HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 2022-0001; HOPE APARTMENTS; TEMPORARY SHORING DESIGN SUBMITTAL; 2024-05-23SHORING DESIGN GROUP
7727 Caminito Liliana| San Diego, CA 92129| phone (760) 586-8121
Email: rreed@shoringdesign.com
May 23, 2024
Mr. Chris Schoeneck Office (858) 535‐1475
Wermers Properties
5120 Shoreham Place, #150
San Diego, CA 92122
Re: Hope Avenue Apartments JOB #24‐102
Carlsbad, California
Subject: Temporary Shoring Design Submittal
Dear Mr. Schoeneck:
Upon your request, please find the temporary shoring design calculations for the above
referenced project.
Should you have any additional questions or comments regarding this matter, please advise.
Sincerely,
SHORING DESIGN GROUP,
Roy P. Reed, P.E.
Project Engineer
Encl: Design Calculations
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONALSHOP DRAWING REVIEW
Proj No Shop Dwg. No139000 Ocean Condominiums 4th
Date By10/05/2020 ARL/CS
MAKE CORRECTIONS NOTEDREVISE AND RESUBMITREVISE AND RESUBMIT
REJECTED
Review is only for general conformance with the design concept of the project and general compliance with the information included in this Contract Document(s). Any action shown is subject to the requirements of the drawings and specificatons. Contractor is responsible for: construction, coordination of his/her work with that of other trades, and performing the work in a safe and satisfactory manner.
NO EXCEPTIONS TAKEN SUBMIT SPECIFIED ITEM
161440
08/07/2024
Hope Apartments_STR#2
JDA
X□
□
□
□
□
SHORING DESIGN GROUP
7727 Caminito Liliana| San Diego, CA 92129| phone (760) 586-8121
Email: rreed@shoringdesign.com
Temporary Shoring Design Calculations
Hope Avenue Apartments
Carlsbad, California
May 23, 2024
SDG Project # 24‐102
Table of Contents: Section
Shoring Plans: .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Load Development: .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Soldier Beam #1‐6, 15‐18 (H=13’, with Slope Surcharge): ............................................................................... 3
Soldier Beam #7‐14, 126‐129 (H=12’, with Slope Surcharge): ......................................................................... 4
Soldier Beam #19‐26 (H=14’, with Slope Surcharge): ...................................................................................... 5
Soldier Beam #27‐33 (H=15’, with Slope Surcharge): ...................................................................................... 6
Soldier Beam #34‐80 (H=16’, with Slope Surcharge): ...................................................................................... 7
Soldier Beam #81‐83, 119‐121 (H=17’, with Slope Surcharge): ....................................................................... 8
Soldier Beam #84‐85 (H=16’, with Slope Surcharge): ...................................................................................... 9
Soldier Beam #86‐91 (H=15’, with Slope Surcharge): .................................................................................... 10
Soldier Beam #92‐100 (H=14’, with Slope Surcharge): .................................................................................. 11
Soldier Beam #101‐118, 122‐125 (H=11’, with Slope Surcharge): ................................................................. 12
Temporary Handrail Design: .......................................................................................................................... 13
Lagging Design: .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Soldier Beam Schedule: ................................................................................................................................. 15
Geotechnical Report: ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Section 1
6"TD
6"TD
16"TC
42"TC
16"TC
15"TC
12"TC
16"TP
12"TDXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OEOEOEOE
OEOEOEOEOEOE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
GG
D
D
D
D
S SS
E
C
E
WW
WWWOOD WALL
70
70
69
69
69
69
69
69
68
68
68
68
68
68
67
67
67
6
6
66
6
5
65
64
64
64
64
64
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
62
62 GEO GRIDTRANS PAD
67.10 TC
66.65 FL 67.84 TC
67.30 FL
67.73 TC
67.24 FL
68.49 TC
68.06 FL
68.59 TC68.09 FL
68.61 TC
68.22 FL
69.33 TC
68.87 FL
69.50 TC69.23 FL
69.58 TC69.50 FL
68.09 TC
67.65 FL
69.30 TC
68.84 FL
68.52 TC
68.04 FL
68.96 TC
68.59 FL
69.30 TC
68.80 FL
69.12 TC
68.70 FL
68.94 TC
67.43 67.68 67.77
67.89
68.00
68.79
68.32
67.90
67.66
68.54
68.6969.38
69.43
69.55
69.44
69.51
69.4669.45
69.41
69.37
69.39
69.42
69.26
69.29
69.17
69.10
68.76
69.45
61.72
62.05 62.67 63.46
64.75 65.46 66.60
67.77 69.43
70.32
63.43
63.30
63.2162
.
2
6
62
.
1
9
62.95
61.70
61.51
61.42
61.8062.45 62.69
62.
6
0
62.15
62.44
62
.
5
3
62.30
62.58
62.9362.52
62.63
63.09
63.13
70.65 TC
70.19 FL
68.93 TC
68.46 FL
67.95 TC67.52 FL66.84 TC
66.32 FL65.03 TC
64.54 FL
63.90 TC
63.37 FL
62.19 TC
61.77 FL62.08 TC
61.62 FL
61.54 TC
61.49 FL
61.47 TC
61.39 FL
62.04 RIM
66.60 RIM
63.34 IE
66.29 IE62.38 TW 63.21 TW
68.02 TW
68.61 TW
67.60 TW
67.54 TW
70.83 TW
70.79 TW
62.1
63.8 64.4
64.563.862.7
63.3 63.7 64.2
64.763.363.6
69.70 TW
69.71 TW
69.71 TW
69.75 TW70.42 TW
70.31 TW
74.23 TW
74.24 TW
69.59 TW
74.36 TW
69.54 TW
69.54 TW
63.61
63
.
6
2
68
.
3
2
63.73
67
.
4
0
63.36
68
.
6
7
63
.
6
3
69.16
64.55 64.80
69.02
6
2
6968
67
63.2362.91
62.71
64.91
65.17 TC64.85 FL
EXISTING
MULTI STORY
BUILDING
EV CAPABLE
000
EV CAPABLE
000
000
000
000
EV READY
000000
EV READY
000 000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000 000
EV READY
000 000
EV READY
000
000
000
000
000
EV READY
000 000
EV READY
000
000 000 000
EV READY
000000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000
EV CAPABLE
000
EV READY
000000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000 000
EV READY
000
EV CAPABLE
000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000 000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000 000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000 000 000 000
EV READY
000000
000
EV READY
000
000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000 000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000 000
EV READY
000
000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000 000
EV CAPABLE
000
EV CAPABLE
000000
EV CAPABLE
000 000000
EV CAPABLE
000
000 000 000000000 000 000 000000000000000000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
EV CAPABLE
000
EV CAPABLE
000
EV CAPABLE
000000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
EV CAPABLE
000
EV CAPABLE
000000000000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000
EV READY
000 000
EV READY
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
XXXXXXXXXXXX
X
XXXX
XX
X
XXXXXXX
X
X
XX
XXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X X
X X
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXX
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
E
E
E
E E E E E E E E E E E E
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G G G G G G G
G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
S
S
S
S
S
S
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE
OE OE
OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
SD
SD
SD
SD
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W
W
W
WWWWWWWWWW
SD
SDSD
SDSD
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
SD
SD
SD
SD
W
W
SD SD SD SD
SD SD SDSDSDSD
SDSD
SD
SDSD
SD
SDSD
SD
SD
SD
SDSDSD
SDSD
G G G
S
S
S
S
S
SD
S
S
S
S
S
SS
SSSSSSSSSSSS
W
W W W W W W
W
W
W
G G G G G G G G G G G
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
E E E E E E
E
E
E
E
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E E E E E E E E E E E
7727 CAMINITO LILIANA
SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2023 DATE
5/23/2024 R IOFTA
A NILFOEATS
C
NGN
LANOFOP
I
I
R
R SS
EE
E
EDERETSIGER
DEREP.OR
Exp.
C 80503
3/31/23
LIVIC
Y
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
TRENCH/EXCAVATION PERMIT NO._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
DIG ALERT!! TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE DIG
ALL EXISTING UTILITIES MAY NOT BE SHOWN ON THESE PLANS
DIG ALERT & GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE & POTHOLE
(AS NEEDED), ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE SHORING WALL
CONSTRUCTION BEGINS.
XX
LEGEND
T.O.W. = TOP OF SOLDIER BEAM WALL
B.O.W. = BOTTOM OF SOLDIER BEAM WALL
(P) = PROPOSED
(E) = EXISTING
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
IMPROVEMENT SYMBOL
TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM
TEMPORARY TIMBER LAGGING
SOLDIER BEAM COUNT
x
SHXDETAIL/SECTION CALLOUTS
BY OTHERS = WORK OUTSIDE SHORING SCOPE
DESIGNATES 3x12 PRESSURE
TREATED LAGGING DF#2
SH
O
R
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
G
R
O
U
P
77
2
7
C
A
M
I
N
I
T
O
L
I
L
I
A
N
A
,
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
2
9
PH
:
(
7
6
0
)
5
8
6
-
8
1
2
1
REVIEWED BY:
DATEINSPECTOR
DATE
"AS BUILT"
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
RCE EXP.
BAK
SDP 2022-0006
25
GR 2023-0044
546-4A
HOPE APARTMENTS
HOPE AVENUE
CT 2022-0001
PLSA 3802
DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE
I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM THE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THE
TEMPORARY SHORING OF THIS PROJECT (SHEETS 13-23), AND
THAT I HAVE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN OF
TEMPORARY SHORING AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6703 OF THE BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONS CODE, AND THAT THE DESIGN IS CONSISTENT
WITH CURRENT STANDARDS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF
PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
DOES NOT RELIEVE ME, AS ENGINEER OF WORK, MY RESPONSIBILITIES
FOR PROJECT DESIGN.
SHORING DESIGN GROUP NAME: ROY P. REED
7727 CAMINITO LILIANA
SAN DIEGO, CA 92129 SIGNATURE:
PH: (760)586-8121
5 10
105
GRAND AVENUE
HO
P
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
RIGHT-OF-WAY
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(BY OTHERS, TYPICAL)
RIGHT-OF-WAY
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(BY OTHERS, TYPICAL)
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(BY OTHERS, TYPICAL)
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(BY OTHERS, TYPICAL)
PROPOSED P1-P2 LEVELS
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED TEMPORARY SHORING
(SEE SHEET SH14 FOR ELEVATION)
PROPOSED TEMPORARY SHORING
(SEE SHEET SH15 FOR ELEVATION)
PROPOSED TEMPORARY SHORING
(SEE SHEET SH16 FOR ELEVATION)PROPOSED TEMPORARY SHORING
(SEE SHEET SH17 FOR ELEVATION)
PROPOSED TEMPORARY SHORING
(SEE SHEET SH18 FOR ELEVATION)
15 20 25 30 35
40
45
50
55
60
65
707580859095100
110
115
120
125
129
1
13
NOTE: THE PROPOSED EXCAVATION & TEMPORARY
SHORING SHALL BE PROPERLY DE-WATERED
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY CONSTRUCTION,
UNTIL THE PERMANENT STRUCTURE IS CAPABLE OF
SUPPORTING ALL HYDROSTATIC FORCES.
I I
I
I
I I
I "---
1
I
\ ')
I I
I ® ®
I
I
I
I
I
I I'
I
®
0
11»_,j ®
{//) {//)
ti
{//) J
1 <1))
®
I-
(0 {//)
~ ~ Iii l[e,m=z~ <1))=1z=zl =hm@~=mzzz=~~
@I
<1/J I <1/J
S
<1/J 11 <1/J
S
I
0 10 20
l...-lr-
40
I
GRAPHIC SCALE, 1" -20'
SHORING DESIGN GROUP
G
X
--1 ·1
Iii
h-
{//) (0
H
Iii ~ <1))
J '
[el
!'l J
'Zi
f T
{//) {//)
D J /
..
1 -~
I /
{//)
,,,
I
I I
i I I
I I i. I I . t
' ' 1 !~-:.
!
I
0
t---+-----+-----------+--+-----1----+-----<LTII CITY OF CARLSBAD I□
1---+-----+-----------+--+-----I----+-----< TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR:
OVERALL SHORING PLAN VIEW
JASON S. GELDERT
7727 CAMINITO LILIANA
SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2023 DATE
5/23/2024 R IOFTA
A NILFOEATS
C
NGN
LANOFOP
I
I
R
R SS
EE
E
EDERETSIGER
DEREP.OR
Exp.
C 80503
3/31/23
LIVIC
Y
70.00'
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
10:SCALE
70.00'
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
SB#1 SB#2 SB#3 SB#4 SB#5 SB#6
SB#7 SB#8 SB#9 SB#10 SB#11 SB#12 SB#13 SB#14
SB#15 SB#16 SB#17 SB#18 SB#19 SB#20 SB#21 SB#22 SB#23 SB#24 SB#25 SB#26 SB#27 SB#28 SB#29 SB#30 SB#31 SB#32 SB#33 SB#34 SB#35
T.O.W. = 54.00'
90
°
B
E
N
D
28 SPACES @ 8'-0" O.C. = 224'-0"8'-2"5 SPACES @ 7'-0" O.C. = 35'-0"4'-5"
T.O.W. = 54.00'T.O.W. = 55.00'T.O.W. = 56.00'T.O.W. = 57.00'
B.O.W. = 41.00'
T.O.W. = 59.00'T.O.W. = 58.00'
B.O.W. = 43.00'
90
°
B
E
N
D
TOP OF TEMPORARY
SLOPE (TYPICAL)
TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM
(SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE)
EXISTING SITE WALL
(TO BE REMOVED)
45.33'
FF
47.00'
FF
DAYLIGHT GRADE
B.O.W.=
42.00'
B.O.W.=
43.00'B.O.W.=
42.00'
B.O.W.=
43.00'
"H"
"D"
16"TC
42"TC
16"TC
15"TC
12"TD
XXXXXXXXXXXX OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OEOEOEOEOE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
O
E
O
E
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
GG
C WW
WWWOOD WALL
69
68
68
68
68
67
67
67
66
6
5
63
63
62 GEO GRIDTRANS PAD
67.10 TC
66.65 FL 67.84 TC
67.30 FL
67.73 TC
67.24 FL
68.49 TC
68.06 FL
68.09 TC
67.65 FL
67.43 67.68 67.77
63.43
63.30
63.2162
.
2
6
62
.
1
9
62.95
61.70
61.51
61.42
61.8062.45 62.69
63.13 67.52 FL66.32 FL
65.03 TC
64.54 FL
63.90 TC
63.37 FL
63.34 IE
66.29 IE62.38 TW 63.21 TW
68.02 TW
68.61 TW
67.60 TW
67.54 TW
69.70 TW
69.71 TW
69.71 TW
63.61
63
.
6
2
68
.
3
2
63.73
67
.
4
0
63.36
68
.
6
7
63
.
6
3
EV CAPABLE
000
EV CAPABLE
000
000
EV CAPABLE
000
EV CAPABLE
000000
EV CAPABLE
000 000000
EV CAPABLE
000
EV CAPABLE
000
EV CAPABLE
000
EV CAPABLE
000000
EV CAPABLE
000
EV CAPABLE
000000000000
000
00
0
00
0
000
000
000
XXXXXXXXXXX
X
XXX
X
XX
X
XXXXXXX
X
X
XX
XXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X X
X X
W
W
W
W
WG
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
S
S
S
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE OE OE OE OE OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE
OE
E E E E
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
SD SD SD SD
SD
SD SDSDSDSD
SDSD
SD
SDSD
SD
S
S
S
S
S
SS
SSSSSSSSSSSS
W
W W W W W W
W
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E
E
E
SH
O
R
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
G
R
O
U
P
77
2
7
C
A
M
I
N
I
T
O
L
I
L
I
A
N
A
,
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
2
9
PH
:
(
7
6
0
)
5
8
6
-
8
1
2
1
REVIEWED BY:
DATEINSPECTOR
DATE
"AS BUILT"
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
RCE EXP.
BAK
SDP 2022-0006
25
GR 2023-0044
546-4A
HOPE APARTMENTS
HOPE AVENUE
CT 2022-0001
PLSA 3802
10
PROPOSED TEMPORARY
SHORING (TYPICAL)
12'-0"4 7
37
127
GRAND AVENUE
12'-0"
10'-0"
HO
P
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(TYPICAL, BY OTHERS)
PROPOSED PLANTER
WALLS (BY OTHERS)
PROPOSED TRANSFORMER
PROPOSED SEWER
LATERAL (SEE CIVIL)
PROPOSED GAS
LATERAL (SEE CIVIL)
NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY
124
12'-11"
PROPOSED STORM
DRAIN (SEE CIVIL)
14
3
SH22
2
SH21
1
SH18
1
SH21
3
SH21
2
SH22
EXISTING SITE WALL
(TO BE REMOVED)
PROPOSED CURB
1. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET SH20 FOR SHORING ATTRIBUTES.
2. POTHOLE/FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION.
NOTES:DESIGNATES 3x12 PRESSURE
TREATED TIMBER LAGGINGPROFILE - LOOKING NORTHWEST
SCALE: 1" = 10'
14 17 20 23 26 29 32 35
12'-0"
10'-0"
PROPOSED SEWER
LATERAL (SEE CIVIL)
1
3
SH20
3
SH20
-
/ / V /
__ L ------
/~-
L • ...:.----.1·..::-:-::. j. ;;;:.:-~~.;.;-L:;;;;;~: -!. :;;;:,-c-::..:..J·,....-...;c--..,,l._~~--ffe.-~--·-:,,.,.· ·--i1•;-· .... ·-,-1·•-1,--,·· .. ..:.::· ::,:~fi--...::~·;:.;,.~~,-,....·--....:.-7-1' r-_._·=·•-;;;--li-·-....:.~::....::--~~;::;'.:•-~:;-:1~~-:;;:-~-•-~=--·;--·-__ -::.;-.f-.:..·_._.,;.;.. -,---~r--?i~"~: · hr~~-~:;;;,-~-fr•~➔-~r -~--'-'-rlr ~.;.;111· -..... -=~71-P :lf~"""'.' . ..-:=.-•rtr·;..,.;..=;-_-'lt. f"•-.... :-71-lr·--·""fffr·-.~~~,.-11· Fe;_-;;· w---m==· lfl ........ -
•• ~.---,I t:'... ·I--. .!'.
=/ : Ii --I r ·1 I -, ,· 1 11 l I I I ~11 : _,,c I I I I I I ,,
_ _, ,, ~--· h; • "I' 1m111 "" I I I I I I I I I Ill I II I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I LO LO LC
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I ~~ ~~ ~~ I I I LC 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
~~ ~~ ~~
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I
~~ ~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I LO
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I I I I LC
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I LC LC
I - -I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
~~ ~~ ~~ ~o LC LC LC
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ LO
+----
I I
I }Ir r _-'1 . if:' I I-----r -_c -~-------~,,. __ ~ x ---~ ~ ~ •_L..±~-~ L..Jc+ ~ I ,1-~ \ l l' ~u + rl1
\~lli~YL -=-.=ill= ___ _1 _____ , ~-=-L~ c";« --------!-~ --::::9J2 ___ • --__ 11 ; /'. __________________ ---A--~~ ---~ _ _, ____________ J ~r:: -----' _____ r\1 1-L _____ _L ____ : ____ ' ----
v •. ·• .,,·rrr/<-~---__ 1--l/l ~~!~---1 ---1 1 1 ,,7 \T H \-/ '\. ----_ .lll_ r-1 -l-n l r I , i1 ,.,G;i-------,L'> _+--,L,4~ -l --. .-, '"' /' ~ , ---, /' 'f ·s. ,-; ---
)<} / \--& .() ' \ ~ /I - -/ rn ° _'_ __=j\-=f~~ ~-1-I ~ ( ,;;rx1 ·;; ) v / i L -----a_ l~_:l0b+: ;~+::--t A---_J ~-~~ '~, ~ ~
F ' :i 1 I '\\__\~~/Iii ✓ ·· ... _· .•• ,,\_·_. '-,/ -, -l,'1 1::;V) ~ 1--==--,-7 ·✓ ~-~ t'fl----~-/\ ~ r:tr;~~ ~7 ~::ri,g Q .I --~ TY
' I ---~-,:-------.-fF-=========~==ec==c=~==~-~;;=;. ---* -L ee/'---=~ ---
[' I --i-T0""✓-?==_.~m1=Jlt:=-=-'i'
11!'2S'r ••• 1=rrTctl"~"fr~. ":==c~=·""'\'9==;1--=F_="'jl-_-=-@c::__\\0 r ~ >-t ~-~ /,' 'iL fr --~ --_-__('_ -~--c -_ cl ~~~~----=-_ ~ r--cc-~~----;-;-~~-r: L ~ -7 =--~4 ~_J J ~(r~f -1~~~
~ I r 1 / ¼ > -~ 111 11 ~L±:±:J-Q ~ -'\-r~ ' "'-J [) ~ :~, ill J11\ ;_~ -~ OJ. -: n--" --It O=--'-t---o-)--~-~----\. ..L ~ )II l ~U--~ x --::
' " I I ('If /,' -;-~ ~ -c;i~T -•~ T -T-I T ), -"'· ' '~ T -T T ~ r -lr=-c, 1--,-J, ---'I' -/--+ /T ·,, T T -rt T ~ T--T T m Ill I ' ' . ' ' ' . -
-
', l \: ' I
' '
~ I ~ -:J [J
1,·t y~ ®
0 5 10 20 30 ~-I I
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" - 1 O'
'2 /!j @. I I
L
II
-" " I /I
--,1-✓
+-V I
I
[J I
I
-
~ '?JJ ® .....
SHORING DESIGN GROUP
G
I
I
_/
,,
□
: ® ··~ ®
lJ
1----,1---+-----------+-----+--+-----,---<LTII CITY OF CARLSBAD ILJ
1---+--+-------------+---+---+---1---1 TEMPORARY SHORJNG PLANS FOR:
SHORING PLAN & ELEVATIONS
7727 CAMINITO LILIANA
SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2023 DATE
5/23/2024 R IOFTA
A NILFOEATS
C
NGN
LANOFOP
I
I
R
R SS
EE
E
EDERETSIGER
DEREP.OR
Exp.
C 80503
3/31/23
LIVIC
Y
~
TEMPORARY 1-1
SLOPE (TYPICAL)
10:SCALE
70.00'
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
70.00'
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
SB#36 SB#37 SB#38 SB#39 SB#40 SB#41 SB#42 SB#43 SB#44 SB#45 SB#46 SB#47 SB#48 SB#49 SB#50 SB#51 SB#52 SB#53 SB#54 SB#55 SB#56 SB#57 SB#58 SB#59 SB#60 SB#61 SB#62
T.O.W. = 59.00'
B.O.W. = 43.00'
90
°
B
E
N
D
90
°
B
E
N
D
90
°
B
E
N
D
4'-0"7'-0"7'-0"4'-10"4'-6"19 SPACES @ 8'-0" O.C. = 152'-0"6'-9"7'-0"7'-0"7'-0"7'-3"
EXISTING CURB
(TO BE REMOVED)
90
°
B
E
N
D
90
°
B
E
N
D
TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM
(SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE)
T.O.W. = 59.00'T.O.W. = 59.00'T.O.W. = 59.00'
B.O.W. = 43.00'
"H"
"D"
47.00'
FF
B.O.W.=
43.00'
B.O.W.=
43.00'
B.O.W.=
43.00'
EXISTING GRADE
90
°
B
E
N
D
6"
T
D
15
"
T
C
12
"
T
C
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
D D D DE
E
69
69
69
6
9
6
9
68
68
6
8
GE
O
G
R
I
D
TR
A
N
S
P
A
D
68
.
4
9
T
C
68
.
0
6
F
L
68
.
5
9
T
C
68
.
0
9
F
L
68
.
6
1
T
C
68
.
2
2
F
L
69
.
5
0
T
C
69
.
2
3
F
L
69
.
5
8
T
C
69
.
5
0
F
L
69
.
3
0
T
C
68
.
8
0
F
L
67
.
8
9
68
.
0
0
68
.
7
9
68
.
3
2
67
.
9
0
67
.
6
6
68
.
5
4
6
8
.
6
9
69
.
4
3
69
.
4
1
69
.
3
7
69
.
3
9
69
.
4
2
69
.
2
6
69
.
2
9
69
.
1
7
69
.
1
0
66
.
6
0
67
.
9
5
T
C
67
.
5
2
F
L
66
.
2
9
I
E
68
.
0
2
T
W
68
.
6
1
T
W
67
.
6
0
T
W
67
.
5
4
T
W
70
.
8
3
T
W
70
.
7
9
T
W
000 000 000000
000
00
0
000
000 000
EV
C
A
P
A
B
L
E
000
EV
C
A
P
A
B
L
E
000
EV
C
A
P
A
B
L
E
000
000000 000
000000000000000
00
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
SSSSSSSSSSSS
SD
SD
SD
SD
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
SD
SD
SD
WWW W
W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W W W
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SSS S
W
W
W
W
W
W
SH
O
R
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
G
R
O
U
P
77
2
7
C
A
M
I
N
I
T
O
L
I
L
I
A
N
A
,
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
2
9
PH
:
(
7
6
0
)
5
8
6
-
8
1
2
1
REVIEWED BY:
DATEINSPECTOR
DATE
"AS BUILT"
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
RCE EXP.
BAK
SDP 2022-0006
25
GR 2023-0044
546-4A
HOPE APARTMENTS
HOPE AVENUE
CT 2022-0001
PLSA 3802
1. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET SH20 FOR SHORING ATTRIBUTES.
2. POTHOLE/FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION.
NOTES:DESIGNATES 3x12 PRESSURE
TREATED TIMBER LAGGINGPROFILE - LOOKING NORTHEAST
SCALE: 1" = 10'
39
PROPOSED TEMPORARY
SHORING (TYPICAL)
12'-0"
33
36
12'-0"
13'-5"
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(TYPICAL, BY OTHERS)
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(TYPICAL, BY OTHERS)
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED ACCESS
ROAD EASEMENT
PROPOSED ACCESS
ROAD EASEMENT
GR
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
PROPOSED WATER
LINES (SEE CIVIL)PROPOSED ACCESS
ROAD EASEMENTPROPOSED STORM
DRAIN (SEE CIVIL)
3
SH21 2
SH22
3
SH21
2
SH18
1
SH21
2
SH21
2
SH22
3
SH22
4
SH20
42 45 48 51 54 57
62
65
15
I
I
I
I
I ---1--
1
I J.-~ ~ ,.
_)_ .\-I; :y. I
I
~I
I I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~~ ... 11 ""'~-f.,.JJ
I
I
I
I
CC<f-'-T i;,___J
--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 c~ cc c~
--=----
--
" '
-llml-11111-71', I I
I I I
I
I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I cc cc L.: ~ L.:~
20 o 5 rn I ~-1_ GRAPHIC SCALE: 1 10·
~,
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I cc
(
L
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I cc
-•~-,
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I cc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I --@ I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I cc
-
7ll1~~: I I I I
I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I cc cc cc
n
I I
-,. ;--•-·,. '
I I I I I I I I I'm" -1 1, l-ll11' I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
l
I
I I
I I -,-1
I I
I I
I I
c__'_
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I c~ cc c~
REVISION DESCRIPTION
'-,.~.
_]TT 1T
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I cc
-=-.:___,_,_
DATE INITIAL
OTHER APPROVAL
11 SHEETS I LT II CITY OF c~~LSBAD
TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS
& ELEVATIONS
SHORING PLAN JASON S. GELDERT
16"TP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
70
69
69
69
65
64
64
63
63
63
63
69.50 TC
69.23 FL
69.58 TC
69.50 FL
69.12 TC
68.6
9 69.38
69.43
69.5569.42
69.26
69.29
69.17
69.10
69.45
62
.
5
3
62.9370.83 TW
70.79 TW
64.5 63.8 62.7
63.363.764.2
64.7 63.3 63.6
74.24 TW
69.59 TW
69.54 TW
63.23 62.91
62.71
64.91
65.17 TC
64.85 FL
00
0
000
00
0
000000000
EV READY EV READY EV READY EV READYEV READY EV READY EV READY EV CAPABLEEV READY EV READYEV READY
000000000 000000000000000000000000000000
00
0
000
00
0
000 000 000
X
X X X X X X X X X X
X X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
E
E
EEEEEEEEEEEE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
W
W
SD SD
SD SD
SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD SD SD
SD SD
SD
E
E
E
EEEEEEEEEEEE
7727 CAMINITO LILIANA
SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2023 DATE
5/23/2024 R IOFTA
A NILFOEATS
C
NGN
LANOFOP
I
I
R
R SS
EE
E
EDERETSIGER
DEREP.OR
Exp.
C 80503
3/31/23
LIVIC
Y
10:SCALE
70.00'
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
70.00'
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
SB#63 SB#64 SB#65 SB#66 SB#67 SB#68 SB#69 SB#70 SB#71 SB#72 SB#73 SB#74 SB#75 SB#76 SB#77 SB#78 SB#79 SB#80 SB#81 SB#82 SB#83 SB#84 SB#85 SB#86 SB#87 SB#88 SB#89 SB#90 SB#91
SB#92 SB#93 SB#94 SB#95 SB#96 SB#97 SB#98 SB#99 SB#100
90
°
B
E
N
D
90
°
B
E
N
D
90
°
B
E
N
D
T.O.W. = 59.00'
5"7'-0"7'-0"8'-4"8'-4"7'-0"7'-0"
5"±
9 SPACES @ 8'-0" O.C. = 72'-0"9'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"9'-0"13 SPACES @ 8'-0" O.C. = 104'-0"8'-5"8'-0"9'-0"8'-0"
T.O.W. = 59.00'T.O.W. = 59.00'T.O.W. = 60.00'T.O.W. = 59.00'T.O.W. = 58.00'T.O.W. = 57.00'
B.O.W.=
43.00'
B.O.W.=
43.00'
B.O.W.=
43.00'
B.O.W.=
43.00'
FINISH GRADE (CUT PRIOR TO
TEMPORARY EXCAVATION)
EXISTING GRADE
~
TEMPORARY 1-1
SLOPE (TYPICAL)
"H"
"D"
EXISTING RETAINING WALL
(TO BE REMOVED)
T.O.W. = 57.00'
47.00'
FF
6'-3"
13'-6"
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(TYPICAL, BY OTHERS)
EXISTING FENCE
PROPOSED ACCESS
ROAD EASEMENT
72
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(TYPICAL, BY OTHERS)
12'-0"
12'-0"
PROPOSED TEMPORARY
SHORING (TYPICAL)
PROPOSED TEMPORARY
SHORING (TYPICAL)
PROPOSED ACCESS
ROAD EASEMENT
EXISTING WALL
(TO BE REMOVED)
PROPOSED STORM
DRAIN (SEE CIVIL)
PROPOSED STORM
DRAIN (SEE CIVIL)
4
SH20
2
SH21
1
SH19
1
SH21
4
SH20
3
SH20
60
66
69 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 100
103
63
SH
O
R
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
G
R
O
U
P
77
2
7
C
A
M
I
N
I
T
O
L
I
L
I
A
N
A
,
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
2
9
PH
:
(
7
6
0
)
5
8
6
-
8
1
2
1
REVIEWED BY:
DATEINSPECTOR
DATE
"AS BUILT"
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
RCE EXP.
BAK
SDP 2022-0006
25
GR 2023-0044
546-4A
HOPE APARTMENTS
HOPE AVENUE
CT 2022-0001
PLSA 3802
1. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET SH20 FOR SHORING ATTRIBUTES.
2. POTHOLE/FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION.
NOTES:DESIGNATES 3x12 PRESSURE
TREATED TIMBER LAGGINGPROFILE - LOOKING SOUTHEAST
SCALE: 1" = 10'
2
SH19
1
SH21
EXISTING PARKING
HO
P
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
CAUTION!!! EXISTING
OVERHEAD POWER LINES
RIGHT-OF-WAY
12'-6"
2
SH21
3
SH22
EXISTING ELECTRICAL
TRENCH (SEE CIVIL)
16
10'-0"
6'-5"8'-5"
I L_ __ _
I
I
I
I
.~.
-, I I \~
I I
I ~ ' I I
.l_______:::c__l
~ 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 ,-,-1-llli"Til 1,,--m-
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
--;-,--.-----.-.=
•-·-·.-•
I I
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I
~~
:a: i-r---K-------J ----r ----LJ ---nJt-___ LJ ____ LJ __ --,----LJ----,1
1
11
_ :k_____ L_ L __ --_ ---->~----\~11
f"z-_;=~~=:j:======'.================t=t::==J=~~~~~~=.31~E C ~~E~~~==:~-~-~/===·· r ==---... v~=?~~~~~. ~ ij Ii
0 0 --0 _ --f -·-oO ~~~-=---=,~.ci \ I
I
',,,II
I
;----...-
n 8
I I
. 11
LJ ~ I J
-:J ~ LJ -:J
~ B
1-----+---+------------+--+---+-+----l LT II CITY OF CARLSBAD ILJ
f---+---+--------------+----j--+---+---l TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR:
SHORING PLAN & ELEVATIONS
0 5 10 20 ~-I
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 10'
7727 CAMINITO LILIANA
SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2023 DATE
5/23/2024 R IOFTA
A NILFOEATS
C
NGN
LANOFOP
I
I
R
R SS
EE
E
EDERETSIGER
DEREP.OR
Exp.
