Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 2019-0012; RAF PACIFICA GROUP FUSION; KEYSTONE WALL DESIGN CALCULATIONS; 2020-05-08SDP 2019-0012 C • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • C Keystone Wall Design Calculations For Project: fu •sion Site Improvements 1950 Camino Vida Roble Carlsbad, California, 92008 Project No. H22013 Prepared for the exclusive use of: HILLSIDE 5256 S. Mission Rd. #702 Bonsall, CA 92003 760-415-8600 760-451-8602 Fax Engineering Project Manager: Joe Henson ioe@hillsidecompanies.net Lyver Engineering & Design, lie 7950 SE 106th Portland, OR 97266 trov<ii!Lyver-EAD.com Date: May 8, 2020 Troy D. Lyver No. S4656, EXPIRES 12/31/2020 RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2C2Q LAND DEVLL MENT Engineer does not take any responsibility for construction, or control of the job. Engineer's responsibility is solely limited to the design of the structural members included herein. Any changes to design, structural members or configuration shall void calculations. Supervision may be contracted for assurance of proper construction . Page 1 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Page 2 of 65 ------------------------------------------------ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO . PURPOSE ............................................................................... 5 KEYSTONE GSR STATIC DESIGN METHOD ................................................ 5 KEYSTONE GRAVITY STATIC DESIGN METHOD .......................................... 5 SEISMIC DESIGN METHOD ............................................................... 5 ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................... 5 WALL CONFIGURATIONS ................................................................ 6 ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 6 RECOMMEND A TIO NS .................................................................... 6 REFERENCES ............................................................................ 7 CLOSURE ............................................................................... 7 APPENDIX A -KEYW ALL OUTPUT ........................................................ 8 KEYW ALL LOADING DIAGRAM AND LEGEND ...................................... 9 CASE 1-UP TO 7' RETAINED WITH 2:1 MAX SLOPE DETAILED CALCULATIONS ..... 10 CASE 2-UP TO 3' RETAINED WITH 50 PSF LL STANDARD CALCULATIONS .......... 18 CASE 3-UP TO 3' RETAINED WITH 50 PSF LL STANDARD CALCULATIONS .......... 19 CASE 4 -UP TO 3' RETAINED WITH 50 PSF LL STANDARD CALCULATIONS .......... 20 CASE 5-UP TO 3' RETAINED WITH 50 PSF LL STANDARD CALCULATIONS .......... 21 CASE 6-UP TO 3' RETAINED WITH 50 PSF LL STANDARD CALCULATIONS .......... 22 Page 3 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • APPENDIX B -SUPPLEMENT AL INFORMATION .......................................... 23 ICC LEGACY REPORT ESR-2113 .................................................... 24 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PROVIDED BY NOV A, INC. .............................. 35 KEYSTONE -UNIT DRAINAGE FILL OPTIONS ...................................... 43 MIRA FI MIRA GRID DAT A SHEET .................................................. 44 CAL TRANS SEISMIC MEMORANDUM .............................................. 45 APPENDIX C -ENGINEERED FENCE POST SEGMENTAL WALL ANCHORING SYSTEMS ..... 46 Page 4 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PURPOSE: The purpose of these calculations is to provide a basis for the design of the walls to be built at the fu · sion Site Improvements project at 1950 Camino Vida Roble, Carlsbad, California . KEYSTONE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED (GSR) STATIC DESIGN METHOD: The method of analysis presented in reference 1 is used to determine the static internal and external stability of the reinforced soil retaining wall system. The computer program Keywall developed by Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. is used to complete the analysis. The program is based on the methods presented in reference 1. The results of the analysis are included in Appendix A . Keywall allows the selection of several different design methodologies. This design is based on the AASHTO simplified methodology. The AASHTO methodology is described in the Keystone manual (reference 1) and in the help file of Keywall software (reference 2) . KEYSTONE GRAVITY DESIGN METHOD: The NCMA-Coulomb method of analysis is used to determine the static internal and external stability of the gravity retaining wall system (reference 1 & 8). The analysis was performed utilizing Keywall, and the results of the analysis are included in Appendix A . SEISMIC DESIGN METHOD: As stated in Section 1803.5.12 of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Commentary, "because the requirement can be onerous for small structures and retaining walls, the applicability is limited to those walls that are higher than 6 feet." We are adopting the provision of this Section: 1803.5.12 Seismic Design Categories D through F. For structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E or F, the geotechnical investigation required by Section 1803.5.11 shall also include all of the following as applicable: 1. The determination of dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures on foundation walls and retaining walls supporting more than 6 feet (1.83 m) of backfill height due to design earthquake ground motions ... The seismic internal stability of the Keystone Walls was explored using Keywall. The methodology used is described in reference 3, Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Seismic Design Methodology . Reference 3 describes the steps required to apply the Mononobe-Okabe analytical model to mechanically stabilized earth retaining walls . Per the Geotechnical Report (reference 9), PGAM = 0.52g. Per Caltrans Section 5-5 Design Criteria of Standard Earth Retaining System, April 2014 (reference 6 & 7), kh = 1/3 PGA = 0.173g. Per AASHTO Division 1, Chapter 5 kh ( ext) = 0.173g and kh (int) = 0.173g . ASSUMPTIONS: Site Soils Based on soil properties provided in the Geotechnical Reports (reference 9), we have chosen to use the following minimum strength parameters for the design of the Keystone walls, which should be verified in field by the project geotechnical engineer. Page 5 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Reinforced Soils: <I>= 27° C = 0 psf y = 121 pcf WALL CONFIGURATIONS: Keystone Parameters Retained Soils: Foundation Soils: <I> =27° <I> =27° C = 0 psf C = 0 psf y = 121 pcf y = 121 pcf Based on the plans provided (reference 5), the Keystone walls will be located, as shown on the plans . The walls have been designed to support various load scenarios. See structural calculations in Appendix A for detailed information. The Keystone calculations assume 18" deep Standard III units weighing approximately 81 lbs. each and Compac III units weighting approximately 70 lbs. each with a near- vertical wall batter (front pin alignment). GSR walls will be reinforced with Mirafi 3XT. Grouted Keystone DSM blocks will be used on free standing portions of wall. ANALYSIS: The following target factors of safety were used in the analysis of the design: KEYSTONE STATIC ANALYSIS: Fsiiding= 1.5 Fovertuming= 2.0 F uncertainties= 1.5 F bearing= 2. 0 Fpull-out= 1.5 GRAVITY ANALYSIS: Fsiiding= 1.5 F overturning= 1. 5 Funcertainties= 1.5 Fbearing= 2.0 KEYSTONE SEISMIC ANALYSIS: Fsiiding= 1.1 Foverturning= 1.5 F uncertainties= 1.1 Fbearing= 1.5 F pull-out= I .1 Note: Seismic safety factors are 75% of static per NCMA Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls Section 8.3 (reference 8) . RECOMMEND A TIO NS: • The walls shall be constructed per the details and profiles based on the design calculations provided in this report, typical sections, and construction notes . • Foundation soil conditions and properties of the backfill should be verified before construction . • The Keystone walls shall be constructed per the manufacturer's recommended procedures for installation of Keystone blocks and fiberglass pins . • The temporary excavation back-cut, grading, ground improvements, sub-drain, and surface drainage system for the Keystone walls shall be per the plans . • The Project Soils Engineer shall review the design parameters used herein for conformance with their recommendations . Page 6 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • REFERENCES: 1. Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc.2011, Keystone Design Manual and Keywall Operating Guide, 4444 West 78th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435, 2011. 2. Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc., Keywall, Version 3.7.1, 4444 West 78th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 . 3. Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc., May 10, 1995, revised November 30, 2001, Seismic Design Methodology for Keystone Retaining Wall Systems by Craig Moritz, P.E., 4444 West 78th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 . 4. ICC ESR-2113: Report for Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Reissued August 2019 . 5. Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, Grading Plans For: RAF Pacifica, 1950 Camino Vida Roble, Project No. SDP 2019-0012, CAD File Received April 22, 2020, 535 North Highway 101, Suite A, Solana Beach, California 92075, (858) 259-8212 . 6. California Department of Transportation, Memo to Designers, Section 5-5 Design Criteria of Standard Earth Retaining Systems, April 2014, 1801 30th Street, Sacramento, California 95816, (916) 227-8396 . 7. California Department of Transportation, Memorandum: Seismic Design and Selection of Standard Retaining Walls, June 13, 2013, 1801 30th Street, Sacramento, California 95816, (916) 227-8396 . 8. National Concrete Masonry Association, Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls, Second Edition, 2302 Horse Pen Road, Herndon, VA 20171, (703) 713-1900 . 9. Nova, Report, Geotechnical Update, Fu·Sion, Site Improvements, 1950 Camino Vida Roble, Carlsbad, California, Nova Project 2019195, November 5, 2019, 4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B, San Diego, California 92123, (858) 292-7575 . CLOSURE: We have employed accepted engineering procedures, and our professional opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This standard is in lieu of all warranties, either expressed or implied . Page 7 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • APPENDIX A -KEYW ALL OUTPUT Page 8 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • qi qd :Asl W6 W1 W3 H j KEYWALL LEGEND: H -Design Height W1 -Force of Block Area W3 -Force of Reinforced Area W5 -Force of Slope Area W6 -Force of Broken Back Slope Area qi -Live Load Area qd -Dead Load Area Page 9 of 65 RETAINING WALL DESIGN KeyWal1_2012 Version 3.7.2 Build 10 Project: Camino Vida Roble Project No: H22013 Date: 518/2020 Designer: JGH Case: 1 -7' w/2.1 Design Method: AASHTO-Simplzfied (vertical soil interfc1ce) Design Parameters Soil Parameters: Reinforced Fill Retained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type: Unit Fill: ~ .£..fili. 27 0 27 0 27 0 Sand. Silt or Clay Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus = Y....QQ_ C ~ ----i -----------------121 = 121 121 Seismic Method: Division 1, Chapter 5, Min Displacement A=0.15 g, Kh(Ext)=0.195, Kh(Int)=0.195, Kv=0.000 Minimum Design Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding: l.50/1.13 pullout: l.50/1.13 overturning: 2.00/1.50 shear: 1.50/1. I 3 bearing: 2.00/1 .50 bending: 1.50/1 .13 Design Preferences Professional Mode Reinforcing Parameters: Mirafi XT Geogrids Tuft RFcr RFd 3XT 3500 1.58 l. JO Analysis: Case: 1 -7' w/2: 1 Up to 7' Retained with 2: 1 Slope RFid LTDS 1.10 1831 uncertainties: connection: 1.50/1.]3 1.50/ 1. l 3 FS Tai Ci Cds 0. 