The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About969000006 Geotech Assessment(3l,(~0~0- `~~~ FILE COPY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT HAUPTMAN RESIDENCE FOUNDATION REPAIR 685 LUDLOW BAY ROAD PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON. JEFFERSON COUNTY PARCEL # 909000006 PREPARED FOR: MR. DWIGHT. HAUPTMAN BY: OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. ORA JOB N0.06-124, REPORT N0.1 ~~~~~~~~ JEFFERSON COUN~f DCD ~ OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. _ _ __ ______.__ Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing ii OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES,. INC. Geotechnical Engineering, Conshuction Inspection 8~ Materials Testing May 19, 2006 Mr. Dwight Hauptman ' 685 Ludlow Bay Road Port Ludlow, Washington 98363 6747 M. L. King Way South, Seattle, Washington 98118-3216 USA Tel: (206) 725-4600 • Toli Free: (888) OTTO-4-US • Fax: (206) 723-2221 WBE W2F5913684 • WABO Registered Agency • Website: www.ottorosenau.com ' Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Hauptman Residence Foundation Repair ' 685 Ludlow Bay Road Port Ludlow, Washington Jefferson County Parcel # 969000006 ORA Project Number: 06-124, Report 1 ' Dear Mr. Hauptman: We are pleased to provide this report for the referenced .project. Based on our subsurface 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. ' 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 tMe proposed foundation repair structure can be completed satisfactorily with minimal risk of adversely impacting the ' stability of site slopes, or adjacent properties provided that the work is completed in accordance with the recommendations of this report. It 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 pin piles and bracket system. Detailed 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:;. O~Y G. ' ~~L o~ `~'~ ,~ Sincerely, ' Copies to: Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. i ~~q /06 Anthony G. Coyne, P.E. ~ ! Geotechnical Engineer II II II L CI~' i n II TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 1 3. SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................................................... 1 4. SITE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................ 2 5. SURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................2 6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 3 7. LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................ 3 8. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 4 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 4 9.1 General .................................................................................................................. 4 9.2 Underpinning ........................................................................................................... 4 .9.2.1 General .................................................................................................... 4 9.2.2 Grip-Tite Piers .......................................................................................... 5 9.2.2 Pin Piles ................................................................................................... 5 9.3 Seismic Considerations ........................................................................................... 6 9.4 Slope Stability ........................................................................................................ 6 9.5 Erosion and Sedimentation Control ........................................................................ 8 9.6 Temporary Cut Slopes ............................................................................................. 8 9.7 Drainage ............................................................................................................... 8 9.7.1 Dewatering ............................................................................................... 8 9.7.2 Surface Drainage ..................................................................................... 8 9.8 Construction Observation and Testing .................................................................. 9 10. REPORT LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................... 