Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - Chestnut Streetf � �; �} r > _ E' OTE' CHNICA L EVICE'S NC A-J' — -- - I Geotechnical Engineering - Environmental Studies - Materials Testing Construction Monitoring Law Offices of Ralph R. Joyce Attn: Mr. Ralph R. Joyce 121 Collins Landing Weare, New Hampshire 03281 June 9, 2004 RECEIVED re: SLOPE STABILIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS REAR OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 4 JUN 1 5 2004 CHESTNUT STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING DEPT. GSI PROJECT NO. 202175 Dear Mr. Joyce: Geotechnical Services, Inc. (GSI) has visited the referenced site on May 18, 2004 and observed the conditions of the earthen slope which has been subject to erosion and local sloughing failure. Based on our review we offer the following recommendations with respect to permanent soil stabilization. To assist in our review of the slope conditions we were provide with the results of a topographic survey performed by GeoAmbient Engineering, Inc. (GAE) as well as a Drainage Analysis and Sediment & Erosion Control Plan dated 9/29/03 also by GAE. SLOPE TOPOGRAPHY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS There were two areas of localized slope failure observed at the time of our visit. Between stations 1 and 2 referencingthe GAE topographic plan, there are downgradient and upgradient, shallow seated slope failures, of approximately 20 by 50 feet. These failures are characteristic of a sloughing of the surfcial soil fill resulting from an instability at the fill/parent soil interface. The resulting scarp is 12 to 18 inches deep and exposes a profile of the fill soil unit which appears to be a fine to medium silty sand with some to little gravel (reworked glacial till). Groundwater was observed to be seeping from the scarp/parent soil interface. Parent soils are Paxton series glacial till deposits. Frequent rill erosion was observed throughout the slope. The occasional topsoil veneer possesses negligible tilth and fertility and the extent of topsoil thickness is insufficient to support the vegetation which is composed of sparse perennial rye grasses. Upland of the affected portions of the slope, the area is generously vegetated with a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees and underbrush. There are no signs of slope instability in the naturally vegetated areas. Based on the topography provided by GA Consultants, Inc. the earthen slope ascends at the rate of 2H:1 V from the existing "Redi-Rock" retaining wall to a narrow, 2 feet deep drainage swale running square to the slope. From this point the slope further ascends on a 2:H:1 V slope to the crest of the hillside at roughly elevation 190 feet. The swale shows severe gully erosion and the crushed stone lining has been transported downgradient towards the Swale terminus. 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, MA 01835 ` 978/374/7744 f FAX 978/374/7799 �' 18 Cote Avenue, Goffstown, NH 03045 603/624/2722 FAX 603/624/3733 Chestnut Street Earth Slope Recommendations GSI frojeCt No. 202175 June 9, 2004 Page 2 SOIL SLOPE STABILIZATION The parent soils are dense glacial till deposits which are inherently stable, in terms of global or deep-seated stability, in natural slopes as steep as 1 H: IV. Such soils possess a great deal of silt and clay which render them prone to erosion. In the case of this project, the shallow slope failure is the result of external erosion of the reworked glacial till fill as well as internal instability induced due to the effects of groundwater seepage. Our recommendations with respect to slope stability improvement are twofold; subsurface drainage to relieve seepage forces and "bio -structural" erosion control incorporating hardy vegetation. Subsurface Drainage To obviate the groundwater -seepage and thus enhance slope stability, it is recommended that the interceptor drainage swale be undercut with an underdrain. The underdrain may be 4 -inch ADS, Hancor type slotted drain pipe set within a 2 x 3 feet trench and enveloped with 3/4 inch crushed stone. The entire perimeter of the trench should be wrapped with filter fabric, Mirafi 140N or equal product. The underdrain will serve to intercept groundwater and induce a depression in the phreatic surface; the result will be enhancement of the overall slope stability. The underdrain detail is depicted on the attached sketch. The drain may be placed along the alignment of the existing swale and it's invert may daylight into the Swale at a distance downgradient in advance of the proposed retention pond. Once the drain is installed, the interceptor swale should be reworked to the geometry shown of the attached detail. The swale should be lined with Mirafi 50OX stabilization fabric and then lined with rip -rap meeting the requirements of Massachusetts Highway Department, M2.02.4, Modified Rockfill. Bio -structural Erasion Control Surface erosion may be countered by the establishment of deep-rooted, hardy vegetation along the slopeside. The beneficial effects of vegetation on the slope would include mechanical stabilization of the surficial soils by the root and stem structure and modification of the subsurface hydrology by the processes of evapo- transpiration. Secondary effects include a marked retardation and velocity reduction in stormwater run-off. GSI recommends that the slope be covered with a minimum of 6 -inches of humus of such nature and organic content capable ofsustainring vegetation. GSI further recommends that an erosion control mat such as North American Green S 150 or equivalent be mechanically affixed to the slope immediately after humus placement. One supplier ofthe above -referenced mat is 3ennian Enterprises of Melrose, Massachusetts. The mat provides erosion protection and slope stability prior to establishment of vegetation. Subsequent vegetative cover may be established by using a hardy mixture of grass and legume seeds including annual Rye grass and Crown Vetch. Crown Vetch is a legume that possesses a fairly deep root system and grows to a height of about two feet. The legumes are desirable for nitrogen contribution via transportation processes and subsequent inoculation into the tilth layer. A distinct advantage of the Crown Vetch is that it does not require mowing so there is virtually no maintenance involved with the slope protection. The Crown Vetch should be applied at a rate of 20 lbs/acre; an innoculant is required and is typically provided by the supplier. Chestnut Street Earth Slope Recommendations GS1 Project No. 202175 June 9, 2004 Page 3 Crown Vetch will not establish on acid soils therefore it is necessary to check the topsoil for pH and incorporate lime as required. It may be necessary to broadcast from 2 to 4 tons of ground limestone per acre to reduce acidity. Because the Crown Vetch exhibits slow seedling vigor, we recommend that a nurse crop be planted to germinate quickly and provide some degree of protection. The nurse crop may be 10 lbs/acre of annual Ryegrass and 50 lbs/acre of Red Fescue. The humus may require the application of fertilizer to enhance growth and promote root structure. Our preliminary recommendations is an application of 10 parts nitrogen -10 parts phosphorus -10 parts potassium at a rate of 100 pounds per acre. For best establishment, lime and fertilizer should be worked into the top four to six inches of soil. Seed germination will be facilitated with mulch cover provided by the erosion control mat. Construction Monitoring It is recommended that GS1 be retained to observe construction procedures for conformance with contract requirements, documents and design concepts. We trust that the contents of this report is responsive to your needs at this time. Should- you have any questions or need further assistance, -please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, GEOTECHNIAPE.V" CES, INC. Harry K. etherbee, Principal Engineer F G S rr ` Chestnut Street Earth Slope Recommendations GSI Project No. 202175 June 9, 2004 Page 4 LIMITATIONS Explorations I . The analyses, recommendations and designs submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from preliminary subsurface explorations. The nature and extent of variations between these explorations may not become evident until construction. if variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. The generalized soil profile described in the text is intended to convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and idealized and have been developed by interpretation of widely spaced explorations and samples; actual soil transitions are probably more gradual. For specific information, refer to the individual test pit and/or boring logs. Water level readings have been made in the test borings under conditions stated on the logs. These data have been reviewed and interpretations have been made in the text of this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors differing from the time the measurements were made. Review 4. It is recommended that this firm be given the opportunity to review final design drawings and specifications to evaluate the appropriate implementation of the recommendations provided herein. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed areas are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of the report modified or verified in writing by Geotechnical Services, Inc. Use of Report 6. This report has been prepared for Mr. Ralph Joyce in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 7. This report has been prepared for this project by Geotechnical Services, Inc. This report was completed for preliminary design purposes and may be limited in its scope to complete an accurate bid. Contractors wishing a copy of the report may secure it with the understanding that its scope is limited to evaluation considerations only. 6" TOPSOIL - MIRAFI 50OX �— STABILIZATION FABRIC 3/4" CRUSHED STONE —4" DIAMETER HANCOR ADS SLOTTED DRAIN PIPE TILL PARENT SOIL 1 /2 # / 1000 SQ. FT. CROWN VETCH HARD FESCUE AS NURSE GRASS — 1# / 1000 SQ. FT. EARTH SLOPE CROSS SECTION GS GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. 18 COTE AVENUE, UNIT #11, GOFFSTOWN, NH 03045 I TEL (603) 6242722 FAX. (603) 624-3733 SLOPE STABILIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS Drawn By: J.L. Date: 6/9/04 Figure CHESTNUT STREET Checked By: H.W. Scale: 1/4"=1'-0" No. 1 NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS File Name: Project No.: I...r O Tt. C II NI C 1 .F.. ! _.r' Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Studies Materials Testing Construction Moitilorinq RECEIVED June 9, 2004 Law Offices of Ralph R. Joyce JUN 15 2004 PO Attn: Mr. Ralph R. Joyce NORTH ANDOVER 121 Collins Landing CONSERVATION COMMISSION Weare, New Hampshire 03281 RECEIVED re: SLOPE STABILIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS JUN 1 5 2004 REAR OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 4 CHESTNUT STREET BUILDING DEPT. NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS GSI PROJECT NO. 202175 Dear Mr. Joyce: Geotechnical Services, Inc. (GSI) has visited the referenced site on May 18, 2004 and observed the conditions of the earthen slope which has been subject to erosion and local sloughing failure. Based on our review we offer the following recommendations with respect to permanent soil stabilization. To assist in our review of the slope conditions we were provide with the results of a topographic survey performed by GeoAmbient Engineering, Inc. (GAE) as well as a Drainage Analysis and Sediment & Erosion Control Plan dated 9/29/03 also by GAE. SLOPE TOPOGRAPHY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS There were two areas of localized slope failure observed at the time of our visit. Between stations 1 and 2 referencing the GAE topographic plan, there are downgradient and upgradient, shallow seated slope failures, of approximately 20 by 50 feet. These failures are characteristic of a sloughing of the surficial soil fill resulting from an instability at the fill/parent soil interface. The resulting scarp is 12 to 18 inches deep and exposes a profile of the fill soil unit which appears to be a fine to medium silty sand with some to little gravel (reworked glacial till). Groundwater was observed to be seeping from the scarp/parent soil interface. Parent soils are Paxton series glacial till deposits. Frequent rill erosion was observed throughout the slope. The occasional topsoil veneer possesses negligible tilth and fertility and the extent of topsoil thickness is insufficient to support the vegetation which is composed of sparse perennial rye grasses. Upland of the affected portions of the slope, the area is generously vegetated with a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees and underbrush. There are no signs of slope instability in the naturally vegetated areas. Based on the topography provided by GA Consultants, Inc. the earthen slope ascends at the rate of 2H:1 V from the existing "Redi-Rock" retaining wall to a narrow, 2 feet deep drainage swale running square to the slope. From this point the slope further ascends on a 2:1-1: IV slope to the crest of the hillside at roughly elevation 190 feet. Che swale shows s vere gul.Ly ion and the crushed stone lining has been transported downgradient towards the swale terminus 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, MA 01835 978/374/7744 FAX 978/374/7799 18 Cote Avenue, Goffstown, NH 03045 603/624/2722 FAX 603/624/3733 Chestnut Street Earth Slope Recommendations GSl Project No. 202175 June 9, 2004 Page 2 SOIL SLOPE STABILIZATION The parent soils are dense glacial till deposits which are inherently stable, in terms of global or deep-seated stability, in natural slopes as steep as 1 H:I V. Such soils possess a great deal of silt and clay which render them prone to erosion. in the casejofthL%_p�the shallow slope failure is the result of external erosion of the_reworked glacial till fill as well as internal instability induced due to the effects of groundwater seepage Our eecommenTations with respect to slope stability improvement are twofold; subsurface drainage to relieve seepage forces and "bio -structural" erosion control incorporating hardy vegetation. Subsurface Drainage To obviate the groundwater seepage and thus enhance slope stability, it is recommended that the interceptor drainage Swale be undercut with an underdrain'JTlie underdrain may be 4 -inch ADS, Hancor type slotted drain pipe set within a 2 x 3 feet trench and enveloped with 3/4 inch crushed stone. The entire perimeter •of the trench should be wrapped with filter fabric, Mirafi 140N or equal product. The underdrain will serve to intercept groundwater and fnduce a depression in the phreatic surface; the result will be enhancement of the overall slope stability. The underdrain detail is depicted on the attached sketch., The drain maye_placed along the alignment of the existing swale and it's invert may daylj& into the swale at a distance downgradient in advance of the proposed retention pond.�Once_the drain.-is_instahed the interceptor swale should be'reworked to the geometry shown of the attached detail The swale should be lined with Mirafi SOOX stabilization fabric and then tined with rip -rap meeting the requirements of Massachusetts Highway Department, M2.02.4, Modified Rockfill. Bio -structural -Erosion Control Surface erosion may be countered by the establishment of deep-rooted, hardy vegetation along the slopeside. The beneficial effects of vegetation on the slope would include mechanical stabilization of the surficial soils by the root and stem structure and modification of the subsurface hydrology by the processes of evapo- transpiration. Secondary effects include a marked retardation and velocity reduction in stormwater run-off. GSI recommends that the slope be covered with a minimum of 6 -inches of humus of such nature and organic content capable of sustaining vegetation. GSI further recommends that an erosion control mat such as North American Green S150 or equivalent be mechanically affixed to the slope immediately after humus placement. One supplier of the above -referenced mat is Jennian Enterprises of Melrose, Massachusetts. -The mat provides erosion protection and slope stability prior to establishment of vegetation. Subsequent vegetative cover may be established by using a hardy mixture of grass and legume seeds including annual Rye grass and Crown Vetch. Crown Vetch is a legume that possesses a fairly deep root system and grows to a height of about two feet. The legumes are desirable for nitrogen contribution via transportation processes and subsequent inoculation into the tilth layer. A distinct advantage of the Crown Vetch is that it does not require mowing so there is virtually no maintenance involved with the slope protection. The Crown Vetch should be applied at a rate of 20 lbs/acre; an innoculant is required and is typically provided by the supplier. G S I Chestnut Street Earth Slope Recommendations GSI Protect No. 202175 June 9, 2004 Page 3 Crown Vetch will not establish on acid soils therefore it is necessary to check the topsoil for pH and incorporate lime as required. It may be necessary to broadcast from'2 to 4 tons of ground limestone per acre to reduce acidity. Because the Crown Vetch exhibits slow seedling vigor, we recommend that a nurse crop be planted to germinate quickly and provide some degree of protection. The nurse crop may be 10 lbs/acre of annual Ryegrass and 50 lbs/acre of Red Fescue. The humus may require the application of fertilizer to enhance growth and promote root structure. Our preliminary recommendations is an application of 10 parts nitrogen -10 parts phosphorus -l0 parts potassium at a rate of 100 pounds per acre. For best establishment, lime and fertilizer should be worked into the top four to six inches of soil. Seed germination will be facilitated with mulch cover provided by the erosion control mat. Construction Monitoring It is recommended that GSI be retained to observe construction procedures for conformance with contract requirements, documents and design concepts. We trust that the contents of this report is responsive to your needs at this time. Should you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, GEOTECHNICAL 7S4VICES, INC. HarryK. etherbee, P.E. Principal Engineer G S Chestnut Street Earth Slope Recommendations GSI Project No. 202175 June 9, 2004 Page 4 LIMITATIONS Explorations The analyses, recommendations and designs submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from preliminary subsurface explorations. The nature and extent of variations between these explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. 2. The generalized soil profile described in the text is intended to convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and idealized and have been developed by interpretation of widely spaced explorations and samples; actual soil transitions are probably more gradual. For specific information, refer to the individual test pit and/or boring logs. Water level readings have been made in the test borings under conditions stated on the logs. These data have been reviewed and interpretations have been made in the text of this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors differing from the time the measurements were made. Review 4. It is recommended that this firm be given the opportunity to review final design drawings and specifications to evaluate the appropriate implementation of the recommendations provided herein. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed areas are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of the report modified or verified in writing by Geotechnical Services, Inc. Use of Report 6. This report has been prepared for Mr. Ralph Joyce in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 7. This report has been prepared for this project by Geotechnical Services, Inc. This report was completed for preliminary design purposes and may be limited in its scope to complete an accurate bid. Contractors wishing a copy of the report may secure it with the understanding that its scope is limited to evaluation considerations only. G S 1 6" TOPSOIL 6" RIPRAP CROWN VETCH HARD FESCUE AS NURSE GRASS — 1 # / 1000 SQ. FT. EARTH SLOPE CROSS SECTIONGS GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. 18 COTE AVENUE, UNfT 111, GOFFSTOWN. NH 03045 I TEL (603) 6242722 FAX. (603) 624-3733 SLOPE STABILIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS Drawn By: J.L. MIRAFI 50OX Figure CHESTNUT 1 STABILIZATION FABRIC Scale: 1/4"=1•-0" ATO /� 1 NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS File Name: Project No.: • 1.5 3/4" CRUSHED STONE 4" DIAMETER HANCOR ADS SLOTTED DRAIN PIPE •f `:i': "PAXTON SERIES" GLACIAL '"J=• TILL PARENT SOIL 7 `fir:•: A 1� ` • J x NOTES: 1/2 # / 1000 SQ. FT. CROWN VETCH HARD FESCUE AS NURSE GRASS — 1 # / 1000 SQ. FT. EARTH SLOPE CROSS SECTIONGS GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. 18 COTE AVENUE, UNfT 111, GOFFSTOWN. NH 03045 I TEL (603) 6242722 FAX. (603) 624-3733 SLOPE STABILIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS Drawn By: J.L. Date: 6/9/04 Figure CHESTNUT STREET Checked By: H.W. Scale: 1/4"=1•-0" ATO /� 1 NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS File Name: Project No.: • DESIGN MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Gard — Michie Corporation FROM: Eric Thibodeau, Carl Thunberg, P.E. — Nobis Engineering, Inc. CC: N/A DATE: 05/16/02 SUBJECT: Lot #3 — Chestnut Street; North Andover, MA Job No. 72500 This memorandum provides a brief summary of the design recommendations for the proposed Redi-Rock modular block retaining wall to be constructed for Lot #3 along Chestnut Street in North Andover, Massachusetts. Based on the provided plans, the wall will be located behind the proposed house and will be constructed along the existing slope. Maximum wall height will be approximately 10.5 feet which includes a 12 -inch embedment for frost protection. It is understood that the Redi-Rock retaining wall will replace an existing two-tiered Versa -Lok retaining wall. Based on test borings and other work performed within this area of the lot, subsurface soils consist of a dense to very dense glacial till with some clay/silt. Design soil parameters were provided in a letter prepared by Geotechnical Services, Inc. dated April 16, 2002. Free groundwater was not encountered within the depths explored by the test borings. The following is a summary of the design and construction considerations for the Lot #3 retaining wall: • Based on the information provided and our design calculations, the wall may be constructed as a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall. Geogrid reinforcement, consisting of Stratagrid 200, should be provided at each block level. Geogrid embedment lengths will vary from 3 to 9 feet over the height of the wall. Two layers of geogrid should be provided for the first course of block. The geogrid should be installed with the machine direction perpendicular to the wall. Geogrid reinforcement will not be required for areas where the wall height is 7.5 feet or less. Refer to the attached design calculations and design drawing for further details for this wall. • The first row of blocks should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the finish grade for frost protection as required by the Redi-Rock Design Resources Manual. Also, a minimum 4 -foot wide level "bench" should be provided in front of the wall. Refer to the design drawing for more information. • All Versa -Lok blocks, geogrid reinforcement, crushed stone, drainage pipe, and backfill should be removed from the area prior to the construction of the new retaining wall. Subgrade preparation should include the removal of any loose or disturbed soils and compaction with hand -guided equipment before placement of the first row of blocks. • To provide drainage, a 4 -inch diameter perforated pipe should be provided along the base of the wall. The pipe should be pitched to provide positive drainage and bedded in 3/4 -inch crushed stone and wrapped in a filter fabric. In turn, the pipe should be "daylighted" at both ends so as not to be reliant upon a single flow path. • The wall should be backfilled with a free draining material such as Massachusetts Highway M1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. The backfill should extend a minimum of 2 -feet beyond the back of the wall as shown on the design drawing. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1557. The on-site excavated glacial till soils may potentially File No 72500 Lot #3 — Chestnut Street; N. Andover Massachusetts Page 2 May 16, 2002 be suitable for re -use as backfill outside of the 2 -foot zone provided care is taken to prevent construction disturbance. Refer to paragraph 2 of the Construction Issues section below. Construction Issues: 1. It should be stressed that the slope located above the retaining wall was designed by others. Design of erosion control measures and stabilization of slopes is beyond our scope of services. The Owner should be advised that the Town of North Andover Conservation Commission may have additional erosion control requirements such as the installation of silt fences, staked haybales, water bars, check dams, etc. that must also be followed. 2. Due to the relatively high silt/clay content of the native glacial till, these soils are highly susceptible to construction disturbance, once excavated. Achieving proper compaction with these soils will be problematic, particularly following rain events. If the native glacial till soils are rendered unsuitable due to saturation, it may become necessary to backfill the wall with Massachusetts Highway M1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. 3. For purposes of safe excavation design, the on-site soils may be considered to be Type A soils in accordance with the OSHA Excavation Standard (29 CFR Part 1926.650-.652) Subpart P. In the event that site constraints will not allow for an open cut in conformance with the maximum allowable slopes given in the OSHA excavation standard, then the Contractor should retain the services of a registered professional engineer to design temporary slopes. 4. It is considered essential that Nobis perform limited construction observation services during construction of the retaining walls. The intent of performing construction observation services is to verify that the wall is being constructed in accordance with the intent the design. Our construction observation services would include inspection of prepared subgrades before placement of the first row of blocks and placement of geogrid (particularly in the lower rows). Note that the site is located within an approximately ten minute drive from our Lawrence office. Compaction testing of backfill soils should be performed by a qualified materials testing firm to verify that the compaction requirements of the design are being met in the field. We trust that the information presented within this memorandum will be responsive to your needs. If you have any questions in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact us. WREPORTMACTIVE\72500 North Andover, MA\Lot 3\1)esignMemo2.doc r www f A"W P.O. BOX 2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 JOB Lcj+ #? p SHEET NO. OF CALCULATEDBY DATE h CHECKED BY DATE i e�Z— .4 j ............ bVf .. ......... 15 ....... ... .......... . ... ... .. ............. .............. .... ...... 1-1, wr . .... ...... ....... . .. . .. ..... .... ...... . ............. .............. ............ . ......... ............. .............. ... ........ ..... ... .............. ............. ............. .............. ........... ............. --A .... .... .. ........ ..... .......... ... . ........ .. ... ...... . ..... . .. .. ... ... ... .. .. . ........ .. .. ... ... VePSCA� 71.s . ......... ... . . . . . ......... P -J .......... . ....... 'ad -z ............. Lu I ab 4. 60 *C#n 11AAwl. Al. .......... . .......... .. ...... ... ........... PMFV . ...... --roe . . ... .... .... ... .. . .4 j ............ bVf .. ......... 15 ....... ... .......... . ... ... .. ............. .............. .... ...... 1-1, wr . .... ...... ....... . .. . .. ..... .... ...... . ............. .............. ............ . ......... ............. .............. ... ........ ..... ... .............. ............. ............. .............. ........... ............. --A .... .... .. ........ ..... .......... ... PROOUCT mw rsnrsaetlms+npadmo JOB SHEET NO. OF P.O. BOX 2890 CALCULATED BY CLS DATE ` CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 CHECKED BY w "� (603) 224-4182 DATE SCALE PROOUCT mw rsnrsaetlms+npadmo 4 ---w — — Mo. , 7 =-- Wo roe LA A 3� h ed xAj4 cZA SHEET N0. 0: P.O. BOX2890 CALCULATED BY DATE (7-c) CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 CHECKED BY DATE (603) 224-4182 SCALE ............. . .. ... 4� .......... ....... ...... mmrrwwi fftm� P.O.80X2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 JOB L O 4 `r a - C � !i ; ju4 C SHEET NO. Ll OF J CALCULATED BY�, ,r� DATE CHECKED BY DATE a 2 Q SCALE i b,G .Now —. G � RC IWO Mo P.O. BOX 2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 joB SHEET NO. OF G7 CALCULATED BY S;7 DATE CHECKED BY SCALE DATE V7CA C i35 GAp,g G,. ... .... ... 10 ...... ...h.-� . ... N:... �� �e�' 3 s M SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Licensed to: Nobis Engineering Inc 18 Chenell Drive Concord NH 03301 License Number: 02050745 Project Identification: .' e-- .., - LD1u�.�street�;•-.�:�:.�.1�ndoves �]t- Section: Existing Slope Data Sheet: Owner: Ralph Joyce Client: Michie Corporation Prepared by: Nobis Engineering, Inc. Date: May 15 2002 Time: 04:34:12 PM Data file: m:\reports\active\72500 north andover, ma\lot 3\lot3 Page 1 Type of Structure: Geosynthetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCMA Method A Seismic Analysis Details: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ratio 0.00 Wall Geometr Design Wall Height (ft) 10.5 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 1.0 Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 9,5 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units 7 Hinge Height (in plane of wall) (ft) N/A Wall Inclination (degrees) 4.8 SRWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) Page 2 • LN 02050745 Slopes: Front Slope (degrees) horizontal Back Slope (degrees) 30.0 Infinite Back Slope Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge none Dead Load Surcharge none Friction Cohesion Angle Unit Weight Soil Data: Soil Description: (psf) (degrees) (pcf) Reinforced Soil Mass Highway M1.03.0 Type b N/A 35.0 120.0 Retained Soil Glacial Till N/A 40.0 135.0 Levelling Pad Soil gravel N/A 40.0 125.0 Foundation Soil Glacial Till 200.0 40.0 135.0 Segmental Unit Name: Redi-Rock Standard Blocks Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) none Unit Height (Hu)(in) 18.0 Unit Width (Wu)(in) 41.0 Unit Length (in) 46.5 Setback (in) 1.513 Weight (infilled) (lbs) 2983.0 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 150.2 Center of Gravity (in) 20.5 Se4mental Unit Interface Shear Data: Properties Ultimate Strength Criteria Service State Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 4000.0 4000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 6 StrataGrid 200 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Ultimate Strength (lbs/ft) 2720.0 N/A Polymer Type polyester N/A Reduction Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Creep Durability Installation Damage Overall Factor of Safety Allowable Strength: Ta (lbs/ft) Coefficient of Interaction: Ci Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Cds Type 1 1121.42 Type 1 0.7 Type 1 0.95 N/A N/A N/A N/A Type 2 N/A Type 2 N/A Type 2 N/A Type 3 N/A N/A Type 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Type 3 N/A Type 3 N/A Type 3 N/A Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 846.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 36.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 1220.0 N/A N/A Service State Criterion: 45.0 N/A N/A Minimum (lbs/ft) 846.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 36.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 1220.0 N/A N/A Geosynthetic-Segmental RetainincT Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 N/A N/A Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 N/A N/A Page 3 4 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) Page 4 LN 02050745 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.366 Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.347 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 47.21 Retained Soil (Ka) 0.266 Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.23 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 53.29 Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Design Criteria FOS Sliding 2.78 1.5 OK FOS Overturning 3.33 2.0 OK FOS Bearing Capacity 30.78 3.0 OK Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 6.3 6.3 OK Base Eccentricity (e)(ft) 0.73 N/A 4.31 Base Eccentricity Ratio (e/L-2e) 0.15 N/A 6.0 Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) 0.6 0.6 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) 2354.0 Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) 9337.6 Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) 6538.2 Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 9671.9 Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 32247.4 Bearing Capacity (psf) 59438.8 Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) 1931.1 Results of Internal Stabilitv Analvses: SRW Geosyn Elevw"i Anchor FOS FOS FOS Layer Unit Type (ft) Length Over- Pullout Sliding Spacing H (ft) stress (ft) > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 > 1.5 < 3.0 7 1 9.0 1.0 10.64 6.88 10.65 OR 6 1 7.5 1.0 5.99 4.31 8.04 OR 5 1 6.0 i 1.0 3.99 3.16 5.23 OR 4 1 4.5 1.0 2.99 2.59 3.78 OR 3 2 1 1 3.0 1.5 ) 6 1.0 1.62 2.39 1.28 2.25 2.14 2.92 2.36 OR OR Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria SRWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) Page 5 LN 02050745 Detailed Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRIV Geosyn Elev Allowable Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding Unit Type (ft) Strength Load Capacity Force Capacity # (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 7 1 9.0 1121.4 105.4 724.9 171.4 1825.2 6 1 7.5 1121.4 187.3 807.0 360.9 2900.6 5 1 6.0 1121.4 281.0 889.2 620.1 3245.9 4 1 4.5 1121.4 374.6 971.3 949.0 3591.1 3 1 3.0 1121.4 468.3 1053.5 1347.6 3936.3 2 1 1.5 1121.4 878.0 1874.7 1815.9 4281.6 Results of Facinq Stability Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS Shear FOS Connection Unit E1ev Type Over- Shear (deformation) Connection (deformation) # (ft) Capacity turning (peak) (lbs/ft) (peak) (lbs/ft) (peak) (deformation) > 2.0 > 2.0 < 0.02 x Hu > 1.5 < 0.75 in 7 9.0 1 56.17 27.12 OK 11.58 OK 6 7.5 1 23.54 24.41 OK 6.51 OK 5 6.0 1 14.68 15.53 OK 4.34 OK 4 4.5 1 10.63 11.39 OK 3.26 OK 3 3.0 1 8.33 8.99 OK 2.61 OK 2 1.5 1 6.84 7.43 OK 1.39* OK 1 0.0 none 5.8 - - - - Note: * value does NOT MEET design criterion (1 occurrences) Detailed Results of Facinq Stability Analyses (Moment and Shear): SRW Heel Geo Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear Unit E1ev Type Moment Moment Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) Capacity (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (peak) (deformation) +out -in (peak) (deformation) 7 9.0 1 23.4 1315.1 46.8 1269.8 1269.8 6 7.5 1 187.3 4409.4 82.0 2000.0 2000.0 5 6.0 1 632.2 9282.8 128.8 2000.0 2000.0 4 4.5 1 1498.5 15935.5 175.6 2000.0 2000.0 3 3.0 1 2926.8 24367.3 222.4 2000.0 2000.0 2 1.5 1 5057.5 34578.3 269.3 2000.0 2000.0 1 0.0 none 8031.1 46568.5 0.0 4000.0 4000.0 Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Connections): G4rA4,9ge 3d SRW Heel Geo Connection Connection Connection TD,-" / Uni t El ev Type Load Capacity Capacity C A0Aa4Y # (ft) (lbs/ft) (peak) (deformation) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 7 9.0 1 105.4 1220.0 1220.0 UH) CJ�� 6 7.5 1 187.3 1220.0 1220.0 G3c1 5 6.0 1 281.0 1220.0 1220.0 Ca 1A 4 4.5 1 374.6 1220.0 1220.0 _ _-ICA 3 3.0 1 468.3 1220.0 1220.0 2 1.5 1 878.0 1220.0 1220.0 q zis C .) )PICK4 (eD",rzcj co,,. tI N 9dUeUMs C)e&q ,. . taye,,. <,t� G4rA4,9ge 3d Doo �-jf ur,,zz+ 4�). 0 h SRWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) Page 6 LN 02050745 Project Identification: Project Name: Lot #3 - Chestnut Street - N. Andover, MA Section: Existing Slope Data Sheet: Owner: Ralph Joyce Client: Michie Corporation Prepared by:Nobis Engineering, Inc. Date: May 15 2002 Time: 04:34:12 PM Data file: m:\reports\active\72500 north andover, ma\lot 3\lot3 Otto. " d "The Essence of Natural Rock" Estimating Pro 2* Lot #3 - Chestnut Street - N. Andover, MA Existinq Slope Retaininq Wall Cora. Unit Weight 150 BlockWidth 41 Backfill Angle 30 Wal/Height 7.5 Backfill Soil 1 TrafficSurcharge No Avg. Soil Uttit Weight 120 B1ockType Standard Block Foundation: Soil Sand with Gravel WallBatterAngle 96 Avg. Soil Unit Weight 120 Soil Friction Angle 35 Estimated Overturning Factor 2.85 Meets overturning factor of 2.0 Estimated Sliding Factor 1.46 Request that wall design engineer recheck wall design — BACKSLOPE ANGLE 0 W BLOCK DEPTH J BATTER RETAINED SOIL ANGLE., WALL HEIGHT-,,. **DISCLAIMER:This software is intended to be used as a design aid for the internal stability of Redi•Rock retaining wall systems only. This software does not account for overall wall stabilty including: bearing capacity, overall slope stability, seismic conditions and construction quality. All designs should be reviewed by a registered professional engineer familiar with retaining wall design. 5116/02 DESIGN MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Gard — Michie Corporation FROM: Eric Thibodeau, Carl Thunberg, P.E. — Nobis Engineering, Inc. CC: N/A DATE: 05/16/02 SUBJECT: Lot #2 — Chestnut Street; North Andover, MA Job No. 72500 This memorandum provides a brief summary of the design recommendations for the proposed Redi-Rock modular block retaining wall to be constructed for Lot #2 along Chestnut Street in North Andover, Massachusetts. Based on the provided plans, the wall will be located behind the proposed house and will be constructed along the existing slope. Maximum wall height will be approximately 10.5 feet which includes a 12 -inch embedment for frost protection. It is understood that the Redi-Rock retaining wall will replace an existing two-tiered Versa -Lok retaining wall. Based on test borings and other work performed within this area of the lot, subsurface soils consist of a dense to very dense glacial till with some clay/silt. Design soil parameters were provided in a letter prepared by Geotechnical Services, Inc. dated April 16, 2002. Free groundwater was not encountered within the depths explored by the test borings. The following is a summary of the design and construction considerations for the Lot #2 retaining wall: • Based on the information provided and our design calculations, the wall may be constructed as a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall. Geogrid reinforcement, consisting of Stratagrid 200, should be provided at each block level. Geogrid embedment lengths will vary from 3 to 10.5 feet over the height of the wall. Two layers of geogrid should be provided for the first course of block. The geogrid should be installed with the machine direction perpendicular to the wall. Geogrid reinforcement will not be required for areas where the wall height is 6 feet or less. Refer to the attached design calculations and design drawing for further details for this wall. • The first row of blocks should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the finish grade for frost protection as required by the Redi-Rock Design Resources Manual. Also, a minimum 4 -foot wide level "bench" should be provided in front of the wall. Refer to the design drawing for more information. • All Versa -Lok blocks, geogrid reinforcement, crushed stone, drainage pipe, and backfill should be removed from the area prior to the construction of the new retaining wall. Subgrade preparation should include the removal of any loose or disturbed soils and compaction with hand -guided equipment before placement of the first row of blocks. • To provide drainage, a 4 -inch diameter perforated pipe should be provided along the base of the wall. The pipe should be pitched to provide positive drainage and bedded in 3/4 -inch crushed stone and wrapped in a filter fabric. In turn, the pipe should be "daylighted" at both ends so as not to be reliant upon a single flow path. • The wall should be backfilled with a free draining material such as Massachusetts Highway M1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. The backfill should extend a minimum of 2 -feet beyond the back of the wall as shown on the design drawing. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1557. The on-site excavated glacial till soils may potentially File No 72500 Lot #2 — Chestnut Street; N. Andover Massachusetts Page_ 2 May 16, 2002 be suitable for re -use as backfill outside of the 2 -foot zone provided care is taken to prevent construction disturbance. Refer to paragraph 2 of the Construction Issues section below. Construction Issues: 1. It should be stressed that the slope located above the retaining wall was designed by others. Design of erosion control measures and stabilization of slopes is beyond our scope of services. The Owner should be advised that the Town of North Andover Conservation Commission may have additional erosion control requirements such as the installation of silt fences, staked haybales, water bars, check dams, etc. that must also be followed. 2. Due to the relatively high silt/clay content of the native glacial till, these soils are highly susceptible to construction disturbance, once excavated. Achieving proper compaction with these soils will be problematic, particularly following rain events. If the native glacial till soils are rendered unsuitable due to saturation, it may become necessary to backfill the wall with Massachusetts Highway M1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. 3. For purposes of safe excavation design, the on-site soils may be considered to be Type A soils in accordance with the OSHA Excavation Standard (29 CFR Part 1926.650-.652) Subpart P. In the event that site constraints will not allow for an open cut in conformance with the maximum allowable slopes given in the OSHA excavation standard, then the Contractor should retain the services of a registered professional engineer to design temporary slopes. 4. It is considered essential that Nobis perform limited construction observation services during construction of the retaining walls. The intent of performing construction observation services is to verify that the wall is being constructed in accordance with the intent the design. Our construction observation services would include inspection of prepared subgrades before placement of the first row of blocks and placement of geogrid (particularly in the lower rows). Note that the site is located within an approximately ten minute drive from our Lawrence office. Compaction testing of backfill soils should be performed by a qualified materials testing firm to verify that the compaction requirements of the design are being met in the field. We trust that the information presented within this memorandum will be responsive to your needs. If you have any questions in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact us. \\.SERVER I\DATA\REPORTS\ACTIVE\72500 North Andover, MA\Lot 2\ DesignMemo2.doc P.O. BOX2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 JOB L4 *11) C keS�Mu4 e�etpqjf SHEET NO. I Of CALCULATED BY_Lc.1c-7•R DATE �:-, (s / CHECKED BY C w T DATE d A POO r3 j ►. - `_dP. wa f. ' Xcl S r waa d A POO r3 waw i i www— wwwww/ F P.O. BOX2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 JOB Loo 12 - C. k SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BYE1S-r DATE � I� t J CHECKED BY � L"J DATE S � S / D Z SCALE a -` P.O. BOX2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 JOB L�4 * a - C65"+ Sk SHEET NO. ✓�( OF__s�' CALCULATED BY Es"7 DATE u� CHECKED BY C -,i -r DATE SCALE w,a . ._... 13,E �,',�1 i► 41 :............. ..... :.. ._........ ............. ......... .........:.......... r ..... ........... ....... .._. .. .. SRWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Licensed to: Nobis Engineering Inc 18 Chenell Drive Concord NH 03301 License Number: 02050745 Project Identification: Project Name: #Z - c,'h�etnut Street -�N ems► 1 A l Section: Exi g Slope �� Data Sheet: Owner: Ralph Joyce Client: Michie Corporation Prepared by: Nobis Engineering, Inc. Date: May 15 2002 Time: 09:10:01 AM Data file: a:\1ot2 Page 1 Type of Structure: Geosynthetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCMA Method A Seismic Analysis Details: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ratio 0.00 Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) 10.5 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 1.0 Exposed Design Wall -Height (ft) 9.5 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units 7 Hinge Height (in plane of wall) (ft) N/A Wall Inclination (degrees) 4.8 SRW611 (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Slopes: Front Slope (degrees) Back Slope (degrees) Infinite Back Slope Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge Dead Load Surcharge horizontal 34.0 none none Friction Cohesion Angle Soil Description: (psf) (degrees) Reinforced Soil Mass Highway M1.03.0 Type b N/A 35.0 Retained Soil Glacial Till N/A 40.0 Levelling Pad Soil gravel N/A 40.0 Foundation Soil Glacial Till 200.0 40.0 Segmental Unit Name: Redi-Rock Standard Blocks Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) none Unit Height (Hu)(in) 18.0 Unit Width (Wu)(in) 41.0 Unit Length (in) 46.5 Setback (in) 1.513 Weight (infilled) (lbs) 2983.0 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 150.2 Center of Gravity (in) 20.5 Seamental Unit Interface Shear Data: Page 2 Unit Weight (pcf) 120.0 135.0 125.0 135.0 Properties Ultimate Strength Criteria Service State Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 4000.0 4000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 6 StrataGrid 200 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Ultimate Strength (lbs/ft) Polymer Type Reduction Factors: Creep Durability Installation Damage Overall Factor of Safety Type 1 Type 2 2720.0 N/A polyester N/A Type 1 1.40 1.10 1.05 1.50 Type 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Type 3 N/A N/A Type 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 3 Allowable Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ta (lbs/ft) 1121.42 N/A NIA N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) Coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ci 0.7 N/A N/A Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Cds Type 1 Type 2 0.95 N/A Type 3 N/A Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 846.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 36.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 1220.0 N/A N/A Service State Criterion: 2000.0 N/A N/A Minimum (lbs/ft) 846.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 36.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 1220.0 N/A N/A Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 N/A N/A Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 N/A N/A SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) Page 4 LN 02050745 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.481 Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.456 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 41.28 Retained Soil (Ka) 0.305 Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.263 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 51.18 Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Design Criteria FOS Sliding 2.31 1.5 OK FOS Overturning 2.72 2.0 OK FOS Bearing Capacity 26.19 3.0 OK Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 6.3 6.3 OK Base Eccentricity (e)(ft) 0.96 N/A 6.0 A Base Eccentricity Ratio (e/L-2e) 0.22 N/A 4.17 Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) 0.6 0.6 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) 2846.6 Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) 9393.9 Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) 6577.7 Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 12005.1 Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 32599.5 Bearing Capacity (psf) 56109.8 Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) 2142.5 Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Anchor FOS FOS FOS Layer unit Type (ft) Length Over- Pullout Sliding Spacing # (ft) stress (ft) > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 > 1.5 < 3.0 7 1 9.0 1.0 8.1 7.0 7.85 OK 6 1 7.5 a.. 1.0 4.56 4.1 6.22 OK 5 1 6.0 A 1.0 3.04 2.85 4.17 OK 4 1 4.5 9 1.0 2.28 2.22 3.07 OK 3 1 3.0 1.0 1.82 1.84 2.4 OK 2 1 1.5 1.3 0.97* 1.34* 1.95 OK Note: * value does NOT MEET design criterion (2 occurrences) f SRWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Detailed Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SR111 Geosyn Elev Allowable Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding Unit Type (ft) Strength Load Capacity Force Capacity # (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 7 1 9.0 1121.4 138.4 969.4 237.2 1862.7 6 1 7.5 1121.4 246.1 1010.3 472.0 2938.1 5 1 6.0 1121.4 369.2 1051.2 786.9 3283.3 4 1 4.5 1121.4 492.3 1092.1 1181.8 3628.6 3 1 3.0 1121.4 615.3 1133.0 1656.7 3973.8 2 1 1.5 1121.4 1153.7 1542.8 2211.7 4319.1 Results of Facing Stability Analyses: Page 5 SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS Shear FDS Connection Unit Elev Type Over- Shear (deformation) Connection (deformation) # (ft) turning (peak) (peak) 17.91 > 2.0 > 2.0 < 0.02 x Hu > 1.5 < 0.75 in 7 9.0 1 42.74 20.64 OR 8.81 OR 6 7.5 1 17.91 18.57 OR 4.96 OR 5 6.0 1 11.17 11.82 OR 3.3 OR 4 4.5 1 8.09 8.67 OR 2.48 OR 3 3.0 1 6.34 6.84 OR 1.98 OR 2 1.5 1 5.2 5.65 OR 1.06* OR 1 0.0 none 4.41 - - - Note: * value does NOT MEET design criterion (1 occurrences) Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Moment and Shear): SRW Heel Geo Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear Unit Elev Type Moment Moment Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) +out -in (peak) (deformation) 7 9.0 1 30.8 1315.1 61.5 1269.6 1269.8 6 7.5 1 246.1 4409.4 107.7 2000.0 2000.0 5 6.0 1 830.7 9282.8 169.2 2000.0 2000.0 4 4.5 1 1969.0 15935.5 230.7 2000.0 2000.0 3 3.0 1 3845.8 24367.3 292.3 2000.0 2000.0 2 1.5 1 6645.5 34578.3 353.8 2000.0 2000.0 1 0.0 none 10552.8 46568.5 0.0 4000.0 4000.0 Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Connections): SRW Heel Geo Connection Connection Connection Unit Elev Type Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (Ibs/ft) (peak) (deformation) .40 1 I (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 66*1,, / yed i; -zi d Gv.vAmL,� :wa lay e,- o� ovv Ca 4v rA,rS Gs4CS49m. rr0Yzd% 59..WAId coo (0 0 7 9.0 1 138.4 1220.0 1220.0 6 7.5 1 246.1 1220.0 1220.0 (03 co1,� 5 6.0 1 369.2 1220.0 1220.0 C 1211* 4 4 4.5 1 492.3 1220.0 1220.0 �y Gtl k 3 3.0 1 615.3 1220.0 1220.0 14 2 1.5 1 1153.7 1220.0 1220.0 ( A 66*1,, / yed i; -zi d Gv.vAmL,� :wa lay e,- o� ovv Ca 4v rA,rS Gs4CS49m. rr0Yzd% 59..WAId r SRWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) Page 6 LN 02050745 Project Identification: Project Name: Lot #2 - Chestnut Street - N. Andover, MA Section: Existing Slope Data Sheet: Owner: Ralph Joyce Client: Michie Corporation Prepared by:Nobis Engineering, Inc. Date: May 15 2002 Time: 09:10:01 AM Data file: a:\lot2 T'OWN OF NORTH ANDOVER G1' ke of slw Building Deparb Brat g' 7 (,ha.lesxi- et Nn-1h isf{wi4, 018 45 A.. , 7 bxrw ..i n t. C ft'l Buffiliprlq ( Via Fax 1-603-529-8866 Mail June 7, 2002 Attorney Ralph R. Joyce 121 Collins Landing Weare, NH 03821 Dear Mr. Joyce: I am in receipt of the plans from Tuesday June 4t` and your faxed letter received on June 7h in regards to the retaining walls for lots 1 through 3 on Chestnut Street. Please be advised that this project is of the utmost importance for the protection of the general public, workman on site and protection of abutting properties and as such have the following comments. 1) The project is of a complexity that requires specific expertise and as such is to be under 780 CMR section 116 Controlled Construction. 2) The plans (which are stamped) and the Design Memorandum and calculations (which are not stamped) are of a complexity that under 780 CMR 116 and Appendix I ( I-2, I-2.1, I- 3, I -3.1,I4 & I-5.) I am requiring a Independent Structural Engineer Review the reviewing engineer is to be engaged by the owner. 3) As noted above the Design Memorandum and the attached specifications are not stamped which is required. 4) I have concerns as to the finish grades after the recommended 1.75 vertical to 1 horizontal is accomplished at the top of the walls and how these grades are to meet existing grades. 5) The engineer of record will be required to be on site at phases of construction consistent with controlled construction projects. 6) Enclosed you will also find the appropriate building permit application for this project that must be filled out completely and stamped by the appropriate individuals. Please contact me so that we may begin the process to remedy this situation in a timely manner at 978-688-9545 between 8:30 —10:00 AM and 1:00 — 2 :00 PM Respectfully, Michael McGuire Local Building Inspector Piaru?ia? D a?tnu nt 688-9535 0xisc?•vatinn Dopa?fnicni 685-9530 Hcoltl? Dcpa?tmcnt 688-9540 Zoning Board o{ :1ppIg (gg_9g,:F1 DESIGN MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Gard — Michie Corporation FROM: Eric Thibodeau, Carl Thunberg, P.E. — Nobis Engineering, Inc. CC: N/A DATE: 05/15/02 SUBJECT: Lot #1— Chestnut Street; North Andover, MA Job No. 72500 This memorandum provides a brief summary of the design recommendations for the proposed Redi-Rock modular block retaining wall to be constructed for Lot #1 along Chestnut Street in Andover, Massachusetts. Based on the Tlans, the proposed Redi-Rock wall will �� S 9 �1P \y�North provided be located behind the pro ose house and will a constructed along the existing slope. Maximum o PI& V) e wall height will be approximately 7.5 feet which includes a 12 -inch embedment for frost protection. It is understood that the Redi-Rock retaining wall will replace an existing Versa -Lok modular block wall. Based on test borings and other work performed within this area of the lot, `,� p subsurface soils consist of a dense to very dense glacial till with some clay/silt. Design soil e parameters were provided in a letter prepared by Geotechnical Services, Inc. dated April 16, 2002. Free groundwater was not encountered within the depths explored by the test borings. The following is a summary of the design and construction considerations for the Lot #1 retaining wall: 1. �SlA A • Based on the information provided and our design calculations, the wall may be constructed as a gravity wall. In locations where the wall height reaches the maximum of 7.5 feet, an additional standard block should be provided at the heel of the wall. This additional block will provide additional sliding resistance and should be placed "back-to-back" with the front block. Refer to the attached design calculations and design drawing for further details of this wall. • The first row of blocks should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the finish grade '? for frost protection as required by the Redi-Rock Design Resources Manual • All Versa -Lok blocks, geogrid reinforcement, crushed stone, drainage pipe, and backfill should be removed from the area prior to the construction of the new retaining wall. Subgrade preparation should include the removal of any loose or disturbed soils and compaction with hand -guided equipment before placement of the first row of blocks. • To provide drainage, a 4 -inch diameter perforated pipe should be provided along the base of the wall. In areas where the additional block is provided, the drainage pipe should extend around the back of the block. The pipe should be pitched to provide positive drainage and bedded in 3/4 -inch crushed stone and wrapped in a filter fabric. In turn, the pipe should be "daylighted" at both ends so as not to be reliant upon a single flow path. • The wall should be backfilled with a free draining material such as crushed stone or Massachusetts Highway M 1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. The backfill should extend a minimum of 2 -feet beyond the back of the wall as shown on the design drawing. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1557. The on-site excavated glacial till soils may potentially be suitable for re -use as backfill outside of the 2 -foot zone provided File No. 72500 Lot #1 — Chestnut Street; N. Andover, Massachusetts Page 2 May 15, 2002 care is taken to prevent construction disturbance. Refer to paragraph 2 of the Construction Lssues section below. ����-I w � 1►s ll � Construction Issues: ��` 1. It should be stressed that the slope above the retaining wall was designed by others. Design of erosion control measures and stabilization of slopes is beyond our scope of services. The Owner should be advised that the Town of North Andover Conservation Commission may have additional erosion control requirements such as the installation of silt fences, staked haybales, water bars, check dams, etc. that must also be followed. 2. Due to the relatively high silt/clay content of the native glacial till, these soils are highly susceptible to construction disturbance, once excavated. Achieving proper compaction with these soils will be problematic, particularly following rain events. If the native glacial till soils are rendered unsuitable due to saturation, it may become necessary to backfill the wall with Massachusetts Highway M 1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. 3. For purposes of safe excavation design, the on-site soils may be considered to be Type A soils in accordance with the OSHA Excavation Standard (29 CFR Part 1926.650-.652) Subpart P. In the event that site constraints will not allow for an open cut in conformance with the maximum allowable slopes given in the OSHA excavation standard, then the Contractor should retain the services of a registered professional engineer to design temporary slopes. 4. It is considered essential that Nobis perfor limited construction observation services during construction of the retaining walls. The intent of performing construction observation services is to verify that the wall is being constructed in accordance with the intent the design. Our construction observation services would include inspection of prepared subgrades before placement of the first row of blocks. Note that the site is located within an approximately ten minute drive from our Lawrence office. Compaction testing of backfill soils should be performed by a qualified materials testing firm to verify that the compaction requirements of the design are being met in the field. We trust that the information presented within this memorandum will be responsive to your needs. If you have any questions in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact us. \\SERVERI\DATA\REPORMACTIVEW2500 North Andover, MA\Lot I\DesignMemoldoc 1. rra�. i rrlr /w� r�r/ � • rs � r. � r rr.r r' �i ra JW r P.O. BOX2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 JOB Loo * I. - on e%4iu Lj+ G k SHEET NO. s1 OF CALCULATED BY vDATE ( Q CHECKED BY c DATE SCALE a P.O. BOX 2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 Lo- 4'1 JO© „ 3rJo SHEET NO. Of. ES'j c, to a CALCULATED DY tb DATE u' CHECKED BY 1� l ul so DATE SCALE ir4 Ulall -Y ) „ 3rJo tb u' pp = 1� l ul so ft JOB aim —� SHEET NO. OF �j ^ CALCULATED BY ` DATE P.O. BOX2890 NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 S lI ` `vT CONCORD, CHECKED BY DATE (603) 224-4182 "The Essence of Natural Rock" Estimating Pr_o_2 Lot #1 - Chestnut Street - N. Andover,_ MA Conc. Unit Weight 150 Existing Slope Retaining Wall BlockWidth 41 Backfill Angle 34 WallHeight 7.5 Backfill Soil 1 TrafficSurcharge No Avg. Soil Unit Weight 120 BlockType Standard Block Foundation Soil Sand with Gravel Avg. Soil Unit Weight 120 Soil Friction Angle 35 Estimated Overturning Factor 2.17 Meets overturning factor of 2.0 WallBatterAnr;le 96 Estimated Sliding Factor 1.11 Request that wall design engineer recheck wall design r— BACKSLOPE ANGLE (D W BLOCK DEPTH -' BATTER RETAINED SOIL ANGLE,,f �` WALL HEIGHT-� **DISCLAIMER:7bis software is intended to be used as a design aid for the internal stability of Redi-Rock retaining wall systems only. This software does not account for overall wall stabilty including: bearing capacity, overall slope stability, seismic conditions and construction quality. All designs should be reviewed by a registered professional engineer familiar with retaining wall design. 