Loading...
CANOD.pdf(,'Ity,of Edinands Critical Area Notice of Recision Appfica.rit', Property Gwner ("t . . . . .. i' 7de"J Permit Number: e" 1() 2"- . . .... ...... . ?, . .. .... Parcel ,tattier ib 4,, j . ........... ----------- - - -- - ---- kj Conditional Waiver. No, critical afta, ruport iq rutlyired Rx 1W Qwt WcAnd above, fy? I "Rol c'( L chert W be mo altcrat% of wCAW A= or Us requimd NUN, 9.c.nat 2 do S".a aft, fhe proposatis an 6tlowcd guNly ptwsuant tan EC,`DC'23,40,220, 23.50.22%, shWor 2180A40, r� 1 Ile pixTowl b exertrpt pursuarit to ECDC' 23, O,230, 1,rosion Hazard. Prqject is within erosion hazard area, Applicant niuist preparie an (,rosk,)n tnd Sdi=nt C00,101 PlEfll iD compharme with F3CDC' 18,30, Critical Arva Roport RequdrecLThe proposed, prinject is widiin as critbW rear an&br a critical rurvat bufferand a rarity and area repoit is fequired. A critical are rep has been subirti[tcd tu'id evaluated fi)rcainp] ian,ce with dic followitig critcriz pursuanit, to ECDC 2 160 . proposal mirfirnizes the h'irpact Curr", WWI areas I aocordancewidi ITC11C 23,40.120, Ntitiga6on soquear,-Jng, 2. Ile propmal does not pose an unreasonable threat to, the public health, saf6ty, or welf'ke ori, or off the developinent proposall site, '3 ww 'F[te proposal is consistent with le gmwml puTows of ME Ne aml Me puNk ismvm., 4. Ann yaltualms purtnittod, to the critical area aren),itigated, in accordance wid,[ ECDC 23.a 0! 110, Mitigatiun requirentetris, 5. Ile 13rqposnl protects One Wheal area Mnedons and val Lies consisteri( with the best awdlable sdume and results pun Crag net loss of urifiQ.al fruictionsand YAkRes; a;irjd, 6. The pvpwal, is consistent wAth otk��r applictibl,e reguhitions and staridards, Unfavarable Cridcal Proijosud larojject is notexcni.pt or does not adequatoly mitigate its nnpac(s on, uriGcal, ureas audIr does not conqWy wkh the crit eriain ECDC 23ACA60 and, lira. J-)rovrqiow cal tle Cky of Edmonds critick wva rqpkdons, Sr.,,v attached flindings (.,J noncoCal liana ce,, Favorable (-,."flfical Area tiecision. 'mt.,: tnopoSed prf.wJect as descrR,)ed al ove and as showri on thc amached site phan rneem (w is exempt from the criteria iii, ECDC,2140. 160, Ikuwirw Criteri,,t, aural corniplie's With t,�IC appHCMAC PrDASAMS Of Q Chy of EWW5 QWl wva regWalm& Any gubsequent xWonges to Mer proposal shall void this de6sion pending re -review ofthe proposal. CondiVionc Critical Artm speciflr oundition(s) hove been appUed u) Me pemdt rnlniber ref"'6,r1un(:Qd above� Se rel� ret.wed petirfll coriditiorn (s), Reviewer S�,gxvm icin.,,, -Z- It .......... AppeWs Any dedMar, a; appreva, condha% w Wy a develop rnerit pCop csal OT mher acdviq, based on Ice mqu%nmAs of cr° dan! arua reguladons may he apl'iea led acoarding to, and, a, paxi: of, the OPP01 PTOWRIV, if Uny, for die permit or nppruval haYWvud. Revied =6011,') EX MiH SCALE: 1"=20' / i 'TOP= 42.84 � GAVoa3a-6'"W mrly 100.08-v2"s / /Y E . CB TO =143.32 / W=99 87-IfN Mv=14D.08-6"E / �• / INV= moo-B"'E / lATER y ✓ LINE 0 NEW ssco w'fl�I} 1, f—INc / ✓ / V / CAST IRO" Lg1lMP'MQL,: PCOVEE#1�57T PPES® LINE 1( "' ( % 1/ EX 1 AOR INAgE " ✓ ;� i� % INV= 90.3t%(VERIFY) f „= o E�. ROOF 200706225404/ qnDRAIN STUB Ex a4 I �R'ESS, s EGRESS�, Nr& UTILITY 700709226GC)3 NO. 1 l /� ✓1 P _ / N ,�..r ! 0 I 37 C 1-1/4' PWATER CER CE CONNECT TO STOB R©V1DEA �; r f( ✓ .irk py" 0 ORAaNINNCGT DTO STUB u� ✓". ..r PIROiROED mor, M41. INV=104 et(VERIFY) CONNECT a FOO'hNG ✓ /� � '--� 1 ^�.� � ''� DRAIN TO STU�.r' PRO"". 4EIT MIN. cs 1 r nr' % f" / VNV-1tli4.f3E( RIEYp / r" .�,, q l ^/ �" j•,...,.. l l f 4+N os_ f _ 2 -77 - CONNECT .77- CONNECT/.MROOF l' „✓. -/."1 1 ' " N� 1` ✓ I "'" ` DRAIN 10 STUEmo.�. P --cru. MrN. / -Al. ;f .,�., ^ ' S/J, f / ,.IN�142.03(VERIFF) DRAIN STD® ✓ f / f /✓ l 1 / , pf r �' /t^1j'/ I ✓ 1 o-�1.4 / � / f ✓ � fps �I ,✓� ae.z, ' MODULAR BLOCK WALL �— Jld LIU & ASSOCIATES, IND ✓ % °_ / / ur eke car �E - / DATED AND 1 fl / / ! 000 � / / / / s� f ! ✓ _ o / RUi aGT ✓! / //� Flo /! f! ! !! /�' ,/ ,�'' r / �- ra ,p L( SITE PLAIN INFORMATION .1,1, NNr, HF'CGHT CALCULATION. LOT COVERAGE LOT 5 INFORMATION (ORIGINAL GRADE) TOTAL LOT AREA - 24,470 SQ, FT, PROPERTY OWNER & CONTRACTOR: A=109.2 FOOTPRINT - 4,661 SO FT 0=119.8 COVERAGE 1,651:23,158 =7.1179 NET LOT AREA - 23,155 SQ. FT. ALLMAR'N CORPORATOR 'C=723.1 P.O O ( 14425 D=111,4 AREA. MILL CREEK, WA 98082 463.5 - 4 = 115.87 AVE. ELEV. LOWER FLOOR 188 SQ. FT. ,,,, I'�. �' "'. ' P "...... )f. 425-508-1962 MAIN FLOOR 1..,440 SO. FT. . REGISTRATION NO, ALMARC*3850 MAXIMUM HEIGHT = 115.87 + 25 =140,67 UPPER FLOOR 1,422 SQ. FT, PROPOSED MAX. ELEVATION=140.4 GARAGE 682 SO, FT. •L L Y T SITE ADDRESS: COWERED PORCH 56 SO. FT. CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON ARE RASED WALKWAY 267 SO. FT. �.= F� "+l w n � '5 r 8040 CYRUS PLACE UPON ORIGINAL SURVEY PRIOR TO SITE DRIVEWAY 11231 Sq. FT. EDMONDS, WA, 98026 DEVELOPMENT) COVERED DECK(2) 304 SO. FT. LEO.aJL OE50RIPmON:VIJUS AREAS ".y fETm rt„ s(L 17 LOT 1, 5-2004-122, A.F. NO. ROOF (INCL. F/P) 1,939 SQ FT - �" T—'^ 2007O622SCTOP OF CATCH BASIN LOCATED ON STAIR G4 WEST SIDE OF PRIVATE ROAD S 37 SQ FT ELEVATION : 103.32. DRIVEWAY 1.231 SQ FT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUM®ER:. CONCRETE '267 SO. FT DATUM : PER SNORT PLAT TOTAL 3,474 SO FT _. 005944000008401 LOVE.L-SAUERLAND & ASSOCU,ATES, INC-, 19217 35TH AVE. W., SUITE 106, LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 TELEPHONE: 425.775:8591 LSA FILE NO. 5493 DATE: 10-16-14 DRAWN: JTT (icofc� hniod tv,,q NVOW, Usua) c an 0 cis (�4 r, I ) c n ix I Yf V cjo� 6 �,qic 1,",xp4orukMI, Geologic Muni, OIRI FOOM! MI, 1XIC, juc, lhojwt Alm KRORMW% i%pHl 26, 2013 .VcIAq Ih,, P,�f �(i( "')4o(4 ,Y) 6 12 6, 2013 Projuvi N(,y, F,,,F,M,`,0246A DJ(,, III(% I, (") , fll ,,� j aw,,N NbOhow, MhQou 98275 A,rK,,,,n [ icti i i: NOIJ., SUIPCO SUISSUrRe EXPIC410(nl, G`010iC HaMAVIJ, .J,rd WWI Pmpurty HOXX Qvs pbw(,.! [X!m, Nh. Ju,hmu-. VV e mc [Acyscd 10 prcle"I UK, mwkwA mpivs of Ow Mmw Wormed upta, Ills repuO of our sub,,ut,ifau, 4!,,q4ow&n, geoJugh; hazaid, awl gmuchaduM iultl ('Af I'm dit dqnsilgl and M rhc!� Wi)d( wVW, OQiM1HY IWIMMY On 2DOS. Wc v,Akxl thc, Jk, ou Ap,rit 23, M v"d o[mci-vid diw silc HIN changed Rmn Muc dwy %wic m4m wv11(m ovi"""Jitafly pi,op"Ilrold, %Ve, �,,q)(Jmcw d (ho law accurckinu (7(wle 1,6E,,; In ow, I,)pi,irion, ihr,, recommendmOns pressmal 4 this report wr upjwq)ri;W Mr 1hv cuumni she uandkku, %,V ", p 1, �1 v c, u I '�, I %v rh w I I 1,J "'9pp1 ytq t I w m I G i's, xrpwwwpy wyNMlI w f. n ": 4"ow1I lawa Jflwlaw 0wMww9Y1 ?t I n, I I Pvwnum in HdS IVPML WE] Ad in dw suanyhd winp1cfloo, 1yr Yom If 'p:'m Should Juive any ip(Pmhm or if vvu m he oC MHOund IQ u) you, do, lwlhe.',kalv, W1, caH. Sincerely, ASSOCmED !,'AJ p' INC, f(JOkland, "1'wd1hqjw . ......... . . v F`I,Jw,°ipal (;co1upjs1 N 11 A"A yKmAI PI , vu I0 460 I s AV I � it i , k i n d a `v k` fl r 11 � I'd I OJIH1 010-977 7701 120 ?59.05;) 5 �vv 2 9 9 TANT A 0""I fly 1mmijbn DAQ I"V, PA). Hox 15M, OR?T5 PnInwed by fib Inc. Kh'Umd, 9(4)33 415 IT! M! F -,,,ix: 42), ApOl 26, 2013 PANA % KEOIO?46A Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Talbot Propertv and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions 1. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS t.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical engineering study for the proposed construction of a single-family residence. The location of the site is shown on the "Vicinity Map," Figure 1, and the locations of the explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the "Site and Exploration Plan," Figure 2. At this time, it is our understanding that six single-family residences will eventually be constructed. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the structures are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, as necessary. A geotechnical report is required for this property, based on Section 19.10 of the City of Edmonds Mimicihal Code for property with slope inclinations exceeding 15 percent and by conditions set forth in the recorded short plats of the property (SP -122 and SP -123). 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be utilized in the design and development of the above-mentioned project. Our study included a review of available geologic literature, review of a previous report on the subject property titled "Geologic Reconnaissance Report." prepared on May 30, 2001 by AMEC, excavation of exploration pits, and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and shallow ground water conditions. Geologic hazard evaluations and engineering studies were also conducted to determine the type of suitable foundation, allowable bearing pressures, anticipated settlements, lateral earth pressures, floor support recommendations, and drainage considerations. This report summarizes our current fieldwork and development recommendations based on our present understanding of the proiect. 1.2 Authorization Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. Douglas Johnson of DJC, Incorporated. Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work letter, dated April 10, 2008. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of DJC, Incorporated and their agents f'or specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the April 26, 2013 ASS0011TED L.Ai,TKSC'IEAJCES, INC. .r,vsird- x1-,0802a6i 3 - r�o)(,(ts�200n0za6ixr:<<v1' Pane t Substnftice Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Talbot Property and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions time our report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner, 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE: DESCRIPTION The property was located at 80XX Cyrus Place in Edmonds, Washington. The property was generally sloping from the east down to the west and the southwest. To the south of the project site, there was a steel) slope down to Perrinville Creek. The total elevation change across the building lots was on the order of 30 feet. The property had been previously graded, and a private road with underground utilities extended approximately 230 feet south from Cyrus Place, roughly down the center of the property. There were three lots on the west side of the private road that were relatively flat, and three lots on the east side of the private road that sloped from the east property line down to the road elevation at an inclination of approximately 2.5H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical). Based on our field observations and conversations with Nlr. Johnson, there had been cuts and fills performed in the previous grading of the site. The cuts occurred mainly on the east side of the project and the fills were placed on the western lots. After the grading was completed, the lots were hydroseeded and there was good grass cover on the soil. To the south of the project area, there was a slope and ravine down to Perrinville Creek. The slope appeared to range from IH: IV to 2H:lV and was moderately to heavily vegetated with blackberry vines, ferns, and various evergreen and deciduous trees. The property was bordered by Cyrus Place to the north, the Perrinville Creek and slope native growth protection area to the south, and other residential properties to the west and east. This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on conversations and site meetings with Mr. Douglas Johnson. Present plans call for six single-family residences to eventually be constructed; one home on each building lot. At this time, the first house will be constructed on the southwest lot. At this time, we do not know when the construction of the other homes will be clone. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field study included [lie excavation of six exploration pits to gain subsurface information about the site. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. Our explorations were approximately located in the field April 26, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JNSAA-K&OSO2df;IPage Subsnifice Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Talbot Aroper(y and Geotechnical Engineering RePori Edmonds, Washington Prniect and Site Conditions by measuring from known site features. The locations of the exploration pits are shown on Figure 2. