The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2 parcels - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 12/23/2009 l � PO Box 44840 Tacoma WA 98448 253-537-9400 253-537-9401 fax E3RA December 23,2009 T09108 Dick and Patty Funk 9015 172nd Avenue NE Redmond,Washington 98052 (425)466-9885 Subject: Geotechnical Report Parcel#'s 12108-42-00140 and 12108-42-00052 462 East Stretch Island Drive South Mason County,Washington Dear Mr.and Mrs.Funk: E3RA is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Report for your two-parcel residential site. The purpose of our Report is to address Title 17 of Mason County Critical Areas Ordinances as they relate to landslide and erosion hazards on the site. Plans call for building a new stairway down a bluff to the shoreline of Case Inlet. Our scope of services is limited to surface observations, subsurface hand borings, geologic research, and letter preparation. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Dick and Patty Funk, and their consultants, for specific application to this project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practice. 1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is a roughly trapezoidal tract comprised of two adjacent tax parcels that together encompass about 5 acres. The site measures slightly less than 700 feet east to west and slightly more than 300 feet north to south. It is located on west side of Stretch Island on the shore of the North Bay part of Case Inlet, as shown on our Topographic and Location Map (Figure 1). The site is in an area of residential parcels and open land. Plans call for the construction of new stairway down a steep,approximately 60 foot high bluff that slopes down to the shoreline of Case Inlet. The stairway will be built on the west-central part of the site. It will replace an existing stairway located on the northwest comer of the site. The existing stairway,which was originally based on shallow foundations,was damaged by surficial land sliding and erosion that occurred during the torrential rainfall of early December 2007. After the existing stairway was damaged, it was repaired, but then it was decided that a new stairway, located away from the existing stairway in an area where slopes are can be negotiated and surface water is not likely to flow down the bluff face, should be built. It was also decided that the new stairway should be based on deeper foundations so that if damage occurs to above-grade elements of the new stairway from surficial land r December 23, 2009 ORA, Inc. T09108/Funk Geotechnical Report water does flow over the bluff down to the construction area, we anticipate that curbs, berms, or ditches placed on the upland will adequately intercept surface water runoff. Slone Protection: A hardy vegetative groundcover should be established as soon as feasible, to further protect the gently-sloped from the potential from runoff water erosion. Alternatively, permanent slopes could be armored with quarry spalls or a geosynthetic erosion mat. 4.2 Pin Piles Pin piles are planned to support the stairway. The following recommendations and comments are offered for pin pile design and installation purposes. Materials: For relatively low loads, pin piles typically consist of 2-inch-diameter Schedule-80 (2.375-inch O.D.)steel pipe. Individual pipe segments typically range from about 3 to 5 feet long and are successively joined with external threaded couplings, internal slip couplings,or butt welds as pile driving progresses. Corrosion Considerations: Although we did not perform corrosivity tests on the site soils, our experience with similar soils indicates a low probability that the site soils are corrosive to steel. Consequently, we infer that conventional Schedule-80 pipe can be used for pin piles. We recommend the use of galvanized pipe due to the proximity of salt water at this location. Driving Procedures: We tentatively anticipate that the pin piles will first encounter bearing soils, comprised of in situ bluff soils,at fairly shallow depths just below the top of the bluff,but at much greater depths on the down slope part of the stairway alignment, where the overlying loose colluvium is thought to be relatively thick. Piles should be driven to refusal, which is defined as 1 inch or less penetration in 1 minute. However, because refusal depths are difficult to predict and because soil conditions could vary significantly across the site, the contractor should be prepared for variable pile lengths. Also, it may be necessary to modify pile layouts if rocks or other obstructions are encountered during pile-driving. Pile Butt Treatment: When refusal has been achieved, the pile butts can be cut off to a predetermined height or elevation. To provide a good bond between the piles and the concrete pile caps,reinforcing bars with 90-degree bends can be welded to the top of the pile,plate connector or equivalent, or,alternatively, the top of the pile can be splayed apart. Axial Load Capacities: In our opinion, a properly installed 2-inch-diameter pin pile driven to refusal will provide the following allowable axial capacities. These capacities assume a minimum pile spacing (center to center) of six diameters. Furthermore,the stated uplift capacities would be applicable only to pin piles that are installed with tension-resisting couplings. Design Parameter Allowable Value Static Compressive Capacity 4,000 pounds Transient Compressive Capacity 5,300 pounds Transient Uplift Capacity 2,600 pounds 9 i GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PARCEL #S 12108-42-00140 AND 12108-42-00052 462 EAST STRETCH ISLAND DR S MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Submitted to: Dick and Patty Funk 9015 172nd Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 Submitted by: E3RA, Inc. PO Box 44840 Tacoma, WA 98448 December 23, 2009 , x f. e. T09108 f da _ rvA Tk... c TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................1 2.