Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 14-08; WESTIN HOTEL AND TIMESHARE; TEMPORARY SHORING DESIGN SUBMITTAL; DWG 496-2A, GR 2016-0002; 2017-02-07-, . _I ,-l :_J i__J c_J SHORING DESIGN GROUP February 7, 2017 Mr. Mark Elliott Elliott Drilling Services, Inc. 1342 Barham Drive San Marcos, CA 92078 Re: Subject: Westin Hotel Carlsbad, California Temporary Shoring Design Submittal Dear Mr. Elliott: Office (760) 722-1400 Fax(760)722-1404 JOB #16-133 Upon your request, please find the temporary shoring design calculations for the above referenced project. Should you have any additional questions or comments regarding this matter, please advise. Sincerely, SHORING DESIGN GROUP, Roy P. Reed, P.E. Project Engineer Encl: Design Calculations RE FEB 1 0 201? LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGlNEERJNG 7755 Via Francesco #1 I San Diego, CA 92129 I phone (760) 586-8121 Email: rreed@shoringdesigngroup.com . ~ SHORING DESIGN GROUP Temporary Shoring Design Calculations LJ Westin Hotel Carlsbad, California February 7, 2017 SDG Project # 16-133 Table of Contents: Section Shoring Plans: ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Load Development (Shoring Design Parameters) .................................................................................... 2 ," Soldier Beam #1, 21-24 (H=6', Max.): ...................................................................................................... 3 Soldier Beam #2-13 (H=13'): .................................................................................................................... 4 Soldier Beam #14-15 (H=12'): .................................................................................................................. 5 Soldier Beam #16 (H=11'): ....................................................................................................................... 6 L_J Soldier Beam #17-18 (H=9'): .................................................................................................................... 7 Soldier Beam #19-20 (H=8'): .................................................................................................................... 8 Soldier Beam #25-26, 33-34 (H=7', with Slope Surcharge): ..................................................................... 9 Soldier Beam #27-32 (H=12', with Slope Surcharge): ............................................................................ 10 Temporary Handrail Design: .................................................................................................................. 11 Lagging Design: ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Soldier Beam Schedule: ......................................................................................................................... 13 Geotechnical Report: ............................................................................................................................. 14 ~J -------------------------------------· 7755 Via Francesco #1 I San Diego, CA 921291 phone (760) 586-8121 Email: rreed@shoringdesigngroup.com r, ii Section 1 r'1 ' ' u u I~ ,, ( ~----~. r· J-" l' \ DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM TiiE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT, TiiAT I HAVE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN OF TEMPORARY SHORING AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6703 OF TiiE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE, AND THAT THE DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STANDARDS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DOES NOT RELIEVE ME, AS ENGINEER OF WORK, MY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROJECT DESIGN. SHORING DESIGN GROUP nss VIA FRANCESCO, UNIT 1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92129 PH: (760)586-8121 SCALE: 1"" = 20" DESIGN/BUILD PLANS: 2/7/2017 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2017 DATE s. '\. \ '\ ··,,···;,·,? .•. ; ''\\ \ \ ' \' '··· \, /{, ;>\:~ \ :,\'. .... ~.-.. ;':·1':,:.·.·.·.:·:_'.·· •• :,•.·.·.• •. :.:::·:.: •. :··_··: ...•• ·.:.,·_:·:·,·.:·,·.,.·.,···,··.: -<\;J :: \//, /\' ),---, / \. /\,/'\ ,/ \,// . ' ,x Know what's below. Call before you dig. DIG ALERT!! 1WO WORKING PAYS BEFORE DIG ALL EXISTING UTILITIES MAY NOT BE SHOWN ON THESE PLANS DIG ALERT & GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE & POTHOLE (AS NEEDED), ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE SHORING WALL CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH TRENCH/EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. ___________ _ LEGEND T.O.W. = TOP OF SOLDIER BEAM WALL B.O.W. = BOTTOM OF SOLDIER BEAM WALL BY OTHERS = WORK OUTSIDE SHORING SCOPE (P) = PROPOSED (E) = EXISTING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENT TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM I TEMPORARY TIMBER LAGGING SOLDIER BEAM COUNT © DETAIL/SECTION CALL OUTS 3x12 DF#2 TIMBER LAGGING D "AS BUILT" SHORING DESIGN GROUP • RCE ----EXP. REVIEWED BY: nss VIA FRANCESCO #1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 INSPECTOR DATE DATE ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHEETS I 1----t--1-----------------l---t---+--+---i ~ LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 30 l----+--1-------------------l---+---+---l---1 1----t--t-----------------l---+---+--+---i TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR LOT 9 D[VEl.(NNT VESTIN HOTEL AND TIMESHARE l----+--t------------------l---+---+---1---1 APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL OTHER APPROVAL C1TY APPROVAL DRAWING NO. 496-2A n •---1 : __ J L_J L_.J ' I L~ 260.00' 250.00' TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE\ (BY OTHERS, TYP.) -,,--\ Fl~ T.O.W. = 254.00' - F'=*, EXISTING GRADE T.O.W. = 262.00' 260.00' 250.00' · I -B.O.W. = 249.00' B.O.W. = 249.00' -I tr--'Tlfhr~rii'r,~..,,.'fll,i-""'..;;.Tf'r""..;ff'r"i'-"'n"i"'Tlffi"fl,a:~:::'":::'T'!i't""'-.~ 240.00' NOTES: 1. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET SH30 FOR SHORING ATIRIBUTES. 2. POTHOLE/FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION. 3. TEMPORARY SHORING IN THESE PLANS HAS BEEN ALIGNED WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTING ft PROPOSED FEATURES, AS PROVIDED. ACTUAL FIELD LOCATION OF THE SHORING WALL SHALL BE ESTABLISHED USING ACCURATE HORIZONTAL CONTROL ft COORDINATED TO FOLLOW THE PLANNED LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. REPORT ANY VARIATIONS TO THE SHORING ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. )~ \ I I I I I I I I [''] SB#1 I I I I TEMPORARY 1-1 SLOPE -.c;:---;---;;::~=,;===flc....+-++""""'"°---,~-~ (BY OTHERS, TYP.) \ DESIGN/BUILD PLANS: SB#2 SB#3 ROY P. REED I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "D" I I I I I I I I l -TT l T T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l.1:..1 l.1:..1 LI l.1:..1 SB#4 SB#5 SB#6 SB#7 PROFILE -LOOKING SOUTH SCALE: 1" = 8' SCALE: 1" = 8' 2/7/2017 R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3·31·2017 I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I l.1:..1 SB#8 SB#9 SB#10 DATE (E) WATER TANK (TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION) (P) TEMPORARY SHORING (TYP.) -~~-~ ~ T.O.W. = TOP OF WALL B.O.W. = BOTIOM OF WALL [ _ ______, DESIGNATES 3x12 PRESSURE TREATED LAGGING "AS BUILT" SHORING DESIGN GROUP e RCE ---EXP. REVIEWED BY: n55 VIA FRANCESCO #1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 INSPECTOR 240.00' DATE DATE ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD ISHEETSI t====t===1===========================1====t===~====1====: ~ LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 30 1----+--+---------------+--+--+---+---I TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR: LOT 9 DEVEl.aiMENT WESTIN HOTEL AND TIMESHARE GPA 14-0J 1-----+---+--------------+--r---t---+---t APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT EXPIRES 09 30 18 DATE OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL PROJECT NO. CT 14-08 DRAWING NO. 496-2A REVISION DESCRIPTION OAlE INITIAL DAlE INlllAL ;: ,, . ,_J LJ L_i n L _ _J T.0.W. = 262.00' -260.00' PROPOSED FOUNDATION (SEE STRUCTURAL) 250.00' ' T·T' . 8 C z j~ B.O.W. = 249.00' ....::.._ I 240.00' NOTES: 1. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET SH30 FOR SHORING ATTRIBUTES. 2. POTHOLE/FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION. 3. TEMPORARY SHORING IN THESE PLANS HAS BEEN ALIGNED WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTING ft PROPOSED FEATURES, AS PROVIDED. ACTUAL FIELD LOCATION OF THE SHORING WALL SHALL BE ESTABLISHED USING ACCURATE HORIZONTAL CONTROL ft COORDINATED TO FOLLOW THE PLANNED LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. REPORT ANY VARIATIONS TO THE SHORING ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. (E) WATER TANK (TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION) I I I I I T l I .I I I I I L''J SB#10 @e-' -~-· ~·,_ \. __ (P) TEMPORARY SHORING (TYP.) ~ ,-~ ~~====== ' -~ ~;:<:-· __ -~~ ~-~ . -··/, SB#11 4@ 8'-0" o.c •• 32'-0" ___ _JC,, :·· .Qr· r· r-~--·~t' ---~I'-•.• © EXISTING ~ ~I (2) 1 /2"x 6" STRAP PLATES I I I I I T I I SB#12 ' GRADE ijl ijll (USE 5/16" FILLET WELD) 1 ~ .w. = 260~~. I Is~:;t I T.o.w.=~ T'• _ . ! T O.W. = 261.00' I I I I I I "D" I I T r I I I I I I L''J SB#13 (E) 24" STORM DRAIN (TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION) • 258.oo· , : I · Is~:~:- ( I I ii 1·-o"I • 1 I I I I I 11 I I I I I 11 I I I I I 11 I I I I I I 11 I I [!!.] 1 t n ·r SB#21 L':J SB#19: L':J I I SB#18 SB#2Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L-1 L-1 PROFILE -LOOKING WEST SCALE: 1" = 8' --~~P) PILE FOUNDATION TYP. (SEE STRUCTURAL DWG.) ~F' I II 1 -~ <I -T.O.W. = 256.00' --i1 ::::::::-B.0.W. = 251.00' I I I I I I I I I I I I I L'~ T I SB#23 I +--(P) PILE FOUNDATION I (SEE STRUCTURAL DWG.) I =-~-=/~/ ~~/ II~ --- LEGEND: T.O.W. = TOP OF WALL B.O.W. = BOTTOM OF WALL I DESIGNATES 3x12 PRESSURE TREATED LAGGING '------__J STORAGE CAISSON INSTALLATION SEQUENCE 1. INST ALL TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAMS ft LAGGING. 2. PLACE STEEL STRAPS AT SB#16·18 AS SHOWN. 3. DRILL CAISSON ADJACENT TO SB#17 WHILE ADVANCING SURFACE CASING FOR COLLAPSE PROTECTION. 4. SET CONCRETE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING TIP ELEVATION. "AS BUILT" 260.00' 250.00' 240.00' @: ~\ /:i 11r11 ,.,.,_-_,'"--------------'--4--~--~~{r,, I I II ----11 II -II II 11 JI 11 SHORING DESIGN GROUP • -a)~ SCALE: 1" = 8' DESIGN/BUILD PLANS: 2/7/2017 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2017 DATE RCE ---EXP.-----DATE REVIEWED BY: 7755 VIA FRANCESCO #1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 INSPECTOR DATE ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHEETS I l---+---l---------------1--+---l----lf---l ~ LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 30 1---1-----l----------------l--+---1----lf---l 1---1-----l----------------1--+---l----lf---l TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR LOT 9 0£VEL(XlMENT l:STIN HOTU ANO TIMESHARE GPA 14-03 APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT 1---/----l'-----------------l'----/---f---f---l CITY ENGINEER PE 63912 EXPIRES 09 30 18 DATE DAlE INITIAL ENGINEER OF WORK 01HER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL OWN BY: I PROJECT NO. I DRAWING NO. 2~ ~~ ==== L __ C_T_1_4_-_0_8_-'·"·4_9_6_-_2~A REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL L.J , _ _J LJ 250.00' 240.00' 230.00' 220.00' NOTES: 1. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET SH30 FOR SHORING ATTRIBUTES. 2. POTHOLE/FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION. 3. TEMPORARY SHORING IN THESE PLANS HAS BEEN ALIGNED WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTING & PROPOSED FEATURES, AS PROVIDED. ACTUAL FIELD LOCATION OF THE SHORING WALL SHALL BE ESTABLISHED USING ACCURATE HORIZONTAL CONTROL & COORDINATED TO FOLLOW THE PLANNED LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. REPORT ANY VARIATIONS TO THE SHORING ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. B.0.W. = 235.00' -I ,' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L'J I I SB#24 I I I I [ T I 11 I l!J I I SB#2~ I I I I I I (P) PILE FOUNDATION ------r I (SEE STRUCTURAL DWG.) I I L-1 DESIGN/BUILD PLANS: I I ~i~:~.= I I I 11 I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I 11 I I I t I L + +-l 1 t l 11 I I :u:: I I ii I I I I I ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LIJ I I I I I I I I I SB#271 I : : 1 s~~291 SB#30 I I L' I II I I I I II I L. SB#28 L.L. PROFILE -LOOKING EAST & SOUTH ROYP. REED SCALE: 1" = 8' I SCALE: 1" = 8' I ; I I 217/2017 R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3·31-2017 DATE I I I ... l I I I I I I I SB#32 I ·I ,I 250.00' 240.00' "t:.?f',ia;-,-;;;aa-~t' I -T.O.W. = 233.00' / / I r I I I I I -~cl--- SB#34 / / / / / / / / LEGEND: T.O.W. = TOP OF WALL B.O.W. = BOTTOM OF WALL I I ~ DESIGNATES 3x12 PRESSURE TREATED LAGGING DESIGNATES 4x12 PRESSURE TREATED LAGGING LOBBY /ELEVATOR CAISSON INSTALLATION SEQUENCE 1. INSTALL TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAMS ft LAGGING. 2. PLACE WT BRACES ALONG SB#28-30 AS SHOWN. 3. DRILL CAISSON ADJACENT TO SB#29 WHILE ADVANCING SURFACE CASING FOR COLLAPSE PROTECTION. 4. SET CONCRETE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING TIP ELEVATION. 5. PLACE 8" TOE BRACE ASSEMBLY AS SHOWN. 6. DRILL CAISSON ADJACENT TO SB#28 WHILE ADVANCING SURFACE CASING FOR COLLAPSE PROTECTION. 7. REMOVE 8" TOE BRACE ONCE CAISSON CONCRETE HAS CURED. SHORING DESIGN GROUP "AS BUILT" • RCE ---EXP. REVIEWED BY: ns5 VIA FRANCESCO #1 DATE SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 INSPECTOR DA TE 230.00' 220.00' ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD ISHEETSI 1---+---+---------------+--+---f----f---l ~ LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 30 1---+---t---------------+--+---f----+---I 1---+--1-------------~--+--+---f---l---l TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR: LOT 9 000.(JIMENT l:STIN HOID. AND TIMESHARE GPA l.f-03 l---+------------------+---+-------1 APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT DATE DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL ENGINEER OF WORK CITY APPROVAL DATE INITIAL DRAWING ND. 496-2A REVISION DESCRIPTION OTHER APPROVAL : _ _J L, L_; SAFETY CABLE RAILING, PER CAL-OHSA REQUIREMENTS (TYP., AROUND ENTIRE SHORED PERIMETER, SEE 8/SH28) ""H'" 4 42"'(MIN.) I EXISTING GRADE (T.O.W., SEE ELEVATION) . TIMBER LAGGING V° } (SEE ELEVATION) i ~ 1.5 SACK SLURRY SHAFT ({ BACKFILL (T.O.W. TO B.0.W) BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION (B.O.W., SEE ELEVATION) I ,---2,500 PSI CONCRETE SHAFT 1;·1/ BACKFILL (B.O.W TO PILE TIP) ""D"" L~ . ., . V SOLDIER BEAM (SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE) ~ --I Dshaft I-- NOTES: 1. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING & PROPOSED STRUCTURES PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION. 2. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET SH30 FOR SOLDIER BEAM ATTRIBUTES. SH28 TIMBER LAGGING (SEE ELEVATION) TEMPORARY CANTILEVERED SOLDIER BEAM (TYP.) N.T.S. 7 TIMBER LAGGING DIAGONAL SUPPORT DETAIL SH28 N.T.S. SOLDIER BEAM .__ ___ SEE ELEVATION FOR SPACING -------I 1.5""(MIN.) BEARING TIMBER LAGGING (SEE ELEVATIONS) DRILL SHAFT (SEE BEAM SECTIONS FOR BACKFILL MATERIAL) 20d COMMON NAIL FOR LAGGING INSTALLATION (TYP., AS RE(fD) NOTE: NAILS MAY BE REMOVED FOR WATERPROOFING ONCE FINAL EXCAVATED GRADES (B.O.W.) ARE ACHIEVED. 2 SOLDIER BEAM PLAN DETAIL (TYPICAL) SH28 1.5""(MIN.) TIMBER LAGGING (SEE ELEVATION) @ OUTSIDE CORNER DETAIL SH28 N.T.S. L2x2x3/8 ANGLE IRON ATOP EACH SOLDIER BEAM MEMBER 3/8-inch 121 WIRE ROPE ALONG ENTIRE SHORING 21" PERIMETER (TYP.) SOLDIER BEAM, TYP. (SEE SCHEDULE) 44·· N.T.S. DRILL SHAFT (SEE BEAM SECTIONS FOR BACKFILL MATERIAL) 8 CAL-OSHA GUARDRAIL DETAIL SH28 N.T.S. DESIGN/BUILD PLANS: 2/712017 TIMBER LAGGING (SEE ELEVATION) I ,U...,-1,,U...,,..W.~;;.,.'-';,:.'-',~~, I '-/ --- 5 INSIDE CORNER DETAIL SH28 N.T.S. DATE INITIAL TIMBER LAGGING NOTE: USE 6x4x3/8 ANGLE IRON AT SB#26-28 & LOG CABIN CORNER L3x3x1 / 4 WITH 1 /2"'x3" LAG SCREWS 12"" O.C. (BOTH LEGS) 30-32 L.OG CABIN CORNERS 3 SH28 DRILL SHAFT (SEE BEAM SECTIONS FOR BACKFILL MATERIAL) SOLDIER BEAM LOG CABIN CORNER DETAIL N.T.S. 3/16" SOLDIER BEAM DRILL SHAFT (SEE BEAM SECTIONS FOR BACKFILL MATERIAL) TIMBER LAGGING (SEE ELEVATIONS) 1.5""(MIN.) BEARING 6 LAGGING OFFSET DETAIL SH28 N.T.S. "AS BUil T" SHORING DESIGN GROUP • RCE ---EXP. DATE REVIEWED BY: n5S VIA FRANCESCO #1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 INSPECTOR DATE ~I CITY OF CARLSBAD ,,SHEETS' LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 30 TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR: LOT 9 DEVELOPMENT IESTIN HOTB. AND TIMESHARE GPA l+-OJ APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT CITY ENGINEER PE 63912 EXPIRES 0913011a DATE DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL PROJECT NO. IDWNBY:~I II DRAWlNG NO. CHKD BY: __ CT 14-08 496-2A ENGINEER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION 01HER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL RVWD BY: R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2017 DATE ROY P. REED I ' n L_J BOTH SIDES (TYPICAL) 1/4 SEE ELEVATION SH29 .' . .d· .i"·· .,:Li- WT9x32.5 STRUT SUPPORT (2 TOTAL, SEE ELEVATION) PROPOSED LOBBY WALL WT9x32.5 STRUT SUPPORT (2 TOTAL, SEE ELEVATION) NOTES: .. 1. TIMBER LAGGING NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 2. PIPE STRUT NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 2. COPE WT MEMBERS AS REQ'D, TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION. 3. SEE SHORING PROFILE FOR WT BRACE ELEVATIONS. WT/ANGLE BRACE CONNECTION DETAIL (SB#28-30) -- N.T.S. TIMBER LAGGING (SEE ELEVATIONS) ' \ / I DRILL SHAFT (SEE BEAM ~ SECTIONS FOR BACKFILL / MATERIAL) @ ANGLE IRON CONNECTION SH29 N.T.S. DESIGN/BUILD PLANS: ROYP. REED 5/16 3/4" PLATE 1" MIN (TYP.) NOTES: TOPli BOTIOM 8" SCH.40S PIPE STRUT 1. SEE SHORING PROFILE FOR PIPE STRUT ELEVATION. W_ CORNER BRACE PLATE CONNECTION (SB#28 & 30) ~ N.T.S. 217/2017 DATE INITIAL R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2017 DATE ENGINEER OF WORK "AS BUil T" SHORING DESIGN GROUP • RCE ---EXP. DATE REVIEWED BY: n55 VIA FRANCESCO #1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 INSPECTOR DATE ~I CITY OF CARLSBAD IISHEETSI LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 30 TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR: LOT 9 DEVEL(llMENT l:STIN HOTEL AND TIMESHARE GPA 14-0J APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT ----CITY ENGINEER PE 63912 EXPIRES 09130!18 DATE DATE INITIAL DATE DWNB\~11 PROJECT NO. II DRA\\ING NO. INITIAL ICHKD BY:--REVISION DESCRIPTION OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL RVWD BY: CT 14-08 496-2A [ [ [ [ ,· GENERAL NOTES 1. CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND CALCULATIONS CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. 2. TEMPORARY SHORING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS (CAL-OSHA). 3. HEAVY LOADS SUCH AS CRANES OR CONCRETE TRUCKS IS PROHIBITED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE TOP OF EXCAVATION EXCEPT WHERE THE SHORING DESIGN PROVIDES FOR THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. 4. ALL TEMPORARY SHORING ELEMENTS DEPICTED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM SERVICE LIFE OF ONE (1) YEAR. AT THE END OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, THE EXISTING OR NEW STRUCTURES SHALL NOT RELY ON THE TEMPORARY SHORING FOR SUPPORT IN ANYWAY. 5. AN UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT MUST BE OBTAINED 2 DAYS BEFORE COMMENCING ANY EXCAVATION. 6. THE OWNER OR THE REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE ACTING AS THE OWNER'S AGENT SHALL EMPLOY ONE OR MORE APPROVED AGENCIES TO PERFORM INSPECTIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION. 7. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL INSPECTION SERVICES, TESTING & NOTIFICATIONS. 8. ALL PERMITS SHALL BE PROCURED AND PAID FOR BY THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 9. ALL MONITORING PROVIDED IN THESE PLANS HEREIN, SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 10. TEMPORARY SHORING IN THESE PLANS HAS BEEN ALIGNED WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTING & PROPOSED FEATURES, AS PROVIDED. ACTUAL FIELD LOCATION OF THE SHORING WALL SHALL BE ESTABLISHED USING ACCURATE HORIZONTAL CONTROL & COORDINATED TO FOLLOW THE PLANNED LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. REPORT ANY VARIATIONS TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. 11. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR OWNER SHALL LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION AND THE INSTALLATION OF SHORING. 12. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE PROPOSED SHORING DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 13. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE MEANS TO PREVENT SURFACE WATER FROM ENTERING THE EXCAVATION OVER THE TOP OF SHORING BULKHEAD. 14. INSTALLATION OF SHORING AND EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER CONTINUOUS OBSERVATION AND APPROVAL OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION. 15. ALTERNATIVE SHAPES, MATERIAL AND DETAILS CANNOT BE USED UNLESS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE SHORING ENGINEER. 16. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW & APPROVE THE PROPOSED SHORING SYSTEM PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, & VERIFY THE ADEQUACY OF ALL TEMPORARY GRADING WITH ~ESPECT TO EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS. 17. IT SHALL BE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR·s RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, TO VERIFY CONDITIONS AT THE JOB SITE AND TO CROSS-CHECK DETAILS AND DIMENSIONS WITHIN THE SHORING PLANS WITH RELATED REQUIREMENTS ON THE ARCHITECTURAL, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND ALL OTHER PERTINENT DRAWINGS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. 18. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORK UTILIZING THESE DESIGN-BUILD PLANS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY ELLIOTI DRILLING SERVICES ONLY. OWNER AND/OR CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT USE OR CONTROL THE DESIGNS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITIEN CONSENT OF AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OFELLIOTI DRILLING. SHORING INSTALLATION PROCEDURE 1. FIELD SURVEY DRILL HOLES & SHORING ALIGNMENT ACCORDING TO WALL DIMENSIONS & DATA SHOWN OR AS APPROVED BY THE SHORING ENGINEER. 2. DRILL VERTICAL SHAFTS TO THE EMBEDMENT DEPTH AND DIAMETERS SHOWN. ALLOWABLE PLACEMENT TOLERANCE SHALL BE 2" IN OR 2" OUT OR AS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE SHORING ENGINEER. 3. INSTALL SOLDIER BEAMS ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN IN PLAN. IF NECESSARY, CASING OR OTHER METHODS SHALL BE USED TO PREVENT LOSS OF GROUND OR COLLAPSE OF THE HOLE. 4. START EXCAVATION AFTER CONCRETE HAS CURED FOR A MINIMUM OF (3) THREE DAYS. 5. INSTALL LAGGING BETWEEN INSTALLED SOLDIER BEAMS IN LIFTS NO GREATER THAN 5'-0 .. OR AS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 6. BACKFILL ALL VOIDS BEHIND LAGGING WITH COMPACTED SOIL OR LEAN CONCRETE AS SPECIFIED IN THE DETAILS HEREIN. 7. REPEAT STEPS 5 & 7 UNTIL BOTIOM OF EXCAVATION IS REACHED. MONITORING 1. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR SURVEY POINTS ACCORDING TO THE .. MONITORING SCHEDULE" & LOCATIONS SHOWN PER PLAN. 2. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM A PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEY INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS & VIDEO OF THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS. 3. MAXIMUM THEORETICAL SOLDIER BEAM DEFLECTION IS 1-INCH. IFTHE TOTAL CUMULATIVE HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL MOVEMENT (FROM START OF CONSTRUCTION) EXCEEDS THIS LIMIT, ALL EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE SUSPENDED AND INVESTIGATED BY THE SHORING ENGINEER FOR FURTHER ACTIONS (AS NECESSARY). MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS STRUCTIJRAL STEEL 1. STRUCTIJRAL STEEL (WIDE FLANGES) SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS ASTM A-572 OR ASTM A-992 (GRADE 50). 2. MISCELLANEOUS STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A-36, ASTM A-572 (GRADE 50) OR ASTM A-992. 3. TRENCH PLATES (LAGGING) SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS FO ASTM A-36. 4. WIRE ROPE (GUARDRAIL): SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM BREAKING STRENGTH OF 13,500LBS. STRUCTURAL & LEAN CONCRETE A. STRUCTURAL CONCRETE: 1. STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (DRILL SHAFT TOE BACKFILL) SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 2,500PSI AT 28-DAYS. 2. CONCRETE MIX SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2013CBC 1905.3 TO MEET THE FOLLOWING: A. MAXIMUM 1-INCH HARDROCK CONCRETE CONFORMING TO ASTM C-33. B. TYPE II NEAT PORTLAND CEMENT CONFORMING TO ASTM C-150. B. LEAN CONCRETE (SLURRY) 1. LEAN SAND SLURRY MIX SHALL CONTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.5 SACKS TYPE II CEMENT PER CUBIC YARD. TIMBER 1. TIMBER LAGGING SHALL BE ROUGH SAWN DOUGLAS FIR LARCH NO. 2 OR BETIER. 