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the six exploration pits. The number, locations, and depths of the explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions may be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 3.1 Exploration Pits The exploration pits were excavated with a track -mounted excavator. The pits permitted direct, visual observation of subsurface conditions. Materials encountered in the exploration pits were studied and classified in the field by an engineering geologist from our firm. All exploration pits were backfilled immediately after examination and logging. Selected samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and testing, as necessary. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, review of geologic literature, and previous projects completed in the vicinity. As shown on the field logs, fill soils and natural deposits of Vashon advance outwash sediments were encountered in the exploration pits. Minor amounts of sod and topsoil were encountered at the surface. Review of a geologic map of the area titled Composite Geologic Map of the Sno-King Area, Draft, Central Puget Lowland, Washington, by Booth, Cox, Troost, and Shimel, (2004), indicates that the area of the subject site is underlain by Vashon lodgement till deposits. It also indicates the presence of Vashon advance outwash sediments nearby to the east and south of the project site. The Vashon advance outwash sediments mapped nearby correlate with our interpretation of the sediments encountered on the site. Though our findings are different from the map reviewed, our interpretation of the sediments observed correlates with the Vashon-age stratigraphic column. Our interpretations differ due to the smaller scale, more detailed focus of this site-specific. study. The following section presents more detailed subsurface information. April 26, 2013 ASSOCI:ITED F, IRTK )CIE NCF,S, IvC. JNSIN - KE080246A3 - I toiertsl20o8o2v'6{KEII4'P Page 3 Srrbsrnface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Talbot Property and Geoleclmical Engineering Reporl Edmonds, Wasltin��ton Project onrd Site Conditions 4._1 Stratinrajnhy .SodlTopsoil Sod and topsoil were encountered in all of the exploration pits, except for EP -5, performed at the surface to a maximum depth of approximately 4 inches. The topsoil is composed of organic inatter from the sod combined with the weathered surface of the fill and native soils. Fill ,Soils Fill soils were encountered in all of the exploration pits, except EP -5. The fill soils typically consisted of loose to medium dense, moist to wet, light brown to gray sand, with some gravel and organic material. The sources of the fill soils are presumed to be a combination of regraded soils and the cut soils from the eastern lots. Due to the inconsistent relative density, thickness, and composition of the fill soils, the fill soils are not suitable for support of structures oi' future structural fills. Vashon Advance Outtivash - Qvo Vashon advance outwash was encountered at the ground surface in EP -5, and underlying the fill soils in our other exploration pits. These sediments consist of medium dense to dense, moist, light brown to gray, fine to coarse sand with gravel and trace silt. This material was deposited from high-energy streams carrying sediments at the front of the advancing glacier. These sediments typically have a high infiltration rate and, except for the pockets of clean, fine sand, have good resistance to erosion. The Vaslion advance outwash sediments were glacially consolidated by being overridden by the Vashon glacial ice subsequent to deposition. The medium dense Vashon advance outwash sediments are suitable for foundation support. 4.2 IIyq logy There was no significant shallow ground water or seepage observed in any of the exploration pits performed for this study. The fill soils encountered in EP -6 were more wet than soils encountered in the other explorations, but it is our opinion that this was due to the lower relative density of the fill soils encountered. Based on the permeable nature of the native sediments encountered and the outcrops of Vashon advance outwash sediments observed in the Perrinville Creek ravine to the south of the project, we do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during excavation and construction of the homes. April 26, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. J,vsad-Krasn246,1-Proj,W2ooso2=61KFuI P Pane 4 Subsruface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Talbot Property and Geotechnicol Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions 4.3 SCS Soil Classification Upon review or the soil maps at the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service website, the subject property is mapped as Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (EvD). Based on our site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration, we are in agreement with the referenced soil classification. The Everett -series soils are derived from glacial outwash parent material and the erosion potential is considered to be moderate to severe. April 26, 2013 ASSOCIATED 1,ART11 SCIENCES, INC. ✓,NISIN,xcosoza6,43-MojeosIzooso?461xeIW1, Page 5 Snbs[nface Eiplorntion, Geologic Hazard, Talbot Property and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, 1yoshington — Geologic_ Hazards and Afitigations Ill. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS 5.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND RE.CW,4MENDED MITIGATION Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with great regularity. The vast majority of these events are small and are usually not felt. However, large earthquakes do occur as evidenced by the February 28, 2001, 6.8 -magnitude event; the 1965, 6.5 -magnitude event; and the 1949, 7.2 -magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this area during recorded history. Based on the soils underlying the property and our field reconnaissance, it is our opinion that the property is not a seismic hazard area, as defined by City of Edmonds Municipal Code 23.80.020C. The remainder of this section discusses typical seismic -related geologic hazards. The seismic hazards relevant to the planned development are primarily the potential for seismic shaking. Mitigation of the potential for seismic hazards will be to verify that all structures, including retaining walls, are designed and constructed in accordance with the seismic parameters set forth in the applicable building codes. Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) SUI -ficial ground rupture, 2) seismically induced landslides, 3) liquefaction, and 4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. 5.1 Surficial Ground Ruoture Generally, the largest earthquakes that have occurred in the Puget Sound area are sub -crustal events with epicenters ranging from 50 to 70 kilometers in depth. For this reason, no surficial faulting or earth rupture resulting from deep, seismic activity has been documented, to date, in the area of the subject site. Therefore, it is our opinion, based on existing geologic data, that the risk of surface rupture impacting the proposed project is low, and no mitigations are necessary. 5.2 Seismically Induced Landslides Due to the medium dense subsurface conditions and the absence of adverse ground water conditions, the potential for seismically induced slope failures on the site is considered low to moderate. The critical area buffer and building setback limit, stated in the following section April 26, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. NSAd - KL'080246A3 - holeei.r1240802461K@'1IVP Pate 6 Snbsanfoce Exploration, Geologic. Hoz a•d, Talbot Properly and Geotechnical Engineering Reporl Edmonds, Washinglon Geologic Hazards and Mitigations titled "Landslide Hazard Area and Mitigation," are suitable for mitigation of seismically induced landslides, as well. 5.3 Liauefaction Liquefaction is a condition where loose, saturated, typically sandy soils lose shear strength when subjected to high intensity, cyclic loads, such as occur in earthquakes. The resulting reduction in strength can cause differential foundation settlements and slope failures. Loose, saturated, fine-grained sand that cannot dissipate the buildup of pore water pressure is the predominant type of sediment subject to liquefaction. Due to the medium dense, well -graded soils encountered in our exploration pits and the absence of adverse ground water conditions, the liquefaction potential of this site is very low, and no mitigations are necessary. 5.4 Ground Motion The guidelines presented in the 2012 hilernational Building Code (IBC) Section 1613 should be used in the seismic design of the project. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program website (http://e,ii-tliquake.usgs.gov/hazmal)s/) was used to determine interpolated probabilistic ground motion values in percent of gravity (g) for an event with a return period of 2 percent exceedence in 50 years. Using the website, the project area was submitted using latitude and longitude for mapped spectral accelerations of Ss = 1.299 for short periods (0.2 seconds) and St = 0.51 for a 1 -second period. Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and our estimation of soil properties at depth utilizing available geologic data, Site Class "C" in conformance with Chapter 20 of ASCE may be used. These values correspond to site coefficients Fa = 1.0 and F, = 1.37 in conformance with IBC Tables 1613.3.3(1) and 1613.3.3(2), respectively. 6.0 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS AND MITIGATION The native growth protection area easement (NGPA/E) and ravine down to Perrinville Creek along the south side of the property meets the criteria for a landslide hazard area, as defined by the City of Edmonds Municipal Code 23.80.020B. This slope ranged from approximately 1H:1V to 2H:1V in steepness, and the vertical elevation from the top of the slope to Perrinville Creek ranges from approximately 60 to 150 feet. The slope was moderately to heavily vegetated with blackberry vines, ferns, and various evergreen and deciduous trees. There were topographic features associated with ancient slump failures on portions of the slope. These features include headscarps, slurp blocks, and blocky, hummocky character below the April 26, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JNSAd - KEOS024(03 - Page 7 Edmonds, E,lploratim, Geologic Hazard, Emot Property' and Geotechnical Engineering Report Eonds, Washiugt°n Geologic Hazards and Mitigations headscarps. Though the topography shows signs of past slope movement, there were no signs of recent slope movement. Mature trees, up to approximately 2 feet in diameter, were present on the slope. These trees were growing straight and the trees present did not have bent trunks. Since this slope area will not be disturbed in the future grading, and the structures to be constructed will be founded on medium dense or denser, native Vashon advance outwash sediments, it is our opinion that the minimum critical area buffer of 10 feet should be applied to the top of the slope. The minimum building setback limit of 15 feet from this buffer should be applied, to result in an effective building setback from the top of the slope of 25 feet. It is our opinion that the application of this buffer and building setback limit mitigates the landslide hazard area adjacent to the property. 