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS................................................................................................2 2.1 Hand Boring Procedures ..........................................................................................3 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS..............................................................................................................3 3.1 Surface Conditions...................................................................................................3 3.2 Soil Conditions..........................................................................................................4 3.3 Groundwater Conditions...........................................................................................5 3.4 Seismic Conditions...................................................................................................5 3.5 Liquefaction Potential ..............................................................................................5 3.6 Slope Stability Analysis ............................................................................................5 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................6 4.1 Site Preparation.........................................................................................................8 4.2 Pin Piles ..................................................................................................................9 5.0 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES .....................................................................10 6.0 CLOSURE..........................................................................................................................11 List of Tables Table 1. Approximate Locations and Depths of Explorations......................................................................2 Table 2. Estimated Properties of Onsite Soils for Stability Analysis............................................................6 List of Figures Figure 1. Topographic and Location Map Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. Geologic Cross Section A-A' APPENDIX A Soils Classification Chart and Key to Test Data .......................................................................................A-1 Logs of Hand Borings HB-1 and HB-2 .............................................................................................A-2...A-3 APPENDIX B Slope Stability Analysis i r PO Box 44840 Tacoma WA 98448 253-537-9400 253-537-9401fax E3RA, December 23,2009 T09108 Dick and Patty Funk 9015 172nd Avenue NE Redmond,Washington 98052 (425)466-9885 Subject: Geotechnical Report Parcel#'s 12108-42-00140 and 12108-42-00052 462 East Stretch Island Drive South Mason County, Washington Dear Mr. and Mrs.Funk: E3RA is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Report for your two-parcel residential site. The purpose of our Report is to address Title 17 of Mason County Critical Areas Ordinances as they relate to landslide and erosion hazards on the site. Plans call for building a new stairway down a bluff to the shoreline of Case Inlet. Our scope of services is limited to surface observations, subsurface hand borings, geologic research, and letter preparation. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Dick and Patty Funk, and their consultants, for specific application to this project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practice. 1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is a roughly trapezoidal tract comprised of two adjacent tax parcels that together encompass about 5 acres. The site measures slightly less than 700 feet east to west and slightly more than 300 feet north to south. It is located on east side of Stretch Island on the west shore of the North Bay part of Case Inlet, as shown on our Topographic and Location Map (Figure 1). The site is in an area of residential parcels and open land. Plans call for the construction of new stairway down a steep, approximately 60 foot high bluff that slopes down to the shoreline of Case Inlet. The stairway will be built on the west-central part of the site. It will replace an existing stairway located on the northwest corner of the site. The existing stairway,which was originally based on shallow foundations,was damaged by surficial land sliding and erosion that occurred during the torrential rainfall of early December 2007. After the existing stairway was damaged, it was repaired, but then it was decided that a new stairway, located away from the existing stairway in an area where slopes are can be negotiated and surface water is not likely to flow down the bluff face, should be built. It was also decided that the new stairway should be based on deeper foundations so that if damage occurs to above-grade elements of the new stairway from suficial land December 23. 