Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1675 FARADAY AVE; ; CB050567; Permit
,<p -7 \ Jc' City of Carlsbad , .,... ., 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 02-15-2006 Coinmercial/lndustrial Permit Permit No: CB050567 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: 1675 FARADAY AV CBAD Tl Sub Type: Lot#: Status: Valuation: 2121305200 $57,600.00 Construction Type: INDUST o NEW Applied: Occupancy Group: Reference #: Entered By: Project Title: MOD POSTCARD-1800SF STORAGE MEZZANINE Applicant: KEN LOFRANO 1675 FARADAY AV 92008 (760)431-7084 Building Permit Add'I Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'I Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee BTD#2 Fee BTD#3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'I Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'I Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee $384.86 $0.00 $250.16 $0.00 $0.00 $12.10 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Plan Approved: Issued: Inspect Area: Plan Check#: Owner: HOFFMAN STEPHEN C/O THE IRIS GROUP 1675 FARADAY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 Meter Size Add'I Reel. Water Con. Fee Meter Fee SDCWAFee CFD Payoff Fee PFF (3105540) PFF (4305540) License Tax (31 04193) License Tax (4304193) Traffic Impact Fee (3105541) Traffic Impact Fee (4305541) PLUMBING TOTAL ELECTRICAL TOTAL MECHANICAL TOTAL Master Drainage Fee Sewer Fee Redev Parking Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES ISSUED 02/24/2005 LSM 12/28/2005 12/28/2005 TP Total Fees: $647.12 Total Payments To Date: $647.12 Balance Due: 0 v(;'LDING PLANS ./\ V_HIN STORAGE V'\ '---- _ATTACHED $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $647.12 $0.00 Inspector:~ FINAL APPR VAL Date: ~1/.#d Clearance: ------ NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which vou have nreviouslv been aiven a NOTICE similar to this or as to which the statute of limitations has areviouslv otheiwise exoired. {fz-tJ_k{Cl~O ~ PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 Legal Description Lot No. Subdivision Name/Number Assessor's Parcel # Existing Use sl8~,;zf #of Stories S:'F)n-7 Name Address City ~3~ ~$~~;-Contt~Q~9r ·.4nAgent,for·contr~etor: ;Q:owner ---~gert for Owner .. Name Address City :4., :. ' :_r:~q_p~JIIY Q\N.Ni;IL ... Name Address City '.5,' . 'QQN'tR1\CT9ft ~ COM,P.AN'f-NAME · FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK NO. {},,/!:, 0 S7J :>~ 7 "? IAfJO o-0 EST. VAL. v f lV Plan Ck. Depo,;, ~~~~ 11,b Validated By ~ __ ..---: Date a> V\J~L 01 CGP Unit No. Phase No. Total # of units Proposed Use # of Bedrooms # of Bathrooms State/Zip Telephone# S.tate/Zip Telephone# (Sec. 7031 .5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law [Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code] or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged ewtion. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$500]). Name Address City State/Zip Telephone # State License# _________ _ License Class _________ _ City Business License # _______ _ Designer Name Address City State/Zip Telephone State License # _________ _ :(3,. . WQR!{f?.flS~·t;:o!IJIPENS:All.dT" .. -.. Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: D I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. D I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company____________________ Policy No.____________ Expiration Date _______ _ (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$100) OR LESS) D CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees. SIGNATURE ______________________________ DATE _________ _ :.7:.. · .:~WNs.R~!Jl)ll;J;>!:.6 .D.1¢!;4Mt!Qt-i. · . . . . I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: D I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for. the purpose of sale). ijD' I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). 0 I am exempt under Section ______ Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. 0 YES 18[.No 2. 'I ~/ have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted _with the followin person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): 4. I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number/ contractors license number): ____ • _________________________________________ _ 5. I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number / type of work): ~ PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE k/~..r::= lfU t/J6~ :COMl?I;.;'1;1;;1!:11$ $ECTIQN' FQR ,fqN~R~PIDENT/AL liUILDiril$ PERivll:r~ Ofl!!:Y · . · .. DATE /£.-z&>-o.< Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? 0 YES O NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? 0 YES D NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? D YES O NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. ];:..:~QOf,l~tl(u¢,:1oN:''Lt:FJDiN~ ~.GENCv," -~. '.. > >·-::·:.·.: ... ~: ,:; ::; ..... I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097(i) Civil Code). LENDER'S NAME _____________ _ LENDER'S ADDRESS _______________________ _ ;~,. · .• ~PP!;IQ~N1:'.~!:IHIFJP.A'.fl9N · · , '~ --, , I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the Citt of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is com · do 80 days (Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance ., Oltv 01 Carlsbad · Flnal Bulldlnu lnsnectlon Dept: Building Engineering Planning CMWD St Lite ~ Plan Check#: Permit#: Project ~ame: Address: Contact Person: Sewer Dist: CB050567 MOD POSTCARD-1800SF STORAGE MEZZANINE 1675 FARADAY AV KEN CA Phone: 7604317084 ex 1 Water Dist: CA Lot: D~te: Permit Type: ! Sub Type: I I 0 02/14/2006 Tl INDUST 111111111111II1111111111111111111 I I II 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111II1111111111111111111 I 111 I~ II 11111 I I ti 11111 I I 1111 I I I 1111111 I I I I I I I SI II I I I B lnys:pected 114,,,, _ Date / / (.:;;L_ ~ Inspected: Z,,. t 1 /c> le I I Inspected Date Approve~: V Disapproved: __ By: __________ Inspected: ______ Approve;d: ___ Disapproved: __ I Inspected Date : By: Inspected: ______ Approved: ___ Disapproved: __ ···········································································································:················································ Comments: --------------------!------------ City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 02/14/2006 Permit# CB050567 Title: MOD POSTCARD-1800SF STORAGE Description: MEZZANINE Type: Tl Sub Type: INDUST Job Address: 1675 FARADAY AV Suite: Lot 0 Location: APPLICANT KEN LOFRANO Owner: HOFFMAN STEPHEN LIVING TRUST 01-12-05 Remarks: am please Total Time: Act Comment Inspector Assignment: 4 ex 1990 Inspector: _,,,_ __ _ Requested By: KEN Entered By: CW CD Description 19 Final Structural 29 39 49 Final Plumbing ,A//--------- Vik +=--Final Electrical Final Mechanical ----------- Comments/Notices/Hold Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# .Inspection History Date Description Act lnsp Comments · f[i1 EsGil Corporation In <Partnership witfi. (Jovemmentfor(}Jui{aing Safety DATE: September 13, 2005 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 05-0567 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1675 Faraday Avenue SET: III PROJECT NAME: Mezzanine Addition for Modern Postcard D PLAN REVIEWER D FILE C8J The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. D The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. D The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list ,and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. D The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. D The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: ~ Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. D Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone#: Date contacted: (by: ) Fax#: Mail Telephone Fax In Person D REMARKS: By: Bert Domingo Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 9/2/05 tmsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Y r DATE: April 18, 2005 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 05-0567 EsGil Corporation In <Partnersliip witli <;;011ernmentfor<Bui(aing Safety SET: II PROJECT ADDRESS: 1675 Faraday Avenue PROJECT NAME: Mezzanine Addition for Modern Postcard ~NT ~ Cl PLAN REVIEWER CJ FILE D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. D The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. D The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. [8J The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. [8J The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Ken Lofrano NO ADDRESS D Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. [SJ Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: kEN ("' .~.) Telephone#: (760) 431-7084 X 1205 Date contacted: L-f h 9 { o5 _ (by:~ ) Fax #: ( 1 Cc D) t..j 3 1. I 9 3 '1 Mail Telephone .._,;,,--Fax/In Person D REMARKS: By: Bert Domingo Esgil Corporation 0 GA O MB O EJ O PC Enclosures: 4/7/05 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 'v' 1 . r Carlsbad 05'-0567 AprillS,2005 RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 1675 Fara~ay Avenue DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 4/7/05 REVIEWED BY: Bert Domingo FOREWORD {PLEASE READ}: PLAN CHECK NO.: 05-0567 SET: II DATE RECHECK COMPLETED: April 18, 2005 This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1997 .Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. A. Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new complete sets of prints to: ESGIL CORPORATION. B. To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet with the revised plans. C. The following items have not been resolved from the previous plan reviews. The original correction number has been given for your reference. In case you did not keep a copy of the prior correction list, we have. enclosed those pages containing the outstanding corrections. Please contact rne if you h_ave any questions regarding these items. D. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans. Have changes been made not resulting from this list? DYes ONo Carlsbad 05-0567 April 18, 2005 • GENERAL! 1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: . 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. 2. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. • PLANS 2. All sheets of the plans and the first sheet of the calculations are required to be signed by the California licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation. Please include the California license number, seal, date of license expiration and the date the plans are signed. Business and Professions Code. This will be checked when all the items below are met. 3. Provide a statement on the Title Sheet of the plans that this project shall comply with the 2001 edition of the California Building Code (Title 24 ), which adopts the 1997 UBC, 2000 UMC, 2000 UPC and the 1999 NEC. THE RESPONSE WAS TO SEE SHEET A3 BUT SEEMS NOT SHOWN. PLEASE SHOW ON THE TITLE SHEET AS REQUESTED. 4. On the cover sheet of the plans, specify any items requiring special inspection, in a format similar to that shown below. This will be checked when all the items below are met. REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS In addition to the regular inspections, the following checked items will also require Special Inspection in accordance with Sec. 170.1 of the Uniform Building Code. ITEM REQUIRED? SOILS COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION STRUCTURAL CONCRETE OVER 2500 PSI FIELD WELDING HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTS EXPANSION/EPOXY ANCHORS DESIGNER-SPECIFIED OTHER REMARKS Carlsbad 05-0567 April 18, 2005 5. When special inspection is required, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Please review Section 106.3.5. Please complete the . attached form. Please see item 5 above. 6. On the first sheet of the plans indicate: • Type of construction of the existing building. • Present and proposed occupancy classifications of the remodel area. • The occupant load of the remodel area(s). HALLWAYS 7. Please show calculations of the occupant load based on the table 1 O A of the 97 UBC. ENGINEER RESPONDED NON STRUCTURAL. THE WILDECK DESIGNER RESPONDED SEE THE ENGINEER CALCULATIONS. 8. For exit access purposes, hallways shall be considered as intervening rooms. Section 1004.3.3.1. The hallway may have to be considered as a corridor (and thus possibly fire- rated) under the following conditions: THE RESPONSE WAS DO NOT APPLY. IT IS APPLICABLE AND NEEDED AN OCCUPANT LOAD RESPONSE. a) If a room or area requires two exits, only one exit may be through an intervening room. Section 1004.2.2. If the other exit is into a hallway, that hallway would have to comply with the corridor provisions of Section 1004.3.4. MISCELLANEOUS LIFE/SAFETY 9. Guardrails (Section 509.1 ): a) Shall be installed at all unenclosed floor . b) Shall be detailed showing adequacy of connections to resist the horizontal force prescribed in Table 16-8. PLEASE SHOW DETAIL AS REQUESTED AND COMPLY WITH THE OTHER ITEMS. c) Openings between railings shall be less than 4". The triangular openings formed by the riser, tread and bottom element of a guardrail at a stair· shall be less than 6". • TITLE 24 DISABLED ACCESS 10. Provide notes and details on the plans to show compliance with the Disabled Access requirements UBC. Carlsbad 05'-0567 April 18, 2005 • FOUNDATION 12. In Seismic Zone 4, each site shall be assigned a near-source factor. Identify this value in the soils report and on the plans. Section 1629.4.2. THIS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED · BY THE SOILS REPORT. 13. Specify on the foundation plan or structural specifications sheet the soil classification, the soils expansion index and the design bearing capacity of the foundation. Section 106.3.3. PLEASE RESPOND. 14. Investigate the potential for seismically induced soil liquefaction and soil instability in seismic zones 3 and 4. Section 1804.5 THIS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY THE SOILS REPORT. 15. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan. grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soil report are properly incorporated into the plans. 16. Provide notes on the foundation plan listing the soils report recommendations for foundation slab and building pad preparation. 17. The soils engineer recommended that he/she review the foundation excavations. Note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor requesting a Building Department foundation inspection. the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that: The building pad was prepared in accordance with the soils report. The utility trenches have been properly backfilled and compacted. and The foundation excavations comply with the intent of the soils report." • STRUCTURAL 18. Please submit complete f9undation calculations to include the stairs foundation. THE RESPONSE WAS TO SEE CALCULATIONS OF WILDECK BUT SEEMS NO FOUNDATION CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED 19. Please show on the framing plan the floor joists(12C12). Please show the spacing and extent of the same on the framing plan. THE RESPONSE WAS ON SHEET CC PAGE 1. WHERE IS SHEET CC? 20. Page 5 of the calculations indicate Check Joist: W12X26 and 14. Are these the floor joists? If so, please show the spacing and the extent of the same .. THE RESPONSE WAS ON SHEET CC PAGE 1. WHERE IS SHEET CC? 21. The framing plan shows W12X14 framing typ.UON. Please clarify. Please see item 20 above. . THE RESPONSE WAS ON SHEET CC PAGE 1. WHERE IS SHEET CC? Carlsbad 05-0567 April 18, 2005 22. Please submit calculations for the W12X22 with the span of 19.67'. PLEASE SHOW THE SPLICE DETAIL ON THE PLANS AND CROSS REFERENCE. 23. Please show the recommended connectors of the joists to the girders (plates, bolts, etc.). PLEASE SHOW ON SHEET 1 THE REQUESTED INFORMATION. 24. Please submit calculations how the seismic factors were derived. If the columns are cantilevered, the R value should be 2.2. A} TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM INDICATED IN THE RESPONSE. PLEASE SHOW A MODEL OF THE RESISTING ELEMENTS REFLECTING THE MAGNITUDE AND DIRECTIONS OF THE EXTERNAL FORCES BEING APPLIED AND THE CORRESPONDING REACTIONS OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE SYSTEM. B} WITH A DIFFERENT SKETCH SIMILAR WITH THE MODEL. PLEASE SHOW THE MAGNITUDE AND LOCATION OF THE MAXIMUM STRESSES AND DEFLECTION USED IN DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE. 25. The anchor bolts could be OK but it is not clear how the overturning effect of the lateral load could be resisted. Would it be resisted by the slab? Could be a pad foundation. Please submit analysis. MAY NEED FOUNDATION TO COUNTERACT THE OVERTURNING EFFECT OF THE LATERAL LOAD. PLEASE SEE ITEM 24 ABOVE. · 26. Please show how the column would be connected to the baseplate. 27. Please submit calculation for the stairs. • ADDITIONAL 30. May need electrical • plumbing and mechanical Plans for this permit? 31. A complete plan check will be made. l Carlsbad 0~-0567 April 18, 2005 , To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located in the plans. Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate: D Yes D No The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Bert Domingo at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. 1 DATE: March 11, 2005 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 05-0567 EsGil Corporation In <Partnersliip witli government for (}Juiftfing Safety SET:I PROJECT ADDRESS: 1675 Faraday Avenue PROJECT NAME: Mezzanine Addition for Modern Postcard CJ APPLICANT ~ CJ PLAN REVIEWER CJ FILE D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. D The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. D The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. [gj The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans ar~ submitted for recheck. D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. [gj The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Ken Lofrano NO ADDRESS D Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. [gj Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check nas been completed. Person contacted: kEN Telephone#: (760) 431-7084 X 1205 Date contacted: 3/ 6"/ <6(_b~-/1 Fax #: 7(p O -f-o '-I -I Lf Z. Z-- Mail Telephr&~ Fax In Person D REMARKS: \ -M,1 By: Bert Domingo Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC Enclosures: 12/17/04 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 0~-0567 March 11, 2005· 1PLAN :REVIEW CORRECTION LIST COMMERCIAL PLAN CHECK NO.: 05-0567 OCCUPANCY: S1 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V N ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: SPRINKLERS?: NO REMARKS: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED: March 11, 2005 FOREWORD (PLEASE REA[?): JURISDICTION: Carlsbad USE: STORAGE ACTUAL AREA: 1800 SQ. FT. STORIES: Mezzanine HEIGHT: OCCUPANT LOAD: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 12/17/04 PLAN REVIEWER: Bert Domingo This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and access for the disabled. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building .Q_epartment. You Jllay have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or other departments. Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Code sections cited are based on the 1997 UBC. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. To speed up the recheck process, please note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet number, specification section, etc. Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans. ) Carlsbfld 05-0567 March 11, 2005 • GENERAL 1 . Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. 2. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. • PLANS 2. All sheets of the plans and the first sheet of the calculations are required to be signed by the California licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation. Please include the California license number, seal, date of license expiration and the date the plans are signed. Business and Professions Code. This will be checked when all the items below are met. 3. Provide a statement on the Title Sheet of the plans that this project shall comply with the 2001 edition of the California Building Code (Title 24 ), which adopts the 1997 UBC, 2000 UMC, 2000 UPC and the 1999 NEC. 4. On the cover sheet of the plans, specify any items requiring special inspection, in a format similar to that shown below. This will be checked when all the items below are met. • REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS In addition to the regular inspections, the following checked items will also require Special Inspection in accordance with Sec. 1701 of the Uniform Building Code. ITEM • SOILS COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION · STRUCTURAL CONCRETE OVER 2500 PSI FIELD WELDING· · HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTS EXPANSION/EPOXY ANCHORS D.ESIGNER-SPECIFIED OTHER REQUIRED? REMARKS ) Carls~ad 05-0567 March 11, 2005 5. When special inspection is required, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Please review Section 106.3.5. Please complete the attached form. Please see item 5 above. 6. On the first sheet of the plans indicate: • The floor area of the remodeled area, • Type of construction of the existing building, • Sprinklers: Yes or No • Present and proposed occupancy classifications of the remodel area, • The story where the tenant improvement is located, • The occupant load of the remodel area(s). • HALLWAYS 7. Please show calculations of the occupant load based on the table 10 A of the 97 UBC. 8. For exit access purposes, hallways shall be considered as intervening rooms. Section 1004.3.3.1. The hallway may have to be considered as a corridor (and thus possibly fire-rated) under the following conditions: a) If a room or area requires two exits, only one exit may be through an inteNening room. Section 1004.2.2. If the other exit is into a hallway, that hallway would have to comply with the corridor provisions of Section 1004.3.4. • MISCELLANEOUS LIFE/SAFETY 9. Guardrails (Section 509.1 ): a) Shall be installed at all unencl6sed floor . ·-- b) Shall have a height of 42". c) Shall be detailed showing adequacy of connections to resist the horizontal force prescribed in Table 16-B. d) Openings between railings shall be less than 4"_. The triangular openings formed by the rise~. tread and bottom element of a guardrail at a stair shall be less than 6". • TITLE 24 DISABLED ACCESS 10. Provide notes and details on the plans to show compliance with the enclosed Disabled Access Review List. Disabled access requirements may be more restrictive than the UBC. This will be checked when the item 28 below is met. ') Carlsbad 05-0567 March 11, 2005 • FOUNDATION 11. Provide a copy of the project soil report prepared by a California licensed architect or civil engineer. The report shall include foundation design recommendations based on the engineer's findings and shall comply with UBC Section 1804. 12. In Seismic Zone 4, each site shall be assigned a near-source factor. Identify this value in the soils report and on the plans. Section 1629.4.2. 