HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEO2017-00020 for COM2017-00035 Addendum - GEO Geological Review - 5/19/2017 r
V SUMMIT
SO L U T I ON S G R O UP
■ ■ ■ •
■ ■ ■ - - ■ -
Client Project Number: - • -
OL0719
Project Location:
47.381389, -122.807139
480 East Victor Road
Belfair, Washington 98528
Mason County
Prepared For: - • - - • =
Client: Centerline Solutions c/o AT&T • • • •
Attn: Charlotte Clarke -•. -• = - • -
6623 NE 78th Ct. Suite 131 •• • -
Portland, Oregon 97218 '• - • ' •
503.412.8071 1 • too ' • -
cclarke@centerlinesolutions.com - • • • • •
SUMMIT SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC
6600 NE 78'" COURT, SUITE B3 I PORTLAND, OR I 97218 503.379.4009
704 W. HOOD AVENUE, SUITE C I SISTERS, OR I 97759 I 541.549.6620
WWW.SUMMITSOLUTIONSGROUP.COM
SUMMIT
SOLUTIONS G R O UP
• •
GEOTECHNICAL ENO'INEERINO REPORT OL0719 NORTH SAY Ili
SUMMIT SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC MARCH 9, ZO1 7
HARDMAN
Noel�i GEDTECHNICAL
SERVICES INC.
Practical,Cost-Effective Geotechnical Solutions
May 18, 2017
HGSI Project No. 16-2096-10
Tyler Clouse
Summit Solutions Group
6600 NE 78th Court, Suite B3
Portland, Oregon 97218
TylerC(&Summitsolutionsgroup.com
Via email with hard copies mailed
Subject: ADDENDUM TO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
010719 NORTH BAY
480 EAST VICTOR ROAD
BELFAIR,WASHINGTON
Hardman Geotechnical Services Inc. (HGSI)previously prepared a geotechnical engineering report
for the proposed tower facility(HGSI,2017). At your request,we provide the following response
to the Mason County Department of Community Development's Checklist. The Checklist form
indicating the locations of required discussions,plans,maps,descriptions,restrictions,
recommendations,analyses,and specifications is attached. The purpose of this addendum is to
provide additional information to fulfill the requirements of the checklist. This addendum should be
considered supplemental to the March 8, 2017 geotechnical report;the findings, conclusions,
uncertainties and limitations of that report remain applicable, except as revised herein.
In response to Mason County Department of Community Development's Checksheet:
(1)(d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology.
The proposed tower location is flat to gently sloping. The site slopes upward to the
northeast with grades ranging from about 2%to 10%. Geomorphology is typical to that of a
relatively flat to gently sloping dense forest. No indications of subsurface anomalies are
presented in upslope geomorphology.
(1)(e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands.
Neither upland waterbodies nor wetlands were observed during the site exploration. A
review of the USGS Belfair, WA Quad(2014)map indicates a stream is present
approximately 1000 feet east of the proposed tower location(Polenz et al.,2009). The
mapped stream has no influence on the conclusions and recommendation provided in the
above referenced report.
10110 SW Nimbus Avenue,Suite B-5 Tel(503)530-8076
Portland,Oregon 97223 Mobile(503)575-5634
May 18, 2017
HGSI Project No. 16-2096-10
(1)(f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced
maps and records.
The geologic map of the area(Polenz et al., 2009) does not indicate the presence of
landslides in the vicinity of the proposed tower. Reconnaissance observations indicate that
slope geomorphology at the site is generally smooth and uniform, consistent with stable
slope conditions. No geomorphic evidence of prior slope instability(such as hummocky
topography, benches or old scarps)was observed.No seeps or springs were observed on site.
Based on results of this study it is our opinion that on-site slopes have adequate factors of
safety considering gross (overall) stability. No special design or construction provisions are
needed to address slope issues on the site.
(2) A site plan which identifies the import development and geologic features.
See Figure 2 of the Report(Site Plan)and Figure 1 of the Addendum(Geologic Map). See
also the geology description from the geologic map,below(Polenz et al.,2009).
Vashon till—Unsorted,unstratified(but locally banded)mix of clay,silt,
sand,and gravel;typically supported by a sandy matrix;mostly gray but
locally ranging to tan,light brown,or orange;typically unweathered;
lodgment till compact,with well-developed facies resembling concrete,
but near the surface commonly hackly and(or)looser and covered by 1 to
6 ft of loose ablation till;deposited directly by glacial ice and commonly
includes clasts or clumps plucked from underlying units. Clasts are
commonly striated and faceted,with angular or rounded edges. Boulders
are generally sparse within the till but large(erratic)boulders of plutonic
or metamorphic rock are common on till surfaces. Some exposures include
interbands and lenses of sand and gravel,locally with shears and joints.
Till forms a locally patchy and seemingly randomly distributed cover up to
a several tens of feet thick,with a thickness of 5 to 20 ft most common. It
typically dominates, but is also locally discontinuous on,fluted surfaces,
with individual drumlins measuring 0.I to 0.3 mi wide by 0.8 to 1.3 mi
long and the long axis aligned with the direction of ice flow.Till typically
is in sharp,unconformable contact with underlying units,most commonly
advance outwash(unit Qga and subunit). Unit Qgt lies stratigraphically
below unit Qgo. It may include unrecognized exposures of older till.A
map boundary mismatch between unit Qgt on this map and unit Qgos on
the Vaughn quadrangle to the south(Logan and Walsh,2007)may have
resulted from a map-production error in the northwest corner of the
Vaughn map(Josh Logan,Wash.Divn. of Geology and Earth Resources,
oral commun.,2009).
(4) The boundaries of hazards, etc.
Item#4 is not applicable. There are no known geologic hazards on or adjacent to the
proposed tower improvements.
(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.
16-2096-10-North Bay_addendum 2 HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC.
May 18, 2017
HGSI Project No. 16-2096-10
Figure 2 shows an interpreted geologic cross section of the site area and the slope
descending below. Topography was obtained from the site survey, and USGS topographic
contours beyond the actual surveyed area.
(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, the
minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1,and the quasi-static analysis coefficients should be a
value of 0.15.
To evaluate global slope stability,HGSI performed calculations using the computer program
GSTABL7. Limit equilibrium slope stability analyses were performed using a search
routine to identify the most critical potential failure surfaces. Factors of safety were
calculated using the Modified Bishop method of slices. Seismic slope stability was
evaluated using the pseudostatic method, incorporating a horizontal acceleration coefficient
of 0.15g. For both static and seismic conditions,we applied an 8-foot-wide surcharge load
of 8,000 psf for the tower foundation.
Soil and rock properties were based on HGSI's previous geotechnical studies of the site, and
our experience with the geologic units comprising the slope below the tower. The attached
slope stability output graphs show the soil/rock strength parameters used in the analysis.
Results of the global stability analysis are attached. Due to the search routine used, several
thousand potential slip surface were analyzed,under both static and seismic conditions.
Minimum factors of safety for the static and seismic cases are summarized in Table 1:
Table 1. Summary of Slope Stability Analysis Results
Condition Analyzed Static/Seismic Minimum Factor
of Safety
Overall Stability Static 5.03
Seismic 2.55
These values meet/exceed the typically accepted values of 1.5 and 1.1 for commercial/
industrial construction under static and seismic conditions respectively. In our opinion,the
proposed tower facility has adequate factors of safety considering global stability.
(7)(a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features.
Item#7a is not applicable. Drainage features are not planned as part of the development.
(7)(b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields
Item#7b is not applicable. Septic drain fields are not planned as part of the development.
(7)(c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings
16-2096-10-North Ray_addendum 3 HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC.
May 18, 2017
HGSI Project No. 16-2096-10
Item#7c is not applicable. The scope of the projects and the topography of the site is such
that no restrictions are required regarding where compacted fills and footings are placed.
(7)(d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of
other slopes on the property.
Item#7d is not applicable. No landslide hazard areas or significant slopes which would
require a buffer are present.
(7)(e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of
other slopes and the property.
Item#7e is not applicable. The site has insufficient grades and insufficient landslide risk to
warrant setbacks.
(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.
We recommend a detailed clearing and grading plan be prepared by indicating that
vegetation should be removed from areas to be graded and from areas of proposed gravel
and/or concrete equipment pads and access driveways. The clearing and grading plan
should indicate that vegetation should be removed at the commencement of earth work
operations. Areas that have been graded but are not to receive gravel and/or concrete should
be replanted following grading operations. Vegetation may be removed by a bulldozer,
trackhoe, or by other means available to the contractor.
(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.
Item#9 is not applicable. The site does not have sufficient grades in the vicinity of
proposed improvements to warrant measures"to protect the slope". However, erosion
during construction can be minimized by implementing the project erosion control plan,
which should include judicious use of bio-bags, silt fences, or other appropriate technology.
Where used, erosion control devices should be in place and remain in place throughout site
preparation and construction.
Erosion and sedimentation of exposed soils can also be minimized by quickly re-vegetating
exposed areas of soil,and by staging construction such that large areas of the project site are
not denuded and exposed at the same time. Areas of exposed soil requiring immediate
and/or temporary protection against exposure should be covered with either mulch or
erosion control nettingiblankets. Areas of exposed soil requiring permanent stabilization
should be seeded with an approved grass seed mixture,or hydroseeded with an approved
seed-mulch-fertilizer mixture.
16-2096-10-North Bay_addendum 4 HARDMAN GEomcii ICAL SERVICES INC.
May 18,2017
HGSI Project No. 16-2096-10
(10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
From a geotechnical perspective,proposed improvements are not anticipated to have
negative impacts on-site nor off-site.
(11) Specifications of final development conditions such as vegetative management,drainage,
erosion control,and buffer widths.
Vegetative management is beyond our area of expertise;however vegetation is known to
reduce erosion and therefore should be encouraged. The site should be graded in such a way
as to direct surface storm water runoff away from foundations and equipment pads. Erosion
control is not considered necessary following the revegetation of disturbed areas. Buffer
widths are not applicable because no buffers have been recommended.
(12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other
proposed mitigation.
Item#12 is not applicable. No structural mitigation or other proposed mitigation is
recommended at this time.
This letter should be considered an addendum to the above-referenced geotechnical report. The
conclusion,recommendations,uncertainties and limitations of that report remain applicable except
where modified herein.
O+O
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely, L. Hq
� Rd
p`C�oF WAS
HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC.
y Z
.c�
28265is
�SS�ONAL tG
EXPIRES 3/18/Zok
Scott L. Hardman,P.E., G.E. FOt
Geotechnical Engineer
Attachments: Mason County Department of Community Development—Submittal Checklist for a
Geotechnical Report
Figure 1 —Geologic Map
Figure 2—Cross Section A'-A'
Survey—SVI and SV2
Slope Stability Calculations(13 sheets)
a3DDIOIOI�;)
I6-2096-10-North Bay_addendum 5 HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC.