C 80503
3/31/23
LIVIC
Y
10:SCALE
70.00'
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
70.00'
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
SB#100
SB#101 SB#102 SB#103 SB#104 SB#105 SB#106 SB#107 SB#108 SB#109 SB#110 SB#111 SB#112 SB#113 SB#114 SB#115 SB#116 SB#117 SB#118
SB#119 SB#120 SB#121
SB#122 SB#123 SB#124 SB#125
SB#126 SB#127 SB#128 SB#129 SB#1
T.O.W. = 57.00'
7'-0"8'-0"7'-0"14 SPACES @ 8'-0" O.C. = 112'-0"7'-2"6'-6"8'-5"8'-5"6'-6"6 SPACES @ 8'-0" O.C. = 48'-0"7'-0"7'-1"
B.O.W. = 43.00'
T.O.W. = 53.00'
90
°
B
E
N
D
90
°
B
E
N
D
90
°
B
E
N
D
90
°
B
E
N
D
90
°
B
E
N
D
90
°
B
E
N
D
T.O.W. = 53.00'T.O.W. = 53.00'
T.O.W. = 59.00'
T.O.W. = 53.00'T.O.W. = 53.00'
B.O.W. = 41.00'B.O.W.=
43.00'B.O.W.=
42.00'
B.O.W.=
42.00'
B.O.W.=
42.00'
"D"
"H"
EXISTING GRADE
~
TEMPORARY 1-1
SLOPE (TYPICAL)
1
SH22
47.00'
FF 45.33'
FF
TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM
(SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE)
16
"
T
P
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXXX
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE
OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE
OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE
OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE
OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE OE
OE
OE
OE
O
E
O
E
O
E
OE
OE
OE
GG
S
W
WO
O
D
W
A
L
L
63
63
63
63
63
63
6
3
62
62
61
.
7
2
62
.
0
5
63
.
2
1
62.26
62.19
62
.
9
5
61
.
7
0
61
.
5
1
61
.
4
2
61
.
8
0
62
.
4
5
62
.
6
9
62.60
62
.
1
5
62
.
4
4
62.53
62
.
3
0
62
.
5
8
62
.
9
3
62
.
5
2
62
.
6
3
63
.
0
9
62
.
1
9
T
C
61
.
7
7
F
L
62
.
0
8
T
C
61
.
6
2
F
L
61
.
5
4
T
C
61
.
4
9
F
L
62
.
3
8
T
W
63
.
2
1
T
W
62
.
1
62
.
7
63
.
3
63
.
6 62
62
.
9
1
62
.
7
1
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
MU
L
T
I
S
T
O
R
Y
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
000000 000 000000 000 000000 000 000000 000
00
0
000
000000 000000 000000 000
00
0
X
X X X
X
X X X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X X X X
X
X X X X
X
X X X X
X
X
X X X X X
X
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
W
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G G G G G G
S S S S S S
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE OE OE OE
SD SD SD SD
SD
SD SD SD SD SD
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W
W W
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
G
G
G
SSSSS
S
S
S
W
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
SH
O
R
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
G
R
O
U
P
77
2
7
C
A
M
I
N
I
T
O
L
I
L
I
A
N
A
,
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
2
9
PH
:
(
7
6
0
)
5
8
6
-
8
1
2
1
REVIEWED BY:
DATEINSPECTOR
DATE
"AS BUILT"
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
RCE EXP.
BAK
SDP 2022-0006
25
GR 2023-0044
546-4A
HOPE APARTMENTS
HOPE AVENUE
CT 2022-0001
PLSA 3802
1. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET SH20 FOR SHORING ATTRIBUTES.
2. POTHOLE/FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION.
NOTES:DESIGNATES 3x12 PRESSURE
TREATED TIMBER LAGGINGPROFILE - LOOKING SOUTHWEST
SCALE: 1" = 10'
12'-6"
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(TYPICAL, BY OTHERS)
103
2
HOPEAVENUE
CAUTION!!! EXISTING
OVERHEAD POWER LINES
12'-6"12'-5"
6'-0"
RIGHT-OF-WAY10'-0"10'-0"
NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY
12'-0"
PROPOSED SEWER
LATERALS (SEE CIVIL)
PROPOSED TEMPORARY
SHORING (TYPICAL)
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(TYPICAL, BY OTHERS)
EXISTING PARKING
GR
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
3
SH22
2
SH21
1
SH20
1
SH21
2
SH22
3
SH22
3
SH22
OLD RIGHT-OF-WAY
97
100 106 109 112 115 118
121
126 129123
5
17
10'-0"
/ /
_L__
LJi:: ___ ----------~-';-----------; -• -.• .•-·-. -·--~ -1 11 -=r = ., 1·'r I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~~
I \
0 5 10 20 ~-I
GRAPHIC SCALE: r· -1 o·
--·------.,-. --
·-.,
·-::--• -.·-•,._
1rl111i1 -I ...
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~~ ~~
X
-.-
·-·-•-
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
~~ ~~
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I I I I
~~
----=-·-•--·.----------;--•
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
~~
SHORING DESIGN GROUP
G
~·-, -,-. '
I _lllli' I ,,,ff,
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
~~
/ / /
-----,_
___'._.,_!___,.--~ . .
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
~~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~~
/
-----
'I~
~~
V /
I
I
I _T ________ T_l_
i
I
-;_____,___,
-•-,•-
I I I I
~1
---~ ---~ -; .:::'(,.
_._____!_·-------.--· --• .. ~, •-,--• .. -,------'-------•--;--.• .,-,, ·-' - -1 ,,-111 111 I 1-I I I I 1 11
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I+----
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I 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===t==j======================t===t==~===⇒===1 LT 11 CITY OF CARLSBAD I LJ 1---1---1-------------+---+---+---l---1 TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR:
SHORING PLAN & ELEVATIONS
APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT
7727 CAMINITO LILIANA
SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2023 DATE
5/23/2024 R IOFTA
A NILFOEATS
C
NGN
LANOFOP
I
I
R
R SS
EE
E
EDERETSIGER
DEREP.OR
Exp.
C 80503
3/31/23
LIVIC
Y
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
70.00'
30.00'
TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM
(SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE)
BOTTOM OF
EXCAVATION
"H"
LOWERED GROUNDWATER
(SEE NOTE #3)
PL
"D"
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(BY OTHERS, TYPICAL)
12'-0"12'-0"12'-11"
CI
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
CI
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
70.00'
30.00'
1
1
SOLDIER BEAM CROSS SECTION ALONG EAST ACCESS ROAD
N.T.S.
2
SH18
NOTES: 1. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING & PROPOSED STRUCTURES PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION.
2. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SH20 FOR VARIABLES "H", "D", & "Dshaft".
3. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A STABLE DE-WATERED EXCAVATION
DURING SHORING ACTIVITIES.
10'-0"
TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM
(SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE)
BOTTOM OF
EXCAVATION
SOLDIER BEAM CROSS SECTION ALONG GRAND AVENUE
N.T.S.
1
SH18
"H"
LOWERED GROUNDWATER
(SEE NOTE #3)
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
70.00'
30.00'
RW
OLD RIGHT-OF-WAY
RW
NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY
12'-0"
TYP.7'-6"7'-6"4'-6"10'-6"
30'-0"
SD
G
&
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
SD
G
&
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
CI
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
"D"
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(BY OTHERS, TYPICAL)
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
70.00'
30.00'
1
1
NOTES: 1. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING & PROPOSED STRUCTURES PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION.
2. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SH20 FOR VARIABLES "H", "D", & "Dshaft".
3. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A STABLE DE-WATERED EXCAVATION
DURING SHORING ACTIVITIES.
10'-0"
DAYLIGHT
GRADE
SH
O
R
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
G
R
O
U
P
77
2
7
C
A
M
I
N
I
T
O
L
I
L
I
A
N
A
,
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
2
9
PH
:
(
7
6
0
)
5
8
6
-
8
1
2
1
REVIEWED BY:
DATEINSPECTOR
DATE
"AS BUILT"
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
RCE EXP.
BAK
SDP 2022-0006
25
GR 2023-0044
546-4A
HOPE APARTMENTS
HOPE AVENUE
CT 2022-0001
PLSA 3802
18
I .. ----r"·-
1
I
Jc__ -t
v
v__ ____________ _ f-----------
\__)
--------+------t ~
- --~_=,,~~,=~==~===
1-~ 51___ -------
I
I
---t-
1:
I
1
I
I
I
7
I
I
I
1----1-----1-----------+--+----ll-----f----i ETII CITY OF CARLSBAD ILJ
f---+---+--------------+------,f---+---+-----1 TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR:
SHORING CROSS SECTIONS
7727 CAMINITO LILIANA
SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2023 DATE
5/23/2024 R IOFTA
A NILFOEATS
C
NGN
LANOFOP
I
I
R
R SS
EE
E
EDERETSIGER
DEREP.OR
Exp.
C 80503
3/31/23
LIVIC
Y
6'-5"
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
70.00'
30.00'
TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM
(SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE)
BOTTOM OF
EXCAVATION
"H"
LOWERED GROUNDWATER
(SEE NOTE #3)
"D"
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(BY OTHERS, TYPICAL)
10'-0"
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
70.00'
30.00'
1
1
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
70.00'
30.00'
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
70.00'
30.00'
BOTTOM OF
EXCAVATION
"H"
LOWERED GROUNDWATER
(SEE NOTE #3)
"D"
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(BY OTHERS, TYPICAL)
1
1
TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM
(SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE)
SOLDIER BEAM CROSS SECTION ALONG SOUTH EAST
N.T.S.
1
SH19
NOTES: 1. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING & PROPOSED STRUCTURES PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION.
2. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SH20 FOR VARIABLES "H", "D", & "Dshaft".
3. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A STABLE DE-WATERED EXCAVATION
DURING SHORING ACTIVITIES.
SOLDIER BEAM CROSS SECTION ALONG SOUTH EAST
N.T.S.
2
SH19
NOTES: 1. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING & PROPOSED STRUCTURES PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION.
2. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SH20 FOR VARIABLES "H", "D", & "Dshaft".
3. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A STABLE DE-WATERED EXCAVATION
DURING SHORING ACTIVITIES.
EXISTING GRADE
8'-5"
EXISTING FENCE
FINISH GRADE
SH
O
R
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
G
R
O
U
P
77
2
7
C
A
M
I
N
I
T
O
L
I
L
I
A
N
A
,
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
2
9
PH
:
(
7
6
0
)
5
8
6
-
8
1
2
1
REVIEWED BY:
DATEINSPECTOR
DATE
"AS BUILT"
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
RCE EXP.
BAK
SDP 2022-0006
25
GR 2023-0044
546-4A
HOPE APARTMENTS
HOPE AVENUE
CT 2022-0001
PLSA 3802
19
\ •,
- -~ --=-::,n=, _=======l==rrr==f ... , l I - -__i --==_=;,,,;=,_=T;=,,_~, ===tc~~=;,,=,TTJ=f'-71'
:sz____ -------:sz____ ------
L
\___)
~===t==±=====================~==~===t===~=~ ETII CITY OF CARLSBAD ILJ
Lf--L---_ -_ -_ -l--1--_ -_ -_ -_+-L -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_-_-_-_-_ tt---_-_-_ tt--------r,--------r,-------=i TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR:
7727 CAMINITO LILIANA
SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2023 DATE
5/23/2024 R IOFTA
A NILFOEATS
C
NGN
LANOFOP
I
I
R
R SS
EE
E
EDERETSIGER
DEREP.OR
Exp.
C 80503
3/31/23
LIVIC
Y
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
70.00'
30.00'
BOTTOM OF
EXCAVATION
"H"
LOWERED GROUNDWATER
(SEE NOTE #3)
"D"
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(BY OTHERS, TYPICAL)
12'-6"
1
1
TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM
(SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE)
10'-0"10'-0"
60.00'
50.00'
40.00'
70.00'
30.00'
RWRIGHT-OF-WAY RW
HO
P
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE
SOLDIER BEAM CROSS SECTION ALONG HOPE AVENUE
N.T.S.
1
SH20
NOTES: 1. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING & PROPOSED STRUCTURES PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION.
2. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SH20 FOR VARIABLES "H", "D", & "Dshaft".
3. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A STABLE DE-WATERED EXCAVATION
DURING SHORING ACTIVITIES.
10'-0"
SOLDIER BEAM
DRILL SHAFT (SEE DETAIL
1/SH21 FOR BACKFILL
MATERIAL)
1.5" (MIN.)
BEARING
TIMBER LAGGING
(SEE ELEVATIONS)
LAGGING OFFSET DETAIL
N.T.S.
2" (MIN.)
BEARING
OUTSIDE CORNER DETAIL
N.T.S.
SOLDIER BEAM
TIMBER LAGGING
(SEE ELEVATION)
2" (MIN.)
SOLDIER BEAM
2" (MIN.)
BEARING
TIMBER LAGGING
(SEE ELEVATIONS)
ANGLE IRON ALTERNATE (AS REQUIRED)
N.T.S.
2
SH20
3
SH20
4
SH20
DRILL SHAFT (SEE DETAIL
1/SH21 FOR BACKFILL
MATERIAL)
DRILL SHAFT (SEE DETAIL
1/SH21 FOR BACKFILL
MATERIAL)
L4x4x14 ANGLE IRON
PLACED ALONG HEIGHT "H"
SH
O
R
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
G
R
O
U
P
77
2
7
C
A
M
I
N
I
T
O
L
I
L
I
A
N
A
,
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
2
9
PH
:
(
7
6
0
)
5
8
6
-
8
1
2
1
REVIEWED BY:
DATEINSPECTOR
DATE
"AS BUILT"
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
RCE EXP.
BAK
SDP 2022-0006
25
GR 2023-0044
546-4A
HOPE APARTMENTS
HOPE AVENUE
CT 2022-0001
PLSA 3802
20
-_,_ ------+-' ----f
.sz..____ ------- -
--
0 \._,J
SHORING DESIGN GROUP
G
From To
Beam Beam
1 6
7 14
15 18
19 26
27 33
34 80
81
84
86
92
101
83
85
91
100
107
108 118
119 121
122 125
126 129
I
\._,J
Beam
Qty
6
8
4
8
7
Beam
Section
W 24 X 68
W 24 X 62
W 24 X 68
W 24 X 84
Shored
Height
H
ft
13.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
W 24x 104 15.0
47 W 27x 114 16.0
9
7
W 27 X 129
W 24x 104
17.0
16.0
W24x94 15.0
W 24 X 76 14.0
W21 x 55 10.0
11 W21 x5 5 11 .0
3 W 27 X 129 17 .0
4 W21 x5 5 11 .0
4 W 24x 62 12.0
Toe
Depth
D
ft
22.0
20.0
22.0
23.0
23.0
24.0
25.0
24.0
23.0
21.0
19.0
19.0
25.0
19.0
20.0
Total
Drill
Depth
H+D
ft
35.0
32.0
35.0
37.0
38.0
40.0
42.0
40.0
38.0
35.0
29.0
30.0
42.0
30.0
32.0
Min.
Toe
Diameter
Dshaft
in
30
30
30
30
36
36
36
36
30
30
30
30
36
30
30
t===t==j======================t===t==~===⇒===1 LT 11 CITY OF CARLSBAD I LJ ~---1-----1--------------+----J--+--+---J TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR:
SHOmNG DETAILS + SCHEDULE
7727 CAMINITO LILIANA
SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2023 DATE
5/23/2024 R IOFTA
A NILFOEATS
C
NGN
LANOFOP
I
I
R
R SS
EE
E
EDERETSIGER
DEREP.OR
Exp.
C 80503
3/31/23
LIVIC
Y
EXISTING GRADE
"H"
"D"
Dshaft
TIMBER LAGGING, TYPICAL
(SEE ELEVATION FOR SIZE)
1.5 SACK SLURRY SHAFT
BACKFILL (T.O.W. TO B.O.W)
2,500 PSI CONCRETE SHAFT
BACKFILL (B.O.W TO PILE TIP)
44" (MIN.)
SAFETY CABLE RAILING, PER
CAL-OHSA REQUIREMENTS
(TYP., AROUND ENTIRE SHORED
PERIMETER, SEE 4/SH22)
TEMPORARY CANTILEVERED SOLDIER BEAM (TYPICAL)
N.T.S.
SOLDIER BEAM, TYPICAL
(SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE)
NOTES: 1. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING & PROPOSED STRUCTURES PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION.
2. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON 20 FOR VARIABLES "H", "D", & "Dshaft".
3. INSTALL NON-STRUCTURAL WASTE SLAB IN SLOTS ACCORDING TO THE ONSITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
SOLDIER BEAM PLAN DETAIL (TYPICAL)
N.T.S.
SEE ELEVATION FOR SPACING
FILL VOIDS BEHIND LAGGING WITH
COMPACTED SOIL OR LEAN CONCRETE
SOLDIER BEAM
20d COMMON NAIL FOR LAGGING
INSTALLATION (TYP., AS REQ'D)
1.5" (MIN.)
BEARING
TIMBER LAGGING
(SEE ELEVATIONS)
5'-6" (MAX.)
5'-6" (MAX.)
SOLDIER BEAM
LOG CABIN CORNER
L3x3x1/4 WITH 1/2"x3"
LAG SCREWS 12" O.C.
(BOTH LEGS)
TIMBER
LAGGING
LOG CABIN CORNER DETAIL
N.T.S.
TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE
(VARIES, SEE PLAN)
1
1
ALTERNATE LAGGING FOR
LOG CABIN CORNER
24"
MIN.
WASTE SLAB
(AS NEEDED(
PROPOSED MAT FOUNDATION
1
SH21
2
SH21
3
SH21
NOTE: BACKFILL THE UPPER LAGGING BOARD (12") WITH LEAN CONCRETE, AS
SPECIFIED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD.
TRENCH
DRAIN
DRILL SHAFT (SEE DETAIL
1/SH21 FOR BACKFILL
MATERIAL)
DRILL SHAFT (SEE DETAIL
1/SH21 FOR BACKFILL
MATERIAL)
SH
O
R
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
G
R
O
U
P
77
2
7
C
A
M
I
N
I
T
O
L
I
L
I
A
N
A
,
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
2
9
PH
:
(
7
6
0
)
5
8
6
-
8
1
2
1
REVIEWED BY:
DATEINSPECTOR
DATE
"AS BUILT"
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
RCE EXP.
BAK
SDP 2022-0006
25
GR 2023-0044
546-4A
HOPE APARTMENTS
HOPE AVENUE
CT 2022-0001
PLSA 3802
21
-
::1
8
t==t==t::=================1===1===t===t=~ SHORING DETAIUI
c===±===t======================~===~~===r====r==~
1
APPROVED, JASON s. GELDERT
1 c===±===t======================~===~~===l====r==~ ENGINEERING ~ANAGER RCE 63912 EXPIRES 9 130 i24DA1E ~~ r) k~--i-..a..-..--+---------------i1,,.,.hNiiiiAL-JDAirE11NmAL1I I OWN BY: ---1 I PROJECT NO. 11 DRAWING NO.I
-__ i_, ~-----=--------DATE INITIAL REVISION DESCRIPTION '""o"°:E"'~-.,,L..CP:cc~:::=:~+-=~=~~::....A~PP=:~~~v~---IL II~~ ~~;--:I !I I ENGINEER OF' WORK
~===i==j===================~===t==+===t==~ LT II CITY OF CARLSBAD ILJ
1-f-L--____ +_j_ ____ -_+-1-____________________________________________ --r-____ --r-____ Ii--____ Ii-___ II TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR:
7727 CAMINITO LILIANA
SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2023 DATE
5/23/2024 R IOFTA
A NILFOEATS
C
NGN
LANOFOP
I
I
R
R SS
EE
E
EDERETSIGER
DEREP.OR
Exp.
C 80503
3/31/23
LIVIC
Y
44"
2"
21"
21"
CAL-OSHA GUARDRAIL DETAIL
N.T.S.
L2x2x3/8 ANGLE IRON ATOP EACH SOLDIER
BEAM MEMBER W/ 3/8-inch WIRE ROPE
ALONG ENTIRE SHORING PERIMETER (TYP.)
SOLDIER BEAM, TYP.
(SEE SCHEDULE)
DRILL SHAFT (SEE BEAM
SECTIONS FOR BACKFILL
MATERIAL)
EACH BEAM1/4"L=6"
INSIDE CORNER DETAIL
N.T.S.
SOLDIER BEAM
TIMBER LAGGING
(SEE ELEVATION)
1.5" (MIN.)
SOLDIER BEAM
TIMBER LAGGING
(SEE ELEVATION)
OUTSIDE CORNER DETAIL
N.T.S.
20d COMMON NAIL FOR LAGGING
INSTALLATION (4 PER BOARD)
SOLDIER BEAM
TIMBER LAGGING DIAGONAL SUPPORT DETAIL
N.T.S.
TIMBER LAGGING
(SEE ELEVATION)
2" (MIN.)
BEARING
1
SH22
2
SH22
3
SH22
4
SH22
TEMPORARY 1-1
SLOPE (TYPICAL)
6" MIN.
TOE BOARD
DRILL SHAFT (SEE DETAIL
1/SH21 FOR BACKFILL
MATERIAL)
DRILL SHAFT (SEE DETAIL
1/SH21 FOR BACKFILL
MATERIAL)
SH
O
R
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
G
R
O
U
P
77
2
7
C
A
M
I
N
I
T
O
L
I
L
I
A
N
A
,
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
2
9
PH
:
(
7
6
0
)
5
8
6
-
8
1
2
1
REVIEWED BY:
DATEINSPECTOR
DATE
"AS BUILT"
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
RCE EXP.
BAK
SDP 2022-0006
25
GR 2023-0044
546-4A
HOPE APARTMENTS
HOPE AVENUE
CT 2022-0001
PLSA 3802
22
8
-
' -1
I l l ' '
' 1= I l h
-'I TT= -11-1 ~
xv --fr / -/ ' l -,. f-
) I ",
8 8
~===i==j===================~===t==+==~==~ LT II CITY OF CARLSBAD ILJ
1-f-L--____ ---1J-_____ -_J-f-________________________________________________ -_tt-______ ---ji--____ --r-______ tt--__ II TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR:
7727 CAMINITO LILIANA
SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2023 DATE
5/23/2024 R IOFTA
A NILFOEATS
C
NGN
LANOFOP
I
I
R
R SS
EE
E
EDERETSIGER
DEREP.OR
Exp.
C 80503
3/31/23
LIVIC
Y
GENERAL NOTES
1. CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND CALCULATIONS CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE.
2. TEMPORARY SHORING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS (CAL-OSHA).
3. HEAVY CONSTRUCTION LOADS SUCH AS CRANES, CONCRETE TRUCKS OR OTHER LOAD SURCHARGES NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE
"DESIGN CRITERIA", WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS & FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS. NOTIFY THE SHORING & SOILS
ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
4. ALL TEMPORARY SHORING ELEMENTS DEPICTED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM SERVICE LIFE OF
ONE (1) YEAR. AT THE END OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, THE EXISTING OR NEW STRUCTURES SHALL NOT RELY ON THE
TEMPORARY SHORING FOR SUPPORT IN ANYWAY.
5. AN UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT MUST BE OBTAINED 2 DAYS BEFORE COMMENCING ANY EXCAVATION.
6. THE OWNER OR THE REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE ACTING AS THE OWNER'S AGENT SHALL EMPLOY
ONE OR MORE APPROVED AGENCIES TO PERFORM INSPECTIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
7. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL INSPECTION SERVICES, TESTING & NOTIFICATIONS.
8. ALL PERMITS SHALL BE PROCURED AND PAID FOR BY THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
9. ALL MONITORING PROVIDED IN THESE PLANS HEREIN, SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
10. TEMPORARY SHORING IN THESE PLANS HAS BEEN ALIGNED WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTING & PROPOSED FEATURES, AS
PROVIDED. ACTUAL FIELD LOCATION OF THE SHORING WALL SHALL BE ESTABLISHED USING ACCURATE HORIZONTAL
CONTROL & COORDINATED TO FOLLOW THE PLANNED LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. REPORT ANY
VARIATIONS TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
11. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR OWNER SHALL LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION
AND THE INSTALLATION OF SHORING.
12. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE PROPOSED SHORING DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH FUTURE
IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
13. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE MEANS TO PREVENT SURFACE WATER FROM ENTERING THE EXCAVATION OVER
THE TOP OF SHORING BULKHEAD.
14. INSTALLATION OF SHORING AND EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER CONTINUOUS OBSERVATION AND APPROVAL OF
THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION.
15. ALTERNATIVE SHAPES, MATERIAL AND DETAILS CANNOT BE USED UNLESS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE SHORING
ENGINEER.
16. IT SHALL BE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, TO VERIFY CONDITIONS AT THE
JOB SITE AND TO CROSS-CHECK DETAILS AND DIMENSIONS WITHIN THE SHORING PLANS WITH RELATED REQUIREMENTS ON
THE ARCHITECTURAL, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND ALL OTHER PERTINENT DRAWINGS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH
CONSTRUCTION.
17. ALL GRADING & EXCAVATIONS PERFORMED FOR THE PROPOSED TEMPORARY SHORING AND/OR PROPOSED STRUCTURE, IS
OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SERVICES PROVIDED HEREIN. GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUCTING SITE
EARTHWORK IN CONFORMANCE WITH GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS
STRUCTURAL STEEL
1. STRUCTURAL STEEL (WIDE FLANGES) SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS ASTM A-572 OR ASTM
A-992 (GRADE 50).
2. MISCELLANEOUS STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A-36, ASTM A-572 (GRADE
50) OR ASTM A-992.
3. TRENCH PLATES (LAGGING) SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS FO ASTM A-36.
STRUCTURAL & LEAN CONCRETE
A. STRUCTURAL CONCRETE:
1. STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (DRILL SHAFT TOE BACKFILL) SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH OF 2,500PSI AT 28-DAYS.
2. CONCRETE MIX SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2016CBC & ACI 336 TO MEET THE FOLLOWING:
A. MAXIMUM 1-INCH HARDROCK CONCRETE CONFORMING TO ASTM C-33.
B. TYPE II NEAT PORTLAND CEMENT CONFORMING TO ASTM C-150.
C. SLUMP FOR WET HOLE 6"-8" & 4"-6" DRY HOLES.
B. LEAN CONCRETE (SLURRY)
1. LEAN SAND SLURRY MIX SHALL CONTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.5 SACKS TYPE II CEMENT PER CUBIC YARD.
TIMBER
1. TIMBER LAGGING SHALL BE ROUGH SAWN DOUGLAS FIR LARCH NO. 2 OR BETTER.
2. TIMBER LAGGING SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWPA U1 USE CATEGORY 4A.
WELDING
1. ELECTRIC ARC WELDING PERFORMED BY QUALIFIED WELDERS USING E70XX ELECTRODES OR
CONTIUOUS WIRE FEED.
2. SPECIAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED FOR ALL FIELD WELDING.
SHORING INSTALLATION PROCEDURE
1. FIELD SURVEY DRILL HOLES & SHORING ALIGNMENT ACCORDING TO WALL DIMENSIONS & DATA SHOWN OR AS APPROVED BY
THE SHORING ENGINEER.
2. DRILL VERTICAL SHAFTS TO THE EMBEDMENT DEPTH AND DIAMETERS SHOWN. ALLOWABLE PLACEMENT TOLERANCE SHALL
BE 2" IN OR 2" OUT OR AS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE SHORING ENGINEER.
3. INSTALL SOLDIER BEAMS ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN IN PLAN. IF NECESSARY, CASING OR
OTHER METHODS SHALL BE USED TO PREVENT LOSS OF GROUND OR COLLAPSE OF THE HOLE.
4. START EXCAVATION AFTER CONCRETE HAS CURED FOR A MINIMUM OF (3) THREE DAYS.
5. INSTALL LAGGING BETWEEN INSTALLED SOLDIER BEAMS IN LIFTS NO GREATER THAN 5'-0" OR AS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
6. BACKFILL VOIDS BEHIND LAGGING WITH LEAN CONCRETE FOR THE UPPER 12" IN EACH LIFT & COMPACTED SOIL (OR LEAN
CONCRETE) BELOW (REMAINING 4').
7. REPEAT STEPS 6-7 UNTIL BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION IS REACHED.
8. ALL EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE LAGGED AND BACKFILLED BY THE END OF EACH WORKDAY. NO EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE LEFT
EXPOSED OR WITHOUT BACKFILL.
MONITORING
1. MONITORING SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AT THE TOP OF SOLDIER BEAMS SELECTED BY THE ONSITE
GEOTECHNCIAL REPRESENTATIVE AND AT INTERVALS ALONG THE WALL AS CONSIDERED
APPROPRIATE.
2. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM A PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY INCLUDING
PHOTOGRAPHS & VIDEO OF THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS.
3. MAXIMUM THEORETICAL SOLDIER BEAM DEFLECTION IS 1-INCH. IF THE TOTAL CUMULATIVE
HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL MOVEMENT (FROM START OF CONSTRUCTION) EXCEEDS THIS LIMIT, ALL
EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE SUSPENDED AND INVESTIGATED BY THE SHORING ENGINEER FOR
FURTHER ACTIONS (AS NECESSARY).
DESIGN CRITERIA
1. SOIL DESIGN DATA IS BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED IN THE
FOLLOWING GEOTECHNICAL REPORT(S):
A. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED HOPE APARTMENTS
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED BY: GEOTEK, INC.
DATED: JULY 28, 2022
2. SOIL DESIGN PRESSURES
A. PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE = 300PSF/FT (4,500 PSF, MAX.)
B. ACTIVE EARTH = 40PSF/FT (LEVEL)
C. ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE = 70PSF/FT - 100PSF/FT (W/ 1-1 SLOPE)
SH
O
R
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
G
R
O
U
P
77
2
7
C
A
M
I
N
I
T
O
L
I
L
I
A
N
A
,
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
2
9
PH
:
(
7
6
0
)
5
8
6
-
8
1
2
1
REVIEWED BY:
DATEINSPECTOR
DATE
"AS BUILT"
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
RCE EXP.
BAK
SDP 2022-0006
25
GR 2023-0044
546-4A
HOPE APARTMENTS
HOPE AVENUE
CT 2022-0001
PLSA 3802
23
SHORING DESIGN GROUP
G
STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS
VERIFlCATION AND INSPECTION
1. Inspection of concrete placement for
proper application techniques.
2. Verify use of required design mix
3. Material verification of structural steel
a. For structural steel, identification markings
to conform to AISC 360.
b. Manufacturer's certified test reports
4. Inspection of welding.
a. t.lultipass fillet welds.
5. Material identification of timber
a. Identification of timber
VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION (OTHER ITEMS)
6. Observe drilling operations and maintain
complete and accurate records for each
element.
7. Verify placement locations and plumbness,
confirm element diameters, bell diameters
(if applicable), lengths, embedment into
bedrock (if applicable) and adequate end
bearing strata capacity. Record concrete
and grout values.
8. Verify excavations are extended to the
proper depth.
CONTINOUS
--
--
--
--
X
--
X
X
PERIODIC
X
X
X
X
--
X
--
X
IBC REFERENCE
1908.4
1904.1, 1904.2
1908.2, 1908.3
AISC 360
1704.2
1---+----4-----------+--+----l----4----l LT II CITY OF CARLSBAD ILJ
TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR:
NOTES & INSPECTIONS
Section 2
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 9
pile excavations are properly prepared and cleaned out, dimensions are achieved, and specific
installation procedures are followed. The shoring to be constructed at the site should be
surveyed and monitored on a regular basis for any movement. If any significant movement is
observed during shoring and construction operations, it should be brought to the immediate
attention of the project general contractor, shoring contractor and geotechnical consultant for
appropriate corrective measures.
It is recommended that during design of the shoring GeoTek be contacted for review of
geotechnical design parameters.
Soldier Piles
Soldier piles installed to support earth pressures are anticipated to be concrete encased H piles,
designed by the project structural engineer or shoring engineer. Other reasonable shoring
options might be sheet piling and/or secant or tangent drilled piers.
The excavation for the proposed basement is anticipated to expose bedrock materials of the
Santiago Formation. Santiago Formation bedrock is also expected to be encountered at the base
of some of the excavations. As old paralic deposits and artificial fill overly the bedrock in this
portion of the project site, measures to prevent caving should be considered during excavation.
The drilling contractor should be made aware of the presence of bedrock and that appropriate
heavy-duty drilling equipment in good working order and/or special drilling techniques will be
required. It should be realized that the ability of any particular contractor to excavate the
materials encountered will vary based on factors that may or may not be considered in the
presented evaluation. All methods available to evaluate rock hardness and associated rippability
are interpretive to some extent. As such, experience and judgment are primary factors in such
evaluations.
For design of cantilevered shoring, lateral at-rest or active earth pressures may be suitable with
a static lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 40 pounds per cubic
foot (pcf) for the active condition and 65 pcf for the at-rest condition for retained material with
level backfill. The actual pressure distribution to be used for design should be determined by the
structural/shoring engineer. For braced excavations, the shoring could be designed based on a
uniform pressure distribution with a pressure value of 22.0 H psf, where H is the wall height in
feet.
The above equivalent fluid weights do not include other superimposed loading conditions such
as vehicular traffic, hydrostatic (water table), structures, construction materials, seismic
conditions, etc. Applicable surcharge loads should be considered and applied by the
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 10
structural/shoring engineer. The project structural/shoring engineer should design the shoring
system using a suitable factor of safety and it should be designed for the lowest adjacent grade.
For the design of soldier piles, an ultimate lateral bearing value (passive value) of 300 pounds per
square foot per foot of depth, to a maximum value of 4,500 psf, may be assumed for material
below the level of excavation to determine soldier pile depth and spacing. The effective width
of the soldier pile can be assumed to be twice the solder pile diameter for passive pressure
calculations. However, passive resistance should be ignored within the upper foot due to
possible disturbance. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be taken to assure firm
contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed earth material. The construction of the
shoring system should be monitored continuously, and adjacent structures/improvements should
be observed for any potential lateral and vertical movement.
Lagging
Design of lagging is the purview of the shoring designer. Lagging should be installed at a maximum
5-foot vertical unsupported cut as the excavation is advanced. Field conditions including earth
material classification and seepage during construction may determine if this height of vertical
cut needs to be reduced to less than 5 feet. Friable soils were noted in the boring logs and
indicates caving or sluffing soil may be encountered during excavation of lagging. The upper one
foot of the lagging should be grouted or slurry–filled to assist in diverting surface water from
migrating behind the shoring walls.