70 1.50 1220/* 0.70 * See Tai be/o1v Unit Type. Standard 111 18 I 120. 00 pc( Wall Batter. 0.00 deg (Hinge Ht NIA) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wal! Ht. 7.00fi BackS!ope: 26.57 deg slope. Surcharge.· LL: 0 p.~f uniform surcharge Load Width. 0 00ft Results: Sliding Overturning Factors of Safety. 1.53/ 1.14 5.1113.58 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1295 I J 295 I 1520 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.00 ft/0.60 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Cale. Layer Height Length Tension Reinf. TyQe 3 5.33 10.5 359 I 566 3XT 2 3.33 10.5 4811733 3XT 1 1.33 10.5 791 I 1087 3XT Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included). 3XT 3.50 sy/ft embedment.· 1.00ft 30.00 ft long DL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width. 0 00ft Bearing 8.3316.40 Allow Ten Tai 1220/1881 ok 1220/1862 ok 1220/1808 ok Shear 6.93/4.91 Pk Conn Tel 1 OJ 3/1080 ok 1221/1303 ok 1430/1525 ok Bending 3.5911.17 Pullout FS 6.88/3.48 ok 8.3414.38 ok 7.4814.35 ok Page 10 of 65 DETAILED CALCULATIONS Project: Camino Vida Roble Project No: H22013 Case: l -7' w/2: l Design Method: AASHTO-Simp/ified (vertical soil inlerface) Soil Parameters: ~ £.....llli. 0 Y....filf_ 121 121 121 Reinforced Fill 27 Retained Zone 27 Foundation Soil Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Modular Concrete Unit: S1andard III 18 27 Depth: 1.50 fi In-Place Wt: 120 pc[ Geometry Internal Stability (Horizontal geometry) Height. 7. 00 fi BackSlope: Angle. 26. 6 deg Height. l 5. 00 fi Baller. 0. 00deg Surcharge.· Dead Load 0. 00 psf Live Load: 0. 00 p.1f Base 1vidth: J0.5fi Earth Pressures: () () External Stability (Broken geometrJ) Height. l 1.50 .ft Angle.· 26.6 deg Height. J().50 fi Batter: 0. 00deg Dead Load: 0. 00 psf Live Load:() 00 psf Internal Exteriw qi = 27 deg qi = 27 deg a = 90.00 deg a = 90.00 deg ~ 0.00 deg ~ = 26.57 deg 8 = 0.00 deg 8 = 26.57 deg H = 7.00 ft ka = 0.376 ka = 0.633 Hinge Height: Hinge Ht= Not applicable Page 11 of 65 Date: 518/2020 Designer: .JGH Reinforcing Parameters: Mirafi XT Geogrids Tuft RFcr RFd RFid LTDS 3XT 3500 1.58 I.I 0 I.I() 1831 Connection Parameters: Mir,1/i XT Geogrids Frictional I 3XT Tel= Ntan(4l.00) + 1258 Unit Shear Data Shear ,~ N tan(40 00) inter-Unit Shear Shear = N tan( 32. 00) + 1500. 00 Calculated Reactions effective sliding length = l 0 50 ft hi. = 0.5H (1' Hka -2c -.Jfi) Pah := Pa· cos(c,) Pa,._, = Pa sin(c) Reactions are: Area Wl W3 W5 Pa h Pav Sum V = SumH= Pq := q·H ka Force Arm-x 1260 00 /0 750} 7623.00 [6.000} 2450. 78 [7500} 4533. 71 10.500 2267.35 [J0.500} l 3601.J 3 4533. 71 FS Tai Ci 1.50 l 220/ * 070 Cds 0 70 Break Pt 1950 Frictional 2 Tel= Ntan(5.50) +2765 Arm-y Moment 3.500 945.00 3 500 4573800 8.500 18380 84 [3.834} -17380.71 3.834 23807.14 Sum Mr= 88870.98 Sum Mo_, -17380.71 Page 12 of 65 * See Tai Page l Calculate Sliding at Base For Sliding, Vertical Force= Wl+W2+W3+W4+WS+W6+qd The resisting force within the rein. mass, Rf_ I The resisting force at the foundation, Rf_ 2 The driving forces, Dt: are the sum of the external earth pressures: Pa_h + Pql_h + Pqd_h the Factor of Safety for Sliding is Rf_2/Df Calculate Overturning: Overturning moment: Mo= Sum Mo Resisting moment: Mr= Sum Mr Factor of Safety of Overturning: Mr/Mo Page 13 of 65 = 13601 = N tan(27) = 6930 = N tan(27.00) = 6930 = 4534 = 1.53 =-17381 = 88871 = 5.11 Calculate eccentricity at base: with Surcharge/ without Surcharge Sum Moments = 71490 / 71490 Sum Vertical= 13601/13601 Base Length = I 0.50 c = 0.000 I 0.000 Calculate Ultimate Bearing based on shear: where: Nq=13.20 Ne= 23.94 Ng= 14.47 (ref. Vesic(1973, 1975) eqns) Quit= 10789 psf Equivalent footing width, B' = L -2e = I 0.50 I I 0.50 Bearing pressure= sum V IB' = 1295 psf / 1295 psf [bearing is greatest without liveload] Factor of Safety for bearing = Quit/bearing= 8.33 Calculate Tensions in Reinforcing: The tensions in the reinforcing layer, and the assumed load at the connection, is the vertical area supported by each respective layer, Sv.Column [7] is '2c sqrt(ka)'. Table of Results ppf [!] [2] [3] 14] [5] [6] [7] [8] Layer De12th zi hl kalrho Pa (Pas+Pasd} <::_ (5+6}cos(d}-7 3 1.67 1.33 0.376/59 162 197 0 359 2 3.67 3.67 0.376/59 333 148 0 481 5.67 5.83 0.376159 618 172 0 791 Calculate sliding on the reinforcing: The shear value is the lessor of base-shear or inter-unit shear. [!] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8J [9] [10] Laver DeQth zi .!:-i. Li Cds ...I.. RF ka Pa Pas+Pasd 3 1.67 5039 9.00 0. 70 1687 3485 0. 751 1729 0 2 3.67 7664 9 00 0.70 1912 4646 0676 2728 0 1 5.67 10437 9.00 0.70 2137 5860 0.649 4059 0 Page 14 of 65 [9] [10] [I I] Ti Tel Tse 359 1013 NIA 481 1221 NIA 791 1430 NIA [I I] [12] DF FS 1547 2.25 2440 1.90 3630 1.61 Calculate pullout of each layer The FoS (R*/S*) of pullout is calculated as the individual layer pullout (Rf) divided by the tension (Df) in that layer. The angle of the failure plane is: 31.50 degrees from vertical. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Pl [8] Layer De12th zi Le SumV Ci POi Ti FS PO 3 1.67 5.73 3457 0.70 2466 359 6.88 2 3.67 6.96 5622 0.70 4010 481 8.34 1 5.67 8.18 8289 0.70 5913 791 748 Check Shear & Bending at each layer Bending on the top layer is the FOS of overturning of the Units (Most surcharge loads need to be moved backji-om theface.) fl} {2} {3} {4} {5} {6} {7] {8} /9} Laver De12th zi Si DM Pv RM FS b DS RS FS Sh 3 1.67 1.67 63 300 225 3.59 ll3 1687 14.94 Seismic 1.67 1.67 192 300 225 1.17 258 1687 6.53 2 3.67 2.00 105 480 615 5.85 218 19 I 2 8.78 Seismic 3.67 2.00 /61 480 615 3.81 333 1912 5.73 1 5.67 2.00 151 840 975 6.48 309 2137 6.93 Seismic 5.67 2.00 214 840 975 4.56 435 2137 4.91 Page 15 of 65 EXTERNAL ST ABILITY Horizontal Acceleration Vertical Acceleration J\m= ( 1.45-A)A Kh(ext) = Am Kh(int) = Am Inertia Force of the Face: Wls Inertia Forces of the soil mass: = 0.15g = O.OOg = 0.195 = 0.195 = 0.195 = H x Wu x gamma= 1260.00 ppf W2s = H x (H2/2 -face depth) * gamma = 7.00 X 2.67 X 12 J.00 W3s !'if Pir Pis Seismic Thrust , Pae D Kae = 2258.83 ppf = I /2 x sqr(H2/2 -I fl) x tan(beta) x gamma = 303.44 ppf = Wl * kh(ext) = 1260.00 x 0.195 = 245.70 = W2s * kh(ext) = 2258.83 x 0.195 = 440.4 7 = W3s * kh(ext) = 303.44 x 0.195 = 59.17 = Kae -Ka= 1.189 -0.633 = 0.555 Pae Pac h/2 Pae v/2 = 0.5 x gamma x sqr(H2) x D _Kae = 0.5 x 121.00 x sqr(8.33) x 0.555 = 2333.14 = Pae x cos(delta)/2 = 1043.37 = Pae x sin(delta)/2 = 521.80 Calculated Reactions effective sliding length= I 0.50 ft Reactions for Seismic Calculations Area Force Arm-x Arm-y Moment WI 1260.00 [O. 750] 3.500 945.00 W3 7623.00 [6.000} 3.500 45738.00 W5 2450. 78 [7.500] 8.500 18380.84 Pa h 4533.71 JO 500 [3.834] -17380.7 I Pav 2267.35 [10.500] 3.834 23807.14 Pir 440.47 2.833 [3.500] -1541.65 P_if 245. 70 0750 /3.500} -859.95 P is 59.17 3.278 [7.445] -440.51 Pae h/2 1043.37 4.167 f 5. ooo J -521707 Pae v/2 521.80 [4.167} 5.000 2174.25 Sum V= 14122.92 Sum Mr= 91045.23 Sum H ~-6322.42 Sum Mo= -25439.88 Page 16 of 65 Sliding Calculations Pa h Pae h/2 PIR = 4533.71 ppf = 1043.37 ppf = 745.34 ppf Resisting Forces, RF Foundation fill = (WI + W2 + W3 + W4 + W5 + W6 +Pav+ Pae_v) tan(phi) = 14122.92 x tan(27.00) =7195.99 FS = RF/(Pa_h + Pac_h/2 + P _ir) Overturning Calculations Overturning moment: Mo = Sum Mo Resisting Moments Mr= Sum Mr Factor of Safety of Overturning= Mr/Mo Calculate eccentricity at base: Sum Moments Sum Vertical Base Length e Calculate Ultimate Bearing based on shear: where: Nq=13.20 Ne= 23.94 Ng= 14.47 (ref. Vesic(l973, 1975) eqns) Quit = 9730 psf Equivalent footing width, B' = L -2c Bearing pressure= sum V /B' Factor of Safety for bearing= Quit/bearing INTERNAL ST ABILITY kh(int) = (1.45-A) A = (1.45 -0.15) 0.15 Inertia Fore es = 1.14 = -25440 = 91045 = 3.58 = 65605 = 14123 = 10.50 = 0.605 = 9.29 = 1520 psf = 6.40 = 0.195 Wl = 1.50 x 7.00 x 120.00 x kh mt) = 245.70 ppf Wedge= Wedge x kh_int [for failure plane angle of 58.50deg.] =2619.41 x0.20 =510.78ppf Dead Load= = 0.00 ppf Total Additional Internal Dynamic Loading 510.78 + 245.70 + 0.00 Tension in Reinforcing = 756.48 ppf Laver Le ( ft) Tension Dyn Tension Total Tension( 1mD 3 5.73 358.50 207.74 566.24 2 6.96 480.92 252.16 733.08 8.18 790.79 296.58 1087.38 Page 17 of 65 FoS Pullout 3.48 4.38 4.35 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Project: Camino Vida Roble Project No: 1-122013 Case: 2 -3' w/50LL RETAINING WALL DESIGN KeyWal1_20 l2 Version 3.7.2 Build 10 Design Method: NCMA 3rd Edition {parallelogram soil inte,face) Design Parameters Soil Parameters: Retained Zone Foundation Soil Unit Fill: Minimum Design Factors of Safety sliding: 1.50 overturning: 1.50 bearing: 2.00 Design Preferences Analysis: Vert Comp in Ex t Design Case: 2 -3' w/SOLL Seat & Ramp Walls ~ 27 27 Lfil.!_ 0 0 Y..J!f.f._ 121 121 Crushed Stone, I inch minus pull out: shear: bending: 1.50 1.5 0 1.50 Profess iona l Mode uncertainties: connection: 1.50 1.50 -- " 0 0 Date: 5/8/2020 Designer: JG!-! ,i· /"" /' II _,.,,l ,,,,../ I I L = ].50fl I I I I .. ,,l Un it Type: Standard 111 18 / 120.00 pcf Wall Batter: 0.00 deg (Hinge Ht N/A) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 3.00 ft Level Backfill Offset: 0.00 ft Surcharge: LL: 50 psf uniform surcharge Load Width: I 0.00 ft Results: Sliding Factors of Safety: 2.27 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 472 I 472 ps.f Eccentricity at base: 0.25 ft Overturning 2.00 Bearing 6.17 Page 18 of 65 embedment: 0.50 ft DL: 0 psfuniform surcharge Load Width: 0.00 ft Shear NIA Bending NIA ,' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • RETAINING WALL DESIGN KeyWal1 _201 2 Version 3.7.2 Build 10 Project: Camino Vida Roble Project No: H220l 3 Case: 3 -2' w/50ll Design Method: NCMA 3rd Edition (parallelogram soil inte,.face) Design Parameters Soil Parameters: Retained Zone Foundation Soil Unit Fill: Minimum Design Factors of Safety ~ 27 27 £...filf. 0 0 Crushed Slone, I inch minus Lfil!. 121 121 Date: 5/8/2020 Designer: JGJ-1 ,,•/ri ......... / - ,' sliding: 1.50 overturning: 1.50 pullout: shear: bending: I.SO 1.50 I.SO uncertainties: connecti on: I 'ifl 1.50 bearing: 2.00 Design Preferences Analysis: Vert Comp in Ext Design Professional Mod e Case: 3 -2' wlSOLL Ramp Walls Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: Compacl 11 I 120.00 pcf Crushed Stone 2.00 ft Level Backfi ll Offset: 0.00 ft Surcharge: LL : 50 psf uniform surcharge Load Width : I 0.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning 1.75 Factors of Safety: 2.05 Ca lcu lated Bearing Pressure: 2851285 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.12 ft Bearing 9.44 Page 19 of 65 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg (Hinge HI NIA) embedment: 0.50 ft DL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width: 0.00 ft Shear NIA Bending NIA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • RETAINING WALL DESIGN KeyWall_20 l2 Version 3.7.2 Build 10 Project: Camino Vida Roble Project No: H220/3 Case: 4 -4' w/3: I Design Method: AASHTO-Simplifi.ed (vertical soil inle1_face) Design Parameters Soil Parameters: Reinforced Fill Retained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type: ~ 27 27 27 Sand, Silt or Clay Ll!ll. 0 0 0 '.L.l!£f. 121 121 121 Date: 5/8/2020 Designer: JGH Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, I inch minus Minimum Design Factors of Safety sliding: 1.50 overturning: 2.00 bearing: 2.00 pu llout: shear: bending: Design Preferences Professional Mode Reinforcing Parameters: Mira_fi XT Geogrids Tull RFcr RFd 3XT 3500 1.58 I.JO Analysis: Case: 4 -4' w/3:1 Up to 4' Retained with 3:1 Slope RFid I.JO 1.50 1.50 1.50 LTDS 1831 Unit Type: Standard Ill 18 I 120.00 pcf Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht. 4.00/i BackS/ope: 18.40 deg slope, Surcharge: LL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width. 