The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1635 FARADAY AVE; ; CB990595; Structural CalculationsCity of Carlsbad 04lO5/1999 Retaining Wall Permit Permit No:CB990595 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 438-3101 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Reference #: Project Title: 1635 FARADAY AV CBAD RETAIN 2121303100 Lot #: 0 $44,250.00 Construction Type: NEW NEW CITY BUILDING 3,000 SF. SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL Status: ISSUED Applied: 02/l 211999 Entered By: JM Plan Approved: 04/05/l 999 Issued: 04/05/1999 Inspect Area: Applicant: SIERRA PACIFIC EARTH RETAN 1531 GRAND AVENUE SAN MARCOS CA 92069 760-471-2500 Owner: PERTY MANAGEMENT Building Permit Strong Motion Fee Renewal Fee Add’1 Renewal Fee Other Building Fee TOTAL PERMIT FEES FINAL APPROVAL Inspector& Date: /d/s)/rr Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE mat approval of your project includes the ‘Imposition’ of fees, dedications, reservations, mother exactions here&r collectively referred to as ‘feeslexactions.’ You have 90 days from the date his permhwas issued to protest imposition of these fe&exacWs. If you protest hem, you must follov the protest pmcedures set forth in Go~emmen, Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any otbe, ,eq”i,ed information wbJ the City Manager for processing in accordance with Cadsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that pwedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack. review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feeslexactons DOES NOT APPLY to waler and wuer connection fees and capactiy changes nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or SerYic? fees in connection with this pmjecl NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feWexactions of which you have pI.?viousIy been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has PIeviousIv other&? expired. CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 438-1161 FOR OFFICE USE PLAN CHECK NO. CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad CA 92009 (760) 438-l 161 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, ,:>;;, : :,‘;,;‘;,: ,; ,‘;:; ,;,y ‘,. ,:: ; ; ; ‘,,! i,, :,, ,~~::,U~~~,~~i~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~;QQi:- ,! i: ;,: ,;f, -:;; ‘:: . . :-1: ISBC. 7031.5 B”*i”e% and PrOfes*io”S code: A”” city or county Which require* a permit 10 COrutrUCf. alter. improve. demolirh w repair my *tr”ct”w, prior’to its ISSUBIICB, a150 requires the applicmt ‘W such permit 10 ‘iIs a signed stafement that he is liC8”JBd p”rs”ant to the PlOViEionJ Of the Contractor’s License LBW ,mapter 9. commending with section 7000 Of DiYiSiO” 3 Of the Business and Pro‘eSrionS Code, or that he is BXmm therefrom. and the bssir for the pllaged si ity m*iness License x ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ &@gtifj&jN i;_: i :,, ,,,,: ‘,, ::: :i ‘,: ; :‘:: i,:, ,, i ~ Worked Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following dedarations: a I have and Will mainfain a certificats Of consent to self-insure for workers’ compensation as P,DYidd by section 3700 Of the Labor Cods, ‘0, Ihe PerformanCe Of the work ‘N Which this Permit is issued. ls6. I ha”* B”d Will maintain worker*’ compensation. as required by section 3700 Of the Labor COdB. for ftm performance Of the work ‘0, which this permit is 188 e.3 M” vmrker’s compensation i”s”,a”ce CBViW and policy “umber we: l”s”lanCB Company Policy No. Expiration IJam ,TH,S SECTlON NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HVNDRED DOLLARS ,*loo, cm LESS, IJ CERTlFlCATE OF EXEMPTION: I Certify that in ftm performance Of the wart for Which fhiJ permit is issus*. I shall not WnPlD” any PerEm in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers’ Compensation Laws Of California. W*RN,NG: Fallwe * ww $i!ldLX&- ’ comrmn*atk” co”erags I* mlaw‘d, and *alI stlbject ml eYmPb”ef to crimhd peilsl*ie* snd Civil tine‘ up to mm h”ldr&l tho”*Md dOh 0 0 ,oq in ” to ttla co,t Of compen*ation, thnagea a* prolidod for in Section 3706 Of the L w c * i t*,*,t and .ttor”.“‘. tea*. SIGNATURE 7’:-~~i!~~~~~,:Vit;)ER,,bEOWIR~~~~,~~ ,, ,,,:~; ,,:: ‘,;: :.: ,+i;i;,, ,:i;ii,,; <+ ,., :,; ,,:,;::; :,,, ;, : ., ,., :,,,:, _,, i, ;;, i: : .“, ;; ::y,, ‘, ,:,i::,:s:.y:;i’;l, ;,i,:_ ,‘~:i:;l,,:(_::;:l:,;,ii:~.:l;ii:/::i::l DATE 2$ 7% I hereby affirm eat I am exempt tram the contractor’s License Law for the following reason: 0 I, as owner Of the property or my BmployBeS Wifh wages as tiwr sole compensafion, Will do the work and the StlUCtUre i* not intended or ot‘ered for sale mc. 7044, Business and PrOfeSSioN Code: me Contractar’s License Law doas “Of apply to a” owner 0‘ pmperty Who builds or impwe* themon, and Who doss such work himself or through his own employees. plo”id*d that SUCh improvsments are not infended or offered for ss1e. If, however, the building or imprwmlent i* SOId within one year 0‘ ccmpletion, the owner-builder Will have the burden Of proving that he did not build or ilwDY.3 ‘W the purpo*e Of sale,. 0 I, as owner of the property, am ~xcIu8iveIy confra~ting with licensed ccmmctorr to ~cmtrm the project WC. 7044. Businers and Profe&ms Code: The CO”t,actOl’S License Law does not a$& to an owne, Of property who builds or improver thereon, B”d contract* ‘0, J”Ch project* with Co”t,aCtOr,S~ licenred PWS”B”f to the ContraCtor’s License Law,. 0 ! anl t)xernpt under section Bushe. and PrOfeSPimS Code ‘W tilie rmso”: 1. I pemmlly plan to provide the major labor and rmteriak for conmuction of the DROPOUT propew improvement. 0 YES ON0 2. I ~hWB, hWB not, *igneci an application for a building pwmit ‘W tils p‘OpO*ed wnk. 3. I have contractuc With tile following PereD” mn, to provide the proposed conwuction ,i”Cl”& name, address I phone “umber, CO”fraCtO,s liCB”SB “umber,: 4. I plan to provide ponions Of tile work, but I ham hired me following person to coordinate. S”pNiS. and provide the mjor Work ~include name , address , phone “umber I cantraCtors lice”*. number): 5. I Will prO”ide SOme Of the Work, but I have contracted hired, tile following per*Q”s to provide the work indicated ,i”cl”de name, address , phone “umber, type Of WOM: PROPERTY OWNER S,GNAT”RE DATE :~,~~~TH,srsEcTtoN~wd~~~~i~~n~~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~,;;~~li; ,:ir;ii:.‘i:,:~,:i,l~::~~~,,~~~ ~::,:,-,I:,i;::-;:i _: ~ :‘:i;:;,,;:z;i;:‘,;,:; :,_:if $; :, ,i f:::,,;_i S’.ii ,!: ,; ;,s&pji; 15 file apPliCa”t or f”t”re building OCC”pant required to submit a b”.i”eSE plan, BCUtel” hazardous materids registration tom or rid managemenf and prsvantian program under sections 25505. 25533 w25534 Of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous S”bSt.“Ce Account Act? 0 YES 0 NO 15 the applicant 0, future building ocwpant required to obtain a pwmit ‘mm the air pOll”tion Control district 0, air qUalit” management district? lJ YES 0 NO IS the facility to be conrtructsd within 1 .ocm feet Of the wter boundary Of a ICh0.l site1 0 YES 0 NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES. A FINAL CERTlFlCATE OF OCC”PANCY MAY NOT BE lSS”ED UNLESS THE APPLKXNT HAS MET OR IS MEETlNIi THE RE*“IREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERYICES *Pm THE AIR POLL”TlOH CONTRCJL DISTRICT. ~~ir:~i:i~t;aris~~~~p*‘~~~~~~~~~~~~,,:~~:;:;: ‘; ,‘.Z, ;: ;I; ;‘, ,;: : ‘. ;~ ,pe:i; ;::’ ‘,i :;::: ;:; :, ‘, ; :% ,,, ‘, ,i’ .tilii, ,, .,, ,,.,. ,:, ,.,,, en=” ‘0, the performance 0, the work ‘0, Which this permit is isSUed sec. 309711~ civil code). LENDEWS NAME LENDEWS ADclRESS 0 Sfrect 4fWf S,bb 4b/i3 .,i,, ,i ,,.,,, i,:,,,ii ,.,.: i ,,,, ,,.i,,,i:i:i.ii,~‘:,,;~‘~:~:,:‘:~i.i~.i:,’ .::,i, ,,, ,,. ,, ,,,,,, ii~, ,,,,,,,,,,,.,. ,,,: ,,,, ,,, ,..,. ,,,. ,i :,<,. .l:,?+‘.,, ;i,,.%, ,,! “;~;“,~,~~,ii:-~,~j~~:~!~,~~~ Ye information is correct and that the information on file plan* is aCC”mfe. I agree to cmp,y Wifh a,, city ordinance* and state IawJ relating to building CO”StNCtiO”. I hereby a”thorizB repmSe”f.tiYeS Of the city Of Carlsbad 30 enter upon the above mentioned property to, inSpeCtion purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HPlRMLESS THE Crr” OF CARLSBAD AGAINST PILL L,AB,L,T,ES. .J”DGMENTS, Cm.TS mm EXPENSES W”,CH MAI IN &WY w*Y mxR”E AGAINST Scm c,Ty IN CONSELlUMCE OF THE GRANTING OF THE PERUIT. OSHA: An OSHA pmnit is required to, BXCaYafims OYB, 53” deep and demolition 01 CO”*t,“Ctio” ot Str”Cf”reS we, 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every pennif issued by the Building Official ““de, the ploYisio”. 0, this Code shall expire by limitation and beCOme nu,, B”d void if the building 0, work a”thori*ed b” such 07 abandoned at any time WHITE: FilS PINK: Finance EsGil Corporation ln Bartncrsfiip witli @mnmnt for !Builai,, Safe& DATE: 3/31/99 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad FL$EFr 0 PLAN REVIEWER PLAN CHECK NO.: 99-595 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Ave. 0 FILE SET: II PROJECT NAME: Retaining Walls q The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction’s building codes. q The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction’s building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. 0 The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. 0 The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. 0 The applicants copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. 0 The applicant’s copy of the check list has been sent to: q Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. 0 Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone #: Date contacted: (by: ) Fax #: Mail Telephone Fax In Person q REMARKS: 1. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan has been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soil report are properly incorporated into the plans. 2 s ew sheets 1 and 2 of city II set containing retaining wall details must be incorporated into tit set I plans to make a complete set of plans. Both the new sheet 1, 2 and city set I plans are urrently at city building department. By: David Yao Esgil Corporation < ,, Enclosures: 0 GA 0 MB q EJ 0 PC 3122 tmsmU.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 l San Diego, California 92123 l (619) 560-1468 + Fax (619) 560-1576 Ea Corporation ln Tartnership with $xm-munt for !Bui!Xng Safety DATE: 2/24/99 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 99-595 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Ave. SET: I 0 APPLICANT e 0 PLAN REVIEWER 0 FILE PROJECT NAME: Retaining Walls 0 The’ plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction’s building codes. 0 The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction’s building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. c) The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. q The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. 0 The applicants copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. H The applicants copy of the check list has been sent to: Sierra Pacific Earth Retention Corp. 1531 Grand Ave. San Marcos CA 92008 [XI Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed 0 Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone #: Date contacted: (by: 1 Fax #: Mail Telephone Fax In Person El REMARKS: By: David Yao Esgil Corporation Enclosures: 0 GA 0 MB 0 EJ 0 PC 2116 tmsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 l San Diego, California 92123 l (619) 560-1468 l Fax (619) 560-1576 Carlsbad 99-595 2124199 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Ave. PLAN CHECK NO.: 99-595 DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 2/16 REVIEWED BY: David Yao DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: 2124199 FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1994 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. 1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new sets of prints to: ESGIL CORPORATION. 2. To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet with the revised plans. 3. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans. Have changes been made not resulting from this list? 4. 0 Yes Ll No Provide a statement on the Title Sheet of the plans that this project shall comply with 1994 UBC. 5. Specify ICBO approval number for the Fortrac 35120-20 geogrid and the A-16 block. Any requirements by the report shall be noted on the plan.(special inspection?) 6. Provide detail to show how the geogrid connect to the block. Carlsbad 99-595 2124199 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. The retaining wall details (signed and sealed by the engineer) shall be on the plan and referenced from the site plan. Page 4 of the soil report shows the maximum bearing capacity shall be 3000 psf. The calculation appears to show larger capacity. Please clarify. The soils report shows the angle of friction is 22 or 23 degrees. The calculation appears to use different friction angle. Please check. Specify on the foundation plan or structural specifications sheet the soil classification, the soils expansion index and the design bearing capacity of the foundation. Section 1804.3. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soil report are properly incorporated into the plans. (See page 10 of the soil report). The soils engineer recommended that he/she review the foundation excavations. Note on the foundation plan that “Prior to the contractor requesting a Building Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that: 4 The retaining wall pad was prepared in accordance with the soils report, b) The foundation excavations comply with the intent of the soils report.” The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 619/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact David Yao at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. Carlsbad 99-595 2124199 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PREPARED BY: David Yao BUILDING ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Ave. BUILDING OCCUPANCY: PLAN CHECK NO.: 99-595 DATE: 2/24/99 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL VALUE 0 199 UBC Building Permit Fee q Bldg. Permit Fee by ordinance: $ 370.83 0 199 UBC Plan Check Fee [XI Plan Check Fee by ordinance: $ 241.04 Type of Review: q Complete Review 0 Structural Only 0 Repetitive Fee Applicable Esgil Plan Review Fee: Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc 5196 PLANNING/ENGINEERING APPROVALS W-Y PERMIT NUMBER CB vo>73 !C;;T ADDRESS DATE #--{T 4 4.&r -RESIDENTIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR (< $10,000.00) PLAZA CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES VILLAGE FAIRE COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING OTHER WK PLANNER DATE / <hi+ ENDINEER&-G&&~ DATE +a +w FEBRUARY 11,1998 SHEET 1 OF 8 7 PREPARED BY: PROJECT CONTACT PREPARED FOR: SITE: SOIL DATA FROM: REPORT DATED: LETTER DATED: PROJECT NUMBER: RETAINING WALLS COMPANYNORTH 1531 GRAND AVENUE SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 ROD SANDERSON (760) 471-2500 LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION CO. 1570 LINDA VISTA DR. SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 (760) 744-3133 THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA 1635 FARADAY AVE. CARLSBAD, CA CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO, CA 921 11 (619) 496-9760 c DECEMBER 23, 1998 FEBRURY 10, 1999 CWE 198.125.1 ur_. ~-+- ****************************************a**** THESE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS, THAT A MEMBER OF THE RETAWING WALLS COMPANY NORTH STAFF, FIELD INSPECT AND APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. RETAINING WALLS COMPANY NORTH WILL NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY PROJECT RELEASED WITHOUT WRITTEN FINAL APPROVAL FROM RETAINING WALLS COMPANY NORTH. JOB NUMBER 98-12-04 A-16 RETAINING WALL TYPICAL SECTIONS A-16 CONCRETE BLOCK GENERAL NOTES SELECT MATERIAL SECTION (TYPICAL) WALL TYPE LOCATION SKETCH TIERED WALL SECTIONS GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT TABLE STABILITY ANALYSIS LEVEL BACKFILL W/TRAFFIC (A) STABILITY ANALYSIS LEVEL BACKFILL (B) STABlLITY ANALYSIS 2:l SLOPED BACKFILL (C) PAGE 36 7 8 9 10-11 12 13-14 15-38 39-55 56-87 NOTES: MINIMUM ANGLE OF FRICTION FOR THE RETAINED, REINFORCED AND FOUNDATION THESE CALCULATION ARE BASE ON IMPORTING SELECT MATERIAL WITH 30-DEGREES SOILS. THE DEPTH OF SOU TO BE REPLACE BELOW AND BEHIND THE PROPOSED WALL SYSTEM SHALL BE DETERMINE BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. SOILS ViiLUES ARE TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. WALL DESIGNER MUST BE NOTIFIED BY THE SOILS PROJECT ENGINEER IN THE EVENT ACTUAL SITE FRICTION ANGLES OR SURCHARGES DO NOT MEET THE ABOVE. HEAW EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE KEPT 3 FEET BACK FROM THE WALL’S FACING BLOCK. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW AND APPROVE THE SOU PARAMETERS USED FOR THIS DESIGN, AS WELL AS, THE WALL’S BACK DRAIN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J J J J I J c ! (HEIGHT VARIES) SECURE FIRST COURSE WITH EPOXY ADHESIVE 16" SOIL CAP """ ELEVATION PER TABLE _"""" 6" MIN. WIDTH OF 3/4" CRUSH ROCK OR CALTRANS CLASS I1 PERMEABLE MATERIAL. """" - _""" 4" PERFORATED PVC ORAIN IN FILTER FABRIC SLEEVE WITH SOLID OUTLET PIPES AT 100 MAXIMUM SPACING. LOCATE DRAIN AS LOW AS POSSIBLE TO ALLOW OUTLET PIPE TO DAYLIGHT. L6" THICK X 2' WIDE 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK LEVELING PAD *NOTE: IF CAPSTONES ARE NOT TO BE USED. THE TOP HALF OF THE UPPER ROW OF BLOCKS SHALL BE FILLED WITH HAND TAMPED SOIL. A-1 6'" RETAINING WALL TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION WITH GEOGRID SOIL REINFORCEMENT NO SCALE 1 I J J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 L L RECOMMENDED 16" SOIL CAP A-16 BLOCK 3/4' CRUSHED R WITHIN ALL UNITS """"_ 6" MIN. WIDTH OF 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK """"_ SOILS ENGINEER BURlAL PER _"""" 4'' PERFORATED PVC DRAIN IN FILTER FABRIC SLEEVE WITH SOLID OUTLET PIPES AT 100' MAXIMUM SPACING. LOCATE DRAIN AS LOW AS . - POSSIBLE TO ALLOW OUTLET PIPE TO DAYLIGHT. 6" THICK X 2' WIDE 3 4" CRUSHED ROCK LdG PAD *NOTE: IF CAPSTONES ARE NOT TO BE USED, THE TOP HALF OF THE UPPER ROW OF BLOCKS SHALL BE FILLED WITH HAND TAMPED SOIL. A-1 6" RETAINING WALL TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION WITH GEOGRID SOIL REINFORCEMENT NO SCALE 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 . J t L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I c \ . J 1 18" FACE VIEW SIDE VIEW 4" I 10" I 4" 1/2" TOP VIEW NOTES: 1. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE f'c = 3250 PSI "A-1 6'''" RETAINING WALL UNIT DIMENSIONS NO SCALE SOUTHERN OFFICE RETAINING IVALLS co. N. OFFICE 1531 GRAND AVENUE 800 E. GRANT LINE RD. $AN MARCOS, CA. 92069 A-SERIES SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL DETAIL TRACY, CA. 95376 (619) 471-2500 DETAIL NO. A-1 6 (209) 832-2600 I I 1 1 I L 1 i ! 1 ! x f * SOIL ENGINEER TO DETERMINE DEPTH & ANGLE OF AREA TO BE BACKFILL WITH 30" ANGLE OF FRICTION SOIL. GEOGRID TABLE TYmA LEVEL BACKFEL (w/ Traffrc Surcharge) wall height grid elevation grid length UP TO 2.00' no grid required 2.67' TO 4.00' 2.0 6.5' 4.67' TO 6.00' 1.3 7.0' 4.0 7.0' 6.67' TO 8.00' 0.7 8.0' 3.3 8.0' 6.0 8.0' TmLB LEVEL BACKFILL wall height grid elevation grid length UPTO 2.67' no grid required 3.33' TO 4.67' 2.0 5.0' 5.33' TO 7.33' 2.0 6.5' 4.7 6.5' Grid type Fortrac 35/20-20 Fortrac 35/20-20 Fortrac 35/20-20 Fortrac 35/20-20 Fortrac 35/20-20 Fortrac 35/20-20 Grid type Fortrac 35/20-20 Fortrac 35120-20 Fortrac 35/20-20 a a W *7 + a W m c m + 7 d d + ... a N ln + lm!ES 2:l SLOPED BACKFILL wall height grid elevation grid length UP TO 2.00' 2.67' TO 4.00' 4.67' TO 5.33' 6.00' TO 7.33' 8.00' TO 9.33' 2.0 1.3 3.3 0.7 2.7 5.3 0.7 2.7 4.7 7.3 no grid required 5.5' 6.0' 6.0' 8.0' 8.0' 8.0' 10.0' 10.0' 10.0' 10.0' Grid type Fortrac 35/20-20 Fortrac 35120-20 Fortrac 35/20-20 Fortrac 35120-20 Fortrac 35/20-20 Fortrac 3 5/20-20 Fortrac 35/20-20 Fortrac 35/20-20 Fortrac 35120-20 Fortrac 35/20-20 NOTES: TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL WSPECT AND APF'ROVE THE FOUNDATION EXCAVATION PRIOR THE GRID LENGTHS SHOWN ARE MEASURED FROM THE FACE OF THE WALL. THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE MEASURED Up FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE WALL. SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) , Page 1 LN 95050839 Licensed to: RETAINING WALLS COMPANY 1531 GRAND AVENUE SAM MRRCOS, CA 92069 (619) 471-2500 License Number: 95050839 Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS Data Sheet: Section: Owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Date: Prepared by: Time : 10:14:43 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\al6grav February 03 1999 Type of Structure: Structure Criticality: Non-critical Gravity Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCMA Method Wall Geometry: Embedment Wall Height (ft) Design Wall Height (ft) 2.0 0.5 Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 1.5 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units Hinge Height (ft) Base Inclination (degrees) Wall Inclination (degrees) 3 horizontal 2.0 7.1 Slopes: Front Slope (degrees) Back Slope (degrees) horizontal horizontal SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 2 LN 95050839 Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load surcharge (psf) 75 Dead Load surcharge none Friction Soil Data: Soil Description: (Psi=) (degrees) (pcf) Cohesion Angle Uni t Weight Retained Soil sand Levelling Pad Soil gravel Foundation Soil sand N/A N/A 30.0 120.0 40.0 0.0 30.0 125.0 120.0 Segmental Unit Name: Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) Unit Height (in) Unit Width (in) Unit Length (in) Weight (infilled) (lbs) Setback (in) Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) Center of Gravity (in) Default segmental unit properties none 8.0 16.0 18.0 1.0 167.0 125.3 8.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Properties Peak Strength Criteria Deformation Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 2000 .o 2000.0 45.0 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Eailure Plane Orientations: Retained Soil (Ka) 0.249 Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.243 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 53.28 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) , Bage 3 LN 95050839 Results of External Stability Analyses: FOS Sliding FOS Overturning FOS Bearing Capacity Base Footing Width (B') (ft) Base Eccentricity (e) (ft) Calculated Design Criteria 2.07 3.32 14.8 1.83 N/A 0.28 N/A 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 2.0 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Bearing Capacity (psf) 94.8 334.0 196.2 75.3 250.5 3908.5 264.0 Results of Facinq Stability Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS MS Unit Elev Type Over- # If tJ Shear Shear > 1.5 turning (peak) (deformation1 > 2.5 WA 3 1.33 none 13.52 2 0.67 non- 32.81 N/A 1 0.0 5.69 none 11.39 N/A 3.32 8.8 N/A Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of Facinq Stability Analyses (Moment and Shear): SRW Heel GeO Dri M Unit Elev Resist Shear Shear Moment Shear Load Capacity Capacity Twe Moment X If tl (Ibs-ft/ftJ Ilbs-ft/ftJ (lbs/ftJ (lbs/ftJ (lbs/ftI tout -in (peakJ IdefonnationJ N/A 3 2 1 1.33 none 5.5 74.2 0.67 none 18.6 27.7 157.7 611.3 50.2 N/A 722.7 0.0 non. 75.3 250.5 94.0 834.0 N/A N/A SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 4 ' LN 95050839 I Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS CENTER Section: Data Sheet: Owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Prepared by: Date: February 03 1999 Time : 10:14:43 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\al6grav SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 1 LN 95050839 Licensed to: RETAINING WALLS C-ANY 1531 GRAND AVENUE SAM MARCOS, CA 92069 (619) 471-2500 License Number: 95050839 Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Data Sheet: Section: Owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Date: Prepared by: Time : 10:18:35 AM February 03 1999 Data file: c:\srwalll\al6hues Type of Structure: Structure Criticality: Non-critical Geosynthetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCMA Method A Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) 4.0 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 1.0 Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 3.0 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units Hinge Height (ft) Base Inclination (degrees) Wall Inclination (degrees) 6 4.0 horizontal 7.1 S1 opes : Front slope (degrees) Back Slope (degrees) horizontal horizontal SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) , Eage 2 LN 95050839 Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge (psfl Dead Load Surcharge 240 none Friction Soil Data: soil Description: (PSf) (degrees) (pcf) Cohesion Angle Unit Weight Reinforced Soil sand Retained Soil sand Levelling Pad Soil gravel Foundation Soil sand N/A N/A 30.0 120.0 N/A 30.0 40.0 120.0 0.0 30.0 125.0 120.0 Segmental Unit Name: Default segmental unit properties Segmental Unit Data: Unit Height (in) Cap Height (in1 Unit Length (in1 Unit Width (in) Weight (infilled1 (lbs) Setback (in) Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) Center of Gravity (in) none 8.0 16.0 18.0 1.0 167.0 125.3 8.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Properties Peak Strength Criteria Deformation Criteria Minimum (lbs/ftl 770.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 27.0 2000.0 27.0 770.0 2000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 2 1 1 0 35/20-20 55/30-20 3 0 80/30-20 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 3 LN 95050839 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Index Tensile Strength (lbs/ft) 2600.0 3700.0 5380.0 Polymer Type polyester poly@ster polyester Partial Material Safety Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 creep 1.67 1.67 1.67 Biological Degradation Chemical Degradation 1.00 1.00 1.00 Construction site Damage 1.12 1.12 1.12 Material Uncertainty 1.05 1.05 1.50 1.05 1.50 1.50 Long Term Design Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 LTDS (lbs/ft) 882.6 1256.0 1826.3 coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion Deformation Criterion 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion 0.95 0.95 0.95 Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 500.0 500.0 500.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 2000.0 3000.0 3000.0 Deformation Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ft) 500.0 28.0 2000.0 28.0 28.0 3000.0 3000.0 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 4 LN 95050839 Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak strength Criterion: Minimum llbs/ft) Maximum llbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 27.0 500.0 500.0 27.0 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 500.0 27 .O Deformation Strength criterion: Minimum llbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 27.0 Maximum llbs/ft) 27.0 2000.0 2000.0 27.0 2000.0 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.249 Reinforced soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.243 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 53.28 Retained Soil (Ka) 0.246 Retained soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.227 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 52.04 Results of External Stability Analyses: FOS Sliding FOS Overturning FOS Bearing Capacity Base Reinforcement Length (L) lft) Base Eccentricity (e) (ft) Base Reinforcement Ratio lL/H) Calculated Design Criteria 4.18 1.5 OK 14.93 2.0 OK 15.76 2.5 OK 6.5 2.4 OK 0.04 N/A 1.63 0.6 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Values: Total Horizontal Force llbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Bearing Capacity (psf) 435.0 3148.0 1817.5 724.9 10822.6 10831.2 687.1 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) , Eage 5 LN 95050839 Results of Internal Stabilitv Analvses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS FOS FOS Unit Type lftl lftl Length Over- Pullout Pullout Sliding Spacing IftJ stress beak1 ldefl Ipeakl lftl FOS Layer > 1.0 .. > 1.0 Yl.5 NfA il.5 < 3.0 4 1 2.0 6.5 3.92 1.89 1.63 NfA 8.28 ox ~ote: calculated values MEET ALL design Criteria Detailed Results of Internal Stability Analvses: SRW Geosyn Elev Long Term Tensile Unit Type If tl Design Load Pullout Capacity Capacity Force Capacity Ilbs/ftl flbdftl PulloUf Sliding Sliding Y Strength llbs/ftl (peak1 fdefl (lbdftl flbs/ftl (lbdftl 4 1 2.0 882.6 466.7 761.3 NIA 163.1 1350.3 Remlts of Facinq Stability Analvses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS FOS FOS Unit Elev Type Y lftl Over- Shear Shear Connection Connection turning (peak1 ldefomationl lpeakl ldeforma tion1 FOS > 1.5 > 1.5 NfA > 1.5 NfA - - 5 2.67 nene 6 3.33 none 5.15 18.22 NfA 4 2.0 1 1.61 3.83 NfA 3 1.33 none 2.68 2 0.67 none 2.71 I 0.0 nom ~~t~: * value does NOT MEET design criterion I1 occurzencesl 2.49 8.52 NfA - - 1.45* - - NIA - NfA NfA - - - 2.49 - NIA - - Detailed Results of Facinq Stabilitv Analvses (Moment and Shearl: SRW Heel Geo Drive Shear Shear Unit Elev ReSiSt Moment Sheer Moment Load Capeci cy Capaci Cy Type x If tI (lbs-ft/ftl llbs-ft/ftI llbs/ftl llbs/ftl llbs/ftl lpeakl (deformation1 NfA +out -in 6 3.33 none 5 2.61 14.4 none 74.2 45.4 63.4 157.7 883.5 NfA 826.7 103.7 NfA 4 2.0 3 1 155.6 1.33 none 250.5 299.6 115.0 670.2 804.3 -201.4 NfA 996.9 2 0.67 none 504.1 N/A I 0.0 none 1361.3 771.8 -110.2 3053.6 NfA 1939.1 0.0 1110.4 NfA Detailed Results of Facinq Stabilitv Analvses (Connections]: SRW Unit Heel Elev GeO Type connection Connection Connection Load Capacity x Capacity llbdftl ldefomationl llbdftl lftl llbs/ftl Ipeakl NfA 4 2.0 I 466.7 617.6 NfA SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 6 LN 95050839 7.1 degrees I/ I Type 1 1.0 ft - - -0.5 ft T - - 6.5 ft Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Section: Data Sheet: Owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Prepared by: Date: February 03 1999 Time : 10:18:35 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\al6hues SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 1 LN 95050839 Licensed to: RETAINING nRcLs COMPANX SAMMARCOS, CA 92069 1531 GRAND AVENUE (619) 471-2500 License Number: 95050839 Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Section: Data Sheet: Owner: Client: Prepared by: Date: Time : Data file: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY February 03 1999 10:18:35 AM c:\srwalll\al6hues Geosyrathetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Non-critical NCMA Method A Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) Embedment Wall Height (ft) Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness Number of Segmental Wall Units Hinge Height (ft) Wall Inclination (degrees) Base Inclination (degrees) 1.0 6.0 5.0 0.5 (ft) 9 6.0 horizontal 7.1 slopes: Back Slope (degrees) Front Slope (degrees) horizontal horizontal zc.JY7 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 19951 Bage 2 LN 95050839 Uniformly Distributed surcharges: Live Load Surcharge (psf) Dead Load Surcharge 240 none Cohesion Angle Unit Weight Friction Soil Data: Soil Description: fpsf) (degrees) fpcf) Reinforced Soil sand Retained Soil sand Levelling Pad Soil gravel Foundation Soil sand N/A 30.0 N/A 120.0 30.0 N/A 120.0 40.0 0.0 125.0 30.0 120.0 Segmental Unit Name: Default segmental unit properties Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) Unit Height (in) Unit Width (in) Unit Length (in) Weight (infilled) (lbs) Setback (in) Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) Center of Gravity (in) none 8.0 16.0 18.0 1.0 167.0 125.3 8.0 Secpnental Unit Interface shear Data: Properties Peak Strength Criteria Deformation Criteria Minimum (lbs/ftl 770.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 27.