The lagging should be backfilled immediately as the excavation is advanced in order to minimize
the voids created between the lagging and vertical cut and also to reduce the potential for ground
subsidence behind the wall. The lagging material should be designed considering it may serve as
a permanent installation.
Shrinkage and Bulking
Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including undocumented fill shrinkage,
trench spoil from utilities and footing excavations, as well as the accuracy of topography.
Shrinkage is not anticipated to be a factor in quantities estimating, as the site, based on the
proposed basement construction will likely be an export site. For excavations in the formational
material (Old Paralics and Santiago Formation) silty sandstone, a bulking factor of 10 percent may
be considered. Subsidence should not be a factor on the subject site due to the presence of near
surface formational material.
5.2.9
GEOTEK
Section 3
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Active Pressure
SB "1-6, 15-18"
Cut Geometry
H 13 ft= Maximum retained height
Hs 10 ft= Retained slope height
x 1= Horizontal slope projection
y 1= Vertical slope projection
Pa 40 pcf= Active earth pressure
(Level Condition)
γ 125 pcf= Unit weight of soil
C 0 psf= Soil Cohesion
Define Wedge Boundaries
= Substituted "phi"
value (Conservative)ϕ 245degatan Pa
γ
ϕ 31 deg
α 45 degθ atan xHs
HHs
= Failure wedge angle at "daylight"
(Edge of slope)
A. Oblique Wedge Interior to Slope
S_plane φ()H sin 90 degα()
sin 90 degφα()Slope φ()H sin φ()
sin 90 degφα()s φ()S_plane φ( ) Slope φ()H
2
area φ() sφ()sφ( ) S_plane φ()()s φ( ) Slope φ()()s φ() H()
B. Exterior Slope Wedge Polygon
Level φ()H2 tan φ()
2a_plus φ() H Hs( ) tan φ()Hsa_minus φ()Hs2 x
2
Hs2
2 tan 90 degφ()
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#1-6, 15-
18.xmcdz
t .,., I,"'
t ~ -r W(<,o)
Q(rp) "H' j
f3
F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Resultant
W φ( ) area φ()γφθif
Level φ()γa_plus φ()γa_minus φ()γotherwise
= Failure wedge gravity load
N φ()W φ( ) C S_plane φ()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()φθif
W φ() CH Hs()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()otherwise
= Failure wedge normal force
Coulomb Resultant Force
Q φ() Nφ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()C S_plane φ()tan φ()()φθif
N φ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()CH Hs()tan φ()[ ] otherwise
Determine Critical Failure
Initial Guess:fail 30 deg
Given
failQ fail()d
d 0=
β Find fail()
0 10
0
10
20
Critical Failure Wedge
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
β 36.4 deg
Q β()7542.2 plf
Inclined Active Earth Pressure
Pa Ceil 2 Q β()
H2 5 pcf
Pa 90 pcf
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#1-6, 15-
18.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design
Sb_No "1-6, 15-18"
Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties
Pile "Concrete Embed"
H 13.01 ft= Soldier beam retained height
x 1
Hs 10 ft--->= Height of retained slope (As applicable)
y 1
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 30 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
de' dia= Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade
dt 3 H= Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess)
1000 100
20
0
20
Shoring Design Section
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
ASTM A992 (Grade 50)
E 29000 ksi
Fy 50 ksi
ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2)
D + H + L
Lateral Embedment Safety Factor
FSd 1.30
Cantilever H = 13', bm 1-6, 15-18 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
I I I
... -
-
... -
I I
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Soil Parameters
Pa 90 pcf= Lateral earth pressure with 1-1 slope
Pp 300 pcf= Passive earth pressure
Pmax 4500 psf= Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable)
neglected 12 in= Neglected depth of passive resistance
dz 6 in= Overburden depth at subgrade
Pps Pp dz= Passive pressure offset at subgrade
pole 2= Isolated pole factor for soil arching below subgrade
be pole de'= Effective soldier beam width below subgrade
a_ratio min be
xt
1
= Soldier beam arching ratio
a_ratio 0.63
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
γs 125 pcf= Soil unit weight
γw 62.4 pcf= Unit weight of water
Cantilever H = 13', bm 1-6, 15-18 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Lateral Live Load Surcharge
Uniform Loading
Full 0 psf= Uniform loading full soldier beam height
Partial 0 psf= Uniform loading partial soldier beam height
Hpar 0 ft= Height of partial uniform surcharge loading
Ps y( ) Full Partial0 ftyHparif
Full Hpar yHif
0 psfotherwise
Uniform surcharge profile per depth
Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading
Pr 0 kip= Applied axial load per beam
e 0 in= Eccentricity of applied compressive load
Me Pr e
xt
= Eccentric bending moment
Ph 0 lb= lateral pont load at depth "zh"
zh 0 ft= Distance to lateral point load from top of wall
Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable)
EFP 0 pcf= Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure
Es EFP H= Maximum seismic force pressure
Eq y() Es
Es
H yyHif
0 psfotherwise
= Maximum seismic force pressure
Cantilever H = 13', bm 1-6, 15-18 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Boussinesq Lateral Surcharge Load
Q 0 klf= Surcharge load of continous or isolated footings
z'0 ft= Depth below adjacent grade to application of surcharge load
x1 0 ft= Distance of line load from back face of wall
Surcharge Coefficients ny()yz'
Hmx1H 1
Boussinesq Equation
Pb y()0 psf0 ftyz'if
if m 0.40Q
H
0.20ny()
0.16 ny()()221.28Q
H
m2 ny()
m2 ny()()22
z' yHif
0 psfotherwise
0 100 2000
5
10
Lateral Surcharge Loading
Pressure (psf)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Maximum Boussinesq Pressure
Δy 3 ft
Given
Δy Pb Δy()d
d 0 psf=
Pb Find Δy()()0 psf
0
H
yPb y()
d 0 klf
Cantilever H = 13', bm 1-6, 15-18 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Equillibrium Conditions
PA H()1157.9 psf
PD Hdt()2812.5psf
Assume a trial value for "D" & solve
D 20 ft
Given
Summing Moments About Tip
0
HD
yPAy() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPs y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPb y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yEq y() H Dy()
dMePh
xt
HDzh()
H neglected
HD
yPDy() H Dy()
d
0=
Dh Find D()
0 210441046104
0
10
0
Bending Moment Diagram
Moment (ft-kip/ft)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Dh 16.5 ft
Distance to zero shear
(From top of Pile)
ε aH
ε Va()
aa0.10 ft
ε Va()
ε 0while
areturn
ε 21.4 ft
Cantilever H = 13', bm 1-6, 15-18 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Minimum Pile Size
My()
0
y
yVy()
dMeMmax M ε()xtMmax 586.9 kip ft
AISC Steel Construction Manual 15th Edition
Ω 1.67= Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1
Δσ 1.33= Steel overstress for temporary loading
Fb Fy Δσ
Ω
= Allowable bending stress
Required Section Modulus:Zr
Mmax
FbFlexural Yielding, Lb < Lr Zr 176.9 in3
Beam "W24 x 68"
Fb 39.8 ksi
A 20.1 in2bf 9 inK 1Lu H Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
ε otherwise
d 23.7 intf 0.6 inZx 177 in3
tw 0.4 inrx 9.6 inIx 1830 in4Fe π2 E
KLu
rx
2
Axial Stresses λ
Fy
Fe
Fcr 0.658λ FyKLu
rx
4.71 E
Fyif
0.877 Fe( ) otherwise
= Nominal compressive stress - AISC E.3-2 & E3-3
= Allowable concentric force - AISC E.3-1Pc
Fcr A
Ω
Ma Zx Fb= Allowable bending moment - AISC F.2-1
Interaction Pr
Pc
8
9
Mmax
Ma
Pr
Pc 0.20if
Pr
2 Pc
Mmax
Ma
otherwise
= AISC H1-1a & H1-1b Ma 587.4 kip ft
Interaction 1Mmax 586.9 kip ft
Cantilever H = 13', bm 1-6, 15-18 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
-F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Embedment depth increase for min global FS
Dh' Floor Dh ft()2.5 ft
Overturning moments
MO y()
0
H Dh'
yPAy( ) H Dh'y()
d
0
H Dh'
yPs y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yPb y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yEq y( ) H Dh'y()dMePh
xt
H Dh'zh()
Overturning moments
MR y()
H neglected
H Dh'
yPDy( ) H Dh'y()
d
MO HD()172 kip
MR HD()
MO HD()1.3
MR HD()218kip
Factor of Safety:
Overturnning if FSd
MR HD()
MO HD()"Ok""No Good: Increase Dh"
Overturnning "Ok"
Cantilever H = 13', bm 1-6, 15-18 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Axial Resistance
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
p'π diaPile "Concrete Embed"=if
2 bf dotherwise
= Applied axial load per beam
Allowable Axial Resistance
Qy( ) p' fsyπ dia2qa
4 Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
bf dqaotherwise
Dv ε 0 ft
τ Q ε()
εε0.10 ft
τ Pr Q ε()
τ 0while
εreturn
Dv 0 ft
Dh'18.5ft
Selected Toe Depth Dtoe if Dh' DvFloor Dh'1.2ft()Dv()
Dtoe 22 ft
Maximum Deflection
L' H dzDh
4= Effective length about pile rotation
Δ
xt
EIx0
L'
yyMy()dΔ 0.85 in
Cantilever H = 13', bm 1-6, 15-18 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Design Summary:Sb_No "1-6, 15-18"
Beam "W24 x 68"
H 13ft= Soldier beam retained height
Dtoe 22 ft= Minimum soldier beam embedment
H Dtoe35ft= Total length of soldier beam
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 30 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
Δ 0.85 in= Maximum soldier beam deflection
Cantilever H = 13', bm 1-6, 15-18 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Section 4
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Active Pressure
SB "7-14, 126-129"
Cut Geometry
H 12 ft= Maximum retained height
Hs 10 ft= Retained slope height
x 1= Horizontal slope projection
y 1= Vertical slope projection
Pa 40 pcf= Active earth pressure
(Level Condition)
γ 125 pcf= Unit weight of soil
C 0 psf= Soil Cohesion
Define Wedge Boundaries
= Substituted "phi"
value (Conservative)ϕ 245degatan Pa
γ
ϕ 31 deg
α 45 degθ atan xHs
HHs
= Failure wedge angle at "daylight"
(Edge of slope)
A. Oblique Wedge Interior to Slope
S_plane φ()H sin 90 degα()
sin 90 degφα()Slope φ()H sin φ()
sin 90 degφα()s φ()S_plane φ( ) Slope φ()H
2
area φ() sφ()sφ( ) S_plane φ()()s φ( ) Slope φ()()s φ() H()
B. Exterior Slope Wedge Polygon
Level φ()H2 tan φ()
2a_plus φ() H Hs( ) tan φ()Hsa_minus φ()Hs2 x
2
Hs2
2 tan 90 degφ()
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#7-14, 126-
129.xmcdz
t .,., I,"'
t ~ -r W(<,o)
Q(rp) "H' j
f3
F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Resultant
W φ( ) area φ()γφθif
Level φ()γa_plus φ()γa_minus φ()γotherwise
= Failure wedge gravity load
N φ()W φ( ) C S_plane φ()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()φθif
W φ() CH Hs()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()otherwise
= Failure wedge normal force
Coulomb Resultant Force
Q φ() Nφ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()C S_plane φ()tan φ()()φθif
N φ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()CH Hs()tan φ()[ ] otherwise
Determine Critical Failure
Initial Guess:fail 30 deg
Given
failQ fail()d
d 0=
β Find fail()
0 10
0
10
20
Critical Failure Wedge
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
β 36.9 deg
Q β()6682.1 plf
Inclined Active Earth Pressure
Pa Ceil 2 Q β()
H2 5 pcf
Pa 95 pcf
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#7-14, 126-
129.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design
Sb_No "7-14, 126-129"
Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties
Pile "Concrete Embed"
H 12 ft= Soldier beam retained height
x 1
Hs 10 ft--->= Height of retained slope (As applicable)
y 1
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 30 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
de' dia= Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade
dt 3 H= Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess)
1000 100
20
0
20
Shoring Design Section
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
ASTM A992 (Grade 50)
E 29000 ksi
Fy 50 ksi
ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2)
D + H + L
Lateral Embedment Safety Factor
FSd 1.30
Cantilever H = 12', bm 7-14, 126-129 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
I I I
... -
-
... -
I I
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Soil Parameters
Pa 95 pcf= Lateral earth pressure with 1-1 slope
Pp 300 pcf= Passive earth pressure
Pmax 4500 psf= Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable)
neglected 12 in= Neglected depth of passive resistance
dz 12 in= Overburden depth at subgrade
Pps Pp dz= Passive pressure offset at subgrade
pole 2= Isolated pole factor for soil arching below subgrade
be pole de'= Effective soldier beam width below subgrade
a_ratio min be
xt
1
= Soldier beam arching ratio
a_ratio 0.63
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
γs 125 pcf= Soil unit weight
γw 62.4 pcf= Unit weight of water
Cantilever H = 12', bm 7-14, 126-129 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Lateral Live Load Surcharge
Uniform Loading
Full 0 psf= Uniform loading full soldier beam height
Partial 0 psf= Uniform loading partial soldier beam height
Hpar 0 ft= Height of partial uniform surcharge loading
Ps y( ) Full Partial0 ftyHparif
Full Hpar yHif
0 psfotherwise
Uniform surcharge profile per depth
Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading
Pr 0 kip= Applied axial load per beam
e 0 in= Eccentricity of applied compressive load
Me Pr e
xt
= Eccentric bending moment
Ph 0 lb= lateral pont load at depth "zh"
zh 0 ft= Distance to lateral point load from top of wall
Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable)
EFP 0 pcf= Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure
Es EFP H= Maximum seismic force pressure
Eq y() Es
Es
H yyHif
0 psfotherwise
= Maximum seismic force pressure
Cantilever H = 12', bm 7-14, 126-129 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Boussinesq Lateral Surcharge Load
Q 0 klf= Surcharge load of continous or isolated footings
z'0 ft= Depth below adjacent grade to application of surcharge load
x1 0 ft= Distance of line load from back face of wall
Surcharge Coefficients ny()yz'
Hmx1H 1
Boussinesq Equation
Pb y()0 psf0 ftyz'if
if m 0.40Q
H
0.20ny()
0.16 ny()()221.28Q
H
m2 ny()
m2 ny()()22
z' yHif
0 psfotherwise
0 100 2000
5
10
Lateral Surcharge Loading
Pressure (psf)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Maximum Boussinesq Pressure
Δy 3 ft
Given
Δy Pb Δy()d
d 0 psf=
Pb Find Δy()()0 psf
0
H
yPb y()
d 0 klf
Cantilever H = 12', bm 7-14, 126-129 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Equillibrium Conditions
PA H()1140 psf
PD Hdt()2812.5psf
Assume a trial value for "D" & solve
D 20 ft
Given
Summing Moments About Tip
0
HD
yPAy() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPs y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPb y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yEq y() H Dy()
dMePh
xt
HDzh()
H neglected
HD
yPDy() H Dy()
d
0=
Dh Find D()
0 210441046104
0
10
0
Bending Moment Diagram
Moment (ft-kip/ft)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Dh 15.4 ft
Distance to zero shear
(From top of Pile)
ε aH
ε Va()
aa0.10 ft
ε Va()
ε 0while
areturn
ε 19.8 ft
Cantilever H = 12', bm 7-14, 126-129 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Minimum Pile Size
My()
0
y
yVy()
dMeMmax M ε()xtMmax 493.1 kip ft
AISC Steel Construction Manual 15th Edition
Ω 1.67= Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1
Δσ 1.33= Steel overstress for temporary loading
Fb Fy Δσ
Ω
= Allowable bending stress
Required Section Modulus:Zr
Mmax
FbFlexural Yielding, Lb < Lr Zr 148.6 in3
Beam "W24 x 62"
Fb 39.8 ksi
A 18.2 in2bf 7 inK 1Lu H Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
ε otherwise
d 23.7 intf 0.6 inZx 153 in3
tw 0.4 inrx 9.2 inIx 1550 in4Fe π2 E
KLu
rx
2
Axial Stresses λ
Fy
Fe
Fcr 0.658λ FyKLu
rx
4.71 E
Fyif
0.877 Fe( ) otherwise
= Nominal compressive stress - AISC E.3-2 & E3-3
= Allowable concentric force - AISC E.3-1Pc
Fcr A
Ω
Ma Zx Fb= Allowable bending moment - AISC F.2-1
Interaction Pr
Pc
8
9
Mmax
Ma
Pr
Pc 0.20if
Pr
2 Pc
Mmax
Ma
otherwise
= AISC H1-1a & H1-1b Ma 507.7 kip ft
Interaction 0.97Mmax 493.1 kip ft
Cantilever H = 12', bm 7-14, 126-129 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
-F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Embedment depth increase for min global FS
Dh' Floor Dh ft()2.5 ft
Overturning moments
MO y()
0
H Dh'
yPAy( ) H Dh'y()
d
0
H Dh'
yPs y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yPb y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yEq y( ) H Dh'y()dMePh
xt
H Dh'zh()
Overturning moments
MR y()
H neglected
H Dh'
yPDy( ) H Dh'y()
d
MO HD()147.1 kip
MR HD()
MO HD()1.3
MR HD()190.1kip
Factor of Safety:
Overturnning if FSd
MR HD()
MO HD()"Ok""No Good: Increase Dh"
Overturnning "Ok"
Cantilever H = 12', bm 7-14, 126-129 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Axial Resistance
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
p'π diaPile "Concrete Embed"=if
2 bf dotherwise
= Applied axial load per beam
Allowable Axial Resistance
Qy( ) p' fsyπ dia2qa
4 Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
bf dqaotherwise
Dv ε 0 ft
τ Q ε()
εε0.10 ft
τ Pr Q ε()
τ 0while
εreturn
Dv 0 ft
Dh'17.5ft
Selected Toe Depth Dtoe if Dh' DvFloor Dh'1.2ft()Dv()
Dtoe 20 ft
Maximum Deflection
L' H dzDh
4= Effective length about pile rotation
Δ
xt
EIx0
L'
yyMy()dΔ 0.68 in
Cantilever H = 12', bm 7-14, 126-129 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Design Summary:Sb_No "7-14, 126-129"
Beam "W24 x 62"
H 12ft= Soldier beam retained height
Dtoe 20 ft= Minimum soldier beam embedment
H Dtoe32ft= Total length of soldier beam
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 30 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
Δ 0.68 in= Maximum soldier beam deflection
Cantilever H = 12', bm 7-14, 126-129 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Section 5
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Active Pressure
SB "19-26"
Cut Geometry
H 14 ft= Maximum retained height
Hs 10 ft= Retained slope height
x 1= Horizontal slope projection
y 1= Vertical slope projection
Pa 40 pcf= Active earth pressure
(Level Condition)
γ 125 pcf= Unit weight of soil
C 0 psf= Soil Cohesion
Define Wedge Boundaries
= Substituted "phi"
value (Conservative)ϕ 245degatan Pa
γ
ϕ 31 deg
α 45 degθ atan xHs
HHs
= Failure wedge angle at "daylight"
(Edge of slope)
A. Oblique Wedge Interior to Slope
S_plane φ()H sin 90 degα()
sin 90 degφα()Slope φ()H sin φ()
sin 90 degφα()s φ()S_plane φ( ) Slope φ()H
2
area φ() sφ()sφ( ) S_plane φ()()s φ( ) Slope φ()()s φ() H()
B. Exterior Slope Wedge Polygon
Level φ()H2 tan φ()
2a_plus φ() H Hs( ) tan φ()Hsa_minus φ()Hs2 x
2
Hs2
2 tan 90 degφ()
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#19-
26.xmcdz
t .,., I,"'
t ~ -r W(<,o)
Q(rp) "H' j
f3
F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Resultant
W φ( ) area φ()γφθif
Level φ()γa_plus φ()γa_minus φ()γotherwise
= Failure wedge gravity load
N φ()W φ( ) C S_plane φ()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()φθif
W φ() CH Hs()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()otherwise
= Failure wedge normal force
Coulomb Resultant Force
Q φ() Nφ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()C S_plane φ()tan φ()()φθif
N φ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()CH Hs()tan φ()[ ] otherwise
Determine Critical Failure
Initial Guess:fail 30 deg
Given
fail
Q fail()d
d
0=
β Find fail()
0 10 20
0
10
20
Critical Failure Wedge
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
β 35.9 deg
Q β()8446.4 plf
Inclined Active Earth Pressure
Pa Ceil 2 Q β()
H2 5 pcf
Pa 90 pcf
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#19-
26.xmcdz
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design
Sb_No "19-26"
Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties
Pile "Concrete Embed"
H 14 ft= Soldier beam retained height
x 1
Hs 10 ft--->= Height of retained slope (As applicable)
y 1
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 36 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
de' dia= Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade
dt 3 H= Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess)
1000 100
40
20
0
20
Shoring Design Section
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
ASTM A992 (Grade 50)
E 29000 ksi
Fy 50 ksi
ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2)
D + H + L
Lateral Embedment Safety Factor
FSd 1.30
Cantilever H = 14', bm 19-26 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
I I I
--
-
--
-I I -
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Soil Parameters
Pa 90 pcf= Lateral earth pressure with 1-1 slope
Pp 300 pcf= Passive earth pressure
Pmax 4500 psf= Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable)
neglected 12 in= Neglected depth of passive resistance
dz 6 in= Overburden depth at subgrade
Pps Pp dz= Passive pressure offset at subgrade
pole 2= Isolated pole factor for soil arching below subgrade
be pole de'= Effective soldier beam width below subgrade
a_ratio min be
xt
1
= Soldier beam arching ratio
a_ratio 0.75
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
γs 125 pcf= Soil unit weight
γw 62.4 pcf= Unit weight of water
Cantilever H = 14', bm 19-26 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Lateral Live Load Surcharge
Uniform Loading
Full 0 psf= Uniform loading full soldier beam height
Partial 0 psf= Uniform loading partial soldier beam height
Hpar 0 ft= Height of partial uniform surcharge loading
Ps y( ) Full Partial0 ftyHparif
Full Hpar yHif
0 psfotherwise
Uniform surcharge profile per depth
Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading
Pr 0 kip= Applied axial load per beam
e 0 in= Eccentricity of applied compressive load
Me Pr e
xt
= Eccentric bending moment
Ph 0 lb= lateral pont load at depth "zh"
zh 0 ft= Distance to lateral point load from top of wall
Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable)
EFP 0 pcf= Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure
Es EFP H= Maximum seismic force pressure
Eq y() Es
Es
H yyHif
0 psfotherwise
= Maximum seismic force pressure
Cantilever H = 14', bm 19-26 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Boussinesq Lateral Surcharge Load
Q 0 klf= Surcharge load of continous or isolated footings
z'0 ft= Depth below adjacent grade to application of surcharge load
x1 0 ft= Distance of line load from back face of wall
Surcharge Coefficients ny()yz'
Hmx1H 1
Boussinesq Equation
Pb y()0 psf0 ftyz'if
if m 0.40Q
H
0.20ny()
0.16 ny()()221.28Q
H
m2 ny()
m2 ny()()22
z' yHif
0 psfotherwise
0 100 2000
5
10
Lateral Surcharge Loading
Pressure (psf)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Maximum Boussinesq Pressure
Δy 3 ft
Given
Δy Pb Δy()d
d 0 psf=
Pb Find Δy()()0 psf
0
H
yPb y()
d 0 klf
Cantilever H = 14', bm 19-26 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Equillibrium Conditions
PA H()1260 psf
PD Hdt()3375psf
Assume a trial value for "D" & solve
D 20 ft
Given
Summing Moments About Tip
0
HD
yPAy() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPs y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPb y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yEq y() H Dy()
dMePh
xt
HDzh()
H neglected
HD
yPDy() H Dy()
d
0=
Dh Find D()
0 2104410461048104
0
20
10
0
Bending Moment Diagram
Moment (ft-kip/ft)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Dh 16.8 ft
Distance to zero shear
(From top of Pile)
ε aH
ε Va()
aa0.10 ft
ε Va()
ε 0while
areturn
ε 22.5 ft
Cantilever H = 14', bm 19-26 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Minimum Pile Size
My()
0
y
yVy()
dMeMmax M ε()xtMmax 726.5 kip ft
AISC Steel Construction Manual 15th Edition
Ω 1.67= Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1
Δσ 1.33= Steel overstress for temporary loading
Fb Fy Δσ
Ω
= Allowable bending stress
Required Section Modulus:Zr
Mmax
FbFlexural Yielding, Lb < Lr Zr 218.9 in3
Beam "W24 x 84"
Fb 39.8 ksi
A 24.7 in2bf 9 inK 1Lu H Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
ε otherwise
d 24.1 intf 0.8 inZx 224 in3
tw 0.5 inrx 9.8 inIx 2370 in4Fe π2 E
KLu
rx
2
Axial Stresses λ
Fy
Fe
Fcr 0.658λ FyKLu
rx
4.71 E
Fyif
0.877 Fe( ) otherwise
= Nominal compressive stress - AISC E.3-2 & E3-3
= Allowable concentric force - AISC E.3-1Pc
Fcr A
Ω
Ma Zx Fb= Allowable bending moment - AISC F.2-1
Interaction Pr
Pc
8
9
Mmax
Ma
Pr
Pc 0.20if
Pr
2 Pc
Mmax
Ma
otherwise
= AISC H1-1a & H1-1b Ma 743.3 kip ft
Interaction 0.98Mmax 726.5 kip ft
Cantilever H = 14', bm 19-26 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
-F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Embedment depth increase for min global FS
Dh' Floor Dh ft()3 ft
Overturning moments
MO y()
0
H Dh'
yPAy( ) H Dh'y()
d
0
H Dh'
yPs y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yPb y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yEq y( ) H Dh'y()dMePh
xt
H Dh'zh()
Overturning moments
MR y()
H neglected
H Dh'
yPDy( ) H Dh'y()
d
MO HD()208.7 kip
MR HD()
MO HD()1.3
MR HD()270kip
Factor of Safety:
Overturnning if FSd
MR HD()
MO HD()"Ok""No Good: Increase Dh"
Overturnning "Ok"
Cantilever H = 14', bm 19-26 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Axial Resistance
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
p'π diaPile "Concrete Embed"=if
2 bf dotherwise
= Applied axial load per beam
Allowable Axial Resistance
Qy( ) p' fsyπ dia2qa
4 Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
bf dqaotherwise
Dv ε 0 ft
τ Q ε()
εε0.10 ft
τ Pr Q ε()
τ 0while
εreturn
Dv 0 ft
Dh'19ft
Selected Toe Depth Dtoe if Dh' DvCeil Dh'1.2ft()Dv()
Dtoe 23 ft
Maximum Deflection
L' H dzDh
4= Effective length about pile rotation
Δ
xt
EIx0
L'
yyMy()dΔ 1 in
Cantilever H = 14', bm 19-26 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Design Summary:Sb_No "19-26"
Beam "W24 x 84"
H 14ft= Soldier beam retained height
Dtoe 23 ft= Minimum soldier beam embedment
H Dtoe37ft= Total length of soldier beam
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 36 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
Δ 1 in= Maximum soldier beam deflection
Cantilever H = 14', bm 19-26 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Section 6
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Active Pressure
SB "27-33"
Cut Geometry
H 15 ft= Maximum retained height
Hs 10 ft= Retained slope height
x 1= Horizontal slope projection
y 1= Vertical slope projection
Pa 40 pcf= Active earth pressure
(Level Condition)
γ 125 pcf= Unit weight of soil
C 0 psf= Soil Cohesion
Define Wedge Boundaries
= Substituted "phi"
value (Conservative)ϕ 245degatan Pa
γ
ϕ 31 deg
α 45 degθ atan xHs
HHs
= Failure wedge angle at "daylight"
(Edge of slope)
A. Oblique Wedge Interior to Slope
S_plane φ()H sin 90 degα()
sin 90 degφα()Slope φ()H sin φ()
sin 90 degφα()s φ()S_plane φ( ) Slope φ()H
2
area φ() sφ()sφ( ) S_plane φ()()s φ( ) Slope φ()()s φ() H()
B. Exterior Slope Wedge Polygon
Level φ()H2 tan φ()
2a_plus φ() H Hs( ) tan φ()Hsa_minus φ()Hs2 x
2
Hs2
2 tan 90 degφ()
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#27-
33.xmcdz
t .,., I,"'
t ~ -r W(<,o)
Q(rp) "H' j
f3
F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Resultant
W φ( ) area φ()γφθif
Level φ()γa_plus φ()γa_minus φ()γotherwise
= Failure wedge gravity load
N φ()W φ( ) C S_plane φ()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()φθif
W φ() CH Hs()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()otherwise
= Failure wedge normal force
Coulomb Resultant Force
Q φ() Nφ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()C S_plane φ()tan φ()()φθif
N φ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()CH Hs()tan φ()[ ] otherwise
Determine Critical Failure
Initial Guess:fail 30 deg
Given
fail
Q fail()d
d
0=
β Find fail()
0 10 20
0
10
20
30
Critical Failure Wedge
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
β 35.4 deg
Q β()9394.2 plf
Inclined Active Earth Pressure
Pa Ceil 2 Q β()
H2 5 pcf
Pa 85 pcf
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#27-
33.xmcdz
/
/
/
/
/
/
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design
Sb_No "27-33"
Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties
Pile "Concrete Embed"
H 15 ft= Soldier beam retained height
x 1
Hs 10 ft--->= Height of retained slope (As applicable)
y 1
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 36 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
de' dia= Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade
dt 3 H= Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess)
1000 100
40
20
0
20
Shoring Design Section
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
ASTM A992 (Grade 50)
E 29000 ksi
Fy 50 ksi
ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2)
D + H + L
Lateral Embedment Safety Factor
FSd 1.30
Cantilever H = 15', bm 27-33 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
I I I
... -
-
... -
... -
I I
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Soil Parameters
Pa 85 pcf= Lateral earth pressure with 1-1 slope
Pp 300 pcf= Passive earth pressure
Pmax 4500 psf= Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable)
neglected 12 in= Neglected depth of passive resistance
dz 6 in= Overburden depth at subgrade
Pps Pp dz= Passive pressure offset at subgrade
pole 2= Isolated pole factor for soil arching below subgrade
be pole de'= Effective soldier beam width below subgrade
a_ratio min be
xt
1
= Soldier beam arching ratio
a_ratio 0.75
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
γs 125 pcf= Soil unit weight
γw 62.4 pcf= Unit weight of water
Cantilever H = 15', bm 27-33 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Lateral Live Load Surcharge
Uniform Loading
Full 0 psf= Uniform loading full soldier beam height
Partial 0 psf= Uniform loading partial soldier beam height
Hpar 0 ft= Height of partial uniform surcharge loading
Ps y( ) Full Partial0 ftyHparif
Full Hpar yHif
0 psfotherwise
Uniform surcharge profile per depth
Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading
Pr 0 kip= Applied axial load per beam
e 0 in= Eccentricity of applied compressive load
Me Pr e
xt
= Eccentric bending moment
Ph 0 lb= lateral pont load at depth "zh"
zh 0 ft= Distance to lateral point load from top of wall
Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable)
EFP 0 pcf= Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure
Es EFP H= Maximum seismic force pressure
Eq y() Es
Es
H yyHif
0 psfotherwise
= Maximum seismic force pressure
Cantilever H = 15', bm 27-33 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Boussinesq Lateral Surcharge Load
Q 0 klf= Surcharge load of continous or isolated footings
z'0 ft= Depth below adjacent grade to application of surcharge load
x1 0 ft= Distance of line load from back face of wall
Surcharge Coefficients ny()yz'
Hmx1H 1
Boussinesq Equation
Pb y()0 psf0 ftyz'if
if m 0.40Q
H
0.20ny()
0.16 ny()()221.28Q
H
m2 ny()
m2 ny()()22
z' yHif
0 psfotherwise
0 100 2000
5
10
15
Lateral Surcharge Loading
Pressure (psf)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Maximum Boussinesq Pressure
Δy 3 ft
Given
Δy Pb Δy()d
d 0 psf=
Pb Find Δy()()0 psf
0
H
yPb y()
d 0 klf
Cantilever H = 15', bm 27-33 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Equillibrium Conditions
PA H()1275 psf
PD Hdt()3375psf
Assume a trial value for "D" & solve
D 20 ft
Given
Summing Moments About Tip
0
HD
yPAy() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPs y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPb y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yEq y() H Dy()
