 year seismic) I residence) Section B-B' (West Case 1 - Static 2.3 1.1 wall SW corner of Iresidence) Section B-B' (West Case 2 —Seismic 0.3 g 1.7 1.1 I wall SW corner of (500 year seismic) residence) I A factor of safety of 1 indicates that the forces that cause instability are in equilibrium with the forces that are resisting instability. A factor of safety of less than 1 indicates that the forces that cause I instability are greater than the forces resisting instability and that the slope will fail. Conversely, a factor of safety greater than 1 indicates that the forces resisting instability are greater than those causing instability and that the slope is stable. IThe results from the slope stability analyses completed for this study indicate that the existing slopes at the site will likely be stable under static conditions and during a 500 year seismic event. The primary Ifailure mechanism of slope failure predicted by the XSTABL analyses is a shallow failure that passes below the base of the rockery wall. IIn order to reduce the risk of slope instability after construction, we recommend the following practices: I • All roof drains, footing drains, and other drains should be gathered and tightlined to a discharge location approved by Jefferson County. I I Otto Rose nau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Inspection&Materials Testing I Hauptman Residence ORA Project No.:06-124 May 19,2006 Page 8 of 9 I • Any accumulations of yard waste and biodegradable construction waste (cut branches, lawn clippings, and lumber) that are present should be removed from the slope face and adjacent Iareas. • Yard waste should not be placed on any of the existing slopes. • Vegetative cover should be continuously maintained on overall steep slope areas to reduce Ierosion potential and to stabilize surficial soils. I 9.5 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL The migration of sediments from the site must be installed and controlled in accordance with Jefferson County requirements. We recommend that the following minimum erosion control measures be Iemployed at the site: • Provide silt fencing around the construction area to delineate the construction limits. No I construction or soil disturbance should take place outside of the construction limits. • Stockpiled soil at the site should be kept to a minimum. Any stockpiled soils should be covered with carefully secured plastic sheeting. IAdditional erosion control measures may be required as construction progresses. I 9.6 TEMPORARY CUT SLOPES We anticipate that temporary cut slopes will be used at portions of the site. We recommend that the inclination of the temporary cut slopes be no greater than 1.5H:1 V(horizontal to vertical) in the upper fill I soil. All temporary cut slopes and excavations must comply with the provisions of Washington Administrative I Code (WAC) Chapter 296-155, Part N, "Excavation, Trenching and Shoring." The contractor performing the work has the primary responsibility for protection of workers and adjacent I improvements. _However, we recommend that the contractor submit a work plan and excavation support plan for our review prior to beginning work on the site. I9.7 DRAINAGE 9.7.1 Dewatering: Ground water seepage will likely not be encountered during construction. I However, we anticipate that dewatering could be satisfactorily completed by routing water through ditches to a low spot or sump in the excavation. Water collected in the excavation should be removed as soon as possible and should be discharged to a location approved by the Jefferson County and in Iaccordance with Jefferson County requirements. I 9.7.2 Surface Drainage: Good surface drainage is an integral part of the performance of earth- supported structures such as foundations, retaining walls, and pavements. Therefore, construction grades and final site grades should be designed to prevent water from entering the foundations or Igravel drains behind any retaining walls, or from ponding on or next to pavements. Where pavement I Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Inspection&Materials Testing ' Hauptman Residence ORA Project No.:06-124 May 19,2006 Page 9 of 9 does not immediately abut structures, the ground surface should be sloped with an outfall of at least three (3) percent for a minimum distance of five (5) feet from exterior footings. These slopes should be capped with relatively impervious soils to prevent infiltration of water into the foundation soils. Runoff water should be collected from all impervious surfaces on the project and should be routed away from steep slope area on the west side of the site to a discharge location approved by the Jefferson_County, We strongly recommend that no on-site infiltration of runoff water be performed to minimize the flow of additional groundwater and to help minimize the risk of future slope instability. 