Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2827 WHIPTAIL LOOP; ; CBC2022-0298; Permit
Building Permit Finaled C cityof Carlsbad Commercial Permit Print Date: 06/05/2024 Job Address: 2827 WHIPTAIL LOOP, CARLSBAD, CA 92010 Permit No: Status: CBC2022-0298 Closed -Finaled Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Work Class: Tenant Improvement Parcel #: 2091202600 Track#: Valuation: $834,973.04 Lot ti: 24 Occupancy Group: 8-Fl-Sl-A3 Project ti: #of Dwelling Units: Plan ti: Bedrooms: Bathrooms: Construction Type:V-8 Orig. Plan Check#: Occupant Load: Code Edition: 342 2019 Sprinkled: Yes Project Title: Plan Check ti: Applied: 08/15/2022 Issued: 01/12/2023 Finaled Close Out: 06/05/2024 Final Inspection: 06/29/2023 INSPECTOR: Renfro, Chris Description: MILLIPORE SIGMA: PHASE 2A (CP-2) 14,486 SF Tl FOR ANALYTICAL LAB, STORAGE & EXTEND EXTERIOR UTILITY YARD TOTAi OCCUPANCY LOAD 342 WITH GROUP B (149), GROUP F (40), GROUPS (5), GROUP A (148) Applicant: CHAMPION PERMITS TIM SEAMAN 1127 11TH ST IMPERIAL BEACH, CA 91932-2901 (619) 993-8846 FEE BUILDING PLAN CHECK Property Owner: BERDAN WHIPTAIL LLC 2827 WHIPTAIL LOOP CARLSBAD, CA 92010-6713 BUILDING PLAN REVIEW-MINOR PROJECTS (LOE) BUILDING PLAN REVIEW-MINOR PROJECTS (PLN} CERTI FICATE OF OCCUPANCY COMM/IND Tl -STRUCTURAL FIRE F Occupancies Tl FIRE Special Equipment (Ovens, Dust, Battery) 581473 -GREEN BUILDING STATE STANDARDS FEE STRONG MOTION -COMMERCIAL (SMIP) SWPPP INSPECTION TIER 1 -Medium BLDG SWPPP PLAN REVIEW TIER 1 -Medium SWQMP INSPECTION (subsequent acre >than .5 acres) Total Fees: $7,484.29 Total Payments To Date: $7,484.29 Contractor: BN BUILDERS INC 5825 OBERLIN DR, # STE 1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92121-3709 (858) 550-9433 Balance Due: AMOUNT $1,495.20 $194.00 $98.00 $16.00 $2,300.30 $744.00 $493.00 $34.00 $233.79 $292.00 $69.00 $1,515.00 $0.00 Pl ease take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exaction." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Sect ion 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitation has previously otherwise expired. Building Division Page 1 of 1 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 I 442-339-2719 I 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov ... ( City of Carlsbad COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION B-2 Plan Check CBC2022--0298 Est. Value PC Deposit Date Job Address 2827 Whiptail Loop Suite: APN: 209-120-26 -----· Tenant Name#: MIiiipore Sigma Phase 2A City Permit CP-2 Lot#: 24 Year Built: 2019 ---------- Year Built:. __ _ Occupancy: B-F1♦s1 Construction Type:_v_-8 __ Fire sprinklers:(:)YESQNO A/C:()YESQNO BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Addition of a PD analytical lab, storage areas, extension of exterior utility yard and associated structural and MEP changes D Addltion/New: ____________ New SF and Use, __________ New SF and Use ______ SF Deck, SF Patio Cover, SF Other (Specify) ___ _ ~Tenant Improvement: _____ SF, Existing Use: _______ Proposed Use: ______ _ _ 14_·486 ____ SF, Existing Use : e,F1.s1 Proposed Use: _8,_F,_.s_, ____ _ □~ ~ _________ 'c_c_E=-r1Nr-+-l\t--___ _ PRIMARY APPLICANT Name: Tim Seaman Address: P.O. Box 5955 City: Chula Vista Phone: (619)993-8846 State:_c_A __ .Zip: 91912 Email: tlm@champlonparmlts.com PROPERTY OWNER Name: Millipore Sigma Address: 6211 El Camino Real City: Carlsbad Phone: 858-243-0741 State:_c_A __ .Zip: 92009 Email: oliver.castlllaJa@mllliporeslgma.com DESIGN PROFESSIONAL !R,_ CONTRACTOR OF REC RD 0.,. \\ Name: CPCArchltects Business Name: ~ }JIA.., ~QJ > ~.f'\.. C...... Address:3132TigerRunCt.Suite113 Address: 'a-b\ U. frVO..... O City: Carlsbad State:._c_A __ Zlp: 9201° City: Se.c--ti: \ L State: V l'r Zip: ___ ,_~_\_?_\_ Phone: 858449-3066 Phone: -o-Dlo -?J '6 'i3 -o '\--.. ,:!, Email: Jean-Claude@cpcarchitects.com Email: ___________________ _ Architect State License: _c_-3_12_4_0 _________ CSLB License#: 7 <\ °'-\ ;> \ Class: . .__~~----- carlsbad Business License# (Required):_, ______ _ APPUCANT CERTIFICATION: I certify that I have read the application and state that the above Information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. NAME (PRINT): Jean-Claude Constandse Joan-Claude Constend,a ~::Z~z.!:...::==. 08/15/2022 SIGN: ...... M............ DATE:------ 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 442-339-2719 Email: Building@carlsbadca.gov REV. 04/22 THIS PAGE REQUIRED AT PERMIT ISSUANCE PLAN CHECK NUMBER: ______ _ A BUILDING PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED TO EITHER A STATE LICENSED CONTRACTOR OR A PROPERTY OWNER. IF THE PERSON SIGNING THIS FORM IS AN AGENT FOR EITHER ENTITY AN AUTHORIZATION FORM OR LETTER IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. (OPTION A): LICENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION: I herebyaffirmunder penaltyof perjury that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, and my license is in full f orce and effect. I a/so affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarat ions (CHOOSE ONE}: D I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work which this permit is issued. PolicyNo. _________________________________________ _ -OR- [31 have and will maintain worker's compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company Name: _Lkly __ ......., __ .....,,_ .... __ eo_. _______________ _ Polley No. wc564s.wS&279( '!) o-Expiration Date: _o3m_1120_23 ______________ _ -OR- D Certificate of Exemption: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit Is Issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the workers' compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers compensation coverage Is unlawful and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to $100,000.00, In addition the to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for In Section 3706 of the Labor Code, Interest and attorney's fees. CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY. IF ANY: I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work this permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (I) Civil Code). Lender's Name:. ______________________ Lender's Address: _____________________ _ CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION: The applicant certifies that all documents and plans clearly and accurately show all e•istlng and proposed buildings, structures, access roods, and utllities/ut/1/ty easements. All proposed modifications ond/or additions ore clearly labeled on the site pion. Any potent/ally existing detail within these plans Inconsistent with the site pion ore not approved for construction and may be required to be altered or removed. The city's approval of the application is based on the premise that the submitted documents ond plans show the correct dimensions of; the property, buildings, structures and their setbacks from property lines ond from one another; access roads/easements, and utilities. The existing ond proposed use of eoch building as stated Is true and correct; oll easements and other encumbrances to development hove been accurately shown ond labeled as well as oll on-site grading/site preparation. All improvements existing on the property were completed in accordance with oll regulations in existence at the time of their construction, unless otherwise noted. -,,.,;~ NAME (PRINT): Tim Mort SIGNATURE: , DATE: 07/14/2022 ----------------------------Note: If the person signing above ls an authoriled agent for the contractor provide a letter of authorilatlon on contractor letterhead. (OPTION B): OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION: I hereby affirm that I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: D I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure Is not Intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not Intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or Improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). -OR- DI, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or Improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). -OR-□ I am exempt under Business and Professions Code Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 3 for this reason: AND, D FORM B-61 "Owner Builder Acknowledgement and Verification Form" is required for any permit issued to a property owner. By my signature below I acknowledge that, except for my personal residence in which I must have resided for at least one year prior to completion of the improvements covered by this permit, I cannot legally sell a structure that I have built as an owner-builder if it has not been constructed In its entirety by licensed contractors./ understand that a capyof the applicable law, Section 7044 of the Business and Professions Code, is available upon request when this application is submitted orat the following Web site: http: I l www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. OWNER CERT/FICA T/ON: The applicant certifies that all documenl5 and plans clearly and accurately show all existing and proposed buildings, structures, occess roods, and utilities/utility easements. All propostd modifications and/or additions ore cltorly labeled on the site pion. Any potent/ally existing detoll within these pions Inconsistent with the silt pion ore not opprovt!d for construct/on ond moy be required to be altered or remavt!d. Tht city's approval of the application Is based on the premise that the submitted documents and plans show the correct dimensions of; the property, buildings, structures and their setbacks from property lines and from one another; access roods/easements, and utilities. The existing and proposed use of toch building as stated Is true ond correct; all eosemenu ond other encumbrances ta development hove been accurately shown and labeled os well as all on-site grading/site preparation. All improvements existing on the property were completed in accordance with oil regulations in existence ot the time of their construction, unless otherwise noted. NAME (PRINT): SIGN: __________ DATE: ______ _ Note: If the person signing above is an authorized agent for the property owner Include fonm B-62 signed by property owner. 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 442-339-2719 Email: Building@carlsbadca.gov 2 REV. 04/22 Building Permit Inspection History Finaled {city of Carlsbad PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBC2022-0298) Application Date: 08/15/2022 Owner: BERDAN WHIPTAIL LLC Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 01/12/2023 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT NO 97-13-03 CB Status: Closed -Finaled Expiration Date: 11/13/2023 IVR Number: 42650 OAKS NOR Address: 2827 WHIPTAIL LOOP CARLSBAD, CA 92010 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Relnspection Inspection Date Start Date Status 01/17/2023 01/17/2023 BLDG-24 Rough/Topout 200799-2023 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Checklist Item COMMENTS BLDG-Building Deficiency 01/23/2023 01/23/2023 BLDG-17 Interior 201164-2023 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Lath/Drywall Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency COMMENTS Partial pass on rough TOPOUT in walls only in Phase 2A in CPU2 areas BLDG-24 Rough/Topout 201188-2023 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency COMMENTS Partial pass on rough TOPOUT in walls only in Phase 2A in CPU2 areas BLDG-34 Rough Electrlcal 201189-2023 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency COMMENTS Partial pass on rough electrical in walls only in Phase 2A in CPU2 areas 01/26/2023 01/26/2023 BLDG-84 Rough 201541-2023 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Wednesday, June 5, 2024 Combo(14,24,34,44) Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-14 Frame-Steel-Bolting-Welding (Decks). BLDG-24 Rough-Topout BLDG-34 Rough Electrical BLDG-44 Rough-Ducts-Dampers COMMENTS Partial pass rough combo on 1st floor Supply Room and 2nd floor IDF Rm BLDG-85 T-Bar, Celling 201538-2023 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Grids, Overhead Re inspection Incomplete Passed Yes Reinspectlon Incomplete Passed Yes Reinspection Incomplete Passed Yes Re inspection Incomplete Passed Yes Reinspection Incomplete Passed N.o Yes Yes Yes Yes Reinspectlon Incomplete Page 1 of 3 PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBC2022-0298) Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 08/15/2022 Owner: BERDAN WHIPTAIL LLC Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 01/12/2023 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT NO 97-13-03 CB OAKS NOR Status: Closed -Finaled Expiration Date: 11/13/2023 Address: 2827 WHIPTAIL LOOP IVR Number: 42650 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Reinspection Inspection Date Start Date Status Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No BLDG-14 Yes Frame-Steel-Bolting-Welding (Decks) BLDG-24 Rough-Topout Yes BLDG-34 Rough Electrical Yes BLDG-44 Yes Rough-Ducts-Dampers 02/01 /2023 02/01/2023 BLDG-17 Interior 202039-2023 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Reinspection Incomplete Lath/Drywall Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Partial pass on 1st floor one in Area A Yes 02/07/2023 02/07/2023 BLDG-12 Steel/Bond 202487-2023 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Reinspection Incomplete Beam Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency CIP wall for generator. OK to pour. Yes NOTES Created By TEXT Created Date Seta Levanduski JEFF 619-240-6024 02/06/2023 02/17/2023 02/17/2023 BLDG-11 203576-2023 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Reinspection Incomplete Foundatlon/Ftg/Plers (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency SOG for generator area. Grounding Yes verified. OK to pour. NOTES Created By TEXT Created Date Angie Teanio 619-240-6024 Jeff 02/16/2023 03/29/2023 03/29/2023 BLDG-34 Rough 206539-2023 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Reinspection Incomplete Electrical Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Partial pass on rough electrical in walls Yes only at SDGE room NOTES Created By TEXT Created Date Angie Teanio 619-240-6024 Jeff 03/28/2023 05/01/2023 05/01/2023 BLDG-18 Exterior 209600-2023 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Relnspection Incomplete Lath/Drywall Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes Wednesday, June 5, 2024 Page 2 of 3 PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBC2022-0298) Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 08/15/2022 Owner: BERDAN WHIPTAIL LLC Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 01/12/2023 Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT NO 97-13-03 CB OAKS NOR Status: Closed -Finaled Expiration Date: 11/13/2023 Address: 2827 WHIPTAIL LOOP IVR Number: 42650 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Date Start Date NOTES Created By Becky Falk Status TEXT Francisco 858-822-9732 05/16/2023 05/16/2023 BLDG-85 T-Bar, Celling 211080-2023 Partial Pass Chris Renfro Grids, Overhead Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-14 Frame-Steel-Bolting-Welding (Decks) BLDG-24 Rough-Topout BLDG-34 Rough Electrical BLDG-44 Rough-Ducts-Dampers NOTES Created By Angie Teanio COMMENTS Partial pass in smaller lab and Rough combo in IDF room TEXT 858-822-9732 Francisco 06/29/2023 06/29/2023 BLDG-Final Inspection 215823-2023 Passed Chris Renfro Wednesday, June 5, 2024 Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-Plumbing Final BLDG-Mechanical Final BLDG-Structural Final BLDG-Electrical Final COMMENTS Reinspection Created Date 04/28/2023 Relnspectlon Passed No Yes Yes Yes Yes Created Date 05/15/2023 Passed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Inspection Incomplete Complete Page 3 of 3 GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS SPECIAL INSPECTION BNBuilders 5825 Oberlin Drive, Suite 1 San Diego, CA 92121 Attention: Subject: Amber Chimits Update Geotechnical Report Millipore Sigma Phase 2A and 2B Expansion 2827 Whiptail Loop West Carlsbad, California 92010 OVBE• SSE • SOVOSB• SLBE OCT 2 4 t.022 June 15, 2022 NOVA Project 2022111 ~~: " NOVA 2017. Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Lot 24, Whiptail Loop Way and Gazelle Court, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park, Carlsbad, California, NOVA Services, Inc., Project 2016468, April 20, 2017. NOVA 2018. As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Lot 24, Whiptail Loop Way and Gazelle Ct., Carlsbad Oaks Nort\....,. Business Park, Carlsbad, California, NOVA Services, Inc., Project 1017798, November 27, 2018. ,;,- CPC 2022a. Tenant Improvements, Millipore Sigma Phase 2A Expansion-Design Development, 50% Permit '- Package, CPC Architects, Project 21001 , April 1, 2022. r-..._ CPC 2022b. Tenant Improvements, Millipore Sigma Phase 28 Expansion-Design Development, 50% Permit o Package, CPC Architects, Project 21001 , April 1, 2022. Miyamoto 2022a. Structural Phase 2A , Issue for 50% CD, Miyamoto Structural Engineers, April 1, 2022. Miyamoto 2022b. Structural Phase 28, Issue for 50% CD, Miyamoto Structural Engineers, April 1, 2022. Dear Ms. Chimits: This report provides an update of the geotechnical reporting provided in NOVA 2017 for the Millipore Sigma facility located at, California {hereinafter, also referenced as 'the property', or 'the site').site assessment of the property located at 2827 Whiptail Loop West, Carlsbad, California. The work reported herein was completed by NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) for BNBuilders in accordance with the scope of work identified in NOVA's work authorization dated June 8, 2022. NOVA is the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record for the subject site. 4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B San Diego, CA 92123 P: 858.292.7575 www.usa-nova.com 944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F San Clemente, CA 92673 P: 949.388.7710 Objective Update Geotechnical Report Millipore Sigma Phase 2A and 28 Expansion 2827 Whiptail Loop West, Carlsbad, California 92010 OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND USE NOVA Project 2022111 June 15, 2022 The objective of this update report is twofold, as described below. 1. Objective 1, Design Parameters. Update geotechnical-related design parameters identified in NOVA 2017. 2. Objective 2, Design Review. To provide review of CPC 2022a, CPC 2022b, Miyamoto 2022a and Miyamoto 2022b for performance with current geotechnical-related parameters. Scope In order to accomplish the above objectives, NOVA undertook the task-based scope of work described below. 1. Task 1, Report Update. Geotechnical-related design parameters identified in NOVA 2017 were updated as necessary to conform to the requirements of the 2019 CBC. 2. Task 2, Design Review. CPC 2022a, CPC 2022b, Miyamoto 2022a and Miyamoto 2022b were reviewed for conformance with the foundation design criteria of NOVA 2017 Submittal of this report concludes NOVA's scope of work for this work authorization. Understood Use NOVA understands that this report will be used by BN Builders and its Design Team in final design of the project. PLANNED PHASE 2A AND PHASE 28 EXPANSION Phase 2A NOVA has reviewed the referenced design documentation. This information indicates that the Phase 2A expansion will consist of adding a series of process equipment (e.g., bioreactors, mixers, pumps, piping, air ducts, etc.), as well as a generator at the ground level. The mezzanine will be improved by the addition of additional process equipment. The above improvements will be associated placement of some new equipment on the roof truss. Exterior improvements will include a new fence wall in the mechanical yard. The addition of air ducts and piping will be associated with interior columns to support this equipment. The Phase 2A expansion described above will be associated with relatively light loads. Phase 28 The Phase 2B expansion will be analogous in form to the Phase 2A expansion. A series of small process equipment (e.g., bioreactors, mixers, pumps, piping, tankage, again it etc.) will be added. 2 Update Geotechnical Report Millipore Sigma Phase 2A and 2B Expansion 2827 Whiptail Loop West, Carlsbad, California 92010 NOVA Project 2022111 June 15, 2022 Equipment pads will be created for this new equipment. New conduit will be run beneath the existing floor slab, as well as carried on new pipe supports. The principal element of the Phase 2B expansion will be creation of a new platform to support process operations. This platform will be associated with a series of isolated and continuous foundations that support the frame for the platform. A new cooling tower and related plumbing will be developed near the mechanical yard. REVIEW OF NOVA 2018 2010 Development of Lot 24 The existing Millipore Sigma site is Lot 24 of the Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park a commercial community was initially developed with 24 lots in about 149 developable acres. Prior to mass grading, Lot 24 had an eroded, uneven ground surface. Lot 24 was created in 2010 by earthwork that involved cuts into granitic formational rock materials at least 5 feet below design finish pad grades, then backfilled. Mass grading of Lot 24 transformed a sloping site to a relatively level groundform. The site was graded to leave a finished ground surface that descended from about Elevation + 396 feet mean sea level (msl) at the northeast corner of the site to about El. +384 feet msl in the southwest corner. The surface gradient over this 570-foot interval is about 1.5%. Features of the 2010 earthwork at Lot 24 are listed below. 1. Most of the Building Pad Is Developed in 'Undercut'. The ground surface of most of Lot 24 was at or above design pad levels prior to earthwork. Moreover, much of this material was granitic rock. In order to develop a buildable site, areas requiring cut in rock were lowered to at least 5 feet below design finished grade, then backfilled with engineered fill. 2. Fill at the Northwest Corner. Northwest portion of Lot 24 is developed in engineered fill that extends in thickness from about 5 feet to 25 feet. This fill is characteristically sandy and of dense to very dense consistency. 3. All Fill is 'Engineered'. The soils placed either as (i) fill to improve lower site grades or (ii) backfill in undercut areas, were densified to at least 90% relative compaction after ASTM Test Method D 1557 (the 'modified Proctor'). 2018 Improvements to Lot 24 NOVA 2018 provides a record of earthwork completed for development of the existing Millipore facility-the approximately 118,000 square feet (sf) tilt up structure with associated civil improvements for parking, roadways, retaining walls and stormwater infiltration. Earthwork included cuts of up to 5 feet below ground surface (bgs) on the northeast end of the site and fills of up to 1 O feet in the southwest portion of the site. 3 Update Geotechnical Report Millipore Sigma Phase 2A and 28 Expansion 2827 Whiptail Loop West, Carlsbad, California 92010 NOVA Project 2022111 June 15, 2022 Of relevance to the work contemplated by CPC 2022a and CPC 2022b, earthwork within the limits of the structure included 'remedial grading' that involved removing and replacing the upper 2 feet of the existing grade soils, extending these removals at least 5 feet beyond the building limits. The removed soils were replaced as compacted fill derived from excavated soils, compacting soils to at least 90% relative compaction after ASTM D1557 REVIEW OF NOVA 2017 NOVA 2017 provides for development of the structure on continuous and isolated footings placed on properly compacted fill. These footings are at least 18 inches wide and embedded at least 24 inches below adjacent grade at an allowable net contact stress (qa) of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). An allowable increase of 500 psf for each additional 12 inches in depth may be utilized, increasing the maximum allowable contact stress to no greater than 4,000 psf. CONCLUSION It is NOVA's professional opinion that the foundation criteria provided in NOVA 2017 & 2018 remain applicable to the facility expansion depicted by CPC 2022a and CPC 2022b. In particular, Miyamoto 2022a and Miyamoto 2022b reference the proper foundation-bearing criteria. Any loose soils encountered at bottom of foundations and in any areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. All new fill should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. A representative from NOVA should observe the foundation excavations prior to forming or placing reinforcing steel. Seismic Design Site Class The Site Class was determined from ASCE 7, Table 20.3-1. The site-specific data used to determine the Site Class typically includes borings drilled to refusal materials to determine Standard Penetration resistances (N-values). Based on actual and/or estimated average N-values ('Nbar') in the upper 100 feet of the soil/rock profile, NOVA estimates an Nbar that corresponds to a Site Class C. Seismic Design Parameters Seismic design parameters provided in NOVA 2017 are no longer applicable. New design should consider seismic design parameters determined per ASCE 7-16 and the 2019 CBC. Table 1 (following page) provides these values. 4 Update Geotechnical Report Millipore Sigma Phase 2A and 28 Expansion 2827 Whiptail Loop West, Carlsbad, California 92010 Table 1. Seismic Design Parameters, Site Class C Parameter Site Latitude (decimal degrees) Site Longitude (decimal degrees) Site Coefficient, Fa Site Coefficient, Fv Mapped Short Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss Mapped One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 Short Period Spectral Acceleration Adjusted for Site Class, SMs One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Adjusted for Site Class, SM1 Design Short Period Spectral Acceleration, S05 Design One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, S01 Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM CLOSURE NOVA Project 2022111 June 15, 2022 Value 33.1421 -117.2544 1.2 1.5 0.929 0.341 1.115 0.512 0.743 0.341 0.48 NOVA appreciates the opportunity to be of service to BNBuilders on this most interesting project. Should you have any questions regarding this report or other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 858.292.7575, ext. 413. Sincerely, NOVA Services, Inc. hn F. O'Brien, PE, GE Senior Project Manager P ·ncipal Geotechnical Engineer 5 • Structural Calculations for Millipore Sigma COMO -PH2A -CP2 2827 Whiptail Loop W. Carlsbad, CA 92010 Plan Check Resubmittal Ml2210066.00 October 14, 2022 Cl 2019 Miyamoto lntemationaJ, Inc., All rights reserved. This document or any part thereof must not be re~ t--0 CBC2022-0298 2827 WHIPTAIL LOOP MILLIPORE SIGMA: PHASE 2A (CP-2) 14,486 SF Tl FOR ANALYTICAL LAB, STORAGE & EXTEND EXTERIOR UTILl1 YARD 2091202600 10/24/2022 CBC2022-0298 3 -1 3 0 ... 0 • Millipore Sigma PH2A -CP2 Ml2210066.00 , TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Comment S3.a Generator Pad .................................. 1 2. Comment S4.a Conduit Calculation ........................... 8 3. Comment S5.a Double Conduit Support Calculation .... 18 4. Comment S6 Wall Calculation ................................ 29 5. Comment S8 Generator Anchorage Verification .......... 35 6. Comment S9 Mezzanine Beam Clarification ............... 41 7. Comment A14 Process Platform Calculations ............. 57 8. Seismic Parameters ............................................ 63 © 2021 Miyamoto International, Inc. m1.yamoto. GENERA TOR CALCULATIONS GCNSET HODEL l!OOR£llZWB"1:.ft/X Nf)llDZl,I) GCNSCT fOOTPRJNT S4QS (252) X 22J2 (88) SOUND lNCLOSURE L\U DTUNAL Sl..fHCD WI SUIIWET.U-:IC Of'1lON TN« 11f111111<1l0N TN« DIIJISD<S 110Ul1t«:1QIS -• l '(an) 1.f18IS: 203 a 17$4 384 lllO J05 12 17$4 384 IQ! 330 IJ 17$4 384 14 1100 1 17$4 14 2IOO 5aal0 17$4 384 14 4"0 JU JO '™ 384 6110 101, 40 1 ' 18 7100 1017 42 "''' 4811 22 ProJect: __ M_s_PH_2_A_c_P_2 ______________ Sheet No: ~--- 1 of 62 Project No: ... M_I_22_1_00_6_6._00 _______ Cele. By: _M_JI ___ Date: I (E) WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED PLAN VIEW 00.0SU!C lf'OIIMl,TlON Chk. By: ----Date: I I ~-------------------1 Ra CSt1W11C mM. PIOJ« -»ff .a> M ftlUMC fDIS """"'""'""""'-• 4"""1 ...... 1' <O<SCT IOOlr • IWl.51s (ll.,,.,) TN«ICOff(nOwn) • IJQIOl>I 52.2141>f -ocu:Sl,ll(Cf'h)IS#fO~COIA.ONXl10'1 lOMCMJW.lFlllrCMl"-»I CMM1 '°'"' ((IQ • --'°'"1 .. .1.§.1 OQ.Q5UI( IO::tff CU:S ICJI' IQJ.U SIDCUl SILENCER SHIPPED SEPERATELY TANK EXTENDS PAST ENCLOSURE ON DISCHARGE ENO WHEN APPLICABLE MEI'RIC CAD FILE TAHH SHfl'[J) SIPIJW[ DMF.NSIONS ti 11 AU Not [OU\'ALF.NT ICOHLERCQ 1-2 A UNIT INFORMATION 2 of 62 mlyamoto Pro'ect: Milli oreSi maPhase2 SheetNo. • Project No: M12110296.00 Cale. By: MJI Date: Chk. By: Date: 8/9/22 Equipment Anchoraee Forces (Floor-or Roof-Mounted): ASCE 7-16 Generator Notes • References below are for ASCE 7-16 except as noted • Values shown are at Strength Design or LRFD level and may be reduced for ASD Seismic Design Force Variables (Sec. 13.1) Component Amplification Factor Component Response Modification Factor Spectral Response Acceleration at short periods Component Importance Factor Height in Structure of Point of Attachment of Component Average Roof Height of Structure Overstrength Factor Component Operating Weight Anchored to Concrete Wind Design Force Variables (Sec. 29.5.1) Roof Top Unit Basic Wind Speed Wind Directionality Factor Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient Topographic Factor Unit Dimensions Width Length Height Gust Effect Factor -Horizontal Gust Effect Factor -Vertical Equipment Geometry and Anchorage Information a Longitudinal Elevation Center of gravity Anchor point, TYP Transverse Elevation Horizontal and Vertical Seismic Design Forces F, = OA(f f (1+2¾ )= F Pm~ = O.3SDS]pWp = 3i,= RP = Sos= IP = z = h = 1.00 (Tables 13.5-1 or 13.6-1) 2.50 (Tables 13.5-1 or 13.6-1) 0.743 g (Eq. 11.4-3) I.SO {Sec 13.1.3) o.o ft 30.0 ft n = 2.0 100,000 lbs, WP= Yes Yes 96 MPH lE+oS lbs Y uk= Kd = K,= K,, = 0.85 {Sec 26.6, Table 26.6-1) {Sec 29.3.1 Table29.3-I) {Sec 26.8.2) W = L = H = 1 IO in 384 in 161 in (GC,) H = (GC,) V = 1 {Sec 29.5.1) {Sec 29.5.1) Longitudinal Dimension Transverse Dimension Height to Center of Gravity Number of Anchors, Trans. Side Number of Anchors, Long. Side Total Number of Anchor Points Anchorage Pattern's Moment of Inertia About a = 384.0 in b = 105.0 in c = 80.S in nl = 2 (figure: nl = 2) n2 = 7 (figure: n2 = 3) N = nl x n2 = 14 I = N(N + 2) a 2 = 229376 in2 "" 12(N-2) Transverse Axis N Anchorage Pattern's Moment of Inertia I Y.I' = -b2 = 38588 in2 About Longitudinal Axis 4 Critical Loading Angle 0.178 WP 0.334 WP 0 = tan --"---= i(l>"''•a ·) I,,• b (Eq. 13.3-1) (Eq. 13.3-3) 0.552 radians 31.6 degrees mlyamoto Pro'ect: Milli oreSi maPhase2 Sheet No. e Project No: Ml2110296.00 Cale. By: MJI Date: Chi<. By: Date: Equipment Anchorage Forces (Floor-or Roof-Mounted): ASCE 7-16 Generator Notes • References below are for ASCE 7-16 except as noted • Values shown are at Strength Design or LRFD level and may be reduced for ASD Govemin horizontal seismic desi n force coefficient = Horizontal Seismic Design Force w/ n Vertical Seismic Design Force w/ n Horiwntal and Vertical Wind Design Forces Max(W,L) x H Ar= 144 WxL Ar= 144 = 0.00256K K K V2 Vertical Wind Force F F ,=0.2SosW Fh = qh(GCr)Af = Fv = qh (GCr)Ar = 1.783 WP 0.334 66870 lbs 29720 lbs 429.3 rt2 293_3 re 20 psf 8610 lbs 5883 lbs (Eq. 13.3-2) (Sec 13.3.1) (Max Side View) (Plan View) (Eq. 29.3-1) (Eq. 29.5-2) (Eq. 29.5-3) Fir-or Rf-Mounted, Rect Sejsmjc Governs 3 of 62 8/9/22 CONTI UED >» 4 of 62 m I Yam Oto Pro· ect: Milli ore Sigma Phase 2 Sheet No. e Project No: Ml211O296.OO Cale. By: MJI Date: Chk. By: Date: 8/9/22 Equipment Anchorage Forces (Floor-or Roof-Mounted): ASCE 7-16 Generator Notes • References below are for ASCE 7-16 except as noted • Values shown are at Strength Design or LRFD level and may be reduced for ASD Reactions with Non-Orthogonal Loadi11g at Worst-Case Angle 0 0 0 Maximum compression Maximum tension F cosB•c•b FPsinfJ•c•a 0.9WP-F,,. T =-"-----+-"-------~~~= mu 21,,, 21,., N FP cos0• c• b FP sin 0• c• a I.2WP + FP C = ~-----+~----+ • = rmx 2/ 2/ N .'Y ..... vmu F Reactio11s with Loading in the Lo11gitudinal Direction ( 0 = 90 °) Maximum tension Maximum compression Reactions with loading in the Transverse Directio11 (0 = 0°) F 0 Results Summary 0 Maximum compression Maximum tension F •c• a T =~P __ _ max 2/ xx O.9WP -F,,,. = N F • c • a 1.2WP +F,, CITTIX = p + ,. = 21xx N V max = __ F_._/1_ = n I• n 2 F *C*b T =~P __ _ max 21 )'.Y C = FP * c• b + 1.2W" + FP. = ITTIX 2/ N ))' V max _F~P-= n I• n 2 4293 lbs 19293 lbs 4776 lbs 200 lbs 15200 lbs 4776 lbs 3018 lbs 18018 lbs 4776 lbs Maximum tension at anchor point = 4293 lbs (Governing load case: non-orthogonal) Maximum compression at anchor point = Maximum shear at anchor point = Anchor Bolt Design (LRFD) Tension Service Load per Bolt Shear Service Load per Bolt T = 4293 lbs V = 4776 lbs 19293 lbs (Governing load case: non-orthogonal) 4776 lbs (Same value for all load cases) I Beam on Elastic Foundation UC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.8.17 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC DESCRIPTION: Generator Footing 1' Width CODE REFERENCES Calculations per ACI 318-14, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combinations Used : IBC 2018 Material Properties re = fr = rc112 '7.50 = 'I' Density 11. Lt Wt Factor Elastic Modulus = 4.0 ksi 474.342 psi 145.0 pcf 1.0 3,122.0ksi d> Phi Values Flexure : Shear : 0.90 0.750 0.850 Soil Subgrade Modulus Load Combinatioooc 2018 = 100.0 psi/ (inch deflection) fy -Main Rebar E -Main Rebar 60.0 ksi 29,000.0 ksi Fy -Stirrups E -Stirrups Stirrup Bar Size # Number of Resisting Legs Per Stirrup Beam is supported on an elastic foundation, = 40.0 ksi = 29,000.0 ksi = # 3 2 5 ol 62 Project File: msph2.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 • • D (1.32 E(0.6 ) D(1.32) E(-0.6) Cross Section & Reinforcin Details Rectanoular Section, Width = 12.0 in, Heiqht = 18.0 in Span #1 ReinforcinQ .... 12" W X 18" h Span=11.0 ft 1-#7 at 3.0 in from Top, from 0.0 to 11.0 ft in this span 1-#7 at 4.0 in from Bottom, from 0.0 to 11.0 ft in this sp: A lied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Point Load : D = 1.320, E = 0.60 k @ 1.0 ft Point Load : D = 1.320, E = -0.60 k @ 10.0 ft DESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = Section used for this span 0.067: 1 Maximum Deflection Mu : Applied Mn * Phi : Allowable Load Combination Location of maximum on span Span # where maximum occurs Maximum Soil Pressure = Allowable Soil Pressure = Typical Section -3.105 k-ft 46.535 k-ft +1 .400 5.435 ft Span# 1 0.449 ksf at 3.0 ksf OK Max Downward L +Lr+S Deflection Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection Max Downward Total Deflection Max Upward Total Deflection 0.00 ft LdComb: +D+0.70E Entire Beam Span Length : Vu < PhiVc/2, Req'd Vs = Not Reqd, use stirrups spaced at 0.000 in Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinatior Load Combination Location (ft) lending Stress Results ( k-ft Segment Length Span# in Span Mu : Max Phi*Mnx Stress Ratic MAXimum Bending Envelope Span# 1 1 10.094 0.35 40.55 0.01 +1.400 Span# 1 10.094 0.15 40.55 0.00 +1 .200 Span# 1 10.094 0.13 40.55 0.00 0.000 in 0.000 in 0.031 in -0.019in Desi n OK 6 of 62 Beam on Elastic Foundation Project File: msph2.ec6 UC#: KW-06018304, Bulld:20.22.8.17 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: Generator Footing 1' Width Load Combination Location (ft) !ending Stress Results ( k-ft Segment Length Span# in Span Mu: Max Phi*Mnx Stress Ratic +1.349D+2.0E Span# 1 10.871 -0.00 40.55 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E Span# 1 10.094 0.35 40.55 0.01 +0.90D Span# 1 10.094 0.10 40.55 0.00 +0.7514D+2.0E Span# 1 10.871 -0.00 40.55 0.00 +0.7514D-2.0E Span# 1 1 9.965 0.30 40.55 0.01 Overall Maximum Deflections -Unfactored Lo Load Combination Span Max. •-• Deft Location in Span Load Combination Max.•+· Deft Location in Span Span 1 1 0.0312 0.000 Span 1 -0.0186 11.000 Detailed Shear Information Span Distance 'd' Vu (k) Mu d*Vu/Mu Phi*Vc Comment Phi*Vs Spacing (in) Load Combination Number (ft) (in) Actual Design (k-ft) (k) (k) Req'd Suggest +1.349D+2.0E 1 0.00 15.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 0.13 15.00 0.17 0.17 0.01 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 0.26 15.00 0.28 0.28 0.03 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 0.39 15.00 0.39 0.39 0.07 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 0.52 15.00 0.50 0.50 0.12 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 0.65 15.00 0.61 0.61 0.18 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 0.78 15.00 0.71 0.71 0.26 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 0.91 15.00 0.81 0.81 0.35 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 1.04 15.00 -2.07 2.07 0.35 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 1.16 15.00 -1.97 1.97 0.08 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 1.29 15.00 -1 .87 1.87 0.17 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 1.42 15.00 -1.78 1.78 0.41 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 1.55 15.00 -1.69 1.69 0.64 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 1.68 15.00 -1.59 1.59 0.86 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 1.81 15.00 -1.51 1.51 1.07 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 1.94 15.00 -1.42 1.42 1.26 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 2.07 15.00 -1.33 1.33 1.45 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 2.20 15.00 -1.25 1.25 1.62 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 2.33 15.00 -1 .17 1.17 1.78 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 2.46 15.00 -1 .09 1.09 1.93 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 2.59 15.00 -1.01 1.01 2.07 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 2.72 15.00 -0.93 0.93 2.20 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 2.85 15.00 -0.86 0.86 2.32 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.40D 1 2.98 15.00 -0.79 0.79 2.09 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.40D 1 3.11 15.00 -0.75 0.75 2.19 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 3.24 15.00 -0.72 0.72 1.77 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 3.36 15.00 -0.70 0.70 1.87 1.00 18.47 Vu< PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 3.49 15.00 -0.69 0.69 1.96 1.00 18.47 Vu< PhlVc/2 Nol Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 3.62 15.00 -0.67 0.67 2.05 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 3.75 15.00 -0.65 0.65 2.13 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 3.88 15.00 -0.63 0.63 2.22 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 4.01 15.00 -0.61 0.61 2.30 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 4.14 15.00 -0.59 0.59 2.38 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 + 1.349D-2.0E 1 4.27 15.00 -0.56 0.56 2.46 1.00 18.47 Vu< PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 4.40 15.00 -0.54 0.54 2.53 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 4.53 15.00 -0.51 0.51 2.60 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 + 1.349D-2.0E 1 4.66 15.00 -0.48 0.48 2.66 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 4.79 15.00 -0.45 0.45 2.73 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 4.92 15.00 -0.42 0.42 2.78 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 5.05 15.00 -0.38 0.38 2.84 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 5.18 15.00 -0.35 0.35 2.89 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 5.31 15.00 -0.31 0.31 2.93 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +0.7514D+2.0E 1 5.44 15.00 0.27 0.27 1.68 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 5.56 15.00 0.31 0.31 2.97 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 5.69 15.00 0.35 0.35 2.93 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 5.82 15.00 0.38 0.38 2.89 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 5.95 15.00 0.42 0.42 2.84 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 6.08 15.00 0.45 0.45 2.78 1.00 18.47 Vu< PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 6.21 15.00 0.48 0.48 2.73 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 6.34 15.00 0.51 0.51 2.66 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 6.47 15.00 0.54 0.54 2.60 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NolReqd 0.00 0.00 7 of 62 Beam on Elastic Foundation Project File: msph2.ec6 UC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.8.17 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: Generator Footing 1' Width Detailed Shear Information Span Distance 'd' Vu (k) Mu d*Vu/Mu Phi*Vc Comment Phi*Vs Spacing (in) Load Combination Number (ft) (in) Actual Design (k-ft) (k) (k) Req'd Suggest +1.349D+2.0E 1 6.60 15.00 0.56 0.56 2.53 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc-12 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.3490+2.0E 1 6.73 15.00 0.59 0.59 2.46 1.00 18.47 Vu< PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.3490+2.0E 1 6.86 15.00 0.61 0.61 2.38 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 6.99 15.00 0.63 0.63 2.30 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 7.12 15.00 0.65 0.65 2.22 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 7.25 15.00 0.67 0.67 2.13 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.3490+2.0E 1 7.38 15.00 0.69 0.69 2.05 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 7.51 15.00 0.70 0.70 1.96 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D+2.0E 1 7.64 15.00 0.72 0.72 1.87 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.40D 1 7.76 15.00 0.75 0.75 2.29 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.40D 1 7.89 15.00 0.79 0.79 2.19 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 8.02 15.00 0.86 0.86 2.43 1.00 18.47 Vu< PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 8.15 15.00 0.93 0.93 2.32 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 8.28 15.00 1.01 1.01 2.20 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 8.41 15.00 1.09 1.09 2.07 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 8.54 15.00 1.17 1.17 1.93 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1.349D-2.0E 1 8.67 15.00 1.25 1.25 1.78 1.00 18.47 Vu< PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 8.80 15.00 1.33 1.33 1.62 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 8.93 15.00 1.42 1.42 1.45 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 9.06 15.00 1.51 1.51 1.26 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 9.19 15.00 1.59 1.59 1.07 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 9.32 15.00 1.69 1.69 0.86 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 9.45 15.00 1.78 1.78 0.64 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 9.58 15.00 1.87 1.87 0.41 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 9.71 15.00 1.97 1.97 0.17 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 9.84 15.00 2.07 2.07 0.08 1.00 18.47 Vu< PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 9.96 15.00 2.17 2.17 0.35 1.00 18.47 Vu< PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 10.09 15.00 -0.71 0.71 0.35 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 10.22 15.00 -0.61 0.61 0.26 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 10.35 15.00 -0.50 0.50 0.18 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 10.48 15.00 -0.39 0.39 0.12 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 NotReqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 10.61 15.00 -0.28 0.28 0.07 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 10.74 15.00 -0.17 0.17 0.03 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhlVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 +1 .349D-2.0E 1 10.87 15.00 -0.06 0.06 0.01 1.00 18.47 Vu < PhiVc/2 Not Reqd 0.00 0.00 m1yamoto. Project:_ M~\?b_'l.:B.. ---- Project No: ..M..l t..