SR99 Bored Tunnel-Assessment of Settlement Impacts ... - SCATnow

Table of Contents1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 12.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND ...................................................................... 52.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 52.2 Tunnel Project Description .................................................................................................... 72.2.1 South Access Project Description ............................................................................ 72.2.2 Design Build Tunnel Project Description ............................................................... 72.2.3 North Access Project Description ........................................................................... 92.3 Description of Other Program Elements ............................................................................. 93.0 BUILDING ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................ 113.1 Establish Database ................................................................................................................. 113.2 Obtain Records and Construction Documents ................................................................. 113.3 Site Visits ................................................................................................................................. 113.4 Building Assessment Forms ................................................................................................. 113.5 Analytical Assessment ........................................................................................................... 123.6 Qualitative Assessment ......................................................................................................... 123.7 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................... 133.8 Areaways .................................................................................................................................. 144.0 SETTLEMENT AND GROUND MOVEMENT ..................................................................... 154.1 Empirical Settlement Analysis .............................................................................................. 155.0 BUILDING RESPONSE TO EXCAVATION-INDUCED GROUNDMOVEMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 195.1 Damage Prediction for Buildings ........................................................................................ 195.2 Building Response to Construction ..................................................................................... 216.0 RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSES ................................................................................ 256.1 General .................................................................................................................................... 256.2 Building Function ................................................................................................................... 256.3 Unreinforced Masonry Buildings ......................................................................................... 266.4 Tilt of Tall Buildings .............................................................................................................. 26The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsiiPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

6.5 Building Cladding ................................................................................................................... 276.6 Summary of Building Damage Prediction along Tunnel Alignment .............................. 287.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 41Appendix AAppendix BAppendix CAppendix DAppendix ETunnel Alignment Plan Sheets with Identified BuildingsBuilding Damage Classification and Distortion TerminologyBuilding Assessment Forms, Drawings, and PhotographsBoscardin and Cording Analysis ToolMonitoringList of TablesTable 1. Buildings with Anticipated Damage of Moderate and Above .................................................... 2Table 2. Building Damage Classification ..................................................................................................... 21Table 3. Breakdown of Anticipated Building Damage .............................................................................. 25Table 4. Summary of Building Damage Prediction along the Tunnel .................................................... 29List of FiguresFigure 1. AWV Program Elements. .............................................................................................................. 6Figure 2. Proposed Bored Tunnel Cross-Section. ........................................................................................ 8Figure 3. Generalized Transverse Settlement Trough .............................................................................. 17Figure 4. Relationship of Building Damage to Angular Distortion and Horizontal Strain (fromBoscardin and Cording [1989]) ........................................................................................................ 19Figure 5. Development of Surface Settlement Trough (Attewell, Yeates, and Selby [1986]) .............. 23The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsiiiPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel -Assessment of Settlement Impacts toBuildings1.0 Executive SummaryAn initial assessment of impacts to the buildings along the SR 99 roadway alignmentdue to the construction of the proposed bored tunnel alternative is presented in thisreport. Tunneling is expected to result in settlements of varying magnitude, whichdepend on many factors. The evaluation process started with an assessment of theexisting condition of buildings along the alignment, followed by an analysis topredict settlement associated with tunneling. The amount of settlement assumed inthe analysis is a baseline from which refinements or mitigations can be measured.Settlement corresponding to 0.5% of the tunnel cross sectional area (termed “lostground”) was assumed. This amount of settlement is not fixed or final, but areasonable assumption on which to initiate the assessments. On the basis of thepredicted settlement, an analysis was performed to predict building damage. For thebuildings with the greatest potential damage, further structural engineering analysisand evaluations were performed. Finally, a qualitative evaluation of the potentialimpacts to the buildings was made by structural engineers knowledgeable in the typeof structures encountered along the tunnel alignment. The unmitigated buildingimpacts are expressed as the damage that may take place. Damage is quantified bythe nature of the anticipated repairs that may be required. This assessment of thepotential unmitigated settlement impact for each building will be followed by furtherstudies of alternatives and mitigations, when appropriate, as the documents forconstruction are prepared.The south portal construction for the proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel Alternativeproject will extend north from Royal Brougham Way along Alaskan Way with theheadwall for the bored tunnel occurring just south of South King Street. Passingunder Alaskan Way and the existing viaduct, the tunnel would then traverse a largeradius curve beginning just south of South Washington Street, pass under WesternAvenue and continue diagonally under Seattle’s central business district to FirstAvenue. Near Stewart Street, the alignment would traverse a large radius curve tothe north, extending beyond and diagonal to the street grid of Seattle’s Belltownneighborhood. The tunnel would then travel under Denny Way into the SixthAvenue North right-of-way and transition to a cut-and-cover section north ofThomas Street.Buildings along the alignment range from single-story unreinforced masonrybuildings with wood framed roof structures to multi-story residential and officeThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 1Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

uildings. Existing foundation systems for these buildings include rubble,conventional concrete spread footings, mat foundation systems, and pile foundationsystems, including timber, precast concrete, augercast concrete, and drilled caissons.Along the length of the tunnel there have been identified 158 building structures thatmay be impacted by the tunneling operations. Possible effects of the proposed SR99 bored tunnel alternative construction on the existing buildings, utilizing theassumed settlement trough provided by Shannon & Wilson, are discussed. Thisreport also describes the approach to structural analyses based on the methodologydiscussed in Boscardin and Cording [1989], and provides guidelines from whichbuilding protection and monitoring can be established.Based on the results of the structural analyses, anticipated damage to the buildingsfrom tunnel construction is classified on a scale ranging from “Negligible” to“Severe to Very Severe” based upon damage classifications described by Boscardinand Cording (see Table 2 in the report). The range of damage is highly variable dueto many factors including, but not limited to, 1) soil conditions along the path of thetunnel, 2) relative location of the building along the alignment of the tunnel, 3) dateof the original construction of the buildings, 4) existing condition of the buildings, 5)modifications to the original building structure, 6) foundation system(s) utilized forthe buildings, 7) structural systems utilized for the buildings, 8) unknown orconcealed conditions, and 9) architectural detailing of the buildings. Based upon theevaluation described in this report, a number of the buildings are anticipated, withoutmitigation, to have significant damage. These are as outlined in Table 1 below withdamage classification S-VS representing “Severe to Very Severe” damage and M-Srepresenting “Moderate to Severe” damage.Table 1. Buildings with Anticipated Damage of Moderate and AboveIDPROPERTYADDRESSAPPROX. TUNNELSTATIONDAMAGECLASSIFICATIONT252 619 Western Ave 214+72 S-VST251 61 Columbia Street 215+74 S-VSA161 809 Western Ave 217+75 M-SA159 815 Western Ave 218+64 M-ST223 1201 1 st Ave 230+85 M-ST55 605 Thomas 287+04 M-SThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 2Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The damage classification for the remaining buildings investigated during theassessment was “Slight” or below as described by Boscardin and Cording.Pre-construction surveys should be performed for each building identified withinand adjacent to the zone of influence of tunneling to establish a detailed baseline forassessing tunnel- and excavation-induced ground movements and their effects.A key element in minimizing the risk of damage to the buildings will be thesuccessful implementation of a building monitoring program. General guidelines onmonitoring measures to be taken for each building are provided for consideration.For several buildings along the tunnel, the existing structure is in a deterioratedcondition. These buildings with existing structural issues may not be subject to largesettlements from the tunneling operation; however, due to their existing condition,may be more susceptible to damage from the tunneling operation.Along the alignment of the tunnel are several buildings with architectural featuresthat may be susceptible to damage. Of particular concern are ornate facades andcornices where the anchorage of the façade and/or cornice to the basic structure isunknown. The design should evaluate and strengthen the anchorage of theseelements as required to prevent damage as well as falling hazards during tunnelingoperations.It should be noted that the intent of this report is to provide an evaluation of theunmitigated effects of the SR 99 bored tunnel alternative construction on existingbuildings. Assumptions regarding tunneling performance, geologic conditions,distribution of settlement, structural details and conditions of the buildings, andmanifestation of damage in each building due to construction were necessary tomake this evaluation. Although site-specific information was used when available,the results of this analysis should not be considered definitively predictive for anybuilding. This analysis is intended to provide a basis for evaluating requirements forpotential mitigation measures for building protection and instrumentation.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 3Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Public Tunnel Disclosure - Assessment Request 11-0123 of for Settlement Elizabeth Campbell Impacts - 2nd to installment Buildings 4

2.0 Program Description & Background2.1 BackgroundThe Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Program (AWVSRP) is led bythe Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) in partnership withthe Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), King County, the City of Seattle, andthe Port of Seattle. The program’s goal is to replace a critical element of Seattle’sinfrastructure – the viaduct section of State Route (SR) 99 – and the adjacent seawallthat supports the Alaskan Way surface street.Constructed in the 1950s, the double-tiered viaduct is nearly two miles long andparallels Alaskan Way. The viaduct is a vital local and regional transportation linkand carries about 110,000 vehicles each day in the mid-town area. The seawall, builtfrom concrete and timber between the 1910s and 1930s, extends along Seattle’swaterfront and supports the soil behind it.Studies in the 1990s showed that the viaduct was nearing the end of its useful life,apparent by its exposed rebar and weakened columns. The 2001 Nisquallyearthquake further damaged the viaduct, forcing WSDOT to temporarily close it forinspection and limited repairs. The viaduct and nearby seawall are vulnerable inanother earthquake and continue to show signs of age and deterioration.On Jan. 13, 2009, the Governor, the King County Executive, the Seattle Mayor, andthe Port of Seattle’s chief executive officer endorsed a plan replacing the centralwaterfront portion of the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a bored tunnel beneathdowntown. As part of this recommendation, the City would build a new surfacestreet and new public open spaces along the waterfront, improve other city streets,and replace the seawall between Colman Dock and Pine Street while the Countywould invest in expanded transit service (Figure 1). The recommendation was basedon collaboration with a 29-member Stakeholder Advisory Committee representingcommunities, economic interests, and cause-driven organizations; eight publicmeetings; and hundreds of public comments. During its 2009 session, theWashington State Legislature passed a bill that endorses the tunnel recommendationand provided funding for the state’s projects. Governor Christine Gregoire signedthis legislation into law on May 12, 2009.FHWA, WSDOT, and the City of Seattle are leading the environmental reviewprocess for the viaduct’s central waterfront replacement. Because of therecommendation of a bored tunnel, which had not previously been studied in-depth,a second Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Supplemental DraftEIS) that analyzes the bored tunnel alternative has been initiated. The SupplementalDraft EIS builds upon the previous review of the cut-and-cover tunnel and elevatedstructure alternatives and will be published for public review in 2010. The FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision are expected to be issuedin 2011.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 5Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Figure 1. AWV Program Elements.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 6Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

2.2 Tunnel Project DescriptionThe Tunnel Project is a part of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (AWV) Program (illustratedin Figure 1) and contains three major components: the South Access Project; theDesign Build Tunnel Project; and the North Access Project.2.2.1 South Access Project DescriptionThe South Access Project would provide access to the tunnel at a portal near Qwestand Safeco Fields. The south portal area would be located on Alaskan Way, betweenS. Royal Brougham Way and S. Dearborn Street, and would consist of an at-grademainline roadway and ramps leading to a depressed mainline and ramp roadwaysadjacent to the mainline tunnel and ramp portals. In addition, at least one newsurface cross street would provide a connection between SR 99, Alaskan Way, andFirst Avenue S.2.2.2 Design Build Tunnel Project DescriptionThe Design Build Tunnel Project would begin between S. Royal Brougham Way andCharles Street with a depressed roadway section that contains the mainline andsouthbound off-ramps and northbound on-ramps. The portals for the ramps andmainline would be in the vicinity of Charles Street. They would lead into the cutand-coverportion of the tunnel that extends approximately 1,000 feet and transitionsfrom a side-by-side roadway to a stacked configuration at a bored tunnel that wouldbegin immediately south of S. King Street under Alaskan Way. The roadwaystructure inside the bored tunnel would stack the roadways with two southboundlanes on the upper level and two northbound lanes on the lower level. At thislocation, the base of the cut–and-cover tunnel would be approximately 90 feet belowthe ground surface, and the top of the tunnel would be about 30 feet below theground surface. A southern tunnel operations building located east of SR 99between S. Dearborn Street and S. King Street would provide ventilation as well asmaintenance and operation capabilities. The lowest level of the building would beabout 75 feet below the ground surface.There would be approximately 8,800 feet of bored tunnel with an approximateoutside diameter of 54 feet. The bored tunnel would decline at a 4 percent grade andpass under Alaskan Way, cross under the existing viaduct, follow a large radius curvebeginning just south of S. Washington Street, then pass under Western Avenue to beparallel with First Avenue. The tunnel would reach a low point under MadisonStreet where the top of the tunnel would be about 120 feet below street level. Thetunnel would then rise at a 1.6 percent grade to the north as it continues under FirstAvenue to near Stewart Street, where it would follow a large radius curve to thenorth and cross under the street grid of Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood at adiagonal. The tunnel would reach a depth of 215 feet from the crown of the tunnelto the ground surface at Virginia Street. At Lenora Street, the tunnel transitions toapproximately a4 percent grade. The tunnel would transition back to a cut-and-The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 7Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

cover section north of Thomas Street. The cut-and-cover section would unbraid thetunnel’s stacked northbound and southbound roadways into a side-by-sideconfiguration that matches the existing grade of Aurora Avenue N. near MercerStreet. Where the bored tunnel emerges at Thomas Street, the cut-and-coverexcavation would be about 85 feet deep. There would be a north tunnel operationsbuilding over the tunnel on the east side of Sixth Avenue N. between Thomas andHarrison Streets. The lowest level of the building would be around 75 feet below theground surface. The cut-and-cover section of the tunnel would extendapproximately 450 feet to a portal on the north side of Harrison Street.The entire tunnel would have continuous six-foot shoulders on the roadway’s westside to maximize access to an enclosed emergency walkway along the west side ofthe tunnel (Figure 2).Figure 2. Proposed Bored Tunnel Cross-Section.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 8Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