May 18, 2017
HGSI Project No. 16-2096-10
References:
Polenz, M.,Alldritt, K.,Hehaman,N.J., Sarikhan, I.Y., Logan,R.L.,2009, Geologic map of the
Belfair Quadrangle, Mason,Kitsap, and Pierce Counties, Washington: Washington Division of
Geology and Earth Resources,Open File Report 2009-7.
Hardman Geotechnical Services Inc.,2017,Geotechnical Engineering Report, 010719 North Bay,
480 East Victor Road,Belfair, Washington; consultant report dated March 8.
16-2096-10-North Bay_addendum 6 HARDMAN GEomcHNICAL SERVICES INC.
HARDMAN
GEOTECHNICAL GEOLOGIC MAP
SERVICES INC.
Practical,Cost-Effective Geotechnical Solutions
b F
r Q i. t
i
Approximate Site Location
baf PU
J
Qab
Qgt -
. �l
1
Q_b
I L I I C
` . '
Base Map: Polenz, M., Alldritt, K., Hehaman, N.J., Sarikhan, I.Y., Logan, R.L., 2009, Geologic Map of the Belfair
Quadrangle, Mason, Kitsap, and Pierce Counties, Washingon: Washington Division of Geology and Earth
Resources, Open File Report 2009-7
Not to Scale
Project: 480 East Victor Road Project No. 16-2096-10 FIGURE 1
Belfair, Washington
��
C'� - !
4U
r�� ��, v� 1
II Y ..�.� � �../J
t1+ i'
�-° +-�, v
�� �
�.
�. LI 7 � Y
'. 4F ��
,i.��,,
��
;l ,
�.�....__..�____.�.___..�..4 _. ... ..�...�.�_�..�____�.�.�_.____�.
� $_ ,�,,
i
. WA.1E0 �
iYQI t LEGEND �""'�-
LATITUDE OF GEODETIC 53.0 COORDINATES a+�}
LATITUDE 47'22'S3.0•(47.381389)NORTH(NAD83-2011) ""�0101^i° IxiR l `
SITE LONGITUDE 122'46'25.7•(122.907139)WEST(NAD83-2011) 0 pE0I",roD`—'
1�..
GROUND ELEVA110N-212.1'(NAVDBB) uoTftEVATTON
.'alwAavi TAX
/REE ttre
4 � DEC 12�—TIIM6(OWNETER NMI
140.0 -1E TO
e ALD•ALDER CENTERLINE
A4sv-ip WnH�IMtMi
CONIFERON4 ME MEE ttPE
SURVEYOR'S NOTE ,RIAw<oMME,ER M
1. SURVEYOR DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT ALL UTILITIES ARE SHOWN OR THEIR LOCATIONS ARE .`\ 1aIA TREE TOP
DEFINITE.IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND DEVELOPER TO CONTACT AN V INVOLVED �• AHOx uxs•
AGENCIES TO LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.REMOVAL.RELOCATION ANDI OR _ LINE
_ _ __ w�R a xt
REPLACEMENT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. sUBA?Cr-1___—__—___ TL-
rx.lisilsT4vlrcloxssm
2. BALDING SETBACK LINES,ZOMNG,FLOOD AREA ZONES,AND ADDRESSES THAT MAY BE SHOWN AREvir�t-
SVPPLIED BY THE GOVERNING AGENCY OR TAKEN FROM THE BEST AVAILABLE RECORDS.THE (h
-.--•
SURVEYOR WILL NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF ANY INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY amDlt consulting
OTHERS.
AAlISF61R1E11
3. THE DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AND EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON,REPRESENT THAT
INFORMATION PROVIDED IN LIMITED LIABILITY REPORT,ORDER NO.128165.PREPARED BY MASON
COUNTY TITLE COMPANY.DATED JANUARY S.2017.ANY INFORMATION SHOWN WHICH MAY VARY FROM CULVQT
THE CONTENTS OF THE REPORT NOTEDOTED ABOVE,REPRESENTS INFORMATION AND MEASUREMENTS --— PFSESTAL
FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY VIG•TOR ROAD
4.BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON V.S.STATE PLANE NAM(2011)COORDINATE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON STATE PLANE COORDINATE SOUTH ZONE,DETERMINED BY REAL TIME KINEMATIC(RTK) I
DIPS DATA PROCESSEDICORRECTED ON THE WASHINGTON STATE REFERENCE NETWORK(WSRN). I
S. FEDERAL
THIS PROJECT LOCATED WITHM FLOOD ZONE C, DETERMINED OF MINIMAL
FLOODING.ACCORDING TO FEDEE RAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE
MAP(S),AMP ID ISM T I SO 150C,MAP REVISED MAY 17,1SOL. I IIFAW RN[COWR
STIR ET W-2
6.PROJECT ELEVATIONS ESTABLISHED FROM GPS DERIVED HEIGHTS
H S DETER HEIGHTS BY APPLICATION I SEE SHEET SV-2
OF NGS'GEOID 12B'MODELED SEPARATIONS TO ELLIPSOID HEIGHTS DETERMINED BY ftFJ.L TIME
KINEMATIC(RTK)GPS DATA PROCESSEDICORRECTED ON THE OREGON DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
REFERENCE NETWORK(ODOT).ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE REFERENCED TO THE NAVDBB
DATUM.
w>o
T.THE DATE OF SURVEY AND FIELD OBSERVATION USED FOR THIS SURVEY WERE TAKEN JANUARY/6, IEAW ME COVER
201) I I
I
S.THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY 5 TO ESTABLISH OR DETERMINE A AT&T WIRELESS LEASE PARCEL A I II CP PROJECT NO.:
ASSOCIATED EASEMENTS.THE BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON IS PLOTTED FROM RECORD INFORMATION i REVISION
PROVIDED AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY. I O DATE D C I DESCRIPTION
PARENT PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION o I D 01-27-17 c�/$R SUBMITTAL
ME NORTHWEST QUARTER(M L 114)OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER(BE 114)OF SECTION TWENTYONE(21), Q vPIR:FL E:Izal�zaOIII I
TOWNSHIP TWENTYTW0122)NORTH,RANGE ONE(1)WEST,W.M.:EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 3" O I R.RRNv a 9HERl I
FEET THEREOF AND K I
EXCEPTING THEREFROM RIGNT-0F•WAY FOR VICTOR ROAD,COUNTY ROAD NO,68420.
OI
RECORD MATTERS OF SAID LIMITED LIABILITY REPORT U I HEAVY TREE COWR
2.UTILITY EASEMENT, SITE NAME:
TO:P.U.D.M.3 OF MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON,
RECORDED:DECEMBER 29,1954
AUDITOR'S FILE NO.:600954 O 10719
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING,LAYING.
CONSMAINTINI G LECTRIWINO,OPERATINGAND NORTH BAY
MAINTAINING PUBLIC
AN IC
VTLITIEB,PUBLK:AND PRIVATE.(BLANKET IN NATURE)
LEASE AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION I WE ADDRESS:
TOD I 480 EAST VICTOR ROAD
BELFAIR,WA 98528
SHEET TITLE
PAAcn.lm+.zsaon PARCT:L4:1m+riavol4
SITE SURVEY
SHEET NO.
SCALE:1'-2N (11XiT) 0' 10O 200' 4W
1 SITE SURVEY
SCALE:V-iDW.V(22X34)
LEGEND a t t
NB NATFRFAL onaFRa PosiTrov ov _
0 oEooEnc coonoiRATes \
\,CTOR ROAD
\ 1DEcn,rous TME�.REE nPE \
of02`TAME ER MI 1 1
eL�ER EIEVA,ON \ \ \ ` oT? *C E N T E R L I N E
— f AO.a,rinq Ninlw'NNwe.ha
_)''� CO TRIM(OINETER INI J 1 _ \ fa• � � ••'ue,:- TFi
YTi TREETOP I}-� aR' /
FR•OO O A!FlR A F)N ___�-__ _R_I C1� xnr5' \\ \�x~, j / O lM x tEM.vF
f2
ambit consultlng
„� °'p• �.
1POSITION OF cEaoEnc COORDINATES lure � �ol�—
LATITUDE 47'zT'33.0'(47.3e13e9)NORTN(NADB3-2011)
LONGITUDE 127 48'2e.7'(13I.e07139)NEST(NADa3-TDII)
GROUND ELEVATION-2I2.I'(*Awes) l� F ` A�� \ u "•/��� �,a,.. a..��.,a..» +��.e� 4ty� \ \
Fffi PROJECT NO.:
RE
O D/C I DATE D C DESCRIPTION
D 01-27-17 K SUBNITTAL
n[ \
-En — � N�a.•V6'A � ucF,.e- _ � \ SITE NAME:
010719
NORTH BAY
s 11u, .tea.- +1 e. a.• I POSITION OF GEODETIC
COORDINATE CENTER Dl4! SITE ADDRESS;
PROPOSEDA LEASE 48D EAST VICTOR ROAD\ \ • ^ - rc. e l u „�• AREA , I e�v�\ BELFAIR,WA 98528
14ZZ I"
]a
10
` na..' � .w-r. , _rca .4tta a J • I f1`� f• F I SHEET TITLE
\ .a.• .�Fe/ —r R / M „ \\MF. \ `- SITE SURVEY
/.OPOS/50'%50' ji
a-
7` J
aaA LASE AREA/ I "'
"✓ ul[a7 \ \1 \` I �_ 1 uwe '.xu.. SNEET NO.
