Loading...
17259 GES Report - Fedje Properties.pdfGEOrrECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Fedje Properties LLC 11404 — 2391h Place Southwest Woodway, WA 98020 Attn: Linda Ferkingstad via email: namron@comcast.net Subject: Transmittal Letter — Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Three -Residence Development 157XX — 7211 Avenue Southwest Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Ferkingstad: 2401 loth Ave E Seattle, Washington 98102 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 March 30, 2017 JN 17259 We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed residential project to be constructed in Edmonds, Washington. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. This work was authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, P-9761, dated May 2, 2017. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this report, or for further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. al 1, 14 Er/ in D. Robert Ward, P.E. Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Three Residence Development 157XX - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed residential development to be located Edmonds. Based on a preliminary site plan for the project we received and a topography map by Insight engineering dated April 25, 2017, we understand that three residences are proposed in the central portion of the site. A common driveway will be located on the northern edge of site, while the southern edge will be left undeveloped. We understand that the stormwater for the project will be connected to a system that is to the south of the site. Because the central portion of the site is somewhat of a ridge (as described more in detail in the next section of this report), excavations of up to about 10 feet are proposed in much of the residence locations. These residences will all have basements that daylight to the south of a south -facing slope. Cuts and fills of approximately 10 feet are proposed for the driveway, and thus several retaining walls will be needed for the driveway. If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of this report are warranted. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site in Edmonds. The property is rectangular, with approximately 170 feet of frontage on its western side along the right-of-way of 72nd Avenue West (which is mostly undeveloped) and a length of approximately 320 feet. The property is undeveloped and forested; several large evergreen and deciduous trees are located on the property. There is a forest underbrush throughout much of the property, although a less native and brushy underbrush is located on the north -central portion of the site. There is a steep slope, greater than 40 percent, located on the western/southwestern portion of the site and also located within much of the street right-of-way. This slope is up to approximately 35 feet tall based on the obtained topography map and rises to the east/northeast, and it appears to be inclined at about 50 percent at its steepest portion. This steep slope also continues through to the east -central portion of the site where it rises to the north over a height of about 25 feet. There is a "ridge that extends in an approximate east -west direction in the central and northern portions of the site. The site slopes mostly downward to the north and south of the ridge, although also to the west near the street right-of-way. With the exception of the steep slopes noted above and this somewhat level ridge, the remainder of the site is mostly moderately inclined. We did not observe indications of instability of the slopes on the site. There is no adjacent development to the south. However, two house are adjacent to and below the northern side of the property. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Fedje Properties LLC May 30, 2017 JN 17259 Page 2 SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating eight test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the proposed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. The test pits were excavated on May 10, 2017 with a large trackhoe. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 through 6 Soil Conditions The predominant soil revealed in the test pits, although not revealed in the central portion of the site is a native, gravelly silty sand soil known geologically as glacial till (also known commonly as "hardpan". Below a surface layer of topsoil and forest duff, this silty sand soil was relatively loose and weathered to depths of about 2 to 4 feet before becoming dense to very dense (mostly very dense); this is a common depth in the Puget Sound region for glacial till soil. In the central portion of the site, the native soil consisted of slightly silty sand. Below the topsoil and forest duff, this soil was relatively loose and weathered to a depth of approximately 4 feet, then became dense. The test pits were excavated to a maximum explored depth of 9 feet. Groundwater Conditions No groundwater seepage was observed in the test pits, although they were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the lack of seepage may not indicate the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors, with higher levels normally occurring in the winter and early spring months. It is possible that some perched groundwater could be found between the looser near -surface soil and the underlying dense glacial till during this period. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compaction of test pit backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with the International Building Code (IBC), the site soil profile within 100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Site Class C (Very Dense Soil). The site soils have a low potential for seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature and the absence of near -surface GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Fedje Properties LLC JN 17259 May 30, 2017 Page 3 groundwater. This statement regarding liquefaction includes the knowledge of the determined peak ground acceleration noted below. As noted in the USGS website, the mapped spectral acceleration value for a 0.2 second (Ss) and 1.0 second period (Si) equals 1.2g and 0.4g, respectively. The IBC states that a site -specific seismic study need not be performed provided that the peak ground acceleration be equal to Sps/2.5, where Sps is determined in ASCE 7. It is noted that Sos is equal to 2/3SMs. SMs equals IF,, times Ss, where Fa is determined in Table 11.4-1. For our site, Fa = 1.0. Thus, the calculated peak ground acceleration that we utilized for the seismic -related parameters of this report equals 0.32g. SLOPE STABILITYANALYSIS The steepest portion of the site is on the western end where the slope is about 35 feet tall and inclined at about 4 feet; thus this is the most critical slope on the property. We developed a cross- section of the ground surface at this location using the provided topographic site survey and also topography information from Edmonds GIS mapping. We have conducted a slope stability analysis at this cross-section, as shown on Plate 2, using the computer program SLOPE/W. Soil parameters were needed for the analysis, with most significant being the defining strength parameters of the site soils, including an angle of internal friction (aif) and cohesion. Based on our experience, the upper, loose/weathered soil has an aif of 32 degrees and no cohesion, while the dense to very dense glacial till and sand has much higher parameters of 41 degrees and 100 psf cohesion. Using the soil parameters determined as noted above, the stability of a regraded slope was analyzed for both the future static and dynamic loading conditions. For the dynamic analysis, a peak ground coefficient of acceleration of 0.20g was used; his coefficient is slightly higher than the normal coefficient of half of the determined peak ground acceleration. In the existing slope configuration, there is a potential of soil movement of the upper, loose/weathered soil; this is typical in the Puget Sound area for steep slopes. However, because all new structures are going to be founded on the dense to very dense site soils (discussed much more in detail in subsequent sections of this report), a stability analysis of future development was needed where the potential for slope movement is through the dense to very dense soil that the structures will be founded on. The slope stability analyses indicated factors of safety in excess of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for seismic conditions. The output of the stability analyses and the slope configuration is attached in the Appendix of this report. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. The test pits conducted for this study encountered native, dense to very dense, glacial till and sand soils at depths of approximately 2 to 4 feet. These dense to very dense soils are very competent for supporting residential structure load, including those relative to houses and retaining walls, and thus conventional footings can be used as foundation of new structures. These soils also have high GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Fedje Properties LLC JN 17259 May 30, 2017 Page 4 shear strength against structural settlement and slope instability. Some overexcavation may be needed in some areas to reach these competent native soils. Discussion of Edmonds Slope Code. Based on The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), Chapter 23.80 (Geologically Hazardous Areas), the steep western slope would be classified as a Landslide Hazard Area because it is steeper than 40 percent slope, and greater than 10 foot vertical relief. Based on ECDC 12.80.070, the Minimum Building Setback from a Landslide Hazard Areas shall be the distance required to ensure the proposed structure will not be at risk from landslides for the life of the structure, considered to be 120 years, and will not cause an increased risk of landslides taking place on or off the site. The code further states that the setback shall be determined by the director consistent with recommendations provided in the geotechnical report to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by the development, based upon review of and concurrence with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional. In addition, ECDC 23.80.070 notes that a stability analysis that needs to have static and dynamic safety factors of 1.5 and 1.2; as is noted earlier, our stability analyses indicate that, safety factors in excess of 1.5 and 1.2 are achieved in the dense to very dense soils where the steepest site slopes exist. Therefore, because new structures will be founded on the dense to very dense soil, it is our professional opinion that the structures can be placed on steep slope and no Minimum Building Setback is needed. Per code, it appears that the residence locations may be an "alteration" per Edmonds Code. Based on ECDC 23.80.060.A, an alteration to a Landslide Hazard Area and associated buffer may occur for activities that: 1. Will not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; 2. Will not adversely affect other critical areas; 3. Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less that predevelopment conditions; and 4. Are certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer licensed in the State of Washington. In addition, ECDC 23.80.070.A.3 indicates that alterations of a Landslide Hazard Area may occur for activities for which a hazards analysis is submitted and certifies that: a) The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; b) The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and c) Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. As has been noted earlier in our study, residences founded on the dense to very dense soil have adequate static and dynamic safety factors. In addition, all stormwater from the project will not be placed on site slopes. Therefore, it is our professional opinion that this proposed development meets the seven standards noted above in both ECDC 23.80.060 and 070 provided the recommendations of this report are followed. We believe that the alteration is therefore suitable because: 1) it will not increase the potential for landslide to the adjacent, downslope properties, 2) it will not affect other critical areas, 3) the hazard is mitigated to be equal to predevelopment standards, 4) it is safe in our professional opinion, a) the alteration will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties, b) the alteration GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Fedje Properties LLC May 30, 2017 JN 17259 Page 5 will not decrease slope stability, and c) the alteration will not adversely affect adjacent critical areas. A significant geotechnical consideration for development of this site is the moisture sensitivity, and overly moist to wet condition of the silty soils. Based on our observations, and the results of our laboratory tests, the moisture contents of the on -site soils are significantly above the optimum moisture content necessary for the required structural fill compaction. These fine-grained, silty soils are sensitive to moisture, which makes them impossible to adequately compact when they have moisture contents even 2 to 3 percent above their optimum moisture content. The reuse of these soils as structural fill to level the site will only be successful during hot, dry weather. Aeration of each loose lift of soil will be required to dry it before the lift is compacted. Alternatively, the soil could be chemically dried by adding lime, kiln dust, or cement, provided this is allowed by responsible building department. Regardless of the method of drying, the earthwork process will be slowed dramatically. The earthwork contractor must be prepared to rework areas that don't achieve proper compaction due to high moisture content. Utility trench backfill in structural areas, such as pavements, must also be dried before it can be adequately compacted. Improper compaction of backfill in utility trenches and around control structures is a common reason for pavement distress and failures. Imported granular fill will be needed wherever it is not possible to dry the on -site soils sufficiently before compaction. The drainage and/or waterproofing recommendations presented in this report are intended only to prevent active seepage from flowing through concrete walls or slabs. Even in the absence of active seepage into and beneath structures, water vapor can migrate through walls, slabs, and floors from the surrounding soil, and can even be transmitted from slabs and foundation walls due to the concrete curing process. Water vapor also results from occupant uses, such as cooking and bathing. Excessive water vapor trapped within structures can result in a variety of undesirable conditions, including, but not limited to, moisture problems with flooring systems, excessively moist air within occupied areas, and the growth of molds, fungi, and other biological organisms that may be harmful to the health of the occupants. The designer or architect must consider the potential vapor sources and likely occupant uses, and provide sufficient ventilation, either passive or mechanical, to prevent a build up of excessive water vapor within the planned structure. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, dense to very dense, native glacial till and sand soil. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. Exterior footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface for protection against frost and erosion. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Fedje Properties LLC JN 17259 May 30, 2017 Page 6 subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. An allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings supported on competent native sand soil. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent native soil will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a distance of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level, well -compacted fill. We recommend using the following ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: PARAMETER ULTLNIATE VALUE Coefficient of Friction 0.50 Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf Where: pcf is Pounds per Cubic Foot, and Passive Earth Pressure is computed using the Equivalent Fluid Density. If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. We recommend maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above ultimate values. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: PARAMETER Active Earth Pressure * VALUE 35 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Soil Unit Weight 135 pcf Where: pcf is Pounds per Cubic Foot, and Active and Passive Earth Pressures are computed using the Equivalent Fluid Pressures. * For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times its height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Fedje Properties LLC A 17259 May 30, 2017 Page 7 The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid density. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The values given above are to be used to design only permanent foundation and retaining walls that are to be backfilled, such as conventional walls constructed of reinforced concrete or masonry. It is not appropriate to use the above earth pressures and soil unit weight to back -calculate soil strength parameters for design of other types of retaining walls, such as soldier pile, reinforced earth, modular or soil nail walls. We can assist with design of these types of walls, if desired. The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety factor. Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners or bends in the walls. This is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur where a wall is restrained by a corner. Wall Pressures Due to Seismic Forces The surcharge wall loads that could be imposed by the design earthquake can be modeled by adding a uniform lateral pressure to the above -recommended active pressure. The recommended surcharge pressure is 8H pounds per square foot (psf), where H is the design retention height of the wall. Using this increased pressure, the safety factor against sliding and overturning can be reduced to 1.2 for the seismic analysis. Retainin_p Wall Backfill and Waterproofin_p Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The later section entitled Drainage Considerations should also be reviewed for recommendations related to subsurface drainage behind foundation and retaining walls. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Also, subsurface drainage systems are not intended to handle large volumes of water from surface runoff. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into the backfill. Water percolating through pervious surfaces (pavers, gravel, permeable pavement, etc.) must also be prevented from flowing toward walls or into the backfill zone. The compacted subgrade below pervious surfaces and any associated drainage layer should therefore be sloped away. Alternatively, a membrane and subsurface collection system could be provided below a pervious surface. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Fedje Properties LLC May 30, 2017 JN 17259 Page 8 It is critical that the wall backfill be placed in lifts and be properly compacted, in order for the above -recommended design earth pressures to be appropriate. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains additional recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof below -grade walls, or to prevent the formation of mold, mildew or fungi in interior spaces. Over time, the performance of subsurface drainage systems can degrade, subsurface groundwater flow patterns can change, and utilities can break or develop leaks. Therefore, waterproofing should be provided where future seepage through the walls is not acceptable. This typically includes limiting cold -joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite panels or membranes on the outside of the walls. There are a variety of different waterproofing materials and systems, which should be installed by an experienced contractor familiar with the anticipated construction and subsurface conditions. Applying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion to the outside face of a wall is not considered waterproofing, and will only help to reduce moisture generated from water vapor or capillary action from seeping through the concrete. As with any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is important to prevent a build up of water vapor that is commonly transmitted through concrete walls from the surrounding soil, even when seepage is not present. This is appropriate even when waterproofing is applied to the outside of foundation and retaining walls. We recommend that you contact an experienced envelope consultant if detailed recommendations or specifications related to waterproofing design, or minimizing the potential for infestations of mold and mildew are desired. The General, Slabs -On -Grade, and Drainage Considerations sections should be reviewed for additional recommendations related to the control of groundwater and excess water vapor for the anticipated construction. SLABS -ON -GRADE The building floors can be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop non -organic, firm native soil or on structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. Even where the exposed soils appear dry, water vapor will tend to naturally migrate upward through the