Loading...
8 PLYMOUTH STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION rL i. UPC 10330 No. 153L Ha STINGS. WN Cttp of *afem, ,Aammrbuott!5 Joublic Propertp Mepartment Wuilbing Mepartment One&alem &reen (978) 745-9595 ¢txt. 380 Peter Strout Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer March 21, 2000 Kim Driscoll City Council RE: 8 Plymouth Street Dear Ms. Driscoll: I conducted an inspection at 8 Plymouth Street today, March 21, 2000. Construction is underway again. Mike Burgess of MDB Construction Co. Inc., said they will stay on the project now until completion. If you or any of your constituatants have any questions regarding this project, please feel free to forward them to me and I'd be happy to answer any of their concerns. Sincerely, Frank DiPaolo Local Building Inspector cc: Mayor Usovicz FROM : GEOTECHNICRL SERVICES INC FRX NO, Jan. 06 2000 10:31RM P1 G EOTECHIYICAL ,: ER VICES : NC. r . .. . ---.... el Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Studies -. Materials Testing Construction Monitoring ,January 5, 2000 Mr,Mike Burgess MDB Construction 2 Lummus Avenue ADVANCE COPY BY FAX Danvers, MA 01923 (978)717.7771 re: Foundation Monitoring 8 Plymouth Street Salem,Massachusetts GSl Project No. 200137 Dear Mr. Burgess. This letter follows our telephone discussion of today. Prior to commencement of excavation activity GSI will establish settlement control points on the existing house foundation. During construction these points will be measured daily with a transit to detect for foundation movements. In the event that foundation movements are detected,GSI would advise you to halt work until such time that the • nature and extent of the settlement can be evaluated and the excavation operations revised. It is noted that the earthwork strategy putforth by GSI enables the excavation activities to be performed outside the zone of influence of the existing foundation, therefore, no impact on the existing structure is anticipated. We trust that the contents of this letter will be responsive to your needs. In the meanwhile, should you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours; GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES,INC Richard E. Bushnell,E.I.T, ff K. Wetherbee,P.E. Project Engineer Principal Engineer cc: Mr.John Read,P.E.,Gordon,Bua,&Read,Inc. via fax(a)(781)944-6708 Mr.Peter Strout, Salem Building Department via fax @(978) 740-9846 ne.:tiw..mmw,v Mr.mwa,,. 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill,MA 01835 E 978/374/7744 -, FAX M/374/7799 d. d 14 Cote Avenue,Unit#11,Goffstown,UK 02045 <- 483/624/2722 -t FAX 403/624/3733 <s G S GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. • I r Geotechnical Engineering i Environmental Studies i Materials Testing Construction.Monitoring SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT: Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Wall 8 Plymouth Street Salem, Massachusetts CLIENT: Mr. Mike Burgess MDB Construction Company, Inc. PROJECT#: 200137 Ilk DATE: December 9, 1999 ENGINEER: Mr. Richard E. Bushnell, E.I.T., Project Engineer Mr. Harry K. Wetherbee, P.E., Principal Engineer As requested GSI has formulated_specific recommendations with respect to subgrade preparation in advance of construction of the Prefabrioafed Modular Block Facing Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall (MSW) at 8 Plymouth Street in Salem, Massachusetts. This supplemental workscope was prompted following our subgrade inspection report which was issued November 12, 1999. Our subgrade inspection report identified several issues with respect to excavation proximate to the existing structures foundation. Our intent herein is to review the proposed construction as indicated on the Plan prepared by Gordon, Bua, & Read, Inc. dated August 2, 1999 and formulate alternative earthwork strategies,which are both technically feasible and cost:effective. Upon close review of the retaining wall plans it has been determined that the subgrade improvement procedures outlined in our earlier report may impact the northeast corner of the existing structure. Moreover, fill placement in this area will generate subsurface stresses within the foundation zone of influence, which would exacerbate further foundation settlements due to overlapping stresses. 'The area affected by the overlapping stresses is defined herein as the Foundation Overlap Zone(FOZ). The FOZ is marked on the attached sketch. The most conservation approach to the MSW subgrade preparation would be to underpin the foundation corner in advance of excavation activity. The underpinnings would consist of bracketed steel pipe piles spaced no more than 8 feet apart. This would require at least four such underpinning at an estimated cost of $5,000. Subsequent to the foundation underpinning the unsuitable soil could be removed and backfilled with structural fill as outlined in our November 12, 1999 report. Alternatively, the FOZ subgrade could be improved by over-excavation a depth of 2 feet beyond the granular base elevation and construction of a geogrid stabilized gravel mat. This concept is detailed on the attached sketch. During this construction the existing foundation would be monitored for any movement. Proceeding in this manner would not eliminate the possibility of any post-construction foundation settlements in the FOZ but is believed to limit such movement to tolerable levels while also providing a cost-effective approach. i 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, MA 01835 i 978/374/7744 i FAX 978/374/7799 18 Cote Avenue, Unit #11, Goffstown, NH 03045 603/624/2722 FAX 603/624/3733 8 Plymouth Street GSI Project No. 200137 Salem, Massachusetts Page 2 Outside the FOZ it is recommended that the MSW subgrade be prepared as outlined in our November 12, 1999 report. Alternatively the geogrid stabilized gravel mat approach could also be adopted in these areas; such construction would subject the MSW to greater settlements than if the unsuitable soils are completely removed and backfilled with structural fill. However, in recognition of the flexible nature of the MSW, the post-construction settlements may be within the tolerable range for such a structure and may not result in objectionable or detrimental movements. Lastly, the settlements expected due to the unsuitable soil are a result of the decomposition and secondary compression of the organic constituent. These phenomena are considerably time dependent; the time required for the settlements manifest into structural distress may exceed the service life of the MSW. It is considered important that GSI be present during excavation activity in the FOZ and subgrade preparation elsewhere. This is to observe compliance with the procedures outlined herein and be available to offer immediate evaluation of unanticipated conditions. uvn.-vnsN�anu:�wJ[iy;+€M�.mkn.madrz yyti 4 S I 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. 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 pits and/or 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. Construction 6. It is recommended that this firm be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during the earthwork phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Use of Report 7. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of MDB Construction Company, Inc. and their assigned in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 8. 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. / } / QLJM ,A II A l,9 � 3JN3jMc'o" . .. t o r i } O Q t q � .Tdl 35) r LGeotechnical SiIN(1 VIO43 � dObdt -1)VIt, ONiN1dl3 S.O 1 oCd03a)33�L M �3g) J 338'3Lt�33 { oa Services Inc. RETAINING WALL LOCATIN PLAN Ave., Unit I 1 m. NH 03045 PROJECT: 8 Plymouth Street PROJECT NO.: 200137 LOCATION: Salem, Massachusetts ENGINEER: Richard Bushnell, E.LT. GEOTECHNICAL ECHNICAL Project 5'r — 7" Project No. zoo 13 7 SERVICES, INC. Calculated By 13 Of Date /7/9/s S 18 Cote Ave., Suite 11 Checked By Date offstown, NH03045 Subject STASle. 12.9-n /rl2Awe PKh--I— Scale A� Ajc e-0 ?624-2722+ FAX(603)6243733 r YZ , y M n 6CM&R,© SiA13/c /2rJa CfM' – SES T/cN 9 West Terrace Salem, MA 01970 Wednesday, August 23, 2000 Dear Neighbor: We want to thank you for attending the meeting on Thursday August 10, at 9 West Terrace, concerning the situations about the wall being built at 8 Plymouth St., Salem Ma. The group included: Roger&Marlene Banville 9 West Terrace J. Paul Banville 9 West Terrace John& Ann Kako 22 Clifton Avenue Mike& Suzanne Beaulieu 8 Plymouth Street M&J Ambrozavitch 10 Plymouth Street Kim Driscoll Councilor ward 5 Mike Burgess Contractor John Read Consulting Engineer Peter Strout Building Inspector Frank DiPaolo Building Inspector Two other neighbors also have concerns, but were unable to attend. Anya Treitler &David Denby, of 31 West Avenue, It is through their yard that Mr. Burgess has gained access to this project. This meeting opened the problem all of us had concerning the safety of the wall, and the time frame required to complete the project. Communication is the best avenue, and we felt each party had the opportunity to discuss their concerns. Mr. Read,the Consulting Engineer, stated that the wall was safe and that is how architectural walls are presently built.. The contractor, Mr. Burgess, assured us that the wall project would be completed and all debris would be taken away. He also guaranteed that the damaged fence at 9 West Terrace would be replaced with equal quality fencing and the garage would be painted. However there was no guaranteed time frame as to when this would happen. Mr. Strout and Mr.DiPaolo, will keep abreast of the continued progress of this project. Mr Beaulieu of 8 Plymouth St. is also anxiously waiting to have this project completed. We had a satisfactory conversation with him and are satisfied with the outcome at this date. [August 10, 2000.] (Sincerely rel ')ILR � ' 6 Roger&Marlene Banville Sep-09-99 14 : 24p Gordon $ua and Read Inc 1 P. 01 ~ GORDON, BUA & READ, INC. Civil CONSULTING ENGINEERS Post•it''Fax Note 7671 r)We •of Railroad 4 t rn�es► :!4 SAL EM ti'fxEET TO "` —...