dMePh
xt
HDzh()
H neglected
HD
yPDy() H Dy()
d
0=
Dh Find D()
0 51041105
0
20
10
0
Bending Moment Diagram
Moment (ft-kip/ft)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Dh 17.6 ft
Distance to zero shear
(From top of Pile)
ε aH
ε Va()
aa0.10 ft
ε Va()
ε 0while
areturn
ε 23.9 ft
Cantilever H = 15', bm 27-33 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Minimum Pile Size
My()
0
y
yVy()
dMeMmax M ε()xtMmax 831.2 kip ft
AISC Steel Construction Manual 15th Edition
Ω 1.67= Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1
Δσ 1.33= Steel overstress for temporary loading
Fb Fy Δσ
Ω
= Allowable bending stress
Required Section Modulus:Zr
Mmax
FbFlexural Yielding, Lb < Lr Zr 250.5 in3
Beam "W24 x 104"
Fb 39.8 ksi
A 30.6 in2bf 12.8 inK 1Lu H Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
ε otherwise
d 24.1 intf 0.8 inZx 289 in3
tw 0.5 inrx 10.1 inIx 3100 in4Fe π2 E
KLu
rx
2
Axial Stresses λ
Fy
Fe
Fcr 0.658λ FyKLu
rx
4.71 E
Fyif
0.877 Fe( ) otherwise
= Nominal compressive stress - AISC E.3-2 & E3-3
= Allowable concentric force - AISC E.3-1Pc
Fcr A
Ω
Ma Zx Fb= Allowable bending moment - AISC F.2-1
Interaction Pr
Pc
8
9
Mmax
Ma
Pr
Pc 0.20if
Pr
2 Pc
Mmax
Ma
otherwise
= AISC H1-1a & H1-1b Ma 959 kip ft
Interaction 0.87Mmax 831.2 kip ft
Cantilever H = 15', bm 27-33 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
-F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Embedment depth increase for min global FS
Dh' Floor Dh ft()3 ft
Overturning moments
MO y()
0
H Dh'
yPAy( ) H Dh'y()
d
0
H Dh'
yPs y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yPb y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yEq y( ) H Dh'y()dMePh
xt
H Dh'zh()
Overturning moments
MR y()
H neglected
H Dh'
yPDy( ) H Dh'y()
d
MO HD()239.1 kip
MR HD()
MO HD()1.3
MR HD()311.9kip
Factor of Safety:
Overturnning if FSd
MR HD()
MO HD()"Ok""No Good: Increase Dh"
Overturnning "Ok"
Cantilever H = 15', bm 27-33 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Axial Resistance
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
p'π diaPile "Concrete Embed"=if
2 bf dotherwise
= Applied axial load per beam
Allowable Axial Resistance
Qy( ) p' fsyπ dia2qa
4 Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
bf dqaotherwise
Dv ε 0 ft
τ Q ε()
εε0.10 ft
τ Pr Q ε()
τ 0while
εreturn
Dv 0 ft
Dh'20ft
Selected Toe Depth Dtoe if Dh' DvFloor Dh'1.2ft()Dv()
Dtoe 23 ft
Maximum Deflection
L' H dzDh
4= Effective length about pile rotation
Δ
xt
EIx0
L'
yyMy()dΔ 1.01 in
Cantilever H = 15', bm 27-33 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Design Summary:Sb_No "27-33"
Beam "W24 x 104"
H 15ft= Soldier beam retained height
Dtoe 23 ft= Minimum soldier beam embedment
H Dtoe38ft= Total length of soldier beam
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 36 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
Δ 1.01 in= Maximum soldier beam deflection
Cantilever H = 15', bm 27-33 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Section 7
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Active Pressure
SB "34-80"
Cut Geometry
H 16 ft= Maximum retained height
Hs 10 ft= Retained slope height
x 1= Horizontal slope projection
y 1= Vertical slope projection
Pa 40 pcf= Active earth pressure
(Level Condition)
γ 125 pcf= Unit weight of soil
C 0 psf= Soil Cohesion
Define Wedge Boundaries
= Substituted "phi"
value (Conservative)ϕ 245degatan Pa
γ
ϕ 31 deg
α 45 degθ atan xHs
HHs
= Failure wedge angle at "daylight"
(Edge of slope)
A. Oblique Wedge Interior to Slope
S_plane φ()H sin 90 degα()
sin 90 degφα()Slope φ()H sin φ()
sin 90 degφα()s φ()S_plane φ( ) Slope φ()H
2
area φ() sφ()sφ( ) S_plane φ()()s φ( ) Slope φ()()s φ() H()
B. Exterior Slope Wedge Polygon
Level φ()H2 tan φ()
2a_plus φ() H Hs( ) tan φ()Hsa_minus φ()Hs2 x
2
Hs2
2 tan 90 degφ()
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#34-80
_R2.xmcdz
t .,., I,"'
t ~ -r W(<,o)
Q(rp) "H' j
f3
F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Resultant
W φ( ) area φ()γφθif
Level φ()γa_plus φ()γa_minus φ()γotherwise
= Failure wedge gravity load
N φ()W φ( ) C S_plane φ()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()φθif
W φ() CH Hs()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()otherwise
= Failure wedge normal force
Coulomb Resultant Force
Q φ() Nφ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()C S_plane φ()tan φ()()φθif
N φ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()CH Hs()tan φ()[ ] otherwise
Determine Critical Failure
Initial Guess:fail 30 deg
Given
fail
Q fail()d
d
0=
β Find fail()
0 10 20
0
10
20
30
Critical Failure Wedge
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
β 35 deg
Q β()10385.2 plf
Inclined Active Earth Pressure
Pa Ceil 2 Q β()
H2 5 pcf
Pa 85 pcf
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#34-80
_R2.xmcdz
/
/
/
/
/
/
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design
Sb_No "34-80"
Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties
Pile "Concrete Embed"
H 16 ft= Soldier beam retained height
x 1
Hs 10 ft--->= Height of retained slope (As applicable)
y 1
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 36 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
de' dia= Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade
dt 3 H= Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess)
1000 100
40
20
0
20
Shoring Design Section
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
ASTM A992 (Grade 50)
E 29000 ksi
Fy 50 ksi
ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2)
D + H + L
Lateral Embedment Safety Factor
FSd 1.30
Cantilever H = 16', bm 34-80 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
I I I
--
-
--
--
I I
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Soil Parameters
Pa 85 pcf= Lateral earth pressure with 1-1 slope
Pp 300 pcf= Passive earth pressure
Pmax 4500 psf= Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable)
neglected 12 in= Neglected depth of passive resistance
dz 6 in= Overburden depth at subgrade
Pps Pp dz= Passive pressure offset at subgrade
pole 2= Isolated pole factor for soil arching below subgrade
be pole de'= Effective soldier beam width below subgrade
a_ratio min be
xt
1
= Soldier beam arching ratio
a_ratio 0.75
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
γs 125 pcf= Soil unit weight
γw 62.4 pcf= Unit weight of water
Cantilever H = 16', bm 34-80 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Lateral Live Load Surcharge
Uniform Loading
Full 0 psf= Uniform loading full soldier beam height
Partial 0 psf= Uniform loading partial soldier beam height
Hpar 0 ft= Height of partial uniform surcharge loading
Ps y( ) Full Partial0 ftyHparif
Full Hpar yHif
0 psfotherwise
Uniform surcharge profile per depth
Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading
Pr 0 kip= Applied axial load per beam
e 0 in= Eccentricity of applied compressive load
Me Pr e
xt
= Eccentric bending moment
Ph 0 lb= lateral pont load at depth "zh"
zh 0 ft= Distance to lateral point load from top of wall
Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable)
EFP 0 pcf= Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure
Es EFP H= Maximum seismic force pressure
Eq y() Es
Es
H yyHif
0 psfotherwise
= Maximum seismic force pressure
Cantilever H = 16', bm 34-80 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Boussinesq Lateral Surcharge Load
Q 0 klf= Surcharge load of continous or isolated footings
z'0 ft= Depth below adjacent grade to application of surcharge load
x1 0 ft= Distance of line load from back face of wall
Surcharge Coefficients ny()yz'
Hmx1H 1
Boussinesq Equation
Pb y()0 psf0 ftyz'if
if m 0.40Q
H
0.20ny()
0.16 ny()()221.28Q
H
m2 ny()
m2 ny()()22
z' yHif
0 psfotherwise
0 100 2000
5
10
15
Lateral Surcharge Loading
Pressure (psf)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Maximum Boussinesq Pressure
Δy 3 ft
Given
Δy Pb Δy()d
d 0 psf=
Pb Find Δy()()0 psf
0
H
yPb y()
d 0 klf
Cantilever H = 16', bm 34-80 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Equillibrium Conditions
PA H()1360.9 psf
PD Hdt()3600psf
Assume a trial value for "D" & solve
D 20 ft
Given
Summing Moments About Tip
0
HD
yPAy() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPs y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPb y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yEq y() H Dy()
dMePh
xt
HDzh()
H neglected
HD
yPDy() H Dy()
d
0=
Dh Find D()
0 51041105
0
20
10
0
Bending Moment Diagram
Moment (ft-kip/ft)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Dh 18.3 ft
Distance to zero shear
(From top of Pile)
ε aH
ε Va()
aa0.10 ft
ε Va()
ε 0while
areturn
ε 25.2 ft
Cantilever H = 16', bm 34-80 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Minimum Pile Size
My()
0
y
yVy()
dMeMmax M ε()xtMmax 993.6 kip ft
AISC Steel Construction Manual 15th Edition
Ω 1.67= Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1
Δσ 1.33= Steel overstress for temporary loading
Fb Fy Δσ
Ω
= Allowable bending stress
Required Section Modulus:Zr
Mmax
FbFlexural Yielding, Lb < Lr Zr 299.4 in3
Beam "W27 x 114"
Fb 39.8 ksi
A 33.5 in2bf 10.1 inK 1Lu H Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
ε otherwise
d 27.3 intf 0.9 inZx 343 in3
tw 0.6 inrx 11 inIx 4080 in4Fe π2 E
KLu
rx
2
Axial Stresses λ
Fy
Fe
Fcr 0.658λ FyKLu
rx
4.71 E
Fyif
0.877 Fe( ) otherwise
= Nominal compressive stress - AISC E.3-2 & E3-3
= Allowable concentric force - AISC E.3-1Pc
Fcr A
Ω
Ma Zx Fb= Allowable bending moment - AISC F.2-1
Interaction Pr
Pc
8
9
Mmax
Ma
Pr
Pc 0.20if
Pr
2 Pc
Mmax
Ma
otherwise
= AISC H1-1a & H1-1b Ma 1138.2 kip ft
Interaction 0.87Mmax 993.6 kip ft
Cantilever H = 16', bm 34-80 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
-F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Embedment depth increase for min global FS
Dh' Floor Dh ft()2.5 ft
Overturning moments
MO y()
0
H Dh'
yPAy( ) H Dh'y()
d
0
H Dh'
yPs y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yPb y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yEq y( ) H Dh'y()dMePh
xt
H Dh'zh()
Overturning moments
MR y()
H neglected
H Dh'
yPDy( ) H Dh'y()
d
MO HD()281.4 kip
MR HD()
MO HD()1.3
MR HD()356.4kip
Factor of Safety:
Overturnning if FSd
MR HD()
MO HD()"Ok""No Good: Increase Dh"
Overturnning "Ok"
Cantilever H = 16', bm 34-80 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Axial Resistance
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
p'π diaPile "Concrete Embed"=if
2 bf dotherwise
= Applied axial load per beam
Allowable Axial Resistance
Qy( ) p' fsyπ dia2qa
4 Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
bf dqaotherwise
Dv ε 0 ft
τ Q ε()
εε0.10 ft
τ Pr Q ε()
τ 0while
εreturn
Dv 0 ft
Dh'20.5ft
Selected Toe Depth Dtoe if Dh' DvFloor Dh'1.2ft()Dv()
Dtoe 24 ft
Maximum Deflection
L' H dzDh
4= Effective length about pile rotation
Δ
xt
EIx0
L'
yyMy()dΔ 1.04 in
Cantilever H = 16', bm 34-80 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Design Summary:Sb_No "34-80"
Beam "W27 x 114"
H 16ft= Soldier beam retained height
Dtoe 24 ft= Minimum soldier beam embedment
H Dtoe40ft= Total length of soldier beam
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 36 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
Δ 1.04 in= Maximum soldier beam deflection
Cantilever H = 16', bm 34-80 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Section 8
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Active Pressure
SB "81-83, 119-121"
Cut Geometry
H 17 ft= Maximum retained height
Hs 6.5 ft= Retained slope height
x 1= Horizontal slope projection
y 1= Vertical slope projection
Pa 40 pcf= Active earth pressure
(Level Condition)
γ 125 pcf= Unit weight of soil
C 0 psf= Soil Cohesion
Define Wedge Boundaries
= Substituted "phi"
value (Conservative)ϕ 245degatan Pa
γ
ϕ 31 deg
α 45 degθ atan xHs
HHs
= Failure wedge angle at "daylight"
(Edge of slope)
A. Oblique Wedge Interior to Slope
S_plane φ()H sin 90 degα()
sin 90 degφα()Slope φ()H sin φ()
sin 90 degφα()s φ()S_plane φ( ) Slope φ()H
2
area φ() sφ()sφ( ) S_plane φ()()s φ( ) Slope φ()()s φ() H()
B. Exterior Slope Wedge Polygon
Level φ()H2 tan φ()
2a_plus φ() H Hs( ) tan φ()Hsa_minus φ()Hs2 x
2
Hs2
2 tan 90 degφ()
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#81-83,
119-121_R2.xmcdz
t .,., I,"'
t ~ -r W(<,o)
Q(rp) "H' j
f3
F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Resultant
W φ( ) area φ()γφθif
Level φ()γa_plus φ()γa_minus φ()γotherwise
= Failure wedge gravity load
N φ()W φ( ) C S_plane φ()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()φθif
W φ() CH Hs()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()otherwise
= Failure wedge normal force
Coulomb Resultant Force
Q φ() Nφ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()C S_plane φ()tan φ()()φθif
N φ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()CH Hs()tan φ()[ ] otherwise
Determine Critical Failure
Initial Guess:fail 30 deg
Given
fail
Q fail()d
d
0=
β Find fail()
0 10 20
0
10
20
Critical Failure Wedge
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
β 32.5 deg
Q β()9643.5 plf
Inclined Active Earth Pressure
Pa Ceil 2 Q β()
H2 5 pcf
Pa 70 pcf
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#81-83,
119-121_R2.xmcdz
I I I
/ --/
/
-/ -/
/
/ -
I I I
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design
Sb_No "81-83, 119-121"
Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties
Pile "Concrete Embed"
H 17 ft= Soldier beam retained height
x 1
Hs 6.5 ft--->= Height of retained slope (As applicable)
y 1
xt 8.5 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 36 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
de' dia= Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade
dt 3 H= Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess)
2001000 100 200
40
20
0
20
Shoring Design Section
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
ASTM A992 (Grade 50)
E 29000 ksi
Fy 50 ksi
ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2)
D + H + L
Lateral Embedment Safety Factor
FSd 1.30
Cantilever H = 17', bm 81-83, 119-121
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
II I I I I
'"" -
-
... -
'"" -
II I I I
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Soil Parameters
Pa 70 pcf= Lateral earth pressure with 1-1 slope
Pp 300 pcf= Passive earth pressure
Pmax 4500 psf= Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable)
neglected 12 in= Neglected depth of passive resistance
dz 6 in= Overburden depth at subgrade
Pps Pp dz= Passive pressure offset at subgrade
pole 2= Isolated pole factor for soil arching below subgrade
be pole de'= Effective soldier beam width below subgrade
a_ratio min be
xt
1
= Soldier beam arching ratio
a_ratio 0.71
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
γs 125 pcf= Soil unit weight
γw 62.4 pcf= Unit weight of water
Cantilever H = 17', bm 81-83, 119-121
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Lateral Live Load Surcharge
Uniform Loading
Full 0 psf= Uniform loading full soldier beam height
Partial 0 psf= Uniform loading partial soldier beam height
Hpar 0 ft= Height of partial uniform surcharge loading
Ps y( ) Full Partial0 ftyHparif
Full Hpar yHif
0 psfotherwise
Uniform surcharge profile per depth
Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading
Pr 0 kip= Applied axial load per beam
e 0 in= Eccentricity of applied compressive load
Me Pr e
xt
= Eccentric bending moment
Ph 0 lb= lateral pont load at depth "zh"
zh 0 ft= Distance to lateral point load from top of wall
Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable)
EFP 0 pcf= Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure
Es EFP H= Maximum seismic force pressure
Eq y() Es
Es
H yyHif
0 psfotherwise
= Maximum seismic force pressure
Cantilever H = 17', bm 81-83, 119-121
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Boussinesq Lateral Surcharge Load
Q 0 klf= Surcharge load of continous or isolated footings
z'0 ft= Depth below adjacent grade to application of surcharge load
x1 0 ft= Distance of line load from back face of wall
Surcharge Coefficients ny()yz'
Hmx1H 1
Boussinesq Equation
Pb y()0 psf0 ftyz'if
if m 0.40Q
H
0.20ny()
0.16 ny()()221.28Q
H
m2 ny()
m2 ny()()22
z' yHif
0 psfotherwise
0 100 2000
5
10
15
Lateral Surcharge Loading
Pressure (psf)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Maximum Boussinesq Pressure
Δy 3 ft
Given
Δy Pb Δy()d
d 0 psf=
Pb Find Δy()()0 psf
0
H
yPb y()
d 0 klf
Cantilever H = 17', bm 81-83, 119-121
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Equillibrium Conditions
PA H()1190 psf
PD Hdt()3375psf
Assume a trial value for "D" & solve
D 20 ft
Given
Summing Moments About Tip
0
HD
yPAy() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPs y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPb y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yEq y() H Dy()
dMePh
xt
HDzh()
H neglected
HD
yPDy() H Dy()
d
0=
Dh Find D()
0 51041105
0
20
10
0
Bending Moment Diagram
Moment (ft-kip/ft)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Dh 18.3 ft
Distance to zero shear
(From top of Pile)
ε aH
ε Va()
aa0.10 ft
ε Va()
ε 0while
areturn
ε 26.2 ft
Cantilever H = 17', bm 81-83, 119-121
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Minimum Pile Size
My()
0
y
yVy()
dMeMmax M ε()xtMmax 1006 kip ft
AISC Steel Construction Manual 15th Edition
Ω 1.67= Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1
Δσ 1.33= Steel overstress for temporary loading
Fb Fy Δσ
Ω
= Allowable bending stress
Required Section Modulus:Zr
Mmax
FbFlexural Yielding, Lb < Lr Zr 303.2 in3
Beam "W27 x 129"
Fb 39.8 ksi
A 37.8 in2bf 10 inK 1Lu H Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
ε otherwise
d 27.6 intf 1.1 inZx 395 in3
tw 0.6 inrx 11.2 inIx 4760 in4Fe π2 E
KLu
rx
2
Axial Stresses λ
Fy
Fe
Fcr 0.658λ FyKLu
rx
4.71 E
Fyif
0.877 Fe( ) otherwise
= Nominal compressive stress - AISC E.3-2 & E3-3
= Allowable concentric force - AISC E.3-1Pc
Fcr A
Ω
Ma Zx Fb= Allowable bending moment - AISC F.2-1
Interaction Pr
Pc
8
9
Mmax
Ma
Pr
Pc 0.20if
Pr
2 Pc
Mmax
Ma
otherwise
= AISC H1-1a & H1-1b Ma 1310.8 kip ft
Interaction 0.77Mmax 1006 kip ft
Cantilever H = 17', bm 81-83, 119-121
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
-F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Embedment depth increase for min global FS
Dh' Floor Dh ft()2.5 ft
Overturning moments
MO y()
0
H Dh'
yPAy( ) H Dh'y()
d
0
H Dh'
yPs y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yPb y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yEq y( ) H Dh'y()dMePh
xt
H Dh'zh()
Overturning moments
MR y()
H neglected
H Dh'
yPDy( ) H Dh'y()
d
MO HD()264.6 kip
MR HD()
MO HD()1.3
MR HD()334.1kip
Factor of Safety:
Overturnning if FSd
MR HD()
MO HD()"Ok""No Good: Increase Dh"
Overturnning "Ok"
Cantilever H = 17', bm 81-83, 119-121
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Axial Resistance
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
p'π diaPile "Concrete Embed"=if
2 bf dotherwise
= Applied axial load per beam
Allowable Axial Resistance
Qy( ) p' fsyπ dia2qa
4 Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
bf dqaotherwise
Dv ε 0 ft
τ Q ε()
εε0.10 ft
τ Pr Q ε()
τ 0while
εreturn
Dv 0 ft
Dh'20.5ft
Selected Toe Depth Dtoe if Dh' DvCeil Dh'1.2ft()Dv()
Dtoe 25 ft
Maximum Deflection
L' H dzDh
4= Effective length about pile rotation
Δ
xt
EIx0
L'
yyMy()dΔ 1 in
Cantilever H = 17', bm 81-83, 119-121
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Design Summary:Sb_No "81-83, 119-121"
Beam "W27 x 129"
H 17ft= Soldier beam retained height
Dtoe 25 ft= Minimum soldier beam embedment
H Dtoe42ft= Total length of soldier beam
xt 8.5ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 36 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
Δ 1 in= Maximum soldier beam deflection
Cantilever H = 17', bm 81-83, 119-121
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
Section 9
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Active Pressure
SB "84-85"
Cut Geometry
H 16 ft= Maximum retained height
Hs 6.5 ft= Retained slope height
x 1= Horizontal slope projection
y 1= Vertical slope projection
Pa 40 pcf= Active earth pressure
(Level Condition)
γ 125 pcf= Unit weight of soil
C 0 psf= Soil Cohesion
Define Wedge Boundaries
= Substituted "phi"
value (Conservative)ϕ 245degatan Pa
γ
ϕ 31 deg
α 45 degθ atan xHs
HHs
= Failure wedge angle at "daylight"
(Edge of slope)
A. Oblique Wedge Interior to Slope
S_plane φ()H sin 90 degα()
sin 90 degφα()Slope φ()H sin φ()
sin 90 degφα()s φ()S_plane φ( ) Slope φ()H
2
area φ() sφ()sφ( ) S_plane φ()()s φ( ) Slope φ()()s φ() H()
B. Exterior Slope Wedge Polygon
Level φ()H2 tan φ()
2a_plus φ() H Hs( ) tan φ()Hsa_minus φ()Hs2 x
2
Hs2
2 tan 90 degφ()
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#84-
85.xmcdz
t .,., I,"'
t ~ -r W(<,o)
Q(rp) "H' j
f3
F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Resultant
W φ( ) area φ()γφθif
Level φ()γa_plus φ()γa_minus φ()γotherwise
= Failure wedge gravity load
N φ()W φ( ) C S_plane φ()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()φθif
W φ() CH Hs()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()otherwise
= Failure wedge normal force
Coulomb Resultant Force
Q φ() Nφ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()C S_plane φ()tan φ()()φθif
N φ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()CH Hs()tan φ()[ ] otherwise
Determine Critical Failure
Initial Guess:fail 30 deg
Given
fail
Q fail()d
d
0=
β Find fail()
0 10 20
0
10
20
Critical Failure Wedge
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
β 32.8 deg
Q β()8731.3 plf
Inclined Active Earth Pressure
Pa Ceil 2 Q β()
H2 5 pcf
Pa 70 pcf
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#84-
85.xmcdz
I I I
-/ -
/
/
/
/
/
/ -
I I I
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design
Sb_No "84-85"
Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties
Pile "Concrete Embed"
H 16 ft= Soldier beam retained height
x 1
Hs 10 ft--->= Height of retained slope (As applicable)
y 1
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 36 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
de' dia= Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade
dt 3 H= Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess)
1000 100
40
20
0
20
Shoring Design Section
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
ASTM A992 (Grade 50)
E 29000 ksi
Fy 50 ksi
ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2)
D + H + L
Lateral Embedment Safety Factor
FSd 1.30
Cantilever H = 16', bm 84-85 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
I I I
--
-
--
--
I I
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Soil Parameters
Pa 70 pcf= Lateral earth pressure with 1-1 slope
Pp 300 pcf= Passive earth pressure
Pmax 4500 psf= Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable)
neglected 12 in= Neglected depth of passive resistance
dz 6 in= Overburden depth at subgrade
Pps Pp dz= Passive pressure offset at subgrade
pole 2= Isolated pole factor for soil arching below subgrade
be pole de'= Effective soldier beam width below subgrade
a_ratio min be
xt
1
= Soldier beam arching ratio
a_ratio 0.75
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
γs 125 pcf= Soil unit weight
γw 62.4 pcf= Unit weight of water
Cantilever H = 16', bm 84-85 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Lateral Live Load Surcharge
Uniform Loading
Full 0 psf= Uniform loading full soldier beam height
Partial 0 psf= Uniform loading partial soldier beam height
Hpar 0 ft= Height of partial uniform surcharge loading
Ps y( ) Full Partial0 ftyHparif
Full Hpar yHif
0 psfotherwise
Uniform surcharge profile per depth
Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading
Pr 0 kip= Applied axial load per beam
e 0 in= Eccentricity of applied compressive load
Me Pr e
xt
= Eccentric bending moment
Ph 0 lb= lateral pont load at depth "zh"
zh 0 ft= Distance to lateral point load from top of wall
Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable)
EFP 0 pcf= Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure
Es EFP H= Maximum seismic force pressure
Eq y() Es
Es
H yyHif
0 psfotherwise
= Maximum seismic force pressure
Cantilever H = 16', bm 84-85 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Boussinesq Lateral Surcharge Load
Q 0 klf= Surcharge load of continous or isolated footings
z'0 ft= Depth below adjacent grade to application of surcharge load
x1 0 ft= Distance of line load from back face of wall
Surcharge Coefficients ny()yz'
Hmx1H 1
Boussinesq Equation
Pb y()0 psf0 ftyz'if
if m 0.40Q
H
0.20ny()
0.16 ny()()221.28Q
H
m2 ny()
m2 ny()()22
z' yHif
0 psfotherwise
0 100 2000
5
10
15
Lateral Surcharge Loading
Pressure (psf)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Maximum Boussinesq Pressure
Δy 3 ft
Given
Δy Pb Δy()d
d 0 psf=
Pb Find Δy()()0 psf
0
H
yPb y()
d 0 klf
Cantilever H = 16', bm 84-85 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Equillibrium Conditions
PA H()1120.7 psf
PD Hdt()3600psf
Assume a trial value for "D" & solve
D 20 ft
Given
Summing Moments About Tip
0
HD
yPAy() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPs y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPb y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yEq y() H Dy()
dMePh
xt
HDzh()
H neglected
HD
yPDy() H Dy()
d
0=
Dh Find D()
0 2104410461048104
0
20
10
0
Bending Moment Diagram
Moment (ft-kip/ft)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Dh 16.7 ft
Distance to zero shear
(From top of Pile)
ε aH
ε Va()
aa0.10 ft
ε Va()
ε 0while
areturn
ε 24.3 ft
Cantilever H = 16', bm 84-85 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Minimum Pile Size
My()
0
y
yVy()
dMeMmax M ε()xtMmax 777.5 kip ft
AISC Steel Construction Manual 15th Edition
Ω 1.67= Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1
Δσ 1.33= Steel overstress for temporary loading
Fb Fy Δσ
Ω
= Allowable bending stress
Required Section Modulus:Zr
Mmax
FbFlexural Yielding, Lb < Lr Zr 234.3 in3
Beam "W24 x 104"
Fb 39.8 ksi
A 30.6 in2bf 12.8 inK 1Lu H Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
ε otherwise
d 24.1 intf 0.8 inZx 289 in3
tw 0.5 inrx 10.1 inIx 3100 in4Fe π2 E
KLu
rx
2
Axial Stresses λ
Fy
Fe
Fcr 0.658λ FyKLu
rx
4.71 E
Fyif
0.877 Fe( ) otherwise
= Nominal compressive stress - AISC E.3-2 & E3-3
= Allowable concentric force - AISC E.3-1Pc
Fcr A
Ω
Ma Zx Fb= Allowable bending moment - AISC F.2-1
Interaction Pr
Pc
8
9
Mmax
Ma
Pr
Pc 0.20if
Pr
2 Pc
Mmax
Ma
otherwise
= AISC H1-1a & H1-1b Ma 959 kip ft
Interaction 0.81Mmax 777.5 kip ft
Cantilever H = 16', bm 84-85 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
-F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Embedment depth increase for min global FS
Dh' Floor Dh ft()3 ft
Overturning moments
MO y()
0
H Dh'
yPAy( ) H Dh'y()
d
0
H Dh'
yPs y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yPb y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yEq y( ) H Dh'y()dMePh
xt
H Dh'zh()
Overturning moments
MR y()
H neglected
H Dh'
yPDy( ) H Dh'y()
d
MO HD()218.4 kip
MR HD()
MO HD()1.3
MR HD()288kip
Factor of Safety:
Overturnning if FSd
MR HD()
MO HD()"Ok""No Good: Increase Dh"
Overturnning "Ok"
Cantilever H = 16', bm 84-85 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Axial Resistance
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
p'π diaPile "Concrete Embed"=if
2 bf dotherwise
= Applied axial load per beam
Allowable Axial Resistance
Qy( ) p' fsyπ dia2qa
4 Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
bf dqaotherwise
Dv ε 0 ft
τ Q ε()
εε0.10 ft
τ Pr Q ε()
τ 0while
εreturn
Dv 0 ft
Dh'19ft
Selected Toe Depth Dtoe if Dh' DvCeil Dh'1.2ft()Dv()
Dtoe 23 ft
Maximum Deflection
L' H dzDh
4= Effective length about pile rotation
Δ
xt
EIx0
L'
yyMy()dΔ 1.02 in
Cantilever H = 16', bm 84-85 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Design Summary:Sb_No "84-85"
Beam "W24 x 104"
H 16ft= Soldier beam retained height
Dtoe 23 ft= Minimum soldier beam embedment
H Dtoe39ft= Total length of soldier beam
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 36 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
Δ 1.02 in= Maximum soldier beam deflection
Cantilever H = 16', bm 84-85 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Section 10
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Active Pressure
SB "86-91"
Cut Geometry
H 15 ft= Maximum retained height
Hs 6.5 ft= Retained slope height
x 1= Horizontal slope projection
y 1= Vertical slope projection
Pa 40 pcf= Active earth pressure
(Level Condition)
γ 125 pcf= Unit weight of soil
C 0 psf= Soil Cohesion
Define Wedge Boundaries
= Substituted "phi"
value (Conservative)ϕ 245degatan Pa
γ
ϕ 31 deg
α 45 degθ atan xHs
HHs
= Failure wedge angle at "daylight"
(Edge of slope)
A. Oblique Wedge Interior to Slope
S_plane φ()H sin 90 degα()
sin 90 degφα()Slope φ()H sin φ()
sin 90 degφα()s φ()S_plane φ( ) Slope φ()H
2
area φ() sφ()sφ( ) S_plane φ()()s φ( ) Slope φ()()s φ() H()
B. Exterior Slope Wedge Polygon
Level φ()H2 tan φ()
2a_plus φ() H Hs( ) tan φ()Hsa_minus φ()Hs2 x
2
Hs2
2 tan 90 degφ()
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#86-
91.xmcdz
t .,., I,"'
t ~ -r W(<,o)
Q(rp) "H' j
f3
F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Resultant
W φ( ) area φ()γφθif
Level φ()γa_plus φ()γa_minus φ()γotherwise
= Failure wedge gravity load
N φ()W φ( ) C S_plane φ()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()φθif
W φ() CH Hs()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()otherwise
= Failure wedge normal force
Coulomb Resultant Force
Q φ() Nφ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()C S_plane φ()tan φ()()φθif
N φ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()CH Hs()tan φ()[ ] otherwise
Determine Critical Failure
Initial Guess:fail 30 deg
Given
fail
Q fail()d
d
0=
β Find fail()
0 10 20
0
10
20
Critical Failure Wedge
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
β 33.1 deg
Q β()7860.2 plf
Inclined Active Earth Pressure
Pa Ceil 2 Q β()
H2 5 pcf
Pa 70 pcf
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#86-
91.xmcdz
/
/
/
/
/
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design
Sb_No "86-91"
Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties
Pile "Concrete Embed"
H 15 ft= Soldier beam retained height
x 1
Hs 6.5 ft--->= Height of retained slope (As applicable)
y 1
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 30 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
de' dia= Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade
dt 3 H= Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess)
1000 100
40
20
0
20
Shoring Design Section
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
ASTM A992 (Grade 50)
E 29000 ksi
Fy 50 ksi
ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2)
D + H + L
Lateral Embedment Safety Factor
FSd 1.30
Cantilever H = 15', bm 86-91 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
I I I
--
-
... -
... -
I I
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Soil Parameters
Pa 70 pcf= Lateral earth pressure with 1-1 slope
Pp 300 pcf= Passive earth pressure
Pmax 4500 psf= Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable)
neglected 12 in= Neglected depth of passive resistance
dz 6 in= Overburden depth at subgrade
Pps Pp dz= Passive pressure offset at subgrade
pole 2= Isolated pole factor for soil arching below subgrade
be pole de'= Effective soldier beam width below subgrade