0.00ft Results: Sliding Factors of Safety. 2. I 8 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 600 I 600 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.06 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Layer Height I 1.33 Length 5.5 Cale. Tension 439 Reinforcing Quantities (no ivaste included): 3XT 0. 61 :,y/ft Overturning 7.48 Reinf. Type 3XT uncertainties: connecti on: FS 1.50 Tai 1220 1.50 I.SO Ci 0.70 Cds 0.70 Wall Baller: 0.00 deg (Hinge Ht NIA) Bearing 9.20 Allow Ten Tai 1220 ok embedment: 0.50 ft 2000 ft long DL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width.· 0.00ft Shear 9.52 Pk Conn Tel 111 7 ok Bending 2.14 Pullout FS 2.27 ok Page 20 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • RETAINING WALL DESIGN KeyWa 11_20 l2 Version 3.7.2 Build 10 Project: Camino Vida Roble Project No: H2 20l3 Case: 5 -6' iv/50LL Design Method: AASHTO-Simp/ified (vertical soil inte,face) Design Parameters Soil Parameters: Reinforced Fill Retained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type: ~ 27 27 27 Sand, Sill or Clay LI!&. 0 0 0 Y...filL 12/ 121 /21 Date: 5/8/2020 Designer: JCH Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Minimum Design Factors of Safety sliding: I .SO overturning: 2.00 bearing: 2.00 Design Preferences Professional Mode pull out: shear: bendin g: Reinfo,·cing Parameters: Mira.fl XT Ceogrids Tull RFcr RFd 3XT 3500 1.58 l.10 Analysis: Case: 5 -6' w/50LL RFid l.10 Up to 'Retained with 50 PSF LL I.SO I.SO I.SO LTDS 183 1 Unit Type. Slandard JJJ 18 I 120.00 pc/ Leveling Pad: Crushed Slone Wal/Ht. 6.00ft Level Bac/ifi/1 Offset. 0.00 fl Surcharge: LL: 50 psf uniform surcharge Load Widlh. 20.00ft Results: Sliding Factors of Safety 2. 78 Ca lcu lated Bearing Pressure: 842 I 8 I 4 psf Eccentricity at base : 0.33 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Cale . Layer Height Length Tension 2 4.00 7.0 261 2.00 7 0 670 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): 3XT 1.56 ~ylfl Overturning 9.01 Reinf. Ty11e 3)(T 3XT uncertainties: connection: FS 1.50 Tai /220 I.SO I .SO Ci 0.70 Cds 0.70 Wall Baller. 0.00 deg (Hinge Ht NIA) Bearing 7.54 Allow Ten Tai 1220 ok l 220 ok embedment: 0.50ft DL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Widlh. 0.00ft Shear 10.97 Pk Conn Tel 1047 ok 1256 ok Bending 2.75 Pullout FS 2.02 ok 2.20 ok Page 21 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • RETAINING WALL DESIGN KeyWall_201 2 Version 3.7.2 Build 10 Project: Ca mino Vida Roble Project No: H22013 Case: 6 -4' w/2: l Design Method: AASHTO-Simplified (verlical soil inte,face) Design Parameters Soil Parameters: Reinforced Fill Relained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type: ~ 27 27 27 Sand, Silt or Clay Lill.f.. 0 0 0 L.llli.. 121 121 121 Date: 5/8/2020 _,/// ,/ ----r -------------- : .,,,,../ L -6.00fl Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, I inch minus Minimum Design Factors of Safety sliding: 1.50 overturning: 2.00 bearing: 2.00 pull out : shear: bending: Design Preferences Profess ional Mode Rein fo rcing Parameters: Mira.fl XT Geogrids Tuft RFcr R.Fd 3XT 3500 1.58 1.10 Analysis: Case: 6 -4' w/2:1 Up to 4' Retained with 2:1 Slope RFid 1.10 1.50 1.50 1.50 LTDS 1831 Unit Type. Slandard 111 18 I 120.00 pcf l eveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht.· 4.00_/t BackS/ope: 26.57 deg. slope, Surcharge: LL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width.· 0.00ji Results: Sliding Fae/ors of Safety. 1.51 Ca lculated Bearing Pressure: 704 I 704 psf Eccentri city at base: 0.00 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Layer Height 1 2.00 Length 6.0 Cale. Tension 477 Reinforcing Quantifies (no waste included): 3XT 0. 6 7 sy(/i Overturning 5.31 Reinf. Tvpe 3XT uncerta inties: connection: FS 1.50 Tai 1220 Ci 0.70 Cds 0.70 Wall Batter. 0.00 deg (Hinge Ht NIA) Bearing 8 60 Allow Ten Tai J 220 ok embedm ent: 0.50ft 20. 00 Ji long DL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Wid1h.· 0.00ji Shear JO. 75 Pk Conn Tel 1047 ok Bending 2.52 Pullout FS 2. 18 ok Page 22 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • APPENDIX B -SUPPLEMENT AL INFORMATION Page 23 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ ICC (VAUJhTlOi, SfRl'ICE M W"d I d d T d . L!L~=':',;•~~ ost I e y Accepte an ruste ICC-ES Evaluation Report www.icc-es.org I (800) 423-6587 I (562) 699-0543 DIVISION: 32 00 00-EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS Section: 32 32 00-Retaining Walls Section: 32 32 23-Segmental Retaining Walls REPORT HOLDER: KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS, LLC EVALUATION SUBJECT: KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS ADDITIONAL LISTEE: RCP BLOCK AND BRICK, INC . 1.0 EVALUATION SCOPE Compliance with the following codes: ■ 2015, 2012 and 2009 International Building Code® (IBC) ■ 2015, 2012 and 2009 International Residential Code® (IRC) ■ 2013 Abu Dhabi International Building Code (ADIBC)t 1The ADIBC is based on the 2009 IBC. 2009 IBC code sections referenced in this report are the same sections in the ADI BC. Properties evaluated: Physical properties 2.0 USES The Keystone Retaining Wall Systems (Keystone SRWs) consist of modular concrete units for the construction of conventional gravity-or geogrid-reinforced-soil retaining walls, respectively, with or without a mass of reinforced soil, stabilized by horizontal layers of geosynthetic reinforcement materials. 3.0 DESCRIPTION 3.1 Keystone Units: Keystone concrete units are available in four configurations: Standard Ill, Compac Ill, Compac II, Country Manor. See Figure 1 for dimensions and nominal weights. Standard Ill, Compac Ill, Compac II units and corresponding cap units have either a straight or three- plane split face. Country Manor units have a straight face. Cap units are half-height units without pin holes in the top surface. The nominal unit weights, noted in Figure 1, are to be used in design . Standard Ill, Compac Ill and Compac II units have four holes each for installation of two fiberglass connection ESR-2113 Reissued August 2019 This report is subject to renewal August 2021 . A Subsidiary of the International Code Council® pins. Country Manor units have six holes for installation of two fiberglass connection pins. The Small Country Manor Unit has three holes, for installation of one fiberglass connection pin. The underside of each unit has a slot to receive the connection pin. See Figure 1 for typical unit configurations. All units are made with normal-weight aggregates, and comply with ASTM C1372, including having a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3,000 psi (21 MPa) [minimum of 24 MPA is required under ADIBC Appendix L, Section 5.1.1] on the net area. In areas where repeated freezing and thawing under saturated conditions occur, evidence of compliance with freeze-thaw durability requirements of ASTM C 1372 must be submitted to the code official for approval prior to construction . 3.2 Fiberglass Pins: Pultruded fiberglass pins provide alignment of the units during placement, positive placement of the geogrid reinforcement, and inter-unit shear strength. The connection pins are 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) in diameter and 5.25 inches (133 mm) long, and have a minimum short beam shear strength of 6,400 psi (44 MPa). 3.3 Unit Core Drainage Fill: Unit core drainage fill must be½ inch to¾ inch (13 mm to 19 mm), clean, crushed-stone material that is placed between and behind the units. The unit core fill provides additional weight to the completed wall section for stability, local drainage at the face of the structure, and a filter zone to keep the backfill soils from filtering out through the space face between units. 3.4 Geogrid: The geogrid materials listed in Tables 1, 2A and 2B are proprietary materials used to increase the height of the Keystone Wall System above the height at which the wall is stable under its self-weight as a gravity system. Geogrids are synthetic materials specifically designed for use as soil reinforcement. 4.0 DESIGN AND INSTALLATION 4.1 Design: 4.1.1 General: Structural calculations must be submitted to the code official for each wall system installation. The system must be designed as a conventional gravity or reinforced-soil retaining wall that depends on the weight and geometry of the concrete units and soil to resist lateral earth pressures and other lateral forces. Lateral earth pressures are determined using either Coulomb or Rankine earth pressure theory. The design must include ICC-ES Evaluation Reporrs are not to be construed as representing aesthetics or any other atrrihutes not spec1/icol~l' addressed. nor are they lo he co11s1r11ed as an endorsement of the subject oft he report or a recommendationf(Jr its use. There is no warrant\' hy ICC Evu/11atio11 Service. LLC. i!Xpress or implied, as to any.finding or other mailer in this report, or as to any prod11cl covered hy the report . Copyright© 2019 ICC Evaluation Service, LLC. All rights reserved. Page 1 of 11 Page 24 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ESR-2113 I Most Widely Accepted and Trusted evaluation of both external and internal stability of the structure, and include consideration of external loads such as surcharges and seismic forces, as applicable. External stability analysis must be similar to that required for conventional retaining walls, and must consider base (lateral) sliding, overturning, bearing capacity (and excessive settlement), and overall (deep-seated) slope stability. Internal stability analysis of SRWs without geogrid-reinforced soil must consider movement between courses. Internal stability analysis of the SRWs with geogrid-reinforced soil must consider the maximum allowable reinforcement tension, pull-out resistance of reinforcement behind the active failure zone (excessive movement of geosynthetic material through the reinforced soil zone), and the connection strength of geosynthetic reinforcement material to the SRW concrete units or blocks, and movement between courses . Minimum safety factors used in design (for external stability check) for SRWs, with and without a geogrid- reinforced soil mass, must be 1.5 for deep-seated (global) stability and 2.0 for bearing capacity. The minimum safety factors must be 1.5 for lateral sliding and 2.0 for overturning for SRWs with a geogrid-reinforced soil mass. The minimum safety factors against lateral sliding and overturning must be 1.5 (IBC Section 1807.2.3, or IRC Section R404.4, as applicable), for SRWs without a reinforced soil mass. Minimum safety factors used in design (for internal stability) must be 1.5 for peak connection strength between the geosynthetic material and SRW units, and for peak shear strength between SRW units with or without geosynthetic material. Seismic safety factors for all limit states related to SRW design may be 75 percent of the corresponding minimum allowable static safety factors . A site-specific soils investigation report in accordance with IBC Section 1803, or IRC Section R401.4, as applicable, is required. The soils investigation report must provide a global slope stability analysis that considers the influence of site geometry, subsoil properties, groundwater conditions, and existing (or proposed) slopes above and below the proposed retaining wall. The soils investigation report must also specify the soil-reinforcement and interaction coefficients, including the coefficient of interaction for pullout and coefficient of direct sliding; and include derivation of the ultimate tensile strength of the geogrid material (according to ASTM D4595), and the applicable safety factors for the determination of the ultimate tensile strength, long-term design strength and allowable tensile strength of the geogrid. The soils investigation report must also specify safety factors for tensile rupture and pullout of the geogrid. Where the wall is assigned to Seismic Design Category (SDC) C, D, E or F, the site-specific soils report must include the information as required by IBC Section 1803.5.11. Where the wall is assigned to Seismic Design Category (SOC) D, E or F, the site-specific soils report must include the information as required by IBC Section 1803.5.12. The design of the Keystone wall is based on accepted geotechnical principles for gravity and soil-reinforced structures. Specifics of design recommended by the manufacturer are found in the Keystone Design Manual dated February 2011. 