Loading...
REVIEWED REV1- RESUB2 BLD2020-1343+GEO LETTER4.19.2022_7.06.30_AM+2810615RESUB2 REVISION Apr 19 2022 CITY OF EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT September 9, 2020 ES-7291 BLD2020-1343 Mr. Michael Hamby c/o Mr. Rob Michel 7305 Soundview Drive Edmonds, Washington 98026 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Addition 7824 — 175t" Street Southwest Edmonds, Washington Earth Solutions NWLLC Earth Solutions NW LLC Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Observationjesting and Environmental Services REVIEWED BY CITY OF EDMONDS Reference: James P. Minard Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, 1983 Michel Construction, Inc. Hamby Addition Plot, undated Donald W. Tubbs et. al. Geotechnical Properties of Geologic Materials Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Bulletin, 1989 Washington State Department of Transportation Geotechnical Design Manual, Chapter 5.13.3, dated July 2019 Dear Mr. Michel: As requested, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter summarizing our geotechnical consulting services performed for the subject property. Pertinent geotechnical recommendations to support the proposed addition are provided in this letter. Protect Description We understand that the current project scope includes construction of a two-story addition to the existing house, and construction of a new second -story deck. New construction is proposed to take place in the northwest portion of the subject property. The new addition is proposed to be approximately 44 square feet for both floors. 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 • Redmond, WA 98052 • (425) 449-4704 • FAX (425) 449-4711 Mr. Michael Hamby c/o Mr. Rob Michel September 9, 2020 ES-7291 Page 2 At the time this letter was prepared, specific building load values were not available for review. However, we understand that the proposed addition will consist of relatively lightly loaded wood framing supported on a conventional foundations system. Based on our experience with similar developments, we estimate wall loads of about 1 to 2 kips per linear foot and slab -on -grade loading of 150 pounds per square foot (psf) will be incorporated into the construction. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations provided in this evaluation. ESNW should review the final design to verify the geotechnical recommendations provided in this letter have been incorporated into the plans. Surface The subject site is located at the western terminus of 175th Street Southwest, approximately 1,250 feet west of the intersection with 76th Avenue West, in Edmonds, Washington, as illustrated on the attached Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The site consists of one Snohomish County tax parcel (Parcel Number 00679-200-000-20) covering approximately 0.28 acres of land area. The site is currently occupied by a single-family residence and associated improvements. The existing single-family residence contains a daylight basement, and associated improvements. The existing house features a daylight basement on the west side of the house. Site topography adjacent to the proposed construction area moderately descends to the northwest, with approximately 25 feet of elevation change present. A steep slope is present on the west side of the property descending to the west; the steep slope features a maximum gradient of approximately 50 percent. Subsurface Conditions An ESNW representative observed, logged, and sampled one boring on June 20, 2020, excavated at accessible locations within the property, using a mini -track rig and operator retained by our firm. The approximate location of the boring is depicted on Plate 2 (Boring Location Plan). Please refer to the attached boring log for a more detailed description of subsurface conditions. Representative soil samples collected at the boring location were analyzed in general accordance with Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and United States Department of Agriculture methods and procedures. Topsoil and Fill Topsoil was observed extending to a depth of less than three inches below the existing ground surface (bgs). The topsoil was characterized by dark brown color and fine organic material. Roots were observed in TP-2 extending to a depth of about two feet bgs. Fill was not encountered at the boring location during our exploration. Fill may be encountered near existing improvements, and should be evaluated by an ESNW representative if encountered. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Mr. Michael Hamby c/o Mr. Rob Michel September 9, 2020 Native Soil ES-7291 Page 3 Underlying the topsoil, native soils at the boring location were primarily characterized as poorly graded sand with silt underlain by silty sand (USCS: SP-SM and SM, respectively). The upper sand soil was observed to be in a loose condition, and the underlying silty sand was observed to be dense to very dense beginning about 18 to 20 feet bgs. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was encountered at a depth of approximately 15.5 feet bgs at the boring location. Perched groundwater seepage was observed above the contact between the SP-SM and dense SM layer. Geologic Mapping The referenced geologic map resource indicates the site is underlain by glacial till deposits (Qvt) with advance outwash deposits to the east and west (Qva). Advance outwash deposits were formed from stream deposition from the advancing ice sheet. The referenced WSS resource identifies Everett very gravelly sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes (Map Unit Symbol: 19) as the primary soil unit underlying the subject site and surrounding areas. The Everett series was formed in outwash settings. Based on the soil conditions encountered during our fieldwork, native soils on the subject site are consistent with outwash deposits underlain by glacial till. Geological Hazards Assessment As part of this geotechnical evaluation letter, the referenced chapter of the Edmonds City Code (ECC) was reviewed. Per the ECC requirements, the following topics related to development plans and site conditions are addressed. Slope Reconnaissance During our fieldwork, we performed a visual slope reconnaissance of the steep slope area. The main focus of our reconnaissance was to identify signs of instability or erosion hazards along the site slopes. The typical instability indicators include features such as head scarps, tension cracks, hummocky terrain, groundwater seeps along the surface and erosion features such as gulleys and rills. During the slope reconnaissance, no signs of erosion or slope instability were observed. The slope is vegetated with large trees and ivy groundcover. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Mr. Michael Hamby ES-7291 c/o Mr. Rob Michel Page 4 September 9, 2020 Erosion Hazard Areas — ECC 23.80.020.A. With respect to erosion hazard areas, section 23.80.020 of the ECC defines erosion hazards as "at least those areas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service as having a `moderate to severe', `severe', or `very severe' rill and inter -rill erosion hazard. Erosion hazard areas are also those areas impacted by shoreland and/or stream bank erosion. Within the city of Edmonds, erosion hazard areas include: Those areas of the city of Edmonds containing soils that may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. This group of soils includes, but is not limited to, the following when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: a. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes); b. Alderwood/Everett series (25 to 70 percent slopes), and; c. Everett series (15 to 25 percent slopes). 2. Coastal and stream erosion areas which are subject to the impacts from lateral erosion related to moving water such as stream channel migration and shoreline retreat; 3. Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils and springs or ground water seepage, and; 4. Areas with significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, and which also include existing landslide deposits regardless of slope." The upper sand soil is generally consistent with Everett series soils. Based on the ECC definition, the steep slope areas within and adjacent to the property classify as erosion hazard areas. In our opinion, construction of the house addition will not negatively impact the existing erosion hazard area. Typical Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as silt fences and covering exposed soil, should be implemented during and after construction as warranted. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Mr. Michael Hamby ES-7291 c/o Mr. Rob Michel Page 5 September 9, 2020 Landslide Hazard Areas — ECC 23.80.020.B. With respect to landslide hazard areas, section 23.80.020 of the ECC defines landslide hazard areas as "areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of any combination of soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors. Within the city of Edmonds, landslide hazard areas specifically include: 1. Areas of ancient or historic failures in Edmonds which include all areas within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as identified in the 1979 report of Robert Lowe Associates and amended by the 1985 report of GeoEngineers, Inc., and further discussed in the 2007 report by Landau Associates; 2. Coastal areas mapped as class U (unstable), UOS (unstable old slides) and URS (unstable recent slides) in the Department of Ecology Washington coastal atlas; 3. Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, or landslides on maps published by the United States Geological Survey or Washington State Department of Natural Resources; 4. Any slope of 40 percent or steeper that exceeds a vertical height of 10 feet over a 25-foot horizontal run. Except for rockeries that have been engineered and approved by the engineer as having been built according to the engineered design, all other modified slopes (including slopes where there are breaks in slopes) meeting overall average steepness and height criteria should be considered potential landslide hazard areas; 5. Any slope with all three of the following characteristics: a. Slopes steeper than 15 percent; b. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment, and; c. Springs or ground water seepage. 6. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion; 7. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to, or potentially subject to, inundation by debris flow or deposition of stream -transported sediments, and; 8. Any slopes that have been modified by past development activity that still meet the slope criteria." Earth Solutions NW. LLC Mr. Michael Hamby c/o Mr. Rob Michel September 9, 2020 ES-7291 Page 6 Based on site observation and publicly available topographic maps, a west -descending steep slope with gradient in excess of 40 percent is located near the western property boundary. Per the above definition of landslide hazard areas, the steep slope near the western property boundary classifies as a potential landslide hazard area based on a slope gradient of 40 percent or steeper with a vertical relief of 10 feet or more. As discussed previously, no indications of instability were observed during our slope reconnaissance. If the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed addition and deck, the project will not decrease stability of the subject site or adjacent properties. Mapping of Geologically Hazardous Areas — ECC 23.80.030 Review of available geologically hazardous areas mapping delineates a landslide hazard area and an erosion hazard area present on the western property boundary. Special Study and Report Requirements — ECC 23.80.050 A. This geotechnical engineering study and geological hazards assessment was completed by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Washington with experience analyzing geologic hazards throughout the Puget Sound region. 1. The project area includes the subject site as delineated in the referenced preliminary plans. 2. No further geologically hazardous areas are located within 200 feet of the property or will be affected by construction on the property. B. This geological hazards assessment included a field investigation and an assessment of geologic hazards. This geotechnical report has been prepared, stamped, and signed by a qualified professional. 1. It is our opinion the level of analysis completed for this geological hazards assessment is appropriate for the scale and scope of the project and scale of the geological hazard areas present. 2. A discussion of all geologically hazardous areas on the site and any geologically hazardous areas off site potentially impacted by the proposed project is provided in this report. 3. Based on the results of our study and on -site observations, the proposed project will not decrease slope stability or pose an unreasonable threat to persons or property either on or off site. These conclusions are based on the current conditions of the slope in question and proposed building addition at the top of the slope area. 4. This geological hazard assessment is provided as adequate information to comply with requirements of ECC geological hazards. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Mr. Michael Hamby c/o Mr. Rob Michel September 9, 2020 ES-7291 Page 7 5. This geotechnical report generally follows the guidelines set forth in the Washington State Department of Licensing Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports in Washington (2006). 6. It is our opinion a landslide hazard minimum building setback is not necessary, and erosion hazard mitigation recommendations are provided in this report. C. We are not aware of a previous study completed for the subject site. D. The mitigation recommendations include permanent solutions, such as construction of pin piles for new footings within the slope area in question. E. This geological hazards assessment and geotechnical report should be reviewed as part of the overall submittal package. 1. Please refer to preliminary plans prepared by Michel Construction, Inc. for the site plan. a. The height of the slopes and slope gradients are discussed in this report have been determined using publicly available topography data. b. Springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of groundwater were not observed on or within 200 feet of the project area. c. Downspouts at the area of the proposed addition were observed to be piped away from the slope. d. Vegetative cover across the landslide hazard area generally consists of large trees and ivy. e. Subsurface conditions are described in the Subsurface section of this report. f. Surface and groundwater conditions are discussed in previous sections of this report. Based on current conditions and elevation changes present, it is evident that some degree of land modification has occurred within and adjacent to the potential landslide hazard area. The potential landslide hazard area was likely artificially steepened by excavations completed during construction of the single-family residence to the west. Local natural topography was likely more of a gradual consistent slope. g. The slopes within and adjacent to the subject site generally exhibit good overall stability. h. The slopes within and adjacent to the subject site are not characterized as bluffs and we do not anticipate a retreat of the slopes to occur. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Mr. Michael Hamby c/o Mr. Rob Michel September 9, 2020 ES-7291 Page 8 Based on the sand soils present on the site and deep indications of groundwater seepage, we would anticipate the run -out hazard of landslide debris to be confined to a distance of up to the height of slope away from the toe. If such a landslide occurred, impacts of run -out on downslope properties would likely consist of a few feet of landslide debris covering the ground adjacent to the toe of the slope. Repair of the slide would likely require cleanup of debris and engineered reconstruction of the slope and the existing retaining walls at the toe of the slope. It should be noted, based on the results of our study, likelihood of such a landslide event occurring adjacent to the subject site is low and the proposed project will not increase the likelihood. j. We believe this report meets the criteria of a critical areas report to a degree adequate with respect to the severity of the landslide hazard area. k. In our opinion, if the proposed addition and deck are supported on a deep foundation system as recommended in this report, the location of the improvements are suitable relative to the potential landslide hazard area. I. Surface and subsurface drainage should be designed to minimize impacts to the steep slope area. Based on relatively permeable soil over relatively impermeable soil present, we do not recommend infiltration systems within 50 feet of the potential landslide hazard area. 2. This geotechnical engineering study was prepared by a licensed engineer. a. Geotechnical design parameters are provided within this report. b. Drainage and subdrainage recommendations are provided within this report. c. Earthwork recommendations are provided within this report. d. Recommendations for mitigation of adverse site conditions are provided within this report, as necessary. F. It is our opinion the site erosion hazard areas should be considered stable. G. Based on the results of our study, the site does not contain any seismic hazard areas. Development Standards (General Requirements) — ECC 23.80.060 Based on the results of our geological hazards assessment, the proposed project will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions, the proposed project will not adversely impact other critical areas, the proposed project is designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than predevelopment conditions, and the project is certified as safe as designed under anticipated conditions. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Mr. Michael Hamby ES-7291 c/o Mr. Rob Michel Page 9 September 9, 2020 Development Standards (Specific Hazards) — ECC 23.80.070 A. 1. Provided the proposed addition and deck are supported on pin piles as recommended, the proposed project will not be at increased risk of landslides for the design life of the structure. In this respect, it is our opinion that a minimum building setback is not necessary for the proposed project. This determination is based on the limited scale of the project, results of our analysis, and supporting the addition and deck on a deep foundation system. The recommendations set forth in this report will not result in an increased risk of landslides on or adjacent to the subject property. 2. Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that a buffer is not necessary for the currently proposed project. 3. The proposed project will include minimal alteration of the slope hazard area. The alteration will include establishing permanent erosion control and drainage measures at the top of the landslide and erosion hazard areas. Provided the recommendations in this report and subsequent geotechnical recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the project, the proposed alteration will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions, will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties, and such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. 4. a. As part of this geological hazards assessment, we assessed the current slope conditions and performed slope stability analysis. Based on our analysis, provided that our recommendations are followed, construction of the proposed addition will not reduce the current factor of safety of the current slope configuration. In our opinion, we consider the slopes to be stable in their current condition and configuration. b. It is our opinion that the structures and improvements have been located and engineered in a manner which sufficiently mitigates impacts to geologically hazardous areas; ESNW should review any plan changes. c. The proposed addition located at the top of the slope will not affect the existing vegetation or slope topography. Construction will be limited to the existing cleared area. d. The structures and improvements have been located and engineered in a manner that retains the most critical portions of slope areas (western edge of the property) as well as natural landforms and vegetation. e. The proposed development will not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on neighboring properties. f. Based on the minimal construction, artificial alteration of the existing slopes will not be necessary. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Mr. Michael Hamby c/o Mr. Rob Michel September 9, 2020 ES-7291 Page 10 5. We do not anticipate vegetation within the subject site to be removed for the proposed addition. 6. It is our opinion that this site should not be restricted to seasonal clearing and grading work. This opinion is based on the relatively small scope of the project and predominantly sandy soils, which are not as moisture sensitive as glacial till, of the geological hazard areas. However, if work is completed during wet weather, additional duration and cost should be anticipated to implement erosion control BMPs and mitigate negative impacts of runoff. 7. We are not aware of proposed point discharges. Slope Stability Analysis ESNW completed a quantitative slope stability analysis of the existing and proposed site conditions using Morgenstern -Price methodology with GeoStudio 2020 Slope/W software. Soil strength parameters and groundwater conditions included in the analysis are representative of the high strength, glacially consolidated soil conditions observed at the site and are generally consistent with the recommended design values provided in the referenced geotechnical properties and design documents. The slope stability analysis was completed through a representative critical cross-section extending through and beyond the proposed project area; the location of the cross-section is displayed on Plate 2 (Boring Location Plan). The static and seismic factors of safety (FS) for critical slip surfaces are provided below. Cross -Section Static FS Seismic FS A -A' Existing Condition 1.3 0.7 A -A' Proposed Condition 1.3 0.8 The results of our analyses, as well as additional modeling parameters, are provided as an attachment. In accordance with the Edmonds City Code and utilizing USGS Seismic Design Maps, a peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) value of 0.62g was used for site -specific modeling. The pseudostatic coefficient used in the stability analyses was equivalent to one-half of the PGA, or 0.31 g, which is conservative for the height of the slope modeled. The analysis yielded that the proposed conditions minimum FS values are not reduced from the existing condition values. It should be noted that the proposed condition conservatively neglects the pin pile foundation system. Based on our visual observations, computer modeling, and subsurface data, it is our opinion site landslide susceptibility within the proposed building area can generally be characterized as moderate; furthermore, our analysis indicates the proposed project will not increase site susceptibility to landslide activity provided the addition and deck are supported on a deep foundation system as recommended in this report. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Mr. Michael Hamby c/o Mr. Rob Michel September 9, 2020 Analysis of Proposal ES-7291 Page 11 The proposed development will involve a relatively small addition to an existing single-family residence. Based on the referenced site plans, the grading will involve minor cuts to establish a level pad for the addition. The proposed project will not negatively affect the factor of safety within the slope hazard area; additionally, there will be no new geological hazards adjacent to the property related to this construction. These determinations are based on the relatively small extent of the previously modified steeply sloped areas and slope stability analysis of the existing condition and proposed project. Site Excavations Temporary site excavations over four feet in height within the site soils should be sloped at a maximum inclination of 1 H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). Excavations where groundwater seepage is exposed should be sloped at a maximum inclination of 1.5H:1 V. If temporary site excavations cannot be achieved with the above slope inclinations, temporary shoring may be necessary. ESNW should observe site excavations to confirm adequate excavation stability. Building Support Recommendations We recommend that the proposed single-family structure addition should be supported on pin piles advanced to the dense to very dense silty sand soil. Using pin piles to advance support to the deeper dense to very dense silty sand soil will reduce impacts to the slope and reduce potential for erosion or slope instability to decrease stability of the addition and deck. Pin Pile Recommendations Based on the results of our investigation, the proposed addition and deck should be supported on pin piles advanced to bearing soils. In our opinion, two-inch, three-inch, or four -inch diameter schedule 40 pin piles driven to refusal can be considered for this project. Based on the soil conditions encountered during our fieldwork, we estimate total pile lengths will be on the order of about 20 to 25 feet. However, the ultimate pile length will be determined by achieving adequate refusal. Therefore, if soil variability is encountered during installation, longer pile lengths may be required to achieve acceptable refusal criteria. In our opinion the contractor should be prepared to drive piles in excess of 30 feet if site conditions require longer lengths to achieve refusal. Due to the seepage zone and overall soil characteristics encountered during the subsurface exploration, in our opinion, the pin piles should consist of galvanized steel. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Mr. Michael Hamby c/o Mr. Rob Michel September 9, 2020 Axial Load Capacity ES-7291 Page 12 Assuming the pin piles are driven to refusal, the allowable axial load capacities listed below can be used for design: Pile Diameter Load Capacity* Refusal Criteria (seconds/inch) Hydraulic Hammer 2-inch 6 kips 8 400 lbs. 3-inch 12 kips 10 850 lbs. 4-inch 20 kips 16 850 lbs. * Assumes a factor -of -safety of at least 2.0 With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of approximately three quarters of an inch. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. An ESNW representative should observe and document the pin pile installation to confirm the refusal criteria during the pile driving operation. Lateral Load Capacity In general, lateral load capacity of pin piles is very limited and should be neglected in design. Limited lateral load capacity can be provided by passive resistance developed by grade beams, if utilized. If additional lateral load capacity is required, ESNW can review the pile design and provide batter pile recommendations or recommendations for larger piles. Seismic Considerations The 2015 International Building Code recognizes the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) for seismic site class definitions. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring location, in accordance with Table 20.3-1 of the ASCE Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures manual, Site Class D should be used for design. In our opinion, liquefaction susceptibility of the site soils is low. The absence of a shallow groundwater table condition is the primary basis for this opinion. Drainage Surface grades must be designed to direct water away from the building. The grade adjacent to the building should be sloped away at 2 percent minimal for a horizontal distance of at least four feet, or more as property setbacks allow. In our opinion, perimeter footing drains should be installed at or below the invert of the building footings. A typical footing drain detail is provided on Plate 3. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Mr. Michael Hamby c/o Mr. Rob Michel September 9, 2020 Limitations ES-7291 Page 13 The recommendations and conclusions provided in this letter are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the boring location may exist and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions provided in this letter if variations are encountered. We trust this letter meets your current needs. Should you require additional information, or have questions, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Samuel E. Suruda, G.I.T. Staff Geologist Attachments: Plate 1 — Vicinity Map Plate 2 — Boring Location Plan Plate 3 — Footing Drain Detail Boring Log Particle Size Distribution Reports Slope Stability Analysis Results 09/09/2020 Henry T. Wright, P.E. Senior Project Manager Earth Solutions NW. LLC - Meadowdale `Beach Park_, i 60th Street Southwest Meadowdale o� 4P x a � f �p 164th Street Southwest n 164th Street Southwest 3 3 3 3 3 Edmon,;. a' Meadowdale Ployfields 9 ^ Park p' n I� 'Edmonds 168th Sneet Southwest 168th Street Southwes Meadowdale Middle School Q Meg ��JQ4d�Qz4\°ate°, ar, I�� J0..o High P P O Je 5 p. 1]2nd Street Sou[hw t FQ 1e ptNe a V47T, ralnot Poad- 7 GI x" a� rh Street Southwest / trederick Place 175th Street Southwest SC ThOIiloS Moore r�u��0 o�i0 d Catholic 176th Street Southwest School � � 44 •'• 44 <' soy t P .p 44 QP P� pt\ ( .' o P , hz q 78 a 44 44 Ctl 0 ❑ L oL 44 �0 4;� '�\ rY �C� Sctee[Sou[hwes[ i ^ 17901 a' p aoaoPi q ,. SgQQ rl� O ooq p o ��� n`p O•�qp� o o 180th Street Southwest t6S -• ❑ p ra �o- 4 !� o ct o 16 - Q�g aPol�a ;,q 6Qp"� n aaa °a ❑ e Wit.. 3 /;: — y o Po a � � p o o� o �_ (1 rfl ❑ n a 015[ Plate Southwest - ❑ �� 182nd Street Southwest �O Or-q [3 0 y 5 ;8 o do04A ❑ 18 e .qa b F a 14- �0Q.aa Lynnwood ❑IS.4p❑o "ip' , 9no8Q' o o �q 184th Street Southwest o q\�i w7 �n do'o�P..o6a8Q o❑oU oaa CsJ r7o� (� ° oQ0� = Y185th Street SouthwestB ° e] 6 i Op: t6_�Y 1 011loe� aPe[rin�Tv� .a¢ qa' Q o'30 ooa4.[? V Q n °O. ms N 186th Street Southwest d ❑- o p'[s t3 o I ❑ � C. 187th Street Southwest 3 O ' - 188th Street Southwest _ v 188th Street Southwest Lynndale..-' p mr?omo�omga�7_.n, ¢',Rork Pennyhe t f ," i,�— e `1a eG `7 189[M1 Plac 5dut 11 8outhwes� hh'e._._1. 9th Plac EarthSolutions Reference: NORTH Solutionsillk Cv Snohomish County, Washington Rr .- Engineering, Observation/Testing EnvironmentalOpenStreetMap.org Vicinity Map Edmonds SFR Edmonds, Washington Drwn. MRS Date 09/01 /2020 Proj. No. 7291 NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Checked HTW Date Aug. 2020 Plate 1 FA 175TH STREET S.W. L--------——— — — — — — � LEGEND B-1 I Approximate Location of — • — ESNW Boring, Proj. No. ES-7291, June 2020 I — Subject Site L__1 Existing Building Deck Addition NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of existing and / or proposed site features. The information illustrated is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or interpretation of the data by others. NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. NORTH 0 15 30 60 1 "=30' Scale in Feet Drwn. MRS Date 09/02/2020 Proj. No. 7291 Checked HTW Date Sept. 2020 Plate 2 NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. • Surface Seal to consist of 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal: native soil or other low -permeability material. 1-inch Drain Rock r�r�r�r�r Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround in Drain Rock) SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Earth Solutions N W uc Footing Drain Detail Edmonds SFR Edmonds, Washington Drwn. MRS Date 09/01/2020 Proj. No. 7291 Checked HTW Date Sept. 2020 Plate 3 Earth Solutions NWLLC SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVELS ''� I.�•� � � � A. GW WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELLY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) ° �° o �° o pOo p Q Q oQ GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE GRAVELS WITH FINES o Q 0 °° o ' p GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) �±� V CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES SAND AND CLEAN SANDS SW WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN SANDY NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) ::. SP POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITH FINES c•M c SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) cC �7 CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY FINE GRAINED SOILS SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 CLAYS CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS SIZE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 CI I INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS '/ ` 1/ 01/ 01/ N \„ \„ „ 0 0„ PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. y Earth Solutions NW, LLC BORING NUMBER B-1 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 PAGE 1 OF 2 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 PROJECT NUMBER ES-7291 PROJECT NAME Edmonds SFR DATE STARTED 6/30/20 COMPLETED 6/30/20 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geologic Drill Partners GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING -- LOGGED BY SES CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF DRILLING -- NOTES Surface Conditions: planter area/topsoil AFTER DRILLING - L o }� Lu w COW Uj U a Lm g > 0Z� J D Q TESTS 0 a0 O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Lv ❑ O CO > j �� 2z U ZLu 0 Gray silty SAND, loose, damp to moist SM LSS 33 1-2-3 MC = 6.7% (5) Fines = 13.0% % 4.0 Gray poorly graded SAND, loose, moist 5 SS 22 2-2-4 MC = 10.0% (6) Fines = 12.0% -no recovery, becomes very loose SS 0 1-1-0 0 (1) 10 -becomes loose SS 67 3(9�6 MC = 5.3% SP_ SM 15 -becomes wet SS 78 3(7)4 MC = 17.1 % -groundwater seepage at 15.5' 18.0 Gray silty SAND, dense, moist to wet SM 20 (Continued Next Page) v Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 N.E. 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 BORING NUMBER B-1 PAGE 2OF2 PROJECT NUMBER ES-7291 PROJECT NAME Edmonds SFR w o 0- Of >_ W co U d u1m g > 0ZJ J Q TESTS C) d0 O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION �v OU COOZ j �J aZ U < W Gray silty SAND, dense, moist to wet (continued) SS 78 5-11-26 MC=14.1% (37) SM 25 SS 100 50/6" MC = 11.6% -becomes very dense, moist SS 100 t 50/3" MC = 6.9% Boring terminated at 27.5 feet below existing grade due to refusal on a bolder. Groundwater seepage encountered at 15.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite. a� Q E co En U CI Particle Size Distribution Report oao 100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 70 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 (;RAIN S17F - mm +3' % Gravel % Sand %, Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0 6 9 2 39 1 31 13 Test Results (ASTM D6913 & ASTM D1140) Opening Percent Spec." Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 1.25 100 1 100 .75 94 .5 88 .375 87 #4 85 #10 83 #16 81 #40 44 #60 22 #100 16 #200 13 #210 12 (no specification provided) a� m Source of Sample: ES-7291 Edmonds SFR Sample Number: 20351 A.A.R. L CD Testing Laboratory, Inc. Material Description B-1 @ 2.5' Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) PL= LL= PI= Classification USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients D90= 15.1714 D85= 4.1550 D60= 0.6032 D50= 0.4833 D30= 0.3132 D15= 0.1095 D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks F.M.=2.65 Date Received: 7/17/2020 Date Tested: 7/19/2020 Tested By: Kamo Christensen Checked B Nick Averill ��G� mi8Ao y� 5:5:31 :31 AM Title: Laboratory Manager Depth: 2.5' Client: Earth Solutions NW Project: 2020 Laboratory Testing Date Sampled: 6/30/2020 U) a� Q E co U) U Particle Size Distribution Report oao 100 90 80 70 (Y w Z 60 ILL z 50 W U 1Y 40 W Q_ 30 t 20 15 10 0 0 c 0 m W aD 0 a� 3 m E 0 0 c m U a� 0 a> U) a� 2 U x a) a) -7 w M N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 (',RAIN S17F - mm +3' % Gravel % Sand %, Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0 0 6 6 26 1 50 12 Test Results (ASTM D6913 & ASTM D1140) Opening Percent Spec." Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 1.25 100 1 100 .75 100 .5 100 .375 100 #4 94 #10 88 #20 81 #40 62 #60 38 #80 25 #100 21 #200 12 #270 9.7 (no specification provided) a� m Source of Sample: ES-7291 Edmonds SFR Sample Number: 20347 A.A.R. L CD Testing Laboratory, Inc. Material Description B-1 @ 5' Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) PL= LL= PI= Classification USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients D90= 2.7742 D85= 1.2692 D60= 0.4006 D50= 0.3231 D30= 0.2085 D15= 0.1024 D10= 0.0553 Cu= 7.24 Cc= 1.96 Remarks F.M.A.91 Date Received: 7/17/2020 Date Tested: 7/19/2020 Tested By: Kamo Christensen 020 Checked B Nick ,���� 5:58:46AM y: 5:58:46 AM Title: Laboratory Manager Depth: 5' Client: Earth Solutions NW Project: 2020 Laboratory Testing Date Sampled: 6/30/2020 c 0 c� 0 w Color Name Unit Cohesion' Phi' Piezometric Weight (psf) (°) Line (pcf) ❑ Loose Sand 115 0 30 1 38 17 Very Dense 130 500 Glacial Till 0.7 i Edmonds SFR ES-7291 Current Seismic Conditions Seismic Acceleration = 0.31 g 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Distance (ft.) 9/8/2020 Current Seismic Conditions Current Seismic Conditions Report generated using GeoStudio 2020. Copyright © 1991-2020 GEOSLOPE International Ltd. File Information File Version: 10.01 Created By: Sam Suruda Last Edited By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 17 Date: 09/04/2020 Time: 08:35:40 AM Tool Version: 10.1 File Name: 7291 SLOPE.gsz Directory: I:\Sam's Inbox\Project Files\7291\ Last Solved Date: 09/04/2020 Last Solved Time: 08:35:42 AM Project Settings Unit System: U.S. Customary Units Analysis Settings Current Seismic Conditions Kind: SLOPE/W Parent: Edmonds SFR ES-7291 Method: Morgenstern -Price Settings Side Function Interslice force function option: Half -Sine PWP Conditions from: Piezometric Line Apply Phreatic Correction: No Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Unit Weight of Water: 62.430189 pcf Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Option: (none) Distribution F of S Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Geometry Settings Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 3 ft Number of Slices: 30 Factor of Safety Convergence Settings Maximum Number of Iterations: 100 Tolerable difference in F of S: 0.001 file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Current Seismic Conditions.html 1/5 9/8/2020 Current Seismic Conditions Solution Settings 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 Materials Loose Sand Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Very Dense Glacial Till Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 500 psf Phi': 38 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Type: Range Left -Zone Left Coordinate: (7.29987, 175) ft Left -Zone Right Coordinate: (83, 165) ft Left -Zone Increment: 8 Right Type: Range Right -Zone Left Coordinate: (95.65801, 163.10142) ft Right -Zone Right Coordinate: (155, 150) ft Right -Zone Increment: 8 Radius Increments: 4 Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0, 175) ft Right Coordinate: (175, 150) ft Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1 Coordinates X Y Coordinate 1 0 ft 149 ft Coordinate 2 175 ft 149 ft file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Current Seismic Conditions.html 2/5 9/8/2020 Current Seismic Conditions Seismic Coefficients Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.31 Vert Seismic Coef.: 0 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 250 pcf Direction: Vertical Coordinates X y 33ft 176ft 50 ft 176 ft 60 ft 166 ft 90 ft 166 ft Geometry Name: 2D Geometry Settings View: 2D Element Thickness: 1 ft Points X y Point 1 0 ft 100 ft Point 2 175 ft 100 ft Point 3 0 ft 175 ft Point 4 10 ft 175 ft Point 5 25 ft 175 ft Point 6 33 ft 175 ft Point 7 40 ft 175 ft Point 8 50 ft 175 ft Point 9 60 ft 165 ft Point 10 72 ft 165 ft Point 11 90 ft 165 ft Point 12 93 ft 165 ft Point 13 100 ft 160 ft Point 14 104 ft 157 ft Point 15 110 ft 155 ft Point 16 118 ft 153 ft Point 17 128 ft 150 ft Point 18 146 ft 150 ft Point 19 175 ft 150 ft Point 20 119 ft 151 ft Point 21 175 ft 148 ft Point 22 0 ft 148 ft file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Current Seismic Conditions.html 3/5 9/8/2020 Current Seismic Conditions Point 23 12 ft 1148 ft Regions Material Points Area Region 1 Loose Sand 3,22,23,21,19,18,17,20,15,14,13,12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4 2,484 ftZ Region 2 Very Dense Glacial Till 23,22,1,2,21 8,400 ftZ Slip Results Slip Surfaces Analysed: 324 of 405 converged Current Slip Surface Slip Surface: 382 Factor of Safety: 0.7 Volume: 144.47017 ft' Weight: 16,614.07 Ibf Resisting Moment: 512,627.77 Ibf•ft Activating Moment: 686,022.68 Ibf•ft Resisting Force: 8,082.4373 Ibf Activating Force: 10,810.26 Ibf Slip Rank: 1 of 405 slip surfaces Exit: (123.74385, 150.47291) ft Entry: (83, 165) ft Radius: 57.86628 ft Center: (121.3972, 208.29158) ft Slip Slices Base Frictional Cohesive Suction Base X y PWP Normal Strength Strength Strength Material Stress Slice 83.7 ft 164.39881 -961.35041 189.79675 109.57921 0 psf 0 psf Loose 1 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 85.1 ft 163.23372 -888.61354 269.11167 155.37169 0 psf 0 psf Loose 2 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 86.5 ft 162.14051 -820.36461 342.73324 197.87713 0 psf 0 psf Loose 3 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 87.9 ft 161.11419 -756.29098 412.58816 238.20789 0 psf 0 psf Loose 4 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 89.3 ft 160.15046 -696.1251 480.54496 277.44276 0 psf 0 psf Loose 5 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 90.75 ft 159.21538 -637.74829 372.9953 215.34894 0 psf 0 psf Loose 6 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 92.25 ft 158.30966 -581.20354 437.47548 252.57659 0 psf 0 psf Loose 7 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 93.7 ft 157.49064 -530.07238 466.56825 269.3733 0 psf 0 psf Loose 8 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 95.1 ft 156.75183 -483.94838 458.97512 264.98941 0 psf 0 psf Loose 9 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 96.5 ft 156.061 ft -440.8193 452.56004 261.28566 0 psf 0 psf Loose 10 155.41625 psf -400.56761 psf 446.98382 psf 258.06623 Sand Slice 97.9 ft psf 0 p 0 psf Loose 11 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 99.3 ft 154.81592 -363.08915 441.53911 254.92272 0 psf 0 psf Loose file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Current Seismic Conditions.html 4/5 9/8/2020 Current Seismic Conditions 12 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 100.66667 154.27083 -329.0592 433.20003 250.10815 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 13 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 102 ft 153.77779 -298.27807 420.19799 242.60142 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 14 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 103.33333 153.3215 -269.79182 402.53911 232.40606 0 psf 0 psf Loose 15 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 104.75 ft 152.87711 -242.04881 407.84278 235.46814 0 psf 0 psf Loose 16 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 106.25 ft 152.44837 -215.28229 437.19936 252.41717 0 psf 0 psf Loose 17 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 107.75 ft 152.0629 -191.2176 458.25475 264.5735 