HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Building 2005-11-29
.,
r
.-"..::
DATE RECEIVED 1lp.~;ht;JOB NO. /'I!j- /65";'
ZONE OCCUPANCY GROL.P
UNITeS) OCCUPANCY LOAD
STn~UES TYPE CONSTRUCTION _
. E~AL DESCRIPTION 1$."2.. a~ II IJ/9tr1'J. K & A Engineering, Inc.
DDRESS '''~lJ .::;t.i.C/i...., p (I ~OJ 23624, Eugene, OR 97402
..~ MarteI.St., Suite B, Eugene, OR 97402
HE CONTENTS HERE ON HWE BEEN REVIEWED, WITH (541) 684-9399 Voice
l' n gin l' l' r i n ~LTERATION5 INDIC"TEC ON COLORED PENCIL. CHANGlOS (541) 684-9358 FAX
OR ALTERATIONS MADE TO THE APPROVED ORAWINGE on
PROJECT AFTER THE OATE BELOW SHALL BE APPROVED BV
THE 8UI~UINl;I U...t"'\..IAL..
~
'April22,2005 CITY OF S:ff~~17E ,OREGON
APPROVED BY ~~?/ //Y)(. Df..Tul/;;" ~5
Ralph and Paula Pete,;:oU, j . . I ._' '1(1,
6880 Glacier Dr.
Springfield, OR 97478
Project 51.05
Subject Foundation Inv<->~y"~un and Repair Plan
. Single-family residence
6880 Glacier Dr., Springfield, OR
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
As per our agreement, K & A Engineering, Inc. has completed an investigation of the foundation and foundation
soils at the subject existing single-family residence. The purpose of our investigation was to detennine the
nature, extent. and cause of foundation settlement, and to make recommendations tor repair.
The scope of our services included necessary fieldwork, engineering analysis and design, and this written
report
INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS
General Surface Conditions
The project site is located in a residential subdivision in the moderately steep, north facing southeastem hUls of
Springfield, Oregon. This area is bounded by alluvial valley deposits ot the McKenzie River to the north and
Middle Fork of the Willamette River to the west See the attached Vicinity Map. Natural slopes in the project
area range from 8 to 15%.
The geologyl of the area consists of soft, highly weathered to decomposed und;;';..,... ,~,,;..ll tuffaceous
sedimentary siltstone and sandstone (tuffs) covered with a moderately thin layer of residual and colluvial plastic
silts. Igneous intrusive rocks (basalt) underlie these soft sedimentary rocks and residual soils.
This geology, highly weathered tuffs with basalt intrusives, is typical for a large area of the wesl-facingfoothllls
of the cascade mountain range located in the direct vicinity of the project The tuffs most likely consist of ash-
flow or air-flow volcanic deposits. These rocks typically weather to fonn residual or colluvial plastic silts having
a moderate to high plasticity and non-isotropic, low penneability. The mineralogy of these soils Influences their
characteristic moderate to high degree of volume change with changes in water content
1 Geologic Map of Oregon, Gemge W. Walker and Nonnan S. MacLeod, 1991.
'\
, .
,
..,
. .
K & A Engineering, Inc.
ExIsting Structure and Foundation
General Construction
The subject residence consists of a conventionally framed two-story home constructed with a lower, daylighled
are of approximately 1,000 square feet and a main level (at approximate street grade) having approximately
1,920 square feet. The foundation system consists of a perimeter 8" x 24" concrete strip footing supporting 8"
stern walls that vaJy in height from 2-feet to 6-feet. Interior strip footings and stem walls support floor and
interior partition loads. The roof structure consists primarily of manufactured trusses covered with a composite
asphalt shingle roofing material. The residence is located on a residential lot of a..",,~~.....,~Jy 8,000 square
feet. See the attached Project Area Map and Project Site Plan.
In general, the building elements including framing, concrete, and finishes appear to have been constructed in a
workmanship like manner, consistent with currenUy accepted standards for good quality residential
construction. We did not find decay or other significant structural deficiencies other than those discussed
. below that are associated with the observed foundation subsidence.
Deficiencies
1. Roor Settlement. Our inspection revealed that there has been a sl~. .:;;y..nt amount of vertical
settlement of the perimeter and interior floor foundation. We surveyed the floor elevations of both the
lower and main level floors. Our measurements show that there is as much as 2.4-inches of difference
in vertical floor elevation measured from the highest point to the lowest point. See the attached Main
Roor Topography and Lower Roor Topography drawings. These drawings depict the actual floor
surface shapes as of the date of our survey (March 2005). Major contours are in O.5-inch intervals,
and minor contours are in 0.1-lnch intervals. The greatest settlement observed was along the
southwest, west, and northeast portions of the foundation.
2. Interior Finishes. There are deficiencies in the interior and exterior finishes that, in our opinion, are the
direct result of foundation subsidence. We cataloged the most noticeable problems in the Interior finish
of the home that have resulted from the foundation settlement. These include:
a. Main Level:
i. Dining room: A linear crack In the ceiling, hairline to 1/16-lnch In width
ii. Dining room: cracking in the south wail at the east lower comer of the window.
Iii. Entry: A crack in the ceiling, running east-west, hairline to 1/1lHnch in width
iv. Entry/living Room: a crack running the fuillength of the ridge in the ceiling (a vaulted
scissor truss roof). This crack extends approximately 24-inches south from the ridge
down the east wall.
v. Entry/living Room: a diagonal crack at the north living room window in the lower west
comer, approximately 10-inches long
vi. Entry/living Room: Front door has been trimmed significantly to allow continued
operation.
vR. Entry/living Room: An approximately 1 /16-inches x 36-inches diagonal crack in the
north living room wall extending from the floor at the east side
viii. Laundry room - A 1/16-inches x 8-inches diagonal crack at the door from laundry
room to the garage
Ix. Garage - linear cracks in the ceiling
x. Master bedroom / bath: an 3Il"''''';''.ate1y 3I32-inches x 3D-inch diagonal crack at the
north top comer of the door to the breakfast nook from the master bedroom
Project 49.05
Client: Peterson
6880 Glacier Dr., Springfield OR
Page 2 of 6
April 22,.2005
. .