9 APPENDIX Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................... A-1 Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... A-2 Boring Logs ....................................................................................................................... A-3 Boring Log Notes .................................................................................................................. A-5 Unified Soil Classification System .......................................................................................... A-7 Calculations, Hauptman Residence, Foundation Repair ........................................................ A-8 Slope Stability Analysis Results ........................................................................................... A-15 II C' 0 LI 1 f GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RESIDENTIAL FOUNDATION REPAIR 685 LUDLOW BAY ROAD PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON JEFFERSON COUNTY PARCEL # 969000006 Prepared for Mr. Dwight Hauptman by Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. May 19, 2006 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the residence at 685 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. ' 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 atwo-story, wood-framed structure with a ' crawl space beneath the living areas and aslab-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 ' locations adjacent to the residence. The foundations along the west side of the residence appear to be supported on fill retained by the rockery. ' Based 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" 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". 7 3. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services included a reconnaissance of the site by the geologist, a review of geologic literature, 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 depths shown on the boring logs presented on pages A-3 through A-4 of the appendix. 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 u u Hauptman Residence ORA Project No.: 06-124 May 19, 2006 Page 3 of 9 Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing 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 aman-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 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. 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 i~ ii i~ i~ II 9.1 GENERAL It is our opinion that the settlement at the residence is likely a result of consolidation of poorl_y- 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 downgpouts that have discharged close ,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 performed at several locations to monitor for movement In general, ro .k .ries rPnuire ~,Princiir.. 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 ii ii Hauptman Residence ORA Project No.: 06-124 May 19, 2006 Page 5 of 9 Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing ' 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. 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 2 ~~.~.--> ~~L $C IS ~ tL 2~~ ~Z /s ~ ua-~~~ 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. u 1 n 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. 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 acomputer-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: CI' i~ ~i i~ Hauptman Residence ORA Project No.: 06-124 May 19, 2006 Page 7 of 9 Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing Soil Unit Description Assumed Unit Weight, y, Angle of Internal Friction, ~, Cohesion (pcf) degrees (psf) Upper Fill Unit (SP-SM) 100 pcf dry 32 50 115 pcf saturated 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: Location Loading Condition Estimated Minimum Recommended Minimum Factor of Safety Factor of Safety Section A-A' (West Case 1 -Static 1.4 1.3 wall NW corner of residence) Section A-A' (West Case 2 -Seismic 0.3 g 1.1 1.1 wall NW corner of (500 year seismic) residence) Section B-B' (West Case 1 -Static 2.3 1.1 wall SW corner of residence) Section B-B' (West .Case 2 -Seismic 0.3 g 1.7 1.1 wall SW corner of (500 year seismic) residence) 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 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. The 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 failure mechanism of slope failure predicted by the XSTABL analyses is a shallow failure that passes below the base of the rockery wall. In order to reduce