9.8 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations presented in this report rely on adequate observation and testing of construction materials and procedures by the geotechnical engineer or his qualified representative. At a minimum, ' the testing program should include: • Observation and review of pile driving and pile load testing to evaluate whether actual conditions are consistent with those encountered during exploration and used for design. ' 10. REPORT LIMITATIONS The recommendations presented in this report are for the exclusive use of Mr. Dwight Hauptman and other members of the design team for the foundation repair project at 685 Ludlow Bay Road in Port Ludlow, Washington (Jefferson County Parcel # 969000006). The recommendations are based on the readily-available geologic literature and two borings completed on March 28, 2006. The recommendations of this report are not transferable to any other site. If there are any revisions to the plans or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. (ORA) should be notified immediately to determine whether changes to the design recommendations are required. ' 000 I , -' / i I IV • \ ‘ I /� ..5,2'.F-,31::'& i '3., , ".„ •. ,\ • •-::, „ :-1 L fa, '• 5 ' :' 4 •s..w:vn� /k I *.l 7 1 • t I 8 � i � i 1 tekc%a µAar ' I I - � 1 y 1Foulwe: 1 . 1 1 d a� I Sw�ndnvillo ' �, i- "fir" 1 � ' ' i 7l ,+ '1,A 1 . 1y r T* • 1 ' 1 �. TaL Point 1 O � ICY_ .+•‘ o o ,,ers `, _'A. , _ i ti .1 Port Ludlow J. .. i o l ,- _ r'I "��� o¢ , I1' 685 Ludlow Bay Road I tom'. MId�' TA 7�. • 1 d -_ I 1 : . ' 7 l l II, � s ,, i, k "" i ii4'' ' c-, . c' 1 ( '',I 1't 1 I ii l 7 SR-19 - • :. N ` i.' r , I, •::� . ,-- , I 1 V' i i I : 1. I f ' f I i �. f / I 4 r `1 \. I I 1. 1' - f I I '� �' Y. 4 I ` I a HI , '' '� --- 7 i, i 1 X >,' 1 u r 1 � LiMIL I I Note: The location of all features shown is approximate. Reference: Port Ludlow, Washington USGS Quadrangle and portions of adjacent quadrangles, ALL TOPO MAPS: Washington. VICINITY MAP Project Name: Hauptman Residence IFoundation Repair ��r For: Mr. Dwight Hauptman Location: 685 Ludlow Bay Road, Port OTTO ROSENAU & Ludlow, Washington - - ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Date: May 16, 2006 ORA Project Number: 06-124 A-1 1 , U I. Approximate 1 / Location of Existing u \1111 Rockery Wall Deck Column Footings 1111 60' 11 25' LI 0 _-: Aillk" II I II Continuous, 1\ perimeter footing CI A 111 I A' Crawl Space 31, . B-1 57' II B $ I I. _ I, i FB A , B. , Garage 1 I 26' di (slab—on—grade) • 0 Garage Door ____________ I� Garage Door I S30' 42' \_______________ J 1 Covered Enclosure Approximate I Gi Location of I Property Line Approximate 111 1 Location of , IProperty Line 1 Legend: il 1 I + B—I Boring completeted by I ORA on March 28, 2006 A Li'a Location of field-generated cross-section I I used for slope stability analysis INote: The location of all features shown is approximate. Scale: 1"= 20' Reference: Field measurements made with measuring tape and original plat map of Ludlow Beach Tracts No. 2 recorded on November 4, 1948. I SITE PLAN Project Name: Hauptman Residence I Foundation Repair ,—� For: Mr. Dwight Hauptman Location: 685 Ludlow Bay Road, Port OTTO ROSENAU & Ludlow, Washington ASSOCIATES, INC. Date: May 16, 2006 ORA Project Number: 06-124 — A-2 I OTTO ROSENAU&ASSOCIATES, INC. 6747 M.L. King Way South BORING NUMBER B-1 Seattle,WA 98118 PAGE 1 OF 1 I Telephone:(206)725-4600 Fax:(206)723-2221 CLIENT Dwight Hauptman PROJECT NAME Hauptman Residence IPROJECT NUMBER 06-124 PROJECT LOCATION 685 Ludlow Bay Road,Port Ludlow,WA DATE STARTED 3/28/06 COMPLETED 3/28/06 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 7-inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR CN Drilling GROUND WATER LEVELS: IDRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING Not observed LOGGED BY Craig Bechtold L.G. CHECKED BY Anthony Coyne P.E. AT END OF DRILLING Not observed NOTES AFTER DRILLING Not observed I I ~}w o F'ci_ Wm W �Z� U P- iU' p o a O m p> TESTS 0 p MATERIAL DESCRIPTION QZ w UZ (7 U re 0 -X SS 1 67 3-3-3 MC=27% SP- 0.3 nBrown bark - (6) SM Loose, light brown,fine to medium SAND with Silt with organics and \/ interbedded,oxidized,Sandy SILT(fill) x 2S 67 2-2-2 MC=15% SP-SM 4.0 Loose,brown,fine to medium SAND with Silt(fill) / \ 5 I3S •X 67 1(�)1 MC=18% SP Very loose,brown,fine to medium SAND(fill) 4S 33 3-6-3 MC=13% SP • Loose,brown,fine to medium SAND O (fill) 10 .•'.9.5 I _ -X 5S 33 3-3) SM 2 MC=11% SP- =::` Loose,brown SAND with Silt(fill) I - , 14.0 I 15 X _ 6S67 $� MC=19% SP- Medium dense,brown fine to medium SAND with Silt and interbedded Sandy SM is •.