2009 E3RA, Inc. TO9108/ Funk Geotechnical Report sliding/sloughing, it is possible that all or substantial portions of the pin pile foundation would survive, so that damaged above-grade stairway elements could more easily be rebuilt. The new stairway will consist of an upland landing, based on the top of the steep bluff, and 1 I or so platforms, each of which will be supported by pin piles,that stair-step down the bluff toward the top of an existing shoreline rockery. Flights of stairs will connect the upland landing and the platforms. Pin piles will extend down to firm and non-yielding soils, and concrete, likely formed with sonotubes, will cap the pile tops. Platforms will then be connected to the concrete-capped piles. The alignment of the stairway will be directed side-hill to the southwest from the upland landing to the uppermost platforms. The alignment will then turn so that it trends directly down slope at a location where the face of the bluff is somewhat less steep than adjacent areas. It is recognized by the owner and by E3RA that the bluff is prone to surface sloughing and shallow landslides and that there can be no guarantee that future instability will not occur after the stairway is constructed and cause damage to the planned structure. Clearing will be limited to the alignment of the stairway, which will amount to the removal brush and saplings along a 5 or 6 foot wide pathway. No clearing is planned outside of the stairway alignment. 2.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS We observed site conditions on May 21, 2009 and December 7, 2009. Our evaluation program for the project comprised the following elements: • A surface reconnaissance of the site and nearby areas; • Two hand boring explorations;and • A review of published geologic and seismologic maps and literature. Table 1 summarizes the approximate functional locations and termination depths of our probes and Figure 2 depicts their approximate relative locations. TABLE 1 APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS OF EXPLORATIONS Termination Exploration Functional Location Depth (feet) HB-1 On hillside,within alignment of planned stairway, 15 to 20 feet above shoreline 6 HB-2 On hillside, within alignment of planned stairway, 30 to 40 feet above shoreline j 6 It should be realized that the explorations performed and utilized for this evaluation reveal subsurface conditions only at discrete locations across the project site and that actual conditions in other areas could vary. Furthermore, the nature and extent of any such variations would not become evident until additional explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. If significant variations are observed at that time,we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to reflect the actual site conditions. 2 4 TOPO! map printed on 12/17/09 from "Untitled,tpo" 122051,000' W 122050.000' W WGS84 1221149,000' W Z a O �� - y 00 O N t �� . N • f" •{ 1^'i �v STR EA POINT a � �7 J i 3'V J � .� err y. •-� "�t �� /�` ko LJ • r rV:ih«. 122051,000' W 122050.000, W WGS84 122049,000' W TN MN U S 1 MILE 17'/P 1000 FEET 0 sw 1000 METRS Map created with TOPO10 @2003 National Geographic(www.nationalgeograpl ie.comltopo) E3RA, Inc. FUNK GEOTECH REPORT PO Box 44840 TOPOGRAPHIC AND LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 Tacoma, WA 98448 T09108 MASON COUNTY. WASHINGTON h NOTE: NO SETBACK FROM VEGETATED BUFFER AREA OR LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA RECOMMENDED FOR PROPOSED t STAIRWAY. L — —679,8' — I / EXISTING ( / / �Ut PUDDLE ] PR❑P❑:SED STAIRCASE o / Q N G � � / EXIST � DRAI IELD / ujti W E r EXISTING HOME ' .V / A 698.21 LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA AND VEGETATED BUFFER AREA HAND B❑RING L❑CATI❑N HB-1 PROJECT: 462 E Stretch Island Dr S ® E3RAInc. Stretch Island, Washington 201 - 160th St. S SHEET TITLE: Site and Exploration Plan NOTE: 60 0 60 120 Suite 401 BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHY ARE BASED ON MMMME1 Tacoma, WA 98444 DESIGNER: CRL JOB NO.T09108 MAPPING PROVIDED TO E3RA AND OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION SHOWN DOES NOT SCALE IN FEET 253-537-9400 DRAWN BY: CRL SCALE: 1"=60' CONSTITUTE A FIELD SURVEY BY E3RA. 253-537-9401 fax CHECKED BY: JEB FIGURE-2 www.e3ra.com DATE: 12/9/09 FILE: T09108.dwg APPENDIX A SOILS CLASSIFICATION CHART AND KEY TO TEST DATA LOGS OF TEST PITS MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAMES CLEAN GRAVELS GW WELL GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES GRAVELS WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES GP 4 a° POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES MORE THAN HALF p•.D: COARSE FRACTION SILTY GRAVELS,POORLY GRADED GRAVEL-SAND-SILT -' T IS LARGER THAN GRAVELS WITH GM MIXTURES o O 'N 0 o NO.4 SIEVE OVER 15%FINES 04 CLAYEY GRAVELS,POORLY GRADED GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY z GC MIXTURES Q w CLEAN SANDS SW '.'.'