The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 2022-0031; ADAMS HOUSE; STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS RETAINING WALLS; 2024-07-30 Adams House 3667 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA Retaining Wall Calculations Carlsbad, CA 22 April 2024 SGH Project 238093.00 04/22/2024 THESE PLANS/DOCUMENTS HAVE BEENREVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THEAPPLICABLE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDSCODES AS ADOPTED BY THE STATE OFCALIFORNIA AND AMENDED BY THEJURISDICTION. PLAN REVIEW ACCEPTANCE OFDOCUMENTS DOES NOT AUTHORIZECONSTRUCTION TO PROCEED IN VIOLATION OFANY FEDERAL, STATE, NOR LOCAL REGULATION. BY: _________________ DATE: ________________ True North Compliance Services, Inc. THIS SET OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONSMUST BE KEPT ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMESAND IT IS UNLAWFUL TO MAKE ANY CHANGESOR ALTERATIONS WITHOUT PERMISSION FROMTHE CITY. OCCUPANCY OF STRUCTURE(S) ISNOT PERMITTED UNTIL FINAL APPROVAL ISGRANTED BY ALL APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS. Ali Al-Murshid 07/30/24 I J | www.sgh.com PREPARED FOR: Curtis Ling, PhD 4368 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA 92006 PREPARED BY: Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. 4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 500 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: 949.930.2500 Fax: 949.885.0456 - i - Table of Contents CONTENTS Page 1. Introduction 1 2. Retaining Wall Design (2ft.-0in.) 4 3. Retaining Wall Design (2ft.-6in.) 14 4. Retaining Wall Design (3ft.-6in.) 24 5. Retaining Wall Design (4ft.-6in.) 33 6. Retaining Wall Design (5ft.-0in.) 43 7. Retaining Wall Design (6ft.-6in.) 52 8. Retaining Wall Design (8ft.-6in.) 69 9. Retaining Wall Desing (12ft.-0in.) 85 10. Retaining Wall Design (14ft.-0in.) 101 11. Glass Guardrail Connection Design 120 APPENDICES Appendix A – Geotechnical Report Introduction 1 1. OVERVIEW The purpose of this calculation is to design site retaining walls for a residential house. The retaining walls are reinforced cast-in-place standard and non-proprietary UHPC concrete with varying heights from 2 ft.-0 in. to 14 ft.-0 in. The geotechnical engineers gave us design parameters for the walls, see below for specific values. The owner wants to use Insulated Concrete Forms (ICF) as the stem wall formwork. We engaged Fox Blocks to review our design and provide feedback on the compatibility of our design with their ICF products. The use of ICF does not alter the structural performance of the final product. 2. CODES AND STANDARDS This project conforms to CBC 2022 and ASCE 7-16. 3. SITE DATA 3.1 Geotechnical Data The geotechnical report is titled "Updated Geotechnical Evaluation" by Geotek, dated 21 September 2023. The report is located in Appendix A of this calculation report. 3.2 Earthquake Hazard Data The geotechnical report provided the following information: • SS: 1.2 g • S1: 0.38 g • Site Class: D • SDS: 0.96 g • SD1: 0.64 g 3.3 Retaining Wall Design Criteria • Soil Pressure: 2 Surface Slope of Equivalent Fluid Retained Materials Pressure (PCF) (H:V) Select Backfill* Level 45 2:1 60 • At rest equivalent fluid pressure: 45 psf • Seismic equivalent fluid pressure: 16 psf (where H is the height of the retaining wall measured from the base of the footing [in feet]) • Allowable bearing capacity: 3,000 psf o value may be increased by 500 psf for each additional 12 inches in depth and 300 psf for each additional 12 inches in width to a maximum value of 4,500 psf o Value may be increased by 1/3 when considering seismic/wind demands. • Allowable coefficient of friction: 0.35 • Passive earth pressure: 200 psf per foot of depth (2,000 psf max) 3.4 Loads 3.4.1 Dead Loads • Superimposed Surcharge Loads (pavers, decomposed granite, and other landscape features): 30 psf • Soil: 117 pcf • Concrete: 150 pcf 3.4.2 Live Loads • Driveway/Parking: 100 psf • Driveway/fire truck: 250 psf (on walls near the entrance). 3.4.3 Material Specs The following material specifications are required for the new structural components. • Reinforcing Steel ASTM A615 Fy = 60,000 psi • Standard Concrete f'c = 5,000 psi • UHPC Concrete f'c = 14,000 psi (min.) ft = 635 psi (min.) Ec = 2500(f’c)^0.33 εt = 0.004 (min.); εt0 = 0.00134 (min). 3 Retaining Wall Design (2ft.-0in.) 4 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:2ft tall Concrete Wall EFP_ Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Code References Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 2.50 0.00 0.00 6.00 3,000.0 45.0 0.0 200.0 Criteria Soil Data Retained Height =ft Wall height above soil =ft Active Heel Pressure =psf/ftSlope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe in Water height over heel =ft = = 117.00=pcf = Soil Density, Heel = Passive Pressure =psf/ft Allow Soil Bearing =psf Soil Density, Toe 117.00 pcf Footing||Soil Friction =0.350 Soil height to ignorefor passive pressure =0.00 in Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Surcharge Loads Adjacent Footing Load Load Type 130.0 Lateral Load =0.0 #/ft 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Axial Load Applied to Stem Wall to Ftg CL Dist =0.00 ft Wind on Exposed Stem psf0.0= Lateral Load Applied to Stem Surcharge Over Heel =psf Adjacent Footing Load =0.0 lbs Axial Dead Load (Strength Level) =lbs Footing Type Spread Footing Surcharge Over Toe psf Footing Width =0.00 ft...Height to Top =0.00 ft Eccentricity =0.00 in...Height to Bottom =0.00 ft Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Used for Sliding & Overturning =0.0 ft Axial Live Load = Base Above/Below Soil lbs = Axial Load Eccentricity ==Poisson's Ratio 0.300 at Back of Wall in (Strength Level) Seismic (E)= 5 Calculations per IBC 2021 1807.3, CBC 2022, ASCE 7-16 . . . . Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:2ft tall Concrete Wall EFP_ Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Design Summary Wall Stability RatiosOverturning =7.32 Global Stability =3.11 OK Sliding =1.50 OK Total Bearing Load =1,769 lbs...resultant ecc.=4.73 in Soil Pressure @ Toe =173 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel =596 psf OK Allowable =3,000 psfSoil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe =242 psfACI Factored @ Heel =835 psf Footing Shear @ Toe =0.8 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel =1.9 psi OK Allowable =106.1 psi Sliding Calcs Lateral Sliding Force =468.1 lbs less 33 % Passive Force less 100% Friction Force Added Force Req'd ....for 1.5 Stability = 0.0= 619.0 83.6 == 0.0 - lbs lbs lbs OK lbs OK - Masonry Block Type = Stem Construction 2nd Bottom Stem OK Stem OK Shear.....Actual Design Height Above Ftg =2.50ft 0.00 Wall Material Above "Ht"=Concrete Concrete Thickness =6.00 6.00 Rebar Size =##4 4 Rebar Spacing =18.00 18.00 Rebar Placed at =Edge EdgeDesign Data fb/FB + fa/Fa =0.000 0.174 Total Force @ Section =425.0lbs Moment....Actual =437.5ft-# Moment.....Allowable =2,502.8 2,502.8ft-# =8.3psi Shear.....Allowable =106.1 106.1psi Wall Weight =75.0 75.0psf Rebar Depth 'd'=4.25in 4.25 Masonry Data f'm =psi Fs =psi Solid Grouting = Modular Ratio 'n'= Short Term Factor = Equiv. Solid Thick.= Concrete Dataf'c =5,000.0 5,000.0psi Fy =60,000.0 60,000.0 Masonry Design Method ASD= Load Factors Building Code Dead Load 0.000 Live Load 0.000 Earth, H 0.000 Wind, W 0.000 Seismic, E 0.000 psi Service Level =425.0lbsStrength Level Service Level Strength Level =437.5ft-# Service Level Strength Level =8.3psi Design Method =SD SD SD Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of soil bearing pressures. Anet (Masonry)=in2 6 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:2ft tall Concrete Wall EFP_ Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Concrete Stem Rebar Area Details 2nd Stem Vertical Reinforcing Horizontal Reinforcing As (based on applied moment) :0 in2/ft (4/3) * As :0 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area 0.000 in2 3sqrt(f’c)bd/fy : 3sqrt(5000)(12)(4.25)/60000 :0.1803 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area per ft of stem Height : 0.000 in2/ft 0.0018bh : 0.0018(12)(6) :0.1296 in2/ft Horizontal Reinforcing Options : ============One layer of : Two layers of : Required Area :0.1296 in2/ft #4@ 0.00 in #4@ 0.00 in Provided Area :0.1333 in2/ft #5@ 0.00 in #5@ 0.00 in Maximum Area :1.0838 in2/ft #6@ 0.00 in #6@ 0.00 in ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bottom Stem Vertical Reinforcing Horizontal Reinforcing As (based on applied moment) :0.0246 in2/ft (4/3) * As :0.0328 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area 0.360 in2 3sqrt(f’c)bd/fy : 3sqrt(5000)(12)(4.25)/60000 :0.1803 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area per ft of stem Height : 0.144 in2/ft 0.0018bh : 0.0018(12)(6) :0.1296 in2/ft Horizontal Reinforcing Options : ============One layer of : Two layers of : Required Area :0.1296 in2/ft #4@ 16.67 in #4@ 33.33 in Provided Area :0.1333 in2/ft #5@ 25.83 in #5@ 51.67 in Maximum Area :1.0838 in2/ft #6@ 36.67 in #6@ 73.33 in 2.30 2.00 13.00 Footing Torsion, Tu = = ft-lbs0.00 Min. As % Footing Allow. Torsion, phi Tu 0.0018 =ft-lbs Footing Data If torsion exceeds allowable, provide f'c 0.00 =5,000psi Toe Width =ft Heel Width = Key Distance from Toe Key DepthKey Width =in=in = 0.000.00 0.00 ft Footing Thickness =in 4.30= Cover @ Top =3.00 in@ Btm.=3.00 in Total Footing Width =150.00pcfFooting Concrete DensityFy =60,000 psi Footing Design Results Key: = Factored Pressure Mu' : Upward Mu' : Downward Mu: Design Actual 1-Way Shear Allow 1-Way Shear Toe: =# 4 @ 6.17 in = = = = = 242 920 701 219 0.76 106.07 Heel: 835 945 1,122 178 1.90 106.07 HeelToe psf ft-# ft-# ft-# psi psi Heel Reinforcing =# 4 @ 6.00 in Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Key Reinforcing Toe Reinforcing =# 4 @ 6.00 in Min footing T&S reinf Area Min footing T&S reinf Area per foot If one layer of horizontal bars: 1.21 0.28 #4@ 8.55 in #5@ 13.25 in #6@ 18.80 in in2 in2 /ft If two layers of horizontal bars: #4@ 17.09 in #5@ 26.50 in #6@ 37.61 in supplemental design for footing torsion. phiMin 17,12617,126=ft-# 7 SE E U H P C D E S I G N O N S U B S E Q U E N T P A G E S Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:2ft tall Concrete Wall EFP_ Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments .....RESISTING..........OVERTURNING.....Force Distance Moment Distance Moment Item Force ft-#lbs ftft ft-#lbs Sloped Soil Over Heel 321.01.79179.2=Surcharge over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = 195.0 3.55 692.3= Adjacent Footing Load =Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem= =* Axial Live Load on Stem Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Load @ Stem Above Soil = = = 134.6 1.15 154.7= = = Stem Weight(s) = 187.5 2.55 478.1 Earth @ Stem Transitions =Footing Weight = 698.8 2.15 1,502.3 Key Weight = Added Lateral Load lbs =666.1 Vert. Component 114.1 4.30 490.8 Total = 1,768.7 4,875.8 * Axial live load NOT included in total displayed, or used for overturningresistance, but is included for soil pressure calculation. Total =R.M. =468.1 O.T.M. = Resisting/Overturning Ratio =7.32 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure =1,768.7 lbs Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Sliding Resistance. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Overturning Resistance. Soil Over HL (ab. water tbl) Soil Over HL (bel. water tbl) 438.8 3.55 3.55 1,557.6 1,557.6 Watre Table Buoyant Force = HL Act Pres (ab water tbl) HL Act Pres (be water tbl) 288.9 1.19 345.1 Hydrostatic Force Tilt Horizontal Deflection at Top of Wall due to settlement of soil (Deflection due to wall bending not considered) Soil Spring Reaction Modulus 170.0 pci Horizontal Defl @ Top of Wall (approximate only)0.000 in The above calculation is not valid if the heel soil bearing pressure exceeds that of the toe, because the wall would then tend to rotate into the retained soil. 8 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:2ft tall Concrete Wall EFP_ Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Rebar Lap & Embedment Lengths Information Stem Design Segment: 2nd Stem Design Height: 2.50 ft above top of footing Lap Splice length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =15.60 in Development length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =12.00 in ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Stem Design Segment: Bottom Stem Design Height: 0.00 ft above top of footing Lap Splice length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =15.60 in Development length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =12.00 in Hooked embedment length into footing for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =6.00 in As Provided =0.1333 in2/ft As Required =0.1296 in2/ft 9 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER(c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:2ft tall Concrete Wall EFP_ Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS House Engineer:David Gonzalez Project ID:238093.00 Project Descr:Retaining walls 10 l .. >-1@ -- ·"'" ------ ~,11 Ut9@V# • • • • .si@tt/•.9 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:2ft tall Concrete Wall EFP_ Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 11 130.00psf ■ Hydro:stabc Foree ■ Lat@ral earth presgure due lo the soil BELOW water table UHPC (stem) Cracking Mcr 45.72 k-in Cracking moment before localization - after first crack ft 0.635 ksi Limiting tensile strength of UHPC before localization b 12 in h 6 in d 3.75 in c 3 in h/2 assumed before crack initiation phi_cr 3.54397E-05 cover 2 in Yielding (Pokhrel and Bandelt 2019) Cc 43.77 kips Ty 7.85 kips Spacing 18 in 4 @ 18 in. As 0.13 in2 #Bar 4 rho_s 0.00182 Ok horiz.4 @ 16 in.Ok 0.00205 fy 60 ksi DCR f'c 14 ksi M (k-ft)Ø (1/rad)øMn (k-ft)Mu 0.44 k-ft 0.06 cy 1.22 in Iterate 0.0 0.00000 0.0 My 142.48 k-in 3.8 0.00004 2.3 phi_y 0.0008187 11.9 0.00082 7.7 Ok ldh 6 in Ok ft 0.635 ksi Ψr 1 εto 0.00011 Ψc 1 Ec 5973 ksi El-Helou et al, 2022 εc 0.001000 NSC = normal strength concrete fc 5.97 ksi 42.7 %f'c (UHPC linear up to 80 to 90% of f'c - FHWA - Aaleti 2013)(NSC up to 25-30% f'c) dto 0.130 in Tt 35.4227023 kips Tto 0.49 kips ΣF 0.00 kips Ok, ΣF=0 øMy 7.7 k-ft εt 0.0039 Shear Based on El-Helou and Graybeal, 2022 d 3.75 in f1 0.635 ksi V_UHPC 28.575 kips øVn 21.43125 kips Vu 0.430 kips Ok 12 I I A' $ g E ft lo-------<:> <i.i ., ~ ~ ~ en E rrain Et I: •-'---• ---···· ·-·· ···-···d -· ---------------- :=;J:::=::;:::::;:-· .-·- (a) As (c) f, UHPC (footing) Cracking Mcr 214.63 k-in Cracking moment before localization - after first crack ft 0.635 ksi Limiting tensile strength of UHPC before localization b 12 in h 13 in d 9.75 in c 6.5 in h/2 assumed before crack initiation phi_cr 1.63568E-05 cover 3 in Yielding (Pokhrel and Bandelt 2019) Cc 98.48 kips Ty 23.56 kips Spacing 6 in 4 @ 6 in. As 0.39 in2 #Bar 4 rho_s 0.00252 Ok horiz.4 @ 16 in.Ok 0.00189 fy 60 ksi DCR f'c 14 ksi M (k-ft)Ø (1/rad)øMn (k-ft)Mu 0.22 k-ft 0.01 cy 2.99 in Iterate 0.0 0.00000 0.0 My 737.03 k-in 17.9 0.00002 10.7 phi_y 0.0003064 61.4 0.00031 39.9 Ok ft 0.635 ksi εto 0.00011 Ec 5973 ksi El-Helou et al, 2022 εc 0.000918 NSC = normal strength concrete fc 5.48 ksi 39.1 %f'c (UHPC linear up to 80 to 90% of f'c - FHWA - Aaleti 2013)(NSC up to 25-30% f'c) dto 0.347 in Tt 73.59643301 kips Tto 1.32 kips ΣF 0.00 kips Ok, ΣF=0 øMy 39.9 k-ft εt 0.0031 Shear Based on El-Helou and Graybeal, 2022 d 9.75 in f1 0.635 ksi V_UHPC 74.295 kips øVn 55.72125 kips Vu 0.220 kips Ok 13 g E ft ... <ii .. ~ ~ C .. I-iii E n·ain I I Retaining Wall Design (2ft.-6in.) 14 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:2.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v5 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Code References Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 3.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 3,000.0 45.0 0.0 200.0 Criteria Soil Data Retained Height =ft Wall height above soil =ft Active Heel Pressure =psf/ftSlope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe in Water height over heel =ft = = 117.00=pcf = Soil Density, Heel = Passive Pressure =psf/ft Allow Soil Bearing =psf Soil Density, Toe 117.00 pcf Footing||Soil Friction =0.350 Soil height to ignorefor passive pressure =0.00 in Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Surcharge Loads Adjacent Footing Load Load Type 130.0 Lateral Load =0.0 #/ft 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Axial Load Applied to Stem Wall to Ftg CL Dist =0.00 ft Wind on Exposed Stem psf0.0= Lateral Load Applied to Stem Surcharge Over Heel =psf Adjacent Footing Load =0.0 lbs Axial Dead Load (Strength Level) =lbs Footing Type Spread Footing Surcharge Over Toe Footing Width =0.00 ft...Height to Top =0.00 ft Eccentricity =0.00 in...Height to Bottom =0.00 ft Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Used for Sliding & Overturning =0.0 ft Axial Live Load = Base Above/Below Soil lbs = Axial Load Eccentricity ==Poisson's Ratio 0.300 at Back of Wall in (Strength Level) Seismic (E)= 15 Calculations per IBC 2021 1807.3, CBC 2022, ASCE 7-16 • . . Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:2.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v5 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Design Summary Wall Stability RatiosOverturning =6.73 Global Stability =2.93 OK Sliding =1.50 OK Total Bearing Load =2,246 lbs...resultant ecc.=3.99 in Soil Pressure @ Toe =260 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel =693 psf OK Allowable =3,000 psfSoil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe =365 psfACI Factored @ Heel =970 psf Footing Shear @ Toe =1.1 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel =2.2 psi OK Allowable =106.1 psi Sliding Calcs Lateral Sliding Force =579.3 lbs less 33 % Passive Force less 100% Friction Force Added Force Req'd ....for 1.5 Stability = 0.0= 786.1 83.6 == 0.0 - lbs lbs lbs OK lbs OK - Masonry Block Type = Stem Construction Bottom Stem OK Shear.....Actual Design Height Above Ftg =0.00ft Wall Material Above "Ht"=Concrete Thickness =6.00 Rebar Size =#4 Rebar Spacing =12.00 Rebar Placed at =EdgeDesign Data fb/FB + fa/Fa =0.183 Total Force @ Section =564.0lbs Moment....Actual =684.0ft-# Moment.....Allowable =3,718.8 =11.1psi Shear.....Allowable =106.1psi Wall Weight =75.0psf Rebar Depth 'd'=4.25in Masonry Data f'm =psi Fs =psi Solid Grouting = Modular Ratio 'n'= Short Term Factor = Equiv. Solid Thick.= Concrete Dataf'c =5,000.0psi Fy =60,000.0 Masonry Design Method ASD= Load Factors Building Code Dead Load 0.000 Live Load 0.000 Earth, H 0.000 Wind, W 0.000 Seismic, E 0.000 psi Service Level =564.0lbsStrength Level Service Level Strength Level =684.0ft-# Service Level Strength Level =11.1psi Design Method =SD SD SD Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of soil bearing pressures. Anet (Masonry)=in2 16 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:2.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v5 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Concrete Stem Rebar Area Details Bottom Stem Vertical Reinforcing Horizontal Reinforcing As (based on applied moment) :0.0385 in2/ft (4/3) * As :0.0513 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area 0.432 in2 3sqrt(f’c)bd/fy : 3sqrt(5000)(12)(4.25)/60000 :0.1803 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area per ft of stem Height : 0.144 in2/ft 0.0018bh : 0.0018(12)(6) :0.1296 in2/ft Horizontal Reinforcing Options : ============One layer of : Two layers of : Required Area :0.1296 in2/ft #4@ 16.67 in #4@ 33.33 in Provided Area :0.2 in2/ft #5@ 25.83 in #5@ 51.67 in Maximum Area :1.0838 in2/ft #6@ 36.67 in #6@ 73.33 in 1.70 2.70 13.00 Footing Torsion, Tu = = ft-lbs0.00 Min. As % Footing Allow. Torsion, phi Tu 0.0018 =ft-lbs Footing Data If torsion exceeds allowable, provide f'c 0.00 =5,000psi Toe Width =ftHeel Width = Key Distance from Toe Key Depth Key Width =in =in = 0.00 0.00 0.00 ft Footing Thickness =in 4.40= Cover @ Top =3.00 in@ Btm.=3.00 in Total Footing Width =150.00pcfFooting Concrete DensityFy =60,000 psi Footing Design Results Key: = Factored Pressure Mu' : Upward Mu' : Downward Mu: Design Actual 1-Way ShearAllow 1-Way Shear Toe: =# 4 @ 6.17 in = = = == 365 639 383 256 1.10106.07 Heel: 970 1,993 2,516 523 2.18106.07 HeelToe psf ft-# ft-# ft-# psipsi Heel Reinforcing =# 4 @ 6.00 in Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Key Reinforcing Toe Reinforcing =# 4 @ 6.00 in Min footing T&S reinf AreaMin footing T&S reinf Area per foot If one layer of horizontal bars: 1.240.28 #4@ 8.55 in #5@ 13.25 in#6@ 18.80 in in2in2 /ft If two layers of horizontal bars: #4@ 17.09 in #5@ 26.50 in#6@ 37.61 in supplemental design for footing torsion. phiMin 17,12617,126=ft-# 17 SE E U H P C D E S I G N O N S U B S E Q U E N T P A G E S Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:2.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v5 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments .....RESISTING..........OVERTURNING.....Force Distance Moment Distance Moment Item Force ft-#lbs ftft ft-#lbs Sloped Soil Over Heel 416.82.04204.2=Surcharge over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = 286.0 3.30 943.8= Adjacent Footing Load =Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem= =* Axial Live Load on Stem Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Load @ Stem Above Soil = = = 99.5 0.85 84.5= = = Stem Weight(s) = 225.0 1.95 438.8 Earth @ Stem Transitions =Footing Weight = 715.0 2.20 1,573.0 Key Weight = Added Lateral Load lbs =927.5 Vert. Component 148.2 4.40 652.1 Total = 2,245.9 6,240.5 * Axial live load NOT included in total displayed, or used for overturningresistance, but is included for soil pressure calculation. Total =R.M. =579.3 O.T.M. = Resisting/Overturning Ratio =6.73 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure =2,245.9 lbs Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Sliding Resistance. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Overturning Resistance. Soil Over HL (ab. water tbl) Soil Over HL (bel. water tbl) 772.2 3.30 3.30 2,548.3 2,548.3 Watre Table Buoyant Force = HL Act Pres (ab water tbl) HL Act Pres (be water tbl) 375.2 1.36 510.6 Hydrostatic Force Tilt Horizontal Deflection at Top of Wall due to settlement of soil (Deflection due to wall bending not considered) Soil Spring Reaction Modulus 170.0 pci Horizontal Defl @ Top of Wall (approximate only)0.000 in The above calculation is not valid if the heel soil bearing pressure exceeds that of the toe, because the wall would then tend to rotate into the retained soil. 18 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:2.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v5 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Rebar Lap & Embedment Lengths Information Stem Design Segment: Bottom Stem Design Height: 0.00 ft above top of footing Lap Splice length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =15.60 in Development length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =12.00 in Hooked embedment length into footing for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =6.00 in As Provided =0.2000 in2/ft As Required =0.1296 in2/ft 19 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:2.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v5 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 20 6"w/#4@12" • • • @Heel Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:2.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v5 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 21 130.00psf DJ ■ ■ Hydrostatic Force Lateral earth pressure due to the soil BELOW water table UHPC (stem) Cracking Mcr 45.72 k-in Cracking moment before localization - after first crack ft 0.635 ksi Limiting tensile strength of UHPC before localization b 12 in h 6 in d 3.75 in c 3 in h/2 assumed before crack initiation phi_cr 3.54397E-05 cover 2 in Yielding (Pokhrel and Bandelt 2019) Cc 43.77 kips Ty 7.85 kips Spacing 18 in 4 @ 18 in. As 0.13 in2 #Bar 4 rho_s 0.00182 Ok horiz.4 @ 16 in.Ok 0.00205 fy 60 ksi DCR f'c 14 ksi M (k-ft)Ø (1/rad)øMn (k-ft)Mu 0.684 k-ft 0.09 cy 1.22 in Iterate 0.0 0.00000 0.0 My 142.48 k-in 3.8 0.00004 2.3 phi_y 0.0008187 11.9 0.00082 7.7 Ok ldh 6 in Ok ft 0.635 ksi Ψr 1 εto 0.00011 Ψc 1 Ec 5973 ksi El-Helou et al, 2022 εc 0.001000 NSC = normal strength concrete fc 5.97 ksi 42.7 %f'c (UHPC linear up to 80 to 90% of f'c - FHWA - Aaleti 2013)(NSC up to 25-30% f'c) dto 0.130 in Tt 35.4227023 kips Tto 0.49 kips ΣF 0.00 kips Ok, ΣF=0 øMy 7.7 k-ft εt 0.0039 Shear Based on El-Helou and Graybeal, 2022 d 3.75 in f1 0.635 ksi V_UHPC 28.575 kips øVn 21.43125 kips Vu 0.560 kips Ok 22 I I A' $ g E ft lo-------<:> <i.i ., ~ ~ ~ en E rrain Et I: •-'---• ---···· ·-·· ···-···d -· ---------------- :=;J:::=::;:::::;:-· .-·- (a) As (c) f, UHPC (footing) Cracking Mcr 214.63 k-in Cracking moment before localization - after first crack ft 0.635 ksi Limiting tensile strength of UHPC before localization b 12 in h 13 in d 9.75 in c 6.5 in h/2 assumed before crack initiation phi_cr 1.63568E-05 cover 3 in Yielding (Pokhrel and Bandelt 2019) Cc 98.48 kips Ty 23.56 kips Spacing 6 in 4 @ 6 in. As 0.39 in2 #Bar 4 rho_s 0.00252 Ok horiz.4 @ 16 in.Ok 0.00189 fy 60 ksi DCR f'c 14 ksi M (k-ft)Ø (1/rad)øMn (k-ft)Mu 0.55 k-ft 0.01 cy 2.99 in Iterate 0.0 0.00000 0.0 My 737.03 k-in 17.9 0.00002 10.7 phi_y 0.0003064 61.4 0.00031 39.9 Ok ft 0.635 ksi εto 0.00011 Ec 5973 ksi El-Helou et al, 2022 εc 0.000918 NSC = normal strength concrete fc 5.48 ksi 39.1 %f'c (UHPC linear up to 80 to 90% of f'c - FHWA - Aaleti 2013)(NSC up to 25-30% f'c) dto 0.347 in Tt 73.59643301 kips Tto 1.32 kips ΣF 0.00 kips Ok, ΣF=0 øMy 39.9 k-ft εt 0.0031 Shear Based on El-Helou and Graybeal, 2022 d 9.75 in f1 0.635 ksi V_UHPC 74.295 kips øVn 55.72125 kips Vu 0.250 kips Ok 23 I I A' $ g E ft lo------<:> <i.i ., ~ ~ ~ en E rrain Et I: •-'---• ---···· ·-·· ···-···d -· ---------------- :=;J:::=::;:::::;:-· .-·- (a) As (b) E, (c) f, Retaining Wall Design (3ft.-6in.) 24 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:3.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Code References Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 4.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 3,000.0 60.0 0.0 200.0 Criteria Soil Data Retained Height =ft Wall height above soil =ft Active Heel Pressure =psf/ftSlope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe in Water height over heel =ft = = 117.00=pcf = Soil Density, Heel = Passive Pressure =psf/ft Allow Soil Bearing =psf Soil Density, Toe 117.00 pcf Footing||Soil Friction =0.350 Soil height to ignorefor passive pressure =0.00 in Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Surcharge Loads Adjacent Footing Load Load Type 130.0 Lateral Load =0.0 #/ft 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Axial Load Applied to Stem Wall to Ftg CL Dist =0.00 ft Wind on Exposed Stem psf0.0= Lateral Load Applied to Stem Surcharge Over Heel =psf Adjacent Footing Load =0.0 lbs Axial Dead Load (Strength Level) =lbs Footing Type Spread Footing Surcharge Over Toe psf Footing Width =0.00 ft...Height to Top =0.00 ft Eccentricity =0.00 in...Height to Bottom =0.00 ft Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Used for Sliding & Overturning =0.0 ft Axial Live Load = Base Above/Below Soil lbs = Axial Load Eccentricity ==Poisson's Ratio 0.300 at Back of Wall in (Strength Level) Seismic (E)= 25 Calculations per IBC 2021 1807.3, CBC 2022, ASCE 7-16 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:3.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Design Summary Wall Stability RatiosOverturning =8.24 Global Stability =2.00 OK Sliding =1.50 OK Total Bearing Load =4,540 lbs...resultant ecc.=3.87 in Soil Pressure @ Toe =459 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel =833 psf OK Allowable =3,000 psfSoil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe =642 psfACI Factored @ Heel =1,167 psf Footing Shear @ Toe =2.1 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel =2.6 psi OK Allowable =106.1 psi Sliding Calcs Lateral Sliding Force =1,114.1 lbs less 33 % Passive Force less 100% Friction Force Added Force Req'd ....for 1.5 Stability = 0.0= 1,589.2 83.6 == 0.0 - lbs lbs lbs OK lbs OK - Masonry Block Type = Stem Construction 2nd Bottom Stem OK Stem OK Shear.....Actual Design Height Above Ftg =4.00ft 0.00 Wall Material Above "Ht"=Concrete Concrete Thickness =6.00 6.00 Rebar Size =##4 4 Rebar Spacing =18.00 18.00 Rebar Placed at =Edge EdgeDesign Data fb/FB + fa/Fa =0.000 0.753 Total Force @ Section =1,194.7lbs Moment....Actual =1,877.3ft-# Moment.....Allowable =2,502.8 2,491.0ft-# =23.4psi Shear.....Allowable =106.1 94.9psi Wall Weight =75.0 75.0psf Rebar Depth 'd'=4.25in 4.25 Masonry Data f'm =psi Fs =psi Solid Grouting = Modular Ratio 'n'= Short Term Factor = Equiv. Solid Thick.= Concrete Dataf'c =5,000.0 4,000.0psi Fy =60,000.0 60,000.0 Masonry Design Method ASD= Load Factors Building Code Dead Load 0.000 Live Load 0.000 Earth, H 0.000 Wind, W 0.000 Seismic, E 0.000 psi Service Level =1,194.7lbsStrength Level Service Level Strength Level =1,877.3ft-# Service Level Strength Level =23.4psi Design Method =SD SD SD Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of soil bearing pressures. Anet (Masonry)=in2 26 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:3.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Concrete Stem Rebar Area Details 2nd Stem Vertical Reinforcing Horizontal Reinforcing As (based on applied moment) :0 in2/ft (4/3) * As :0 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area 0.000 in2 3sqrt(f’c)bd/fy : 3sqrt(5000)(12)(4.25)/60000 :0.1803 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area per ft of stem Height : 0.000 in2/ft 0.0018bh : 0.0018(12)(6) :0.1296 in2/ft Horizontal Reinforcing Options : ============One layer of : Two layers of : Required Area :0.1296 in2/ft #4@ 0.00 in #4@ 0.00 in Provided Area :0.1333 in2/ft #5@ 0.00 in #5@ 0.00 in Maximum Area :1.0838 in2/ft #6@ 0.00 in #6@ 0.00 in ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bottom Stem Vertical Reinforcing Horizontal Reinforcing As (based on applied moment) :0.1061 in2/ft (4/3) * As :0.1415 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area 0.576 in2 200bd/fy : 200(12)(4.25)/60000 :0.17 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area per ft of stem Height : 0.144 in2/ft 0.0018bh : 0.0018(12)(6) :0.1296 in2/ft Horizontal Reinforcing Options : ============One layer of : Two layers of : Required Area :0.1415 in2/ft #4@ 16.67 in #4@ 33.33 in Provided Area :0.1333 in2/ft #5@ 25.83 in #5@ 51.67 in Maximum Area :0.9212 in2/ft #6@ 36.67 in #6@ 73.33 in 1.42 5.25 13.00 Footing Torsion, Tu = = ft-lbs0.00 Min. As % Footing Allow. Torsion, phi Tu 0.0018 =ft-lbs Footing Data If torsion exceeds allowable, provide f'c 0.00 =5,000psi Toe Width =ft Heel Width = Key Distance from Toe Key DepthKey Width =in=in = 0.000.00 0.00 ft Footing Thickness =in 6.67= Cover @ Top =3.00 in@ Btm.