~_..h'-"'-"'-o __ -Sheet No: ___ _ Cale. By: ~ \ DatEg of 62--~ p \ ~E / e,p~t)u\-C: SvPl)t1C\T' <:i.J ( () Pu:ti f:9 ~--' { 'Loo• MP.~ t)I... :r==r~----'1 -'b eS,~,.J .P(ft.. (\.-\ I 5 I ot~1tvol'\t)I (.4f\Jf, ~vf"'\N ( A~E ~-· t..) -Nol' 'ol~•LA({ co ~Lt)c., ( ,.-.i~c!2.'l'l!l) pf1'.C>\IL~ TYPC=') i'Al\~€ I'S -~-\ R.' "t,O CJ• 1... 't) fl ., 1. l) • -Pt:(. 1-S. :), I i'H E"t.E~!tt: I SEc A~o,_ ~Ee:.,, c....,f(L fott... ,a....iC.1.-\0 ... -A(n ~ c,u .. <.VI-A~ION t\'' 0,1Y=:, ~/h.'-1,~ o..r ::) ... l.. s: 1',.,, ~.r-; Ip~ I.C '-'T o ~ (....:l~A:).,v~>./\ ,~ ''-'Z.Si0 v-r o ~ P1...~"ifoC'r. Df S1C,-11J Peel. t~ 1'1. (u.ec,c. y n Sm P1<'E "'( ( • \ lo b't9~-IN 1~ -~ 1'2 It--; ft,T J ' , l /,./ f1U.lt'T \..,J~L~ AU .. f'Q.~ OK P;f IN~{>fl, ,r,oN ,:,,s., Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hllti.com Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: Specifier's comments: 1 Input data Metal deck: Metal deck type: Anchor installation: Anchor type and diameter: Item number: Effective embedment depth: Material: Evaluation Service Report: Issued I Valid: Proof: Stand-off installation: Miyamoto International 5550 Baltimore Drive. La Mesa, CA I Conduit Support 3 7/8 W Deck W2 On top of concrete-filled metal deck Kwlk Bolt TZ2 • CS 3/8 (2) hnom2 2210238 KB-TZ2 3/8x3 3/4 h0f,act = 2.000 in., hnom = 2.500 in. Carbon Steel ESR-4266 121rn2021 I 121112023 Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: Design Method ACI 318-14 / Mech in concrete over metal deck installation e b = 0.000 in. (no stand-off); t = 0.750 in. 9 of 62 1 MJI 10/14/2022 Anchor plateR: I, x ly x t = 12.000 in. x 12.000 in. x 0.750 in.; (Recommended plate thickness: not calculated) Profile: Base material: Installation: Reinforcement: Seismic loads (cat. C, D, E, or F) Steel pipe, PIPE4STD; (L x W x T) = 4.500 in. x 4.500 in. x 0.237 in. cracked lightweight concrete, 4000, fc' = 4,000 psi; h = 2.500 in. diamond cored hole, Installation condition: Dry tension: condition B, shear: condition B; no supplemental splitting reinforcement present edge reinforcement: none or < No. 4 bar Tension load: yes (17.2.3.4.3 (d)) Shear load: yes (17.2.3.5.3 (c)) R -The anchor calculation is based on a rigid anchor plate assumption. Geometry [In.] & Loading [lb, in.lb] Input data and results must be checked for confonmity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c} 2003-2022 Hiltl AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hiltl AG, Schaen i = i i S • • ----------------------10 of 62 Hilt, PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hilti.com Company: Miyamoto International Address: 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: 1.1 Design results Case I Conduit Support Description Combination 1 2 Load case/Resulting anchor forces Anchor reactions [lb] Tension force:(+ Tension, -Compression) Anchor Tension force Shear force Shear force x 1 1,005 37 37 2 0 37 37 3 1,005 37 37 4 0 37 37 max. concrete compressive strain: 0.07 [%o) max. concrete compressive stress: 316 [psi] resulting tension force in (x/y)=(-5.000/-0.000): 2,010 [lb] resulting compression force in (x/y)=(5.646/0.000): 2,010 [lb) Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: Forces [lb] / Moments [in.lb] N = 0; Vx = 150; Vy= 0; M, = 0; My = 21,398; M, = 0; Shear force y 0 0 0 0 Anchor forces are calculated based on the assumption of a rigid anchor plate. 3 Tension load Load Nu• [lb] Capacity ♦ Nn [lb) Steel Strength* 1,005 4,869 Pullout Strength* N/A N/A Concrete Breakout Failure .. 2,010 2,198 • highest loaded anchor ••anchor group (anchors in tension) Input data and results must be checked for confom,ity with the existing conditions and for plauslbllltyl PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2022 Hilli AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti Is a registered Trademark of Hiltl AG, Schaan Seismic yes y ® ension Utilization IJN = N • .J♦ Nn 21 N/A 92 2 MJI 10/14/2022 Max. Util. Anchor[%) 92 4 • Co p sion 2 Status OK N/A OK 2 i : i i 5 • i _____________________ _ Hiltl PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hllti.com Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: 3.1 Steel Strength N.. = ESR value <j, N sa ~ Nua Variables A.eN [in.2) 0.05 Calculations N .. [lb) 6,493 Results N58 [lb) 6,493 Miyamoto International 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA I Conduit Support refer to ICC-ES ESR-4266 ACI 318-14 Table 17.3.1.1 futa [psi) 126,204 <j,nonductile 0.750 1.000 4,869 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plauslbllityl PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2022 Hiltl AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG. Schaan Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: Nua [lb] 1,005 11 of 62 3 MJI 10/14/2022 3 ,:,,s., Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hllti.com Company: Miyamoto International Page: Address: Phone I Fax: 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA I Specifier: E-Mail: Design: Conduit Support Fastening point: 3.2 Concrete Breakout Failure Ncbg = (.:;:) 'V ec,N 'V ed,N 'V c,N 'V cp,N Nb ' Ncbg ~ Nua ~ see ACI 318-14, Section 17.4.2.1, Fig. R 17.4.2.1(b) lj/ ec,N lj/ ed,N lj/ cp,N Variables h,1 [in.] 2.000 8.000 Calculations ~c[in.2] 72.00 Results Ncb9 [lb) 4,508 ec, N [in.] ec2N [in.] 0.000 0.000 kc "'• 21 0.600 ANdJ [in.2] lj/ ec1,N 36.00 1.000 ' concrete '•elsmlc 0.650 0.750 Date: ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.1b) ACI 318-14 Table 17.3.1.1 ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.1c) ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.4) ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.5b) ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.7b) ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.2a) Ca min [in.) lj/ c,N 00 1.000 fc [psi) 4,000 lj/ oc2,N lj/ ed,N 1.000 1.000 'nonductile , Ncb9 [lb) 1.000 2,198 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plauslbllltyl PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2022 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti Is a registered Trademark of Hiltl AG, Schaan lj/ cp,N 1.000 NY• [lb) 2,010 12 of 62 Nb [lb] 2,254 4 MJI 10/14/2022 4 1:115;.1 Hllti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hilti.com Company: Miyamoto International Address: Phone I Fax: 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA I Design: Conduit Support Fastening point: 4 Shear load Load Vu• [lb] Steel Strength* 37 Steel failure (with lever arm)" N/A Pryout Strength** 150 Concrete edge failure in direction •• N/A • highest loaded anchor **anchor group (relevant anchors) 4.1 Steel Strength V sa,eq = ESR value ~ v .teel ~ V ua Variables A.ev [in.2] 0.05 Calculations Vsa.eg [lb) 3,386 Results refer to ICC-ES ESR-4266 ACI 318-14 Table 17.3.1.1 futa [psi) av,sels 126,204 1.000 Vsa,eg [lb) ~ steel <p nonductile ~ V,0 99 [lb) 3,386 0.650 1.000 2,201 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: Capacity ♦ v. [lb] 2,201 N/A 6,311 N/A 37 PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2022 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaan Utilization Pv = V u.t+ V n 2 N/A 3 N/A 13 of 62 5 MJI 10/14/2022 Status OK N/A OK N/A 5 i : i i S ..J • ---------------------- Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hllti.com Company: Miyamoto International Page: Address: Phone I Fax: 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA I Specifier: E-Mail: Design: Conduit Support Fastening point: 4.2 Pryout Strength vcpg = kcp H:::) IV ec.N IV od.N IV c.N IV cp.N Nb ] (j> vcpg ~ v". ANc see ACI 318-14, Section 17.4.2.1, Fig. R 17.4.2.1(b) ANcO = 9 h!, IV ec,N = (-½;:) ~ 1.0 1 +--3 h01 IV ed,N IV cp,N Variables h81 [in.] 2.000 IV c,N cac [in.] 1.000 8.000 Calculations ~c[in.2] ANc0 [in.2] 144.00 36.00 Results Vcpg [lb] (j> conc,ete 9,016 0.700 ec1 N [in.] 0.000 kc 21 'I' ec1,N 1.000 'seismk: 1.000 5 Combined tension and shear loads 0.915 0.024 1.000 Date: ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.5.3.1b) ACI 318-14 Table 17.3.1.1 ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.1c) ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.4) ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.5b) ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.7b) ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.2a) ec2 N [in.] Ca min [in.] 0.000 00 t, • ([psi) 0.600 4,000 IV ec2,N IV od,N 1.000 1.000 (j>nonductlle (j> Vcpg [lb] 1.000 6,311 Utilization PN v [%] Status 79 OK Input data and results must be checked for confonmity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2022 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademari< of Hilli AG, Schaan IV cp,N 1.000 Vua (lb] 150 14 of 62 Nb [lb) 2,254 6 MJI 10/14/2022 6 i=iiS~• Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hllti.com Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Miyamoto International 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA I Page: Specifier: E-Mail: 15 of 62 7 MJI Design: Conduit Support Date: 10/14/2022 Fastening point: 6 Warnings • The anchor design methods in PROFIS Engineering require rigid anchor plates per current regulations (AS 5216:2021, ETAG 001/Annex C, EOTA TR029 etc.). This means load re-distribution on the anchors due to elastic deformations of the anchor plate are not considered -the anchor plate is assumed to be sufficiently stiff, in order not to be deformed when subjected to the design loading. PROFIS Engineering calculates the minimum required anchor plate thickness with CB FEM to limit the stress of the anchor plate based on the assumptions explained above. The proof if the rigid anchor plate assumption is valid is not carried out by PROFIS Engineering. Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing conditions and for plausibility! Condition A applies where the potential concrete failure surfaces are crossed by supplementary reinforcement proportioned to tie the potential concrete failure prism into the structural member. Condition B applies where such supplementary reinforcement is not provided, or where pullout or pryout strength governs. Refer to the manufacturer's product literature for cleaning and installation instructions. For additional information about ACI 318 strength design provisions, please go to https://submittals.us.hilti.com/PROFISAnchorDesignGuide/ An anchor design approach for structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or Fis given in ACI 318-14, Chapter 17, Section 17.2.3.4.3 (a) that requires the governing design strength of an anchor or group of anchors be limited by ductile steel failure. If this is NOT the case, the connection design (tension) shall satisfy the provisions of Section 17.2.3.4.3 (b), Section 17.2.3.4.3 (c), or Section 17.2.3.4.3 (d). The connection design (shear) shall satisfy the provisions of Section 17.2.3.5.3 (a), Section 17.2.3.5.3 (b), or Section 17.2.3.5.3 (c). Section 17.2.3.4.3 (b) / Section 17.2.3.5.3 (a) require the attachment the anchors are connecting to the structure be designed to undergo ductile yielding at a load level corresponding to anchor forces no greater than the controlling design strength. Section 17.2.3.4.3 (c) / Section 17.2.3.5.3 (b) waive the ductility requirements and require the anchors to be designed for the maximum tension/ shear that can be transmitted to the anchors by a non-yielding attachment. Section 17.2.3.4.3 (d) / Section 17.2.3.5.3 (c) waive the ductility requirements and require the design strength of the anchors to equal or exceed the maximum tension / shear obtained from design load combinations that include E, with E increased by coo, • Hilti post-installed anchors shall be installed in accordance with the Hilti Manufacturer's Printed Installation Instructions (MPII). Reference ACI 318-14, Section 17.8.1. Fastening meets the design criteria! Input data end results must be checked for conformity w~h lhe existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c) 2003-2022 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hllli is a registered Trademark of Hiltl AG, Schaan 7 i : i i S • • ----------------------Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hiltl.com Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Miyamoto International 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA I Page: Specifier: E-Mail: 16 of 62 8 MJI Design: Conduit Support Date: 10/14/2022 Fastening point: 7 Installation data Profile: Steel pipe, PIPE4STD; (L x W x T) = 4.500 in. x 4.500 in. x 0.237 in. Hole diameter in the fixture: d1 = 0.438 in. Plate thickness (input): 0.750 in. Recommended plate thickness: not calculated Drilling method: Core drilled Cleaning: Manual cleaning of the drilled hole according to instructions for use is required. Anchor type and diameter: Kwik Bolt TZ2 -CS 3/8 (2) hnom2 Item number: 2210238 KB-TZ2 3/8x3 3/4 Maximum installation torque: 361 in.lb Hole diameter in the base material: 0.375 in. Hole depth In the base material: 2.750 in. Minimum thickness of the base material: 2.500 in. Hilti KB-TZ2 stud anchor with 2.5 in embedment. 3/8 (2) hnom2, Carbon steel, installation per ESR-4266 7.1 Recommended accessories Drilling • Diamond core rig Coordinates Anchor [in.] Anchor X y 1 -5.000 -5.000 2 5.000 -5.000 3 -5.000 5.000 4 5.000 5.000 c .• Cleaning • Manual blow-out pump y 6.000 6.000 ----------------1-g ~ (P--+---.-g ~ !--+--------------+-+--.-~ 1.000 10.000 1.000 c •• c.y C+y Input data and results must be checked for conformity wtth the exlsUng conditions and for plausibllttyl PROFIS Engineering ( c) 2003-2022 Hilti AG. FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaan Setting Torque controlled cordless impact tool Torque wrench Hammer 8 •=iiS•• Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hllti.com Company: Miyamoto International Address: 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA Phone I Fax: I Design: Conduit Support Fastening point: 8 Remarks; Your Cooperation Duties Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: 17 of 62 9 MJI 10/14/2022 Any and all information and data contained in the Software concern solely the use of Hilti products and are based on the principles, formulas and security regulations in accordance with Hilti's technical directions and operating, mounting and assembly instructions, etc., that must be strictly complied with by the user. All figures contained therein are average figures, and therefore use-specific tests are to be conducted prior to using the relevant Hllti product. The results of the calculations carried out by means of the Software are based essentially on the data you put in. Therefore, you bear the sole responsibility for the absence of errors, the completeness and the relevance of the data to be put in by you. Moreover, you bear sole responsibility for having the results of the calculation checked and cleared by an expert, particularly with regard to compliance with applicable norms and permits, prior to using them for your specific facility. The Software serves only as an aid to interpret norms and permits without any guarantee as to the absence of errors, the correctness and the relevance of the results or suitability for a specific application. • You must take all necessary and reasonable steps to prevent or limit damage caused by the Software. In particular, you must arrange for the regular backup of programs and data and, if applicable, carry out the updates of the Software offered by Hilti on a regular basis. If you do not use the AutoUpdate function of the Software, you must ensure that you are using the current and thus up-to-date version of the Software in each case by carrying out manual updates via the Hilti Website. Hilti will not be liable for consequences, such as the recovery of lost or damaged data or programs, arising from a culpable breach of duty by you. Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c) 2003-2022 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hllti Is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaen 9 m1yamoto. (_"'t=(J<.. 4::>-rE E1... ("~,....c Project: ~Vh'lA_(_p 1, _ ---Sheet No: __ _ Project No: ..b.lJ i:)ll lob,00 Cale. By: Ml oa\%?_1 6_2 __ (oNt)v\1' SvP~Q.I I a , SS-DO l. I Co ""'""' E ...rf ':> '5 -°' 1 ~ E~ \ A ~I. ~ I~ I '-1-I R.a.'2.,S CJ .. l.S' rfL., 1.0 0 ' \..-,J E°1G,\ .. f( O~ (/:\,.....PQ"Jt:,v'r ((. 2S741 Of ,ofJ\L ~'-.b<,. ~, ft-4€"~t'·P~€ De t~w p~t. C~ 13 ( A':1:..€ '":\.-I~ 1-S, ';,I) ~ C)S:1 0 ,1-l.\ ~ -~p ':I 1-.S ep· e,.o 'A LO f P" O.•-fl. S )(cl.":\'-''!,)( 'lloo \ I+ 2 / /2\) (,.c ~ ,• -\ /, (l f~, 1<.o ~ ft l,cE f-A""A.x ~ tc-~~( 1~') ( t.oll '\-=-I~~~· ~-r 2 15, ~00 )l,.-IN '-() J w L,.""~ -o; 4 1•~'' vN'3ctAt.~o <.{;°iv<..1't.,t :. (pMn"' 1.~.'sS'=, '\<.-~, fV'.v ~,s,6~~~·,tJ + \,1.(1~(l.\\11J) -:-10,bYO~-IN i f•·\,::£.fl.~ ~-,rJ C,( Q)tJ\I\" 1.~0.1..-a k.·IN 0~ C. L-\ f ()(.. H ~ ~ P. o Q., t::;A ,...,..1£. /V' C ~ t).JT f<=~ A•~C. '!)loo 1'AGl.~ >-I~ 1 (l'\~C\, y,cl,ps'SI \lo 4>""(\~ \~.~ l<-IZ-T '2 1.1>,. <. K-l~ : O Ok. ~ f, 1.o"' rlu, .. 6 AlL A~ "'' f-:,ASt OK BY I l\l~"c:(\D,J m1yamoto. Project:_M_SP_H_2_A _____________ _ Project No: MI2210066.00 Cale. By: MJI Sheet No: ___ _ 19 of 62 Date: ___ _ CHECK EXISTING BEAM: PLATFORM FRAMING= (E) W18x35, CHECK PERIMETER BEAM FOR LOAD INCREASE DUE TO CONDUIT SUPPORT AREA TRIBUTARY = 128 FT2 (E) LOADS PER PHASE 1 TAKEOFF DEAD LOADS • D.L. LivE LOAD , L.L. MEZZANINE D.L. ~3.0 PSF L.L. 80.0 PSF >" ---;z: ;z: ;z: ---. 'rnJ V-,1~50 (24J N .t: '° ~ (NJ V'11Bx35 (:24J ~ i ~ II \,) -(NJ V'11Bx35 (:24J e ....., (NJ V'60x10B (50 J I l 1 27'-1 /2" - (NJ -C> '° -'<t' ~ <() ~ II \,) e .....__ L 1 (E) BENDING MOMENT: =[1 .2(93) + 1.6(80)]*4.75'*27fti'2 / 8 = 103,709 LB-FT MOMENT ADDITIONAL BENDING MOMENT DUE TO 700 LBS CONDUIT SUPPORT MID-SPAN: = 1.2*700*27 FT / 4 = 5,670 LB-FT MOMENT 10J,7o9+5,57o = 1.05 INCREASE LESS THAN 5%, THEREFORE OK 103,709 PER 2016 CEBC FOR GRAVITY LOADS 9'-6 3/4" 1:115;.1 Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hllti.com Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: Specifier's comments: 1 Input data Metal deck: Metal deck type: Anchor installation: Anchor type and diameter: Item number: Effective embedment depth: Material: Evaluation Service Report: Issued I Valid: Proof: Stand-off installation: Miyamoto International 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA I Conduit Twin Post Anchorage PH2A Existing Platfor 3 7/8 W Deck W2 On top of concrete-filled metal deck Kwik Bolt TZ2 -CS 3/8 (1 1/2) hnom1 2210236 KB-TZ2 3/8x3 h0r,act = 1.500 in., hnom = 1.875 in. Carbon Steel ESR-4266 12/17/2021 I 12/1/2023 Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: Design Method ACI 318-14 / Mech in concrete over metal deck installation eb = 0.000 in. (no stand-off); t = 0.500 in. 20 of 62 • 1 MJI 10/14/2022 Anchor plateR : Ix x ly x t = 10.000 in. x 10.000 in. x 0.500 in.; (Recommended plate thickness: not calculated) Profile: Base material: Installation: Reinforcement: Seismic loads (cat. C, D, E, or F) Square HSS (AISC), HSS4X4X.3125; (L x W x T) = 4.000 in. x 4.000 in. x 0.312 in. cracked concrete, 4000, fc' = 4,000 psi; h = 2.500 in. hammer drilled hole, Installation condition: Dry tension: condition B, shear: condition B; no supplemental splitting reinforcement present edge reinforcement: none or < No. 4 bar Tension load: yes (17.2.3.4.3 (d)) Shear load: yes (17.2.3.5.3 (c)) R -The anchor calculation is based on a rigid anchor plate assumption. Geometry [In.] & Loading [lb, In.lb] Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existjng conditions and for plauslbllityl PROFIS Engineering ( c) 2003-2022 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Him Is a registered Trademaric of Hilti AG, Schaen 1:11-;;.1 Hllti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hllti.com Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Miyamoto International 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA I Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Design: Conduit Twin Post Anchorage PH2A Existing Platfor Date: Fastening point: 1.1 Design results Case Description Combination 1 2 Load case/Resulting anchor forces Anchor reactions [lb] Tension force: (+Tension, -Compression) Anchor Tension force Shear force Shear force x 2 3 4 325 325 325 325 65 65 65 65 max. concrete compressive strain: -[%0) max. concrete compressive stress: -[psi] 65 65 65 65 resulting tension force in (x/y)=(0.000/0.000): 1,300 [lb] resulting compression force in (x/y)=(0.000/0.000): 0 [lb] Forces [lb)/ Moments [in.lb) N = 1,300; V, = 260; Vy= 0; M, = 0; My = 0; M, = 0; Shear force y 0 0 0 0 Anchor forces are calculated based on the assumption of a rigid anchor plate. 3 Tension load Load Nu• [lb) Capacity ♦ N0 [lb] Steel Strength• 325 4,869 Pullout Strength• N/A N/A Concrete Breakout Failure .. 1,300 4,758 • highest loaded anchor .. anchor group (anchors In tension) Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibllltyl PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2022 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark or Hilti AG, Schaan Seismic yes Tension Utilization PN = N._t+ Nn 7 N/A 28 21 of 62 2 MJI 10/14/2022 Max. Util. Anchor[%] 28 0 4 Status OK N/A OK 2 i = 1 1 S • • ----------------------Hllti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hllti.com Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: 3.1 Steel Strength N,0 = ESR value $ N .. ~ Nua Variables A.o N ~n.~ 0.05 Calculations N .. [lb) 6,493 Results N10 [lb) 6,493 Miyamoto International 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA I Conduit Twin Post Anchorage PH2A Existing Platfor refer to ICC-ES ESR-4266 ACI 318-14 Table 17.3.1.1 fu1a [psi) 126,204 $ &IHI $nonductile 0.750 1.000 $ N .. [lb) 4,869 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c) 2003-2022 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of HilU AG, Schaan Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: Nua [lb) 325 22 of 62 3 MJI 10/14/2022 3 1:115,.1 Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hilti.com Company: Miyamoto International Page: Address: 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA Specifier: Phone I Fax: I E-Mail: Design: Conduit Twin Post Anchorage PH2A Existing Platfor Date: Fastening point: 3.2 Concrete Breakout Failure Ncbg = (:::) ljl ec,N ljl ed.N ljl c,N ljl cp,N Nb 4, Ncbg 2: Nua ~c see ACI 318-14, Section 17.4.2.1, Fig. R 17.4.2.1(b} ~ca = 9 h!f ljl ec,N : (-k) S 1.0 1 +--3 h•f ljl ed,N = 0.7 + 0.3 ( ~.•s~:) :S 1.0 "'cp.N = MAX(c•,min, 1.5h•f) :S 1.0 Coe Cac . /7' 1.5 = k0 A 8 "lf0 h8f Variables 1.500 16.000 Calculations ~c [in.2] 81.00 Results 9,760 ec, N [in.] 0.000 kc 21 ANdJ [in.2] 20.25 cf. concrtlt 0.650 ec2N [in.] 0.000 "-a 1.000 ljl ec1,N 1.000 'seismk: 0.750 ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.1b} ACI 318-14 Table 17.3.1 .1 ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.1c) ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.4) ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.5b} ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.7b) ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.2a} Ca min [in.] ljl c,N 00 1.000 f0 [psi] 4,000 ljl ec2,N ljled,N 1.000 1.000 4'nonductile 4' Nm [lb] 1.000 4,758 Input data and results must be checked for conformtty with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2022 Hilli AG, Fl-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilli AG, Schaan ljl cp,N 1.000 Nua [lb] 1,300 23 of 62 Nb Pb] 2,440 4 MJI 10/14/2022 4 i : i i S • • ----------------------Hiltl PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hiltl.com Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: 4 Shear load Miyamoto International 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA I Conduit Twin Post Anchorage PH2A Existing Platfor Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: Load v.1 [lb] Capacity ♦ v. [lb] Steel Strength* 65 Steel failure (with lever arm)' N/A Pryout Strength** 260 Concrete edge failure in direction .. N/A • highest loaded anchor **anchor group (relevant anchors) 4.1 Steel Strength V sa,eq = ESR value ~ v.t.e1 ~ v •• Variables Ase,v [in.2J 0.05 Calculations V11,09 [lb] 3,226 Results v .. ,09 [lb] 3,226 refer to ICC-ES ESR-4266 ACI 318-14 Table 17.3.1.1 fy1a [psi] 126,204 1.000 ~ steel ~nonductile 0.650 1.000 ~ Vsa.eg (lb] 2,097 Input data and resuhs must be checked for oonformily with the existing conditions and for plauslbilityl PROFIS Engineering ( c) 2003-2022 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilli Is a registered Trademarlt of Hilti AG, Schaan 2,097 N/A 6,832 N/A 65 Utilization Pv = V u•t+ V" 4 N/A 4 N/A 24 of 62 5 MJI 10/14/2022 Status OK N/A OK N/A 5 ,:,,s., Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hllti.com Company: Miyamoto International Page: Address: 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA Specifier: Phone I Fax: I E-Mail: Design: Conduit Twin Post Anchorage PH2A Existing Platfor Date: Fastening point: 4.2 Pryout Strength V cpg = kcp [ (~:) 'V oc,N 'V od,N 'V c,N 'V cp,N Nb ] ' Vcpg ~ Vu• ~c see ACI 318-14, Section 17.4.2.1, Fig. R 17.4.2.1(b) ~co = 9 h!1 lj/ ee,N : (-k) S 1.0 1 +--3 h81 lj/ ed,N lj/ cp,N Variables lj/ c,N 1.000 Calculations ANc [in.z] 81.00 Results Vcpg [lb] 9,760 h01 [in.] 1.500 cac [in.] 16.000 ANco [in.2) 20.25 ' ooncrete 0.700 ec, N [in.] 0.000 kc 21 'V ec1,N 1.000 '••lsmic 1.000 5 Combined tension and shear loads 0.273 0.038 5/3 ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.5.3.1b) ACI 318-14 Table 17.3.1.1 ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.1c) ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.4) ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.5b) ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.7b) ACI 318-14 Eq. (17.4.2.2a) ec2N [in.] Ca,min [in. I 0.000 ,. • ( [psi) 1.000 4,000 lj/ oc2,N lj/ od,N 1.000 1.000 'nondu~ , Vcpg [lb) 1.000 6,832 Utilization 13N v [%) Status 12 OK Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibili1yl PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003--2022 Hiltl AG, FL-9494 Schaen Hiltl Is a registered Trademark of Hiltl AG, Schaan lj/ cp,N 1.000 Vu• [lb) 260 25 of 62 Nb [lb) 2,440 6 MJI 10/14/2022 6 ,:,,s., Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hilti.com Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Miyamoto International 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA I Page: Specifier: E-Mail: 26 of 62 7 MJI Design: Conduit Twin Post Anchorage PH2A Existing Platfor Date: 10/14/2022 Fastening point: 6 Warnings The anchor design methods in PROFIS Engineering require rigid anchor plates per current regulations (AS 5216:2021, ETAG 001/Annex C, EOTA TR029 etc.). This means load re-distribution on the anchors due to elastic deformations of the anchor plate are not considered -the anchor plate is assumed to be sufficiently stiff, in order not to be deformed when subjected to the design loading. PROFIS Engineering calculates the minimum required anchor plate thickness with CB FEM to limit the stress of the anchor plate based on the assumptions explained above. The proof if the rigid anchor plate assumption is valid Is not carried out by PROFIS Engineering. Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing conditions and for plausibility! Condition A applies where the potential concrete failure surfaces are crossed by supplementary reinforcement proportioned to tie the potential concrete failure prism into the structural member. Condition B applies where such supplementary reinforcement is not provided, or where pullout or pryout strength governs. Refer to the manufacturer's product literature for cleaning and installation instructions. For additional information about ACI 318 strength design provisions, please go to https://submittals.us.hilti.com/PROFISAnchorDesignGuide/ An anchor design approach for structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or Fis given in ACI 318-14, Chapter 17, Section 17.2.3.4.3 (a) that requires the governing design strength of an anchor or group of anchors be limited by ductile steel failure. If this is NOT the case, the connection design (tension) shall satisfy the provisions of Section 17.2.3.4.3 (b), Section 17.2.3.4.3 (c), or Section 17.2.3.4.3 (d). The connection design (shear) shall satisfy the provisions of Section 17.2.3.5.3 (a), Section 17.2.3.5.3 (b), or Section 17.2.3.5.3 (c). Section 17.2.3.4.3 (b) / Section 17.2.3.5.3 (a) require the attachment the anchors are connecting to the structure be designed to undergo ductile yielding at a load level corresponding to anchor forces no greater than the controlling design strength. Section 17 .2.3.4.3 (c) / Section 17 .2.3.5.3 (b) waive the ductility requirements and require the anchors to be designed for the maximum tension I shear that can be transmitted to the anchors by a non-yielding attachment. Section 17.2.3.4.3 (d) / Section 17.2.3.5.3 (c) waive the ductility requirements and require the design strength of the anchors to equal or exceed the maximum tension / shear obtained from design load combinations that include E, with E increased byro0. • Hilti post-installed anchors shall be installed in accordance with the Hilti Manufacturer's Printed Installation Instructions (MPH). Reference ACI 318-14, Section 17.8.1. Fastening meets the design criteria! Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2022 Hllti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hiltl Is a registered Trademarl< of Hllti AG, Schaan 7 i : i i 5 • i _____________________ _ Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hilti.com Company: Address: Miyamoto International Page: Specifier: E-Mail: 27 of 62 8 MJI Phone I Fax: Design: 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA I Conduit Twin Post Anchorage PH2A Existing Platfor Date: 10/14/2022 Fastening point: 7 Installation data Profile: Square HSS (AISC), HSS4X4X.3125; (L x W x T) = 4.000 in. x 4.000 in. x 0.312 in. Hole diameter in the fixture: d1 = 0.438 in. Plate thickness (input): 0.500 in. Recommended plate thickness: not calculated Drilling method: Hammer drilled Cleaning: Manual cleaning of the drilled hole according to instructions for use is required. Anchor type and diameter: Kwik Bolt TZ2 -CS 3/8 (1 1/2) hnom1 Item number: 2210236 KB-TZ2 3/8x3 Maximum installation torque: 361 in.lb Hole diameter in the base material: 0.375 in. Hole depth in the base material: 2.000 in. Minimum thickness of the base material: 2.500 in. Hilti KB-TZ2 stud anchor with 1.875 in embedment, 3/8 (1 1/2) hnom1, Carbon steel, installation per ESR-4266 7.1 Recommended accessories Drilling • Suitable Rotary Hammer • Properly sized drill bit Coordinates Anchor [in.] Anchor x 1 -4.000 2 4.000 3 -4.000 4 4.000 y -4.000 -4.000 4.000 4.000 c .• Cleaning • Manual blow-out pump , .. y 5.000 5.000 - 0 0 o 3 ()A-~ -...- 0 0 0 co ?1 y? I I 1.000 8.000 1.000 Input data and results must be checked for conformity with the existing conditions and for plausibility! PROFIS Engineering ( c ) 2003-2022 Hilti AG. FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademar1< of Hilti AG, Schaan Setting • Torque controlled cordless impact tool Torque wrench • Hammer .___. ... ~ 0 0 0 LO ~ ~ X 0 0 0 LO 0 0 ~ ..... ~ 8 i : i i S • • ----------------------Hilti PROFIS Engineering 3.0.80 www.hllti.com Company: Address: Phone I Fax: Design: Fastening point: Miyamoto International 5550 Baltimore Drive, La Mesa, CA I Conduit Twin Post Anchorage PH2A Existing Platfor 8 Remarks; Your Cooperation Duties Page: Specifier: E-Mail: Date: 28 of 62 9 MJI 10/14/2022 Any and all information and data contained in the Software concern solely the use of Hilti products and are based on the principles, formulas and security regulations in accordance with Hilti's technical directions and operating, mounting and assembly instructions, etc., that must be strictly complied with by the user. All figures contained therein are average figures, and therefore use-specific tests are to be conducted prior to using the relevant Hilti product. The results of the calculations carried out by means of the Software are based essentially on the data you put in. Therefore, you bear the sole responsibility for the absence of errors, the completeness and the relevance of the data to be put in by you. Moreover, you bear sole responsibility for having the results of the calculation checked and cleared by an expert, particularly with regard to compliance with applicable norms and permits, prior to using them for your specific facility. The Software serves only as an aid to interpret norms and permits without any guarantee as to the absence of errors, the correctness and the relevance of the results or suitability for a specific application. You must take all necessary and reasonable steps to prevent or limit damage caused by the Software. In particular, you must arrange for the regular backup of programs and data and, if applicable, carry out the updates of the Software offered by Hilti on a regular basis. If you do not use the AutoUpdate function of the Software, you must ensure that you are using the current and thus up-to-date version of the Software in each case by carrying out manual updates via the Hilti Website. Hilti will not be liable for consequences, such as the recovery of lost or damaged data or programs, arising from a culpable breach of duty by you. Input data and results must be checked for conformity wtth the existing conditions and for plausibili1yl PROFIS Engineering ( c) 2003-2022 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hllti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaan 9 I Concrete Slender Wall UC#: KW-06018304, Bulld:20.22.6.12 DESCRIPTION: Yard Fence Wall Code References 29 of 61 Project File: MSPH2.ec6 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 Calculations per ACI 318-14 Sec 11.8, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combinations Used: IBC 2018 General Information re : Concrete 28 day streng = Fy : Rebar Yield = Ee : Concrete Elastic Modu = 11, : Lt Wt Cone Fact = Fr : Rupture Modulus = Max Allow As/bd = Max Pu/Ag = fc • = Concrete Density = Width of Design Strip = One-Sto Wall Dimensions A Clear Height B Parapet height 3.0 ksi 60.0 ksi 3,122.0ksi 1.0 273.861 psi 0.01355 0.060 144.0 pcf 12.0 in 6 ft ft Wall Support Condiliortrop Free, Bottom Fix Cs= Sds I (R / le) = 0.743 / 1.25 =0.594 Wall Thickness Rebar at wall center Rebar "d" distance Lower Level Rebar ... Bar Size # Bar Spacing 8 in Temp Diff across thickness = Min Allow Out-of-Plane Dell Ratio = 4.0 in Min allow As/bd deg F 0.0 /2 for Cantilever 0.0020 5 Using Stiff. Reduction Factor per ACI 318-14 12 in Section 11.8.3 VERIFICATION OF R = 1.25 USED IN APPLIED FORCE TO CALCULATE MOMENT IN WALL Roof~ Wall Weight= 150 PCF * (8 in/ 12 ") A =100 PSF for 8" Cone. Wall 100 PSF x 0.594 = 59.4 PSF Wind Loads : Full area WIND load 15.0 psi DESIGN SUMMARY Seismic Loads : Wall Weight Seismic Load Input Method : Dire·,..._."'n•,n, of Lateral Wall Weight Seismic Wall Lateral Load 59 psf Fp 1.0 59.0 psi Results reported for " 59 psf X 6'-0" x 6'/2 = 1,062 lb-ft Governing Load Combination ... Actual Values ... Allowable Values ... PASS Moment Capacity Check +1.349D+E PASS Service Deflection Check E Only PASS Axial Load Check +1.349D+E PASS Reinforcing Limit Check OK per ACI 318 Section 22.2 Maximum Bending Stres Max Mu -1.062 k-ft Actual Dell. Ratio L/ 10692 Max. Deflection Max Pu / Ag Location Actual As/bd 0.01347 in 0.560 psi 0.10 ft 0.006458 Phi• Mn Allowable Den. Ratio 5.156 k-ft 150.0 /2 for Cantilever Max. Allow. Den. 0.960 in 0.06 • re 180.0 psi Max Allow As/bd 0.01355 Maximum Reactions for Load Combination ... Top Horizontal Base Horizontal E Only Vertical Reaction D Only 0.0 k 0.3540 k 0.5760 k I Concrete Slender Wall UC#: KW--06018304, Build:20.22.6.12 DESCRIPTION: Yard Fence Wall Design Maximum Combinations -Moments MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC 36 of 61 Project File: MSPH2.