.' WELL GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SANDS SANDS WITH LITTLE O OR NO FINES SID POORLY GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SANDS MORE THAN HALF COARSE FRACTION IS SMALLER THAN SM SILTY SANDS,POOORLY GRADED SAND-SILT MIXTURES NO.4 SIEVE SANDS WITH OVER 15%FINES SC CLAYEY SANDS,POORLY GRADED SAND-CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,ROCK FLOUR, ML SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS,OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SILTS AND CLAYS SLIGHT PLASTICITY w INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, CL GRAVELLY CLAYS,SANDY CLAYS,SILTY CLAYS, LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 LEAN CLAYS 0 O o —_ o � — ORGANIC CLAYS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW OL w v = PLASTICITY z = — = INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACIOUS FINE O MH SANDY OR SILTY SOILS,ELASTIC SILTS z v SILTS AND CLAYS LL CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS 8 Modified California RV R-Value ® Split Spoon SA Sieve Analysis Pushed Shelby Tube SW Swell Test m Auger Cuttings TC Cyclic Triaxial ® Grab Sample TX Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Sample Attempt with No Recovery TV Torvane Shear CA Chemical Analysis UC Unconfined Compression CN Consolidation (1.2) (Shear Strength,ksf) CID Compaction WA Wash Analysis DS Direct Shear (20) (with%Passing No.200 Sieve) o PM Permeability �-Z Water Level at Time of Drilling PP Pocket Penetrometer 1 Water Level after Drilling(with date measured) a Cn m s SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART AND KEY TO TEST DATA Z N E3RA z Figure A-1 Z Z 0 c� J E3RA, Inc. BORING NUMBER HB-1 P.O. Box 44840 3 Tacoma,Washington 98448 PAGE 1 E RAmc. Telephone: 253-537-9400 Figuree A-2 OF 1 Fax: 253-537-9401 CLIENT Dick and Patty Funk PROJECT NAME Funk Geotech Report PROJECT NUMBER T09108 PROJECT LOCATION Mason County Washington DATE STARTED 12/7/09 COMPLETED 12/7/09 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING — LOGGED BY FER CHECKED BY JEB AT END OF DRILLING --- NOTES Lower stair alignment 15 feet above top of rockery breakwall AFTER DRILLING -- W _ LW . U ~a J U a p MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w — a° ° Q Z c7 0.0 (SM)Light brown silty fine to medium sand(loose,damp to moist)(Colluvium) a' O vi O Z K 0- OD O Z Q 2 m 0 rn H 2 U W F O w C7 Y Z LL LL 0 2.5 m 0 'w w J LL o SM 0 0 U J LL (n O U WW Uj W y Q 0 O U H _N V 0 5.0 0 c� U) z c� Bottom of borehole at 6.0 feet. a F_- x m J W Z W E3RA, Inc. BORING NUMBER HB-2 P.O. Box 44840 PAGE 1 OF 1 E3RAInc Tacoma,Washington 98448 Figure A-3 Telephone: 253-537-9400 Fax: 253-537-9401 CLIENT Dick and Patty Funk PROJECT NAME Funk Geotech Report PROJECT NUMBER T09108 PROJECT LOCATION Mason County Washington DATE STARTED 12/7/09 COMPLETED 12/7/09 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING — LOGGED BY FER CHECKED BY JEB AT END OF DRILLING -- NOTES Middle stair alignment 35 feet above top of rockery breakwall AFTER DRILLING --- W 2 a W Q-p MATERIAL DESCRIPTION W 0 � Qz CD U) 0.0 (SM)Light brown silty fine to medium sand;somewhat better consolidated below 2 feet(loose,damp to moist) (Colluvium) a c� c� z 0 m 0 z a x m 0 o, 0 r_ x U W r O w Y Z LL LL 0 2.5 01 0 w w J LL o SM m 0 co co w J LL m U WW W W N Q 0 U Q H N 5.0 6.0 N H M H Z_ C7 Bottom of borehole at 6.0 feet. a _r x m J W Z W (.7 APPENDIX B SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Geometry and Boundary Conditions Problem: T09108 Stairway 210- 200- 190- 180- 170- 6 7 160- 5 610 150- 140- 4 130- 120- 31 _ 9 . 110- 100- �. 1 90- 80- 70- 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 (Scale in Feet) Geometry and Boundary Conditions Problem: T09108 Stairway Static - FS Min = 1 .093 210- 200- 190- 180- 170 6 7 160_ 5 150- 140 - 4�� . 130- 120- 3 110- Ah 100- w1 90- 80-- 70- 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 (Scale in Feet) Geometry and Boundary Conditions Problem: T09100 Stairway Static - FS Min = 1 .093 210- 200 190- 180- 170- 6 7 160- 5 150- 140- 4 130- / 120- ' 110- 100 90 80- 70- 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 260 (Scale in Feet) Factor of Safety Distribution Histogram la 14- T CO c� 12T _ T 0 0 10= U gp � 6m o a� Cz 4 2- W' of 1 2 3 4 Factor of Safety Values result.out PCSTABL6 by Purdue University 1 --slope stability Analysis-- simplified )anbu, simplified Bishop or Spencers Method of slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: run.in Output Filename: result.out Unit: ENGLISH Plotted Output Filename: result.put PROBLEM DESCRIPTION T09108 Stairway Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 10 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 100.00 50.00 100.00 1 2 50.00 100.00 50.10 106.00 2 3 50.10 106.00 60.00 116.00 2 4 60.00 116.00 100.00 146.00 2 5 100.00 146.00 115.00 161.00 2 6 115.00 161.00 118.00 166.00 1 7 118.00 166.00 200.00 166.00 1 8 50.00 100.00 65.00 100.00 1 9 65.00 100.00 90.00 120.00 1 10 90.00 120.00 115.00 161.00 1 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 125.0 100.0 34.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 110.0 115.0 100.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 Page 1 result.out 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit weight of water = 62.40 Piezometric surface No. 1 specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 104.00 2 200.00 104.00 1 A Critical Failure surface searching Method, using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been specified. 400 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 20 surfaces Initiate From Each of 20 Points Equally spaced Along The Ground Surface Between x = 0.00 ft. and x = 80.00 ft. Each surface Terminates Between x = 85.00 ft. and x = 200.00 ft. unless Further Limitations were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line segments Define Each Trial Failure surface. 1 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure surfaces Examined. They Are ordered - Most Critical First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure surface specified By 23 coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.53 106.43 2 55.16 108.32 3 59.75 110.31 Page 2 4 NNNNNNNNHN�-+�--��-.