• SILT(native) 8- - o - a Iz 20 Gravelly drilling at approximately 19 feet _ X 7S 67 14(46)25 MC=4% SP -: Dense,gray,fine SAND U I Z W 0 ro I a 25 _ -X SS 18-32-41 - 8 (73) MC=8% SP 67 2s 5 Very dense,gray,fine SAND I F Bottom of hole at 26.5 feet. x m g I 'Z - A-3 IOTTO ROSENAU&ASSOCIATES,INC. IMMENNimmonnonmem 6747 M.L. King Way South BORING NUMBER B-2 Seattle,WA 98118 PAGE 1 OF 1 I Telephone:(206)725-4600 Fax:(206)723-2221 CLIENT Dwight Hauptman _ PROJECT NAME Hauptman Residence IPROJECT NUMBER 06-124 PROJECT LOCATION 685 Ludlow Bay Road,Port Ludlow,WA DATE STARTED 3/28/06 COMPLETED 3/28/06 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 7-inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR CN Drilling _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: IDRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger _ AT TIME OF DRILLING Not observed LOGGED BY Craig Bechtold L.G. CHECKED BY Anthony Coyne P.E. AT END OF DRILLING Not observed I NOTES AFTER DRILLING Not observed w o a = } ciJ U I o a j m 03 0> TESTS O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 2z W UZ 0 co cc 0 - -V SS 67 1(4)2 MC=15% SP- Very loose,dark brown, fine to medium SAND with Silt(fill) I - X �S 67 1-2-2 MC=15% SP- Very loose,dark brown,fine to medium SAND with Silt and occasional gravel SM ::.'. (fill) 4.5 5 • _ 3S 100 4 22)8 MC=15% SW- •••,• 6.3 Medium dense,brown,fine to coarse SAND with Silt(fill) X ; - - -at, — Medium dense,brown,fine to coarse SAND with Silt and occasional gravel and interbedded Silty SAND(native) I _ -X SS 4 67 24-25-16 (41) MC=8% SW- 8.0 ISM, :: 10 I ' 5S 78 10(35)20 MC=15% SP- :'.':• Dense,light brown,moist fine SAND with Silt and traces of oxidation SM I - 15 1 , SS 67 6 1 8) MC=9% SP- ::::::'....1: t..`•: ' 6 (38) SM . Dense, light brown,moist fine SAND with Silt and traces of oxidation r. ' Os o '-18.0 N- — z 20 SM :: z \ / Medium dense,gray,Silty fine SAND(significantly increased moisture �/ SS 100 9-13-14 20.5 content) a 1 MC=25% w 'f 7 (27) SP Medium dense,gray, fine SAND with Silt W - SM .. .- 23.0 1 25 SW- •:• ti' _ V SS SM .;: J- 8 50 27-50/6" MC=5% •: .s. Very dense,gray,fine to coarse SAND with Silt and gravel _5 •••:•W.'26.5 I I- a Bottom of hole at 26.5 feet. I m gJ W 1z A-4 I , BORING LOG NOTES These notes and boring logs are intended for use with this geotechnical report for the purposes and project described therein. The boring logs depict ORA's interpretation of subsurface conditions at the location of the boring on the date noted. Subsurface ' conditions may vary, and groundwater levels may change because of seasonal or numerous other factors. Accordingly, the boring logs should not be made a part of construction plans or be used to define construction conditions. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Site Plan. The borings were located in the field by measuring from existing site features. "Boring Size" refers the diameter and type of auger used. "HSA" denotes hollow-stem auger. "SSA" denotes solid-stem auger. "BA" denotes bucket auger. "Sample Number and Type" refers to the sampling method and equipment used during exploration where: • "AU" indicates a bulk sample taken from the ground surface or from the auger flights. ' • "SS" indicates slit-soon sampler with1-3/8"split-spoon p inside diameter and 2 outside diameter. • "NR" indicates sample attempted with no recovery. "N-Values" refer to the Standard Penetration Test which records number of blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches required to advance a standard sampler eighteen inches. The blow counts required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded. The number of blows to drive the sampler for the last 12 inches of driving are added together and is considered to be the N-Value. The N-Value is presented in parentheses on the boring logs. The actual blow count values for each 6-inch interval is also presented. If the sample is driven less than 6 inches for a given interval, the actual distance driven is recorded. "Moisture Content (MC)" refers to the moisture content of the soil expressed in percent by weight of dry sample as determined in the laboratory. "Qp" is an estimate of the unconfined compressive strength of the soil as determined with a handheld, calibrated, spring-loaded penetrometer. "Description and USCS Classification" refer to the materials encountered in the boring. The descriptions and classifications are generally based on visual examination in the field and laboratory. Where noted, laboratory tests were performed to determine the soil Classification. The terms and symbols used in the boring logs are in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Laboratory tests are performed in general A-5 BORING LOG NOTES continued ' accordance with applicable procedures described by the American Society for Testing and Materials. "V" Indicates location of groundwater at the time noted. TERMS for RELATIVE DENSITY of NON-COHESIVE SOIL Term Standard Penetration Resistance "N" Very Loose 4 or less Loose 5 to 10 Medium Dense 11 to 30 Dense 31 to 50 Very Dense Over 50 blows/foot TERMS for RELATIVE CONSISTENCY of COHESIVE SOIL ' Term Unconfined Compressive Strength Very Soft 0 to 0.25 tons/square-foot (tsf) 1 Soft 0.25 to 0.50 tsf Medium Stiff 0.50 to 1.00 tsf Stiff 