13. Specify on the foundation plan or structural specifications sheet the soil classification, the soils expansion index and the design bearing capacity of the foundation. Section 106.3.3. 14. Investigate the potential for seismically induced soil liquefaction and soil instability in seismic zones 3 and 4. Section 1804.5 15. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soil report are properly incorporated into the plans (when required by the soil report). 16. Provide notes on the foundation plan listing the soils report recommendations for foundation slab and building pad preparation. 17. The soils engineer recommended that he/she review the foundation excavations. Note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor requesting a Building Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that: a) The building pad was prepared in accordance with the soils report, b) The utility trenches have been properly backfilled and compacted, and c) The foundation excavations comply with the intent of the soils report." • STRUCTURAL 18. Please supmitcomplete foundation calculations to include the stairs foundation. 19. Please show on the framing plan the floor joists(12C12). Please show the spacing and extent of the same on the framing plan. 20. Page 5 of the calculations indicate Check Joist: W12X26 and 14. Are these the floor joists? If so, please show the spacing and the extent of the same. 21.-The framing plan shows W12X14 framing typ.UON. Please clarify. Please see -item 20 above. 22. Please submit calculations for the W12X22 with the span of 19.67'. ) Carls~ad 05-0567 March 11, ~005 23. Please show the recommended connectors of the joists to the girders (plates, bolts, etc.). 24. Please submit calculations how the seismic factors were derived. If the columns are cantilevered, the R value should be 2.2. 25. The anchor bolts could be OK but it is not clear how the overturning effect of the lateral load could be resisted. Would it be resisted by the slab? Could be a pad foundation. Please submit analysis. 26. Please show how the column would be connected to the baseplate. 27. Please submit calculation for the stairs. • ADDITIONAL 28. Please submit floor plans (existing and the mezzanine) reflecting the specific use of each spaces to verify exiting system, disability requirements, etc. 29. Please show sections of the addition reflecting the use of each adjacent spaces and difference in elevations of each floor. 30. May need electrical , plumbing and mechanical Plans for this permit? 31. A complete plan check will be made. To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc. ~ I . '"' Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located in the plans. Have changes been made to the_plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate: 0 Yes Cl No The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Bert Domingo at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. Carlsbad 05-0567 March 11, 2005 · j\'ALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 05-0567 PREPARED BY: Bert Domingo DATE: March 11, 2005 BUILDING ADDRESS: 1675 Faraday Avenue BUILDING OCCUPANCY: 81 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V N BUILDING AREA Valuation Reg. VALUE PORTION (Sq.Ft.) Multiplier Mod. Estimate Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code cb By Ordinance Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance Plan Check Fee by Ordinance . \ Type of Review: 0 Complete Review D Structural Only D Repetitive Fee . 3Repeats Comments: D Other D Hourly . I I Hour *. Esgil Plan Review Fee ($) 57,600 57,600 $375.861 $244.311 $210.481 Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc '• ' .. PLANNING/ENCINEERINC APPROVALS · .. ·. ·,._ PERMIT NUMBER CB . . ())-: Gt:;1;7 DATE 3~ 3-0 5 ~ RESIDENTIAL A.DDITION MINOR. . I< $10,000.00) " . ,, OTHER ~ f ~ PLANNER ~ -----.:....---1.7.....,,. __ _ PLA~ ~AMI_..O REAL CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES VILLAGE' FAIRE COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING · DATE ------ Carlsbad Fire Department Plan Review Requirements Category: Tl , INDUST Date of Report: 12-28-2005 Name: Address: Permit #: CB050567 Job Name: MOD POSTCARD-1800SF STORAGE Job Address: 1675FARADAY AVCBAD Reviewed by: -'---ff---'--~--e--=-- INCOMPLETE The item )'Ott have subm±ttcd: fur review is ineomplctc. 1'.J: thls time, this offiee eannot ade(fQa-tely sondt1£t a re-vie,.v to determine oomplianee yfi.th file applicable codes andtof stanclafds. Plea:se rer.f'i:oov' cruefalfy all conm1ents attached. Please resubmit the neecssaey plans a:ndfer spccifieatiotts, with ehftft:ges "efouded", to this office for r01.riew and apf)ro:va-1-. Conditions: Cond: CON0001008 [MET] APPROVED: THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT. THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTION AND REQUIRED TEST, NOTATIONS HEREON, CONDITIONS IN CORRESPONDENCE AND CONFORMANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. THIS APPROVAL SHALL NOT BE HELD TO PERMIT OR APPROVE THE VIOLATION OF ANY LAW. Entry: 12/28/2005 By: GR Action: AP -Carlsbad Fire Department 050567 ' .... 1635 Faraday Ave. • Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review Requirements Category: Fire Prevention (760) 602-4660 Date of Report: _02_1_28_12_0_0_5 _______ _ Building Plan Reviewed by: Name: Ken LoFrano Address: 1675 Faraday Ave City, State: Carlsbad CA 92008 Plan Checker: Job #: 050567 ------- Job Name: Modern Postcard Bldg #: CB050567 -----------------=-- Job Address: 1675 Faraday Ave Ste. or Bldg. No. ------------------ D Approved D Approved Subject to IZI Incomplete Review FD Job# The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and / or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes and standards. Please review carefully all comments attached as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to construct or install improvements. The item you have submitted for review has been approved subject to the attached conditions. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to construct or install improvements. Please resubmit to this office the necessary plans and / or specifications required to indicate compliance with applicable codes and standards. The item you have submitted for review is incomplete. At this time, this office cannot adequately conduct a review to determine compliance with the applicable codes and / or standards. Please review carefully all comments attached. Please resubmit the necessary plans and / or specifications to this office for review and approval. 1st 050567 2nd FD File# 3rd Other Agency ID ,Carlsbad Fire Department 1.635 F.ariada'r.iAve. , Carlsbad, CA 92008 · Plan Review D·ate of Report: _02_12_8_12_0_05 _______ _ Name: Ken LoFrano Address: 1675 Faraday Ave City, State: Carlsbad CA 92008 Plan Checker: Job Name: Modern Postcard Job Address: 1675 Faraday Ave Reviewed by: 050567 050567 Fire Prevention (760) 602-4660 Ste. or Bldg. No. THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN DISAPPROVED, PLEASE REVIEW AND RESPOND TO THE ATTACHED REQUIREMENTS. Requirements Category: ... Building Plan R~quirelrrent: Pending 05.01 Project Data P~ovide complete address and suite designation. Provide building construction information indicating occupancy classification, type of construction, number of stories, aggregate square footage, occupant load, and description of intended uses. PROJECT DATA SHALL INCLUDE THE PROJECT ADDRESS. Requirement: Pending 05.03 Floor Plan Provide a complete floor plan of building or suite. Show exiting from all areas. Indicate use or occupancy of each room including adjacent suite if applicable. SHOULD PROVIDE OVERALL FLOOR PLAN AND RELATIONSHIP OF DECK. Requirement: Pending 05.16 AJS Design Sprinkler system design shall be in accordance with standards set forth by the National Fire Protection Association and USC Standards 38-1 and 38-2. Permits are required prior to installation. Plans, specifications and calculations shall be certified by a licensed fire protection engineer or other person deemed competent by the Chief, and submitted in the name of a licensed sprinkler contractor. Warehouse buildings for which no specific use, occupant, product, activity or storage array has been identified, shall be protected by sprinkler system designed to deliver water at the rate of .45 gallons per square foot, throughout a 3000 square foot design area. FIRE SPRINKLERS SHALL BE REQUIRE ABOVE AND BELOW DECK. PLANS SHOLUD INDICATE THAT FIRE SPRINKLERS ARE TO BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO CARLSBAD FIRE CODE AND NFPA 13. Requirement: Pending 05.18 Fire Extinguishers Required Provide one 2A 1 0BC fire extinguisher for each 6000 square feet or portion thereof with a travel distance to the nearest extinguisher not to exceed 75 feet of travel. Provide notes on the plans that the extinguisher will be provided. · ONE 3A:208C FIRE EXTINGUISHER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED AT TOP OF STAIR. Requirement: Pending .05.26 Exit Illumination Page 1 Exits shall be illuminated at any time the building is occupied with light having intensity of not less than 1 footqandle at floor level. The power supply for exit illumination shall normally be provided by the premises' wiring system. In the event of its failure, illumination shall be automatically provided from an emergency system of Group I, Division 1 Occupancies and for all other occupancies where the exiting system serves an occupant load of 100 or more. INSTALLATION OF EXIT SIGN AND EGRESS LIGHTING WITH BATTERY BACK-UP SHALL BE INSTALLED AT STAIR LANDING. 02/28/05 .:,. . ' ' WJIJlECK® 1NC. RE9EIVED Manufacturer of -Mezzanines -Vertical Lifts -Protective Rail Systems -Custom Steel Fabrication SolutionPEC 1 f' 2004 MEZZANINE SYSTEMS DESIGN CALCULATIONS FOR Modern Postcard Shipping Order # 17866 PETERS. HIGGINS & ASSOC. REVIEWED & PETER S, HIGGINS & ASSOGIA It~ APPROVED CONSULTING STRUCTURAL EllGmEERS 7 06 9 JOB NUMBER FEB 1 8 '05 DATE P.O. Box 89 -Waukesha, Wisconsin 53187 -262/549-4000-Fax: 262/549-7703 405 Commerce Street -Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186 Visit us atwww.wildeck.com · W/lfJECK~ 1Na Modern Postcard Page 2 of 22 . Table of Contents . . ·' · · . · :., -'< , .. ·/;\,.,· ·,·. :· · ·.: ·. ; Specifications Calculations Roof Deck Data C Section Data Anchor Bolt Data Page Numbers 3 4-16 17 18 19-22 Design and Code Data , ·.. ' · · ··. Reference: Manual of steel construction allowable stress design (ASD), Ninth Edition. AISC. Codes: UBC 97 Edition. Compliance v,,ith ADA Requirements are not required due to intended use of the mezzanine. Construction: Non-combustible. Fire rating, if required, is not by Wildeck, Inc. Note: if decking consists of roof deck and plywood, plywood is considered the walking surface or finished product. The roof deck is the structural member that carries the loads and provides the diaphram for the mezzanine stability. Occupancy: Storage: Not accessible to the general public. Guardrails: 42 inch high, three rail system with a 12 inch maximum pass-through spacing. Handrail: 34-38 inches with a 12 inch maximum pass-through spacing. Welds: All welds are made using E70XX electrodes. Seismic: UBC 97, Zone 4 ·W/JPECK® 1Na Modern Postcard Page 3 of 22 1. Framing shall consist of the following: A. Wildeck cold-formed steel that meets the requirements of ASTM A570, grade 50. Design is in accordance with AISC 'Specification for structural steel buildings-allowable stress design'. B. Structural steel as shown on drawings is in accordance with ASTM A-36 or ASO. Design is in accordance with AISC 'Specification for structural steel buildings-allowable stress design'. 2. Deck material shall be 1 1/2" 20 ga Type B steel, wide rib, meeting the requirements of ASTM-Al008 Design for roof deck is in accordance with AISI specifications for the design of cold-formed steel structural members. 3. Support columns shall be :f!SS 7 x 7 x 3/16 structural steel tubing meeting the requirements of ASTM A500, grade B, Fy -46 ksi or as indicated on drawing. Design is in accordance with AISC specifications. 4. All bolts shall be in accordance with ASTM A325 or A307 at stairs and platforms. 5. All rails for handrail or guardrail at open ends of mezzanine and on stairways shall be 1 1/2" O.D. tubing. 6. Bridging Shall Be CRC 1 1/2" (16 Ga.) Galvanized Steel. 7. All material shall be painted with one coat of Wildeck standard paint, see drawings for color. Roof deck underside is painted white, unless galvanized. 8. Column base plate floor anchors shall be Powers wedge bolt concrete anchors, size as indicated on drawing, or engineer approved equal. Owner shall advise Wildeck, Inc. of concrete floor thickness. Owner shall advise the installers of any embedded floor obstacles that may interfere with installation of the floor anchors. 9. Erection, if not included in contract, is the responsibility of the owner or dealer and shall be in accordance with manufacturer's specification. 10. Conformance with local codes is the responsibility of the owner. 11. The Wildeck system is designed for 125 PSF live load as specified. 12. Installation ~rawings and manuals shall be provided by Wildeck, Inc. ·W/JPECK® 1N~ Uniform Live Load: Uniform Dead Load: Uniform Total Load Modern Postcard 125 PSF 10 PSF 135 PSF • Check: 20 ga Type B roof deck see attached roof deck design data, page 17 Maximum Joist Spacing: 3.8611 ft. f b(oll)= 20,000 psi f = M = wP = 0 35 psf)(3.861 ft)2 02) = 12,076 psi<= 20,000 psi b Sx 8S 8(0.250in3) Page 4 of 22 OK · Joist Framing: · · . .' . .. . . • Check Joist: Wl2x16 1\4011> = 47.03 k-ft 1 = 24.75 ft. S = 3.86 ft. M _ wP _ (135 psf)(3.86 ft)(24.75 ft)2 9 91 k f -8 -8 (1000) = 3 · -t 39.91 k-ft <= 47.03 k-ft OK L/240 = 1.238 in 5wl 4 5 (125psf) (3.86 ft) (24.75 ft)4 (1728) b. = 384EI = 384 (29,000,000-psi)(l03.00 in4) -1.36 in 1.36in > 1.24in NO Modern Postcard Page 5 of 22 • • ... < ~ • ' :, , , J , ..,, , , , r , , ,.-J,01s!'.Fram•ng . : . , · . . :· ' .. · :· .. , ·_. · , . ·· ·. ·· . .-·:: ··IJ • Check Joist: W12x26 1\1.11) = 91.85 k-ft 1 = 25.08 ft. Sl = 1.64 ft. P = 8937 lbs. a= 5.92 ft. b = 19.17 ft. p 1 a+ b-J g1·~-·I , ', l , 'r 1. M _ wl2 + Pab (135 psf)(l.64 ft)(25.08 ft)2 + (8937 lbs.)(5.92 ft.)(19.17 ft.) -8 1 8 (1000) 25.08 ft.(1000) 57.81 k-ft OK 57.81 k-ft <= 91.85 k-ft MaximumR= (125 psf) (1.64 ft.) (25.08 ft.) 2 (8275 lbs.) (19.17 ft.) + 25.08 ft. :__ 2R _ (2)(8892) _ 709 lb /f ~q -1 -25.08 -s. t. w = 8M = (8)(53.53)(1000)) = eq l2 (25.08)2 681 lbs./ft. L/240 = 1.254 in A Sw./ 5 (709 lbs./ft.) (25.08 ft)4 (1728) u = 384EI = 384 (29,000,000 psi)(204.00 in4) = 1.07in <= l .25in • Check Joist: Wl2x14 1\1.11) = 40.98 k-ft l = 19.17 ft. Sl = 0.93 ft. P = 4672 lbs. a= 4.73 ft. b = 14.43 ft. 1.07 in = 8892 lbs. OK M wl2 Pab (135 psf)(0.93 ft)(19.17 ft)2 (4672 lbs.)(4.73 ft.)(14.43 ft.) 22_43 k-ft =g+-1--8(1000) + 19.17ft.(1000) = 22.43 k-ft <= 40.98 k-ft OK Maximum R = (125 psf) (0.93 ft.) (19.17 ft.) 2 _ 2R _ (2)(4374) _ 456 lb /f. w.q -1 -19 .17 -s. t. (4326 lbs.) (14.43 ft.) + 19.17ft. w = 8M = (8)(20.77)(1000)) = eq l2 (19.17)2 452 lbs./ft. L/240 = 0.958 in 4 " 5w.91 u = 384EI = 5 (456 lbs./ft.) (19.17 ft)\1728) 384 (29,000,000 psi)(88.60 in4) = 0·54 in 0.54in <= 0.96in = 4374 lbs. OK ·W/JPECK~ tNa. Modern Postcard Page 6 of 22 ', •' • " • • ii'~;; ·t ,,4 ,,; tf-J /,'·! '",1*< ,.-iJ01st Eram1n . · . . ., ·· .... · ·1.:· .. :,. :· .. -.:. • Check Joist: 12C12 See attached Wildeck 12Cl2 properties, page 18 fvlnn) = 15.55 k-ft I= 14.17 ft. S = 3.26 ft. M _ wl2 _ (135 psf)(3.26 ft)(14.l 7 ft)2 _ 11 _03 k-ft -8 -8 (1000) - 11.03 k-ft <= 15.55 k-ft L/240 = 0. 708 in ~ _ 5wl4 _ 5 (125psf) (3.26 ft) (14.17 ft}4 (1728) = -384EI -384 (29,000,000 psi)(37.34 in4 ) 0.34in <= 0.71in • Check Joist: 12C12 See attached Wildeck 12C12 properties, page 18 fvlnn) = 15.55 k-ft I= 14.17 ft. S1 = 1.63 ft. P = 1106 lbs. a= 7.42 ft. b = 6.75 ft. g11:,11' ·1·1 1. 1-- OK 0.34 in OK M _ wl2 + Pab (135 psf)(l.63 ft)(14.17 ft)2 + -8 I 8 (1000) (1106 lbs.)(7.42 ft.)(6.75 ft.) 14.17 ft.(1000) = 9.42 k-ft OK 9.42 k-ft <= 15.55 k-ft MaximumR= (125 psf) (1.63 ft.) (14.17 ft.) 2 (1024 lbs.) (7.42 ft.) + 14.17 ft. -2R -(2)(1978) -279 lb /f w.q -I -14.17 -s. t. w = SM = (8)(8.72)(1000)) = eq l2 (14.17)2 348 lbs./ft. L/240 = 0.708 in 4 A Swegl u = 384EI = 5 (348 lbs./ft.) (14.17 ft)4(1728) _;.__ __ ..;....;..____,. _____ .,.... = 0.29 in 384 (29,000,000 psi)(37.34 in4) 0.29in <= 0.71in = 1978 lbs. OK 'W/lfJECK0 INC Modern Postcard Page 7 of 22 '. :Girder Framin · . ·,.~·, · .· .·· ·· 1 "· ·,:;, :·· .•. :.·. • •• .-· .• /;·,. • Check Girder: 12C12 See attached Wildeck 12Cl2 properties, page 18 !\1.11)= 15.55k-ft 1=9.77ft. S=7.08ft. M _ wl2 _ (135 psf)(7.08 ft)(9.77 ft)2 11 41 k f -8 -8 (1000) = · -t 11.41 k-ft <= 15.55 k-ft L/240 = 0.489 in 5wl4 ~ = 384EI = 0.17in <= 0.49in 5 (125psf) (7.08 ft) (9.77 ft)4 (1728) 384 (29,000,000 psi)(37.34 in4 ) • Check Girder: W12x14 !\1.il) = 40.98 k-ft I= 12.06 ft. S = 13.29 ft. M _ wl2 _ (135 psf)(13.29 ft)(12.06 ft)2 _ 32 64 k f -8 -8 (1000) -· -t 32.64 k-ft <= 40.98 k-ft L/240 = 0.603 in = 0.17 in ~ _ 5wl 4 _ 5 (125psf) (13.29 ft) (12 .. 06 ft}4 (1728) = -384EI -384 (29,000,000 psi)(88.60 in 4) 0.31 in 0.31in <= o:60in g11:_i:,,1 :·1 OK OK g:1:-i; .:,·1 OK OK , W/1/JECK~ iNa Modern Postcard Page 8 of 22 i., £::!;t1··rde"·r Fram' 1·n · · · · "i .. • · · ·• • · -· • · : · ·:. --~ 1, \.J ~ 'I f ' > / \ ~ : h • i ' ' ,.-I ' I ' '~, • 'I-1"1 --~ ,'~' • Check Girder: W12x22 :tv.{.11)= 69.85 k-ft I= 12.92 ft. a= 5.58 ft. P = 1557 lbs. M = Pa = (1557 lbs)(5.58 ft.) 8 69 k f (1000) = · -t 8.69 k-ft <= 69.85 k-ft L/240 = 0.279 in ~ _ Pa2(l+a) _1442(5.58)2(12.92+5.58)(1728)_ 0106 . -3EI -(3)(29,000,000)(156.00) -· m. 0.106in <= 0.279in • Check Girder: W12x22 fv.lan) = 69.85 k-ft 1 = 18.17 ft. S = 12.54 ft. M -wl2 _(135psf)(12.54ft)(18.17ft)2 _ 6984 kf -8 -8 (1000) -· -t 69.84 k-ft <= 69.85 k-ft L/240 = 0.908 in ~ _ 5wl 4 _ 5 (125psf) (12.54 ft)(l8.17 ft}4 (1728) = 0_85 in -384EI -384 (29,000,000 psi)(156.00 in4 ) 0.85in <= 0.9lin OK OK OK OK I WJJPECK~ IN~ Modern Postcard Joist to Girder L5x3xl/4 Angle x 81/2" Long • CHECK: 1/2" Diameter Bolt, Joist To Angle, Single Shear, A-325 25.08ft P = (135psf)(3.86ft) (2)1000 = 6.54k Single Shear (r v) = 4.09 for 1/2" diameter A-325 bolt P = (3)(4.09k) = 12.27k per connection nil • CHECK: 1/2" Diameter Bolt, Angle to Girder, Single Shear, Eccentric Load P011 = (2.00)(4.09k) = 8.18 k per connection • CHECK: 1/4" Angle for Bending M =Pa= 3.500 P S _ bd 2 _ (0.250in)(8.500in)2 _ 3 010 . 3 -6-6 -. m M 3.500P fb=s= 20,000= 3.010in3 P.11 = 17.202k per angle • CHECK: Edge Distance on Joist (ASD Table 1-F) For f Y = 50 ksi Fu= 65 ksi P011 = ( 40.60)(3)(0.220) = 26.80 k per connection • CHECK: Edge Distance on Angle (ASD Table 1-F) Forf = 36 ksi F = 58 ksi y u Pn11= (36.300)(3)(0.250) = 27.23 k per connection • CHECK: Web Tear-Out/Block Shear (ASD Table 1-G) Pnn = (C1 + C2) (FJ ( t) C1 = 1.0; C2 = 1.0 Conservatively P011 = (2)(58ksi)(0.250in) = 29.00k P011 = (2)(65ksi)(0.220in) = 28.60k • CHECK: Shear 1/4" Angle: Pnn = ((8.500in -(3)(0.563in))(0.250in)(0.3)(58ksi) = 29.63k Joist: W12x16 Pn11 = ((8.500in -(3)(0.563in))(0.220in)(0.3)(65ksi) = 29.23k Page 9 of 22 1 W/J/lECK:...u~ Modern Postcard Joist to Girder L5x3xl/4 Angle x 81/2" Long • CHECK: 1/2" Diameter Bolt, Joist To Angle, Single Shear, A-325 25.08ft P = (135pst)(3.21ft) (2)1000 = 5.44k Single Shear (r v) = 4.09 for 1/2" diameter A-325 bolt P = (3)(4.09k) = 12.27k per connection all • CHECK: 1/2" Diameter Bolt, Angle to Girder, Single Shear, Eccentric Load , P011 = (2.00)( 4.09k) = 8.18 k per connection • CHECK: 1/4" Angle for Bending M=Pa= 3.500P S _ bd 2 _ (0.250in)(8.500in)2 _ 3 010 . 3 -6-6 -. m M 3.500P fb=s = Z0,000 = 3.010 in3 P011= 17.202k perangle • CHECK: Edge Distance on Joist (ASD Table 1-F) For fY = 50 ksi F0= 65 ksi P.u = ( 40.60)(3)(0.230) = 28.01 k per connection • CHECK: Edge Distance on Angle (ASD Table 1-F) Forf = 36 ksi F = 58 ksi y u P.u= (36.300)(3)(0.250) = 27.23 k per connection • CHECK: Web Tear-Out/Block Shear (ASD Table 1-G) P.11 = (C1+ C) (F)(t) C1 =· 1.0; C2 = 1.0 Conservatively P.ll = (2)(58ksi)(0.250in) = 29.00k P.11 = (2)(65ksi)(0.230in) = 29.90k • CHECK: Shear 1/4" Angle: P011 = ((8.500in -(3)(0.563in))(0.250in)(0.3)(58ksi) = 29.63k Joist: W12x26 P 0 ll = ((8.500in -(3)(0.563in))(0.230in)(0.3)(65ksi) = 30.55k Page 10 of 22 'WJIJJECK~ lN~ Modern Postcard Page 11 of 22 ·. Columns .. · :·.'· ... : ..... r.'' ·, .,:·· .· ' • ' ' ,, (' ' ~" i' • • , .... ~ :~ ·General Column· Information • Normal operation loaded (seepages 12 and 13 for calculations)_ Column Size: 7 x 7 x 3/16 column tube Vertical Load (P) = (135.00 pst) (15.04 ft) (13.29 ft)= 26,984 lbs. Horizontal Load ( f) = 270 lbs. Height: 135. in. Clear Height: 120 in. • Normal operation unloaded (seepage 14 for calculations) Column Size: 7 x 7 x 3/16 column tube Vertical Load (P) = (10.00 pst) (15.04 ft) (13.29 ft)= 1,999 lbs. Horizontal Load ( fh) = 270 lbs Height: 135. in. Clear Height: 120 in. • Seismic operation loaded (seepages 15 and 16 for calculations) Column Size: 7 x 7 x 3/16 column tube Total Vertical Load (P) = (110.00 pst) (13.29 ft) (15.04 ft)= 21,987 lbs. Seismic Horizontal Load: f h = 0.397 (0.66) (1 3·29 ft.~61.39 ft.) (41.25 pst) = 1470 lbs. f h = 0.397 (0.66) 0 5.04 ft.~26·00 ft.) (41.25 pst) = 2113 lbs. f h = 2113 lbs. Height: 135 in. Clear Height: 120 in. fh ~ r 7 135" ~7''-J Modern Postcard Page 12 of 22 Check Column: Normal operation loaded Wildeck Inc. column program calculates the A.I.S.C. unity factor using Chapter H, formulas H-1, H-2, or H-3. See pages 5-135, table C-C2.1 of A.I.S.C. manual, Ninth Edition. Column properties have been reduced in accordance with section A-B5.2.b, Stiffened compression. Column Data 7 x 7 x 3/16 Column Tube Yield Stress of Steel Area Section Modulus Radius of Gyration Moment of Inertia Load Data Vertical Column Load Horizontal Column Load Total Column Height Column Clear Height Normal Operation Value of C KFactor Kl/r Allowable axial stress Actual axial stress Allowable bending stress Actual bending stress F •. Deflection at top of column Force axial actual/allowable Force bending actual/allowable Calculated AISC unity factor AISC unity of 1.0 is not exceeded, column is OK. F y A s r I p f H H L C Fa fa Fb fb 46 ksi 4.49 • 2 m 9.98 • 3 m 2.79 in 34.92 • 4 m 26.9840 K .2698 K 135 in 120.5 in 111.5540 2.1 90.6989 16.1711 ksi 6.0098 ksi 27.6 ksi 3.6501 ksi 18.1529 ksi .0929 in .3716 .1680 .5397 I WJJJJECK0 tN~ . Modern Postcard Page 13 of 22 Check anchor tension on base plates: Normal operation loaded • CHECK: Column Overturn P = 26,984 lbs. fh = 270 lbs. Mh= fhH = (270 lbs.) (135.000 in)= 36,450 in -lbs. (2T)(l4.250) + (7.750 in.) (26,984 lbs.) -(36,450 in -lbs.)