Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous Plans 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 I$."z.. 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)(. Of..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 west-facing foothills 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 form residual or colluvial plastic silts having a moderate to high plasticity and non-isotropic, low permeability. 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, daylighted are of approximately 1,000 square feet and a main level (at approximate street grade) having approximately 1,920 square feel 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 feel 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 currently 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-inch intervaIs. 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, hairtine to 1/16-lnch in width ii. Dining room: cracking in the south wall at the east lower comer of the window. iii. Entry: A crack in the ceiling, running east-west, hairtine to 1/1lHnch in width iv. Entry/llving Room: a crack running the tulllength of the ridge in the ceiling (a vaulted scissor truss roof). This crack extends approximately 24-lnches south from the ridge down the east wall. v. Entry/llving Room: a diagonal crack at the north living room window in the lower west comer, approximately 1o-inches long vi. Entry/llving Room: Front door has been trimmed significantly to allow continued operation. vR. Entry/llving 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 eastem 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-inches 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 - wall has settled approximately 1/4- Inches viii. Hall/bath: hairline cracks in wall at sink ix. West bedroom: 1I16-lnches x 12-inches diagonal crack at east top comer of window x. West bedroom: diagonal 1132-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: vertical 1132-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 undemeath the front entry c. Significant setUement of south front entry porch Subsurface SolI Conditions Subsurface soils were investigated along the south foundation to determine the nature and extent of soils undemeath the settled 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 . . .. 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 difficult 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 remarkably loose as it was relatively easy to dig with the bare hand. 8ased 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 lit 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 soft We could not detennlne it this condition was due to a poorly-functioning footing drain or it 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 RECOMMENATlONS 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 chara~;... ;"~~a1ly will compress slowly over a long period of time. The loose granular fills (314-inch minus crushed aggregate and 3-lnch minus crushed well-graded sllty- 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, it the recommended repairs are not made, with total setUement reaching as much as 4 to 6-inches. We believe that the observed settlement 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. em. cone inlDthe soli using a 16 kg. hammerfaillng 38 em. Driving ,=;~",..ce is calculated and used to determine soil consislllncy and soli 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 April22,2oo5 .- 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 instaJlation, 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 InstaJlation. 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 verify 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 ....nded 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 April22,2oo5 .- . K 11 A Engineerin9, Inc. Estiniated TIme for Repairs The 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 This 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. This 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 solVrock materials or groundwater conditions that exist between or beyond exploration locations or limits. The 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. Thank 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 April22,2oo5 . ' . . ;;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; ~.~ . " "'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,... .,"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 1 u = 20' IN:!I ~. "--/ EXPIRES NOTES: 1. PROPERlY BOUNDARY BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. 2. nus IS NOT A PRlIP6l1Y BOUNDARY SURVEY. 3. llfE lOCA11ONAND (u""MalG OFllfE """"UI\' FOUNDA11ON ONllfE ("...."", ,(1SA.-".u....!ATE ONLY. '" .- Date Excavated: i Ii " ~. 