4.1.2 Conventional Gravity Retaining Walls: The gravity wall system relies on the weight and geometry of the Keystone units, without the contribution of geogrids, to resist lateral earth pressures. Gravity wall design is based on standard engineering principles for modular concrete retaining walls. The maximum height of retaining walls constructed using Keystone Standard Ill, Compac Ill, Page 2 of 11 Compac II and Country Manor units is shown in Figure 2 for different soil and back slope combinations. Typical design heights are 2.5 to 3 times the depth of the unit being used. Inter-unit shear capacity equations are provided in Table 1. 4.1.3 Geogrid-reinforced Retaining Walls: 4.1.3.1 General: The geogrid reinforced soil system relies on the weight and geometry of the Keystone units and the reinforced soil mass to act as a coherent gravity mass to resist lateral earth pressures. The design of a reinforced soil structure is specific to the Keystone unit selected, soil reinforcement strength and soil interaction, soil strength properties, and structure geometry. Inter-unit shear capacity equations are provided in Table 1. Grid-to-block pullout resistance values/equations are provided in Tables 2A and 2B. The maximum practical height above the wall base is approximately 50 feet (15 m). Figure 3 shows typical component details . 4.1.3.2 Structural Analysis: Structural analysis must be based on accepted engineering principles, the Keystone Design Manual dated February 2011, and the IBC. The analysis must include all items noted in Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.3.2.1 and 4.1.3.2.2 of this report, and must follow the design methodology of the Keystone Design Manual dated February 2011. All contact surfaces of the units must be maintained in compression. 4.1.3.2.1 External Stability Analysis: 1. The minimum length of the reinforced mass is 0.6 times the height of the wall (as measured from the top of the leveling pad to the top of the wall) or as required to satisfy a safety factor of 1.5 on sliding at the base, whichever is greater. 2. 3. 4. The minimum safety factor for overturning the reinforced mass is 2.0, considering the mass as a rigid body rotating about the toe of the wall. Global stability analysis must be provided for walls with slopes below the toe of the wall, walls on soft foundations, walls that will be designed for submerged conditions, or tiered walls . After completion of the internal stability analysis and geogrid layout, sliding along each respective geogrid layer must be checked, including shearing through the connection at the wall face. 4.1.3.2.2 Internal Stability Analysis: 1 . 2. 3 . 4 . Geogrid spacing must be based on local stability of the Keystone units during construction. Vertical spacing is typically limited to 2 times the depth of the unit. Tension calculations for each respective layer of reinforcing must be provided. Tension is based on the earth pressure and surcharge load calculated from halfway to the layer below to halfway to the layer above. Calculated tensions must not exceed the allowable geogrid strength . Connection capacity must be checked for each geogrid-to-Keystone connection (see Tables 2A and 2B). The calculated connection capacity must be equal to or greater than the calculated tension for each layer . Page 25 of 65 A calculation check must be made on pullout of the upper layers of geogrid from the soil zone beyond the theoretical Coulomb or Rankine failure plane. The pullout capacity must be equal to or greater than the calculated tension after applying the applicable • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ESR-2113 I Most Widely Accepted and Trusted geogrid interaction and sliding coefficient adjustment factors . 4.2 Installation: The wall system units are assembled in a running bond pattern, except for the Country Manor units, which are assembled in a random bond pattern. The wall system units are assembled without mortar or grout, utilizing high- strength fiberglass pins for shear connections, mechanical connections of reinforcing geogrid, if applicable, and unit alignment. The system may include horizontal layers of structural geogrid reinforcement in the backfill soil mass . Requirements for installation of the Keystone Retaining Wall System are as follows: 1. Excavate for leveling pad and reinforced fill zone . 2. Inspect excavations for adequate bearing capacity of foundation soils and observation of groundwater conditions by a qualified geotechnical engineer. 3. Install a 6-inch-thick (152 mm) leveling pad of crushed stone, compacted to 75 percent relative density as determined by ASTM 04564. (An unreinforced concrete pad in accordance with IBC Section 1809.8, may be utilized in place of the crushed stone pad.) 4. Install the first course of Keystone units, ensuring units are level from side to side and front to back. Adjacent Keystone units are placed so pin holes are approximately 12 inches (305 mm) on center. 5. Install the fiberglass pins in the units to establish the angle of wall inclination (batter). The pin placement and resulting batter for given units are as follows: • Standard 111, Compac Ill and Compac II Units: Placing the pin in the rear pin holes in every course provides a minimum wall inclination of 7.1 degrees from vertical toward the backfill [1 inch (25.4 mm) minimum setback per course]. Pin placement alternating between the front and rear pin holes on vertically adjacent rows provides a wall inclination of approximately 3.6 degrees from vertical toward the backfill [½ inch (13 mm) minimum setback per course]. The pin placement during assembly in the front pin hole provides a wall inclination of approximately 0.5 degree from vertical toward the backfill [1/a inch (3 mm) minimum setback per course]. • Country Manor Units: Placing the pin in the rear pin holes in every course provides a wall inclination of approximately 9.5 degrees from vertical toward the backfill [1 inch (25.4 mm) setback per course]. Placing the pin in the middle pin hole provides a wall inclination of approximately 0.5 degree from vertical toward the backfill [1/a inch (3 mm) minimum setback per course]. 6. Fill the unit cores with unit core drainage fill described in Section 3.3 of this report. The unit core drainage fill is required for all installations and must extend back a minimum of 2 feet (610 mm) from the outside or front face of the wall. See Figure 3. 7. Clean the top surface of the units to remove loose aggregate. 8. At designated elevation per the design, install geogrid reinforcing. All geogrid reinforcement is installed by placing it over the fiberglass pin. Check to ensure the proper orientation of the geogrid reinforcement is used so the strong direction is perpendicular to the face. Adjacent rolls are placed side by side; no overlap is required. Page 3 of 11 9. Pull taut to remove slack from the geogrids before placing backfill. Pull the entire length taut to remove any folds or wrinkles. 10. Place and compact backfill over the geogrid reinforcing layer in appropriate lift thickness to ensure compaction . 11. Repeat placement of units, core fill, backfill, and geogrids, as shown on plans, to finished grade. 12. Backfill used in the reinforced fill mass must consist of suitable fine-grained or coarse-grained soil placed in lifts compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM 01557 (95 percent per ASTM 0698). The backfill soil properties, lift thickness, and degree of compaction must be determined by the soils engineer based on site-specific conditions. In cut-wall applications, if the reinforced soil has poor drainage properties, a granular drainage layer of synthetic drainage composite should be installed to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind the reinforced soil mass . Provisions for adequate subsurface drainage must be determined by the soils engineer . 13. Stack and align units using the structural pin connection between vertically adjacent units at the design setback batter. The completed wall is built with alignment tolerances of 1.5 inches (40 mm) in 10 feet (3048 mm) in both the horizontal and vertical directions. 14. When required by the design, geogrid reinforcement is placed at the elevations specified in the design. The reinforced backfill must be placed and compacted no lower than the top unit-elevation to which geogrid placement is required. 4.3 Special Inspection: Special inspection must be provided in accordance with 2015 and 2012 IBC Sections 1705.1.1, 1705.4 and 1705.6 (2009 IBC Sections 1704.15, 1704.5 and 1704.7). The inspector's responsibilities include verifying the following: 1. The modular concrete unit type and dimensions. 2. Keystone unit identification compliance with ASTM C 1372, including compressive strength and water absorption, as described in Section 3.1 of this report . 3. Product identification, including evaluation report number (ESR-2113). 4. Foundation preparation . 5. Keystone unit placement, including proper alignment and inclination. 6. Fiberglass pin connections, including installation locations, proper fit within the blocks, and installation sequence with respect to the geogrid placement. 7. Geosynthetic reinforcement type (manufacturer and model number), location and placement. 8. Backfill placement and compaction. 9. Drainage provisions . 5.0 CONDITIONS OF USE The Keystone Retaining Wall Systems described in this report comply with, or are suitable alternatives to what is specified in, those codes listed in Section 1.0 of this report, subject to the following conditions: 5.1 The systems are designed and installed in accordance with this report; the Keystone Design Page 26 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ESR-2113 I Most Widely Accepted and Trusted Manual, dated February 2011; the manufacturer's published installation instructions; and accepted engineering principles. If there is a conflict between this report and the manufacturer's published installation instructions, this report governs 5.2 The Keystone Design Manual, dated February 2011, is submitted to the code official upon request. 5.3 The wall design calculations are submitted to, and approved by, the code official. The calculations must be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed. 5.4 A site-specific soils investigation in accordance with IBC Section 1803, or IRC Section R401.4, as applicable, as noted in Section 4.1.1 of this report, must be provided for each project site . 5.5 In areas where repeated freezing and thawing under saturated conditions occur, evidence of compliance with freeze-thaw durability requirements of ASTM C1372 must be furnished to the code official for approval prior to construction. 