2.2.3 North Access Project DescriptionThe depressed at-grade roadway extending north from the tunnel portal at HarrisonStreet to the existing alignment of Aurora Avenue N. would comprise the bulk of theNorth Access Project. There would also be surface roadway modifications to workwith the new on- and off-ramps leading to and from the tunnel that merge intoRepublican Street as well as the mainline merge with Aurora Avenue N.At the north portal area, Sixth Avenue N. would be extended from Harrison Streetto Mercer Street, and John, Thomas, and Harrison Streets would be reconnectedacross Aurora Avenue N. Ramps would be constructed to provide northbound offand southbound on movements to and from SR 99 at Republican Street.Northbound on-ramps and southbound off-ramps to and from the intersection ofHarrison Street and Aurora Avenue would also be constructed.2.3 Description of Other Program ElementsSeveral elements, both roadway and non-roadway, would complete the programstrategy and provide transportation benefits in the downtown Seattle area. Along thewaterfront, these elements would include demolishing the existing viaduct, a newAlaskan Way surface street built in the footprint of the existing viaduct after it isdemolished, a connection to Elliott and Western Avenues from the new AlaskanWay surface street by constructing a new bridge structure along the footprint of theexisting viaduct, a new promenade adjacent to the seawall between S. King and PikeStreets, and seawall improvements. In the tunnel’s north portal area, the MercerStreet corridor between Interstate 5 (I-5) and Elliott Avenue would be improved,and Broad Street would be removed between Ninth Avenue N. and Taylor AvenueN. New peak-period transit service to downtown would also be provided. Theseother program elements, led by the City of Seattle and King County, would improveaccess and mobility to and through downtown while enhancing Seattle’s waterfrontand adjacent neighborhoods.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 9Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Public Tunnel Disclosure - Assessment Request 11-0123 of for Settlement Elizabeth Campbell Impacts - 2nd to installment Buildings 10

3.0 Building AssessmentThe tunnel alignment utilized for the building assessment is dated February 22, 2010.This alignment is shown in the site plans provided in Appendix A. The anticipatedsettlement contours provided in the geotechnical report referenced in Section 7 ofthis report were utilized to determine which buildings to evaluate. These contourswere developed for the tunnel alignment based upon a 0.5% ground loss and asettlement profile as depicted in Section 4 of this report.Evaluation of the buildings along the path of the tunnel required several steps whichare described below.3.1 Establish DatabaseInitial steps included compiling a database of all of the buildings located along thealignment of the tunnel within and adjacent to the potential settlement troughestablished by a geotechnical evaluation of the local soil conditions. This databaseincluded information on each building including, but not limited to, building nameand address, property owner, tax identification number, date of original construction(estimated if not known), and existing use of the building.3.2 Obtain Records and Construction Documents3.3 Site VisitsStructural engineering teams gathered available construction drawings for thebuildings, primarily through microfiche records at the City of Seattle Department ofPlanning and Development (DPD) archives. For some buildings, additionaldrawings were obtained or reviewed while on site. A general description of theactual drawings reviewed is noted on the Building Assessment Forms in Appendix C.It should be noted that for several of the buildings, drawings were not available.Where this has occurred, it has been noted on the Building Assessment Formsprovided in Appendix C.Current conditions of the buildings were then established by “rapid visual screening”during brief site visits to the buildings in the database. The purpose of this screeningwas to assess the current integrity of the structural and non-structural components ofthe buildings. No intrusive investigation was performed by the engineering teams toassess hidden or concealed conditions, such as the connections for building cladding.Limited digital photographs were taken to document the current conditions.3.4 Building Assessment FormsBased upon the brief site visit and a review of available construction documents, aBuilding Assessment Form was prepared for each building identified for evaluation.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 11Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The information entered on the forms was sometimes based upon assumptionsregarding the structural systems for the building inferred from the building’s age,construction type, and observed conditions. Where the foundation system anddepth is not known, the assumption utilized in the calculations is noted on theforms. The forms are included as Appendix C with this report.3.5 Analytical AssessmentFor each building along the tunnel alignment, calculations were performed based onthe Boscardin and Cording [1989] (B&C) approach that relates the predictedhorizontal deformations and settlement profiles to differential settlement, angulardistortion, and/or tensile and shear strains. Each building was then assigned adamage classification based upon the calculated distortions and strains (see Section5). These values and classifications are provided on the Building Assessment Formsin Appendix C.It should be noted that the B&C analysis is based upon tunneling beneath oradjacent to an unreinforced masonry building supported on spread footings andsituated on a flat site. Therefore, this analysis is limited in applicability for thebuildings along the alignment. As will be noted in a review of the BuildingAssessment Forms, the buildings along the alignment utilize a variety of framingsystems and foundation types. This discrepancy between the analysis methodassumptions and the actual buildings has been considered in the qualitativeassessment of the building as described in Section 3.6.Subsequent to the analysis based upon the B&C approach, a number of thestructures were further evaluated utilizing structural engineering analysesmethodologies. These evaluations included the following:a. Two-dimensional frame analysis.b. Finite element analysis of walls.c. Son and Cording [2005] modifications to the B&C analysis.3.6 Qualitative AssessmentBuildings within the zone of potential influence vary greatly in many ways. Duringthe site visits to each of the structures and as part of the subsequent review of theavailable construction documents, a number of items were noted that could affectthe building’s performance during tunneling operations. As a result, each of thebuildings along the alignment underwent a qualitative evaluation which included, butwas not limited to, the following:a. Condition of the building – based upon observed distress in the structure,foundations, interior finishes, and exterior finishes.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 12Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

. History of settlement – based upon observed distress in the structure thatcan likely be attributed to settlement and/or anecdotal information reportedby the building owner or representative during the site visits. Theinformation provided sometimes addressed the performance of the buildingduring the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake, but could also include repairs to thebuilding that were no longer readily visible.c. Building integrity and construction – based upon building structuralcontinuity, redundancy, brittleness of interior finishes, brittleness of exteriorfinishes, and foundation type.d. Building use – identifying critical facilities, such as police and fire stations, aswell as properties with multiple owners (i.e. condominiums).e. Tenant operational issues – identifying equipment observed during the sitevisits that may be sensitive to differential settlement and vibration.f. Incoming utilities – identifying whether utility lines entering the buildingsbelow grade have been detailed to account for differential settlement. SeeAppendix S2 for additional information.g. Relationship of a building structure to adjacent structures – noting whetherseparation has been provided between adjacent buildings.h. Completeness of the construction documents – for several of the buildings,the original construction drawings were not available and foundationinformation was not provided.i. B&C analysis applicability – the appropriateness of the B&C analysis to thebehavior of the structure during tunneling beneath or adjacent to thebuilding.Qualitative elements taken into consideration during the evaluation of a particularbuilding are summarized on the last page of the Building Assessment Form for eachbuilding. In addition, the damage classification rating based upon the B&C analysiswas then modified to include the qualitative evaluation of the building. Thisqualitative evaluation could increase, decrease, or have no impact on the anticipateddamage level calculated utilizing the B&C analysis method. This information isprovided on the last page of the Building Assessment Forms and summarized incolumn 6 of Table 4. As will be noted in reviewing Table 4, the qualitativeevaluation sometimes reflects a damage classification that is less than the damageclassification of the existing conditions noted in column 4 of Table 4 for a particularbuilding. However, it should be understood that for all buildings, the qualitativeevaluation is a reflection of anticipated damage caused by tunneling on the building.In all cases, tunnel boring does not improve the existing condition of a building.3.7 Existing ConditionsIn addition to the analytical and qualitative evaluation of each building, the existingcondition of the structures was assigned a damage classification. The damageThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 13Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

3.8 Areawaysclassification noted on the forms utilized the rating system described in Table 2 ofSection 5.1. This classification was used for the qualitative analysis of the existingconditions of the buildings.The below grade footprint of a number of the buildings along the tunnel alignmentextends to approximately the gutter line of the street. The sidewalks at theselocations are designed as a structural element to span between below grade wall atthe gutter line to the exterior wall of the building. An areaway is the space beneaththese sidewalks between the building foundation and the wall at the street gutter line.In evaluating the condition of the buildings and the response of the buildings totunneling, the condition and behavior of the areaways adjacent to the buildings wasnot considered in the overall performance of the structures. However, the areawaycondition was observed during site visits to each of the buildings where access to theareaways was available. Observations are noted on each of the Building AssessmentForms for the areaways, where applicable.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 14Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

4.0 Settlement and Ground Movement4.1 Empirical Settlement AnalysisThe empirical methods used for analyzing potential tunneling-induced settlementsprimarily account for ground movements associated with over-excavation orloosening of the soil and insufficient support of soils. Some minor loosening andmovement of soil around an excavated tunnel will generally occur even if all of thetunneling equipment and support systems are appropriate for the soil andgroundwater conditions encountered and are performing correctly, and even if thecontractor’s personnel perform all of the work with the utmost care and using thebest workmanship.The settlements used in the structural assessment of the buildings are based on thedraft settlement analysis provided by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon & Wilson,Inc., 2010). The settlements are assumed to be “greenfield” movements (i.e., soilstructureinteraction is ignored). The inputs to the empirical settlement analysisinclude the project geometry (tunnel diameter and tunnel depth), volume loss(ground loss), and the shape of the settlement trough.The project geometry used in the analysis north of Stewart Street is based on thetunnel alignment and profile dated February 22, 2010. South of Stewart Street thetunnel alignment and profile utilized is dated December 23, 2090. Whereas thealignment in both of these iterations of the project geometry is the same, the profilechanged. North of Stewart Street the profile became shallower, thus the impacts tothe buildings were re-evaluated from the draft report. South of Stewart the changein profile was minimal, so the impacts to the buildings reflected in the draft reportwere not updated. The assumed excavated diameter of the tunnel is 56 feet.The volume loss parameter is a simplifying parameter that accounts for a variety offactors including, but not limited to, the geologic and hydrogeologic conditions,tunneling method, and operation of tunneling equipment. Volume loss is comprisedof excess soil that moves towards the face of the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM), soilthat moves in around the TBM perimeter and fills the annular gap, and soil that fillsthe annular gap after passage of the tailskin and outside of the initial liner beforesufficient grout can be injected to fill the gap. As discussed, some minimal groundloss is inevitable due to elastic relaxation of the soils in the face and perimeter of thetunnel and the normal gage overcut at the face of the TBM needed to advance andsteer the TBM. The analysis of the tunneling-induced settlement assumes a volumeloss equal to 0.5 percent of the excavated volume. A volume loss of 0.5 percentshould generally be achievable using experienced and capable tunneling staff; wellmaintained tunnel equipment; appropriate cutter head/face pressures; minimalovercut; bentonite injection to fill the annulus along the shield; and pressure groutingwith sufficient volume to completely fill the annular gap around the liner,immediately at the tail brushes of the advancing TBM.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 15Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The shape of the transverse settlement trough can be described by a GaussianProbability distribution curve as shown Figure 3. The settlements are approximatedby a Gaussian probability distribution curve in the direction perpendicular to thetunnel axis. It can be seen that the trough has its maximum slope at the point ofinflection, which is located at the distance i from the tunnel centerline. This pointseparates the sagging zone from the hogging zone.The shape of the Gaussian Probability distribution curve is a function of the distancefrom tunnel centerline to the inflection point. As the distance to the point ofinflection increases, the curve is generally wider and flatter and as the distancedecreases, the curve is generally narrower and taller. Case history data presented inMair and Taylor (1997) indicates the distance to the point of inflection (i) can berelated to tunnel depth (Z o ), where:iK = (Eq. 1)ZShannon & Wilson indicate that the K values utilized vary along the length of thetunnel alignment. The following values were utilized are as follows:K = 0.35 between Stations 200+00 to 217+00K = 0.50 between Stations 217+00 to 281+00K = 0.35 between Stations 281+00 to EndThe settlement, S z , at a point of interest is a function of the horizontal distance fromthe tunnel centerline, x; and the vertical distance above the tunnel springline, z. Forsurface settlements, the vertical distance z is equal to the depth to the tunnelspringline, Z.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 16Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Figure 3. Generalized Transverse Settlement TroughIt should be noted that the settlement profile generated utilizing this method doesnot consider the potential impact of a sloping ground surface on the shape andmagnitude of the settlements, such as occurs at many of the building sites betweenMadison and Stewart Streets. Once the anticipated settlement was determined foreach building, the settlement was then utilized to estimate the horizontaldisplacements, and in turn the horizontal strain, utilizing the formula below:εh2= δ ( y)⎛ y ⎞⎜ −⎟12∗1 2z ⎝ 2i⎠(Eq. 2)where:δ(y) = settlement at a distance y from tunnel centerline (inches)z = depth from ground surface (or bottom of foundation where the buildingdisplacement is of interest) to midpoint of tunnel (feet)y = horizontal distance from centerline to point of interest (feet)i = distance from centerline to point of inflection (feet)The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 17Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Settlement and horizontal strain were used in Section 5 to evaluate the response ofbuildings and potential damage.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 18Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