4. Ltd __ -- l
SCALE:7'.20'd'Ii1%77) a 10' 20 /8' SV_2
1 SITE SURVEY
scuE:I•.1ad•(nxarl
North Bay Tower Global Stability Analysis
d:%gstabl7 filesM-2096-10-north bay towerM-2096-10-north bay tower-section a global stability.p12 Run By:Hardman Geotechnical Services,Inc. 5/18/2017 03:52PM
# FS Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Load Value
a 5.03 Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface Ll 8000 kPa
b 5.03 No. (kN/m3) (kN/m3) ' (kPa) (deg) Param. (kPa) No.
c 5.03 Qgt 1 125.0 125.0 100.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 W1
d 5.04 Qgol 2 125.0 125.0 50.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 W1
750 a 5.04 Bsmt_Rck 3 130.0 130.0 2000.0 40.0 0.00 0.0 W1
f 5.04
g 5.05
h 5.05
i 5.05
j 5.05
500
a
h i sc d
250
3= 3
0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=5.03
M WIV Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
GEDTECIhICAL
SERVICED NC,
Rath. ^�:7ahtiSidtns �
i
i
North Bay Tower Global Stability Analysis - Seismic
d:\gstabl7 files\16-2096-10-north bay tower\16-2096-10-north bay tower-section a global stability-seismic.p12 Run By:Hardman Geotechnical Services, Inc. 5/18/2017 03:54PM
# FS Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Load Value
a 2.55 Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit W. Inter Angle IA 8000 kPa
yp t Intercept (deg) Pressure C(kPa)nt Surface Peak(A) 0.300 )
b 2.55 No. (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (kPa de Param. kh Coef. 0.150(g<
c 2.55 Qgt 1 125.0 125.0 100.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 W1 (g)
d 2.55 Qgol 2 125.0 125.0 50.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 W1
750 a 2.55 Bsmt_Rck 3 130.0 130.0 2000.0 40.0 0.00 0.0 W1
f 2.55
g 2.56
h 2.56
i 2.56
j 2.56
500
a
i
1 h ge id
b C — -•
1 -1
250 q
Z - - --
o _
=a 0 ° 3 3
3
0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=2.55
K4M Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
1181 WEML
SERVEES K
pwd'DCAfirk��r'haAkk
*** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 **
(All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices.
(Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback,
Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope,
Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water
Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces.
*********************************************************************************
Analysis Run Date: 5/18/2017
Time of Run: 03:54PM
Run By: Hardman Geotechnical Services, Inc.
Input Data Filename: D:\GSTABL7 Files\16-2096-10 - North Bay tower\16-2096-10 - n
orth bay tower-section a global stability-seismic.in
Output Filename: D:\GSTABL7 Files\16-2096-10 - North Bay tower\16-2096-10 - n
orth bay tower-section a global stability-seismic.OUT
Unit System: SI
Plotted Output Filename: D:\GSTABL7 Files\16-2096-10 - North Bay tower\16-2096-10 - n
orth bay tower-section a global stability-seismic.PLT
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: North Bay Tower
Global Stability Analysis - Seismic
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
D:16-2096-10 - north bay tower-section a global stability-seismic.OUT Page 2
6 Top Boundaries
10 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type
No. (m) (m) (m) (m) Below Bnd
1 0.00 100.00 200.00 130.00 3
2 200.00 130.00 320.00 160.00 2
3 320.00 160.00 720.00 220.00 2
4 720.00 220.00 1200.00 300.00 1
5 1200.00 300.00 1400.00 320.00 1
6 1400.00 320.00 1750.00 300.00 1
7 200.00 130.00 320.00 130.00 3
8 320.00 130.00 540.00 150.00 1
9 540.00 150.00 720.00 220.00 1
10 320.00 130.00 1750.00 135.00 3
Default Y-Origin = 0.00(m)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(m)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(m)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
No. (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (kPa) (deg) Param. (kPa) No.
1 125.0 125.0 100.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 1
2 125.0 125.0 50.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 1
3 130.0 130.0 2000.0 40.0 0.00 0.0 1
1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 1.00(kN/m3)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 4 Coordinate Points
Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (m) (m)
1 0.00 100.00
2 320.00 130.00
3 540.00 150.00
4 1750.00 260.00
BOUNDARY LOAD(S)
1 Load(s) Specified
Load X-Left X-Right Intensity Deflection
No. (m) (m) (kPa) (deg)
1 1396.00 1404.00 8000.0 0.0
NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed
Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface.
Specified Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (A) = 0.300(g)
Specified Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) = 0.150(g)
Specified Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) = 0.000(g)
Specified Seismic Pore-Pressure Factor = 0.000
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified.
8000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
800 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced
Along The Ground Surface Between X = 50.00(m)
and X = 350.00(m)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 800.00(m)
and X =1500.00(m)
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(m)
20.00(m) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial
Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 0
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 0
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 0.000 FS Min = 500.000 FS Ave = NaN
Standard Deviation = 0.000 Coefficient of Variation = NaN %
Failure Surface Specified By 55 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (m) (m)
1 216.667 134.167
D:16-2096-10 - north bay tower-section a global stability-seismic.OUT Page 3
2 236.664 134.461
3 256.660 134.867
4 276.654 135.384
5 296.644 136.013
6 316.630 136.753
7 336.612 137.605
8 356.589 138.567
9 376.560 139.641
10 396.525 140.826
11 416.483 142.122
12 436.433 143.530
13 456.375 145.048
14 476.309 146.678
15 496.233 148.419
16 516.147 150.270
17 536.051 152.233
18 555.943 154.306
19 575.823 156.490
20 595.691 158.785
21 615.546 161.191
22 635.387 163.707
23 655.214 166.333
24 675.026 169.070
25 694.822 171.917
26 714.602 174.874
27 734.365 177.942
28 754.111 181.120
29 773.839 184.407
30 793.549 187.805
31 813.239 191.312
32 832.909 194.928
33 852.559 198.655
34 872.188 202.490
35 891.795 206.435
36 911.380 210.489
37 930.941 214.652
38 950.480 218.924
39 969.994 223.305
40 989.484 227.795
41 1008.948 232.392
42 1028.387 237.099
43 1047.798 241.913
44 1067.183 246.836
45 1086.540 251.866
46 1105.869 257.004
47 1125.169 262.250
48 1144.439 267.603
49 1163.679 273.064
50 1182.889 278.631
51 1202.067 284.306
52 1221.213 290.087
53 1240.327 295.974
54 1259.407 301.969
55 1277.441 307.744
Circle Center At X = 173.786 ; Y = 3724.392 and Radius = 3590.482
Factor of Safety
*** 2.547 ***
Individual data on the 0 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load
No. (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Failure Surface Specified By 52 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (m) (m)
1 216.667 134.167
2 236.656 134.819
3 256.642 135.580
4 276.623 136.450
5 296.599 137.427
D:16-2096-10 - north bay tower-section a global stability-seismic.OUT Page 4
6 316.569 138.513
7 336.534 139.706
8 356.491 141.008
9 376.441 142.418
10 396.384 143.936
11 416.318 145.562
12 436.242 147.295
13 456.157 149.137
14 476.062 151.087
15 495.956 153.144
16 515.838 155.309
17 535.709 157.581
18 555.567 159.962
19 575.411 162.449
20 595.242 165.045
21 615.059 167.747
22 634.861 170.557
23 654.647 173.474
24 674.417 176.498
25 694.170 179.629
26 713.906 182.867
27 733.625 186.212
28 753.325 189.664
29 773.005 193.222
30 792.667 196.887
31 812.308 200.658
32 831.929 204.535
33 851.528 208.519
34 871.105 212.609
35 890.660 216.805
36 910.192 221.106
37 929.700 225.514
38 949.185 230.026
39 968.644 234.645
40 988.078 239.369
41 1007.487 244.197
42 1026.868 249.131
43 1046.223 254.170
44 1065.551 259.314
45 1084.850 264.562
46 1104.120 269.914
47 1123.361 275.371
48 1142.573 280.932
49 1161.754 286.597
50 1180.904 292.366
51 1200.022 298.238
52 1208.300 300.830
Circle Center At X = 106.204 ; Y = 3824.812 and Radius = 3692.298
Factor of Safety
*** 2.548 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 53 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (m) (m)
1 216.667 134.167
2 236.647 135.052
3 256.623 136.033
4 276.594 137.109
5 296.560 138.282
6 316.519 139.550
7 336.473 140.914
8 356.419 142.374
9 376.359 143.930
10 396.291 145.581
11 416.214 147.328
12 436.129 149.171
13 456.035 151.109
14 475.931 153.143
15 495.818 155.272
16 515.693 157.496
17 535.558 159.816
D:16-2096-10 - north bay tower-section a global stability-seismic.OUT Page 5
18 555.412 162.232
19 575.254 164.742
20 595.083 167.348
21 614.900 170.049
22 634.704 172.845
23 654.494 175.736
24 674.270 178.722
25 694.031 181.802
26 713.777 184.978
27 733.508 188.248
28 753.223 191.613
29 772.921 195.073
30 792.603 198.627
31 812.268 202.276
32 831.914 206.019
33 851.543 209.856
34 871.152 213.787
35 890.743 217.812
36 910.314 221.932
37 929.865 226.145
38 949.396 230.452
39 968.906 234.853
40 988.394 239.347
41 1007.861 243.935
42 1027.306 248.616
43 1046.727 253.391
44 1066.126 258.258
45 1085.501 263.219
46 1104.852 268.273
47 1124.178 273.419
48 1143.480 278.658
49 1162.756 283.990
50 1182.007 289.414
51 1201.231 294.931
52 1220.428 300.539
53 1228.045 302.805
Circle Center At X = 42.277 Y = 4297.437 and Radius = 4166.921
Factor of Safety
*** 2.549 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 57 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (m) (m)
1 216.667 134.167
2 236.666 134.343
3 256.664 134.631
4 276.660 135.032
5 296.653 135.544
6 316.643 136.170
7 336.630 136.907
8 356.612 137.756
9 376.589 138.718
10 396.560 139.792
11 416.525 140.978
12 436.482 142.276
13 456.433 143.686
14 476.375 145.208
15 496.308 146.842
16 516.231 148.588
17 536.145 150.446
18 556.048 152.416
19 575.939 154.497
20 595.819 156.690
21 615.685 158.995
22 635.539 161.411
23 655.378 163.938
24 675.204 166.577
25 695.014 169.327
26 714.808 172.188
27 734.586 175.161
28 754.347 178.244
Im C)
a w
ro r- n
w w w W W W N N N N N N N N N NI-••NF-•F-'F-•F-'1-'F'F' F-• z0 F' n Cn(n(r In(r(n NN.P.A.P.P.P.na.P.P.ta W W W W W W W W W W N
N-MWNF'O W M J M(n.P W F'C)t0M JM Ln.t-W NN O tD O J MU,.A W NF+O r•G F'JM Ln.p W NF'O BOO JM Ln N W NF'O t0M JM Ln.p W NF•'Ot0
'J F( m
rt m C7
* "I C!