. .'
. .
K & A Engineering, Inc.
xl. Master bedroom / bath: an approximately 1/16-inches x 6-inch diagonal crack at the
top eastern comer of the window in the north wall
xii. Master bedroom / bath: diagonal cracking at top and bottom of windows on west wall
over soaking tub
xiii. Master bedroom / bath: door from breakfast nook sticks on jamb
xiv. Breakfast nook / kitchen: large diagonal crack in north exterior wall, approx. 1116-
inches x 6-inches .
xv. Breakfast nook/ kitchen: diagonal crack in short wall above kitchen ceiling,
approximately 1I16-lnches x 24-inches
xvi. Breakfast nook / kitchen: north-south crack in ceiling extending to crack in m above
xvii. Breakfast nook / kitchen: door to deck sticks in jamb
XVIii. OffIce: the trim around the west window is separating apJl'",~"",;",1y 1132-inches
xix. OffIce: an approximately 1132-inches x 15-lnches crack at the close doorway, near
the east top comer
b. Lower Level
i. East bedroom: cracked' ceiling East bedroom: odd punching failure in the interior .
partition between the east bedroom and family room at the ceiling
n. East bedroom: diagonal crack In west wall of east downstairs bedroom
iii. East bedroom: door to bedroom sticks in jamb
iv. Family room: vertical crack in north wall
v. Hall/bath: V...inch diagonal crack at top east comer of the door into the downstairs
bath from hallway
vi. Hall / bath: 1132-inches x 6-inches diagonal crack in north wall at west lower comer
and east upper comer of window
vil Hall/bath: cracks in ceiling and wall of shower - waD has settled approximately 1/4-
inches
viii. Hall/bath: hairline cracks in wall at sink
Ix. West bedroom: 1I16-inches x 12-inches diagonal crack at east top comer of window
x. West bedroom: diagonal1132-inches x 6-inches crack in top comer of closet door
xi. West ~~,uu.... vertical hairline x 4-lnches over door from hallway
xii. West bedroom: vertical1132-inches x 4-inches crack over door to bath
xiii. West bedroom: inoperable door (sticks on jamb) to hallway
3. Structural Components. We noted several structural deficiencies that, in our opinion, are the direct
result of foundation subsidence. These include:
a At least three large diagonal cracks in the west concrete stem wall.
b. Cracks in the south perimeter fou. .C:c.~_.. opposite of crawlspace access - diagonal cracks
and a crack that extends full height down the comer of the retaining wall underneath the front
entry
c. Significant seWement of south front entry porch
Subsurface Soil Conditions
Subsurface soils were investigated along the south foundation to detennine the nature and extent of soils
underneath the seWed portion of the house foundation. This investigation included three borings using a 3.5-
Project 49.05
Client Peterson
6880 Glacier Dr., Springfield OR
Page 3 of 6
April22,2005
. .
o.
K & A Engineering, Inc.
inch hand auger and two probes using a cone penetrometer. 2 See the attached Project Site Plan for locations of
the boring and probes. Attached to this report are graphic logs of materials in the boring and the results of the
dynamic cone penetrometer probes.
Soils in the auger hole included app,....:., ",;"Iy 2 to more than 4-feet of fine and coarse granular fill o,,!er 1 to
1.5-feet of loose organic silty topsoil over native plastic silts and clays over decomposed tuffaceous siltstone
bedrock. The coarse granular fills consisted of 5-inch open quarry stone and 3-inch minus well graded crushed
quarry rock. These materials were extremely dilficult to bore through using an auger since the gravel and
cobble fragments were larger than the auger, and required hand excavation.
The profiles of cone penetration resistance with depth at the test indicate soil consistencies consistent with
those identified in the auger holes. The well-graded 3-inch granular fill in auger hole AN3 was remarl<ably loose
as it was relatively easy to dig with the bare hand.
Based on our subsurface investigation, we believe that these soil conditions are wide spread across the
foundation area,-and can be characterized generally as consisting of 2 to 5-feet of loose gr.i!iular fill over 1 to
1.5-feet of organic silts over native plastic silts and deco" ,,,u,,...J siltstone.
A perched groundwater was found at auger hole AH1 at the top of the organic sill The organic silt was
saturated and "'.;...., , ...Iy soil We could not detennlne if this condition was due to a poorly-functioning footing
drain or if the granular fill in the foundation pad has intercepted groundwater seepage and routed it to the
northwest comer, which appears to be the low point of the foundation.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENAll0NS
Nature, Cause, and Extent of Subsidence and Settlement
We are certain that the cause of foundation setUement is the compression of loose, saturated or wet organic
silts and loose granular fills placed on the foundation pad.
The organic topsoii has a low bearing capacity and charau;.... ;"~ually will compress slowly over a long period of
time. The loose granular fills (314-inch minus crushed aggregate and 3-inch minus crushed well-graded silty-
sandy-gravels) will compress a smaller amount, as compared to the topsoil, bUt will compress quiCkly.
We believe that settlement of the foundation will continue as the soft organic silts continue to consolidate, if the
recommended repairs are not made, with total setUement reaching as much as 4 to 6-inches.
