16105 N MEADOWDALE RD.PDF11111111111111
12360
16105 N
MEADOWDALE RD
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL
1 ' ►; ,�
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE) #:
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS #: DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required ❑ Waiver
CRITICAL AREAS #: DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required ❑ Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORD FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER — list permit #'s):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $:
LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE:
LOT:
BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE/ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER:
L:\TEMP\DST's\Forms\Jana's Street File Checklist 5-14-08.doc
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SALDIN RESIDENCE
16105 NORTH MEADOWDALE ROAD
EDMONDS, WASHINGTONMWED
S&EE JOB NO. 614 APR , 1 2007
SEPTEMBER 30, 2006
BUILDING DEPT.
i
614rpc S& EE
i
SEE
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
16625 Redmond WaL Suite M 124, Redmond, Washington 98052, (425) 868-5868 FAX (425) 868-7427
September 30, 2006
Mrs. Kathryn Saldin
16109 N. Meadowdale Rd.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Report
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Saldin Residence
16105 North Meadowdale Road
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Kathryn:
We are pleased to present herewith our Report of Geotechnical Investigation for the referenced project.
Our services were authorized by Mr. Steve Miles on April 3, 2006, and have been provided in accordance
with our proposal dated March 24, 2006.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services. Should you have any question regarding the
contents of this report or require additional information, please call.
EXPIRES: AlOV. T00
614rpt
Very truly yours,
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
4-�- - '9-
C. J. Shin, Ph.D., P.E.
President
S& EE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S ection
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES................................................................................................................................1
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS..................................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................... 3
4.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF SLOPE STABILTY.......................................................................... 3
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................... 4
5.1 GENERAL..................................................................................................................................................
4
5.2 SLOPE PROTECTION................................................................................................................................
5
5.2.1 DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL.................................................................................................
5
5.2.2 GRADING NEAR STEEP SLOPE............................................................................................................
5
5.2.3 FOOTING NEAR SLOPE.........................................................................................................................
5
5.3 SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL......................................................................................
6
5.4 FOUNDATION SUPPORT..........................................................................................................................
7
5.5 SLAB SUPPORT.........................................................................................................................................
8
5.6 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES................................................................................................................
8
5.7 ROCKERY-WALLS..................................................................................................................................
10
5.8 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT...........................................................................................................................
11
5.9 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................................................
11
5.10 ADDITIONAL SERVICES......................................................................................................................
1 I
6.0 LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................................ i1.
FIGURE 1: SITE VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2: SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN
FIGURE 3: SURCHARGE LOADS ON SUBSURFACE WALLS
APPENDIX A: FIELD EXPLORATION LOGS AND KEY
I614rpt
i
SgzEE
1
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SALDIN RESIDENCE
16105 NORTH MEADOWDALE ROAD
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
for
Ms. Kathryn Saldin
1.0 INTRODUCTION
We present in this report the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential
development. The site (APN 00513100004802) is about 19,000 square feet in size and is located on the
north side of North Meadowdale Road, in Edmonds, Washington. A site vicinity map is included in Figure
1, and a site plan is shown in Figure 2, both included at the end of this report. We understand that the
proposed development will involve a new house in the southern portion of the lot. This area is currently
vacant and is located to the south of the existing house. At the time of this report, the building and grading
plans are not available. We understand that a new access road will be constructed at the south end of the
site. We anticipate that the maximum cut and fill for the development will be less than 10 feet. For the
purpose of this study, we have assumed that the structural load of the house will be typical of single-family
homes.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of our geotechnical investigation is to develop geotechnical recommendations regarding site
preparation and foundation support. Specifically, our services included:
1. Site reconnaissance to observe surface conditions including obvious signs of slope instability and
wet and unstable soils.
' 2. Exploration of the soil and groundwater conditions underlying the site through the excavation of 5
test pits, TP-1 through TP-5 and the drilling of 3 hand auger borings, HA-1 through HA-3. The
' approximated exploration locations are shown on Figure 2. Details of the exploration program
and the logs of explorations are presented in Appendix A of this report.
1 614rpt S& EE
3. Recommendations regarding foundation support.
4. Recommendations regarding the construction of the new access road.
5. Recommendations regarding seismic design.
6. Evaluation of the stability of the onsite slopes, recommendation regarding mitigations, if needed.
7. Recommendations regarding active and at -rest earth pressures to be used for the design of any
retaining structures.
