BLD2018-0517k
08
0 E 1),410
Al
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020
PHONE: (425) 77.1-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221
STATUS: ISSUED 09/25/2018 a- a
-i &I'll,
Expiration Date: 09/25/20
BUILDING PE
Z
Parcel No: 00513300002700
1 L)
PROPERTYOWNER
APPLICANT
SHARON LARSEN
CG ENGINEERING
9932 MARINE VIEW DR
CIO DFNNISTITUS
MUKILTEO, WA 98275
250 4TH AVE S STE 200
EDMONDS, WA 98020
(425) 349-1451
(425) 778-8500
LD201805
s *7
lf57;h_ TAP
W —j1t&,EDM0NDS
MCDOWELL NW PILE KING
18901 84TH AVE S
KENT, WA 98032
LICENSE 4: MCDOWNPO I I QT EXP:09/07/2019
JOB DESCRIPTION
UNDERPIN HOMETO STABILIZE FOUNDATION. REPLACE BASEMENT SLAB. FRAN41NG MODIFICATIONS TO FIRST FLOOR
FRAMINQ REMOVE SEVERAL BASEMENT WALLS. * * ESLHA * *
VALUATION: $95,000
PERMIT TYPE: Residential
PERMIT GROUP: 04 - Alteration/Rernodel
GRADING: N CYDS: 0
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:
RET A INING WA I-L ROCK ERY:
OCCUPANT GROUP:
OCCUPANT LOAD:
FENCE: 0 X 0 FT.)
CODE: 2 015
IOTHER: ------- OT HER DESC
ZONE RS-20
INUMBER OF STORIES: 0
VESTED DATE
INUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS 0
�LOT #-
I
EXISTTNG AREA
BASEMENT: 0 IST FLOOR 0 2ND FLOOR 0
PROPOSED AREA
SEMENT: 0 1 ST FLOOR: 0 2ND FLOOR: 0
3RD 1-1-OOR 0 GARAGE: 0 DECK: 0 OTHER 0
13RD FLOOR: 0 GARAGE: 0 DECK: 0 OTHER� 0
BEDROOMS: 0 BATHROOMS: 0 1BEDROOMS
0 BATHROOMS: 0
FRONT SETBACK SIDESETBACK REARSETBACK
<LQUIKED: PROPOSED: �-QUIRED PROPOSED: [REQUIRED: PROPOSED:
1EIGHTAI-LOWED:0 PROPOSED:0 IREQUIRED: PROPOSED: I -
3ETBACK NOTES: foundation repair, setbacks nonconforming but no change vvith this foundation repair.
I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUCTION AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO
PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE -OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
INSURANCE AND RCW 18:27.
THIS APPLICATION IS NOT A PERMIT UNTIL SIGNED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR HIS/HER DEPUTY AND ALL FEES ARE PAID.
F p
"314 -- MKII
4.9-P, a , & I
on =
ATTENTION
Released By
Date
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDTNG OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APIPROVAL ORA CERTIFICATE OF
OCCU P AN CY H AS BEEN GRANTED.UBC109/ IBCI 10/111C 110.
IFIRE APPLICANT = ASSESSOR X CITY
STATUS: ISSUED
BLD20180517
I nspector toes tab lish method of fie i-lit verification prior to raising of house to verify Ilei- lit of house does n ot ill crease.
Spec ia I inspections by the geotechnica I eng in eerhave been called for on th is project and are noted on Ill e a pproved
construction plans and building permit. It is the owner and/or contractors responsibility to assure that reports are provided to
the City oil a weekly basis.
• Final approval oil a project or final occupancy approval must be granted by the Building Official prior to use or occupancy of
the building or structure. Check thejob card for all required City inspections including final project approval and final
occupancy inspections.
• Any request foralternate design. modification. variance orotheradministrative deviation (here in after -varian c e-) fi-orn
adopted codes. ordinances orpolicies must be specifically requested in writing and be called out and identified. Processing
fees for such request shall be established by Council and shall be paid upon submittal and are non-refundable.
• Approval ofany plat orplan containing provisions which do not comply with city code and forwhich a variance has not been
specifically identified, requested and considered by the appropriate city official in accordance with the appropriate provision
of city code or state law does not approve any items not to code specification.
• Sound/Noise originating from temporary Construction sites as a result of construction activity are exempt fi-olil tile noise limits
of ECC Chapter 5.30 only during
the hours of 7:00arn to 6:00pm oil weekdays and 10:00am and 6:00prn oil Saturdays, excluding
Sundays and Federal Holidays. At all other times tile noise originating fi-orn construction sites/activities must comply with the
noise limits ot'Chapter 5.30. unless a variance has been granted pursuant to ECC 5.30.120.
• Applicant. on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, ass igns, and successors in interests. agrees to indemnify defend and hold
hamiless the City of Edmonds, Washington. its offic ials. employees. and agents fi-orn any and all claims for daillages of
whatever nature. arising directly or indirectly frorn tile issuance tbr this permit. Issuance ofthis permit shall not be deeilled to
nlodiA,. waive or reduce any requirements ofany City ordinance nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance
provision.
• The encroachment permit for the Structures encroachim?, into the City right of way. shall be recorded prior to final approval of
this permit.
I INSPECTIONS
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRrVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY
CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. PERMIT
TIME LIMIT SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6)
i BUILDING i !ENGINEEF;UNG(425)771-0220EXT.1326 It
1. Go to: vrww. edmondswa. gov 'Building Department Inspections
12. Then: Services are now scheduled online. If you FIRE (425) 775-7720
3. Then: Perm its/Development have difficulties, please call the
!4. Then- Online Permit Info 1 Building Department front desk for PUBLIC WORKS (425) 771-0235
5: If you don't have one already, create a i assistance during office hours.
login (upper right hand comer) '(425) 771-0220 RECYCLING (425) 275-4801
6: Sched ile y2ur insRection
When calling for an inspection please leave the following information� Permit Number, Job Site Address, Type of Inspection
being requested, Contact Name and Phone Number, Date Preferred, and whether you prefer morning or afternoon.
E-Fxosion Control/Mobilization
• E-Engineering Final
• B-Preconstruction meeting
B-Pin Piles
B-Footings
B-Foundation Wall
B-FOLIndation Draina-e
6-73
B-Epoxy bolting
• B-Slab/Footings
• B-Slab Insulation
• B-First Floor Framing
• B-Height Verification
• B-Framin
• B-Building Final
21
B-Other
a
RETURN ADDRESS: 611 &endjl�—
City of Edmonds, City Clerk IJ
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020 q1
COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION
AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS
Reference #:
Grantor(s): (1) 5ftymp LAKFIJ (2)_ Additional on pg.
Grantee(s): City of Edmonds
Legal Description (abbreviated): Sec Twn Z+ 0 Rng 4 6' '/4
Qtr9W SW
OR Lot Block Plat
7.3-00
Assessor's Tax Parcel 1D#(s): (1) - 0 0 13 -3 00 (2)
Assessor's Tax Parcel 1D# not yet assigned
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPROVED FOR RECORDING
BY:. DATE: PAGE —OF —
Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State Building Code,
incorporating amendments promulgated by. the City of Edmonds, and as a
prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a residential
structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do hereby
covenant, stipulate and promise as follows:
Packet Item # 17
1. Descr . ofSubiectftoperty,
APPROVED FOR RECORDING:
BY: DATE:
PAGE OF I
This covenant of notification and
indemnificationthold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of
IS;,Zg +50% PI W, EcAwo.�cfl, WA -9802.(, street
(insert
address), Edmonds Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as:
TrA,I-t 29-, Me-,�,C.Aowltllle� 5Veele-.e,fc%I a ICJ , - -
+-0—fLr- CICI+ fi%Cce-op Ire-cor04C04-0-% volurv-.e� 9-
OF - . COV-J
'elc,fs J
i-, cc.-.L� op C) L, +C, r— OF L-/w; L". -, 5to
2. Notification and Covenant of Notification. The above referenced site
(hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area which has been identified by the City
of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidence or landslide hazard. The
risks associated with development of the site have been evaluated by technical
consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a part of the process to
obtain a building permit for the subject site. The results of the consultant's reports
and evaluations of the risks associated with development are contained in building
permit file number (insert number) on file with the City of
Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or prohibitions on
development may have been imposed in accordance with the recommendations of
0
APPROVED FOR RECORDING:
BY: DATE:
PAGE OF
the consultants in the course of permit issuance. The conditions, Hinitations, or.
prohibitions may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or
may require modifications to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order
to address future or anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The
statements and conditions proposed by the OWMRS' geotechnical engineer,
geologist, architect and/or structural engineer are hereby incorporated by reference
from the contents of the file as fully as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser,
lessee, lender or any other person acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest in the
property is put on notice of the existence of the content of the file and the City urges
review of its contents. The file may be reviewed during normal business hours or
copies obtained at the Building Department, City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue
North, Edmonds, Washington 98020.
3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The undersigned OWNERS
hereby waive any and all liability associated with development, statng that they
have fully informed themselves of all risks associated with development of the
property and do therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of action against
the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees arising from and out of such
development. In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their successors in
interest, heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify and hold harmless the
City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability or
damage of any kind or nature to persons or property either on or off the site
resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from or out of
the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or -occurring or
E APPROV:ED FOR RECORDING:
PP
BY: DATE:
PAGE
OF
arising out of any false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the
OWNERS, their employees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of
the building permit.
4. %gurance Requirement. In addition to any bonding which may be
required during the course of development, the Community Services Director
has/has not (strike one) specifically required the maintenance of an insurance policy
for public liability coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in order
to provide for the flnancial responsibilities established through the indemnification
and hold harmless agreement above:
5. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Land. This covenant of
notification and indemniflcation/hold harmless touches and concerns the subject
tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating and/or inuring to the benefit of
future owners, heirs, successors and interests or any other person or entity
acquiring an interest in property, as their interest may appear. This provision shall
not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or Iender to indemnify the City except to
the extent of their loss nor to obligate such persons to maintain the insurance above
required.
APPROVED FOR RECORDING:
BY: DATE:
PAGE OF I
'7�
DONE this Q- day of
OWNER(S)
By:
By:
By
STATE OF WASIIINGTON
) ss:
COUNTY OF%�5)10hoxn��k
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
6AA4,0� signed this instrument and
acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in
this instrument.
.-RO)8
DATED this AZP ��- day of
NOTARY PUBUC
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BETH ANN CAMPBELL
My Appointment Expires
AUGUST 25,2018
L:\TEMIP'XBUILDINGWEADOW\COVENANT
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
0 11
LARSEN RESIDENCE FOUNDATION REPAIR
15729 75TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
OWNER
SHARON & CARL LARSEN
9832 MARINE VIEW DRIVE
MUKILTEO, WA 9827S
425.349.1451
SHARON. LARSEN @FRONTIER.COM
CONSULTANTS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
CG ENGINEERING
250 4TH AVE S, SUITE 200
EDMONDS, WA 98020
425.778.8SOO FAX 778.5536
CONTACT: DENNIS TITUS, PE. SE
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC
17311 135TH AVENUE NE A-500
WOODINVILLE, WA 98072
425.486.1659
CONTACT: LEE S. BELLAH
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ALL OF TRACT 27 MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
PROPERTY INFORMATION PARCEL NUMBER
EX BUILDING FOOTPRINT = 1904 SQFT 00513300002700
PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT = NOT TO CHANGE
SCOPE OF WORK
THIS PROJECT INVOLVES THE STABILIZATION OF AN EXISTING HOME THAT HAS
EXPERIENCED SOME SETTLEMENT. WILL UNDERPIN THE EXISTING FOUNDATION WITH 2"
DIAMETER PIN PILES TO SUPPORT FUTURE LOADS OF THE PLANNED ADDITIONAL FLOOR.
copy
RECEIVED
MAR o 1 2M
ki - I
DEVELOPMENT SERVtCES
COUNTER
M * '�l "'
WAS
;'S
M�
02126118
LARSEN RESIDENCE FOUNDATION REPAIR
15729 75TH PIL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
DATE 02/26/18
PROJECT NO. 17145.10
SCALE
IENGINeeRING
250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020
PHONE (425) 778-8500
FAX (425) 778-5536
TITLE
SITE PLAN
DRAWN BY JCP
SO.3
J
CHECK17D BY NAL
APPROVED BY DMT
M
"o Z
110
m
Z., m
/,.0 PLANTER
R TIE:��_j 1!0-T
Fn
TE
N87'40'31'W �6�,43
C) LA
U)
0 LA 16"-, P
14 ;0
ARAGE
v,
;ID
V) Lyl z
rrl CARA
z to m
IF= 107 5'
3:
14
—i m
L,) Xk
> Z >
:E m: V)
-0 rn 2 HOU
,o r- z 4 7*
s
DID C-) 4PICK POSTS FF�112�6' 'o
/METAL FENCE 20
0 S-t5 E
rn
-n
u 37
�v LOT 1 1,
C=
z Mj
'A ±20,000 --Nc c
0 H2
>
U' LOT 2
IF 1 4��E ±26,811
L,
GA IAG
0 2� LA� P E
IF= 13
NO
z j/Fl L L ELO EYI F OR
;0 A
rn
v
7z q1V
N�74D'31'W 569.6D!
qu j.1-w. r,09 8.7; 09
J�\ TI& I
jja
E�97.57'(12" CMP W)
KEYSTONE W
IE=98 46'(12" CMP E) I
REMOVE REPLACE EXKT
EMENT LAB ON GRADE
BAS S
STABILIZ EXIST FOUNDATIO 2ql
-9) W1 PIPE PILES & ANCHORV
KE,,-�NIE WALL
0 x Z
< I
50 0 �2 5�5 F 1006
o z C�� 0
0 14��
0
OV E QAf r
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020
PHONE: (425) 771-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221
BUILDING APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE
Monday. April 09, 2018
This Application has been accepted by the City of Edmonds for review. More information and changes
may be required during this process. The review target date is:
Your City Contact is: KRISTIN JOHNS
Application Number: BLD20180517
Project Address: 15729 75TH PL W, EDMONDS
PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT
SHARON LARSEN CG ENGINEERING
9832 MARINE VIEW DR
MUKILTEO. WA 98275
(425) 349-1451
C/O DENNIS TITUS
250 4TH AVE S STE 200
EDMONDS. WA 98020
(425) 778-8500
Work Description:
UNDERPIA H0.14E TO STABILIZE FOUNDATION. REPLACE BASEMENTSLAB. ** ESLAIA
Outstanding Items at Time of Submittal:
C 02V TRA CTOR INFO
It is anticipated that the following departments Nvill be reviewing your application:
Building
Planning
Engineering
Fire
Please wait to re -submit corrections until after VOL] have received comments frorn all reviewing
departments.
I I I FREBY ACKNO N%'I.E[)G E 111AT I II AVE R �AD T11 IS APPUCATIO N THAT 111 E INFO RMATIO N G IVEN IS CO RRECT
AND IIIATI A M TH E PRO PFRTY 0 W NER, 0 R T11 E D I - LY A UTIJO RIZED AGENT 0 F THE PRO PFR-117 0 NN'NFR TO
SUBMITA BUILDING POINITTAPPLICATION TO THECI[W.
SIGNAWRE(OWNER OR AGENI) PRINT NAME DATF SIGNED
To view up to date infornzation aboutyour application please visit the City (#'Edmonds Development Services
website at hilp.11www.edmonds-wa.gov.
ID015--051
City of Edmonds
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ESLHA BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION FORM F
121 Slh Avenue N, Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone 42S.771.0220
PLEASE REFER TO THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CHECKLIST FOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
PROJECT ADDRESS (Street, Suite #, City State, Zip):
W, Ect v� o , cA 5, tA/A
7, &
Parcel #:
0 0 513 a cc 0 0 ?"t 0
Subdivision/Lot #:
Project Valuation: $
05;' coo
APPLICANT:
C-(V - '-'s T;�vs
Phone:
4 7,5 - 3+ 3 - 3 S-00
Fax:
I 4Z5__f+3_5T3(0
Address (Street, City, State, Zip):
Z 50 q' Ave, 5, 5o; fe, a 00, Elt--,J WA IWO
E-Mail Address:
oAt ; S + e C�f3e% s7, c
PROPERTY OWNER:
�� !� tA. akc o ^ LA r,5 e- to�
Phone:
4Z5-73-101- 1451
Fax:
1
Address (Street, City, State, Zip):
9 91 Z Hc-r�llt. View 6C
WAI 1919_�
E-Mail Address:
&
CONTRACTOR:*
Phone:
I Fax:
Address (Street, City, State, Zip):
Contractor License #/Exp. Date:
*Con tractor must have a valid City of Edmonds business license prior to doing work in the
City� Contact the City Clerk's Office at 425.775.2525
City of Edmonds Business License #/Exp. Date:
DETAIL SCOPE OF WORK: 0-%derp;' (10 V" e- f-0 57 I -At. i e- 6'v� 0(A_R0.-.
lzert&cr 5ASS ;YEX2T SLAS.
PROPOSED NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THIS PROJECT:
Basement: sq. ft
Select Basement Type: T Finished T Unfinished
1't Floor: sq. ft
Garage/Carport: sq A
2nd Floor: sq. ft.
Deck/Patio: sq. ft
Retaining Wall: TYes No
Other: sq A
I declare under penalty of perjury laws that the information I have provided on this formlapplication is true, correct and
complete, and that I am the property owner or duly authorized agent of the property owner to submft a permit application
to the City of Edmonds.
Print Name: T��vt 0%1 71�qs JOwner TAgent/Other (specify): &a44par",
I -
Signature: Date: 4006116
Updated: 12/2017 Packet Item #4
City of Edmonds
Completeness Review Pre -Application Form for
Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area projects
Notice- This is not a Building Permit Application Form. This is Step One of a two-step process (see
Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area Permit Submittal Checklist for description of the complete
application process) The Completeness Review is a preliminary process to determine that minimum
submittal requirements have been provided for the geotechnical and critical areas elements of the
Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area Permit Submittal Checklist. If it is determined that
additional information is required to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of the
deficiencies and must resubmit for another completeness review (including fee of $500). This
process continues until the applicant is notified in writing that the Completeness Review is accepted
by the City consultant and may proceed to Step Two, Building Permit Application Submittal.
Completeness Review Application for: L] New Single Family El Addition
F1 interior Remodel E] Garage/Carport [] Repair E Deck
F1 Fence [] Grading cVds F1 Storage/Shed
Fire System (Specify) Rockery/Retaining Wall
Other (St)ecifv)
Description of Work: Uktaerp;^ �ot-,e- 4�o s+c,04e- Co .4,,,+; o
Site Address: 16 3'ZI -� 5 #t� P I e% c- e- W, 6-d ,- o -% d 5 , LA/A �807(o
Sno County Tax Account Parcel #: 0 0 51 3 3 0 0 0 0 2. + o c>
PROPERTY,OWNER: 5Lcrov, L , r s c ,%
Mailing Address:
City: t1vicilfe'o
'I 2� -S 2- M r-;, e- V,'e, .-, b ri, V e-
Phone: 3 FAX:
State: WA _Zip
q 8 Z -?- 5-
E-Mail:- 5-Ikrro"Jc%rre-v% @Fro.Jie-r-cow.,
APPLICANT/CONTACT: E]Same as Property Owner INOther
Fill out the following information if "Other".
Name & Mailing Address: 5 T;fj5 2-5*0 S", 2-00
City: State, WA zip: 111902.0
AX: 15 55 3 �6 E-Mail: de."-'st C C.%
Phone: 0 0 F
1/30/2018 Packet Item # 3
19,
10 1 �__ �_:
Technical Memorandum CITY CAn 9-:9 17 2018
Vry
TO: Kristin Johns, Senior Permit Coordinator
City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Building Division
FROM: Sean Gertz, EIT and Steven Wright, PE
DATE: September 14, 2018
RE: 3 rd Geotechnical Peer Review
Submittal Package for Structural Improvements in a Critical Area
Larsen Residence — 15729 751h Place West
Edmonds, Washington
This technical memorandum summarizes the results of Landau Associates' (LAI) 3 d geotechnical peer
review of the permit submittal package that was submitted to the City of Edmonds (City) for proposed
structural improvements to the above -referenced residence, which is located within a critical area in
Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our geotechnical peer review is to review portions of the
submittal package and assess its compliance with the City's development and building permit
requirements as contained in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.10 for sites
designated within or near the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA).
This review also assesses the submittal's compliance with the requirements of Chapter 23.80 of the
ECDC as required or noted in Chapter 19.10. This geotechnical peer review was conducted in
accordance with Task Order No. 18-04 of Landau Associates' On -Call Geotechnical and Environmental
Engineering Services Agreement with the City.
LAI previously completed a geotechnical peer review and a supplemental geotechnical peer review for
this project and our initial and supplemental review comments are contained in technical memoranda
dated April 30, 2018 and August 10, 2018, respectively. The applicant's design team has addressed
these comments and prepared a revised permit application submittal. This 3 r d geotechnical peer
review focuses on the applicant's most recent submittal, which includes the following information:
0 Cover letter prepared by CG Engineering, dated August 24, 2018
0 Supplemental Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Response Letter prepared by Nelson
Geotechnical Associates, Inc. (NGA), dated August 23, 2018.
The following briefly reiterates LAI's review comments that are contained in our August 10, 2018
technical memorandum and states how each comment was addressed in the most recent submittal.
LANDAU
14 ASSOCLATES
130 2nd Avenue South - Edmonds, Washington 98020 - (425) 778-0907
r1M
Landau Associates
Review Comment: The slope stability analysis performed by NGA does not appear to factor in the
effect of groundwater on the stability of the slope. Our experience suggests that groundwater can
impact the stability of slopes within the North Edmonds ESLHA and it is our opinion that NGA's slope
stability model should consider the effect of groundwater on the stability of the slope.
Response: NGA did not encounter groundwater in their explorations. It is their opinion that while
perched groundwater could occur within the upper slope, it is likely minor and would not significantly
impact the existing &bal stability of the slope.
Review Comment: The slope stability analysis performed by NGA uses a seismic coefficient (kh) equal to
0.20. Standard of practice in limit equilibrium slope stability modeling is to use a kh value equal to one
half of the peak ground acceleration (PGA). Per the online USGS Seismic Hazard Design Tool, the PGA
at the site is equal to 0.543g.
Response: NGA calculated seismic slope stability using a kh equal to half of the PGA (0.27) resulting in
a critical slip surface with a factor of safety equal to 1.028, indicating marginally stable conditions
during a seismic event. It is their opinion that the proposed stabilization measures for the residence
do not reduce overall factor of safety from the existing site conditions. Additionally, the critical failure
surface would need to pass through the proposed deep foundation elements, therefore the deep
foundations should enhance global stability of the slope.
Review Comment: NGA states that "With proper site drainage and maintenance of the drainage
systems and protection of steep slopes, we would estimate that the probability offailure on the site is
likely to be less than 310 percent in 25 years." If an event will never occur, its probability of occurrence
is 0 (or 0 percent). If an event is absolutely certain to occur, its probability of occurrence is 1 (or 100
percent). Therefore, we do not understand what is meant by a probability of less than 310 percent.
Response: NGA recognizes that this was a typographical error and has updated the probability of
failure to less than 10 percent in 25 years.
Based on LAI's review of the applicant's responses to the peer review comments that are presented in
LAI's August 10, 2018 technical memorandum, it is our opinion that all of LAI's comments have been
adequately addressed and that the submittal package includes the information in Sections 19.10 and
23.80 of the ECDC that is identified as being required.
It should be noted that it is LAI's opinion that there are several ongoing landslide mechanisms within
the project area beyond the deep seated slide mechanism that is discussed in the NGA letter dated
August 23, 2018. These other landslide mechanisms could include groundwater blowout, high bluff
peeloff, and sliding block failure, all of which are heavily affected by groundwater and surface water.
Because the proposed residential improvements lie within the runout zone of landslides that may
emanate from the adjacent slope, the existing residence could be impacted by landslides caused by
Geotechnical Peer Review
Larsen Residence — 15729 75th Place West 2 September 14, 2018
I 'a.
Landau Associates
one or more of these slide mechanisms, especially during a seismic event. However, it is LAI's opinion
that the proposed stabilization measures for the residence will not increase the threat of the
geological hazard to the property or adjacent properties beyond preclevelopment (i.e., before the
proposed stabilization measures are implemented) conditions.
This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City of Edmonds in evaluating the
adequacy of permit submittal documents related to the proposed residential structure located at
15729 75th Place West in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of the review was to assess the
adequacy of the application documents for compliance with City requirements contained in ECDC
19.10 and conformance with conventionally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This
geotechnical peer review by Landau Associates does not lessen the requirements for the applicant's
geotechnical consultant to serve as the project's Geotechnical Engineer of Record and other design
professionals to prepare an appropriate design for the site conditions.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City. Please contact us if you have any
questions or if we may be of further service.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Sean M. Gertz, EIT
Project EIT
SY"- L�d
Steven R. Wright, PE
Principal
SMG/SZW/rgm
(\\EDMDATAOI\PROJECTS\074\196\R\LARSEN RESIDENCE 3RD PEER REVIEW TM.DOCXI
Geotechnical Peer Review
Larsen Residence — 15729 75 th Place West
September 14, 2018
1 f M.W A
NGA
Main Office
17311 — 135" Ave NE, A-500
Woodinville, WA 98072
(425) 486-1669 - FAX (425) 481-25 10
August 23, 2018
Carl and Sharon Larsen
9832 Marine View Drive
Mukilteo, Washington 98275
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
AssociATEs, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEoLoGISTS
Engineering -Geology Branch
5526 Industry Lane, #2
East Wenatchee, WA 98802
(509) 665-7696 - FAX (509) 665-7692
Supplemental Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Response Letter
Larsen Residence Foundation Repair
15729 — 75" Place West
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 999017
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Larsen:
This letter presents the results of our updated geotechnical engineering review of the plans and comment
response for your residence underpinning project located at 15729 — 751 Place West in Edmonds,
Washington.
INTRODUCTION
We previously prepared a report for this property that included recommendations for underpinning
support of the existing residence dated February 28, 2018 and a plan review letter for the proposed
improvements dated March 20, 2018. We also prepared an initial plan review and comment response
letter dated July 25, 2018. Project plans consist of underpinning the existing residence foundations and
supporting associated basement slabs -on -grade and cantilevered portions of the upper floors on driven 2-
and 3-inch pin piles. Lateral loads on the eastern portion of the structure are to be restrained by helical
anchors. At this time, no additional development is planned within the property.
The site falls within "Zones B through D" of the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide
Hazard Area, as indicated in the report prepared by Landau Associates for the City of Edmonds. This
designation requires that certain features be included (or excluded) in the design. Such features include
the restriction of cuts and fills, the need for tightlining runoff into an approved system, the need to design
foundations and retaining walls to withstand high lateral earth pressures and potential loss of soil beneath
parts of the foundation, the need to vegetate slopes with deeply rooted drought -tolerant vegetation, and
JMIRthe elimination of any and all irrigation systems. We have addressed all of these requirgm
previous report.
bUD2016-051-7
AUG 2 4 2018
SU= DEPARTMEN-1
UNGF E". ONDS
. 1 1 4
Supplemental Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Response Letter NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Residence Foundation Repair August 23, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 2
PLAN REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS
We have reviewed the geotechnical aspects of the most recent plans and found the plans to be in general
compliance with our recommendations as presented in our previous geotechnical report. We understand
that all construction will be performed within the exiting residence footprint. The entire residence
structure and any new foundations are to be supported on 2- and 3-inch diameter driven pin piles.
Helical anchors are also going to be utilized to restrain lateral loads of the residence along the upper
eastern side of the residence. The overall size and configuration of the anchor is to be determined by the
contractor to achieve the design loads as specified on the plans. We recommend that NGA be retained to
observe the installation of the pin piles and helical anchors on a full-time basis during construction.
We understand that all stormwater runoff associated with this property is to be directed and tightlined to
flow into the existing stormwater drainage system located within the southern portion of the property.
We understand that this existing system ultimately flows out and discharges to the west of the property.
Temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences along the downhill side of the residence are
incorporated into the plans. In our opinion, the proposed temporary erosion control measures appear to
be feasible. We do not anticipate significant excavations associated with the proposed stabilization of
the residence as most of the work will be within the existing residence footprint. Any disturbed soils
remaining after the proposed development should be revegetated in accordance with our previous report.
Permanent erosion control measures such as compost amended soils, ground cover, and permanent
seeding and planting have also been incorporated into the plans.
The proposed stabilization is intended to support the existing residence structure and should not
adversely impact or decrease the existing stability of the steep slope areas, neighboring properties, or
critical areas; and is in compliance with the City of Edmonds Codes 23.80.060 and 23.80.070, provided
our recommendations are incorporated into the proposed plans and followed during construction.
We recommend that all of our recommendations provided in our previous report and letter, and this letter
be strictly followed during construction.
LANDAU PEER REVIEW COMMENTS AND OUR RESPONSES
As a part of the City of Edmonds review of this project, Landau Associates performed a peer review of
the proposed project and our previous geotechnical report in accordance with Edmonds Community
Development Code Chapter 19.10. Landau Associates comments and opinions were presented in a
technical memorandum dated August 10, 2018. In the following section, we summarize the relevant
geotechnical concerns raised by Landau Associates, followed by our response.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Supplemental Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Response Letter NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Residence Foundation Repair August 23, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 3
Comment 1:
The slope stability analysis performed by NGA does not appear to factor in the effect of groundwater on
the stability of the slope. Our experience suggests that groundwater can impact the stability of slopes
within the North Edmonds ESLHA and it is our opinion that NGA's slope stability model should
consider the effect of groundwater on the stability of the slope.
Response:
As a part of our previous evaluation, we did not encounter any groundwater seepage or table within our
explorations performed throughout the site. We agree that groundwater within the North Edmonds
ESLHA can impact the stability of the steep slopes within this area, but we did not encounter any within
our previous explorations. In our opinion, some perched groundwater conditions within the upper slope
area could occur but we would anticipate this condition within this site is likely minor and would not
significantly impact the existing slope stability conditions within the proposed site development.
Comment 2:
The slope stability analysis performed by NGA uses a seismic coefficient (1a) equal to 0.20. Standard of
practice in limit equilibrium slope stability modeling is to use a la, value equal to one half of the peak
ground acceleration (PGA). Per the online USGS Seismic Hazard Design Tool, the PGA at the site is
equal to 0.543g.
Response:
The site slope within the proposed development area was reanalyzed for stability along Cross Sections A-
A' for the existing conditions using the computer program Slope/W, by Geo-Slope International.
Slope/W is a two-dimensional, limit equilibrium slope stability program that generates random potential
failure surfaces or specific failure surfaces and determines their corresponding factors of safety with
respect to failure. By generating a large number of random surfaces, a critical failure surface with the
minimum factor of safety can be identified.
The slope stability analyses were performed using information gathered from the field explorations and
soil properties were assigned to the soil layers to reasonably reflect their engineering characteristics.
Stability analyses were performed localized to the areas along the cross section. Stability analyses were
performed for a seismic condition for the existing conditions. Stability analyses were not performed for
the proposed conditions as the proposed stabilization measures will be confined to the existing building
footprint. A horizontal ground acceleration of 0.27g was used in the seismic analysis which is 0.5 of the
peak ground acceleration of 0.543 as determined by the USGS Seismic Hazard Design Tool. The soil
parameters used in our analysis, along with the results of the analysis, are presented in Figures 1.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Supplemental Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Response Letter NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Residence Foundation Repair August 23, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 4
The critical slip surfaces for this case achieved factors of safety greater than or equal to 1.028 for the
updated seismic case, indicating marginally stable conditions during a seismic event. It is also our
opinion that the proposed stabilization measures for the residence do not reduce the overall factor of
safety from the existing site conditions that are present with the site. As such, the critical failure surface
would need to shear through the proposed deep foundation improvements for the existing residence
foundation, therefore the deep foundation should enhance deep-seated stability.
Comment 3:
NGA states that "With proper site drainage and maintenance of the drainage systems and protection Of
steep slopes, we would estimate that the probability offailure on the site is likely to be less than 310
percent in 25 years. " If an event will never occur, its probability of occurrence is 0 (or 0 percent). If an
event is absolutely certain to occur, its probability of occurrence is I (or 100 percent). Therefore, we do
not understand what is meant by a probability of less than 310percent.
Response:
This is a typographical error. This sentence should read as such "With proper site drainage and
maintenance of the drainage systems and protection of steep slopes, we would estimate that the
probability offailure on the site is likely to be less than 10percent in 25years. "
MINIMUM RISK STATEMENT
Provided that the recommendations in this letter, the geotechnical report dated February 28, 2018, the
letters dated March 12, 2018 and July 25, 2018, and this letter are followed during construction, the areas
disturbed by construction should remain stable. Therefore, the risk of damage to the proposed
development or to adjacent properties form soil instability should be minimal, and the proposed grading
and development should not increase the potential for soil movement.
CLOSURE
We recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoning and consultation services during
construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the
explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed differ from
those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities comply with contract plans and
specifications.
�$ 0=6
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Supplemental Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Response Letter NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Residence Foundation Repair August 23, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 5
We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have
any questions regarding this letter or require further information.
Sincerely,
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Lee S. Bellah, LG
Project Geologist
Maher A. Shebl, PE
Senior Engineer
LSB:MAS:dy
One Figure Attached
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
,a Slope Stability Analysis- Cross Section A-A'Exisitng Seismic Conditions
CD
0
(0 M orgenstern-P rice most critical surface with minimum FOS = 1.028
z
� C with a seismic coefficient of ground acceleration = 0.27g
4 D
Cj) Cn G)
o,
0
0
Glacial Till/Advance Outwash
:3
Internal Friction Angle: 36'
)� CD
Moist Unit Weight 130pd
= D
CT i�
— 0
1.028
Cohesion: 0 psf
Iz M CD
> X C:
5' CD
th '0 -a
210
210
Vj- C/) B.
CD.
190
190
Vi
3
0
170
150
75th Ave SW
170
150
0
Existing
n
130
Residence
130
W
110
110
C:
z
.0
M M
;�
90
—
90
CU
z > r
>
Whidbey Formation
>
M th
M 0
(3)
dj—
70
— Landslide Deposits
Internal Friclion Angle: 32*
— 70
LU
0 Z
Internal Friction Angle: 28*
Moist Unit Weight: 120 pef
50
— Moist UnitWeight 110 pcf
Cohesion: 1000 psf
— 50
U) > M
Cohesion: 0 psf
Q, 0
30
critical Slip Surface
— 30
C
0 0
10
— 10
00
-10
10
>
-20 0102030405060708090 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310
330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470
490 510 530 550 570
r
Distance (Feet)
z
0
0
;U
0
NOTES: Not to scale
�0
0
7 Elevations are Approximate
W I �r*v
A
NGA
Main Office
17311 — 135111 Ave NE, A-500
Woodinville, WA 98072
(425) 486-1669 - FAX (425) 481-25 10
February 28, 2018
Carl and Sharon Larsen
9832 Marine View Drive
Mukilteo, Washington 98275
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning
15729 — 75" Place West
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 999017
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Larsen:
Engineering -Geology Branch
5526 Industry Lane, #2
East Wenatchee, WA 98802
(509) 665-7696 - FAX (509) 665-7692
RECEIVED
Z i
MAR 0 1 2010
DEVELOPMENT SERViCES
COUNTER
We are pleased to submit the attached report titled "Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation —
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning — 15729 - 75 th Place West — Edmonds,
Washington." This report summarizes the existing surface and subsurface conditions within the project
site, and provides geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed site
improvements. Our services were completed in general accordance with the proposal signed by you on
June 23, 2017.
The site is currently occupied by an existing single-family residence and detached garage within the lower
eastern portion of the property and an existing single-family residence with a daylight basement within
the central portion of the property. The ground surface within the site generally slopes gently to
moderately up to the east from 75 1h Place West along the western property line to the toe of a steep to very
steep west -facing slope within the central portion of the property. The steep to very -steep west -facing
slope ascends up to a relatively level to gently sloping bench area within the very eastern portion of the
property. We were informed that the existing residence within the central portion of the property has
experienced some foundation settlement throughout the years. We understand that the proposed
development plan consists of underpinning the central residence foundation to mitigate potential future
settlement of the structure. A detached garage is also proposed to be constructed along the eastern portion
of the central residence location between the toe of the steep slope and the residence. We also understand
that you wish to subdivide the existing property into three separate residential parcels. The existing
residences within the western and central portion of the property would be located on two of the parcels
and the upper bench area would be located on the third parcel. The upper eastern parcel will likely be
developed with a new single-family residence sometime in the future. Specific development plans and
stormwater handling plans were not available at the time this report was prepared.