En *a m
FG( rt rt
M O m
a F( F( F'F'I--'F'F-'F�F�F'NI-'F'1-'F'F'1-'F F NO
O CO OD OD OD JJ JJJ 01 at O1 O1 O1(n(.n Cn(n(n.p,0 .�.W W W W WNNNNN x0 N W NNNNNNI--•F-�M-+I--•F-00000(O(O(O W W M OD OD W OD J J W
tO JCnW F'to J(n W F+WJ(n WF- W--J Ln W F-+WJ(n W 1--•(OJCn W F�(O J(n WI--•-� I m Cn O O tO-i01•PN O OD OIL N O M OI.N O M J(n W F,(O J(n W 1--•(OJ m
F'NNN W W W.(a �A.��n(nNUt(n(n 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O10101"�• EnMrt F�00 lOOF'F-'NW.P(n Vt O1JJOO OD l010001--•rNNNW W W•P
(n O.9�OD N(In to N.la J tO N m NJ M O FAN W W•P(n(n(n M(71 a)(Y%M 01010\ON a% FS•U O(n X NNI--•OOO-i Ln W OJ OJN W J�w"Mw Jr•NOD NUn W O
J W mm J1 .t0 F'FF w LnMOOJW W F-NN F'OD IN O.I� J O N•m(n 010101 m m m Mm a (n WO W W wW W O Wm J O W M 0 N F'Co N.P r.N J O NF-+W
JJa w0 m M m w w a D F+"W 0"m F�Ja(O JM.P." F,•P p10161 J (•1 M II (n OD W NN JOF-'O(O OO OD IpNJO10D(n J� J JtnO�OD F'(n0
r- m
Flh rt
(D * F' H
a to rt
I--'F'1-•'F'F�V-•F-+1-'F-- F,F,r F,F,r F,1--•rr rr F--F--F-IF--P, --`1•-•--�FI W W W W NN NNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNF-+F-+1--•1--�I--•I--• 0,
O to tO tO M OD OD J J -i aN m ON(n(n(n(n•t..A "" ".P W W W W W W W w w w w w� (n R< W F�0 0(O tO OO J -i M O1(n(n•P.P W W N N F+F•'F'0 0 W W tO OD OD OD �•
l-'JJ J Wo :-1 -'10 0n.P F't0 J(n.n Nj W Jp1(n(n.,: f,W4: ., G 1--'010W 01 F�(7110W mW JNJNJW07 W10N001N10(n 1--'W•�F� a
O J Ol a%M 0.P O J(n.P(nJ 0(n F-'ODJ JWF-`(n F-'M O1(n M ODNJ WCDkD C) ' M•� J F'F'O W ON Cn(O•P O J(n(n 0 J0W M W OD(OOW MF' J•- L<
NJ(nm0 JAD N OO.q F'NM W W-i Ln Ma J aO W 1--•N J(n JNF'Wt0 MC>M F'(n F'OOI W N W"M W Wm OMM LnM JtON JN M Ln.p W rt
OI w NN 0 w J J00 m ON M MNO NMM W N O1 J O1 w 01--'m-i M J(n CD W M WtO ML( F-'M JO W(n JO W O1 t0 W O
E
0 II m
a "
r- I
p w m
a o1 m
rt t0 n
m m rt
r-
oM
r• J w
rt
rt
w O
a to
a rt
� a
G a.
N W
II F'
w
rt
w
f 1
01 (D
F-• m
W
t0
OD F
P n
O
Q
H
ro
w
w
m
O1
I
I
D:16-2096-10 - north bay tower-section a global stability-seismic.OUT Page 7
36 911.090 208.411
37 930.574 212.927
38 950.026 217.574
39 969.447 222.353
40 988.835 227.261
41 1008.190 232.301
42 1027.510 237.471
43 1046.795 242.770
44 1066.044 248.200
45 1085.256 253.759
46 1104.430 259.447
47 1123.565 265.265
48 1142.661 271.211
49 1161.716 277.285
50 1180.730 283.488
51 1199.701 289.819
52 1218.630 296.278
53 1237.514 302.864
54 1240.978 304.098
Circle Center At X = 250.478 ; Y = 3102.495 and Radius = 2968.521
Factor of Safety
*** 2.551 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 56 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (m) (m)
1 216.667 134.167
2 236.647 135.043
3 256.624 136.007
4 276.597 137.058
5 296.564 138.196
6 316.527 139.422
7 336.483 140.736
8 356.434 142.136
9 376.379 143.624
10 396.317 145.199
11 416.248 146.861
12 436.171 148.610
13 456.086 150.447
14 475.994 152.371
15 495.892 154.382
16 515.782 156.479
17 535.662 158.664
18 555.533 160.936
19 575.393 163.295
20 595.243 165.740
21 615.082 168.273
22 634.910 170.892
23 654.726 173.598
24 674.530 176.390
25 694.322 179.269
26 714.101 182.235
27 733.866 185.287
28 753.619 188.426
29 773.357 191.651
30 793.081 194.963
31 812.790 198.360
32 832.484 201.844
33 852.163 205.414
34 871.826 209.070
35 891.473 212.812
36 911.103 216.640
37 930.716 220.554
38 950.312 224.554
39 969.891 228.639
40 989.451 232.810
41 1008.993 237.066
42 1028.516 241.408
43 1048.020 245.836
44 1067.504 250.348
45 1086.968 254.946
0) �
a r-
(n C.Cn(P•,•p•P•b. W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r r r�r 1--•1--• z O h' n V l C n cn Ln Ln Ln(.f 1 •P•P•P
W N 1--•OIO OD--J MLn JP W NF-•O(O OD J MCn-9P W NF-•(D W ODJ 0)Ln.P W NF+(D(O OD -40)Ln.P W NI--•OIO OD JO1(P M W NI--•O r-G ON Ln•t.W NI--•O(O ODJ O1
rt(D 9 C] C7
N »w (D 1
FGI rt rt
M O (D 1
F-•r+l--+rNrrrNr Fl w FS rt NrrF- f-, rNr Np
NNNF-•F-•1--•F-+F-+00000(O(O(Otow OD OD OD OD OD JJJJJ(3NCh M 0)a%(.n Ln(.n Ln Ln P.P W W W W W"NNNN x0 N N NN NN N I--•F-•F-•I-•1--•
N N O OD ON.P N O O C%"N O WOLFNF-•WJCn W F+(OJ(nW 1-+W-j0 WF-•(OJCn WF+(OJCn W F,WJ(n W F+W-.j0 W 1--• 1 N O � WMM.la NOO M"NO W
JF-•F+N W W.�.�(n M M J J 0 OD(0(00001--'1--•F-•NNN W W W W.P.P.P.P.P O N Ln Ln W 0 Ln O\41 M M M M M M M M Q•"�' O NMrt WOF-•r'N W W.P 0001
(l�F+O�NJNO\F-•(n OD: Jh +Ln OO 1--•On;DOL) OO O WJZn J OD O N W Un J WD;D F-•NW.�.�NNO(01v Fj F+(A .m (O NOD.� Q
OCnmLn1-'ON 00(pJ.P(O1-+NF--(p0.ODOO(O0)NO1(O OO OD Ln 01IOOF�1-'(O J W OD N ON OD W O O(O J 01 h•ODW ODN m M(D w OW OD N NF•+J W W 1-•
.P 01 N N(O.P(p.P(O.P F-•ODJ JCD Ln W.P(OJ(OMOD.P M Ja 0 OD(n(D O(001 Na%O N Cn JO.P(O(n W W(n OOD ON Ja ODJ n FA II ONW(O F4(O N O0 w OD CnN
r- (D
M rt
F'- *, O
N * rf
a N rt
W W NNNNNN N N N N NN N NN N NN N N NNI--•{--•F-•1--•F-•F-•F-•F�1--•F-•rrrF-•F�r�rrrrrrrrF-•N1-•NF-•CFI W �W W W NNNN NNNN "7
OO(OW OD OD J JON ON Ln(n.P.P W W W NNF-•F�F�O O IO(O(O OO OD O OO J J J M 010101 Cn N Cn(n(n.P.P.P.P.P W W W W(,)5 (nK .M O O O(O OD OD J J O)m Un O•
NO(nOCn OCn O(n JN OD.P O O,N?D f,O 01 W10?I NJ OO1W!D:J.P NOD OI WF-•00 Ot f,N O OD 0I.P N r- DOD O\Cn.P- r- N(O(n O.P(O.P(O.P(O.P(O a
" (n J.
J(OT•P W W W.P ONWW JNOD Ul W1--•0C> NLn OON J N(001.p W W W.t. J(O W OD koM C. WNN W 0M"M" J"F� MW W(It F' JfJtWNI--•NWO�
Ul0MaDM MJJCnF�(nMM41O WOO W(ON.9 0 W(OW CnM CnFlMW0WMD -CnJ0 "(D Cn--JMM W mN W WOM W 000 FlM(nW rt
O OOOF-•NNF--•(p OD O�W 1-+ODNNOJ0 W F-•O(O COOI--'WmwJO Om N.)NW mw.P F-•(O OD(O F+0 N OD J J O.P OJ J 0 1--•a Ln W JOODO JW O
0 { E
0
0 II (D
a
w 1
J N
w J N
rt O rt
(D 0 r
r-
ro �j O
O rn
rt -• w
a O
a a
I 7D F.
