AG19831121 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DANA H. RUCKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. October 19, 1983 Mr. Charles D. McGinnis County Manager Cabarrus County Post Office Box 707 Concord, North Carolina 28025 Re: Retaining Wall Investigation U. S. Post Office Concord, North Carolina File No. 8369 Dear Mr. McGinnis: In confirmation of our telephone conversation of October 5, 1983 we have made a study of the condition of this brick faced retaining wall behind the Post Office. We conclude that the 43" high brick parapet on top of the concrete of the wall is at the point of failure and is not safe. Our investigation.of the lower portion of the walli the 16' of the concrete wall with brick facing below the parapet, revealed that it has excessive movement and may be unsafe. We reco~end that the wall be condemned. Further that the area beneath the wall be barricaded and that people and vehicles kept out of it until adequate corrective measures are taken. In our opinion a thorough investigation of the wall should be undertaken by the owner to determine necessary remedial work to assure safety. Such investigation Should include excavation of material from the back face of the wall so that it may be examined for cracking all the way down. Precise measurement should be made on both faces of the wall to determine the amount it is leaning. The footing should also be examined and measured to determine the amount of deflection that has occurred in it. The soil under the end or toe of the footing should be tested as should the backfill material behind the wall. Based upon this information, the Post Office Department drawings and the actual loading (which includes the upper level parking lot and the rubble fill and mulch next to the wall) a structural analysis should be made of the stability of this wall. Comparison of actual and observed rotation should be made. This program will be costly and in our opinion should be undertaken by and paid for by the property owner and not by Cabarrus County. Our investigation included the following steps. 1. Two trips were made to the site where the wall was observed, photo- graphed for record, certain measurements taken, a test pit excavated behind the parapet to uncover the base of the parapet and the top of the concrete wall. The parking area in the vicinity of the toe of the footing was observed and measured for indications of toe settlement.