= 0 T = 0 lbs. No net overturn • CHECK: 1/2" Diameter Anchor (see attached ICBO report #ER-5778 and anchor calculation sheet for allowable anchor tension) 0 lbs. <= 1820 lbs. • CHECK: Baseplate Overturn Base Plate Size: 16" x 16" x 1.5" M mox= Mh -P (e) = (36,450 in -lbs) -(26,984lbs)(3.50 in) = 0 in -lbs due to overtwn Sx = (16.00~ (1.50)2 = 6.000 inJ fb = 0.75 fY = 27,000 psi M<nn>= fbSx = 162,000 in -lbs 0 in -lbs <= 162,000 in -lbs • CHECK: Baseplate For Bearing P = 26,984 lbs. f _ L _ 26.98 k = 0 105 k . P-A -(16.00 in )(16.00 in) · s1 n = 4.50 in t,=2n~ = 2(4.Sin) 0.105 ksi 27 ksi = 0.562 in <= 1.500 in { 7 135" Lt -r-J I l/2"Jt 1..33/4".J I 1/2" 14 1/4":.._j 16" OK No Net Overturn OK OK J W/lfJECK0 IN~ Modern Postcard Page 14 of 22 Check anchor tension and base plates: Normal operation unloaded • CHECK: Column Overturn P = 1,999 lbs. f = 270 lbs. h Mh= fhH = (270 lbs.) (135.000 in.)= 36,450 in -lbs. (2T)(14.250) + (7.750 in.) (1,999 lbs.) -(36,450 in -lbs.)= 0 T = 735 lbs. • CHECK: 1/2" Diameter Anchor (see attached ICBO report #ER-5778 and anchor calculation sheet for allowable anchor tension) 735 lbs. <= 1820 lbs. • CHECK: Baseplate Overturn Base Plate Size: 16" x 16" x 1.5" 7 135" Lt~, .. _ J 1112 .. rt ~31,,4 .. J 11/2" 14 1/4"=-i 16" OK M mox= Mh -P (e) = (36,450 in -lbs) -(1,999 lbs) (3.50 in) = 29,454 in -lbs due to ovenum Sx = (16.00~ (1.50)2 = 6.0000 inJ fb = 0.75 fY = 27,000 psi M(oll)= fbSx = 162,000 in -lbs 29,454 in -lbs<= 162,000 in -lbs OK ' W/JPECK~ JNa Modern Postcard Page 15 of 22 Check Column: Seismic Operation Wildeck Inc. column program calculates the A.I.S.C. unity factor using Chapter H, formulas H-1, H-2, or H-3. See pages 5-135, table C-C2.1 of A.I.S.C. manual, Ninth Edition. Column properties have been reduced in accordance with seciton A-B5.2.b, Stiffened_c9mpression. Column Data 7 x 7 x 3/16 Column Tube Yield Stress of Steel Area Section Modulus Radius of Gyration Moment of Inertia Load Data Vertical Column Load Horizontal Column Load Total Column Height Column Clear Height Seismic Operation Value ofC KFactor Kl/r Allowable axial stress Actual axial stress Allowable bending stress Actual bending stress F c' Deflection at top of column Force axial actual/allowable Force bending actual/allowable Calculated AISC unity factor AISC unity of 1.33 is exeeded F y A s r I p f H H L C Fa fa Fb fb 46 ksi 4.49 • 2 m 9.98 • 3 m 2.79 in 34.92 • 4 m 21.987 K 2.113 K 135 in 120.5 in 111.5540 2.1 90.6989 16.1711 ksi 4.897 ksi 27.6 ksi 28.586 ksi 18.1529 ksi .7274 in .3028 1.2056 1.5084 ·W/IJJECK® INC Modern Postcard Check anchor tension and base plates: Seismic operation • CHECK: Column Overturn P = 21,987 lbs. f = 2,113 lbs. h Mh= fhH = (2,113 lbs.) (135.000 in)= 285,255 in -lbs. (2T)(14.250) + (7.750 in.) (21,987 lbs.) -(285,255 in -lbs.)= 0 T = 4,030 lbs. • CHECK: 1/2" Diameter Anchor (see attached ICBO report #ER-5778 and anchor calculation sheet for allowable anchor tension) 4,030lbs. > 2,426 lbs. • CHECK: Baseplate Overturn Base Plate Size: 16" x 16" x 1.5'' Page 16 of 22 r 7 135" LT-,·-J I 1/2" r-11. ~7 3/4"J I 1/2" 14 1/4" 16''- NO Mmax= Mh-P(e) = (285,255in-lbs)-(21,987lbs)(3.50in) =208,301 in -lbs due to Ovenurn S -(16.00) (1.50)2 -6 000. 3 x-6 -. m fb = 0.75 (1.333) f Y = 36,000 psi M<•II)= fbSx = 216,000 in -lbs 208,301 in -lbs<= 216,000 in -lbs • CHECK: Baseplate For Bearing P = 21,987 lbs. f -L -21.99 k . o 86 . P-A -(16.00 in )(16.00 in) = .O kst n = 4.50 in t = 2n. 0n = 2 (4.5in) p 'V-t: 0.086 ksi 27_00 ksi = 0.508 in<= 1.500 in OK OK ' W/JPECK0 1N~ Modern Postcard Page 17 of 22 ROOF DECK DATA BASE NOTES: A1TRIBUTE TYPEBDECK TYPEFDECK TYPENDECK 1B, Bl, BA, BIA) (NS, NI, NSA, NIA} 1. I:. I., s, .. and S., are the section properties per loot of width. These values were calculated using the AISI SpeclfJCallons. The subscripls denote positive or negative bending. Not• Gaaa 22 u~noss .ud~ waatt,psr 1.1 1 I. in' 0.17 1 1.n· v.,v 1 s,111.· 0.19 1 s .• n· 0.20 2 EnR,lbs. 450 s ~•ID lbs, 540 4 lnR.lbs. 1Z70 6 tr.R, lbs. 1320 6 V,lls. 1920 7 M1x.1 mn 5'10" 8 MaxJsnan 6'11" 9 Mn.cat. 1'11" 10 FMSspan 61011 TYPO B, Bl, BA, BIA Type e Type Bl TvP8 F T)'INI F TvPo NS, NI, NSA, NIA Type NS Type NI 20 18 16 22 20 18 22 20 18 ,= -~·-,=• ,=n .=• -~·-,mH ,WSK ,•A- 2.1 u 3.5 1.6 2.0 2.6 2.1 2.5 33 o.22 0.31 0.-IO 0.13 0.17 014 0.64 0.82 1.19 u..<• v ... , 0.40 0.15 u ... u.,~ U.11> 1.04 138 0.25 0.34 0.44 0.13 0.16 0.22 031 0.49 0.68 0.26 0.36 0.45 0.14 0.17 0.23 0.42 0.64 0.74 620 1010 1860 440 610 1000 320 450 700 730 1160 2100. S40 720 1140 390 530 870 1830 3120 4670 1250 1800 3070 940 1370 2370 1800 3200 4760 1320 1800 3190 1090 1580 2700 2300 3000 3180 1970 2300 3120 2350 3390 4800 e•a• l'O" t'1" 5'2" 5'11" 1'11' 11'5" 13'11' 15'8" 7'10" 91511 10'9" 6'1" TO'' 8'4" 13'5" 15'3" 1a•.s11 2'4" 2'10'' 3'3" 1•211 1'5 .. 1'10" 31611 ~·011 4'10" 6'6" 11511 411111 51511 6'3" = ~~ 1'1{ s· 7 ~ (30'' Coverage (F30) also avaff.ble) 16 ,•n= 4.1 1.62 1.75 0.88 0.93 1410 1590 3800 4020 6180 18'3" Z1'6" 5'5" 2. Allowable end reaction per foot of deck widlh wilh 2'' bearing 3. Allowable end reaction per foot ol deck wldlh wllh 3" bearing. 4, Allowable intenor reaction per fool of deck width with 4' bearing. 5. Allowable Interior reaction per fool of deck width with 5" bearing. 6. Allowable vertical shear per fool of width. Do not confuse this with horizontal diaphragm shear strength. 7. Maximum recommended single span for roofs. 8. Maximum recommended 1111lli span for roofs. 9. Maximum recommended cantilever span based on SDI criteria. Values are sensitive to adjacent spans as they are controlled by deneclion. For this table adJacenl spans are assumed to be at least 1.5 times greater than the canlllever span. Call If you need a more precise calculation. 10, Maximum spans for Factory Mutual Class 1 construction. Refer to the FMRC Approval Gulde. 11. B is generically known as 'wide rib" deck; F is 'Intermediate rib' and the 3' N Is "deep rib'. 12. The deck type B means llat side lap; Bl is "inleriocklng· sidelap · Bl is not available In 16 gage; BA and BIA means the decks are acousbcal. F deck is only available with the flat sidelap. NS is flat sldelap and NI Is lntertocklng. NA and NIA are acoustic decks. Beller sidelap connections are obtained by screwing or welding through lhe flat sidelaps and this is the recommended type. 13, Information not provided on this chart may be obtained from our Summit, NJ office. ASD DATA BASE 5 'WJ/JJECK® 1Na Modern Postcard Wildec'k 12C12 EWF Properties Material is Cold-Formed Steel meeting ASTM AlOl l, Grade 50 12" <D Web @Radius <3) Flange ® Stiff L 11.45" 11.54" 0.105" thickness Ri= 0.125" Re= 0.1775'' R,=0.230" 12.04" Figure B: Section Enlarged Radius Y2 = 5.77 + 0.637 x 0.1775 = 5.883" Y4 = 6 -0.125 -0.105 -0.385 = 5.385" y 0 0 13.447 4 X 1.57 X 0.20 = 1.256" 5.883" 38.59 0 1.95 X 2 = 3.9" 5.9475" 144.32 0.725 X 2 = 1.45" 5.385" 44.65 227.57 I= 0.105 x 227.57 + 13.45 = 37.34 in4 S = I/C = 37.34/6 = 6.22 in3 Fb = 0.6 Fv = 0.6 x 50,000 = 30,000 psi . . MR = 6.22 X 30,000 = 186,600 lb-in = 15 .55 k-ft 0 0.01 Page 18 of 22 I W/UJECK~ 1N~ Modern Postcard Page 19 of 22 ER-5788 Reissued October 1, 2001 ICBO Evaluation Service, Inc. • 5360 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601 • www.icboes.org Filing Category: FASTENERS-Concrete and Masonry Anchors POWERS WEDGE-BOLT ANCHOR POWERS FASTENERS, INC. 2 POWERS SQUARE NEW ROCHELLE, NEW YORK 10801 1.0 SUBJECT Powers Wedge-Bolt Anchor. 2.0 DESCRIPTION 2.1 General: The Powers Wedge-Bolt is a concrete screw anchor manufactured from heat-treated carbon steel complying with AISI 1020/1040 designed for use in normal-weight concrete. The anchor is formed with a hex head, an integral washer, a dual lead thread, and a chamfered tip, and is zinc plated. The Wedge-Bolt anchor is available in nominal diameters ranging from 1/4 to 3/4 inch (6.4 to 19.1 mm), in various lengths. 2.2 Installation: A pilot hole is predrilled using a carbide-tipped Wedge-Bit, supplied by Powers Fasteners, with bit dian:ieter matched to the anchor size. The drill bit size range corresponding to each anchor size is shown in Table 4. The hole must be drilled to a minimum depth 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) deeper than the required embedment. After the dust is removed from the drilled hole, the Wedge-Bolt anchor is installed per the manufacturer's instructions to the specified embedment depth. 2.3 Design: The allowable tension and shear loads are indicated in Tables 1 and 2. The allowable loads are based on the anchor spacing and edge distances as shown in Table 3. Allowable loads for anchors subjected to combined shear and tension loads are determined by the following equation: (P /P,) + (V /V1) • •1 where: P, = Applied tension load. P1 = Allowable tension load in Table 1. V, = Applied shear load. V1 = Allowable shear load in Table 2. 2.4 Special Inspection: Where special inspection is required under Section 1701 of the Uniform Building Code™ (UBC), as noted in Tables 1 and 2 of this report, the inspector must be on the jobsite continuously during anchor installation to verify the screw anchor type, dimensions, concrete type and compressive strength, drill bit size, hole dimensions, screw anchor spacing and edge distance, slab thickness, and anchor embedment. 2.5 Identification: The Powers Wedge-Bolt anchor head is marked with anchor diameter and length as noted in Figure 1. Each package contains a label bearing the manufacturer's name (Powers Fasteners, Inc.) and address, the anchor type and size, and the evaluation report number (ICBO ES ER-5788). 3.0 EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Reports of load tests, and installation instructions. 4.0 FINDINGS The Powers Wedge-Bolt Anchor described in this report complies with the 1997 Uniform Building Code™, subject to the following conditions: 4.1 The Wedge-Bolt anchor ls installed in accordance with this report and the manufacturer's instructions. 4.2 Wedge-Bolt anchor sizes and dimensions, and allowable loads, are as set forth in this report 4.3 Calculations demonstrating that the applied loads comply with this report must be submitted to the building official for approval. 4.4 The Wedge-Bolt anchors are limited to nonfire- resistive construction unless substantiating data, demonstrating that the anchor performance is maintained in fire-resistive situations, are submitted to the building official for approval. 4.5 Special inspection, when required, is provided in accordance with Section 2.4 of this report. 4.6 When the Wedge-Bolt anchors are installed without special inspection, the installer must certify to the building official that the screw anchors were installed in accordance with this report and the manufacturer's instructions. 4.7 Wedge-Bolt anchors are not subjected to vibratory or shock loads, such as those encountered by supports for reciprocating engines or crane rails, unless adequacy is determined to the building official's satisfaction. 4.8 The allowable tension loads in Table 1 may be adjusted in accordance with Section 1612.3 of the code for short-term loading due to seismic or wind forces. 4.9 Anchors are manufactured by Powers Fasteners, Inc., Two Powers Square, New Rochelle, New York, with quality control inspections by CEL Consulting (AA-639). This report is subject to re-examination in one year. $ REPORTS• are not to be ct1nrtrued a.,; repre:ienting ae~·thetics or U'!V ntherallributes not specijical{v addressed, nor are they lo be construed as an endorsement oflhe subfect oft he report or a recommendation/or tr,; use. There ts no warran(Y by ICBO Evaluation Senfoe. Inc., express or implied, as to any finding or othur mat/er in thfa· report. or as to any product covered by the reporL '------------------------------------------• Copyright@ 2001 Page 1 of 4 Modern Postcard Page 20 of 22 Page2 of4 ANCHOR MINIMUM DIAMETER EMBECMENT (lnc;h) (Inches) I I 112 l/4 2 21/2 Jl/2 2 .3/g 21/2 3 3112 2 21/2 l/2 3 31/2 4 2112 3 ~,8 4 5 3 4 3/4 5 6 TABLE 1-ALLOWABLE TENSION VALUES FOR WEDGE-BOLT ANCHORS INSTALLED IN NORMAL-WEIGHT CONCRETE (pounds)1,2,3,4 WITH SPECIAL INSPECTION WITHOUT SPECIAL INSPECTION Concreto Strength, fc Cone rote Strong th, f c 2,000 p1I 3,000p,I 4,000 pal 5,000 pll 6,000 p1I 2,000 pal 3,000 pal 4,000 p,I 5,000 pal 230 305 380 400 415 115 155 190 200 440 515 590 605 620 220 260 295 305 700 880 1,060 1,155 1,245 350 440 530 580 1,055 1,140 1,225 1,270 1,315 530 575 615 640 535 600 665 715 760 270 305 335 360 825 930 1,030 1,165 1,300 415 465 515 585 1,115 1,255 1,390 1,615 1,835 560 630 695 810 1,545 1,770 1,995 2,235 2,475 775 890 1,000 1,120 1,975 2,290 2,600 2,855 3,110 990 1,145 1,300 1,430 740 865 985 1,090 1,195 370 430 490 545 1,025 1,165 1,300 1,460 1,620 515 585 650 730 1,360 1,655 1,950 2,150 2,345 680 830 975 1,075 1,515 1,820 2,120 2,550 2,975 760 910 1,060 1,275 1,905 2,610 3,315 3,315 3,315 955 1,305 1,660 1,660 855 1,020 1,180 1,455 1,725 430 510 590 730 1,140 1,495 1,845 2,045 2,240 570 750 925 1,025 2,070 2,630 3,190 3,385 3,580 1,035 1,315 1,595 1,695 3,360 3,960 4,555 4,885 5,215 1,680 1,980 2,280 2,445 1,080 1,350 1,620 2,095 2,565 540 675 810 1,050 1,800 2,420 3,035 3,270 3,505 900 1,210 1,520 1,635 3,100 3,440 3,780 4,315 4,850 1,550 1,720 1,890 2,160 4,395 4,460 4,520 5,355 6,190 2,200 2,230 2,260 2,680 For SI: I inch = 25.4 mm, I pound= 4.44 N, I psi= 6.89 kPa. ER-5788 6,000 p,I 205 310 625 660 380 650 920 1,240 1,555 600 810 1,170 1,485 1,660 865 1,120 1,790 2,610 1,285 1,755 2,425 3,095 !Tue tabulated tension values are for anchors installed in normal-weight concrete having reached the designated ultimate compressive strength at time ofinstalla!ton. Linear interpolation may be used for concrete strengths between those listed. 2 Spacing and edge distance shall be in accordance with Table 3. 3 Allowable tension loads may be interpolated between concrete strengths or embedment depths. Extrapolation is not permitted. 4Tue allowable tension loads may be adjusted in accordance with Section 1612.3 of the code for short-term loading due to seismic or wind forces. Page3 of4 NOMINAL ANCHOR DIAMETER (Inch) - l/4 3/s l/2 sis % 1NC. Modern Postcard TABLE 2-ALLOWABLE SHEAR VALUES FOR WEDGE-BOLT ANCHORS INSTALLED IN NORMAL-WEIGHT CONCRETE (pounds)1,2,3 WITH OR WITHOUT SPECIAL INSPECTION Concroto Strength, f 0 MINIMUM EMBEDMENT 2,000 pol 3,000 pal 4,000 pal (lnchoa) I 260 395 525 11/2 645 670 695 2 695 695 695 21/2 770 770 770 I 112 900 1,015 1,130 2 1,130 1,130 1,130 211z 1,130 1,130 1,130 3 1,495 1,495 1,495 31/2 1,715 1,790 1,860 2 ·1,510 1,685 1,855 211i 1,855 1,925 1,995 3 1,925 2,055 2,185 Jl/2 2,165 2,220 2,270 4 2,165 2,220 2,270 21/2 1,950 2,390 2,830 3 2,520 2,855 3,185 4 3,435 3,645 3,850 5 4,120 4,280 4,440 3 3,070 3,475 3,875 4 3,905 4,805 5,705 5 5,460 6,065 6,675 6 7,010 7,325 7,640 For SI: 1 inch= 25.4 mm, I pound= 4.44 N, 1 psi= 6.90 kPa. Page 21 ER-5788 5,000 pal 6,000 pal 570 610 685 675 770 840 845 915 1,485 1,835 1,485 1,835 1,485 1,835 1,685 1,870 1,885 1,905 2,055 2,250 2,155 2,315 2,250 2,315 2,335 2,400 2,335 2,400 3,120 3,405 3,380 3,575 3,915 3,980 4,440 4,440 4,285 4,695 5,705 5,705 6,775 6,875 7,845 8,045 !Tue tabulated shear values are for anchors installed in normal-weight concrete having reached the designated ultimate compressive strength at the time of installation. 2Spaeing and edge distance ~hall be in accordance with Table 3. 3Tue allowable shear loads are recognized for short-term loading due to seismic or wind forces. However, no increase is permitted and the maximum load permitted for this application shall be that at a 1 :5.6 diameter-to-embedment ratio. The maximum land at the 1 :5.6 ratio is detennined from interpolation between embedment depths for each anchor size. Extrapolation is not permitted. of 22 ---- Modern Postcard Page 22 of ----22 lNC. Page4of4 ER-5788 TABLE 3-WEDGE-BOLT ANCHORS ALLOWABLE SPACING AND EDGE DISTANCES (Inches) DISTANCE FOR FULL ANCHOR DISTANCE FOR REDUCED ANCHOR CAPACITY PARAMETER (Critical Dlstanco)1 CAPACITY (Minimum Dlstanco)2 REDUCTION FACTOR3 Spacing between anchors 12D 6D 0.50 Edge distaucc-tcusion 6D 3D 0.50 Edge distance-shear 12D 3D 0.17 For SI: 1 inch= 25.4 mm. ITue listed values are the minimum distances required to obtain the load values listed in Tables I and 2. D = nominal anchor diameter. When adjacent anchors are different sizes or embedments, use the lai:gest value for D. 2The listed values are the minimum distances at which the anchor can be set, when load values are aqjusted appropriately. 3Load values in the tables are multiplied by the reduction factor when anchors are installed at the minimum spacing listed. Use linear intetpolation for spacing between critical and minimum distances, Multiple reduction factors for more than one spacing or edge distance shall be calculated separately and multiplied. NOMINAL ANCHOR SIZE (Inch) l/4 3/s l/2 sis 3/4 Finished Hex Head "' I Lenglh ldenlttic81ion 0 TABLE 4-DRILL BIT SIZES AevarH Parabolic Thread, Ratchet Teeth Lock Head/ AglinstFlxkua / Dol(ble Lead Thread A BIT SIZE RANGE (Inch) 0.255 -0.259 0.385 -0.389 0.490 -0.495 0.600 -0.605 0.720 -0.725 I .... l_ , .... _. ~-···---! FIGURE 1-POWERS WEDGE-BOLT ANCHOR DESCRIPTION AND HEAD MARKINGS Page 1 of 1 Ron Burke From: Todd Canham Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 3:03 PM To: Bob Calderon; Corrie Peffer; Ron Burke; Theresa Haupt Subject: FW: IM -Chicago Lift WILDECK JOB #17950 02/04/2005 FYI -----Original Message----- From: Orlando, Linda [mailto:Linda.Orlando@interlake.com] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 9:26 AM To: Todd Canham Subject: IM -Chicago Lift Todd- Please do not deliver the VRC lift to Iron Mountain in Chicago, IL prior to 3/14/05. The delivery can be made during the week of 3/14/05 but the installers will not be on site until 4:00pm each day. They are working the second shift. Please make sure the freight company does not deliver until after 4:00pm. Please call with any questions. Thank you for your help. Linda Orlando Interlake Material Handling, Inc 630-245-8922 JUN-24-2005 FRI 10:00 AM Wi !deck, Inc. FAX NO. 2625497703 Wildeck, Inc. Modern Postcard Wildeck SO # l 7866 Guardrail Calculations Check½" 0.0. x 14 ga. HSLA tubing/ FY = 60ksi Fb(all) = 0.66Fy = 0.66(60):: 39.6 ksi Page 1 of 1 Loading= 200 lbs Maximwn Upright Spacing= 8'-0" center to center (7'-9" clear) S · = 0.098175((1.Sin)* -(l.334 in) 4 )= 0.1241 in3 X(tubms) l 5 , .m F = 0.2kipsx7.75ftx12in/ft _ 37 Sksi ··t,(n~I) 4x0.124lin3 • 37.5 lcsi is less than 39.6bi, therefore-OK.. C1hcd-:. 2-1/2" x 2-1/2" x i/81 ' I ISS Upright Fv =46ksi Fb(nll> =0.66FY :::0.66(46)= 30.36ksi Height of Uplight = 54 in s X of tube = 0. 798 in 3 Loading = 200 lbs .. F .· ... ·.·.· C. 200 lbs X sit{ · ... 1'3·,"53·. 1 ·: ::f "'':::" .. -: .. _:-;;,,7,,;:·' -------· 1CS1' • b(nct) -0.798 in :i -• ,,"' '-,"' 13.53 ksi is less than 30.36 lcsi, therefore -OK. P. 02 • ... ~ t ... ,. t ,.. \,. BY ......... Q: .... Qr.J~~J~~ .. .. DATE ... ~.:. ~ . .-.0..~~ ......... . SUBJECT. ........................ . M () /)tY/4.IV ,::::;::.-a,q/) RACK DESIGN & ENGINEERING Co. 412 WEST BROADWAY, St11TE #204 GLENDALE, CA. 91204 TEL:(816)240-3810 FAX:(818)240-5813 I '11$ Fl'l1~,!ll)IJ'1 ,iv. ·M~!JJM,, GA, ,'.-;" s1.4'> '-fllbO f'Jc \O"ll'\',I l'iF r&l1r.. SHEET NO .................... . JOB NO ........................ . M..-(!2,_).z..K (QW )lf"I. 'f/C.7 H-ir, /'r. -.:r ' ! ... : . ,' ·.' IJJ~r 2" ,, l.~ I<-! I --"( ------=::-======= i.. ~ J"9,,3 ,#! /'l x: s} .,. 4;,o.r €. 'ft~,/'911.s-"'" c;,q ~5, ( l·b/v~.;::; fol <.., ' ~ "' ! • I , , t , , 1, > • ~~-• , ' ,~-. ·, r ::.-.: ' ; • I ·,~· ;' : l0/l0 39'itd N9IS3a >IO'it~ 8188-0Pl-818 si:s0 900i1901s0 -, ··;_ Western Postcard Wildeck Mezzanine Location: Carlsbad, CA Prepared For: Wildeck Mezzanines, Inc 405 Commerce St Waukesha, WI Prepared By: Peter S. Higgins And Associates Consulting Structural Engineers 30765 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 (310) 589-1781 Peter S. Higgins, S. E. Job Number 7069 February 18, 2005 This Document and the design it contains is copyright by Peter S. Higgins nd is provided as an instrument of service, and shall not be reproduced in y f the written permission of Peter S. Higgins and Associates. Notice to Building Departments If this calculation is submitted for building permit approval, it sha calculations as listed in the table of contents on the next page(s), an by all drawings listed in Section 1. All documents shall bear appropri in ink of a contrasting color with the same Job Number Reference. signed across this block. REPRODUCTIONS OF SIGNED COPIE • ~t..s •.' . <'~'" I ('"' ~ .~1,1 ~di ., --~,, ~~ ~--~ ~'IJ:it ... ;, .. ·,~f}, Pr9ject: West~fh. :Postcard February 18, 2005 PETER S. JiIGGINS AND ASSOCIATES . CONSUJ)r-INO STRTJCTU:RAL ENGINEERS l'able of Contenis Job No. 7069 Sheet ii 1 Reference Data ...................................................... ., ................................................ 1 l.\ l)rawings ....... , ........ , ......... ,,. ...... ; ....•...•.. , ........ : .......... , ............ ,. ............................. 1 1.2 Specifications, Details, S1,1pplei:pehta,ry Calculations , ........... ., ............................ 1 1.3 Lo;:tds ........ : .. : .............. : ...... : ... · ... :.-.... , ...... : ...................... , .............................. 1 1.3.1 V~rtic.al (Dead plu~ Live) ........... -............. , ..... , ...................................... 1 1 .. 3.2' -Se1s1;ruc •............•........... .-........ : .... ···:· ........•.......•....•• ; ......... :, ........ : .... ·....................... 1 2 Check.Deck ........................... , .................................................................................. 2 3.Cl\ec]c a.earns •......... .-..... , .............. ; .... · ................ · .......... , .. :;.'. .•..• ; ...................................... 2 J.l .12Cl'.? ...................... , ...................................... ; ......................................... , ... 2 3.2 W1';2x14 .. , ............... , ............ · ...................................... , ............. , .................. 2 3.2.l Tributary Width :::S 2.1 ft; Span ::; 20.5ft .. .'.: ........................................ 2 3;:2.2 Tributary Width '.f .2 ft; Sp;:tl'J, ::; '.2:S:1 ft" ........... , ......................................... 2 3.3 WJ2x16 ...................... , ............. _. .......... ; .......................... , .............................. 2 4 Check Girders ..................................... · .................................................................... 3 t! ~fl;14·::::::::::;.:~::::::::::::::·:::::,:·:,::::::::::::.:·::::·::::::::::::':::::·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ 4·.2.1 Tributary Width '.S· 2.8 ft; Span :::; 20,5 ft ., ............................. , ............... 3 4.2:2. Jribut~y Width ~ ·13 ft; SpaJJ. ~ .12.5 ft .. .. .. ... .. .. . .. .. .. .. . ..... .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . 3 4.'.2.J Tributary Width f. ft; Spart.~· :ft ...................................... , ............ , ............. 3 4;.3-Wl2x22 ..................... : .................................................... : ............................. 3 ... ~. ,t1=(=t( ........ . . . . . . . ' -"'~--~~ ---1!.!~ : ~ ' ' I ' .?i,'·f?Jl&Foraj~JM~~arp.. PrQf erti~s , .•.......•......•.....•............ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .., C 'I'-" • . > \)i> • • ' . . • I!), '·~--'" -· . ">llll \ -,.,.~"' .. j • ' • ' ,,· • I ~rco6~~r3·~!B'!$iml.s.f.c~ ,.~~ .. 