2. TIMBER LAGGING SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWPA U1 USE CATEGORY 4A. WELDING 1. ELECTRIC ARC WELDING PERFORMED BY QUALIFIED WELDERS USING E70XX ELECTRODES OR CONTIUOUS WIRE FEED. 2. SPECIAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED FOR ALL FIELD WELDING. SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE Shor...i ,..,. T .. From To ! BNm Bum Hoicht Depth Diammr Bum Beam! ® Section H ft w 12x26 5.0 10.0 15.0 24 W 18 X 65 13.0 17.0 30.0 24 4 W 24 X 55 13.0 17.0 30.0 30 13 W 18 X 65 13.0 17.0 30.0 24 14 15 W 18 X 50 12.0 16.0 28.0 24 16 16 W 16 X 40 '11.0 14.0 25.0 24 17 18 W 16 X 36 9.0 13.0 22.0 24 19 W 14 X 30 8.0 12.0 20.0 24 20 IV 14 X 30 7.0 13.0 20.0 24 21 W 12 X 26 6.0 10.0 16.0 24 22 W 12x 26 5.0 10.0 15.0 24 25 IV 16 x36 7.0 18.0 25.0 24 26 IV 16 X 36 7.0 13.0 20.0 24 27 27 W !8x 65 12.0 18.0 30.0 30 28 28 IV18x65 12.0 23.0 35.0 30 29 32 IV 18 X 65 12.0 18.0 30.0 30 33 34 IV 16 X 36 7.0 13.0 20.0 24 DESIGN/BUILD PLANS: 217/2017 ROYP. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2017 DATE DATE INJTlAL ENGINEER Of WORK STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION CONTI NOUS PERIODIC CBC REFERENCE 1. Verify use of required design mix --X 1904.2.2 2. Inspection of concrete placement for X --proper application techniques. 3. Material verification of structural steel a. For structural steel, identification --X markings to conform to AISC 360. b. Manufacturer's report --X 4. Inspection of welding a. Multipass fillet welds X --2303.1.8.1 5. Material identification of timber a. Identification of preservative --X VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION ITEMS (OTHER) 6. Observe drilling operations and maintain complete and accurate X -- records for each element. 7. Verify placement locations and plumbness, confirm element diameters, lengths, embedment into X -- bedrock (if applicable). Record concrete and grout values. 8. Verify excavations are extended to the X proper depth. -- DESIGN CRITERIA 1. SOIL DESIGN DATA IS BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED IN THE FOLLOWING GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS: A. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION LOT 9 AND CMWD WATER TANK SITE GRAND PACIFIC RESORTS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: MTGL, INC., DATED: OCTOBER 14, 2014. 2. SOIL DESIGN PRESSURES A. PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE= 350PSF/FT B. EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE = 30PSF /FT (LEVEL) C. EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE= 60PSF/FT (WITH 1-1 SLOPE) D. MINIMUM LIVE LOAD = 72PSF SHORING DESIGN GROUP • RCE ---- RrnEWED BY: ns5 VIA FRANCESCO #1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 INSPECTOR "AS BUil T" EXP. DATE DATE ~I CITY OF CARLSBAD IISHEETSI LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 30 TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR: LOT 9 0£\IEL(PMENT M:STIN HOID. AND TIMESHARE GPA 14-0J I APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT CITY ENGINEER PE 63912 EXPIRES 09/30/18 ----DAlE DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL l°WN BY: ---'=-I I PROJECT NO. II DRAWING NO. REVISION DESCRIPTION CHKD BY: __ CT 14-08 496-2A OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL RVWD BY: 1----i I_J ': u n ,1 ! _ _J ,--c, L_J Section 2 I,_., 11 r, LJ L_j u [_j LJ ,-, Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California 4.17 .3 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS AND SHORING MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 Short term temporary excavations in existing soils may be safely made at an inclination of 1: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. If vertical sidewalls are required in excavations greater than 3 feet in depth, the use of cantilevered or braced shoring is recommended. Excavations less than 3 feet in depth may be constructed with vertical sidewalls without shoring or shielding. Our recommendations for lateral earth pressures to be used in the design of cantilevered and/or braced shoring are presented below. These values incorporate a uniform lateral pressure of 72 psf to provide for the normal construction loads imposed by vehicles, equipment, materials, and workmen on the surface adjacent to the trench excavation. However, if vehicles, equipment, materials, etc. are kept a minimum distance equal to the height of the excavation away from the edge of the excavation, this surcharge load need not be applied. P = 30 H DSf , 72 DS! P = 25 H sf 72 sf P Total= 72 psi+ 30 H psi P Total= 72 sf+ 25 H sf SHORING DESIGN: LATERAL SHORING PRESSURES Design of the shield struts should be based on a value of 0.65 times the indicated pressure, Pa, for the approximate trench depth. The wales and sheeting can be designed for a value of 2/3 the design strut value. Page 20 r, r, u r1 I Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California 4.11 FOUNDATIONS 2 MTGL Project No. 1916Al0 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 The recommendations and design criteria are "minimum" in keeping with the current standard-of- practice. They do not preclude more restrictive criteria by the governing agency or structural considerations. The project structural engineer should evaluate the foundation configurations and reinforcement requirements for actual structural loadings. The foundation design parameters assumes that remedial grading is conducted as recommended in this report, and that all the buildings are underlain by a relatively uniform depth of compacted fill with a low to medium expansion potential. Note that expansion index testing should be conducted on the individual building pads during finish grading in order to confirm this assumption. Conventional shallow foundations are considered suitable for support of the proposed structures r-i provided that remedial grading to remove undocumented fill materials and mitigation of cut/fill transitions are performed. If remedial grading is not performed, then proposed structures should be supported by cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles. l __ J l~_j c _ _J u 4.11.1 CONVENTIONAL SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS Allowable Soil Bearing: Minimum Footing Width: Minimum Footing Depth: Coefficient of Friction: 0.33 Passive Pressure: 3,000 lbs/fr (allow a one-third increase for short-term wind or seismic loads). The allowable soil bearing may be increase 500 lbs/fr for every 12-inch increase in depth above the minimum footing depth and 250 lbs/fr for every 12-inch increase in width above the minimum footing width. The bearing value may not exceed 6,000 lbs/tt2 24 inches 24 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade 350 psf per foot of depth. Passive pressure and the friction of resistance could be combined without reduction 4.11.2 Cast-In-Drilled Hole (CIDH) PILES As an alternative to using a conventional shallow foundation system, which requires mitigation of undocumented fill soils, structures at the site may be supported by cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH) piles extending a minimum of 10 feet into the formational materials (Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 2-4, Undivided or Santiago Formation). The downward and uplift capacities of Page 13 r-, : u :1 Section 3 ' ' u LJ I ' L..c..J u 1-i L.J ~-··_J L-1 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_l._of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "1, 21-24" Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties Pile:= "Concrete Embed" H := 6-ft = Soldier beam retained height X:= 0 Hs := O· ft --> = Height of retained slope (As applicable) y:= 0 = Tributary width of soldier beam dia := 24-in = Soldier beam shaft diameter de':= dia = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade dt:= 2·H = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess) w_table := "n/a" = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table ASTM A992 {Grade 50) Shoring Design Section I I I E := 29000· ksi IO -- Fy:= 50,ksi ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) 0 - D+H+L Lateral Embedment Safety Factor -10 -- I I -50 0 50 Cantilever H = 6', bm 1, 21-24.xmcdz (·1 u r, L_J u t_J u L .. 1 L ... ) 11 l l --' Li Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa:= 30·pcf Pp:= 350· pcf pmax:= "n/a" <I>:= 30· deg -1 be:= 0.08·deg ·<!>·de' a_ratio:= min(be, 11 xt ) a_ratio = 0.6 qa:= O·psf fs := 600· psf "Is:= 125· pcf = Active earth pressure = Passive earth pressure Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_Lof __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle (Below subgrade) = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soil unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable) 1w := 62.4· pcf Pp':= Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pp ( -· "Is -1w) otherwise "Is Pa':= Pa if w_table = "n/a" Cantilever H = 6', bm 1, 21-24.xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp' = 350· pcf Pa'= 30·pcf LJ L __ J u u u u u i~ L_; Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full:= 72. psf Partial:= O· psf Hpar:= 0-ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_§_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Ps (y) := Full + Partial if O· ft::; y::; Hpar Full if Hpar < y::; H Uniform surcharge profile per depth O· psf otherwise Eccentric/Conncentric Axial ft Lateral Point Loading Pr:= 0-kip e:= 0-in Pr-e Me:= -- xt Ph:= 0-lb zh:= 0-ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP:= 0-pcf Es:= EFP·H Eq(y):= Es Es - -· y if y ::; H H O· psf otherwise Cantilever H = 6', bm 1, 21-24.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure u u 11 Lc:J '~-J LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesq Loading q:= 0,ksf z':= O·ft K:= 0.50 o(y) := 02 (y) -01 (y) Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet__§_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non-yielding) ( \ K = 0.75 (Semi-rigid) X2 I K = 0.50 (Flexible) 02 (y) := atan Y) o(y) a(y) := 01 (y) + -2- Pb(y) := 0,psf if O·ft ~ y~ z' 2·q·K·7T-1·(o(y-z') -sin(o(y-z'))·cos(2·a(y-z'))) if z'< y~ H O· psf otherwise Maximum Boussinesq Pressure D..y:= 5,ft Given d -Pb(Lly) = 0-psf dD..y Pb(Find(D..y)) = 0-psf H ~ Pb(y) dy= O·klf 0 Cantilever H = 6', bm 1, 21-24.xmcdz Lateral Surcharge Loading 4 ------------------·---_____ I 2~--------------~------ o,'-----'-----'-----.....,_-~_.._-..J 0 W ~ ~ W Pressure (pst) L_J u Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) Z:= 6-ft D:= dt Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_7_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 u a_ratio-PA ( H) = 108· psf ,, Q = 0.5ft u Given Summation of Lateral Forces u ( -PE(H+D-z)J PJ(H + D)· z-[ mE(z, D) ) -----------+ 2 :Jo =O L0 ( H+O ( H r H+D r H+D r H + I, PE(y) dy+ L PA(y) dy+ J Ps(y) dy+ J Pb(y) dy+ J Eq(y) dy+ Ph :JH ~o o o o xt Summation of Moments =O I H+D-z I H+O I H +I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+L PA(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+Me ... :JH+O :JH ~O r H+D r H r H+D + Ps(y)·(H + 0-y) dy+ J Eq(y)·(H + 0-y) dy+ J Pb(y)·(H + D-y) dy+ Ph·(H + 0-zh) Jo o o xt ( z l D /= Find (z, D) Z>O Z= 2 ft D = 7.7ft Cantilever H = 6', bm 1, 21-24.xmcdz u r~ u r-1 u u r~'! \.__l l..J l) r, l._! t_J (,_j u Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soldier Beam Pressure 0 2 5 -~ fr Q -2x 103 -lxl03 0 Ix 103 Pressure (psf) Shear/ft width -5 ~ -~ A Q.) Q -3 -2 - 1 0 Shear (klf) Cantilever H = 6', bm 1, 21-24.xmcdz Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_.8__of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Soil Pressures Po(H + D) = -2702.2-psf PE(H + D) = -1513.3-psf PK ( H + D) = 4802.2· psf PJ(H + D) = 2881.3-psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pile) e:= a~ H e ~ V(a) while e > o a~ a+ 0.10.ft e ~ V(a) return a e = 9.7ft l__\ u LJ u ~-j LJ r, LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) :-~ y V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 39.5· kip-ft Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_9_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 n := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1 ACT:= 1.33 Fy·ACT Fb:= --n = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax z ·=--r· Fb Flexural Yielding, Lb < Zr= 11.9· in3 Beam = "Wl2 x 26" A= 7.7-in 2 d = 12.2-in tw = 0.2-in Axial Stresses bf= 6.5-in tf = 0.4-in rx = 5.2-in Fy >..:=- Fe Lr K:= 1 Zx = 37.2-in Ix= 204-in 4 Fb = 39.8· ksi Lu:= H if Pile= "Concrete Embed" 3 e: otherwise 2 7i . E Fe:=--- ( K-Lu 12 rx ) Fer== ( >.. ) K-Lu fl; 0.658 -Fy if --:-=::; 4.71· - rx Fy = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 ( 0.877 ·Fe) otherwise Fcr"A Pc:= --n = Allowable concentric force -AISC E.3-1 = Allowable bending moment -AISC F.2-1 Interaction:= [Pr+ .!.(Mmax fl if ~ ~ 0.20 Pc 9 Ma )J Pc = AISC H1-1a & H1-1b (- Pr + Mmax l 2·Pc Ma ) otherwise Interaction = 0.32 Cantilever H = 6', bm 1, 21-24.xmcdz Ma= 123.4-kip-ft Mmax = 39.S· kip-ft \I L) u Ci L_J LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Global Stability = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Dh := Ceil(D, ft)+ I-ft Slidding Forces: r. H+Dh Fs:= V(H + 0) + Pn(x) dx '.Jo2 Resisting Forces: 02 FR:=[ Pn(x)dx JH+O Overturning Moments: Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet....1.Q_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Fs = 3.2· klf FR= -4.8· klf H H H H M0 : = r ( Dh + H -y) · PA ( y) dy + ~ ( Dh + H -y) · Ps ( y) dy + ~ ( Dh + H -y) · Pb ( y) dy + ~ ( Dh + H -y) · E J0 o o o ( H+O ( 0 ) r. H+Dh H + Dh -02 Ph +L PE(y)dy-Dh-3 )+ Pn(y)dy-3 +Me+-·(Dh+H-zh) '.JH '.Jo xt 2 Resisting Moments M0 = 12.4· kip MR= -19.1-kip Factor of Safety: Slidding ,~ 1{ FSd < :~ , "Ok", ''No Good, Increase Db"~ Slidding = "Ok" IFRI = 1.48 Fs ( MR Overturning:= if FSd :s; Mo , "Ok" , "No Good: Increase Dh" ) Overturning = "Ok" Cantilever H = 6', bm 1, 21-24.xmcdz (' \___J l_:J LJ u LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet...11_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 qa = 0-psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure ts= 600-psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr= 0-kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := 'Tr· dia if Pile = "Concrete Embed" [ 2 · ( bf + d )] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Axial Resistance d. 2 Q(y) := p'.fs-y + 'Tr· 1a -qa if Pile = "Concrete Embed" 4 ( bf d· qa) otherwise Dv:= c +-0-ft T +-Q(c) while T > O € +-€ + 0.10.ft T +-Pr-Q(c) return € Selected Toe Depth Dtoe:= if(Dh 2: Dv, Dh, Dv) Maximum Deflection D L':= H + -4 L' xt ( .D.:= -.I Y·M'(y) dy E·lx Jo Cantilever H = 6', bm 1, 21-24.xmcdz = Effective length about pile rotation .D. = 0.15-in Dv = Oft Dh = 9ft Dtoe = 9ft u ,, I'"'"\ r--1 11 u // u f/ r, u L} ,--.,. j~ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam = "Wl2 x 26" H = 6ft Dtoe = 9ft H + Dtoe = 15ft xt = 8 ft dia = 24-in .6.. = 0.15-in Cantilever H = 6', bm 1, 21-24.xmcdz Sb_No = "1, 21-24" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_j_g_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 l) Section 4 \ __ ) l~_) [j {__J Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet....11._of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "2-13" Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties Pile:= "Concrete Embed" H := 13-ft = Soldier beam retained height X:= 0 Hs := O· ft --> = Height of retained slope (As applicable) y:= 0 = Tributary width of soldier beam dia:= 24-in = Soldier beam shaft diameter de':= dia = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade dt:=2·H = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess) w_table := "n/a" = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table ASTMA992 (Grade 50) Shoring Design Section I I I E := 29000· ksi 10 -- Fy:= 50-ksi ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) 0 - D+H+L -10 -- Lateral Embedment Safety Factor -20 -- I I -100 0 100 Cantilever H = 13', bm 2-13.xmcdz L! ---, ' -'------1 LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa:= 30-pcf Pp:= 350-pcf p ·= "n/a" max· <j>:= 30-deg -1 . be:= 0.08· deg . <J>· de a_ratio:= min(be, 1 \ xt ) a_ratio = 0.6 qa:= 0-psf fs := 600· psf 1s := 125· pcf = Active earth pressure = Passive earth pressure Westin Hotel Eng: RPR SheetJ..±_ot __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle (Below subgrade) = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soil unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable) 1w := 62.4· pcf Pp':= Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pp·{ 1s -1w} otherwise 1s Pa':= Pa if w_table = "n/a" Cantilever H = 13', bm 2-13.xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp' = 350· pcf Pa'= 30-pcf ,'7 ,-, (_.J ,--·1 i__J l:.J I! Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full:= 72· psf Partial:= O· psf Hpar:= 0-ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Westin Hotel Eng: RPR SheetJ_§_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Ps (y) := Full + Partial if O· ft :s; y :s; Hpar Full if Hpar < y :s; H Uniform surcharge profile per depth O· psf otherwise Eccentric/ConncentricAxial ft Lateral Point Loading Pr:= 0-kip e:= 0-in Pr-e Me:= -- xt Ph:= 0-lb zh:=0-ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP:= 0-pcf Es:= EFP-H Eq(y):= Es Es -- · y if y :s; H H O· psf otherwise Cantilever H = 13', bm 2-13.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure L,J u u Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesg Loading q:= O·ksf x1 := O·ft z':= O·ft K:= 0.50 Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_j_§_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non-yielding) ( \ K = 0.75 (Semi-rigid) x2 l K = 0.50 (Flexible) e2 (y) := atan Y) l\(y) o:(y) := e1 (y) + -2- Pb(y) := O· psf if O· ft :s; y :s; z' 2·q·K·1t-1·(1\(y-z') -sin(l\(y-z'))·cos(2·o:(y-z'))) if z'< y:s; H O· psf otherwise Lateral Surcharge Loading :_ 1 Maximum Boussinesg Pressure ' \ L~ u f::l.y:= 5.ft Given d -Pb(f::l.y) = 0-psf df::l.y Pb(Find(.f::l.y)) = O,psf H ~ Pb(y) dy= O·klf 0 Cantilever H = 13', bm 2-13.xmcdz 10 -- 20 40 60 80 Pressure (psf) L __ J L_j Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) Z:= 6-ft D := dt PA(H) = 389.7-psf a_ratio-PA(H) = 233.8-psf Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_:!_Z_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 r, 0 = 1.1 ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces =O ( H+O ( H r H+D r H+D r H + I, PE(y) dy+ L PA(y) dy+ J Ps(y) dy+ J Pb(y) dy+ J Eq(y) dy+ Ph '.JH Jo o o o xt Summation of Moments =O ( H+D-z ( H+O ( H +I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+L PA(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+Me ... '.JH+O '.JH JO r H+D r H r H+D + Ps(y)-(H + D-y) dy+ J Eq(y)-(H + D-y) dy+ J Pb(y)-(H + D-y) dy+ Ph·(H + D-zh) Jo o o xt ( z l D /= Find(z, D) Z>O z = 3.7ft D = 14.8ft Cantilever H = 13', bm 2-13.xmcdz L -~ ;-1 LJ ('-,I '', I_.J f~! Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 ---10 ~ '-" ,fl fr 0 -4x 103 0 2 10 '-" ,fl fr 0 -10 Soldier Beam Pressure -2x 103 0 Pressure (psf) Shear/ft width -5 0 Shear (kif) Cantilever H = 13', bm 2-13.xmcdz 4xl03 5 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_Jjlof __ Date: November 2, 2016 Soil Pressures PA(H) = 389.7-psf Po(H + D) = -5188.7-psf PE(H + D) = -2879.4-psf PK(H + D) = 9735.2-psf PJ(H + D) = 5841.1-psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pile) e := a f-H e f-V(a) while e > O a f-a+ 0.10-ft e f-V(a) return a e = 20ft u L_,,j u LJ ,·-1 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) := ~ y V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 280.2· kip-ft Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet..JJL_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 0 := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1 .6.CT := 1.33 Fy-.6.CT Fb:=-- 0 = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax Flexural Yielding, Lb< Zr= 84.4-in3 Beam= "W18 x 65" z ·=--r· Fb Lr Fb = 39.8· ksi 2 A= 19.1-in bf= 7.6-in K:= I Lu:= H if Pile= "Concrete Embed" d = 18.4-in tw = 0.5-in Axial Stresses tf = 0.8-in rx=7.5-in Fy )..:=- Fe Z = 133-in 3 X Ix= 1070-in 4 c otherwise 2 TI ·E Fe:=--- ( K· Lu ')2 rx ) ( >,. ) K-Lu ff; 0.658 -Fy if --~ 4.71· - rx Fy = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 ( 0.877. Fe) otherwise Fcr"A Pc:=-- 0 = Allowable concentric force -AISC E.3-1 = Allowable bending moment -AISC F.2-1 Interaction:= -+-· --1 if -~0.20 [ Pr 8 (Mmax ll Pr Pc 9 Ma )J Pc = AISC H1-1a & H1-1b (- Pr + Mmax I 2-Pc Ma ) otherwise Interaction= 0.63 Cantilever H = 13', bm 2-13.xmcdz Ma= 441.3-kip-ft Mmax= 280.2,kip,ft n. L_j Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Global Stability = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Dh := Ceil(D, ft) + 2-ft Slidding Forces: r. H+Dh Fs:= V(H + 0) + Pn(x) dx Jo2 Resisting Forces: Overturning Moments: Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_g_Q_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Fs = 11.9· klf FR=-17-klf H H H rH M0 : = r ( Dh + H -y) · PA ( y) dy + ~ ( Dh + H -y) · Ps ( y) dy + ~ ( Dh + H -y) · Pb ( y) dy + J ( Dh + H -y) · E ~o o o o I H+O ( 0 l r. H+Dh H + Dh -02 Ph + I, PE(y) dy-Dh-3 )+ Pn(Y) dy-3 + Me+ -·(Dh + H-zh) JH Jo xt 2 Resisting Moments M0 = 85.4· kip Factor of Safety: ( FR l $lidding:= if FSd ~ , "Ok", "No Good: Increase Dh") Fs [ MR Overturning:= if FSd ~ - Mo Cantilever H = 13', bm 2-13.xmcdz , "Ok" , "No Good: Increase Dh" MR= -125.6-kip $lidding = "Ok" 'FRI = 1.43 Fs Overturning = "Ok" ) r, L_J ' ' LJ u u Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 qa= 0-psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600-psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr= 0-kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := 'IT· dia if Pile = "Concrete Embed" [2-(bf + d)] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Axial Resistance d. 2 Q(y) := p'-fs-y+ 'IT· 1a . qa if Pile = "Concrete Embed" 4 { bf d· qa) otherwise Dv:= c: +-0-ft T +-Q(c) while T > O c: +-c + 0.10,ft T +-Pr-Q(c:) return c: Selected Toe Depth Otoe:= if(Dh 2:: Dv, Oh, Dv) Maximum Deflection D L':= H + -4 L' xt f d:= -·) y-M'(y) dy E·lx o Cantilever H = 13', bm 2-13.xmcdz = Effective length about pile rotation d = 0.86-in Dv = Oft Dh = 17ft Otoe= 17ft LJ ;l L, ,, u ,--, r, ,..J Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam= "Wl8 x 65" H = 13ft Dtoe = 17ft H + Dtoe = 30ft dia = 24,in ~ = 0.86,in Cantilever H = 13', bm 2-13.xmcdz Sb_No = "2-13" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 LJ ,, L~.1 r, u I ' __ J r, u r-, LJ r-1 I~ 11 1-1 u l_) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet22A of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No:= "4" Soldier Beam Attributes ft Properties Pile:= "Concrete Embed" H:= 13.ft = Soldier beam retained height X:= 0 Hs := O·ft --> = Height of retained slope (As applicable) y:= 0 = Tributary width of soldier beam dia := 30-in = Soldier beam shaft diameter de':= dia = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade dt:= 2-H = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess) w_table := "n/a" = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table ASTM A992 (Grade 50} Shoring Design Section I I I E := 29000· ksi 10 -- Fy:= 50-ksi ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) s --0 ,£ 0.. (I) D+H+L 0 ---10 Lateral Embedment Safety Factor -20 -- FSd:= 1.30 I I -100 0 100 Cantilever H = 13', bm 4.xmcdz !_. J L .. J u LJ u (_.J '-_J l,_J I_, Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa:= 30-pcf Pp:= 350· pct p max:= "n/a" <I>:= 30· deg -1 be:= 0.08-deg ·<!>·de' a_ratio:= min(be, 11 xt ) a_ratio = 0.75 qa:= 0-psf fs := 600· psf '"'Is:= 125· pct = Active earth pressure = Passive earth pressure Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet 22Bof __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle (Below subgrade) = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soil unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable) Pp':= Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pa':= Pp·( '"'Is -1w) otherwise '"'Is Pa if w_table = "n/a" Pa ·(1s -1w) otherwise '"'Is Cantilever H = 13', bm 4.xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp' = 350· pcf Pa'= 30-pcf '._j I ___ J u l,_,_J lc-e1 lj u Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full:= 72. psf Partial:= O· psf Hpar:= o.ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet22Cof __ Date: November 2, 2016 Ps(y) := Full+ Partial if O,ft sys Hpar Full if Hpar < y s H Uniform surcharge profile per depth O · psf otherwise Eccentric/Conncentric Axial &. Lateral Point Loading Pr:= O·kip e:= O·in Pr·e Me:= -- xt Ph:= O·lb zh:= O·ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP:= O·pcf Es:= EFP,H Eq(y):= Es Es -- · y if y s H H O· psf otherwise Cantilever H = 13', bm 4.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure L.0 n 1'._J u Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesg Loading q:= 0-ksf x1 := 0-ft z':= 0-ft K:= 0.50 Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet 22Dot __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non-yielding) ( \ K = 0.75 (Semi-rigid) X2 I K = 0.50 (Flexible) e2 (y) := atan Y) &(y) o.(y) := e1 (y) + -2- Pb(y) := 0-psf if 0-ft :s; y:s; z' 2·q·K·1t-1-(&(y-z') -sin(&(y-z'))-cos(2·o.(y-z'))) if z'< y:s; H O· psf otherwise Maximum Boussinesg Pressure /j.y:= 5-ft Given d -Pb(jj.y) = 0-psf djj.y Pb(Find(jj.y)) = 0-psf H ~ Pb(y) dy = 0-klf 0 Cantilever H = 13', bm 4.xmcdz Lateral Surcharge Loading 101------------+------ ----- o,~----l....----'"--~~ ..... ~~a!---l 0 W ~ 00 W Pressure (psf) LJ n u L..