We believe that the observed setllement could have been avoided by careful quality control during construction
of the foundation pad. It is apparent that unsuitable soft organic silts were not removed from the foundation
area, and that the well-graded granular fills were not adequately compacted.
Ground subsidence and foundation setUement appears to be wide spread across the entire foundation.
2 This test consisls of driving a 1Q.sq. cm. cone inlDthe soli using a 16 kg. hammerfaillng 38 cm. Driving ,=;~",..ce is
calculated and used to determine soil consislllncy and soil relative denslly. This test correlates very well with the ~;",.;...J
penetration test Driving pressures are used to estimate soil shear strength and calculate bearing capacity.
Project 49.05
Client Peterson
6880 Glacier Dr., Springfield OR .
Page 4 of 6
April22,2005
.-
y.
K & A Engineering, Inc.
Foundation settlement can be stopped and the structure brought to a level with an engineered underpinning
system.
Recommendations for Foundation Repair
We recommend that the foundation be underpinned using steel helical piers that extend through the unsuitable
fills and find adequate bearing capacity in the underlying native decomposed siltstone. This repair is the most
cost effective because of the depth required to find bearing and the minimal ground disturbance associated with
this type of underpinning. Other repair methods, such as concrete piers or construction of new footings would
be more expensive because of the confined areas of the foundation (especially In the crawlspace), the large
amount of required excavation, and large quantity of reinforced concrete.
We have detailed our recommendations on the attached Repair Plan. The repair consists of the following steps:
1. Slab removal and Excavation. Excavate around the perimeter foundation and interior strip footing to
expose the footing. This will require removing the existing front porch slab-on-grade and a portion of
the back patio slab.. For the back patio, we recommend removal of concrete to a width sufficient to-
accommodate pier installation, usually about 6-feet Care should be taken to locate all utilities and
ensure that utilities are not damaged during excavation and underpinning.
2. Pier Installation. Helical piers should be installed according to our recommendations for depth and
installation torque. Piers should be attached to the foundation using the specified pier brackets that
have been carefully attached to the foundation in notches cleanly cut into the outside edge Of the
footing to allow the bracket seat to be directly undemeath the stem wall.
3. We should be on-site during installation to inspect and approve of pier installation prior to lifting or
attachment to the foundation.
4. Lifting and leveling. After pier installation, the floor should be re-surveyed to verity the magnitude and
location of settlement The perimeter foundation should then be carefully lifted to a level condition.
. Interior floor supports need to be shimmed at the same time to prevent floor sagging and development
of damage to interior finishes. It is important to note, however, and some slight damage to interior
finishes is common for a leveling operation, and can be easily repaired after underpinning and leveling
is complete.
5. Anal repair to interior finishes, trim, and doors, including painting. All existing cracks should be
patched or otherwise repaired. Interior doors may have to be re-hung. A new front door is required
because, after the foundation is lifted, a significant gap will be noticeable at the top or bottom of the
opening. Anally, after trim and doors and wall finishes have been repaired, the interior will require
repainting.
6. Porch and patio concrete slab-on-grade construction, backfill, and final grading.
Estimated Cost for R ....neled Repair
We have estimated the cost of repairs, including contractor's overhead and profit, a 10% contingency for
unknown or latent conditions discovered during construction, and professional fees to be...... A detailed
breakdown of our cost estimate is attached to this report. This e,,~., ..~" is consistent with costs for similar
repairs that we have specified and inspected in westem Oregon.
Note that this estimate does not include costs associated with moving interior fumishings or temporary living
quarters. This repair can be done while the structure is occupied and does not require that the structure be'
vacated during construction.
Project 49.05
Client Peterson
6880 Glacier Dr., Springfield OR
Page 5 of 6
April22,2005
.-
.
K 11 A Engineering, Inc.
EstIniated TIme for Repairs
111e time required for the recommended repairs depends on availability and the resources of the selected
contractor, but can range generally from 4 to 6-weeks.
LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT
111is report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Ralph and Paula Peterson and their legal council, design
consultants, and contractors for the subject structure.
111is geotechnical investigation, analysis, and recommendations meet the standards of care of competent
geotechnical engineers providing similar services at the time these services were provided. We do not warrant
or guarantee these recommendations, site surface, or subsurface conditions. Exploration test holes indicate
soil conditions only at specific locations (i.e. the test hole locations) to the depths penetrated. They do not
necessarily reflect soiVrock materials or groundwater conditions that exist between or beyond exploration
locations or limits.
111e scope of our services does not include construction safety precautions, techniques, sequences, or
procedures, except as specifically recommended in this report Our services should not be interpreted as an
environmental assessment of site conditions.
111ank you for the opportunity to be of service. Please call us if you have questions or need further assistance.
Sincerely.
f:YJ'IRfS/i~j/,;f
Michael Remboldt, P.E.
K & A Engineering, Inc.
Project 49.05
Client Peterson
. 6880 Glacier Dr., Springfield OR
Page 6 of6
April22,2005
. .
.
. ;;I
...
, ". k geo~ch~ical :vil Project 6880 Glacier Dr.
engJneenng Client Peterson
Eugene, OR 97440 Job No: 49.05 Date: 4/22/05
.ngl'~ 541 684 9399 541 684 9358 fax Sheet 1 of5
,
,
,...
I; ~.~
.
",
1'"0
'-.../
PROJECT AREA MAP
1D = 200'
IN!I
o
PROJECT SITE
6880 6I.ACIER DR.
lANE COUNlY
TAXMAP18020311
TAXLOT 1900
/
,
k
..gl'~
geotechnical :vil
engineering
Eugene, OR 97440
541 684 9399 541 684 9358 fax
Project 6880 Glacier Dr.
Client Peterson
Job No: 49.05 Date: 4/22/05
Sheet 2 of 5
"
'.