7.0 EROSION HAZARD AREA AND MITIGATION The native growth protection area easement (NGPA/E) and ravine down to Perrinville Creek along the south side of the property meet the criteria for an erosion hazard area, as defined by the City of Ednionds Municipal Code 23.80.020A. The NGPA/E area is underlain by Everett - series soils, with slopes ranging from approximately 0 to 50 percent. During our slope reconnaissance, we did not observe signs of surface -water -related erosion. We presume that this is because of the highly permeable nature of the native soils and that there are not any point source discharges from the flatter areas above the slope. Surface and roof runoff from the houses to be constructed should be collected and routed to the previously installed storm system. There are storm water sewer stub -outs on each lot. All yard drains, roof drains and footing drains should be tied into the storm system. Further details on the various drains are provided in the "Drainage Considerations" section of this report. We also recommend that the slope area be Left undisturbed and vegetated, which are terms of the native growth protection area easement designation. In combination with the surface drainage control and non- disturbance, the minimum critical area buffer and building setback limit, as described in the preceding section, will mitigate the erosion hazard area. In addition to the surface drainage control, non -disturbance measures, and application of buffers and setbacks for the slope area, a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESCP) will need to be implemented during construction to mitigate turbid construction runoff and to comply with City of Edmonds regulations. Upon request, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) can recommend which best management practices (BMPs) should be used in the TESCP, help field -fit the BMPs selected for maximum effectiveness, and perform field inspections to assess BMP performance and to provide maintenance recommendations. These field inspections may be required by the City of Edmonds for TESL compliance. April 26, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, hVC. JAW/ld - K13080246A3 Page 8 Subsro face Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Talbot Properl}, and Geolechnical Engineering Repon Edmonds, 44fashinglon Desi n Recommendations 111. DESIGN RE.COMME NDATIONS 8.0 INTRODUCTION Our exploration indicates that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the property is suitable for the proposed development, provided the risks discussed are accepted and the recommendations contained herein are properly followed. Any fill soils encountered will need to be evaluated during the grading of the property to determine whether the fill can be excavated and recompacted for Structural support or removed from the site. The bearing strata of Vaslion advance outwash sediments was relatively shallow in our exploration pits and will provide suitable support for structural fills and building foundations. Conventional spread footing foundations constructed to bear on medium dense or denser natural sediment or on approved structural fill soil may be utilized to provide foundation support. Previously placed fill soils are not suitable for foundations support. Based on our conversations with Mr. Johnson, it is our understanding that present plans call for construction of homes with full basements on the lots that have existing fills, and that footings will be placed directly on native soils. 9.0 SITE. PREPARATION The site has been previously graded and site preparation for home construction should be straightforward and minimal. Structural fills may be placed on native Vashon advance outwash sediments. Existing fill soils are not suitable for structural support or support of future fill soils. Depending on their organic content, existing fill soils may be removed and recompacted as structural fill. In our opinion, stable construction slopes should be the responsibility of the contractor and should be determined during construction. For estimating purposes, however, we anticipate that temporary,- unsupported cut slopes in the medium dense, Vashon advance outwash sediments may be planned at a maximum slope of 1HAV. Unsupported cut slopes in the loose fill soils may be planned at a maximum slope of 1.5HAV. As is typical with earthwork operations, some sloughing and raveling may occur, and cut slopes may have to be adjusted in the field. Fill soils, though prone to caving, will typically stay open long enough to install temporary shoring for trenching operations. In addition, WISHA/OSHA regulations should be followed at all times. As a standard, permanent slopes in structural fill should not exceed a 2H:1 V inclination. Permanent slopes in landscaping fill should be limited to 3H -IV. The existing fill soils that April 26, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. hV.Sf(,! _ k�US07d/l ; - Prr/'Pirc1ZDOR(I_'4FiKF,1 {yp Page 9 Srrbsn>face Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Talbot Proper7v and Geotechnical Fngineer�ing Report Edmonds, tirashington Design Recommendations were encountered in EPA near the south end of the site should be graded to a maximum of a 3H: IV slope for the final grade of the project. 10.0 STRUCTURAL FILL., Due to the topography of the site and proposed driveway improvements, structural fill will be necessary to establish desired grades. All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill type, placement, and compaction of materials, as discussed in this section. If a percentage of compaction is specified under another section of this report, the value (liven in that section should be used. After overexcavation/stripping has been performed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist, the upper 12 inches of exposed ground should be recompacted to a firm and unyielding condition. Fill placed on slopes greater than 5H:IV must be benched into the native soils. The benches should be at least 2 feet deep and wide enough to allow compaction equipment to operate. Once the subgrade has been recomp acted, structural fill can be placed to the desired grades. Structural fill is defined as non-organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8 -inch loose lifts with each lift being compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):D 1557 as the standard. The top of the compacted fill should extend horizontally outward a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the location of the perimeter footings or pavement edge before sloping down at an angle of 2H: IV. The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by AESI prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of the material 72 hours in advance to perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than the No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be considered moisture -sensitive. Use of moisture -sensitive soil in structurral fills should be limited to favorable dry weather and dry subgrade conclitions. The on-site soils did not contain significant amounts of silt and will not be moisture -sensitive. If fill is placed during wet weather or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select, import material consisting of a clean, frce-draining gravel and/or sand should be used. Free -draining fill consists of non-organic soil with the amount of fine-grained material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction. A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling progresses and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand April 26, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JAW;rd-Kc'oso24613Page 10 Subsuifioce Erploralim, Geologic Hazard, Talbot PropertY and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Design Reconmlendations that taking random compaction tests on a part -tune basis will not assure uniformity or acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a suitable monitoring and testing frequency. 11.0 FOUNDATION'S Spread footings may be used for building support, when founded on medium dense, native soils or structural fill placed, as previously discussed. To limit differential settlements between footings that bear on both structural fill and medium dense to dense, native soils, we recommend that an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (pst) be utilized for design purposes, including both dead and live loads. An increase of one-third may be used for short-term wind or seismic loading. Perimeter footings should be buried at least 18 inches into the surrounding soil for frost protection; interior footings require only 12 inches burial. However, all footings must penetrate to the prescribed bearing stratum, and no footing should be founded in or above loose, organic, or existing fill soils. It should be noted that the area bounded by lines extending downward at 1HAV froin any footing must not intersect another footing or intersect a filled area that has not been compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. In addition, a 1.5H:1V line extending down from any footing must not daylight because sloughing or raveling may eventually undermine the footing. Thus, footings should not be placed near the edge of steps or cuts in the bearin8 soils. Anticipated settlement of footings founded on medium dense, native soils or approved structural fill should be less than 1 inch. However, disturbed soil not removed from footing excavations prior to footing placement could result in increased settlements. All footing areas Should be inspected by AESI prior to placing concrete to verify that the design bearing capacity of the soils has been attained and that construction conforms to the recommendations contained in this report. Such inspections may be required by the governing municipality. Perimeter footing drains should be provided as discussed under the "Drainage Considerations" section of this report. 12.0 LATERAL. WALL PRESSURES All backfill behind walls or around foundation units should be placed as per our recommendations for structural fill and as described in this section of the report. Horizontally backfilled walls that are free to yield laterally at least 0.1 percent of their height may be designed using an equivalent fluid pressure equal to 35 pounds per cubic foot (pct). Fully restrained, horizontally backfilled, rigid walls that cannot yield should be designed for an April 26, 2013 ASSOCIA'T'ED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. INS/Ie/ - KE080246A:3 - Projects 1200802161KhiW/1 Page I I Subsurface Exploratim, Geologic Hazard, Talbot Property and Geoteclmicol Engineering Report F_dmonds, Washington Design Recommendations equivalent fluid of 50 pcf. If roadways, parking areas, or other areas subject to vehicular traffic are adjacent to walls, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil should be added to the wall height in determining lateral design forces. Walls that retain sloping backfill at a maximum angle of 2H:1 V should be designed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf for yielding conditions and 75 pcf for fully restrained conditions. The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform, drained backfill consisting of on-site, alluvial sediments compacted to 90 percent of ASTM:D 1557. A higher degree of compaction is not recommended, as this will increase the pressure acting on the wall. Surcharges from adjacent footings, heavy construction equipment, or sloping ground must be added to the above values. Footing drains should be provided for all retaining walls as discussed under the "Drainage Considerations" section of this report. 12.1 Passive Resistance and Friction Factor Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and the natural sediments or supporting fill soils, and/or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the foundations. The foundations must be backfilled with compacted structural fill to achieve the passive resistance provided below. We recommend the following allowable design parameters: Passive equivalent fluid = 250 pcf Coefficient of friction = 0.35 13.0 FLOOR SUPPORT We anticipate that the single-family homes that are built in the future will utilize a combination of slab -on -grade floors and structural/crawl space -type floors. Slab -on -grade floors should be constructed to bear on structural fill or pre -rolled, medium dense, native soils. The floors should be cast atop a minimum of 4 inches of washed pea gravel to act as a capillary break where 11101sture migration through the slabs is to be controlled. The slab should also be protected from dampness by an impervious vapor retarder. American Concrete Institute (ACI) recommendations shoulcl be followed for all concrete placement. In areas that structural/crawl space -type floors are used, the exposed soil in crawl spaces should be covered with a membrane, and the crawl spaces should be suitably ventilated to reduce the potential for excess moisture vapor. April 26, 2013 ASSOCIATFD EARTH SCIENCES, INC. INSI d - X6080246;13 - Pipe 12 Subsurface Erploratiarr, Geologic Hazard, Talbot Property and Geotechnical Engineering Repori Edmonds, Washutglon Design Recommendations 14.