8. Recommendations regarding site preparation, including removal of unsuitable soils, suitability of
onsite soils for use as fill, fill placement techniques, and compaction criteria.
9. Five copies of this written geotechnical report containing a site plan, exploration logs, a description
of subsurface conditions, and our findings and recommendations.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The site is bordered to the west by North Meadowdale Road, to the north and south by single-family
residences, and to the east by a steep slope (over 40 % in inclination). This slope ascends eastward at
about 20 % in the western portion of the proposed building lot, and steepens to about 50 % in the
eastern portion of the lot. The slope continues eastward at about 50 % to 75 % inclination. A flat area
with residences is present at the top of the slope. The height of the slope is about 100 feet from the
east side of the project site to the top of the slope. The elevation relief across the site is about 40 feet.
At the time of our field exploration, the slope is covered with dense trees and thick undergrowths.
The slope face in the project site vicinity is relatively uniform. That is, there are no hummocky terrains and
no erosion channels. We did not observed any signs of obvious slope instability which typically include
slumps, cracks or fissures in the ground, wet and unstable soils, and springs. However, a few trees are
bending at the bottom of their trunks. This implies that creeping of localized loose soils has occurred.
614rpt 2 S8:: EE
3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The soil conditions underlying the site were explored by the excavation of 5 test pits and the drilling of 3
hand auger borings on June 7, 2006. These explorations indicate that the site, including the slope to the
east, is covered by approximately 6 to 18 inches of topsoil and underlain by sand. The sand is typically
loose to medium dense in the upper 2 to 4 feet and becomes medium dense to dense thereafter. Localized
gravel zones were encountered at depths of 8.5 to 13 feet in test pits TP-2 and TP-3. Groundwater was
not encountered in any exploratory holes.
4.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF SLOPE STABILTY
Based on our understanding of the subsurface conditions underlying the site and slope, and our estimate of
the soil parameters, we have evaluated the stability of the slope using the computer program STABL5M.
The analyses consider both steady state and dynamic loading conditions. The latter included an earthquake
producing a ground acceleration of 0.15g which would represent an earthquake magnitude (M) of about 6.0
to 7.0.
S
The information obtained from the slope stability analyses includes safety factors against shallow, surficial
sloughing and deep-seated slope movement. The standard engineering practice considers a slope to be
acceptably stable if it demonstrates factors of safety of at least 1.5 and 1.1 for static and dynamic loading
conditions, respectively. A factor of safety is defined as the summation of resisting forces divided by the
summation of driving forces.
614tpt 3 Sg,- EE
The following table presents the results of our slope stability analyses for the project.
Factor of Safety
Type of Slope Movement Steady -State Dynamic (Earthquake)
Deep -Seated 1.5 1.1
Shallow Sloughing 1.2 1.0
These results indicate that the potential of a deep-seated movement of the steep slope is low, and there is a
potential of shallow sloughing especially during earthquake. The analyses also indicate that the potential
unstable zone is within the upper 5 feet of the slope.
1
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 GENERAL
Our explorations indicate that the site area is underlain by competent native soils. Except for the shallow
loose soil on the slope, the steep slope on and to the east of the property is currently stable. Based on our
evaluation, the proposed development will not change the state of the slope stability provided that the
recommendations presented in this report are followed.
The shallow sloughing can result in some movement of loose, surficial soil from the steep slope to the
flatter, lower area where the proposed building is located. As the slope face is relatively uniform, we
believe the potential of concentrated soil movement such as mud or debris flow is low. To prevent impact
of large particles such as large gravel or cobbles from rolling down the hillside and hitting the house, a
debris catchment wall can be considered. The wall is typically a re -enforced concrete retaining wall of
about 4 to 6 feet in height.
Please be aware that there is always an inherent risk of slope movement for any development near steep
slopes. In addition to natural factors (soil, groundwater, heavy rainfall), other factors that may affect
stability include excavations, fills, leaking or broken utility, improper drainage, lack of maintenance of
drainage facilities or vegetation cover, unwise actions by adjacent property owners, or similar events or
unknown conditions that may cause instability. Therefore, future property owners must be alert of any
adverse impacts on the slope.