=3.00 in Total Footing Width =150.00pcfFooting Concrete DensityFy =60,000 psi Footing Design Results Key: = Factored Pressure Mu' : Upward Mu' : Downward Mu: Design Actual 1-Way Shear Allow 1-Way Shear Toe: =# 4 @ 6.17 in = = = = = 642 682 266 415 2.07 106.07 Heel: 1,167 9,784 12,658 2,875 2.65 106.07 HeelToe psf ft-# ft-# ft-# psi psi Heel Reinforcing =# 4 @ 6.00 in Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Key Reinforcing Toe Reinforcing =# 4 @ 6.00 in Min footing T&S reinf Area Min footing T&S reinf Area per foot If one layer of horizontal bars: 1.87 0.28 #4@ 8.55 in #5@ 13.25 in #6@ 18.80 in in2 in2 /ft If two layers of horizontal bars: #4@ 17.09 in #5@ 26.50 in #6@ 37.61 in supplemental design for footing torsion. phiMin 17,12617,126=ft-# 27 SE E U H P C D E S I G N O N S U B S E Q U E N T P A G E S Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:3.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments .....RESISTING..........OVERTURNING.....Force Distance Moment Distance Moment Item Force ft-#lbs ftft ft-#lbs Sloped Soil Over Heel 861.32.54338.9=Surcharge over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = 617.5 4.29 2,650.1= Adjacent Footing Load =Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem= =* Axial Live Load on Stem Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Load @ Stem Above Soil = = = 82.9 0.71 58.7= = = Stem Weight(s) = 300.0 1.67 500.0 Earth @ Stem Transitions =Footing Weight = 1,083.3 3.33 3,611.1 Key Weight = Added Lateral Load lbs =2,174.9 Vert. Component 233.8 6.67 1,558.3 Total = 4,540.5 17,918.6 * Axial live load NOT included in total displayed, or used for overturningresistance, but is included for soil pressure calculation. Total =R.M. =1,114.1 O.T.M. = Resisting/Overturning Ratio =8.24 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure =4,540.5 lbs Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Sliding Resistance. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Overturning Resistance. Soil Over HL (ab. water tbl) Soil Over HL (bel. water tbl) 2,223.0 4.29 4.29 9,540.4 9,540.4 Watre Table Buoyant Force = HL Act Pres (ab water tbl) HL Act Pres (be water tbl) 775.2 1.69 1,313.5 Hydrostatic Force Tilt Horizontal Deflection at Top of Wall due to settlement of soil (Deflection due to wall bending not considered) Soil Spring Reaction Modulus 170.0 pci Horizontal Defl @ Top of Wall (approximate only)0.000 in The above calculation is not valid if the heel soil bearing pressure exceeds that of the toe, because the wall would then tend to rotate into the retained soil. 28 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:3.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Rebar Lap & Embedment Lengths Information Stem Design Segment: 2nd Stem Design Height: 4.00 ft above top of footing Lap Splice length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =15.60 in Development length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =12.00 in ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Stem Design Segment: Bottom Stem Design Height: 0.00 ft above top of footing Lap Splice length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =15.60 in Development length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =12.00 in Hooked embedment length into footing for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =6.00 in As Provided =0.1333 in2/ft As Required =0.1415 in2/ft 29 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:3.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 30 Ow/#4@18" • • • • • _j_ @Toe @Heel Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:3.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 31 130.00psf Pp= 83.56# 1114# ■ Hydrostatic Force ■ Lateral earth pressure due to the soil BELOW water table UHPC (stem) Cracking Mcr 45.72 k-in Cracking moment before localization - after first crack ft 0.635 ksi Limiting tensile strength of UHPC before localization b 12 in h 6 in d 3.75 in c 3 in h/2 assumed before crack initiation phi_cr 3.54397E-05 cover 2 in Yielding (Pokhrel and Bandelt 2019) Cc 43.77 kips Ty 7.85 kips Spacing 18 in 4 @ 18 in. As 0.13 in2 #Bar 4 rho_s 0.00182 Ok horiz.4 @ 16 in.Ok 0.00205 fy 60 ksi DCR f'c 14 ksi M (k-ft)Ø (1/rad)øMn (k-ft)Mu 1.9 k-ft 0.25 cy 1.22 in Iterate 0.0 0.00000 0.0 My 142.48 k-in 3.8 0.00004 2.3 phi_y 0.0008187 11.9 0.00082 7.7 Ok ldh 6 in Ok ft 0.635 ksi Ψr 1 εto 0.00011 Ψc 1 Ec 5973 ksi El-Helou et al, 2022 εc 0.001000 NSC = normal strength concrete fc 5.97 ksi 42.7 %f'c (UHPC linear up to 80 to 90% of f'c - FHWA - Aaleti 2013)(NSC up to 25-30% f'c) dto 0.130 in Tt 35.4227023 kips Tto 0.49 kips ΣF 0.00 kips Ok, ΣF=0 øMy 7.7 k-ft εt 0.0039 Shear Based on El-Helou and Graybeal, 2022 d 3.75 in f1 0.635 ksi V_UHPC 28.575 kips øVn 21.43125 kips Vu 1.200 kips Ok 32 g ~ ft <ii 1c;,---------o .. 1 ~ ,;. iii E n·ain Et I I UHPC (footing) Cracking Mcr 214.63 k-in Cracking moment before localization - after first crack ft 0.635 ksi Limiting tensile strength of UHPC before localization b 12 in h 13 in d 9.75 in c 6.5 in h/2 assumed before crack initiation phi_cr 1.63568E-05 cover 3 in Yielding (Pokhrel and Bandelt 2019) Cc 98.48 kips Ty 23.56 kips Spacing 6 in 4 @ 6 in. As 0.39 in2 #Bar 4 rho_s 0.00252 Ok horiz.4 @ 16 in.Ok 0.00189 fy 60 ksi DCR f'c 14 ksi M (k-ft)Ø (1/rad)øMn (k-ft)Mu 2.9 k-ft 0.07 cy 2.99 in Iterate 0.0 0.00000 0.0 My 737.03 k-in 17.9 0.00002 10.7 phi_y 0.0003064 61.4 0.00031 39.9 Ok ldh 6 in Ok ft 0.635 ksi Ψr 1 εto 0.00011 Ψc 1 Ec 5973 ksi El-Helou et al, 2022 εc 0.000918 NSC = normal strength concrete fc 5.48 ksi 39.1 %f'c (UHPC linear up to 80 to 90% of f'c - FHWA - Aaleti 2013)(NSC up to 25-30% f'c) dto 0.347 in Tt 73.59643301 kips Tto 1.32 kips ΣF 0.00 kips Ok, ΣF=0 øMy 39.9 k-ft εt 0.0031 Shear Based on El-Helou and Graybeal, 2022 d 9.75 in f1 0.635 ksi V_UHPC 74.295 kips øVn 55.72125 kips Vu 0.300 kips Ok 33 g ~ ft <ii 1c;,---------o .. 1 ~ ,;. iii E n·ain Et I I Retaining Wall Design (4ft.-6in.) 34 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:4.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v2-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Code References Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 3,000.0 45.0 0.0 200.0 Criteria Soil Data Retained Height =ft Wall height above soil =ft Active Heel Pressure =psf/ftSlope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe in Water height over heel =ft = = 117.00=pcf = Soil Density, Heel = Passive Pressure =psf/ft Allow Soil Bearing =psf Soil Density, Toe 117.00 pcf Footing||Soil Friction =0.350 Soil height to ignorefor passive pressure =0.00 in Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Surcharge Loads Adjacent Footing Load Load Type 250.0 Lateral Load =0.0 #/ft 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Axial Load Applied to Stem Wall to Ftg CL Dist =0.00 ft Wind on Exposed Stem psf0.0= Lateral Load Applied to Stem Surcharge Over Heel =psf Adjacent Footing Load =0.0 lbs Axial Dead Load (Strength Level) =lbs Footing Type Spread Footing Surcharge Over Toe Footing Width =0.00 ft...Height to Top =0.00 ft Eccentricity =0.00 in...Height to Bottom =0.00 ft Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Used for Sliding & Overturning =0.0 ft Axial Live Load = Base Above/Below Soil lbs = Axial Load Eccentricity ==Poisson's Ratio 0.300 at Back of Wall in (Strength Level) Seismic (E)= 35 Calculations per IBC 2021 1807.3, CBC 2022, ASCE 7-16 . ·I .. . ., Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:4.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v2-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Design Summary Wall Stability RatiosOverturning =6.95 Global Stability =2.54 OK Sliding =1.52 OK Total Bearing Load =5,919 lbs...resultant ecc.=3.78 in Soil Pressure @ Toe =597 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel =1,060 psf OK Allowable =3,000 psfSoil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe =835 psfACI Factored @ Heel =1,484 psf Footing Shear @ Toe =3.2 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel =6.5 psi OK Allowable =106.1 psi Sliding Calcs Lateral Sliding Force =1,417.6 lbs less 33 % Passive Force less 100% Friction Force Added Force Req'd ....for 1.5 Stability = 0.0= 2,071.8 83.6 == 0.0 - lbs lbs lbs OK lbs OK - Masonry Block Type = Stem Construction Bottom Stem OK Shear.....Actual Design Height Above Ftg =0.00ft Wall Material Above "Ht"=Concrete Thickness =6.00 Rebar Size =#4 Rebar Spacing =10.00 Rebar Placed at =EdgeDesign Data fb/FB + fa/Fa =0.771 Total Force @ Section =1,669.2lbs Moment....Actual =3,423.1ft-# Moment.....Allowable =4,437.1 =32.7psi Shear.....Allowable =106.1psi Wall Weight =75.0psf Rebar Depth 'd'=4.25in Masonry Data f'm =psi Fs =psi Solid Grouting = Modular Ratio 'n'= Short Term Factor = Equiv. Solid Thick.= Concrete Dataf'c =5,000.0psi Fy =60,000.0 Masonry Design Method ASD= Load Factors Building Code Dead Load 0.000 Live Load 0.000 Earth, H 0.000 Wind, W 0.000 Seismic, E 0.000 psi Service Level =1,669.2lbsStrength Level Service Level Strength Level =3,423.1ft-# Service Level Strength Level =32.7psi Design Method =SD SD SD Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of soil bearing pressures. Anet (Masonry)=in2 36 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:4.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v2-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Concrete Stem Rebar Area Details Bottom Stem Vertical Reinforcing Horizontal Reinforcing As (based on applied moment) :0.1926 in2/ft (4/3) * As :0.2568 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area 0.720 in2 3sqrt(f’c)bd/fy : 3sqrt(5000)(12)(4.25)/60000 :0.1803 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area per ft of stem Height : 0.144 in2/ft 0.0018bh : 0.0018(12)(6) :0.1296 in2/ft Horizontal Reinforcing Options : ============One layer of : Two layers of : Required Area :0.1926 in2/ft #4@ 16.67 in #4@ 33.33 in Provided Area :0.24 in2/ft #5@ 25.83 in #5@ 51.67 in Maximum Area :1.0838 in2/ft #6@ 36.67 in #6@ 73.33 in 1.42 5.33 13.00 Footing Torsion, Tu = = ft-lbs0.00 Min. As % Footing Allow. Torsion, phi Tu 0.0018 =ft-lbs Footing Data If torsion exceeds allowable, provide f'c 0.00 =5,000psi Toe Width =ftHeel Width = Key Distance from Toe Key Depth Key Width =in =in = 0.00 0.00 0.00 ft Footing Thickness =in 6.75= Cover @ Top =3.00 in@ Btm.=3.00 in Total Footing Width =150.00pcfFooting Concrete DensityFy =60,000 psi Footing Design Results Key: = Factored Pressure Mu' : Upward Mu' : Downward Mu: Design Actual 1-Way ShearAllow 1-Way Shear Toe: =# 4 @ 6.17 in = = = == 835 884 266 618 3.16106.07 Heel: 1,484 12,967 17,693 4,726 6.54106.07 HeelToe psf ft-# ft-# ft-# psipsi Heel Reinforcing =# 4 @ 5.00 in Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Key Reinforcing Toe Reinforcing =# 4 @ 5.00 in Min footing T&S reinf AreaMin footing T&S reinf Area per foot If one layer of horizontal bars: 1.900.28 #4@ 8.55 in #5@ 13.25 in#6@ 18.80 in in2in2 /ft If two layers of horizontal bars: #4@ 17.09 in #5@ 26.50 in#6@ 37.61 in supplemental design for footing torsion. phiMin 20,45020,450=ft-# 37 SE E D E S I G N O N S U B S E Q U E N T P A G E S Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:4.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v2-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments .....RESISTING..........OVERTURNING.....Force Distance Moment Distance Moment Item Force ft-#lbs ftft ft-#lbs Sloped Soil Over Heel 1,779.23.04584.9=Surcharge over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = 1,208.3 4.33 5,236.1= Adjacent Footing Load =Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem= =* Axial Live Load on Stem Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Load @ Stem Above Soil = = = 82.9 0.71 58.7= = = Stem Weight(s) = 375.0 1.67 625.0 Earth @ Stem Transitions =Footing Weight = 1,096.9 3.37 3,701.9 Key Weight = Added Lateral Load lbs =3,467.6 Vert. Component 328.9 6.75 2,220.4 Total = 5,919.5 24,094.4 * Axial live load NOT included in total displayed, or used for overturningresistance, but is included for soil pressure calculation. Total =R.M. =1,417.6 O.T.M. = Resisting/Overturning Ratio =6.95 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure =5,919.5 lbs Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Sliding Resistance. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Overturning Resistance. Soil Over HL (ab. water tbl) Soil Over HL (bel. water tbl) 2,827.5 4.33 4.33 12,252.4 12,252.4 Watre Table Buoyant Force = HL Act Pres (ab water tbl) HL Act Pres (be water tbl) 832.7 2.03 1,688.4 Hydrostatic Force Tilt Horizontal Deflection at Top of Wall due to settlement of soil (Deflection due to wall bending not considered) Soil Spring Reaction Modulus 170.0 pci Horizontal Defl @ Top of Wall (approximate only)0.000 in The above calculation is not valid if the heel soil bearing pressure exceeds that of the toe, because the wall would then tend to rotate into the retained soil. 38 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:4.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v2-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Rebar Lap & Embedment Lengths Information Stem Design Segment: Bottom Stem Design Height: 0.00 ft above top of footing Lap Splice length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =15.60 in Development length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =12.00 in Hooked embedment length into footing for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =6.00 in As Provided =0.2400 in2/ft As Required =0.1926 in2/ft 39 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:4.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v2-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 40 Ow/#4@10" • • • ____ -_jtt_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_;-~-_j_ _____ __J • __l_ @ooo 114@5" @Heel Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:4.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v2-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 41 250.00psf Pp= 83.56# 1418# ~ ■ w m ~ Hydrostatic Force 0 ■ Lateral earth pressure due to the soil BELOW water table Stem øVc 4.773 kips øMn 3.83 k-ft/ft Ok Vc 6.364 kips As 0.236 in2/ft f'c 5000 psi spacing 10 in b 12 in bar, #4 h 6 in fy 60 ksi d 3.75 in a 0.277 in øVn/bd 106.07 psi rho_s 0.00327 Ok rec 2 in Mu 3.42 k-ft/ft diameter_bar_horizontal 0.5 in Vu 1.7 k/ft Ok rho_s, horizontal,provided 0.00205 Ok spacing 16 in bar, horizontal, #4 øMcr 1.9092 k-ft/ft As 0.147 in2/ft Free space 0.000 in ldh 7.20 in Ok Ψc 0.933 in Footing Ψr 1 in øVc 12.410 kips øMn 20.09 k-ft/ft Ok Vc 16.546 kips As 0.471 in2/ft f'c 5000 psi spacing 5 in b 12 in bar, #4 h 13 in fy 60 ksi d 9.75 in a 0.554 in øVn/bd 106.07 psi rho_s 0.00302 Ok rec 3 in Mu 4.73 k-ft/ft diameter_bar_horizontal 0.5 in Vu 0.75 k/ft Ok rho_s, horizontal,provided 0.00189 (shrinkage and T° - distributed between two faces)Ok spacing 16 in bar, horizontal, # 4 øMcr 8.9626 k-ft/ft As 0.147 in2/ft 42 Retaining Wall Design (5ft.-0in.) 43 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v5 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Code References Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 5.50 0.00 0.00 6.00 3,000.0 45.0 0.0 200.0 Criteria Soil Data Retained Height =ft Wall height above soil =ft Active Heel Pressure =psf/ftSlope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe in Water height over heel =ft = = 117.00=pcf = Soil Density, Heel = Passive Pressure =psf/ft Allow Soil Bearing =psf Soil Density, Toe 117.00 pcf Footing||Soil Friction =0.350 Soil height to ignorefor passive pressure =0.00 in Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Surcharge Loads Adjacent Footing Load Load Type 130.0 Lateral Load =0.0 #/ft 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Axial Load Applied to Stem Wall to Ftg CL Dist =0.00 ft Wind on Exposed Stem psf0.0= Lateral Load Applied to Stem Surcharge Over Heel =psf Adjacent Footing Load =0.0 lbs Axial Dead Load (Strength Level) =lbs Footing Type Spread Footing Surcharge Over Toe Footing Width =0.00 ft...Height to Top =0.00 ft Eccentricity =0.00 in...Height to Bottom =0.00 ft Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Used for Sliding & Overturning =0.0 ft Axial Live Load = Base Above/Below Soil lbs = Axial Load Eccentricity ==Poisson's Ratio 0.300 at Back of Wall in (Strength Level) Seismic (E)= 44 Calculations per IBC 2021 1807.3, CBC 2022, ASCE 7-16 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v5 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Design Summary Wall Stability RatiosOverturning =6.93 Global Stability =2.27 OK Sliding =1.52 OK Total Bearing Load =5,408 lbs...resultant ecc.=5.68 in Soil Pressure @ Toe =432 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel =1,074 psf OK Allowable =3,000 psfSoil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe =605 psfACI Factored @ Heel =1,504 psf Footing Shear @ Toe =3.2 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel =3.8 psi OK Allowable =106.1 psi Sliding Calcs Lateral Sliding Force =1,304.3 lbs less 33 % Passive Force less 100% Friction Force Added Force Req'd ....for 1.5 Stability = 0.0= 1,892.9 83.6 == 0.0 - lbs lbs lbs OK lbs OK - Masonry Block Type = Stem Construction Bottom Stem OK Shear.....Actual Design Height Above Ftg =0.00ft Wall Material Above "Ht"=Concrete Thickness =8.00 Rebar Size =#4 Rebar Spacing =12.00 Rebar Placed at =EdgeDesign Data fb/FB + fa/Fa =0.581 Total Force @ Section =1,529.0lbs Moment....Actual =3,206.5ft-# Moment.....Allowable =5,518.8 =20.4psi Shear.....Allowable =106.1psi Wall Weight =100.0psf Rebar Depth 'd'=6.25in Masonry Data f'm =psi Fs =psi Solid Grouting = Modular Ratio 'n'= Short Term Factor = Equiv. Solid Thick.= Concrete Dataf'c =5,000.0psi Fy =60,000.0 Masonry Design Method ASD= Load Factors Building Code Dead Load 0.000 Live Load 0.000 Earth, H 0.000 Wind, W 0.000 Seismic, E 0.000 psi Service Level =1,529.0lbsStrength Level Service Level Strength Level =3,206.5ft-# Service Level Strength Level =20.4psi Design Method =SD SD SD Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of soil bearing pressures. Anet (Masonry)=in2 45 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v5 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Concrete Stem Rebar Area Details Bottom Stem Vertical Reinforcing Horizontal Reinforcing As (based on applied moment) :0.1198 in2/ft (4/3) * As :0.1597 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area 1.056 in2 3sqrt(f’c)bd/fy : 3sqrt(5000)(12)(6.25)/60000 :0.2652 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area per ft of stem Height : 0.192 in2/ft 0.0018bh : 0.0018(12)(8) :0.1728 in2/ft Horizontal Reinforcing Options : ============One layer of : Two layers of : Required Area :0.1728 in2/ft #4@ 12.50 in #4@ 25.00 in Provided Area :0.2 in2/ft #5@ 19.38 in #5@ 38.75 in Maximum Area :1.5938 in2/ft #6@ 27.50 in #6@ 55.00 in 1.75 4.92 13.00 Footing Torsion, Tu = = ft-lbs0.00 Min. As % Footing Allow. Torsion, phi Tu 0.0018 =ft-lbs Footing Data If torsion exceeds allowable, provide f'c 0.00 =5,000psi Toe Width =ftHeel Width = Key Distance from Toe Key Depth Key Width =in =in = 0.00 0.00 0.00 ft Footing Thickness =in 6.67= Cover @ Top =3.00 in@ Btm.=3.00 in Total Footing Width =150.00pcfFooting Concrete DensityFy =60,000 psi Footing Design Results Key: = Factored Pressure Mu' : Upward Mu' : Downward Mu: Design Actual 1-Way ShearAllow 1-Way Shear Toe: =# 4 @ 6.17 in = = = == 605 1,047 406 641 3.21106.07 Heel: 1,504 9,831 13,233 3,402 3.82106.07 HeelToe psf ft-# ft-# ft-# psipsi Heel Reinforcing =# 4 @ 6.00 in Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Key Reinforcing Toe Reinforcing =# 4 @ 6.00 in Min footing T&S reinf AreaMin footing T&S reinf Area per foot If one layer of horizontal bars: 1.870.28 #4@ 8.55 in #5@ 13.25 in#6@ 18.80 in in2in2 /ft If two layers of horizontal bars: #4@ 17.09 in #5@ 26.50 in#6@ 37.61 in supplemental design for footing torsion. phiMin 17,12617,126=ft-# 46 SE E D E S I G N O N S U B S E Q U E N T P A G E S Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v5 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments .....RESISTING..........OVERTURNING.....Force Distance Moment Distance Moment Item Force ft-#lbs ftft ft-#lbs Sloped Soil Over Heel 1,083.53.29329.2=Surcharge over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = 552.5 4.54 2,509.3= Adjacent Footing Load =Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem= =* Axial Live Load on Stem Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Load @ Stem Above Soil = = = 102.4 0.88 89.6= = = Stem Weight(s) = 550.0 2.08 1,145.8 Earth @ Stem Transitions =Footing Weight = 1,083.3 3.33 3,611.1 Key Weight = Added Lateral Load lbs =3,223.4 Vert. Component 385.2 6.67 2,568.3 Total = 5,408.3 22,345.0 * Axial live load NOT included in total displayed, or used for overturningresistance, but is included for soil pressure calculation. Total =R.M. =1,304.3 O.T.M. = Resisting/Overturning Ratio =6.93 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure =5,408.3 lbs Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Sliding Resistance. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Overturning Resistance. Soil Over HL (ab. water tbl) Soil Over HL (bel. water tbl) 2,734.9 4.54 4.54 12,420.9 12,420.9 Watre Table Buoyant Force = HL Act Pres (ab water tbl) HL Act Pres (be water tbl) 975.2 2.19 2,139.9 Hydrostatic Force Tilt Horizontal Deflection at Top of Wall due to settlement of soil (Deflection due to wall bending not considered) Soil Spring Reaction Modulus 170.0 pci Horizontal Defl @ Top of Wall (approximate only)0.000 in The above calculation is not valid if the heel soil bearing pressure exceeds that of the toe, because the wall would then tend to rotate into the retained soil. 47 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v5 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Rebar Lap & Embedment Lengths Information Stem Design Segment: Bottom Stem Design Height: 0.00 ft above top of footing Lap Splice length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =15.60 in Development length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =12.00 in Hooked embedment length into footing for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment =6.00 in As Provided =0.2000 in2/ft As Required =0.1728 in2/ft 48 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v5 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 49 B"w/#4@12" • • • • • • ___j_ ,._, . 11-t@l;,n @Heel Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v5 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 50 130.00psf Pp= 83 56# ■ ■ 1304# Hydrostatic Force Stem øVc 7.319 kips øMn 4.98 k-ft/ft Ok Vc 9.758 kips As 0.196 in2/ft f'c 5000 psi spacing 12 in b 12 in bar, #4 h 8 in fy 60 ksi d 5.75 in a 0.231 in øVn/bd 106.07 psi rho_s 0.00205 Ok rec 2 in Mu 3.21 k-ft/ft diameter_bar_horizontal 0.5 in Vu 1.53 k/ft Ok rho_s, horizontal,provided 0.00307 (shrinkage and T° - distributed between two faces)Ok spacing 16 in bar, horizontal, #4 øMcr 3.3941 k-ft/ft As 0.147 in2/ft Free space 2.000 in ldh 7.20 in Ok Ψc 0.933 in Footing Ψr 1 in øVc 12.410 kips øMn 16.82 k-ft/ft Ok Vc 16.546 kips As 0.393 in2/ft f'c 5000 psi spacing 6 in b 12 in bar, #4 h 13 in fy 60 ksi d 9.75 in a 0.462 in øVn/bd 106.07 psi rho_s 0.00252 Ok rec 3 in Mu 3.4 k-ft/ft diameter_bar_horizontal 0.5 in Vu 0.44 k/ft Ok rho_s, horizontal,provided 0.00189 (shrinkage and T° - distributed between two faces)Ok spacing 16 in bar, horizontal, # 4 øMcr 8.9626 k-ft/ft As 0.147 in2/ft 51 Retaining Wall Design (6ft.-6in.) 52 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:6.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (static)-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Code References Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 7.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 2,000.0 45.0 0.0 200.0 Criteria Soil Data Retained Height =ft Wall height above soil =ft Active Heel Pressure =psf/ftSlope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe in Water height over heel =ft = = 117.00=pcf = Soil Density, Heel = Passive Pressure =psf/ft Allow Soil Bearing =psf Soil Density, Toe 117.00 pcf Footing||Soil Friction =0.350 Soil height to ignorefor passive pressure =0.00 in Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Surcharge Loads Adjacent Footing Load Load Type 250.0 Lateral Load =0.0 #/ft 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Axial Load Applied to Stem Wall to Ftg CL Dist =0.00 ft Wind on Exposed Stem psf0.0= Lateral Load Applied to Stem Surcharge Over Heel =psf Adjacent Footing Load =0.0 lbs Axial Dead Load (Strength Level) =lbs Footing Type Spread Footing Surcharge Over Toe Footing Width =0.00 ft...Height to Top =0.00 ft Eccentricity =0.00 in...Height to Bottom =0.00 ft Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Used for Sliding & Overturning =0.0 ft Axial Live Load = Base Above/Below Soil lbs = Axial Load Eccentricity ==Poisson's Ratio 0.300 at Back of Wall in (Strength Level) Seismic (E)= 53 Calculations per IBC 2021 1807.3, CBC 2022, ASCE 7-16 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:6.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (static)-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Design Summary Wall Stability RatiosOverturning =6.71 Global Stability =2.29 OK Sliding =1.52 OK Total Bearing Load =9,777 lbs...resultant ecc.=4.37 in Soil Pressure @ Toe =797 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel =1,341 psf OK Allowable =2,000 psfSoil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe =1,115 psfACI Factored @ Heel =1,877 psf Footing Shear @ Toe =3.7 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel =7.6 psi OK Allowable =94.9 psi Sliding Calcs Lateral Sliding Force =2,324.7 lbs less 33 % Passive Force less 100% Friction Force Added Force Req'd ....for 1.5 Stability = 0.0= 3,422.1 102.1 == 0.0 - lbs lbs lbs OK lbs OK - Masonry Block Type = Stem Construction Bottom Ratio > 1.0 Shear.....Actual Design Height Above Ftg =0.00ft Wall Material Above "Ht"=Concrete Thickness =8.00 Rebar Size =#5 Rebar Spacing =14.00 Rebar Placed at =EdgeDesign Data fb/FB + fa/Fa =1.093 Total Force @ Section =2,840.9lbs Moment....Actual =7,885.2ft-# Moment.....Allowable =7,211.0 =38.3psi Shear.....Allowable =106.1psi Wall Weight =100.0psf Rebar Depth 'd'=6.19in Masonry Data f'm =psi Fs =psi Solid Grouting = Modular Ratio 'n'= Short Term Factor = Equiv. Solid Thick.= Concrete Dataf'c =5,000.0psi Fy =60,000.0 Masonry Design Method ASD= Load Factors Building Code Dead Load 0.000 Live Load 0.000 Earth, H 0.000 Wind, W 0.000 Seismic, E 0.000 psi Service Level =2,840.9lbsStrength Level Service Level Strength Level =7,885.2ft-# Service Level Strength Level =38.3psi Design Method =SD SD SD Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of soil bearing pressures. Anet (Masonry)=in2 54 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:6.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (static)-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Concrete Stem Rebar Area Details Bottom Stem Vertical Reinforcing Horizontal Reinforcing As (based on applied moment) :0.2976 in2/ft (4/3) * As :0.3968 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area 1.344 in2 3sqrt(f’c)bd/fy : 3sqrt(5000)(12)(6.1875)/60000 :0.2625 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area per ft of stem Height : 0.192 in2/ft 0.0018bh : 0.0018(12)(8) :0.1728 in2/ft Horizontal Reinforcing Options : ============One layer of : Two layers of : Required Area :0.2976 in2/ft #4@ 12.50 in #4@ 25.00 in Provided Area :0.2657 in2/ft #5@ 19.38 in #5@ 38.75 in Maximum Area :1.5778 in2/ft #6@ 27.50 in #6@ 55.00 in 1.58 7.00 15.00 Footing Torsion, Tu = = ft-lbs0.00 Min. As % Footing Allow. Torsion, phi Tu 0.0018 =ft-lbs Footing Data If torsion exceeds allowable, provide f'c 0.00 =4,000psi Toe Width =ftHeel Width = Key Distance from Toe Key Depth Key Width =in =in = 0.00 0.00 0.00 ft Footing Thickness =in 8.58= Cover @ Top =3.00 in@ Btm.=3.00 in Total Footing Width =150.00pcfFooting Concrete DensityFy =60,000 psi Footing Design Results Key: = Factored Pressure Mu' : Upward Mu' : Downward Mu: Design Actual 1-Way ShearAllow 1-Way Shear Toe: =# 4 @ 6.17 in = = = == 1,115 1,457 370 1,087 3.7394.87 Heel: 1,877 28,250 38,376 10,126 7.5694.87 HeelToe psf ft-# ft-# ft-# psipsi Heel Reinforcing =# 5 @ 7.00 in Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Key Reinforcing Toe Reinforcing =# 5 @ 7.00 in Min footing T&S reinf AreaMin footing T&S reinf Area per foot If one layer of horizontal bars: 2.780.32 #4@ 7.41 in #5@ 11.48 in#6@ 16.30 in in2in2 /ft If two layers of horizontal bars: #4@ 14.81 in #5@ 22.96 in#6@ 32.59 in supplemental design for footing torsion. phiMin 27,01427,014=ft-# 55 SE E U H P C D E S I G N O N S U B S E Q U E N T P A G E S Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:6.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (static)-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments .....RESISTING..........OVERTURNING.....Force Distance Moment Distance Moment Item Force ft-#lbs ftft ft-#lbs Sloped Soil Over Heel 3,272.24.13793.3=Surcharge over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = 1,583.3 5.42 8,576.4= Adjacent Footing Load =Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem= =* Axial Live Load on Stem Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Load @ Stem Above Soil = = = 92.6 0.79 73.3= = = Stem Weight(s) = 700.0 1.92 1,341.7 Earth @ Stem Transitions =Footing Weight = 1,609.4 4.29 6,906.9 Key Weight = Added Lateral Load lbs =7,483.6 Vert. Component 605.0 8.58 5,192.9 Total = 9,777.3 50,187.4 * Axial live load NOT included in total displayed, or used for overturningresistance, but is included for soil pressure calculation. Total =R.M. =2,324.7 O.T.M. = Resisting/Overturning Ratio =6.71 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure =9,777.3 lbs Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Sliding Resistance. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Overturning Resistance. Soil Over HL (ab. water tbl) Soil Over HL (bel. water tbl) 5,187.0 5.42 5.42 28,096.2 28,096.2 Watre Table Buoyant Force = HL Act Pres (ab water tbl) HL Act Pres (be water tbl) 1,531.4 2.75 4,211.4 Hydrostatic Force Tilt Horizontal Deflection at Top of Wall due to settlement of soil (Deflection due to wall bending not considered) Soil Spring Reaction Modulus 170.0 pci Horizontal Defl @ Top of Wall (approximate only)0.000 in The above calculation is not valid if the heel soil bearing pressure exceeds that of the toe, because the wall would then tend to rotate into the retained soil. 56 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:6.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (static)-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Rebar Lap & Embedment Lengths Information Stem Design Segment: Bottom Stem Design Height: 0.00 ft above top of footing Lap Splice length for #5 bar specified in this stem design segment =16.55 in Development length for #5 bar specified in this stem design segment =12.73 in Hooked embedment length into footing for #5 bar specified in this stem design segment =8.30 in As Provided =0.2657 in2/ft As Required =0.2976 in2/ft 57 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:6.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (static)-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 58 B"w/115@14" • • • • T ,- e ____L 1'-l" ~--- ~[' 1------------------i:I ' Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:6.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (static)-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 59 250 OOpsf Pp= 102.07# 2325# ■ Hydrostal.Jc Force ■ Lateral earth pressure due to the soil BELOW water table Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:6.