The site is mapped as part of the large historic/prehistoric Meadowdale Landslide complex area now
known as the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence & Landslide Hazard Area (ESHLA). The overall
property is located in the designated "Zones B through D" generally located above 750' Avenue West
extending east past the top of the steep to very steep west -facing slope. This report provides information
and discussion to fulfill the requirements of the City of Edmonds for construction within this area.
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Summary - Page 2
We explored the site subsurface soil conditions with four drilled soil borings on August 7, 2017. Our
explorations indicated that the lower central portion of the site is underlain by undocumented fill and
historic landslide debris at shallow depths, with competent native Whidbey Formation deposits at depth.
The upper eastern portion of the site is underlain by competent native glacial soils at shallow depths with
competent native Whidbey Formation deposits at depth.
Based on our site reconnaissance and explorations, and our understanding of the proposed plans, we have
concluded that the proposed short plat subdivision, central residence underpinning, central property
garage construction and upper eastern lot development on this site should be feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint, provided that our recommendations are incorporated into the overall design and construction
of this project. We did not observe signs of recent deep-seated slope failures or earth subsidence on the
property. The proposed development area appears to be relatively stable under current conditions. The
recommendations presented in this report should aid in maintaining and/or improving the current stability
conditions observed at the site.
Due to the relatively loose nature of the undocumented fill soil and landslide debris encountered in our
explorations within the lower portion of the site within the vicinity of the existing central residence, it is
our opinion that the undocumented fill and landslide debris soils have likely contributed to the settlement
and distress that has been observed within the central residence. Without foundation improvements, the
settlement and settlement -related distress are likely to continue. To limit future potential impacts to the
residence as a result of continued settlement, we recommend that all interior and exterior foundations,
along with all interior slabs -on -grade be supported on driven pin piles advancing through the
undocumented fill and landslide debris and terminating within the underlying native competent soils.
Due to tight access constraints within portions of the residence, some of these improvements may be
difficult to implement. We therefore should consult with the structural engineer and contractors on
adequate stabilization measures as plans are finalized. In the attached report, we have included
recommendations for pin pile foundation underpinning support.
We also recommend that any new foundations and slabs associated with the proposed garage within the
central property be supported on a deep foundation system consisting of driven pin piles. Due to the
proposed garage being located in close proximity to the toe of the steep slope within the upper eastern
portion of the property, we also recommend that the proposed garage be protected against potential slope
movement on the eastern uphill side by incorporating some type of a debris wall on that side. This is
further discussed in the attached report.
For the proposed development within the upper eastern parcel, we recommend that any proposed structure
foundations be designed to utilize conventional spread footings extending down to competent native soil
or structural fill extending to these soils. We recommend that any proposed structures be set back at least
60 feet from the top of the steep east -facing slope. In the attached report, we have included
recommendations for site grading, retaining walls, foundation support, and site drainage.
We strongly recommend that all runoff generated within this site, including roof downspouts, driveways,
yard and footing drains, and all runoff entering the property from the road or adjacent properties, be
directed into the existing drainage system that is located along the southern portion of the property. No
water should be infiltrated or dispersed within the site or near the site slopes. Such activity may lead to
instability within the site slopes.
We should be retained to review final grading and drainage plans prior to construction. We also
recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to
confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide
recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those
anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with
contract plans and specifications.
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 999017
February 28, 2018
Summary - Page 3
We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any
questions regarding this report or require further information.
Sincerely,
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Khaled M. Shawish, PE
Principal
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... I
SCOPE............................................................................................................................................ 2
SITECONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................... 2
SurfaceConditions .................................................................................................................... 2
SubsurfaceConditions .............................................................................................................. 3
Hydrogeologic Conditions ..................................................................................... .................. 4
SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION ............................................................................................ 5
SeismicHazard ......................................................................................................................... 5
ErosionHazard ......................................................................................................................... 6
Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability ............................................................................................. 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 7
General...................................................................................................................................... 7
Erosion Control and Slope Protection Measures .................................................................... 10
Site Preparation and Grading .................................................................................................. 11
Temporary and Permanent Slopes .......................................................................................... 12
StructureSetbacks .................................................................................................................. 12
Foundation Improvements ...................................................................................................... 12
ShallowFoundations .............................................................................................................. 14
RetainingWalls ...................................................................................................................... 15
StructuralFill .......................................................................................................................... 16
Slab -on -Grade ......................................................................................................................... 17
PavementSubgrade ................................................................................................................ 18
Site Drainage Improvements .................................................................................................. 18
USE OF THIS REPORT ............................................................................................................. 19
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I — Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — Site Plan
Figure 3 — Cross -Section A -A'
Figure 4 — Soil Classification Chart
Figures 5 through 8 — Boring Logs
IVEL SON GEO TECHNICA L A SSOCIA TES, INC
16
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning
15729 — 75' Place West
Edmonds, Washington
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning project. The address for the site is 15729 - 75th
Place West in Edmonds, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. The purpose of the
study is to explore and characterize the surface and subsurface conditions at the site and provide general
geotechnical recommendations for site development and improvements. For our use in preparing this
report, we have been provided with an undated, untitled boundary and topographic showing the existing
site conditions.
The site is currently occupied by an existing single-family residence and detached garage within the lower
western portion of the property and an existing single-family residence with a daylight basement within
the central portion of the property. The ground surface within the site generally slopes gently to
moderately up to the east from 75" Place West along the western property line to the toe of a steep to very
steep west -facing slope within the central portion of the property. The steep to very -steep west -facing
slope ascends up to a relatively level to gently sloping bench area within the very eastern portion of the
property. We were informed that the existing residence within the central portion of the property has
experienced some foundation settlement throughout the years. We understand that the proposed
development plan consists of underpinning the central residence foundation to mitigate potential future
settlement of the structure. A detached garage is also proposed to be constructed along the eastern portion
of the central residence location between the toe of the steep slope and the residence. We also understand
that you wish to subdivide the existing property into three separate residential parcels. The existing
residences within the western and central portion of the property would be located on two of the parcels
and the upper bench area would be located on the third parcel. The upper eastern parcel will likely be
developed with a new single-family residence sometime in the future. Stormwater plans have not been
finalized at this time, but we anticipate that runoff generated on this site will be tighlined to discharge into
an existing stormwater system within the southern portion of the property. The current site layout is
shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2.
The site is mapped as part of the large historic/prehistoric Meadowdale Landslide complex area now
known as the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence & Landslide Hazard Area (ESHLA). The overall
property is located in the designated "Zones B through D" generally located above 75t" Avenue West
extending east past the top of the steep to very steep west -facing slope. Slide movement from the large-
scale slide complex and smaller localized slides within the complex can both affect this property. This
AIEL SON GEO TECHNICA L A SSOCIA TES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 999017
February 28, 2018
Page 2
report provides information and discussion to fulfill the requirements of the City of Edmonds for
construction within this area.
SCOPE
The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the site surface and subsurface conditions, and
provide opinions and recommendations for the proposed site development. Specifically, our scope of
services includes the following:
I . Review available soil and geologic maps of the area.
2. Explored the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions within the site with four
geotechnical borings using a limited access drill rig. The drill rig was subcontracted by
NGA.
3. Map the conditions on the slope and evaluate current slope stability conditions and
perform hand explorations within the steep slope area and interior portion of the central
residence, as needed.
4. Perform laboratory classification and analysis of soil samples, as necessary.
5. Provide recommendations for earthwork, foundation support, and slabs -on -grade in
accordance with the City standards for development in the North Edmonds ESLHA.
6. Provide recommendations for temporary and permanent slopes.
7. Provide recommendation for deep foundation support, as needed.
8. Provide recommendations for the existing residence underpinning support.
9. Provide recommendations for retaining walls.
10. Provide recommendations for subgrade preparation.
11. Provide recommendations for site drainage and erosion control.
12. Document the results of our findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a written
geotechnical report.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The western and central portions of the property are generally situated on gently to moderately sloping
ground above and to the east of 75t" Place West. The western portion of the property is occupied within
an existing residence and detached garage, while the central portion of the property is occupied with an
existing single-family residence with a daylight basement. The ground surface within the western and
central portions of the property slopes gently to moderately up to the east from 75' Place West to the toe
of the steep to very steep west -facing slope within the eastern portion of the property at gradients in the
range of approximately 2 to 18 degrees (3 to 32 percent). A series of concrete block retaining walls are
located within the sloping areas between the existing residences. The western and central portions of the
property are generally vegetated with grass and landscaping plants.
NEL SON GEO TECHNICA L A SSOCIA TES, INC.
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 3
From the lower central portion of the site, the ground surface slopes steeply to very steeply up to the east
to a relatively level to gently sloping upper bench area at gradients in the range of 35 to 45 degrees (70 to
100 percent). The existing residence within the central portion of the site is located approximately 3 7 to
47 feet from the toe of the steep to very steep west -facing slope. The overall height of the steep slope is
approximately 100 feet. The existing site conditions, site topography, and interpreted subsurface
conditions are presented on Cross Sections A -A' in Figure 3. The steep slope and upper bench area are
generally vegetated with dense underbrush and young to mature trees. We did not observe any surface
water during our site visit on August 7, 2017. We also did not observe any groundwater emitting from
the site slopes, however we were informed that water seepage on the steep slope has been observed in the
past. We did not observe any indications of recent slope movement such as deep-seated landsliding,
however some minor erosion and sloughing was observed within portion of the upper most part of the
steep west -facing slope area.
The lower western and central portion of the property is accessed via an existing asphalt driveway located
along the southern portion of the property extending from 75h Place West. The upper eastern portion of
the property is accessed via 72,d Avenue West. The site is bordered to the north, south and east by
existing residential properties, and to the west by 75' Place West. The existing and proposed site
conditions are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2.
Subsurface Conditions
Geology: The geologic units for the site vicinity are shown on the Preliminau Geolojzic MqP of the
Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadranjzles, Snohomish and Kinp, Counties, Washington, by Mackey
Smith (U.S.G.S., 1975). The lower western and central portion of the site is mapped as old landslides
(Qols) while the upper eastern portion of the property is mapped as Esperance Sand deposits (Qe). The
old landslide deposits are described as large slumps that occurred during the ablation of the Puget Lobe of
the Vashon ice sheet by lowering of water -table level. The Esperance sand is described as thinly bedded
sand. We generally encountered undocumented fill and granular landslide debris underlain by fine-
grained silt and clay within the lower central portion of the property that we interpreted as native
Whidbey Formation soils. Our explorations within the upper eastern portion of the site generally
encountered native glacial till and Esperance sand soils with fine-grained sand, silt and clay soils that we
interpreted as native Whidbey Formations soils.
Explorations: The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on August 7, 2017 by drilling four
borings using a track -mounted limited -access drill rig to depths of approximately 46.5 to 51.5 feet below
the existing ground surface. The approximate locations of our explorations are shown on the Site Plan in
Figure 2. A geologist from NGA was present during the explorations, examined the soils and geologic
conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different soil types, and maintained logs of the borings.
NEL S01V GEO TECHNICA L A SSOCIA TES, 11VC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 4
A Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed on each of the samples during drilling to document soil
density at depth. The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outer -diameter, split -spoon sampler 18 inches
using a 140-pound hammer with a drop of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler
the final 12 inches is referred to as the "N" value and is presented on the boring logs. The N value is used
to evaluate the strength and density of the deposit.
The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System,
presented in Figure 4. The logs of our borings are attached to this report and are presented as Figures 5
through 8. We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraphs. For a
detailed description of the subsurface conditions, the boring logs should be reviewed.
Underlying the ground surface within Borings B-I and B-2 within the lower central portion of the
property, we generally encountered very loose to medium dense, gray -brown to gray silty fine to medium
sand with varying amounts of gravel and organics that we interpreted as surficial undocumented fill and
historic granular landslide debris. Underlying the surficial undocumented fill and historic granular
landslide debris in B-2 at a depth of approximately 40 feet below the ground surface, we encountered very
stiff blue -gray silty with varying amounts of fine sand and clay that we interpreted as native Whidbey
Formation deposits. Boring B-I was terminated within the historic granular landslide deposits at a depth
of 46.5 feet below the existing ground surface, while Boring B-2 was terminated within the native fine-
grained Whidbey Formation deposit at a depth of approximately 51.5 feet below the existing ground
surface.
Below the ground surface within Borings B-3 and B-4 within the upper eastern portion of the property
generally encountered approximately 20.0 to 25.0 feet of medium dense to dense, gray to orange -brown
silty fine to medium sand that we interpreted as native glacial soils. Underlying the native glacial soils in
Borings B-3 and B-4, we encountered medium dense/very stiff to very dense/very hard blue -gray to gray
silty fine sand and silt with varying amounts of sand that we interpreted as native Whidbey Formation
Deposits. Borings B-3 and B-4 were terminated within the native fine-grained Whidbey Formation
deposit at a depth of approximately 46.5 feet below the existing ground surface.
Hydrologic Conditions
Groundwater seepage was not encountered in our explorations. However, wet soil conditions were
encountered within the upper granular soils above the fine-grained siltier soils encountered at depth. It
is our opinion that any groundwater seepage encountered within the site would be perched water.
Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates through less dense, more permeable soils and
accumulates on top of relatively low permeability materials. The more permeable soils on this site would
consist of the granular soils found within the landslide debris and the upper native glacial soils. The low
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL A SSOCIA TES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 5
permeability soil consists of underlying siltier soils. Perched water does not represent a regional
groundwater "table" within the upper soil horizons. Perched water tends to vary spatially and is
dependent upon the amount of rainfall. We would expect the amount of perched groundwater to decrease
during drier times of the year and increase during wetter periods. However, due to the large area of
recharge, there may be areas of seepage and wet soils on this site even in the drier times of the year.
SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION
Seismic Hazard
Older landslide debris and medium stiff to hard cohesive soils were encountered -underlying the site at
depth within the western and central portions of the property, while medium dense/very stiff to very
dense/very hard native glacial soils and Whidbey Formation deposits were encountered within the upper
eastern portion of the property. Based on the 2015 International Building Code (IBC), the site conditions
best fit the description for Site Class E within the lower western and central portions of the property while
the site conditions best fit the description for Class D soils within the upper eastern portion of the
property. Tables I and 2 below provides seismic design parameters for the site that are in
conformance with the 2015 IBC, which specifies a design earthquake having a 2% probability of
occurrence in 50 years (return interval of 2,475 years), and the 2008 USGS seismic hazard maps.
Table 1 — 2015 IBC Seismic Design Parameters
(Lower Western and Central Portions of the Site)
Site Class
Spectral Acceleration
Spectral Acceleration
Site Coefficients
Design Spectral
at 0.2 sec. (g)
at 1.0 sec. (g)
Response
Ss
SI
Parameters
Fa
F,
SDS
SDI
77
E
1.323
0.520
0.90
2.40
0.794
0.832
Table 2 — 2015 IBC Seismic Design Parameters
(Upper Eastern Portion of the Site)
Site Class
Spectral Acceleration
Spectral Acceleration
Site Coefficients
Design Spectral
at 0.2 sec. (g)
at 1.0 sec. (g)
Response
Ss
Si
Parameters
Fa
F,
SDS
SDI
D
1.324
0.521
1.00
1.500
0.883
0.521
The spectral response accelerations were obtained from the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program
Interpolated Probabilistic Ground Motion website (2008 data) for the project latitude and longitude.
NELSON GEO TECHNICAL A SSOCIA TES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 6
Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground
motion. Liquefaction is caused by a rise in pore pressures in a loose, fine sand deposit beneath the
groundwater table. It is our opinion that the competent glacial and fine-grained soils interpreted to
underlie the site have a low potential for liquefaction or amplification of ground motion.
The glacial soils interpreted to form the core of the steep slopes within the site are considered stable with
respect to deep-seated slope failures. All steep slopes have the potential for shallow sloughing failures
during seismic events. Such events should not significantly affect the planned development provided the
foundations are designed with the recommended setback values, debris protection systems, and the slope
and drainage systems are maintained as described in this report.
Erosion Hazard
The criteria used for determining the erosion hazard for the site soils includes soil type, slope gradient,
vegetation cover, and groundwater conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative cover and
the specific surface soil types, which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. The Soil Survey of
Snohomish County Area, Washington by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), was reviewed to
determine the erosion hazard of the on -site soils. The site surface soils were classified using the SCS
classification system as Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes within the lower
western portion of the site, Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes within the
central portion of the site and Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes within the upper
eastern portion of the site. These soils are described as having a slight to high erosion hazard. It is our
opinion that the site soils should have a slight to moderate hazard for erosion iin areas that are not
disturbed and where vegetation cover is not removed.
Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability
The criteria used for the evaluation of landslide hazards include soil type, slope gradient, and groundwater
conditions. The western and central portions of the site slope gently to moderately down to the west. A
steep west -facing slope is located above and to the east of the existing central residence within the eastern
portion of the property. Groundwater seepage was not observed on the sloping portions of the property
during site visit, however we understand that groundwater seepage has been observed on the steep slope
area in the past.
This site and the overall site vicinity lies within a known ancient landslide area. The site and vicinity
have been relatively stable for a very long period of time, and development in the area has taken place in
the form of single-family residences, roadways, and underground utilities. Although the likelihood of the
ancient slide to become active in the foreseeable future is very low, extreme environmental conditions
NEL SON GEO TECHNICA L A SSOCIA TES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 7
coupled with inadequate human practices could, in theory, re -activate the ancient landslide. Such external
factors could include severe and elongated weather events and/or significant seismic activity.
The site falls within "Zones B through D" of the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard
Area Report prepared by Landau Associates for the City of Edmonds. This designation requires that
certain features be included (or excluded) in the design. Such features include the restriction of cuts and
fills, the need for tightlining runoff into an approved system, the need to design foundations and retaining
walls to withstand high lateral earth pressures and potential loss of soil beneath parts of the foundation,
the need to vegetate slopes with deeply rooted drought -tolerant vegetation, and the elimination of any and
all irrigation systems. We have addressed all of these requirements in the remainder of this report.
We encountered what we interpreted as older granular landslide debris to depths of about 40 feet below
the existing ground surface within the lower (central) portion of the property. Medium dense/stiff
undisturbed native soils were encountered below this material, which we interpret the core of the site
slopes at depth to consist primarily of this relatively stable material. Potential deep-seated slide planes
were reported to be up to 100 feet deep below ground surface within the area; kowever, we did not
observe signs of recent deep-seated slope failures on the property and do not anticipate that such failures
will occur during the expected life of the existing and proposed structures. Localized areas of surface
instability and surface sliding can occur on steep slopes, particularly where modiFied through grading
activities. Backwasting (movement of near -surface soil) through soil erosion processes or local surface
slides is common to slopes, particularly where the soils are exposed to weathering. Normal surface
erosion and shallow sloughing failures should be expected to continue on the steeper portions of the site,
but we have provided geotechnical recommendations for deep -foundation support, debris catchment,
erosion control, structure setbacks and other development considerations that should reduce the potential
impact of site development on the site slopes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
It is our opinion, from a geotechnical standpoint, that the site should be compatible with the proposed
development and improvements, provided that the geotechnical recommendations presented in this report
are incorporated into project plans and followed during construction. The proposed development area
appears to be relatively stable under current conditions. However, the historic landslide mapped at the
site could be reactivated by extreme natural conditions and/or poor grading and/or drainage activities by
other human activity in the general site vicinity. We consider this potential to be low.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL A SSOCIA TES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 8
In general, the site and steep slopes within the site currently appear generally stable with respect to deep-
seated movement. However, the site vicinity is mapped within an older landslide complex and our
explorations encountered evidence of past landslide debris and ground movement within the lower central
and western portions of the property. The potential for landslide and erosion hazards within this site will
greatly depend on how the site is graded and how surface water and near surface water are controlled.
We recommend that site grading be kept to a minimum and that grading and site drainage plans be
subjected to geotechnical engineering review prior to construction. This review would include specific
stability analysis of proposed cuts and fills and would provide recommendations for accomplishing the
desired grading while maintaining long-term stability.
In our opinion, based on our observations and our understanding of the prevailing building conditions, the
settlement and distress to the central residence is likely a result of long-term consolidation (settlement) of
the relatively loose undocumented fill and landslide debris soils that were encountered in our explorations
and is interpreted to underlie portions of the residence. It appears that this fill was likely placed during
the initial development of this property. Due to the varying nature of the overall density of the fill
encountered in our explorations, it is likely that some of the fill material was placed in a loose condition at
the time of residence construction, and throughout the years has been settling under the building loads. It
is likely that the foundations and slabs -on -grade will continue to experience steady settlement and
subsidence under the current conditions resulting in additional distress to the foundation, slabs and
utilities within the structure.
To mitigate this condition, we recommend that the all exterior and interior foundations along with all
slabs -on -grade affected by the ongoing settlement be supported on deep foundations consisting of driven
pin piles to transfer building loads through the undocumented fill and landslide debris down to the
underlying competent native soils. Lateral loads on the residence should be resisted by helical anchor
tiebacks. The exact location and extent of the pin piles and helical anchor tiebacks should be determined
by the structural engineer. We should be retained to discuss with the structural engineer the details of the
stabilization plans. We have provided recommendations for driven pin piles and helical anchor tiebacks
in the Foundation Improvements subsection of this report. We also recommend that after the pin pile
and helical anchor installation is completed, the remainder of the residence be closely monitored for any
signs of further distress, and additional stabilization measures be installed if signs of future distress are
observed.
We recommend that if a slab -on -grade is utilized in the lower portions of the proposed central residence,
that the slab be designed as a structural slab and be supported on the deep foundation system. Other hard
surfaces, such as paved areas or walkways that are supported on the existing soil have some risk of future
settlement, cracking, and the need for maintenance. To reduce this risk, we recommend over -excavating
NELSON GEO TECHNICAL A SSOCIA TES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 9
a minimum of two feet of the upper soil from the slab and pavement areas and replacing this material with
compacted pit run or crushed rock structural fill. This recommendation is only for hard surfaces to be
supported on grade and does not apply for the lower floor structural slab. Even with the recommended
treatment, some settlement of the underlying loose material should be anticipated.
In addition to the foundation improvements, we recommend that the drainage picture surrounding the
existing central residence be improved. Such improvements should include confirming and/or
implementing the placement of footing drains around the building, and routing all downspouts and runoff
from all hard surfaces into a permanent discharge system. We recommend that these pipes be extended to
discharge to an approved system. This is further discussed in the Drainage Improvements subsection of
this report.
It is also our opinion that the proposed garage development along the eastern side of the existing central
residence is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. We recommend that the foundations and slabs
associated with the proposed garage structure be supported on a deep foundation system consisting of
driven pin piles. We understand that the garage will be constructed along or very near the toe of the steep
west -facing slope. In our opinion, this should be feasible provided the foundation walls along the upslope
side of the garage be designed as recommended in this report. We recommend that the upslope portions
of the garage foundation be designed as debris walls and extend a minimum of four feet above finished
ground surface to protect the structure against potential failures on this slope. This is intended to provide
a catcbment measure should any sloughing debris travel towards the garage during extreme weather or as
a result of an earthquake. Alternatively, a separate debris protection structure or fence could be utilized.
It is our opinion that the planned residence development within the upper eastern portion of the site is
feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. It is also our opinion that the soils that underlie the upper eastern
portion of the site and form the core of the steep west -facing slope should be stable with respect to deep-
seated earth movements, due to their inherent strength and slope geometry. However, shallow failures
could occur on the slopes in the loose surficial soil, especially during adverse weather or a significant
seismic event. Proper structure setbacks along with erosion and drainage control measures as
recommended in this report should reduce this potential. Our explorations indicated that the upper eastern
portion of the site is underlain by medium dense or better native glacial soils at relatively shallow depths.
The native glacial soils within the proposed upper eastern development area should provide adequate
support for foundation, slab, and pavement loads. We recommend that the structures within the upper
eastern portion of the site be designed utilizing shallow foundations. Footings should extend through any
loose surficial soil and be keyed into the underlying competent native soils. These soils should be
encountered roughly two to five feet below the existing ground surface within the planned development
area, with some potential localized areas of deeper loose soils in unexplored areas of the site. To protect
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL A SSOCIA TES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 10
the structures against potential failures on the slopes, we recommend that any proposed structures be set
back at least 60 feet from the top of the steep west -facing slopes. We should be retained to review final
structure locations and to observe foundation excavations prior to placing forms.
The control of surface and near -surface water is very important for the long-term stability of the site and
on the steeper portions of the site slopes. We highly recommend that temporary and final site grading be
designed to direct surface water away from the structures and away from the site slopes. Final drainage
plans have not been developed at this time, but we understand that all stormwater generated on the site
will be collected in tightlines and transported into an existing stromwater system along the southern
portion of the property. No water should be infiltrated or dispersed within the site- We discuss general
site drainage in the Site Drainage subsection of this report.
The soils encountered within our explorations are considered extremely moisture sensitive and will
disturb easily when wet. We recommend that construction take place during extended periods of dry
weather if possible. If construction takes place during wet weather, additional expenses and delays
should be expected due to the wet conditions. Additional expenses could include the need to export on -
site soil, the import of clean, granular soil for fill, and the need to place a blanket of rock spalls or crushed
rock in the construction traffic areas and on exposed subgrades prior to placing structural fill or structural
elements.
In this report, we have also provided recommendations for drainage, erosion control, and other
development considerations intended to reduce the potential impact of development on the site and the
site slopes. We should be retained to review final project plans prior to construction. We also
recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to
confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide
recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those
anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with
contract plans and specifications.
Erosion Control and Slope Protection Measures
The erosion hazard for the on -site soils is considered moderate to high, but the actual hazard will be
dependent on how the site is graded and how water is allowed to concentrate. Best M[anagement Practices
(BMPs) should be used to control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from
erosion. Erosion control measures may include diverting surface water away from the stripped or
disturbed areas. Silt fences and/or slope waddles should be erected to prevent muddy water from leaving
the site or flowing over the site slopes. Disturbed areas should be planted as soon as practical and the
vegetation should be maintained until it is established. The erosion potential for areas not stripped of
NEL SON GEO TECHNICA L A SSOCIA TES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page I I
vegetation should be low to moderate. Also, irrigation systems should not be installed within the
property.
Protection of the site slopes should be performed as required by the City of Edmonds. Specifically, we
recommend that the slopes not be disturbed or modified through placement of any fill or future structures
outside the planned development areas. No additional material of any kind should be placed on any
portion of sloping ground, such as excavation spoils and soil stockpiles. It may be possible for trees to be
cut down and removed from the slopes as long as a mitigation plan is developed for maintaining slope
stability, such as the replacement of vegetation for erosion protection. A vegetation cover should be
preserved on the slopes. Replacement of vegetation should be performed in accordance with the City of
Edmonds code. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to concentrate on the slopes. Any
sloping areas disturbed during construction should be planted with vegetation as soon as practical to
reduce the potential for erosion.
Site Preparation and Grading
Plans for site grading should be devised such that cuts and fills are kept to a minimum. Site preparation
should consist of excavating the upper eastern residence and garage footprints down to planned
elevations. Site preparation should also consist of stripping any organic topsoil and/or loose/soft soils in
areas that will support foundations, slabs -on -grade, pavement, or structural fill. The stripped material
should not be stockpiled within the site. If the exposed soils are loose/soft, they should be compacted to a
non -yielding condition. Areas observed to pump or weave during compaction should be over -excavated
and replaced with rock spalls. If significant surface water flow is encountered during construction, this
flow should be diverted around areas to be developed and the exposed subgrade maintained in a semi -dry
condition. In wet conditions, the exposed subgrade should not be compacted, as compaction of a wet
subgrade may result in further disturbance of the soils. A layer of crushed rock may be placed over the
prepared areas to protect them from further disturbance.
The site soils are considered extremely moisture sensitive and will disturb easily when wet. We
recommend that earthwork construction take place during periods of extended dry weather, and
suspended during periods of precipitation. If work is to take place during periods of wet weather, extreme
care should be taken during site preparation as to not to disturb the site soils. This can be accomplished
by utilizing large excavators equipped with smooth buckets and wide tracks to complete earthwork, and
diverting surface and groundwater flow away from the prepared subgrades. Also, construction traffic
should not be allowed on the exposed subgrade. A blanket of rock spalls should be used in construction
access areas if wet conditions are prevalent. The thickness of this rock spall layer should be based on
subgrade performance at the time of construction. For planning purposes, we recommend a minimum
one -foot thick layer of rock spalls.
NEL SON GEO TECHNICA L A SSOCIA TES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 12
Temporary and Permanent Slopes
Temporary cut slope stability is a function of many factors, including the type and consistency of soils,
depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open and the
presence of surface or groundwater. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate
a stable, temporary, cut slope angle. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain
safe slope configurations since they are continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and
condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and groundwater conditions
encountered.
The following information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and
should not be construed to imply that Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job
site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor.
For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the on -site material be no steeper than two
units horizontal to one unit vertical (2H: IV). If groundwater seepage is encountered, we would expect
that flatter inclinations would be necessary. We should be retained to specifically review proposed
geometry for significant cuts planned on this site. We recommend that cut slopes be protected from
erosion. Erosion control measures may include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting
surface water runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts
deeper than four feet, if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and
inclinations conform to appropriate OSHA/WISHA regulations.
Permanent cut and fill slopes should be no steeper than 3H:IV. However, flatter inclinations may be
required in areas where loose soils are encountered. Permanent slopes should be covered with erosion
control matting and vegetated. The vegetative cover should be maintained until established. We should
specifically review all plans for grading on this project. We do not recommend placing irrigation systems
near the slopes.
Structure Setbacks
Uncertainties related to building along steep slopes are typically addressed by the use of building
setbacks. The purpose of the setback is to establish a "buffer zone" between the structure and the top and
toe of the slope so that ample room is allowed for normal slope recession during a reasonable life span of
the structure. In a general sense, the greater the setback distance, the lower the risk of slope failures
impacting the structure. From a geological standpoint, the setback dimension is based on the slope's
physical characteristics, such as slope height, surface angle, material composition, and hydrology. Other
factors such as historical slope activity, rate of regression, and the type and desired life span of the
development are important considerations as well.
NELSON GEO TECHNICAL A SSOCIA TES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 13
We recommend that any proposed structures within the upper eastern portion of the. property be set back
at least 60 feet from the top of the steep west -facing slope. We also understand that a proposed garage
structure may be constructed along the toe of the steep west -facing slope within the central portion of the
property. In our opinion, this is feasible provided that the uphill eastern side of the garage is designed as
a debris catchment wall and extends a minimum of four feet above the surrounding ground surface. We
should be retained to review final residence location and to observe foundation excavations prior to
placing forms. Any proposed development within the setback area, should be the subject of a specific
geotechnical evaluation. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to concentrate on the slopes,
during or after construction.
Foundation Improvements
Driven Pin Piles: We recommend that all interior and exterior foundation lines along with all impacted
slabs -on -grade associated with the central residence be supported on driven pin piles to transfer
foundation loads to the underlying native competent native materials found below the fill and landslide
debris. We also recommend that the foundations and slabs for the proposed garage associated with the
central residence also be supported on deep foundations consisting of driven pin piles. Due to the limited
access to the existing residence area, we anticipate that all interior areas to be underpinned will be
supported on 2-inch pin piles. However, the exterior foundations and foundations for the planned garage
could be supported by either 2-inch pin piles or 4-inch pin piles, if larger equipment can access these
areas. We recommend that the foundations and slabs associated with the proposed garage be supported
on 4-inch pin piles. We have provided recommendations for the two pin pile sizes, in this section. Our
explorations did not encounter any significant debris within the existing fill or landslide debris, however
there is a possibility that some obstructions within the fill may impede some of the piles. There should be
contingencies in the budget and design for additional/relocated piles to replace piles that may be
obstructed by debris. We also recommend that excavation equipment be available on site during pile
installation so that shallow obstructions can be removed from the planned pile locations.
For 2-inch diameter pipe piles driven to refusal using a hand-held, 140-pound jackhammer, we
recommend a design axial compression capacity of three tons for each pile. The refusal criterion for this
pile and hammer size is defined as less than one inch of movement during 60 seconds of continuous
driving. We recommend using galvanized extra strong (Schedule 80) steel pipe for the 2-inch pin piles.
We recommend that the four -inch pipe piles, if utilized, be driven using a tractor -mounted hydraulic
hammer, with an energy rating of at least 1, 100 foot -lb. For this pile and hammer size, we recommend a
design capacity of eight tons for each pile driven to refusal. The refusal criterion for this pile and hammer
size is defined as less than one -inch of movement during 15 seconds of continuous driving at a rate of 550
blows per minute or higher. We recommend using galvanized schedule 40 pipe for the 4-inch pin piles.
NEL SOAI GEO TECHNICA L A SSOCIA TES, INC.
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 14
Maintaining these recommendations for minimum hammer size and refusal criteria is essential for
obtaining a successful outcome.
Final pile depths should be expected to vary somewhat and will depend on the depth of the loose material
and landslide debris, the nature of the underlying competent soils. The pin piles should penetrate a
minimum of five feet into the competent native glacial soils below the fill material in order to develop the
design capacity. Based on our explorations within the vicinity of the central residence, we anticipate that
piles may need to be driven to a minimum depth of 50 feet below the ground surface to achieve the
minimum embedment depth into the competent native soils. Piles that do not meet this minimum
embedment criterion should be rejected, and replacement piles should be driven after consulting with the
structural engineer regarding the new pile locations. The piles should be spaced a minimum of two feet
apart to avoid a grouping effect on the piles. We should also be retained to observe pin pile installation
during construction.
Due to the relatively small slenderness ratio of pin piles, maintaining pin pile confinement and lateral
support is essential in preventing pile buckling. The brackets and pin pile connections to the existing and
proposed foundation and slabs should be designed by the structural engineer.
Vertically driven pin piles do not provide meaningful lateral capacity. Due to the rigid pile support,
friction between the foundation and subgrade soil should not be considered for resisting lateral pressures
on this structure. We recommend that all lateral loads be resisted on the helical anchor tiebacks.
Shallow Foundations
For the upper eastern portion of the development, conventional shallow spread foundations should be
placed on undisturbed medium dense or better native soils. Medium dense to dense soils should be
encountered roughly two to five feet below the ground surface based on our explorations; however,
deeper areas of loose soil may be encountered in unexplored areas of the site. Where undocumented fill
or less dense soils are encountered at footing bearing elevation, the subgrade should be over -excavated to
expose suitable bearing soil.
Footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished ground surface for frost
protection and bearing capacity considerations. Foundations should be designed in accordance with the
2015 IBC. Footing widths should be based on the anticipated loads and allowable soil bearing pressure.
Water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be
removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIA TES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 15
For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of
not more than 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for the footing design for footings founded on
the medium dense or better native soils or structural fill extending to the native competent material. The
foundation bearing soil should be evaluated by a representative of NGA. We should be consulted if
higher bearing pressures are needed. Current IBC guidelines should be used when considering increased
allowable bearing pressure for short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Potential foundation
settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less than one inch total
and 1/2 inch differential between ad acent footings or across a distance of about 20 feet, based on our
experience with similar projects.
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of the footing and passive resistance against the
subsurface portions of the foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be used to calculate the base
friction and should be applied to the vertical dead load only. Passive resistance may be calculated as a
triangular equivalent fluid pressure distribution. An equivalent fluid density of 150 pounds per cubic foot
(pcf) should be used for passive resistance design for a level ground surface adjacent to the footing. This
level surface should extend a distance equal to at least three times the footing depth. These recommended
values incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 applied to the estimated ultimate vaWes for frictional and
passive resistance, respectively. To achieve this value of passive resistance, the foundations should be
poured "neat" against the native medium dense soils or compacted fill should be used as backfill against
the front of the footing. We recommend that the upper one -foot of soil be neglected when calculating the
passive resistance.
Retaining Walls
Final grading and development plans were not available at the time this report was prepared but retaining
walls will likely be needed for the proposed development. We recommend that the uphill foundation wall
for the proposed garage within the central portion of the property be extended a minimum of four feet
above the finished ground surface to protect the structure against potential failures from the slope above.