1 ••• ·:: •• ·:· ........... • •••• •·•·• •• _. ........... • •• ; •••••• ··: ••••••.••••••• '........................... •.• • • 4 .\ <'l)\ ·:5-7-;,~:.: 0 t: p.nµect1ons ....... _.. ...................... · ... n ....... , .......................................... , ... 4 \_'·;" 6.1··\, tl4:"'/I)i~eter .l~olt.s·-....... : .............. , ....................... : ........................ , ..... 4 \.:'.1,,_:~.t1,';.11.;r6, t-,:2;'.3./4.'1' ·Diaineter· .Bolts · .. .-.' ......... .-....... , ... : .. , ....................•.... , .. ,........................... 4 ·.""lt·~ .. ::::UJ.:~~._.;;s . . .• "1/J>::'_l ~ ..,,.,. 7 Chec1c .Posts ......................... , ......................................... .,........... ..... . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . 5 7 .. J Load to Po~t ..... , ..... :.,.,:.:_.._. .... :._, ........... , ..... : .. .-...................... .-....................... 5 7'.2 Po&t. Properties: and ·.Capa,c1fle~ ; ...... , ............... ; ... , ....... , .•........ , ... ; ..... , .. , ............................ 5 T -: - 8· Seismjc .................... .-..... ; .. , ......... '. ........................... , .·: .... , ..• ., .......... .... . .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. . 5 8.1 .. Base.Shear ................ , ............... : ...... , ... --:.,·, ....... :,.: .....•. , .............................. , .. 5 8.2 -;l)esign:·Forces, .......... , .•. : .. ·: :· ...... · •............... ~: .. ; :, .. , ........... , .............................................. · 5 -S.3 Post·,,. Combined Stresses .......... , .......................................................................... 5 8.4 Base ·Plate ................................... , ........... · ........................ -.... : ........................ 6 Copyright ®'.by P~ter ~. Higgih:s,and Associ~fes' .. Prc:rvided \1S an instrument of'service. · · . . .Copying by written peri;riissiort, oj!ly.:., .·· · · . . · · · ,:f·Sl/1 f.t:'f ';it ·, ,, -~ . ., ,"; ',•· .. '~,'i'#"".i,,,1J; .. ,.~~ ,-p;: ·~ '' • .\ ¢1•1j} ~i -lf":~ .. .r ~"'·\·· : i ~ I_ .\.ctoi41i, .I$ 4;.-_ -~ i..... .; -,,~ t L• -,.--t 7:.::,~~ ~-:> og ,....-1°:.._ \,' • , • .t..,~tf '~,,or,..,, ~( ,I; ' ,, 1 -i I Project: Western Postcard February 18, 2005 1 Reference Data PETER S. IDGGINS AND ASSOCIATES CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Job No. 7069 Sheet 1 This calculation reviews the installation of new mezzanine for structural adequacy. The sealing of drawings is for the structural review of the mezzanine only. Other information is not reviewed, nor approved. Wildeck Mezzanines, Inc. is a City of Los Angeles Certified Fabricator (#1433). 1.1 Drawings Wildeck 17866 Sheet 1 Of 2 Rev. 2 Sheet 2 Of 2 Rev. 1 1.2 Specifications, Details, Supplementary Calculations Wildeck 22 sheets (8½xll) 1.3 Loads 1.3.1 Vertical (Dead plus Live) DL = 10 psf; LL= 125 psf 1.3.2 Seismic 0.8ZNJ Cul 2.5Cal O.llCaIW~---W~V=-W~---W Where: For default soils: Ca= 0.44Na Cv= 0.64Nv I= 1.00 1.0<Na= <1.5 l.0<Nv= <2.0 Z =-0.4 - Substitution yields: R RT R R = 4.5 (Note: conservatively this analysis assumes the total OTM is resisted at the base plate-the top beam to post moment connections are conservatively ignored) For working stress designs: R = (1.4)(4.5) = 6.3 T = Structure Period (sec) W = DL + applicable portions of LL 0.082N u 0.035NaW~0.041NuW~V= T W~0.140NaW For sites distant from major faults: Na= Nv = 1.0: Substitution yields: o.o4sw::::;v= 0 ·102w:::;o.175W T T may be determined by any rational method. Copyright © by Peter S. Higgins and Associates. Provided as an instrument of service. Copying by written permission only. ··pJtrER S. HIGGINS AND ASSOCIATES CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGIN~ERS Project: Western Postcard February 18, 2005 2. Check .beck Max Span ~ 4.1 ft; M ~ Q.28 ft kips/ft; Simn·= 0.17 in3/ft Any 1 ½ deck AMPLE 3 Check Beams ·3.112C12 · Ttibutaj°y· 'Width < 3 ft; ·span < 15 ft ,. '' -- Design ·Forces and Requirements w ·:::; 0.41 kips/ft V < 3.04kips M ~ U.4 foot kips S~= 4.56 in3 Ixnun:;= 19 .. 6 ih4 {LL/240) ' . , 3.2,W12x14 . 3.2.1 Tributary Width <2.1 ft; Span <~0.5 ft .Design Forces and Requirements w s; 0.28' ldps/ft V ~ 2.91 l~i'.ps M ~ 14.9 foot Rips. Sxmin= 5.96 in3 . Ixmin~ 35.l in4,(LL/240) 3.2~2 'Ftibutary Width ·<2 ft; Span <2~.1 ft. _nesign Forces and Re,Jtiiremelits w ~ 0.,27 kips/rt . V ~ 3.39kips M ~ 21.3 foot kips Sxnun == 8.51 in3 I~mµi= 561.3 in4 (Lt/24.0) 3.3 W12x16 Tributary Width < 4 .ft; Span. < 25..1 ft. ~ . ,_ .Desi~ Forces and Requirements w · ~ 0.54 kips/ft V f. 6.78 kips M ~ 42,5 foot kips Sxmin= 17.0 in3 ~xmiµ = l23 in4 (LL/240) 12Cl2 O.K. Wl2x14 O.K. . _Wi2x14 O~K. W12x16 Say O.K. Copyright© by :I'eter S. Higgins imd Asso~iates. Provided as al). inspilrri~nt of service. Copyin1r by·written.p.ermjssibn, only. Job No. 7069 sheet 2 .'.it ... ·' PETERS. HIGGINS AND ASSOCIATES CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Project: Western Postcard February 18, 2005 4 Check Girders 4.112C12 Tributary Width :S 7 .5 ft; Span :::; 9. 8 ft Design Forces and Requirements w :S 1.01 kips/ft V :S 4.96 kips M :S 12.2 foot kips Sxmm= 4.86 in3 Ixmm= 13.7 in4 (LL/240) 4.2 W12x14 4.2.1 Tributary Width <2.8 ft; Span <20.5 ft Design Forces and Requirements w < 0.38 kips/ft V < 3.88 kips M < 19.9 foot kips Sxmfu= 7.94 in3 Ixmm= 46.8 in4 (LL/240) 4.2.2 Tributary Width <13 ft; Span < 12.5 ft Design Forces and Requirements w < 1.76 kips/ft V < 11.0 kips M < 34.3 foot kips S~= 13.7 in3 Ixmm= 49.2 in4 (LL/240) 4.2.3 Tributary Width <ft; Span < ft Design Forces and Requirements w < kips/ft V < kips M < foot kips Sxmfu= in3 Ixmin = in4 (LL/240) 4.3 W12x22 Tributary Width :S 13 ft; Span :S 18.2 ft W12x14 O.K. W12xl4 O.K. W12x14 O.K. Copyright@ by Peter S. Higgins and Associates. Provided as an instrument of service. Copying by written permission only. Job No. 7069 Sheet 3 J>ETE~ S. l:JJGGINS AND ASSOCIATES CONSULTING STlWC.'TURAL ENGWEERS project: Westefll Postcard Februru.:Y 18, 2005 Design Forces and RegU:iten:ients w ::; 1. 76 kips/ft V $ 1:6.0 ).<:ips M :5 72.3 foot kips $xmin = 29 .1 in3. · Ixi;nhl = 152 in4 (LL/240) 5_ Cold Formed B~am, P:mperties 2.511 - t 6 Connections ;6.1 3 Bolt Connections 12C12 Sx= 6.22.in3 Ix~ 37.:3 -in4 6. 1..1 1/2" Diameter Boits 3" typ ' -' ' W12:x22 Say O.K . . (net spart < 12.4 ft) R 3.5R ·V,Bolt = 3; f.1 {3qlt = T V =R)(!)?+(3·5)2 =067R l~I V 3 6 . Va= 4.TK =} If.a "7 6.1 K Job No. 7069 .Sh(;let 4" "N°Qte, Connections to· columns and other ·connections not required to resist moment have capacitie& of > 12.1 kips · · 6.1.2 3/4" Dfameter.Bolts R , V Bou=3; M'Bolt Va= ·9.2K '=9Ra = 13.7K R . - Copyrigl}t © by:·Peter S. I;Iiggjhs aµd.Associates. ):>roviqed.as an insttum:ent of service. · . · C_opying PY· written ,permission only. ·. · ' ' -., J} - Project: Western Postcard February 18, 2005 PETER S. IDGGINS AND ASSOCIATES CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Job No. 7069 Sheet 5 Note: Connections to columns and other connections not required to resist moment have capacities of > 12.1 kips 7 Check Posts 7.1 Load to Post Tributary Area < 200 ft2 . DL < 2.0 kips LL < 20.0 kips (UBC 20 % reduction) -Ptot < 22.0 kips 7.2 Post Properties and Capacities TS 7x7x3/16 A= 5.20 in2 S = 11.0in3 r = 2.77 in 8 Seismic 8.1 Base Shear Use Code Default Values V = 0.183W = 1.28k 8.2 Design Forces Kl/r = (2)(126)/2. 77 = 91 Fa= 16.1 ksi 1.33F'e= 24.1 ksi Pa= 83.8k 1.33P' e.=. 125k Mxa=.334"k Conservatively ignore moment at top connection, and distribute entire moment to the base. P < 22.ok v < 1.2sk -- M < VH = (1.28)(126) = 161 °k 8.3 Post -Combined Stresses = 0. 75 ~ 1.33 O.K. Copyright© by Peter S. Higgins and Associates. Provided as an instrument of service. Copying by written permission only. ' /. /· ' t . ; Project: Western Postcard FeQruary 18·, 2005 SA Base Plate p MJ e .'t'.11 PETER, ,S. ffiG-GINS AND ASSOCIATES ·CONSULTING STRU(iTl;JRAL .ENGINEERS P 0.85M -p··. +( ,.· ;; )'. a· 1-·-·-· M . . ·. . . , l.33'P.: . · a = O. 77 < 1.33 O.K. From equilibrium: ·(D')(e)(Q.85f' c)= P+ T !JJJ] ·0.85f"' c: (w )··. (W-e)· 'tP+T 0 ··o·· ' . . ' · 3/8'· ,PL 0, 0 j: VI . · .. , T=O Stable under vertical load alone . Anchors prov.ide·.added Factor of Safety Use min. 1/2" diam. apprqved anchors. Minimum en;ibedment ·3 ;O" into ·shib, ' -2· -d { !) + . 2 ( P + T) = M For: W ·= 16.in D = 16in a = L5 in Siniultaneo-qs solution yields: e = 0.81 in. T = 0 ki,ps . Stability limited by ben'dihg in plate . J?.M·~ P(~~ )+ (l .3.3)(0-.75)(36)Dt ::,:: 293 inch kips Copyright 11<. )Jy Pe\er s'. Higgif!s ;nd As~ocfat~s. Provjd~d as·,a~ .fnstni~ent pf se;vice, · Cppying_by wri.tten permission.9nly. · · Job No. 7069 · ·. Sheet 6 , :· ... ) .~· ,, ''-• . ' . ' ; . ~ .~··,,~ ~'¥· . ,~ ' J -~ Geotechrtic s ~ Incorpor~ted May 4, 2001 Principals: Anthony F. Belfast Michael P. Imbriglio W. Lee Vanderhurst The Iris Group 1675 Faraday Avenue Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 · Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Steve Hoffman SUBJECT: REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Parking Garage and Addition to the Iris Group Building Carlsbad Research Center, Lot 107 Carlsbad, California Gentlemen: The following report presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of our geotechnical investigation of the subject site. In general, our findings indicate that the subject site is underlain by compacted fill and volcanic rock that are considered suitable to support the proposed structures, providing that the recommended site preparation is performed. There were no unusual or special conditions apparent in our investigation which would preclude development as planned. 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK The pm:pose of our investigation was to evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions at the site as they relate to the proposed improvements, and to make recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of site preparation and grading, design of the proposed foundations, retaining walls, and slabs, and the construction of pavements. The recommendations contained herein are based on a surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and professional experience in the general site area. Design values may include presumptive parameters based on professional judgement. Our scope of work included the following. 9245 Activity Rd .• Ste. 103 • San m,,o, Califo.-nla 92~.· · .. _, _____ _ Phont> IX~~) :'-'16-10011 • Fa, tX:,81 _:;,r,_i;JJ 1 ,f ·--·- The Iris Group May 4, 2001 Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 Pae 2 1.1 Review of available geologic literature and geotechnical reports related to general conditions at the subject site. 1.2 A visual reconnaissance and subsurface exploration of the site consisting of the drilling of seven borings with a truck mounted drill rig, using an eight inch hollow stem·flight auger. Bulk, disturbed, and relatively undisturbed samples were collected for laboratory testing. 1.3 Laboratory testing of selected samples collected during the subsurface exploration. Testing was intended to assist in characterizing soil behavior and assessing pertinent · engineering P._toperties. 1.4 Assessment of general geologic hazards and seismic conditions affecting the site area, and their likely impact on the project. 1.5 Engineering analysis for the development of recommendations for site preparation, earthwork construction, foundation design, on-grade slabs, site drainage, earth retaining structures, slope stability, and pavement design. 1.6 Preparation of this report which summarizes our findings, conclusions and recommendations. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The site consists of an irregularly shaped commercial lot, with a rough graded pad area which averages roughly 300 feet in width and 500 feet in length. The site is located south of Faraday A venue in the Carlsbad Research Center in Carlsbad, California as shown in the Site Location Map: Figure 1. The site is bordered on the east by Lot 108 of the Carlsbad Research Center, which is essentially at the same grade as the subject site. The existing Iris Group building and pavement areas are situated on Lot 108. A variable 2: 1 (horizbntal:vertical) cut slope with a maximum height of approximately 15 feet descends to Lot 106 along the western edge of the site. An approximately 30 foot high 2: 1 slope descends to Faraday A venue along the northern edge of the site. The southern ·portion of the lot contains an approximately 80 foot high 2 ½: 1 variable cut slope which descends to a landscaped detention basin. Geotechnics Incorporated ,11;1(1 I //fOION/1,1 1.-l!iOOII .... ,· --·-.... ~~ ... ._ ~··" ·; ~ ... ~-~ i ·.·.·:·· . / ,-., \ r--------·,------\ _, ' PALl!JMAR '-/ ,_,. --, ,_ .... (J -~!) .5 .75 1.0 !·-·----------! Miles .5 1.0 a.... Geotechnics -•••••~.;__Inc or po rated l<llu111cl crs .... ----------.... ........ ----- SITE / / / .Coo' ,.,,.,~, . '..L \ \ \ N -~·1·'1" .:.;.., ·-.(~ '-·O ~-r· . ',, · .. ,· ' -t. ,__ ~~~~ • \ ,.,, i!;,\ 0 ---'< \-~!l.· -~~_;~!!L'!!!:!flU ( ---·-· ?I SITE LOCATION MAP I I I \ I -., \ \./-") 'j\l '-I '-,.,--].'------.. ~-I ~ / , I I ?2 -\t-/ ', ( L. I. I u ?/ ' ', ADAPTED FROM THE 1995 THOMAS BROTHERS GUIDE Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 FIGURE 1 I' --The Iris Group May 4, 2001 Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 Page 3 Elevations of the existing building pad area are between approximately 255 and 265 feet above sea level. Surface runoff is directed by sheet flow at approximately a I½ percent gradient to a desilting basin located in the northwest comer of the pad. Minor erosion of the building pad area is evident near the desilting basin. Vegetation on site includes scattered light weeds in the building pad area, chaparral in the natural slope area, and relatively well established landscaping on the sfope which borders Faraday Avenue. The property is currently vacant. The approximate layout of the site is shown in the Site Plan, Plate 1 . . 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT -~f .. '.t <: . . · ' -7 ·: ,, . :·---;__·, ~-._ ·-, .. ' ., .. ... ,, It is our understanding that development will consist of the construction of a single story addition to the existing Iris Group Building, a two story concrete parking garage, and associated parking areas, driveways, and underground utilities. The 68,000 ft2 building addition is anticipated to be of tilt-up concrete construction with a conventional slab-on-grade and shallow foundations. We anticipate that the 30,000 ft2 parking garage will be constructed using reinforced and/or prestressed concrete and mason_ry. Preliminary development plans indicate that minor grading will be conducted at the site. Roughly four to six feet of excavation will be necessary to attain the parking garage subgrade elevations, and up to four feet of fill will be required to attain pad grade under the proposed building addition, assuming that the same pad elevation is used for the addition as the existing structure (265 feet). The layout of the proposed structures is shown on the Site Plan, Plate I. 4.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The Carlsbad Resear~h Center is located within the coastal plain section of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province of California. The coastal plain is characterized by subdued landforms underlain by sedimentary formations. Within the Carlsbad Research Center, one may encounter Jurassic age volcanic rock as well as a variety of Cretaceous and Eocene age claystones, siltstones and sandstones. Our subsurface investigation indicates that the subject site is underlain at depth by the Jurassic age Santiago Peak Volcanic rock, covered with a variable depth of compacted fill. The approxinia:e locations of the explorato_ry borings made for our investigation are shown on the Site Plan, Plate 1. Logs of the explorations are given in the figures of Appendix B. The specific units encountered in our investigation are discussed below. Geotechnics Incorporated -The Iris Group May 4, 2001 4.1 Santiago Peak Volcanics (Jsp) Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. l-0502 Pa e4 The Santiago Peak Volcanics were observed in exposures on the cut slope along the southern portion of the lot, as well as in all of the exploratory borings. The volcanic rock underlies the entire site at depth. Santiago Peak Volcanics, as observed on site, typically consist of a mildly metamorphosed metavolcanic rock. The material exposed in the cut slope was highly jointed, with clay filled joints. This material is dry to moist, very dense, and has a low to medium plasticity when weathered to a soil. Auger cuttings from the weathered volcanic rock ranged from a clayey sand with gravel (SC) to a clayey gravel with sand (GC). '\ .... -·::. Fill was encountered during our subsurface exploration in all of the borings to a maximum depth of 1 O½ feet. The fill was apparently derived from the Santiago Formation, the Santiago Peak Volcanics, and associated alluvium. Fill materials varied considerably based on their source. The predominant fill materials observed in our subsurface investigation ranged from a clayey sand (SC) to a sandy clay (CL) with gravel sized rock fragments. The fill contained considerable amounts of hard, angular, metavolcanic rocks of up to 3 inches or more in diameter, which were derived from the Santiago Peak Volcanics. The sand was generally fine to medium grained, and had a medium plasticity. The fill was generally brown to olive brown in color, although red, gray, orange and purple claystone and siltstone inclusions were also observed. The fill was typically dry to moist, with increasing moisture at depth, and medium dense to dense in consistency. Prior to mass grading of the site, the building area of the lot was underlain primarily by Santiago Peak Volcanic rock. Grading operations consisted of excavating and blasting the rock in high areas, and placing it as a compacted fill in the lower areas of the site. The cut/fill transition in the building pad area created by these operations was treated by blasting and over-excavating the metavolcanic rock to a depth of approximately four to five feet below the final pad elevations. A maximum of approximately 20 feet of fill was placed on the lot during the grading operations (in the area of the desilting basin). The Site Plan, Plate 1, indicates the location of the transition from shallow to deep fill, where shallow fill would _ be that created by over-excavating the volcanic rock four to five feet below finish grade. In· addition, contours of the natural topography (prior to remedial excavations) are also shown in the deeper fill areas, based on the referenced as-graded report (Geotechnics, 1994). Geotechnics Incorporated The Iris Group May 4. 2001 4.3 Groundwater Project No. 065-1-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 Page 5 No seepage or groundwater was observed in our investigation. However, changes in rainfall or site drainage could produce seepage or locally perched groundwater conditions within the soil or bedrock underlying the site. It should be recognized that excessive irrigation on the project site could also cause perched groundwater conditions to develop at some future date. This typically occurs at underlying contacts with less permeable materials, such as the interface that exists between the fill and the underlying volcanic rock. Since the prediction of such conditions is not possible, they are typically mitiiat~d if and when they occur .. . ·:. 5.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The subject site is not located within an area previously known for significant geologic hazards. Seismic hazards at the site are anticipated to be caused by ground shaking from distant active faults. The nearest active fault is within the Rose Canyon fault zone, approximately 5 miles west of the site. 5.1 Seismicity According to the program TOPO!, the centroid of the subject site is located at a latitude of 33.1382° north, and a longitude of 117.2921 ° west. The Fault Location Map, Figure 2, shows the locations of known active faults within a 100 km radius of the site. Table 1 summarizes the properties of these faults. The values presented in Table 1 were developed using the program EQFAULT and supporting documentation (Blake, 1998). In order to provide an estimate of the potential peak ground acceleration that structures founded at the site may experience in time, the program FRISKSP was used perform a probabilistic analysis of seismicity. The analysis was conducted using the characteristic · earthquake distribution of Youngs and Coopersmith (1985). Based on the results of the probabilistic analysis, the Design Basis Earthquake is 0.29g (the Design Basis Earthquake is the peak ground acceleration that has al O percent probability of exceeded in 50 years). Design of structures should comply with the requirements of the governing jurisdictions, building codes and standard practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of California. Seismic design parameters for use with the 1997 Uniform Building Code are provided in the foundation section of this report. Geotechnics Incorporated I. r ~· . .\ a <O .... .... Geotechnics Incorporated . ,._ ... ... ~' 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 ---"·-SCALE + ~ ~~+ ~'f~+.c, ~ <,.. -1~ .... 0 ~~ :.:.._; -1av ..........:-4 BL"-Nc '\. ~' io ... ... .... _ Modified from Anderson, Rockwell, Agnew, 1989 FAULT LOCATION MAP Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 FIGURE2 I,-,.: DISTANCE MAX. CRED.6 MAX. CRED.6 l · ESTIMATED ESIMATED ESIMATE0 FAULT1 I TO SITE DETERMINISTIC MOMENT FAULT AREA4 SHEAR MOD.4 SLIP RATE4 [KM] PGA2 MAGNITUDE3 .. .. [CM2) [DYNE/CM2] [MMNEAR] ,. Rose Canyon 9 0.37 7.0 :_ . 1.13E+13 3.30E+11 1.50 Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 16 0.26 7.1 1.60E+13 3.30E+11 1.20 La Nacion5 36 0.11 6.5 4.76E+12 3.30E+11 0.05 Coronado Banks-Agua Blanca 36 0.17 7.5 . 5.78E+13 3.30E+11 3.00 Elsinore 38 0.16 7.5 3.00E+13 3.30E+11 5.00 San Diego Trough-Bahia Soledad 51 0.12 7.5 3.00E+13 3.30E+11 2.00 Catalina Escarpment 61 0.07 7.0 2.55E+13 3.30E+11 1.00 Palos Verdes Hills 71 0.07 7.2 1.30E+13 3.30E+11 3.00 San Jacinto (Casa Loma-Clark) 75 0.05 7.0 · 1..;50E+13 3.30E+11 12.00 Chino 77 0.06 7.0 · :·_ 9.95E+12 3.30E+11 1.00 Compton-Los Alamitos 77 0.17 7.2 _ '.1, 11 E+13 3.60E+11 1.40 San Clemente-San Isidro 89 0.09 8.0 6.00E+13 3.30E+11 4.00 San Gorgonio-Banning 97 0.07 7.5 1.53E+13 3.30E+11 10.00 1. Fault activity determined by Blake (1998), CDMG (1992), Wesnousky (1986), and Jennings (1975). 2. Peak horizontal ground accelerations from Idriss (1994) for Rock or Stiff Soil Sites for the l\4aximum Credible Earthquake. 3. Magnitudes determined from Blake (1998), OSHPD (1995), Mualchin and Jones (1992), Wesnousky (1986) and Anderson (1984). 4. Estimated fault area, shear modulus, and slip rate after fault dat_a for EQFAULT and FRISKSP, Blake (1998). 5. The La Nacion is considered to be "Potentially Active", and does not apply to noncritical structures. 