HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 06-27; Muroya; Structural Calculations; 2011-08-25STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS
RECEIVED
SEP 02 2011
MI JROYA PRO TECT LAND DEVEL-OPML1V1U JUJ I /\ r JVWJI^ 1 ENGINEERING
MODIFIED D-41 DISSIPATOR
PREPARED FOR
RECORD COPY
Initial
PANGAEA LAND CONSULTANTS, INC.
SUBMITTED BY
w\SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
SWE JOB NO. 548-002
August 25,2011
Project: V4U¥O\|a
I ^
Designed: ^^-{sj
Checked:
y/ \0\/ \SIMONWONGENGINEERING
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor (858) 566-31 1 3
San Diego, CA 921 31 FAX (858) 566-6844
Page: ^
Proj.#:<c^<5~002.
Date: ^(^(U
Revised:
\A-fcv -Pxv - U 0, D O O
(2.: 0
Project: HUv0U^
Designed: ^^-^1
Checked:
// \/ \7 \SIMONWONGENGINEERING
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor (858) 566-31 1 3
San Diego, CA 921 31 FAX (858) 566-6844
Page: ^_
Proj.#: £^.5-002,
Date: k/Z4lll
Revised:
Project: MvAVCL|^\
1 ^
Designed: f^C^ f«J
Checked:
// \/ \// \ SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor (858) 566-3113
San Diego, CA 921 31 FAX (858) 566-6844
Page: ^
Projl:^^^CX?Z
Date: (0/^4) (I
Revised: -gj ^4. | l(
A-/V
e
r>-
-+c
IZ
y
)3 g gy
C\)on
.4
To
\\ <^Al I
-ii\' -
Ni QcVv-J-O •
xiOl SO
:^X^VV1C^
.^^ CX-ri
Ok£.S\cj'A
\£,v-\^->\
2 .
Project: \J^ Q,J ^
i
Designed: pTC-^.^
Checked:
// \7 \// \ S/MON WONG ENGINEERING
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor (858) 566-31 1 3
San Diego, CA 921 31 FAX (858) 566-6844
Page: ^
pr°J-#:A4^-007_
Date: C?/Z4~j((
Revised:
/
•m,
C>
(.?'
•T
V\iol(
|ta dL<LpWv= Jidy^+^clr
yi\
Project: j^O.VOU AI -•
Designed: p; c^,, ^
Checked:
// \//\J/ \SIMONWONGENGINEERING
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor (858) 566-31 1 3
San Diego, CA 921 31 FAX (858) 566-6844
Page: £|
Proj-#:e48-a02-
Date:lWz^/ii
Revised: -g,j^_4 | \{
-for
a-2.. S>v v\
65*
' \ V\J \ A <^v \J O.. I
0s)on . |^> )
Project: VA^Y0\1^
1 "-
Designed: k^ ^ ^
Checked:
// \ff\H \SIMONWONGENGINEERING
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor (858) 566-31 1 3
San Diego, CA 921 31 FAX (858) 566-6844
Page: ^
pr°j-#:e>4eroo2.
Date: 10/2A/II
Revised:
-tb
<• *M a, y
Project: ^ U,v OUcX.
!
Designed: g?*^ [\]
Checked:
y/ \7 \7 \ S/MON WONG ENGINEERING
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor (858) 566-31 1 3
San Diego, CA 921 31 FAX (858) 566-6844
Page: -^_
ProjJ: eA^-OOZ-
Date:^/X4^/ii
Revised: &/2A(i(
T
~[ff
b-
acxic^
wall
9t-
Project: VA^OU 0^
Designed: igfC^- ^
Checked:
// \7 \V7 \ SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor (858) 566-31 1 3
San Diego, CA 921 31 FAX (858) 566-6844
Page: ^ ^
Proj.#: £4^ .QQX
Date:8>b-4-lll
Revised:
p >
d-
3- # 4 A
Project: kl i \ • -^ i i s\
Designed: f^^— 5— fyj
Checked:
// \ff \// \ SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor (858) 566-31 1 3
San Diego, CA 921 31 FAX (858) 566-6844
Page: 9-X
Proj.*:^^
Date: \g j ~^^, j
Revised: ^>/2jiV
O"Z-
j
\(
\—I & 5
if'
Slab'.'X &Y t&OpJ--
Z'x2_XlSOpc{ --
l-l/V
a
.