—L... Structural' �, From HF.ADNG,MASSACHUSETi501867 00JOP.pt. 7ransl+arAttiun (7Fq 9417110 Gn. /+ P40 ane a Fax i781j 444-h70X Pa. ^7r, Phone x C Far 7^}1 fYx x September 9, 1999 Mr. Michael Burgess MDB Construction 2 Lummus Avenue Danvers, MA 01923-2904 Re: Retaining Wall 8 Plymouth Street Salem, MA Dear Mike: Based on your request, Gordon, Bua & Read, Inc. (GB&R) offers its opinion with respect to drainage impacts resulting from the replacement of the timber retaining wall. Based on the intent of the design, which is to replace an existing retaining wall, GB&R does not anticipate any change in drainage associated with the installation of the proposed soil reinforced retaining wall as designed and shown on sheets I and 2 of the plans dated 812199. A s p} qt Very truly yours, GORDON, BIJA & REAIP, INC. ' I.1. Read, P.E. ice President JI3R/bg 49t6FrOt s J' rte. Wednesday August 9,2000 Wall behind 9 West Terrace on property at 6 Plymouth St. SAFETY AND CONCERNS: WALL PERMIT..DRAINAGE ASSESMENT 1. My concern refers to the wall structure that could fall apart and become a hazard, especially to children in the neighbor hood. 2. Reinforcement bars were not used to secure stones and the wall is extremely high, 12 feet? 3. Cement was not used to keep blocks in place. 4. It is my understanding that the manufacturer does not recommend using this system for walls higher than 6 feet in height without some form of secondary reinforcement S. Now,some of the stones are already cracked or broken,as you can observe,and the stones are not properly lined up. 6. Why were corner blocks not used,to secure the comers and the wall? 7. As the cold weather approaches and frost of winter hits, will the blocks be disturbed? (Once they start moving the entire integrity of the wall will be in question. The footing for the wall is not below the frost line. 8. I want to request that an engineer from the manufacturer of these blocks come and provide us with an evaluation of this wall situation in writing. ..66.66.......•..............0..............•■.........................668.0 This project has been in process for some time. We were initially told from the workers that this project would only take a few weeks to complete. The work on the wall itself began in March of 2000. The initial work started last November when the trees were cleared from their property to make way for the equipment that was brought in,in March. Is there a realistic date for the completion,and what will be included in completing the project? My garage was damaged in June. It was pushed 6 inches off the foundation. ?Yes they put it back in place,but there still needs to be painting done. Also the fence was broken apart and will need to be replaced. The fence is just three years old. When will it be replaced with an equal quality fencing and then stained? At this point,I want to see their promise to repair work on my property INWRITING. The contractor needs to put a claim in to his insurance,if this does not happen,I will do it cel emu e, a �cr & — 9 �- 05/15/2000 09:39 5087777771 MDS CONSTRUCTION PACE 02 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. *Geotechnical Enginearing,0Environmental StudiesoConstructlon Monitoring#Materials Testing GSI FIELD REPORT PROJECT: 8 Plymouth Street PROJECT 0: 200137 WEATHER: Light rain,40— we LOCATION: Salem,fes, DATE: May 5,2000 GENERAL CONTRACTOR: MDB Construction SITE CONTRACTOR: AgekxtCe Corretrtictolt SUPERINTENDENTICONTACT PERSON: Ike B -53 EQUIPMENT OPERATING: none DESCRIPTION OF TODAY'S WORK: Tom Budek, the GSI Field Representative, arrived on Slee at 8 Plymouth Street in Salem. Ma, to perform a subgrads evaluation for the proposed ruining well In the rear. A visual Inspection of the e)Vosed subgrade for the masonry block will starting in the north east comer,had a 2' lift of 1/,"crushed stone eAending 16' south and 11Y west with ivwo courses of block assembled. The ned 10' section heading west on a sept footing subgrade Is unacceptable for footing subgrade as the heavy rooted organic soil over time will settle and possible damage the retaining wall. The emavetions for the masonry block footings mist reach a natural subgrade free from organics and filled wAth kxushed stone up to the bottom W block elevation. No eke personnel on hand during the GSI alt visit and notification to contact the GSI office prior to any added rust wall assembly was left with the assigned Carpenters on the job,sklmantracting for NDB Construction Richard Bushnell, project engineer for GSI,was notified by the GSI Field Representall on the subgrade status and requested an additional subgrade Inspection to be performed prior to any further retaining well block assembly. APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS: 02200 COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS: r i YES (i NO ri SEE RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: REPORT PREPARED BY: Toxin Bka<lek REPORT REVIEWED BY: Id Harry K.Wathwbee. P.E- n1S Cate Ave.. Unit 11 Goffstown,NH 03045 6031OW2722 fax 803182615733 n12 Rogers Road. Haverhill. MA 01825 9781374!7746 fax 870/376!7790 05/15/2000 09:39 5087777771 MDB CaSTRUCTION PAGE 01 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 18 Cote Ave., Units I I & 12 Goffstown, NH 03045 (603)624-2722 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: NMB Construction Lummus Avenue Danvers, MA 01923 ATTN: W. Mike Burgess ffT/l/ DATE.- May 11, 2000 PROJECT: 9 Plymouth Street FMAI ]PROJECT NO.: 200137 Attached are the following for your use: i�IWK ,34* 1 10: Cv Tete Reports-Cylinders Cuwretc Rzpurts-BLarm Cowmte Inspection Rcport Re0otcmg,5tcel hW@Ltm Report Yield Onsity Report hold Report Letter w/atteichinonti Sieve CC: 05/15/2000 09: 39 COVER PAGE TO : FARC : 7489846 FROM : MDB CONSTRUCTION FARC : 5887777771 TEL : 5887777318 COMMENT : _r • t5 , JK FENCE PROP. RETAINING WALL A 4' CHAIN LINK (SEGMENTAL FACIA UNITS) I NOTES {N FENCE rocADSTRUCTURAL BACKFILLs4 -1--�5't pR 1 . ALL MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, AND DETAILS SHALL CONFORM TO THE 1. THE STRUCTURAL' BACKFILL SHALL BE A GRAVEL'BORROW MATERIAL Op. EAST }` " r. EAr AR URAB ,STONE AND _ -_ ST CONSISTING Of .INERT MATERIAL THAT IS D D LE gppR WALL REQUIREMENTS THE LATEST EDITION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS OX _--` "�-- PR-O'P � BUILDING CODE. COARSE SD, FREE FROM LOAM AND CLAY, SURFACE COATINGS, 1 ,` , ASSUMED NORTH DELETERIOUS MATERIALS AND MEET THE FOLLOWING GRADATION Ftl �..�. REQUIREMENTS: (REMOVE)} Q t-- " _ f 2. NO SOIL INVESTIGATIONS OR GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE SITE k• M , s (REMOVE) 12 TREE �24",TRE o WAS PERFORMED. THE FOLLOWING DESIGN PARAMETERS WERE USED FOR SIEVE DESIGNATION PERCENT PASSING ` P o TIMBER RET. WALL -" THE DESIGN OF THE WALL. „ r 12 7R. iw. 1/2 IN. 50 -. 85 • J r '+� r by J { 'ail —" o ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE: 1 .5 TSF NO. 4 40 -,;75 8 ,TREE I D BACKFILL • y n „ (REMOVE) NO. 200 .0 10 „ UNIT WEIGHT OF COMPACTS 125 PSF , ' : z 3 _ T 0 S_. . .. }-' ' 3 ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE: 40 PSF NO 50 $ 28 PROP. RETAINING WALL r F.S. OVERTURNING: 2.0 ►+ a (SEGMENTAL FACIA UNITS) P 5 F.S, SLIDING: 1 ,g MAXIMUM SIZE OF STONE SHALL BE 2 INCHES LARGEST DIMENSION. x� 0 I - J N 2. .- THE BACKFlLL SHALL BE ,PLACED IN 8 INCH. LIF`tS- AND SHALL 8E � CL a / COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM DENSITY OF 95% OF .THE MAXIMUM STANDARD , T VERIFIED Y A GEOTECHNICAL HNICAL „ P N PRESSURE 0 BE FIELD VE F ED B EO EC PRESUMPTIVE BEARING P ESS E , . w FENCE ` a S a � BYOOWNER P. ° ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALL. PROCTOR DENSITY (ASTM D 698) AND VERIFIED BY FIELD TEST. r Tr F i I I a FOUNDATION MATERIALS (LEVELING PADI f ', SEGMENTAL CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 1 . THE LEVELING PAD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE 'BOTTOM COURSE • ' w' J ` , - � �� GPRP I -- OF THE FACIA UNITS. THE LEVELING PAD SHALL BE>A MINIMUM OF 12 w , t ,fit' a',' CK THE WORK INCLUDES FURNISHING AND INSTALLING INTERLOCKING CONCRETE INCHES OF`CRUSHED STONE (3/4"). THE LEVELING PAD 'SHALL BE " BR1 J ° o FACIA AND CAP UNITS, GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT, STRUCTURAL COMPACTED TO 95% OF THE MAXIMUM STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY. BACKFILL, FOUNDATION MATERIALS (LEVELING PAD), PVC DRAIN PIPE, TIMBER DECK I DRAINAGE FILL MATERIAL AND ALL OTHER INCIDENTALS SHOWN ON THE PLANS pRAIN E BACKFILL OR REQUIRED BY THE MANUFACTURER OF THE SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL �j SYSTEM. 