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 770.0 27.0 2000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 2 2 0 55/30-20 3 0 80/30-20 35/20-20 Z7jJ 7 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) , Page 3 LN 95050839 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Index Tensile Strength (lbs/ftl 2600.0 3700.0 5380.0 Polymer Type polyester polyester polyester Partial Material Safety Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Creep 1.67 1.67 Biological Degradation 1.67 1.00 1.00 Chemical Degradation 1.00 1.12 1.12 1.12 Construction Site Damage 1.05 1.05 1.05 Material Uncertainty 1 .so 1.50 1.50 Long Term Design Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 LTDS (lbs/ftI 882.6 1256.0 1826.3 Coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion Deformation Criterion 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 Coefficient of Direct sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion 0.95 0.95 0.95 Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Minimum (lbs/ft) Peak Strength Criterion: Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 500.0 28.0 2000.0 3000.0 28.0 3000,O 500.0 500.0 28.0 Minimum (lbs/ftl Deformation Strength Criterion: Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ftl 2000.0 3000.0 3000.0 500.0 28.0 28.0 500.0 500.0 28.0 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 4 LN 95050839 Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Minimum (lbs/ft) Peak Strength Criterion: Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 500.0 27.0 2000.0 2000.0 27.0 2000.0 500.0 500.0 27.0 Deformation Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ftl 500.0 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees1 Maximum (lbs/ft) 27.0 27.0 2000.0 2000.0 27.0 2000.0 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.249 0.243 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 53.28 Retained Soil (Ka) 0.246 Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component1 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 52.04 0.227 Results of External Stability Analyses: FOS Sliding FOS Overturning Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) FOS Bearing Capacity Base Eccentricity (e) (ft) Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) Calculated Design Criteria 3.6 9.9 12.11 7.0 0.07 N/A 1.17 0.6 OK 1.5 OK 2.0 OK 2.5 OK 3.6 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) 815.5 5082.0 Sliding Resistance (lbs/ftl 2934.1 Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) 1957.3 Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ftl 19374.0 Bearing Capacity (psf) 11421.2 Maximum Bearing Pressure lpsf) 942.8 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Rage 5 LN 95050839 Result3 of Internal Stability Analvses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor fOS Unit Type FOS lft) lftl Length Over- Pullout Pullout Sliding spacing FOS f0S Layer Y If t) Stress lpeak) ldef) lpeakl lft) > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 N/A > 1.5 < 3.0 7 I 4.0 3 1 7.0 3.18 NIA 8.68 1.33 1.0 2.48 4.84 1.73 1.7 4.22 NIA 4.8 ox OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of Internal Stabilitv Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Long Term Tensile Pullout Pullout Unit Type Sliding Sliding I Strength llbs/ftl llbs/ft) lpeekl Idefl llbs/ft) llbdft) lftl Design Load Capacity Capacity ~orce Capaci Cy llbdftl llbs/fCI 1 1 3 1 4.0 882.6 1.33 356.5 882.6 611.4 518.5 NIA 2190.2 NIA 163.1 1416.1 549.1 2637.6 RBSUICS of facinq Stability Analvses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS f0S Unit Elev Type over- f0S Shear Shear FOS f0S Connection Connection I 1ftI turning lpeekl ldefomationl (peak) > 1.5 > 1.5 NIA > 1.5 NIA ldefomationl 9 5.33 none 5.15 8 4.61 none 18.22 NIA 1 4.0 2.49 1 8.52 1.61 NIA 3.83 6 3.33 none NIA 1.9 NlA 2.68 - N/A - - 5 2.67 none 2.71 - NIA - - 4 2.0 none 2.49 3 1.33 1 10.08 N/A 2.23 3.84 NIA 2 0.67 none 2.36 1 0.0 none 2.33 - NIA - - NIA - ~ - - - - 1.16 NIA - - - Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of facing Stability Analvses IMament and Shear): SRW Unit Elev Heel Geo Drive ReSiSt Shear Shear Type Moment Shear Moment I Load Capaci Cy Capacity lftl llbs-ft/ftI (lbr-ft/ftl llbdft) llbs/ftl llbdft) tout -in lpeakl NIA ldeformationl 9 5.33 none 8 4.67 14.4 none 74.2 63.4 45.4 826.7 157.7 103.7 NIA 883.5 7 NIA 4.0 6 3.33 1 none 155.6 250.5 175.0 610.2 299.6 804.3 N/A 5 -97.2 2.61 none 504.1 996.9 N/A 1361.3 4 2.0 0.0 1053.6 NlA 3 nons 717.8 1.33 1939.1 1 1129.2 2521.3 233.3 110.2 1110.4 NIA 2 891.1 0.67 NIA 1 none 1567.1 3700.6 0.0 none 2100.0 4889.2 0.0 -149.1 1223.8 NIA 1280.5 N/A SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Bage 6 LN 95050839 Detailed Results of Facino Stability Analyses (Connectionsl: SRW Xed Unit Elev Geo Connection Connection Connection x me Load Capacity Capacity Ilbdftj (lbdftl tft) tlbs/ftj (peak) (deformation) N/A 7 4.0 3 1 1.33 1 356.5 518.5 677.6 N/A 914.4 N/A SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page I Lk 95050839 1.0 ft I Type 1 " T -0.5 ft 7.0 ft Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PL?SZA Section: Data Sheet: Owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Prepared by: Date : February 03 1999 Time: 10:1a:35 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\al6hues SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 1 LN 95050839 Licensed to: RETAINING WALLS COMPANY 1531 ORAND AVENUE SAMMAFCOS, CA 92069 (619) 471-2500 License Number: 95050839 Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Section: Data Sheet: owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Date: Prepared by: Time : 10:18:35 AM Data file: c:\arwalll\al6huer February 03 1999 Type of Structure: Structure Criticality: Non-critical Geosynthetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCNA Method A Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) 8.0 Embedment Wall Height (ft) Exposed Design wall Height (ft) 1.0 7.0 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of segmental wall units Hinge Height (ft) Base Inclination (degrees) Wall Inclination (degrees) 12 horizontal 8.0 7.1 slopes: Back Slope (degrees) Front Slope (degrees) horizontal horizontal e c SRWall (ver I. 1 June 1995) Page 2 LN 95050839 Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load surcharge (psf) Dead Load Surcharge 240 none Friction Soil Data: soil Description: (PSf) (degrees) (pcf) Cohesion Angle Unit Weight Reinforced Soil sand Retained Soil sand Levelling Pad Soil gravel Foundation Soil sand N/A N/A 30.0 120.0 N/A 30.0 40.0 120.0 0.0 30.0 125.0 120.0 Segmental Unit Name: Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) Unit Height (in) Unit Width (in) Unit Length (in) Weight (infilled) (lbsl Setback (in) Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) Center of Gravity (in) Default segmental unit propertias none 8.0 16.0 18.0 1.0 167.0 125.3 8.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Properties Peak Strength Criteria Deformation Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 770.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 27.0 2000.0 770.0 2000.0 27.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 2 1 3 0 35/20-20 55/30-20 3 0 80/30-20 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) , Page 3 LN 95050839 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Index Tensile Strength (lbs/ft) 2600.0 3700.0 5380.0 Polymer Type polyester polyester polyester Partial Material Safety Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Creep 1.67 1.67 Biological Degradation 1.00 Chemical Degradation 1.12 1.00 1.12 Material Uncertainty Construction Site Damage 1.05 1.50 1.05 1.50 1.67 1.00 1.12 1.05 1.50 Long Term Design Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 LTDS llbs/ft) 882.6 1256.0 1826.3 coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion 0.7 0.7 Deformation Criterion 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion 0.95 0.95 0.95 Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 500 .o 28.0 2000.0 3000.0 28.0 3000.0 500.0 500.0 28.0 Deformation Strength criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 28.0 28.0 28.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 3000.0 3000.0 x-4 7 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) , .Page 4 LN 95050839 Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Minimum (lbs/ft) Peak Strength Criterion: Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 27.0 500.0 2000.0 27.0 2000.0 27.0 2000.0 Minimum (lbs/ft) Deformation Strength Criterion: Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 27.0 2000 .o 500.0 27.0 500.0 500.0 27.0 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Kal 0.249 Reinforced soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.243 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 53.28 Retained soil (Ka) Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.246 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 52.04 0.227 Results of External Stability Analyses: FOS Overturning FOS Sliding Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) FOS Bearing Capacity Base Eccentricity (e) (ft) Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) Calculated Design Criteria 3.42 8.45 10.64 8.0 0.09 N/A 1.0 0.6 OK 1.5 OK 2.0 OK 2.5 OK 4.8 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Bearing Capacity (psf) Calculated Values: 1304.9 7736.0 4466.4 4059.6 34319.0 12723.3 1196.0 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 5 LN 95050839 ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ Result3 of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS Unit Type FOS If tI Iftl x Length Over- Pullout Pullout Sliding Spacing IftJ StreS.9 IpeakJ IdefJ (peak) IftI FOS FOS Layer > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 , N/A > 1.5 < 3.0 IO 1 6.0 8.0 6 2.94 1 3.33 8.0 2.48 1.6 N/A 9.49 4.6 1.7 ox 2 4.01 1 0.67 6.25 1.68 8.47 U/A 3.84 N/A 8.0 5.36 OK OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Long Term Tensile Pullout Unit Type fftl Load Capacity Capacity Force Capaci Cy FUllOYt Design Sliding Sliding x Strength flbdftl IpeakJ IlbdftJ Idefl Ilbs/ft) IlbdftJ IlbdftJ flbdftl 10 6 1 2 3.33 1 0.67 882.6 882.6 I 6.0 882.6 356.5 570.4 N/A 163.1 518.5 2080.6 N/A 549.7 1547.8 525.0 4447.5 2944.0 N/A 1129.7 4341.8 Results of Facing Stability Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS Unit Elev Type FOS FOS Over- Y Shear Shear fftJ > 1.5 turning fpeakl Idefomationl > 1.5 N/A 12 7.33 none 5.15 18.22 N/A 11 6.67 none 2.49 10 6.0 1 8.52 1.61 N/A 9 3.03 5.33 none 2.68 - N/A 8 4.67 none 2.71 N/A 7 N/A 4.0 "on. 6 3.33 1 2.49 10.08 N/A 2.23 5 2.67 none 3.84 2.36 N/A - N/A 4 2.0 none 2.33 - 3 1.33 none N/A 2.22 8.25 2 0.67 1 3.33 N/A N/A 2.09 1 0.0 none 2.09 - N/A Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria - FOS Connection > 1.5 (peak) - - 1.9 - - - 1.76 - - - 2.19 - FOS Connection N/A (deformation1 - Detailed Remlts of Facing Stability Analyses IMoment and SheerJ: SRW Unit Keel Geo Elev Type Drive Rezist Moment Shear x Moment Load If t) flbs-ft/ftl Ilbs-ft/ftl IlbdftJ +out -in 12 7.33 none 14.4 74.2 I1 10 6.0 1 9 6.67 none 45.4 63.4 155.6 157.7 103.7 250.5 5.33 non. 299.6 804.3 -97.2 175.0 ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ 0 4.67 none 504.1 1367.3 7 0.0 6 3.33 I 1129.2 2521.3 1939.7 110.2 5 233.3 4 3 2 1 0.0 none 4355.6 9098.9 0.0 ~~ 4.0 none 777.8 2.67 non. 1567.1 3700.6 -149.1 2.0 none 2100.0 4889.2 0.0 1.33 0.67 1 none 2736.7 6087.0 162.0 3485.6 7294.1 337.0 Shear Capaci cy llba/ftl (peak1 826.7 883.5 670.2 996.9 1053.6 897.1 1110.4 1223.8 1280.5 1337.3 1124.0 1450.7 Shear Capaci Cy flbs/ftJ fdefomationl N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 3?h7 6 LN 95050839 Detailed Results of Fecinq Stability Analyses (Connectionsl: SRW Heel Geo Connection Connection Connection Unit Y Elev Tvpe Capaci Cy Capaci cy IftJ Load ilbdftl (peak) (deformation1 (Ibdftl (lbdftl U/A 10 6.0 1 356.5 677.6 6 U/A 2 914.4 U/A 1151.2 N/A 3.33 1 0.67 1 518.5 525.0 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) 3Yh 7 Page I LN 95050839 - ft 35/20-20 " -0.5 ft 8.0 ft Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Section: Data Sheet: Owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Prepared by: Date : February 03 1999 Time : 10:18:35 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\al6hues SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 1 LN 95050839 Licensed to: STEVE CROSBY RETAINING WALLS CaMpANp 1531 GRAND AVENUE SAM MARCOS, CA 92069 (619) 471-2500 License Number: 95050839 Project Identification: Project Name: TW PARADAY BUSINESS PLAW Section: Data Sheet: Owner: Client: Prepared by: Time : Date: Data file: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY February 03 1999 10:18:35 AM c:\rrwalll\albhuer *e of Structure: Structure Criticality: Non-critical Gravity Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: Nm Method Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) Embedment Wall Height (ft) Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) Number of Segmental Wall Units Hinge Height (ft) Wall Inclination [degrees) Base Inclination (degrees) 2.67 1.0 1.67 0.5 4 2.67 horizontal 7.1 S1 opes : Front Slope (degrees) Back Slope (degrees) horizontal horizontal SRWall (ver 1.1 June 199.5) Page 2 LN 95050839 Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge (psf) Dead Load Surcharge 75 none Cohesion Angle Unit Weight Friction Soil Data: Soil Description: @sf) (degrees) (pcf) Retained Soil sand Levelling Pad Soil gravel Foundation Soil sand N/A 30.0 120.0 120.0 125.0 N/A 0.0 30.0 40.0 Segmental Unit Name: Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) Unit Height (in) Unit Width (in) Unit Length (in) Weight (infilled) (lbs) Setback (in) Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) Center of Gravity (in) Default segmental unit properties none 8.0 16.0 18.0 1.0 167.0 125.3 8.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Properties Peak Strength Criteria Deformation Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 770.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 27.0 2000.0 770.0 27.0 2000.0 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Retained Soil (Ka) 0.249 Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.243 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 53.28 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 3 LN 95050839 Results of External Stability Analyses: FOS Sliding FOS Overturning Base Footing Width (B') (ft) FOS Bearing Capacity Base Eccentricity (e) (ft) Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Calculated Design Criteria 1.71 2.24 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 10.91 2.0 OK 1.83 N/A 0.4 N/A Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ftl Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Bearing Capacity (psf) 152.6 261.6 445.3 157.5 352.6 4700.9 431.0 Results of facing Stability Analyzes: SRW Heel Gemynthetic FOS Unit Elev Type x fftJ ms Oyer- Shear Shear > 1.5 turning (peak1 fdefomationj > 2.5 UIA FOS 4 2.0 nene 3 1.33 none 5.69 13.52 44.37 U/A 17.59 N/A 2 0.67 none 3.32 1 0.0 none 2.25 9.92 6.54 N/A NIA Note: calculated values MEET ALL design Criteria Detailed Results of Facinq Stability Annalyses (Moment and Shear): SRW Heel Geo Unit Elev Drive Resist Shear x Moment Moment lft) Load flbs-ft/ftl flbs-ft/ftl (Ibdftl +out -in TVpe 4 3 2 1 2.0 nonr 5.5 14.2 18.6 1.33 nonr 27.7 157.7 50.2 0.67 non. 75.3 0.0 nonr 157.0 250.5 352.6 94.0 152.3 Shear Shear Capacity Capaci cy llbs/ftl llbs/ftl lpeakl (deformation) NIA 883.5 826.1 NIA NIA 940.2 996.9 UIA N/A SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 4 LN 95050839 1.0 ft Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Section: Data Sheet: Owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Prepared by: Date: February 03 1999 Time : 10:18:35 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\al6hues SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 1 LN 95050839 Licensed to: RETAINING WALLS CaMpANp 1531 GFAND AVENUE SAM MARCOS, CA 92069 (619) 471-2500 License Number: 95050839 Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Data Sheet: Section: owner: Client: LU-I CONSTRUCTION CObPANY Date: Prepared by: Time : 10:18:35 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\al6huos February 03 1999 Type of Structure: Geosynthetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Structure Criticality: Non-critical Design Methodology: NCMI Method A wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) Embedment Wall Height (ftl Exposed Design Wall Height (ftl Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) Number of Segmental Wall Units Hinge Height (ft) Base Inclination (degrees) Wall Inclination (degrees) 4.67 1.0 3.67 0.5 7 horizontal 4.67 7.1 Slopes: Front Slope (degrees) Back Slope (degrees) horizontal horizontal SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 2 LN 95050839 Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge (psf) Dead Load Surcharge 75 none Cohesion Anqle Unit Weight Friction Soil Data: Soil Description: (PSf I (degrees) (pcf) Reinforced Soil sand Retained Soil Levelling Pad Soil gravel sand Foundation Soil Sand N/A N/A 30.0 30.0 120.0 N/A 40.0 120.0 0.0 125.0 30.0 120.0 Segmental Unit Name: Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) Unit Height (in) Unit Width (in) Unit Length (in1 Weight (infilled) (lbs) Setback (in) Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) Center of Gravity (in) Default segmental unit properties none 8.0 16.0 18.0 1.0 125.3 167.0 8.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Properties Peak Strength Criteria Deformation criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 27.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 770.0 770.0 27.0 2000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 1 2 3 0 0 35/20-20 55/30-20 80/30-20 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 3 LN 95050839 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Tjlpe 1 Type 2 Type 3 ~~ ~ Index Tensile Strength (lbs/ft) 2600.0 3700.0 5380.0 Polymer Type polyester polyester polyester Partial Material Safety Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Creep 1.67 1.67 1.67 Biological Degradation 1.00 1.00 1.00 Chemical Degradation 1.12 1.12 1.12 Construction Site Damage 1.05 1.05 1.05 Material Uncertainty 1.50 1.50 1.50 Long Term Design Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 LTDS (lbs/ft) 882.6 1256.0 1826.3 coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion 0.7 0.7 0.7 Deformation Criterion 0.6 0.6 0.6 Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion 0.95 0.95 0.95 Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) Maximum (lbs/ftl Friction Angle (degrees) 500.0 500.0 500.