5.0 Building Response to Excavation-Induced Ground Movements5.1 Damage Prediction for BuildingsSeveral studies have been performed to evaluate the effects of building distortionsresulting from adjacent tunnel construction or excavation. These studies suggestdifferential settlement, angular distortion, and horizontal strain are critical indices forpredicting damage to buildings along the alignment of a tunneling project(definitions of building distortion terminology are provided in Appendix B). Themethodology proposed by Boscardin and Cording [1989] (B&C) has been widelyutilized to predict the effects of building distortion and subsequent manifestation ofdamage to individual buildings.However, as noted above, the B&C method does not apply to all buildings along thealignment of the tunnel. The method is based upon tunneling beneath anunreinforced masonry building supported on spread footings and situated on a flatsite. As will be noted in a review of the Building Assessment Forms found inAppendix C, the buildings along the alignment utilize a variety of framing systemsand foundation types. This difference between theory and reality has beenconsidered in the qualitative analysis of the building as described in Section 3.6.The B&C method accounts for the overall magnitude of ground movement andposition of the building within the free-field settlement trough. Buildings areassumed to behave as beams, consisting of isotropic elastic material with a modulusof elasticity, E, and shear modulus, G. Calculated maximum values of angulardistortion and horizontal strain for each building are correlated to curves forconstant critical tensile strain and define the limits of damage categories (Figure 4).Figure 4. Relationship of Building Damage to Angular Distortion andHorizontal Strain (from Boscardin and Cording [1989])The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 19Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The damage classification in Table 2 provided by Boscardin and Cording includeswell-defined damage categories. Although this system is generally based onunreinforced masonry buildings, it is also considered appropriate for buildings withfinishes or cladding that exhibit brittle behavior similar to that of unreinforcedmasonry including, but not limited to, those with plaster ceilings and walls, tile wallsor cladding, or stone cladding. Steel, concrete, and timber buildings are likely toexhibit a more ductile response to settlement and horizontal strain, resulting in lessthan predicted building damage. Therefore, the damage criteria provided in Table 2could be considered as a conservative approach to predicting building damage, priorto the qualitative analysis.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 20Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Table 2. Building Damage ClassificationClass ofDamageDescription of Damage aApproximateWidth b ofCracks, mmNegligible Hairline cracks. < 0.1VerySlightFine cracks easily treated during normal redecoration.Perhaps isolated slight fracture in building. Cracks inexterior brickwork visible upon close inspection.< 1SlightCracks easily filled. Redecoration probably required. Severalslight fractures inside building. Exterior cracks visible,some re-pointing may be required for weather-tightness.Doors and windows may stick slightly.< 5ModerateCracks may require cutting out and patching. Recurrentcracks can be masked by suitable linings. Tuck-pointingand possibly replacement of a small amount of exteriorbrickwork may be required. Doors and windows sticking.Utility service may be interrupted. Weather-tightnessoften impaired.5 to 15 orseveral cracks> 3 mmSevereExtensive repair involving removal and replacement ofsections of walls, especially over doors and windows,required. Windows and door frames distorted, floorslopes noticeably. Walls lean, doors bulge noticeably,some loss of bearing in beams. Utility service disrupted.15 to 25, alsodepends onnumber ofcracks.VerySevereMajor repair required involving partial or complete reconstruction.Beams lose bearing; walls lean badly andrequire shoring. Windows broken by distortion. Dangerof instability.Usually > 25mm, dependson number ofcracks.a Location of damage in the building or structure must be considered when classifying thedegree of damage.b Crack width is only one aspect of damage and should not be used alone as a directmeasure of it.Note: Modified from Burland et al. [1977]5.2 Building Response to ConstructionWithin the zone of potential influence of the tunneling construction, 158 buildingshave been identified. Each building has been evaluated for potential distortionresulting from tunnel-induced ground movements. Distortions were then comparedto the damage criteria detailed in Section 5.1, which categorizes the potential fordamage.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 21Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Calculations utilizing the B&C method of determining building distortions andstrains for each building were performed using an Excel spreadsheet and VisualBasic software. An explanation of this method is provided in Appendix D. Manualcalculations were performed to verify the accuracy of the spreadsheet calculations.Calculated strains were compared to the limiting strain values to determine the levelof expected damage likely to be experienced. Results of the analyses are presented inSection 6.As the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) advances, a small volume of soil is empirically“lost” in the excavation process, even under the most carefully controlled tunnelingconditions. This lost ground may be defined as the small percentage of soil that isexcavated over-and-above the absolute minimum volume of soil excavated undertheoretically perfect tunneling conditions. The loss of this small volume of soil ismanifested as settlement of the ground surface above the tunnel alignment, the socalledsurface “settlement trough.”The shape, depth, and width of the settlement trough depend on many conditions,including soil type, depth of tunnel, and tunneling method. For the SR 99 Tunnel,the shape, depth, and width of the settlement trough have been estimated byShannon and Wilson, using classical settlement calculation methods, similar to thosedescribed in Attewell, Yeates, and Selby [1986].The front of the settlement trough develops along the surface in response to theadvancement of the TBM. For granular soil conditions (K=0.35), the advancementof the settlement trough can be described as follows: at any given time, the leadingedge of the settlement trough is located at the surface ahead of the TBM by adistance of approximately 0.8 to 1.0 times the tunnel depth. For K=0.5, thesettlement trough is located at the surface ahead of the TBM by a distance ofapproximately 1.0 to 1.3 times the tunnel depth. At that same time, at the surfaceposition directly above the TBM, the settlement trough has reached a depth ofapproximately one-half the maximum trough depth that will eventually develop afterthe TBM has moved well past its current location. At this same time, the settlementtrough has already reached its maximum depth behind the TBM by a distance equalto about 0.9 times the tunnel depth. Thus, for a vertical longitudinal section throughthe ground surface (a vertical section parallel to the tunnel axis), the front of thesettlement trough describes an “S” shaped curve: zero settlement at a location 0.9times the tunnel depth ahead of the TBM; one-half the maximum settlement at theposition of the TBM; and the maximum settlement at distances equal to or greaterthan 0.9 times the tunnel depth behind the TBM. In fact, the shape of this curve isdefined in analysis as the S-shaped Cumulative Distribution Function for a normal,or Gaussian, probability distribution.Once the TBM has passed any given position (by a distance of at least 0.9 times thetunnel depth), the settlement trough is “fully developed”, meaning that thesettlement at the center of the trough has reached its maximum value. For a verticaltransverse section through the ground surface (a vertical section transverse to theThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 22Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

tunnel axis), the settlement trough describes a “U” shape with tapered edges. Theeffective width of this trough is approximately 1.8 times the tunnel depth, either sideof the tunnel centerline. The shape of this settlement trough is defined in analysis asan inverted “Bell Curve” or Probability Density Function associated with a normal,or Gaussian, probability distribution.Figure 5 below, which is a reproduction of Figure 2.2 from Attewell, Yeates, andSelby [1986], illustrates the advancing settlement trough, relative to the position ofthe face of the TBM.Figure 5. Development of Surface Settlement Trough (Attewell, Yeates, andSelby [1986])[Attewell, Yeates, and Selby (1986)]. Tunnel face advancing in a + x direction, creatinga settlement (w) trough having a long axis of assumed cumulative probability form inthe xz plane and a transverse axis of normal probability form in the yz plane. Axes x, y,z are orthogonal; x = y = z = 0 at ground surface vertically above the center of thetunnel face. The tunnel start and final face positions are denoted by x i and x f ,respectively. Ground displacements u, v, w, induced by tunnel excavation, occur indirections x, y, z, respectively.Buildings and other structures (such as buried utilities) located within the effectivewidth of the surface settlement trough could be damaged by the verticaldisplacements, ground slope, ground curvature, horizontal displacements, orhorizontal strains associated with the settlement trough. The degree of potentialdamage to a given structure is a function of the shape and depth of the settlementThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 23Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

trough, the physical properties and condition of the structure itself, and theorientation of building elements (e.g. walls and frames) with respect to the tunnelaxis.An important distinction can be drawn between the expected damage levels forbuilding elements oriented parallel to and perpendicular to the tunnel axis. Generallyspeaking, the S-shaped settlement curve that forms along a section parallel to thetunnel axis – the “Longitudinal Settlement Curve” – places lower demands on, andthus causes less damage to, building elements oriented parallel to the tunnel axis,when compared to the settlement curve that forms along a section perpendicular tothe tunnel axis – the “Transverse Settlement Curve” – and the damage the damagethe settlement in the shape of this curve causes to building elements orientedperpendicular to the tunnel axis. In other words, if two identical unreinforcedmasonry (URM) walls are oriented parallel to and perpendicular to the tunnel axis atthe same location, the settlement trough will cause more damage to theperpendicular wall than to the parallel wall.The difference in damage levels between the parallel and perpendicular directions isexplained by the fact the transverse settlement curve induces higher slopes,curvatures, lateral strains, and lateral displacements than the longitudinal settlementcurve. Transverse settlement curve develops permanent deformations in a building,while the longitudinal settlement curve develops transient deformations, which occuronly as the TBM passes a particular location. After the TBM passes, the buildingdeformations induced by the longitudinal settlement curve reverse, so that buildingelements oriented parallel to the tunnel axis tend to return approximately to theiroriginal configurations, although of uniform settlement, and stress levels.Thus, when estimating building damage levels, it is generally conservative to onlyconsider building deformations induced by transverse settlement curves: thedeformations induced by longitudinal settlement curves are of a lower magnitudethan the deformations induced by transverse curves; and the longitudinal settlementcurves are transient, whereas the transverse settlement curves are permanent. Forthese reasons, in the present study, estimates of building damage due to tunnelingwere based only on the transverse settlement curves predicted at each buildinglocation. This assumption was validated by performing sample estimates of damageinduced by longitudinal settlement curves, and it was found that these damage levelswere always lower than the damage levels induced by the transverse settlementcurves at the same location.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 24Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

