Loading...
20050570.pdf..9 DATE RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWN''ERIINAMEINAME OF BUSINESS w MAILING A06RESS O CITY IP TELFPHn!%1: ADDRESS or �J PERMIT EXPIRES ' L PERMIT NUMBER JOB SUITEIAPT# nooREss PLAT NAMEISUBDIVISION NO. " LOT NO. n LID NO. 'C.' WU ' LID FEE $ PUBL C RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCPApproved ❑ RW Permit Required ❑ �— Street Use Permit Required ❑ EXISTING _ PROPOSED Inspection Required ❑ _ Sidewalk Required ❑ REQUIRED DEDICATION _ FT Underground ❑ Wetnq required ❑ METER SIZE LINE SIZ!E7 NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED Q _ YES 1:1 NO O _ FU to REMARKS _ z OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROS ION.CONTROLIDRAINAG E L9 Lu '^ z CITY ZIP TELEPHONE / / pIn Im 0�iO L� N MAkAF 1 r CBL# IIA3 AL- )4 V(.) 1/l� l 1r fly►)77 E GINEERING REVIEWED BY DATE ADDFrE S _j 23urk � c F E REVIEWED BY DATE W z CITY ZIP TELEP�NE LL O `f 72, �IZ�" Lot.,/ STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATIO DATE y VARIANCE OR.CU SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION ED PAI ' REQ'D • COMPLETED E%EMP 1' fI I ('� Pu 033 ' �'C/ V �.C� YES NO -t PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. CA# �.JL j � ZONE / SIGN AREA JJ HEIGHT D •"� OD WAIVER U _ �` / ALLOWED 45ED ALLOWED PROPOSED Lu STUDY.9 lJ �•. L ❑ NEW IZO RESIDENTIAL ❑ PLUMBING / MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SE ACKS (FT.) ./� ALLOWERMPLIANCE OR ROPOSED FRONT ID REAR FRONT UR SIDE REAR 0 ❑❑ COMMERCIAL ❑ COHANGE OF USE , z ADDITION ❑ MIXED USE ❑ ❑ REMODEL ❑ PAR ING LOT AREA PLANNING r REVIEWED BY DATE a MULTIFAMILY SIGN REQ'0 R VIDED �--� FENCE GRADING EPAIR ❑ CYDS . ❑ ( X FT.) REMARKS' f ' n ' OTHER ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ i � T GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER r •E!! Y yG vrt .'� z ❑ CARPORT ❑ ROCKERY ❑ FIRE ALARM 7 _ IL (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) E PL /f T D �' 1 .GGA �'� IL (/ TYPE 0 C RUCTION f) OCCUPANT U 1� / GROUP Lu NUMBER NUMBER OF OF DWELLING SPECIAL IN)PETION CONSULTANT OCCUPANT p STORIES UNITS LOAD REQUIRED ES DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REMARKS Q z yy o •INck �� GEOTECH REPORT11 C t� 8Y: r Zehq&n �' STRUCTURAL DESIGN C le 1 �C j ` lu t BY: L'7 1I� VALUATION IFeAc K e $ Or. ,{�,1�,1�' S Description FEE Description FEE ► Z1CIz Ron W5 05T -H �1'' � Plan Check 9 I '� State Surcharge HEAT SOURCE LOT SLOPE% VESTED DATE ` I Building Permit L tQ© City Surcharge PLAN CHECK NO: �, �� Plumbing Base Fee THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO Mechanical BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC Gradin LE 7 DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE g t SEPARATE PERMISSION. � Engr. Review w PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5) u PERMIT LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6) Engr. Inspection SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION ui 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit IN INTEREST• AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF a EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # = ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscape Insp. Total Aml, Due = NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' Recording Fee Receipt # I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 1 HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF This application is not a permit unlit signed by the THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Foes are paid, and TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged In space provided. IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO WORKMEN'S NSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18:27. F. IGH DAT SIGNATORtWNEFRtjRAGENT): DATE (425) 2JI 10 771-0220 RELE EDB ATE ATTEN ON EXT. 1333 ✓ C� vJ .T IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- ORIGINAL. IL YELLOW -INSPECTOR FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED, UBC109 I IBC1101 IRC110. PINK - OW R GOLD - ASSESSOR 10104 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES 7 N "n NMI MM 0 c Or C C C N r Zr X D -Zi Z O --I m O -_i 0 M �m m0 0=11O On _M mZ p o C Z r wool N "n NMI MM 0 c Or C C C N r Zr X D -Zi Z O --I m n w...x �...M+. Y H L-. LJ APS; 2 9 2005 . .ZZA Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. PERMIT COUNTS WWJ Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting ED CC� r 25 March 29, 2005 J-2075 CITY COPY Mr. Wayne Grotheer 815 Maple Street : Edmonds, Washington 98020 10. n Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation M Foundation and Slab Repairs 815 Maple StreetdMi Ca _+ Edmonds, Washington v rn co M Dear Wayne, O n c As requested, Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. has completed a geotechnical evaluation for m foundation repairs of your house at the subject property.: Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. has c ? visited the referenced site and evaluated support conditions for the basement floor slab and foundations in the west portion of the house. We have also reviewed geologic conditions in theCal _ site vicinity. The purpose of this report is to provide recommendations for support.of the existing 0 foundations in this area, and the replacement floor slab. 'n t' mm These evaluations and the following recommendations are for the exclusive use of Wayne o co Grotheer and Mary Sweeny, and their design engineers for specific application to the subject ` n ' property, and the stated purpose. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally ; . C N accepted geotechnical engineering practices. These services were completed as described in our J m O February 18, 2005 proposal letter, as authorized by Wayne Grotheer on that date. SITE DESCRIPTION D The subject property is an existing single family residence. The residence is of daylight. ` } basement construction. The foundations and lower level floor slab in the northwest corner ca portion of the house show visible evidence of up to several inches of long term settlement. Level z surveys indicate that the west portion of the house has settled, with the area of settlement bounded on the east by the kitchen east wall and the front entry stair west wall An elevation . m survey by CG Engineering dated February 7, 2005 contains specific elevations measured at several points around the house interior. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, by James P. Minard (Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, 1983, Map MF- 4 1541) indicates that the site is underlain by Advance Outwash soils. The Advance Outwash deposits are dense granular soils possessing high strength and low compressibility. The database maintained b GeoMa NW was searched as a art of this evaluation. Records within this Y P P 18905 33rd Avenue West #117, Lynnwood, WA 98036 (425) 771-3304 Fax: (42.5)4771=3549, LrZA 815 Maple ,Street „AFM Edmonds, Washington -2075 March 29,.2005 Page 2 database describe geologic conditions at a nearby parcel, located at 760 and 770 Maple Street. At that location, Advance Outwash soils were present to depths of 6 to 7 feet below ground surface and were underlain by hard clay and silt deposits classified as Transitional Beds, The Transitional Beds deposits possess high intact strength but are relatively weak when disturbed. Based on your description of fine-grained soils noted in excavations on the east side of the property, it is possible that Transitional Beds deposits underlie the property. The native p glacial soils appear to be mantled by fill within the western portion of the lot, based on n topography. A small stream along the north property line may have deposited limited depths of M softer alluvial soils under a portion of the house footprint, which were subsequently filled over. On -Site Conditions Evaluated w m t eo m The subject property appears to have been graded during original construction of the n house, by cutting from the east side and filling on the west side. It is expected that five or more = m feet of fill are present in the patio area near the northwest corner of the house. We understand m that CG Engineering excavated a test hole along the north foundation wall near the northwest A z corner and found that the footing is more than 4 feet below grade. This footing depth provides further evidence of filling during original construction. Within the interior, the pattern of cracking in sheet rock suggests that foundations m� supporting the west side of the house are settling differentially