>f y owv
4-0.
v/va '
't-'
X
.
15s)
n ", ia- 2" -
-o
8
A
>"
Project: MiAVO\j^\
Designed: grc^ ^
Checked:
// \/ \/ \ SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor (858) 566-31 13
San Diego, CA 921 31 FAX (858) 566-6844
Page: Cj
Proj.#: t>4 v>0o2~
Date:WM///
Revised: 8^ Z4,./\/
U-
I i U~ u
->r-
c-C
\
\ /\ /
/
/
/
/
// a/ A
c *
£5
0
•
-?
^
. 6<S>*>
.
\
N
^~— -
( 1
(
'/#
-te
O--1 tf\'
and
cU-S'i^
! fl irv/^-V^ .Cj ,
•v,
. _ \\
vsiov^ c^a^
w\^x wv Cu=4.u^|N)
•iGv\ M €v\-V\^e-
€>-l vv/a-tl
1"
Project: Ua\VOU£\
Designed: r^<r_ *.
Checked:
/WW
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor
San Diego, CA92131
)N WONG ENGINEERING
(858)566-3113
FAX (858) 566-6844
Page: | (J)
Proj.#:64^0o]L
Date:^/24li!
Revised: ^ / 2 4 / ( (
Project: \vAAAYO\V\
Designed: j-- ^ (.
Checked:
// \/ \7 \ SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor (858) 566-31 1 3
San Diego, CA 921 31 FAX (858) 566-6844
Page: \ \
ftoJ-fc^PrQ^
Date: W 2 4 III
Revised: g?/^) \(
1>
/.
'•w/
•ZL t^V~
0..3
Project:
Designed:
Checked:
SIMONWONGENGINEERING
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor
San Diego, CA 921 31
(858)566-3113
FAX (858) 566-6844
Page:
Proj.#:
(Gee
UQ<3oli <v
-" 0.0*0? iV,
u
D-41
\ — ^
Project: V>|yYOl|^
Designed: C^<^_KJ
Checked:
AAA S,MO«
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor
San Diego, CA92131
WONG ENGINEERING
(858)566-3113
FAX (858) 566-6844
^ l-2-o^
Proj.#: 64^-002.
Dateg,/^./!,
Revised:
fihd si IV VugVv X 5-5'
2..
Cx") cy\
e 4--- 4x0.
Project:Ql
Designed:
Checked:
S/MOW WONG ENGINEERING
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor
San Diego, CA92131
(858)566-3113
FAX (858) 566-6844
Page:
Revised:^ 24/H
V
Lx( Wall X
\
o
o - ye iA
Ce.ee
IY O w>
wall
CO ry c v a \ -<_
2-
e w o. 4- v^_ \<\c \ c o.'^c (>-
i
A O v\
a^d
Has
YNI-\\
ru
Project: Muroya
Designed: ES-N
Project #: 548-002
WORKING STRESS STEEL DESIGN
U-Wall Vert
Beam horz
Input
Fs (ksi)
24
Fc (psi)
1440
b (feet)
1
d (inch)
3.5
n
8
M(k')
2.46
Output
Input
Ast (inA2)
0.393
Ratio
0.00936
Fs (ksi)
24.0
Fc (psi)
1407.5 Under
Fs (ksi)
24
Fc (psi)
1440
b (feet)
0.5833
d (inch)
16
n
8
M(k')
0.417
Output
Ast (inA2)
0.013
Ratio
0.00012
Fs (ksi)
24.0
Fc (psi)
133.2 Under
Beam from water
End Sill Detail
(4)
Input
Fs (ksi)
24
Fc (psi)
1440
b (feet)
1
d (inch)
3.5
n
8
M(k')
0.281
Output
Ast (inA2)
0.042
Ratio
0.00100
Fs (ksi)
24.0
Fc (psi)
403.2 Under
Input
Fs (ksi)
24
Fc (psi)
1440
b (feet)
1
d (inch)
6
n
8
M(k')
0.112
Output
Ast (inA2)
0.009
Ratio
0.00013
Fs (ksi)
24.0
Fc (psi)
140.9 Under
Project: Muroya
Designed: ES-N
Project*: 548-002
WORKING STRESS STEEL DESIGN
Wingwall horz
0
Small U Wall vert
Input
Fs (ksi)
24
Fc (psi)
1440
b (feet)
1
d (inch)
2.81
n
8
M(k')
0.28
Output
Input
Output
Ast (inA2)
0.052
Ratio
0.00155
Fs (ksi)
24.0
Fc (psi)
511.6 Under
Fs (ksi)
24
Fc (psi)
1440
b (feet)
1
d (inch)
3.5
n
8
M(k')
1.06
Ast (inA2)
0.163
Ratio
0.00389
Fs (ksi)
24.0
Fc (psi)
847.8 Under
Input
Slab Design: Bearing
/ «\
Fs (ksi)
24
Fc (psi)
1440
b (feet)
1
d (inch)
9.72
n
8
M(k') I
4 I
Output
Ast (inA2)
0.217
Ratio
0.00186
Fs (ksi)
24.0
Fc (psi)
564.5 Under
Slab Design U-wall