5.6 Special inspection must be provided for backfill placement and compaction, geogrid placement (when applicable), and block installation, in accordance with Section 4.3 of this report . 5. 7 Details in this report are limited to areas outside of groundwater. For applications where free-flowing groundwater is encountered, or where wall systems are submerged, the installation and design of systems must comply with the recommendations of the soils engineer and the appropriate sections of the NCMA Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls, and must be approved by the code official. 5.8 Under the 2015 IBC, project specifications for soil and water conditions that include sulfate concentrations identified in ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.1.1 as severe (S2) or very severe (S3), must include mix designs for the concrete, masonry and grout that comply with the intent of ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.1.1. See 2015 IBC Section 1904 . 5.9 Under the 2012 IBC, project specifications for soil and water conditions that include sulfate concentrations identified in ACI 318-11 Table 4.2.1 as severe (S2) or Page 4 of 11 very severe (S3}, must include mix designs for the concrete, masonry and grout that comply with the intent of ACI 318-11 Table 4.3.1. See 2012 IBC Section 1904 . 5.10 Under the 2009 IBC, project specifications or soil and water conditions that have sulfate concentrations identified in ACI 318-08 Table 4.2.1 as severe (S2) or very severe (S3}, shall include mix designs for concrete and masonry and grout that comply with the intent of ACI 318-08 Table 4.3.1. See 2009 IBC Section 1904.5. 5.11 As to the geogrid reinforcement material, this report evaluates only the connection strength of the geogrid material when attached to the concrete units. Physical properties of the geogrid material or its interaction with the soil have not been evaluated. 6.0 EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Data in accordance with the ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria for Segmental Retaining Walls (AC276}, dated October 2004 (editorially revised May 2014). 7.0 IDENTIFICATION 7.1 Each pallet of concrete units is identified with the manufacturer's name (RCP Block and Brick) and address, the name of the product, the unit type, and the evaluation report number (ESR-2113). Fiberglass pins are provided with each shipment of blocks, with a letter of certification by Keystone. 7.2 The report holder's contact information is the following: KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS, LLC 4444 WEST 75TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55435 www.keystonewalls.com 7.3 The Additional Listee's contact information is the following: RCP BLOCK AND BRICK, INC . 8240 BROADWAY LEMON GROVE, CALIFORNIA 91945 Page 27 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ESR-2113 I Most Widely Accepted and Trusted Page 5 of 11 TABLE 1-INTER-UNIT SHEAR RESISTANCE' PEAK CONNECTION SERVICEABILITY STRENGTH CONNECTION STRENGTH UNIT (pounds/linear foot) (pounds/linear foot) Equation Maximum Equation Maximum WITHOUT GEOGRID Compac II F = 1376 1783 F = 1263 1618 + 0.14 N +0.12N Country Manor F = 1536 1536 F = 92 + 1124 0.81 N Compac Ill F = 1543 4138 F = 649 + 3206 + 0.74 N 0.73 N Standard Ill F = 2437 5084 F = 1524 4528 + 0.53 N + 0.6 N WITH GEOGRID Miragrid P = 1711+ 4456 P = 1464 3614 3XT 0.55 N + 0.43 N Standard Ill Miragrid P = 2197+ 4447 P = 1977 3133 8XT 0.45 N + 0.23 N Miragrid P = 1271 3539 P = 543 + 2953 3XT + 0.65 N 0.69 N Compac Ill Miragrid P = 1282 3223 P = 706 + 1591 8XT + 0.56 N 0.3N For SI: 1 lb/linear foot= 14.6 Nim. 1The inter-unit shear resistance, F [lb/linear foot (Nim)], of the Keystone units at any depth is a function of the pin strength and superimposed normal (applied) load, N [lb/linear foot (Nim)] . TABLE 2A-GEOGRID-TO-BLOCK PULLOUT RESISTANCE EQUATIONS PEAK CONNECTION STRENGTH (lbs/ft) SERVICEABILITY CONNECTION STRENGTH (lbs/ft) GEOGRID Equation Maximum Equation Maximum KEYSTONE COMPAC II UNIT Strata Svstems Stratagrid P = 798 + 0.34 N 1576 P = 593 + 0.27 N 1184 SG150 Stratagrid P = 707 + 0.93 N 1754 P = 928 + 0.10 N 1250 SG200 Stratagrid P = 626 + 1. 1 5 N 2000 P = 770 + 0.42 N 1705 SG500 TC Mirafi Miragrid 2XT P = 800 + 0.29 N 1452 P = 800 + 0.29 N 1452 Miragrid 3XT P = 811 + 0.36 N 1617 P = 571 + 0.45 N 1593 Miragrid 5XT P=1200+0.38N 2050 P = 691 + 0.55 N 1941 Miragrid 7XT P=1173+0.40N 2222 P = 622 + 0.47 N 1948 Miragrid 8XT P = 960 + 0.84 N 2490 P = 691 + 0.73 N 2280 KEYSTONE COUNTRY MANOR UNIT Strata Systems Stratagrid P = 377 + 0.47 N 950 P = 327 + 0.48 N 932 SG150 Stratagrid P = 550 + 0.43 N 1238 P = 311 + 0.38 N 903 SG200 Tensar BX1200 P = 474 + 0.42 N 1142 P = 494 + 0.36 N 1045 For SI: 1 lb/linear ft.= 14.6 Nim . 1Where N = superimposed normal (applied) load (lb/linear foot) . Page 28 of 65 C e e C • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ,. • • • I. ,. I. • • • • • • • • • • • • e ESR-2113 I Most Widely Accepted and Trusted Page 6 of 11 TABLE 28-GEOGRID-TO-BLOCK PULLOUT RESISTANCE VALUES Peak Connection Strength (lbs/ft) Serviceability Connection Strength (lbs/ft) C: "O ~ "O c:":' C: "O ~ "O C: <';' "' C: ' "' "' C: ' "' E .2 z, 0 0 a. 0 0 a. E .2 Z. 0 0 a. 0 0 a. BX1202 :, -·-...I ~ ~i ....1,,. ~; :::, -·-...I ~ ~~ ...IN ~~ E u u E u u Cl)"' ma:. Cl)·-ni a:. Cl)·-Cl)"' ni a:. Cl)·-ma.. Cl)·-:~ 2 g-C: u C: u :~ 2 g-C: u C: u E-C:"' E-C:"' E-C:"' E-C:"' ::!; 0 U 0 0 Q. 0 0 Q. ::!; 0 U 0 0 Q. 0 0 Q. u u"' u"' u u"' u"' z u z u z u z u KEYSTONE COMPAC Ill UNIT Strata Systems Stratagrid 1070.00 2493.00 2179.96 6000.00 2179.96 412.65 2493.00 1659.42 6000.00 1659.42 SG200 Stratagrid 1150.00 1700.00 2735.28 3502.00 3409.02 897.82 3502.00 1562.70 6000.00 1562.70 SG550 Tencate Mirafi Miragrid 3XT 1345.22 2500.00 2020.24 6000.00 2020.24 398.97 2500.00 1374.18 6000.00 1374.18 Miragrid 8XT 1226.00 2710.00 2919.40 6000.00 2919.40 750.46 3498.00 1659.67 6000.00 1659.67 Huesker Fortrac 35T 900.00 1500.00 1372.95 6000.00 1372.95 842.82 2493.00 892.86 6000.00 892.86 Fortrac BOT 856.00 1700.00 1798.33 3500.00 2006.59 844.00 3500.00 1524.33 6000.00 1524.33 KEYSTONE STANDARD Ill UNIT Strata Systems Stratagrid 1823.21 3002.00 1973.18 6000.00 1973.18 889.70 3002.00 1189.87 6000.00 1189.87 SG200 Stratagrid 2322.00 2000.00 4060.57 5002.00 4402.61 955.00 2000.00 1682.94 6000.00 1524.33 SG550 Tencate Mirafi Miragrid 3XT 1398.00 1100.00 2197.20 3000.00 2566.52 484.00 1200.00 1069.28 3000.00 1484.84 Miragrid 8XT 1911.00 1600.00 3161 06 5053.00 4556.16 843.00 3800.00 2614.97 6000.00 2614.97 Huesker Fortrac 35T 1082.00 1000.00 1204.78 6000.00 1204.78 636.00 1800.00 985.88 2956.00 1087 02 Fortrac 85T 1600.00 2000.00 2367.73 5022.00 2420.48 894.00 2000.00 1467.49 5022.00 1625.87 For SI: 1 lb/linear ft = 14.6 Nim . 'Minimum Connection Capacity is the connection strength when the normal load is O lbs . 21P-1 is the last point (in a linear relationship between the normal load (X-axis) and the Connection Strength (Y-axis)) before it changes its linear relationship of the normal load and connection strength . 2500 2000 ~ 1500 0 LL C 0 ~ II C C 0 u 1000 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 ' ' IP-2 IP-1 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Normal Force (plf) Page 29 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ESR-2113 I Most Widely Accepted and Trusted ,,.~ ('"'" ',•, .. ~~ .. c.zoa·mm) ,e-(470 mm> to e· V•rl-by M Mffl) Standard Ill Unit 92 lb. (42 kg) 10.er C40•mm> 12" (20G mn,) Compac II Unit 82 lb. (37 kg) ... ('203'rnm) / 14-~ (3eemrn) . 12" (305 mm) Page 7 of 11 Compac Il l Unit 72 lb. (33 kg) Country Manor Unit 25-60 lbs. (12 -27 kg) Figure 1 -Keystone Wall Units Page 30 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ESR-2113 I Most Widely Accepted and Trusted Three Plane Cap Unit 45 lb. (20 kg) Universal Cap Unit 51 lb. (23 kg) Country Manor Cap Unit 24 lbs. (11 kg) Page 8 of 11 Figure 1 -Keystone Wall Units (Continued) Page 31 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ESR-2113 I Most Widely Accepted and Trusted Retained Soil Type NEAR VERTICAL WALL (Minimum setback per unit) Retained Soil Type ONE INCH SETBACK WALL (1" min setback per unit) STANDARD Il l 21"/18" UNITS STANDARD 111 21"/18" UNITS Max. Hgt. Backslope Max. Hgt . Baell.slope Soil Type level 4H:1V 3 :V 2H:lV s Type Level 4H:1V 31-tlV 21-!:1V Sand'Gravel 511.'4.3' 4.3.13.7' 4.313.7' 3.713.0' Sand.'Gra""I 6.3J'5.7' 5.7/5.f1 5.7i5.0' 5.0.14.3' &"lty Sand 4.3,'3] 3.713.0' 3.713.0' 3.0l3.0' Sir.)' Sand 5.715.0' 5.C\14.3' 5.0.'4.3' 4.313.7' &lt/Lean Clay 3.713.7' 3.7/3.0' 3.0.r3.0' 2.31 .7' Silt/Lean Clay 5.0!4.3' 4.3.13.7' 3.7/3.0' :L3l2.3' COMPAC ll/111 UNITS COMPAC 11/111 UNITS Max. Hgt. Back!:l.ope Mox. Hgi. Baell.slope Soil ype Level 4H:1V 3 :V 2H:1V s Type level 4H:1V 3H:1V 21-!. V Sandi Gravel 3.D' 2.3' 2.3' 2.3' Sand.1Gravel 3.7' 3.0' 3.0' 2.3' Sl1ty Sand 2_3' 2.3' .7' .7' Silty Sand 3.0' 3.ff 2.3' 2~3~ Silt/lean Glay 2..3' 1.7' .7' .Cf Sil-Jle.an Clay 3.D' 2.3' 2..3' 1.0' COUNTRY MANOR UNITS COUNTRY MANOR UNITS Max. Hgt. Backslope Max. Hgt. Bad.slope I Soil Type level 3H:'1V Soil Type Le,•el 3 .V Sand. 'Gravel 2.25' 1.75' Sand/Gravel 3.25' 2.25' Silty Sand .75' 1.25' Silty Sand 2.25' .75' Silt/lean Clay .75' 1.25' Silt'Lean Clay 1.75' l .25' NO'.es: Calculations assume a moist unit weight a[ 120 lbs.lei fo, all soils. Assumed q, angles for earth pressure calculations are: Sand/Grav = 34'. Silty Sand = 2,0'. and Silt/Lean Clay= 26'. Analysis to, non-anical struc1ures .,..,Jth FS 2 .50. No additional surcharge loadings are incl'Uded. Surcharges or special loo.ding oonditio.ns ,,. · I reduce maximum wa eights . Sliding calculation assumes a 6" crushed stooe leveling pad as compacted foundation material. For SI: ·1 fool = 304.8 mm FI GURE 2 -GRAVITY WALL CHARTS Page 32 of 65 Page 9 of 11 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ESR-2113 I Most Widely Accepted and Trusted Keyc--'One Unil.s Tabll Wall Height Finished Grade Backslope or Su !Charge I I I I I LowPermea • ,, ; 1 1 ( Reta, ed Sod Zone) ', .. ": •:•: I .,-:•:•_., ,' ,...._+----,-,~· _ .. 1.,J'\...i._ ·,. .:: .l"' • ',1 1 Unn Core F1lll0ra1ng,e ,; .. • .... • I I I ity Soil ,-L-+----r' : •. _. ._, ••I I -.--,"""'-"""~--; .... t' " . "' 11 Limit of &.oav.:ition · '._Q~ •::f, (Rough Out) Leveling Pad Keystone nits ...,,,_,., . .,..