compared to the east and central mm portions of the house. The fireplace and mantle near the southwest corner of the house do not o N show evidence of damage, although the interior adjacent floor slab has dropped about 1 inch. We c rmn understand that the interior floor within the north family room was leveled by pressure grouting cN several years ago, and has subsequently settled further. m 0 REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that repair of the foundation be completed by underpinning with driven ' z pin piles. The maximum extent of underpinning can be estimated as including all foundations z west of the east kitchen wall and the west entry stair wall. The final extent of underpinning may to ZL potentially be modified during construction, based on conditions exposed below the slabs and L. 0 based.on depths and driving resistance of the piles. Specific recommendations for underpinning are presented in this report. m We recommend repairing and improving the foundation and downspout tightline drainage system outside the north and west walls of the house to reduce the risk of future settlement caused by pipe leaks. If any foundation cracks are discovered during the underpinning and repairs, these should be epoxy injected to prevent water intrusion. This crack seal should include exposing the footing and sealing cracks below grade in both the wall and footing. The basement slab could either be supported on pin piles or L could be designed as a reinforced slab -on -grade to tolerate limited continuing settlement. Based on our discussions, we i understand that the decision of whether or not to support the floor slab can be made during J-20751033105 _,. ZZA 815 Maple Street Edmonds, Washington ]-2075 March 29, 2005 Page 3 construction after the subsoils are exposed. We are available to visit the site and assess subgrade conditions after the damaged slab is removed, to estimate future settlements of a grade -supported slab. Pin pile support of interior floor slabs is intended L to" minimize the risk of future settlement. If pin piles are not used to support the slabs, the risk of future interior slab settlement can be reduced by improving drainage conditions and by providing a thickened, reinforced slab L-� designed to span across the loose fill. With a slab -on -grade floor, we recommend that it be m thickened to provide the capability to span over consolidating soils. The slab should be a ' minimum of 6 inches thick, and should be reinforced with #4 bars on 10 inch spacing if :q -n supported on grade with no pin piles. The new floor slab should be underlain by at least 4 inches Co _ of washed gravel and an adequate vapor barrier should be placed immediately below the c m concrete. Underlying soils may require re -compaction prior to placing the new slab, :depending m O on the conditions exposed and the slab 0. support method. } mZ Underpinning Foundation Elements A C: Underpinning on this site can be provided by installing small -diameter pipe piles (pin piles) and/or helical piers to transfer foundation loads to competent native soils at depth. Pin T piles consist of small diameter steel pipes that are driven into the ground with a pneumatic or T "L L hydraulic jackhammer or percussion driver to designated "refusal' criteria. Pipe lengths of 5 to _'. mm 10 feet are commonly used. Successive pipe lengths are either compression coupled or welded v ca together. Once the piles are installed, they are cut off to a pre -determined elevation, and a ` n structural connection is made to the base or side of the existing footings. We recommend that the N structural engineer provide the design details to properly connect the pin piles to the existing z foundations. X For this project, we recommend that all pin piles be driven to bear within Advance !L n Outwash or Transitional Beds geologic deposits. We recommend that pin piles consist of 2 -inch Z diameter Schedule 80 steel pipe. The 2 -inch piles. should be driven to refusal criteria of less than _ 1 -inch of penetration in 60 seconds of continuous driving using a minimum 90 -pound v� jackhammer under the full weight of the operator. We recommend an allowable in axial 0Z. - capacity of 4,000 pounds per pile for 2 -inch pin piles installed to the recommended refusal