/\
/ \
" \
/
,
,
~<tY
-N,...
-,-...", ,\\
7'lP.
,
,
/
"
/
,
<'
"
"
"
"
"
" \ _M '9"
" ~\~ '9"
" ~~
" ~
"~ ~~~'9"
~~
C;;\~
"
'\
" ~~ MM'9"
" ~M '9"
'\ w'9"
"
"
'\
"
" ,
y'
LOCAllON OF AUGER HOLE ANO
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER PROBE
(lYP.)
EXISTlNG RlUNDAllON
LOCATION ON PROPERTY APPROXIMATE
~ PROJECT SITE PLAN
\:J 1U = 20'
IN:!I
~.
"--/
EXPIRES
NOTES:
1. PROPERlY BOUNDARY BEARINGS AND OISTANCES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY.
2. nus IS NOT A PRlIP6l1Y BOUNDARY SURVEY.
3. llfE lOCA11ONAND (u""MalG OFllfE ""","UI\' FOUNDA11ON ONllfE ("...."", ,i1SA.-".u....!ATE
ONLY.
'"
.-
Date Excavated:
i
Ii
"
~. 6
z
~
..
9
~
D-
"
!i
~
8. 7
'"
w
~
o
:r
0:
w
"
"
Equipment
. 1
. 2 .
. 3
. 4
- 5 -
:r
Iii':-
O~
I"
,,9
LOG OF HAND AUGER HOLE AHl
. 3115105
3.5-lnch hand auoer
MATERiAl DESCRIPTION
Tan, damp, loose, poorly-graded GRAVEU.Y SAND fill
Logged by:
Surface 8evalion(1l):
Dark gray, moist, loose to moder.llely dense 314-inch minus dense-graded
crushed aggregate - SILTY..sANDY-GRAVEl fill.
5-lnch open graded angular QUARRY STONE fill.
Oark brown, soli, saturated organic SILT - topsoil
Brown, saluraled, soli, plastic CLAY.
Brown; moist, stiff, plastic SILT and CLAY
Motued yellow-red-laJ1..brown decomposed tuffaceous SILTSTONE.
~ ~8 K & A Engineering, Inc.
?f . . 521 Market St, Suite B
~ Eugene, DR 97402
S .ngln",'n, Phone: (541) 684-9399 Fax: (541) 684-9399 .
;......-.......
m::".-~;{.~:
It -'._
... -.
~ ...
.....'
.a. -.
~.~
....'
o . ,
X"'1r :- x
x x x )(
. x x x x
x x x x
x x x )(
x )( x x
)( x )( x
MDR
~ Q l!
~ ~ ~
Peterson Residence
680 Glacier Dr., Eugene, OR
48.05
I
i~
~E
>- .
l!i:i
5~
- 2
- 3
- 4 .
- 5-
i!!
~
...
g
Ii 6
z -
z
z
Cl
<(
Cl
9
~
is
~
S. 7
..
!!l
o
:>:
a:
w
Cl
:> -
"
Dale Excavated:
Equipment
~."
w"
O~
18
"'.....
LOG OF HAND AUGER HOLE AH2
3115105
3.5-inch hand auaer
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Brown, damp, loose SILlY SANOY fill.
, '
, '
Logged by:
SUJface E1evation(fl):
0311< gray, moist. loose to moderately dense 314-lnch minus dense-graded
crushed aggregate - SILTY-sANOY-GRAVEL fill.
5-1nch open graded angular QUARRY STONE fill.
Brown, moist.loosetsoft, organic SILT. May be a fill. Note presense of gravelS
(from granular fill matelials) and roots.
Brown, moist. soft, plastic plastic tuffaceOUS SILT.
~ ~8 K & A Engineering, Inc.
~ . . 521 Mar1<et St, SUite B
~ Eugene, OR 97402
~ ..,'.m'., Phone: (541) 684-9399 Fax: (541) 684-9399
1
,~ "~.~:-:.~-
~'..t:!t...:,'l/
:~::.\~.:~
~.:~.:~
.#:..:~.:~
~:.~:#.
~.:~::~
v
MOR
::! Cl 1I
~ ~ ~
Peterson Residence
680 Glacier Dr., Eugene, OR
48.05
w
ex:
~
!!2
~~
~:a
~~
U>
0-
~~
Date Excavated:
Equipment
~c
wG>
ol
~<o
<og
',.'
.. . .
- 1
. .
.' .",'
. .
.. . .
. .
. 2
:.. ".:1
~ ...1
....
o ... ..
~.~
....'
~~.;
aDo .0
b 0<0<
,000'
.of:)Q "0
b 0<::::1:
,000'
o Do 00
b 0<0<
,000"
o Do 00
b o<::::i:
. 3
. 4
~ 5 -
LOG OF HAND AUGER HOLE AHa
3/15/05
3.5-lnch hand auQer
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Brown, oamp, loose SANDY SILTY fill.
Logged by:
Surface 8evalion(fl):
Dark gray, moist, loose to moderately dense 3/4-inch minus densll1Jl3ded
crushed aggregate - SILTY-5ANDY-GRAVEL fill.
Gray, moist, 3-lncl1 minus gap-graded angular crushed granular wELL GRADED
SILTY-5ANDY-GRAVEL fill. Estimate 60% gravels, 30% sands, 10% slits.
~
~
g
~. 6
z
z
"
"
8
~
,
..
"
!i
:!
S' 7
'"
~
o
J:
0:
W
"
:i!
~ ~8 K&AL.:.."...:..g, Inc.
il . . 521 Markel St, Suite B
~ Eugene, OR 97402 .