1.00 to 2.00 tsf Very Stiff 2.00 to 4.00 tsf Hard Over 4.00 tsf I DEFINITION of MATERIAL by DIAMETER of PARTICLE Boulder 8-inches+ Cobble 3 to 8 inches Gravel 3 inches to 5mm Coarse Sand 5mm to 0.6mm ' Medium Sand 0.6mm to 0.2mm Fine Sand 0.2mm to 0.074mm Silt 0.074mm to 0.005mm Clay less than 0.005mm A-6 I . , I SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART I MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS - s •—s CLEAN 'iv I •.1). WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- GRAVEL GRAVELS Mp b•� 161 GW SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO AND »4 U •4 U FINES GRAVELLY _3 odU SOILS °(° °0(o POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, I (LITTLE OR NO FINES) o pN.Jo 0,C Gp GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE 0010000 OR NO FINES COARSE ,)Q ° 5 GRAINEDTHAN GRAVELS WITH SILTY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND- 111 SOILS MORE OF COARSE % FINES ;O a O GM SILT MIXTURES FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (MORE THAN 12% CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND- 11 FINES) #�,, GC CLAY MIXTURES I SAND CLEAN SANDS SW ANLDS,LITTDELE OR NO F NESVELLY MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS AND _ _ LARGER THAN SANDY NO.200 SIEVE SOILS POORLY-GRADED SANDS, I SIZE (LITTLE OR NO FINES) Sp GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITH SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT IMORE THAN 50%OF COARSE FINES SM MIXTURES FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 1 4 SIEVE (MORE THAN 12% " ' ' CLAYEY SANDS,SAND-CLAY FINES) SC MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE I ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY SILTS r INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO I FINE AND LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY GRAINED CLAYS CLAYS,SANDY CLAYS, SILTY SOILS 5 CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS I ___ OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% I OF MATERIAL IS MH INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS OR SMALLER THAN DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR NO.200 SIEVE l SILTY SOILS SIZE SILTS I AND LIQUID LIMITit INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 CH PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,ORGANIC SILTS '`V 1, 0 1, A 7, ,A l I ," ," PEAT, HUMUS SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: FINES ARE MATERIALS PASSING THE NO.200 SIEVE. I COARSE GRAINED SOILS RECEIVE DUAL SYMBOLS IF THEY CONTAIN BETWEEN 5%AND 12%FINES. FINE GRAINED SOILS RECEIVE DUAL SYMBOLS IF THEIR LIMITS PLOT LEFT OF THE"A"LINE WITH A PLASTICITY INDEX(PI)OF 4%TO 7%. A-7 CALCULATIONS HAUPTMAN RESIDENCE ■ FOUNDATION REPAIR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r i 1 A-8 I C7�vt P iL�t�t�v� �� Otto Rosenau&Associates n� /'_ �i C.e 6747 M.L.King Way South '--�✓y+"!�°� PO i'Ov- l , e4•� Seattle, 7725-46003216 . c > 4/.zap 6 1 I TYPICAL BUILDING CROSS-SECTION AT NORTH WALL NEAR NORTHWEST CORNER IClay tile roof, 3:12 pitch I19'-6" 4' 1 8' 15'-6" 8' I 1� 2"x 6" Exterior wall Exterior deck I/ i • f 1' I 1� 2"x 6" Exterior wall I Exterior 8 Strip Footing 1'-4" I N I I - 1' I 1-6" N 1 kt.:,..:,1 Floor beam f I Concrete pier block IGrip-rite Pier or 3-inch pin pile driven to refusal 2-inch pin piles driven to refusal I I A-9 46,4-114/lakt F%a5tetekt C e Otto Rosenau&Associates at v " E 2 6747 M.L.Kin WaySouth �rn t J P Fps-4on Re°e-' ifSeattle,WA 98118 3216 (206)725-4600 `5/17/2,00,6 — n n o. L 3 C a0 eD rnC NOO N O V v j a )n (No ,° m el . r r « oaQ pay � u) oQ v U 0!- a1- o J r.c a C N = C 1 CA .0 vJ - VC_ co 0 = = • V - J I >J a3 93 � it r. L c• « tC" 41 C m. h m a) a V. O O 3 a N v v v I u) a E o en7 J ) u) Oo m O co SE J J O• O O ai J N O li CD (0 > 0 �O p -O N .0 J Cn U LL N 1 ' m 0 N LLJ < N N N- C ' O `n a p_ 0. in N N n a n 0 p)�' co a0 tD c' N t co op L 16 '-y O. in Lo Y) N a m N co O cn C O V th co o N a N (0 -- N N V W Q� N sr r- N �� � � r m = mom � m o = �y � � � ; d ) F 2 I- -2 Q I- .0 Q F a Q 0 F v — I- i J « t C rt rY Z'« 'O J E J n J .O= o o F S ~ I- t j6 = v 'z 7 �= � � o a V �3 a"O F- C 1= i ii « t C �,.L C j 'wa .0 (0 c .�a c0 (ON o(UOO '� 3 a r ` " O c 1 z O rn a c I U• L11 ) • d N a) y C N X(V T CO c C co C = N ti O _c N -cC co H as 2 Q C C U) f0 en 4) co m 3 X X ) C) 'O 0 N N1 O J 0 O p @ fA OLg N T. N O_ V 'O w O 'O 3 OCI p N a O O p 00 lL y C C :�. a. a. 0 IL .- N d' 3cc LL --to NW U. C/) IL I A-10 l o ii G p ✓ „," R S i iP.vl c e Otto Rosenau&.Associates ' ,41vt-t'h on C p vl e P, E, y 6747 M.L.King Way South �/ J E p �, p t r Seattle,WA 98118-3216 S// 6/ 2--00 6 I (206)725•.4600 I I TYPICAL BUILDING CROSS-SECTION AT WEST WALL NEAR NORTHWEST CORNER III 3'-6" i Clay tile roof I — I N If I 1.