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 Results reported for "Strip Width"= 12 in. Axial Load Moment Values 0.6 • Load Combination +1.20D+0.50W at 0.00 to 0.20 +1.20D+W at 0.00 to 0.20 +1.349D+E at 0.00 to 0.20 +1.349D-E at 0.00 to 0.20 +0.90D+W at 0.00 to 0.20 +0.7514D+E at 0.00 to 0.20 +0.7514D-E at 0.00 to 0.20 Pu k 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06*fc*b*t L 0.000 0.000 17.280 17.280 17.280 17.280 17.280 17.280 17.280 Mer Mu k-ft k-ft 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.92 0.14 2.92 0.27 2.92 1.06 2.92 1.06 2.92 0.27 2.92 1.06 2.92 1.06 Desi n Maximum Combinations -Deflections Load Combination +D+0.60W at 5.80 to 6.00 +D+0.70E at 5.80 to 6.00 +D+0.450W at 5.80 to 6.00 +D+0.5250E at 5.80 to 6.00 +0.60D+0.60W at 5.80 to 6.00 +0.60D+0.70E at 5.80 to 6.00 W Only at 5.80 to 6.00 E Only at 5.80 to 6.00 Axial Load Pu k 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Moment Values Mer Mactual k-ft k-ft 0.00 0.00 2.92 0.00 2.92 0.00 2.92 0.00 2.92 0.00 2.92 0.00 2.92 0.00 2.92 0.00 2.92 0.00 Reactions -Vertical & Horizontal Load Combination D Only +D+0.60W +D+0.70E +D+0.450W +D+0.5250E +0.60D+0.60W +0.60D+0.70E WOnly E Only Base Horizontal 0.0 k 0.1 k 0.2 k 0.0 k 0.2 k 0.1 k 0.2 k 0.1 k 0.4 k Phi 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 I gross in"4 0.00 512.00 512.00 512.00 512.00 512.00 512.00 512.00 512.00 Phi Mn As As Ratio rho bal Bar 'd' l:fl in'2 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 5.16 0.310 0.0065 0.0135 4.00 5.16 0.310 0.0065 0.0135 4.00 5.16 0.310 0.0065 0.0135 4.00 5.16 0.310 0.0065 0.0135 4.00 5.16 0.310 0.0065 0.0135 4.00 5.16 0.310 0.0065 0.0135 4.00 5.16 0.310 0.0065 0.0135 4.00 Results reported for "Strip Width" = 12 in. Stiffness Deflections I cracked I effective Deflection Defl. Ratio in"4 ln"4 in 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.0 32.01 384.000 0.002 70,070.5 32.01 384.000 0.009 15,269.6 32.01 384.000 0.002 93,427.3 32.01 384.000 0.007 20,359.5 32.01 384.000 0.002 70,078.8 32.01 384.000 0.009 15,271.4 32.01 384.000 0.003 42,054.8 32.01 384.000 0.013 10,691.9 Top Horizontal Vertical @ Wall Base 0.00 k 0.576 k 0.00 k 0.576 k 0.00 k 0.576 k 0.00 k 0.576 k 0.00 k 0.576 k 0.00 k 0.346 k 0.00 k 0.346 k 0.00 k 0.000 k 0.00 k 0.000 k 37 of 61 I Wall Footing Project File: MSPH2.ec6 UC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.6.12 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: Yard Wall Footing Centered Code References Calculations per ACI 318-14, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combinations Used : IBC 201 8 General Information Material Properties fc : Concrete 28 day strength fy : Rebar Yield Ee : Concrete Elastic Modulus Concrete Density q> Values Flexure Shear Analysis Settings Min Steel % Bending Reinf. Min Allow% Temp Reinf. Min. Overturning Safety Factor Min. Sliding Safety Factor AutoCalc Footing Weight as DL : Dimensions Footing Width Wall Thickness Wall center offset from center of footing = lo c-- Applied Loads P : Column Load OB : Overburden V-x M-zz Vx applied = Soil Design Values 3.0ksi Allowable Soil Bearing = 60.0 ksi Increase Bearing By Footing Weight = = 3,122.0ksi Soil Passive Resistance (for Sliding) = = 145.0 pcf Soil/Concrete Friction Coeff. = = 0.90 = 0.750 Increases based on footing Depth Reference Depth below Surface = = Allow. Pressure Increase per foot of depth = = 0.00180 when base footing is below = = = 4.0ft 8.0in 0in D 0.7530 .22 1.0: 1 Increases based on footing Width 1.0: 1 Allow. Pressure Increase per foot of width Yes when footing is wider than = Adjusted Allowable Bearing Pressure = Reinforcing Footing Thickness = 18.0 in Bars along X-X Axis Rebar Centerline to Edge of Concrete ... Bar spacing at Bottom of footing = 3.0 in Reinforcing Bar Size Lr L in above top of footing s w E 0.3540 1.590 Force increased to overstrength _/ for OT of a cantilever system = = 3.0 ksf Yes 250.0 pcf 0.30 1.50 ft ksf ft ksf ft 3.218 ksf H # k ksf k k-ft 8.00 5 38 of 61 I Wall Footing Project File: MSPH2.ec6 UC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.6.12 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: Yard Wall Footing Centered _D_E_S_I_G_N_S_U_M_M __ '.A_R_Y ______________________________ ... itfflH,I•,...._ Factor of Safety PASS PASS PASS 1.904 2.847 n/a Utilization Ratio PASS 0.3560 PASS 0.04658 PASS 0.04354 PASS n/a PASS 0.1398 Detailed Results Soll Bearing Rotation Axis & Load Combination ... , DOnly , +D+0.70E , +D-0.70E , +D+0.5250E , +D-0.5250E , +0.60D , +0.60D+0.70E , +0.60D-0.70E Overturning Stability Rotation Axis & Load Combination ... , DOnly , +D+0.70E , +D-0.70E , +D+0.5250E , +D-0.5250E , +0.60D , +0.60D+0.70E , +0.60D-0.70E Sliding Stability Force Application Axis Load Combination ... , DOnly , +D+0.70E , +D-0.70E , +D+0.5250E , +D-0.5250E , +0.60D , +0.60D+0.70E , +0.60D-0.70E Footing Flexure Item Overturning -2-Z Sliding -X-X Uplift Item Soil Bearing Z Flexure {+X) Z Flexure (-X) 1-way Shear {+X) 1-way Shear {-X) Applied 1.485 k-ft 0.2478 k 0.0 k Applied 1.145 ksf 1.418 k-ft 1.325 k-ft 0.0 psi 11.483 psi Gross Allowable 3.218 ksf 3.218 ksf 3.218 ksf 3.218 ksf 3.218 ksf 3.218 ksf 3.218 ksf 3.218 ksf Overturning Moment None 1 .485 k-ft 1 .485 k-ft 1.114 k-ft 1.114 k-ft None 1.485 k-ft 1.485 k-ft Sliding Force 0.0 k 0.2478 k -0.2478 k 0.1859 k -0.1859 k 0.0 k 0.2478 k -0.2478 k Xecc 0.0 in 7.561 in -7.561 in 5.671 in -5.671 in 0.0 in 12.602 in -12.602 in Capacity Governing Load Combination 2.828 k-ft 0.7054 k 0.0 k +0.60D+0.70E +0.60D+0.70E No Uplift Capacity Governing Load Combination 3.218 ksf 30.434 k-ft 30.434 k-ft 82.158 psi 82.158 psi Actual Soil Bearing Stress -X +X 0.5891 ksf 0.5891 ksf 0.03269 ksf 1.145 ksf 1.145 ksf 0.03269 ksf 0.1718 ksf 1.006 ksf 1.006 ksf 0.1718 ksf 0.3535 ksf 0.3535 ksf 0.0 ksf 0.9918 ksf 0.9918 ksf 0.0 ksf +D-0.70E +1 .20D+E +0.90D-E n/a +1.40D Actual / Allowable Ratio 0.183 0.356 0.356 0.313 0.313 0.110 0.308 0.308 Units : k-ft Resisting Moment Stability Ratio Status 0.0 k-ft 4.713 k-ft 4.713 k-ft 4.713 k-ft 4.713 k-ft 0.0 k-ft 2.828 k-ft 2.828 k-ft Resisting Force 0.9882 k 0.9882 k 0.9882 k 0.9882 k 0.9882 k 0.7054 k 0.7054 k 0.7054 k Infinity 3.174 3.174 4.232 4.232 Infinity 1.904 1.904 Sliding SafetyRatio No Sliding 3.988 3.988 5.317 5.317 No Sliding 2.847 2.847 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Status OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Flexure Axis & Load Combination Mu Which Tension @ Bot. As Req'd Gvrn. As Actual As Phi•Mn k-ft Side? or Top ? in"2 in"2 in"2 k-ft Status ,+1.40D 0.7177 -X Bottom 0.3888 Min Temp % 0.465 30.434 OK , +1 .40D 0.7177 +X Bottom 0.3888 Min Temp% 0.465 30.434 OK , +1.20D 0.6151 -X Bottom 0.3888 Min Temp % 0.465 30.434 OK , +1 .20D 0.6151 +X Bottom 0.3888 Min Temp % 0.465 30.434 OK , +1.20D+E 0.1762 -X Bottom 0.3888 Min Temp % 0.465 30.434 OK , +1 .20D+E 1.418 +X Bottom 0.3888 Min Temp % 0.465 30.434 OK , +1 .20D-E 1.418 -X Bottom 0.3888 Min Temp % 0.465 30.434 OK , +1 .20D-E 0.1762 +X Bottom 0.3888 Min Temp % 0.465 30.434 OK , +0.90D 0.4614 -X Bottom 0.3888 Min Temp % 0.465 30.434 OK , +0.90D 0.4614 +X Bottom 0.3888 Min Temp % 0.465 30.434 OK 39 of 61 I Wall Footing Project File: MSPH2.ec6 UC#: KW-06018304, Bulld:20.22.6.12 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: Yard Wall Footing Centered Footing Flexure Flexure Axis & Load Combination Mu Which Tension @ Bot. As Req'd Gvrn. As Actual As Phi*Mn k-ft Side ? or Top? in"2 in"2 in"2 k-ft Status , +0.90D+E 0.2518 -X Bottom 0.3888 Min Temp% 0.465 30.434 OK , +0.90D+E 1.325 +X Bottom 0.3888 Min Temp % 0.465 30.434 OK , +0.90D-E 1.325 -X Bottom 0.3888 Min Temp % 0.465 30.434 OK , +0.90D-E 0.2518 +X Bottom 0.3888 Min Temp % 0.465 30.434 OK One Way Shear Units : k Load Combination ... Vu @ -X Vu @ +X Vu:Max Phi Vn Vu / Phl*Vn Status +1.400 11.483 psi 0 psi 11.483 psi 82.158 psi 0.1398 OK +1.20D 9.842psi 0 psi 9.842 psi 82.158 psi 0.1198 OK +1.20D+E 9.842psi 0 psi 9.842 psi 82.158 psi 0.1198 OK +1.20D-E 9.842 psi 0psi 9.842 psi 82.158 psi 0.1198 OK +0.90D 7.382psi 0psi 7.382 psi 82.158 psi 0.08985 OK +0.90D+E 7.382psi 0psi 7.382 psi 82.158 psi 0.08985 OK +0.90D-E 7.382psi 0psi 7.382 psi 82.158 psi 0.08985 OK JO of 61 I Wall Footing Project File: MSPH2.ec6 UC#: KW-06018304. Build:20.22.6.12 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: Copy of Yard Wall Footing Eccentric Code References Calculations per ACI 318-14, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combinations Used: IBC 2018 General Information Material Properties fc : Concrete 28 day strength fy : Rebar Yield Ee : Concrete Elastic Modulus Concrete Density <p Values Flexure Shear Analysis Settings Min Steel % Bending Reinf. Min Allow% Temp Reinf. Min. Overturning Safety Factor Min. Sliding Safety Factor AutoCalc Footing Weight as DL : Dimensions 3.0ksi 60.0ksi 3,122.0 ksi 145.0 pcf 0.90 0.750 0.00180 1.0: 1 1.0: 1 Yes Soil Design Values Allowable Soil Bearing Increase Bearing By Footing Weight Soil Passive Resistance (for Sliding) Soil/Concrete Friction Coeff. Increases based on footing Depth Reference Depth below Surface Allow. Pressure Increase per foot of depth when base footing is below Increases based on footing Width Allow. Pressure Increase per foot of width when footing is wider than Adjusted Allowable Bearing Pressure Reinforcin Footing Width Wall Thickness Wall center offset = 4 ft 8.0in Footing Thickness 18.0 in Bars along X·X Axis Rebar Centerline to Edge of Concrete ... Bar spacing = at Bottom of footing = 3.0 in Reinforcing Bar Size = from center of footing 20in .. I -----------~----- Ap lied Loads D Lr L s w E P : Column Load = 0.7530 0.0 OB : Overburden = .22 V-x = 0.3540 M-zz = 1.590 Vx applied = in above top of footing 3.0 ksf Yes 250.0 pcf 0.30 1.50 ft ksf ft ksf ft 3.218 ksf 8.00 # 5 H k ksf k k-ft SIMPSON Strong'-Tie Anchor Designer™ Software Version 3.0.7808.0 • 1.Project information Customer company: Customer contact name: Customer e-mail: Comment: 2. Input Data & Anchor Parameters General Design method:ACI 318-14 Units: Imperial units Anchor Information: Anchor type: Bonded anchor Material: F1554 Grade 55 Diameter (inch): 0.750 Effective Embedment depth, h., (inch): 8.000 Code report: ICC-ES ESR-4057 Anchor category: - Anchor ductility: Yes hm1n (inch): 9.75 Coe (inch): 14.62 Cm1n (inch): 1.75 Sm1n (inch): 3.00 Recommended Anchor Anchor Name: SET-3G -SET-3G w/ 3/4"0 F1554 Gr. 55 Code Report: ICC-ES ESR-4057 I 4.i) . . I r•f I If ~f ,,--•• ,, Company: Miyamoto International Engineer: MJI Project: MSPh2B Pipe Support Anchorage Address: Phone: E-mail: Project description: Location: Fastening description: Base Material Concrete: Normal-weight Concrete thickness, h (inch): 18.00 State: Cracked Compressive strength, f c (psi): 4000 4-'c,v: 1.0 Reinforcement condition: B tension, B shear Supplemental reinforcement: Not applicable Reinforcement provided al comers: No Ignore concrete breakout in tension: No Ignore concrete breakout in shear: No Hole condition: Dry concrete Inspection: Continuous Temperature range, Short/Long: 150/110°F Ignore 6do requirement: Nol applicable Build-up grout pad: No 35 of 62 I Date: I 8/4/2022 I Page: I 1/6 Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing circumstances, the standards and guidelines must be checked for plausibility. Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. 5956 W. Las Positas Boulevard Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: 925.560.9000 Fax: 925.847.3871 www.strongtie.com SIM Stro PSON Anchor Designer™ Software ng-Tie Version 3.0. 7808.0 .. Load and Geometry Load factor source: ACI 318 Section 5.3 Load combination: not set Seismic design: Yes . . ... Ductility section for shear: 17.2.3.5.3 (c) is satisfied Anchors only resisting wind and/or seismic loads: Yes Strength level loads: Nua [lb]: 4293 Vuu. [lb]: 4776 Vuay [lb): 0 <Figure 1> X ,/',- ,/' ...... ,,-' .,," Company: Miyamoto International Engineer: MJI Project: MSPh2B Pipe Support Anchorage Address: Phone: E-mail: LOADS APPLIED AT OVERSTRENGTHLEVEL TO SATISFY DUCTILITY REQUIREMENT 42931b Olb 36 of 62 I Date: I 8/4/2022 I Page: I 2/6 Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing circumstances, the standards and guidelines must be checked for plausibility. Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. 5956 W. Las Positas Boulevard Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: 925.560.9000 Fax: 925.847.3871 www.stronglie.com SIMPSON Strong-Tie <Figure 2> Anchor Designer™ Software Version 3.0.7808.0 Company: Engineer: Project: Address: Phone: E-mail: 8.00 Miyamoto International MJI MSPh2B Pipe Support Anchorage 8 0 0 . CX) 37 of 62 Date: 8/4/2022 Page: 3/6 Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing circumstances, the standards and guidelines must be checked for plausibility. Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. 5956 W. l as Positas Boulevard Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: 925.560.9000 Fax: 925.847.3871 www.strongtie.com SIMPSON Strong-Tie esigner™ Anchor D Software Version 3.0.7 808.0 3, Resulting Anchor Forces Company: Engineer: Project: Address: Phone: E-mail: Anchor Tension load, Nua (lb} Shear load x, Vuax (lb} 4293.0 Sum 4293.0 Maximum concrete compression strain (%o}: 0.00 Maximum concrete compression stress (psi}: O Resultant tension force (lb}: 4293 Resultant compression force (lb): 0 4776.0 4776.0 Eccentricity of resultant tension forces in x-axis, e'Nx (inch): 0.00 Eccentricity of resultant tension forces in y-axis, e'Ny (inch}: 0.00 Eccentricity of resultant shear forces in x-axis, e'vx (inch}: 0.00 Eccentricity of resultant shear forces in y-axis, e'vy (inch}: 0.00 4. Steel Strength of Anchor in Tension (Sec. 17.4.1) N,. (lb} ¢i (IN,. (lb) 25050 0.75 18788 5, Concrete Breakout Strength of Anchor in Tension (Sec, 17,4.2) Nb = kcAa✓fchar1•5 (Eq. 17.4.2.2a} kc l.a fc (psi} ha, (in) 17.0 1.00 4000 8.000 24328 0.75(!Ncb = 0.75(! (ANcl ANco)'Po<1,N'Pc,N'Pcp,NNb (Sec. 17.3.1 & Eq. 17.4.2.1a) A Nc (in2} ANco (in2 Ca.min (in) 'f'od,N 'f'c,N 400.00 576.00 8.00 0.900 1.00 §. Mh!SiV! Str!ngth of Ancbor in T!nSion (S!C-l7.4.5) 11<,cr = 11<,crfshort-tormKsst(fcl 2.500)naN.so/s Tk,cr (psi} fs11on-torm K,at aN.sels f c (psi} 1310 1.00 1.00 1.00 4000 Nba = A aTcr1Tdaher(Eq, 17.4.5.2) ;.,. Tc, (psi} d. (in} har(in} Nba (lb} 1.00 1466 0.75 8.000 27641 0.75¢iN. = 0.75(! (AN.I A Noo)'l'ed,No 'Pcp,NaNb. (Sec. 17.3.1 & Eq. 17.4.5.1a} CNa (in} Ca.min (in} 'f'&d,Na 333.92 422.18 10.27 8.00 0.934 38 of 62 Miyamoto International I Date: I 8/4/2022 MJI I Page: I 4/6 MSPh2B Pipe Support Anchorage Shear load y, Vuay (lb} 0.0 0.0 '/fcp,N Nb (lb) 1.000 24328 n Tk,cr (psi) 0.24 1466 'Pp.Na Nao (lb} 1.000 27641 Shear load combined, ✓(Vuax}2+(Vuay }2 (lb) 4776.0 4776.0 ¢i 0. 75(!Ncb (lb} 0.65 7413 0.75¢iN• (lb} 0.65 9951 Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing circumstances, the standards and guidelines must be checked for plausibility. Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. 5956 W. Las Positas Boulevard Pleasanton. CA 94588 Phone: 925.560.9000 Fax: 925.847.3871 www.strongtie.com 39 of 62 Company: Miyamoto International Date: 8/4/2022 Engineer: MJI Page: 5/6 SIMPSON Strong-Tie Anchor Designer™ Software Project: MSPh2B Pipe Support Anchorage Version 3.0.7808.0 Address: Phone: E-mail: s. Steel Strength of Anchor in Shear (Sec. 17.5.1) V .. (lb) 1Pg,ou1 IP av,u1, 1Pgrou1av.ws1PVsa (lb) 15030 1.0 0.65 0.75 7327 9. Concrete Breakout Strength of Anchor in Shear (Sec. 17.5,2) Shear perpendicular to edge In x-directlon: Vbx = minl7(/e/de}°-2✓deA-e✓fcCet1•5; 9Ae✓fcCe11•51 (Eq. 17.5.2.2a & Eq. 17.5.2.2b) '• (in) d, (in) J. f c (psi) c., (in) Vbx (lb) 6.00 0.750 1.00 4000 8.00 12880 1PV <bx =IP (Ave/ Avco) 'l'MJ.v'Pc.v'l'h,VVbx (Sec. 17.3.1 & Eq. 17.5.2.1a) 'l'c.V 240.00 288.00 0.900 1.000 1.000 12880 Shear parallel to edge In y-directlon: Vbx = minj7(/e/ de}°-2✓d.J.✓fcCe11•5; 9J.✓fcCe11•51 (Eq. 17.5.2.2a & Eq. 17.5.2.2b) le (in) do (in) J. fc (psi) Cot (in) Vbx (lb) 6.00 0.750 1.00 4000 8.00 12880 1PV cby =IP {2)(Avcl Avco)'l'MJ,v'l'c,v'l'h,vVox (Sec. 17.3.1, 17.5.2.1(c) & Eq. 17.5.2.1a) Ave (in2) Avco (in2) 'l'MJ,V 'Pc,v 'l'h,V Vbx (lb) 240.00 288.00 1.000 1.000 1.000 12880 1 o. Concrete Pryout Strength of Anchor in Shear (Sec. 17.5.3) 1PVcb, (lb) 0.70 6762 1PVcby (lb) 0.70 15026 1PVcp = IP minlkcpNe; kcpNcbl = IP minjkcp(ANe/ ANeo) 'l'MJ,N• 'l'cp,NaNbo ; kcp(ANcl ANco) 'PMJ,N'Pc,N 'l'cp,NNbl (Sec. 17.3.1 & Eq. 17.5.3.1a) kcp AN• (in2) ANeo (in2) 'f'MJ,N• 'f'cp,N• Nbo (lb) N. (lb) 2.0 333.92 422.18 0.934 1.000 27641 20411 ANc (in2) ANco (in2) 'J'MJ,N 'J'c,N 'f'cp,N Nb (lb) Neb (lb) IP 1PVcp (lb) 400.00 576.00 0.900 1.000 1.000 24328 15205 0.70 21287 11, Be&ult& lnten,ction of Ieniile ani;i SbHt force& (S11c, BH,lil Tension Factored Load, Nua (lb) Design Strength, 0Nn (lb) Ratio Status Steel 4293 18788 0.23 Pass Concrete breakout 4293 7413 0.58 Pass (Governs) Adhesive 4293 9951 0.43 Pass Shear Factored Load, Vua (lb) Design Strength, r/JVn (lb) Ratio Status Steel 4776 7327 0.65 Pass T Concrete breakout x+ 4776 6762 0.71 Pass (Governs) II Concrete breakout y+ 4776 15026 0.32 Pass (Governs) Pryout 4776 21287 0.22 Pass Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing circumstances, the standards and guidelines must be checked for plausibility. Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. 5956 W. Las Positas Boulevard Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: 925.560.9000 Fax: 925.847.3871 www.strongtie.com SIMPSON Strong-Tie Interaction check Sec. R17.6 Anchor Designer™ Software Version 3.0.7808.0 0.56 Company: Miyamoto International Engineer: MJI Project: MSPh2B Pipe Support Anchorage Address: Phone: E-mail: Combined Ratio Permissible 96.3% 1.0 SET-3G w/ 3/4"0 F1554 Gr. 55 with hef = 8.000 inch meets the selected design criteria. 12. Warnings -Per designer input, ductility requirements for tension have been determined to be satisfied -designer to verify. -Per designer input, ductility requirements for shear have been determined to be satisfied -designer to verify. -Designer must exercise own judgement to determine if this design is suitable. -Refer to manufacturer's product literature for hole cleaning and installation instructions. 40 of 62 I Date: I 8/4/2022 l Page: I 6/6 Status Pass Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing circumstances, the standards and guidelines must be checked for plausibility. Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc 5956 W. Las Positas Boulevard Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: 925.560.9000 Fax: 925.847.3871 www.strongtie.com m1yamoto. ProJect: __ M_SP_H_2_A_c_P_2 __ __,..-,,------------Sheet No: ----U of 6& Project No: Ml2210066.00 OPENINGS AT EXISTING MEZZANINE I I I I I PROVIDE3"ClRALLSIDES. SEE MECHt OftA\\INGS I I I I FORSIZE&LOCATIONS 0---,,--o ---t---e ---~W2~- WT9x25 Cele. By: _M_Ji ___ Date: ___ _ Chk. By: Date: ___ _ I ~ MEZZANINEBEAM I 10 MB-3 I I I I I I ,~, ! ! ! t:JI -~--·~ -_t-_-_---1~1--I 10 1 10 ._I ---+--IC3J-:x'. I 10 1 l~I I :X'.]I i ! ! ! lxl, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OPENING IN (E) tEZZANINE, 1'IP ~1 i 1!11 (V.1.FJ W12x14 (V.1.F,) (V.1.F.) I---!==~--I -,.........;,--I N~-e!--1--:-'t~~=;;-I I rt:::::ll==='...---, RE~AI G EFF. WIDTH I I Ezzl N1 BEAM B-1 I Ill (V.I.F.) I (V.IF.) PARTIAL MEZZANINE FRAMING PLAN -AREA 204, PHASE 2A 114' = 1'-0" -(E) W12x19 beams are strengthened with and taken to still act compositely with their 1 '-9" minimum flange width -(E) W24x55 only has 1' of remaining slab and is taken to not act compositely after openings are cut I Composite Steel Beam LIC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.6.12 DESCRIPTION: (E) W12x19 MB 1 CODE REFERENCES MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC Calculations per AISC 360-16, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : IBC 2018 Material Properties Analysis Method : Load Resistance Factor Design Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buc Load Combination IBC 2018 Fy : Steel Yield : 50.0 ksi E: Modulus : 29,000.0 ksi II of 61 Project File: MSPH2.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 1 t1Ct T Wlhtl Com~site Beam Section Data Beam is UNSHORED for Concrete Placement Total Slab Thickness 5.50 in Effective Width 1.670 ft Metal Deck .. Verco, PLW3 Formlok Ribs : Perpendicular ,{ ~ Concrete fc Concrete Density Rib Height Rib Spacing 4.0ksi 115.0 pct 3.0 in 12.0 in D(0.39882~L~0.56355) tJQ I )il: 9 27.670 ft Stud Diameter Qn : Stud Capacity Top Width Btm Width I 3/4" in 17.240 k 7.50in 4.50 in ~ Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load : D = 0.0460, L = 0.0650 ksf, Tributary Width = 8.670 ft, Post Composite Only DESIGN SUMMARY MAX Bending Ratio = Steel section Composite % Composite Action Mu : Applied Mn * Phi : Allow Location of maximum Load Combination 0.995: 1 W12x19 33 % 134.274 k-ft 134.984 k-ft 13.835 ft MAX Shear Ratio = Vu : Applied Vn * Phi : Allow Location of maximum Load Combination 0.226 19.411 k 86.010 k 0.0 ft +1 .20D+0.50Lr+1.60L +1.60H +1.20D+0.50Lr+1.60L +1.60H Pre-Composite Mu : Applied Mn * Phi : Allowable Shear Stud Requirements 2.540 k-ft 92.625 k-ft From Support 1 to 13.84 ft use 5 studs. (Code Max Spacing of 36 in governs) From 13.84 ft to Support 2 use 5 studs. (Code Max Spacing of 36 in governs) Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combir Load Comb & Design Length Max Stress Ratios Bending Summary : 1 Span# M V Mu-Applied MnTr • Phi Pre Composite : D + Const L Span L = 27.67 ft 0.027 0.004 2.54 92.63 Design N.G. DEFLECTIONS FINAL Composite Max Downward Max Upward Defl Ratio Transient Composite Max Downward Max Upward Defl Ratio NonComposite Max Downward Max Upward Defl Ratio 1.857 in 0.000 in 178 <240 +D+L+H 1.048 in 0.000 in 316 L Only 0.067 in 0.000 in 4952 <240 PreCompDL +PreCompLL Shear Summary Va Vn * Phi 0.37 86.01 Composite Steel Beam UC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.6.12 DESCRIPTION: (E) W12x19 MB 1 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC Load Comb & Design Length Max Stress Ratios Bending Summary Span# M V Mu-Applied MnTr • Phi Final Composite : +1.40D+1 .60H Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+0.50L1 Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+1 .60L· Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite: +1.20D+1.60LI Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite: +1.20D+1.60L1 Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+0.50L· Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+1.60S Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite: +1.20D+0.50LI Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+0.50L· Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite: +1.20D+0.50L· Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +0.90D+W+0.! Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +0.90D+E+0.9 0.415 0.995 0.995 0.555 0.355 0.555 0.355 0.555 0.555 0.555 0.267 0.094 55.98 0.226 134.27 0.226 134.27 0.126 74.95 0.08 1 47.98 0.126 74.95 0.08 1 47.98 0.126 74.95 0.126 74.95 0.126 74.95 0.060 35.98 Span L = 27.67 ft 1 0.267 0.060 35.98 Maximum Deflections for Load Combinations -Unfactored Loads 134.98 134.98 134.98 134.98 134.98 134.98 134.98 134.98 134.98 134.98 134.98 134.98 I S of 61 Project File: MSPH2.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 Shear Summary Va Vn • Phi 8.09 86.01 19.41 86.01 19.41 86.01 10.83 86.01 6.94 86.01 10.83 86.01 6.94 86.01 10.83 86.01 10.83 86.01 10.83 86.01 5.20 86.01 5.20 86.01 Added Post lxx -Used Load Combination Location FINAL DEFLECTIONS (in) in Span (ft) Pre-Composite onComposite Remove Composite in114 Precompos1te Downward 14.019 0.000 0.0670 Precomposite Upward 0.000 0.000 NonComposite Removed Downward 14.019 0.000 NonComposite Removed Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite : +D+H Downward 14.019 0.742 Final Composite : +D+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+L+H Downward 14.019 1.790 Final Composite : +D+L +H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite : +D+Lr+H Downward 14.019 0.742 Final Composite : +D+Lr+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+S+H Downward 14.019 0.742 0.0670 0.0670 0.0670 0.0670 0.0670 Final Composite : +D+S+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.750Lr+0.7 Downward 14.019 1.528 Final Composite: +D+0.750Lr+0.7 Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.750L+0.7! Downward 14.019 1.528 Final Composite : +D+0.750L+0.7! Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.60W+H Downward 14.019 0.742 0.0670 0.0670 0.0670 Final Composite : +D+0.60W+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.70E+H Downward 14.019 0.742 Final Composite : +D+0.70E+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.750Lr+0.7 Downward 14.019 1.528 Final Composite : +D+0.750Lr+0.7 Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.750L+0.7! Downward 14.019 1.528 Final Composite : +D+0.750L +0.7! Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.750L+0.7! Downward 14.019 1.528 Final Composite : +D+0.750L +0.7! Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite : +0.60D+0.60W➔ Downward 14.019 0.445 Final Composite : +0.60D+0.60W➔ Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +0.60D+0.70E+I Downward 14.019 0.445 Final Composite : +0.60D+0.70E+• Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: D Only Downward 14.019 0.742 Final Composite : D Only Upward 0.000 0.000 0.0670 0.0670 0.0670 0.0670 0.0402 0.0402 0.0670 Final Composite : Lr Only Downward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite: Lr Only Upward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite: L Only Downward 14.019 1.048 Final Composite : L Only Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite : S Only Downward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : S Only Upward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : W Only Downward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite: W Only Upward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : E Only Downward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite: E Only Upward 27.670 0.000 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.040 0.040 0.067 130.00 130.00 0.00 0.00 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 247.08 I Composite Steel Beam UC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.6.12 DESCRIPTION: (E) W12x19 MB 1 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC Maximum Deflections for Load Combinations -Unfactored Loads 30 of 611 Project File: MSPH2.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 Location DEFLECTIONS (in) Load Combination in Span (ft) FINAL Pre-Composite onComposite Remove Added Post hex -Used Composite Final Composite: H Only Downward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : H Only Upward 27.670 0.000 Maximum Vertical Reactions -Unfactored Support notation : Far left is#· Load Combination Support 1 Overall MAXimum333 13.577 Precomposite Loads 0.262 NonComposite Removed 0.262 Final Composite: +D+H 5.780 Final Composite: +D+L+H 13.577 Final Composite : +D+Lr+H 5.780 Final Composite: +D+S+H 5.780 Final Composite : +D+0.750Lr+0. 11 .628 Final Composite : +D+0. 750L +0.; 11 .628 Final Composite: +D+0.60W+H 5.780 Final Composite: +D+0.70E+H 5.780 Final Composite : +D+0.750Lr+0. 11.628 Final Composite : +D+0. 750L +0.; 11.628 Final Composite : +D+0. 750L +0.; 11 .628 Final Composite : +0.600+0.60½ 3.468 Final Composite : +0.60D+0.70E· 3.468 Final Composite : D Only 5.780 Final Composite : Lr Only Final Composite: L Only 7.797 Final Composite : S Only Final Composite : W Only Final Composite : E Only Final Composite : H Only Steel Section Properties W12x19 Depth 12.200 in Web Thick = 0.235 in Flange Width = 4.010 in Flange Thick = 0.350 in Area = 5.570 in"2 Weight 18.960 plf Composite Section Properties Span Number Analysis Plastic N. A. Location Type PNA m Flange PNA in Flange PNA in Flange PNA in Flange PNA in Flange PNA in Web PNA in Web PNA in Web PNAinWeb PNAinWeb PNA in Web PNAin Web PNAinWeb PNAinWeb PNAinWeb PNAin Web Span 1 Support 2 13.577 0.262 0.262 5.780 13.577 5.780 5.780 11.628 11.628 5.780 5.780 11.628 11 .628 11 .628 3.468 3.468 5.780 7.797 I xx s xx Rxx Zx % Shear Connection 100.0 95.0 90.0 85.0 80.0 75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 = 130.00 in"4 I yy = = 21.30 in"3 s yy = = 4.820 in Ryy = = 24.700 in"3 Zy = J = Plastic N.A. Sum On # Studs per Mn -Capacity from Bottom Shear (k) 1/2 Span k-ft 11.930 170.340 10 217.46 11.909 161.823 10 213.46 11.888 153.306 9 209.44 11.867 144.789 9 205.42 11.845 136.272 8 201 .38 11.408 127.755 8 195.24 11.045 119.238 7 190.81 10.683 110.721 7 186.11 10.320 102.204 6 181.16 9.958 93.687 6 175.95 9.596 85.170 5 170.49 9.233 76.653 5 164.77 8.871 68.136 4 158.79 8.508 59.619 4 152.55 8.146 51.102 3 146.05 7.783 42.585 3 139.30 3.760 in"4 1.880 in"3 0.822 in 2.980 in"3 0.180 in"4 247.08 247.08 Moment of Inertia I-Steel I-Trans I-Lwr Bound 130.0 397.2 356.4 130.0 397.2 351.9 130.0 397.2 347.0 130.0 397.2 341 .6 130.0 397.2 335.6 130.0 397.2 329.1 130.0 397.2 322.1 130.0 397.2 314.4 130.0 397.2 306.0 130.0 397.2 297.0 130.0 397.2 287.1 130.0 397.2 276.5 130.0 397.2 264.9 130.0 397.2 252.4 130.0 397.2 238.8 130.0 397.2 224.1 I Composite Steel Beam UC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.6.12 DESCRIPTION: (E) W12x19 MB 2 CODE REFERENCES MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC Calculations per AISC 360-16, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : IBC 2018 Material Properties Analysis Method : Load Resistance Factor Design Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buc Load Combination IBC 2018 Fy : Steel Yield : 50.0 ksi E: Modulus: 29,000.0 ksi Hof61 Project File: MSPH2.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 1 ComP-OSite Beam Section Data Beam is UNSHORED for Concrete Placement Total Slab Thickness 5.50 in Effective Width 4.0ft Metal Deck . . Verco, PLW3 Formlok Ribs : Perpendicular .i ~ Concrete fc Concrete Density Rib Height Rib Spacing 4.0ksi 115.0 pcf 3.0 in 12.0 in D(0.39882:L~0.56355) Wi Sl 0 27.670 n Stud Diameter an : Stud Capacity Top Width Btm Width 3/4" in 17.240k 7.50in 4.50in ~ Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load : D = 0.0460, L = 0.0650 ksf, Tributary Width= 8.670 ft, Post Composite Only DESIGN SUMMARY MAX Bending Ratio = Steel section Composite % Composite Action Mu : Applied Mn * Phi : Allow Location of maximum Load Combination 0.881 : 1 W12x19 30 % 134.274 k-ft 152.477 k-ft 13.835 ft +1 .20D+0.50Lr+1 .60L +1.60H Pre-Composite Mu: Applied Mn * Phi : Allowable Shear Stud Requirements 2.540 k-ft 92.625 k-ft From Support 1 to 13.84 ft use 5 studs. From 13.84 ft to Support 2 use 5 studs. MAX Shear Ratio = Vu : Applied Vn * Phi : Allow Location of maximum Load Combination 0.226 19.411 k 86.010 k 0.0 ft +1 .20D+0.50Lr+1.60L +1.60H Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combir Load Comb & Design Length Max Stress Ratios Bending Summary : 1 Span# M V Mu-Applied MnTr • Phi Pre Composite : D + Const L Span L = 27.67 ft 0.027 0.004 2.54 92.63 Design N.G. DEFLECTIONS FINAL Composite Max Downward Max Upward Defl Ratio Transient Composite Max Downward Max Upward Defl Ratio Non Composite 1.564 in 0.000 in 212 <240 +D+L+H 0.877 in 0.000 in 378 LOnly Max Downward 0.067 in Max Upward 0.000 in Defl Ratio 4952 <240 PreCompDL +PreCompLL Shear Summary Va Vn • Phi 0.37 86.01 I Composite Steel B~am UC#: KW-06018304, Bulld:20.22.6.12 DESCRIPTION: (E) W12x19 MB 2 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC Load Comb & Design Length Max Stress Ratios Bending Summary Span# M V Mu-Applied Mn Tr• Phi Final Composite : +1.400+1.60H Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+0.50L1 Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite: +1.200+1.60L· Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+1.60LI Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite: +1.20D+1.60LI Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+0.50L· Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite: +1.200+1.605 Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite: +1.20D+0.50L1 Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+0.50L· Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite: +1.20D+0.50L· Span L = 27.67 fl Final Composite : +0.90D+W+O.! Span L = 27.67 fl Final Composite : +0.90D+E+0.9 0.367 0.881 0.881 0.492 0.315 0.492 0.315 0.492 0.492 0.492 0.236 0.094 55.98 0.226 134.27 0.226 134.27 0.126 74.95 0.081 47.98 0.126 74.95 0.081 47.98 0.126 74.95 0.126 74.95 0.126 74.95 0.060 35.98 Span L = 27.67 ft 1 0.236 0.060 35.98 Maximum Deflections for Load Combinations -Unfactored Loads 152.48 152.48 152.48 152.48 152.48 152.48 152.48 152.48 152.48 152.48 152.48 152.48 18 of 61 Project File: MSPH2.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 Shear Summary Va Vn • Phi 8.09 86.01 19.41 86.01 19.41 86.01 10.83 86.01 6.94 86.01 10.83 86.01 6.94 86.01 10.83 86.01 10.83 86.01 10.83 86.01 5.20 86.01 5.20 86.01 Added Post lxx -Used Load Combination Location FINAL DEFLECTIONS (in) in Span (fl) Pre-Composite onComposite Remove Composite in"4 130.00 130.00 0.00 0.00 295.41 Precompos1te Downward 14.019 0.000 0.0670 Precomposite Upward 0.000 0.000 NonComposite Removed Downward 14.019 0.000 0.0670 NonComposite Removed Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+H Downward 14.019 0.621 0.0670 Final Composite : +D+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+L+H Downward 14.019 1.497 0.0670 Final Composite : +D+L +H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite : +D+Lr+H Downward 14.019 0.621 0.0670 Final Composite : +D+Lr+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite : +D+S+H Downward 14.019 0.621 0.0670 Final Composite : +D+S+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.750Lr+0.7 Downward 14.019 1.278 0.0670 Final Composite: +D+0.750Lr+0.7 Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.750L+0.7! Downward 14.019 1.278 0.0670 Final Composite : +D+0.750L+0.7! Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.60W+H Downward 14.019 0.621 0.0670 Final Composite : +D+0.60W+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.70E+H Downward 14.019 0.621 0.0670 Final Composite : +D+0.70E+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.750Lr+0.7 Downward 14.019 1.278 0.0670 Final Composite : +D+0.750Lr+0.7 Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.750L+0.7! Downward 14.019 1.278 0.0670 Final Composite: +D+0.750L +0.7! Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.750L+0.7! Downward 14.019 1.278 0.0670 Final Composite: +D+0.750L+0.7! Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +0.60D+0.60W➔ Downward 14.019 0.372 0.0402 Final Composite : +0.60D+0.60W➔ Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +0.60D+0.70E+• Downward 14.019 0.372 0.0402 Final Composite : +0.60D+0.70E+1 Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite : D Only Downward 14.019 0.621 Final Composite : D Only Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: Lr Only Downward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : Lr Only Upward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : L Only Downward 14.019 0.877 Final Composite : L Only Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite : S Only Downward 27.670 0.000 0.0670 Final Composite : S Only Upward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite: W Only Downward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : W Only Upward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite: E Only Downward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : E Only Upward 27.670 0.000 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.040 0.040 0.067 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 295.41 Composite Steel Beam UC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.6.12 DESCRIPTION: (E) W1 2x19 MB 2 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC Maximum Deflections for Load Combinations -Unfactored Loads ISi of 61 Project File: MSPH2.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 Load Combination Location DEFLECTIONS (in) in Span (ft) FINAL Pre-Composite onComposite Remove Added Post hex -Used Composite in114 Final Composite : H Only Downward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : H Only Upward 27.670 0.000 Maximum Vertical Reactions -Unfactored Support notation : Far left is#' Load Combination Support 1 Overall MAXlmum333 13.577 Precomposite Loads 0.262 NonComposite Removed 0.262 Final Composite: +D+H 5.780 Final Composite : +D+L +H 13.577 Final Composite : +D+Lr+H 5.780 Final Composite: +D+S+H 5.780 Final Composite: +D+0.750Lr+0. 11.628 Final Composite : +D+0. 750L +O.; 11.628 Final Composite: +D+0.60W+H 5.780 Final Composite: +D+0.70E+H 5.780 Final Composite : +D+0.750Lr+0. 11.628 Final Composite : +D+0.750L+o.; 11.628 Final Composite : +D+0.750L +o.; 11.628 Final Composite : +0.60D+0.60W 3.468 Final Composite : +0.60D+0.70E· 3.468 Final Composite: D Only 5.780 Final Composite : Lr Only Final Composite : L Only 7.797 Final Composite : S Only Final Composite : W Only Final Composite : E Only Final Composite : H Only Steel Section Properties W12x19 Depth = 12.200 in Web Thick = 0.235 in Flange Width = 4.010 in Flange Thick = 0.350 in Area = 5.570 in112 Weight = 18.960 plf Composite Section Properties Support 2 13.577 0.262 0.262 5.780 13.577 5.780 5.780 11.628 11.628 5.780 5.780 11.628 11.628 11.628 3.468 3.468 5.780 7.797 I xx s xx R xx Zx 130.00 in"4 I yy = 21.30 in"3 s yy = 4.820 in Ryy = 24.700 in"3 Zy J = = = = Span Number Analysis % Shear Plastic N.A. Sum an # Studs per Mn -Capacify Plastic N. A. Location Type Connection from Bottom Shear (k) 1/2 Span k-ft PNA tn Slab 100.0 12.200 278.500 17 249.41 PNA in Flange 95.0 12.165 264.575 16 249.41 PNA in Flange 90.0 12.131 250.650 15 249.41 PNA in Flange 85.0 12.096 236.725 14 248.15 PNA in Flange 80.0 12.061 222.800 13 241.79 PNA in Flange 75.0 12.026 208.875 13 235.38 PNA in Flange 70.0 11.992 194.950 12 228.94 PNA in Flange 65.0 11.957 181.025 11 222.45 PNA in Flange 60.0 11.922 167.100 10 215.94 PNA in Flange 55.0 11.887 153.175 9 209.38 PNA in Flange 50.0 11.853 139.250 9 202.79 PNAin Web 45.0 11.304 125.325 8 194.00 PNA in Web 40.0 10.712 111 .400 7 186.50 PNA in Web 35.0 10.119 97.475 6 178.30 PNAin Web 30.0 9.527 83.550 5 169.42 PNAin Web 25.0 8.934 69.625 5 159.85 Span 1 3.760 in"4 1.880 in113 0.822 in 2.980 in"3 0.180 in114 295.41 295.41 Moment of Inertia I-Steel I-Trans 1-Lwr Bound 130.0 527.3 451 .6 130.0 527.3 445.9 130.0 527.3 439.6 130.0 527.3 432.6 130.0 527.3 425.1 130.0 527.3 416.8 130.0 527.3 407.7 130.0 527.3 397.7 130.0 527.3 386.8 130.0 527.3 374.9 130.0 527.3 361.8 130.0 527.3 347.5 130.0 527.3 331 .7 130.0 527.3 314.4 130.0 527.3 295.4 130.0 527.3 274.4 Company Designer Job Number: Section Properties: Section1 Section Information: Material Type = General Shape Type = Arbitrary Number of Shapes = 1 Basic Properties: Total Width = 4.010 Total Height = 16.131 Centroid, Xo = 0.002 Centroid, Yo = -1.880 X-Bar (Right) = 2.003 X-Bar (Left) = 2.007 Y-Bar (Top) = 7.980 Y-Bar (Bot) = 8.152 Max Thick = 16.131 Equivalent Properties: Area, Ax = 6.951 Inertia, lxx = 224.33 Inertia, lyy = 4.820 Inertia, lxy = -0.122 Sx (Top) = 28.113 Sx (Bot) = 27.519 Sy (Left) = 2.401 Sy (Right) = 2.407 rx = 5.681 ry = 0.833 Plastic ZX = 35.256 Plastic Zy = 3.796 Torsional J = 0.182 As-xx Def = 1.000 ----As-yy Def = 1.000 As-xx Stress = 1.000 As-yy Stress = 1.000 in in ,, in .,. . .., in l I in in in 1 in in i I -- J in"2 in"4 I in"4 in"4 ' ' in"3 in"3 in"3 in"3 Section Diagram in in in"3 in"3 in"4 it 48 of 61 Aug 11, 2022 07:05AM Checked By: __ _ SECTION IS ST bENGTHENED WITH A WT STR NGBACK, AND NEW PROPERT ES ARE INPUT ON FOLLOWIN PAGES U:\Projects\2022\Ml2210066.00 -Millipore Sigma COMO Phase 2 Expansion\Engineering\Calculations\RISA Section\W12x... Page 1 Composite Steel Beam LIC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.6.12 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC DESCRIPTION: (E) W12x19 MB 1 after Strengthening CODE REFERENCES Calculations per AISC 360-16, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : IBC 2018 Material Properties Analysis Method : Beam Bracing : Load Combination Fy : Steel Yield : Load Resistance Factor Design Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buc IBC 2018 50.0 ksi E: Modulus: 29,000.0 ksi 49 of 61 Project File: MSPH2.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 I '70ft .. I w12 .. ,I_~ Composite Beam Section Data Beam is UNSHORED for Concrete Placement Total Slab Thickness 5.50 in Effective Width 1.670 ft Metal Deck . . Verco, PLW3 Formlok Ribs : Perpendicular ,f ii Concrete fc Concrete Density Rib Height Rib Spacing 4.0ksi 115.0 pcf 3.0 in 12.0 in :0.39882) L(0.56355'. 12l119_:ngltli!Mi!i 27.670 ft Stud Diameter Qn : Stud Capacity Top Width Btm Width ii 3/4" in 17.240k 7.50 in 4.50 in ~ Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load : D = 0.0460, L = 0.0650 ksf, Tributary Width = 8.670 ft, Post Composite Only DESIGN SUMMARY MAX Bending Ratio= 0.665 : 1 Steel section l/12x19_Strengthened Composite MAX Shear Ratio = Vu : Applied Vn • Phi : Allow Location of maximum Load Combination 0.173 : 1 19.494 k 112.80 k 0.0 ft % Composite Action Mu : Applied 45 % 134.853 k-ft +1 .20D+0.50Lr+1.60L +1.60H Mn * Phi : Allow Location of maximum Load Combination 202.834 k-ft 13.835 ft +1 .20D+0.50Lr+1.60L +1.60H Pre-Composite Mu : Applied Mn * Phi : Allowable Shear Stud Requirements 3.216 k-ft 132.188 k-ft From Support 1 to 13.84 ft use 5 studs. From 13.84 ft to Support 2 use 5 studs. Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combir Load Comb & Design Length Pre Composite : D + Const L Span L = 27.67 ft Span# Max Stress Ratios M V 0.024 0.004 Bending Summary Mu-Applied MnTr • Phi 3.22 132.19 Design OK DEFLECTIONS FINAL Composite Max Downward Max Upward Defl Ratio Transient Composite Max Downward Max Upward Defl Ratio Non Composite Max Downward Max Upward Defl Ratio 1.067 in 0.000 in 311 +D+L+H 0.596 in 0.000 in 557 L Only 0.049 in 0.000 in 6752 PreCompDL +PreCompLL Shear Summary Va Vn • Phi 0.46 112.80 I Composite Steel Beam LIC#: KW-06018304, Bulld:20.22.6.12 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC DESCRIPTION: (E) W12x19 MB 1 after Strengthening Load Comb & Design Length Max Stress Ratios Bending Summary Span# M V Mu-Applied MnTr * Phi Final Composite : + 1.40D+ 1.60H Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+0.50LI Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+1.60L· Span L = 27 .67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+1.60L1 Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1 .20D+1.60L1 Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1 .20D+0.50L· Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+1.60S Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+0.50LI Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+0.50L· Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +1.20D+0.50L· Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite: +0.90D+W+0.! Span L = 27.67 ft Final Composite : +0.90D+E+0.9 0.279 0.665 0.665 0.372 0.239 0.372 0.239 0.372 0.372 0.372 0.180 0.073 56.65 0.173 134.85 0.173 134.85 0.097 75.53 0.062 48.56 0.097 75.53 0.062 48.56 0.097 75.53 0.097 75.53 0.097 75.53 0.047 36.42 Span L =27.67ft 1 0.180 0.047 36.42 Maximum Deflections for Load Combinations -Unfactored Loads 202.83 202.83 202.83 202.83 202.83 202.83 202.83 202.83 202.83 202.83 202.83 202.83 10 of 61 Project File: MSPH2.