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (concrete pavers) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Code References Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 7.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 2,000.0 45.0 0.0 200.0 Criteria Soil Data Retained Height =ft Wall height above soil =ft Active Heel Pressure =psf/ftSlope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe in Water height over heel =ft = = 117.00=pcf = Soil Density, Heel = Passive Pressure =psf/ft Allow Soil Bearing =psf Soil Density, Toe 117.00 pcf Footing||Soil Friction =0.350 Soil height to ignorefor passive pressure =0.00 in Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Surcharge Loads Adjacent Footing Load Load Type 130.0 Lateral Load =0.0 #/ft 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Axial Load Applied to Stem Wall to Ftg CL Dist =0.00 ft Wind on Exposed Stem psf0.0= Lateral Load Applied to Stem Surcharge Over Heel =psf Adjacent Footing Load =0.0 lbs Axial Dead Load (Strength Level) =lbs Footing Type Spread Footing Surcharge Over Toe Footing Width =0.00 ft...Height to Top =0.00 ft Eccentricity =0.00 in...Height to Bottom =0.00 ft Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Used for Sliding & Overturning =0.0 ft Axial Live Load = Base Above/Below Soil lbs = Axial Load Eccentricity ==Poisson's Ratio 0.300 at Back of Wall in (Strength Level) Seismic (E)= Earth Pressure Seismic Load Load at bottom of Triangular Distribution . . . . . . .=188.580 (Strength) Total Strength-Level Seismic Load. . . . .= 544.525Total Service-Level Seismic Load. . . . .= 777.893 lbs lbspsf Method : Triangular 60 Calculations per IBC 2021 1807.3, CBC 2022, ASCE 7-16 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:6.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (concrete pavers) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Design Summary Wall Stability RatiosOverturning =6.22 Global Stability =2.29 OK Sliding =1.31 Ratio < 1.5! Total Bearing Load =9,017 lbs...resultant ecc.=3.65 in Soil Pressure @ Toe =772 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel =1,188 psf OK Allowable =2,000 psfSoil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe =1,081 psfACI Factored @ Heel =1,664 psf Footing Shear @ Toe =3.5 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel =5.5 psi OK Allowable =94.9 psi Sliding Calcs Lateral Sliding Force =2,488.4 lbs less 33 % Passive Force less 100% Friction Force Added Force Req'd ....for 1.5 Stability = 0.0= 3,156.1 102.1 == 474.5 - lbs lbs lbs OK lbs NG - Masonry Block Type = Stem Construction Bottom Stem OK Shear.....Actual Design Height Above Ftg =0.00ft Wall Material Above "Ht"=Concrete Thickness =8.00 Rebar Size =#5 Rebar Spacing =9.00 Rebar Placed at =EdgeDesign Data fb/FB + fa/Fa =0.674 Total Force @ Section =2,884.0lbs Moment....Actual =7,382.7ft-# Moment.....Allowable =10,941.8 =38.8psi Shear.....Allowable =94.9psi Wall Weight =100.0psf Rebar Depth 'd'=6.19in Masonry Data f'm =psi Fs =psi Solid Grouting = Modular Ratio 'n'= Short Term Factor = Equiv. Solid Thick.= Concrete Dataf'c =4,000.0psi Fy =60,000.0 Masonry Design Method ASD= Load Factors Building Code Dead Load 0.000 Live Load 0.000 Earth, H 0.000 Wind, W 0.000 Seismic, E 0.000 psi Service Level =2,884.0lbsStrength Level Service Level Strength Level =7,382.7ft-# Service Level Strength Level =38.8psi Design Method =SD SD SD Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of soil bearing pressures. Anet (Masonry)=in2 61 Based on Section 1807.2.3 of CBC, if earthquake pressure is included, the minimum sliding factor can be 1.1, hence 1.31 > 1.1 -> Ok. \ Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:6.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (concrete pavers) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Concrete Stem Rebar Area Details Bottom Stem Vertical Reinforcing Horizontal Reinforcing As (based on applied moment) :0.2795 in2/ft (4/3) * As :0.3727 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area 1.344 in2 200bd/fy : 200(12)(6.1875)/60000 :0.2475 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area per ft of stem Height : 0.192 in2/ft 0.0018bh : 0.0018(12)(8) :0.1728 in2/ft Horizontal Reinforcing Options : ============One layer of : Two layers of : Required Area :0.2795 in2/ft #4@ 12.50 in #4@ 25.00 in Provided Area :0.4133 in2/ft #5@ 19.38 in #5@ 38.75 in Maximum Area :1.3411 in2/ft #6@ 27.50 in #6@ 55.00 in 1.58 7.00 15.00 Footing Torsion, Tu = = ft-lbs0.00 Min. As % Footing Allow. Torsion, phi Tu 0.0018 =ft-lbs Footing Data If torsion exceeds allowable, provide f'c 0.00 =4,000psi Toe Width =ftHeel Width = Key Distance from Toe Key Depth Key Width =in =in = 0.00 0.00 0.00 ft Footing Thickness =in 8.58= Cover @ Top =3.00 in@ Btm.=3.00 in Total Footing Width =150.00pcfFooting Concrete DensityFy =60,000 psi Footing Design Results Key: = Factored Pressure Mu' : Upward Mu' : Downward Mu: Design Actual 1-Way ShearAllow 1-Way Shear Toe: =# 4 @ 6.17 in = = = == 1,081 1,399 370 1,029 3.5594.87 Heel: 1,664 26,175 34,525 8,351 5.5194.87 HeelToe psf ft-# ft-# ft-# psipsi Heel Reinforcing =# 5 @ 9.00 in Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Key Reinforcing Toe Reinforcing =# 5 @ 9.00 in Min footing T&S reinf AreaMin footing T&S reinf Area per foot If one layer of horizontal bars: 2.780.32 #4@ 7.41 in #5@ 11.48 in#6@ 16.30 in in2in2 /ft If two layers of horizontal bars: #4@ 14.81 in #5@ 22.96 in#6@ 32.59 in supplemental design for footing torsion. phiMin 21,17221,172=ft-# 62 SE E D E S I G N O N S U B S E Q U E N T P A G E S Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:6.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (concrete pavers) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments .....RESISTING..........OVERTURNING.....Force Distance Moment Distance Moment Item Force ft-#lbs ftft ft-#lbs Sloped Soil Over Heel 1,701.64.13412.5=Surcharge over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = 823.3 5.42 4,459.7= Adjacent Footing Load =Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem= =* Axial Live Load on Stem Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Load @ Stem Above Soil =544.5 = = 92.6 0.79 73.3= = =Seismic Earth Load = 2.75 1,497.4 Stem Weight(s) = 700.0 1.92 1,341.7 Earth @ Stem Transitions =Footing Weight = 1,609.4 4.29 6,906.9 Key Weight = Added Lateral Load lbs =7,410.4 Vert. Component 605.0 8.58 5,192.9 Total = 9,017.3 46,070.8 * Axial live load NOT included in total displayed, or used for overturningresistance, but is included for soil pressure calculation. Total =R.M. =2,488.4 O.T.M. = Resisting/Overturning Ratio =6.22 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure =9,017.3 lbs If seismic is included, the OTM and sliding ratiosmay be 1.1 per section 1807.2.3 of IBC. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Sliding Resistance. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Overturning Resistance. Soil Over HL (ab. water tbl) Soil Over HL (bel. water tbl) 5,187.0 5.42 5.42 28,096.2 28,096.2 Watre Table Buoyant Force = HL Act Pres (ab water tbl) HL Act Pres (be water tbl) 1,531.4 2.75 4,211.4 Hydrostatic Force Tilt Horizontal Deflection at Top of Wall due to settlement of soil (Deflection due to wall bending not considered) Soil Spring Reaction Modulus 170.0 pci Horizontal Defl @ Top of Wall (approximate only)0.000 in The above calculation is not valid if the heel soil bearing pressure exceeds that of the toe, because the wall would then tend to rotate into the retained soil. 63 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:6.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (concrete pavers) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Rebar Lap & Embedment Lengths Information Stem Design Segment: Bottom Stem Design Height: 0.00 ft above top of footing Lap Splice length for #5 bar specified in this stem design segment =18.50 in Development length for #5 bar specified in this stem design segment =14.23 in Hooked embedment length into footing for #5 bar specified in this stem design segment =8.30 in As Provided =0.4133 in2/ft As Required =0.2795 in2/ft 64 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:6.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (concrete pavers) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 65 8"wl#5@9" #5@9,n @Toe #5@9" @Heel • • • • T 3· • ____L 1'-3" ~--___J Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:6.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (concrete pavers) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 66 t.JO 00psr f>ij-:, 10201• f l ! I ■ i:: ! Hydmslabc FCH"Ce ■ ■ Seismic lelsntl eanh pl'9SS1.Wlt Stem øVc 7.239 kips øMn 6.55 k-ft/ft with interaction Vc 9.652 kips As 0.263 in2/ft diagram f'c 5000 psi spacing 14 in b 12 in bar, #5 h 8 in fy 60 ksi d 5.6875 in a 0.309 in øVn/bd 106.07 psi rho_s 0.00274 Ok rec 2 in Mu 7.9 k-ft/ft diameter_bar_horizontal 0.5 in Vu 2.9 k/ft Ok rho_s, horizontal,provided 0.00307 (shrinkage and T° - distributed between two facesOk spacing 16 in bar, horizontal, #4 øMcr 3.3941 k-ft/ft As 0.147 in2/ft Free space 1.750 in ldh 9.00 in Ok Ψc 0.933 in Footing Ψr 1 in øVc 14.876 kips øMn 26.93 k-ft/ft Ok Vc 19.834 kips As 0.526 in2/ft f'c 5000 psi spacing 7 in b 12 in bar, #5 h 15 in fy 60 ksi d 11.6875 in a 0.619 in øVn/bd 106.07 psi rho_s 0.00292 Ok rec 3 in Mu 10.13 k-ft/ft diameter_bar_horizontal 0.625 in Vu 1 k/ft Ok rho_s, horizontal,provided 0.00227 (shrinkage and T° - distributed between two facesOk spacing 18 in bar, horizontal, # 5 øMcr 11.9324 k-ft/ft Ok As 0.205 in2/ft 67 68 Required flexural strength inside the design interaction diagram. Interaction diagram -Ill a. ~ C: a.. '& -30 -20 0Mn-0Pn 250 200 150 100 so 0Mn (k-ft) 20 30 Retaining Wall Design (8ft.-6in.) 69 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:8.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (static)-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Code References Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 9.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 2,000.0 45.0 0.0 200.0 Criteria Soil Data Retained Height =ft Wall height above soil =ft Active Heel Pressure =psf/ftSlope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe in Water height over heel =ft = = 117.00=pcf = Soil Density, Heel = Passive Pressure =psf/ft Allow Soil Bearing =psf Soil Density, Toe 117.00 pcf Footing||Soil Friction =0.350 Soil height to ignorefor passive pressure =0.00 in Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Surcharge Loads Adjacent Footing Load Load Type 250.0 Lateral Load =0.0 #/ft 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Axial Load Applied to Stem Wall to Ftg CL Dist =0.00 ft Wind on Exposed Stem psf0.0= Lateral Load Applied to Stem Surcharge Over Heel =psf Adjacent Footing Load =0.0 lbs Axial Dead Load (Strength Level) =lbs Footing Type Spread Footing Surcharge Over Toe Footing Width =0.00 ft...Height to Top =0.00 ft Eccentricity =0.00 in...Height to Bottom =0.00 ft Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Used for Sliding & Overturning =0.0 ft Axial Live Load = Base Above/Below Soil lbs = Axial Load Eccentricity ==Poisson's Ratio 0.300 at Back of Wall in (Strength Level) Seismic (E)= 70 Calculations per IBC 2021 1807.3, CBC 2022, ASCE 7-16 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:8.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (static)-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Design Summary Wall Stability RatiosOverturning =6.43 Global Stability =2.16 OK Sliding =1.51 OK Total Bearing Load =14,638 lbs...resultant ecc.=4.70 in Soil Pressure @ Toe =1,021 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel =1,623 psf OK Allowable =2,000 psfSoil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe =1,429 psfACI Factored @ Heel =2,272 psf Footing Shear @ Toe =3.4 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel =7.7 psi OK Allowable =106.1 psi Sliding Calcs Lateral Sliding Force =3,490.2 lbs less 33 % Passive Force less 100% Friction Force Added Force Req'd ....for 1.5 Stability = 0.0= 5,123.5 133.3 == 0.0 - lbs lbs lbs OK lbs OK - Masonry Block Type = Stem Construction Bottom Stem OK Shear.....Actual Design Height Above Ftg =0.00ft Wall Material Above "Ht"=Concrete Thickness =12.00 Rebar Size =#6 Rebar Spacing =14.00 Rebar Placed at =EdgeDesign Data fb/FB + fa/Fa =0.938 Total Force @ Section =4,300.6lbs Moment....Actual =14,978.8ft-# Moment.....Allowable =15,957.4 =37.2psi Shear.....Allowable =106.1psi Wall Weight =150.0psf Rebar Depth 'd'=9.63in Masonry Data f'm =psi Fs =psi Solid Grouting = Modular Ratio 'n'= Short Term Factor = Equiv. Solid Thick.= Concrete Dataf'c =5,000.0psi Fy =60,000.0 Masonry Design Method ASD= Load Factors Building Code Dead Load 0.000 Live Load 0.000 Earth, H 0.000 Wind, W 0.000 Seismic, E 0.000 psi Service Level =4,300.6lbsStrength Level Service Level Strength Level =14,978.8ft-# Service Level Strength Level =37.2psi Design Method =SD SD SD Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of soil bearing pressures. Anet (Masonry)=in2 71 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:8.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (static)-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Concrete Stem Rebar Area Details Bottom Stem Vertical Reinforcing Horizontal Reinforcing As (based on applied moment) :0.357 in2/ft (4/3) * As :0.4759 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area 2.592 in2 3sqrt(f’c)bd/fy : 3sqrt(5000)(12)(9.625)/60000 :0.4084 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area per ft of stem Height : 0.288 in2/ft 0.0018bh : 0.0018(12)(12) :0.2592 in2/ft Horizontal Reinforcing Options : ============One layer of : Two layers of : Required Area :0.4084 in2/ft #4@ 8.33 in #4@ 16.67 in Provided Area :0.3771 in2/ft #5@ 12.92 in #5@ 25.83 in Maximum Area :2.4544 in2/ft #6@ 18.33 in #6@ 36.67 in 1.75 8.58 18.00 Footing Torsion, Tu = = ft-lbs0.00 Min. As % Footing Allow. Torsion, phi Tu 0.0018 =ft-lbs Footing Data If torsion exceeds allowable, provide f'c 0.00 =5,000psi Toe Width =ftHeel Width = Key Distance from Toe Key Depth Key Width =in =in = 0.00 0.00 0.00 ft Footing Thickness =in 10.33= Cover @ Top =3.00 in@ Btm.=3.00 in Total Footing Width =150.00pcfFooting Concrete DensityFy =60,000 psi Footing Design Results Key: = Factored Pressure Mu' : Upward Mu' : Downward Mu: Design Actual 1-Way ShearAllow 1-Way Shear Toe: =# 4 @ 6.17 in = = = == 1,429 2,261 521 1,741 3.39106.07 Heel: 2,272 50,279 67,488 17,210 7.75106.07 HeelToe psf ft-# ft-# ft-# psipsi Heel Reinforcing =# 5 @ 9.00 in Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Key Reinforcing Toe Reinforcing =# 5 @ 9.00 in Min footing T&S reinf AreaMin footing T&S reinf Area per foot If one layer of horizontal bars: 4.020.39 #4@ 6.17 in #5@ 9.57 in#6@ 13.58 in in2in2 /ft If two layers of horizontal bars: #4@ 12.35 in #5@ 19.14 in#6@ 27.16 in supplemental design for footing torsion. phiMin 26,86426,864=ft-# 72 SE E U H P C D E S I G N O N S U B S E Q U E N T P A G E S Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:8.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (static)-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments .....RESISTING..........OVERTURNING.....Force Distance Moment Distance Moment Item Force ft-#lbs ftft ft-#lbs Sloped Soil Over Heel 5,300.55.251,009.6=Surcharge over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = 1,895.8 6.54 12,401.9= Adjacent Footing Load =Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem= =* Axial Live Load on Stem Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Load @ Stem Above Soil = = = 102.4 0.88 89.6= = = Stem Weight(s) = 1,350.0 2.25 3,037.5 Earth @ Stem Transitions =Footing Weight = 2,325.0 5.17 12,012.5 Key Weight = Added Lateral Load lbs =13,982.7 Vert. Component 980.0 10.33 10,126.6 Total = 14,638.5 89,904.9 * Axial live load NOT included in total displayed, or used for overturningresistance, but is included for soil pressure calculation. Total =R.M. =3,490.2 O.T.M. = Resisting/Overturning Ratio =6.43 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure =14,638.5 lbs Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Sliding Resistance. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Overturning Resistance. Soil Over HL (ab. water tbl) Soil Over HL (bel. water tbl) 7,985.2 6.54 6.54 52,236.8 52,236.8 Watre Table Buoyant Force = HL Act Pres (ab water tbl) HL Act Pres (be water tbl) 2,480.6 3.50 8,682.2 Hydrostatic Force Tilt Horizontal Deflection at Top of Wall due to settlement of soil (Deflection due to wall bending not considered) Soil Spring Reaction Modulus 170.0 pci Horizontal Defl @ Top of Wall (approximate only)0.000 in The above calculation is not valid if the heel soil bearing pressure exceeds that of the toe, because the wall would then tend to rotate into the retained soil. 73 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:8.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (static)-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Rebar Lap & Embedment Lengths Information Stem Design Segment: Bottom Stem Design Height: 0.00 ft above top of footing Lap Splice length for #6 bar specified in this stem design segment =19.86 in Development length for #6 bar specified in this stem design segment =15.27 in Hooked embedment length into footing for #6 bar specified in this stem design segment =8.91 in As Provided =0.3771 in2/ft As Required =0.4084 in2/ft 74 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:8.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (static)-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 75 12"w/~@ t4" .. • • • • .. . . . • • • • T ,- 1'.(i" • • • ___J_ #5@9m @T~ I: J~ ] •-r #5@9" @ Heel Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:8.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (static)-firetruck Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 76 25000psf Pp= 133 32# I ~ 3490# l ! ■ Hydrostatic Force §! !i! ■ Lateral earth pressure due to the so11 BELOW water table Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:8.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (concrete pavers) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Code References Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 9.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 2,000.0 45.0 0.0 200.0 Criteria Soil Data Retained Height =ft Wall height above soil =ft Active Heel Pressure =psf/ftSlope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe in Water height over heel =ft = = 117.00=pcf = Soil Density, Heel = Passive Pressure =psf/ft Allow Soil Bearing =psf Soil Density, Toe 117.00 pcf Footing||Soil Friction =0.350 Soil height to ignorefor passive pressure =0.00 in Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Surcharge Loads Adjacent Footing Load Load Type 130.0 Lateral Load =0.0 #/ft 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Axial Load Applied to Stem Wall to Ftg CL Dist =0.00 ft Wind on Exposed Stem psf0.0= Lateral Load Applied to Stem Surcharge Over Heel =psf Adjacent Footing Load =0.0 lbs Axial Dead Load (Strength Level) =lbs Footing Type Spread Footing Surcharge Over Toe Footing Width =0.00 ft...Height to Top =0.00 ft Eccentricity =0.00 in...Height to Bottom =0.00 ft Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Used for Sliding & Overturning =0.0 ft Axial Live Load = Base Above/Below Soil lbs = Axial Load Eccentricity ==Poisson's Ratio 0.300 at Back of Wall in (Strength Level) Seismic (E)= Earth Pressure Seismic Load Load at bottom of Triangular Distribution . . . . . . .=240.000 (Strength) Total Strength-Level Seismic Load. . . . .= 882.000Total Service-Level Seismic Load. . . . .= 1,260.000 lbs lbspsf Method : Triangular 77 Calculations per IBC 2021 1807.3, CBC 2022, ASCE 7-16 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:8.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (concrete pavers) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Design Summary Wall Stability RatiosOverturning =5.78 Global Stability =2.16 OK Sliding =1.27 Ratio < 1.5! Total Bearing Load =13,728 lbs...resultant ecc.=3.35 in Soil Pressure @ Toe =1,034 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel =1,434 psf OK Allowable =2,000 psfSoil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe =1,447 psfACI Factored @ Heel =2,007 psf Footing Shear @ Toe =3.4 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel =6.4 psi OK Allowable =106.1 psi Sliding Calcs Lateral Sliding Force =3,887.6 lbs less 33 % Passive Force less 100% Friction Force Added Force Req'd ....for 1.5 Stability = 0.0= 4,805.0 133.3 == 893.2 - lbs lbs lbs OK lbs NG - Masonry Block Type = Stem Construction Bottom Stem OK Shear.....Actual Design Height Above Ftg =0.00ft Wall Material Above "Ht"=Concrete Thickness =12.00 Rebar Size =#6 Rebar Spacing =14.00 Rebar Placed at =EdgeDesign Data fb/FB + fa/Fa =0.925 Total Force @ Section =4,561.7lbs Moment....Actual =14,765.1ft-# Moment.....Allowable =15,957.4 =39.5psi Shear.....Allowable =106.1psi Wall Weight =150.0psf Rebar Depth 'd'=9.63in Masonry Data f'm =psi Fs =psi Solid Grouting = Modular Ratio 'n'= Short Term Factor = Equiv. Solid Thick.= Concrete Dataf'c =5,000.0psi Fy =60,000.0 Masonry Design Method ASD= Load Factors Building Code Dead Load 0.000 Live Load 0.000 Earth, H 0.000 Wind, W 0.000 Seismic, E 0.000 psi Service Level =4,561.7lbsStrength Level Service Level Strength Level =14,765.1ft-# Service Level Strength Level =39.5psi Design Method =SD SD SD Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of soil bearing pressures. Anet (Masonry)=in2 78 Based on Section 1807.2.3 of CBC, if earthquake pressure is included, the minimum sliding factor can be 1.1, hence 1.27 > 1.1 -> Ok. I I ,v Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:8.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (concrete pavers) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Concrete Stem Rebar Area Details Bottom Stem Vertical Reinforcing Horizontal Reinforcing As (based on applied moment) :0.3519 in2/ft (4/3) * As :0.4692 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area 2.592 in2 3sqrt(f’c)bd/fy : 3sqrt(5000)(12)(9.625)/60000 :0.4084 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area per ft of stem Height : 0.288 in2/ft 0.0018bh : 0.0018(12)(12) :0.2592 in2/ft Horizontal Reinforcing Options : ============One layer of : Two layers of : Required Area :0.4084 in2/ft #4@ 8.33 in #4@ 16.67 in Provided Area :0.3771 in2/ft #5@ 12.92 in #5@ 25.83 in Maximum Area :2.4544 in2/ft #6@ 18.33 in #6@ 36.67 in 1.75 8.58 18.00 Footing Torsion, Tu = = ft-lbs0.00 Min. As % Footing Allow. Torsion, phi Tu 0.0018 =ft-lbs Footing Data If torsion exceeds allowable, provide f'c 0.00 =5,000psi Toe Width =ftHeel Width = Key Distance from Toe Key Depth Key Width =in =in = 0.00 0.00 0.00 ft Footing Thickness =in 10.33= Cover @ Top =3.00 in@ Btm.=3.00 in Total Footing Width =150.00pcfFooting Concrete DensityFy =60,000 psi Footing Design Results Key: = Factored Pressure Mu' : Upward Mu' : Downward Mu: Design Actual 1-Way ShearAllow 1-Way Shear Toe: =# 4 @ 6.17 in = = = == 1,447 2,264 521 1,743 3.42106.07 Heel: 2,007 47,715 61,968 14,252 6.39106.07 HeelToe psf ft-# ft-# ft-# psipsi Heel Reinforcing =# 5 @ 7.00 in Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Key Reinforcing Toe Reinforcing =# 5 @ 7.00 in Min footing T&S reinf AreaMin footing T&S reinf Area per foot If one layer of horizontal bars: 4.020.39 #4@ 6.17 in #5@ 9.57 in#6@ 13.58 in in2in2 /ft If two layers of horizontal bars: #4@ 12.35 in #5@ 19.14 in#6@ 27.16 in supplemental design for footing torsion. phiMin 34,37534,375=ft-# 79 SE E D E S I G N O N S U B S E Q U E N T P A G E S Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:8.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (concrete pavers) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments .....RESISTING..........OVERTURNING.....Force Distance Moment Distance Moment Item Force ft-#lbs ftft ft-#lbs Sloped Soil Over Heel 2,756.35.25525.0=Surcharge over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = 985.8 6.54 6,449.0= Adjacent Footing Load =Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem= =* Axial Live Load on Stem Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Load @ Stem Above Soil =882.0 = = 102.4 0.88 89.6= = =Seismic Earth Load = 3.50 3,087.0 Stem Weight(s) = 1,350.0 2.25 3,037.5 Earth @ Stem Transitions =Footing Weight = 2,325.0 5.17 12,012.5 Key Weight = Added Lateral Load lbs =14,525.4 Vert. Component 980.0 10.33 10,126.6 Total = 13,728.5 83,952.0 * Axial live load NOT included in total displayed, or used for overturningresistance, but is included for soil pressure calculation. Total =R.M. =3,887.6 O.T.M. = Resisting/Overturning Ratio =5.78 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure =13,728.5 lbs If seismic is included, the OTM and sliding ratiosmay be 1.1 per section 1807.2.3 of IBC. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Sliding Resistance. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Overturning Resistance. Soil Over HL (ab. water tbl) Soil Over HL (bel. water tbl) 7,985.2 6.54 6.54 52,236.8 52,236.8 Watre Table Buoyant Force = HL Act Pres (ab water tbl) HL Act Pres (be water tbl) 2,480.6 3.50 8,682.2 Hydrostatic Force Tilt Horizontal Deflection at Top of Wall due to settlement of soil (Deflection due to wall bending not considered) Soil Spring Reaction Modulus 170.0 pci Horizontal Defl @ Top of Wall (approximate only)0.000 in The above calculation is not valid if the heel soil bearing pressure exceeds that of the toe, because the wall would then tend to rotate into the retained soil. 80 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:8.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (concrete pavers) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Rebar Lap & Embedment Lengths Information Stem Design Segment: Bottom Stem Design Height: 0.00 ft above top of footing Lap Splice length for #6 bar specified in this stem design segment =19.86 in Development length for #6 bar specified in this stem design segment =15.27 in Hooked embedment length into footing for #6 bar specified in this stem design segment =8.91 in As Provided =0.3771 in2/ft As Required =0.4084 in2/ft 81 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:8.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (concrete pavers) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 82 12"w/~@ t4" .. • • • • .. . . . • • • • T ,- 1'.(i" • • • ___J_ #5@7in @T~ I: J~ ] •-r '5@r @ Heel Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:8.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (concrete pavers) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 83 13000ps( JOO&!' 882il 1!l ; ■ tt,u10S1at1ctorce :,: ■ l;uer,ai unn pressLn! di.I! foh! soil BELOWwaier table ■ S01smc l.\!«al Nfth (J«IMIII• Stem øVc 12.251 kips øMn 16.02 k-ft/ft Ok Vc 16.334 kips As 0.379 in2/ft f'c 5000 psi spacing 14 in b 12 in bar, #6 h 12 in fy 60 ksi d 9.625 in a 0.445 in øVn/bd 106.07 psi rho_s 0.00263 Ok rec 2 in Mu 15 k-ft/ft diameter_bar_horizontal 0.5 in Vu 4.6 k/ft Ok rho_s, horizontal,provided 0.00205 (shrinkage and T° - distributed between two faces)Ok spacing 16 in bar, horizontal, #4 øMcr 7.6368 k-ft/ft As 0.147 in2/ft Free space 5.500 in ldh 10.80 in Ok Ψc 0.933 in Footing Ψr 1 in øVc 18.694 kips øMn 34.03 k-ft/ft Ok Vc 24.926 kips As 0.526 in2/ft f'c 5000 psi spacing 7 in b 12 in bar, #5 h 18 in fy 60 ksi d 14.6875 in a 0.619 in øVn/bd 106.07 psi rho_s 0.00243 Ok rec 3 in Mu 17.3 k-ft/ft diameter_bar_horizontal 0.625 in Vu 1.4 k/ft Ok rho_s, horizontal,provided 0.00189 (shrinkage and T° - distributed between two faces)Ok spacing 18 in bar, horizontal, # 5 øMcr 17.1827 k-ft/ft As 0.205 in2/ft 84 Retaining Wall Design (12ft.-0in.) 85 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:12.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (firetruck) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Code References Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 12.50 0.00 0.00 6.00 3,000.0 45.0 0.0 200.0 Criteria Soil Data Retained Height =ft Wall height above soil =ft Active Heel Pressure =psf/ftSlope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe in Water height over heel =ft = = 117.00=pcf = Soil Density, Heel = Passive Pressure =psf/ft Allow Soil Bearing =psf Soil Density, Toe 117.00 pcf Footing||Soil Friction =0.350 Soil height to ignorefor passive pressure =0.00 in Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Surcharge Loads Adjacent Footing Load Load Type 250.0 Lateral Load =0.0 #/ft 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Axial Load Applied to Stem Wall to Ftg CL Dist =0.00 ft Wind on Exposed Stem psf0.0= Lateral Load Applied to Stem Surcharge Over Heel =psf Adjacent Footing Load =0.0 lbs Axial Dead Load (Strength Level) =lbs Footing Type Spread Footing Surcharge Over Toe Footing Width =0.00 ft...Height to Top =0.00 ft Eccentricity =0.00 in...Height to Bottom =0.00 ft Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Used for Sliding & Overturning =0.0 ft Axial Live Load = Base Above/Below Soil lbs = Axial Load Eccentricity ==Poisson's Ratio 0.300 at Back of Wall in (Strength Level) Seismic (E)= 86 Calculations per IBC 2021 1807.3, CBC 2022, ASCE 7-16 ,. Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:12.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (firetruck) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Design Summary Wall Stability RatiosOverturning =6.37 Global Stability =1.99 OK Sliding =1.52 OK Total Bearing Load =24,682 lbs...resultant ecc.=4.72 in Soil Pressure @ Toe =1,423 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel =2,039 psf OK Allowable =3,000 psfSoil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe =1,993 psfACI Factored @ Heel =2,855 psf Footing Shear @ Toe =5.1 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel =10.7 psi OK Allowable =106.1 psi Sliding Calcs Lateral Sliding Force =5,756.2 lbs less 33 % Passive Force less 100% Friction Force Added Force Req'd ....for 1.5 Stability = 0.0= 8,638.7 133.3 == 0.0 - lbs lbs lbs OK lbs OK - Masonry Block Type = Stem Construction Bottom Stem OK Shear.....Actual Design Height Above Ftg =0.00ft Wall Material Above "Ht"=Concrete Thickness =12.00 Rebar Size =#7 Rebar Spacing =5.00 Rebar Placed at =EdgeDesign Data fb/FB + fa/Fa =0.628 Total Force @ Section =7,548.1lbs Moment....Actual =35,456.7ft-# Moment.....Allowable =56,459.6 =65.8psi Shear.....Allowable =106.1psi Wall Weight =150.0psf Rebar Depth 'd'=9.56in Masonry Data f'm =psi Fs =psi Solid Grouting = Modular Ratio 'n'= Short Term Factor = Equiv. Solid Thick.= Concrete Dataf'c =5,000.0psi Fy =60,000.0 Masonry Design Method ASD= Load FactorsBuilding Code Dead Load 0.000 Live Load 0.000 Earth, H 0.000 Wind, W 0.000 Seismic, E 0.000 psi Service Level =7,548.1lbsStrength Level Service Level Strength Level =35,456.7ft-# Service Level Strength Level =65.8psi Design Method =SD SD SD Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of soil bearing pressures. Anet (Masonry)=in2 87 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:12.