-6" Overhang I 12' -..,' 2"x 6"Exterior wall I 8 Exterior deck I 4' I 1' I I + I 8' 8' 4 -y1 I Exterior -Strip Footing�_ iM IFys+� ' N Floor beam , � Concrete pier block I Grip-Tite Pier er or 3-inch pin pile driven to refusal I I I A-11 I . ,cat Otto Rosenau de Associates P -1 u S cLen sCY 6747 M.L.King Way South fq,t4c"-y &yhe / �- �vt 1,1 U� ' e p6i - Seattle,WA 98118-3216 d rr I (206)725-4600 3/ /2-0e26 a a a I rca cE N �,j C 7 co N V .- V O FO „ Q I- aQ f- v co ~ ~ J c c th 21 C.L' 4- .- V Z. -IJ c F J Z.t t a3 � 3 ., it c it ..t c wtc O) w N .c m N �3 a > ma vvv i E N I C comIoO NO O C J yUa) a) a) O o au .03 1" C O O o J CO U LT_ CV illQ o 0 CVCON- C O N a a a a a co a Ice O 0 iti OIC co N O �F t (� aD L h co (D O) csi 7 0 j a '- M S - u O N O. co N V •�a a0 co pOj To a d ri ri co • H i- c d N O p 1-O 0 x aQ �- dQ F �Q0- F v ..- I t J « L C _ Z'Y Z' 'O J c j ma � � .5... ▪ J riri �o w v " v 'a CO � 1 o " a"-crr a� c3• - a3 " � 3 ...0 � c _ I- I- F m Ito 3 ,v_ m� m rn H CO m c•of co co voi N 7• Ti a > m a c co rn � c I W « aCi a `O o x w N C y N �C U cn c c ro L I cC @ II' o _c N N ai Q C co mai ° x m m x N I 0 NN N J O $ O � o «H. , N Vc co a w L �O O O °Yd ON U. o v 3 m Nad ill .- N Et CC LL cyCV O O LL CO W I A-12 °tto Rosman do Associates f/a.r-tp61- ccn e sideoc e (q49 higena!1g Ways oath Y O x e (,44,7o�c✓► /?, s�v' Seattle,WA 98118-3216 (206y 725.4600 S/( 7/Z646 _ 6-RIP — T/TE PIE Pizo P-e rrs //!c4 D. X a,/20/•. c,,,4i/Z`hee., rte,S.$ I 2 ,4rea o4- £tee-1, As .= ,,7,O7,41-- 5, 78,�z = `. 09 2 a - Kidd Stress o steel i = 70) ©©© ps% /G. e AG/3 steal II Pe (ABC 7 /5 6 6, 2 "t +Q., rh c,.1,ui-r, a`/oweiVe s �ss w 0 t» a p' e , o to ,gyp 7, a e y i ill S I :r 3 i A-tto''4 k tapa-G;J = d, 35 7 z . O.3S(70) 0a0 nz (t .Oc( n Z) liJ I = 4) 705 lb Z6 ,7 k ps ZCc ES- 22-02 L R (� Ce �Lv o rf -� wt-�-,ti,,,-i,�,w� a o�,,. I 8 Cpr er ; 16, soo lb l s ,slots 2- in c - i /Deaf p t, -�// Toot of' tivi44 c 7 30/ �, Ape Gto. of sue{ o1 I .,s C (off = d9'S l Tito /4, Soo l'b 1 M 40( p sp-z T(7—I = 4 0 2��l�t M a-tc c cu lit`eI /Deal perr Coat west- kiel ( /3 4-3/6 i-er i7 4ctt $r l4 o t • � o lockA = 2,0/4- I6 ' Mal- Grip _7E{ pr.ex` Spa et'-7 — 16) (5°U , (9 > a.ol4 t( . i "., Pev- ZCG E 5.2.2 ' Max atiote.ohle load'pev pper -F,, 4, -coo 5 *-ct.k, west t wetti = Z cb 44. i4t = 12 09416 I I 1 I A-13 /_ Otto Roscnau&Associates a vh a k e S/i Ce 6747 wing v► y south Art el,o�r,� Corte/ P,t� l�vt n i 6 r�1 j�a !r Ses e, A 9811&3216r 7 / / f (206)725-4600 3- P!n,tirE.e PtN The-gs 41!o&44 GL'aoln l4/4 rd pile= Ca pf_I ✓ Pie = /.z 000/ou,zdS In iJoye- meptc 'e ✓G�r r`,./ 4y Or Rio palLLele . P%oe- AS = #2.2 2 05- ,>7 w o Fy F6-ruie A-5-3 A- s-te 3o, ac s i er 1BG /99 7 / /� /� I � ' p � 8�t�. �o. 2- � -ZvL,G m a�cc.�-� c��co�a.�h(E s tYeSS o .� !n p,/e is 3S to 5v% o eL tea ® "J �4 C(o wch le a.c.coi G 0, 3 5- / ,4 I = 0.35 (30, 000 j (2,Z265 - 1) �- 2.3, 3q9 per-_ f'' e- N 23, 3 '? /6 C /z, aoa 4' ' ' 0K. Mai( �elc�l�tc/ `off 404- or wG6/ (N-3) : 2.7 3o l a-p p 5 c.C�,r o� s c j o l 5 to L® 4, U cc S �b M Ie s p �, }�i ct.ty N S wcdi5 = /2,00011., 2,93.4 3. p! Mcok ce,1 cu E.te� oadt t w� C E-W� ; — l3<F-3 ld Apply k� j,. o1 scte o S -to toga( • z© t 4 (b �7 Max din 5 ig a S.t./ Watts _ 130,7011. = 5.`l rt' " Ztot4 %/c- i i i i i A-14 I . IHauptman p Residence I XSTABL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS I Section A-A' (West wall NW corner of residence) I CASE 1 — Static Loading Conditions — No earthquake forces i applied, existing site conditions I I I 11 I I I I I 1 I A-15 3HAUPT9 5-19-06 19:24 Hauptman NW corner No EQ LL+DL 50 _ 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .357 1 40 _ I 30 _ /- < 20 _ >- I j 10 _ 0 I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 X—AXIS (feet) I I I I I I i 1 A-16 I . IIXSTABL File: 3HAUPT9 5-19-06 19:24 * XSTABL * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * II * using the * * Method of Slices * * * II * Copyright (C) 1992 - 2002 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * II * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.206 96 - 1962 * ****************************************** II Problem Description : Hauptman NW corner No EQ LL+DL 11 11 SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES I7 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil I Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment Ii 2.0 12.0 5.0 12.0 1 2 5.0 12.0 15.0 13.0 1 3 15.0 13.0 20.0 14.0 1 II 4 20.0 14.0 25.5 15.5 1 5 25.5 15.5 27.0 29.0 1 6 27.0 29.0 50.0 32.0 1 7 50.0 32.0 60.0 32.0 1 11 4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments IISegment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below II Segment 1 5.0 10.0 37.0 14.0 2 II 2 37.0 14.0 47.0 26.0 2 3 47.0 26.0 50.0 30.0 2 4 50.0 30.0 52.0 32.0 2 II II A-17 II 11 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters II 2 Soil unit (s) specified I Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant II Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. II 1 100.0 100.0 50.0 32.00 .000 .0 0 2 115.0 115.0 50.0 36.00 .000 .0 II 0 II BOUNDARY LOADS I 1 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction IINo. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 50.0 51.5 1348.0 .0 II NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. II BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED II UPPER limiting boundary of 1 segments: 11 Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) II1 25.5 14. 0 27.0 29.0 II A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. II 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. II 11 A-18 I . II10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 5.0 ft II and x = 15.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 50.0 ft II and x = 60.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum II elevation at which a surface extends is y = 5.0 ft II * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * II 3.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. I ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS II The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined I within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees I II Factors of safety have been calculated by the : II * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * II The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 18 coordinate points I Point x-surf (ft) y-surf No. (ft) 1 8.33 12.33 II 2 11.33 12.16 3 14.33 12.17 4 17.32 12.37 5 20.30 12.76 II 6 23.24 13.34 7 26.14 14. 10 8 28. 99 15.04 II 9 31.78 16.15 II A-19 I . II10 34 .49 17. 44 11 37. 11 18.89 I 12 39. 64 20.51 13 42. 06 22.28 14 44 .36 24 .20 15 46.54 26.27 I 16 48.59 28. 46 17 50.49 30. 78 18 51.37 32.00 II **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.357 **** II II The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Hauptman NW corner No EQ LL+DL IFOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord II Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) Il. 8. 679E+05 1.357 12. 61 59. 96 47.82 8.33 51.37 2. 1.381 15.67 53.44 40. 97 11. 67 50.56 I 7. 143E+05 3. 1.384 15.95 52. 93 40.49 11. 67 50.58 7. 151E+05 4 . 1.410 16.04 57. 13 44.29 13.89 52.51 II 8. 612E+05 5. 1.451 18.43 51.34 38. 97 12.78 52.23 8.441E+05 I 9.173E+05 6. 1.456 14.11 53. 90 42.88 5.00 50. 96 7. 1.485 12.57 66.56 54 .20 9.44 54 .32 1. 128E+06 II1.024E+06 8. 1.486 15.52 61. 03 48.33 12.78 54 . 14 9. 1.521 16. 99 58. 56 45.97 12.78 54 .51 I 1. 040E+06 10. 1.539 18.17 57.46 44.58 15.00 54.74 1.014E+06 II * * * END OF FILE * * * II II II A-20 I ' I Hauptman Residence I XSTABL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS I Section A-A' (West wall NW corner of residence) CASE 2 — Seismic Loading Conditions 30 % g — existing site Iconditions I 1 I II I I I I I I A-21 I , I3HAUPTB 5-19-06 19:25 IHauptman NW Corn 50Oyr EQ DL+LL 50 _ 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .053 I I 40 _ I a 30 _ a) 4- I N X < 20 _ I >- 10 _ 0 IIIIIIIi r i 0 I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 X—AXIS (feet) I I I I I I I A-22 I II XSTABL File: 3HAUPTB 5-19-06 19:25 II ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * II * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * I * Copyright (C) 1992 - 2002 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * I * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.206 96 - 1962 * Problem Description : Hauptman NW Corn 500yr EQ DL+LL II II SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 SURFACE boundary segments ISegment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below II Segment 1 2.0 12.0 5.0 12.0 1 II 2 5.0 12.0 15.0 13.0 1 3 15.0 13.0 20.0 14.0 1 4 20.0 14.0 25.5 15.5 1 5 25.5 15.5 27.0 29.0 1 I 6 27.0 29.0 50.0 32.0 1 7 50.0 32.0 60.0 32.0 1 II4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil I Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment II 1 5.0 10.0 37.0 14.0 2 2 37.0 14 .0 47.0 26.0 2 3 47.0 26.0 50.0 30.0 2 II 4 50.0 30.0 52.0 32.0 2 I/ ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters I A-23 I I I2 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure I Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) I No. 1 100.0 100.0 50.0 32. 00 .000 .0 0 2 115.0 115.0 50.0 36.00 .000 .0 0 II A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .148 has been assigned IA vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned I BOUNDARY LOADS I 1 load(s) specified ILoad x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) II1 50.0 51.5 1348.0 .0 I NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. IIBOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEE N SPECIFIED IIUPPER limiting boundary of 1 segments: Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right II No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 25.5 14.0 27.0 29.0 I IIA critical failure surface searching method, using a random I A-24 technique for generating CIRC ULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally q y spaced along the ground surface between x = 5.0 ft and x = 15.0 ft I Each surface terminates between x = 50.0 ft and x = 60.