Input
Fs (ksi)
24
Fc (psi)
1440
b (feet)
1
d (inch)
9.72
n
8
M(k')
3.8
Output
Ast (inA2)
0.206
Ratio
0.00177
Fs(ksi)
24.0
Fc(psi)
548.6 Under
Project: Muroya
Designed: ES-N
Project #: 548-002
WORKING STRESS STEEL DESIGN
Beam 1
Force from water
0)
Small U Wall vert
(2)
Input
Fs (ksi)
24
Fc (psi)
1440
b (feet)
1.6
d (inch)
3.5
n
8
M(k')
1.56
Output
Input
Ast (inA2)
0.240
Ratio
0.00357
Fs (ksi)
24.0
Fc (psi)
807.6 Under
Fs (ksi)
24
Fc (psi)
1440
L b (feet)
2.26
d (inch)
6
n
8
M(k')
2.2
Output
Ast (inA2)
0.192
Ratio
0.00118
Fs (ksi)
24.0
Fc (psi)
440.9 Under
Project: i — /f i j y f~) 1 I /o
Designed: c^T. ^. t
Checked:
/w\.™
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor
San Diego, CA92131
)/V IVOA/G ENGINEERING
(858)566-3113
FAX (858) 566-6844
Page: | ^
Proj.#: C34^^QQ2^
Date: L^/ 2-4-1 1 1
Revised:
6|idm
ii^v ^
iv^v
'(2-1'
36
^^^
X
Project: |^l U » 0 U ^
Designed: £^- ^
Checked:
// \y\tf \ SIMON WONG ENGINEERING
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor (858) 566-31 1 3
San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844
Page: "^
Proj.#: 5Ae?'OOZ
Date:^/Z^m
Revised:
o
vt>
• )
V.O
4-
\XDaoVvi\A CQ^C.
<3>
J
6.9.19 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as
required by the structural engineer.
6.10 Conventional Retaining Wall Recommendations
6.10.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of
35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2:1
(horizontal:vertical), an active soil pressure of 50 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures
assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane
extending upward from the base of the wall possess an El of 50 or less. For those lots with
finish grade soils having an El greater than 50 and/or where backfill materials do not
conform to the criteria herein Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional
recommendations.
6.10.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the
height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where walls are
restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf should be
added to the above active soil pressure.
6.10.3 The structural engineer should determine the seismic design category for the project. If the
project possesses a seismic design category of D, E, or F, the proposed retaining walls
should be designed with seismic lateral pressure. The seismic load exerted on the wall should
be a triangular distribution with a pressure of 25H (where H is the height of the wall, in feet,
resulting in pounds per square foot [psf]) exerted at the top of the wall and zero at the base of
the wall. We used a peak site acceleration of 0.33g calculated form the 2007 California
Building Code (SDs/2.5) and applying a pseudo-static coefficient of 0.5.
6.10.4 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount
of lateral deflection is dependant on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and
loads acting on the wall. The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls
should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined
by the structural engineer.