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (firetruck) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Concrete Stem Rebar Area Details Bottom Stem Vertical Reinforcing Horizontal Reinforcing As (based on applied moment) :0.8507 in2/ft (4/3) * As :1.1342 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area 3.600 in2 3sqrt(f’c)bd/fy : 3sqrt(5000)(12)(9.5625)/60000 :0.4057 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area per ft of stem Height : 0.288 in2/ft 0.0018bh : 0.0018(12)(12) :0.2592 in2/ft Horizontal Reinforcing Options : ============One layer of : Two layers of : Required Area :0.8507 in2/ft #4@ 8.33 in #4@ 16.67 in Provided Area :1.44 in2/ft #5@ 12.92 in #5@ 25.83 in Maximum Area :2.4384 in2/ft #6@ 18.33 in #6@ 36.67 in 1.75 11.50 18.00 Footing Torsion, Tu = = ft-lbs0.00 Min. As % Footing Allow. Torsion, phi Tu 0.0018 =ft-lbs Footing Data If torsion exceeds allowable, provide f'c 0.00 =5,000psi Toe Width =ftHeel Width = Key Distance from Toe Key Depth Key Width =in =in = 12.00 0.00 8.00 ft Footing Thickness =in 13.25= Cover @ Top =3.00 in@ Btm.=3.00 in Total Footing Width =150.00 pcfFooting Concrete DensityFy =60,000 psi Footing Design Results Key: = Factored Pressure Mu' : Upward Mu' : Downward Mu: Design Actual 1-Way ShearAllow 1-Way Shear Toe: =# 4 @ 6.17 in = = = == 1,993 3,109 521 2,588 5.13106.07 Heel: 2,855 123,895 162,947 39,052 10.69106.07 HeelToe psf ft-# ft-# ft-# psipsi Heel Reinforcing =# 5 @ 5.00 in Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Key Reinforcing Toe Reinforcing =# 5 @ 5.00 in Min footing T&S reinf AreaMin footing T&S reinf Area per foot If one layer of horizontal bars: 5.150.39 #4@ 6.17 in #5@ 9.57 in#6@ 13.58 in in2in2 /ft If two layers of horizontal bars: #4@ 12.35 in #5@ 19.14 in#6@ 27.16 in supplemental design for footing torsion. phiMin 47,70947,709=ft-# 88 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:12.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (firetruck) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments .....RESISTING..........OVERTURNING.....Force Distance Moment Distance Moment Item Force ft-#lbs ftft ft-#lbs Sloped Soil Over Heel 9,423.17.001,346.2=Surcharge over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = 2,625.0 8.00 21,000.0= Adjacent Footing Load =Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem = =* Axial Live Load on Stem Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Load @ Stem Above Soil = = = 102.4 0.88 89.6= = = Stem Weight(s) = 1,875.0 2.25 4,218.8 Earth @ Stem Transitions =Footing Weight = 2,981.3 6.63 19,750.8 Key Weight = 8.50 Added Lateral Load lbs =30,003.1 Vert. Component 1,742.2 13.25 23,084.3 Total = 24,682.1 190,993.5 * Axial live load NOT included in total displayed, or used for overturningresistance, but is included for soil pressure calculation. Total =R.M. =5,756.2 O.T.M. = Resisting/Overturning Ratio =6.37 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure =24,682.1 lbs Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Sliding Resistance. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Overturning Resistance. Soil Over HL (ab. water tbl) Soil Over HL (bel. water tbl) 15,356.3 8.00 8.00 122,850.0 122,850.0 Watre Table Buoyant Force = HL Act Pres (ab water tbl) HL Act Pres (be water tbl) 4,410.0 4.67 20,580.0 Hydrostatic Force Tilt Horizontal Deflection at Top of Wall due to settlement of soil (Deflection due to wall bending not considered) Soil Spring Reaction Modulus 170.0 pci Horizontal Defl @ Top of Wall (approximate only)0.000 in The above calculation is not valid if the heel soil bearing pressure exceeds that of the toe, because the wall would then tend to rotate into the retained soil. 89 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:12.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (firetruck) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Rebar Lap & Embedment Lengths Information Stem Design Segment: Bottom Stem Design Height: 0.00 ft above top of footing Lap Splice length for #7 bar specified in this stem design segment =28.96 in Development length for #7 bar specified in this stem design segment =22.27 in Hooked embedment length into footing for #7 bar specified in this stem design segment =10.39 in As Provided =1.4400 in2/ft As Required =0.8507 in2/ft 90 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:12.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (firetruck) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 91 12"w/#7@5" T 3" 1'-6" . __j_ #5@5m @T~ I: .I. :I ,. r.9· #5@5" 13'-3" @Heel Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:12.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (firetruck) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 92 250.00psf 5756# ■ Hydrostatic Force ■ Lateral earth pressure due to the s01! BELOW water table Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:12.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (seismic) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Code References Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 12.50 0.00 0.00 6.00 3,000.0 45.0 0.0 200.0 Criteria Soil Data Retained Height =ft Wall height above soil =ft Active Heel Pressure =psf/ftSlope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe in Water height over heel =ft = = 117.00=pcf = Soil Density, Heel = Passive Pressure =psf/ft Allow Soil Bearing =psf Soil Density, Toe 117.00 pcf Footing||Soil Friction =0.350 Soil height to ignorefor passive pressure =0.00 in Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Surcharge Loads Adjacent Footing Load Load Type 130.0 Lateral Load =0.0 #/ft 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Axial Load Applied to Stem Wall to Ftg CL Dist =0.00 ft Wind on Exposed Stem psf0.0= Lateral Load Applied to Stem Surcharge Over Heel =psf Adjacent Footing Load =0.0 lbs Axial Dead Load (Strength Level) =lbs Footing Type Spread Footing Surcharge Over Toe Footing Width =0.00 ft...Height to Top =0.00 ft Eccentricity =0.00 in...Height to Bottom =0.00 ft Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Used for Sliding & Overturning =0.0 ft Axial Live Load = Base Above/Below Soil lbs = Axial Load Eccentricity ==Poisson's Ratio 0.300 at Back of Wall in (Strength Level) Seismic (E)= Earth Pressure Seismic Load Load at bottom of Triangular Distribution . . . . . . .=320.000 (Strength) Total Strength-Level Seismic Load. . . . .= 1,568.000Total Service-Level Seismic Load. . . . .= 2,240.000 lbs lbspsf Method : Triangular 93 Calculations per IBC 2021 1807.3, CBC 2022, ASCE 7-16 ,. Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:12.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (seismic) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Design Summary Wall Stability RatiosOverturning =5.52 Global Stability =1.99 OK Sliding =1.25 Ratio < 1.5! Total Bearing Load =23,422 lbs...resultant ecc.=2.48 in Soil Pressure @ Toe =1,483 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel =1,790 psf OK Allowable =3,000 psfSoil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe =2,076 psfACI Factored @ Heel =2,505 psf Footing Shear @ Toe =5.4 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel =9.8 psi OK Allowable =106.1 psi Sliding Calcs Lateral Sliding Force =6,678.0 lbs less 33 % Passive Force less 100% Friction Force Added Force Req'd ....for 1.5 Stability = 0.0= 8,197.7 133.3 == 1,685.9 - lbs lbs lbs OK lbs NG - Masonry Block Type = Stem Construction Bottom Stem OK Shear.....Actual Design Height Above Ftg =0.00ft Wall Material Above "Ht"=Concrete Thickness =12.00 Rebar Size =#7 Rebar Spacing =5.00 Rebar Placed at =EdgeDesign Data fb/FB + fa/Fa =0.657 Total Force @ Section =8,410.7lbs Moment....Actual =37,128.0ft-# Moment.....Allowable =56,459.6 =73.3psi Shear.....Allowable =106.1psi Wall Weight =150.0psf Rebar Depth 'd'=9.56in Masonry Data f'm =psi Fs =psi Solid Grouting = Modular Ratio 'n'= Short Term Factor = Equiv. Solid Thick.= Concrete Dataf'c =5,000.0psi Fy =60,000.0 Masonry Design Method ASD= Load FactorsBuilding Code Dead Load 0.000 Live Load 0.000 Earth, H 0.000 Wind, W 0.000 Seismic, E 0.000 psi Service Level =8,410.7lbsStrength Level Service Level Strength Level =37,128.0ft-# Service Level Strength Level =73.3psi Design Method =SD SD SD Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of soil bearing pressures. Anet (Masonry)=in2 94 Based on Section 1807.2.3 of CBC, if earthquake pressure is included, the minimum sliding factor can be 1.1, hence 1.25 > 1.1 -> Ok. Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:12.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (seismic) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Concrete Stem Rebar Area Details Bottom Stem Vertical Reinforcing Horizontal Reinforcing As (based on applied moment) :0.8908 in2/ft (4/3) * As :1.1877 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area 3.600 in2 3sqrt(f’c)bd/fy : 3sqrt(5000)(12)(9.5625)/60000 :0.4057 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area per ft of stem Height : 0.288 in2/ft 0.0018bh : 0.0018(12)(12) :0.2592 in2/ft Horizontal Reinforcing Options : ============One layer of : Two layers of : Required Area :0.8908 in2/ft #4@ 8.33 in #4@ 16.67 in Provided Area :1.44 in2/ft #5@ 12.92 in #5@ 25.83 in Maximum Area :2.4384 in2/ft #6@ 18.33 in #6@ 36.67 in 1.75 11.50 18.00 Footing Torsion, Tu = = ft-lbs0.00 Min. As % Footing Allow. Torsion, phi Tu 0.0018 =ft-lbs Footing Data If torsion exceeds allowable, provide f'c 0.00 =5,000psi Toe Width =ftHeel Width = Key Distance from Toe Key Depth Key Width =in =in = 12.00 0.00 8.00 ft Footing Thickness =in 13.25= Cover @ Top =3.00 in@ Btm.=3.00 in Total Footing Width =150.00 pcfFooting Concrete DensityFy =60,000 psi Footing Design Results Key: = Factored Pressure Mu' : Upward Mu' : Downward Mu: Design Actual 1-Way ShearAllow 1-Way Shear Toe: =# 4 @ 6.17 in = = = == 2,076 3,208 521 2,687 5.36106.07 Heel: 2,505 121,437 152,363 30,926 9.85106.07 HeelToe psf ft-# ft-# ft-# psipsi Heel Reinforcing =# 5 @ 5.00 in Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Key Reinforcing Toe Reinforcing =# 5 @ 5.00 in Min footing T&S reinf AreaMin footing T&S reinf Area per foot If one layer of horizontal bars: 5.150.39 #4@ 6.17 in #5@ 9.57 in#6@ 13.58 in in2in2 /ft If two layers of horizontal bars: #4@ 12.35 in #5@ 19.14 in#6@ 27.16 in supplemental design for footing torsion. phiMin 47,70947,709=ft-# 95 SE E D E S I G N O N S U B S E Q U E N T P A G E S Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:12.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (seismic) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments .....RESISTING..........OVERTURNING.....Force Distance Moment Distance Moment Item Force ft-#lbs ftft ft-#lbs Sloped Soil Over Heel 4,900.07.00700.0=Surcharge over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = 1,365.0 8.00 10,920.0= Adjacent Footing Load =Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem = =* Axial Live Load on Stem Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Load @ Stem Above Soil =1,568.0 = = 102.4 0.88 89.6= = =Seismic Earth Load = 4.67 7,317.3 Stem Weight(s) = 1,875.0 2.25 4,218.8 Earth @ Stem Transitions =Footing Weight = 2,981.3 6.63 19,750.8 Key Weight = 8.50 Added Lateral Load lbs =32,797.3 Vert. Component 1,742.2 13.25 23,084.3 Total = 23,422.1 180,913.5 * Axial live load NOT included in total displayed, or used for overturningresistance, but is included for soil pressure calculation. Total =R.M. =6,678.0 O.T.M. = Resisting/Overturning Ratio =5.52 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure =23,422.1 lbs If seismic is included, the OTM and sliding ratiosmay be 1.1 per section 1807.2.3 of IBC. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Sliding Resistance. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Overturning Resistance. Soil Over HL (ab. water tbl) Soil Over HL (bel. water tbl) 15,356.3 8.00 8.00 122,850.0 122,850.0 Watre Table Buoyant Force = HL Act Pres (ab water tbl) HL Act Pres (be water tbl) 4,410.0 4.67 20,580.0 Hydrostatic Force Tilt Horizontal Deflection at Top of Wall due to settlement of soil (Deflection due to wall bending not considered) Soil Spring Reaction Modulus 170.0 pci Horizontal Defl @ Top of Wall (approximate only)0.000 in The above calculation is not valid if the heel soil bearing pressure exceeds that of the toe, because the wall would then tend to rotate into the retained soil. 96 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:12.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (seismic) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Rebar Lap & Embedment Lengths Information Stem Design Segment: Bottom Stem Design Height: 0.00 ft above top of footing Lap Splice length for #7 bar specified in this stem design segment =28.96 in Development length for #7 bar specified in this stem design segment =22.27 in Hooked embedment length into footing for #7 bar specified in this stem design segment =10.39 in As Provided =1.4400 in2/ft As Required =0.8908 in2/ft 97 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:12.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (seismic) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 98 12"w/#7@5" T 3" 1'-6" . __j_ #5@5m @T~ I: .I. :I ,. r.9· #5@5" 13'-3" @Heel Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:12.5ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (seismic) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 99 ''°"""" Pp..: 133.12# ~ ii< ■ -·~'" ~ ■ latl!';lllt1.-n-i11111-111~t0\/>oN1l8E\.OWW,i1M"t.itlll Stem øVc 12.171 kips øMn 47.92 k-ft/ft Ok Vc 16.228 kips As 1.203 in2/ft f'c 5000 psi spacing 6 in b 12 in bar, #7 h 12 in fy 60 ksi d 9.5625 in a 1.415 in øVn/bd 106.07 psi rho_s 0.00835 Ok rec 2 in Mu 37.13 k-ft/ft diameter_bar_horizontal 0.5 in Vu 8.41 k/ft Ok rho_s, horizontal,provided 0.00205 (shrinkage and T° - distributed between two faces)Ok spacing 16 in bar, horizontal, #4 øMcr 7.6368 k-ft/ft As 0.147 in2/ft Free space 5.250 in ldh 12.60 in Ok Ψc 0.933 in Footing Ψr 1 in øVc 18.694 kips øMn 39.56 k-ft/ft Ok Vc 24.926 kips As 0.614 in2/ft f'c 5000 psi spacing 6 in b 12 in bar, #5 h 18 in fy 60 ksi d 14.6875 in a 0.722 in øVn/bd 106.07 psi rho_s 0.00284 Ok rec 3 in Mu 39.05 k-ft/ft diameter_bar_horizontal 0.625 in Vu 1.86 k/ft Ok rho_s, horizontal,provided 0.00189 (shrinkage and T° - distributed between two faces)Ok spacing 18 in bar, horizontal, # 5 øMcr 17.1827 k-ft/ft As 0.205 in2/ft 100 Retaining Wall Design (14ft.-0in.) 101 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:14ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (static) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Code References Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 14.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,000.0 45.0 0.0 200.0 Criteria Soil Data Retained Height =ft Wall height above soil =ft Active Heel Pressure =psf/ftSlope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe in Water height over heel =ft = = 117.00=pcf = Soil Density, Heel = Passive Pressure =psf/ft Allow Soil Bearing =psf Soil Density, Toe 117.00 pcf Footing||Soil Friction =0.350 Soil height to ignorefor passive pressure =0.00 in Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Surcharge Loads Adjacent Footing Load Load Type 130.0 Lateral Load =0.0 #/ft 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Axial Load Applied to Stem Wall to Ftg CL Dist =0.00 ft Wind on Exposed Stem psf0.0= Lateral Load Applied to Stem Surcharge Over Heel =psf Adjacent Footing Load =0.0 lbs Axial Dead Load (Strength Level) =lbs Footing Type Spread Footing Surcharge Over Toe Footing Width =0.00 ft...Height to Top =0.00 ft Eccentricity =0.00 in...Height to Bottom =0.00 ft Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Used for Sliding & Overturning =0.0 ft Axial Live Load = Base Above/Below Soil lbs = Axial Load Eccentricity ==Poisson's Ratio 0.300 at Back of Wall in (Strength Level) Seismic (E)= 102 Calculations per IBC 2021 1807.3, CBC 2022, ASCE 7-16 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:14ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (static) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Design Summary Wall Stability RatiosOverturning =6.24 Global Stability =1.86 OK Sliding =1.51 OK Total Bearing Load =27,876 lbs...resultant ecc.=7.13 in Soil Pressure @ Toe =1,363 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel =2,294 psf OK Allowable =3,000 psfSoil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe =1,908 psfACI Factored @ Heel =3,212 psf Footing Shear @ Toe =2.4 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel =7.3 psi OK Allowable =106.1 psi Sliding Calcs Lateral Sliding Force =6,560.0 lbs less 33 % Passive Force less 100% Friction Force Added Force Req'd ....for 1.5 Stability = 0.0= 9,756.7 133.3 == 0.0 - lbs lbs lbs OK lbs OK - Masonry Block Type = Stem Construction Bottom Stem OK Shear.....Actual Design Height Above Ftg =0.00ft Wall Material Above "Ht"=Concrete Thickness =12.00 Rebar Size =#7 Rebar Spacing =5.00 Rebar Placed at =EdgeDesign Data fb/FB + fa/Fa =0.722 Total Force @ Section =8,176.0lbs Moment....Actual =40,768.0ft-# Moment.....Allowable =56,459.6 =71.3psi Shear.....Allowable =106.1psi Wall Weight =150.0psf Rebar Depth 'd'=9.56in Masonry Data f'm =psi Fs =psi Solid Grouting = Modular Ratio 'n'= Short Term Factor = Equiv. Solid Thick.= Concrete Dataf'c =5,000.0psi Fy =60,000.0 Masonry Design Method ASD= Load Factors Building Code Dead Load 0.000 Live Load 0.000 Earth, H 0.000 Wind, W 0.000 Seismic, E 0.000 psi Service Level =8,176.0lbsStrength Level Service Level Strength Level =40,768.0ft-# Service Level Strength Level =71.3psi Design Method =SD SD SD Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of soil bearing pressures. Anet (Masonry)=in2 103 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:14ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (static) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Concrete Stem Rebar Area Details Bottom Stem Vertical Reinforcing Horizontal Reinforcing As (based on applied moment) :0.9781 in2/ft (4/3) * As :1.3041 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area 4.032 in2 3sqrt(f’c)bd/fy : 3sqrt(5000)(12)(9.5625)/60000 :0.4057 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area per ft of stem Height : 0.288 in2/ft 0.0018bh : 0.0018(12)(12) :0.2592 in2/ft Horizontal Reinforcing Options : ============One layer of : Two layers of : Required Area :0.9781 in2/ft #4@ 8.33 in #4@ 16.67 in Provided Area :1.44 in2/ft #5@ 12.92 in #5@ 25.83 in Maximum Area :2.4384 in2/ft #6@ 18.33 in #6@ 36.67 in 2.08 11.92 24.00 Footing Torsion, Tu = = ft-lbs0.00 Min. As % Footing Allow. Torsion, phi Tu 0.0018 =ft-lbs Footing Data If torsion exceeds allowable, provide f'c 0.00 =5,000psi Toe Width =ftHeel Width = Key Distance from Toe Key Depth Key Width =in =in = 12.00 0.00 8.00 ft Footing Thickness =in 14.00= Cover @ Top =3.00 in@ Btm.=3.00 in Total Footing Width =150.00pcfFooting Concrete DensityFy =60,000 psi Footing Design Results Key: = Factored Pressure Mu' : Upward Mu' : Downward Mu: Design Actual 1-Way ShearAllow 1-Way Shear Toe: =# 4 @ 6.17 in = = = == 1,908 4,281 781 3,500 2.39106.07 Heel: 3,212 138,513 190,715 52,203 7.25106.07 HeelToe psf ft-# ft-# ft-# psipsi Heel Reinforcing =# 5 @ 5.00 in Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Key Reinforcing Toe Reinforcing =# 5 @ 5.00 in Min footing T&S reinf AreaMin footing T&S reinf Area per foot If one layer of horizontal bars: 7.260.52 #4@ 4.63 in #5@ 7.18 in#6@ 10.19 in in2in2 /ft If two layers of horizontal bars: #4@ 9.26 in #5@ 14.35 in#6@ 20.37 in supplemental design for footing torsion. phiMin 67,79767,797=ft-# 104 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:14ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (static) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments .....RESISTING..........OVERTURNING.....Force Distance Moment Distance Moment Item Force ft-#lbs ftft ft-#lbs Sloped Soil Over Heel 6,400.08.00800.0=Surcharge over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = 1,419.2 8.54 12,122.0= Adjacent Footing Load =Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem= =* Axial Live Load on Stem Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Load @ Stem Above Soil = = = = = = Stem Weight(s) = 2,100.0 2.58 5,425.0 Earth @ Stem Transitions =Footing Weight = 4,200.0 7.00 29,400.0 Key Weight = 8.50 Added Lateral Load lbs =37,120.0 Vert. Component 2,275.5 14.00 31,857.6 Total = 27,876.2 231,542.4 * Axial live load NOT included in total displayed, or used for overturningresistance, but is included for soil pressure calculation. Total =R.M. =6,560.0 O.T.M. = Resisting/Overturning Ratio =6.24 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure =27,876.2 lbs Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Sliding Resistance. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Overturning Resistance. Soil Over HL (ab. water tbl) Soil Over HL (bel. water tbl) 17,881.5 8.54 8.54 152,737.8 152,737.8 Watre Table Buoyant Force = HL Act Pres (ab water tbl) HL Act Pres (be water tbl) 5,760.0 5.33 30,720.0 Hydrostatic Force Tilt Horizontal Deflection at Top of Wall due to settlement of soil (Deflection due to wall bending not considered) Soil Spring Reaction Modulus 170.0 pci Horizontal Defl @ Top of Wall (approximate only)0.000 in The above calculation is not valid if the heel soil bearing pressure exceeds that of the toe, because the wall would then tend to rotate into the retained soil. 105 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:14ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (static) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Rebar Lap & Embedment Lengths Information Stem Design Segment: Bottom Stem Design Height: 0.00 ft above top of footing Lap Splice length for #7 bar specified in this stem design segment =28.96 in Development length for #7 bar specified in this stem design segment =22.27 in Hooked embedment length into footing for #7 bar specified in this stem design segment =10.39 in As Provided =1.4400 in2/ft As Required =0.9781 in2/ft 106 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:14ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (static) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 107 12"'w/#7@5" T 3• ----1. #5@So @T= I: .1 .. 2'-1" 11'-11" 14'--0" :I #5@5" @Heel Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:14ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 (static) Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 108 13000psf 6560# ■ HydrostatlCForce ■ Lateral earth pressure due to the soil BELOW water tat Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:14ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Code References Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 14.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,000.0 45.0 0.0 200.0 Criteria Soil Data Retained Height =ft Wall height above soil =ft Active Heel Pressure =psf/ftSlope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe in Water height over heel =ft = = 117.00=pcf = Soil Density, Heel = Passive Pressure =psf/ft Allow Soil Bearing =psf Soil Density, Toe 117.00 pcf Footing||Soil Friction =0.350 Soil height to ignorefor passive pressure =0.00 in Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Surcharge Loads Adjacent Footing Load Load Type 130.0 Lateral Load =0.0 #/ft 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 Axial Load Applied to Stem Wall to Ftg CL Dist =0.00 ft Wind on Exposed Stem psf0.0= Lateral Load Applied to Stem Surcharge Over Heel =psf Adjacent Footing Load =0.0 lbs Axial Dead Load (Strength Level) =lbs Footing Type Spread Footing Surcharge Over Toe Footing Width =0.00 ft...Height to Top =0.00 ft Eccentricity =0.00 in...Height to Bottom =0.00 ft Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Used for Sliding & Overturning =0.0 ft Axial Live Load = Base Above/Below Soil lbs = Axial Load Eccentricity ==Poisson's Ratio 0.300 at Back of Wall in (Strength Level) Seismic (E)= Earth Pressure Seismic Load Load at bottom of Triangular Distribution . . . . . . .=365.720 (Strength) Total Strength-Level Seismic Load. . . . .= 2,048.032Total Service-Level Seismic Load. . . . .= 2,925.760 lbs lbspsf Method : Triangular 109 Calculations per IBC 2021 1807.3, CBC 2022, ASCE 7-16 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:14ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Design Summary Wall Stability RatiosOverturning =4.82 Global Stability =1.86 OK Sliding =1.15 Ratio < 1.5! Total Bearing Load =27,876 lbs...resultant ecc.=2.01 in Soil Pressure @ Toe =1,697 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel =1,960 psf OK Allowable =3,000 psfSoil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe =2,376 psfACI Factored @ Heel =2,744 psf Footing Shear @ Toe =3.1 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel =11.8 psi OK Allowable =106.1 psi Sliding Calcs Lateral Sliding Force =8,608.0 lbs less 33 % Passive Force less 100% Friction Force Added Force Req'd ....for 1.5 Stability = 0.0= 9,756.7 133.3 == 3,022.1 - lbs lbs lbs OK lbs NG - Masonry Block Type = Stem Construction Bottom Stem OK Shear.....Actual Design Height Above Ftg =0.00ft Wall Material Above "Ht"=Concrete Thickness =12.00 Rebar Size =#7 Rebar Spacing =5.00 Rebar Placed at =EdgeDesign Data fb/FB + fa/Fa =0.907 Total Force @ Section =10,416.0lbs Moment....Actual =51,221.5ft-# Moment.....Allowable =56,459.6 =90.8psi Shear.....Allowable =106.1psi Wall Weight =150.0psf Rebar Depth 'd'=9.56in Masonry Data f'm =psi Fs =psi Solid Grouting = Modular Ratio 'n'= Short Term Factor = Equiv. Solid Thick.= Concrete Dataf'c =5,000.0psi Fy =60,000.0 Masonry Design Method ASD= Load Factors Building Code Dead Load 0.000 Live Load 0.000 Earth, H 0.000 Wind, W 0.000 Seismic, E 0.000 psi Service Level =10,416.0lbsStrength Level Service Level Strength Level =51,221.5ft-# Service Level Strength Level =90.8psi Design Method =SD SD SD Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of soil bearing pressures. Anet (Masonry)=in2 110 Based on Section 1807.2.3 of CBC, if earthquake pressure is included, the minimum sliding factor can be 1.1, hence 1.15 > 1.1 -> Ok. Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:14ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Concrete Stem Rebar Area Details Bottom Stem Vertical Reinforcing Horizontal Reinforcing As (based on applied moment) :1.2289 in2/ft (4/3) * As :1.6385 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area 4.032 in2 3sqrt(f’c)bd/fy : 3sqrt(5000)(12)(9.5625)/60000 :0.4057 in2/ft Min Stem T&S Reinf Area per ft of stem Height : 0.288 in2/ft 0.0018bh : 0.0018(12)(12) :0.2592 in2/ft Horizontal Reinforcing Options : ============One layer of : Two layers of : Required Area :1.2289 in2/ft #4@ 8.33 in #4@ 16.67 in Provided Area :1.44 in2/ft #5@ 12.92 in #5@ 25.83 in Maximum Area :2.4384 in2/ft #6@ 18.33 in #6@ 36.67 in 2.08 11.92 24.00 Footing Torsion, Tu = = ft-lbs0.00 Min. As % Footing Allow. Torsion, phi Tu 0.0018 =ft-lbs Footing Data If torsion exceeds allowable, provide f'c 0.00 =5,000psi Toe Width =ftHeel Width = Key Distance from Toe Key Depth Key Width =in =in = 12.00 0.00 8.00 ft Footing Thickness =in 14.00= Cover @ Top =3.00 in@ Btm.=3.00 in Total Footing Width =150.00pcfFooting Concrete DensityFy =60,000 psi Footing Design Results Key: = Factored Pressure Mu' : Upward Mu' : Downward Mu: Design Actual 1-Way ShearAllow 1-Way Shear Toe: =# 4 @ 6.17 in = = = == 2,376 5,196 781 4,415 3.08106.07 Heel: 2,744 148,585 190,715 42,130 11.83106.07 HeelToe psf ft-# ft-# ft-# psipsi Heel Reinforcing =# 5 @ 5.00 in Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Key Reinforcing Toe Reinforcing =# 5 @ 5.00 in Min footing T&S reinf AreaMin footing T&S reinf Area per foot If one layer of horizontal bars: 7.260.52 #4@ 4.63 in #5@ 7.18 in#6@ 10.19 in in2in2 /ft If two layers of horizontal bars: #4@ 9.26 in #5@ 14.35 in#6@ 20.37 in supplemental design for footing torsion. phiMin 67,79767,797=ft-# 111 SE E D E S I G N O N S U B S E Q U E N T P A G E S Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:14ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments .....RESISTING..........OVERTURNING.....Force Distance Moment Distance Moment Item Force ft-#lbs ftft ft-#lbs Sloped Soil Over Heel 6,400.08.00800.0=Surcharge over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = 1,419.2 8.54 12,122.0= Adjacent Footing Load =Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem= =* Axial Live Load on Stem Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Load @ Stem Above Soil =2,048.0 = = = = =Seismic Earth Load = 5.33 10,922.8 Stem Weight(s) = 2,100.0 2.58 5,425.0 Earth @ Stem Transitions =Footing Weight = 4,200.0 7.00 29,400.0 Key Weight = 8.50 Added Lateral Load lbs =48,042.8 Vert. Component 2,275.5 14.00 31,857.6 Total = 27,876.2 231,542.5 * Axial live load NOT included in total displayed, or used for overturningresistance, but is included for soil pressure calculation. Total =R.M. =8,608.0 O.T.M. = Resisting/Overturning Ratio =4.82 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure =27,876.2 lbs If seismic is included, the OTM and sliding ratiosmay be 1.1 per section 1807.2.3 of IBC. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Sliding Resistance. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS considered in the calculation of Overturning Resistance. Soil Over HL (ab. water tbl) Soil Over HL (bel. water tbl) 17,881.5 8.54 8.54 152,737.8 152,737.8 Watre Table Buoyant Force = HL Act Pres (ab water tbl) HL Act Pres (be water tbl) 5,760.0 5.33 30,720.0 Hydrostatic Force Tilt Horizontal Deflection at Top of Wall due to settlement of soil (Deflection due to wall bending not considered) Soil Spring Reaction Modulus 170.0 pci Horizontal Defl @ Top of Wall (approximate only)0.000 in The above calculation is not valid if the heel soil bearing pressure exceeds that of the toe, because the wall would then tend to rotate into the retained soil. 112 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:14ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls Rebar Lap & Embedment Lengths Information Stem Design Segment: Bottom Stem Design Height: 0.00 ft above top of footing Lap Splice length for #7 bar specified in this stem design segment =28.96 in Development length for #7 bar specified in this stem design segment =22.27 in Hooked embedment length into footing for #7 bar specified in this stem design segment =10.39 in As Provided =1.4400 in2/ft As Required =1.2289 in2/ft 113 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:14ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 114 12"'w/#7@5" T 3• ----1. #5@So @T= I: .1 .. 