6.0 Results of Structural Analyses6.1 GeneralResults of the structural analyses for buildings along the tunnel alignment indicatethe potential for damage is highly variable along the alignment. Utilizing the B&Canalysis, the damage prediction for the buildings along the alignment ranges from“Negligible” to “Very Severe”, even assuming good tunneling practice that involvesground losses less than 0.5%. This analytical evaluation of the buildings was in manycases influenced by the qualitative evaluation. Table 3 below summarizes theanticipated level of damage to the buildings, including the qualitative assessment,from both the tunnel and portal wall construction.Table 3. Breakdown of Anticipated Building DamageDamageCategory# of Buildings Impacted fromTunnel ConstructionColor Highlighting Building onDrawings in Appendix ANegligible 111 NoneVery Slight 22 NoneSlight 19 YellowModerate toSevere4 RedSevere to VerySevere2 RedTotal 158In Section 3, a number of factors were introduced which could impact the results ofthe qualitative evaluation. Some of these factors are discussed in more detail in thesections below.6.2 Building FunctionIn addition to tunnel-induced settlements potentially damaging building structuresand/or nonstructural elements, there is a potential risk to operations within existingbuildings, in particular those with highly sensitive equipment or those occupanciesconsidered by the building code as essential facilities. In these cases, the building’sfunction or equipment can be less tolerant to the effects of settlement than thebuilding itself.Buildings with essential functions along the tunnel alignment include a fire stationand communications facilities, where the damage threshold for acceptable buildingperformance may be lower. Buildings with sensitive equipment include printingpresses, where large equipment must remain level and balanced.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 25Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The potential functional impacts have been noted in buildings with these features,and the assessments have accounted for the potential adverse effects of even lowmagnitude settlement and damage risk.6.3 Unreinforced Masonry BuildingsA number of buildings along the alignment, including a limited number which are apart of the Pioneer Square Historic District, are constructed utilizing load-bearingbrick unreinforced masonry (URM). For many of these buildings, originalconstruction documents are generally not available.Depending on the height of the building, the wall thickness varies from 13 inches toover 24 inches. The walls facing the streets and alleys are perforated with door andwindow openings. Often, the first floor is open and the masonry above is supportedon cast iron columns and beams. The walls perpendicular to the street are generallysolid, except for buildings situated on a corner. The floor and roof structures aregenerally heavy timber. In some cases, adjacent buildings share a common wall.The condition of these buildings varies greatly. In some cases, buildings have beenrenovated, including seismic upgrades. In other cases, the buildings are poorlymaintained and have visible distress.South of Seneca Street these URM buildings are likely founded on timber frictionpiles. It is possible that some of these buildings may be founded on both shallowand pile foundations. For example, brick URM bearing walls may be supported onpile foundations and interior columns may be supported on shallow foundations.The basement slab may be either pile supported or supported on grade. Thecondition of the basement slab in these buildings varies greatly; some slabs areextensively cracked and have settled more than 6 inches.6.4 Tilt of Tall BuildingsAs discussed in Section 5.2, the settlement trough is created by the loss of a smallpercentage of soil volume during tunneling. These surface deformations includepermanent sloping of the ground towards the tunnel centerline. The magnitude andextent of this permanent change in ground slope is a function of many conditions,including soil type, depth of tunnel, and tunneling method.For most buildings with low to moderate heights (between approximately 1 to 10stories), the imposition of small, permanent ground slopes will have negligible effecton the structural and non-structural elements of the building, and no effect on thefunctional aspects of the building. For tall buildings, approximately 20 stories orgreater, permanent ground slopes may have a small, but manageable, influence onstructural and non-structural elements of a building. More importantly, however, thetilt induced in tall buildings by seemingly minor ground slopes, may causeunacceptable levels of building deformation.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 26Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Therefore, high-rise buildings along the tunnel route that could be affected by thetunnel settlement trough should be analyzed with more detail than the approximatemethods employed in the present study. This analysis should include evaluation ofsoil-structure interaction effects, and the influence of predicted ground deformationson forces in structural elements, and global deformations of the building.6.5 Building CladdingA wide range of exterior cladding systems exists for the buildings along the tunnelroute. These various building cladding systems will respond differently to buildingdeformations induced by ground settlement. Some cladding systems are highlyintolerant to building deformations, while others are relatively tolerant to buildingdeformations. Potential damage to building cladding systems is an importantconsideration because damage to cladding can result in water intrusion through thebuilding envelope, which can cause costly secondary damage to the interior of thebuilding. In addition, portions of the cladding could become detached resulting inpotential falling hazards.Examples of building cladding systems that historically have not been tolerant tobuilding deformations include:• Stucco• Exterior Insulation Finish Systems (EIFS)• Glass that is hard-mounted in frames• Ceramic tile• Terrazzo• Decorative mosaics• Terra cotta ornamentation• Masonry cladding, both clay brick and concrete masonry units (CMU)without expansion joints• Precast concrete cladding systems without properly detailed attachments tothe structure, or properly detailed joints between the panelsExamples of building cladding systems that historically have been relatively tolerantto building deformations include:• Glass “curtain wall”, “window wall”, and “storefront” systems that havebeen detailed to permit some degree of movement between the glass and thesupporting framework• Masonry cladding with properly detailed expansion joints• Precast concrete cladding systems with properly detailed attachments to thestructure and properly detailed joints between the panels• Wood siding• Cement board siding with properly detailed joints between the panelsAll of the above cladding systems exist along the SR 99 tunnel route. During thedesign phase structures that incorporate large areas of deformation-intolerantThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 27Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

cladding systems should receive special assessments prior to construction. Theseassessments should include a more detailed structural analysis than was performed inthe current study in order to determine if the expected building frame deformationscan be tolerated by the cladding system. In addition, for these same buildings, acondition assessment of the building cladding system should be conducted todocument the pre-tunneling condition of the cladding system.6.6 Summary of Building Damage Prediction along Tunnel AlignmentThe following table summarizes the findings of this assessment for each buildingalong the tunnel alignment. The table includes 1) an opinion of the existingcondition for each building utilizing the B&C damage classification system providedin Section 5.1; 2) the calculated B&C damage classification; and 3) an opinion of thepotential damage classification based upon a qualitative review of each building. Thequalitative evaluation utilizes the B&C damage assessment as a baseline and makesqualitative adjustments in either the positive or negative direction. The adjustmentsare based upon those items outlined in Section 3.6.A number of the buildings along the tunnel alignment have historic statusdesignation. South of Columbia Street the buildings, as well as the areaway adjacentto building T253, are a part of the Pioneer Square Historic District. Where thetunnel alignment changes direction near Stewart Street, several of the buildings arewithin the Pike Place Market Historic District. In addition, a number of thebuildings, or specific elements of the buildings, are designated as either federal, state,or city landmarks. Table 4 below identifies those buildings with historicdesignations. Specific information regarding these designations is noted on theBuilding Assessment Forms in Appendix C.The final column in the table was utilized to develop guidelines for monitoring theindividual buildings during construction. The guidelines for each building werebased upon the damage classification determined by the B&C analysis, the existingcondition of the building, and the use and occupancy of the building. See AppendixE for more information on the monitoring level guidelines.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 28Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Table 4. Summary of Building Damage Prediction along the TunnelPROPERTY IDPROPERTY ADDRESSAPPROXIMATE TUNNEL STATIONEXISTINGCONDITIONSB&C ANALYLSISQUALITATIVEANALYSISN=Negligible, VSL=VerySlight, SL=Slight,M=Moderate, M-S=Moderate to Severe, S=Severe, S-VS=Severe toVery Severe, VS=VerySevereBUILDING HISTORIC STATUSLEVEL OF MONITORINGT277 114 Alaskan Way 211+05 SL N N Yes Level 1T276 77 Yesler Way 212+19 N N N Yes Level 1A160 1 Yesler Way 212+46 N VSL VSL Yes Level 3T253 83 Columbia Street 216+47 VSL N N Yes Level 1T252 619 Western Ave 214+72 VS M-S S-VS Yes Level 3T251 61 Columbia Street 215+74 M M-S S-VS Yes Level 3T247 801 1 ST Avenue 219+10 VSL N VSL Yes Level 1A161 809 Western Avenue 217+75 M SL M-S No Level 3A159 815 Western Avenue 218+64 M SL M-S No Level 3T243 901 1 ST Avenue 221+76 N SL SL Yes Level 3A158 911 Western Avenue 221+01 SL N N Yes Level 1T240 1000 1 ST Avenue 224+72 N N N No Level 1T239 1012 1 ST Avenue 225+55 VSL N N No Level 1T238 1018 1 ST Avenue 226+12 N N N Yes Level 1The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 29Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

PROPERTY IDPROPERTY ADDRESSAPPROXIMATE TUNNEL STATIONEXISTINGCONDITIONSB&C ANALYLSISQUALITATIVEANALYSISN=Negligible, VSL=VerySlight, SL=Slight,M=Moderate, M-S=Moderate to Severe, S=Severe, S-VS=Severe toVery Severe, VS=VerySevereBUILDING HISTORIC STATUSLEVEL OF MONITORINGT237 1007 1 ST Avenue 224+27 VSL VSL SL Yes Level 3T236 1015 1 ST Avenue 225+13 VSL VSL SL Yes Level 3T235 1023 1 ST Avenue 225+71 VSL VSL SL Yes Level 3T234 1008 Western Avenue 224+52 SL SL SL Yes Level 3T233 1101 2 ND Avenue 227+69 N N N No Level 1T232 1109 2 ND Avenue 228+56 N N N No Level 1T231 1107 1 ST Avenue 227+24 VSL SL SL Yes Level 2T230 1119 1 ST Avenue 228+41 VSL VSL SL Yes Level 2T229 1100 Western Avenue 227+57 SL SL SL No Level 2T228 1209 2 ND Avenue 230+69 N N N No Level 1T227 1209 2 ND Avenue 231+83 N N N No Level 1T226 1206 1 ST Avenue 230+92 SL N VSL No Level 1T225 1216 1 ST Avenue 231+88 SL N VSL No Level 1T223 1201 1 ST Avenue 230+85 N M-S M-S No Level 3The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 30Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

PROPERTY IDPROPERTY ADDRESSAPPROXIMATE TUNNEL STATIONEXISTINGCONDITIONSB&C ANALYLSISQUALITATIVEANALYSISN=Negligible, VSL=VerySlight, SL=Slight,M=Moderate, M-S=Moderate to Severe, S=Severe, S-VS=Severe toVery Severe, VS=VerySevereBUILDING HISTORIC STATUSLEVEL OF MONITORINGT222 1201 1 ST Avenue 232+32 N SL SL No Level 2T220 1212 Western Avenue 230+67 N N N No Level 1T218 1300 1 ST Avenue 233+74 N N VSL No Level 3T217 1301 2 ND Avenue 235+34 N N VSL No Level 2T216 1301 1 ST Avenue 233+32 N SL SL No Level 2T215 1315 1 ST Avenue 234+13 M N SL No Level 2T214 1321 1 ST Avenue 235+35 N N VSL No Level 2T213 1306 Western Avenue 233+20 N N N No Level 1T212 1312 Western Avenue 235+17 N N N No Level 1T210 1401 2 ND Avenue 238+87 VSL N N No Level 2T209 110 Union Street 237+67 VSL N N No Level 2T208 1412 1 ST Avenue 238+86 SL N VSL No Level 1T207 103 Pike Street 240+35 VSL N VSL No Level 1T205 98 Union Street 238+26 N N VSL No Level 2The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 31Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

PROPERTY IDPROPERTY ADDRESSAPPROXIMATE TUNNEL STATIONEXISTINGCONDITIONSB&C ANALYLSISQUALITATIVEANALYSISN=Negligible, VSL=VerySlight, SL=Slight,M=Moderate, M-S=Moderate to Severe, S=Severe, S-VS=Severe toVery Severe, VS=VerySevereBUILDING HISTORIC STATUSLEVEL OF MONITORINGT204 1423 1 ST Avenue 240+07 VSL N VSL Yes Level 1T203 1400 Western Avenue 237+30 N N N Yes Level 1T202 1406 Western Avenue 237+94 N N N No Level 1T199 1420 Western Avenue 238+85 N N N No Level 1T198 1430 Western Avenue 239+76 N N N Yes Level 1T194 1430 Western Avenue 240+08 VSL N N Yes Level 1T193 1501 Pike Place 242+37 VSL N N Yes Level 1T192 1501 Pike Place 244+02 VSL N N Yes Level 1T191 1501 2 ND Avenue 241+94 SL N N Yes Level 1T190 114 Pike Street 241+94 N N N No Level 1T189 1521 2 ND Avenue 243+26 N N N No Level 2T188 119 Pine Street 244+44 VSL N N Yes Level 1T187 1500 1 ST Avenue 241+64 VSL N N No Level 1T186 1510 1 ST Avenue 242+22 SL N SL No Level 1The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 32Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

PROPERTY IDPROPERTY ADDRESSAPPROXIMATE TUNNEL STATIONEXISTINGCONDITIONSB&C ANALYLSISQUALITATIVEANALYSISN=Negligible, VSL=VerySlight, SL=Slight,M=Moderate, M-S=Moderate to Severe, S=Severe, S-VS=Severe toVery Severe, VS=VerySevereBUILDING HISTORIC STATUSLEVEL OF MONITORINGT184 107 Pine Street 244+29 SL N SL No Level 2T183 1505 1 ST Avenue 242+07 VSL N VSL Yes Level 1T182 1513 1 ST Avenue 243+09 VSL N VSL Yes Level 1T180 1531 1 ST Avenue 244+32 N N N Yes Level 1T178 1534 Pike Street 243+89 SL N N Yes Level 1T177 1534 Pike Street 244+62 SL N N Yes Level 1T175 86 Pine Street 245+95 N N N Yes Level 1T174 86 Pine Street 246+22 N N N Yes Level 1T173 1606 Pike Place 245+97 VSL N N Yes Level 1T172 1601 2 ND Avenue 246+22 SL N N No Level 1T171 1613 2 ND Avenue 247+26 SL N N No Level 1T170 104 Pine Street 245+98 VSL N N No Level 1T169 101 Stewart Street 246+83 N N N No Level 2T167 1901 1 ST Avenue 247+85 VSL N N Yes Level 1The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 33Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