w y
p a
II r
rt
(n 1
J (D
O (D
(n WF
Lnr•
I n
O
I C
H
i h7
(D
m
OD
II
D:16-2096-10 - north bay tower-section a global stability-seismic.OUT Page 9
Circle Center At X = -75.937 ; Y = 5003.711 ; and Radius = 4878.328
Factor of Safety
*** 2.555 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 52 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (m) (m)
1 216.667 134.167
2 236.665 133.898
3 256.664 133.776
4 276.664 133.801
5 296.664 133.973
6 316.661 134.292
7 336.656 134.758
8 356.646 135.371
9 376.632 136.131
10 396.611 137.038
11 416.584 138.091
12 436.548 139.291
13 456.502 140.638
14 476.446 142.132
15 496.379 143.772
16 516.299 145.558
17 536.205 147.491
18 556.097 149.570
19 575.973 151.795
20 595.832 154.166
21 615.673 156.663
22 635.495 159.345
23 655.297 162.153
24 675.077 165.107
25 694.836 168.206
26 714.571 171.450
27 734.282 174.839
28 753.967 178.372
29 773.626 182.051
30 793.257 185.873
31 812.860 189.840
32 832.433 193.951
33 851.975 198.205
34 871.486 202.603
35 890.963 207.144
36 910.407 211.828
37 929.816 216.655
38 949.189 221.624
39 968.525 226.736
40 987.822 231.989
41 1007.081 237.385
42 1026.299 242.921
43 1045.476 248.599
44 1064.611 254.417
45 1083.703 260.376
46 1102.750 266.475
47 1121.753 272.714
48 1140.708 279.092
49 1159.617 285.609
50 1178.476 292.265
51 1197.287 299.060
52 1199.692 299.949
Circle Center At X = 263.257 ; Y = 2855.278 and Radius = 2721.510
Factor of Safety
*** 2.555 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 57 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (m) (m)
1 216.667 134.167
2 236.666 133.998
3 256.666 133.953
4 276.666 134.033
5 296.665 134.236
6 316.662 134.564
D:16-2096-10 - north bay tower-section a global stability-seismic.OUT Page 10
7 336.657 135.015
8 356.649 135.590
9 376.636 136.290
10 396.619 137.113
11 416.597 138.060
12 436.568 139.131
13 456.533 140.325
14 476.489 141.644
15 496.437 143.086
16 516.376 144.652
17 536.304 146.341
18 556.222 148.154
19 576.128 150.091
20 596.022 152.150
21 615.902 154.334
22 635.769 156.640
23 655.621 159.069
24 675.457 161.622
25 695.277 164.297
26 715.081 167.095
27 734.866 170.016
28 754.633 173.060
29 774.381 176.226
30 794.109 179.514
31 813.816 182.925
32 833.501 186.458
33 853.164 190.113
34 872.805 193.890
35 892.421 197.788
36 912.013 201.808
37 931.579 205.949
38 951.120 210.212
39 970.634 214.595
40 990.120 219.100
41 1009.578 223.725
42 1029.006 228.471
43 1048.405 233.337
44 1067.774 238.323
45 1087.111 243.430
46 1106.416 248.656
47 1125.688 254.001
48 1144.927 259.467
49 1164.132 265.051
50 1183.301 270.754
51 1202.435 276.576
52 1221.533 282.517
53 1240.593 288.575
54 1259.615 294.752
55 1278.599 301.047
56 1297.543 307.459
57 1306.895 310.689
Circle Center At X = 253.860 ; Y = 3359.694 and Radius = 3225.742
Factor of Safety
*** 2.556 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 50 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (m) (m)
1 216.667 134.167
2 236.666 134.015
3 256.666 134.010
4 276.666 134.152
5 296.663 134.442
6 316.659 134.878
7 336.650 135.461
8 356.637 136.192
9 376.618 137.069
10 396.591 13B.093
11 416.557 139.264
12 436.514 140.582
13 456.460 142.047
D:16-2096-10 - north bay tower-section a global stability-seismic.OUT Page 11
14 476.395 143.658
15 496.317 145.416
16 516.227 147.320
17 536.121 149.370
18 556.000 151.567
19 575.862 153.910
20 595.707 156.399
21 615.533 159.034
22 635.338 161.814
23 655.123 164.740
24 674.886 167.812
25 694.626 171.028
26 714.341 174.390
27 734.031 177.897
28 753.695 181.548
29 773.332 185.344
30 792.940 189.284
31 812.518 193.368
32 832.066 197.596
33 851.583 201.968
34 871.066 206.483
35 890.516 211.141
36 909.931 215.942
37 929.311 220.886
38 948.653 225.972
39 967.958 231.201
40 987.223 236.571
41 1006.449 242.082
42 1025.633 247.735
43 1044.776 253.529
44 1063.875 259.463
45 1082.930 265.538
46 1101.940 271.752
47 1120.904 278.106
48 1139.821 284.600
49 1158.689 291.232
50 1168.436 294.739
Circle Center At X = 247.365 ; Y = 2853.228 and Radius = 2719.234
Factor of Safety
*** 2.556 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
GEO 6-67
Mason County Review Checklist
for a Geotechnical Report
Instructions:
This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Geotechnical Report. The Geotechnical Report is reviewed
for completeness with respect to the Resource Ordinance. If an item is found to be not applicable, the Report should
explain the basis for the conclusion. The Report is also reviewed for clarity and consistency. If the drawings,
discussion, or recommendations are not understandable, they should be clarified. If they do not appear internally
consistent or consistent with the application or observations on site, this needs to be corrected or explained. If
resolution is not achieved with the author, staff should refer the case to the Planning Manager or Director.
Applicant's Name: �I `Leti� �►✓
Permit#: Parcel#:
Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed: M ay(t q r M Af
1. (a) A discus�,ion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development,
OK? Comment:
(b) A discussion of specific soil types
OK?�_Comment:
(c) A discussion of ground water conditions
OK? `j Comment:
(d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology
OK? Comment:
(e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands
OK? _Comment:
(f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records
OK?X—Comment:
2. A site plan that identifies the important development and geologic features.
OK? Comment:
3. Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes.
OK? Comment:
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.
OK? Comment: f\,1'J (3 41_1.1�
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.
OK? Comment:
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, the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1 and the quasi-static
analysis goeffients should be a value of 0.15.
OK? Comment:
7. (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features
OK?_��Comment:
(b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields
OK? ')C Comment:
(c) Appropriat , restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings.
OK? _Comment:
Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
(d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
OK?I—Comment:
(e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
OK? �k Comment:
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.
OK? )�,�Comment:
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.
OK? Comment:
10. An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
OK?_ Comment:
11. Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and
buffer widths.
OK? >� Comment:
12. Reco endations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation.
OK? Comment:
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.
OK? Comment:
Are the Documents signed and stamped? I By whom? Sc�TT Art oM r'�tJ
License#: ec L�2 v` License type:
Q."Xt 3 ITf 19
FIRST REVIEW ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info.
If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action?
Reviewed by 6—, on Z b I . Time spent in review: Z_
SECOND REVIEW/ UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info.
Reviewed by , on . Time spent in second review:
THIRD REVIEW/UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info.
Reviewed by on . Time spent in third review:
Disclaimer.- Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report.
Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
RECEIVED
MAY 19 2017 Mason County Department of Community Development
615 W. AJder$UId 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.
0Arc,7
Applicant/Owner Lcntvl;�erSel✓�,a�� Parcel# NA
i
Site Address L(9O E.o,S•t Vi�tcor
(1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development,
Located on page(s) a ok Ze,port
(b) A discussion of specific soil types
Located on page(s)_ a o C- i2e ao r t -
(c) A discussion of ground wat conditions
Located on page(s) � o� 1e,�o r t
(d) A discussion of the upslope ggeot�orphology
Located on page(s) 1 o-r Adcle�a.�rvt
(e) A discussion of the location orftupland waterbodies and wetlands
Located on page(s) 1 OT Ad�eNdJwt
(f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the activity in the vicinity,as'available in the
referenced maps_and recordp
Located on page(s).2 . Ad ¢o%agoA See_o iso r,.je— 7 o� 1ze p r t
(2) A site plan which identifies the important dev lopment and geologic features. Ac�ck
Located onMap(s)F;,✓ram e. a o� I eT�t ��� F;��re_ 1 0 e^ ✓�
(3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or ro�s.
Located on Map(s)F; _ o 1\�C 40 "t av%d 'i oT i rj L.o",3Ij
(4) The area of the proposed development,the boundaries of the hazard,and associated buffers and
setbacks shall be delineated (top, both sides and tQe)on a eologic map of the site.
Located on maw- iJaei� �. o . Adde^v—
(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 ) f�q-tcLctlrv�e4..� to r.�e vvv� _ }~�GutZE 2-
(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,the minimum
seismic safety factor is 1.1. and the quasi-static anarlyj�is coeffients Should be a valu of 0.15.
Located on page(s)_ArEtoanc ,% CA+ t� APUe,4uw,
(7) (a)Appropriate restrictions on face ent of drainage features
Located on page(s)�4� 5 0+ J�cic�er.dvv►�
(b) Appropriate reactions on placement sept,�c drain fields
Located on page(s) t'a•,� A dd tv Aow,
(c) Appropriate rest 'ctlons on place ent of com acted fills and footings
Located on pages) H or AAil
Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report.
7
(d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other
slopes on the p erty.
Located on page(s)
(e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of
other slopes on the property.
Located on page(s). ?6 4
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 vegetatio emova
Located on page(s) o,
-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
IT
slope from erosion,landslides and harmful cOnstru n methods.
Located on page(s)J�� 4
An analysis of both o site and off sits imp s of he proposed development
Located on page(s)
1) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management drainage,
erosion control, and 4Cer widths
Located on page(s) v
(1 2) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed
mitigation, — f
Located on page(s)�
(13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location
and nature of existing and proposed dpveippment-o n the she.
Located on S V_ I.J. S V_a
tv
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 12bx-7, and entitled 1 0 10-1\1 ��%YfN
4W �� t C_� 1-04 1 A0A meets all the requirements of the Mason
County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard Section!is com-plete 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 ha_rDUa.DroDertv and public heal` y. (Signature and Stamp)
0 of WAS
28265
46� GISTV,
SIONAL EN
EXPIRES: 06-30-20
Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Ge-otechnical Report.
V SLI M MIT
V
S G R ❑ U P
6&06201-7- 000a0 r6Me?0J — o0
Client Project Number: • - •
OL0719
RECEIVED
APR 0 5 2017
615 W. Alder Street
Project Location:
47.381389, -122.807139
480 East Victor Road
Belfair, Washington 98528
Mason County
Prepared For: - • - - • =
Client: Centerline Solutions c/o AT&T • • • •
Attn: Charlotte Clarke -•- -• : •
6623 NE 78'h Ct. Suite 131 • -
Portland, Oregon 97218 '• • • ' •
503.412.8071 1 see ' •
cclarke@centerlinesolutions.com • • • • • •
SUMMIT SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC
6600 NE 76- COURT, SUITE B3 I PORTLANO, OR I 9721 B I 503.379.4009
704 W. HOOD AVENUE, SUITE C I SISTERS, OR I 97759 ( 541.549.6620
WWW.SUMMITSOLUTfONSE3ROUP.COM
V S U M M I T
V
SOLUTIONS SRO UP
•
GEOTECHNIL:AL ENGINEERING REPORT ❑L071 9 NORTH BAY
SUMMIT SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC MARCH 9, 201 7
HARDMAN
GEOTECHNICAL
SERVICES INC.
Practical,Cast-Effective GeotechwW Solutions
March 8, 2017
HGSI Project No. 16-2096-10
Tyler Clouse
Summit Solutions Group
6600 NE 78th Court, Suite 133
Portland, Oregon 97218
TylerC@Summitsolutionsgroup.com
Via email with hard copies mailed
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report
010719 North Bay
480 East Victor Road
Belfair,Washington
At your request, Hardman Geotechnical Services Inc. (HGSI)prepared this geotechnical
engineering report for the proposed communication tower facility at 480 East Victor Road in
Belfair, Washington(see Figure 1).
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed tower site is located in an undeveloped portion of the property. Topography is flat to
gently sloping and vegetation consists of a trees and woodland understory plants. Development
plans include a communications tower and an equipment shelter and/or pad. We do not anticipate
significant grade changes as part of tower facility construction.
It should be noted that the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on
information provided by the Summit Solutions Group. Consequently, if any changes are made to
the project, we recommend that HGSI review the changes and modify our recommendations, as
appropriate,to reflect those changes.