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 Shear Summary Va Vn * Phi 8.19 112.80 19.49 112.80 19.49 112.80 10.92 112.80 7.02 112.80 10.92 112.80 7.02 112.80 10.92 112.80 10.92 112.80 10.92 112.80 5.26 112.80 5.26 112.80 Added Post lxx -Used Load Combination Location FINAL DEFLECTIONS (in) in Span (ft) Pre-Composite onComposite Remove Composite in"4 Precomposite Downward 14.019 0.000 0.0492 Precomposite Upward 0.000 0.000 NonComposite Removed Downward 14.019 0.000 0.0492 NonComposite Removed Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite : +D+H Downward 14.019 0.422 0.0492 Final Composite : +D+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+L+H Downward 14.019 1.018 0.0492 Final Composite : +D+L+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite : +D+Lr+H Downward 14.019 0.422 0.0492 Final Composite : +D+Lr+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite : +D+S+H Downward 14.019 0.422 0.0492 Final Composite : +D+S+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.750Lr+0.7 Downward 14.019 0.869 0.0492 Final Composite : +D+0.750Lr+0.7 Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite : +D+0.750L+0.7! Downward 14.019 0.869 0.0492 Final Composite: +D+0.750L+0.7! Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite : +D+0.60W+H Downward 14.019 0.422 0.0492 Final Composite : +D+0.60W+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.70E+H Downward 14.019 0.422 0.0492 Final Composite : +D+0.70E+H Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.750Lr+0.7 Downward 14.019 0.869 0.0492 Final Composite: +D+0.750Lr+0.7 Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.750L +0.7! Downward 14.019 0.869 0.0492 Final Composite: +D+0.750L+0.7! Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +D+0.750L +0.7! Downward 14.019 0.869 0.0492 Final Composite: +D+0.750L +0.7! Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +0.60D+0.60W➔ Downward 14.019 0.253 0.0295 Final Composite : +0.60D+0.60W➔ Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: +0.60D+0.70E+; Downward 14.019 0.253 0.0295 Final Composite : +0.60D+0.70E+I Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite: D Only Downward 14.019 0.422 0.0492 Final Composite : D Only Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite : Lr Only Downward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : Lr Only Upward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : L Only Downward 14.019 0.596 Final Composite : L Only Upward 0.000 0.000 Final Composite : S Only Downward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : S Only Upward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite: W Only Downward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : W Only Upward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : E Only Downward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : E Only Upward 27.670 0.000 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.030 0.030 0.049 224.33 224.33 0.00 0.00 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 434.56 a, of 61 j Composite Steel Beam Project File: MSPH2.ec6 LIC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.6.12 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: (E) W12x19 MB 1 after Strengthening Maximum Deflections for Load Combinations -Unfactored Loads Location DEFLECTIONS (in) Added Post lxx -Used Load Combination FINAL in Span (ft) Pre-Composite onComposite Remove Composite in"4 Final Composite: H Only Downward 27.670 0.000 Final Composite : H Only Upward 27.670 0.000 Maximum Vertical Reactions -Unfactored Support notation : Far left is#· Load Combination Support 1 Overall MAX1mum333 13.646 Precomposite Loads 0.332 NonComposite Removed 0.332 Final Composite : +D+H 5.850 Final Composite: +D+L+H 13.646 Final Composite : +D+Lr+H 5.850 Final Composite : +D+S+H 5.850 Final Composite: +D+0.750Lr+0. 11.697 Final Composite: +D+0.750L+O.: 11 .697 Final Composite : +D+0.60W+H 5.850 Final Composite: +D+0.70E+H 5.850 Final Composite: +D+0.750Lr+0. 11 .697 Final Composite: +D+0.750L+0.: 11.697 Final Composite : +D+0.750L+0.: 11 .697 Final Composite: +0.60D+0.60W 3.510 Final Composite: +0.60D+0.70E· 3.510 Final Composite : D Only 5.850 Final Composite : Lr Only Final Composite: L Only 7.797 Final Composite : S Only Final Composite : W Only Final Composite : E Only Final Composite : H Only Steel Section Properties W12x19 Depth = 16.000 in Web Thick = 0.235 in Flange Width = 4.010 in Flange Thick 0.350 in Support 2 13.646 0.332 0.332 5.850 13.646 5.850 5.850 11.697 11.697 5.850 5.850 11 .697 11.697 11.697 3.510 3.510 5.850 7.797 Strengthened I xx s xx R xx Zx Area 6.951 in"2 Weight = 24.000 plf Composite Section Properties = 224.33 in"4 I yy = 27.52 in"3 s yy 5.680 in Ryy = 35.250 in"3 Zy J = = = Span Number Analysis % Shear Plastic N.A. Sum Qn # Studs per Mn -Capacit} Plastic N. A. Location Type Span 1 PNA in Web PNAinWeb PNAinWeb PNAinWeb PNAinWeb PNA in Web PNAin Web PNA in Web PNAin Web PNA in Web PNA in Web PNA in Web PNA in Web PNA in Web PNA in Web PNA in Web Connection 100.0 95.0 90.0 85.0 80.0 75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 from Bottom 14.081 13.719 13.357 12.994 12.632 12.269 11.907 11.545 11.182 10.820 10.457 10.095 9.732 9.370 9.008 8.645 Shear (k) 1/2 Span k-ft 170.340 10 289.00 161 .823 10 284.51 153.306 9 279.75 144.789 9 274.74 136.272 8 269.47 127.755 8 263.94 11 9.238 7 258.15 110.721 7 252.11 102.204 6 245.81 93.687 6 239.26 85.170 5 232.44 76.653 5 225.37 68.136 4 218.04 59.619 4 210.46 51 .102 3 202.61 42.585 3 194.51 4.820 in"4 2.400 in"3 0.833 in 3.796 in"3 0.182 in"4 434.56 434.56 Moment of Inertia I-Steel I-Trans I-Lwr Bound 224.3 769.6 567.4 224.3 769.6 559.1 224.3 769.6 550.2 224.3 769.6 540.5 224.3 769.6 530.2 224.3 769.6 519.2 224.3 769.6 507.3 224.3 769.6 494.7 224.3 769.6 481.1 224.3 769.6 466.6 224.3 769.6 451.1 224.3 769.6 434.6 224.3 769.6 416.9 224.3 769.6 398.0 224.3 769.6 377.8 224.3 769.6 356.3 I Steel Beam UC#: KW-06018304, Bulld:20.22.6.12 DESCRIPTION: (E) W24x55 Mezzanine CODE REFERENCES MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC Calculations per AISC 360-16, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Hof61 Project File: MSPH2.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 Analysis Method Load Resistance Factor Design Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buckling Bending Axis : Major Axis Bending Fy : Steel Yield : E: Modulus : 50.0 ksi 29,000.0 ksi 0(5. 780) 1 L(7 .080) 0(5. 780) 1 L(7 .080) 0 (5. 780)j L(7 .080) W24x55 Span = 52.0 ft Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Beam self weight calculated and added to loading Load(s) for Span Number 1 Point Load: D = 5.780, L = 7.080 k@ 8.670 ft, ((E) W12x19) Point Load: D = 5.780, L = 7.080 k@ 17.330 ft, ((E) W12x19) Point Load: D = 5.780, L = 7.080 k@ 26.0 ft, ((E) W12x19) Point Load: D = 5.780, L = 7.080 k@ 34.670 ft, ((E) W12x19) Point Load: D = 5.780, L = 7.080 k@ 43.330 ft, ((E) W12x19) DESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio Section used for this span Mu: Applied 1.462 : 1 W24x55 734.663 k-ft 502.500 k-ft Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = Section used for this span Vu : Applied Mn • Phi : Allowable Load Combination +1.20D+1 .60L Vn * Phi : Allowable Load Combination Span # where maximum occurs Span# 1 Location of maximum on span Span # where maximum occurs Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection Max Upward Transient Deflection Max Downward Total Deflection Max Upward Total Deflection 3.357 in Ratio = 0.000 in Ratio= 6.357 in Ratio = 0.000 in Ratio = Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations Load Combination Max Stress Ratios 185 <360 0 <360 98 <240.0 0 <240.0 Span: 1 : L Only Span: 1 : +D+L Summary of Moment Values Segment Length Span# M V max Mu + max Mu -Mu Max Mnx Phi*Mnx +1.40D Cb Rm Dsgn. L = 52.00 ft 0.680 0.088 341 .68 341.68 558.33 502.50 1.00 1.00 +1.20D+1.60L Dsgn. L = 52.00 ft 1.462 0.188 734.66 734.66 558.33 502.50 1.00 1.00 +1.20D+0.50L Dsgn. L = 52.00 ft 0.858 0.111 430.93 430.93 558.33 502.50 1.00 1.00 +1 .20D Dsgn. L = 52.00 ft 0.583 0.076 292.87 292.87 558.33 502.50 1.00 1.00 +0.90D Dsgn. L = 52.00 ft 0.437 0.057 219.65 219.65 558.33 502.50 1.00 1.00 Design N.G. 0.188: 1 W24x55 47.381 k 251 .694 k +1 .20D+1 .60L 0.000 ft Span# 1 Summary of Shear Values VuMax Vnx Phi*Vnx 22.24 279.66 251.69 47.38 279.66 251.69 27.91 279.66 251.69 19.06 279.66 251.69 14.30 279.66 251.69 I Steel Beam UC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.6.12 DESCRIPTION: (E) W24x55 Mezzanine MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC Overall Maximum Deflections Load Combination +D+L Vertical Reactions Load Combination Overall MAXimum Overall MINimum D Only +D+L +D+0.750L +0.600 L Only Span Support 1 33.584 9.530 15.884 33.584 29.159 9.530 17.700 Max. "-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination 6.3574 26.149 Support notation : Far left is #' Support 2 33.584 9.530 15.884 33.584 29.159 9.530 17.700 -0.103 -0.103 -0.103 -0.103 -0.103 -0.103 -0.103 6S of 61 Project File: MSPH2.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 Max. "+" Defl Location in Span 0.0000 0.000 Values in KIPS Company Designer Job Number: Section Properties: Section1 Section Information: Material Type = Hot Rolled Steel Shape Type = Wide Flange Number of Shapes = 1 Basic Properties: Total Width = 7.500 Total Height = 32.579 Centroid, Xo = 0.001 Centroid, Yo = -7.699 Shear Center, Xs = 0.000 Shear Center, Ys = 0.000 X-Bar (Right) = 3.747 X-Bar (Left) = 3.753 Y-Bar (Top) = 17.620 Y-Bar (Bot) = 14.959 Flange Thick = 0.790 Web Thick = 0.395 Equivalent Properties: Area, Ax = 23.263 Inertia, lxx = 3113.65 Inertia, lyy = 49.180 Inertia, lxy = 0.471 Sx (Top) = 176.71 Sx (Bot) = 208.14 Sy (Left) = 13.102 Sy (Right) = 13.127 rx = 11.569 ry = 1.454 rT = 1.868 Plastic Zx = 234.18 Plastic Zy = 21.570 Torsional J = 1.669 Cw = 1.407E+004 Wno = 59.605 Sw = 88.289 Qf = 44.608 Qw = 141.62 in in in in in in in in ... in in in in 1 in"2 b in"4 in"4 in"4 I i in"3 in"3 I I in"3 in"3 in in Section Diagram in in"3 in"3 in"4 in"6 in"2 in"4 in"3 in"3 "1 -''" H otsa Aug 11 , 2022 . 07:34 AM Checked By: __ _ SECTION IS STRENGTHENED WITH A WTSTR NGBACK, AND NEW PROPERTI SARE INPUT ON FOLLOWING PAGES U:\Projects\2022\Ml2210066.00 -Millipore Sigma COMO Phase 2 Expansion\Engineering\Calculations\RISA Section\W24x... Page 1 651of61 I Steel Beam Project File: MSPH2.ec6 LIC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.6.12 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: (E) W24x55 MB 3 After ~trengthening CODE REFERENCES Calculations per AISC 360-16, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method Load Resistance Factor Design Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsional buckling Bending Axis : Major Axis Bending 0(5.780) 1 L(7.080) 0 (5 780) L(7 080) O(5.780)lL(7.080) • I • . W_W24x55_WT9x25 Span = 52.0 ft Fy : Steel Yield : E: Modulus: 0(5. 780)] L(7 .080) 50.0 ksi 29,000.0 ksi 0(5. 780)] L(7 .080) l Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Beam self weight calculated and added to loading Load(s) for Span Number 1 Point Load : D = 5.780, L = 7.080 k@ 8.670 ft, ((E) W12x19) Point Load : D = 5.780, L = 7.080 k@ 17.330 ft, ((E) W12x19) Point Load: D = 5.780, L = 7.080 k@ 26.0 ft, ((E) W12x19) Point Load: D = 5.780, L = 7.080 k@ 34.670 ft, ((E) W12x19) Point Load : D = 5.780, L = 7.080 k@ 43.330 ft, ((E) W12x19) DESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio Section used for this span Mu : Applied Mn * Phi : Allowable Load Combination Span # where maximum occurs Maximum Deflection = 0.84 . 1 W_W24x55_WT9x25 744.744 k-ft 878.175 k-ft +1.20D+1.60L Span# 1 mbination Loe on of maximum on span S n # where maximum occurs Span: 1 : L Only BENDING & SHEAR RATIO OK DEFLECTION IS OK AS BEAM HAS EXISTING CAMBER OF 2 1/4" Design N.G. 0.189 : 1 W_W24x55_WT9x25 48.156 k 254.288 k +1 .20D+1 .60L 52.000 ft Span# 1 Max Downward Transient Deflection Max Upward Transient Deflection Max Downward Total Deflection 1.462 in Ratio = 0.000 in Ratio= 2.802 in Ratio= 0.000 in Ratio= <240.0 Span: 1 : +D+L Max Upward Total Deflection <240.0 Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations Load Combination Max Stress Ratios Summary of Moment Values Summary of Shear Values Segment Length Span# M V max Mu + max Mu -Mu Max Mnx Phi*Mnx Cb Rm VuMax Vnx Phi*Vnx +1.40D Dsgn. L = 52.00 ft 0.402 0.091 353.44 353.44 975.75 878.18 1.00 1.00 23.14 282.54 254.29 +1.20D+1.60L Dsgn. L = 52.00 ft 0.848 0.189 744.74 744.74 975.75 878.18 1.001.00 48.16 282.54 254.29 +1 .20D+0.50L Dsgn. L = 52.00 ft 0.502 0.113 441 .01 441 .01 975.75 878.18 1.00 1.00 28.69 282.54 254.29 +1 .20D Dsgn. L = 52.00 ft 0.345 0.078 302.95 302.95 975.75 878.18 1.00 1.00 19.84 282.54 254.29 +0.90D Dsgn. L = 52.00 ft 0.259 0.059 227.21 227.21 975.75 878.18 1.00 1.00 14.88 282.54 254.29 I Steel Beam LIC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.6.12 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC DESCRIPTION: (E) W24x55 MB 3 After Strengthening Overall Maximum Deflections Load Combination +D+L Vertical Reactions Load Combination vera mum Overall MINimum DOnly +D+L +D+0.750L +0.60D L Only Span Support 1 9.918 16.530 34.230 29.805 9.918 17.700 Max.•-• Defl Location in Span Load Combination 2.8025 26.149 Support notation : Far left is#· Support 2 9.918 16.530 34.230 29.805 9.918 17.700 16 of 61 , • Project File: MSPH2.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 Max. "+" Defl Location in Span 0.0000 0.000 Values in KIPS m1y amoto. Project: MSPH2B CP2 Project No: MI2210066.00 ACCESS PLATFORM CALCULATION (COMMENT A14} PLATFORM BEAM 1 (PB-1) llr aEOCERED Pt.ATE PLATFORM BEAM 2 (PB-2) LL = 40 PSF DL= 20 PSF ;I ! HS$h411/4 □ IIQII 1. SE£ ARCHITECTURAL Pl.ANS FOR LOCA no ... El.EVA 110N I OUAKT1TY. 2. SEE 0£TAILS, SEE DETAIL 17~. 1000L PLATFORM FRAMING PLAN 314"•1'~' DETAIL 18/S8-007 HANORAI., TYP Sheet~ci ... ,6...,.2 __ _ Calc. By: MJI Date: ___ _ STAIR HANDRAILS 1.90 0 .0. PIPE POSTS @ 48" o.c. MAX. SEE CALCULATION FOR VERIFICATION ~ STAIR STRINGER OK BY INSPECTION, SPAN IS MUCH SHORTER THAN PLATFORM BEAMS AND TRIBUTARY WIDTH IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL I Steel Beam LIC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.8.17 DESCRIPTION: Platform Beam PB 1 CODE REFERENCES MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC Calculations per AISC 360-16, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set : IBC 2018 Material Properties 58 of 62 Project File: msph2.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 Analysis Method Load Resistance Factor Design Beam Bracing : Completely Unbraced Bending Axis : Major Axis Bending Fy : Steel Yield : E: Modulus : 50.0 ksi 29,000.0 ksi D(0.030) L(0.060) HSS4x4x1/4 Span= 7.0 ft Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Beam self weight calculated and added to loading Uniform Load : D = 0.020, L = 0.040 ksf, Tributary Width = 1.50 ft, (Platform Load) DESIGN SUMMARY I Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = Section used for this span Mu: Applied Mn • Phi : Allowable Load Combination Span # where maximum occurs Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection Max Upward Transient Deflection Max Downward Total Deflection Max Upward Total Deflection 0.051: 1 HSS4x4x1/4 0.898 k-ft 17.588 k-ft +1.20D+1.60L Span# 1 0.014 in Ratio= 0.000 in Ratio= 0.025 in Ratio= 0.000 in Ratio= Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = Section used for this span Vu : Applied Vn • Phi : Allowable Load Combination Location of maximum on span Span # where maximum occurs 5,835 >=360 0 <360 3426 >=240. 0 <240.0 Span: 1 : L Only Span: 1 : +D+L Load Combination Max Stress Ratios Summary of Moment Values Segment Length Span # M V max Mu + max Mu -Mu Max Mnx Phi•Mnx Cb Rm +1.40D Dsgn. L = 7.00 ft +1 .20D+1.60L Dsgn. L = 7.00 ft +1.20D+0.50L Dsgn. L = 7.00 ft +1 .20D Dsgn. L = 7.00 ft +1 .349D+0.50L Dsgn. L = 7.00 ft +0.90D Dsgn. L = 7.00 ft +0.7514D 0.021 0.051 0.028 0.018 0.030 0.013 Dsgn. L = 7.00 ft 1 0.011 Overall Maximum Deflections 0.005 0.012 0.007 0.004 0.007 0.003 0.003 0.36 0.36 19.54 17.59 1.141.00 0.90 0.90 19.54 17.59 1.141.00 0.49 0.49 19.54 17.59 1.14 1.00 0.31 0.31 19.54 17.59 1.14 1.00 0.53 0.53 19.54 17.59 1.141.00 0.23 0.23 19.54 17.59 1.14 1.00 0.19 0.19 19.54 17.59 1.14 1.00 Design OK 0.012: 1 HSS4x4x1/4 0.5132 k 41.533 k +1 .20D+1 .60L 0.000 ft Span# 1 Summary of Shear Values VuMax Vnx Phi•vnx 0.21 46.15 41 .53 0.51 46.15 41 .53 0.28 46.15 41 .53 0.18 46.15 41 .53 0.30 46.15 41 .53 0.13 46.15 41.53 0.11 46.15 41 .53 Load Combination Span Max.•-• Dell Location in Span Load Combination Max. •+• Dell Location in Span +D+L Vertical Reactions Load Combination Overall MAXimum Support 1 0.358 0.0245 3.520 Support 2 0.358 Support notation : Far left is #· 0.0000 Values in KIPS 0.000 I Steei Beam UC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.8.17 DESCRIPTION: Platform Beam PB 1 Vertical Reactions Load Combination Overall MIN1mum D Only +D+L +D+0.750L +0.600 L Only Support 1 0.089 0.148 0.358 0.305 0.089 0.210 Support 2 0.089 0.148 0.358 0.305 0.089 0.210 59 of 62 Project File: msph2.ec6 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 Support notation : Far left is#· Values in KIPS I Steel Beam UC#: KW-06018304, Bulld:20.22.8.17 DESCRIPTION: Platform Beam PB 2 CODE REFERENCES MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC Calculations per AISC 360-16, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set: IBC 2018 Material Properties 60 of 62 Project File: msph2.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 Analysis Method load Resistance Factor Design Beam Bracing : Completely Unbraced Bending Axis : Major Axis Bending Fy : Steel Yield : E: Modulus : 50.0 ksl 29,000.0 ksi 0 (0.040) L(0.080) HSS4x4x1/4 Span = 7 .0 ft Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Beam self weight calculated and added to loading Uniform Load : D = 0.020, L = 0.040 ksf, Tributary Width = 2.0 ft, (Platform Load) Point Load : D = 0.1170, L = 0.2330 k @ 2.0 ft, (Platform Beam PB 1) DESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = Section used for this span Mu : Applied Mn • Phi : Allowable Load Combination Span # where maximum occurs Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection Max Upward Transient Deflection Max Downward Total Deflection Max Upward Total Deflection 0.099: 1 HSS4x4x1/4 1.737 k-ft 17.588 k-ft +1.20D+1.60L Span# 1 0.029 in Ratio = 0.000 in Ratio = 0.046 in Ratio= 0.000 in Ratio= Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations Load Combination Max Stress Ratios Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = Section used for this span Vu : Applied Vn • Phi : Allowable Load Combination Location of maximum on span Span # where maximum occurs 2,896 >=360 0 <360 1809 >=240. 0 <240.0 Span: 1 : L Only Span: 1 : +D+L Summary of Moment Values Segment Length Span# M V max Mu + max Mu -Mu Max Mnx Phi•Mnx Cb Rm +1.40D Dsgn. L = 7.00 ft 0.036 0.009 0.63 0.63 19.54 17.59 1.14 1.00 +1.20D+1 .60L Dsgn. L = 7.00 ft 0.099 0.025 1.74 1.74 19.54 17.59 1.141.00 +1.20D+0.50L Dsgn. L = 7.00 ft 0.052 0.013 0.91 0.91 19.54 17.59 1.14 1.00 +1.20D Dsgn. L = 7.00 ft 0.031 0.008 0.54 0.54 19.54 17.59 1.141.00 +1.349D+0.50L Dsgn. L = 7.00 ft 0.056 0.014 0.98 0.98 19.54 17.59 1.141.00 +0.90D Dsgn. L = 7.00 ft 0.023 0.006 0.40 0.40 19.54 17.59 1.14 1.00 +0.7514D Dsgn. L = 7.00 ft 1 0.019 0.005 0.34 0.34 19.54 17.59 1.14 1.00 Overall Maximum Deflections Design OK 0.025 : 1 HSS4x4x1/4 1.034 k 41.533 k +1.20D+1.60L 0.000 ft Span# 1 l Summary of Shear Values VuMax Vnx Phi-Vnx 0.37 46.15 41.53 1.03 46.15 41.53 0.54 46.15 41.53 0.32 46.15 41.53 0.58 46.15 41 .53 0.24 46.15 41 .53 0.20 46.15 41 .53 Load Combination Span Max.·-• Defl Location in Span Load Combination Max."+" Deft Location in Span +D+L 1 0.0464 3.400 0.0000 0.000 I Ste~I Beam UC#: KW-06018304, Build:20.22.8.17 DESCRIPTION: Platform Beam PB 2 Vertical Reactions Load Combination Overall MAXimum Overall MINimum DOnly +D+L +D+0.750L +0.600 L Only Support 1 0.713 0.160 0.266 0.713 0.601 0.160 0.446 Support 2 0.563 0.130 0.216 0.563 0.476 0.130 0.347 61 of 62 Project File: msph2.ec6 MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL INC (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 Support notation : Far left is#· Values in KIPS m1yamoto. Project: M~h 2.(3 Project No: MI Z V oo (:, <o. o O C&lc. By: Ml \ Sheet No: ___ _ ,62 of 62 ua,v. _ _....,;•~•- • • TYP 1/4" 4 • Chk. By: ____ Date: ___ _ GUARDRAIL CALCULATION, COMMENT A14 l,Cl\,•, Q,t). oF ~ ,tAIL. j 1ft II STD. P1Pf (L 46' O,C, M4,( -)C ii r" 5o•("1') aR t.:x)ltt /vi.Ax (c8c. 1G.o"~h 8.1.I) LRF-b ~) c..<.)C)(i .i..}~ '3,'2 oi Pe-t APPt.,cA6l.c IN'l')R.src,,,,.: lf.l\C,·"'e.c-o 1.nAO (M~d~f , 11 ~ , C,, M ~•"'A no"' ( /1,DS, z <:& 1 lr <) ~1.0* x(47. -11,0 )"~ lt.e~ k -t"'! J'•"\u (f\ IOl\4/1r,,p y b' C ~ 1t--1,._ '2 I~, 'ZG, '2. k.-/.J • c$ ~'t "!:>, $iD f> tf>f • f y' )5 l<'S I =t =-1 .. C.Y'l.t ,..i".!> cJ>M o '> K v ' 'f~~~irott(!', o r<. " y ..CHEU<. I.JE~O~ f't,o~'·"'/1.~o n ~ (,:~51<. T/c:..@, \,,JE'-o~ ""''<v 3 ft (o 4 f1U.l:T Aq, A4.ov~O I A-S.SvM~ (/'1 OF-(;.1ltLvl""'F«-EM:.-f <.oNTt,B"v~5 '2 TT' ( 1:t) , S". ~ ~ /4 :, I , 4 ~ II ~'" "-' ~c..D ¢ftf\,. 1.1>~1.. DL (~1sc. ";ton') ~ /. 3c,i(~)(1.~i)( 1.s) ') :, ~ I<-'--' E ~o t 1..i<t CA,;,! Pis"-~A½vE R w,... loAOCD ~ • Pl~G1"' \.,,JIEU) •fl.-1€(.t:.F;)Q..~ OK.) ~e" > Rv TUBE WELD TO HSS 4x4x¼ 1.90" 0.D. PIPE ~ f..f\, (2) WELDS x 4" LONG x 4 x 1.392 = 44.54k WELD STRENGTH QK SY IN'°:>P€tio,v HSS4x4x¼ PLATFORM BEAM m1yamoto. Project: MSPH2B CP2 Project No: Ml2210066.00 Summary of Seismic Parameters Used In Calculatlons Ap Rp 00 Pipe Supports 2.5 6.0 2.0 Generator Anchorage 1.0 2.5 2.0 Cabinets, Furniture 1.0 2.5 2.0 Pumps & Compressor 1.0 2.5 2.0 Note: See Individual Calculations for Seismic Parameters used in Conjunction with Equipment Operating Weights & Dimensions Sheet No: 63 Cale. By: MJI Date: ___ _ REPORT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Lot 24, Whiptail Loop Way and Gazelle Court Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Carlsbad, San Diego County, CA SDP 2016-0001/DWG 502-3A/GR 20170015 PREPARED FOR RAF Group Lot 24, LLC RAF Pacifica Group-Development Fund I, LLC 1010 S. Coast Highway 101, Suite 103 Encinitas, CA 92024 PREPARED BY NOV A Services, Inc. 4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B San Diego, CA 92 123 NOVA Project No. 2016468 July I ' Revised Ap1 CBC2022-0298 2827 WHIPTAIL LOOP MILLIPORE SIGMA: PHASE 2A (CP-2) 14,486 SF Tl FOR ANALYTICAL LAB, STORAGE & EXTEND EXTERIOR UTILll YARD 209 1202600 10/24/2022 CBC2022-0298 GEOTECHNICAL ■MATERIALS ■ SPECIAL INSPE C TIONS SBE ■ SLBE ■ SCOOP Mr. Jim Jacob RAF Group Lot 24, LLC RAF Pacifica Group-Development Fund I, LLC l O l O S. Coast Highway 103 Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: Dear Mr. Jacob: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Whiptail Loop Way and Gazelle Ct Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Carlsbad, San Diego County, CA July 18, 2016 Revised April 20, 2017 NOV A Project 2016468 NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) is pleased to present its report of the above-referenced geotechnical investigation. The work reported herein was completed by NOV A for RAF Group Lot 24, LLC in ,_,ccordance with NOV A's proposal dated June 15, 2016. ,.,,NOV A appreciates the opportunity to be of continued service to the RAF Group Lot 24, LLC. Should you have any questions regarding this report or other matters, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, NOV A Services, Inc. ,P.E. Senior Engineer John F. O'Brien, P.E., G.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Hector E rella, P.G. Senior ologist Expires May. 31 , 2017 4373 Viewridge Avenue, Ste. B I Sa n Diego, CA 92123 I P:858.292.7575 I F: 858.292.7570 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park REPORT Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Lot 24, Whiptail Loop Way and Gazelle Ct Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Carlsbad, San Diego County, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Terms of Reference ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Objective, Scope and Limitations of This Work ................................................................. 1 1.3 Organization of This Report ................................................................................................. 2 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 3 2.1 Location .................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Planned Development ............................................................................................................ 3 2.3 Historical Site Use .................................................................................................................. 5 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ....................................... 8 3.1 Engineering Borings .............................................................................................................. 8 3.2 Percolation Testing .............................................................................................................. 10 3.3 Laboratory Testing .............................................................................................................. 11 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... 13 4.1 Geologic Setting ................................................................................................................... 13 4.2 Site Specific Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................... 14 5.0 GEOLOGIC AND SOIL HAZARDS ........................................................................... 16 5.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 16 5.2 Geologic Hazards ................................................................................................................. 16 5.3 Potential for Liquefaction and Seismic Ground Movement ............................................ 16 5.4 Soil Hazards ......................................................................................................................... 17 5.5 Other Hazards ...................................................................................................................... 18 6.0 EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATIONS ....................................................................... 19 6.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 19 6.2 Earthwork ............................................................................................................................ 19 Page i of iii Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 201 7 NOVA Project No. 2016472 6.3 Seismic Design Parameters ................................................................................................. 20 6.4 Corrosivity and Sulfates ...................................................................................................... 21 6.5 Shallow Foundations ........................................................................................................... 22 6.6 Control of Water During Construction ............................................................................. 24 6. 7 Control of Moisture Around Foundations ........................................................................ 24 7 .0 PAVEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 26 7.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 26 7 .2 Pavement Subgrade Preparation ....................................................................................... 26 7.3 Flexible Pavements .............................................................................................................. 27 7 .4 Rigid Pavements .................................................................................................................. 28 8.0 STORMW ATER IN FILTRATION .............................................................................. 30 8.1 Percolation Test Results ...................................................................................................... 30 8.2 Site Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 30 8.3 Design Infiltration Rate ....................................................................................................... 31 8.4 Suitability of the Site for Stormwater lnftltration ............................................................ 31 9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 32 9.1 Site Specific .......................................................................................................................... 32 9.2 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 32 9.3 Design Guidance .................................................................................................................. 32 List of Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Use of the Geotechnical Report Logs of Borings Laboratory Analytical Results List of Tables Table 2-1. Table 3-1 . Table 3-2. Table 6-1. Table 6-2. Expected Column and Wall Loads Summary of the Engineering Borings Summary of the Percolation Test Borings Seismic Design Parameters, Site Class C Summary of Corrosivity Testing of the Near Surface Soil Page ii of iii Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 List of Tables (Cont.) Table 6-3. Table 7-1. Table 7-2. Table 7-3. Table 8-1. Exposure Categories and Requirements for Water-Soluble Sulfates Recommendations for Flexible Pavements PCC Pavement Sections Recommended Concrete Requirements Percolation Test Results List of Figures Figure 2-1 . Figure 2-2. Figure 2-3. Figure 2-4. Figure 2-5. Figure 4-1. Figure 4-2. Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Conceptual Layout of the Structure on Lot 24 Typical Structural Features of a Tilt-Up Building 2004 Aerial Showing Erosional Features September 2010 Aerial View Showing Lot 24 Shortly Following Mass Grading Regional Geologic Map Lot 24 Surface Conditions, June 2016 Page iii of iii Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Terms of Reference Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 This report presents the findings of a preliminary geotechnical investigation of Lot 24, of Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. The geotechnical investigation addresses planned development of five commercial buildings and a related infrastructure. The work reported herein was completed by NOV A Services, Inc. (NOV A) for RAF Group Lot 24, LLC in accordance with the scope of work detailed in NOV A's proposal dated June 15, 2016. 1.2 Objective, Scope and Limitations of This Work 1.2.1 Objective The objective of the work reported herein was to (i) characterize the subsurface conditions at the site; and, (ii) provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. 1.2.2 Scope In order to accomplish the above objective, NOV A undertook the scope of services is described below. • Task 1, Background Review. Review background data, including geotechnical reports, fault investigation reports, topographic maps, geologic data, fault maps, and preliminary development plans for the project. Structural concepts for the proposed development were reviewed. • Task 2. Field Exploration. Completed a subsurface exploration that included the following subtasks. o Subtask 2-1, Reconnaissance. Conducted a site reconnaissance, including layout of the exploratory borings. Dig Alert was notified for underground utility mark-out services. o Subtask 2-2, Permit. Obtained a drilling permit from the County of San Diego, Environmental Health Department. o Subtask 2-3, Borings. Drilled, logged and sampled four (4) exploratory boring to depths of up to 25.5 feet below existing ground surface (bgs). o Subtask 2-4, Percolation Testing. Completed three (3) percolation tests at the prospective locations of permanent infiltration units. • Task 3. Laboratory Testing. Laboratory testing of both bulk and relatively undisturbed samples was completed. Testing addressed soil gradation, in-situ moisture content and density, strength, and corrosivity (testing for sulfate and chloride concentrations, pH and resistivity). Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 2017 NOV A Project No. 2016472 • Task 4, Engineering Evaluations. Conducted engineering evaluations of the site, utilizing field and laboratory information obtained during the preceding tasks. • Task 5, Reporting. Preparation of this report presenting NOV A's findings and preliminary geotechnical recommendations. Submittal of this report completes the scope work described NOV A's proposal dated June 15, 2016. 1.2.3 Limitations The construction recommendations included in this report are not final. These recommendations are developed by NOV A using judgment and opinion and based upon the limited information available from the borings and soundings. NOV A can finalize its recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. NOV A cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if NOVA does not perform construction observation. This report does not address any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or surface water within or beyond the site. Appendix A to this report provides important additional guidance regarding the use and limitations of this report. This information should be reviewed by all users of the report. 1.3 Organization of This Report The remainder ofthis report is organized as follows: • Section 2 reviews the presently available project information; • Section 3 describes the field investigation; • Section 4 describes the surface and subsurface conditions at the site; • Section 5 provides recommendations for foundation design and construction; • Section 6 provides recommendations for pavement design and construction; • Section 7 provides recommendations for site preparation and earthwork; and, • Section 8 provides recommendations regarding stormwater infiltration. The report is supported by four appendices. Appendix A provides guidance regarding the use and limitations of this report. Appendix B presents logs of the engineering borings. Appendix C provides records of geotechnical laboratory testing. 2 Ji\ ,., NOVA Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Location Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 The planned development will encompass Lot 24 of the Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park. Lot 24 is located at the intersection of Whiptail Loop Way and Gazelle Court in the City of Carlsbad, California. Figure 2-1 depicts the location of Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park. The commercial community includes 24 lots in about 149 developable acres. Figure 2-1. Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park (source: Colliers International, found at: http://www.techbilt.com/pdf_files/CBD_oaks_north.pdf) 2.2 Planned Development 2.2.1 General According to the conceptual site plan, the project will consist of constructing one large warehouse building. The building will be approximately 118,000 SF with a 30' clearance height. The warehouse building will have at-grade parking for 236 cars. The building is expected to be of tilt-up construction supported by conventional foundations. No specific construction plans were provided at this time. Figure 2-2 (following page) provides a plan view of the current planning for the layout of the structure. No below ground construction is planned for the building. 3 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 Figure 2-2. Conceptual Layout of the Warehouse on Lot 24 2.2.2 Structural Design is in preliminary stages, with limited details regarding structural design available. NOV A understands that the warehouse building described above will be built using 'tilt-up' construction methods. Tilt-up construction is common for such development, characterized by relatively taller floor- to-ceiling heights and larger interior column spacing. The interior may include an interior shear wall or braced frame to resist lateral forces. Figure 2-3 (following page) depicts the principal elements of tilt-up construction. Based upon experience with similar structures, NOV A expects that the structure will include column and continuous wall loads in the ranges described on Table 2-1. Table 2-1. Expected Column and Wall Loads (DL +LL) Typical Exterior Typical Interior Typical Wall Loads Estimate Col. Loads (kips) Col. Loads (kips) (kips per lineal foot) Low Estimate 75 200 3 High Estimate 150 300 5 4 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park re-entrant comer metal deck, wood, or hybrid roof diaphragm Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 pre<:ast concrete tilt-up wall panels Figure 2-3. Typical Structural Features of a Tilt-Up Building (source: SEAOC 2008) 2.2.3 Potential for Earthwork The building pad is already well-graded. NOV A expects that limited earthwork will be necessary for development of the pad level of the buildings and pavements. 2.3 Historical Site Use 2.3.1 Historic Groundform NOV A reviewed aerial photographs dating to 1994 as a basis for identifying any historic civil development on the site. This review indicated no structures have been previously developed on the site. However, these photographs indicate that the site has been the object of considerable earthwork since 2004. As is discussed in more detail in Section 4, as a consequence of uplift and erosion the coastal area in this area of southern California is characterized geomorphically by canyon and mesa topography. Westward trending, deeply incised erosional features are common. Review of historic aerial photos shows that the topography of Lot 24 was eroded such that topographic elevation changes approach 25 feet in several areas of the site. Figure 2-4 (following page) depicts topographic conditions in the vicinity of Lot 24 prior to development. As may be seen by review of this graphic, the site area was covered with light vegetation. The ground surface is very irregular in elevation as a result of erosion over geologic time. 5 Ii\ , .. NOVA Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 Figure 2-4. March 2003 Aerial View of the Vicinity of Lot 24 Prior to Development (source: Google Earth 2016) 2.3.2 Earthwork to Create Site Grades Mass grading of Lot 24 was conducted during 2010, completed in July 2010. During that time the southeast area of the lot was undercut by at least 5 feet. A record of that work is reported in Geocon 2010. It can be noted that Lot 24 was previously identified as Lot 25 within Geocon 2010. Features of the earthwork at Lot 24 are listed below. 1. Most of the Building Pad Is Developed in 'Undercut'. The ground surface of most of Lot 24 was at or above design pad levels prior to earthwork. Moreover, much of this material was granitic rock. In order to develop buildable sites, areas requiring cut in rock were lowered to at least 5 feet below design finished grade, then backfilled with engineered fill. 2. Fill at the Northwest Comer. Northwest portion of Lot 24 is developed in engineered fill that extends in thickness from about 5 feet to 25 feet. This fill is characteristically sandy and dense to very dense in consistency. 6 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 3. All Fill is 'Engineered'. Geocon 2010 documents that soils placed either as (i) fill to improve lower site grades or (ii) backfill in undercut areas, were densified to at least 90% relative compaction after ASTM Test Method D 1557 (the 'modified Proctor'). This representation is consistent with indications of the borings completed by NOVA for this assessment. Figure 2-5 provides an aerial view of Lot 24 shortly following completion of earthwork in 2010. Figure 2-5. September 2010 Aerial View Showing Lot 24 Shortly Following Mass Grading (source: Google Earth 2016) 7 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 Engineering Borings 3 .1.1 General The field exploration performed by NOV A was completed over the period of June 20-21, 2016. As is discussed in Section 1, the field exploration included both engineering borings and percolation testing. The engineering and percolation test borings were performed by a drilling subcontractor retained by NOV A under the surveillance of a NOV A geologist. Borings were backfilled with soil cuttings. The site exploration by NOVA was structured to address earthwork related to filling of Lot 24 that is addressed in Section 2, as well as specific subsurface conditions beneath the structure. Table 3-1 abstracts the engineering borings completed for this work. Table 3-1. Summary of the Engineering Borings Boring Approx. Elev. Depth Notes Number (feet, msl) (feet, bgs) B-1 390 26 Very dense sandy engineered fill, approx. 