614rpt 4 S& EE
5.2 SLOPE PROTECTION
5.2.1 DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL
The existing vegetation on the steep slopes (including the slopes onsite and the continuous slope eastward
from the site) is the key for the slope stability. Any slope face becomes bare for any reason should be re -
vegetated immediately. During construction, site surface should be graded so that surface water is directed
away from the structural areas. Standing water and runoff over any slope face should not be allowed.
Final site grades should be sloped away from buildings unless the area is paved.
5.2.2 GRADING NEAR STEEP SLOPE
Excavation near the bottom of a steep slope will reduce the resisting force (against sliding) and decrease
slope stability. Therefore, excavation in the eastern portion of the building lot, where the toe of the
steep slope is present, should be avoided unless a re -enforced concrete retaining wall is constructed.
The lateral earth pressures for the design of such wall are presented in Section 5.6 of this report.
All temporary excavation during construction should be 1.5H:1 V or flatter. All permanent slopes should
be no steeper than 2H:1 V. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope.
Also, all permanent slopes should be seeded with the appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion
and maintain the slope stability.
5.2.3 FOOTING NEAR SLOPE
To avoid loading of the existing slope by building foundations, footings near any slope should be
deepened so that the horizontal distance from the outside footing edge to the slope face is at least 10
feet.
6 iarpt 5 S&:: EE
5.3 SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL
Site preparation should begin with stripping vegetation and topsoil of the structural areas including
driveway, building and slabs. The slab or driveway subgrades should be thoroughly proof -rolled using
heavy construction equipment. If proof rolling is not feasible due to wet condition, the area should be
probed using a steel bar so as to avoid disturbance and rutting of the subgrade soils. Areas which are
found to be loose or soft, or which contain organic soils should be over -excavated.
A qualified geotechnical engineer should conduct the proof -rolling and/or probing to assist in identifying
loose soils and evaluating the over -excavation requirements.
After stripping, over -excavation and excavation to the design grade, the top 12 inches of the native soils
should be re -compacted to at least 92% of their maximum dry density as determined using ASTM D-1557
test procedures (Modified Proctor test). Structural fill can then be placed in the over -excavation and fill
areas.
The structural fill materials should meet both the material and compaction requirements presented below.
Material Requirements: Structural fill should be free of organic and frozen material and should
consist of hard durable particles, such as sand, gravel, or quarry -processed stone. The on -site sand
is suitable for use as structural fill. Suitable imported structural fill materials include sand and
gravel (pitrun), and crushed rock.
Placement and Compaction Requirements: Structural fill should be placed in loose horizontal lifts
' not exceeding a thickness of 6 to 12 inches, depending on the material type, compaction equipment,
and number of passes made by the equipment. Structural fill should be compacted to at least 95%
1 of the maximum dry density as determined using the ASTM D-1557 test procedures.
614rpt
G
S& EE
5.4 FOUNDATION SUPPORT
1
The proposed house and all retaining walls can be supported by conventional spread footings which should
' penetrate topsoil, and be founded on at least medium dense, native soils. Details of our recommendations
regarding the foundation design are presented in the following sections.
' Bearing Capacity: We recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square feet (psf) for
the design of the footings. This value includes a safety factor of at least 3, and can be increased by one-
third for wind and seismic loads.
' Footing Construction: The footing bearing surfaces should be protected from weather and disturbance, and
all organic, softened and loosened soils must be removed by over -excavation. Any over -excavation at the
' footing subgrade should be backfilled with concrete, lean concrete or structural fill.
Please note that our test pits were backfilled with the excavated soils, which were placed in 2-foot thick
lifts and compacted with the trackhoe bucket. If these test pits are located at the future footings, the upper
' 3 feet of the fill below the footing subgrade should be over -excavated The over -excavation should be
backfilled with structural fill.
' All footing subgrade should be inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to re -bar and concrete
placements.
' All r footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the adjacent finished e provide exterior ooh gs s � c t grad to p o de
Iprotection against frost action, and should be at least 18 inches in width to facilitate construction.
' Settlement: Interior column footings designed in accordance with the above recommendations are expected
to experience approximately 1/2 inch of settlement. Continuous wall footings should experience about 1/4
to 1/2 inch. Differential settlement between adjacent footings is expected to be 1/4 to 1/2 of an inch.
Lateral Resistance: Lateral resistance can be obtained from the passive earth pressure against the footing
' sides and the friction at the contact of the footing bottom and bearing soil. The former can be obtained
using an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pco, and the latter using a coefficient of
' friction of 0.5. These values include a safety factor of 1.5.