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS All retaining and perimeter footing walls should be provided with a drain at the footing elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe surrounded by washed pea gravel or drain rock. The level of the perforations in the pipe should be set approximately 2 inches below the bottom of the footing and should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away froin the building. In addition, all retaining walls should be lined with a minimum, 12 -inch -thick, washed gravel blanket provided over the full height of the wall that ties into the footing drain. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from the structure to achieve surface drainage. All roof, footing, and yard drains should be connected to the existing storm water sewer system. There are stub -outs on each lot that were installed in the previous construction phase of the project. 15.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING At the time of this report, site grading, structural plans, and construction methods have not been finalized. We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. We recommend that AESI perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way, our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design. We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the foundation depends on proper site preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Some of these monitoring services may be required by the City of Edmonds as conditions of your construction permits. Construction monitoring services are not part of this current scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us know and we will prepare a cost proposal. April 26, 2013 ASSOCIATED EART11 SCIENCES, INC. .lNSild-K1i080246;I?Page 13 . . . . .. . . . . . . � We have joyed OJ[11 you oil Olis ."ijtudY am! an, couRf,"ot th,O, Olc""c will aid �i1w Ole "�uuce&du] r"d- :VTM' Iff(ITL If YMI ShCHAI(l IIAYC !wyi quvsduw"'d or roWmv Wwr Wslamc, Nsuc du W 1wAww Vo cal]L c'Ay' 1, AR111 SCIM,4(�J�S' INC Ion N, Matthc,,w A. MWer, PAL, V Y M app u cu- 2 Site and 11"m Appun?, Fjowmion Imp J .w SOC1111 ? IJ ? h" k? ' I SX Yt"N(� `k",V' Vv'C' loge k"I I I �; � lFT IRL, qC-sola "Ah mfll klik, k') -s I el S �o , ,31 t) w ""0 IY@V^heu rfth tiw y Pl� AflhAUI:�r�� bowl!" I �IrJ 611y %�ury Suk vp �11 is qmd WM Twd Fhp 2 to d My CK n*r �UM fa V,o NIS r4 G C', �,jv"KI , 2 �c Vuj D4!scrip6v,- 'ociq3IZMA D 0 1 r 1, 1 k L H 11 1 tcll 11 t "2, rw W,; Ml d 4 (4 pro0y Ip�vf AM 0 SP mhwd sm PW 34190 W1 d H Is N0 �nl�) NIA, o 10 4 "S a orn') 111,,� 10 �00 a� ¢G (� n sm � -,Dj Pd1(11 WWAN m" k4m No POA MiQ Flu r� . .......... .. [R �v l: Lj,�Iuv �3ow'jhw hwol V,101h�ran�, ,�, Covdc,�Ivot S c lcy�,3 ",Iu v0dal 8 I p owl Dify AU�,v L �f 110, dloliy, 0(y V) IIh a ldu,,JI Qi Q p Wo swd w WmM U o �1�, HAM rmb 121 O'do Otl Clay or lu � I'liqlhon M?q NUA1,1 "rjtlk� Oull 2, sifij� sandy" o F Moo CmAm bumum 1W Ime aha wvGGA .Joy, lo,m dzq At em! 10"", p mv W* m all PO W ftb, W vu pmmn o ad; al NII s hwm-7r Epyll" Im ddb �11 smvu40M AmQf C,011) (J�!Iy, fot, �c,, rw, e, olwe Ii YI6 '6U jo J no Wu m k1 1, " ukq w ,,A N�lk,'jK jlc�wml,Iyu q �,Ifj DMM W WwO %W1 QPU Sing= Rwo;= TPU "KIly: 4,nl hal li�SG ore FoLu, n n m,iO cWwom T: . . . . . .. . ..... . 4v, n0h) IOWAIU,�d ko 1"Ib kuwUmm" K&g m"q"w"d Vol ulp'' a�,,l dt� #pi6o Med ffic UtoGWC� . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . ....... .. . . .. .. ... . F,'X, P 1 0 F1 Al 1C)N L0(,,1 PCE"i" 00 ............ ...................... a a vpr A, rl I >l m �;cia~'vrtiia�� d14Vr�aW Ilam Yui p uVKrre%W9r a Mon �r� r w;ru;� W�a V oxrlu:!u ar .d a urIrim„ PJ U,rIOS IN Ikr named it �Mtarla a,il Aa l rV�;,'Ai¢I,C x,70 BYur asuuar�rar ua� tapaltill� � uual� 1a I1hu: aria urlrrar a""?' �laa Vrr,lur, dr A 41Eu' 1 �� ui��Ia� aap a;!,..� E6atzitddwdl .,adl,t:wrur�,�r.�r n tiu+ivu,,�u�r6"mIV'°, rule°y� uVt�a1°�alaFro gal 1x0.1°, draaa,alta+ail ~sir a I!� I�auu�a ,aadaa qal li!ru� "rin�s�i.i r��,a}�r�».au„irtl4.i.I �uia�� qa ra wa.WirY.uBVAaSWvaagd';umduraulwwaialrrrauAlosrC;uacw�usullaV�du�V, f, DESCISIPAUN FRI �� 1Mlll �jlr ,mvol, aY�glw' aI �.+ ° YJlldA filo�jil:llld” pBYr. t.111",II. i ICYd9Cdar, hdNkRGd;� M'�r;gp. filly"Bl� �a"11"Y11,"9a�09b9Ya �r m n { j h SmJ rumand W 1 b to 2 RK rerbu dd ',un ami darAn rum bc,�nn Pw� WIr�"',dr rrx°kr flier ill apn dells, Rl,= UPS bu°ramy We �o mes: i urn SAND w4h some ell awafl. i Bah d U I rt7 j' 1 I°'�lu�di,ar�l am�a pvltltga�11�7arI Ilan °�R q�aw�vtlYY a fIV?arV„I 1 r �M � 0J l 1 } I t p I f i Edrriorids, WA, ar d d'wl`?da C9 UIlldh Sdenm Inc, anx a �lE� Au I /,,, � � � � � �„ aP 1 App ratdaa d t�, V�dar� rG;i"(I�l .......... ASSMAMed Q a0h Seat I els" NW, ramd avoUo,?'r OM MW nWA h' ", WMWW mm"Mm"I. INS sumunmy almons W4 0 Me W"Wo W mu "MA M Wo mc� of �xG�'nvaHon Go NJ'J"A'y charqu at his r,Iho �4 fll'o r.'Iiolo poserk.,c] 41"', of a'm'u'd DESCMPBON Iwc�sc,» cyan°,, -,q, liinc� lci HANIh vAM itld ",z)rrin hr('Amll N I 4 1 Q4 to 5 %L SWmp minanUlupsul. S � Lowe nvAt, bumplAack, fuK: lu ruc&mi SANLI, vvith mill �nnd Wood rl(-"bris .......... bc') (JI".1 Ise, cv-'ange LOA bmwm Me to mwhwn S9'°aM3 W gmwM awl mpto 13eca'xnwat IR red", BURM no! uxpkd�'Ank yd at deWh 10 WA Is m I gip, . .. . .......... ... VVA EaNll Svivnce�;' 1.. unjgud by, At G Appo�vv�dby Wdl mi M3 t X,"'! ()VZAIAOF%� I'M MO. FIV'3 gay clhakqjp"v vi ll�� �'vd HO a �,a i ri p jc,'.a oo n Q ,u c, t i tii I r'. a i u 11 1 tl�5 10o,GjQlkM CO R) meMwm d"mv hjO bmvvn gpig fS, to 1"CHUMI SAl,JL n'wjsj, i,A'ilrk birown, SH I OuNow-.1h Mom tons, Imm";f, to op av, W(l 14 MIA Lfqjgwby A I X,,, Aripjq'.-vnrl hy RAT" PNIvul hh, M080243A dm W18 .. ..... .. ... III n III)(] rw IWW 01, 1 h", nlj"wl g1m, c."'I -�mcu I by I e(f r, lul.11 I we's bic- f A F'Sll) few Oie nwwwd lmqecl, acd Aclukl bo 1, 1 Mn ".I M IAwr, ua =00 WaRm I k;a 6 G1 I "f a 11 .1 co r s a I I C, (") "I I 10 1 u, a0 — ------ - -- MW to memm SAN11'.), vvkh siftand sormc, largc, ^!" :11 %lashc)ii AtIvance OWvvv,,Ji b Mcdhml dam. wX kmy bmwn, hne, to flieckwn SANQ YWM gravel, Son,iIaa, c)l fine, . . . ......... ..... . Talbot ��llve':,ycfty INA ASHOWd Earth SdWHWI W', 1 1: E X I I I FIX I I f I I N F '110 1 Iti.w i6 fowl (0 Vhorwqur bmiapioud by Aqww= Lao =MCO's'' Ion. GAE SO bulk on wd mod no MMM be =d 6 =0 MM it Wnd raga MwIs MOP'Nawn A sman" jj"s M" 10 Me 1oc;,0Jrm �d Ihis POWId"'01I fl'O oxcavaOuirl, mo dowu alh W6 i M"=Kp 0 6m, Rw TO pwm= w DESCMPION r 66i ic-,ii " j:) 1 6 WA We Sht jamb q cO) Pledqo,nj dense, ibioi5t, hql",t br-mr, fine W mdum GANE), with gravel. (8 feet ab4we s�,reet level) - - - ---- ---- ... .. ke Moibu r I, jnc'A'S, I Igh[ U N 91""'w(A Sume, oi'�Jrq "p gr",Avel r -,In inabix surmul glaveh, (0 feet above Met IeVOQ" rk A, 11 Mci,diurn ck,,,rvsQ" moist. IINght LHOW11 1 11 �Jy liMiuo k) nl�,,,4fimri SAND, wfl,,h ipirvel EtniJ �,idl (4 Icul. k1bum" IoVO) I A bavh re,uO iucy o Oxiblil"I"') aOope, I"pd w MM Amw wS r4 4,'o ab'-'pvo road i3pil"I') 2 11VA, M,t�lfwf I I hs Ig m pwN 0 Hw wpM pqw,ed h" AimmNMOU EAR" Smmw% he VP allm Me W=W"rwd am WOW leo e W MWOMOVI, condifions M" CUNJ M ws wcwnn WA I My "Solo 0 W. Re dMa pmwnwd me, o:s4q'dfi.iYura�nn oI aU.ua� cumMicnib 11,11<4ft k, wat" fine 9. '13"aarlis of gray "SANIF) W 5 Ie,,A " 1,006'R 10 10Fdjulvi dero;vric")i"A Ic =-,fl, kqht hnwn� fine k),nivr!rhjivi with qTavel BM"W t 9 WO INA Associaled Earth Scivnces, Inc., ... . . . . . . . . . 1"I'll &ASSOCIATES, INC. Eminieeninq VOWASUIS; V Sepictriber 30, 2014 Nlr". Atrk Scltrr6lz Ahmmk Unpamdon V, 0, Baa x 14425 Mill 0 cek:, WA 98082 Dc"�ar 64"r. SCIImitz: Suklect: Geotectuaick luvwdladmi and Dcsi,f,�,n Prec'ast Concircle B[cw1c SJngIc,,F�,,,t,mRy Rcsi,iImce Cyrus Way Etlmconds, W,,,,�Odngton L&A, Job 114k�, 1-4-096 INTRODUCTION EWRI Sc Cow We unclersucrid die dove lopium of et single -Mtn i ly, resk,'Icn,ce! i's p4mmiud Or the Jol AM'] tura the abovc,� addrcr`i�s 41 "Washinpoum Nwic' alscl' mmldcrslw"�m'f fliat gracfinf"'� (Wille r,rT:cjec,t wouki requie uA WE be rutainCLI lby—AVVU-11cm of precom concrele black Nvall ahmig the cast We and the soudi side of the hmme, At youi: request, hm,'e cm',-nj',�cfcd si September 30, 2014 Single -Family residence Block Mall L &A Job No. 14®096 Page 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES Our proposed scope of services for the geotechnical investigation comprises specifically the following: 1. Review geologic and soil conditions included in the AES Report, 2. Provide recommended soil parameters for design of the precast concrete block walls. block3. Perform stability analysis and design of the 4. Prepare a written report to present our findings, recommendations, analysis, and design for the block walls. DESCRIEPTION OF BLOCK WALLS The site plan of the subject residence is shown on Plate 1, on which the to be constructed two-tiered block walls are shown. The terrain within the subject lot generally declines southwesterly at about 28% grade in the southeast quadrant of the lot, their decreases to about 14% grade towards the west boundary of the lot. The two tiers of the block walls, to be set at 7 feet apart, will be stepping down from the east to the gest and from the south to the north. The upper tier wall will be up to about 3.5 feet high with the finish grade at its toe at El. 123.5 feet, while the lower tier will be up to about 7 feet tall with the finish grade at its toe at El. 116.0 feet. The walls will be curving around the southeast comer of the house. The backfill of the lower tier wall will be reinforced with ge®grid mesh, while the upper tier wall will be a simple gravity wall. ASSOCIATES, INC. September 30, 2014 Single -Family Residence Block Wall L&A Job No. 14-096 Page 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS According to the logs of test pits included in the AES Report, the site of the short plat in which the subject lot is a part of was mantled by a layer of loose fill varying from o to eight feet thick. This fill was underlain to the depths of test pits by amedium-dense, fine to medium sand deposit with some gravel of an advance outwash soil unit. Groundwater was not encountered by any of the six test pits excavated on the plat site. The subject lot, located at the northeast comer of the plat site, is likely mantled by loose fill fro about 2 to 4 feet thick. l SCC S1t N AND RECOMMENDATIONS Keystone compact blocks (8 inch high x 18 inch wide x 12 inch deep) or approved equal may be used for construction of the block walls. aRl Backflfl The taller lower wall is to be excavated and backfilled with geogrid mesh embedded i the backfill to increase stability of the wall. This reinforced wall backfill should be constructed with structural fill in accordance with recommendations under the STRUCTURAL FILL section of this report. The finish slope between the upper and lower malls should be no steeper than 4V -IH. The sloping face of the backfill should be thoroughly compacted to a non -yielding state with a vibratory mechanical compactor. Geogrhd Reinforcement 4 feet should be constructed with geogrid reinforcement mesh embedded in the wall ASSOCIATES, INC. September 30, 2014 Single -Family Residence Block Wall L, A Job No. 14®096 Page 4 backfill to maintain stability. The maximum height of the upper block wall is no more than 3.5 feet, therefore, it does notEslope. spacedBlock walls constructed closely spaced may result in additional soil pressure on the lower tier wall due to surcharge from the upper tier wall. The two tiers of block walls of the subject residence is to be at gof the" surchargewall. Therefore, from on ` lower tier wall may be ignored, Based on soil perimeters be used for stability analysis and design of the lower tier block wall: Reinforced Soils Unit Weight, r, pcf 130 Angle of Internal Friction, +, degrees M 11 Retained Foundation beveling Soils Soils Rock Base 125 125 130 34 34 40 0 0 0 The lower tier block wall should be designed for both the static and seismic loading conditions. For static loading condition, the block wall should be designed for a factorminimum of 1.7 against over -turning failure, and 2.5 r U & ASSOCIATES9 INC. September 30, 2014 Single -Family Residence Block Mall L,A Job No. 14-096 Page 5 The Puget Sound region is in an active seismic zone and the lower tier block wall should also be designed for a 100 -year seismic event under the seismic loading condition. The peak ground acceleration is about 0.3g (g = gravity force) for such an event in the Puget Sound region. The block wall, however, is built with interlocking concrete blocks with high flexibility, and the blocks would not move in unison during earthquakes. 