a_ratio min be
xt
1
= Soldier beam arching ratio
a_ratio 0.63
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
γs 125 pcf= Soil unit weight
γw 62.4 pcf= Unit weight of water
Cantilever H = 15', bm 86-91 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Lateral Live Load Surcharge
Uniform Loading
Full 0 psf= Uniform loading full soldier beam height
Partial 0 psf= Uniform loading partial soldier beam height
Hpar 0 ft= Height of partial uniform surcharge loading
Ps y( ) Full Partial0 ftyHparif
Full Hpar yHif
0 psfotherwise
Uniform surcharge profile per depth
Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading
Pr 0 kip= Applied axial load per beam
e 0 in= Eccentricity of applied compressive load
Me Pr e
xt
= Eccentric bending moment
Ph 0 lb= lateral pont load at depth "zh"
zh 0 ft= Distance to lateral point load from top of wall
Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable)
EFP 0 pcf= Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure
Es EFP H= Maximum seismic force pressure
Eq y() Es
Es
H yyHif
0 psfotherwise
= Maximum seismic force pressure
Cantilever H = 15', bm 86-91 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Boussinesq Lateral Surcharge Load
Q 0 klf= Surcharge load of continous or isolated footings
z'0 ft= Depth below adjacent grade to application of surcharge load
x1 0 ft= Distance of line load from back face of wall
Surcharge Coefficients ny()yz'
Hmx1H 1
Boussinesq Equation
Pb y()0 psf0 ftyz'if
if m 0.40Q
H
0.20ny()
0.16 ny()()221.28Q
H
m2 ny()
m2 ny()()22
z' yHif
0 psfotherwise
0 100 2000
5
10
15
Lateral Surcharge Loading
Pressure (psf)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Maximum Boussinesq Pressure
Δy 3 ft
Given
Δy Pb Δy()d
d 0 psf=
Pb Find Δy()()0 psf
0
H
yPb y()
d 0 klf
Cantilever H = 15', bm 86-91 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Equillibrium Conditions
PA H()1050.7 psf
PD Hdt()2812.5psf
Assume a trial value for "D" & solve
D 20 ft
Given
Summing Moments About Tip
0
HD
yPAy() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPs y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPb y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yEq y() H Dy()
dMePh
xt
HDzh()
H neglected
HD
yPDy() H Dy()
d
0=
Dh Find D()
0 2104410461048104
0
20
10
0
Bending Moment Diagram
Moment (ft-kip/ft)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Dh 17.5 ft
Distance to zero shear
(From top of Pile)
ε aH
ε Va()
aa0.10 ft
ε Va()
ε 0while
areturn
ε 23.8 ft
Cantilever H = 15', bm 86-91 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Minimum Pile Size
My()
0
y
yVy()
dMeMmax M ε()xtMmax 683.7 kip ft
AISC Steel Construction Manual 15th Edition
Ω 1.67= Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1
Δσ 1.33= Steel overstress for temporary loading
Fb Fy Δσ
Ω
= Allowable bending stress
Required Section Modulus:Zr
Mmax
FbFlexural Yielding, Lb < Lr Zr 206 in3
Beam "W24 x 94"
Fb 39.8 ksi
A 27.7 in2bf 9.1 inK 1Lu H Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
ε otherwise
d 24.3 intf 0.9 inZx 254 in3
tw 0.5 inrx 9.9 inIx 2700 in4Fe π2 E
KLu
rx
2
Axial Stresses λ
Fy
Fe
Fcr 0.658λ FyKLu
rx
4.71 E
Fyif
0.877 Fe( ) otherwise
= Nominal compressive stress - AISC E.3-2 & E3-3
= Allowable concentric force - AISC E.3-1Pc
Fcr A
Ω
Ma Zx Fb= Allowable bending moment - AISC F.2-1
Interaction Pr
Pc
8
9
Mmax
Ma
Pr
Pc 0.20if
Pr
2 Pc
Mmax
Ma
otherwise
= AISC H1-1a & H1-1b Ma 842.9 kip ft
Interaction 0.81Mmax 683.7 kip ft
Cantilever H = 15', bm 86-91 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
-F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Embedment depth increase for min global FS
Dh' Floor Dh ft()3 ft
Overturning moments
MO y()
0
H Dh'
yPAy( ) H Dh'y()
d
0
H Dh'
yPs y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yPb y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yEq y( ) H Dh'y()dMePh
xt
H Dh'zh()
Overturning moments
MR y()
H neglected
H Dh'
yPDy( ) H Dh'y()
d
MO HD()197.2 kip
MR HD()
MO HD()1.3
MR HD()259.9kip
Factor of Safety:
Overturnning if FSd
MR HD()
MO HD()"Ok""No Good: Increase Dh"
Overturnning "Ok"
Cantilever H = 15', bm 86-91 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Axial Resistance
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
p'π diaPile "Concrete Embed"=if
2 bf dotherwise
= Applied axial load per beam
Allowable Axial Resistance
Qy( ) p' fsyπ dia2qa
4 Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
bf dqaotherwise
Dv ε 0 ft
τ Q ε()
εε0.10 ft
τ Pr Q ε()
τ 0while
εreturn
Dv 0 ft
Dh'20ft
Selected Toe Depth Dtoe if Dh' DvFloor Dh'1.2ft()Dv()
Dtoe 23 ft
Maximum Deflection
L' H dzDh
4= Effective length about pile rotation
Δ
xt
EIx0
L'
yyMy()dΔ 0.95 in
Cantilever H = 15', bm 86-91 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Design Summary:Sb_No "86-91"
Beam "W24 x 94"
H 15ft= Soldier beam retained height
Dtoe 23 ft= Minimum soldier beam embedment
H Dtoe38ft= Total length of soldier beam
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 30 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
Δ 0.95 in= Maximum soldier beam deflection
Cantilever H = 15', bm 86-91 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Section 11
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Active Pressure
SB "92-100"
Cut Geometry
H 14 ft= Maximum retained height
Hs 6.5 ft= Retained slope height
x 1= Horizontal slope projection
y 1= Vertical slope projection
Pa 40 pcf= Active earth pressure
(Level Condition)
γ 125 pcf= Unit weight of soil
C 0 psf= Soil Cohesion
Define Wedge Boundaries
= Substituted "phi"
value (Conservative)ϕ 245degatan Pa
γ
ϕ 31 deg
α 45 degθ atan xHs
HHs
= Failure wedge angle at "daylight"
(Edge of slope)
A. Oblique Wedge Interior to Slope
S_plane φ()H sin 90 degα()
sin 90 degφα()Slope φ()H sin φ()
sin 90 degφα()s φ()S_plane φ( ) Slope φ()H
2
area φ() sφ()sφ( ) S_plane φ()()s φ( ) Slope φ()()s φ() H()
B. Exterior Slope Wedge Polygon
Level φ()H2 tan φ()
2a_plus φ() H Hs( ) tan φ()Hsa_minus φ()Hs2 x
2
Hs2
2 tan 90 degφ()
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#92-
100.xmcdz
t .,., I,"'
t ~ -r W(<,o)
Q(rp) "H' j
f3
F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Resultant
W φ( ) area φ()γφθif
Level φ()γa_plus φ()γa_minus φ()γotherwise
= Failure wedge gravity load
N φ()W φ( ) C S_plane φ()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()φθif
W φ() CH Hs()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()otherwise
= Failure wedge normal force
Coulomb Resultant Force
Q φ() Nφ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()C S_plane φ()tan φ()()φθif
N φ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()CH Hs()tan φ()[ ] otherwise
Determine Critical Failure
Initial Guess:fail 30 deg
Given
fail
Q fail()d
d
0=
β Find fail()
0 10 20
0
10
20
Critical Failure Wedge
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
β 33.4 deg
Q β()7030.3 plf
Inclined Active Earth Pressure
Pa Ceil 2 Q β()
H2 5 pcf
Pa 75 pcf
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#92-
100.xmcdz
/
/
/
/
/
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design
Sb_No "92-100"
Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties
Pile "Concrete Embed"
H 14 ft= Soldier beam retained height
x 1
Hs 6.5 ft--->= Height of retained slope (As applicable)
y 1
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 30 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
de' dia= Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade
dt 3 H= Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess)
1000 100
40
20
0
20
Shoring Design Section
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
ASTM A992 (Grade 50)
E 29000 ksi
Fy 50 ksi
ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2)
D + H + L
Lateral Embedment Safety Factor
FSd 1.30
Cantilever H = 14', bm 92-100 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
I I I
... -
-
... -
... I I -
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Soil Parameters
Pa 75 pcf= Lateral earth pressure with 1-1 slope
Pp 300 pcf= Passive earth pressure
Pmax 4500 psf= Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable)
neglected 12 in= Neglected depth of passive resistance
dz 12 in= Overburden depth at subgrade
Pps Pp dz= Passive pressure offset at subgrade
pole 2= Isolated pole factor for soil arching below subgrade
be pole de'= Effective soldier beam width below subgrade
a_ratio min be
xt
1
= Soldier beam arching ratio
a_ratio 0.63
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
γs 125 pcf= Soil unit weight
γw 62.4 pcf= Unit weight of water
Cantilever H = 14', bm 92-100 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Lateral Live Load Surcharge
Uniform Loading
Full 0 psf= Uniform loading full soldier beam height
Partial 0 psf= Uniform loading partial soldier beam height
Hpar 0 ft= Height of partial uniform surcharge loading
Ps y( ) Full Partial0 ftyHparif
Full Hpar yHif
0 psfotherwise
Uniform surcharge profile per depth
Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading
Pr 0 kip= Applied axial load per beam
e 0 in= Eccentricity of applied compressive load
Me Pr e
xt
= Eccentric bending moment
Ph 0 lb= lateral pont load at depth "zh"
zh 0 ft= Distance to lateral point load from top of wall
Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable)
EFP 0 pcf= Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure
Es EFP H= Maximum seismic force pressure
Eq y() Es
Es
H yyHif
0 psfotherwise
= Maximum seismic force pressure
Cantilever H = 14', bm 92-100 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Boussinesq Lateral Surcharge Load
Q 0 klf= Surcharge load of continous or isolated footings
z'0 ft= Depth below adjacent grade to application of surcharge load
x1 0 ft= Distance of line load from back face of wall
Surcharge Coefficients ny()yz'
Hmx1H 1
Boussinesq Equation
Pb y()0 psf0 ftyz'if
if m 0.40Q
H
0.20ny()
0.16 ny()()221.28Q
H
m2 ny()
m2 ny()()22
z' yHif
0 psfotherwise
0 100 2000
5
10
Lateral Surcharge Loading
Pressure (psf)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Maximum Boussinesq Pressure
Δy 3 ft
Given
Δy Pb Δy()d
d 0 psf=
Pb Find Δy()()0 psf
0
H
yPb y()
d 0 klf
Cantilever H = 14', bm 92-100 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Equillibrium Conditions
PA H()1050 psf
PD Hdt()2925psf
Assume a trial value for "D" & solve
D 20 ft
Given
Summing Moments About Tip
0
HD
yPAy() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPs y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPb y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yEq y() H Dy()
dMePh
xt
HDzh()
H neglected
HD
yPDy() H Dy()
d
0=
Dh Find D()
0 210441046104
0
10
0
Bending Moment Diagram
Moment (ft-kip/ft)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Dh 15.9 ft
Distance to zero shear
(From top of Pile)
ε aH
ε Va()
aa0.10 ft
ε Va()
ε 0while
areturn
ε 22 ft
Cantilever H = 14', bm 92-100 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Minimum Pile Size
My()
0
y
yVy()
dMeMmax M ε()xtMmax 579.2 kip ft
AISC Steel Construction Manual 15th Edition
Ω 1.67= Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1
Δσ 1.33= Steel overstress for temporary loading
Fb Fy Δσ
Ω
= Allowable bending stress
Required Section Modulus:Zr
Mmax
FbFlexural Yielding, Lb < Lr Zr 174.5 in3
Beam "W24 x 76"
Fb 39.8 ksi
A 22.4 in2bf 9 inK 1Lu H Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
ε otherwise
d 23.9 intf 0.7 inZx 200 in3
tw 0.4 inrx 9.7 inIx 2100 in4Fe π2 E
KLu
rx
2
Axial Stresses λ
Fy
Fe
Fcr 0.658λ FyKLu
rx
4.71 E
Fyif
0.877 Fe( ) otherwise
= Nominal compressive stress - AISC E.3-2 & E3-3
= Allowable concentric force - AISC E.3-1Pc
Fcr A
Ω
Ma Zx Fb= Allowable bending moment - AISC F.2-1
Interaction Pr
Pc
8
9
Mmax
Ma
Pr
Pc 0.20if
Pr
2 Pc
Mmax
Ma
otherwise
= AISC H1-1a & H1-1b Ma 663.7 kip ft
Interaction 0.87Mmax 579.2 kip ft
Cantilever H = 14', bm 92-100 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
-F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Embedment depth increase for min global FS
Dh' Floor Dh ft()3 ft
Overturning moments
MO y()
0
H Dh'
yPAy( ) H Dh'y()
d
0
H Dh'
yPs y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yPb y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yEq y( ) H Dh'y()dMePh
xt
H Dh'zh()
Overturning moments
MR y()
H neglected
H Dh'
yPDy( ) H Dh'y()
d
MO HD()166.6 kip
MR HD()
MO HD()1.3
MR HD()213.9kip
Factor of Safety:
Overturnning if FSd
MR HD()
MO HD()"Ok""No Good: Increase Dh"
Overturnning "Ok"
Cantilever H = 14', bm 92-100 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Axial Resistance
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
p'π diaPile "Concrete Embed"=if
2 bf dotherwise
= Applied axial load per beam
Allowable Axial Resistance
Qy( ) p' fsyπ dia2qa
4 Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
bf dqaotherwise
Dv ε 0 ft
τ Q ε()
εε0.10 ft
τ Pr Q ε()
τ 0while
εreturn
Dv 0 ft
Dh'18ft
Selected Toe Depth Dtoe if Dh' DvFloor Dh'1.2ft()Dv()
Dtoe 21 ft
Maximum Deflection
L' H dzDh
4= Effective length about pile rotation
Δ
xt
EIx0
L'
yyMy()dΔ 0.78 in
Cantilever H = 14', bm 92-100 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Design Summary:Sb_No "92-100"
Beam "W24 x 76"
H 14ft= Soldier beam retained height
Dtoe 21 ft= Minimum soldier beam embedment
H Dtoe35ft= Total length of soldier beam
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 30 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
Δ 0.78 in= Maximum soldier beam deflection
Cantilever H = 14', bm 92-100 with
Slope_R2.xmcdz
Section 12
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Active Pressure
SB "101-118, 122-125"
Cut Geometry
H 11 ft= Maximum retained height
Hs 10 ft= Retained slope height
x 1= Horizontal slope projection
y 1= Vertical slope projection
Pa 40 pcf= Active earth pressure
(Level Condition)
γ 125 pcf= Unit weight of soil
C 0 psf= Soil Cohesion
Define Wedge Boundaries
= Substituted "phi"
value (Conservative)ϕ 245degatan Pa
γ
ϕ 31 deg
α 45 degθ atan xHs
HHs
= Failure wedge angle at "daylight"
(Edge of slope)
A. Oblique Wedge Interior to Slope
S_plane φ()H sin 90 degα()
sin 90 degφα()Slope φ()H sin φ()
sin 90 degφα()s φ()S_plane φ( ) Slope φ()H
2
area φ() sφ()sφ( ) S_plane φ()()s φ( ) Slope φ()()s φ() H()
B. Exterior Slope Wedge Polygon
Level φ()H2 tan φ()
2a_plus φ() H Hs( ) tan φ()Hsa_minus φ()Hs2 x
2
Hs2
2 tan 90 degφ()
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#101-118,
122-125.xmcdz
t .,., I,"'
t ~ -r W(<,o)
Q(rp) "H' j
f3
F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Coulomb Resultant
W φ( ) area φ()γφθif
Level φ()γa_plus φ()γa_minus φ()γotherwise
= Failure wedge gravity load
N φ()W φ( ) C S_plane φ()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()φθif
W φ() CH Hs()
sin φ( ) tan ϕ( ) cos φ()otherwise
= Failure wedge normal force
Coulomb Resultant Force
Q φ() Nφ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()C S_plane φ()tan φ()()φθif
N φ( ) cos φ()N φ( ) tan ϕ()sin φ()CH Hs()tan φ()[ ] otherwise
Determine Critical Failure
Initial Guess:fail 30 deg
Given
failQ fail()d
d 0=
β Find fail()
0 10
0
10
20
Critical Failure Wedge
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
β 37.5 deg
Q β()5866.8 plf
Inclined Active Earth Pressure
Pa Ceil 2 Q β()
H2 5 pcf
Pa 100 pcf
Coulomb Active Pressure_SB#101-118,
122-125.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design
Sb_No "101-118, 122-125"
Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties
Pile "Concrete Embed"
H 11 ft= Soldier beam retained height
x 1
Hs 10 ft--->= Height of retained slope (As applicable)
y 1
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 30 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
de' dia= Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade
dt 3 H= Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess)
1000 100
20
0
20
Shoring Design Section
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
ASTM A992 (Grade 50)
E 29000 ksi
Fy 50 ksi
ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2)
D + H + L
Lateral Embedment Safety Factor
FSd 1.30
Cantilever H = 11', bm 101-118, 122-125
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
I I I
,--
-
,--
I I
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Soil Parameters
Pa 100 pcf= Lateral earth pressure with 1-1 slope
Pp 300 pcf= Passive earth pressure
Pmax 4500 psf= Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable)
neglected 12 in= Neglected depth of passive resistance
dz 6 in= Overburden depth at subgrade
Pps Pp dz= Passive pressure offset at subgrade
pole 2= Isolated pole factor for soil arching below subgrade
be pole de'= Effective soldier beam width below subgrade
a_ratio min be
xt
1
= Soldier beam arching ratio
a_ratio 0.63
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
γs 125 pcf= Soil unit weight
γw 62.4 pcf= Unit weight of water
Cantilever H = 11', bm 101-118, 122-125
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Lateral Live Load Surcharge
Uniform Loading
Full 0 psf= Uniform loading full soldier beam height
Partial 0 psf= Uniform loading partial soldier beam height
Hpar 0 ft= Height of partial uniform surcharge loading
Ps y( ) Full Partial0 ftyHparif
Full Hpar yHif
0 psfotherwise
Uniform surcharge profile per depth
Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading
Pr 0 kip= Applied axial load per beam
e 0 in= Eccentricity of applied compressive load
Me Pr e
xt
= Eccentric bending moment
Ph 0 lb= lateral pont load at depth "zh"
zh 0 ft= Distance to lateral point load from top of wall
Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable)
EFP 0 pcf= Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure
Es EFP H= Maximum seismic force pressure
Eq y() Es
Es
H yyHif
0 psfotherwise
= Maximum seismic force pressure
Cantilever H = 11', bm 101-118, 122-125
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Boussinesq Lateral Surcharge Load
Q 0 klf= Surcharge load of continous or isolated footings
z'0 ft= Depth below adjacent grade to application of surcharge load
x1 0 ft= Distance of line load from back face of wall
Surcharge Coefficients ny()yz'
Hmx1H 1
Boussinesq Equation
Pb y()0 psf0 ftyz'if
if m 0.40Q
H
0.20ny()
0.16 ny()()221.28Q
H
m2 ny()
m2 ny()()22
z' yHif
0 psfotherwise
0 100 2000
5
10
Lateral Surcharge Loading
Pressure (psf)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Maximum Boussinesq Pressure
Δy 3 ft
Given
Δy Pb Δy()d
d 0 psf=
Pb Find Δy()()0 psf
0
H
yPb y()
d 0 klf
Cantilever H = 11', bm 101-118, 122-125
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Equillibrium Conditions
PA H()1100 psf
PD Hdt()2812.5psf
Assume a trial value for "D" & solve
D 20 ft
Given
Summing Moments About Tip
0
HD
yPAy() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPs y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yPb y() H Dy()d
0
HD
yEq y() H Dy()
dMePh
xt
HDzh()
H neglected
HD
yPDy() H Dy()
d
0=
Dh Find D()
0 21044104
0
10
0
Bending Moment Diagram
Moment (ft-kip/ft)
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
Dh 14.2 ft
Distance to zero shear
(From top of Pile)
ε aH
ε Va()
aa0.10 ft
ε Va()
ε 0while
areturn
ε 18.2 ft
Cantilever H = 11', bm 101-118, 122-125
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Determine Minimum Pile Size
My()
0
y
yVy()
dMeMmax M ε()xtMmax 402.9 kip ft
AISC Steel Construction Manual 15th Edition
Ω 1.67= Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1
Δσ 1.33= Steel overstress for temporary loading
Fb Fy Δσ
Ω
= Allowable bending stress
Required Section Modulus:Zr
Mmax
FbFlexural Yielding, Lb < Lr Zr 121.4 in3
Beam "W21 x 55"
Fb 39.8 ksi
A 16.2 in2bf 8.2 inK 1Lu H Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
ε otherwise
d 20.8 intf 0.5 inZx 126 in3
tw 0.4 inrx 8.4 inIx 1140 in4Fe π2 E
KLu
rx
2
Axial Stresses λ
Fy
Fe
Fcr 0.658λ FyKLu
rx
4.71 E
Fyif
0.877 Fe( ) otherwise
= Nominal compressive stress - AISC E.3-2 & E3-3
= Allowable concentric force - AISC E.3-1Pc
Fcr A
Ω
Ma Zx Fb= Allowable bending moment - AISC F.2-1
Interaction Pr
Pc
8
9
Mmax
Ma
Pr
Pc 0.20if
Pr
2 Pc
Mmax
Ma
otherwise
= AISC H1-1a & H1-1b Ma 418.1 kip ft
Interaction 0.96Mmax 402.9 kip ft
Cantilever H = 11', bm 101-118, 122-125
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
-F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Embedment depth increase for min global FS
Dh' Floor Dh ft()2 ft
Overturning moments
MO y()
0
H Dh'
yPAy( ) H Dh'y()
d
0
H Dh'
yPs y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yPb y( ) H Dh'y()d
0
H Dh'
yEq y( ) H Dh'y()dMePh
xt
H Dh'zh()
Overturning moments
MR y()
H neglected
H Dh'
yPDy( ) H Dh'y()
d
MO HD()119 kip
MR HD()
MO HD()1.3
MR HD()151.5kip
Factor of Safety:
Overturnning if FSd
MR HD()
MO HD()"Ok""No Good: Increase Dh"
Overturnning "Ok"
Cantilever H = 11', bm 101-118, 122-125
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Governing Embedment Depth
Axial Resistance
qa 0 psf= Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure
fs 400 psf= Allowable soldier skin friction
p'π diaPile "Concrete Embed"=if
2 bf dotherwise
= Applied axial load per beam
Allowable Axial Resistance
Qy( ) p' fsyπ dia2qa
4 Pile "Concrete Embed"=if
bf dqaotherwise
Dv ε 0 ft
τ Q ε()
εε0.10 ft
τ Pr Q ε()
τ 0while
εreturn
Dv 0 ft
Dh'16ft
Selected Toe Depth Dtoe if Dh' DvFloor Dh'1.2ft()Dv()
Dtoe 19 ft
Maximum Deflection
L' H dzDh
4= Effective length about pile rotation
Δ
xt
EIx0
L'
yyMy()dΔ 0.58 in
Cantilever H = 11', bm 101-118, 122-125
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: February 29, 2024
Design Summary:Sb_No "101-118, 122-125"
Beam "W21 x 55"
H 11ft= Soldier beam retained height
Dtoe 19 ft= Minimum soldier beam embedment
H Dtoe30ft= Total length of soldier beam
xt 8 ft= Tributary width of soldier beam
dia 30 in= Soldier beam shaft diameter
Δ 0.58 in= Maximum soldier beam deflection
Cantilever H = 11', bm 101-118, 122-125
with Slope_R2.xmcdz
Section 13
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Engr: RPR Date: 2/29/24
Sheet: ______ of _______
Handrail Design
Handrail Design in Accordance with 2022 CBC & Cal-OSHA Requirements
(A) 200lb concentrated load applied in any direction at the top handrail, CBC 1607.7
(B) 50plf uniform excempt per Cal Osha & CBC Exemption 1607.7.1(1)
H44in= Maximum handrail height - CAL/OSHA Title 8, Section 1620
P 200 lb= Handrail concentrated load - CBC 1607.7.1.1
Load Conditions
Concentrated load shall be checked against both x-x & y-y geometric axis in addition to minor axis principle
direction (Least radius of gyration)
P 200lbMinimum concentrated load applied at an direction at top of member - CBC 1607.7.1.1
MPH---> Maximum design bending moment
M 8.8 in kip
Angle Iron Properties
Member "L2 x 2 x 3/8"
Fy 36 ksiSx 0.348 in3Ix 0.476 in4E 29000 ksirx 0.591 in
b2inSy SxIy IxSc 0.80 Sxry rx
t 3
8 inSz 0.227 in
3Iz 0.203 in
4J 0.0658 in
4A 1.36 in
2
Handrail Design.xmcd
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Engr: RPR Date: 2/29/24
Sheet: ______ of _______
Geometric Bending - AISC F10 --->Cb 1cantilever
Leg Local Buckling - AISC F10.3
Local Stability: AISC Table B4.1 b
t 5.330.54 E
Fy15.33
Leg if
b
t 0.54 E
Fy"Compact""Non-compact"
Unstiffened
Leg "Compact"
Lateral Torsional Buckling - AISC F10.2
My Sc Fy= Yield moment about minor principle axis
My 10 in kip
Lu H= Laterally unbraced length of member
Elastic Lateral-Torsional Buckling Moment, AISC F10.2
Me min
1.25 0.66 Eb4tCb
Lu2 1 0.78
Lu t
b2
1
1.25 0.66 Eb4tCb
Lu2 1 0.78
Lu t
b2
1
= Limiting tension or compression toe
Lateral torsional restrain at point of max moment
AISC F10.2(ii)
Governing limit state
Mc 0.92
0.17 Me
My
MeMe Myif
min 1.92 1.17
My
Me
My1.5 My
otherwise
M 8.8 in kip
Mc 15 in kip
Bending "Ok"
Handrail Design.xmcd
-F
-F
I
J,------=-
--J -
F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Engr: RPR Date: 2/29/24
Sheet: ______ of _______
Principle Axis Bending - AISC F10
Yielding Limit State - AISC F10.1
My Sz Fy= Yield moment about minor principl e axis
My 8.2 in kip
Lu 44 in= Laterally unbraced length of member
Lateral Torsional Buckling --->Cb 1cantilever
Me
0.46 Eb2t2Cb
Lu= Elastic Lateral-Torsional Buckling Moment - AISC F10-5
Mc 0.92
0.17 Me
My
MeMe Myif
min 1.92 1.17
My
Me
My1.5 My
otherwise
M 8.8 in kip
Mc 12.3 in kip
Flexure "Ok"
Shearing Stresses - AISC G4
eb---> Maximum eccentricity
fv
Pet
J
P
bt= Maximum shearing stress (Directional eccentricity included)
fv 2.55 ksi---> Ok
Handrail Design.xmcd
F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Engr: RPR Date: 2/29/24
Sheet: ______ of _______
Concentric Compression
The effects of eccentricity are addressed according to AISC E5 effective slenderness ratios
K 1.2---> Effective length factor
KLu
rx
89.34Leg "Compact"
Slenderness 72
0.75 Lu
rx
KLu
rx
80if
32 1.25 Lu
rx
otherwise
Fe π2 E
Slenderness()2λ Fy
Fe
Fcr 0.658λ FySlenderness 4.71
E
Fyif
0.877 Feotherwise
= Nominal compressive stress - AISC E.3-2 & E3-3
Pc Fcr A= Concentric compressive strength - AISC E.3-1
Pc 21490 lb
Compression "Ok"
Concentric Tension
Rupture strength & block shear negligible... 200lb tension load checked agains yield
TFyA= Concentric tensile strength - AISC D2
T 49 kip
Tension "Ok"
Handrail Design.xmcd
F
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Engr: RPR Date: 2/29/24
Sheet: ______ of _______
Angle Iron Connection
Weld PropertiesWeld "Fillet"
Fexx70 ksi= Electrode classification
Ω2.00 = Fillet weld safety factor loaded in plane, AISC J2.4
tw
4
16in= Weld thickness (2) longitudinal welds
te
2
2tw= Fillet weld effective throat
Lw4in= Length of weld along angle member
AISC J2.2b
min_weld 0.19 in
ILw3b2Lw2
6te= Weld group moment of inertia
max_weld 0.31 in
cLw
2 = Centroid of weld group
Weld bending stress
= Applied bending stress fb
PLwc
I
Mc
I
Fa
0.60 Fexx
Ω
= Allowable weld stress AISC J2.4
Weld if fbFa"Ok""No Good"
Fa21 ksi
USE: ASTM A36, Grade 36 - L2 x 2 x 3/8" Angle
Welded 4" along soldier beam with 3/8" diameter
wire rope.
fb5.8 ksiWeld "Ok"
Handrail Design.xmcd
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Apartments
Engr: RPR Date: 2/29/24
Sheet: ______ of _______
Service Conditions - Deflection
Hmin 39 in= Minimum deflected height of guardrail system under applied load
Δ PLu3
3Emin Iz Ix= Maximum member deflection under concentrated point load
Δ 0.96 in
dH Lu
2 Δ2= Vertical height of deflected member
Deflection if Hmin dH"Ok""No Good"
dH 43.99 in
Deflection "Ok"
Handrail Design.xmcd
J
Section 14
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Ave Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Timber Lagging Design
Lagging Geometry
Lagging "3x12, DF#2"
L 9 ft= Soldier beam center to center space
b 1 ft= Lagging width
shaft 30 in= Min. drill shaft backfill diameter
S L shaft= Lagging clear span
S 6.5ft
Soil Parameters
ϕ 27 deg= Internal soil friction angle
c 100 psf= Soil cohesion
γ 125 pcf= Soil unit weight
ka tan 45 degϕ
2
2
= Active earth pressure coefficient
area π S2
8= Silo cross sectional area (See figure)
Lagging soil wedge functions
Wz( ) area γz= Columnar silo vertical surcharge pressure
fs z() kaγtan ϕ()zc= Soil column side friction
ka 0.38
w 0 psf= Additional wedge surcharge pressure
area 16.6ft2
Surcharge 0 psf= Lateral surcharge pressure
Timber Lagging Design_3x12.xmcdz
D
w
dz
z
Soil Wedge Geometry
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Ave Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Maximum Lagging Design Pressure
Summing forces vertically
Fv z() Wz( ) w areaπ S
2 0
z
zfs z()
d
Summing forces horizontally
Pz()ka γS
2 ckaSurchargeFv z()ka
area
Given , inital guess:z 3 ft
Taking partial derivative with respect to z:
z
Pz()d
d
0=D Find z()
γ S4 c
4 γkatan ϕ()()4.3 ftDepth to critical tension crack &
maximum lagging design pressureD4.3 ft
Maximum design pressure
Pmax PD()= Maximum lagging pressure
2 4 60
1103
2103
3103
4103
Soil Pressure
Lagging Length (ft)
So
i
l
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
f
)
Pmax 142.7 psf
Sectional Properties
Lagging "3x12, DF#2"
d 3 in= Lagging thickness
= Section modulus
(Rough Sawn)Sm
bd 1
4 in
2
6
Abd1
4 in
= Lagging cross sectional area
(Rough Sawn)
Timber Lagging Design_3x12.xmcdz
_-r
I I __ _J
I I __ _J
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Ave Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Allowable Stress Design
0 2 4 6 81104
0
1104
2104
3104
4104
Shear & Moment Diagrams
Lagging Length (ft)
Maximum lagging stresses
Mmax M 0.5 L()= Maximum bending moment
Vmax V 0.5 shaft()= Maximum shear force
Mmax 1014.2 ft lbffb
Mmax
Sm
Vmax 309.1 lbffv 3
2
Vmax
A
NDS Allowable Stress & Adjustment Factors
Fb 900 psi= Allowable flexural stress_NDS Table 4A
Fv 180 psi= Allowable shear stress_NDS Table 4A
CD 1.1= Load duration factor_NDS Figure B1, Appendix B
Cr 1.15= Repetative member factor_NDS 4.3.9
Cfu 1.2= Flat-use factor
CF 1= Size factor
Ct 1= Temprature factor_NDS Table 2.3.3
Ci 1= Incising factor
CL 1= Beam stability factor (Flat)
CF Fb900 psi Maximum Design Stress
CM 1 CF Fb1150 psiif
0.85 otherwise
= Wet service factor fb 804.6 psi
fv 14 psi
CM 1
Timber Lagging Design_3x12.xmcdz
Shoring Design Group
7727 Caminito Liliana
San Diego, CA 92129
Hope Ave Apartments
Eng: RPR Sheet____of____
Date: 2/29/2024
Tabulated Stresses
Bending Stress
Fb' CD CMCtCLCFCfuCiCrFb= Tabulated bending stress_NDS Table 4.3.1
Bending if fb Fb'"Ok""No Good"()
Fb'1366 psi
fb 805 psiBending "Ok"
Shear Stress
Fv' CD CMCtCiFv= Tabulated shear stress_NDS Table 4.3.1
Shear if fv Fv'"Ok""No Good"()
Fv'198 psi
fv 14 psiShear "Ok"
Timber Lagging Design_3x12.xmcdz
Section 15
Shoring Design Group
Hope Avenue Apartments
Soldier Beam Schedule
3/28/2024
Revision 1
Shored Toe Total Min.
From To Beam Beam Height Depth Drill Toe
Beam Beam Qty Section Depth Diameter
H D H+D Dshaft
ft ft ft in
1 6 6 W 24 x 68 13.0 22.0 35.0 30
7 14 8 W 24 x 62 12.0 20.0 32.0 30
15 18 4 W 24 x 68 13.0 22.0 35.0 30
19 26 8 W 24 x 84 14.0 23.0 37.0 30
27 33 7 W 24 x 104 15.0 23.0 38.0 36
34 80 47 W 27 x 114 16.0 24.0 40.0 36
81 83 3 W 27 x 129 17.0 25.0 42.0 36
84 85 2 W 24 x 104 16.0 24.0 40.0 36
86 91 6 W 24 x 94 15.0 23.0 38.0 30
92 100 9 W 24 x 76 14.0 21.0 35.0 30
101 107 7 W 21 x 55 10.0 19.0 29.0 30
108 118 11 W 21 x 55 11.0 19.0 30.0 30
119 121 3 W 27 x 129 17.0 25.0 42.0 36
122 125 4 W 21 x 55 11.0 19.0 30.0 30
126 129 4 W 24 x 62 12.0 20.0 32.0 30
Section 16
GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIAL
January 23, 2023
Project No. 3780-SD
Wermers Companies
5120 Shoreham Place, Suite 150
San Diego, CA 92122
Attention: Mr. Patrick Zabrocki
Subject: Supplemental Infiltration Recommendation Letter
APN 203-320-20, -02, -48, -51, 40, and -41
Carlsbad Village Drive and Hope Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Zabrocki:
GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) understands that the proposed BMPs located at the subject site are
planned to be modular basins and raised planters at the east and west perimeter of the property.
Based on verbal conversations with you, it is our understanding that the updated plan is for
additional tree well BMPs to manage stormwater along Grand Avenue. Currently, a dirt pathway
abuts a section of Grand Avenue near the northwest corner of the site. The proposed
improvements consist of widening Grand Avenue with impervious asphalt concrete and tree
wells.
Per your request this letter is provided to supplement design recommendations for the
stormwater management specific to the proposed BMPs along Grand Avenue.