5115102 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 1 of 31 [Text Only1 Directives CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, Subpart P Directives - Table of Contents • Record Type: Instruction • Directive Number: CPL 2.87 • Title: Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, Subpart P • Standard Number: 1926 Subpart P; 1926.650; 1926; 651 ; 1926 ,652 • Information Date: 02/20/1990 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs SUBJECT: Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standards - 29 CFR 1926, Subpart P. A. Purpose. This instruction establishes inspection procedures and provides clarification to ensure uniform enforcement of the Excavation Standards. B. Scope. This instruction applies OSHA -wide. C. References. 1. Construction Safety and Health Standards, Subpart P.,_ 29 CFR 1926.656, 651, and 652. , 2. OSHA Instruction CPL 2.45B, June 15, 1989, the Revised Field Operations Manual (FOM). 3. OSHA Instruction CPL 2.34, September 1, 1979, the Construction SAVEs Manual. ./owadisp.show document?p table=D1RECTIVES&p id=1659&p_search type=CLOBTEXTP06/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 2 of 31 D. Cancellation. OSHA Instruction STD 3-14.1, October 30, 1978, Citation Policy - Specific Trenching Requirements, is canceled. E. Action. Regional Administrators and Area Directors shall ensure that the guidelines in this instruction are followed and that compliance officers are familiar with the contents of the standard. F. Federal Program Change. This instruction describes a Federal program change which affects State programs. Each Regional Administrator shall: 1. Ensure that this change is forwarded to each State designee. 2. Explain the technical content of the change to the State designee as requested. OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs 3. Ensure that State designees acknowledge receipt of this Federal program change in writing, within 30 days of notification, to the Regional Administrator. This acknowledgment should include the State's intention to follow the inspection guidelines described in this instruction, or a description of the State's alternate guidelines which are "at least as effective as" the Federal guidelines. a. If a State intends to follow the revised inspection guidelines described in this instruction, the State must submit either a revised version of this instruction, adapted as appropriate to reference State law, regulations and administrative structure, or a cover sheet describing how references in this instruction correspond to the State's structure. The State's acknowledgment letter may fulfill the plan supplement requirement if the appropriate documentation is provided. b. Any alternative State inspection guidelines must be submitted as a State plan supplement within 60 days. If the State adopts an alternative to Federal inspection guidelines, the State's submission must identify and provide a rationale for all substantial differences from Federal guidelines in order for OSHA to judge whether a different State guideline is as effective as a comparable Federal guideline. 4. After Regional review of the State plan supplement and resolution of any comments thereon, forward the State submission to the National Office in accordance with established procedures. The Regional Administrator shall provide a judgment on the relative effectiveness of each substantial difference in the State plan change and an overall ... /owadisp.show document?p table=DIRECTIVES&p id=1659&p_search type=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 3 of 31 assessment thereon with a recommendation for approval or disapproval by the Assistant Secretary. 2 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs 5. Review policies, instructions and guidelines issued by the State to determine that this change has been communicated to State personnel. G. Background. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration after 15 years of experience involving the adopted Federal standards for covered employees in the construction industry (36 CFR 25232 December 30, 1971) issued revised rules for Subpart P. to 29 CFR 1926 (54 CFR 45894 October 31, 1989). 1. These rules have been reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCOSH) and many of the changes reflect their recommendations and those of other interested parties. 2. On April 15, 1987, OSHA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on excavations (52 FR 12288). After an extensive comment period and public hearings, the hearing transcript and related submissions were certified and closed on December 15, 1988 3. The final rule resolves many issues raised in earlier attempts to regulate this activity within the construction industry. Many of these issues involved previous decisions under the existing standard. a. It is the intent of this rule to establish one set of requirements which are applicable to all excavations, including trenches. b. Where compliance requirements are intended to be applicable only to trenches, the final rule makes it clear that these requirements apply only to those excavations which are also trenches. 4. So that ongoing guidance may be provided, enforcement problems, including misinterpretations or other difficulties being experienced by employers 3 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs ... /owadisp.show document`lp table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search_tWe=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 4 of 31 and apparent efforts by employers to circumvent the standard, shall be promptly reported to the Office of Construction and Maritime Compliance Assistance. H. Inspection Guidelines (Compliance Procedures). 1. Excavation Protection Programs. This standard provides requirements which allow employers flexibility in developing programs that provide effective protection for employees working in excavations. In addition to the standard itself, the preamble provides further guidance and rationale for changes in the existing standard. 2. Program Compliance. During all inspections at construction sites, where excavation standards are or will be applicable, compliance personnel shall ensure that compliance with 29 CFR 1926, Subpart P, Excavations, is in accordance with the FOM, Chapter III, D.7 and D.B. a. This review shall include any documentation by employers of the methodology and background information used to determine whether shoring systems are required and the type of systems used. b. The compliance safety and health officer (CSHO) shall evaluate the employer's compliance with the specific requirements of the standard. 3. CSHO Responsibilities. The following procedural guidance provides a general framework that is designed to assist the CSHO with all inspections: a. Ask the employer for the basis on which the employee excavation protection program related to the standard was developed. b. Interview a representative cross-section of affected employees to verify the employer's 4 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs program. This shall include an evaluation of the training of affected employees and the effectiveness of the employer's enforcement of its program. (See 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(1) and 1926.21(b)(2) .) c. Evaluate compliance with requirements for periodic inspection of excavations. (See 29 CFR 1926.651 (k) (1).) d. Identify all persons (competent person, registered professional ../owadisp.show document:�p table=D1RECTIVES&p id=1659&p_search_t e=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 5 of 31 engineer, etc.) responsible for excavation activities and/or operations. e. Evaluate compliance with training requirements identified by periodic inspections or changes in equipment and/or procedures. This shall include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the employer's inspection procedures and training program for assessment and correction of situations resulting in near misses and/or injuries or circumstances indicating that modifications are necessary. (See 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(1) and 1926.21(b) (2).) 4. Specific Excavation Requirements. a. Scope and Application. This subpart applies to all open excavations made in the earth 's surface. Excavations are defined to include trenches. All trenches are excavations; all excavations are not trenches. (See 29 CFR 1926.650(a).) NOTE: If installed form work or other similar obstructions reduce the depth -to -width dimensions for a particular excavation, it may become a trench as defined later in the specific requirements of this instruction. 5 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs b. Definitions. The definitions contained in the excavation standard shall be relied upon to interpret and apply the standard properly. In some cases terms within a definition are themselves defined within the same section. (1) Accepted Engineering Practices. CSHOs shall verify with the employer which aspects of the employee protection system have been designed or approved by a registered professional engineer. The name of such individual or, if a firm, the firm's name, the name of the engineer of record that approved the work for the firm, and the registration number shall be recorded. (a) Field offices may review any work which must be certified as to the status of such certification with the State Board of Certification and Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors in their respective States. (b) Verification shall also be made for all other aspects of the onsite excavation conditions which the employer indicates are under the direct supervision of a registered professional engineer. .../owadisp.show document?p table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search type=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 6 of 31 1 All inquiries relating to the adequacy of the engineering design shall be referred to the Regional Office of Technical Support (ARA -TS). 2 In appropriate cases, the Regional Office may refer deficient or inadequate engineering designs of 0 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs protective systems to the State Board of Certification and Registration for professional Engineers. (c) Any equipment, shoring devices, shields or other special aspects of an employer's excavation program in which the compliance investigation reveals the use of a Registered Professional Engineer shall be so noted on OSHA 1-B during the onsite investigation. If such devices, shields or other special aspects of the employer's program do not comply with the requirements of the standard, appropriate citations shall be issued. (2) Competent Person. CSHOs shall pay particular attention to the investigation and documentation of data to establish that any person serving in this capacity possesses the capability of identifying existing and potential hazards for workers. (a) To be a "competent person" under this standard, a person must have had training in, and be knowledgeable about, soils analysis, the use of protective systems and the requirements of this standard. (b) The competent person having such training and knowledge must be capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in excavation work and have the authority to take prompt measures to abate these hazards. Thus, a backhoe operator who would otherwise meet the requirements of the definition is not a 7 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs competent person if the person lacks the authority to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate existing or potential hazards. (3) Hazardous Atmospheres. The CSHO shall check for hazardous or ./owadisp.show document:tp table=D1RECT1VES&p id=16598ip_search type=C;LOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 7 of 31 oxygen deficient atmospheres. For example, these include irritating atmospheres which could be encountered in areas close to a landfill, where it is not uncommon to encounter hydrogen sulfide H(2)S. (4) Registered Professional Engineer. The CSHO shall determine that the Registered Professional Engineer of record is in fact working within a discipline applicable to the excavation work; i.e., it would be inappropriate for an electrical engineer to approve shoring design for an excavation. See also the definition for acceptable engineering practices in this instruction. (5) Tabulated Data. The CSHO shall examine and ensure that all tabulated data for protective systems are approved by a Registered Professional Engineer. NOTE: The use of tabulated data appearing in the appendices to this standard is excluded from this requirement. c. General Requirements. (1) Surface Encumbrances. The standard requires that all surface encumbrances that are located so as to create a hazard to employees shall have been removed or supported, as necessary, to safeguard employees. The requirement is the same as the existing 1926.651(b) and applies OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs to all employees at the construction worksite. (See 29 CFR 1926.651 (a).) (2) Underground Installations. The estimated location of utility installations, such as sewer, telephone, fuel, electric, and water lines, or any other underground installations that reasonably may be expected to be encountered during excavation work, shall have been determined prior to opening an excavation. (a) Utility companies or owners shall have been contacted, advised of the proposed work, and asked to establish the location of the utility underground installations prior to the start of actual excavation. 1 An employer need not contact utility companies where the excavation work is to be performed in a remote location where no underground ... /owadisp.show document:�p table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search type=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 8 of 31 installations are likely to be encountered and there are no features which would indicate the presence of underground installations. 2 When utility companies or owners cannot respond to a request to locate underground utility installations within 24 hours (unless a longer period is required by State or local law) or cannot establish the exact location of these installations, the employer may proceed, provided the employer does so with caution, and detection equipment or OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs other acceptable means of locating utility installations are used. 3 The employer is required, while the excavation is open, to ensure that underground installations are protected, supported, or removed to safeguard employees from hazards. (See 29 CFR 1926.651 (b)(2) and (3).) (b) The CSHO shall ascertain whether the employer has contacted the appropriate utility companies to establish the location of underground installations that may be encountered. NOTE: Many States require the "one call system" prior to the start of excavation work. (See 29 CFR 1926.651(b)(2) .) (c) When excavation operations approach the estimated location of underground installations, the exact location of the underground installation shall be determined by means that are safe to employees. (See 29 CFR 1926.651 (b)(3).) (d) The CSHO shall determine that underground installations have been protected, supported or removed as necessary to protect employees. (See 29 CFR 1926.651 (b)(4).) (e) The sloped end of a trench, e.g., an earth ramp, may be considered a safe means of egress only if 10 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs employees are able to walk the ramp in an upright manner when ... /owadisp.showdocument:tp table=DIRECTIVES&p id=1659&p_search_type=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 9 of 31 entering or exiting the trench. 1 The CSHO shall consider such factors as the degree of the slope, depth of the excavation, soil and environmental conditions, and the presence of any obstructions in determining whether or not the earth ramp can be used for safe egress. 2 An employer may not use knotted rope lines to assist employees using sloped areas as access to trenches. 3 OSHA does not consider lifting equipment as "an other safe means of egress." For example, employees riding in a backhoe bucket to either enter or exit trench excavations, is not "other safe means of egress" for purposes of the standard. (See 29 CFR 1926 651(c)(2) and 54 FR 45918 (Oct. 31, 1989)). (f) The prohibition against employees being under loads handled by lifting or digging equipment includes both excavated materials and slung loads (pipe, etc.). (See 29 CFR 1926.651(e).) (g) The CSHO shall ensure that an adequate warning system has been provided for mobile equipment operating adjacent to or without a 11 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs clear view of the edge of excavations. NOTE: This requirement does not apply to equipment used to push spoil back into the excavation for backfilling. (See 29 CFR 1926.651(f).) (3) Hazardous Atmospheres. In addition to the requirements set forth in Subparts D and E of this part (29 CFR 1926.50 --1926.107), to prevent exposure to harmful levels of atmospheric contaminants and to ensure acceptable atmospheric conditions, the following additional requirements apply: (See 29 CFR 1926.651(g).) (a) Air quality tests shall be taken before employees enter excavations more than 4 feet in depth when a hazardous atmosphere exists or could be expected to exist. (b) Tests shall be conducted as often as necessary to ensure the quality and quantity of the atmosphere. This includes checks for flammable gases and oxygen 0(2) deficiency. ... /owadisp.showdocument`lp table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search type=C;LOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 10 of 31 (c) Where hazardous atmospheres exist or may reasonably be expected to exist, emergency rescue equipment must be on the worksite and readily accessible to employees. (See 29 CFR 1926.651(g)(2)(i)). (d) Daily inspections must be conducted by a competent person. Evidence of the lack of such inspections may include indication of failure of 12 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs protective systems or employees exposed to hazardous atmospheres. (See 29 CFR 1926.651(k)(1) and (2).) d. Requirements for Protective Systems. (1) When the employer has elected to protect employees by sloping , 1926.652 (b)(1) requires that the slope be not steeper than 1.5H: IV "unless the employer uses one of the other options ..." (a) In a contested case proceeding once OSHA shows that no support system was used and that the sides of the excavation were steeper than 1.5H: iV, the employer has the burden of showing its compliance with one of the other sloping options. (b) The CSHO, however, shall document all relevant facts to evaluate the hazard to obtain information which may be necessary for rebuttal of the employer's case. (2) If the CSHO observes that a protective system appears inadequate or in danger of failure, the employer's representative or competent person shall be notified immediately so as to remove any employees in the excavation until such danger of failure has been abated. (See 29 CFR 1926.652 (a)(2).) (3) In evaluating the design of sloping and benching systems, the CSHO shall refer to the decision chart found in Figure 2 of Appendix F, Selection of Protective System. (See 1926.652(b)(1) through (b)(4).) 13 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs /owadisp.show document:tp table=D1RECTIVES&p id=1659&p_search type=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 12 of 31 environmental conditions and on the structure and compaction of earth deposits. Appendix A contains further definition directly related to soil classification. (1) The classification of soil and rock deposits shall be made based on the results of at least one visual and one manual test. (a) Such analysis shall be conducted by a competent person using the tests described in paragraph (d) of this appendix. (b) The specific soil tests referenced in this Appendix are given as examples for an employer to use in making a soil classification. However, other recognized methods'of soil classification and testing, such or those adopted by the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) , are acceptable for purposes of compliance with the standard. 15 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs (c) The competent person conducting the soil classification may not base a classification by "feeling" the strength or composition of the soil through the use of heavy equipment. 1 This method is not an acceptable "other recognized method" of soil classification and testing" contemplated by Appendix A, (c) (2). 2 OSHA believes this is too indirect a method to classify properly the qualitative as well as the quantitative properties of soil. 3 For example, an employer may not classify the soil as Type A solely because its backhoe experienced difficulty digging the excavation. (2) Each soil and rock deposit shall have been classified by a competent person as either stable rock, Type A, Type B, or Type C in accordance with the definitions set forth in paragraph (b) of Appendix A. (3) In a layered system, the system shall have been classified in accordance with its weakest layer. However, each layer may be classified individually where a more stable layer lies under a less stable layer. (4) If, after classifying soils and rock deposits, the properties, factors, or conditions affecting its classification 16 ... /owadisp.show document`tp table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search t"e=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 11 of 31 (4) In evaluating the design of support systems, shield systems and their protective systems, the CSHO shall refer to the decision chart found in Figure 3 of Appendix F, Selection of Protection Systems. (See 29 CFR 1926.652(c)(1) through (c)(4).) (5) The CSHO shall examine appropriate structural members of any protective system for damage or defects. (See 29 CFR 1926.652(d)(1).) (6) Observation by CSHOs of excavations beneath the protective system requires confirmation that the support system was designed to resist forces calculated for the full depth of the trench. (See 29 CFR 1926.652 (e)(2)(i) and (g)(2) •) e. Appendices in the Standard. (1) The following compliance guidelines apply whenever CSHOs encounter, excavation operations where employers have elected to provide protective systems using the appendices in this standard. CSHOs shall provide documentation, including soil tests where applicable, to support or reject the employer's decisions on protective systems. (2) When the employer elects to use sloping option 2 or support option 1, the soils classification procedures are mandatory. Employer guesses or other shortcuts taken in classifying soils do not meet the intent of the standard. (a) Thus, citations shall be issued where one or more provisions of Appendix A have been violated even 14 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs if the degree of sloping turns out to be appropriate. (b) Example: A backhoe operator slopes an excavation at what turns out to be an appropriate slope, but the operator is not a competent person within the meaning of the standard, and his determination was not based on both one visual and one manual test. 1926.652(a) will be cited, but the gravity of the violation will be reduced. (See 29 CFR 1926.652(a) (1) -) f.,,Appendi.x A to. Subpart -P - Soil Classification._ This appendix describes a method of classifying soil and rock deposits based on site and ./owadisp.show document?p table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search t"e=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 13 of 31 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs change in any manner, such as after a rainstorm, such changes shall have been evaluated by the competent person on site. The soil and rock deposits shall have been reclassified as necessary to reflect any changed circumstances. 9.Appendix. B to Subpart P = Sloping and Benching. Under section (c) (3)(ii) of this Appendix, whenever surcharge loads from stored material or equipment, operating equipment, or traffic are to be present, the competent person's determination of the degree to which the actual slope must be reduced below the maximum allowable slope shall have been based on the requirements set forth in (c) (3) (ii). The requirement to slope back in accordance with (c) (3) (ii) shall be triggered in situations where the surcharge loads cause signs of distress. h.._Appendix C to Subpart P !Tables. The compliance officer should note that Tables C-1.1-1.3 are actual size measurements based on mixed oak or equivalent with a bending strength not less than 850 psi. On the other hand, Tables C-2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 are nominal (S4S-Surface 4 Sides) measurements based on Douglas fir or equivalent with a bending strength not less than 1500 psi. J. Appendix D to Subpart_ P,- Aluminum Hydraulic Shoring for Trenches. `This appendix contains criteria that can be used when aluminum hydraulic shoring is to be used as a method of protection in trenches not exceeding 20 feet in depth, in the absence of manufacturer's tabulated data. The appendix is provided for those situations where manufacturers' data, permitted under paragraph 1926.652(c) (2), has been lost or is otherwise not available. When referenced, Appendix D must be used in 17 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs - conjunction with Appendix A, Soil Classification. I. Training. Field inspection procedures must be modified to reflect the more technical nature of soils classification and protection systems requirements of the new standard. To classify soils properly, visual and manual tests must now be performed. It is imperative that CSHOs be trained in the techniques used in these tests. The training program will consist of detailed instructions on the new standard and the compliance .../owadisp.show document:tp table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search type=C;LOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 14 of 31 directive. 1. Train -the -trainer sessions on the new standard will be conducted at the OSHA Training Institute. These trainers will then conduct sessions for their respective Regional and Area Offices. 2. This program will supplement OSHA Training Institute Course 301, Excavation, Trenching and Soils. Additional training will be developed and presented as needed to maintain currency of the new excavation standard for CSHOs. 3. SAVEs. Existing SAVEs for 29 CFR 1926.651 and 1926.652 as found in the existing Construction SAVEs Manual, OSHA Instruction CPL 2.34, shall not be used for citation of excavation or trenching violations after March 5, 1990. The attached draft SAVEs are provided for interim use and may be modified, as deemed appropriate, at the discretion of the Regional Administrator, to accommodate local circumstances, until the final SAVEs are published and distributed. Gerard F. Scannell Assistant Secretary OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 FEB 20, 1990 Directorate of Compliance Programs Distribution: National, Regional, and Area offices, All Compliance Officers, State Plan Designees, Consultation Project Managers NIOSH Regional Program Directors 19 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance DRAFT SAVEs 1 29 CFR 1926.651(a): All surface encumbrances that were located so as to create a hazard to employees were not removed or supported, as necessary, to safeguard employees: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY) 2 29 CFR 1926.651(b)(1): The estimated location of underground utility installations, such as sewer, telephone, fuel, electric, water lines, or any ... /owadisp.show document`Ip table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search type=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 15 of 31 other underground installations that reasonably may be expected to be encountered during excavation work, were not determined prior to opening an excavation: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY AND WHAT UTILITY WAS ENCOUNTERED DURING EXCAVATING OPERATIONS) 3 29 CFR 1926,651(b)(2): Utility companies or owners were not contacted within established or customary local response times, advised of the proposed work, and asked to establish the location of the utility underground installations prior to the start of an actual excavation: (LO N) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS (DESCRIBEAND/OR HAZARS) WH RE CONDITIONS) NECESSARY) CO ) D 4 29 CFR 1926 651(b)(3): When excavation operations approached the estimated location of underground installations, the exact location of the installations was not determined by safe and acceptable means: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY AND WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SAFE AND ACCEPTABLE MEANS TO FIND THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY) A-1 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance 129 CFR 1926.651(b) (4): While the excavation was opened, underground installations were not protected, supported or removed as necessary to safeguard employees: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY AND WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO SAFEGUARD THE EMPLOYEES) OPTION 1 2 29 CFR 1926.651(c)(1)(i): Structural ramps that were used solely by employees as a means of access or egress from excavations were not designed by a competent person: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY AND WHAT THE RAMP(S) WERE BEING USED FOR BY THE EMPLOYEES) /owadisp.show document?p table=DIRECTIVES&p id=1659&p_warch type=C;LOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 16 of 31 OPTION 2 3 29 CFR 1926.651(c)(1)(i): Structural ramps used for access or egress of equipment were not designed by a competent person qualified in structural design: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY AND THE COMPETENT PERSON'S LACK OF QUALIFICATIONS IN STRUCTURAL DESIGNS) OPTION 3 4 29 CFR 1926.651(c)(1)(i): Structural ramps used for access or egress by employees were not constructed in accordance with the design: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY AND WHY THE RAMPS DID NOT MEET THE DESIGN) A-2 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance 129 CFR 1926.651(c)(1)(ii): Ramps and runways constructed of two or more structural members did not have the structural members connected together to prevent displacement: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY) 2 29 CFR 1926.651(c)(1)(iii) Structural members used for ramps and runways were not of uniform thickness: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY) OPTION 1 3 29 CFR 1926.651(c)(1)(iv): Cleats or other appropriate means used to connect runway structural members were not attached to the bottom of the runway: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY AND WHAT MEANS WAS USED TO CONNECT THE MEMBERS TOGETHER) OPTION 2 .../owadisp.show document:tp table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search type=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 17 of 31 4 29 CFR 1926.651(c)(1)(iv): Cleats or other appropriate means used to connect runway structural members were not attached in such a manner to prevent tripping: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY AND HOW STRUCTURAL MEMBERS WERE CONNECTED TO CAUSE A TRIPPING HAZARD) A-3 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance 129 CFR 1926.651(c)(1)(v): Structural ramps used in lieu of steps were not provided with cleats or other surface treatments on the top surface to prevent slipping: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY AND WHAT IF ANYTHING WAS PROVIDED ON THE RAMP SURFACE) 2 29 CFR 1926.651(c)(2): A stairway, ladder, ramp or other safe means of egress was not located in trench excavations that were 4 feet (1.22m) or more in depth so as to require no more than 25 feet (7.62m) of lateral travel for employees: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY, MEASUREMENTS AS NEEDED, AND WHAT IF ANYTHING WAS PROVIDED) OPTION 1 3 29 CFR 1926.651(d): Employees exposed to public vehicular traffic were not provided with a warning vest or other suitable garments marked with or made of reflectorized or high -visibility material: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY) OPTION 2 4 29 CFR 1926.651(d): Employees exposed to public vehicular traffic were not required to wear warning vest provided by the employer: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE WHAT IF ANYTHING THE EMPLOYEE(S) WERE WEARING TO WARN THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA) .../owadisp.show documentYp table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search_type=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 18 of 31 OPTION 15 29 CFR 1926.651(e): Employee was not prohibited to be underneath loads handled by lifting or digging equipment: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE EQUIPMENT BEING USED) A-4 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance OPTION 2 129 CFR 1926.651(e): Employees were not required to stand away from any vehicles being loaded or unloaded to avoid being struck by any spillage or falling materials: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE EQUIPMENT, WHETHER LOADING OR UNLOADING, AND TYPE OF MATERIAL BEING HANDLED BY THE EQUIPMENT) 2 29 CFR 1926.651(f): A warning system was not utilized such as barricades, hand or mechanical signals, or stop logs when mobile equipment was operated adjacent to an excavation, when such equipment was required to approach the edge of an excavation, and the operator did not have a clear and direct view of the edge of the excavation: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE WHAT IF ANYTHING WAS WRONG WITH THE WARNING SYSTEM PROVIDED, AND WHAT OBSTRUCTED THE OPERATOR'S VIEW) 3 29 CFR 1926.651(g)(1)(i): Where oxygen deficiency atmosphere containing less than 19.5 percent oxygen or a hazardous atmosphere existed or could reasonably be expected to exist, such as in excavations in landfill areas or excavations in areas where hazardous substances are stored nearby, the atmospheres in the excavation were not tested before employees entered excavations greater than 4 feet (1.22m) in depth: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE TYPE OF HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY, WHAT THE OXYGEN PERCENT LEVEL TAKEN WAS, AND DEPTH OF EXCAVATION MEASUREMENT OBTAINED) 4 29 CFR 1926.651(g)(1)(ii): Adequate precautions were not taken to ./owadisp.show document`Ip table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search type=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 19 of 31 prevent employee exposure to atmospheres containing less than 19.5 percent oxygen and other hazardous atmospheres: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY AND WHAT WAS LACKING IN PRECAUTIONS TAKEN) A-5 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance 129 CFR 1926.651(g)(1)(iii): Adequate precautions were not taken such as providing ventilation, to prevent employee exposure to an atmosphere containing a concentration of a flammable gas in excess of 20 percent of the lower flammable limit of the gas: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY, TYPE OF GAS ENCOUNTERED, AND PERCENT OF GAS OVER THE LOWER LIMIT) 2 29 CFR 1926.651(g)(1)(iv): When controls were used that were intended to reduce the level of atmospheric contaminants to acceptable levels, testing was not conducted as often as necessary to ensure that the atmosphere remains safe: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY, TYPE OF CONTROLS BEING USED, AND ATMOSPHERIC CONTAMINANTS) OPTION 13 29 CFR 1926.651(g)(2)(i): Emergency rescue equipment, such as breathing apparatus, a safety harness and line, or a basket stretcher, was not readily available where hazardous atmosphere conditions existed or could reasonably be expected to develop during work in an excavation: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY, THE NEED FOR ANY OR ALL OF THIS EQUIPMENT, AND LOCATION OF EQUIPMENT PROVIDED) OPTION 2 4 29 CFR 1926.651(g)(2)(i): Emergency rescue equipment listed in this section was not attended when in use: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY AND WHY ../owadisp.show document:�p table=D1RECT1VES8ip id=1659&p_search type=C;LOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 20 of 31 THE EQUIPMENT WAS NOT ATTENDED) A-6 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance OPTION 1 129 CFR 1926.651(g)(2)(ii): Employees entering bell-bottom pier holes, or other similar deep and confined footing excavations, did not wear a harness with a lifeline securely attached to it: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY AND WHAT THE EMPLOYEES WERE ENTERING) OPTION 2 2 29 CFR 1926.651(g)(2)(ii): The lifeline provided for employee protection was not separate from any line used to handle materials: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY, AND TO WHAT THE EMPLOYEE LIFELINE WAS ATTACHED) OPTION 3 3 29 CFR 1926.651(g)(2)(ii): The employee lifeline was not individually attended at all times while the employee wearing the lifeline was in the excavation: (A) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY AND DETERMINE AS TO WHY THE LIFELINE WAS NOT ATTENDED) 4 29 CFR 1926.651(h)(1): Employees were permitted to work in excavations in which there was accumulated water, or excavations in which water was accumulating, and adequate precautions had not been taken to protect employees against the hazards posed by water accumulation: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY, WHAT PRECAUTIONS THE EMPLOYER WAS LACKING, AND WHERE WAS THE WATER COMING FROM) A-7 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance ... /owadisp.show document:tp table=DIRECTIVES&p id=1659&p_search type=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 21 of 31 129 CFR 1926.651(h)(2): Where water was controlled or prevented from accumulating by use of water removal equipment, the water removal equipment and operations were not monitored by a competent person to ensure proper operation: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE AND IDENTIFY WATER REMOVAL EQUIPMENT BEING USED, AND HAZARDS INVOLVED) OPTION 12 29 CFR 1926.651 (h)(3): Where excavation work interrupted the natural drainage of surface water such as streams, diversion ditches, dikes, or other suitable means were not used to prevent surface water from entering the excavation and to provide adequate drainage of the area adjacent to the excavation: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE EXCAVATION WORK BEING ACCOMPLISHED, AND HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY) OPTION 2 3 29 CFR 1926.651(h)(3): Excavations subject to run-off from heavy rains were not inspected by a competent person to ensure compliance with paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this section: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY, PROVIDE DATE OF LAST INSPECTION AND LAST HEAVY RAIN) 4 29 CFR 1926.651(i)(1): Where the stability of adjoining buildings, walls, or other structures was endangered by excavation operations, support systems such as shoring, bracing or underpinning was not provided to ensure the stability of such structures for the protection of employees: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE WHAT WAS ENDANGERED RESULTING FROM EXCAVATION OPERATIONS, AND WHAT IF ANY TYPE OF SUPPORT SYSTEM WAS PROVIDED) OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance 1 29 CFR 1926.651(i)(2): Excavation below the level of the base or footing of any foundation or retaining wall that could be reasonably .../owadisp.show document?p table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search type=C;LOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 22 of 31 expected to pose a hazard to the employees was not prohibited: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY, WHAT THE EXCAVATION WAS EXCAVATED BELOW OF) NOTE: See exceptions listed in paragraphs (i) -(iv) of this section 2 29 CFR 1926.651(i)(3): A support system or another method of protection was not provided beneath sidewalks, pavements, and appurtenant structures to protect employees from the possible collapse of such structures: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE TYPE OF STRUCTURE NEEDING SUPPORT AND ANY INADEQUATE SUPPORT SYSTEM PROVIDED) OPTION 1 3 29 CFR 1926.651(j)(1): Adequate protection was not provided to protect employees from loose rock or soil that could pose a hazard by falling or rolling from an excavation face: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHAT IF ANYTHING WAS PROVIDED) OPTION 2 4 29 CFR 1926.651(j)(1): Equivalent protection to protect employees such as scaling to remove loose materials; installation of protective barricades at intervals as necessary on the face to stop and contain falling material was not provided to protect employees: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHAT TYPE OF PROTECTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO PROTECT THE EMPLOYEES) A-9 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Assistance Assistance OPTION 1 1 29 CFR 1926.651(j)(2): Employees were not protected from excavated or other materials or equipment that could pose a hazard by failing or rolling into excavations: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, MATERIAL OR ./owadisp.show document?p table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search type=C;LOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 23 of 31 EQUIPMENT, AND WHAT PROTECTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED) Option 2 2 29 CFR 1926.651(j)(2): Protection was not provided by placing and keeping such materials or equipment at least 2 feet (.61m) from the edge of excavations, or by the use of retaining devices that were sufficient to prevent materials or equipment from failing or rolling into excavations, or by a combination of both if necessary: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS.) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT, AND WHAT PROTECTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED) OPTION 1 3 29 CFR 1926.651(k)(1): Daily inspections of excavations, the adjacent areas, and protective systems were not made by a competent person for evidence of a situation that could have resulted in possible cave-ins, indications of failure of protective systems, hazardous atmospheres, or other hazardous conditions: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHEN THE LAST DAILY INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED) OPTION 2 4 29 CFR 1926.651(k)(1): An inspection was not conducted by the competent person prior to the start of work and as needed throughout the shift: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHAT INDICATED THAT INSPECTION WAS NOT CONDUCTED BEFORE AND AFTER WORK HAS STARTED) A-10 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Assistance Assistance OPTION 3 1 29 CFR 1926.651(k)(1): Inspections were not made after every rainstorm or other hazard increasing occurrence: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHAT INDICATED AN INSPECTION WAS NEEDED) 2 29 CFR 1926.651(k)(2): Where the competent person found evidence of a situation that could result in a possible cave-in, indications of failure /owadisp.show document?p table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search type=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 24 of 31 of protective systems, hazardous atmospheres, or other hazardous conditions, exposed employees were not removed from the hazardous area until the necessary precautions had been taken to ensure their safety: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, WHAT WAS UNSAFE AND WHAT PRECAUTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN) 3 29 CFR 1926.651(1)(1): Where employees or equipment are required or permitted to cross over excavations, walkways or bridges with standard guardrails were not provided: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, WHAT WAS LACKING GUARDRAILS, AND PROVIDE OVERALL MEASUREMENTS INCLUDING THE FALLING DISTANCE) OPTION 14 29 CFR 1926.651(1)(2): Adequate barrier physical protection was not provided at all remotely located excavations: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHAT TYPE OF PHYSICAL BARRIER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED) A-11 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance OPTION 2 129 CFR 1926.651(1)(2): All wells, pits, shafts, etc., were not barricaded or covered: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED) OPTION 3 2 29 CFR 1926.651(1)(2): Upon completion of exploration and similar operations, temporary wells, pits, shafts, etc., were not backfilled: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHEN OPERATIONS WERE COMPLETED) 3 29 CFR 1926.652(a)(1): Each employee in an excavation was not /owadisp. showdocument7p table=DI ECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search type--CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 25 of 31 protected from cave-ins by an adequate protective system designed in accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of this section: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHAT WAS LACKING IN PROTECTIVE SYSTEM DESIGN) NOTE: See exception in (i) and (ii) of this section 4 29 CFR 1926.652(a)(2): Protective systems did not have the capacity to resist without failure all loads that were intended or could reasonably be expected to be applied or transmitted to the system: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHAT WAS LACKING IN THE PROTECTIVE SYSTEM TO CAUSE A FAILURE) A-12 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance OPTION 1 1 29 CFR 1926.652(b): The slopes and configurations of slope and benching systems were not selected and constructed by the employer or his designee: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHO MADE THE SELECTION OF THE SYSTEM TO BE USED) OPTION 2 2 29 CFR 1926.652(b): The slopes and configurations of sloping and benching systems selected to be used were not constructed in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (b)(1): (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, WHAT WAS LACKING IN THE SYSTEM THE EMPLOYER SELECTED TO USE) OPTION 1 3 29 CFR 1926.652(c): Designs of support systems shield systems, and other protective systems were not selected and constructed by the employer or his designee: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHO SELECTED THE PROTECTIVE SYSTEM, OR SHIELD SYSTEM BEING USED) ../owadisp.show document:�p table=D1RECTIVESBip id=1659&p_searcb type=C;LOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 26 of 31 OPTION 2 4 29 CFR 1926.652(c): Designs of support systems shield systems being used were not designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (c)(1); or, in the alternative, paragraph (c)(2); or, in the alternative, paragraph (c)3); or, in the alternative, paragraph (c)(4): (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, WHAT WAS LACKING IN THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SUPPORT SYSTEMS, OR SHIELD SYSTEM BEING USED) A-13 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance 129 CFR 1926.652(d)(1): Materials and equipment used for protective systems were not free from damage or defects that might impair their proper function: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, WHAT WAS DAMAGE OR DEFECT IN THE MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT BEING USED IN THE PROTECTIVE SYSTEM) OPTION 12 29 CFR 1926.652(d)(2): Manufactured materials and equipment used for protective systems were not maintained in a manner that was consistent with the recommendations of the manufacture: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT BEING USED THAT IT WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS) OPTION 2 3 29 CFR 1926.652(d)(2): Manufactured materials and equipment used for protective systems were not used in a manner that was consistent with the recommendations, and in a manner that would have prevented employee exposure to hazards: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT THAT PRESENTED A HAZARD TO THE EMPLOYEES) /owadisp.show document7p table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search t"e=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 27 of 31 OPTION 14 29 CFR 1926.652(d)(3): When material or equipment that was used for protective systems was damaged, a competent person did not examine the material or equipment and evaluate its suitability for continued use: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, WHAT WAS DAMAGED IN THE PROTECTIVE SYSTEM BEING USED AND ITS SUITABILITY FOR CONTINUED USE) A-14 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance OPTION 2 1 29 CFR 1926.652(d)(3): When the competent person could not ensure that the material or equipment was able to support the intended loads or was otherwise suitable for safe use, then such material or equipment was not removed from service: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHAT WAS DEFECTIVE WITH THE MATERIAL OR EQUIPMENT THAT NEEDED TO BE REMOVED FROM SERVICE) OPTION 3 2 29 CFR 1926.652(d)(3): Material or equipment used for protective systems that was found to be damaged and had been removed from service was not evaluated and approved by a registered professional engineer before being returned to service: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHAT WAS DEFECTIVE IN THE PROTECTIVE SYSTEM BEING USED, WHO APPROVED THE MATERIAL OR EQUIPMENT TO BE PUT BACK INTO SERVICE) 3 29 CFR 1926.652(e)(1)(i): Members of support systems were not securely connected together to prevent sliding, falling, kickouts, or other predictable failure: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND HOW THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPPORT SYSTEMS WERE CONNECTED TOGETHER) 4 29 CFR 1926.652(e)(1)(ii): Support systems were not installed and .../owadisp.show document?p table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search t"e=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 28 of 31 removed in a manner that protected employees from cave-ins, structural collapses, or from being struck by members of the support system: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE SUPPORT SYSTEM THAT IT PRESENTED HAZARD TO EMPLOYEES WHILE BEING INSTALLED OR REMOVED) A-15 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance 1 29 CFR 1926.652(e)(1)(iii): Individual members of support systems were subjected to loads exceeding those which those members were designed to withstand: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, WHAT THE LOADS WERE THAT EXCEEDED THOSE THE MEMBERS OF SUPPORT SYSTEMS WERE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND) 2 29 CFR 1926.652(e)(1)(iv): Before temporary removal of individual members was begun, additional precautions were not taken to ensure the safety of employees, such as installing other structural members to carry the loads imposed on the support system: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHAT PRECAUTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE EMPLOYER PRIOR TO TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF SUPPORT SYSTEM MEMBERS) OPTION 1 3 29 CFR 1926.652(e)(1)(v): Removal of members from support system did not begin at, and progress from, the bottom of the excavation: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHERE DID REMOVAL OF MEMBERS OF SUPPORT SYSTEM BEGIN) OPTION 2 4 29 CFR 1926.652(e)(1)(v): Members were not released slowly so as to note any indication of possible failure of the remaining members of the structure or possible cave-in of the sides of the excavation: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR ./owadisp.show document:}p table=D1RECT1VES&p id=1659&p_search type=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 29 of 31 CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND AREA WHERE MEMBERS WERE RELEASED TOO FAST INDICATING A FAILURE OR CAVE-IN WAS EVIDENT) A-16 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance 1 29 CFR 1926.652(e)(1)(vi): Backfilling did not progress together with removal of support systems from excavations: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHEN DID BACKFILLING START AS THE SUPPORT SYSTEM WAS REMOVED) OPTION 12 29 CFR 1926.652(e)(2)(i): Excavation of material to a level no greater than 2 feet (.61m) below the bottom of the members of a support system was permitted where the system was not designed to resist the forces calculated for the full depth of the trench, and there were indications while the trench was open of a possible loss of soil behind or below the bottom of the support system: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND HOW FAR BELOW SUPPORT SYSTEM EXCAVATING WAS ACCOMPLISHED) OPTION 2 3 29 CFR 1926.652(e)(2)(i): Excavation of material to a level no greater than 2 feet (.61m) below the bottom of the members of the support system was allowed when there were indications while the trench is open of a possible loss of soil from behind or below the bottom of the support system: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHERE LOSS OF SOIL WAS OCCURRING) 4 29 CFR 1926.652(e)(2)(ii): Installation of a support system was not closely coordinated with the excavation of trenches: (a) (LOCATION,) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, WHEN WAS THE INSTALLATION OF THE SUPPORT SYSTEM STARTED RELATIVE TO THE EXCAVATING OPERATION) A-17 ... /owadisp.show document?p table=D1RECTIVES&p id=1659&p_search type=CLOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 30 of 31 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance 129 CFR 1926.652(f): Employees were permitted to work on the faces of sloped or benched excavations at levels above other employees when employees at the lower levels were not adequately protected from the hazard of falling, rolling, or sliding material or equipment: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, WHAT WERE THE EMPLOYEES WORKING ON THE FACE DOING, AND WHAT WERE THEY WORKING WITH THAT CREATED A HAZARD) 2 29 CFR 1926.652(g)(1)(i): Shield systems were subjected to loads exceeding those which the system was designed to withstand: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, WHAT WERE THE LOADS THE SHIELD SYSTEMS WERE SUBJECTED TO THAT EXCEEDED THOSE THE SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND) 3 29 CFR 1926.652(g)(1)(ii): Shields were not installed in a manner to restrict lateral or other hazardous movement of the shield in the event of the application of sudden lateral loads: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND HOW THE SHIELD WAS INSTALLED TO ALLOW LATERAL AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MOVEMENT) 4 29 CFR 1926.652(g)(1)(iii): Employees were not protected from the hazard of cave-ins when entering or exiting the area protected by shields: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHAT WAS DIRECTION OF TRAVEL BY THE EMPLOYEES) A-18 OSHA Instruction CPL 2.87 February 20, 1990 Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance 1 29 CFR 1926.652(g)(1)(iv): Employees were allowed in shields when shields were being installed, removed, or moved vertically: ... /owadisp.show document:.p table=DMCT1VES&p id=1659&p_search t e=C;LOBTEXTP 6/7/02 CPL 2.87 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing the Excavation Standard, 29 CFR 1926, S.. Page 31 of 31 (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, WHAT WAS BEING DONE WITH THE SHIELD WHILE EMPLOYEES WERE IN SHIELD) OPTION 12 29 CFR 1926.652(g)(2): Excavations of <earth material to a level no greater than 2 feet (.61m) below the bottom of a shield was permitted, when the shield was not designed to resist the forces calculated for the full depth of the trench, and there were indications while the trench was open of a possible loss of soil from behind or below the bottom of the shield: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, WHAT INDICATED THAT SHIELD FAILED TO RESIST THE FORCES CALCULATED AND POSSIBLE LOSS OF SOIL FROM BEHIND THE SHIELD) OPTION 2 3 29 CFR 1926.652 (g)(2): Excavation of material to a level no greater than 2 feet (.61m) below the bottom of a shield system was allowed when there were indications while the trench was open of a possible loss of soil from behind or below the bottom of the shield system: (a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARDS WHERE NECESSARY, AND WHERE LOSS OF SOIL WAS OCCURRING) A-19 Directives - Table of Contents Total time elapsed: .18 sec interval time: .18 sec ../owadisp.show document?p table=D1RECTIVES&p id=1659&p_search t e=C;LOBTEXTP 6/7/02 May -30-2002 11;02am From -GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC 16036243733 T-500 P.001/005 F-105 4 4 GEOTECHNICALr, SERT''ICES TNC. .+e Geotechnico! Engineering -A Environmental Studies - Materials Testing -d Construction Monitoring .e May 30, 2002 Law Offices of Ralph R. Joyce Attn: Mr. Ralph R. Joyce 121 Collins Landing Weare, New Hampshire 03281 re, EXCAVATION AND SLOPE STABILIZA,TIO;r REC01Y><.MENDATION'S REDI-ROCK RETAINING WALL CE ESTNUT STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS GSI PROJECT N0, 202175 Dw Mr. Joyce: Geotechnical Services, Inc. (GSI)has reviewed the Redi-Rock Retaining Wall design prepared by Mr. Carl Thunberg of Nobis Engineering, Inc. Based on our teview we offer the following recommendations with respect to excavatioct safety and soil stabilization. EXCAVATION SAFETY Nobis has classified the site soils as consistent with OSHA Class "A". In general, excavations and slopes should conform with the OSHA 29 CFR 1926, subpart P guidelines (see Appendix B). Gcenetal excavation recommendations include, but are not limited to the following, as discussed below. The slope should be cut to a 3AV:1H layback using ar excavator or gtadall equipped with a smooth faced bucket in order to minimize disturbance of the underlying natural till soils. The prepared soil subgrade surface should eonsi st of undisturbed :ill. If fills are planned, the fills should be Compacted to 95% of-naxirnum dry density (ASTM D 698). 2. Prior to commencing any site excavation work, the area should be inspected for any conditions which may require special precautionary measures. This is especially important adjacent to buildings, roadways, and underground utility structures. Such structures should be surveyed to rote location and condition of these prior to any excavation work done on the site. Surface obstructions such as trees that are near orwithin the planned excavation zone should be removed priorto commencing work. Trees that areto remain undisturbed should be clearb, marked off. 