2'-1" 11'-11" 14'--0" :I #5@5" @Heel Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06015021, Build:20.21.9.6 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION:14ft tall Concrete Wall EFP v3 (sliding)-v3 Project File: concrete retaining wall - 16h - 4.ec6 Project Title:ADAMS HouseEngineer:David GonzalezProject ID:238093.00Project Descr:Retaining walls 115 ,,,,_ ■ Sel!lmclateraltillhpteflUA! Stem øVc 12.171 kips øMn 56.59 k-ft/ft Ok Vc 16.228 kips As 1.443 in2/ft f'c 5000 psi spacing 5 in b 12 in bar, #7 h 12 in fy 60 ksi d 9.5625 in a 1.698 in øVn/bd 106.07 psi rho_s 0.01002 Ok rec 2 in Mu 51.2 k-ft/ft diameter_bar_horizontal 0.5 in Vu 10.42 k/ft Ok rho_s, horizontal,provided 0.00409 (shrinkage and T° - distributed between two faces)Ok spacing 8 in bar, horizontal, #4 øMcr 7.6368 k-ft/ft As 0.295 in2/ft Free space 5.250 in ldh 20.16 in Ok Ψc 0.933 in Footing Ψr 1.6 in øVc 26.331 kips øMn 67.11 k-ft/ft Ok Vc 35.108 kips As 0.736 in2/ft f'c 5000 psi spacing 5 in b 12 in bar, #5 h 24 in fy 60 ksi d 20.6875 in a 0.866 in øVn/bd 106.07 psi rho_s 0.00256 Ok rec 3 in Mu 52.2 k-ft/ft diameter_bar_horizontal 0.625 in Vu 1.80 k/ft Ok rho_s, horizontal,provided 0.00183 (shrinkage and T° - distributed between two faces)Ok spacing 14 in bar, horizontal, # 5 øMcr 30.5470 k-ft/ft As 0.263 in2/ft 116 117 Retaining wall (14 ft.) check for 2-way slab action. The 14 ft. tall retaining wall is checked for 2-way slab action between the walls of the ADU. To obtain the required strength (Mu, Vu), the wall is modeled with shells in finite element software SAP2000 to simulate the 2-way structural behavior. Flexural moments in the long direction Flexural moments in the short direction Mu,long,max = 4.64 k-ft/ft. Mu,short,max = 14.37 k-ft/ft. I --,~ ---,--,_ ,---,- ) -~ ~ ~ ~ ' J /~-• JI•· IP1 ~ ,'."I'." :=-· Pi -, n ,I ; ~ I --.. l ., ~J ~ ~ --rr•, !'.. ,~ :, l!. I I I , 0836 ii I I I• I J J :1 al 'L u I I I ::. ":! ;.. -, ~~-:: "-t' , ~ ~ "~ . ..:.. I -----1~ I 'i.:, II I I b ,s r,..:::; --... fl I L It; I ~ ·~ 11•· ' I -I \ .. ~--,---,~ -,---,--,_ -,-,--,_ ----,--,-- -J _.i, .!h .L.~L ~ ~~ Ll:&..L~ LI.!:."~ .!Li &Al i ~ ~!.\c L.~..!c.. 11.! .!I! ! ~ L ~ t ~ .L l!...Ll:...L.!.-LA ~-t.~ ~ .ili Lb. ✓h ~ • "" ~ .... 118 Shear force Vu,max = 5.82 k/ft. .... -,,. . f L ·5.133671 [ r "• ·~ . " , ' .l..L ~, i::....: i::....: t.::.. .! ..... i:. ... L.>. ... i:. .. .:.. .. 1;:._ ..i.4:i.i.L.;. .... .J..L:. ... .... . L.>..L C. £ ~· "'' ""'"' .,, .J.;._ ... ..... .l.L Lu. """' _.,:, c:. ~ "' LL..L.u 119 Flexural and shear strength - Standard Reinforced Concrete Stem lon2 vNc Ve f'c b h d 0Vn/bd rec diameter _bar _horizontal rho s, horizontal,provided spacing bar, horizontal,# As Free space m <hn.+ 0Vc Ve f'c b h d 0Vn/bd rec diameter_bar_horizontal rho s, horizontal,provided spacing bar, horizontal, # As 11.296 15.061 5000 kips kips psi n 12 I 12 I n 8.875 I n psi 106.07 2 i n 0Mn As spacing bar,# fy a rho_s Mu 11.53 k-ft/ft n2/ft 0.295 I 8 4 60 ksi n 0.346 i 0.00205 4.64 k•ft/ft Ok Ok 0.875 I Vu 5.82 n ~ Ok 0.02004 (shrinkage and r♦ • distributed between two faces) Ok 5 1 n 7 1.443 i n2/ft n 5.250 I 12.171 16.228 5000 kips kips psi 12 I n 12 i n 9.5625 I n psi 106.07 2 I n 0.5 In !0Mcr ldh l!Jc l!Jr 0Mn As spacing bar,# fy a rho s Mu Vu 7.6368!k-ft/ft 7.20 i n n n 0.933 I 1 I 56.59 k-ft/ft n2/ft n 1.443 i Si 7 60 ksl n 1.698 I 0.01002 14.37 S.82 k-ft/ft ii/ft Ok Ok Ok Ok 0.00409 (shrinkage and r· • distributed between two faces) Ok 8 1 n 4 !0Mcr 7 .636s!k-ft/ft 0.295 I "n2/ft Glass Guardrail Connection Design 120 www.hilti.com Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.91 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2024 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaan 1 Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: | Adam's House Guardrail Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: 1 3/8/2024 Specifier's comments: 1 Input data Anchor type and diameter: HIT-RE 500 V3 + HAS-V-36 (ASTM F1554 Gr.36) 1/2 Item number: not available (element) / 2123401 HIT-RE 500 V3 (adhesive) Effective embedment depth: hef,act = 10.000 in. (hef,limit = - in.) Material: ASTM F1554 Grade 36 Evaluation Service Report: ESR-3814 Issued I Valid: 1/1/2023 | 1/1/2025 Proof: Design Method ACI 318-19 / Chem Stand-off installation: eb = 0.000 in. (no stand-off); t = 0.500 in. Anchor plateR : lx x ly x t = 2.280 in. x 12.000 in. x 0.500 in.; (Recommended plate thickness: not calculated) Profile: no profile Base material: cracked concrete, 8000, fc' = 8,000 psi; h = 60.000 in., Temp. short/long: 32/32 °F Installation: hammer drilled hole, Installation condition: Dry Reinforcement: tension: not present, shear: not present; no supplemental splitting reinforcement present edge reinforcement: none or < No. 4 bar Seismic loads (cat. C, D, E, or F) Tension load: yes (17.10.5.3 (d)) Shear load: yes (17.10.6.3 (a)) R - The anchor calculation is based on a rigid anchor plate assumption. Geometry [in.] & Loading [lb, in.lb] 121 l l Design loads -Sustained loads y X www.hilti.com Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.91 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2024 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaan 2 Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: | Adam's House Guardrail Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: 2 3/8/2024 1.1 Design results Case Description Forces [lb] / Moments [in.lb]Seismic Max. Util. Anchor [%] 1 Combination 1 N = 0; Vx = 53; Vy = 0; Mx = 0; My = 2,226; Mz = 0; yes 67 Compression 1 x y2 Load case/Resulting anchor forces Anchor reactions [lb] Tension force: (+Tension, -Compression) Anchor Tension force Shear force Shear force x Shear force y 1 2,177 53 53 0 max. concrete compressive strain: 0.24 [‰] max. concrete compressive stress: 1,030 [psi] resulting tension force in (x/y)=(0.000/0.000): 0 [lb] resulting compression force in (x/y)=(2.163/6.000): 2,177 [lb] Anchor forces are calculated based on the assumption of a rigid anchor plate. 3 Tension load Load Nua [lb]Capacity f Nn [lb]Utilization bN = Nua/f Nn Status Steel Strength*2,177 6,172 36 OK Bond Strength**2,177 3,285 67 OK Sustained Tension Load Bond Strength*N/A N/A N/A N/A Concrete Breakout Failure**2,177 3,724 59 OK * highest loaded anchor **anchor group (anchors in tension) bond strength reduced to account for core drilling rather than hammer drilling (0.7 factor applied) 2,230 98 122 H ' r. I\ ~ \.: I/ ... ------ www.hilti.com Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.91 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2024 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaan 3 Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: | Adam's House Guardrail Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: 3 3/8/2024 3.1 Steel Strength Nsa = ESR value refer to ICC-ES ESR-3814 f Nsa ³ Nua ACI 318-19 Table 17.5.2 Variables Ase,N [in.2]futa [psi] 0.14 58,000 Calculations Nsa [lb] 8,230 Results Nsa [lb]f steel f Nsa [lb]Nua [lb] 8,230 0.750 6,172 2,177 123 •=iiS•• ---------------------- www.hilti.com Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.91 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2024 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaan 4 Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: | Adam's House Guardrail Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: 4 3/8/2024 3.2 Bond Strength Na = (ANa ANa0)y ed,Na y cp,Na Nba ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.5.1a) f Na ³ Nua ACI 318-19 Table 17.5.2 ANa see ACI 318-19, Section 17.6.5.1, Fig. R 17.6.5.1(b) ANa0 = (2 cNa)2 ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.5.1.2a) cNa = 10 da √t uncr 1100 ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.5.1.2b) y ed,Na = 0.7 + 0.3 (ca,mincNa)£ 1.0 ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.5.4.1b) y cp,Na = MAX(ca,min cac , cNa cac)£ 1.0 ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.5.5.1b) Nba = l a · t k,c · aN,seis · p · da · hef ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.5.2.1) Variables t k,c,uncr [psi]da [in.]hef [in.]ca,min [in.]aoverhead t k,c [psi] 3,076 0.500 10.000 3.125 1.000 1,512 cac [in.]l a aN,seis 20.680 1.000 0.930 Calculations cNa [in.]ANa [in.2]ANa0 [in.2]y ed,Na 8.324 104.05 277.14 0.813 y cp,Na Nba [lb] 1.000 22,089 Results Na [lb]f bond f seismic f nonductile f Na [lb]Nua [lb] 6,739 0.650 0.750 1.000 3,285 2,177 bond strength reduced to account for core drilling rather than hammer drilling (0.7 factor applied) 2,230 ~2210 ~880 124 •=iiS•• --------------------- --- --- www.hilti.com Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.91 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2024 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaan 5 Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: | Adam's House Guardrail Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: 5 3/8/2024 3.3 Concrete Breakout Failure Ncb = (ANc ANc0)y ed,N y c,N y cp,N Nb ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.2.1a) f Ncb ³ Nua ACI 318-19 Table 17.5.2 ANc see ACI 318-19, Section 17.6.2.1, Fig. R 17.6.2.1(b) ANc0 = 9 h2 ef ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.2.1.4) y ed,N = 0.7 + 0.3 (ca,min 1.5hef)£ 1.0 ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.2.4.1b) y cp,N = MAX(ca,mincac , 1.5hefcac)£ 1.0 ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.2.6.1b) Nb = kc l a √f' c h1.5 ef ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.2.2.1) Variables hef [in.]ca,min [in.]y c,N cac [in.]kc l a f' c [psi] 10.000 3.125 1.000 20.680 17 1.000 8,000 Calculations ANc [in.2]ANc0 [in.2]y ed,N y cp,N Nb [lb] 187.50 900.00 0.762 1.000 48,083 Results Ncb [lb]f concrete f seismic f nonductile f Ncb [lb]Nua [lb] 7,638 0.650 0.750 1.000 3,724 2,177 125 •=iiS•• ---------------------- www.hilti.com Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.91 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2024 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaan 6 Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: | Adam's House Guardrail Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: 6 3/8/2024 4 Shear load Load Vua [lb]Capacity f Vn [lb]Utilization bV = Vua/f Vn Status Steel Strength*53 1,927 3 OK Steel failure (with lever arm)*N/A N/A N/A N/A Pryout Strength (Bond Strength controls)**53 9,435 1 OK Concrete edge failure in direction x+**53 2,595 3 OK * highest loaded anchor **anchor group (relevant anchors) 4.1 Steel Strength Vsa,eq = ESR value refer to ICC-ES ESR-3814 f Vsteel ³ Vua ACI 318-19 Table 17.5.2 Variables Ase,V [in.2]futa [psi]aV,seis 0.14 58,000 0.600 Calculations Vsa,eq [lb] 2,964 Results Vsa,eq [lb]f steel f Vsa,eq [lb]Vua [lb] 2,964 0.650 1,927 53 126 •=iiS•• ---------------------- www.hilti.com Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.91 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2024 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaan 7 Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: | Adam's House Guardrail Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: 7 3/8/2024 4.2 Pryout Strength (Bond Strength controls) Vcp =kcp[(ANa ANa0)y ed,Na y cp,Na Nba] ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.7.3.1a) f Vcp ³ Vua ACI 318-19 Table 17.5.2 ANa see ACI 318-19, Section 17.6.5.1, Fig. R 17.6.5.1(b) ANa0 = (2 cNa)2 ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.5.1.2a) cNa = 10 da √t uncr 1100 ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.5.1.2b) y ed,Na = 0.7 + 0.3 (ca,mincNa)£ 1.0 ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.5.4.1b) y cp,Na = MAX(ca,min cac , cNa cac)£ 1.0 ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.5.5.1b) Nba = l a · t k,c · aN,seis · p · da · hef ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.6.5.2.1) Variables kcp aoverhead t k,c,uncr [psi]da [in.]hef [in.]ca,min [in.]t k,c [psi] 2 1.000 3,076 0.500 10.000 3.125 1,512 cac [in.]l a aN,seis 20.680 1.000 0.930 Calculations cNa [in.]ANa [in.2]ANa0 [in.2]y ed,Na 8.324 104.05 277.14 0.813 y cp,Na Nba [lb] 1.000 22,089 Results Vcp [lb]f concrete f seismic f nonductile f Vcp [lb]Vua [lb] 13,478 0.700 1.000 1.000 9,435 53 127 •=iiS•• ---------------------- www.hilti.com Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.91 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2024 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaan 8 Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: | Adam's House Guardrail Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: 8 3/8/2024 4.3 Concrete edge failure in direction x+ Vcb = (AVc AVc0)y ed,V y c,V y h,V y parallel,V Vb ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.7.2.1a) f Vcb ³ Vua ACI 318-19 Table 17.5.2 AVc see ACI 318-19, Section 17.7.2.1, Fig. R 17.7.2.1(b) AVc0 = 4.5 c2 a1 ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.7.2.1.3) y ed,V = 0.7 + 0.3(ca2 1.5ca1)£ 1.0 ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.7.2.4.1b) y h,V = √1.5ca1ha ³ 1.0 ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.7.2.6.1) Vb = (7 (leda)0.2 √da)l a √f' c c1.5 a1 ACI 318-19 Eq. (17.7.2.2.1a) Variables ca1 [in.]ca2 [in.]y c,V ha [in.]le [in.] 3.125 -1.000 60.000 4.000 l a da [in.]f' c [psi]y parallel,V 1.000 0.500 8,000 1.000 Calculations AVc [in.2]AVc0 [in.2]y ed,V y h,V Vb [lb] 43.95 43.95 1.000 1.000 3,707 Results Vcb [lb]f concrete f seismic f nonductile f Vcb [lb]Vua [lb] 3,707 0.700 1.000 1.000 2,595 53 5 Combined tension and shear loads, per ACI 318-19 section 17.8 bN bV z Utilization bN,V [%]Status 0.663 0.028 5/3 51 OK bNV = bz N + bz V <= 1 128 •=iiS•• ---------------------- www.hilti.com Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.91 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2024 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaan 9 Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: | Adam's House Guardrail Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: 9 3/8/2024 6 Warnings • The anchor design methods in PROFIS Engineering require rigid anchor plates per current regulations (AS 5216:2021, ETAG 001/Annex C, EOTA TR029 etc.). This means load re-distribution on the anchors due to elastic deformations of the anchor plate are not considered - the anchor plate is assumed to be sufficiently stiff, in order not to be deformed when subjected to the design loading. PROFIS Engineering calculates the minimum required anchor plate thickness with CBFEM to limit the stress of the anchor plate based on the assumptions explained above. The proof if the rigid anchor plate assumption is valid is not carried out by PROFIS Engineering. Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing conditions and for plausibility! • Condition A applies where the potential concrete failure surfaces are crossed by supplementary reinforcement proportioned to tie the potential concrete failure prism into the structural member. Condition B applies where such supplementary reinforcement is not provided, or where pullout or pryout strength governs. • Design Strengths of adhesive anchor systems are influenced by the cleaning method. Refer to the INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE given in the Evaluation Service Report for cleaning and installation instructions. • For additional information about ACI 318 strength design provisions, please go to https://submittals.us.hilti.com/PROFISAnchorDesignGuide/ • "An anchor design approach for structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F is given in ACI 318-19, Chapter 17, Section 17.10.5.3 (a) that requires the governing design strength of an anchor or group of anchors be limited by ductile steel failure. If this is NOT the case, the connection design (tension) shall satisfy the provisions of Section 17.10.5.3 (b), Section 17.10.5.3 (c), or Section 17.10.5.3 (d). The connection design (shear) shall satisfy the provisions of Section 17.10.6.3 (a), Section 17.10.6.3 (b), or Section 17.10.6.3 (c)." • Section 17.10.5.3 (b) / Section 17.10.6.3 (a) require the attachment the anchors are connecting to the structure be designed to undergo ductile yielding at a load level corresponding to anchor forces no greater than the controlling design strength. Section 17.10.5.3 (c) / Section 17.10.6.3 (b) waive the ductility requirements and require the anchors to be designed for the maximum tension / shear that can be transmitted to the anchors by a non-yielding attachment. Section 17.10.5.3 (d) / Section 17.10.6.3 (c) waive the ductility requirements and require the design strength of the anchors to equal or exceed the maximum tension / shear obtained from design load combinations that include E, with E increased by w0. • Installation of Hilti adhesive anchor systems shall be performed by personnel trained to install Hilti adhesive anchors. Reference ACI 318-19, Section 26.7. Fastening meets the design criteria! 129 •=iiS•• ---------------------- www.hilti.com Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.91 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2024 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaan 10 Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: | Adam's House Guardrail Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: 10 3/8/2024 Coordinates Anchor [in.] Anchor x y c-x c+x c-y c+y 1 0.000 0.000 3.125 3.125 - - 7 Installation data Anchor type and diameter: HIT-RE 500 V3 + HAS-V-36 (ASTM F1554 Gr.36) 1/2 Profile: no profile Item number: not available (element) / 2123401 HIT-RE 500 V3 (adhesive) Hole diameter in the fixture: df = 0.562 in. Maximum installation torque: 360 in.lb Plate thickness (input): 0.500 in. Hole diameter in the base material: 0.562 in. Recommended plate thickness: not calculated Hole depth in the base material: 10.000 in. Drilling method: Hammer drilled Minimum thickness of the base material: 11.250 in. Cleaning: Compressed air cleaning of the drilled hole according to instructions for use is required 1/2 Hilti HAS Carbon steel threaded rod with Hilti HIT-RE 500 V3 7.1 Recommended accessories Drilling Cleaning Setting • Suitable Rotary Hammer • Properly sized drill bit • Compressed air with required accessories to blow from the bottom of the hole • Proper diameter wire brush • Dispenser including cassette and mixer • Torque wrench 1 x y 1.1401.140 1.140 1.140 6. 0 0 0 6. 0 0 0 6. 0 0 0 6. 0 0 0 130 J l C ~ .... ~ ~ T T www.hilti.com Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.91 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2024 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaan 11 Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: | Adam's House Guardrail Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: 11 3/8/2024 8 Remarks; Your Cooperation Duties • Any and all information and data contained in the Software concern solely the use of Hilti products and are based on the principles, formulas and security regulations in accordance with Hilti's technical directions and operating, mounting and assembly instructions, etc., that must be strictly complied with by the user. All figures contained therein are average figures, and therefore use-specific tests are to be conducted prior to using the relevant Hilti product. The results of the calculations carried out by means of the Software are based essentially on the data you put in. Therefore, you bear the sole responsibility for the absence of errors, the completeness and the relevance of the data to be put in by you. Moreover, you bear sole responsibility for having the results of the calculation checked and cleared by an expert, particularly with regard to compliance with applicable norms and permits, prior to using them for your specific facility. The Software serves only as an aid to interpret norms and permits without any guarantee as to the absence of errors, the correctness and the relevance of the results or suitability for a specific application. • You must take all necessary and reasonable steps to prevent or limit damage caused by the Software. In particular, you must arrange for the regular backup of programs and data and, if applicable, carry out the updates of the Software offered by Hilti on a regular basis. If you do not use the AutoUpdate function of the Software, you must ensure that you are using the current and thus up-to-date version of the Software in each case by carrying out manual updates via the Hilti Website. Hilti will not be liable for consequences, such as the recovery of lost or damaged data or programs, arising from a culpable breach of duty by you. 131 •=iiS•• ---------------------- Appendix A Geotechnical Report 132 GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 4368 ADAMS STREET CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR Curtis Ling 3667 Adams Street CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 PREPARED BY GEOTEK, INC. 1384 POINSETTIA AVENUE, SUITE A VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92081 PROJECT NO. 3687-SD SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 133 GEOTEK September 21, 2023 Project No. 3687-SD Curtis Ling 3667 Adams Street Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Updated Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development 4368 Adams Street Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Ling: Presented herein are the results of GeoTek’s preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the subject project located at 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California. This report provides an update to the preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared by GeoTek on May 18, 2021. The update has been prepared based on City of Carlsbad geotechnical review comments dated May 23, 2023. Based upon review, planned construction appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations included herein are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call GeoTek, Inc. Respectfully submitted, GeoTek, Inc. Christopher D. Livesey CEG 2733, Exp. 05/31/25 Vice President Bruce A. Hick GE 2284, Exp. 12/31/24 Project Engineer Distribution: (1) Addressee via email 134 GeoTek, Inc. 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista, CA 92081-8505 (760) 599-0509 Oft (760) 599-0593 Fu www.geotekusa.com GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................................................. 1 2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 1 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 2 3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................. 2 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ...................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................................... 2 4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 3 4.1 REGIONAL SETTING ........................................................................................................................ 3 4.2 EARTH MATERIALS ......................................................................................................................... 3 4.2.1 Artificial Fill ....................................................................................................................................... 3 4.2.2 Old Paralic Deposits.......................................................................................................................... 4 4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................ 4 4.3.1 Surface Water .................................................................................................................................. 4 4.3.2 Groundwater .................................................................................................................................... 4 4.4 EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS ................................................................................................................ 4 4.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture ....................................................................................................................... 4 4.4.2 Liquefaction/Seismic Settlement......................................................................................................... 5 4.4.3 Other Seismic Hazards ..................................................................................................................... 5 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 5 5.1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................ 5 5.3 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................... 6 5.3.1 General ............................................................................................................................................ 6 5.3.2 Site Clearing and Preparation ............................................................................................................ 6 5.3.3 Remedial Grading ............................................................................................................................. 7 5.3.4 Engineered Fill .................................................................................................................................. 8 5.3.5 Excavation Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 8 5.3.6 Shrinkage and Bulking ...................................................................................................................... 8 5.3.7 Trench Excavations and Backfill ........................................................................................................ 8 5.4 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 9 5.4.1 Foundation Design Criteria ................................................................................................................ 9 5.4.2 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations ................................................................................... 10 5.4.3 Underslab Moisture Membrane....................................................................................................... 10 5.4.4 Foundation Set Backs...................................................................................................................... 11 5.4.5 Seismic Design Parameters ............................................................................................................. 12 5.4.6 Soil Sulfate Content ........................................................................................................................ 13 5.4.7 Exterior Concrete Slabs and Sidewalks............................................................................................. 13 5.5 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 13 5.5.1 General Retaining Wall Design Criteria ............................................................................................ 13 5.5.2 Cantilevered Retaining Walls ........................................................................................................... 14 5.5.3 Restrained (At Rest) Retaining Walls Design Criteria ........................................................................ 14 5.5.4 Seismic Induced Incremental Addition .............................................................................................. 14 5.5.5 Wall Backfill and Drainage ............................................................................................................. 15 5.6 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................... 16 5.6.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting .............................................................................................. 16 5.6.2 Drainage ........................................................................................................................................ 16 5.7 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................. 17 135GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 6. LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 17 7. SELECTED REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 19 ENCLOSURES Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Geotechnical Map Figure 3 – Geotechnical Cross Section AA Figure 4 – Geotechnical Cross Section BB Appendix A – Exploration Logs Appendix B – Results of Laboratory Testing Appendix C – General Earthwork Grading Guidelines 136GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 1 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions on the project site pertinent to the proposed improvements. Services provided for this study included the following:  Research and review of available geologic and geotechnical data, and general information pertinent to the site.  Excavation of three (3) test pits, one manual auger boring and collection of bulk soil samples for subsequent laboratory testing.  Laboratory testing of soil samples collected during the field investigation.  Preparation of this report presenting GeoTek’s findings of pertinent site geotechnical conditions and geotechnical recommendations for site development. 2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The project site located at 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California and is identified as County of San Diego assessor parcel number (APN) 206-180-11-00. The overall property is bounded to the north by open space, to the east and south by single-family residences and to the west by Adams Street. The general location of the site is indicated on Figure 1 - Site Location Map. The site is accessible via Adams Street and improved upon with a one to two story single-family residential building with a detached garage. An asphalt-concrete (AC) driveway exists along the southern property line from Adams Street to the building. Topographically, the property is in a hillside setting. A natural slope ascends from Adams Street up to a manufactured fill slope that supports the buildings. Natural slopes were visually estimated to be variable over a short distance, but overall, no steeper than 4:1 (horizontal:vertical) gradient. Manufactured fill slopes that supported the building pad were visually estimated to be no steeper than a 2:1 gradient. 137 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 2 2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on discussions with the client and a review of the project grading and improvements plans, the subject property is to be razed of existing buildings and improved with a two-story single- family house residence above a walkout basement along the west side of the building. The building will be approximately 30 feet tall with a concrete slab, perimeter and interior spread footings. Concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls are planned for the basement walls. A three-car garage, gym, storage and art room are planned for the basement level. A single-story detached ADU is proposed adjacent to Adams Street to be recessed into the hillside. A motor court and driveway along the south side of the parcel provide vehicle access to the main dwelling and ADU. Cuts are anticipated to be about five feet near the east portion of the site where CMU walls will retain elevated grades. Engineered fills on the order of twelve feet to reach design grades are anticipated predominately for building basement walls. Basement walls are planned to a maximum height of 13.5 feet. The predominate areas of fills are associated with interior basement walls for the main and ADU dwellings. Site retaining walls are anticipated to be 3 to 5 feet in height. A new fill slope along Adams Street is proposed to recontour the frontage at a maximum height of seven feet and inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Associated improvements are anticipated to consist of wet and dry utilities, vehicular pavements, and hardscape. 3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION GeoTek’s field exploration was conducted on April 16, 2021, and consisted of a site reconnaissance, excavation of three test pits, one manual soil auger boring, and collection of samples for subsequent laboratory testing. A geologist from GeoTek visually logged the excavations as described in the Exploration Logs, Appendix A. A grading plan has been provided to us and is utilized as the basis of GeoTek’s geotechnical map (Figure 2). Approximate locations of the excavations are presented on the Geotechnical Map, Figure 2. 