��N�� Z� VOtn-NWNJH-J 00V011n-P1WIvHotD00V01 o.pWNF-AO -�• n rD /1 J. HwwwwwowowJ� AwFJNN}N p �i�4i� P. p p�� Q n H Lrl a)0-1 V4 00 OOoF-'N�1*NJ ww n N N N N H H H H H H H H H H -� wr�jF-AOIOOOV01tn-riLwNH0wom 1MLg41. H rD HNAtnVHO� VVO�-rh.Hwivtntntntn4pwN N NVWlOtn01•ArlJV1 ltntn•P4PVtnWOQ)NQ1lOF-AOVnrD Q IF n 001n1014a)00HONOIV0101tnf1iOOvit1ilVtnCDOowtnVOJJ. J. IF NVIDOtnHN01VIH00-NM-AVtNlOONwF-1 LnWO4�I,VilDMO < � -7�F"F-ANOOWNN0, r'-i InF-+lOVA0000Q1V7WV•P, OjM, �rf Q ZY rt rD c Z J H D wwwNNNF-'F-F-Oo1010100000VVO1Cy) V Ol w lO a11V 00 4:1,O V w 00.01 o a)N V w 00-P� OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOpO00C'O 0 -3 r+ W tD X t000w00H1�-toot0OOtD VtnwOO)Nj • V1-0 n rD r+ W Ol W to o V 00 N lOtO W H IV OO OO W N M to O CO O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rD -i W �I O TI :F- n IF ,--,Oo O W IF w OOOOOOOOOOOo000000000000000O-rt n (DD S �F FAHF-` . F-IF F F� H "F.. F"F. H., F� F"F� F F� • V1 (D -3 rD J� M 01 M to to to�.�.p W W W fV r�l N N H H F-'H 000000000000000000000000000 01.AF�V-AOV•AF"OotnNloM-rAHtO CT)411,N-3 ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rD W O V H 0)tv 00 to W rV H lV w to V H aI H OOtn w0 la 000 tD--AW m In N V CD H H IO V W OO rV m00 c /1 Z -n IV J O O V r+ w O O o O O o o O o O O O O O O o O O O O O o O O o O O t=-3 � Ln W O CD o 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 _j W c J. f"F H n /"N TI rD p J--I O to OOOOOOooO00000000o00o000000(� n W v rD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q � W J= m a a'O W �. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. \ -3 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O z I M nc rD W N < 77- .p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fD ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c n r,r =- J O W O o 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Qtfl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r FJ W J. 1l J. ru NNNNNFJ F-)F-)F-'NF--'F" z O n F-AFJ F-)F1 F- F-AF- HNF" z O J F- C)k-0 00 V 01 W N F OC)Q0 M 14 M k-n.A W N F-A O J• C -r 1D00V01tn�WNF--)OIDOOVOItn_pwNF� O J• C :3 S (D O -3 r+ (D )F rt (D )� n In )b (D N c = 3 rt -h rD -h w -3 w FJ FJ FJ F-)H FJ N F- H FJ F' N N F-�FJ F-A FJ F-A N F- VJ w W IV r1iIV F-)N O O O tO tO 00 00-4-A m l ul to ^IC (D F-A D r1iN r1i r1i �F-�O O O tO t0 00 00 00 V V O)a) n � I ((D OIWOVWOQ)r1i 00-P.CDm r1i VW00ww-ACIO-Pl� -11V) r+ VQlWO61WWInFJVW1,0tnH0)N00W00 -}1N ll'IlJ't-06N00WQlWl0 lDV'Ln --+VNO1 l0 N 4i Q,V v I N X Voo to F-+OIOw�./�VVV Q1:A Iv 00.A O to'.0u� '>O WOOVNWO�LnUjF-�VW106) Ul0011tQ1N�i -h rD tp 00wwww_P6vi00F"�1�wVn0-l00wN -I v -}i (p n n n J. J. h ) I (D )F rD 0- Q FJF- FJNF"FJFJNNHHHFJFJHNF,H F-A FJN < F"FJF"F�F"NFJF- NFJHNH F-A F"HF"F-'F" M to In In -0. ;N.w W W N N N tV F�FJ N FJ F- F'N I 07 F--) O)M Ql to to trl Jh.-P�-p..w W W N N N N N F-)F- 07 wlfltoN001�H00toIvl0al-t�,Ht0Va).PWFJO -h Ln l< al.AHVWOVWOVAH00mWHwm-916 -h(n `G 'UQOIO�ON�IOtnWNN•PVN10000004AOV01 �-/Z r1ir. OMH-Pk OwOVln�lnM(.0w 4�-,HLDO D V1 �NID1O0HVJ FJOWwMO DMWQ M41 --0 Ln00 -h N < OaIOA0)LO F-A Wtn0O r1i VWOtDONV-P� C (D n n rt O . 0 0 � N O O a 00 CL Z c J. rt to J. W W pl r+ rt a rD -D O "0 O Q 0 J. J. X r+ w rt (A Q Ln J. c Ln F, 00 to .p f result.out 22 137.92 166.00 Circle Center At x = 29.2 ; Y = 239.3 and Radius, 131.1 1.130 Failure surface specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.26 100.00 2 30.20 99.17 3 35.18 98.75 4 40.18 98.74 5 45.16 99.12 6 50.10 99.92 7 54.95 101.11 8 59.70 102.69 9 64.30 104.65 10 68.72 106.98 11 72.94 109.66 12 76.93 112.67 13 80.66 116.00 14 84.11 119.62 15 87.26 123. 51 16 90.08 127.64 17 92.55 131.99 18 94.66 136. 52 19 96.40 141.21 20 97.14 143.86 Circle Center At x = 37.9 ; Y = 160.1 and Radius, 61.4 1.150 1 Failure surface specified By 30 Coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.05 100.00 2 26.02 99.40 3 31.00 99.04 4 36.00 98.91 5 41.00 99.02 6 45.99 99.37 7 50.96 99.95 8 55.89 100.77 9 60.78 101.81 10 65.61 103.09 11 70.38 104.60 Page 5 f result.out 12 75.07 106.32 13 79.68 108.27 14 84.18 110.44 15 88.58 112.81 16 92.87 115.39 17 97.02 118.17 18 101.04 121.14 19 104.92 124.30 20 108.64 127.64 21 112.20 131.15 22 115.59 134.83 23 118.80 138.66 24 121.83 142.64 25 124.66 146.76 26 127.30 151.01 27 129.73 155.38 28 131.96 159.85 29 133.97 164.43 30 134.57 166.00 Circle Center At X = 36.2 ; Y = 204.6 and Radius, 105.7 Failure surface specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.05 100.00 2 25.99 99.23 3 30.97 98.76 4 35.97 98.62 5 40.97 98.78 6 45.94 99.26 7 50.88 100.06 8 55.76 101.16 9 60.55 102. 57 10 65.25 104.27 11 69.84 106.27 12 74.29 108. 55 13 78.58 111.11 14 82.71 113.93 15 86.65 117.01 16 90.39 120.33 17 93.91 123.88 18 97.21 127.64 19 100.26 131.60 20 103.05 135.75 21 105.58 140.06 22 107.83 144. 53 23 109.80 149.12 24 111.47 153.84 25 112.84 158.64 26 112.90 158.90 Circle Center At X = 35.8 ; Y = 178.0 and Radius, 79.4 Page 6 result.out 1.166 1 Failure surface specified By 16 coordinate Points Point x-Surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.53 106.43 2 55.51 106.84 3 60.44 107.69 4 65.26 108.99 5 69.95 110.72 6 74.47 112.88 7 78.77 115.43 8 82.81 118.37 9 86.58 121.66 10 90.03 125.27 11 93.14 129.19 12 95.87 133.38 13 98.22 137.79 14 100.16 142.40 15 101.66 147.17 16 101.80 147.80 circle center At x = 48.6 ; Y = 161.3 and Radius, 54.9 1.174 Failure surface Specified By 15 coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 71.58 124.68 2 76.49 125.64 3 81.29 127.02 4 85.96 128.80 5 90.47 130.98 6 94.77 133. 