FIELD EXPLORATION
A subsurface exploration program was conducted by Summit Solutions Group on February 24,
2017. One exploratory boring was drilled to a depth of 30 feet below ground surface(bgs) at the
approximate location shown on Figures 2. Standard Penetration Tests were performed at regular
intervals. A log of boring B-1 is attached to this report. The subsurface conditions depicted are
only for the specific date and location reported, and therefore,are not necessarily representative of
other locations and times.
10110 SW Nimbus Avenue,Suite B-5 Tel(503)530-8076
Portland,Oregon 97223 Mobile(503)575-5634
March 8,2017
HGSI Project No. 16-2096-10
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Regional geologic mapping indicates that the subject site is underlain by Vashon Till consisting of an
unsorted mix of clay, silt, sand, and gravel (Polenz et al., 2009).
SOIL AND GROUNDWATER
Materials encountered in Boring B-1 varied and consisted of hard sandy silt with gravel, dense silty
sand with gravel, sandy gravel, loose silty fine sand, very dense sandy gravel, and dense sand with
gravel. These soils extended to the maximum depth of exploration, 30 feet bgs.
A zone of saturated silty fine sand was encountered between about 15 and 19 feet bgs in the boring.
Soil layers above and below the saturated zone were described as "damp," i.e. not saturated. In our
experience it is not uncommon to encounter zones of confined groundwater seepage within Vashon
Till glacial sediments. The SPT blowcount in this material is considered unreliable due to
disturbance and probable hydrostatic uplift pressures during sampling. This zone represents an area
of problematic constructability,for example will cave and require casing for installation of drilled
shafts if used(see below).
Groundwater was encountered in the boring at a depth of 15 feet. The groundwater conditions
reported herein are for the specific date and locations indicated, and therefore may not necessarily
be indicative of other times and/or locations. Furthermore, it is anticipated that groundwater
conditions will vary depending on the season, local subsurface conditions, changes in site
utilization, and other factors.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed project consists of the construction of a communications tower and an equipment
shelter and/or equipment pad. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the boring, we
recommend the proposed tower be supported on either mat or drilled pier foundations. Design
criteria for compressive, uplift and lateral support of mat and drilled pier foundations are presented
below. The following report sections provide recommendations concerning site preparation,
structural fill,concrete equipment pad,tower foundations,temporary excavations and seismic
design.
Due to the presence of a probable confined groundwater zone between depths of 15 and 19 feet at
the boring location, it is our opinion that use of a mat foundation embedded between depths of
about 4 to 10 feet bgs would be the most practical and cost effective foundation option for this site.
A deeper mat foundation could potentially be influenced by the underlying confined groundwater
zone. Due to similar potential impacts, drilled piers would need to extend at least 3 feet below the
confined groundwater zone,or about 22 feet bgs. To reach this depth the drilled shaft would need
to be cased and dewatering implemented within the confined groundwater zone,with concomitant
increase in cost and construction time.
I6-2096-10-North Bay_GR 2 HARDMAN GEO'EECHNICAL SERVICES INC.
March 8, 2017
HGSI Project No. 16-2096-10
SITE PREPARATION
We do not anticipate that significant grade changes will be required to achieve proposed site grades.
Site preparation will consist of removal of vegetative cover and near surface soils, limited grading,
followed by foundation preparation for the proposed tower and equipment pad. Backfill materials,
where required, should be placed and compacted according to the recommendations presented in the
Structural Fill section of this report.
The existing near surface silt soils encountered during site explorations are moisture-sensitive and
prone to disturbance when wet. The contractor should minimize traffic above the prepared
subgrade areas to minimize disturbance and softening which would require removal of the unstable
soils. During wet conditions,the use of a working surface of quarry spalls or clean sand and gravel
may be required to protect the subgrade, especially from vehicular traffic.
If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions,we recommend that all exposed subgrades be
allowed to thaw and be recompacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill.
STRUCTURAL FILL
The following comments, recommendations, and conclusions regarding structural fill are provided
for design and construction purposes:
Structural fill includes any fill materials placed under footings,pavements, driveways, and other
such structures. Typical materials used for structural fill include: clean,well-graded sand and
gravel (pit-run); clean sand; crushed rock; controlled-density fill (CDF); lean-mix concrete; and
various soil mixtures of silt, sand, and gravel. Recycled concrete, asphalt, and glass, derived from
pulverized parent materials, may also be incorporated in structural fill materials. The use of"clean"
soil is necessary for fill placement during wet-weather site work. Clean soils are defined as
granular soils that have a fines content of less than 5 percent(by weight) based on the soil fraction
passing the U.S.No. 200 sieve.
Structural fill should be placed over firm, unyielding subgrade soils.
Generally, CDF, and lean-mix concrete do not require special placement and compaction
procedures. In contrast, pit-run, sand, crushed rock, soil mixtures, and recycled materials should be
placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and each lift should be
thoroughly compacted with a mechanical compactor. Using the Modified Proctor maximum dry
density(ASTM D-1557) as a standard, we recommend that structural fill be compacted to 90
percent of the maximum density.
CONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD
We anticipate that the equipment pad will consist of a poured in place concrete slab-on-grade with
thickened edges. We anticipate that the pad bearing pressure will be relatively light. However, we
recommend that the thickened slab edges be designed as spread footings. The following
recommendations and comments are provided for purposes of footing design and construction:
Areas of proposed building foundations should be stripped and excavated to a depth of at least 18
inches below the lowest adjacent grade, or the depth of frost protection required by applicable
16-2096-10-North Bay_GR 3 HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC.
March 8, 2017
HGSI Project No. 16-2096-10
building code, whichever is greater. If soft soils are encountered, they should be removed to a
depth of no deeper than 2 feet below the thickened slab bearing elevation, considering the light
loads imposed by the equipment shelter. The resulting excavation should be backfilled with
granular structural fill. A layer of geotextile may be required to separate the structural fill soils
from the underlying subgrade materials. Footings should not be cast atop soft, loose, organic,or
frozen soils. HGSI should observe the condition of footing subgrades before concrete is poured to
verify that they have been adequately prepared.
We recommend that the thickened edge of the slab be designed as a spread footing and be
constructed to have a minimum width of 12 inches. Footings may also be supported on structural
fill placed on prepared soil subgrade. The horizontal limits of the fill pad below the equipment pad
foundation may be established by extending a line outward from the base of the thickened slab at an
angle of 1 H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical) down to the upper surface of the bearing horizon.
A maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot(psf) can be used for
static footing loads. This bearing pressure can be increased by one-third to accommodate transient
wind or seismic loads. An allowable base friction coefficient of 0.4 and an allowable passive earth
pressure of 320 pounds per cubic foot(pcf), expressed as an equivalent fluid unit weight, may be
used for that portion of the foundation embedded more than 1 foot below finished exterior subgrade
elevation.
We estimate that total post-construction settlements of properly designed footings bearing on
properly prepared subgrades from static loads could approach 1 inch, with differential settlements
approaching one-half of the total.
TOWER FOUNDATIONS
General and Drilled Shaft Foundations
Soil properties for design of tower foundations are presented in Table 1 below. Table 1 includes
recommendations for drilled shaft design if needed, in accordance with ANSI/TIA-222-G2. Where
drilled shafts are used we recommend minimum shaft length of 22 feet, equivalent to 3 feet below
the bottom of the potential confined groundwater zone. Please note that drilled shafts excavated
through the potential confined groundwater zone will likely experience sloughing and groundwater
inflows requiring use of casing and possibly drilling fluids. Due to these constructability issues it is
HGSI's opinion that the mat foundation option is the most practical and cost-effective for this
tower.
16-20%-10-North Bay_GR 4 HARDMAN GEOTEC14NICAL SERVICES INC.
March 8, 2017
HGSI Project No. 16-2096-10
Table 1. Recommended Geotechnical Parameters Including Drilled Shaft Capacities
Geotechnical Design Parameter Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3
Depth Range(Feet): 0— 15 15 - 19 19—30
Hard Silt and Very Medium Stiff Silty fine Very Dense Sandy
Soil/Rock Conditions: Dense Silty to Sand,potential Gravel to Silty
Sandy Gravel confined groundwater Sand
zone
Total Unit Weight(psf): 125 120 130
Undrained/Drained Friction Angle 0/37 0/30 0/39
(degrees):
Undrained Apparent Cohesion 0 0 0
(psf):
Ultimate Shaft Side Friction(ksf): 0.350 0.1 1.2
Ultimate Shaft End Bearing(ksf): N/A N/A 80
Lateral Modulus of Soil Reaction, k 200 50 250
(pci):
Ultimate soil strain at 50%ultimate N/A N/A N/A
compression,E50
HGSI is available to perform LPILE Analysis to determine maximum drilled shaft deflection, shear
and moment distributions for specific drilled shaft depth and diameter.
Tower Mat Foundations
Due to the presence of a probable confined groundwater zone between depths of 15 and 19 feet at
the boring location, it is our opinion that use of a mat foundation embedded between depths of
about 4 to 10 feet bgs would be the most practical and cost effective foundation option for this site.
A deeper mat foundation could potentially be influenced by the underlying confined groundwater
zone. The following recommendations and comments are provided for purposes of mat footing
design and construction.
Mat foundations should be embedded a minimum of 4 feet bgs, and a maximum of 10 feet bgs.
Foundations should not be cast atop soft, loose, organic, or frozen soils. The project engineer
should observe the condition of mat subgrade soils before concrete is poured to verify that they
have been adequately prepared.
After excavation to the design footing grade, the surface of the bearing horizon should be cleaned of
material loosened by excavation and compacted in place resulting in a firm and unyielding subgrade
condition prior to placement of rebar and concrete.
An ultimate soil bearing pressure of 8,000 pounds per square foot can be used for static loads to
minimize foundation settlement. For shallow footings,the amount of settlements that will take
place is directly related to the size of the footing for a given bearing pressure. This bearing pressure
16-20%-10-North Bay_GR 5 HARWAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC.
March 8,2017
HGSI Project No. 16-2096-10
has been selected to limit settlements to within the design values estimated below. The allowable
bearing pressure can be increased by 1.33 times the recommended value(1/3 increase), when
designing to accommodate transient wind or seismic loads. We estimate that total post-construction
settlements of properly designed mat foundation bearing on properly prepared subgrades would be
less than 1 inch,with differential settlements approaching one-half of the total.
Lateral loads on the foundation caused by seismic or transient loading conditions may be resisted by
a combination of passive soil pressure against the side of the foundation and shear friction
resistance along the base. An ultimate base friction coefficient of 0.5 for the native soil to concrete
interface and an ultimate passive earth pressure of 390 pounds per cubic foot(pcf),expressed as an
equivalent fluid unit weight,may be applied against that portion of the foundation embedded at
least 1 foot in native materials. We recommend that the passive earth pressure contribution of the
upper 1 foot of embedment be ignored in design.