-J LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet22E of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) Z:= 6-ft D:= dt PA(H) = 389.7-psf a_ratio-PA ( H) = 292.3. psf 0 = 1.1 ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces ( H+O ( H ( H+D ( H+D ( H + I, PE(y) dy+ L PA(y) dy+) Ps(y) dy+) Pb(y) dy+) Eq(y) dy+ :h JH ~O O O O t Summation of Moments ( H+D-z ( H+O ( H +I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+L PA(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+Me ... JH+O JH \ ( H+D ( H ( H+D Ph +) Ps(y)·(H+D-y)dy+IJ Eq(y)·(H+D-y)dy+) Pb(y)-(H+D-y)dy+-·(H+D-zh) o o o xt (z 1:= Find(z, D) lo) Z>O z = 3.3ft D = 13.6ft Cantilever H = 13', bm 4.xmcdz =O =O ' ' L . .J ; I L_j u u u r, u '' ,,..--1 u (! l i r-, LJ I ' c__c! ,-, l __ _J r, LJ .-~·-, 1-_j u LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 2 10 '-" ,£ p.. Q) ~ -4xl03 -2x 103 0 ,-.._ 10 cl::: '-" ,£ fr ~ -10 Cantilever H = 13', bm 4.xmcdz Soldier Beam Pressure 0 2xl03 4xl03 &< 103 Pressure (psf) Shear/ft width -5 0 5 Shear (kif) Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet22F of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Soil Pressures PA(H) = 389.7-psf Po(H + D) = -4745.9•psf PE(H + D) = -3267.2-psf PK ( H + D) = 9292.4· psf P J ( H + D) = 6969 .3 · psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pile) i:: := a+--H e +--V(a) while i:: > o a+--a+ 0.10.ft e +--V(a) return a e= 19.4ft lJ ' Ll /71 LJ u I : '--<...;._) L~_) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) '" ~ y V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 269.9·kip.ft Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet22Gof __ Date: November 2, 2016 n := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 a F1 b.cr := 1.33 Fy· b.cr Fb:= --n = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax Flexural Yielding, Lb< Zr= 81.3· in3 Beam = "W24 x 55" A= 16.2·in 2 d = 23.6·in tw = 0.4·in Axial Stresses bf= 7·in tf = 0.5-in rx = 9.l·in Fy >-:=- Fe z ·=--r· Fb K:= 1 Lr Z = 134·in X 3 I = 1350·in 4 X Fb = 39.8· ksi Lu:= H if Pile= "Concrete Embed" e otherwise 2 -rr . E Fe:=--- ( K·LU "i2 rx ) = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 a E3-3 (0.877·Fe) otherwise = Allowable concentric force -AISC E.3-1 = Allowable bending moment -AISC F.2-1 Interaction:= [Pr+ !.(Mmax rl if Pr~ 0.20 Pc 9 Ma )J Pc Ma= 444.7 · kip· ft = AISC H1-1a & H1-1b (- Pr + Mmax l otherwise 2·PC Ma ) Interaction= 0.61 Mmax = 269.9· kip· ft Cantilever H = 13', bm 4.xmcdz Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet 22Hof __ Date: November 2, 2016 c-, Global Stability = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety I u Embedment depth increase for min. FS Dh:= Ceil(D, ft)+ 3-ft LJ Slidding Forces: u r H+Dh Fs:= V(H + 0) + Pn(x) dx Jo2 u Resisting Forces: Fs = 12.7·klf FR= -22.5· klf LJ Overturning Moments: (H H H H M0 : = L ( Dh + H -y) · PA ( y) dy + ~ ( Dh + H -y) · Ps ( y) dy + ~ ( Dh + H -y). Pb ( y) dy + ~ ( Dh + H -y). E ~o o o o ( H+O ( 0) r H+Dh H + Dh -02 Ph +I, PE(y)dy· Dh-3 )+ Pn(y)dy-+Me+-·(Dh+H-zh) ~H Jo 3 xt 2 Resisting Moments LJ r, 02 MR:=r (H+Dh-y)·Pn(y)dy JH+O M0 = 85.6· kip MR= -161-kip LJ Factor of Safety: Slidding = "Ok" 'FRI = 1.78 Fs ( MR Overturning:= if FSd::; , "Ok" , "No Good: Increase Dh" Mo ) Overturning = "Ok" 'MRI = 1.88 Mo L) Cantilever H;;;;; 13', bm 4.xmcdz u L_.J LJ [_J u LJ L__i u Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet221 of __ Date: November 2, 2016 qa= O·psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600-psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr= O·kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := 7i· dia if Pile = "Concrete Embed" [2·(bf + d)] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Axial Resistance d. 2 Q(y) := p'.fs.y+ 7i· 1a -qa if Pile = "Concrete Embed" 4 ( br d· qa) otherwise Dv:= c ~ o.ft T~ Q(c) while T > o c ~ c + 0.10,ft T ~ Pr-Q(c) return c Selected Toe Depth Dtoe:= if(Dh ~ Dv, Dh, Dv) Maximum Deflection D L':= H + -4 L' xt r A:=-. Y·M'(y) dy E·lx \ Cantilever H = 13', bm 4.xmcdz = Effective length about pile rotation A= 0.63·in Dv = Oft Dh = 17ft Dtoe = 17ft [ __ _) u (, LJ LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam = "W24 x 55" H = 13 ft Dtoe = 17ft H + Dtoe = 30ft dia = 30,in .6. = 0.63,in Cantilever H = 13', bm 4.xmcdz Sb_No = "4" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet 22J of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Section 5 ii l.---1 LJ L.J (~ u r; LJ ~. ) r-1 l-1 ,··-1 LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "14-15" Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties Pile:= "Concrete Embed" H := 12-ft = Soldier beam retained height X:= 0 Hs := O· ft --> = Height of retained slope (As applicable) y:= 0 = Tributary width of soldier beam dia:= 24-in = Soldier beam shaft diameter de':= dia = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade dt:=2·H = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess) w_table := "n/a" = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table ASTMA992 (Grade 50) Shoring Design Section I I I E := 29000· ksi 10 -- Fy:= 50-ksi ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) 2 '-' -= -0 D+H+L fr 0 -10 ,_ - Lateral Embedment Safety Factor FSd:= 1.30 ,_ - I I -20 -100 0 100 Cantilever H = 12', bm 14-15.xmcdz LJ 11 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa:= 30-pcf Pp:= 350-pcf p ·= "n/a" max· Pps := 0-psf cj> := 30· deg -1 be:= 0.08-deg ·<J>·de' a_ratio:= min(be, 11 xt ) a_ratio = 0.6 qa:= 0-psf fs := 600· psf = Active earth pressure = Passive earth pressure Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle (Below subgrade) = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soil unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable) "lw := 62.4· pcf Pp':= Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pp ( -. "Is-"lw} otherwise "Is Pa':= Pa if w_table = "n/a" Pa ( -. "Is -"lw) otherwise "Is Cantilever H = 12', bm 14-15.xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp' = 350· pcf Pa'= 30-pcf r, L.l L__) l____! Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full:= 72· psf Partial:= O· psf Hpar:= 0-ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Ps(y):= Full+Partial if O·ftsysHpar Full if Hpar < y s H Uniform surcharge profile per depth O· psf otherwise Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading Pr:= O·kip e:= O·in Pr·e Me:= -- xt Ph:= O·lb zh:= O·ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP:= O·pcf Es:= EFP·H Eq(y) := Es Es - -· y if y s H H O· psf otherwise Cantilever H = 12', bm 14-15.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure L_J u r, u ( _) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesq Loading q:= O· ksf X1 := 0-ft z':= 0-ft K := 0.50 o (y) := 92 (y) -91 (y) Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_g§_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non-yielding) K = 0.75 (Semi-rigid) ( x2 l K = 0.50 (Flexible) 92 (y) := atan y) o(y) a(y) := 91 (y) + -2- Pb(y) := 0-psf if 0-ft :s; y:s; z' 2·q·K·71"-1-(o(y-z') -sin(o(y-z'))-cos(2·a(y-z'))) if z' < y:s; H O· psf otherwise Lateral Surcharge Loading Maximum Boussinesg Pressure l:iy:= 5-ft Given d -Pb(l:iy) = 0-psf d!:iy Pb(Find(!:iy)) = 0-psf H ~ Pb(y) dy= 0-klf 0 Cantilever H = 12', bm 14-15.xmcdz 20 40 60 Pressure (psf) 80 u L,) u u i _ _j LJ I I LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_g.z_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) Z:= 6,ft D:= dt a_ratio-PA(H) = 216-psf 0 = I ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces ( -PE(H+D-z)\ PJ(H + D)· z-[ mE(z, D) ) -----------+ 2 ~o ( H+O ( H ( H+D ( H+D ( H + I, PE(y) dy+ L PA(y) dy+ I Ps(y) dy+) Pb(y) dy+) Eq(y) dy+ Ph ~H ~o Jo o o xt Summation of Moments ( -PE( H + D -z) ')2 PJ(H + D)· z-[ mE(z, D) ) ----------~+ 6 ~o ( H+D-z ( H+O ( H +I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+L PA(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+Me ... ~H+O ~H ~O ( H+D ( H ( H+D +I Ps(y)-(H+D-y)dy+IJ Eq(y)·(H+D-y)dy+IJ Pb(y)-(H+D-y)dy+ Ph·(H+D-zh) Jo o o xt ( z \ D /= Find(z, D) Z>O z = 3.5ft D = 13.8ft Cantilever H = 12', bm 14-15.xmcdz =O r---i c: I r u [1 u ' I [____J r'1 I ' Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 ,-.._ 10 ~ "-" ti fr Q 0 -10 Soldier Beam Pressure 0 Pressure (pst) Shear/ft width -5 0 Shear (kit) Cantilever H = 12', bm 14-15.xmcdz 4xl03 5 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Soil Pressures Po(H + D) = -4840.2-psf PE(H + D) = -2688.1-psf PK(H + D) = 9040.2-psf PJ(H + D) = 5424.1-psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pile) c::= a~ H c ~ V(a) while c: > O a~ a+ 0.10-ft c: ~ V(a) return a c = 18.5ft LJ u I I L~ !-{ LJ ,, [_j LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) ,-~ y V(y) dy+ Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 227.4-kip-ft Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 n := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 ft F1 ~CT:= 1.33 Fy-~rr Fb:=--n = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax Flexural Yielding, Lb < Zr= 68.5· in3 Beam = "Wl8 x 50" A= 14.7-in 2 d= 18-in tw = 0.4-in Axial Stresses bf= 7.5· in tf = 0.6-in r =74-in X • Fy >-:=-Fe z ·=--r· Fb K:= 1 Lr Z = 101-in 3 X I = 800-in 4 X Fb = 39.8· ksi Lu:= H if Pile = "Concrete Embed" c: otherwise 2 -rr . E = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 ft E3-3 ( 0.877 · Fe) otherwise = Allowable concentric force -AISC E.3-1 = Allowable bending moment -AISC F.2-1 Interaction:= [ Pr 8 (Mmax ll Pr - + -. --I if -~ 0.20 Pc 9 Ma )J Pc Ma= 335.2-kip-ft = AISC H1-1a ft H1-1b (- Pr + Mmax l 2-Pc Ma ) otherwise Interaction= 0.68 Mmax = 227.4-kip-ft Cantilever H = 12', bm 14-15.xmcdz I ' LJ u -1 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Global Stability = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Dh:= Ceil(D, ft)+ 2-ft Slidding Forces: r H+Dh Fs:= V(H + 0) + Pn(x) dx '.Joz Resisting Forces: Oz FR:= r Pn(x) dx JH+O Overturning Moments: Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet2.Q_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Fs = 10.4· klf FR= -15.1-klf H H H (H h\,:= r (Dh + H -Y)·P A (y) dy + ~ (Dh + H -YI· Ps(y) dy + ~ (Dh + H -y)·Pb(y) dy + ~ (Dh + H -y)·E ~o o o o ( H+O ( 0 ) r H+Dh H + Dh -02 Ph + I, PE(y) dy-Dh-3 )+ Pn(Y) dy-+ Me+ -·(Dh + H-zh) '.JH '.Jo 3 xt 2 Resisting Moments 02 MR:=f (H+Dh-y)·Pn(y)dy '.JH+O M0 = 69.9· kip MR= -105.3-kip Factor of Safety: Sl1dding := i{ FSd < :~ , "Ok" , "No Good: Increase Db" ~ Slidding = "Ok" IFRI = 1.46 Fs [ MR Overturning:= if FSd s; Mo , "Ok" , "No Good: Increase Dh" ) Overturning = "Ok" Cantilever H = 12', bm 14-15.xmcdz Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet-1.!_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 qa= O·psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600·psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr= 0-kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := Tr· dia if Pile = "Concrete Embed" [ 2 · { bf + d )] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Axial Resistance d. 2 Q(y) := p'.fs.y+ Tr· 1a . qa if Pile = "Concrete Embed" 4 { br d· qa) otherwise Dv:= cf-O·ft T f-Q(c) while T > o cf-c + 0.lO·ft T f-Pr-Q(c) return c Selected Toe Depth Otoe:= if(Dh ~ Dv, Dh, Dv) Maximum Deflection D L':= H + -4 L' xt ( A:= -.I Y·M'(y) dy E·lx \ Cantilever H = 12', bm 14-15.xmcdz = Effective length about pile rotation A= 0.81-in Dv= Oft Dh = 16ft Dtoe = 16ft u u ,, , I LJ LJ r , LJ r 1 u ' ' ~-' LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam = "W18 x 50" H = 12 ft Dtoe = 16ft H + Dtoe = 28 ft dia = 24-in ~ = 0.81-in Cantilever H = 12', bm 14-15.xmcdz Sb_No = "14-15" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Section 6 I , L : i < ___ J l_J u LJ r~1 u ~ i--i IL __ J ,~, ,, Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "16" Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties Pile:= "Concrete Embed" H := 11-ft = Soldier beam retained height X:= 0 Hs := O· ft --> = Height of retained slope (As applicable) y:= 0 = Tributary width of soldier beam dia := 24-in = Soldier beam shaft diameter de':= dia = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade dt:= 2-H = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess) w_table := "n/a" = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table ASTMA992 {Grade 50) Shoring Design Section I I I E := 29000· ksi 10 .... - Fy:= 50-ksi ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) 2 '-' -0 ,;3 D+H+L fr 0 -10 -- Lateral Embedment Safety Factor FSd:= 1.30 -- I I -20 -50 0 50 Cantilever H = 11 ', bm 16.xmcdz I I L., _ _;J \_.J l_c.J I~ ,_j L.J Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa:= 30-pcf Pp:= 350· pcf p ·= "n/a" max· cj> := 30· deg - 1 be:= 0.08-deg -cj>-de' a_ratio = 0.6 qa:= o-psf fs := 600-psf = Active earth pressure = Passive earth pressure Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle (Below subgrade) = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soil unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable) 1w:= 62.4-pcf Pp':= Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pp·( 1s -1w) otherwise "Is Pa':= Pa if w_table = "n/a" Pa ·(1s-1w) otherwise "Is Cantilever H = 11 ', bm 16.xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp' = 350· pcf Pa'= 30-pcf :l ,c-cl u L) u (_j L . .J Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full:= 72· psf Partial:= O· psf Hpar:= 0-ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Ps (y) := Full + Partial if O· ft :s; y :s; Hpar Full if Hpar < y:s; H Uniform surcharge profile per depth O· psf otherwise Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading Pr:= 0-kip e:= 0-in Pr-e Me:= -- xt Ph:= 0-lb zh:= 0-ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe. Not Applicable) EFP:= 0-pcf Es:= EFP-H Eq(y) := Es Es - -· y if y :s; H H O· psf otherwise Cantilever H = 11', bm 16.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure l_J n I I LJ ,1 r, (__J I I \..____'..) l _ _/ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesq Loading q:= 0-ksf X1 := 0-ft z':= 0-ft K:= 0.50 o(y) := 02 (y) -01 (y) Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_l_§_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non-yielding) ( \ K = 0. 75 (Semi-rigid) X2 I K = 0.50 (Flexible) 02 (y) := atan Y) o(y) a(y) := 01 (y) + -2- Pb(y):= 0-psf if 0-ft:s:y:s:z' 2-q·K·'IT-l·(&(y-z') -sin(o(y-z'))-cos(2·a(y-z'))) if z'< y:s: H O· psf otherwise Maximum Boussinesq Pressure t::..y:= 5-ft Given d -Pb(t::..y) = 0-psf dt::..y Pb(Find(t::..y)) = 0-psf H ~ Pb(y) dy= 0,klf 0 Cantilever H = 11', bm 16.xmcdz Lateral Surcharge Loading 10~----------------------------------------------------------------------- -¢:: '-' ~ fr 5 -------j--------~------------- 0 o'------'----------~~=============="---' 0 W ~ @ W Pressure (psf) ,~, ' ' l_J u L.J \__j LJ l __ j Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR SheetE._of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) Z:= 6-ft D:= dt PA (H) = 329.7-psf a_ratio-PA(H) = 207.7-psf 0 = 1 ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces ( H+O ( H r H+D r H+D r H + I, PE(Y) dy+ L PA(y) dy+ J Ps(y) dy+ J Pb(y) dy+ J Eq(y) dy+ Ph JH ~o o o o xt Summation of Moments ( H+D-z ( H+O ( H +I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+L PA(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+Me ... JH+O JH ~O r H+D r H r H+D + Ps(y)·(H+D-y)dy+J Eq(y)·(H+D-y)dy+J Pb(y)·(H+D-y)dy+ Ph·(H+D-zh) Jo o o xt (z \= Find(z, D) D) Cantilever H = 11', bm 16.xmcdz Z>O z = 3.1ft D = 12.6ft =O =O ' ' L __ J l__j r~1 r~ LJ r-1 u r, u LJ C I LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 2 10 '-' ,.9 0.. ~ 0 2 10 '-' ,.9 0.. ~ 0 -6 -4 Cantilever H = 11', bm 16.xmcdz Soldier Beam Pressure 0 4x103 Pressure (pst) Shear/ft width -2 0 2 4 Shear (klt) Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Soil Pressures PA(H) = 329.7-psf Po(H + D) = -4396,psf PE(H + D) = -2561.7-psf PK ( H + D) = 8242.5· psf PJ(H + D) = 5192.8,psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pile) c:= af-H cf-V(a) while c > O a f-a+ O.lO·ft cf-V(a) return a c = 16.9ft ) ) l: __ _/ u u LJ LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) ,= ~ y V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 179.3-kip-ft Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 0 := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1 A<Y := 1.33 Fy-.AO" Fb:= -- 0 = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax Flexural Yielding, Lb < Zr= 54. in3 Beam = "Wl6 x 40" Z·=--r· Fb Lr Fb = 39.8· ksi 2 A= 11.8-in bf= 7-in K:= 1 Lu:= H if Pile = "Concrete Embed" d= 16-in tw = 0.3-in Axial Stresses tf = 0.5-in rx = 6.6-in Fy >..:=- Fe Z = 73-in 3 X I = 518-in 4 X e otherwise 2 7i ·E Fe:=--- ( K· Lu '')2 rx ) ( >,. ) K-Lu J1 0.658 -Fy if --:S: 4.71· - rx Fy = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 ( 0.877 ·Fe) otherwise = Allowable concentric force -AISC E.3-1 = Allowable bending moment -AISC F.2-1 Interaction:= [Pr+ !.(~ax f1 if ~ ~ 0.20 Pc 9 Ma )J Pc Ma= 242.2-kip-ft = AISC H1-1a & H1-1b (- Pr + Mmax l otherwise 2-Pc Ma ) Interaction= 0.74 Mmax = 179.3-kip-ft Cantilever H = 11', bm 16.xmcdz Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 r 01 Global Stability u \_j l.:J I , L.J = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Dh:= Ceil(D, ft)+ I-ft Slidding Forces: r. H+Dh Fs:= V(H + 0) + Pn(x) dx Joi Resisting Forces: Fs = 8.9· klf FR= -11.8-klf Overturning Moments: M0 := C (Oh+ H -y)·PA(Y) dy+ ~ H (Oh+ H -y)·Ps(y) dy+ ~ H (Oh+ H -y)-Pb(y) dy+ ~ H (Oh+ H -Y)·E ~o o o o ( H+O ( 0 ) r. H+Dh H + Dh -02 Ph +I, PE(y)dy-Dh-3 )+ Pn(y)dy-+Me+-·(Dh+H-zh) JH JO 3 xt 2 Resisting Moments 02 MR:=r (H+Dh-y)·Pn(y)dy M0 = 53.4· kip JH+O Factor of Safety: Slidding := i{Fsd < :~ , "Ok" , ''No Good: Increase Db" ~ ( MR Overturning:= if FSd ::;; - Mo Cantilever H = 11 ', bm 16.xmcdz , "Ok" , "No Good: Increase Dh" MR= -72.7-kip Slidding = "Ok" IFRI = 1.33 Fs ' Overturning = "Ok" ) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_il_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 qa= O,psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600,psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr= O·kip = Applied axial load per beam u p' := 'IT· dia if Pile = "Concrete Embed" [2·(bf + d)] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam u ,, Allowable Axial Resistance Q(y) := p'.fs,y+ Dv:= e ~ 0,ft d' 2 n· 1a · qa if Pile = "Concrete Embed" 4 ( br d· qa) otherwise r-, T ~ Q(e) while T > o LJ L) e: ~ e: + 0.10,ft T~ Pr-Q(e) return e: Selected Toe Depth Dtoe:= if(Dh;,:: Dv, Dh, Dv) Maximum Deflection D L':= H + -4 Cantilever H = 11', bm 16.xmcdz = Effective length about pile rotation Ll = 0.82,in Dv = Oft Dh = 14ft Dtoe = 14ft u u ( \ r--, \._J Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam= "Wl6 x 40" H = 11 ft Dtoe = 14ft H + Dtoe = 25ft dia = 24-in b.. = 0.82· in Cantilever H = 11 ', bm 16.xmcdz Sb_No = "16" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Section 7 · -l I ', L,_,J u u LJ u l __ j r, r~ ,1 CJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_Rof __ Date: November 2, 2016 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "17-18" Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties Pile:= "Concrete Embed" H := 9-ft = Soldier beam retained height X:= 0 Hs := O· ft --> = Height of retained slope (As applicable) y:= 0 xt := 8-ft = Tributary width of soldier beam dia := 24-in = Soldier beam shaft diameter de':= dia = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade dt:=2·H = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess) w_table := "n/a" = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table ASTMA992 {Grade 50} Shoring Design Section I I I E := 29000· ksi 10 -- Fy:= 50-ksi ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) 2 -,s fr 0 - D+H+L 0 Lateral Embedment Safety Factor -10 -- FSd:= 1.30 I I -50 0 50 Cantilever H = 9', bm 17-18.xmcdz ( _ _} LJ il Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa:= 30-pcf Pp:= 350-pcf p ·= "n/a" max· Pps:= 0-psf cj> := 30-deg - 1 be:= 0.08-deg ·cp-de' a_ratio:= min(be, 1 \ xt ) a_ratio = 0.6 qa:= 0-psf fs := 600· psf "is:= 125· pcf = Active earth pressure = Passive earth pressure Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle (Below subgrade) = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soil unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable) 1w := 62.4· pcf Pp':= Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pp ·(1s-1w) otherwise "is Pa':= Pa if w_table = "n/a" Pa·( "is -1w) otherwise 1s Cantilever H = 9', bm 17-18.xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp' = 350· pcf Pa'= 30·pcf (\ LJ ,---·I \_~) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full:= 72· psf Partial:= O· psf Hpar:= O·ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_§_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Ps (y) := Full+ Partial if O· ft:;; y:;; Hpar Full if Hpar < y:;; H Uniform surcharge profile per depth O· psf otherwise Eccentric/ConncentricAxial ft Lateral Point Loading Pr:= O·kip e:= O·in Pr,e Me:= -- xt Ph:= O·lb zh:=O·ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP:= 0,pcf Es:= EFP·H Eq(y):= Es Es--·Y if y:;; H H O· psf otherwise Cantilever H = 9', bm 17-18.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure n J Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesq Loading q := 0-ksf z':= 0-ft K:= 0.50 Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non-yielding) ( \ K = 0. 75 (Semi-rigid) X2 I K = 0.50 (Flexible) 92 (y) := atan Y) o(y) cx(y) := 91 (y) + -2- Pb (y) := O· psf if O· ft::; y::; z' 2·q·K·1t-1-(o(y-z') -sin(o(y-z'))·cos(2·cx(y-z'))) if z' < y::; H Ll O. psf otherwise r , Lateral Surcharge Loading ,J; Maximum Boussinesq Pressure u t:,.y:= 5-ft Given d -Pb(t:,.y) = 0-psf dt:,.y Pb(Find(t:,.y)) = 0-psf H ~ Pb(y) dy= 0-klf 0 Cantilever H = 9', bm 17-18.xmcdz 8 -----------------~ ----------------------- 6 --------+--------------"---··---________ I ----------¢::: "-' ,s fr 4 ---------------------------------~--------~ ----------------- 0 2~------1-------J__ _________ _ o-1-----.....l....---___.1..-~~~...._-~.L----' 0 W ~ @ W Pressure (psf) ' I_) lj Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) Z:= 6-ft D:= dt a_ratio-PA ( H) = 162· psf 0 = 0.8ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces ( -PE(H+D-z)J PJ(H + D)· z-[ mE(z, D) ) -----------+ 2 '.Jo Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet47 of __ Date: November 2, 2016 =O ( H+O ( H r H+D r H+D r H +I, PE(y)dy+L PA(y)dy+J Ps(y)dy+J Pb(y)dy+J Eq(y)dy+Ph. '.JH Jo o o o xt Summation of Moments =O ~ 1 I H+D-z I H+O ( H +I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+L PA(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+Me ... '.JH+O '.JH JO r H+D r H r H+D Ph + Ps(y)· (H + D-y) dy + J Eq(y)· (H + D -y) dy + J Pb(y)· (H + D -y) dy + -· (H + D -zh) Jo o o xt ( z l D /= Find (z, D) Z>O z = 2.8ft D = 10.8ft Cantilever H = 9', bm 17-18.xmcdz l'-1 l. __ / LJ LJ, r-~1 ;···1 t J Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 0 5 2 '-" -i3 IO fr Q -6 -4 Soldier Beam Pressure 0 Pressure (psf) Shear/ft width -2 0 Shear (kif) Cantilever H = 9', bm 17-18.xmcdz 2 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet....1§_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Soil Pressures Po(H + D) = -3778.4-psf PE(H + D) = -2105·psf PK(H + D) = 6928.4-psf PJ(H + D) = 4157-psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pile) c::= a+-H c +-V(a) while t::>0 a+-a+ 0.10.ft c +-V(a) return a c = 14.1 ft u LJ /-""\ l_j L ___ _,~ LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) ,= ~ y V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 108.2· kip-ft Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 0 := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1 -6.cr := 1.33 Fy--6.cr Fb:= -- 0 = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax z ·=--r· Fb Flexural Yielding, Lb < Zr= 32.6· in3 Beam= "W16 x 36" A= 10.6-in 2 d = 15.9-in tw = 0.3-in Axial Stresses bf= 7-in tf = 0.4-in rx = 6.5-in Fy >-:=- Fe Lr Fb = 39.8· ksi K:= 1 Lu:= H if Pile = "Concrete Embed" Zx = 64-in 3 c otherwise 4 Ix= 448-in 2 7i ·E Fe:=--- ( K· Lu ')2 rx ) ( 0.658)...· Fy) if K· Lu ::;; 4.71 · fI rx ~ Fy = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 ( 0.877 ·Fe) otherwise = Allowable concentric force -AISC E.3-1 = Allowable bending moment -AISC F.2-1 Interaction:= [Pr+ !.[Mmax fl if ~;::,: 0.20 Pc 9 Ma )J Pc Ma= 212.4-kip-ft = AISC H1-1a & H1-1b [- Pr + Mmax \ 2-Pc Ma ) otherwise Interaction= 0.51 Mmax = 108.2· kip· ft Cantilever H = 9', bm 17-18.xmcdz \_ j,. L_) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Global Stability = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Dh:= Ceil(D, ft)+ 1-ft Slidding Forces: r. H+Dh Fs:= V(H + 0) + Pn(x) dx '.Jo2 Resisting Forces: 02 FR:= [ Pn(x) dx '.JH+O Overturning Moments: Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Fs = 6.3· klf FR= -8.2· klf M0 ,= C (Dh + H -Y)·PA (y) dy+ ~ H (Dh + H -y)-Ps(y) dy+ ~ H (Dh + H -y)-Pb(y) dy+ ~ H (Dh + H -y)-1 ~o o o o ( H+O ( 0) r. H+Dh H + Dh -02 Ph +I, PE(y)dy-Dh-3 )+ Pn(y)dy· 3 +Me+-·(Dh+H-zh) '.JH '.Jo xt 2 Resisting Moments 02 MR : = r ( H + Dh -y) · P n ( y) dy '.JH+O M0 = 32.5· kip MR= -43.8· kip Factor of Safety: Slidding ,= i{FSd < :~ , "Ok", "No Good, Increase Db"~ Slidding = "Ok" IFRI = 1.32 Fs [ MR Overturning:= if FSd ~ Mo , "Ok" , "No Good: Increase Dh" ) Overturning = "Ok" Cantilever H = 9', bm 17-18.xmcdz l', j u r ' l ; Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 qa = O,psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600· psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr= O·kip = Applied axial load per beam p':= TI·dia if Pile= "Concrete Embed" = Applied axial load per beam [2·(bf + d)] otherwise Allowable Axial Resistance d. 2 Q(y) := p'.fs,y+ 'IT· 1a ,qa if Pile = "Concrete Embed" 4 ( br d· qa) otherwise Dv:= c +-O·ft T +-Q(c) while T > o c +-c + 0.10,ft T +-Pr-Q(c) return c Selected Toe Depth Otoe:= if(Dh ~ Dv, Dh, Dv) Maximum Deflection D L':= H + -4 L' xt r ~:= -. y,M'(y) dy E·lx Jo Cantilever H = 9', bm 17-18.xmcdz = Effective length about pile rotation ~ = 0.4,in Dv = Oft Oh= 12ft Otoe= 12ft ' I LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam= "W16 x 36" H = 9ft Dtoe = 12ft H + Dtoe = 21 ft dia = 24·in ~=0.4·in Cantilever H = 9', bm 17-18.xmcdz Sb_No = "17-18" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet__§_g_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 ( I Section 8 L__j LJ '\. __ _J, r-----..,, l__ ___ j ,--T r--1- \__j L_J !_) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "19-20" Soldier Beam Attributes 8: Properties Pile:= "Concrete Embed" H := 8,ft = Soldier beam retained height X:= 0 Hs := O· ft --> = Height of retained slope (As applicable) y:= 0 = Tributary width of soldier beam dia := 24,in = Soldier beam shaft diameter de':= dia = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade dt:=2·H = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess) w_table := "n/a" = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table ASTMA992 {Grade 50} Shoring Design Section I I I E := 29000· ksi 10 .... - Fy:= 50-ksi ,-.._ ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) c:t:: "-' ,.9 -0 p.. (I) D+H+L Q Lateral Embedment Safety Factor -10 -- FSd:= 1.30 I I -50 0 50 Cantilever H = 8', bm 19-20.xmcdz ic_J, l j Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa:= 30-pcf Pp:= 350· pcf p max:= "n/a" cj> : = 30· deg -1 be:= 0.08-deg ·<!>·de' a_ratio:= min(be, 11 xt ) a_ratio = 0.6 qa:= 0-psf fs := 600· psf = Active earth pressure = Passive earth pressure Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet2±._of __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle (Below subgrade) = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soil unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable) 1w := 62.4· pcf Pp':= Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pa':= Pa if w_table = "n/a" Pa·( "Is -1w) otherwise "Is Cantilever H = 8', bm 19-20.xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp' = 350· pcf Pa'= 30-pcf i~J l_i c 1 \ j L.1 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full:= 72· psf Partial:= O· psf Hpar:= 0-ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Ps (y) := Full + Partial if O· ft:,; y:,; Hpar Full if Hpar < y:,; H Uniform surcharge profile per depth O· psf otherwise Eccentric/ConncentricAxial & Lateral Point Loading Pr:= 0-kip e:= 0-in Pr-e Me:= -- xt Ph:= 0-lb zh:=O·ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP:= O·pcf Es:= EFP,H Eq(y) := Es Es -- · y if y:,; H H O· psf otherwise Cantilever H = 8', bm 19-20.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure LJ r, l __ j L. (_ , \_.) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesq Loading q:= 0-ksf X1 := 0-ft z':= 0-ft K:= 0.50 Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non-yielding) K = 0. 75 (Semi-rigid) ( x2 1 K = 0.50 (Flexible) 02 (y) := atan y) l\(y) a(y) := 01 (y) + -2- Pb(y):= 0-psf if 0-ft:s;y:s;z' 2-q·K·n-1-(1\(y-z') -sin(l\(y-z'))-cos(2·a(y-z'))) if z' < y:s; H O· psf otherwise Maximum Boussinesq Pressure b..y:= 5-ft Given d -Pb(b..y) = 0-psf db..y Pb(Find(b..y)) = 0-psf H ~ Pb(y) dy= 0-klf 0 Cantilever H = 8', bm 19-20.xmcdz Lateral Surcharge Loading ------------------ 4------ I O·...._ ___ _._ __________ ....._~~-'----' 0 W ~ 00 W Pressure (psf) r-1 ', _) L_c_J ____ J l .J r , Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) Z:= 6-ft D:= dt a_ratio-PA(H) = 144-psf 0 = 0.7ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces ( -PE(H+D-z)\ PJ(H + D)· z-[ mE(z, D) ) -----------+ 2 Jo 1 H+O I H r H+D r H+D r H +I, PE(y)dy+L PA(y)dy+J Ps(y)dy+J Pb(y)dy+J Eq(y)dy+Ph JH \ 0 0 0 xt Summation of Moments I H+D-z I H+O I H + I, PE(Y)·(H + D-y) dy+ I, PE(Y)·(H + D-y) dy+ L PA(Y)·(H + D-y) dy+ Me ... JH+O JH ~O r H+D r H r H+D + Ps(y)-(H+D-y)dy+J Eq(y)-(H+D-y)dy+J Pb(y)·(H+D-y)dy+ Ph·(H+D-zh) Jo o o xt (z \= Find (z, D) D) Cantilever H = 8', bm 19-20.xmcdz Z>O z = 2.5ft D = 9.8ft =O =O LJ i.______j -1 :-1' :__ _ _j L_J Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 5 10 5 -ct:: '-' t 10 0 -4 Soldier Beam Pressure 0 2x103 Pressure (pst) Shear/ft width -2 0 Shear (klt) Cantilever H = 8', bm 19-20.xmcdz 2 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Soil Pressures Po(H + D) = -3421.8-psf PE(H + D) = -1909.I-psf PK(H + D) = 6221.8-psf PJ(H + D) = 3733.I-psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pile) c::= a~ H E ~ V(a) while E > O a~ a+ 0.10-ft E ~ V(a) return a E = 12.6ft ''--\ LJ L.] LJ LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) ,-~ y V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 80.4· kip· ft Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 n := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1 b.rr := 1.33 Fy-b.rr Fb:=--n = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax Flexural Yielding, Lb < Zr= 24.2· in3 Beam = "W14 x 30" A= 8.9-in 2 bf= 6.7-in z ·=--r· Fb K:= 1 Lr Fb = 39.8· ksi Lu:= H if Pile= "Concrete Embed" d = 13.8· in tf = 0.4-in Zx = 47.3-in 3 c: otherwise tw = 0.3-in Axial Stresses rx = 5.7-in Fy ~:=- Fe (0.877-Fe) otherwise I = 291-in X 4 2 7i . E Fe:=--- ( K-Lu \2 rx ) = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 = Allowable concentric force -AISC E.3-1 = Allowable bending moment -AISC F.2-1 [Pr+ !.(Mmax 11 if ~ ~ 0.20 Pc 9 Ma )J Pc Interaction:= Ma= 157-kip-ft = AISC H1-1a & H1-1b (- Pr + Mmax l otherwise 2-Pc Ma ) Interaction= 0.51 Mmax = 80.4· kip· ft Cantilever H = 8', bm 19-20.xmcdz n f ,b L_! L.J Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Global Stability = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Dh:= Ceil(D, ft)+ 2-ft Slidding Forces: I H+Dh Fs:= V(H + 0) + I, Pn(x) dx Jo2 Resisting Forces: Overturning Moments: Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet__§_Q_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Fs = 5.3· klf FR= -8.8· klf M0 ,-[ H (Oh+ H -y)-PA (y) dy+ ~ H (Oh+ H -y)-Ps(y) dy+ ~ H (Oh+ H -y)-Pb(y) dy+ ~ H (Oh+ H-Y)·E ~o o o o ( H+O ( 0) I H+Dh H + Dh -02 Ph +I, PE(y)dy-Dh-3 )+1, Pn(y)dy· 3 +Me+-·(Dh+H-zh) JH Jo xt 2 Resisting Moments 02 MR : = r ( H + Dh -y) · P n ( y) dy JH+O M0 = 26-kip MR = -45.9· kip Factor of Safety: [ FR ) Slidding := if FSd ~ , "Ok" , "No Good: Increase Dh" ) Fs Slidding = "Ok" 'FRI = 1.68 Fs ( MR Overturning:= if FSd ~ Mo , "Ok" , "No Good: Increase Dh" ) Overturning = "Ok" Cantilever H = 8', bm 19-20.xmcdz 1L_J l__J Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet--2.!_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 qa = O·psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600,psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr= O·kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := 7i· dia if Pile = "Concrete Embed" [2·(bf + d)] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Axial Resistance d. 2 Q(y) := p',fs,y+ 7i· 1a ,qa if Pile= "Concrete Embed" 4 ( bf d· qa) otherwise Dv:= ef---0,ft T f-Q(e) while T > O e f-e + 0.10,ft Tf-Pr-Q(e) return e Selected Toe Depth Dtoe:= if(Dh;::: Dv, Dh, Dv) Maximum Deflection D L':= H + -4 Cantilever H = 8', bm 19-20.xmcdz = Effective length about pile rotation ~ = 0.37,in Dv = Oft Dh = 12ft Dtoe = 12ft L__j Li l.J LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ I ' 1--' Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam = "W14 x 30" H = 8ft Dtoe = 12ft H + Dtoe = 20ft dia = 24·in .6. = 0.37·in Cantilever H = 8', bm 19-20.xmcdz Sb_No = "19-20" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 I I u Lj Section 9 ,__J ,~, I I I I I I I I. I I I I I . · PR.E .SSURE l~Cll-NED 63 I - K ,,. ......... ,..a. .......... ,., ....... ~tellflll . . . ·• _2x30pcf ~ 60pcf:. . . RATIO FOR· . BACKFILL u L.J I' u }I L.J ,--I I I I~) l ___ J Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet 64 of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "25-26, 33-34" Soldier Beam Attributes a Properties Pile:= "Concrete Embed" H := 7-ft X:= 1 Hs := 7· ft --> y:= 1 dia := 24-in de':= dia dt:= 2-H w_table := "n/a" ASTM A992 {Grade 50} E := 29000· ksi Fy:= 50,ksi ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) D+H+L Lateral Embedment Safety Factor FSd:= 1.30 Cantilever H = 7', bm 25-26, 33-34 with Slope.xmcdz = Soldier beam retained height = Height of retained slope (As applicable) = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess) = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table Shoring Design Section I I 10 - 2 '-" ,fl 0.. (I) 0 0 -IO - I -50 0 I - - - I 50 l.J L_J LJ n LJ u r···1 . ' L .. J Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa:= 60-pcf Pp:= 350· pcf p ·= "n/a" max· <I>:= 30· deg -1 be:= 0.08· deg . <I>· de' a_ratio := min (be, 11 xt ) a_ratio = 0.6 qa:= O·psf fs := 600· psf "Is:= 125· pcf = Active earth pressure with 1-1 Slope = Passive earth pressure Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet__§§_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle (Below subgrade) = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soil unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable) "iw := 62.4· pcf Pp':= Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pa':= Pa if w_table = "n/a" Pa ·("Is -1w) otherwise "Is Cantilever H = 7', bm 25-26, 33-34 with Slope.xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp' = 350· pcf Pa'= 60·pcf ' ' \._) L_J u r, L.~ u Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full:= O· psf Partial:= 0-psf Hpar:= 0-ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Ps(y) := Full+ Partial if 0-ft :s; y:s; Hpar Full if Hpar < y :s; H Uniform surcharge profile per depth O· psf otherwise Eccentric/Conncentric Axial ft Lateral Point Loading Pr:= 0-kip e:= 0-in Pr-e Me:= -- xt Ph:= 0-lb zh:=0-ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP:= 0-pcf Es:= EFP·H Eq(y) := Es Es - -· y if y :s; H H o. psf otherwise Cantilever H = 7', bm 25-26, 33-34 with Slope.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure r, l_J r, u LJ :l r~ i 1 ,1 r, LJ I__) ( _ _j Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesg Loading q:= 0-ksf X1 := 0-ft z':= 0-ft K:= 0.50 Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet 67 of __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non-yielding) ( \ K = 0. 75 (Semi-rigid) X2 I K = 0.50 (Flexible) 02 (y) := atan -y) o(y) o.(y) := 91 (y) + -2- Pb(y) := O· psf if o. ft $; y $; z' 2-q· K-7i-1. ( o(y-z') -sin ( o(y-z') )-cos(2·o.(y-z'))) if z· < y $; H I\. --~ -.&.L--,-!-- Maximum Boussinesg Pressure ll.y:= 5-ft Given d -Pb(ll.y) = 0-psf dll.y Pb(Find(Ay)) = 0-psf ~ H Pb(y) dy= 0-klf 0 Cantilever H = 7', bm 25-26, 33-34 with Slope.xmcdz Lateral Surcharge Loading 6 -----------------------------i----------------------------- 4 -------------------------------------------- 1 2-__ ___j_ ___________ ~ --------------------1 o..._~~--'-~~-----..._~~-......._~~---' -1 -0.5 0 0.5 Pressure (psf) u u ' I L...LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) Z:= 6-ft D:= dt a_ratio-PA ( H) = 252 · psf 0 = 1.2ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 =O ( H+O ( H r H+D r H+D r H + I, PE(y) dy+ Ii PA(y) dy+ J Ps(y) dy+ J Pb(y) dy+ J Eq(y) dy+ Ph JH lo O O O xt c_J Summation of Moments u \ _ _) ( H+D-z ( H+O ( H +I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+L PA(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+Me ... JH+O JH lo r H+D r H r H+D +) Ps(y)·(H+D-y)dy+J Eq(y)-(H+D-y)dy+J Pb(y)·(H+D-y)dy+ Ph·(H+D-zh) o o o xt ( z \ D /= Find (z, D) Cantilever H = 7', bm 25-26, 33-34 with Slope.xmcdz Z>O z = 1.9ft D = 10ft =O r, n tl l.J ,~, L.i Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 5 ---¢:: '-' ~ fr 0 10 5 ---¢:: '-' ~ p. II) 0 10 -4 Soldier Beam Pressure 0 Pressure (psf) Shear/ft width -2 0 Shear (kif) Cantilever H = 7', bm 25-26, 33-34 with ,; Slope.xmcdz 2 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_filLof __ Date: November 2, 2016 Soil Pressures Po(H + D) = -3486.6-psf PE(H + D) = -1840-psf PK(H + D) = 8386.6-psf PJ(H + D) = 5032-psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pile) e: := a+-H e: +-V(a) while e: > o a+-a+ 0.10.ft e: +-V(a) return a e: = 12.2 ft I j L : lJ L:J u rr·, Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) '" ~ y V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 76.S·kip.ft Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet 70 of __ Date: November 2, 2016 n := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1 .6.cr := 1.33 = Steel overstress for temporary loading Fy· .6.cr Fb:=-- 0 = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax Flexural Yielding, Lb < Lr Beam = "Wl6 x 36" z ·=--r· Fb Z . 3 = 23·m r Fb = 39.8· ksi 2 A= 10.6·in bf= 7·in K:= 1 Lu:= H if Pile= "Concrete Embed" d = 15.9·in tw = 0.3·in Axial Stresses tf = 0.4·in rx = 6.S·in Fy >..:=- Fe Z = 64·in 3 X Ix= 448·in 4 e: otherwise 2 1i ·E Fe:=--- (o.658>-·Fy) if K·LU s; 4.71· JE rx ~ Fy = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 ( 0.877 ·Fe) otherwise = Allowable concentric force -AISC E.3-1 = Allowable bending moment -AISC F.2-1 Interaction:= [~ + !.(Mmax ( 1 if ~ ~ 0.20 Pc 9 Ma )J Pc Ma= 212.4·kip·ft = AISC H1-1a & H1-1b (- Pr + Mmax \ otherwise 2·PC Ma ) Interaction = 0.36 Mmax = 76.S·kip·ft Cantilever H = 7', bm 25-26, 33-34 with r-1 Slope.xmcdz Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_21_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 r , Global Stability LJ LJ LJ u LJ C ..... :...J u = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth jncrease for m;n. FS Dh:= Ceil(D, ft)+ 2-ft $lidding Forces: r H+Dh Fs:= V(H + 0) + Pn(x) dx Jo2 Resisting Forces: 02 FR:= r Pn(x) dx JH+O Fs = 5.4. klf FR= -8.8· kif Overturning Moments: H H H rH M0 : = r ( Dh + H -y) · PA ( y) dy + ~ ( Dh + H -y) · Ps ( y) dy + ~ ( Dh + H -y) · Pb ( y) dy + J ( Dh + H -y) · E ~o o o o I H+O O l r H+Dh H + Dh -02 Ph +I, PE(y)dy-(Dh-3 )+ Pn(y)dy-+Me+-·(Dh+H-zh) JH Jo 3 xt 2 Resisting Moments 02 MR:=I. (H+Dh-y)·Pn(y)dy M0 = 24.6· kip JH+O Factor of Safety: Slidding c= i{ FSd < :~ , "Ok", ''No Good, Increase Dh" ~ ( MR Overturning:= if FSd :s: - Mo , "Ok" , "No Good: Increase Dh" Cantilever H = 7', bm 25-26, 33-34 with Slope.xmcdz MR= -41.3· kip $lidding = "Ok" IFRI = 1.62 Fs Overturning = "Ok" ) L:J ' uJ l_j Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet 72 of __ Date: November 2, 2016 qa= 0-psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600-psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr= 0-kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := 7i· dia if Pile = "Concrete Embed" [ 2 · ( bf + d )] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Axial Resistance Q(y) := p'.fs-y+ Dv:= c +-0-ft d. 2 7i· 1a -qa if Pile = "Concrete Embed" 4 ( br d· qa) otherwise 1-01 T +-Q(c) u r, LJ l_J while T > o € +-€ + 0.10-ft T+-Pr-Q(c:) return c: Selected Toe Depth Otoe:= if(Dh;::: Dv, Oh, Dv) Maximum Deflection D L':= H + -4 Cantilever H = 7', bm 25-26, 33-34 with Slope.xmcdz = Effective length about pile rotation ~ = 0.16-in Dv = Oft Oh= 12ft Otoe= 12ft l _) L.: 1---1 r, L_J r, rci- ' u r-, Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam = "Wl6 x 36" H = 7ft Dtoe = 12ft H + Dtoe = 19ft xt = 8 ft dia = 24-in ~ = 0.16-in Cantilever H = 7', bm 25-26, 33-34 with Slope.xmcdz Sb_No = "25-26, 33-34" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet-11._of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Section 10 I I I I I I I I I. I I I I 74 -U..Lf ~ I I .. { H . . . Pe • tqv,yokat ·~ .......... W JHtl· •tel&tlU . . . ·. .2~30pcf ~ 60pcf:. f :: ..: • .. •·' ,...,....,-, i I! i ;;i ;-: : ; 1111:§i i i i :1 ~ ;. ·; ·--;-=:-..= . ·PRE .SSURE INCLINED RATIO FOR · . BACKFILL . l ~ I l._ _) L..J L_;,1 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_z§__of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "27-32" Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties Pile:= "Concrete Embed" H:= 12-ft X:= 1 Hs := 14-ft --> y:= 1 dia:= 30-in de':= dia dt:=2·H w_table := "n/a" ASTM A992 (Grade 50) E := 29000· ksi Fy:= 50-ksi ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) D+H+L Lateral Embedment Safety Factor FSd:= 1.30 Cantilever H = 12', bm 27 -32 with Slope.xmcdz = Soldier beam retained height = Height of retained slope (As applicable) = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess) = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table Shoring Design Section 20 8 '-"' ,fl fr 0 0 -20 -100 0 100 ,, r~ I I LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa:= 60-pcf Pp:= 350· pcf p max:= "n/a" cj>:= 30-deg - 1 be:= 0.08-deg ·cJ>·de' a_ratio = O. 75 qa:= 0-psf fs := 600· psf "is:= 125· pcf = Active earth pressure with 1-1 Slope = Passive earth pressure Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet-2.§_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle (Below subgrade) = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soil unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable) "fw := 62.4· pcf Pp':= Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pa':= Pa if w_table = "n/a" Cantilever H = 12', bm 27-32 with Slope.xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp' = 350· pcf Pa'= 60·pcf u L_ \ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full:= O· psf Partial:= O· psf Hpar:= Q.ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_zz_ot __ Date: November 2, 2016 Ps(y) := Full+ Partial if O·ft :Sy::;; Hpar Full if Hpar < y :S H Uniform surcharge profile per depth O· psf otherwise Eccentric/Conncentric Axial ft Lateral Point Loading Pr:= O·kip e:=O·in Pr·e Me:= -- xt Ph:= 0-lb zh:= Q.ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP:= O·pcf Es:= EFP·H Eq(y) := Es Es - -· y if y :S H H O· psf otherwise Cantilever H = 12', bm 27-32 with Slope.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure L_J \ _j Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesq Loading q:= O·ksf x1 := O·ft z':=O·ft K:= 0.50 o(y) := 02 (y) -01 (y) Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non-yielding) ( \ K = 0.75 (Semi-rigid) x2 1 K = 0.50 (Flexible) 02 (y) := atan y) o(y) o.(y) := 91 (y) + -2- Pb(y) := O·psf if O·ft :s; y:=; z' 2·q·K·1r-1·(o(y-z') -sin(o(y-z'))·cos(2·o.(y-z'))) if z' < y:=; H I"\ --Z -A.L--.. .!-- Maximum Boussinesq Pressure b..y:= 5•ft Given d -Pb(b..y) = O·psf db..y Pb(Find(b..y)) = O·psf H ~ Pb(y) dy= O·klf 0 Cantilever H = 12', bm 27-32 with Slope.xmcdz Lateral Surcharge Loading oL----......1....------..J'-----....I....------' -1 -0.5 0 0.5 Pressure (psf) L.1 :_ _ _, I""'? r, ~, Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) Z:= 6·ft D:= dt a_ratio· PA ( H) = 540. psf 0 = 2.1ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces I H+O I H r H+D r H+D r H Ph + I, PE(y) dy+ L PA(y) dy+ J Ps(y) dy+ J Pb(y) dy+ J Eq(y) dy+ - JH ~o o o o xt Summation of Moments -PE(H+D-z) 1 [ \2 -PE(H+~z) PJ(H + D)· z-[ mE(z, D) mE(z, D) ) -----6-----+ (PE(H + D-z) + mE(z, D)·Y)·(z-y) dy ... '.Jo I H+~z I H+O I H +I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+I, PE(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+L PA(Y)·(H+D-y)dy+Me ... JH+O JH ~O r H+D r H r H+D Ph + J Ps(y)·(H + D-y) dy+ J Eq(y)·(H + D-y) dy+ J Pb(y)·(H + D-y) dy+ -·(H + D-zh) o o o xt ( z l D /= Find(z, D) Cantilever H = 12', bm 27-32 with Slope.xmcdz Z>O z = 2.7ft D=15.7ft =O =O ~' n ;l LJ r·~ ' L .. J u Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 ~ 10 '-" ,£ 0.. Q) Q -5x 103 -10 ~ '-" ,£ 0.. Q) Q -15 Soldier Beam Pressure 0 Pressure (psf) Shear/ft width -10 -5 0 Shear (kif) Cantilever H = 12', bm 27-32 with 1-1 Slope.xmcdz u lx104 5 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Soil Pressures Po(H + D) = -5492.3· psf PE(H + D) = -3579.2-psf PK(H + D) = 14592.3-psf PJ(H + D) = 10944.2-psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pile) i:: := a+-H e +-V(a) while i:: > O a+-a+ 0.10.ft e +-V(a) return a e = 20.2 ft L. J r·-, ~J Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) := ~ y V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 373.8· kip-ft Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 n := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1 ~CJ":= 1.33 Fy-~rr Fb:=--n = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax z ·=--r· Fb Flexural Yielding, Lb< Zr= 112.6-in3 Beam= "Wl8 x 65" A= 19.1-in 2 d= 18.4-in ~ = 0.5-in Axial Stresses bf= 7.6-in tf = 0.8-in rx = 7.5-in Fy >.:=- Fe Lr Fb = 39.8· ksi K:= 1 Lu:= H if Pile= "Concrete Embed" Z = 133-in 3 X c: otherwise I = 1070-in 4 X 2 7i ·E Fe:=--- ( K· Lu 'f rx ) (o.658\Fy) if K-Lu::;; 4.71· JE rx ~ Fy = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 (0.877-Fe) otherwise· Fcr·A Pc:=-- 0 = Allowable concentric force -AISC E.3-1 = Allowable bending moment -AISC F.2-1 Interaction:= [ Pr +!·(Mmax11 if _!2:.~0.20 Pc 9 Ma )J Pc (- Pr + Mmax \ 2-Pc Ma ) Cantilever H = 12', bm 27 -32 with Slope.xmcdz otherwise = AISC H1-1a & H1-1b Interaction= 0.85 Ma= 441.3-kip,ft Mmax = 373.8-kip-ft l _ _j u l_,.J \ ___ .J LJ L.) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Global Stability = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Dh := Ceil(D, ft) + 2-ft Slidding Forces: r H+Dh Fs:= V(H + 0) + Pn(x) dx Joi Resisting Forces: 02 FR:= r Pn(x) dx JH+O Overturning Moments: Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 Fs = 16.8· klf FR= -24.1-klf H H H H M0 : = r ( Dh + H -y) · PA ( y) dy + ~ ( Dh + H -y) · Ps ( y) dy + ~ ( Dh + H -y) · Pb ( y) dy + ~ ( Dh + H -y) · E J0 o o o ( H+O ( 0) r H+Dh H + Dh -02 Ph + I, PE(y) dy-Dh -3 ) + Pn(Y) dy-+Me+-· (Dh + H -zh) '.JH Jo 3 xt 2 Resisting Moments 02 MR:=r (H+Dh-y)·Pn(y)dy M0 = 112.9· kip JH+O Factor of Safety: ( FR ) Slidding := if FSd :5: , "Ok" , "No Good: Increase Dh" ) Fs ( MR Overturning:= if FSd::; - Mo Cantilever H = 12', bm 27-32 with Slope.xmcdz , "Ok" , "No Good: Increase Dh" MR= -166.5-kip Slidding = "Ok" IFRI = 1.44 Fs Overturning = "Ok" ) ( 1 L_i Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: November 2, 2016 qa= 0-psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600-psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr= 0-kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := "IT· dia if Pile = "Concrete Embed" [2-(bf + d)] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Axial Resistance Q(y) := p'.fs-y + Dv:= c ~ 0-ft d. 2 -rr· 1a · qa if Pile = "Concrete Embed" 4 ( br d-qa) otherwise r-1 T ~ Q(c) ,_ .J while T > O € ~ € + 0.10-ft T~ Pr-Q(c) r, return c Selected Toe Depth Otoe:= if(Dh;;,:: Dv, Dh, Dv) u LJ L _ _! Maximum Deflection D L':= H + -4 L' xt ( L::l.:a= -.IJ y-M'(y) dy E·lx o Cantilever H = 12', bm 27-32 with Slope.xmcdz = Effective length about pile rotation l:I. = 0.88· in Dv = Oft Dh = 18 ft Otoe= 18ft i~ J Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam= "W18 x 65" H = 12 ft Dtoe = 18ft H + Dtoe = 30ft dia = 30,in ~ = 0.88-in Cantilever H = 12', bm 27-32 with , , Slope.xmcdz Sb_No = "27-32" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet__§±_of __ Date: November 2, 2016 ;I l_c~J "l Section 11 ( .. , I ' -' L.J Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Handrail Design Handrail Design in Accordance with 2010 CBC & Cal-OSHA Requirements (A) 200/b concentrated load applied in any direction at the top handrail, CBC 160 7. 7 (B) 50plf unifonn excempt per Cal Osha & CBC Exemption 1607.7.1 (1) Westin Hotel Engr: RPR Date: 11/2/16 Sheet: 85 of --- H:= 44-in = Maximum handrail height -CAUOSHA Title 8, Section 1620 P:= 200-lb = Handrail concentrated load -CBC 1607.7.1.1 Load Conditions Concentrated load shall be checked against both x-x & y-y geometric axis in addition to minor axis principle direction (Least radius of gyration) p = 200 lb Minimum concentrated load applied at an direction at top of member -CBC 1607. 7.1.1 M := p. H ---> Maximum design bending moment M = 8.8· in· kip Angle Iron Properties Member:= "L2 x 2 x 3/8" Fy:= 36-ksi b:= 2-in 3. t:= -·In 8 E : = 29000· ksi rx := 0.591 · in J := 0.0658-in4 A:= 1.36· in2 Handrail Design.xmcd u Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Geometric Bending -AISC F10 ---> Cb:= 1 cantilever Leg Local Buckling -AISC F10.3 Local Stability: AISC Table 84.1 b - = 5.33 t 0.54· JE = 15.33 ~Fy Leg :~ {f < 0.54· ~, "Compact'' , "Non-compact") Unstiffened Leg = "Compact" Lateral Torsional Buckling -AISC F10.2 Westin Hotel Engr: RPR Date: 11/2/16 Sheet: 86 of --- = Yield moment about minor principle axis My= 10-in-kip Lu:= H = Laterally unbraced length of member Elastic Lateral-Torsional Buckling Moment, AISC F10.2 ( 4 \ Lu2 Me:= min 1.25· 0.66-E·b -t·CbJ ·[ ( 4 \ 1 + 0.78· Lu-t -11 b2 ) J 1.25· 0.66-E-b -t·CbJ ·[ Lu2 1 + 0.78· Lu-t + 11 b2 ) J Governing limit state Mc:= ( 0.17·Me '\ 0.92-·Me if Me~ My My ) [( ~ y'l l min 1.92-1.17· -·My, 1.5·MJ Me) j otherwise = Limiting tension or compression toe Lateral torsional restrain at point of max moment AISC Fl 0.2(ii) M = 8.8· in· kip Mc= 15-in-kip Bending = "Ok" Handrail Design.xmcd r, u ,1 L) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Principle Axis Bending -AISC F10 Yielding Limit State -AISC F10.1 = Yield moment about minor principle axis My= 8.2· jn. kip Lu=44-in = Laterally unbraced length of member Lateral Torsional Buckling ---> Cb = 1 cantilever 2 2 0.46-E-b -t ·Cb Me:=------ Lu = Elastic Lateral-Torsional Buckling Moment -AISC F10-5 ( 0.17-Me '\ Mc:= 0.92 -· Me if Me~ My My ) M = 8.8· in· kip min[(1.92-1.17· ("M;'l·My, 1.5·MJl otherwise ~Me) J Mc= 12.3· in-kip Flexure = "Ok" L) Shearing Stresses -AISC G4 u ~---J e := b ---> Maximum eccentricity P-e-t P f :=--+-v J b•t fv = 2.55· ksi = Maximum shearing stress (Directional eccentricity included) ---> Ok Westin Hotel Engr: RPR Date: 11/2/16 Sheet: 87 of --- Handrail Design.xmcd i__J u I , LJ Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Concentric Compression The effects of eccentricity are addressed according to AISC ES effective slenderness ratios K := 1.2 --> Effective length factor K-Lu --= 89.34 Leg= "Compact" rx 0.75-Lu K-Lu Slenderness:= 72 + if --~ 80 rx rx 1.25-Lu 32+---otherwise 1.2-E Fe:=------2 (Slenderness} Fy >..