20 feet thick, boring terminated on weathered granitic bedrock (Kgr) B-2 386 7.5 Area of undercut shows 5 feet of fill at south end of building. Boring refusal on weathered granitic bedrock (Kgr) B-3 391 7.5 Area of undercut shows 7 feet of fill at southeast of the building. Boring refusal on weathered granitic bedrock (Kgr) B-4 395 7.5 Area of undercut shows 7 feet of fill at northeast of the building. Boring refusal on weathered granitic bedrock (Kgr) Notes: I. bgs indicates 'below ground surface' 2. no groundwater was encountered in the borings. Groundwater likely occurs below Elev. +330 feet msl Figures 3-1 (following page) presents a plan view of the site indicating the locations of engineering borings (B-1 through B-4) and the infiltration tests (P-1 through P-3). The graphic shows the locations of the various elements of the field exploration relative to the area of fill placed during the 2010 mass grading. As is discussed in Section 2, most of Lot 24 was developed by over-excavation area of cut by about 5 feet, backfilling this area with engineered fill. The northeast third of the site was developed to existing grades by filling lower lying ground. These fills are maximum of about 20 to 25 feet in thickness. Figure 3-1 depicts the 'cut-fill' transition line. Ground to the north of this line is largely developed in fill, while ground in the south of this line is over excavated and backfilled with 5 to 7 feet of engineered fill. 8 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Figure 3-1. Boring Location Plan Revised April 20, 2017 NOV A Project No. 2016472 Area north of the red line is in engineered fill, area south of the red line is in cut (Geocon 2010) ( 'B' prefix indicates NOVA boring location, 'P' prefix indicates NOVA percolation test location) 9 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park 3 .1.2 Drilling and Sampling Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 The engineering borings were advanced by a truck-mounted drilling rig utilizing hollow stem drilling equipment. Boring locations were determined in the field by the NOV A geologist who measured distances and estimated right angles from existing site features. As these methods are not precise, the boring locations shown on Figure 3-1 should be considered approximate. The engineering borings were drilled and sampled to depths ranging from 7 .5 feet below ground surface (bgs) to 25.5 feet bgs. No groundwater was encountered during drilling. Sampling was undertaken as described below. 1. Modified California. The Modified California sampler (ASTM D 3550) was utilized to both recover relatively undisturbed samples of the fill for visual inspection and laboratory testing, as well as to provide an in situ indication of the mechanical characteristics (strength and compressibility) of the soils. The ring sampler was driven using a 140-pound hammer falling for 30 inches with a total penetration of 18 inches, recording blow counts for each 6 inches of penetration. 2. SPT. The Standard Penetration Test ('SPT', after ASTM D 1586) was utilized to recover disturbed samples of the formation soil for visual inspection, as well as to provide an in situ indication of the mechanical characteristics (strength and compressibility) of the soils. The sampler was driven using a 140-pound hammer falling for 30 inches with a total penetration of 18 inches, recording blow counts for each 6 inches of penetration. 3. Bulk. Bulk samples of disturbed soils were recovered from the auger cuttings in the near surface. The samples were used for geotechnical testing that requires relatively larger amounts of material for completion of the test. Each boring was backfilled with soil cuttings and patched to match the existing surfacing. Records of the engineering borings are presented in Appendix B. 3.2 Percolation Testing 3.2.1 General NOVA directed the excavation and construction of three (3) percolation tests borings, following the recommendations for percolation testing presented in Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region, for Permanent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydromodification Management (February 2016), which has been adopted by the County of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad. The location of these wells (referenced herein as 'P-1' through 'P-3 ') is shown on Figure 3-1. 3.2.2 Drilling Borings were drilled with a truck mounted 8-inch hollow stem auger to an approximate depth equal to the expected depth of the expected bottoms of detention/infiltration basins. Field measurements were taken to confirm that the borings were excavated to approximately 8-inches in diameter. The boreholes were logged by a NOV A geologist, who observed and recorded exposed soil cuttings and the boring conditions. Table 3-2 (following page) summarizes the drilling at each location. IO Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 Table 3-2. Summary of the Percolation Test Borings Structure Ref Approx. Elev. Depth Tested Soils (feet, msl) (feet, bgs) North Det. Basin P-1 395 IO Fill, sandy, medium dense (SM) West Det. Basin P-2 387 9 Sand, silty sand and weathered granite (SW/SM) East Det. Basin P-3 394 5 Sand (SW) and weathered granite (SP) Note: 'bgs' indicates 'below ground surface' 3.2.3 Conversion to Percolation Wells Once the test borings were drilled to the design depth, the borings were converted to percolation wells using ¾-inch gravel and 3-inch diameter Schedule 40 perforated PVC pipe. The piping was extended from the bottom of the excavation, to the surface. After placing an approximately 2-inch layer of gravel on the bottom, the perforated PVC pipe was lowered. The ¾-inch gravel was used to fill the annular space around the perforated pipe to at least 6- inches below existing finish grade to minimize the potential of soil caving. 3.2.4 Percolation Testing The percolation test holes were pre-soaked before testing, and immediately prior to testing. The pre-soak process consisted of filling the hole twice with water before testing. Consecutive measurements indicated that less than 6 inches of water percolated in 25 minutes. The water level was recorded every 30 minutes for at least six hours (minimum of 12 readings), or until the water percolation stabilized. After each reading, the water level was raised to close to the previous water level to maintain a near constant head, before each reading. Water depth measurements were obtained from the top of the pipe. 3.3 Laboratory Testing 3.3.1 Geotechnical An experienced geotechnical engineer classified each soil sample on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The group symbols for each soil type are indicated in parentheses following the soil descriptions on the boring logs. The project geologist grouped the various soil types into the major zones noted on the boring logs. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between earth materials on the boring logs and profiles are approximate; in-situ, the transitions may be gradual. 11 41\ , .. NOVA Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 Representative soil samples were selected and tested in NOV A's materials laboratory to check visual classifications and to determine pertinent engineering properties. The laboratory testing program included visual classification of all soil samples as well as gradation analysis, direct shear, R-value, and natural moisture content testing on selected soil samples. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM standards. Results of the geotechnical laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C. 3.3.2 Chemical Laboratory testing was performed to evaluate pH and electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents. Electrical resistivity, chloride content, and pH level are all indicators of the soil's tendency to corrode ferrous metals. High concentrations of water soluble sulfate can react with and damage concrete. Records of this testing is presented in Appendix C. 12 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS 4.1 Geologic Setting 4.1.1 Regional Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 The project area is located in the western San Diego County portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends approximately 900 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the southern tip of Baja California. The province varies in width from approximately 30 to I 00 miles. In general, the province consists of rugged mountains underlain mostly by Jurassic volcanic and sedimentary rocks, Cretaceous igneous rocks of the southern California batholith. The portion of the province in San Diego County that includes the project area consists generally of Quaternary-age surficial deposits, underlain by Tertiary-and Cretaceous-age sedimentary rocks. The Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary rocks were deposited on upper Cretaceous sedimentary rocks in a basin known as the San Diego embayment. The most abundant rocks in the embayment are gently folded and faulted Eocene marine, lagoonal and nonmarine rocks. The surface topography is characterized geomorphically by eroded and dissected mesa terrain. 4.1.2 Site Specific Like much of this coastal area, the area of the Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park has been eroded into a series of interconnected ridges and incised intervening drainages (see Figure 2-4). The Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park and Lot 24 are affected by such features. Prior to mass grading, Lot 24 had an eroded, uneven ground surface. Engineered artificial fill (Afc) was placed during the mass grading operations in 2010 consisted of predominantly sandy soils sourced from nearby excavations and site removals. The approximate limits of the artificial fill are presented on Figure 3-1. As is discussed in Section 2, the fill at Lot 24 ranges from about 5 feet to 25 feet in thickness. Geocon 2010 documents that this fill was compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (after ASTM D 1557). This representation is consistent with indications of borings by NOV A, all of which encountered dense to very dense fill. The Cretaceous-aged Granitic Rock (Kgr) was exposed during earthwork in 2010, over excavated by a minimum of 5 feet, then backfilled to current site grades. NOV A encountered this geologic unit in all of its borings. Despite its occurrence of artificial fill on this site, bedrock in the vicinity of the site is dominated by Cretaceous-aged Granitic Rock (Kgr). Figure 4-1 (following page) reproduces mapping of the regional geology. 13 41\ ,., NOVA Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Kgr Kgr oRAHmc Roox 0 APPROXIMATE SITE PERIMETER Figure 4-1. Geologic Map ('Kgr' indicates 'Granitic Bedrock of Cretaceous age') 4.2 Site Specific Subsurface Conditions 4.2.1 Surface Revised April 20, 201 7 NOVA Project No. 2016472 Lot 24 is undeveloped. Topographically the site is relatively flat, covered with light grasses. The ground surface grades from about Elevation + 396 feet mean sea level (msl) at the northeast comer of the site to about El. +384 feet msl in the southwest comer. The surface gradient over this 570-foot interval is about 1.5%. An existing stormwater detention basin is located at the southwest comer of Lot 24. Lot 24 has a finished pad elevation at substantial variance from the lots it abuts, separated by south- and west-facing 2: I (horizontal: vertical) fill slopes. • The lot to the east is about 60 feet higher than Lot 24. • The lot to the south is about 20 feet lower Lot 24 on the south. 14 Ii\ 1■1 NOVA Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 Figure 4-2 (following page) depicts surface conditions at the site at the time of NOV A's work. Figure 4-2. Lot 24 Surface Conditions, June 2016 4.2.2 Subsurface The soil profile observed in the borings at Lot 24 may be generalized to occur as follows: • Unit 1. Artificial Documented Fill (Afc). Canyon fill and overcut backfill placed during 2010 was encountered as mix oflight yellowish brown sand with some silt. The fill is of medium dense to very dense consistency. • Unit 2. Granitic Rock (Kgr). Cretaceous-aged Granitic Bedrock (Kgr) was exposed during earthwork in 2010, over excavated by 5 feet and backfilled to current site grades. As encountered during NOV A's field investigation, the Granitic Bedrock was noted to have a very dense consistency and refuse advance of the drilling rig and refuse the driven sampling devices. The upper foot 2 feet of this unit is decomposed, with the consistency of a sandy material. 4.2.3 Groundwater Ground water was not encountered during this work. Based upon previous experience in this area, NOVA expects groundwater to first occur below about El +330 feet msl. Ground water should not affect construction. Perched groundwater may locally occur within the near- surface deposits due to localized seepage or prolonged wet weather. Local perched groundwater conditions may also develop once site development is completed and landscape irrigation commences. 4.2.4 Surface Water No surface water was evident on the site at the time of NOV A's work. A stormwater/sediment detention basin that dates to about 2010 is set at the southwest comer of the site. 15 Ji\ ,., NOVA Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park 5.0 GEOLOGIC AND SOIL HAZARDS 5.1 General Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 The primary geologic hazard affecting the site is moderate-to-severe ground shaking in response to either a local moderate or more distant large-magnitude earthquake during the life of the planned facility. The principal soil risk is changes to soil volume due to wetting or drying of expansive soils, the result of which could be damaging to structures or pavements. 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 on the site area. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault system, located approximately 7.1 miles west of the site. This system has the potential to be a source of strong ground motion. Section 6 discusses this consideration in more detail. The Seismicity of the site was evaluated utilizing the USGS web site. The nearest active fault is the Newport-Inglewood (Offshore)-Rose Canyon Fault Zone system, which is reported to be capable of producing a 7.2 magnitude earthquake. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is equal to the maximum ground acceleration that occurred during earthquake shaking at a location. The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) for the site is estimated to be about 0.4g. 5.2.2 Seismically Induced Landslides A significant slope is located on the eastern boundary the site. This engineered slope will be stable during a seismic event. Based on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Oceanside and San Luis Rey Quadrangle, the site is not located within an area that has been identified by the State of California as being potentially susceptible to seismically induced landslides. 5.2.3 Fault Rupture Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is 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. However, due to the presence of slopes on-site, lurching and associated ground cracking is possible. 5.3 Potential for Liquefaction and Seismic Ground Movement 5.3.1 Liquefaction "Liquefaction" refers to the loss of soil strength during a seismic event. The phenomenon is observed in areas that include a shallow water table and coarse grained (sandy) soils of loose to medium dense consistency. The ground motions increase soil water pressures, which causes the soils to lose strength. 16 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 Because of the near surface occurrence of the Unit 2 granite and low ground water level, the potential for liquefaction of the site soils is considered negligible during a seismic event. 5.3.2 Seismically Induced Settlement During a strong seismic event, seismically induced settlement can occur within loose to moderately dense, unsaturated granular soils, separate from liquefaction. Settlement caused by ground shaking is often non- uniformly distributed, which can result in differential settlement. Seismically induced settlement of the sandy Unit I soil can perhaps be on the order of¼ inch or less. Seismically induced differential settlement is expected to be less than half that value over a span of 40 feet. 5.3.3 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil move downslope on a liquefied soil layer. Lateral spreading is often a regional event. For lateral spreading to occur, a liquefiable soil zone must be laterally continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along sloping ground. Due to the negligible potential for liquefaction, lateral spreading is considered negligible in its current condition. 5.3.4 Strong Ground Motion The site could be subject to potentially high levels of ground shaking because of the proximity of seismic sources associated with the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone system. The maximum magnitude earthquake for the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone system consists of a multiple- segment rupture and an credible magnitude of up to 7 .2 Mw event. Recommended seismic coefficients for structural design based on the site location and site conditions are provided in Section 6. 5.4 Soil Hazards 5.4. l Landslides and Slope Stability The landslide hazard at the site is considered low for the site in its current condition. Fill slopes currently exist at the site, formed at about 2: 1 (horizontal: vertical) to the east and south of the Lot 24. These slopes will be stable with proper maintenance. In particular, absent care to control drainage over the slopes and to vegetate, surficial instability or "sloughing" and erosion could occur. 5.4.2 Expansive Soils Geocon 2010 notes that no expansive soils were left in place at the ground surface in Lot 24. This representation is consistent with NOV A's observations of soil recovered from the engineering borings and percolation test borings. The Unit I soils are characteristically sandy, with low to nonexistent potential for expansion. 17 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park 5.4.3 Hydro-Collapsible Soils Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 Collapsible soils occur with some frequency in this area of California. Collapsible soils would have been removed during the original site grading. Such soils do not constitute a hazard to site development. 5.4.4 Corrosive Soils Laboratory testing shows that the soils can be corrosive to buried metals. The soils contain relatively low concentrations of soluble sulfates (27 ppm), No special cement is warranted for concrete structures in contact with soil. Considerations regarding corrosivity are discussed in more detail in Section 6.4. 5.5 Other Hazards The local geologic conditions indicate that the probability of other geologic or soil hazards, including tsunamis ('tidal waves ') and seiches (wave-like oscillatory movements in enclosed or semi-enclosed bodies of water such as lakes or reservoirs) affecting the site is very low. There are no large bodies of water within four miles of the site and the elevation of the site is about +390 feet msl, such that the potential for tsunamis and seiches does not exist. 18 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 20 I 7 NOVA Project No. 2016472 6.0 EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATIONS 6. 1 Overview 6.1.1 General Based upon the indications of the field and laboratory data developed for this investigation, the site is suitable for development of the planned structure on shallow foundations. The following subsections provide geotechnical recommendations for the conceptually proposed development. It is intended that these recommendations provide sufficient geotechnical information to develop the project in general accordance with 2013 California Building Code (CBC) requirements. 6.1.2 Review and Surveillance The Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record should review the grading plan, foundation plan and specifications as they become available to confirm that the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the plans prepared for the project. All earthwork related to site and foundation preparation should be completed under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer. 6.2 Earthwork 6.2.1 General Earthwork for the building will consist of limited remedial grading, minor fine grading, and excavations for foundations and utilities. It is recommended that earthwork be performed in accordance with Section 300 of the most recent approved edition of the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" and "Regional Supplement Amendments." All fill and backfill should generally be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of95 relative compaction after ASTM D1557 (the 'modified Proctor') placed at 2% to 4% above the optimum moisture content. Fill should be properly moisture conditioned and placed in loose lifts no thicker than the ability of the compaction equipment to thoroughly densify the lift. For most construction equipment, this limit loose lifts to on the order of 1 O" or less. NOV A's investigation indicates that the onsite soils will be suitable for structural and general fills provided highly expansive soils are not encountered. Any imported fill should be composed of select material. "Select Material" may be defined as having at least 40 percent of the material less than ¼-inches in size, a maximum particle size of6 inches, an expansion index (EI) of less than 20 (as determined by ASTM D4829), and no perishable, spongy, deleterious, environmentally sensitive, or otherwise unsuitable material. 6.2.2 Excavation Characteristics Based upon the indications of the engineering borings, the Unit l soils can be excavated with conventional earthmoving equipment. The Unit 2 rock will not excavate easily. 19 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park 6.2.3 Site Preparation Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 Vegetation, debris and rubble be removed and properly disposed off-site before the start of grading operations. Any abandoned utilities should either be (i) excavated and the trenches backfilled with low permeability soil; or, (ii) the lines completely filled with sand-cement slurry. NOV A expects that placement of 3 to 5 feet of fill may be required to develop a level pad grade for the new building. Prior to the placement of any new fill, the exposed soils should be scarified 12-inches, moisture condition to at least 2% above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. In areas to support the new structure and on-grade slabs, exterior flatwork, pavement and other light weight improvements, the surficial soils should be removed to at least 2 feet below existing grades. Laterally, the removals should extend at least 5 feet outward of the new structures and at least 2 feet for flatwork. In the area of the existing detention basin, at least 2 feet of exposed soils will need to be removed. The soils removed from this area will likely be saturated or too wet for immediate use as structural fill, but may be blended with drier suitable materials to create a properly moisture conditioned fill material. A NOV A representative will need to observe all excavation bottoms prior to placing fill. If loose or soft soils are encountered at excavation bottoms, deeper removals may be required. 6.2.4 Fill Placement The Unit 1 soils will be suitable for use as compacted fill. Any inclusions of organics or rock greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension should be removed and disposed off-site. All soils placed as structural fill should be moisture conditioned to at least 2% above the optimum moisture content determined by ASTM Test Method D1557, then densified to 95% relative compaction. Loose soils should be placed in uniform lifts not to exceed the ability of the compaction equipment to thoroughly densify the lift. In most cases, this will limit lift thicknesses to on the order of 10 inches or less. 6.2.5 Temporary Slopes Temporary slopes may be required for excavations during grading. All temporary excavations should comply with local safety ordinances. The safety of all excavations is the responsibility of the Contractor, and should be evaluated during construction as the excavation progresses. Groundwater dewatering should not be required for the excavations; however, water from seeps may require localized sumps. 6.3 Seismic Design Parameters 6.3.1 Site Class C The Site Class was determined from ASCE 7, Table 20.3-1. The site-specific data used to determine the Site Class typically includes borings drilled to refusal materials to detennine Standard Penetration resistances (N-values ). Based on actual and/or estimated average N-values ('Nbar') in the upper 100 feet of the soil/rock profile, NOVA estimates an Nbar that corresponds to a Site Class D (15 < Nbar < 50). 20 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park 6.3.2 Seismic Design Parameters Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 Table 6-1 (following page) provides seismic design parameters for the site in accordance with 2013 CBC and mapped spectral acceleration parameters found at: http://earthguake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php. Table 6-1. Seismic Desi2n Parameters_,_ Site Class C Parameter Value Site Latitude ( decimal degrees) 33.1422 Site Longitude (decimal degrees) -117.2546 Site Coefficient, Fa 1.000 Site Coefficient, Fv 1.397 Mapped Short Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.037 Mapped One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.403 Short Period Spectral Acceleration Adjusted for Site Class, SMs 1.037 One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Adjusted for Site Class, SM1 0.563 Design Short Period Spectral Acceleration, Sos 0.692 Design One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, SDI 0.375 Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.4 6.4 Corrosivity and Sulfates 6.4.1 Corrosivity Electrical resistivity, chloride content, and pH level are all indicators of the soil's tendency to corrode ferrous metals. Chemical tests were performed on representative samples by Clarkson Laboratory and Supply, Inc. of Chula Vista. The results of the testing are tabulated on Table 6-2. Table 6-2. Summary of Corrosivity Testing of the Near Surface Soil Parameter Units Value pH standard unit 7.9 Resistivity Ohm-cm 7,200 Water Soluble Chloride ppm 32 Water Soluble Sulfate ppm 27 Caltrans considers a site to be 'corrosive' if one or more of the following conditions exist for representative soil and/or water samples taken at the site: • chloride concentration is 500 parts per million (ppm) or greater; • sulfate concentration is 2,000 ppm or greater; or, • the pH is 5.5 or less. 21 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 20 I 7 NOVA Project No. 2016472 Based on the Caltrans criteria, the on-site soils would be considered 'corrosive' to buried metals. Records of this testing are provided in Appendix C. These records include estimates of the life expectancy of buried metal culverts of varying gauge. 6.4.2 Sulfates and Concrete As shown on Table 6-2, the soil sample tested indicated water-soluble sulfate (SO4) content of 27 parts per million ('ppm,' 0.003% by weight). With SO4 < 0.10 percent by weight, the American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-08 considers a soil to have no potential to be injurious to concrete by sulfate attack. Table 6-3 shows the Exposure Categories considered by ACI. Table 6-3. Exposure Cate2ories and Requirements for Water-Soluble Sulfates Exposure Water-Soluble Cement Type Max Water-Min. f'r Category Class Sulfate (SO,.) In Soil (ASTMC150) Cement Ratio (psi) (percent by wei2ht) Not so SO4 < 0.10 --- Moderate SI 0.10 ::5 SO4 < 0.20 II 0.50 4,000 Severe S2 0.20 ::5 SO4 ::5 2.00 V 0.45 4,500 Very severe S3 SO4 > 2.0 V + pozzolan 0.45 4,500 Adapted from: ACI 318-08, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete 6.4.3 Limitations Testing to determine several chemical parameters that indicate a potential for soils to be corrosive to construction materials are traditionally completed by the Geotechnical Engineer, comparing testing results with a variety of indices regarding corrosion potential. Like most geotechnical consultants, NOV A does not practice corrosion engineering. Should you require more information, a specialty corrosion consultant should be retained to address these issues. 6.5 Shallow Foundations 6.5.1 Footings Allowable Contact Stress ('Bearing Pressure') Spread footings established in the Unit I engineered fill may be used to support the building where designed to the parameters listed below. 1. Minimum Dimensions. Footings should be at least 24 inches wide and embedded at least 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. 2. Contact Stress. Continuous and isolated footings placed on properly compacted fill may be designed using an allowable (net) contact stress of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) based on the minimum embedment and width mentioned above. An allowable increase of 500 psf for each additional 12 inches in depth may be utilized, if desired. In no case should the maximum allowable contact stress should be greater than 4,000 psf. The maximum bearing value applies to combined dead and sustained live loads (DL + LL). The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering transient live loads, including seismic and wind forces. 22 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 3. Lateral Resistance. Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by a combination of friction between the soil and foundation interface and passive pressure acting against the vertical portion of the footings. For calculating allowable lateral resistance, a passive pressure of 300 psfper foot of depth and a frictional coefficient of 0.35 may be used. No reduction is necessary when combining frictional and passive resistance. Settlement If the structure supported on spread footings as recommended above will settle on the order of 1 inch or less, with about 80% of this settlement occurring during the construction period. The differential settlement between adjacent columns is estimated on the order of½ inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. The estimated seismic settlement ( on the order of½ inch or less, as is discussed in Section 5) would occur in addition to this movement. 6.5.2 Conventional Slab-On-Grade Concrete slabs may be designed using a modulus of sub grade reaction of 110 pounds per cubic inch (pci) provided the subgrade is prepared as described in Section 6.1 of this report. From a geotechnical standpoint, NOV A recommends a slab-on-grade be a minimum 5 inches thick with No. 3 rebar placed at the center of the slab at 18 inches on center in each direction. The Structural Engineer should design the actual thickness and reinforcement based on anticipated loading conditions and expected settlements. Minor cracking of concrete after curing due to drying and shrinkage is normal and should be expected; however, concrete is often aggravated by a high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry, and/or windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations should also be expected. The use of low-slump concrete or low water/cement ratios can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking, concrete slabs-on-grade should be provided with construction or weakened plane joints at frequent intervals. Joints should be laid out to form approximately square panels. 6.5.3 Underslab Moisture Barrier Ground supported slabs that support moisture-sensitive floor coverings or equipment may be protected by an underslab moisture barrier regardless of the alternative selected for ground floor slab design. Moisture barriers normally include two components, as described below. 1. Capillary Break. A "capillary break" consisting of a thin (typically 4-inch thick) layer of compacted, well-graded gravel or crushed stone placed below the floor slab. This porous fill should be clean coarse sand or sound, durable gravel with not more than 5 percent coarser than the I-inch sieve or more than 10 percent finer than the No. 4 sieve, such as AASHTO Coarse Aggregate No. 57. 2. Vapor Membrane. A minimum 15-mil polyethylene membrane, or similarly-rated vapor barrier, should be placed over the porous fill to preclude floor dampness. Membranes set below floor slabs should be rugged enough to withstand construction. A minimum 15 mil low permeance vapor membrane should meet or exceed the Class A rating as defined by ASTM E 1745-97 and have a permeance rating less than 0.01 perms as described in ASTM E 96-95 and ASTM E 154- 23 41\ 1■1 NOVA Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 88. For example, Carlisle-CCW produces the Blackline 400® underslab, vapor and air barrier, a 15 mil low density polyethylene (LOPE) rated at 0.012 perms after ASTM E 96. NOVA recommends that any moisture barrier be designed in accordance with ACI Publication 302.lR- 15, "Guide to Concrete Floor and Slab Construction." Recommendation for moisture barriers are traditionally included with geotechnical foundation recommendations, though these requirements are primarily the responsibility of the Structural Engineer or Architect. If there is particular concern regarding moisture sensitive materials or equipment to be placed above the slab-on-grade, a qualified person (for example, such as the flooring subcontractor and/or Structural Engineer) should be consulted to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction. NOV A does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission evaluation, since this is not specifically a geotechnical issue. A specialty consultant would provide recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structure as deemed appropriate. 6.6 Control of Water During Construction Surface water should be controlled during construction, via berms, gravel/sandbags, silt fences, straw wattles, siltation basins, positive surface grades, or other method to avoid damage to finished work or adjoining properties. The Contractor should take measures to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. After completion of grading, all excavated surfaces should exhibit positive drainage and eliminate areas where water might pond. 6.7 Control of Moisture Around Foundations 6. 7 .1 Drainage Rainfall to roofs should be collected in gutters and discharged in a controlled manner through downspouts designed to drain away from foundations. Downspouts, roof drains or scuppers should discharge into splash blocks to slabs or paving sloped away from buildings. 6.7.2 Surface Grades Proper surface and subsurface drainage are required to minimize the potential of water seeking the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings and floor slabs. In areas where sidewalks or paving do not immediately adjoin the structure, protective slopes be provided with a minimum grade (away from structure) of approximately 3 percent for at least 10 feet from perimeter walls. A minimum gradient of 1 percent is recommended in hardscape areas. Earth swales should have a minimum gradient of 2 percent. Drainage should be directed to an approved facility. 6.7.3 Utilities Underground piping within or near structure should be designed with flexible couplings to accommodate some differential ground and slab movement, so that minor deviations in alignment do not result in 24 Ii\ ,., NOVA Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 breakage or distress. Utility knockouts should be oversized to accommodate the potential for differential movement between foundations and the surrounding soil. Excavations for utility lines which extend under or near structural areas should be properly backfilled and compacted. Utilities should be bedded and backfilled with approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the pipe. Backfill should be uniformly watered and compacted to a firm condition for pipe support. 6. 7.4 Flatwork Prior to casting exterior flatwork, the subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned and recompacted, as recommended in Section 6.2. The subgrade soils be kept moist prior to casting exterior flatwork Exterior concrete slabs for pedestrian traffic or landscape should be at least four ( 4) inches thick. Weakened plane joints should be located at intervals of about 6 feet. Control of the water/cement ratio can limit shrinkage cracking due to excess water or poor concrete finishing or curing. 25 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park 7.0 PAVEMENTS 7.1 Overview 7.1.1 General Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 As is discussed previously, planning for the development is in its very early stages. No information regarding the expectations of traffic for the alignment of roadways is available at this point. For the purposes of this section, NOVA has assumed that traffic will include automobiles, and moderate truck traffic. The structural design of pavement sections depends primarily on anticipated traffic conditions, subgrade soils, and construction materials. For the purposes of the preliminary evaluation provided in this section, NOVA has assumed a Traffic Index (Tl) of 5.0 for the passenger car parking, and 6.0 for the driveways. These traffic indices should be confirmed prior to final design. 7 .1.2 Maintenance Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided for. Preventative maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventative maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventative maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment in pavements. 7.1.3 Review and Surveillance The Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record should review the planning and design for pavement to confirm that the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the plans prepared for the project. The preparation of subgrades for roadways should be observed on a full-time basis by a representative of the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record. 7.2 Pavement Subgrade Preparation 7 .2.1 General The subgrade beneath pavements should be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted to at least 95% relative compaction after ASTM D 1557 (the "Modified Proctor") to a minimum depth of 18 inches prior to placement of any fill and pavement materials (including the base course and the pavement). This 18 inches is measured from below roadway graded aggregate base course. After the completion of compaction/densification, areas to receive pavements should be proof-rolled. A loaded dump truck having an axle weight of at least 10 tons should be used to aid in identifying localized soft or unsuitable material. Any unsuitable materials (described in the following subsection) encountered during this proof-rolling should be removed and replaced with an approved backfill compacted to the criteria given above. 26 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park 7.2.2 Potential for Over-Excavation Revised April 20, 2017 NOV A Project No. 2016472 NOV A expects that subgrade preparation will result in minimal remedial over-excavation. As used herein, unsuitable soil materials are defined as those complying with ASTM D2487 soil classification groups MH, ML, CH, CL, OL, OH and PT. The unsuitable or unusable material should be replaced with approved soil as defined in Section 7.2.3 "Fill Placement." 7.2.3 Fill Placement NOV A's investigation indicates that the near surface sandy materials will generally be suitable for fills beneath pavements. Any imported fill should be composed of select material. "Select Material" may be defined as having at least 40 percent of the material less than ¼-inches in size, a maximum particle size of 6 inches, an expansion index (EI) of less than 20 (as determined by ASTM D4829), and no perishable, spongy, deleterious, environmentally sensitive, or otherwise unsuitable material. All fill for pavements should be compacted to a minimum of95 relative compaction after ASTM D1557 (the 'modified Proctor'). Fill should be properly moisture conditioned and placed in loose lifts no thicker than the ability of the compaction equipment to thoroughly densify the lift. For most construction equipment, this limit loose lifts to on the order of 1 0" or less. 7.3 Flexible Pavements Table 7-1 (following page) lists preliminary pavement design sections, developed assuming an R-value of 70 will be representative of the as-graded conditions. The recommended pavement sections are for planning purposes only. R-value testing should be performed at the time of construction on the graded soils at the design subgrade levels to confirm the assumption. The sections on Table 7-1 assume properly prepared subgrade consisting of at least 18 inches of soil compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. The aggregate base materials should also be placed at a minimum relative compaction of 95%. Construction materials (asphalt and aggregate base) should conform to the current Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book). Table 7-1. Preliminary Recommendations for Flexible Pavements, R = 70 Thickness (inches) for Traffic Index (Tl) Specified Pavement Section Auto Auto Drive Light Truck Moderate Element Parking Lanes Traffic Truck Traffic (Tl= 4.S)* (Tl-= S) (Tl= 6)** (TI-= 6)** Asphalt Concrete 4 4 4 4 Aggregate Base 6 6 7 10 Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 12 •City of Carlsbad minimums for public/private streets, City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards, Volume 1, General Design Standards. ••Includes all routes leading to trash enclosures, " ... area in front of trash enclosure shall be concrete with a minimum thickness of7-½ inches in conformance with GS-16," City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards, Volume 1, General Design Standards. 