~ ..,'.m'., Phone: (541) 684-9399 Fax: (541) 684-9399
MDR
;;t i
~ ~ ~
Peterson Residence
680 Glacier Dr., Eugene, OR
48.05
w
a:
i=
~-
:lEI!!.
!el'l
::>8
~~
s~
Project
Location:
Client
Project No.:
Coordinates:
Surface EIev.:
I!!
J!l
~
%
"
o
--I -
-.2 -
- - 3 -
.1 -
- - 4 -
- - 5 -
- - 6 -
.2 --
- 7 -
.3- ,
-10-
<-a
If'nt'ln..rlnn
Peterson Residence
6880 Glacier Dr.
Peterson
49.05
j
5
D.
"
o
OCP Raw Data
(blowsll0 an)
10 20 30
- 8 -
- 9 -
-11-
~ . -12 ~
.
~ -
.
:~
. ~
Ii -
~ _ 4 _ -13'
o
c
~
~
~
o
li
~
B
~
z;
K & A ~ineering. Inc.
521 Mi:lIl<et St, Suite B
Eugene, OR 97402
Telephone: (541) 684-9399
Fax: (541\ 684-9399
Dynamic Cone Penetration
Test No: DCP1
Complelion Depth:
Date Boring Started:
Data Boring Completed:
Logged By:
DrilUng Contractor.
~
Dynamic Cone SPT-N 0
ResIstance, mPa (correlated) :2
D.
I!!
C)
2 4 6 8 1012 10 20 30
r
. '."
~
I..
, I
.D'
) (
at>
lOC
-D'
kJ:
-D'
bt>
...., lines represent "".._..:..~~ boUndarieS. The tranSition may be gradual.
: ,
~
i')
4.0
3/17105
3/17105
MMR
K&A
Remarks
Sandy-silly fill
3/4-lnch minus, dense1Iraded crushed aggregate fill.
3-lnch minus well graded sll\y-<laJ1dy gravel granular fill.
Note that AH3 was basically dug by hand _ue the
coarse 3-lnch minus granular fill was too large for the
hand auger. The 3-Inch minus fill was deeper than
....- bulthe actual depth is no1 known. t
We believe thai the gmnular liD ,. ~,. :, to
app ..:. .:. Jy 5-feel because the cone penetrometer
hung up aI a large stone althls depth (note the small -
splka In blow counts) and angled the steel slightly to get
oasI the stone.
Soft to moderately stiff plas1ic slit (assumed).
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x ,
x x
Decomposed tuffaceous slJtstona (assumed).
Test No: DCP1
<-a
pnfl!n..rlntl
K & P. gineering, Inc.
521 Mc<rket St, Suite B
Eugene, OR 97402
Telephone: (541) 684-9399
Fax: 1541\ 684-9399
Dynamic Cone Penetration
Test No: DCP2
Project:
Location:
Client
Project No.:
Coordinates:
Surface EJev.:
Peterson Residence
6880 Glacier Dr.
Peterson
49.05
Completion Depth:
Dale Boring Started: '
Date Boring Completed:
Logged By:
DriDing Contractor.
3.0
3/17105
3/17105
MMR
K&A
10 20 30
.s
Dynamic Cone SPT-N .!!
~...d,mPa (conelated) s:;
a.
a
2 '4 6 8 1012 10 20 30
'.' . Sil\y-sandy liD.
Remarks
I!!
S
"
E
-=
1i
"
o
J
5'
a.
"
o
DCP Raw Data
(bIowsI10 an)
-. 3 -
\,:
'-
I
~".~
.~:.~
.r....tl.
, ,.
314-inch minus aushed -"..:0'.0' "40'.....t fin.
5-b1ch minus .'... .... ,:..,.:.':'.: q~rry stone fiU.
--1-
-. 2 -
Organic silly topsoil.
.1
SoIl, plastic tuffaceos sill
-. 4 -
Decomposed tuffaceous slltstone bedrock (assumed)
. 9 -
Soft to moderately stiff native sills (assumed)
-. 5 -
-. 6 -
. 2 -'
-. 7 -
.8-
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. 3 -
~
!;;
8
.:
g
~
~
i!l
~
!l
..
g
-----g
~
..
"
('
The 6t""u.~_~_' lines represent a....., .,.~ ,..~. boundaries. The transition may be gradual.
Test No: DCP2
.. r 'k' geo~ech~icaVcivil
~ engtneenng
. , Eugene, OR 97440
541 684 9399 541 684 9358 fax
eagleter aC]
Project 6880 Glacier Dr.
Client Peterson
Job No: 49.05 Date: 11/17/2005
Sheet 3 of 5
J
,
NOTE:
1. CONTOURS SHOWN ARE IN D.1-lNCH 1NlBIVALS, WIllf BOlD UNES
ru:rnc.>a'll1l.6 O.5-lNCH 1N1ERVALS.
2. 'THIS TOPOGRAPIUC SURVEY WAS MADE FOR PUnt """'" OF DElERMJNIN6lHE
RBATM B.EVAllONS OF VARIOUS PARTS OFlHE R.OOR SlRUC1lJRE.
3. B.EVAllONS ARE IlASBI ON AN AIlBITRARY 0AlUM.
4. LOWEll LEVB. R.OOR B.EVAllOHS AND MAIN LEVB. R.OOR B.EVATJONS DO NOT
nacna_ EACH 0TIlER AND ARE BASED ON SEPERAlE ARIIlIlWlY DAlUMS.
8 ~~IN 1~OOR TOPOGRAPHY
IN!I
~
\..J
,
& REVlSBl R.OOR CONTOURS BASBl ON LEVB. SURVEY DONE ON 11111flOO5
, ,
.' ' 'k' . geo~ech~icaVcivil
a engmeenng
· Eugene. OR 97440 '
541 684 9399 541 684 9358 fax
eogiDeerlDCJ
Project 6880 Glacier Dr.