'
614rpc 7 SSzEE
5.5 SLAB SUPPORT
All slabs -on -grade can be supported on structural fill or at least medium dense native soils. We envision
that the soil at the slab subgrade will be disturbed and loosened by construction activities at the time of slab
construction. We therefore recommend that the slab subgrade be proof -rolled or probed. Any wet and
loose areas should be over -excavated and backfilled with structural fill.
In order to promote uniform support and provide a capillary break, we recommend that slabs be underlain
by a 6 mil. vapor barrier over a 4-inch thick layer of free draining gravel.
5.6 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
Lateral earth pressures on retaining walls or permanent subsurface walls, and resistance to lateral loads
rmay be estimated using the following recommended soil parameters:
Note: Hydrostatic pressures are not included in the above lateral earth pressures.
The active case applies to walls that are permitted to rotate or translate away from the retained soil by
approximately 0.002H, where H is the height of the wall. This would be appropriate for a cantilever.
retaining wall. The at -rest case applies to unyielding walls, and would be appropriate for walls that
are structurally restrained from lateral deflection such as basement walls, utility trenches and pits.
SURCHARGE INDUCED LATERAL LOADS
1) Additional lateral earth pressures will result from surcharge loads from floor slabs or
614rpt 8 SXrEE
pavements for parking that are located immediately adjacent to the walls. The surcharge -
induced lateral earth pressures are uniform over the depth of the wall. Surcharge -induced
lateral pressures for the "active" case may be calculated by multiplying the applied vertical
pressure (in psf) by the active earth pressure coefficient (Ka). The value of Ka may be taken as
0.3. The surcharge -induced lateral pressures for the "at -rest" case are similarly calculated
using an at -rest earth pressure coefficient (Ko) of 0.5. For surcharge loads that are not
adjacent to the wall, the induced lateral earth pressure will depend on the magnitude of the
surcharge and the distance from the wall. Such induced lateral load can be estimated using the
equations shown on Figure 3.
2) The traffic -induced lateral earth pressure can be accounted for by increasing the effective wall
height by 2 feet.
SEISMIC INDUCED LATERAL LOADS
For seismic induced lateral loads, the dynamic force can be assumed to act at 0.6 H above the wall
base and the magnitude can be calculated using the following equation:
Pe = 3/8* r *HZ*a
Where Pe = seismic -induced lateral load
7 = soil density = 130 pcf
H = wall height
a = horizontal acceleration, 0.15g
BACKFILL IN FRONT OF RETAINING WALLS
Backfill in front of the wall should be structural fill. The material and compaction requirements are
' presented in Section 5.3 of this report. The density of the structural fill can be assumed to be 130
pounds per cubic feet.
BACKFILL BEHIND RETAINING WALLS
' Backfill behind the wall should be free -draining materials which are typically granular soils containing
less than 5 % fines (silt and clay particles) and no particles greater than 4 inches in diameter. The
' 6 E
larpc 9 S&� E
majority of the onsite sand is suitable for this purpose. Some sand in the upper 4 feet may contain
over 5 % and should be avoided.
The backfill material should be placed in 6 to 8-inch thick horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 90
percent of the maximum density in accordance with ASTM D-1557 test procedures. In the areas where
the fill will support pavement, sidewalk or slabs, the top two feet of the backfill should be compacted
to at least 95 percent of the maximum density. Care must be taken when compacting backfill adjacent
to retaining walls, to avoid creating excessive pressure on the wall.
DRAINAGE BEHIND RETAINING WALLS
Rigid, perforated drainpipes should be installed behind retaining walls. Drainpipes should be at least 4
inches in diameter, covered by a layer of uniform size drain gravel of at least 12 inches in thickness,
and be connected to a suitable discharge location. An adequate number of cleanouts should be installed
along the drain line for future maintenance.
5.7 ROCKERY WALLS
In addition to concrete retaining walls, reinforced or non -reinforced rockery walls can be considered for
grading purposes. Please note that rockery walls should be designed by a geotechnical engineer for the
following conditions:
1. The wall will be used to retain fill embankment that is over 4 feet in height.
2. The wall will retain a cut embankment greater than 6 feet in height.
The design should consider the slope behind the wall, the wall height, the surcharge load behind the wall,
and the strength of the reinforcing material (if required). We will be glad to perform this design, if
requested.