'Therefore, for design of the lower block wall under the seismic loading condition, the peak ground acceleration may be reduced to 0.2g. The block wall should designed for a factor of safety of at least 1.1 against sliding, 1.15 for overturning and 2.0 for foundation bearing failures under the seismic loading condition. Stability Analysis and Design The computer program, SR all version 3.22, developed by National Concrete Masonry Association, was used in our stability analyses and design of the precast concrete block walls. The results of the block wall stability analysis are presented under APPENDIX attached to this report. Cour design of thetwo-tiered precast concrete black wall is shown on Plate 2. The geogrid mesh schedule for the lower tier wall is presented on Plate 3. Presented on Plates 4 and 5 are general notes for block wall construction. Site Preparation and General Gradin Vegetation within the block walls and wall backfill footprints should be cleared and the roots thoroughly grubbed. Fill, relic topsoil, disturbed soil and wear surficial soils should be stripped down to firm undisturbed native advance outwash soils. Over -excavation should be backfilled with compacted structural fill per recommendations in this report. Following excavation, the exposed soils within the block wall and backfill footprints ASSOCIATES, INC. September 30, 2014 Single -Family residence Block Wall L,&A Job No. 14-096 Page 6 should be thoroughly compacted to a non -yielding state with a vibratory mechanical compactor. Luring construction, storm runoff, if any, should be intercepted with ditches or interceptor trench drains, as required, and conveyed and discharged safely into a storm sewer or suitable stormwater disposal facility. Keyway Trenches Keyway trenches of the block walls should be cut into undisturbed, firm, native advance outwash soils or compacted structural fill, capable of rendering an allowable bearing pressure of at least 3,000 psf. The soils exposed at bottom of the keyway trenches should be thoroughly compacted to a non -yielding state with a vibratory mechanical compactor. Over -excavation of unsuitable soils should be backfilled with compacted structural fill per recommendations in this report. A minimum 6 -inch layer of 7/8-ihch®minus crushed rock leveling base, compacted to a non -yielding state, should be placed over bottom of the keyway trenches. The base -course blocks are to be placed on this crushed rock base with an embedment at least 11 inches below the finish grade in front of the block walls. The hollow cores of the precast concrete blocks should also be filled with 7/8 -inch crushed rock, tamped to a non -yielding state. The blocks should be stacked tightly against one another. Each course of blocks should be interlocked with the blocks of the course below with connecting Teflon pins or other mechanical means built into the blocks. Temporary Cut Slopes Under no circumstance should cut slopes be steeper than the limits specified by local, state and federal safety regulations if workers have to perform construction work in ASSOCIATES, INC. September 30, 2014 Single -Family residence Block Wall L&A Job No. 14-096 Page i excavated areas. Unsupported temporary cuts greater than 4 feet in height should be no steeper than 1-1/4H.1V in fill and topsoil and no steeper than 1HelV in underlying advance outwash sand soil. Permanent fill slopes should be no steeper than 3Ho 1 V in compacted structural fill. The soil units and the stability of cut slopes should be observed and verified by a geotechnical engineer during excavation. Drainage CoutiroE The bottom of keyway trenches should be sloped down backward at 2% grade towards the heel of the trenches where the wall drain lines are to be installed. The drain lines should consist of minimum 6 -inch perforated, rigid, PVC pipes wrapped in a non -woven filter fabric sock laid behind the base blocks to collect and drain away potential groundwater flowing towards the walls. The bottom of keyway trenches and the drain lines should have sufficient slope (0.5 percent minimum) along the alignment of the walls to generate flow by gravity. The wall drain lines should be tightlined to drain into a storm sewer or a suitable star water disposal facility. A minimum 12 -inch -thick (horizontally) vertical drain blanket, constructed of clean free -draining 5/8 -inch crushed rock., should be placed against the back of the block walls. The vertical drainage blankets should be hydraulically connected to the wall drain lines. Structural fill should be constructed behind the vertical drain blankets. The vertical drain blankets and structural fill should be constructed in lifts no more than 10 inches in loose state with each lift compacted to a non -yielding state after each course of blocks is completed. September 30, 2014 Single -Family Residence Block gall L&A Job No. 14®096 Page Structural Flit Reinforced backfill of the upper block wall should be constructed with structural fill. Structural fill is the fill that support structural or traffic load. Structural fill should consist of clean granular soils with particles not lamer than three inches and should be free of organic, debris and other deleterious substances. Structural fill should have a moisture content within one percent of its optimum ois re content at the time of placement. Optimum moisture content is the water content in the soils that enables the soils to be compacted to the highest dry density for a given compaction effort. Onsite soils meeting the above requirements may be used as structural fill Crushed rock fill and structural fill should be placed in lifts no more than 10 inches thick in loose states with each lift compacted to at least 92% of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctormethod) with a vibratory mechanical compactor. Geogrid Mesh Placement Geogrid mesh shall be pinned or anchored between rows of blocks and laid over a level ground of wall backfill. The geogrid mesh should then be stretched taut and securely staked down before placing the neat lift of backfill. Overlaps of geogrid mesh in the direction parallel to the wall alignment shall be at least 12 inches, while overlaps of geogrid mesh in the direction perpendicular to wall alignment should not be allowed. Erosion Control Storm runoff and groundwater seepage should not be allowed to flow over excavated areas and constructed block walls. Intercepting ditches or trench drains should be ASSOCIATES, September 30, 2014 Single -Family residence Block Wall L &A Job No. 14-096 Page,9 installed uphill of excavated areas and block walls, as required, to intercept and drain away storm runoff and groundwater seepage. Disturbed and exposed soils should be covered and protected by plastic tarps, as required, during construction. Unpaved areas devoid of vegetation should be re -seeded and re - vegetated as soon as possible. Pavement next to the block walls, if any, should be graded to slope down away from the block walls. Runoff on pavement next to the block walls should not be allowed to flow onto the block walls, and should be collected into catch basins and drained safely into a storm sewer or suitable stormwater disposal facility_ L IMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the specific application to this project for the exclusive use by Al ark Corp., and its associates, representatives, consultants and contractors. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of prospective contractors for their estimating and bidding purposes and for compliance with the recommendations in this report during construction. The conclusions and interpretations in this report, however, should not be construed as warranty of the subsurface conditions. `l -`he scope of this study does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in this report for design considerations. All block wall construction work should be monitored by a geotechnical engineer during construction. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the geologic and soil conditions included in the AES Report, and our experience and engineering judgment, The ASSOCIATES, Septen,iber �30, ��20 14, 111ocli, Wall 14 -096 Page 10 enneWskms and mcanunendadons are prot)essiomaj cq,,ImionsdoHv(,u,1 i�1111 a Imuorker c"orlsisk,"n't witfi the level of care and Mfl ordinarIly exericised by (,Ahim, or�he prolksion MUMMY pnadiAng, Lmder shakw (,,,,ondkions irk (hj.% a'JIL(ta" '14f,,) warrunly, expirc,mcd orinkplied, is nindc,,,, The �,,wtua] sfabswfac�� cof, ffim Sitc, ta,niy Nary �hose de,,.w bed in the NES Rep�pa' he nature aod e��jtent of such k,�,iriafikoiws n%�iy 'not evident uritfl C on's fi."[111,1c, ti oil Starts. Lfvarimions, apl,)mir t4cn, wo shonld lie rvtairied to, of this repor; and to vmlj or mo% deun V MURg prkv pirooceding fitr1her whh the consOuctim of the Imalmsed deveigmen! MAN: she, to are IdeasaJ to be of swKe to ymi on did pie�,,isreei Rve to cau us ir ymi h,ire ii i' Izjuesfiors regarding Ods rq)ort ur the dcAmn of pwast mnemic Mock walls ami rrr Fi:�,e Ipkoes awA Appn (fix W, C TS V(11jr INC A lit ing (Jeok.-,C] 111�Iical x. 3o. rjc;REss. mc$SA UTuTy ASDAENT AF. Na 007M225003 WGOUuR 61 � GEOTEC FIECC�_"D,* L6 SITE PLAN LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. SINGLE—FAMILY RESIDENCE 8040 CYRUS WAY Geotechnical Engineering - Engineering Geology - Earth Science EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 'ow 77, 3 17 Y, i ry . ... . .... .. .. .. .................. . .. . .. .. . ... .. ........... ell v a. .". ....................... . .............. . . . . ....... ........ .. . .. . . . . . ........... . ....... rIa I ��DRECAs r WALL'S 11,111-1 & ASS ()CI A 8040 GYRUS WVY'' Umith ScJf;vice 1) M C " F C I I ANIEKE5, WA,"DHINE3 IM J kl k#.:^' WI �. . . ......................... . . . . . . . . . ................. 77, 3 17 Y, i ry . ... . .... .. .. .. .................. . .. . .. .. . ... .. ........... ell v a. .". ....................... . .............. . . . . ....... ........ .. . .. . . . . . ........... . ....... rIa I ��DRECAs r WALL'S 11,111-1 & ASS ()CI A 8040 GYRUS WVY'' Umith ScJf;vice 1) M C " F C I I ANIEKE5, WA,"DHINE3 IM OR I OWER R ISER WALL "° UY MaLL GeogridMesh (.t,,m tl 1., [4, ft p" Im e ) Layer 1A fn �'00 s aJ-N ,' = Mvq, 0 110, m„Loss than, 4 feet, Geogrd Mest'i 11-Jol, Required 0 oi VacAvg D III F�N rtrac, 209,." (,, 1"'I t J lok Y')tl-MW',1leixRlClical B1Vy VfpG.�"°l9�tlh,� Ll:ngIX1se,oaq Ge idogy n'w gth 80tw v 053501 ME E5,50 POWO /r �f9f P . . ... . .. ...... I " SCXDPE OF WORIK, siflafl Provide necessa, ataterial, 0,1quipil labor, aod took; to Precast block to �knes and gujdes81TIDW on the drawn ling s and irii the hold. 2. SI"TE CONDITIONS (',0nb'a1(A(H'S1MH SH sle and fhAmWa62, wKIII Site and shaH ve6fy ex,listling grades, Wenslions and Meimfions ha the Re�ej, C Or) lira C't(,� �, SJ,Iaj� �,'epwt any dicnapancy Wirth 01c, dravvirigsto D,iglineer (U & AssodWeC Kc.) i3efore proceeding wittl wall canshWon. COMM shalf, exeill exfteui ip care tu-)t to dainage ariy i.triderground Wles, exhUng shuctures, ch'ah rage "" JlaIVIlchS',G8'Pe,, "Ac., D'a"tage to the ab,uve shau be repairt-M arO i estored to oriqjrlad ro,ndiitkon or Itaaattraar" at (,'onfi �,,actrir,'i3 3. MATERIAL, &1 PrpDuwt i(, Q' Bfloclq,ASH be KEYSTONE COMPAC T 81 C)CK (B inr,h vAde aiid 12 indi deep) 11 good condWan, W Of CMd(S, f`liSSUres or ctAps, mainid shaH how, a compressive stremgth of at Most Z000 gra'� 3 [,,,g yoggl tll aagis'-fla P�'Lnl-Qr 1: shaman consht of Wan, Imewasy, pew inch crushed rr),ck 33 EVANS Oco N nsist olf alilin, &-inch (flarneter, fx-)Ifl"�i all tx-� d' PVC gkwd misteright Arad au, in a no,rr'''WoVll�'J'J' fj�[Jef lab k,,; sock. 14 sl"Infl [')e ("Jean giranti�ar soils, frc�ie at ort,jzirks aind de[xk,,,,Yvit�-p partioles". r'io largier th;,an 3 inches, Shmetumd HU shaH contain rx,), niore H'ian 1%Illrti a rAght finer tharr the No, 200 Ave based on the hacbm (:0 thie inateiriW passing hila. 4 slieve. 