the risk of slope instability after construction, we recommend the following practices: • All roof drains, footing drains, and other drains should be gathered and tightlined to a discharge location approved by Jefferson County. ' Hauptman Residence ORA Project No.: 06-124 May 19, 2006 Page 8 of 9 Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing ' 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 - areas. • 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 erosion potential and to stabilize surficial soils. ' 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 ' employed at the site: • Provide silt fencing around the construction area to delineate the construction limits. No 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. ' Additional erosion control measures may be required as construction progresses. ' 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 ' soil. ' All temporary cut slopes and excavations must comply with the provisions of Washington Administrative 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 ' improvements. ~Inwever. we recommend that the contractor submit a work plan and excavation support plan for our review prior to beginning work on the site. L C 1 9.7 DRAINAGE 9.7.1 Dewatering: Ground water seepage will likely not be encountered during construction. 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 accordance with Jefferson County requirements. 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 gravel drains behind any retaining walls, or from ponding on or next to pavements. Where pavement Otto Rosenau & Associates Incor orated p 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 dischar a 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 1 C 0 0 0 ~, i II~ 1 v~ ~ ~ 1~~ _ ~ ~~,O~tDt FaCkS ~,~ g ~ ~ ~ 4 { i 5 ~~~ I 4 ~s~ra„ axe- - E'er ~ ~ i ,~ , t _ ' ~ ~, - - . ' 1 ~~` i ~ ~ ~' - ~ 4w~ t ~ ; d l ! ~ ~ tP -~i rtt.s i, ., + ~F6UIWQ+ _ I _ ~ ~,,: + - ~ Ipl I r 11 . ~ 4 [ _ ~ Suan ~ ~ _ fE ~ ~ 4 f 1 x r 11, i c ~ 1 J j' ~ ' 1 ; } ~ ~ ` J F r .ate. ` I - ..,~,~. I 1 ~ --.' Taa Point ~ +' i 4, I ',~L' , ~ - I~ i 't 1 I~~ C1 ii - _ ~ - 1 v _. . "~,. y t ( O i ~:~y a - ~ ~,~= Port Ludiow ~~ ~ ~"~~ . ~ ~ o ~ ~ F~~. v ~~ , r ~ r ~ ~~... ~ t ~ ~ ~ F ~ g ~'~ ~ -` ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ' ~ ~ ~ 1~~ r _ i .~ + ~ f ' 685 Ludlow Bay Road ~ its ~ ,- y r _.,. r ;_~ ^~ r r, -~ t ~ I s. ~ t _ . ." - '~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ` 7 - - ~ 9 ~, ~ ~ ; ~ { i~~~ {' '- ~ ,'' i ~~ 1 ' ~ ~ '- f ~ , k ~ ' ~ 1 l' i ' i ~ ` ' ' ~ 1 i 1 \ ~~ (~i ~ ~ 2E} ~ ~ I ,. 2 ~ I ~ Yi ~~ 'k r n, . {, ~ ~ ~ _ ~, SR-19 ~~ r _ s ~• \ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i~ ! I .. 1~. ~' i ~ i ~ ~ a l 1 ~~ ~ i, a HfJOi = o _ i , 1 : Note: The location of ail features shown is approximate. ~ Reference: Port Ludlow, Washington fJSGS Quadrangle and portions of adjacent quadrangles, ALL TOPO MAPS: Washington. VICINITY MAP i Repair 685 Ludlow Bay Road, Port OTTO ROSENAU & ~_- - .____._, ASSOCIATES, INC. For: Mr. Dwight Hauptman Ludlow, Washingtor Date: May 16, 2006 ORA Project Number: 06-124 H-1 1 Approximate ~ Location of Existing Rockery Wall Deck Column Footings 60' 25' ~ ~ ^ ~ Continuous,. ~ perimeter footing A A, Crawl Space B-1 57' ~ 31' e-~ B B, Garage 26' (slab-on-grade) ® Ga-e9e Door ' Garage Door 30' 42' - ' Covered Enclosure Approximate Location of ~ Property Line Approximate ~ Location of Property Line Legend: ~ e-t Boring completeted by I ORA on March 28, 2!>fl6 I A ~ A' Location of field-generated cross section used for slope stability analysis Note: The location of all features shown is approximate. Scale: 1" = 2d' Reference: Field measurements made with measuring tape and original plat map of Ludlow Beach Tracts No. 2 recorded on November 4,1948. SITE PLAN 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 1 C ~I x m J ' W Z U' OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. BORING NUMBER B-1 6747 M.L. King Way South Seattle, WA 98118 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: (206) 725-4600 - . __- Fax: (206) 723-2221 CLIENT Dwight Hauatman PROJECT NAME Hauatman Residence PROJECT NUMBER 06-124 PROJECT LOCATION 685 Ludlow Bay Road, Port Ludlow WA DATE STARTED 3/28/06 COMPLETED 3128/06 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 7-inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR CN Drilling GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING 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 a H••• o~ } I- W Wm a~ ~ W O Ftn- ~ ~ZJ m p j TESTS ~ ~ U =(9 ~ O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Z UZ _ ~ Q ~ W ~ 0 SS 1 67 3-3-3 (6) MC=27% SP- ':,~: os Brown bark Loose; light brown, fine to medium SAND with Silt with organics and SM interb dd d idi d S d e e , ox ze , an y SILT (fill) 2S 67 2(4)2 MC=15% SP- '~::~ • ~ •~ Loose, brown, fine to medium SAND with Sift (fill) SM : • • :: 4 0 . 