614tpt
10
S8,; EE
5.8 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
We recommend that the subgrade for flexible pavement be prepared in accordance with the
recommendations presented in Section 5.6 SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL. Based
on the subsoil conditions, we believe that the prepared subgrade will have a California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) of at least 12.
For the proposed access road, we recommend a pavement section consisting of 2 inches asphaltic concrete
over 4 inches base course. The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum
dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557 test method. The material should meet WSDOT aggregate
specification 9-03.9(3) and have the following gradation:
Sieve Size
Percent Passing
1 '/4-inch
100
5/8-inch
50-80
1/4-inch
30-50
US No. 40
3-18
US No. 200
7.5 max.
% Fracture
75 min.
5.9 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
We recommend that Site Class D as defined in the 2003 IBC be considered for the building design. The
site is underlain by dense soils. As such, the liquefaction potential is negligible.
5.10 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Additional services may be required during the design and construction of the project. We envision that
these additional services may include the following:
1. Review of design plans.
614rpc 11 S& EE
' 2. Provision of construction monitoring services. The tasks of our monitoring service typically include
the followings:
' 2.1 Monitoring of temporary excavations.
' 2.2 Monitoring of spread footing subgrade preparation. Our representative will confirm the
bearing capacity of the subgrade soils, and will assist the contractor in evaluating the over -
excavation requirements, if any.
' 2.3 Monitoring the placement and compaction of structural fill. Our representative will confirm
the suitability of the fill materials, perform field density tests, and assist the contractor in
' meeting the compaction requirements.
2.4 Monitoring the installation of subsurface drains. Our representative will confirm that these
drains are installed in accordance with our recommendations.
' 3. Other geotechnical issues deemed necessary.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
The recommendations presented in this report are provided for design purposes and are based on soil
' conditions disclosed by field observations and subsurface explorations. Subsurface information presented
herein does not constitute a direct or implied warranty that the soil conditions between exploration locations
' can be directly interpolated or extrapolated or that subsurface conditions and soil variations different from
those disclosed by the explorations will not be revealed. The recommendations outlined in this report are
based on the assumption that the development plan is consistent with the description provided in this report.
' If the development plan is changed or subsurface conditions different from those disclosed by the
exploration are observed during construction, we should be advised at once so that we can review these
' conditions, and if necessary, reconsider our design recommendations.
' 6 14rpt
12
Sg=EE
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ISME
Job no. 614
Pic.,ac Pri �O�
PUGET
SOUND
H TE AN
WADO"tf
WINE
4�11.1
Figure I
Site Location Map
Proposed Saldin- Residence I
O e-
RC 6' w FENCE
FOR BCUNCARY
4M 090RUMBIT 1'f9
01 17Wa2
a
06W IL
b-4 =wsCrP
PRMIV urn
Z HA-2 -
AIZZIAMS TRACT
M RK. hV 852098 '
PO0-4 V/ RiBNt CA
P
P
•�. •Tnc >�
EiEYATKN-2"
fIREES-
MC 4'
ICE FENCE
60
HA-3
60
HA-1
- FOLIO Itr ROM t CAP '9M*
TP-
LOT >
ti
*214V* e \"6 Aphr 004191ww'f 081\
+ � M.P.- 3 TP_q
\ TP-1.r tom% a t
3 ;RM
w000FENCE �. 3 f
•'. 4P� i f *1'ar�£ � ' Tp �TP-5 to
rE>MMrMC 4' N \
I �� F� I x L-IYS.47 � R�G7.�9 `b42.0.7'37•
a_ ..► . 1
bb
11 so
ss I
�•,, ""• "' �TCP NUT 256.75�,\ O * ��,
SD
� -ate
f L�72 p4 R-477.89 � y
s
(Not -To -Scale)
TP-1: Test pit number and approximate location Figure 2
Reference:: Topographic Survey, dated 51-2006and Site and F.Vlorauon Plan
S&EE 614 HA-1: Hand auger number and approximate location prepared by Pacific Geomatic Sreviees, Inc.