PROPERTY IDPROPERTY ADDRESSAPPROXIMATE TUNNEL STATIONEXISTINGCONDITIONSB&C ANALYLSISQUALITATIVEANALYSISN=Negligible, VSL=VerySlight, SL=Slight,M=Moderate, M-S=Moderate to Severe, S=Severe, S-VS=Severe toVery Severe, VS=VerySevereBUILDING HISTORIC STATUSLEVEL OF MONITORINGT166 1917 1 ST Avenue 248+69 VSL N N Yes Level 1T165 1921 1 ST Avenue 249+11 VSL N N Yes Level 1T164 1923 1 ST Avenue 249+40 VSL N N Yes Level 1T162 1925 1 ST Avenue 250+07 N N N Yes Level 1T161 80 Stewart Street 247+46 N N N Yes Level 1T160 1912 Pike Place 248+24 M N N Yes Level 1T159 116 Stewart Street 248+56 SL N N No Level 1T158 1915 2 ND Avenue 249+44 M N N No Level 1T157 1919 2 ND Avenue 250+17 SL N N No Level 1T156 1921 2 ND Avenue 250+46 N N N No Level 1T155 1931 2 ND Avenue 251+25 N N N No Level 1T154 1920 1 ST Avenue 249+88 N N N No Level 1T153 1924 1 ST Avenue 250+30 SL N N No Level 1T151 1932 1 ST Avenue 250+87 N N N Yes Level 1The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 34Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

PROPERTY IDPROPERTY ADDRESSAPPROXIMATE TUNNEL STATIONEXISTINGCONDITIONSB&C ANALYLSISQUALITATIVEANALYSISN=Negligible, VSL=VerySlight, SL=Slight,M=Moderate, M-S=Moderate to Severe, S=Severe, S-VS=Severe toVery Severe, VS=VerySevereBUILDING HISTORIC STATUSLEVEL OF MONITORINGT148 1902 2 ND Avenue 249+66 VSL N N Yes Level 1T147 1926 2 ND Avenue 251+44 SL N N Yes Level 1T146 2033 2 ND Avenue 254+88 N N N No Level 2T144 2000 1 ST Avenue 252+59 N N N No Level 2T143 2016 1 ST Avenue 253+41 SL N N No Level 1A149 2021 1 st Avenue 252+05 N N N No Level 1A147 2030 1 st Avenue 254+62 VSL N N No Level 1A146 2100 1 st Avenue 256+26 VSL N N No Level 2A144 120 Lenora Street 256+79 N N N No Level 2A143 2117 2 nd Avenue 257+58 SL N N No Level 1A142 2119 2 nd Avenue 258+10 VSL N N No Level 1A141 2127 2 nd Avenue 258+75 VSL N N No Level 1T142 2001 3 RD Avenue 254+24 SL N N No Level 1T141 2013 3 RD Avenue 254+96 N N N No Level 1The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 35Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

PROPERTY IDPROPERTY ADDRESSAPPROXIMATE TUNNEL STATIONEXISTINGCONDITIONSB&C ANALYLSISQUALITATIVEANALYSISN=Negligible, VSL=VerySlight, SL=Slight,M=Moderate, M-S=Moderate to Severe, S=Severe, S-VS=Severe toVery Severe, VS=VerySevereBUILDING HISTORIC STATUSLEVEL OF MONITORINGT140 2015 3 RD Avenue 255+24 SL N N No Level 1T139 2019 3 RD Avenue 255+69 N N N No Level 1T138 2025 3 RD Avenue 256+12 N N N No Level 1T137 2031 3 RD Avenue 256+59 SL N N N Level 1T136 2000 2 ND Avenue 253+41 VSL N N No Level 1T135 2006 2 ND Avenue 253+00 VSL N N No Level 1T134 2014 2 ND Avenue 254+56 SL N N No Level 1T133 211 Lenora St 255+59 SL N N No Level 1T129 2103 3 RD Avenue 258+27 SL N N No Level 1T128 2107 3 RD Avenue 258+51 N N N Yes Level 1T127 2125 3 RD Avenue 259+59 N N N No Level 1T126 2133 3 RD Avenue 260+65 VSL N N No Level 1T125 2106 2 ND Avenue 258+21 N N N No Level 1T124 2120 2 ND Avenue 259+00 SL N N No Level 1The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 36Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

PROPERTY IDPROPERTY ADDRESSAPPROXIMATE TUNNEL STATIONEXISTINGCONDITIONSB&C ANALYLSISQUALITATIVEANALYSISN=Negligible, VSL=VerySlight, SL=Slight,M=Moderate, M-S=Moderate to Severe, S=Severe, S-VS=Severe toVery Severe, VS=VerySevereBUILDING HISTORIC STATUSLEVEL OF MONITORINGA139 2124 2 nd Avenue 259+51 SL N N No Level 1A138 2132 2 nd Avenue 260+07 SL N N No Level 1T123 2101 4 TH Avenue 261+34 VSL N N No Level 1T121 2100 3 RD Avenue 259+21 VSL N N No Level 1T120 2112 3 RD Avenue 260+04 N N N No Level 1T119 2118 3 RD Avenue 260+59 SL N N No Level 1T117 2124 3 RD Avenue 261+20 SL N N No Level 1T116 2132 3 RD Avenue 261+74 VSL N N No Level 1A136 2316 4 th Avenue 261+12 N N N No Level 1A135 2208 2 nd Avenue 261+63 N N N No Level 1A134 2214 2 nd Avenue 262+00 VSL N N No Level 1A133 2216 2 nd Avenue 262+50 SL N N No Level 1A130 2201 3 rd Avenue 261+00 N N N No Level 2A129 2221 3 rd Avenue 263+26 SL N N No Level 1The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 37Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

PROPERTY IDPROPERTY ADDRESSAPPROXIMATE TUNNEL STATIONEXISTINGCONDITIONSB&C ANALYLSISQUALITATIVEANALYSISN=Negligible, VSL=VerySlight, SL=Slight,M=Moderate, M-S=Moderate to Severe, S=Severe, S-VS=Severe toVery Severe, VS=VerySevereBUILDING HISTORIC STATUSLEVEL OF MONITORINGA128 2226 3 rd Avenue 264+82 SL N N No Level 1A126 2230 3 rd Avenue 265+32 VSL N N No Level 1T109 2201 4 TH Avenue 263+98 N N N No Level 1T108 2219 4 TH Avenue 265+01 SL N N No Level 1T107 2225 4 TH Avenue 265+89 N N N No Level 2T106 306 Blanchard Street 263+03 N N N No Level 1T095 2230 4 TH Avenue 266+94 N N N No Level 1T090 2335 5 TH Avenue 270+22 N VS VS No Level 1T089 2302 4 TH Avenue 268+25 M N N Yes Level 1T088 2306 4 TH Avenue 268+73 N N N No Level 1T087 2316 4 TH Avenue 269+11 N N N No Level 1T086 2318 4 TH Avenue 270+18 N VSL VSL Yes Level 1A123 304 Bell Street 266+34 N N N Yes Level 1A122 2312 3 rd Avenue 267+54 N N N No Level 1The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 38Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

PROPERTY IDPROPERTY ADDRESSAPPROXIMATE TUNNEL STATIONEXISTINGCONDITIONSB&C ANALYLSISQUALITATIVEANALYSISN=Negligible, VSL=VerySlight, SL=Slight,M=Moderate, M-S=Moderate to Severe, S=Severe, S-VS=Severe toVery Severe, VS=VerySevereBUILDING HISTORIC STATUSLEVEL OF MONITORINGA120 314 Bell Street 267+15 SL N VSL No Level 1A119 2313 4 th Avenue 268+05 VSL N N Yes Level 1A118 2321 4 th Avenue 268+49 VSL N N Yes Level 1A116 2325 4 th Avenue 268+96 SL N N No Level 1T077 521 Wall Street 274+91 N SL SL No Level 2A114 2400 4 th Avenue 272+67 VSL VSL VSL No Level 2A112 420 Wall Street 274+88 N N N No Level 1A110 500 Wall Street 276+72 N SL SL No Level 2A167 500 Wall Street 277+48 N SL SL No Level 2T066 600 Denny Way 280+69 N SL SL No Level 2T065 120 6 th Avenue North 282+60 N SL SL Yes Level 2A108 566 Denny Way 280+18 N VSL VSL No Level 1A166 567 John Street 282+48 N SL SL No Level 2T057 200 6 th Avenue North 285+31 SL SL SL No Level 2The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 39Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

PROPERTY IDPROPERTY ADDRESSAPPROXIMATE TUNNEL STATIONEXISTINGCONDITIONSB&C ANALYLSISQUALITATIVEANALYSISN=Negligible, VSL=VerySlight, SL=Slight,M=Moderate, M-S=Moderate to Severe, S=Severe, S-VS=Severe toVery Severe, VS=VerySevereBUILDING HISTORIC STATUSLEVEL OF MONITORINGT055 605 Thomas Street 287+04 N M M No Level 2A106 203 6 th Avenue North 284+22 VSL VSL VSL No Level 2A105 221 6 th Avenue North 285+09 N VSL VSL No Level 1A104 233 6 th Avenue North 286+63 VSL VSL VSL No Level 2The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 40Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

7.0 ReferencesAttewell, P.B.; Yeates, J.; and Selby, A.R.. 1986 Soil Movements Induced by Tunneling andTheir Effects on Pipelines and Structures. New York: Chapman and Hall.Attewell, P.B. and Woodman, J.P.,.1982. ”Predicting the dynamics of groundsettlement and its derivitives caused by tunnelling in soil”. Ground Engineering, Vol. 15,No. 8. pp. 13 - 22, 36.Boscardin, M.D. and Cording, E.J.. 1989. “Building Response to Excavation-Induced Settlement”. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 115, No.1. New York:American Society of Civil Engineers. pp. 1-21.Burland, J.B. and Wroth, C.P.. 1974. “Settlement of buildings and associateddamage”. Proceedings of the Conference on Settlement of Structures. London, England:Pentech Press. pp. 611-654.Clough, G.W, and O’Rourke, T.D. 1990. “Construction induced movements of insitu walls”. In Labe, P.C., and Hansen, L.A. (Eds.), Design and Performance of EarthRetaining Structures, Ithaca, N.Y., Proceedings: Special Publication No. 25. New York:American Society of Civil Engineers. pp. 439-470.O’Reilly, M.P. and New, B.M. 1983. “Settlements above tunnels in the UnitedKingdom, their magnitude and prediction”. Proceedings of Tunneling ’82, Brighton,1982, pp. 173-181. Report of discussion: Trans. Inst. Mining Metallurgy, Vol. 92,Section A, pp. A35-A48.Peck, R.B. 1969. “Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft Ground”. Proceedings of the7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City,State of the Art Volume. pp. 225-290.Schmidt, B.. 1969. Settlement and ground movements associated with tunneling in soil. PhDThesis. University of Illinois, Urbana.Son, M. and Cording, E.J. 2005. “Estimation of Building Damage Due toExcavation-Induced Ground Movements”. Journal of Geotechnical and GeoenvironmentalEngineering, February 2005. pp. 162-177.Shannon & Wilson. 2010. Ground Movements and Ground Improvement Techniques, StateRoute (SR) 99 Bored Tunnel Alternative, Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall ReplacementProgram (AWVSRP), Seattle, Washington. March 2010.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings 41Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Public Tunnel Disclosure - Assessment Request 11-0123 of for Settlement Elizabeth Campbell Impacts - 2nd to installment Buildings 42

Appendix ATunnel Alignment Plan Sheets with Identified BuildingsThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

A1Legend! ! SeawallPiersAreawaysTunnelTunnel Alignment CenterlineEdge of PavementASSESSMENT OF SETTLEMENT IMPACT TO BUILDINGSModerate, Severe, Very Severe Damage, HistoricModerate, Severe, Very Severe DamageSlight Damage, HistoricSlight DamageNegligible or Very Slight Damage0 50 100 200 FeetNBN RRRAILROAD WAY SS KING STALASKAN WAY SS JACKSON STS MAIN STWATERFRONT TROLLEYPROPOSED SR99 TUNNEL PROJECTASSESSMENT OF SETTLEMENT IMPACTS!!!! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !CommuterCenter! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! ! !!!!!! ! !!!! ! !!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!! !!S WASHINGTON STT277MARCH 2010BN RRA160T276YESLER WAYALASKAN E RDWY WAYT252WesternBuildingT251COLUMBIA ST ON RPPolsonBuildingT253A161POST AVEA159MARION STCOLUMBIA STNOTES :1) ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGE IS THE "QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS",WHICH HAS USED BOSCARDIN AND CORDING APPROACH,WHERE APPLICABLE, ALONG WITH ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT2) AREAWAYS ARE BASED ON THE "CITY OF SEATTLE AREAWAYS MAP"PREPARED BY THE ROADWAY STRUCTURES GROUP OF SEATTLEDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH WAS OBTAINEDIN A MEETING IN DECEMBER 2008.3) TUNNEL ALIGNMENT IS "FEBRUARY 22, 2010",CL_ALN_TUNNEL_BT99.MST! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !ALASKAN WAYALASKAN WY VI SBA158MARION ST VIT247T243WESTERN AVEFEDERAL OFFICEBuilding (Old)ALASKAN WY VI NBT234MADISON STT237WATERFRONT TROLLEYT236POST AVET235T2402ND AVESPRING STT239SENECA ST OFF RPT229T238T231T230T233T2201ST AVE S3RD AVEPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installmentX:\PB\mapprep\mxd\Projects\Settlement_v24_Qualitative_11x17_P1.mxd

Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

T161NOTES :1) ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGE IS THE "QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS",WHICH HAS USED BOSCARDIN AND CORDING APPROACH,WHERE APPLICABLE, ALONG WITH ENGINEERING JUDGEMENTSENECA ST OFF RPALASKAN E RDWY WAYHARBOR STEPS(SE TOWER)UNIVERSITY STUNION STWESTERN AVEPOST ALLEYUNION STPIKE STALASKAN WAY2) AREAWAYS ARE BASED ON THE "CITY OF SEATTLE AREAWAYS MAP"PREPARED BY THE ROADWAY STRUCTURES GROUP OF SEATTLEDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH WAS OBTAINEDIN A MEETING IN DECEMBER 2008.3) TUNNEL ALIGNMENT IS "FEBRUARY 22, 2010",CL_ALN_TUNNEL_BT99.MSTT230T233T220T232T223T222T226T213T228T225T216T227T215T212T218T214T203T202T217BNSFPIKE HILL CLIMBT199T198T205T209WATERFRONT TROLLEY2ND AVEELLIOTT AVEALASKAN WY VI NBT194T204T208T210T193PIKE STREET ADITT207PROPOSED SR99 TUNNEL PROJECTASSESSMENT OF SETTLEMENT IMPACTSPINE STEDGPIKE PLT183T187ALASKAN WY VI SBT192T178 T177T182T186T190PIKE STBN RRT180T191MARCH 2010T173T189T175T184T174T188T160T170T167T169T164T165T166T172T171PINE STT162ELLIOT BAY INTERCEPTORT154T159T153T151T158A149T156T157T148WESTLAKE AVET155T144T143T147A147T136T146T135VIRGINIA STA2A146T134LegendBNSFEBISTEWART STT142A144T133T140T141A143OLIVE WAYA142T138T139A141T1253RD AVET129LENORA STT137AreawaysTunnelTunnel Alignment CenterlineSettlement TroughEdge of Pavement0 50 100 200 FeetT124A139T1284TH AVEA138T127A136T121BLANCHARD STT126T1205TH AVET119WESTLAKE AVEA130T117T1166TH AVET123ASSESSMENT OF SETTLEMENT IMPACT TO BUILDINGSModerate, Severe, Very Severe Damage, HistoricModerate, Severe, Very Severe DamageSlight Damage, HistoricSlight DamageNegligible or Very Slight DamageNT106Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installmentX:\PB\mapprep\mxd\Projects\Settlement_v24_Qualitative_11x17_P2.mxd

Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

A3LegendMONORAILEBIAreawaysTunnelTunnel Alignment CenterlineEdge of PavementWESTERN AVEASSESSMENT OF SETTLEMENT IMPACT TO BUILDINGSALASKAN WY VI NBModerate, Severe, Very Severe Damage, HistoricModerate, Severe, Very Severe DamageBATTERY STPROPOSED SR99 TUNNEL PROJECTASSESSMENT OF SETTLEMENT IMPACTSMARCH 2010VINE STCEDAR STCLAY ST4TH AVE N5TH AVE NBROAD ST4TH AVE NSlight Damage, HistoricSlight DamageNegligible or Very Slight DamageMONORAIL0 50 100 200 FeetWALL STNA112TAYLOR AVETAYLOR AVE NJOHN STA141A142A144T133T137T139T125T124A139T128T129LENORA ST2ND AVEA138T127A136T121A135T126T119T120A133A134A130T117T116A129T123T106BLANCHARD STA128T109A126BELL STT108A1233RD AVET107BATTERY ST TUNNEL NBA122A120T095A118A119A116T089T087T0884TH AVET086T090BATTERY ST TUNNEL SB5TH AVEA1146TH AVET077A110A167AURORA AVE7TH AVEDENNY WAYA108NOTES :T066AURORA AVE NA166T0656TH AVE NJOHN STA106A105T057DEXTER AVE NA104T0551) ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGE IS THE "QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS",WHICH HAS USED BOSCARDIN AND CORDING APPROACH,WHERE APPLICABLE, ALONG WITH ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT2) AREAWAYS ARE BASED ON THE "CITY OF SEATTLE AREAWAYS MAP"PREPARED BY THE ROADWAY STRUCTURES GROUP OF SEATTLEDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH WAS OBTAINEDIN A MEETING IN DECEMBER 2008.3) TUNNEL ALIGNMENT IS "FEBRUARY 22, 2010",CL_ALN_TUNNEL_BT99.MSTTHOMAS STPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installmentX:\PB\mapprep\mxd\Projects\Settlement_v24_Qualitative_11x17_P3.mxd

Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Appendix BBuilding Damage Classification and Distortion TerminologyThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Figure B-1. Graphical Illustration of Building Distortion TerminologyThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings B-1Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Public Tunnel Disclosure - Assessment Request 11-0123 of for Settlement Elizabeth Campbell Impacts - 2nd to installment Buildings B-2

Appendix CBuilding Assessment Forms, Drawings, and PhotographsThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

List of Abbreviations Used in Building Evaluation FormsACTAVEB&CCMUDPDEIFSGWBHSSKSILFRSPSEPSFPSIPTSCLSPUSTT&GTITYPURMWYAcoustical Ceiling TileAvenueBoscardin and Cording [1989] Analysis MethodConcrete Masonry UnitCity of Seattle Department of Planning and DevelopmentExterior Insulation and Finish SystemGypsum Wall BoardHollow Structural Section (steel)Kips per Square Inch (1 kip = 1000 pounds)Lateral Force Resisting SystemPuget Sound EnergyPounds per Square FootPounds per Square InchPost-Tensioned (concrete)Seattle City LightSeattle Public UtilitiesStreetTongue and Groove (timber decking)Tenant ImprovementTypical conditionUnreinforced MasonryWayThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings C-1Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

See Enclosed DVDs for Building AssessmentForms, Drawings, and PhotographsInstructions for Understanding the Building Evaluation FormsThese notes summarize the procedures and guidelines that were followed whenfilling out the building assessment checklists.Address: Only the street address of the building is listed, not the city or zip code,since all buildings are in Seattle.Tax Payer Name and Tax Parcel Number: This information was provided by theWashington State Department of Transportation and has not been independentlyverified.Year built + Remodel/Renovation:• Under “Remodel/Renovation” only substantial tenant improvements andmodifications that are mainly structural in nature are included (e.g. seismicupgrade, foundation underpinning, addition of stories). Minor tenantimprovement modifications are not included.• If the seismic upgrade methodology (e.g. FEMA 178, FEMA 356, ASCE 31,ASCE 41, etc.) is known from the drawings reviewed, this was described in theComments section on Page 2.Present Uses: Up to four of the following descriptors are used to summarize themajor uses of the building:• Retail• Office• Residential Note: includes apartments, condominiums, and shelters• Hotel• Government Note: includes local, state, and national government offices• Museum• Church• Restaurant• Parking• Warehouse• Industrial• Educational• Entertainment Note: includes bars and nightclubs• CommunicationsThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings C-2Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Distance to Tunnel:• Horizontal offset between the tunnel centerline and the building centroid.Closest Station:• Tunnel station at building centroid.Tunnel Depth:• Depth to tunnel springline from the surface at the centerline of the tunnel.Building Height (From Ground):• The approximate building height from the ground to the main roof plane.Basement Depth (From Ground):• The approximate basement depth from the top of the basement slab to thelocation noted.• If there is no basement, the text “at (e.g. main entrance)” has been deleted fromthis field.Record Drawings Source:• In this field only the source of the record drawings is listed. For example, if thedrawings are from the City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development,“DPD Archives” is listed. If the drawings are from the building owner,“Owner’s archives” is listed.• In the Comments section, the drawings that were reviewed are briefly described.For example “Drawings reviewed included a partial set of original constructiondrawings, and a complete set of drawings from 1995 tenant improvements.”Completeness of Record Drawings:• Four selections are possible: Good, Fair, Poor, and None.Subconsultant:The following abbreviations are used for the subconsultants:• Coughlin Porter Lundeen, Inc. (CPL)• Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Inc. (MKA)• KPFF Consulting Engineers, Inc. (KPFF)The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings C-3Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Structural Systems:• This section contains information on the structural elements of the building.Foundation Systems:• This section contains information on the building foundation system.• If the foundation is stepped or sloped, and the configuration is known from thedrawings, this is briefly described in the Comments section.• Known soil bearing capacities, pile capacities, or other geotechnical informationare described, and the source of the information is stated (e.g., general notes ofdrawings).• Analytical assumptions related to the settlement analysis are listed forfoundations or portions of foundations (i.e. pile depth) which are unknown.• The elevation datum is taken as NAVD88.Exterior Finishes:• It is noted if the exterior finish system is a veneer or if it is load bearing (ifknown).• It is noted if control joints are present and visible.• It is noted if drawings indicate the method of anchorage of the exterior finishesto the structure.Interior Finishes:• The emphasis is placed on noting and commenting on brittle finishes that mightbe affected by building settlements.• Typical finishes representing general conditions observed are listed, but may notrepresent all finishes present within the building.• When describing interior finishes, the distinction is made between gypsum wallboard and true lath-and-plaster wall finishes (if known), because lath-and-plasteris more sensitive to building settlements than gypsum wall board.Significant Unknown Structural Conditions:• This section records structural conditions that the engineer was not able toobserve, or that do not appear on existing drawings, but that are important tounderstand the vulnerability of the building to settlement damage. Examplesmight include unknown foundation type, unknown method of attachment ofterra cotta veneer, or the inability to access important areas of the building suchas the basement or crawl space during the walkthrough.Comments:• Information is included here for utilities, areaways, drawings reviewed, andadjacent buildings, where known.• If a structure contains two or more building numbers as assigned by theWashington Department of Transportation, it is noted in this section. ForThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings C-4Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

example, T311 and T312 are the same structure (same owner, same parcelnumber per the Seattle Department of Planning and Development), so theassessment for T311 applies to both T311 and T312 and this section notes thatthe buildings have been combined.Cracks: Where noted in the assessment:• Cracks less than or equal to 1/32 inch (0.02 inch) in width are referred to as“hairline cracks”.• Cracks greater than 1/32 inch (0.02 inch) in width are referred to by size or sizerange, e.g. “Vertical cracks were observed in CMU wall, approximately 1/16 to3/32 inch wide.”Notes on Concrete Terminology:• To describe non-post-tensioned concrete, the term “reinforced concrete” is used.• To describe post-tensioned concrete, the term “post-tensioned concrete” is used.Existing Damage, Estimated Settlement, and Estimated Damage:• This information is typically provided on page 4 of the Building AssessmentForm.• Estimated Settlement is that settlement anticipated as a result of tunnelingoperations.• For more information on the inputs in this section, see the main body of thereport.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings C-5Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Public Tunnel Disclosure - Assessment Request 11-0123 of for Settlement Elizabeth Campbell Impacts - 2nd to installment Buildings C-6

Appendix DBoscardin and Cording Analysis ToolThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Table of Contents1.0 B&C ANALYSIS METHOD ............................................................................................................ 12.0 B&C DAMAGE CLASSIFICATIONS ........................................................................................... 93.0 E/G RATIO ....................................................................................................................................... 114.0 BUILDING HEIGHT ...................................................................................................................... 135.0 FOUNDATION DEPTH ................................................................................................................ 15List of TablesTable D-1. Classification of Visible Damage ............................................................................................... 9Table D-2. Building E/G ............................................................................................................................. 11Table D-3. Building Height .......................................................................................................................... 13List of FiguresFigure D-1. Building Location Coordinates ................................................................................................. 5Figure D-2. Boscardin & Cording Damage Limit Curves ......................................................................... 5Figure D-3. DCR Calculation Example ........................................................................................................ 6Figure D-4. Example Transient Settlement Profile...................................................................................... 6Figure D-5. Integration of Standard Probability Curve ............................................................................. 7Figure D-6. Typical B&C Summary .............................................................................................................. 7Figure D-7. E/G versus Angular Distortion ............................................................................................. 12Figure D-8. H/L versus Beta ....................................................................................................................... 14Figure D-9. Foundation Depth versus Foundation System .................................................................... 15The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsD-iPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsD-iiPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