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on the soil samples collected during the field exploration. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to evaluate pertinent physical and chemical soil properties for use in engineering design and analysis. Results of the laboratory testing program, along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures, are included in Appendix B. 138 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 3 4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS 4.1 REGIONAL SETTING The subject property is in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. It extends from the north and northeast, adjacent the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province to the top of Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California, and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province. The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks. Several major fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto Fault zones trend northwest-southeast and are found in the near the middle of the province. The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province. The Newport- Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault zone borders the southwest margin of the province. No faults are shown in the immediate site vicinity on the map reviewed for the area (Kennedy, 2007). 4.2 EARTH MATERIALS A brief description of the earth materials encountered during GeoTek’s subsurface exploration is presented in the following sections. Based on GeoTek’s previous experience in the vicinity and review of published geologic maps, the site underlain by Old Paralic Deposits and artificial fills overlying Old Paralic Deposits. 4.2.1 Artificial Fill Fill soils were encountered in Test Pit TP-3. Other areas of fills (unmapped) are also likely present on the site. Fill soils were found to be light-brown, dry, silty fine to medium sand (SM soil type based upon the Unified Soil Classification System). The upper six inches of the fill soils were found to contain abundant organics. The placement of on-site fills was geotechnically documented by M V Engineering, Inc. (MV) in a compaction report prepared on October 25, 1978. The compaction report noted the building pad was built with a fill slope along the west portion of the pad with a cut portion in the eastern portion. Remedial grading of the cut/fill transition across the building pad was not discussed in the compaction report. The compaction report did not indicate any cuts and fills for the drive approach, however, the alignment of the driveway near the center of the lot is not the location of the existing driveway along the southern property line. It also appears that fills may have been placed along the 139 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 4 northern side of the driveway to support the existing alignment and turn-about pocket. Fill thickness placed during prior grading is estimated to be a minimum of 3 feet and a maximum of 8 to 10 feet in thickness. It is anticipated that based on the proposed design the proposed improvements will be founded below existing fills. Existing fill soil may be re-used as engineered fills if properly placed as recommended in this report. 4.2.2 Old Paralic Deposits The most recent regional geologic map (Kennedy, 2007) indicates Old Paralic Deposits underlying the site. As encountered in all GeoTek’s explorations, the Old Paralic Deposits consist of reddish yellow brown, very dense silty sand (SM soil type). The regional structure of the Old Paralic Deposits is anticipated to be southwest dipping beds approximately 8 to 10 degrees. 4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER 4.3.1 Surface Water Surface water was not observed during GeoTek’s site exploration. If encountered, surface water on this site is likely the result of precipitation. Provisions for surface drainage should be addressed by the project design civil engineer. 4.3.2 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in any of GeoTek’s explorations and is not anticipated to be a factor in site development. Localized perched groundwater could be present but is also not anticipated to be a factor in site development. 4.4 EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS 4.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated mainly by northwest- trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The site is in a seismically active region. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site nor is the site situated within an “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone or a Special Studies Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). No faults are identified on the geologic maps reviewed for the immediate proximity of the study area (Kennedy, 2007). The closest active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 2.5 miles to the southwest. The Rose Canyon has a potential rupture magnitude of 6.9 Richter Scale. 140 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 5 4.4.2 Liquefaction/Seismic Settlement Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, typically produced by earthquake- induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral movement, sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but, after liquefaction has developed, the effects can propagate upward into overlying non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and grain size, relative density, groundwater level, confining pressures, and both intensity and duration of ground shaking. In general, materials that are susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated granular soils having low fines content under low confining pressures. The liquefaction potential and seismic settlement potential on this site are considered negligible, due to the generally dense nature of old paralic deposits and absence of a shallow groundwater table underlying the site. 4.4.3 Other Seismic Hazards Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities was not observed during GeoTek’s study nor indicated on regional geologic maps that underly the site. Thus, the potential for landslides is considered negligible. The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as seiche and tsunami is considered to be remote due to site elevation and distance from an open body of water, as confirmed by the ASCE Tsunami Hazard Tool. 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Planned construction appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations are incorporated in the design and construction phases of the development. The following sections present general recommendations for currently anticipated site development plans. Recommendations contained herein are based on the currently applicable 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and City of Carlsbad guidelines. 141 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 6 Provided that GeoTek’s recommendations are implemented during grading and construction of the improvements presented on Figure 2, the proposed improvements will not adversely affect the adjacent properties. The existing and proposed slopes are considered to be grossly and surficially stable to a maximum height of 20 feet and at an inclination no steeper than 2:1. For new slopes higher than 20 feet or slopes steeper than a 2:1, GeoTek should be contacted for further analysis. 5.2 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE GRADING PLAN The grading plan prepared by Christiansen Engineering & Surveying was reviewed. The purpose of this review was to form an opinion as to the geotechnical suitability of the plans to support the proposed improvements and for inclusion of geotechnical design parameters provided herein. GeoTek has reviewed Sheet 7 of the plans and the notes and details on Sheet 1 prepared by Christiansen Engineering & Surveying. Based on review, It is GeoTek’s opinion that the plans have been prepared in substantial conformance with the geotechnical recommendations contained in this report. GeoTek makes no representation as to the accuracy of dimensions, calculations, or structural design provided on the referenced plan. 5.3 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 General Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable grading ordinances of the City of Carlsbad, the 2022 CBC, and recommendations contained in this report. The Grading Guidelines included in Appendix C outline general procedures and do not anticipate all site-specific situations. In the event of conflict, the recommendations presented in the text of this report should supersede those contained in Appendix C. 5.3.2 Site Clearing and Preparation Site preparation should start with demolition and removal of existing structures and improvements (utilities, slabs, foundations, etc.) in conflict with the proposed improvements and removal of deleterious materials (e.g., vegetation). These materials should be properly disposed of offsite. Any existing underground improvements, e.g., footings, utilities and trench backfill, should also be removed, rerouted as appropriate, or be further evaluated as part of site development operations. Areas cleared of deleterious materials and are below proposed pad grades should have the upper 6-inches reprocessed by scarification, moisture conditioned, and 142 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 7 compacted in accordance with recommendations presented in Section 5.2.4 Engineered Fill prior to placement of any new fill. 5.3.3 Remedial Grading Remedial grading recommendations are provided based on specific locations by GeoTek’s explorations. At a minimum all previously placed site fills should be removed and replaced with engineered fills. It is anticipated that 8 to 10 feet of previously placed fills underlay the site. The fills are anticipated to be predominately underlaying the existing building pad and descending slope of the building pad. Old Paralic Deposits that exhibit loose, weathered, and potentially compressible properties, should be removed and replaced as engineered fill. It is anticipated that the upper 2 to 3 feet of Old Paralic Deposits are unsuitable to support settlement sensitive improvements, such as hardscape/flatwork and driveways. It should be anticipated that remedial grading extends to the property line where feasible. GeoTek’s explorations were backfilled and compacted by walking the equipment over the surface. Test pit backfill should be removed and replaced with compacted fill in accordance with Section 5.3.4 presented in this report. The intent of the recommended remedial grading is to support the improvements on either Old Paralic Deposits or engineered fill with relatively uniform engineering characteristics in order to decrease the potential for differential settlement. Based on the conceptual plan, both the primary residence and ADU foundations may be excavated into competent Old Paralic Deposits soil. If upon observations of previous site fills a cut-fill transition spans the building footprint, or Old Paralic Deposits are found to be weathered to an unsuitable consistency, additional remedial grading will be required. Grading cuts and fills in a hillside setting typically result in a portion of the building pad as engineered fill and a portion of the building pad as natural cut material. Improvements spanning cut/fill transitions are not desired. As such, the cut portion of the building pad should be over- excavated a minimum of three feet below the base of the proposed foundations and extend laterally five feet beyond structural improvements. The remedial excavation bottoms should be observed by a GeoTek representative prior to scarification. The bottom of all removals should be scarified to a minimum depth of six (6) inches, brought to at or above optimum moisture content, and then compacted to minimum project standards prior to fill placement. The resultant voids from remedial grading/over-excavation should be filled with materials placed in general accordance with Section 5.2.4 Engineered Fill of this report. 143 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 8 5.3.4 Engineered Fill Onsite materials are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided, they are free from excessive vegetation, roots, debris, and rock/concrete or hard lumps greater than six (6) inches in maximum dimension. The earthwork contractor should have the proposed excavated materials to be used as engineered fill at this project reviewed by the soils engineer prior to placement. Engineered fill materials should be moisture conditioned to at or above optimum moisture content and compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inch in loose thickness to a minimum relative compaction of 90% as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557 test procedures. 5.3.5 Excavation Characteristics Excavations in the onsite fill materials should generally be accomplished with medium to heavy- duty earthmoving or excavating equipment in good operating condition at least to the depths explored. In consideration of the loose fills and weathered paralic deposits, the site soils are considered to be Type C. Excavations in more competent material may be considered Type B soils. Excavations per Cal-OHHA guidelines should conform to current Cal-OSHA guidelines. Localized friable material may be encountered and excavations practices may need to be adjusted based on actual conditions exposed. 5.3.6 Shrinkage and Bulking Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including the bulking of the Old Paralic Deposits, possible shrinkage of undocumented fill, trench spoil from utilities and footing excavations, as well as the accuracy of topography. Due to the extent of currently proposed work, effects of shrinking and bulking are anticipated to be minimal. 5.3.7 Trench Excavations and Backfill Temporary excavations within the onsite materials should be stable at 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) gradients for short durations during construction, and where cuts do not exceed 10 feet in height. Temporary cuts to a maximum height of 4 feet can be excavated vertically. Trench excavations should conform to Cal-OSHA regulations. The contractor should have a competent person, per OSHA requirements, on site during construction to observe conditions and to make the appropriate recommendations. Utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction of the maximum dry density as determined per ASTM D 1557. Under-slab trench excavation backfill should also be compacted to project specifications. 144 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 9 Compaction should be achieved with a mechanical compaction device. Ponding or jetting of trench backfill is not recommended. If backfill soils have dried out, they should be properly moisture conditioned prior to placement in trenches. 5.4 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 5.4.1 Foundation Design Criteria Foundation design criteria presented herein are for foundations that will bear upon engineered fill or Old Paralic Deposits soils prepared in accordance to Section 5.2.3 Remedial Grading and are in general conformance with the 2022 CBC. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer. Based on the materials onsite encountered and as verified by laboratory testing, foundation bearing soils are anticipated to have a “very low” (EI≤20) expansion index per ASTM D4829. The following criteria is presented for the design of the project’s building foundations. MINIMUM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENTIONALLY REINFORCED FOUNDATIONS SUPPORTED ON ENGINEERED FILL DESIGN PARAMETER “Very Low” Expansion Index (EI≤20) Foundation Embedment Depth or Minimum Perimeter Beam Depth (inches below lowest adjacent finished grade) Single Story – 12 inches Two-Story - 18 inches Minimum Foundation Width for Continuous Footings * Single Story – 15 inches Two story - 15 inches Minimum Foundation Width for Isolated Footings * Single Story – 24 inches Square Two Story – 24 inches Square Minimum Slab Thickness (actual) 4 inches Minimum Slab Reinforcing No. 3 rebar 24” on-center, each way, placed in the middle one-third of the slab thickness Minimum Footing Reinforcement Two No. 4 Reinforcing Bars, one (1) top and one (1) bottom Presaturation of Subgrade Soil (percent of optimum moisture content) Minimum 100% to a depth of 12 inches *Code minimums per Table 1809.7 of the 2022 CBC should be complied with. It should be noted that the above recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only. The structural engineer should design the slab and foundation reinforcement based on actual loading conditions. The following recommendations should be implemented into the design and are independent of remedial grading selection: 145 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 10  An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of continuous and isolated footings that meet the depth and width requirements in the table above. This value may be increased by 500 psf for each additional 12 inches in depth and 300 psf for each additional 12 inches in width to a maximum value of 3,500 psf. Additionally, an increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g., seismic or wind loads).  Based on GeoTek’s experience in the area, structural foundations may be designed in accordance with 2022 CBC, and to withstand a total settlement of 1 inch and maximum differential settlement of one-half of the total settlement over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. These values assume that seismic settlement potential is not a significant constraint.  The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 200 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,000 psf for footings founded on engineered fill. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third.  A grade beam, a minimum of 12 inches wide and 18 inches deep, should be utilized across large entrances, however, the base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings. 5.4.2 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations  To reduce moisture penetration beneath the slab on grade areas, utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted engineered fill, lean concrete, or concrete slurry where they intercept the perimeter footing or thickened slab edge.  Spoils from the footing excavations should not be placed in the slab-on-grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. The excavations should be free of loose/sloughed materials and be neatly trimmed at the time of concrete placement. 5.4.3 Underslab Moisture Membrane A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below slabs-on-grade where moisture migration through the slab is undesirable. Guidelines for these are provided in the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.505.2 and the 2022 CBC Section 1907.1 146 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 11 It should be realized that the effectiveness of the vapor retarding membrane can be adversely impacted as a result of construction related punctures (e.g., stake penetrations, tears, punctures from walking on the vapor retarder placed atop the underlying aggregate layer, etc.). These occurrences should be limited as much as possible during construction. Thicker membranes are generally more resistant to accidental puncture that thinner ones. Products specifically designed for use as moisture/vapor retarders may also be more puncture resistant. Moisture and vapor retarding systems are intended to provide a certain level of resistance to vapor and moisture transmission through the concrete, but do not eliminate it. The acceptable level of moisture transmission through the slab is to a large extent based on the type of flooring used and environmental conditions. Ultimately, the vapor retarding system should be comprised of suitable elements to limit migration of water and reduce transmission of water vapor through the slab to acceptable levels. The selected elements should have suitable properties (i.e., thickness, composition, strength, and permeability) to achieve the desired performance level. Moisture retarders can reduce, but not eliminate, moisture vapor rise from the underlying soils up through the slab. Moisture retarder systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, Post- Tensioning Concrete Institute, ASTM and California Building Code requirements and guidelines. GeoTek does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission evaluation/migration since that practice is not a geotechnical discipline. Therefore, it is recommended that a qualified person, such as the flooring contractor, structural engineer, architect, and/or other experts specializing in moisture control within the building be consulted to evaluate the general and specific moisture and vapor transmission paths and associated potential impact on the proposed construction. That person (or persons) should provide recommendations relative to the slab moisture and vapor retarder systems and for migration of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structures, as deemed appropriate. In addition, the recommendations in this report and GeoTek’s services in general are not intended to address mold prevention; since we, along with geotechnical consultants in general, do not practice in mold prevention. If specific recommendations addressing potential mold issues are desired, then a professional mold prevention consultant should be contacted. 5.4.4 Foundation Set Backs Where applicable, the following setbacks should apply to all foundations. Any improvements not conforming to these setbacks may be subject to lateral movements and/or differential settlements: 147 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 12  The outside bottom edge of all footings should be set back a minimum of H/3 (where H is the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The setback should be at least 7 feet and need not exceed 40 feet.  The outside bottom edge of all footings should be set back a minimum of H/2 (where H is the slope height) from the face of any ascending slope. The setback need not exceed 15 feet.  The bottom of all footings for structures near retaining walls should be deepened to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall footing.  The bottom of any existing foundations for structures should be deepened so as extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom of the nearest excavation (e.g., utility trenches). 5.4.5 Seismic Design Parameters The site is located at approximately 33.1475˚ Latitude and -117.3289˚ Longitude. Site spectral accelerations (Ss and S1), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods for a risk targeted two (2) percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (MCER) were determined using the web interface provided by SEAOC/OSHPD (https://seismicmaps.org) to access the USGS Seismic Design Parameters. Based upon the density of the Old Paralic Deposits underlying the site, a Site Class “D” is considered appropriate for this site. SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.2g Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.38g Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral Response Acceleration for 0.2 Second, SMS 1.43g Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral Response Acceleration for 1.0 Second, SM1 0.96g 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 0.2 Second, SDS 0.96g 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1 second, SD1 0.64g Seismic Category D 148 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 13 5.4.6 Soil Sulfate Content The sulfate content was determined in the laboratory for a soil sample collected during the field investigation. The results indicate that the water-soluble sulfate is less than 0.1 percent by weight (0.0034), which is considered “S0” as per Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-14, as such no special recommendations for concrete are required for this project due to soil sulfate exposure. 5.4.7 Exterior Concrete Slabs and Sidewalks Exterior concrete slabs, sidewalks and driveways should be designed using a four-inch minimum thickness with 6” x 6” – W1.4/W1.4 welded wire fabric, placed in the middle of slab. It is recommended that control joints be placed in two directions spaced the numeric equivalent roughly 24 times the thickness of the slab in inches (e.g., a 4-inch slab would have control joints at 96 inch [8 feet] centers). These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks and should be reviewed by the project structural engineer. Some shrinkage and cracking of the concrete should be anticipated because of typical mix designs and curing practices typically utilized in construction. Presaturation of flatwork subgrade should be verified to be a minimum of 100% of the soils optimum moisture to a depth of 12 inches for soils having a “very low” expansive index potential. 5.5 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 5.5.1 General Retaining Wall Design Criteria Recommendations presented herein may apply to typical masonry or concrete vertical retaining walls to a maximum height of 13.5 feet. Additional review and recommendations should be requested for higher walls. Retaining wall foundations embedded a minimum of 18 inches into engineered fill or dense formational materials and 12 inches wide, should be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. This value may be increased by 500 psf for each additional 12 inches in depth and 300 psf for each additional 12 inches in width to a maximum value of 4,500 psf. An increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g., seismic or wind loads). The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 200 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,000 psf. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 149 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 14 5.5.2 Cantilevered Retaining Walls A cantilevered retaining wall has to translate laterally to reach full passive pressure/resistance. At 0.5% strain, ½ the passive pressure is mobilized, and at 2% strain the full passive pressure is mobilized. For a 12-inch embedment this can be 0.25 inches. In addition, wall rotation is expected to reach an active design state. This rotation, at a minimum, needs to undergo 0.5% strain and walls are often considered to rotate between 0.005 to 0.02 times their height, dependent upon the soil condition, with no adverse structural effects expected. In our opinion, a value of 0.01 times the height of the wall is a maximum rotation that should typically be expected. For a 13.5- foot-high wall this amounts to 1.6 inches of movement that can occur at the top of the wall. Walls should be expected to translate/move/rotate, and the higher the wall the more movement that should be expected. For cantilevered walls, an equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal active pressure against the wall. The appropriate fluid unit weights are given in the table below for specific slope gradients of retained materials. Surface Slope of Retained Materials (H:V) Equivalent Fluid Pressure (PCF) Select Backfill* Level 45 2:1 60 *Select backfill should consist of imported sand other approved materials with an SE>30 and an EI<20. The above equivalent fluid weights do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as expansive soil, vehicular traffic, structures, seismic conditions, or adverse geologic conditions. 5.5.3 Restrained (At Rest) Retaining Walls Design Criteria Any retaining wall that will be restrained prior to placing backfill or walls that have male or reentrant corners should be designed for at-rest soil conditions using an equivalent fluid pressure of 65 pcf (select backfill), plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas having male or reentrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance equal to twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner, or as otherwise determined by the structural engineer. 5.5.4 Seismic Induced Incremental Addition of wall) for cantilever walls. This force can be assumed to act at a distance of 0.3H above the base of the wall, where “H” is the height of the retaining wall measured from the base of the Additional lateral forces can be induced on retaining walls during an earthquake. For level backfill and a Site Class “D”, the minimum earthquake-induced force (Feq) should be 16H (lbs/linear foot 150 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 15 footing (in feet). The 2022 CBC only requires the additional earthquake induced lateral force be considered on retaining walls more than six (6) feet in height; however, the additional force may be applied in design of lesser walls at the discretion of the wall designer. 5.5.5 Wall Backfill and Drainage Wall backfill should include a minimum one (1) foot wide section of ¾ to 1-inch clean crushed rock (or approved equivalent). The rock should be wrapped in Mirafi 140N or an approved equivalent and placed immediately along the back of wall and extend up from the backdrain to within approximately 12 inches of finish grade. The upper 12 inches should consist of compacted onsite materials. Alternatively, a manufactured wall drainage product (example: Mira Drain 6000) may be used for wall drainage. Any such product should be installed in conformance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. If the walls are designed using the “select” backfill design parameters, then the “select” materials shall be placed within the active zone as defined by a 1:1 (H:V) projection from the back of the retaining wall footing up to the retained surface behind the wall. Presence of other materials might necessitate revision to the parameters provided and modification of wall designs. The backfill materials should be placed in lifts no greater than eight (8) inches in thickness and compacted at 90% relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. Proper surface drainage needs to be provided and maintained. Water should not be allowed to pond behind retaining walls. Waterproofing of site walls should be performed where moisture migration through the wall is undesirable. Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressures to develop. A 4-inch diameter perforated collector pipe (Schedule 40 PVC, or approved equivalent) in a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot of 3/8 to one-inch clean crushed rock or equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric should be placed near the bottom of the backfill and be directed (via a solid outlet pipe) to an appropriate disposal area. Maximum horizontal spacing between drain outlets should be 100 feet. Walls from two (2) to four (4) feet in height may be drained using localized gravel packs behind weep holes at 10 feet maximum spacing (e.g., approximately 1.5 cubic feet of gravel in a woven plastic bag). Weep holes should be provided, or the head joints omitted in the first course of block extended above the ground surface. However, nuisance water may still collect in front of the wall. Drain outlets should be maintained over the life of the project and should not be obstructed or plugged by adjacent improvements. 151 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 16 5.6 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 5.6.