criteria. m Helical piers consist of a steel shaft with attached auger flights that are essentially i screwed into the soil. The flights have diameters, typically ranging from 8 to 14 inches. The diameter and number of flights required per shaft depend on the loads to be supported. Typically, the flights are embedded a minimum of 5 feet into suitable bearing soil with final depth of i penetration based on the amount of torque resistance developed in the bearing soils. Connection j details are similar to pin pile connections to the footings, and must be designed by the structural , en ineerCompressive capacities in the range of 10,000 pounds and higher are achievable in the �• g p glacial deposits underlying the house, with specific capacity depending on the helix diameter and installation torque. LI" J-2075,033105 r ZZA 815 Maple Street Edmonds, Washington -2075 e..�... March 29, 2005 Page 4 With both helical anchors and pin piles; the final lengths can only be determined at the time of installation. In addition, the presence of fill suggests that debris may be present that could obstruct the installation of individual piers or pin piles and these piers or pin piles may have to be relocated. We anticipate that average lengths of pin piles or helical .anchors will be on the order of 15 to 20 feet. z We recommend that the depth and refusal. driving of each pin pile be monitored during construction by a qualified engineering professional. We are available to provide these rn monitoring services. We are also available to assess the conditions disclosed beneath the slabs and adjacent to foundations after slab removal.. We expect that some minor adjustments to the -� T foundation repair plans will be recommended after these conditions are assessed. In particular, v m we recommend that the foundation support conditions at the east wall of the kitchen, the west m v wall of the entry stairs, and the fireplace hearth in the southwest portion of the house be subject o to further review. After the slabs adjacent to these areas are removed, we are available to visit the 0 site, evaluate in-situ soil conditions beneath the existing footings, and provide recommendations m z regarding the possible need for underpinning. A cZ Foundation Liftins� _ wn We understand that the house will be lifted to level or near-level after installation of the � f underpinning piles. Some interior wall and ceiling distress will occur as a result of the foundation _ liftingAt should be understood that while the house framing is relatively flexible, there may be M M some residual cracks that develop after lifting while the framing readjusts. This residual n rn movement is expected to be minor, but some future patching may be required after a full. 0 N seasonal weather cycle has passed. Damage to windows and door frames trim can be reduced by r rn removing frames prior to lifting. Damage during lifting can also be reduced by lifting as .Z.� 0 uniformly as possible. X We recommend that the fireplace and mantle area be assessed carefully prior to i 4. . attempting to lift the foundation. The lack of damage to the masonry may indicate that the hearth .� is supported uniformly on competent soils. This condition can be assessed further after the floor ? _ slab is removed. If this is indeed the case, lifting would not be advisable considering the r z increased risk of cracking caused by lifting the masonry. 0 0 Additional piles, beyond the number of piles required to permanently support the dead rn and live loads . of the structure, are typically required for lifting foundations. The need for additionalpiles should be assessed continuously by the contractor as lifting is attempted: It should be expected that the end result of a re-leveling project such as this will be an improvement from the present damaged condition, but not an entirely level structure. It is probable that decisions will need to be made during the leveling process to determine whether to continue lifting, possibly at increased risk of damage to finishes or masonry or possibly at increased cost, or to support the house in a less-than perfectly level condition. We recommend that the owner be available to make these decisions on a timely basis during the lifting process, and we are available to provide