---.-Fe Westin Hotel Engr: RPR Date: 11 /2/16 Sheet: 88 of --- >.. ~ 0.658 -Fy if Slenderness~ 4.71· -Fy = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 0.877· Fe otherwise = Concentric compressive strength -AISC E.3-1 Pc= 21490-lb Compression = "Ok" Concentric Tension Rupture strength & block shear negligible ... 200lb tension load checked agains yield T:= Fy-A = Concentric tensile strength -AISC D2 T= 49-kip Tension= "Ok" Handrail Design.xmcd L_J 11 u Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Angle Iron Connection Weld Properties Weld:= "Fillet" F exx := 70, ksi = Electrode classification Westin Hotel Engr: RPR Date: 11/2/16 Sheet: 89 of --- n := 2.00 = Fillet weld safety factor loaded in plane, AISC J2.4 4 t :=-·in w 16 Lw C:=-2 = Weld thickness (2) longitudinal welds = Fillet weld effective throat = Length of weld along angle member AISC J2.2b min_weld = 0.19· in = Weld group moment of inertia max_weld = 0.31-in = Centroid of weld group U Weld bending stress L LJ u 0.60,Fexx Fa:=---n = Applied bending stress = Allowable weld stress AISC J2.4 Weld:= if( fb ~ Fa, "Ok", "No Good") F8 =21,ksi fb = 5.8,ksi Weld= "Ok" USE: ASTM A36, Grade 36 -L2 x 2 x 3/8" Angle Welded 4" along soldier beam with 3/8" diameter wire rope. Handrail Design.xmcd u l_J /'""\ I Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Westin Hotel Engr: RPR Date: 11/2/16 Sheet: 90 of --- Service Conditions -Deflection Hmin:= 39-in P-Lu3 ~:=----- 3. E· min( 12 , Ix} ~ = 0.96-in dH := J Lu 2 -~ 2 = Minimum deflected height of guardrail system under applied load = Maximum member deflection under concentrated point load = Vertical height of deflected member Deflection:= if( Hmin.,; dH, "Ok" , "No Good") dH = 43.99· in Deflection = "Ok" Handrail Design.xmcd l.-1 Section 12 (_:) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lagging Geometry Lagging= "3xl2, DF#2" L := 8.5-ft b:= l•ft shaft:= 24· in S:= L -shaft S = 6.5ft Soil Parameters cj> := 30·deg C:= 100,psf "'{ := 125,pcf ka:= ta.(45-deg-! )' 2 7r·S area:= --8 Timber Lagging Design = Soldier beam center to center space = Lagging width = Min. drill shaft backfill diameter = Lagging clear span = Internal soil friction angle (Vv'eighted avg.) = Soil cohesion (Conservative) = Soil unit weight = Active earth pressure coefficient = Silo cross sectional area (See figure) Lagging soil wedge functions Vv'(z) := area·"'{·Z = Columnar silo vertical surcharge pressure fs(z) := ka·1·tan(cj>),z + c = Soil column side friction w:= O,psf = Additional wedge surcharge pressure Surcharge:= 72· psf = Lateral surcharge pressure Timber Lagging Design_3x12.xmcdz Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: 11/2/2016 Soil Wedge Geometry ka = 0.33 2 area = 16.6 ft ,-, ' ' u u Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Maximum Lagging Design Pressure Summing forces vertically r z 'IT· s Fv(z) := W(z) + w,area --·) fs(z) dz 2 0 Summing forces horizontally ka·1·S . r.::.. Fv(z),ka P(z) := ---C·y ka + Surcharge+ --- 2 area Given , inital guess: z:= 3.ft d Taking partial derivative with respect to z: -P ( z) = 0 D : = Find ( z) 1·S-4·C ------= 4.3 ft ( 4·1· ka· tan ( cj>)) Maximum design pressure Pmax = 195,psf Sectional Properties Lagging = "3xl2, DF#2" d = 3·in dz D = 4.3 ft = Maximum lagging pressure = Lagging thickness = Section modulus (Rough Sawn) = Lagging cross sectional area (Rough Sawn) Timber Lagging Design_3x12.xmcdz 6xl03 Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet_jg_of __ Date: 11/2/2016 Depth to critical tension crack & maximum lagging design pressure Soil Pressure 4 6 Lagging Length (ft) L! Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Allowable Stress Design Maximum lagging stresses = Maximum bending moment Vmax:= V(0.5,shaft) = Maximum shear force Mmax = 1280.9· ft, lbf V max = 422.5 lbf Mmax fb:= -- Sm 3 Vmax fv:= -.--2 A NOS Allowable Stress ft Adjustment Factors Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: 11/2/2016 Shear & Moment Diagrams 6x 104~--~--.....----,------.--, 4xl04 --- Qf---------:,,----------, ----2x 104.__ __ _.__ __ ....__ __ _._ __ _.__. 0 2 4 6 8 Lagging Length (ft) Fb = 900 psi = Allowable flexural stress_NOS Table 4A Fv:= 180,psi = Allowable shear stress_NOS Table 4A Co:= 1.1 = Load duration factor_NOS Figure B1, Appendix B = Repetative member factor_NOS 4.3.9 = Flat-use factor = Size factor = Temprature factor_NOS Table 2.3.3 = Incising factor = Beam stability factor (Flat) CF· Fb = 900 psi CM:= 1 if CF·Fb~ 1150,psi 0.85 otherwise = Wet service factor Timber Lagging Design_3x12.xmcdz Maximum Design Stress fb = 1016.2 psi fv = 19.2 psi u <1 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Tabulated Stresses Bending Stress Westin Hotel Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: 11/2/2016 = Tabulated bending stress_NDS Table 4.3.1 Bending:= if(fb::; Fb', "Ok", "No Good") Fb' = 1366 psi fb = 1016· psi Bending = "Ok" Shear Stress = Tabulated shear stress_NDS Table 4.3.1 Shear:= if(fv::; Fv', "Ok", "No Good") Fv' = 198 psi fv = 19.2 psi Anticipated Deflection E = 1600000 psi (d-1-in) l:=Sm-----2 r 0.5-L ~:= - 1 · M(X)·X dx E-1 )0 ~=0.5-in Timber Lagging Design_3x12.xmcdz Shear= "Ok" = Modulus of elasticity_NDS Table 4A = Moment of inertia (Rough Sawn) 'l LJ Section 13 [_ l L l ,J ' j r J Shoring Design Group Westin Hotel Soldier Beam Schedule 11/2/2016 Revision 0 From To Beam Beam Beam' Qty 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 4 1 5 13 9 14 15 2 16 16 1 17 18 2 19 19 1 20 20 1 21 21 1 22 24 3 25 26 2 27 32 ' 6 33 33 1 34 34 1 J Shored Toe Beam Height Depth Section H D ft ft W 12 X 26 5.0 10.0 W 18 X 65 13.0 17.0 W 24 X 55 13.0 17.0 W 18 X 65 13.0 17.0 W 18 X 50 12.0 16.0 W 16 X 40 11.0 14.0 W 16 X 36 9.0 13.0 W 14 X 30 8.0 12.0 W 14 X 30 7.0 13.0 W 12 X 26 6.0 10.0 W 12 X 26 5.0 10.0 W 16 X 36 7.0 13.0 W 18 X 65 12.0 18.0 W 16 X 36 7.0 13.0 W 12 X 26 5.0 10.0 1 ,J Total Drill Depth H+D ft 15.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 28.0 25.0 22.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 15.0 20.0 30.0 20.0 15.0 '] Toe Diameter Dshaft in 24 24 30 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 30 24 24 J r '-· r-L c·· L LJ ,-, LJ :: Section 14 LJ OFFICE LOCATIO'<S ORANGE COUNTI CORPORATE BRAKCH ?992 E. La Pnlma Avenue Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 SA1'DIEGO I, !PERIA!. COF'JTY 6295 FeJTis Square LJ SuiteC ,.., r~ , I ~-_) San Diego, CA 9212! Tel: 858.537J999 Fax: 858.537.3990 T:>ll ,AND EMPIR~: 14467 Meridian Parkway Building2A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 95 l.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 ('iDIO 44917 Golt'Center Pkwy Suite 1 Indio, CA 92201 Tel: 760.342.4677 Fax: 760.342.4525 OC/LA/l'iLAND EMPIRE f)[Sl'ATCH 800.49] .299() SAN DIEGO D!SP.\TCH 8X8.844.5060 www.rntglinc.com GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site Grand Pacific Resorts Carlsbad, California Prepared For: Grand Pacific Resorts 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 200 Carlsbad, California 92008 Prepared By: MTGL,lnc. 6295 Ferris Square, Suite C San Diego, California 92121 October 20, 2014 MTGLProjectNo. 1916Al0 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 L_j 0RY\LJ ( Ol \ ! \' ( OH POK\ ft· BH \ '\t H \uth: \ Id 714 l \\\DllLO l\iPIHJ\!( ~.:.;_1:_n < \ <;r 1,,;"Jt) -;1-; 1, )~,; j OCt \ hi , 'sll I ">B'llll !)P,i'\I I'll October 20, 2014 Grand Pacific Resorts 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 200 Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Houston Arnold MTGLProjectNo. 1916Al0 MTGLLogNo. 14-1168 Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site Grand Pacific Resorts Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Arnold: In accordance with your request and authorization we have completed a Geotechnical Investigation for the subject site. We are pleased to present the following report which addresses both engineering geologic and geotechnical conditions including a description of the site conditions, results of our field exploration and laboratory testing, and our conclusions and recommendations for grading and foundations design. Based on our investigation, the site will be suitable for construction, provided the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the proposed construction. Details related to geologic conditions, seismicity, site preparation, foundation design, and construction considerations are also included in the subsequent sections of this report. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service and look forward to providing additional consulting services during the planning and construction of the project. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, MTGL,Inc. Pagei L__J ,1 L_, L__J Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California TABLE OF CONTENTS MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGLLogNo. 14-1168 1.00 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.01 PLANNED CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.02 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.03 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.04 FIELDlNVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................... 2 1.05 LABORATORYTESTING ................................................................................................................. 3 2.00 FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 4 2.01 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 4 2.02 SITE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 4 2.03 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... 5 2.04 FAULTING AND SEISMICTY ............................................................................................................ 5 2.05 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ........................................................................................................... 6 2.06 LANDSLIDES .................................................................................................................................. 6 2.07 TSUNAMI AND SEICHE HAzARD .................................................................................................... 6 3.00 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 7 3.01 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 7 3.02 EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATIONS\ CBC SEISMIC PARAMETERS .................................................... 7 3.03 EXPANSION POTENTIAL ................................................................................................................ 8 4.00 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 9 4.01 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS/SHRINKAGE ............................................................................. 9 4.02 SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................... 9 4.03 SITE CLEARING RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 10 4.04 SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS -COMPLETE REMOVAL OF UNDOCUMENTED FILLS ........ 10 4.05 SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS -CUT/FILL TRANSITION ................................................... 10 4.06 SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS -PARTIAL REMOVAL OF UNDOCUMENTED FILLS ............ 11 4.07 COMP ACTION REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................... 11 4.08 FILL MATERIALS ......................................................................................................................... 12 4.09 SWIMMING POOLS ....................................................................................................................... 12 4.10 SLOPES ........................................................................................................................................ 12 4.11 FOUNDATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 13 4.11.1 CONVENTIONAL SHALLOWFOUNDATIONS .................................................................... 13 4.11.2 CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE (CIDH) PILES ........................................................................ 13 4.12 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE AND MISCELLANEOUS FLA TWORK ............................................. 14 4.13 PREWETTING RECOMMENDATION .............................................................................................. 16 4.14 CORROSITMTY ........................................................................................................................... 16 4.15 RETAININGWALLS ..................................................................................................................... 16 4.16 PAVEMENTDESIGN ..................................................................................................................... 18 Page ii u ,-i L .... .) ,_J u l _ _J t_l l__J Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGLLogNo. 14-1168 4.16.1 ASHALTCONCRETE ........................................................................................................ 18 4.16.2 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE ..................................................................................... 18 4.17 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................. 19 4.17 .1 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS/WEATHER RELATED CONCERNS ...................................... 19 4.17.2 DRAINAGE AND GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................... 19 4.17.3 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS AND SHORING .................................................................... 20 4.17.4 UTILITYTRENCHES ......................................................................................................... 22 4.17.5 SITEDRAINAGE ............................................................................................................... 22 4.18 GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION/TESTING OF EARTHWORK OPERATIONS .................................. 22 5.00 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 24 ATTACHMENTS: Figure 1 -Site Plan Figure 2 -Geologic Cross Section Figure 3 -Geologic Cross Section Figure 4-Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Appendix A -References Appendix B -Field Exploration Program Appendix C -Laboratory Test Procedures Appendix D -Standard Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page iii ' I~ I~ l .. .J :---i l-.1 r·1 u Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California 1.00 INTRODUCTION MTGLProjectNo.1916AlO MTGL Log No. 14-1168 In accordance with your request and authorization, MTGL, Inc. has completed a Geotechnical Investigation for the subject site. The following report presents a summary of our findings, conclusions and recommendations based on our investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. 1.01 PLANNED CONSTRUCTION It is our understanding that the project will include construction of two four-story hotel buildings and one three-story timeshare building with an underground parking lot. The structures are anticipated to be supported by a conventional shallow foundation system with a slab-on-grade or by cast-in- drilled-holes (CIDH) piles with a structural slab. Other improvements at the site are to include automobile parking, concrete hardscape, swimming pool, and associate underground utilities. 1.02 SCOPE OF WORK The scope of our geotechnical services included the following: • Review of geologic, seismic, ground water and geotechnical literature. • Logging, sampling and backfilling of five exploratory borings drilled with an 8" hollow stem • • • auger drill rig to a maximum depth of 51 Yi feet below existing grades and five exploratory test pits with a backhoe to a maximum depth of 13Yi feet below existing grade. Appendix B presents a summary of the field exploration program. Laboratory testing of representative samples (See Appendix C) . Geotechnical engineering review of data and engineering recommendations . Preparation of this report summarizing our findings and presenting our conclusions and recommendations for the proposed construction. 1.03 SITE DESCRIPTION l.J The project is located on the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) above ground water storage tank site that is situated west of the northern end of The Crossing Drive in Carlsbad, California. The Site Plan, Figure 1, shows the site and proposed development layout. Original construction at the site consisted of creating a level pad for the above ground steel water storage ,-1 tank. It is our understanding that the water storage tank has been abandoned and is to be removed. Based on information from a 2001 topographic map of the site the water storage tank sat at the top of a hill at an elevation of about 261 feet msl. Slopes that descended from the site predominantly Page 1 L0 n Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916Al0 MTGLLogNo. 14-1168 projected in northeastern, eastern, and southwestern directions. The site was then graded to its current elevations as part of the grading operations associated with the Crossings Golf Course. It was reported to us that the area east of the water storage tank was to be used as an over-flow automobile parking lot. At the time of our investigation we were not provided with any written documentation, such as compaction or as-graded reports, of the grading operations that previously occurred at the site. There is documentation that during the recent grading operations associated with the golf course human remains and other archeological artifacts were exposed at the site in the area southeast of the water storage tank. To protect the artifacts and remains in place a portion of the site was capped with red colored cement/sand slurry followed by fill soils. During the field portion of our investigation a separate exploration investigation, done by others, was underway at the site to help identify the area of cement/sand slurry. The Site Plan shows the location of the exposed cement/sand slurry which was provided to us by your office. The current configuration of the site consists of a relatively level area around the water storage tank with an elevation of about 262 feet msl (see Site Plan). The 'parking lot' area is unpaved with a high 11 elevation of 263 feet msl on the western side and 258 feet msl on the eastern side. Descending slopes lead away from the site in northeastern, southeastern and western direction. A dirt access road extends from The Crossing Drive to the western comer of the site, near the water storage tank. Retaining walls that border the site on the western side are part of the Marbrisa Resorts development. 1.04 FIELD INVESTIGATION u Prior to the field investigation, a site reconnaissance was performed by an engineer from our office to mark the boring and test pit locations, as shown on the Site Plan, and to evaluate the borings and u L_J l_J test pits exploration locations with respect to obvious subsurface structures and access for the drilling rig. Underground Service Alert was then notified of the marked location for utility clearance. Our subsurface investigation consisted of drilling test borings utilizing a truck mounted drill rig equipped with an 8" diameter hollow stem auger and excavating test pits with a backhoe. See Appendix B for further discussion of the field exploration including logs of test borings and test pits. Page2 u 11 LJ 11 u u , .. , i_J l __ j Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geoteclmical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGLLogNo. 14-1168 Borings were logged and sampled using Modified California Ring (Ring) and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samplers at selected depth intervals. Samplers were driven into the bottom of the boring with successive drops of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. Blows required driving the last 12 inches of the 18-inch Ring and SPT samplers are shown on the boring logs in the "blows/foot" column (Appendix B). SPT was performed in the borings in general accordance with the American Standard Testing Method (ASTM) D1586 Standard Test Method. Representative bulk soil samples were also obtained from our borings and test pits. Each soil sample collected was inspected and described in general conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The soil descriptions were entered on the boring logs. All samples were sealed and packaged for transportation to our laboratory. 1.05 LABORATORYTESTING Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples to verify the field classification of the recovered samples and to determine the geotechnical properties of the subsurface materials. All laboratory tests were performed in general conformance with ASTM or State of California Standard Methods. The results of our laboratory tests are presented in Appendix C of this report. Page3 ,, I u Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California 2.00 FINDINGS 2.01 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 The site is located in the coastal portion of the Peninsular Range Province of California. This area of the Peninsular Range Province has undergone several episodes of marine inundation and subsequent marine regression throughout the last 54 million years, which has resulted in the deposition of a thick sequence of marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks on the basement rock of the Southern California Batholith. Gradual emergence of the region from the sea occurred in Pleistocene time, and numerous wave-cut platforms, most of which were covered by relatively thin marine and ri nonmarine terrace deposits, formed as the sea receded from the land. Accelerated fluvial erosion during periods of heavy rainfall, coupled with the lowering of the base sea level during Quaternary times, resulted in the rolling hills, mesas, and deeply incised canyons which characterize the landforms in the general site vicinity today. 2.02 SITE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS As observed during this investigation, and our review of geotechnical maps, the site is underlain at depth by Quaternary-aged Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 2-4 Undivided (Qop2-4) and Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. Residual soils and undocumented fill materials were encountered above the ;"'l formational materials. Logs of the subsurface conditions encountered in our borings are provided in Appendix B. Generalized descriptions of the materials encountered during this investigation are u u LI presented below. Geologic cross sections are shown on Figure 2 and 3. Undocumented fill soils were encountered in all borings and test pits, except for Boring B-3, and ranged in depth from 11h to 41 feet below existing grade. As observed in our borings and test pits, the fill materials consisted of light brown, brown, orange, and gray poorly graded sand (SP), Silty Sand (SM) and Clayey Sand (SC). The sandy materials are fine to coarse grain, dry to moist, and medium dense to dense. The fill materials also consisted of brown and dark brown Clay (CL) and Fat Clay (CH). The clays are medium plasticity, moist and stiff to very stiff. The fills also contain mixtures of Poorly Graded Sand with Clayey Sand (SP/SC) and Clayey Sand with Clay (SC/CL). Gravel and trash were encountered within the fill materials. Since we do not have any documentation of the placement of these fill materials the fills are considered undocumented and unsuitable for structural support in their current condition. Residual soils were encountered in Boring B-2 beneath the cement/sand slurry. The residual soils consisted of brown Silty Sand (SM) that was fine grain, dry to moist, and loose. Some trash was encountered within this layer. The residual soils layer is the zone of materials where the human Page4 r---, ' ' u r, ; ' L_ . ..J Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGLProjectNo. 1916A10 MTGLLogNo. 