3 5a maar, � U Jkl _� tw )la: sjlall be of RRTRAC by IWESKER kc. m appmed tupah as spe,,Y;ified In GEOGRU) RMESH S',(,HEDUI [ taWe oin PI,,a(v3, 4, S N S I"A L. L ATI 0 KI 4:1 KP-Yway 6'64"iches for the Wook waRs shal be excavabld dwqj r [r,(,,,) firry"i, Undistturbed, nobve "alls capabW of rendering ati akimible tbeadnq pressurt,,,% ulf al feasii� 3,0(,')0 psf ExPgam ,8d at bottorn of Uenchas shah be compaded to a nlon-yieq-Jjr,Ig state with A vibri,itolly rner,,;hanicall coraw pactor. f -he 51ock wall founldatkm'i bieartriw,) w,oiits s[ matt lana wedhed by a ;pRotechnWal enyoneer p6or. W YYWI cunsauolhar�, 4,2 Botfor'n of keymtay tl,(NV,;hrm3 ShSH bysl(,,),pe�d to ftect. water lnft,a mqH dr,,,4l,r pdlpes. L),raliri pipes gena U have WcWnt Ape (OST6 knknum) to gem,'n'ar[(',« flow by gravfty, Drifin tart es shall Il tigtAlined, to disicharge frorn tI re �uw 1,-)orr,rt in 11ie keylvja3y tret""JCJ'I' into a etnrni smaywor Q ca WR 1 6, 0 UT lIVVCA LIM UIMPOSal pwn 1 , i 43 (',oncmte lfloc��;S stioluki t)ie !QhUy wMeked agalinst oiieanotheu . .. ..... .. ITI-J & ASSOCIA r 1, 1'�"S Gwd%y - Em2 Sam mm BLOCK WAA-L SItwit (".J,I-+AMIY F1 8040 Cyr RUS EDMOCwt DS, A ,4A Skuduml hil shall be rAared Gn fifts midi nciora thmi 10 Whes In qoos'- date' with ea&HR campaWedtci al laast'92% of the rnaxhnurri doy der�isity detertnine(I b,y AST'M 01567 (Modifiad Piroctcn method) with a vibratory urnedhancal con''ipactor, III -SKU deli it f StILICAUREA fill ShOtAd be, tested wkh a nucWar dermtmeter [uy a teshrq agency spe6afized in NH pWc;me nt and consOuaUon vnxt. UsUng Ifrequenrc.y shotAd be ow t,est perievery,2lit squiarefeet Ipe 1�'ft. 41 Each dayer of geoghd mesh shal be laid (,,)n level Sil nface, anchore lbetwepyl Flows Of b luw:;ks, stn,.,Writ',.,d figl"A, ar"O ",'Aakad down, pd()r tcp Iptw ceiiei'rt af the next lift (,,,)f strucIurM fiH, ()verkaps for togridi, mesh ins Ote dk-mfion wit wall ahgrunent stiall be at least 12 4iches, ove,daps W Me d4ection pepenWar to maH allpvnent iml rWt bS 1HONed. 43 Tt.uy'ipoirwy uut Wpm ON be covened adproteq,,,,.'ted by, plas(k,; tairps as req,hriiad, Ur ,Paved diStUrbod areas from constiii.,ic[J1(jn wofk shaR be re see�ded and r&veMAaW'J as soon as pos?bh. S. VUSCELLANEDILIS 01 Conkaclur shoR rernove, Adebhs and wlean t,ugi sife after ccnripk)fiorw of,work, IT INDIERANUTICA11001, 6.1 (3ontractor shWI be Wel y res,ly,'ja'mNe for w.,Onsb'ucflood safety and hk.-, ru'telho'ds' techinuq]Ues, sequences or praceMnes used kv Me caristirtx,Iion, anrl sflafl take uu wu°n wsswy rne�,,,.isures to niaintaki stability of bariks chn4if,,I, clonstiruchon topireveru t bodRy Mpsy or pmpaNy damages. (3, 2 shaH Inden')rflfy and save harmiWss the Owner and l U.,wgi neer frorn ar"O agehat any danaa�,jie, cost and HaWktylb; 4"ijuiy ur death 'tD persons and Kni damsp"","' to propeity (,,aused by negfigencc, of ContecWq W/her agents, wngkyees (m, stibcon'trac,tors . CIV Sk UNC]l r-­V;'IIrleeflr`q 4ve409� : �amhSciiance BLC)(",,K WALL, ("3i1-",NE(3A,L NO],.ES &W I E-FANII LY 80410 (,,'I(RL)S WAN FIRAONDS, WASIANCAINN APPENDIX PR L'A""A CIR T,E BIX)OK, WAI.A, kmil"'Y 80410 YIRIPc)''WAY WAS14P,AlTG0q SRWall (ver 3022 April 2002) LN 0511135 Licensed to: Liu & Associates Inc. 19213 Kenlake Place NE Kenmore WA 98028 License Number: 0511135 Project Identification; Project Name: SFR 8040 CYRUS WAY, EDMNDS Section: 5 FT T - STATIC LOADING Data Sheet: Owner: bOARK SCHMITZ Client: Prepared by: J S LII J/, Page 1 Date: September 29 2614 Time: 10:42:29 PM Data file: c:\Program files\srwa1132\14-096-7ft ll -s ticloa 'ng- ruawaysfr- onds Type of Structure: os etic-Roinforced Segmental Retaining wall Design Methodology: NCMA Method A Seismic Analvsis Details: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ratio 0.66 Wall Geometrv: Design Wall. Height (ft) 5.33 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 0,67 Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 4.66 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units a Hinge Height (ft) 5,33 Wall Inclination (degrees) 403 SRWall (ver 3,22 April 2002) " Page 2 LN 0511135 Slopes: Front Slope (degrees) horizontal Back Slope (degrees) horizontal Uniformly Distributed Surcharges.: Live Load Surcharge none Dead Load Surcharge none Seamental Unit Name: Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) none Unit Height (Hu)(in) Friction Unit Width (Wu) (in) 122 ,D Cohesion Angle Soil Data: Soil Description: (psf) (degrees) Reinforced Soil silty d N/A 36,0 Retained Soil silty sand N/A 34.0 Levelling Pad Soil gravel N/A 9p®p Foundation Soil gravelly silty sand 0.0 36.0 Seamental Unit Name: Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) none Unit Height (Hu)(in) 8.0 Unit Width (Wu) (in) 122 ,D Unit Length (in) Setback (in) 9.6 Weight (infilled) (lbs) 135.0 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 135.0 Center of Gravity (in) 6>0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Onit weight (pcf) Properties Ultimate Strength Criteria Service State Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500,0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45,0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000a0 2000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number„ Type Number Name 1 4 HDPE geosynthetic 2 p PET" geosynthetic 3 0 PP geosynthetic SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) LN 0511135 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Ultimate Strength (lbs/ft) Polymer Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 3700.0 2625.0 5300.0 PE or PP polyester HDPE or PP Reduction Factors: Type 1 Type 2 1766.7 Creep 5.00 2.50 22.0 5.00 Durability 2.00 2.00 1312.5 2.00 Installation Damage 3.00 3.00 45.0 3.00 Overall Factor of Safety 1.50 1.50 875.0 1.50 Allowable Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Tyra ? Ta (lbs/ft) 02.22 116.67 117.78 Coefficient of Interaction. Type 1 Tv pe 2 Type 3 Ci 0.7 0.7 2000.0 0.7 Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 'Type 2 Cds 0.95 0.95 0.95 Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Page 3 Minimum (lbs/ft) 1233.3 875.0 1766.7 Friction Angle (degrees) 22.0 22.0 22.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 1050.0 1312.5 2650.0 Service State Criterion: 45.0 45.0 Maximum Minimum (lbs./ft) 1233.3 875.0 1766.7 Friction Angle (degrees) 22.0 22.0 22.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 1950.0 1312.5 2650.0 Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45.0 45.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 2000.6 Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45.0 45.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 200M SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) IN 0511135 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientatibnr;. Reinforced Soil (Ka) Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) Retained Soil (Ka) Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) Results of External Stability Analyses: Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria J �~ Page 4 I m~ , Design Criteria 1.5 OK 1.5 i 2.5 OR 3.2 OK N/A N/A 0.6 OR Detailed Results of External Stability Analvses: Calculated Values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) 350.1 Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Calculated FOS Sliding Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 5.01 FOS Overturning Bearing Capacity (psf) 9.73 FOS Bearing Capacity Over- 24.26 Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 4.0 Base Eccentricity (e)(ft) 0.06 Base Eccentricity Ratio (e/L-2e) 0.02 Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) 0.75 Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria J �~ Page 4 I m~ , Design Criteria 1.5 OK 1.5 i 2.5 OR 3.2 OK N/A N/A 0.6 OR Detailed Results of External Stability Analvses: Calculated Values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) 350.1 Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) 2000.0 Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) 2034.3 Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 622.4 Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 650.l, Bearing Capacity (psf) 17499.1 Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) 721.2 Results of Internal Stability Analvses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS FOS FOS Layer Unit Type (ft) (ft) Length Over- Pullout Sliding Spacing # (lbs/ft) (lhs/ft) (lbs/ft) (ft) stress a 6 9 1 1 1 (ft) 02.2 82.2 82.2 22.2 66.7 111.2 € 14) 11. 160.4 569.6 1053.4 gg 4 ,�, 41,16) $ 5.5 49.2 136.0 > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1."5 1.._b 1_:a 0 1 4.67 5.5 1.91 3.7 7.57 >99 ®E 6 1 3.33 5.0 2.15 1.23 8.52 26.50 OR 4 1 2.0 4.5 2.39 0.74* 9.47 13.51 OR 2 1 0.67 4.0 2.63 0.53* 10.42 0.9 OR Note: * value does NOT MEET design criterion J(2 occurrences) Detailed Results of Internal Stability nal sy es: SRW unit Geosyn Type Elev (ft) Allowable Strength (Tensile Load Pullout Capacity Sliding Force Sliding Capacity # (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lhs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) i3 a 6 9 1 1 1 4.67 3.33 2.0 02.2 82.2 82.2 22.2 66.7 111.2 € 14) 11. 160.4 569.6 1053.4 gg 4 ,�, 41,16) $ 5.5 49.2 136.0 p :d;; F. r -'y .d- 769.5 1308.x+ �`,� =' 1847.3 1L CS ? U 2 1 0.67 82.2 55.7 1622.9 26(3.0 2386.2 c} Note; calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Moment and Shear•): SRW Heel Geo Drive Resist Shear Shear SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) Type Moment Page 5 LN 0511135 Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs-ft/ft) Results of Facing Stability Analyses: (lbs/ft) a 4.67 1 SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS Shear FOS Connection Unit Elev Type Over- Shear (deformation) Connection (deformation) # (ft) none turning (peak) 0.0 (peak) 600.0 6 3.33 > 1.5 > 1.5 < 0.02 x Hu > 1.5 < 0.75 in 4.67 1 36.42 >99 OK 57.09 OK 7 4.0 none 15.11 - 1 - 590.9 6 3.33 1 7.74 27.7 OK 2 0 , 1.121 266.9 5 2.67 none 5.39 - 2 - 1 4 2.0 1 3.88 18.98 OK 12,73 OK 3 1.33 none 3.11 - 1220.0 - 2 0,67 1 2.52 15.63 OK 9.56 OK 1 0.0 none 2.15 - - Note; calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Moment and Shear•): SRW Heel Geo Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear Unit Elev Type Moment Moment Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) a 4.67 1 22.2 1269.7 +out -in (peak) (deformation) 1 4.67 1 1.2 45.0 5.6 590.0 590.0 7 4.0 none 9.9 149.3 0.0 680.0 600.0 6 3.33 1 33.4 258.1 27.8 770.0 770,,0 5 2.67 none 79.1 226.3 0.0 860.0 860.0 4 2.0 1 154.4 590.9 50.0 950.0 950.0 3 1.33 none 266.9 830.8 0.0 1040.0 1040.0 2 0,67 1 423.8 1067.3 72.3 1130.0 113�0.0 1 0.0 none 632.6 1363.0 0.0 1220.0 1220.0 Detailed Results of Facinq Stability Analyses (Connectiopr),f SRW Heel Geo Connection Connection Connection Unit Elev Type Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs1ft) (peak) (deformation) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) a 4.67 1 22.2 1269.7 1269.7 6 3.33 1 66.7 1342.4 1342.4 4 2.0 1 111.2 1415.1 141b ,'1 2 0.67 1 155.7 1487.9 1407.9 Page 6 .'er 3.22 April 2002) Project Identification: Project Name: SFR 8040 CYRUS WAY, EDMONDS Section: 5 FT TALL - STATIC LOADING Data Sheet: Owner* MARK SCMITZ Client: Prepared by:J S LIU Date: September 29 201-4 Time: 10:42:29 PM Data file: c:\pxogram files\srwall32\14-096-7fttall- staticloading-cyruswaysfr-e f 3 SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 1 LN 0511135 Licensed to: Liu & Associates Inc. 19213 Kenlake Place NE Kenmore 90020 License Number: 0511135 Project identification: Project Name: SFR 5040 CYRUS WAY, EDMONDS Section: 5 FT T - SEISMIC LOADING Data Sheet: Owner: bUkRK SCTZ Client: Prepared by: J S LIU Date: Septenber 29 2014 Time: 10:34:41 PM Data file. c:\Frog files\szwa1132\14-096-7fttall-saismicloading-cyruswayzfr-edmorids Type of Structure.Giaosynthetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology. MCNA Method A Seismic Analvsis Details: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ratio 0,20 Wall Geometry. Design Wall Height (ft) 5.33 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 0.67 Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 4.66 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units a Hinge Height (ft) 5.33 Wall Inclination (degrees) 403 SRWall (ver 3022 April 2002) LN 0511135 Slopes: Front Slope (degrees) Back Slope (degrees) Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge Dead Load Surcharge Soil Data: Soil Description; Friction Cohesion Angle (psf) (degrees) Reinforced Soil silty sand N/A Retained Soil silty sand N/A Levelling Pad Soil gravel N/A Foundation Soil gravelly silty sand 0,0 Segmental Unit Name: Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) none Unit Height (Hu)(in) 8,0 Unit Width (Wu)(in) 12,0 Unit Length (in) 18.0 Setback (in) 0.6 Weight (infilled) (lbs) 13590 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 135,0 Center of Gravity (in) 6.