1, A VERTICAL LAYER OF DRAINAGE BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED ALONG ;i e INTERLOCKING CONCRETE FACIA AND CAP UNIT THE BACK OF THE WALL ITS ENTIRE LENGTH. THE DRAINAGE BACKFILL I SHALL BE 1/2 INCH CRUSHED STONE WITH THE FOLLOWING GRADATION: Y ''J 1 . INTERLOCKING CONCRETE FACIA UNITS SHALL BE "STONEWALL" BY 1 PAVERS BY IDEAL" OR APPROVED EQUAL. THE SYSTEM MUST MEET THE -SIEVE DESIGNATION PERCENT PASSING f p I NATIONAL CONCRETE MASONRY ASSOCIATION'S "(NCMA) "SPECIFICATIONS 1/2 IN. 950- 100 a I FOR SEGMENTAL CONCRETE UNITS" AND THE DESIGN MANUAL FOR v c SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS". INSTALLATION PROCEDURES SHALL CONFORM 1 IN. 35 - 70 it 3/4 IN. O - 25 TO THE MANUFACTURES RECOMMENDATIONS AND THESE PLANS. , t a I P�YMOU USE p ST. 2. THE STONE SHALL BE A DURABLE CRUSHED ROCK CONSISTING OF i 2 STORY WOOD 4 ANGULAR FRAGMENTS OBTAINED BY CRUSHING SOLID NATURAL ROCK AND t !'' Q I 2. EACH FACIA UNITS SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS: SHALL BE FREE FROM A DETRIMENTAL AMOUNT OF THIN, FLAT, r! HOUSE #6 ui ELONGATED PIECES. z I PLYMOUTH ST. 8TANDARD UNIT " SAP UNIT ^ .M HEIGHT: 7 5/8 HEIGHT: 3 5/8- WIDTH /8 WIDTH 11 5/8" WIDTH: 11 5/8" " • ; li DEPTH: 11 5/8" DEPTH: 7 5/8" " a I - 3. THE CONCRETE USED TO MANUFACTURE THE FACIA UNITS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3000 PSI IN ACCORDANCE X WITH ASTM C90, C140, C145.CL a I 4. THE UNITS SHALL BE POSITIVELY ENGAGED TO THE UNIT BELOW IT w • ',tiw ,, <r i / WITH CONNECTION PINS. EACH UNIT SHALL A HAVE A SETBACK 4 TO PROVIDE A BATTER. THE PINS AND BATTER SHALL MEET THE a ' MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS. x GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMFf�T t • I 1 . APPROVED HE GEOSYNTHETIC. ANDNSOHALLrENT MEET SHALL BE FOLLOW NRGTA GRID REQUIREMOENT�R t 1 ULTIMATE STRENGTH: 3000 LBS,/FT I CREEP LIMITED STRENGTH: 1863 LBS//FT `tf LONG TERM DESIGN STRENGTH: 1540 LBS/"FT ppOp, L INTERACTION COEFFICIENT (Ci): 0.9 AFp�OX/' 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO ENSURE THAT THE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT IS PLACED WITH THE STRONG DIRECTION ; PERPENDICULAR TO THE FACE OF THE WALL. INSTALLATION SHALL BE r PLAN OONTHESE I COPLANNFORMANCE TO THE MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS AND y I t 10'-0' • -��I NOTE: PROPERTY INFORMATION SHOWN IS APPROXIMATE AND IS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE OWNER. I � 4 4 1 Tyd ' 1 1 FENCE BY OWNER FENCE BY OWNER — , FENCE BY OWNER - - /--- PROP. CAP PROP. CAP „ a STONE UNl1 F STONE UNIT (PROP. GRADE PROP. GRADE PROP. 'GRADE PROP. GRADE PROP. GRADE ELEV. 98 _ ELEV. 96 ELEV. 96.00 ELEV. 96.00 — - — - — -- --- ELEV. 96 - - —, 7-,_i -----— – -- -- --- — --- -- ------ '�•J PROP. FINISHED GRADE (_ >;� PROP. SOIL REIN. �— PROP. CAP _ APPROX. EXIST. GROUND / _, STONEWALL r J-- PROP. SOIL REIN. STONE UNIT P STONEWALL _REIN. " " T1 „ STONEWALL - �� r - -r (MIN.) 18 EMBEDMENT / , �I 1MIN EMBEDMENT T. PROP. FINISHED GRADE BASE COURSE OF _J - , '�� (MIN.) - r L � RETAINING WALL _ _ _ _ APPROX.. EXIST. GROUND _ _ - — >..•�.. ✓ \ v.� �. ver..r-.v\%C�r, '.\i r. v. .;. .1 . i .Y i.i• r — 1 - - - - - -~- - - - - - - - - - - - = - >� "' AUG 31 I � Ji T 18" EMBEDMENT - -j PRC- . FINISHED GRADE — — BASE COURSE OF -- I + e 'T RETAINING 6 5 4 3 2 ' 1 WALL TYPE APPROX. EXIST. GROUND RETAINING WALL (MIN') BASE COURSE OF — --J ( 6 PLYMOUTH- STREET y -.-y_. -- -- - , -- - - -- .._. RETAINING WALL i u x WALL TYPE I (SEE SCEDULE) I _ _ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS WALL TYPE 1 1 � 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 7 SOUTH WALL ELEVATION EAST WALL ELEVATION GORDON, BUA & READ,, ,,'WC .' aK NORTH WALL ELEVATION �°F SCALE: 1 " = 1 '-0" SCALE: 1 " - 1 ' -0" �� CML, STRUCTURAL do TRANSPORTATION E`NG�1NE't17S SCALE: 1 " = 1 —0" BUA 34 SALEM STREET ;rw k :,Ix• �. o - READING, MASSACHUSETTS 0186! Foy DES DRN CHK APP D BY: LM BY GJB LRD BY: MR'ti SCALE: DATE' PROJ. PLAN. N0. : : tY 1 "=1 `-0" 8 2' 99108 f '' ira.7Ivxti t APPROXIMATE MINIMUM GEOGRID ELEVATION. (E) N0. OF BLOCKS "' ' • ' WALL TYPE TOTAL HEIGHT (H) STRATA GRID 300 ABOVE BASE ELEVATION LENGTH (L) ABOVE- BASE COURSE ABOVE . BASE COURSE 1 , 1 14' 10 FT 1 .3, 2.0, 3.3, 4,7, 6.0, 2-3r-5-7-9-12-15-18 8.0, 10.0, 12.09 , PROP. CAP STONE UNIT 2 12' 8.5 FT 1 .3, 2.7, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0 2=4-6-9-12-15 (ADHERE TO TOP UNIT i OF WALL WITH CONC. ADHESIVE) -- 3 10' 7 FT 0.7, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, $.0 1 -3-6-9-12 FENCE BY OWNER r _PROP. GRADE ELEV.= BOT. OF CAPSTONE K - ---- _ - — 4 8' 6 FT 0.7, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0 1 -3-6-9 PROPOSED MODULAR APPROX. EXISTING GROUND- CONCRETE FACING UNITS BLOCK RET. WALL 5 6' 5 FT 0.7, 2.0, 4,0 1 -3-6 + PROP. GRADE 6 4 4.5 FT 2.0 3 : w - 12" THK. (MIN.) z DRAINAGE AGGREGATE pF 7 < 4 NO GEOGRID NESESSARY N/A N/A o I PROPOSED z GEOSYNTHETIC p� = v REINFORCEMENT QQ� rwl I (TYPICAL) P ,� . r Lo >o I I ­ -- -------z-- LIMIT OF za I STRUCTURAL FILL Qco I x _ FINISHED GRADE VERTDI� AL LY JO NTSGER w LINE r w GRANULAR LEVELING PAD ---/ L COMPACTED CRUSHED STONE ---- —_— (SEE DETAIL) ,. ve SECTION A GRANULAP, I1 � X11 SCALE: 1 /4" = 1 '-O" LEVELING PAD _� / i I=1 11 11 I-7I 11=111='I ' BURY ONE ADDITIONAL _ k FULL UNIT MIN. !' UNDISTURI?ED SOIL Y r NOTE: + -LIMIT CHANGES IN BASE ELEVATION TO 8" PER STEP TO AVOID DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT � I 4 -STEP OFTEN ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN 18" MIN. EMBEDMENT i STEPPING BASE DETAIL SCALE: N.T.S. — 4" 0 DRAIN PIPET / FENCE POST I V OR HANDRAIL POST II GRADE ,I r- ORAVNAGE !IREGATE z _ '10 0 I Z w 1 _ r GI T T o PLACE GEO RDS O HE -� 4 0 PERFORATED 00 m 12" FACE OF BLOCK DRAIN OUTLET --- PIPE w /--- COMPACTED CRUSHED iv / STONE (TYP ) n` I ' J S 1 i ' Gf O O O O � 6.. 'A1 nre@ SLOPE 1:6 (TYP.) - f CONCRETE BASE - - ,� WEEP HOLE IN USE CONCRETE TUBE FORM OPEN JOINT AT 8 PLYMOUTH STREET ri 36" O FT. O.C. (MAX.) NOTE: -. GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT SHALL 8E CUT SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS R 3a AROUND FENCE POST FOUNDATIONS. DRAIN DETAIL LEVELING PAD DETAIL1 /2"= l ' -O" FENCE POST DETAIL vY 7, ' SCALE: 1 + N.T.S. SCALE: 3/4"=1 '-0" GORDON, BUA & READ, INC. ; ZHOF 4 s 5,��#' ClwL, STRUCTURAL & TRANSPORTATION ENCINt'EAS „' 4,' ua 34 SALEM STREET ' "u READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01667 , ; —_ 20 - .. _ Sr. r r , , DES DRN CHK APP.D BY ' LM BY: GJ6 LRD' BY: ' .JHR BY: ,';1 SCALE: DATE: PROJ. PLAN NOa AS zNOTED 8/2/09' NO» ;9�10$ ,.2 } OF .. .. ' . r r ! a "1 6 o. (;� vF uhn� yJ• Y oA.V,,�,qq '� �..a.- ..<• .. _ r . :..; . . ... .. `.. {:, r '..,'" , '. ,,. :' »+ `b+.w.h.,�,,.+ , lrw'w;ri, 1Jn '�p> '�F- vv ti•'�.{'f.,:,r, >:r�'P k�:f'C'4i7F:nt1°r'��r . »1iS3r'f.&�M^`, ' , ma�yy///�/�f�f i (-{/A VI � orf �� �� � S GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. � j Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Studies i Materials Testing Construction Monitoring BEARING CAPACITY EVALUATION REPORT PROJECT: 8 Plymouth Street Salem, Massachusetts CLIENT: Mr. Mike Burgess MDB Construction Company, Inc. PROJECT#: 200137 DATE: November 12, 1999 ENGINEER: Mr. Richard E. Bushnell, E.I.T., Project Engineer Mr. Harry K. Wetherbee, P.E., Principal Engineer This report follows our visit to the site on 11/12/99 to evaluate the subgrade bearing capacity underlying the proposed retaining wall. BACKGROUND--The project consists of the construction of a retaining wall to the rear of the house located at 8 Plymouth Street in Salem, Massachusetts. The retaining wall plan entitled"8 Plymouth Street, Salem,Massachusetts",prepared by Gordon,Bua,&Read,Inc. dated August 2, 1999 indicated a presumed allowable soil bearing capacity of 1.5 tons per square foot (tst). The specific purpose was to confirm that • the bearing strata would provide the allowable bearing capacity. SUBGRADE CONDITIONS--Upon arrival GSI observed the excavation of two test pits along the proposed footprint of the retaining wall. The test pits were excavated by Kobeireski Company using a Daewood 130 Excavator at locations depicted on the attached location plan. The soils were classified in the field in general accordance with the Burmister system. The test pits were advanced until a competent bearing strata was encountered. The test pits revealed 6.0 to 10.0 feet of fill, which is classified as a dark brown/black, fine to medium SAND, little-some Silt, little Gravel, roots, organics, bricks,wood, timbers, asphalt, cobbles, and boulders. Underlying the fill was encountered an approximate 6-12-inch layer of a grey, f-m SAND, little Silt, little Gravel (till) then a slightly weathered bedrock.. No groundwater was encountered during the exploration program. Test pit logs documenting the excavations are attached. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS—The fill underlying the site is not suitable to provide a bearing capacity of 1.5 tsf. Therefore, GSI recommends the fill be removed from the zone of influence of the retaining wall and replaced with structural fill. The zone of influence is defined as a IHAV splay originating I foot from the outside toe and heel of the wall and projecting down and outward until a competent bearing strata is encountered. The structural fill must be placed in 12-inch lifts and compacted to a minimum 95% of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. It is expected that the required excavation will impact the foundation for the proximate house. To prevent damage, it is recommended the foundation be shored and/or underpinned. The retaining wall designers, Gordon, Bua, & Read should be notified of GSI's concerns and the retaining wall design may be re-evaluated in light of the subsurface conditions encountered during construction. NCFc\CSI\(:euiv�FK:oiuulwip\X�IymouF nnr.Fr i 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, MA 01835 978/374/7744 i FAX 978/374/7799 a 18 Cote Avenue, Unit #11, Goffstown, NH 03045 603/624/2722 FAX 603/624/3733 FL((I"I C)UT 1-I S 7 47EE7 EK � sTin� � 14c) L) s E TP 1 I TP Z Geotechnical Services Inc. TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN 18 Cote Ave., Unit I 1 Goffstown,NH 03045 PROJECT: 8 Plymouth Street PROJECT NO.: 200137 LOCATION: Salem, Massachusetts ENGINEER: R. Bushnell, E.I.T. T E S T P I T F I E L D L 4 G GEOTECHNICAL PROJECT: 8 f tytnourN STREET TEST PIT NO. t SERVICES , INC LOCATION: SA4G/ni !11R' LOCATION: See Plan PROJECT NO: Ico13'+ SURFACE ELEV. : Engineer: R. C3� WA 511Nenu- EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT GROUNDTER OBSERVATION Weather: S,;nn.� yo Contractor: roA4 !-Skl COmI9`-7- Operator: /t,cw.,, l ka(olrrslc DATE/TIME DEPTH (FT) Date: 11 // 'Z14S Make: At ,--d Model: IA-' 1voN'G Capacity: i VJ3 Reach: t' t DEPTH STRATUM SOIL DESCRIPTION EXCA°• BOULDER FIELD (FT) CHANGE EFFORT COUNT DRY Encountered (FT) QTY/CLASS y 0 --/0 /,�,CSC 1{1.1,7fOui•D t /'-l�'t S/1N(( Gi IlY�,V�� E/j'7 ✓3.•. Li -So S,1L, CvnbteSt br,a43�:'�-%�� '4-�` Cr�p,n,cs wc.Hv,.Q �FiLL� t V fC j�'EDRGCf� SI �f1� 4Jt.,{�,ei U'0 , t REMARKS : TEST PTT I.EC7ND: PROPORT ONS USEL ABBREVIATIONS EXCAVATION EFFORT DIMENSIONS ROOLDFR COUNT F-Fine SIZE RANGE LETTER TRACE (0-108) M-Medium E-Easy L (FT)_ CLASSIFICATION DESIGNATION C-Coarse LITTLE (10-208) FIM-Fine to M-Moderate W (FT)_ 61"-18" A Medium SOME (20-358) F/C-Fine to D-Difficult 18"-36" B Coarse AND (35-508) V-Very 36" AND LARGER C GR-Gray SN-Brown YEL-Yellow = T E S T P I T F I E L D L O G GEOTECHNICAL PROJECT: 0 1ULY("OUTH STIZEE7 TEST PIT NO, a SERVICES , INC LOCATION: SAI-Cl'), MI} LOCATION: See Plan PROJECT NO: Lco13 '+ SURFACE ELEV. : Engineer: R, 6,.;t j1NG-7-I- EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT GROUNDWATER OBSERVATION Weather: S nn LIC) Contractor: kb6K'!-sk) 6oA4rr-7- Operator: R,,U",d kcblsrs4r DATE/TIME DEPTH (FT) Date: 11 // 'Z/46 Make: Ac...=J Model: /3V Noti6 Capacity: 1 Td3 Reach: /S" i DEPTH STRATUM[ SOIL DESCRIPTION EXCAV' BOULDER FIELD (FT) CHANGE EFFORT COUNT DRY Encountered (FT) I I I QTY/CLASS y � r r3laile F-M SANp /-, G-ravei� [r - F/ - 8 So Salt Cc)oNes Crr AICS rpofi� g - G r C - l 5 6 O:avu1C F M Lr SI if; Lr 6-rave (TI" UIG ror4 6 REMARKS: TEST PTT LFpRNn- PROPORTIONS USED ABBREVIATIONS EXCAVATION EFFORT DTMENSTONS BOULDER COUNT F-Fine SIZE RANGE LETTER TRACE (0-108) M-Medium E-Easy L (FT)_ CLASSIFICATION DESIGNATION C-Coarse LITTLE (10-208) F/M-Fine to M-Moderate W (FT)_ 6"-18" A Medium SOME (20-358) F/C-Fine to D-Difficult 18"-36" B Coarse AND (35-508) V-Very 36" AND LARGER C GR-Gray BN-Brown YEL-Yellow 780 CMR: STATE BOARD OFBUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS FOUNDATIONS AND RETAINING WALLS Table 1804.3 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURES FOR FOUNDATION MATERIALS bink coxal Deoiption Nola Con,iMicY in Placer Preau(lio . Ailkwabic BUng I Massive bedrock: 3 Hard sound rock miter 100 /G�r'aniite..chariot gabbrobasalt,grow pmmg F>3ISb. ..�wryr..�Mlt ,CCmlatCd ...h.Ea nr$' 3 .bad:sohtodroi•Jcmoderale ,:.60 2 Foliated bedrock:sWe,schist 3 Medium hard rock,minor 40 m n b�ed�r.�o�Jycc�mmmgR` "'a 4 $o8teckW�m+odeata ' 97 F} aluk;.a7tatenprmhtma.hmmtomga,�- r3 ���c i 3z»�a��. a- z � !, '�s> .�r'�alamde.' `+`� �8h...��«��,..,�., .,.•� w.<.. >yu ' ,rx.:z. .race .. 4 Weakly cemented sedimentary 3 Very soft rock 10 .bedrock:cmpactim shale or oder similar rock in sound coodition we a ehal� '"' - aflhcabov��v3.S�Vay`so@torJCwcathered�r c. '� �, -..8 ri A,l ..xe�o�d/.n.'a�t.►.7ocW 8a�z an �>3.. 0sea& ,,d-Y ... . ...» ... 6 Slightly eemeoted scrod andlcr 9mveL 7,8 Verydears 10 glacial till(basal or lodgismect) hatdpm �-r rat`'• � ';° ry.,� a�xvs� xz�s,.s,�'�34`x' �„ °fps �iY�'l��aat� xsF�S3*SF�ed7a'�'x�`r � qah «k><w°•a�.�3 fl' a°'�1�+^a� .err A. > e . ra•r ;4+s a p,y Y V� ��s u... � ::><,��� a °',�fyQ7 K •• x . g Sands and tun-plastic silty sands with C 7,8. Deas 4 Uwe a an gravel(except for Class,9 9 Mediuun dens 3 Materials) Lease 2 very lcox Note I 1 ' ,+"� ', w"", ' '* u .a �9+ Fmcasad ahyfma>md.aodmo--- S 6+7�g Dea:a `" ' ^ 3 :§ a"Plamcasargwns4 x a * ,,. xMemhaademe .•,�2 L� j�µ, %�ygk �S�'a+,w^��«��iy".. i•3�,� Loo1e' � l bd,,.iuYs.a.`a":a*tit•` �savaxs'aa ,a a .�iVaY IOmca ',.$„ » 'F Note!1 10 loarganie study orsilty day,clayey 5,6, Hard 4 mud.dryryaft.clay,orvarvedclay; 10 Stilt- 2 lowtohigbpWtidry Medium 1 �y Sot Note t I S1-'$hGrgaaha falx pur,agmcalr. Note I1 , < a. aaaYwro rgraamo ..a.•..: .�...a__".:. ,.err.:; ...,,., . :.. r.'.;. Notes for Table 1804.3: L Refer to commeataty in Appeadix D regarding typical index test values that may be helpful as guides for evaluation of con isteory in place 2- Refer to 780 CMR 1807.0 for determination of design loads and for special cases. 3. The allowable baring pressures may be increased by an amount equal to 1000,for each root of depth below the surface of sound tock;however,the increase shall not exceed rm times the value given in the table. 4. For limestone and dolomite,the bearing pressures given are acceptable only if an exploration program performed under the direction of a registered design professional demonstrates that there are no cavities within the zone of influence of the foundations. If cavities exist,a special study of the foundation conditions is required 5. Weathered shale and/or weathered compaction shale shall be included in Material Class 10. Other highly weathered rocks and/or residual soils shall be treated as soil under the appropriate description in Material Classes 6 to 10. Where the raasition betwom residual soil and bedrock is gradual,a registered design professional shall make a judgment as to the appropriate bearing pressure. 6. Settlement analysis in accordance with 780 CMR 1805.5 should be performed if the ability of a given structure to tolerate settlements is in question,particularly for,but not limited to,soft or very soft clays and silts and loose granular materials. 7. Allowable bearing pressures may be increased by an amomt equal to 5%for each foot of depth of the bearing arm below the minimum required in 780 CMR 1806.0; however,the bearing pressure shall not exceed two times the value given in the able. For foundation bearing areas having a least lateral dimension smaller than three fat,the allowable bearing pressure shall be rfs of the tabulated value times the least dimension in feet. 8. Refer to 780 CMRI804.3 when these materials are used as compacted fills. 9. These materials are subject to the provisions in 780 CMR 1805.3(Liquefaction). 117/97 (Effective 2128/97) 780 CMR- Sixth Edition 311 ----t.S '_ EOTECHNICAL ERVICES NC. Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Studies -Ii Materials Testing Construction Monitoring December 10. 1999 Mr. Mike Burgess MDB Construction Company, Inc. 2 Lummus Avenue ADVANCE COPY BY FAX Danvers, MA 0 192 3 978-777-7771 Subject: Additional Geotechnical/Construction Monitoring Services 8 Plymouth Street Salem, Massachusetts GSI Project No: 200137 Dear Mr, Burgess: Geotechnical Services, Inc. (GST) is pleased to submit this proposal to perform additional geotechnical engineering and construction monitoring services, as requested for the above-referenced project. BACKGROUND & PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK Based on our original subgrade evaluation GSI identified several issues associated with installation of the proposed retaining wall system. GSI proposes to review the project plans,test pit data, and subsequently devise an alternative excavation strategy for subgrade preparation prior to installation of the rets¢ting wall system. The devised strategy would be both technically feasible and cost-eiTective. Following the formulation.of the earthwork strategy, GSI would provide a field engineer or technician to monitor the appropriate excavation activities. The monitoring would include but not bee limited to: . 