14-1168 remains and other archeological artifacts were previously found at the site. The residual soils are not considered suitable for structural support in their current condition. Pockets of trash and debris were encountered within the borings and test pits done as part of this investigation and during the test pits performed for the cement/slurry investigation done by others. '1 The types of trash and debris encountered consisted of aluminum cans, glass, clothing, shoes, metal piping and other miscellaneous trash. Quaternary-aged Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 2-4 Undivided (QoP2-4) [formerly Terrace Deposits] was encountered in four of the borings and one of the test pits at depths that ranged from existing ground surface to 21 Yz below existing grade. As observed in our explorations, the Old Paralic Deposits consisted of orangish brown Silty Sandstone that was fine to medium grained, moist and moderately ,, cemented. In general, the Old Paralic Deposits have a very low expansive potential and are considered suitable for support of structural loading in their current condition. n Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation was encountered in one boring, B-1, at a depth of approximately 41 feet below existing grade. The Santiago Formation material encountered consisted of olive gray, 11 light brown and orange Silty Sandstone that was fine grained, moist, and moderately cemented. The Santiago Formation material is expected to underlie Old Paralic Deposits. In general, the sandy materials of the Santiago Formation are considered suitable for support of structural loading in their current condition; however, there are highly expansive clayey portions of the formation that require special handling during construction. u u LJ 2.03 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Seepage and/or groundwater were not observed in our investigation. However, it should be recognized that excessive irrigation, or changes in rainfall or site drainage could produce seepage or locally perched groundwater conditions within the soil underlying the site. 2.04 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY Active earthquake faults are one of the most significant geologic hazards to development in California. Active faults are those which have undergone surface displacement within the last approximately 11,000 years. Potentially active faults show evidence of surface displacement within the last approximately 1.6 million years. The site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and therefore surface rupture of an active fault is not considered to be a significant geologic hazard at the site. Page5 u I J '--·.] u LJ ' u r, Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGLLogNo.14-1168 Potential seismic hazards at the site are anticipated to be the result of ground shaking from distant active faults. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone, which is located about 5.3 miles (8.5 km) southwest of the site. A number of other significant faults also occur in the San Diego metropolitan area suggesting that the regional faulting pattern is very complex. Faults such as those offshore are known to be active and any could cause a damaging earthquake. The San Diego metropolitan area has experienced some major earthquakes in the past, and will likely experience future major earthquakes. 2.05 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Liquefaction is a phenomenon where earthquake induced ground vibrations increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal to the confining, overburden pressure. When this occurs, the soil can completely lose its shear strength and become liquefied. The possibility of liquefaction is dependent upon grain size, relative density, confining pressure, saturation of the soils, and strength of the ground motion and duration of ground shaking. In order for liquefaction to occur three criteria must be met: underlying loose, coarse-grained (sandy) soils, a groundwater depth of less than about 50 feet and a nearby large magnitude earthquake. Given the relatively dense nature of the subsurface soils, and the absence of a groundwater table, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered to be negligible. 2.06 LANDSLIDES Since the existing slopes at the site were constructed with undocumented fill materials there is a high potential for landslides to occur within the fill materials at the site. The location and extent of the landslides cannot be determined at this time. Remedial grading recommendations are presented in this report to mitigate the potential for landslides at the site. 2.07 TSUNAMI AND SEICHE HAzARD The site is not located within an area mapped by the California Geological Survey as subject to inundation by tsunami. Given the location of the site at an elevation of approximately 260 feet MSL, within a densely developed area, the inundation hazard posed by tsunami is considered to be low. Seiches are not considered to be a hazard due the planned removal of the existing above- ground water tank. There are no other nearby bodies of water impoundment. Page6 u u ,-1 l;) u Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 3.00 CONCLUSIONS 3.01 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Given the findings of the investigation, it appears that the site geology is suitable for the proposed construction. Based on the investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is safe against landslides and settlement provided the recommendations presented in our report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Grading and construction of the proposed project will not adversely affect the geologic stability of adjacent properties. The nature and extent of the investigation conducted for the purposes of this declaration are, in our opinion, in conformance with generally accepted practice in this area. Therefore, the proposed project appears to be feasible from a geologic standpoint. There appears to be no significant geologic constraint onsite that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and sound construction practices. Specific conclusions pertaining to geologic conditions are summarized below: • Due to proximity of the site to regional active and potentially active faults, the site could experience moderate to high levels of ground shaking from regional seismic events within the projected life of the building. A design performed in accordance with the current California Building Code and the seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California is expected to satisfactorily mitigate the effects of future ground shaking. • The potential for active (on-site) faulting is considered low. • The potential for liquefaction during strong ground motion is considered low. • The potential for landslides to occur is considered low if the remedial recommendations • • presented herein are incorporated. The on-site undocumented fill materials are considered not suitable for structural support in their present condition. Recommendations are presented in the following sections for remedial grading at the site. The proposed structures may be supported by either a conventional shallow foundation system if the undocumented fill materials are mitigated as recommended or by a deep foundation system with reduced remedial grading requirements. 3 .02 EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATIONS\ CBC SEISMIC PARAMETERS The 2013 California Building Code seismic design parameters were obtained from the USGS website using a project location of latitude 33.13° North and a longitude of 117.31° West. Based Page7 u u u (__j Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 upon the anticipated grading requirements at the site a Site Class D was used for the project. The 2013 Seismic Design Parameters are presented below: D 1.177 0.675 Sos 0.785 Sm 0.450 3 .03 EXPANSION POTENTIAL The on-site soils possess a very low to medium expansion potential (Expansion Index of Oto 71). The on-site fill soil could be used for structural support but structural design criteria should be taken into consideration for the on-site soil's medium expansion potential. Page8 ( 'l u LJ LJ ( l LJ Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California 4.00 RECOMMENDATIONS MTGLProjectNo.1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 Our recommendations are considered minimum and may be superseded by more conservative requirements of the architect, structural engineer, building code, or governing agencies. The foundation recommendations are based on the expansion index and shear strength of the onsite soils. Import soils, if necessary should have a very low expansion potential (Expansion Index less than 20) and should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to importing to the site. In addition to the recommendations in this section, additional general earthwork and grading specifications are included in Appendix D. 4.01 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS/SHRINKAGE Our exploratory borings were advanced with little difficulty within the fill and residual soils and no oversize materials were encountered in our subsurface investigation. Our exploratory borings were advanced with some effort within the moderately cemented formational materials. Accordingly we expect that all earth materials will be rippable with conventional heavy duty grading equipment with experienced operations and that oversized materials are not expected. Shrinkage is the decrease in volume of soil upon removal and recompaction expressed as a percentage of the original in-place volume, which will account for changes in earth volumes that will occur during grading. Bulking is the increase in volume of soil upon removal recompaction expressed as a percentage of the original in-place volume. Our estimate for shrinkage of the onsite fill soils are expected to range from 5 to 10 percent. Our estimate for bulking of the formational materials is estimated to range from 5 to 10 percent. It should be noted that bulking and shrinkage potential can vary considerably based on the variability of the in-situ densities of the materials in question. 4.02 SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ,, Based on the proposed grading recommendations, we anticipate that properly designed and constructed foundations that are supported on compacted fill materials will experience a total static settlement of up to 1.0 inch with differential settlements of Yi an inch. As a minimum, structures supported by shallow conventional foundations should be designed to accommodate a total settlement of at least 1.0 inch with differential settlements of Yz an inch over a horizontal distance of ' -, 40 feet. Page9 L__J Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGLLogNo.14-1168 -, 4.03 SITE CLEARING RECOMMENDATIONS Ll l.J • l All surface vegetation, trash, debris, asphalt concrete, Portland cement concrete and underground pipes should be cleared and removed from the proposed construction site. Underground facilities such as utilities may exist at the site. Depressions resulting from the removal of foundations of existing buildings, buried obstructions and/or tree roots should be backfilled with properly compacted material. All organics, debris, trash and topsoil should be removed from the grading area and hauled offsite. 4.04 SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS -COMPLETE REMOVAL OF UNDOCUMENTED FILLS Remedial grading at the site should include removal of all undocumented fills to expose undisturbed formational materials (Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 2-4, Undivided or Santiago Formation). Based on information from the borings, removals may extend to about 41 feet below existing grade. The bottom of the removals should then be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer or geologist to see if further remedial grading is warranted. Once formational materials have been exposed and approved, the undocumented fill materials ( with an expansion index of less than 50 and with no deleterious materials) may be placed as compacted fill. Prior to fill placement, the exposed excavation bottom should be scarified to a depth of 8 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned and re-compacted. The materials should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557 at a moisture content that is slightly above optimum moisture content. Fill materials placed at a depth greater than 30 feet below finished grade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Structures founded on soils that were prepared as described above may be supported by conventional slab-on-grade construction on a shallow foundation system. 4.05 SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS-CUT/FILL TRANSITION After remedial grading to remove all undocumented fill materials has been performed, there is a potential within the individual building footprints to have a transition where footings rest both on undisturbed formational materials and compacted fill. This 'cut/fill' transition could result in adverse differential settlement. To mitigate the cut/fill transition we recommend that the formational deposits within the cut portion of the building pad be over-excavated to a depth equal to one-half of the maximum fill depth (but not less than 3 feet) of the fill portion of the building pad. The depths are those measured from the bottom of the proposed footings. The over-excavated cut soils may Page 10 Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 , , then be placed as compacted fill. The purpose of the cut/fill mitigation is to provide a uniform fill of at least 3 feet mat beneath all of the footings. LJ C _) l._J 4.06 SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS -PARTIAL REMOVAL OF UNDOCUMENTED FILLS For structures which are planned to be supported by cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) pile foundation system with structural slab, we recommend that remedial grading beneath the structure be performed which includes over-excavation and re-compaction of the upper three feet of soils below finished grade elevation. Prior to re-compaction of soils, the exposed excavation bottom should be scarified to at least 8 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted. The materials should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density at a moisture content that is slightly above optimum. For existing slopes that were constructed with undocumented fill materials, and are planned to be left in place without remedial grading being performed, we recommend slope stabilization using retaining walls supported by soils that have been remediated or CIDH piles. Once layout and extent of slopes that are to be left in place have been identified MTGL should be contacted to provide slope stability evaluation and mitigation alternatives. For hardscape areas where remedial grading will not be performed we recommend that the upper three feet of finished grade materials be removed and re-compacted. Prior to re-compaction of soils, the exposed excavation bottom should be scarified to at least 8 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted. The materials should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density at a moisture content that is slightly above optimum. With this alternative there is a high probability that adverse settlement will occur below hardscape. Recommendations are presented in this report to help reduce the effects of such settlement. 4.07 COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS All fill materials should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. Deep fill materials, those placed at a depth that is greater than 30 feet below finished grade, should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Fill materials should be placed in loose lifts, no greater than 8 inches prior to applying compactive effort. All engineered fill materials should be moisture-conditioned and processed as necessary to achieve a uniform moisture content that is slightly above optimum moisture content and within moisture limits required to achieve adequate bonding between lifts. Page 11 CJ n u L_J t ) L) l ... J Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California 4.08 FILL MATERIALS MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 Removed and/or over-excavated soils may be reused as engineered fill except for expansive soils ( expansion index greater than 50) and soils containing detrimental amounts of organic material, trash and other debris. Imported materials shall be free from vegetable matter and other deleterious substances, shall not contain rocks or lumps of a greater dimension than 4 inches, shall have an expansion index of less than 20, and shall be approved by the geotechnical consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength properties shall be placed in areas designated by the geotechnical consultant or shall be removed off-site. 4.09 SWIMMING POOLS Soils to be placed within five feet of planned swimming pool bottoms should have a low expansion potential, expansion index less than 20. The low expansion potential should extend a minimum of five feet beyond pool footprint. 4.10 SLOPES Remedial grading at the site will include construction of new fill slopes. We recommend that slopes be inclined no steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical). Fills over sloping ground should be constructed entirely on prepared bedrock. In areas where the existing ground surface slopes at more than a 5: 1 gradient, it should be benched to produce a level area to receive the fill. Benches should be wide enough to provide complete coverage by the compaction equipment during fill placement. Slopes constructed at 2: 1 or flatter should be stable with regard to deep seated failure with a factor of safety greater than 1.5, which is the generally accepted safety factor. However, all slopes are susceptible to surficial slope failure and erosion, given substantial wetting of the slope face. Surficial slope stability may be enhanced by providing proper site drainage. The site should be graded so that water from the surrounding areas is not able to flow over the top of the slopes. Diversion structures should be provided where necessary. Surface runoff should be confined to gunite-lined swales or other appropriate devises to reduce the potential for erosion. It is recommended that slopes be planted with vegetation that will increase their stability. Ice plant is generally not recommended. Page 12 u u Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California 4.11 FOUNDATIONS MTGL Project No. 1916Al 0 MTGLLogNo. 14-1168 The recommendations and design criteria are "minimum" in keeping with the current standard-of- practice. They do not preclude more restrictive criteria by the governing agency or structural considerations. The project structural engineer should evaluate the foundation configurations and :"\ reinforcement requirements for actual structural loadings. The foundation design parameters assumes that remedial grading is conducted as recommended in this report, and that all the buildings are underlain by a relatively uniform depth of compacted fill with a low to medium expansion potential. Note that expansion index testing should be conducted on the individual building pads l:J ,, u during finish grading in order to confirm this assumption. Conventional shallow foundations are considered suitable for support of the proposed structures provided that remedial grading to remove undocumented fill materials and mitigation of cut/fill transitions are performed. If remedial grading is not performed, then proposed structures should be supported by cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles. 4.11.1 CONVENTIONAL SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS Allowable Soil Bearing: Minimum Footing Width: Minimum Footing Depth: Coefficient of Friction: 0.33 Passive Pressure: 3,000 lbs/fr (allow a one-third increase for short-term wind or seismic loads). The allowable soil bearing may be increase 500 lbs/fr for every 12-inch increase in depth above the minimum footing depth and 250 lbs/ft2 for every 12-inch increase in width above the minimum footing width. The bearing value may not exceed 6,000 lbs/ft2 24 inches 24 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade 350 psf per foot of depth. Passive pressure and the friction of resistance could be combined without reduction 4.11.2 Cast-In-Drilled Hole (CIDH) PILES As an alternative to using a conventional shallow foundation system, which requires mitigation of undocumented fill soils, structures at the site may be supported by cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH) piles extending a minimum of 10 feet into the formational materials (Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 2-4, Undivided or Santiago Formation). The downward and uplift capacities of Page 13 r-, 11, I u L.-1 I ' ~J Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGLLogNo.14-1168 CIDH piles are presented below. The capacities are for dead plus live load; a one-third increase may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. The capacities recommended are based on the strength of the soils; the compressive and tensile strength of the CIDH piles should be verified by a structural engineer. CIDH piles in groups should be spaced at least 2 Yi pile diameters on centers, but not less than three feet. If piles are spaced accordingly, then no reduction in downward capacity of the piles due to group action is necessary. 30 100 10 36 150 12 42 200 14 The lateral resistance of CIDH piles may be determined using the formulas in Section 1807 A.3 of the 2013 California Building Code. When using the formulas, a lateral bearing of 450 psf per foot of depth may be used for that portion of the pile that is within formational materials, up to 4,500 psf. The passive resistance of the compacted/undocumented fill against CIDH pile caps and grade beams may be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 200 pcf. A one-third increase in the passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. The resistance of the CIDH piles and the passive resistance of the soils may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. 4.12 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE AND MISCELLANEOUS FLATWORK Interior slab-on-grade should be designed for the actual applied loading conditions expected. The structural engineer should size and reinforce slabs to support the expected loads utilizing accepted methods of concrete design, such as those provided by the Portland Cement Association or the American Concrete Institute. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) could be utilized in design. Based on geotechnical consideration, interior slab for conventional slab- on-grade design should be a minimum of 5 inches and should be reinforced with at least No. 4 bars on 18 centers, each way. Actual reinforcement should be designed by the project structural engineer based upon medium expansion potential. Structural slabs should be designed by the structural engineer and should span from foundation supports. Concrete slabs constructed on soil ultimately cause the moisture content to rise in the underlying soil. This results from continued capillary rise and the termination of normal evapotranspiration. Page 14 L. __ ) L_J LJ Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGLProjectNo.1916A10 MTGLLogNo.14-1168 Because normal concrete is permeable, the moisture will eventually penetrate the slab. Excessive moisture may cause mildewed carpets, lifting or discoloration of floor tiles, or similar problems. To decrease the likelihood of problems related to damp slabs, suitable moisture protection measures should be used where moisture sensitive floor coverings, moisture sensitive equipment, or other factors warrant. A commonly used moisture protection in southern California consists of about 2 inches of clean sand covered by at least 10 mil plastic sheeting. In addition, 2 inches of clean sand are placed over the plastic to decrease concrete curing problems associated with placing concrete directly on an impermeable membrane. However, it has been our experience that such systems will transmit from approximately 6 to 12 pounds of moisture per 1,000 square feet per day. This may be excessive for some applications, particularly for sheet vinyl, wood flooring, vinyl tiles, or carpeting with impermeable backing that use water soluble adhesives. If additional moisture protection is needed, then a Stego Wrap moisture barrier, or equivalent, may be used in lieu of 10 mil plastic sheeting. The Stego Wrap should be installed per the manufacturers' recommendations. Concrete is a rigid brittle material that can withstand very little strain before cracking. Concrete, particularly exterior hardscape is subject to dimensional changes due to variations in moisture of the concrete, variations in temperature and applied loads. It is not possible to eliminate the potential for cracking in concrete; however, cracking can be controlled by use of joints and reinforcing. Joints provide a pre-selected location for concrete to crack along and release strain and reinforcement provides for closely spaced numerous cracks in lieu of few larger visible cracks. Crack control joints should have a maximum spacing of 5 feet for sidewalks and 10 feet each way for slabs. Differential movement between buildings and exterior slabs, or between sidewalks and curbs may be decreased by doweling the slab into the foundation or curb. Exterior concrete slabs on the expansive site soils may experience some movement and cracking. Exterior slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and should be reinforce with at least 6x6, W2.9/W2.9 welded wire fabric or No. 4 bars spaced at 18 inches on center, each way, supported firmly at mid- height of the slab. Exterior slab areas where complete removal of undocumented fill materials was not performed should be supported by concrete which is at least 5 inches thick with No. 4 bars spaced at 18 inches on center. The slabs should be doweled into curbs and building foundations. The intent of this recommendation is to minimize the potential for adverse settlement that may occur as a result of leaving in undocumented fills. Page 15 u Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916Al0 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 n 4.13 PREWETTING RECOMMENDATION l 11 u L) The soils underlying the slab-on-grade should be brought to a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 4% above their optimum moisture content for a depth of 12 inches prior to the placement of concrete. The geotechnical consultant should perform insitu moisture tests to verify that the appropriate moisture content has been achieved a maximum of 24 hours prior to the placement of concrete or moisture barriers. 