This is intended to provide a catchment measure should any sloughing debris travel towards the garage
structure during extreme weather or as a result of an earthquake. Alternatively, a separate debris
protection structure or fence could be utilized. We also recommend that no window or door openings be
located on the uphill eastern side of the proposed garage within the central portion of the property.
The lateral pressure acting on subsurface retaining walls is dependent on the nature and density of the soil
behind the wafl, the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed, wall drainage
conditions, the inclination of the backfill, and other possible surcharge loads. For walls that are free to
yield at the top at least one thousandth of the height of the wall (active condition), soil pressures will be
less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing (at -rest condition). We
NEL SON GEO TECHNICA L A SSOCIA rES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 999017
February 28, 2018
Page 16
recommend that walls supporting horizontal backfill and not subjected to hydrostatic forces be designed
using a triangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 45 pcf
for yielding (active condition) walls, and 65 pcf for non -yielding (at -rest condition) walls. If the uphill
side of the proposed garage is intended to act as a debris wall, we recommend the above ground portion of
the garage wall be designed to resist an active pressure of 100 pcf.
These recommended lateral earth pressures are for a drained granular backfill and are based on the
assumption of a maximum 2H: IV backfill inclinations and do not account for additional surcharge loads.
Additional lateral earth pressures should be considered for surcharge loads acting adjacent to subsurface
walls and within a distance equal to the subsurface height, of the wall. This would include the effects of
surcharges such as traffic loads, floor slab and foundation loads, or other surface loads. We are available
to provide consultation regarding additional loads on retaining walls during final design, if needed.
The lateral pressures on walls may be resisted by friction between the foundation and subgrade soil, and
by passive resistance acting on the below -grade portion of the foundation. Recommendations for
frictional and passive resistance to lateral loads are presented in the Foundations subsection of this
report.
All wall backfill should be well compacted as outlined in the Structural Fill subsection of this report.
Care should be taken to prevent the buildup of excess lateral soil pressures, due to over -compaction of the
wall backfill. This can be accomplished by placing wall backfill in thin loose lifts and compacting it with
small, hand -operated compactors within a distance behind the wall equal to at least one-half the height of
the wall. The thickness of the loose lifts should be reduced to accommodate the lower compactive energy
of the hand -operated equipment. The recommended level of compaction should still be maintained.
Permanent drainage systems should be installed for retaining walls. Recommendations for these systems
are found in the Subsurface Drainage subsection of this report. We recommend that we be retained to
evaluate the proposed wall drain backfill material and drainage systems.
Structural Fill
General: Fill placed beneath foundations, pavements, and other settlement -sensitive structures, or behind
retaining walls should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance
with prescribed methods and standards and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or
soils technician. Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number
of in -place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The
area to receive the fill should be prepared as outlined in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of
NEL SON GEO TECHNICA L A SSOCIA TES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 17
this report. Sloping areas to receive fill should be benched prior to fill placement. The benches should be
level and at least four feet wide.
Materials: Structural fill should consist of a good quality, granular soil, free of organics and other
deleterious material and be well graded to a maximum size of about three inches. All-weather fill should
contain no more than five -percent fines (soil finer than U.S. No. 200 sieve, based on that fraction passing
the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve). We do not anticipate placement of significant volumes of structural fill for this
project. The on -site soils consist of moisture -sensitive silty materials and slide debris. We recommend
that the on -site material not be used as structural fill. We should be retained to evaluate the suitability of
proposed structural fill materials at the time of construction.
Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of structural fill may proceed. All filling
should be accomplished in uniform lifts up to eight inches thick. Each lift should be spread evenly and be
thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill underlying building areas
and pavement subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density.
Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D-1557
Compaction Test procedure. The moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about
two percent of optimum so that a readily compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to over -
excavate and remove wet soils in cases where drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All
compaction should be accomplished by equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree
of compaction.
Slab -on -Grade
As mentioned earlier, we recommend that slabs -on -grade associated with the central portion of the
property be designed as a structural slab and fully supported on the deep foundation system consisting of
driven pin piles. Slabs associated with the upper eastern portion of the property should be supported on
subgrade soils prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. We
recommend that all floor slabs be underlain by at least six inches of free -draining gravel with less than
three percent by weight of the material passing Sieve #200 for use as a capillary break. We recommend
that the capillary break be hydraulically connected to the footing drain system to allow free drainage from
under the slab. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting (6-mil minimum), should be
placed over the capillary break material. An additional 2-inch-thick moist sand layer may be used to
cover the vapor barrier. This sand layer is optional, and is intended to be used to protect the vapor barrier
membrane and to aid in curing the concrete.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL A SSOCIA TES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 18
Pavement Subgrade
Pavement subgrade preparation should be completed as recommended in the Site Preparation and
Grading and Structural Fill subsections of this report. Depending on the tolerance to pavement
cracking, we recommend that the upper two feet of the existing material be removed and replaced with
granular structural fill or crushed rock. The pavement subgrade should be proof -rolled with a heavy,
rubber -tired piece of equipment, to identify soft or yielding areas that may require repair prior to placing
any structural fill and prior to placing the pavement base course. We should be retained to observe the
proof -rolling and recommend repairs prior to placement of the asphalt or hard surfaces. The pavement
section should be thickened to further reduce the effects of settlement due to the landslide debris, but
potential long-term cracking should still be expected.
Site Drainage Improvements
Surface Drainage: The finished ground surface should be graded such that stormwater is directed to an
appropriate stormwater collection system. Water should not be allowed to collect in any area where
footings, slabs, or retaining walls are to be constructed. Final site grades should allow for drainage away
from the structure and away from the site slopes. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a
minimum gradient of three percent, for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the structure and slopes.
Surface water should be collected by permanent catch basins and drain lines, and be discharged into an
appropriate discharge system. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to flow uncontrolled over
the site slopes or excavation walls. Existing drains within the property should be investigated and
repaired, as needed, to ensure all runoff generated on this site is routed away from the building foundation
and into the approved discharge system.
We recommend that all stormwater generated on the site, including roof downspouts, footing drains,
pavement and yard drains, and any water flow from the road, be tightlined to the existing stormwater
system within the southern portion of the site.
Subsurface Drainage: If groundwater is encountered during construction, we recommend that the
contractor slope the bottom of the excavations and collect water into ditches and small sump pits where
the water can be pumped out of the excavations and routed into an appropriate outlet.
We recommend the use of footing drains around the planned structure and behind retaining walls.
Footing drains should be installed at least one -foot below planned finished floor elevation. The drains
should consist of a minimum four -inch -diameter, rigid, slotted or perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by
free -draining material, such as washed rock, wrapped in a filter fabric. We recommend that an 18-inch-
wide zone of clean (less than three -percent fines), granular material be placed along the back of the walls
above the drain. Washed rock is an acceptable drain material, or drainage composite may be used instead.
NELSON GEO TECHNICAL A SSOCIA TES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning February 28, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 19
The free -draining material should extend up the wall to one -foot below the finished surface. The top foot
of backfill should consist of low permeability soil placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to
minimize the migration of surface water or silt into the footing drain. Footing drains should discharge
into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and discharge point with convenient cleanouts to
prolong the useful life of the drains. Roof drains should not be connected to footing drains.
Roof drains should also be installed around the structure. Roof drains should consist of gutters and
downspouts collecting stormwater runoff from the roof. The downspouts should discharge to catch basins
and 4-inch minimum diameter, rigid, PVC tightline pipes. The drains should be directed into catch basins
and then into the controlled drainage system. The footing and roof drains should discharge via
independent (separate) tightlines into catch basins/cleanouts leading to the stormwater system, Surface
water from the driveway and yard areas should also be collected in a catch basin and tightlined separately
to the storinwater system.
ROXI)MV, I MWI Owl
NGA has prepared this report for Mr. Carl Larsen and his agents, for use in the planning and design of the
development planned on this site only. The scope of our work does not includle services related to
construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors'
methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for
consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations
and also with time. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of
subsurface conditions. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and
schedule.
We recommend that we be retained to review final project plans and provide consultation regarding
specific structure placement, site grading, foundation support, and drainage. We also recommend that
NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirin that the
conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide
recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those
anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with
contract plans and specifications. We should be contacted a minimum of one week prior to construction
activities and could attend pre -construction meetings if requested.
All people who own or occupy homes on or near hillsides should realize that landslide movements are
always a possibility. The landowner should periodically inspect the slope, especially after a winter storrn.
If distress is evident, a geotechnical engineer should be contacted for advice on remedial/preventative
measures as soon as possible. The probability that landsliding will occur is substantially reduced by the
NELSOAt GEOTECHNICAL A SSOCIA TES, INC.
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 999017
February 28, 2018
Page 20
proper maintenance of drainage control measures at the site (the runoff from the impervious surfaces
should be led to an approved discharge point). Therefore, the homeowner should take responsibility for
performing such maintenance.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance
with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this report was
prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are
a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner.
�$ I
NEL SON GEO TECHNICA L A SSOCIA TES, INC
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Larsen Property Short Plat and Residence Underpinning
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 999017
February 28, 2018
Page 21
We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or
require further infonnation, please call.
Sincerely,
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Lee S. Bellah, LG
Project Geologist
Khaled M. Shawish, PE
Principal
LSB:KMS:sg
Eight Figures Attached
NELSON GEO TECHNICAL A SSOCIA TES, INC
VICINITY MAP
Not to Scale
Lund,�; Guich
a
�;-,,,Aynnwood
Treatment
Edmonds, WA
164th St SW
Meada�,dale
Playfields
Meadowdale,,
Middle School *io
I
a
'Z
Project Number NIELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK
ASSOCIATES, INC.
999017 Larsen Property Short Plat --a- �NG�A 1 8/10/17 Original DPN LSB <
Vicinity Map GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS (5
z
Woodin in, om� East W—h� Offl�
Figure 1 17311-135th A— NE, A-900 5526 ndust� La,,. #2
a I'
W-dirA1e.WA9W72 E . W—.h., WA �2
2S) 4�1� , F— �1-2510 (M)) 665-76961 F— 665�7�
Approximate Location of Proposed Garage
Approximate Top of Slope M 0
Existing Western Garage Approximate Toe of Slope -4
Approximate 60-foot
Existing Western Residence
Steep Slope Setback 6
z
<
CD
IN J
6 11 -.4
'J. U 0
z
--i q
�V' k"\\\\ _j
LOT I
WE '_�Xw
r
....V w
V 4
"2 �'t
a$'M' 9) '_'_ �3, pw S�
.4
LEGEND
Property line
B-1
Number and approximate
location of boring
A A' Approximate location
of cross-section
Reference: Site Plan based on an undated, untitled plan provided by CG Engineering.
?f U
w Sip
w In
w
0
w <
w
Z 0 W
B \s X\
0,
vi" z
w
AN
LO
T� U
; Vil
0 w
0
w
so
0.47� la,
IV r.24&03(tr w
4� r7
-141 Exr,—,
EL
0
Existing Central Residence U) r-
ru
CL
CL 2
2 0)
a.
r
(D
in
M
_j
0 50 100
mi�� I
Scale: 1 inch = 50 feet
E r,- C14
CD
0)
0)
0) LL
a_
Southwest
250—
200
0
LLJ 150
a)
16
E
.R
2
100
50
F-11
Approx. Main Floor Elevation: 142.1
Approx. Basement Floor Elevation: 133.4%
B-3 B-4
Qw
A'
East
Existin
Existing Block Walls Centra? 35
Residence
B-2
75th PI W B-1
Qols (landslide debris)
? — — — — — ? — — —
QW
I .... I .... I .... I .... I .... I .... I .... I .... I .... I .... J.—I .... I ... �i ....
0 5 . 0 100 150 200 250 360 35'0 40'0 450 500 55U oUV
Distance (feet)
Exploration
Boring Designation--> B-1
" <-- SPT N-value
Groundwater Le�ei _4 " 21
During Exploration
2,
?I
Geologic Contact
(approximate)
Reference: CrossSection is based onfield measurements using a hand-held clinometer and 100-fttape measure.
NOTES:
1) Stratigraphic conditions are interpolated between
the explorations. Actual conditions may vary.
2) Elevations are approximate.
.2
w
0
h
J U)
<
25.
U 2,8
z 0
7:
U -0j
W 5t
W
Ld
200
0 1- C75
LLI U)
X
Id
Z 0 W
0 in Z
(n U) 3
< z
150
_1
W w
z <
2
Z
1
r $
L u
100
2z 0
W
50
(L
1= ;:(
o
(n C
.�.2
CU Q
CL
2
In
2
12
Co.
E
Z)
z
8
d) .0
0 CY) LL
2—
IL
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
GROUP
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUPNAME
SYMBOL
CLEAN
GW
WELL -GRADED, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
COARSE-
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
GRAINED
MORE THAN 50 %
GRAVEL
GM
OF COARSE FRACTION
SILTY GRAVEL
RETAINED ON
SOILS
NO, 4 SIEVE
WITH FINES
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
SAND
CLEAN
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
SAND
SP
POORLY GRADED SAND
MORE THAN 50 %
RETAINED ON
MORE THAN 50 %
NO. 200 SIEVE
OF COARSE FRACTION
SAND
Sm
SILTY SAND
PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE
WITH FINES
Sc
CLAYEY SAND
FINE -
SILT AND CLAY
ML
SILT
INORGANIC
GRAINED
LIQUID LIMIT
CL
CLAY
LESS THAN 50 %
SOILS
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
SILT AND CLAY
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
INORGANIC
MORE THAN 50 %
PASSES
LIQUID LIMIT
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
NO. 200 SIEVE
50 % OR MORE
ORGANIC
OH
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
NOTES:
1) Field classification is based on visual SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
examination of soil in general
accordance with ASTM D 2488-93. Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to
the touch
2) Soil classification using laboratory tests
is based on ASTM D 2488-93. Moist - Damp, but no visible water.
3) Descriptions of soil density or Wet - Visible free water or saturated,
consistency are based on usually soil is obtained from
interpretation of blowcount data, below water table
visual appearance of soils, and/or
test data.
Project Number
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
No.
Date
Revision
By
CK
999017
Larsen Property Short Plat
Soil Classification Chart
'-�% ASSOCIATES, INC.
-000�NGA
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
1
8/10/17
Onginal
DPN
LS6
Figure 4
W�dlnvllla We, EaM W—Chee Offlee
1731 1 -1 35th A- NE, A-500 ,5526 Industry Lane, 42
W-dinAe, WA WY72 st VV .. Whe., WA 98802
(�25� 486-1669 / Fe� 481-2510 —nele-g-tech— A 665-76961 Fs� 665-7692
BORING LOG
B-1
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: ??
Soil Profile
Sample Data
Penetration Resistance
(Blows/foot - 0)
10 20 30 40 50 50+
1
d)
1--
Piezometer
Installation -
L)
Ground Water
Description
Z 0)
CL
CL 0
=1 M
-E
0 :3
.2 0 .2
O_
Moisture Content
.2
2
Data
0 E
>1
0c,
E
M U
(Percent - 0)
0
(Depth in Feet)
U)
U) 0
_J (U
10 20 30 40 5 50+1
-am
_J
Gray -brown, silty fine to medium sand with gravel,
iron -oxide staining, and trace roots (very loose, moist)
3
5
... ....
.........
........
........
.........
........
5
-becomes dark brown
3
-becomes dark brown to gray -brown, loose
-no organics
5
-becomes gray, moist to wet
7
10
.... ...
........
........
........
.........
.. .. ..
-10
-becomes gray -brown
9
SM15
........
.........
... ....
........
.........
.......
-15
9
N
' 7-
20
........
.... ....
.........
........
.........
........
-20
-becomes gray, medium dense, wet
17
25
..... ..
........
........
........
.........
........
25
-becomes loose with trace organics, charcoal
5
LEGEND E-1 Solid PVC Pipe concrete M Moisture Content
7— Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atterberg Limits
Depth Driven and Amount Recovered
G Grain -size Analysis
with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler Monument/ Cap Native Soil DS Direct Shear
to Piezometer Silica Sand PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft
Depth Driven and Amount Recovered * Liquid Limit P Sample Pushed
with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit Water Level T Triaxial
NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgement. They are not necessarily
representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Project Number
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
�NG�A
No.
Date
Revision
By
CK
999017
Larsen Property Short Plat
ASSOCIATES, INC.
_1
Boring Log
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
W�111le Ofilce E111 Wllltlh� Offill
17311 '135th A— NE, A-500 5526 Ird-try Lan, #2
W.=.,WA 12 E W .. 1,h- WA 98902
8/10/17
Original
DPN
LSB
Figure 5
Page 1 of 2
LU
(425)4 481-2510 —nel—g-t-h.— A665-7696/Far.66W692
---- J
0
Z
BORING LOG
B-1 (cont.)
Soil Profile
Sample Data
Penetration Resistance
(Blows/foot - 0)
10 20 30 40 50 50+
to
Piezometer
Installation -
Description
!E 0)
0- 0
=3
3:
CL 0
2:,
.2
Ground Water
Data
_J _L
Moisture Content
C)
CIS _J
2 E
>1
0
E to
to a
(Percent - 0)
co
8
(Depth in Feet)
0 7a
10 20 30 40 50 50+
Orange -brown to gray -brown, silty fine to medium sand
2
with gravel, trace organics, and charcoal (very loose, wet)
. .......... .
-becomes gray to brown, with trace iron -oxide staining,
7
35
........
... ..... ..................
.........
........
-35
medium dense
17
-no organics or charcoal
SM
-becomes gray, with trace gravel
40
........
... .. ........
... - ...
.........
........
-40
-no iron -oxide staining
20
-with trace iron -oxide staining
71
45
........
........ .....
..... ..
.........
........
-45
19
Boring terminated below existing grade at 46.5 feet on
8/7117. Groundwater seepage was not encountered
during drilling.
50
........
......... . - .....
........
.........
........
-50
E
55
........
......... ........
.........
.........
........
-55 U.
c
LEGEND FJ Solid PVC Pipe concrete M Moisture Content
Depth Driven and Amount Recovered Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atterberg Limits C
G Grain -size Analysis
with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler Monument/ Cap Native Soil DS Direct Shear
to Piezometer
Depth Driven and Amount Recovered Silica Sand PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft
* Liquid Limit
P Sample Pushed
with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler 1�
+ Plastic Limit Y Water Level T Triaxial
NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests. analysis and judgement. They are riot necessadly
representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. 1-Z
Project Number
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
No.
Date
Revision
By
CK
999017
Larsen Property Short Plat
Boring Log
ASSOCIATES, INC.
---_�NGA
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS St GEOLOGISTS
W�InvllleOfflca East Wenatchee Office
17311-135th A-- NE. A-110 5526 Ind.stry Une, #2
'i.
i n=., WA �2 East Mlltct,11, WA 988C2
1
8110/17
Original
OPN
LSEl
t-
Figure 5
Page 2 of 2
(425) 48&1 Fax: 481-2510 —relsonti-tecir,.com (509 ) 665-7696 / F 665�7692
BORING LOG
B-2
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: ??
Soil Profile
Sample Data
Penetration Resistance
C
(Blows/foot - 0)
10 20 30 40 50 50,
1--
Piezometer
Installation -
U
Ground Water
Description
!E Cn
0-0
CL 0
=) �0
3:
0 :3
CL
Moisture Content
.2
12
Data
_J
0 E
5,
2-, o
(-)
E
M
(Percent - 0)
0
(Depth in Feet)
U)
U) _J a)
10 20 30 40 5 50,1
Gray -brown, silty fine to medium sand with gravel and
roots (very loose to loose, moist)
. .......... .
14—
4
-becomes gray with iron -oxide staining, loose
5
5
.... ...
........
........
........
.......
........
5
-no roots
-becomes gray to orange -brown
6
-becomes gray with trace gravel and roots
7
10
..... ..
........
........
...... -
.........
.. ....
-10
-becomes gray -brown
8
-becomes medium dense
SM
15
........
........
........
........
.........
.
-15
-no roots
11
N
20
........
.... ....
...
........
.........
........
-20
-becomes wet, with gravel
13
-becomes gray, with trace gravel
13
25
........
...........
.........
........
-25
LEGEND F-1 Solid PVC Pipe Concrete M Moisture Content
F—_1 Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atterberg Limits
Depth Driven and Amount Recovered
G Grain -size Analysis
with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler Monument/ Cap Native Soil DS Direct Shear
Depth Driven and Amount Recovered to Piezometer Silica Sand PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft
Liquid Limit P Sample Pushed
with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit Water Level T Triaxial
NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgement. They are not necessarly
representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Project Number
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
No.
Date
Revision
By
CK
999017
Larsen Property Short Plat
ASSOCIATES,
"~N-G A I NC.
Boring Log
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
w�iine om- Ead Wh� Offic,
17311 -1 3&h A- NE, A_9W 5526 Wmly L #2
WdinAe, WA �72 E W .. t�, WA 98W2
I
WIWI,
.,ural
DPN
LSB
Figure 6
Page 1 2
of
(425) 48&1669 / Fu 481-2510 t509)=7696/F665176W
BORING LOG
B-2 (cont.)
Soil Profile
Sample Data
Penetration Resistance
(Blows/foot - 0)
10 20 30 40 50 50+
I I I I
1--
Piezometer
Installation -
C (D
?,
Ground Water
Description
CL
CL
=3
3:
0
T 0 2
CL " E
Moisture Content
E2
Data
Co o
0 E
>'
0
L)
E
Cal co
(Percent - E)
0
(Depth in Feet)
C/) 0
J W
10 20 30 40 5 50-1
-,a
_J
Gray, silty fine to medium sand with gravel, iron -oxide
8
staining, and trace charcoal (loose, wet)
-becomes medium dense
-no charcoal
SM
24
35
-
........
........
. ......
........
.........
........
35
40
........
..... ..
........
........
.........
.. -
-40
17
Gray -blue silt with fine sand (very stiff, dry)
45
........
........
..... ...
........
.........
-45
ML
29
5
........
........
.. m ....
........
.........
........
-50
30
Boring terminated below existing grade at 51.5 feet on
8/7/17. Groundwater seepage was not encountered
during drilling.
55
........
........
.........
........
.........
..
55
LEGEND Solid PVC Pipe ES concrete M Moisture Content
Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atterberg Limits
r-1 Depth Driven and Amount Recovered
G Grain -size Analysis
with 2-inch C.D. Split -Spoon Sampler Monument/ Cap Native Soil IDS Direct Shear
to Piezometer PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft
Depth Driven and Amount Recovered Liquid Limit Silica Sand P Sample Pushed
with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit Water Level T Triaxial
NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgement. They are not necessarily
representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented an this log.
Project Number
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
No.
Date
Revision
By
CK
999017
Larsen Property Short Plat
'A--N_ ASSOCIATES, INC.
NG
Boring Log
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
W,Mfnvine Offt, ElOW"CheeCiffice
17311-13511, Aw. NE, A,900 5526 Inal—y Lane, 02
Modin,fle, WA 98072 Eat Wan.td., WA 98802
1
8/10117
Original
DR4
LSS
Figure 6
Page 2 of 2
(�25) 48&16691 Fax: 481-2510 --l—g-t-h—, (509) 6�7696 1 Far, 665-7692
BORING LOG
B-3
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: ??
Soil Profile
Sample Data
Penetration Resistance
(Blows/foot - 0)
10 20 30 40 50 50+
l (u
Piezometer
Installation -
Ground W ater
Description
!E Cn
0-
CL 0
:3 .0
3:
0 :3
.2 0 '2
CL S
Moisture Content
2
12
Data
0
CU _J
0 E
j-n q
0
E
m "5.
(Percent - 0)
0
(Depth in Feet)
U) 0
J (U
10 20 30 40 50 50,
-am
_J
Gray -brown to orange -brown, silty fine to medium sand
with gravel, iron -oxide weathering, and trace metal/plastic
(dense, moist) (ELLL)
41
L
1�rTy tTora_ngj-_brJwn, sili7lfiTe tj`mj_d_JuTsand 'with-
5
........
.........
........
........
.......
.......
5
gravel, iron -oxide weathering, and trace roots (very
54
dense, moist)
-becomes orange -brown to gray
-no roots
50-6"
-becomes gray, medium dense
23
10
........
.........
........
...........
.........
........
-10
SM
15
........
.........
...... ..
........
.........
........
-15
-no iron -oxide staining
29
-becomes gray -brown with iron -oxide staining,
32
20
........
.........
...........
......
........
........
-20
dense, wet
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Gray silt with fine sand (very stiff, moist)
— — --
— —
25
........
.........
........
. .......
.........
........
-25
31
ML
LEGEND F-I Solid PVC Pipe concrete M Moisture Content
F_—_1 Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atterberg Limits
Depth Driven and Amount Recovered G Grain -size Analysis
with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler Monument/ Cap Native Soil DS Direct Shear
to Piezometer PIP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tonsIft
Depth Driven and Amount Recovered * Liquid Limit Silica Sand P Sample Pushed
with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit Water Level T Triaxial
NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgement. They are not necessarily
representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Project Number
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
No.
Date
Revision
By
CK
999017
Larsen Property Short Plat
.101.*" 'A--., ASSOCIATES, INC.
NG
Boring Log
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
w.mi.vin. om.. E.. W..at.h_ Offl-
17311 '135th A- NE, A-500 55M kdmty L 02
W-din,fl.,WASM72 E� WA 98W2
1
8/10/17
Original
DPN
LSB
Figure 7
Page 1 of 2
F.. 181-2510 —.n.l-rgh. (509) �7� 1 F 665-7692
BORING LOG
B-3 (cont.)
Soil Profile
Sample Data
Penetration Resistance
CD
.9
(Blows/foot - 0)
10 20 30 40 50 50+
I I I I
Piezometer
Installation -
Cc:
Ground Water
Description
:3
3: C:
.2
Moisture Content
Data
0. 0
Co _J
0 E
5,
0
ai 0
C)
E co
to 0 1
'5.
(Percent
E2
0
(Depth in Feet)
U)
0
_J d)
10 20 30 40 50 50+
-0.
_J
Gray -brown, silty fine to medium sand with iron -oxide
30
41
staining (medium dense to dense, moist)
:77. .7
SM
35
........
.........
.... .............
........
........
-35
1 25
Gray silt with fine sand (very stiff, moist)
ML
— T — — — — — — — — — —
1�ray, ilty Tinesar7d viTith iron -oxide staining
(dense, moist)
40
........
.........
........
........
. .......
........
-40
45
7
-
SM
45
........
.........
..............
....
.... ..
........
-45
48
Boring terminated below existing grade at 46.5 feet on
8/7/17. Groundwater seepage was not encountered
during drilling.
50
........
.........
..................
.........
........
-50
55
........
.........
..................
.........
........
55
LEGEND F-1 Solid PVC Pipe concrete M Moisture Content
F_—J Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atterberg Limits
Depth Driven and Amount Recovered
G Grain -size Analysis
Monument/ Cap
with 2-inch C.D. Split -Spoon Sampler Native Soil DS Direct Shear
to Piezometer PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft
Depth Driven and Amount Recovered Liquid Limit Silica Sand P Sample Pushed
with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit _Y Water Level T Triaxial
NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgement. They are not necessarily
representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Project Number
NELSON GEOTIECHNICAL
No.
Date
Revision
By
CK
999017
Larsen Property Short Plat
ASSOCIATES, INC.
-00�N- G A
Boring Log
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
W-dinAll. Offlee F"t Wenatchee Office
17311-135th A— NE, A5W 5529 Wetry Lane, #2
M.di,mh. WA 98072 e.. W.—h-, WA 98802.
(42514a6_1669 , F-481-2510 n,1wng,ch.corn (509) 665-76% 1 Fa.: 66�7692
1
8/10/17
Original
DPN
LS13
Figure 7
Page 2 of 2
BORING LOG
B-4
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: ??
Soil Profile
Sample Data
Penetration Resistance
(Blows/foot - 0)
10 20 30 40 50 50+
10
Piezometer
Installation -
L)
d)
Ground Water
Description
0)
CL
=) M
0 :3
A 0 2
CL
Moisture Content
co
Data
0
_J
0 E
5,
E
m
(Percent - N)
(Depth in Feet)
C/) 0 15,
_J Q
10 20 30 40 50 50,
-am
Gray -brown, silty fine to medium sand with gravel,
iron -oxide staining, and trace organics (loose, moist)
SM
7
----------------------
No recovery
2
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Gray, silty fine to medium sand with gravel and iron -oxide
weathering (dense, moist)
-------
— —
41
-becomes medium dense
25
10
........
.........
.......
.........
........
-10
SM
-becomes gray -brown
28
15
.
.......
..
........
.........
........
-15
35
20
........
........
.........
.. .....
.........
........
-20
Gray silt with fine sand (hard, moist)
-interbedded with gray, silty fine to medium sand with
25
........
.........
.........
........
... .....
........
-25
gravel
ML
45
LEGEND F__J Solid PVC Pipe Concrete M Moisture Content
Depth Driven and Amount Recovered F—� Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atterberg Limits
G Grain -size Analysis
Monument/ Cap
with 2-inch C.D. Split -Spoon Sampler Native Soil DS Direct Shear
to Piezometer Silica Sand PP Packet Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft
Depth Driven and Amount Recovered * Liquid Limit P Sample Pushed
with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit Water Level T Triaxial
NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis ard judgement. They are not necessarily
representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Project Number
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
No.
-
Date
Revision
By
CK
999017
Larsen Property Short Plat
A--,, ASSOCIATES, INC,
NG
Boring Log
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
W�1111. M E-1 W..M.h- Offl-
17311 -1 35th A- NE, A-500 5526 W.." L.-. #2
'Ab 12 EaV Wenatch-, WA SM2
1
8110117
Odgin.1
DPN
LSB
Figure 8
Page 1 of 2
�=,'IA
'25) '_ �1 -2510 [..ng.� (5091665.7� [F�7692
1 41
BORING LOG
B-4 (cont.)
Soil Profile
Sample Data
Penetration Resistance
(Blows/foot - 0)
110 210 3lo 4,0 5,0 50-
11.�
12
Piezometer
Installation -
Description
�E
Q_
3: C
0
=
0
-
--d Water
Data
Moisture Content
to
0 E
.2 =
a
e
E C.)
(Percent - 0)
2
0
(Depth in Feet)
(U
10 20 30 40 5 50,
-0
Gray silt with fine sand (very stiff to hard, moist)
32
35
........
.........
..................
..... ...
........
-35
49
-interbedded with gray, silty fine to medium sand
ML
40
........
.........
...............
..
.........
... ....
-40
53
4
........
.........
..................
.........
...
45
52
Boring terminated below existing grade at 46.5 feet on
8/7/17. Groundwater seepage was not encountered
during drilling.
50
........
.........
........
........
.........
........
-50
E
55
........
.........
........
........
.........
........
-55
Q.
t
C
LEGEND F__J Solid PVC Pipe Concrete M Moisture Content
Depth Driven and Amount Recovered F_-1 Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Afterberg Limits c
G Grain -size Analysis
with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler Monument/ Cap Native Soil DS Direct Shear
to Piezometer
Depth Driven and Amount Recovered Liquid Limit Silica Sand PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft
P Sample Pushed
with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler
+ Plastic Limit Water Level T Triaxial
NOTE: subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgement. They are not necessarily
representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Project Number
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
No.
Date
Revision
By
I c
CK
999017
Larsen Property Short Plat
Boring Log
ASSOCIATES, INC.
-- �NGA
GFOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS GEOLOGISTS
Wo,di,�11, Offle, East vi�stchee om�
R31 1 -1 35th A- NE� A,500 5526 lrd-ry L #2
VV.
I
8110M7
odgml
OPN
LGB
G
Figure 8
Page 2 of 2
A Ea I V�th WA 98W2
(425)4=1WF.t'017'251G —.1-g-t-h— s.)1665,7696/F6�76K
Z
CITY CCPY
SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING AGREEMENT
Permit #: BLD2018-0517 L1100 Z d3s
Project: — Lai-sen Residence - SOILS (13NNVOS
PHOP to issuance of a Pepmil, 111isform must be completed in its enfii-e& and i-eirtrued to the Ci&foj-
appi-oval The conipletedfoi-in inust have Signatures qf acIcnowledgmew bjy allpal-ties.
DUTIES AND RE' SPONS1BILITIES
Silecial hisnection Firm and SPeCifil InsDectol-s:
The Special Inspection firm of Nelson Geotechnical
will perform special inspection for the following types of work �s—epara—te —forms must —besub.i-tted if more than
one firm is to be employed):
Pipe Pile Installation
Helical Anchor Installation
All individual inspectors to be employed oil this project will be WABO certified for die type of work they are to
inspect, If inspection is for work that is not covered by the WABO categories, or the inspector is not WABO
certified, a detailed resume of die inspector and firm must be submitted. The resume must show that the
inspector and the firm are qualified by education and experience to perform the work and testing required by the
project design and specifications.
The work shall be inspected for conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the City. Revisions
and addenda sheets will not be used for inspection, unless they have been approved by the City, Inspection
records shall include:
A daily record to be maintained on site, itemizing tile inspections performed. Any nonconforming work
shall be brought to the immediate attention of the contractor for resolution.
A weekly report shall be submitted to the City; detailing tile inspections and testing performed, listing
any nonconforming work and resolution of nonconforming items.
A final report shall be submitted to the building department prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being
issued. This report will indicate that inspection and testing was completed in conformance with the
approved plans, specifications and approved revisions or addenda. Any um-esolved discrepancies must
be detailed in the final report.
Contractor:
The contractor shal I provide die special inspector or agency adequate notification of work requiring inspection.
The City approved plan and specifications must be made available, at thejobsite for the use of the special
inspector and tile City inspector. The contractor shall maintain all daily inspection reports, o
all parties. if� pm-� Tli rj�'-My
%\edriisvr-userfs%ustipmf$%bjorb2ck\Desktop\SI Soils Larsen.doc6/1/2018
AUG 2 4 2018
BUILD:NG DEPARTMENT
OfTY OF EDMONDS
The special inspection functions are considered to be in addition to [lie normal inspections pci-fornied by tile City
and the contractor is responsible for contacting the City to schedule regular inspections. No concrete shall be
poured or other work covered until approval is given by the City inspector.
Building Department:
Tile building department shall review any revisions and addenda. The City inspector will monitor the special
inspection functions for compliance with the agreement and the approved plans. The City inspector sliall be
responsible for approving various stages of construction to be covered and for work to proceed,
DesiLyn Professionals:
Tlic architect and/or engineer will clearly indicate on the plans and specifications the specific types of special
inspection required and shall include a schedule for inspection and testing. The architect and/or engincer will
coordinate their revision and addenda process in such a way as to ensure that all required City approvals are
obtained, prior to work shown on the revisions being perforl-ned in the field.
Ownew:
Tile project owner, or the architect or engineer acting as the owners agent, shall employ the special inspector or
agency.
ENFORCEMENT
A failure of the special inspector or firm to perform in keeping with the requirements of the IRC, the approved
plans and this document, may void this agreement and the Building Official's approval of the special inspector.
In such a case a new special inspector and/or firrn would need to be proposed for approval. A failure of the
design and/or construction parties to perform in accordance with this agreement may result in a STOP WORIC
notice being posted on the project until nonconforming items have been resolved.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I have read and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this agreemen�
Owner: Sharon Larsen Signature. atle
stab Contractor: PILp— V,JCV —Signature
Arr
,11.lEng:_ Dennis Titus, PE, SE
')
Special ]lisp. #A U<—]
Special Insp. Agency ALff-LSbA (0-ro—rd N � LA-t- e,% S 0
ACCEPTED FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS BUILDING DIVISION
By: Date:
%\cdnisvr-u-,erf3Nuseiprof$Nbjorback\DcsktopNSI Soils Larsmi.doc6/l/201 8
Date: 1-zv -12,
Datellvv- hi L
f---T-
Date: -91122ht
VV0
40
Critical Areas File #: C R� 10 16 0) t -2—
,91nitial Determination - $100
11 Subsequent Determination - $50
Date Received: U21) IS
Date Mailed to Appli�ant:
The purpose of this checklist is to enable City staff to
deterrnine whether any critical areas and/or buffers are
located on or adjacent to the sub�iect property. Critical
areas, such as wetlands, streams and steep slopes, are
ecologically sensitive or hazardous areas that are
regulated to protect their functions and values. The City's
critical area regulations are contained within Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40
through 23.90.