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Controlling surface drainage and runoff and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover can limit erosion. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep-rooted types that require little water and can survive the prevailing climate. Overwatering should be avoided. The soils should be maintained in a solid to semi-solid state as defined by the materials Atterberg Limits. Care should be taken when adding soil amendments to avoid excessive watering. Leaching as a method of soil preparation prior to planting is not recommended. An abatement program to control ground-burrowing rodents should be implemented and maintained. This is critical as burrowing rodents can decreased the long-term performance of slopes. It is common for planting to be placed adjacent to structures in planter or lawn areas. This will result in the introduction of water into the ground adjacent to the foundation. This type of landscaping should be avoided. If used, then extreme care should be exercised regarding the irrigation and drainage in these areas. Waterproofing of the foundation and/or subdrains may be warranted and advisable. We could discuss these issues, if desired, when plans are made available. 5.6.2 Drainage The need to maintain proper surface drainage and subsurface systems cannot be overly emphasized. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond or seep into the ground adjacent to the footings. Site drainage should conform to Section 1804.4 of the 2022 CBC. Roof gutters and downspouts should discharge onto paved surfaces sloping away from the structure or into a closed pipe system which outfalls to the street gutter pan or directly to the storm drain system. Pad drainage should be directed toward approved areas and not be blocked by other improvements. It is the owner’s responsibility to maintain and clean drainage devices on or contiguous to their lot. In order to be effective, maintenance should be conducted on a regular and routine schedule and necessary corrections made prior to each rainy season. 152 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 17 5.7 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS It is recommended that changes to site grading, specifications, and any retaining wall/shoring plans and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. Additional recommendations may be necessary based on these reviews. It is also recommended that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading and foundation construction to check for proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. The owner/developer should have GeoTek’s representative perform at least the following duties:  Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of unsuitable materials.  Observe and test bottom of removals prior to fill placement.  Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement and collect soil samples for laboratory testing when necessary.  Observe the fill for uniformity during placement including utility trenches.  Observe and test the fill for field density and relative compaction.  Observe and probe foundation excavations to confirm suitability of bearing materials.  Observe retaining wall subdrains and backfill compaction.  Subgrade for hardscape.  Temporary excavations. If requested, a construction observation and compaction report can be provided by GeoTek, which can comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project. It is recommended that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained. 6. LIMITATIONS The scope of GeoTek’s evaluation is limited to the area explored shown on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2). This evaluation does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of proposed construction as indicated to us by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on GeoTek’s understanding of the project and the client’s needs, GeoTek’s proposal (Proposal No. P-0400221-SD) dated April 6, 2021 and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region. 153 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 18 The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops, or conditions exposed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GeoTek, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others. Since the recommendations contained in this report are based on the site conditions observed and encountered, and laboratory testing, GeoTek’s conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. 154 GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page 19 7. SELECTED REFERENCES American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2016, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,” ASCE/SEI 7-16. ____ , ASCE Tsunami Hazard Tool, 2018, ASCE Tsunami Design Geodatabase Version 2016-1.0, updated March 3, 2018, accessed February 1, 2021 at https://asce7tusnami.online/ ASTM International (ASTM), “ASTM Volumes 4.08 and 4.09 Soil and Rock.” Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, "Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps," California Geological Survey: Special Publication 42. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2022 “California Building Code,” 2 volumes. California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly referred to as the California Division of Mines and Geology), 1977, “Geologic Map of California.” ____, 1998, “Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada,” International Conference of Building Officials. Christensen Engineering & Surveying, 2023, undated, ”Grading Plan, Adams Residence”, 7 sheets. GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information. Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2007, “Geologic Map of the San Diego 30x60-minute Quadrangle, California,” California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 2, map scale 1:100,000. MV Engineering, Inc., 2023, 1978, ”Compaction Report for 4368 Adams Avenue, Carlsbad”, job number 1286-78, dated October 25. Structural Engineers Association of California/California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (SEOC/OSHPD), 2020, Seismic Design Maps web interface, accessed at https://seismicmaps.org. 155 GEOTEK Curtis Ling 4368 Adams Street Carlsbad, California 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista, California 92081 Figure 1 Site Location Map N Not to Scale Approximate Site Location Imagery from USGS The National Map, 2021 PN: 3687-SD DATE: September 2023 156 GEOTEK 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista, California 92081 Curtis Ling 4368 Adams Street Carlsbad, California PN: 3687-SD September 2023 Figure 2 Geotechnical Map B-1 TP-1 TP-2 TP-3 Af Qop Qop Qop EXPLANATION A A’ B B’ Approximate Limits of this Report and Remedial Grading TP-3 Approximate Location of Test Pit B-1 Approximate Location of Exploration Boring Af Artificial Fill Qop Old Paralic Deposits, Circled Where Buried Approximate Geologic Contact Line Dashed Where Uncertain B B’ Geotechnical Cross Section Qop 157 0 - - - - i i 0 I I I I / " l ---/ I --...,. I I \ I I \ I I \ I I \ I I \ ~ I I \ I I ~ I I I I '._, I I I \ I I I \ I I I \ I \ t. I I t. I I t. I I I I I I I I I I I / I I f I I I I I I I I '--, ~ : I I I I I I I \ ', I \ \ ' I \ ' \ / I I ,\)..," I I I I I / I I I I I I I I fr/ I I ., I 1,1 / / / I I I I ~ I I I I I I I / I I I I I I I I I I I I I / I I I I I / I I I I -,11,_;; I 1'-.. I I -1, "> I ",I I I f , 1/ ,,,, ,, / ~I. '§ ,.r1 • r ~; ¥' 1t' 1'v 1 J'., I 1! / i t ~ I t / ) I .,.. .... -' 1 I / ,,,... \ f / /~! ,._ I / I i , I : r ~ I" t ; I I § 1 1 1 1 1 1 j; c., "> \ ,-.._✓1 / ,-I ~ . I _,.,,, / 1-., \ ,,,_, ' \ / .,.. / .,..,, -CJ I / / ' \ / / -I -' I "<°'., --;;~.,.,., I \, / I \ I I \ / I I I / :>c \ I \ I I I I \ \ I I I \ \ \ \ 3: -.,.. / / .,.. / .,.. ,,., I I I 3: I I I , SCALE: 1" 10 20 ., -"\ al' --"' I I 76?3'07'E<R) I I I \ "' I ' 10' JO 40 - - - I \ \ \ \ I \ \ I I I "' ' I I I \ I I I \ I I I I I ' \ I I \ ' I I /J I ,,,, ,, J I I I j I / I ' I I I /1 I .,, 1/1l clf/ll \ /'''/1/1 1 -... ~1 1 1 l /1I ''Jf:/1:1 I I I f /,'1 l / I / I I I J I I / / / ' I I I If I I I l I 1'11/t I I I I I I I I I / I I I / / 1/ I I • I ) I . ½ \ I \..---• -\ ' I @ , / I ' \ I I I I ~ I I \ I ~ \ I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I /@ I I / / I I I / / I I I I / I -/-J \ I \ I I j I I I\ I 1 r I I I I I I r\--+ I I I I 1 \1 _1;...-~ ! i ! ( I ~ I I 1 1 r 1 I I \ I I I I I 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I I I J I I I I I I I 99.5 8W I I I I I I I ! NO'/f: CCNSTRUCllON NOTrS + ORAJN DATA CAN 8E FOIJND ON SIICET 2. ! ' \ I I \ I \ \ ' !Norr: ALJ. EXISllNG ONSITr STRUCTURES IIIU BE DfJIOUSHED EXCEPT EXISnNG DRll'EWA rj UNAU'flfORIZED CHANCES 4c USES CAU nON: TM u,g;,,.., pr,pctin9 /Iles, p/0/lS •ill not be mpcnsl>I• for, « lioblt! fo,, unc:uth«ized chon~ to or vs~ of th~ plans.. Ail dlong~ to the plans must be in writir,9 CfJd must be approved by the prepore, of th .. o plans. \ l I I I l \ \ I I I \ I '\ I I I uA, .. \ 0 \ I / l~ITIAL. ENGINED! Of WORK ' I I / m ----- . ,. , l -----109.6 FS I /}\ / I PARCEL l 109.6FS REVISION DESCRIPTION l I 1 ¥1---l 12 11 I l -11_ l DATE INITIAL OlllER APPROVAL. LINE DATE \ II 06 i ~ I ! L , 1 I I r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / I I I ,NO. 1~156 1PARCEl..2 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ 112.0lW 108.58W ' 112.DlW 108.SBW I 113.61W D7 /4 r l I I I I lOBABW PM NO. 16069 INtTIAL i l PARCEL B,' I ~~ETI GRADING GR ~~\ I 8 \ a · I e l ~ / J -- --I ,.. / I / I I ( I \ I l ' I I ' \ I I ; \ I I \ I l ) \ J \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / I I I / / I \ I I l \ \ I I I "AS BUILT" RCE EXP. REVI EWED BY: INSPECTOR CITY OF CARLSBAD EIIGINEERIIIG DEPARTMENT PLAN FOR: ADAMS RESIDENCE GRADING PLAN PUO I l I I I I I I I I \ \ I I J ) I I I ' I I I I I DATE DATE \ \ I I I m APPROvf:D: 'l!A'SON S. GELDERT ENQNEERING t.lANAC£R Ra: 6:1912 ExPIR!:S ? /?! /'!? DATE OWN BY; PROJECT NO. CHKD BY: CIITY APPROVAL. RV'wll BY; I IIDRA~NG NO.I JI/ 2022-01 GEOTEK El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e S e a L e v e l ) Adams Street PN: 3687-SD Figure 3 Cross Section A-A’ September 2023 El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e S e a L e v e l ) 158 >I I 10 1 JO(f. ( --~ 60' 7o' 6o' C J..O p l1 ?. I = ::,0 L u .. L. I , IZb II 0 1 00 I 0 I 00 I 0 I 60 1 El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e S e a L e v e l ) Adams Street PN: 3687-SD Figure 4 Cross Section B-B’ September 2023 El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e S e a L e v e l ) 159 8 E n.o' uo' 1e,e1' qg' &' oP 60' ,,._p, rt) ~ _J / --OD 0 . ''= w., IC 'L-4,_ 0 / I I I /CJO, -o' 70' o' APPENDIX A EXPLORATION LOGS 160GEOTEK GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH BB-1 SM ---Small Bulk ---Water Table DRILL METHOD:Backhoe DRILLER:JES EngineeringCurtis LingCLIENT: 4368 Adams St.PROJECT NAME: MSB Pedro LOGGED BY: OPERATOR: ELEVATION:85' HAMMER:-3687-SD Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO.: LOCATION: 310P John Deere 4/16/2021 RIG TYPE: DATE: Oth e r s MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS SAMPLES US C S S y m b o l Laboratory Testing De p t h ( f t ) Sa m p l e T y p e Blo w s / 6 i n Sa m p l e Nu m b e r Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Wa t e r C o n t e n t (% ) TRENCH NO.: T-1 Old Paralic Deposits Silty SAND, light reddish brown, dry, loose, many roots in upper 6 in. Weathered Fine to coarse SAND, red brown, dry, dense Silty fine to medium SAND, light reddish brown, slightly damp, dense, increased density, backhoe struggles 5 Backfilled with excavation cuttings Silty SAND, yellow-brown with red, dry, very dense, bucket chatters, refusal EXCAVATION TERMINATED AT 3 FEET 2.5 Practical Refusal @ 3 feet No groundwater encoutered 7.5 10 12.5 AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R-Value Test SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test CO = Consolidation test MD = Maximum Density 15 LE G E N D Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk Lab testing: 161 --I ------\ --- -"-.. ------------------------------------------------• I [2J [g] ~ GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH BB-1 SM ---Small Bulk ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R-Value Test SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test CO = Consolidation test MD = Maximum Density 15 LE G E N D Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk Lab testing: 12.5 10 7.5 EXCAVATION TERMINATED AT 5 FEET Practical Refusal @ 5 feet No groundwater encoutered Backfilled with excavation cuttings 5 Fine to coarse SAND with clay, reddish yellow-brown, very dense, caliche Silty fine to medium SAND with clay, brown, dry, dense, increased density, backhoe struggles 2.5 Old Paralic Deposits Silty SAND, light brown, dry, loose, many roots in the upper 6 inches Weathered Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Oth e r s MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS SAMPLES US C S S y m b o l TRENCH NO.: T-2 Laboratory Testing De p t h ( f t ) Sa m p l e T y p e Blo w s / 6 i n Sa m p l e Nu m b e r Wa t e r C o n t e n t (% ) LOCATION:Carlsbad, California ELEVATION:93'DATE:4/16/2021 PROJECT NO.:3687-SD HAMMER:-RIG TYPE:310P John Deere PROJECT NAME:4368 Adams St.DRILL METHOD:Backhoe w/drive supply OPERATOR:Pedro CLIENT:Curtis Ling DRILLER:JES Engineering LOGGED BY:MSB 162 ------------------- ----------------------------------------• I [2] ~ ¥- GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH SM 10 R1 SM 12 SM ---Small Bulk ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R-Value Test SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test CO = Consolidation test MD = Maximum Density 15 LE G E N D Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk Lab testing: 12.5 10 Backfilled with excavation cuttings 7.5 EXCAVATION TERMINATED AT 5 FEET Practical Refusal @ 5 feet No groundwater encoutered 5 Bucket chatters, refusal Silty SAND, white, dry, very dense, cemented sandstone fragments backhoe struggles Old Paralics 2.5 Artifical Fill Silty SAND, light brown, dry, loose, many roots in upper 6 inches Silty fine to medium SAND, dry, medium dense Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Oth e r s MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS SAMPLES US C S S y m b o l TRENCH NO.: T-3 Laboratory Testing De p t h ( f t ) Sa m p l e T y p e Blo w s / 6 i n Sa m p l e Nu m b e r Wa t e r C o n t e n t (% ) LOCATION:Carlsbad, California ELEVATION:99'DATE:4/16/2021 PROJECT NO.:3687-SD HAMMER:-RIG TYPE:310P John Deere PROJECT NAME:4368 Adams St.DRILL METHOD:Backhoe w/drive supply OPERATOR:Pedro CLIENT:Curtis Ling DRILLER:JES Engineering LOGGED BY:MSB 163 ------- --- ---- ----------------------------------------• I [2J [g] ~ GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH SM ---Small Bulk ---Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R-Value Test SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test CO = Consolidation test MD = Maximum Density 15 LE G E N D Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk Lab testing: 12.5 10 7.5 5 Backfilled with cuttings BORING TERMINATED AT 1 FOOT 2.5 Practical Refusal @ 1 foot No groundwater encoutered Old Paralics Silty fine to medium SAND, brown, moist, loose Fine to coarse SAND, white, moist, medium dense, poorly graded, porous Refusal Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Oth e r s MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS SAMPLES US C S S y m b o l Boring NO.: B-1 Laboratory Testing De p t h ( f t ) Sa m p l e T y p e Blo w s / 6 i n Sa m p l e Nu m b e r Wa t e r C o n t e n t (% ) LOCATION:Carlsbad, California ELEVATION:109'DATE:4/16/2021 PROJECT NO.:3687-SD HAMMER:-RIG TYPE: PROJECT NAME:4368 Adams St.DRILL METHOD:Manual Auger OPERATOR: CLIENT:Curtis Ling DRILLER:LOGGED BY:MSB 164 --- -"' --------------------------------------------------------• I [2J [g] ~ APPENDIX B RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING 165GEOTEK CURTIS LING Project No. 3687-SD Updated Geotechnical Evaluation September 21, 2023 4368 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Page B1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING Identification and Classification Soils were identified visually in general accordance with the procedures of the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (ASTM D2488). The soil identifications and classifications are shown on the test pit logs in Appendix A. Moisture-Density Relationship Laboratory testing was performed on a soil sample collected during the subsurface exploration. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 1557 test procedures. The results of the testing are presented in Appendix B. Expansion Index Expansion Index testing was performed on a representative site soil sample. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 4829. The results of the testing are presented in Appendix B. Shear Strength Shear strength of remolded (compacted) site material was evaluated in general conformance with ASTM Test Method D 3080. The sample was remolded to approximately 90% of maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D 1557 test procedure. Results are presented in Appendix B. Sulfate Content The sulfate content of a representable site soil sample was determined by GeoTek’s subconsultant, Project X, in general accordance with ASTM D 4327. The results of the testing are provided in Appendix B. 166GEOTEK MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Client:Curtis Ling Job No.:3687-SD Project:4368 Adams St.Lab No.:3580 Location:Carlsbad, California Material Type:Reddish Brown Silty Fine Sand Material Supplier:- Material Source:0 Sample Location:Composite of T1 & T2 (BB-1) - Sampled By:MSB Date Sampled:4/16/2021 Received By:SE Date Received:4/16/2021 Tested By:SE Date Tested:4/20/2021 Reviewed By:-Date Reviewed:- Test Procedure:ASTM D1557 Method:A Oversized Material (%):0.0 Correction Required: yes x no MOISTURE CONTENT (%):10.5802 8.623693 6.509703 4.537164 10.5802 8.623693 6.509703 4.537164 DRY DENSITY (pcf):125.7797 129.7274 125.8503 122.8799 ORRECTED DRY DENSITY (pcf):#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY (pcf): MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP VALUES Maximum Dry Density, pcf 130.0 @ Optimum Moisture, %9.0 Corrected Maximum Dry Density, pcf @ Optimum Moisture, % MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Grain Size Distribution:Atterberg Limits: % Gravel (retained on No. 4)Liquid Limit, % % Sand (Passing No. 4, Retained on No. 200)Plastic Limit, % % Silt and Clay (Passing No. 200)Plasticity Index, % Classification: Unified Soils Classification: AASHTO Soils Classification: 117 119 121 123 125 127 129 131 133 135 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DR Y D E N S I T Y , P C F MOISTURE CONTENT, % MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP CURVE DRY DENSITY (pcf): CORRECTED DRY DENSITY (pcf): ZERO AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY (pcf) S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.8 S.G. 2.6 Poly. (DRY DENSITY (pcf):) OVERSIZE CORRECTED ZERO AIR VOIDS Poly. (S.G. 2.7) Poly. (S.G. 2.8) Poly. (S.G. 2.6) 167 GEOTEK □ • ■ I~ ~ "' " ~ ~ ~ " X ~ • "' I, ,__ -....'s "' / "" ~ ~ ' ~ • / \' ~ ~ ~ ' .. ~ ~ ~ I" ~ " ~ ' ~ I~ Tested/ Checked By: Date Tested: Sample Source: Sample Description: Ring Id:Ring Dia. " :Ring Ht.": A Weight of compacted sample & ring B Weight of ring C Net weight of sample D E Wet Weight of sample & tare Dry Weight of sample & tare Tare F Initial Moisture Content, % G (E*F) H (E/167.232) I (1.-H) J (62.4*I) K (G/J)= L % Saturation EXPANSION INDEX = Reddish Brown Silty Fine Sand EXPANSION INDEX TEST (ASTM D4829) 0 Tare 4.8 FINAL MOISTURE % Moisture Weight of wet sample & tare Wt. of dry sample & tare 244.3 1" 271.6 270.5 4.8 250.4 SATURATION DETERMINATION 18.7 8.2 51.4 12:40 369.7 DENSITY DETERMINATION Wet Density, lb / ft3 (C*0.3016) 0.30 0.70 117.2 959.2 420.4 126.8 Random 12:29 200 16:00 199 12:39 Initial 200 1 min/Wet 10 min/Dry 4/19/2021 790.1 4"12 199 19912:45 Dry Density, lb / ft3 (D/1.F) Project Number: Project Name:4368 Adams St. 3687-SD Project Location: SE Carlsbad, California Loading weight: 5516. grams BB-1 (T1 & T2) 4/19/2021 Lab No 4/20/2021 12:29 199 TIME READINGDATE Final 3580 11.4% 5 min/Wet READINGS 168 GEOTEK --I I I Curtis Ling Sample Location: Date Tested: Shear Strength:F =29 O , C = 122 psf Notes: 5/5/2021 DIRECT SHEAR TEST 2 - The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions. 1 - The soil specimen used in the shear box was a ring sample remolded to approximately 90% relative compaction from a bulk sample collected during the field investigation. Project Name: Project Number: 3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.035 in/min. 3687-SD BB-1 (Composite) 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 SH E A R S T R E S S ( p s f ) NORMAL STRESS (psf) 169 GEOTEK ------------,-------------r------------,-------------~-------------r------------,-------------T-------------, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------1-------------~-------------+-------------~-------------►------------~-------------♦-------------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------~-------------~-------------L------------~-------------L------------~-------------i-------------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------,-------------r------------1------------~-------------r------------,-------------T-------------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------◄-------------~-------------+------------~-------------►------------~----------+-------------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------1-------------t------------+------------i-----------1------------~-------------t-------------I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------,-------------r-------------r::: ---------~-------------r------------,-------------T-------------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------◄----------~-------------+------------~-------------►------------~-------------+-------------• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Curtis Ling Sample Location: Date Tested: Shear Strength:F =27 O , C = 337 psf Notes: Project Name: Project Number: 3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.035 in/min. PEAK VALUE 3687-SD BB-1 (Composite) 5/5/2021 DIRECT SHEAR TEST 2 - The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions. 1 - The soil specimen used in the shear box was a ring sample remolded to approximately 90% relative compaction from a bulk sample collected during the field investigation. 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 SH E A R S T R E S S ( p s f ) NORMAL STRESS (psf) 170 GEOTEK ------------,-------------r------------,-------------~-------------r------------,-------------T-------------, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------1-------------~-------------+-------------~-------------►------------~-------------♦-------------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------~-------------~-------------L------------~-------------L------------~-------------i-------------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------,-------------r------------1------------~-------------r------------,-------------T-------------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------◄-------------~-------------+------------~-------------►------------~----------+------------~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------1-------------t------------+------------i----------r------------~-------------+-------------1 • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------,-------------r------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----.------------~-------------r------------,-------------T-------------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---◄-------------~-------------+------------~-------------►------------~-------------+-------------• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Project X REPORT S210416I Corrosion Engineering Page 1 Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr, Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com Results Only Soil Testing for Curtisling April 21, 2021 Prepared for: Chris Livesey GeoTek, Inc. 1384 Poinsettia Ave, Suite A Vista, CA, 92081 clivesey@geotekusa.com Project X Job#: S210416I Client Job or PO#: 3687-SD Respectfully Submitted, Eduardo Hernandez, M.Sc., P.E. Sr. Corrosion Consultant NACE Corrosion Technologist #16592 Professional Engineer California No. M37102 ehernandez@projectxcorrosion.com 171 Project X REPORT S210416I Corrosion Engineering Page 2 Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr., Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com Soil Analysis Lab Results Client: GeoTek, Inc. Job Name: Curtisling Client Job Number: 3687-SD Project X Job Number: S210416I April 21, 2021 Method Bore# / Description Depth (ft)(mg/kg)(wt%) T2-BB1 0-5 34.4 0.0034 ASTM D4327 Sulfates SO42- Cations and Anions, except Sulfide and Bicarbonate, tested with Ion Chromatography mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil weight ND = 0 = Not Detected | NT = Not Tested | Unk = Unknown Chemical Analysis performed on 1:3 Soil-To-Water extract 172 173 2 4 6 I 10 12 14 Lllb Rtqvcst Slim Cblla DfCaslody Phone \213) 928-7113 Flll< \!>SI) 226· 1720 • www.pro~com Project X Corrosion Enginc.:c.:1·ing Ship Samples To: 29990 Technology Dr, Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Projffl X Job Number SI') \r--,U\\nT , ...... ._. J \ -,..,\L '2..1 ... ~-=\--<;.... ~ / ....... ~\~ \ \ "' ~ \ .c...._ ;""\il IMPORTANT: Pleatt compltt~ PN1Jtc1 ud Sample Identification Dar. as yoa wollfd U~ it to appear la ttpOl1 & Include ttlh fGna willl samples. C:ompa11y N»mc,: GeoTek, Inc. Contu!N-.-: Chris Livesey Phone No: 949-338-9233 Mallin~ AddN'SI: 1384 Poinsetta Ave, Ste A, Vista, CA 92081 Contact Email: clivesev@aeotekusa.com Accoanlia~ Cont•c1: Accounts Payable ln,·o~ £1111U: ao@oeotekusa.com; lwhite@geotekusa.com Chtnt Proj«t No: ., ,, (J -, '~ ·i /-5' /) Projttl Nuu,: Cv > 1 1, L,", - i.:::-~t 13;!.;~ V~-..;., f J!I'~ --L.... r,.":-,l.~• .·.---·••-... P.0.11: •-&Ut .~-·;:, 7!'1..\1 ' .. ,._ Rt.Qt L'• 1 l I> ll'ltMt ntt~ ... ,_.,_ _•,u ,_..-.,._, g>fftr -·--~ - g~ lj~ i,] A (Jhr.i1ac~ D•ys) '!'urn Around TJmc: fi= ·2 ~ Se C. ~ ~:., :.,_, <-!; e °l ·= =i Et ~~ :.~ ~~ :, '~! Rmll!s By: 0 Pbollf O •••• 13 £m11I i7. -Z .., C. i:: r: ! .. ~~ ~i e e ~ ~ -"~ ,,,. .-:: ;:II Dd:11,11 ~-:[_ ~:'l 1!:; ~B =i$ ::I!: ~::: ~ rt ~~; ~!. :z~ :i:: e~ j!? r. ;;, .,. E: ::1,!! ~;(-~ Date & RtttivNI 11) : ~;; ;~ ~~ -., ~! ;-: " ... ~§ Mftllod ~5 <c ~g ~~ ~a , i ~ :t ~e ~; ~! :,!. ':l <-<-<-<-<-~ • ~Ndl tiutr■r1 ... l t Poll<'ornsloo S.rritt llrpt1th "' .a "' ·;;; , .......... ~ :,, .; ~ C ?;, :f cc -~ 0 c < < .i::-~ .i::-Q, :~ ~ ;:.. ~ " rJ .. m ·;. c ·-., C :e "0 .,, c ., -~"' o C 0 .. -= .: C :~ " E ;; E t2 ~ 8. u .. ., u u 1! 0 .. ~ E :, C :3 .,,, "' r -~ .. c .!! :: u a.. ·e u C E -~ -~ E ~ uu e < .; :::, u ~ E 0 -·g -"' u " u 0 <> ~ J': :, (,.I ; .. ..: = e .; iij .. ~ "0 E ~ ft :§ .2 .. .; IA.tr. _g 0 -= " • .;, ·.; ., -;; .; ., ·--~ ;;; 00 .,,. u.. u "0 E 0 "O !::! - C u u C 0 ;;; s»iru: 1 o. aua,:, oas<'MlmOII 111rn1,a1 ·;;; :r :i .z:: :i 0 ~ .. ,ii :.. ·o > i:i 0 0 "' rou.tn-tll ., < z :.: .z:: :::i 0 ::E ::E i= ~ ., " ;!: V) Q. .,, (,.I C: <I) a.. .,, (,.I ID V: UJ I-..J .. X T 7--{jfi, : I) f;t( -X r • I • I .. I ii !l I 11 I I I I L.I_ ~ j l ~ L . i - : 1 I I ., ~ h . I I • .,_. ,,,,._, . , ...... I II I I I .. •=t=!::::: --I !1 I . -·-l I I Ii • •--=-LI= ..... ;........d= ' ;1 ll II i: ~ j D D ,, ', t Jl .. ' _J --·-- II I ~~----;i:~~;~~-· . ._ ... [l. " ij jl :; I I I I II II II 1: l ·~ I Ii l II I .. . I I~~~-•Ai F~ •t -- APPENDIX C GENERAL EARTHWORK GRADING GUIDELINES 174GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C Page C - 1 GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES Guidelines presented herein are intended to address general construction procedures for earthwork construction. Specific situations and conditions often arise which cannot reasonably be discussed in general guidelines, when anticipated these are discussed in the text of the report. Often unanticipated conditions are encountered which may necessitate modification or changes to these guidelines. It is our hope that these will assist the contractor to more efficiently complete the project by providing a reasonable understanding of the procedures that would be expected during earthwork and the testing and observation used to evaluate those procedures. General Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of governing agencies, the California Building Code, CBC (2022) and the guidelines presented below. Preconstruction Meeting A preconstruction meeting should be held prior to site earthwork. Any questions the contractor has regarding our recommendations, general site conditions, apparent discrepancies between reported and actual conditions and/or differences in procedures the contractor intends to use should be brought up at that meeting. The contractor (including the main onsite representative) should review our report and these guidelines in advance of the meeting. Any comments the contractor may have regarding these guidelines should be brought up at that meeting. Grading Observation and Testing 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by our representative during grading. Verbal communication during the course of each day will be used to inform the contractor of test results. The contractor should receive a copy of the "Daily Field Report" indicating results of field density tests that day. If our representative does not provide the contractor with these reports, our office should be notified. 2. Testing and observation procedures are, by their nature, specific to the work or area observed and location of the tests taken, variability may occur in other locations. The contractor is responsible for the uniformity of the grading operations; our observations and test results are intended to evaluate the contractor’s overall level of efforts during grading. The contractor’s personnel are the only individuals participating in all aspect of site work. Compaction testing and observation should not be considered as relieving the contractor’s responsibility to properly compact the fill. 3. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed by our representative prior to placing any fill. It will be the contractor's responsibility to notify our representative or office when such areas are ready for observation. 4. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as considered warranted by this firm. 5. In general, density tests would be made at maximum intervals of two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and size of the fill. More frequent testing may be performed. In any case, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. 175 GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C Page C - 2 6. Laboratory testing to support field test procedures will be performed, as considered warranted, based on conditions encountered (e.g. change of material sources, types, etc.) Every effort will be made to process samples in the laboratory as quickly as possible and in progress construction projects are our first priority. However, laboratory workloads may cause in delays and some soils may require a minimum of 48 to 72 hours to complete test procedures. Whenever possible, our representative(s) should be informed in advance of operational changes that might result in different source areas for materials. 