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 2000.0 3000.0 3000.0 Deformation Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 28.0 28.0 28.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 3000.0 3000.0 SRWall lver 1.1 June 1995) Page 4 LN 95050839 Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Minimum (lbs/ft) Peak Strength Criterion: Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 500.0 500.0 500.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 Minimum (lbs/ft) Deformation Strength Criterion: Friction Angle (degrees) 27.0 27.0 21.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.249 Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.243 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 53.28 Retained Soil (Ka) 0.246 Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 52.04 0.227 Results of External Stability Analyses: FOS Sliding FOS Overturning FOS Bearing Capacity Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) Base Eccentricity (e) (ft) Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Calculated Design Criteria 4.36 11.99 14.29 5.0 0.0 N/A 1.07 0.6 OK 1.5 OK 2.0 OK 2.5 OK 2.8 OK Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Bearing Capacity (psf) 375.3 2832.7 1635.4 1739.3 645.5 8917.3 623.9 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 5 LN 95050839 Results of Internal Stability AndlYses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS Fos FOS unit Type fftl Fos lftl Layer x lftl stress lpeakl fdef) lpeakl fftl Length Over- Pullout Pullout Sliding Spacing > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 NIA > 1.5 < 3.0 4 1 2.0 5.0 2.42 2.19 1.56 NIA 9.65 ox Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of Internal Stabilitv Analvses: SRW Geosyn Elev Long Tenn Tensile Unit Type fftl Design Load Pullout Capacity Capacity Force Capacity (lbdftl fIbs/ftl Pullout Sliding sliding x Strength llbdftl fpedkl fdefl flbdftl flbdftl flbr/ftJ 4 1 2.0 082.6 402.1 627.1 N/A 142.0 1370.5 Results of Facing Stability Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS Unit Elev Type FOS FOS FOS FOS Over- X Shear Shear Connection Connection lftl turning fpeakl fdeformationl fpeakl > 1.5 > 1.5 N/A > 1.5 N/A fdeformationl 7 4.0 6 3.33 nono nonr 5 2.61 none 4 2.0 3 1 1.33 nonr 2 0.61 nonr 1 0.0 nonr Note: calculated values 13.52 14.37 N/A 3.32 5.69 17.59 NIA 2.25 9.92 4.17 N/A 3.4 N/A 3.43 N/A 3.16 - N/A N/A - - MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses lMoment and Shear): SRW Unit Heel GeO Elev Type Drive Resist Moment Shear Moment Load x fftl flbs-ft/ftJ flbs-ft/ftl flbs/ftl +out -in 7 4.0 non. 5.5 74.2 18.6 157.1 50.2 250.5 94.8 6 3.33 nono 5 2~67 no". 7s.3 27.1 - _. . . 4 3 2 1 ~~~ 2.0 1 151.0 352.6 1.33 no- 955.1 -119.9 152.3 281.3 0.67 nonr 456.9 0.0 non. 2188.0 0.0 1566.9 692.5 -96.4 Shear Capacity llbdftl (peak) 826.7 883.5 940.2 726.9 1053.6 1110.4 1167.1 Shear Capaci Cy llbs/ftl (deformation) N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Detailed Results of Facinw Stabilitv Analyses IConnections): SRW Unit Heel Geo Elev Type Load Capacity Connection Connection Connection Capacity flbs/ftl fdefonnationl NIA (lbs/ftl x fftl flbs/ftl lpeakl 4 2.0 1 402.7 736.8 N/A SRWall (ver 1.1 June 19951 Page 6 LN 95050839 7.1 degrees I c c i i c - ft I 35/20-20 I 1.0 ft - I I - -0.5 ft 5.0 ft Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Section: Data Sheet: Owner: Client: LUSAFDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Prepared by: Date: February 03 1999 Time : 10:18:35 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\al6hues 4y/k 7 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 1 LN 95050839 Licensed to: RETAINING WALLS CGWPANY SAM MARCOS, CA 92069 1531 AVENUE (619) 411-2500 License Number: 95050839 Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Section: Data Sheet: owner : Client: Prepared by: Date: Time : Data file: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANP FebNary 03 1999 10:18:35 AM c:\srwalll\al6hues Type of Structure: structure criticality: Non-critical Geosynthetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: N- Method A Wall Geometry: Embedment Wall Height (ft) Design Wall Height (ft) Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 6.33 1.0 1.33 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units 11 Hinge Height (ft) 7.33 Base Inclination (degrees) horizontal Wall Inclination (degrees) 7.1 Slopes: Front Slope (degrees) horizontal Back Slope (degrees) horizontal SRWall (ver 1.1 June 19951 Page 2 LN 95050839 Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge (psf) Dead Load Surcharge 75 none Cohesion &gle Unit Weight Friction Soil Data: soil Description: (PSf) (degrees) (pcf) Reinforced Soil sand Retained Soil Levelling Pad Soil gravel sand Foundation Soil sand N/A 30.0 N/A 30.0 120.0 120.0 N/A 40.0 125.0 0.0 30.0 120.0 Segmental Unit Name: Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) Unit Height (in) Unit Width (in) Unit Length (in) Setback (in) Weight (infilled) (lbs) Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) Center of Gravity (in) Default segmental unit properties none 8.0 16.0 18.0 1.0 125.3 167.0 8.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Properties Peak Strength criteria Deformation Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 770.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 27.0 2000.0 770.0 27.0 2000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 2 1 2 0 3 35/20-20 55/30-20 0 80/30-20 SRWall lver 1.1 June 1995) Page 3 LN 95050839 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Index Tensile Strength (lbs/ft) 2600.0 3700.0 5380 .O polymer Type polyester polyester polyestmr Partial Material Safety Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Biological Degradation creep 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 Chemical Degradation 1.12 1.12 Construction Site Damage 1.05 1.05 1.12 Material Uncertainty 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.05 Long Term Design Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 LTDS (lbs/ft) 882.6 1256.0 1826.3 coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion Deformation Criterion 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion 0.95 0.95 0.95 Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Minimum (lbs/ft) Peak Strength Criterion: Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 500.0 28.0 2000 .o 3000 .O 28.0 3000.0 500.0 500.0 28.0 Deformation Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 3000.0 28.0 3000.0 500.0 28.0 500.0 500.0 28.0 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 19951 Page 4 LN 95050839 Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Minimum (lbs/ft) Peak Strength Criterion: Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 500.0 27.0 2000.0 2000.0 27.0 2000.0 500.0 500.0 27.0 Deformation Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 27.0 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 500.0 27.0 27.0 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.249 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 53.28 0.243 Retained Soil (Ka) Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.227 0.246 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 52.04 Results of External Stability Analyses: FOS Sliding FOS Overturning Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) FOS Bearing Capacity Base Eccentricity (e) (ft) Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) Calculated Design Criteria 3.89 9.38 1.5 OK 11.49 2.0 OK 2.5 ox 6.5 4.4 OK 0.01 N/A 0.89 0.6 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Bearing Capacity (psf) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Calculated Values: 855.6 5771.3 3332.1 2243.7 21043.6 10924.9 950.7 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 5 LN 95050839 Results of Internal Stability Analvses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor fOS f0S f0S f0S Unit Type Iftl fft, Layer x Length Over- Pullout Pullout Sliding Spacing fftl stress fpakl fdef) > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 N/A > 1.5 < 3.0 (peak1 fftl 8 1 4.67 6.5 2.27 2.88 1.92 4 1 2.0 6.5 3.92 1.44 3.32 N/A 5.8 OK N/A 11.51 OR Note: calculated values MEET ALL desiqn criteria Detailed Result3 of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Long Term Tensile hlll0"t Pullout Unit Type Sliding Sliding x fftl Design Load Capacity Capacity force Capaci Cy Strength flbdftj flbdftl fpeakl Idefl flbdftl Ilbdftj flbs/ftl Ilbdft) 8 1 4 1 4.67 882.6 2.0 306.3 882.6 586.8 611.7 N/A 2030.2 142.0 N/A 477.2 2767.5 1633.7 Results of facing Stability Analvses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic fOS Unit Elev Type x ff t) Over- > 1.5 turning 11 6.67 nono 10 6.0 none 9 8 5.33 none 4.67 1 7 6 4.0 non. 5 3.33 none 4 2.67 non. 3 2.0 1.33 nonr 1 2 0.67 non. 1 0.0 nonr 13.52 5.69 3.32 2.25 3.4 3.16 3.43 2.83 2.94 2.86 2.71 FOS Shear > 1.5 fpeakl 44.37 17.59 9.92 4.77 - - 12.11 4.63 FOS Shear N/A fdefomation) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria f0S Connection > 1.5 fpeakl - - - 2.41 - - - 1.59 - - - FOS Connection N/A fdeforma tionl - - - N/A - Detailed Remlts of facinq Stability Analvses (Moment and Shearl: SRW Unit Heel Geo Elev Dri M Resist Shear x Moment fftl Load flbs-ft/ftl flbs-ft/ftl flbdftj tout -in TVpe Moment 11 6.67 non. 5.5 10 6.0 none 74.2 18.6 27.7 157.7 50 .2 8 9 5.33 nonr 75.3 4.67 1 250.5 157.0 352.6 94.8 152.3 7 4.0 none 281.3 955.1 -83.5 6 3.33 non. 5 2.67 456.9 1566.9 non. 692.5 2188.0 96.4 0.0 4 3 2.0 1 1.33 non. 996.7 2818.3 1378.1 205.8 4046.4 -283.6 2 0.67 non. 1845.4 5283.7 1 0.0 none 2407.3 6530.3 0.0 -148.3 Shear Capacity flbs/ftl (peak, 826.7 883.5 940.2 726.9 1053.6 1110.4 1167.1 1280.5 953.8 1337.3 1394.0 Shear Capaci cy Ilbdftj fdefomationl N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 6 LN 95050839 Detailed Results of Facing Stability llndlyses (Connectianrl: SRW Heel GeO Connection connection Connection Unit Y Elev Type Load lft) llbdftl Capaci Cy Capaci Cy (peak) (defomationl (lbdft) N/A llbs/ftI 8 4 4.67 2.0 1 1 306.3 611.7 736.8 973.6 N/A N/A 5/67 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 7 LN 95050839 7.1 degrees - ft 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 35/20-21 I 35/20-20 1.0 ft 1 " 6.5 ft Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Section: Data Sheet: Owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Prepared by: Date: February 03 1999 Time : 10:18:35 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\al6hues SRWall (vel 1.1 June 1995) Page 1 LN 95050839 Licensed to: AETAINING WALLS COMPANY 1531 GRAND AVENUE SAM MARCOS, CA 92069 (619) 471-2500 License Number: 95050839 Project Identification: Section: Project Name: TtIE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Data Sheet: Owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Date: Prepared by: Time : 09:41:31 AM February 03 1999 Data file: c:\srwalll\al6grav Type of Structure: Structure Criticality: Non-critical Gravity Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCMA Method Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ftl 2.0 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 0.5 Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 1.5 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of segmental Wall Units Hinge Height (ft) Base Inclination (degrees) Wall Inclination (degrees) 3 horizontal 2.0 7.1 S1 opes : Front Slope (degrees1 Back Slope (degrees) horizontal 26.6 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 2 LN 95050839 Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge Dead Load Surcharge none none Cohesion dngle Unit Weight Friction Soil Data: soil Description: (PSf) (degrees) (pcf) Retained Soil sand Levelling Pad Soil gravel Foundation Soil sand N/A N/A 30.0 120.0 40.0 0.0 30.0 125.0 120.0 Segmental Unit Name: Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) Unit Height (in) Unit Width (in) Unit Length (in) Weight (infilled) (lbs) Setback (in) Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) Center of Gravity (in) Default segmental unit properties none 16.0 8.0 18.0 1.0 167.0 125.3 8.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Properties Peak Strength Criteria Deformation Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 45.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 500.0 500.0 45.0 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Retained Soil (Ka) 0.433 Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 41.40 0.422 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 3 LN 95050839 Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Design Criteria FOS Sliding 1.94 1.5 OK FOS Overturning 3.71 1.5 OK FOS Bearing Capacity 15.27 2.0 OK Base Footing Width IB'I (ftl 1.83 N/A Base Eccentricity (el (ft) 0.27 N/A Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability dnalyses: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ftl Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ftl Sliding Resistance llbs/ftl Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ftl Bearing Capacity (psfl Maximum Bearing Pressure (psfl Calculated Values: 101.3 334.0 196.2 250.5 67.5 258.4 3945.3 Rem1 t3 of Facinq Stabili tv Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS FOS Unit Elev Type u lftl 0-r- Shear Shear > 1.5 turning lpeakl ldefomationl > 2.5 NfA 3 1.33 none 29.68 2 54.33 N/A 0.67 none 7.88 1 0.0 none 16.05 N/A 3.71 8.23 N/A Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of Fscinq Stability Andlvses lmment and Shear): SRW Heel Unit Elev GeO Drive Resist Sheer Shear Shear Momn t x Load fftJ Capacity Capaci Cy (lbs-ft/ft) llbs-ft/ftJ ilbs/ftJ llbdftl flbdftl (peak1 ldefonnationl Type Moment +out -in N/A 3 1.33 none 2.5 74.2 11.3 611.3 2 0.67 none N/A 1 20.0 0.0 none 67.5 250.5 101.3 834.0 45.0 722.7 U/A UIA 157.7 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 4 LN 95050839 ll -0.5 ft Project Identification: Project Name: THE FAFADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Section: Data Sheet: Owner: Client: LUSAROI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Prepared by: Date: February 03 1999 Time : 09:41:31 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\al6grav SRWall fver 1.1 June 1995) Page 1 LN 95050839 Licensed to: STEVE CROSBY RETAINING WALLS COMPANY 1531 GRAND AVENUE SAM MARCOS. CA 92069 (619) 471-2500 License Number: 95050839 Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Section: Data Sheet: Owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Date: Prepared by: Time : 10:18:35 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\alShues February 03 1999 Type of Structure: Geosynthetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ Design Methodology: Structure Criticality: Non-critical NCMA Method A Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) Embedment Wall Height (ft) Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) Number of Segmental Wall Units Hinge Height (ft) Base Inclination (degrees) Wall Inclination (degrees) 4.0 1.0 3.0 0.5 6 horizontal 4.0 7.1 Slopes: Back Slope (degrees) Front slope (degrees) horizontal 26.6 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 2 LN 95050839 Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge Dead Load Surcharge none none Cohesion ?ingle Unit Weight Friction Soil Data: soil Description: (psfl (degrees) (pcf) Reinforced Soil sand Retained Soil sand Levelling Pad Soil gravel Foundation Soil sand N/A N/A 30.0 120.0 N/A 30.0 120.0 40.0 125.0 0.0 30.0 120.0 Segmental Unit Name: Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in1 Unit Height (in) Unit Width (in) Unit Length (in1 Weight (infilled) (lbs) Setback (in1 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) Center of Gravity (in1 Default segmental unit properties none 8.0 16.0 18.0 1.0 167.0 125.3 8.