Property Owner's Authorization
P20
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
www.edmondswa.gov
A property owner, or an authorized representative, must
fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the
City. Staff will review the checklist, conduct a site visit,
and make a determination of whether there are critical
areas and/or critical area buffers on or near the site. If a
"Critical Area Present" determination is issued, a report
addressing the applicable critical area requirements of
ECDC Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 may be required
depending on the scope of the proposed activity.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
property for the purposes of inspection attendant to this application. The undersigned owner, and hisiher/its heirs, and
assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of
Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction
based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its
agents or employees. -�7, ) I -
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE 1 -?-1
Owner:
- 5L%,Lro^ ?
Name
1J?>32. Mrr;-%O-
Street Address
I-Av 1, "140 LVA 18Z9-19
City State Zip
Applicant/Agent:
C6 6^211neeri-10% -
Name
z5o 'Y" Ave 5, 5,;ie- YOO
Street Address
Eel &, ,As LIA Iwo
City State Zip
Telephone: Telephone:
Emailaddress: EmailAddress:
Revised on 114117 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist Page I of 2
-4
0
CA File NoS f'A (-?-- #P20
Critical Areas Checklist
Site Information
1. Site Address/ Location: 45"� P1 W, E.Go-Lct5, L,/A c18c)-16
2. PropertyTax Account Number: 00513�-10000 7_+00
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 1.53 ACEES
4. Is this site currently developed? 5A Yes El No
If yes, how is the site developed? 9'5; '�0-1+i4- 1
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
• Flat to Rolling: N o slope on/ adjacent to the site or slopes generally less than 15 % (a vertical
rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet).
• Moderate: Slopes present on/adjacent to site of more than 15% and less than 40% (a vertical
rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 25 to 66-feet).
29 Steep: Slopes of greater than 40% present on/adjacent to site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a
horizontal distance of less than 25-fect).
6. Have there been landslides on or near the site in the past? 0 Yes El No
If yes, please describe: VFe w;F4i-% 6'5LHA
7. Site contains areas of year-round standing water? El Yes (approx. depth: CR No
8. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water? El Yes (approx. depth: X No
If yes, what season(s) of the year?
9. Site is in the floodway or floodplain of a water course? El Floodway El Floodplain
10. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? El Yes IN No
If yes, are flows year-round or seasonal? El Year-round El Seasonal (time of year:
11. Obvious wetland is present on site? E Yes 34 No
_j� I L% -4LA V $ V k T - N
For City Staff Use Only-
1. Zoning: -10 -
3. SCS mapped soil tyy �e( : 61 ff V
057-7do/n.'rh? sirect-4 ed4t_ i-S 41dlywearl Urbe,,,, (z -e %v,.r7._At
V_ - I - —
3. �itical Are# inventory or CA. map indicates Critical Area on site: PuJt4�Nkt ruse'j-1 -t-
L
La'?_cL,r(f
4. Site within designated North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESHLA)?
DETERMINATION
CRITIgAL AREAS PRESENT WAIVER
Reviewed by: Date: Z 12
Revised on 114117 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist
Page 2 of 2
A E D File No:
Citp of ebmolibE; Applicant:
I S9,11
Affidavit of Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area
Permit
0 T,� /2-
6tate of lVaOinatan
Countp of 6nobomi3%b ATF13Av IT OF
K307-1c-e-
,,�Xo^-J Z. 1,44,5441 being first duty swom, on oath,
deposes and says:
That on the Ab 0- day of 20J L the site located at
/�5,7,,? q
q.5-4±- pL
_)q was posted as
prescribed by Ordinance No. 3632 on the subject property. This posting begins on
on the day the City accepts the Permit Application for review and shall rernain until
building occupancy is granted. .
Signed:
Signed:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ��ay of 20.)9.
NOTARY PUBUC
STATE OF WASHINGTON P -inted Name:
BETH ANN CAMPBELL
My Appointment Expires 'N otary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at
AUGUST 25,'2018 01 `5� A Alk A 1W! -,A . ) / I A
My commission expires: 0,
Packet Item # 16
f . ftr�
Technical Memorandum �79T-_- 20 18 000-3
TO: Linda Thornquist, Senior Permit Coordinator
City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Building DivisiRIECEIVED
FROM: Sean M. Gertz, EIT and Steven R. Wright, PE APR 0 3" 2018
DATE: April 2, 2018 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
RE: Completeness Review COUNTER
Submittal Package for Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area
Larsen Residence — 15729 75th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
This technical memorandum provides our assessment of the completeness of the permit submittal
package submitted to the City of Edmonds (City) for the Larsen Residence within the Earth Subsidence
and Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA) of North Edmonds. This completeness review was accomplished in
accordance with Task Order No. 18-01 of Landau Associates' On -Call Geotechnical and Environmental
Engineering Services Agreement with the City.
The completeness review performed by Landau Associates is not intended to be a thorough review of
the permit submittal package; instead, it is intended to be a cursory review to assess whether the
submittal appears to contain the necessary information in order to complete a geotechnical peer
review in accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.10. As a guide
in assessing the completeness of the permit submittal package for the Larsen Residence, we referred
to the ESLHA Permit Submittal Checklist provided by the City.
Our cursory review did not identify any missing items that are required under ECDC 19.10. Of course,
once the more detailed geotechnical peer review is underway, there may be specific items within the
submitted documents that need to be clarified or addressed in order to complete the geotechnical
peer review.
Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this completeness review and when you are
ready for us to commence our geotechnical peer review.
LANDAu
L4 ASSOCIATES
130 2nd Avenue South - Edmonds, Washington 98020 * (425) 778-0907
ft-
Landau Associates
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Sean M. Gertz, EIT
Senior Staff Geotechnical EIT
SY/'--UVd
Steven R. Wright, PE
Principal
SMG/SZW/rgrn
Completeness Review
Larsen Residence — 15729 75th Place West
April2,2018
V
Technical Memorandum
TO: Linda Thornquist, Senior Permit Coordinator
City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Building Division
FROM: Sean Gertz, EIT and Steven Wright, PE
DATE: April 30, 2018 SCANNED
RE: Geotechnical Peer Review APR ,:o 2a
Submittal Package for Structural Improvements in a Critical Area
Larsen Residence — 15729 75th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
This technical memorandum summarizes the results of our geotechnical peer review of the permit
submittal package that was submitted to the City of Edmonds (City) for proposed structural
improvements to the above referenced residence, which is located within a critical area in Edmonds,
Washington. The purpose of our geotechnical peer review is to review portions of the submittal
package and assess its compliance with the City's development and building permit requirements as
contained in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.10 for sites designated
within or near the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA). This review
also assesses the submittal's compliance with the requirements of Chapter 23.80 of the ECDC as
required or noted in Chapter 19.10. This geotechnical peer review was accomplished in accordance
with Task Order No. 18-02 of Landau Associates' On -Call Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering
Services Agreement with the City.
We reviewed the following information forwarded by the City:
• Completeness Review Pre -Application Form for Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area
projects, stamped Received March 1, 2018
• Affidavit of "Notice of Application posted at Job Site" (signed by Applicant/Owner), dated
February 26, 2018
• Applicant/Owner Covenant to Notify and Hold Harmless, dated February 26, 2018
• Structural Engineer Declaration, prepared by CG Engineering on February 26, 2018
• Lead Design Professional Designation and Statement and Geotechnical Hazard
Identificatio n/Decla ration, prepared by CG Engineering on February 26, 2018
• Geotechnical Hazard I cle ntification/Decla ration and Mitigation Statement of Risk from
Geotechnical Engineer, prepared by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. on March 20, 2018
• Applicant/Owner Liability and Landslide Acknowledgment, dated February 26, 2018
• Structural Design Calculations (stamped by Structural Engineer), prepared by CG Engineering
on March 1, 2018
• Critical Area Determination (CRA20180012), stamped Received March 1, 2018
14 LANDAU
ASSOCLkTES 130 2nd Avenue South - Edmonds, Washington 98020 - (425) 778-0907
Landau Associates
• North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas Map with signed signatory
block, dated February 26, 2018
• Vicinity Map, prepared by CG Engineering on February 26, 2018
• Topographical Map and Survey, prepared by A.S.P.I. Land Surveying and Planning on February
14,2018
• Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (stamped by Geotechnical Engineer),
prepared by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. on February 28, 2018
• Building Construction Plans (stamped by Engineer), prepared by CG Engineering on February
21,2018.
Based on our review of the information that was submitted, it is our opinion that the geotechnical
report that was prepared and submitted for this project provides a good discussion of site conditions
and risks, and provides geotechnical recommendations that appear to be appropriate for design. In
addition, the report appears to adequately document existing site conditions based upon field
reconnaissance and subsurface explorations, and acknowledges the presence of, and adequately
evaluates, seismic, erosion and landslide hazards on the property.
The submittal package that we reviewed includes the majority of the information in Sections 19.10
and 23.80 of the ECDC that is identified as being required. However, wefound thefollowing
deficiencies in the information that was submitted:
The vicinity map does not identify existing conditions such as known landslide masses, debris
flows, or mud flows on or near the site.
0 The topographic survey does not show distances to existing habitable structures on or near
the site, as required in ECDC 19.10.030(D).
0 The applicant did not submit a separate topographical drawing showing proposed grade
contours at 2-foot intervals, as required in ECDC 19.10.030(E.7).
0 The geotechnical report, dated February 28, 2018 by Nelson Geotechnical Associates does not
provide analysis of the rate of retreat of the bluff nor an estimate of the percent risk of
landslide area expansion that recognizes and reflects potential catastrophic events such as
seismic activity or a 100-year storm event, as required in ECDC 19.10.030(H.6) and ECDC
23.80.050(F.2.e).
The geotechnical report, dated February 28, 2018 by Nelson Geotechnical Associates does not
describe public and private sewage disposal systems, as required in ECDC 23.80.050(F.2.c).
The geotechnical report, dated February 28, 2018 by Nelson Geotechnical Associates does not
consider the run -out hazard of landslide debris and/or the impacts of landslide run -out on
downslope properties, as required in ECDC 23.80.050(F.2.f).
The geotechnical report, dated February 28, 2018 by Nelson Geotechnical Associates does not
adequately assess the stability of the slope, as required in ECDC 23.80.050(F.2.g). The
geotechnical engineer should confirm the stability of the slope through modeling or numerical
analysis and present the results in the geotechnical report.
Geotechnical Peer Review
Larsen Residence — 15729 751h pl W 2 April 30, 2018
I 1P
Landau Associates
0 The applicant did not submit documentation of required bonds, frozen funds, or adequate
instrument of credit, nor did they submit a copy of the contractor's general public liability
insurance, as required by ECDC 19.10.030(J).
This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City in evaluating the adequacy of
permit submittal documents related to the proposed structural improvements to the residence at
15729 75' Place West in Edmonds, Washington. The focus of this review was the geotechnical aspects
of the application. The purpose of the review was to assess the adequacy of the application
documents for compliance with City requirements contained in ECDC 19.10, ECDC 23.80, and
conformance with conventionally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This geotechnical peer
review by Landau Associates does not lessen the requirements for the applicant's geotechnical
consultant to serve as the project's Geotechnical Engineer of Record and other design professionals to
prepare an appropriate design for the site conditions.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City. Please contact us if you have any
questions or if we may be of further service.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
r\
Sean Gertz, EIT
Senior Staff Geotechnical EIT
SY/1- L�d
Steven R. Wright, PE
Principal
SMG/SZW/rgm
[\\E DM DATA01\PROJECTS\074\19 6\R\P E E R R EVI EW-TM. D0CXJ
Geotechnical Peer Review
Larsen Residence — 15729 75th pl W 3 April 30, 2018
IIENGINEERING
February 26, 2018
Sharon Larsen
9832 Marine View Dr
Mukilteo, WA 98275
civil & structural
engineering & planning
ECEWED
MAR 0 1
Subject: Larsen Residence, 15729 751h Place, Edmonds, WA 98026
Structural Engineer Declaration, Job #17145
Dear Mrs. Larsen,
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COUNTER
This letter is to inform you that our office has reviewed the geotechnical report from Nelson
Geotechnical Associates, Inc. No. 999017 dated September 29, 2017, and understands its
recommendations.
The report indicates that the lot is in an area subject to landslide risk. It is impossible to guarantee
future slope stability, regardless of how well it is investigated or engineered, and risks are always
associated with construction in a known hazard area. Among these risks is the possibility of the loss or
damage to your property and life, as well as the property and life of neighbors, public and private, due
to soil failure.
Because of the unpredictable nature and wet condition of soils, owners must assume the responsibility
for risks of building and living in this known hazardous area.
The reports, recommendations, opinions, designs, and specifications associated with this project are
professional opinions only and are not to be construed as a warranty, expressed or implied, against loss
or damage.
DECLARATION STATEMENT
To the best of our knowledge and understanding, the building plans submitted with the permit
application substantially incorporate the above -mentioned reports' recommendations.
We have reviewed the geotechnical reports, understand its recommendations, have explained to the
owner the risk of loss due to slides on the site, and have incorporated into the design the
recommendations of the report and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or
damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the report.
Thank you,
CG Engineering
X*
Dennis Titus, PE, SE
Project Manager
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
ph. 425.778.8500 1 f. 425.778.5536
www.cgengineering.com
L�_%
RECERVED
MAR 0 i 2613
DEVELOPNITNT SERVICES
APPLICANT/OWNER LIABILITY & LANDSLIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENf OUNTER
Subject: Larsen Residence, 15729 75h Place W, Edmonds, WA 98026
This statement confirms that the accuracy of all permit submittal information is war -ranted by the
applicant/owner (Sharon Larsen) in a form which relieves the City and its staff from any liability
associated with reliance on such permit application submittals.
My application may reference the reports of prior public consultants to the City; however all conclusions
shall be those of me, Sharon Larsen, and my design professionals.
Further, 1, Sharon Larsen, understand and accept the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable
soils and understand the required temporary and permanent erosion control and site maintenance issues
associated with specific geologic hazards or conditions of the site that may affect slope stability over
time.
I will advise, in writing, any prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective lessees of structures on
the site, of the slide potential and on -going maintenance issues of the area and on the property.
STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF 6��heml'-A'h
%5)14ZOA I Being first duly sworn, says: I am the owner/applicant or the representative for the
above named; I have read the foregoing statement, know the contents thereof, and believe the same to be
true.
C' �11
Signature ofowne-k7applicant or representative
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this g&�-day of 20
Signature - NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washin on NOTARY PUBUC
9t T
STATE OF WASHINGTON
PrintName: AA0J 0_AkAAex6-t(_ 7B�ETH ANN CAMPBELL
My Appointment Expires
Residingin AUGUST 25 2018
My commission expires: 08/,q�� 1A0)8-
ENGINEERING
February 26, 2018
Sharon Larsen
9832 Marine View Dr
Mukilteo, WA 98275
civil & structural
engineering & planning
Subject: Larsen Residence, 15729 75h Place W, Edmonds, WA 98026
Lead Design Professional, Job #17145
Dear Mrs. Larsen,
RECEIVED
�,t,-�R 2 120 18
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
r- D
COUN Ln
This letter is to inform you that CG Engineering will act as the Lead Design Professional for your project
throughout the permit process. As the lead design professional, we will act a liaison between the city
and the other design professionals to incorporate their recommendations into the plans and submittal
package.
DECLARATION STATEMENT
We have reviewed the geotechnical report from Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. No. 999017 dated
September 29, 2017, and understand its recommendations. To the best of our knowledge and
understanding, we have incorporated these recommendations into the design to reduce the potential
risk of injury or damage from earth movement predicted in the report.
Thank you,
CG Engineering
Dennis Titus, PE, SE
Project Manager
-kSJS
All
of VV4&
45901 4- 7
L
250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
ph. 425.778.8500 1 f. 425.778.5536
www.cgengineering.com
156TH STSW
z
r-4
t;
I,
158TH ST SW
>
&L
00
ko
Ln
160TH ST SW
z
C4
P
41
fn
VICINITY MAP
NTS, * = PROJECT SITE
C
11-N omy
MAR 0 12510
DEVELOPMENT SERVIICES
COUNTER
02126118
LARSEN RESIDENCE FOUNDATION REPAIR
15729 75TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
DATE 02/26/18
SHEET
PROJECT NO. 17145.10
ENGINIEEIERING
SCALE
250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200
EDMONDS , WASHINGTON 9BO20
PHONE (425) 778-8500
FAX (425) 778-55 3 6
TITLE
SITE PLAN
DRAWN BY JCP
SO.4
CHECKED BY NAL
APPROVED BY DMT
PLOT DATE: 2/23/18 FILE NAME: SO.4
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
-9 f�� A AssociATEs, INC.
NUA GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
Main Office rngineering-Geology Branch
17311 13.511 Ave NE, A-500 5520 Industry Unc, #Q
Woodinville,WA 98072 RECEIVED East Wenatchee, WA 98802
(425) 486-1669, FAX (425) 481-25 10 (509) 665-7696 - FAX (509) 665-7692
MAR 2 12018
March 20, 2018
Carl and Sharon Larsen
9832 Marine View Drive
Mukilteo, Washington 98275
OEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COUNTER
Geotechnical Plan Review and Hazard Identification/Declaration Letter
Larsen Residence Foundation Repair
15729 — 75" Place West
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 999017
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Larsen:
This letter presents the results of our updated geotechnical engineering review of the plans for your
residence project located at 15729 — 75h Place West in Edmonds, Washington.
INTRODUCTION
Project plans consist of underpinning the existing residence foundations and supporting associated
basement slabs -on -grade and cantilevered portions of the upper floors on driven 2- and 3-inch pin piles.
Lateral loads on the eastern portion of the structure are to be restrained by helical anchors. At this time,
no additional development is planned within the property. We previously prepared a report for this
property that included recommendations for underpinning support of the existing residence dated
February 28, 2018.
The site falls within "Zones B through D" of the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide
Hazard Area Report prepared by Landau Associates for the City of Edmonds. This designation requires
that certain features be included (or excluded) in the design. Such features include the restriction of cuts
and fills, the need for tightlining runoff into an approved system, the need to design foundations and
retaining walls to withstand high lateral earth pressures and potential loss of soil beneath parts of the
foundation, the need to vegetate slopes with deeply rooted drought -tolerant vegetation, and the
elimination of any and all irrigation systems. We have addressed all of these requirements in our
previous report.
Geotechnical Plan Review Letter
Larsen Residence Foundation Repair
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 999017
March 20, 2018
Page 2
PLAN REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS
We have reviewed the geotechnical aspects of the most recent plans and found the plans to be in general
compliance with our recommendations as presented in our previous geotechnical report. We understand
that all construction will be perfon-ned within the exiting residence footprint. The entire residence
structure and any new foundations are to be supported on 2- and 3-inch diameter driven pin piles. In our
previous report, we did not provide load carrying capacities and driving criteria for 3-inch diameter pin
piles. We recommend that the three-inch pipe piles be utilized and should be driven using a tractor -
mounted hydraulic hammer, with an energy rating of at least 1,100 foot -lb. For this pile and hammer
size, we recommend a design capacity of six tons for each pile driven to refusal. The refusal criterion for
this pile and hammer size is defined as less than one -inch of movement during 15 seconds of continuous
driving at a rate of 550 blows per minute or higher. We recommend using galvanized schedule 40 pipe
for the 3-inch pin piles. Maintaining these recommendations for minimum hammer size and refusal
criteria is essential for obtaining a successful outcome. Helical anchors are also going to be utilized to
restrain lateral loads of the residence along the upper eastern side of the residence. The overall size and
configuration of the anchor is to be determined by the contractor to achieve the design loads as specified
on the plans. We recommend that NGA be retained to observe the installation of the pin piles and helical
anchors on a full-time basis during construction.
We understand that all stormwater runoff associated with this property is to be directed and tightlined to
flow into the existing stormwater drainage system located within the southern portion of the property.
We understand that this existing system ultimately flows out and discharges to the west of the property.
Temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences along the downhill side of the residence are
incorporated into the plans. In our opinion, the proposed temporary erosion control measures appear to
be feasible. We do not anticipate significant excavations associated with the proposed development as
most of the work will be within the existing residence footprint. Any disturbed soils remaining after the
proposed development should be revegetated in accordance with our previous report. Permanent erosion
control measures such as compost amended soils, ground cover, and permanent seeding and planting
have also been incorporated into the plans.
We recommend that all of our recommendations provided in our previous report, and this letter be strictly
followed during construction.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Plan Review Letter NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Residence Foundation Repair March 20, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 3
As discussed in our previous report, this site and the overall site vicinity lie within a known ancient
landslide area. The site and vicinity have been relatively stable for a very long period of time, and
development in the area has taken place in the form of single-family residences, roads, parks, retaining
walls and underground utilities. Although the likelihood of the ancient slide to become active in the
foreseeable future is very low, extreme environmental conditions coupled with inadequate human
practices could, in theory, re -activate the ancient landslide. Such external factors could include severe
and prolonged weather events and/or significant seismic activity. With proper site drainage and
maintenance of the drainage systems and protection of steep slopes, we would estimate that the
probability of failure on the subject site is likely to be less than 30 percent in 25 years. The proposed
residence improvements do not increase this potential.
MINIMUM RISK STATEMENT
Provided that the recommendations in this letter, the geotechnical report dated February 28, 2018 are
followed during construction, the areas disturbed by construction should remain stable. Therefore, the
risk of damage to the proposed development or to adjacent properties form soil instability should be
minimal, and the proposed grading and development should not increase the potential for soil movement.
CLOSURE
We recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during
construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the
explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the
work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities comply with
contract plans and specifications.
� I
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Plan Review Letter
Larsen Residence Foundation Repair
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 999017
March 20, 2018
Page 4
We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have
any questions regarding this letter or require further information.
Sincerely,
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Lee S. Bellah, LG
Project Geologist
Khaled M. Shawish, PE
Principal
LSB:KMS:dy
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
RECEIVED
04 0 12018
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COUNTER
or --4f
T
North Edmonds
--4
Earth Subsidence and
Landslide Hazard
Areas Map
srre ij
Leclen
North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and 17.
Landslide Hazard Area
r —1 80020 B-1 and ECDC 19-10)
(See ECDC 23
(Nota: Boundaries are the approximate extent
of previous landsliding-, hazards are present J
J.
-4—
adjacent to the landslide boundaries) 7T
Steep Slope Areas�
Slow of 401% or steeper and
with a vertical refiet of ten (10) ft or more
(See ECDC 23-80-020 B-2)
'W
Minimum buffer equal to the height
of the steep slope or 50 feet, whichever 41 J
is greater (see ECDC 23.80.070 A.1)
C2(The buffer she is the minimum buffer /1
adjacent to the —North Edmonds Subsidence
and Landslide Hazard Area; a similar
bee, would apply to steep sl F.
ope areas,
77
but is not shown on this map for clarity)
4 7
k
2 ft Topographic Contour
Vertical datum: NAVD88 :7
r
F7 Parcel
A
01
mapavdedbyL d�As—t�l
(May 2M)
A-d pb.w- City of Edmonds
TW.g.pK—d —rdMp.bP..dk8dWkVd
d Edmnd. (F�b�=y 27 2W51
tom UDAR dm: '27. 2WS)
;4
W
Packet Item # 6
Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 19.10 sites designated within or near the North Edmonds
Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area shall be designated on this map which indicates areas of earth subsidence and
landslide hazards in excess of normal allowances.
In order to designate the subject project development site locaied at -T 7-1 PI VV Edmonds,
Washington, the following maps, surveys or other noted itemsbelow were used:
Geotechnical Report Prepared by Aswe-,Je-5, Ine—
Land Survey Prepared by
"I certify under penalty of perjury that the site location designation has been made to the best of my knowledge and belief,
following an investigation of all information and documentation -in my possession� as well as reasonably obtainable information
in the possession of others, including public agencies. Any information which would tend to designate a differing location for
the site is attached as a part ofmy designation as well as all information upon which I reasonably relied."
SitePlottedby Date. ;�/Z'61ht
S �d Date th i, /I it
igni
Title
.T ED File No:.
Citp of V'F1bM011b'q Applicant:
9
Affidavit of Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area
Pennit
4kate of lVagbington
) 150.
countp of offobomWb
being first duly swom, on oath,
deposes and says:
That on the the site located at
,21'L& 0 day of 20jJ
1�5'72 I 1-6-4t- A _QA
L Id.) , Lq, --�, �IA ftDo was posted as
prescribed by Ordinance No. 3632 on the subject property. This posting begins on
on the day the City accepts the Permit Application for review and shall remain until
building occupancy is granted Signed:_-'O/�
Signed:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this A&tay of &&LZ49(4 20J-9.
NOTARY PUBUC z
STATE OF WASHINGTON P -inted Name- A�Q)J fi-402P
,6L- L
BETH ANN CAMPBELL
My Appointment Expires "Is otary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at
AUGUST 25,'2018 WA
Mycommissionexpires: ORIA-"�-IAO)k --
Packet Iten! # 16
13
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
N I f�! A AssociATEs, INC.
GA GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEoLoGISTS
Main Office Engineering-Gcology Branch
17311 — 135" Ave NE, A-500 5526 Industry Lane, #2
Woodinville, WA 98072 East Wenatchee, WA 98802
(425) 486-1669 - FAX (425) 481-25 10 (509) 665-7696, FAX (509) 665-7692
July 25, 2018
Carl and Sharon Larsen
9832 Marine View Drive
Mukilteo, Washington 98275
Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Response Letter
Larsen Residence Foundation Repair
15729 — 75" Place West
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 999017
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Larsen:
This letter presents the results of our updated geotechnical engineering review of the plans and comment
response for your residence underpinning project located at 15729 — 75' Place West in Edmonds,
Washington.
INTRODUCTION
We previously prepared a report for this property that included recommendations for underpinning
support of the existing residence dated February 28, 2018 and a plan review letter for the proposed
improvements dated March 20, 2018. Project plans consist of underpinning the existing residence
foundations and supporting associated basement slabs -on -grade and cantilevered portions of the upper
floors on driven 2- and 3-inch pin piles. Lateral loads on the eastern portion of the structure are to be
restrained by helical anchors. At this time, no additional development is planned within the property.
The site falls within "Zones B through D" of the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide
Hazard Area Report prepared by Landau Associates for the City of Edmonds. This designation requires
that certain features be included (or excluded) in the design. Such features include the restriction of cuts
and fills, the need for tightlining runoff into an approved system, the need to design foundations and
retaining walls to withstand high lateral earth pressures and potential loss of soil beneath parts of the
foundation, the need to vegetate slopes with deeply rooted drought -tolerant vegetation, and the
elimination of any and all irrigation systems. We have addressed all of these requireme 1;3)iF* n
previous report. JUL 2 b 2018
BUNWNG DEPARTM, �ENT
D -2 0 1 OFEDMONDS
Geotechnical Plan Review and Peer Review Comment Response Letter NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Residence Foundation Repair July 25, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 2
PLAN REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS
We have reviewed the geotechnical aspects of the most recent plans and found the plans to be in general
compliance with our recommendations as presented in our previous geotechnical report. We understand
that all construction will be performed within the exiting residence footprint. The entire residence
structure and any new foundations are to be supported on 2- and 3-inch diameter driven pin piles.
Helical anchors are also going to be utilized to restrain lateral loads of the residence along the upper
eastern side of the residence. The overall size and configuration of the anchor is to be determined by the
contractor to achieve the design loads as specified on the plans. We recommend that NGA be retained to
observe the installation of the pin piles and helical anchors on a full-time basis during construction.
We understand that all stormwater runoff associated with this property is to be directed and tightlined to
flow into the existing stormwater drainage system located within the southern portion of the property.
We understand that this existing system ultimately flows out and discharges to the west of the property.
Temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences along the downhill side of the residence are
incorporated into the plans. In our opinion, the proposed temporary erosion control measures appear to
be feasible. We do not anticipate significant excavations associated with the proposed stabilization of
the residence as most of the work will be within the existing residence footprint. Any disturbed soils
remaining after the proposed development should be revegetated in accordance with our previous report.
Permanent erosion control measures such as compost amended soils, ground cover, and permanent
seeding and planting have also been incorporated into the plans.
The proposed stabilization is intended to support the existing residence structure and should not
adversely impact or decrease the existing stability of the steep slope areas, neighboring properties, or
critical areas; and is in compliance with the City of Edmonds Codes 23.80.060 and 23.80.070, provided
our recommendations are incorporated into the proposed plans and followed during construction.
We recommend that all of our recommendations provided in our previous report and letter, and this letter
be strictly followed during construction.
LANDAU PEER REVIEW COMMENTS AND OUR RESPONSES
As a part of the City of Edmonds review of this project, Landau Associates performed a peer review of
the proposed project and our previous geotechnical report in accordance with Edmonds Community
Development Code Chapter 19.10. Landau Associates comments and opinions were presented in a
technical memorandum dated April 30, 2018. In the following section, we summarize the relevant
geotechnical concerns raised by Landau Associates, followed by our response.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Plan Review and Peer Review Comment Response Letter NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Residence Foundation Repair July 25, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 3
Comment 1:
The vicinity map does not identify existing conditions such as known landslide masses, debris flows, or
mudflows on or near the site.
Response:
The known historical landslide area has been shown on the most recent plans generated by CG
Engineering. We were unable to find documentation on any known debris flows or mud flows within the
immediate vicinity of the property.
Comment 4:
The geotechnical report, dated February 28, 2018 by Nelson Geotechnical Associates does not provide
analysis of the rate of retreat of the bluff nor an estimate of the percent risk of landslide area expansion
that recognizes and reflects potential catastrophic events such as seismic activity or a 100-year storm
event, as required in ECDC 19.10.030(H.6) andECDC 23.80.050(F.2.e).
Response:
As discussed in our previous report, this site and the overall site vicinity lie within a known ancient
landslide area. The site and vicinity have been relatively stable for a very long period of time, and
development in the area has taken place in the forrn of single-family residences, roads, parks, retaining
walls and underground utilities. Although the likelihood of the ancient slide to become active in the
foreseeable future is very low, extreme environmental conditions coupled with inadequate human
practices could, in theory, re -activate the ancient landslide. Such external factors could include severe
and prolonged weather events and/or significant seismic activity. With proper site drainage and
maintenance of the drainage systems and protection of steep slopes, we would estimate that the
probability of failure on the subject site is likely to be less than 3 10 percent in 25 years. The proposed
improvements do not increase this potential. As we did not observe any indications of recent significant
erosion or landsliding within the property, we estimate that rate of retreat of the bluff and slopes within
the site is on the order of approximately one inch per year or less.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Plan Review and Peer Review Comment Response Letter NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Residence Foundation Repair July 25, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 4
Comment 5:
The geotechnical report, dated February 28, 2018 by Nelson Geotechnical Associates does not describe
public andprivate sewage disposal systems, as required in ECDC 23.80.050(F.2.c).
Response:
Based on review of the City of Edmonds GIS website and our site observations, existing stormwater and
sewer utility pipelines extend down the steep slope area from the upper eastern portion of the site and
then travel along the southern edge of the property and ultimately into the main utility lines within 75'
Place West immediately west of the subject property. Sewer from the existing residence is already
directed to flow into the existing sewer line. All stormwater associated with the existing residence is also
proposed to be directed to flow into the existing stormwater pipe.
Comment 6:
The geotechnical report, dated February 28, 2018 by Nelson Geotechnical Associates does not consider
the run -out hazard of landslide debris andlor the impacts of landslide run -out on downslope properties,
as required in ECDC 23.80.050(F.2.fi.
Response:
Due to the gently sloping nature of the lower western and central portions of the property along with the
fact that approximately 300 feet of level ground is located between the base of the steep west -facing
slope within the eastern portion of the property and any down slope properties, it is our opinion that
potential adverse impacts to downslope properties as a result of landslide debris runout is low. It is also
our opinion that the proposed development does not increase this potential.
Comment 7:
The geotechnical report, dated February 28, 2018 by Nelson Geotechnical Associates does not
adequately assess the stability of the slope, as required in ECDC 23.80.050(F.2.g). The geotechnical
engineer should confirm the stability of the slope through modeling or numerical analysis and present
the results in the geotechnical report.
Response:
The site slope within the proposed development area was analyzed for stability along Cross Sections A-
A' for the existing conditions using the computer program Slope[W, by Geo-Slope International.
Slope/W is a two-dimensional, limit equilibrium slope stability program that generates random potential
failure surfaces or specific failure surfaces and determines their corresponding factors of safety with
respect to failure. By generating a large number of random surfaces, a critical failure surface with the
minimum factor of safety can be identified.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Plan Review and Peer Review Comment Response Letter NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Residence Foundation Repair July 25, 2018
Edmonds, Washington Page 5
The slope stability analyses were performed using information gathered from the field explorations and
soil properties were assigned to the soil layers to reasonably reflect their engineering characteristics.
Stability analyses were performed localized to the areas along the cross section. Stability analyses were
performed for non-seisn-& and seismic conditions for the existing conditions. Stability analyses were not
perfonned for the proposed conditions as the proposed stabilization measures will be confined to the
existing building footprint. A peak ground acceleration of 0.20g was used in the seismic analyses. The
soil parameters used in our analyses, along with the results of the analyses, are presented in Figures I and
2.
The critical slip surfaces for this case achieved factors of safety greater than or equal to 1.53 and 1. 12 for
the static and seismic cases, respectively indicating relatively stable conditions. It is also our opinion that
the proposed stabilization measures for the residence do not reduce the overall factor of safety from the
existing site conditions that are present with the site.
MINIMUM RISK STATEMENT
Provided that the recommendations in this letter, the geotechnical report dated February 28, 2018, the
letter dated March 12, 2018 and this letter are followed during construction, the areas disturbed by
construction should remain stable. Therefore, the risk of damage to the proposed development or to
adjacent properties form soil instability should be minimal, and the proposed grading and development
should not increase the potential for soil movement.
CLOSURE
We recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during
construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the
explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the
work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities comply with
contract plans and specifications.
nersire
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Plan Review and Peer Review Comment Response Letter NGA File No. 999017
Larsen Residence Foundation Repair July 25, 20 18
Edmonds, Washington Page 6
We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have
any questions regarding this letter or require further information.
Sincerely,
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
e 0i VV as hi
Nob
0 1
2883 A
Lee S. Bellah, LG
Project Geologist
Khaled M. Shawish, PE
Principal
LSB:KMS:dy
Two Figures Attached
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
-';' Slope Stability Analysis- Cross Section A -A' Exisitng Static Conditions
0.
71 (0 T
Cc - (0 0
CD Morgenstern -Price most critical surface with minimum FOS 1.53
C> z
(D C:
3
0-
CD
C/) (n (D
5- Cn
-0 CD
(D CD
Glacial Till/Advance Outwash
0 5' Ln.
-5 CL
Internal Friction Angle: 36'
> ID
Moist Unit Weight: 130pcf
CD
53
Cohesion: 0 psf
> M C
a
ID
210
210
Ln. (a 2.
cn
190
190
170
150
75th Ave SW
170
150
Z
MO
z
4-
Existing
m
130
Residence
130
110
110
>
z
0
0
r
rFj M
co
90
—
90
z > r
>
Whidbey Formation
>
0 (n W
0
Q)
i1j
70
— andslide Deposits
Internal Friction Angle: 32'
— 70
-T
in
0 Z
Internal Friction Angle: 28*
Moist Unit Weight: 120 pcf
W
2 L
50
— Moist Unit Weight: 110 pcf
Cohesion: 1000 psf
— 50
2
> M
-4 0
30
Cohesion: 0 psf
Critical Slip Surface
30
M -1
U) M
1H
rq
0
10
10
0
IT
I
39"
(n 0
-10
10
k—
g
-4 >
-20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310
330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490 510
530 550 570
r
Distance (Feet)
P
0
X
12-
5,
(D
<
9L
Y),
0
Cn
M NOTES: Not to scale
0
cn Elevations are Approximate
-n
CD
jo
0�w
" Slope Stability Analysis- Cross Section A-AExisitng Seismic Conditions
12.
co CD
(0 0
(0 Morgenstern -Price most critical surface with minimum FOS = 1.12
CD z
r - - --- with- a -seismic coefficient f-grcyund-a�acele-ration----O-.-20g—
4 3 [ 1
Cn
Cn (n
(D CD
>
M CD
> X. C
CL
:3 CD
Cc -
(n
VV Cn
2.2.