5 3S 67 1(2j1 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 (filq •. =`. 9.5 10 5S 33 3(5)2 MC=11% SP- -:•:'~ ~ • ~ Loose, brown SAND with Silt (fill) SM ~: •~ 14.0 15 6 67 ~$~ MC=19% SP- ~• `' ' • •• Medium dense, brown fine to medium SAND with Silt and interbedded Sandy SM •• SILT (native) . i i .: 19.0 20 Gravelly drilling at approximately 19 feet i ~S 14-416-25 Dense, gray, fine SAND 25 SS 8 67 18-32-41 (73) MC=8% SP '•. ~ Ve dense, ra fine SAND rY 9 X '•'• 26 5 . Bottom of hole at 26.5 feet. A-3 1 ~~I~ 1 OTfO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. BORING NUMBER B-2 6747 M.L. King Way South Seattle, WA 98118 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: (206) 725-4600 -- ____ _. Fax: (206) 723-2221 CLIENT _Dwight Hauatman PROJECT NAME Hauatman Residence PROJECT 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: DRILLING 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 a ~-~ ~m w ~z~ ~ =C 9 o ~ a j ~ m =O > TESTS ~ ~ O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION QZ W UZ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 1S 67 1(x)2 MC=15% SP- `•:~ • ~ Very loose, dark brown, fine to medium SAND with Sift (filq SM 2S 67 1(4)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)$ MC=15% SW- •; G:3 Medium dense, brown,-fine to coarse-SAND with Silt-(fill) Medium dense, brown, fine to coarse SAND with Silt and occasional gravel and interbedded Silty SAND (native) SS 67 24-25-16 SW- ~• s.o 4 (41) MC=8% • 10 5S 78 10~35~20 MC=15% SP- '~.•~: • . • Dense, light brown, moist fine SAND with Silt and traces of oxidation SM 15 SS 6 67 6-16-22 (38) MC=9% SP- ~::. . • • Dense, light brown, moist fine SAND with Sift and traces of oxidation SM ~: - ' 18.0 SM ": 20 Medium dense ra Sil fi SAND i ifi • , g y, ty ne (s gn cantly increased moisture S 9 4 - : .20.5 content 7 100 ( ~) MC=25% 2 • Medium dense, gray, fine SAND vrifh Silt SP- : ~ SM ~ : .23.0 25 SW- SS SM - $ 50 27-50/6" MC=S% Ve dense r fi t SAND ry , g ay, ne o coarse with Silt and gravel 26.5 Bottom of hole at 26.5 feet. A-4 n 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 1 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-s oon sam ler with 1-3/8" inside diameter .and 2" outside P p p diameter. 1 • "NR" indicates sample attempted with no recove ry "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 j 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 ex ressed in ercent b p p Y weight of dry sample as determined in the laboratory. l « „. 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 descriptior~;~ and classifications are generally based on visual examination in the field and laborato 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. "~" 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) 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 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 1 li~ t SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS ~ GRAV CLEAN ' ~ ~' ~~ ~ GW WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - MIXTURES LITT EL GRAVELS ~ ~~ , LE OR NO AND ~ • F NES GRAVELLY o SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) ~p0 ~p Gp GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURESSLITTLE O Q o0 OR NO FINES COARSE o GRAINED SOILS M % GRAVELS WITH FINES ° ~ ° °° ° p GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - SI OF COARSE O ~ LT MIXTURES FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (MORE THAN 12% GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - FINES) CLAY MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% SAND CLEAN SANDS Sw WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES OF MATERIAL IS AND LAR GER THAN SANDY NO. 200 SIEVE SOILS POORLY-GRADED SANDS, SIZE (LITTLE OR NO FINES) :. Sp GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES MORE THAN 50% SANDS WITH FINES SM SILTY SANDS, SAND -SILT MIXTURES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (MORE THAN 12% SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY FINES) MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY FINE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT L CI INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY GRAINED ESS THAN 50 CLAYS - CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY SOILS CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SMALLER THAN SAND OR NO. 200 SIEVE SILTY SOILS SIZE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT CF'I INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ~' .~..... ~~~' ~~~' ~~~' PT FEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH ` ~ ~, \, ,, \, ,, `~, HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: FINES ARE MATERIALS PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE. 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 ~~ t CALCULATIONS HAUPTMAN RESIDENCE FOUNDATION REPAIR A-8 ~Ovu~t~c~"° ~ w'~ Otto Rosenau & Associates 6747 M.L.King Way South Seattle, WA 98118-3216 t2~) 725-4~0 ~~~v~ ~ yn,~, ~~ ~~~~ /~0 6 TYPICAL BUILDING CROSS-SECTION AT NORTH WALL NEAR NORTHWEST CORNER ('.I~v file rnnf '2.1'1 r,i+.+L. 8' 1' 8' 1' Floor beam :oncrete pier block A-9 .~~ ~N- ~ ~« r-.c. v~ ~-~~ ~~~ ~ pn ~ NnC ui roen w rrerusa~ 2-inch pin piles driven to refusal G~LU,~~G,K ~ GQ Otto Rosenan & Associates ~~~._~ 0 ~ ~ ~, 6747 M.L.King Way South Seattle, WA 98118-3216 (206) 725-4600 N a a a t ~ ~ O ~ v O v t pIC a N O O N O .nm~ ~ 3 3 a aQ ~ ~ ~ r aQ W MNa ~ ~°- H ~ ~' t= o Z`~ Zt m ~° o~ '~ a m ~ °' ~ of ~, ~ co '~ >_ v ~ H J ~ ~ ._ J '' ~ F w ~ t F3 g F wr ~ • rn w ~ ~ ..rc G ~ N ° ° ° 3 a N >~~ v v v c m ~U N t0 N 7 l6 ~ qC _ O ~ Q: O ~ v w N 'o ~ ~ E o J Y ~ J 'J 3 •E > J a O O ° • ° d ~ ~ ~ o o LL c ~- v ~m{ J ~ U LL N N W ~~ 'd c. 3 `" OI ~^. v ., t ~ 'c °~ w p~ 3a U r m w c 3 ~° r ~ r a o = z ~ rn m c U l1J L .a a io m ~ T L N ~ U c_ E c ~° ~ L C l6 C = Q •N ?, N {p ~ J O o m ~ m as o w N N n a ~ N N t . ~ W N N V . - d O. N M O aD aD ~ h Oim O F a F !- t t0 f0 ~ ~ •-• ~ ~ ~ m ~ of of ~ H = .r + ~a~ `3 ,. ... _ ~ 'C Cf N ' ~ t0 ~ a> a 3 i0 x N O1 L W ~" N ~ <° `° X ~ E N N ~ U `o ~ ~°~ v~ 0 ~N go R' ~~ ~w~ ~ 7/,~,c~~,6 Q a. Na a O ~ m t . ~ ' a y N N V, M y d CO ~ ~ `~' N ~ to N r R J 3~ W ~~ V C. ~ m N b 0 _ ~ ~ „ F~- + .nQ... F aQ~O~ F v ~ a D ~` t Z'r y J + .. w a~~ ~~ v 3 m~ m 0 0 o 0 F J ~= F zw r ~D~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ wt~ ~N N ~~ wtc N ~ •C .d ~ 3~ . - a ~?~~. ~ o g O _ LL ~ ~ o v ~ ~. ~ c ~ v 5 N LL . -N W LL yLL A-10 G.~.t ,~3°~w~~,~y 2 ~ S ~ o~P.v1 G e Otto Rosenau & Associates ~ King Way South L 6747 M ~. pry~J ~ Din E~ !? ~, ~/ _ 1-owh a~ o,~-i o/) Ra,,~j,('' . . See`t`e~W72s81-a60 326 5"~! b/ ZOO 6 TYPICAL BUILDING CROSS-SECTION AT WEST WALL NEAR NORTHWEST CORNER Exterior dE - Floor beam Concrete pier block Grip-Tite Pier or 3-inch pin pile driven to refusal A-11 6 l ~~t ~ dot't C ~ Otto Rosenau ~ Associates Q~.ah r / 6747 M.L.King Way South ~~ ~tOl~ ~~ le,;~~, r`~S- Seattle, WA 98118 3216 `~ c~~ 72s-46oo C N W O N f0 Q O 3 N lb n C ~' ~ ~ 0 ~ Q a n a L Of N a ~ ~ ~ m 81~ d °. O O O ~° 'd' m O cn ~ v 3 ~? " r i v y M G ~ m y ~ ~~ Q H aQ F a.,. ~ F F o r~ ~'~ a d ~ ~ a e~ ... v ~ v ~ F` J J F- rt rr i` 3 3 ` - _ ; r C~ ~r ~ N L C~ .C ~~ O O O ~ j ~ N ~ 01 ,p 'V V V 3 -- N E 10 v m E J Y U ~ J o J c E > J v ~ O O O LL m J _ M ~ U ~ 4. .p N N W a 81~ aO N O 3 a ~~M _~ ~~o f- t C ~~ (O C0 ~ ~~a ~~ c~ N 3 0 c m ~ C 3 ~ c rn c LLI ~i ~ m c L N T ~ U c_ ~ E c ° 7 W C C = Q ~. > ~ (O c0 . ~ N {p ~ X N N C ~ J O O O v ~ n W ~ ~ ~ a n. o w ~ ~ N a w ~(~ .~ tll ~ f0 N O ~ pp O. v ~ O r ~m~ ~~ o a Q :r ri ri ~. t ~~ ~~ ri ri F J ` a , ?~ ~ ~ .n co ~~:a ~~ io x N L N '~ t ~ N (p N m N U ~ rn w ow 0 ~ ~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ pp W N 3 a ENV r ~ ~ O ~ Q ~ r H Z't . ~ a v~v ~ J rL av~ •-•-~ .`3 _' r- M t C ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ m a 3~ N `o ~° O LL LL = o °' LL ~ N n a a w a~~ r M ' ~ M 3 M a N ~j g 3 ~ y N 0 ~ ~ + .nQ~-~~ O ~ J ~ Z` ., '6 J °° ~ ~ ~ ro ~=v'-o ~ o H F ai r .-. ~ ~ ~9~~ ~ ~ ... o r ~ ~' ~. -~ O «~ v 3 rn 7 ~ c E o ti fn li A-12 i~ i~ a 0 a W~ rU ~~ ' ~~ M ~ ~ .~ Z W OC J i w Q ^ v~i t ~ ~ Otto ltasenau ~!t Aasociate4 ~~,~,Y,Gu''' /C~,~~ y- Seattle, WA 9811&3216 °. 