7. Procedures for testing of fill slopes are as follows: a) Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill, three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. b) If a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. 8. Finish grade testing of slopes and pad surfaces should be performed after construction is complete. Site Clearing 1. All vegetation, and other deleterious materials, should be removed from the site. If material is not immediately removed from the site it should be stockpiled in a designated area(s) well outside of all current work areas and delineated with flagging or other means. Site clearing should be performed in advance of any grading in a specific area. 2. Efforts should be made by the contractor to remove all organic or other deleterious material from the fill, as even the most diligent efforts may result in the incorporation of some materials. This is especially important when grading is occurring near the natural grade. All equipment operators should be aware of these efforts. Laborers may be required as root pickers. 3. Nonorganic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas provided the procedures used are observed and found acceptable by our representative. Typical procedures are similar to those indicated on Plate G-4. Treatment of Existing Ground 1. Following site clearing, all surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium as well as weathered or creep effected bedrock, should be removed (see Plates G-1, G-2 and G-3) unless otherwise specifically indicated in the text of this report. 2. In some cases, removal may be recommended to a specified depth (e.g. flat sites where partial alluvial removals may be sufficient). The contractor should not exceed these depths unless directed otherwise by our representative. 3. Groundwater existing in alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 4. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. 5. Exploratory back hoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. 176 GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C Page C - 3 Subdrainage 1. Subdrainage systems should be provided in canyon bottoms prior to placing fill, and behind buttress and stabilization fills and in other areas indicated in the report. Subdrains should conform to schematic diagrams G-1 and G-5, and be acceptable to our representative. 2. For canyon subdrains, runs less than 500 feet may use six-inch pipe. Typically, runs in excess of 500 feet should have the lower end as eight-inch minimum. 3. Filter material should be clean, 1/2 to 1-inch gravel wrapped in a suitable filter fabric. Class 2 permeable filter material per California Department of Transportation Standards tested by this office to verify its suitability, may be used without filter fabric. A sample of the material should be provided to the Soils Engineer by the contractor at least two working days before it is delivered to the site. The filter should be clean with a wide range of sizes. 4. Approximate delineation of anticipated subdrain locations may be offered at 40-scale plan review stage. During grading, this office would evaluate the necessity of placing additional drains. 5. All subdrainage systems should be observed by our representative during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill. 6. Subdrains should outlet into storm drains where possible. Outlets should be located and protected. The need for backflow preventers should be assessed during construction. 7. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors. Fill Placement 1. Unless otherwise indicated, all site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see text of report). 2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts six (6) to eight (8) inches in compacted thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a nearly horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by our representative. 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that recommended by this firm, the contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following: a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. The ability of the contractor to obtain the proper moisture content will control production rates. b) Each six-inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In most cases, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D 1557. 4. Rock fragments less than eight inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets; b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; c) The distribution of the rocks is observed by, and acceptable to, our representative. 5. Rocks exceeding eight (8) inches in diameter should be taken off site, broken into smaller fragments, or placed in accordance with recommendations of this firm in areas designated suitable for rock disposal (see Plate G-4). On projects where significant large quantities of oversized materials are anticipated, alternate guidelines for placement may be included. If 177 GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C Page C - 4 significant oversize materials are encountered during construction, these guidelines should be requested. 6. In clay soil, dry or large chunks or blocks are common. If in excess of eight (8) inches minimum dimension, then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break up blocks. When dry, they should be moisture conditioned to provide a uniform condition with the surrounding fill. Slope Construction 1. The contractor should obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. 2. Slopes trimmed to the compacted core should be overbuilt by at least three (3) feet with compaction efforts out to the edge of the false slope. Failure to properly compact the outer edge results in trimming not exposing the compacted core and additional compaction after trimming may be necessary. 3. If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods, then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled or otherwise compacted at approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. 4. Corners and bends in slopes should have special attention during construction as these are the most difficult areas to obtain proper compaction. 5. Cut slopes should be cut to the finished surface. Excessive undercutting and smoothing of the face with fill may necessitate stabilization. Keyways, Buttress and Stabilization Fills Keyways are needed to provide support for fill slope and various corrective procedures. 1. Side-hill fills should have an equipment-width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil and into competent material and tilted back into the hill (Plates G-2, G-3). As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial soil and slopewash, and into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by our representatives (See Plates G-1, G-2, and G-3). 2. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner: a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut-fill interface. b) A key at least one and one-half (1.5) equipment width wide (or as needed for compaction), and tipped at least one (1) foot into slope, should be excavated into competent materials and observed by our representative. c) The cut portion of the slope should be excavated prior to fill placement to evaluate if stabilization is necessary. The contractor should be responsible for any additional earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut excavation. (see Plate G-3 for schematic details.) 3. Daylight cut lots above descending natural slopes may require removal and replacement of the outer portion of the lot. A schematic diagram for this condition is presented on Plate G- 2. 178 GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C Page C - 5 4. A basal key is needed for fill slopes extending over natural slopes. A schematic diagram for this condition is presented on Plate G-2. 5. All fill slopes should be provided with a key unless within the body of a larger overall fill mass. Please refer to Plate G-3 for specific guidelines. Anticipated buttress and stabilization fills are discussed in the text of the report. The need to stabilize other proposed cut slopes will be evaluated during construction. Plate G-5 shows a schematic of buttress construction. 1. All backcuts should be excavated at gradients of 1:1 or flatter. The backcut configuration should be determined based on the design, exposed conditions, and need to maintain a minimum fill width and provide working room for the equipment. 2. On longer slopes, backcuts and keyways should be excavated in maximum 250 feet long segments. The specific configurations will be determined during construction. 3. All keys should be a minimum of two (2) feet deep at the toe and slope toward the heel at least one foot or two (2%) percent, whichever is greater. 4. Subdrains are to be placed for all stabilization slopes exceeding 10 feet in height. Lower slopes are subject to review. Drains may be required. Guidelines for subdrains are presented on Plate G-5. 5. Benching of backcuts during fill placement is required. Lot Capping 1. When practical, the upper three (3) feet of material placed below finish grade should be comprised of the least expansive material available. Preferably, highly and very highly expansive materials should not be used. We will attempt to offer advice based on visual evaluations of the materials during grading, but it must be realized that laboratory testing is needed to evaluate the expansive potential of soil. Minimally, this testing takes two (2) to four (4) days to complete. 2. Transition lots (cut and fill) both per plan and those created by remedial grading (e.g. lots above stabilization fills, along daylight lines, above natural slopes, etc.) should be capped with a minimum three foot thick compacted fill blanket. 3. Cut pads should be observed by our representative(s) to evaluate the need for overexcavation and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones, and/or due to differing expansive potential of materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended in some cases. ROCK PLACEMENT AND ROCK FILL GUIDELINES If large quantities of oversize material would be generated during grading, it’s likely that such materials may require special handling for burial. Although alternatives may be developed in the field, the following methods of rock disposal are recommended on a preliminary basis. Limited Larger Rock When materials encountered are principally soil with limited quantities of larger rock fragments or boulders, placement in windrows is recommended. The following procedures should be applied: 1. Oversize rock (greater than 8 inches) should be placed in windrows. a) Windrows are rows of single file rocks placed to avoid nesting or clusters of rock. 179 GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C Page C - 6 b) Each adjacent rock should be approximately the same size (within ~one foot in diameter). c) The maximum rock size allowed in windrows is four feet 2. A minimum vertical distance of three feet between lifts should be maintained. Also, the windrows should be offset from lift to lift. Rock windrows should not be closer than 15 feet to the face of fill slopes and sufficient space must be maintained for proper slope construction (see Plate G-4). 3. Rocks greater than eight inches in diameter should not be placed within seven feet of the finished subgrade for a roadway or pads and should be held below the depth of the lowest utility. This will allow easier trenching for utility lines. 4. Rocks greater than four feet in diameter should be broken down, if possible, or they may be placed in a dozer trench. Each trench should be excavated into the compacted fill a minimum of one foot deeper than the largest diameter of rock. a) The rock should be placed in the trench and granular fill materials (SE>30) should be flooded into the trench to fill voids around the rock. b) The over size rock trenches should be no closer together than 15 feet from any slope face. c) Trenches at higher elevation should be staggered and there should be a minimum of four feet of compacted fill between the top of the one trench and the bottom of the next higher trench. d) It would be necessary to verify 90 percent relative compaction in these pits. A 24 to 72 hour delay to allow for water dissipation should be anticipated prior to additional fill placement. Structural Rock Fills If the materials generated for placement in structural fills contains a significant percentage of material more than six (6) inches in one dimension, then placement using conventional soil fill methods with isolated windrows would not be feasible. In such cases the following could be considered: 1. Mixes of large rock or boulders may be placed as rock fill. They should be below the depth of all utilities both on pads and in roadways and below any proposed swimming pools or other excavations. If these fills are placed within seven (7) feet of finished grade, they may affect foundation design. 2. Rock fills are required to be placed in horizontal layers that should not exceed two feet in thickness, or the maximum rock size present, which ever is less. All rocks exceeding two feet should be broken down to a smaller size, windrowed (see above), or disposed of in non-structural fill areas. Localized larger rock up to 3 feet in largest dimension may be placed in rock fill as follows: a) individual rocks are placed in a given lift so as to be roughly 50% exposed above the typical surface of the fill , b) loaded rock trucks or alternate compactors are worked around the rock on all sides to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, c) the portion of the rock above grade is covered with a second lift. 3. Material placed in each lift should be well graded. No unfilled spaces (voids) should be permitted in the rock fill. 180 GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C Page C - 7 Compaction Procedures Compaction of rock fills is largely procedural. The following procedures have been found to generally produce satisfactory compaction. 1. Provisions for routing of construction traffic over the fill should be implemented. a) Placement should be by rock trucks crossing the lift being placed and dumping at its edge. b) The trucks should be routed so that each pass across the fill is via a different path and that all areas are uniformly traversed. c) The dumped piles should be knocked down and spread by a large dozer (D-8 or larger suggested). (Water should be applied before and during spreading.) 2. Rock fill should be generously watered (sluiced) a) Water should be applied by water trucks to the: i) dump piles, ii) front face of the lift being placed and, iii) surface of the fill prior to compaction. b) No material should be placed without adequate water. c) The number of water trucks and water supply should be sufficient to provide constant water. d) Rock fill placement should be suspended when water trucks are unavailable: i) for more than 5 minutes straight, or, ii) for more than 10 minutes/hour. 3. In addition to the truck pattern and at the discretion of the soil engineer, large, rubber tired compactors may be required. a) The need for this equipment will depend largely on the ability of the operators to provide complete and uniform coverage by wheel rolling with the trucks. b) Other large compactors will also be considered by the soil engineer provided that required compaction is achieved. 4. Placement and compaction of the rock fill is largely procedural. Observation by trenching should be made to check: a) the general segregation of rock size, b) for any unfilled spaces between the large blocks, and c) the matrix compaction and moisture content. 5. Test fills may be required to evaluate relative compaction of finer grained zones or as deemed appropriate by the soil engineer. a) A lift should be constructed by the methods proposed, as proposed 6. Frequency of the test trenching is to be at the discretion of the soil engineer. Control areas may be used to evaluate the contractor’s procedures. 7. A minimum horizontal distance of 15 feet should be maintained from the face of the rock fill and any finish slope face. At least the outer 15 feet should be built of conventional fill materials. Piping Potential and Filter Blankets Where conventional fill is placed over rock fill, the potential for piping (migration) of the fine grained material from the conventional fill into rock fills will need to be addressed. The potential for particle migration is related to the grain size comparisons of the materials present and in contact with each other. Provided that 15 percent of the finer soil is larger than the effective 181 GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C Page C - 8 pore size of the coarse soil, then particle migration is substantially mitigated. This can be accomplished with a well-graded matrix material for the rock fill and a zone of fill similar to the matrix above it. The specific gradation of the fill materials placed during grading must be known to evaluate the need for any type of filter that may be necessary to cap the rock fills. This, unfortunately, can only be accurately determined during construction. In the event that poorly graded matrix is used in the rock fills, properly graded filter blankets 2 to 3 feet thick separating rock fills and conventional fill may be needed. As an alternative, use of two layers of filter fabric (Mirafi 700 x or equivalent) could be employed on top of the rock fill. In order to mitigate excess puncturing, the surface of the rock fill should be well broken down and smoothed prior to placing the filter fabric. The first layer of the fabric may then be placed and covered with relatively permeable fill material (with respect to overlying material) 1 to 2 feet thick. The relative permeable material should be compacted to fill standards. The second layer of fabric should be placed and conventional fill placement continued. Subdrainage Rock fill areas should be tied to a subdrainage system. If conventional fill is placed that separates the rock from the main canyon subdrain, then a secondary system should be installed. A system consisting of an adequately graded base (3 to 4 percent to the lower side) with a collector system and outlets may suffice. Additionally, at approximately every 25 foot vertical interval, a collector system with outlets should be placed at the interface of the rock fill and the conventional fill blanketing a fill slope. Monitoring Depending upon the depth of the rock fill and other factors, monitoring for settlement of the fill areas may be needed following completion of grading. Typically, if rock fill depths exceed 40 feet, monitoring would be recommend prior to construction of any settlement sensitive improvements. Delays of 3 to 6 months or longer can be expected prior to the start of construction. UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL Utility trench excavation and backfill is the contractor’s responsibility. The geotechnical consultant typically provides periodic observation and testing of these operations. While efforts are made to make sufficient observations and tests to verify that the contractors’ methods and procedures are adequate to achieve proper compaction, it is typically impractical to observe all backfill procedures. As such, it is critical that the contractor use consistent backfill procedures. Compaction methods vary for trench compaction and experience indicates many methods can be successful. However, procedures that “worked” on previous projects may or may not prove effective on a given site. The contractor(s) should outline the procedures proposed, so that we may discuss them prior to construction. We will offer comments based on our knowledge of site conditions and experience. 1. Utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas, in streets and beneath flat work or hardscape should be brought to at least optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Soil should be moisture conditioned prior to placing in the trench. 182 GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C Page C - 9 2. Flooding and jetting are not typically recommended or acceptable for native soils. Flooding or jetting may be used with select sand having a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or higher. This is typically limited to the following uses: a) shallow (12 + inches) under slab interior trenches and, b) as bedding in pipe zone. The water should be allowed to dissipate prior to pouring slabs or completing trench compaction. 3. Care should be taken not to place soils at high moisture content within the upper three feet of the trench backfill in street areas, as overly wet soils may impact subgrade preparation. Moisture may be reduced to 2% below optimum moisture in areas to be paved within the upper three feet below sub grade. 4. Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a 1:1 projection from the outside bottom edge of a footing, unless it is similar to the surrounding soil. 5. Trench compaction testing is generally at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Testing frequency will be based on trench depth and the contractor’s procedures. A probing rod would be used to assess the consistency of compaction between tested areas and untested areas. If zones are found that are considered less compact than other areas, this would be brought to the contractor’s attention. JOB SAFETY General Personnel safety is a primary concern on all job sites. The following summaries are safety considerations for use by all our employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading construction projects. The company recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that job site safety is the contractor's responsibility. However, it is, imperative that all personnel be safety conscious to avoid accidents and potential injury. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of our field personnel on grading and construction projects. 1. Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are directed to attend the contractor's regularly scheduled safety meetings. 2. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by our personnel while on the job site. 3. Safety Flags: Safety flags are provided to our field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. The primary concern is the technician's safety. However, it is necessary to take sufficient tests at various locations to obtain a representative sampling of the fill. As such, efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representatives (e.g. dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.), 183 GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C Page C - 10 and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Again, safety is the paramount concern. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates that the fill be maintained in a drivable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may opt to park a piece of equipment in front of test pits, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits (see diagram below). No grading equipment should enter this zone during the test procedure. The zone should extend outward to the sides approximately 50 feet from the center of the test pit and 100 feet in the direction of traffic flow. This zone is established both for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. 50 ft Zone of Non-Encroachment 50 ft Zone of Non-Encroachment Traffic Direction Vehicle parked here Test Pit Spoil pile Spoil pile Test Pit SIDE VIEW PLAN VIEW TEST PIT SAFETY PLAN 10 0 ft Zone of Non-Encroachment Slope Tests When taking slope tests, the technician should park their vehicle directly above or below the test location on the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location. Trench Safety It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Trenches for all utilities should be excavated in accordance with CAL-OSHA and any other applicable safety standards. Safe conditions will be required to enable compaction testing of the trench backfill. 184 h "' ,. a \. ../ I ,. GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C Page C - 11 All utility trench excavations in excess of 5 feet deep, which a person enters, are to be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with OSHA standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation which; 1. is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back, 2. exit points or ladders are not provided, 3. displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or 4. displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraws and notifies their supervisor. The contractor’s representative will then be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons is subject to reprocessing and/or removal. Procedures In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is directed to inform both the developer's and contractor's representatives. If the condition is not rectified, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify their supervisor. The contractor’s representative will then be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. No further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed in the interim can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to technician’s attention and notify our project manager or office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors' representative and the field technician(s) is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety program and safety in general. The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non-encroachment. The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non-encroachment. 185 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista, California 92083 TYPICAL CANYON CLEANOUT STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES ALTERNATES Original Ground 3’ Loose Surface Materials PLATE G-1 Finish Grade 3’ Suitable Material Suitable Material 6” Perforated Pipe in 9 cubic feet per LinealFoot Clean Gravel Wrapped in Filter Fabric Construct Bencheswhere slope exceeds 5:1 Bottom of Cleanout to Be At Least 1.5 Times the Width of Compaction Equipment 4 feet typical Slope to Drain Original Ground Loose Surface Materials Finish Grade Suitable MaterialConstruct Bencheswhere slope exceeds 5:1 Bottom of Cleanout to Be AtLeast1.5 Times the Width ofCompaction Equipment 4 feet typical Slope to Drain 6” Perforated Pipe in 9 cubic feetper Lineal Foot Clean GravelWrapped in Filter Fabric 186 ,:. ' . . . . : : : ~ : . TREATMENT ABOVE NATURAL SLOPES STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES TYPICAL FILL SLOPE OVER NATURAL DESCENDING SLOPE Topsoil Bedrock PLATE G-2 Finish Grade Fill Slope Daylight Cut Line per Plan Project Removal at 1 to 1 Min. 3 FeetCompacted Fill Colluvium Creep Zone Minimum 15 Feet Wide or 1.5 EquipmentWidths for Compaction Toe of Fill Slope per Plan DAYLIGHT CUT AREA OVER NATURAL DESCENDING SLOPE Topsoil Structural SetbackWithout Corrective Work Project Removalat 1 to 1 Colluvium Creep Zone Min. 2 Feet Minimum 15 Feet Wideor 1.5 EquipmentWidths for Compaction Finish Grade Bedrock Min. 3 FeetCompacted Fill Min.2 Feet Compacted Fill Compacted Fill 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista, California 92081-8505 Topsoil Colluvium Creep Zone 187 ~ GEOTEK COMMON FILL SLOPE KEYS STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES TYPICAL FILL SLOPE OVER CUT SLOPE Topsoil Bedrock PLATE G-3 Finish Grade 2: 1 Fill Slope 4’ Typical Colluvium Creep Zone Minimum 15 Feet Wideor 1.5 EquipmentWidths for Compaction Toe of Fill Slope per Plan TYPICAL FILL SLOPE Bedrock or Suitable Dense Material Minimum compacted fill requiredto provide lateral support. Excavate key if width or depthless than indicated in table above Cut Slope SLOPEHEIGHT MIN. KEY WIDTH MIN. KEY DEPTH 5 10 15 20 25 >25 7 10 15 15 15 SEE TEXT 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 CONTRACTOR TO VERIFYWITH SOIL ENGINEERPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista, California 92081-8505 188 NOTES: 1)SOIL FILL OVER WINDROW SHOULE BE 7 FEET OR PER JURISDUICTIONAL STANDARDS AND SUFFICIENTFOR FUTURE EXCAVATIONS TO AVOID ROCKS 2)MAXIMUM ROCK SIZE IN WINDROWS IS 4 FEET MINIMUM DIAMETER 3)SOIL AROUND WINDROWS TO BE SANDY MATERIAL SUBJECT TO SOIL ENGINEER ACCEPTANCE 4)SPACING AND CLEARANCES MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW FOR PROPER COMPACTION 5)INDIVDUAL LARGE ROCKS MAY BE BURIED IN PITS. ROCK BURIAL DETAILS STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES PLATE G-4 SEE NOTE 1 15’ MIN.3’ MIN. 3’ MIN. MINIMUM 15’ CLEAR OR 1.5 EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION STAGGER ROWS HORIZONTALLY NO ROCKS IN THIS ZONE CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW FINISH GRADE FILL SLOPE PLAN VIEW FILL SLOPE MINIMUM 15’ CLEAR OR 1.5 EQUIPMENTWIDTHS FOR COMPACTION MINIMUM 15’ CLEAR OR 1.5 EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION PLACE ROCKS END TO END DO NOT PILE OR STACK ROCKS SOIL TO BE PLACE AROUND AND OVER ROCKS THEN FLOODED INTOVOIDS. MUST COMPACT AROUND AND OVER EACH ROCK WINDROW 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista, California 92081-8505 189 ----~ -------------------~------------ c---------_______ t __ _ ~--------.t----------.-.-~-◄.=-----------.►·'11111111!11 6” Perforated Pipe in 6 cubic feet per lineal foot clean gravel wrapped in filter fabric outlet pipe to gravity flow BEDROCK COMPACTED FILL MIN. 3 FEETCOMPACTED FILL TERRACE DRAIN AS REQUIRED 2 1 MIN. 15 FEET WIDE OR 1.5 EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION MIN. 2 FEET EMBEDDMENT 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista, California 92083 Typical Buttress and Stabilization Fill PLATE G-5 4” or 6” Perforated Pipe in 6 cubicfeet per lineal foot clean gravelwrapped in filter fabric outlet pipeto gravity flow at 2% min. 190 [.• ..... : : : : : •••... ··•···········•···•· ,:-:-:-·.· ·.· .. · .. ... , . . . . . ·:~..,-,, ttx: -,-,_1 £ <f J I ). ;~ :; A ~1:/:::::: ,. " ·, .., ' ., l.. I .~,~ l.. ,Q~ ,l l.. l.. l.. .~ ~-l.. l.. ). ~ .,_ .,_ ).-). ). ). ). ). .) : :, : : : : : : ,: . : . : ,: . : . : -: ' ........ ·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.· l.. l.. l.. ). ). ). "::l ~ ~ l., l.. ). '< ). l.. ). ). ,.} ). . ). ;, ). ). ).). I / :,• ...... . . . . . . . . . . . TRANSITION & UNDERCUT LOTS PLATE G-6 TRANSITION LOT PROPSED FINISH GRADE COMPETENT MATERIAL 4’MIN. OVEREXCAVATE ANDRECOMPACT PROPOSED STRUCTURE COMPACTED FILL 3 1 OVEREXCAVATION AND BENCHING NOTTO EXCEED INCLINATION OF 3:1 (H:V) UNDERCUT LOT PROPSED FINISH GRADE PROPOSED STRUCTURE 4’MIN. COMPETENT MATERIAL COMPACTED FILL OVEREXCAVATE ANDRECOMPACTOVEREXCAVATION TO HAVE 1%FALL TOWARD FRONT OF LOT Notes:1.Removed/overexcavated soils should be recompacted in accordance with recommendations included in the text of the report.2.Location of cut/fill transition should verified in the field during site grading. STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista, California 92081-8505 191 -----------------------------r n ClJ:OTEK