--~ Drainage Collection Pipe (when required) Keystone Gravity Wall Finished Grade Backslope or Surcharge f I I I Page 10 of 11 Tot:il Wall eigh: ( Ret:.ined SOil Zone) Keystone Wall with Soil Reinforcement FIGURE 3 -TYPICAL WALL SECTIONS Page 33 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ ICC EVALUATION SERVICE • . __ ~=e:: Most Widely Accepted and Trusted ICC-ES Evaluation Report ESR-2113 CBC Supplement Reissued August 2019 This report is subject to renewal August 2021 . www.i cc-es.org I (800) 423-6587 I (562) 699-0543 A Subsidiary of the International Code Council® DIVISION: 32 00 00-EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS Section: 32 32 00-Retaining Walls Section: 32 32 23-Segmental Retaining Walls REPORT HOLDER: KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS, LLC EVALUATION SUBJECT: KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS 1.0 REPORT PURPOSE AND SCOPE Purpose: The purpose of this evaluation report supplement is to indicate that Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, recognized in ICC-ES master evaluation report ESR-2113, have also been evaluated for compliance with the code noted below . Applicable code edition: 2016 California Building Code® (CBC) 2.0 CONCLUSIONS The Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, described in Sections 2.0 through 7.0 of the master evaluation report ESR-2113, comply with CBC Chapters 18 and 18A, provided the design and installation are in accordance with the 2015 International Building Code® (2015 IBC) provisions noted in the master report and the additional requirements of the CBC Chapters 16, 16A, 17 and 17A, and Section 1807A.2, as applicable. This supplement expires concurrently with the master report, reissued August 2019 . ICC-ES £valuario11 Reports ore 1101 10 be construed as representing oes1he1ics or 011y allier a11rib111es 1101 spec{fically addressed. nor c,re they fO be cons1rued as 011 endorsemenl ofrhe subject of the report or o recomme11datio11/or its use. There is no warranty by ICC £val um ion Service. LLC. express or implied. as 10 any finding or orher mauer in this report, or as 10 any product cm·ered by the reporl . Copyright © 2019 ICC Evaluation Service, LLC. All rights reserved . Page 34 of 65 Page 11 of 11 ... - - - ,,..., - GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS SPECIAL INSPECTION CIVIL SURVEY SBE RAF Pacifica Group-Real Estate Fund IV, LLC Mr. Jim Jacob, Director of Development November 5, 2019 NOVA Project 2019195 315 South Coast Highway 101, Suite V-12 Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: Report Geotechnical Update fu·sion Site Improvements 1950 Camino Vida Roble, Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Jacob: The above-referenced update geotechnical report is attached hereto. The work reported herein was completed by NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) for RAF Pacifica Group-Real Estate Fund IV, LLC, in accordance with NOVA's proposal dated September 25, 2019, as authorized on September 30, 2019. NOVA appreciates the opportunity to be of service to RAF Pacifica Group-Real Estate Fund IV, LLC. Should you have any questions regarding this report or other matters, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, NOVA Services, Inc. ,,-- ct Manager 4373 Viewridge Avenue. Suite B San Diego. CA 92123 P 858.292.7575 ,JC!!' it Pt,'"" lj1,1lt,-1 /7~ ryan Miller-Hicks P<3,CEG Senior Engineering Geologist itI2- Hillary A. Price Project Geologist www.usa-nova.com Page 35 of 65 24632 San Juan Avenue, Suite 100 Dana Point, CA 92629 P 949.388.7710 - - - -.,..., -. ' 5.0 REVIEW OF GEOLOGIC, SOIL, AND SITING HAZARDS 5.1 Overview This section provides review of geologic, soils, and siting-related hazards common to this region of California, considering each for its potential to affect the planned construction. The review provided in this section shows that the primary geologic and seismic hazard during the life of the tenant improvements is the expectation of moderate-to-severe ground shaking in response to either a local moderate or more distant large-magnitude earthquake. While there is no risk of liquefaction or related seismic phenomena, strong ground motion could affect the site. 5.2 Geologic Hazards 5. 2. 1 Strong Ground Motion The site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone (Hart and Bryant, 2007). No known active faults are mapped onsite. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault system, located offshore approximately 7 miles west of the site. This system has the potential to be a source of strong ground motion. The site may be subjected to a Magnitude 7 or greater seismic event at the Rose Canyon Fault, with a corresponding risk-basedjPeak Ground Acceleration (PGAm) of PGAm = 0.52 g. I 5.2.2 Fault Rupture There are no known active faults on or near the site. The potential for surface rupture at the site is thus considered low. Shallow ground rupture due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site. Figure 5-1 (following page) maps faulting in the site vicinity, from which it can be seen that there are no active or potentially active faults in the site vicinity. Because of this, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered very low. 5.2.3 Landslide As used herein, 'landslide' describes downslope displacement of a mass of rock, soil, and/or debris by sliding, flowing, or falling. Such mass earth movements are greater than about 10 feet thick and larger than 300 feet across. Landslides typically include cohesive block glides and disrupted slumps that are formed by translation or rotation of the slope materials along one or more slip surfaces. These mass displacements can also include similarly larger-scale, but more narrowly confined modes of mass wasting such as 'mud flows' and 'debris flows'. The causes of classic landslides start with a preexisting condition -characteristically, a plane of weak soil or rock inherent within the rock or soil mass. Thereafter, movement may be precipitated by earthquakes, wet weather, and changes to the structure or loading conditions on a slope (e.g., by erosion, cutting, filling, release of water from broken pipes, etc.). Page 36 of 65 --Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM D1557) -Sample Maximum Optimum Moisture Sample Depth Dry Density Content Location (ft.) Soil Description (pcf) (%) B-4 0 -5 Yellow Brown Clayey Sand 121.2 10.0 C Density of Soil in Place (ASTM D2937) Sample Sample Moisture Dry Density Depth Location (ft) Soil Description (%) (pcf) B-5 5 -6.5 Yellow Brown Clayey Sand 12.3 100.9 B-5 10 -11.5 Dark Gray and Black Clayey Sand 19.5 107.8 - Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) Sample uses Sample Depth Liquid Plastic Plasticity (% Finer than Location (ft.) Limit, LL Limit, PL Index, Pl No. 40) B-2 0-2 34 27 7 ML B-4 5 -10 31 20 11 CL I p 1 1a Hl 48 rn z'z' Gi;; I C Expansion Index (ASTM D4829) Sample Sample Depth Expansion Expansion Location (ft.) Index Potential B-2 0-2 44 Low B-4 5-10 10 Very Low fry Chemical (Cal. Test Method 417,422,643) Sample Sample Depth Resistivity Sulfate Content Chloride Content Location (ft.) pH (Ohm-cm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (%) B-4 0-5 7.9 280 2640 0.264 140 0.014 B-4 5 -10 7.6 320 2400 0.240 410 0.041 Jil LAB TEST RESULTS ~-~ FU.SION SITE IMPROVEMENTS NOVA 1950 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA BY:CLS I DATE: NOV 2019 I PROJECT: 2019195 I APPENDIX: C.2 PHONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570 Page 37 of 65 C") 4M -- r ,,.. - -... ,,,.., C - Cl C: "iii "' "' ll. "E Cl) ~ Cl) ll. 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 !ML Soil Type not appropriate for GSR Backfill <E--Size (fnches) ------3'> ~ U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes ----➔<'----- I I I I i I I Ii I j I I I I I j I I LI I ·' ,l I.. I I I I I I I i I I I: i I I I I I; i I I ........ ! .. !-----t--~' t--L----~ ----!----- , 1 I j : : I:! I I I: I I r·· . i ·-r-r --, --,---- , : i I I I 1 j I j I I: i I .. 1,:+j 1 i' " I ,1 ! I j1 0 0 Hydrometer Analysis 0.0 -~~-~-~~-+c--~--~~-- 100 10 Gravel Coarse I Fine Grain Size (mm) Sand Coarse! Medium I Fine Sample Location: Depth (ft): uses Soil Type: Passing No. 200 (%): B-3 10-15 ML 71 0.1 0.01 Silt or Clay 0.001 GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA PHONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570 BY:CLS FU.SION SITE IMPROVEMENTS 1950 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE: NOV 2019 PROJECT: 2019195 Page 38 of 65 APPENDIX: C.3 C <E:--Size (Inches) ------:,> "' .,. s ~ --'" 100.0 90.0 80.0 tJI 70.0 C "iii (/J "' a. 60.0 -C ., ~ ., 500 a. 40.0 30.0 20.0 100 10 Gravel Coarse I Fine 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA PHONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570 ---U.S Standard Sieve Sizes ----~--- Grain Size (mm) Sand Coarse/ Medium I Fine Sample Location: Depth (ft): uses Soil Type: Passing No. 200 (%): B-4 0-5 SM 40 Hydrometer Analysis 0001 Silt or Clay GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS BY:CLS FU.SION SITE IMPROVEMENTS 1950 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE: NOV 2019 PROJECT: 2019195 Page 39 of 65 APPENDIX: C.4 - - e Cl C: ·;;; 1/) "' 0. c (1) ~ (1) 0. <E---Size (Inches) ---3>~--- 1000 90.0 80.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes ---~➔<c----- <X) ci g D "' Hydrometer Analysis 0.0 a., ..•..... ,.~~~---J .... ~,.~~~~-~-+""-·'·-'···~--"-~~~----0·-J~ .. ,~~-~-----··· 100 10 Gravel Coarse I Fine Grain Size (mm) Sand Coarse/ Medium I Fine Sample Location: Depth (ft): uses Soil Type: Passing No. 200 (%): B-4 5-10 SC-SM 47 0.1 0.01 Silt or Clay 0.001 GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA PHONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570 BY:CLS FU.SION SITE IMPROVEMENTS 1950 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE: NOV 2019 PROJECT: 2019195 Page 40 of 65 APPENDIX: C.5 - C ,,_ <E----Size (Inches) ------;,>·+----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes -----'>•e----Hydrometer Analysis en 700 C: 'iii "' "' a. 60.0 c Cl) ~ Cl) 50.0 a. 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Gravel Coarse I 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA Fine PHONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570 Grain Size (mm) Sand Coarse! Medium I Silt or Clay Fine Sample Location: Depth (ft): uses Soil Type: Passing No. 200 (%): P-2 13-18 SC-CL 44 GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS Page 1 of 65 FU.SION SITE IMPROVEMENTS 1950 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • LABORATORY TESTING Field Moisture and Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for relatively "undisturbed" drive samples of the earth materials. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot and the field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Field moisture and density determinations are presented in the boring log within Appendix I. Moisture-Density Relations The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for representative site soils was determined according to test method ASTM D-1557-91 . Results of this testing are presented in the following table . 2' Expansion Potential Light olive brown clayey fine SAND 13.5 115.5 15.5 Expansion index tests were performed on representative samples of site topsoil and bedrock material in general accordance with Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Code. Results are presented in the following table . TP-1 at 9' TP-1 at 6' Light olive brown silty fine SAND Olive brown sandy CLAY 35 LOW 62 MEDIUM accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3080. Test results are presented in the following table . GeoSoib, Inc . Page 42-uf-6 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 9124/01 ~l¼:,I\. "Ct) ~J_ ~ l~~j -' RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS Unit Drainage Fill Options Placement of unit drainage fill in conjunction with different unit sizes and different backfill drainage and filtration requirements can result in some special combinations that have been utilized successfully in the past. There are some construction alignment considerations with different approaches that must be evalua by the contractor. Acceptable variations are indicated below: Keystone Compac Units Unit Drainage Fill/Select Backfill Keystone Standard Units A. Select Backfill -When the reinforced backfi I materia ,s a se ect granu arm e · a drains easily, a geotextile separator may be used to contain the drainage fill within the Keystone unit allowing placement of select backfill first fo llowed by the drainage fill within the units . Keystone Standard Units ·.-.·--·-.· 0 • :~::-:< Unit .-.-. ·:, Drai_nage .:·-o.'·-:.· .. : Fill . : .. : Non Freedraining Backfill o ., .. ·_.-.... -.... · .... ·.•·c.•· .. J-__ ...;.._i'-_ ~2'min . ~ Keystone Standard Units Unit Drainage Fill Non Freedraining Backfill Geotextile -_.. Separator . ·-. 0 .... .-:.:0-:.:0-:.-:0-:.