PERCOLATION TESTING AND INFILTRATION ANALYSIS
For our previous preliminary geotechnical evaluation report (GeoTek, 2022), two percolation
borings, P-1 and P-2, were excavated and tested to identify infiltration characteristics of the on-
site soil material. To support our updated recommendations in this supplemental letter, three
additional percolation borings and tests were prepared with a manual auger boring. The boring
was 4-inches in diameter. Percolation testing was conducted in Borings P-3 through P-5 by a
representative of GeoTek. The boreholes were allowed to presoak overnight,
GeoTek, Inc.
1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista, CA 92081-8505
(760) 599-0509 Offic, (760) 599-0593 Fa: www.geotekusa.com
SUPPLEMENTAL INFILTRATION RECOMMENDATION LETTER January 23, 2023
Wermers Companies Project No. 3780-SD
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California 92008 Page 2
and testing was performed on the following day. Percolation testing was performed by adding
potable water to the borings, recording the initial depth to water, and allowing the water to
percolate for 30 minutes, and the resultant depth to water was then measured. In general, the
percolation testing was performed for approximately 6 hours to allow rates to stabilize.
For design of shallow infiltration basins, converting percolation rates to infiltration rates via the
Porchet method is generally acceptable and appropriate, as this method factors out the sidewall
component of the percolation results and represents the bottom conditions of a shallow basin
(infiltration). Therefore, the percolation data were converted to infiltration rates via the Porchet
method which is consistent with the City of Carlsbad BMP Design Guidelines.
A summary of the infiltration rates, boring depths, and boring locations including our previous
test holes are provided in the following table:
TABLE 1
INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS
Test No. Date Tested Approximate Boring
Depth (Inches)
Infiltration Rate
(Inches/Hour)
P-1 4/7/2022 48 0.54
P-2 4/7/2022 54 0.55
P-3 1/6/2023 48 0.97
P-4 1/6/2023 65 0.94
P-5 1/6/2023 60 1.26
Copies of the percolation data sheets, and infiltration conversion sheets (Porchet Method) are
included in Appendix A. No factors of safety were applied to the rates provided. Over the
lifetime of the infiltration areas, the infiltration rates may be affected by sediment build up and
biological activities, as well as local variations in near surface soil conditions. A suitable factor of
safety should be applied to the field rate in designing the infiltration system.
It should be noted that the infiltration rates provided above were performed in relatively
undisturbed on-site soils. Infiltration rates will vary and are mostly dependent on the underlying
consistency of the site soils and relative density. Infiltration rates may be impacted by weight of
equipment travelling over the soils, placement of engineered fill and other various factors.
GeoTek assumes no responsibility or liability for the ultimate design or performance of the storm
water facility.
GEOTEK
SUPPLEMENTAL INFILTRATION RECOMMENDATION LETTER January 23, 2023
Wermers Companies Project No. 3780-SD
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California 92008 Page 3
UPDATED STORMWATER INFILTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS
As the current condition allows for percolation of surface waters along Grand Avenue, infiltration
by means of tree wells is considered geotechnically suitable provided potential lateral migration
of groundwater is reduced by installation of impermeable liners along the sidewalls.
CLOSURE
Since GeoTek’s recommendations 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.
Should you have any questions after reviewing this supplementary letter, please feel free to
contact our office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.
Enclosure:
Figure 1–Geotechnical Map
Appendix A–Percolation/Infiltration Worksheets
Christopher D. Livesey
CEG, 2733 Exp. 05/31/23
Vice President
Edwin R. Cunningham
RCE 81687, Exp. 03/31/24
Project Engineer
GEOTEK
SUPPLEMENTAL INFILTRATION RECOMMENDATION LETTER January 23, 2023
Wermers Companies Project No. 3780-SD
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California 92008 Page 4
REFERENCES
City of Carlsbad, 2016, “City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual,” Second Update to the February
16, 2016 Manual, Effective January 11, 2023.
City of Carlsbad, 2017, “Engineers Design and Processing Manual,” Chapter 2, Section 3.8.
GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.
Geotek, Inc. 2022, “Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad,
California,” Project No. 3780-SD, dated July 28, 2022.
GEOTEK
Source: Preliminary Site Exhibit, Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates
Scale:
1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A, Vista, CA 92081
(760) 599-0509 (phone) / (760) 599-0593 (FAX)
GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS
January 2023
FIGURE 2
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
HOPE APARTMENTS
1009 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Project No.:Report Date:Drawn By:
3780-SD GeoTek, Inc.
N
Af
276
Amelia
Site
Improvements
Artificial
Fill
Test Pit
Exploration
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
P-1
P-2
?
?
?
?
?
?
Af
Af
Af
Af
Af
Qop
Qop
Qop
Tsa
Tsa
LEGEND
Approximate Site Boundary
Cross Section
Approximate Location of Exploratory Boring
Approximate Location of Percolation Test
Approximate Geologic Contact, dashed where
buried, queried where inferred.
Af Artificial Fill
Qop Old Paralic Deposits, Circled Where Buried
Tsa Santiago Formation , Circled Where Buried
B-6
P-5
A A’
B’
B
B’B
P-5P-3 P-4
GRAND AVENUE
rJ
PARCEL I I
PM286! a:,::, -
I _...-----= I
,._ I I ~ r-
_______ ---' ____ ~ ___ J b~:1_~=j ~
GEOTEK
Pl.AN VIEW· PRELIMINARY SITE EXHIBfT
.$C41.£!"•llr~ .....
L_J
t
SUPPLEMENTAL INFILTRATION RECOMMENDATION LETTER January 23, 2023
Wermers Companies Project No. 3780-SD
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California 92008 Page 5
APPENDIX A
Percolation/Infiltration Worksheets
GEOTEK
Job No.: 3780-SD .
Date: 4/7/22 .
After Test: 48" .
Reading
No.Time
Time
Interval
(Min)
Total
Depth of
Hole
(Inches)
Initial
Water
Level
(Inches)
Final
Water
Level
(Inches)
∆ In Water
Level
(Inches)
Comments
1 7:30 30 48 20 31 11
2 8:00 30 48 23 34 11
3 8:30 30 48 23 33 10
4 9:00 30 48 24 34 10
5 9:30 30 48 28 35 7
6 10:00 30 48 24.25 30.75 6.5
7 10:30 30 48 20.75 28.25 7.5
8 11:00 30 48 21.50 27.00 5.5
9 11:30 30 48 20.75 26.25 5.5
10 12:30 30 48 19.75 24.25 4.5
11 13:00 30 48 20.25 25.50 5.25
12 13:30 30 48 18.75 24.00 5.25
13 14:00 30 48 19.25 24.25 5
PERCOLATION DATA SHEET
Project: Hope Avenue ,
Test Hole No.: P-1 Tested By: CDL ,
Depth of Hole As Drilled: 48" Before Test: ___48"______________________
Equation -It =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It = Inches per Hour0.54
Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 48
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO = 28.75
HF = DT - DF = 23.75
ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF = 5.00
26.25
Final Depth to Water, DF =24.25
Test Hole Radius, r =3.00
Initial Depth to Water, DO =19.25
Time Interval, Δt = 30
Client:
Project:
Project No:3780-SD
Date:4/7/2022
Boring No.P-1
Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method)
Carlsbad Village II, LLC
Hope Avenue Apartments
GEOTEK
Job No.: 3780-SD .
Date: 4/7/22 .
After Test: 48" .
Reading
No.Time
Time
Interval
(Min)
Total
Depth of
Hole
(Inches)
Initial
Water
Level
(Inches)
Final
Water
Level
(Inches)
∆ In Water
Level
(Inches)
Comments
1 7:15 30 54 24 32 8
2 7:45 30 54 20 28 8
3 8:15 30 54 22 29 7
4 8:45 30 54 23 30 7
5 9:15 30 54 20.25 28 7.75
6 9:45 30 54 21.50 27.75 6.25
7 10:15 30 54 22.50 28.75 6.25
8 10:45 30 54 21.25 27.75 6.5
9 11:15 30 54 23.25 29.50 6.25
10 11:45 30 54 22.75 29.25 6.5
11 12:15 30 54 21.50 28.50 7
12 12:45 30 54 20.75 26.25 5.5
13 13:15 30 54 21.25 27.00 5.75
PERCOLATION DATA SHEET
Project: Hope Avenue ,
Test Hole No.: P-2 Tested By: CDL ,
Depth of Hole As Drilled: 54" Before Test: ___54"______________________
Carlsbad Village II, LLC
Equation -It =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It = Inches per Hour0.55
Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 54
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO = 32.75
HF = DT - DF = 27.00
ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF = 5.75
29.88
Final Depth to Water, DF =27.00
Test Hole Radius, r =3.00
Initial Depth to Water, DO =21.25
Time Interval, Δt = 30
Client:
Project:
Project No:3780-SD
Date:4/7/2022
Boring No.P-2
Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method)
Hope Avenue Apartments
GEOTEK
Job No.: 3780-SD .
Date: 01/06/23 .
After Test: 48" .
Reading
No.Time
Time
Interval
(Min)
Total
Depth of
Hole
(Inches)
Initial
Water
Level
(Inches)
Final
Water
Level
(Inches)
∆ In Water
Level
(Inches)
Rate
(minutes
per inch)
Comments
1 7:30 30 48 0.5 16 15.5
2 8:00 30 48 0.5 19 18.5
3 8:30 30 48 0.5 19.5 19
4 9:00 30 48 0.5 20 19.5
5 9:30 30 48 0.5 18 17.5
6 10:00 30 48 0.5 20 19.5
7 10:30 30 48 0.5 19.5 19
8 11:00 30 48 0.5 22.5 22
9 11:30 30 48 0.5 17.5 17
10 12:00 30 48 0.5 19.5 19
11 12:30 30 48 0.5 18 17.5
12 13:00 30 48 0.5 19.5 19
PERCOLATION DATA SHEET
Project: Hope Apartments ,
Test Hole No.: P-3 Tested By: EH ,
Depth of Hole As Drilled: 48" Before Test: _48"________________________
Carlsbad Village II, LLC
Equation -It =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It = Inches per Hour
ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF = 19.00
38.00
0.97
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO = 47.50
HF = DT - DF = 28.50
Test Hole Radius, r =2.00
Initial Depth to Water, DO =0.5
Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 48
Boring No.P-3
Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method)
Time Interval, Δt = 30
Final Depth to Water, DF =19.50
Client:
Project:Hope Avenue Apartments
Project No:3780-SD
Date:1/6/2023
GEOTEK
Job No.: 3780-SD .
Date: 01/06/23 .
After Test: 65" .
Reading
No.Time
Time
Interval
(Min)
Total
Depth of
Hole
(Inches)
Initial
Water
Level
(Inches)
Final
Water
Level
(Inches)
∆ In Water
Level
(Inches)
Rate
(minutes
per inch)
Comments
1 7:35 30 65 0.5 20 0
2 8:05 30 65 0.5 26 25.5
3 8:35 30 65 0.5 25 24.5
4 9:05 30 65 0.5 26.5 26
5 9:35 30 65 0.5 25.5 25
6 10:05 30 65 0.5 27 26.5
7 10:35 30 65 0.5 24.25 23.75
8 11:05 30 65 0.5 26.5 26
9 11:35 30 65 0.5 25 24.5
10 12:05 30 65 0.5 26 25.5
11 12:35 30 65 0.5 23.5 23
12 13:05 30 65 0.5 25.5 25
PERCOLATION DATA SHEET
Project: Hope Apartments ,
Test Hole No.: P-4 Tested By: EH ,
Depth of Hole As Drilled: 65" Before Test: __65"______________________
Carlsbad Village II, LLC
Equation -It =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It = Inches per Hour
ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF = 25.00
52.00
0.94
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO = 64.50
HF = DT - DF = 39.50
Test Hole Radius, r =2.00
Initial Depth to Water, DO =0.5
Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 65
Boring No.P-4
Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method)
Time Interval, Δt = 30
Final Depth to Water, DF =25.50
Client:
Project:Hope Avenue Apartments
Project No:3780-SD
Date:1/6/2023
GEOTEK
Job No.: 3780-SD .
Date: 01/06/23 .
After Test: 60" .
Reading
No.Time
Time
Interval
(Min)
Total
Depth of
Hole
(Inches)
Initial
Water
Level
(Inches)
Final
Water
Level
(Inches)
∆ In Water
Level
(Inches)
Rate
(minutes
per inch)
Comments
1 7:40 30 60 0.5 25.5 0
2 8:10 30 60 0.5 31.5 31
3 8:40 30 60 0.5 30 29.5
4 9:10 30 60 0.5 31 30.5
5 9:40 30 60 0.5 29.25 28.75
6 10:10 30 60 0.5 30 29.5
7 10:40 30 60 0.5 27.75 27.25
8 11:10 30 60 0.5 31 30.5
9 11:40 30 60 0.5 30 29.5
10 12:10 30 60 0.5 28 27.5
11 12:40 30 60 0.5 26.25 25.75
12 13:10 30 60 0.5 29.5 29
PERCOLATION DATA SHEET
Project: Hope Apartments ,
Test Hole No.: P-5 Tested By: EH ,
Depth of Hole As Drilled: 60" Before Test: __60"______________________
Carlsbad Village II, LLC
Equation -It =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It = Inches per Hour
ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF = 29.00
45.00
1.26
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO = 59.50
HF = DT - DF = 30.50
Test Hole Radius, r =2.00
Initial Depth to Water, DO =0.5
Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 60
Boring No.P-5
Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method)
Time Interval, Δt = 30
Final Depth to Water, DF =29.50
Client:
Project:Hope Avenue Apartments
Project No:3780-SD
Date:1/6/2023
GEOTEK
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
PROPOSED HOPE APARTMENTS
APNS 203-320-20, -02, -48. -51, -40, AND -41
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND HOPE AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
CT 2022-001/SDP 2022-0006
PREPARED FOR
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC
3444 CAMINO DEL RIO N, SUITE 202
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92108
PREPARED BY
GEOTEK, INC.
1384 POINSETTIA AVENUE, SUITE A
VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92081
PROJECT NO. 3780-SD JULY 28, 2022
GEOTEK
GEOTEK
GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS
July 28, 2022
Project No. 3780-SD
Carlsbad Village II, LLC
3444 Camino Del Rio N, Suite 202
San Diego, California 92108
Attention: Mr. Patrick Zabrocki
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Hope Apartments
APN 203-320-20, -02, -48, -51, 40, and -41
Carlsbad Village Drive and Hope Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Zabrocki:
GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) is pleased to provide the results of this Preliminary Geotechnical
Evaluation for the subject project located in the City of Carlsbad, California. This report
presents the results of GeoTek’s evaluation and provides preliminary geotechnical
recommendations for earthwork, foundation design, and construction. Based upon
review, site development 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.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.
Christopher D. Livesey Edwin R. Cunningham
CEG 2733 RCE 81687
Associate Vice President Project Engineer
GeoTek, Inc.
1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista, CA 92081-8505
(760) 599-0509 Office (760) 599-0593 Fa www.geotekusa.com
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, 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 PERCOLATION TESTING .................................................................................................................... 3
3.3 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................................... 3
4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 3
4.1 REGIONAL SETTING ........................................................................................................................ 3
4.2 EARTH MATERIALS ......................................................................................................................... 4
Artificial Fill (Map Symbol Af) ............................................................................................................ 4
Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits (Map Symbol Qop) .................................................................... 4
Tertiary-age Santiago Formation (Map Symbol Tsa) ........................................................................... 4
4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................ 5
Surface Water .................................................................................................................................. 5
Groundwater .................................................................................................................................... 5
4.4 EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS ................................................................................................................ 5
Surface Fault Rupture ....................................................................................................................... 5
Liquefaction/Seismic Settlement......................................................................................................... 6
Other Seismic Hazards ..................................................................................................................... 6
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 6
5.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................ 6
5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................... 6
General ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Site Clearing and Preparation ............................................................................................................ 7
Remedial Grading ............................................................................................................................. 7
Cut/Fill Transition Lots ...................................................................................................................... 7
Cut Lots ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Engineered Fill .................................................................................................................................. 8
Excavation Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 8
Temporary Basement Excavation ...................................................................................................... 8
Shrinkage and Bulking .................................................................................................................... 10
Trench Excavations and Backfill ................................................................................................. 11
5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 11
Stormwater Infiltration .................................................................................................................... 11
Hydrological Soil Classification ......................................................................................................... 13
Foundation Design Criteria .............................................................................................................. 17
Post Tension Foundation Recommendations ..................................................................................... 18
Conventional Foundation Recommendations..................................................................................... 19
Mat Slab Foundation ...................................................................................................................... 21
Under Slab Moisture Membrane ..................................................................................................... 21
Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations ................................................................................... 22
Foundation Setbacks ....................................................................................................................... 22
Seismic Design Parameters ........................................................................................................ 23
4.2.l
4.2.1
42.3
4.3,i
43.2
4A-.I
4.4.2
4.4..1
5.1-1
5.2.2
5.2.3
S.2.4
5.1,5
.S.:2.6
5.2]
5.2.8
5.2.9
52.10
5.3.i
5.3~2
5.3.3
5,3.4 .us
5.3.6
5.3.7
5.3.8
5.J.9
5..3.10
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, California Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Soil Sulfate Content and Corrosivity ............................................................................................ 23
Preliminary Pavement Design ..................................................................................................... 24
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)................................................................................................ 25
5.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 25
General Design Criteria ................................................................................................................... 25
Restrained Retaining Walls ............................................................................................................. 26
Seismic Earth Pressures on Retaining Walls ..................................................................................... 26
Wall Backfill and Drainage ............................................................................................................. 27
6. CONCRETE FLATWORK ......................................................................................................................... 28
6.1 GENERAL CONCRETE FLATWORK ........................................................................................................... 28
Exterior Concrete Slabs and Sidewalks............................................................................................. 28
7. POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................... 28
7.1 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AND PLANTING .......................................................................................... 28
7.2 DRAINAGE .................................................................................................................................... 29
7.3 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ................................................................. 29
8. LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 30
9. SELECTED REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 31
ENCLOSURES
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Geotechnical Map
Figure 3 – Geologic Cross Section AA’
Figure 4 – Geologic Cross Section BB’
Appendix A – Logs of Exploration and Percolation/Infiltration Worksheets
Appendix B – Results of Laboratory Testing
Appendix C – General Earthwork Grading Guidelines
5.3. If
5.3.i .2
5.3.13
SA.I
SA2
5.4.J
5.4.4
6.U
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 1
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions of the project site. 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 six (6) exploratory borings and collection of soil samples for subsequent
laboratory testing.
Excavation of two auger drilled test holes for subsequent percolation testing.
Laboratory testing of the soil samples collected during the field investigation.
Compilation of this geotechnical report which presents 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 subject property is located adjacent to the northeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and
(future extension) of Hope Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad, California (see Figure 1). The project
site can be readily identified as 1009 Carlsbad Village Drive, but incudes the broader area of San
Diego Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 203-320-20, -02, -48, -51, 40, and -41. The subject site is
bounded to the north by Grand Avenue, to the east by The Lofts Apartments, to the south by a
restaurant (Carl’s Jr.), and to the west by Hope Avenue. The eastern portion of the site is
occupied by a two-story motel (Carlsbad Village Inn) and a parking lot, the northwest portion of
the site is occupied by one to two-story residential structures, and the southwest is a vacant lot
with what appears to be two slab-on-grade foundations. The grades on the west half and east
half are generally flat, however an approximate four foot tall retaining wall separates the grades
from each side. The west half is at an approximate elevation of 63 feet elevation and the east
half is at an approximate elevation of 69 feet.
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 2
2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on the preliminary layout plan provided by Pasco Laret Suiter and Associates, proposed
improvements include a 156-residential unit 4-story structure over a two-level subterranean
podium parking structure. A courtyard, perimeter flatwork, and stormwater BMP planters are
also shown. Associated improvements are anticipated to consist of wet and dry utilities and
offsite public road improvements as well as on-site parking and pavement/hardscaping
improvements.
It is anticipated that the residential buildings will be of wood frame construction and the
subterranean podium-style parking structure is anticipated to be constructed of reinforced
concrete. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed preliminary design dead loads for the
garage columns are 360 kips with a live load of 110 kips. Once actual loads are known that
information should be provided to GeoTek to determine if modifications to the
recommendations presented in this report are warranted.
As site planning progresses and additional or revised plans become available, they should be
provided to GeoTek for review and comment. If plans vary significantly, additional geotechnical
field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analyses may be necessary to provide specific
earthwork recommendations and geotechnical design parameters for actual site development
plans.
3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
GeoTek’s field study, conducted on April 6th and 7th 2022, consisted of a site reconnaissance and
excavation of six (6) exploratory borings advanced with a conventional CME-75 hollow-stem
auger drilling rig mounted on a rubber tired truck. Boring depths ranged from between 16 and
50 feet below existing grade. Excavation of two (2) additional borings, P-1 and P-2, to depths of
approximately 5 feet below grade, were performed for percolation testing. A representative
from GeoTek visually logged the borings in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS), collected relatively undisturbed and loose bulk soil samples for laboratory analysis, and
transported the samples to GeoTek’s laboratory. Percolation tests were performed the following
day. Approximate locations of the exploratory borings and percolation test holes are presented
on the Geotechnical Map, Figure 2. A description of material encountered in the test borings is
included in Appendix A.
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 3
3.2 PERCOLATION TESTING
Two percolation borings (Borings P-1 and P-2) were excavated to depths approximately 4 to 4.5
feet below the existing ground surface. The boring bottom and side walls were scarified and
cleaned as feasible of potential drilling fines adhered to the boring walls. The test hole was then
filled with potable water to pre-soak. Following overnight pre-soaking, the test holes were filled
with water and the drop in water level was recorded every 30 minutes. The test was continued
for a minimum of twelve readings and the final reading was used in the calculation of the
infiltration rate. The field data was converted to an infiltration rate via the Porchet method. Over
the lifetime of the storm water disposal areas, the infiltration rates may be affected by silt build
up and biological activities, as well as local variations in near surface soil conditions. The rates
presented below do not include a factor of safety, the BMP designer should include appropriate
factors of safety in their design.
INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS
Test No. Approximate Boring Depth
(Inches)
Infiltration Rate
(Inches per hour)
P-1 48 0.54
P-2 54 0.55
Copies of the percolation data sheets and infiltration conversion sheets (Porchet Method) are
included in Appendix A.
3.3 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed on bulk soil samples collected during the field explorations.
The purpose of the laboratory testing was to evaluate their physical and chemical 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.
4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS
4.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The subject property is located in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular
Ranges province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. It extends
roughly 975 miles from the north and northeasterly adjacent the Transverse Ranges geomorphic
province to the peninsula of Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 4
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 meanders the southwest margin of the province. No faults
are shown in the immediate site vicinity on the map reviewed for the area.
4.2 EARTH MATERIALS
A brief description of the earth materials encountered during the current subsurface exploration
is presented in the following sections. Based on the field observations and review of published
geologic maps the subject site is locally underlain by artificial fill (Af) over Quaternary-age Paralic
Deposits (Qop) over Tertiary-age Santiago Formation (Tsa).
Artificial Fill (Map Symbol Af)
Artificial fill was encountered in all borings between one and six feet below existing grades. The
fill soils along the west half were as shallow as one to two feet and consisted of reddish to light
brown silty sand (SM soil type based upon the Unified Soil Classification System) that may have
been disturbed due to demolition and construction. The fills in the eastern half were as deep as
six feet and consisted of silty medium to coarse sand (SP soil type) consistent with decomposed
granite fill.
Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits (Map Symbol Qop)
Old Paralic Deposits were encountered in test borings B-1, B-3 and B-6 at approximate depths
between two and twenty feet below the ground. The formational material consisted of medium
dense to dense, reddish brown, moist to wet, silty fine to medium sand (SM soil type).
Tertiary-age Santiago Formation (Map Symbol Tsa)
Santiago Formation was encountered in all borings with exception to B-2 which was terminated
due to utility conflicts. Santiago Formation was encountered at depths between six and total
depths explored (50 feet) and consisted of very dense, light gray, wet, silty fine sandstone
(excavates as SM soil type). It should be noted that a significant depth to Santiago Formation was
observed between the western and eastern half of the site. The western half encountered
Santiago Formation at depths of 20 feet, whereas the eastern half encountered Santiago
Formation at near the surface to a depth of 6 feet. The stratigraphical difference between the
Santiago Formation between the western and eastern halves of the site are attributed to
transgressional depositional episode against a paleo bluff (ancient shoreline and bluff). This
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 5
interpretation is consistent with the historic geology and depositional environment of the geology
setting of the Old Paralic Deposits.
4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER
Surface Water
Surface water was not observed during the recent site exploration. If encountered during
earthwork construction, surface water on this site will most likely be the result of precipitation.
Provisions for surface drainage will need to be accounted for by the project civil engineer.
Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered during exploration of the subject site. Based on the anticipated
depth of excavation, groundwater is anticipated to be a factor in site design, development and
post construction. The following table presents tabulated groundwater data. Data has been
obtained by direct measurement during field exploration and research review of the adjacent
property (The Lofts), and readily available data.
Summary of Groundwater Data
Reference ID Date Surface
Elevation (ft)
Depth
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Boring B-1 4/6/22 63 10 53
Boring B-3 4/6/22 69 10 59
Boring B-4 4/6/22 69 19 50
Boring B-5 4/6/22 69 5 64
Boring B-6 4/6/22 63 11 52
The Lofts
(1044 Carlsbad Village Drive)
---- ~74 10.5 ~63.5
4.4 EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS
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 not 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 transecting the site were identified on the readily available geologic maps reviewed.
The nearest known active fault is the Newport Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault located about five
miles to the southwest of the site.
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.4.1
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 6
Liquefaction/Seismic Settlement
Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, 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 is considered negligible
due to the density of the underlying Santiago Formation materials and consideration of proposed
design (subterranean podium-style parking structure).
Other Seismic Hazards
The potential for landslides and rockfall is considered negligible, due to the low gradient
topographic setting of the site. The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as seiche and
tsunami is remote due a review of California Department of Conservation, Geologic Survey,
Tsunami Inundation San Luis Rey Quadrangle, 2009.
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 GENERAL
Development of the site 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.
5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS
General
Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable grading ordinances
of the City of Carlsbad, the 2019 (or current) California Building Code (CBC), and
4.4.2
4.4.3
5.2.1
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 7
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.
Site Clearing and Preparation
Site preparation should start with removal of deleterious materials, vegetations, and trees/shrubs
in the proposed improvement areas. These materials should be disposed of properly off site. Any
existing underground improvements, utilities and trench backfill should also be removed or be
further evaluated as part of site development operations.
Remedial Grading
Prior to placement of fill materials and in all structural areas, the upper variable, potentially
compressible materials should be removed. Removals should include at a minimum all fills. Based
on the explored locations, an average removal depth of 3 feet from existing grades may be
anticipated. However, considering the proposed subterranean podium style parking structure
design, excavation for the parking structure is anticipated to remove all unsuitable soils.
The bottom of the removals should be observed by a GeoTek representative prior to processing
the bottom for receiving placement of compacted fills. Depending on actual field conditions
encountered during grading, locally deeper and/or shallower areas of removal may be necessary.
Prior to fill placement, if fills are needed to reach design grades, the bottom of all removals should
be scarified to a minimum depth of six (6) inches, moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum
moisture content, and then compacted to at least 90% of the soil’s maximum dry density as
determined by ASTM D1557 test procedures. The resultant voids from remedial grading/over-
excavation should be filled with materials placed in general accordance with Section 5.2.6
Engineered Fill of this report.
Cut/Fill Transition Lots
Grading may result in a cut/fill transition at the proposed building pad finish grades. If a geologic
contact of Formational material against fills is encountered at finish pad grades, the cut portion
should be over-excavated a minimum of five feet below pad grades, or two feet below the base
of proposed footings, whichever is deeper, and be replaced with engineered fill. Cut/fill
transitions may occur across ancillary or detached buildings outside of the subterranean parking
structure footprint. Depending on the proposed design, an alternative to overexcavating across
the entire site, where small fills are needed, could be to compact the fill material to 95 percent
compaction relative to ASTM D1557. GeoTek should be contacted for additional considerations
on such a case.
5.2.2
S.2.3
5.2.4
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 8
Cut Lots
Lots wholly excavated in a cut condition exposing sandstone of the Santiago Formation may
remain as cut. This will be the case for the subterranean (basement) parking structure.
Engineered Fill
Onsite materials are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided, they are
free from 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 approved 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 by ASTM D1557 test procedures.
Excavation Characteristics
Excavations in the onsite materials can generally be accomplished with heavy-duty earthmoving
or excavating equipment in good operating condition. Exploratory borings were advanced with
relative ease, however when driving the samples, blow counts indicated dense and very dense
silty sandstones. A rippability survey was not performed as part of the scope of work under this
report. If desired, a rippability survey can be provided. This report should be reviewed by the
grading contractors solicited for grading construction, as hallow stem auger boring and excavation
with track hoe equipment is not equivalent. Advancement of a boring may be more readily
performed compared to a bucket excavator.
Temporary Basement Excavation
Depending on the actual design of the basement footprint, excavation of the basement may be
feasible by sloping the excavations. Based on preliminary discussions with the client, a soldier
beam and wood lagging with tie-back anchors are preferred for the basement excavation.
It is extremely difficult to predict accurately the amount of deflection of a shored excavation. It
should be realized that some deflection will occur. It is estimated that this deflection may be on
the order of 1-inch at the top of the shored excavation. If greater than expected deflection
occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to minimize adjacent area
settlement. If it is desired to reduce the deflection of the shoring, a greater lateral earth pressure
(such as at-rest earth pressures) may be used in the shoring design with an increased stiffness of
the system.
Soldier pile installations consisting of a concrete encased steel H-beams should be observed by
the project geotechnical consultant to verify excavations are drilled into anticipated conditions,
5.2.5
5.2.6
5.2.7
5.2.8
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 9
pile excavations are properly prepared and cleaned out, dimensions are achieved, and specific
installation procedures are followed. The shoring to be constructed at the site should be
surveyed and monitored on a regular basis for any movement. If any significant movement is
observed during shoring and construction operations, it should be brought to the immediate
attention of the project general contractor, shoring contractor and geotechnical consultant for
appropriate corrective measures.
It is recommended that during design of the shoring GeoTek be contacted for review of
geotechnical design parameters.
Soldier Piles
Soldier piles installed to support earth pressures are anticipated to be concrete encased H piles,
designed by the project structural engineer or shoring engineer. Other reasonable shoring
options might be sheet piling and/or secant or tangent drilled piers.
The excavation for the proposed basement is anticipated to expose bedrock materials of the
Santiago Formation. Santiago Formation bedrock is also expected to be encountered at the base
of some of the excavations. As old paralic deposits and artificial fill overly the bedrock in this
portion of the project site, measures to prevent caving should be considered during excavation.
The drilling contractor should be made aware of the presence of bedrock and that appropriate
heavy-duty drilling equipment in good working order and/or special drilling techniques will be
required. It should be realized that the ability of any particular contractor to excavate the
materials encountered will vary based on factors that may or may not be considered in the
presented evaluation. All methods available to evaluate rock hardness and associated rippability
are interpretive to some extent. As such, experience and judgment are primary factors in such
evaluations.
For design of cantilevered shoring, lateral at-rest or active earth pressures may be suitable with
a static lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 40 pounds per cubic
foot (pcf) for the active condition and 65 pcf for the at-rest condition for retained material with
level backfill. The actual pressure distribution to be used for design should be determined by the
structural/shoring engineer. For braced excavations, the shoring could be designed based on a
uniform pressure distribution with a pressure value of 22.0 H psf, where H is the wall height in
feet.
The above equivalent fluid weights do not include other superimposed loading conditions such
as vehicular traffic, hydrostatic (water table), structures, construction materials, seismic
conditions, etc. Applicable surcharge loads should be considered and applied by the
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 10
structural/shoring engineer. The project structural/shoring engineer should design the shoring
system using a suitable factor of safety and it should be designed for the lowest adjacent grade.
For the design of soldier piles, an ultimate lateral bearing value (passive value) of 300 pounds per
square foot per foot of depth, to a maximum value of 4,500 psf, may be assumed for material
below the level of excavation to determine soldier pile depth and spacing. The effective width
of the soldier pile can be assumed to be twice the solder pile diameter for passive pressure
calculations. However, passive resistance should be ignored within the upper foot due to
possible disturbance. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be taken to assure firm
contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed earth material. The construction of the
shoring system should be monitored continuously, and adjacent structures/improvements should
be observed for any potential lateral and vertical movement.
Lagging
Design of lagging is the purview of the shoring designer. Lagging should be installed at a maximum
5-foot vertical unsupported cut as the excavation is advanced. Field conditions including earth
material classification and seepage during construction may determine if this height of vertical
cut needs to be reduced to less than 5 feet. Friable soils were noted in the boring logs and
indicates caving or sluffing soil may be encountered during excavation of lagging. The upper one
foot of the lagging should be grouted or slurry–filled to assist in diverting surface water from
migrating behind the shoring walls.
The lagging should be backfilled immediately as the excavation is advanced in order to minimize
the voids created between the lagging and vertical cut and also to reduce the potential for ground
subsidence behind the wall. The lagging material should be designed considering it may serve as
a permanent installation.
Shrinkage and Bulking
Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including undocumented fill shrinkage,
trench spoil from utilities and footing excavations, as well as the accuracy of topography.
Shrinkage is not anticipated to be a factor in quantities estimating, as the site, based on the
proposed basement construction will likely be an export site. For excavations in the formational
material (Old Paralics and Santiago Formation) silty sandstone, a bulking factor of 10 percent may
be considered. Subsidence should not be a factor on the subject site due to the presence of near
surface formational material.
5.2.9
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 11
Trench Excavations and Backfill
Temporary excavations within the onsite materials should be stable at 1:1 inclinations 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 by ASTM D1557 test procedures. Under-slab trenches should also be
compacted to project specifications.
Onsite materials may not be suitable for use as bedding material but should be suitable as backfill
provided particles larger than 6± inches are removed.
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 thoroughly
moisture conditioned prior to placement in trenches.