consultation during this process. J-2075033105 t FIELD OBSERVATION Project: Grotheer Residence Job No.: 04172.11 Foundation Repair Field Rep.: DMT i Report No.: 1 Date of Observation: 8/3 & 8/405 , Location: 815 Maple St Purpose of Site Visit: Pile z Edmonds WA observation o Client/Owner: Wayne Grotheer General Contractor: Pacific Pilin 0 m ASSESSMENT REPORT 9 r 9 X.rnr �.i , - imp If O Y4.. Omni n 9 It Q C A site observation was performed of the Grotheer residence foundation repair on August 3 --� s and 4, 2005 to verify that the construction was in general conformance with the approved m z E : structural plans, c — e. At the time of the site visit all exterior piles had been installed and refusal tested by therstt Z `r Geotechnical engineer. All piles were in the correct locations and additional (3) piles were or installed at the interior of the fireplace. Q, k Leveling of the foundation was observed on August 4, 2005. At the time of the observation D the house was leveled back within'/.". m M 9 { To the best of our knowledge all construction has been completed in conformance with the. 0) r , ' n structural plans. �n r, V4 9 C Ch 9, „1 f ! 2 J,<[ ti D It 9 Z } „ O n irn It DISCLAIMER it This observation was performed on 08/04/05 and is the professional opinion of CG Engineering PLLC ; based on the information available during this assessment or evaluation. This report does not warrant ; 2504th Ave: South " or guarantee that all conditions discovered at the time of the observation or evaluation. This , Suite200 report was prepared subject to the standard of care applicable to professional services at the time the t Edmonds,WA98020 serviceswere provided. Phone: 425.778.8500 { Fax: 425.778:5536 1 ' i •1 i rn o o ;- mz ;Q DMMz 1 ' rn o o ;- mz ;Q DMMz CO) O oFn 1p �,. e n z z N: Z 0 n m 1 f. . Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. ; Geotechnical Engineers and Environmental Consultants } 18905 - 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 FAX (425) 771-3549 DAILY FIELD. REPORT: #2 DATE: August 1, 2005 PAGE 1 OF1 PROJECT: Grotheer Residence ZZA JOB NO.: J-2075 CLIENT: Wayne Grotheer CONTRACTOR: Pacific Piling and Underpinning - ZZA FIELD REP: Barb Gallagher LOCATION: 815 Maple Street, Edmonds, WA ARR../ DEP. TIME: 8:30 am/9:00 am PERMIT NUMBER: N/A : Z WEATIIER: Foggy, 55 degrees EQUIPMENT USED: 140 lb. hammer n rn We arrived on site to observe re=strikes of. the 2 -inch diameter pin piles to determine if refusal criteriaN I per plans and. specifications had been met. We observed re -strikes of 4 piles in the room on the west side, v m including 3 piles that had been added by the contractor on the west side of the room, and 5 piles in the room m' adjacent and to the north. All piles meet refusal criteria of one inch or less of movement in 1 minute of striking p n with the 140 pound hammer, with average movement being '/4 inch in 1 minute. Average length of piles based, r� on the contractor's records of the number. of sticks of pipe and our. measurement of the remaining vertical.stick- m z 10 up is 18 to 25 feet. Le — , yZ {; . O. _rn rn O r. f CN r Z n �r • ;F Z ¢, O o REVIEWED BY: This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observations of the contractors activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely'on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project irrespective of the presence of the ZZA field representative. The presence of our field representative will be for the purpose of providing observation and field testing services. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, its employees, or agents. Neither the presence of the ZZA field representative nor the observation and testing by ZZA shall excuse the contractor in any way for defects discovered in its work. ZZA will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project, i i Zimper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers and Environmental Consultants !' 