6. The Maximum Credible Earthquake is defined as the maximum earthquake that appears. capable of occuring under the known tectonic framework. Geotechnics . Incorporated ' REGIONAL SEISMIClTY Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 TABLE 1 The Iris Group May 4, 2001 5.2 Ground Rupture 1 , , • ·' 1,1 ·,,. < ., 1jl, .:, Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 Page 6 Evidence of active faulting was not observed at the site during mass grading. Accordingly, ground rupture is not considered to be a significant geologic hazard at the site. 5.3 Liquefaction Liquefiable soil typically consists of cohesionless sands and silts that are loose to medium dense, and saturated. To liquefy, these soils must be subjected to a grounq shaking of .. -sufficient magnitude and dur~tio11. Gi;en' the· relati-v~i~ d~nse and clayey ~ature of the . : -. ·subsurface materiais, and the absence of a groundwater table, the potential for liquefaction is considered to be negligible. 5.4 Landslides and Lateral Spreads Ancient landslides were not found during grading of the site, and the slopes are believed to be stable with regard to deep seated failure. However, all slopes may be susceptible to shallow slope failure given saturation of the slope face. Recommendations are provided in the following sections of the report which will help to reduce the potential for future slope instabilities. These recommendations focus on irrigation control, and landscape planting. 5.5 Tsunamis, Seiches, Earthquake Induced Flooding The distance between the subject site and the coast, and the sites elevation above sea level, preclude damage due to seismically induced waves (tsunamis). All nearby bodies of water of significant size are located below the subject site. Consequently, earthquake induced flooding is not anticipated to be a potential hazard. Geotechnics Jncorporated . ' --·-----=------------------------- The Iris Group May 4, 2001 Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 Pae 7 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the following recommendations and appropriate construction practices are followed. No geotechnical conditions were encountered that would preclude construction. However, some geotechnical considerations exist which should be addressed. ~ • There are no known active faults underlying the project site. The most likely seismic hazards at the site would be associated with significant grou~d shaking from an event centered within ··the nearby Rose Canyon Fault Zone. · · • Evidence of existing slope instabilities, or landslides, was not encountered during this investigation. Our analysis indicates that the existing slopes on site are stable with regard to deep seated failure. However, surface water flow and/or seepage will increase the potential for surficial slope failures and erosion. Therefore, measures should be implemented in order to improve and maintain the drainage of the site. "'• The on-site fill soils include moderately expansive clays. Expansive materials placed within the building slab or sidewalk subgrade may cause differential movement and cracking if appropriate measures are not employed. Alternative recommendations are provided in this report to mitigate the hazards associated with expansive materials. The proposed parking garage slab-on-grade will be situated deep enough (about 5 feet) to effectively mitigate seasonal moisture fluctuations and expansive soil heave in that area. ~ • The proposed parking garage will be underlain by a transition from medium dense fill to very dense volcanic rock. Transitions of this nature below foundations and slabs are not recommended due to the different settlement characteristics of the materials, and the resulting potential for differential movements and cracking. We have provided alternative recommendations for mitigation of the cut/fill transition beneath the parking garage, including the use of remedial grading or deepened foundations. • The surficial 12 inches of fill throughout the site was moderately weathered at the time of --· . this investigation. This material is considered to be compressible, and should be scarified and compacted throughout the building and improvement areas. Geotechnics Incorporated The Iris Group May 4. 2001 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Project No. 0651-001-00 · Document No. 1-0502 Page 8 The remainder of this report presents specific recommendations regarding earthwork construction and foundation design. These recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard of practice in southern Ca_lifomia. If these recommendations appear not to cover any specific feature of the project, please contact our office for additions or revisions to the recommendations. ,. 0 7 .1 Plan Review ·-We reconimend that foundation and grading pi~ns .be 0 r.eviewed by Geotechnics Jncorpotated prior to plan finalization to evaluate conformance with the intent of the recommendations of this report. 7.2 Excavation and Grading Observation Foundation excavations and site grading excavations should be observed by Geotechnics Incorporated. Geotechnics Incorporated should provide observation and testing services continuously during grading. Such observations are considered essential to identify field conditions that differ from those anticipated by the preliminary investigation, to adjust designs to actual field conditions, and to determine that the grading is acco,!11plished in general accordance with the recommendations of this report. Recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon Geotechnics Incorporated performing such services. Our personnel should perform sufficient testing of fill during grading to support our professional opinion as to compliance with compaction recommendations. 7.3 Site Preparation Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the Grading Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad and Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. The following recommendations are provided regarding aspects of the proposed earthwork construction. These recommendations should be considered subject to revision based on field conditions observed by the geotechnical consultant. Geotechnics Incorporated The Iris Group May 4, 2001 Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 Pae 9 7 .3 .1 General: General site preparation should include the removal of deleterious materials, existing structures or other improvements from areas to be subjected to fill or structural loads. Deleterious materials includes vegetation, trash, construction debris, and rock fragments with greatest dimensions in excess of 6 inches. Existing subsurface utilities that are to be abandoned should be removed and the trenches backfilled and compacted as described in Section 7.3.6. 7.3.2 Desiltation Basin: A temporary desiltation basin was constructed during rough grading of the subject site in the northwest comer of the pad. Soft sediments have accumulated ~itliin the basins-ihce initial ~om;truction. ~JI soft sediments within the basin should be repi.oved to a depth w~ere comr~t-~nt fill material is encountered. The entire excavation should then be brought up to finish surface grade with compacted fill as discussed in Section 7.3.6. 7.3.3 Improvement Areas: Due to the effects of weathering, the upper 12 inches of the near surface soils throughout the site are considered potentially compressible. Consequently, in all areas of planned improvements, including the proposed building, pavement, and exterior flatwork areas, the surficial 12 inches of soil should be scarified, brought to above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with Section 7.3.6. 7.3.4 Building Addition: Our investigation and previous site experience indicates that the area of the proposed building addition is currently underlain by a relatively uniform depth of gravelly fill soil with a low potential for expansion. We anticipate that the addition will eventually be underlain by between 4 and 8 feet of compacted fill once finish grade is attained. In order to maintain uniform conditions between the existing structure and proposed addition, the fill soils placed within the area of the proposed building addition should have a low expansion potential based on UBC criteria. Laboratory expansion index testing should be conducted during grading to confirm that the proposed fill soils meet this criteria (E.I. < 50). For a building addition that is underlain by soils with a low potential for expansion, the foundation recommendations presented in Section 7.4.1 would apply. However, it should be noted that soils generated from the excavation for the parking garage are anticipated to be moderately to highly expansive. Consequently, this alternative may require the use of select non-expansive import materials. Geotechnics Incorporated The Iris Group May 4, 2001 _____________ , Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 Pae 10 If moderately expansive on-site soils (E.I. < 90) are used to fill the area beneath the proposed building addition, then we recommend that the entire building addition area be over-excavated to a depth of 4 feet below proposed finish subgrade elevation. Where possible, the over-excavation envelope should extend a minimum of 5 feet horizontally beyond the proposed building addition envelope. The excavated soil and proposed fill should be thoroughly mixed to provide a uniform expansion potential, and then placed as a compacted fill at a moisture content that is at least four percentage points above optimum moisture based on ASTM D 1557. The moisture content should be maintained by perio~i~ ~etting until immedjately prior to placing the foundations and sla:bs.: The geotechnical_ consultant should test the slab subgrade elevations immediately prior to. exc~vatioh o·f foundations, in order to determine if additional remedial earthwork may be necessary. Note that the foundation recommendations provided in Section 7.4.2 would apply in this case. 7.3 .5 Parking Garage: The proposed parking garage will be directly underlain by a transition between very dense metavolcanic rock and up to 18 feet of compacted fill. It is our understanding that the garage slab and foundations will be situated five feet or more below existing and finish grade (below the most active zone of soil heave). Consequently, no measures are considered necessary to mitigate soil expansion in the garage area. However, transitions between compressible fills and hard rock are not recommended due to the differential settlement characteristics of these materials, and the potential for differential movement and cracking. In order to reduce the potential for distress due to differential settlement, the cut portion of the parking garage could be over-excavated to a depth of 9 feet below proposed finish sub grade elevation. The excavation could then be filled with the excavated material or an imported soil. The foundation recommendations given in Section 7.4.3 would apply to this case. It should be noted that the excavated material will generally consist of hard rock that may need to be blasted, broken down, or crushed to a size suitable for incorporation into compacted fill (less than 6 inches in greatest dimension). As an alternative to remedial grading, the parking garage structure could be supported entirely on deepened foundations bearing on metavolcanic rock. This would require the use of grade beams with drilled piers up to 20 feet deep near the desiltation basin. In this case, the on-grade garage slab should be completely isolated from the structure, to allow for some movement and cracking along the control joints. Recommendations for deep foundations for the parking garage are provided in Section 7.4.4. Geotechnics Incorporated I I The Iris Group May 4, 2001 I I I ':t • •• , . Project No. 0651-001-00- Document No. 1-0502 Page ll 7.3.6 Fill Compaction: All fill and backfill to be placed in association with site development should be accomplished at slightly over optimum moisture conditions and using equipment that is capable of producing a uniformly compacted product. Rocks greater than 6 inches in greatest dimension should not be placed in fill. This may require extra ripping effort or crushing to break down excavated materials to a size suitable for incorporation into compacted fill. The minimum relative compaction recommended for fill is 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Dl557-91. Sufficient observation and testing should be performed by Geotechnics Incorporated so that an opinion can be rendered as to the compaction achieved. . . . During grading_ operations, soil types otber than these analyzed in the geotechnical reports may be encountered by the contractor. Geotechnics should be notified to evaluate the suitability of these soils for use as fill and as finish grade soils. Imported fill sources, if needed, should be observed prior to hauling onto the site to determine the suitability for use. Representative samples of imported materials and on site soils should be tested by Geotechnics in order to evaluate their appropriate engineering properties for the planned use. Imported fill soils should have an expansion index of no more than 50 based on ASTM D4829. 7.3.7 Temporary Excavations: Temporary excavations should conform with Cal- OSHA guidelines. Temporary excavations in fill and formational materials should be inclined no steeper than 1: 1 for heights up to 10 feet. Temporary excavations that encounter seepage or other potentially adverse conditions should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant on a case-by-case basis during grading. Remedial measures may include shoring, or reducing slope inclinations. 7.3.8 Slopes: A variety of slopes exist throughout the site, with inclinations no steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical). Our analysis indicates that these slopes are stable with regard to deep seated failure with a factor of safety greater than 1.5, which is the generally accepted safety factor. However, the potential may exist for shallow slope failures. In 1995, Geotechnics Incorporated observed and provided recommendations for repair of an approximately 3 foot deep surficial slope failure that occurred on the fill slope north of Lot 108 due to a broken irrigation line. Additional recommendations regarding this failure can be found in the referenced geotechnical report (Geotechnics, 1995). Geotechnics Incorporated I I I I I I · I I I The Iris Group May 4, 2001 Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 Page 12 In general, the potential for surficial slope failure will be increased by saturation of the slope face and the resulting seepage forces. 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 slopes. Diversion structures should be provided where necessary. Surface runoff should be confined to gunite-lined swales or other appropriate devices 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. We recommend that vegetation include woody plants, along with ground cover. All plants should be adapted for growth in semi:-arid climates with little or no irrigation. A landscape ar9hitect should be consulted regarding the specific-p1anting·palate suitable for slope stabili_zation. 7.3.9 Surface Drainage: Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how well the runoff waters drain from the site. This is true both during construction and over the entire life of the structure. The ground surface around structures should be graded so that water flows rapidly away from the structures without ponding. The surface gradient needed to achieve this depends on the prevailing landscape. In general, we recommend that pavement and lawn areas within five feet of buildings slope away at gradients of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas should have minimum gradients of at least five percent away from buildings in the first five feet. Densely vegetated areas are considered those in which the planting type and spacing is such that the flow of water is impeded. Planters should be built so that water from them will not seep into the foundation, slab, or pavement areas. Roof drainage should be channeled by pipe to storm drains, or discharge at least 10 feet from building lines. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain landscaping plants. Should excessive irrigation, surface water intrusion, water line breaks, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones or "perched" groundwater may develop in the underlying soils. 7.4 Foundation Recommendations The following recommendations are considered generally consistent with methods typically used in southern California. Other alternatives may be available. The foundation recommendations presented herein should be considered minimum criteria, and should not preclude more restrictive criteria of governing agencies or the structural engineer. Geotechnics Incorporated I The Iris Group May 4, 2001 Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 Page 13 The design of the foundation system should be performed by the project structural engineer, incorporating the geotechnical parameters described in the following sections. Alternative foundation recommendations are provided for both structures, depending upon the remedial grading option chosen, as discussed in Sections 7.3.4 and 7.3.5. For the proposed building addition, new slabs and/or foundations should be doweled into the existing structure where they adjoin. Doweling should be designed by the project structural engineer. Some settlement and/or cracking should be anticipated as the new loads are distributed into the soil. The potential for settlement and cracking may be reduced by providing new foundations to carry additional loads rather than,transmitting new lmids through the existing footings. ,,· __ ~-:-~:,;.-,.:'..(_,·~<t ;:,·.-·' ,;.,;,;, ' ' -, -" _-.. _;·-·."_··-. ~ 7.4.1 Building Addition (Low Expansion): Th; f~Ilowing recommendations are considered appropriate if the building addition is underlain by a relatively uniform depth of fill material that has a low potential for expansion. As discussed in Section 7.3.4, the "non-expansive" cap may consist of an imported soil, or on-site gravelly soil that meets the expansion criteria. Laboratory testing should be conducted to confirm that the expansion index of the subgrade soils does not exceed 50. Allowable Soil Bearing: 2,500 psf (allow a one-third increase for short-term wind or seismic loads). Minimum Footing Width: 12 inches. Minimum Footing Depth: 24 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade. Minimum Reinforcement: Two No. 4 bars at both top and bottom in continuous footings. Subgrade Modulus: 200 lbs/in3 Slab-on-Grade: Slabs should be at least 6 inches thick, and reinforced with at least No. 3 bars on 18-inch centers, each way. 7.4.2 Building Addition (Moisture Treatment): The following recommendations are considered appropriate for the building addition in the event that moisture treated on- . . . site clayey soils are used, as discussed in the second paragraph of Section 7.3 .4. In order to reduce the potential for cracking and distress, heavier reinforcement is proposed if the structure is founded on these soil conditions. Geotechnics Incorporated .. ~ ' 't ' ~ . -' .. The Iris Group Project No. 0651-001-00 May 4. 200 I Document No. 1-0502 Pae 14 Allowable Soil Bearing: 2,000 psf (allow a one-third increase for short-term wind or seismic loads). Minimum Footing Width: 12 inches. Minimum Footing Depth: 30 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade. Minimum Reinforcement: Two No. 5 bars at both top and bottom in continuous footings. Subgrade Modulus: . . . Sl~b-on-Grade: ~ ,l.. • ,_ '' 120 lbs/in3 Slabs sho~ld be at least 6 irich~s thick, and reirif creed with at feast No. 3 bars on 12-inch centers, each way. 7.4.3 Parking Garage (Shallow Foundations): Shallow foundations may be used for the proposed parking garage, provided that the remedial grading discussed in Section 7.3.5 is conducted. These recommendations assume that the foundations for the parking garage will be situated at least 5 feet below finish grade of the surrounding parking areas, well below the active zone of soil heave. Allowable Soil Bearing: 3,000 psf (allow a one-third increase for short-term wind or seismic loads). Minimum Footing Width: 12 inches. Minimum Footing Depth: 24 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade. Minimum Reinforcement: Two No. 4 bars at both top and bottom in continuous footings. Subgrade Modulus: 200 lbs/in3 Slab-on-Grade: Slabs should be at least 6 inches thick, and reinforced with at least No. 3 bars on 18-inch centers, each way. 7.4.4 Parking Garage (Deer, Foundations): As an alternative to remedial grading in the parking garage area, the foundations may be deepened to bear entirely on metavolcanic rock. The foundation depth required can be estimated using the topographic information on the Site Plan, Plate 1. In this case, the on-grade garage slab should be isolated from the structure to allow for differential movement. Geotechnics Incorporated .... --·, The Iris Group May 4. 2001 , •.:--.,', r ,, '! •••• -• • • • • • •• ~ ~,.: .. ~ Allowable End Bearing: Minimum Dimensions: Minimum Embedment: Reinforcement: Pier Clean-out: Pier Observation: Project No. 0651-00 J-00 Document No. 1-0502 Page 15 10,000 psf for piers founded greater than 5 feet below lowest adjacent soil grade. Allow a one-third increase for short-term wind or seismic loads. I 8 inch diameter for piers, I 2 inch width for footings. 1 foot into volcanic rock. As designed by structural engineer. Pier excavations should be cleaned of loose soil with :shifa:ole' bbring fo:ols'. : --,. : ·: -' ' - .. --· . -'• •'',' -' . The drilling of all piers should be continuously observed by Geotechnics Incorporated to determine that pier excavations are made to the proper bearing strata, and that conditions are as anticipated. 7.4.5 Lateral Loads: Lateral loads against structures may be resisted by friction between the bottoms of the footings and/or piers and the supporting soil. A coefficient of friction of0.20 is recommended. Alternatively, a passive pressure of 250 pcfis recommended for the portion of the foundations embedded into compacted fill. For piers, the passive pressure wedge may be assumed to be 3 times the pier diameter, provided that there is no overlap between adjacent piers. 7.4.6 Settlement: If the garage structure is constructed with drilled piers on volcanic rock, then settlements are expected to be negligible. Structures founded on conventional shallow foundations may experience relatively minor settlement, provided that the remedial grading recommendations presented in this report are followed. Total settlement of shallow foundations is not expected to exceed I inch, with¾ inch of differential settlement across the length of the proposed structures. 7.4. 7 Seismic Design: The subject site is situated in 1997 UBC Seismic Zone 4 (Z = 0.40). The site is underlain by shallow fill over rock. A Soil Profile Sc would apply. The Rose Canyon Fault is a Type B Seismic Source, based on the 1997 UBC criteria. The near source acceleration factor Na equals 1.0, and the velocity factor N, equals 1.04. The seismic coefficients Ca and Cv equal 0.40 and 0.58, respectively. Seismic design of structures should comply with the requirements of the governing jurisdictions and building codes. Geotechnics Incorporated -,. '· I The Iris Group May 4. 