1. Installation of control points on existing building to evaluate both vertical and horizontal movement. ' '. Observe the excavation of unsuitable material to appropriate bearing strata and perform field density testing during installation of backfill. 3. Preparation of a daily field report which indicates the days activities and compliance with both project plans and geotechnical recormnendations. If requested, GSI could evaluate various methods for either stabilizing or jacking the existing foundation to approximate original levels. This would necessitate additional explorations adjacent to the existing house to determine extent of unsuitable bearing material. Following the additional explorations, GST would prepare a technical report outlinin&appropriate repair techniques and costs associated with each. FEES 'I he following outlines our fees associated with the above-referenced scope of work: I. Formulation of earthwork strategy $x00/tum: p sum 2 Monitor earthwork construction Time and Materials in accordance with Attached Rate Schedule .as 12 Rogers Road, Haverhill, MA 01835 a 978/374/7744 -a FAX 978/374/7799 - e 18 Cote Avenue, Unit#11, Goffstown, NH 03045 .d 603/624/2722 -e FAX 603/624/3733 Geotechnical Engineering Proposal GSI Project No. 99240 Page 2 November 19, 1999 3. Evaluation ofexisting foundation $1,000 (excavator provided by others) $2,000 (excavator provided by GSI) Prior to initiation of the above-workscope, GSI would require a retainer in the amount of$1,200. Our services will be billed on a time and materials basis in accordance with the attached Rate Schedule and Terms and Conditions. 'The above-referenced lump-sum prices would not be exceeded without prior approval. We trust that this proposal is consistent with your needs at this tune. You may formally enter into an agreement with us to accomplish the previously described scope of work by signing the enclosed copy of the proposal . We thank you for allowing us this opportunity to offer you our services and look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. rA. Very truly yours, GEOTEULNICAL SERVICES, INC. Richard E. Bushnell, E.I.T. Hare Wetherber, P.E. Project Engineer Principal Engineer cc: Mr. John Read, P.E. Gordon, Bud, & Read, Inc. via, fax (al. 781-944-6708 attachments: Terms and Conditions, Rate Schedule p.i/n�Wpn:umM1 aurei.� PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE FORM This proposal and the Terms and Conditions of engagement are hereby accepted and executed ly a duly authorized signatory, who by execution hereof, warrants that he/she has full authority to act for, in the name and on behalf of the client. (Authorizing Signature) ( Printed Name and Title) (Company/Legal Entity) (Date) G S = I h GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. - RATE SCHEDULE , 1/99 A. PROFESSIONAL STAFF Principal Engineer $90/hr D. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS Professional Engineer 75/hr Project Manager 60/hr Soil Borings with Mobile B-47 12001day Materials Engineer 50/hr Soil Borings with Sombadier 1300/day Environmental Engineer 75hr Soil Borings with Simco SK2400 1300/day Geotechnical Engineer 50/hr Soil Springs with Acker Tripod 1200/day Field Engineer 45/hr Test Pits with Rubber Tired Machine 75/hr Senior Field Technician 35/hr Test Pits with Track Excavator 100/hr Licensed Site Professional 11 51h Mobilization 5/mile Engineering Geologist 601hr Draftsperson 40/hr E. MISCELLANEOUS Word Processing 30/hr Transportation of Materials to Lab 27.5/hr ,ys B. CONSTRUCTION MONI TORINCa SERVICES Nuclear Density Gage 25/day photo Ionization[)elector 50/day Materials Technician 125PL,day Vibration Monitor 50/day 2201 full day Guelph Permeameler 50/day Steel Inspector(AWS Visual) 501hr Groundwater Sampling Pump 50/day Roofing Inspector 40/hr Mileage .35/mi. Fireproofing Inspector 40/hr UT Steel Testing Apparatus 501day Groundwater Monitor Wells 12/ft, C. LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES Monitor Well Covers 100/ea. Overtime 50% Soils Same Day Surcharge 50/day Sleve Analysis(ASTM C-136 and C-117) 95/ea Hydrometer Analysis(ASTM 3422) 75/ea Organic Content 75/ea pH Determination 25/ea Topsoil Nutrient Analysis 100/ea Proctor(Standard or Modified) 125/ea Arenberg Limits 75lea Rates and mileage charges are assessed California Bearing Ratio 250/ea portal to portal from Haverhill. MA.or Consolidation Tesling(Taylor Method) 300/ea Goffstown,NH,whichever is closer to the Falling/Constant Head Permeability 150/ea project site. Triaxial Permeability 275/ea Concrete. rid Aepre ales Overtime surcharge for technical staff is 50%, Concrete Cylinder Compression 12/ea Markup for reimbursable expenses Is 204/6. Mix Design Review 260/ea r Concrete Core Compression Tests 50/ea A surcharge of 50%applies to all same day Windsor Probe 75/ea service. Masonry Prisms 35/ea Mortar Cubes 35/ea Sundays and Holiday service are Asphalt surcharged 100%, btlo"rule or 1.5%per month may be applied Dansity Tess 150/ea Asphalt Extraction Tests 200/ea to all ocarAuc actounlc. Mix Reviow 250/ea G s ug C. 10 1599 1I0:c^A'I F'S r GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.:TERMSAND CONDITIONS ...._ ,__..,,._. MONITORING GF CONSTRUCTION-. CLIENT agrees to 1@tain ENGINEER to COMPENSATION. Fees for engineering soMcea will be^_aced upon the time worked monitor construction., and GSI agrees to assign, to the monitoring function n a given project and computed in accordance with the attached rate schedule, Fees parsons qualified to observe and report on lne quality of wuuk performed oy fOf inutovse Computot services,mileage charges,eryenses.and time spent traveling mnLaMnS et ori, Psion of construction monitoring by GSI Is hot insurance, in the in:Ofsal OfwpM wilt b0 assessed In accordance with thea'tachfo rate sr-nedule. nor does it constitute a warranty or guarantee Of any type, In all cases, cwrttaCiDrs,at at,shall retain fesponsfoAlry for the quality of their wool and tof INV I ES: Invoice'will be suod:itted either upro completion of Services or on a adheNlg to plans and spro ficabons. Should CLIENT for any reason not retain monthly basis. lnvoiGes are due and payable,within thirty(30 days after fire hiling GSI to Monitor construction,of should CLIENT unduly rasclot GSI's as,i{{nme it date, kCLIENT objects to all or any portion of an invoice,CLIENT shall oro nobly,GSI o!persan;tai to monitor Gml&trucii0n or should GSI for ary reason not perrornl within fourteen (14) calendar days or the invoice date, idemity the cause of construction manhoring during the full period of construction,G$I shall not have disarm@ement.and Pay'wnan dile,hat portion of the invoice,if any,not In dispute. the abiity to provide a complete service. Should GSI for any reason not have the ability,to perforin a complete service,and thus not have the Capability for SL%SPENSt(DN Of SERVICES- it CLIENT fails to make payments when due or adequate. control of implementation of the complete engineering function, otnerwiss is in breach of lois agreement, Olen GSI may Suspend performance of CLIENT waives ally blain)against GSI,and agrees to indemnify,defend and - services upon 5 goys written notification to CLIENT GSI shall have no NhOslav save GSI harmless from any claim or liability for Injury Or loss arising from WnalSOvwsr to CLIENT for any Costs or damages as A result of such sospeno4on pros ams during construction that Vielle ey fesult from findings,conclusions, Caused u•,{any breach of skis agreement by CLIENT, recommandatione,plans or specificallons developed by GSI. RIGHT OF ENTRY' LNdtSs otherwise agreed.CLIENT will furnish right-of-amry upon JOBStTE SAFETY Meitner the professional activities of GSI,northe presence the site for GSI or its subcentmOlors to perform assessments or explorations as of GSI or his employees or suboensultants at a conslruOUon site,snort relieve deemed necessary by GSf. the General Cdntracfor and any other entry of their obligations, duties and responsibilities including,but pot Mulled W.Construction means and methods. HOLDING HARMLESS: CLIENT unOerstands that"leading GS1 harmless"as referred sequence,t6rh+uoues w Procedures necessary for performing,superintending to in these Term, and Conditions, would, among other thing require CLIENT to or Ccwrdinating all portions of the Work Of construction in accordance with the nomponsam GSI for any time spent or expenses incurred by GSI In defense of any Contract documents and any health or safely precautions required by any claim far which CLIENT has agreed to indemnify GSI, in accOrOanca with GSC, regulatory Agencies. GSI and his or her personnel have no authority to exorcise Prevailing fee schedule and expense reimbursement policy relative to recovery of any control over the construction contractor Or other enety or their employees direct pro!ev t costs, in connection with their work of any beef h 0:Safety boonRions. The GllCnt agrees that the General Contractor is Soley responsible for jobsite safety.and .SAMPLES: SOP.rock,and water samples obtained from the site which have not beenwemants chat In intent shall be made evident In the Client's agreement with the , consumed in testing„rea5m81he Prop"of the CLIENT,Once the gfoject account has General Contractor. The Ctind also agrees that the Client, GSI and GSI's been paid in NO. Such Samples will be held for thirty(30;days after payment,and will suliConsultart shall be indemnified and shall be made additional insufeda be di&p05ed Of thereafter finless delivery to CLIENT is requested it)wfiting. if is under the General Contfactofs general liability policy. CLIENT'S responsibility to select and arrange for disposal procedures which encompass removing the contemitived samples from G51',custody and transporting WARRANTY_ GSI strives to partofm protasso-W services in accordance wgil memtoadisposalsste, CLIENT agrees to enuttierate GSI for services rendered and generally accepted engineering pracliees. costs Incurred for Uansportation and disposal of conWminated Samples,waives any claim or liability for in}ury of loss arising from handling, storing, transporting Of L3MfTATiON OF LWBiLIN: CLIENTagnseS to limit GSC&rectify to CLIENT and $Posing W oamaminated samplesall third parties arising from GSI'S professional acts.errurs Or omissions,such that the total aggregate liability of GSI to all those carried Shari nevi exceed _ONFLICT5 WITH PROPOSAL: ShOuid any element of these Terms and Condilion3 $50,000 or GSI's total tee for the semnii rendemal on this pideot,whichever be deers".'In coMi6",wiry,any element M the proposal or contract to which they apply, is greater, CLIENT further agrees to require of all of their subcontractors an .orbuig of the Terms and Conditions stall go,urn, identical limft ffur,of GSrs liability,for damages suffered by the CLIENT Of its subOOntractors arising from GSI'S professional acts,errors or omissions. RESPONSIBI{.riY TO NC'hFY GSC CLIENT hereby warrants that,if he knows or has any reason to assume be suspect that hazardou&materials may Will at Ula project ASS "NK, MENT:Neither parry to this agreement shall transfer,sublet or assign it nay dens his bast to inPorm GSI of such known or Suspected ha.•attlous materIsis, any rightS under of interest in this agreement(including but not Cmutfic to type,quantity and location, monies that are duff Or monies that may be due}without the tutor written Consent of the Other patty. t O yUMENTS. AJl dUCVmsnts generated Uy GSI in tree rAut3e of randarirtg&afNCe to CLICK will remain the print of GSI. CLIENT agrees that all documents and/or CONSEQUENTIAL 1 AMAGCS: Notwithstanding any other arOvlsion or the plans provided by GSI ip Connection with services rendered will be cMiZed Solely Ov agreement, neither party Shall be liable to Its bear for any consequential CLIENT fur She,;muended purpose. GSI wiii not intentionallydivulge dOcument&or damages resNUng incuffed due to the fault of the other parry,regal dies&of the information regarding its Services to parties other than CLIENT unless requested in platter 01!his fault or whether it was comitted by the CLIENT or GSI, their writing by CLIENT. employees.arems,subconsut-affe,a suacondactoe s. Calsequentia:damages Include,but are not limited to,loss of use nad profit. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS CLIENT should be aware that some damage to the terrain, vsgeiAlOn,&Ifur M;,.of equipment an the site may occuf in the normal INj?EMNIftCATiON' GSI ogress, to ins fullest extent pe.rmired by law, to course of workm . CLIENT will not hold GSI liable for such damages and will make indemnify and hold CLIENT harmless from any damage, naodity, or cost nompensadon W GSI II G31 is required t0 restore the(antl to its former condition. GSI Oncluding reasonacks isoper:sYa fees and costs of defense)to the Ment caused will take reasonable precautions l0 limit damage to the site and to any subterranean by GSI's negligent acts, errors or omissions in the performance of GSI's structures. GSI will nor be held liable for damages or injury,including consequential prefctsienal Sorvrcas under this contract and those Of GSrs subconsuhants or damages such as the toss of use of profit, resulting from interference with anyone for whom GSI is r0cally liable, subterranean structures which are not Called to our attention or are incorrectly located + an Oars furnished by CLIENT or others in connection with the work to tie per outmed. CLIENT g nes a fila vast a tent pa ni ad bylaw,to jndemni and hold GSk hairiness from any damage, liability or cost(including reasonable attorneys YAILU:R_i 10ENC011INTER IIA%ARDQIis.MATr FtALS1 t IUENT>e-aga t amu CSN; fees and casts of defehae)to the extent caused by CLIENTS neg;igent acts. Saianaobis<:,.cr Aanmrws mtt<n:bafirrnryn�:utriropai,ur.and truviely ogecd-aeon snmpfiny etToniefonlosipru andauiseof CLiEN Ts subConsuitants or anyone for whom inc6niyuq:4+-e nor y,+anuacc thin huardo,Inweri&a do not m the it, Ax.mlmn lv, CLIENT is legally liable,and arising from the project Ulal is the subject Of this CtIaeS7I wpivcxayry c4dm,glinp f< Cst,moi n,;rres to ilrn�undrmn+t}'uM:mv tagf n"Icss agreement Enx�t em'cinic�:or lintddty for it Or hxs miring hczm 6Sm.'s IhiLrtc to dgrut Um pr¢sence.of itaZtcdu,wamaxitJa thlnttfrk teohnigoea mmmemly cmplq.'ed for the r>wPox, GSI is not obligated t0 indemnify CLIENT in any mannas wnaLepever for CLIENTS own negligence, G s _ 7 .. �. , �- . / � � � ,J �� , � ./�� �, �--- � � \ �, ,, i Cite of *arem, Aammrbugettg I i Public Propertp Mrpartment .� 3guiCbing department One Oaletn green (978) 745-9595 ext. 380 Peter Strout Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer Regina Flynn Salem City Council Salem, Ma. Dear Regina; These items listed below are some of the problems we have had with the space we occupy currently. 1. Inadequate Heating, air conditioning and fresh air ventilation. The landlord also shuts down the system a 4:00 leaving the space unconditioned for any night time meetings. 2. The elevators do not stop even with the floors which cause an issue with the accessibility of the space. 3. The emergency lights are not fully functioning. 4. The plumbers repaired a leak under the men's room urinal and left a hole in the wall that has been there for at least 4 months. 5. The electrical system is spiking our computer system on one side of our space. Please call my office for further information in regards to this matter. Sincerely Peter Strout Director of Public Properties Cftp of *aiem, 4Ia5gacbu!5ett!5 t joublic J)ropertp Mepartment J8uil0ing Mepartment One*a[em Oreen (978) 745-9595 Ext. 380 Peter Strout Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer Regina Flynn Salem City Council Salem, Ma. Dear Regina; As far as renovating Old Town Hall into office space for the City Of Salem, I feel that it would not make financial sense and the time frame to accomplish this task would take more time than we have. Some of the issues would be the cost of a historical renovation, the replacement of the HVAC system, asbestos removal, and the fact that in the end we would only have Approximately 5,700 square feet of office space. Sincerely Peter Strout Director of Public Properties e Citp of balem, Alamwbuatt.5 4 Mepartment of Public berbireo 1 . (One balern green (978) 745-9595 ext. 321 STANLEY I.BORNSTEIN, P.E. City Engineer if'ax: (978) 745-5877 Director of Public Services 12-29-99 FROM: Stan Bornstein TO: Peter Strout RE: 8 Plymouth St. Salem Ma. Mike J. Beaulieu et al. I have had an opportunity to visit the above site and talk with the neighbor at the rear of the property. I was told that no work has taken place since the first week in November. Looking at the site, what has been done to date and the report of the Geotechnical Engineer(GSI), I strongly recommend that the premises be vacated until the required work is completed. The existing conditions and the unsuitable bearing capacity of the remaining fill raise serious questions as to what might result if we were to experience heavy rains and/or a sudden thaw. Furthermore, the work to date has been done by the Contractor without permits or approvals from this office, which are required by Ordinance (Ch.38 Art.6). CC: Mayor Mr. Beaulieu MDB Construction Inc. 2 Lummus Av. Danvers.01923 Please contact this office. 04/13/2000 14:57 COVER PAGE TO : FAX : 7409848 FROM : MDB CONSTRUCTION FAX : 5087777771 TEL : 5087777310 COMMENT : 04113/2000 14:57 5087777771 MD& CONSTRUCTION y� PCr(i� 01 NN r ) PAW taxamrata�eMA ` °N°�r —a°MCuttaaaau / 1 r�w;i Nut r,li / 101111119161.1e en°uire. i � T ta1lYII,NIRI i TdlMaxanpgl oa aroalnr sr -f ATLAS PIERS i �• ATLAS PIERS am DEL AP2S•1500,180M ;m I/ MODEL c STANDARD 2-MDDIFIED "vm ANCE PIER RESISTANCE PER fl1°��1°x� aotltlwaauomwtwu aW '� .