5.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Stormwater Infiltration
Many factors control infiltration of surface waters into the subsurface, such as consistency of
native soils and bedrock, geologic structure, fill consistency, material density differences, and
existing groundwater conditions. Current site plans indicate several modular basins located on
the east and west perimeter of the property, which are shown on Figure 2.
A review of the site conditions and proposed development was performed in general accordance
with the City of Carlsbad BMP design manual. The scope of stormwater evaluation was
performed to identify infiltration characteristics. As required by the City of Carlsbad BMP design
manual, the following bullet points describe required considerations and some optional
considerations. The BMPs were evaluated each based on required considerations and all were
found to be limiting infiltration by the same restrictive consideration, therefore, to present a
simple discussion the following discussion regards all BMPs, unless where specifically discussed.
5.3.1a. Based on a review of www.geotracker.com, environmental impacted sites are not
reported within 100 feet of the site.
5.2.10
5.3.1
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 12
5.3.1b. Based on a review of Geotracker.com and a reconnaissance of the properties
surrounding the site, which were found to be residential, there was not an industrial
active building that may pose a lack of source control within 100 feet of the site.
5.3.1c. Based on the surrounding existing development and the understanding that the
proposed project will be supported by a municipal sanitation system, the BMPs are
not located within 50 feet of septic tanks or leach fields.
5.3.1d. Based on a review of the proposed improvements, the BMPs are not designed within
10 feet of structural retaining walls (basement).
5.3.1e. Based on a review of the proposed improvements, the BMPs are anticipated to be
designed within 10 feet of sewer utilities.
5.3.1f. Based on a review of the geologic information for the site and the site specific
evaluation that identified shallow dense bedrock within two feet of the surface.
Infiltration of surface waters will develop a shallow perched groundwater condition
within 10 feet of the BMPs.
5.3.1g. Based on a review of the topography of the site, hydric soils are not prone to exist.
However, based on the shallow bedrock of the site and in low gradient proposed
areas, hydric soils have the potential to develop due to infiltration of surface waters.
5.3.1h. Based on the shallow bedrock, hazards due to liquefiable soils is considered to be
low.
5.3.1i. Based on the proposed design, the BMPs are not located within 1.5 times the height
of an adjacent steep slope (basement).
5.3.1j. Based on the site specific study and conclusion, the site is within a predominantly
type D soil.
Based on outline numbers 5.3.1d, e, f, and g, the DMA’s for the site are classified as restricted
for infiltration. As the DMAs are considered to be restricted design infiltration rates are not
considered necessary.
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 13
Based on the restricted category of the DMA, the proposed basin should be designed for filtration
and all sides, including the bottom, should be designed with an impermeable liner to mitigate the
potential for groundwater mounding to develop and/or migrate laterally and impact the proposed
design improvements.
Hydrological Soil Classification
Summary of Mapped Soil Conditions
The United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Web Soil
Survey (WSS), an internet based map service, classifies the majority of the site (approximately
85% based on area) as MIC Marina loamy coarse sand, 2-9% slopes. The interpretative unit (MIC)
is classified as a hydrological Group B.
Table D.1-1: Considerations fo r Geotechnical Analysis of Infiltration Restrictions
Mandatory
Considerations
Optional
Considerations
Result
Restriction Element
BMP is within 100' of Contaminated Soils
BMP is within 100' of Industrial Activities Lacking Source Control
BMP is within 100' of Well/Groundwater Basin
BMP is within 50' of Septic Tanks/Leach Fields
BMP is within 10' of Structures/Tanks/Walls
BMP is within 10' of Sewer Utilities
BMP is within 10' of Groundwater Table
BMP is within Hydric Soils
BMP is within Highly Liquefiable Soils and has Connectivity to Structures
BMP is within 1.5 Times the Height of Adjacent Steep Slopes (~25%)
County Staff has Assigned "Restricted" Infiltration Category
BMP is within Predominantly Type D Soil
BMP is within 1 O' of Property Line
BMP is within Fill Depths of ~5' (Existing or Proposed)
BMP is within 10' of Underground Utilities
BMP is within 250' of Ephemeral Stream
Other (Provide detailed geotechnical support)
Based on examination of the best available information,
Is Element
Applicable?
(Yes/No)
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
□
I have not identified any restrictions above. Unrestricted
Based on examination of the best available information, IXI
I have identified one or more restrictions above. Restricted
Table D .1-1 is divided into Mandatory Considerations and Optional Considerations. Mandatory
5.3.2
GEOTEK
Existing fills
and new fills of
5 to 6 feet are
In the eastern
half of the site
and associated
BMPs
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 14
The WSS classifies map units based on topography, weather, typical soil section in the upper 40
inches, hydrological properties (slope gradient, drainage class, infiltration rates, runoff potential,
flood potential) and interpretative groups (land capability classification, hydrologic soil group,
hydric soil rating).
The WSS uses the National Soil Survey Handbook (NSSH) and its eDirectives to provide national
continuity of soil classifications related to the agricultural industry. Classification is based on
laboratory testing of field samples, direct testing in the field, and interpretations from aerial and
satellite photography. Samplings and laboratory analyses are performed on select sites and
extrapolated beyond the sampled locations.
The NSSH states that “increased mapping has been performed by remote spatial interpretations
in lieu of updating surveys based on new or supplemental laboratory data.”
The WSS provides the location of data points on their interpretive maps. Data sets are
predominately concentrated in agricultural areas and are sparsely available in urban and suburban
areas (if at all). A review of the WSS data set was performed. The closest data sample identified
is located at the approximate location of El Mirlo Drive, Oceanside, California. That data point
is approximately 8 miles northeast of the subject site, in a different geologic unit (Kt-
Tonalite/granitics) and presumably obtained prior to the existing development of the residential
tract homes at the stated location. The survey methodology on the WSS for the site is noted to
be based on aerial photography dated September 13, 2021.
The WSS has classified the site improvement area as a hydrological Group B. It should be noted
that the soil classification in the WSS are based on taxonomy principally for agricultural purposes.
Classification of soils presented on the logs utilize the Unified Soil Classification Standard, as per
industry standards. GeoTek’s findings result in inconsistencies between the site and information
provided on the WSS. These inconsistencies include:
The WSS classifies the site as a hydrological Group B, which is defined by eDirective 630, Chapter
7 as:
Group B—Soils in this group have moderately low runoff potential when thoroughly wet.
Group B soils typically have less than 10 to 20 percent clay and 50 to 90 percent sand.
The limits on the diagnostic physical characteristics of group B are as follows…..Soils that
are deeper than 40 inches to a water impermeable layer and a water table are in group B
if the saturated hydraulic conductivity of all soil layers within 40 inches of the surface is
between 0.57 and 1.42 inches per hour.
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 15
Based on GeoTek’s site specific study, the site has formational material Bedrock between 20 to
40 inches below the ground.
Following the flow chart of Table 7-1: depth to high groundwater is anticipated to be
great than 40 inches. Ksat depth rancge is between 0 and 40 inches, limited by near
surface bedrock (formational material). As a result, the site is classified as a Group D.
The WSS National Engineering Handbook provides a table summarizing the criteria for
assignment of hydrological soil groups in Table 7-1. This table has been presented herein and
highlights the criteria that identifies the site, specific to our findings (noted in yellow high lighter):
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 16
Table 7-1 (NEH, 2009)
l)eptlt to Ater Depthooldgh. X...t of leM trllllsmhslve Jt..i4eptb BSGJI'
limpe.nneable layer II water table~ layer hi depth u.nge n~
I <60 m D 1<20 inl ---
>4.0.0 pm/s
I
Oto80 cm ND (;:,5.67 inlh) [O t.o241n]
> 10.Q ta s40,0 JlDJ/s Oto 0 cm BID <:6CI cm (> 1.42 to :s'>.67 irl/h) I [Oto 24 In]
[<24 in] :,. LO to ~! 0.0 µrm.ls to£-O . m CID (;::,-0.14 to ~l.42 illlh) [Oto 24 in]
:S.1.0 µm/s to60 cm D 50to HIO cm (:50.14 ln/h) [Oto 24, in]
[20to40in] :;,4(1,0 Jun/8, 0to60cm A (>5.67 i.ru'h) [Oto20 in]
>IO.Oto .0 Jml/s
I
Oto 5{) cm B ;;:oocm (>l.42 to Sh.67 in/h) [Oto 20 in]
[~in] > 1.0 to :iao.o Inn/s Oto 60 cm C (><l.14 to ~1.42 inlh) [Oto 20 in]
:::;;I.Opm/s
I
0 to 5-0 cm D (~0.14 in/h) [O to20in]
>10.0 .µmis. 0 to 100 cm AID (>1.42 i:n/h) [Oto40 in]
>•1.0 to Sl0.0 prm,fs
I
o to rno em BID ,-::OOc:m ( >0.57 to ~l.42 :iwh) [Oto 40 in]
[<24 In] >OAO to g_o i1tmls Cl lo 100 cm CID (>0.06,to :S0.57 inlh) [Oto 40 in.I
~.40µrn/s
I
Cl to 100 em D >100cm (~:06 in/h} [Oto 40 in]
[>40 inJ ~40.0 Jl[IVS Oto50cm A (>5.67 i.n/h) roto20in]
>10.0 :«-0:0 Im,/ OtooOcm B OOto 100cm (>1.42 to §.67 inlh) [Oto 20in]
124to40In] > l .0 t.o ~10.0 pm.ls Oto60 c:m
(;;,0.14 to 51.42 inlh) [Oto 20 In]
:S.l.Oµrn/s I 0 to Ml cm D (:50.14 ln/h.) [Oto 20 in]
>l0.0J1mls
I
Oto 100 cm A (:>1.42 '.i:n/h) [Oto 4,0 in]
>4.0 to S 10.0 µmis Oto UIO m B :;,IOOcm (>-0.57 to :Sl.42 inlh) [Oto 40 in]
[>40 in] >0.40to -.o µmis Oto 100 cm
I (>(};06 to 5.0.57 inlh) [Oto 40 in)
<fl 401mu'io ,() t;.-. 1110 "!rtl D 1._::,,u .UO III/AJ lll to40mJ "f
' . U An un mtt'.abl Loy r l\:l.'i K,;,.t les5 than 0.01 p1nf.s ,[0.0014 inlb] or m n III restn n r fi-agt,pan;
duripan; peu ruci o:rstein:; petro&YP'Sic: oemented hociron; densic mate.rial: p!aci~ bed k, llhk;
brorock, Ulhl ; brorock, d I c-: or pennaf
2/ IDgh water table durlrtg any montl'I during the year.
3/ Dual lfSG clas.~ lilre appUe<l only fo w t soils (water table less than 00 ('ffl 124 in]). lfthese soils ,c3n be
dralriod, a ll!SS reslrictlcv-e I-JSG can bQ' asslgnic-d, df!pendlng Oll lhe K..it•
GEOTEK
I
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 17
Foundation Design Criteria
Preliminary foundation design criteria, in general conformance with the 2019 CBC, are presented
herein. Based on conversations with you, conventional, post-tension, mat slap and tie-downs are
being considered. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design
by the structural engineer. Updated or revised foundations may be needed based on updated
design and can be provided upon request. Independent of foundation selection the following
recommendations should be considered.
Groundwater will need to be addressed due to the subterranean parking garage design
elevations. A temporary dewatering system will be anticipated to be needed to handle
the influx of groundwater anticipated. A permanent system may also be considered.
The structural engineer should take into account the bouncy force when designing for the
subterranean basement if a permanent system is not designed.
Waterproofing of the retaining walls and subterranean foundation should be addressed
by the architect and/or structural engineer.
Based on visual classification of materials encountered onsite and plasticity index of the soils as
verified by laboratory testing, site soils are anticipated to exhibit a “very low” (EI < 20) expansion
index and “low” (21<EI<50) expansion index design parameters are provided for conservancy.
Additional laboratory testing should be performed at the time of supplemental geotechnical
evaluations and upon completion of site grading to verify the expansion potential and plasticity
index of the subgrade soils. If not, the more conservative foundation design category should be
utilized (low expansive condition).
An allowable bearing capacity of 4,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for
design of continuous and perimeter footings that meet the depth and width
requirements in the table above. This value may be increased by 300 pounds per
square foot for each additional 12 inches in depth and 200 pounds per square foot for
each additional 12 inches in width to a maximum value of 6,500 psf. Additionally, an
increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g.,
seismic and wind loads).
Based on experience in the area, structural foundations may be designed in accordance
with the 2019 CBC 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.
The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of
300 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 4,500 psf for footings
5.3.3
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 18
founded on engineered fill. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.33
may be used with dead load forces. passive pressure and frictional resistance can be
combined without reduction.
A grade beam should be utilized across large entrances. The depth and the width of
the grade beam should be the same as the adjoining footings.
Post Tension Foundation Recommendations
Presented below are post-tensioned (PT) foundation design parameters for the proposed
structures at the site. Following site grading, it is anticipated that the upper building pad soils
will have a “very low” and “low” expansion index potential. These parameters are in general
conformance with Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-on-Ground, Third Edition with 2008 Supplement
(PTI, 2008). These recommendations are minimal recommendations and are not intended to
supersede the design by the project structural engineer.
PT Design for Very Low Expansive Soils
Based upon the Post Tensioning Institute (PTI) “Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-on-Ground (3rd
edition), soils having a “very low” (0-20) expansion potential can be considered “non-active”.
Since the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) indicates Post Tensioning Institute (PTI) design
methodology is intended for expansive soils conditions, which do not apply to soils having a “very
low” (0-20) expansion potential, no em or ym parameters as used in the PTI methodology are
provided for soils having a “very low” (0-20) expansion potential.
For “non-active” soils (soils having a “very low” expansion potential), foundation
recommendations can be consistent with a Building Research Advisory Board (BRAB) Type II
foundation system, which is “lightly reinforced against shrinkage and temperature cracking”. This
type of foundation system can be reinforced with either steel reinforcement bars or post-
tensioned cables. Post-tensioning for this type of foundation system should utilize the
recommended design procedure by the referenced PTI manual and 2019 CBC. All reinforcing
(steel or post-tensioning) should be properly designed and specified by the structural engineer.
PT Design for Very Low Expansive Soils
Post-tensioned slab foundation design parameters for structures constructed on soils having a
“low” expansion index potential for this project are as follows:
5.3.4
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 19
GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
POST-TENSIONED SLABS
Foundation Design Parameter
“Low”
Expansion Potential (EI≤50)
LL≤38; PI≤15; Material Passing #200
Sieve = 40%;
Clay Fines = 10%
Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em
- Edge Lift (swelling)
- Center Lift (shrinkage)
4.8 ft
9.0 ft
Soil Differential Movement, ym
- Edge Lift (swelling)
- Center Lift (shrinkage)
≈0.67 in
≈0.29 in
Exterior Perimeter Beam Embedment 12 inches*
Presaturation of Subgrade Soil (Percent of Optimum) Minimum 100% to a depth of
12 inches
*Required depth of perimeter beam/stiffening rib per structural calculations may govern.
The following assumptions were used to generate em and ym values: Thornthwaite Moisture Index = -
20; constant suction value = 3.9pF; post-equilibrium case assumed with wet (swelling) cycle going from
3.9pF to 3.0pF and drying (shrinking) cycle going from 3.9pF to 4.5pF.
Post-tensioned slabs should be designed in accordance with the 2019 CBC and PTI design
methodology.
The bottom of the perimeter edge beam/deepened footing should be designed to resist tension
forces using either cable or conventional reinforcement, per the structural engineer.
It should be noted that the above recommendations are based on soil support characteristics
only. The structural engineer should design the slab and beam reinforcement based on actual
loading conditions.
Conventional Foundation Recommendations
Foundation design criteria for a conventional foundation system, in general conformance with the
2019 CBC, are presented below. Following site grading, the site soils are anticipated as having a
“very low” (EI<20) and “low” (21<EI<50) expansion index in accordance with ASTM D 4829.
These are minimal recommendations and are not intended to supersede the design by the project
structural engineer.
5.3.5
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 20
The conventional foundation elements for the proposed structures should bear entirely in
engineered fill soils. Foundations should be designed in accordance with the 2019 or current
applicable version of the CBC.
A summary of GeoTek’s preliminary foundation design recommendations is presented in the
table below:
Design Parameter
Category I
“Very Low” Expansion
Index
Category II
“Low” Expansion Index
Foundation Depth or
Minimum Perimeter Beam
Depth
(below lowest adjacent grade)
1-story = 12 Inches
2-story = 18 Inches
3-story = 24 Inches
4-story = 30 Inches
1-story = 18 Inches
2-story = 18 Inches
3-story = 24 Inches
4-story = 30 Inches
Perimeter or Continuous
Beam Foundations
Minimum Width (Inches)*
1-story = 12 Inches
2-story = 15 Inches
3-story = 18 Inches
4-story = 21 Inches
1-story = 12 Inches
2-story = 15 Inches
3-story = 18 Inches
4-story = 21 Inches
Isolated Square or Column
Foundations
Minimum Width (Inches)*
1-story = 24 Inches
2-story = 30 Inches
3-story = 36 Inches
4-story = 42 Inches
1-story = 24 Inches
2-story = 30 Inches
3-story = 36 Inches
4-story = 42 Inches
Minimum Slab Thickness
(actual)1 4 – Actual 4 – Actual
Minimum Slab Reinforcing
6” x 6” – W1.4/W1.4 welded wire
fabric placed in middle of slab, or
No. 3 bars at 24-inch centers
6” x 6” – W2.9/W2.9 welded wire
fabric placed in middle of slab, or
No. 3 bars at 18-inch centers.
Minimum Footing
Reinforcement
Two No. 4 reinforcing bars,
one placed near the top and one
near the bottom
Two No. 5 reinforcing bars,
one placed near the top and one
near the bottom
Effective Plasticity Index <15 15<X<20
Presaturation of Subgrade Soil
(Percent of Optimum)
Minimum of 100% of the optimum
moisture content to a depth of at
least 12 inches prior to placing
concrete
Minimum of 110% of the optimum
moisture content to a depth of at
least 18 inches prior to placing
concrete
*Code minimums per Table 1809.7 of the 2019 CBC should be complied with.
It should be noted that the criteria provided are based on soil support characteristics only. The
structural engineer should design the slab and beam reinforcement based on actual loading
conditions.
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 21
Mat Slab Foundation
The mat slab foundation for the subterranean parking garage should have a minimum embedment
depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade and may be designed using an allowable bearing
capacity of 4,500 psf. The recommended allowable soil bearing pressures may be increased by
one-third for temporary seismic or wind loading. Reinforcement within the mat foundation
should be determined by the structural engineer.
For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.33 between the base of the
foundation elements. In addition, an allowable passive earth resistance equal to an equivalent
fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for bedrock acting against the foundations may be
used to resist lateral forces. The top foot of passive resistance for foundations should be
neglected unless confined by pavement or slab.
A modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value) of 250 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be considered
for design.
Under Slab 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 2019 California
Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.505.2 and the 2019 CBC Section 1907.1
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. Although the CBC
specifies a 6-mil vapor retarder membrane, it is GeoTek’s opinion that a minimum 10 mil
membrane with joints properly overlapped and sealed should be considered, unless otherwise
specified by the slab design professional.
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.
5.3.6
5.3.7
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 22
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, GeoTek recommends 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 GeoTek, along with geotechnical consultants in general, do not practice
in the area of mold prevention. If specific recommendations addressing potential mold issues are
desired, then a professional mold prevention consultant should be contacted.
Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations
To reduce moisture penetration beneath the slab on grade areas, utility trenches
should be backfilled with 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 moisture-conditioned, compacted and tested. The excavations should
be free of loose/sloughed materials and be neatly trimmed at the time of concrete
placement.
Foundation Setbacks
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:
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.
5.3.8
5.3.9
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 23
The bottom of all footings for structures near retaining walls should be deepened so
as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall
stem. This applies to the existing retaining walls along the perimeter if they are to
remain.
The bottom of any existing foundations for structures should be deepened to extend
below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom of the nearest excavation.
Seismic Design Parameters
The site is located at approximately 33.1632, degrees west latitude and -117.3443 degrees north
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. A risk category of II has been utilized as an input design parameter.
Due to the very apparent density of the underlying bedrock, a Site Class “C” is considered
appropriate for this site. The results, based on ASCE 7-16 and the 2019 CBC, are presented in
the following table.
SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.064g
Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.385g
Site Coefficient for Site Class “C”, Fa 1.2
Site Coefficient for Site Class “C”, Fv 1.5
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral
Response Acceleration for 0.2 Second, SMS 1.276g
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral
Response Acceleration for 1.0 Second, SM1 0.578g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter at 0.2 Second, SDS 0.851g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter at 1 second, SD1 0.385g
Site Modified Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) 0.562g
Seismic Design Category D
Soil Sulfate Content and Corrosivity
Sulfate content test results indicate water soluble sulfate is less than 0.1 percent by weight, which
is considered “S0” as per Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-14. Based upon the test results, no special
recommendations for concrete are required for this project due to soil sulfate exposure.
5.3.10
5.3.11
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 24
Preliminary Pavement Design
Traffic indices have not been provided during this stage of site planning. In addition, site
conditions have not been graded to a final design to evaluate specific pavement subgrade
conditions. Therefore, the minimum structural sections provided below are based on a
preliminary laboratory R-Value of 25 and the assumed traffic indices.
PRELIMINARY ASPHALT PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION
Design Criteria Traffic Index
(TI)
Asphaltic Concrete (AC)
Thickness (inches)
Aggregate Base (AB)
Thickness (inches)
Driveway or
Perimeter Private 5.0 4.0 4.0
Grand Avenue
(Offsite Public Right
of Way)
5.0 4.0 4.0
Grand Avenue
(Offsite Public Right
of Way)
6.0 4.0 8.0
Actual structural pavement design is to be determined by the geotechnical engineer’s testing (R-
Value) of the exposed subgrade. Thus, the actual R-Value of the subgrade soils can only be
determined at the completion of grading for street subgrades and the above values are subject
to change based laboratory testing of the as-graded soils near subgrade elevations.
Asphalt concrete and aggregate base should conform to current Caltrans Standard Specifications
Section 39 and 26-1.02, respectively. As an alternative, asphalt concrete can conform to Section
203-6 of the current Standard Specifications for Public Work (Green Book). Crushed aggregate
base or crushed miscellaneous base can conform to Section 200-2.2 and 200-2.4 of the Green
Book, respectively. Pavement base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM
D1557 laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedures
All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of base
material, placement and rolling of asphaltic concrete, should be done in accordance with the City
of Carlsbad specifications, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a City Inspector
where required. Jurisdictional minimum compaction requirements in excess of the
aforementioned minimums may govern.
5.3.12
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 25
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)
It is anticipated that Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavements will be utilized. Based on the
City of Carlsbad minimum design guidelines for driveways, the following recommended minimum
PCC pavement section is provided for these areas:
Ground floor of the parking structure
6 Inches Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) over
Santiago Formational Material Subgrade
Driveway into the parking structure or other structural surface pavement
7.5 Inches Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) over
6 Inches Aggregate Base (AB) over
12-inches subgrade compacted to 95% per ASTM D 1557
For the PCC options, it is recommended concrete having a minimum 28-day flexural strength (or
modulus of rupture (MOR)) of 650 psi be used. A “pavement”-type concrete mix (not a “slab”-
type) concrete mix should be use. Air-entrainment (5 ± 2 percent) of the concrete should be
provided. Sulfate resistant concrete is not required. A maximum joint spacing of 12 feet is also
recommended. Reinforcement of the concrete should be provided as recommended by the
structural engineer.
5.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
General Design Criteria
Preliminary grading plans are not yet available. Retaining wall foundations embedded a minimum
of 18 inches into engineered fill or dense formational materials should be designed using an
allowable bearing capacity of 4,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of
continuous and perimeter footings that meet the depth and width requirements in the table
above. This value may be increased by 300 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches
in depth and 200 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches in width to a maximum
value of 6,500 psf. Additionally, an increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-
term live loads (e.g., seismic and wind loads). Passive pressure may be computed as an equivalent
fluid having a density of 300 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 4,500 psf for
footings founded on engineered fill. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.33
may be used with dead load forces. Passive pressure and frictional resistance can be combined
without reduction.
5.3.13
5.4.1
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 26
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 40
2:1 65
*Select backfill should consist of approved materials with an
EI<20 and should be provided throughout the active zone.
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.
Restrained Retaining Walls
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.
Seismic Earth Pressures on Retaining Walls
As required by the 2019 CBC, walls with a retained height greater than six feet are required to
include an incremental seismic earth pressure in the wall design. Based upon review, a wall with
a retained height of up to approximately 10 feet is planned at the site.
Based on the planned site wall heights and an SDS/2.5 value of 0.340g, the following incremental
seismic earth pressures may be used in the design of site walls greater than six feet in height:
Wall
Scenario
Additional Equivalent
Fluid Pressure (PCF)
Level Unrestrained 18H2
2:1 Sloping Backfill Unrestrained 29H2
Restrained 28H2
The point of application of the incremental seismic earth pressure is at 1/3H, where H is the
retained height.
5.4.2
5.4.3
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 27
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 placed immediately adjacent to 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. 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 8-inches in thickness and compacted
to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density as determined 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 (1) cubic foot per lineal foot of
3/8 to one (1) 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.
As an alternative to the drain, rock and fabric, a pre-manufactured wall drainage product
(example: Mira Drain 6000 or approved equivalent) may be used behind the retaining wall. The
wall drainage product should extend from the base of the wall to within two (2) feet of the
ground surface. The subdrain should be placed in direct contact with the wall drainage product.
Drain outlets should be maintained over the life of the project and should not be obstructed or
plugged by adjacent improvements.
5.-4.4
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 28
6. CONCRETE FLATWORK
6.1 GENERAL CONCRETE FLATWORK
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 as a result 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.
Subgrade having a “low” expansion index potential should be verified to be moisture conditioned
to a minimum of 110% of the soils optimum moisture at a depth of 12 inches below subgrade.
7. POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 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 minimize erosion. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep-rooted
types that require little water and are capable of surviving 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
6.J.I
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 29
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 with regard to
the irrigation and drainage in these areas. Waterproofing of the foundation and/or subdrains may
be warranted and advisable. GeoTek could discuss these issues, if desired, when plans are made
available.
7.2 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 2019 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.
7.3 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
GeoTek recommends that site grading, specifications, 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.
Observe temporary shoring construction such as soldier beam excavation, basement
excavation, and tie-back installation.
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.
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 30
Observe and test the fill for field density and relative compaction.
Observe and probe foundation excavations to confirm suitability of bearing materials.
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. GeoTek recommends that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of
construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained.
8. LIMITATIONS
The scope of this evaluation is limited to the area explored that is 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. The
scope is based on GeoTek’s understanding of the project and the client’s needs, GeoTek’s
proposal (Proposal No. P-0300822-SD) dated March 11th, 2022, and geotechnical engineering
standards normally used on similar projects in this region.
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 GeoTek’s recommendations 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.
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page 31
9. SELECTED REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2016, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures,” ASCE/SEI 7-16.
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, 2019 “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.
GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.
Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2007, “Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30x60-minute Quadrangle,
California,” California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 2, map scale
1:100,000.
Pasco Laret Suiter and Associates, 2022, “Preliminary Site Exhibit”
Structural Engineers Association of California/California Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development (SEOC/OSHPD), 2019, Seismic Design Maps web interface,
https://seismicmaps.org
Soil Web Survey.com
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R., 1967, “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, second edition.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey
Handbook, Title 210, Part 630, Chapter 7, Hydrologic Soil Groups.
GEOTEK
Carlsbad Village II, LLC
950 Carlsbad Village Drive
APNs: 203-320-20, -02, -48, -51, -40, -41
Carlsbad, California 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A
Vista, California 92081
Figure 1
Site Location Map
N
Not to Scale
Imagery from US Forestry Service, 2022
Approximate Site
Location
PN: 3780-SD DATE: April 2022
GEOTEK
Source: Preliminary Site Exhibi, Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates
Scale:
1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A, Vista, CA 92081
(760) 599-0509 (phone) / (760) 599-0593 (FAX)
GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS
5/9/22
FIGURE 2
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
HOPE APARTMENTS
1009 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Project No.:Report Date:Drawn By:
3780-SD CDL
N
Af
276
Amelia
Site
Improvements
Artificial
Fill
Test Pit
Exploration
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
P-1
P-2
?
?
?
?
?
?
Af
Af
Af
Af
Af
Qop
Qop
Qop
Tsa
Tsa
LEGEND
Approximate Site Boundary
Cross Section
Approximate Location of Exploratory Boring
Approximate Location of Percolation Test
Approximate Geologic Contact, dashed where
buried, queried where inferred.
Af Artificial Fill
Qop Old Paralic Deposits, Circled Where Buried
Tsa Santigo Formation , Circled Where Buried
B-6
P-2
A A’
B’
B
B’B
............ ., ..
1oiw;11u
GEOTEK
PIAN VIEW· PRELIMINARY SITE EXHIBIT
SCAlE;f'•JcrHCRIZCWTAI.
L._J
KrrlWIITO -EXISrwGSTQWQRWi """""'
t
Hope Apartments
PN: 3780-SD Figure 3
Cross Section A-A’
May 2022
(E)
Topography
Proposed
Basement
W-E
0
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
)
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
)
A
A’
30
60
90
0
30
60
90
Qop
Tsa Tsa
Af
B-1 B-4 B-5
Cross Section B-B’
TD = 50’
TD = 30’
TD = 16’???
??
LEGEND
Approximate Geologic Contact, dashed where
buried, queried where inferred.
Approximate Groundwater Elevation
Af Artificial Fill
Qop Old Paralic Deposits
Tsa Santiago Formation
I t--------'-------------,------------,--_J·-----------:----------------------------~------
' ' '
' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ---------------------------------------------:----------------------- ---------------_,
' ' ~ ----------------------- ----------------------------------------------·
I I -
---- --- - --------· t-----
_l_
-
Hope Apartments
PN: 3780-SD Figure 4
Cross Section B-B’
May 2022
(E)
Topography
Proposed
Basement
N-S
0
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
)
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
)
B
B’
30
60
90
0
30
60
90
Qop
Tsa
Af
B-1 B-6
Cross Section
A-A’
TD = 50’
TD = 20’
??
TD = 30’
Qop
Tsa
LEGEND
Approximate Geologic Contact, dashed where
buried, queried where inferred.
Approximate Groundwater Elevation
Af Artificial Fill
Qop Old Paralic Deposits
Tsa Santiago Formation
I I
--- - - --- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - ------ -- -- - - - --- - -~ - -- - - -- ----- -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- ----- -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - --- --T --- - - - - -- - - - - - --- --- - - ------ - - - ---- - - - - - ---
' : ' ' ' ' ---------r:::.:.:.:.::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :.-r--------- - - - - ------ - - - -- ----- - - - --- - - - - - - -
.--
APPENDIX A
LOGS OF EXPLORATION
AND
PERCOLATION WORKSHEETS
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Page A-1
A - FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Bulk Samples (Large)
These samples are normally large bags of earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected
from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings.
Bulk Samples (Small)
These samples are normally small bags of earth materials less than 10 pounds in weight collected
from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings.
Ring Samples
B – BORING/TRENCH LOG LEGEND
The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil
and rock on the logs of borings/trenches:
SOILS
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
f-c Fine to coarse
f-m Fine to medium
GEOLOGIC
B: Attitudes Bedding: strike/dip
J: Attitudes Joint: strike/dip
C: Contact line
……….. Dashed line denotes USCS material change
Solid Line denotes unit / formational change
Thick solid line denotes end of boring/trench
(Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the log of borings/trenches)
GEOTEK
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
BB-1 SP
SM
18 R-1 SM
18
33 3.2 107.9
30 S-1 SM
50/9 11.2
50/6 R-2 SM 16.5 113.5
50/5 S-2 19.8
50/4 R-3 SH
50/6 S-3 11.2
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---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
30 Silty fine SANDSTONE, gray, wet, dense
LE
G
E
N
D
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:
25 Silty fine SANDSTONE, gray, wet, dense, well cemented
20 Santiago Formation (Tsa)
Mud coming out of cuttings
Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE, gray, wet, very dense
Water on sampling rod
15 Silty fine to medium SAND, brown to reddish brown, moist, very dense
10 Silty fine to medium SAND, brown to reddish brown, moist, very dense
Fine SAND, brown, dry, soft, roots
Old Paralic Deposits (Qop)
Silty fine to medium SAND, light brown, dry, loose, trace gravels
5 Silty fine to medium SAND, brown to reddish brown, dry, very dense
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Artificial Fill (Af)
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, CA ELEVATION:63 feet DATE:4/6/2022
PROJECT NO.:3780-SD HAMMER:140lbs/30in RIG TYPE:CME-75
PROJECT NAME:Hope Apartments DRILL METHOD:6" Dia Hollowstem Auger OPERATOR:Manny
CLIENT:Carlsbad Village II, LLC DRILLER:Baja Exploration LOGGED BY:MRF
J ------,...._ --_,_ ------
:0
--------------¥ -----
-U --------_,__
----------
-□
■ I 12] [8J □ ¥
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
50/3 R-4 16.4 117.9
50/5 S-4 15.8
50/2 R-2 10.6 131.9
50/2 S-5 13.6
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---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
60
LE
G
E
N
D
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:
55
Groundwater encountered at 17 feet during drilling
Static Groundwater Observed at 3pm is 10.3'
Static Groundwater Observed On 4/7 at 7am is 9.8'
50 Clayey fine SANDSTONE, brownish gray, moist, very dense
HOLE TERMINATED AT 50.1 FEET
45 Silty fine SANDSTONE, grayish brown, moist, cemented very dense
40 Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE, wet, very dense, friable
35 Silty fine SANDSTONE, gray, wet, very dense
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
SAMPLES
US
C
S
S
y
m
b
o
l
BORING NO.: B-1 Cont.