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 5.0 ft I * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * 3.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees I Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * ' The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 18 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 8.33 12.33 ' 2 11.33 12.16 A-25 II ' , II 3 14.33 12. 17 4 17.32 12.37 II 5 20.30 12.76 6 23.24 13.34 7 26.14 14 . 10 8 28.99 15.04 II 9 31.78 16.15 10 34.49 17.44 11 37.11 18.89 1 12 39.64 42.06 20.51 13 22.28 14 44.36 24.20 15 46.54 26.27 II 16 48.59 28.46 17 50.49 30.78 18 51.37 32.00 II **** p Sim lified BISHOP FOS = 1.053 **** IIThe following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces I Problem Description : Hauptman NW Corn 500yr EQ DL+LL FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting 1 (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) II 1. 1.053 12.61 59. 96 47.82 8.33 51.37 8. 199E+05 1 2. 1.068 15.67 53.44 40.97 11. 67 50.56 6.750E+05 3. 1.071 15.95 52. 93 40.49 11. 67 50.58 6.759E+05 1 8. 127E+05 4. 1.089 16.04 57. 13 44.29 13.89 52.51 5. 1.127 14.11 53. 90 42.88 5.00 50.96 8.705E+05 II7. 980E+05 6. 1.127 18.43 51.34 38.97 12.78 52.23 7. 1.131 12.57 66.56 54.20 9.44 54.32 1 1.066E+06 8. 1.136 15.52 61.03 48.33 12.78 54 .14 9. 684E+05 9. 1. 162 16.99 58.56 45.97 12.78 54.51 II 9.843E+05 10. 1.174 18.17 57.46 44.58 15.00 54.74 9.599E+05 II * * * END OF FILE * * * I 1 A-26 I Hauptman p Residence XSTABL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS Section B-B' (West wall SW corner of residence) CASE 1 — Static Loading Conditions — No earthquake forces applied, existing site conditions I r 1 I I I I A-2 I I 1HAUPT9 5-19-06 19:17 Hauptman SW Corner No EQ DL+LL 50 _ 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 2.286 1 40 _ m30 a) to - X Q 20 ' 10 _ 1 0 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 X—AXIS (feet) 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 A-28 I ' IIXSTABL File: 1HAUPT9 5-19-06 19:17 * XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * II * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 2002 * 11 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * II * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.206 96 - 1962 * II Problem Description : Hauptman SW Corner No EQ DL+LL I IISEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES II8 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil I Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment Ii 2.0 20.0 5.0 20.0 1 2 5.0 20.0 15.0 21.0 1 3 15.0 21.0 20.0 22.0 1 I 4 20.0 22.0 26.3 23.5 1 5 26.3 23.5 27.0 29.0 1 6 27.0 29.0 50.0 31.0 1 7 50.0 31.0 52.0 31.0 1 II 8 52.0 31.0 60.0 31.0 1 II 5 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit ISegment No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Ii 2.0 18.0 5.0 18.0 2 2 5.0 18.0 37.0 22.0 2 3 37.0 22.0 50.0 30.0 2 4 50.0 30.0 52. 0 31.0 2 II 5 52.0 31.0 60.0 31.0 2 11 A-29 I4 11 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters II2 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure II Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) II No. 1 100.0 100.0 50.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 0 0 2 115.0 115.0 50.0 36.00 .000 .0 II BOUNDARY LOADS I1 load(s) specified IILoad x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) II1 35.0 36.5 1348.0 .0 1 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. IA critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. II 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. II 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 5.0 ft II and x = 20.0 ft I Each surface terminates between x = 45.0 ft and x = 55.0 ft IIUnless further limitations were imposed, the minimum I A-30 11 elevation at which a surface extends is y = 5.0 ft II II * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 2.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. 11 IIANGULAR RESTRICTIONS II The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees IIUpper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees II Factors of safety have been calculated by the : 11 * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * 11 The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 18 coordinate points 1 Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) Ii 15.00 21.00 2 17.00 21.06 3 18.99 21.19 1 4 20.98 21.39 5 22.97 21.66 6 24. 94 21.99 7 26.90 22.40 I 8 28.84 22.87 9 30.77 23.41 10 32. 67 24.01 11 34.56 24. 68 II 12 36.42 25.41 13 38.25 26.21 14 40.06 27.07 II 15 41.84 27.99 16 43.58 28. 97 17 45.29 30.01 18 46.30 30. 68 11 I A-31 II , II **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 2.286 **** II IIThe following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Hauptman SW Corner No EQ DL+LL II FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting 1 (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 Moment(ft-lb) 1. 