My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4224 RIVERFRONT BLVD 2019-03-14
>
Address Records
>
RIVERFRONT BLVD
>
4224
>
4224 RIVERFRONT BLVD 2019-03-14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2019 11:59:49 AM
Creation date
3/14/2019 11:59:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
RIVERFRONT BLVD
Street Number
4224
Imported From Microfiche
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Nic - Q®6 <br /> ....... . <br /> Project Name: ; Everett River Front-Simpson Report: 098 <br /> GeoDesign#: Polygon-127-01 Date: 7/15/2016 <br /> Reports with Unresolved Nonconformance Issues: Permit: <br /> PW 1505-005 <br /> DFR 052 <br /> Nick Abdelnour(Polygon) Randy Allen(City of Everett) Weather. Sunny, 70's <br /> Ron Bowen(Polygon) Arrival/Departure: 0845/1745 <br /> Distribution: � — -- -------- I _- _ <br /> Doug Ross(Polygon) <br /> Paul McKee(City of Everett) ! Prepared By: Benjamin Weinberg <br /> m Site Plan(s) m Density Test Summary Signature: « � <br /> Attachments: h. <br /> ❑ Installation Records ❑ Other �I Reviewed By: <br /> PURPOSE of VISIT: GeoDesign representative, Benjamin Weinberg,was on-site at the request of Doug Ross with <br /> Polygon to observe earthwork activities. <br /> SUMMARY of OBSERVATIONS: <br /> GeoDesign noted that BDZ was in the process of grading Road B, Road C, D/W"N", and D/W"K" in preparation for paving. <br /> Today, GeoDesign tested the relative compaction of the crushed surfacing base course for the above-mentioned areas. <br /> In-place density tests taken along Road B, Road C, and D/W"K"indicated that the CSBC material had been compacted to <br /> greater than 95% of its maximum dry density as determined by a Modified Proctor analysis. GeoDesign noted that the <br /> CSBC material along D/W"N"appeared to surficially loose and not compacted into a firm and unyielding mass; GeoDesign <br /> recommends that the CSBC material along D/W"N"be compacted into a firm and unyielding mass prior to paving. <br /> • <br /> Lof.101 <br /> GeoDesign noted that the exposed subgrade material consisted of a brown silty SAND (f-m)with gravel (f-c)which could be <br /> penetrated less than 2 inches using a 1/2 inch diameter soil probe under the the full weight of the user and that the west <br /> perimeter of the foundation had been over-excavated 1.5 feet down to firm and unyielding material. Density tests taken at <br /> various points along the perimeter foundation indicated that the exposed subgrade material had been compacted to greater <br /> than 95% of its maximum dry density as determined by a Modified Proctor analysis. It is the opinion of GeoDesign that the <br /> exposed foundation subgrade observed today is currently suitable for support of the intended foundation loads. GeoDesign <br /> recommends that any surficially loose or saturated material be removed from the base of the foundation prior to the <br /> placement of concrete. <br /> Lot 102 <br /> GeoDesign noted that the exposed subgrade material consisted of a brown silty SAND (f-m)with gravel(f-c)which could be <br /> penetrated less than 4 inches using a 1/2 inch diameter soil probe under the the full weight of the user. Density tests taken <br /> at various points along the perimeter foundation indicated that the exposed subgrade material had been compacted to <br /> greater than 95%of its maximum dry density as determined by a Modified Proctor analysis. It is the opinion of GeoDesign <br /> that the exposed foundation subgrade observed today is currently suitable for support of the intended foundation loads. <br /> Lot 132 <br /> GeoDesign noted that the exposed subgrade material consisted of a brown silty SAND (f-m)with gravel (f-c)which could be <br /> penetrated less than 2 inches using a 1/2 inch diameter soil probe under the the full weight of the user. Density tests taken <br /> at various points along the perimeter foundation indicated that the exposed subgrade material had been compacted to <br /> greater than 95% of its maximum dry density as determined by a Modified Proctor analysis. It is the opinion of GeoDesign <br /> that the exposed foundation subgrade observed today is currently suitable for support of the intended foundation loads. <br /> GeoDesign recommends that any surficially loose or saturated material be removed from the base of the foundations prior <br /> to the placement of concrete. The client and contractor were notified of our observations prior to our departure from the <br /> site. <br /> This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotechnical engineering or environmental services.We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and <br /> specifications throughout the duration of the project irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not indude supervision or direction of the contractor,the contractor's employees <br /> or agents. Our firm is not responsible for site safety.This field report is a DRAFT representation of our field observations,testing,and preliminary recommendations.The report can only be considered <br /> final upon review of the GeoDesign project manager,as indicated by initials in the"Reviewed By"section. <br /> 10700 Meridian Avenue North,Suite 210 I Seattle,WA 98133 I 206.838.9900 <br /> 2502 Jefferson Avenue I Tacoma,WA 98402 I 253.203.0095 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.