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, CA ELEVATION:63 feet DATE:4/6/2022
PROJECT NO.:3780-SD HAMMER:140lbs/30in RIG TYPE:CME-75
PROJECT NAME:Hope Apartments DRILL METHOD:6" Dia Hollowstem Auger OPERATOR:Manny
CLIENT:Carlsbad Village II, LLC DRILLER:Baja Exploration LOGGED BY:MRF
-------------------------
:□ ---------------------n
-------------------
■ I 12] [8J □ ~
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
SM
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
PROJECT NAME:Hope Apartments DRILL METHOD:6" Dia Hollowstem Auger OPERATOR:Manny
CLIENT:Carlsbad Village II, LLC DRILLER:Baja Exploration LOGGED BY:CDL
LOCATION:Carlsbad, CA ELEVATION:63 feet DATE:4/6/2022
PROJECT NO.:3780-SD HAMMER:140lbs/30in RIG TYPE:CME-75
SAMPLES
US
C
S
S
y
m
b
o
l
BORING NO.: B-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
(%
)
Artificial Fill (Af)
Silty fine SAND, dark reddish brown, moist, loose
Hand Auger:
1st Hole - Encounter direct burial wire
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Planter - 2 inches of mulch
2nd Hole - 18 inches east, plastic pipe
3rd Hole - 18 inches east, vcp
5 Hole Abandoned
10
15
20
25
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
30
LE
G
E
N
D
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:
-----------------------------------------------------------
■ I 12] [8J □ ~
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
BB-1 SM
MD, SH
SR
15 R-1 SM
18
23
11 S-1 SM
13
15 8.1
27 R-2 SP
28
45 SH
50/5 S-2 23.3
50/2 R-3 14.9 115.5
50/5 S-3
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---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
30 HOLE TERMINATED AT 30.5 FEET
Groundwater encountered at 10 feet
LE
G
E
N
D
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:
Silty fine SANDSTONE, pale gray, moist, very dense
25 Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE, gray brown, wet, very dense
20 Santiago Formation (Tsa)
Silty fine SANDSTONE, light gray, wet, very dense, sluff
Poorly graded medium SAND, brown, wet, very dense, trace well round large
gravel
Large well round gravel in cuttings, driling slows, standing rig
15 Poorly graded coarse SAND, black, wet, very dense
stem is wet
10 Silty fine to medium SAND, reddish brown, moist, dense, outside sampler and
Silty fine SAND, dark reddish brown, moist
Silty fine SAND, dark reddish brown, moist, faint palsofacies
Silty fine SAND, dark brown, moist, brick fragments
5 Old Paralic Deposits (Qop)
Artificial Fill (Af)
Silty medium to coarse SAND (Decomposed Granite), brown, moist
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Asphalt 3 inches over subgrade
SAMPLES
US
C
S
S
y
m
b
o
l
BORING NO.: B-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, CA ELEVATION:69 feet DATE:4/6/2022
PROJECT NO.:3780-SD HAMMER:140lbs/30in RIG TYPE:CME-75
PROJECT NAME:Hope Apartments DRILL METHOD:6" Dia Hollowstem Auger OPERATOR:Manny
CLIENT:Carlsbad Village II, LLC DRILLER:Baja Exploration LOGGED BY:CDL
-: \ / --
: / \ ---
----------~f ------
----------
-U --------_,__
-----------n ---
■ I 12] [8J □ ~
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
SM
SM
9 S-1 SM
10
18 8.1
15 R-1
50/5 SH
50/2 S-2 11.1
50/2 R-2
50/6 S-3 7.5
7.9
50/5 S-4
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---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
30 HOLE TERMINATED AT 30.5 FEET
Groundwater encountered at 19 feet
LE
G
E
N
D
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:
Silty fine SANDSTONE, pale olive brown, moist to very moist
25 inside of auger plugged
Silty fine SANDSTONE, pale olive brown, moist to very moist
20 Mud cuttings, no recovery
Very hard drilling, slow advancement, footings might be difficult to excavate
Well rounded GRAVEL in cuttings and increased moisture
15 Silty fine SANDSTONE, olive brown, moist, low sample recovery
10 Silty fine SANDSTONE, olive brown, moist, oxidized staining
Santiago Formation (Tsa)
Silty fine SANDSTONE, light brownish gray, moist, medium dense
5 Silty fine to medium SAND, dark brown, moist
Artificial Fill (Afu)
Silty medium to coarse SAND (Decomposed Granite), reddish brown, moist,
large gravel
Silty fine SAND, dark brown
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Asphalt 2 inches over subgrade
SAMPLES
US
C
S
S
y
m
b
o
l
BORING NO.: B-4
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, CA ELEVATION:69 feet DATE:4/6/2022
PROJECT NO.:3780-SD HAMMER:140lbs/30in RIG TYPE:CME-75
PROJECT NAME:Hope Apartments DRILL METHOD:6" Dia Hollowstem Auger OPERATOR:Manny
CLIENT:Carlsbad Village II, LLC DRILLER:Baja Exploration LOGGED BY:CDL
--------
-17
:U ------------------
:□ ----------:~ ----------
=□ -------... ·······•••••••••• -
-□·
□ D 12] [8J □ ~
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
BB-1
SM SR
SM
8 R-1 SM
17
35 10.6 121.7
12 S-1
16
18 4.4
30 S-2
50/5 8.0
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---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
30
LE
G
E
N
D
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:
25
20
HOLE TERMINATED AT 16 FEET
Percured groundwater at 10 feet?
Increased density, harder drilling
15 Sitly fine SANDSTONE, olive gray, moist, friable, some oxidized stained fractures
sample is friable
10 Clayey SANDSTONE, mottled olive gray and olive brown, very moist, very dense,
Santiago Formation (Tsa)
Silty fine SANDSTONE, light blue gray, very moist, very dense
Silty fine SAND, dark brown, moist
5 Silty fine SAND, dark brown, moist
Artificial Fill (Afu)
Silty medium to coarse SAND with gravel (Decomposed Granite), reddish brown
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Asphalt 3 inches over subgrade
SAMPLES
US
C
S
S
y
m
b
o
l
BORING NO.: B-5
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, CA ELEVATION:69 feet DATE:4/6/2022
PROJECT NO.:3780-SD HAMMER:140lbs/30in RIG TYPE:CME-75
PROJECT NAME:Hope Apartments DRILL METHOD:6" Dia Hollowstem Auger OPERATOR:Manny
CLIENT:Carlsbad Village II, LLC DRILLER:Baja Exploration LOGGED BY:CDL
J ------,...._ ----------
~□ ------
=n
----------------------------
■ I 12] [8J □ ~
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
BB-1 SP RV
0'-20'
SM
10 S-1 SM
23
30
50/5 S-2 SM
50/6 S-3
50/3 S-4
---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table
PROJECT NAME:Hope Apartments DRILL METHOD:6" Dia Hollowstem Auger OPERATOR:Manny
CLIENT:Carlsbad Village II, LLC DRILLER:Baja Exploration LOGGED BY:CDL
LOCATION:Carlsbad, CA ELEVATION:63 feet DATE:4/6/2022
PROJECT NO.:3780-SD HAMMER:140lbs/30in RIG TYPE:CME-75
SAMPLES
US
C
S
S
y
m
b
o
l
BORING NO.: B-6
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
(%
)
Fine SAND, brown, dry, soft, roots
Old Paralic Deposits (Qop)
Silty fine to medium SAND, light brown, dry, loose, trace gravels
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(p
c
f
)
Ot
h
e
r
s
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Artificial Fill (Af)
5 Silty fine to medium SAND, light brown
Cuttings show increase in moisture
10 Silty fine to medium SAND, light reddish brown, wet, very dense
Silty fine SANDSTONE, olive gray, very moist
15 Santiago Formation (Tsa)
Groundwater encountered at 10 feet
Backfilled with soil cuttings
20 Silty fine SANDSTONE, olive gray, very moist
HOLE TERMINATED AT 20 FEET
25
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
30
LE
G
E
N
D
Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk
Lab testing:
---
-----
~□ ------
:□ --------
_u --------n
--------------------
■ I 12] [8J □ ~
Job No.: 3780-SD .
Date: 4/7/22 .
After Test: 48"
Reading
No.Time
Time
Interval
(Min)
Total
Depth of
Hole
(Inches)
Initial
Water
Level
(Inches)
Final
Water
Level
(Inches)
∆ In Water
Level
(Inches)
Comments
1 7:30 30 48 20 31 11
2 8:00 30 48 23 34 11
3 8:30 30 48 23 33 10
4 9:00 30 48 24 34 10
5 9:30 30 48 28 35 7
6 10:00 30 48 24.25 30.75 6.5
7 10:30 30 48 20.75 28.25 7.5
8 11:00 30 48 21.50 27.00 5.5
9 11:30 30 48 20.75 26.25 5.5
10 12:30 30 48 19.75 24.25 4.5
11 13:00 30 48 20.25 25.50 5.25
12 13:30 30 48 18.75 24.00 5.25
13 14:00 30 48 19.25 24.25 5
PERCOLATION DATA SHEET
Project: Hope Avenue
Test Hole No.: P-1 Tested By: CDL ,
Depth of Hole As Drilled: 48" Before Test: ___48"______________________
Equation -It =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It = Inches per Hour
Time Interval, Δt = 30
Client:
Project:
Project No:3780-SD
Date:4/7/2022
Boring No.P-1
Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method)
Carlsbad Village II, LLC
Hope Avenue Apartments
Final Depth to Water, DF =24.25
Test Hole Radius, r =3.00
Initial Depth to Water, DO =19.25
0.54
Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 48
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO = 28.75
HF = DT - DF = 23.75
ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF = 5.00
26.25
GEOTEK
Job No.: 3780-SD .
Date: 4/7/22 .
After Test: 48"
Reading
No.Time
Time
Interval
(Min)
Total
Depth of
Hole
(Inches)
Initial
Water
Level
(Inches)
Final
Water
Level
(Inches)
∆ In Water
Level
(Inches)
Comments
1 7:15 30 54 24 32 8
2 7:45 30 54 20 28 8
3 8:15 30 54 22 29 7
4 8:45 30 54 23 30 7
5 9:15 30 54 20.25 28 7.75
6 9:45 30 54 21.50 27.75 6.25
7 10:15 30 54 22.50 28.75 6.25
8 10:45 30 54 21.25 27.75 6.5
9 11:15 30 54 23.25 29.50 6.25
10 11:45 30 54 22.75 29.25 6.5
11 12:15 30 54 21.50 28.50 7
12 12:45 30 54 20.75 26.25 5.5
13 13:15 30 54 21.25 27.00 5.75
PERCOLATION DATA SHEET
Project: Hope Avenue
Test Hole No.: P-2 Tested By: CDL ,
Depth of Hole As Drilled: 54" Before Test: ___54"______________________
Carlsbad Village II, LLC
Equation -It =
Havg = (HO+HF)/2 =
It = Inches per Hour
Time Interval, Δt = 30
Client:
Project:
Project No:3780-SD
Date:4/7/2022
Boring No.P-2
Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method)
Hope Avenue Apartments
Final Depth to Water, DF =27.00
Test Hole Radius, r =3.00
Initial Depth to Water, DO =21.25
0.55
Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 54
ΔH (60r)
Δt (r+2Havg)
HO = DT - DO = 32.75
HF = DT - DF = 27.00
ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF = 5.75
29.88
GEOTEK
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING
GEOTEK
CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC Project No. 3780-SD
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation July 28, 2022
Proposed Hope Apartments, Carlsbad, California Page B-1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
Identification and Classification
Soils were identified visually in general accordance with the standard practice for description and
identification of soils (ASTM D 2488). The soil identifications and classifications are shown on
the Logs of Exploration in Appendix A.
Moisture Density Modified Proctor
Laboratory testing was performed on one sample collected during the subsurface exploration for
compaction characteristics. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content
for the soil was determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557 procedures.
The test results are graphically presented in Appendix B.
Full Corrosion Suite
A full corrosion series was performed in general accordance with several ASTM Test Methods.
The samples were obtained from Test Pit TP-6 and TP-7 and tested by Project X Engineering.
Atterberg Limits
The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. The test results are
presented in Appendix B.
Percent of Soil Passing No 200 Sieve
The amount of soil finer than No. 200 sieve was determined for two sandy samples collected
from the site. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1140. The test
results are presented in Appendix B.
Direct Shear
Shear testing was performed in a direct shear machine of the strain-control type in general
accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3080 procedures. The rate of deformation is
approximately 0.35 inches per minute. The samples were sheared under varying confining loads
to determine the coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion.
One test was performed on a bulk sample that was remolded to approximately 90 percent of the
maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. The results of the testing are graphically
presented in Appendix B.
GEOTEK
Job No.
Client
Project
Location
Tested by:
15 20 28 37
1 2 1 2 3 4
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
-0.85 -0.85 -0.86 -0.86 -0.86 -0.86
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0
0
0
3780-SD
Carlsbad Village II, LLC
Hope Apartments
950 Carlsbad Village Drive
Number of Blows
Plastic Limit
Light Brown Silty Sand
B-5 BB-1
Sample Type
CH
Wt. of Dry Soil
Plasticity Index
Moisture Content %
Liquid Limit Graph
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Liquid Limit
ATTERBERG LIMITS DATA
Wt. of Dish + Dry Soil
Wt. of Moisture
Wt. of Dish
Field Classification
Dish
Wt. of Dish + Wet Soil
Sample Number
Determination
Big Bulk
20.0
22.0
24.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
36.0
38.0
40.0
10 100
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
%
Number of Drops
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y
I
n
d
e
x
Liquid Limit
CL
ML & OL
CH
MH & CH
CL-ML
GEOTEK
-_.....-
~
.,,,,-. -1__.....---"'"" ~ -/ __,,,,,,. "'"" _, ~
/ ~ ~
,.
-
MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Client:Carlsbad Village II, LLC Job No.:3780-SD
Project:Hope Apartments Lab No.:Corona
Location:-
Material Type:Light brown silty sand
Material Supplier:-
Material Source:-
Sample Location:B3 @ .-20'
-
Sampled By:CL Date Sampled:-
Received By:MP Date Received:-
Tested By:RL Date Tested:5/2/2022
Reviewed By:DA Date Reviewed:5/5/2022
Test Procedure:ASTM D1557 Method:A
Oversized Material (%):0.1 Correction Required: yes no
MOISTURE CONTENT (%):4.384134 6.837607 8.695652 10.61947 4.379749 6.830769 8.6869565 10.60885
DRY DENSITY (pcf):120.8846 128.519 130.0374 126.5191
CORRECTED DRY DENSITY (pcf):0 0 0 0
ZERO AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY (pcf):
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP VALUES
Maximum Dry Density, pcf 130.0 @ Optimum Moisture, %8.5
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:
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
138
140
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
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)
GEOTEK
□
•
•
~
"\ \ "1\
I\ \ \
\ I\ \ X \ \ \
I\. \ \
Is,,, "' ~~ I ""'Ii I\ '\
V ~ I'\. I\ • I/ \ \ I\
' I\ \ '\,
I ~ \ \
~ [\ '"\ _j \
I '\, '\ \ , • i\ ~
J "' \ Ir\ I '\ ' I\
Hope Apartments Sample Location:
Date Tested:
Shear Strength:F =26 O , C = 540 psf
Notes:
5/3/2022
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 0.35 in/min.
3780-SD
B-3 @ 0-3 feet
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)
GEOTEK
------------.,-------------r-------------,-------------r------------.,-------------,-------------,-------------, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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------------..,-------------T------------"'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 I I I I I I I I -------------t----------------------------1-------------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 t I t t I t ------------"'-------------1--------------1-------------i--------------1-------------,i,-------------.----------I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t t I t I I I I I t I I I t I t t I I I t I t t I I I t I t t I I I t I t t I I I t I t t I t I I t I t I t I -------------'-------------1..------------""-------------"------------""'-----------------------...L.------------.1 I t I t t I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t t I t I I I I I t I I I I t I t I t I I t I t I t I I t I t I t I I t I t I t I I t I t I t I I t I t I t I I t I I I t I -------------t-------------1-------------~----------t ------------+------------t------------+------------i
I t I t I I t I : : : A : : : : I t I t t I t I I t t t I t I I t t t I t I I t t t I t I ': + t t I t I t I I t I t I I t I ------i-----------i------~------t------~------i------~ I t I t t I t I I I I I t I I I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I t I t t I t I t I t t I t I t I t t I t I t I t I I t I t I t I I t I t I t t I t I t I t I I t I I t I t I I t I ------------"T-------------r------------,-------------r------------,-------------T------------"'T"------------, I I I I t I I I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t I I t I
Hope Apartments Sample Location:
Date Tested:
Shear Strength:F =27 O , C = 797 psf
Notes: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.
2 - The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions.
3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.01 in/min.
PEAK VALUE
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Project Name:B-3 @ 0-3 feet
Project Number: 3780-SD 5/3/2022
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)
GEOTEK
------------.,-------------r-------------,-------------r------------.,-------------,-------------,-------------, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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------------..,-------------T------------"'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 I I I I I I I I -------------t----------------------------1-------------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 t I t t I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t t t I I I I I t I I I t I t t t I I t I t t t I I t I t t t I I t I t t t I I t I t t I t I I t I t I t I -------------'-------------1..------------""-------------"---------_..,_ ____________ ... ____________ ...,L. ____________ ., I t I t t I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t t I t I I I I t I I I I t I t I t I I t I t I t I I t I t I t I I t I t I t I I t I t I t I I t I I I t I I t t I I t I -------------t-------------1-----------~-------------t------------+------------t------------+------------i
I t I t I I t I : + : : : : : : I I t t I t I I I t t I t I I I t t I t I I I t t I t I I I t t I t I I I t I I t I I I t I I t I --------------~------------~-------------+------------+------------+------------+------------~ I t I t t I t I I I I I t I I I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t I I t I ------------"T-------------r------------,-------------r------------,-------------T------------"'T"------------, I I I I t I I I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t I I t I
Hope Apartments Sample Location:
Date Tested:
Shear Strength:F =32.1 O , C = 244.00 psf
Notes:
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Project Name:B-1 @ 25 feet
Project Number: 3780-SD 4/22/2022
1 - The soil specimens sheared were "undisturbed" ring samples.
2 - The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions.
3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.01 in/min.
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)
GEOTEK
------------.,-------------r-------------,-------------r------------.,-------------,-------------,-------------, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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------------..,-------------T------------"'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 I I I I I I I I -------------t----------------------------1-------------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 ------------"'-------------1--------------1-------------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 -------------'-------------1..------------""-------------"------------""'-------____ ... ____________ ...,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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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-------------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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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-------------r------------,-------------r------------,-------------T------------"'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
Hope Apartments Sample Location:
Date Tested:
Shear Strength:F =32.6 O , C = 859.50 psf
Notes:
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Project Name:B-1 @ 25 feet
Project Number: 3780-SD 4/22/2022
PEAK VALUE
1 - The soil specimens sheared were "undisturbed" ring samples.
2 - The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions.
3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.01 in/min.
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)
GEOTEK
------------.,-------------r-------------,-------------r------------.,-------------,-------------,-------------, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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------------..,-------------T------------"'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 I I -------------t----------------------------1-------------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 ------------"'-------------1--------------1-------------i--------------1-----------~------------~------------~ I I I I I I I : : : + I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I t I I I I I I I I I I I t I t I I I I t I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t t I t I I I I t I I t I -------------'-------------1..------------J----------~------------~------------~------------~------------J I I I t t I t I I I I t I I t I I I I t I I t I I I I t t I t 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 t I I I t t I t I t t I t I t t I t I t t I t I t t I t I t I I t I I t I I t I -----------i-------------t------------+------------t------------+------------i
I t I I t I I t t I t I I I t I I I I t t I t I I t t I t I I t t I t I I t t I t I I t t I t I I t I I t I I t I I t I ------~-------------~------------~-------------+------------+------------+------------+------------~ I t I t t I t I I I I I t I I I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t I I t I ------------"T-------------r------------,-------------r------------,-------------T------------"'T"------------, I I I I t I I I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t I I t I I t I t I I t I
Hope ApartmentsSample Location:
Date Tested:
Shear Strength:F =37.4O , C = 562.50 psf
Notes:
2 - The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions.
Project Name:
Project Number: 3780-SD
B-3 @ 15 feet
4/22/2022
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.035 in/min.
1 - The soil specimens sheared were "undisturbed" ring samples.
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)
I 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.-------------L-------------'-------------L------------.J-------------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 ~------------+------------+------------+------------+-------------~------------➔-----------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 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-------------~------------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 r------------'"T"'------------T-------------r------------.,-----------,--------------,-------------r------------1 I I I I I I I I t I t I t I I I I t I I I I I I t I I I I t I t I t I I t I t I t I I t I t I t I I t I t I t I I t I t I t I I t I I I t I I t I t I t I I t I t I t I 1-------------1"""------------1"-----------1--------------t-------------1--------------1-------------t-------------l t I t t I t I I I I t I I I I I I I t I I I I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t I t I I t I t t I t I I I I t I I I I I I I t I I I I 1-------------~----------+---------------------------.. -------------1----------------------------+-------------I I I t I I I I I I I t I I I I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I t I t t I t I I I t t I t I I I t t I t I I I I t I t I I I t t I t I I I t I I I I I I t I I I I I t I t t I t I ,---------t------------:------------t------------1-------------:------------1-------------:------------
• I t t I t I t I t t I t I t I t t I t I t I t t I t I t I I t I t I t I t t I t I I I t I I I I I I t I I I I t I t t I t I I I I t I I I I L------------.J..------------.1-------------L------------.1-------------L------------.J-------------1.------------
>1:1.LO:I!>
tr
Hope Apartments Sample Location:
Date Tested:
Shear Strength:F =45.7 O , C = 953.50 psf
Notes:
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Project Name:B-3 @ 15 feet
Project Number: 3780-SD 4/22/2022
PEAK VALUE
1 - The soil specimens sheared were "undisturbed" ring samples.
2 - The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions.
3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.035 in/min.
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
3500.0
4000.0
4500.0
5000.0
5500.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 4500.0 5000.0 5500.0
SH
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
p
s
f
)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
GEOTEK
--------T---------,---------,---------,---------,.---------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 --------~---------1---------~---------"---------·---------~---------1-----------------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 I --------"T"'---------,---------,---------T---------,----------r--------r---------r---------,----------,---------, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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.--------J---------.l---------.L---------.1.-----------------L.--------·--------.J---------.J---------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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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----------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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
--------+---------l----------l-----------------t---------t---------~--------+---------l----------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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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----------P---------f---------◄----------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 --------➔---------+---------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 _______ .,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 I I -------'T"---------,---------,---------T---------,----------r---------r---------,----------,----------,---------, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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.--------"'---------..1---------.L---------.L---------'----------L.--------·--------"'---------..1---------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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Hope ApartmentsSample Location:
Date Tested:
Shear Strength:F =33.3O , C = 232.50 psf
Notes:
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Project Name:B-4 @ 10 feet
Project Number: 3780-SD4/22/2022
1 - The soil specimens sheared were "undisturbed" ring samples.
2 - The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions.
3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.01 in/min.
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)
I 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.-------------L-------------'-------------L------------.J-------------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 : : : : : : T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~------t------~------4------~------~------i-------------t------------, 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 ~------------+------------+------------+------------1 ----------~------------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 r------------~------------T-----------r------------.,-------------,--------------,-------------r------------1 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-------------1 I I I I 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 -----------1"-------------t--------------t-------------1--------------1-------------t-------------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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 I I I I I I I I L ____________ ...,_ ____________ ,a. ____________ -'"'-------------i-------------L-------------'-------------'-------------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 L------------.J..------------.1-------------L------------.1-------------L------------.J-------------1.------------
>1:1.LO:I!>
tr
Hope Apartments Sample Location:
Date Tested:
Shear Strength:F =37.8 O , C = 709.00 psf
Notes:
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Project Name:B-4 @ 10 feet
Project Number: 3780-SD 4/22/2022
PEAK VALUE
1 - The soil specimens sheared were "undisturbed" ring samples.
2 - The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions.
3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.01 in/min.
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)
GEOTEK
------------.,-------------r-------------,-------------r------------.,-------------,-------------,-------------, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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------------..,-------------T------------"'T"----------, 1 I I I I I 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 -------------t----------------------------1-------------t--------------------------+------------~------------➔ 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 t I ------------1-------------:------------1-----------·+----------~------------~------------~------------~ I I I I t I t I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t t I t I I I I I I I I I -------------'-------------1..------------J-----------~------------~------------~------------~------------J I I I t t I 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-------------1 I I I I I I I I
I I I I I t t I t I I I I I I I I I I I t t I t I I I I I I I I I I I t t I t I I I I I I I I I I I I -----------i-------------t------------+------------t------------+------------i
I I I I I I I t t I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t t I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t t I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I --~-------------~------------~-------------+------------+------------+------------+------------~ I t I t t I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I t t I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I t t I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I t t I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------"T-------------r------------,-------------r------------,-------------T------------"'T"------------, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I t t I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I t t I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I t t I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0'-20'
• ANALYSIS
• DESIGN l.4aallelle • ,\\:119\iH .-----PROFESSIONAL PAVEMENT ENGINEERING
April 21, 2022
Mr. Chris Livesey
GeoTek Inc.
1384 Poinsettia Avenue Suite A
Vista, CA 92081 -8505
Dear Mr. Livesey:
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
Project No. 48199
• SOILS, ASPHALT
TECH NOLOGY
Laboratory testing of the bulk soil sample delivered to our laboratory on 4/19/2022
has been completed.
Reference:
Project:
Sample:
W.O. # 3780-SD
1006 Carlsbad Village Drive
B-6, BB-1 @ o~ ,.~ . • . l
I
Data sheets and graphical pre~entatio*s are tnmsmitted,,herewith for your use and
information. Any untested portion of:thy samples will be,Tetained for a period of
sixty (60) days prior to di;pos'al: The opport:urtity ~9 b·e. of ~ervice is appreciated,
and should you have ~.P.Y qu·estions,;ldp.dly call:, , '
! '1 ·. j, ' .• :, '. • •
' , i , '\
en R. Marvin
RCE 30659
SRM:tw
Enclosures
'
2700 S. GRAND AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CA 92705-5404 • (714) 546-3468 • FAX (714) 546-5841
IN FO@LABELLEMARVIN.COM
0'-20'
LI\/\
LaBelle Marvin
PROJECT No.
DATE:
BORING NO.
R -VALUE
48199
4/21/2022
B-6, BB-1@ O'f
1006 Carlsbad Village Drive
W.O.# 3780-SD
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Brown Silty Sand
DATA SHEET
-- - ----------R-VALUE TESTING DATA I CA TEST 301-
Mold ID Number
Water added, grams
Initial Test Water, %
Compact Gage Pressure,psi
Exudation Pressure, psi
Height Sample, Inches
Gross Weight Mold, grams
Tare Weight Mold, grams
Sample Wet Weight, grams
Expansion, Inches x 10exp-4
Stability 2,000 lbs (160psi)
Turns Displacement
R-Value Uncorrected
R-Value Corrected
Dry Density, pcf
Traffic In dex
G.E. by Stability
G. E. by Expansion
Equilibrium R-Value
Gf =
SPECIMEN ID
a b
7 8
71 so
12.0 9.9
45 130
190 431
2.55 2.49
3113 3084
1950 1946
1163 1138
0 15
43 I 103 25 / 53
4.13 3.90
25 56
25 56
123.4 126.0
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA
Assumed: 4.0
1.25
0.77
0.00
42
by
EXUDATION
4.0
0.45
0.50
0.1% Retained on the
REMARKS: 3/4" Sieve.
C
9
35
8.5
340
744
2.48
2895
1770
1125
28
16 / 30
3.73
74
74
126.7
4.0
0.27
0.93
4 /21/ 22
The data above is based upon processing and testing samples as received from the field. Test procedures in
accordance with latest revisions to Department of Transportation, State of California, Materials & Research Test
Method No. 301.
LaBelle Marvin, Inc. I 2700 South Grand Avenue I Santa Ana, CA 92705 I 714-514-3565
0'-20'
LI\/\
LaBelle Marvin
PROJECT NO.
DATE:
BORING NO.
R-VALUE GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION
48199
4 /21/ 2022 REMARKS:
B-6, BB-1 @0'4-(...._-------1 .__ _______________ _
1006 Carlsbad Village Drive
W.O.# 3780-SD
---~ -- -------------------------COVER THICKNESS BY EXUDATION vs COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION
t z 0 ~ 0 :::,
~
>-Cl
"' "' z :.: u :i: ,_
ffi > s
800
0.0
700 600
0.5 1.0
500 400 300 200 100
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION, FT.
■ EXUD. T vs. Expan. T lo R-VALUE vs. EXUD. PRES.
----------------
400
350
"' 300 C: ~ :;:
"' 200 g
< ~ 0 u
COMPACTOR PRESSURE vs MOISTURE%
• " • -t -···,-t-==
-·---. -H~-:· -~ ---~-. -·-+-.·-±~±::+=;· ~---::t::::j::_ :---=! . -+---i-J ::=1= ::::·+:=t:
... .......... -·--~,--+-: -+ ··--r---r--·-
-, ::is,_.,_,, --. --.. i-----·-. ·-·--: ~-i:~-+---~ ---· __ ,_-i--•--~. _-----~·-·
,___.. __ _. .. --r-... --_ _.__ --1---~t
:··:== ~::l --- --·~:-= ::::p~::;+
-1"' r.:::=t:,_ -+-· ==+==t-
: i---· '...J..., i--, '
·r·•·+· · ' ... :::!. :::q::---+ I+ -, . "--=F
~:-~·:: j=~=:iS::1:_=~ -~ =~~ ~: ~~;:~~~: =r ~~
7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5
MOISTURE (%) AT FABRICAJTON
---------------- ----
COVER THICKNESS vs MOISTURE%
7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5
MOISTURE(%)
A EXPANSION ■EXUDATION
Project X REPORT S220414J
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
Hope Apartments
April 18, 2022
Prepared for:
Chris Livesey
GeoTek, Inc.
1384 Poinsettia Ave, Suite A
Vista, CA, 92081
clivesey@geotekusa.com
Project X Job#: S220414J
Client Job or PO#: 3780-SD
Respectfully Submitted,
Eduardo Hernandez, M.Sc., P.E.
Sr. Corrosion Consultant
NACE Corrosion Technologist #16592
Professional Engineer
California No. M37102
ehernandez@projectxcorrosion.com
Project X REPORT S220414J
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: Hope Apartments
Client Job Number: 3780-SD
Project X Job Number: S220414J
April 18, 2022
Method ASTM G51 ASTM
G200
SM 4500-D ASTM
D4327
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D6919
ASTM
D4327
ASTM
D4327
Bore# / Description Depth pH Redox Sulfide
S2-
Nitrate
NO3-
Ammonium
NH4+
Lithium
Li+
Sodium
Na+
Potassium
K+
Magnesium
Mg2+
Calcium
Ca2+
Fluoride
F2--
Phosphate
PO43-
(ft)(mg/kg)(wt%)(mg/kg)(wt%)(Ohm-cm)(Ohm-cm)(mV)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)
B-3 BB-1 0-3 9.7 0.0010 3.4 0.0003 308,200 8,710 9.0 105 0.12 0.2 8.9 ND 93.1 4.2 21.9 8.3 0.7 0.2
B-5 BB-1 0-3 16.2 0.0016 8.0 0.0008 10,720 4,556 9.3 116 0.12 0.0 0.7 ND 73.4 4.5 21.1 10.0 2.1 2.3
ASTM
G187
ASTM
D4327
ASTM
D4327
Resistivity
As Rec'd | Minimum
Sulfates
SO42-
Chlorides
Cl-
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
PPM = mg/kg (soil) = mg/L (Liquid)
Lab Roqucst Shttt Chlia of Custody Phone: \213)9211-7213 • ~·a,<(9S1)226·1720 • www.projccrxconosion.com Ship Samples To: 29990 Technology Dr, Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 rroJttt X Job Number 52.2_0
Conipaay Namo: Geo T ek, Inc.
Mallinr;Addrns: 1384 Poinsetta Ave, Ste A, Vista, CA 92081
Accounrinr; Conlwct:
Clirnt Proj«t No:
P.0.11:
Results By: 0 Pbon• 0 .. ,., 13 Email
Date & Rtttiv<d by :
2fuf
CoataclNamo: Chris Livesey PhonoNo: 949-338-9233
i-------,--,,--...,~-1111-,-<'_•"'°""--,-·-•...,!lt,--rnct-,' ,---r--,.--..--.--,---i ~ 1--R-•..,sio,_r1_,_-i
;:,, ~ :~ c ..
0 .!!! ·;;; " a.. C: u .. :2 .. 0 ., a! a 0 ;( "0 E ~ 0 I.:: ·o ::c = :c '0 "5 E u z .,, .. "' u ~ .,, <
.,
" E .. ;;; E g :, '0 "" ·;;; ·c 51-:,
£ .. :, ~ .. 0 0
~
.., 0 :.: a.. :.:i .,,
E :, -~ E :,
iii, ·.; .. ;;; ~ LI
... ;;;
C
,e .. u
czi
·i:; ::, "'
APPENDIX C
GENERAL EARTHWORK GRADING GUIDELINES
GEOTEK
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, Chapters 18
and 33 of the California Building Code, CBC (2019) 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.
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
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Page C-2
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.
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 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.
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
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Page C-3
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. On projects where significant large quantities of oversized materials
are anticipated, alternate guidelines for placement may be included. If 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.
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Page C-4
UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL
Utility trench excavation and backfill is the contractors 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.
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 contractors 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 contractors 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.
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Page C-5
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.), 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
'~
...,
'. ·~
\..
I
•
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Page C-6
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.
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 contractors representative
will then be contacted in an effort to effect 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 effect 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 technicians 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.
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX C
Page C-7
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.
GEOTEK