2001 Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 Page 16 7.5 On-Grade Slabs The building slab should be supported entirely by compacted fill. Slabs should be designed for the anticipated loading, using soil parameters which reflect the actual subgrade conditions, as presented in Section 7.4. Slabs should be at least 6 inches in thickness, and be reinforced as described in Section 7.4, depending upon the remedial grading conducted. U nderslab moisture protection and exterior flatwork recommendations are presented below. 7.5.1 Moisture Protection for Slabs: Concrete slabs construc;ted pn soil ultimately --.!c:ause the'tnoistute corite11t to rise i~ the ·under'.lying so·H. this res~Tts from:c~ntinued capillary rise and the terinination' of normal evapotr~~spi;atiori. Because normal concrete is permeable, the moisture will eventually penetrate the slab. Excessive moisture may cause mildewed carpets, lifting or discoloration of floor tile, or similar problems. The amount of moisture transmitted through the slab can be controlled by the use of various moisture barriers. To decrease the likelihood of problems related to damp slabs, suitable moisture protection measures should be used where moisture sensitive floor coverings or other factors warrant. The most commonly used moisture protection in southern California consists of about two to four inches of clean sand or pea gravel covered by 'visqueen' plastic sheeting. In addition, two inches of sand are placed over the plastic to decrease concrete curing problems associated with placing concrete directly on an impermeable membrane. It has been our experience that such systems will transmit from approximately 6 to 12 pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day. The project architect should review these estimated transmission rates, since these values may be excessive for some applications, such as wood or vinyl flooring. If more protection is needed, Geotechnics Incorporated should be contacted. 7.5.2 Exterior Slabs: Exterior slabs constructed directly on the expansive on site soils may experience movement and cracking. One inch of differential movement is not considered unusual, and more is possible. If such movement is unacceptable, then the potential for differential movement may be decreased by replacing the surficial 2 feet of subgrade with nonexpansive soil. Reinforcement and control joints will further reduce the cracking and movement potential. Differential movement between buildings and exterior slabs, or between sidewalks and curbs may be decreased by doweling the slabs into the foundations or curbs. Geotechnics Incorporated } The Iris Group May 4, 2001 Project No.0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 Page 17 Exterior slabs should be at least 5 inches thick, and should be reinforced with at least 6x6 W2.9/W2.9 welded wire fabric placed securely at mid-height of the section. Crack control joints should be placed on a maximum spacing of 10 feet each way for slabs, and 5 feet for sidewalks. 7.6 Expansive Soils The materials used to cap the lot generally consisted of clayey gravel with sand that has a low expansion potential based on our laboratory testing and Uniform Building Code criteria. However, the soils o~s~rved in the de@p,~r,:,:f}Us in_ the ar!:la.Qf th~ proposed parking garage included high-plasticity silts and eiayS'.-baboratory testing of these soils indicates a medium to high expansion potential, based on UBC criteria. Figure C-2 in the appendix summarizes the expansion test results. 7. 7 Reactive Soils In order to assess the reactivity of the site soils with metal pipe, the pH and resistivity of a selected soil sample was determined. In order to assess the potential for sulfate attack, the sulfate content of one soil sample was determined. The results of these laboratory tests are shown in Figure C-2. It should be noted that the soil pH is acidic. The resistivity test results suggest that the site soils are severely corrosive to metal pipes. A corrosion engineer should be contacted for specific recommendations. The sulfate test indicates that the site soils have a "moderate" sulfate content (0.15%) based on UBC criteria. The project design engineer may choose to use the test results in conjunction with Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 UBC in order to specify a suitable cement type, water cement ratio, and minimum compressive strength for concrete used on site which will be in direct contact with soil, including all foundations and slabs. However, it should be noted that the tests results presented herein represent the existing as-graded soil conditions on the subject lots. The presence of soluble sulfate in the irrigation water supply, or the use of fertilizer may cause the sulfate content in the surficial soils to increase with time. This may result in a higher sulfate exposure than that indicated by the tests reported herein. Geotcchnics Incorporated :," II ii " •I !I " The Iris Group May 4, 2001 Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 Page 18 ~ --~ ·-,,. ... --·~-~ •• -,..r. 7.8 Earth-Retaining Structures Backfilling retaining walls with highly expansive soil can increase lateral pressures well beyond normal active or at-rest pressures. We recommend that retaining walls be backfilled with soil having and expansive index of20 or less. The backfill area should include the zone defined by a 1: 1 sloping plane, back from the base of the wall. Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, based on ASTM D1557-91. Backfill should not be placed until walls have achieved adequate structural strength. Heavy compaction equipment which could cause distress to walls should not be used. '¼ '', : .... . . " -Cantilever retaining wal-ls backfilled with select granular material may be d~signed for an active earth pressure approximated by an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 lbs/ft'. The active pressure should be used for walls free to yield at the top at least 0.2 percent of the wall height. For walls restrained so that such movement is not permitted, an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 lbs/ft3 should be used, based on at-rest soil conditions with level backfill. The above pressures do not consider any surcharge loads or hydrostatic pressures. If these are applicable, they will increase the lateral pressures on the wall and we should be contacted for additional recommendations. Walls should contain an adequate subdrain to eliminate any hydrostatic forces. The recommended wall drain details are presented in Figure 3. 7.9 Pavements Alternatives are provided below for using either asphalt or Portland cement concrete pavements at the subject site. In general, the upper 12 inches of asphalt concrete pavement subgrade should be scarified, brought to about optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Any base used for the asphalt concrete pavements should also be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557. For Portland cement concrete pavements, the minimum recommended compaction is 90 percent of the maximum density. Subgrade preparation should be conducted immediately prior to the placement of the pavement section. Base should conform to the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction for crushed aggregate, crushed miscellaneous, or processed miscellaneous base. Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 400-4 of the SSPWC. Geotechnics Incorporated ..• ,--:,; ,, I -.'f: ., ROCK AND FABRIC ALTERNATIVE DAMP-PROOFING OR WATER- PROOFING AS REQUIRED MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED ROCK ENVELOPED IN FILTER FABRIC (MIFAFI 140NL, SUPAC 4NP, OR APPROVED SIMILAR) PERFORATED PIPE DAMP-PROOFING OR WATER- PROOFING AS REQUIRED ... ·. . . . < '/, . . . . -;/, : ... : : . ' ~· // --• ~ ... e.•~ ....... -•• ' ; i~. < -. ' .. •,;.t ~ .' • • ·~ ' I ,.•_, •, -· .--, ~ -. · C0MPAGTED· . B(\~F! LL_-•. 1 CU. FT. PER LINEAL FOOT OF • • · · • .(/ MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED · • PANEL DRAIN ALTERNATIVE ROCK ENVELOPED IN FILTER FABRIC. n 4-INCH DIAM. ADS OR PVC PERFORATED PIPE NOTES 1) Perforated pipe should outlet through a solid pipe to a free gravity outfall. Perforated pipe and outlet pipe should have a fall of at least 1 %. 2) As an alternative to the perforated pipe and outlet, weep holes may be included in the bottom of the · wall. Weepholes should be at least 2 inches in diameter, and be spaced no greater than 8 feet. 3) Filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N, Supac SNP, Amoco 4599, or similar approved fabric. Filter fabric should be overlapped at least 6-inches. 4) Geocomposite panel drain should consist of Miradrain 6000, J-DRain 400, Supac DS-15, or approved similar product. 5) Drain installation should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to backfilling. Geotech_nics Incorporated WALL DRAIN DETAIL Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 FIGURE 3 ... ·-----. The Iris Group May 4,2001 · Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 Page 19 7.9.1 Asphalt Concrete: Two traffic types are assumed: areas of light traffic and passenger car parking (Traffic Index = 4.5), and access drives and truck routes (Traffic Index = 6.0). The project civil engineer should review these values to determine if they are appropriate. Our previous experience with laboratory R-Value testing of the site soils indicates that an R-Value of 5 may be used for pavement design. Based on the assumed Traffic Indices and R-Value, the following pavement sections are recommended in accordance with the CAL TRANS design method. TRAFFIC ASPHALT AGGREGATE INDEX . ' ·CONCRETE, . . -.. 4.5 3 inches 8 inches 6.0 4 inches 12 inches 7.9.2 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 life. For design, it was assumed that aggregate interlock will be used for load transfer across control joints. Furthermore, the Portland cement concrete was assumed to have a minimum 28 day flexural strength of 600 psi. Our previous experience with laboratory R-Value testing of the site soils indicates that these materials will provide "low" subgrade support (corresponding to a modulus of subgrade reaction less than 120 pci). Based on these assumptions, we recommend that the pavement section consist of 6 inches of Portland cement concrete over native subgrade. Crack control joints should be placed on at least 10 foot centers, each way. Concentrated truck traffic areas, such as trash truck aprons and loading dock areas, should be reinforced with at least number 4 bars on 18-inch centers, each way. 8.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION This investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional opinions included in this report. Geotechnics Incorporated i I· I I· .. .. ··1 I ·1 The Iris Group May 4. 2001 Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 Page 20 The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of the project site. However, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between borings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and additional recommendations made, if warranted. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the necessary design consultants and incorporated into the plans, and that the ...... :pecessazy steps are :ta:ken.t(>. ~ee that the.-contractors-c.ai;cy oµt_these r~_qommendations in, the field . • • ' ~ ' > • • • > ' The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards of practice may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. *** GEOTECHNICS IN CORPORA TED Matthew A. Fagan, P.E. 57248 Project Engineer Anthony F. Belfast, PE 40333 Principal Engineer a,ew.ul----i Chad W. Warren Staff Geologist GPo!rdrnir, Inrornor:1trrl APPENDIX A REFERENCES Abrahamson, Lee, Shanna, and Boyce ( 1996). Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods, 1st ed., New York, John Wiley and Sons, 627 p. American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4, Construction, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I); Volume 04.09 Soil and Rock (II); Geosynthetics, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 1624 p., 1228 p. · --. And~rson,, J.G., Rockwell, T,X., A:gn.ew, D. G. 0989). Pas.t an,d Possible Future. Eqrthquakes·.of ... -, ,_ a--·.···Sig~ificance to the S~n Diego Regi~n: Earthq_uak~ S~~ct~;; v~i."5, No. 2. pp_'.29J~335 ..... . ..---',,.· .. Anderson, J. G. (1984). Synthesis o/Seismicityand Geological Data in California, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84-424, 186 pp. Blake, T.F. (1998). EQFAULT, EQRISK, and FRISKSP: Computer Programs for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Southern California Historical Earthquakes. Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed.: New York, McGraw Hill, 1175 p. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology ( 1993 ). The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California, CDMG Open File Report 93-02. Geotechnics Incorporated (1994 ). As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Unit 5, Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 0017-001-01, April 29. Geotechnics Incorporated (1995). As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Slope Failure Repair on Faraday Drive, Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California, Project No.0017-001-02, Document No. 5-0112, March 10. Geotechnics Incorporated ( 1996). Report o/Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Research Center, Lot 108, The Iris Group Building, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 0273-004-00, Document No. 6-0449, dated August 2. Geotechnics Incorporated (1997). Report a/Compaction Test Results, Carlsbad Research Center, Lot 108, The Iris Group Building, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 0273-004-01, Document No. 7-0306, dated October 30. Geotechnics Incorporated ------------ APPENDIX A REFERENCES (Continued) Geotechnics Incorporated (2000). Proposal For Geotechnical Services, Geotechnical Investigation for Foundation Recommendations, Parking Garage and Addition to the Existing Iris Group Building, Carlsbad Research Center, Lot 107, Carlsbad, California, Proposal No. 1-099, Document No. 1-0391, dated March 29. Idriss, I. M. ( 1993 ). Procedures for Selecting Earthquake Ground Motions at Rock Sites, National Institute of Standards and Technology GCR 93-625, March, 35 pp. ::, , .. , , :,Jntemational ·Ccmf!:!re_n_c~ of Building:Of(Icials 0997) .. tJ;r-iiforr:n,-B:t1i-lding Code (with Carifo1nia · . . ·-·. -· -. Amendments) Title 23. -_ .. :. _·_ : .. . , ~--_.: :·;,._~-.· . Jennings, C. W. (1994). Fault Activity Map of California and adjacent areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Eruptions, California Division of Mines and Geology, California, Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6. San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. ( 1988). As Graded Geotechnical Report, Carlsbad Research Center, Phase Ill, IV and V, Lots 76 through 91, 108, and 109, Carlsbad California, Job No. 05-2863-006-00-l 0, April 1. San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (1988). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Research Center, Phase V, Carlsbad California, Job No. 05-2863-035-00-00, February 22. San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (1984). As Graded Geotechnical Report, Carlsbad Research Center, Phase II and Ill, Carlsbad Tract No. 81-10, Carlsbad California, Job No. SDI 162-10, September 10, 1984. Trieman, J. A. (1984). The Rose Canyon Fault Zone --A Review and Analysis, California Division of Mines and Geology unpublished report, 106 p. Wesnousky, S. G. (1986). Earthquakes, Quaternary Faulls, and Seismic Hazard in California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 9 I, no. B 12, p. 12587-1263 l. Youngs, R.R. and Coopersmith, K.J. (1985). Implications of Fault Slip Rates and Earthquake Recurrence Models to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 939-964. Gcotechnics Incorporated APPENDIXB FIELD EXPLORATION Field exploration consisted of a visual reconnaissance of the site, and the drilling of seven exploratory borings with a truck-mounted, hollow stem, continuous flight drill rig on April 3 0, 2001 . . ' ·, .. , . · · .. : T!i_e borings were, 8 inches fo diarrJ.etet~. and were-drilled to a m_a)S'.irnum depth.of 20 feet. The apprdxiinate locations ofthe··l:>orings are shown 0~ th~-SittPi~;-Figur~· i. Logs describing't½e subsurface conditions encountered are presented on the following Figures B-1 through B-7. >' Disturbed samples were collected using a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler (2-inch outside diameter). SPT samples were sealed in plastic bags, labeled, and returned to the laboratory for testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were collected using a 3-inch outside diameter, ring lined sampler (modified California sampler). Ring samples were sealed in plastic bags, placed in rigid plastic containers, labeled, and returned to the laboratory for testing. The drive weight for both the SPT and the ring samples was a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 3 0 inches. For each sample, we recorded the number of blows needed to drive the sampler 6, 12, and 18 inches. The number of blows needed to drive the final 12 inches is shown on the attached logs under "blows per ft." Bulk samples are indicated on the boring logs with shading, whereas SPT samples are indicated with the abbreviation "SPT", and California samples are indicated with the abbreviation "CAL". Boring locations were established in the field by pacing and by estimation using the plans provided. The locations shown should not be considered more accurate than is implied by the method of measurement used. The lines designating the interface between soil units on the test pit logs are determined by interpolation and are therefore approximations. The transition between the materials may be abrupt or gradual. Further, soil conditions at locations between the borings may be substantially different from those at the specific locations explored. It should be noted that the passage of time can result in changes in the soil conditions reported in our logs. Geotechnics Incorporated _, ''' . LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 1 Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Hollow Stem Logged by: CW Date Drilled: 4/30/01 Elevation: 257' msl Hammer Drop Ht.: 30 Inches Hammer Wt.: 140 Pounds i=' !!:. ::c I-Cl. w C ... 1 ... 2 -3 -4 ... 7 -8 -9 10 '-11 .,_ 12 .. 13 -14 -15 .. 16 .. 17 .. 18 -19 -20 1-21 -·22 1-23 .. 24 -25 .. 26 .. 27 ... 28 .. 29 -30 I-LI. 0:: w Cl. ~ 0 ..J m 31 =-::,: .. : 77 $:t 50/ m 3" = DESCRIPTION FILL: Sandy clay (CL), brown to olive gray, fine to medium, moist, hard, few coarse sands and gravels. . More clayey, .olive to broiin t6~rn.9sii1h .Qt.an.ge.. ___ • .; -,..~ ................... '.!'-··--; _ .. .,_.. ... ; --' • '' . ~ , .•• . ~ •<.. ' . • SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS: Metavolcanic rock recovered as sandy silt (MH), light olive gray, fine to medium sand, medium to high plasticity, dry, very hard . Total depth: 20 feet No groundwater or caving Backfilled 4/30/01 PROJECT NO. 0651-001-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED LAB TESTS Gradation Expansion :..-,. , .. Dire:ct Sh.eat FIGURE B-1 LOG OF-EXPLORATION BORING NO. 2 Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Hollow Stem Hammer Drop Ht.: 30 Inches Hammer Wt.: 140 Pounds Logged by: CW Date Drilled: 4/30/01 Elevation: 259' msl I-u. 0::: w 0. "' !': 0 .J IXI ... 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 w w .J .J Q. Q. :E :E c::( <( "' "' w ~ 2 .J 0::: ::, C lXI ;,;.;,:.:-:•: :::\:;~ . 22.::~:: Li:' 0 e:.. ~ "' z w C DESCRIPTION FILL: Sandy clay (CL) with fat clay (CH) and elastic silt (MH), brown to olive to light gray, fine sand, low to high plasticity, moist, very stiff. 30 atJ!iil;iliii :m:i:1I I-.5 ., . . ., ". .;, ' ·:·~ . ,. ,, ... ·, ... ,- ::.: ,J.,i·...-,-,l-_.--i:··:.;i:i;=-:·.·;;;;.:·•·1-h-,,,,.....,, .-1---1---, ~-------. ..,...,,........,,-----,..,,.,.,--,----=.,.... .. -,.,_.;..,' ,.,.,..~_' _....;....,, ..... ,.....,..---. ---,-.----.:-.i __ '-6 76 J!rr SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS: Metavolcanic rock recovered as clayey sand (SC), light brown, medium·fo coarse, dry, very dense. .· . . ... 7 ... 8 LAB TESTS At 9 feet: Refusal in rock . ... 9~~~-~~--1---~----------------------~----~ '-10 1-11 '-12 '-13 '-14 '-15 '-16 '-17 1-18 '-19 '-20 1-21 ... 22 '-23 '-24 1-25 '-26 ... 27 '-28 '-29 1-30 PROJECT NO. 0651-001-00 Total depth: 9 feet, refusal in Santiago Peak Volcanics No groundwater or caving Backfilled 4/30/01 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE 8-2 LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO: 3 Logged by: CW Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Hollow Stem Hammer Drop-Ht.: 30 Inches Hammer Wt.: 140 Pounds Date Drilled: 4/30/01 Elevation: 260½' msl r= · !:!::. :i: I-Q. w C ... 1 ... 2 I-3 ... 4 ... 5 I-w u.. ..J It Q. w ::E Q. <( Cl) Cl) :l: w 0 ~ ..J a: DJ C ~ 45= w u:-..J u Q. :!: !:,. <( ~ Cl) ~ II) ..J :z ::) w Cll C ~ 0 w a:: ::, I-II) i5 ::E DESCRIPTION FILL: Sandy clay to sandy silt (CH-MH), brown to olive, fine to medium sand, high plasticity, dry to moist, very stiff, few coarse sands . Harder drilling, gravels and cobbles. --------------___ _,____._ ___________________________________________________________________________ _ I-6 -~- ." ... ~; ... ·7 .. Q.6 !m Fat clay-With sar:id and gravel(CH),-brqwn, fine to medium to-coarse sand, high , plasticity, moist,. hard. . ; : .:,• _ .. t:: , . ;· · ·· : ·· .. · ·· - -a~~-'-a--~-~------------------------~ ... 9 1-10 ... 11 ,_ 12 '-13 14 ,._ 15 '-16 1-17 1-18 19 '-20 -21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 50/ ~ ., SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS: Metavolcanic rock recovered as clayey sand (SC}, light brown, medium to coarse, dry, very dense. Total depth: 10 1 /2 feet No groundwater or caving Backfilled 4/30/01 PROJECT NO. 0651-001-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED LAB TESTS . -'' FIGURE 8-3 -COG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 4 Logged by: CW Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Hollow Stem Hammer Drop Ht.: 30 Inches Hammer Wt.: 140 Pounds Date Drilled: 4/30/01 Elevation: 261 ½' msl I-w u. ..J 0:: Q. w ::?E Q. <( Cl) Cl) 3: w 0 ::2: ..J a: IXI 0 ... 1 .. 2 i,-.-- 59 a ,_ 4 w ii:' ..J ll. 0 ::?E e:.. <( i!: Cl) ~ in ..J z ::, w lXI 0 ~ w er: ::, I-Cl) 0 :: DESCRIPTION FILL: Sandy clay (CL), brown to olive to purple, fine to coarse sand, dry to moist, hard, few angular gravels. I-5 ~6 ~~;17~.~~~m~:-·~-~----+.-+S-A_N_T_I_A_G~~-:_P_E_A_K_V_O_L_C_A_N_I_C_S_:_M~-~=ta_V_o_lc-a-ni~;~·r0~-c-k~f-~c~-o~v~~~~~~C~a~s-c~la~;~ey~0 ---l -7 _ .... _ _ _ ,.. . .. sand--(SC)~ orange to gray, fine to medium to coarse, dry to moist, very dense ... .9 1-10 50/ ;m 5" .. ·,1 -112 I-1'3 14 .. 