6.10.5 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup
of hydrostatic forces and waterproofed as required by the project architect. The soil
immediately adjacent to the backfilled retaining wall should be composed of free draining
material completely wrapped in Mirafi 140 (or equivalent) filter fabric for a lateral distance
of 1 foot for the bottom two-thirds of the height of the retaining wall. The upper one-third
Project No. 07671-52-01 -20- July 14,2009
•20
should be backfilled with less permeable compacted fill to reduce water infiltration. The use
of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended where
the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the
base of the wall. The recommendations herein assume a properly compacted granular (El of
50 or less) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge
load. Figure \2 presents a typical retaining wall drainage detail. If conditions different than
those described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated
should be contacted for additional recommendations.
6.10.6 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of 1 foot may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 4 feet below the
base of the wall has an Expansion Index of 50 or less. The proximity of the foundation to the
top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore,
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is expected.
6.10.7 The recommendations presented herein are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls (such as crib-type walls) are planned, Geocon
Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
6.11 Lateral Loads
6.11.1 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of 350 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fill or formational materials. The allowable passive pressure assumes a
horizontal surface extending away from the base of the wall at least 5 feet or three times the
height of the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper
12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the
design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used for
resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined
with the allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
6.12 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls
6.12.1 Mechanically stabilized earth (MSB) retaining walls are alternative walls that consist of
modular block facing units with geogrid reinforced earth behind the block. The geogrid
attaches to the block units and is typically placed at specified vertical intervals and
embedment lengths. Spacing and lengths are based on the type and strength characteristics of
soil-used for the backfill.
Project No. 07671-52-01 -21- July 14,2009
Elizabeth Schroth-Nichols
From: Shawn Weedon [weedon@geoconinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 201 1 3:06 PM
To: Craig Shannon; 'Dale Mitchell'
Cc: Elizabeth Schroth-Nichols; 'Chuck Glass1
Subject: RE: Muroya Project - Groundwater
Good afternoon.
We do not need to design for groundwater uplift. The water encountered is a seepage condition and not the
permanent groundwater elevation. A subdrain should be installed for the walls of the structure should be
drained to an appropriate drainage device.
Please call or send an e-mail if you have any questions.
Shawn Weedon, GE | Associate/Senior Engineer
Geocon Incorporated
6960 Flanders Drive, San Diego, CA 92121-2974
Tel 858.558.6900 Fax 858.558.6159
www.geoconinc.com
From: Craig Shannon [mailto:cshannon@simonwongenq.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 1:53 PM
To: Shawn Weedon; 'Dale Mitchell'
Cc: Elizabeth Schroth-Nichols; 'Chuck Glass1
Subject: RE: Muroya Project - Groundwater
Shawn,
Thank you for the response.
Once last clarification -1 do not need to account for or consider any "uplift" forces in my design. Please confirm. I want
to make sure there is no buoyancy concerns or general consideration that we may have uplift forces pushing up on the
base of our modified D-41.
Also, I am not quite sure how best to incorporate drainage details behind this wall unless your propose I catch all of the
water with some sort of geocomposite drain and run everything out the one end where everything outlets. I wouldn't
want to incorporate a weep hole scenario considering this is a drainage structure and water will be filling on the inside
(where I would potentially outlet those weep holes).
Let's discuss and Dale may need to be involved to see where best we can tie in this drainage concept.
Thanks,
Craig Shannon, P.E.
Senior Bridge Engineer
2.2-
Simon Wong Engineering
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor
San Diego, CA 92131
T: (858) 566-3113
From: Shawn Weedon [mailto:weedon@qeoconinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 8:48 AM
To: Craig Shannon; 'Dale Mitchell1
Cc: Elizabeth Schroth-Nichols; 'Chuck Glass'
Subject: RE: Muroya Project - Groundwater
Good morning, Craig.
Good to hear from you.
The embedded file presents a map that shows some additional trenching that we performed. T-19 and T-20 are
located near T-8 where we encountered the water. We did encounter seepage at the surficial soil/formation
contact; however, we do not consider this groundwater. A drain will be installed during the grading operations
that should take care of seepage that occurs. Also, a drain for the wall should be incorporated into the design to
relieve the hydrostatic pressure.
Please call or send an e-mail if you have any questions. Thanks.