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Page 2 Unit Weight (pcf) Properties Ultimate Strength Criteria Service State Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45>0 45,0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.3 2000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 5 HDPE geosynthetic 2 0 PET geosynthatic 3 0 PP goosynthetic ...._............ SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) ISN 0511135 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Ultimate Strength (lbs/ft) Polymer Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 3700.0 2625.0 5300.0 PE or PP polyester HDPE or PP Reduction Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Creep (=1.00 for seismic analysis) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Durability 2.00 2.00 2.00 Installation Damage 3.00 3.00 3.00 Overall Factor of Safety 1.50 1.50 1.50 (Dynamic) Allowable Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ta (lbs/ft) 411.11 291.67 500.09 Coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ci 0.7 0.9 0.7 Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Cds 0.95 0.95 0.95 Connection Strength„ Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 1233.3 875.0 1766.7 Friction Angle (degrees) 22.0 22.0 22.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 1050.0 1312.5 2650.0 Service State Criterion: 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 Minimum (lbs/ft) 1233.3 075.0 1766.9 Friction Angle (degrees) 22.0 22.0 22.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 1050.0 131.2.5 2650.0 Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45.0 45.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45.0 45.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 Page 3 SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) IN 0511135 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Seismic Coefficent (k(int)) Seismic Coefficent W ext)) Reinforced Soil (static) (Ka) Reinforced Soil (static) (Ka horizontal component) Reinforced Soil (static + dynamic) (Kae) Reinforced Soil (static + dynamic) (Kaeh horizontal component) Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) Retained Soil (static) (Ka) Retained Soil (static) (Kah horizontal component) Retained Soil (static + dynamic) (Kae) Retained Soil (static + dynamic) (Kaeh horizontal component) Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) Results of External Stability (Seismic) Analyses: Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Anal Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Bearing Capacity (psf) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Results of Internal Stability (Seismic) Analyses: `�. Page 4 Design Criteria 1.1 Obi 1.15 OK 1,5 O 3.2 OK N/A N/A 0.6 0K Calculated Values: 508>4 33,46.7 2206.2 1284.8 7592.0 18024.0 701.6 SRW Geosyn E1ev Length Anchor FOS FOS FOS Layer Unit Type (ft) (ft) Length Over- Pullout Sliding Spacing #r (ft) stress (ft) > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.1 > 1.1 < 2.5 8 1 4.67 6.0 2.41 2.32 1.2 20.72 OK 6 1 3.33 5.5 2.65 2.07 3.53 9.59 OK 4 1 2.0 5.0 2.09 1.86 5.78 6.82 OK 2 1 0.67 4,5 3.13 1.7 7.97 5.41 OFC Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Note: Seismic analysis may not give the lowest factors of safety for FOS against reinforcement over -stress in internal stabilty calculations, Be sure to check current design using static analysis option. Calculated FOS Sliding 3.89 FOS Overturning 5.91 FOS Bearing Capacity 2.3.06 Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 4.5 Base Eccentricity (e)(ft) 0.24 Base Eccentricity Ratio (e/L-2e) 0.06 Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) 0,04 Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Anal Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Bearing Capacity (psf) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Results of Internal Stability (Seismic) Analyses: `�. Page 4 Design Criteria 1.1 Obi 1.15 OK 1,5 O 3.2 OK N/A N/A 0.6 0K Calculated Values: 508>4 33,46.7 2206.2 1284.8 7592.0 18024.0 701.6 SRW Geosyn E1ev Length Anchor FOS FOS FOS Layer Unit Type (ft) (ft) Length Over- Pullout Sliding Spacing #r (ft) stress (ft) > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.1 > 1.1 < 2.5 8 1 4.67 6.0 2.41 2.32 1.2 20.72 OK 6 1 3.33 5.5 2.65 2.07 3.53 9.59 OK 4 1 2.0 5.0 2.09 1.86 5.78 6.82 OK 2 1 0.67 4,5 3.13 1.7 7.97 5.41 OFC Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Note: Seismic analysis may not give the lowest factors of safety for FOS against reinforcement over -stress in internal stabilty calculations, Be sure to check current design using static analysis option. SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) µr. Page 5 LN 051113.E Detailed Results of Internal Stability Analyses: FOS FOS Shear SRW Geosyn Elev Allowable Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding Connection Unit Type (ft) Strength Load Capacity Force Capacity 481.6 # 0.2 860.0 (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 8 4.67 1 1.59 6.68 OR 7.10 OR 7 4.0 none 3.19 >99 OR - y � ) 1 8 1 9.67 411.1 176.9 212.4 38.6 799.4 2.71 6 4 1 1 3.33 2.0 411.1 411.1 190.7 220.5 700.@ 1273.8 145.7 292.8 1396.1 1996.6 8.82 2 1 0.67 411.1 242.2 1931.4 979.9 2595.6 OR Results of Facinq Stability (Seismic) Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS Shear FOS Connection Unit Elev Type Over- Shear (deformation) Connection (deformation) # (ft) 96.7 turning (peak) 5 2.67 (peak) 481.6 1303.3 0.2 860.0 > 1.1 > 1.1 < 0.02 x HU > 1.1 < 0.75 in 8 4.67 1 1.59 6.68 OR 7.10 OR 7 4.0 none 3.19 >99 OR - - 6 3.33 1 2.62 7.96 OR 6.76 OR 5 2.67 none 2.71 >99 OR - - 4 2.0 1 2.49 8.82 OR 6.42 OR 3 1.33 none 2.49 >99 OR - - 2 0.67 1 2.36 9.52 OR 6.14 OR 1 0.0 none 2.34 >9 OR - - @dote: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Moment and Shear): SRW Heel Geo Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear Unit Elev Type Moment Moment Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) +out -in (peak) (deformation) 8 4.67 1 28.3 45.0 85.8 590.0 590.0 7 4.0 none 115.6 368.6 0.1 680.0 680.0 6 3.33 1 265.5 696.6 96.7 770.0 770.0 5 2.67 none 481.6 1303.3 0.2 860.0 860.0 4 2.0 1 767.7 1914.4 107.7 950.0 950.0 3 1.33 none 1127.3 2804.2 0.2 1040.0 1040.0 2 0.67 1 1564.0 3698.4 118.7 1130.0 1130.0 1 0.0 none 2081.4 4871.2 0.3 1220.0 1220.0 Detailed Results of Facinq Stability Analyses (Connections): SRW Heel Geo Connection Connection Connection Unit Elev Type Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs/ft) (peak) (deformation) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 8 4.67 1 176.9 1269.7 1269.7 6 3.33 1 198.7 1342.4 1342.4 4 2.0 1 220.5 1415.1 1415.1 2 0.67 1 242.2 1487.9 1487.9 SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 6 LN 0511135 Project Identification: Project Name: SFR 8040 CYRUS WAY, EDMONDS Section: 5 FT TALL - SEISMIC LOADING Data Sheet® Owner: MARK SCHMITZ Clients Prepared by:J S LIU Date; September 29 2014 Time: 10:34:41 PM Data filed c:\program files\ rwall \14-096-7 hall -say icload n r® SRWall (-ver 3.22 April 2002) LN 0511135 Licensed to: Liu & Associates Inc. 19213 Keniake Place NE Kenmore VM 9€028 License Number: 0511135 Page 1 Project Identification: Project Name: SFR 8040 CYRUS WAY, EDMONDs Section: 7 FT T - STATIC LOADING Data Sht; Owner: BLAM SC TZ Client: Prepared by: J S LI Date: September 29 2014 Time: 10.39:40 PM Data file; c:\program files\srwa1132\14-096-7ft ll -soil 'cloa 'ng- awaysfr- onds Type of Structure: Geos etia-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: MCMA Method A Seismic Analysis Details-- Peak etails_ Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ratio 0.00 Wall Geometry; Design Wall Height (ft) 7.3 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 0.67 Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 6.56 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units 11 Hinge Height (ft) 7.33 Wall Inclination (degrees) 4.3 SRWa 11� (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 2 LN 0511135 Slopes; Front Slope (degrees) horizontal Back Slope (degrees) horizontal Uniformly Distributed Surch'a3r_s9: Live Load Surcharge none Dead Load Surcharge none Segmental Unit Name: Segmental Unit Data; Cap Height (in) none Unit Height (Hu)(in) Frictian Unit Width 30 4 Unit Length (in) Cohesion Angle Unit Weight Soil Data: Soil Description; (psf) (degrees) (pcf) Reinforced Soil silty sand N/A 36.0 130.0 Retained Soil silty sand N/A 34„0 125.0 Levelling Pad Soil gravel N/A 40.0 135.0 Foundation Soil gravelly silty sand 0.0 36.0 130.0 Segmental Unit Name: Segmental Unit Data; Cap Height (in) none Unit Height (Hu)(in) 8.0 Unit Width 30 4 Unit Length (in) la Setback (in) 0.'6 Weight (infilled) (lbs) 135.0 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 135.0 Center of Gravity (in) 6.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Date. Properties Ultimate Strength Criteria Service Stale fr..i;Y,pr)a Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and NumboLc Type Number Name 1 5 HDPE geosynthetic 2 0 PET geosynthetic 3 0 PP geosynthatic SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) LN 0511135 Geosynthetics Properties; Strength and Polymer Type. Ultimate Strength (lbs/ft) Polymer Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 3700.0 2625.0 5300.0 PE or PP polyester HDPE oz- VP Reduction Factors: Type 'l Type .2 "1'y{yds ,3 Creep 5.00 2.50 5'.0'0 Durability 2.00 2.00 2.00 Installation Damage 3.00 3.00 3.00 overall Factor of Safety 1.50 1.50 1.50 Allowable Strength: Type 1 Typu 2 Ta (lbs/ft) 82.22 116.67 117m"7 Coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ci 0.7 0.7 0,7 Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 7'1y 0 .: Cds 0.95 0.95 0.95 Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 1233.3 075.0 1766.7 Friction Angle (degrees) 22.0 22.0 22.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 1850.0 1312.5 2650.0 Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 12.33.3 075.0 1766.7 Friction Angle (degrees) 22.0 22.0 22.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 1850.0 1312.5 2650.0 Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion; Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45.0 45.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45.0 45.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 200®.0 2€00.0 Page 3 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) LN 0511135 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Oriont'utioiisa Reinforced Soil (Ka) Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) Retained Soil (Ka) Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) Results of External Stability Analyses: Mote. calculated values MEET ALL design criteria t" Page 4 o. X66 0.192 57.79 0.227 0.197 ,95,..43 Design Criteria 1.5 0K , »i &A _5 OK 4,4 OK N/A 0.6 OK Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculate Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) 661.9 Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) 4326.7 Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) 3143.5 Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 1617.9 Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 1v.=i Bearing Capacity (psf) 107.7 Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) 1023e. Results of Internal Stability Analyses. SRW Geosyn Elev Calculated FOS Sliding FOS 4.75 FOS Overturning Type 6a FOS Bearing Capacity Over- 10,33 Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 4.5 Base Eccentricity (e)(ft) O. Base Eccentricity Ratio (e/L-2e) 0.03 Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) 0.61 Mote. calculated values MEET ALL design criteria t" Page 4 o. X66 0.192 57.79 0.227 0.197 ,95,..43 Design Criteria 1.5 0K , »i &A _5 OK 4,4 OK N/A 0.6 OK Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculate Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) 661.9 Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) 4326.7 Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) 3143.5 Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 1617.9 Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 1v.