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, MA 01835 A ?78/374/7744 a FAX 978/374/7799 .4 -4 18 Cote Avenue, Goffstown, NH 03045 =i 603/624/2722 A FAX 6031624/3733 •_.a flay -30-2002 11:03am From-GEOTECW CAL SERVICES INC 16036242733 T-500 P.002/005 F-105 Chestnut Street Retaining Walls 051 Project No. 202975 North Andover, MA Page 2 4. Underground utilities such as electric: telephone; sewer, water and gas must be determined prior to any excavation on site, The contractor should notify the uti lity owners and ask them to mark off their utility locations. In some cases it may be necessary to discuss removal, relocation; service interruption, or temporarysupport of underground utilities during construction. In any event, the contractor should be careful in while digging as there may be unmarked utilities in the excavation zone. 5. OSIiA requires that excavated material stockpiles and equipment should be maintained no closer than 2 ft fibttl the top of the excavation. This is not directed at reducing the extra lateral earth pressure due to surcharge loading, but is solely directed at reducing hazards from rolling materials into the excavation. Ideally, stockpiles should be placed well away froth excavations and trenches. 6. The designated Competent Person XP) must make day inspections ofthe excavations prior to the start ofthe shift, during the day as needed throughout the shill;, and after rainstorms or other hazard increasing events. A, sample Daily Inspection Form is attached. 7. The designated CP should be prepared to halt excavation and construction activities in aroas where there arises a cleat and imminent hazard to workers it the area. 8. SIopes should not be made steeper than what is recommended based on the OSHA soil type encountered in the area of excavation. If a slope shows signs of distress, the CP must take steps to remove workers from the areas and regrade the slopes shallowerby at least 1/2H: I V before allowing workers adjacent to the sloped excavation. SOMI. SLOPE STABILIZATION Based onthe proposed finish grades, al. 5V: 1 H earthen slope is required above the retaining wall. In general, earth fill slopes steeper than 2.511:1: V are inherently unstable and prone to sloughing and/or translational sliding failures. GSI's recommendation is that the proposed 1.5V:Ili earthen slope be reinforced with horizontal layers of geogrid to enhance the dimensional stability. Our recommendation is that the required slope reinforcing may be provided with "Tensar" BX1200 geogrids spaced a maximum of 6 feet apart in the vertical and embedded into the slope 3 feet atthc bottom shortening to 3 feet atthe top layer, Thisarrangement of geogrid would provide sufficient earth reinforcing to maintain the slope with a theoretical factor of safety against failure of 1.5. GS1 recommends that the slope be covered with a minimum of 6 -inches ofhumus of such nature and organic content capable of sustaining vegetation. GSI further recommends that an erosion control mat such as North American Green S 15 0 or equivalent be mechanically affixed to the slope immediately after excavation; humus placement and hydro -seeding. One supplier of the above -referenced mat is Jennian Lnterpriscs of Mclrose, Massachusetts. Tho mat provides erosion protection and slope stability prior to ostablishmcnt of vegetation. Subsequent vegetative covermay be established by hydro -seeding using a hardy mixture ofgrass and legume seeds including annual and perennial Ryegrass, Alsike Clover, Creeping Red Fescue, and Crown Vetch. The legumes are desirable for nitrogen contribution via transportation processes and subsequent inoculation into the filth 12yGr- -: G-15, I May -30-2002 11:04am From -GEOTECHNICAL SEP,VICES INC !6036243733 T-500 P.003/005 F-105 Chestnut Street Retaining Walls Gat Project No. 202175 North, Andover, MA Pa e S T'he humus my require the application of fertilizer to enhance growth and promote root structure_ Our preliminary recommendations is an application of 10 parts nitrogen -10 parts phosphorus -10 parts potassium at arate of 100 pounds peracre. Seed gettnination will be facilitated with mulch coverprovided by the erosion control mat. Construction Monitoring It is recommended that GSI be retained to review construction procedures for conformance with contract requirements, documents and design concepts. The follOwingisthe Minimum recommended inspection tasks GSI should perform with respect to earthwork construction; 1. Evaluation of footing subgrade competency. 2. Observation and monitoring of the placement and compaction of backfill. 3. Laboratory testing and analysis of fill materials for verification of compliance with project specifications. We trust thatthe contents ofthis report is responsive to your needs at this time. Should you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office, Very truly yours, GEO EECH_ T C.I.. SERVICES, LNC. Harry K. Wetherbee, P.E. Principal Engineer NG fes+` I May -30-2002 11:05am Frcm-GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC 16036243133 T-500 P-004/005 F-105 Chestnut Street Retaining Walls GSI Project No. 202175 North Andover MA Page 4 LIMITATIONS Ex, glorations The analyses, recommendations and designs submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from preliminary subsurfaceexpforations. Thenature and extent of variations between these explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. 2. The generalized soil profile described in the text is intended to convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strath are approximate and idealized and have been developed by interpretation of widely spaced explorations and samples; actual soil transitions are probably more gradual. For specific information, refer to the individual test pit and/or boring logs. Water level readings have been made in the test borings under conditions stated or, the logs, 'These data have been reviewed and interpretations have been made in the text of this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations inthe level ofthe goundw$ter may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and otlter factors differing from the time the measurements were made. view 4. It is recommended that this firm be given the opportunity to review final design drawings and specifications to evaluate the appropriate implementation of the recommendations provided herein. In the event that any clta-iges in the nature, design, or location of the proposed areas are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of the report modified or verified in writing by Geotechnical Services, Inc. Use of Report b, This report has been prepared for'Mr. Ralph Joyce in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report has been prepared for this project by Geotechnical Services, Inc. This report was completed forpreliminary design purposes and may be limited in its scope to complete an accurate bid. Contractors wishing a copy of the report may secure itwiththe understanding that its scope is limited to evaluation considerations only. Na S .::P I May -30-2002 11:i-5am From -GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC 160$6243733 T-500 P.005/005 F-105 COMPETENT PERSON'S CHECKLIST is the cut, cavity, or depression a trench or an excavation? i is the cut, cavity, or depression more than 4 ft (1.2 m) in depth? Is there; water in the cut, cavity, or depression? Are there adequate means of access and egress? Are there any sur face encumbrances? Is there exposuxe to vehicular traf c? Are adJacenl structures stabilised? Does mobile equipment have a warreing system? Is a competent person in charge of the operation? Is equpment operating in or around the cut, cavity, or depression? Are procedures required to monitor, test, and control hazardous atmospheres? Does a competent person determine soil 4 x? Have soils types within the excavation changed from those which had been previously encountered? Was a soil testingdevice used to determine soil type? Is the spoil placed 2 it (0.6 m) or more from the edge of the out, cavity, or depression? Is the depth 20 ft (6.' m) or tnorc for the cat, cavity, or depression? Has a registered professional engineer apprcved the procedure if the depth is more than 20 ft (6.1 n)? Does the procedure require benching or multiple benching? ;shoring? Shielding? If provided, do shields extend at least 18 in (D.5 m) above the surrounding area if it is sloped toward the excavation? If shields are used, is the d:,Pth Of uze cut more than 2,6 (li. 6 m) below the bottom of the shield? Are any required surface crossings of the cut, cavity, or depression the proper width and fitted with hand rails? Are means of egress from the cut, cavity, or depression no more than 2S ft (17.67n) from the work? Is emergency rescue equipment required? Is there documentation of the mutimum daily excavation inspection? TOWN OF NGIIT11. A DGW: Office of the gilding Department Y ����3��fululity '.i'Def;�r'e`ttl£ipn-nityltgand �`et-I"#.4°esN(-p3-lb A;,mlover, N845 2-7 Via Fax 1-603-529-8866 Mail June 7, 2002 Attorney Ralph R. Joyce 121 Collins Landing Weare, NH 03821 Dear Mr. Joyce: ,0 I am in receipt of the plans from Tuesday June 4h and your faxed letter received on June 7'}` in regards to the retaining walls for lots 1 through 3 on Chestnut Street. Please be advised that this project is of the utmost importance for the protection of the general public, workman on site and protection of abutting properties and as such have the following comments. 1) The project is of a complexity that requires specific expertise and as such is to be under 780 CMR section 116 Controlled Construction. 2) The plans (which are stamped) and the Design Memorandum and calculations (which are not stamped) are of a complexity that under 780 CMR 116 and Appendix I ( 1-2,1-2.1,1- 3, I -3.1,I-4 & I-5.) I am requiring a Independent Structural Engineer Review the reviewing engineer is to be engaged by the owner. 3) As noted above the Design Memorandum and the attached specifications are not stamped which is required. 4) I have concerns as to the finish grades after the recommended 1.75 vertical to 1 horizontal is accomplished at the top of the walls and how these grades are to meet existing grades. 5) The engineer of record will be required to be on site at phases of construction consistent with controlled construction projects. 6) Enclosed you will also find the appropriate building permit application for this project that must be filled out completely and stamped by the appropriate individuals. Please contact me so that we may begin the process to remedy this situation in a timely manner at 978-688-9545 between 8.30 — 10:00 AM and 1:00 — 2:00 PM Respectfully, Michael McGuire Local Building Inspector Piatv--ing fkpi tnvett 688-9535 Conservation DTartmcnt 688-9530 %ialtlt Dq?atttttart 688-9544 Zoning Board of ,\pptats 688-9541 GA GeoAmbient Consultants, Inc. Civil Engineers and Land Planning Consultants 10 STATE STREET • NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950 • (978) 462-7766 June 25, 2002 Town of North Andover Office of Building Inspector 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 Attn: Michael McGuire RE: Independent Structural Engineer Review — Chestnut Street Ret -Wall Lots 1-3 Dear Michael, In response to the letter dated June 7, 2002 regarding the above referenced project, we have completed the Independent Analysis as per State Building Code, Section 780 CMR paragraph 116 and Appendix I. This office reviewed plans entitled "Redi-Rock Retaining Wall, Plans, Details & Notes' dated 5/30/02 together with Design Memorandum dated 5/15/02 and 5/16/02 together Excavation and Slope Stabilization Recommendations as prepared by Geotechnical Services Inc. dated May 30, 2002. I hereby certify that the structural design shown on the said drawings and specification conform to the structural requirements of 780 CMR. If you have comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, John W. Hargreaves, Jr., P.E. OF JOHN gWAVES, JR. CIVIL E A No. 42426 �Q ,► FSS/oNAL Ea DESIGN MEMORAND UM TO: Steve Gard — Michie Corporation FROM: Eric Thibodeau, Carl Thunberg, P.E. — Nobis Engineering, Inc. CC: N/A DATE: 05/16/02 SUBJECT: Lot #2 — Chestnut Street; North Andover, MA Job No. 72500 This memorandum provides a brief summary of the design recommendations for the proposed Redi-Rock modular block retaining wall to be constructed for Lot #2 along Chestnut Street in North Andover, Massachusetts. Based on the provided plans, the wall will be located behind the proposed house and will be constructed along the existing slope. Maximum wall height will be approximately 10.5 feet which includes a 12 -inch embedment for frost protection. It is understood that the Redi-Rock retaining wall will replace an existing two-tiered Versa -Lok retaining wall. Based on test borings and other work performed within this area of the lot, subsurface soils consist of a dense to very dense glacial till with some clay/silt. Design soil parameters were provided in a letter prepared by Geotechnical Services, Inc. dated April 16, 2002. Free groundwater was not encountered within the depths explored by the test borings. The following is a summary of the design and construction considerations for the Lot #2 retaining wall: • Based on the information provided and our design calculations, the wall may be constructed as a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall. Geogrid reinforcement, consisting of Stratagrid 200, should be provided at each block level. Geogrid embedment lengths will vary from 3 to 10.5 feet over the height of the wall. Two layers of geogrid should be provided for the first course of block. The geogrid should be installed with the machine direction perpendicular -to the wall. Geogrid reinforcement will not be required for areas where the wall height is 6 feet or less. Refer to the attached design calculations and. design drawing for further details for this wall. • The first row of blocks should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the finish grade for frost protection as required by the Redi-Rock Design Resources Manual. Also, a minimum 4 -foot wide level "bench" should be provided in front of the wall. Refer to the design drawing for more information. • All Versa -Lok blocks, geogrid reinforcement, crushed stone, drainage pipe, and backfill should be removed from the area prior to the construction of the new retaining wall. Subgrade preparation should include the removal .of any loose or disturbed soils and compaction with hand -guided equipment before placement of the .first row of blocks. • To provide drainage, a 4 -inch diameter perforated pipe should be provided along the base of the wall. The pipe should be pitched to provide positive drainage and bedded in 3/4 -inch crushed stone and wrapped in a filter fabric. In turn, the pipe should be "daylighted" at both ends so as not to be reliant upon a single flow path. • The wall should be backfilled with a free draining material such as Massachusetts Highway M1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. The backfill should extend a'minimum of 2 -feet beyond the back of the wall as shown on the design drawing. 'Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as detennined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1557. The on-site excavated glacial till soils may potentially File No. 72500 Lot #2 — Chestnut.Street; N Andover Massachusetts Page 2 May. 16, 2002 be suitable for ire -use as backfill outside of the 2 -foot zone provided care is taken to prevent construction disturbance. Refer to paragraph 2 of the Construction Issues section below. Construction Issues: 1. It should be stressed that the slope located above the retaining wall was designed by others. Design of erosion control measures and stabilization of slopes is beyond our scope, of services. The Owner should be advised that the Town of North Andover Conservation Commission may have additional erosion control requirements such as the installation of silt fences, staked haybales, water bars, check dams, etc. that must also be followed. 2. Due to the relatively high 0-1ilt1clay content of the native glacial till, these soils are highly susceptible to construction disturbance, once excavated. Achieving proper compaction with these soils will be problematic, particularly following rain events. If the native glacial till soils are rendered unsuitable due to saturation, it may become necessary to backfill the wall with Massachusetts Highway M1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. 3. For purposes of safe excavation design, the on-site soils may be considered to be Type A soils in accordance with the OSHA Excavation Standard (29 CFR Part 1926.650-.652) Subpart P. In the event that site constraints will not allow for an open cut in conformance with the maximum allowable slopes given in the OSHA excavation standard, then the Contractor should retain the services of a registered professional engineer to design temporary slopes. 4. It is considered essential that Nobis perform limited construction observation services during construction of the retaining walls. The intent of performing construction observation services is to verify that the wall is being constructed in accordance with the intent the design. Our construction observation services would include inspection of prepared subgrades before placement of the first row of blocks and placement of geogrid (particularly in the lower rows). Note that the site is located within an approximately ten minute drive from our Lawrence office. Compaction testing of backfill soils should be performed by a qualified materials testing firm to verify that the compaction requirements of the design are being met in the field. We trust that the information presented within this memorandum will be responsive to your needs. If you have any questions in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact us. \\SERVERI\DATA\REPORTS\ACTIVE\72500 North Andover, MA\Lot 2\DesignMemo2.doc JOB "Nompm- --Nw SHEET NO. OF P.O. BOX2890 CALCULATED B Lo y DATE CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 CHECKED BY DATE (603) 224-4182 SCALE ... ..... ... ................. . . .. . ........ .. .. ......... . . ..... . . ... . . ...... .. ........ . ... . .... . ..... ........... ............ . ........... . ..... ...... .... ....... ...... .............. ....... ....... ..... .......... ............ ............. ............... ....... ............. ..... ............ .... .. . . ...... ............. ...... .... ... bd, .............. ............. ......... ................. L/lzra C4,1 ........................ ............. Znc . . ..... LNUr .... ...... CA! �lex "'a ............ ............. ......... . ). 61 ......... ....... ............. . ........ . ... ....... tval 4. !L .. ..... 1. . 4, .......... ............ A'I ....... .. . . .. ........ . ............ ...... ...... ............ . .. ........ ..... ...... ....... ......... ....... ...... P.O. BOX2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 JOB °' x` 1 Zvi ��,;-.akel• SHEET N0. OF CALCULATED BY DATE��`` CHECKED BY C °' ( DATE SCALE PROOMT2D4-1(SI,I,Sh,ds)2D5-liPad0d) JOB SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY DATE PO. BOX2890 DATE CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 CHECKED By (603) 224-4182 SCALE PROOMT2D4-1(SI,I,Sh,ds)2D5-liPad0d) SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 . Licensed to: Nobis Engineering Inc 18 Chenell Drive Concord NH 03301 License Number: 02050745 Project Identification: f Project Name Loty#2 Chestnut Street N Andover, MA a Section: Existing Slope Data Sheet: Owner: Ralph Joyce Client: Michie Corporation Prepared by: Nobis Engineering, Inc. Date: May 15 2002 Time: 09:10:01 AM Data file: a:\lot2 Type of Structure: Geosynthetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCMA Method A Seismic Analysis Details: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ratio 0.00 Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) 10.5 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 1.0 Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 9,5 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units 7 Hinge Height (in plane of wall) (ft) N/A Wall Inclination (degrees) 4,8 Page 1 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Sl opes : Front Slope (derTrees ) ?:OriZ ..t :i Back Slope (degrees) 34.0 Infinite Back Slope Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge none Dead Load Surcharge none Friction Cohesion Angle Soil Description: (psf) (degrees) Reinforced Soil Mass Highway M1.03.0 Type b N/A 35.0 Retained Soil Glacial Till N/A 40.0 Levelling Pad Soil gravel N/A 40.0 Foundation Soil Glacial Till 200.0 40.0 Segmental Unit Name: Redi-Rock Standard Blocks Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) none Unit Height (Hu)(in) 18.0 Unit Width (Wu)(in) 41.0 Unit Length (in) 46.5 Setback (in) 1.513 Weight (infilled) (lbs) 2983.0 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 150.2 Center of Gravity (in) 20.5 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Page 2 Unit Weight (pcf) 120.0 135.0 125.0 135.0 Properties Ultimate Strength Criteria Service State Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 4000.0 4000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 6 StrataG rid 200 SRWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Ultimate Strength (lbs/ft) 2720.0 N/A Polymer Type polyester N/A Reduction Factors: Creep Durability Installation Damage Overall Factor of Safety Allowable Strength: Ta (lbs/ft) Coefficient of Interaction: Ci Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Cds Type 3 N/A N/A Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 1.40 N/A N/A 1.10 N/A N/A 1.05 N/A N/A 1.50 N/A N/A Type 1 Type 2 1121.42 N/A Type 1 Type 2 0.7 N/A Type 3 N/A Type 3 N/A Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 0.95 N/A N/A Page 3 Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 846.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 36.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 1220.0 N/A N/A Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 846.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 36.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 1220.0 N/A N/A Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ft) 500.0 45.0 2000.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ft) 500.0 45.0 2000.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SRWa11 (ver 3. 22 March 2002) ' LN 02050745 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.481 Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.456 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 41.28 Retained Soil (Ka) 0.305 Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.263 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 51.18 Page 4 Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Design Criteria FOS Sliding 2.31 1.5 OK FOS Overturning 2.72 2.0 OK FOS Bearing Capacity 26.19 3.0 OK Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 6.3 6.3 OK Base Eccentricity (e)(ft) 0.96 N/A 4.56 Base Eccentricity Ratio (e/L-2e) 0.22 N/A 6.0 Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) 0.6 0.6 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria 4.5 Detailed Results of External Stabilitv Analvses: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Bearing Capacity (psf) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Results of Internal Stabilitv Analvses. SRW Geosyn Elev `l;`ength'"= Anchor FOS FOS Uni t Type (ft) (f t); ; R,: Length Over- Pullout # (ft) stress > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 Calculated Values: 2846.6 9393.9 6577.7 12005.1 32599.5 56109.8 2142.5 FOS Layer Sliding Spacing (ft) > 1.5 < 3.0 7.85 OK 6.22 OK 4.17 OK 3.07 OK 2.4 OK 1.95 OK 7 1 9.0 13 91 1.0 8.1 7.0 fi 1 7.559 :4 i.0 4.56 4.1 5 1 6.0 1`04:;7 5;€ 1.0 3.04 2.85 4 1 4.5 1.0 2.28 2.22 3 1 3.0 k..F Z 58,..:; 1.0 1.82 1.84 2 1 1.5 .t:�. 63ry 1.3 0.97* 1.34* Note: * value does NOT MEET design criterion (2 occurrences) Calculated Values: 2846.6 9393.9 6577.7 12005.1 32599.5 56109.8 2142.5 FOS Layer Sliding Spacing (ft) > 1.5 < 3.0 7.85 OK 6.22 OK 4.17 OK 3.07 OK 2.4 OK 1.95 OK SRWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Detailed Results of Internal stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn E1ev Allowable Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding Unit Type (ft) Strength Load Capacity Force Capacity # (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 7 1 9.0 1121.4 138.4 969.4 237.2 1862.7 6 1 7.5 1121.4 246.1 1010.3 472.0 2938.1 5 1 6.0 1121.4 369.2 1051.2 786.9 3283.3 4 1 4.5 1121.4 492.3 1092.1 1181.8 3628.6 3 1 3.0 1121.4 615.3 1133.0 1656.7 3973.8 2 1 1.5 1121.4 1153.7 1542.8 2211.7 4319.1 Results of Facing Stability Analvses: Page 5 SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS Shear FOS Connection Unit Elev Type Over- Shear (deformation) Connection (deformation) # (ft) turning (peak) (peak) > 2.0 > 2.0 < 0.02 x Hu > 1.5 < 0.75 in 7 9.0 1 42.74 20.64 OK 8.81 OK 6 7.5 1 17.91 18.57 OK 4.96 OK 5 6.0' 1 11.17 11.82 OK 3.3 OK 4 4.5 1 8.09 8.67 OK 2.48 OK 3 3.0 1 6.34 6.84 OK 1.98 OK 2 1.5 1 5.2 5.65 OK 1.06* OK 1 0.0 none 4.41 - 7 6 9.0 1 Note: * value does NOT MEET design criterion (1 occurrences) 1269.8 1269.8 Detailed Results of 'Facing StabilitZ Analyses (Moment and Shear): SRW Heel Geo Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear Unit # E1ev Type Moment Moment Load Capacity Capacity (ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) +out -in (peak) (deformation) 7 6 9.0 1 30.8 1315.1 61.5 1269.8 1269.8 5 7.5 1 246.1 4409.4 107.7 2000.0 2000.0 4 6.0 1 830.7 9282.8 169.2 2000.0 2000.0 3 4.5 1 1969.0 15935.5 230.7 2000.0 2000.0 2 3.0 1 3845.8 24367.3 292.3 2000.0 2000.0 1 1.5 1 6645.5 34578.3 353.8 2000.0 2000.0 0.0 none 10552.8 46568.5 0.0 4000.0 4000.0 Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Connections): SRW Uni t Heel El Geo Connection Connection Connection # ev (ft) Type Load Capacity Capacity (lbs/ft) (peak) (deformation)��'�`� (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 7 9.0 1 138.4 1220.0 1220.0 Goo Ca I 6 7.5 1 246.1 1220.0 1220.0 �i a' 5 4 6.0 4.5 1 1 369.2 1220.0 1220.0 t0�, cok 3 492.3 1220.0 1220.0 2 3.0 1 615.3 1220.0 1220.0 1.5 1 1153.7 1220.0 1220.0 :U;,uj Cj Q isB Ln'r �:! � [c' "t I (/ �• alpi SR[nWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) Page 6 LN 02050745 Project Identification: Project Name: Section: Data Sheet: Owner: Client: Lot #2 - Chestnut Street - N. Andover, MA Existing Slope Ralph Joyce Michie Corporation Prepared by:Nobis Engineering, Inc. Date: May 15 2002 Time: 09:10:01 AM Data file: a:\lot2 DESIGN MEMORAND UM T0: Steve Gard — Michie Corporation sneering, Inc• FR OM: Eric Thibodeau, Carl Thunberg, P.E. — Nobis Eng CC: N/A DATE: 05/15/02 =-Job No. 72500 SUBJECT* Lot #1— Chestnut Street; North Andover, MA to osed 4. f +� cted for Lot #1 along Chestnut Street in orardurn provides a brief s -,"I rriary of the design recornmenda io for the p rhis mem wall to be constructed Plans, the proposed Redi-Rock wall will Redi-Rock modular block retaining p ivlaximum ' North Andover, Massachusetts. Based on the provided p hich includes a 12 -inch embedment for frost located behind the proposed house and will be constructed along she existing slope- rsa L be 1 approximately 7.5 feet wall height will be tion. It is understood that the Redi-Rock retaining wall will replace an existing Versa -Lok protec performed within this area of the lot, on testdense glacial till with some clay/silt. Design/ soil modular block wall. Bt of a dense to lvery and other work p Services, lay/s' dated Apr subsurface soils cons Geotechnical p the test borings. The parameters were provided in a letter prepared by considerations for the Lot #1 retaining 002. Free groundwater was not encountereconstruction within tion depths explored by 2 of the design and c following is a summary wall: the wall may be constructed Based on the information provided and our design calculations, num as a gravity wall. In locations where the wall height reaches the maxl. is additional block additional standard block should be provided at the hep for further details of this will provide additional sliding resistance and should be placedd�bngk-to-back" with the front block. Refer to the attached design calculations and design wall. rade w of blocks should be embedded a minimumRoesources Manual the finish g The first row the Redi-Rock Design for frost protection as required by drainage pipe, and backfill All Versa -Lok blocks, geogrid reinforcement, crushed stone, • should be removed from the area prior to the al of ction of the new retaining wall. Subgrade preparation should include the removal of anY loose e first ow of b blocks. and .compaction with hand -guided equipment before placement oft the base of i e should be provided along lock is provided, the drainage pipe should extend To provide drainage, a 4 -inch diameter perforate p p • the wall. In areas�f rGrVl� kaThelpipebhould be pitched to provide positive drainage and around the back ed in a filter fabric. In turn, the pipe should be bedded in N -inch crushed stone and wrapped le flow path. "daylighted" at both ends so as not to be reliant up free n a sl material such as crushed stone or The wall should be backfilled with e b Gravel Borrow. The backfill should extend a Massachusetts Highway M1.03.0 Type -feet beyond the back of the wall as shown n dry design y as determine drawing. d BackfillbY minimum of 2 Y Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1557. The on-site excavated glacial should be compacted to minimum of 95% of the maximus f the 2 -foot zone provided American Society for g till soils may potentially be suitable for re -use as .backfill outside o May 1_5, 200 care is taken to prevent construction disturbance Issues section below. Refer to paragraph 2 of the Construction Construction Issues: wall was designed by others. Design 1. It should be stressed that the slope above the retaining ation Commission may of erosion control measures and stabilization of slopes is beyonod ervscope of services. The Owner should be advised that the Town of North Andover erosion control requirements such as the instadllation of silt fences, staked have additional e etc. that must also be followe haybales, water bars, check dams, are relatively high silt/clay content of the native glacial ill;r pe colnpactioniw with 2. Die tothe, rl o c articularly following rain events: If the native glacial till susceptible to construction disturbance, once excavated. Ac to backfill the wall these soils will be problematic, p become necessary Type b Gravel Borrow. Backfill should be compacted soils are rendered unsuitable due to saturation, >t may ed b ASTM D1557. with Mass u Hoof 95%iof he maximum dy MI.03.0 � density as determined Y to a minim be considered to be Type A 3. For purposes of safe excavation design, the on-site soils mayard CFR Part 1926.650-.652) soils in accordance with the OS onstraints will not alExcavation low for an open cut idard thennce the Subpart P. In the event that site given in the OSHA excavation standard, , with the maximum allowable slopes g professional engineer to design Contractor should retain the services of a registered temporary slopes. performing construction observation onsidered essential that Nobis perform limitedconstructionobservation services during 4. It is c walls. The intent p construction of the retaining constructed in accordance with the intent the design. seryices is to verify that the wall is being is located within an approximately ten Our construction observation services would includetienspection of prepared subgrades before placement of the first row of blocks. Note that the s e compaction requirements of minute drive from our Lawrence office. Compaction test th of backfill soils should be performed by a qualified materials testing firm to verify that the design are being met in the field. that the information presented within this memorandum will obe responsive to your We trust lease do not needs. If you have any questions m the interim, p CTIVE\'12500 North Andover, MA\Lot 1\Design \\SERVERI\DATA\ftEPORTS\AMernOAoc P.O. BOX 2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 [♦...i JOB (^�jr 1 F r(, J f � - a SHEET NO. OF lit CALCULATED BYDATE e% 6 1 CHECKED BY C DATE CrAI F ........ 1 PAMICT'/M.1I i.WA-W-1 lV.en.m .... cr+5? v ��y•/+� p r 6. 0 1 r 4 f .5:. ( tk 64 PAMICT'/M.1I i.WA-W-1 lV.en.m PRODUCT 204-1 (Simi, SOeel 1 "'A (Padded) ' �Sos- L o -5—F JOB SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY DATE 5 (l S D7j 70,�B�OX289 NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 CHECKED BY G .✓ 1 DATE CONCORD, (603) 224-4182 SCALE . ........ ...... ..... Q B_......... ��. eE . -=-- ,. ;... ......... 6...... ..... ................... . .............. :. .. .... o-... ..... i .. .........:...... .._i. .......> �i i .. .. .. ..�i....... ..... ...... .._...... .....r ... .: :� .a, ........ I i .. .. .......... ...... i. ......:.. .. i 1 ys w ..d t : .. PRODUCT 204-1 (Simi, SOeel 1 "'A (Padded) i.C7 P.O.80X2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 JOB .� . F IF%t~ SHEET NO. �? OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY c wr DATE S/ U �— ccni F � � 3 P. 0. BOX 2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 JOB OF > SHEET NO. Jct ES71 DATE CALCULATED BY C w j DATE CHECKED BY gin M ALN "The Essence of NaturalRock" Estimatin-rro 2 Lot ##1 - Chestnut Street - N. Andover MA Conc. Unit Weight 150 Existing Slope Retaining Wa{I BlockWidth 41 Backfill Angle 34 _ WallHeight 7.5 Backfill Soil 1 TrafficSurcharge No Avg. Soil Unit Weight 120 _ BlockType Standard Block Foundation Soil Avg. Soil Urtit Weight Sand with Gravel 120 Soil Friction Angle 35 Estimated Overturning Factor 2.17 Meets overturning factor of 2.0 147allBattelAiwle 96 Estunated Sliding Factor 1.11 Request that wall design engineer recheck wall design -- BACKSLOPE ANGLE w BLOCK DEPTH J BATTER RETAINED SOIL ANGL WALL HEIGHT - "DISCLAIM ER:This software is intended to be used as a design aid for the internal stability of Redi-Rock retaining wall systems only. This software does not account for overall wall stabilty including: bearing capacity, overall slope stability, seismic conditions and construction quality. All designs should be reviewed by a registered professional engineer familiar with retaining wall design. 5/15/02 v M 0 45m 2 D Z 0 Z M 90 O r v M r r ^Z P1 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT REPAIR, RENOVATE, CHANGE THE USE OR OCCUPANCY OF, OR DEMOLISH ANY BUILDING OTHER THAN A ONE OR TWO FAMILY DWELLING ,,.. 1. xr This Section for Official Use Onl ME, t Yf'. ? BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: + DATE ISSUED: Ir7 ` ( BOO I� SIGNATURE: Buildin Commissi6nerlffl�jqrdBuildingsDate 1.1 Property Address: 1.2 Assessors Map and Parcel Number. - t9o. Map Number Parcel Number l� 1.3 Zoning Information: 1.4 Property Dimensions: `3 ---- F?--- s-000 f � S7 Zoning District Proposed Use Lot Area Fronts e 11 1.6 BUILDING SETBACKS (ft) Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Required Provide Reqwired Provided Re red Provided I 1.7 Water Supply M.G.L.C.40. 54) 1.5. Flood Zone Information: Sewerage Disposal System: Public Private ❑ Zone Outside Flood Zone Municipal ❑ 3 F Y f''' �]'�-� �iy� 2.1 Owner of Record � f/ � 7— F A-, � - / r►/iS / / / / �L �'�7� /�. ,� \ .. � IAV Name (Print) Name o Y '�%E ki"Z Try 1?41 t/k o�C�ervice : L(�� 6t% fit', !T/I� . O 3 z -- 7z Si Telephone '-�15-09- 2.2 Authorized Agent Name Print Address for Service: Signature Telephone 3.1 Licensed Construction Supervisor Not Appliwirle ❑ TeWA71W5 �o % (5.5 y y3 7 9 Address S0 5 AFeQy V 5r License Number tial ,991y -17!) U e `c j , i2A Licensed Construction Supervisor: Expiration Date 4 2'2 74 3 3 4Ato��-� lFne� .Sig ture Telephone 3.2 Registered Home Improvement Contractor Not Applicable ❑ Al. A Company Name_ Registration Number Address Expiration Date Signature Telephone v M 0 45m 2 D Z 0 Z M 90 O r v M r r ^Z P1 Ind ndent Structural En 'neering 'eerieStructural Peer Review Required Yes ❑ No 0 SECTION 10a Owner Authorization - TO BE COMPLETED WHEN OWNERS AGENT OR CONTRACTOR APPLIES FOR BUILDING PERMIT I,ii'�► �iy�� %lE % 2/¢L�//� �^ -.� iG'�s Owner of the subject property Hereby authorize. My behalf, i31.atr building permit application o to act on oZ D�74`Date ~ New Construction Existing Building ❑ Repair(s) 0 Alterations(s) ❑ Addition 0 Accessory Bldg, ❑ Demolition 0 Other ❑ Specify Brief Description of Proposed Work: &Lo -r / .7 -5 Tg7l"- Rocf'f T�.'.v�a �%r9� C_ 7'L�✓u �'%iti10��ND�.I>A7 Lo r//S'�oZ �9r �oTe93 ,5AAZ tri., � .�k r .}l•' ti r x ij � USE GROUP Check as a licable CONSTRUCTION TYPE A Assembly 0 A-1 0 A-2 ❑ A-3 ❑ IA 0 A4 0 A-5 0 1B 0 B Business 0 2A ❑ C Educational ❑ 2B 0 F Factory ❑ F -I ❑ F-2 ❑ 2C 0 H High Hazard ❑ 3A ❑ IInstitutional 0 IA 0 I-2 ❑ I-3 0 313 0 M Mercantile ❑ 4 ❑ R residential 0 R-1 ❑ R-2 R-3 0 5A ❑ S Storage 0 S-1 0 S-2 ❑ 5B 0 U utility ❑ 1 Specify: M Mixed Use 0 Specify: S Special Use 0 Specify: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ]IF EXISTING BUILDING UNDERGOING RENOVATIONS, ADDITIONS AND OR CHANGE IN USE Existing Use Group: l " r Proposed Use Group: Existing Hazard Index 780 CMR 34: Proposed Hazard Index 780 CMR 34: 4 , BUILDING AREA EXISTING if applicable) PROPOSED Number of Floors or Stories Include Basement levels r r Floor Area per Floor s Total Area (sf) Total Height (ft) ----- Ind ndent Structural En 'neering 'eerieStructural Peer Review Required Yes ❑ No 0 SECTION 10a Owner Authorization - TO BE COMPLETED WHEN OWNERS AGENT OR CONTRACTOR APPLIES FOR BUILDING PERMIT I,ii'�► �iy�� %lE % 2/¢L�//� �^ -.� iG'�s Owner of the subject property Hereby authorize. My behalf, i31.atr building permit application o to act on oZ D�74`Date I, '`F'�J tiC e oYG as Owner/ A a;iaad Aand Hereby declare that the statements and information on the foregoing application are true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury Print me t afore o er/ a ate se Item Estimated Cost (Dollars) to be Completed by permit applicantY. f `] r © (a) Building Permit Fee 1. Building I W v Multiplier 2 Electrical (b) Estimated Total Cost of Construction from 6 3 Plumbing Building Permit fee (a) x (b) q� 4 Mechanical (HVAC) 5 Fire Protection 6 Total (1+2+3+4+5) Check Number tltl ri�t;?; , � A ,� rx �, ' }i ` �.. .. :t � rt :� ` - \J r# �g \r h1Gr41yrtoSa^ t!•j?r'�it,�t��, ' a' �i r� rt F �(: r ! [ `'JArrj �pr9tt1«�¢SP r ���: �-'1`a(1i �i ae�1}�rtraG%'<�{ �� G(�Ji � �*" �.ri.s }lXA)YYttFf4 i"`bMMM1§VVV! :kH� uC fY•. ,?} l,1h. \ t�s°v�fftyt ' y 'r3{(5�x� }3'xV '�52 �t�.�r(1e j i } f.7#:t�;�r� � y��rr�l�r'f3j(2 �*'l, .�NyNh�.1 Y v �k�4ti�ti NO. OF STORIES SIZE AV A BASEMENT OR SLAB SIZE OF FLOOR TIMBERS 1 ST 2 ND 3RD SPAN DEMENSIONS OF SILLS DEMENSIONS OF POSTS DIMENSIONS OF GIRDERS HEIGHT OF FOUNDATION THICKNESS SIZE OF FOOTING x MATERIAL OF CHEMNEY IS BUILDING ON SOLID OR FILLED LAND IS BUILDING CONNECTED TO NATURAL GAS LINE 7 ',', i y rt;, :i. �� (.�,}\ .N rx•srt�r ry T `,! �+i f 1 }••,t'\. <i rIE N'i.3yw. 11 (}t V ^i 'f 4 j,{arh''jO ". ".t �. ,. fa,M 'i} .. ... _ ,. ::. , ,•.-....f �N air �r � uu 4's'�kr "s.,'`wrr.Li�i Workers Compensation iusurancc affidavit must he eolnpleste d attd issuance of the building permit. Signed affidavit Attached Yca ....>< No ....... n 5.1 NuInc; this applicatinn. Failure to provide this silldavit will result in the dcciial of the Address Signature Telephone -AU-04;1-75 1Pi iy SNC Name: j3 D}! 2. �r o .+ Address:: Signature & h�'e7 7-6c. Name, Addn:ss / Signature A-) : i41U go 2 Total e!p b. Telephone Z& //T"L au,v /./, &'fesgP Name /O :574 77,0` Sr. A4Fw 23Ryj'o/i N-9, ©, gso 0 Name Address Telephone - Signahue Telephone Company Name: Responsible: in Charge of Construction 3 A*xa of Re51'xMsibility '3 76oes Re&Watkn Number Expiration Date Not applicable ❑ Eegistrrttion Nmix ExD a Arca of Responsibility e-/e2,ya Rrgjstration Number Expiration Date Area of Responsibility Registration Nu mbxT Expiration Date Not Applicable G TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT REPAIR, RENOVATE, CHANGE THE USE OR OCCUPANCY OF, OR DEMOLISH ANY BUILDING OTHER THAN A ONE OR TWO FAMILY DWELLING This Section for Official Use On] BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: DATE ISSUED: SIGNATURE: Building Commissionerfl or of Buildings Date 1.1 Property Address. 1.2 Assessors Map and Paroel Number: /, Z. 3 Cye:%twz, .LOT o T q sr(f.4,07- /f )D. e4N PD vA5 rMap Number Parcel Number -Do.�1 1.3 Zoning Information: F?-- 1.4 Property Dimensions: — -- - .?s'000 f '12,:5— 7e- e ZoningDistrict used Use Lot Area s� Fro» taae (ft) i.o DUIi,Uit'Ili ZOE I nAUXZ Qt) Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Required Provide Require Provided Required Provided . /a. /V 11. /v, �,9. 1.7 Water Supply M.G.L.C.40. 54) 1.5. Flood Zone Information: 8 Sewerage Disposal System: Public private ❑ ZODe Outside Flood Zane >< MunicipalQnsilepialwW sysism p 2.1 Owner of Record r4L (".W, Ws Name (Print) Q� �/ j�y� `e a7�i9L 7 R�,( �1�'' �Y� ery ce : LIJG� /�, 01� ? 7e-.5- 2.2 Authorized Agent Name Print aignature 3.1 Licensed Construction Supervisor Address �© /��+��.Qy� 1oly 12d 4o) Licensed Construction Supervisor: 3.2 Registered Home (Improvement Contractor t/ • A Company Name Address Telephone r -- .- UV1 N,K.. Not Applicable ❑ -- — es 0 License Number Expiration Date Not Applicable 0 Registration Number I Expiration Date Signature Telephone New Construction >< Existing Building 0 Repair(s) ❑ Accessory Bldg. ❑ Demolition ❑ Other ❑ Specify Brien Description of Proposed Work: 9I0rPND1P,c> , T/ s/45/o CI Flu 7 h`ex Alterations(s) ❑ 1 Addition ❑ et-Ar9C L 72--l"v �� DoT e9.3 '/G /a A Assembly 0 A-] 0 USE GROUP Check as a licable CONSTRUCTION TYPE A-2 0 A-3 ❑ ❑ B Business 0 A, ❑ A-5 ❑ 0 C Educational ❑ ❑ F Factory ❑ F-1 0 F-2 0 0 ❑ H Hi Hazard 0 W5A ❑ IInstitutional ❑ I-1 0 I-2 0 I-3 0 ❑ M Mercantile ❑ R residential ❑ R-1 ❑ R-2 R-3 ❑ ❑ 0 S StorageS-1 0 S-2 ❑ p U Utili 0 Specify: M Mixed Use ❑ Specify: S Special Use 0 Specify: COMPLETE THIS SECTION IFE�XISTING BUILDING UNDERGOING RENOVATIONS, ADDITIONS AND OR CHANGE IN USE Existing Use Group: F , 1 . ! `� Proposed Use Group: Existing Hazard Index 780 CMR 34: Proposed Hazard Index 780 CMR 34: BUILDING AREA EXISTING if applicable) PROPOSED Number of Floors or Stories Include Basement levels •ef Floor Area per Floor s Total Area (sf) Total HeiEht (ft) rind: ndent Structural En 'cerictural Peer Review Yes ❑ No ❑ TION l0a Owner Authorization - TO BECOMPLETED WHEN NERS AGENT OR CONTRACTOR APPLIES FOR BUILDING PERMIT 04B Owner of the subject property Hereby authorize o a on two work authorized byIthis building permit application Date � tfili93V�yAaQ+3Y(m'�. 3+.w.�r�.; 4,y"'-�arn: �.^er.Y Y�r� ✓{p�'{R�uy a�sa .�[;v (f c9 e i'v3/VV.�'k,i7' �.Ti- yAit r a 3� s Ni �i y5�-'i1s L�M4' AaaaaC.,&s:';.sa er..crras.Mvsz..;ltrntit e5.anat�..2,%.'zuax...rrtkcea�r:,zcaai^rat�ti•�a+ro5i!i,.fax:xF,a.: , a{6,'Q`av}s 1 ias • Hereby declare1 1 information on foregoing application andaccurate, tothebestof knowledge an• belief. under the pains and penalties of pe�ury PrintSigned ►1 4i-gatWc bate .+iFy•t(9if5z,�W.�M+b K� G�'t."y."X3J.','.y1Mj,`F}`F9 F/.�`G.s. TMt 9.T .:1 - !"i'� Qv^.k¢a'4?PCdy^� v4 S ')Ah:.j'�Yf;�/° �, • / 1 � 1 1 1 • �s ✓ v� g�'���'�ra w.uyi� �d � ���y4 4 6J , � 7 1 1 :r •- SAY a.,,.'a�,k„'�!�'��4�r '4 e�, ,r.'�', aa� .:�i��:t,:_ <,'t., Multi/ li (b) Estimated Total Cost of Construction from (6) Building Permit fee (a) x (b) `• / 5 Fire Protection •.vP/ l W'x. n I P � aG.���Yfc1.�?j�s''d�f:��4'.L°hs"?:..��r�YilN ��s;.�.�-?F1��_'�:P���tT������'4dY� .��'. �.s�b�T �,�dh��au1�r:A�E7�nQatGah/',£��}d��a��i�5,4���� S!•y��,Yd'k.• . / , 'o o- • OF •'I SIZE • •0' TMERS `' ., DEMENSIONS OF DEMENSIONS OF POSTS DIMENSIONS • OF I' ' HEIGHTOF • • SIZE OF •• MATERIALOF II 1 IS BUILDING ON • 11 OR FILLED IS BUILDING • TO NATURAL GAS LINE �i��`t ������a�4 �t�L: �.. r� ,:.$�i? L$"t. `� Py. Q .a�.�i`L�'.� k•• •L. , .r�%'?::���f,'�����i ��Y ��. .•� .. .. M Workers Compensation Jpsuranoc issuance Of the bUildilla Permit. Signed affidavit Attached Yca .... -S .lox ...................... 5.1 Registered Archiri-ni• Name: Address must he coulPletod and submitted With this application, Failure to provide this affidavit will result in the denialof .n Ma Signature Telephone -A;DZ5i'-S 45V&. WAF I -=e, -A/ g Name- -P '0, 5,!5,y --I L_TVe -- d Address: do '1 2- 1 cl Signature 6 e rei Name: "/Firm,/ / -V 6110, Signature TOW 1 &6%5 Telephone ki 1124"V /-/ wve� - Name /Z> Orf 77,0" sr. Alerw 3vKY,,qOA`7, el$9, Name Address Signature.. Company Nam; ReVonsible in Charge of Construction �p7w -e-14Z 77,C4 a Telephone A= of kes�ibil�ity� '3 74!(6 Registration ]dumber Z xpir&.tion Date. Not applicable 0 RegiqWM-on Ntuiiber Expkt! �a Area of Responsibility - 4/rya Registration Number Expiration Date IArea of Responsibility Registration N=bz TX-PGt-ion Date - Not Applicable 0 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT REPAIR, RENOVATE, CHANGE THE USE OR OCCUPANCY OF, OR DEMOLISH ANY BUILDING OTHER THAN A ONE OR TWO FAMILY DWELLING SIX � This Section for Official Use Onl BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER:° DATE ISSUED: SIGNATURE: t Buildin Comnussioner/Immaor of Buildings Date " 1.1 Property Address: 1.2 Assessors Map and Parcel Number. LOT Z, 3 P� mber Map Number Parcel Nu 1.3 Zoning Information: 1.4 Property Dimensions: -- --- "7s'0ov Zoning District Proposed Use I 1K Riiil TiNf4 f:IITn Anr7o itis Lori Area Fronts e ft Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard R 'red Provide ReqWred Provided Required Provided /1. /jj. Al, 117. I11 4-- 1.7 Water Sopply M.GL.C.40. 54) 1.5. Flood Zone Information: I Scrap Disposal System: Public private ❑ Zona Outside Flood Zona>< Municipal ❑ 2.1 Owner of Record Name (Pant) O Z7 1?4,eqddressOYi��ervice : lC% �t'� •y/� . 1� !� Z$ 2.2 Authorized Agent Name Print Signature Telephone Address for Service: 3.1 Licensed Construction Supervisor Tj5-,f PA71W,,5 e:rb Y�_c Address CD /G�� 1FeQVVj9 57. Licensed Construction Supervisor: r-s:e byt-eL-� SPZ 76 3 3 3.2 Registered Home Improvement Contractor /V , 4 Company Name Address Signature Telephone Not Applicable ❑ C.5 o y3 7� License Number Expiration Date Not Applicable ❑ Registration Number Expiration Date New Construction K Accessory Bldg, 0 Existing Building ❑ I Repair(s) 0 Demolition ❑ I Other ❑ Specify Alterations(s) 0 1 Addition 0 Brief Description of Proposed Work: — /1i1��101�'rPNDl�,c> V T/ c%r4s� zor e93 A Assembly ❑ A-1 ❑ A-4 0 USE GROUP Check as applicable). A-2 ❑ A-3 ❑ A-5 0 CONSTRUCTION TYPE IA ❑ 1B B Business ❑ ❑ C Educational ❑ 2B 0 F Factory ❑ F-1 ❑ F-2 0 2B 2C ❑ 0 H High Hazard ❑ 3A ❑ IInstitutional ❑ I-1 ❑ 1-2 0 I-3 0 3B 0 M Mercantile ❑ 4 R residential ❑ R-1 0 R-2 R-3 ❑ 5A ❑ ❑ S Storage 0 S-1 0 S-2 ❑ 5B 0 U utility ❑ Specify: M Mixed Use ❑ Specify: S Special Use 0 Specify: COMPLETE THIS SECTION IF EXISTING BUII.DING UNDERGOING RENOVATIONS, ADDITIONS AND OR CHANGE IN USE Existing Use Group: ! " Proposed Use Group: Existing Hazard Index 780 CMR 34: I Proposed Hazard Index 780 CMR BUILDING AREA EXISTING if applicable) PROPOSED Number of Floors or Stories Include Basement levels Floor Area per Floor s Total Area (sf) Total HeiEht (ft) Independent Structural Engineering Structural Peer Review Required Yes ❑ No ❑ SECTION 10a Owner Authorization - TO BE COMPLETED WHEN OWNERS AGENT OR CONTRACTOR APPLIES FOR BUILDING PERMIT I' I ������ - i� KG' s Owner of the subject property Hereby authorize My behalf, ip.ali' r/-Itic'E a VI -1 to act on two work authorized b0his building permit application _ Date g- 7`,ent'/c4we i ' oYL as Owner/Amtkep�go - Hereby declare that the statements and information on the foregoing application are true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury Print me Aq©r— t azure o er/2a bate W� Item Estimated Cost (Dollars) to be Completed U t P byapplicant (a) Building Permit Fee 1. Building Multi Tier 2 Electrical (b) Estimated Total Cost of Construction from 6 3 Plumbing Building Permit fee (a) x (b) �. 4 Mechanical (HVAC) 5 Fire Protection 6 Total (1+2+3+4+5) Check Number a � �WARN. IN NO. OF STORIES SIZE BASEMENT OR SLAB SIZE OF FLOOR TIMBERS iST 2 No 3 ELD SPAN DEMENSIONS OF SELLS DEMENSIONS OF POSTS DIMENSIONS OF GIRDERS HEIGHT OF FOUNDATION THICKNESS SIZE OF FOOTING x MATERIAL OF CBRANEY IS BUILDING ON SOLID OR FILLED LAND IS BUILDING CONNECTED TO NATURAL GAS LINE f r losar+utcc a$iditvii must he completed and submitted whfi this application. 1�ailurt to provide this affidavit will result in the dZnal af'thc �errtuty,�_ d Yea . No ....... f1 '• — 5.1 Registered��Archite0l: Address --- Signature Telephone Name: D }cam 2 s('96 ., el O VeOxv r7Jhi o 33 0 . Address: Signature 603 Z2. rt- C//cdZ_ Total Axa of pesp owibility ,3 766 Registration Number )~xpiration Date e^HN�`C4 G S,�'"��/, �� �,V Not applieablea ❑ Name: Addre-ss Poegistztui n Nuinber - f�•��7 Signature Telephone F.x a Name /p.`'. ''',y T�" �T• . _ /V JF W3�RYfor'�T, Name Address Signature Telephone Telephone commy Name: Responsiblc in Charge of Construction LF Arca of Responsibility 1-/,2 ya R;• ;tration Number Expiration Date .Area of Responsibility Registration Number Rxpiratio7n Date Not Applicable ❑ N;Ay'OY�LYUL IfI •YL'dl(1 r(Yllr+xvlGLrrYIW14 JG?Y:KJ �iW EUT'EC'I�NICAi, SERVICES FNC. A Geotechnical ingineering ,d Environmental Studies -' Materials Testing -d Construction Monitoring May 30, 2002 Law Offices of Ralph R. Joyec Ann: Mr. Ralph R, Joyce 121 Collins Landing Weare, New Hampshire 03281 re: EXC'AVATION AND SLOPE STABILIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS REDI-ROCK RETAINING WALL CHESTNUT STREET NORTH ANDOVER, (MASSACHUSETTS GSI PROTECT NO. 202175 Dear Mr. Joyce: Geotechnical Services, Inc. (GSI)has reviewed the Redi-Rock Retaining Wall desil,n prepared by Mr. Carl Thunberg of Nobis Engineering, Tn.. Based on our review wz offer the following recomnnendations with respect to excavation safety and soil Stabilize+.ion. EXCAVATION SAFETY Nobis has classified the site soils as consistent with OSHA Class "A". In general, excavations and slopes should conform with the OSHA 29 CFR 1926, subpart P guidelines (see ?appendix B). General excavation recommendationsutclude; but are not limited to the following, as discussed below. 1. The slope should be cut to a )AV:114 layback using ar excavator or gtadall equipped with a smooth faced bucket in order to minimize disturbance of the underlying natural till soils. The prepared soil subgrade surface should consist of undisturbor till. If fills areplanned, the fills shoWd be compacted to 95% of maximum dry density (ASTAI D 698). 2. Prior to commencing any site excavation work, the area should be inspected for any conditions which may require special precautionary measures. TKAs is especially important adjacent to buildings, roadways, and underground utility structures. Such structures should be surveyed to note location and condition ox these prior to any excavation work done on the site. Surface obstructions such as trees that are Hear orwithin the planned excavation zone should be removed prior to comrnet ting work. "frees that are to remain undisturbed should be clear> , marked off. .e 17 Rogers Road, Haverhill, MA 01835 A 978,1374/7744 FAX 978/374/7799 -A •d 18 Coto Avenue, 3offstown, NN 03045 � 603/624/2722 FAX 603/624/3733 -1 Chestnut Street Retaining Walls 031 Project No. 202175 North Andover, MA Pape 2 4. Underground utilities such as electric, telephone, sewer, water and gas must be determined prior to any excavation on site. The contractor should notify the uti lity owners and ask them to mark off their utility locations. In some cases it may be necessary to discuss removal, relocation; service interruption, or temporary support of underground utilities during construction. In any event, the contractor should be careful In while digging as there may be unmarked utilities in the excavation zona. 5. OSIiA requires that excavated material stockpiles and equipment should be maintained no oloser than 2 ft ftni the top of the excavation. This is not directed at reducing the extra lateral earth pressure due to surcharge loading, but is solely directed at reducing hazards from rolling materials into the excavation. Ideally.. stockpiles should be placed well away from excavations and trenches. 6. Thedesignated ComNteni Person (CP) must make daily inspections ofthe excavations prior to the start of the shift, during the clay es needed throughout the shill, and after rainstorms or other hazard increasing events. A, sample Daily Inspection Form is attached. The designated CP should be prepared to halt excavation and construction activities in aroas where there arises a clear and imminent ha2urd to workers in the Area. S. Slopes should act be made steeper than what is recommended based on the OSHA soil type encountered in the area of excavation. If a slope shows signs of disuvss, the CP must take sups to remove workers fl•om the areas and regrade the slopes shallowerby ai toast 1/2H:1 V before allowing workers adjacent to the sloped excavation. SOIL SLOPE STABILIZATION. Based onthe proposed finish grades, a 1.5V: t H earthen slope is requiredabove the retainingwsll, In general, earth fill slopes steeper than 2.5H:1: V are inherently unstable and prone to sloughing and/or translational sliding failures. GSI's recommendation is that the proposed 1.5V;11i earthen slope be reinforced with horizcntal layers of geogrid to enhance the dimensional stability. Our recommendation is that flue required slope reinforcing may be provided with "Tensar" $X1200 geogrids spaced a maximum of 6 feet apart in the vertical and embedded into the slope 3 feet at the bottom shortening to 3 feet atthe top layer. This arrangement of geogrid would provide sufficient earth reinforcing to maintain the slope with a theoretical factor of safety against failure of 1..5. GSI recommends that the slope be covered with a minimum of 6 -inches of humus of such nature and organic content capable of sustaining vegetation. GSI further recommends that an erosion control mat such as North American Greer: S 150 or equivalent be mechanically affixed to the slope immediately after excavation, humus placement and hydro -seeding. One supplier of the above -referenced mat is T=nian Enterprises of Melrose, Massachusetts. T'ne mat provides erosion protection and slope stability prior to establishment of vegetation. Subsequent vegetative cover may be established by hydro -seeding using a hardy mixture of grass and legume seeds including annual and perennial Ryegrass, Alsike Clover, Creeping Red Fescue, and Crown, Votch. The legumes are desirable for nitrogen contribution via transportation processes and subsequent inoculation into the filth teyar. G S I Chestnut Street Retaining Walls GSI Project No. 202176 North Andover, MA Pape 3 The humus may require the application of fertilizer to enhance growth and promote root Structure. Our preliminary recommendations is an application of 10 parts ritmgen-10 parts phosphorus -10 parts potassium atarateofI00poundsperacre. Seed Settitination will be facil itated with mulch cover provided by the erosion control mat. Constmetlon Monitoring It is recommended that GSl be retained to review con*uction procedures for conformance with contract requirements, docutrsentsand design concepts, The following isthontinimumrecommended irspectiontasks GSI should perforin with respect to earthwork construction; 1. Evaluation of footing subgrade cotrpotency. 2, Observation and monitoring of the placement and compaction of backf ll. 3. Laboratory, testing and analysis of fill materials for verification ofcomplianca with project specifications. We trust that the contents ofthis report is responsive to your needs at this time. Should you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, GEOTECH_ CAL SERV ICES, LNC. HaiTy K. Wetherbee, P.E. principal Engineer Chestnut Street Retaining Wails GS1 Project No. 202175 North Andover, MA Page 4 LIMITATIONS Fac�►:otations The analysts, recommendations and designs submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from preliminary subsurface explorations. Thenature and extent of variations between these explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessaru to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. 2. The general iced soil profile described in tho text is intended to convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and idealized and have been developed by interpretation of widely spaced explorations and samples; actual soil transitions are probably more gradual. For spe: ific information, refer to the individual test pit and/or boring logs. 3. Water level readings have been made in the test borings under conditions stated or the logs. These data have been reviewed and interpretations have been made in the text of this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, artd other factors differing from the time the measurements were made. Review 4. It is recommended that this firm be given the opportunity to review final design drawing.% and specifications to evaluate the appropriate implementation of the recommendations provided herein. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed areas are planned the conclusions and rccommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless $.e changes are reviewed and conclusions of the report modified or verified in writing by Geotechnical Services, Inc. VS0 of Rotrert b. This report has been prepared for Mr. Ralph Joyce in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 7. This report has been prepared for this project by Geotechnical Services, Inc. This report was completed forpreliminary design purposes and may be limited in its scope to complete anaccurate bid. Contractors wishing a copy of the report may secure itwiththe understanding that its scope is limited to evaluation considerations only. COMPETENT PERSON'' CHECKLIST Is the cut, cavity, or depression a trench or an ;excavation? is the cut, cavity, or depression more than 4 ft (1.2 rn) in depth? Is there seater in the cut, cavity, or depression.' Are there adequate means of access and egress? Are there any sui face encumbrrntces? Is there exposure to vehicular traffic? Are adjacent,rtrucimees stabilized? Does mobile equipment have a wanting sysiepi? Is a competent person in charge of the operation? Is eql; pment operating in or aroaand the cut, cavity, or depression? Ari procedures required to monitor, test, and can..►.rol hazardous armospheres? Does a competent parson determine soil tire? Have soils types within the excavation .-hanged from tt'iese w)'ich had been previously encountered? Was a soil testing device used to determine soil type? Is the spoil placed',' ft (0.6 m) or more from rhe edge of the out, cavity, or depression? is the depth 20 t3 (6.1 m) or more for the Ciit, cavity, or depression? Has a registe►trd prafessiunG1 engineer approved the procedure if the depth is more than 24 ft (6.1 n j? Does the procedure require trenching or multiple benchingn ;Shoring? Shielding? If provided, do shields extend at least 18 in (9. S m) above the surrounding area if it is sloped toward the excavation? If shields are used, is the depth of the cut. ►nor a than 2 ft (D.6 m) belo%, the bvttam of the shield' Are any required surface crossings of fhe cut, eav ity, or depression the proper width and fitted with lurid rails? Are means of egress from zhe cat, cavity, or depression no more than 215 ft (7.6m),from the work, Is emergency rescue equipment required? Is there documentation of the minimum daily excavation inspection? UGuti-mment C;onsuitants_ me. Civil Engineers and Land P.lannine Conmiltants 10 STA1F STRUT. NEWBURyhORT, MASSAC1USL1"PS 01430. (978) 462-7766 TWY 91 2%011 10 wa ui North Andover %ince of Bund � Spector 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 Attn: Michael McGuire RE: Independent Structural _Enasna r Rev;m , _ t'416 —a-- •�,• ..ueSsuua osscct JNCi-TVan.Lots 1-.i Dear Michael Tn wenn«oo r.. +U- t .w ... �_�_ r _ .. • •"�t'v=.� w �uG (cucl uated dune /, 2002 regarding the above referenced project, we have completed the ucpc lew Anutysis as par State Building Code, Section 780 CMR paragraphs 110, 116 and Appendix i, 7`h;c viu:e reviewe' p'' entitled ' Kedi-!`tock Retaining Wall, plans, Details & Notes' dated 5/30/0 tnoPrhar % ;t—% resign Memorandum dated 5/15/02 and 5/16/02 together Excavation and Slone Stabitiryatip� pyo nm&%,r1,#.^-.. as prepared by Oeotechnical Services Inc. dated May 30, 2002. I hereby certify that the structural design shown on the said dr.