Shawn Weedon, GE | Associate/Senior Engineer
Geocon Incorporated
6960 Flanders Drive, San Diego, CA 92121-2974
Tel 858.558.6900 Fax 858.558.6159
www.geoconinc.com
From: Craig Shannon [mailto:cshannon@simonwonqeng.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 7:38 AM
To: 'Dale Mitchell'
Cc: Elizabeth Schroth-Nichols; Shawn Weedon; 'Chuck Glass'
Subject: Muroya Project - Groundwater
Importance: High
Dale,
I had specifically excluded any hydrostatic/uplift forces from my scope of work for the Modified D-41 dissipator:
"It is not expected that groundwater will be present; therefore, no hydrostatic loading will be applied to the
structural members."
Upon some final review of the plans, calculations, and geotechnical report, I read a paragraph about the groundwater
(see attached PDF section 4). I noticed the trench T-8 is very close to the location of our drainage structure. What do
you know about the groundwater in this area and has there been other measures implemented to deal with this issue?
If not, we probably need some advice from the geotechnical engineer. I need to know if he believes there are significant
hydrostatic forces and/or uplift pressures we need to be concerned with. It does say a "permanent, shallow
2.3
groundwater table is not expected", but I'd like to know some more about what is expected under the permanent
(developed) condition of the site.
Please let me know ASAP because this issue has put us on hold temporarily.
Thanks,
Craig Shannon, P.E.
Senior Bridge Engineer
Simon Wong Engineering
9968 Hibert Street, 2nd Floor
San Diego, CA 92131
T: (858) 566-3113
X-T-
dense, damp to moist, light yellowish brown to light olive, silty to clayey, fine to medium sandstone,
clayey siltstone, and claystone. Bedding within the Santiago Formation has been mapped dipping
approximately 5 degrees toward the northwest. This unit typically exhibits stable natural slope
conditions within the project area.
4. GROUNDWATER
We encountered a perched groundwater condition in Trench T-8 in the northwestern portion of the site
at a depth of approximately 5 feet. In addition, we encountered seepage in Trenches T-3 and T-4.
Groundwater and seepage should be expected during remedial grading in these areas and in
excavations for deeper utilities. The use of dewatering techniques may be necessary during remedial
grading operations to facilitate excavation in the northwestern portion of the property. A permanent
shallow groundwater table is not expected at the site. It is not uncommon for groundwater or seepage
conditions to develop where none previously existed. Groundwater elevations are dependent on
seasonal precipitation, irrigation, and land use, among other factors, and vary as a result. Proper surface
drainage will be important to future performance of the project.
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
5.1 Faulting and Seismicity
A review of geologic literature indicates that known active, potentially active, or inactive faults are not
located at the site. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located approximately 5 miles west of the site, is the
closest known active fault. An active fault is defined by the California Geologic Survey (CGS), as a
fault showing evidence for activity roughly within the last 11,000 years. The CGS has included
portions of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. This site is
not located within such an earthquake fault zone. A minor fault offsetting the Santiago Formation and
Lindavista Formation is mapped by Tan and Kennedy (1996) several hundred feet south of the site.
This fault does not offset Holocene-age units and is considered inactive.
According to the computer program EZ-FRJSK (Version 7.30), 11 known active faults are located
within a search radius of 50 miles from the property. The nearest known aaive fault is the Rose
Canyon Fault, located approximately 5 miles west of the site and is the dominant source of potential
ground motion. Earthquakes that might occur on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone or other faults within the
southern California and northern Baja California area are potential generators of significant ground
motion at the site. The estimated deterministic maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground
acceleration for the Rose Canyon Fault are 7.2 and 0.35g, respectively. Table 5.1.1 lists the estimated
maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration for the most dominant faults in
relationship to the site location. We calculated peak ground acceleration (PGA) using Boore-Atkinson
(2008) NGA USGS2008, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS, and Chiou-Youngs (2008) NGA
acceleration-attenuation relationships.
Project No. 07671-52-01 ~A- July 14, 2009
ZLc
a.a.
I
a.ao
sa.a
g&
fc
£3
8
frf^
5feS
zQ-tsiS2S
ot- *zzo
°,<Z-•sp
1/1 n UJ<!£?(/>
ff! 5>
o§°
a_£u
SS!