0 psf 0 psf Loose 18 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 109.25 ft 151.71983 -169.79948 467.51045 269.91728 0 psf 0 psf Loose 19 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 110.64286 151.43719 -152.1541 454.62441 262.47753 0 psf 0 psf Loose 20 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 111.92857 151.20895 -137.90537 420.2927 242.6561 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 21 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 113.21429 151.01048 -125.51484 374.00519 215.932 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 22 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 114.5 ft 150.84147 -114.96325 317.36551 183.23106 0 psf 0 psf Loose 23 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 115.78571 150.70165 -106.23441 252.79809 145.95305 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 24 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 117.07143 150.59082 -99.31505 183.1607 105.74788 0 psf 0 psf Loose 25 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 118.35714 150.5088 -94.194756 111.28375 64.249703 0 psf 0 psf Loose 26 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 119.79064 150.45302 -90.712198 64.037049 36.971808 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 27 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 121.37192 150.43071 -89.319583 40.051899 23.123975 0 psf 0 psf Loose 28 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 122.95321 150.45164 -90.625897 13.551845 7.8241615 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 29 ft ft psf psf psf Sand file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Current Seismic Conditions.html 5/5 Color Name Unit Cohesion' Phi' Piezometric Weight (psfl (°) Line (pcf) Loose Sand 115 0 30 1 Very Dense 130 500 38 Glacial Till 1.3 Edmonds SFR ES-7291 Current Static Conditions 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Distance (ft.) 9/8/2020 Current Static Conditions Current Static Conditions Report generated using GeoStudio 2020. Copyright © 1991-2020 GEOSLOPE International Ltd. File Information File Version: 10.01 Created By: Sam Suruda Last Edited By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 17 Date: 09/04/2020 Time: 08:35:40 AM Tool Version: 10.1 File Name: 7291 SLOPE.gsz Directory: I:\Sam's Inbox\Project Files\7291\ Last Solved Date: 09/04/2020 Last Solved Time: 08:35:42 AM Project Settings Unit System: U.S. Customary Units Analysis Settings Current Static Conditions Kind: SLOPE/W Parent: Edmonds SFR ES-7291 Method: Morgenstern -Price Settings Side Function Interslice force function option: Half -Sine PWP Conditions from: Piezometric Line Apply Phreatic Correction: No Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Unit Weight of Water: 62.430189 pcf Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Option: (none) Distribution F of S Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Geometry Settings Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 3 ft Number of Slices: 30 Factor of Safety Convergence Settings Maximum Number of Iterations: 100 Tolerable difference in F of S: 0.001 file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Current Static Conditions.html 1/5 9/8/2020 Current Static Conditions Solution Settings 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 Materials Loose Sand Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Very Dense Glacial Till Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 500 psf Phi': 38 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Type: Range Left -Zone Left Coordinate: (7.29987, 175) ft Left -Zone Right Coordinate: (83, 165) ft Left -Zone Increment: 8 Right Type: Range Right -Zone Left Coordinate: (95.65801, 163.10142) ft Right -Zone Right Coordinate: (155, 150) ft Right -Zone Increment: 8 Radius Increments: 4 Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0, 175) ft Right Coordinate: (175, 150) ft Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1 Coordinates X Y Coordinate 1 0 ft 149 ft Coordinate 2 175 ft 149 ft file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Current Static Conditions.html 2/5 9/8/2020 Current Static Conditions Seismic Coefficients Horz Seismic Coef.: 0 Vert Seismic Coef.: 0 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 250 pcf Direction: Vertical Coordinates X y 33ft 176ft 50 ft 176 ft 60 ft 166 ft 90 ft 166 ft Geometry Name: 2D Geometry Settings View: 2D Element Thickness: 1 ft Points X y Point 1 0 ft 100 ft Point 2 175 ft 100 ft Point 3 0 ft 175 ft Point 4 10 ft 175 ft Point 5 25 ft 175 ft Point 6 33 ft 175 ft Point 7 40 ft 175 ft Point 8 50 ft 175 ft Point 9 60 ft 165 ft Point 10 72 ft 165 ft Point 11 90 ft 165 ft Point 12 93 ft 165 ft Point 13 100 ft 160 ft Point 14 104 ft 157 ft Point 15 110 ft 155 ft Point 16 118 ft 153 ft Point 17 128 ft 150 ft Point 18 146 ft 150 ft Point 19 175 ft 150 ft Point 20 119 ft 151 ft Point 21 175 ft 148 ft Point 22 0 ft 148 ft file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Current Static Conditions.html 3/5 9/8/2020 Current Static Conditions Point 23 12 ft 1148 ft Regions Material Points Area Region 1 Loose Sand 3,22,23,21,19,18,17,20,15,14,13,12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4 2,484 ftZ Region 2 Very Dense Glacial Till 23,22,1,2,21 8,400 ftZ Slip Results Slip Surfaces Analysed: 327 of 405 converged Current Slip Surface Slip Surface: 377 Factor of Safety: 1.3 Volume: 123.92426 ft' Weight: 14,251.29 Ibf Resisting Moment: 420,130.17 Ibf•ft Activating Moment: 314,156.53 Ibf•ft Resisting Force: 7,788.6856 Ibf Activating Force: 5,820.3294 Ibf Slip Rank: 1 of 405 slip surfaces Exit: (116.21512, 152.23772) ft Entry: (83, 165) ft Radius: 48.763182 ft Center: (115.89164, 200.99983) ft Slip Slices Base Frictional Cohesive Suction Base X Y PWP Normal Strength Strength Strength Material Stress Slice 83.583333 164.48388 -966.66172 219.72305 126.85716 0 psf 0 psf Loose 1 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 84.75 ft 163.48355 -904.21078 298.28011 172.2121 0 psf 0 psf Loose 2 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 85.916667 162.54464 -845.59441 372.8134 215.24392 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 3 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 87.083333 161.66274 -790.53745 444.76776 256.78679 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 4 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 88.25 ft 160.8341 -738.80499 515.37176 297.55002 0 psf 0 psf Loose 5 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 89.416667 160.05547 -690.19484 585.65872 338.13022 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 6 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 90.5 ft 159.37328 -647.60611 463.13755 267.39259 0 psf 0 psf Loose 7 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 91.5 ft 158.77943 -610.53169 522.60729 301.72746 0 psf 0 psf Loose 8 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 92.5 ft 158.21719 -575.43103 582.62961 336.38136 0 psf 0 psf Loose 9 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 93.583333 157.64367 -539.62584 610.41571 352.42368 0 psf 0 psf Loose 10 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 94.75 ft 157.06283 -503.36422 603.99971 348.71939 0 psf 0 psf Loose 11 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 95.916667 156.52018 -469.48631 595.01586 343.53257 0 psf 0 psf Loose file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Current Static Conditions.html 4/5 9/8/2020 Current Static Conditions 12 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 97.083333 156.01433 -437.90575 582.78354 336.47024 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 13 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 98.25 ft 155.54404 -408.54578 566.54899 327.09721 0 psf 0 psf Loose 14 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 99.416667 155.10823 -381.33808 545.51736 314.95459 0 psf 0 psf Loose 15 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 100.5 ft 154.73248 -357.88 psf 519.25001 299.78913 0 psf 0 psf Loose 16 ft psf psf Sand Slice 101.5 ft 154.41169 -337.85304 487.96208 281.72504 0 psf 0 psf Loose 17 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 102.5 ft 154.11442 -319.29451 451.53025 260.69111 0 psf 0 psf Loose 18 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 103.5 ft 153.84023 -302.17664 409.67918 236.52838 0 psf 0 psf Loose 19 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 104.6 ft 153.56602 -285.05765 385.37793 222.49805 0 psf 0 psf Loose 20 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 105.8 ft 153.29626 -268.21651 378.39269 218.46512 0 psf 0 psf Loose 21 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 107 ft 153.05805 -253.34502 364.76342 