Saldin Residence, F.dmonds, WA
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
-
•■
MEMO
H
M
FA
10100-
M =•
■■
V���
MMEMEMPIA112"
MIMEMOMMMEM
MIMORKMEMME
MERAMMEEMS
•
MEWEEMEMME
•
MENOMONEE■
•
i
VALUE OF 0-H (k)
LINE LOAD QL
=m H
FOR m < 0.4:
X
(rH (H)=
Z°nH PH° 0.55QL
H PH FOR m)0.4:
H (H )_ 1.28m2n
R H (m2+n2)2
OL
RESULTANT PH= 0.24+1)
(m
PRESSURES FROM LINE LOAD QL
( BOUSSINESQ EQUATION MODIFIED BY EXPERIMENT)
Reference•: Foundations and Earth Structures,
Design Ms•nual 7.2, Department of the Navy, May 1982
a14
0<
D.O.(
••
1 RIMENIONIM
0.0,032MIN
E�-
MR11
MENER311414MIM
MENERAP
MONSOON
ENNEMEM
EnMEMEN
NAMENUM
WEMEMMMI
5 I,O 2 1.5
VALUE OF (TH ()
POINT LOAD Op
I Y:mu IOP
Z -n H Pi
LL A
H 9H FORm0.4:
R
(H2)_ 0.28n2
H �p (Q16)3
FOR m )0.4:
H (H2 )-_ 1.77m2n2
'�5—P (m2+-n2)3
GH'(rHCOS 2(1.10)
�H _
Q e,
3 �H
7X=H
SECTION A -A
PRESSURES FROM POINT LOAD Op
(BOUSSINESQ EQUATION
MODIFIED BY EXPERIMENT)
Calculation of Surcharge Loads
on Subsurface Walls
Figure 3
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LOGS
The subsurface conditions at the project site were investigated by the excavation of 5 test pits and the
' drilling of 3 hand auger borings on June 7, 2006. The pits were excavated to depths of 10 to 13 feet using
a trackhoe. The hand auger borings were drilled to depths of 7 to 13.5 feet using a 3-inch diameter hand
' auger. The drilling was performed by a worker hired by Mr. Steve Miles. A representative of S&EE was
present throughout the exploration to observe the exploration, obtain soil samples, and log the subsurface
soil conditions. The exploratory logs are presented in this appendix. A chart showing the Unified Soil
tClassification System is included at the end of this appendix.
' Test pits were backfilled with the excavated soils, which were placed in 2-foot thick lifts and compacted
with the trackhoe bucket. If these test pits are located at the future footings, the upper 3 feet of the fill
below the footing subgrade should be over -excavated. The over -excavation should be backfilled with
structural fill.
' 614rpt S &z EE
c�
w
m
O
ao
c c
y
—0
6
10
16 ------------- - -----------
a
U
j Soil Description
sM Brown silty fine sand with roots (topsoil)
TEST PIT TP-1
Brown fine to medium sand with trace fine gravel and little silt (moist)(loose)
spl Gray medium to coarse sand with fine to coarse gravel (moist)(dense)
- damp below 10 feet
Test pit completed at a depth of 12 feet on 6-7-2006.
No seepage encountered no caving occured during excavation.
Client: Ms. Kathryn Saldin
Excavation Method: Track mounted excavator
Excavation Date: June 7, 2006
Ground Elevation: 254 feet Figure A-1
S &EE Proposed Saldin Residence
Job No.614
A
hti
O21
ca -Si -Si
A
j Soil Description
III
III
III
SM
Brown silty fine sand with roots (topsoil)
10
Brown fine to medium sand with trace fine gravel and little silt
(moist)(loose to medium dense)
TEST PIT TP-2
SP Grayish brown fine to medium sand with trace fine gravel (moist)(medium dense to dense)
- more gravel below 8 feet
GP Grayish brown fine to medium gravel with some fine to medium sand
(moist)(medium dense to dense)
Test pit completed at a depth of 10 feet on 6-7-2006.
No seepage encountered no caving occured during excavation.
Client: Ms. Kathryn Saldin
Excavation Method: Track mounted excavator
Excavation Date: June 7, 2006
1 Ground Elevation: 264 feet Figure A-2 •
SUE Proposed Saldin Residence
Job No.614
w
o
m
I
�n
io O �
N
a
o Q2
m
E
U
o
ad S-S
0
Z) Soil Description
III
sM
Brown silty fine sand with roots (topsoil)
III
III
Brown fine to medium sand (moist)(loose to medium dense)
Sp
TEST PIT TP-3
10
q Gp Gray fine to medium gravel with trace sand and coarse gravel (moist)(dense)
Test pit completed at a depth of 13 feet on 6-7-2006.