53 7 98.83 136.44 8 102.64 139.69 9 106.15 143.25 10 109.34 147.09 11 112.19 151.20 12 114.69 155.53 13 116.80 160.07 14 118.52 164.76 15 118.85 166.00 circle center At x = 62.8 ; Y = 182.5 and Radius, 58.4 Page 7 result.out 1.175 1 Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points Point X-surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 37.90 100.00 2 42.82 99.14 3 47.81 98.89 4 52.80 99.26 5 57.70 100.24 6 62.45 101.81 7 66.97 103.96 8 71.19 106.64 9 75.05 109.82 10 78.48 113.45 11 81.45 117.47 12 83.90 121.83 13 85.79 126.46 14 87.11 131.28 15 87.82 136.23 16 87.83 136.87 Circle Center At x = 47.3 ; Y = 139.5 and Radius, 40.6 1.189 Failure surface Specified By 17 Coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 71.58 124.68 2 76.54 125.31 3 81.45 126.24 4 86.30 127.47 5 91.06 129.01 6 95.71 130.84 7 100.24 132.96 8 104.62 135.36 9 108.85 138.03 10 112.90 140.96 11 116.76 144.14 12 120.41 147.56 13 123.85 151.19 14 127.04 155.03 15 130.00 159.07 16 132.69 163.28 17 134.19 166.00 Circle Center At x = 64.2 ; Y = 204.1 and Radius, 79.8 Page 8 result.out 1.198 1 Y A X I s F T 0.00 36. 52 73.04 109. 56 146.08 182.60 X0.00 +---------+---------+------*w-+---------+---------+ - 5 4 4 36. 52 + . . . . . . .4 - 4 - . . . . . . . .9471 - . . . . . . . . . .4712* . . . . . . . . .*5471.2 A 73.04 + . . . . . . . . . . . 547128. - . . . . . . . . . . . .543122. - . . . . . . . . . . . .56631299 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55*3122. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. .11424* - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55331227. X 109.56 + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55311266. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5331226* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5511.228 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 I 146.08 + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s 182.60 + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w 219.12 + F 255.64 + T 292.16 + Page 9 Geometry and Boundary Conditions s Problem: T09108 Stairway Seismic - FS Min = 0.829 210-- 200 190- 180- 170- 6 7 160 5 150- a 140- 4 130- 120- 3 110- Ask 100- 90- 80- 70- 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 (Scale in Feet) Geometry and Boundary Conditions Problem: T09108 Stairway Seismic - FS Min = 0.829 210- 200- 190- 180- 170 _ 6 7 160- 5 150- 140- 4� 130- 120 !' 3 - 110- OW 100- 1 90 80- 70- 0 20 40 60 80 160 120 140 160 180 200 (Scale in Feet) Percentage of all Factors of Safety O N 4:�-- d') 00 O N , V � z O 0 U) CD r--t. Ii `v ;; r�- p `< (DD �_- 1< N - O < v � C. 0 3 result.out PCSTABL6 by Purdue University 1 --slope Stability Analysis-- simplified 3anbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer s Method of slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: run.in Output Filename: result.out Unit: ENGLISH Plotted Output Filename: result.plt PROBLEM DESCRIPTION T09108 Stairway Seismic BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 10 Total Boundaries Boundary x-Left Y-Left x-Right Y-Right soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 100.00 50.00 100.00 1 2 50.00 100.00 50.10 106.00 2 3 50.10 106.00 60.00 116.00 2 4 60.00 116.00 100.00 146.00 2 5 100.00 146.00 115.00 161.00 2 6 115.00 161.00 118.00 166.00 1 7 118.00 166.00 200.00 166.00 1 8 50.00 100.00 65.00 100.00 1 9 65.00 100.00 90.00 120.00 1 10 90.00 120.00 115.00 161.00 1 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 125.0 100.0 34.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 110.0 115.0 100.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 Page 1 result.out 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric surface No. 1 specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 104.00 2 200.00 104.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading coefficient Of0.150 Has Been Assigned A vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0 (psf) 1 A Critical Failure Surface searching Method, using A Random Technique For Generating circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 400 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 20 surfaces Initiate From Each of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground surface Between x = 0.00 ft. and x = 80.00 ft. Each surface Terminates Between x = 85.00 ft. and x = 200.00 ft. unless Further Limitations were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure surface. 1 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Page 2 result.out Failure Surface specified By 23 Coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.53 106.43 2 55.16 108.32 3 59.75 110.31 4 64.29 112.38 5 68.80 114.56 6 73.25 116.82 7 77.66 119.18 8 82.02 121.63 9 86.33 124.17 10 90.58 126.79 11 94.78 129.51 12 98.92 132.31 13 103.01 135.20 14 107.03 138.17 15 110.99 141.22 16 114.89 144.35 17 118.72 147. 57 18 122.48 150.86 19 126.17 154.23 20 129.80 157.67 21 133.35 161.19 22 136.83 164.78 23 137.96 166.00 Circle Center At x = -38.4 ; Y = 331.0 and Radius, 241. 5 0.829 Individual data on the 27 slices water water Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force surcharge Slice width weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 4.6 709.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 106.4 0.0 0.0 2 4.6 2075.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 311.4 0.0 0.0 3 0.3 154.