(n M
3.(Q
M
0
z
z >
r z
M M�
z > r
in (1)
(P 0
M 0 Z
2
,
in > M
-4 0
M -j
0
r
0
n
>
(n r
z
Z!
9L
0
150 — 75th Ave SW — 150
Existing
Q)
0) 130 — Residence — 130
LL LL
110 — — 110 C:
0 .0
co 90 — z7v Z5
> Whidbey Formation >
Q)
70 — Landslide Deposits Internal Friction Angle: 32* — 70
LU Internal Friction Angle: 28' Moist Unit Weight: 120 pcf LU
LL Moist Unit Weight: 110 pcf Cohesion: 1000 psf
50 — 0 — 50
Cohesion: 0 psf
30 — Critical Slip Surface _ 30
10 — — 10
-10 LL 11 -10
-20 0 102030405060708090 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490 510 530 550 570
Distance (Feet)
NOTES: Not to scale
Elevations are Approximate
ENGINEERING
250 4th Ave S Ste 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: (425) 778-8500
Fax: (425) 778-5536
civil &structural
engineering & planning
aECEPIED
IT6
ttm., 0 1- t i
D�V�Lopvv.a SERNAGES
CoUNTER
STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS
Larser Residence
Foundation Repair
2832 Marine View Drive
Mukilteo, WA 98275
0310112018
CG Project No.: 17145.10
Proiect Location
9832 Marine View Drive
Mukilteo, WA 98275
Proiect Description
This project involves a two-story wood framed home. The owner is interested in adding a third story
to a section of the house and removing some wall section. New beams and posts along with new
footings will be designed to support the existing and proposed loads. 3" diameter piles will be
installed under the existing and proposed footings to acheive proper bearing capacity.
Scope of Work
Provide structural calculations and drawings in accordance with current building code.
Basis of Design
Dead Loads Roof 15 psf
Floor 12 psf
Live Loads Floor 40 psf
Snow 25 psf
Piling Criteria
3" diameter pin piles with 12,000 lb capacity to be used (per Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc)
Description By NAL Date 1/19/2018
Checked Date
Project Summary
ENGINEERING Scale NTS Sheet No.
250 4th Ave South Project Job No.
Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020 Larsen Residence 17145.10
Gravity loadin
Dead Load:
Roof -
Roofing (asphalt shingles) 2.5 psf
1/2"
sheathing
1.6
trusses @24" oc
2.9
Ceiling (Ilayer5/8"
gyp) 2.8
Insulation
1.2
Misc.
1.5
MEP
1.0
Total
13.5
psf
ig' es-F
Floor:
Flooring
2.0
psf
3/4"
ply
2.3
2xlO@16"o.c.
2.8
Insulation
1.2
Misc.
1.5
ITotal
9.8
p S f
V rV 17- '0 v Ir
Exterior Walls:
96
plf
Interior Walls:
64
plf
Snow Load:
25
psf
Floor Live Load:
Living Space 40
psf
CMDescription
ENGINEERING
Gravity loads
By NAL
Date 10/18/17
Checked
Date
Scale
SheetNo.
250 4th Ave South
Suite 200
Project
Larsen Residence
Job No.
17145.10
Edmonds, WA 98020
eah + ib2f
-is nv
t" S, 'D SL (.�
(60, 31I.q (55,7"4- q'ss + 4;60
SL
`4 -',
vv
OL LL
T7
u,9" Ll z 5 -96o el
b--
110 1-
0
'53 + Llglg pjr) A
'Z
00h zgh -t
ni 11 ICE
OIJ-098 + vU.]
(-Jl,p gob 4 1,11)
1-7 nq
did
0,
Zq *aQ,
:j I i O'lh 4 5-zh -S g-S)
1'.) 0 W-7 r,97,h + L z �s
-II Is. Inq
b V
4
t %1 0011)
UIJ Qlh f 5-112
k:jlj O-m- +Olt)
n� -%a
oyz + + QSX)
C -P o ',a,g & 53-110 c 8) 3 -
I
I >a 9 _S 7
r.->o ao, 5 &
�Jjd 4 e'zh)
n, ns ne
�(C,,'AV 1T L-6 Di 1
. . . ..... . ..............
... . ....... . .. . ........... . ...............
Hr
--4/ . .. . ......
IF L 10;4 1 �1111- p4)
. . . .......... ........... . ...... . ..... ...... ......... .. ........... ............... . ...............
b Taws IT.
. . . . ... ......
Ls
to
............... ............... . .. ..... .. . .. . . . ............... ...... . .......... . ... ............ ..........
. . ......... ............. .................. ....... ......... ..........
.... ....... ...... ... . ..........
. ..............
-4—
......... .. ..... . . ..... . ........... ... ....... ........... ...... ... . ........... ... ..... . .... .... ------ ......... . ................. ......... . ....
00
x (12-1 pc 12,
.. . ........ ...... ...... .. ....... . . . . . . ...... . ............ ......... . .. . ...............
...... .............. ....
. . . . ....... . ........... . .... ................ . .... . . ....... .. ............. . .. . ..... L.-.-
Sri! Gr-WoCA
IXG
........... ... ....... . ........ t ................... ...... .. . . . . ... . .. I ................. ... ........
........ ...
—7 ....... ...... - - - ------
J1501
.............. ..... ........ . .. ................. ............ . ........ — . . . . . ....... ................. .......... ........
. .........
1-77F
—1 LL
lei
.......... . .... . . .. . .. . ......... . ... . ....... .. ......... . ... . ... . .......... . .......
4 ..... . . ........ ........
............. ................. . . . ........... . ............
....... . ................. ............. .
Title Block Line I
You can change this area
using the'Seffings' menu item
and then using the 'Printing &
Title Block" selection.
Project Title:
Engineer:
Project Descr:
Project ID:
Title Block Line 6 Printed: 17 JAN 2018,10:22AM
File = R,\_2017 Prqects\17145 Larsen Residence\_StructuraPEngineedng\Larsen_Key-Plan.ec6
General Beam Analysis ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2017, Build:10.17.8.29,Ver.10.17.8.29
Description : Wwall-2
General Beam Properties
Elastic Modulus 29,000.0 ks!
Span #1 Span Length = 13.0 ft Area = 10.0 in A 2 Moment of Inertia = 100.0 in A 4
Span #2 Span Length = 26.0 ft Area = 10.0 inA2 Moment of Inertia = 100.0 in A 4
D(O.120,0.0)
ID(0.0,0.120)t,
XP -X- - - -
Span 13.0 ft Span 26.0 ft
. ............ . .
Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations.
Loads on all spans.
Uniform Load on ALL spans: D = 0.0960 k/ft, Tributary Width = 1.0 ft
Varyinq Uniform Load: D(S,E) = 0.0-4.120 k/ft, Extent = 0.0 ->> 19.50 ft
Varyinq Uniform Load : D(S,E) = 0.120-4.0 k/ft, Extent = 19.50 ->> 39.0 ft
DESIGN SUMMARY
Maximum Bending
10. 883 k-ft
Maximum Shear=
2.815 k
Load Combination
+D+H
Load Combination
+D+H
Location of maximum on span
13.000ft
Location of maximum on span
13.000 ft
Span # where maximum occurs
Span # I
Span # where maximum occurs
Span # 1
Maximum Deflection
Max Downward Transient Deflection
0.000 in
0
Max Upward Transient Deflection
0.000 in
0
Max Downward Total Deflection
0.341 in
915
Max Upward Total Deflection
-0.042 in
3730
Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS
Load Combination
Support 1
Support 2
Support 3
Overall MAXimum
-0.040
4.623
1.501
Overall MINimum
-0.024
2.774
0.901
+D+H
-0.040
4.623
1.501
+D+L+H
-0.040
4.623
A501
+D+Lr+H
-0.040
4.623
1.501
+D+S+H
-0.040
4.623
1.501
+D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H
-0.040
4.623
1.501
+D+0.750L-+0.750S+H
-0.040
4.623
1.501
+D+0.60W+H
-0.040
4.623
1.501
+0+0.70E+H
-0.040
4.623
1.501
+D+0.750Lr-fO.750L+0.450W+H
-0.040
4.623
1.501
+D40.750L+0.750S+0.450W+H
-0.040
4.623
1.501
+D+0.750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H
-0.040
4.623
1.501
+0.60D+0.60W+0,60H
-0.024
2.774
0.901
+0.60D+0.70E+0.60H
-0.024
2.774
0,901
D Only
-0.040
4.623
1.501
Lr Only
L Only
S Only
W Only
E Only
H Only
Title Block Line I
Project Title:
'You can change this area
using the "Seftings" menu item
Engineer: Proiect ID:
Project Descr:
and then using the 'Printing &
Title Block' selection.
Title Block Line 6
Pdnted: 17 JAN 2018,10:26AM
General Beam Analysis
File = R-�_2017 ProjectsN17145 Larsen ResidenceUtructureAEngineedngkLarsen-Key-Plan.ec6
ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2017, Build:10.17.8.29,Ver.10.17.8.29
Description : Bi
General Beam Properties
Elastic Modulus
29,000.0 ksi
Span #1
Span Length = 3.750 ft Area = 10.0 in42 Moment of inertia = 100.0 in A 4
Span #2
Span Length = 7.0 ft Area = 10.0 inA2 Moment of Inertia = 100.0 in A 4
Span #3
Span Length = 3.750 ft Area = 10.0 inA2 Moment of Inertia = 100.0 in A4
D(O.162g� L(O.540)
--X
104
Span = 3.750 ft Span = 7.0 ft Span = 3.750 ft
Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations.
Loads on all spans.
Uniform Load on ALL spans: D=0,1620, L=0,540k/ft, Tributary Width= 1.0ft
DESIGN SUMMARY
Maximum Bending
2.437 k-ft
Maximum Shear =
2.457 lk
Load Combination
+D+L+H
Load Combination
+D+L+H
Location of maximum on span
3.750ft
Location of maximum on span
3.750 ft
Span # where maximum occurs
Span # 1
Span # where maximum occurs
Span # I
Maximum Deflection
Max Downward Transient Deflection
0.003 in
25851
Max Upward Transient Deflection
0.000 in
0
Max Downward Total Deflection
0.004 in
19885
Max Upward Total Deflection
-0-000 in
121331
Vertical Reactions Supportnotation : Farleftis#1 Values in KIPS
Load Combination
Support 1
Support 2
Support 3
Support 4
Overall MAXimurn
0.666
4.423
4.423
0.666
Overall MINimurn
0.092
0.612
0.612
0.092
+D+H
0.154
1.021
1.021
0.154
+D+L+H
0.666
4.423
4.423
0.666
+D+Lr+H
0.154
1.021
1.021
0.154
+D+S+H
0.154
1.021
1.021
0.154
+D40.750Lr-PO.750L+H
0.538
3.572
3.572
0.538
+D+0.750L+0.750S+H
0.538
3.572
3.572
0.538
+D+0.60W+H
0.154
1,021
1.021
0.154
+D+0.70E+H
0.154
1.021
1.021
0.154
+D+0.750Lr+0.750L+0.450W+H
0.538
3.572
3.572
0.538
+D+0.750L+0.750S+0.450W+H
0.538
3,572
3.572
0.538
+D+0.750L+0.75OS-fO.5250E+H
0.538
3.572
3.572
0.538
+0.60D+0.60W+0.60H
0.092
0.612
0.612
0.092
+0.60D+0.70E+0.60H
0.092
0.612
0.612
0.092
D Only
0.154
1.021
1.021
0.154
Lr Only
L Only
0.513
3.402
3.402
0.513
S Only
W Only
E Only
H Only
17
CHgr-ioL. C-xl-.T' Foo'T 10 r,
.. . ........ . . ..... . ............. ...... .
............. .. . ......... .....
LL
-s7-
pluss 31"4 o C..L
Lj i 5"�Lo PIV
. . ....... .. ... . . . . .....
... . .. ..................... . . ...... . .
. .........
Ft
51 f, . . .......... .... ...
.... . ..... . .. . ...... . ...... .............
Title Block Line 1 Project Title:
You can change this area Engineer: Project ID:
using the "Settings" menu item Project Descr:
and then using the "Printing &
Title Block" selection.
Title Block Line 6 Printed: 17 JAN 2018,11:24AM
General Beam Analysis File = R-L2017 ProjeclsA17145 Larsen Residence\-Strucbjrdftineedng\Larsen 01.17.18.ec6
ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2017, Build:10.17.8.29, Ver.10.17.8.29
Description : (9) plies @ 3'6" OC
General Beam Properties
Elastic Modulus
29,000.0 ksi
Span #1
Span Length =
3.50 ft
Area =
10.0 in A 2
Moment of Inertia =
1 OQ.0 inA4
Span #2
Span Length =
3.50 ft
Area =
10.0 in A 2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0 inA4
Span #3
Span Length =
3.50 ft
Area =
10.0 in A2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0 in A 4
Span #4
Span Length =
3.50 ft
Area =
10.0 in A 2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0 in A4
Span #5
Span Length =
3.50 ft
Area =
10.0 inA2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0 in A 4
Span #6
Span Length =
3.50 ft
Area =
10.0 in A 2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0 in A 4
Span #7
Span Length =
3.50 ft
Area =
10.0 in A2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0 in A4
Span #8
Span Length =
3.50 ft
Area =
10.0 in A 2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0 in A4
00.232�1-(l 520)
X� - X- X
IX b-C I- X DO
,4 014 e4 04 4
Span 3.50 Ift Span = 3.50 ft Span = 3.50 ft Span = 3.50 ft Span = 3.50 ft Span 3.50 ft Span = 3.50 ft Span = 3.50 lit
Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations.
Loads on all spans.
Uniform Load on ALL spans : D = 1.232, L = 1.520 k/ft, Tributary Width = 1.0 ft
DESIGN SUMMARY
Maximum Bending
3.562 k-ft
Maximum Shear =
5.834 k
Load Combination
+D+L+H
Load Combination
+D+L+H
Location of maximum on span
3.500ft
Location of maximum on span
3.500 ft
Span # where maximum occurs
Span # 1
Span # where maximum occurs
Span # 7
Maximum Deflection
Max Downward Transient Deflection
0.000 in
0
Max Upward Transient Deflection
0.000 in
0
Max Downward Total Deflection
0.002 in
25109
Max Upward Total Deflection
-0.000 in
584066
Vertical Reactions
Support notation Far left is #1
Values in KIPS
Load Combination
Support 1
Support 2
Support 3
Support 4
Support 5
Support 6
Support 7
Support 8
Support 9
Overall MAXlmum
3.798
10.923
9.284
9,731
9,582
9.731
9.284
10.923
3.798
Overall MINImum
1.020
2.934
2.494
2.614
2.574
2.614
2.494
2.934
1.020
+D+H
1.700
4,890
4.156
4,356
4.290
4.356
4.156
4.890
1.700
+D+L+H
3.798
10,923
9.284
9.731
9.582
9.731
9.284
10.923
3.798
+D+Lr+H
1.700
4.890
4.156
4.356
4.290
4.356
4.156
4.890
1.700
+D+S+H
1.700
4.890
4.156
4.356
4.290
4.356
4.156
4.890
1.700
+D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H
3.274
9.415
8.002
8.388
8,259
8.388
8.002
9.415
3.274
+D+0.750l--�0.750S+H
3.274
9.415
8.002
8.388
8.259
8.388
8.002
9.415
3.274
+D+0.60W+H
1.700
4.890
4.156
4.356
4.290
4.356
4.156
4.890
1.700
+D+0.70E+H
1.700
4.890
4.156
4.356
4.290
4.356
4.156
4.890
1.700
+D+0.750Lr+0.750L+0.450W+H
3.274
9.415
8.002
8.388
8.259
8.388
8,002
9.415
3.274
+D+0.750L+0.750S+0.450W+H
3,274
9.415
8.002
8.388
8.259
8.388
8.002
9.415
3.274
-H)+0.750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H
3.274
9.415
8.002
8.388
8.259
8.388
8.002
9.415
3.274
+0.60D+0.60W+0.60H
1.020
2,934
2.494
2.614
2.574
2.614
2.494
2.934
1.020
+0.60D+0.70E+0.60H
1.020
2.934
2.494
2.614
2.574
2.614
2.494
2.934
1.020
D Only
1700
4.890
4.156
4.356
4.290
4.356
4.156
4.890
1.700
Lr Only
L Only
Z098
6.033
5.128
5.375
5.293
5.375
5.128
6.033
2.098
S Only
W Only
E Only
H Only
Title Block Line I Project Title:
-You can change this area Engineer: Project ID:
using the'Settings" menu item Project Descr:
and then using the 'Printing &
Title Block" selection,
Title Block Line 6 Pdnted: 17 JAN 2018,11:46AM
File = R-�_20117 ProiecM17145 Larsen Residence\-StructurdEn�irteedngU-men 01.17.18.ec6
General Beam Analysis ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2017, Build:10.17.8.29, Ver.10.17.8.29
Description : (8) piles @ 6'0' OC
General Beam Properties
Elastic Modulus
29,000.0 ksi
Span #1
Span Length =
6.0 ft
Area =
10.0 in A 2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0
in A 4
Span #2
Span Length =
6.0 ft
Area =
10.0 in A 2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0
in A 4
Span #3
Span Length =
6.0 ft
Area =
10.0 in A2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0
in A 4
Span #4
Span Length =
6.0 ft
Area =
10.0 lnA2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0
in A4
Span #5
Span Length =
6.0 ft
Area =
10.0 in A 2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0
in A 4
Span #6
Span Length =
6.0 ft
Area =
10.0 in A2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0
inA4
Span #7
Span Length =
6.0 ft
Area =
10.0 in A 2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0
in A4
D(1.139�L(0.620)
_X_ X, X X_ X
Span = 6�O ft Span = 6.0 ft Span = 6.0 ft Span 6.0 ft Span 6�O ft Span = 6,0 ft Span = 6.0 ft
Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations.
Loads on all spans.
Uniform Load on ALL spans: D = 1,139, L = 0.620 0, Tributary Width = 1 �O ft
DESIGN SUMMARY
Maximum Bending
6.689 k-ft
Maximum Shear=
6.392 k
Load Combination
+D+L+H
Load Combination
+D+L+H
Location of maximum on span
6.000ft
Location of maximum on span
6.000 ft
Span # where maximum occurs
Span # 1
Span # where maximum occurs
Span # 1
Maximum Deflection
Max Downward Transient Deflection
0.003 in
22115
Max Upward Transient Deflection
0.000 in
0
Max Downward Total Deflection
0.009 in
7795
Max Upward Total Deflection
-0-000 in
180722
Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS
Load Combination
Support 1
Support 2
Support 3
Support 4
Support 5
Support 6
Support 7
Support 8
Overall MAXimurn
4.162
11.966
10.182
10.628
10.628
10.182
11.966
4.162
Overall MINImurn
1.467
4.218
3.589
3.746
3.746
3.589
4.218
1.467
+D+H
2.695
7.748
6.593
6.882
6.882
6.593
7.748
2.695
+D+L+H
4.162
11.966
10.182
10.628
10.628
10.182
11.966
4.162
+D+Lr+H
2.695
7.748
6.593
6.882
6.882
6.593
7.748
2.695
+D+S+H
2,695
7.748
6,593
6.882
6.882
6.593
7.748
2.695
+D+0.75OLr+0.750L+H
3.795
10.912
9,285
9.692
9.692
9.285
10.912
3.795
+D+0.750L+0.750S+H
3.795
10,912
9.285
9.692
9.692
9.285
10,912
3.795
+D+0.60W+H
2,695
7.748
6,593
6.882
6.882
6.593
7.748
2.695
+D+0.70E+H
2.695
7.748
6.593
6.882
6.882
6.593
7,748
2.695
+D-t0.750Lr-�0.750L+0.450W+H
3.795
10.912
9.285
9.692
9.692
9.285
10.912
3,795
+D+0.750L+0.75OS-�0.450W+H
3.795
10.912
9.285
9.692
9.692
9.285
10.912
3.795
+D-4750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H
3.795
10.912
9.285
9.692
9.692
9.285
10.912
3,795
+0301)+0.13OW-i�.60H
1.617
4.649
3.956
4.129
4.129
3.956
4.649
1.617
40.60D+0.70E+0.60H
1.617
4.649
3.956
4.129
4,129
3.956
4.649
1.617
D Only
2.695
7.748
6.593
6.882
6,882
6.593
7.748
2.695
Lr Only
L Only
1.467
4.218
3.589
3.746
3.746
3.589
4.218
1.467
S Only
W Only
E Only
H Only
Title Block Line I Project Title:
You can change this area Engineer: Proiect ID:
using the "Settings' menu item Project Descr:
and then using the "Printing &
Title Block' selection,
Title Block Line 6 Printed: 17 JAN 2018, 3:09PM
File = R`L2017 Projects117145 Larsen Residence�_StructuraREngineeOngILarsen 01.17.18.ed
General Beam Analysis ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2017, Build:10.17.8.29,VerlO.17.8.29
Description : (6) plies @ T6' OC
General Beam Properties
Elastic Modulus
29,000.0 ksi
Span #1
Span Length =
7.50 ft
Area =
10.0 inA2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0
in A4
Span #2
Span Length =
7.50 ft
Area =
10.0 inA2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0
in A 4
Span #3
Span Length =
7.50 ft
Area =
10.0 inA2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0
in A4
Span #4
Span Length =
7.50 ft
Area =
10.0 in A2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0
in A4
Span #5
Span Length =
7.50 ft
Area =
10.0 in A2
Moment of Inertia =
100.0
in A4
D(O.90)
X- -X- X
Span T50 ff Span 7-50 ft Span 7.50 ft Span = 7.50 ft Span = 7.50 ft
Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations.
Loads on all spans...
Uniform Load on ALL spans : D = 0.90 k/ft, Tributary Width = 1.0 ft
DESIGN SUMMARY
Maximum Bending
5.329 k-ft
Maximum Shear =
4.086 k
Load Combination
+D+H
Load Combination
+D+H
Location of maximum on span
7.500ft
Location of maximum on span
7.500 ft
Span # where maximum occurs
Span # 1
Span # where maximum occurs
Span # 4
Maximum Deflection
Max Downward Transient Deflection
0.000 in
0
Max Upward Transient Deflection
0.000 in
0
Max Downward Total Deflection
0.012 in
7774
Max Upward Total Deflection
-0.001 in
174363
Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS
Load Combination
Support I
Support 2
Support 3
Support 4
Support 5
Support 6
Overall MAXimum
2.664
7.638
6.572
6.572
7.638
2.664
Overall MINimurn
1.599
4.583
3.943
3.943
4.583
1.599
+D+H
2.664
7.638
6,572
6.572
7.638
2.664
+D+L+H
2,664
7.638
6.572
6.572
7.638
2,664
+D+Lr+H
2.664
7.638
6.572
6.572
7.638
2.664
+D+S+H
2.664
7.638
6.572
6.572
7,638
2.664
+D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H
2.664
7.638
6.572
6.572
7,638
Z664
+D+0.750L+0.750S+H
2.664
7.638
6.572
6.572
7,638
2.664
+D+0,60W+H
2.664
7.638
6.572
6.572
7,638
2.664
+D+0.70E+H
2.664
7,638
6.572
6.572
7.638
2.664
+D+0,75OLr+0.750L+0.450W+H
Z664
7.638
6.572
6.572
7.638
2.664
+D+0.750L+0.750S+0.450W+H
2,664
7.638
6.572
6.572
7.638
2.664
+D+0.750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H
2.664
7.638
6.572
6.572
7.638
2.664
+0.60D+0.60W+0.60H
1.599
4.583
3.943
3.943
4.583
1.599
+0.60D+0.70E+0.60H
1.599
4.583
3.943
3.943
4.583
1.599
D Only
2.664
7.638
6.572
6.572
T638
2.664
Lr Only
L Only
S Only
W Only
E Only
H Only
�s
C
. . . .......... ....... .. ................
T
........ ... .... . ......... .
77
. . ... . .. .................... . ......
15"- 1, 9 Il) i .1". sagr
..........
2.1 1 f - z5b C) I psi
. .. . .. . ..... . ...........
--- 72
... ................ ... . .... . ........ . ..... ...... . ...
40
. . ......... .............
........... . .....
. ............ ........ .... ........ ..... +
.... . .. . ... . .............. . ..... ..... ........ . .....
.......... .
... ....... ..... . . . . . . . . ........ . ............ . .....
........ ... .
. . ......... ............. . ... ...
....... . .. ...... . ....... . ........ .. . ..... ...... .. . . ........... ........... . .... . .... . ...........
y'zoo
r 0
1
- — ------- ------ .. . ....... . .............
141- F
. ......... ..
............ .... .. . ...... . . ...........
...... .......... .... . . . . ............. ...... . ..... ................. I ........... . .... ........ . .. ..........
LI 119 t�. Ft. i 0 &L
7
. ............ ............. . . . ... . ...... . ...... . . ..... . .... . . ... ..................
.. . ........... . .....................
it I
...... ....
.... . ... . .. ...... . .... . ... . . . .....
CH
9 G &A-6,c, I G-1
... . ...... ......
..... ........ ................. ....... . .....
N SN A N ir—i-I 6A-51
... . ......... .............. ..........
t
. . . . . ................ . . ..... . ........ . .....
..... . . . . ............ ............ . . . . ......
-T
. ......... . . . .... ...... .......... . ....... ...... . ... ............
a 1 16L
.. . ...........
. . ........ . . .............
-4-:I. . ........ . . . . . ........ .... .......... .... . . . .....
....... ... M97 IH t
............. .... ...... ...... ......... 1 .......... . . .
............. . ..... . . . ..... - - ------ -- .. . ........
...... . ....
..... . ......
. .. ........... .......... . ....
....... .. .. ........ . ... . . ................
. . ..... .......... . .. .......... .
......... ... ... ....... - .. . . ........ T
L.. . ........ . . ....... . . ........... ... .. . ....... . .............. . ..... ......... ......
Descr iption
By AJA U
Date
Checked
Date
ENGINEERING
Scale
Sheet No.
250 4th Ave, South
Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
14
Project
Job No.
4 /2,i�rn 06j,) cF
425.778.8500
www.cgengineering.com
1�+ 195, 1 (7
I � I I To Q3
Profis Anchor 2.6.5
Company Page:
specifi- Project
Ad ress S-b-Pmject I P— No,
Phone I Pa.: Date 111WO113
specifi.e. ..armnems:
I Input data
Anchor " and diameter:
KWIk Bait TZ - CS 518 (3 1/8)
EffecM embedment depth:
h, = 3.125 In., h_ = 3.563 In. pop
Material
Carbon Steel
Evaluation Service Report:
ESR-1917
Issued I Valid:
2/22/20161 MIMI`
Proof.
Design method Act 318 / AC1 93
Stand-off installation:
Ob = 0-000 'M (no stancl-off); t = 0.25D In.
Anchor plate:
1, x I, x t = 12.000 im x 6.000 in. x 0.250 in.; (Recommended plate thicknears, not ml..Iatd
Profile:
no profile
Base material:
macked concrete, 2500. f,= 2500 psi; h = 6.0DO In.
Reinforcement
tension: condition B, shear. conclition B; no supplemental splitting minflarcenvent present
edge reinforcement none or< No. 4 bar
Seismic loads last C, D. E, or F)
no
Geometry [in.] & Loading Olt, In.1b]
Z
lnp� k,�N W% ft �ft pu,�Ktyl
Profis Anchor 2.6.5
Company: P ge* 2
Specifier. P.ject:
Address. Sub�prolect I Pas. No.:
Phone I F.X Date 1/1812018
E:_Mail:
2 Proof I Utilization (Governing Cases)
Design values Obj UtIlication
Loading proof Load C-p!cIty P. Lid, r/-I status
T swn - - I- -
shear Pryoul Strength 12000 17382 -170 CK
Loading fW 0� Utillastion li, rl] status
Combined tension and shear loacis -
3 Warnings
- please consider all details and hintstwarnings given in the detailed reportl
Fastening meats the design criteria!
4 Remarks; Your Cooperation Duties
- Any and all Information and data contained In the Software woman solely the use of Hilt products and am based an the principles, formulas
and security regulations in acoardance �vith Hilt's technical directions and operating. mounting and assembly instructions, eft�, that must be
strictly compiled with by the wer. All figures contained thensin are average figures, and therefore use -specific tests am to be conducted
prior to wing the relevant Hilt product The results of the calculations carried out by means of the Software am based essentially on the
data you put in, Therefore, you bear the sole responsibility for the absence of orrons, the completeness and the rele,ance, of the data to be
put in by you. Moreover, you bear sole responsibility far having the results of the calculation checked and cleared by an mpert, pauticularly
vAth regard to compliance vAth applicable norms and permits, pdor to using them for your specific facility. The Soft —re serves only as an
aid to interpret norms and permits mrithout any guarantee as to the absence, of emors, the correctness and the relevance of the results or
sultability for a specific application.
You must take all namsseuy and reasonable steps to prevent or limit damage mused by the Soft —re. in particular, you must arrange for
the regular backup of programs and data and, If applicable, carry out the updates of he Sollivame offered by Hill on a regular basis. If you do
not use the AutoUpdale function of the Softivars, you must ensure that you are using the current and thus up -to date version of the Sofhvam
in each case by carrying out manued updat 'sviatheHilbWabsite. Hilt will not be liable for consequences. such as the recovery of lost or
e,
damaged data or programs, arising from a culpable bresch of duty by you.
';T)
Titte Block Una 1
Project Title:
Title Block Una I
PrcijectTille:
You can change this area
Engineer: Project ID:
You can change this area
Engineer: Project ID:
using the'Settings' menu item
Proact Descr:
using the 'Settings' menu item
Protect DOSCT:
and than using the'Printing
and then using Ihe'Printing &
Title Block' selection.
Title Blocr selection.
Tille Block Line 6
�d 17 � 2018, 4 3WM
Title Block Una 6
"ed 17 JM Z19, 4:35PM
Concrete Beam
FbOt:A�21)17 PI n1d unft
concrete Beam
File z FUNIT PI 17145 1-
'Lir- N : I(W-06005155
L.censee CG ENGINEERING
#
Desorption: (10) piles 60'
:
L., � KW,06005155
Description : (IG)pIIqS@5V
L, CG ENGINEERING
CODE REFERENCES
Calculations per ACI 318-14, IBC 2015, ASCE 7-10
Load Combination Set: IBC 2015
3.0 ksi 6 Phi Values Rexurs:
0.90
ft = fc"2 * 7.50
410.792 psi Shear:
0.750
Y Density
150.0 Pat
0.850
X UNFw[or
1.0
Elastic Modulus
3,122.0 ksi Fy - Stirrups
60.0 ks!
fy - Main Reber
60.0 kal E - Stirrups
29.0 ksi
E-MainRobar
29,000.0 ksi Stirrup Bar Size#
3
Number of Resisting Legs Per Stirrup
2
L
50 .0 f .0 1 .0 ft 5ao 5.0 1 -0 on
12--114 1. 1 12-5-44-1, 1 62-5-44-6, 1 . 1 2-114 2 %_ 1 1 12-511�1, 1 2-5
Cross Section & Reinforcing -Details
Rectangular Section, Wdth = 12.0 In, Height = 14.0 in
Span #1 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, from 0.0 to 10.0 it in this span
244 at 3.0 in from Bottom, from 0.0 to 10.0 ft in this span
Span #2 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, Irm 0.0 to 10.0 It in this span
244 at 3.0 in from Bottom, from 0,0 to 10.0 If in this Span
Span #3 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, torn 0.0 to 10.0 ft in this span
244 at 3.0 in from Bottom, from D,O to 10.0 R in this span
Span #4 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, torn 0.0 to 10.0 It in this span
244 at 3.0 in from Bottom, from 0.0 to 10.0 ft in this span
Span #5 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, torn 0.0 to 10.0 ft in this span
2441 at 3.0 in from Bottom, from 0.0 to 10.0 ft in this span
Span #5 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, from 0.0 to 10.0 it in this span
2-94 at 3.0 in from Bottom, from D.0 to 10.0 ft in this span
Span 97 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, tam 0.0 to 10.0 It in this span
244 at 3.0 in from Bottom, torn O.D to 10.0 ft in this span
Span #8 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, from 0.0 to 10.0 it In this span
244 at 3.0 in from Bottom, torn 0.0 to 10.0 It in this span
Applied Loads
Senvice loads entered. Load Factors Will be applied for calculations.
B02M self weight calculated ancladdedto loads
Loads on all spans...
D = 0.3440. L = 0.720
Uniform Load on ALL spans : D = 0.3440, L = 0,720 k1fi
Section used for this Span
Typical Section
Max Downward Transient Deflection
0,000 in Ratio �
0 QW
Mu Applied
-4.689 k-ft
Max Upward Transient Deflection
0.000 in Ratio=
0 <360
Mn Phi : Allowable
22.267 k-ft
Max Downward Total Deflection
0.001 in Ratio=
59757�iil
Max Upward Total Deflection
0.000in Ratio=
999C180
Location of maximum on span
0.000 it
Span #where maximum occurs
Span # 2
Vertical Reactions
Support notation: Far left Is #1
d Combinalim
Support I
Support 2
Support 3
Support 4
Support 6
Supportli
Suppor17
Support 8
Suppod9
Ovemil MAXimunt
2.443
7.025
5A7 1
6.259
6.163
6.259
5.971
7.025
2.443
Omrav MiNimu.
0.614
1.766
1.501
1.573
1.549
1.573
1.501
1.766
0.614
+D+H
1.023
2.943
2.501
2.622
2.582
2.622
2.501
2.943
1.023
+D+L-H
2.443
7.025
5.971
6.259
6.163
6.259
5.971
7.025
2.443
+D+tJ-H
1,023
2.943
2.501
2.622
2.582
2,622
2.501
2.943
1.023
+D+S-H
1.023
2.943
2.501
2.622
2.582
2.622
2.501
2.943
1.023
+D4().75OI_r4O.750L+H
2.088
6.005
5.104
5.350
5.268
5.350
5.104
6.005
2.088
-M.75OL-0.75OS-H
2.088
6.005
5.104
5.350
5.268
5.350
5.104
6,005
2.088
+M.60W-H
1.023
2.943
2.501
2.622
2.582
2.622
Z501
2.943
1.023
+0-0.70E+H
1.023
2.943
2.501
2.622
2.582
2.622
2.501
2.943
1.023
+D+0.75DLr4O.75OL40.45DW+H
2.088
6.005
5.104
5.350
5.268
5.350
5.104
6,005
2.088
40+0.75OL40.7508A.45DW+H
2.01113
6,005
5.104
5.350
5.268
5.350
5.104
6.005
2.088
-D47501.40.750840.525012+11
2.088
6.GO5
5.ID4
5.350
5.268
5.350
5A04
6,005
2.088
40.60040.601111+0101-1
0.614
1.766
1.501
1.573
1.549
1.573
1.501
1.766
0.614
40.6OD40.71)E40.60H
0.614
1.766
1.501
1.573
1.549
1.573
1.501
1.766
0,614
D Onty
1.023
2.943
2.501
2.622
2-582
2.622
2.501
2.943
1.023
Lronly
L Only
1.420
4.082
3.470
3"
3.581
3.637
3.470
4.082
1.420
S OnV
WOMY
E Only
HO*
Shear Stirrup Requirements
Entire Beam Span Length: Vu < PhIVcf2, RecfdVs= Not Reqd 9.63.1, usestimupsspacadat 0.000in
Tiffe Block Une I
Project Title:
You can change this area
Engineer: Project ID:
using the 'Setfings' menu item
Project Descr:
and than using the'Prinling
Title Block' selection.
Tile Block Line 6
PrhM I? JM Nis, 4.�
[concrete Boom
L 4 KW-06005155
Li"n. CG ENGINEERIIW�
:
Description : (10) plies @ 5'D'
CODE REFERENCES
Calculations per ACI 31814, IBC 2015, ASCE 7-10
Load Combination Set: IBC; 2015
Material Properties
fo 1`2
3.0 kai
6 Phi Values
fr= fc; * 7.50
= 410.792 psi
W Density
= 150.Opd
X UVV: Factor
1.0
Elastic Modulus =
3,122.0 Its!
Fy - Stirrups
fy - Main Reber =
60.0 kai
E - Stirrups =
Stirrup Bar Size 9
E - Main Reber =
29.000.0 ksi
Number of Resisting Logs Per Stirrup =
Flexure: 0.90
Shear: 0.750
0.850
60.Oksl
29.Oks!