4.14 CORROSIVITY Corrosion series tests consisting of pH, soluble sulfates, soluble chlorides, and minimum resistivity were performed on selected samples of the on-site soils. Soluble sulfate levels for the on-site fill soils indicate a negligible sulfate exposure for concrete structure. As such, no special considerations are required for concrete placed in contact with the on-site soils. However, it is recommended that Type II cement to be used for all concrete. Based on the soluble chloride levels the on-site soils have a degree of corrosivity to metals that is corrosive. Based on the pH and Resistivity, the on-site soils have a degree of corrosivity to ferrous metals that is moderately corrosive to very corrosive. The actual corrosive potential is determined by many factors in addition to those presented herein. MTGL, Inc. does not practice corrosion engineering. Underground metal conduits in contact with the soil need to be protected. We recommend that a corrosion engineer be consulted. 4.15 RETAINING WALLS Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on the walls. The magnitude of these earth pressures will depend on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under the load. If the wall can yield sufficiently to mobilize the full shear strength of the soils, it may be designed for the active condition. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, then the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressures will be higher. These walls such as basement walls and swimming pools should be designed for the at rest condition. If a structure moves towards the retained soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil will be the passive resistance. For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls constructed above the static groundwater table, backfilled with low expansive soils, and where remedial grading has been performed is provided below. Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90% Page 16 Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 relative compaction based on the maximum density defined by ASTM D1557. Retaining structures may be designed to resist the following lateral earth pressures. • Allowable Bearing Pressure-3,000 psf • Coefficient of Friction (Soil to Footing) -0.33 • Passive Earth Pressure -equivalent fluid weight of 300 pcf (Maximum of2,000 pct) • At rest lateral earth pressure -70 pcf • Active Earth Pressures -equivalent fluid weights: Level 50 2:1 (H:V) 85 u It is recommended that all retaining wall footings be embedded at least 24 inches below the lowest adjacent finish grade. In addition, the wall footings should be designed and reinforced as required n for structural considerations. Lateral resistance parameters provided above are ultimate values. Therefore, a suitable factor of safety should be applied to these values for design purposes. The appropriate factor of safety will depend on the design condition and should be determined by the project Structural Engineer. If any super-imposed .loads are anticipated, this office should be notified so that appropriate recommendations for earth pressures may be provided. Retaining structures should be drained to prevent the accumulation of subsurface water behind the walls. Back drains should be installed behind all retaining walls exceeding 3.0 feet in height. A typical detail for retaining wall back drains is presented as Figure 4. All back drains should be outlet to suitable drainage devices. Walls and portions thereof that retain soil and enclose interior spaces and floors below grade should be waterproofed and damp-proofed in accordance with the 2013 CBC. u For retaining walls exceeding 6 feet in height we recommend that a seismic retaining wall design be conducted by the structural engineer. For seismic design we used a peak site acceleration of 0.45g LJ r·-, calculated from the modified seismic design parameters (Ss/2.5). For a retained wall condition, such as the planned basement levels, we recommend a seismic load of 18H be used for design. The seismic load is dependent of the retained wall height where H is the height of the wall, in feet, and Page 17 Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 n the calculated triangular loads result in pounds per square foot exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. ,, u L_J L_J L .. L.J ,-.,1 4.16 PAVEMENT DESIGN Alternatives for asphalt or Portland cement concrete pavements are given below. Immediately prior to constructing pavement sections, the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade should be scarified, brought to about optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. Aggregate base should also be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Aggregate base should conform to Caltrans Class II or Standard Specifications for Public Works Constructions (SSPWC), Section 200 for crushed aggregate base. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Hveem unit weight. Asphalt concrete should conform to SSPWC Section 400-4. 4.16.1 ASPHALT CONCRETE Asphalt concrete pavement design was conducted in general accordance with Caltrans Design Method (Topic 608.4). Two traffic types are anticipated at the site. These include areas oflight traffic and passenger car parking (Traffic Index of 4.5), and access and truck routes (Traffic Index of 6.0). The project civil engineer should review these anticipated traffic levels to determine if they are appropriate. Laboratory R-Value tests on the site soils indicate that an R- Value of 15 may be used for preliminary pavement design. R-Value confirmation and fmal pavement design should be performed on the fmished soils within the pavement areas. The following pavement sections would apply based on the Caltrans Design Method. 4.5 4 inches 4 inches 6.0 4 inches 9Yz inches 4.16.2 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE Concrete pavement design was conducted in accordance with the simplified design procedure of the Portland Cement Association. This methodology is based on a 20 year design lift. For design, it was assumed that aggregate interlock would be used for load transfer across control joints. Laboratory R-Value tests indicate that the subgrade materials will provide a 'low' subgrade support. Based on these assumptions, we recommend that the pavement section consist of 6 inches of Portland cement concrete over native subgrade. This PCC section is Page 18 i... ..... :.J r1 1 _ _j Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 applicable for both truck traffic areas and passenger car parking areas. Crack control joints should be constructed for all PCC pavements on a maximum of 10 foot centers, each way. Concentrated truck traffic areas, such as trash truck aprons, should be reinforced with at least No. 4 bars on 18-inch centers, each way. 4.17 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 4.17 .1 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS/WEATHER RELATED CONCERNS The upper soils encountered at this site may be sensitive to disturbances caused by construction traffic and to changes in moisture content. During wet weather periods, increases in the moisture content of the soil can cause significant reduction in the soil strength and its support capabilities. In addition, soils that become excessively wet may be slow to dry and thus significantly delay the progress of the grading operations. Therefore, it will be advantageous to perform earthwork and foundation construction activities during the dry season. Much of the on-site soils may be susceptible to erosion during periods of inclement weather. As a result, the project Civil Engineer/ Architect and Grading Contractor should take appropriate precautions to reduce the potential for erosion during and after construction. 4.17.2 DRAINAGE AND GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS No groundwater was encountered within the maximum explored depth of 51 Yz feet below existing grade. It should be noted, however, that variations in the ground water table may result from fluctuation in the ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, precipitation, irrigation, and other factors that may not have been evident at the time of our exploration. Seepage sometimes occurs where relatively impermeable and/or cemented formational materials are overlain by fill soils. We should be consulted to evaluate areas of seepage during construction. Water should not be allowed to collect in the foundation excavation, on floor slab areas, or on prepared subgrades of the construction area either during or after construction. Undercut or excavated areas should be sloped to facilitate removal of any collected rainwater, groundwater, or surface runoff. Positive site drainage should be provided to reduce infiltration of surface water around the perimeter of the building and beneath the floor slabs. The grades should be sloped away from the building and surface drainage should be collected and discharged such that water is not permitted to infiltrate the backfill and floor slab areas of the building. Page 19 i ! L.:.:) __ J Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California 4.17.3 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS AND SHORING MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 Short term temporary excavations in existing soils may be safely made at an inclination of 1: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. If vertical sidewalls are required in excavations greater than 3 feet in depth, the use of cantilevered or braced shoring is recommended. Excavations less than 3 feet in depth may be constructed with vertical sidewalls without shoring or shielding. Our recommendations for lateral earth pressures to be used in the design of cantilevered and/or braced shoring are presented below. These values incorporate a uniform lateral pressure of 72 psf to provide for the normal construction loads imposed by vehicles, equipment, materials, and workmen on the surface adjacent to the trench excavation. However, if vehicles, equipment, materials, etc. are kept a minimum distance equal to the height of the excavation away from the edge of the excavation, this surcharge load need not be applied. P = 30 H osf 72 nsf P = 25 H sf 72 sf P Total= 72 psf + 30 H psf P Total= 72 sf+ 25 H sf SHORING DESIGN: LATERAL SHORING PRESSURES Design of the shield struts should be based on a value of 0.65 times the indicated pressure, Pa, for the approximate trench depth. The wales and sheeting can be designed for a value of 2/3 the design strut value. Page 20 ' ' L_J I ' ~._! ' I ' LJ n n n ,, LJ LJ ,-' Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California rF MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 STRUTS . --tH, D, (typ.) lJ SHIELD (typ.) -----------j UNDISTURBED ~~o.O:.'iiu~ SOIL~ o a:,·: ·:·:0 Q} ,,<~"p,,__-sP BEDDING Pa = 30 Hsh psf HEIGHT OF SHIELD, Hsh = DEPTH OF TRENCH, D1 , MINUS DEPTH OF SLOPE, H1 TYPICAL SHORING DETAIL Placement of the shield may be made after the excavation is completed or driven down as the material is excavated from inside of the shield. If placed after the excavation, some over- excavation may be required to allow for the shield width and advancement of the shield. The shield may be placed at either the top or the bottom of the pipe zone. Due to the anticipated thinness of the shield walls, removal of the shield after construction should have negligible effects on the load factor of pipes. Shields may be successively placed with conventional trenching equipment. Vehicles, equipment, materials, etc. should be set back away from the edge of temporary excavations a minimum distance of 15 feet from the top edge of the excavation. Surface waters should be diverted away from temporary excavations and prevented from draining over the top of the excavation and down the slope face. During periods of heavy rain, the slope face should be protected with sandbags to prevent drainage over the edge of the slope, and a visqueen liner placed on the slope face to prevent erosion of the slope face. Periodic observations of the excavations should be made by the geotechnical consultant to verify that the soil conditions have not varied from those anticipated and to monitor the overall condition of the temporary excavations over time. If at any time during construction conditions are encountered which differ from those anticipated, the geotechnical consultant should be contacted and allowed to analyze the field conditions prior to commencing work within the excavation. All CaVOSHA construction safety orders should be observed during all underground work. Page 21 [_J i ' I LJ \ _ _J Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California 4.17.4 UTILITY TRENCHES MTGL Project No. 1916Al0 MTGLLogNo.14-1168 All Cal/OSHA construction safety orders should be observed during all underground work. All utility trench backfill within street right of way, utility easements, under or adjacent to sidewalks, driveways, or building pads should be observed and tested by the geotechnical consultant to verify proper compaction. Trenches excavated adjacent to foundations should not extend within the footing influence zone defined as the area within a line projected at a 1: 1 (horizontal to vertical) drawn from the bottom edge of the footing. Trenches crossing perpendicular to foundations should be excavated and backfilled prior to the construction of the foundations. The excavations should be backfilled in the presence of the geotechnical engineer and tested to verify adequate compaction beneath the proposed footing. Utilities should be bedded and backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least I -foot over the pipe. The bedding materials shall consist of sand, gravel, crushed aggregate, or native, free draining soils with a sand equivalence of not less than 30. The bedding should be uniformly watered and compacted to a firm condition for pipe support. The remainder of the backfill shall be typical on-site soil or imported soil which should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness, watered or aerated to near optimum moisture content, and mechanically compacted to at least 90% of maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). 4.17.5 SITEDRAINAGE The site should be drained to provide for positive drainage away from structures in accordance with the building code and applicable local requirements. Unpaved areas should slope no less than 2% away from structure. Paved areas should slope no less than 1 % away from structures. Concentrated roof and surface drainage from the site should be collected in engineered, non- erosive drainage devices and conducted to a safe point of discharge. The site drainage should be designed by a civil engineer. 4.18 GEOTECHNICAL 0BSERV ATION/TESTING OF EARTHWORK OPERATIONS The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information and subsurface conditions as interpreted from the investigation. Our preliminary conclusion and recommendations should be reviewed and verified during site grading, and revised accordingly if exposed Geotechnical conditions vary from our preliminary fmdings and interpretations. The Page 22 ,.J ,._! I l r'J L_J LJ Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916AIO MTGLLogNo. 14-1168 Geotechnical consultant should perform Geotechnical observation and testing during the following phases of grading and construction: • During site grading and over-excavation. • During foundation excavations and placement. • Upon completion of retaining wall footing excavation prior to placing concrete. • During excavation and backfilling of all utility trenches • During processing and compaction of the subgrade for the access and parking areas and prior to construction of pavement sections. • When any unusual or unexpected Geotechnical conditions are encountered during any phase of construction. Page 23 I _ _J l ... 1 Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California 5.00 LIMITATIONS MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 The fmdings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on the site conditions as they existed at the time of our investigation, and further assume that the subsurface conditions encountered during our investigation are representative of conditions throughout the site. Should subsurface conditions be encountered during construction that are different from those described in this report, this office should be notified immediately so that our recommendations may be re-evaluated. This report was prepared for the exclusive use and benefit of the owner, architect, and engineer for evaluating the design of the project as it relates to geotechnical aspects. It should be made available to prospective contractors for information on factual data only, and not as a warranty of subsurface , , conditions included in this report. 'u ' I LJ L ... J \ __ j 1··· 1 LJ :. J L_ __ J [_J Our investigation was performed using the standard of care and level of skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable soil engineers and geologists currently practicing in this or similar localities. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the Contractor's operations, and we are not responsible for their actions. The contractor will be solely and completely responsible for working conditions on the job site, including the safety of all persons and property during performance of the work. This responsibility will apply continuously and will not be limited to our normal hours of operation. The fmdings of this report are considered valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a site can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural events or to human activities on this or adjacent sites. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate codes and standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, this report may become invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified. Page24 I ' L .. ..J u r, u u u n u L_J FIGURES r---:-i ~ -,, L_o 'L.:.J -~, , _ _J -{ '\ TP-3 IBI FM-12%' TD-12%' REFERENCE: Conceptual Grading Plan by Excel Engineering, undated. ,: ld \ ,- 1 ! I Ii I -l I' I -, i I I l 'j l ! 'I , ) j KEY: s 8 _5 Boring Number and Approximate Location FM-FM -Approximate Depth to Formational Soils TD-TD -Total Depth OT-OT -Approximate Depth to 2001 Existing Grade (NE -Not Encountered) IBITP-5 FM- TD- OT- Test Pit Number and Approximate Location C C' r-1 FM -Approximate Depth to Formational Soils TD -Total Depth OT -Approximate Depth to 2001 Existing Grade (NE -Not Encountered) Geologic Cross Section 1" = 60' ~ SITE PLAN MTGL, INC PROJECT NO. 1916A10 LOG NO. 14-1168 FIGURE 1 : _ _j ,· r• i_~ '~I A A' 275 275 270 260 ,......_ ~ 250 ::i: .5 ..... Q) .:E '-" 240 z 0 i= ~ ~ 230 Lu 220 210 /- / // // PROPOSED HOTEL BUILDING PROPOSED HOTEL BUILDING -------------... __ B-1 / FILL / -------------------./ / ' -., "' / ? Formatlonal Contact FILL ,/ T0-101'/ / / / -/ ./ ,,,.- --./\ 2001 Grade FILL ?--+--? Tso FD-41' FD-5' T0-19' Qop2-4 FD-5' T0-191'' 205 T0-511'' N Horizontal Scale: 1" = 60' Vertical Scale: 1" = 15' 270 260 ('Tl 250 r ('Tl ~ ::::! 0 z 240 ,......_ m' CD r+ 5· s::: 230 Ul -S 220 210 205 KEY: B-5 -Boring Number TP-5 -Test Pit Number FD -Approximate Depth to Formational Soils TD -Total Depth FILL -Undcoumented Fill Qop2-4 -Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 2-4 Undivided Tsa -Santiago Formation GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION PROJECT NO. 1916A10 MTGL, INC LOG NO. 14-1168 FIGURE 2 Ii [ l' l' I_' [ i l, i I L~ r B B' 275 275 270 260 ........ .....J !/l 250 ::?! .£ +-' Q) ~ '-' 240 z 0 i= ~ ~ 230 w 220 210 270 TP-5 (prp )ecled 30 feel SE) TIMESHARE BUILDING TP-4 !!-4 Current Grode 260 2001 Grode \ B-5 -==---TIMltSHARE BASEMENT LEVEL FILL TD-8' -----~ -----.•.•• "-FILL -------------- ('Tl 250 ~ < )> -I 6 FD-5' lD-19%' Qop2-4 FILL ' \\ I z 240 ,:::;;- (1) . --~~ . ~-------· -----:::, \ s:: "' / 230 ~ '----'-' _\____ -----::::,..._ Formotionol Contact -..: F0-21lf lD-31%' 220 210 205 205 KEY: B-5 -Boring Number TP-5 -Test Pit Number S 45°W Horizontal Scale: 1" = 60' Vertical Scale: 1" = 15' FD -Approximate Depth to Formational Soils TD -Total Depth FILL -Undcoumented Fill Qop2-4 -Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 2-4 Undivided C C' 275 275 270 270 TIMEHARE BUILDING Current Grode "' 11' \ TP-2 ~-201oot$1i) B-4 260 ........ vl 250 ::?! .£ +-' Q) Q) ~ 240 z 0 i= <( > ~ 230 w 220 210 205 TIMESHARE BASEMENT LEVEL TD-91'' 2001 Grode \ FILL -------------------.,,.. ...... ,.. ...... .,,.. .,,.. .,,.. .,,.. .,,.. .,,.. .,,.. .,,.. "" FD-21%' .,,.. .,,.. .,,.. Formotionol Contact lD-31%' .,,.. .,,...,,.. Qop2-4 .,,.. FILL F0-41' --- ('Tl 250 r ('Tl ~ :::! 0 z 240 ,...._ it (1) -s· s:: 230 !/l .s 220 210 lD-51%' 205 N 45°W Horizontal Scale: 1" = 60' Vertical Scale: 1" = 15' GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION PROJECT NO. 1916A10 MTGL, INC LOG NO. 14-1168 FIGURE 3 r, L . .1 (1 (f !' LJ r, Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGLProjectNo.1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 Retaining wall Wall waterproofing per architect's specifications Compacted fill Wall footing SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (CAL TRANS SPECIFICATIONS) Sieve Size % Passing 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 No.4 25-40 No.8 18-33 No.30 5-15 No.50 0-7 No.200 0-3 ~ 0 '? 0 0 0 0 Soil backfill, compacted to 90% relative compaction* Filter fabric envelope (Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent) •• Minimum of 1 cubic foot per linear foot of 3/4" crushed rock 3" diameter perforated PVC pipe (schedule 40 or equivalent) with perforations oriented down as depicted minimum 1 % gradient to suitable outlet. * Based on ASTM D1557 •• If class 2 permeable material (See gradation to left) is used in place of 3/4" - 1 1/2" gravel. Filter fabric may be deleted. Class 2 permeable material compacted to 90% relative compaction. • RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Figure4 LJ (_j !1 l_j lJ r, L..J APPENDIX A REFERENCES n r1 ' ! , __ _j. L.J Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California APPENDIX A REFERENCES MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 Anderson, J.G., Rockwell, T.K., Agnew, D.C (1989). Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp 299-335. California Building Standards Commission (2013). 2013 California Building Code, July 2013. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42. California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. Kennedy, Michael P. and Siang Tan (2005). Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California, USGS Digitally Prepared. Seed, H.B. and Whitman, R.V., 1970, Design of Earth Structures for Dynamic Loads in ASCE Specialty Conference, Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth-Retaining Structures. U.S. Geologic Survey (2010). Design Maps, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmpas/us. Page Al r ' APPENDIXB FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM n L.