27 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Notes to Table 7-l. Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 l. Subgrade compacted to 95% relative compaction after ASTM D 1557, with El <50. 2. The aggregate base materials should be placed at a minimum relative compaction of95%. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Marshall maximum density, as determined by ASTM D-2726. 3. The aggregate base course may consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB) or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), which is a recycled gravel, asphalt and concrete material 4. The gradation, R-Value, Sand Equivalent, and Percentage Wear of the CAB or CMB should comply with appropriate specifications contained in the current edition of the "Greenbook" (Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction}. 5. The design assumes a pavement life of20 years with normal maintenance. 7.4 Rigid Pavements Recommended sections for concrete pavements are provided on Table 7-2. Table 7-2. PCC Pavement Sections Thickness (inches) for Traffic Index (Tl) Specified Auto Light Truck Moderate Pavement Section Element Parking/Drives Traffic Truck Traffic (Tl =4.5)* (Tl= 6)** (TI= 6)** PCC 5 6 7 Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 •City of Carlsbad minimums for public/private streets, City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards, Volume 1, General Design Standards . .. lncludes all routes leading to trash enclosures, " ... area in front of trash enclosure shall be concrete with a minimum thickness of7-½ inches in conformance with GS-16," City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards, Volume 1, General Design Standards. Notes to Table 7-2. I. Subgrade compacted to 95% relative compaction after ASTM D 1557, with EI <20. 2. Concrete must conform to the minimum requirements of Table 7-3. Where rigid pavements are used, the concrete should be obtained from an approved mix design with the minimum properties described on Table 7-3 (following page). 28 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 2017 NOV A Project No. 2016472 Table 7-3. Recommended Concrete Requirements Property Recommended Requirement Compressive Strength @ 28 days 3,250 psi minimum Modulus of Rupture @ 28 days 700minimum Strength Requirements ASTMC94 Minimum Cement Content 5.5 sacks/cu. yd. Cement Type Type I Portland Entrained Air Content 6to 8% Concrete Aggregate ASTMC33 Aggregate Size l inch maximum Maximum Water Content 0.49 lb/lb of cement Maximum Allowable Slump 4 inches Longitudinal and transverse joints should be provided as needed in concrete pavements for expansion/contraction and isolation. Sawed joints should be cut within 24-hours of concrete placement, and should be a minimum of 25% of slab thickness plus 1/4 inch. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and doweled where necessary for load transfer. Where dowels cannot be used at joints accessible to wheel loads, pavement thickness should be increased by 25 percent at the joints and tapered to regular thickness in 5 feet. 29 41\ ,., NOVA Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park 8.0 STORMWATER INFILTRATION 8.1 Percolation Test Results Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 Table 8-1 provides a summary of the testing to detennine the percolation rate at locations Pl, P2, and P3 . The percolation rate of a soil profile is not the same as its infiltration rate. Therefore, the measured/calculated field percolation rate was converted to an estimated infiltration rate utilizing a reduction factor (Porchet Method) in accordance with guidance contained in Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region. Table 8-1. Percolation Test Results Test Depth of Test Infiltration Rate Infiltration Rate (feet below Boring existing (inches/hour) (inches/hour) FS=2 P-1 10.0 0.18 0.09 P-2 9.0 0.12 0.06 P-3 5.0 0.49 0.25 8.2 Site Evaluation 8.2.1 Favorable Factors The site factors favoring site infiltration are listed below. • There are no areas of contaminated soil or contaminated groundwater known to be within the site or within 1,000 feet of the site. • There are no 'brownfield' sites within 1,000 feet of the site. • There are no known water supply wells, USTs, or permitted graywater systems within 1,000 of locations that could be affected by infiltration I percolation BMPs. 8.2.2 Unfavorable Factors Soil types are well understood. Most of the site is underlain by granitic rock that occurs within 8 feet of the existing ground surface. The exception to this generalization is the northwestern third of the site where sandy engineered fill occurs in thicknesses of 5 feet 25 feet. The site is largely underlain by the sequence of sandy engineered fill and formation soil/rock listed below. 30 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 o Unit 1. Engineered Fill. A clayey fill covers the site, averaging about 15 feet in thickness (ranging in thickness from nil to 35 feet). This fill; where tested, is of moderate expansivity but areas of high plasticity and expansivity may be possible. o Unit 2. Granite. The fill is underlain by a granitic bedrock. The mean permeability of this unit is likely on the order of km ~ 10·8 cm/second Man-made earth embankments ('fill slopes') that bound the site are steeper than 25%. Saturating these slopes will degrade the slopes and diminish stability. Additionally, the near surface Unit 2 rock limits infiltration with the related risk of groundwater mounding and lateral spreading to utilities, pavements, and foundation soils. 8.3 Design Infiltration Rate The results of the percolation testing at P-1 , P-2 and P-3 respectively, reduced to provide the infiltration rates presented in Table 8-1, can be defended to be representative of the near surface soils that occur at Lot 24. In consideration of the nature and variability of fill materials, as well as the natural tendency of infiltration structures to become less efficient with time, the infiltration rates presented in Table 8-1 should be used with at least a factor of safety (F) of F= 2 for preliminary design purposes and location of the infiltration/ retention basins. Using a factor of safety of 2, the infiltration rates were calculated to be 0.09, 0.06 and 0.25 inches per hour for P-1, P-2 and P-3 respectively. 8.4 Suitability of the Site for Stormwater Infiltration It is the judgment of NOVA that the site is not suitable for stormwater infiltration BMPs. This judgment is based upon the factors listed below. l . Low Design Infiltration Rate. The design infiltration rate determined from site-specific percolation testing is significantly less than 0.5 inches per hour. 2. Near Surface Rock/Groundwater Mounding. The site soils are well understood by extensive testing reported by others and site specific testing reported herein. The surficial soils are characteristically sandy, of moderate to high permeability. However, the occurrence of these soils in thicknesses that exceed 5 feet is limited to a relatively small portion of the site. Most of the site is underlain by granitic rock that occurs at depths of about 5 to 8 feet below existing ground surface. Stormwater infiltration will result in ground water lateral spreading of groundwater during wet periods. This water can be damaging to utilities, infrastructure (pavements, flat work, etc.) and building foundations. 3. Slope Stability. The site is bounded by slopes steeper than 25% that will be materially weakened if saturated. Of particular concern in this regard is the 20-foot-tall slopes down from Lot 24 to the lot to the south and the slopes to the southwest. 31 41\ ,., NOVA Report of Preliminary Geo technical Investigation Lot 24, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park 9.0 9.1 Site Specific REFERENCES Revised April 20, 2017 NOVA Project No. 2016472 Geocon 2004. Update Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park and Faraday Avenue Ojfsite, Carlsbad, California, Geocon Incorporated, Project Number 06442-32-03, October 21, 2004. Geocon 2006. Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Roadway Grading, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park, Faraday Avenue Extension-Station lo+OO through 80-+80, Carlsbad, California, Geocon Incorporated, Project Number 06442-32-05A, July 27, 2006. Geocon 2010. Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park-Phase 2B (Phase 2-Lot 14; Phase 3-lots 23 through 25, Carlsbad, California, Geocon Incorporated, Project Number 06442-32-13A, July 27, 2006. 9.2 Geology and Soils Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Studies Zones Maps, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, 2007. Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S. Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California, Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2007. Southern California Earthquake Data Center, California Institute of Technology (SCEDC), 2013, Significant Earthquakes and Faults. http://scedc.caltech.edu/ US Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, US Seismic Design Maps, found at: http://earthguake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php. 9.3 Design Guidance American Concrete Institute, 2015, Guide to Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, ACI Publication 302.lR-15. ASCE, Minimum Design Load for Buildings and Other Structure, ASCE 7-10. APWA, 2015 Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction ('Greenbook') California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013 California Building Standards Code. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2003, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 1 .0, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/ttsb/corrosion/pdf/2012-11-19-Corrosion-Guidelines.pdf. County of San Diego, Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region, for Pe,manent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydromodi.fication Management, February 2016. Structural Engineers Association of California, Seismic Design Recommendations, Tilt up Buildings, SEAOC Blue Book, Article 9.02.010, September 2008. 32 APPROXIMATE SITE PERIMETER 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA PHONE: 858·292-7575 FAX: 858·292·7570 SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH SITE VICINITY MAP DATE: 07/2016 LOT24 WHIPTAIL LOOP WAY & GAZELLE CT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT: 2016472 PLATE: 1 •~ .:,'r"_=:_:.'c':'~=,~'\\.\\I. ----~=--\t\\\\\ '''~"' ( \\\\' x ":!'. .::i. - -:~;~:: ;, ~~?i}tr:11 LEGEND: Que Qcf /",../ 8◄ ~ p.3 ~ D COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL IN UNDERCUT AREA WEATHERED GRANITIC BEDROCK/ DECOMPOSED GRANITE CUT ANO Fill LINE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF NOVA GEOTECHNICAL BORING APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF NOVA PERCOLATION/INFILTRATION BORING OUTLINE OF PROPOSED WAREHOUSE BUILDING AS-GRADED GEOI.OGIC MAP ~QMSf'QlHIUWC5,$f'MK,. ....,.,. """""-~ GEOCON A. 1-r•• 1-•-a.-: .... •.,=--..:: -__ ,._, .. ,- Jl NOVA 4373 VIEWRIOGE AVENUE. SUITE B SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 858.292.7575 858-292-7570 (FAX) WWW.USA-NOVA.COM 1-(.) UJ ...J ...J <( UJ -NZ <C re (!) 0 ol:S != ~ >-;j_ t-<( (.) 0 3: -...ICl.Cl PROJECT NO: DATE: DESIGHBV: DRAWNBV: CHECKEDBV: REVIEWED BV: 0 <( 0 co ...J ~ ...J re -<( ~ (.) Cl. :i: 3: 2016472 JULV2016 JOS/AJS AJS AJS WM SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION MAP (j) 100' ~ PLATE:2A "' 'E'i -:-=:=--:::::: ;;~ ~ ·, .... ,. .- I )uc rji," ,~ I \ ... ... .,.., -Que' '· .-1.◄ .... CE} ' Jlj-3 ~l Ci[) --11 -~- :!"'·-~ xr! --t t __ :fl's,'.r.r.:-.r.= r::~;~ -- . / --'--~--,-=----=:f""~-~ -:.=---i:fJ LEGEND: Que COMPACTED FILI. Oct Kgr 8-< ~ M ~ COMPACTED FU. IN UNDERCUT AREA WEATHERED GRANITIC BEDROCK/ DECOMPOSED GRANITE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF NOVA GEOTECHNICAL BORING APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF NOVA PERCOLATION/INFILTRATION 80RlNG AS· GRADED GEOI.OGIC MAP CAIUMD~t-OJHIUY«5,5,...._ ....... ,,..,..._"""""" OEOCON .A ,-r•W ,-._,. __ :::::::..... ---_, .... ,,. ,- ------I _, I 4 Jl NOVA 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE. SUITE 8 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 858-292-7575 858-292-7570 (FAX) WWW.USA-OOVA.COM r-(.) w ...J ...J < w-NZ < cc: C, 0 ad !:!:: "It >-...J "' < < r-~ (.) 0 -..I a.. Cl o < 0~ ...J ...J ...J cc: -< ~ (.) a.. :i: ~ PROJECT NO: 2016472 DATE: JULY 2016 DESIGN BY: JOBI.VS DRAWN BY: AJS CHECKEOBY: AJS REVIEWED BY: WM SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION MAP (j) 0 100' 200' t.;..-I I PLATE:2B LEGEND: Kgr GRANITIC ROCK 0 APPROXIMATE SITE PERIMETER 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA PHONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570 \ Kgr SOURCE: SAN DIEGO 30'x60' QUADRANGLE REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP DATE: 07/2016 LOT24 WHIPTAIL LOOP WAY & GAZELLE CT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT: 2016472 PLATE: 3 • 'e. M~?rps Ba I. allbro 1663ll ) '/ / / \ / LEGEND: ------------ _______ ...;-i-_ --------- ---------------'?.- () 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA PHONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570 y / / t { I ista I HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT LATE QUARTERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT QUARTERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT PRE-QUARTERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION l Val ey \~enter SOURCE: FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA FAULT LOCATION MAP DATE: 07/2016 LOT24 WHIPTAIL LOOP WAY & GAZELLE CT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT: 2016472 PLATE:4 LEGEND: APPROXIMATE SITE PERIMETER 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA PHONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570 SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH SITE VICINITY MAP -2003 DATE: 07/2016 LOT24 WHIPTAIL LOOP WAY & GAZELLE CT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT: 2016472 PLATE: 5 LEGEND: APPROXIMATE SITE PERIMETER 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA PHONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570 SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH SITE VICINITY MAP -2005 DATE: 07/2016 LOT24 WHIPTAIL LOOP WAY & GAZELLE CT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT: 2016472 PLATE: 6 APPENDIX A USE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Im ortant Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report '-,'u/1\ur/an' pro/Jim" {Jr,· a 11r//J,·111r1/ 1~:wc;, of romlrw /inn r/i /,Jy'> r (Vi/ 0'.1 rrun" r/,7il"', ,!IHI ill'>/ilJ/ , Th, /n//()11 //J(J //J/n11n1/l()n I'> p1m 1d, rf In /7, Ip you rnm1,y your II'>~, Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one -not even you -should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read ii all. Do not rely on an executive summary Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences: the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the lime the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site: or by natural events, such as Hoods, earthquakes, or groundwater nuctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes significantly- from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnlcal engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences. and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited: encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers· responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment. techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a smal I amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE!fhe Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE TU 1111 •■■•II II urn 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 2091 0 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail· info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, tnc. Dupficarlon, reproduction, or copying of this document, In whole or In part, by any means whatsoever, Is strlctty prohibited, except with ASFE'S speclflc written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechn/cat engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other en/1/y that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be comm/ting negligent or Intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045.0M APPENDIXB LOGS OF BORINGS BORING LOG B-1 1:quIpment Dimension and Type of Excavation: I Logged By: HGE !Date 6/20/2016 Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig 8 Inch Diameter Auger Boring IElevatlon Boring No. 1 390 FT Groundwater Depth: Not Encountered ~ w ;; w l ►G:' Jig ►-... .J .J ... FIELD SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION a: 0 a: ... 0 0 IL ~ z .,; Q IL Q~ f-,. Ji 5 . ow w-::, w :a;- Ill < D. Description and Remarks (USCS; Color, Moisture, Density, Grain 0 j IIC 0~ Ji a: ::, ~ ~ tj i!: ~ rn :IE 0 t: .,; 1\-i:! I= i:! D. Cl c( ~ Size.) ::i z rn j rn IL U1 I rn ~ Ji w VI < II) -o 1\-Z 0 0 i~ 0 m .J Ji zW Ji w m -0 Q 0 :1::::1::::1: DOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qdaf): SIL TY SAND; BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM SM ........... :1::::1::::1: DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED 1 :1::::1::::1: ,--:1::::1::::1: ........... 2 :1::::1::::1: .L;J:.;.I;;;.I~ ---POORLY GRADED/ SIL TY SAND; BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO COARSE L-2E. 7.3 134.3 99.4 3 ........... :1::::1::::1: GRAINED WITH SOME GRAVEL SM 6.5 133.5 4 .............. ::::~:::. :1::::1::::1: 50/5" BECOMES DARK BROWN VERY DENSE :1::::1::::1: 6 :1::::1::::1: 6.5 126.4 ........... 7 .......... , :1::::1::::1: 68 BECOMES BROWN AND DENSE .............. 8 .............. •••••••••• :1::::1::::1: .............. 9 .............. :1::::1::::1: 7.9 127.7 ......... .............. 10 •••••••••••••• .......... :1::::1::::1: 60 .............. 11 .............. .......... :1::::1::::1: •••••••••••••• 12 •••••••••••••• i .......... :1::::1::::1: .............. 13 .............. :1::::1::::1: 34 .......... -.............. 14 •••••••••••••• .......... :1::::1::::1: ··········· ... 15 .............. ,... .......... :1::::1::::1: I .............. 16 ········••o0•0 :1::::1::::1: 37 .......... ... .............. 17 .............. .......... :1::::1::::1: •••••••••••••• 18 .............. :1::::1::::1: ......... .............. 19 •••••••••••••• .......... :1::::1::::1: 20 .............. .............. ........... .............. I/_ WEATHERED GRANITIC BEDROCK/DECOMPOSED GRANITE (Kgr): POORLY SI-' 21 .............. 50/6" GRADED SAND; LIGHT BROWN, DAMP, VERY DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED .............. ........... .............. ·········••o0• 22 .............. .............. .......... .............. 23 .............. .............. ......... .............. 24 .............. .............. •••••••••••••• ........... 25 .............. r:, "n'"" .............. ........... 26 BORING TERMINATED AT 25.5 FT ........... 27 NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED .......... 28 NO CAVING .......... 29 .......... 30 T Water Table j,a,1 18] Bulk Sample ~-~ 121 SPT Sample NOVA ■ Cal. Mod. Drive Sample JOB NAME: # Disturbed Blowcount No. Lot24 * Disturbed Sample I.JOB ADDRESS: ** No Sample Recovery Whiotail Looo Wav & Gazelle Court Carlsbad CA Geologic Contact -•ob No. Reviewed by Date Fig.No. -----Soil Type Change 2016472 JOB 6/20/2016 B-1 BORING LOG B-2 11:qulpment Dimension and Type of Excavadon: I LOffNBy: 1Date !Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig 8 Inch Diameter Auaer Boring HGE 6/2012016 !Elevation 38SFT Groundwater Depth: Not Encountered Boring No. 2 [ Ill e ..,l ►ii:' :lg ~IL' ~ .J .J ~ FIELD SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ~~ 0 ~ 0 A. Iii uw l....,. CD ' 0. ~-\,! ~~ ~ I; ::::, I:! :I I; I; tj Description and Remarks (USCS; Color, Moisture, Density, Grain :I~ ~ ~ ., ! u t: ~ q. ~ ~I ~; i., 0. Cl i Size.) ::::, 1:; i~ 1::1 w .1 I: I!: Ill 0 .J 0 m .............. DOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qdaf): POORLY GRADED SAND/WELL GRADED ~ 0 .............. .............. .. --···-.............. SAND; BROWN, DRY TO MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, SOME 1 .............. SILT .............. .............. ........... 2 .............. .............. ........... .............. 3 .............. -50/6" .............. 7.9 131.5 ·---.............. 4 .............. .............. BECOMES VERY DENSE ........... .............. 5 .............. .............. ~-WEATHERED GRANITIC BEDROCK/DECOMPOSED GRANITE (Kgr): POORLY ~ -·-· .............. 6 .............. GRADED SAND/WELL GRADED SAND; BROWN, DAMP, VERY DENSE, FINE TO COARSE .............. ........... .............. GRAINED 7 .............. ••11...1nr-•••ruc .............. ........... 8 BORING TERMINATED AT 7.5 FT ·-9 NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED .......... 10 NO CAVING ,._ .. 11 ......... 12 ......... 13 ·-·-14 _,. .... 15 -16 ......... 17 ......... 18 ..... _ 19 ......... 20 -·---21 .......... 22 ......... 23 ··-·-24 ........... 25 ·--26 ........... 27 ......... 28 ......... 29 ......... 30 T Water Table li,a,l ~ Bulk Sample ~-~ 121 SPT Sample NOVA ■ Cal. Mod. Drive Sample JOB NAME: # Disturbed Blowcount No. Lot 24 * Disturbed Sample I.Joe ADDRESS: ** No Sample Recovery Whiotail Looo Wav & Gazelle Court Carlsbad CA Geologic Contact Job No. I Reviewed by Date Fig.No. -----Soil Type Change 2016472 JOB 6/20/2016 B-2 BORING LOG B-3 1:qulpment Dimension and Type of Excavation: I Logged By: ID1te Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig 8 Inch Diameter Auaer Borlna HGE 6120/2016 1Elev1tlon Boring No. 3 391 FT Groundwater Depth: Not Encountered [ w ~ wl ►IL" :I g ►IL" ... .J ... FIELD SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION IIC U ~~ 0 0 ti. ~ Iii C I!:. ~..,. :I 8 . u w ::, w ai < II. Description and Remarks (USCS; Color, Moisture, Density, Grain '-l j IIC ~~ :I IIC a~ ~ tj ~ ~ .,, :IE u t: .,, °" i:! j.,, ~§ i.,, II. " < ~ Size.) ::i i!:i 12 w V, < VI °" z ;~ C m ... zW 2 w m -c C 0 .............. DOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qdaf}: POORLY GRADED SAND; BROWN, DAMP, :SI' .............. .............. . , .. ,_,, .............. MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, SOME SILT .............. 1 ··············r--............ .............. 2 .............. : ... 3 .... •••••••••••••• ~--......... .............. 4.6 124.4 4 .............. .............. ......... .............. 5 .............. .............. WEATHERED GRANITIC BEDROCK/DECOMPOSED GRANITE (Kgr): POORLY SP ····-··· .............. 111111ou,o 6 .............. GRADED SANO; BROWN, DAMP TO MOIST, VERY DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED •••••••••••••• .............. ........... 7 .............. r:,i ""''"'" .............. ....... -.. 8 BORING TERMINATED AT 7.5 FT DUE TO REFUSAL ON GRANITIC$ ...... _. 9 NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED ......... 10 NO CAVING ......... 11 .......... 12 ······-· •13 :"14· ........ 15 ......... 16 .......... 17 ......... 18 .......... 19 ......... 20 ........... 21 .......... 22 ......... 23 .......... 24 .......... 25 ........... 26 ........... 27 ,nu- 28 .......... 29 ••••••••• 30 ... Water Table I j,a~l I ~ Bulk Sample ~-~ l2l SPT Sample NOVA ■ Cal. Mod. Drive Sample JOB NAME: # Disturbed Blowcount No. Lot24 * Disturbed Sample UOB ADDRESS: ** No Sample Recovery Whiotail Loon Wav & Gazelle Court Carlsbad CA Geologic Contact UobNo. ! Reviewed by Date Fig.No. -----Soil Type Change 2016472 JDB 6/20/2016 B-3 BORING LOG B-4 equipment otmenston and Type OI' cxcavauon: I Luvv-ally: HGE uate 6120/2016 Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig 8 Inch Diameter Auger Boring Elevation Boring No. 4 395 FT Groundwater Depth: Not Encountered ~ Ill e ..,l tli:' ::al t Ii:' ~ .J .J ~ FIELD SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 0 g_ OU ~..,. 0 II. Iii uw 11 :I e., IQ t A. 8 . Description and Remarks (USCS; Color, Moisture, Density, Grain 4 ~ a: t~ Ii ~~ i!: ~ .,, ~ u t: ~ ~~ ~;! A. C, ! Size.) :, jg; ; :i IU Cl) < fl) jg~ w C m .J 0 m 0 .............. DOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qdaf): POORLY GAAOED SAND.WELLGRADED SAND; -lw-.............. .............. --· •••••••••••••• BROWN, DRY TO DAMP, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, SOME SILT .............. 1 .............. .............. ........... .............. 2 .............. .............. BECOMES DENSE .... ,_. .............. 3 .............. .............. 74 6.1 131.9 .............. ······-·· 4 .............. .............. ........... .............. 5 •••••••••••••• .............. ····-----· .............. 6 .............. .............. 65 ........... .............. 7 .............. .............. ,I ouu.-WEATHERED GRANITIC BEDROCK/DECOMPOSED GRANITE (Kgr): POORLY .. -..... -lw 8 ,_ GRADED SANDI WEU GRADED SAND; BROWN, MOIST, VERY DENSE, FINE TO COARSE -·-· 9 BORING TERMINATED AT 7.2 FT DUE TO REFUSAL ON GRANITIC$ ......... 10 NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED ·--11 NO CAVING ......... 12 ......... 13 --14 .... ,_, 15 ... -.. 16 .......... 17 ......... 18 ......... 19 ......... 20 ·-···-· 21 ......... 22 .......... 23 ..... _. 24 ........... 25 ........... 26 ........... 27 ......... 28 --29 .......... 30 T Water Table j,a~i ~ Bulk Sample ~-~ 121 SPT Sample NOVA ■ Cal. Mod. Drive Sample JOB NAME: # Disturbed Blowcount No. Lot 24 * Disturbed Sample µoe ADDRESS: ... No Sample Recovery Whiptail Loop Wav & Gazelle Court Carlsbad CA Geologic Contact Job No. ! Reviewed by Date Fig.No. -----Soil Type Change 2016472 JDB 6120/2016 B-4 PERCOLATION BORING LOG P-1 Equipment Dimension and Type of Excavation: I LoggedBy: !Date !Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig 8 Inch Diameter Auger Boring HGE 6/20/2016 ~levatlon Boring No. 1 395FT Groundwater Depth: Not Encountered IIJ e wl ►-~ ► i:i:' IL t .J .J FIELD SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION g: IL « u 0 A. ~ c~ ::1-Ce, ~..,. 0 ui u IIJ :, IIJ :IE ~ . ~ « w-~~ ~ tj Ill < a. Description and Remarks (USCS; Color, Moisture, Density, Grain u u~ :IE « ~ ~ .,, :E uti: ui '\-~ t:~ " < ~ ~.,, i!!.,, 1::1 a. VI Size.) :, z.,, C\-z oS i~ w Cl) < -o Q ID .J :IE z IU :IE IU ID -c C 0 :1::::1::::1: DOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qdaf): SILTY SAND/WELL GRADED SAND; ~ ........... :1::::1::::1: BROWN, MOIST, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED SW 1 :1::::1::::1: ........... :1::::1::::1: 2 :1::::1::::1: :1::::1::::1: ........... 3 :1::::1::::1: ........... :1::::1::::1: 4 :1::::1::::1: :1::::1::::1: ........... 5 :1::::1::::1: ........... :1::::1::::1: 6 :1::::1::::1: :1::::1::::1: ........... 7 :1::::1::::1: :1::::1::::1: ........... 8 :1::::1::::1: .......... :1::::1::::1: 9 :1::::1::::1: :1::::1::::1: .......... •l••••l••••I• ~? 10 BORING TERMINATED AT 10.0 FT •••••••••• 11 NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED ......... 12 CONVERTED TO PERCOLATION WELL .......... 13 .......... 14 .......... 15 .......... 16 .......... 17 .......... 18 .......... 19 .......... 20 ........... 21 ........... 22 .......... 23 .......... 24 ........... 25 ........... 26 ........... 27 .......... 28 .......... 29 .......... 30 ~ Water Table li,a~i ~ Bulk Sample ~-~ 121 SPT Sample NOVA • Cal. Mod. Drive Sample JutS NAME: # Disturbed Blowcount No. Lot24 * Disturbed Sample JOB ADDRESS: ** No Sample Recovery Whiotail Looo Wav & Gazelle Court Carlsbad CA Geologic Contact Job No. Reviewed by Date Fig.No. -----Soil Type Change 2016472 JOB 6/20/2016 P-1 PERCOLATION BORING LOG P-2 EqulprMnl u1menalon end Type of Excavation: I Loggeo By: HGE ID•t• 6/20/2016 Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig 8 Inch Diameter Auger Boring Elevation Boring Ho. 2 386FT Groundwater Depth: Not Encountered ~ w ~ wg ►r.:-:I g ► r.:-:!; .J .J FIELD SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Q: u ~~ 0 IL ~ Iii Ce,_ ~...,. :I 8 . uw r; ID -'i II.. Description and Remarks (USCS; Color, Moisture, Density, Grain u j Q: tt !t ttj i!: ~ ll u t: Iii ~§ II.. '-' C ~ Size.) :, ~I I! ffi :I w Cl) C (/) 0 .. ~l!I a .. 0 •••••••••••••• DOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qdaf): POORLY GRADED SAND/SIL TY SAND; I SM .............. ........... :1::::1::::1: BROWN, DAMP TO MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED 1 :1::::1::::1: ........... 2 ......... _ .. ·----POORLY GRADED SAND; BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED SP ........... .............. 3 •••••••••••••• .............. ........... •••••••••••••• 4 .............. .............. ........... •••••••••••••• 5 .............. .............. ........... •••••••••••••• 6 :·:~tt!i~ ·----· SIL TY SAND; LIGHT BROWN, DAMP, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED WITH SM ........... 7 :1::::1::::1: SOME COARSE ........... :1::::1::::1: 8 :1::::1::::1: ·l···•l••••I• ......... •••••••••••••• SP 9 -:xi,;,-WEATHERED GRANITIC BEDROCK/DECOMPOSED GRANITE (Kgr): POORLY ......... "'t--,....._ GRADED SAND; BROWN, MOIST, VERY DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED 10 BORING TERMINATED AT 9.0 FT ......... 11 ......... NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED 12 •••••·••• CONVERTED TO PERCOLATION WELL 13 ........ 14 ......... 15 .......... 16 ......... 17 ......... 18 .......... 19 ......... 20 ........... 21 ......... 22 ......... 23 .......... 24 ........... 25 ........... 26 ........... 27 .......... 28 ......... 29 ......... 30 ... Water Table li,a~l 181 Bulk Sample ~-~ 121 SPTSample NOVA ■ Cal. Mod. Drive Sample JOB NAME: # Disturbed Blowcount No. Lot 24 * Disturbed Sample ~OB ADDRESS: ** No Sample Recovery Whiotail Loon Wav & Gazelle Court Carlsbad CA Geologic Contact Job Ho. lRavlewad by Date Fig.No. -----Soil Type Change 2016472 JOB 6/20/2016 P-2 PERCOLATION BORING LOG P-3 Equipment Dimension and Type of Excavation: I Logged By: Date Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig 8 Inch Diameter Auger Borlna HGE 6/20/2016 Elevation Boring No. 3 393 FT Groundwater Depth: Not Encountered ~ w ;; wl ►-~ ►i;::-... ..I .J ... FIELD SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION GI: ... GI: u 0 0 II. w z .,; c~ ::1-C e:, ~...,. ~ ...I 5 . uw w-i Iii! al A. Description and Remarks (USCS; Color, Moisture, Density, Grain ~ ~ GI: u~ ~~ ~ tj ~ ~ ,,, ::E uti: ,,, q. i:! ~,,, I= i:! i!!,,, Cl < ! ;:; &5 ~ :I A. Ill Size.) z ,,, q. z i~ w < -o C m .J :I zW :I w m -C C .............. DOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL {Qdaf): POORLY GRADED SANDM'ELL GRADED SAND; 1 SW 0 .............. •••••••••••••• ........... .............. BROWN. DAMP TO MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, SOME SILT .............. 1 •••••••••••••• •••••••••••••• •••••••••••••• ........... 2 •••••••••••••• .............. .............. ........... 3 •••••••••••••• .............. ........... •••••••••••••• 4 ·······"····· WEATHERED GRANITIC BEDROCK/DECOMPOSED GRANITE (Kgr): POORLY ~ •••••••••••••• GRADED SANDM'ELL GRADED SAND; BROWN, MOIST, VERY DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED ........... .............. 79 5 ........... BORING TERMINATED AT 5.0 FT 6 ........... NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED 7 CONVERTED TO PERCOLATION WELL ........... 8 .......... 9 ......... 10 .......... 11 .......... 12 .......... 13 .......... 14 .......... 15 .......... 16 ......... 17 .......... 18 ......... 19 ......... 20 ........... 21 .......... 22 .......... 23 ......... 24 ........... 25 ........... 26 ........... 27 .......... 28 .......... 29 .......... 30 ... Water Table j,a~i 181 Bulk Sample ~-~ IZl SPT Sample NOVA ■ Cal. Mod. Drive Sample JOB NAME: # Disturbed Blowcount No. Lot 24 * Disturbed Sample JOB ADDRESS: ** No Sample Recovery WhiDtail Loon Wav & Gazelle Court Carlsbad CA Geologic Contact Job No. ! Reviewed by Date Fig.No. -----Soil Type Change 2016472 JDB 6/20/2016 P-3 APPENDIXC LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS 150.0 \. \. \. ' \. \. \. I\. \. ' \. 145.0 " " " " \. \. \. I Zero Air Void line I \. \. \. I (Specific Gravity= 2.70) I ' \. ¥ I \. ' '\ 140.0 \. \. \. \.. ' I Zero Air Void line \.. \ )( I (Specific Gravity= 2.60) \. '\. M' '\. ■ 135.0 '\ ' I ,_ -' '\. ,.., '\. ~~ '\. I Zero Air Void Line I / ' i..v I (Specific Gravity = 2.50) I ., " A " 130.0 I '\. ~ .. '\. ~ " ""' I\. 'fi' '\.. ' " -9: ' '\.. " ~ '\.. "'\.. I'\.. 125.0 '\.. ~ I'\.. '\.. ci5 '\.. z " , .... " UJ '\.. " '\.. Cl ~ 1, " 1, 120.0 '\.. I'\.. '\.. Cl ' I'\.. ' I'\.. I'-. I'\.. .... I'\.. I'\.. I'\.. " I'\.. ' 115.0 " " ' ' " ' ' ' " ' ....... 110.0 '--' '-- ' " ' " ' ' ... ........ ......... 105.0 ' '-- 100.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 MOISTURE CONTENT(%) Sample Depth Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Soil Description Density Content Location (ft.) (pcf) (%) 8-1 1.0'-5.0' BROWN SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL 134.3 7.3 Dry Density and Moisture Content Values Corrected for Oversize (ASTM D4718) N/A N/A PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH: 0 ASTM D 1557 0 ASTM 0698 METHOD: 0 A Os De j,a~l PROCTOR DENSITY TEST RESULTS LOT24 ~-~ WHIPTAIL LOOP WAY&GAZELLE COURT CARLSBAD,CA NOVA DATE PROJECT NO. 6/21/2016 2016472 ~ Size (Inches) )( U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes ... .; ., ..... Hydrometer Analysis ) ~ g g 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. cc ---ci ci ci ci ci ci ci 100.0 -z z z z z z z -~, I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I : .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I 80.0 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I 0, 70.0 I I I I I I I I C I I I I I I I I ui I I I I I I I I .,, I \ I I I I I I I l'O I 11 I I I I I I a. 60.0 . -I II I I I I I I C I I ._ ~ I I I I I I 4D u I I .. , I I I I I ... I I I I I I I 4D 50.0 a. . I I I \ I I I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I ,: I I I I 40.0 I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 30.0 I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I ' ' I I 20.0 I I I I I ' ... ' I I I I I I I I "+--... I I I I I I I I 10.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0.0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size (mm) GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Sample Location: B-1 Depth (ft): 1.0'-5.0' uses Soil Type: SP/SM Passing No. 200 (%): 10 A,a~i GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS LOT24 ~-~ WHIPTAIL LOOP WAY&GAZELLE COURT CARLSBAD,CA NOVA DATE PROJECT NO. 7/12/2016 2016472 3,000 2,500 2,000 C V) -9: rn rn w 0::: 1,500 I-rn 0::: <( w I rn 1,000 500 0 0 A 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 NORMAL STRESS (psf) -Peak Friction Angle (<l>): 26 ° arent Cohesion C : 570 sf Sample Location: Sample Depth (ft.): uses Soil Type: -Ultimate B-1 1.0'-5.0' SP/SM 26 ° 471 sf DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS DATE 7/12/2016 LOT24 WHIPTAIL LOOP WAY&GAZELLE COURT CARLSBAD.CA PROJECT NO. 2016472 Sample Sample pH Resistivity Sulfate Content Chloride Content Location Depth (ft) (Ohm-cm) loom) (%) (ppm) (%) B-1 1.0' -5.0' 7.9 7,200 27 0.003 32 0.003 A'l"i CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS LOT24 ~-~ WHIPTAIL LOOP WAY&GAZELLE COURT CARLSBAD.CA NOVA DATE PROJECT NO. 7/12/2016 2016472 Sample Location Date Soil Description Moisture Content Dry Density (%) (pcf) B-1@ 3.0' 6/22/2016 BROWN SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL 6.5 133.5 B-1 @6.0' 6/22/2016 DARK BROWN SAND 6.5 126.4 B-1@ 9.0' 6/22/2016 BROWN SAND 7.9 127.7 B-2@3.0' 6/22/2016 YELLOWISH BROWN SIL TY SAND 6.3 131 .5 B-3@3.0' 6/22/2016 BROWN SAND WITH SILT 4.6 124.4 B-4@3.0' 6/22/2016 BROWN SAND WITH SILT 6.1 131 .9 • Note: Soil samples were subject to moisture loss during transportation, prior to reaching NOVA laboratory. A,a~l MOISTURE-DENSITY TEST LOT24 ~-~ WHIPTAIL LOOP WAY&GAZELLE COURT CARLSBAD,CA NOVA DATE I PROJECT NO. 6/22/2016 206472 SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL TYPE R-VALUE (FT) B-3 1.0'-5.0' SP 79 j,a~l R-VALUE TEST RESULTS LOT24 ~-~ WHIPTAIL LOOP WAY&GAZELLE COURT CARLSBAD.CA NOVA DATE I PROJECT NO. 6/21/2016 2016472 Hazardous Materials Questionnaire County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health PO Box 129261, San -Diego, CA 9211 2-9261 Record ID #: Not in System Plan Check#: DEH2020-HHMBP-009290 (858) 505-6700 (800) 253-9933 www.sdcdeh.org Business Name Business Contact Telephone# Plan File# Millipore Sigma Oliver Castilleja 8582430741 Project Address City IState Zip Code APN# 2827 Whiptail Loop Carlsbad CA 92010 209-120-26-00 Applicant Applicant E-Mail Applicant Telephone# Ian Harris lan@sdpermitco.com 8582430741 The following questions represent the facility's activities, NOT the specific project description. PART I: EIRE DEPARTMENT · HAZARDOUS METERIALS DIVISION: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: (Not required for projects within the City of San Diego.) Indicate by selecting the item, whether your business will use, process, or store any of the following hazardous materials. If any of the Items are selected, Applicant must contact the Fire Protection Agency with jurisdiction prior to plan submittal. Occupancy Rating: □ Explosive or Blasting Agents li!l Compressed Gases li!l Flammable/Combustible Liquids □ Flammable Solids □ Organic Peroxides □ Oxidizers □ Pyrophorics □ Unstable Reactives Facility's Square Footage (including proposed project}: □ Water Reactives ll!I Corrosives ll!I Cryogenics D Other Health Hazards □ Highly Toxic or Toxic Materials □ None of These □ Radioactives PART II: SAN PIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION (HMDI: If the answer to any of the questions Is yes, applicant must contact the County of San Diego Hazardous Materials Division, in person at 5500 Overland Ave., Suite 110, San Diego, CA 92123, or by phone at (858) 505-6700 prior to issuance of a building permit. FEES ARE REQUIRED. Proje~i;mpl:t~n Date: 10/1/2021 ~ \~ € 1. ll!I □ Is your business listed on the reverse side of this form? (check all that apply). €C, ~ \ 2. ll!I □ Will your business dispose of Hazardous Substances or Medical Waste in any amount? C"'\' !lil O Will your business store or handle Hazardous Substances in quantities equal to or greater t~ ~ 1.~l:> 3• 55 gallons, 500 pounds, or 200 cubic feet? "-\ \ p 4. !lil □ Will your business handle carcinogens or reproductive toxins in any quantity? J~\'\ 5. □ !lil Will your business use an existing, or install an underground storage tank? ,.._~\.. 6. □ IE Will your business store or handle Regulated Substances (CalARP)? <'.: Cr , 1 7. □ IE Will your business use or install a Hazardous Waste Tank System (Title 22, Article 10)? '.1"'{ Q, Q\" 0 Ql1 Will your business store petroleum in tanks or containers at your facility with a total storage ca@t9 n\~G 8• equal to or greater than 1,320 gallons? (California's Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act). \\_.V □ CalARP Exempt □ CalARP Required □ CalARP Complete \3 j::>.. D Revlew Date: s,o~ PART m: SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT (APCPI: If the answer to Question #1 is 'Y s' and the answer to Question #2 is 'No', the applicant must contact the APCD prior to the issuance of a building or demolition permit. If any answer to Questions #3, #4, or #5 is 'Yes', the applicant must contact the APCD prior to the Issuance of a building or demolition permit. If the answer to Question #3 or #4 Is 'Yes', the applicant may need to submit an asbestos notttication form to the APCD at least 10 working days prior to commencing demolition or renovation (some residential projects may be exempt from the notification requirements). Contact the APCD at 10124 Old Grove Road, San Diego, CA 92131 or telephone (858) 586-2600 for more information. >- YES NO 1. !lil □ Will any existing building materials be disturbed as part of this project? (If the answer is 'Yes', an asbestos survey may be required.) 