-. s an- Y^e: i cWtion;,;,: �; to tl'ie tru%iurai requirements of 780 CMR. Ifyou have C-OnWwnts or questions, pl;.alg uo not hesitate to contact me. .ankou, C � Ghn �r`r. Ivu-ves, .I��P.E C CIVIC 6 No.42426 Q \SS�ONAL Ea -1 04 +L- TO 39vd AAINVWVSI-1 E8AZZ9V8L6 00:it Z00Z/Z0/L0 i i UGuti-mment C;onsuitants_ me. Civil Engineers and Land P.lannine Conmiltants 10 STA1F STRUT. NEWBURyhORT, MASSAC1USL1"PS 01430. (978) 462-7766 TWY 91 2%011 10 wa ui North Andover %ince of Bund � Spector 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 Attn: Michael McGuire RE: Independent Structural _Enasna r Rev;m , _ t'416 —a-- •�,• ..ueSsuua osscct JNCi-TVan.Lots 1-.i Dear Michael Tn wenn«oo r.. +U- t .w ... �_�_ r _ .. • •"�t'v=.� w �uG (cucl uated dune /, 2002 regarding the above referenced project, we have completed the ucpc lew Anutysis as par State Building Code, Section 780 CMR paragraphs 110, 116 and Appendix i, 7`h;c viu:e reviewe' p'' entitled ' Kedi-!`tock Retaining Wall, plans, Details & Notes' dated 5/30/0 tnoPrhar % ;t—% resign Memorandum dated 5/15/02 and 5/16/02 together Excavation and Slone Stabitiryatip� pyo nm&%,r1,#.^-.. as prepared by Oeotechnical Services Inc. dated May 30, 2002. I hereby certify that the structural design shown on the said dr.-. s an- Y^e: i cWtion;,;,: �; to tl'ie tru%iurai requirements of 780 CMR. Ifyou have C-OnWwnts or questions, pl;.alg uo not hesitate to contact me. .ankou, C � Ghn �r`r. Ivu-ves, .I��P.E C CIVIC 6 No.42426 Q \SS�ONAL Ea -1 04 +L- TO 39vd AAINVWVSI-1 E8AZZ9V8L6 00:it Z00Z/Z0/L0 DESIGN MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Gard — Michie Corporation FROM: Eric Thibodeau, Carl Thunberg, P.E. — Nobis Engineering, Inc. CC: N/A DATE: 05/16/02 SUBJECT: Lot #3 — Chestnut Street; North Andover, MA Job No. 72500 This memorandum provides a brief summary of the design recommendations for the proposed Redi-Rock modular block retaining wall to be constructed for Lot #3 along Chestnut Street in North Andover, Massachusetts. Based on the provided plans, the wall will be located behind the proposed house and will be constructed along the existing slope. Maximum wall height will be approximately 10.5 feet which includes a 12 -inch embedment for frost protection. It is understood that the Redi-Rock retaining wall will replace an existing two-tiered Versa -Lok retaining wall. Based on test borings and other work performed within this area of the lot, subsurface soils consist of a dense to very dense glacial till with some clay/silt. Design soil parameters were provided in a letter prepared by Geotechnical Services, Inc. dated April 16, 2002. Free groundwater was not encountered within the depths explored by the test borings. The following is a summary of the design and construction considerations for the Lot #3 retaining wall: • Based on the information provided and our design calculations, the wall may be constructed as a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall. Geogrid reinforcement, consisting of Stratagrid 200, should be provided at each block level. Geogrid embedment lengths will vary from 3 to 9 feet over the height of the wall. Two layers of geogrid should be provided for the first .course of block. The geogrid should be installed, with the machine direction perpendicular to the wall. Geogrid reinforcement will not be required for areas where the wall height is 7.5 feet or less. Refer to the attached design calculations and design drawing for further details for this wall. • The first row of blocks should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the finish grade for frost protection as required by the Redi-Rock Design Resources Manual. Also, a minimum 4 -foot wide level "bench" should be provided in front of the wall. Rcfcr to the design drawing for more information. • All Versa -Lok blocks, geogrid reinforcement, crushed stone, drainage pipe, and backfill should be removed from the area prior to the construction of the new retaining wall. Subgrade preparation should include the removal of any loose or disturbed soils and compaction with hand -guided equipment before placement of the first row of blocks. • To provide drainage, a 4 -inch diameter perforated pipe should be provided along the base of the wall. The pipe should be pitched to provide positive drainage and bedded in 3/4 -inch crushed stone and wrapped in a filter fabric. In turn, the pipe should be "daylighted" at both ends so as not to be reliant upon a single flow path. • The wall should be backfilled with a free draining material such as Massachusetts Highway M1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. The backfill should extend a minimum of 2 -feet beyond the back of the wall as shown on the design drawing. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 1557. The on-site excavated glacial till soils may potentially File No. 72500 Lot #3 — Chestnut Street; N. Andover Massachusetts Page 2 May 16, 2002 be suitable for re -use as backfill outside of the 2 -foot zone provided care is'taken to prevent construction disturbance. Refer to paragraph 2 of the Construction Issues section below. Construction Issues: 1. It should be stressed that the slope located above the retaining wall was designed by others. Design of erosion control measures and stabilization of slopes is beyond our scope of services. The Owner should be advised that the Town of North Andover Conservation Commission may have additional erosion control requirements such as the installation of silt fences, staked haybales, water bars, check dams, etc. that must also be followed. 2. Due to the relatively high silt/clay content of the dative glacial till, mese soils are highly susceptible to construction disturbance, once excavated. Achieving proper compaction with these soils will be problematic, particularly following rain events. If the native glacial till soils are rendered unsuitable due to saturation, it may become necessary to backfill the wall with Massachusetts Highway M1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D155'7 3. For purposes of safe excavation design, the on-site soils may be considered to be Type A soils in accordance with the OSHA Excavation Standard (29 CFR Part 1926.650-.652) Subpart P. In the event that site constraints will not allow for an open cut in conformance with the maximum allowable slopes given in the OSHA excavation standard, then the Contractor should retain the services of a registered professional engineer to design temporary slopes. 4. It is considered essential that Nobis perform limited construction observation services during construction of the retaining walls. The intent of performing construction observation services is to verify that the wall is being constructed in accordance with the intent the design. Our construction observation services would include inspection of prepared subgrades before placement of the first row of blocks and placement of geogrid (particularly in the lower rows). Note that the site is located within an approximately ten minute drive from our Lawrence office. Compaction testing of backfill soils should be performed by a qualified materials testing firm to verify that the compaction requirements of the design are being met in the field. - We trust that the information presented within this memorandum will be responsive to your needs. If you have any questions in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact us. MAREPORTS\ACTIVEW2500 North Andover, MA\L.ot 3\ DesignMemo2.doc P.O. BOX 2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 I_ Al JOB t2 SHEET NO OF CALCULATED BY FG -7 DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE - P.O. BOX 2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 .............. . .. ...... ... ...... ... . . .. ..... ... JOB LC4 *3" - SHEET NO. 13 OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE., SCALE - ......... ...... . ..............r...........:... .... te,'Onj .... ......... .......... . ... . . .... . I .......... .... .. ... .. .. .... - - -------- - - - ----- .... . .. ..... ...... ......... . . ... . ...... ...... ... ........ ......... . .. . ........... ............. ............. ............. cl* ............ ... ........ ............. . .. ...... ............ ..._.......s. ... ... ................. . .. .......... .......... ............. ..... ..... ...... ..... ........ ......... . . ........ ... . ........ .... ...... ......... ... ............. ........... ............ ........... .. ............. ... . .... .. ..... ....... .. .......... .......... ............. . ........ . ........... .... ......... .. ...... .. ... .. ... .. ............. ... .... .... ......... ... . ......... . . . ....... .......... jjjj ........... �PO. BOX2890CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302(603) 224-4182 \ PRODUCT 204-1 (Sh9le Sheels) 205-1 (Padded) SHEET NO. LlOFCALCULATED BDATE- CHECKED BY , .DATE \ PRODUCT 204-1 (Sh9le Sheels) 205-1 (Padded) SOB- SHEET NO. OF P.O. BOX 2890 CALCULATED BYE, CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 DATE (603) 224.4182 CHECKED BY DATE SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Page 1 Licensed to: Nobis Engineering Inc 18 Chenell Drive Concord NH 03301 License Number: 02050745 Project Identification: Prod ect Name _;Lot #3 Che"stmt; Streeter --'IQ, Andover;:,.. NfAs �. Section: Existing Slope Data Sheet: Owner: Ralph Joyce Client: Michie Corporation Prepared by: Nobis Engineering, Inc. Date: May 15 2002 Time: 04:34:12 PM Dat_ a file_ m:\reports\active\72500 north andover, ma\lot 3\lot3 Type of Structure: Geosynthetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCMA Method A Seismic Analysis Details: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ratio _ 0.00 Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) 0.5 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 10 1. Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) .0 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness ft .5 ( ) 0 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units Hinge Height (in plane of wall) (ft) 7 N/A Wall Inclination (degrees) 4.8 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Slopes: Front Slope (degrees) Back Slope (degrees) Infinite Back Slope Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge Dead Load Surcharge Soil Data: Soil Description horizontal 30.0 none none Friction Cohesion Angle (psf) (degrees) Reinforced Soil Mass Highway M1.03.0 Type b N/A 35.0 Retained Soil Glacial Till N/A 40.0 Levelling Pad Soil gravel N/A 40.0 Foundation Soil Glacial Till 200.0 40.0 Segmental Unit Name• Redi-Rock Standard Blocks Segmental Unit: Data-: Cap Height (in) none Unit Height (Hu)(in) 18.0 Unit Width (Wu)(in) 41.0 Unit Length (in) 46.5 Setback (in) 1.513 Weight (infilled) (lbs) 2983.0 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 150.2 Center of Gravitv (in) 20.5 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Page 2 Unit Weight (pcf) 120.0 135.0 125.0 135.0 Properties Ultimate Strength Criteria Service State Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 4000.0 4000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 6 StrataGrid 200 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Geosynthetics Properties-: Strength and Polymer Type'- Ultimate ype:Ultimate Strength (lbs/ft) Polymer Type Reduction Factors: creep Durability Installation Damage Overall Factor of Safety Allowable Strength: Ta (lbs/ft) Coefficient of Interaction: Ci Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Cds Type 1 Type 2 2720.0 N/A Polyester N/A Type 1 Type 1 1121.42 Type 1 0.7 Type 1 0.95 Type 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Type 2 N/A Type 2 N/A Type 2 N/A Type 3 N/A N/A Type 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Type 3 N/A Type 3 N/A Type 3 N/A Connection Strength Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: 500.0 45.0 2000.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Minimum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 846.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 36.0 N/A N/A 1220.0 N/A N/A Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 846.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 36.0 N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 1220.0 N/A N/A N/A Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Interface Shear Strength. Wall Unit Type 1 T 2 Yp e Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ft) 500.0 45.0 2000.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ft) 500.0 45.0 2000.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 3 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.366 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 0.347 Retained Soil (Ka) 47.21 Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.266 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 0.23 53,29 Results of External Stability Analyses: Page 4 FOS Sliding Calculated Design Criteria FOS FOS Base Base Base Base Note: Overturning Bearing Capacity Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) Eccentricity6.3 (e)(ft) Eccentricity Ratio (e/L-2e) Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) calculated values MEET ALL design 2'78 3'33 30.78 0.73 0'15 0.6 criteria 1.5 2.0 3.0 6.3 N/A 0 0.6 . 6 OK OK OK OK OK Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) FOS Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Pullout Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Spacing Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) > 1.5 Bearing Capacity (psf) < 3.0 Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) 10.65 Results of Internal Stability An ses: 4.31 SRW Geosyn Elev ";'4Leiigth; Anchor Uni t FOS Type (f t)=r�Y'f•t)�,' Length Over - (f t) stress >, 1.0 > 1.0 7 1 9.0 'r-11:;'9.9` 1.0 6 1 10:64 7.3. 1.0 5 1 .,.:,c::. 5.3 9 6.0 9';4D=;"* 1.0 4 1 3.99 4.5 1.0 3 1 2.99 3.0 6`-9.4 1.0 2 1 2.39 - ::.,..,'z.. 1.62 1.28 Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Calculated Values: 2354.0 9337.6 6538.2 9671.9 32247.4 59438.8 1931.1 FOS FOS Layer Pullout Sliding Spacing (ft) > 1.5 > 1.5 < 3.0 6.88 10.65 OK 4.31 8.04 OK 3.16 5.23 OK 2.59 3.78 OK 2.25 2.92 OK 2.14 2.36 OK • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Detailed Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Unit Geosyn Type E1ev (ft) Allowable Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding # E1ev Type_ Strength Load Capacity Force Capacity (ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 7 6 1 1 9.0 7.5 1121.4 105.4 724.9 171.4 1825.2 5 1 6.0 1121.4 187.3 807.0 360.9 2900.6 4 1 4.5 1121.4 281.0 889.2 620.1 3245.9 3 1 3.0 1121.4 1121.4 374.6 468'.3 971.3 949.0 3591.1 2 1 1.5 1121.4 878.0 1053.5 1347.6 3936.3 3 --- -- - ---- 11.39 1874.7 1815.9 4 2 .1 1. 5 Results of Facing Stability Analvses: Page 5 SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS Shear Shear # (ft) Unit # E1ev Type_ Over- Shear (deformation) FOS Connection (ft) (lbs/ft) turning (peak) Connection (deformation) +out -in (peak) > 2.0 > 2.0 < 0.02 x Hu (peak) > 1.5 1315.1 46.8 1269.8 1269.8 5 6.0 1 187.3 632.2 4409.4 < 0.75 in 7 6 9.0 7.5 1 1 56.17 27.12 OR 11.58 OR 5 6'0 1 23.54 24.41 OR 6.51 OR 4 4.5 14.34 14.68 15.53 OR 2000.0 2000.0 OR 3 3.0 1 10.63 11.39 OR 3.26 OR 2 1.5 1 8.33 8,99 OR 2.61 OR 1 0.0 none 6.84 5.8 . 743 _ OR 1.39* OR Note: * value does NOT MEET design criterion (1 occurrences) Detailed Results of Facing StabilitZ Anal ses (Moment and Shear): SRW Heel Unit El ev Geo Type Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear # (ft) Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Load Capacity Capacity (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) +out -in (peak) (deformation) 7 9'0 6 7.5 1 1 23.4 1315.1 46.8 1269.8 1269.8 5 6.0 1 187.3 632.2 4409.4 82'0 2000.0 2000.0 4 4,5 1 1498.5 9282.8 15935.5 128.8 2000.0 2000.0 3 3.0 2 1 2926.8 24367.3 175.6 222.4 2000.0 2000.0 1.5 1 0.0 1 none 5057.5 34578.3 269.3 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 8031.1 46568.5 0.0 4000.0 4000.0 Detailed Results of F cing Stability Analyses (Connections): SRW Heel Unit Elev Geo Type Connection Connection Connection � ; ( # (ft) Load (lbs/ft) Capacity Capacity (peak)t;in'� (deformation) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 7 9.0 6 7.5 1 105.4 1220. 0 1220.0 �iV(� <)" 5 1 1 187.3 1220.0 1220.0 4 4.5 1 281.0 1220. 0 1220. 0 _.__�? �4 ___.._ _ .'p✓. y 3 3. 0 1 374.6 1220. 0 1220.0 2 1.5 1 468.3 1220. 0 1220.0 -_;_.._._. Y ., 878.0 1220.01220.0 "' }:3{fiC.,[ G��:.C�aP!�.,.�..#,cf.;/."",' �if..�l.�r�•�.a,� �;,�,r,.... :C'�a Q� f":.1}.f.f`�.-i�, C,n�:.� �f a'.h� r. W�� ,..F'�"5`` ' � �� S,�'j �: �yt✓` d �.J `.� ��.i• L.l'Y+. ..�J...I� "�{ `ltu SRWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Page 6 Project Identification: Project Name: Lot #3 - Chestnut Street - N. Andover, MA Section: Existing Slope Data Sheet: Owner: Ralph Joyce Client: Michie Corporation Prepared by:Nobis Engineering, Inc. Date: May 15 2002 Time: 04:34:12 PM Data file: m:\reports\active\72500 north andover, ma\lot 3\lot3 -1: Estimating Pro 2* "The Essence of Natural Roick If Lot #3 - Chestnut Street- N. Andover MA Existing Slope Ret •ni Colic. U,zit Weight 150 BlockWidtlz 41 -----. _...--... --- - - ... ... - --- - ....- --- -acicfillAngle 30 -----._. WallHeiglzt 7,5 Backfill Soil 1 TiafficSurcharge No Avg. Soil Unit Weight 120 BlockT � e JP_ Standard Block Foundation Soil Sand with Gravel WallBattelAngle 96 - ----- Avg. Soil Unit Tyeiglzt 120 - Soil Friction Angle 35 Estimated Overturnzlig Factor 2.85 Meets overturning factor of 2.0 (D — _ BLOCK DEPTH J -j BATTER ANGLE Estilzzated Sliding Factor 1.46 Request that wall design engineer recheck wall design -.--- BACKSLOPE ANGLE f RETAINED SOIL �' WALL HEI GHT--,� **DISCLAIMER:This software is intended to be used as a design aid for the internal stability of Redi•Rock retaining wall systems only. This software does not account for overall wall stabilty including: bearing capacity, overall slope stability, seismic conditions and construction quality. All designs should be reviewed by a registered professional engineer familiar with retaining wall design. 5116102 �)eo-K`i t1sLr- s`l -" pq1� FVO'p /-S po1 i S ��' G S I n) 0 0 fl t O 'j, x o N cn a od o w ,5 oC7 to v a E U Cd0 w 99 o w ►� to a°' w a a `n U w .a W aG V) m u. x � U W z C, w z A pG '-' w rA z cin v D o cn z im6m C G :•30 3� Ma O C o C .00 ,m O y Wo ES S (J . = a•c !� C, a m� V z 3` ge m .. Fr I cm y32 S y0� C • O f rda E m ? ozcmCD 46 .: y m ; Li Z ;= o cm AA = C 'o y � m � C O N O C C Z m dam' O N ~ 0 ~ m W � •Vl dt W � Z cc o 'r as .y O ui D le h a m 'O O fl = tyv oL. ti = C CL O- Q O co Z O v y CD ECD. co 0 Q _Q COD 0 Its CL h O V Q C y co 3� �03 0 Q L Q O d CDOX cv ea J 'C O O Z co CLy C 0 U) U) Ir w ccLL) U) 9 O b q, k7l rA Cd ij W x o A W cn a"� � z ►4 b x v Cd oZW cc a 0 u W0 cn w z a w � a a W rA z cn Q cn d CL z mi y O Ma E CLi O 0 CD Q cc CL CO2 0 V .CL COD O V C CA 0 co H = O � �co oL O C' CL. cmQ c J 0 ea O CO Z co C. COD C 0 U) U) W w ccw U) m c cc :2u to.a c ;r o m Ea m c *44, n o� �Mmc Fr:L a m z 3` coca -% Ob O Ego m 10 aw m A. o em�-Z =coo Q'3. C = m Lm�3o �C N W Z •H ea C � G.t O`r m'a LU Co Z O a Off_ Q H m'� _ CD H �� O a. -m> mi y O Ma E CLi O 0 CD Q cc CL CO2 0 V .CL COD O V C CA 0 co H = O � �co oL O C' CL. cmQ c J 0 ea O CO Z co C. COD C 0 U) U) W w ccw U) Law Office of Ralph I 121 Collins Landing, Weare, NH 03281 Tel. 978-685-4555 Fax. 603 June 6, 2002 Town of North Andover MICHAEL McGUIRE, BUILDING INSPECTOR 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: CHESTNUT STREET Dear Michael: Please accept this letter to confirm that I dropped off to your office on Tuesday, June 4, 2002, the geotechnical study dated April 16, 2002 with respect to the poured concrete, steel reinforced walls together with another set of plans structurally certified for a Redi-Rock Retaining Wall with a geotechnical analysis dated May 30, 2002. The April 16th geotechnical review concluded by recommending that I review two other walls systems, one referred to as a screw nail wall and the other the block system, above cited. Both of these recommendations were pursued and the favored is the Redi-rock Retaining Wall, which we intend to build assuming your favorable action thereon. If you require further input in this matter, kindly advise. Vtr yours, Ra; J RRJ/mjj VCVti11 U1UM %-,VtI,U1t,C1 ILN�, 111L. i Civil Engineers and Land Planning Consultants 10 STA1E STREET. NEWBURYPORT. MASSACHUSETTS 01030 • (978) 462.7766 July 9, 201,12 Town of North Andover Office of Building Inspector 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 Attn: Michael McGuire RF; imdene d nt Struetiaml Engineer Review _ �'i_iegtnnt C#rept Ret_WAII i ntLe 1_t TN—VC-U-1 A.P"U IVAAWAQW, in response io the ieiier dated June i, 20% 02 regarding 'the aoove referenced project, we nave compietrd 'clueindependent Analysis as per State Building Code, Section tau CMR paragzaphs i 10, 116 and Appendix I. iris office reviewed plans entified "Redi-Kock Retaining Wa11, Plans, Details be Notes' dated 5/30/02 together with Design Memorandum dated 5/15/02 and 5/16/02 together Excavation and Slope Stabilization Recommendations as prepared by Geotechnical Services Inc. dated May 30, 2002. T hereby certify that the structural design shown on the said drawings and specification conform to the structural requirements of 780 CMR. ii'intujia.vf�vf ��4in,n.tan.►�� i21t11- yO ohn W. Hargreaves, Jr., �P.E of I CIVIL y N0.42426 \ �s`t1ONAL 10 Aovd AA 1NVWVSI-1 £80ZZ9V8L6 VO:tZ ZOAZ/Z0//_0 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot -3 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:49 AM Page 6 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 TOE DESIGN: * Load Combination = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H * Available Length for Hook Embedment into Stem = 22.00 in. * Available Length for Straight Embed. into Toe = 25.96 in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Req'd (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in ^2) (in ^2) (in ^2) (in ^2) 14.50 10.72 4.59 18.71 0.166 0.221 0.389 0.389 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) #4 12.00 6.64 100.00 6.17 #5 14.23 8.30 100.00 9.57 #6 17.08 9.96 100.00 13.58 #7 24.90 11.62 100.00 18.52 #8 28.46 13.28 91.21 22.24 #9 32.10 14.98 80.86 24.96 #10 36.14 16.87 71.82 28.15 #11 40.42 18.73 64.23 30.93 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEEL DESIGN: * Load Combination = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H * Available Length for Straight Embedment into Toe = 49.96 in. * Available Length for Straight Embedment into Heel = 47.00 in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Req'd (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in ^2) (in ^2) (in ^2) (in^2) 15.50 17.74 7.14 20.00 0.257 0.343 0.389 0.389 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) #4 14.80 6.64 100.00 6.17 #5 18.50 8.30 100.00 9.57 #6 22.20 9.96 100.00 13.58 #7 32.37 11.62 100.00 18.52 #8 37.00 13.28 100.00 24.38 #9 47.08 14.98 99.84 30.81 #10 59.68 16.87 78.76 30.87 #11 73.56 18.73 63.90 30.76 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER Office of the Building Department Community Development and Services 27 Charles Street. North Andowr,119assachusetts 01845 D. Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner May 28, 2002 Mr. Ralph Joyce 121 Collins Landing Weare, N.H. 03281 Dear Mr. Joyce: Tdel))Ione (978) 6188-9545 FAX (.978) 688-9542 Please be advised that as of today's date this department has yet to receive the requested geotechnical engineering for the retaining walls to be constructed in the rear of lots 1 through 4 on Chestnut St. This department has been more than patient in this regard and can no longer let this project proceed as the rear slopes have collapsed and have become a VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION for the structures immediately below as well as the workers on site and must be addressed immediately or a stop work order for the entire project will be issued. Please be aware that under 780 CMR Section 121 "Unsafe Structures" of the Mass. State Building Code which states in part " The building official immediately upon being informed by report or otherwise that a building or structure or anything attached thereto or connected therewith is dangerous to life and limb ... shall inspect same and he shall forthwith in writing notify the owner to remove it or make it safe if it appears to him to be dangerous..." Please respond to this department within 5 days of receipt of this notice to remedy this dangerous condition. Respectfully, Michael McGuire Local Building Inspector Cc file D.Robert Nicetta Certified mail # 7000 0520 0021 5970 9771 Plarming Department 688-9535 Conservation Dcpartmait 688-9530 Health Department 688-9540 Zoning Board of Appeals 688-9541 ` QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Ralph Joyce Lot-1 Location: Chestnut St. North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:40 AM Page 1 DATE: 04-05-2002 ANALYSIS RESULTS: Sliding Force = 7,287 Lb Overturn.. Moment = 43,717 -ft -lb Resisting Force = 14,690 Lb Resisting Moment = 128,387 ft -lb F.O.S. = 2.02 F.O.S. = 2.94 DESIGN RESULTS: Stem Req'd Area Stl..= 0.518 in^2 Toe Req'd Area Stl. = 0.470 in^2 Heel Req'd Area Stl. = 0.582-in^2 12.50 ft. 8.00 in. 2.17 ft. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prcject : Ralph Joyce Lot -1 Location: Chestnut St. North Andover By: JWH ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME: 11:35 AM Page 1 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 CONCRETE DESIGN METHOD: Ultimate Strength STEM MATERIAL TYPE Concrete WALL TYPE Cantilever Retaining Wall RETAINING WALL DIMENSIONS: ------------------------------------ Wall Stem Height = 12.50 ft. Stem Thickness @ Top = 12.00 in. Stem Thickness @ Bottom = 24.00 in. Footing Thickness = 18.00 in. Heel Width . . . . . . Min. = 4.22 ft. Design Heel Width = 6.05 ft. Max.' = 6.00 ft. Toe Width . . . . . . Min. = 2.33 ft. Design Toe Width = 4.08 ft. Max. = 4.00 ft. Footing Key Depth - 2.00 ft. Design Key Depth = 2.17 ft. Footing Key Width = 2.00 ft. Design Key Width = 2.00 ft. BackFill Slope (Vert/Horiz) = 6.80 :12 RETAINING WALL LOADS: Horizontal Equivalent Fluid Pressure = 45.00 pcf. Soil -Wall Friction Angle = 0.00 deg. Vertical Surcharge on Backfill = 0 psf. Horizontal Surcharge = 0 psf. Vertical Surcharge on Toe = 0 psf. Wind Load on Fence = 0 psf. Fence Height = 0.00 ft. Line Ld. Type No. (H or V) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Magnitude Dist. (x) (plf) (ft.) Notes: 1. "H" = Horizontal loads. "V" = Vertical loads. 2. Vertical loads are positive down. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Ralph Joyce Lot -1 Location: Chestnut St. North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:35 AM Page 2 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 RETAINING WALL RESISTING FORCES: ------------------------------------ Allowable Soil Pressure = 3,000 psf. Passive Equivalent Fluid Press. = 300.00 pcf. Passive Soil Height = 4.00 ft. Coefficient of Friction = 0.50 Cohesion = 0 psf. Use Vertical Surcharge as Resisting Wt.? = No Overturning Safety Factor = 2.00 Sliding Safety Factor = 2.00 Limit Reaction to Mid 1/3? = Yes MATERIAL DATA: ------------------------------------ Concrete Strength, f'c = 4.00 ksi. Steel Yield Strength, Fy = 60.00 ksi. Concrete Unit Weight = 145.00 pcf. Soil Unit Weight = 110.00 pcf. Fence Weight = 10.00 psf. REINFORCING STEEL DATA: Concrete cover to center of steel: Wall Inside Face = 2.50 in. Footing Heel (Top Face) = 2.50 in. Footing Toe (Bottom Face) = 3.50 in. Minimum Ratios for Shrinkage and Temperature Reinf: Vertical Stem Reinf. = 0.0018 Horizontal Stem Reinf. = 0.0020 Footing Reinforcement = 0.0018 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Praject : Ralph Joyce Lot -1 Location: Chestnut St. North Andover By: JWH ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME: 11:35 AM Page 3 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 S U M M A R Y O F R E S U L T S DIMENSIONS: Stem Height = 12.50 ft. Stem Thick. @ Top = 12.00 in. Stem Thick. @ Base = 24.00 in. Footing Thickness = 18.00 in. Heel Length = 6.05 ft. Toe Length = 4.08 ft. Total Ftg. Width, B = 12.13 ft. Key Depth = 2.17 ft. Key Width = 2.40 ft. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANALYSIS RESULTS: Max Brg Press. @ Toe = 2,004 psf. @ Heel = 723 psf. Allowable Brg. Press. = 3,000 psf. Resultant Loc From C.L.= 0.95 ft. Kern Point Loc., B/6 = 2.02 ft. Limit Resultant To Mid 1/3? = Yes Sliding Force = Resisting Force = F.O.S. _ Overturn. Moment = Resisting Moment = F.O.S. _ 7,287 Lb 14, 690 Lb 2.02 43,717 ft -lb 128,387 ft -lb 2.94 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESIGN RESULTS: Design Method, Stem: Ultimate Strength Ftg.: Ultimate Strength 2. Heel moments are positive if they cause tension in the top of the footing. Heel shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the right of the end of the heel. 3. Toe moments are positive if they cause tension in the bottom of the footing. Toe shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the left of the end of the toe. d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) Stem : 21.50 24.90 5.98 27.74 0.260 0.346 0.518 Toe 14.50 22.60 7.75 18.71 0.353 0.470 0.389 Heel : 15.50 29.82 7.88 20.00 0.437 0.582 0.389 Key 12.00 8.31 7.27 15.48 0.155 0.207 0.518 Notes: 1. Stem moments are positive if they cause tension on the soil face. Negative if they cause tension on the outside face. Stem shear is positive to the left as measured on a section cut below the top of wall. 2. Heel moments are positive if they cause tension in the top of the footing. Heel shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the right of the end of the heel. 3. Toe moments are positive if they cause tension in the bottom of the footing. Toe shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the left of the end of the toe. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Ralph Joyce Lot -1 Location: Chestnut St. North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:35 AM Page 4 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 ************************************************** D E T A I L E D A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T ************************************************** ----------RESISTING FORCES --------- ---------OVERTURNING FORCES --------- Element Weight x Arm = Moment Element Force x Arm = Moment Soil 10,561 95,433 R at Top Ftg. 3,267 6.07 19,822 R at Bot. Stem 2,719 4.83 13,132 Horiz. EFP 7,287 6.00 43,717 Vert Sur Vert Sur Vert EFP Horiz Sur Toe Sur. Wind Fence Wt. Horiz line Vert. line Vert. line -------- Sum WT = 16,547 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- MR = -------- 128,387 -------- Sum F = 7,287 -------- MOT = 43,717 Friction Force - 8,274 Lb F.O.S. Sliding = RF / F = 2.02 Passive Pressure - 6,417 Lb F.O.S. Overturn. = MR / MOT = 2.94 Cohesion = 0 Lb -------- Coef. Vert. Surcharge or Line Load Resist. Force, Sum RF = 14,690 Lb to Horiz. = EFP / Soil Dens. = 0.409 Resultant Loc From Toe, X = (MR - MOT) / Sum WT = Eccentricity From Ftg. C.L., e = (B / 2) - X = 5.12 ft. 0.95 ft. Soil Pressure @ Toe =(WT / B) * (1 + 6e/B) = 2,004 psf. Soil Pressure @ Heel =(WT / B) * (1 - 6e/B) = 723 psf. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN PrGject : Ralph Joyce Lot -1 Location: Chestnut St. North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:35 AM Page 5 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 ************************************************** D E T A I L E D D E S I G N R E P O R T ************************************************** STEM DESIGN: Load Combination @ Max Mom. = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H Shr Strength @ Base, Phi Vn = 27.74 kip Dist From d Mu Vu As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Reqd Top (ft) (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) 1.25 10.70 0.02 0.06 0.001 0.001 0.285 0.285 2.50 11.90 0.20 0.24 0.004 0.005 0.311 0.311 3.75 13.10 0.67 0.54 0.011 0.015 0.337 0.337 5.00 14.30 1.59 0.96 0.025 0.033 0.363 0.363 6.25 15.50 3.11 1.49 0.045 0.060 0.389 0.389 7.50 16.70 5.38 2.15 0.072 0.096 0.415 0.415 8.75 17.90 8.54 2.93 0.107 0.142 0.441 0.441 10.00 19.10 12.75 3.83 0.149 0.199 0.467 0.467 11.25 20.30 18.15 4.84 0.200 0.267 0.492 0.492 12.50 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21.50 24.90 5.98 0.260 0.346 0.518 0.518 Vertical Stem Reinforcement: Available Length for Hook Embedment into Footing = 15.00 in. Available Length for Straight Embedment into Stem = 148.00 in. Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. 50% Cut Off (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) (in.) #4 12.00 6.64 100.00 4.63 150.00 #5 14.23 8.30 100.00 7.18 150.00 #6 17.08 9.96 100.00 10.19 150.00 #7 24.90 11.62 100.00 13.89 150.00 #8 28.46 13.28 100.00 18.29 150.00 #9 36.21 14.98 100.00 23.15 150.00 #10 45.90 16.87 88.93 26.14 150.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #11 56.58 18.73 80.10 28.92 150.00 Horizontal Stem Reinforcement: Area of steel for Shrinkage and Temp. Reinforcement = 0.480 in^2 ------Total Bars----- I.F. Only EA. Face 31.00 -----Spacing, in.---- 11.00 I.F. Only EA. Face #4 5.00 10.00 #5 7.75 15.50 #6 11.00 18.00 #7 15.00 18.00 #8 18.00 18.00 #9 18.00 18.00 #10 18.00 18.00 #11 18.00 18.00 ------Total Bars----- I.F. Only EA. Face 31.00 16.00 20.00 11.00 15.00 10.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 1Q.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Ralph Joyce Lot -1 Location: Chestnut St. North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:35 AM Page 6 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 TOE DESIGN: * Load Combination = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H * Available Length for Hook Embedment into Stem = 22.00 in. * Available Length for Straight Embed. into Toe = 46.96 in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Req'd (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) 14.50 22.60 7.75 18.71 0.353 0.470 0.389 0.470 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) #4 12.00 6.64 100.00 5.10 #5 14.23 8.30 100.00 7.91 #6 17.08 9.96 100.00 11.23 #7 24.90 11.62 100.00 15.31 #8 28.46 13.28 100.00 20.16 #9 32.10 14.98 100.00 25.52 #10 36.14 16.87 100.00 32.41 #11 40.42 18.73 100.00 39.81 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEEL DESIGN: * Load Combination = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H * Available Length for Straight Embedment into Toe = 70.96 in. * Available Length for Straight Embedment into Heel = 70.64 in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Req'd (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) (in ^2) .15.50 29.82 7.88 20.00 0.437 0.582 0.389 0.582 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) #4 14.80 6.64 100.00 4.12 #5 18.50 8.30 100.00 6.39 #6 22.20 9.96 100.00 9.07 #7 32.37 11.62 100.00 12.37 #8 37.00 13.28 100.00 16.29 #9 47.08 14.98 100.00 20.61 #10 59.68 16.87 100.00 26.18 #11 73.56 18.73 96.03 30.88 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ---------------------------------------------- - Project : Joyce Lot 2 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:46 AM Page 1 DATE: 04-05-2002 ANALYSIS RESULTS: Sliding Force = 3,757 Lb Overturn. Moment = 18,34.6 ft -lb Resisting Force = 7,633 Lb Resisting Moment = 41,495 ft -lb F.O:S. = 2.03 .F-O.S. = 2.26 DESIGN RESULTS: Stem Req'd Area Stl. = 0.518 in^2 Toe Req'd Area Stl. = 0.389 in^2 Heel Req'd Area Stl. - 0.3-89 in^2 7.25 ft. v 2,594 psf. 0.75 ft. 8.00 in. 2.00 ft. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot 2 Location: North Andover By: JWH ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME: 11:44 AM Page 1 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 CONCRETE DESIGN METHOD: Ultimate Strength STEM MATERIAL TYPE Concrete WALL TYPE Cantilever Retaining Wall RETAINING WALL DIMENSIONS: ------------------------------------ Wall Stem Height = 10.75 ft. Stem Thickness @ Top = 12.00 in. Stem Thickness @ Bottom = 24.00 in. Footing Thickness = 18.00 in. Heel Width . . . . . . Min. = 2.00 ft. = 0 Max. = 4.00 ft. Toe Width . . . . . . Min. = 2.00 ft. Max. = 3.00 ft. Footing Key Depth = 2.00 ft. Footing Key Width = 2.00 ft. BackFill Slope (Vert/Horiz) = 6.78 :12 RETAINING WALL LOADS: Horizontal Equivalent Fluid Pressure Soil -Wall Friction Angle Vertical Surcharge on Backfill Horizontal Surcharge Vertical Surcharge on Toe Wind Load on Fence Fence Height Line Ld. Type No. (H or V) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Design Heel Width = 3.25 ft. Design Toe Width Design Key Depth Design Key Width = 35.00 pcf. = 0.00 deg. = 0 psf . = 0 psf . = 0 psf . = 0 psf. = 0.00 ft. Magnitude Dist. (x) (plf) (ft.) Notes: 1. "H" = Horizontal loads. "V" = Vertical loads. 2. Vertical loads are positive down. 2.00 ft. 2.00 ft. 2.00 ft. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project : Joyce Lot 2 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:44 AM Page 2 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 RETAINING WALL RESISTING FORCES: ------------------------------------ Allowable Soil Pressure = 3,000 psf. Passive Equivalent Fluid Press. = 300.00 pcf. Passive Soil Height = 1.00 ft. Coefficient of Friction = 0.50 Cohesion = 0 psf. Use Vertical Surcharge as Resisting Wt.? = No Overturning Safety Factor = 2.00 Sliding Safety Factor = 1.50 Limit Reaction to Mid 1/3? = Yes MATERIAL DATA: ------------------------------------ Concrete Strength, f'c = 4.00 ksi. Steel Yield Strength, Fy = 60.00 ksi. Concrete Unit Weight = 145.00 pcf. Soil Unit Weight = 110.00 pcf. Fence Weight = 10.00 psf. REINFORCING STEEL DATA: Concrete cover to center of steel: Wall Inside Face = 2.50 in. Footing Heel (Top Face) = 2.50 in. Footing Toe (Bottom Face) = 3.50 in. Minimum Ratios for Shrinkage and Temperature Reinf: Vertical Stem Reinf. = 0.0018 Horizontal Stem Reinf. = 0.0020 Footing Reinforcement = 0.0018 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot 2 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:44 AM Page 3 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 S U M M A R Y O F R E S U L T S --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DIMENSIONS: Stem Height = 10.75 ft. Stem Thick. @ Top = 12.00 in. Stem Thick. @ Base = 24.00 in. Footing Thickness = 18.00 in. Heel Length = 3.25 ft. Toe Length = 2.00 ft. Total Ftg. Width, B = 7.25 ft. Key Depth = 2.00 ft. Key Width = 2.00 ft. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANALYSIS RESULTS: Max Brg Press. @ Toe = 2,594 psf. @ Heel = 24 psf. Allowable Brg. Press. = 3,000 psf. Sliding Force = 3,757 Lb Resisting Force = 7,633 Lb F.O.S. = 2.03 Resultant Loc From C.L.= 1.19 ft. Overturn. Moment = 18,346 ft -lb Kern Point Loc., B/6 = 1.21 ft. Resisting Moment = 41,495 ft -lb Limit Resultant To Mid 1/3? = Yes F.O.S. = 2.26 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESIGN RESULTS: Design Method, Stem: Ultimate Strength Ftg.: Ultimate Strength d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in^2) (in ^2) (in^2) Stem : 21.50 12.32 3.44 27.74 0.128 0.171 0.518 Toe 14.50 7.18 3.00 18.71 0.111 0.148 0.389 Heel : 15.50 10.27 5.28 20.00 0.148 0.198 0.389 Key 12.00 3.91 3.57 15.48 0.073 0.097 0.518 Notes: 1. Stem moments are positive if they cause tension on the soil face. Negative if they cause tension on the outside face. Stem shear is positive to the left as measured on a section cut below the top of wall. 2. Heel moments are positive if they cause tension in the top of the footing. Heel shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the right of the end of the heel. 3. Toe moments are positive if they cause tension in the bottom of the footing. Toe shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the left of the end of the toe. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot 2 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:44 AM Page 4 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 ************************************************** D E T A I L E D A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T ************************************************** ----------RESISTING FORCES --------- Element Weight x Arm = Moment Soil 4,996 Ftg. 2,157 Stem 2,338 Vert Sur Lb Vert EFP = 2.26 Toe Sur. 0 Fence Wt. Vert. line Sum WT = 9,491 27,247 3.63 7,819 2.75 6,430 MR = 41,495 ---------OVERTURNING FORCES --------- Element Force x Arm = Moment R at Top R at Bot. Horiz. EFP 3,757 4.88 18,346 Vert Sur Horiz Sur Wind Horiz line Vert. line Sum F = 3,757 MOT = 18,346 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Friction Force - 4,745 Lb F.O.S. Sliding = RF / F = 2.03 Passive Pressure = 2,888 Lb F.O.S. Overturn. = MR / MOT = 2.26 Cohesion = 0 Lb -------- Coef. Vert. Surcharge or Line Load Resist. Force, Sum RF = 7,633 Lb to Horiz. = EFP / Soil Dens. = 0.318 Resultant Loc From Toe, X = (MR - MOT) / Sum WT = Eccentricity From Ftg. C.L., e = (B / 2) - X = 2.44 ft. 1.19 ft. Soil Pressure @ Toe =(WT / B) * (1 + 6e/B) = 2,594 psf. Soil Pressure @ Heel =(WT / B) * (1 - 6e/B) = 24 psf. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot 2 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME:- 11:44 AM Page 5 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 ************************************************** D E T A I L E D D E S I G N R E P O R T STEM DESIGN: Load Combination @ Max Mom. = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H Shr Strength @ Base, Phi Vn = 27.74 kip Dist From d Mu Vu As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Reqd Top (ft) (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2.) (in^2) 1.0$ 10.70 0.01 0.03 0.000 0.000 0.285 0.285 2.15 11.90 0.10 0.14 0.002 0.002 0.311 0.311 3.23 13.10 0.33 0.31 0.006 0.008 0.337 0.337 4.30 14.30 0.79 0.55 0.012 0.016 0.363 0.363 5.38 15.50 1.54 0.86 0.022 0.029 0.389 0.389 6.45 16.70 2.66 1.24 0.035 0.047 0.415 0.415 7.53 17.90 4.23 1.68 0.053 0.070 0.441 0.441 8.60 19.10 6.31 2.20 0.074 0.098 0.467 0.467 9.67 20.30 8.98 2.78 0.099 0.132 0.492 0.492 10.75 21.50 12.32 3.44 0.128 0.171 0.518 0.518 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vertical Stem Reinforcement: Available Length for Hook Embedment into Footing = 15.00 in. Available Length for Straight Embedment into Stem = 127.00 in. Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. 50% Cut Off (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) (in.) #4 12.00 6.64 100.00 4.63 129.00 #5 14.23 8.30 100.00 7.18 129.00 #6 17.08 9.96 100.00 10.19 129.00 #7 24.90 11.62 100.00 13.89 129.00 #8 28.46 13.28 100.00 18.29 129.00 #9 36.21 14.98 100.00 23.15 129.00 #10 45.90 16.87 88.93 26.14 129.00 #11 56.58 18.73 80.10 28.92 129.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Horizontal Stem Reinforcement: Area of steel for Shrinkage and Temp. Reinforcement = 0.480 in^2 -----Spacing, in.---- ------Total Bars----- I.F. Only EA. Face I.F. Only EA. Face #4 5.00 10.00 27.00 14.00 #5 7.75 15.50 18.00 10.00 #6 11.00 18.00 13.00 8.00 #7 15'.00 18.00 10.00 8.00 #8 18.00 18.00 8.00 8.00 #9 18.00 18.00 8.00 8.00 #10 18.00 18.00 8.00 8.00 #11 18.00 18.00 8.00 8.00 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot 2 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:44 AM Page 6 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 TOE DESIGN: * Load Combination = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H * Available Length for Hook Embedment into Stem = 22.00 in. * Available Length for Straight Embed. into Toe = 22.00 in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Req'd (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) 14.50 7.18 3.00 18.71 0.111 0.148 0.389 0.389 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) #4 12.00 6.64 100.00 6.17 #5 14.23 8.30 100.00 9.57 #6 17.08 9.96 100.00 13.58 #7 24.90 11.62 88.34 16.36 #8 28.46 13.28 77.30 18.85 #9 32.10 14.98 68.53 21.15 #10 36.14 16.87 60.87 23.86 #11 40.42 18.73 54.43 26.21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEEL DESIGN: * Load Combination = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H * Available Length for Straight Embedment into Toe = 46.00 in. * Available Length for Straight Embedment into Heel = 37.00 in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Req'd (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) 15.50 10.27 5.28 20.00 0.148 0.198 0.389 0.389 -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) #4 14.80 6.64 100.00 6.17 #5 18.50 8.30 100.00 9.57 #6 22.20 9.96 100.00 13.58 #7 32.37 11.62 100.00 18.52 #8 37.00 13.28 100.00 24.38 #9 47.08 14.98 78.60 24.26 #10 59.68 16.87 62.00 24.30 #11 73.56 18.73 50.30 24.22 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot -3 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:52 AM Page 1 DATE: 04-05-2002 ANALYSIS RESULTS: Sliding Force = 5,093 Lb Overturn. Moment = 27,088 ft -lb Resisting Force = 8,876 Lb Resisting Moment = 60,892 ft -lb F.O.S. = 1.74 F.O.S. = 2.25 DESIGN RESULTS: Stem Req'd Area Stl. = 0.518 in^2 Toe Req'd Area Stl. = 0.389 in^2 .Heel Req'd Area Stl. = 0.389 in^2 8.41 ft. v 2,829 psf. ft. 2.00 ft. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot -3 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:49 AM Page 1 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 CONCRETE DESIGN METHOD: Ultimate Strength STEM MATERIAL TYPE Concrete WALL TYPE Cantilever Retaining Wall RETAINING WALL DIMENSIONS: ------------------------------------ Wall Stem Height = 12.50 ft. Stem Thickness @ Top = 12.00 in. Stem Thickness @ Bottom = 24.00 in. Footing Thickness = 18.00 in. Heel Width . . . . Min. = 2.00 ft. = 0 Max. = 5.00 ft. Toe Width . . . . . . Min. = 2.33 ft. Max. = 3.11 ft. Footing Key Depth = 2.00 ft. Footing Key Width = 2.00 ft. BackFill Slope (Vert/Horiz) = 4.62 :12 RETAINING WALL LOADS: Horizontal Equivalent Fluid Pressure Soil -Wall Friction Angle Vertical Surcharge on Backfill Horizontal Surcharge Vertical Surcharge on Toe Wind Load on Fence Fence Height Line Ld. Type No. (H or V) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Design Heel Width = 4.08 ft. Design Toe Width = Design Key Depth = Design Key Width = = 40.00 pcf. = 0.00 deg. = 0 psf. = 0 psf . = 0 psf. = 0 psf . = 0.00 ft. Magnitude Dist. (x) (plf) (ft.) Notes: 1. "H" = Horizontal loads. "V" = Vertical loads. 2. Vertical loads are positive down. 2.33 ft. 2.00 ft. 2.00 ft. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ------------------------ Proj6ct : Joyce Lot -3 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:49 AM Page 2 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 RETAINING WALL RESISTING FORCES: ------------------------------------ Allowable Soil Pressure 3,000 psf. Passive Equivalent Fluid Press. = 300.00 pcf. Passive Soil Height 1.00 ft. Coefficient of Friction = 0.50 Cohesion = 0 psf. Use Vertical Surcharge as Resisting Wt.? = No Overturning Safety Factor = 2.00 Sliding Safety Factor = 1.50 Limit Reaction to Mid 1/3? = Yes MATERIAL DATA: ------------------------------------ Concrete Strength, f'c = 4.00 ksi. Steel Yield Strength, Fy = 60.00 ksi. Concrete Unit Weight = 145.00 pcf. Soil Unit Weight = 110.00 pcf. Fence Weight = 10.00 psf. REINFORCING STEEL DATA: Concrete cover to center of steel: Wall Inside Face = 2.50 in. Footing Heel (Top Face) = 2.50 in. Footing Toe (Bottom Face) = 3.50 in. Minimum Ratios for Shrinkage and Temperature Reinf: Vertical Stem Reinf. = 0.0018 Horizontal Stem Reinf. = 0.0020 Footing Reinforcement - 0.0018 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ----------------- Project : Joyce Lot -3 Location: North Andover By• JWH TIME: 11:49 AM Page 3 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 S U M M A R Y O F R E S U L T S ************************************************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DIMENSIONS: Stem Height = 12.50 ft. Stem Thick. @ Top = 12.00 in. Stem Thick. @ Base = 24.00 in. Footing Thickness = 18.00 in. Heel Length = 4.08 ft. Toe Length - 2.33 ft. Total Ftg. Width, B = 8.41 ft. Key Depth = 2.00 ft. Key Width = 2.00 ft. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANALYSIS RESULTS: Max Brg Press. @ Toe = 2,829 psf. Sliding Force = 5,093 Lb @ Heel = 18 psf. Resisting Force = 8,876 Lb Allowable Brg. Press. = 3,000 psf. Stem : F.O.S. = 1.74 5.31 Resultant Loc From C.L.= 1.38 ft. Overturn. Moment = 27,088 ft -lb Kern Point Loc., B/6 = 1.40 ft. Resisting Moment = 60,892 ft -lb Limit Resultant To Mid 1/3? = Yes 7.14 F.O.S. = 2.25 0.343 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESIGN RESULTS: Design Method, Stem: Ultimate Strength Ftg.: Ultimate Strength 2. Heel moments are positive if they cause tension in the top of the footing. Heel shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the right of the end of the heel. 3. Toe moments are positive if they cause tension in the bottom of the footing. Toe shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the left of the end of the toe. d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in^2) (in^2) (in ^2) Stem : 21.50 22.14 5.31 27.74 0.231 0.307 0.518 Toe 14.50 10.72 4.59 18.71 0.166 0.221 0.389 Heel : 15.50 17.74 7.14 20.00 0.257 0.343 0.389 Key 12.00 3.91 3.57 15.48 0.073 0.097 0.518 Notes: 1. Stem moments are positive if they cause tension on the soil face. Negative if they cause tension on the outside face. Stem shear is positive to the left as measured on a section cut below the top of wall. 2. Heel moments are positive if they cause tension in the top of the footing. Heel shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the right of the end of the heel. 3. Toe moments are positive if they cause tension in the bottom of the footing. Toe shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the left of the end of the toe. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Proj4ct . Joyce Lot -3 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:49 AM Page 4 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 ************************************************** D E T A I L E D A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T ************************************************** ----------RESISTING FORCES ---------- ---------OVERTURNING FORCES --------- Element Weight x Arm Moment Element Force x Arm = Moment Soil 6,849 42,381 R at Top Ftg. 2,410 4.21 10,138 R at Bot. Stem 2,719 3.08 8,374 Horiz. EFP 5,093 5.32 27,088 Vert Sur Vert Sur Vert EFP Horiz Sur Toe Sur. Wind Fence Wt. Horiz line Vert. line Vert. line Sum WT = 11,978 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- MR = 60,892 Sum F = 5,093 MOT 27,088 Friction Force = 5,989 Lb F.O.S. Sliding = RF / F = 1.74 Passive Pressure - 2,888 Lb F.O.S. Overturn. = MR / MOT = 2.25 Cohesion = 0 Lb -------- Coef. Vert. Surcharge or Line Load Resist. Force, Sum RF = 81876 Lb to Horiz. = EFP / Soil Dens. = 0.364 Resultant Loc From Toe, X = (MR - MOT) / Sum WT = Eccentricity From Ftg. C.L., e = (B / 2) - X = 2.82 ft. 1.38 ft. Soil Pressure @ Toe =(WT / B) * (1 + 6e/B) - 2,829 psf. Soil Pressure @ Heel =(WT / B) * (1 - 6e/B) - 18 psf. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot -3 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:49 AM Page 5 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 D E T A I L E D D E S I G N R E P O R T STEM DESIGN: Load Combination @ Max Mom. = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H Shr Strength @ Base, Phi Vn = 27.74 kip Dist From d Mu Vu As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Reqd Top (ft) (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (in ^2) (in ^2) (in ^2) (in ^2) 1.25 10.70 0.02 0.05 0.000 0.001 0.285 0.285 2.50 11.90 0.18 0.21 0.003 0.004 0.311 0.311 3.75 13.10 0.60 0.48 0.010 0.014 0.337 0.337 5.00 14.30 1.42 0.85 0.022 0.029 0.363 0.363 6.25 15.50 2.77 1.33 0.040 0.053 0.389 0.389 7.50 16.70 4.78 1.91 0.064 0.085 0.415 0.415 8.75 17.90 7.59 2.60 0.095 0.126 0.441 0.441 10.00 19.10 11.33 3.40 0.133 0.177 0.467 0.467 11.25 20.30 16.14 4.30 0.178 0.237 0.492 0.492 12.50 21.50 22.14 5.31 0.231 0.307 0.518 0.518 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vertical Stem Reinforcement: Available Length for Hook Embedment into Footing = 15.00 in. Available Length for Straight Embedment into Stem 148.00 in. Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. 50% Cut Off (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) (in.) #4 12.00 6.64 100.00 4.63 150.00 #5 14.23 8.30 100.00 7.18 150.00 #6 17.08 9.96 100.00 10.19 150.00 #7 24.90 11.62 100.00 13.89 150.00 #8 28.46 13.28 100.00 18.29 150.00 #9 36.21 14.98 100.00 23.15 150.00 #10 45.90 16.87 88.93 26.14 150.00 #11 56.58 18.73 80.10 28.92 150.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hori2ontal Stem Reinforcement: Area of steel for Shrinkage and Temp. Reinforcement = 0.480 in^2 -----Spacing, in.---- ------Total Bars----- T.F. Only EA. Face I.F. Only EA. Face #4 5.00 10.00 31.00 16.00 #5 7.75 15.50 20.00 11.00 #6 11.00 18.00 15.00 10.00 #7 15.00 18.00 11.00 10.00 #8 18.00 18.00 10.00 10.00 #9 18.00 18.00 10.00 10.00 #10 18.00 18.00 10.00 10.00 #11 18.00 18.00 10.00 10.00 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot -3 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME4, 11:49 AM Page 6 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 TOE DESIGN: * Load Combination = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H * Available Length for Hook Embedment into Stem = 22.00 in. * Available Length for Straight Embed. into Toe = 25.96 in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Req'd (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in ^2) (in^2) (in ^2) (in^2) 14.50 10.72 4.59 18.71 0.166 0.221 0.389 0.389 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) #4 12.00 6.64 100.00 6.17 #5 14.23 8.30 100.00 9.57 #6 17.08 9.96 100.00 13.58 #7 24.90 11.62 100.00 18.52 #8 28.46 13.28 91.21 22.24 #9 32.10 14.98 80.86 24.96 #10 36.14 16.87 71.82 28.15 #11 40.42 18.73 64.23 30.93 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEEL DESIGN: * Load Combination = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H * Available Length for Straight Embedment into Toe = 49.96 in. * Available Length for Straight Embedment into Heel = 47.00 in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Req'd (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in^2) (in ^2) (in ^2) (in ^2) 15.50 17.74 7.14 20.00 0.257 0.343 0.389 0.389 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) #4 14.80 6.64 100.00 6.17 #5 18.50 8.30 100.00 9.57 #6 22.20 9.96 100.00 13.58 #7 32.37 11.62 100.00 18.52 #8 37.00 13.28 100.00 24.38 #9 47.08 14.98 99.84 30.81 #10 59.68 16.87 78.76 30.87 #11 73.56 18.73 63.90 30.76 "Ci S EOTECHNICAL ER VICES NC I Geotechnical Engineering - Environmental Studies Materials Testing Construction Monitoring April 16, 2002 Law Offices of Ralph R. Joyce Attn: Mr. Ralph R. Joyce 121 Collins Landing Weare, New Hampshire 03281 re: GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS CHESTNUT STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS GSI PROJECT NO. 202175 Dear Mr. Joyce: Geotechnical Services, Inc. (GSI) is pleased to present this report for the above -referenced project. This report summarizes subsurface conditions, geotechnical design recommendations, and earthwork construction considerations for the proposed retaining walls to be, mnstnirted st Y.ntq 1 9 3d 1 in t e Chestnut Street subdivision. This study was undertaken in general at naje Qi thEur�p o f M March 20, 2002. Pertinent Information U u J U N -�? . 2002 U The following information was provided for our revi w d udy: B IEDING DEPT. • Design Drawings (4 Sheets) entitled 777sting ope ears prepare y GA Consultants, Inc. dated April 4, 2002; • Design Calculations, Lots 1,2,and 3, prepared by GA Consultants, Inc. dated April 4, 2002, and; 0 Soil Boring Logs report prepared by New Hampshire Borings, Inc. Site and Project Description The retaining wall construction is required for three contiguous parcels, Map 98 C, Lots 1,2,and 3, located on Chestnut Street in North Andover, MA. Each parcel comprises approximately .6 acres with about 125 foot street frontage and 200 feet +/- setback. The overall topography is very steep with existing slopes on the order of 30%. Site development calls for excavation and flattening of the front 80 feet of the property and earth retaining walls to accommodate the grade changes at the rear. Initially, plans were to provide the necessary earth support with "Versa -Lok" walls. However, the walls which were built experienced failure and it was decided to dismantle these structures and construct new reinforced, concrete, cantilevered type retaining walls. 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, MA 01835 978/374/7744 FAX 978/374/7799 18 Cote Avenue, Goffstown, NH 03045 603/624/2722 FAX 603/624/3733 Chestnut Street Retaining Walls GSI Project No. 202175 North Andover, MA page 2 Subsurface Explorations - The subsurface exploration program for this project included the advancement of two test borings. The test borings, identified as B -I and B-2 were completed to assess the type and relative density of the subsurface soils and provide samples for visual classification. The test borings were completed on January 12, 2002 by NHB, Inc. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 16 to 20 feet below existing surface grade using 2 1/4 - inch inside diameter (I.D.) hollow -stem augers. Soil samples were obtained at 5 ft intervals with a 2 -inch diameter split -spoon sampler. Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were performed at the sampling intervals in general accordance with ASTM -131586. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface explorations were advanced beneath the proposed construction areas to define the nature and character of the underlying soil, groundwater, and bedrock. Descriptions of the subsurface conditions underlying the proposed construction area are as follows: Fill - The area had been stripped of existing topsoil prior to advancement of the test borings. As such, the borings were advanced through six feet of previously placed fill. The fill is described as a SILT, trace embedded fine to coarse SAND, trace embedded gravel. SPT values ranged from 8 to 40+ blows per foot. Glacial Till - Underlying the fill and remnant subsoil was encountered a medium -dense to very dense deposit of glacial till. Glacial till is a non -sorted, non -stratified natural deposit of sand, silt, gravel, and boulders, mixed in various proportions and deposited directly by the glaciers in a non -aqueous depositional environment. The glacial till varies in composition from a fine to medium SAND, little Silt, little Gravel, to a SILT, some fine Sand, trace Gravel. SPT values were typically over 50 blows per foot. Refusal - Refusal conditions were encountered in both test borings at depths ranging from 16 to 20 feet below surface grade. Auger refusal is defined as the inability of the hollow stem augers to advance despite increasing torque and downward pressure applied by the drill rig. Auger refusal may be caused by nested cobbles, very dense soils, boulders, obstructions, or bedrock. Split spoon refusal is defined as either 100 blows or more required to drive the split spoon sampler 12 inches with a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches; 50 blows for less than 6 inches of advancement; or 10 blows with no discernable, vertical movement of the split spoon sampler. Based on the salient conditions observed at the site and observations made during the test borings the shallow refusals are probably a result of very dense glacial till or bedrock. Groundwater - Groundwater was not encountered in either test boring upon completion. Groundwater conditions were observed during advancement of the test borings, while sampling and immediately upon completion and should be anticipated to vary in response to equilibration time, rainfall, snowmelt, seasonal fluctuations, site development and other factors not present during the time that the explorations were performed. estnut Street Retaining Walls GSI Project No. 202175 rth Andover, MA Page 3 TAINING WALL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS undation Bearing Capacity e retaining wall footing should bear upon the dense glacial till deposit. A review of the SPT data reveals t the glacial till is very dense and possesses a friction angle, c), on the order of 40'- Our recommended wable bearing capacity for the retaining wall spread footing resting atop the glacial till strata is 3 tsf. smic Design e subsurface conditions were reviewed with respect to criteria set forth in Article 1805.3, QUEFACTION" and Table 1612.4.1, "SITE COEFFICIENT" of the MSBC 6' edition. An evaluation I respect to "Liquefaction" of the site in the event of a significant seismic disturbance was performed. uefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated sands undergo rapid densification as a result of strong and vibrations. ccordance with the MSBC 6'h edition, the standard resistance for various sampling depths was compared he depth to the groundwater table in accordance with Article 1805.3. 