} l_l u r, Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California APPENDIXB FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 The subsurface conditions for this Geotechnical Investigation were explored by excavating five ( 5) exploratory borings and five ( 5) exploratory trenches. The exploratory borings were excavated using an 8-inch diameter hollow-stem-auger to a maximum depth of 51 Yz feet below existing grade. The exploratory trenches were excavated using a 416E backhoe to a maximum depth of 13Yz below existing grade. The approximate locations of the borings and test pits are shown on the Site Plan (Figure 1 ). The field exploration was performed under the supervision of our engineer who maintained a continuous log of the subsurface soils encountered and obtained samples for laboratory testing. All drive samples were obtained by SPT or California Tube Sampler. Subsurface conditions are summarized on the accompanying Logs of Borings. The logs contain factual information and interpretation of subsurface conditions between samples. The stratum indicated on these logs represents the approximate boundary between earth units and the transition may be gradual. The logs show subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated, and may :' not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. I L) u (~ Identification of the soils encountered during the subsurface exploration was made using the field identification procedure of the Unified Soils Classification System (ASTM D2488). A legend indicating the symbols and definitions used in this classification system and a legend defining the terms used in describing the relative compaction, consistency or firmness of the soil are attached in this appendix. Bag samples of the major earth units were obtained for laboratory inspection and testing, and the in-place density of the various strata encountered in the exploration was determined The exploratory borings were located in the field by using cultural features depicted on a preliminary site plan provided by the client. Each location should be considered accurate only to the scale and detail of the plan utilized. The exploratory borings were backfilled in accordance with State of California regulations which incorporated compacting soil cuttings and bentonite chips. Page Bl u u LJ i • L.J Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 ... Gravel Coarse Fine Coarse Sand Medium Fine Fines Firm Stiff V Stiff Hard ---------- UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM . · ... • ....... · .. • .. GRAVELS are more than half of coarse fraction larger than #4 sieve SANDS are more than half of coarse fraction larger than #4 sieve Clean Gravels (less than 5% fines) Gravels with fines Clean Sands (less than 5% fines) Sands with fines SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit Less than 50 SIL TS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit Greater than 50 Highly Organic Soils GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Silty Gravels, poorly-graded gravel- sand-silt mixtures Clayey Gravels, poorly-graded gravel- sand-clay mixtures Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty Sands, poorly-graded sands- gravel-clay mixtures Clayey Sands, poorly-graded sand- gravel-silt mixtures Inorganic clays oflow to med plasticity, gravelly, sandy, silty, or lean clays Inorganic clays oflow to med plasticity, gravelly, sandy, silty, or lean clays Organic silts and clays oflow plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic silts and clays of medium to high plasticity Peat, humus swamp soils with high organic content ':J~SJZEPROP()RTIQN····· Trace -Less than 5% Few -5% to 10% 3"-12" 3"-12" Fist-sized to basketball-sized Little -15% to 20% %" -3" #4 -%" #10-#4 #40-#10 #200-#40 Pass in #200 . (Blows/Foot) <2 2-4 5-8 9-15 16-30 >30 %"-3" 0.19" -0.75" 0.079" -0.19" 0.017" -0.079" 0.0029" -0.017" <0.0029" · Mo.d ¢A-Sampler . . lows;lFc'iot <3 3-6 7-12 13-25 26-50 >50 Thumb-sized Peat-sized to thumb-sized Rock salt-sized to ea-sized Su ar-sized to rock salt-sized Flour-sized to su ar-sized Flour-sized or smaller Loose Medium Dense Dense Ve Dense Page B-2 11-30 31-50 <50 Some -30% to 45% Mostly -50% to 100% Wet -Visible free water Mo~ CASai;npl~r .. k {:Qlow$1Foot) <5 5-12 13-35 36-60 <60 l .. J I___J Logged by: SEV Method of Drilling: I-w w p LL ...J ...J ~ a. a. !!:.. w :E :E ::c a. c( c( I-~ II) II) a. w ~ w ~ ...J C ...J ::, m C Ill 2 3 20 4 5 6 27 7 BORING NO. B-1 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger Date Drilled: 9/9/2014 Elevation: 260' msl u::-~ u ~ e:. w ~ ~ ::, in I-II) z 0 w C :E 119 11.7 DESCRIPTION FILL: Clayey Sand (SC), brown, fine to medium, moist, medium dense. (Expansion Index= 36; R-Value = 15) Gravel in sampler. LAB TESTS Expansion Index, R-Value 8 ----------------·------·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 Poorly Graded Sand (SP), light brown, fine, moist, medium dense to dense. 10 11 30 12 13 14 15 16 30 113 9.6 Some clay, brown. 17 18 ----------------·------·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19 20 21 30 Poorly Graded Sand I Clayey Sand (SP/SC), light brown and brown, fine, moist, medium dense to dense. U 22 23 24 25 LJ 26 43 110 7.7 27 L.J 28 29 30 C) PROJECT NO. 1916A10 LOG OF BORING FIGURE B-1a L __ J Logged by: SEV Method of Drilling: LJ I-w w i=' LI. ..J ..J 0:: a. a. :-c, !:!::. w :e :e ::c a. <C <C I-; u, u, a. w X: w 0 i::: ..J C ..J 0:: ::, m C m u 31 30 32 ii:" (.) e:.. ~ en z w C BORING NO. B-1 {continued) 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger Date Drilled: 9/9/2014 Elevation: 260' msl ~ ~ w 0:: ::, I-u, 0 :e DESCRIPTION FILL CONTINUED: Clayey Sand (SC), orange, fine, moist, medium dense to dense. LAB TESTS LJ 33 ----------------·------·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34 LJ 35 36 30 113 14.5 37 38 39 40 41 1---:5,.-,,8- 42 43 LJ 44 45 46 65 47 48 49 50 51 88 52 53 U 54 55 LJ 56 57 58 59 60 u PROJECT N0.1916A10 LJ Fat Clay (CH), dark brown, medium plasticity, stiff to very stiff, organic odor. (LL= 57.4, PL= 16.3, Pl= 41.1) SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsal: Silty Sandstone' SM', olive gray, fine grain, moist, moderately cemented. Light brown Light brown and orange. Total depth: 51Y.feet Groundwater not encountered Backfilled: 9/9/2014 LOG OF BORING Atterberg Limits FIGURE B-1b BORING NO. B-2 Logged by: SEV Date Drilled: 9/10/2014 Method of Drilling: 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger Elevation: 262%' msl I-w w ii:' ~ i=" LI. _, _, 0:: a. a. u ~ !:!:.. w == == !!:.. w :i: a. <C <C ~ 0:: DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS I-II) II) II) ::, a. 3:: w ~ en I- w 2: II) 0 .J z 0 C .J 0:: ::, w Ill C Ill C == ... 1 FILL: Clayey Sand (SC), brown, fine to medium, dry to moist, medium dense. -----------------·------·-------2 --------At 18-inchesi. 3 inches of cement/sand slu~ry~------------------------------------ -3 RESIDUAL SOILS: Silty Sand (SM), brown, fine, dry to moist, loose. Adjacent trench used for identification of cement/sand slurry extent ... 4 exposed abundant trash which included glass, clothing, aluminum cans, metal pipes and other debris. ... 5 ... 6 69 115 3.6 OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS, Unit 2-4 Undivided (Q0D2-4): Silty Sandstone' SM', orangish brown, fine to medium grain, moist, moderately cemented. ... 7 ... 8 ... 9 ... 10 50-4" !11~1' ~· ... 11 ... 12 ... 13 ... 14 -15 50-5%" • a ... 16 ... 17 -18 -19 50-6" IElil!I -20 Total depth: 19 feet Groundwater not encountered -21 Backfilled: 9/10/2014 L_J -22 ,.. 23 ,-24 ,.. 25 ,.. 26 ,.. 27 ,.. 28 -29 -30 PROJECT NO. 1916A10 LOG OF BORING FIGURE B-2 L __ , Logged by: SEV Method of Drilling: I-w w ii:' ~ LI. .J .J a:: a. a. (.) ,-: !:!:.. w :E :E e:.. :::c a. < < ~ I-II) II) II) I , a. 3:: w ~ U) LJ w =::: 0 .J z C .J a:: ::, w Ill C Ill C LJ ~, 2 LJ 3 50-3" :~ 4 5 50-3" f~ 6 7 8 9 10 50-5%" 11 12 13 14 ~' 15 50-5%" •• 16 '1 17 18 19 20 21 80-11" 22 " 23 LJ 24 ,, 25 I LJ 26 27 fl, 28 29 30 L_) .--: PROJECT NO. 1916A10 I ! I ~, BORING NO. 8-3 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger -~ ~ w a:: DESCRIPTION ::, I-II) 0 :E Date Drilled: 9/9/2014 Elevation: 262' msl LAB TESTS OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS, Unit 2-4 Undivided (Q0p2-4): Silty Sandstone' SM', No. 200 Wash, pH, orangish brown, fine to medium grain, moist, moderately cemented. Resistivity, Sulfate, Chloride (21.5% Passing No. 200 Sieve) Medium to coarse grain. Total depth: 21 feet Groundwater not encountered Backfilled: 9/9/2014 LOG OF BORING FIGURE B-3 c I I ' L.1 I LI L..1 u L • .J Logged by: SEV Method of Drilling: I-w w j:" LL .J .J It: a. a. !:!:.. w :iii :ii ::c a. <( <( I-; 1/) 1/) a. w :ii:: w ,?: 0 .J C .J It: ::, IJl C IJl 2 3 20 4 5 --------- 6 27 BORING NO. B-4 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger U: ~ (.) ~ e:.. w ~ It: ::, en I-1/) z 0 w C :iii 109 17.6 DESCRIPTION FILL: Sandy Clay {CL), brown, medium plasticity, moist, firm to stiff. {LL= 32.2, PL= 14.4, Pl= 17.8; Expansion Index= 57) Some asphalt concrete chunks. Date Drilled: 9/9/2014 Elevation: 259' msl LAB TESTS Atterberg Limits, pH Resistivity, Sulfate, Chloride, Expansion Index, Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture, Direct Shear 116 11.0 Clayey Sand I Sandy Clay {SC/CL), brown and yellowish brown, fine, medium plasticity, moist, medium dense, stiff to very stiff. 7 -----------------·------·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8 9 10 11 12 36 Poorly graded sand {SP), light gray and orange, fine, moist, dense, some clay chunks. r·, 13 ----------------·------·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14 15 16 51 114 14.8 17 18 19 20 21 50 22 23 24 25 26 50-5" 113 7.8 27 28 L,,/ 29 30 31 87 ,.,, L1 PROJECT NO. 1916A10 Poorly Graded Sand I Clayey Sand {SP/SC), gray and dark brown, fine, moist, dense. Brown and dark brown. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS, Unit 2-4 Undivided (Q0p2-4): Silty Sandstone' SM', orangish brown, fine to medium grain, moist, moderately cemented. Total depth: 31% feet Groundwater not encountered Backfilled: 9/9/2014 LOG OF BORING FIGURE 8-4 Logged by: SEV r 1 Method of Drilling: I-w w u:-i=" II. .J .J It: a. a. u !:!:.. w :iii :iii !!:.. :c a. < < ~ I-; II) II) a. w ~ in I _ _J w ~ 0 .J z C .J It: ::, w Ill C Ill C 2 3 4 5 6 47 106 7 8 9 10 11 90-10%" 12 13 l,_j 14 15 u 16 90-10" 17 18 -l 19 90-10" 20 21 22 23 L_J 24 25 L_J 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT N0.1916A10 l _J BORING NO. B-5 Date Drilled: 9/10/2014 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger Elevation: 259' msl -~ w It: ::, I-II) i5 :iii 5.3 DESCRIPTION FILL: Silty Sand (SM}, orange and brown, fine to medium, moist, medium dense. (Expansion Index= 4} OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS, Unit 2-4 Undivided (Q0p24): Silty Sandstone' SM', orangish brown, fine to medium grain, moist, moderately cemented. Total depth: 19% feet Groundwater not encountered Backfilled: 9/10/2014 LOG OF BORING LAB TESTS Expansion Index, Maximum Density/ Optimum Moisture, Direct Shear Direct Shear FIGURE B-5 l _ _j l~.J 1_J ,_j L I l I LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. 1 .... -.... -... -,... -.... 1-- ,... 1-- .... 1--... -... -I- Logged by: SEV Equipment Used: 416E backhoe with 18-inch bucket j::" !:.. J: I-D.. w C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 DESCRIPTION FILL: Clayey Sand (SC), brown, fine to coarse, moist, medium dense. Aluminum cans, old clothing, and shoes. At 6% feet pocket of trash. Silty Sand (SM), brown, fine to medium, moist, metal debris, organics . Total Depth: 10% feet Groundwater not encountered Backfilled: 9/9/2014 ---10 Date Excavated: 9/9/2014 Elevation: 261' msl LAB TESTS LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. 2 Logged by: SEV Date Excavated: 9/9/2014 Equipment Used: 416E backhoe with 18-inch bucket Elevation: 259' msl w j::" ..J D.. !:.. :e J: <( DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS I-u, D.. ~ w ..J C :::, m - 1--1 FILL: Clayey Sand (SC), brown, fine to medium, moist, dense, some gravel. ... -2 Some clay chunks, some gravel. --3 .... 1--4 .... 1--5 .... Pocket of Poorly Graded Sand (SP), light brown, loose . 1--6 .... 1--7 ... -8 I-Total depth: 9% feet 1--9 Groundwater not encountered Backfilled: 9/9/2014 ,... ---10 PROJECT NO. 1916A10 LOG OF TEST PITS FIGURE B-6 L .. -J • 1 l. J l .. J u l .. ) I 1. J LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. 3 Logged by: SEV Equipment Used: Date Excavated: 9/10/2014 i=' !!:.. ::c ~ D. w Q --1 --2 ... 1--3 ... ....... 4 ... ..._ 5 ... ..._ 6 ... ....... 7 ... ....... 8 ... ....... 9 ... ,-. 10 ... ,...... 11 ... ,-. 12 ... ..._ 13 ... ,-. 14 ... i--15 ... --16 w ...I D. :iE <( u, ::.:: ...I ::, Ill 416E backhoe with 18-inch bucket DESCRIPTION FILL: Clayey Sand (SC), brown, fine to medium, moist, medium dense to dense. Silty Sand (SM), light brown, fine to medium, moist, medium dense . OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS, Unit 2-4 Undivided {Q0p2-1): Silty Sandstone' SM', orangish brown, fine to medium grain, moist, moderately cemented . Total depth: 12% feet Groundwater not encountered Backfilled: 9/10/2014 PROJECT NO. 1916A10 LOG OF TEST PITS Elevation: 260' msl LAB TESTS FIGURE B-7 l_,__l u r, L_J ----------- - --------- - - -----... -... - LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. 4 Logged by: SEV Equipment Used: 416E backhoe with 18-inch bucket Date Excavated: 9/10/2014 Elevation: 262' msl i=' !!::. :c I-II. w C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 w .J II. :ii: c( u, ~ .J ::, Ill DESCRIPTION FILL: Silty Sand I Sandy Clay (SM/SC), light brown and dark brown, fine to medium, medium plasticity, moist, medium dense, firm to stiff. Total Depth: 13% feet Groundwater not encountered Backfilled: 9/10/2014 LAB TESTS PROJECT NO. 1916A10 LOG OF TEST PITS FIGURE B-8 LJ L.J l_J L_J ,-, u L __ _J i___J ' L_J LJ I __ J LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. 5 Logged by: SEV EQuipment Used: Date Excavated: 9/10/2014 j'.:" !!:. :c I-D.. w C - -1 --2 - -3 --4 ... -5 --6 --7 --8 --9 - -10 --11 - -12 --13 ... -14 ... -15 w .J D.. ::ii: <( u, ~ .J :::, a:i 416E backhoe with 18-inch bucket Elevation: 263' msl DESCRIPTION FILL: Sandy Clay I Clayey Sand (CUSC), light brown, medium plasticity, fine to medium, moist, firm to stiff, medium dense. Some gravel and cobbles, asphalt concrete debris. Cement/sand slurry. Total Depth: 8 feet Groundwater not encountered Backfilled: 9/10/2014 LAB TESTS PROJECT NO. 1916A10 LOG OF TEST PITS FIGURE B-9 L __ _) i.J r, u u L .. J APPENDIXC LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES u r--i /\ r~ u '~ .J APPENDIXC LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES 1. Classification 2. Soils were classified visually, generally according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Classification tests were also completed on representative samples in accordance with ASTM D422 for Grain Size. The test resultant soil classifications are shown on the Boring Logs and Test Pit Logs in Appendix B. In-Situ Moisture/Density The in-place moisture content and dry unit weight of selected soil samples were determined using relatively undisturbed samples from the Cal Tube Sampler. The dry unit weights and moisture contents are shown on the Boring Logs in Appendix B. 3. Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve Particle size determinations for the percentage of sample passing the No. 200 sieve were performed in general accordance with the laboratory procedures outlined in ASTM test Method DI 140. The results are shown on the Boring Logs in Appendix B. 4. Atterberg Limits The liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of selected soil samples were estimated in general accordance with the laboratory procedures outlined in ASTM D 4318. The results are shown on Figure C-1. 5. Maximum Density Maximum density tests were performed on a representative bag sample of the near surface soils in accordance with ASTM D1557. Test results are presented below. B-4 at Oto 2' Sandy Clay (CL)-Brown 125.6 9.4 B-5 at0to2' Silty Sand (SM) -Orange and Brown 133.1 9.5 Page C-1 L.J ii '~_J l__,_J t_J Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGLProjectNo.1916A10 MTGLLogNo.14-1168 6. Direct Shear 7. Direct Shear Tests were performed on in-place samples of site soils in accordance with ASTM D3080. The test results are presented in Figures C-2 thru C-4. Expansion Index Expansion Index testing was completed in accordance with the standard test method ASTM D4829. Test results are presented below. B-1 at Oto 2' Clayey Sand -Brown 36 Low B-4 at Oto 2' Sandy Clay (CL)-Brown 57 Medium B-5 at Oto 2' Silty Sand (SM) -Orange and Brown 4 Very Low 8. Corrosion Chemical testing was performed on representative samples to determine the corrosion potential of the onsite soils. Testing consisted of pH, chlorides (CTM 422), soluble sulfates (CTM 417), and resistivity (CTM 643). Test results are as follows: .· r >:' &ampi~.,> ... ·L9~atlo1i::::\ B-3 at l' to 3' B-4 at Oto 2' 9. R-Value 7.6 8.5 148 111 3,600 544 247 690 R-value test was performed on a sample of the upper soils in general accordance with the laboratory procedures outlined in ASTM D 2844. Test results are presented below. Page C-2 I/ u u X w Cl ~ 60 50 40 ~ 30 (.) ~ :5 a. 20 10 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT / / / / M o~~__,.":--__...__,,..,...-~-,-.,...-~__._~~--~~~~~..,..._~~....._~~..,.,.,_~.......,.....,...~__. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT SOIL DATA NATURAL SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY uses NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX (%) (%} (%) {%) • Bl 40' 16.3 57.4 41.l • B4 0-2' 14.4 32.2 17.8 MTGL, Inc. Client: Project: MARBRISA RESORTS -LOT 9 San Die o CA Pro·ect No.: 1916-AIO Fi ure C-1 Tested By: ~----~---~--------Checked By:=~-----·----- I. __ I 1--: L.J 1-, 1 '-1 u :r 3000 Fail. Ult. I I I -,... "' C, psf 246 197 ,... .... " 4>,deo 28.4 25.6 !; Tan,) 0.54 0.48 I I I I "" -c,;', r I I I I I r I ..... ,.. , .. r ....... I ""' ... I L; .... !; I H 2000 I -I , I ·' "'[ ~ .,,, I ... I I 1-- ~J. • ui _ ... .... .... ... II -'. IA . I ., . ., ,,,. -1··· -•... ,-.. ·-1------_I_,_ ,-------__ ,_ ,_, _ gi r.n (I) !!! <7500 1000 :!:! 'ffi :) LL .... ~ = --, . ,~--~~ I .J ------+ --+ I-.... ------1-- ".; r -I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 i l I I I I 0 1000 2000 3000 2500 -2000 ig_ (/) r.n ~ 00 1500 ,_ cu (l) .c: Cf) 1000 500 0 I =~ -· =• -· .,, I ; _,_ 1ffl >J -·----·--· -I'-~-- I I --1- ~ ~ ,,) ,/ ., ----, ... i ·· -------------·-lJTIIJ , , -I 1--- - - 0 5 10 15 20 Strain,% Sample Type: Description: LL= 32.2 PL=l4.4 Pl= 17.8 Specific Gravity= 2.65 Remarks: REMOLDED AT 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION Figure C-2 3 2 -~ I I I I --I I I I 3000 Normal Stress, psf 4000 5000 6000 Sample No. 2 3 Water Content, % 9.4 9.3 9.5 Dry Density, pcf 113. l 113.1 113. l cii Saturation, % 53.7 53.3 54.1 -.i:: ·c Void Ratio 0.4622 0.4622 0.4633 Diameter, in. 2.42 2.42 2.42 · ht in. 1.00 1.00 1.00 Water Content,% 16.8 16.6 16.5 Dry Density, pcf 114.3 I 14.9 115.1 ui (l) Saturation, % 99.7 100.0 100.0 f--Void Ratio 0.4476 0.4403 0.4370 <( Diameter, in. 2.42 2.42 2.42 Hei ht, in. 0.99 0.98 0.98 Normal Stress, psf 1000 2000 4000 Fail. Stress, psf 780 1337 2404 Strain,% 8.6 6.0 10.5 Ult. Stress, psf 657 1180 2101 Strain,% 12.9 11.6 16.5 Strain rate, in./min. O.QI 0.01 O.Ql Client: Project: MARBRISA RESORTS -LOT 9 Sample Number: B4 Depth: 0-2' Proj. No.: 1916-AlO Date Sampled: 9/15/14 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT MTGL, Inc. San Die o CA Tested By: =JH'-'-----------Checked By: -=s-'-v ________ _ ( __ i 11 l __ J 2500 I 2000 ii ~ en 1soo .... (ti Q) .r::. cn 1000 Sample Type: Description: Specific Gravity= 2.65 Remarks: Figure C-3 Strain,% Normal Stress, psf Sample No. Water Content,% Dry Density, pct ~ Saturation, % E Void Ratio Diameter, in. Hei ht, in. Water Content,% Dry Density, pcf j Saturation, % <e Void Ratio Diameter, in. Hei ht in. Normal Stress, psf Fail, Stress, psf Strain,% Ult. Stress, psf Strain,% Strain rate, in./rnin. Client: 9.4 119.9 65.6 2 9.4 119.9 65.6 3 9.5 119.8 66.0 0.3794 0.3794 0.3804 2.42 1.00 13.7 121.1 99.6 2.42 1.00 13.5 121.8 99.5 2.42 1.00 13.8 121.1 99.4 0.3656 0.3587 0.3666 2.42 2.42 2.42 0.99 0.98 0.99 1000 1005 3.3 745 13.1 0.01 2000 1656 2.4 1290 12.3 O.oI 4000 2855 7.0 2533 11.7 O.Ql Project: MARBRISA RESORTS -LOT 9 Sample Number: BS Depth: 0-2' Proj. No.: 1916-AlO Date Sampled: DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT MTGL, Inc. San Die o CA l~ J L1 Li LJ u , __ / u Normal Stress, psf Sample No. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf Jg Saturation, % £ Void Ratio Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf ~ Saturation, % Fail. Ult. 449 62 36.5 38.0 0.74 0.78 5.4 105.9 10000 12000 2 3 5.0 5.4 106.l 104.9 25.5 23.9 24.8 0.5617 0.5599 0.5772 2.42 1.00 20.4 107.3 99.9 2.42 1.00 20.1 107.7 99.5 2.42 1.00 -+-+-+-'l-+--'>-+--+-+--+-+-t-!--'-1-4--1 2 <i: Void Ratio 0.5414 0.5365 2.42 2.42 0.99 0.98 21.0 106.0 99.2 0.5614 2.42 0.99 10 30 Sample Type: Description: Specific Gravity= 2.65 Remarks: Figure C-4 Strain,% 40 Diameter, in. Hei ht. in. Normal Stress, psf Fail. Stress, psf Strain,% Ult. Stress, psf Strain,% Strain rate, in./min. Client: 1000 2000 1187 1929 4000 3403 8.5 842 22.3 0.01 7.2 5.4 3184 17.4 0.01 0.01 Project: MARBRISA RESORTS -LOT 9 Sample Number: B5 Depth: 5' Proj. No.: 1916-AlO Date Sampled: DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT MTGL, Inc. San Die o CA '. __ _) L .J u i___1 LJ L:J Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California APPENDIXD MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page C-4 LJ Lj , I LJ L.J L_,J Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California APPENDIXD MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL These specifications present general procedures and requirements for grading and earthwork as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the attached geotechnical report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained herein in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the Consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations, which could supersede these specifications, or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. EARTHWORK OBSERVATION AND TESTING Prior to the start of grading, a qualified Geotechnical Consultant (Geotechnical Engineer) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and observation so that he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree of compaction will be performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Test Method (ASTM) D 1557. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED Clearing and Grubbing: All brush, vegetation and debris shall be removed or piled and otherwise disposed 0£ PageD1 Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGLLogNo. 14-1168 ~ Processing: The existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of fill shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches. Existing ground, which is not satisfactory, shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Overexcavation: Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, shall be overexcavated down to firm ground, approved by the Consultant. Moisture conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils shall be watered, dried-back, blended, and mixed as required to have a relatively uniform moisture content near the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557. Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils, which have been mixed, and moisture u conditioned uniformly shall be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of ASTMD1557. Benching: Where soils are placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical), ,-, the ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be excavated in firm material for a i_J minimum width of 4 feet. LJ L.J FILL MA TERlAL General: Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and shall be approved by the Consultant. Oversize: Oversized material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill, unless the location, material, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the Consultant. Oversize disposal operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within the range of future utilities or underground construction, unless specifically approved by the Consultant. Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material shall meet the general requirements. PageD2 LJ le--, u Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California FILL PLACEMENT AND COMP ACTION MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGL Log No. 14-1168 Fill Lifts: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness. The Consultant may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. Fill Moisture: Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum shall be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers shall be aerated by scarification or shall be blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning and mixing of fill layers shall continue until the fill material is at uniform moisture content at or near optimum. Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less that 90 percent of maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557. Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and shall be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Fill Slopes: Compacting on slopes shall be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet as the fill is placed, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the slope out to the slope face shall be at least 90 percent in accordance with ASTM Dl557. Compaction Testing: Field tests to check the fill moisture and degree of compaction will be performed by the consultant. The location and frequency of tests shall be at the consultant's discretion. In general, these tests will be taking at an interval not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise, and/or 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. In addition, on slope faces, at least one test shall be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. :__j SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION LJ Subdrain systems, if required, shall be installed in approved ground to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials shall not be changed or modified without the approval of the Consultant. The Consultant, however, may recommend and, upon approval, direct changes in subdrain line, grade or materials. All subdrains PageD3 l_J LJ L.J Li L .\ C _J L J Lot 9 and CMWD Water Tank Site -Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, California MTGL Project No. 1916A10 MTGLLogNo. 14-1168 should be surveyed for line and grade after installation and sufficient time shall be allowed for the surveys, prior to commencement of fill over the subdrain. EXCAVATION Excavations and cut slopes will be examined during grading. If directed by the Consultant, further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes shall be performed. Where fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope shall be made and approved by the Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. PageD4