3
2
te 5�'o% i. I a 5�0�12-t. 5 0� '-2 a �"- ;2 h
Cross Section & Reinforcing Details
Rectangular Section, Wdth=116.0in, Helght=12.0in
Span #1 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, roniO.0 to 10.0 flin this span
244 at 3.0 in from Bottom, from 0,0 to 10.0 It in this span
Span #2 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, from 0.0 to 10.0 ft in this span
244 at 3.0 in from Bottom, torn 0.0 to 10,0 ft in this span
Span #3 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, ftDm 0,0 to 10.0 It in this span
244 at 10 in from Bottom, torn 0.0 to 10.0 it in this span
Span #4 Reinforcing
244 at 30 in torn Top, ftom 0,0 to 10.0 ft in this span
244 at 3,0 in from Bottom, torn 0.0 to 10.0 ft in this span
Span #5 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, torn 0.0 to 10.0 11 in this span
244 at 3.0 in from Bottom, torn 0.0 to 10.0 ft in this span
Span #6 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, from 0.0 to 10L ft in [his span
244 at 3.0 in from Bottom, torn 0.0 to 10,0 fin this span
Span #7 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, korn 0.0 to 10.0 111 in this span
244 at 3.0 in from Bottom, torn 0.0 to 10.0 ft in this span
Span #8 Reinforcing
24M at 3.0 in koin Top, kom 0.0 to 10,0 ft in this span
244 at 3.0 111 Ill B61torm, torn 0.0 to 10.0 ft in this span
Avvilled Loads
Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations.
Beam self weight calculated and added to loads
Loads on all spans...
D = 0.8570, L = OA880, S = 0.920
Uniform Load on ALL spans: D = 0.8570, L = 0,4880. S = 0.920 Witt
MaximUM Bending Stress Ratio
0.405 :1
Maximum Deflection
Section used for this span
Typical Section
Max Downward Transient Deflection
0.000 in Ratio=
0 *60
Mu Applied
-7.884 k-ft
Max Upward Transient Deflection
0.000 in Ratc=
0 <360
Mn Phi: Allowable
19.482 k-fit
Max Downward Total Deflection
0.002 in Ratio
29421 >=18
Max Upward Total Deflection
0.000 in Ratio
999 <180
Location of maximum on span
0.000 0
Span #where maximum occurs
Span #2
Tile Block Line 1
Project Tile;
You can change this area
Engineer: Project ID:
using lhe'Settinge menu item
Project Descr:
and then using the'Prinling &
Tile Block' selection.
Tille Block Une 6
R-dINM Iii,435i'M
Concrete Beam
File - Ftt"17 P,*.M 7145 L'-RWidi-1,.W.=W11arsibevreglanien 01,17.1ted
, _ 1_4, ._ I I . � _'. 1� . . I
Reactions
Suppon notatim: Far left Is #1
-Vertical
Load combination
Support 1
Support2
Suppor[3
Support 4
Support 5
Support 6
8uppon7
Support 8
Support 9
Oarmll MAXimum
4.166
11.981
10AB41
10.674
10.511
10.674
10.184
11.981
4.166
Oweall MINimurn
0.962
2.767
2.352
2.465
2.427
2.465
2.352
2.767
0.962
.0-111
1084
5.993
5.094
5.339
5.258
5.339
5.094
5.993
2.084
+D.L.H
3.046
8.760
7.446
7.805
7.6115
7.805
7.446
8.760
3.046
-04oli!
2.084
5.993
5.094
5.339
5.258
5.339
5,094
5.993
2.084
40+S+H
3.898
11.210
9,528
9.987
9.834
9.987
9.528
11.210
3.898
+0+0.75OLr+0.750L+H
2.806
8.069
6.858
7.188
7.078
7,188
6.858
8.069
2+806
+D40.750L+0.7508+H
4.166
11.981
10.184
10,674
io.511
10.674
10A84
11.981
4A66
+M.60W+H
2.084
5.993
5.094
5.339
5.258
&339
&094
5.993
2.084
4M.70E+H
2.084
5.993
5.094
5.339
5258
5239
5.094
5,993
2.084
+DQ.750Lr40.75DL--(.450WM
2.806
8.069
6.&58
7,188
7.078
7.188
6058
8.069
2.806
+M.760L--0.750S+0A50W+H
4.166
11.981
10.184
10.674
10.511
10.674
10.184
liv9lll
4.166
-D-0-75OL-0.7508-0,5250E+H
4.166
11.981
10.184
10.674
10.511
10.674
10.184
11.981
4.166
40.60D40.60W+0.60H
1.250
3.596
3.057
3.204
3.155
3.204
3.057
3.596
1.250
40.60D-0.70E+0.60H
1.250
3.596
3.057
3.204
3.155
3,2114
3.057
3.596
1.250
D Only
2.084
5.993
5.D94
5.339
5.25B
5.339
5.094
5.993
2.084
lur Only
L Only
0.962
2.767
2.352
2.465
2.427
2.465
2.352
2.767
0.962
8 Only
1.814
5.216
4.434
4.647
4.576
4.647
4.434
5.216
1.814
IN Only
Between 0.00 to 3.98 ft, Vu < PhrVQ7, Rocrd Vs = Not Reqd 9.6.3.1, use stirrups spaced at 0.000 In
Betwes" 4 - 09 to 5.57 ft, PhiVGr2 < Vu - PhIVc, Reqd Vs = Min 9.6.3.3, use stirrups spaced at 4.000 In
Between 5 .68 to 9.55 ft, Vu < PNW2, Rood Vs = Not Reqd 9.6.3.1, use stirrups spaced at 0.000 In
Between 9,66 to 10.34 ft, PhIVr12 < Vu - PhiVc, Rood Vs = Min 9.6.3.3, use stirrups spaced at 4.000 In
Between 10A5 to 14.43 ft, VU<PhfVcJ2. Req'dVs=NotReqd9.6.3.1, usestiniosspacedat 0.01XIn
Between 1 4.55 to 15.45 ft, PNVo2 < Vu <= Ph[Vc, Req'd Vs = Min 9.6.3.3, use stioups spaced at 4.01)0 in
.,h,n 15.57 to 19.43 K Vu < PhiVd2, Req'd Vs = Not Rao 9.6.3.1, use stimips spaoecl at 0.01)(I In
Between 19.55 to 20.45 It PhiVc?2 < Vu � PhiVc, Roq'd Vs = Min 9.6.3.3, use stirrups spaced at 4.000 In
Between 20,57 to 24.43 ft, Vu < PhIVc/2, Rec(d Vs = Not Reqd 9.6-3.1. use stirrups spaced at 0,01)(I in
Between 24,55 to 25AS ft Phi-VW7 < Vu c= PhIVc, Raq'd Vs = Win 9.6.3.3, use stirrups spaced at 4.010 In
Between 25.57 to 29.55 it Vu � PhlVcn, Rect'd Vs = Not Reqd 9.6.3.1, use stirrups spaced at O.ODO in
Between 29,66 to 30.34 It PhiVd7 < Vu � PhrVc, Reqd Vs = Win 9.6.3.3, use s1Jmip3 VaoW at 4.000 in
Between 3OA5 to 34.32 It Vu < WWI, Reqd Va z Not Reqd 9.63.1, use stirrups spaced at G.ODD In
Between 34.43 to 3511 it, Ph(Vtv2 < Vu - PhIVc, Rectcl Vs = Min 9.63.3, use stirrups spaced at 4,00 in
Between X02 to 39.89 ft, Vu<PhIVGf`2, ReqdVs =Not Reqd9.6.3.1, usestIrrupitspaoisdal 0.0(Oln
(AC-1
A v/s sc, /1E ')� '0-0#37'
40,000 -0
Aq 1,
A v ea_ov,,>oD , 44v Vn,_- iz" z "L > 0- 16 )"L
I - :is- o--e p'iil
Tide Block Line 1
Proect Tide:
Title Block Line I
Project Tide:
You can change this area
Engineer: Proirct ID:
You can change this area
Engineer.
using the'Settings' menu item
Project Descr.
using the 'Sedings' menu item
Project Descr:
and then using the 'Printing &
and than using the *Printing &
Title Block' selection.
Title Block' solection.
Tide Block Une 6
17 � NIA 4 37N
Tide Block Line 6
Concrete Beam
-a
DUtCALC. W. 1993-2011 FI.W0.17.8,29. V.10.17.&29
Concrete Beam
F%-Rt"l7P
Description: (4) piles @ TV
CODE REFERENCES
Calculations per ACI 318-14, ISC 2015, ASCE 7-10
Load Combination Set: IBC 2015
fc 3.0 ksi Phi Values Rexurs: 0.90
if= rc"' - 7.50 = 410.792 psi Shear: 0.750
y Density = 150.0 pef 0.850
X LtVVt Factor
1.0
Elastic Modulus =
3,122.0 W
Fy - Stirrups
60,0 ks!
fy - Main Rebar =
60.0 Its!
E - Stirrups =
29.Oksi
E-MainRebar =
29,000.0 ksi
Stirrup Bar Size#
3
Number of Resisting
Legs Per Stirrup =
2
8.0 ft 1 8.0 It 1 8.0 ft
Cross Section & Reinforcing Details
Rectangular Section, Wdlh = 16.0 in, Height = 12.0 in
Span #1 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, from 0.0 to 10.0 ft in this span
244 at 3.0 in from Bottom, from 0.0 to 10.0 ft in this span
Span #2 Reinforcing
2-94 at 3.0 in from Top, from 0.0 to 10.0 ft in this span
244 at 3.0 in from Bottom, from D,O to 10.0 If in this span
Span 93 Reinforcing
244 at 3.0 in from Top, from 0,0 to 10.0 ft in this span
244 at 30 in from Bottom, from 0.0 to 10,0 it In this span
Applied Loads
Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations.
Beam self weight calculated and added to loads
Loads on all spans
D = 0.4440, L - 0.240
Uniform Load on ALL spans: 0 = 0.4440, L � 0.240 Will
DESIGN SUMMARY
Maximum Bendino Stress Ratio 1
M.-A-M D�fl-fi-
Section used for this span
Typical Section
Max Downward Transient Deflection
0.0021n Ratio= 59250>=36
Mu Applied
-7.404 k-ft
Max Upward Transient Deflection
O.OQQ in Ratio 0 <360
Mn Phi: Allowable
19.482 k-�
Max Dowhward Total Deflection
6.006 in Ratio= 16086>=18
Max Upward Total Deflection
0.000 in Ratio= 999<180
Location of maximum on span
O.DOO fl
Span #where maximum occurs
Span #3
Vertical Reactions
Support notation: Far left is #1
Load combination
Support 11
Support 2
� 3
Support 4
overall Walmum
2.829
7.779
7.779
2.829
overall MlNimum
0.768
2.112
2.112
0.768
,D+H
2.061
5.667
5.667
2.061
+D-L+H
2.829
7.779
7.779
2.829
+D+LF+H
2.061
5.667
5.667
2.061
+D+S+H
2.061
5.667
5.667
2.061
+D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H
2.637
7.251
7.251
2.637
+D+0.750L+0.750S+H
2.637
7.251
7.251
2.637
Description: (4) olo� @ 75*
Vertical Reactions Support notation: Far left is #1
Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Support 3 Support 4
Project ID:
+D40.70E+H
2.061
5.667
5.667
2.061
-O-0.750Lr+0.750L-0.450W+H
2.637
7.251
7.251
2.637
+D-O.750--O.750S+0.45GW+H
2.637
T251
7.251
2.637
-040.75OL-0.75DS40.5250E+H
2.637
7.251
7.251
2.637
-0.6DD40.60W40.60H
1.236
3.400
3.400
1.236
AAODAJOE-0.6011
1.236
1400
3.400
1.236
0 Only
2.061
5.667
5.667
2.061
Lf Only
L Only
0.768
2.112
2.112
0.768
S Only
W Ordy
E Only'
H Only
Shear Stirrup Requirements
Enike Beam Span Length! Vu < PhfVcf2, RoqdVs=
Not Recitig.6.3.1, uessfirrupsspacodat
0.000in
9-oo& =Fa)kpi.roio
zi
Beam Span Table - Floor Beams
Allowable Uniform Distributed Load in Pounds Per Lineal Foot (PLF)
Span Length in Feet
Beam
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
4x6 HIF #2
815
522
362
266
204
160
117
-
-
-
-
3 1/2 x 6 1/2 LSL
1340
858
546
344
230
162
118
08 HF #2
1270
902
627
460
353
279
226
186
155
122
-
3 1/2 x 7 1/4 LSL
22751
1456
1011,
743
522
367
267
201
155
122
-
6x8 DIF #2
1880
1203
836
614
470
371
201
249
209
178
153
134
114'
-
-
2 11/16 x 9 1/4 PSL
2405
1924
1603
1374
1193
889
648
487
375
295
236
192
158
132
111
4xlOHF#2
1620
1296
942
692
530
419
339
280
236
201
173
151
133
113
-
3 1/2 x 9 1/4 PSL
3130
2504
2087
1789
1553
1169
852
640
493
388
310
252
208
173
146
124
106
5 114 x 9 114 PSL
46951
3756
3130,
2683.
2328
1753
1278
960
739
582
466
379
312
260
219
186
160
2 11116 x 9 1/2 PSL
2470
1976
1647
1411
1 1235
965
704
529
407
320
256
209
172
143
121
103
-
3 112 x 9 1/2 LSL
3160
2528
2107
1646
1260
953
694
522
402
316
253
206
170
141
119
101
3 1/2 x 9 112 PSL
3215
2572
2143
1837
1608
1270
926
696
536
421
337
274
226
188
159
U5
116
WO DF #2
2960
1930
1340
984
754
596
482
399
335
285
246
214
188
167
149
134
118
5 114 x 9 112 PSL
4825
3860
3217
2757
2413
1905
1389
1043
804
632
506
412
339
283
238
202
174
7 x 9 1/2 PSL
6430
5144
4287
3674
3215
2540
1852,
1391
1072
843
675
549
452
377
318
270
231
2 11116 x 11 114 PSL
2925
2340
19501
1671
1463
1300
1104
890
1 686
539
432
351
289
241
203
173
148
3 1/2 x 11 1/4 LSL
3740
2992
2493
2137
1740
1375
1114
866
667
525
420
342
281
235
198
168
144
3 112 x 11 114 PSL
3810
3048
2540
2177
1905
1693
1438
1155
889
700
560
455
375
313
264
224
192
6x12 DF #2
3585
2829
1964
1443
1105
873
707
584
491
418
361
314
276
245
218
196
177
5 1/4 x 11 1/4 PSL
5710.
4568
3807
3263,
2855
2538.
2157
1739
1340
1054,
844
686
565
471
397
337
289
2 11116 x 11 7/8 PSL
3085
2468
2057
1763
1543
1371
1222
1010
804
632
506
412
339
283
238
202
174
3 1/2 x 117/8 LSL
3950
3160
2633
2257
1930
1525
1235-1018
784
617
494
402
331
276
232
198
169
3 112 x 11 718 PSL
4020
3216
2680
2297
2010
1787
1592
1316
1050
826
661
538
443
369
311
265
227
6 114 x 11 7/8 PSL
-
4824
4020
3446
3015
2680
2389
1974
1575
1239
992
8b7
665
554
467
397
340
7 x 11 718 PSL
5357,
4591 .
4018.
3571 .
3185
2632
20901
1644,
1316.
1070
882
735 1—�l
9 .--�26
4511
N otes: 1 . This table is applicable for Simple Span beams with uniformly distributed loads (no point loads)
2. Table values are based on the limiting beam shear & moment capacities, as well as deflection
3. The deflection limit used in the above table is (L1240 Total Load) and (LJ360 Live Load)
4. This table is applicable for WLL/VVDL — 4.0
5. Table values include the Size Factor (CF)
4= 0- C�M�'
ENGINEERING
250 4th Ave. South
Su�e 2C)O
Edmonds, WA 98020
Project
Beam Span Table
Larsen Residence
NAL
Checked Date
Scale Sheet No.
Job No.
17145.10
10/18/17
17-
HF Column & HF Sill Plate Capacity TABLE
IBC 2012, NDS 2012
Date modified 10-2-14
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
(2) 2A HF Stud
5,149
4,121
3,311
2?693
&224
1,862
1,579
1,355
1,175
1,028
906
PSILL
4,784
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(3) 2X4 HF Stud
9,220
7,723
6,382
5,1281
4,406
3,715
3,166
;726
:�369
2,076
1,834
PS,LL
6,910
6,910
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(4). 2x4 HF Stud
12,294
16,
.�98
8,1510
7,041
5,875
4.,953
41,221
3,636
3.,159
2,769
2,445
PSILL
8,605
.8,505
8,505
-
(2) 3A HF Stud
10,245
8,581
7,091
5,868
4,896
4�1 28
3,618
3,029
2,632
2307
2,038
PSILL
7,619
7,619
(3) 3A HF Stud
15,367
121,1872
10,637
8,802
7,343
6,191
qj?77
4,543
3,948
3,461
3,067
PSILL
10,631
10,631
10,631
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(2) M HF Stud
7,951
6,406
6,164
4,210
3,481
2,917
2,476
2,126
1,843
1,613
1,423
PSILL
7,618
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(3) 2x6 HF Stud
16,730
15,297
13,636
11,927
10,333
8,934
7,746
6,750
51,918
61,221
4,634
PSILL
10,869
10,859
10,869
10,859
-
-
-
-
-
-
(4) 2x6 HF Stud
23,902
22,755
21,314
19,614
17,764
15,903
14,146
12,558
11,158
9,942
8,891
PsILL
13,366
13,365
13,365
13,365
13,365
13,365
13,365
-
-
-
-
4A HF #2
14,409
111,327
9,009
7,286
5,993
6,006
4,239
3,633
3,147
2,751
2,426
P sILL
8,328
8,328
8,328
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4x8 HF #2
18,744
14,808
11,809
9,566
7,876
6,583
6,577
4,782
4,142
3,622
3,193
PSILL
10,277
10,277
10,277
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4x1 0 HF #2
23,562
18,717
14,972
12,160
10,016
8,377
7,101
6,090
5,277
4,615
4,069
PSILL
13,112
13,112
13,112
- I
-
- I
-
- I
-
-
-
6x6 DIF #2
19,595
18,889
17,995
16,908
15,659
14,315
12,960
11,665
10,475
9,407
8,463
PSILL
13,087
13,087
13,087
13,087
13,087
13,087
-
-
-
-
-
6x8 DF #2.
25,1830
24,899
23,721
22,288
20,642
18,870
17.,1083
15,377
13,808
12,400
11,166
PILL
16,149
16,149
16,149
16,149
16,149
16,149
16,149
-
-
-
-
6x1 0 DF #2
28,621
27,790
26,739
25,45
929
22,224
20,420
18,614
16,886
16,286
13,835
PILL
20,604
20,604
20,604
20,604
20:604
20,604
-
Description
BY NAL
Date 10/18/17
Wood Column Capacity Table
Checked
Date
r=NGINIEERING
Scale
Sheet No.
250 4th Ave. South
Suite 200
Project Larsen Residence
Job No.
17145.10
13
fir -L D C-
Description
By MA t—
Date I
Checked
Date
250 4th Ave. South
Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
Project
Job No.
425.778,8500
I
WoodWorks' COMPANY
SOFrWAREFOR WOOD DESfCM Jan. 18, 2018 11:06
Design Check Calculation Sheet
WoodWorks Sizer 11. 1
Loads:
Load
e
Distribution
Pat-
Location [ft]
Magnitude
Unit
tern
Start End
Start End
d
Dead
Full A ea
12.00(12.0")
�_sf
Live
Full Area
40.00(12.0")
psf
Self -weight
Dead
Full UDL
3.5
plf
Maximum Reactions (lbs), Bearing Capacities (lbs) and Bearing Lengths (in):
t 18.069,
PROJECT
1
New Joists (2nd Floor)
Unfactored:
Dead
Live
140
361
140
361
Factored:
Total
Bearing:
-
501
501
Capacity
-
Joist
501
501
Support
967
967
Des ratio
Joist
1.00
1.00
Support
0.52
0.52
Load comb
#2
#2
Length
0.82
0.82
Min req'd
0.82
0.82
Cb
1.00
1.00
Cb Min
1.00
1.00
Cbpsupportl
1.251
1.25
Fc, SUP
625
625
New Joists (2nd Floor)
Lumber -soft, Hem -Fir, No.2, 2x12 (1-1/2"xi 1-114")
Supports: All - Timber -soft Beam, D.Fir-L No.2
Floor joist spaced at 12.0" c/c; Total length: 18.07'; Clear span: 17.931'; volume = 2.1 cu.ft.
Lateral support: top= full, bottom= at supports; Repetitive factor: applied where permitted (refer to online help);
Analysis vs. Allowable Stress and Deflection using NDS 2015:
Criterion
Value
Design Value
Unit
Analysis/Design
Shear
-Analysis
fv = 40
Fv' = 150
psi
fv/Fv' = 0.26
Bending,(+)
fb = 852
Fb' = 977
psi
fb/Fbl = 0.87
Live Defl'n
0.41 = L/528
0.60 = L/360
in
0.68
Tot 1 Defl'n
0.57 = L/381
0.90 = L/240
in
0.63
Additional Data:
FACTORS: F/E(psi)CD CM Ct CL CF Cfu
Cr Cfrt
Ci Cn
LCH
Fv' 150 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - -
- 1.00
I.Do 1.00
2
Eb" 850 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.000 1.00
1.15 1.00
1.00 -
2
Fcp' 405 - 1.00 1.00 - - -
- 1.00
1.00 -
-
E' 1.3 million 1.00 1.00 - - -
- 1.00
1.00 -
2
Emin' 0.47 million 1.00 1.00 - - -
- 1.00
1.00 -
2
CRITICAL LOAD COMBINATIONS:
Shear : LC #2 = D+L, V max 499, V design
445 lbs
Bending(+): LC #2 = D+L, M = 2247 lbs-ft
Deflection: LC #2 = D+L (live)
LC #2 = D+L (total)
D=dead L=live S=snow W=wind 1=impact Lr=roof live Lc=concentrated
E=earthquake
All LC , s are listed in the Analysis output
Load combinations: ASCE 7-10 / IBC 2015
CALCULATIONS:
�eflection : 231e06 lb-in2
CE10= .
Live" defle ti n Deflection from all non -dead loads
(live, wind, snow
Total Deflection = 1.00(Dead Load Deflection) + Live Load Deflection.
Design Notes:
1. WoodWorks analysis and design are in accordance with the ICC International Building Code (IBC 2015), the National Design Specification (NOS 2015), and NOS Design Supplement.
2. Please verify that the default deflection limits are appropriate for your application.
3. Sawn lumber bending members shall be laterally supported according to the provisions of NOS Clause 4.4.1.
-I �
ENGINEeRING
civil & structural
engineering & planning
ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS
5LP2-0 IS 06 1'*
250 4th Ave S Ste 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: (425) 778-8500
Fax: (425) 778-5536
Larser Residence
FAR--,
JUL 2 6 2018
DE ART
F V
ia
L'UM"OGF K %F
Foundation Repair
2832 Marine View Drive
Mukilteo, WA 98275
0712612018
CG Project No.: 17145.10
- IL Lt- -91 )"- Lt- $�,
31ZTl- ?ao tLF % 14- V884 720
ci
XIST (3) 2x12
bc P
/F,
Ci ......
EXIST 2xlZ 16" O.C�
�z
112
Ex, 2 @ 16'. D.C.
NEW STUD WALL
'r, (I— RJECCIE
REPLACE
PONYWALL
COMPANY PROJECT
WoodWorks July 23, 2018 16:49 Beaml.wwb
SOFrWAREFOJ? WOOD DEUGN
Design Check Calculation Sheet
WoodWorks Sizer 11. 1
Loads:
Load
Type
Distribution
Pat-
Location [ft]
Magnitude
Unit
tern
Start End
Start End
Loadl
Dead
FUll _UDL
162.0
plf
Load2
Live
Full UDL
540.0
plf
Self -eight
Dead
Full_.UDL
18.5
plf
Maximum Reactions (lbs), Bearing Capacities (lbs) and Bearing Lengths (in)
Unfactored:
Dead
Live
Factored:
1365
4087
-
1365
4087
Total
Bearing:
5452
-
5452
Capacity
Beam
5452i
5452
Support
5841
5841
Des ratio
Beam
1.00
1.00
Support
0.93
0.93
Load comb
#2
02
Length
1.66
1.66
M in req'd
1.66
1.66
Cb
1.00
1.00
Cb min
1.0c
1.00
Cb support
1.07
1.07
Fcp sup
625
625
PSL, 2.01E, 2.OE, 5-1/4"XIII-1/4"
Supports: All - Timber -soft Beam, D.Fir-L No.2
Total length: 16-1.66"; Clear span: 14'-10.3,V'; volume = 6.2 cu.ft.
Lateral support: top= at supports, bottom= at supports;
Analysis vs. Allowable Stress and Deflection using NDS 2015:
Criterion
Analysis Value
Desjgn H�Iue
Unit
Anal ' WE
R=
Shear
fv = 11 �'
Yv' 290
-
psi
107 024l
...ding(+)
fb = 2196
Fb' = 2856
psi
fb/Fb' - 0.77
Live Deflln
0.49 = L/364
0.50 - L/360
in
0.99
Total Deflvn
0.66 = L/273
0.75 =_ L/240
in
0.88
Additional Data:
FACTORS: F/E(psi)CD CM Ct CL Cv Cfu
Cr Cfrt Ci Co.
LC#
Fv:+ 290 1 00 - 1.00 - - -
- 1.00 - 1.00
2
Fb 2900 1:00 - 1.00 0.978 1.01 -
1.00 1.00 - -
2
FCP '25 - - 1.00 - - -
- 1.00 - -
-
Z' 2.0 Million - 1.00 - - -
- 1.00 - -
2
Eminy' 1.04 million - 1.00 - - -
- 1.00 - -
2
CRITICAL LOAD COMBINATIONS:
Shear : LC #2 = D+L, V max = 5403, V design =
4678 lbs
Bending(+): LC #2 = D+L, M = 20263 lbs-ft
Deflection: LC #2 = D+L (live)
LC #2 = D+L (total)
D=dead L=live S=snow W=wind I=impact Lr=roof live Lc=concentrated E=earthquake
All LC's are listed in the Analysis output
Load combinations: ASCE 7-10 / IBC 2015
CALCULATIONS:
Deflection: El - 1246eO6 lb-in2
"Live" deflection = Deflection from all non -dead loads
(live, wind, snow
Total Deflection = 1.00(Dead Load Deflection) + Live Load Deflection.
Lateral stability(+): Lur = 15' Le = 271-7.19" IRS =
11.6
Design Notes:
1. WoodWorks analysis and design are in accordance with the ICC International Building Code (IBC 2015), the National Design Specification (NDS 2015), and NDS Design Supplement.
2. Please verify that the default deflection limits are appropriate for your application.
3. SCL-BEAMS (Structural Composite Lumber): the attached SCL selection is for preliminary design only. For final member design contact your local SCL manufacturer.
4. Size factors vary frum one manufacturer to another for SCL materials. They can be changed in the database editor.
5. FIRE RATING: LVL. PSL and LSL are not rated for fire endurance.
COMPANY PROJECT
WoodWorks' July 23,2018 16:45 BeamZ�b
SOFrIVARE FOR WOOD DESIGN
Design Check Calculation Sheet
WoodWorks Sizer 11. 1
Loads:
Iload
I Type
13bistribution1p:t-1
Lee [ftIj
Magnitude
Jun
at:tion
t
0
� ad
11 u J,
'F'U'll
'start 1p�
I L'022
Liv.
UD
DL
5:u.0
0.0
pl
S.If-weight,
lDead
Ful 1 U DL
8.5
PI
Maximum Reactions (lbs), Bearing Capacities (lbs) and Bearing Lengths (in) :
16-1.72"
Unf t..ed:
Dead
Live
1410
1240
1410
4240
I..t.red:
Total
5651
5651
ring.
-
Capacity
Be.'
5651
5651
Supp, rt
6054
6054
DI: ratio
. am
l 00
1.00
.Support
0:93
0
Load ..mb
#2
#2
,an,, t h
1.72
1 72
Min req'd
1.72
1:72
C"
1-00
1 00
Cb
l...
1 00
Cb support
1.0'
1 07
Fop up
625
.1
PSL, 2.01E, 2.OE, 5-1/4"XIIII-1/4"
Supports: All - Fimb-soft Beam, D.Flr-L NO.2
Total length: 15 .1.72"; Clear span; 14'-10.28"; volume - 6.2 ctuft,
Lateral support: top= at supports, bottom= at supports;
This section FAILS the design check
WARNING: This section violates the following design criteria: Deflection
Analysis vs. Allowable Stress and Deflection using Nos 2015:
Criterion
Analv5iS Valu,e
Desiqn Value
I Unit
Analysis�De;sign
'
a-
Pin
IV711 U*42
B..di.,I-)
�111
9 275"
2z.�SU6'o
p.i
fb/Eb' = 0
%-I
L
0.51 L/3
0Fb'
.50 L/3
I
I
4z'
T'
0.68 L/263
0 .7 5 L/240
5--- 6,j I'lHiP S70 0 r,
Additional Data:
FACTORS: F/Elp.i)CD CM Ct CL CV CfU
C. Cf�t Ci C'
LC#
Fv, 290 1 .00 1.00 - -
- 1. 0 0 1 .00
2
Fb'+ 2900 1 .00 1.00 0.978 1.01
1.00 1.00
2
F P 2 - 0
1 6 5 1.0
- 1 00
-
E 2 .0 million, I...
1:00
2
Eminy' 1.04 million 1.00
1. 00
2
CRITICAL LOAD COMBINATIONS:
shear : LC #2 D+L: V ma. = 5598, V do.ign
4845 lb.
B..di.g(+, ; LC #2 D+L M = 20994 lb.-ft
Deflection: LC #2 D+L Ilivel
LC #2 D+L (total)
D=dead live S=snou, W-wind 1=impact Lr=roof live L-concentrated E=earthqu.ke
rare
All LC. is zed 1, the Analysis output
Load ..�_ti,ns: ASCE 7-10 / IBC 2015
CALCULATIONS:
Deflection: El 1246a,06 lb-it2
,,Liv." deflection Deflection from all non -dead load,
(live , wind, snow I
To tal Deflection 1.00(Dead Load Deflection) + Live Lead Deflection.
Lateral stability(+): Lu - 3. 51 Le - 271-7.19" RB =
11.6
Design Notes:
I WoodWorlu� nalysis and design are in accordance with the 10C International Building Code (IBC 2015). the National Design Specification INDS 2015), and NDS Design Supplement.
2: Please verifyothat the default deflection limits are appropriate for your application.
3 SOL-BEAMS (Structural Composite Lumber): the attached SOL selectlon Is for preliminary design only. For final member design contact your n�J SCL manufacturer.
4: Size factors vary from one manufacturer to another for SOL materials. They Dan be changed In the database editor.
5. FIRE RATING: LVL, PSL and LSL are not rated for fire endurance.
COMPANY PROJECT
WoodWorks' July 23, 2018 15:50 Beam3wwb
SOFTWARE FOR WOOD DESIGN
Design Check Calculation Sheet
WoodWorks Sizer 11.1
Loads:
T-1
-t-.t I I
M gnitude
Unit
IDistributionlP
I.:t.-nl
B rion
t Enfr
rt F,,d
�L-11�
ad
'It
jb
PP11
Loa.�
Live
Full U L
Full 1
1
:U
240 0
pl
Dead
UUD�L
12 . 3
Maximum Reactions (lbs), Bearing Capacities (lbs) and Bearing Lengths (in) :
13'-721'
Unf ctozed i
Dead
Live
1008
1.
1008
1632
Fee red:
Total
-
2640
2640
,:,in
c
C ity
Beam
2640
2640
B upp..t
2923
2923
De ti.
8: -
1.00
1 00
support
0. 9 0
0:90
Load comb
#2
*2
Length
21
1.21
Mi n reqld
1. 21
1.2 1
Cb
1.00
1.00
Cb min
1.00
1.00
Cb Supp. rt
1 11
1.11
I Fcp Up
;2S
625
PSL, ZOE, 2.OE, 3-1/2"x11-114"
Supports: All - Timber -soft Beam, D.Fir-L N0.2
Total length: IT-7.21"; Clear span: 13'-4.79'; volume z 3.7 cu.R.
I Lateral support: top= at supports, bottom= at supports;
WARNING: this CUSTOM SIZE Is not in the database. Refer to online help,
Analysis vs. Allowable Stress and Deflection using NOS 2015:
criterion
I Analysis Value,
Design Value
Unit
Ana I
113WOP"
she at
tv
Z90
1v717 OB29
Bending(+)
it, 14 38
2716
psi
fb/Fb' = 0 53
Li
0.22 L/750
0.45 L, 360
in
In"
0:48
To
0.42 L1309
0,68 L/240
0.62
Additional Data:
FACTORS: F/E(pai)CD CK Ct CL CV Cf.
C. Cf.t Ci Cn
LC#
290 1 .00 1.00 - -
- 1.00 1.00
2
Fb-+ 2900 1 1.00 0. 931 1.01
1 00 1 00 -
2
F-P 625 1.00 - -
1:00
'j, 2.0 million 1.00
1 . 00 -
2
Emi ey 1 1.04 million 1.00
1 . 00
2
CRITICAL LOAD COMBINATIONS:
Shear : LC #2 D+L ' V "X = 2621, V design
2237 lbs
.end,.g,.) : LC #2 D+L, M = a 84 6 lb,-ft
Deflection: LC #2 D+L (live)
LC #2 D+L (total)
D=d'ad L-live S-s-ow W-i-d I=Jurpact Lr-roof live L-concentrated E=earthquake
All LC a a re I isted in the A. ly in -tput
Load combination- ASCE 7-10 ; NC 2015
CALCULATIONS.
�eflcction: ZI = B3leO6 lb-inZ
Live " d Election Deflection from all n-dead loads
(live, wind, snow...)
Tlt:l Deflection 1:50(Dead Lo.d.Deflection) + Live Load Deflection.
Let r. I t..ility(+). Lu = 131-6 DO- Le = 24-10.06"
Re - 16.5
Design Notes:
1. WoodWorks analysis and design am in accordance With the ICC International Building Code (IBC 2015),the National Design Specification (NDS 2015), and NDS Design Supplement.
2. Please verify that the default deflection limits are appropriate for your application.
3. SCL-BEAMS (Structural Composite Lumbeo: the attached SOL selection is for preliminary design only. For final member design contact your local SOL manufacturer,
4. Size factors vary from one manufacturer to another for SCL materials. They can be changed in the database editor.
. ... . .... . .. . ......... .... . ..... .. ................ . .. . ........ ........ .. ....
.... .. . . . . ..... ... . .. ...... ..... . ..... ....... ..... .... .................... ....... ..................... ............. .. . .... . ........ .......... . ..........
:IeAu stm�
............ .. ...... ..................... ........... ..
r6 - G-A 1. S.-I. I, ij 1 . ......... F.Ott.�--
. .... . ...... . ....... .. .......... -
L
............. . ................
---------- . . ......... ...... .......... . .. . . .... . ... . .......... ............... .
W"
W4
.... ...... ...... . ... . ....
.. .........
.................. .... ........
. ..... . ............ . ..... . ..........
........ .. ....... . .......
. .... . ....... .. . . ............................. . . . . .. . . . . ........
. . .. .............. ........ ....
... .........
C #-Xj<4- ... . ......... .... . ..... .. . ......... .. ........... ....
I, i ----------
'P
... . .. .... ft ........... Z0.1 - - ------- -
ILA
- - - - - - . .. . . ..... . Ak . .......
.............
. . ....... ..
.......... ..
.. ............ . . . .... .... .......... . ................. ... .. ............ . . . .. ............... . ..
......... ........
-M A ..... . .......... Sw 6.4r
. . ......... . .. ... . ... ... - .......... . .. . .... .
. .. ............ ..... ... ..... ........ .. . .. .. ... ..... -
Vt 16 f.
.... . .... . ... . ... ..... . . ...... . .....
............. . ......... .. ...... . ........... . .. . .......... . .... ..
. . . .... . . .. ...... ....... .. . ... .. .. ....