SEISMIC DESIGN
Structures should be designed to resist earthquake loading in accordance with the methodology
described in the 2015 International Building Code(IBC). Design values determined for the site
using the USGS (United States Geological Survey) US Seismic Design Maps application are
summarized in Table 2. We recommend Soil Site Classification C (Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock)
for use in design based on site soil conditions.
Table 2. Recommended Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters (2015 IBC)
Parameter Value
Location(Lat, Long), degrees 47.3814, -122.8071
Mapped Spectral Acceleration
Values MCE, Site Class B :
Short Period, SS 1.411
1.0 Sec Period, S1 0.565 J
Soil Factors for Site Class C:
Fa 1.000
F, 1.300
SD,=2/3 x Fax SS 1 0.940
SDI =2/3 x F, x S, 0.489 7
Please note that the design values presented are based on the assumption that this communications
tower has a Seismic Risk Category of I, II,or III. If the structure is considered an essential facility-
Seismic Risk Category IV,please contact HGSI for additional seismic design recommendations.
Potential seismic impacts also include secondary effects such as soil liquefaction,fault rupture
potential,and other hazards as discussed below:
• Soil Liquefaction Potential—Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein saturated soil
deposits temporarily lose strength and behave as a liquid in response to earthquake
shaking. Soil liquefaction is generally limited to loose,granular soils located below the
16-20%-10-North Bay--PR 6 HARDMAN GEOTEcHmcAL SERVICES INC.
March 8, 2017
HGSI Project No. 16-2096-10
water table. During the site investigation,a potential confined groundwater zone was
encountered in silty sand materials between depths of about 15 and 19 feet bgs. SPT
blowcount data obtained in this unit are considered unreliable due to disturbance effects.
Above and below this potential confined groundwater zone, soils consisted of dense sand
and very dense gravel which are not considered liquefiable. Given the relatively thin
zone of water-bearing soils, it is our opinion that surface disruptions are likely to be
minimal during a strong seismic event at the site. In our opinion, special design or
construction measures are not required to mitigate the effects of liquefaction. However,
it should be noted that detailed analysis of soil liquefaction potential is beyond the scope
of this study.
• Fault Rupture Potential—Based on our review of available geologic literature, we are
not aware of any mapped active(demonstrating movement in the last 10,000 years)
faults on the site. During the field investigation,evidence of surface rupture or recent
faulting was not observed. Therefore,we conclude that the potential for fault rupture on
site is low.
• Seismic Induced Landslide—Slope grades in the vicinity of the subject site are gently
sloping,and geologic materials in the site vicinity are generally competent and resistant
to seismic-induced slope instability. The potential for slope instability and seismic
induced landslide on site is considered very low.
• Effects of Local Geology and Topography—In our opinion, no additional seismic
hazard will occur due to local geology or topography. The site is expected to have no
greater seismic hazard than surrounding properties and the Gig Harbor, Washington area
in general.
UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for the owner and his/her consultants for use in design of this project
only. This report should be provided in its entirety to prospective contractors for bidding and
estimating purposes; however,the conclusions and interpretations presented in this report should
not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that soil and
groundwater conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can
occur between explorations that may not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during future site
operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described
herein, HGSI should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of
such if necessary.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, HGSI executed these services in accordance
with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the field of geotechnical
engineering at the time the report was prepared. No warranty,expressed or implied, is made. The
scope of our work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence
or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic substances in the soil, surface water,or groundwater at
this site.
16-2096-10-North Bay_GR 7 HARWAN GEOTECHN[CAL SERVICES INC.
March 8, 2017
HGSI Project No. 16-2096-10
O.O
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC.
(O��OF WASi�j�
r
28265 Q - i
�o CIST64�`�a'�. 1
NAL ENO
EXPIRES 3/18/._., 13/18/ �i
Scott L. Hardman, P.E., G.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
Attachments: Figure I —Vicinity Map
Figure 2—Site Plan
Log of Boring B-I
Reference:
Polenz, M., Alldritt, K., Hehaman,N.J., Sarikhan,l.Y., Logan, R.L., 2009, Geologic map of the Belfair
Quadrangle, Mason, Kitsap,and Pierce Counties, Washington: Washington Division of Geology and
Earth Resources, Open File Report 2009-7
16-2096-10-North Bay_GR 8 HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC.
HerbHARDMAN
I GEOTECHNICAL VICINITY MAP
SERVICES INC.
Practical,Cost-Effective Geotechnical Solutions
� I
40
6
ti
r r 22N Rf W
I
A
4 � �
.j
I.1r 7� o .4e�lUN .ti
7 p Q�v
Ora
O rn fYi
` 14P I
f
lR40
'401.4 }INUr K.
JApp roximate Site Location v
�1 Aj
Otak Awl
JAlynv A• � 1
Q 1 1f/ V
Base Map: USGS Belfair Quad, from US Topo, 2017 Not to Scale
Project: 480 East Victor Road Project No. 16-2096-10 FIGURE 1
Belfair, Washington
HARDMAN
-- = GEOTECHNICAL SITE PLAN
SERVICES INC.
Practical,Cost-Effective Geotechnical Solutions
WFOR ROAD
-
ILI
104,
1' i JJ
�► ` "' tea,. {
�`u,.1•. � a r •m. �,■ j va r \ �.e r+ � K,Q,�� rar v
r. ���s T �w ■Jv v.k !~f +-fin r
- �
y.,` t ,.,,a.• ilk.
// 6iifiLT7�T l 1 �y t
oww
40
*4:;
/,as r I '•�r Y i.C'"v`r .irC 1' ' �r� ` �. 1`
J
jn�. vw.� La+•. ..gym r '�;�
aca ri f
+ �, .- ,��.jYt1 v r. ..+a,► wml r PQJl1CA JF=CE'IL.
I CSSMrCW�►1 C 47P 1 \ � 1
hi i.Uc�i✓.�fSh IFaiF i {
ry 4rar 1 "B-1
4A3,4'
_.�. xirnebe Tower Location f >A.�
! y`wml r•�..�
LXJ4E•RE4�' i
�l ,� �--' ��r-• l _ i NO SCALE
Legend B-1
1� Approximate Boring Location and Designation
Project: 480 East Victor Road Project No. 16-2096-10 FIGURE 2
Belfair,Washington
CLIENT/PROJECT: 010719- North Bay BORING NO.: B-1
S U M M I T PROJECT NO.: CPM-E17004 START DATE: 2-24-17
PERSONNEL: Kirk Warner END DATE: 2-24-17
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Holt TOTAL DEPTH: 30 feet
DRILLER/HELPER: Pete SHEET 1 OF 2
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLING METHOD: Sonic HOLE DIA. (IN.):
WATER LEVEL DATA BORING LOCATION:
-J DEPTH 15 feet 480 E.Victor Rd, Belfair, WA
J
w w a ? a DATE 2/24/2017
z � U
uJ Q i j °6 } U) v7 5 m TIME
0 o w w O w a m ° >- BORING DEPTH 25' GROUND ELEV.:
M: � m
w O a a 0 U: t- U) DEPTH TO TOC DATUM:
T N � ii O U w a U
m a U) of m z o U) D LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
1
_ 2
- - 3
- 4 - - —
5 -
1 10-21-20 41 18 SM Hard,gray,fine sandy SILT with some gravel 1.5' ,dam
6 -
7 -
8
9
10
2 6-16-27 43 12 SM Dense,gray,silly SAND with some gravel,dam
11
12
1 3----------
GM Gray,sandy GRAVEL(04),damp
14 —
15 ------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 6-0-0 T0 2 SM Medium stiff to soft, brown, sib fine SAND with some gravel, saturated —
Notee Zone between about 15 and 19 feet appears
- 17 to contain perched groundwater, pgssib!yconfined. —
SPT blowcount in this zone is likely unreliable due to _
18 soil heave and water pressures. --SLH
----------______
GP Very dense,gray sandy GRAVEL,damp
4 50/6 C16 20
;EMARKS:
0 140 LB HAMMER 0300 LB HAMMER 0.5 ID SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER ❑ID SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER
SUMMIT
CLIENT/PROJECT: 010719-North Bay BORING NO.: B-1
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING PERSONNEL: Kirk Warner SHEET 2 OF 2
WATER LEVEL DATA TOTAL DEPTH: 30 feet
LU
J J DEPTH SURFACE PATCH
w w o > o DATE LJ CONCRETE
� m m x z l J
w Q D w } Co m � °m TIME ❑ASPHALT
O p w w T w Q m > BORING DEPTH ❑GRAVEL
_ ( m
w o a_ CL o o w a J (D DEPTH TO TOC 0 SAND/TOP SOIL
m a air Co m ? o Co
LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
20 --
4 50ra 6 GP Very dense,gray sandy GRAVEL,damp
5 5-22-24 6y 12 SM Dense,gray,silty SAND with some gravel,damp
30 No sample collected due to sand heave in drill casing)
Bottom of Boring 2-24-2017
Groundwater encountered at appro)dmately 15 feet
REMARKS:
141 LB HAMMER ❑110 LB HAMMER LJ.5"ID SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER [�"ID SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER
u SUMMIT
SO L U T I ON S G R O UP
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT OL071 9 NORTH BAY
SUMMIT SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC MARCH 9, 20 1 7
V S U M M IT
V
SO LUTIONS GROUP
Site ID: • • -
OL0719 •'
Project Location:
47.381389, -122.807139
480 East Victor Road
Belfair, Washington 98528
Mason County
Prepared For: - • - - •
Client: Centerline Solutions c/o AT&T • • • •
Attn: Charlotte Clarke -•- -
6623 NE 78th Ct. Suite 131 • -
Portland, Oregon 97218 '• - • • ' •
503.412.8071 • ' •
cclarke@centerlinesolutions.com
SUMMIT SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC
6600 NE 7B'" COURT, SUITE B3 PORTLAND, OR I 9721 B I 503.379.4009
704 W. HOOD AVENUE, SUITE C SISTERS, OR I 97759 I 541.549.6620
WWW.SU MMITSOLUTION SGR OUP.COM
SOIL RESISTIVITY REPORT . -
S U M M I T
U S U L U T I U N S G R O U P
March 9, 2017
Centerline Solutions c/o AT&T
Attm Charlotte Clarke
6623 NE 78t' Ct. Suite B1
Portland, Oregon 97218
Re: Soil Resistivity Test (SRT) Report
010719 North Bay
480 East Victor Road
Belfair, Washington 98528
Dear Charlotte Clarke:
Summit Solutions Group (Summit) is pleased to present the results of the Soil Resistivity Test
(SRT) Report for conducted on the proposed lease area for the wireless communications facility
project designated as 010719 North Bay. Summit is providing this information for use by others
to use in the design of a grounding system and equipment associated with the proposed project.