2.286 14.21 79.07 58.07 15.00 46.30 4.705E+05 I 2. 2.344 16.50 70.24 50.16 10.00 47.46 5.416E+05 3. 2.345 11.37 81.52 61.54 6. 67 45. 99 5.791E+05 I 2. 961E+05 4. 2.392 24.30 54. 17 32.46 20.00 46.70 5. 2.411 21.26 51.24 32.04 11. 67 45.78 4 .328E+05 II 6.712E+05 6. 2.434 10.83 84.85 65.11 5.00 47.05 7. 2.518 14.78 70. 90 51.83 5.00 47. 60 II 6. 916E+05 8. 2.529 20.43 67.54 47.24 13.33 50.36 5.841E+05 9. 2.569 27.43 41 .40 20.78 20.00 45.13 II 2.343E+05 10. 2.607 16.30 65.56 46. 94 5.00 47.86 7. 169E+05 II * * * END OF FILE * * * II II I II II II A-32 I ' Hauptman p man Residence XSTABL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS 1 Section B-B' (West wall SW corner of residence) CASE 2 — Seismic Loading Conditions 30 % g — existing site conditions 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A-33 I . 1HAUPT8 5-19-06 19:16 Hauptman SW Corner 500yr EQ DL+LL 50 _ 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .663 I 40 _ a 30 a) 4- �%, < 20 y-� 10 _ I 0 i i i i i i 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 X—AXIS (feet) I I I I I I i A-34 i . IXSTABL File: 1HAUPT8 5-19-06 19:16 ****************************************** I ** XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * i * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 2002 * II * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * II * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.206 96 - 1962 * ****************************************** I Problem Description : Hauptman SW Corner 500yr EQ DL+LL I IISEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES II 8 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil I Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 2.0 20.0 5.0 20.0 1 2 5.0 20.0 15.0 21.0 1 3 15.0 21.0 20.0 22.0 1 I 4 20.0 22.0 26.3 23.5 1 5 26.3 23.5 27.0 29.0 1 6 27.0 29.0 50.0 31.0 1 7 50.0 31.0 52.0 31.0 1 11 8 52.0 31.0 60.0 31.0 1 5 SUBSURFACE boundary segments 11 Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit I Segment No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below 1 2.0 18.0 5.0 18.0 2 II 2 5.0 18.0 37.0 22 0 2 3 37.0 22.0 50.0 30.0 2 4 50.0 30.0 52.0 31.0 2 II 5 52.0 31.0 60.0 31.0 2 A-35 1 IIISOTROPIC Soil Parameters II2 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure II Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) II No. 1 100.0 100.0 50.0 32.00 .000 .0 II 0 2 115.0 115.0 50.0 36.00 .000 .0 0 I A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of . 148 has been assigned 11 A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned II BOUNDARY LOADS II 1 load(s) specified II Load x-left x-rig ht Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 I 1 35.0 36.5 1343.0 .0 IINOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. I A critical failure surface searching method, using a random I technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been II100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced II along the ground surface between x = 5.0 ft A-36 1 , 4 , II and x = 20.0 ft IIEach surface terminates between x = 45.0 ft and x = 55.0 ft IIUnless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation II at which a surface extends is y = 5.0 ft II * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * II 2.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. IANGULAR RESTRICTIONS 1 The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : II Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees II IIFactors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * II The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 18 coordinate points II Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) I1 15.00 21.00 2 17.00 21.06 3 18.99 21.19 I 4 20.98 21.39 5 22.97 21.66 6 24.94 21.99 II 7 26.90 22.40 8 28.84 22.87 9 30.77 23.41 10 32.67 24.01 II 11 34.56 24. 68 II A-37 II . I12 36.42 25.41 13 38.25 26.21 I 14 40.06 27.07 15 41.84 27. 99 16 43.58 28. 97 17 45.29 30.01 II 18 46.30 30. 68 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1. 663 **** II II The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces IIProblem Description : Hauptman SW Corner 500yr EQ DL+LL FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal I Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment II (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1. 663 14.21 79.07 58.07 15.00 46.30 4 .557E+05 II 5.247E+05 2. 1. 670 16.50 70.24 50.16 10.00 47.46 3. 1. 696 11.37 81 .52 61.54 6. 67 45. 99 I 5. 615E+05 4. 1.715 24.30 54 .17 32.46 20. 00 46.70 2.873E+05 II5. 1.733 10.83 84 .85 65.11 5.00 47.05 6.513E+05 6. 1.747 21.26 51.24 32.04 11. 67 45.78 4 . 198E+05 I 7. 1.749 20.43 67.54 47.24 13.33 50.36 5. 667E+05 8. 1.769 14.78 70. 90 51.83 5.00 47. 60 6.711E+05 I 6. 959E+05 9. 1.821 16.30 65.56 46. 94 5.00 47.86 10. 1.836 16. 95 70.20 51.08 6. 67 49. 66 II 7.382E+05 * * * END OF FILE * * * II II I II A-38