soil to the new constructed space above it. This can affect moisture -sensitive flooring, cause imperfections or damage to the slab, or simply allow excessive water vapor into the space above the slab. All interior slabs -on -grade should be underlain by a capillary break drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of clean gravel or crushed rock that has a fines content (percent passing the No. 200 sieve) of less than 3 percent and a sand content (percent passing the No. 4 sieve) of no more than 10 percent. Pea gravel or crushed rock are typically used for this layer. As noted by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Fedje Properties LLC JN 17259 May 30, 2017 Page 9 covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI also notes that vapor retarders such as 6-mil plastic sheeting have been used in the past, but are now recommending a minimum 10-mil thickness for better durability and long term performance. A vapor retarder is defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 perms, as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. Where vapor retarders are used under slabs, their edges should overlap by at least 6 inches and be sealed with adhesive tape. The sheeting should extend to the foundation walls for maximum vapor protection. If no potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.01 perms when tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement. In the recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded compactable granular material, such as a 5/8-inch-minus crushed rock pavement base, be placed over the vapor retarder or barrier for their protection, and as a "blotter" to aid in the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose. However, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI literature because of the potential that the protection/blotter material can become wet between the time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement, which is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barrier/retarder. Therefore, if there is a potential that the protection/blotter material will become wet before the slab is installed, ACI now recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then recommends that, because there is a potential for slab curl due to the loss of the blotter material, joint spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and 'other measures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs" generally agrees with the recent ACI literature. We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these issues and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance on the use of the protection/blotter material. The General, Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls, and Drainage Considerations sections should be reviewed for additional recommendations related to the control of groundwater and excess water vapor for the anticipated construction. EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES No excavated slopes are anticipated other than for utility trenches.)) Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as Type A. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height should not be excavated at an inclination steeper than 0.75:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. The above -recommended temporary slope inclination is based on the conditions exposed in our explorations, and on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. It is GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Fedje Properties LLC A 17259 May 30, 2017 Page 10 possible that variations in soil and groundwater conditions will require modifications to the inclination at which temporary slopes can stand. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. It is also important that surface runoff be directed away from the top of temporary slope cuts. Cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. Please note that loose soil can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. These recommendations may need to be modified if the area near the potential cuts has been disturbed in the past by utility installation, or if settlement -sensitive utilities are located nearby. All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). In addition, compacted fill slopes should not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2:1 (H:V). To reduce the potential for shallow sloughing, fill must be compacted to the face of these slopes. This can be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final inclination. Adequate compaction of the slope face is important for long-term stability and is necessary to prevent excessive settlement of patios, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of the slope. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. Topsoil is often placed on regraded slopes to promote growth of vegetation. Proper preparation of the regraded surface, and use of appropriate topsoil is necessary to prevent the topsoil from sliding off the slope. This is most likely to occur following extended wet weather if a silty topsoil is used. On steeper slopes, it may be necessary to "track walk" the slope or cut small grooves across the slope prior to placing the topsoil. Any disturbance to the existing slope outside of the building limits may reduce the stability of the slope. Damage to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. Soil from the excavation should not be loosely placed on the slope. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Footing drains should be used where: (1) Crawl spaces or basements will be below a structure; (2) A slab is below the outside grade; or, (3) The outside grade does not slope downward from a building. Drains should also be placed at the base of all earth -retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock that is encircled with non -woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space. The discharge pipe for subsurface drains should be sloped for flow to the outlet point. Roof and surface water drains must not discharge into the foundation drain system. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Fedje Properties LLC JN 17259 May 30, 2017 Page 11 As a minimum, a vapor retarder, as defined in the Slabs -On -Grade section, should be provided in any crawl space area to limit the transmission of water vapor from the underlying soils. Crawl space grades are sometimes left near the elevation of the bottom of the footings. As a result, an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent an accumulation of any water that may bypass the footing drains. Providing even a few inches of free draining gravel underneath the vapor retarder limits the potential for seepage to build up on top of the vapor retarder. No groundwater was observed during our field work. However, if seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. A discussion of grading and drainage related to pervious surfaces near walls and structures is contained in the Foundation and Retaining Walls section Water from roof, storm water, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes; it should be tightlined to a suitable outfall located away from any slopes. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Fedje Properties LLC May 30, 2017 JN 17259 Page 12 The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: Beneath footings, slabs 95% or walkways Filled slopes and behind 90% retaining walls 95% for upper 12 inches of Beneath pavements subgrade; 90% below that level Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557-91 (Modified Proctor). The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils. Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking samples in test pits. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. The recommendations presented in this report are directed toward the protection of only the proposed structures from damage due to slope movement. Predicting the future behavior of steep slopes and the potential effects of development on their stability is an inexact and imperfect science that is currently based mostly on the past behavior of slopes with similar characteristics. Shallow soil movement can occur on steep slopes before, during, or after the development of property. The owner of any property containing, or located close to steep slopes must ultimately accept the possibility that some slope movement could occur, resulting in possible loss of ground or damage to the facilities around the proposed structures. However, provided the structures are placed on dense to very dense soil, such shallow movement would not affect the structures. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Fedje Properties, LLC and its representatives, for specific application to this project and site. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with our understanding of GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Fedje Properties LLC JN 17259 May 30, 2017 Page 13 current local standards of practice, and within the scope of our services. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Our services also do not include assessing or minimizing the potential for biological hazards, such as mold, bacteria, mildew and fungi in either the existing or proposed site development. ADDITIONAL SERVICES In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when requested by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work we actually observe. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 6 Test Pit Logs Attachments: Slope Stability Analysis Output GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Fedje Properties LLC May 30, 2017 JN 17259 Page 14 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance. DRW:mw Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. D. Robert Ward, P.E. Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. NORTH GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. (Source: Microsoft MapPoint, 2013) VICINITY MAP 157XX - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Job No: Date: Plate: 17259 1 May 2017 1 1 1 Legend: ® Test Pit Location — Slope Stability Cross Section GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 157XX - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Job No: Date: Plate: 17259 May 2017 No Scale 1 2 5 10 5 10 �Go, a�,�e JAGS TEST PIT 1 Description uutt ana topson Brown mottled silty SAND with gravel and roots, moist, loose to medium -dense -becomes gray, no roots, very dense (GLACIAL TILL) * Test Pit terminated at 7 feet on May 10, 2017. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * Slight caving observed above 4 feet during excavation. IQOR' Go��e� ��av�eJSG� TEST PIT 2 Description Duff and topsoil Brown mottled silty SAND with gravel and roots, moist, loose to medium -dense -becomes gray, no roots, very dense (GLACIAL TILL) * Test Pit terminated at 5 feet on May 10, 2017. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOG 157XX - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington I Job 17259 I D May 2017 1 Logged RW I Plate: 3 I 5 10 61 10 �Go��e JCS TEST PIT 3 Description uutt ana topsou Brown mottled silty SAND with roots, moist, loose to medium -dense -becomes gray, very dense (GLACIAL TILL) * Test Pit terminated at 3 feet on May 10, 2017. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation. SIR SM TEST PIT 4 Description Brown mottled slightly silty SAND with roots, moist, loose to medium -dense -becomes mostly gray, less silty with lenses of silty sand, no roots, dense * Test Pit terminated at 9 feet on May 10, 2017. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOG 157XX - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Job Date: Logged by. Plate: 17259 1 May 2017 1 DRW 1 4 5 10 5 10 TEST PIT 5 Description ....... Duff and topsoil Brown mottled slightly silty SAND with roots, moist, loose to medium -dense SP SM -becomes mostly gray, less silty with lenses of silty sand, gravelly, no roots, dense to very ........ dense * Test Pit terminated at 6.5 feet on May 10, 2017. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation. J5G TEST PIT 6 Description uurr ana topsoil Brown mottled slightly silty SAND with roots, moist, loose to medium -dense -becomes mostly gray, less silty, no roots, dense * Test Pit terminated at 8.0 feet on May 10, 2017. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOG 157XX - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Job Date: Logged by: I Plate: 17259 May 2017 1 DRW 5 4 i N7 5 10 . ' o art o`5 S TEST PIT 7 Description Brown mottled silty SAND with gravel and roots, moist, loose to medium -dense -becomes gray, no roots, very dense (GLACIAL TILL) * Test Pit terminated at 5.0 feet on May 10, 2017. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation. TEST PIT 8 \5�03 ayee 5 Description Ei Brown mottled silty SAND with gravel and roots, moist, loose to medium -dense f; SM -becomes gray, dense to very dense (SANDY GLACIAL TILL) • Test Pit terminated at 6.0 feet on May 10, 2017. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation. Jto GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOG 157XX - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Job Date: togged by: Plate: 17259 1 May 2017 1 DRW 1 6 Fedje Properties LLC J N 17259 Attachments GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Static Seismic 2.129 • 1.419 • Static �" c Report generated using GeoStudio 2012. Copyright @ 1991-2015 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. File Version: 8.1S Title: 17259 Fede Properties Slope Stability Created By: Matt McGinnis Last Edited By: Matt McGinnis Revision Number: 1O Date:5/3O/2O17 Time: 10:36:32AK4 Too[ Version: D.15.4.11512 File Name: 17259 FedieSlope Stabi|ity.gsz Directory: S:\2O17]obs\17259FedieProperties (DRVV)\ Last Solved Date: S/3O/2U17 Last Solved Time: 10:36:32 AM Length(UUnits: Feet Tlme(t) Units: Seconds Force(F)Units: Pounds Pressure/p\Units: oaf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight ofWater: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Element Thickness: I Static Kind:3Q}PE/VV Method: Morgenstern -Price Settings Side Function |nters|ioeforce function option: Half -Sine PVVPConditions Source: (none) Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 " Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) F of S Distribution F of S Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 F of S Tolerance: 0.001 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Search Method: Root Finder Tolerable difference between starting and converged F of S: 3 Maximum iterations to calculate converged lambda: 20 Max Absolute Lambda: 2 Loose toMedium-Dense Slightly SiltySand Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 32 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Dense to Very -Dense Silty Sand Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion': 100 psf Phi': 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° E i r Left Projection: Range Left -Zone Left Coordinate: (-38.7, 264) ft Left -Zone Right Coordinate: (-19, 264) ft Left -Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right -Zone Left Coordinate: (49, 290.17778) fit Right -Zone Right Coordinate: (90.2, 300) ft Right -Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (-40, 264) ft Right Coordinate: (167.2, 276) ft Seismic 1 1 nt Horz Seismic Coef.: 0 � ` . • I� p`q eil II �� 4 Material Points Area (ft) Loose to Medium - Region Dense Silty Sand Dense to Very- Region Dense 18,19,25,26,27,20,21,28,22,23 5,798.8 2 Silty Sand Slip Surface: 1D3 Fof5:2.12B Volume: 3D3.99818M3 Weight: 49526.64S|bs Resisting Moment: 2,5O2,761.5|ba-ft Activating Moment: 1,175,320.3 |bs'ft Resisting Force: 37,209.539|bs Activating Force: l7,476.14Q|bs FofSRank (Ana|ysis):1of175slip surfaces FnfSRank ({}uery):1of125slip surfaces Exit: ('19, 264) ft Entry: (49.8O0001,29O.17778)ft Radius: G9.3174S3ft Cohesive PWP Base Normal Frictional X (ft) Y (ft) Strength Slice -15.4375 263.05457 0 137.7076 86.049256 0 2 Slice -13.0625 262.54504 0 218.088 136.27651 0 3 Slice -10.6875 262.13608 0 28551536 178.4098 0 4 Slice -8.3125 261.82561 0 337.64008 210.98094 0 5 Slice -5.9375 261.61207 0 372.70585 232.89246 0 6 Slice -3.5625 