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 0.0 4 4.3 2930.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 439.6 0.0 0.0 5 4.5 3683.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 552.6 0.0 0.0 6 4.5 4205.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 630.8 0.0 0.0 7 4.4 4651.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 697.7 0.0 0.0 8 4.4 5023.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 753.5 0.0 0.0 9 4.3 5322.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 798.4 0.0 0.0 10 4.3 5550.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 832.6 0.0 0.0 11 4.2 5709.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 856.4 0.0 0.0 12 1.7 2402.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 360.4 0.0 0.0 13 2.4 3425.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 513.9 0.0 0.0 14 1.1 1557.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 233.6 0.0 0.0 15 3.0 4566.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 685.0 0.0 0.0 16 4.0 6664.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 999.7 0.0 0.0 17 4.0 7128.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1069.2 0.0 0.0 Page 3 result.out 18 3.9 7501.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1125.2 0.0 0.0 19 0.1 225.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.7 0.0 0.0 20 3.0 6406.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 960.9 0.0 0.0 21 0.7 1612.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 241.8 0.0 0.0 22 3.8 7581.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1137.2 0.0 0.0 23 3.7 5965.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 894.9 0.0 0.0 24 3.6 4370.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 655. 5 0.0 0.0 25 3.6 2799.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 419.9 0.0 0.0 26 3. 5 1257.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 188.6 0.0 0.0 27 1.1 82.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 Failure surface Specified By 22 coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 54.74 110.68 2 59.62 111.75 3 64.46 113.00 4 69.25 114.44 5 73.98 116.06 6 78.65 117.86 7 83.24 119.83 8 87.76 121.98 9 92.19 124.29 10 96. 53 126.78 11 100.77 129.43 12 104.91 132.23 13 108.93 135.20 14 112.85 138.31 15 116.64 141.57 16 120.30 144.97 17 123.83 148. 51 18 127.22 152.19 19 130.47 155.99 20 133. 58 159.91 21 136. 53 163.94 22 137.92 166.00 circle center At x = 29.2 ; Y = 239.3 and Radius, 131.1 0.863 1 Failure surface specified By 19 coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 58.95 114.94 2 63. 52 116.97 3 68.03 119.12 4 72.48 121.40 5 76.87 123.79 6 81.20 126.30 7 85.45 128.93 8 89.63 131.67 Page 4 +l v result.out 9 93.74 134.52 10 97.77 137.48 11 101.71 140. 55 12 105. 58 143.73 13 109.35 147.01 14 113.04 150.39 15 116.63 153.86 16 120.13 157.44 17 123. 53 161.10 18 126.83 164.86 19 127.78 166.00 circle center At X = -14.1 ; Y = 285.3 and Radius, 185.4 0.874 Failure surface specified By 30 coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.05 100.00 2 26.02 99.40 3 31.00 99.04 4 36.00 98.91 5 41.00 99.02 6 45.99 99.37 7 50.96 99.95 8 55.89 100.77 9 60.78 101.81 10 65.61 103.09 11 70.38 104.60 12 75.07 106.32 13 79.68 108.27 14 84.18 110.44 15 88.58 112.81 16 92.87 115.39 17 97.02 118.17 18 101.04 121.14 19 104.92 124.30 20 108.64 127.64 21 112.20 131.15 22 115.59 134.83 23 118.80 138.66 24 121.83 142.64 25 124.66 146.76 26 127.30 151.01 27 129.73 155.38 28 131.96 159.85 29 133.97 164.43 30 134.57 166.00 circle center At X = 36.2 ; Y = 204.6 and Radius, 105.7 0.902 Page 5 result.out 1 Failure surface specified By 20 coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.26 100.00 2 30.20 99.17 3 35.18 98.75 4 40.18 98.74 5 45.16 99.12 6 50.10 99.92 7 54.95 101.11 8 59.70 102.69 9 64.30 104.65 10 68.72 106.98 11 72.94 109.66 12 76.93 112.67 13 80.66 116.00 14 84.11 119.62 15 87.26 123.51 16 90.08 127.64 17 92.55 131.99 18 94.66 136.52 19 96.40 141.21 20 97.14 143.86 circle center At x = 37.9 ; Y = 160.1 and Radius, 61.4 0.903 **•• Failure Surface specified By 26 coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.05 100.00 2 25.99 99.23 3 30.97 98.76 4 35.97 98.62 5 40.97 98.78 6 45.94 99.26 7 50.88 100.06 8 55.76 101.16 9 60. 55 102. 57 10 65.25 104.27 11 69.84 106.27 12 74.29 108.55 13 78.58 111.11 14 82.71 113.93 15 86.65 117.01 16 90.39 120.33 17 93.91 123.88 18 97.21 127.64 19 100.26 131.60 Page 6 result.out 20 103.05 135.75 21 105.58 140.06 22 107.83 144. 53 23 109.80 149.12 24 111.47 153.84 25 112.84 158.64 26 112.90 158.90 Circle Center At x = 35.8 ; Y = 178.0 and Radius, 79.4 0.908 1 Failure surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 54.74 110.68 2 59.07 113.17 3 63.39 115.70 4 67.69 118.25 5 71.96 120.85 6 76.21 123.48 7 80.44 126.14 8 84.65 128.84 9 88.84 131.58 10 93.00 134.34 11 97.15 137.15 12 101.26 139.98 13 105.36 142.85 14 109.43 145.75 15 113.47 148.69 16 117.50 151.66 17 121.49 154.66 18 125.47 157.70 19 129.42 160.77 20 133.34 163.87 21 135.99 166.00 Circle Center At x = -245.6 ; Y = 639.2 and Radius, 607.8 0.915 Failure surface specified By 16 Coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.53 106.43 2 55. 51 106.84 3 60.44 107.69 4 65.26 108.99 Page 7 v result.out 5 69.95 110.72 6 74.47 112.88 7 78.77 115.43 8 82.81 118.37 9 86. S8 121.66 10 90.03 125.27 11 93.14 129.19 12 95.87 133 .38 13 98.22 137.79 14 100.16 142.40 15 101.66 147.17 16 101.80 147.80 circle Center At x = 48.6 ; Y = 161.3 and Radius, 54.9 0.919 1 Failure surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.53 106.43 2 54.83 108.98 3 59.12 111.54 4 63.41 114.12 5 67.69 116.71 6 71.95 119.31 7 76.21 121.93 8 80.47 124. 