210.59626 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 22 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 108.2 ft 152.85092 -240.41395 344.38206 198.82908 0 psf 0 psf Loose 23 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 109.4 ft 152.67448 -229.39831 317.4304 183.26853 0 psf 0 psf Loose 24 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 110.51793 152.53645 -220.7812 280.11721 161.72575 0 psf 0 psf Loose 25 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 111.55378 152.43276 -214.30792 234.01281 135.10736 0 psf 0 psf Loose 26 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 112.58963 152.35135 -209.22525 184.83644 106.71537 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 27 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 113.62549 152.2921 -205.5262 133.39084 77.013238 0 psf 0 psf Loose 28 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 114.66134 152.25493 -203.20573 80.463808 46.455801 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 29 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 115.69719 152.23979 -202.26068 26.772735 15.457246 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 30 ft ft psf psf psf Sand file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Current Static Conditions.html 5/5 c 0 c� 0 w Color Name Unit Cohesion' Phi' Piezometric Weight (psf) (°) Line (pcfl Loose Sand 115 0 30 1 ■ Very Dense 130 500 38 Glacial Till 0.8 i Edmonds SFR ES-7291 Proposed Seismic Conditions Seismic Acceleration = 0.31g 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Distance (ft.) 9/8/2020 Proposed Seismic Conditions Proposed Seismic Conditions Report generated using GeoStudio 2020. Copyright © 1991-2020 GEOSLOPE International Ltd. File Information File Version: 10.01 Created By: Sam Suruda Last Edited By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 17 Date: 09/04/2020 Time: 08:35:40 AM Tool Version: 10.1 File Name: 7291 SLOPE.gsz Directory: I:\Sam's Inbox\Project Files\7291\ Last Solved Date: 09/04/2020 Last Solved Time: 08:35:42 AM Project Settings Unit System: U.S. Customary Units Analysis Settings Proposed Seismic Conditions Kind: SLOPE/W Parent: Edmonds SFR ES-7291 Method: Morgenstern -Price Settings Side Function Interslice force function option: Half -Sine PWP Conditions from: Piezometric Line Apply Phreatic Correction: No Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Unit Weight of Water: 62.430189 pcf Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Option: (none) Distribution F of S Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Geometry Settings Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 3 ft Number of Slices: 30 Factor of Safety Convergence Settings Maximum Number of Iterations: 100 Tolerable difference in F of S: 0.001 file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Proposed Seismic Conditions.html 1/5 9/8/2020 Proposed Seismic Conditions Solution Settings 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 Materials Loose Sand Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Very Dense Glacial Till Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 500 psf Phi': 38 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Type: Range Left -Zone Left Coordinate: (7.29987, 175) ft Left -Zone Right Coordinate: (83, 165) ft Left -Zone Increment: 8 Right Type: Range Right -Zone Left Coordinate: (95.65801, 163.10142) ft Right -Zone Right Coordinate: (155, 150) ft Right -Zone Increment: 8 Radius Increments: 4 Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0, 175) ft Right Coordinate: (175, 150) ft Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1 Coordinates X Y Coordinate 1 0 ft 149 ft Coordinate 2 175 ft 149 ft file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Proposed Seismic Conditions.html 2/5 9/8/2020 Proposed Seismic Conditions Seismic Coefficients Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.31 Vert Seismic Coef.: 0 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 250 pcf Direction: Vertical Coordinates X y 33ft 176ft 50 ft 176 ft 60 ft 166 ft 90 ft 166 ft 93 ft 166 ft Geometry Name: 2D Geometry Settings View: 2D Element Thickness: 1 ft Points X y Point 1 0 ft 100 ft Point 2 175 ft 100 ft Point 3 0 ft 175 ft Point 4 10 ft 175 ft Point 5 25 ft 175 ft Point 6 33 ft 175 ft Point 7 40 ft 175 ft Point 8 50 ft 175 ft Point 9 60 ft 165 ft Point 10 72 ft 165 ft Point 11 90 ft 165 ft Point 12 93 ft 165 ft Point 13 100 ft 160 ft Point 14 104 ft 157 ft Point 15 110 ft 155 ft Point 16 118 ft 153 ft Point 17 128 ft 150 ft Point 18 146 ft 150 ft Point 19 175 ft 150 ft Point 20 119 ft 151 ft Point 21 175 ft 148 ft file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Proposed Seismic Conditions.html 3/5 9/8/2020 Proposed Seismic Conditions Point 22 Oft 148 ft Point 23 2 ft 148 ft Regions Material Points Area Region 1 Loose Sand 3,22,23,21,19,18,17,20,15,14,13,12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4 2,484 ftZ Region 2 Very Dense Glacial Till 23,22,1,2,21 8,400 ft2 Slip Results Slip Surfaces Analysed: 327 of 405 converged Current Slip Surface Slip Surface: 382 Factor of Safety: 0.8 Volume: 144.47017 ft' Weight: 16,614.07 Ibf Resisting Moment: 533,481.83 Ibf•ft Activating Moment: 708,445.58 Ibf•ft Resisting Force: 8,387.5637 Ibf Activating Force: 11,136.608 Ibf Slip Rank: 1 of 405 slip surfaces Exit: (123.74385, 150.47291) ft Entry: (83, 165) ft Radius: 57.86628 ft Center: (121.3972, 208.29158) ft Slip Slices Base Frictional Cohesive Suction Base X y PWP Normal Strength Strength Strength Material Stress Slice 83.7 ft 164.39881 -961.35041 190.30143 109.87058 0 psf 0 psf Loose 1 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 85.1 ft 163.23372 -888.61354 269.56777 155.63502 0 psf 0 psf Loose 2 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 86.5 ft 162.14051 -820.36461 342.98584 198.02297 0 psf 0 psf Loose 3 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 87.9 ft 161.11419 -756.29098 412.51814 238.16746 0 psf 0 psf Loose 4 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 89.3 ft 160.15046 -696.1251 480.0649 277.1656 0 psf 0 psf Loose 5 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 90.75 ft 159.21538 -637.74829 549.86253 317.46328 0 psf 0 psf Loose 6 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 92.25 ft 158.30966 -581.20354 624.2214 360.39439 0 psf 0 psf Loose 7 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 93.7 ft 157.49064 -530.07238 467.60732 269.97321 0 psf 0 psf Loose 8 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 95.1 ft 156.75183 -483.94838 459.55662 265.32514 0 psf 0 psf Loose 9 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 96.5 ft 156.061 ft -440.8193 452.75467 261.39803 0 psf 0 psf Loose 10 psf psf psf Sand Slice 97'9 ft 155.41625 -400.56761 446.86879 257.99982 0 psf 0 psf Loose 11 ft psf psf psf Sand file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Proposed Seismic Conditions.html 4/5 9/8/2020 Proposed Seismic Conditions Slice 99.3 ft 154.81592 -363.08915 441.19664 254.725 0 psf 0 psf Loose 12 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 100.66667 154.27083 -329.0592 432.72143 249.83183 0 sf p 0 sf p Loose 13 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 102 ft 153.77779 -298.27807 419.66631 242.29446 0 sf p 0 sf p Loose 14 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 103.33333 153.3215 -269.79182 402.01475 232.10332 0 psf 0 psf Loose 15 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 104.75 ft 152.87711 -242.04881 407.33541 235.17521 0 psf 0 psf Loose 16 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 106.25 ft 152.44837 -215.28229 436.72411 252.14278 0 psf 0 psf Loose 17 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 107.75 ft 152.0629 -191.2176 457.79728 264.30938 0 psf 0 psf Loose 18 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 109.25 ft 151.71983 -169.79948 466.9759 269.60866 0 psf 0 psf Loose 19 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 110.64286 151.43719 -152.1541 453.88278 262.04934 0 psf 0 psf Loose 20 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 111.92857 151.20895 -137.90537 419.26189 242.06097 0 sf p 0 sf p Loose 21 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 113.21429 151.01048 -125.51484 372.69433 215.17517 0 sf p 0 sf p Loose 22 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 114.5 ft 150.84147 -114.96325 315.89456 182.38181 0 psf 0 psf Loose 23 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 115.78571 150.70165 -106.23441 251.36941 145.1282 0 sf p 0 sf p Loose 24 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 117.07143 150.59082 -99.31505 181.98486 105.06901 0 psf 0 psf Loose 25 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 118.35714 150.5088 -94.194756 110.49219 63.792697 0 psf 0 psf Loose 26 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 119.79064 150.45302 -90.712198 63.678815 36.764981 0 sf p 0 sf p Loose 27 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 121.37192 150.43071 -89.319583 39.979162 23.08198 0 psf 0 psf Loose 28 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 122.95321 150.45164 -90.625897 13.547859 7.8218598 0 psf 0 psf Loose 29 ft ft psf psf psf Sand file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Proposed Seismic Conditions.html 5/5 Color Name Unit Cohesion' Phi' Piezometric Weight (psfl (°) Line (pcfl Loose Sand 115 0 30 1 Very Dense 130 500 38 Glacial Till 1.3 Edmonds SFR ES-7291 Proposed Static Conditions 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Distance (ft.) 9/8/2020 Proposed Static Conditions Proposed Static Conditions Report generated using GeoStudio 2020. Copyright © 1991-2020 GEOSLOPE International Ltd. File Information File Version: 10.01 Created By: Sam Suruda Last Edited By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 17 Date: 09/04/2020 Time: 08:35:40 AM Tool Version: 10.1 File Name: 7291 SLOPE.gsz Directory: I:\Sam's Inbox\Project Files\7291\ Last Solved Date: 09/04/2020 Last Solved Time: 08:35:42 AM Project Settings Unit System: U.S. Customary Units Analysis Settings Proposed Static Conditions Kind: SLOPE/W Parent: Edmonds SFR ES-7291 Method: Morgenstern -Price Settings Side Function Interslice force function option: Half -Sine PWP Conditions from: Piezometric Line Apply Phreatic Correction: No Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Unit Weight of Water: 62.430189 pcf Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Option: (none) Distribution F of S Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Geometry Settings Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 3 ft Number of Slices: 30 Factor of Safety Convergence Settings Maximum Number of Iterations: 100 Tolerable difference in F of S: 0.001 file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Proposed Static Conditions.html 1/5 9/8/2020 Proposed Static Conditions Solution Settings 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 Materials Loose Sand Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion': 0 psf Phi': 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Very Dense Glacial Till Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 500 psf Phi': 38 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Type: Range Left -Zone Left Coordinate: (7.29987, 175) ft Left -Zone Right Coordinate: (83, 165) ft Left -Zone Increment: 8 Right Type: Range Right -Zone Left Coordinate: (95.65801, 163.10142) ft Right -Zone Right Coordinate: (155, 150) ft Right -Zone Increment: 8 Radius Increments: 4 Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0, 175) ft Right Coordinate: (175, 150) ft Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1 Coordinates X Y Coordinate 1 0 ft 149 ft Coordinate 2 175 ft 149 ft file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Proposed Static Conditions.html 2/5 9/8/2020 Proposed Static Conditions Seismic Coefficients Horz Seismic Coef.: 0 Vert Seismic Coef.: 0 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 250 pcf Direction: Vertical Coordinates X y 33ft 176ft 50 ft 176 ft 60 ft 166 ft 90 ft 166 ft 93 ft 166 ft Geometry Name: 2D Geometry Settings View: 2D Element Thickness: 1 ft Points X y Point 1 0 ft 100 ft Point 2 175 ft 100 ft Point 3 0 ft 175 ft Point 4 10 ft 175 ft Point 5 25 ft 175 ft Point 6 33 ft 175 ft Point 7 40 ft 175 ft Point 8 50 ft 175 ft Point 9 60 ft 165 ft Point 10 72 ft 165 ft Point 11 90 ft 165 ft Point 12 93 ft 165 ft Point 13 100 ft 160 ft Point 14 104 ft 157 ft Point 15 110 ft 155 ft Point 16 118 ft 153 ft Point 17 128 ft 150 ft Point 18 146 ft 150 ft Point 19 175 ft 150 ft Point 20 119 ft 151 ft Point 21 175 ft 148 ft file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Proposed Static Conditions.html 3/5 9/8/2020 Proposed Static Conditions Point 22 Oft 148 ft Point 23 2 ft 148 ft Regions Material Points Area Region 1 Loose Sand 3,22,23,21,19,18,17,20,15,14,13,12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4 2,484 ftZ Region 2 Very Dense Glacial Till 23,22,1,2,21 8,400 ft2 Slip Results Slip Surfaces Analysed: 326 of 405 converged Current Slip Surface Slip Surface: 377 Factor of Safety: 1.3 Volume: 123.92426 ft3 Weight: 14,251.29 Ibf Resisting Moment: 438,728.9 Ibf•ft Activating Moment: 332,450.26 Ibf•ft Resisting Force: 8,119.5116 Ibf Activating Force: 6,148.5786 Ibf Slip Rank: 1 of 405 slip surfaces Exit: (116.21512, 152.23772) ft Entry: (83, 165) ft Radius: 48.763182 ft Center: (115.89164, 200.99983) ft Slip Slices Base Frictional Cohesive Suction Base X Y PWP Normal Strength Strength Strength Material Stress Slice 83.583333 164.48388 -966.66172 219.00219 126.44097 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 1 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 84.75 ft 163.48355 -904.21078 297.53919 171.78433 0 psf 0 psf Loose 2 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 85.916667 162.54464 -845.59441 372.14206 214.85632 0 psf 0 psf Loose 3 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 87.083333 161.66274 -790.53745 444.23118 256.47699 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 4 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 88.25 ft 160.8341 -738.80499 515.01575 297.34448 0 psf 0 psf Loose 5 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 89.416667 160.05547 -690.19484 585.51306 338.04612 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 6 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 90.5 ft 159.37328 -647.60611 651.55868 376.17758 0 psf 0 psf Loose 7 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 91.5 ft 158.77943 -610.53169 713.29545 411.82132 0 psf 0 psf Loose 8 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 92.5 ft 158.21719 -575.43103 776.19177 448.13453 0 psf 0 psf Loose 9 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 93.583333 157.64367 -539.62584 609.3192 351.7906 0 psf p 0 psf p Loose 10 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 94.75 ft 157.06283 -503.36422 603.27399 348.3004 0 psf 0 psf Loose 11 ft psf psf psf Sand file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Proposed Static Conditions.html 4/5 9/8/2020 Proposed Static Conditions Slice 95.916667 156.52018 -469.48631 594.62183 343.30507 0 psf 0 psf Loose 12 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 97.083333 156.01433 -437.90575 582.67862 336.40966 0 sf p 0 sf p Loose 13 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 98.25 ft 155.54404 -408.54578 566.68714 327.17697 0 psf 0 psf Loose 14 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 99.416667 155.10823 -381.33808 545.84962 315.14642 0 psf 0 psf Loose 15 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 100.5 ft 154.73248 -357.88 psf 519.71638 300.05839 0 psf 0 psf Loose 16 ft psf psf Sand Slice 101.5 ft 154.41169 -337.85304 488.51105 282.04198 0 psf 0 psf Loose 17 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 102.5 ft 154.11442 -319.29451 452.12592 261.03502 0 psf 0 psf Loose 18 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 103.5 ft 153.84023 -302.17664 410.28899 236.88046 0 psf 0 psf Loose 19 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 104.6 ft 153.56602 -285.05765 385.99263 222.85295 0 psf 0 psf Loose 20 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 105.8 ft 153.29626 -268.21651 378.99696 218.814 0 psf 0 psf Loose 21 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 107 ft 153.05805 -253.34502 365.32109 210.91823 0 sf p 0 sf p Loose 22 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 108.2 ft 152.85092 -240.41395 344.8642 199.10744 0 psf 0 psf Loose 23 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 109.4 ft 152.67448 -229.39831 317.81774 183.49216 0 psf 0 psf Loose 24 ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 110.51793 152.53645 -220.7812 280.40587 161.8924 0 psf 0 psf Loose 25 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 111.55378 152.43276 -214.30792 234.21189 135.2223 0 psf 0 psf Loose 26 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 112.58963 152.35135 -209.22525 184.95896 106.7861 0 sf p 0 sf p Loose 27 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 113.62549 152.2921 -205.5262 133.45429 77.04987 0 sf p 0 sf p Loose 28 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 114.66134 152.25493 -203.20573 80.487891 46.469705 0 psf 0 psf Loose 29 ft ft psf psf psf Sand Slice 115.69719 152.23979 -202.26068 26.777073 15.45975 0 p sf 0 p sf Loose 30 ft ft psf psf psf Sand file:///I:/Sam's Inbox/Project Files/7291/7291 SLOPE - Proposed Static Conditions.html 5/5