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Properties Peak Strength Criteria Deformation Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 770.0 Maximum (lbs/ftl Friction Angle (degrees1 27.0 2000.0 770.0 27.0 2000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 1 2 3 0 0 35/20-20 55/30-20 80/30-20 6z/Y I SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 3 LN 9sosoa39 ~~~ ~ ~ Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 ~~ Index Tensile Strength (lbs/ft) 2600.0 3700.0 5380.0 Polymer Type polyester polyester polyester Partial Material Safety Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 creep Biological Degradation Chemical Degradation Material Uncertainty Construction Site Damage 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.12 1.05 1.50 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.12 1.05 1.50 1.05 1.50 Long Term Design Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 LTDS (lbs/ft) 882.6 1256.0 1826.3 Coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion Deformation Criterion 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion 0.95 0.95 0.95 Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Minimum (lbs/ftl Peak Strength Criterion: Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 500.0 28.0 500.0 500.0 28.0 2000.0 3000.0 28.0 3000.0 Deformation Strength Criter' Minimum (lbs/ft) ;on : Friction Angle (degrees) 28.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 500.0 28.0 2000.0 3000.0 28.0 3000.0 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 4 LN 95050839 Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 500.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 Minimum (lbs/ft) Deformation Strength Criterion: Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 500.0 27.0 27.0 2000.0 2000.0 27.0 2000.0 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.433 Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 41.48 0.422 Retained Soil (Ka) 0.442 Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 40.66 0.407 Results of External Stability Analyses: FOS Sliding Calculated Design Criteria 1.94 1.5 OK FOS Bearing Capacity FOS Overturning 5.22 2.0 OK Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 5.5 2.5 OK Base Eccentricity (e) (ft) 0.13 2.4 OK N/A Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) 1.38 0.6 OX Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria 14.97 Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Bearing Capacity (psf) Calculated Values: 961.1 3235.6 1868.1 2000.8 10481.9 9248.0 617.8 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 5 LN 95050839 Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS FOS f0S Unit Type (ftJ ff el Length Over- Pullout Pullout Sliding spacing > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 Nf A > 1.5 < 3.0 f0S Layer x lftJ stress (peak1 ldefl lpeakl lftl 4 1 2.0 5.5 2.15 2.18 1.79 NfA 3.43 ox Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of Internal Stabilitv Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Long Term Tensile Unit Type lftl Derign Load P"ll0"t Capacity Capacity force Capaci Cy (lbs/ftJ llbdftl P"ll0"t Sliding Sliding X Strength IlbdftJ lpeakl (defl llbs/ftJ llbs/ftJ flbs/ftJ 4 1 2.0 882.6 405.1 723.8 NfA 445.8 1530 .O Results of facinq Stability Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic fOS f0S f0S FOS Unit Elev Type x fftJ Over- Shear Shear Connection Connection turning (peak) fdefomationl fpakl (deforma tionJ FOS > 1.5 > 1.5 NfA > 1.5 NfA 6 3.33 none 5 2.67 none 4 2.0 1 3 3.71 1.33 none 5.03 2 0.67 nom- 4.37 - - N/A 29.68 73.47 NfA - - 7.88 19.63 NfA - - 6.62 NfA 1.61 NfA - NfA - - 1 0.0 none 3.59 - NfA - - - Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of facing Stability Analvses lMoment and Shear]: SRW Heel Geo Drive Unit Elev Resist Shear Shear "men t Shear Moment Load Capacity Capacity Type x (ftJ (lbs-ft/ftl (lbs-ft/ftl flbs/ftJ llbs/ftJ llbs/ftJ (peak) (defomationJ NfA rout -in 5 6 3.33 none 2.67 no" 2.5 74.2 11.3 826.7 20.0 157.7 45.0 NfA 4 2.0 883.5 NfA 3 1 67.5 250.5 1.33 now -225.1 996.9 101.3 160.0 670.2 004.3 NfA 2 0.67 NfA none 1 0.0 312.6 none 1367.3 540.2 -123.8 1053.6 N/A 1939.7 0.0 1110.4 NfA Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (ConnectionsJ: SRW Unit Heel Geo Connection Connection Connection Elev Type x Load ff tI Capaci cy (lbs/ftl (peak) Capaci Cy ldefomationl (lbdftl N/A llbs/ftJ 4 2.0 1 405.1 61'1.6 NfA SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 6 LN 95050839 Project Identification: Project Name: THE FAFADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Section: Data Sheet: Owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Prepared by: Date: February 03 1999 Time : 10:18:35 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\al6hues SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 1 LN 95050839 Licensed to: STEVE CROSBY RETAINING WALLS COMPANY 1531 GRAND AVENUE SAM MARCOS, CA 92069 (619) 471-2500 License Number: 95050839 Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Data Sheet: Section: owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Date: Prepared by: Time : 10:18:35 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\al6hues February 03 1999 Type of Structure: Structure Criticality: Non-critical Geosynthetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCMX Method A Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) Embedment Wall Height (ft) Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) Number of Segmental Wall Units Hinge Height (ft) Base Inclination (degrees) Wall Inclination (degrees) 5.33 4.33 1.0 0.5 8 5.33 horizontal 7.1 S1 opes : Back Slope (degrees) Front Slope (degrees) horizontal 26.6 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 2 LN 95050839 Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge Dead Load Surcharge none none Friction soil Data: Soil Description: IPSf) (degrees) (pcf) Cohesion Angle Unit Weight Reinforced Soil sand Retained Soil sand Levelling Pad Soil gravel Foundation Soil sand N/A N/A 30.0 120.0 30.0 120.0 N/A 0.0 40.0 30.0 125.0 120.0 Segmental Unit Name: segmental unit Data: Cap Height (in) Unit Height (in) Unit Width (in) Unit Length (in) Weight (infilled) (lbs) Setback (in) Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) Center of Gravity (in) Default segmental unit properties none 16.0 8.0 18.0 1.0 125.3 167.0 8.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Properties Peak Strength Criteria Deformation Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 770.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 27.0 2000.0 770.0 27.0 2000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 2 2 3 0 0 35/20-20 55/30-20 80/30-20 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 3 LN 95050839 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Index Tensile Strength llbs/ft) 2600.0 3700.0 5380 .O Polymer Type polyester polyester polyester Partial Material Safety Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Creep 1.67 1.67 1.67 Biological Degradation Chemical Degradation 1.00 1.00 1.00 Construction Site Damage 1.12 1.12 1.05 1.12 1.05 1.05 Material Uncertainty 1.50 1.50 1.50 Long Tern Design Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 LTDS (lbs/ft) 882.6 1256.0 1826.3 Coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion Deformation Criterion 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion 0.95 0.95 0.95 Connection Strength: Minimum (lbs/ft) Peak Strength Criterion: Maximum llbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) Deformation Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 500.0 28.0 500.0 500.0 28.0 2000.0 3000.0 28.0 3000.0 500.0 28.0 2000.0 3000.0 28.0 3000.0 500.0 500.0 28.0 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 4 LN 95050839 Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Minimum (lbs/ft) Peak Strength Criterion: Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 27.0 500.0 500.0 27.0 500.0 2000.0 27.0 2000.0 2000.0 Deformation Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 500.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 27.0 2000.0 27.0 27.0 2000.0 2000.0 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.433 Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.422 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 41.48 Retained Soil (Ka) 0.442 Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.407 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 40.66 Results of External Stability Analyses: FOS Sliding FOS Overturning Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) FOS Bearing Capacity Base Eccentricity (e) (ft) Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) Calculated Design Criteria 1.75 4.12 1.5 OK 2.0 OK 11.13 2.5 OK 6.0 3.2 OK 0.3 N/A 1.13 0.6 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Bearing Capacity (psf) Calculated Values: 1514.3 2648.8 4587.8 16353.5 3972.9 850.0 9462.6 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 5 LN 95050839 Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS Unit Type lftl lftl FOS FOS f0S Layer Length Over- Pullout Pullout Sliding Spacing x > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 1ftJ Stress (peak) ldefl (peak1 lftJ N/A > 1.5 < 3.0 6 1 3.33 6.0 1.31 3.87 3 1 1.33 6.0 3.33 2.19 1.79 N/A 3.47 3.33 0% N/A 2.35 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Long Term Tensile Pullout Pullout Unit Type Sliding Sliding 1ftJ Design Capaci Cy Capaci Cy Force Capacity x Load Strength Ilbs/ftl lpeakl llbdftl ldefl llbdftl (lbsiftl llbs/ftJ (lbs/ftJ 6 1 3.33 3 1 882.6 227.9 499.8 N/A 492.3 1708.0 503.3 1674.2 N/A 1044.7 2458.7 1.33 882.6 Results of Facinq Stabili ty Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS Unit Elev Type FOS FOS OMP Shear Shear > 1.5 > 1.5 N/A 8 7 4.67 none 29.68 4.0 none 7.88 73.47 N/A 6 3.33 1 3.71 6.62 NlA 19.63 N/A 5 2.67 none 5.03 - 4 2.0 none N/A 3 4.37 1.33 1 19.71 N/A 2 0.67 nono 3.6 3.59 4.74 N/A 1 0.0 non. 3.32 - N/A N/A x If tl turning 1ppeakJ (deformationl - Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria FOS Connection > 1.5 Ipeakl FOS Connection N/A fdefonna tionl - Detailed Results of Facinq Stability Analyses [Moment and Shear]: SRW Heel Unit GeO Elev Dri M Resist Moment Shear x Moment 1ftJ Ilbs-ft/ftJ llbs-ft/ftI llbs/ftl Load +out -in Type 8 7 4.67 nono 2.5 74.2 4.0 none 11.3 20.0 157.7 6 45.0 3.33 5 1 67.5 2.67 none 250.5 160.0 101.3 804.3 4 2.0 1367.3 53.5 -47.8 3 none 1.33 312.6 1 540.2 1939.7 2 177.2 I 0.67 0.0 none 857.7 none 3091.4 1280.4 4252.4 0.0 -168. 8 Shear Capacity Ilbs/ftJ IpeakJ 826.7 883.5 670.2 996.9 1053.6 840.4 1167.1 1223.8 Shear Capacity 11bdftJ IdeformationJ N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A NIA MIA NIA N/A SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 6 LN 9sosoa39 Detailed Results of Facinq Stabilitv Analvres (Connections): SRW Heel Unit Geo Elev Connection Connection Connection II Capaci Cy fftl Ilbdft) (peak) Capacity (deformation1 IIbs/ftl (lbdft) N/A TYP Load 6 3 3.33 1 1.33 227.9 1 492.3 677.6 855.2 nfA N/A SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) 7fJ 7 Page I LN 95050839 E 35/20- 20 1.0 ft 1 35/20-20 l-1 T -0.5 ft 1- -1 6.0 ft Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Section: Data Sheet: Owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Prepared by: Date : February 03 1999 Time : 10:18:35 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\al6hues 73/6 7 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 1 LN 95050839 Licensed to: STEVE CROSEY RETAINING WALLS COMPANY 1531 GRAND AVENUE SAM MARCOS, CA 92069 (619) 471-2500 License Number: 95050839 Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Data Sheet: Section: Owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COWANY Date: Prepared by: Time : 10:18:35 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\alBhues February 03 1999 Type of Structure: Structure Criticality: Non-critical Geosynthetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCMA Method A Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) Embedment Wall Height (ft) Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) Number of Segmental Wall Units Hinge Height (ft) Base Inclination (degrees) Wall Inclination (degrees) 7.33 1.0 6.33 0.5 11 7.33 horizontal 7.1 Slopes: Front Slope (degrees1 Back Slope (degrees) horizontal 26.6 7y k7 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 2 LN 95050839 Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Dead Load Surcharge Live Load Surcharge nona nona Cohesion Angle Unit Weight Friction soil Data: Soil Description: fpsfl (degrees) (pcf) Retained Soil Reinforced Soil sand sand Levelling Pad Soil gravel Foundation Soil sand N/A 30.0 120.0 N/A NJA 30.0 120.0 40.0 125.0 0.0 30.0 120.0 Segmental Unit Name: segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) Unit Height (in) Unit Width (in) Unit Length (in) Weight (infilled) (lbs) Setback (in) Unit Weight (infilled) Center of Gravity (in) Default seg none 8.0 16.0 18.0 1.0 167.0 (PCf) 125.3 8.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Properties Peak Strength Ci Minimum (lbs/ft) 770.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 27.0 2000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Numbc Type Number Name 1 3 2 3 0 0 35/20-20 55/30-20 80/30-20 sntal unit properties iteria Deformation Criteria 27.0 770.0 2000.0 7p 7 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 3 LN 95050839 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Index Tensile Strength (lbs/ftl 2600.0 3700.0 5380.0 Polymer Type polyester polyester polyester Partial Material Safety Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 creep 1.67 1.67 1.67 Biological Degradation 1.00 1.00 1.00 Chemical Degradation Construction Site Damage 1.12 1.12 Material Uncertainty 1.50 1.50 1.05 1.05 1.50 1.12 1.05 Long Term Design Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 LTDS (lbs/ft) 882.6 1256.0 1826.3 Coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion 0.7 0.7 Deformation Criterion 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion 0.95 0.95 0.95 Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Minimum (lbs/ftl Peak Strength Criterion: Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 500.0 500.0 28.0 2000.0 3000 .O 3000.0 500.0 28.0 28.0 Deformation Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 3000.0 3000.0 500.0 500.0 28.0 500.0 28.0 28.0 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 4 LN 95050839 Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Minimum (lbs/ft) Peak Strength Criterion: Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 27.0 500.0 500.0 27.0 500.0 2000.0 27.0 2000.0 2000 .o Deformation Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) 500.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 500.