261.49442 0 389.76735 243.55367 0 7 Slice -1.1875 261.47207 0 388.77491 242.93352 0 8 Slice 1.060669 261.53622 0 449.94631 281.15766 0 9 Slice 3.1820071 261.67749 0 571.59624 357.17297 0 10 Slice 5.4188967 261.91182 0 731.63003 613.91049 100 11 Slice 7,771338 262.24913 0 835,25202 700.85967 100 12 Slice 10.123779 262.68363 0 911.83375 765.11936 100 13 Slice 12.43125 263.20541 0 965.88685 810.4753 100 14 Slice 14.69375 263.81331 0 1,000.7172 839.70146 100 15 Slice 16.95625 264.51875 0 1,017.2611 853.58345 100 16 Slice 19.21875 265.32545 0 1,018.1442 854.32439 100 17 Slice 21.48125 266.23791 0 1,005.7595 843.93238 100 18 Slice 23.74375 267.26155 0 982.13541 824.10946 100 19 Slice 26.00625 268.40292 0 948.85311 796.18229 100 20 Slice 28.26875 269.66992 0 906.9969 761.06076 100 21 Slice 30.25 270.88223 0 867.30604 727.75618 100 22 Slice 31.95 272.01724 0 830.82522 697.14514 100 23 Slice 33.933333 273.46231 0 780.33604 654.77968 100 24 Slice 36.2 275.26547 0 713.8792 599.01578 100 25 Slice 38.466667 277.26148 0 636,38797 533.99291 100 26 Slice 40.696879 279.43888 0 534.05932 448.12898 100 27 Slice 42.890637 281.82614 0 404.13346 339.10824 100 28 Slice 45.140637 284.58134 0 316.3968 197.70666 0 29 Slice 47.446879 287.80024 0 138.76976 86.712967 0 30 Slice 48.8 289.85041 0 19.960782 12.472881 0 31 Seismic ��KsmU. c Report generated using aeosmmozn1z cnnvn«x @ 19m1-zn15GEC-SLOPE International Ltd. File Version: 8.15 Title: 17259FedeProperties Slope Stability Created By: Matt McGinnis Last Edited By: Matt McGinnis Revision Number: 1O Dote:S/30/2Ol7 Time: 10:36:324M Tool Version: 8.1S'41151Z File Name: 17259 FedieSlope Stebi|by.gsz Directory: S:\ZO17]obc\1725QFedieProperties /DRVVK Last Solved Date: 5/3O/2017 Last Solved Time: 10:36:32 AM Length/UUnits: Feet llnnehdUnhs: Seconds Foroe(F)Units: Pounds Pressuna(p)Units: nsf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight ofWater: 62'4pcf View: 2D Element Thickness: I Seismic Kind:SL0PE/VV Method: Morgenstern -Price Settings Side Function |nters|iceforce function option: Half -Sine PVVPConditions Source: (none) Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1" Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) F of S Distribution F of S Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 F of S Tolerance: 0.001 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Search Method: Root Finder Tolerable difference between starting and converged F of S: 3 Maximum iterations to calculate converged lambda: 20 Max Absolute Lambda: 2 Loose to Medium -Dense Tightly Silty San Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 32 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Dense to Very -Dense Silty Sand Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion': 100 psf Phi': 40 Phi-B: 0 ° Left Projection: Range Left -Zone Left Coordinate: (-38.7, 264) ft Left -Zone Right Coordinate: (-19, 264) ft Left -Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right -Zone Left Coordinate: (49, 290.17778) ft Right -Zone Right Coordinate: (90.2, 300) ft Right -Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (-40, 264) ft Right Coordinate: (167.2, 276) ft Seismic Coefficients Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.2 • Material Points Area Loose to Medium - Region Dense 18,17,16,15,14,13,12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,24,26,27,20,21,28,22,23 873.41 1 Slightly Silty Sand Dense to Very- Region Dense 18,19,25,26,27,20,21,28,22,23 5,798.8 2 silty Sand Current w�B~ Surface ���������m������m�ce Slip Surface: 1OQ FofS:1'419 Weight: 72633.577|bs Resisting Moment: 8,Q53,499.9|bs-ft Activating Moment: 2,785,82AJ|bs4ft Resisting Force: 51,790.16|bs Activating Force: 36,4Q7.442|bs FofSRank (Ana|ysis):1of125slip surfaces Fnf3Rank (Ouen):1of125slip surfaces Exit: (-29,264)ft Entry:(58.81O345 294.42468)ft Radius: 6B.317127ft Center: (O219G1123,329.SS791)ft Cohesive PWP Base Normal Frictional Slice Slice -14.928571 262.9559 0 162.71817 101.6776 0 2 Slice -12.214286 262.39598 0 260.52027 162.79113 0 3 Slice -9.5 261,94962 0 343.98403 214.94508 0 4 Slice -6.7857143 261.61459 0 408.61626 255.33178 0 5 Slice -4.0714286 261.38924 0 450.6902 281.62249 0 6 Slice -1.3571429 261.27248 0 468.04221 292.46523 0 7 Slice 1.7255504 261.2792 0 538.57268 367.78103 0 8 Slice 4.7592506 261.4044 0 927.84021 778.55037 100 9 Slice 7.3755504 261.62934 0 1,082.0692 907.96389 100 10 Slice 9.9918501 261.95626 0 1,187.7708 996.658 100 11 Slice 12.592857 262.3835 0 1,252.2106 1,050.7295 100 12 Slice 15.178571 262.91183 0 1,281.8832 1,075.6278 100 13 Slice 17.764286 263.54563 0 1,281.1818 1,075.0392 100 14 Slice 20.35 264,28799 0 1,257.8684 1,055.4769 100 15 Slice 22.935714 265.14266 0 1,218.8885 1,022.7689 100 16 Slice 25.521429 266.1142 0 1,169.8861 981.65099 100 17 Slice 28.107143 267.20806 0 1,115.051 935.6389 100 18 Slice 31.1 268.64821 0 1,052.1983 882.89919 100 19 Slice 33.933333 270.15329 0 995.6299 835.43269 100 20 Slice 36,2 271.49884 0 947.11935 794.7275 100 21 Slice 38.466667 272.96716 0 897.36794 752.98111 100 22 Slice 41.1 274,85409 0 819.84904 687.93503 100 23 Slice 44.1 277.23297 0 714.12346 599.22073 100 24 Slice 47.1 279.9072 0 599.03572 502.65065 100 25 Slice 50,012623 282.82875 0 472.66962 396.61691 100 26 Slice 52.837868 286.04211 0 328.04577 275.26308 100 27 Slice 55.925245 290.11553 0 215.78786 134.83922 0 28 Slice 58.205172 293.45276 0 53.867584 33.660203 0 29