2. !lil □ Has a survey been performed to determine the presence of asbestos containing materials? t: 3. □ Ql1 Will the project involve handling or disturbance of any asbestos containing materials? 4. □ ll!I Will the project involve the removal of any load supporting structural member? 5 IE O Will the subject facility or construction activities include operations or equipment that emit or are capable of emitting an air contaminant? ee PCD • factsheet \II http://www.sdapcd.org/info/facts/permits.pdf 6. □ li!I (ANSWER ONLY IF QUESTION 5 IS 'YES') Will the subject facility be located within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school (K throu 12 Search the California School Directory at http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/ for public and private schools or contact the appropriate school dis I. Briefly describe business activities: Viral & Gene Therapy Operations/ Biotechnology Briefly describe proposed project: Construction of blotech labs and general offices I declare under penalty of perjury that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the responses made herein are true and correct. IE; Fees Acknowledged: ll!I Samantha Chua 1/22/2020 Name of Owner or Authorized Agent Date FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FIRE DEPARTMENT OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: BY: DATE: __________ _ EXEMPT OR NO FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED RELEASED FOR BUILDING PERMIT BUT NOT FOR OCCUPANCY RELEASED FOR OCCUPANCY COUNTY-HMO• APCD COUNTY-HMO APCD COUNTY-HMO APCD 0~ CONr!!f ..::,"-' 0( ..., () cY REVIEWED 8'1' 'i,, Q. ..... i:r A. Lazo Flores ~ <. -t 11/6/2020 . o. 1111312020 0• 0 Ci v11 o~ l),OF S"-~ •A stamp in this box 2D.b£ exempts businesses from completing or updating a Hazardous Materials Business Plan. Other permitting requirements may still apply. DEH_HMD_Plan_Check_Questionnaire v1.2 (10/2015) Printed on: 11/13/2020@ 11:41 AM STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION NOTES 1. ALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE TO FACILITATE RAPID INSTALLATION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs WHEN RAIN IS EMINENT. • 2. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES TO WORKING ORDER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR AFTER EACH RUN-OFF PRODUCING RAINFALL. 3. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY INSPECTOR DUE TO INCOMPLETE GRADING OPERATIONS OR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY ARISE. 4. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH .WORKING DAY WHEN THE FIVE (5) DAY RAIN PROBABILITY FORECAST EXCEEDS FORTY PECENT ( 40%). SILT AND OTHER DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAINFALL. 5. ALL GRAVEL BAGS SHALL CONTAIN 3/4 INCH MINIMUM AGGREGATE. 6. ADEQUATE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND PERIMETER PROTECTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED. 7. THE CITY INSPECTOR SHALL HA VE THE AUTHORITY TO ALTER THIS PLAN DURING OR BEFORE CONSTRUCTION AS NEEDED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STORM WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE: I UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST: (1) IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE TO AVOID THE MOBILIZATION OF POLLUTANTS SUCH AS SEDIMENT AND TO AVOID THE EXPOSURE OF STORM WATER TO CONSTRUCTION RELATED POLLUTANTS; AND (2) ADHERE TO, AND AT ALL TIMES, COMPLY WITH THIS CITY APPROVED TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTION WORK IS COMPLETE AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. OWNER(S)/OWNER'S AGENT NAME (PRINT) OWNER(S)/OWNER'S AGENT NAME (SIGNATURE) E-29 DATE STORM WATER COMPLIANCE FORM TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP csc. -zoz.2-=o 2.. q ~ BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) SELECTION TABLE Erosion Control BMPs Sediment Control BMPs Tracking I Non-Stonn Water Waste Management and Materials Control BMPs Management BMPs Pollution Control BMPs Best Management Practice* (BMP) Description ➔ CASQA Designation ➔ Construction Activity Grading/Soil Disturbance Trenching/Excavation Stockel!ing Drillinq/Borinq Concrete/Asphalt Sawcuttin_g_ Concrete Flatwork Paving Conduit/Pipe Installation Stucco/Mortar Work Waste Disposal Stag~qy Down ~rea Equipment Maintenance and Fueling Hazardous Substance Use/Storage Dewaterin_g_ Site Access Across Dirt Other (list): Instructions: Ul ...... 0 :::E ~ g' Ul :i:: Q) ~ = :::, 1< :::E 2 -0 0 0 Q) 0 t!) 3:: -0 Ul C Q) Cc, 1/l Ul 3: C Q) en ·-~ 0 ·-Q) '-Cl o, 0 .c: g (l) ls ·e ]-w □ en r---1 co ., 0) I I I u u u w w w ~ ~ I u w I a. I 0 ..... t-E Q) ...... 0 (.) C Cl C Q) (I) E ~ LL. (.) 'o Q) ...... en Q) .c: en u ..... ,,., """ I I I w w w en en en C • -0 C 0 ...... E 0, '--Q) '--C (I) £ Q) 0.. ·;:: CD '--Q) 0 C Ul 0, Q) r:,, CD ·o C 0 3: C I... 0 0 OJ en•-r:,, Cl--a:: E 0 ..... w ...... :::, ..0 E g I... Q) :::, -0 Q) > Q) (.) C I... ...... ..0 0 .!:;o 00 I... 0 ...... I... -r;:: t!) en> en en a.. 0 :;:; (.) :::, I... ..... Ul Ul C Ul 0 Q) u I... 0, 11~ N Ul == Ul ·-Q) ..0 '--o Ol -+-' C en - LO r---tO 0 co -I I J I I w w w w w (/) en (/) en (/) I f:!= X -- C C 0 ...... 0 :;:; C :;:; 0, 0 (I) (.) C C 0, E :::, 0 'o ·;:: .Q-I... :;:; I... ...... C ::, Ul ~ ·;:: '-CT C I... w 0 '--t!) Q) Q) ...... u Ul -0 Ul 0 -0 C 3:: C -0 >-, 0 Ul Cc 0 ~o u Q) Co Q) o,, (.) c,,+:i -u ·~1! == 3: .... --15 ·--o (I) ...... cO 0 ..0 0 ...... (.) ·;;; lu ...... ·-0 .B 0 00 0 9-0 .c: Q) 3::0::: ~u (/) e:::: a...o a.. ...... I I I§ C (I) -0 E C (I) 0 >-, Ol I... 0 C (I) 0 .::: C Q) 0 :;:; ...... w Ul ::le C (I) C Cl :::, Q) ...... Cl) Q) > :g E Q) ~~ 0 ·a. .___ 3:: Q) ·;:: a.. 0 r:,, '--0 .::£ '---0 0 Q) I... Q) (.) ...... ...... 0 ...... 0 ;:: C •-C o...., 0 ...... a.a oo :::E (/) :::E en enu en :a N ..... ,,., r---tO I I I I I f:!= (/) (/) en en z z z z ,~ I") """ LO I I I I ::le ::le ::!!: ::!!: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: ~ ..,. _ 1. Check the box to the left of all applicable construction activity (first column) expected to occur during construction. 2. Located along the top of the BMP Table is a list of BMP's with it's corresponding California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) designation number. Choose one or more BMPs you intend to use during construction from the list. Check the box where the chosen activity row intersects with the BMP column. 3. Refer to the CASQA construction handbook for information and details of the chosen BMPs and how to apply them to the project. ~~c~\\!'2.0 J~~ \ '2, 11J?) . B'--s0f<) err< of c~o,'1\s\c\~ \?\)\\..D\~G Page 1 of 1 PROJECT INFORMATION , Site Address: ?J,'-6 0--7 \r--.¾\? f '"" , \ Assessor's Parcel Number: ________ _ Emergency Contact: Name: f ro...(\ (.;,,S Ct L\c,~\{Y\.~~ 24 Hour Phone: ½S '6 -'i5 ?Jo--°\ 7 ~ d' Construction Threat to Storm Water Quality (Check Box) 0 MEDIUM O LOW I (I) ...... Q) Ul ...... 0 Ul 3::...., 0-+-' C 3:: C Ul (I) (I) :::i E a, E 0 (1) ...... (I) -0 Ol Q) O> l:;o l:;o NC cc co oo :r: :::E U::i!: co -tO I I i i ~ REV 11/17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENCINA WASTEWATER AUTHORITY INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT SCREENING SURVEY Date: 07/28/2022 6200 Avenlda Encinas, Carlsbad, CA 92011 Phone: 760-438-3941 Fax: 760-476-9852 SourceControl@enclnaJpa.com Business Name: Millipore Sigma StreetAddress:2827 Whiptail Loop, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Email Address: michael.naughton@milliporesigma.com PLEASE CHECK HERE IF YOUR BUSINESS IS EXEMPT: {ON REVERSE SIDE CHECK TYPE OF BUSINESS) □ Check all below that are present at your facility: Acid deaning 0 Food Processing 0 Metal Powders Forming Assembly 0 Glass Manufacturing 0 Nutritional SUpplementNltamln Automotive Repair 0 Industrial Laundry Manufacturing Battery Manufacturing 0 Ink Manufacturing 0 Palntlng/Ftnlshlng Blofuel Manufacturing 0 Laboratory 0 Paint Manufacturing Blotech Laboratory 0 Machining/Milling 0 Personal Care Products Bulk Chemical Storage 0 Membrane manufacturing Manufacturing Car Wash (I.e. water filter membranes) 0 Pesticide Manufacturing/ Packag Chemical Manufacturing 0 Metal Casting/Forming )( Pharmaceutlcal Manufacturing Chemical Purlflcatlon 0 Metal Fabrication (including precursors) Dental Offices 0 Metal Finishing 0 Porcelain Enameling • Dental Schools • Electroplating 0 Power Generation • Dental Clinics • Electroless Plating 0 Print Shop Dry Cleaning • Anodizing 0 Research and Development Electrical Component • Coating {i.e. phosphating) 0 Rubber Manufacturing Manufacturing • Che.mlcal Etching/MIiiing 0 Semiconductor Manufal.turlng Fertilizer Manufacturing • Printed Circuit Board 0 Soap/Detergent Manufacturing Film/X-ray Processing Manufacturing )( Waste Treatment/Storage New Business? Yes0Noll] SIC Code(s) If known: 2836 Date operation began/will begin: 01 2023 Tenant Improvement? Yesli]Nc[J If yes, briefly describe improvement: ________________ _ Expanding to add additional manufacturing spaces, office, and adding testing laboratory. Description of operations generating wastewater (discharged to sewer, hauled or evaporated): _________ _ Liquid Cell Culture Media deactivated w/10% Bleach; Lab Pack; RO/WFI Discharge Estimated volume of industrial wastewater to be discharged (gal/ day): _5_0_0_0 _______________ _ List hazardous wastes generated (type/volume): Caustic (Liquid/50g/Day); Medical Waste (Solid/1 000lbs/mth); Various Expired Chemicalz disposed as Lab Pack; Have you applied for a Wastewater Discharge Permit from the Enclna Wastewater Authority? Ves[Z) Date: 07/13/22 NoD Page 1 of2 ENCINA WASTEWATER AUTHORITY INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT SCREENING SURVEY 6200 Avenlda Encinas, Carlsbad, CA 92011 Phone: 760-438-3941 Fax: 760-476-9852 SourceControl@encinajpa.com The commercial enterprises listed below are a partial listing of businesses that are exempt from Industrial wastewater discharge permitting under normal operating conditions. They are exempt because (a) they discharge no process wastewater (i.e., they only discharge sanitary wastewater with no pollutants exceeding any local limits), and (b) they have no potential to negatively Impact the EWPCF or other wastewater treatment plants In the ESS. Any questions regarding exemptions should be referred to EWA Source Control staff. o Automobile Detallers o Hotels/Motels (no laundry) o Barber/Beauty Shops o Laundromats o Business/Sales Offices o Libraries o Cleaning Services o Medical Offices (no x-ray developing) o carpet/Upholstery o Mortuaries o Childcare Facilities o Museums o Churches o Nall Salons o Community Centers o Nursing Homes o Consulting Services o Office Buildings (no process flow) o Contractors o Optical Services o Counseling Services o. Pest Control Services (no pesticide repackaging for sale) o Educational Services (no auto repair/film developing) o Pet Boarding/Grooming Facilities o Financial Institutions/Services o Postal Services (no car wash/auto repair) o Fitness Centers o Public Storage Facilities o Gas Stations (no car wash/auto repair) o Restaurants/Bars o Grocery Stores (no film developing) o Reta II/Wholesale Stores (no auto repair/film developing) o Residential based Businesses o Theaters (Movie/Live) CERTIFICATION STATEMENT I certify that the Information above Is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. "•"''"'"/24 ~----Prim N,mec Oliver Castilleja Facility Contact: Oliver Castilleja Title: MS Program Manager ENCINA WASTEWATER AUTHORITY 6200 AVENIDA ENCINAS, CARLSBAD, CA Phone: 760-438-3941 Fax: 760-476-9852 SourceControl@encinajpa.com Page 2 of2 Building Permit Finaled C cityof Carlsbad Revision Permit Print Date: 06/05/2024 Permit No: Job Address: 2827 WHIPTAIL LOOP, CARLSBAD, CA 92010 Status: PREV2023-0022 Closed -Finaled Permit Type: BLDG-Permit Revision Parcel #: 2091202600 Valuation: $834,973.04 Occupancy Group: B-Fl-Sl #of Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Bathrooms: Occupant Load: Code Edition: 2019 Sprinkled: Yes Project Title: Work Class: Commercial Permit Revision Track#: Applied: 03/03/2023 Lot#: Project#: 24 Issued: 06/03/2024 Finaled Close Out: 06/05/2024 Plan#: Construction Type:I11 Orig. Plan Check#: CBC2022-0298 Plan Check#: Final Inspection: INSPECTOR: Description: MILLIPORE SIGMA: REVISION ELECTRI CAL GEAR RELOCATION AND ADDED WALL// PHASE 2A (CP-2) 14,486 SF Tl FOR ANALYTICAL LAB, STORAGE & EXTEND EXTERIOR UTILITY YARD Applicant: CHAMPION PERMITS TIM SEAMAN 1127 11TH ST IMPERIAL BEACH, CA 91932-2901 (619) 993-8846 FEE BUILDING PLAN CHECK FEE (manual) BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVISION ADMIN FEE Property Owner: BERDAN WHIPTAIL LLC 2827 WHIPTAIL LOOP CARLSBAD, CA 92010-6713 Total Fees: $215.00 Total Payments To Date: Building Division $215.00 Contractor: BN BUILDERS INC 5825 OBERLIN DR, # STE 1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92121-3709 (858) 550-9433 Balance Due: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 I 442-339-2719 I 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov AMOUNT $180.00 $35.00 $0.00 Page 1 of 1 {_ City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK REVISION OR DEFERRED SUBMITTAL APPLICATION B-15 Development Services Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov . . CBC2022-0297 "Da ,.,rr-,~ -~ Ong,nal Plan Check Number _________ Plan Revision Number ,.,..1-v --;;) -oo ~ Project Address 2827 Whiptail Loop W. General Scope of Revision/Deferred Submittal: Electrical Gear Relocation CONTACT INFORMATION: Name Tim Seaman Phone _6_19_-_9_9_3-_8_84_6 __ Fax~------ Address _P_.O_. _B_o_x_5_9_5_5 ___________ City Chula Vista Z. 91912 'P ----- Emai l Address tim@championpermits.com Original plans prepared by an architect or engineer, revisions must be signed & stamped by that person. 1 . Elements revised: [j] Plans D Calculations D Soils D Energy D Other 2. 3. Describe revisions in detail List page(sJ where each revision is shown Updated Sheet Index 2827-A0-000-PH28 Added Construction Change Description 2827-A0-001-PH28 See attached PDF sheet for additional sheets and descriptions MAR O 3 2ut3 f I ' 4. Does this revision, in any way, alter the exterior of the project? D Yes [j] No 5. Does this revision add ANY new floor area(s)? D Yes Ii] No 6. Does this revision affec any fire related issues? D Yes D No 7. Date 2/17/2023 1635 Faraday Avenue, .f:b.: 760-602-2719 Fax: 760-602-8558 ~ building@carlsbadca.gov www.carlsbadca.gov f..llHOJOMMWON't'W True Nortl1 COMPLI ANCE SE R\/tCl:S March 7, 2023 City of Carlsbad Community Development Department -Building Division 1635 Faraday Ave. City of Carlsbad -FINAL REVIEW City Permit No: PREV2023-0022 True North No.: 23-018-169 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review: Revision Address: 2827 Whiptail Loop W. Applicant Name: Tim Seaman Applicant Email: tim@championpermits.com OCCUPANCY AND BUILDING SUMMARY: Occupancy Groups: B, S-1, F-1 Occupant Load: N/A Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: Yes Stories: 2 Area of Work (sq. ft.): NIA sq. ft. The plans have been reviewed for coordination with the permit application. Valuation: See Notes Below Scope of Work: Confirmed Floor Area: See Notes Below Notes: Revision, no valuation or floor area. Attn: Building & Safety Department, True North Compliance Services, Inc. has completed the final review of the following documents for the project referenced above on behalf of the City of Carlsbad: Drawings: One (I) copy dated February 17, 2023, by CPC Architects. The 2022 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Codes (i.e., 2021 IBC, UMC, UPC, and 2020 NEC, as amended by the State of California), 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, 2022 California Existing Building Code, and 2022 California Energy Code, as applicable, were used as the basis of our review. Please note that our review has been completed and we have no further comments. We have enclosed the above noted documents bearing our review stamps for your use. Please call if you have any questions or ifwe can be of further assistance. Sincerely, True North Compliance Services Review By: Alaa Atassi -Plan Review Engineer True North Compliance Services, Inc. 15375 Barranca Pkwy, Suite A202, Irvine, CA 92618 T / 562. 733.8030 Building Permit Finaled Revision Permit Print Date: 06/05/2024 Job Address: 2827 WHIPTAIL LOOP, CARLSBAD, CA 92010 Permit No: Status: (city of Carlsbad PREV2023-0060 Closed -Finaled Permit Type: BLDG-Permit Revision Work Class: Commercial Permit Revision Parcel#: 2091202600 Valuation: $0.00 Occupancy Group: B-Fl-Sl #of Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Bathrooms: Occupant Load: Code Edition: 2019 Sprinkled: Yes Project Title: Track#: Applied: 04/17/2023 Lot#: Project#: 24 Issued: 05/31/2024 Finaled Close Out: 06/05/2024 Plan#: Construction Type: Ill Orig. Plan Check#: CBC2022-0298 Plan Check #: Final Inspection: INSPECTOR: Description: MILLIPORE SIGMA: DEFFERED SUBMITTAL CO LD ROOM WALK-IN COOLER Applicant: CHAMPION PERMITS TIM SEAMAN 1127 11TH ST IMPERIAL BEACH, CA 91932-2901 (619) 993-8846 FEE BUILDING PLAN CHECK FEE (manual) BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVISION ADMIN FEE Property Owner: BERDAN WHIPTAIL LLC 2827 WHIPTAIL LOOP CARLSBAD, CA 92010-6713 Total Fees: $695.00 Total Payments To Date: Building Division $695.00 Contractor: BN BUILDERS INC 5825 OBERLIN DR, # STE 1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92121-3709 (858) 550-9433 Balance Due: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 I 442-339-2719 I 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov AMOUNT $660.00 $35.00 $0.00 Page 1 of 1 {city of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK REVISION OR DEFERRED SUBMITTAL APPLICATION Development Services Building Division 1635 FaradayAvenue 442-339-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov B-15 Original Plan Check Number CBC2 0 22-0298 Plan Revision Number ?86:V 20-2~ Project Address 2827 Whiptail Loop Carlsbad CA 92010 G IS f R • • ,1o f d 5 b ·tt I Cold Room I Walk-in Cooler -Structural Review enera cope o ev1S1on1 e erre u m, a: __________________ _ CONTACT INFORMATION: Name Aaron Essley Phone 925-270-1348 ________ Fax,._ _______ _ Address _1_8_90_C_o_rd_e_l_l C_o_urt _________ City El Cajon Email Address aaron.essley@cascade-ts.com Z. 92020 IP ----- Original plans prepared by an architect or engineer, revisions must be signed & stamped by that person. 1 . Elements revised: D Plans D Calculations D Soils D Energy [j] Other 2. 3. Describe revisions in detail List page(s) where each revision is shown No revision to permit set, this is a deferred submittal for structural review 4. 5. 6. Does this revision, in any way, alter the exterior of the project? Does this revision add ANY new floor area(s)? D Yes Does this revision affect any fire related issues? D Yes 7. Is this a complete set? D Yes [j] No -~c.::z:~=;;/====~~-1------- D Yes 0 No [j] No [j] No Date 4/1 _11_20_2_3 ___ _ ~Signature ~ ---0- 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 442-339-27 19 Email: building@carlsbadca.gov www.carfsbadca.gov June 8, 2023 City of Carlsbad Community Development Department -Building Division 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review: Cold Room Deferred Submittal Address: 2827 Whiptal Loop Applicant Name: Aaron Essley Applicant Email: aaron.essley@cascade-ts.com OCCUPANCY AND BUILDING SUMMARY: Occupancy Groups: B, S-1, F0 l Occupant Load: NIA Type of Construction: V-B Sprinklers: Yes Stories: 1 +Mezzanine Area of Work (sq. ft.): 296 sq. ft. The plans have been reviewed for coordination with the permit application. Valuation: Confirmed Scope of Work: Confinned Floor Area: Confirmed Attn: Building & Safety Department, Trt1e Nortl1 COMPLIANCE SERV ICES City of Carlsbad -FINAL REVIEW City Penn it No: PREV2023-0060 True North No.: 23-018-310 True North Compliance Services, Inc. has completed the final review of the following documents for the project referenced above on behalf of the City of Carlsbad: 1. Drawings: One (I) copy by Millipore Sigma. 2. Structural Calculations: One (1) copy by Tamarack Grove. The 2022 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Codes (i.e., 2021 lBC, UMC, UPC, and 2020 NEC, as amended by the State of California), 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, 2022 California Existing Building Code, and 2022 California Energy Code, as applicable, were used as the basis of our review. Please note that our review has been completed and we have no further comments, however, we bring the following to your attention: 1. In order to expedite the pennitting process, we have made annotations (in red ink) to S-102. 2. This project is Hourly. Please charge the applicant the following hours of plan review. True North Compliance Services, Inc. 15375 Barranca Pkwy, Suite A202, Irvine, CA 92618 T / 562.733.8030 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 . ,, £NOINEE"I NO BRIAN J. SIELAFF, P.E. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS FOR MILLIPORE SIGMA CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA IMPERIAL-BROWN RECEIVED MAY 1 O 2023 CITY OF C BUILDING iJ~~~~ TGE PROJECT NUMBER: 22-20725 TGE FIRM NUMBER: N/A 02/14/2023 STAMP ~ > 1---0 DESIGN CRITERIA: STRUCTURAL CODE: RISK CATEGORY: SEISMIC PARAMETERS: SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: MINIMUM INDOOR LATERAL LOAD: WALL/CEILING DEAD LOAD: CEILING LIVE LOAD: 2019 CBC II Ss = 0.929 g St= 0.341 g D 5.0 PSF 5.0 PSF 10.0 PSF 812 S. La Cassia Dr.· Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 1 of 47 I STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE EHOIHEERIHO TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 1 PROJECT INFORMATION ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 TAMARACK GROVE ENGINEERING ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 PROJECT CLIENT INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 PROJECT SITE INFORMATION ......................................................................................................................................... 3 2 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................ , ................................... , .................................... 3 3 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES ............................................................................................................................................. -4 4 DESIGN CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5 5 BOX 1 ANALYSIS (1B DRAWING NO. 22-IB-71389-01) ............................................................................................................... 9 5.1 GRAVITY ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 5.2 LATERAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ , ......................... 12 6 APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................................................................... 25 6.1 ENERCALC PRINTOUT ................................................................................................................................................... 25 6.2 RISA PRINTOUT ............................................................................................................................................................. 26 6.3 ANCHORAGE PRINTOUT ............................................................................................................................................... 31 7 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................................... , ....................... 42 7.1 LARR #25184 .................................................................................................................................................................. 42 7.2 ICC REPORTS AND DESIGN AIDS ...................................................................... , ............................................................ 47 812 5. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 2 of 47 I STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS 1 PROJECTINFORMATION 1.1 TAMARACK GROVE ENGINEERING Project Number: Date: Contact: Engineer of Record: 1.2 PROJECT CLIENT INFORMATION Company: Client Project Number: Contact: Address: Phone: Email: Client Logo: 1.3 PROJECT SITE INFORMATION Name: Address: Coordinates: Building Code: 2 SCOPE OF WORK TAMARACK GROVE EHOIHC£fll:IHO 22-20725 12/8/2022 Vickey Nidhi, E.I. Brian J. Sielaff, P.E., P. Eng. Imperial-Brown 22-IB-71389 Karl Beaver 198 S.E. 233rd Ave. Gresham, OR 97030 (704) 216-2747 KBeaver@imperial-brown.com MILLIPORE SIGMA 2827 Whiptail Loop W Carlsbad, CA 92010 2019 California Building Code Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 Reference ASCE 7-16 Chapter 15 for "Non-Building Structures Similar to Buildings". Tamarack Grove Engineering is providing structural engineering calculations for the walk-in manufactured by Imperial Brown Mfg. to verify the structural integrity of the panels and anchorage to the slab. The design of the slab/foundation is to be provided by others. Redline drawings provided to the client as needed based on calculations and code requirements. 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 3 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS 3 GENERALSTRUCTURALNOTES TAMARACK GROVE tNOINCERING Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 1. GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES; A. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL OPENINGS, BUILDING DIMENSIONS, COLUMN LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS WITH OWNER PRIOR TO SETTING OF ANY COOLER BOXES OR CONSTRUCTION. B. THE ENGINEER OF RECORD IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THESE PLANS UNLESS SUCH CHANGES ARE AUTHORIZED IN WRITING TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. C. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING SAFE AND ADEQUATE SHORING AND/OR TEMPORARY STRUCTURAL STABILITY FOR ALL PARTS OF THE STRUCTURE DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE STRUCTURE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS HAS BEEN DESIGNED FOR FINAL CONFIGURATION. D. NOTCHING AND/OR CUTTING OF ANY STRUCTURAL MEMBER IN THE FIELD IS PROHIBITED, UNLESS PRIOR CONSENT IS GIVEN BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. E. ALL FUTURE ROOF/CEILING MOUNTED EQUIPMENT NOT CURRENTLY SHOWN ON THE APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE EOR PRIOR TO ANY INSTALLATION, TYP. F. THE ASSUMED THICKNESS OF EXISTING CONCRETE WILL BE 4" WITH AN f'c OF 2,500 PSI, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN CALCULATIONS. 2. STRUCTURAL STEEL· A. ALL STEEL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE LATEST EDITIONS OF AISC, "AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION", AISC 341-10, "SEISMIC PROVISIONS FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS, INCLUDING SUPPLEMENT NO 1, DATED 2010" AND ASCI 360-10, "SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS". B. STEEL DESIGNATIONS: 1. WIDE FLANGE SHAPES (BEAMS & COLUMNS) ................................. ASTM A992 (GRADE 50) 2. OTHER ROLLED SHAPES & PLATE .................................................... ASTM A36 (U.N.O.) PIPE 3. COLUMNS .......................................................................................... ASTM A53, GRADE 'B' 4. STRUCTURAL HSS TUBING ................................................................ ASTM A500, GRADE 'B' 46 KSI C. ALL ANCHOR BOLTS, BOLTS AND LAGS IN WOOD SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A307 STEEL U.N.O. AND SHALL HAVE STEEL WASHERS BENEATH ALL NUTS AND BOLT HEADS. IF A CERTAIN SITUATION IS NOT DETAILED USE A SIMILAR DETAIL. ALL STRUCTURAL BOLTS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A307. CONNECTIONS SHALL GENERALLY FOLLOW THE TYPES SHOWN IN AISC MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION. JOINTS ARE 'SNUG TIGHTENED' UNLESS OTHERWISE DETAILED PER AISC. D. STEEL FABRICATOR SHALL ALSO INCLUDE AND COORDINATE ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL SHOWN ON ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS WITH THAT OF THE STRUCTURAL SHEETS. COORDINATE ANY STEEL NOT SHOWN ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY. E. ALL BEARING ELEVATIONS FOR JOISTS, BEAMS, AND COLUMN HEIGHTS SHALL BE COORDINATED AND VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR. ALL ELEVATIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT OF RECORD IN THE SHOP DRAWING REVIEW PROCESS. F. ALL STEEL WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO AWS D1.1 WITH E70XX ELECTRODES. G. PROVIDE HIGH STRENGTH NON-SHRINK GROUT UNDER ALL STEEL BASE PLATES, F'c = 5,000 PSI, MIN. 3. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS & TESTING (QUALITY ASSURANCE PLANl: A. GENERAL: 1. INDEPENDENT TESTING LAB SHALL BE RETAINED BY OWNER TO PROVIDE INSPECTIONS AND SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AS DESCRIBED HEREIN. 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING AND PROVIDING ON SITE ACCESS TO ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND NOTIFIES TESTING LAB IN TIME TO PERFORM SUCH INSPECTIONS PRIOR. 3. DO NOT COVER WORK REQUIRED TO BE INSPECTED PRIOR TO INSPECTION BEING MADE. IF WORK IS COVERED, CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR UNCOVERING AS NECESSARY. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CORRECT ALL DEFICIENCIES AS NOTED WITHIN THE SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORTS AND/OR THE ENGINEER OF RECORD'S FIELD OBSERVATION (STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS) REPORTS TO BRING THE CONSTRUCTION INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, ADDENDUMS, REVISIONS, RFl'S AND/OR WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO REQUEST SUMMARY REPORTS FROM THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR AND ENGINEER OF RECORD AT THE TIME OF THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION. PRIOR TO REQUESTING THE SUMMARY OF STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REPORTS FROM THE ENGINEER OF RECORD, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT TO THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER OF RECORD A LETTER STATING THAT ALL OUTSTANDING ITEMS NOTED ON PREVIOUS STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REPORTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, ADDENDUMS, REVISIONS, RFl'S AND/OR WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS. B. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: 1. ALL SPECIAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE PERFORMED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (2019 CBC), AS RECOMMENDED BY THE LOCAL BUILDING JURISDICTION. 2. REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY AN INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED TESTING LABORATORY EMPLOYED BY THE OWNER PER SECTION 1704 OF THE 2019 CBC. 3. THE INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED TESTING LABORATORY AND INSPECTORS SHALL BE A QUALIFIED PERSON WHO SHALL SHOW COMPETENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE LOCAL BUILDING OFFICIAL, OWNER, ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR THE PARTICULAR OPERATION. ALL SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER OF RECORD STATING THE PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR AND SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD OF ANY ITEMS NOT COMPLYING WITH THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS, CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND/OR APPLICABLE CODES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK INVOLVING THAT ITEM. THE ENGINEER OF RECORD WILL REVIEW THE ITEM AND DETERMINE ITS ACCEPTABILITY. IF WORK INVOLVING THAT ITEM PROCEEDS WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER OF RECORD, THEN THE WORK WILL BE CONSIDERED NON-COMPLIANT. 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 4 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 EHOINEERINO 4 DESIGN CRITERIA PANEL SPECIFICATION Manufacturer Panel Type & Report Number PANEL DEAD LOAD LIVE LOAD Steel Facing (ASTM-A-646) Weight Insulation Weight Rail Weight Miscellaneous Total Panel Dead Load, (Dlpanei) Ceiling Panel Live Load, (LLpane1) Indoor Lateral Live Load, (Linterna1) Concentrated Live Load SEISMIC LOAD Risk Category Building Site Class Mapped SRA Short Period Parameter, (S5) Mapped SRA 1 sec Period Parameter, (S1) Short Period Site Coeffecient, (Fa) Long Period Site Coeffecient, (Fv) Long-period Transition Period(s), (Td Design SRA Short Period Parameter, (S05) Design SRA 1 sec Period Parameter, (S01) Seismic Design Category Imperial Brown, Inc. HDU Frame Urethane Panel (LARR #25184) 1.8 psf 0.75 psf 0.45 psf 4 psf 7 psf 10 psf ASCE 7, Table 4-1 5 psf ASCE 7, Sec. 1.4.5 300 lb/ ASCE 7, Table 4-1 II ASCE 7, Table 1.5-1 D 0.929 g ASCE 7, Sec. 11.4.1 0.341 g ASCE 7, Sec. 11.4.1 1.2 ASCE 7, Sec. 11.4.3 1.959 ASCE 7, Sec. 11.4.3 8 s ASCE 7, Fig 22-12 to 16 0.743 g Sos = 2h •Fa• S5 (Eq 11.4 -3) 0.445 g S01 = 2h • Fv•S1 (Eq 11.4 -4) D I ASCE 7, Sec. 11.6 812 S. La Cassia Or. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX -0 ~ "E 0 "-I 0 ::r:: "" tJ V, q: ~ & Page 5 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS ASCE. ~I00f1YOFCMIMINIIAS Address: 2827 Whiptail Loop Carlsbad, California 92010 h11p5;11asce7hazardtool.onhnfll TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 CHOIHEERIHO ASCE 7 Hazards Report Standard: ASCE/SEI 7-16 Risk Category: II Soll Class: D • Default (see Section 11.4.3) Page 1 of 3 Latitude: 33.142099 Longitude: -117.25442 Elevation: 392.73 ft (NAVO 88) Thu Dec 08 2022 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 6 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA EHOIHEERINO TGE Project Number: 22-20725 .IMIICNI SOCIEIYl$t:M. IMHIRS Seismic Site Soll Class: Results: Ss : s, F. : D -Default (see Section 11 .4.3) 0.929 So, 0.341 Tl : 1.2 PGA : NIA 8 0.403 NIA PGAM : F. : 0.484 SMS 1 . 115 F PGA 1 .2 S M1 NIA 10 : 1 Sos 0.743 C. : 1.264 Ground motion hazard analysis may be required. See ASCEISEI 7 -16 Section 11.4.8. Data Accessed: Thu Dec 08 2022 Date Source: USGS Seismic Design Maps httpsi(Jasce7hazardtool,90hoo/ Page 2ot3 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Thu Dec 08 2022 Page 7 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS ASCE No&CANDEYOflM.- TAMARACK GROVE ENOINCCRIH O Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 The ASCE 7 Hazard Tool ls provided for your convenience, for Informational purposes only, and Is provided •as ts• and without warranties of any kind. The location data included herein has been obtained from Information developed, produced, and maintained by third party providers: or has been extrapolated from maps Incorporated In the ASCE 7 standard. While ASCE has made every effort to use data obtained from reliable sources or methodologies, ASCE does not make any representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, re6ability, currency, or quality of any data provided herein. Any third-party links provided by this Tool should not be construed as an endorsement, alfiUation, relationship, or sponsorship of such thlrd•party content by or from ASCE. ASCE does not Intend, nor should anyone interpret, the results provided by this Tool to replace the sound Judgment of a competent professional, having knowledge and experience in the appropriate field(s) of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in Interpreting and applying the contents of this Tool or the ASCE 7 standard. In using this Tool, you expressly assume all risks associated with your use. Under no circumstances shall ASCE or Its officers, diroctOfl, employees, members, affiliatos, or agents be Hable to you or any other person tor any direct. Indirect, special, incidental, or consequont.lal damages arising from or related to your use of, or reliance on, the Tool or any information obtained therein. To the fullest extent permitted by law. you agree to release and hold harmless ASCE from any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from any use of data proVided by the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool. ~ 7hllZ~1Jlgl Page 3 of 3 Thu Dec 08 2022 81 2 S. La Cassia Dr.· Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 8 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA ENGINEERING S BOX 1 ANALYSIS (1B DRAWING NO. 22-IB-71389-01) 5.1 GRAVITY ANALYSIS Manufacturer Imperial Brown, Inc. Testing Information LARR #25184 Span Chart Note: HOU= Foam Frame, WFU = Wood Frame ROOF/ CEILING PANEL ANALYSIS ROOF/CEILING PANEL 9.83 ft 4" HOU 9.83 3.92 22.0 psf TGE Project Number: 22-20725 Panel Thickness/Type Panel Span, (L) Tributary Width of Ceiling Panel, (Tceiling) Allowable Load, (LL311) Allowable Moment, (Maul 1039. 7 lb/*/t M 011 = w*L 2 /8 Where, W = LL all *T ceiling Allowable Ceiling Spans (LARR 25184) Applied Load (psf) Maximum Span (ft) Deflection = L/240 5 10 15 20 25 30 Ceiling Panel Live Load, (Llpane1) Ceiling Panel Live Load, (PLd ~psf ~/bf 18.2 14.3 12 10.3 9.1 8.1 Governing Uve Load Maximum Moment, (Mmaxl I 1016.0 1/bf*/t See Appendix A, Enercalc Beam Analysis for complete load distribution Check --M olt>M mox 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 9 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TYPICAL HEADER HEADER PANEL CALCULATIONS : Dlpanel == 5 psf Dlstrap == 2 ps/ Llpanel := 10 ps/ Pu==300 lb/ TAMARACK GROVE EHOINECRIHO Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 Dead Load of Panel Dead Load of Strap Live Load of Panel Maintenance Worker Live Load Tributary Width of Panel Length := 30.67 ft Width:= 10.5 /t Length and Width of Walk-in Unit Mean Wall Height Lh:=48 ln =4 ft Width Tw;dth :=--=5.25 ft 2 Length of Header Depth/Height of Header Tributary Width Acting on Header Coil Load on Header ( ) P,ail ( Pu ) Wdeslgn==Dlpane/0 o h+ Twidlh +Dlstrap0 Twldth+----+max ----,LLpane/0 Twldth = 114.061 pl/ T width.JXlnel T widlh.JXlnel L ·-T wldth_panel-Lh wa11 ·-__ ;;;;;..____ 0.845 ft 2 Wde_s/gn • Lh W design :=--..c..--269.967 plf 2 • Lwa11 p a/J_ax/a/ := 460 pl/ CHECK: Paf/_ax/a/?:. w d,slgn = 1 Load Applied Wall Panel Length Supporting Headerto Header Load Applied to Wall Panel Supporting Header Allowable Axial Load (LARR/ Testing Report) SUMMARY: THUS, USE 4"THICK HIGH DENSITY URETHANE PANELS. 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 10 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE £NOIHEERIHO Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 Manufacturer Imperial Brown, Inc. Testing Information Note: LDU = Foam Frame, WFU = Wood Frame WALL PANEL ANALYSIS ROOF/CEILING PANEL WALL PANEL Panel Type Panel Height, (Hw) Tributary Width of Ceiling on Wall, (Twau ) Ceiling Panel Dead Load, (DLpane1) Strap Dead Load Ceiling Panel Live Load, (LLpanel or PLL ) Applied Axial Force, (Pma x) Indoor Lateral Live Load, (Linterna1) Allowable Transverse Force, (L311 ) Allowable Axial Force, (P311 ) Check Check LARR #25184 4" HDU 10 4.92 5.0 2.0 300.0 132.1 5 ft ft psf psf lb/ pl/ ps/ 21.3 IPst 460 1P,1 See Appendix A, Enercalc Beam Analysis for complete load distribution Interpolated From Table Above See Appendix 8, LARR25184 p ~<1 p all 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 11 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS 5.2 LATERAL ANALYSIS e -19114 47 e-,:... ,, W21 e TAMARACK GROVE ENGINEERING 47 47 47 W7 1 +2 W20 W19 W18 47 W17 Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 47 47 19114 w Ill i ' ... ,, [A] W16 .. ~ I r e V 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 12 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 EHOIHEERINO SEISMIC LOAD GENERATION PER ASCE 7-16 SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR NONBUILDING STRUCTURES {CHAPTER 15) DESIGN DATA: Width Length Ceiling Panel Thickness Wall Panel Thickness Mean Ceiling Height, {H) Mean Wall Height, {Hw) EFFECTIVE SEISMIC WEIGHT {SECTION 12.7.2): Roof Area Length of Wall Total Dead Load of Panel Total Weight of Coil Total Weight of Steel Effective Seismic Weight, {W) 10.5 30.67 4 4 10.33 10.00 322.0 ft 1 82.34 5136.1 lb/ ~lb/ ~lb/ I 5875.1 llbf Section 12. 