15 '-16 ,_ 17 ... 1.S ... 1.9: '-2!0. ,_ 21 ... 22· I I ... 2.3! I I-241 I ... 25'. ) I-zs: / '-27j I l ... 28; I.. 29\ l ... 30' PROJECT NO. 0651-001-00 Total depth: 12 feet No groundwater or caving Backfilled 4/30/01 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED LAB TESTS Gradation Hydrometer Atterberg pH & Resistivity Sulfate Expansion ·-'. FIGURE B-4 -•' LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 5 Logged by: CW Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Hollow Stem Hammer Drop Ht.: 30 Inches Hammer Wt.: 140 Pounds Date Drilled: 4/30/01 Elevation: 263½' msl i=' !::. ::r: I-C. w 0 ~ 1 ... 2 ... 3 ~ 4 I-~ "-0: C. w :E 0.. ct en Cl) :: w g 2: a:: Ill 0 ~ ··it 72 it w u:-.J 0 a. :E £:, ct ~ Cl) ~ iii .J z :, w C0 0 ';f!. w a:: ::) I-Cl) 5 :E DESCRIPTION FILL: Clayey sand to sandy clay {SC-CL), brown to olive to red to gray, fine to medium to coarse sand, dry to moist, very dense/hard, few gravels . --------~---------·-1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ... 5 ~-Sandy fat clay vyitb gravel (CH), orange, ·tine tp medium to coarse sand, high plasticity; moist., stiff to hard·. . . . -~ .. ··e· n.Jj. . --......... ,,,.,. --1--·..;;.--+-·--+--+--+-+---l--------------,......;....--·a.;.,· ---·-.,...,··-~ __ ..,..,,-, .,-,, .... :-:, . .,,',,. .. -,-;, --, . ...,. .. =··=· = ... -:.-,,-l • .. 7 ~ 8 .. 9 ~ 11 .. 12 '-13 .. 14 '"" 15 ._ 16 '-17 ,_ 18 ,_ 19 ~ 20 ._ 21 .. 22 '-23 .. 24 '-25 '""27 ~ 28 '-29 .. 30 SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS: Metavolcanic rock and clayey sand, dry. At 8 1/2 feet: Refusal in rock . Total depth: 8 1/2 feet, refusal in Santiago Peak Volcanics No groundwater or caving Backfilled 4/30/01 PROJECT NO. 0651-001-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED LAB TESTS FIGURE B-5 a = r:mrxm LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 6 Method of .Drilling: 8 Inch Hollow Stem Hammer Drop Ht.: 30 Inches Hammer Wt.: 140 Pounds Logged by: CW Date Drilled: 4/30/01 Elevation: ·265' msl ... 1 ... 2 1-, 3 : .:- ·:::::::::::: ~:::;:~·: ~~.' a!.::;;;;;::: DESCRIPTION FILL: Clayey sand with gravel (SC), brown to orange, fine to medium grained, dry to moist, very dense. ;-w '-4~-+-~""~·-+·--+--+-------------------------1 .·:···.· .. · ~ .!:::-:::::-: ... 5 ... 6 ~~!-SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS: Metavolcanic rock recovered as clayey gravel with sand (GC), brown, dry to moist, very dense. ---~ --.. --------~----~--·--~---· - LAB TESTS Gradation Expansion ) --_ _ At,,? f~et Ref1:Jsal in rock. ~11--+-,,l-+--4---+-.;.._-----~---~-~--...;,....-------.....,,---------------4-----~ ,_ 8 ... 9 ,_ 10 .. 11 ,_ 12 ... 13 ,_ 14 .. 15 16 ,_ 17 ,_ 18 ,_ 19 1-20 i-. 21 ,_ 22 1-23 ,_ 24 i-. 25 ,_ 26 ,_ 27 '-28 ... 29 ... 30 I PROJECT NO. 0651-001-00 Total depth: 7 feet, refusal in Santiago Peak Volcanics No groundwater or caving Backfilled 4/30/01 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE B-6 ,. t·' l .--t~~ ... -- ,. LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING N0:-7 Logged by: CW Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Hollow Stem Date Drilled: 4/30/01 Elevation: 262½' msl Hammer Drop Ht.: 30 Inches Hammer Wt.: 140 Pounds t:: :!:. :c It-A. .w 0 .... 1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 ,::::::;~~- -<:~:::-:: ···:-:··· 00 !:i ......... :;it: 53/ ~#. 6" = DESCRIPTION FILL: Silty to clayey sand with gravel (SM-SC), brown, fine to medium, dry to moist, very dense. SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS: Metavolcanic rock recovered as clayey gravel with sand (GC), orange to brown, fine to medium, dry to moist, very dense. LAB TESTS +, ... At 7 feet: Refusal in rock.· ~ ~7 . I-'B -9 -10 -11 '-12 '-13 -14 -15 -'16 ... 'l7 -ilB 19 -20 21 I-22 ... 23 -24 25 26 Tl, -Z8 ,_ 29 ... 30 --.• i:;_ ,1' J ~ • : ·-~ Total depth: 7 feet, refusal in Santiago Peak Volcanics No groundwater or caving Backfilled 4/30/01 PROJECT NO. 0651-001-00 GEOTECHNICS IN CORPORA TED FIGURE 8-7 ' '' ' .. -APPENDIXC LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the correctness or serviceability of the test results, or the conclusions derived from these tests. Where a specific laboratory test method has been referenced, such as ASTM, Caltrans, or AASHTO, the reference applies only to the specified laboratory test method and not to associated referenced test method( s) or practices, and the test method referenced has been used only as a guidance document for the general performance of the test and not.as a "Test Standard." A brief description of the tests performed follows: ' ' Classification: Soils were classffied visually according to t:he Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classification was supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples and classification in accordance with ASTM D2487. The classifications are shown on the Boring Logs. Particle Size Analysis: Particle size analyses were performed in accordance with ASTM D422. The grain size distribution was used to determine presumptive strength parameters and foundation design criteria. The results are given in Figures C-1.1 through C-1.3_. Atterberg Limits: ASTM D4318-84 was used to determine the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of a selected fine-grained sample. The results are given in Figure C-1.2. Sulfate Content: To assess the potential for reactivity with below grade concrete, a selected soil sample was tested for water soluble sulfate. The water soluble sulfate was extracted from the soil under vacuum, typically using a 20: 1 (water to dry soil) dilution ratio. The extracted solution was then tested for water soluble sulfate in general accordance with ASTM D516. The test results are presented in terms of percentage by weight in Figure C-2. pH an~ Resistivity: To assess the potential for reactivity with metal pipe, a selected sample was tested for pH and resistivity using Caltrans method 643. The results are shown in Figure C-2. Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected soils was characterized by using the test --method ASTM-D 4829. Figure C-2 provides the results of the.tests. Direct Shear Test: The shear strength of the soil was assessed through direct shear tests performed in accordance with ASTM D3080. The results are summarized in Figure C-3. Geotechnics Incorporated •.:: "· ' :: .{ ',. U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes ' •• 1-;.. ••• 3" 1 ½" 3/4" -3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 100 rrr 1 1 I 1 1 1 ~ I I 1 ~· 1 I m 1 ::::..:J I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ·.1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 90 -1-, .. -·-~-'-"'" I I I I I 1-.. 1 I I I I I I J J I so --·, · · T -' -~ ~ "----~~ i so -=---, · ,~1 ]111 I I I I ·a; 70 ---~-·-_ "-... ....... ''1' :u ,_ -'------' ,, .,'·;.' C: ... ' l ' u: 50 ·-------__ _ -.._ I.' ----llll !--,,·.,_ -C: .::-s. -~ --• -l-l--1-+-+---1---+-----+++--t-+--t-+--+---+-----+-++-!--+-1--+--+---+------J-+-+-·t-t--t---+---J----J-----H-+-+--J-+---J--l---t-----l ~ 40 ·t-++-t-t-t-t----+-----1-----+-t-t---t--t--t---+---i----+----t-r--t-·~--t-i-----t---+----+-t-t--t--t--'"t-=r-t----+-----t-t-+-11-t--+-t---+----+----l .. Q) 0.. ·•-+-1·-+--t---t--+------+-----"'-H--t-i-+--+--t---+----t--t-1-t--·--+-i---t--+---~-1-t I I I t +t-l -tl-tl--tl~·+t--1-----1--~-l 30 !-++·+-t-·-l-f---+---l------+-t·+-1-1--t-+---+----+----I ·-+-+-t--+--t--t--,1---1-----+-...... -1-t--+--t--+---+-----+-t-<t-il-+--+--+--+---+------+-1-1-1-,1-+--,1--1-1-----t-t--+-+-+-t---+---t----J-----; 20 H··H-1--+ 1----1---I I I -t-1---1-+--11--1---+----++--t-l-+--+--+-+----+----1--1--+-1-t--+--+-+---t-----1 · 1-l--+-·+--+-4--t--l-----+-~l-l-l-1-+--+---1------+-l--i--l-l-~-+--+--+-----l-l---l-+-+--+-"'f--l---+----~-+-++-+-+--+---l------l 1 0 ·H -t-1 -+-+-t , l-f-l---!--t---+----1--H-+-!-t--+---+----4----1--1-+--1--+--++---+-+--+----l-t-t--1---1---t---+--+--..J.---~ 0 -1-L..LJ __ .J__.L_ ' --J_L_L~~~~-~-~----~~~-';---~-~-~----~~~~~-~-~---- 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE I FINE COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE I ' SILT AND I I GRAVEL SAND ' ; CLAY .. SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: CL A TTERBERG LIMITS SAMPLE NUMBER: B1 LIQUID LIMIT: SAMPLE LOCATION: O' -5' DESCRIPTION: SANDY CLAY PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: Geotechnics ~ncorporated SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 FIGURE C-1.1 ·-1 l, !:;I ,i '.,l ilt -----· -;;.; : i U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes . I t 1 :: ffi~[-F~IT=f ]"111 f I li42fillil I T I #loo I lffill...........,__YT~"'~I ~1111 ~111 ~I I~~ 1::~:m=~+I I 111111111 l~l~tffi+I I 1111111 l l 1 i::mnt~I 111111 IBI I ~11111 I .... C: B 40 r 11; rl'--l.. ... G) a. 30 -1++1-+-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 14 I I I I I I II H--+++:_i I I 111111 I Pi~ I 20 +H-H-+-l---+----11 I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I 11 +-H-t i· 1:;:: I I 1111 l---t 10 rn 11 I I I I 11111 I I I I 111111 I I I 111111 J:: ; I I 111111 I I I I -•-t-+-t--1--1-i---+-----++-+-+-+--i--+---+---+-----t+++ I I I I I I I I I I I l O .f-..LLLJ__J I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L.LL . , ; ~ • • I . t' I ,, 100 10 1 0.1 ;:i, 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE l FINE COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: CL SAMPLE NUMBER: B4 SAMPLE LOCATION: o· -5' DESCRIPTION: SANDY LEAN CLAY ',. '! ,-!,' -~ -. 1 ··· I, ' llttl •ij,l )._,._ j ri I;. Geotechnics -.Jncorporated SOIL CLASSIFICATION· SILT AND CLAY A TTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID LIMIT: 45 PLASTIC LIMIT: 1 7 PLASTICITY INDEX: 28 Project No. 0651-001-00 Document No. 1-0502 FIGURE C-1.2 · .: • ·' .......... ,:-.~ ,,. i.!..1·~,: .\::.~':.'l.'1'1~~-,:11:;i.:!.::l.Ji'~'~R':£..'1~aTit"'lll'~'1-!:'..t~ ... :·-·:.;:.t,,•~ • ~-....>,.;-!;..;._,::,,,"'"""f1.r''r•,.i'·:-,r:..;,,:'! \. !· •• · •• ,,: J ., .. , :~ .v .,.~ .. ";\ .. ~ ..•.... , .. · ,. · · ,_., ~ •. , .. t. I ' :;I ' ' i ~ ,. !; ~ ~ • ~ i !" ~ Geotechnics ~ Incorporated August 2, 1996 Hamann Construction 475 West Bradley Avenue El Cajon, California ,92020 Attention: Mr. Paul Giese SUBJECT: REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Carlsbad Research Center, Lot 108 The Iris Group Building Cartsbad, California Gentlemen: Principals: Anthony F. Belfast Michael P. lmbriglio W. Lee Vanderhurst Project No. 0273-004-00 Doc. #6-0449 The following report presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of our geotechnical investigation of the subject site. It is our understanding that the development is to consist of the construction of a single commercial structure with surrounding parking. In general, our findings indicate that the subject site is underlain by Santiago Peak Volcanics and fill materials that are considered suitable to support the proposed structure, providing that the recommended site preparation is performed. There were no unusual or special conditions apparent in our investigation which would preclude the construction as planned. 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions at the site as they relate to the proposed improvements, and to make recommendations regarding site preparation and grading, design of the proposed foundations, retaining walls, and slabs, and the construction of pavements. The recommendations contained herein are based on a surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and professional experience in the general site area. Design values may include presumptive parameters based on professional judgement. Our scope of work was limited to: 1.1 Review of available literature related to general geologic conditions. 9245 Activity Rd., Ste.103 • San Diego, California 92126 I~, V Phone (858) 536-1000 • Fax (858) 536-8311 m ~::-:" ~ I ~ ~: Hamann Construction August 2, 1996 Project No. 0273-004-00 Doc. #6-0449 Page 2 1.2 A visual reconnaissance and subsurface exploration of the site consisting of the drilling of four borings with a truck mounted eight inch hollow stem flight auger. Bulk, disturbed, and relatively undisturbed samples were collected for laboratory testing. 1.3 Laboratory testing of selected samples collected during the subsurface exploration. Testing was intended to assist in characterizing soil properties and assessing pertinent engineering properties. 1.4 Development of recommendations for site preparation, earthwork construction, foundation design, on-grade slabs, earth retaining structures, and pavements. 1.5 Assessment of general seismic conditions and geologic hazards affecting the area, and their likely impact on the project. 1.6 Preparation of this report. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The site consists of a roughly rectangular lot, which averages approximately 500 feet in width and 750 feet in length. The site is located southwest of Faraday Avenue in the Carlsbad Research Center in Carlsbad, California as shown in the Site Location Map, Figure 1. Elevations of the existing building pad are between approximately 258 and 268 feet above sea level. The site is bordered on the northwest by Lot 107 of the Carlsbad Research Center, which is essentially at the same grade as the subject site. An approximately 15 foot high, descending 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) slope separates the site from Lot 106 to the southeast. An approximately 35 foot high 2:1 slope descends to Faraday Avenue northeast of the site. The southern portion of the lot contains an approximately 80 foot high 2½: 1 fill slope which descends to a landscaped detention basin. The southwestern portion of this slope is a variable cut slope which exposes the Santiago Peak Volcanics which underlie the entire site at depth. Surface runoff is directed by sheet flow to the east at a 1 ½ percent gradient. Minor erosion of the building pad area is evident near the desilting basin in the eastern corner of the building pad. Vegetation on site consists of scattered light weeds in the building pad area, chaparral in the natural slope area, and partially landscaped fill slopes. The property is currently vacant. The approximate layout of the site is shown in the Site Plan, Figure 2. Geotechnics Incorporated '·------4GLU I //ED IONDA L-1GOO.V ---'---... --....... / r-------- .. :-\i: ., '• ~ / (_.,. \ ' \ I ~ ~ \l..~~ -l \. /t:_-,-' / .....__ ,..,. :,: 0 C, 'z --.... ..... .... __ __ -----.... s/~· - ~/ ~ ""-1 .-_~in· r, ,,., \ •· ..... __ _ :./-~· SITE ·-t~ ·-.0 / / / J,',1f,''Ji.' . ---T•----·- - '.)J () .:.!!) 5 . l{i I.Cl ~ L. ···jMllcs --, ---, ,-·-·-·· -·-J{l10111ctcrs () 5 Geotechnics Incorporated 10 SITE LOCATION MAP The Iris Group, CRC Lot 108 Hamann Construction -g \ \ \ I I \ ' I N <~;.J• / __ JIJU _____ ~- / - I ,ti'~./ ·--( C _/ ' --, ADAPTED FROM THE 1995 THOMAS BROTHERS GUIDE Project No. 0273-004-00 Document No. 6-0449 FIGURE 1 SCALE: 1"-100' I I ·$-~-1 ....__ Geotechnics Incorporated PROPOSED BUILDING SITE PLAN The Iris Group, CRC Lot 108 Hamann Construction I l" I LEGEND: uJ '::) Th ~ ~ i 4- U- -$-84 Approximate Location of Boring ~J--Transition from shallow to deep fill Project No. 0273-004-00 Document No. 6-0449 FIGURE 2 Hamann Construction August 2, 1996 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Project No. 0273-004-00 Doc. #6-0449 Page 3 We understand that the proposed construction will include an office building in the western area of the lot with parking to the east. The existing dirt access road along the eastern edge of the lot will be paved with concrete to provide access for the development. The building is anticipated to consist of a two story, 75,000 square foot concrete tilt-up structure. The preliminary site plan indicates that only minor grading is planned, consisting of cuts and fills of less than three feet. The proposed site layout is shown in the Site Plan, Figure 2. 4.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The Carlsbad Research Center is located within the coastal plain section of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province, and consists of Mesozoic metavolcanic rock, with overlying Cenozoic sedimentary sandstone and claystone. Our subsurface investigation indicates that the subject site is underlain primarily by Santiago Peak Volcanics and compacted fill. The approximate locations of the borings made for our investigation are shown in Figure 2. Logs of the explorations are given in Appendix 8. A description of the specific units encountered during our investigation follows. 4.1 Santiago Peak Volcanics The Santiago Peak Volcanics were observed in exposures on the cut slope in the southeastern portion of the lot, as well as in borings 1 and 3. The volcanic rock is believed to underlie the entire site at depth. Santiago Peak Volcanics, as observed on site, typically consist of a mildly metamorphosed, metavolcanic rock. The material exposed in the cut slope was highly jointed, with clay filled joints. This material is dry to moist, very dense, and has a low to medium plasticity when weathered to a soil. 4.2 Fill Fill was encountered during our subsurface exploration in all of the borings to the maximum explored depth of 11 feet. The fill was derived from the Santiago Formation, the Santiago Peak Volcanics, and alluvium. Fill materials will vary considerably based on their source. The predominant fill observed in our subsurface investigation consisted of a clayey sand with gravel sized rock fragments (SC). The sand was generally fine to medium grained, and had a medium plasticity. The fill wa~ generally red brown in color, Geotechnics Incoiporated Hamann Construction August 2, 1996 Project No. 0273-004-00 Doc. #6-0449 Page 4 moist, and medium dense to dense. The fill contained considerable amounts of hard, angular, metavolcanic rocks of up to 3 inches or more· in diameter, which were clearly derived from the Santiago Peak Volcanics. In addition, the fill contained few fragments of fat claystone (CH) up to ½ inch in diameter. Prior to mass grading of the site, the building area of the lot was underlain primarily by Santiago Peak Volcanic rock. Grading operations consisted of excavating and blasting the rock material from the high knoll shown on the site plan, and placing it as a compacted fill in the lower areas of the site. The cuUfill transition in the building pad area created by these operations was removed by over-excavating and blasting the metavolcanic rock to a depth of five feet below the final pad elevations. A maximum of approximately 45 feet of fill was placed on the lot during the grading operations. Prior to placing fill, a subdrain was constructed in the invert of the canyon that traversed the site. The referenced as-graded geotechnical report was used to present the topography shown in the Site Plan. The site plan shows the approximate existing graded topography along with the approximate pre-graded natural topography. The depth of fill at any location on site can be approximated by subtracting the natural elevation from the existing elevation. Note that the site plan also indicates the location of the transition from shallow to deep fill, where shallow fill would be that created by over-excavating the volcanic rock five feet below finish grade. 4.3 Groundwater No seepage or groundwater was observed in our investigation. Changes in rainfall or site drainage could produce seepage or locally perched groundwater conditions within the soil or rock underlying the site. It should be recognized that excessive irrigation on the project site could also cause perched groundwater conditions to develop at some future date. This typically occurs at underlying contacts with less permeable materials, such as the interface that exists between the fill and the underlying volcanic rock. Since the prediction of the location of such conditions is not possible, they are typically mitigated if and when they occur. Geotechnics Incoiporated i..... Hamann Construction August 2, 1996 5.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SEISMICITY 5.1 Geologic Hazards Project No. 0273-004-00 Doc. #6-0449 Page 5 The immediate subject site is not located within an area previously known for geologic hazards, nor was evidence of past soil failures or faulting noted in our investigation. 5.2 Seismicity and Faulting The subject site is located approximately 5.0 miles northeast of the projected offshore trace of the Rose Canyon fault zone. This fault zone is classified as active, and capable of generating a magnitude 6.4 earthquake (maximum probable event). The estimated peak site ground acceleration for such an event is 0.42g. Design of structures should comply with the requirements of the governing jurisdictions, building codes and standard practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of California. Ground-breaking due to active faulting is considered to have a low potential, due to the distance from known, active fault traces. Geotechnics Incorporated , __ Hamann Construction August 2, 1996 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Project No. 0273-004-00 Doc. #6-0449 Page 6 No geotechnical conditions were apparent during the investigation which would preclude construction of the proposed structures as planned. However, some geotechnical constraints exist which require special design consideration in order to decrease the likelihood of distress to the proposed structures. • The on-site soils include both medium dense fill, and very dense metavolcanic rock. The preliminary grading plans indicate that the existing fill cap will be cut approximately three feet in the western corner of the proposed building pad area. This will result in footings which rest directly on volcanic rock at that location. However, the southeastern portion of the building will be underlain by more than 25 feet of fill. Transitions from rock to fill below foundations and slabs are not recommended due to the different settlement characteristics of the materials, and the resulting potential for differential movements. It the resulting settlement is unacceptable, we recommend that either the volcanic rock beneath the building area be excavated and replaced as a compacted fill, or that foundations be deepened throughout the entire structure in order to bear directly on volcanic rock. Overexcavation of the bedrock will likely encounter non-rippable material that will require special excavation techniques or blasting. • Our analysis indicates that the existing site slopes are stable with regard to deep-seated failure. However, surface water flow and/or seepage can result in surficial slope failures and erosion. In addition, all man-made slopes will weather and creep over time as a result of wetting and drying, biologic forces and gravity. While it is not possible to completely eliminate these effects, recommendations are provided in the following sections which should help to reduce the potential for such behavior. • Laboratory testing indicates that the on-site fill soils have a low expansion potential. Geotechnics Inco:rporated Hamann Construction August 2, 1996 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Project No. 0273-004-00 Doc. #6-0449 Page 7 The primary geotechnical constraint associated with the planned building location is the differential settlement that is likely to occur between the portion of the building over hard rock and the portion over fill soil. We estimate that long-term settlement of the fill will be about ¾-inch. The settlement would be greatest at the southern-most portion of the building (as shown on Figure 1) and decrease to zero at the transition line indicated on the plan, for a differential of ¾-inch in about 80 feet. The project architect and structural engineer should review this settlement to determine if this is excessive. If this is not acceptable, the following options should be considered. • A common remedial measure to lessen the effects of differential settlement across cut-fill transitions is to over-excavate the bedrock portion to decrease the fill variability beneath the structure. However, because most of the planned structure is underlain by bedrock, and because the material consists of non-rippable volcanic rock, this does not appear to be economical. We are therefore not providing details for this recommendation. • The southern-most portion of the structure could be founded on deep foundations extending to bedrock. The entire structure would then be supported on rock, and differential settlement should be negligible. • It may be possible to build some flexibility into the structure, so that movement at the transition line would be tolerated. This should be evaluated on by the project architect and structural engineer. • It may be possible to relocate the structure so that it overlies the portion of the site underlain be shallow bedrock. The remainder of this report presents recommendations in detail. These recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard of practice in southern California. If these recommendations appear not to cover any specific feature of the project, please contact our office for additions or revisions to the recommendations. Geotechnics Incorporated Hamann Construction August 2, 1996 7.1 Plan Review Project No. 0273-004-00 Doc. #6-0449 Page 8 We recommend that foundation and grading plans be reviewed by Geotechnics Incorporated prior to plan finalization. 