•\\ /ii �\ .1 1\tin, CONFIGURATIONQR RESTO 'nONS WITH LATERAL LOADING �-tra xw IIAallr Will w IIa nal0a 4 � putre rnaucunM tntr mmm alt rtaca ATLAS PIERSS Mtn MODEL AP24500.1SON MODIFIED teenw RESISTANCE PER WITH \ rxu°r ATLAS�HEUCAL TIEBACK ANCHOR 8 REACTION PLATE aesnCM Figure 10. Arias 2-Place Standard and Modified Resistance Pier Applications, 0 1999 Adla SyataMs,Inj, January 2000 All Rights Re"rvad D29 20000.4 7RA/ 14 VA JS gg Cl d,,J i4V6 5-1!91e5m ,^�1qsS 74 /- 37i '7 3r 02 00 03: 35p Linda Maynard 603-624-3733 Fax Transmittal Kaye Foundation Technologies, LLc 18 Cote Avenue, Unit 12 Goffstown, NH 03045 Telephone: 603-641-5669 Fax Number: 603-624-3733 Date: March 3, 2000 Number of Pages in Transmission: 5 To: Mr. Mike Burgess MDB Construction Company, Inc. Fax Number: 1-978-777-7771 From: Glenn Maynard RE: 8 Plymouth Street Salem, Massachusetts Faxed herewith is our proposal for foundation underpinningIdonot the above referenced site. Should you have any questions,p hesitate to contact our office. 3r 02 00 03: 35p Linda Maynard 603-624-3733 P. 2 Kaye Foundation Technologies, LLC I Geotechnical Engineering Solutions Featuring the ATLAS line of Underpinning Support Systems March 3.2000 Mr. Mike Burgess ADVANCE COPY BY FAX MDB Construction Company,Inc. 978-777-7771 2 Lummus Avenue Danvers,MA 01923 RE: FOUNDATION UNDERPINNING 8 Plymouth Street Salem, Massachusetts Dear Mr. Burgess: Kaye Foundation Technologies,LLC(KPT)is pleased to submit this proposal for the installation of Atlas underpinning piers at 8 Plymouth Street in Salem,Massachusetts. The work scope presented here has been formulated referencing the following documents: Geotechnical Services,Inc. report and recommendations dated 1/21/00 Titled Foundation Evaluation 8 Plymouth Street Salem,Massachusetts GSI Project 200137 PROPOSED WORKSCOPE KFT proposes to furnish all labor, material, equipment and supervision to install 10 Atlas AP2-2800-200 Series piers to provide deep foundation support. 1. The piers will be driven until an allowable geotechnical resistance is recorded or movement of the structure is detected. 2. KFT will record all driving data on pile log forms for the engineer's review. 3. The Owner will provide access for power and water. 4. The Owner will be responsible for all replacement and repairs necessary to restore the retraining structure. ar 02 00 03: 35p Linda Maynard 603-624-3733 p, 3 Mr. Mike Burgess MDB Construction Company,Inc. March 3,2000 Page Two 5. The Owner is responsible for supplying all permits,licenses and fees. PROJECT COST The cost to provide the 10 installations is $14,000.00 or $ 1,400.00 per proposed pier. We would require a S 5,000.00 payment upon delivery of the materials, a $5,000.00 payment upon completion of the pier installation,and the final payment upon completion of this work scope. TERMS AND CONDITIONS Our Terms and Conditions are attached We trust that this proposal is consistent with your needs at this time. You may formally enter into an agreement with us to accomplish the previously described scope of work by signing this proposal,retaining a copy, and then forwarding it to our office. Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, KAY FOUNDATION TECHNO OGIES.LLC Glenn S. Maynard Operations Manager GSM:Iam Enclosures: Terms and Conditions Proposal Acceptance form it 02 00 03: 36p Linda Maynard 603-624-3733 p, 4 FOUNDATION UNDERPINNING PROPOSAL 8 Plymouth Street,Salem Massachusetts Page 3 March 3,2040 PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE FORM This proposal and the Terms and Conditions of engagement are hereby accepted and executed by a duly authorized signatory,who by execution hereof, warrants that he/she has fitll authority to act for, in the name and on behalf of the client. (Authorized Signature) (Typed Name and Title) (Authorizing Authority) (Date) Mar 02 00 03: 36p Linda Maynard 603-624-3733 p, g FOUNDATION UNDERPINNING PROPOSAL 8 Plymouth Street,Salem,Massachusetts Page 4 March 3,2000 TERMS AND CONDfnONS I. Buyer represents that he is in fact the legal owner of the premises on wiruch labor and materials are to be performed, 2. The customer is responsible for obtaining all permits and or bonds if necessary. 3. All agreements verbal or otherwise between K.F.T. and buyer are void unless written and signed by both parties to this contract and any alteration, deviation or changes from specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written constant. 4. Paving and relandscaping are excluded. 5. This proposal is valid for a period of 30 days from the date of submittal. 6. KF]'will furnish certificates of insurance for workman's compensation and liability upon being awarded the job. 7. OWNER agrees to supply tenarn security,water andd electricity necessary to do the job. 8. KFT reserves the right to hire subcontractors if needed. Such need to be determined by KFT. 4. KF1'will dispose of generated excess soul via grading adjustments. I O. This proposal assumes an"open-shop"atmosphere free of government mandates, constraints and/or impositions. 02/08/2000 14: 45 COVER PAGE TO : FAX : 7409846 FROM : MBB CONSTRUCTION FAX : 5087777771 TEL : 5087777310 COMMENT : 02108/2000 14:45 5087777771 MDB CONSTRUCTION PAGE 01 S GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. -Y I a GGISM haunt nn/lneering . invirenmenhol Stiodies Makdois Testing . Construction Monitorin0 January 21,2000 W. Mike Burgess MDB Construction Company,lnc. 2 Lummus Avenue Danvers,MA 01923 RE: Foundation Evaluation a Plymouth Street Salem,Meats U$dts GSI Project No. 200137 Dust Mr. Burgess: GS1 conducted a foundation evaluation at the above references€pruJaY site as requested. 'the famdation evaluation was performed in general sc rsdance with our proposal dated December 10, 1999. The purpose of this study was to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site in order to determine possible causes for the evident foundation saulem ent. This report includes observations,documentation and recommendations as related to proposed oorreedve action to be undertaken to stabilize and potentially restore the foundation to original elevation. The site is located at 9 Plymouth Street and is within a zone of single finally residential development. The site is abutted by residential properties to the east,west,and south,and Plymouth Street to the north. The existing house is a single-story,wood-framed,house with an attached deck to the west and south and has a walk-+nut basement. The general topographic expression of the site and immediately surrounding areas appear to be that of a filled slope and building area whereby the slope falls to the south away from the house. no house is situated close to the northern boundary with a small backyard which slopes steeply to the adjacent properties_ Overall topographic relief is on the order of 15 feat from the street to the south end ofthe site. SrM MSTORT AND OVERMEW Iris to the initiation ofthis foundation evaluation,GSI visited the site to evaluate subgrade conditions for a proposed retaining wall to be located at therear of the property. The subgmde evaluation revealed the backyard was created by dumping ofoguic-laden fill over the slope. A test pit excavated near the existing structure revealed 10 feet ofthis fill"bedrock and thus the rear of the house was presumed to be bearing atop the unsuitable fill. In additlen the falhrwing observations were made with respect to the existing structurw 1. The house appears to have sealed in the southern end with a significant crack in the eastern foundation wall. 21 in oder to assess the Cause and extent of the settlement GSI submitted a proposal to performed additional subsurface explorations. The data obtained would then be utilized to recommend settlement mitigation techniques. The gwtahnical site investigation was completed by GSI on January 2D.20W The subsurface exploration program revealed the front portion ofthe building was underlain by bedrock. Thus the presence of oompreseble materials,such as organic silts,woad and unsuitable soils encountered in the test pit,appears confined to etre rear half ofthe house. 1!Rayare Road,NeserblN, MA 01839 w 978/574/7744 a fAll4Th/1174/7719 18 Ceaa Ave***,Unb#11,ftfirrewn,NIN 01045 �d 603/624/2722 -+ FAX 403/624/3755 �.n 02/08/2030 14:45 5087777771 MDE CONSTRUCTION PAGE 03 Foundation Investipition January 21,2000 If Phfmot th 13traet Page 5 Based upon it"f rnoing„it is recommended that the structure foundation be permanently underpinned thus arresting firths vertical movernants. In addititm,the Presence of is shallow bearing surface would ardiance efforts to return the foundation to original levet, as such, if minimal cosmetic repair has been performed the owner may desire the contractor to lig the foundation. QST has evaluated various approaches to underpinning and jacking the structure and recommends the following approach as the roost economical and technically feasible: Bracket PileS zoo- GS1 recommends the house be underpinned with a system consisting of bracketed Pipe piles, such as manufactured by Atlas which are hydraulically driven through weak unstable soils to a competent bracing strain. The Atlas system is a patented process in which steel piers are forced into the earth until a firm bearing strata is encountered. The pier is forced into the earth by means of hydraulic equipment. A foundation to pier connection consists of a heavy steel bracket, The Atlas systan is corrosion resistant and each pier is capable of upwards of 40 tons capacity. The AP2-2800 bracket is a welded assembly fabricated of 518 and th inch thick game cut steel plates conforming to ASTM A-36 A-568 and A-569. The pier bracket provides 74 square inches of bearing area to the tooting bosom. The Pier sections we fabricated from 3-1/2 inch by 42 inch long mill rotted galvanized steel section with a 0.160 wall thickness. Yield strength is 50,000 psi with tensile capacity of 55,000 psi. Triple coat zinc chromate and clear polymer is provided for corrosion protection. It is recommended the Atlas 200 series,Standard Piers be placed along the exterior of the Soundation wall to lig the foundation to original elevation. COST CONSWERA77ONS in order to assess the appropriateness of the above system GSI spoke with Mr.Glean Maynard of Kaye foundation Tecfinolelom,LLC.