--·. Unit Drainage Fill/Non-Select Backfill Unit Drainage Fill/Non-Select Backfill B. Non Select Backfill -Keystone Standard units may be utilized with a geotexti le separator against the tail of the units in lieu of the ful l 24" drainage zone in most applications to improve construction efficiency without significantly reducing drainage capability. The backfill can be placed against the geotextile first followed by the drainage fi ll within the units . Page 43 of 65 1) 2000 Keystone Retaining Wall S)SIClllS •'-' ,.... .-, - . , ... -~ -0 ,~ ---,) ~TENCATE Mirafr Miragrid® 3XT ~ SOil REINFORCEMENT Miragrid® 3XT geogrid is composed of high molecular weight, high tenacity polyester multifilament yarns which are woven in tension and finished with a PVC coating. Miragrid® 3XT geogrid is inert to biological degradation and resistant to naturally encountered chemicals, alkalis, and acids. Minimum Average Mechanical Properties Test Method Unit Roll Value Machine Direction Tensile Strenqth (at ultimate) ASTM D6637 lbs/ft (kN/m) 3500 (51.1) Tensile Strenqth (at 5% strain) ASTM D6637 lbs/ft (kN/m) 1056 (15.4) Creep Reduced Strenqth ASTM D5262 lbs/ft (kN/m) 2215 (32.3) Lonq Term Allowable Desiqn Load 1 GRI GG-4(b) lbs/ft (kN/m) 1918 (28.0) 1 NOTE: Long Term Allowable Design values are for sand, silt and clay Physical Properties Unit Typical Value Mass/Unit Area (ASTM D5261) oz/vdL (q/mL) 8.2 (278) Roll Dimensions (width x length) ft (m) 12 X 150 (3.6 X 46) Roll Area vdL (mL) 200 (165) Estimated Roll Weight lbs (kq) 119(54) Disclaimer: TenCate assumes no liability for the accuracy or completeness of this information or for the ultimate use by the purchaser. TenCate disclaims any and all express, implied, or statutory standards, warranties or guarantees, including without limitation any implied warranty as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or arising from a course of dealing or usage of trade as to any equipment, materials, or information furnished herewith. This document should not be construed as engineering advice. © 2012 TenCate Geosynthetics Americas Miragrid® is a registered trademark of Nicolon Corporation ~ Made in USA ~TENCATE .. materials that make a difference FGS000005 ETQR20 Page 44 of 65 To: From: Subject: - ·- -- State of California DErARTMENT OFTRANSrORTATIOI\ Memorandum ALL STAFF Geotechnical Services Division of Engineering Services PHILIP J. STOLARSKI ()A~ State Materials Engineer \ ._j - Deputy Division Chief Materials Engineering and Testing Services and Geotechnical Services Division of Engineering Services Seismic Design and Selection of Standard Retaining Walls Business, Tr, nsportation and Housing Agency Flex your power! Be energy efficient! IJate: June 13, 2013 When providing geotechnical recommendations for type selection of retaining walls during planning and design phases, the job site should be evaluated to ensure seismic design criteria used for development of the LRFD standard plans are applicable. According to standard plan sheets dated April 2012, the seismic criteria threshold for standard retaining walls are; Coefficient of Horizontal Acceleration, kh = 0.2 and Coefficient of Vertical Acceleration kv = 0.0, except for concrete retaining walls supporting soundwalls where kh = 0.3 and kv= 0.0 are used. The kh = 0.2 is roughly based on using 1/3 Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), therefore, at sites where the PGA is equal to or less than 0.6g, the retaining walls shown in the Standard Plans are applicable. For sites with PGA greater than 0.6g, the standard plans are not applicable, and DES/Structure Design should design the retaining walls as special design walls. Include the seismic assessment in geotechnical reports to the District Project Engineer as early as possible during planning or design phases of the project development process, so that appropriate functional units can be notified and resources be allocated. c: Barton Newton, Deputy Division Chief, Structure Policy& Innovation, Division of Engineering Services Lam X. Nguyen, Acting Deputy Division Chief, DES-Program/Project & Resource Management Michael D. Keever, Deputy Division Chief, DES-Structure Design Susan E. Hida, Supervising Bridge Engineer, DES-SP&I-Office of State Bridge Engineer Tom Ostrom, Supervising Bridge Engineer, DES-SP&I-Office of Earthquake Engineering "Cal!ran.\· improw!s mobility across California" Page 45 of 65 APPENDIX C -ENGINEERED FENCE POST SEGMENTAL WALL ANCHORING SYSTEM Page 46 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • POST-iN Retaining Wall When Every Inch Counts .... POST-iN Fencing System for SRWs utilizes the large hollow cores of the wall blocks for steel or wood fence posts. The cantilevered Post In/concrete slab and the soil behind the wall, resists the overturning pressure of the lateral loads. By placing the fence on top of the wall, you can maximize use of property and reduce maintenance behind the wall . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • SPECIFICATIONS Height 18" (450mm) Width 12" (305mm) Length 36" (915mm) Weight = 7 Lbs (3.17 Kg) MAXIMIZE Every Inch of Property behind the Wall ELIMINATE Cumbersome Landscape Maintenance INCREASE Safety and Security on Top of Wall SIMPLIFY Installation of Steel and Wood Fence Posts REDUCE Costs ENGINEERED Fencing System for SRWs TYP. CONCRETE SLAB SIZES 12"xl2" (305x305mm) 18"x18" ( 457x457mm) 24"x24" (610x610mm) 30"x30" (762x762mm) 'CONCRETE SLAB NOT INCLUDED SIZE AND WEIGHT TO BE DETERMINED BY ENGINEER POST-iN Retaining Wall I I 18" High (450mm) \ \ Base for Concrete Slab ~ Post as Required and Approved / / Concrete Core Fill Filter Fabric POST-iN Concrete Slab as Approved Approved Backfill ~ Drainage Gravel Cornerstone Retaining Wa ll CROSS SECTION DETAIL • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Race Engineering Assoc. Engineering Consulting, Geotechnical Engineering, Software Developent 4851 Four Seasons Ct, Eagan, MN 55122 1-612-670-7009 www.rea-llc.com File Customer I Project Date REA-Cornerstone Post-In Assembly 03/14/17 By rjr Item Reviewed Subject Page Overturning resistance of Post-In Assembly 0 Units Listed 0 Numbers Checked 0 Sources Referenced 0 In uts Listed Calcul ate resistance from soil over the concrete pad. Assu me soi l base is the pad with , extending up at 2V: 1 H shape . Variables: Yp = 120 pcf Ye = 140 pcf ht= 26 in (assume 2 ft, 4 in to surface, 2 inch concrete pad) Pad Dimension: P1 = 18 in P2 = 24 in P3 = 30 in Weight of soil mass P1 = 2093 lbf P2 = 2870 lbf P3 = 3789 lbf Driving moment from Fence Moment Arms: L= M1= 3.00 ft M2 = 2.75 ft M3= 2.50 ft Resisting Moment Mr1= 6278 ft-lbf Mr2= 7893 ft-lbf Mr3= 9474 ft-lbf Htr = § ft (height of fence) Wd, = § ft (width of fence panel) Wind Speed: 70 mp h Force on Fence: F=A x P = A x Ce x Cq x Os x lw A= area of fence P = pressure Ce = combined height, exposure and gust factor Cq = pressure coefficient Qs = wi nd stagnet factor lw = importance factor F= 1012 lbf Mo = driving moment on fence Mo= 4046 ft_lbf 18x18 Fsot = 1.55 3.75 ft ::OR!\.l:RSTONE 100 L = 3' 9" face of block to tail, measure from front of unit NCRETEPAD l81d8. 24x2-l,16i,:36 A= 48 sf Ce= 0.84 Cq = ~ for long flat plate Os = 0.00256* V2 = 12.5 psf lw = .L.Q 24x24 30x30 1.95 2.34 Chk Cornerstone Wall Solutions, Inc. 1 of 1 Page 49 of 65 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• OJ en "''CORNERSTONE 100 ~TEEL SUf.!?ORT FRAME r>• "· ·-CONCRETE PAD: 12;·12, 18x 18, 24x24, 36x36 SOIL BLOCK EXTENDS FROM CONCRETE BLOCK TO THE SURF ACE. SIZE IS THE BLOCK BASE, WIDTH AT TOP OF 2V: I H ANGLE FROM THE BASE. STEEL PIPE FOR FENCE POST REVISIONS [ POST-IN-DETAIL ~IM/llll/VY . Kt'.MAIUSS -_/_ .I. I. = I.;__ POST-IN I I ,. ~-~ \· -, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • u..J :r: f- u..J > 0 en <( if) if) <( . 2~ :r: 0 -f-> if) Nu..l <( t;3 if) c:r:: ~u ifJ z <( 0 2U ::::!~ 0 <( r:.r; en ~ "' ,,. .;, --·--C"'>-·······-··-·-· _··· ____ . ____ ·:: . -'- t ,...!JJ..2 2: I I I [~7::: t-_ --;::--;;-..,.---+-;.- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • S lEEVE-ITQv by STRATA Strata Systems, Inc . 1831 N. Park Avenue Burlington, NC 27217 SLEEVE-IT® SD 1 Technical Summary 2018 Page 52 of 65 Phone: 800-680-7750 www.geogrid.com • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • INTRODUCTION Sleeve-lt®SD-1 is a pre-engineered fence post anchoring solution for enhancing below-grade foundational stability in fence s placed on top of a segmental retaining wa ll (SRW). Sleeve-It's patent-pending design allows stable fence footings to be integrated into the support structure of the SRW while it is being constructed. Because of its cantilevered form and other properties, using Sleeve-It during the SRW bu ild permits a code-compliant fence to be constructed eliminating the 36" offset requirements of IBC 1015.2 . Code as defined for the purposes of this document refers to IBC 1015.2, IBC 1607.8.1, and ASCE 7 4.5.1 . SET POSITION OF SLEEVE IMMEDIATELY BEHIND TOPMOST SRW UNIT. CAP UNIT FENCE POST" BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO TOP OF SLEEVE BEFORE SETTING POST AND CONCRETE CUT THE GEOGRID AROUND THE SLEEVE-IT SYSTEM AS NECESSARY GEOGRID Figure No. 1: Detail of Fence Post Installation Using Sleeve-It SD 1 SlEEVE-IT Page 53 of 65 bySllv\TA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • CODE REQUIREMENTS /BC 2018 Load Requirements Load Bearing IBC 2018 references load requirements in several sections. The following sections relate directly to bearing on handrails and guards: • Guards-1015.2 -Guards sha ll be located along open-sided walking surfaces, including mezzanines, equipment platforms, aisles, stairs, ramps and landings that are located more than 30 inches measure vertica lly to the floor or grade below any point within 36 inches horizontally to the edge of the open side. Guards shall be adequate in strength and attached in accordance with Section 1607.8 . • Live Loads-1607.8.1-Handrails and guards shall be designed to resist a linear load of 50 pounds per linear foot in accordance with Section 4.5.1.1 of ASCE 7. Glass handrail assembles and guards shall comply with Section 2407 . Deflection Deflection for fence systems, although a common concern, is not usually defined in building codes . IBC Section 1604.3 addresses the serviceability requirements of structural members in general. ASCE/SEI 7-16 Chapter 4: Live Loads 4.5.1 Loads on Handrail and Guardrail Systems: All handrail and guardrail systems shall be designed to resist a single concentrated load of 200 lb (0.89 kN) applied in any direction at any point on the handrail or top rail to produce the maximum load effect on the element being considered and to transfer this load through the supports to the structure. Further, all handrail and guardrail systems shall be designed to resist a load of 50 lb/ft (pound-force per linear foot) (0.73 kN/m) applied in any direction along the handrail or top rail. This load need not be assumed to act concurrently with the load specified in the preceding paragraph, and this load need not be considered for the following occupancies: l one-and two-family dwellings, and 2. factory, industrial, and storage occupancies, in areas that are not accessible to the public and that serve an occupant load not greater than 50 . Intermediate rail s {all those except the handrail or top rail) and panel fillers sha ll be designed to withstand a horizontally applied normal load of 50 lb (0.22 kN) on an area not to exceed 12 in. by 12 in. (305 mm by 305 mm) including openings and space between rails and located so as to produce the maximum load effects. Reactions due to this loading are not req uired to be superimposed w ith the loads specified in either preceding paragraph . SlEEVE-IT Page 54 of 65 bySTRAT,\ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TESTING OVERVIEW The purpose of the load testing is to show that Sleeve-It meets and exceeds the relevant compliance standards required by IBC and that the new Sleeve-It design outperforms the old unit. All of the testing was performed by a retaining wall company and monitored by SGI Testing Services, LLC for the entirety of the testing process . The Fence Post Anchoring System components: • Fence post • Concrete • Sleeve-It SDl • Soil • Wall Testing Set-Up FENCE -------.., POST '-... Load Cell Reader ■ Load Cell Hydraulic Jack ·:◄ Concrete Wall Displacement ► ◄- 0 ~ Dial Gauge FILL SLEEVE WITH CONCRETE, SET FENCE POST. . ~ '. REINFORCED __ 1 ., BACKFILL ZONE -_ ........ :--..___ Figure No. 2: Testing Set-Up COMPACT TO 95% MDD PER ASTM D698. ---.___, GEOGRID SlEEVE-IT by STRi\Tt\ Page 55 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TESTING PROCEDURE Concentrated Load Figure No. 2 illustrates the testing set-u p. The following is a summary of the testing procedure performed: 1. Applied a horizontal force on the fence post by means of a hydraulic jack equipped with a load cell and corresponding readout apparatus. Resistance to the hydraulic jack was created by a concrete wall . 2. Displacement (deflection) of the modular block retaining wall was measured at the top of the upper block by means of a dial gauge . 3. Measurement of the displacement was taken at regular intervals of horizontal load application . Displacement measurement was discontinued (ie, end of test) when the horizontal load could no longer be sustained . Span Loading (5 -ft Spacing) 1. Applied a horizontal force at the midpoint of two fence posts by means of a hydraulic jack equipped with a load cel l and corresponding readout apparatus. In this case, the fence posts were S feet apart. Resista nce to the hydraulic jack was created by a concrete wall . 2. Displacement (deflection) of the modular block retaining wall was measured at the top of the upper block by means of a dial gauge . 3. Measurement of the displacement was taken at regu lar intervals of horizontal load application. Displa cement measurement was discontinued (ie, end of test) when the horizontal load could no longer be sustained . Fence Post Foundation Systems For the purposes of this testing, the following fence post foundation systems were used. These are: 1. Sleeve-It® SDl Fence Post Foundation System, and 2. Sleeve-It® 1224R Fence Post Foundation System . Both systems were placed directly behind the modular block retaining wall and founded within the reinforced soi l zone at a depth of approximately 2 feet. The reinforced backfill is a soi l which is commonly found in many areas of United States. It is a silty sand with fines (<No 200 sieve) content of approximately 35% and is non-plastic. It was compacted in place to at least 95% of its Standard Proctor Dry Density (ASTM D698) . Soils commonly used for reinforced backfill in the construction of modular block retaining wa lls were used . SlEEVE-IT Page 56 of 65 by STRATA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TESTING RESULTS The results of the testing program are presented on the graphs on Figure No. 3 and Figure No. 4 . Sleeve-It® SD 1 The graph on Figure No. 3 illustrates the load-displacement behavior of the new Sleeve-It®. The displacement of the modular block retaining wall in creases as the horizontal load in creases. Also indicated on the graph is the displacement of the retaining wall at the I BC load requirement (200 lbs) . The displacement measured at this load is less than 0.1 inch. Also shown is the displacement (<0.3 in ch) at 400 lbs horizontal load. Under the testing cond itions, this load level is significa nt because it corresponds to a Factor of Safety (FoS) of 2. FoS is a term describing the load carrying capacity of a system beyond the expected or actual loads. Most civil engineering structures require safety factors to ensure confidence that the structure will behave better than intended . SLEEVE-IT SD 1 800 700 600 500 ..0 -0 400 0 0 --' 300 Minimum Code Requirement 200 100 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Displacement {inches) Figure No. 3: Load -Displacement Curve for Sleeve-It SLEEVE-IT b)'STR/\Tt\ Page 57 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TESTING RESULTS Original Sleeve-It® The graph on Figure No. 4 illustrates the load-d isplacement behavior of the origina l Sleeve-It®. As expected, the displacement of the modular block reta ining wa ll increases as the horizontal load increases . Also indicated on the graph is the displacement of the retaining wal l at the IBC load requirement (200 lbs). The displacement mea sured at this load is 0.12 inch. Also shown is the displacement (<0 4 inch) at 400 lbs horizontal load . -;;- ~ -0 0 0 -' SLEEVE-IT 1224R 800 ~------------------~ 700 600 500 FoS = 2 400 300 200 100 ~ .. , .... , I I I I I Minimum Code Requirement 0 -t--r--r-'r--r---r--T""""""T--r--r---r--T""""""T--r--r---r---r--,---r---r---r--.------,c---r-,---l 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Dis placement (inches) Figure No. 4: Load -Displacement Curve for Sleeve-It 1224R SLEEVE-IT by STRATA Page 58 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TESTING RESULTS Span Loading (5-ft Spacing) The code requires that the posts be able to withstand a load of 50 lbs/I in ft. A horizontal force at the midpoint of two fence posts was applied. In this case, the fence posts were 5 feet apa rt. The results of this test are presented in Figure No. 5. Clearly, Sleeve-It SO1 complied with the code requirements. For a FoS = 2, the displacement is well under 0.25 inch . 5 FOOT SPAN 1400 ~---------------~ 280 1200 1000 ~ 800 "'O C _g 600 400 200 0.0 Minimum Code Requirement = 50 lb / lin ft 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Displocement (in) Figure No. 5 : Load -5 Foot Span 240 200 -160 -120 80 40 0 1.0 0 0 0.. o= ':::, 5· .::: SlEEVE-IT Page 59 of 65 by STRATA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TESTING CONCLUSIONS The results of the Fence Post Foundation Systems testing program is summarized on the graph on Figure No. 6. The conclu sions drawn from the testing are as follows: 1. Both the Sleeve-It SDl and Sleeve-It 1224R Fence Post Foundation Systems meet the requirements of the Code . 2. Sleeve-It SDl Fen ce Post Foundation System out-performed Sleeve-It 1224R . COMPARISON 800 ~------------------~ 700 600 500 ,Q FoS • 2 -0 400 0 _g -Sleeve-It SDl 300 -Sleeve-It 1224R Minimum Code Requirement 200 100 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Displacement (inches) Figure No. 6: Load -Comparison SlEEVE-IT Page 60 of 65 b)'STR.i\TA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ADDENDUM Introduction As a follow-up to the Sleeve-It® t esting summarized in the preced ing Technica l Summa ry, Strata Systems, Inc. conducted a co mparati ve testing with one of the most basic fence post install ation systems -a con crete-fill ed 6-in ch ca rdboard tube placed up to 6 inches behin d the w all facing with a layer of geogrid rein force ment. The res ults and analysis of t his testing, described in the following Addendum, demonstrate how Sleeve-It SDl outperforms this basic syst em. All of the testing was performed by an independent, third-party retaining wa ll con tractor and monitored by SG I Testing Servi ces, LLC for the entirety of the testing process . Testing Set-Up Additiona l testing was ca rried out on a standard 2-inch fe nce post w ith 6-inch diameter ca rdboa rd tubing foundat ion located directly behind the modular block retaining wall an d 6 inches behind the modular block retainin g wa ll. The ca rdboa rd tubing was placed 24 inches below the surface and filled w ith co ncrete. A layer of geogrid reinforce ment was also place d at a depth of 12-inches below the surface. So il parameters and install ation conditions were virtually identica l to previous testing . For the purposes of this testing, the Basic Fence Post Anchoring System was co mprised of the following components: • Fence post • Concrete • 6-in Cardboard Tube • Soil • Wall Testing Procedure -Concentrated Load Figure No. 7 illustrates the testing set-up. The following is a summary of the testing procedure performed: 1. Applied a horizonta l force on the fence post by mea ns of a hydraulic jack equipped with a load cell and corresponding readout appara tu s. Resistance to the hydraulic jack was created by a concrete wall. 2. Displacement (deflect ion) of the mod ular block retaining wa ll was measured at the top of the upper block by mea ns of a dial gauge . 3. Measurement of the displacement was taken at regular interva ls of horizonta l load application . Displace ment measurement was discontinued (ie, end of test) when the horizonta l load could no longer be susta ined . SLEEVE-IT Page 61 of 65 bySTRJ\T/\ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ADDENDUM NOTE: Tubing placed directly behind modular block AND 6 inches behind modular block for testing Displacement ~ Dial Gauge FENCE POST Fill TUBING WITH CONCRETE, SET FENCEPOST. REINFORCED BACKFILL ZONE Concrete Wall GEOGRID COMPACT TO 95% MOD PER ASTM \..___::___ ____ .i'-'>a.J.L-_.:::0698 . Figure No. 7: Testing Set-Up -Cardboard Tube Page 62 of 65 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ADDENDUM Results Initially, both the horizontal load and the displacement of the modular block retaining wa ll increased. However, at a load of 100 lbs, the deflection of the ca rdboard tube increased without any increase in horizontal loa d. The results demonstrate that the fe nce post did not sustain a load greater than 100 lbs . The results of the testing are presented on Figure No. 8 . SLEEVE-IT SDl VS. CARDBOARD TUBE 800 700 600 -;;;-500 --Sleeve-It -O" from fence E "'O -CB Tube -6" from fence 0 ~ 400 --CB Tube -O" from fence 300 Minimum Code Requirement 200 100 1.0 1.5 2.0 Displacement (inches) Figure No. 8: Displacement Curve Comparison fo r Cardboard Tube SlEEVE-IT Page 63 of 65 by STRATA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ADDENDUM Conclusion The 6-inch diameter concrete-filled carboard tube fencing foundation system di d not meet the Code. Th e specified 200-lb co ncentrated load was not achi eve d, even with a geogrid reinforceme nt ele ment includ ed at a depth of 12 inches. Figure No. 9 shows the co mparison to Sleeve-It SDl and th e cardboard tube fencing foundation. Th e res ults indicate that the performance of Sleeve-It SDl is supe rior t o that of the ca rdboard tube in term s of the concentrated load . SLEEVE-IT SD 1 VS. CARDBOARD TUBE 800 700 600 -;;;-500 -Sleeve-It -O" from fence ~ -u -CB Tube -6" from fence 0 .3 400 -CB Tube -O" from fence 300 Minimum Code Requirement 200 100 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Displacement (inches) Figure No. 9: Displacement Curve Comparison for Sleeve-It SD 1 vs. Cardboard Tubes SlEEVE-IT Page 64 of 65 by STRATA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • REFERENCES Chapter 4 Live Loads. (July, 2016). In ASCE Minimum De sign Load s and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from https ://codes iccsafe .org/public/document/I BC2018/cha pter-16-structu rat -design Chapter 10 Means of Egres s. (August, 2017). In 2018 International Business Code. International Code Council. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from https :// codes. iccsafe. org/pu bl ic/ docu me nt/I BC2018/ cha pte r-10-mea ns-of-egress Chapter 16 Structural Design. (August, 2017). In 2018 International Business Code. International Code Council. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from https:// cod es. iccsafe .org/pu b I ic/ docu me nt/I BC2018/cha pte r-16-structu ra I-design Yuan, Z. (2018, April 15) Sleeve.Test-4-15-2018 [PDF] . Yuan, Z. (2018, June 14). Sleeve.Test-6-14-2018 [PDF] . Page 65 of 65