. .. . ........ . ..... ...... . .. . . ... ..... ... . ............. ... ......................... ... . ........
. .............
.... . . . ....... . .......
......... .. . . ................... . . ... . .......... . .
. . . . . ... ............ ...
.......... . r . . .............. . . .
i 31V
SiL - - - --------- ---
. . . ... ............ .. ... . ............ . ........ ......
. . . ......... . . -
-ro i )C/
. . .............................. . ......
.. . ..........
. .. . .......
. . ........ . ...... . . . ....... . . .......... .. ........ . . ... I ............. . - - - - - - ---------
.. . . . . . . ..............
.......... .
................. .
.... ...... ..... ..
. . .....
............... 4.
........ .... .. I ......... ....... . ............. ... ...... .
Description
By )t�17
Date
Checked
Date
ENGINEERING
Scale
Sheet No.
250 4th Ave. South
Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
Job No.
425.778.8500
www.cgengineering.com
COMPANY PROJECT
WoodWork I s July 20, 2018 16:07 sisteredjoists.wwb
SOFTWARE FOR WOOD DES GN
Design Check Calculation Sheet
WoodWorks Sizer 11. 1
Loads:
Load
Type
Distribution
Pat-
Location (ft]
Magnitude
unit
tern
Start End
Start End
_0")
Loadl
Dead -
Full Area
12. 0 0 (T6.
psf
Load2
Dead
Full Area
1
40.00(16.0")
psf
Self -weight
Dead -----Full
UDL _
7.0
plf
Maximum Reactions (lbs), Bearing Capacities (lbs) and Bearing Lengths (in) :
16-0.57"
Unfactored:
Dead
688
688
Factored:
Total
-
668
688
Bearing:
-
Capacity
Joist
68B
688
Support
1195
1195
Des ratio
Jo i st
1.00
1.00
support
0.58
0.58
Load comb
*1
#1
Length
0.57
0.57
Min reqld
a. 57
0.57
Cb
1 00
1 00
cb min
1 00
1:00
Cb support
1.13
1 . 13
Fop sup
1 6251
625,
Lumber n-ply, Hem -Fir, Nlo.2,2x112,2-ply (3"xil-1/4")
Supports: All - Timber -soft Beam. D.Fir-L No.2
Floor joist spaced at 16.0" c/o; Total length: 1 W-0.57"; Clear span: 1T-1 1.43"; volume = 4.2 OU ftr
Lateral support: top= full, bottom= at supports; Repetitive factor: applied where permitted (refer to online help);
Analysis vs. Allowable Stress and Deflection using NDS 2015:
Criterion
Analysis Value
Desiqn Value
Unit
Analysis/Design
Shear
fv = 27
Fv1 = 135
psi
fv/Fv' = 0.20
Bending(+)
fb = 586
Fb' = 880
psi
fb/Fbl = 0.67
Live Deflln
negligible
Total Defl'n
0.58 = L/369
0.90 = L/240
in
0.65
Additional Data:
FACTORS: F/E(psi)CD CM
ct CL CF Cfu
Cr Cfrt
Ci Cn
LC#
Fv:+ 150 0.90 1.00
1.00 - - -
- 1.00
1.00 1.00
1
Eb 850 0.90 1.00
1.00 1.000 1.000 1.00
1.15 1.00
1.00 -
1
Fcpl 405 - 1.00
1.00 - - -
- 1.00
1.00 -
-
E, 1.3 million 1.00
1.00 - - -
- 1.00
1 00 -
1
Emin' 0.47 million 1.00
1.00 - - -
- 1.00
1:00 -
1
CRITICAL LOAD COMBINATIONS:
Shear : LC #1 = D only,
V max 687, V design
613 lbs
Bending(+): LC #1 = D only,
M = 3090 lbs-ft
Deflection: LC #1 = D only
(total)
D=dead L--live S=snow W-wind
I=impact Lr=roof live Lc=concentrated E-earthquake
All LC's are listed in the Analysis output
Load combinations: ASCE 7-10
/ IBC 2015
CALCULATIONS:
Deflection: EI 23leO6
lb-in2/ply
"Live" deflection = Deflection
from all non -dead loads
(live, wind,
snow...)
Total Deflection = 1.50(Dead
Load Deflection) + Live Load Deflection.
Design Notes:
1. WoodWorks analysis and design are in accordance with the ICC International Building Code (IBC 2015), the National Design Specification (Nos 2015). and NOS Design Supplement.
2. Please verify that the default deflection limits are appropriate for your application.
3- Sawn lumber bending members shall be laterally supported according to the provisions of NDS Clause 4.4. 1.
4. FIRE RATING: Joists, wall studs, and multi -ply members are not rated for fire endurance.
WoodWorks@ Sizer SOFTWARE FOR WOOD DESIGN
sistered joists.wwb WoodWorks@ Sizer 11.1 July 24, 2018 13:51:19
Critical Results
ANALYSIS DIAGRAMS (known section - includes self -weight)
REACTION [lbs]
Maximum...
Uplift: 0
Bearing: 688
68B
688
01
18,
SHEAR [lbs]
Load Combination #1:
D only
3
0
V design: 613
343
6 �13
01
131-61
18'
BENDING [lbs-ft]
Load Combination #1:
D only
+M max: 3090
3090
2318
A
A
of
91
13'-6"
TOTAL DEFLECTION [in]
Load Combination #1:
D only
Total = 1.50 x Dead
+ Live (all others)
Critical Live: 0.00
Critical Total: 0.58
0.21
0
0.48
of
91
18'
REO"' DENCE
L A'FE"�"
FOUNDATION
15729 75TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
OWNER CONSULTANTS
SHARON & CARL LARSEN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
9832 MARINE VIEW DRIVE
CG ENGINEERING
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIA7ES, INC
MUKILTEO,WA98275
250 4TH AVE S, SUITE 200
17,311 135TH AVENUE NE A-500
425.349.1451
EDMONDS, WA 98020
WOODINVILLE, WA 98072
SHARON.LARSEN@FRONTIER.COM
425.778.8500 FAX 778.5536
425 ' 486.1669
CONTACT. DENNIS TITUS, PE. SE
CONTACT: LEE S. BELLAH
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ALL OF TRACT 27 MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
PARCEL NUMBER
00513300002700
PROPERTY INFORMATION
EX BUILDING FOOTPRINT = 1904 SOFT
PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT = NOT TO CHANGE
SCOPE OF WORK
THIS PROJECT INVOLVES THE STABILIZATION OF AN EXISTING HOME THAT HAS EXPERIENCED SOME
SETTLEMENT. WILL UNDERPIN THE EXISTING FOUNDATION WITH r DIAMETER PIN PILES TO SUPPORT
FUTURE LOADS OFTHE PLANNED ADDITIONAL FLOOR.
FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL 36" MIN WIDE
ROLLS. USE STAPLES OR WIRE RINGS TO
ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE. JOINTS IN FILTER
FABRIC SHALL BE SPLICED AT POSTS. FILTER FABRIC
2"x2" BY 14 GA. WIRE MATERIAL
FABRIC OR IVALENT 2"x2'. BY 14 GA WIRE
FABRIC OR EQUIV IF
STANDARD STRENGTH
FABRIC IS USED
6"x6" MIN TRENCH
AC U. TRENCH 1�11F"
�ER
I
BURY B 0 40 1 IF
IL IV Scat OR �1'
N F!�TRENCH3 WASHED ROCK
MATER At 1 6"XI6 NAT E
6", TYP
VX4�'WOCID POSTS, STANDARD 2"x4'. WOOD POST ALT:
OR BETTER OR EQUAL STEEL FENCE POSTS
ALTERNATE: STEEL FENCE POSTS
SILT FENCE NOTES: 146
1. THE FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PURCHASED IN A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE BARRIER TO AVOID
USE OF JOINTS. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, FILTER CLOTH SHALL BE SPLICED TOGETHER ONLY AT A SUPPORT
POST, WITH A MINIMUM 6 INCH OVERLAP, AND BOTH ENDS SECURELY FASTENED TO THE POST.
2. THESILT NCE SHALL BE INSTALLED TO FOLLOW THE CONTOURS (WHERE FEASIBLE). THE FENCE POSTS SHALL BE
FE
SPACED A MAXIMUM OF 6 FEET APART AND DRIVEN SECURELY INTO THE GROUND (MINIMUM OF 18 INCH
3. A SHALLOW TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED, ROUGHLY 6 INCHES WIDE AND 6 INCHES DEEP, UPSLOPE AND AEDSJACENT
TO THE WOOD POSTS To ALLOW THE LOWER EDGE OF THE FILTER FABRIC TO BE SECURED WITH GRAVEL.
4. WHEN FILTER FABRIC NOTAS STRONG AS MIRAF] 70OX IS USED, A WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE SHALL BE FASTENED
SECURELY TO THE UPSLOPE SIDE OF THE POSTS USING HEAVY-DUTY WIRE STAPLES AT LEAST 1 INCH LONG, TIE WIRES
OR HOG RINGS. THE WIRE MESH SHALL EXTEND 114TO THE SHALLOW TRENCH A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES AND SHALL
NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 36 INCHES ABOVE THE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE.
5. THE MIRAFI 70OX FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE STAPLED OR WIRED TO THE FENCE, AND AT LEAST 18 INCHES OF THE FABRIC
SHALL BE BURIED IN THE SHALLOW TRENCH. THE FILTER FABRIC SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 36 INCHES ABOVE
THE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE AND SHAUL NOT BE STAPLED TO TREES.
6. WHEN EXTRA -STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC (MIRAF1 70OX OR EQUAL) AND FOUR (4') POST SPACING IS USED, THE WIRE
MESH SUPPORT FENCE MAY BE ELIMINATED. IN SUCH A CASE, THE FILTER FABRIC IS STAPLED OR WIRED DIRECTLY TO
THE POSTS WITH ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF NOTE 5 APPLYING.
7 ' THE TRENCH SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH NATIVE SOIL OR 3/4�'-15' WASHED ROCK.
8. FILTER FABRIC FENCES SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR USEFUL PURPOSE, BUT NOT BEFORE THE
UPSLOPE AREA HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. THE NEWLY DISTURBED AREAS RESULTING FROM SILT FENCE
REMOVAL SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY SEEDED AND MULCHED, OR OTHERWISE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE CIVIL INSPECTOR.
9. SILT FENCES SHALL BE INSPECTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING PROLONGED
RAINFALL ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY.
10. MAINTENANCE: ANY DAMAGED OR CLOGGED FENCE SHALL BE REPAIRED/REPLACED IMMEDIATELY. SEDIMENT MUST
BE REMOVED WHEN THE SEDIMENT DEPTH IS 6 INCHES OR GREATER. IF CONCENTRATED FLOWS ARE EVIDENT UPHILL
OF THE FENCE, THEY MUST BE INTERCEPTED AND CONVEYED TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR POND.
SILT FENCE
SCALE: 1/2" = V-0"
1 12
L
)vr(dr+ raA . " 1*4 1 -Ha
60"IdiA.) )k1wc4-,w w,U ki�tnv�n-e,
Ka4fvvA -IV
4v t'4-5 uyl:ji�kA
Nothing in thia writ 2porwarl pmess shall k
18 t orp" ed a lil "T '
' "' g ' na"" ngh,
avunw- 11 ofan,,,—`11cy1"a1Iw
..._ . _. or a._— -11,
or sue 1 ... _'J.h Is n
r.I applies... mc= I
buffl.. .
anit
og,. I. sh.— o�n Oh'.
". an Such buildiag, structure or
en. satilict cfa acparau
...........
q�,
'�TW14- (tq (bl 1`44�vni Qt�—d-n; 4w)
eNGINEIERING
250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200
EDMONDS . WASHINGTON 98020
PHONE (425) 778-8500
Nil FAX (425) 778-5536
KNOWN
LAND
AREA SLIDE
'&C41'L IN #Y M �A
PROJECT SITE
WALL -J
RI1 LINE TYP.
NeO
131
�';�'oant a hall rapair/replace all damage to
'it/ ep'ac damage to.
� or
r
o f,
� mintage improvements
arp"vemen. m City
in City
-" "or stendards Ithat . caused
'w yp
--�Wfiy Per CAystandards that is c, used
a
-q
as during the Permitted project.
to .
OWNEFVCO NMACTOR RESPONSIBLE
FOR LOCATING ALL ON -SUE UTILITIES,
ri" damege tq
utiAW orfrDn'tage ir provementa in City
RELOCATION/REVISION TO ANY UTILITIES
right-0-la/UY per Cityntandards; that N caupect
orow"13 during the permitted project.
MAY REOj
' :,",E SEPARATE PERMIT
rjWNER!0O,ViR1,CTOR IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR EROSION COIWOL AND DIRMNACE
071 /15
21D
�Nom- z S
2 in (A
(L 0 w
0 2 2
LLI OW ow
4-----.4 --- 4-4
.256-
25—
APP40%1YBY
qrw DY�ew 7� J�r� 1 1 1 1.
Ir
soft, Z.-
-ro rqpft- AfftoVA� br- MS
fanmric I
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
OWNER La
APPROVED DATE:
BLE
PERMIT WUMBER
M
rf��
DESIGN: NAL
DRAWN:
JEG
CHECK:
DIAT
JOB NO:
17145.10
DATE:
02/21/18
(0
C14
LLJ 3: 0
0 00
z _j 0)
LLJ CL
2 <
V) z
Lu <
fl� Lo —J
r- D-
:z
UJ IM, z
(/) C-4 0 LLI
< LO CI
-J — ILLJ V)
SHEET
Is U B
JUL 2 6 2018
STRUCTURAL NOTES_
(THESE NOTES ARE TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OR DETAILED OTHERWISE ON DRAWINGS)
CODE
ALL MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE DRAWINGS,
SPECI FICATIONS, AND THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC), 2015 EDITION. SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS
WHERE REFERENCED ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE THE LATEST EDITION.
DESIGN LOADS
DEAD LOADS:
ROOF 15 PSF
FLOOR 12 PSF
LIVE LOADS:
ROOF (SNOW LOAD) 25 PSF
FLOOR 40 PSF
(LIVE LOADS ARE REDUCED WHERE PERMISSIBLE PER ISC SECTION 1607.10).
STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS
SPECIAL INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED AS INDICATED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A
WRITTEN STATEMENT 0 F RESPONSIBILITY TO THE BUILDING OFFICIALAND OWNER PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF
WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 1704.4 OF THE IBC.
FREQUENCY AND DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTS - INSPECTION REPORTS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH DAY ON SITE BY
SPECIAL INSPECTOR. STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REPORTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AFTER EACH OBSERVATION� REPORTS
SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE CONTRACTOR, ARCHITECT, ENGINEER AND BUILDING OFFICIAL.
SPECIAL INSPECTION
OPERATION
CONT
PERIODIC
REMARKS
SOILS
PIPE PILING INSTALLATION
x
GEOTECH ENGINEER
HELICALANCHOR INSTALLATION
x
GEOTECH ENGINEER
PILING REFUSAL VERIFICATION
x
GEOTECH ENGINEER
CONCRETE
AD ORS
X
IF REO'D
SHOP & FIELD WELDING
SINGLE PASS FILLET WELDS!� 5/16"
X
FILLET WELDS � 5116"
X
OTHER WELDING
x
SHOP DRAWINGS
NOT REQUIRED.
FOUNDATIONS: PIN PILES
SOILS REPORT: REPORT NO:
999017
PREPARED BY:
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
DATED:
09/29/17
ALLOWABLE PILE CAPACITY.
3"o PILE 6 TONS
2"0 PILE 3 TONS
PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE: 250 PCIF
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE:
UNRESTRAINED: 45 PCF , ANY APPLICABLE SURCHARGE
RESTRAINED: 65 POP
IMPORTED STRUCTURAL FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL SHOULD CONSIST OF CLEAN, WELL GRADED GRANULAR
MATERIAL FREE OF DEBRIS OR ORGANICS WITH A MAXIMUM PARTICLE DIAMETER OF TH REE I INCH ES AND NO MORE
THAN 10% FINES (PASSING THE #200 SIEVE).
FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL SHOULD BE PLACED IN LEVEL LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING TWELVE (12") INCHES IN LOOSE
THICKNESS AND COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 95% OF ITS MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY ASTM
TEST METHOD D1557-00.
BACKFILL BEHIND ALL RETAINING WALLS WITH WELL -DRAINING, GRANULAR FILL AND PROVIDE FOR SUBSURFACE
DRAINAGE. PROVIDE DAMPPROCIFING AT EXTERIOR FACE OF ALL FOUNDATION WALLS EXPOSED TO EARTH PER
ARCHITECTURAL SPECIFICATIONS.
T-0 PIPE PILING INSTALLATION
3" STD PIPE SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A53 GRADE A OR B, FY = 30 KSI (MIN)
REFERENCE PLAN FOR ANY BATTER PILES REQUIRED.
PIPE PILING SHALL BE DRIVEN INTO THE SUBGRADE TO A POINT OF REFUSAL BY MEANS OF A TRACTOR MOUNTED
TB425 BREAKER HAMMER W/ AN ENERGY RATING OF 1100 FT -LB, WITH REFUSAL BEING DEFINED AS 4 INCH OR LESS
OF PENETRATION DURING I MINUTE OF SUSTAINED DRIVING.
PIPE SECTIONS SHALL BE BUTTED TOGETHER AND WELDED. PROPERLY PREPARE ENDS OF WELDED JOINTS TO AVOID
FRACTURE OF JOINT. WELDED COUPLERS $HALL BE USED. WHERE NOT INDICATED, MINIMUM FILLET WELD SIZE
SHALL BE PER TABLE 5.8 IN AWS "STRUCTURAL WELDING CODE". WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO AWS Dl. 1 LATEST
EDITION. ALL WE UDING SHALL BE DONE WITH 70 KSI LOW HYDROGEN ELECTRODES. ALL WELDING SHALL BE
PERFORMED By WELDERS CERTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWS AND WABO. SLEAVED COUPLERS IF DESIRED
SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL.
HELICAL SCREW ANCHORS
SCREW ANCHORS SHALL BE CONTRACTOR SELECTED AND BE CAPABLE OF DEVELOPING DESIGN LOAD ON THE
ANCHOR SCHEDULE. ANCH OR SHAFT SHALL BE 11/2" SQUARE AN D HELIX SHALL HAVE A 3/8" MINIMUM
THICKNESS. ANCHOR SHAFT SHALL BE 11/2" SQUARE.
H E LIX SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A29 AND HUB SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A576.
EXTENSIONS TO HAVE SAME SHAFT SIZE AND TYPE AS ANCHOR.
ANCHORS SHALL BE COATED FOR CORROSION PROTECTION. COATING MAY BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED OR
CORROSION RESISTANT EPDXY PAINT.
THE CONTRACTOR MAY USE AN ENGINEER -APPROVED EQUAL IF IT IS CAPABLE OF DEVELOPING THE DESIGN LOADS
LISTED IN THE FOUNDATION NOTES. REFER TO SOILS REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL ANCHOR INSTALLATION
REQUIREMENTS.
CONCRETE
ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE MIXED, PROPORTIONED, CONVEYED, AND PLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
CHAPTER 5 OF ACI 318 AND THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE'S SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE
FOR BUILDINGS (ACI 301).
ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE STONE -AGGREGATE CONCRETE HAVi NG A U IN IT WE IG HT OF APPROXIMATELY 150 POUNDS
PER CUBIC FOOT.
CONCRETE STRENGTHS AT 28 DAYS WC) AND MIX CRITERIA SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
PC
MAXIMUM
WATER/CEMENT
RATIO
MIN CEMENT
CONTENT PER CUBIC
YARD
AXIMUM
SHRINKAGE STRAIN
SLABS ON GRADE
3000 PSI
0.55
5 1/2 SACK
N/A
FOOTINGS
3000 PSI
0.55
5 1/2 SACK
N/A
GRADEBEAMS
3000 PSI
0.50
5 1/2 SACK
N/A
WALLS
4000 PSI
0.45
5 1/2 SACK
N/A
OTHER CONC.
L�
250�!`Si
0.45
5 SACK
N/A
11
THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF CEMENT LISTED ABOVE MAY BE CHANGED IF A CONCRETE PERFORMANCE MIX 15
SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO PLACING
ANY CONCRETE. THE PERFORMANCE MIX SHALL INCLUDE THE AMOUNTS OF CEMENT, FINE AND COARSE
AGGREGATE, WATER, AND ADMIXTURES AS WELL AS THE WATER -CEMENT RATIO, SLUMP, CONCRETE YIELD, AND
SUBSTANTIATING STRENGTH DATA IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 5 OF AC(318.
ALL CONCRETE EXPOSED TO WEATHER OR TO FREEZING TEMPERATURES SHALL BE AIR -ENTRAINED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ACI 318 TABLE 4.2.1 FOR MODERATE EXPOSURE CONDITION.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, REINFORCING SPLICE LENGTHS AND DEVELOPMENT LENGTHS SHALL BE AS TABULATED
RFJ nw.
Vc = 2500 PSI
DEVELOPMENT LENGTH
LAP SPLICE
BAR
TENSION
COMPRESSION
TENSION
COMPRESSION
SIZE
TOP EARS
OTHER
BARS
ALL BARS
TOPBARS
OTHER
BARS
ALL BARS
#3
24
18
9
30
23
12
#4
31
24
12
41
31
is
#5
39
30
15
51
39
19
#6
47
36
18
61
47
23
6;8
53
21
8L9
!!
27
60
24
102
1 7.
30
Vc - 3000 PSI
DEVELOPMENT LENGTH
LAP SPLICE
BAR
TENSION
COMPRESSION
TENSION
COMPRESSION
SIZE
TOP BARS
OTHER
BARS
ALL BARS
TOP BARS
OTHER
BARS
ALL BARS
#3
22
17
9
28
22
12
#4
29
22
11
37
29
is
#5
36
28
14
47
36
19
r
43
33
17
56
43
23
#1
63
4.
20
81
63
27
#8 1
72
22
93
72
30
M
1. ALL LENGTHS ARE IN INCHES.
2. ALL LAP SPLICES ARE CLASS B.
3. "TOP BARS" ARE HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT PLACED SUCH THAT MORE THAN 12 INCHES OF
CONCRETE IS CAST IN THE MEMBER BELOW THE BAR. I
PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM REINFORCING UNLESS NOTED OR DETAILED OTHERWISE fGRADF AM -
THICKNESS
REINFORCING
PLACEMENT
6" WALLS
#4 @ 13" OC
EA WAY CENTERED
8" WALLS
N5 @ 15" OC
EA WAY CENTERED
lV'WALLS
#4 @ 16" OC
EA WAY, EA FACE
CONCRETE GENERAL NOTES
VERTICAL BARS SHALL START FROM TOP OF FOOTING. HORIZONTAL BARS SHALL START A DISTANCE OF 1/2 THE
NORMAL BAR SPACING FROM TOP OF FOOTING AND TOP OF FRAMED SLABS. IN ADDITION, THERE SHALL BE A
HORIZONTAL BAR AT A MAXIMUM OF 3" FROM TOP OF WALL AND BOTTOM OF FRAMED SLABS.
PROVIDE CORNER BARS TO MATCH THE HORIZONTAL REINFORCING WITH TENSION LAP SPLICE AT EACH SIDE PER
TABLE, OR BEND ONE SIDE OVER TO PROVIDE TENSION LAP.
PROVIDE CONTROL OR CONSTRUCTION JOINTS IN SLABS ON GRADE TO BREAK UP SLAB INTO RECTANGULAR AREAS
OF NOT Mo RE THAN 400 SQUARE FEET EACH. AREAS TO BE AS SQUARE AS PRACTICAL AND HAVE NO ACUTE
ANGLES . JOINT LOCATIONS TO BE APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECT.
ALL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED AND PROPERLY PREPARED IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO
POURING OF CONCRETE. DOWEL STEEL SHALL BE THE SAME SIZE AND SPACING AS MAIN REINFORCING DETAILED
BEYOND JOINT.
SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AND MECHANICAL DRAWINGS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF
OPENINGS IN CONCRETE WALLS, FLOORS AND ROOF. UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE, REINFORCE AROUND
OPENINGS GREATER THAN 12" IN EITHER DIRECTION WITH (2) #5 EACH SIDE AND (1) #5 x 4'-0" DIAGONAL AT EACH
CORNER. EXTEND BARS T-O"BEYOND EDGE OF OPENING. IF 2`0" IS UNAVAILABLE, EXTEND AS FAR AS POSSIBLE
AND HOOK. HOOK ALL REINFORCING INTERRUPTED BY OPENINGS.
BARS PARTIALLY EMBEDDED IN HARDENED CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE FIELD BENT UNLESS SO DETAILED OR
APPROVED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ALL GROOVES, NOTCHES, CHAMFERS, FEATURE STRIPS, COLOR, TEXTURE AND
OTHER FINISH DETAILS AT ALL EXPOSED CONCRETE SURFACES. PROVIDE 3/4" CHAMFER AT ALL CORNERS EXCEPT AS
NOTED.
NON -SHRINK GROUT
NON -SHRINK GROUT SHALL BE CEMENT -BASED WITH A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 5000 PSI WHEN
TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C-109. GROUTSHALL BE MIXED AND PLACED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH
THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
ITRUCTURAL STEEL
STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN, FABRICATION AND ERECTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AISC
"SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN, FABRICATION, AND ERECTION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL FOR BUILDINGS", LATEST
EDITION.
SHAPES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A992, Fy = 50 KSL
PLATES, ANGLES, AND RODS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A36, Fy = 36 KSL
STRUCTURAL TUBING SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A500 GRADE 8, Fy = 46 KSL
STEEL PIPE SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A53 GRADE B, Fy = 35 KSL
BOLTS CONNECTING STEEL MEMBERS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A32S-N. BOLTS SHALL BE 3/4"0 MINIMUM, ONO
ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A307.
CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE CONNECTION ADJUSTMENT TOLERANCES TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF AISC
MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION.
UNLESS SPECIFIED AS STAINLESS STEEL, ALL STEEL MEMBERS, SHAPES, BOLTS, AND ACCESSORIES EXPOSED TO
WEATHER SHALL BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED.
WELDING
WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO AWS "STRUCTURAL WELDING CODE", LATEST EDITION. ALL WELDING SHALL BE
DONE WITH 70 KSI LOW HYDROGEN ELECTRODES. WHERE NOT CALLED OUT, M [NI MUM FI LLET WELD SIZE SHALL BE
PER TABLE 5.8 IN AWS D1.1, LATEST EDITION.
WELDING OF REINFORCING BARS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT ON DRAWINGS OR
APPROVED BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. WELDING OF GRADE 60 REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE PERFORMED USING
LOW HYDROGEN ELECTRODES. WELDING OF GRADE 40 REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE PERFORMED USING E70XX
ELECTRODES. SEE REINFORCING NOTES FOR MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF WELDED BARS. WELDING WITHINVOF
COLD BENDS IN REINFORCING BARS IS NOT PERMITTED.
ALL WELDING SHALL BE DONE BY WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF BUILDING OFFICIALS (WABO) CERTIFIED WELDERS.
IUMBER
ALL GRADES SPECIFIED ARE MINIMUM GRADES REQUIRED. ALL LUMBER SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WWPA
GRADING RULES, KILN -DRIED TO MC 19 AND OF THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM STANDARDS:
SIZE CLASSIFICATION
SPECIES
GRADE
Fb (PSI)
Fc (PSI)
SLEEPERS
DOUG-FIR
STUD
700
-
LIGHT FRAMING (STUDS)
HEM -FIR
STUD
675
800
2x JOISTS AND PLANKS
HEM -FIR
#2
850
-
PLATES AND BLOCKING
HEM -FIR
#2
850
6x AND LARGER BEAMS AND
' STRINGERS
T I
DOUG-FIR
#2
875
4x A�ND SMALLER BEAMS AND
L
ST
STRINGERS
I
[�AALL
HEM -FIR
#2
850
ILL P;
T
POSTS AND TIMBERS
__20UG-FIR 1
#1
1200
1000
REFER TO PLAN NOTES, SCHEDULES, AND DETAILS FOR MORE SPECIFIC LUMBER SIZE AND GRADE REQUIREMENTS.
UNLESS NorED OTHERWISE IN THE PLANS, ALL WOOD AND WOOD -BASED MEMBERS EXPOSED TO WEATHER OR IN
CONTAcr WITH CONCRETE, MASONRY, OR WITHIN 8" OF SOIL SHALL BE PRESERVATIVE -TREATED BY
VACUUN,PRESSURE IMPREGNATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWPA STANDARD Ul.
NAILS, DDLTS, AND METAL CONNECTORS FOR WOOD
ALL NAILS SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS SET FORTH BY THE NATIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS (NDS) FOR
WOOD MNSTRUCTION, LATEST EDITION. NAILING NOT SPECIFIED SHALL BE PER IBC TABLE 2304.10.1 NAILING
SCHEDULE. ALL NAILS CALLED OUT ON PI ANq qWAI I Rp r-Aunm m- c i i,n cc
Mttl UK EXCEED ME FOLLOWING MI
NAIL
IMUM GUIDELINES:
SHANK 0
MIN LENGTH
8dCOMMON
0,1310
2 1/2" SHANK
10dCOMMON
0.1480
3"SHANK
12d COMMON
0.1480
3 1/4" SHANK
l6d COMMON
0.1620
3 1/2"SHANK
1UG dUA NALb MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR 8d COMMON NAILS WITH NO CHANGE IN NAIL SPACING. FRAMING
MEMBERS MAY BE NAILED WITH 16d SINKERS (0.148"0 x 3 1/4"), BUT ONLY 16d COMMON NAILS SHALL BE USED
WHERE 16d NAILS ARE INDICATED IN THIS DRAWING SET. ENGINEER MAY APPROVE OTHER NAILS IF NAIL LABELS
ARE SUBMITTED TO ENGINEER PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION.
ALL BOLTS IN WOOD MEMBERS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A307. PROVIDE WASHERS UNDER THE HEADS AND NUTS
OF ALL BOLTS AND LAG SCREWS BEARING ON WOOD. LEAD HOLES FOR LAG BOLTS SHALL BE BORED FOR THE
SHANK ANDTHREADED PORTIONS PER NOS 11.1.3.
CONNECTORS CALLED OUT BY LETTERS AND NUMBERS SHALL BE "STRONG -TIE" BY SIMPSON COMPANY, CATALOG
TO BETHE LATEST EDITION, OR ENGINEER APPROVED EQUAL. CONNECTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND WITH THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF FASTENERS AS SPECIFIED
BY THE MANUFACTURER. WHERE CONNECTOR STRAPS CONNECT TWO MEMBERS, PLACE ONE-HALF OF THE NAILS,
SCREWS, OR BOLTS IN EACH MEMBER.
INSTALL SOLID BLOCKING AT ALL BEARING POINTS. ALL SHIMS SHALL BE SEASONED, DRIED, AND THE SAME GRADE
(MINIMUM)AS MEMBERS CONNECTED.
TIMSERSTRAND, MICROULAMI, AND PARALLAM MEMBERS
FABRICATED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL EVALUATION SERVICE (ICC-ES) REPORT
NO, ESR-1387 OR CCMC REPORT NO. 12627-R, 08675-R, AND 11161-R. EACH MEMBER SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A
STAMP INDICATING THE PRODUCT TYPE AND GRADE, ICC-ES OR CCMC REPORT NUMBER, MANUFACTURER'S NAME,
PLANT NUMBER AND INDEPENDENT INSPECTION AGENCY'S LOGO. FABRICATOR SHALL BE CERTIFIED. MEMBERS
SHALL MEETTHE FOLLOWING MINIMUM STANDARDS:
SIZE CLASSIFICATION
SPECIES
GRADE
Fb (PSI)
Fv (PSI
Fe (PSI)
BEAMS & POSTS (d < 9 1/2--)
LSL
1.3E
1,700
425
1,835
RINS & BEAMS (d ?. 9 1/2")
LSL
1.55E
2,325
310
BEAMS & POSTS
LVL
2.OE
2,600
28S
2,510
POSTS (d �9 1/211)
PSL
1.8E
2,400
190
2,500
BIAMS (d � 9 1/2")
PSL
2.2E
2,900
290
-
I IM5tM I HAND, MICROULAM, AND UNTREATED PARALLAM MEMBERS ARE INTENDED FOR DRY -USE APPLICATIONS.
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ENGINEERED WOOD BEAMS EXPOSED TO WEATHER SHALL BE TREATED PER
MANUFACTURES RECOMMENDATIONS.
TYPICAL FRAMING NOTES
1. BEARING WALL FRAMING
2x STUDS @ 16" OC FOR ALL SHEAR AND/OR BEARING WALLS ONO.
REFER TO FRAMING PLAN NOTES FOR TYPICAL DOOR & WINDOW HEADERS NOT CALLED OUT ON THE PLANS.
HEADERS SHALL BE SUPPORTED BY A MINIMUM OF (1) CRIPPLE AND (1) FULL HEIGHT STUD UNO.
COLUMNS BELOW FLUSH MULTIPLE JOIST BEAMS SHALL BE EQUAL IN WIDTH TO THE BEAM. ALL COLUMNS NOT
CALLED OUT OTHERWISE SHALL BE TWO STUDS.
2. WALL BASE PLATE ON CONCRETE
WALL PLATES BEARING ON CONCRETE SHALL BE PRESSURE -TREATED. FOR ALL EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR WALLS,
BOLT PLATES OR SILLS TO CONCRETE WITH 5/8 INCH DIAMETER ANCHOR BOLTS WITH 7 INCH MINIMUM
EMBEDMENT. PLACE AT V-0" OC MAXIMUM FOR SHEAR WALLS, AND AT V-0" OC FOR BEARING WALLS AND OTHER
PARTITIONS. USE M INIMUM OF TWO ANCHOR BOLTS PER SILL AND PLACE ONE WITHIN 12 INCHES OF EITHER END
TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OR DETAILED OTHERWISE. REFER TO SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE. AT ALL SILL PLATE ANCHOR
BOLTS, CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL 1/4" x 3" x 3" FLAT PLATE WASHERS.
3. ROOF AND FLOOR FRAMING
PROVIDE 1 1/2" BLOCKING FOR JOISTS AND RAFTERS AT ALL SUPPORTS AND AT 8'-0" OC MAXIMUM UNO. INSTALL
DOUBLE JOISTS UNDER PARTITIONS EXTENDING ONE HALF OR MORE OF THE JOIST SPAN. PROVIDE TRUSS BLOCKING
PANELS FOR ROOF TRUSSES AT SUPPORTS AND SHEAR WALLS, AND WHERE INDICATED ON PLANS AND DETAILS.
4. DIAPHRAGM NAILING
ALL SHEAR WALLS, FLOOR AND ROOF DIAPHRAGM NAILINGS SHALL BE AS CALLED OUT ON SCHEDULES OR ON THE
PLANS. EXTERIOR WALLS NOT INDICATED AS SHEAR WALLS SHALL BE SHEATHED AND NAILED TO SUPPORTING
FRAMING WITH Ed NAILS AT 6" OC AT ALL PANEL EDGES AND 12" OC AT ALL INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS.
THE USE OF NAIL GUMS W;U. BE APPROVED IF NAILING INTO THE DIAPHRAGMS CAN BE INSTALLED FLUSH WITH
FACE OF SHEATHING. NAIL PENETRATIONS GREATER THAN 1/16" ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
S. ALLOWABLE STUD AND PLATE PENETRATIONS
CUTTING AND/011 NOTCHING OF WOOD STUDS OR PLATES SHALL NOT EXCEED 25% 0 F THE STU D/PLATE WIDTH I N
EXTERIOR AND BEARING WALLS AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 4091 OF THE STUDIPLATE WIDTH IN ANY N 0 N-BEARI NIS
PARTITIONS. BORED HOLE DIAMETER IS LIMITED TO 40% OF STUD/PLATE WIDTH IN ANY STUD AND MAY BE 60% IN
NON BEARI NG PARTITIONS OR IF STUD IS DOU BLED. MAI NTAI N 5/8" MI NI M U M EDGE DISTANCE FROM HOLE EDGE.