LU
9 133HS 33S
J«0fc h.
icrl*~~^ ^~ I i I OCnOC LLJ o
1^0^s o s
>^?1c^O_ g
LUQ O o
0§°
^o<tntnc/i2<iill
•v -it-v\ vs-, '
i
* ;
5~ ;/f; , \ fc' <-h r(t ?
v'"W*0!»0.£,»o/
T
notch 152mm
Pipe Collar
(see note 5)
End sill
203mm (8")PICTORIAL VIEW
Note: Riprap not shown.
2-|13 (#4) rebars horizontal
and vertical around fence
post (typical).
PLAN Construction
See note
jate
cutoff wall
SECTION B-B
Inlet bo
top of stab min of 6'
above channel invert 203mm (8")
Rlter cloth-
urmrcNOTES SECTION A-A
Channel invert
in. thickness
Facing Class 457mm (18")
Ught Class 763mm (30")
gregate subbase bottom and sides
152mm (6j thick for facing class229mm (9") thick for light class.
1. Desjgn
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (Earth Loading)= 961 kg/cu m (60 p.c.f.) Maximum Outlet velocity = 10.7m (35')/s
2. Concrete shall be 332 kg/M3-C-22Mpa (560-C-3250)
3. Reinforcing shall conform to ASTM designation A615 and may be grade 40 or 60. Reinforcing
shall be placed with 51mm (2") clear concrete cover unless noted otherwise. Splices shall not be
permitted except as indicated on the plans.
4. For pipe grades not exceeding 20%, inlet box may be omitted.
5. If inlet box is omitted, construct pipe collar as shown.
6. Unless noted otherwise, all reinforcing bar bends shall be fabricated with standard hooks.
7. Rve foot high chain link fencing, embed post 18" deep in walls and encase with class B mortar.
8. In Sandy and Silty soil:
a) Riprap and aggregate base cutoff wall required at the end of rock apron.
b) Rlter cloth (Polyfilter X or equivalent) shall be installed on native soil base, minimum of 305mm (1 ft.) overlaps at joints.
9. Rip rap and subbase classification shall be as shown on plans. FOR DIMENSIONS, SEE D-41B.
Revision
ORIGINAL
Add Metric
Reformatted
By Approved
Kercheval 12/75
T. Stanton
T. Stanton
Date
03/03
04/06
DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING
CONCRETE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
RECOMMENDED BY THE SAN DIEGO
REGIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE
310(12003
Chairperson R.C.E. 19246 Date
DRAWING
NUMBER
rv JfAD'41A
METRIC DIMENSIONS TABLE. FOR STRUCTURE DETAILS SEE D-41A.
PipeDio
Area (sq. m)
Max. Q (cu m/s)
W
H
L
a
b
c
d
e
f
9
Tf
Tb
T»
Ta
457mm
.164
.594
1.66m
1.30m
2.24m
991mm
1.24m
711mm
279mm
152mm
457mm
635mm
610mm
.292
1.08
1.80m
1.60m
2.74m
1.19m
1.55m
864mm
356mm
152mm
610mm
762mm
9.14m
.456
1.67
2.13m
1.90m
3.25m
1.40m
1.85m
1.02m
406mm
203mm
762mm
914mm
203mm
178mm
178mm
178mm
11.0m
657
2.41
2.82m
2.21m
3.76m
1.60m
2.16m
1.17m
482mm
203mm
914mm
1.07m
12.80m
.893
3.26
3.20m
2.44m
4.27m
1.83m
2.44m
1.35m
533mm
254mm
914mm
1.19m
254mm
241mm
241mm
14.63m
1.17
4.28
3.58m
2.74m
4.78m
1.80m
2.72m
1.50m
610mm
254mm
914mm
1.35m
16.46m
.1.48
5.41
3.96
2.87m
5.28m
2.24m
3.05m
1.65m
660mm
305mm
914mm
1.50m
18.29m
1.82
6.68
4.34
3.28m
5.79m
2.44m
3.35m
1.80m
737mm
305mm
914mm
1.63m
21.95m
2.63
9.60
5.03m
3.73m
6.71m
2.82m
3.87m
2.11m
838mm
381mm
914mm
1.88m
305mm
267mm
267mm
203mm
IMPERIAL DIMENSIONS TABLE. FOR STRUCTURE DETAILS SEE D-41A.