56 9 84.71 127.20 10 88.94 129.86 11 93.17 132.54 12 97.38 135.22 13 101.59 137.93 14 105.79 140.64 15 109.98 143.37 16 114.16 146.11 17 118.33 148.87 18 122.50 151.64 19 126.65 154.42 20 130.79 157.22 21 134.93 160.03 22 139.06 162.85 23 143.17 165.69 24 143.62 166.00 circle center At x = -723.8 ; Y = 1419.1 and Radius, 1524.0 0.920 Failure surface specified By 15 coordinate Points Page 8 fi result.out Point X-surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 71.58 124.68 2 76.49 125.64 3 81.29 127.02 4 85.96 128.80 5 90.47 130.98 6 94.77 133. 53 7 98.83 136.44 8 102.64 139.69 9 106.15 143.25 10 109.34 147.09 11 112.19 151.20 12 114.69 155.53 13 116.80 160.07 14 118.52 164.76 15 118.85 166.00 Circle Center At x = 62.8 ; Y = 182.5 and Radius, 58.4 0.924 1 Y A X I S F T 0.00 36. 52 73.04 109. 56 146.08 182.60 X 0.00 +---------+---------+------W-+---------+---------+ - 4 . . .4 4 36.52 + . . . . . . .4 4 - . . . . . . . . .481 . . . . . . . . . .4812* - . . . . . . . . .*458173 A 73.04 + . . . . . . . . . . .458130. - . . . . . . . . . . . .452133. - . . . . . . . . . . . .466213. - . . . . . . . . . . . . .44*2133. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. .11535* - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44221338. X 109.56 + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44211366. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4221336* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44117330 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41173 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 1 I 146.08 + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9 .�r result.out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 182.60 + - W 219.12 + F 255.64 + T 292.16 + Page 10 Mason County Department of Community Development Submittal Checklist For a Geotechnical Report Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechnical Report and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed professional(s) who prepared the Geotechnical Report for review by Mason County pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance. If an item found to be not applicable, the report should explain the basis for the conclusion. Applicant/Owner: Richard Funk Parcel# 12108-42-00140 and 12108-42-00052 Site Address: 462 East Stretch Island Drive South, Grapeview, WA (1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s)4, 5, 6 A discussion of specific soil types Located on page(s) 5, 6 (b) A discussion of ground water conditions Located on page(s) 5, 6 (c) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology Located on page(s)4 (d) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands Located on page(s)4 (e) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records Located on page(s) 5 (2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features. Located on Map(s) Fig. 2 (3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. Located on Map(s) Fig. 2 (4) The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall be delineated(top, both sides, and toe) on a geologic map of the site. Located on Map(s) Fig. 2 (5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes. Located on Map(s) Fig. 3 (6) A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions. Analysis should examine worst case failures. The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static safety factor is 1.5 (not applicable), the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1. (Not applicable) and the quasi-static analysis coefficients should be a value of 0.15. Located on page(s) 5, 6, Appendix A (7) (a)Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features Located on page(s) Not applicable (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields Located on page(s) Not Applicable (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings Located on page(s) not applicable Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) 7, Figure 2 (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) 7, Figure 2 (8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. Located on page(s) 7, 8, 9 (9) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and harmful construction methods. Located on page(s) 7, 8, 9 (10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) 7, 8 (11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. Located on page(s) 7 (12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on page(s) 8, 9 (13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and proposed development on the site. Located on Map(s) Fig. 2 hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological engineering or a geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington with special knowledge of the local conditions. I also certify that the Geotechnical Report, dated 1� �3 �� , and entitled (Te0+ez-`4,-cs� �OI&T meets all the requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard Section, is complete and true, that the assessment demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide hazard can be mitigated through the included geotechnical design recommendations, and that all hazards are mitigated in such a manner as to prevent harm to prop ublic health and safety. (Signature and Stamp) Was � naK;� olagls! . Gel\O Fred Emest Rennebum Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report.