18905 - 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 / FAX (425) 771-3549✓ ti DAILY FIELD REPORT: #3 DATE: August 3, 2005 PAGE 1 OF 1 .' PROJECT, Grotheer Residence .:. __. _. _ . • .. _-_ _._ ._. , ....... _ZZA JOB NO.:- J-2075 f; t; CLIENT: Wayne Grotheer CONTRACTOR: Pacific Piling and Underpinning LOCATION: 815 Maple Street, Edmonds, WA ZZA FIELD REP: Barb Gallagher ARR. / DEP. TIME: 2:45 pm/3:45 pm PERMIT NUMBER: N/A O i WEATHER: Clear, 75 degrees EQUIPMENT USED: 140 lb. hammer m i t We arrived on site to observe re -strikes of the 2 -inch diameter pin piles to determine if refusal criteria c m per plans and specifications had been met. We observed re -strikes of 11 piles, 4 in the northernmost room, 2 in M g the westernmost room, and 5 on the outside wall adjacent to the fireplace: All piles meet refusal criteria of one O c rn inch or less of movement in 1 minute of striking with the 140 pound hammer, with average movement being 1/8 tin rs inch, in 1 minute. Average length of piles based on the contractor's records of the number of sticks of pipe and m our measurement of the remaining vertical stick-up is 18 to 26 feet. D z ' �. 0M g n� C. to MO z o �. M L REVIEWED BY; 14 1 This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observations of the contractors activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project irTespective of the presence of the ZZA field representative, The presence of our field representative will be for the purpose of providing observation and field testing services. our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, its employees, or agents. Neither the presence of the ZZA field representative nor the observation mid testing by ZZA shall excuse the contractor in any way for defects discovered in its work, ZZA will not he responsible for job or site safety on this project. ;. i ;. I- Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers and Environmental Consultants 18905 — 33r`� Avenue West, Suite 117, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 / FAX (425) 771-3549 DAILYTIELD REPORT: # 5 DATE: August 15, 2005 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT: Grother Residence ZZA JOB NO.: J-2075 CLIENT: Wayne Grother CONTRACTOR: Pacific Piling and Underpinning ZZA FIELD, REP: Kevin Howell LOCATION: 815 Maple Street, Edmonds, WA ARR. / DEP. TIME 12:00=13:00 PERMIT NUMBER: NA Z O WEATHER: Sunny, 80 degrees EQUIPMENT USED: 1401b hammer m r ca We arrived on site at the request of the contractor to observed re-taps of 24rich diameter steel pin piles. v m previously installed by the contractor. Upon arrival, the contractor performed re-taps on.7 piles (see attached e o site plan for location of the piles re-tapped today) using a 1401b air hammer. We observed that each pile met � n the project refusal criteria of less than one inch of penetration. over one minute of driving. The contractor 0 indicated that the depths of these piles ranged from 20 to 2.4 feet below existing grade. = rn ' M z. pIL It is our opinion that the piles re-tapped today meet the project refusal criteria and were installed in > z general accordance with the project plans and specifications. � r rnm r ir� Wdo ewe o � nm were, munAjo � /ai�S . Z CO) O owln M i 14 REVIEWED BY: �• This report presents opinions formed as a mdlt o our observations of the contractors activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project irespective of the presence of the ZZA field representative. The presence of our field representative will be for the purpose of providing observation and field testing services. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, its employees, or agents. Neither the presence of the ZZA field representative nor the observation and testing by ZZA shall excuse the contractor in any way for defects discovered in its work. ZZA will not be responsible for job•or site safety on this project. i I I I I V .. el1 1 1 a Z• to.44 fly �j, + 1 ..8` (��OS •, _ Orr' i $ S I , rf REMOVE &REPLCE I/ �� EX. SLAB W/ 5' SLAB i : IjSa l (• ta/�O'�'�ff' F-�'S04xi W/ 14 0 100. O.C. EA. WAY ! �N � al o Ii 000000 .. _ 1 y r •. o i 14 O 1 O.C. ' I 1. (2) PILES & SCRF ........_____ __ r J • ' a EA. WA JACKS THIS WALU im 0. ------------- 0 TYP, 0 2 s' -o" 6 01 c 1 - TEMP. SHORE &- Q C ' SUPPORT INT. WALLS. - 1 iiYPTYP.. I ' I ' 1 ' FIREPLACE rn Z g, it 10 000 ' I REMOVE & REPLCE 4'_0" 3,'6" iAll r .. - ' I LAB W `,'. ti, •— • 4.. y^ • .� 'w r \� ' 7 w. 1 i q g _0 5.