No seepage encountered no caving occured during excavation.
16 ------------------------------
Client: Ms. Kathryn Saldin
Excavation Method: Track mounted excavator
Excavation Date: June 7, 2006
Ground Elevation: 271 feet Fi9U re A-3
S&EE Proposed Saldin Residence
Job No. 614
a
0
-S-S
N
Co
—0
10
16--------------------------
TEST PIT TP-4
U
j Soil Desctipdon
sM I Brown silty fine sand with roots (topsoil)
Brown fine sand with trace fine to medium gravel and trace silt (dry)(loose)
sP Grayish brown fine sand with trace fine to medium gravel and trace silt
(moist)(loose to medium dense)
Graymedium to coarse sand with fine to medium gravel (moist)(dense)
Test pit completed at a depth of 13 feet on 6-7-2006.
No seepage encountered no caving occured during excavation.
Client: Ms. Kathryn Saldin
Excavation Method: Track mounted excavator
Excavation Date: June 7, 2006
Ground Elevation: 265 feet Figure A-4
SUE Proposed Saldin Residence
Job No.614
to
e�
r�
X
g
O
a0
U
QQ
yr h
u S
t
m
in
—0
6
10 ,
TEST PIT TP-5
U
Soil Description
sM I Brown silty fine sand with roots (topsoil)
Brown fine sand with trace fine to medium gravel and trace silt (dry)(loose to medium dense)
Grayish brown fine to medium sand with trace silt and few fine gravel
(moist)(medium dense)
Gray fine to.coarse sand with fine to coarse gravel and few cobbles (moist)(dense)
Test pit completed at a depth of 12 feet on 6-7-2006.
No seepage encountered no caving occured during excavation.
Client: Ms. Kathryn Saldin
Excavation Method: Track mounted excavator
Excavation Date: June 7, 2006
Ground Elevation: 260 feet Figure A-5
SUE Proposed Saldin Residence
Job No. 614
v
iu o
m
0
m
-Se to
—0
16 ............ .....
Hand Auger Boring HA-1
U
j Soil Description
sM I Brown silty fine sand with roots (topsoil)
spI Brown fine to medium sand with trace silt (moist)(loose)
sP Grayish brown fine to medium sand with trace silt and few fine gravel
(moist)(medium dense)
- more gravel below 5 feet
Graymedium to coarse sand (moist)(dense)
Boring completed at a depth of 13 feet on 6-7-2006.
No seepage encountered no caving occured during drilling.
Client: Ms. Kathryn Saldin
Exploration Method: 3-inch diameter hand auger
Excavation Date: June 7, 2006
Ground Elevation: 286 feet (approximated) Figure A-6
S &EE Proposed Saldin Residence
Job No.614
v
e�
a� o
m
v
O
CO
«
CO
6
10
16 ---- -....---------- :
a°
CO
U
j Soil Descripdon
sM I Brown silty fine sand with roots (topsoil)
Hand Auger Boring HA-2
Brown fine sand with fine to medium gravel and trace silt (moist)(loose to medium dense)
sP j Grayish brown fine sand with fine to coarse gravel (moist)(medium dense)
Auger refused on coarse gravel at a depth of 7 feet on 6-7-2006.
No seepage encountered no caving occured during drilling.
Client: Ms. Kathryn Saldin
Exploration Method: 3-inch diameter hand auger
Excavation Date: June 7, 2006
Ground Elevation: 346 feet (approximated) Figure A-7
SUE Proposed Saldin Residence
Job No.614
o
'0
Hand Auger Boring HA-3
_
qat
EE
O `m S
CO
J
Soil Description
SM
Brown silty fine sand with roots (topsoil)
sP
Brown fine sand with fine to medium gravel and trace silt (moist)(loose)
sP
Grayish brown fine sand with fine gravel and trace silt (moist)(medium dense)
10
sP l Gray fine to medium sand with trace fine gravel (moist)(medium dense to dense)
Boring completed at a depth of 13.5 feet on 6-7-2006.
No seepage encountered no caving occured during drilling.
15-----------------------.