6. GYPSUM WALLBOARD NAILING
ALL GYPSUM WALLBOARDSHALL BE NAILED TO ALL STUDS AND TOP AND BOTTO M PLATES WITH 6d COO LER NAI LS
OR NO. 13 GAUGE x 15/8" @ 7" OC (Sd COOLER NAILS FOR 1/2 INCH GYPSUM SHEATHING). TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE. INSTALLATION OF GWB SHALL BE SUCH THAT JOINTS ARE STAGGERED ON EACH SIDE OF A SINGLE
WALL.
EXISTING BUILDING
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, MEMBER SIZES AND CONDITIONS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING
DEPICTED IN THE DRAWINGS, AND NOTIFY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES FOR POSSIBLE
REDESIGN.
CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBUE FOR COMPLETELY SEALING ALL AREAS WHERE EXISTING ROOF MATERIAL IS
PENETRATED OR REMOVED. PROVIDE WATER PROOFING AS REQUIRED BY THE ARCH.
GENERAL
STRUCTURAL DRAWINGSSHALL BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARCHITECTURAL, CIVIL, ELECTRICAL, AND
MECHANICAL DRAWINGS FOR BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SMALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND
CONDIT:ONS FOR-COMPA-ABILITY BEFORE PROCEEDING. ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE
ATTENT ON OF THE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING.
CONTRACTOR TO SEE ARCHITECTURAL, CIVIL, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL DRAWINGS FOR SIZE AND LOCATION
OF PIPE, VENT, DUCT AND OTHER OPENINGS AND DETAILS NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS.
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FFSPONSIBLE FOR ERECTION STABILITY AND TEMPORARY SHORING AS NECESSARY UNTIL
PERMANENT SUPPORT AND STIFFENING ARE INSTALLED.
CONTRACTOR-INITIATEDCHANGES SHALL BE SUBMITrED IN WRITING TO THE ARCHITECT AND STRUCTURAL'
ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION OR CONSTRUCTION. CHANGES SHOWN ON SHOP DRAWINGS
ONLY WILL NOT SATISFYIHIS REQUIREMENT.
DRAWINGS INDICATE GINERAL AND TYPICAL DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION. WHERE CONDITIONS ARE NOT
SPECIFICALLY INDICATELIBUT ARE OF A SIMILAR CHARACTER TO DETAILS SHOWN, SIMILAR DETAILS OF
CONSTRUCTION SHALL IE USED, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ARCHITECT AND THE STRUCTURAL
ENGINEER.
Im ow
0-
ENGINEIERIM
250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200
EDMONDS , WASHINGTON 98020
PHONE (425) 778-8500
FAX (425) 778-5536
07126118
.0
w
F-
NAL
DRAWN:
JEG
rDESIGN:
CHECK:
IDMT
JOB NO:
17145.10
D AT E:
02/21/18
(o
C*4
LLj 3:: C)
0 00
z _j
LLJI a_
0 <
ui m �!.'
Li F-
a: L0
z r-
Lj 0) Z
(/) N 0
Cy- t"
Ld
SHEET:
V)
LLJ
0
z
0
::D
S1.1
RESUB
JUL 2 6 2018
11IM51-fallaTHIMULma
(THESE NOTES ARE TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OR DETAILED OTHERWISE ON DRAWINGS)
ANCHOR TESTING
EACH GROUND ANCHOR SHALL BE TESTED. THE MAXIMUM TEST LOAD SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MANUFACTURER
RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM LOAD. TENDON ANCHORS SHALL BE LOADED SIMULTANEOUSLY TO THE ENTIRE
TENDON. STRESSING OF A SINGLE ELEMENT OF MULTI -ELEMENT TENDONS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED.
A DIAL GAUGE OR VERNIER SCALE CAPABLE OF MEASURING TO 0.001 INCHES SHALL BE USED TO MEASURE THE
GROUNDANCHOR MOVEMENT. THE MOVEMENT MEASURING DEVICE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM TRAVEL EQUAL TO
THE THEORETICAL ELASTIC ELONGATION OF THE TOTAL ANCHOR LENGTH AT THE MAXIMUM TEST LOAD PLUS I
INCH. THE DIAL GAUGE OR VERNIER SCALE SHALL BE SUPPORTED INDEPENDENT OF THE JACKING SYSTEM &
RETAINED STRUCTURE & SHALL BE ALIGNED SO THAT ITS AXIS IS WITHIN S* FROM THE AXIS OF THE GROUND
ANCHOR.
A HYDRAULIC JACK OR RAM SHALL BE USED TO APPLY THE TEST LOAD. THE JACK & PRESSURE GAUGE SHALL BE
CALIBRATED BY AN INDEPENDENT TESTING LABORATORY AS A UNIT. THE PRESSURE GAUGE SHALL BE GRADUATED
I N 100 PSI INCREMENTS OR LESS. THE RAM TRAVEL OF THE JACK SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE THEORETICAL
ELASTIC ELONGATION OF THE TOTAL ANCHOR LENGTH AT THE MAXIMUM TEST LOAD PLUS 11 INCH. THE JACK SHALL
BE INDEPENDENTLY SUPPORTED & CENTERED OVER THE ANCHOR SO THAT THE ANCHOR DOES NOT CARRY THE
WEIGHT OF THE JACK.
ANCHOR LOAD TEST
AT LEAST (2) ANCHOR SHALL BE PERFORMANCE TESTED TO 200% OF THE DESIGN LOAD. ANCHORS TO BE TESTED
SHALL BE SELECTED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ADDITIONAL ANCHOR TESTS MAY BE REQUIRED ATTHE
REQUEST OF THE GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL INSPECTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF
WHALERS IF REQUIRED TO LIMIT PILE DEFLECTION DURING TESTING. THE PERFORMANCE TEST SHALL BE
COMPLETED BY INCREMENTALLY LOADING THE GROUND ANCHOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING TABLE.
ANCHOR LOADING
ANCHORUNLOADING
LOAD
HOLD TIME
LOAD
HOLDTIME
ALIGNMENT LOAD
I MINUTE
175% DESIGN LOAD
UNTIL STABLE
25% DESIGN LOAD
5 MINUTES
150% DESIGN LOAD
UNTIL STABLE
50% DESIGN LOAD
5 MINUTES
125% DESIGN LOAD
UNTIL STABLE
75% DESIGN LOAD
5 MINUTES
100% DESIGN LOAD
UNTILSTABLE
100 DE LOAD
5 MINUTES
75% DESIGN LOAD
UNTILSTABLE
125% DESIGN LOAD
5 MINUTES
50% DESIGN LOAD
UNTILSTABLE
150% DESIGN LOAD
5 MINUTES
25% DESIGN LOAD
UNTIL STABLE
175% DESIGN LOAD
5 MINUTES
ALIGNMENT LOAD
UNTILSTABLE
200% DESIGN LOAD
60 MINUTES
THE ALIGNMENT LOAD (AL) SHOULD BE THE MINIMUM LOAD REQUIRED TO ALIGN THE TESTING APPARATUS &
SHOULD NOT EXCEED 5% OF THE DESIGN LOAD. DIAL GAUGES SHOULD BE SET TO ZERO AFTER THE ALIGNMENT
LOAD HAS 13EEN APPLIED.
A CREEP TEST SHALL BE PERFORMED DURING THE 200% OIL HOLD TIME. ANCHOR MOVEMENT DURING THE CREEP
TEST SHALL BE MEASURED & RECORDED AT 1, 2,3,5,6,10,20,30,40, 50 & 60 MINUTES OF ELAPSED TIME FROM
WHEN THE LOAD INCREMENT WAS APPLIED.
ANCHOR PROOF TEST
ALL OTHER ANCHORS SHALL BE PROOF TESTED TO 130% OF THE DESIGN LOAD BY INCREMENTALLY LOADING THE
ANCHORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE. AT LOAD INCREMENTS OTHER THAN THE MAXIMUM
TEST LOAD THE LOAD SHALL BE HELD LONG ENOUGH TO OBTAIN A STABLE READING.
ANCHOR LOADING
LOAD
HOLD TIME
25% DESIGN LOAD
UNTILSTABLE
50% DESIGN LOAD
UNTILSTABLE
75% DESIGN LOAD
UNTILSTABLE
100% DESIGN LOAD
UNTILSTABLE
130% DESIGN LOAD
10MINUTES
THE ALIGNMENT LOAD (AL) SHOULD BE THE MINIMUM LOAD REQUIRED TO ALIGN THE TESTING APPARATUS &
SHOULD NOT EXCEED 5% OF THE DESIGN LOAD. DIAL GAUGES SHOULD BE SET TO ZERO AFTER THE ALIGNMENT
LOAD HAS BEEN APPLIED.
THE MAXIMUM TEST LOAD SHALL BE HELD PER THE SCHEDULE. THE LOAD HOLD PERIOD SHALL START AS SOON AS
THE MAXIMUM TEST LOAD IS APPLIED & THE ANCHOR MOVEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED AT 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, & 10
MINUTES. IF THE TOTAL ANCHOR MOVEMENT EXCEEDS 0.04 INCHES, THE MAXIMUM TEST LOAD SHALL BE HELD
FOR AN ADDITIONAL 50 MINUTES & ANCHOR MOVEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED AT 20,30, 50 & 60 MINUTES. IF
ANCHOR FAILS IN CREEP, RETESTING WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.
ACCEPTABLE ANCHOR TELTS
A LOAD TESTED OR PROOF TESTED ANCHOR WITH A 10 MINUTE HOLD CREEP TEST IS CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE
WHEN: THE ANCHOR CARRIES THE MAXIMUM TEST LOAD WITH LESS THAN 0.04" OF MOVEMENT BETWEEN THE 1
& 10 MINUTE READINGS.
A LOAD TEST OR PROOF TESTED ANCHOR WITH A 60 MINUTE HOLD CREEP TEST IS CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE
WHEN: THE ANCHOR CARRIES THE MAXIMUM TEST LOAD WITH LESS THAN 0.08" OF MOVEMENT PER LOG CYCLE
OF THE TIME & THE CREEP RATE IS LINEAR OR DECREASING.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, A TESTED ANCHOR SHALL NOT EXPERIENCE A PULLOUT FAILURE AT THE MAXIMUM
TEST LOAD. A PULLOUT FAILURE IS DEFINED AS THE LOAD AT WHICH ATTEMPTS TO INCREASE THE TEST LOAD
RESULT IN CONTINUED PULLOUT MOVEMENT OF THE TEST ANCHOR.
ANCHORS THAT HAVE CREEP RATES GREATER THAN SPECIFIED CAN BE INCORPORATED IN THE FINISHED WORK AT A
LOAD EQUAL TO 1/2 OF THE FAILURE LOAD. THE FAILURE LOAD 15 THE MAXIMUM LOAD CARRIED BY THE ANCHOR
AFTER THE LOAD HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO STABILIZE FOR 10 MINUTES.
F AN ANCHOR FAILS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MODIFY THE DESIGN AND/OR THE
INSTALLATION METHODS USED IN CONSTRUCTION. ANY MODIFICATIONS BY THE CONTRACTOR THAT REQUIRE
CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE SHALL HAVE PRIOR APPROVAL PER THE ENGINEER.
LEGEND
DEFINITION
SYMBOL
DEFINITION
SYMBOL
DIRECTION OF
NATIVE SOIL
FRAMING
p_
EXTENT OF
<
GRANULAR FILL
—mmum
FRAMING
COLUMNS
m 0
STRUCTURAL STEEL
COLUMN BEARING
RATED SHEATHING
ON BEAM
BEAM CONTINUOUS
SHEAR WALL
SWX
OVERSUPPORT
(SEE SCHEDULE)
COLUMN MARK
CONCRETE WALL
(SEE SCHEDULE)
BEARING STUD
FOOTING MARK
WALL
SE
(SEE SCHEDULE)
NON -BEARING
HOLDOWN MARK
STUD WALL
(SEE SCHEDULE)
BEARING STUD
HANGER MARK
SHEAR WALL
(SEESCHEDULE)
NON -BEARING
FLAG NOTE
STUD SHEAR WALL
(SEE PLAN NOTES)
CMU WALL
STEEL MOMENT
FRAME CONN.
ABBREVIATIONS
(A)
ABOVE
GLIB
GLUE -LAMINATED BEAM
AB
ANCHOR BOLT
HORIZ
HORIZONTAL
ALT
ALTERNATE
KIP
KING POST
ARCH
ARCHITECT
KSI
KIPS PER SQUARE INCH
(B)
BELOW
L
ANGLE
BID
BAR DIAMETER
MECH
MECHANICAL
BUKG
BLOCKING
MF
MOMENT FRAME
Bm
BEAM
MTL
METAL
BOT
BOTTOM
NEAR SIDE
BRING
BEARING
OC
ON CENTER
BTWN
BETWEEN
OPP
OPPOSITE
Cip
COMPLETE JOINT PENETRATION
kNS
PIL
PLATE
CUR
CLEAR
CS
PLCS
PLACES
CMU
CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
PSI
POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
COL
COLUMN
PSF
POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT
CONC
CONCRETE
P/T
POSTTENSIONED
CONN
CONNECTION
PT
PRESSURE TREATED
CONT
CONTINUOUS
REINIF
REINFORCING
COORD
COORDINATE,
REQ`D
REQUIRED
DEL
DOUBLE
SCHED
SCHEDULE
DIET
DETAIL
Sim
SIMILAR
DIA
DIAMETER
SOG
SLAB ON GRADE
DIM
DIMENSION
sm
STANDARD
DIR
DIRECTION
STIFF
STIFFENER
EA
EACH
STIL
STEEL
ELEV
ELEVATION
SYMM
SYMMETRICAL
ES
EACH SIDE
SW
SHEARWALL
EX
EXISTING
TOC
TOP OF CONCRETE
EXP
EXPANSION
TOS
TOP OF STEEL
FUR
FLOOR
Tow
TOP OF WALL
FDN
FOUNDATION
TYP
TYPICAL
ErG
FOOTING
UNO
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
FS
FAR SIDE
VERT
VERTICAL
GC
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
WF
WIDE FLANGE
SENGIMSERNG
250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020
PHONE (425) 778-8500
FAX (425) 778-5536
01126116
z
0 in
F-
DESIGN:
NAL
DRAWN:
JEG
CHECK:
DMT
JOB NO:
17145.10
DATE:
02/21/18
Ld
CD
F-
0
04
LLJ 0
0
z
00
z 0)
Ld CL
0 <
<
Ld
0:� Lo V�
D
z 0
0
Lj Z
0
M
< Lo a
_J — LLJ
V)
SHEET
"'12
JUL 2 6 2018
A--n-- w-n-- 1 -n,, (81 PILES 0 5-0" OC
250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200
FOUNDATION PLAN NOTES:
EDMONDS , WASHINGTON 98020
PHONE (425) 778-8500
1. REFER TO "CONCRETE GENERAL NOTES" ON SHEET S1.1 FOR CONTROL JOINT PLACEMENT AND DETAIL 2/54.1 FOR
FAX (425) 778-5536
CONTROL JOINT CONSTRUCTION.
2. WHERE SLAB ON GRADE IS INDICATED, SLAB SHALL BE 6"THICKW/#4 @ 16" OC EAWAY UNO.SLAB SHALLBE
POU RED OVER A 10 MIL VAPOR BARRIER OVER 6" OF 5/8" CRUSHED ROCK.
3. REFER TO SHEET S4.1 FOR TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAILS.
4. PLACE ALL REINFORCEMENT PER THE STRUCTURAL NOTES AND FOUNDATION DETAILS. REFER TO SHEET S1.1 FOR
TYPICAL CONCRETE WALL REINFORCEMENT.
5, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, WALL LOCATIONS, AND CONCRETE ROUGH OPENINGS WITH
ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AND NOTIFY ALL PARTIES OF ANY DISCREPANCIES.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOOTING AND SLAB SUBSTRATE PREPARATION, AND BACKFILL BEHIND RETAINING
(3) PILES @ 5--0" OC 41/2" WALLS PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
7. CODNTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOOTING AND SLAB SUBSTRATE PREPARATION, WATERPROOFING, AND BACKFILL
C, GUlt
& RAINAGE BEHIND RETAINING WALLS PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL OBSERVE
0
EXCAVATED SOIL CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION (AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS) AS REQUIRED, AND
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS IF NECESSARY BASED ON ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS.
9)
ANCHOR 80HEDULE
ANCHOR
DESIGN LOAD
ULTIMATE LOAD
MIN EMBED MOUNT
HI
5.OK
10.OK
151-01,
H2
S.ok
10.OK
is.-O..
H3
11.9K
23.8K
H4
ll.OK
22.OK
HS
10.OK
2O.OK
1O.OK
20.OK
aH6
H7
10.OK
20.OK
15�O"
H8
20.OK
H9
11 nK
LS'-O"
NOTES:
I —REFER TO STRUCTURAL NOTES FOR HELICAL ANCHOR SPECIFICATIONS.
2. HELICAL ANCHOR SHALL BE CAPABLE OF DEVELOPING DESIGN LOADSABOVE.
3. MULTIPLE HELICAL ANCHOR MAY BE REQD,
4. THE 0NIMUM HELIX DIAMETER SHALL BE B".
07126116
DESIGN:
NAL
DRAWN:
CHECK:
DMT
JOB NO:
17145.10
DATE:
02/21/18
z
C*4
<
I
Ld c)
CL
0 00
z 0)
Ld (L
z
in <
Fn = 3:
0
Ld
a:: Lo
<
0
z
W 0) Z
71
C-4 0
r-, M
D
Lo 0
0
-J — LLI
LJ-
SHEET:
rc—� e�)
%Dd-V.2
RESUB
JUL 2 6
2018
OITY OF
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = V-13"
ENGINSERNS
250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200
TYPICAL FLOOR FRAMING PLAN NOTES:
EDMONDS . WASHINGTON 98020
PHONE (425) 778-8500
1. FLOOR SHEATHING SHALL BE 3/4'- PI 48/24 WITH 10d COMMON NAILS SPACED AT 6" OC AT ALL DIAPHRAGM
FAX (425) 778-5536
BOUNDARIES, PANEL EDGES AND SHEAR WALLS AND 10" OCAT INTERMEDIATE FRAMING. FOR SHEATHING
LAYOUT AND NAILING REFER TO DETAIL 3/S4.1
2. COLUMNS AND BEARING WALLS SHOWN ON PLANS SHALL BE CONTINUED DOWN TO THE FOUNDATION UNLESS
CARRIED BY A BEAM BELOW.
3. ALL DIAPHRAGMS UNBLOCKED UNO.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE THE OPTION TO DRILL A 11/2"0 HOLE CENTERED IN THE DEPTH AND AT THE THIRD
POINT OF THE SPAN FOR ALL WOOD FLUSH BEAMS SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
5. WALLS SHOWN ON THE FRAMING PLANS ARE WALLS BELOW THE FRAMING LEVELS INDICATED. HOLDOWNS
SHALL BE PLACED AT THE BASE OF THE WALLS SHOWN.
6. TYPICAL HEADERS AT BEARING LOCATION SHALL BE 4X6 DF#2 UNO SUPPORTED BY A MINIMUM OF (1) CRIPPLE
STUD AND (1) FULL HEIGHT STUD.
GUrZ
7. COLUMNS
NOT OTHERWISE SHOWN OR CALLED OUT ON PLAN SHALL BE (2) 2x STUDS.
8. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ALL STUDS SHALL BE HF STUD GRADE AND SPACED AT 16 - OC.
9. UN LESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL BEAM -TO -BEAM CONNECTIONS 5 HALL BE SIMPSON HU SERIES FACE MOUNT
HANGERS W/ MAX NAILING,
0,
110. SO INSTALL INTERCONNECTED SMOKE DETECTOR WITH BATTERY BACKUP IN EACH ROOM.
11. N TALL INTERCONNECTED SMOKE DETECTOR/CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR WITH BATTERY BACK UP
S :NSGARAGE & MECHANICAL ROOM. (MECHANICAL SYSTEMS MOTTO CHANGE)
07126118
Smoke alarms shall be installed in each sleeping room,
o�tside of each separate sleeping area in the immediate.
vicinity of the bedrooms, and on each level (including
basements and habitable attics) in new construction and in"
existing dwellings when alterations, repairs or additions
requiring a permit occur. Smoke alarms shall be hard-1
LACE wired with battery backup, and when mom than one,
is
<
IY WALL smoke alarm required within an individual dwelling
unit, they shall be interconnected. Discuss exceptions to
the power source requirements with the Building
z
Inspector.
0
ca
IRC R314 EBC 907.2.11.2
I=
0-
=,
Carbon monoxide a arms shall be
I
V)
W
W
-
installed outside of each separate
0.
sleeping area in the immediate
vicinity of the bedrooms and on each
Lj
00
00
—
— —
—
level in new construction and in
existing dwellings when alterations,
repairs or additions requiring a permit
occur, or when one or more sleeping
0
0
rooms am added or created.
ERC R315
ly
DESIGN: NAL
DRAWN: JEG
CHECK: DMT
JOB NO: 17145.10
DATE: 02/21/18
Z
to
IN
Lij 0
0 00
0
<
4-- �t 0
LLI —i
W Lo LL.
z P11
Lj 0) Z
V) 04 0
-J LL1 LL.
-
SHEET:
i(E 3 2 %6 3�)�
RESUS
JUL 2 6 2M
"A" IN ALL AREAS WITH EXPOSED
CONC FLOORS, EDGE SLAB
WITH 1/8.. MAX R CONC SLAB ON GRADE
FILL JOINT WITH SEALANAT SLAB RE I N F AT CE NTER OF SLAB
CORNERBARSx ADIUS AND
"A" MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR ALL
90* HOOKED BARS PROVIDE 518"o x 2�O" ORATTOPAND OT.REINF
4::::�� SHALL NOT PASSITHRU JOINT
4 SMOOTH SLIP DOWEL BARS
AT 12" OC, TYP UNO
sm 90* Xl_ X
Ty HOOK j
FUND
UNO, VERT CORNER BARS SHALL BE TRENCH EXCAVATION
SAME SIZE TABULATED FOR MIN GREASE THIS PARALLELTO
WALL REINF FOR THICKER WALL HALF OF BAR vl— -
"A"= SPLICE LENGTH -4 . .
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION jOINT SLEEVES TO CLEAR
/--NO PIPES ALLOWED IN
MIN PIPE 1" ALL SIDES THIS REGION. LOWER
SEE NOTES, DETAILS, OR PLANS FOR SAWCUTJOINT- IN ALL AREAS WITH IF BAR REINF USED, PROVIDE CONC SLAB ON GRADE FTGS AS REQ�D
=LSOR AT TOPA
L OT,
HA L N
X
4 EXPOSED CONC. FLOORS, FILL JOINT 4S.LAB RENF 'AT CEI
RT REC!D REINF. ALL BARS TO BECONT I CONC SLAB ON GRADE 'Z'BARS W/ LAP SPLICE PER SLAB REINF AT CENTER OF
4 OR SPLICED PER STRUCTURAL NOTES WITH SEALANT. N LIEU OF SAWCUT _'O
JOINTS CONTRACTOR MAY USE ZIP STRUCTURAL NOTES SLAB OR AT TOP AND BOT TOF
STRIP PLACED WITH SLAB SLAB REINF AT CENTER OF PIPE
4b
."0' SLAB OR AT TOP AND BOT SLAB STEP
L FS TD 'voE
HORIZ CORNER BARS OF SIZE 4� PER PLAN BOF
TO MATCH
REINF OF THINNER WALL X X
AND SPACING 'X
(2) #6 VERT X 2
4
X—X X X.
4. WS'iIiECVD
4 t
ER BOF
V-O" MIN PIPE TRENCH EXCAVATION PARALLEL
TO FOOT NG IS NOT ALLOWED
PLACE VERT REINF OUTSIDE EXCEPT BELOW THIS LINE. STEP ErG AS
AS OTHERWISE NOTED OR SHOWN TYPICAL CONTRACTION JOINT TYPICAL SLAB STEP REQUIRED FOR THIS CONDITION
&TYPICAL CONCRETE WALL REINFORCING DETAIL TYPICAL SLAB ON GRADE DETAILS TYPICAL PIPE PENETRATION AT WALLS AND FOOTINGS
_sWI 0 �Z I Al... —SCALE'. 1/2' l'-O"
#4 @ 12" OC FA WAY
EX STUD WALL CENTERED IN WALL
/-DOWE - EPDXY LAB REINF
5/8"0 AB @ 4'-0" OC NT. EXIST IN. VS/ SIMPSON
SETXP & 4" MIN EMBED
T/2 S B ON GRADE &
1.5 H LAP SPLICE 4"0 PERFORATED PVC PIPE PER (2) #4 CONT TOP LA
LOCAL CODES WITH 6" OF V' REINF PER PLAN NOTES
I'l v FINISHED GRADE
MIN MINUS GRAVEL ALL AROUND, C
WRAP ED IN NON -WOVEN NOTTO HANGE 2'-0" Al EXIST FOUNDATION
N
DRAIN 1/8" PER 1�0" MIN. TURN
P
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC. SLOPE TO 2" RIGID INSULATIO
DOWN PERFORATIONS AS SHOWN 4 (3) 5/8"0 EXPANSION
THICKENED SLAB (2) #4 TOP REINF
4
GRADE BEAM BOT, TYP PER PLAN ANCHOR EA SIDE OF PILE
SLAB &
I o 0
oo
00 00 4
0
oo '20 1 I-T I Ittl I 1... 2" SAND OVER CHIP OUT PORTION PRE-ENGINEERED PILE
0. 0 ..4 6 MIL VAPOR OF FOUNDATION BRACKET 24K ULT CAPACITY
0-
TO INSTALL
0 BARRIER
,4
& LAP FO :NG 4 'oo Opo
OC 0 1 .0 4, gig f
BOTTOM ORTE NF 'o .. 0 VAPOR BA RIER & o 4 .
000 SUBGRADE P PLAN c�
9" PIPE PILE PER PLAN
1.4".
lo�*Typ I I
NOTES
I I-Lil 17L
UNDISTURBED EARTH
OR COMPACTED FILL LINE OF MAX EXCAVATION. (2) #4 CONT
PER STRUCTURAL NOTES 1 8 (3) #4 BAM P
3" CLR IF SOIL IS OVER EXCAVATED, PER FILE TO & BOT
Typ REPLACE WITH LEAN MIX ALT HOOK
CONCRETE. EARINr SOIL OR AS SHOWN CAP PL 1/4 x 6 x O'=611
T FTG THICKNESS PER PLAN, COMPACTED 2"0 PIN PILE, TYP PILE PER PLAN
SCHED, AND DETAILS STRUCTURAL FILL
TYPICAL STEPPED WALL FOOTING TYPICAL FOOTING DRAIN SECTION z4)e'-&wt44't
I A! I &C
a-M—PIS M., (i>_SWcM
EX STUD WALL
VERIFY/PROVIDE
5/8'.0 EXPANSION
ANCHOR @4 . -01, OC
EXIST FOUNDATION
FINISHED GRADE
NOT TO CHANGE
CHIP OUT PORTION OF FrG
TO INSTALL ANGLE DIRECTLY
BENEATH STEM WALL
2/2"0 THREADED ROD W1 4-
MIN EMBED INTO FTG W/ HILT]
HIT HY 150 INJECTION
ADH ESIVE�AIATNERIAIE LI.11.0
S IC . C
EXPAN �.ORS Ay E
USED W/ 4" MIN EMBED
DOWEL& EPDXY SLAB REINF
INTO EXIST FND W/ SIMPSON
SET_XP & 4" MIN EMBED
ON M riffift
VAPOR BARRIER &
SUBGRADE PER PLAN
NOTES
1-11-11-11--11--
PRECAST FOUNDATIO
BRACKET W/ 24K ULT
CAPACITY MIN
PIPE PILE PER PLAN
EXIST FOUNDATION
EXISTFLOORJOIST
PROVIDES/8"O XPANSION
ANCHOR @ 4'-O� OC
%
\_PVC SLEEVE
HELICAL ANCHOR PER PLAN
_gCAL DETAIL
pg%.
DOWEL & EPDXY SLAB REINF INTO
EXIST FND W/ SIMPSON SET-XP &
4" MIN EMBED
#4 @ 6" OC
#3 STIRRUPS @ 6" OC
SLAB ON GRADE PER PLAN
=INSULATION 'Al
VAPOR BARRIER &
S U LA
UBGRADE PER PLAN
NOTES
5 8' x lox '-10' P W
WE GE WASHER & NUT
V-15" x l'-6'x T-O" LONG
GRADE BEAM CENTERED @
ANCHOR W/ (3) #5 EA FACE
4=-4m
(ENGINEERING
250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200
EDMONDS . WASHINGTON 98020
PHONE (425) 778-8500
FAX (425) 778-5536
07126116
DESIGN:
NAL
DRAWN:
JEG
CHECK:
DMT
JOB NO:
17145.10
DATE:
02/21/18
V)
04
Ld 0
cl
C) co
z _j (3)
Ld rL
z
0 <
U)
0
Ld
F_
o:: LO V�
<
cl
LO
z
Lj 0) Z
:z
0 cq 0
:D
cy-- t-- M
< U-) a
ol
_J — Ld
I. N
SHEET
C "'31
)
RESUB
jjjL 2 6 2018
IQ DEPARTM
IDrT
BUb%NO'*F EDMON
STAGGER MAILS ON EA SIDE
OF
PANELJOINT AS REQUIRED
PER SHEAR WALL SCHED
PANEL EDGE NAILING
PER SHEAR WALL
SCHEDULE, TYP
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
- - - - -
FT
PANEL EDGE NAILING INTO
12
- - - ri - - - - - - - ri - - - - - - - n - - - - - -
HOLDOWN CHORDS, TYP
INTERMEDIATE
HEADER PER PLAN
1
1
NAILING @ 12" OC
RA ING AT ADJOINING
SHEATHING PER PLAN AND
CRIPPLE STUDS PER
PA E' EDGE ERSHEAR
L , P
SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE
PLAN; DO NOT CUT
WALL SCH ED
AWAY MATERIAL ITRCO.
�' 4T)
CRIPPLE STUDS
HOUDOWN CHORD PER
if
SCHEDULE. REFER TO
TYPICAL BUILT-U
FULL-HEIG14T
HOUDOWN CHORD -
if
If
COLUMN DETAILP
ADDITIONAL END STUD
I
J
IF REQUIRED TO
I
PROVIDE
COUNTERSINK FOR
I
IJ
HOLDOWN BOLTS
HOLDOWN ANCHORAGE
PER PLAN AND SCHEDULE
AB W/ SIMPSON BP
PL WASHER, TYP
SIMPSON CNW COUPLER
UT W/ SIZE TO MATCH
HOLDOWN ANCHORAGE
PT SILL PIL PER SHEAR
WALL SCHED
A 1!
if iij PANELEDGE
- - - - - - - NAILING PER SHEAR
7r —7 --7--n — WALLSCHED
1 11 Cof
I � i H 1 �1' TO FOUNDATION
NOTE:
NTARGER SHEATHING AS
SHOWN.(IBCTABLE
2306.3.1, CASE 1OR 3)
INTERMEDIATE
FRAMING MEMBERS
SHEATHING
PANEL,TYP
CONTINUOUS
PANELEDGESN...
2x OR 3x BLOCKING ONLY
IFEILOCKED 0
I e--
ADJACENT NAILS IN A
ROW ARE TO BE
DRIVEN FROM
OPPOSITE SIDES, TYP
DE
R
F
0.131"0 x 3" NAILS, TYP
PANELEDGES
(5) STUDS MAX TO
BE USED FOR
BUILT-UP COLUMNS
DITA�l
c�Pl���LFLO�ORRO�OFSHEATHIN�G L
s
_�Lll�LT—UP S�TUD CO�LUMN �DETAI�L
FUBLE
TOP PLATE
(2) ROWS OF (8) 0.131"0 x 3"
2 1/4" END NAILS @ 3" OC EA SIDE OF
SPLICE AND (2) @ 9" OC
PLATE WASHER DISTANCE, TYP ELSEWHERE W/ 11/2" EDGE
SIMPSON A35 (ONLY
PERSHEAR DISTANCE "
REQUIRED AT EXTERIOR
OC
WAU-SCHED Si3rAYNG
HEADERS GREATER
THAN 6' SPAN)
TOPCHORD
SPLICE AT LOCATIONS WHERE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE Bo - rro
TYPICAL.TUDS
TO INSTALL THE SPECIFIED 0.131"0 CHORD
SPLICE NAILS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SPLICE
I 1 11 INSTALLS MPSON CS20 STRAPS EA SIDE BEAM OR HEADER PER
CONCRETE FOOTIN AB SIZE AND SPACING SECTION A -A OF WALLIAT SPLICE. INSTALL EA STRAP PLAN AND NOTES
G PER PLAN ID SHEAR SCALE: 11/2" I�U' W/ (12) 10d AT EA END. WHERE BOTH
OR P/T SLAB WALL SCHEDULE, TYP RIM BOARD PLATESARECUT, INSTALL CS20 STRAPS NA LING PER TYP
ATEAPLATEAND EA SIDE OFTHE WALL.
OR BLOCKING BUILT-UP STUD
NOTES: CONCRETE STEM WALL COLUMN DETAIL
1. REFER TO STRUCTURAL NOTES FOR 61-01, MIN BETWEEN SPLICES
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. CONCRETE FOOTING
2 . FOR SHEAR WALLS WHERE NO HOLDOWNS SPL CES TO OCCUR AT RIPPLE STUDS PER PLAN
ARE SPECIFIED THE FIRST AB SHALL BE CENTEIR OF VERTICAL STUD AT HOLDOWNS: PROVIDE FULL HT AND
LOCATED NOT MORE THAN V-0" AND NOT S-4 HOLDOWN CHORDS PER NO SCHED. UCOLUMN SCHEDULE OR
LESS THAN (7) BOLT DIAMETERS FROM END : (1) 2x FULL 14T STR CTURAL NOTES
OF WALL. TOPCHORDSPLICE BOTTOM CHORD SPLICE
TYPICAL SHEAR WALL DETAIL
�_�CAUE- �3/4" � 1.-0.. sc ��OP �PLATE �IPLICI �DETAI�L. bCAUE: I" = V-0" ML
EDGE NAILING PER PLAN
AND SHEAR WALL
ENGINCECERING
250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200
EDMONDS . WASHINGTON 98020
PHONE (425) 778-8500
FAX (425) 778-5536
07126116 1
z
co 0.
uJ
DESIGN: NAL
DRAWN:
JEG
CHECK:
DMT
JOB NO:
17145.10
DATE:
02/21/18
SCHEDULE OR EDGE NAILING PER PLAN
ZX6 STUD @ 2x4 CROSS WALL
EXIST STUD WALL
STRUCTURAL NOTES, TYP AND SHEAR WALL
2x8 STUD @ 2X6 CROSS WALL
SCHEDULE OR
0' 131"o x 3" STRUCTURAL NOTES, TYP
NAILS @ 9" OC
JOIST W/ NEW
SISTERED JO ST
N
LLJ 0
<
F 0. 131"o x 3"
NAILS 9" Oc
EDGE NAILING PER PLAN AND
0 00
Z (3)
@
SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE OR
STRUCTURAL NOTES,
_j
LLJI Q_
TYP
L
cl <
0
I--
in =
STUD WALL PER
FRAMING PLAN
0.131"o x 3"
Ld
0
NOTES, TYP
NAILS @ 9" OC
0:� L0
V)
STUD WALL PER FRAMING
r"
I=)
PLAN NOTES, TYP
PANEL EDGE NAILING Bd
NAILS @ 6" OC, TYP
PROVIDE 2X4 BLOCKING OR
z
LLJI 0) Z
12
SHEATHING (OR GWB) AND
SIMPSON A35 @ 16" OC
C14 0
NAILING PER PLAN AND SHEAR
SHEATHING (OR GWB) AND
rN—OTE--�
r-, M
<
WALL SCHEDULE OR
STRUCTURAL NOTES, TYP
NAILING PER PLAN AND SHEAR
VO—NSHEARWALL
STUD Wk%.%-'N/ R-21 MWIATION
< L0 0
L
WALL SCHEDULE OR
STRUCTURAL NOTES, TYP
NAILING SHALL BE PER
-j — LLJ
LL.
IBC TABLE 2304.9
SHEET:
A. CORNER INTERSECTION B.'VINTERSECTION
TYPICAL WALL INTERSECTION DETAIL
SECTION
Z�
SCALE: I"= V-0"
4.1
Ea
BUILDING DE
CITY OF EtWTMENT
ONDS