- _ c.. e o i1 5 -0'' s' -O" - '' o �� 7 1 L --- ----- =---- - ---- ----- b' 0 , -- -- _ J.. t' ----- .TEMP. 5 ORE & ----- - - - - 14 ®9" D.C. - - --, _ SUP rn rn 1 L _ 14 0180 5'-0" CEf{,tER PILE SL j C ;.., L• '�: ' UNDER :ono wS Ty' ic ratL4 h4� a rn n EX. CONC, PATIO i �� -- -- - ---- - -- ` EX. CONC. r v SIDEWALK 5 TYP. 2 TYP. O PIN PILE PLAN lqq- - - Z 1. iJG o m TEMP. & SHRINKAGE 000 18" DOWEL W/ REINF. REINF, THICKENED EDGE SLAB 4" MIN EMBED INTO . 'Ice14 O 18"-0.C. MAIN REINF. BARS d GRADE BEAM WITH 4 EX. FTG. W/ HILTI HIT HY 150 " (2)-14 TOP &BOTTOM 1 O 9" O.C. INJECTION ADHESIVE STRUCTURAL SLAB a ' .o • ° EXISTING GRADE Eoac>u' d"N" Oo• G " ° CPO• *too 2" SAND OVER 1 111-1iii . 6 MIL VAPOR BARRIER W SLAB REINF. PER PLAN y�1 dc n� 8" FOR INFORMATION NOTI FOINFORMATION NOT SPECIFICALLY INDICATED, SPECIFICALLY INDICATED, TYP• REFER TO DET. 2 REFER TO DET. 2 1 SECTION SECTION SCALE 1 1 -0 `.,J SCALE: 1� : 11-0 l l f MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS, INC Everett Office 917 - 134th Street SW Suite A-1 Everett, WA 98204 ph 425.742.9360 LABORATORY TEST REPORT fax 425.745:1737 Project : Grotheer Residence Project No: E5360 Site Address: 815 Maple St Issued on: 9-6-05 Edmonds,WA Permit # (s): Client: Grotheer Residence original: Engineer: CT Engineering Revised: ❑ Z Contractor: Pacific Piling - 0 FIELD m (ASTM C31 and C172) rn Air Temperature: 0. 6F Design Mix Proportions: -=1 mn Weather: Sunny. N _ Product: Concrete Ingredient Weight (per cu.yd) C rrl Plasticizer 30.0 Oz m 10 Supplier: Cadman n Ticket Number 5576861 MixDesign.ID: 604100 m Z Sample Temp Initial Storage-- Entrained Air p -i (ASTM C1064) Temp. (ASTM C31) (ASTM C231) C z 78 ° F NR - r Slum ASTM C143 Sam les Rec'd ..,. p( p -O m 1 7^ 8-30-05 lRequired Strength ft):J 4000 Psi @ 28 days _ Placement Location and Notes - m m Sampled at basement slab on grade at North section. Sampled at 10 cubic yards of 16 cubic yards total. No batch O or design weights. N ' COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS a Z 0: (ASTM C39, C1231, and C617 when applicable) Date Made Sample # Lab # Date Tested Age (day) Load (lbs) . Size (in) Dia (in) Surface Area Strength (psi) Failure Code D 8/26/2005 0001 14366 19/2/2005 7_ 35260. 4 x 8 4.00 8/26/2005 0001 14367 9/23/2005 28 8/26/2005 1 0001 11436819/23/2005-1 28 F— I 4 x 8 I 8/26/2005 0001 14369 9/23/2005 28 F x 8 12.57 2810 NA ! 2 z O D NA t _ O MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS, INC 9 7 134thteetSW Suite A-1 Everett, WA 98204 ph 425.742.9360 LABORATORY TEST REPORT fax 425.745.1737 Project : Grotheer Residence Project No: E5360 Site Address: 815 Maple St Issued on: 9-26-05 Edmonds,WA Permit # (s): gut, Client: Grotheer Residence original: Q z Engineer:. CT Engineering Revised: ❑OCT ZQOJ� 0 Contractor: Pacific Piling m FIELD DATA (ASTM C31 and C172) Air Temperature: 0 ° F - _ Design Mix Proportions: Cl) vM i Weather: Sunny Ingredient weight (per cu.yd) m v Product:: Concrete Supplier:. Cadman Plasticizer. 30.0 Oz 0 C C Ticket Number: 5576861 = m �- mz MixDesign ID: 604100 10: 78 ° F NR071 Slump (ASTM C143) ample(s) Recd m f` m. 7" 8-30-05 Required Strength h ) 4000 Psi @ 28 days m Placement Location and Notes n } Fn Sampled at basement slab on grade at North section, Sampled at 10 cubic yards of 16 cubic yards total. No batch C (n or design weights. ¢ Z r COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS '(ASTM C39, C1231, and C617 when applicable) Date Made Sample # Lab # Date Tested Age (day) Load (Ibs) Size (in) Dia (in) Surface Area Strength (psi) Failure Code i D 8/26/2005 0001 1143661 9/2/2005 35260 1 4 x 8 4.00 12.57 2810 NA Z 8/26/2005 0001 14367 9/23/2005 28 56640 4 x 8 3.98 12.44 4550 NA _ 8/26/2005 000111436819/23/2005 28� .53850 4 x 8 4.02 12.69 4240 NACn 8/26/2005 1 0001 114369 9/23/2005_ 28 568557174 x 8 4.00 12.57 4520 NA p Remark: m Inspector(s): Jim Gibson Tested by: Barry Tuttle Reviewed by: Timothy G. 61ckerle, P.E. Branch Manager NOTES: Failure descriptions for samples tested with neoprene pads are not required per ASTM Std. NA = Not Applicable, S = Shear, C = Cone, CSp = Cone and Split,,CSh = Cone and Shear, Col = Column FC -Field Cure NR =Not Recorded i. Information in this report applies only to the actual samples tested and shall not be reproduced without the approval of Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. MTE Form #150. Rev 3,7-0 MAYESTESTIN 1� ENPINEERSy INC 917 - i3 t office 