Protect Location
The proposed project is located at 480 East Victor Road, Belfair, Washington 98528,
Proiect Description:
AT&T proposes to install a new 90' monopole within a fenced 50' x 50' compound in Belfair,
WA. The proposed project, designated as 010719 North Bay, is located at 480 East Victor
Road, Belfair, Mason County, Belfair, Washington 98528 (47.381265, -122.807311). According
to the SCIP (dated October 28, 2016), the proposed project would consist of a new 90'
monopole within a 50' x 50' fenced compound, with trenching 500' West along e Victor Rd. on
the South side of the street.
Soil Resistivity Measurements
The field work was conducted in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) G57-06, Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Soil Resistivity Using
the Wenner Four Electrode Method (2012) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) 81-2012, Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground Impedance, and Earth
Surface Potentials of a Grounding System (2012).
On February 24, 2017, Summit's field professionals placed two Wenner arrays (Profiles R1-R2)
adjacent to the proposed communications facility to perform electrical resistivity testing (Figure
1). The profiles were positioned perpendicular to each other, Profile R1 was oriented north-south
relative to the proposed location site location and Profile R2 was oriented east-west, for each
array, Summit drove four 14.5-inch long steel electrodes to a depth of 12 inches below the ground
surface (BGS). The distance between electrodes was equally spaced at 10, 20, 30 and 40 feet
along straight lines. The electrodes were then connected to a digital AEMC Instruments (Model
4630) ground resistance tester and a current was applied to the two outer electrodes. The
SUMMIT SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC MARCH 9, 201 7
REPORTSOIL RESISTIVITY . NORTH BAY
resulting voltage drop between the inner electrodes yielded the apparent resistance, "r" (in ohms),
of the subsurface soil between the inner electrodes to an approximate depth equal to the spacing
between electrodes ("A"). Summit recorded the resistance data for each array spacing interval
and calculated the average soil resistivity, or p, for each area in units of ohm-centimeters (ohm-
cm).
Resistance Calculation
The calculated soil resistivity, or p, a measure of how much volume of soil will resist an electric
current expressed in units of ohm-centimeters (ohm-cm), was obtained using the following
equation:
p = 191.5 * A * R Where p = resistivity (ohm-cm)
A = spacing between electrodes (feet), and
R = resistance value (ohms)
Site Conditions
The following summarizes Summit's field observations during the test (see Attachment 1, Soil
Resistivity Test sheets):
• The boundaries of the site were nearly level in topography.
• Near surface soil conditions consisted of silt.
• The weather was overcast and wet with a temperature in the upper 30's.
Note: Resistance data presented in this report is based on the ambient temperature and soil
moisture conditions present at the time of testing. Soil resistivity directly relates to moisture
content and temperature, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that soil resistance on the site will
experience seasonal variation.
� t
N
1 A
•
FIGURE 1: 2015 aerial photograph showing the approximate locations of the resistivity profiles conducted
by Summit(Source): Google Earth
SUMMIT SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC MARCH 9, 201 7
SOIL RESISTIVITY REPORT ■ NORTH BAY
Results
Table 1: Soil Resistivity Test Results
-- ---- -
Profile R2
Electrode Test Soil Electrode Test Soil
Spacing Electrode Reading Resistivity Spacing Electrode Reading Resistivity
(ft.)
Depth (ohms) (ohm-cm) (ft ) Depth (ohms) (ohm-cm)
A B R p A B R p
10 12" 28.3 54,194 10 12" 23.3 44,619
20 12" 10.3 60,049 20 12"
30 12" 5.5 31,597 30 12"
40 12" 0.95 7,353 40 12"
Average: 11.26 38,298 Average: 23.3 44,619
Summary
For the 10 to 40-foot spaced electrode Wenner Arrays with the electrodes at a depth of 12"
below ground level, the average resistance (Q) was 17.28 ohms and the average soil resistivity
(p) was 41,458.5 ohm-cm.
Reliance
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Centerline Solutions c/o AT&T and
their agents. Use or reliance upon this report by a third party is at their own risk. Summit Solutions
Group (Summit) does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, to other such
parties as to the accuracy or completeness of this Report or the suitability of its use by other
parties for any purpose whatsoever, known or unknown, to Summit.
Summit Solutions Group appreciates the opportunity to work with you on this project and looks
forward to working with you in the future on all of your environmental regulatory projects. Should
you have any questions concerning the contents of this report, or if we can assist you in any way,
please contact us at 503.379.4009.
Sincerely,
Kirk L. Warner L.G.
Geologist
Summit Solutions Group, LLC
SUMMIT SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC MARCH 9, 201 7
SUMMIT
SOLUTIONS GROUP
1
SOIL RESISTIVITY REPORT OL071 9 NORTH BAY
SUMMIT SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC MARCH 9, 201 7
SUM M I T SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST (SRT)
Test Time: Test Date: _.2 f 7
I smmlt Project P C10rA -a`I?00 Y Client:
Client Project 010 )1ct Project Name: n ,i
astrurnent Mfg.: AEMC Operator Name:
Model: 4630 Test Location:
04r 1 C allbr.Date: 151795MLOV/6.12.2015 Address:
Test Conditlons
Soil Condition: ❑ Dry 5d Moist ❑ Wet Air Temp: XX rF
❑ Clay Loam ❑State ❑ Granite
Soil Type: ❑ Silt ❑ Send&Gravel ❑ Limestone ❑ Other
❑ Sand ❑ Shale ❑ Sandstone
elm
Ica
O
t_ —
Y X Y Z
R �
x
MOM:Test profile locations relative to proposed leasing area
N
Description of Soil Observed During Test:
Weather for Last 7 Days: ❑sunny/dear 5 overcue/Clm* [Rain ❑snow Avg.:_'F:_'Wedp
electrode spacing(inside of rods vs.centerline);feet it
i=depth of rod driven into ground;inches WAEMC
=0-apparent resistance from AEMC Tesler ust.uNcNTs
(ohm-cm)calculation=191.5 x A x R °wsw
SUMMIT
SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST (5RT)
Test Time:F7
Test Profile 1 Test Profile 2
Test Reading Soil Resistivity Test Soil Resistivity
Electrode Spacing Electrode Electrode Electrode Reading
P 9 (ohms) (oh m) (eadin (ohm-cm)
(ft)-(A) Depth-(B) Spacing(ft)-(A) Depth-(B)
R P R P
10 12" 2$ 3 Sy c1K 10 12" 2�,"5Lf
20 12" 0 S (e Q �{ 20 12'
30 12" 31 S 5 30 12"
40 12" C�t ?�'3 40 12"
Average: (� 3 2 g Average: 23 `I`t L 19
Notes: 'tes:
1
VJi; 40 s�G.cC � 1MJ CI}w % Tej }'
NO � L 2 IN�� Pt v �of wt C,
Test Profile 3 Test Profile 4
Test Reading Soil Resistivity Test Soil Resistivity
Electrode Spacing Electrode (ohms) (ohm-cm) Electrode Electrode eadin (ohm-cm)
(ft)-(A) Depth-(B) Spacing(ft)-(A) Depth-(B)
R p R P
10 12" 10 12'
20 12" 20 12"
30 12" 30 12"
40 12" 40 12"
Average: Average,
Notes: Notes:
Ka:
A=electrode spacing(inside of rods vs.centerline),feet
B=depth of rod driven into ground;inches J@AEMC
R=0=apparent resistance from AEMC Tester iwsrRurc+�rs
p(ohm-cm)calculation= 191.5 x A x R
Page 1 of 2
Nicole Norris-RE: Permit for Escalante
From: Jennifer Taylor<JTaylor@rykaconsulting.com>
To: "nnorris@co.mason.wa.us"<nnorris@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 6/1/2018 2:26 PM
Subject: RE: Permit for Escalante
Attachments: 10552677_Option and Lease Agreemt_Grnd_4.20.17-REDACTED.pdf
Hello Nicole,
My coworker Chris forwarded me your email regarding the form for owner permission to receive permits on the property. I wanted to
first double check that your lead saw the section where we are expressly given permission to apply for permits. It isn't always clear where
the permit section can be found in this type of lease.Since your email mentioned permission for construction vs permission for permits I
wanted to make sure you saw that we both rights to apply and receive permits included in the lease.
(b) During the Option Term,and during the term of this Agracment,Tenant and its agents,engineers,
surveyors and other representatives will have the right to enter upon the Property to inspect,examine,conduct soil
borings, drainage testing, mattviai sampling, radio frequency testing and other geological or engineering tests or
studies of the Property(collectively,the"Tests"),to apply for and obtain licenses,permits,approvals,or other relief
required of or deemed nceessary or appropriate at Tenant's sole discretion for its use of the Premises and includes,
without limitation,applications for zoning variances, zoning ordinances,amendments, special use permits,rind
construction permits (collectively, the "Government Approvals"), initiate the ordering and/or scheduling of
necessary utilities,and otherwise to do those things on or offthe Property that,in the opinion of Tenant,rue necessary
in Tenant's sole discretion to determine the physical condition of the Property, the environmental history of the
Property,Landlord's title to the Property and the feasibility or suitability of the Property for Tenant's Permitted Usl;
all at Tenant's expense. Tenant will not be liable to Landlord or any third party on account of any pre-existing defect
or condition on or with respect to the Property, whether or not such defect or condition is disclosed by Tenant's
inspection. Tertartt will restore the Property to its condition as it existed at fire commencement ofthe Option Tam,
reasonable wear and tear and loss by casualty or other causes beyond Tenant's control excepted.
Thank you,
Jennifer Taylor
RYKA*CONSULTING 206.228.2127 Ceti
206.260.7930 Fax ��`C�
,^
itaylorCcDryka cons ultino.corn
5628 Airport Way S, Suite 112,Seattle,WA 98108 \��
From:Nicole Norris[mailto:nnorris@co.mason.wa.usl � (1��
Sent:Friday,June 01,2018 1:51 PM
To:Chris DeVoist<CDeVoist@rykaconsulting.com>
Subject:RE:Permit for Escalante
Hello Chirs,
I ran this email by my lead and she determined that we still need the owners signed authorization for you to obtain permits on their
property.I understand you have the lease that states you have the authority to do construction but we need to have this form on hand for
the permits.
The form is attached.If you could have them sign it and return it to me we can issue your permit.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you
Nicole Norris,Permit Specialist
MCCS, Permit Assistance Center
615 W Alder St.
file:///C:/U sers/nnorri s/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5 B 115778Masonmail1001637832... 6/1/2018