1206) 725.460(3 S/ ~ 7 /~~j G-~21 +~ - T~ ~ ~ Pry ~2y ~7Fs ,~-re~ ~-~- Steel ~ :5 ` 7~o Z~„~--- 5, 2$, h2 __ '`, o~,~, 2 '. _ _ - i ~Pld Stress o~ s ~. ~~ 1, ~ = 70, 4pQ ~s; ~ G,~~le ~-5' ! 3 s t~~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~-o sd /o 2~, ~O ~ Lb ~ ZG -7 ~L i~}S c F_ S 2 Z - a 2 L e5 ~y R ~'° rfl ~C ~ wt.~c.pC ~ ti,.,. ~,~,wT G. ~~~ ~ ~' ~?~ e,~r- ~S ~ b, Sot db -- G6 • s ,~,%~-~ t G,- ~ ~ r, ~¢ _ t 6, ,BOO ~~ Max c~~ lit ems( loa~ pe-~ ~ f o ~ ~~~-' wa,(,(_ ~ ~`~- ~ /~' ~~14 /fix _ ~~~~/-~ loaGPpec~' p per- -~ ~ -~~- 5~t.«~ ~ ~~s7`~ ~'~~ 2~~4 ~6 -~ 6~~- -_ l2, o~~ l6 ~- a a c .~ E w ~ r V MT W L c~ ~ rn .__ o c°' ZW W H W Q -'--- r t t 1 ~i L~ t)tto Itasene,n ~ A~odata /' Seattle, WA 9811& w D (..p e' , S~~ 7~z-vv E, ~/~~' _.~s~i~t~T~d ,_ /~i N ~%'/ LAS: ,._ ~=l~oe,+/~~ ~~ CZ! Ov/H wu r~ p~'Ce = _ ~~'~~ ,~'~.v` ~r /~ -° ~~, ODD ~ou~ ~`s .`For 3 -,.~~~ ~'~~ ._ ~ ,o,~~ ,45 - a2. ~'Z `~S`ih ~- ~~ mF ~-c~e. A-S3 A-~ ." ~tee~ 30, o~ Psi , ~ n ~ ~.le <s .~.~ f ~ Sc3 ~ o ~ C~ ' ~c~~_ .~,--mss ,. 7 ~ 399 /~ l ~ 7 r~/I/J GAS .,.i.'~ ~~e~ (o Hauptman Residence XSTABL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS Section A-A' (West wall NW corner of residence) CASE 1 -Static Loading Conditions - No earthquake forces applied, existing sife condit~o~$ A-15 3HAUPT9 5-19-06 19:24 50 40 ~-. a 30 a~ .,-. X Q 20 I 10 0 Hauptman NW corner No EQ tL+DL 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.357 A-16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 X-AXIS (feet) XSTABL File: 3HAUPT9 5-19-06 19:24 ****************************************** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 2002 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.206 96 - 1962 ****************************************** Problem Description Hauptman NW corner No EQ LL+DL ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 7 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 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 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 4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 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 4 50.0 30.0 52.0 32.0 2 A-17 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) 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 --------------- BOUNDARY LOADS --------------- 1 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 50.0 51.5 1348.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. ---------------------- BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT ---------------------- ------------------- SURFACE GENERATION ------------------- -------------------- HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED -------------------- UPPER limiting boundary of 1 segments: Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 25.5 14.0 27.0 29.0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. A-18 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 5.0 ft and x = 15.0 ft 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 * * * * * * 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 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 3 14.33 12.17 4 17.32 12.37 5 20.30 12.76 6 23.24 13.34 7 26.14 14.10 8 28.99 15.04 9 31.78 16.15 A-19 10 34.49 17.44 11 37.11 18.89 12 39.64 20.51 13 42.06 22.28 14 44.36 24.20 15 46.54 26.27 16 48.59 28.46 17 50.49 30.78 18 51.37 32.00 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.357 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description Hauptman NW corner No EQ LL+DL FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.357 12.61 59.96 47.82 8.33 51.37 8.679E+05 2. 1.381 15.67 53.44 40.97 11.67 50.56 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 8.612E+05 5. 1.451 18.43 51.34 38.97 12.78 52.23 8.441E+05 6. 1.456 14.11 53.90 42.88 5.00 50.96 9.173E+OS 7. 1.485 12.57 66.56 54.20 9.44 54.32 1.128E+06 8. 1.486 15.52 61.03 48.33 12.78 54.14 1.024E+06 9. 1.521 16.99 58.56 45.97 12.78 54.51 1.040E+06 10. 