Client Peterson
Job No: 49.05 Date: 1111712005
Sheet 4 of 5
/
r
,
EXIST1NG WAIl.S
I (1YP.)
~~ v.v -::::
~ ~.5____ -----=:
ij;13 ~~,_o r-::::- i!~
/'//~~ -~!!~~
~ =-:-~5~ 1:-:- t-~
~_ _,.9-;:;-:L
NOlE:
1. COHTlllJRS SHOWN ARE IN O.l..JNCH INTER\IALS, WIlll BOLD LINES
0\0" """",...,G o.5-lNCH 1NTBlVAlS.
2. 1IlIS I uruanAPHlC SURVEY WAS MADE FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE
RB.AllVE aEVATIONS OF VARIOUS PARTS OF THE IUlOR STRUCTURE.
3. aEVAll0NS ARE BASBl ON AN ARBIl1lARY DATUM.
4. LOWER lEV8. MOR aEVA1l0NS AND MAIN lEV8. R.OOR aEVA1l0NS DO NOT
ncrau:nCE EACH OTHER AND ARE BASBl ON SEPERAlE ARBIl1lARY DATUMS.
(0 LOWER FLOOR TOPOGRAPHY
11160 = 1'-Ou
IN!I
~
"---/
& REVISED R.OOR CONTOURS BASED ON LEVEl. SURVEY DONE ON 11/11flOO5
,
tJ
engineering
K & A Engineering, Inc.
P.o. Box 23624, Eugene, OR 97402
521 Market Sl, Suite B, Eugene, OR 97402
(541) 684-9399 Voice
(541) 684-9358 FAX
November 17, 2lJ05
Projed: 49.05
Ralph and Paula Peterson
6880 Glacier Dr.
Springfield, OR 97478
Subject Engineering Calculations
Foundation underpinning
6880 Glacier Dr., Springfield, OR
DescrI~on
Pages
1-2
3-5
Foundation loads
Allowable pier bearing capacity
EXPIRES
ry3J.r to
/
Client Pe1mson
ProJect 49.05
LoadType ~
1 Roof Dl
2 Roof Ll
3 WaD Dl
4 Roor Dl
5 Roar Ll
6 8" Concre1B
Design FoundaIIon Loads
6880 GlacIer Dr.
8pJbl~1i>dd, OR
DesIgn UnII Loads
15 psf
25 psf (snow)
Spsf
12 psf
40psf
96.7 psf
Nortb f,,;..,~,~.., ......,.C;,'~'I'"
TrlbuIary
Wldl/J,ll
17.3
17.3
19
9
9
9
9
4
TolaIlI
TolaI Dl + Ll
PIer SpacIng @ 23 k _..;;.,.
Load Type
1
2
3
4
5
4
5
6
~!i'!i!al
Roof Dl
Root Ll
WaD Dl
Roar Dl
Floor Ll
RoorDl
Roor Ll
S' Concre1B
1nterIlIrSI!'JI~
3 WaD Dl
4 FloorDl
5 Roor Ll
4 Roar Dl
5 RoorLl
6 S' Concl1l1B
19
2D
20
9
9
4
TolaIlI
Total Dl + Ll
PIer ....~.:... @ 15 k capaclly:
EasllWes1 PerImeter Foundalfon
1 Roof Dl 3
2 Roof Ll 3
3 WaDDl 19
4 RoorDl 1.3
5 FloorLl 1.3
6 8" Conaete 10
TolaIlI
TolaI Dl + Ll
PlerSpaclng@15k,.,,,,,,.,,, :
SouIb f ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
......;.. r..."..l;';""
16
16
9
7~
7.5
10
TolaIs
TolaI Dl + Ll
PIer SpacIng@15 k capaclly:
Roof Dl
Roof Ll
WaD Dl
RoarDl
Roar Ll
S' Conaete
DesIgn
Dead IIesI1ln
Load, Uvll Load,
Idp$i1I Idp$i1IIlBmarb
ii.i6ii
0.433
0.152
0,10S lower level
0.360 lower I..eveJ
0.108 MaIn I..eveJ
0.360 Main I..eveJ
0.387 2-flfooting and 2-11 stem waD
1.014 1.1525
2.167 Idp$i1I
10.6 II
0.152 bTterior t'" J.:..~" ,..;.
0240 lower level
0.800 lower level
0.108 main level
0.360 main level
0.387 6-flwaD and 2-lIfoo1btg
0.887 1.16
2.0471dp$i11
7.311
0.045
0.075
0.152
0.016 main and lower Ievets
0.052 main and lower Ievets
0.967 2-fl footing and 2-fl stem waD
1.179 0.127
1.306 Idp$i1I
11.5 II
0240
0.400
0.072
0.090 MaIn I..eveJ
0.300 MaIn I..eveJ
0.967 2-11 fooIbtg and 2-fl stem waD
1.369 0.7
2.069 Idp$i1I
7.3 II
K6A L,,,,,, " """ Inc.
Revlsed 1111712005
II~
DesIgn Fonndatlon Loads
6880 Glacier Dr.
Springfield, OR
Deslon Unit Loads
15 psf
25 psf (snow)
8 psf
12 pst
. 40 pst
96.7 Del
Load Type Description
1 Roof DL
2 Roof LL
3 WaD DL
4 Roor DL
5 Aoor LL
6 8" Concrete
EastIWest Pll.,.,. Fonndalion - Garage
Tribulary
Width, II
13
13
9
5
5
6
Totals
Total DL + U
Pier Spacing @ 25 k capaclly:
Load Type
1
2.