(603-641-5669). Based on our discussion the bracket pile approach is reasonable and the unit price for the bracketed pile would be an the order of$1,400/each. The unit prices cited do no include the cost for excavation,backfill,regrading,or other incidental costs related to the installation. Assuming a maximum spacing of &8 fol between underpinning elements a total of 10 bracket piles would be required The cost for the bracket piles, excluding excavation and backfill,would be$14,000. Mr, Maynard informed GSI that he would be interested in providing a cost proposal to perform the required work. We trust that the contents of this refit meets with yam satisfaction. We wit contact you in the new future to diSCU35 the results of our investigation and the implications of our recommendations. in the meanwhile,should you have any questions or need any additional infarinston,please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, OE,O�JTECHWAL SERVICES , INC. Richard E.Bushnell,E.LT H K.Wet P.E. Projexl Engineer Principal Engincer attachments r.w,h-....u. S 1 02108/2000 14:45 5087777771 MOB CONSTRUCTION PAGE 02 Fotmdadon taveal gatWn January 21,2000 8 pIYl 040 Street Page 2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM Soil W borings were completed for this investigation program at three separate locations. The subsurface explorations wereadvunced by New Hampshire Baring,Inc.on December 21, 1499 udilizing a CME-45 drilling rig mounted upon a Diedrich remote controlled tracked-chasis tinder the observation of a GSI engineering geologist, Barings were ad- vanced to depths ofup to 19 fret below ground surface utilizing 2-1/4 inch inside diameter(I.D.)hollow-stem augers. Soil samples were typically taken ori five foe intervals or at strata changes with a 2-inch standard split-spoon sampler in accordance with ASTM D-i 586. Standard penetration resistance was measured in six inch increments for two feet, using a 140 pond hammer failing 30 inches as part of the sampling procedure. Final depths were obtained short of the intended 20 foot depth when standard and/or auger refusal conditions were encountered upon highly competent gravelly,bouldery natural till sells or obstructive bouldery fill at depth. The boring locations were provided in a sketch prepared by Spaulding Associates. Prior to drilling activities,GSI visited the site and checked for access, marked out boring locations and registered the site with DIGSAFE and applicable local utilities. Boreholes were located in the field by GSI field personnel based an accessibility and the closest proximity to intended locations, Boring locations are shown on the attached figure. Materials encountered during the exploration program were sampled,vistrally classified and logged in the field by an experionmd aaginewing geologist From GSi. Field descriptions of the soils encountered, the observed groundwater condkiots upon completion of each test boring,as well as other pertinent observations are contained an the attached boring. SUBSURFACE CONDI'i'IONS The subsurface explorations encountered fill overlying a thin veneer of glacial till then bedrock. A descriptive characterization of the subsurface stratum is as follows: FBI—The subsurface explorations confirmed the presence of fill encountered during the initial test pit exploration. The fill is comprised of a dark brown/black, fine to medium SAND,tittle-some Silt, little Gravel,roots,organics, bricks,wood,timbers,asphalt,cobbles,and boulders. Glacial T19-4Laving test pit explorations an approximate 6.12-inch layer of grey,F m SAND,little Silt, little Gravel was eneohmtered.Glacial till R 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. Underlying the glacial till was encountered a slightly weathered bedrock. No groundwater was encountered during subsurface explcratios performed at the site. ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The results ofour subsurfaci investigation reveal that the southern half of the building foundation is directly supported upon loose and organically laden fills. Threw materials are get>erslly not considered as suitable for the support of foun- dadans and are prone to compression. Accordingly,it is our opinion that settlement of the building foundation has occurred as a consequence of the compression and deeorrhpositia of the organic fill constituents and same long term subsidence associated with the loose inorganic soil component, The settlement resulting from decomposition of the organic component istime-dependent and would take years to occur. This decomposition has resulted in differential settlement of the building,and as such,severe foundation settlements have devekhped. While the present condition of the structure does not appear to be in imminent danger it is believed that the settlements will continue. Although the extent to which settlements will ocxsr is difhcutt to predict,it is reasonable to expect as much as i foot of settlement resulting from organic spit cumpressio and decomposition. 6 I 0210812000 14:45 5087777771 MDB CONSTRUCTION PAGE 04 GEOTECHNICAL proms * v wti u s• Project No. r ` sheet No. SERVICES, INC. cafeuleted tar i^s�Cate Ave.,8idyyt��e11chow By Date Ai -"— :_ PH*W 83W NH ` , f�"\R. f.M'N V,.tA�1� t N ,Scale (eaq 6U-44'1"i•VAX(40 6264M I TLv SO a+,.gar.�.��,►�. I I � i i � I � -4 . _ i r I i I 0 I 6 , , I t fwrilit ... S 'NALtd ,' �M 4it,«,,c.r�Yt. ,.•.,. ._ 1 '1''p' 7� 2'+." A' • . .. PO SS ,A lfa. kw,tlfd 02/08/2000 14:45 5087777771 �f�QMDB CUNSTRUCTION PAGE 06 /.0O�1t 064v witit.t Sg. 'v1a\M I.1A i�/1�7� ii®AiiwYr LOG �!1 _i. or I r0ffi'/D.t SWtt Ilk , -A tO �l tC ., \ a eGt90 t�ltnmt, tJ w1 n n a ...,i �OsiC6liE0L amwz z r I34C. cwsmu® er. . .....,�� SSI 'G i•'+t`1 H F71M� art in CNN ANOMM 'T� cum g can o, S� _ o ram • d �n am W A tia m Rlq Y'7fC 49* 2.0 CUM 111! IRI w• � rIYY K (&w t w.p It0 1•i! TAi (111I �i 9Ysai2Jd Ogte1 7At1. 1951 10 90 0 m®amERSp OIOGOIlJ1D® t9 LmvQ O9Ddaimi WtIIwam a s 9= AM RO= CLAiS=C11SEO11-DWC=vzxcm anNpLf ansa = Buss= slwm (dors) • V.a. ="a or m osusm irsm (ROCK) > 4 21.1 r..l �•��„ ralwld lLodY. .0 �t • T s y9rw ta10.. 1 t*v 10 12 Rrt,�s Sr fa.s b't- ittit c,.,1'1 � a. y S 11 1! � 1! 47 if 17 19 20 22 22 27 Sep-09-99 14 : 24f Gordon Bua and Read Inc 1 P . 01 GORDON, BUA & READ, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Civil Post•it'°Fex Note. 7671 Date a of ftailrwd ti r u«s► .;4 SALEM STREET TO From ShudrOpl HEADING,MASSACHUSETTS111867 Co.ioPrc 1ransportntiaf (781)941-7110 - OP.k 4 C p. a. G Pf O Fax(781)944-6708 ,�.. '�3,D Vt,one x G Fxh 77 y- Fixit 7- `1Y rfJ 'lir' Syu - � 7oe September 9, 1999 Mr. Michael Burgess MDB Construction 2 Lummus Avenue Danvers, MA 01923-2904 Re: Retaining Wall 8 Plymouth Street Salem, MA Dear Mike: Based on your request, Gordon, Bua & Read, Inc. (GB&R) offers its opinion with respect to drainage impacts resulting from the replacement of the timber retaining wall. Based on the intent of the design, which is to replace an existing retaining wall, GB&R does not anticipate any change in drainage associated with the installation of the proposed soil reinforced retaining wall as designed and shown on sheets I and 2 of the plans dated 8/2/99. Very truly yours, GORDON, BUA & REA , INC. ZiI-I. Read, P.E. ce President JI-IR/bg 99108rol - Sep-09-99 14 : 24T Gordon Bua and Read Inc 1 P . 01 GORDON, BUA & READ, INC. C11°I CONSULTING ENUNEERS Post-it" Fax Note 7671 rlula a of ILailrwd 4 � re�as► 34 SALEM 5('REET To From Struchnol KFADING,MASSAC11U5M5111W,7 Co/Dept Transportation (7sl)944-7110 e) G Pf one a Fax t781,944-670Ma� -7 71,. -) 3/0 Phone a G Fxx 777- 777/ Fax 11 September 9, 1999 u '70 a Mr. Michael Burgess MDB Construction 2 Lummus Avenue Danvers, MA 01923-2904 Re: Retaining Wall 8 Plymouth Street Salem, MA Dear Mike: Based on your request, Gordon, Bua & Read, Inc. (GB&R) offers its opinion with respect to drainage impacts resulting from the replacement of the timber retaining wall- Based on the intent of the design, which is to replace an existing retaining wall, GB&R does not anticipate any change in drainage associated with the installation of the proposed soil reinforced retaining wall as designed and shown on sheets I and 2 of the plans dated 8/2/99. Very truly yours, GORDON, BUA & REA , INC. \ � � ' I-1. Read, P.E. ice President JHR/bg 99108P01