1.539 18.17 57.46 44.58 15.00 54.74 1.014E+06 * * * END OF FILE Iq-24 n i~ 1 Hauptman Residence XSTABL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS ' Section A-A' (West wall NW corner of residence) CASE 2 -Seismic Loading Conditions 30 % g -existing site ' conditions ii ' A-21 3HAUPT8 5-19-06 19:25 50 40 a 30 a~ `F- N_ X a 20 i ~o 0 Hauptman NW Corn 50Oyr EQ DL+LL 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM. BISHOP FOS = 1.053 A-22 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 X-AXIS (feet) XSTABL File: 3HAUPT8 5-19-06 19:25 ****************************************** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 2002 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.206 96 - 1962 ****************************************** Problem Description Hauptman NW Corn 500yr EQ DL+LL -°°--------------'-m°a~---'-- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 7 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 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 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 4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left. x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 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 4 50.0 30.0 52.0 32.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters A-23 Water Surface No. 0 0 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) 1 100.0 100.0 50.0 32.00 .000 2 115.0 115.0 50.0 36.00 .000. A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .148 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned --------------- BOUNDARY LOADS. _______________ 1 load(s) specified .0 .0 Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 50.0 51.5 1348.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. _____________o________ BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT ---------------------- Q______ma__________ SURFACE GENERATION ------------------- ____________________ HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED -------------------- UPPER limiting boundary of 1 segments: Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right No. (ft) (ft) (ft} (ft) 1 25.5 14.0 27.0 29.0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random A-24 technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x 5.0 ft and x = 15.0 ft 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 * * * * * * 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 :_ -95.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ (slope angle - 5.0) degrees 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 3 14.33 12.17 4 17.32 12.37 5 20.30 12.76 6 23.24 13.34 7 26.14 14.10 8 28.99 15.04 9 31.78 16.15 10 34.49 17.44 11 37.11 18.89 12 39.64 20.51 13 42.06 22.28 14 44.36 24.20 15 46.54 26.27 16 48.59 28.46 17 50.49 30.78 18 51.37 32.00 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.053 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description Hauptman NW Corn 500yr EQ DL+LL FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.053 12.61 59.96 47.82 8.33 51.37 8.199E+05 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 4. 1.089 16.04 57.13 44.29 13.89 52.51 8.127E+05 5. 1.127 14.11 53.90 42.88 5.00 50.96 8.705E+05 6. 1.127 18.43 51.34 38.97 12.78 52.23 7.980E+05 7. 1.131 12.57 66.56 54.20 9.44 54.32 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 9.843E+05 10. 1.174 18.17 57.46 44.58 15.00 54.74 9.599E+05 * * * END OF FILE A-26 i~ i~ i~ u Hauptman 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 -27 1HAUPT9 5-19-06 19:17 50 40 a 30 v ~«- N X Q 20 I 10 0 Hauptman SW Corner No EQ DL+LL 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 2.286 A-28 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 X-AXIS (feet) XSTABL File: 1HAUPT9 5-19-06 19:17 ****************************************** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 2002 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.206 96 - 1962 ****************************************** Problem Description Hauptman SW Corner No EQ DL+LL SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 8 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil 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 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 8 52.0 31.0 60.0 31.0 1 5 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 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 5 52.0 31.0 60.0 31.0 2 A-29 a~_________________~____e_ ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) 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 --------------- BOUNDARY LOADS --------------- 1 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 35.0 36.5 1348.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 5.0 ft and x = 20.