1.0 B&C Analysis MethodThe buildings have been evaluated using the methods prescribed by Boscardin &Cording [1989] (B&C) using a batch analysis tool developed in Microsoft Excel usingVisual Basic. The following is an outline of the steps taken within the analysis tool:1. Buildings are idealized as a rectangle. The approximate geometric centroid ofthe building has been located relative to the closest tunnel station (X) anddeparture offset normal to the tunnel (Y) as illustrated in Figure D-1.2. The building plan length (L), plan width (W), and rotation (θ) relative to thetunnel alignment are determined by the user and input into the tool. Thecoordinates of the four building corners are then determined from this data(See Figure D-1 for L, W, and θ).3. Additional building properties (building height, foundation depth, and wallstiffness) are input by the user. A description of these three inputs isprovided in the following sections.4. Each of the four building faces and the two building diagonals are dividedinto N segments and the vertical settlement (δ v ) and horizontal strain (ε h ) arein turn found at each end of each segment based upon settlement dataprovided by the geotechnical engineer. 15. Vertical displacement slope and curvature are found using numericaldifferentiation (5-point stencil method) of δ v .1 The second derivative of settlement described in step 5 may become erratic as the differencebetween segment end point settlements becomes small. To avoid this tendency a target segmentlength of 10 feet was selected. N was then found by dividing the horizontal length of the buildingface by 10 feet. N was further limited to at least 5 segments per face but no more than 20 segmentsper face.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings D-1Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

6. Hogging and sagging segments are identified on each face based upon thesign of curvature. 2 Curvature inflection points are identified by interpolatingfor points of zero curvature at each of the four faces.7. Within each region of common hogging or common sagging per buildingface, “L” and “δ” terms are found per the Boscardin & Cording calculationof β (note the “L” in this step is not the building plan length L).8. Horizontal strain, ε h , is found within each segment of common hogging orsagging per face. Note that the controlling ε h is defined as the largestmagnitude tensile or compressive strain value within the segment beingconsidered.9. ε h and β pairs resulting from the sagging or hogging regions are plotted foreach segment on each face and diagonal. The estimated damage level foreach pair is found per the principal strain boundaries identified in Boscardin& Cording (see Figure D-2). Damage ranges as defined by Boscardin &Cording are shown in Table D-1.10. A Demand-to-Capacity Ratio (DCR) is identified for each ε h and β pair inorder to provide an indicator of the predicted damage state relative to thenext lower and next higher damage state. DCR is defined as illustrated inFigure D-3.11. The [ε h , β] point with the largest predicted damage state DCR is reported asthe overall building controlling predicted damage condition.The following list provides a description of the various terms used within thisanalysis phase:Station, XTunnel alignment station of building centroid as depicted inFigure D-1.2 Where the radius of curvature was found to exceed approximately 16,000 miles, the segment wasdeemed not to contribute to the subsequent damage prediction calculations. These regions arereferred to as “flat” and are excluded from the calculation of ∆ and L in step 7.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings D-2Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Offset, Yδε hLβDeparture from tunnel centerline to building centroid asdepicted in Figure D-1.Vertical settlement for a particular ground loss found inaccordance with Section 4.1.Horizontal ground strain found in accordance with Section4.1.Length of common hogging or sagging region as defined byBoscardin and Cording.Angular distortion as defined by Boscardin and Cording.Angular distortion is calculated as follows:1+43δβ =L1+6EGEG⎛⎜⎝⎛⎜⎝HLHL⎞⎟⎠22⎞⎟⎠(Eq. D1-1)E/GDCRzWall effective E/G ratio where E is Young’s Modulus and Gis the shear modulus. The following sections providesuggestions for appropriate E/G values based upon the wallstiffness.Relative damage magnitude term relating the position of theestimated damage relative to the next higher and next lowerdamage category. See Figure D-3.Depth from ground surface (or bottom of foundation wherethe building displacement is of interest) to midpoint of tunnel(feet).Transient Settlement AnalysisTransient settlement conditions occurring during the construction (boring) of thetunnel were also evaluated using the Boscardin and Cording method. This analysiswas conducted to address concerns of potentially greater levels of predicted buildingdamage occurring as a result of the three dimensional settlement profile developed asthe ground surface transitions from zero settlement to the full predicted groundsettlement. An illustration of a representative transient settlement profile is providedin Figure D-4.The transient settlement analysis was performed by expanding the calculationsdescribed in analysis step 4 above. The assumed station of the tunnel boringThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings D-3Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

machine excavated face (X T ) was then varied in increments from a starting position2Kz before the building station to an ending position 2Kz after the building station.At each step a Boscardin and Cording damage calculation was performed andrecorded from which a comparison could then be made to the full predictedsettlement Boscardin and Cording damage estimate.The settlement equations for the transient analysis augment the equations providedby the Geotechnical Engineer and are based upon Attewell, et al [1982].Settlement:δ =δ final⎛ X − X⋅G⎜⎝ iT⎟ ⎠⎞(Eq. D1-2)Horizontal strain normal to tunnel alignment:εhy2δ ⎛ y⎟ ⎞= ⎜ −12z ⎝ i ⎠(Eq. D1-3)Horizontal strain parallel to tunnel alignment:εhx( X − X )δ ⎪⎧final ⎛ X − X ⎛T ⎞ −⎨1− ⎜ ⎟exp⎜z 2π⎪⎩ ⎝ i ⎠ ⎝ 2i=2T2⎞⎪⎫⎟⎬⎠⎪⎭(Eq. D1-4)Where,δ final = Full predicted ground settlement in accordance with Section 4.1.G((X-X T )/Kz) = a function “G” returning the numerical integration of thestandard probability curve at the point ((X-X T )/Kz as is illustrated inFigure D-5.i is as defined in Section 4.1.K is as defined in Section 4.1.Note that due to the three dimensional settlement profile, horizontal ground strainsexist both normal to and parallel to the tunnel alignment axis. To account for thetunnel parallel strain (ε hx ) upon the Boscardin and Cording damage estimate theprojection of ε hx into the plane of each building wall was found and added to theBoscardin and Cording wall strain ε h described in step 8 previously.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings D-4Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Figure D-1. Building Location CoordinatesFigure D-2. Boscardin & Cording Damage Limit CurvesThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings D-5Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Figure D-3. DCR Calculation Example3-DimensionalTransient GroundSettlementFinal SettlementProfileFigure D-4. Example Transient Settlement ProfileThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings D-6Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

1.00.90.80.7G((X-XT)/KZ)0.60.50.40.30.20.10.0-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0(X-X T )/KZFigure D-5. Integration of Standard Probability CurveABFLCMDEGINJOFigure D-6. Typical B&C SummaryHKThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings D-7Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The summary page, Figure D-6 provides the following data:A. Building identification number.B. Building name.C. Building location data: Station, X, and offset normal to tunnel, Y, asdescribed above.D. Foundation depth and surface elevation offset. Surface elevationoffset is a vertical distance of the assumed grade elevation of thebuilding relative to the elevation of ground surface directly above thetunnel. Foundation depth is discussed in further detail in a followingsection.E. Building plan length, width, and rotation used in the analysis.F. Wall height and E/G ratio used in the analysis.G. Tunnel diameter, ground loss, and K parameter used in the analysis.H. Relative location of each building face.I. Ground settlement around the building perimeter by face.J. Ground slope around the building perimeter by face.K. Regions of common sagging or hogging deformation.L. Controlling B&C estimated damage level and DCR.M. Graphic of the B&C damage level acceptance curves with controlling[β,ε h ] point.N. Various parameters used to calculate the B&C damage level.O. Settlement, station, and depth data at the four corners of theidealized building.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings D-8Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

2.0 B&C Damage ClassificationsTable D-1. Classification of Visible DamageClass ofDamageDescription of Damage aUpperBoundPrincipalStrainApproximateWidth b ofCracks, mmNegligible Hairline cracks. 0.00050 < 0.1VerySlightFine cracks easily treated during normal redecoration.Perhaps isolated slight fracture in building. Cracks inexterior brickwork visible upon close inspection.0.00075 < 1SlightCracks easily filled. Redecoration probably required.Several slight fractures inside building. Exterior cracksvisible, some re-pointing may be required for weathertightness.Doors and windows may stick slightly.0.00150 < 5ModerateCracks may require cutting out and re-patching. Recurrentcracks can be masked by suitable linings. Tuck-pointingand possibly replacement of a small amount of exteriorbrickwork may be required. Doors and windows sticking.Utility service may be interrupted. Weather-tightnessoften impaired.(Moderateand Severecategoriesoftencombined.)5 to 15 orseveralcracks > 3mmSevereExtensive repair involving removal and replacement ofsections of walls, especially over doors and windows,required. Windows and door frames distorted, floorslopes noticeably. Walls lean, doors bulge noticeably,some loss of bearing in beams. Utility service disrupted.0.00300 15 to 25, alsodepends onnumber ofcracks.VerySevereMajor repair required involving partial or complete reconstruction.Beams lose bearing; walls lean badly andrequire shoring. Windows broken by distortion. Dangerof instability.>0.00300 Usually > 25mm,depends onnumber ofcracks.a Location of damage in the building or structure must be considered when classifying the degree ofdamage.b Crack width is only one aspect of damage and should not be used alone as a direct measure of it.Note: Modified from Burland et al. [1977]The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings D-9Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Public Tunnel Disclosure - Assessment Request 11-0123 of for Settlement Elizabeth Campbell Impacts - 2nd to installment Buildings D-10

3.0 E/G RatioE/G is based upon Table D-2 for all buildings. Note that E/G is used in thecalculation of angular distortion. E/G is not used in the calculation ofhorizontal ground strain ε h .Table D-2. Building E/GBuilding LateralStiffnessE/GNotesStiff 2.6Soft 12.0Shear wall or similar lateralsystem.Frame lateral system orcentral core with gravityframe perimeter.As shown in Figure D-7 the sensitivity of the predicted angular distortion valuevaries with E/G. A lower value of E/G produces a larger predicted angulardistortion value. Separate E/G ratios are utilized when checking predicteddamage of the basement or secondary portions of the structure as discussed inthe following “Building Height” section.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings D-11Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Figure D-7. E/G versus Angular DistortionThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings D-12Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

4.0 Building HeightBuilding height is used in the calculation of angular distortion and represents theheight of the element for which damage predictions are calculated. In somecases, portions of the buildings are evaluated separately to identify the worst caseangular distortion value.Table D-3. Building HeightWall ConditionHeight Assumption1. Building superstructure only H = building height above grade2. Building basement only H = foundation height to grade3. Low rise or separate area H = height as appropriate4. Areaway H = areaway height onlyAs can be seen in Figure D-8 when H/L≥0.5 there is nearly no impact upon theresulting calculation of β. Furthermore a greater damage state is predicted withsmall H/L, thus a small value of H provides a conservative prediction of damagestate.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings D-13Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Figure D-8. H/L versus BetaThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings D-14Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

5.0 Foundation DepthThe analysis tool considers the vertical distance from the tunnel alignment(tunnel centerline) to the building foundation. The depth from the groundsurface to the tunnel springline has been provided at each station.The foundation depth is established differently for shallow footings versus pileor caisson foundation systems. Figure D-9 illustrates the suggested foundationdepth (Fdn Depth) for several foundation systems.When the foundation type is unknown but is likely shallow, the foundation depthis assumed to be 2 feet below the depth of the basement.Figure D-9. Foundation Depth versus Foundation SystemThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings D-15Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Public Tunnel Disclosure - Assessment Request 11-0123 of for Settlement Elizabeth Campbell Impacts - 2nd to installment Buildings D-16

Appendix EMonitoringThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Table of Contents1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 12.0 BASIC MONITORING ..................................................................................................................... 33.0 TILT METER MONITORING ....................................................................................................... 53.1 Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 53.2 Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 54.0 GPS MONITORING ......................................................................................................................... 74.1 Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 74.2 Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 75.0 AUTOMATED TOTAL STATION MONITORING ................................................................ 95.1 Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 95.2 Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 96.0 DISTRIBUTED DATA ACQUISITION ..................................................................................... 116.1 Goals ........................................................................................................................................ 116.2 Implementation ...................................................................................................................... 117.0 LEVELS OF MONITORING ........................................................................................................ 15The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsE-iPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

List of TablesTable E-1. Level 1 Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... 15Table E-2. Level 2 Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... 16Table E-3. Level 3 Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... 16List of FiguresFigure E-1. Monitoring/Alert Mechanism Schematic .............................................................................. 12The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to BuildingsE-iiPublic Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