'GSI reviewed the results and has -ermined that site is not susceptible to liquefaction. st Protection ccordance with the Massachusetts State Building Code 6' edition, footings should be protected from frost minimum depth for the locality in which the structure is located. Based on local code and building ctice, the exterior footing should be protected with at least 4 ft of earthen embedment. __teral Earth Pressures e retaining walls must be designed to resist lateral earth loads resulting from earth pressures as well as sient earthquake loads. eras earth forces are computed by the general formula P=''/2KyH2. Where: P = lateral earth force (pounds per linear foot of wall) K = lateral earth pressure coefficient y = unit weight of soil (pounds per cubic foot) H = height of wall (feet) lateral earth pressure coefficient is based on Rankine lateral earth pressure theory for the active (Ka) and sive (Kp) conditions. The active condition exists when the top of the wall is free to deflect, allowing a kine active failure wedge to develop. The passive condition exists when the wall deflects against a soil, the soil mass resists wall deflection. Lateral earth pressures may be computed based on the triangular �ss distribution which would be imposed assuming an equivalent fluid weight equal to Ky. Based on a -draining sand and gravel backfill behind the wall with a unit weight of 120 pcf, a friction angle of 35 ees, a backfill slope at 1.75H:1 V, the equivalent fluid weights for design: would be 67 pcf for the active dition. Hydrostatic stresses may be relieved by drainage through the wall with weepholes. Chestnut Street Retaining Walls GSI Project No. 202175 North Andover, MA Page 4 Lateral loads imposed from seismic ground acceleration should be computed as 0.045yH2. Assuming a unit weight of 125 pcf, this translates to 6H2. The lateral seismic load should be applied as an inverted triangle over the height of the wall. For sliding stability analyses, GSI recommends that a static friction coefficients of .50 be used for the foundation/soil interface. The retaining wall backfill should be a free -draining soil meeting the specifications outlined in Table I for Structural Fill. The soils inherent porosity which will act to relieve -hydrostatic pressures. Foundation and Floor Slab Subgrade Preparation Footings should bear directly upon a subgrade consisting of the glacial till deposit or 6 -inch lift of crushed gravel base course., The exposed subgrade soils should be proofrolled.prior to foundation construction to idensify disturbed soils resulting from excavation and to preload thesubgrade.. Recommended proofrolling should include 4 coverages with a 2 -ton double -drum vibratory roller or 8 coverages with a '/4 ton vibratory .plate compactor. ,During the proofrolling process the subgrade should be observed by a qualified engineer Jo identify areas exhibiting weaving or excessive reaction. It may be necessary to remove such loose and unstable soils and replace with a free draining granular fill or crushed stone, at the direction of the Engineer. Protection of Foundation The glacial till is inherently vulnerable to disturbance when exposed to wet conditions. The moisture sensitivity of this soil is related to its high composition of fine-grained constituent (silt -clay) which acts to retain water. In order to forestall disturbance to the exposed subgrades, the contractor should take the necessary precautionary measures required. Some precautionary measures may include, diversion of storm water run-off from the construction area, reducing construction traffic and activities once the subgrade is properly prepared, and maintaining an effective de -watering program. Should the subgrade exhibit weaving or instability due to disturbance, the area should be over -excavated to a more competent bearing soil and replaced with compacted structural fill. (It is recommended that a geotechnical engineer from GSI inspect All bearing subgrades throughout -construction. Construction Dewatering Temporary groundwater control should be anticipated to be necessary during foundation and pavement area construction, as groundwater was encountered within excavation limits for removal of existing fill. Furthermore, the contractor should make provisions to prevent surface water from entering the excavation and ponding atop the underlying impervious -glacial till deposit, thus potentially impacting a properly prepared subgrade. It is envisioned that perched groundwater and ponded surface runoff may be controlled with localized sumps and pumps. G S I Chestnut Street Retaining Walls GSI Project No. 202175 North Andover, MA Page 5 Permanent Earth Slopes Based on the proposed finish grades, a 1.75V:IH earthen slope is required above the retaining wall. In general, earth fill slopes steeper than 2.5H:1:V are inherently unstable and prone to sloughing and/or translational sliding failures. GSI's recommendation is that the proposed 1.75VAH earthen slope be reinforced with horizontal layers of geogrid to enhance the dimensional stability. Our preliminary calculations indicate that the required slope reinforcing may be provided with "Tensar" BX 1200 geogrid spaced a maximum of 6 feet apart in the vertical and embedded into the slope 8 feet at the bottom shortening to 3 feet at the top layer. This arrangement of geogrid would provide sufficient earth reinforcing to maintain the slope with a theoretical factor of safetyagainst failure of 1.5. GSI recommends that the slope be covered with a minimum of 6 -inches of humus of such nature and organic content capable of sustaining vegetation. GSI further recommends that an erosion control mat such as North American Green S 150 or equivalent be mechanically affixed to the slope immediately after excavation, humus placement and hydro -seeding. One supplier of the above -referenced mat is Jennian Enterprises of Melrose, Massachusetts. The mat provides erosion protection and slope stability prior to establishment of vegetation. Subsequent vegetative cover may be established by hydro -seeding using a hardy mixture of grass and legume seeds including annual and perennial Ryegrass, Alsike Clover, Creeping Red Fescue, and Crown Vetch. The legumes are desirable for nitrogen contribution via transportation processes and subsequent inoculation into the tilth layer. The humus may require the application of fertilizer to enhance growth and promote root structure. Our preliminary recommendations is an application of 10 parts nitrogen -10 parts phosphorus -10 parts potassium at a rate of 100 pounds per acre. Seed germination will be facilitated with mulch cover provided by the erosion control mat. T.eutporary Excavation Support The excavation for the retaining wall will require temporary earth bracing or a slope layback. For slope layback design, the on-site glacial till soils may be considered Type A in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations (29 CFR Part 1926). The maximum temporary slopes for Soil Type A soils is 3/4H:1 V provided the GWT is lowered below the bottom of the excavation and the maximum depth of the cut is 20 feet. The foregoing slope requirement assumes that there are no surcharge loads (e.g. stockpiled soils, equipment, traffic, other construction material) within 2 feet of the crest. It should be noted that these are minimum slope requirements required by OSHA regulations. The ultimate responsibility for implementing the OSHA regulations rests with the excavation contractor. Construction Monitoring It is recommended that GSI be retained to review construction procedures for conformance with contract requirements, documents and design concepts. The following is the minimum recommended inspection tasks GSI should perform with respect to earthwork construction: Evaluation of footing subgrade competency. Observation and monitoring of the placement and compaction of backfill. Laboratory testing and analysis of fill materials for verification of compliance with project specifications. Chestnut Street Retaining Walls GSI Project No. 202175 North Andover, MA Page 6 In addition, GSI is qualified to monitor concrete placements and other construction related tasks. ALTERNATIVE EARTH SUPPORT SYSTEMS GSI has undertaken a preliminary review of the design documents and subsurface conditions to evaluate whether an alternative earth support system would be technically feasible and provide more favorable construction economy. It may be possible to dismantle the previously erected Versa -Lok system and reconstruct it with proper geogrid placement and geometry. GSI could, if requested, perform a structural redesign of the Versa-lok system to adequately accommodate the earth pressures. In addition to the foregoing, we have considered the construction of a soil nail wall. The advantage of a soil nail wall is that it is constructed as a top down, in-situ wall and does not require extensive excavation beyond the rear face. The soil nail wall derives its lateral stability with grouted tendons or rebars which are drilled into the face of the excavation. A wire mesh is mechanically fastened to the soil nails whereupon the entire cut face is shot-creted with 4 to 6 inches of durable concrete. Our preliminary estimate for the cost of soil nail installation, erection of wire fabric, and shot-crete is on the order of $35/sf. We would be pleased to discuss this option further with you is desired. We trust that the contents of this report is responsive to your needs at this time. Should you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, GEOTECHNICAL SE ICES, INC. Harry K. eth ee, P.E. Principal Engineer G S Chestnut Street Retaining Walls GSI Project No. 202175 North Andover, MA Page 7 LIMITATIONS Explorations The analyses, recommendations and designs submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from preliminary subsurface explorations. The nature and extent of variations between these explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. 2. The generalized soil profile described in the text is intended to convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and idealized and have been developed by interpretation of widely spaced explorations and samples; actual soil transitions are probably more gradual. For specific information, refer to the individual test pit and/or boring logs. 3. Water level readings have been made in the test borings under conditions stated on the logs. These data have been reviewed and interpretations have been made in the text of this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors differing from the time the measurements were made. Review 4. It is recommended that this firm be given the opportunity to review final design drawings and specifications to evaluate the appropriate implementation of the recommendations provided herein. 5. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed areas are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of the report modified or verified in writing by Geotechnical Services, Inc. Use of Report 6. This report has been prepared for Mr. Ralph Joyce in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report has been prepared for this project by Geotechnical Services, Inc. This report was completed for preliminary design purposes and may be limited in its scope to complete an accurate bid. Contractors wishing a copy of the report may secure it with the understanding that its scope is limited to evaluation considerations only. cl- S Chestnut Street Retaining Walls GSI Project No. 202175 North Andover, MA Page 8 CHESTNUT STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MA GSI Project No. 202175 RECOMMENDED SOIL GRADATION SPECIFICATIONS TABLE 1 Sieve PERCENTAGE PASSING BY WEIGHT Size Soil Crushed Pavement Crushed Slab Free Structural Type Gravel Sub -Base Recycled Base Soil Draining Fill Base Course Concrete/ Sand Course Asphalt Fill Fill 6" 100 100 100 4" 100 100 100 100 --- 3/8" 40-70' #4 30-602 30-60 25-55 40-70 60-90 40-75 #10 20-50 --- "-- #40 10-30 25-45 --- #200 10 max 0-10 0-15 10 max 0-8 0-12 NOTES: Ordinary fill used for landscape areas may be any soil material that is relatively free from organic matter, debris, frost, stones larger than 2/3 the maximum lift thickness, or other deleterious materials. ' Of the material retained on the 3/8' sieve, at least 75% shall have fractured faces. 2 Aggregate retained on the NO.4 sieve shall consist of durable particles of crushed stone, gravel, or slag. Crushed concrete/asphalt recycled fill shall contain not more than 3% organic matter (wood or timber debris), shall be durable particles of inert demolition material with a minimum unconfined compressive strength of 1000 psi. The specification for Structural Fill may be modified based on the availability of on-site materials and the compaction specifications. Materials proposed for use as Structural fill which do not meet the above gradation specification shall be subject to stringent compaction control testing. Soils possessing silt/clay contents greater than 15% are prone to frost and are moisture susceptible. c S I Chestnut Street Retaining Walls GSI Project No. 202175 North Andover, MA Page 9 PRone: (003) 437.1810 New Hempshirs Baring, Inc. Pax: (603) 4374M34 P.0, Bax 166 Deal, NH 03038 Eel ., nhb&-nMffJm Boring s 6,2 Project: C.hmaw Stas! WdIs PrIeat # 027191 Project Addrow. CherMmx SheM - Lat 1 City: Noah Andodsr stft NIA lip; 018x6 Oa1e Itbd:1112IO2 Data End: 1112= La4a8oe: Seo Ptm Csvil;j: HSA 2-1/4' ID Casing: t3ampMr. Type glg Sins 1-918 in. I.D. Hwnmw.. 140 Fab: 30 Im GROUNDWATER OBSERVATION Ddr.. NO: cat : Walmillsolift Period 1/12102 Dry I Out !!BE slgft DP BA DEPTH PEN REC KO—WW SIC I sAlAIPt„ E DESCRIPTION - S-1 D - Z t3' t awo-1Q tjdM bmm. wet. 4erre, SILT. Vas embedded . Anda amd and nm gravel. 2.0' - 8,2 2' . r 10" g' 31.10414" ------------------------------- SILT, tlsa eRlbed[ted - Mn%c acrd and tbn w". b' 6,3 4'-4W e' 100 Same 0 84 - S-4 W - W 4' 4' 10014' Burns em S-3 10' - 3-5 14'- 14! tY W 100 Sante as S4 16' AuW RWWd 18.0' BOTTOM OF EXPLORATION 16.01 - - NOW 1. No rrler ob "d. - 2. Typed Drdlera Field Log 2O 25 30' DcMW. jam GOIT do Hd j;;. KMUM 6n m— Ulapwdor: - Ren dw.- SlR: Santpie PEN: PenetrMm RMC: Rowvw,► ttJC: Strain Change P60116: {603) 437.1110 Now H6mpnhim 9oring, Inc. Fax: (003) 437-0034 P.O. Boa 166 D6ny, NN 03M E4WI: nwwkmb lna r B-1Proloft Cho*M Shot Wems a Pmjod Address: Che*M ShM - Lal 3 CRY., Nor8+ A 4mw 800: MA tip: 01846 Date Start 111207 Dab End; 1112102 Loedlm*. So@ Pion Coning: HBA 2-1W ID $sntpler: raft: Sampler: Typo ft stm. 1 SIS in. L D, hi6IrM110t; NNL FIA: 30 in - —140 GROUNDWATER0 9 6 9 R V A T 1 0 N Dow slowkstiar parliDd 1112102DoDam; ON out LAM CDM*ft DP 8.16 06PT14 PER REC BLOVMW SIC DEBCRpnDN 2r 5444 LIqtd brown, moK lom SILT, trace embedded ' fvft oww' Van off"odw f o wel - 6�2 21-41 2r 4.444 Sams as V 4.0' ' 4' - 8' 1d' 22�?2,2t1�8 -------------------------------- Lioht brawn dry dance SILT twos artbsdded Afft said, tram orrOoddlod We gavel S-4 7-11, 1r 22-292W L%ft br&m. damp, wary danM SILT. tr*oe 10? llnbecided Mt1c ard, haps arnbsdded Am orsvd $-5 14' -18' 2' 12• 80-w1ow Barna as 9-4 1 Q' S-6 10' -19' 10' e" 54.10014' 9M M as S-4 MY !lOTfOIIA OF IF 1w Note, 1, No water observed. 26' 2. Typed D AMes FMW Log 90' QtllM"- John Garside Hs"; Kenrwlh 8m ffi tnaP : APPLICATION WORKSHEET SLOPE REINFORCEMENT TENSAR GEOGRID FOR SLOPE REINFORCEMENT OVER STABLE FOUNDATIONS DESIGN GUIDE AND COST ESTIMATE FORM The purpose of this worksheet is to provide geotechnical design engineers with a simple step-by-step. procedure for designing TENSAR@ Geogrid reinforced slopes, over stable foundations; and for preparing a preliminary cost estimate. CONTENTS Design Assumptions ................................... I ........... 2 Number of Geogrid Layers Required ............................. 2 Embedment Length of Geogrid ......... 3 Geogrid Quantity and Cost Estimate ............................. 3 Tensar Geogrid Reinforced Slope Cost Estimate ................... 4 Retaining Wail Alternative Cost .................................. 4 Unreinforced Slope Alternative Cost ........... .................. 4 CONDITIONS THAT MERIT THE USE OF TENSAR GEOGRID REINFORCED SLOPES • Limited right-of-ways or property boundaries • Property grade improvements • Expensive fill • Replacement for retaining walls • Unstable slopes • Landslide repair ORenistPrPri TrnriPmnrk TENSAR. APPLICATION WORKSHEET SLOPE REINFORCEMENT TENSAR GEOGRID FOR SLOPE REINFORCEMENT OVER STABLE FOUNDATIONS DESIGN GUIDE AND COST ESTIMATE FORM The purpose of this worksheet is to provide geotechnical design engineers with a simple step-by-step. procedure for designing TENSAR@ Geogrid reinforced slopes, over stable foundations; and for preparing a preliminary cost estimate. CONTENTS Design Assumptions ................................... I ........... 2 Number of Geogrid Layers Required ............................. 2 Embedment Length of Geogrid ......... 3 Geogrid Quantity and Cost Estimate ............................. 3 Tensar Geogrid Reinforced Slope Cost Estimate ................... 4 Retaining Wail Alternative Cost .................................. 4 Unreinforced Slope Alternative Cost ........... .................. 4 CONDITIONS THAT MERIT THE USE OF TENSAR GEOGRID REINFORCED SLOPES • Limited right-of-ways or property boundaries • Property grade improvements • Expensive fill • Replacement for retaining walls • Unstable slopes • Landslide repair ORenistPrPri TrnriPmnrk u . STEP 5 OPTi2 M PRIKARY GEOGRID SELECTION o Calculate maximum geogrid spacing at the bottom of the slope: - v = 0.6(H') / Nmin ft o If v is less than the minimum acceptable fill lift thickness (i.e. 8-12 inches), use a stronger geogrid. Repeat STEP 4. o If v is greater than 3-4 feet use a lighter TENSAR Geogrid. Repeat STEP 4. STEP 6 DrMMM THE REQUIR® EMBEMENT LENGTH OF THE PRIMARY GEOGRID LAYERS I.. Determine LT/H' and LB/H' from Fig. 4 or 5. 2. Calculate minimum required embedment length at top and bottom of the slope: LT ? (LT/H')(H') > ? _ ft LB '> (LB/H')(H') > $. ft STEP 7 ESTIMATE TOTAL TzKSAR GEOGRID QUANTITY 1. Nest_= Nmin (rounded up to a whole number) 2. Calculateapprox. quantity of primary geogrid required per running ft. of slope: Qapprox = 1.2 (Nest)(0.33 LT + 0.67 LB) ft2/ft 3a. If -02. 48° use wrap8around stepped facing. 2 Add Qwrap Nest () - ft /ft b. If 310,< < 480 use TENSAR SSI Geogrid for intermediate reinforcement. Add Qint (H-Nest)(3) =` ft2/ft 4. Calculate approx. total geogrid quantities: gTOTAL=(gnantity per running ft)(slope length)' a. Primary geogrids: type - TOTAL... approx 4' Qwrap)(SL). _ ft2 b. Intermediate geogrids: type-SS1 QTOTAL (Qint)(SL) = ft2 STEP 8 BSTDIATE TOTAL TENSAR GBOGRID COST PER itMM—M FOOT OF. SLOPE i. Calculate approx. total geogrid cost per running foot: Cost=( quantity/running ft)(unit cost, $/ft2) a.Primary geogrids: type - Costprim = (Qapprox + Qwrap)(unit cost) $/ft b.Intermediate geogrids: type - SSI Costint = (Qint)(unit cost) _ $/ft J 2. Approx. total geogrid cost per running ft. CostTOTAL=C°stprim + Costint= $/ft SLOPE AIN LE, J914.6e.../ FIG, 3 HORIZONTAL EARTH PRESSOR£ COEFFICIENTS SLOPE AMOLE,�+...»N. FIG. 4 GEOGRID EMBEDMENT LENGTHS FORT= 15--250 SLOPE ANGLE, lB 4.P...) 0.6 C-0 U-0 ,a h'et e: F_ ­d Sol: Fric .o AoFl,e 0.6 za o. 15 fir 0.4 0. sd ie .o Temr 0 26 30 10 i0 .. Y0 70 .0 Ll 1,51 1:1 .0.76:1. 0.6:1 SLOPE AIN LE, J914.6e.../ FIG, 3 HORIZONTAL EARTH PRESSOR£ COEFFICIENTS SLOPE AMOLE,�+...»N. FIG. 4 GEOGRID EMBEDMENT LENGTHS FORT= 15--250 SLOPE ANGLE, lB 4.P...) STEPg RSTDIM TOTAL COST OF TUSAR GROGRIA REINFORCED SLOPE PER RUNKM FOOT 1. Geogrid cost (STEP 8) = $/ft 2. Geogrid placement cost= $/ft 3. Reinforced slope fill cost: Fill volume (use Fig. 6) = yd3/ft Fill unit cost (in place)= $/yd3 Total.fill cost = (Fill vol.)(Fill unit cost)= $/ft 4. Total TENSAR Geogrid reinforced slope cost (1 +2+3) _ $/ft STEP 10 COMPARE COST OF TENSAR GROGRID REINFORCED SLOPE TO A CON'VENTIONAI. RETAINING WALL I. Conventional retaining wall material cost (from Figure 7) $/ft 2. Retaining wall structural backfill cost: (structural backfill volume)(unit cost) $/ft 3. Total reinf. slope cost = $/ft (From STEP 9, -includes backfill cost 4. TENSAR Geogrid slope cost savings Unit'.savings= 0 + 2 -- 3)=. $/ft Total savings = (Unit savings) z' (slope length, -SL) _ $ STEP 11 COMPARE COST OF TIRSAR CEOGRID WnXroRCgp SLOM TO.A CONVSNTIONAL DNR DWCWCED SLOFE 1. Estimate maximum slope angle for an unrein- forced slope (from figure 8) c 2. Unreinforced slope fill cost.- Fill ost:Fill volume (use Fig. 6) yd3/ft Fill unit cost (in place) _ $/yd3 Total fill cost = (Fill vol.)(Fill unit cost)= $/ft 3. Cost of additional R.O.W. needed for flat unreinforced slope (per running foot). 4. Value of additional property area gained at top of the steep reinforced slope (per running ft) $/ft 5. Total reinf ..slope cost = $/ft (From STEP 9, includes backfill cost) 6. TENSAR Geogrid slope cost savings Unit savings=(2 + 3 + 4 - 5)= $/ft Total savings =-(Unit savings) x (slope length, SL) = $ t1 t.ia 1.5.11-. 1:1 . _.. . 0.. SLOPE ANGLE Uogreed FIGURE i - Ei'fUM OF EARTHWORK OUAtMTY 1-00, 750 w m v c F, 500 m_ U w 250 d 0 RC Cantilever and. Crib Walls 0 10 20 30 HEIGHT OF WALL (FT) - FIGURE 7— Estimate of Retaining.Wall Costs 40 a u ,d 35 a v m 30 to w25 0 20 is FSS 1 FS - 1.3 FS - 1.5 I Z1, 20 25 30 35 40 45 0' Effective Friction Angle Figure 8- Maximum Slope Angle for unreinforced Slopes *+.�+.r......w...w..r.w..r.�.......air--...-`-'�..+w.r......r.......�w......wr..rw........��----'-'---Y.._..��..Y.�Y..:�.�.....�..r �...�.—+.... ---"---•- r�.. �.. T6NSAR--GBA�GRID- SLOPE YEIHFORCEEM • SUMMY OF THIS WORKSHEET • Steps 1 to 8 provide a quick estimate of the number and length of required geogrid layers, and the total TENSAR Geogrid quantity and cost. • Steps 9 to 11 compare the cost of a TENSAR Geogrid reinforced slope to a retaining wall or a conventional flat earth slope. STEP 1 CHECK DESIGN ASSMUMONS • The -soil is reinforced with horizontal layers of TENSAR Geogrid (see Figure 1). • A 0 analysis is appropriate (0=0). • The soil has uniform strength properties throughout the slope. • The slope face is planar, and the top of the slope is horizontal, • No seismic forces are acting. • Positive drainage is provided to assure that there is no porewater pressure in the slope. • The slope foundation is.competent. • Uniform surcharge on top of the slope. STEP 2 SELECT DBSIGN PARAMETERS • Fill Soil Properties:' Friction Angle, o (Use Table 1 if necessary) ' Moist Unit Weight, i _ 40 pcf • Factor .of Safety, FS • Factored Friction Angie, use Figure 2)�f 2�j o • Slope Height, H = ,I�} ft • Uniform Surcharge, q = Q psf • Equivalent Slope Height, H' H, .- H + (q/Ay ft • Slope Angle,. 'o • Running Slope Length,' SL ft STEP 3 CALCULATE THE IMUIRED TOTAL #ORIZO fa REINFORCEMW FORCE --T 1. Determine K from Figure 3, K = .� 2. Calculate T =kKY(H')? lb/ft STEP 4 SELECT PRDURT GEOGRID TYPE AMID CALCULATE lIIPIxaM NUMBER OF LAYERS REQUIRED - Clain • Nmin = T/TA , where TA = allowable long-term design strength: TA for SS2 (BX1200) = 500 lb/ft (across the roll) TA for SR1 (UX1400) = 1000 lb/ft TA for SR2 (UX1500) = 2000 lb/ft TA for SR3 (UX1600) = 3000 lb/ft ., _ .n/.n _ % It--.. •.1 ..�..1 C.....\ APPLICATIONS WHERE TENSAR GEOGRID REINFORCED SLOPES CAN SAVE YOU NDNEY • Substitution for any retaining wall • Slopes flatter than 1.5H:1V Tight right-of-way conditions • Additional property required at slope cref • Landslide corrections Dikes, levees, dams, etc. u CREATION or ADDITIONAL AREA 1 i T r' I iARTfY.VRi: AI�f .C.4. ' 5}riNt'_ TA" i LONG -TM SOIL TFM FRICTION ARMI, Gravel - medium 40-550 sandy 35-500 Sand - loose 28-340 - dense 35-460 Silt or silty sand - loose. 27-300 - dense 30-350 Clay - undisturbed, NC 20-300 . - compacted 25=300 4fter;.8owles, Foundation Analysis and Design, 1982. Holtz 6 Kovacs, An Introduction to Geotech- nical Engineering,.1981. L 40 d u 35 0 30 w 25 0 w 20 15 Figure 1 Typical Reinforced Soil Slope Geoeetry FS - 1.1 FS - 1.3 FS - 1.5 20 25 30, 35 40 45 0' Effective Friction Angle FIGURE 2 - Application of Safety Factor. 06/03/02 MON 12:40 FAX 978 688 9573 NORTH ANDOVER DPW 0 002 ATTORNEY RAUH R 121 Collins %adina, Weuc. N11-03921 May 31, 2002 Town of North Andover Division of Public Works ROBERT E. BASHARA 384 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: LATS 1-6CHESTND'T STREET Dear Mr. Bashara: I am in receipt of your letter of May 20, 2002 although it did not come to me through the mail. I became aware of it while talking with Julie Parino of the North Andover Conservation Commission and obtained a copy through her Thursday afternoon, May 30. Kindly accept this note in response thereto. Site slopes and walls: The walls located to the rear of the structures are within the jurisdiction of the Building Inspector but I appreciate your concern with them considering the amount of public input about this job site. I explained in our most recent discussion that fully engineered plans for steel reinforced concretes walls together with a geotechnical analysis and slope stabilization plan were completed for Lots 1, 2 and 3_ The geotechnical study concluded by recoamiending an alternative wall system provided by the Michie Corporation of Henniker, NH. The structural design on t1iis Nall zy:atem was recently completed and xevieved by myself and Harry Weatherbee of GSI, Inc., my geotechnical consultant_ There are several minor, non -substantive drafting errors, which ara being corrected, and those plans together with the geotechnical study and soil stabilization plan will be submitted to Mr_ Nicetta by Monday or Tuesday of next week_ 06/03/02 MON 12:40 FAX 978 688 9573 NORTH AND017ER DPW Q003 After his review of the plans and presumably favorable action there on, we will undertake the installation of this wall zyztem- I also received a number of comments about the trees at the top of the slope and I plan to remove them as well as a rock that is generating some concern. This work Will be undertaken in accord with the geotechnical study filed with the Building Inspector next week. Additionally, per the request of the Building Inspector, I installed caution ribbons and no trespassing signs.. Roadway, erosion and clean—up Issues: I wish to confirm that we rented equipment and completed a thorough sweeping of Chestnut street and maintain it at least twice weekly by sweeping especially around the driveway entrances. Check dams at the outfall at the intersection of Chestnut and Rea Streets as well as several check dams between Lot S and the intersection are scheduled for installation on Monday_ We installed the hay bales in front of the lots as requested and cleaned out the catch basins- In addition to these efforts, I placed stone catchments at the end of all the driveway entrances, cleaned out the outfall of the catch basins on the opposite side of Chestnut Street, and rerouted the bulk of trucking traffic to go through the remaining portion of Rea`s farm so as to diminish the impact on Chestnut Street. Finally we replaced any rotted or displaced hay bales on the opposite side of the street. The remainder of the catch basin is scheduled for installation as soon as Mass Blectric relocates the guide Wires around one telephone pole. We have requested Mass. Electric and Verizon to do this since last November and they still have refused to relocate the guide wires_ We will continue in our attempts to complete the drainage system which will catch a substantial amount that is coming off the hill_ The ditch along Chestnut Street was cleaned out by driving through the drainage Swale with the tire of a backhoe to ensure the drainage was directed to the pipe under the Rea and Chestnut intersection. There is a gas main underneath this swale and digging it out is not advisable. Previously, 06/03/02 MON 12:41 FAX 978'688 9573 NORTH ANDOVER DPS' a good, deal, of the street run off was going over this intersection just prior to the pipe since it was obstructed with leaves and twigs. There was no appreciable amount of siltation in this swale. The most recent rains were last Sunday Evening and the corrective measures installed contained the siltation. L R_ Jo e RRJ/mjj Cc: J- William. Hmu.rci.ak Tim Willett John Cyr [a 004 06!03/02 MON 12:40 FAX 978 688 9573 NORTH ANDOITR DPW y 4 JLlF I FAX COVE . �d tool Post-ir Fax Note 7671 Da10 (opag°es� 1� To Co./Dept t e IQ � I . c� cow Co. Pu. Phone # Phone # Fax#gib-(o�a'9S�f �L Fax# ATTORNEY RU PH R 30Yt:£ i21 Cogm Lamwg Weare, NH 03281 Tel - 9784gS- m ftx -G0aW98566 �� JUN 3 2002 iui 11 ifrgoa-t L_'I *GrPY ASAP o Pieeoo<oAtmont U Pieria review Q rsryour info ton svia w Tow pages, incwding ewer_ T7 Comments: V REDI-ROCK"' International Wall Installation Helpful Tips: I. Base preparation: A. Compaction: Base must be stable material compacted to minimum 95% Standard Proctor (density). B. Material: 1. Base material may be sand, stone, road gravel, or free-drair 2. If base material is clay, marl, or other unstable material, a to engineer a proper base. 3. One solution for unstable base material is undercutting 2'-4' of bad base material and replacing it with free - draining stone or sand compacted to minimum 95% Standard Proctor (density) with perforated drain tile installed (see a Soils Engineer). 4. Stabilization fabric may also be used to bridge unstable material in some areas (see a Soils Engineer). C. Shore -line base preparation: 1. Undercut base material to a base specified by an engineer (see top sketch at right). 2. Place drain stone in the bottom of trench to the depth specified by the engineer. This gives a solid base that does not need compaction. Stone must be leveled and checked using a grade rod and transit or a lazar level. II. Leveling Base: The importance of starting with a uniform, level, compacted base cannot be overemphasized. A uniform, level base will accelerate the entire wall installation process, thereby helping to avoid costly repairs at a later date brought about by sagging wall sections (see bottom picture at right). A. It is important to start the base at the lowest elevation of the wall. This allows for a consistent point of reference and eliminates the problem of higher Redi-RockT"' International, LLC ©All Rights Reserved 2001 SLOPEVARIES -- , LEVELTER ! ; I I .'� "�� I I at a•:,..Si i GEOTEX FREE DF I! m-AGGRE( ,k{P (MIN. 2'.i 1 `—I" DRAIN LAKE BOTTOM Page 48 Design Resource Manual r courses not lining up with lower ones further up the wall. B. Two popular methods of leveling the base are as follows: 1. Checking with a grade rod and transit or a lazar level. 2. Leveling the base using two 20' grade pipes and a screed board to (see top picture at right). C. Final compaction with a plate vibrating compactor should be done after final grading. This is done until 95% minimum density is achieved. III. Setting Retaining Wall Blocks: A. Block Delivery: A flat bed trailer or boom truck may deliver the blocks (see middle picture at right). B. Setting Block: 1. Rubber tired backhoes, loaders, or skid -steers may be used to set blocks. However, a small excavator may be the most efficient (see bottom picture at right). 2. To maximize efficiency, a coordinated plan utilizing the excavator to prepare and install the base course, followed by a delivery boom truck setting subsequent courses directly in place while unloading the truck is recommended. Drainpipe must also be installed while setting blocks. 3. Because the walls taper back and each row is offset to the row below it, it is very important that each course is backfilled before the next is laid. 3. The top of each course should be swept clean and then the next course laid. 4. For the top course, a Top Block installation will allow the 5" deep topsoil to be placed right up to the face. 5. A Drain Ditch Block may also be used as a top block if only poured 2/3 full. Redi-RockTM International, LLC ©All Rights Reserved 2001 r A6 Page 49 Design Resource Manual IV. brain Pipe Installaltion: Placement: A 6" wrapped perforated drainpipe should be installed behind the base course of block, along the bottom of the row. It should be surrounded b n minimum of 1 sq ft of drain stone (see top sketch y at right).. d run the full length of the _t NOTE: Drainpipe shout g ,� ., � .�r�i. •.r.••' XTILE WRAP wall, and the end should be expo"sed to an open drain. , t ��ptppRATED DRAII This will help to alleviate hydrostatic water pressure"•l,, >�; �'. '�- :;��r;,'-.tr • .7 {'1CatS70NE building up behind the wall. V. Backfilling Behind Wall: A. Material: A minimum of 2' of free -draining soil should be placed behind wall as backfill and compacted to a 95% density (see middle sketch at right). B. Equipment: An excavator with stone boat works excellent when placing backfill or stone bedding. VI: Backfilling Between Blocks: Backfill between blocks may be either free -draining sand or pea stone. A, Sand: If you use sand, it must first be compacted. After compacting, you should use self -draining fabric placed over the vertical joints to prevent sand from seeping out during rain showers, irrigation, or just over time. This fabric may be cut in 18" squares and placed over vertical joints as you backfill (see bottom sketch at right). B. Stone: If you use pea stone to backfill between blocks then no fabric is necessary. Redi-RockTm International, LLC ©All Rights Reserved 2001 1 ! � �' 1F tEE DRAINING I AGGREGATE (MIN. 18" SQUARE FABRIC WITH SAND BACKFILL : rl IEEII! , J �rfF I 0frit Page 50 Design Resource Manual r VII. Installing Planter Blocks: A. Because the Planter Block is set back 14" and rests partially on backfill material, it is crucial that the backfilled material be leveled and compacted to 95% density to ensure engineered design heights of the wall (see top sketch at right). ­J f l�• i lk,t r 1 :}> t ; •�, .+�� .+i'!AETAINED SOIL B. Planter Blocks ma be transitioned in or out of a normal '1'';�f x i SHALL BE COMF y TO 95- OF MOC middle block course in a wall b removing one or two `i '''x s, <; ; .!�' y g � fi , PROCTOR knobs at the transition. f i NOTE This may offset the bond joints slightly from falling in the middle of the block below. This may be — corrected by leaving a small gap between blocks until bond joints are centered again. - -- FILTER FABRIC OVER JOINT C. Planters may be irrigated; a small piece of filter fabric may be placed over the front joint of the planters to eliminate top dirt from washing out (see middle sketch ir+1� at right). i'•� �' +; I sfi (, ; .' , {� VIII. Building Curved Set -Back Planters: A. When building setback planters, all of the above base row compaction and leveling procedures apply. B. The most difficult problem is leaving a row below to create a planter and then staying on bond -line with the vertical joints of the row below when coming back to the second row further down the wall (see bottom picture at right). One good way to solve this is to glue I" PVC pipe together for the length of the planter you desire to build. Then place a mark on the PVC pipe the length of each block or every 46 1". You can then bend the PVC along the ground at the curve you desire, making sure the PVC stays at the middle of the block you are leaving and also ends at the middle of the block you are returning to. Then paint a mark on the ground corresponding to each mark on the PVC. You are then Redi-RockTm International, LLC ©All Rights Reserved 2001 Page 51 Design Resource Manual r ready to set the blocks, making sure each block starts and stops at the paint mark you established. IX. How to "Step - Down" Walls: There are two common ways to transition from a higher wall to a lower wall: A. Use End Blocks: An End Block may be used to make either a left step-down or a right step-down. To accomplish this, make one cut with a concrete saw and knock the lip off with a sledgehammer (see top picture at right) to allow the topsoil to fill around the end of the block. B. Use the scalloped look: Place Half -Top Blocks in a partial radius of 2 to 4 blocks to do this (see middle picture at right). X. Walls with 90° Corners: The End Block may be used to make either right or left corners. As with other walls, begin each course in these walls at the lowest point until the course using the End Block is reached. At that point, it is important to begin each course at the corner to minimize the spacing caused by the End Block being smaller then standard blocks (see item B below). A. For the End Block to fit, the knob closest to the corner on the row below must be removed. Simply make a few saw cuts through the knob and then hit it with a sledgehammer to remove knob (see bottom sketch at right). B. NOTE: Because the end block is smaller than a regular block, the joints will be slightly off -center from the row below. Again, this can be accommodated for by leaving a small gap between each block and putting a filter fabric square 18"48" in the vertical joint between blocks to prevent backfill leaking out. C. NOTE: Because a corner is battered in towards the backfill by 2" each course you go up, the end block may Redi-RockTm International, LLC ©All Rights Reserved 2001 REMOVETHIS KNOB ON EACH COURSE BELOW TOP BLOCK Page 52 Design Resource Manual Y be too big beyond 7'6" height of wall. You may experiment with walls higher then 7'6" on your own. XI. Curved Walls: A. ConCave Curves may be installed at a tighter radius then the 14'6" outside radius shown on the spec sheet (see top sketch at right). However, doing so will cause greater exposed overlap. You may experiment and build walls to your satisfaction. B. Convex Curves may also be installed at a tighter radius then the specs show by using half blocks on all radiuses. This will allow a 9' radius for outside corners (see middle sketch at right). Further, corner blocks can be used to achieve 900 corners. XIII. Free -Standing Walls: A. Free-standing walls may be built in straight lines or in 16' radius curves NOTE: If Free -Standing Blocks are put in on top of retaining wall blocks, the retaining wall blocks must be laid in either a straight line or a 16' radius or Free - Standing Blocks will not fit. B. The base for the freestanding wall must be prepared using the some compaction and leveling specs as the retaining walls with the exception that no drain the is needed and no backfill is required beyond the 6" backfill required at the base of the block (see bottom sketch at right). Redi-RockTM International, LLC @All Rights Reserved 2001 CO CONVEX WALL USING HALF BLOCKS BLOCKS FOR TIGHTER RADIUS Page 53 Design Resource Manual TOWN OF NORTIJ ANDOVER Office of the Building Department Community Development and. Services 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 D, Robert Niceita, Pslld(liilig 0171IFPF,nwifer February 14, 2002 Mr. Ralph Joyce 121 Collins Landing Weare N.H. 03281 Dear Mr. Joyce: Telephone (978) 688-9545 FAX (978)688-9542 Please be advised that as of today's date this department has yet to receive the engineered drawings and calculations for the retaining walls on the rear of lots I through 3 Chestnut St. This is a very important safety concern to this department and needs to be addressed ASAP. Please be advise that until such time as the appropriate paperwork is submitted and reviewed there will be NO OCCUPANCY PERMITS for the lots noted above. Please contact me so that we may begin the process to remedy this life safety issue in a timely manner: Respectfully, Michael McGuire Local Building Inspector Michael McGuire, Local Building Inspector James Decola, Electrical Inspector James Diozzi, Gas/Plumbing Inspector P}anuing DeP3;1m,nt 683-9535 manse- ation ik^;S atmLiA 688-9530 Health Dmmtment 688-9540 743;n g B0,1r(i of.Appeals 658-9541 Page 2 05/22/02 request that you perform routine maintenance on all catch basins no less than once a week. Catch basins are required to have siltation traps installed during construction. At our previous site meeting you informed me that the ditch along the edge of Chestnut Street would be cleaned and that you would construct a siltation basin at the intersection of Rea Street as a 'last ditch effort' to collect sediment that might escape your other methods of entrapment. Apparently this has not been done. You are requested to clean the drainage ditch along Chestnut Street from your work area to Rea Street Please inform this Department if you intend to construct a siltation basin at the intersection of Rea Street as you previous stated you would In addition, provide not less than once a week maintenance on the roadway ditch and, if installed, at the sedimentation basin. Your immediate attention to these matters is requested. Very truly yours, Robert E. Beshara, P.E. Director of Engineering Cc: J. William Hmurciak, P.E., DPW Tim Willett, DPW John Cyr, DPW nc 7n n7 !'4....a..... (`ti....a 71/..71 C`7...... D.....A...........7 L'......:.... !'..«t....i /`............... Law Office of RalDh F- 121 Collins l,andi nz Ware, NH 03281 June 6, 2002 Town of North Andover MICHAEL McGUIRE, BUILDING INSPECTOR 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: CHESTNUT STREET Dear Michael: Please accept this letter to confirm that I dropped off to your office on Tuesday, June 4, 2002, the geotechnical study dated April 16, 2002 with respect to the poured concrete, steel reinforced walls together with Another set of plans structurally certified for a Redi-Rock Retaining Wall with a geotechnical analysis dated May 30, 2002. The April 16th geotechnical review concluded by recommending that I review two other walls systems, one referred to as a screw nail wall and.the other the block system, above cited. Both of these recommendations were pursued and the favored is the Redi-rock Retaining Wall, which we intend to build assuming your favorable action thereon. If you require further input in this matter, kindly advise. v Y, t rmqg yours, Ral J RRJ/mj j RECEIVED ,lUN 0 7 2002 13ULDING DEPT. PAX COVER SHEETI ATTORNEY RALPH R. JOYCE 121 Collins Landing Weare, NH 03281 Tel - 9796854555 Fax -603529$866 Send to. From: C RALPH R. JOYCE Attention: aate:� � /5 [� Office location: Office Iocst" n: F ber.n� Phone number: 97845854555 O t— n urgent L } Reply ASAP Piesae eoei in ant n Pleasa review for Tour information Total pages, including cover_ A Comments: R1'D1-"g Uj•4(s FORM - U - LOT RELEASE FORM INSTRUCTIONS: This form is used. to verify that allnecessary approval/ permits from Boards and Departments having jurisdiction have been obtained. This does not relieve the -9 F-$ applicant and or larIdowner from compliance with any applicable requirements.- - !,0 %4.- 76 !!!!!!!!!.■i!■■.R.....l.!l...l..wl....i.....i.....!l...w..w......■■■ w.....■ APPLICANT JO e - PHONE ASSESSORS MAP NUMBER LOT NUMBER SUBDIVISION LOT NUMBER STREET oh:,adlvo� STREET NUMBER y% 0/y OFFICIAL USE ONLY RECOMVIEENDATIO OF TOWN AGENTS um m 0 07M�,Z am m 0 0 'o a 0/0 7, w 07 im' Y19,4 /� m m 0 0 w m 0 0 ' 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 * m ' DATE APPROVED cows V TION TOR DATE REJECTED DATE APPROVED TOWN PLANNER COMMENTS DATE REJECTED DATE APPROVED FOOD INSPECTOR - HEALTH DATE REJECTED DATE APPROVED SEPTIC INSPECTOR - HEALTH DATE REJECTED CONARENTS PUBLIC WORKS - SEWER / WATER CONNECTIONS DRIVEWAY PERMIT DATE APPROVED FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE REJECTED COMIvMM RECEIVED BY BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER Office of the :Building Department Community Development and Services 27 Charles Street North Andffer, Massachusetts 01845 D. Robert. Ni.cetta, Building Commissioner May 28, 2002 Mr. Ralph Joyce 121 Collins Landing Weare, N.H. 03281 Dear Mr. Joyce: Telephone (978) 638.9545 FAX (9 8 ) 088-9542 Please be advised that as of today's date this department has yet to receive the requested geotechnical engineering for the retaining walls to be constructed in the rear of lots 1 through 4 on Chestnut St. This department has been more than patient in this regard and can no longer let this project proceed as the rear slopes have collapsed and have become a VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION for the structures immediately below as well as the workers on site and must be addressed immediately or a stop work order for the entire project will be issued. Please be aware that under 780 CMR Section 121 "Unsafe Structures" of the Mass. State Building Code which states in part " The building official immediately upon being informed by report or otherwise that a building or structure or anything attached thereto or connected therewith is dangerous to life and limb ... shall inspect same and he shall forthwith in writing notify the owner to remove it or make it safe if it appears to him to be dangerous..." Please respond to this department within 5 days of receipt of this notice to remedy this dangerous condition. Respectfully, Michael McGuire Local Building Inspector Cc file D.Robert Nicetta - Certified mail # 7000 0520 0021 5970 9771 Planning Department 688-9535 Conservation Departmcnt 688-9530 Health DeparUnent 688-9540 Zoning Board of Appeals 688-9541 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER DIVISION OF PUBLIC WORKS 384 OSGOOD STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845-2909 J. WILLIAM HMURCIAK, DIRECTOR, P.E. Robert E. Beshara, P.E. Director o f Engineering May 20, 2002 Ralph Joyce 121 Collins Landing Weare, NFI 03281 Subject: Lots I thm 8 Chestnut Street Dear Mr. Joyce, Telephone (978) 685-0950 Fax (978) 688-9573 I performed a site visit on May 20, 2002. The following are my observations and concerns: Site slopes and walls: The walls installed to hold back the cut slope at the rear of the structures failed and collapsed this past weekend. The existing slopes at the rear of the structures are in some cases vertical, in other cases nearly vertical. There are large trees at the extreme top of the slope that appear to have their root structures undermined to the extent that they could topple over the slope. It is my opinion the slopes at the rear of the residences on at least Lots 1, 2, and 3 are unstable and potentially a safety hazard to workers or others that may be at the rear of the structures, and to the general public, especially children who may be playing at the top of the slopes. Roadway, Erosion, and Clean -Up Issues: At our recent site meeting, I requested that Chestnut Street be sweep - you assured me it would be swept. Due to the conditions of the road that I have observed on my recent trips past the site, additional sweeping will be required. You are requested to provide street sweeping no less than twice weekly, which would include a sweeping at the end of the work day on Friday's. Additional sweeping may be required as a result of the nature of the work being performed at the site. The Division of Public Works will monitor the condition of the street daily and advise you of required changes in the street sweeping schedule. At our previous site meeting I requested that the hay bales adjacent to the wetlands across the street from your work be maintained. Maintenance would include the removal of accumulated debris and siltation. This apparently has not been done. You are requested to perform maintenance on all siltation devices, including hay bales, silt fence, and sedimentation traps no less than once a week. At our previous site meeting I requested that the existing catch basins adjacent to the work area be cleaned. Apparently this has not been done. You are requested to clean the catch basins immediately, and further nc1n m tet_„_....., o,..,,,.. m !1 Ol..-.. 0.... A...,.....-.7 P-....:.... /`..-.-..71------- ATTORNEY RALPH R JOYCE 121 May 20, 2002 NH 03281 Town of North Andover Robert Nicetta, Building inspector 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 07.845 RE: CHESTNUT STREET Dear Bob: c1.978.685-4555 F= 603-529-8866 Please accept this letter as an update regarding certified structures and geotechnical analysis for the walls behind the houses on Lots 1, 2 and 3. I filed with your office a certified structural plan for steel, reinforced concrete walls, and per the note on the plan you requested, and we completed, a geotechnical analysis of those plans. This analysis concluded favorably with respect to the steel reinforced concrete walls but recommended that I research two other wall systems, one being a block system supplied by the Mitchie Corporation of Henniker, NH. This set of plans was promised to me for the last two weeks and I expect the same at any time providing a certified structure for a block system. I will ask GSI Inc., who is providing the geo- technical analysis, to review this set of plans and, more specifically, recommendations for upper slopes. There are at this time two alternatives to properly address the situation on Chestnut Street and I want to assure you that all efforts are being made to bring these matters before you expeditiously. thank you for your continued cooperation and patience in this regard. Ve y ph R. Jo ce RRJimjj cc: Hoard of Appeals Steve Gard, Mitchie Corporation R' 0 Ce Tel. 603-529--0264' fix. 603-529-88b6 121 Collins Landing, Wean, NH 03281 April 9, 2002 Town of North Andover ROBERT NICETTA, BUILDING INSPECTOR Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: LOTS 1, 2 & 3 CHESTNUT STREET RETAINING WALLS Dear Bob: I saw Mr. Maguire today and he passed tted ansyo foconcern the steel out footnote #13 on the cubby Mr. Hargraves. reinforced concrete walls proposed Mr_ Hargraves and I are aware of the geotechnical analysis required and have, in fact, retained Geotechnical f rytheir ices Inc. to conduct the same. I enclosed a copy retainer agreement for your reference but it is not he April meeting likely that their work will be complete by of the Board of Appeals. Accordingly, I request that you ask the Board to continue the mattergenerally e er land as I geotechnical they will want to do so until the analysis is finished. In the interim, if there is any further information I can provide on the wall design, or otherwise, please advise. Ver 'tr y s, Ralph R. oY RRJ:mjj cc: Board of Appeals John Hargraves G�s INC. S GEOTECHNICAL SERVIC _ I - ® Geotechnical Engineering ® Environmental Studies -A Materials testing A Construction Monitoring a March 20, 2002 Law Offices of Ralph R_ Joyce Attn: Mr. Ralph R. Joyce 121 Collins Landing Weare, New Hampshire 03281 rc: PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES CHESTNUT STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS GSI I'JtOPOSAL NO. 249-02 Dear Mr. Joyce: Pursuant to our discussion with Mr. John Hargreaves, P.E., GeoAmbient Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Services, Inc. (GSI) is pleased to submit this proposal to provide engineering services for the above -referenced project. SCOPE OF SERVICES - Based on our understanding of the project, GSI proposes to perform the following tasks: 1. GSI will review the available soils data, obtained by Ncw Ilampshire Boring, Inc. and provided site plan and cross-sections in ordc,•r to formulate slope geometry and stabilization recommendations. 2. GSI will provide geotechnical recommendations for retaining wall design for use by Mx. Hargreaves, P.E. FEES - Our fee for performing the above -workscope would be assessed in accordancewith the attached Rate Schedule and Terms and Conditions. Our not -to -exceed budget is $1,000. We would require a retainer in the amount of $500 prior to initiating work and the balance due upon delivery of our recommendation letter. We would not exceed the estimated budget without your prior approval. We trust that this proposal is consistent with your needs at this time. You may enter into an agreement with us to accomplish the previously described scope of work by signing the enclosed copy of the proposal and returning it to us. Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, GEOTECIJNJCAL SERVICES, INC. Richard E. Bushnell, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Principal Engineer cc: Mr. John Hargreaves, P -E., GeoAmbient Consultants, Inc., 10 State Street, NewburypoM MA 01950 ,ab c:lgWVfpkhc=u«veetAp This proposal and the Terms and Conditions of engagement are hereby accepted and executed by a duly authorized signatory, who by on hereof, w at he/she has full authority to act for, in the name and on behalf of the client. Name: 4 Title: Company:��tSDate:__ c A 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, MA 01835 ® 978/374/7744 -4 FAX 978/374/7799 -A .Q 18 Cote Avenue, Goffstown, NH 03045 -e 603/624/2722 --J FAX 603/624/3733 .c- TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER Office of the'Building Department Community Development and. Services 27 Charles Street :North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 D. Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner January 23, 2002 Mr. Ralph Joyce 121 Collins Landing Weare N.H. 03281 Dear Mr. Joyce: Telephone (978) 688-9545 FAX (978)688-9542 Please be advised that as of today's date this department has yet to receive any documentation and application for the retaining wall (s) at the Chestnut St. job location. This is an important part of the ongoing construction at this site and needs to be addressed in a timely manner, as no further permits will be issued. Under the Mass State Building Code Chapter 1 Section 116 a certified professional engineer's certified drawing and calculation's is required for retaining walls over 10 feet in height of unbalanced fill from footing to top of wall. Please contact me so that we may begin the process to rectify this situation in a timely manner. I may be reached between the hours of 8:30 — 10:00 AM and 1:00 — 2:00 PM at 978-688-9545. Respectfully, Michael McGuire Local Building Inspector Michael McGuire, Local Building Inspector James Deeola, Electrical Inspector James Diom, Gas/plumbing Inspector Planning Department 688-9535 Conservation Department 688-9530 IIealth Depaitment 688-9540 Zoning Board of Appeals 688-9541 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN --------------------------------------------------------------- Project : Ralph Joyce Lot -1 Location: Chestnut St. North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:40 AM Page 1 DATE: 04-05-2002 ANALYSIS RESULTS: Sliding Force = 7,287 Lb Overturn.. Moment = 43,717 -ft -lb Resisting Force = 14,690 Lb Resisting Moment = 128,387 ft -lb F.O.S. = 2.02 F.O.S. = 2.94 DESIGN RESULTS: Stem Req'd Area Stl..= 0.518 in^2 Toe Req'd Area Stl. = 0.470 in^2 Heel Req'd Area Stl. = 0.582-in^2 12.50 ft. 18.00 in. 300.0 2.17 ft. )sf. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project : Ralph Joyce Lot -1 Location: Chestnut St. North Andover By: JWH ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME: 11:35 AM Page 1 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 CONCRETE DESIGN METHOD: Ultimate Strength STEM MATERIAL TYPE Concrete WALL TYPE Cantilever Retaining Wall RETAINING WALL DIMENSIONS: ------------------------------------ Wall Stem Height = 12.50 ft. Stem Thickness @ Top = 12.00 in. Stem Thickness @ Bottom = 24.00 in. Footing Thickness = 18.00 in. Heel Width . . . . . . Min. = 4.22 ft. = 0 Max: = 6.00 ft. Toe Width . . . . . . Min. = 2.33 ft. Max. = 4.00 ft. Footing Key Depth - 2.00 ft. Footing Key Width = 2.00 ft. BackFill Slope (Vert/Horiz) = 6.80 :12 RETAINING WALL LOADS: Horizontal Equivalent Fluid Pressure Soil -Wall Friction Angle Vertical Surcharge on Backfill Horizontal Surcharge Vertical Surcharge on Toe Wind Load on Fence Fence Height Line Ld. Type No. (H or V) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Design Heel Width = 6.05 ft. Design Toe Width Design Key Depth Design Key Width = 45.00 pcf. = 0.00 deg. = 0 psf. = 0 psf. = 0 psf . = 0 psf . = 0.00 ft. Magnitude Dist. (x) (plf) (ft.) Notes: 1. "H" = Horizontal loads. "V" = Vertical loads. 2. Vertical loads are positive down. 4.08 ft. = 2.17 ft. 2.00 ft. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Ralph Joyce Lot -1 Location: Chestnut St. North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:35 AM Page 2 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 RETAINING WALL RESISTING FORCES: ------------------------------------ Allowable Soil Pressure = 3,000 psf. Passive Equivalent Fluid Press. = 300.00 pcf. Passive Soil Height = 4.00 ft. Coefficient of Friction = 0.50 Cohesion = 0 psf. Use Vertical Surcharge as Resisting Wt.? = No Overturning Safety Factor = 2.00 Sliding Safety Factor = 2.00 Limit Reaction to Mid 1/3? = Yes MATERIAL DATA: ------------------------------------ Concrete Strength, f'c = 4.00 ksi. Steel Yield Strength, Fy = 60.00 ksi. Concrete Unit Weight = 145.00 pcf. Soil Unit Weight = 110.00 pcf. Fence Weight = 10.00 psf. REINFORCING STEEL DATA: Concrete cover to center of steel: Wall Inside Face = 2.50 in. Footing Heel (Top Face) = 2.50 in. Footing Toe (Bottom Face) = 3.50 in. Minimum Ratios for Shrinkage and Temperature Reinf: Vertical Stem Reinf. = 0.0018 Horizontal Stem Reinf. = 0.0020 Footing Reinforcement = 0.0018 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Ralph Joyce Lot -1 Location: Chestnut St. North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:35 AM Page 3 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 S U M M A R Y O F R E S U L T S --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DIMENSIONS: Stem Height = 12.50 ft. Stem Thick. @ Top = 12.00 in. Stem Thick. @ Base = 24.00 in. Footing Thickness = 18.00 in. Heel Length = 6.05 ft. Toe Length = 4.08 ft. Total Ftg. Width, B = 12.13 ft. Key Depth = 2.17 ft. Key Width = 2.&0 ft. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANALYSIS RESULTS: Max Brg Press. @ Toe = 2,004 psf. Sliding Force = 7,287 Lb @ Heel = 723 psf. Resisting Force = 14,690 Lb Allowable Brg. Press. = 3,000 psf. F.O.S. = 2.02 Resultant Loc From C.L.= 0.95 ft. Overturn. Moment = 43,717 ft -lb Kern Point Loc., B/6 = 2.02 ft. Resisting Moment = 128,387 ft -lb Limit Resultant To Mid 1/3? = Yes F.O.S. = 2.94 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESIGN RESULTS: Design Method, Stem: Ultimate Strength Ftg.: Ultimate Strength d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in ^2) (in ^2) (in ^2) Stem : 21.50 24.90 5.98 27.74 0.260 0.346 0.518 Toe 14.50 22.60 7.75 18.71 0.353 0.470 0.389 Heel : 15.50 29.82 7.88 20.00 0.437 0.582 0.389 Key 12.00 8.31 7.27 15.48 0.155 0.207 0.518 Notes: 1. Stem moments are positive if they cause tension on the soil face. Negative if they cause tension on the outside face. Stem shear is positive to the left as measured on a section cut below the top of wall. 2. Heel moments are positive if they cause tension in the top of the footing. Heel shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the right of the end of the heel. 3. Toe moments are positive if they cause tension in the bottom of the footing. Toe shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the left of the end of the toe. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Ralph Joyce Lot -1 Location: Chestnut St. North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:35 AM Page 4 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 ************************************************** D E T A I L E D A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T ************************************************** ----------RESISTING FORCES --------- ---------OVERTURNING FORCES --------- Element Weight x Arm = Moment Element Force x Arm = Moment Soil 10,561 95,433 R at Top Ftg. 3,267 6.07 19,822 R at Bot. Stem 2,719 4.83 13,132 Horiz. EFP 7,287 6.00 43,717 Vert Sur Vert Sur Vert EFP Horiz Sur Toe Sur. Wind Fence Wt. Horiz line Vert. line Vert. line -------- Sum WT = 16,547 MR = -------- 128,387 -------- Sum F = 7,287 -------- MOT = 43,717 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Friction Force = 8,274 Lb F.O.S. Sliding = RF / F = 2.02 Passive Pressure - 6,417 Lb F.O.S. Overturn. = MR / MOT = 2.94 Cohesion = 0 Lb -------- Coef. Vert. Surcharge or Line Load Resist. Force, Sum RF = 14,690 Lb to Horiz. = EFP / Soil Dens. = 0.409 Resultant Loc From Toe, X = (MR - MOT) / Sum WT = Eccentricity From Ftg. C.L., e = (B / 2) - X = 5.12 ft. 0.95 ft. Soil Pressure @ Toe =(WT / B) * (1 + 6e/B) = 2,004 psf. Soil Pressure @ Heel =(WT / B) * (1 - 6e/B) = 723 psf. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Ralph Joyce Lot -1 Location: Chestnut St. North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:35 AM Page 5 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 ************************************************** D E T A I L E D D E S I G N R E P O R T STEM DESIGN: Load Combination @ Max Mom. = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H Shr Strength @ Base, Phi Vn = 27.74 kip Dist From d Mu Vu As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Reqd Top (ft) (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (in^2) (in ^2) (in ^2) (in ^2) 1.25 10.70 0.02 0.06 0.001 0.001 0.285 0.285 2.50 11.90 0.20 0.24 0.004 0.005 0.311 0.311 3.75 13.10 0.67 0.54 0.011 0.015 0.337 0.337 5.00 14.30 1.59 0.96 0.025 0.033 0.363 0.363 6.25 15.50 3.11 1.49 0.045 0.060 0.389 0.389 7.50 16.70 5.38 2.15 0.072 0.096 0.415 0.415 8.75 17.90 8.54 2.93 0.107 0.142 0.441 0.441 10.00 19.10 12.75 3.83 0.149 0.199 0.467 0.467 11.25 20.30 18.15 4.84 0.200 0.267 0.492 0.492 12.50 21.50 24.90 5.98 0.260 0.346 0.518 0.518 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vertical Stem Reinforcement: Available Length for Hook Embedment into Footing = 15.00 in. Available Length for Straight Embedment into Stem = 148.00 in. Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. 50% Cut Off (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) (in.) #4 12.00 6.64 100.00 4.63 150.00 #5 14.23 8.30 100.00 7.18 150.00 #6 17.08 9.96 100.00 10.19 150.00 #7 24.90 11.62 100.00 13.89 150.00 #8 28.46 13.28 100.00 18.29 150.00 #9 36.21 14.98 100.00 23.15 150.00 #10 45.90 16.87 88.93 26.14 150.00 #11 56.58 18.73 80.10 28.92 150.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Horizontal Stem Reinforcement: Area of steel for Shrinkage and Temp. Reinforcement = 0.480 in^2 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 -----Spacing, in.---- I.F. Only EA. Face 5.00 10.00 7.75 15.50 11.00 18.00 15.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 ------Total Bars----- I.F. Only EA. Face 31.00 16.00 20.00 11.00 15.00 10.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Ralph Joyce Lot -1 Location: Chestnut St. North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:35 AM Page 6 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 TOE DESIGN: * Load Combination = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H * Available Length for Hook Embedment into Stem = 22.00 in. * Available Length for Straight Embed. into Toe = 46.96 in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Req'd (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) 14.50 22.60 7.75 18.71 0.353 0.470 0.389 0.470 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) #4 12.00 6.64 100.00 5.10 #5 14.23 8.30 100.00 7.91 #6 17.08 9.96 100.00 11.23 #7 24.90 11.62 100.00 15.31 #8 28.46 13.28 100.00 20.16 #9 32.10 14.98 100.00 25.52 #10 36.14 16.87 100.00 32.41 #11 40.42 18.73 100.00 39.81 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEEL DESIGN: * Load Combination = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H * Available Length for Straight Embedment into Toe = 70.96 in. * Available Length for Straight Embedment into Heel = 70.64 in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d- Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Req'd (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) 15.50 29.82 7.88 20.00 0.437 0.582 0.389 0.582 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) #4 14.80 6.64 100.00 4.12 #5 18.50 8.30 100.00 6.39 #6 22.20 9.96 100.00 9.07 #7 32.37 11.62 100.00 12.37 #8 37.00 13.28 100.00 16.29 #9 47.08 14.98 100.00 20.61 #10 59.68 16.87 100.00 26.18 #11 73.56 18.73 96.03 30.88 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot 2 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:46 AM Page 1 DATE: 04-05-2002 ANALYSIS RESULTS: Sliding Force = 3,757 Lb Resisting Force = 7,633 Lb F.O:S. = 2.03 DESIGN RESULTS: Stem Req'd Area Stl. = 0.518 in^2 Toe Req'd Area Stl. = 0.389 in^2 -Reel Req'd Area Stl. - 0.389 in^2 Overturn. Moment = 18,346 ft -lb Resisting Moment = 41,495 ft -lb .F.;O.S. = 2.26 7.25 ft. 2,594 psf. 75 ft. in. 2.00 ft. r QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot 2 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:44 AM Page 1 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 CONCRETE DESIGN METHOD: Ultimate Strength STEM MATERIAL TYPE Concrete WALL TYPE Cantilever Retaining Wall RETAINING WALL DIMENSIONS: ------------------------------------ Wall Stem Height = 10.75 ft. Stem Thickness @ Top = 12.00 in. Stem Thickness @ Bottom = 24.00 in. Footing Thickness = 18.00 in. Heel Width . . . . . . Min. = 2.00 ft. Design Heel Width = 3.25 ft. Max. = 4.00 ft. Toe Width . . . . . . Min. = 2.00 ft. Design Toe Width = 2.00 ft. Max. = 3.00 ft. Footing Key Depth = 2.00 ft. Design Key Depth = 2.00 ft. Footing Key Width = 2.00 ft. Design Key Width = 2.00 ft. BackFill Slope (Vert/Horiz) = 6.78 :12 RETAINING WALL LOADS: Horizontal Equivalent Fluid Pressure = 35.00 pcf. Soil -Wall Friction Angle = 0.00 deg. Vertical Surcharge on Backfill = 0 psf. Horizontal Surcharge 0 psf. Vertical Surcharge on Toe = 0 psf. Wind Load on Fence 0 psf. Fence Height = 0.00 ft. Line Ld. Type No. (H or V) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Magnitude Dist. (x) (plf) (ft.) Notes: 1. "H" = Horizontal loads. "V" = Vertical loads. 2. Vertical loads are positive down. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project Joyce Lot 2 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:44 AM Page 2 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 RETAINING WALL RESISTING FORCES: ------------------------------------ Allowable Soil Pressure = 3,000 psf. Passive Equivalent Fluid Press. = 300.00 pcf. Passive Soil Height = 1.00 ft. Coefficient of Friction = 0.50 Cohesion = 0 psf. Use Vertical Surcharge as Resisting Wt.? = No Overturning Safety Factor = 2.00 Sliding Safety Factor = 1.50 Limit Reaction to Mid 1/3? = Yes MATERIAL DATA: ------------------------------------ Concrete Strength, f'c = 4.00 ksi. Steel Yield Strength, Fy = 60.00 ksi. Concrete Unit Weight = 145.00 pcf. Soil Unit Weight = 110.00 pcf. Fence Weight = 10.00 psf. REINFORCING STEEL DATA: Concrete cover to center of steel: Wall Inside Face = 2.50 in. Footing Heel (Top Face) = 2.50 in. Footing Toe (Bottom Face) = 3.50 in. Minimum Ratios for Shrinkage and Temperature Reinf: Vertical Stem Reinf. = 0.0018 Horizontal Stem Reinf. = 0.0020 Footing Reinforcement = 0.0018 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot 2 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:44 AM Page 3 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 S U M M A R Y O F R E S U L T S DIMENSIONS: Stem Height = 10.75 ft. Stem Thick. @ Top = 12.00 in. Stem Thick. @ Base = 24.00 in. Footing Thickness = 18.00 in. ANALYSIS RESULTS: Heel Length = 3.25 ft. Toe Length = 2.00 ft. Total Ftg. Width, B = 7.25 ft. Key Depth = 2.00 ft. Key Width = 2.00 ft. Max Brg Press. @ Toe = 2,594 psf. Sliding Force = 3,757 Lb @ Heel = 24 psf. Resisting Force = 7,633 Lb Allowable Brg. Press. = 3,000 psf. Stem : F.O.S. = 2.03 3.44 Resultant Loc From C.L.= 1.19 ft. Overturn. Moment = 18,346 ft -lb Kern Point Loc., B/6 = 1.21 ft. Resisting Moment = 41,495 ft -lb Limit Resultant To Mid 1/3? = Yes 20.00 F.O.S. = 2.26 0.389 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESIGN RESULTS: Design Method, Stem: Ultimate Strength Ftg.: Ultimate Strength Notes: 1. Stem moments are positive if they cause tension on the soil face. Negative if they cause tension on the outside face. Stem shear is positive to the left as measured on a section cut below the top of wall. 2. Heel moments are positive if they cause tension in the top of the footing. Heel shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the right of the end of the heel. 3. Toe moments are positive if they cause tension in the bottom of the footing. Toe shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the left of the end of the toe. d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in^2) (in^2) (in ^2) Stem : 21.50 12.32 3.44 27.74 0.128 0.171 0.518 Toe 14.50 7.18 3.00 18.71 0.111 0.148 0.389 Heel : 15.50 10.27 5.28 20.00 0.148 0.198 0.389 Key 12.00 3.91 3.57 15.48 0.073 0.097 0.518 Notes: 1. Stem moments are positive if they cause tension on the soil face. Negative if they cause tension on the outside face. Stem shear is positive to the left as measured on a section cut below the top of wall. 2. Heel moments are positive if they cause tension in the top of the footing. Heel shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the right of the end of the heel. 3. Toe moments are positive if they cause tension in the bottom of the footing. Toe shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the left of the end of the toe. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot 2 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:44 AM Page 4 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 D E T A I L E D A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T ************************************************** ----------RESISTING FORCES --------- ---------OVERTURNING FORCES --------- Element Weight x Arm = Moment Element Force x Arm = Moment Soil 4,996 =(WT / 27,247 R at Top Soil Pressure @ Heel Ftg. 2,157 3.63 7,819 R at Bot. Stem 2,338 2.75 6,430 Horiz. EFP 3,757 4.88 18,346 Vert Sur Vert Sur Vert EFP Horiz Sur Toe Sur. Wind Fence Wt. Horiz line Vert. line Vert. line -------- Sum WT = 9,491 MR = -------- 41,495 -------- -------- Sum F = 3,757 MOT = 18,346 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Friction Force = 4,745 Lb F.O.S. Sliding = RF / F = 2.03 Passive Pressure = 2,888 Lb F.O.S. Overturn. = MR / MOT = 2.26 Cohesion = 0 Lb -------- Coef. Vert. Surcharge or Line Load Resist. Force, Sum RF = 7,633 Lb to Horiz. = EFP / Soil Dens. = 0.318 Resultant Loc From Toe, X = (MR - MOT) / Sum WT = 2.44 ft. Eccentricity From Ftg. C.L., e = (B / 2) - X = 1.19 ft. Soil Pressure @ Toe =(WT / B) * (1 + 6e/B) = 2,594 psf. Soil Pressure @ Heel =(WT / B) * (1 - 6e/B) = 24 psf. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot 2 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME:- 11:44 AM Page 5 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 ************************************************** D E T A I L E D D E S I G N R E P O R T ************************************************** STEM DESIGN: Load Combination @ Max Mom. = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H Shr Strength @ Base, Phi Vn = 27.74 kip Dist From d Mu Vu As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Reqd Top (ft) (in.) (ft -k) (kip) din^2) (in^2) (in^2.) (in^2) 1.08 10.70 0.01 0.03 0.000 0.000 0.285 0.285 2.15 11.90 0.10 0.14 0.002 0.002 0.311 0.311 3.23 13.10 0.33 0.31 0.006 0.008 0.337 0.337 4.30 14.30 0.79 0.55 0.012 0.016 0.363 0.363 5.38 15.50 1.54 0.86 0.022 0.029 0.389 0.389 6.45 16.70 2.66 1.24 0.035 0.047 0.415 0.415 7.53 17.90 4.23 1.68 0.053 0.070 0.441 0.441 8.60 19.10 6.31 2.20 0.074 0.098 0.467 0.467 9.67 20.30 8.98 2.78 0.099 0.132 0.492 0.492 10.75 21.50 12.32 3.44 0.128 0.171 0.518 0.518 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vertical Stem Reinforcement: Available Length for Hook Embedment into Footing = 15.00 in. Available Length for Straight Embedment into Stem = 127.00 in. Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. 50% Cut Off (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) (in.) #4 12.00 6.64 100.00 4.63 129.00 #5 14.23 8.30 100.00 7.18 129.00 #6 17.08 9.96 100.00 10.19 129.00 #7 24.90 11.62 100.00 13.89 129.00 #8 28.46 13.28 100.00 18.29 129.00 #9 36.21 14.98 100.00 23.15 129.00 #10 45.90 16.87 88.93 26.14 129.00 #11 56.58 18.73 80.10 28.92 129.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Horizontal Stem Reinforcement: Area of steel for Shrinkage and Temp. Reinforcement = 0.480 in^2 -----Spacing, in.---- ------Total Bars----- I.F. Only EA. Face I.F. Only EA. Face #4 5.00 10.00 27.00 14.00 #5 7.75 15.50 18.00 10.00 #6 11.00 18.00 13.00 8.00 #7 15.00 18.00 10.00 8.00 #8 18.00 18.00 8.00 8.00 #9 18.00 18.00 8.00 8.00 #10 18.00 18.00 8.00 8.00 #11 18.00 18.00 8.00 8.00 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot 2 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:44 AM Page 6 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 TOE DESIGN: * Load Combination = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H * Available Length for Hook Embedment into Stem = 22.00 in. * Available Length for Straight Embed. into Toe = 22.00 in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Req'd (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) 14.50 7.18 3.00 18.71 0.111 0.148 0.389 0.389 ---------------------------------------------------------------------=----- Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) #4 12.00 6.64 100.00 6.17 #5 14.23 8.30 100.00 9.57 #6 17.08 9.96 100.00 13.58 #7 24.90 11.62 88.34 16.36 #8 28.46 13.28 77.30 18.85 #9 32.10 14.98 68.53 21.15 #10 36.14 16.87 60.87 23.86 #11 40.42 18.73 54.43 26.21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEEL DESIGN: * Load Combination = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H * Available Length for Straight Embedment into Toe = 46.00 in. * Available Length for Straight Embedment into Heel = 37.00 in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Req'd (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) 15.50 10.27 5.28 20.00 0.148 0.198 0.389 0.389 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) #4 14.80 6.64 100.00 6.17 #5 18.50 8.30 100.00 9.57 #6 22.20 9.96 100.00 13.58 #7 32.37 11.62 100.00 18.52 #8 37.00 13.28 100.00 24.38 #9 47.08 14.98 78.60 24.26 #10 59.68 16.87 62.00 24.30 #11 73.56 18.73 50.30 24.22 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 'Project : Joyce Lot -3 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:52 AM Page 1 DATE: 04-05-2002 ANALYSIS RESULTS: Sliding Force - 5,093 Lb Resisting Force = 8,876 Lb F.O.S. = 1.74 DESIGN RESULTS: Stem Req'd Area Stl. = 0.518 in^2 Toe Req'd Area Stl. = 0.389 in^2 Heel Req'd Area Stl. = 0.389 in^2 OF V CIVIL No. 42426 A9o,�9FQl5r��a���`� \ONAt E� Overturn. Moment = 27,088 ft -lb Resisting Moment = 60,892 ft -lb F.O.S. = 2.25 i 8.41 ft. ft. in. ft. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot -3 Location: North Andover By: JWH -------------------------------------------=--------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME: 11:49 AM Page 1 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 CONCRETE DESIGN METHOD: Ultimate Strength STEM MATERIAL TYPE Concrete WALL TYPE Cantilever Retaining Wall RETAINING WALL DIMENSIONS: ------------------------------------ Wall Stem Height = 12.50 ft. Stem Thickness @ Top = 12.00 in. Stem Thickness @ Bottom = 24.00 in. Footing Thickness = 18.00 in. Heel Width . . . . . . Min. = 2.00 ft. Design Heel Width = 4.08 ft. Max. = 5.00 ft. Toe Width . . . . . . Min. = 2.33 ft. Design Toe Width = 2.33 ft. Max. = 3.11 ft. Footing Key Depth = 2.00 ft. Design Key Depth = 2.00 ft. Footing Key Width = 2.00 ft. Design Key Width = 2.00 ft. BackFill Slope (Vert/Horiz) = 4.62 :12 RETAINING WALL LOADS: Horizontal Equivalent Fluid Pressure = 40.00 pcf. Soil -Wall Friction Angle = 0.00 deg. Vertical Surcharge on Backfill = 0 psf. Horizontal Surcharge = 0 psf. Vertical Surcharge on Toe = 0 psf. Wind Load on Fence = 0 psf. Fence Height = 0.00 ft. Line Ld. Type No. (H or V) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Magnitude Dist. (x) (plf) (ft.) Notes: 1. "H" = Horizontal loads. "V" = Vertical loads. 2. Vertical loads are positive down. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot -3 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:49 AM Page 2 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 RETAINING WALL RESISTING FORCES: ------------------------------------ Allowable Soil Pressure 3,000 psf. Passive Equivalent Fluid Press. = 300.00 pcf. Passive Soil Height 1.00 ft. Coefficient of Friction = 0.50 Cohesion = 0 psf. Use Vertical Surcharge as Resisting Wt.? = No Overturning Safety Factor = 2.00 Sliding Safety Factor = 1.50 Limit Reaction to Mid 1/3? = Yes MATERIAL DATA: Concrete Strength, f'c = 4.00 ksi. Steel Yield Strength, Fy = 60.00 ksi. Concrete Unit Weight = 145.00 pcf. Soil Unit Weight = 110.00 pcf. Fence Weight = 10.00 psf. REINFORCING STEEL DATA: Concrete cover to center of steel: Wall Inside Face = 2.50 in. Footing Heel (Top Face) = 2.50 in. Footing Toe (Bottom Face) = 3.50 in. Minimum Ratios for Shrinkage and Temperature Reinf: Vertical Stem Reinf. = 0.0018 Horizontal Stem Reinf. = 0.0020 Footing Reinforcement = 0.0018 QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project : Joyce Lot -3 Location: North Andover By: JWH ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME: 11:49 AM Page 3 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 S U M M A R Y O F R E S U L T S --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DIMENSIONS: Stem Height = 12.50 ft. Stem Thick. @ Top = 12.00 in. Stem Thick. @ Base = 24.00 in. Footing Thickness = 18.00 in. Heel Length = 4.08 ft. Toe Length = 2.33 ft. Total Ftg. Width, B - 8.41 ft. Key Depth = 2.00 ft. Key Width = 2.00 ft. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANALYSIS RESULTS: Max Brg Press. @ Toe = 2,829 psf. Sliding Force = 5,093 Lb @ Heel = 18 psf. Resisting Force = 8,876 Lb Allowable Brg. Press. = 3,000 psf. F.O.S. = 1.74 Resultant Loc From C.L.= 1.38 ft. Overturn. Moment = 27,088 ft -lb Kern Point Loc., B/6 = 1.40 ft. Resisting Moment = 60,892 ft -lb Limit Resultant To Mid 1/3? = Yes F.O.S. = 2.25 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESIGN RESULTS: Design Method, Stem: Ultimate Strength Ftg.: Ultimate Strength d Mu Vu Phi Vn As Flex. As Min. As T+S (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (kip) (in^2) (in^2) (in ^2) Stem : 21.50 22.14 5.31 27.74 0.231 0.307 0.518 Toe 14.50 10.72 4.59 18.71 0.166 0.221 0.389 Heel : 15.50 17.74 7.14 20.00 0.257 0.343 0.389 Key 12.00 3.91 3.57 15.48 0.073 0.097 0.518 Notes: 1. Stem moments are positive if they cause tension on the soil face. Negative if they cause tension on the outside face. Stem shear is positive to the left as measured on a section cut below the top of wall. 2. Heel moments are positive if they cause tension in the top of the footing. Heel shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the right of the end of the heel. 3. Toe moments are positive if they cause tension in the bottom of the footing. Toe shear is positive up as measured on a section cut to the left of the end of the toe. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project Joyce Lot -3 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:49 AM Page 4 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 ************************************************** D E T A I L E D A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T ************************************************** ----------RESISTING FORCES --------- ---------OVERTURNING FORCES --------- Element Weight x Arm = Moment Element Force x Arm = Moment Soil 6,849 42,381 R at Top Ftg. 2,410 4.21 10,138 R at Bot. Stem 2,719 3.08 8,374 Horiz. EFP 5,093 5.32 27,088 Vert Sur Vert Sur Vert EFP Horiz Sur Toe Sur. Wind Fence Wt. Horiz line Vert. line Vert. line Sum WT = 11,978 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- MR = 60,892 Sum F = 5,093 MOT = 27,088 Friction Force = 5,989 Lb F.O.S. Sliding - RF / F = 1.74 Passive Pressure - 21888 Lb F.O.S. Overturn. = MR / MOT = 2.25 Cohesion - 0 Lb -------- Coef. Vert. Surcharge or Line Load Resist. Force, Sum RF = 81876 Lb to Horiz. = EFP / Soil Dens. = 0.364 Resultant Loc From Toe, X = (MR - MOT) / Sum WT = Eccentricity From Ftg. C.L., e = (B / 2) - X = 2.82 ft. 1.38 ft. Soil Pressure @ Toe =(WT / B) * (1 + 6e/B) = 2,829 psf. Soil Pressure @ Heel =(WT / B) * (1 - 6e/B) = 18 psf. QuikWall - RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Project : Joyce Lot -3 Location: North Andover By: JWH TIME: 11:49 AM Page 5 of 6 DATE: 04-05-2002 ************************************************** D E T A I L E D D E S I G N R E P O R T STEM DESIGN: Load Combination @ Max Mom. = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H Shr Strength @ Base, Phi Vn = 27.74 kip Dist From d Mu Vu As Flex. As Min. As T+S As Reqd Top (ft) (in.) (ft -k) (kip) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) (in^2) 1.25 10.70 0.02 0.05 0.000 0.001 0.285 0.285 2.50 11.90 0.18 0.21 0.003 0.004 0.311 0.311 3.75 13.10 0.60 0.48 0.010 0.014 0.337 0.337 5.00 14.30 1.42 0.85 0.022 0.029 0.363 0.363 6.25 15.50 2.77 1.33 0.040 0.053 0.389 0.389 7.50 16.70 4.78 1.91 0.064 0.085 0.415 0.415 8.75 17.90 7.59 2.60 0.095 0.126 0.441 0.441 10.00 19.10 11.33 3.40 0.133 0.177 0.467 0.467 11.25 20.30 16.14 4.30 0.178 0.237 0.492 0.492 12.50 --------------------------------------------------_-----------__--___------ 21.50 22.14 5.31 0.231 0.307 0.518 0.518 Vertical Stem Reinforcement: Available Length for Hook Embedment into Footing = 15.00 in. Available Length for Straight Embedment into Stem = 148.00 in. Development Length Straight Hook Percent Spac. 50% Cut Off (in.) (in.) Develop. (in.) (in.) #4 12.00 6.64 100.00 4.63 150.00 #5 14.23 8.30 100.00 7.18 150.00 #6 17.08 9.96 100.00 10.19 150.00 #7 24.90 11.62 100.00 13.89 150.00 #8 28.46 13.28 100.00 18.29 150.00 #9 36.21 14.98 100.00 23.15 150.00 #10 45.90 16.87 88.93 26.14 150.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #11 56.58 18.73 80.10 28.92 150.00 Horizontal Stem Reinforcement: Area of steel for Shrinkage and Temp. Reinforcement = 0.480 in^2 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 -----Spacing, in.---- I.F. Only EA. Face 5.00 10.00 7.75 15.50 11.00 18.00 15.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 ------Total Bars----- I.F. Only EA. Face 31.00 16.00 20.00 11.00 15.00 10.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 GA GeoAmbient Consultants, Inc. Civil Engineers and Land Planning Consultants 10 STATE STREET • NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950 • (978) 462-7766 June 25, 2002 Town of North Andover Office of Building Inspector 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 Attn: Michael McGuire RE: Independent Structural Engineer Review — Chestnut Street Ret -Wall Lots 1-3 Dear Michael, In response to the letter dated June 7, 2002 regarding the above referenced project, we have completed the Independent Analysis as per State Building Code, Section 780 CMR paragraph 116 and Appendix I. This office reviewed plans entitled "Redi-Rock Retaining Wall, Plans, Details & Notes' dated 5/30/02 together with Design Memorandum dated 5/15/02 and 5/16/02 together Excavation and Slope Stabilization Recommendations as prepared by Geotechnical Services Inc. dated May 30, 2002. I hereby certify that the structural design shown on the said drawings and specification conform to the structural requirements of 780 CMR. If you have comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, John W. Hargreaves, Jr., P.E. OF JOHN CIVIL A No. 42426 bW �Q NAL A , TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT REPAIR, RENOVATE, CHANGE THE USE OR OCCUPANCY OF, OR DEMOLISH ANY BUILDING OTHER THAN A ONE OR TWO FAMILY DWELLING `• v5 K.s' : ; : ", This Section for Oficial Use Onik.3M1, ; • : : BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: DATE ISSUED: SIGNATURE: Buildin Commissioner/I or of Buildin Date 1.1 Property Address: 1.2 Assessors Map and Parcel Number: ZLoT /, Z,, 3 CNers7',vyr . q a .40 T Map Number Parcel Number - Do. e4"v P'04)A55 1.3 Zoning Information: 1.4 Property Dimensions: .3 s F�?--- — -- e7S000 f Wit` ---- ZoningDistrict Proposed Use —1Sf Lot Area Frontage ft 1.6 BUR DING SETBACKS (ft) Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Required Provide Required Provided Required Provided . /a. /i% .r/,I 14 1.7 Water Supply M.G.L.C.40. 54) 1.5. Flood Zone lnfomration: 8 Sewerage Disposal System: Public Private ❑ Zone Outside Flood Zone Municipal amp❑ 2.1 Owner of Record N7-7 Y Name (Print) �� T ��'/� � �LC/9L %r; ��L 1 kddrcss forerv;ce: 3 zs bI le' -Q// /�'i/V 4` +C� Z `D I F7 O —�'iV Si Telephone 2.2 Authorized Agent Name Print Address for Service: Signature Telephone 3.1 Licensed Construction Supervisor Not Applicable 0 T4�)rK,qA4E �o /L L' y3 ? 4 9 Address �-o Jam, + AFe4, V f2 57... License Number ,,VO ,91V�7d v ei'?, !-'7,,9 . Licensed Construction Supervisor: 4 �, Z 74 3 3 Expiration Date Si tureTelephone 3.2 Registered Home Improvement Contractor Not Applicable ❑ - Company Name_ Registration Number Address Expiration Date Signature . Telephone v M 0 WX Z 0 Z M 90 0 a r v M r r ^Z YJ New Construction Existing Building ❑ Repair(s) ❑ Accessory Bldg. ❑ Demolition ❑ Other ❑ Specify Alterations(s) ❑ 1 Addition ❑ Brief Description of Proposed Work: �0 7" Te17i'..ocff',E T�.'.v�a Gt�r9� L_ 7'L.�f✓v gtj/A�d Lo T/,/s'�o Z ,gry9 �yT•�i DoT P9 3 S�/G�a Z A Assembly 0 A-1 ❑ A4 ❑ USE GROUP Check as applicable) A-2 0 A-3 ❑ A-5 ❑ B Business 0 0 2B C Educational ❑ ❑ 3A F Factory ❑ F-1 ❑ F-2 ❑ H Hi Hazard ❑ 0 5B IInstitutional M Mercantile 0 0 I-1 ❑ I-2 ❑ I-3 ❑ R residential S Storage ❑ ❑ R-1 0 S-1 ❑ R-2 R-3 0 S-2 ❑ U Utili M Mixed Use S Special Use ❑ 0 0 Specify: Specify: Specify: COMPLETE THIS SECTION IF EXISTING BUILDING UNDERGOING RENOVA' Existing Use Grou • IV -4 CONSTRUCTION TYPE lA 0 1B 0 2A 0 2B ❑ 2C ❑ 3A 0 3B 0 4 0 5A 0 5B 0 ADDITIONS AND OR CHANGE IN USE p' Proposed Use Group: Existing Hazard Index 780 CMR 34: Proposed Hazard Index 780 CMR 34: BUILDING AREA Number of Floors or Stories Include Basement levels Floor Area per Floor (sf) Total Area (sf) Total Heikht (ft) Independent Structural Engineering Structural Peer Review Required Yes ❑ No ❑ SECTION 10a Owner Authorization - TO BE COMPLETED WHEN OWNERS AGENT OR CONTRACTOR APPLIES FOR BUILDING PERMIT PROPOSED I, 7 � �-is'�i �iuC,.-- %'E' 9- Owner of the subject property Hereby authorize. My behalf, W-ifli' T�/ftiG4� a vza= to act on work authorized by this building permit application Date VA I,1--��� as Owner/Amg4op`:"c Hereby declare that the statements and information on the foregoing application are true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury Print me -� t afore o er/ a ate item Estimated Cost (Dollars) to be Completed by permit applicant (a) Building Permit Fee 1. Building A 2 Electrical -Multiplier (b) Estimated Total Cost of Construction from 6) 3 Plumbing Building Permit fee (a) x (b) 4 Mechanical (HVAC) 5 Fire Protection 6 Total (1+2+3+4+5) Check Number r , EV, F t �.Y I 't F�')t. -,5•'ld ! } t: �• �. • .Ft .•_f it� Y.S5I �i� y GFt t�{a�'�,if � p ),q• t W,�yi��2` � ?,91 tt� ! I� NO. OF STORIES SIZE � BASEMENT OR SLAB SIZE OF FLOOR TIMBERS iST 2 ND 3RD SPAN DEMENSIONS OF SILLS DEMENSIONS OF POSTS DIMENSIONS OF GIRDERS HEIGHT OF FOUNDATION THICKNESS SIZE OF FOOTING X MATERIAL OF CHMINEY IS BUILDING ON SOLID OR FILLED LAND IS BUILDING CONNECTED TO NATURAL GAS LINE J MiAVON A ia'z ASA, h7.. •.t -t `r.�� e�. R .++t Yt.J �r ai.t kqF 41 '1 a..";: Y#2Fy" r.r�3 J !) ,` )1 t{T -t4 - Jo ) i : h b'`�e OWN, issuance Yea... Muhl he and snlnnitted with this applim,cln, Failure to provide this affidavit will result in the dcaiat cil'thc 5.1 Registered Architect: Nazn< AJ.�d... Address Signature Telephone _1UD?5i--S A5iUG .u1z—"SIC, N&`' D X N� - Name: 0, 73 2 `�' �} O Address: — kl< Signature Total A*ca of peslx>nsibility 376b/6 Registration Numbeir ExpirationDate & eO 1" E"CAfN?.4 4�r`,�" 1C�/, LE �iV Not appICcable o Name: %` �'TKY He-71Aer,,?.3VEFE a SZ.,r_j-76 AddrLss Registration N►unbes Signature Telephone E6463 a Name /0 57477`__._. Sr. /erW 81)iPyf'P,f7, el -K, D / gscO 9 7e Z14 z 7;;' Telephone s Name Address Signature Telephone hTT vi'xu . Arca of Responsibility 4112 ya Registration Number Expiration Date Area of Responsibility Registration Nuetb�x Expiration Date coxztpany Name: R!q ;D C!F Not Applicable 0 Responsiblcc in Charge of Construction DESIGN MEMORAND UM TO: Steve Gard — Michie Corporation FROM: Eric Thibodeau, Carl Thunberg, P.E. — Nobis Engineering, Inc. CC: N/A DATE: 05/16/02 SUBJECT: Lot #2 — Chestnut Street; North Andover, MA Job No. 72500 This memorandum provides a brief summary of the design recommendations for the proposed Redi-Rock modular block retaining wall to be constructed for Lot #2 along Chestnut Street in North Andover, Massachusetts. Based on the provided plans, the wall will be located behind the proposed house and will be constructed along the existing slope. Maximum wall height will be approximately 10.5 feet which includes a 12 -inch embedment for frost protection. It is understood that the Redi-Rock retaining wall will replace an existing two-tiered Versa -Lok retaining wall. Based on test borings and other work performed within this area of the lot, subsurface soils consist of a dense to very dense glacial till with some clay/silt. Design soil parameters were provided in a letter prepared by Geotechnical Services, Inc. dated April 16, 2002. Free groundwater was not encountered within the depths explored by the test borings. The following is a summary of the design and construction considerations for the Lot #2 retaining wall: • Based on the information provided and our design calculations, the wall may be constructed as a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall. Geogrid reinforcement, consisting of Stratagrid 200, should be provided at each block level. Geogrid embedment lengths will vary from 3 to 10.5 feet over the height of the wall. Two layers of geogrid should be provided for the first course of block. The geogrid should be installed with the machine direction perpendicular to the wall. Geogrid reinforcement will not be required for areas where the wall height is 6 feet or less. Refer to the attached design calculations and design drawing for further details for this wall. • The first row of blocks should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the finish grade for frost protection as required by the -Redi-Rock Design Resources Manual. Also, a minimum 4 -foot wide level "bench" should be provided in front of the wall. Refer to the design drawing for more information. • All Versa -Lok blocks; geogrid reinforcement, crushed stone, drainage pipe, and backfill should be removed from the area prior to the construction of the new retaining wall. Subgrade preparation should include the removal . of any loose or disturbed soils and compaction with hand -guided equipment before placement of the first row of blocks. • To provide drainage, a 4 -inch diametererforated p pipe should be provided along the base of the wall. The pipe should be pitched to provide positive drainage and bedded in 3/4 -inch crushed stone and wrapped in a filter fabric. h1 turn, the pipe should be "daylighted" at both ends so as not to be reliant upon a single flow path. • The wall should be backfilled with a free draining material such as Massachusetts Highway M1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. The backfill should extend a minimum of 2 -feet beyond the back of the wall as shown on the design drawing. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the, maximum dry density as detennined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 1557. The on-site excavated glacial till soils may potentially File No. 72500 Lot #2 — Chestnut Street,• N. Andover Massachusetts Page 2 May 16, 2002 be suitable for re -use as backfill outside of -the 2 -foot zone provided care is taken to prevent construction disturbance. Refer to paragraph 2 of the Construction Issues section below. Construction Issues: 1. It should be stressed that the slope located above the retaining wall was designed by others. Design of erosion control measures and stabilization of slopes is beyond our scope of services. The Owner should be advised that the Town of North Andover Conservation Commission may have additional erosion control requirements such as the installation of silt fences, staked haybales, water bars, check dams, etc. that must also be followed. 2. Due to the relatively high siltclay content of the native glacial till, these soils are highly susceptible to construction disturbance, once excavated. Achieving proper compaction with these soils will be problematic, particularly following rain events. If the native glacial till soils are rendered unsuitable due to saturation, it may become necessary to backfill the wall with Massachusetts Highway M1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. 3. For purposes of safe excavation design, the on-site soils may be considered to be Type A soils in accordance with the OSHA Excavation Standard (29 CFR Part 1926.650-.652) Subpart P. In the event that site constraints will not allow for an open cut in conformance with the maximum allowable slopes given in the OSHA excavation standard, then the Contractor should retain the services of a registered professional engineer to design temporary slopes. 4. It is considered essential that Nobis perform limited construction observation services during construction of the retaining walls. The intent of performing construction observation services is to verify that the wall is being constructed in accordance with the intent the design. Our construction observation services would include inspection of prepared subgrades before placement of the first row of blocks and placement of geogrid (particularly in the lower rows). Note that the site is located within an approximately ten minute drive from our Lawrence office. Compaction testing of backfill soils should be performed by a qualified materials testing firm to verify that the compaction requirements of the design are being met in the field. We trust that the information presented within this memorandum will be responsive to your needs. If you have any questions in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact us. \\SERVERI\DATA\REPORTS\ACTIVE\72500 North Andover, MA\Lot 2\DesignMemo2.doc v r JOBItQ) SHEET NO. OF P.O. BOX2890 CALCULATED By DATE CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 CHECKED BY C (603) 224-4182 DATE... SCALE .. ....... . .. . .... ..... . i . . ..... -4 .............. . .. ........ . ....... ........... ...... i...... ............ I ... ....... ...... . ...... . .... . .. ............ ....... .... . .......... ....... .... .... ..... . ......... . . ...... .... .............. ......... ... s -en ......... ... . ....... • . ..... .. .... .. ........... ... . . ..... .. + . .... ... ... .. ..... ........ .... . .... . .... ....... ..................... ............. ....... .. .... . . . . ... ........ . .. . . .. ........... .............. ............ . .. ........ .... .... ... v P.O. BOX2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 .(603) 224-4182 JOB _' oI l SHEET N0. ' `' OF CALCULATED BY DATE 4 .o CHECKED BY_ C DATE S /� 5 d L �. �..► — JOB � f. p �t't r'EJ' v .^,— SHEET NO. OF— PO. F P.O. BOX2890 CALCULATED BY --Z-- DATE CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 T DATE (603) 224-4182 CHECKED BY PRODUCT2Di-i (Single Sheds) ml (padded) ICU Ien t Y s 6 .. .. ..... .. ....:.. .. .� .; Vii....: ......:.. ... i 1� +�T: -�'') i obi t t fit. [ ... .:......... ...P(kCp...; .1.. i. ; .. ... ... .. PRODUCT2Di-i (Single Sheds) ml (padded) SRWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Licensed to: Nobis Engineering Inc i8 Chenell Drive Concord NH 03301 License Number: 02050745 Project Identification: Project Name:Lot #2 ft�e.P' Street ]CAndover, M Section: Existing Slope Data sheet: Owner: Ralph Joyce Client: Michie Corporation Prepared by: Nobis Engineering, Inc. Date: May 15 2002 Time: 09:10:01 AM Data file: a:\lot2 L .Type Of Structure: Geosynthetic-Reinforced segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCMA Method A Seismic Analysis Details: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ratio 0.00 Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) 10.5 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 1.0 Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 9.5 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units 7 Hinge Height (in plane of wall) (ft) N/A Wall Inclination (degrees) 4.8 Page SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) Page 2 LN 02050745 Slopes: Front Slope (degrees) horYv�•i� ^t=1 Back Slope (degrees) 34.0 Infinite Back Slope Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge none Dead Load Surcharge none Friction Cohesion Angle Unit Weight Soil Data: Soil Description: (psf) (degrees) (pcf) Reinforced Soil Mass_ Highway M1.03.0 Retained Soil Type b Glacial Till N/A N/A 35.0 120.0 Levelling Pad Soil gravel N/A 40.0 40.0 135.0 Foundation Soil Glacial Till 200.0 40.0 125.0 135.0 Segmental Unit Name: Redi-Rock Standard Blocks Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) none Unit Height (Hu)(in) 18.0 Unit Width (Wu)(in) 41.0 Unit Length (in) 46.5, Setback (in) 1.513 Weight (infilled) (lbs) 2983.0 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 150.2 Center of Gravity (in) 20.5 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Properties Ultimate Strength Criteria Service State Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 4000.0 4000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 6 StrataGrid 200 SRWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength (lbs/ft) 2720.0 N/A N/A Polymer Type polyester N/A N/A Reduction Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Creep 1.40 N/A N/A Durability 1.10 N/A N/A Installation Damage 1.05 N/A N/A Overall Factor of Safety 1.50 N/A N/A Allowable Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ta (lbs/ft) 1121.42 N/A N/A Coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ci 0.7 N/A N/A Coefficient of Direct Sliding• Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Cds 0.95 N/A N/A Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 846.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 36.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 1220.0 N/A N/A Service State Criterion: 2000.0 N/A N/A Minimum (lbs/ft) 846.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 36.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 1220.0 N/A N/A Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 N/A N/A Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 N/A N/A Page 3 SRWa11 (ver 3. 22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.481 Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.456 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 41.28 Retained Soil (Ka) 0.305 Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.263 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 51.18 Results of External Stability Analyses: Page 4 Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) 2846.6 Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) 9393.9 Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) 6577.7 Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 12005.1 Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 32599.5 Bearing Capacity (psf) 56109.8 Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) 2142.5 Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Calculated Design Criteria FOS Sliding 2.31 1.5 OK FOS Overturning 2.72 2.0 OK FOS Bearing Capacity 26.19 3.0 OK Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 6.3 6.3 OK Base Eccentricity (e)(ft) 0.96 N/A (ft) Base Eccentricity Ratio (e/L-2e) 0.22 N/A (ft) Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) 0.6 0.6 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria > 1.5 > 1.5 Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) 2846.6 Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) 9393.9 Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) 6577.7 Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 12005.1 Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 32599.5 Bearing Capacity (psf) 56109.8 Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) 2142.5 Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Terigth"< Anchor FOS FOS FOS Unit Type (ft) ,,., Length Over- Pullout Sliding Layer Spacing # (ft) stress (ft) > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 > 1.5 < 3.0 7 1 9.0 r13s9aa r ;x' 1.0 8.1 7.0 7.85 OK fi 1 7.5 1.v" 4.56 4.1 6.22 OK 5 1 6.0 lOTy`75 f- ^ • s 1.0 3.04 2.85 4.17 OK 4 1 4.5 >« 916<<t 1.0 2.28 2.22 3.07 OK 3 2 1 1 3.0 7 5'8 �. 1.0 1.82 1.84 2.4 OK 1.5 6, 3,;g 1.3 0.97* 1.34* 1.95 OK Note: * value does NOT MEET design criterion (2 occurrences) SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Detailed Results of Internal Stability Analyses. SRW Geosyn E1ev Allowable Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding Unit Type (ft) Strength Load Capacity Force Capacity (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) Page 5 7 1 9.0 1121.4 138.4 969.4 237.2 1862.7 6 1 7.5 1121.4 246.1 1010.3 472.0 2938.1 5 1 6.0 1121.4 369.2 1051.2 786.9 3283.3 4 1 4.5 1121.4 492.3 1092.1 1181.8 3628.6 3 1 3.0 1121.4 615.3 1133.0 1656.7 3973.8 2 1 1.5 1121.4 1153.7 1542.8 2211 7 4310 S4_ 8 .1 Results of Facing Stability Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS Shear FOS Unit Elev Type Over -Connection # (ft) Shear (deformation) Connection (deformation) turning (peak) (peak) > 2.0 > 2.0 < 0.02 x Hu > 1.5 < 0.75 in 7 9.0 1 42.74 20.64 OK 6 7.5 1 8.81 OK 17.91 18.57 OK 4.96 5 6.0 1 OK 11.82 OK 4 4.5 1 3.3 OK 8.09 8.67 OK 2.46 3 3.0 1 6.34 6.84 OK OK 2 1.5 1 1.98 OK 5.2 5.65 OK 1.06* OK 1 0.0 none 4.41 - Note: * value does NOT MEET design criterion (1 occurrences) Detailed Results of Facing StabilitZ Analyses (Moment and Shear): SRW Heel Geo Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear Unit Type Moment Moment Load (ft) Capacity Capacity (f t) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) +out -in (peak) (deformation) 7 9.0 1 30.8 1315.1 61.5 1269.8 1269.8 6 7.5 1 246.1 4 5 409.4 107.7 2000.0 2000.0 6.0 1 830.7 9282.8 169.2 2000.0 2000.0 4 4.5 1 1969.0 15935.5 230.7 2000.0 2000.0 3 3.0 1 3845.8 24367.3 292.3 2000.0 2000.0 2 1.5 1 6645.5 34578.3 353.8 2000.0 1 0.0 2000.0 none 10552.8 46568.5 0.0 4000.0 4000.0 Detailbd Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Connections): SRW Uni t Heel El ev Geo Type Connection Load Connection Cuiuiection # (ft) (lbs/ft) Capacity (peak)vfv Capacity (deformation) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 7 6 9.0 1 138.4 1220.0 1220.0 Coo (0 L-) 5 7.5 6.0 1 1 246.1 1220.0 1220.0 %s7 CQ , 4 4.5 1 369.2 492.3 1220.0 1220.0 1220.0 (1-, It 1 � tl 3 3.0 1 615.3 1220.0 1220.0 _ -70 ?_ t� 2 1.5 1 1220.0 _ �b 1153.7 1220.0 1220.0 lay � f g ry � i- �"�i�i �' •�� Uri �. �r SRWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Page 6 Project identification: Project Name: Lot #2 - Chestnut Street - N. Section: Existing Slope Andover, MA Data Sheet: Owner: Ralph Joyce Client: Michie Corporation Prepared by:Nobis Engineering, Inc. Date: May 15 2002 Time: 09:10:01 AM Data file: a:\Iot2 May -30-2002 11:02am From -GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC 16036243733 T-500 P.001/005 F-105 G S EOTEC.HNICAL ,SEI 1710ES INc: Am Geotechnical Engineering •A Enviranmentai Studies a2 Materials Testing -d Construction Monitoring May 30, 2002 Law Offices of Ralph R. Joyce Atin: Mr. Ralph R. Joyce 121 Collins Landing Weare, New Hampshire 03281 re; EXCAVATION A,ND SLOPE STASILIZATIOX RECOMMENDATION'S REDI-ROCK RETALNING WALL CHESTNUT STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS GSI PROJECT NO, 202,175 Dear Mr. Joyce: Geotechnical Services, Inc;,(GSI)has reviewed the Re&Rock Retaining thrall design prepared by ear, Carl Thunberg of Nobis Engineering, Inz, Based on our review we offer the following reoommendati.ons with respect to excavatiort safety and soil -stabilization. EXCAVATION SAFETY Nobis has classified the site soils as consistent with OSHA Class "A". In general, excavations and slopes Should conform with the OSHA 29 CFR 1926, subpart P guidelines (see Appendix B). General excavation recommendations uiclude, but are not limited to the following, as discussed below. 1. The slope should be cut. to a :/AV:114. layback using an excavator or gradail equipped with a smooth faced bucket in order to minitnize disturbance of the underlying natural till soils. The prepared soil subgrad4 surface should consist of undisturbed till. If fiils are planned, tires fills should be compacted to 95% of tnaxitnum dry density (ASTN4 D 598). 2. Prior to conunencing any site excavation work, the area should be. inspected for any conditions Bich may require special precautionary measures. This is especially important adjacent to buildings, road.ways, and underground utility structures. Such structures should be surveyed to note location and condition o€these prior to any excavation work done on the site. Surface obstructions such as trees that are near orwithin the plannad excavation zone should be removed prior to commoricing work. Trees that are to remain undisturbed should be clearly marked off. .9 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, MA 01835 -e 978,1374/7744 -1 FAX 9781374/7799 A -4 18 Cote Avenue, Csoifstown, NH 03045 -E 603/624/2722 ® FAX 603/624/3733 -a May -30-2002 11:03am From -GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC 16036243233 T-500 P.002/005 F-105 Chestnut Street Retaining Walls 081 Project No. 202175 North Andover, MA Page 2 Underground utilities such; as electric; telephone, sewer, water and gas must be determined prior to any excavation on site. The contractor should notify the uti lity owners and ask thorn to mark off their utility locations, In some cases it may be necessary to discuss removal, relocation, servieo interruption, or temporary support of underground utilities during construction. In any event, the contractor should be careful In while digging as there may be untrnarked utilities in the excavation zone. 5. OSIIA requires that excavated material stockpiles and equipment should be maintained no closer than 2 ft from the top of the excavation. This is not directed at reducing the ultra lateral earth pressure due to surcharge loading; but is solely directed at reducing hazards from rolling materials into the excavation. Ideally, stockpiles should be placed well away from excavations and trenches. 6, The designated Competent Person (CP) mustmake daily inspections ofthe excavations prior to the start of the shift, during the day as needed throu shout the shill,, and after rainstorms or other hazard increasing events, A sample Daily Inspection Torn is attached. 7. The designated CP should be prepared to halt excavation and construction activities in aroas where there arises a clear and imminent hazard to workers in the area. 8, dopes should not be made steeper than what is recommended based on the OSHA soil type encountered in the area of excavation. If a slope shows signs of distress, the CP must take steps to ; ernove workers from the areas and regrade the slopes shallower by at least 1/21-1:1 V before allowing workers adjacent to the sloped excavation, SOIL SLOPE STABILIZATION Based onthe proposed finish grades, al. 5V: t H earthen slope is required above the retaining wall, In general, earth fill slopes steeper than ?.5H:1: V are inherently unstable and prone to sloughing and/or translational sliding failures. GSI's recommendation is that the proposed 1,S :1H earthen slope be reinforced with horizontal layers of geogrid to enhance the dimensional stability. Our recommendation is that the required slope reinforcing may be provided with "T'ensar" BX1200 geogrids spaced a maximum of 6 feet apart in the vertical and embedded into the slope 8 feet atthe bottom shortening to 3 feet atthe top layer. This arrangement of geogrid would provide sufficient earth reinforcing to maintain the slope with a theoretical factor of safety against failure of 1.5. GSI recommends that the slope be covered with a minimum of 6 -inches of humus of such nature and organic content capable of sustaining vegetation. GSI further recommends that an erosion control mat such as North American Green S 150 or equivalent be mechanically affixed to the slope immediately after excavation; humus placement and hydra -seeding. One supplier of the above -referenced neat is J onnian Enterpriss of Melrose, Massachusetts, The mat provides ero3ion protection and slope stability prior to establishment of vegetation. Subsequent vegetative cover niay be established by hydro -seeding using a hardy mixture ofgrass and legume seeds including annual and perennial Ityegrass, Alsike Clover, Creeping Ped Fescue, and Grown, retch, The legumes are desirable for nitrogen contribution via transportation processes and subsequent inoculation into the filth layer. May -30-2002 11:04am From -GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC 16036243133 T-500 P.003/003 F-105 Chestnut Street Retaining Walls GS! Project No. 202175 North Andover, MA Page 3 The humus may require the application of fertilizer to enhance growth arad promote root structure. Our prel inimary recommendations is an application of 10 parts ratrogen-10 parts phosphorus -10 pares potassium at a rate of 100 pounds per acre. Seedgerminationwillbefacilitatedwithmulchcoverprovidedbytheerosion control rnat. Construction Monitoring It is recommended that GSI be retained to review conztruction procedures for conformance with contract requirements, documents and design concepts, The following is the minimum recommended inspection tasks GSI should perform with respect: to earthwork construction: I . Evaluation of footing subgrade eotnpeteney. 2• Observation and monitoring of the placement and compaction of backfill. 3. Laboratory testing and analysis of fill materials for verification of compliance with project specifications. We trust that the contents ofthis reportis responsive to your needs at This time. Should you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, GEQm1ECH_ T CA1L. SERVICES, YNC. Harry K. Wetherbee, P.E. Principal Engineer Nlay-30-2002 11:05am From -GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC t6038'ad3i33 T-500 P.004/005 F-1.05 Chestnut Street Retaining %falls GSI Project No. 202175 North Andover, MA Page 4 LIMITATIONS Explorations The analyses, recommendations and designs submitted in this report ate based in part upon the data obtained from prGiiminary subsurface explorations. The nature and extent of variations between these explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report, The generalized soil profile described in the text is intended to convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between sttata are approximate and idealized and have been developed by interpretation of widely spaced explorations and samples; actual soil transitions are probably more. gradual. For specific information, refer to the individual test pit and/or boring logs. 3. Ulster level readings have been made in the test borings under conditions stated or the logs, 'These data have been reviewed and interpretations have been made in the text of this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors differing from the time the measurements were made. Review 4. It is recommended that this firm be given the opportunity to review final design drawings and specifications to evaluate the appropriate implementation of the recommendations provided herein, 5. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed areas are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of the report modified or verified in writing by Geotechnical Services, Inc. Use of &&ort This report has been prepared .for Mr. Ralph Joyce in accordance with generally ae;;epted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or Implied, is made. This report has been prepared for this project by Geotechnical Services, Inc. This report was completed forpreliminary design purposes and maybe limited in its scope to complete an accurate bid. Contractors wishing a copy of the report may secure it with the understanding that its scope is limited to evaluation considerations only. May -30-2002 11:05am From -GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC 160362n733 T-500 P.005/005 F-105 COMPETENT PERSON'S CHECKLIST is the cut, cavity, or depression a trench or an. excavation? is the cut, cavity, or depression more than 4 ft (1.2 m) in depth? is there water in the cut, cavity, or depression? Aro there adequate means of access and egress? Are there any surface encumbrances? Is there exposure to vehicular traffic? Are actaceni struci ee,s stabilised? Does mobile equipment have a vvurriing systepl? Is a competent person in charge of the operation? Is eqv. pment operating in or around the cut, cavity, or depression? Art: procedures required to monitor, test, and control hazardous armosphere.e? Doe> a competent person determine soil t3lw? Have soils types within the excavation changed from these -which had been previously encountered.? Was a soil leving device used to determine so!] rype? Is the spoil placed ? ii (0.6 in) or ,acre fraan 'Jle edge of the out, cavity, or depression? Is the depth 20 ft (6.' rn) or »tore for the coat, cavity, or depression? Has a registered professional engineer approved the procedure if the depth is more than 20 ft (Ci, l nt)? Does the procedure require herrching or multiple venc;hing'? :5horinb? Shielding? If provided, do shields extend at least 18 in (l).5 mJ above the surroundhig area if it is sloped toward the excavation? If shields are used, is the depth of 1 ae cut more than 2 ft (t?. 6 rn) belr)w the bvitom of the shield? Are any required sat*face crossings of the cut, cavity, or depression the proper width and filled ividz hand rads? Are means of egress from zhe cut, cavit},, or depression no more :hart 25 ft (".67n) front the work? Is emergency rescue equip. -tient required? Is there documentation of the minimum daily excavalion inspection? LE DESIGN MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Gard — Michie Corporation FROM: Eric Thibodeau, Carl Thunberg, P.E. — Nobis Engineering, Inc. CC: N/A DATE: 05/15/02 SUBJECT: Lot #1— Chestnut Street; North Andover, MA Job No. 72500 This memorandum provides a brief summary of the design recommendations for the proposed Redi-Rock modular block retaining wall to be constructed for Lot 41 along Chestnut Street in North Andover, Massachusetts. Based on the provided plans, the proposed Redi-Rock wall will be located behind the proposed house and will be constructed along the existing slope. Maximum wall height will be approximately 7.5 feet which includes a 12 -inch embedment for frost protection. It is understood that the Redi-Rock retaining wall will replace an existing Versa -Lok modular block wall. Based on test borings and other work performed within this area of the lot, subsurface soils consist of a dense to very dense glacial till with some clay/silt. Design soil parameters were provided in a letter prepared by Geotechnical Services, Inc. dated April 16, 2002. Free groundwater was not encountered within the depths explored by the test borings. The following is a.summary of the design and construction considerations for the Lot #1 retaining wall: Based on the information provided and our design calculations, the wall may be constructed as a gravity wall. In locations where the wall height reaches the maximum of 7.5 feet, an additional standard block should be provided at the heel of the wall. This additional block will provide additional sliding resistance and should be placed "back-to-back" with the front block. Refer to the attached design calculations and design drawing for further details of this wall. • The first row of blocks should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the finish grade for frost protection as required by the Redi-Rock Design Resources Manual • All Versa -Lok blocks, geogrid reinforcement, crushed stone, drainage pipe, and backfill should be removed from the area prior to the construction of the new retaining wall. Subgrade preparation should include the removal of any loose or disturbed soils and compaction with hand -guided equipment before placement of the first row of blocks. • To provide drainage, a 4 -inch diameter perforated pipe should be provided along the base of the wall. In areas where the additional block is provided, the drainage, pipe should extend around the back of the block. The pipe should be pitched to provide positive drainage and bedded in %-inch crushed stone and wrapped in a filter fabric. In turn, the pipe should be "daylighted" at both ends so as not to be reliant upon a single flow path. • The wall should be backfilled with a free draining material such as crushed stone or Massachusetts Highway M1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. The backfill should extend a minimum of 2 -feet beyond the back of the wall as shown on the design drawing. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1557. The on-site excavated glacial till soils may potentially be suitable for re -use as backfill outside of the 2 -foot zone provided File No. 72500 Lot #I.— Chestnut Street,• N. Andover Massachusetts Pae 2 May 15, 2002 care is taken to prevent construction disturbance. Refer to paragraph 2 of the Construction Issues section below. Construction Issues: I. It should be stressed that the slope above the retaining wall was designed by others. Design of erosion control measures and stabilization of slopes is beyond our scope of services. The Owner should be advised that the Town of North Andover 'Conservation Commission may have additional erosion control requirements such as the installation of silt fences, staked haybales, water bars, check dams, etc. that must also be followed. 2. Due to the. relatively, high silt/clay content of the native glacial till; these soils are highly susceptible to construction disturbance, once excavated. Achieving proper compaction with these soils will be problematic, particularly following rain events. If the native glacial till soils are rendered unsuitable due to saturation, it may become necessary to backfill the wall with Massachusetts Highway M1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. 3. For purposes of safe excavation design, the on-site soils may be considered to be Type A soils in accordance with the OSHA Excavation Standard (29 CFR Part 1926.650-.652) Subpart P. In the event that site constraints will not allow for an open cut in confonnance with the maximum allowable slopes given in the OSHA excavation standard, then the Contractor should retain the services of a registered professional engineer to design temporary slopes. 4. It is considered essential that Nobis perform limited construction observation services during construction of the retaining walls. The intent of performing construction observation services is to verify that the wall is being constructed in accordance with the intent the design. Our construction observation services would include inspection of prepared subgrades before placement of the first row of blocks. Note that the site is located within an approximately ten minute drive from our Lawrence office. Compaction testing of backfill soils should be performed by a qualified materials testing firm to verify that the compaction requirements of the design are being met in the field. We trust that the information presented within this memorandum will be responsive to your needs. If you have any questions in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact us. \\SERVERI\DATA\REPORTS\ACTIVE\72500 North Andover, MA\Lot I\DesignMemoldoc o — P.O. 80X2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 JOB SHEET NO. 1A � OF CALCULATED BY �^DATE �' e✓ CHECKED BY C w� DATE S- / 4 ...� .. �. - -p -!aff -- d P.O.80X2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 joB LOQ- t� SF A r k SHEET NO. OF. CALCULATED BY '17 c_1 S ✓� DATE CHECKED BY G �� DATE S O i IR P.O.80X2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 JOB Lo &a SHEET NO. OF Y CALCULATED BY DATE �/� CHECKED BY 1 ..