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000 .o 2000.0 27.0 2000.0 500.0 27.0 27.0 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.433 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 41.48 0.422 Retained Soil (Ka) Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.442 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 40.66 0.407 Results of External Stability Analyses: FOS Sliding FOS Overturning Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) FOS Bearing Capacity Base Eccentricity (e) (ft) Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/A) Calculated Design Criteria 1.68 1.5 OK 3.84 2.0 OK 8.0 9.77 2.5 OK 0.45 N/A 4.4 OK 1.09 0.6 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Bearing Capacity (psf) 2925.1 8533.7 4926.9 40955.9 10666.2 11750.0 1202.1 7p 7 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 5 LN 95050839 Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn €lev Length Anchor FOS Unit Type (ftJ FOS f0S FOS lftl Length Over- Pullout Pullout Sliding Spacing Ldyer x lftl StreSs (peak1 (defl (peak) lftl > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 N/A > 1.5 < 3.0 9 1 5.33 8.0 1.3 3.14 5 I 2.67 8.0 3.98 2.21 N/A 3.04 ox 1.66 2 1 0.67 8.0 6.0 1.61 8.62 4.91 NlA 2.23 ox NlA 1.85 ox Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Result3 of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Long Term Tensile PUllOUt Unit Type (ftl Design pullout Load Sliding Sliding Capaci Cy Capacity force x strength flbs/ftl (peak) Capacity ldefl flbdft) (lb+/ft) llbdftl Ilbdftl llbs/ftl 9 I 5.33 882.6 281.3 621.9 NlA 768.2 2338.9 5 1 2 1 548.6 1672.8 4121.3 N1A 2519.5 4183.6 3735.9 2.67 0.67 882.6 531.1 2611.0 N/A 882.6 ReSUltS of Facinq Stability Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS Unit €lev Type f0S f0S FOS FOS Y (ftJ turning (peak) ldeformationl (peak] (deformation1 Over- Shear Shear Connection Connection > 1.5 > 1.5 N/A > 1.5 N/A 11 6.67 none 29.68 13.41 NlA - - 10 6.0 nonr 7.88 19.63 N/A - - 9 5.33 1 3.11 N/A 2.41 8 6.62 4.67 none 5.03 1 4.0 none 4.37 - - N/A N/A 6 3.33 none 5 3.59 2.67 1 8.91 NlA 2.94 3.32 NlA 4 2.0 none 3 2.89 1.33 none 2.68 13.0 - - NlA N/A 2 0.61 1 2.43 3.42 1 N/A 0.0 none 2.37 Note: calculated values MEET ALL design Criteria N/A - - - - - - 1.72 N/A - - - 1.99 N/A >99 N/A - - Detailed Results of Facinq Stability Analyses (Moment and Shearl: SRW Unit Heel teo Drive ReSiSt €lev Type Moment Shear Sbear Moment Shear Load Capacity Capacity x lftl flbs-ft/ftl llbs-ft/ftI flbdftl (lbs/ftl (lbdft) lpeakl ldeformationl N/A +out -in 11 6.67 none 2.5 14.2 11.3 826.7 N/A 10 6.0 none 20.0 9 5.33 1 61.5 151.7 45.0 883.5 U/A 250.5 101.3 610.2 N I& ~~~~ 8 ~~ 4.61 none 160.0 804.3 -101.3 996.9 N/A 1 4.0 none 312.6 6 1361.3 3.33 0.0 nonr 1053.6 N/A 540.2 5 2.67 1 1939.7 123.8 857.1 1110.4 N/A 1 2.0 1280.4 3100.6 2521.3 nom 210.1 897.1 N/A 3 1.33 -92.8 1223.8 N/A 2 0.61 1823.0 1889.2 98.5 1280.5 N/A 1 2500 .l 1 0.0 non. 3328.4 0.0 1394.0 N/A 6081.0 312.3 7882.5 1061.3 N/A ~~~~~ ", .. none 797 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 6 LN 95050839 Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Connections): SRW unit Heel Elev GeO Connection Connection Connection rype Load Y Capacity fftl llbs/ftJ Capaci cy lpeakl fIbs/ftJ (defomationl N/A (lbs/ftJ 9 5.33 1 281.3 617.6 N/A 5 2.61 2 1 531.1 914.4 0.61 1 548.6 1092.0 N/A N/A SRWall (ver 1.1 June 19951 79/ Page 7 LN 95050839 7.1 degrees 7.33 TT ft - - - 35/20-20 35/20-20 35/20-20 I -0.5 ft i"-------------I 8.0 ft Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Section: Data Sheet: Owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Prepared by: Date: February 03 1999 Time : 10:18:35 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\al6hues SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 1 LN 95050839 Licensed to: STEVE CROSBY RETAINING WALLS COMPANY 1531 GRAND AVENUE SAM MRRCOS, CA 92069 (619) 471-2500 License Number: 95050839 Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Data Sheet: Section: owner: Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANX Date: Prepared by: Time : 10:18:35 AM February 03 1999 Data file: c:\orwalll\al6hues Type of Structure: Structure Criticality: Non-critical Geosynthetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCNR Method A Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) 9.33 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 1.0 Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 8.33 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units Hinge Height (ft) Wall Inclination (degrees) Base Inclination (degrees) 14 9.33 horizontal 1.1 S1 opes : Front Slope (degrees) Back Slope (degrees) horizontal 26.6 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 2 LN 95050839 Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge Dead Load Surcharge none none Friction soil Data: Soil Description: (PSf) (degrees) (pcf) Cohesion Angle Unit Weight Reinforced Soil sand Retained soil Levelling Pad Soil gravel sand Foundation Soil sand N/A 30.0 N/A 30.0 120.0 120,o N/A 40.0 0.0 125.0 30.0 120.0 Segmental Unit Name: Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) Unit Height (in) Unit Width (in) Unit Length (in) Weight (infilled) (lbs) Setback (in) Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) Center of Gravity (in) Default segmental unit properties none 8.0 16.0 1.0 18.0 125.3 167.0 8.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Properties Peak Strength Criteria Deformation Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 770.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 27.0 2000.0 770.0 27.0 2000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 4 2 3 0 0 35/20-20 55/30-20 80/30-20 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 3 IN 95050839 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Index Tensile Strength (lbdftl 2600.0 3700.0 5380.0 Polymer Type polyester polyester polyestor Partial Material safety Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 creep 1.67 Biological Degradation 1.67 1.00 1.67 Chemical Degradation 1.00 1.12 1.00 Construction Site Damage 1.12 1.12 1.05 Material Uncertainty 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.05 1.05 Long Term Design Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 LTDS (lbs/ft) 882.6 1256.0 1826.3 Coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion Deformation Criterion 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Peak Load Criterion 0.95 0.95 0.95 Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Minimum (lbs/ft) Peak Strength Criterion: Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 500.0 500.0 28.0 2000.0 28.0 3000.0 500.0 28.0 3000.0 Minimum (lbs/ft) Deformation Strength Criterion: Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 28.0 2000.0 3000.0 3000 .O 500.0 28.0 28.0 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 4 LN 95050839 Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining wall unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Minimum (lbs/ft) Peak Strength Criterion: Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 500.0 27.0 2000.0 2000.0 27.0 2000.0 500.0 500.0 27.0 Deformation Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ft) 2000.0 2000.0 27.0 2000.0 500.0 27.0 27.0 500.0 500.0 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.433 Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.422 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 41.48 Retained Soil (Ka) Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.442 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 40.66 0.407 Results of External Stability Analyses: FOS Sliding FOS Overturning Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) FOS Bearing Capacity Base Eccentricity (e)(ft) Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) Calculated 1.65 3.69 9.01 10.0 0.6 1.07 Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Design criteria 2.0 OK 1.5 OK 2.5 OK 5.6 OK N/A 0.6 OK Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Bearing Capacity (psf) 4796.3 13695.9 7907.4 22394.6 82622.7 14029.8 1557.2 SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 4 LN 95050839 Geosynthetic-Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Minimum llbs/ftl Peak Strength Criterion: Maximum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) 500.0 500.0 27.0 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 500.0 27.0 27.0 Deformation Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs/ft) Friction Angle (degrees) Maximum (lbs/ft) 500.0 500.0 27.0 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 500.0 27.0 27.0 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.433 Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component] Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 41.48 Retained Soil (Ka) Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component] 0.407 0.442 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 40.66 0.422 Results of External Stability Analyses: FOS Sliding FOS Bearing Capacity FOS Overturning Base Eccentricity (e)(ft) Base Reinforcement Length (Ll (ft) Base Reinforcement Ratio (L/H) Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Calculated Design Criteria 1.65 1.5 OK 3.69 2.0 OK 10.43 10.0 2.5 OK 5.6 OK 1.07 0.6 N/A 0.6 OK Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs/ft) Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) Sliding Resistance (lbs/ft) Resisting Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Driving Moment (lbs-ft/ft) Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) Bearing Capacity lpsfl 4796.3 13695.9 22394,6 7907.4 82622.7 16238.0 1557.2 SRWall lver 1.1 June 1995) Page 5 LN 95050839 Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS FOS Unit Type fftl fftJ Length Over- Pullout Pullout Sliding Spacing FOS FOS Layer x If tl stress (peak) fdefl > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 N/A (peak) fftl > 1.5 < 3.0 12 8 1 7.33 10.0 1.29 3.14 1 4.67 10.0 3.97 1.66 2.64 N/A 2.89 m 5.62 N/A 5 1 2.67 10.0 5.98 1.31 2.29 m 2 7.85 1 0.67 10.0 8.0 1.23 11.36 N/A N/A 1.97 m 1.73 m Nota: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of Internal Stabilitv Analyses: SRW Geosyn €lev Long Term Tensile Unit Type (f tI x Design Load Strength (lbdftl (peak) CaPaCi tY Cdpaci Cy Force fdefl Capacity flbs/ftj (lbs/ftI flbdftl flbs/ftJ flbs/ftJ Pullout Pullout Sliding Sliding 12 1 7.33 882.6 281.3 741.5 N/A 1088.9 2 1 0.67 882.6 717.4 8149.0 N/A 4350.6 7514.3 8 1 5 1 3144.2 4.67 882.6 2.67 531.7 882.6 2989.9 675.2 5300.5 N/A 2132.8 4892.2 N/A 3143.9 6203.2 Results of Facing Stability Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS Unit Elev Type FOS FOS FOS 0-r- Y Shear Shear Connection Connection FOS fdefomation) lftl turning fpeakl fdefomationl fpeakl > 1.5 > 1.5 N/A > 1.5 N/A 14 8.67 12 7.33 13 8.0 11 6.67 10 6.0 8 9 5.33 4.67 7 4.0 6 3.33 5 2.67 4 2.0 2 3 1.33 0.67 1 0.0 Note: calcul 29.68 7.88 73.47 N/A 3.71 19.63 N/A 6.62 NIA ~~ 5.03 3.59 2.94 ~ ~ " ~ . ~~ - N/A - 4.37 N/A 8.97 N/A 3.32 N/A 2.89 - N/A 3.42 N/A 2.68 2.43 13.0 N/A 2.37 - NIX ..." 2.24 2.09 10.97 N/A 2.99 2.03 N/A >99 N/A lated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses fMoment end Shear): SRW Unit Heel €lev GeO Drive Shear Shear TYP Shear Resist Moment Moment Load Capaci Cy Capaci cy x fftl flbs-ft/ftl flbs-ft/ftJ flbs/ft) (lbs/ftl (lbs/ftJ (peak) fdefoma tion) N/A +aut -in 14 8.67 nonr 13 2.5 8.0 12 nono 7.33 1 20.0 67.5 11 10 6.67 6.0 none 160.0 none 312.6 9 8 5.33 4.67 none 1 540.2 7 4.0 857.7 6 3.33 none non. 1280.4 5 1823.0 4 2.67 1 2.0 n0n. 2500.7 3328.4 3 1.33 2 none 0.67 4321.2 1 1 0.0 nonr 6862.0 5494.1 74.2 11.3 826.7 N/A 157.7 45.0 250.5 101.3 883.5 670.2 N/A N/A 804.3 -101.3 996.9 1367.3 0.0 N/A 1939.7 1053.6 N/A 123.8 2521.3 1110.4 N/A 270.1 89'1~1 MI1 3700.6 -92.8 4889.2 1223.8 N/A 6087.0 98.5 312.3 1280.5 N/A 1067.3 N/A 7882.5 9687.3 -126.6 132.2 1394.0 N/A 1450.7 N/A 11501.1 413.6 13913.2 1237.5 N/A ~ ... .. 0.0 1564.2 N/A SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page 6 LN 95050839 Detailed Result3 of Facing Stability Analyses (Connections): SRW Heel Geo Unit Elev TVpe Connection Connection connection Load x fft) flbdftl (peak) Capaci Cy Capacity (defonna tionl ilbs/ftl (Ibs/ftl N/A 8 12 7.33 1 4.67 1 677.6 U/A 5 2.67 914.4 N/A 1 2 0.67 1 111.4 1269.6 NIA 281.3 531.7 675.2 1092.0 N/A SRWall (ver 1.1 June 1995) Page I LN 95050839 7.1 degz 9.33 ft T -e I 35/20-20 35/20-20 I - II 35/20-20 7 u -0.5 ft I I 10.0 ft Project Identification: Project Name: THE FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA Section: Data Sheet: Owner : Client: LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Prepared by: Date: February 03 1999 Time : 10:18:35 AM Data file: c:\srwalll\al6hues 03/16/99 l6:59 FAX 7607449061 LUSARDICO MOO2 CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Red Cro-8, :?roperties Carlsbad C alifomia 92008 1947 Car Llo Vida Robles, Suite 104 Attention 'WIirn Shirley CWE 199.1255 SUBJECI: FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW, PROPOSED GRAVITY-TYPE RETAINING WALLS, FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA, CARLSBD, CALIFORNIA - Ladies arl i Gentlemen: In accorrdclce with the request of Mr. JeffJenco of Lusardi Construction Company, ne have reviewed :~nswction plans dated Marc:h 8,1999, and earth rctention calculations dated February 11, 1999, bol: 1 by Retaining Walls Company North, for the walls at the subject site. Our recommc I iations for the design of the wall foundations have been incorporated into the plans. If you hr:?~: any questions after reviewin;! this reporr, please do not hesitate to contact our Grm. Ibis oppornu:~ :ty to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated Respectit 1, y submitted, CKWST f X WHEELER ENGLNEEILING CHC/DFI Cc (2) Sid~mitted (1) S~nith Consulting Architects (3) I. mrdi Construction Co. P..:tn: JeffJenco ... 4925 Me:cury Street + San Dieg:o, CA 92111 + 619-496- W*FJ CHRISTIAN WHEELER " ENGINEERING February 10,1999 Red Crow Properties 1947 Camino Vida Robles, Suite 104 Carlsbad, California 92008 ATTENTION: William Shirley CWE 198.125.4 SUBJECT: SOIL REPLACEMENT DEPTH FOR RETAINING WALL FOUNDATIONS, FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with the request of Retaining Walls Company North, this report has been prepared to present our opinion that if a soil with an angle of internal friction lllgher than 22 degrees is required for the site retaining wall foundations, it will be necessary to remove and replace at least three feet of soil beneath the bottom of the retaining wall footing with the hlgher strength soil. The width of the soil replacement should extend horizontally at least three feet on each side of the wall foundation. If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Charles H. Christian R.G.E. #00215 cc: (2) Submitted (1) Smith Consulting Architects (2) Retaining Walls Company North 02/05/99 15:2? FAX 7607449064 "" - .- LUSARDICO a001 February 4, 1'199 Red Crow i L- pcties 1947 Camit J 'Ada Robles, Suite 104 Carlsbad, C Llomia 92008 Attention: X'jUiam Shirley CWE 198.125.3 Subject: I c'r~ring Deptb Recommendations for Proposed Gravity-Type Retaining Walls, : a laday Business Plaza, Lot 106, Carhbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California. .__ "" - - .- . . . - "" .. - . . . . . . . -. .. . . . La&es/Gt ,t men, In accorda C:I with the request of Mr. JeffJenco of :hoardi Construction Compnny, this her has been writtt I to present our recommendacons for the minimum depth of footings for the gravity- type retain 114; walls proposed for the subject site. It .s our understanding that the walls will be less than seven !( z:t in height, and are to be conskucted dong the east side of the site to retain Ihe existing cu SI. >pe and along the northerly facing tiil ::lope to accommodate the construction of a ptdesuian I( r:ess ramp. The strucr c!. engineer responsible for tbz wall des@ should design the foundations for the proposed ' 'ai,.s. However, the minimum depth of the footings, or lowst couse of the wall units if a concrete L xng is nor uulized, should be at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade deepened 1 ;n that a minimum of 7 feet mists latenllly from the bottom of the footing or lowermost For the eas wall. The footings for the wdts to be constructed in northerly facing FI slope should be wall unit :I ((:.e face of the dope. Chrsrian ' 4,reler Engineering sincerely appreciates the opportunity to provide profrsamil service ' on this prl I( r't. If you should have any qu.estions aftx revlnving this letter. please do not hesnare to contact OL jrm. Kespecth y ;;ubmitrea, CHRISTI J'+ WHEELER ENGINEEXNG .. CHC/DF cc: (2) SUI nl. tted (2) Lu! u di Constntcuon (I) Sm g~ Consulting .k~chicecrs CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING REPORT OF IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA LOT 106, CARLSBAD RESEARCH FACILITY FARADAY AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: RED CROW PROPERTIES 1947 WINO VIDA ROBLES, SUITE 104 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 PREPARED BY CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 4925 Mercury Street 4 San Diego, CA 92111 4 858-496-9760 4 PAX 858-496-9758 CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING August 18,1999 Red Crow Properties 1947 Camino Vida Robles; Suite 104 Carlsbad, California 92008 CWE 198.125.7 ATIENTION William Shirley SUBJECT: REPORT OF IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS, SITE IMPROVEMENTS, FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA, LOT 106, CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER, FARADAY AVENUE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. Ladies/Gentlemen, In accordance with yonr request, Christian Wheelet Engineering has prepared this report to summadze the results of density tests performed for the parking, retaining wall and utility improvements at the subject site. Our testing services were provided periodically from January to June, 1999. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site addressed by this report consists of a graded building pad located south of Faaday Avenue in the Carlsbad Research Center area of Carlsbad, California. The buildmg pad has been prepared to support a concrete dlt-up building. The earthwork performed in preparation for the building pad is addressed in our report titled, “Remedial Grading, Observation and Testing”, dated Januay 5, 1999. PLAN REFERENCE In order to augment OUT understanding of the designed contignration of the project, OUT hrm was provided with a site plan for the site prepared by Masson and Assoaates, dated December 15,1998. The plan has been modified by our hrm to show the approximate locations of ow field tests and is reproduced as Plates No. 1 and No. 2 of this report 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 858-496-9760 + FAX 858-496-9758 c CWE 198.125.7 SCOPE OF SERVICE August 18,1999 2 Services provided by Christian Wheeler Engineedng, Inc. during the course of the hlling and backtilling operations consisted of the following: Periodic performance of in-place density tests in the trench backfills and for subgrade, base material, and asphalt placed; Continuous observation and compaction testing of the backfill for the reinforced earth retaining wall construction; Performance of laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture determinations on the soil types used for the backfill, subgrade, and base material, and laboratory maximum density determination for the asphalt material; and, Preparation of this report. SUMMARY OF TESTS FIELD TESTS: Field tests to measure the relative compaction of the backfill, subgrade, and base were conducted in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 2922-91, “Standard Test Methods for Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear Methods.” The locations of the field tests were selected by our techniaan in areas discerned to exhibit relative compaction that was generally representative of that attained in the backftlls, subgrade and base courses. The results of these tests are presented on the attached Plates No. 3 through 8. LABORATORY TESTS The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the predominate soil encountered in the backtill, subgrade, and base were determined in our laboratory by ASTMTest Designation D 1557-91, ‘Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort.” The test was conducted in accordance with the methodology prescribed for the grain-size distribution of the soils tested. The results of these tests are presented on the attached Plate No. 3. The Hveem density of the asphalt used in the paved areas was determined in the laboratory by ASTM Test Designation D-1560. The result of this test is presented with the in- place density tests on Plate 7. CWF. 198.125.7 CONCLUSIONS August 18,1999 3 Based upon the field and laboratory tests, it is oux opinion that the backtills, subgrade, and base material were placed and compacted in accordance with our recommendations, the City of Carlsbad gradmg ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and that the reinforced earth retaining walls were constructed in substantially accordance with the building plans. Christian Wheeler Engineering sincerely appreaates the opportunity to provide professional service on this project. Ifyou should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our h. Respecay submitted, CHRISTLAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Charles H. Christian, R.G.E. 00215 CHC/DH/dh cc: (3) Submitted (3) Smith Consulting Architects SUMMARY OF TESTS CWE 198.125.7 August, 1999 Phte 3 r CWE 198.125.7 August, 1999 Plate 4 August, 1999 Plate 5 CWE 198.125.7 August, 1999 Plate 6 - *F.S. - Finish surface CWE 198.125.7 August, 1999 Plate 7 - CWE 198.125.7 August, 1999 Plate 8 L c c c * Refers to the type of wall. CWE 198.125.7 August, 1999 Plate 8(cont.) Consultants In The Earth Sciences CALIFORNIA 0 NEVADA August 26, 1997 Project No. 3630SF CAC Associates 3920 Willow Creek Rd., Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92131 Attention: Mr. Larry Woodward Subject: Limited Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Research and Development Facility, Lot No. 106 of Unit 5, Carlsbad Research Center, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and authorization, a Limited Geotechnical Evaluation was conducted by Medall, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. forthe above-referenced project. Characterization of site earth materials by field reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, and limited laboratory testing of recovered soil samples was performed in order to define site suitability for development. Available conceptual site development plans indicate the proposed R & D facility will consist of a two-story building, with a footprint area of approximately 33,000 square feet. Subsurface utilities, paved parking lots, and landscaped areas are also proposed. The precise building location, finish floor elevation, type of construction, and information on structural loads were not available at the time of our evaluation. Lot No. 106 was graded:between .October of 1992 and March of 1994, as a part of mass grading for the overall Unit 5 development. Engineering observation and testing were performed by the firm Geotechnics. Inc., of San Diego, California. Their final grading report indicates Lot 106 was developed primarily as a cut lot in mildly metamorphosed volcanic rock. Blasting was required on Lot 106 where the volcanic rock could not be excavated with heavy dozers. To facilitate future building construction, the lot was Overcut approximately 5 feet and a compacted fill cap placed to achieve finish grades. Three borings were placed within the conceptual outlines of the proposed building for this study. Fill soils were encountered to depths ranging from about 5.5 to 6.0 feet. The fill cap soils appeared to be predominantly very clayey sands, with horizontal and vertical variation to include localized silty sand. Moisture - density tests on recovered samples indicated that relative compaction of the on-site fill materials has apparently decreased over time. Orange County: 4500 Campus Dr., Suite 488 0 Newporl Beach. CA 92660 0 Telephone (714) 660-9292 Fax (714) 660-9295 Rivenide’County: 16801 Van Buren Blvd., Suite A 0 Riverside. CA 92504 TelephondFax (909) 776-0345 San Bernardino County: P.O. Box 1056 0 Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352 Telephone/Fax (909) 337-5836 San Diego County: 11 580 Turner Heights Dr. Escondido. CA 92026 0 Telephone/Fax (760) 749-2233 Nevada: 7400 Lakeside Dr Reno, NV 5395 I 1 Telephone (702) 852-5393 .. CAC Associates - Lot 106 August 26,1995 Project No. 3630-SF Page No. 2 Additionally, the flat surface of the sheet-graded lot exhibits closely spaced polygonal ground cracks, many of which can be probed to depths of 3 feet or more. Based on the results of the field investigation, laboratory testing, and professional experience, it is our opinion that the site generally appears to be suitable for the proposed new construction. In particular, the currently suggested building location is favorably placed with respect to a recommended avoidance of deeper fills located toward nearby Faraday Avenue. However, our findings also indicate that cyclic wetting and drying of the clayey fill soils has created deep desiccation cracking and loss of compaction, with the result that the existing upper 5 feet of fill soils are judged unsuitable for foundation, slab, or pavement support in their present condition. The suggested mitigation to correct the potentially compressible condition of the upper fill soils on the site consists of recompaction of the on-site soils to a depth of roughly 5 feet. Although simple removal of the unsuitable materials to an off-site location is feasible, with subsequent foundation support provided by bedrock, the marginal excavatability of the volcanic rock likely would make foundation embedment and utility installation extremely difficult. Preliminary recommendations for site regrading and inspection are provided in this report. Additional recommendations for foundation support (including allowable values for vetical and lateral loads), slabs-on-grade, pavements, and backfills should be presented by this office in an addendum report, once structural plans become available. Soil samples retained from this study and/or collected at the time of site regrading will require testing to ascertain necessary engineering index values, including shear strength, expansivity, corrosivity, and R-value for pavement support. Thank you very much for this opportunity to be of service. Please do not hesitate to call if you should have any questions. Very truly yours, .. Mark G. Deorschlag : Engineering Geologist, Medall, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. 9 .. ., .. CAC Associates - Lot 106 August 26,1995 Project No. 3630-SF Page No. 3 -. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our Limited Geotechnical Evaluation performed for Lot No. 106 of the Carlsbad Research Center (Unit 5), a large master-planned business development in the City of Carlsbad, California. Lot No. 106 has a net site area of 4.07 acres, comprising both a sheet-graded building pad and nearby natural slopes. The site is located on Faraday Avenue, northeast of College Avenue. The primary purpose of our study was to verify the distribution and evaluate the current condition of the subsurface materials underlying the pad area, in orderto provide a general opinion of site suitability for building construction. Accordingly, the scope of our services included a surficial reconnaissance of the site and surrounding area, subsurface exploration, recovery of representative soil samples, limited laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses. A final grading report prepared by the firm Geotechnics. Incorporated at the completion of mass grading of Unit 5 was reviewed for relevant findings. Owing to the conceptual nature of project plans available to date, a detailed examination of the engineering characteristics of the on-site materials for foundation, slab- on-grade, and pavement design purposes was not a part of this limited investigation. Additionally, environmental research for purposes of establishing whether toxic or hazardous substances had been generated, used, stored, or disposed of on-site, or chemical testing of air, spil. or groundwater at the site were beyond the scope of this study. .. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The current configuration of the Unit 5 portion of the Carlsbad Research Center includes 19 business or commercial lots, with associated paved streets and greenbelt areas. Prior to grading, the area consisted of gently to moderately sloping natural terrain mostly underlain by soft sedimentary rocks, with a central higher-elevation knob and ridge found to be underlain by relatively hard volcanic rock. Mass grading of Unit 5 and the included Lot No. 106 began in October, 1992, and was completed in March of 1994. Grading was performed under the engineering observation and testing of the San Diego-based firm Medall, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. . .. ., CAC Associates - Lor 106 August 26,1995 Project No. 3630-SF Page No. 4 .. Geotechnics, Incorporated. A final grading report for Unit 5 was issued on April 29, 1994 (Project No. 0017-001-01). Geotechnical maps included in the grading report indicate Lot No. 106 occupies the former location of part of the central knob, and thus is underlain entirely by volcanic rock. Samples recovered during our investigation consisted of mildly metamorphosed andesitic tuff. Where less weathered, this rock is non-porous, hard, and strong. Grading of Lot No. 106 required a maximum cut of about 30 feet. Reportedly, blasting was required to achieve the desired grades on this lot. To facilitate construction of building foundations and underground utilities, Lot No. 106 was undercut an additional 5 feet and capped with a layer of compacted fill; the fill materials appear to have originated from off-site areas underlain by sedimentary sandstones and claystones. A greater thickness of fill was placed toward the southern side of the lot, adjacent to Faraday Avenue. The maximum thickness of fill in this area is indicated to be approximately 20 feet, exclusive of any necessary removals or benching into the previous natural slope. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION A conceptual site development plan prepared by the firm Smith Consulting Architects Inc. and dated August 1, 1997 was referenced throughout our investigation. The plan illustrates a proposed two-story building with a footprint covering about 33,000 square feet. Associated parking lois and. lanscaped areas will complete the site. The proposed structure will be served by underground utilities. The plans do not indicate a finish floor elevation; however, it is presumed that only minor cuts or fills are proposed for this site. It is also assumed that the structure will consist of concrete tilt-up, reinforced masonry, or steel-frame construction typical of business park development; such structures normally impose moderate foundation loads. FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Subsurface site exploration was conducted on August 8, 1997 by means of 3 borings located within the conceptual building footprint. The borings were advanced with a truck- Medal!, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. . .' CAC Associates - Lot 106 August 26,1995 Project No. 3630-SF Page No. 5 .. mounted CME 75 drill rig equipped with 8-inch-diameter hollow-stem augers. All three borings were bottomed within volcanic bedrock at a depth of 6.5 feet. Continuous logs of the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings were recorded by an engineering geologist representing this firm, and the results are presented on the Boring Logs in the Appendix. The approximate locations of the subsurface explorations are illustrated on Figure No. 1 in the Appendix. Relatively undisturbed ring-lined barrel samples were collected from specified depths in selected exploratory borings. Pertinent in-sifuengineering soil properties were judged from machine behavior and penetration resistance of the barrel sampler. A disturbed bag sample, representative of the structural fill soils was also collected. Both the discrete samples and drill cuttings were visuallylmanually classified in the field according to the Unified Soil Classification System, and observations made of relative porosity, presence or absence of organic matter, and any indication of groundwater. Laboratory tests to determine field dry density, field moisture content, and maximum dry density were performed on the recovered samples. Test procedures and results are presented in the Appendix. SITE GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The sheet-graded building pad area of Lot No. 106 slopes southeastward at a 1.5% gradient toward a rough-graded catch basin and storm drain. The pad is bounded to the north and east by descending, naturally vegetated slopes. The western side is bounded by a 2:l cut slope with a maximum height of about 15 feet, tapering lower to pad grade toward the north and south. The southern side of the pad is bounded by a 2:l fill slope up to about 26 feet high, descending towards Faraday Avenue. Despite having been vacant for over 4 years, the pad shows no evidence of significant erosion, and adjacent manufactured slopes appear to be in excellent condition. Native vegetation, however, has begun to re-establish itself on the site, with scattered clumps of buckwheat andwidespread herbaceous annuals. Medall, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. ' ' . CAC Associates - L,. 106 August 26,1995 Project No. 3630-SF Page No. 6 .. Most of the pad exhibits dense networks of polygonal ground cracks, of a type normally associated with drying and shrinkage of soils with a large percentage of silt or clay. Some of the cracks are an inch or more wide, and could be probed to depths of 3 feet or more. Subsurface Conditions The borings encountered from 5.5 to 6.0 feet of compacted fill overlying volcanic bedrock, consistent with the reported thicknesses in Geotechnic's 1994 final grading report. The majority of the fill was classified as fine to medium grained clayey sand, with a somewhat variable fines content. Silty sand occasionally forms thin layers, and makes up a slightly greater overall percentage of the fill cap toward the northern half of the site. The fill soils are medium dense to dense in consistency, slightly moist near the pad surface but becoming moist at shallow depths, non-porous, and free from organic matter. Samples recovered from near the base of the fill indicate there exists some amounts of fragmented rock left over from blasting operations, but the amounts are believed to be small. The volcanic bedrock encountered in the borings ranged from highly weathered to slightly weathered, with the freshest rock apparently located toward the center of the pad. Where slightly weathered, the rock is hard and strong; conversely, yellowish colored and highly weathered rock encountered in Boring B - 3 was relatively soft and weak. Cut slopes and the recovered samples suggest the rock mass is closely to very closely fractured even where not disturbed by grading activity. As previously noted, this material is apparently non-excavatable with heavy dozers where slightly weathered or fresh. Laboratorv Test Results Dry densities calculated from recovered samples of the compacted fill ranged from approximately 87 to 11 3 pounds per cubic foot. The measured values are both above and below a relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density of 119 pcf. Field moisture contents ranged from 8.7 to 23.4 percent of dry density. The optimum moisture content for compaction of the predominant clayey soils is approximately 13.6 percent, and is judged to be slightly less for the localized silty sand layers. Medal!, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. .. .. .. CAC Associates - LoL 106 Auaust 26.1995 .. Project No. 3630-SF .. Page No. 7 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in the three exploratory borings drilled for this study, nor was it encountered during site grading. Indications are that minor perched groundwater may exist as a seasonal condition atop the relatively impermeable volcanic bedrock that underlies the site. Depths to permanent groundwater are probably greater than 100 feet, based on local topographic considerations. Groundwater should not be a factor for project design or long-term performance. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of the field exploration program, laboratory testing, and professional experience, it is our opinion that the site appears to be suitable for the proposed new construction, provided that remedial measures are implemented for the cracked, weathered, and locally compressible cap soils. Excavation and recompaction are recommended to mitigate these conditions and create satisfactory support characteristics. We recommend the entire 5-foot-thick cap receive remedial compaction work; of the 5 feet, approximately 4 feet will require removal followed by placement and compaction, while the lowest foot or so of material can probably be processed and compacted in place. All of the on-site soils appear to be suitable for reuse in the recompacted structural fill. The following subsections present additional recommendations for site grading, structural design, and inspections applicable to this site. It is also our finding that the current conceptual building plan is favorably located with respect to deeper fills located closer to Faraday Avenue. Unless special structural measures are contemplated for building support, we recommend that the building remain sited within the cut portion of the pad in order to minimize potential differential settlements and possible building distress. Medall, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. CAC Associates - Lor 106 Auaust 26.1995 .. Project No. 3630-SF - Page No. 8 Site Gradinq The general guidelines presented below should be included in the project construction specifications to provide a basis for quality control during grading. It is recommended that all structural fills be placed and compacted under engineering observation and in accordance with the following: Re-established native vegetation shall be cleared and properly disposed of off-site. Excavation of the existing cracked and disturbed fill shall be performed as discussed above, in areas which will support foundations, slabs-on-grade, and pavements. Actual removal depths may vary during grading based upon conditions encountered during earthwork activities. 0 The limits of overexcavation recommended for structural fill and building support shall extend laterally along a 1:l projection from the bottom of footings or toe of slope plus 5 feet, or 5 feet, whichever is greater. Observation by the Geotechnical Engineer of all cleared areas prior to placing fill. Scarification, moisture-conditioning, and processing of fil! materials left in place by adding moisture oi drying back to slightly above optimum moisture content, mixing, and recompaction to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 test method. Bottoms shall be proof-rolled with heavy rubber-tire equipment (earthmoving scrapers, large loaders, or similar) to detect soft zones prior to additional fill placement. e Placement of fill soils moisture-conditioned to approximately 2 percent over optimum moisture in lifts having a thickness commensurate with the type of compaction equipment used, but generally no greater than 6 to 8 inches. Rocks or other Similar irreducible matter larger than about 6 inches in diameter should be excluded from Medall, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. ., ., .. CAC Associates - Lot 106 August 26,1995 Project No. 3630-SF Page No. 9 engineered structural fills on this site. Sufficient compactive effort shall be maintained to obtain compaction of at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Field density testing shall be performed to verify that the desired compaction is being achieved. Where compaction of less than 90 percent is indicated, additional compaction effort, with adjustment of the moisture content as necessary, shall be made until at least 90 percent compaction is obtained. 0 Import soils, if required, should consist of predominantly granular material with low or negligible expansion potential, free of deleterious organic matter and large rocks, and shall be accepted by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to use. 0 Fine grading of building pads should result in drainage being directed away from building foundations to swales for offsite disposal. The minimum desirable slope away from buildings is 2 percent for a distance of at least 5 feet. 0 It is recommended that expansion index testing be performed during or upon completion of the regraded building pad, to verify preliminary observations of possibly moderate expansion potential in the on-site materials. The exact number of tests should be determined by site observations made during grading, but should not be less than one for each soil type. Removal and recompaction of the on-site soils will result in some material volume loss. Based on observations and laboratory density tests, it is estimated that shrinkage will average 3 to 5 percent for the existing loosened structural fill soils if replaced with an average relative compaction of 92 percent. Subsidence of approximately 0.1 to 0.2 foot should also be anticipated for excavated areas proof-rolled as recommended above. PAedall, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. ., CAC Associates - Lot ,06 August 26,1995 Project No. 3630-SF Page No. 10 Foundations Although information regarding anticipated foundation loads was not available for this report, typical two-story commercial or office buildings normally produce moderate loads. It is recommended that additional laboratory testing be performed and an addendum report be issued once structural plans become available. Specifically, engineering index values for shear strength, expansivity, corrosivity, and R-value for pavement support will be required to finalize plans for foundations, slabs, and parking lots. Testing can be performed once building elevations are known and supporting soils identified; if substantial amounts of import soils are proposed, their support characteristics may be significantly different and testing postponed until an import source is identified. Foundation plans, once they become available, must be evaluated by this firm for compatibility with the preliminary recommendations presented in this report. Insuection The preliminary opinions and recommendations in this report are based on the assumption that all footings and slab-on-grade floors will be placed on properly compacted soils approved by this office. Site grading operations should be performed under observation by our personnel. All footing excavations should be observed prior to placing concrete to verify that footings are founded on satisfactory soils and that excavations are free of loose or disturbed materials: The findings in this report may require modification as a result of later field exploration or observations made prior to or during site regrading. This report has also incorporated assumed conditionslcharacteristics of the proposed development where Specific information was not available. Grading and foundation plan reviews should be performed by this firm prior to site grading in order to evaluate the proposed construction from a geotechnical viewpoint. If unforeseen adverse geologic or geotechnical conditions are encountered during grading, then additional appropriate mitigation recommendations may be required from this office. Medall, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. .. CAC Associates - Lor 106 August 26,1995 Project No. 3630-SF Page No. 11 CLOSURE This report was prepared for the use of CAC Associates and their designates in cooperation with this office. We cannot be responsible for the use of this report by others without observation of the grading operations and footing excavations by our personnel. The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice in the fields of soil mechanics, foundation engineering, and engineering geology. We make no other warranty, either expressed or implied. Our conclusions are based on the results of the field exploration combined with interpolations of soil conditions between a limited number of subsurface excavations. The nature and extent of variations beyond the explorations may not become evident until construction. If conditions are encountered during site development that appear to be different than those indicated by this report, this office should be notified. It is a pleasure to cooperate in this project. If you should have any questions, please contact our office. Respectfully submitted, Medall, Aragon, Higlq', Geotechnical, lnc. Luis Fernando Aragon, P.E. 4 Geotechnical Engineer, 1752 Medall, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. APPENDIX Medall, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. I CAC Associates - Lo1 106 August 26,1995 Project No. 3630-SF Page No. 13 APPENDIX FIGURES AND SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGS The Subsurface Exploration Map was prepared based upon information supplied by the client, or others, along with Medall Geotechnical Associates's field measurements and observations. Boring locations illustrated on the map are approximate. The Boring Logs on the following pages depict or describe the subsurface (soil and water) conditions encountered at the specific exploration locations on the date that the exploration wasperformed. Subsurface conditionsmay differbetween exploration locations and within areas of the site that were not explored. The subsurface conditions may also change at the exploration locations over the passage of time. The field operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) designation D 420 entitled "Standard Guide for Sampling Soil and Rock" and/or other relevant specifications. Soil samples were presewed and transported to our laboratory in general accordance with the procedures recommended by ASTM designation D 4220 entitled "Standard Practice for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples". The results of field testing (e.g., N-Values) are reported on the Boring Logs. Brief descriptions of the sampling and testing procedures are presented below: Rina-Lined Barrel Samplina - (ASTM D 3550) In this procedure, a barrel sampler constructed to receive a stack of I-inch-high brass rings is used to collect soil samples for classification and laboratory testing. For this investigation, a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches was used to drive a barrel fitted with 2.5-inch-diameter rings,. An uncorrected N-value of the number of blows needed to drive the sampler the final 12 inches oTan 18-inch barrel was recorded. The method provides relatively undisturbed samples that fit directly into laboratory test instruments without additional handling/disturbance. Bulk Samde A relatively large volume of soil is collected with a shovel or trowel. The sample is transported to the materials laboratory in a sealed plastic bag or bucket. Classification of Samoles Excavated soils and discrete soil samples were visually-manually classified, based on texture and plasticity, in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2488-75). The classifications are reported on the Boring Logs. Medall, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. EXPLOR, - iORY EXCAVATION L CATION MAP Project Name: CAC Associates - Lot No. 106 Project No. 3630-SF Medal, Aragbn, Higley, Geotechnical, _" Inc. Figure No. 1 - Page No. 14 Depth (ft.1 w Moisture Dry @cf) Density 112.5 103.6 110.6 I Moisture MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Silty and Clayey Sand (SM,SC): Layered pale yellowish gray, olive gray, and olive brown; fine to medium grained, with trace of gravel; mostly clayey sand 2-6 ft. [Fill] slightly moist moist Bedrock: Andesitic meta-tuff Variable dark gray, yellow, and red; tine-grained; moderately weathered; noderately hard to hard; intensely iactured. :Santiago Peak Volcanics] I .. .. T .. .. .. .. .. .. ., Consist mediun dense Bottom of boring at 6.5 ft. No groundwater encountered. Boring backfilled with excavated cuttings. Proiect NO. 3630SF Medall, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. Dry (PC0 Density 87.3 104.9 82.0 " ..... ....................... ...... ... .... .... ...................... ..... ........................ .. .............. .................. .. .. .. ....... .... ... ...................... :... :... :.. . :..:: :'.:.:LoG~,oF:~,~NGI.N~~,:~~:-~~,, . .:::; :: ... ::,: ; ,;; ,:., ;.;:.;:;,:;,; :;:;.~.:::;:~:;:',~~: :' ...... ......................... ..................................... ................ .............................................. ........................................................................................ ..................................................................................... ............ .. ......................................................................... ........................................................................................... .. ............................................................................................ .................................................................................................. ... .. .................................... .. I I Depth N' Field (ft. ) Moisture (%I - - - 18 23.4 - " - 34 14.3 5 " " - 62 8.0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Clayey Sand (SC): Layered olive gray and olive brown; tine to medium grained; silty, with trace of gravel. [Fill] Variable dark gray, light gray, and grayish yellow; fine-grained; slightly weathered; hard; very close fractures. [Santiago Peak Volcanics] Moisture Consist. moist dense Bottom of boring at 6.5 ft. No groundwater encountered. Boring backfilled with excavated cuttings. Proiect No. 3630SF Medall, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. ,. ... .. ..., . .. .. - N' - 32 22 45 - . .. . .~ .. ... Field Moisture 8.7 19.0 9.6 Dry (PC0 Density 107.5 90.2 107.7 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Silty and Clayey Sand (SM,SC): slightly Layered yellowish brown and olive moist brown; tine to medium grained; trace of gravel; increased clay below 2 ft. [Fill] moist Bedrock: Andesitic mea-tuff Very pale grayish yellow; fine-grained; highly weathered; soft to moderately hard; very close fractures. [Santiago Peak Volcanics] Consist. medium dense to dense Bottom of boring at 6.5 ft. No groundwater encountered. Boring backf~lled with excavated cuttings. Project No. 3630SF .- Medall, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc. ,~ .. CAC Associates - Lot 106 August 26,1995 Project No. 3630-SF Page No. 18 .. LABORATORY TESTING Moisture-Densitv Determinations The dry unit weight and field moisture content were determined for each of the recovered barrel samples. The moisture-density information provides a gross indication of soil consistency and can assist in delineating local variations. The information can also be used to correlate soils found on this site with soils on other sites in the general area. The test results indicate that the dy density of the soils and weathered bedrock tested ranges from 82.0 to 1 12.5 pounds per cubic foot, with moisture contents ranging from 6.9 to 23.4 percent of dry unit weight. Sample locations and the corresponding test results are illustrated on the Boring Logs. Comoaction Tests A representative bulk soil sample was tested to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content per the ASTM D 1557-91 (Method A) procedure. The test method uses 25 blows of a 10-pound hammer falling I8 inches on each of 5 soil layers in a 1/30 cubic foot cylinder. Soil samples are tested at varying moisture contents to create a curve illustrating achieved dry density as a function of moisture content. The following table presents the test results. SOIL TYPE TRENCH MOISTURE DENSITY DEPTH OPTIMUM MAXIMUM DRY (feet) CONTENT (%) (PC9 Ii 1 I J I I I (1 Silly Sand with Clay I. 6-1 @ 0-4 I 119.0 I 13.6 )I .. I1 I I I IJ Medall, Aragon, Higley, Geotechnical, Inc.