1.0 IntroductionThe potential ground movement associated with open cut excavations and tunnelboring operations may affect adjacent buildings, utilities, and other elements at ornear the existing ground elevation. Surveys of the pre-construction conditions,monitoring settlements and tilt during construction, and plan "trigger levels" atwhich contingency plans may be enacted for these items. The discussion within thisappendix is focused on monitoring impacts to building structures along the tunnelalignment. It does not provide input for all of the instrumentation and monitoringrequired for the construction of the tunnel.The exact implementation of monitoring points and types will be a balance betweencosts, risk management, and practical considerations. Potential equipment formonitoring is outlined below.Tilt meters are relatively inexpensive per location for one location/direction and givecontinuous information on tilt. However, one is needed for each direction at aparticular location, and no direct information is gathered for the settlement values.Hence multiple tilt-meter locations need to be carefully chosen to provideinformation for the vulnerable points. Shearing mode deformations causing diagonaltension cracking in walls do not trigger tilt alarms unless a beam element is added tospan a wall and the tilt meter is placed on that beam element. Careful placement oftilt meters is essential, such as on beams for framed buildings with sheardeformations and at maximum expected tilting locations for walls with bendingdeformations.GPS Rover stations provide direct settlement information as long as relativelyunobstructed satellite exposure is available. However, they have significant cost perlocation for monitoring, and multiple locations may be required on a building.Rover stations get their accuracy with the aid of one or more fixed (not settling ormoving) base stations near the project site. A few base stations are required for thewhole project to achieve the desired accuracy at the Rover stations, depending on themanufacturer or work progress. Hence the two terms “Base Stations” and “RoverStations” are used various times in the report, both being essentially GPS stationsproviding X, Y, Z coordinates, but the rover stations being moved around tolocations where direct settlement information is required, and the base stationsproviding a fixed reference.Prisms fastened to building exteriors as part of an Automatic Robotic Total Stationmonitoring systems (sometimes called Robotic Total Stations) have even betteraccuracy than GPS Rover stations, yet they have incremental costs of only roughly1/10 that of the GPS Rover stations. However, they require line-of-sight to theTotal Station equipment, which can have significant cost. The line-of-sightrequirement is not a problem for settlement monitoring inside a tunnel but is moredifficult in a downtown environment.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings E-1Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Borehole extensometers, in which the lengths of segments along vertical drilled holesare monitored, deliver the earliest warnings on impending large settlements. Thelowest portion directly above the tunnel would settle first, which can be measuredand set to generate alarms. Borehole extensometers are expected to be included inthe scope of the instrumentation for the actual tunnel construction.A very advanced method is InSAR monitoring, which uses earth-orbiting satellitesand compares multiple radar images to determine settlement values to an accuracy of¼ inch. Since satellites only pass the Seattle area every 24 days, there would be adelay of a month or longer to get results. For this reason, it is not considered apractical monitoring method for construction of the tunnel.In most practical applications, a combination of sensors and methods are employed,but considerable additional efforts are needed to relate the different methods at eachlocation.Since most settlements generally occur within a one-week period when theexcavation is directly below a building, some expensive sensors can be reused manytimes. For instance, if the project duration is one year, then the instruments could bereused approximately ten times (two weeks of baseline measurements, one weekmeasuring for active settlements, and two weeks of tailing-off measurements, plussome time to allow for the relocation of the sensors). The length could be dividedinto ten zones, and sensor placement could be planned within such zones. However,the fixed monitoring elements of the project should remain in place for several yearsafter completion of the project should additional, follow-up monitoring be required.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings E-2Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

2.0 Basic MonitoringManual survey points are survey targets established well before the beginning ofconstruction and surveyed by precise leveling. Typically these points consist of nailsor similar marks placed on pavements or walls. The points are then surveyed atvarious stages before, during, and after construction. The results may then becompared against values predicted by the analysis. This will allow actual settlementduring construction to be determined and further control measures to be put in placeif necessary. The frequency of manually surveying will be determined based on theactual amount of settlement occurring as the tunneling activities proceed.Another method is the traditional crack monitor consisting of two plastic pieces thatare taped together over existing cracks. One of the two pieces has a grid system thatis manually read and documented during site visits. The initial cost is low, butrepeated site visits are required, and, since it is a manual system read after the fact, noalarms are triggered.Existing cracks that are not expected to widen or close, consist of plastering a patchof non-shrinking patching material such as epoxy or mortar over a crack. Manualobservation of the patches during site visits is quick and easy, but such observationsprovide less information on the history of movements than measurements via thecrack monitors.Linear Variable Differential Transducers (LVDT) are extension meters that look likesmall shock absorbers but give a linear, variable voltage output proportional to thedifferential when installed across a crack. The voltage output can easily beconnected to the analog-to-digital (A/D) converters described below, and hence canbe monitored remotely and in real time with thresholds and alarms if desired.Strains, loads, and vibrations could also be monitored with sensors having aproportional output voltage and could be interfaced with the A/D converters, butthe requirements are too site-specific to be described in general terms.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings E-3Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Public Tunnel Disclosure - Assessment Request 11-0123 of for Settlement Elizabeth Campbell Impacts - 2nd to installment Buildings E-4

3.0 Tilt Meter Monitoring3.1 Goals3.2 ImplementationTilt meters give continuous information on the tilt of an object. Their output is acontinuous voltage proportional to the tilt (or inclination) at the sensor location.• Economical determination of the tilt or change in slope of structuralcomponents.• Strategic sensor placements such that tilt measurements for critical buildingelements indicate no damage has occurred or indicate the severity of thedistortions.• Meter placement early in the project to get a baseline; if necessary, add someadditional sensors if settlements are higher than anticipated.• Install wiring for the output to be observable remotely. However, wirelesstechniques are in development and wiring may not be required for thisproject.• Typical accuracy of 1/1000 degree (1/100 inch per 5-story height).Find locations that describe the severity of building distortions (in other words,install the meter where movement is most likely to occur). Determine if singledirection tilt or biaxial tilt is needed. Measurement of leaning walls is simple; thesensor can be placed on a metal bracket fastened to the wall. To determinesettlements in beam-column systems (where columns remain nearly vertical), placethe sensors on the beams near the center of the span. For measuring sheardeformations in walls fasten beam type members that are spanning the wall and placetilt meters on this added beam type members.Each sensor requires a cable connected to a centrally located data acquisition pointto power the sensor and to provide for reading the signal. Most tilt sensors aretypically placed in the basement; however, measuring tilt both on the lowest floorand the top floor of a high-rise building would require expensive placement of longcables. Therefore, if tilt measurements are required at the top of a high-rise, it wouldbe more economical to add a second acquisition point at the top with an internetconnection, resulting in shorter cables.A major cost is the cable placement, especially if sensors are reused. Wirelesssystems are continuously being enhanced, so it may be feasible to use wirelessmethods. If sensors are reused ten times, wireless would probably be more costThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings E-5Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

effective than having to lay cables repeatedly. Wireless methods usually digitize thesignals, but it may be best to transform back into a continuous analog signal for easeof interfacing all of the sensors and observing them at the central location.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings E-6Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

4.0 GPS Monitoring4.1 Goals4.2 ImplementationGPS Rover stations can provide direct settlement information of x, y, and zcoordinates at multiple points on a building, though nearby base station equipment isrequired to serve as a reference point.• Direct readings of settlements with an accuracy of approximately 1/4 inch.• Limited to some special and important structures due to cost.• Typical accuracy of 1/4 inch or better after multiple hours of post-processingthe raw data.GPS monitoring is widely used abroad on hundreds of installations. Severalmanufacturers and consultants have different techniques, but reliable and consistentinformation on settlement is available to be observed remotely. On projects aroundthe world two or three base stations are used on a project of this size to serve asreference points to the GPS Rover stations placed on buildings. Others utilize onebase station and can have up to 20 remote stations on buildings that analyze buildingsettlements with a software package.The only requirement besides power and internet access is a relatively unobstructedoverhead view to the satellites; however, no line of sight to reference stations isrequired. Placing two GPS stations on diagonal corners of a building should giveconsiderable information on differential settlement and expected damage, butadditional information from tilt meters would likely be required.Special antennas can enhance the accuracy at difficult locations, such as stations onthe ground with obstructed overhead views.There are no ongoing GPS subscription fees, but maintenance contracts on theequipment should insure the firmware and software are up-to-date with potentialchanges.The GPS Rover stations can be easily moved to the roofs of other buildings as thetunnel boring progresses, thereby lowering the cost per building monitored.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings E-7Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Public Tunnel Disclosure - Assessment Request 11-0123 of for Settlement Elizabeth Campbell Impacts - 2nd to installment Buildings E-8

5.0 Automated Monitoring Total Station5.1 Goals5.2 ImplementationAutomated Monitoring Total Stations utilize prisms fastened to the buildingexteriors. They do require line-of-sight to the Total Station equipment, which may bedifficult because of obstructions in a downtown environment. The informationprovided is x, y, and z coordinates, similar to GPS stations.• Direct recording of settlements at multiple locations within line-of-sight.• Intermediate cost solution between tilt meters and GPS monitoring.• Excellent accuracy of a few tenths of an inch (claimed by manufacturers asbeing as low as 1/16 inch).Where the opportunity exists to set up a central station and fulfill the requirement ofmany accurate settlement readings within line-of-sight, reference prisms can beplaced at points to be monitored. This system is ideal for a structure such as astraight tunnel, but in a downtown location with many buildings and trees, it is moredifficult to find multiple line-of-sight conditions from a single station.A current tunneling project in Zurich, Switzerland, has prism stations attached tosidewalk curbs, giving settlement information for utilities.Reuse of central stations as the tunneling progresses would lower the cost perbuilding monitored.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings E-9Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Public Tunnel Disclosure - Assessment Request 11-0123 of for Settlement Elizabeth Campbell Impacts - 2nd to installment Buildings E-10

6.0 Distributed Data Acquisition6.1 Goals6.2 ImplementationA data acquisition station provides a solution to collect data around the clock fromsensors that are distributed over a large downtown area and locked up in buildings.• Readings are taken remotely.• Consistency and repeatability in interfacing a variable amount and variety ofsensors.• Robust and continuous system.• Ease of observing results and generating alarms.• Economical acquisition and evaluation of the data.This simple solution includes getting all sensors to output a linear voltage that caneasily be interfaced into an analog-to-digital converter (A/D) that prepares a digitalinput to a computer. The A/D can even be directly connected to the internetwithout any local computer and hence can be much more economical. Using adistributed data acquisition system, data is acquired by one computer at one centrallocation, analyzed and displayed conveniently on internet web pages, and monitoredfor threshold values that are not to be exceeded with appropriate alarms sent out byemails, web pages, etc. See Figure E-1 for a schematic of this system.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings E-11Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Figure E-1. Monitoring/Alert Mechanism SchematicIt is essential to have internet connections at all locations where data need to bemeasured and analyzed frequently and where alarms are required. Various wirelessnetwork solutions are available, but fixed wired internet access provided by thebuilding owners or internet access (DSL or cable) ordered for the locations areusually much more reliable. The cost of the A/D converters is relatively low, andthey can have data logging capability for stand-alone locations without internetaccess; however, such a system compromises access and no alarms are possible.Where building owners can provide internet access to the basement, connecting thesensors is easy. However, it is essential that no firewalls are blocking the portsneeded by the data acquisition. Otherwise, a DSL can be ordered for a building.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings E-12Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The emerging capability of wireless cellular network solutions should also beinvestigated to see if stable access and non-changing IP addresses are feasible. Thisis an emerging technology.Often the monitoring is done by the more traditional "data-loggers" available fromvarious manufacturers, along with software familiar to the consultants. However, theflexibility and simplicity of the implementation described above should be used as abaseline for comparisons of the goals, costs, and resulting information that will bereadily available. The one central computer handling all data, as outlined above,allows observations in real time at all hours of the day, at the central location or byauthorized users accessing that data from anywhere.The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings E-13Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

The Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Public Tunnel Disclosure - Assessment Request 11-0123 of for Settlement Elizabeth Campbell Impacts - 2nd to installment Buildings E-14

7.0 Levels of MonitoringEach building has been assessed for vulnerability to settlement, to determine howmuch information is needed to assess the degree of potential damage to the structureand to determine the data frequency for analysis. Taking into consideration theimportance of the building, one can determine the appropriate level of monitoring.This section provides three levels of monitoring with the quantities providedrepresenting guidelines for implementation.The number of sensors and monitoring is highly dependent on the size andcondition of the buildings, hence the notation "TBD" (to be determined).Manual crack monitors and patches are inexpensive to set up and should be usedliberally, with the frequency of observation tailored to the expected settlements anddamage being observed.Table E-1. Level 1 MonitoringItemQuantity Per BuildingManual Building Survey Point (survey targets) 4Manual Crack MonitorsTBDManual Crack PatchesTBDThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings E-15Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment

Table E-2. Level 2 MonitoringItemManual Building Survey PointQuantity Per Building4 minimumTilt Meter 8Manual Crack MonitorsTBDManual Crack PatchesTBDData Acquisition Station 1Table E-3. Level 3 MonitoringItemManual Building Survey PointQuantity Per Building4 minimumTilt Meter 8GPS Rover or AMTS (with multiple line-ofsightlocations, Robotic Total Stationmonitoring becomes more economical)2Data Acquisition Station 1Manual Crack MonitorsTBDManual Crack PatchesTBDThe Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program March 2010Proposed SR 99 Bored Tunnel - Assessment of Settlement Impacts to Buildings E-16Public Disclosure Request 11-0123 for Elizabeth Campbell - 2nd installment