917 -134th Street SW Suite A-1 r Everett, WA 98204 ph 425.742.9360 LABORATORY TEST REPORT fax 425.745.1737 Project : Grotheer Residence Project No: E5360 Site Address: 815 Maple St Issued on: 9-26-05 Edmonds,WA Permit # (s) Client: Grotheer Residence Original: Engineer: CT Engineering Revised: ❑ Contractor: Pacific Piling z 0 FIELD DATA (ASTM C31 and C172) — M Air Temperature: Q *F Design Mix Proportions: Weather: Sunny Wn Product: Concretetngr^dlon', :I'alaht (par cu.yd) N :. Plasticizer 30.0 Oz C rn Supplier: Cadman t7 rn Ticket Number: 55768610 n MixDesign ID: 604100 c 78°F NR Slump (ASTM C143) ample(s) Rec'dca ° 8-30-05 Re ulred Stren th fc 4000 psi Q 28 days O m 7 [Yq 9 ( Y� m f; [Placement Location and Notes Sampled at basement slab on grade at North section. Sampled at 10 cubic yards of 16 cubic yards total. No batch rn m b ca or design weights. O r COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS (ASTM C39, C1231, and C617 when applicable) t rn Date Made Sample # Lab # . Date Tested Age (day) Load (lbs) Size (in) Dia (in) Surface Area Strength (psi) Failure Code r 8/26/2005 0001 14366 9/2/2005_1_ 7 35260 _4 x 8_] 4 00 12.57 2810 NA F866/20675 T 0001 14367 9/23/2005 28� 56640 4 x 8 3.98 12.44 4550 NA I [8/26/2005 0001 8I 4.02 ( 12.69 (4240_ _�A Z 14368 9/23/2005 28 53850 4 x _ _ _ -- ► 8/26/2005 L 0001 --(14369 9/23/2005._. 2�i 56830 �_4 x 8 L .00� 12.57 f 4520 L NA Remark: N Z Inspector(s): Jim Gibson _ 0 Tested by: Barry Tuttle Reviewed by: / — -- 11-7-- n Timothy G. ckerle, P.E. rn Branch Manager NOTES: Failure descriptions for samples tested with neoprene pads are not required per. ASTM Std. NA = Not Applicable, S = Shear, C =Cone, CSp = Cone and Split, CSh = Cone and Shear, Col = Column FC - Field Cure NR = Not Recorded I Information In this report applies only to the actual samples tested and shall not be reproduced without the approval of Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. MTE Form #150, Rev 3, 7.0 Project: Grotheer Residence Foundation Repair Job No.: 04172.11 Field Rep.: DMT Report No.: 2 Date of Observation: 8/23/05 Location: 815 Maple St Edmonds, WA Purpose of Site Uisit: Plle observation Client/Owner: Wayne Grotheer General Contractor: Pacific Pilin .. _._.... ..».-.......w...-....�.wu.tr ,r,ova `1 .....v.a:_..-.�.v,.:a..aa..at. �.u.v bi.._�.,•e Y.taxa.TT}•.Te eN._f-.�V::ii .i _.. MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS! INC Everett office 917 -134th Street SW Suite A-1 Everett• WA98204 ph 425.742.9360 LABORATORY TEST REPORT r.,x 425.748 1737 Project : Grotheer Residence Project No: E5360 Site Address: 815 Maple St p Issued on: 9-6-05 Edmonds,WA Permit # (s): Client: Grotheer Residence Z Original: QOd Engineer:CT Engineering Revised: EJ Contractor: Pacific Piling rn FIELD DATA (ASTM C31 and C172) Air Temperature: Q ° F Design Mix Proportions: rn }:' Weather:Sunny ; m O Product: Concrete Ingredient weight (per cu.yd) -� ?f Supplier: Cadman Plasticizer 30.0 Oz =1 i. Ticket Number: 5576861' m Z MixDesign ID.: 604100 A . Cz 78 ° F . ' NR % wn t7"it Slump (ASTM C143) JSamples) Recd mm 7 8-30-05CRequired Strength (t'c): 4000 Psi.@ 28 days N Placement Location and Note n rn C CO) Sampled at basement slab on grade at North section, Sampled at 10.cubic yards of 16 cubic yards total, No batch m ca or design weights. Z -1 D COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS D (ASTM C39, C1231, and C617 when applicable) Date Made Sample # Lab # Date Tested Age (day) Load (lbs) Size (in) Dia (in) Surface Area Strength (psi) Failure Code D L8�005 0001 14366 9/2/2005 7 35260 ; x 8 4.00 12.57 .2810 NA Z 8/26/2005 1 0001 __ 14367 9/23/2005 28— 4 x 8 = NA ` 8/26/2005 1 0001 114368 9/23/2005_1 1.- 1. o 8/26/2005 0_001 143699/23/2005 28 T4 x 8 Remark: m ' Inspector(s): Jim,Gibson Tested by: Eric Dolder Reviewed by: Timothy G. kerle, P.E. Branch Manager NOTES: Failure descriptions for samples tested with neoprene pads are not required per ASTM Std. ' NA = Not Applicable, S = Shear, C = Cone, CSp = Cone and Split, CSh = Cone and Shear, Col = Column FC Field Cure NR = Not Recorded fi Information in this report applies only to the actual samples tested and shall not be reproduced without the approval of Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc. MTE Form #150, Rev 3, 7-0