Client: Ms. Kathryn Saldin
Exploration Method: 3-inch diameter hand auger
Excavation Date: June 7, 2006
Ground Elevation: 316 feet (approximated) Figlu re A-8
S&EE Proposed Saldin Residence
Job No. 614
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
Sl DE
PTH
OF GROUNDWATER DURING EXCAVATION
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
CHART
AND KEY TO TEST PIT LOG
DESCRIPTION
MAJOR DIVISIONS
Ip
J
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES,
CLEAN
•p:
LITTLE OR NO FINES
LLv,
GRAVELS
(LITTLE OR
oZ` m W
Jw O z > ^�
co
G P
POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES,
LITTLE OR NO FINES
NO FINES)
w =Q Q �
a `=LL ~' J �
�
GM
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -SILT
GRAVELS
MIXTURES
WITH FINES
� w��� ;d
(9 0 0 < W i
W �
GC
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -CLAY
MIXTURES
AMOUNT OFFINES)
0
Svv
WELL -GRADED SAND OR GRAVELLY SANDS,
CLEAN
F
LITTLE OR NO FINES
SANDS
p � o �_
<g °z >
� WE
� � w ~ o
SP
POORLY -GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS,
LITTLE OR NO FINES
NO FINES)
w
� < N � o
Q a � o
� Z¢��w �w
0 25 ma
SM
SILTY SANDS, SAND -SILT MIXTURES
SANDS
Q � w W.:' � a
V � w
III
WITH FINES
(APPRECIABLE
� $ � o �
U.
� ���� s1111 0
y �
SC
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES
AMOUNT OF FINES)
� Jm
MIL
INORGANIC SILTS, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
� 5w
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
SILTS &CLAYS
� w Nt3
J � 0 � �
s
cL
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
0
LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50
_
=__ =
__-_ = OL
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILT -CLAYS OF LOW
p
� r Z
-_ --
PLASTICITY
W
Z oo =�
MH
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE
Q � Z � �'
SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS
C� a �
�
CH
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT
CLAYS
SILTS &CLAYS
W w
LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50
Z �
p
u- 2 of
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,
OH
ORGANIC SILTS
PT
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
S&EE
! s&EE
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
16625 Redmond Way, Suite M 124 Redmond Washington 98052 (425) 868-5868 FAX (425) 868 7427
June 2, 2008 KA) zunoE
Mrs. Kathryn Saldin
C/O Mr. Ken Goff
MAM Construction
P.O. Box 91
Kent, WA 98035-0091
CC: Ms. Marie Harrison, City of Edmonds
Summary Report
Saldin Residence
16105 North Meadowdale Road
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Goff:
This letter summarizes the results of our construction monitoring services for the referenced project.
We have provided construction monitoring services from November, 2007 to this date. Our
observations, opinions, and recommendations to the contractor regarding the work which we
monitored are contained in our daily field reports, copies of which have been provided to you.
Specifically, our monitoring services included the following:
1. Monitor au ercast pile installation: We monitored the installation of 7 augercast piles. These
piles are 18 inches in diameter and were embedded to the design depth. It is our opinion that these
piles will support the design loads.
2. Observe footing subgrade: We observed footing subgrade and provided recommendation
regarding subgrade preparation before concrete pour. It is our opinion that all footing subgrade will
have the capacity to support the design loads.
3. Observe excavation: We observed the stability of temporary excavation and did not note any
movement during construction.
4. Verify structural fill material and compaction: We approved the structural fill materials and
checked their compactions. All structural fill was compacted to a firm and non -yielding condition
and to have the minimum required density.
614C-Summary S&EE
Mr. Ken Goff
June 2, 2008
Page 2
5. Erosion Control: Temporary erosion control was functioning as plan during construction.
FINAL INSPECTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Per your request, I met with you onsite and performed a final site inspection today. I observed that
the building construction was completed and all previously disturbed ground surfaces were covered
with straw. You indicated that landscaping would begin soon. I recommended the followings:
l . A cut bank about 2 to 4 feet in height and 70 feet in total length is present at the southern portion
of the site, along the edge of the new driveway. This bank should be cut back to a permanent
2H: I V slope or stabilized by a retaining wall.
2. All exposed ground surface should be vegetated to prevent erosion.
3. The above items should be completed prior to the onset of next wet season (October, 2008).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our field observations, it is our opinion that the geotechnical aspects of the project were
accomplished generally in accordance with project specifications and our recommendations. We
appreciate the opportunity to provide our services for this project. Should you have any question
regarding this report, please contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
4-7-tZ - '< -2-0"R
C.J. Shin, Ph.D., P.E.
President
614C-Summary S&EE