7.2 SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS {SECTION 15.4): ,---------------------- Seismic Force-resisting System Response Modification Coefficient, {R) Overstrength Factor, {Wo*) Deflection Amplification Factor, {Cd) Importance Factor, {le) BEARING WALL SYSTEMS· Light-frame wal Is with shear panels of al l other materials per Table 12.2-1 2 2 2 1.00 Table 12.2-1 *WO reduced by subtracting 0.5 for flexible diaphragms Table 1.5-2 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURE SELECTION {SECTION 15.1.3): ,'-------'-----------------, Analysis Procedure Used Approximate Period Parameters, {Ct, x) Approximate Fundamental Period, {Ta) Long-period Transition Period{s), {Td Seismic Response Coefficient, {Cs) Design Seismic Response Coefficient, {Cs) Seismic Base Shear, {V) Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure per Section 12.8 0.02, 0.75 Table 12.8-2 0.115 s Section 12.8.2 8 0.372 2.898 0.049 0.372 2183.2 s lb/ Figure 22-12 thru 16 Section 12.8.1.1 Eq 12.8-3 & 12.8-4 Eq 12.8-5 & 12.8-6 Section 12.8.1 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 13 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS GOVERNING LATERAL FORCE EVALUATION: Width := 10.5 ft Length:= 30.67 ft H:= 10.33 ft L1nternal == 5 ps/ SHEAR WALL SYSTEMS: V:=2183.2 lb/ F,uisd:=0.7•V=1528.24 lb/ Fx asd /Pl Wdesign 1 :: -49.83 P'J -Length FK asd 1,, Wdesign 2==---'=----145.55 p,, -Width TAMARACK GROVE EHOIHt:ERINO Unit Width Unit Length Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 Mean Celling Height Mean Wall Height Tributary Width of ceiling pannel Minimum Indoor Lateral Load (ASCE 7, Sec. 1.4.5) Seismic Base Shear ASD Lateral Seismic Design Force Design Load in 1-1 Design Load in 2-2 812 S. La Cassia Dr. · Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 14 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS DIAPHRAGM REINFORCING TRUSS W dla :=Width= 10.S ft ~ia :=Length = 30.67 ft Wdesign := Wdeslgn_l = 49.83 pl/ Wdeslgn Wmax: ---''--=71.18 pl/ 0.7 F axial:= 668 lb/ Fy :=36 ks/ t:=0.164 in w:=3 In A:=w•t=0.49 in2 3" X 8 GA STRAP TENSION CHECK: 0:=1.67 F •A Fall tension := _Y _ = 10605. 99 /bf -n Check: F all_tenslon ~ F axial= 1 CONNECTION TO BOX: Wdeslgn=49.83 pl/ Ldia Twidth dla :=-= 15.34 ft -2 F axial = 668 lb/ Faxlal /'f Wchord :=---43.56 P Twldth_dla F axlal_wl := 397 lb/ TAMARACK GROVE ENOIHEERINO Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 Diaphragm Width Diaphragm Length Distributed Design Load Distributed Unfactored Load Acting on Truss Maximum Internal Axial Reaction (Member M24-RISA) Yield Strength of Steel Thickness of Strap Width of Strap Cross-Sectional Area of Steel ASD Adjustment Factor Allowable Tension of Angle Max In-Plane Shear on Diaphragm Tributary Width of Diaphragm on Truss Chord Force Distributed Chord Force Maximum Internal Axial Reaction at Wall 1 (Member Ml· RISA) Maximum Internal Axial Reaction at Wall 2 (Member M18-RISA) Faxial_w := max (Faxial_wl , Falrial_w2) = 420 lb/ Maximum Internal Reaction on short walls Wshear_w: F axlal_w = 40 pl/ Wdia Shear Along Short Walls 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 15 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 ENOINE1£RINO Wdesign • T width dia 72_77 pl'& W shear := 'J W dia Shear Along Short Walls #14 TEK SCREW: Stek := 6 in Spacing of Tek Screws 76 lb/ V allow tek :: ---152 pf/ Allowable Shear of #14 Tek Screws (ESR 1976) -Stek Check: Vallow_tek ~ Wchord = 1 V allow_tek~ max (wshear_w, Wshear) = 1 SUMMARY: USE #14 ,c 1-1/2" TEK SCREW@ 6" O.C. MEMBER TO MEMBER CONNECTION: T width_dla = 15.34 ft V max := Wdesign • T width_dla = 764.12 lb/ R := max (Fa,dal, Vmax) = 764.12 lb/ Fnv:= 54 ks/ F0 :=58 ksi d :=0.25 In lc:=l.S•d =0,03 ft n •d2 2 Ab:=--=0.05 In 4 Number of Tek Screws: 0:=2 Tributary Width of Diaphragm on Truss Lateral Shear on Truss Due to Seismic Overall Reaction Force on Truss Nominal Shear Strength of Screw Specified Minimum Tensile Strength of Steel Screw Diameter Clear Edge Distance Screw Area Required Number of #14 Tek Screw s ASD Factor Fm,•Ab V all saew1= Nscrew •---3976.08 /bf Allowable Shear of #14 Tek Screws (ESR 1976) -n Rn1:=4 .2•~ •F0 =8089.34 /b/ • ( Rnb Rnt) R0 :=Nscrew•mm o'o =9630.9 /bf Check: V all_screw ~ R = 1 Tilting Strength of Steel Bearing Strength of Steel SUMMARY: THUSl3J #14,c 1-1/2" TEK SCREW IS SUFFICIENT TO RESIST THE FORCE IN MEMBER TO MEMBER CONNECTION, 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 16 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA DIAPHRAGM DEFLECTION: L:=Wd1a= 10.5 ft L ~au ==--=0.53 In 240 ~t~uss := 0.307 in Check: L1;iu ~ ~russ = 1 EHOI H EERIHO TGE Project Number: 22-20725 Height of Diaphragm Diaphragm Length Allowable Deflection Maximum Truss Deflection (RISA) SUMMARY: USE 3"X18 GA. STRAP TRUSS TO REINFORCE THE DIAPHRAGM IN 1-1 DIRECTION. DIAPHRAGM CHECK (2-2 DIRECTION): Length2 :.=Length = 30.67 ft Width2 :=Width= 10.50 ft ·-Width2 R2 ·----0.34 Length2 F ;ill_2 := 400 plf w desl&n 2 • Width2 l F;iu 2 ~ --2• Length2 CHECK: Length (2-2 Direction) Width (2-2 Direction) Aspect Ratio (2-2) Allowable Diaphragm Capacity (Per LARR/Testing Report} SUMMARY: USE 4" THICK HIGH DENSITY URETHANE CEILING PANELS. CAM-LOCK: s cam== 24 in Ncam := ce1I ---= 16 • ( Length2) Scam V all_cam :: 660 /bf V all_inplane := N cam • Vall_cam = 10560 lb/ CHECK: Wde~an 2 • Width2 V all_lnplane ~ -2 1 Spacing of Camlocks Number of Cam locks Connecting panels Allowable Shear on Camlock (Per LARR/Testing Report} Allowable In-Plane Shear on Camlock (Per LARR/Testing Report} SUMMARY: THUS. CAMLOCKS@ 24" o.c. ARE SUFFICIENT TO wrrHSTAND DIAPHRAGM SHEAR. 812 5. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 17 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 EHOIH[ERINO CHORD FORCE: Wdeslgn 2 • Width2 2 8 Fchord:=-------=65.4 lb/ Length2 Va11_cam := 660 lb/ Max Chord Force Allowable Shear on Camlock (Per LARR/Testing Report} SUMMARY: THUS. END CAMLOCKS ARE SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND CHORD FORCES. SHEAR LOAD CALCULATIONS: L1 :=Width= 10.5 ft Length of Grid line 1 f ·-Wdesign 1 • T width 1 1 -----=--=-----==-72.77 pl/ L1 f ( Faxial wll 1 := max f1 , Li-= 72.77 pl/ L2 :=Width= 10.5 ft Length of Gridline 2 fi:= Wdeslgn 1 •Twldth 2 =72_77 pl/ L2 f ( Faxial w2l ,~ 2 == max f2 , Lz = 72.77 pl, f , WdeslBn 2 • T width A A" LA La:= length= 30.67 ft Length of Gridline A 29.56 pl/ Length of Grid line B Length T width 1: ---15.34 ft -2 In-Plane Force along Gridline 1 Total In-Plane Force on Wall 1 Length T width 2 := ---= 15.34 ft -2 In-Plane Force along Gridline 2 Total In-Plane Force on Wall 2 Width T width A:= ---5.25 /t -2 In-Plane Force along Gridline A Width Twldth a: ---=5.25 ft -2 In-Plane Force along Gridline B Worst Case Shape Ratio Tributary Width Tributary Width Tributary Width Tributary Width F all_inplane := 400 pl/ Allowable In-Plane Shear (Per LARR/Testing Report) CHECK: F311_inplane ~ max (f1 , f2 , fA , fa)= 1 SUMMARY: USE 4" THICK HIGH DENSITY URETHANE WALL PANEL FOR LATERAL RESISTANCE. 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 18 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA EHOIHEERIHO TGE Project Number: 22-20725 CEILING PANEL TO WALL PANEL CONNECTION (DETAIL 1/4) Hw=l0 ft LOADS: Hw Ptrans == L1n1:ernal • -= 25 pl/ 2 finplane := max (f1 , f2 , fA, f 8) = 72. 77 plf f max == max (Ptrans, f1nplane) = 72. 77 pl/ CAMLOCK CONNECTION: Scam==24 in 660 /bf Van cam :=---330 Plf -Scam CHECK f max :5 Vau_cam = 1 Wall Height Transverse Shear on Connection In-Plane Shear on Connection Governing Shear on Connection Spacing of Cam -lock Allowable Shear on Camlock (Per LARR/Testing Report) SUMMARY: USE CAMLQCKS@ 24" Q.C. FOR CEILING PANEL TO WALL PANEL . 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 19 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE [NOINE[RIMG Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 WALL PANEL TO FLOOR/CONCRETE CONNECTION (DETAIL 2/4) Hw=10 ft LOADS: H w Ptrans := L1nternal • -= 25 Plf 2 finplane := max (f1 1 f2, fA, fa)= 72.77 plf #8 TEK SCREWS: Vall_screw: 51.6 lb/ 206.4 pl/ 44.7 lb/ Tall screw ==---178.8 pl/ -Sscrew 3/8" SIMPSON ANCHOR: Sanchor := 12 In 0 0 :=2.0 Wall Height Transverse Shear on Connection In-Plane Shear on Connection Spacing of Screw Allowable Shear Load (APPENDIX B) Allowable Tension Load (APPENDIX B) Spacing of Anchor Overstrength Factor Vanchor := max Ptrans • Sanchor ,---'-----= 207.92 ., U ti mate overning S ear on nc or ( Oo • f1nplane • Sanchor) lb•' I • G • h A h 0 .7 Van_anchor := 945 lb/ Allowable Shear on Anchor (Anchor Report) CHECK Vall_anchor ~ Vanchor = 1 T all_screw ~ Ptrans = 1 Vall_screw ~ finplane = 1 NOTE: SEE APPENDIX FOR ANCHOR SOFTWARE PRINTOUTS FOR THE ANCHOR ANALYSIS. SUMMARY: USE #8 TEK SCREWS @ 3" O.C. WITH 3/B" SIMPSON ANCHOR @ 12" O.C, FOR WALL TO FLOOR CONNECTION. 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 20 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 ENO IN E£RINO OVERTURNING CALCULATIONS (WORST CASE, DETAIL 2/4) DLp.inel := 7 ps/ T wldth_celling :: 3.92 ft Hw= 10 ft LOADS: f := f1 =72.77 p/f L := L1 = 10.S ft S05:=0.743 Panel Dead Load Tributary Width of Ceiling Height of Wall Panel ASD In-Plane Force on Wall Length of Wall Seismic Design Va lue Wtwau:= (o.6-0.14•Sos) • DLpane1• Hw• L=364.SS lb/ Weight of Wall Wtceiline := ( 0.6-0.14 • Sos) • Dli,.inel • T width_ceiling • L = 142.9 lb/ Weight of Ceiling ·-Wtwall + Wtceiling WR·-------=-48.33 pl/ L L2 M wau:=f • L• Hw-WR •-=4977.1 lb/•ft 2 3. Mwau w ·----135.43 p/f L2 #8 TEK SCREWS: Sscrew := 3 in Weight Resisting Overturning Overturning Moment Acting on Wall Maximum Value of Overturning Force at End 1 2 L ( Mwa1 :=-•W• L•-=4977.1 /bf •ft ) 2 3 Spacing of Screw nscrew := 1 Number of Screws w ithin spacing considered Vdes_screw := nscrew • 51.6 lb/= 51.6 lb/ T des_screw := nscrew • 44.47 lb/= 44.4 7 lb/ V screw _inplane := f • Sscrew = 18.19 lb/ W • ( L -Sscrew) ----'-------''---+ w L Vscrew_uplift :=-------•Sscrew=33.45 lb/ 2 Vscrew := VVscrew_inplane2 + Vscrew_uplift 2 = 38.08 lb/ Tscrew := Ptrans • Sscrew = 6.25 lb/ CHECK V des_screw ~ V screw = 1 T des_screw ~ T screw = 1 Design Shear Load (APPENDIX B) Design Tension Load (APPENDIX B) Maximum Shear Force on End Screw due to In plane Shear Maximum Shear Force on End Screw due to Uplift Maximum Resultant Shear Force on End Screw M aximum Tension Force on End Screw 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 21 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA ENOINE!:RINO TGE Project Number: 22-20725 LRFD LOADS: f1 f:=-= 103.96 pl/ In-Plane Force on Wall LRFD 0.7 Wtwan == (o.9 -0.2• Sos)• Dlpanel • Hw • L=552.28 lb/ Weight of Wall Wtcelllng := (0.9-0.2 •Sos)• Dlpanel • Twidth_ceiling • L= 216.49 lb/ Weight of Ceiling WR:= Wtwall + Wtcelllng 73_22 pl/ L L2 Mwau==Oo•f • L• Hw-WR •-= 17795.95 lbf•ft 2 Weight Resisting Overturning Overturning Moment Acting on Wall 3. Mwall w :=---=484.24 pl/ L2 Maximum Value of Overturning Force at End 3/8" SIMPSON ANCHOR: Sanchor := 12 in Vanchor := Oo • f •Sancher= 207 .92 lb/ W • (L -Sanchor) ------+w L Tanchor == --------• Sanchor = 461.18 lb/ 2 1 2 L ( M..,,.1 :=-•W • l •-= 17795.95 /bf •ft ) 2 3 Spacing of Anchor Overstrength Factor Ultimate Governing Shear on Anchor Maximum Tension Force on End Anchor NOTE: SEE APPENDIX FOR ANCHOR SOFTWARE PRINTOUTS FOR THE ANCHOR ANALYSIS. SUMMARY: #8 TEK SCREWS@ 3" O.C. WITH 3/8 x 3"" SIMPSON ANCHOR@ 12" O.C. TO RESIST OVERTURNING FORCES. 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 22 of 47 I STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA E N OI H EE R INCI TGE Project Number: 22-20725 EVAPORATOR COIL LATERAL ANALYSIS NOTE: WHETHER THE UNIT IS SUSPENDED FROM STEEL BEAMS OR SUSPENDED DIRECTLY FROM CEILING PANELS, THE TOP OF THE UNIT WILL BE FLUSH WITH THE BOTTOM OF THE CEILING PANELS. IN EITHER CASE, THE ALL-THREAD RODS WILL BEAR DIRECTLY ON THE STEEL SKIN OF THE PANELS. IF THE SKIN BEARING CAPACITY IS ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE REQUIRED SHEAR FORCE, THE LATERL LOAD OF THE UNIT WILL TRANSFER INTO THE CEILING DIAPHRAGM WHICH IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE LATERAL ANALYSIS Rp_unlt := 1.5 ap_unit := 1.0 Wt:=163 /bf S0s=0.743 z:=H=l0.33 ft h:=H =l0.33 ft Hunlt := 18.125 In Dunlt := 13.25 In fp: • p_unt • 1+2 -=96.89 /bf 0 4 • a 1 • S05 • Wt ( z ) Rp_unlt h le fmax := 1.6 • S0s •le • Wt= 193. 77 /bf fmin := 0.3 •Sos• le• Wt= 36.33 /bf Fp := max (tmln, min (f P, fmax)) = 96.89 lb/ Hunlt ft / M0 T:=FP•--=73.17 • bf 2 Mor T0r :=--=66.27 /bf Dunlt n :=4 I Wt + F p vert TOT tbolt := -+-= 79.94 /bf n n 2 Mech. Unit Response Modification Factor Mech. Unit Amplification Factor Unit Weight Seismic Coefficient Importance Factor Height of Attachment Height of Diaphragm Assumed Height of Unit Assumed Depth of Unit Horizontal Seismic Force Maximum Horizontal Force Minimum Horizontal Force Deisigned Horizontal Seismic Force Overturning Moment Tension due to Overturning Moment Concurrent Veritical Force Number of Bolt Connections on Coil Tension Load on Single Bolt 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 23 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 F Vbolt :=__!!._= 24.22 lb/ n OAS0 :=2.00 Dbott :=0.375 in fnt==7 ksl•0.45=3150 psi fnv := 7 ksi • 0.75 = 5250 psi Dbott • n fnt ( 2 ) Rnt == ---•--=173.95 lb/ 4 OASo Rnv== bolt • •~=289.92 lb/ ( D 2 n) f 4 OASo PANEL SKIN BEARING STRENGTH : d :=0.375 in t :=0.0179 in "skin ==2 Diameter of Bolt Thickness of Panel Skin (2) Skins Resisting EHOIH[ERINO Shear Load on Single Bolt ASD Safety Factor Diameter of Bolt Tensile Strength of All-Thread Shear Strength of All-Thread Allowable Tensile Strength of All-Thread Allowable Shear Strength of All-Thread Clear Edge Distance Tensile Strength of Panel Skin Rn_2 := 2.4 d • t •Fu= 563.85 lb/ ASD Factor min ( Rn 1 , Rn 2) Rn skin == "skin• __ :......::;;__........;;~ 563.85 lb/ -OASo Bearing Capacity CHECK: SUMMARY: USE 141318" NYLON ALL-THREAD BOLTS TO CARRY THE COILS AND USE AT LEAST 4" THICK HIGH DENSITY URETHANE CEILING PANELS. 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 24 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS 6 APPENDIXA 6.1 ENERCALC PRINTOUT : W ,&,ikl:. 1 .5 DESCRIPTIO N: Ceiling Panel Analysis General Beam Pro Elastic Modulus Span#1 rtJea 29,000.0 ksl Span Length = 9.830 ft TAMARACK GROVE ENOIH t ER I NO Area• 10.0 ln"2 Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 Moment of Inertia • 100.0 ln"4 ,. ----------------~---------------- $l. I Spttn • 9 630 ,ft ~lied Loads SelVice loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculation&. Load(s) for Span Number 1 Point Load : Lr = 0.30 k @ 4.915 ft, (Maintenance Worker LL) Point Load : D "' 0.08150 k @ 3.490 ft, (Evaporator coll load) Point Load : D = 0.08150 k @ 6.490 ft, (Evaporator coll load) DESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending = Load Combination --1.016 k-ft +D+Lr Span# 1 4.9 15 ft Maximum Shear = Span # where max1mum occurs Location of ma,clmum on span Maximum Deflection Ma,c Downward Transient Deflection Max Upward Transient Deflection Max Downward Total Deflection Max Upward Total Deflection Overall Maximum Deflections 0.004 m 0.000 In 0.005 In 0.000 in Load Combination Span # where maximum occurs Location of maximum on span 33098 0 22437 7552130 --------- Load Combination Span Max.·-· Deft Location In Span Load Combination +O+Lr Vertical Reaction• Load Combination Overall MAxlmum Overall MINlmum OOnly +D+Lr +D+0.750Lr •0.600 Lr Only Support 1 0.230 0.080 0.230 0.193 0.048 0.150 0.0053 4.964 Support notation : Far lert Is#· Support 2 0.233 0.083 0.233 0.195 0.050 0.150 0.2327 k +D+Lr Span# 1 6.537 fl Max. "+" Oefl Location In Span 0.0000 0.000 Values In KIPS 812 S. La Cassia Dr.· Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 25 of 47 I 6.2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS RISA PRINTOUT -0 071 kfft Member Length (ft) Displayed Loads: BLC 1, Seismic TAMARACK GROVE ENGIHEEAl~O DIAPHRAGM REINFORCING TRUSS Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 SK-1 Dec 08, 2022 TRUSS-Fina1_8GA.r3d 812 s. La Cassia Dr.• Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 26 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS Company Designer Job Number TAMARACK GROVE EHOIHEERINO IIIRISA Model Name : DIAPHRAGM REINFORCING T ... Nu 0. Material Take-Off Size Pieces 3X8GA HRA RA 6 Basic Load Cases BLC Description sj{w iht RISA-3D Version 20 [ TRUSS-Final_8GA.r3d J Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 12/8/2022 12:57:45 PM Checked By : ___ _ Len fl 246.2 Y Gravity Distributed 5 -1 Page 1 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 27 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS Job Number : TAMARACK GROVE EHO IN EERI H O I Company IIRISA Designer .,.,. Model Name : DIAPHRAGM REINFORCING T ... ft F ksf k-fVft End Ma Solve P-Oelta BLC Factor RISA-3D Version 20 [ TRUSS-Final_8GA.r3d ] Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 12/8/2022 12:57:45 PM Checked By ;---- BLC Factor BLC Factor Page2 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 28 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS Company Designer Job Number TAMARACK GROVE E N OI N ££R IHO IIIRISA Model Name : DIAPHRAGM REINFORCING T ... Envelopt Seam Dyfl!£tions Member Label Soan Location lftl 1 U4? 1 fflAY ,; "i"i7 2 1 min 2.54 3 M47 1 mav 4 .IY~ 4 1 min 0 5 U!i 1 fflAY 4 ,M? 6 1 min ~n12 7 UR 1 mav 0.118 8 1 min 2.953 9 M7 1 max 0.118 10 1 min 4.2"i? 11 AAA 1 mav o.ni:i-:i 12 1 min 4.411 13 M11 1 ffiAY 7.491 14 1 min 'l f;.f;.? 15 M12 1 max 347R 16 1 min 0 17 M1'.\ 1 max ?OOR 18 1 min 0 19 U14 1 mav 1 AQ 20 1 min 0 RISA-30 Version 20 [ TRUSS-Final_8GA.r3d] Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 12/8/2022 12:57:45 PM Checked By : ___ _ v' nnl Cn) L'tv' Ratio LC n.001 Nl" s -0.071 QAA 2 .n.001 Nl" 2 0 NC 2 .n 001 Nl" 8 -0014 4910 2 noo1 Nl" 3 -0.045 1517 2 -0.001 Nl" 5 o.n-=13 20RA 2 n nn-:i N C 5 -0.307 312 2 -0.fY11 Nl" 5 .I\ 011 8786 , n.001 Nr. 3 0 NC 2 .n 001 Nr. 3 0 NC 2 .n 001 Nr. 2 0 NC 2 Page 3 812 5. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 29 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS Company Designer Job Number : TAMARACK GROVE EHOIHEt:Rlfr,fO IIIRISA Model Name ; DIAPHRAGM REINFORCING T ... 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA 3X8GA HRA HRA RISA-3D Version 20 I TRUSS-Final_8GA.r3d I Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 12/8/2022 12:57:45 PM Checked By : ___ _ Page4 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 30 of 47 I I STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA £HOINE.ERINO TGE Project Number: 22-20725 6.3 ANCHORAGE PRINTOUT SIMPSON Anchor Designer™ Software Companv: TGE lDate: l 10/12/2022 Strong-Tie Version 3.1.2209.3 "' l ,ProJtct Information Customer company: Customer contact name: Customer e-mail: Comment: 2. Input Data A Anchor P1c1roetera General Design method:ACI 318-14 Units: Imperial unils Anchor Information: Anehor type: Cona-ete screw Material: Carbon Steel Diameter (lnch): 0.375 Nominal Embedment depth (Inch): 2.500 Effecll11e Embedment deplh, hot (Inch): 1. 770 Code report: ICC-ES ESR-2713 Anchor calegory: 1 Anchor ductility: No h,.1. (Inch): 4.00 c •• (inch): 2.69 c.,., (inch): 1.75 s..., (Inch): 3.00 Recommended Anchor Anchor Name: Titan HD® -3/8"0 Tlten HD, hnom:2.5" (64mm) Code Report: ICC-ES ESR-2713 Enaineer: I P..,...: 11/5 Prolect: Address: Phone: E-mail: Project description: 3/8" TITEN HD • MAX. INPLANE SHEAR Location: Fastening description: Ba■e Material Conorete: Normal-weight Concrete thickness, h (Inch): 4.00 State: Cracked Compressive strength, r. (psi); 2500 '1-'c.v: 1.0 Reinforcement condition: 8 tension, 8 shear Supplemental edge reinforcement: Nol applicable Reinforcemenl provided et corners: No Ignore conorete breakout In tension: No Ignore concrete breakout in shear. No Ignore 6do requirement Not applicable Build-up grout pad: No Base Plate Length x Width IC Thickness (inch): 1.50 IC 12.00 x 0.05 lopul data and resuns must be checked for agreement with Ola e><lsting cln:umstancee, the slan<lards end guldellnes muel be ched<ed for plauslbollty. SimPt>><• Stro<9-,,. Cam yin, 5956 W Las Pasitas Boulevard Pleasanton. CA 94588 Phone: 925,560 9000 Fa•· 925.847 3871 www.strongtie oom 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 31 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE SIMPSON Strong-Tie Anchor DesignerTM Software Version 3.1.2209.3 Load and Geometry Load factor source: ACI 318 Section 5.3 Load comblnatlon: nol sel Seismic design: Yes Anchors subjected lo sustained tension: Nol applicable Ductility section for tension: 17 .2.3.4.3 (d) Is satisfied Ductility section for shear: 17 .2.3.5.3 (c) Is satisfied Oo factor: not set Apply entire shear load at front row: No Anchors only resisting wind and/or seismic loads: Yes Strength level loads: Nuo (lb): 0 V-[lb): 0 V.., [lb): 945 M •• [ft-lb): 0 Muy [ft-lb): 0 <Figure 1> X Oft·lb A O lb , , z Olb t I I I I I I I I ' ' EHOIH£ERIMO Companv: TGE Em1ineer: Protect: Address: Phone: E-mail: Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 I Date: l 10/12/2022 I PROA: I 215 Oft-lb ',,, ~ ', y MSlb l~t data and results must be checked for agreement with the ll)()stlng clrcum81ancea, the slandafds and guidelines must be chealad for pl.auslbility. Slmpaon Strol'l>-T• CO""parly lr'C 5956 w. UIS PositH Boulevard Pleasan1on, CA 94588 Phone· 925.560.9000 Fax: 925 847 3871 www.stronglie.com 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 32 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS SIMPSON St1-ong-Tie <Figure 2> • 0 Anchor Designer™ Software Version 3.1 .2209.3 00 TAMARACK GROVE EHGIH[ERIHO Company: TGE Enaineer: PMlect: Address: Phone: E-mail: 12 00 00 Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 I Date: I 10/12/2022 lP""": 1 3/5 C) 8 Ln r-.... . ....-4 lnput data and results must be checked for agreemei,1 with the eJ<iSling circumstances, the standards and guidelines musl be chedlod for plauslbU,ty. S"'1oson Sirens, T COMpeny ll'C 5956 W. Las Posltas BouleverO P1eonn1on, CA 94588 Phone· 925.560 9000 Fwr 925 847 3871 www.strongtie com 812 S. La Cassia Dr.· Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 33 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE SIMPSON Strong-Tie Anchor Designer™ Software Version 3.1.2209.3 3. BUYUIDP Anchor Forc,1 ENGIH[ERIHO Companv: TGE Enaineer: Prolect: Address: Phone: E-mail: Anchor Tension load, Nuo (lb) Shear load x, V,,.,. (lb) Shear load y, V..,,., (lb) 0.0 0.0 945.0 Sum 0.0 Maximum concrete compression strain (-..): 0.00 Maximum concrete compresslon stress (psi): 0 Resultant tension force (lb): 0 0.0 945.0 <Figure 3> Resultant compression force (lb): O Eccentricity of resultant tension forces in x-axis, e'N• (inch): 0.00 Eccentricity of resultant tension forces In y-axis, e'Nr (Inch): 0.00 Eooentriclty of resultant shear forces in x-axis, e'v. (inoh): 0.00 Eocentricity of resultant shear forces in y-axis, e'vy (inch): 0.00 8 Stttl Stctngth of Anchor ID Shear (Sec 17,5,1 l V .. (lb) ~ ,; ~ .. (lb) 2855 1.0 0.60 1713 I, concrete Breakout Strength of Anchor lo Shear (Sec l 7,5,21 Shear parallel to edfl• In x-dlrectlon: v.," mlnJ7(/./ d.)iu..Jd,.,i.'1f'cCat15; 9,t,..Jr.c., 111 (Eq. 17.5.2.2a & Eq. 17.5.2.2b) ,. (In) d. (In) k r. (psi) c., (In) v., (lb) 1. 77 0.375 1.00 2500 1. 75 677 ,;v..., 911 (2)(Av.l A-) Y'oe1.v'l".,v'Pi,.vVoy(Sec. 17.3.1, 17.5.2.1(c) & Eq. 17.5.2.1a) Av., (ln2) Avco (ln2) 'Pa<t v 'Po.v V-i,,v V"" (lb) 13.78 13. 78 1.000 1.000 1.000 677 10. concrete pryout Str:,nath of Anchor lo Sht1r (Sec. 17.5.31 (IV.,,= t/tkc,,NctJ = ~q,(AN<I A""")Y'a<t.HY'c.N'l~Nb(Sec. 17.3.1 & Eq. 17.5.3.1a) kc,, AN< (ln2) A""' (ln2) Y'o<1.N Y'.,H 'f'..,_H 1.0 23.39 28.20 0.898 1.000 1.000 11, BIIMltf loteractloo of Ito•llt and Shear Forces (Sec. 17,61 Nb (lb) 2002 Shear Factored load, v •• (lb) Design Strength. raVn (lb) Ratio Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 0.70 0.70 I Date: 110/12/2022 I Pao9: 14/5 Shear load combined. "(V-)2-+(V-)2 (lb) 945.0 945.0 t;v-(lb) 947 ,;v.,, (lb) 1043 Status Input data and results mU11t be ct,acke<I ror agreement witt> tho exlSling ctrcumstances, the standards and guidelines must be ohecllod ror plausibility. S.,,p,;on Strol'lfl' T Co• pany Inc 5956 W Las PoSJtas Boulevard PleasanlOn, CA 94588 Phone· 925.560.9000 Fa.-925,847.3871 www.slfongtie com 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 34 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA E H OI H EE R I N O TGE Project Number: 22-20725 SIMPSON Strong-Tie Anchor Designer™ Software Companv: TGE l Date: 110/12/2022 Version 3.1.2209.3 Steel 945 II Concrete breakout ,c+ 9'45 Pryout 945 1713 947 1043 Engineer: Prolect Address: Phone: E-mail: 3fS-0 Tlten HD, hnom:2.5~ (64mm) meets the h lected design criteria. 12.wamIna1 0.55 1.00 0.91 . Per designer Input, ductlllty requirements for tension have been determined to be satisfied -deslgn8f to verify. -Per designer input, ductility requirements for shear have been determined to be satisfied -designer to verify. -Designer must exercise own Judgement to determine if this design Is suitable. -Refer to manufacturer's product literature for hole cleaning and installation instructions. I Paoe: 1515 Pass PaH (Govern•) Pass "->ut clala arid results must be checked lor agreomenl with 1110 existing clmlmstances, too s1andards and guldollnes mus, be checked for plausibility. Sim-Strong-1' Co,.,p y lnr. 5956 W Las PositM Boulevard Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: 925.560.9000 Fax· 925 847 3871 www.s1rong1ie oom 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 35 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA SIMPSON Strong-Tie Anchor Designer™ Software Version 3.1.2209.3 l ,Protect lotormattc,n Customer company: Customer contact name: Customer e-mail: Comment 2. Input Data & Anchor P1r1m1ttm General Design method:ACI 318-14 Units: Imperial units Anchor Information: Anchor type: Concrete screw Material: Carbon Steel Diameter (inch): 0.375 Nominal Embedrnent depth (Inch): 2.500 Effective Embedment depth, ho1 (Inch)' 1. no Code report ICC·ES ESR-2713 Anchor category: 1 Anchor ductility: No h,.,. (Inch): 4.00 c .. (inch): 2 .69 C..111 (inch): 1.75 s..., (Inch): 3.00 Recomm.nded Anchor Anchor Name: Tlten HD® -3/8"0 Tlten HD, hnom:2.5" (64mm) Code Report: ICC-ES ESR-2713 EHOINEERINO TGE Project Number: 22-20725 Company: TGE I Date: I 10/11'2022 Engineer: I Page: J 1/6 Prolect: Address: Phone: E-mail: Project description: 3/8" TlTEN HD · Overturning (Woo;t Case) Location: Fastening description: a .. e Material Concrete: Nonnal-welght Concrete thickness, h (Inch): 4.00 State: Cracked Compressive strength, f • (psi): 2500 'llo.v: 1.0 Reinforcement condition: B tension, B shear Supplemental edge reinforcement Not applicable Reinforcement provkled at corners: No Ignore C011crete bfeakout In tension: No Ignore COl"lcrete bfeakout in shear: No Ignore 6do requirement: Not applicable Build-up grout pad: No BHePlate Length x Width x Thickness (inch): 1.50 x 12.00 x 0.05 Input dela and results mllllt be checked lor agreement with the existing drcumSlanCes. the standa!ds and guidelines must be Ohed<.ed lor plauslblllty. Sirnpaon Strong Tie Comr,eny.,,,. 5956 W Las Positas Bouleva!d P1easenton, CA 94588 Phooe· 925.560.9000 Fax· 925 6'17.3871 www.atronglie oom 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 36 of 47 I STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA SIMPSON Strong-Tie Anchor Designer™ Software Version 3.1.2209.3 Load and Geometry Load factor souroe: ACI 318 Section 5.3 Load comblnatlon: not set Seismic de&ign: Yes Anchors subjected to sustained tension: Not applicable Ductility section for tension: 17 .2.3.4.3 (d) Is satisfied Ductility section for shear: 17 .2.3.5.3 (c) Is satisfied 0. factor: not set Apply entire shear load at front row: No Anchors only resisting wind and/or seismic loads: Yes Strength level loads: N..., (lb]: 462 V-[lb):O V..,, [lb): 208 M., [ft-lb): 0 M., [ft-lb): 0 <Figure 1> X !Oft-It A •• z 412. t , f:HOIH[ERIHO TGE Project Number: 22-20725 Companv: TGE I Date: T 10/11/2022 Engineer: IP~: 1216 Prolect: Address: Phone: E-mail: Oft-It -----~ y -ti Input date end results m!J$t be checked lor agreement with the existing clrcumsQlnces. tile standards end guidelines must be ched\ed for plausjbjllty, Smoeon S11'0<'9 Toe ConpMy In(. 6956 W. Las Positas Boulevard Plouenton, CA 945811 Phone· 925.660 9000 Fax 925 847 3871 www.strongtie com 812 5. La Cassia Dr.· Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 37 of47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA SIMPSON Strong"-Tie <Flgure 2> Anchor Designer™ Software Version 3.1.2209.3 CX) EHOIH££111MO Company; TGE Engineer: Prolect: Address: Phone: E-mail: 12 00 CX) TGE Project Number: 22-20725 I Date: I 10/1112022 I Page: I 3/6 8 Lt') "' . T"""I tnput dala and results must be checked lor agreement with the Wldsting circumSlances, the stillldalds and guidelines must be checked lor plauslblf,ty. 51111P80'1 Stro,,g T,e Cor,pa,,y trc 5956 W Las PO$ita.s 8oulevard P1cas81lton, CA 94588 Phone: 925.560.9000 Fax: 925 847 3871 www.strongtie.com 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 38 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA E'.NOINEERINO SIMPSON Anchor Designer™ Software Company: TGE Engineer: Sti-on.g'-Tie ti Version 3.1.2209.3 Prolect: Address: Phone: E-mail: 3. B11utt1ng Anchor Force■ Anchor Tension load, N111 (lb) Shear load x, v-(lb) 462.0 Sum 462.0 Maximum conaete compression strain (~): 0.00 Maximum conaete compression stress (psi): 0 Resultant lenslon force (lb): 462 0.0 0.0 Resultant compression force (lb): 0 Eccentricity of resultant tension forces in x-axis, e'N, (inch): 0.00 Eccentricity of resultant tension forces in y,axis. e'N, (Inch): 0.00 Eooentriclty of resultant shear fOl'CeS in x-axis, e'v. (Inch): 0.00 Eccentricity of resultant shear forces in y-axis, ev, (inch): 0.00 4. §Sul Strength of Anchor lo I•o•too (Sec. 17,4,11 N .. (lb) ; ;N .. (lb) 10890 0.65 7079 5. Concc•St Br11koyt Stc,nqth of Anchor lo Ito■loo (Sac 17 4.21 No "'k,k./f ,h"u (Eq. 17 ,4.2.28) ko ,i. f.(psl) h., (In) No (lb) 17.0 1.00 2500 1.770 2002 0.75;Nm,. 0.75;(ANo/ A...,)y,..,,.,p.,"y,.,.,.No (Sec. 17.3.1 & Eq. 17 A.2.18) Shear load y, v,,,,,, (lb) 208.0 208.0 <Figure 3> A,., (in2) A-(ln2 c,.,., (in) """'·" V'.,N "''""" 23.39 28.20 1.75 0.898 1.00 1.000 6. PyHoyt Strength of Anchor lo I•o■loo (Sec 17,4.31 0.75;N,,,, = 0.7f,1%PkN,(fo/2,500)" (Sec. 17.3.1, Eq.17A.3.1 & Code Report) 'I'..,. l , N, (lb) r. (psi) n ; 1.0 1.00 1235 2500 0.50 0.65 TGE Project Number: 22-20725 No (lb) 2002 0.75;N,,,, (lb) 602 I Date: 110/1112022 I Pai:ie: ( 416 Shear load combined, v(V-)'+(V-)' (lb) 208.0 208.0 0.75'f.lu. (lb) 0.65 727 Input data and results must be checked for agreement wiih the exisijng cln:umstancu. the standards and guidelines must be ched(ed for plauslbillty. Sompson Strong T ,e Conp,s1y In(. 5956 W Las Positas Boulevard Pleasanton. CA 94588 Phooe· 925.560.9000 Fex· 925 647.3871 www.strongtie c:om 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 39 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA ~NOIH[ERINO SIMPSON Anchor Designer™ f i1 J.1,1§•1' Software • Version 3.1.2209.3 Company: Engineef': Protect: Address: Phone: E-ma~: D Stnl Stctngth of Anchor lo SbtlC Cstc 17.5 11 V.(lb} ~ j ~.(lb) 2855 1.0 0.60 1713 R, concrett Dct•kout Stctngth of Anchor lo $bt•c cs,c. 11.5.21 ShHr ,,.,.,,., to «lge in x-direction: v.,. • mlni7(1./ d.)u..fd.k-.fr .c.,' 5; 9k✓r.c., 1 51 (Eq. 17.5.2.2a & Eq. 17.5.2.2b) TGE I. (In) da (in) .to r. (psi) ea, (in) Vr,y (lb) 1.77 0.375 1.00 2500 1.75 677 jV.,. =l(2)(Avtl A~)Y'cvY'c.v'MivVr,y (Sec 17.3.1, 17.5.2.1(c) & Eq. 17.5.2.1a) A.., (ln2) Av,,. (ln2) Y'.,.v Y'c.v Y-1.v Vr,y (lb) 13.78 13.78 1.000 1.000 1.000 677 10. Concw, Prxout Sonqth of Anchor lo Sb11c (stc, 17,5.31 ~ .. : llt...,Nct,: ;,,.""'AN.I A-)'/'-Y'c.NY'.,.,,,Nb(S8C, 17 3.1 & Eq. 17.5.3.18) k<P A"" (ln2) A Noo (ln2) Y'...N Y'c.N Y'.,.N 1.0 23.39 28.20 0.898 1.000 1.000 11. BttMIII lol•cactfoo of 1101111 and Sbt•c forc11 (Ste, 17,01 Tension Factored Load, N .. (lb) Steel 462 Concrete breakout Pullout 462 462 Shear Factored load, v.,. (lb) Steel 208 ii Concrete brHkout x+ 208 Pryout 208 Interaction check Sec. 17.6.1 0.77 0.00 Design Strength, f/JNn (lb) 7079 727 602 Design Strengih, av. (lb) 1713 947 1043 Combined Ratio 76.7% 318*0 Tlten HD, hnom:2.5* (64mm) meets the selected design criteria. 0.70 N. (lb) 2002 0.70 Ratio 0.07 0.64 0.77 Ratio 0.12 0.22 0.20 Permissible 1.0 TGE Project Number: 22-20725 I Date: I 10/11/2022 IPS:98: 1516 ~-(lb) 947 ~ .. (lb) 1043 Status Pass Pass Pan (Governs) Status Pass Pan (Governs) Pass Status Pass klp<A data and reslA!s must be checked for agree~ with the eiusdng ClrCUIIISUIOCeS, the alilndatds end guidelines must be clleclled for plaoslbllity. S'"'P9M SlrQl'tll Tie CoP>p!'f1y tr, 5956 W Les Posltas Boulevard Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone· 925.560.9000 Fe•· 925 847 3871 www.strongtNI oom 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 40 of 47 I Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS SIMPSON S trong .... Tie 12,wamlnaI Anchor Designer™ Software Version 3.1.2209.3 TAMARACK GROVE EHOINEE'.RIHO Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 Companv: TGE I Date: I 10/1112022 Enaineer: I Page: 1616 Project: Address: Phone: E-mail: • Per designer input, ductility requirements for tension have been determined to be satisf1t1d -designer to verify. -Per designer Input. duotlllty requirements for ahear have been determined to be satisfied -designer to vertry • • Designer must exercise own judgement to determine if this design ls suitable. -Refer to manufacturer's product literature for hole cleaning and Installation lnstruotions. Input data and results must be checked for agreemenl wilh the existing circumslaBCes, lhG standerds and guldelines must be ched<.ed for plausibility. Simp"Dft Strong Tie Comi>""Y ii"' 5956 W Las Posilas Bouleva,d Pleas11nlon, CA 94586 Phone: 925.560.9000 Fax: 925 6413671 www.strongtle.oom 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 41 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA 7 APPENDIXB 7.1 LARR #25184 BOAIIOOF BUILDING AND SAFETY COMMISSIONERS JAVIER NUNEZ PRESIOENT ELVIN W. MOON VICEPR!SCll!NT JOSELYN GEAGA-ROSENTHAL LAUREL GILLETTE GEORGE HOVAGUIMIAN Imperial Brown, Inc. 198 SE 223rd A venue Gresham, OR 97030 Attn: Ken Rhoads (503) 517-3653 [:NOIHC[RINO CITY OF Los ANGELES CALIFORNIA • ERIC GARCETTI MAYOR TGE Project Number: 22-20725 ~AIIT1181T OF BUILOING AND SAFETY 201 N0ATtt ,IOUEROA $TRE£1 LOS ANGELES, CA 80012 OSAMA YOUNAN, P.E. OENEAAI.MANAOER SUPEIIINTENDENT OF BUllOtNO JOHN WEIGHT EXECUTM: Ol"ICER RESEARCH REPORT: RR 25184 (CSI #13030) Expires: September I, 2024 Issued Date: May I, 2022 Code: 2020 LABC GENERAL APPROVAL -Renewal -Imperial Manufacturing Steel Faced, Urethane Refrigeration Panels for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers DETAIL Imperial Manufacturing panels consist of26 gage stucco-embossed galvanized steel skins, meeting ASTM A525, and a core of polyurethane foam identified as RI 327B rigid foam system as manufactured by IPI Division of PMC, Inc. The panels are 3 ½" in thickness and vary in width up to a maximum of 48". The panels are joined together utilizing cam-lock fasteners. The panels are approved as structural wall and ceiling panels for use in interior, non-fire rated walk-in coolers and freezers. The approval Is subject to the following conditions: I. The panels are approved for use in accordance with Section 2603 of the 2020 City of Los Angeles Building Code and shall comply with all requirements therein. 2. The foam plastic shall be separated from the interior of the freezer or cooler and from the room in which it is placed by use of ½-inch gypsum wallboard or other approved lhermal barrier meeting the requirements specified in Sections 2603.4.1.2 and 2603.4.1.3 of the 2020 Los Angeles City Building Code may be utilized where applicable. 3. The panels shall be manufactured in the shop of a City of Los Angeles licensed fabricator. Fabrication in unlicensed shops will invalidate the approval. 4. The panel core material shall have a density of 2.4 pcf. RR 25184 Page I of4 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 42 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA E.HGIH[ERINO TGE Project Number: 22-20725 Imperial Manufacturing Ice Cold Coolers, Inc RE: Imperial Manufacturing Steel Faced, Urethane Refrigeration Panels 5. The panels shall be used only in areas where combustible materiaJs are permitted by code. 6. Daily tests of the physical properties of the core material shall be performed and records of such tests shall be maintained and provided to the department upon request. 7. Complete design calculations shall be submitted to Structural Plan Check for each job. Plans and calculations sbaJI bear the stamp and signature of a California registered civil or structural engineer or architect. 8. Panel height shall be limited as follows: 3½" Non-bearing walls with polyurethane core 21 '-0" 3 ½" Non-bearing walls with polyurethane core 21 '-0" The above wall heights provide for a maximum 6 psf lateral load and, in the case of bearing walls, a maximum 460 plf concentric axial load. 9. Shear wall vaJues shall be limited as follows: Maximum Height To Width Ratio 1.7S: I 1:1 Allowable Shear (plf) 233 400 I 0. The maximum allowable diaphragm shear shall be limited to 133 plf for panels with polyurethane core at a maximum span to width ratio of 1.75: I. The panels shall be continuous between walls. 11 . The maximum allowable ceiling spans shall be as follows: Applied Load Maximum Span (fttt) s Denectlon • L/240 s 18.2 10 14.3 IS 12.0 20 10.3 25 9.1 30 8.1 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX RR 25184 Page 2 of4 Page 43 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA f'.NOIH[ERIHO TGE Project Number: 22-20725 Imperial Manufacturing Ice Cold Coolers, lnc RE: Imperial Manufacturing Steel Faced, Urethane Refrigeration Panels 12. The maximum allowable loads for the camJock connectors shall be limited as follows: Wall ancl to wall ancl • shear 600 lbs. Wall ancl -tension 330 lbs. Wall anel -tension 400 lbs. Wall aoel • shear 660 lbs. 13 . The wall panels may be attached to the floor assembly utilizing either a vinyl or galvanized steel screed. The screeds are attached to the wall panels utilizing No. 10 sheet metal screws. The allowable shear value for this connection is as follows: Allo"•1ble Shear Panel with I ethane core 730 lbs. The attachment of the screeds to the floor assembly shall be by an approved method. 14. The panels and core materials, when tested separately, have flame spread and smoke density ratings less than 25 and 450, respectively. 15. Panels shall be provided with a pennanent label specifying the fabricator and surface burning characteristics of the product. DISCUSSION This report is in compliance with the 2020 Los Angeles City Building code. The approval is based on tests in accordance with ASTM Standard E-84, ASTM Standard E-72 and various other load tests and engineering analysis. This general approval of an equivalent alternate to the Code is only valid where an engineer and/or inspector of this Department has determined that all conditions of this approval have been met in the project in which it is to be used. 812 S. La Cassia Dr.· Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX RR 25184 Page 3 of 4 Page 44 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA EHOI M [CRINO TGE Project Number: 22-20725 Imperial Manufacturing Ice Cold Coolers, Loe RE: Imperial Manufacturing Steel Faced, Urethane Refrigeration Panels Addressee to whom this Research Report is issued is responsible for providing copies of it, complete with any attachments indicated. to architects, engineers and builders using items approved herein in design or construction, which must be approved, by Department of Building and Safety Engineers and Inspectors. EUGENE BARBEAU, Chief Engineering Research Section 20 l N. Figueroa St., Room 880 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone-213-202-9814 Email -engineering-research@lacity.org Ell ltR.2518'1 ltCM/15/2022 11.DllOOOSS l60.I 812 S. La Cassia Dr.· Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX RR 25 184 Page 4 of4 Page 45 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA TGE Project Number: 22-20725 ENOIH[ltftlNO #8 TEK SCREWS ALLOWABLES /W ALUM. ANGLE D:=0.164 in n•D2 2 A,:=--= 0.02 In 4 de:=1.S•D=0.25 in Ftu==38 ks/ t._:=0.0179 in F,u2 := 45 ksi 1.01 • D • '-e • F1u2 Ttek_pullout :-Cl 44.47 lb/ lek Dh:=0.272 in . (1.0+ 1 ·::••)•Dh•l1•Ffy Ttek_pullover • -'------=-------380.8 /bf Otek Tscrew := min (Ttek_pullout , T,ek_punover) = 44.47 lb/ ASD Factor Screw Diameter Screw Area Thickness of Part in Contact w/ Screw Head Thickness of Part Not in Contact w/ Screw Head Edge Distance Tensile Ultimate Strength of Base Plate Design Shear Strength Minimum of Peneration Depth or thickness of skin Tensile Yield Strength of Member Not in Contact w/ Screw Head (Post) Tensile Yield Strength of Base Plate Design Pull out Tension Strength Nominal Head Diameter Design Pull-Over Strength for Non-Countersunk Screws Allowable Shear Allowable Tension SUMMARY; USE THUS OBTAINED VALUES AS ALLOWABLE SHEAR AND TENSION PER #8 TEK SCREW WITH ABOVE CONFIGURATION. 812 S. La Cassia Dr.· Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 46 of 47 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS TAMARACK GROVE Project Name: MILLIPORE SIGMA Location: CARLSBAD, CA EHOIHEERIHG TGE Project Number: 22-20725 7.2 ICC REPORTS AND DESIGN AIDS • ICC ESR-2713, "TITEN HD SCREW ANCHOR AND TITEN HD ROD HANGER FOR CRACKED AND UNCRACKED CONCRETE." • STEEL STUD MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (SSMA) • ICC ESR 1976, "ITW BUILDEX TEK ® SELF DRILLING FASTERNER" 812 S. La Cassia Dr. • Boise, Idaho 83705 • (208) 345-8941 • (208) 345-8946 FAX Page 47 of 47