3ipe Dia (in)
Area (sq.ft.)
Max. Q (cfs)
W
H
L
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
Tf
Tb
T»
Ta
18
1.77
21
5-6"
4'-3"
7'-4"
3-3"
4-1"
2-4"
Ml1
0'-6'
1-6"
2-1'
24
3.14
38
6-9"
5'-3"
9'-0"
3-11's'-r
2-10'
1'-2"
0'-6"
2'-0"
2'-6"
30
4.91
59
8'-0"
6'-3"
lO'-tf4'-r6-r
3"-4"r-4"
0'-8'
2-6'
3'-0'
8'
T
rr
36
7.07
85
9'-3"r-3"
12'-4'
5'-3"r-r
3-101
r-r
0'-8'
3'-0'
3'-6"
42
9.62
115
10'-6"
8'-0'
14'-0'
6'-0'
8'-0'
4-5'
1'-9'
O'-IO1
3'-0P
3'-11'
10'
91/2'
91/2"
48
12.57
151
H'-9'
9'-0'
15'-8'
6-9'
8-11'
4-11'
2'-0'
0-10'
J-O"
4'-5'
54
15.90
191
13'-0"
9'-9'
1/-4'
7'-4"
10-0"
5'-5'
2-2"
I'-O'
3'-0"
4-11'
60
19.63
236
14'-3"
10'-9"
19'-0'
8'-0'
11'-0'
5-11'
2'-5"
I'-O"
3'-0"
5'-4"
72
28.27
339
16-6"
12-3"
22'-0'
9'-3'
12'-9'
6-11'
2'-9"
1'-3"
3'-0"
6'-2"
12'
10 1/2'
10 1/2'
8'
Revision
ORIGINAL
Add Metric
Reformatted
By Approved
Kercheval 12/75
T. Stanton
T. Stanton
Date
03/03
04/06
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING
CONCRETE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
RECOMMENDED BY THE SAN DIEGO
REGIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE
hairperson R.C.E. 19246 Date
DRAWING
NUMBER D-41B
Elizabeth Schroth-Nichols
From: Elizabeth Schroth-Nichols
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 1:25 PM
To: 'Dale Mitchell'
Cc: Craig Shannon
Subject: RE: Muroya Project
Hi Dale,
We have added a fence to the drawings that very closely resembles the fence on the standard drawing, including a fence
on top of the headwall portion of the structure. Once you've had a chance to review this addition to the drawings we
can incorporate any feedback or modifications that you may have in between submittals.
Thank you,
Elizabeth
From: Elizabeth Schroth-Nichols
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:45 AM
To: 'Dale Mitchell1
Subject: Muroya Project
Good morning Dale,
I have a few questions for you before we can wrap up the project.
I noticed that there is a fence on the SDRSD of the energy dissipator, but on the sketches that you sent over to us there
is no fence. Do you want a fence anywhere on the modified dissipator? And if you do, where would you like it?
Please let me know as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Elizabeth Schroth-Nichols
Simon Wong Engineering
858.566.3113
eschroth-nichols@simonwongeng.com
T
I
30
IJt 23-it 8S=
|f S||P J 3 SSI
' ' ' ifi
-rV
'o
f-
!
J1*1
•-
Vi
v>
O
10
o
X(,/
O
O
o
P
~L
s •*./ \^ \
O N n u n o
•'••»
/—rj
(O
~f. 1 1
i i i
.Z/l » .Z/l > .Z/l » .Z/l »
-.1 -.1 -.1 ".I
1 1 11i \ \
\ \
.2/1 * ' .Z/l t ' .2/1 * ' .Z/l »
-.1 -.1 -.1 -.1
.9-.S
„
O
0
i
o
.L
|
V.
1
-
>s
r
i
i
i
i
]
]
* s a
,*
I. .1,/\il !i./i
II M
IMS 92 \\\3 Cr X. „ *«•*
: §D ~
' s go
0 z Z1 * Q
rrriEC
68 k! Ud
£a Fg
I 2
\.
*.,
32-