3
4
5
6
Description
Roof DL
Roof LL
Wall DL
RoorDL
Roor LL
8" Concrete
Client Pe1Brson
Project 49.05
Design
Dead Design
Load, Live Load,
kips/ft klpS/ll Remarlls
0.195
0.325
0.072
0.242 Slab
0.500 garage live load @ 100 pst
0.580 2-ft fooling and 2-ft stem wall
1.089 0.825
1.914 klps/ft
13.111
. K" ~ EngIneering, Inc.
Revised 1111712005
-zj.:r
- I '.
6880 Glacier Dr.
Springfield, Oregon
Helical Pier Load Capacity - Ct't,.,1: Je Stress Analysis
Unit Definitions:
Ibf
psfs-
ft2
pcf e Ibf ksf e 10()().psf psi e 144.psf kPa e IOOO.Pa kips e 10()().lbf
ft3
Input Parameters:
Soil Moist Unit Weight above footing: Yam:= 120pcf
Soil Moist Unit Weight below footing: Ybm:= 120pcf
FOS := 3
Helix
Helix Diameter Area
BI := lOin AI := (:1 r.1l
2 B2:= 12in A2:'= (:2 y."
3
. (B3)2
B3 := 14in A3:= "2 .11
Helix 1 Capacity:
Depth
Eff.Unit
Wt.
Above
Fooling
DI:= 16ft
Yal = 120pcf
D:z:= 14ft
Yo2 = 120 pcf
OJ:= 12ft
Ya3 = 120pcf
-( )2
~I n-tan(+t)
Nql := "2 + 45.deg .e
Ncl:= it[(~I) =0,5.14,(Nql-I)CO~~I)J
Nyl:= 2-(Nql + 1).tan(~I)
Overburden pressure,
Ultimate bearing pressure,
Net Ultimate bearing pressure,
Net Ultimate Helix Load,
Net Allowable Helix Load,
I Client Peterson
Project 49.05
Nql = 18.4
Ncl = 30.14
Nyl = 22.4
Groundwater depth:
Unit weight of water
Eff.Unit
Wt.
Below
Fooling
OW := 20ft
Yw:= 62.4pcf
Soil Soil
Friction Cohesion
~ 1 := 30.deg c 1 := 50psf
Ybl = 37.06pcf
cfl2 := 30.deg c2:= 50psf
Yb2 = 42.63 pct"
~ 3 := 30.deg c3:= 50psf
Yb3 = 49.92pcf
2
AI = O.55ft
ql := DI.Yal
qui := cl.Ncl + ql.Nql + 3.BI.Ybl.NyI
qunctl := qui - ql
Qunctl := qunetl.AI
Qunctl
Qal:= FOS
K & A Engineering, Inc.
ql = l.92ksf
qui = 37.04ksf
qunctl = 35.12ksf
Qunctl = 19.16kips
Qal = 639 kips
Page 1 of21
11/1712005
.:fS-
... I. _
Helix 2 Capacity:
6880 Glacier Dr.
Springfield, Oregon
2
__J h ) ".llIn(+2)
Nq2:= "\. 2" + 45.deg .e
Nc2:= if((~2) = O,5.14,(Nq2 - 1 )oo~~2)]
Ny2:= 2-(Nq2 + 1 )-tan(~2)
Overburden pressure,
Ultimate bearing pressure,
Net Ultimate bearing pressure,
Net Ultimate Helix Load,
Net Allowable Helix Load, -.. -
Helix 3 Capacity:
2
A2 = 0.79ft
Nq2 = 18.4
Nc2 = 30.14
Ny2 = 22.4
'12:= OI'Yo2
qu2:= C2.Nc2 + 'I2.Nq2 + 3.B2'Yb2'Ny2
qunea := qu2 - '12
Ounea:= qunea.A2
Ounea
002-:=
FOS
au{ 2
~3 ".llIn(+3)
Nq3 := 2" + 45-deg) .e
Ne):= it[(+3) = O,5.14,(Nq3 -1)00(+3)]
Nyp 2-(Nq3 + 1 )-tan(~3)
Overburden pressure,
Ultimate bearing pressure,
Net Ultimate bearing pressure,
Net Ultimate Helix Load,
Net Allowable Helix Load,
q2 = 1.92 ksf
qu2 = 37.12ksf
qunea = 35.2ksf
Ounea = 27.65 kips
002 = 9.22 kips
2
A3 = 1.07ft
Nq3 = 18.4
Ne) = 30.14
Ny2 = 22.4
q3 := O3'Y03
Qu3 := c3.Ne) + 'I3.Nq3 + 3.B3"YbJ.Ny3
Qunet3 := qu3 - Q3
0unet3 := qunet3. A3
0unet3
Q"J := FOS
Total Allowable Combined Pier Capacity:
Q,,:= Q"I + 002 + Q"J Q" = 25.21 kips
I Client Peterson
Project 49.05
K Br A Engineering, Inc.
'13 = l.44ksf
Qu3 = 28.4 ksf
qunet3 = 26.96 ksf
0unet3 = 28.82 kips
Q"J = 9.61 kips
Page 2 of2
11/1712005
.
4/.s-
.a Geotechnical & Civil Engineering
521 Martet Street, Suite B. Eugene OR 97402
541 6B4 9399. fax 541 6B4 9358
enginePring
(37T1>1A1r:' 'f2- S"/ L,.J"7b '"'~ rp, c::.
~=rr~ 5"712 PS.s C4:rNn 0 IF~T<Jcr1\./ :
G-~ tt~-;;(.r"-'r.er .!<-,a-r-&-Fr: ~IL."""'" 3 f,t;..' I'KflA--,/ /J--'VP~P<r-I/VI.-. 4-.
'Ii e
....'