=i Bearing Capacity (psf) 107.7 Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) 1023e. Results of Internal Stability Analyses. SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS FOS FOS Layer Unit Type (ft) (ft) Length Over- Pullout Sliding Spacing # 82.2 6 1 (ft) stress 4 1 (ft) 02.2 2 1 0.67 > 1.0 > 1.0 >1.9 > 1. PC V.. 10 1 6.0 6.5 2.17 J1: 7,615 50 .0K 8 1 4.67 6.0 2.41 0.92* 9.55 19.3,9' % 6 1 3.33 5.5 2.650.62¢ 1.0.5 11.66 0K 4 1 2.0 5.0 2.09 0.46* i 11.45 8.27 or, 2 1 0.67 4.5 3.13 0.37*,r 12.41 6.39 or, Note: * value does NOT UCET design criterionj(4 occurrences) Detailed Results of Internal Stabilit SRW Geosyn Elev Allowable Unit Type (ft) Strength (lbs/ft) 10 1 6.0 02.2 8 1 4.67 82.2 6 1 3.33 82.2 4 1 2.0 02.2 2 1 0.67 82.2 Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding Load Capacity Force Capacity (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (1 '3/ft:) (lbs/ft) Iw o W �0 (' I � �, ' -761 Al" 50,0 302.6 21.9 )_%s 89.0 849.0 07.5 1697.5 133.4 1401,6 196.9 2296.2 177.9 2036.1 350.1 28U4 q 222.4 2759.2 547.0 3193.6 SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 5 LN 0511135 Results of Facinct Stability Analyse-? SRW Heel Geosynthetic Fos FOS Shear FOS Connection Unit Elev Type Over- Shear (deformation) Connection (deformation) # (ft) turning (pe"') (lbs/ft) (peak) (lbs/ft) 10 6.0 1 > 1.5 > 1.5 < 0.02 x Hu > 1.5 < 0.75 in 11 6.67 none 36.42 >99 OR - 0.0 10 6.0 1 9.56 30.57 OR 26.1 OR 9 5.33 none 6-100 203.3 0.0 770.0 770.0 a 4.67 1 4.0 22.1 OR 15.5 OR 7 4.0 none 3.1`1 - 0.0 - 950.0 6 3.33 1 2.5 17.0 OR 10.08 ON 5 2.67 none 2,13 - 0.0 1130.0 1130.0 4 2.0 1 1.81 14.63 OR 8.57 OR 3 1.33 none 1.6 - 0.0 - .1,319;0 2 0.67 1 1.42* 13.25 OR 7.10 OR 1 0.0 none 1.20* - 0.0 - 2 490 w n Note: * value does NOT MEET design criterion (2 occurrences) Detailed Results of Facinq Stability Analyses (Moment and Shear): SRW Heel Geo Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear Unit Elev Type Moment Moment Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 10 6.0 1 50.0 1306.1 +out -in (peak) ?deiorination) 11 6.67 nom 1.2 45.0 5.6 590.0 0.0 10 6.0 1 9.9 94.5 22.2 &au :Q W; .0 9 5.33 none 33.4 203.3 0.0 770.0 770.0 a 4.67 1 79.1 316.6 3B.9 060.0 860.0 7 4.0 none 154.4 489.3 0.0 950.0 950.0 6 3,33 1 266.9 666.4 61.2 1040.0 1040.0 5 2.67 none 423.8 902.8 0.0 1130.0 1130.0 4 2.0 1 632.6 1143a 03.4 '122t, .0 3 1.33 none 900.7 1444.0 0.0 1310.0 .1,319;0 2 0.67 1 1235.6 1748,8 105.6 1400J) IV30.A) 1 0.0 none 1644.6 2112.9 0.0 1490.0 2 490 w n Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Connections): SRW Heel Geo Connection Connection Connection Unit Elev Type Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs/ft) (peak) (deformation) 10 6.0 1 50.0 1306.1 .1305.1 4.67 1 09.0 1378.9 LMA? 6 3.33 1 133.4 1451,5 1451.5 A 2.0 1 177.9 1524.2 1524.2 2 0.67 1 222.4 1597.0 1597.0 SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) i Page 6 LAI 0511135 Project Identification Project Name: SPR 8040 CYRUS WAY, EDMOWS Section: 7 FT TALL - STXC LOADING Data Sheet: Owner: MARK SCHNITZ Client:: Prepared by: S LIU Date. September 29. 2Q1.A Time: 10:39:40 PM Data file: c:\program files\srwall32\14-096-7fttall-seismicloading-eyruswaysfr- SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) � j'"` Page 1 LN 0511135 Licensed to: Liu & Associates Xnc. 1921.3 Kenlake Places NE Kenmore WA 98028 License Number; 0511135 Project Identification: Project Name: SFR 8040 CYRUS WAY, EDMONDS Section: i FT T ® SEISMIC LOADING Data Sheet: Owner: VARK SC TZ Clients Prepared by: J S LIU Date: September 29 2014 Time: 10:34:41 PM Data file. c:\program Files\s &1132\14-096--` ft ll-seis clo ding® swaysfr-e onds Type of Structure, os etic-Reinforced Segmental Re ming Wall Design Methodology: NC14A Method A Seismic Analvsis Details: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ratio 0.20 Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) 7.33 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 0.67 Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 6.66 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units 11 Hinge Height (ft) 7.33 Wall Inclination (degrees) 4.3 Slopes® Front Slope (degrees) horizontal Back Slope (degrees), horizontal SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) LN 0511135 Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge none Dead Load Surcharge none Seamental Unit Name; Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) Saone Unit Height (Hu)(in) Friction Unit Width (Wu)(in) 1200 Cohesion Angle Soil Data: Soil Description. (psf) (degrees) Reinforced Soil silty sand N/A 36.0 Retained Soil silty sand N/A 34,0 Levelling Pad Soil gravel. N/A 40,0 Foundation Soil gravelly salty sand 0.0 36.0 Seamental Unit Name; Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) Saone Unit Height (Hu)(in) 8.0 Unit Width (Wu)(in) 1200 Unit Length (in) 18.0 Setback (in) 046 Weight (infilled) (lbs) 135.0 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 135,0 Center of Gravity (in) 6®0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Page 2 Unit Weight (pc¢) 130°0 125.0 1.35.0 130.0 Properties Ultimate Strength Criteria Service State Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500,0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45„0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 5 HDPE gees .tic 2 0 PET geosynthatic 3 0 PP gens .tic Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Ultimate Strength (lbs/ft) Polymer Type Type 1 Type 2 3700.0 2625.0 HDPE or PP polyester Type 3 5300,0 PE or PLS Geos_yD LheLic-Segmen Lai Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type I Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion. - SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) Minimum (lbs/ft) Page 3 LAT 0511135 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) Reduction Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Creep (=1.00 for seismic analysis) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Durability 2.00 2.00 2.00 Installation Damage 3.00 3.00 3.00 Overall Factor of Safety 1.50 1.50 1.50 (Dynamic) Allowable Strength; Type I Type 2 Type 3 Ta (lbs/ft) 411.11 291.67 588.89 Coefficient of Interaction. Type I Type 2 Type 3 Ci 0.7 0.7 0.7 Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type I Type 2 Type 3 Cds 0.95 0.95 0.95 Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 1233.3 875.0 1766.7 Friction Angle (degrees) 22.0 22.0 22.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 1850.0 1312.5 2650.0 Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 1233.3 875.0 1766.7 Friction Angle (degrees) 22.0 22.0 22.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 1850.0 1312.5 2650.0 Geos_yD LheLic-Segmen Lai Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type I Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion. - Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45.0 45.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 Service State Criterion. Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45.0 45,0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 SRWall (ver 3022 April 2002) LN 0511135 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations; Seismic Coefficent (k(int)) Seismic Coefficent (k(ext)) Reinforced Soil (static) (Ka) Reinforced Soil (static) (Ka horizontal component) Reinforced Soil (static + dynamic) (Kae) Reinforced Soil (static + dynamic) (Kaeh horizontal component) Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) Retained Soil (static) (Ka) Retained Soil (static) (Kah horizontal component) Retained Soil (static + dynamic) (Kae) Retained Soil (static + dynamic) (Kaeh horizontal component) Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) Results of External Stability (Seismic) Analvses: Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analvses: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Bearing Capacity (psf) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Results of Internal Stability (Seismic) Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS FOS unit Type (ft) (ft) Length Over- Pullout # (ft) stress > 1,0 > 1.0 > 1.1 Page 4 Design Criteria 1,1 OK 1.15 OK las OAC 4.4 Obi N/A N/A 0.6 O Calculated Values: FOS Layer Sliding Spacing (ft) > 1.1 < 2.5 10 1 6.0 6.5 2.17 1.2 1.12 9.8 OK 8 1 4.67 6.0 2.41 1.61 3.33 6.43 OK 6 1 3.33 5.5 2,65 1.49 5.06 5.03 OK 4 1 2.0 5,0 2.89 1.38 6.89 4.21 OK 2 1 0.67 4.5 3.13 1.28 0.61 3.64 OK Notes calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Note: Seismic analysis may not give the lowest factors of safety for FOS against reinforcement over -stress in internal stabilty calculations. Be sure to check current design using static analysis option. Calculated FOS Sliding 2.83 FOS Overturning 3,23 FOS Bearing Capacity 12.8 Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 4.5 Base Eccentricity (e)(ft) 0:52 Base Eccentricity Ratio (e/L-2e) 0.15 Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) 0.61 Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analvses: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Bearing Capacity (psf) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Results of Internal Stability (Seismic) Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS FOS unit Type (ft) (ft) Length Over- Pullout # (ft) stress > 1,0 > 1.0 > 1.1 Page 4 Design Criteria 1,1 OK 1.15 OK las OAC 4.4 Obi N/A N/A 0.6 O Calculated Values: FOS Layer Sliding Spacing (ft) > 1.1 < 2.5 10 1 6.0 6.5 2.17 1.2 1.12 9.8 OK 8 1 4.67 6.0 2.41 1.61 3.33 6.43 OK 6 1 3.33 5.5 2,65 1.49 5.06 5.03 OK 4 1 2.0 5,0 2.89 1.38 6.89 4.21 OK 2 1 0.67 4.5 3.13 1.28 0.61 3.64 OK Notes calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Note: Seismic analysis may not give the lowest factors of safety for FOS against reinforcement over -stress in internal stabilty calculations. Be sure to check current design using static analysis option. SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) LN 0511135 Detailed Results of internal Stabilitv Analvses: Page SRW Geosyn Elev Allowable Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding Unit Type (ft) Strength Load Capacity Force Capacity # (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 3 10 1 6.0 411.1 16_4� . 7 382.6 112.1 1098.7 1 a 1 4.67 411.1 '255.0 0 849.8 264.1 1697.5 6 1 3.33 411.1 276.0 1401.6 456.2 2296.2 '3 4 1 2.0 411.1 298.5 2038.1 688.1 2994.9 2 1 0.67 411.1 3201�3 2759.2 960.0 3493.6 Results of Facing Stability (Seismic) Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic Fos FOS Shear FOS Connection Unit Elev Type Over- Shear (deformation) Connection (deformation) # (ft) turning (peak) (peak) > 1.1 > 1.1 < 0.02 x Hu > 1.1 < 0.75 an 11 6.67 none 1.25 5.44 OR - 10 6.0 1 0.65* 3.06 OK 3.82 OR 9 5.33 none 1.27 >99 OR - a 4.67 1 1.25 6.88 OR 5.41 OR 7 4.0 none 1.43 >99 OR - 6 3.33 1 1.42 7.65 OR 5.24 OR 5 2.67 none 1.49 >99 OR - 4 2.0 1 1.47 8.31 OR 5.11 OR 3 1.33 none 1.5 >99 OR - 2 0.67 1 1.49 8.87 OR 4.99 OR 1 0.0 none 1.5 >99 OR - Note: * value does NOT MEET design criterion (1 occurrences) Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Froment and Shear) : SRW Heel Geo Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear Unit Elev Type I -foment Moment Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) +out -in (peak) (deformation) il 6.67 none 35.9 45.0 108.5 590.0 590.0 10 6.0 1 145.0 94.5 222.4 680.0 680.0 9 5.33 none 333.6 422.6 0.1 770.0 770.0 a 4.67 1 602.7 755.1 124.9 860.0 060.0 7 4.0 none 956.9 1366.3 0.2 950.0 950.0 6 3.33 1 1399.7 1981.9 135.9 1040.0 1040.0 5 2.67 none 1934.8 2876.2 0.3 1130.0 1130.0 A 2.0 1 2565.0 3774,9 146.0 1220.0 1220.0 3 1.33 none 3296.4 4952.2 0.3 1310.0 1310.0 2 0.67 1 4130.1 6134.0 157.8 1400.0 1400.0 1 0.0 none 5070.6 7594.4 0.4 1490.0 1490.0 SRWall (ver 3. 22 April 2002) Page 6 LN 0511135 Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Connections) : SRW Heel Geo Connection Connection Connection Unit Elev Type Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs/ft) (peak) (deformation) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 10 6.0 1 341.7 1306.1 1306.1 a 4.67 1 255.0 1378.8 1378.8 6 3.33 1 276.8 1451.5 1451.5 4 2.0 1 298.5 1524.2 1524.2 2 0.67 1 320.3 1597.0 1597.0 SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page % LN 0511135 Project Identification: Project Name., SPR 8040 CYRUS WAY, EDMONDS Section., `i FT TALL - SEISMIC LOADING Data Sheet., Owner., b9kRK SC TE Client, Prepared by:j S LIU Date., September 29 2014 Time; 10:34:41 PM Data f_ilea c:\program it \ 113 `14®096-7 ll- seas clow i - rug r-