My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE37555
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE37555
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:46:30 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 3:37:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Name
CIVIL ENGINEERING REFERENCE MANUAL
Violation No.
CV2000009
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
94
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Mr. and Mrs. Tatum <br />March 16, 1995 <br />Page 6 <br />Poor Drainage <br />Other investigators have commented on poor drainage in the area around the residence. <br />They remark on conditions, especially in the garden area south of the residence, where <br />the fall of the ground is very small and may be locally towards the structure. A <br />location where we observed poor drainage is towards the wcst end of the south wall <br />near the porch. However, there are no roof downspouts that discharge in this area, <br />and we did not observe indications of water accumulation. <br />In our opinion poor drainage cannot explain the recent settlement damage, because it <br />appears that the drainage is essentially unchanged from the time the structure was <br />built in the 1930's. <br />It has been suggested that the poor drainage in conjunction with the clayey upper soils <br />could be producing seasonal movements. However, this would not be a changed <br />condition that could explain the recent distress. The poor drainage could have <br />contributed to some of the on-going normal aging described earlier. <br />6. Foundation Deterioration <br />Were the foundations to deteriorate or rot away, support would be lost to portions of <br />the structure and distress could result. It has been suggested that water infiltration <br />due to the poor drainage maybe weakening the adobe. However, as noted above, the <br />drainage conditions appear unchanged for many years. Therefore, adobe softening is <br />not likely to be the reason for the recent distress. To the extent we could observe it, <br />the wooden elements bearing on the foundation were sound. No rotten lumber was <br />observed in the foundation area. <br />Mine Subsidence <br />Previous investigators have discounted mine subsidence as the cause of the recent <br />distress because they considered the workings to be too far away from the structure. <br />However, we understand that the mining could have been within 200 to 300 feet of <br />the structure. Thus, depending on the theory used for analysis, the residence could <br />be at or within the potential subsidence zone. <br />Mine subsidence has also been discounted because damage to the residence is <br />centered at the front of the house, whereas the mining was to the south. In this regard <br />we note that the angle of draw concept is a simplification of what actually happens. <br />Theories relating to coal mine subsidence are based on empirical evidence and <br />statistical analysis of data obtained over known mining conditions. In most mining <br />situations actual subsidence can be quite erratic and is governed by many factors <br />including the types of rock strata that exist over the roof of the mine, the orientation <br />r:aro~.tzso t eo t .n. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.