"" 1f
:= .;J-=- =-
Fo-
4.?oo
(B XI I'" X.o,p+.,.yj
- 17
F~
po, Cr- . ? ...... 'L hrn-...-l=- \" (r I h)
l' '~Ir~ ~,-,,,,-. 3. ...,-u'37
~ O~J::lrrrV ~.. r<-p-n's
/
'1L--(S7b~~ A-u"o ~~S 4-.
,oJi./.4<1 F"' 1> - ~u' , /J r:Lc/VlAfrt ~
nG-wll4C/J...tvr C<;:;1/I...... r iw Ir-f"F7C.Ct'7"[':
To~
S'r"lLFS S ..
s~~
~C- - ?.,
NIC-
/-J-r- /iOr-,...J A..rJ'I.(._f"'o
.0 e= Pr1+ 01"
8' - f-T
I
r c (8ruoV
8l?6/b/17-2..
,,(B~oYo, <>+79) '" t "2.1..I--{>..,.
t-C % 1.' - - A-f'#J-
/J~ ~ IS Pur"l- A.-r.olJ~~A-(e lr (l.<....V.4-cA...'(1'-'7~/tAl-~r-)
f ,..... +. 3<> ~
,
-:")
r'"" ~
1eo-o - 4-~. "-
IS-
- ?--"4- I::..f4
..." ~-) I-~f
JobN2 ~,o,"'"
Date 4--!."..Wu ('""
, ,
Client j?~~ l"'& rU
Sheet s:- of ..s;-
Description !=SrIIW~ 4n;n'nv./';:- ~~ s-nllZ<.J/> .,..,.,.._
-'~--"'.
- ''''''_H ,"" _.
":';:~;~;:;:f~4,~,: ~ ,;{i~r:;,r h"
....., .
~"t 01\'
I~:.
-'
.'
'" ~.
!i:~
''\.",,'{~
, "
..-.....--...-......-
. ;).,
r.:\
o
REPAIR PLAN
1/80=1'-00
~
I
~
, ',&.1
.. ,
'''-'","
PlSl PlAN
l1/17f2Oll5 REVISED
ElCPIR6
,
U','
10"112'114" S1EB. HBJCAl. PIER DRIVEN WITH PORTABLE (HAND HRD) DRIVE HEAD. M1N. UlllMATE CAPACI1Y
OF 44-KIPS, WITH M1N.INSTAIlAllON TORQUE OF 4,400 FT-lB. NOTCH FDOllNGS AND EXCAVATED BB.OW
\. 1 / IMPORTED QUARRY SlONE Rll PRIOR TO PIER INSTAIlAllON. AlTACHE PIER BRACKET TO FODl1NG USING 2 - i
V "X 4" EXPANSIVE ANCHDRS.
rg.
.\
I
~::":"'._"~'_""""R
PIER SCHEDULE
\.2/ .0"112'114" S1EB. HBJCAl. PIER DRIVEN WITH PORTABLE (HAND HRD) DRIVE HEAD. MIN. Ull1MATECAPACI1Y .
~ OF 7D-KIPS. WITH MJN.INSTAIlAllON TORQUE OF 7,OGOO FT-lB. NOTCH RlD11NGS AND EXCAVATED BB.OW
IMPORlED QUARRY S10NE Rll PRIOR TO PIER INSTAIlAllON. AlTACHE PIER BRACKET TO FOOlING USING 2 - i
" X 4" EXPANSIVE ANCHORS.
EXIST. 2X6 FRAMED WAll (TYP.) '"
EXIST. B" CONe. STEM WAll "\
NOTE lHAT HBGHTS ARE VARIABlE :
AND EXlBlIOR STEM WAllS ARE ~II:""W ~'
. PIER BRACKET .'
7O-KJP MINIMUM Ul11MATE CAPAIClY .: ~, .
PLACE IN NOTCHED FOOlING AS ClOSE TO .",
STEMWAllASPOSSIBl.E \ . /
......
2 71B" SCHEll. 80 S1EB. PIER SHAFT . .' .
WITH llHNCH 112-INCH 114-INCH -I; ..: .......:.:
TRIPlE HBJX BEARING PLATES t . . ...
SEE PIER SCHEDUlE FOR Ul11MATE /
. CAPACI1lES" ~ _
~
R.DOR DIAPHRAGM
EXIST. B" CONCRETE FOO1JNG
NOTE lHAT FODllNG WIDlHS VARY
mOM 24" TO OVER 4B"
IT
GENERAl NOTES
1. UFnNG OF FOUNDATION SHALl BE DONE IN INCREMEHIS TO
AVOID DAMAGE TO 1HE CONCRETE FOUNDAllON AND INTERIOR
RNISHES.
2. IT IS COMMoN FOR SOME MINOR CRACKlNG OF INTERlOR
GYPSUM DURING FOUNDAllON ADJUSlMENT. CONTRACTOR.
SHALl REPAIR All CRACKS AFTER FOUNDAllON AND R.OOR
ElEVAlION ADJUSTMENT IS COMPlETE.
8 J;P11_~,ECTION
- PIER INSTALLATION
REPAIR PLAN
PETERSON RESIDENCE
6880 GLACIER DRIVE, SPRINGFIELD, OR,>
,.
it;:.:::i-\:.
I:~' ::~:~-,
DAlE: 4IZ2IZOll5 . .
81m: 5 OF 5/
'. .,
_ ~':u;
"P~"'\ '"
.,..",.
i?'~:;.'~:':~,' :"
"
,:.' ;;;\; ;::;':.;;;: .;:;;~';::/ .;: /;~".;.'"
" ..:..'; -.~. , .
. ,"" . ", ;~. :'
"r_"-.o~' .
....;" .!.