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 45.0 ft and x = 55.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum A-30 elevation at which a surface extends is y = 5.0 ft * * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * 2.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ____a__s~m____a_____~ 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 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 15.00 21.00 2 17.00 21.06 3 18.99 ZI.19 4 20.98 21.39 5 22.97 21.66 6 24.94 21.99 7 26.90 22.40 8 28.84 22.87 9 30.77 23.41 10 32.67 24.01 11 34.56 24.68 12 36.42 25.41 13 38.25 26.21 14 40.06 27.07 15 41.84 27.99 16 43.58 28.97 17 45.29 30.01 18 46.30 30.68 A-31 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 2.286 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description Hauptman SW Corner No EQ DL+LL FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) Eft) (ft) (ft} (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 2.286 14.21 79.07 58.07 15.00 46.30 4.705E+05 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 4. 2.392 24.30 54.17 32.46 20.00 46.70 2.961E+05 5. 2.411 21.26 51.24 32.04 11.67 45.78 4.328E+05 6. 2.434 10.83 84.85 65.11 5.00 47.05 6.712E+05 7. 2.518 14.78 70.90 51.83 5.00 47.60 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 2.343E+05 10. 2.607 16.30 65.56 46.94 5.00 47.86 7.169E+05 * * * END OF FILE A-32 Hauptman Residence XSTABL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS Section B-B' (West wall SW corner of residence) CASE 2 -Seismic Loading Conditions 30 % g -existing site conditions A-33 iHAUPT8 5-19-06 19:16 so 40 m 30 a~ ~- (n X a 20 >- 10 0 Hauptman SW Corner SOOyr EQ DL+LL 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.663 A-34 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 X-AXIS (feet) XSTABL File: 1HAUPT8 5-19-06 19:16 ****************************************** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 2002 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.206 96 - 1962 ****************************************** Problem Description Hauptman SW Corner 500yr EQ DL+LL ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 8 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil 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 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 8 52.0 31.0 60.0 31.0 1 5 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 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 5 52.0 31.0 60.0 31.0 2 A-35 _®s_~-_aegm@m____e_a__e___ ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 So il unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) 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 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .148 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned --------------- BOUNDARY LOADS --------------- 1 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 35.0 36.5 1343.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 5.0 ft A-36 and x = 20.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 45.0 ft and x = 55.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 5.0 ft * * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 2.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. --------------------- ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS _a____msm____________ 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 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 15.00 21.00 2 17.00 21.06 3 18.99 21.19 4 20.98 21.39 5 22.97 21.66 6 24.94 21.99 7 26.90 22.40 8 28.84 22.87 9 30.77 23.41 10 32.67 24.01 11 34.56 24.68 A-37 12 36.42 25.41 13 38.25 26.21 14 40.06 27.07 15 41.84 27.99 16 43.58 28.97 17 45.29 30.01 18 46.30 30.68 **** Simplified .BISHOP FOS = 1.663 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description Hauptman SW Corner 500yr EQ DL+LL FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.663 14.21 ?9.07 58.07 15.00 46.30 4.557E+05 2. 1.670 16.50 70.24 50.16 10.00 47.46 5.247E+05 3. 1.696 11.37 $1.52 61.54 6.67 45.99 5.615E+05 4. 1.715 24.30 54.17 32.46 20.00 46.70 2.873E+05 5. 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 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 9. 1.821 16.30 65.56 46.94 5.00 47.86 6.959E+05 10. 1.836 16.95 70.20 51.08 6.67 49.66 7.382E+05 * * * END OF FILE A-38