� DATE i /1 57 G -1" 'NODUCT 201.1(Sin01e Sheets( M.1 (padded) P.O.80X2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603)224-4182 JOB-.... L(4 S4 SHEET NO. .14 -- OF_ CALCULATEDBY Es? -r ... ....... . DATE.. CHECKEDBYC .. ... ..... . . .. ... . .............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ..... ....... ............. .............. ............. ............ DATE SCALE ... ....... . ........... i. .. ........ . ..... ... ...... ..... ...... .. ... ..... . . .. ... . .............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ..... ....... ............. .............. ............. ............ ........... . ............ ..... ... . ... ...... ...... . ........ e...... . .... .......... cl ..... .. .. . ...... ...... .... . .... . . .... . . ........ ... .. . ......... . . ...... .. .... : ............ ............ .... .... .. ................ . ... .... . ..... ............. .......... .. .. . ......... ........... ....... ........... .. rqu .. ........... ........ ... ..... ........ . ..... I? .. .. ....... .............. ............. .. ........... .. .... .. .. .. ...... .. ... ......... ... ............. ........... ............. .. .... .... ............. .......... ... ... .... ............. . . ..... ... ... r ..... ..... .... ........ . . ..... . .. . . .......... .... ....... . . ... ............. ..... ..... .. ......... q A . .... .. ....... ............. . . ..... . . ....... . . ......... . . . . .. ..p. . . . . . .. ...... .... ....... At q J.. ......... ....... .. .. .... . . .. ........ ... ........ . .... . i it: w .... . ..... L .......... .... ... ......... .... . ... . ...... ... . ............ .... ....... PRODUCT 204-1 (SINk Streets( M.1 (p" Estimating Pr® 2 "The Essence of Natural %►# Lot #1 - Chestnut Street - N. Andover. MA Exiting Slone Rataiini��n df1la{! Cone. Unit Weight 150 BlockWidth 41 Backfill Angle 34 _ WallHeight 7.5 Backfill Soil 1 TraffcSurclza�ge No Avg. Soil Unit Weight 120 _ BlockType —__Standard Block Foundation Soil Sand with Gravel WallBatterAngle 96 Avg. Soil Unit Weight 120 Soil Friction Angle 35 Estimated Overturning Factor 2.17 Meets overturning factor of 2.0 F- - = BLOCK DEPTH BATTER ANGLE,-"!� Estimated Sliding Factor 1.11 Request that wall design engineer recheck wall design --.--- BACKSLOPE ANGLE 1e RETAINED SOIL �% WALL HEIGHT--,� * *DISCLAIM ER:This software is intended to be used as a design aid for the internal stability of Redi-Rock retaining wall systems only. This software does not account for overall wall stabilty including: bearing capacity, overall slope stability, seismic conditions and construction quality. All designs should be reviewed by a registered professional engineer familiar with retaining wall design. 5/I S102 DESIGN MEMORAND UM TO: Steve Gard — Michie Corporation FROM: Eric Thibodeau, Carl Thunberg, P.E. — Nobis Engineering, Inc. CC: N/A DATE: 05/16/02 SUBJECT: Lot #3 — Chestnut Street; North Andover, MA Job No. 72500 This memorandum provides a brief summary of the design recommendations for the proposed Redi-Rock modular block retaining wall to be constructed for Lot #3 along Chestnut Street in North Andover, Massachusetts. Based on the provided plans, the wall will be located behind the proposed house and will be constructed along the existing slope. Maximum wall height will be approximately 10.5 feet which includes a 12 -inch embedment for frost protection. It is understood that the Redi-Rock retaining wall will replace an existing two-tiered Versa -Lok retaining wall. Based on test borings and other work performed within this area of the lot, subsurface soils consist of a dense to very dense glacial till with some clay/silt. Design soil parameters were provided in a letter prepared by Geotechnical Services, Inc. dated April 16, 2002. Free groundwater was not encountered within the depths explored by the test borings. The following is a summary of the design and construction considerations for the Lot #3 retaining wall: • Based on the information provided and our design calculations, the wall may be constructed as a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall. Geogrid reinforcement, consisting of Stratagrid 200, should be provided at each block level. Geogrid embedment lengths will vary from 3 to 9 feet over the height of the wall. Two layers of geogrid should be provided for the first .course of block. The geogrid should be installed, with the machine direction perpendicular to the wall. Geogrid reinforcement will not be required for areas where the wall height is 7.5 feet or less. Refer to the attached design calculations and design drawing for further details for this wall. • The first row of blocks should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the finish grade for frost protection as required by the Redi-Rock Design Resources Manual. Also, a minimum 4 -foot wide level "bench" should be provided in front of the wall. Refer to the design drawing for more information. • All Versa -Lok blocks, geogrid reinforcement, crushed stone, drainage pipe, and backfill should be removed from the area prior to the construction of the new retaining wall. Subgrade preparation should include the removal of any loose or disturbed soils and compaction with hand -guided equipment before placement of the first row of blocks. • To provide drainage, a 4 -inch diameter perforated pipe should be provided along the base of the wall. The pipe should be pitched to provide positive drainage and bedded in 3/4 -inch crushed stone and wrapped in a filter fabric. In turn, the pipe should be "daylighted" at both ends so as not to be reliant upon a single flow path. • The wall should be backfilled with a free draining material such as Massachusetts Highway M1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. The backfill should extend a minimum of 2 -feet beyond the back of the wall as shown on the design drawing. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 1557. The on-site excavated glacial till soils may potentially File No. 72500 Lot #3 — Chestnut Street,• N. Andover Massachusetts Page 2 Ma ly 6, 2002 be suitable for re -use as backfill outside of the 2 -foot zone provided care is taken to prevent construction disturbance. Refer to paragraph 2 of the Construction Issues section below. Construction Issues: 1. It should be stressed that the slope located above the retaining wall was designed by others. Design of erosion control measures and stabilization of slopes is beyond our scope of services. The Owner should be advised that the Town of North Andover Conservation Commission may have additional erosion control requirements such as the installation of silt fences, staked haybales, water bars, check dams, etc. that must also be followed. 2. Due to the relatively high silt/clay content of the dative glacial till, these soils are highly susceptible to construction disturbance, once excavated. Achieving proper compaction with these soils will be problematic, particularly following rain events. If the native glacial till soils are rendered unsuitable due to saturation, it may become necessary to backfill the wall with Massachusetts Highway M1.03.0 Type b Gravel Borrow. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. 3. For purposes of safe excavation design, the on-site soils may be considered to be Type A soils in accordance with the OSHA Excavation Standard (29 CFR Part 1926.650-.652) Subpart P. In the event that site constraints will not allow for an open cut in conformance with the maximum allowable slopes given in the OSHA excavation standard, then the Contractor should retain the services of a registered professional engineer to design temporary slopes. 4. It is considered essential that Nobis perform limited construction observation services during construction of the retaining walls. The intent of perfonning construction observation services is to verify that the wall is being constructed in accordance with the intent the design. Our construction observation services would include inspection of prepared subgrades before placement of the first row of blocks and placement of geogrid (particularly in the lower rows). Note that the site is located within an approximately ten minute drive from our Lawrence office. Compaction testing of backfill soils should be performed by a qualified materials testing firm to verify that the compaction requirements of the design are being met in the field. We trust that the information presented within this memorandum will be responsive to your needs. If you have any questions in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact us. MAREPORTS\ACTIVE\72500 North Andover, MA\Lot 3\DesignMemo2.doc low DA* P.O. BOX 2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 JOB. L -o+ ot-;I SHEET NO, OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE . .... . . . ..... ....... . ....... ..... ..... ...... .... ... .... . ..... . .. .... .. ..... u - k4.......... .. ....... .... ................. I .. ............. . ... ....... ... ............ .. ... .... .... . ................... .. ... ...... . .. ... .. .. ............... .... .. ........ r.: ............ ........ .. . ....... ..... .......... ........... . . ......... .. PRODUCT 204-1 (Single Sheds) 205.1 (paddtd) fl Mum* P.O. BOX 2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 (603) 224-4182 ,OB—. -,L -C4 43' SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE � n T4 ... . ..... . .... . I I L. .... ... ....... . .. . .......... K.: ............... ........... .... .. . ...... ...... ... ....... ...... ............. PRODUCT 204-1 ($4Sheers) 205.1 (Paddq .... ........ * . ............. �,� ......... .... .. .......... .. ...... .... ........ ... .. ........... .... ........ . ............. ............ . .. .. .... ... ...... .. ............. .............. ............. ..... ....... . ............. ........ ... ... ....... ........... . .... .... . ...... . ........... ...... .... .......... .....................................i..... .......... . ....... ............ ............. ......... ... ............. ............. . .......... .. . . . .............. ............. . . ....... ........... ...... ...... . .............. . ...................... . .... ............. .... .. ..... ....... .. .......... ............. .......... . ......... . .......... . .... ......... ... . ....... . ...... .... ......... ......... ... . ..... ............. .......... . ......... ..... .. ........ .. .. ..... ....... ........... ... . . .... . ........... ... . .. ........ . ......... ... ....... . ........ . .. . ...... ..... . .. ...... .... ..... .... ... .. ..... ........... . . ........... ............ ...... .. ....... ............. .............. ...... ...... ... .. . .......... . ............. .... ... .... . .......... .. ........ ............ ......... .. .. ........ ............ ........... ............ ........... .. ........... PRODUCT204-1(Single Sheml 2*1(Padded) f z— JOB—LA 41 6, Li �ff, �a SHEET NO. P.O. BOX2890 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302 CALCULATED BY DATE (603) 224-4182 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE .... . . . .. .. .... .... .... .......... .. ........ J .. .......... ........... . .... .... .... ...... ....... .... .. ........ ... ... . . . ............ ............. ..... ...... .... ...... ... ... .. ......... ... . . ..... ......... .. .... . . .. . .... ....... .... . .. . ...... ...... ........... ...... ....... ........ ... ... ..... ..... .... . . .... . .......... ....... . ... . ..... .. . .... .. ............. . .. .. ... 4�v .. .. ...... ......... ... . .... ...... . ......... .. ............. .. ........ ... ... .... . ..... .. . . ... . ... .. ........ . ......... ... -i :t7 C.) i 27 .......... ...... ... ... ... . .. ..... ............. ............. ............ . ......... .... . .. ....... . ...... .... .. . ... .... ... ..... ....... ........ .. ..... .... ....... .. .. .. ......... ............ . ... .... .. ... .......... .. ...... ... .. .. .... .. ... ...... ..... .. ........ Wcdadz y -33: 16 -44 . ...... . .. . ... . ... ......... .... ....... .. .. ...... . . . . . ........ . ..... .... . ....... . .. ........ .. . ... ...... g m . ... .. .... ........ .. .......... . . ........ .. . . ....... . vl .. .. ...... . . .... ... .. ........ . ....... ........... . ....... . ....... .. .... . ... ........ . ...... .... .......... .. ....... . .... ........ . .. ....... 4--.. ........ .... .. .... ............ . ......... .... ....... . . . .. .. ...... .. .... .. .. .. ..... ..... .. ... .... . ......... .. . ... ..... .... ...... .. ...34 .......... ...... .. . . ... .... .... ... ......... p ...... .... .. .... 2 .... .......... ............. J .. ... ...... ............ ...... .... .... . ........... .. . ....... ....... ....... . .... ... .... ... ...... . . ..... .... ......... .. . .... . .. ..... ....... . .......... ............ ........... .......... .. PRODUCT 204-1 (SiqleShMs) Ml (padded) SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Licensed to: Nobis Engineering Inc 18 Chenell Drive Concord NH 03301 License Number: 02050745 Project Identification: ProO,ectName :Lot #3' Chestnut°Street N.=Andover;;.. MA' ._ : { Section: Existing Slope Data Sheet: Owner: Ralph Joyce Client: Michie Corporation Prepared by: Nobis Engineering, Inc. Date: May 15 2002 Time: 04:34:12 PM Data file: m:\reports\active\72500 north andover, ma\lot 3\lot3 Type of structure: Geosynthetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design.Methodology: NCMA Method A Seismic.Analysis Details: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ratio 0.00 Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) 10.5 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 1.0 Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 9.5 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units 7 Hinge Height (in plane of wall) (ft) N/A Wall Inclination (degrees) 4.8 Page 1 SRWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 S1 opes : Front Slope (degrees) Back Slope (degrees) Infinite Back Slope Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge Dead Load Surcharge Soil Description: horizontal 30.0 none none Friction Cohesion Angle (psf) (degrees) Reinforced Soil Mass Highway M1.03.0 Type b N/A 35.0 Retained Soil Glacial Till N/A 40.0 Levelling Pad Soil gravel N/A 40.0 Foundation Soil Glacial Till 200.0 40.0 Segmental Unit Name: Redi-Rock Standard Blocks Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) none Unit Height (Hu)(in) 18.0 Unit Width (Wu)(in) 41.0 Unit Length (in) 46.5 Setback (in) 1.513 Weight (infilled) (lbs) 2983.0 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 150.2 Center of Gravity (in) 20.5 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Page 2 Unit Weight (pcf) 120.0 135.0 125.0 135.0 Properties Ultimate Strength Criteria Service State Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 45.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 4000.0 4000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 6 StrataGrid 200 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Ultimate Strength (lbs/ft) Polymer Type Reduction Factors: Creep Durability Installation Damage Overall Factor of Safety Allowable Strength: Ta (lbs/ft) Coefficient of Interaction Ci Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Cds Type 1 Type 2 2720.0 N/A Polyester N/A Type 1 Type 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Type 1 Type 2 1121.42 N/A Type 1 Type 2 0.7 N/A Type 1 Type 2 0.95 N/A Type 3 N/A N/A Type 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Type 3 N/A Type 3 N/A Type 3 N/A Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Page 3 Minimum (lbs/ft) 846.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 36.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 1220.0 N/A N/A Service State Criterion: 500.0 N/A N/A Minimum (lbs/ft) 846.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 36.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 1220.0 N/A N/A Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength• Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 N/A N/A Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 N/A N/A Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 N/A N/A Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 N/A N/A SRWa11 (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) Retained Soil (Ka) Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) Results of External Stability Analyses: FOS Sliding Calculated FOS Overturning 2.78 FOS Bearing Capacity 3.33 Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 30.78 Base Eccentricity6.3 (e) (ft) OK Base Eccentricity Ratio (e/L-2e) 0.73 0.15 Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) (ft) 0.6 Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Bearing Capacity (psf) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Results of Internal Stability Analyses: OK 2.0 SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS Uni t Type (ft) N/A Length Length Over - OK 2.14 2.36 OK (ft) stress >. 1.0 > 1.0 9.0 -:. 11;:99 1.0 10.64 6 5 1 7.5; •;,i s.k3. 1.0 5.99 1W 6.0 1.0 3.99 8_2n=K 1.0 2.99 3 1 3.0 1.0 2.39 2 1 1.5 6 3" 1.62 1.28 Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria FOS Pullout > 1.5 Page 4 0.366 0.347 47.21 0.266 0.23 53.29 Design Criteria 1.5 OK 2.0 OK 3.0 OK 6.3 OK N/A 3.78 N/A 2.25 0.6 OK Calculated Values: 2354.0 9337.6 6538.2 9671.9 32247.4 59438.8 1931.1 FOS Layer Sliding Spacing (ft) > 1.5 < 3.0 6.88 10.65 OK 4.31 8.04 OK 3.16 5.23 OK 2.59 3.78 OK 2.25 2.92 OK 2.14 2.36 OK SRWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Page 5 Detailed Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Unit Geosyn Type Elev (ft) Allowable Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding Unit #ver- Elev Type Strength Load Capacity Force Capacity (ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 7 6 1 1 9.0 7.5 1121.4 105.4 724.9 171.4 1825.2 5 1 6.0 1121.4 1121.4 187.3 807.0 360.9 2900.6 4 1 4.5 1121.4 281.0 374.6 889.2 620.1 3245.9 3 1 3.0 1121.4 468.3 971.3 949. 3591.1 2 1 1.5 1127,n 8?8.0 1053.5 134706 3936.3 4 -.-- -- _ _ 15.53 187 a_ 7 1815.9 4 21.6 Results of Facing Stability Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS Shear Resist Shear Unit #ver- Elev Type O Shear (deformation) FOS Connection (ft) turning (peak) (lbs/ft) Connection (deformation) +out -in (peak) (deformation) 7 6 (Peak) 23.4 1315.1 46.8 1269.8 > 2.0> 2 0 < 0.02 x Hu > 1.5 < 0.75 in 82'0 2000.0 2000.0 4 4,5 1 632.2 1498.5 9282 8 128.8 7 6 9.0 1.5 1 - 1 56.17 27.12 OK 11.58 OK 5 6.0 1 23.54 24.41 OK 6.51 OK' 4 4.5 1 14.68 15.53 OK 4.34 OK 3 3.0 1 10.63 11.39 OK 3.26 OK 2 1.5 1 8.33 8,99 OK 2.61 OK 1 0.0 none .84 5 5.8 7.43 _ OK 1.39* OK Note: * value does NOT MEET design criterion (1 occurrences) Detailed Results of Facing StabilItZ Analyses (Moment and Shear): SRW Unit Heel Geo Elev Type Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear (ft) Moment Moment (lbs-ft/ft) (lbs-ft/ft) Load Capacity Capacity (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) +out -in (peak) (deformation) 7 6 9.0 1 7.5 1 23.4 1315.1 46.8 1269.8 1269.8 5 6'0 1 187.3 4409.4 82'0 2000.0 2000.0 4 4,5 1 632.2 1498.5 9282 8 128.8 2000.0 2000.0 3 3.0 1 2926.8 15935.5 175.6 2000.0 2000.0 2 1.5 1 5057.5 24367.3 222.4 2 000.0 2000.0 1 0.0 none 8031.1 34578.3 46568.5 269.3 2000.0 2000.0 0.0 4000.0 4000.0 Detailed Results of Facing StabiliLZ Analyses (Connections): SRW Unit Heel Geo Elev ConnecEion Connection Connection # Type (ft) Load} Capacity Capacity r (lbs/ft) (peak) (deformation) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft) 7 6 9.0 1 7,5 105.4 1220.0 1220.0 ( eQ 5 1 6.0 1 187.3 1220.0 1220.0�� _ _ ---- p, i 4 4.5 1 281.0 374.6 1220.0 1220.0 3 3.0 1 1220.0 1220.0_....�j<, 2 1.5 1 468.3 1220.0 1220.0 i ' a V ! <,j 878.0 1220.0 1220.0 w -_•_.� 1.G 6l.) 6r^;•:;+,feo'�` a:J :.�'1`i 4. 'e-) fir: .J O.i" .� pini 8a: c SRWall (ver 3.22 March 2002) LN 02050745 Page 6 Project Identification: Project Name: Lot #3 - Chestnut Street - N. Andover, MA Section: Existing Slope Data Sheet: Owner: Ralph Joyce Client: Michie Corporation Prepared by:Nobis Engineering, Inc. Date: May 15 2002 Time: 04:34:12 PM Data file: m:\reports\active\72500 north andover, ma\lot 3\lot3 "'The Essence of Natuml ick" Estimating Pro 2* Lot #3 - Chestnut Street - N. Andover MA Existing Slope Retaining_jlU Conc. Unit Weight 150 BlockWidtlz 41 BackjU1Aizg1e 30 WallHeiglzt Backfill Soil 1 _ Ti•afficSurcharge No Avg. Soil Ulzit Weight 120 BlockType Standard Block Foundation Soil Sand with Gravel WallBatterAiigle 96 Avg. Soil Unit Weight Soil Friction Azzgle 35 Estimated Overturizirzg Factor 2.85 Meets overturning factor of 2.0 Estimated Sliding Factor 1.46 Request that wall design engineer recheck wall design 'k, WALL HEIGHT-%, BACKSLOPE ANGLE :D SOIL **DISCLAIMER:This software is intended to be used as a design aid for the internal stability of Redi-Rock retaining wall systems only. This software does not account for overall wall stabilty including: bearing capacity, overall slope stability, seismic conditions and construction quality. All designs should be reviewed by a registered professional engineer familiar with retaining wall design. 5116102 ��� ��� u>v� +r v >•>•> v.v vVV AVIV irVAiA niriw rGi\ Ui'f! 4(JLI F / Post-it°' Fax Note 7671 PROM OZ. ► PLEAs� es�lR�E cv��?/ PF,, l pt # �K�¢Nlv1, I''A�k' COVE..q-78-�4b8-9.r FaxATTORNEY ItUp" it joyCE 321 Collins landing F.JUN weaf% NH 03281 2002 Tel - 9786SS4M fax -�66 a*Eon2 L) OPPY ASAI �Pieess<oA►me�t � 7 l-Ja{,aSA fesle! Qisl your lArOflb a!{ew Tau" Pages including Dover_ RECEIVED JUN 0 3 2002 CommeaYs: ATTORNEY RALPH R 121 Golfim Landing, Were, Nei 03821 May 31, 2002 Town of North Andover Division of Public works ROBERT E. BMBARA 384 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: LOTS 1-6 C13ESTN0'T STREET Dear Mr. Bashara: I am in receipt of your letter of May 20, 2002 although it did not come to me through the mail. I became aware of it while talking with Julie Barino of the North Andover Conservation Commission and obtained a copy through her Thursday afternoon, May 30. Kindly accept this note in response thereto. 51 to s3 opes and small s: The walls located to the rear of the structures are within the jurisdiction of the Building Inspector but I appreciate your concern with these considering the amount of public input about this job site_ I explained in our most recent discussion that fully engineered plans for steel reinforced concrete walls together with a geotechnical analysis and slope stabilization pian were completed for Lots 1, 2 and 3- The geotechnical study concluded by recommending an alternative wall system provided by the Michie Corporation of Henniker, NH. The structural design on this wall zystem was recently completed and reviewed by myself and Harry weatherbee of GSI, Inc., any geotechnical consultant. There are several minor, non -substantive drafting errors, which are being corrected, and those Plans together with the geotechnical study and soil stabilization plan will be submitted to Mr. Nicetta by Monday or Tuesday of next week- d After his revtaw of the plans and presumably favorable action there on, we will undertake the installation of this wall system_ I also received a number of comments about the trees at the top of the slope and Z plan to remove thQM as well as a rock that is generating some concern. This work will be undertaken in accord with the geotechnical study filed with the Building Inspector next week. Additionally, per the request of the Building Inspector, I installed caution ribbons and no trespassing signs. . Roadway, erosion and clean-up issues: I wish to confirm that we rented equipment and completed a thorough sweeping of Chestnut Street and maintain it at Least twice weekly by sweeping especially around the driveway entrances. Check dams at the outfall at the intersection of Chestnut and Rea Streets as well as several check dams between Lot 8 and the intersection are scheduled for installation on Monday_ We installed the hay bales in front of the lots as requested and cleaned out the catch basins_ In addition to these efforts, I placed stone catchments at the end of all the driveway entrances, cleaned out the outfall of the catch basins on the opposite side of Chestnut Street, and rerouted the bulk of trucking traffic to go through the remaining portion of Real$ farm so as to diminish the impact on Chestnut Street_ Finally we replaced any rotted or displaced hay bales on the opposite side of the street. The remainder of the catch basin is scheduled for installation as soon as Mass Electric zelocates the guide wires around one telephone pole. We have requested Mass. Electric and Verizon to do this since last November and they still have refused to relocate the guide -wires. We will continue in our attempts to complete the drainage system which will catch a substantial amount that is coming off the hill. The ditch along Chestnut Street was cleaned out by driving through the drainage swale with the tire of a backhoe to ensure the drainage was directed to the pipe under the Rea and Chestnut intersection. There is a gas main underneath this swale and digging it out is not advisable_ Previously, 11003 4 VV/ VJ! VL U1VlY 16:41 t'A.1 yro OOOu.`M-�lJ 1V Vlil tl A1�LVYt,!( LYtt a good. deal of the street run off was going over this intersection just prior to the pipe since it was obstructed with leaves and twigs. There was no,appreciable amount of siltation in this swale. The most recant rains were laat Sunday Evening and the corrective measures installed contained the siltation. Y� R ph R_ Jo e RRJ/ntj j Cc: J_ williaM Hmurciak Tim Willett John Cyr wiUV4 w O H U W 0. COZ 0 Z _J LO IM 00 N m V- > O W ��_ Q Q5 v� � Z� �� o< m< L) 2: F 0- Z 1• o —�N Location — C' 7bU4 a No. Date '17' /0 " U NaRT� TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER Certificate of Occupancy $ 17 �9sACNACH USEBuilding/Frame Permit Fee $ S Foundation Permit Fee $ Other Permit Fee $ TOTAL $ Check # 5 7 :, 0 Building Inspector 4/ 01 10'18%02 A;02 FAX 003 224 230" =TN A'AV -- October IS, 20+)2 File No. ?2500 Law Offices of Ralph R. Joy.e 121 Collins Landing Weare, NII 03281 Fax/phone 603-529-8866 )lie. iuntrnary of Field Modifications Retaining Wail Construction Lots 1, 2 & 3 Chestnut .Street North Andover, Massachusetts Dear lvlr. J, -,Vice: NOBt5 NE R1001/004 Nobis Engineering, Inc. '18 Chenell Drive Concord, N11 030'1 1,21 (503) 224-4182 r Fay, (6031 x'24-250/ «rTasv.:iobisenginaering.coen This letter is to summarize a number of modifications that were made during the course of constructing the retaining wails on Lots 1, 2, &, 3 on Chestnart Street in North Andover, Massachusetts. The retaining wally were designers by our of ice. Nabil Frigirteering, Inc;. (Nobis) was consulted several times during the course of the project to discuss field modifications that were required due to differing site conditions and to expedite the construction. Piease note that field observation and testing of backfills was performed by others. The site grading plan called for thy& front face of the retaining walls to be offset 25 feet from the house. This would result in a 1.5H: i V backslope angle above the walls. During construction, the front face of the wall was moved fonvard to 18 feet off the back of the house in order to flatten the backslope angle. Since the lateral earth pressure exerted on the wall is highly sensitive to backslope angle, a reduction in backslope angle wculd land to redlrce the la(eral earth pressure on tie wall and result in a correspondisig increase itr the factors of safety against sliding and overturning. Due to an apparent error in the grading plan entitled "Notice of Intent Plan — Lot I", prepared by IviHF Design Consultants, dated March 30, 2001, it was necessary to raise the height of the retaining wall in one section of the v!all in tie northeast corner of Lot No, 1 by one block (15 in.). Ybbis re -designed this section of wall at your request, as shown in the attached computation sheets. Please note that these computation sheets supplement our previously submitted design memorandum and calculations dated May 15, 2062 and .all recommendations contained in the design memorandum apply to this revised wall section as well, For ease of consauction, it was decided to connect all the retaining walls along the slope behind Lots 1, 2 6. 3. According to information provided by your office, this field modification did not alter the height of the wail and involved extending the limits of the existing design: If this information is correct, then no re -design would be required for this field modification. WREFORTSWCTIVEW25WNonh AndoYer, MA1erter.doc EItiGMEERING G CON5TFUCTTON SOLUTIONS 10%1..4!02 .16:04 FAX 603 224 2507 NOBIS NH 0O2l004 Pile No. 72,500 Y! hots I & 3 Chestnut Street - N Andover Mass. � Page. ? October -i 8.2002 We trust that this letter will be, responsive to your needs at this tim-e. If you have any yueslions or comments regarding this letter, please feet free to contact the undersigned. `eery truly yours, NOBIS ENGINEERING, INC. Carl W. Thunberg, P,i. %A -A-4- Project Manager � Abhij it Nobis, P. J Nww'm President'c+'GdSTE� ,attachments: Revised wall section calcuiatims WAEPORMACTIVEM500 N,n(h At',du'w-i,)v1A'JtVer.duc IJ 10/18!/02 16:05 FU 603 224 2507 NOBIS INH P.G. BOX 2896 CONCORD, N8V HAMPSHIRE OX02 (693, 224-4182 Z 003/004 J013 L,, + , -✓ , , I C t, . , I . It �, f, . t svw'tib. 1.14 — OF 2-4 CALCULATED BY— -- C �v T CATE. '71/301 7-60?— CHECKED 3Y 2AW.� OAT,: w—tg- ooL ... ...... ... ...... .... .. ....... . ...... ... .. j .... .... .. .. . ....... .. ...... .. ... ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ... .. ....... ... I . ......... ... ... ..... 6�nzd . .. . ...... . ...... . ..... .... ...... . .. .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ........a.. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .... . .. . . .... .. . . . . ...... ..... ........ Q -1A . ........ . ..... ..... . ..... ............. .. .................. . 1 alp Lf ".t ... . ... ..... ...... .. ..... . ........... ..... ...... i ... ....... .... ... ....... ...... ...... . .... ....... e ......... .... —.4 ...i_.... .. ....... .... ....... ... !.' . UJ ...' I — . 1-1--d ........... . . ... .. ..... . ..... al A ........ .... ... ..... ... ... ...... . ... ..... . ....... .... .. .. ... ...... ..... ...... . ...... .. . .......... . ....... ... ............ r u S ...... . ........ ... . . . ..... ........ .. ..... .... ... .... ... ... ... --.i J rN1' h ....... ... 6!-, 0.44h ... .. .... .. LA .. ........ . . ......... - c .... ...... .. ....... ... . ......... . . ......t ........ .... .. ...... ..... .... .. ....... . ...... .. .... - . .. ..... .... ........ ... ......... .......... .. .... . ... . . ..... ... ..... s r ... .. ...... . ...... . . ... .... ..... ...... ............ . .... ...... .. ........... . . ...... . ... . -41 4,f _ 1 +4,1 9, ........ ....J! r .... ... .... ..... .. .. ...... .... ... ... . ...... LAO fys acv of w ............ . .............. . ......... 61 �o( ..... . ..... ........ . . ........... Im �r 10!18!02 16:07 FAX 603 224 2507 ins Po. BOX2890 CONCORD, NEIN HAMPSHIRE 03302 03) 2244182 NOBIS NH 1x004/004 `�- SHEET NO. —2-4 CALCUtA-MO 19Y—�/OIL, -,-T DATE -7Qf 2,ad CHECKED BY I "`- DATE �Q ' �oucrr�•irM�erar,m•, pavw� GEOTECHNICAL SER VICES, INC. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: Law Office of Ralph Joyce Mr. Ralph Joyce 121 Collins Landing Weare, NH 03281 DATE: July 23, 2002 PROJECT: Chestnut Street, North Andover, MA GSI PROJECT NO.: 202175 AttarhM are the munwino far vanr imp! COPIES DATE LAB NUMBER DESCRIPTION Concrete Reports - Cylinders Concrete Inspection Report Reinforcing Steel Inspection Report Field Density Report 1 7/11/02 Field Report Soils Other CC: 4� 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 1.2 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7799 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 108 Whipple Street, Lewiston, Me. Phone: 207 / 282 / 7225 Fax: 207 / 282 / 9271 ' GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction iviunnun nig GSI FIELD REPORT DESCRIPTION OF TODAY'S WORK: The undersigned GSI representative arrived on to examine mentG Uponons arr arriexpected val, met metw'th M� undT maO'Laughltion nrand d scdulssed the ons for the Redi-rock concrete block wall proposed for the develo pom proposed wall construction. Footing areas for the wall behind lot #2 were excavatedapproxim little to some f -c Gravel, tately 8 inches below the ttace of footing (first block coarse) elevation. These areas consisted of a light, gray -brown f -c- SAND, to little Silt, the along the front (office side) side firm well as the and stable at thundee footheasterly sides of the additions were excavated to foundation sub -grade elevation, and appeared GSI recommended the following: Foundation areas should be proof compacted using a minimum of 8 passes of a heavy, reversible plate vibratory compactor or 4 passes of a heavy vibratory drum roller prior to placement of any % stone or other embedment material to support the wall blocks. Proof compaction of the subgrades should be witnessed by a representative from GSI. The backfill material placed behind the block wall should conform to the project specifications and be placed in controlled, compacted lifts. Lift thickness shouldetbe nohe next greater ithan 8 inches, with each lift being compacted and tested for in-place density prior to place 2 3. GSI should be notified prior to start of the block wall to verify sub -grade preparations. GSI obtained a sample of brown, f -c SAND, little f -c Gravel, trace silt proposed for use as free -draining fill. APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS: COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS: YES ❑ NO ❑ SEE RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: REPORT PREPARED BY: Bryan Levesque �L---- Date: do Reviewed by: Harry K. Wetherbee, P. E. 19 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 ! 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624l 37193 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: MR RALPH JOYCE LAW OFFICE OF RALPH JOYCE 121 COLLINS LANDING WEARE NH 03281 DATE: July 31, 2002 PROJECT: Chestnut Street, North Andover, MA GSI PROJECT NO.: 202175 A ** h A tern tha fnilnvvina fnr vnnr new COPIES DATE LAB NUMBER DESCRIPTION Concrete Reports - Cylinders Concrete Inspection Report Reinforcing Steel Inspection Report Field Density Report Field Report 1 07/23/02 Field Soil Sampling Report 1 07/23/02 Foundation Sub -grade Evaluation Report CC: Reviewed by: - 9911-� � 1.8 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603/624/3733 0 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7799 Fax: 978/374/7799 0 108 Whipple Street, Lewiston, Me. Phone: 207 / 282 / 7225 Fax: 207/282/9271 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. *Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD SOIL SAMPLING REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Rain INSPECTION DATE: 7/23/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce SITE CONTRACTOR: Bolton White GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce I FIELD TECHNICIAN: Alfred Osborne The GSI Field Representative arrived on site at the above referenced project to obtain soil sample (s) in accordance with ASTM D75. The sampled material(s) will be used on-site for the following purpose: Structural Fill Granular Fill [ ' Stone Dust Masonry Sand 4 Bank -Run Gravel ❑ Crushed Stone ❑ Free -Draining Fill ❑ Topsoil ❑ Drainage Sand 4 Processed Gravel ❑ Floor Slab Base Course ❑ Common Borrow ❑ and Fill ❑ Dense -Graded Gravel The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Chris Bolton of Bolton White provided all information and indicated the source of the soil sample(s). The sample(s) were transported to our laboratory facility for processing and the reports of the required tests will be issued upon completion. *Samples were taken from Mt. Williams Sand & Gravel, Weare NH APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS: 02200 REPORT PREPARED BY: Alf Osborne Reviewed by: 4� Date:�-� Donald . Walden, Director of Testing 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 _ _ — . .. .. — n101%e na n7Q /1'7A /'77dd Fav- Q IR /37d /7799 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦Geotechnical Engineering * Environmental Studies * Material Testing + Construction Monitoring FOUNDATION SUB -GRADE EVAL UA TION REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Partly sunny 80's INSPECTION DATE: 7/23/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Loughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce SITE CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Loughlin GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Tim O'Loughlin FIELD TECHNICIAN: Richard Bushnell, P.E. FOUNDATION PLAN: RR — Lott RR- Lot2, RR Lot 3, by Nobis GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: GS1 letter 04/16/02 The GSI Field Representative arrived on site at the above referenced project to evaluate the competency of foundation subgrades prepared in advance of concrete placement. Foundation subgrades prepared for this evaluation are as follows: RR -Lot 1 initial 30', RR Lot 2 initial 20' The bearing strata were visually observed to consist of: fine -medium SAND, Some Silt, Little to Some Gravel, ( glacial till) An allowable bearing capacity of 3 tsf was adopted for design, as indicated on the foundation plan. The sub -grade was proof -rolled in the following manner: large vibratory plate compactor The moisture conditions at the time of inspection were as follows: dr The cohesive strata was tested with a pocket penetrometer and yielded the following average results: N/A tsf. Dynamic cone penetrometer testing, from 6 to 12 inches, exhibited the following resistance: N/A blows per inch. Block placement is scheduled for: 07/23/02 & 07/24/02 The contractor intends to protect the sub -grade in the following manner: 4", W crushed stone Due to the unstable bearing conditions the GSI engineering staff was consulted and recommended the following steps: � The bearing strata were found to be competent upon which to place Redi-blocks. The sub -grade is a fill and in order to verify competency several field density tests were performed and a soil sample was collected for a proctor test. Reviewed by: Date: 7 AA, C Z Harry K. Wetherbee, P. E. 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 F1 11 Ravers Rand. Haverhill. Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978/374/7799 • GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: MR RALPH JOYCE LAW OFFICE OF RALPH JOYCE 121 COLLINS LANDING WEARE NH 03281 DATE: August 2, 2002 PROJECT: Chestnut Street, North Andover, MA GSI PROJECT NO.: 202175 Attached are the followinff for vour use: COPIES I DATE LAB NUMBER DESCRIPTION Concrete Reports - Cylinders Concrete Inspection Report Reinforcing Steel Inspection Report 3 07/24/02 07/26/02 07/30/02 Field Density Report Field Report Field Soil Sampling Report Foundation Sub -grade Evaluation Report CC: Reviewed by: q 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7799 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 0 108 Whipple Street, Lewiston, Me. Phone: 207 / 282 / 7225 Fax: 207 / 282 / 9271 :'GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Sunny, cool INSPECTION DATE: 7/24/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Brian Burbank The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a J Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001 R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 22965 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: J indicated below or 0 shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. _Tim O'Laughlin provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or ❑ D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: ❑ were 4 were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or 4 will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Tim O'Laughlin was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 679 DENSITY STANDARD 2839 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS rest Location Elev. Sample Max. Dry Opt. Field Field RC Meets No, # Density M.C. Dry M.C. % Project (pcQ M Density M Specs c YIN 1 1 enter of retuning Top of L-483-02 119.5 10.7 110.6 7.7 92.5 ' N - }" wall Lot #2 2nd r" . course `1 103.9 7.0 86.9 2 10' S of test #1f 1'l toP L-483-02 119.5 10.7 of 2" course 3 r Retest of test #1 TopofL-483-02 119.5 10.7 112.6 7.4 94.2 ��N + 2 course REMARKS: G Y• Reviewed b :- Date: e dez — Donald C. Walden, Direc or of Testing 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 n 12 Rn¢erc Road. Haverhill. Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 GEOTECFINICAL SERVICES, INC. *Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Sunny, warm INSPECTION DATE: 7/26/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tom O'Laughlin, Inc GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Brian Burbank The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 0 Troxler Model 3430 0 Humboldt Model 5001 R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 22965 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: J indicated below or 0 shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Tim O'Laughlin provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or 0 D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: � were 0 were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: 0 was re -compacted and retested or 0 will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Tim O'Laughlin was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 683 DENSITY STANDARD 2820 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS fest Location Elev. Sample Max. Dry Opt. Field Field RC Meets No. All behind retaining wall # Density (pcf) M.C. (%) Dry Density M.C. (%) % Project Specs c Y/N 1 10' N of N corner of Top L-504-02 124.5 8.9 119.3 3.0 95.8 Y Building lot #2 layer 2nd course 2 15' S of S corner of Top L-504-02 124.5 8.9 118.9 2.6 95.5 Y Building lot #2 layer 2nd course REMARKS: Reviewed by: '� ��� Date: Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603/624/3733 0 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978/374/7799 11 * .. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. J* ♦Geotechnical Engineering+Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Sunny, warm INSPECTION DATE: 7/30/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Brian Burbank The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 22965 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: 4 indicated below or ❑ shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Tim O'Laughlin provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or ❑ D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: 4 were ❑ were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or ❑ will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Tim O'Laughlin was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 684 DENSITY STANDARD 2860 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS rest No. Location Elev. Sample # Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. M.C. (%) Field Dry Density cf Field M.C. (%) RC % Meets Project Specs YIN 1 Lot#2 center of house behind retaining wall & 1'E Top of 3'd course L-504-02 124.5 8.9 123.9 1.7 99.5 Y 2 Lot#2 center of house behind retaining wall & 3' E Top of 3`d course L-493-02 132.0 8.0 129.9 5.9 98.4 Y REMARKS: Reviewed by: G'a Date: Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing J 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 0 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 A --� INC. CESS I LAICAL SERVI ` TECH sMAL of TgA1�T GED N LEvvER 'ja -ya ISR RALpkI E 4F gALpx 10 `. Lp,W GF ICS LANDl Tp . 121 LOLL �1 03281 WEA' N August 5' 2042 orth Andover, MA DATE; Chestnut Street�N i pgp1ECT 202115 PRp�CT our use; DE5C�pTIp� GSI for d are the follow`in Attaebe LO DATEU ep orts , Cylinders COYIES N Concrete R Report Concrete Inspection Report Stee l Inspection Reinforcing Field Density Report Field Report Report Sampling Soil Rep rt o ''� 08102102 Field lu I Eva Foundation Sub"gr ation ade CC: Reviewed by 603 1 624 13133 4 1222 Fax' 1341 1'199 5 Yh°ne 6031 3'214 I "1 1g9 F ax'2fl1 g 282192 n K' 0384 e' 918 1 1 1225 Fax 1 tow` a glge phop : 2q1 1282 ue Gof f s itt, M ' Avera lg Cote ers Road,'H et; Lewiston' M D 0 Role Whipple street, -_- ------------- -__ - - - - �:EOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦ Geotechnical Engineering♦ Environmental Studies♦ Material Testing ♦ Construction Monitoring GSI FIELD REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street (Retaining Wall) PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Sunny 90's INSPECTION DATE: 8/2/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce SITE CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Bryan Levesque EQUIPMENT OPERATING: DESCRIPTION OF TODAY'S WORK: The undersigned GSI representative arrived on to examine site conditions and progress for the Redi-Rock concrete block wall proposed for the development. Upon arrival, there were no construction activities at the wall and little activity noted around the site in general. A Mr. Jim Kirk, a worker for the contractor was on site waiting for the delivery of additional pallets of the Redi- Rock block segments. At the time of this report, 5 courses of the block had been installed for the retaining wall behind lot #2. The wall appeared to be constructed with the geog rid reinforcement placed in accordance with the project plans. Backfill behind the wall consisted of a brown, f -c SAND, little f -c Gravel, trace to little Silt, placed in lifts of 12 inches and compacted. Mr. Kirk did not know when construction on the wall would resume. APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS: COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS: 4 YES 0 NO ❑ SEE RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: REPORT PREPARED BY: Reviewed by: Date: 41111✓ Harry K. Wetherbee, P. E. 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603/624/3733 n 17 Rnat+rc Rnat# 14avt-rhi11. Mn. Al R25 Phone: 97R / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978/374/7799 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: MR RALPH JOYCE LAW OFFICE OF RALPH JOYCE 121 COLLINS LANDING WEARE NH 03281 DATE: August 7, 2002 PROJECT: Chestnut Street, North Andover, MA GSI PROJECT NO.: 202175 A +....1....1 ..«o +hfn11n11/1nR fnr vnnr ncP• COPIES DATE LAB NUMBER DESCRIPTION Concrete Reports - Cylinders Concrete Inspection Report Reinforcing Steel Inspection Report 2 07/24/02 07/25/02 Field Density Report Field Report 1 07/25/02 Field Soil Sampling Report Foundation Sub -grade Evaluation Report CC: Reviewed by: 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7799 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 0 108 Whipple Street, Lewiston, Me. Phone: 207 / 282 / 7225 Fax: 207 / 282 / 9271 .,;OTECANICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦ Geotechnical Engineering ♦ Environmental Studies ♦ Material Testing ♦ Construction Monitoring FIELD SOIL SAMPLING REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Sunny 770 INSPECTION DATE: 7/25/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce SITE CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: King Sanborn The GSI Field Representative arrived on site at the above referenced project to obtain soil sample (s) in accordance with ASTM D75. The sampled material(s) will be used on-site for the following purpose: ❑ Structural Fill J Bank -Run Gravel ❑ Drainage Sand ❑ Common Borrow ❑ Granular Fill ❑ Crushed Stone ❑ Processed Gravel ❑ Sand Fill ❑ Stone Dust ❑ Free -Draining Fill ❑ Floor Slab Base Course ❑ Dense -Graded Gravel ❑ Masonry Sand ❑ Topsoil ❑ ❑ The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Tim O'Laughlin of O'Laughlin Excavating provided all information and indicated the source of the soil sample(s). The sample(s) were transported to our laboratory facility for processing and the reports of the required tests will be issued upon completion. APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS: 02200 REPORT PREPARED BY: King Sanborn Reviewed by: Date: ���f%Z-- Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 0 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978/374/7799 cOTECFINICAL SERVICES, INC. *Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies#Material Testing* Construction Monitoring PROJECT: Chestnut Street (Rei LOCATION: North Andover, MA INSPECTION DATE: 7/24/02 CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph J GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT NO.: 202175 WEATHER: Overcast 70° CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim FIELD TECHNICIAN: King Sanborn hlin, Inc. The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a q Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 24925 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: ❑ indicated below or 4 shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Tim O'Lauohlin of O'Lau Min Excavtin provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: q D 1557 or ❑ D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: q were ❑ were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or ❑ will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Tim O'Laughlin was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 626 DENSITY STANDARD 2486 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS fest Location No. Elev. Sample Max. Dry Opt. Field Field RC Meets # Density M.C. Dry M.C. % Project (Pcf) (%) Density (%) Specs 1 See field sketch Sub- L-493-02 132 .0 c 8.0 129.9 . 10 4 98.4 YIN Y rade 2 See field sketch Top of L-483-02 119.5 10.7 115.3 8.4 96.5 Y 1St course REMARKS: Reviewed by: Date:�— Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978/374/7799 -- AM SENATE.COST.HDJOS. 1 781 933 3979 P.10 Loi 4�I Geotechnical Services, Inc. IS Cote Ave. Goffstown, N.H. 03045 g lop s, m .i,nplo.�,e� blooks L.o� #a C'� #*+w+ %+- FIELD SKETCH GSI PROJECT: Cfb4-two &�- GSI PROJECT N.' A09,175 FIELD TECHNICIAN: K.kD %'V'6rr. DATE: 7 -a'4 -4a A .iOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. *Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Sunny 770 INSPECTION DATE: 7/25/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: King Sanborn The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 24925 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: ❑ indicated below or 4 shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. of Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or ❑ D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: q were ❑ were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or 0 will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Tim O'Laughlin was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 614 DENSITY STANDARD 2499 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS rest No. Location Elev. Sample # Max. Dry Density (pcq Opt. M.C. (%) Field Dry Density c Field M.C. (%) RC % Meets Project Specs Y/N 1 See field sketch Top of 2nd course L-504-02 125.0 8.8 122.5 3.5 98.0 Y 2 See field sketch Top of 1St course L-483-02 119.5 10.7 115.5 5.6 96.7 Y REMARKS: Reviewed by: Date: �5�z Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 0 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 r ..7 AM SENATE.COST.HOJOS. Nod }.o ge4! e, �-es�- I OCa�� o�►S SIote, Geotechnical Services, Inc. 18 Cote Ave. GWstown, N.H. 03045 ot = .71 --p 1�0 locx!) �4 it -2. 0%195kowc SN. 1 781 933 3979 FIELD SKETCH P.05 GSI PROJECT:S+, fe4e :s GSI PROJECT #..:bX17S FIELD TECHNICIAN: VNI SQA •M. DATE: 7 - �•j "� Qo,4 t A 04 SL -- i --=j GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL m DATE: PROJECT: GSI PROJECT NO.: MR RALPH JOYCE LAW OFFICE OF RALPH JOYCE 121 COLLINS LANDING WEARE NH 03281 August 15, 2002 Chestnut Street, North Andover, MA 202175 CC: Reviewed by: G � 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 60g � 374 / 7799 Fax:. 978/374/7799 73/624/3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone. 9 0 108 Whipple Street, Lewiston, Me. Phone: 207 / 282 / 7225 Fax: 207/282/9271 j'GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Cloudy, cool INSPECTION DATE: 8/8/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ral h Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Brian Burbank The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 29539 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: 4 indicated below or ❑ shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project .representative, Mr. Tim O'Laughlin of Tim O'Laughlin Inc. provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or ❑ D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: ❑ were 4 were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or 4 will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Tim O'Laughlin was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 652 DENSITY STANDARD 2644 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS rest No. Location 1, Elev. Sample # Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. M.C. (%) Field Dry Density c Field M.C. (%) RC % Meets Project Specs YIN 1 2' behind wall center in, Lot Top of 4 course L-504-02 124.5 8.9 116.5 2.3 92.9 J N r 2 4' behindVall i' center in Lot #2 Top of Wn course L-493-02 132.0 8.0 118.9 4.3 90.1 N _ REMARKS: Reviewed by: Date:�6%� Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing J 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 .......... . ... . . _--.___ X. - nAIAa nom___. Inn 1101 1'1119 L`..... '1n'7 /'14'1 / 0111 /GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. *Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Sunny 85° INSPECTION DATE: 8/9/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: King Sanborn The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001 R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 24925 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: ❑ indicated below or 4 shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Tim O'Laughlin of Tim O'Laughlin Inc. provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or ❑ D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: J were ❑ were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or ❑ will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Tim O'Laughlin was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 619 DENSITY STANDARD 2514 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS rest No. Location Elev. Sample # Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. M.C. (%) Field Dry Density c Field M.C. (%) RC % Meets Project Specs YIN 1 * See attached sketch Top �of 4 course L-493-02 132.0 8.0 128.3 4.8 97.2 Y 2 * See attached sketch Top of 4 course L-504-02 125.0 8.8 119.9 3.9 95.9 Y REMARKS: * Retest of tests 1 & 2 performed on 08/08/02 Reviewed by: /� Date: Donald C. C. Walden, Director of Testing q 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 ❑ 1.2 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978/374/7799 n tno 04--- 4 1 .,...:..a..., %4- nA'VAn Dl........ '1n7 /'101 I'YY1e C..... '1n^/ /'1Q1 / n'1'/1 40 do �o '\)Ca,Ie. Slopcc� aceA _ l' (3 � *�(p- FIELD SKETCH Geotechnical Services, Inc. rG,, 18 Cote Ave. PS� fe�c.;�,� l�ol� GSI PROJECT M ao;Ll?5 Goffstown, N.H. 03045 FIELD TECHNICIAN: K%. S' Abor.A DATE:$ -1-41- , GEOTECHNICAL SER VICES, INC. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: MR RALPH JOYCE LAW OFFICE OF RALPH JOYCE 121 COLLINS LANDING WEARE NH 03281 14 DATE: August 29, 2002 PROJECT: Chestnut Street, North Andover, MA GSI PROJECT NO.: 202175 Attached are the following for vour use: COPIES DATE LAB NUMBER DESCRIPTION Concrete Reports - Cylinders Concrete Inspection Report Reinforcing Steel Inspection Report 2 08/26/02 08/27/02 Field Density Report Field Report Field Soil Sampling Report Foundation Sub -grade Evaluation Report CC: Reviewed by: SEP 1 2 2002 BUILDING DEPT. q 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603/624/3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7799 Fax: 978/374/7799 0 108 Whipple Street, Lewiston, Me. Phone: 207 / 282 / 7225 Fax: 207/282/9271 ' GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. *Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wal( PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Sunny 870 INSPECTION DATE: 8/26/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ral h Jo ce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin Inc. GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce I FIELD TECHNICIAN: King Sanborn page 1 of 2 The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001 R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 31694 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: ❑ indicated below or 4 shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce of Tim O'Laughlin provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or ❑ D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: 4 were ❑ were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or ❑ will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. _Ralph Joyce was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 684 DENSITY STANDARD 3047 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS fest No. Location Elev. Sample # Max. Dry Density (pcQ Opt. M.C. M Field Dry Density c Field M.C. (%) RC % Meets Project Specs YIN See field sketch Tap of 3` course L-504-02 125.0 8.8 124.2 3.7 99.3 Y 1 2 See field sketch Top of 3 course L-504-02 125.0 8.8 124.7 3.3 99.8 Y 3 See field sketch Top of 4 course L-504-02 125.0 8.8 123.9 4.1 99.1 Y 4 See field sketch Top of 4 course L-504-02 125.0 8.8 124.9 4.1 99.9 Y REMARKS: Reviewed by: �Date: :� .�-�j' � i✓ Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 0 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 k) i' -FO '�) e,G.I <, 0:- 4 c�� 1©ct) %' o.) ($lack L O i- .W J, Geotechnical Services, Inc. 18 Cote Ave. Goffstown, N.H. 03045 C�eS�V�ui- S+ m FIELD SKETCH GSI PROJECT: CheXu+ S�` GSI PROJECT M aaa175 FIELD TECHNICIAN: DATE: ,(? -/--C-0 2 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦ Geotechnical Engineering 1 Environmental Studies ♦ Material Testing ♦ Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Sunny, warm INSPECTION DATE: 8/26/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin Inc. GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Brian Burbank page 2 of 2 The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 0 Humboldt Model 5001R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 26475 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: 4 indicated below or 0 shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. _Ralph Joyice of Tim O'Laughlin provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 01557 or 0 D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 /o At the time of departure from the site, all test results: 4 were 0 were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: 0 was re -compacted and retested or 0 will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 684 DENSITY STANDARD 2732 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS test Location Elev. Sample Max. Dry Opt. Field Field RC Meets FNo. behind retaining # Density M.C. Dry M.C. % Project wall (pcf) (%) Density (%) Specs c YIN 1 Between lots! &2 4 L-504-02 125.0 8.9 125.7 2.3 100+ Y center 2' behind course wall 2 Between lots 1&2 4 L-493-02 132.0 8.0 126.9 5.7 96.2 Y 4' behind wall course 3 Between lots 2&3 4 L-504-02 125.0 8.9 122.3 2.9 98.3 Y 2' behind wall course 4 Between lots 2&3 4 1h L-493-02 132.0 8.0 126.8 5.0 96.1 Y 4' behind wall course 5 Between lots 3&4 4 L-504-02 125.0 8.9 119.2 4.6 95.8 Y 2' behind wall course 6 Between lots 3&4 4 L-493-02 132.0 8.0 128.2 4.0 97.1 Y 4' behind wall course REMARKS: Reviewed by: --�� Date: Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing J 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 n 12 Rovers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 ^, GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦ Geotechnical Engineering * Environmental Studies * Material Testing * Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street Retainin Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Sunny, warm INSPECTION DATE: 8/27/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Jo ce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Brian Burbank The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001 R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 26475 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: 4 indicated below or ❑ shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce of 'Tim O'Laughlin provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or ❑ D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: ❑ were 4 were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: 4 was re -compacted and retested or ❑ will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 675 DENSITY STANDARD 2739 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS rest Location Elev. Sample Max. Dry Opt. Field Field RC Meets No. # Density M.C. Dry M.C. % Project (pcf) (%) Density (%) Specs c YIN 1 4' behind retaining 4th L-493-02 132.0 8.0 120.8 3.6 91.5 N wall centered course between lots 3 & 4 2 2' behind retaining 4 L-504-02 124.5 8.9 122.6 1.9 98.4 Y wall centered course between lots 3 & 4 3 Retest of test #1 4 L-493-02 132.0 8.0 128.5 6.0 97.3 Y course 4 4' behind retaining 5 inL-493-02 132.0 8.0 129.1 5.5 97.8 Y wall centered course between lots 1 & 2 5 2' behind retaining 5 L-504-02 124.5 8.9 118.3 2.5 95.0 Y wall centered course between lots 1 & 2 REMARKS: Reviewed by: J G �— Date: Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 n 11 Rovers Road. Haverhill. Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 CQ, MU, T.NT P'FSON' CHFC'i' is the cut, cavity, or deprcabion a tre>&:ir or an ;o<rar1ation? is the cut, cavity, or depression mcrtr. than 4 ft (1.2 in) in depth? is there ~voter in the cut, cavity, or depression? V�J,S Are there adequate means of access and Wass? /V,O Are there smv srtrfacr encarntbranees? WO Is there exposure to vehicuiar trait? Yj� Ase adjaceni n)-itclures Ylabiliree YZ)oas rrobile equipment have a warning system? Is a competent person in charge of the operation'! / Is ng;' ipnnernt a► eraMig in or around the cut. :,aysty, or depression'? Arc proWutes required to monitor, test, and :cn-ro' harardaus armospheres? Docs a competent person deteri-Wne soil 0,,pe? tV ` Have soils ty-fcs within the excavation-haaged from these xc�ich had been previously encountered? Yfi Was a sail tevinrg demce used W determine soil type? yis the s,"od placed 2 ft (0.6 m) or ,more from :lie edge of the cut, cavity, or depression? IVIIs the depth 20 ft t'6.' m) of roofs for the eacavity, or depression? Has a rzgtstered professional engureer apprcved the prooedure if the depth is more than 20 ft (6.1 :n)? Does the procedure require hanching or multiple benchfne. Shoring? Shielding9 � /"I if provided, do shields extend at ?ewl M hi X9.5 m; rtbove the surrounding area if it is sloped toward the J excavation? A'/ ` If shields are used, is the dVih of cut more than 2,k (0.6 rr) below the bvitom of the shield° Are any requuea surface crossings oft ie rut, cavity, or dmesskin the proper -width and ftnted mitt? hwid ra, s7 Are means of egress from rhe at, cavity. or depression no afore. thane ?S Jt (?.6rrr),fram the work' Is emergency rescue equipment required? Ls there documentationn of the minimum rlaily excavation irnspectfon? ?--Zy-o-2 COVIl''�T NT PVRSQ� .'HF KUSST 419 the cut, cavity, or depmssion a trench or an i-xcm,ation? /✓Q is the cut, cavity, or depression mem than 4 rt (1.2 ut) in depth? n,o Is there water in the cut, cavity, or depression? V4-5 Are them, adequate mcans of access and egress? ,,�/b Arc VN -re sny surface encwntbrrn►ces7 /t/O Is there exposure to vehicuiar tr a . c? YX5 Am adfaceni Nructures slabiiireP yt`S Joss mobile equipment have a warning system? 'w a competent person in charge of tate operation? h/C% 1b eq;;•, Dnlent operating in or around the cut cavity, or depression" 11/0 Are procedures textuired to monitor, test, and cowrot ha ardaus atmospheres? )� Does a competent person determ*.e soil Ope? Grp Have soils types within the excavation ..,hanged from those vctich had been previously encountered? 7Z;�7 Was a soil teeing dcn4ce used to determine soil type? 1fe�5iS the spoil plaeed 2 ft (0.0 m) or more from .rhe edge of the out, cavity, rn depression? 4/ jr 1�. rite depth 20 ft (6.' m) or mors for the cat, cavity, o: depression? A/*I, Has a rmgmerad professional eapmer apprcved the procedure if the depth is more than 20 ft (6.1 -n)? Does tt:e procedure require hahching or multiple Unchine..Sborin;? Shielding? If provided, do shields extend at ?east Min (0.5 m,1 abova the surrounding arca if it is sloped toward the �u excavation? „If shields are used, is the depth of Lte cut more. than 2;t (0.6 below the betCom of the shield..' I Are airy regai ed surface crossings ofene cut, cavity, or deprr ss:on the proper wiaith and fitted with iuuid raib? Aro moans zf egress from the ::A cavity, or depression no more ihan 2S ft (".6m) from the work"•' IVO Is errargencv rescue equipment required? x� 1s there documentation of the minimum daily excavation inspection? M CONZIETfi-NT PERSON'S CWC ,ST is the cut, cavity, or depressirm a trench or an imcm--tion f es the cut, cavity, or dc -pression mem than 4 ft (1.2 in) is depth'? Y ?s there water in the crit, cavity, or dcpressior!? YAm there adequate means of access and egress? 1Y Are there any surface en tartbr owes? Nis there ey:posure to vehiottiar traps? .bv adjwmi.atruotums Ytabili«ed? Does rrrobile equipme»t have a Warning system? / is a competens perso►r in charge of the operation? Is egir%proem operating in of around the wit rat;h.-, or dopressiao,. A+- proW=s required to monitor, Test, and con-ro' hcrrdous almospheres? Cues a competent person determine soil tme? ,i V Have soils typos within the excavation :;hanged from these xvtkh had been previously encountered? VWas a soil tes'ingd-imice used to determine soft type? Is the sell plat -ed 2 ft (0.6 in) or more from :he ed8o of the out, cavity, cr depression? Is the depth 20 ft i6." tn) o► mor* for the ca4 ca-tity, or depression? A, 14w a regWered professional engineer appreved the prooeddu rt if the depth is more than 24 ft (6.1 n j? /V Doe.; tate procedure require banching or multiple b€►tchingr?' Shoring? Shielding), A/`if Mvvided, do shields extend at least IN In (9.5 n) above ft surrounding area if it is sloped toward the excmavation? 17/4 if shields are used, is the doth of Oat cut more than 2,R (0.6 ►r) below the bvuom ofthe shtee. ,r Are wy mquir:d suffice rmzsings of tho rut, cavity, or devrt.ss:o:t the proper width and fitted with lurid raw? YAre means of egress from Jhe :;A cavity, or derresswn no more than 2S ft (7.6mj from the work? )V) Is emergency reacue Mulpment required? l� Is there documentation of the minimum daily exeawlan inspection? ? -� 3 - © 2- C(?VIPFTE-,PF RSQN' g CHECKLIST is is the cut, cavitrl, or depression a tC5_kPr an excavation? is the cut, cavity, or dc -pression marc than 4 ft (2.2 in) in depth? Is there water in the cut, cavity, or depression? \Ie5 Are there adequate means of access and egress? A10 Are there hny vwface enciotbrwiees? //O is there exposure to wmicuiar traec? Y41Y adjacertr,r!ruclures sfabdired? Doss trobile equjyment have a warning system? rL� Is a competent person in charge of the operation? (� Is egt; pmeru operating in or around the cat, cavity, or depression" .ora procedures required to monitor, test, and con}roll horardaus atmosphere.? Does a competent person determ.tne soil type? JVD Have soils types within the nwavation :hanged from these tiff -rich had been previously encountered? v�J Was a soil teving detistce used to deterinine soil type? YAj is the spoil placed' -1 rt (0.6 in) or more from :he .edge of the out, cavity, or depression? Y! / 2s rhe depth 20 ft (6.' m) or rnoft for the cist, cavity, o: depression? Y� - 14w a rrgtstered professional enjg mer apprcved the proradure if tete depth is more than 20 ft (6.2 :n )? l�Q Does the procedure require benching or multiple benching? Shoring? Shielding9 . if provided, do shields extend at least 18 in (0.5 nt i about the surrounding area if it is sloped toward the excavation? AleIf shields are used, is the d-.pth of Cie cut more than 2 ft (0.6 rr) below the bvuom of the shield" oAre wy required surface crossings of ene cut, cavity, or dem-ssion the proper upidth and filled with hwid rails? VO:ire means of egress from rate : ut, cavity, or depression no ntore. S ft than �(7.6m)from the work"' X/ " Is emergency re.7rue equipment required? `/�Is there documentation of Me minimum daih1 excavaiivn inspection? COMPETENT PERSON'N - CHRCXJIST lathe cut, cavity, or depressi Oew'4 t!'xcQvation? ILk es the cut, cavity, or depression more than 4 it (2.2 nt) in depth? AV t3 tbM water in the cut, cavity, or dcpressiori? yAre there adequate means of access and egress? Are there any sup foes emcwnbranees'? Is there exposuro to vehicuiar trait? A -A0 MID L/i* /Wr r Xtf provided, do shields extend at least Is in (0.5m) above the surrounding area if it is sloped toward the ex,.avation? / if shields arc used, is the dVih of v'at cut more than 2,k (J.6 m.) below the bottom of the shield`:' 7 -,?- ';z -0 � An adjacent nvurtures Ytabili:ed> boas mobile equipment bs` e a tivarning system? Zs a compeUM person in charge of the operation? Is egidpment naerating in or around the cat. cavity, or depression'? Are procedures required to monitor, Tirst, and conrrol harardous armospheres? Doei a competent person determ!ne soil n pe? Have soils types within the excavation :hanged from these wNch had been previously encountered? Was a sail twirng device used t) determine sail t, pe? IS the .srnGil placed 2 fi (0.6 m) or more from :he edge of the cut, cavity, or depression? 1,, the depth 20 f3 16 .' tn) or molt for the sat, cavity, or depression? Hasa rsgisterad pro.1 Tsional engu:aer approved the procedure if the depth is more than 20 id (6.2 aa)? Doe; Me procedure require hanching or multiple benching? Shoring? :shielding? Are oily requu-ed surface crossings of t'.:e cut, cavity or depression the proper tiviclth and filled with lurid ra;Is? Y6:15 An means of egress from ;he Let, cavity, or depression no more than <'..S ft (?.6m),irom the work^ Ale Is emergency reacue equipment required? Is; there documentation of tare miniwum daily excavation impection? yrl� ?, 2,.,2- -CO -Z-,_ As=" 4-T 6-1-� 5 -/ 7 - /�, o,;2 - CO' -VR "TLYT PXCRSO ' '1F..1F .._CXL,U,%T is the cut, caviti,, or depressic n ,i tr r& h or at] xcM,ation? ASO is the cut, cavity, or depression mote than 4 ii (I.2 an j in deptW //D Ts thre iwater in the cert, cavity, or depression? YES tV: thera Adequate moans of access and egress? IVIG Are there sml sinface eruz�ntbrattees7 1 /fvd Is there exposure to e�ehicuiar traffic? Y e-15 :ore adjacent .tmuclures s'tabili:eP Does m abile equipment have a ,parr:ing system? , a comperent perso►t in charge of the operation'' WO is eq;; pment operating in Or around the ctut cavity, or depression" h1D Are procedures required to monitor, test, and control hazardous armospheres? y!e;� Doei a competent person determ!ne soil tva? //D Have soils t,-Pes within the excavation ..-hanged from these vwflch had been previously encountered? Was a soil testing device used to determine soil tape) is the.sr*oil plaee3 2 rt (o.6 tn) or more from :ji,2 edge of the 0»t, cavity, or deprossion? JIVD is me depth 20 ft c:6.' m) per mors for the cat, cavity, or depression? 4/0 BW a rxgwered professional sngureer approved the procedure if the ct+epth is more than 20 ft (6.2 Zi)? !%1/0 Does tl:e. procedure require benching or multiple benching? .Shoring? Shielding? If provided, do shields extend at least 18 in (0.5.,n) Abope the surrounding area if it is sloped toward the excavation? L/P. If shields are usccL is the d-.pih of ;:ze cut more than 2 fi (0.6 mj below the b_�itom ofthe shield' Are at.y requ5-ed sa -face cm tsings of eae cut, cavity, or depress:on the proper tiszdth and fitted Wrh hied ra:1s? AM :Alt~ moans of egress from the r:at, cavity, or depression no more than 2S ft (7.6m)from the work^ MO Is emergency rescue equipment required? Yr -s Is there documentation of The minimum daily excavailun inypection? �2-/y -oz is the Gut, cavity, or depression a Zoo± or an 7rrmration? /Vii is the cut, cavity., or &,pression mote. than A ft (1.2 m) in depth? WO Is there water in the cut. cavity, or depression? yes Are thew adequate rmcans of access and egress? jii/c7 Are there &nv surface eFicanrbmrices? %`1J Is there evro)suro to iwhic viar traft? y� .4av adjacent t!ru,Fures slabilired? Does mobile equipment have a ware:ingsyvem? yL Is a compouwl person in charge of the operation? 1 Is eqw; pmenr operating in or around the cut :,avity, or depressioC /vQ Are procedures required to monitor, u:st, and con►rothazardous atmospheres? YjJS Does a competent person determ ne soil tt ? i-0 Havo soils types within the excavation ,: hanged from these which had been previously encountered? }%C�5 Was a soil teving deYice used to determine soil type? t5 the spGil place3 2 h (0.6 m) or more from rhe edge of the cut, cavity, or depr.ssion? Is rhe depth 20 ft c:6.' mj or mom for the cat, cavity, or depression? n/ • Has a registered professional engineer approved the procedure if the depth is more than 24 ft (6.1 a+)? VO Does the procedure require benching or multipte benching'. Shorin;? Shielding? A / if provided, do shields extend at least 18 ifs (0.5.,n,, above the sturounding area tf it is sloped toward the If shields are used, is the dzpih of uht cut more than 2 f t (0.6 a.) below the bvttvm of the shield° ! t Are any required satrface crossings of em out, cavity, or depress:oa the proper width and.,�cled wdt+t itar�d �V ra;ls? YAre maans of egress from ;he tat, cavity, or depression no more than 3S ft (7, .6m),from the work^ t1V Is emergenev rRacue equipment required? Is there documentation of Me mi thwon daily excavadfon inspection`? GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: MR RALPH JOYCE LAW OFFICE OF RALPH JOYCE 121 COLLINS LANDING WEARE NH 03281 r DATE: September 3, 2002 PROJECT: Chestnut Street, North Andover, MA GSI PROJECT NO.: 202175 Attarhpd arP thv fnUnwina fnr vnnr ww- COPIES DATE LAB NUMBER DESCRIPTION Concrete Reports - Cylinders Concrete Inspection Report Reinforcing Steel Inspection Report 1 2 08/28/02 08/29/02 Field Density Report Field Report Field Soil Sampling Report Foundation Sub -grade Evaluation Report CC: Reviewed by: 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7799 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 0 108 Whipple Street, Lewiston, Me. Phone: 207 / 282 / 7225 Fax: 207 / 282 / 9271 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. *Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: cloudy, drizzle INSPECTION DATE: 8/29/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ral h Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Brian Burbank page 1 of 2 The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 26475 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: 4 indicated below or ❑ shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. _Ralph Joyce of Tim O'Laughlin provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or ❑ D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: 4 were ❑ were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or ❑ will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 678 DENSITY STANDARD 2761 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS rest No. Location Elev. Sample # Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. M.G. (%) Field Dry Density cf Field M.C. M RC % Meets Project Specs YIN Retest of test #1 from 08/28/02 6 course L-493-02 132.0 8.0 130.5 7.1 98.9 Y 1 REMARKS: Reviewed b Date:/G Rev y. C'tbn'ald_ C. Walden, Director of Testing 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 .GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦ Geotechnical Engineering♦ Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: rain 60's INSPECTION DATE: 8/29/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ral h Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Kevin Maynard, page 2 of_2._____=., The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 26911 in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: � indicated below or ❑ shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce of Tim O'Laughlin provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or ❑ D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: ❑ were 4 were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or 4 will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 678 DENSITY STANDARD 2761 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS rest No. Location Elev. Sample # Max. Dry Density (pcfl Opt. M.C. M Field Dry Density c Field M.C. (%) RC % Meets Project Specs YIN 1 40' from left end of wall 4 lh course L-493-02 132.0 8.0 123.3 8.9 93.4 N 2 40' from left end of wall 4 course L-493-02 132.0 8.0 121.0 9.7 91.7 N REMARKS: 7 � Reviewed by: '�-�� Date: �Z/ Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603/624/3733 0 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978/374/7799 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦Geotechnical Engineering+Environmental Studies* Material Testing+Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street (Retaining Wall) PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Cloudy, warm INSPECTION DATE: 8/28/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Brian Burbank The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a J Troxier Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001 R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 26475 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: 4 indicated below or ❑ shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. _Ralph Joyce of Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or ❑ D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: ❑ were 4 were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or 4 will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 685 DENSITY STANDARD 2747 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS rest No. Location Elev. Sample # Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. M.C. (%) Field Dry Density (Pcq Field M.C. (%) RC % Meets Project Specs YIN 1 Center between lots 1 & 2 4'F- wall 61n course L-493-02 132.0 8.0 117.9 6.2 89.3 N 2 Center between lots 1 & 2 2'E- wall 6 course L-504-02 124.5 8.9 119.3 3.1 95.8 Y 3 Center of lot #3 2'E- wall 51nL-504-02 course 124.5 8.9 124.5 6.2 100 Y 4 Center of lot #3 4'+- wall 5 course L-493-02 132.0 8.0 119.0 2.9 95.6 Y REMARKS: ire�; Reviewed by: Date: Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing J 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 0 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 ^. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: MR RALPH JOYCE LAW OFFICE OF RALPH JOYCE 121 COLLINS LANDING WEARS NH 03281 DATE: August 29, 2002 PROJECT: Chestnut Street, North Andover, MA GSI PROJECT NO.: 202175 Attarhpil arP the fallnwina fnr vnnr ice - COPIES DATE. LAB, NUMBER DESCRIPTION Concrete Reports - Cylinders Concrete Inspection Report Reinforcing Steel Inspection Report 2 08/26/02 08/27/02 Field Density Report Field Report Field Soil Sampling Report Foundation Sub -grade Evaluation Report CC: Reviewed by: _ 1 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603/624/3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7799 Fax: 978/374/7799 0 108 Whipple Street, Lewiston, Me. Phone: 207 / 282 / 7225 Fax: 207/282/9271 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Sunny 870 INSPECTION DATE: 8/26/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin Inc. GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: King Sanborn page 1 of 2 The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001 R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 31694 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: ❑ indicated below or 4 shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce of Tim O'Laughlin provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or ❑ D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: J were ❑ were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or ❑ will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendentiproject representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. _Ralph Joyce was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 684 DENSITY STANDARD 3047 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS fest No. Location Elev. Sample # Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. M.C. (°!o) Field Dry Density c Field M.C. M RC % Meets Project Specs YIN 1 See field sketch Top of TO course L-504-02 125.0 8.8 124.2 3.7 99.3 Y 2 See field sketch Top of 3` course L-504-02 125.0 8.8 124.7 3.3 99.8 Y 3 See field sketch Top of 4 course L-504-02 125.0 8.8 123.9 4.1 99.1 Y 4 See field sketch Top of 4 course L-504-02 125.0 8.8 124.9 4.1 99.9 Y REMARKS: Date:— Reviewed by: Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 0 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 k)0 � +-o elf,, I c. 0.7 4e- � `occ.J-.or) p © © 0 JOGk GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦ Geotechnical Engineering ♦ Environmental Studies♦ Material Testing ♦ Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Sunny, warm INSPECTION DATE: 8/26/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin Inc. GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce I FIELD TECHNICIAN: Brian Burbank page 2 of 2 The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 o Humboldt Model 5001R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 26475 in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: 4 indicated below or 0 shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce of Tim O'Laughlin provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or 0 D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: 4 were 0 were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: 0 was re -compacted and retested or 0 will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 684 DENSITY STANDARD 2732 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS rest Location Elev. Sample Max. Dry Opt. Field Field RC Meets No. behind retaining # Density M.C. Dry M.C. % Project wall (pcf) (%) Density (%) Specs c YIN 1 Between lotsl&2 4 th L-504-02 125.0 8.9 125.7 2.3 100+ Y center 2' behind course wall 2 Between lots 1&2 4 L-493-02 132.0 8.0 126.9 5.7 96.2 Y 4' behind wall course 3 Between lots 2&3 4 L-504-02 125.0 8.9 122.3 2.9 98.3 Y 2' behind wall course 4 Between lots 2&3 4 L-493-02 132.0 8.0 126.8 5.0 96.1 Y 4' behind wall course 5 Between lots 3&4 41n L-504-02 125.0 8.9 119.2 4.6 95.8 Y 2' behind wall course 6 Between lots 3&4 41nL-493-02 132.0 8.0 128.2 4.0 97.1 Y 4' behind wall course REMARKS: Reviewed by: '� "'Z- Date: J �%•. Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing � 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 0 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978/374/7799 Ali GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦ Geotechnical Engineering * Environmental Studies * Material Testing * Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Sunny, warm INSPECTION DATE: 8/27/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce, FIELD TECHNICIAN: Brian Burbank The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 0 Humboldt Model 5001 R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 26475 in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: 4 indicated below or 0 shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce of Tim O'Laughlin provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or 0 D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: 0 were 4 were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: 4 was re -compacted and retested or 0 will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendentiproject representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 675 DENSITY STANDARD 2739 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS rest Location Elev. Sample Max. Dry Opt. Field Field RC Meets No. # Density M.C. Dry M.C. % Project (pcf) (%) Density (%) Specs c YIN 1 4' behind retaining 4 L-493-02 132.0 8.0 120.8 3.6 91.5 N wall centered course between lots 3 & 4 2 2' behind retaining 4 Th L-504-02 124.5 8.9 122.6 1.9 98.4 Y wall centered course between lots 3 & 4 3 Retest of test #1 41nL-493-02 132.0 8.0 128.5 6.0 97.3 Y course 4 4' behind retaining 5 L-493-02 132.0 8.0 129.1 5.5 97.8 Y wall centered course between lots 1 & 2 5 2' behind retaining 5 L-504-02 124.5 8.9 118.3 2.5 95.0 Y wall centered course between lots 1 & 2 REMARKS: Reviewed by: Date: Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing J 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 n 12 Rogers Road. Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 4 GEOTECHNICAL SER VICES, INC. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: MR RALPH JOYCE LAW OFFICE OF RALPH JOYCE 121 COLLINS LANDING WEARE NH 03281 DATE: September 10, 2002 PROJECT: Chestnut Street, North Andover, MA GS1 PROJECT NO.: 202175 A f+oohail arp the fallowing for your use: _ COPIES DATE LAB NUMBER DESCRIPTION Concrete Reports - Cylinders Concrete Inspection Report Reinforcing Steel Inspection Report Field Density Report 2 09/03/02 09/05/02 Field Report Field Soil Sampling Report Foundation Sub -grade Evaluation Report CC: Reviewed by: _ � 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 /.624 / 3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7799 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 ❑ 108 Whipple Street, Lewiston, Me. Phone: 207 / 282 / 7225 Fax: 207 / 282 / 9271 JEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. *Geotechnical Engineering+Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street Retainin Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: overcast, 70's INSPECTION DATE: 9/3/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce. EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Dur in Landsca in GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Kevin Maynard The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001 R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 26911 in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: 4 indicated below or ❑ shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Raiph Joyce of Tim O'LaAhlin provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or ❑ D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: ❑ were 4 were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or 4 will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 625 DENSITY STANDARD 2422 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS rest No. Location Elev. Sample # Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. M.C. (%) Field Dry Density cf Field M.C. (%) RC % Meets Project Specs YIN 1 80' from left end of wall 6 course L-493-02 132.0 8.0 118.9 10.3 90.1 N 2 40' from left end of wall 61nL-493-02 course 132.0 8.0 123.9 9.5 93.9 N REMARKS: Reviewed by: '�----�— Date: Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 n 1(14 Wl.:nnln Q*..eo* i M� nA'1An nl.... 'In" 1'10't i '%n'T 1-10q 1 n�"* ,EOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street (Retaining Wall) PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: sunny, cool INSPECTION DATE: 9/5/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ral h Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Brian Burbank The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 31694 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556), Field density tests were performed at locations: 4 indicated below or ❑ shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce of Tim O'Laughlin provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: J D 1557 or o D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: 4 were ❑ were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or ❑ will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Ralph Joyce was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 690 DENSITY STANDARD 3040 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS rest No. Location <—behind retaining wall Elev. Sample # Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. M.C. (%) Field Dry Density (Pcq Field M.C. (%) RC % Meets Project Specs YIN 1 Between lots 3&4 4' +-wall Top of Course #6 L-498-02 132.0 8.0 129.4 7.8 98.0 Y 2 Between lots 2&3 4'E—wall Top of Course #6 L-498-02 132.0 8.0 130.7 7.6 99.0 Y 3 Between lots 3&4 2'<—wall Top of Course #6 L-504-02 124.5 8.9 122.0 8.2 98.0 Y 4 Between lots 2&3 2'F- wall Top of Course #6 L-504-02 124.5 8.9 126.1 6.7 100+ Y REMARKS: Reviewed by: Date: Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 0 108 Whinale Street. Lewiston. Me. 04240 Phone: 207 / 282 / 7225 Fax: 207 / 282 / 9271 `f GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: MR RALPH JOYCE LAW OFFICE OF RALPH JOYCE 121 COLLINS LANDING WEARE NH 03281 DATE: August 27, 2002 PROJECT: Chestnut Street, North Andover, MA GSI PROJECT NO.: 202175 Atfnr hall ora As- fnllnwina fnr vnnr nvp- COPIES DATE LAB NUMBER DESCRIPTION Concrete Reports - Cylinders Concrete Inspection Report Reinforcing Steel Inspection Report 2 08/21/02 08/23/02 Field Density Report 1 08/23/02 Field Report Field Soil Sampling Report Foundation Sub -grade Evaluation Report CC: Reviewed by: z / 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7799 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 0 108 Whipple Street, Lewiston, Me. Phone: 207 / 282 / 7225 Fax: 207 / 282 / 9271 W/1" GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦ Geotechnical Engineering + Environmental Studies + Material Testing # Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Clear 80's INSPECTION DATE: 8/21/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Dur an Landscaping GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Kevin Maynard The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001 R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 26911 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: 4 indicated below or ❑ shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Durgan Landscaping provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or 0 D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: 4 were ❑ were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or ❑ will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Durgan Landscaping was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 627 DENSITY STANDARD 2431 GSl FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS rest No. Location Retaining wall backfill/ left end of the wall Elev. Sample # Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. M.C. M Field Dry Density c Field M.C. M RC % Meets Project Specs YIN 1 165' 2" course L-493-02 132.0 8.0 129.7 5.2 98.5 Y 2 205' 2no course LA93-02 132.0 8.0 131..4 4.2 99.5 Y REMARKS: Reviewed by: Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing Date: J 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 rl 1 AR Whinn)P 1tYPPt i .Pwictnn MP Od2d0 PhnnP: 207 / 292 / 7225 Fax: 207 1282 / 9271 I/ ,EOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦ Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies ♦ Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Cloudy, warm INSPECTION DATE: 8/23/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Lau htin Construction GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Brian Burbank The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 26475 in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: 4 indicated below or 0 shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Joyce of Tim O'Laughlin Inc. provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or ❑ D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: 4 were ❑ were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or 0 will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Joyce was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 681 DENSITY STANDARD 2738 fest Location GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST Elev. SampleFen RESULTS Opt. Field Field RC % Meets Project No. Retaining wall # M.C. (%) Dry Density M.C. (%) Specs c YIN 1 Halfway between lot Top of L-493-02 132.0 8.0 127.8 4.1 96.8 Y #1 &2 2nd 2 3' behind wall Center of lot #2 3' course Top of L-493-02 132.0 8.0 127.2 4.8 Y behind wall 5`n 496.6Y 3 Center between lot 2 course Top of L-504-02 124.5 8.9 120.3 8.7 & 3 3' behind wall 3`d 4 Location #2 course Top of L-504-02 124.5 8.9 124.6 5.8 100+ Y 2' behind wall Stn 5 Location #1 course Top of L-504-02 124.5 8.9 124.9 4.4 100+ Y 2' behind wall 2nd course REMARKS: Reviewed by Date: Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing J 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 . - . . w i A In /A TL....... ')n,7 i "i i "liic Fav' 207 / 292/9271 � ,;EOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. *Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies* material Testing+Construction Monitoring GSI FIELD REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street Retainin Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Sunn , 70's INSPECTION DATE: 8/23/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Lau hlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ral h Jo ce CONTRACTOR: Dur an &Dur an Land GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Jo ce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Richard Bushnell EQUIPMENT OPERATING: DESCRIPTION OF TODAY'S WORK: The GSI representative arrived on-site to observe crushed stone placement behind the retaining wall. The area observed consisted of the eastern most 111 feet of wall. The contractor had embedded the first row of blocks and installed a minimum of 2 feet of crushed stone behind the wall for the entire height of the first block. Based on our review of drawing RR -Lot 3 the design required a minimum of 12 -inches of crushed stone up to approximately the mid -point of the first block. Based on our observation the contractor has satisfied the crushed stone requirement for this section of the retaining wall. APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS: Drawings prepared by Nobis Engineering COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS: 4 YES ❑ NO ❑ SEE RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: Continue installing wall in accordance with project drawings, perform field density testing as lifts are installed REPORT PREPARED BY: Richard E. Bushnell, P.E. Reviewed b ��" Date: ✓ti HarryK. Wetherbee, P.E. 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 ..... c!*--. + 1 nwietnn Me_ 04240 Phone: 207 / 282 / 7225 Fax: 207 / 282 / 9271 CO,MTL.NT PF-MON!S.M!CKUST is the cut, cavity, or depressiou a trench or an-rrm,.Won? is the cost, cavity, or depression more than 4 ft (1.2 in) in depth? is thee water in the cut, cnity, or depression? � 5 Are there adequate means of access and egress? IVO Are there any .rat lacr encwnbr ojees? A10 is there expma to rehicaiar trope? �2G() Are azljacPf».Q,+lllctu► S slahiitzeP y�S Jori mobile equipment halve a warning system? YZ55 is a competent perron in charge of the operation? /✓O Is egiopment o.m-rwing in or wmd the coat cavity, or depression,' YAt- procWures required to monitor, cast, and ron*To! hazardous armosphere ? Does a competent person determ4ne soil t;�e? IVO Have soils types within the excavation --hanged from those \1&kh had been previously encountered.? VP� Was a soil tes!ing droce used m determine sell L. -pe? V47-1 is the sr*od placed 2 h (0.6 in) ormre ftam the edge of the out. cavity, :rr deMssion? JVt) Is the depth 20 ft (6.' m) or mor* for the cat, cavity, o: depression? Ye—D Has a ragWered prafessional eripiver approved the prooCdure if the depth is more than 20 ft (6.1:r_)? IVO Doe.; the procedure require bancMng or multiple benching? Shoring? Shielding? 0/ V � if pmvided, do shields exteraci at least is in (0.5m,1 above dtC st�trounding area if it is sloped toward the I�p' exaevauen" jVf / • If shields are used, is the dep4h of ':1e cut more than 2,R (0.6 rr) below the bouom ofthe sfrtekr.. n /tCj Are any required surface cmasings of the --ut, caNity, or dcpvss;on the proper x**b and idled with tumd t z� Aix means zf egress from she :;4 rarity, or depression oro more than (7.6m) from the work? / Y Is emergency recess equipmsnt required? �/ Is there docutrentation of the nti untum daily excavation inspection? rJ4, -\.AA - J4 CU,=T.M FF -MONIS M!CKU ST is the cut, eavikf,, or depromirin a tre.wAt or w xccn';ation? is the curt. cavity, or &,prossion more than 4 ft (1.2 in) in depth? is there water in the cut, cavity, or depression!? ._ Are there adequate mcans of access and egress? Are there an), vvi fice encm abra>lees? Is there expmm to rrehicruar traz,(j.c? �� arlJarccrnl.etru�tures xtabilired? �1 Joss mobile egad',, Mt h aNe a wtuning system? is a camewmi person ire citrzrge of the operation^ is equipment gPeraft in 0' around the cut cavity, or depression? L 02 An, procedures required to monimr, test, and cxvro` ho--xdous atmospheres? D i a competent person determ4ne soil Ope? Have soils tvfas within the excavation :hanged from those u+kh had leen preciously encountered? Was a soil tesiitrg device used to deiertnine soli tape? is the sit d placed 2 ft (0.6 m) or .store from :he edge of'the out, cavity, ar depression? Is the depth 20 ft (C m) or mors for the cat, cmity, or depression? }las a rsgisrtered professional engineer appmved the procedure if tho depth is more than 20 ft (6.1:rs )? Doe; tte procedure require h,?ncMng or multiple benching? Shoring? Shieldine if prmided, do shields exteW at least IN in (0.5 m) rtbove the surrounding awes if it is sloped tmvard the exuWation? 1f shields txc used, is the depth of ,.he cut more than 2,k (0.6 rel below the 1witom ofthe shield':' Js� () Are any rcquiird surface crossings of the rut, ceN ity, or depress -ori the proper width a nd fiued nettle hwid rail~? � S Arc maans of egress frorn he: -•A cavity. or ftression no more than 2.5,ft (?.6mi from the UnW Is emergency rescue equipment required? y�. is there docutrentatiorr of the mi►tlttitltti daItt' excavation I1tSpCctiestT7 1 V ex r.. Ci} RIETE1TT PERSON'S CHFC NO is the cut, eavik>,, or depression a trench or ar.:-xcm>ation? No is the cut, cavity, or depression morn. than d ft (1.2m) in depth? 00 ?s there water in the cut, cavity, or depression? Are thorn adequate means of access and egress? D Are there any b wface encumbrwices? N17 is there exposum to whicuiar tra .c? Are a['jarew n-owtures stabilised? LS Does mobile equipment leave a warning system? C-5 is a competent perm in charge of the operation^ Is egt;?pment operattrtg in or around the cut.: avity, or depression" -ire procedures required to monitor, test, and cowrol hazardous armospheres? Does a competent person determine soil ry,ne? ►S6 Have soils types within the excavation ::hanged from those wHch had been previously encountered? yt—� Was a soil tesibrgdew a used to de:ertrsine sell tqe? is the .srpoil placed 2 :t (0.6 m) or ;more from rhm edge of the cat, cavity, or depression? Is rhe depth 20 ft (6.' in) a molt for the cat, cavity, or depression? Has a mgisteredpt ofessiunrl engu:eer apprcved the prooedare if the depth is more than ZO ft (6.1 :n)? 4 Does tie procedure require benching or multiple benching. Shoring? Vsielding9 If provided, do shields extend at least Ib in (0.5m) above the st►trounding area if it is sloped toward the excavation? If shields are used, is the dV ib of uht cut more. than 2,1 (0.6 rr,,' b4ow the bvitom of the shield" (� Are my requiu-ed satrfaee crossings of r,c cut, cavity, or delwss'on the proper tividth andfi ied with iv,d rail's? Are means of egress from uhe c:at, cavity, or depression no more than ,5 ft (7.6m)from the work? jJ C' Is emergencv rescue egxiptrent required? �N there documentation of the minimum daily excavation inspection? I -- - S -- ! 5,---6�2- COMPETE_'YT PE—RSQ4N'5 CHFCKL,IST t v o lathe cut, cavity, or depression a trench or ar ;-xrm,atron? N 6 " is the cut, cavity, or depression mm. than 4 ft (I.2 in) i7 deptli? N these water ifl the cut, cavity, or dcpressiori? Are there adequate mcans of access and Wass? M. r r 0 Are there any acr encimibrotees? Q is there exppswe to iwhicuiar trait? Njt�5 Are aifaceninriciures stabilized? ,Yf� Does mobile equipment have a warning system? 7 ES Iz a compelext person in charge of the operation? 00 Is egir?,pment operating in o!' around the cut :cavity, or dcpmssion" C-) Are procedures required to monitor, test, and censrol hazxd)us armospheres? 1P Uoei a competent person detenn*ne soil tjVc-? NO Have soils types within the excavation •.-hanged from those WHch had been previously encountered? Was a soil tes.'ing device used to deteTmine soil type? Ts the Spoil plaead 2 fl (0.6 m) or more from :he edge of the cut, cavity, or depression? �j U 1: me depth 20 ft E6.' m) or mors for the cat, cavity, or depression? Nes a rzgiviered professional engitreer approved the procedure if tha depth is more than 20 ft (6.2 nt )? N C? Does the procedure requirc benching or multiple benching? Shoring? Shielding? l *, if provided, do shields extend at least 18 in (0.5 m; above the surrounding area if it is sloped toward the excovaiian? 1�A If shields aro used, is the dzpth of at cut more than 2 fk (0.6 ir; below the b,-ttom of the shield`:' a Arc any requia-ed surface crossings oft .e cut, cavity, or depress on the proper width and filed -tviat Mallet rails? Art ±neons zf egress from zhc :;A cavity, or depression no more Aan ?5 ft (7.6m)from the work" Is emergency rescue equipment required? Y�5 Is there docurrentation of the minimum daily excavadotn inspection? CO.V��TLM P'lfi'MQtVS CHM!CKI.iST No o is the cut, cavity, or depression a trrnch or an %mcavation? is the cul. cavity, or depression mrnr. than 4 ft (1.2 in) in depth? N� Is there water in the cert, cavity, or depression? Am there adequate moans of access and egress? 0 NO 0 Are there amv viesB�ce eracwnbranee V s? O 15 t�;eTe']t��$y ��j lYC1JlCttl�fT 1P fC� YL OdfQCP?tr R!1 atrttlrL�S a'labilied? S boas rrobile egWpment baNe a warning system? C�3 Tw a co»mpewnt person in charge of the operation*! N O I: evipmenr orating in or around the coat ;cavity, or depr+essicm' An procedures required to monitor, test, arid. rvn .ro' haratdous armosphem? G j Clod a competent person determ,ne soil Ppe? d Have soils tyTess within the excavation „hanged f = those wkh had been previously encountered? �S Was a sail twang &twee used to determine soil type? `I vis the spoil plaeed ; ft (0.6 tit) or .More from :he edge of the eut. cavity, r depression? N O 1 the depth 20 ft (6.' m) a+ mors for the cat, cavity, o: depression? l LS Nam a ragislerecl professional engineer approved the prooedure if to depth is more than 2Q ft (6.1-n j? Does the procedure require bancising or multiple be!uhing? Slwring? zhtelding9 If ptrn ided, do shieldr extend at .least IN in (9.5 m) abova; t3tG surrounding area if it is sloped tmvard tate excavation? If shields are used, is the depth of I,tt cut more than 2 fi 10.6 ir) below the bVttor+z of the shield' �i 0 Are any required surface crossings of the rut, caN ity, or dcpress?on the proper u*ith and fitted,4th hated ra;? Am means of egress from ;.he --A cavity, or doyre:ssion no more than 'aft t ,.6mj from the work? ,N U Is errergenev rescue egaipment required? YqIs there documentation of t,§e minimum daily excavation in pertfonl 6 18— lrOVI 'IET ,'11T PF SON'S CHF l,"ST V "d is th© cut, cavity, or depromion a trewh or an xci ration? is the cut cavity, or depression mcmr than A ft (1.2 in) in depth? Is there water in the cut, citvity, or dcpressifln? lve there adequate means of access and egress? j 6 Are there any surface ancwnbrowes? NS 0 Is there !xpostars to rehicuiar traffic? qC� are i4aaertt.etratctums stabilited? Doas rrobile equipment haaNe a warning system? ES is a competent person in charge of the operation^ Is egii pmenr oP eraft in or votmd the Lilt cavity, or depr"sior," Arc procedures required to monitor, vest, and can�ro.' has. a�riv;cs w�emuspheres? t5 Roes a competent person determine soil tom? 0 Have soils ryes within the excavation :hanged from these wPkh had been previously encountered? �6'was a soil tes'ing deurce used to determine sell type? C� Ts the sp+►c/il placed 2 ft (0.6 m) or more��m :ha edgy of the out cavity, ar deptcSsiun? U Is the depth 20 ft (6.: w) ar moft for the cat, :,avity, o: depression? Has a registered professional ever approved the procedure if the depth is more than 20 ft (6.1 :rr)? j� Does the procedure require benching or multiple henchingr? Shoring? Shielding? NA If provided, do shields extaad art least ! d in i'9. s 'rt; above the surrounding area if it is sloped tmVard the exc m iCO N� If shields are used, is the dzpih of 121e cut more than 2,41 (0 6 ir) Mow the bcuom of the shield'' Are ary requitcd smif- arce crossings of tim cut, cavity, or depress -on tine proper uIdth andkited mita hwid ra' <? �" E� � means of egress from S, ft (?. she at, cavity, or de; no more than 26mi frons the work? J V) U is emergency reacue eqvipment required? �V,'7 is there documentation of tiro minimum daily excavation impection? CQ,MZt—T&NT Pli,BSON'S M. CAST Y vc) is the cut, cavity, or depression a trench or an excaration? O Is the cut, cavity, or depression mom than A A (1.2 un) in depti1? "✓✓✓ r4 C) Is tbele water in the oma, cavity, or dcpression? q> Are there adequate m=s of access and egress? NO Are there wmv --,vdare artcwnbrwwes? Is there t po t= to ve eviar Pew? -Ueadfacxmi.rtrurtures �labih ed? Jori rrobile ca, uipment have a warring systetx? is a con>wsent person in charge of the operation'! 1� L•• eqw?pment gwratit;g in or sroand the nut cavity, or dopressitni? y-,ktv pros adt=5 required to monitor, cost, and :ort*ro>' he arduus u'ttnuspltEres? ytS Does a competent person determ4ne soil P t,S O Have sails tyTes within the excavation :hanged from these vQ.+. k b had been previously encountered? Was a soil tes.'ingdewce used to determine snit type? is oho; sppod placed 2 ft (0.6 m) or .genre from rhe edge of the cut, cavity, ar deMession? 1;� the depth 20 ft i6.' m) or mors fat the cat, oa%ity, or depression? \[6) Has a rag4tered professional engineer appreved the procedure if tha depth is more than 20 ft (6.I �)? I�S-0 Does the procedure require banching or multiple betuhing? Shoring? Shielding? If provided, do shields extend of least Is to (9.5 m) above tiro surrounding area if it is sloped to ward the excavation? (� l4, If shields are used, is the do pib of ;rte cut more that 2,6 (0 6 n-) Mow At bvitom of the shield`:' b Are any required sip -face crossings of t'ie suut, ca -v itr, or demss:on the proper xzdrh and fitted with hoki rails? mrans Df egress from ;;Sc --A cavity. or depression no more, than 'S ft ('.6m)ffiom the work^ Is emergency rescue equipment required? �vSls there docutrentation o, f the minimum dai►y exeau:adon inspecdort? n o is the cut, cavity, or deprcmion a trench or an a xcmTation? M is the cut, cavity, or de -pression mrnr. than A ft (I.2 ink izi depth? Y1 0 is the t waler in the cut. ca4lty, or dcprmiw .1 Are there adequate means of access and egress? n Are there any vwfacr enctntbrances? V)0 Is there expp3ta it) lwhkviar tra,(lc? �9 aur orf}actimt.ctruct:rn Ylabili:eP UPC auas mobile equipment halve a warning system? yes Is a competent person in charge of the operation? hPO Is equipment nperathi g in or around the c -it cavity, or depression" yes Arc procedures required to monitor, tcst, mid con-ro' hazvdous armospheres? 4 eS Does a competent person deletm!'rce soil tame? Vt 0 Have soils ty-t�vs within the excavation zhaaged from thaie kitich had been previously encotmtereV �f'S Was a soil testing detinue used w determine self rype? q6 [S the s"Gil plaeeJ 2 ;t (0.6 tn) or .amore flora :he edge ofthe vats cavity= m depression? Vl6 IF the depth 20 ft i6.' m) ow mors for the cat, cmity, o: depression? Ve S Nag a rxgistered professional engineer approved the procedure if the depth is more than 20 ft (6.I :r)? vj O Doe; the procedure require ranching or multiple benching? Shoring? Shielding? If provided, do shields ,extend cit least Is to (0.5 m; above ft. surrounding area if it is sloped ttnvard the axzmaden? If shiolds are used, is the dvdt of vze cut more than 2,k (J.6 ►r) below the br-uom ofthe shield`:' Are my requiir i surface evrasings of � rut, caNri% or depress:oa the proper u4dth andf�rnted vgfii itch d n rail`? Ves A v moans of egress from zhe zat, cavity. or de;ress<on no more than <'..S ft t %'.6m)from the u-*rk? qO Is emergency rescue equipment required? n is there documentation of the minimum daily excavation inspection? COViQ'ETL_�rr P''IF�SOTs GHECEL,1ST �22 40"" is the cut, cavi4l. or depromirn a trewh or an excavation? %lam is the cut. cavity, or dc�pr ion mate,. th a 4 ii (1.2 in) in depth? 66 Ts thea water is the cut, cavity, or deprasior�? S Are there adequate mcans of access and egress? Are there sny , urface encumbrances? tk"7' Is there ekpostn to whicuiar trap. c? JO`56 v adfacertt.rtrurturvs vabih ed? W5 Does mobile equipment have a warring system? O S Is a competent parson in charge of the operation? ' Is egidrpment n} eratitag in or around the vit cav�iy, or dvpmssion S Art: proWures required to monimr, icst, and. con :ro' hct~ardous atmospheres? S lines a competent person determ,'ne soil tape? Have soils n-pes within the excavation .-hanged from these %-.tkh had been previously encountered? f Was a soil tes'itzg deuce used to deierrnine soil t*,pe? S is the sp it place3 ?. h (4.6 m) or .mare from :bra edge of the cat. cavity, crr depression? UrU- Is the depth 20 ft (6.' m) of nmoft for the cat, cavity, o: depression? Bw a ragaterad professional engweer approved the prooedure if the depth is more than 20 ft (16.1- )? Y1(J Dt&; the procedure require benching or multiple benching'? Shoring? Shielding`t AA If pmided, do shields extend ce least Is in (0.5m) above tho swTounding area if it es sloped tuward the excovatien? Oj� if shiolds are used, is the dopth of he cut more than 2; t fO.6 rr) b4ow the b tom of the Meld' !jtg-- Are a ry mquircd surface rmasings of tl,c rut, cavity, or dern-t:ssion the proper width and fined with italic+ ra;? C Are moans of egress from use ::at, cavity, or de;ression uo more, than 5 ft (%_6m) fiam the work. Is emergency res -cue egvipment required? Is there documentation of the minimum daily excavallon impection? .AII�IpIrII1M1 _. _ ..r�r.rr�� rr ��rr�s--.__.. - •- CO)M' TLNT FF.B QN'S CfWCK ST ,N,3V is the cut, cavriky, or deptcmicRr s trench or w excavation? -V is the cut. Cavity, or depression morn. rhu 41l (1.2 in) in depth? 0 is these wetter in the cut, cavity, or dcpression? S Are there adequate means of access and eigress? Are there any . urface ench-mbrowes? i V � Is there �,�pa;Wa;� 1�KIIJCfftflr tra,�C? �� S �� atljaccmt.atructur�s stabili:ed? Deas rrobile egWywnt here a warn ing systern? L751s a compeiext person in vkvge of the operation? Is eq..%pmext na eradw in or 4round the vat.: av;h-, or depressioL., S Arc pnv4dures required to monitor, Gest, and con pro' ha=dous atmospheres? Cj Dmi a competent person deterzn?r. a soil P jw? Have soils tyres within the excavation •:hanged from these v%rich had been previously encountered? Iyes Was a soil (es'itrg deoce used to determine soil type? S Is thw sa it pla4 i ? :t (O.b tu) or .•rmre� om :he edSO of the Out, cavity, .�r depr.ssion? (7 is the depth 20 tt C6.' in) or moP6 for the cat, ca-vity, or depression? C 5 Has a rquiered professionl engineer approved the procedure if the depth is more than 20 i d (6.1 Doe; tte procedure require banching or multiple benching'? Shoring? Shielding? if provided, do shields entered at Ieast IN in (0. S »t, above the starounding area if it is sloped toward the N exMation? 1f shields Arc used, is the dapth of uht cut more than 2 fi '0.6 rr) below the bs-tiom of the shield`:' Are arty requund surface cmasings of the cut, cavity, or depmss:an the proper width and fitted witit hwi a rails? Are mms of egress from :.he ::ut, "vity, or de;ress=on no more thrarr ;!-'*p ft (".6m) from the wnrk? �1�J0 Is emergency reacue equipment required? Sis there documentation of the minimum daily excavation impection? f GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: MR RALPH JOYCE DESCRIPTION LAW OFFICE OF RALPH JOYCE 121 COLLINS LANDING ' WEARE NH 03281 DATE: September 18, 2002 PROJECT: Chestnut Street, North Andover, MA GSI PROJECT NO.: 202175 Attached are the foll ing for your use: COPIES Field Report Field Soil Sampling Report ra CC: DATE LAB NUMBER DESCRIPTION Concrete Reports - Cylinders Concrete Inspection Report Reinforcing Steel Inspection Report 09/10/02 09/11/02 Field Density Report 09/11/02 Field Report Field Soil Sampling Report Foundation Sub -grade Evaluation Report Reviewed by: — fr RECEIVED OCT 2 2 2007 BUILDING DEPT, 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 ❑ 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7799 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 0 108 Whipple Street, Lewiston, Me. Phone: 207 / 282 / 7225 Fax: 207 / 282 / 9271 1-1 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT PROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: sunny INSPECTION DATE: 9/11/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce FIELD TECHNICIAN: Alfred Osborne The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a 4 Troxler Model 3430 ❑ Humboldt Model 5001R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 29539 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: 4 indicated below or ❑ shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Terry Joyce of Ralph Joyce provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: ❑ D 1557 or 0 D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: 4 were 0 were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: ❑ was re -compacted and retested or ❑ will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Terry Joyce was informed of all test results prior to departure from the job site. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 646 DENSITY STANDARD 2622 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS test No. Location Elev. Final course Sample # Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. M.C. (%) Field Dry Density c Field M.C. M RC % Meets Project Specs YIN 1 Lot #4 gravel FC L-504-02 125.0 8.8 127.6 2.5 102.1 Y 2 Lot #3 gravel FC L-504-02 125.0 8.8 124.8 6.5 99.8 Y 3 Lot #2 gravel FC L-504-02 125.0 8.8 123.6 1.5 98.9 Y 4 Lot #2 till FC L-493-02 132.0 8.0 126.4 5.8 95.8 Y 5 Lot #3 till FC L-493-02 132.0 8.0 127.8 6.8 96.8 Y 6 Lot #4 till FC L-493-02 132.0 8.0 125.6 8.1 95.1 Y REMARKS: Reviewed by: Date: Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 0 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978/374/7799 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. #Geotechnical Engineering* Environmental Studies* Material Testing* Construction Monitoring FIELD DENSITY REPORT 'ROJECT: Chestnut Street(Retaining Wall PROJECT NO.: 202175 LOCATION: North Andover, MA WEATHER: Clear, 80's INSPECTION DATE: 9/10/02 CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph Joyce EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: Ralph Joyce- FIELD TECHNICIAN: Eric Wittmershaus The undersigned arrived at the project to perform in place soil density testing using a q Troxler Model 3430 0 Humboldt Model 5001R Nuclear Density Gauge (serial no.: 26475 ) in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (direct transmission method) or Sand Cone apparatus (ASTM D 1556). Field density tests were performed at locations: q indicated below or 0 shown on the attached field sketch. The site superintendent or project representative, Mr. Terry of Old Colony provided all locations and indicated the source of the soil being placed and compacted. The field density results were compared to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM procedure: 4 D 1557 or 0 D 698; the results of which are reported as Relative Compaction (RC). Project specifications require a minimum RC of 95 %. At the time of departure from the site, all test results: 0 were 4 were not in compliance with the specifications. In the event of inadequate compaction the area: 0 was re -compacted and retested or 4 will be re -compacted and retested at a later time. The superintendent/project representative is responsible to reschedule a retest of the deficient area. The project superintendent/project representative, Mr. Terry was not informed of all test results because he left site prior to GSI representative could inform him. GAUGE STANDARDIZATION: MOISTURE STANDARD 678 DENSITY STANDARD 2724 GSI FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS rest No. Location retaining wall Elev. Sample # Max. Dry Density (pcf) Opt. M.C. (%) Field Dry Density c Field M.C. (%) RC % Meets Project Specs YIN 1 Lot 4, 8' from RW 12' L-504-02 125.0 8.8 123.6 7.4 98.9 Y 2 Lot 4, 3' from RW 12' L-496-02 137.3 6.2 127.4 3.7 92.8 N 3 Retest of test #2 12' L-496-02 137.3 6.2 132.5 3.5 96.5 Y 4 Lot 3, 3' from RW 12' L-496-02 137.3 6.2 129.9 2.4 95.0 Y 5 Retest of test #4 12' L-496-02 137.3 6.2 134.5 2.4 98.0 Y 6 Lot 3, 8' from RW 12' L-504-02 125.0 8.8 123.9 8.6 99.1 Y 7 Lot 2, 8' from RW 12' L-504-02 125.0 8.8 119.0 8.5 95.2 Y 8 Lot 2, 3' from RW east side 12' L-496-02 137.3 6.2 123.7 5.6 90.1 N 9 Retest of test #8 12' L-496-02 137.3 6.2 125.9 3.9 91.7 N 10 Lot 2, T from RW, west side 12' L-496-02 137.3 6.2 138.2 6.5 100.7 Y Reviewed by: _ � 2 �'�'�`- - Date: Viz/'exe Z' Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing 4 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 n 17 unrrPre unari_ mavvrhill. Ma. 01825 Phone: 978 / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ♦Geotechnical Engineering # Environmental Studies + Material Testing # Construction Monitoring PROJECT: Chestnut Street (Ret LOCATION: North Andover, MA INSPECTION DATE: 9/11/02 CLIENT: Law Offices of Ralph J, GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT: EQUIPMENT OPERATING: DESCRIPTION OF TODAY'S WORK: GSI FIELD REPORT PROJECT NO.: 202175 WEATHER: sunny, 80's CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. SITE CONTRACTOR: Tim O'Laughlin, Inc. FIELD TECHNICIAN: Bryan Levesque The undersigned GSI representative arrived on to examine site conditions and progress for the Redi-Rock concrete block wall proposed for the development. Upon arrival, met Mr. Terry Joyce and discussed recent construction activities for the Red -Rock retaining wall. At the time of this report, the wall had been substantially completed, with some remaining blocks to be placed along the western edge of the wall. Observed area where the GSI field technician who had visited the site last shift had encountered apparent low density readings R ' co acted fill laced bind the wall. Based upon observations of the material and overall geometry of the area, it is eve that the materiaciiaill. ed immediately behind and generally within 3 feet of the wall is the off site free draining granular n n e onsi a Given the Geometry of the wall and slope of the Natural slope behind the wall, testing locations for the in-place density tests may have been in areas where the granular fill overran glacial till material that had been previously placed. This was observed by the Engineer at a couple of areas where some of the previous density tests were reportedly low, at locations #2, 8 and 9 of the Field Density results of S temb he recorded dry densities at these location and the appearance of the compacted materiaeved e that these areas are acceptab s meeting the project requirements for compaction. l ifis eli Geogrid reinforcement was placed in accordance with the project plans. Backfill behind the wall consisted of a brown, f -c SAND, little f -c Gravel, trace to little Silt, placed in lifts of 12 inches and compacted. APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS: COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS: RECOMMENDATIONS: REPORT PREPARED BY: Bryan L. Levesque Reviewed by: 4 YES ❑ NO ❑ SEE RECOMMENDATIONS Date: Donald C. Walden, Director of Testing 18 Cote Avenue Goffstown, N.H. 03045 Phone: 603 / 624 / 2722 Fax: 603 / 624 / 3733 - — - - . ■r__. .l.:n %A- Al Q fQ Phnnv- (M / 374 / 7744 Fax: 978 / 374 / 7799 FUJIFII lND-EN VCIM _-- Em, WIN 0 MENIffm R� FUJIFIL I n ixr