6 z ~ 0( 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 - SILlY.sANDY-GRAVEl fill. 5-lnch open graded angular QUARRY STONE fill. Oark brown, sofl. saturated organic SILT - topsoil Brown, saluraled, sofl. 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 ..,1.""., Phone: (541) 684-9399 Fax: (541) 684-9399 , ;......-....... m::".-~;{'~: It -'._ ... -. ~ ... .,...' ... -. ~.~ ,...' 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 0( Cl 9 ~ is ~ S' 7 .. !!l o :>: a: w Cl :0 - " Date 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 if ~ ~ ~ Peterson Residence 680 Glacier Dr., Eugene, OR 48.05 w a: i= ~- :lEI!!. !el'l ::>8 ~~ s~ Project Location: Client Project No.: Cooltlinates: Surface EIev.: I!! J!l ~ % " o -,1 - -. 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 Sl, 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 SPr-N 0 ResIstance, mPa (correlated) :2 D. I!! C) 2 4 6 8 1012 10 20 30 r . '." ~ I.. , I .D' ) ( at> ,OC -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, dense-9raded 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 ND: 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.: Coonllnates: 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 slIls (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 o.1-lNCH 1NlBIVALS, WIllf BOlD UNES ru:rnc.>a'll1l.6 O.&lNCH 1N1ERVALS. 2. 'THIS TOPOGRAPIUC SURVEY WAS MADE FOR PUnt """'" OF DElERMJNIN6lHE RBATM B.EVAllONS OF VARIOUS PARTS OFlHE R.OOR SlRUC1URE. 3. B.EVAllONS ARE IlASBI ON AN AIlBITRARY DAlUM. 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.1-1NCH INTER\IALS, WIlll BOLD LINES na"""",...,G D.5-lNCH 1NTBlVAlS. 2. 1IlIS, uruunAPHlC SURVEY WAS MADE FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE RB.AllVE aEVATIONS OF VARIOUS PARTS OF THE R.OOR STRUCTURE. 3. aEVAll0NS ARE BASBl ON AN ARBIl1lARY DATUM. 4. LOWER lEV8. R.OOR aEVA1l0NS AND MAIN lEV8. R.OOR aEVA1l0NS 00 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 l'nginl'l'ring K & A Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 23624, Eugene, OR 97402 521 Market Sl, Suite 8, 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. 5pJbl~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 1ntllI1lIrSI!'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 0esIgn 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 pst 25 pst (snow) 8 pst 12 psi , 40 psi 96.7 Del Load Type Description 1 Root DL 2 Roof LL 3 WaD DL 4 Roar DL 5 Roar LL 6 8" Concrete EastIWest Pll.,.,. Fonndalinn - 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 Roar 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 psi 0.580 2-ft tooling 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'll 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 + 4S.deg .e Ncl:= it[(~I) =0,S.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 := SOpsf Ybl = 37.06pcf cfl2 := 30.deg c2:= SOpsf Yb2 = 42.63 pct' ~ 3 := 30.deg c3:= 50psf Yb3 = 49.92pcf 2 AI = 0.S5ft ql := DI'Yal qui := cl.Ncl + ql.Nql + 3.BI'Ybl'NyI qunctl := qui - ql Qunctl:= qunet1'AI Qunctl Qal:= FOS K & A Engineering, Inc. ql = l.92ksf qui = 37.04ksf qunctl = 3S.l2ksf Qunctl = 19.16kips Qal = 639 kips Page 1 of21 11/1712005 .:fS- ... I. _ Helix 2 Capacity: 6880 Glacier Dr. Springfield, Oregon 2 __J h ) It'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 It'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 Maltet Street. Suite B. Eugene OR 97402 541 6B4 9399. fax 541 6B4 9358 enginePring (371'1>14-1<:' 'f2- S"/ '-,J"rb '"'~ rp, c::.. ~=rr~ 5'712 PS.s C4:rNn 0 IF~T<Jcr1\./ : G-~ tt~-;;(.r"-'r.er .!<-f~..r-&-Fr; ~IL."""" 3 f,t;..' I'KflA-./ p.'VP~P<r-I/VI.-' 4-. -Li e ....' "" 1f := ,;Jc.. =- Fo. 4.?oo (B XI I'" Xo,p+.,.yj - 15" F~ po, Cr- . ? ...... 'L f"rt'l-Vl=- \' (r I h) l' '~Ir~ ~l..,"'-' 3. -,...u'37 ~ O~J::lrrrV ~.. ,..p-n's / '1L.-(S7b~~ A-u'o ~~.S 4" .o-'i.'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?LFS S .. s~~ ~C- - ?., NIC- /-J.-r- /iOr-""; A..rJ'I.(._ f""O .0 e= Pr1+ 01" 8' .. f-T I r c (8ru<v 8l?6/b/17-2... ,,(B~oYo. <>+79) '" t 7., 1..1--{>..,. 1-c % 1.... .. - A-f'#J- /J~ ~ IS Pu(l- A.-tOIJ~~A-(e lr (l<..H"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?~~ ("& 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 FOOllNG 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 RlO11NGS AND EXCAVATED BB.OW IMPORTED QUARRY S10NE Rll PRIOR TO PIER INSTAIlAllON. AlTACHE PIER BRACKET TO FOOlING USlNG 2 - i " X 4" EXPANSIVE ANCHORS. EXIST. 2X6 FRAMED WAll (TYP.) '" EXIST. B" CONC. 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 / . CAPAcmES" ~_ ~ R.OOR DIAPHRAGM EXIST. B" CONCRETE FOOlING NOTE lHAT FODllNG WIDlHS VARY mOM 24" TO OVER 4B" IT GENERAl NOTES 1. UFDNG 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 . ' llIm: 5 OF 5/ '. ., _ ~':U; "P~"'\ '" .,..",. i?'~:;.'~:':~,' :" " ,:" ;;;\; ;::;':,;;:: .;:;;~';::/ .;: /;~".;".. " ..:..'; -.~. , . . ,"" . ", ;~. :' "r_"-.o~' . ....;" .!.