7.2 Site Preparation Clearing of the existing site should include the removal of any pipes, vegetation, or general debris. Any deleterious material, including construction debris, rocks over 6 inches in greatest dimension, or soil containing vegetation should not be used in site fills, and should be disposed of off-site. As a minimum, the soil within the upper 12 inches of building and improvement areas should be scarified, brought to about optimum moisture, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in accordance with the recommendations given in Section 7.4. 7.2.1 Debris Basin: A temporary debris basin was installed during rough grading of the subject site in the eastern corner of the building pad. Soft sediments have accumulated within the basin since initial construction. All soft sediments within the basin should be removed to a depth where competent fill material is encountered. The entire excavation should then be brought up to finish surface grade with compacted fill as discussed in. Section 7.4. In the event that the existing storm drain pipes within the debris basin are to be abandoned, they should be removed and their excavations backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with Section 7.4. 7.2.2 Parking and Drives: The soil within the upper one foot of pavement subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM 01557. 7.3 Excavation and Grading Observation Foundation excavations and site grading excavations should be observed by Geotechnics Incorporated. During grading, Geotechnics Incorporated should provide observation and testing services continuously. Such observations are considered essential to identify field conditions that differ from those anticipated by the preliminary investigation, to adjust designs to actual field conditions, and to determine that the grading is accomplished in Geotechnics Inco,porated Hamann Construction Project No. 0273-004-00 August 2, 1996 Doc. #6-0449 Page 9 general accordance with the recommendations of this report. Recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon Geotechnics Incorporated performing such services. Our personnel should perform sufficient testing of fill during grading to support our professional opinion as to compliance with compaction recommendations. 7.4 Fill Compaction All new fill and backfill to be placed in association with site development should be accom- plished at slightly over optimum moisture conditions and using equipment that is capable of producing a uniformly compacted product. The minimum relative compaction recommended for fill is 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM D1557, except as modified in previous paragraphs. Sufficient observation and testing should be performed by Geotechnics Incorporated so that an opinion can be rendered as to the compaction achieved. Imported fill sources, if needed, should be observed prior to hauling onto the site to determine the suitability for use. Representative samples of imported materials and on site soils should be tested by the geotechnical consultant in order to evaluate their appropriate engineering properties for the planned use. During grading operations, soil types other than those analyzed in the geotechnical reports may be encountered by the contractor. The geotechnical consultant should be notified to evaluate the suitability of these soils for use as fill and as finish grade soils. 7.5 Surface Drainage Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how well the runoff waters drain from the site. This is true both during construction and over the entire life of the structure. The ground surface around structures should be graded so that water flows rapidly away from the structures without ponding. The surface gradient needed to achieve this depends on the prevailing landscape. In general, we recommend that pavement and lawn areas within five feet of buildings slope away at gradients of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas should have minimum gradients of at least five percent away from buildings in the first five feet. Densely vegetated areas are considered those in which the planting type and spacing is such that the flow of water is impeded. Geotechnics Incoiporated Hamann Construction August 2, 1996 Project No. 0273-004-00 Doc. #6-0449 Page 10 Planters should be built so that water from them will not seep into the foundation, slab, or pavement areas. Roof drainage should be channeled by pipe to storm drains, or discharge at least 5 feet from building lines. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain landscaping plants. Should excessive irrigation, surface water intrusion, water line breaks, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones or "perched" groundwater may develop in the underlying soils. 7.6 Foundation Recommendations These recommendations are considered generally consistent with methods typically used in southern California. Other alternatives may be available. The foundation recommendations herein should not be considered to preclude more restrictive criteria of governing agencies or by the structural engineer. The design of the foundation system should be performed by the project structural engineer, incorporating the geotechnical parameters described in the following sections. The following design parameters assume that the foundations will bear on bedrock, including conventional footings deepened as necessary, or on drilled piers. 7.6.1 Deep Foundations on Rock (Drilled Piers): Allowable End Bearing: Minimum Dimensions: Minimum Embedment: Reinforcement: Pier Clean-out: Pier Observation: 10,000 psf for piers founded greater than 5 feet below lowest adjacent soil grade. Allow a one-third increase for short-term wind or seismic loads. 30 inches in diameter 1 foot into volcanic rock. As designed by structural engineer. Unless provisions are made to hand-clean excavations, all pier excavations should be cleaned of all loose soil with suitable boring tools. The drilling of all piers should be continuously observed by Geotechnics Incorporated to determine that bearing conditions are as anticipated and that Geotechnics Incmporated l L r Hamann Construction August 2, 1996 Project No. 0273-004-00 Doc. #6-0449 Page 11 pier excavations are made in accordance with project specifications. 7.6.2 Shallow Foundations on bedrock: Allowable Soil Bearing: Minimum Footing Width: Minimum Footing Depth: Minimum Reinforcement: 6,000 psf (allow a one-third increase for short-term wind or seismic loads). 12 inches. 18 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade. Two no. 4 bars at both top and bottom in continuous footings. If the project architect and structural engineer determine that the previously discussed estimated settlements are tolerable, then footings may bear on the existing fills. The following design parameters should be used. Allowable Soil Bearing: Minimum Footing Width: Minimum Footing Depth: Minimum Reinforcement: How a one-third increase for short-term 12 inches. 24 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade. Two no. 5 bars at both top and bottom in continuous footings. 7.6.4 Lateral Loads: Lateral loads against structures may be resisted by friction between the bottoms of the footings and/or piers and the supporting soil. A coefficient of friction of 0.20 is recommended. Alternatively, a passive pressure of 250 pcf is recommended for the foundations embedded into compacted fill. If friction and passive pressure are combined, the passive pressure value should be reduced by one-third. 7.6.5 Settlement: If the structure is constructed with drilled pier or deepened continuous foundations embedded into the Santiago Volcanic rock, then the total Geotechnics Incorporated Hamann Construction August 2, 1996 Project No. 0273-004-00 Doc. #6-0449 Page 12 and differential settlements resulting from the bearing loads recommended are expected to be negligible. If the structure is founded on conventional shallow foundations spanning the existing transition, it may experience differential settlement on the order of ¾-inch from the indicated transition line to the southern- most building line. 7.6.6 Slope Setback: The foundations for the proposed structures should be setback from the slope a minimum horizontal distance of 8 feet. The setback should be measured horizontally from the outside bottom edge of the footing to the slope face. The horizontal setback can be reduced by deepening the foundation in order to achieve the required setback distance projected from the footing bottom to the face of the slope. It should be recognized that the outer few feet of all slopes are susceptible to gradual down-slope movements due to slope creep. This will affect hardscape such as concrete slabs. We recommend that settlement sensitive hardscape not be constructed within five feet of the top of slopes. 7. 7 On-Grade Slabs Building slabs should be supported by compacted fill prepared as recommended under Section 7.2. Slabs should be designed for the anticipated loading. If an elastic design is used, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 kips/ft3 should be suitable. As a minimum, slabs should be at least 6 inches in thickness and be reinforced with at least #3 bars on 18 inch centers, each way. 7.7.1 Moisture Protection for Slabs: 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. Because normal concrete is permeable, the moisture will eventually penetrate the slab unless some protection is provided. To decrease the likelihood of problems related to damp slabs, suitable moisture protection measures should be used where moisture sensitive floor coverings or other factors warrant. A commonly used moisture protection consists of about four inches of clean sand covered by 'visqueen' plastic sheeting. In addition, two inches of 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 Geotechnics IncolJ)Orated L Hamann Construction August 2, 1996 Project No. 0273-004-00 Doc. #6-0449 Page 13 such systems will transmit from approximately 6 to 12 pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day. This may be excessive for some applications. If more protection is needed, we recommend that the slab be underlain by at least 6-inches of minus 3/4-inch crushed rock, with no plastic membrane. In addition, it is recommended that a low water-cement ratio (0.5 maximum) be used for concrete, and that the slab be moist-cured for at least five days in accordance with methods recommended by the American Concrete Institute. On-site quality control should be used to confirm the design conditions. 7.7.2 Exterior Slabs Exterior slabs and sidewalks should be at least 5 inches thick and should be reinforced with at least #3 rebars on 24 inch centers, each way (or alternatively 6" x 6"-W2. 9 x W2. 9 VWI/F). Crack control joints should be placed on at least 10 foot centers, each way. Differential movement between buildings and exterior slabs, or between sidewalks and curbs may be decreased by dowelling the slab into the foundation or curb. 7.8 Expansive Soils The soils observed during our investigation consisted primarily of low plasticity clayey sands (SC) with gravel. Laboratory testing of representative samples indicates that the site soils have a very low to low expansion potential, based on Uniform Building Code criteria. Figure C-3 in the appendix summarizes the expansion test results. 7.9 Reactive Soils Because of the likelihood that the sulfate content of the on-site soil or groundwater is sufficient to react adversely with normal cement, we recommend that Type II cement be used in all concrete which will be in contact with soil. Figure C-3 summarizes the laboratory test results for soil reactivity. Geotechnics IncolJ)Orated ,_ Hamann Construction August 2, 1996 7.10 Earth Retaining Structures Project No. 0273-004-00 Doc. #6-0449 Page 14 Backfilling retaining walls with expansive soil can increase lateral pressures well beyond normal active or at-rest pressures. We recommend that retaining walls be backfilled with soil having and expansive index of 20 or less. The backfill area should include the zone defined by a 1: 1 sloping plane, back from the base of the wall. Cantilever retaining walls should be designed for an active earth pressure approximated by an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 lbs/ft3• The active pressure should be used for walls free to yield at the top at least 0.2 percent of the wall height. For walls rest~ained so that such movement is not permitted, an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 lbs/ft3 should be used, based on at-rest soil conditions with level backfill. The above pressures do not consider any surcharge loads or hydrostatic pressures. If these are applicable, they will increase the lateral pressures on the wall and we should be contacted for additional recommendations. Walls should contain an adequate subdrain to eliminate any hydrostatic forces. Typical wall drain detains are given in Figure 3. Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, based on ASTM D1557. Backfill should not be placed until walls have achieved adequate structural strength. Heavy compaction equipment which could cause distress to walls should not be used. 7.11 Pavements Two traffic types are assumed: areas of light traffic and passenger car parking (Traffic Index = 4.5), and access drives and truck routes (Traffic Index = 6.0). The project civil engineer should review these values to determine if they are appropriate. Laboratory R- Value tests conducted on a representative sample of the on-site soils indicated that an R- Value of 10 should be used for pavement design. Based on the assumed Traffic Index, and the R-Value determined in the laboratory, the following pavement sections are recommended in accordance with the CAL TRANS design method. Geotechnics Incoiporated a PANEL DRAIN: MIRADRAIN 6000, MIRADRAIN 6200, TENSAR DC1100, JDRAIN 100, OR APPROVED SIMILAR. CONSTRUCTION SLOPE MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED ROCK ENVELOPED IN FILTER FABRIC (MIFAFI 140N, SUPAC 4NP, OR APPROVED SIMILAR) 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT 4-INCH DIAM. ADS OR PVC PERFORATED PIPE NOTES DAMP-PROOFING OR WATER-PROOFING AS REQUIRED COMPACTED .BACKFILL .· ... , .. / / / //11 / 1 ,, /\ _ TO AVOID UNDERMINING FOOTING, ~ DRAIN EXCAVATION SHOULD NOT EXTEND BELOW THIS PLANE 1) Subdrain perforated pipe should have a fall of at least 1.5%. Perforated pipe should outlet to a solid pipe carrying the drainage to a free gravity outfall. Slope of outlet pipe should be at least 1 %. 2) Panel drain should be glued or nailed to the wall and spliced in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations. Fabric side of panel should face the backfill soil. 3) Drain installation should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to backfilling. Geotechnics Incorporated RETAINING WALL DRAIN The Iris Group, CRC Lot 108 Hamann Construction Project No. 0273-004-00 Document No. 6-0449 FIGURE 3 Hamann Construction August 2, 1996 TRAFFIC INDEX 4.5 6.0 DESIGN SECTION ASPHALT CONCRETE 3 inches 4 inches Project No. 0273-004-00 Doc. #6-0449 Page 15 AGGREGATE BASE 7 inches 10 inches Concentrated truck traffic areas, such as trash truck aprons, should consist of six inches of portland cement concrete over native subgrade. Concrete should be reinforced with at least number 4 bars on 24-inch centers, each way. As an alternative to asphalt concrete, portland cement concrete may also be used for the driveways and parking areas. Concrete drives and parking areas should consist of 6 inches of Portland cement concrete over native subgrade. Reinforcement and control joints will reduce cracking and movement potential. As a minimal recommendation, concrete drives and parking areas should be reinforced with at least #3 rebars on 24 inch centers, each way (or alternatively 6" x 6"-W2.9 x W2.9 WVVF). Crack control joints should be placed on at least 10 foot centers, each way. The upper 12 inches of the pavement subgrade should be scarified, brought to about optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95% of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Aggregate base should conform to Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, crushed aggregate base, crushed miscellaneous base, or processed miscellaneous base. 8.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION This investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional opinions included in this report. The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of the project site; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between borings. As in most projects, conditions revealed by excavation may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and additional recommendations made, if warranted. Geotechnics Incorporated Hamann Construction August 2, 1996 Project No. 0273-004-00 Doc. #6-0449 Page 16 This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the necessary design consultants for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractors carry out such recommenda- tions in the field. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards of practice may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. *** GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333 Principal Engineer Geotechnics Inco.rporated Matthew A. Fagan Staff Engineer L_ APPENDIX A REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials (1992). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4, Construction, Volume 04. 08 Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone; Geosynthetics, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1296 p. 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. 5, No. 2. pp 299-335. Bowles, J. E. (1982). Foundation Analysis and Design, 3rd ed.: New York, McGraw Hill, 816 p .. California Division of Mines and Geology (1975). Recommended Guidelines for Determining the Maximum Credible and the Maximum Probable Earthquakes, California Division of Mines and Geology Notes, Number 43. California Division of Mines and Geology (1982). Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides, and Related Geology of the North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 82-12 LA. International Conference of Building Officials (1991 ). Uniform Building Code (with California Amendments) Title 23. Geotechnics Incorporated (1994). As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Unit 5, Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 0017-001-01, April 29, 1994. Geotechnics Incorporated (1996). Proposal For Geotechnical Services, Geotechnical Investigation for Commercial Construction, Carlsbad Research Center, Lot 108, Carlsbad, California, Proposal No. 6-127, June 26, 1996. Jennings, C. W. (1975). Fault Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology, California, Geologic Data Map Series. Kennedy, M. P., and Peterson, G. L. (1975). Geology of San Diego Metropolitan Area, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 200, 56 p. San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (1984). As Graded Geotechnical Report, Carlsbad Research Center, Phase II and Ill, Carlsbad Tract No. 81-10, Carlsbad California, Job No. SD1162-10, September 10, 1984. San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (1988). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Research Center, Phase V, Carlsbad California, Job No. 05-2863-035-00-00, February 22, 1988. Trieman, J. A (1984). The Rose Canyon Fault Zone --A Review and Analysis, California Division of Mines and Geology unpublished report, 106 p. Wesnousky, S. G. (1986). Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, no. 812, p. 12587-12631. Geotechnics Incoll)Ora.ted APPENDIX 8 FIELD EXPLORATION Field exploration consisted of a visual reconnaissance of the site, and the drilling of four exploratory borings with a truck-mounted, hollow stem, continuous flight drill rig on July 16, 1996. The borings were 8 inches in diameter, and were drilled to a maximum depth of 11 feet. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2. Logs describing the subsurface conditions encountered are presented on the following Figures 8-1 through 8-4. Disturbed samples were collected using a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler (2-inch outside diameter). SPT samples were sealed in plastic bags, labeled, and returned to the laboratory for testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were collected using a 3-inch outside diameter, ring lined sampler (modified California sampler). Ring samples were sealed in plastic bags, placed in rigid plastic containers, labeled, and returned to the laboratory for testing. The drive weight for both the SPT and the ring samples was a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches. For each sample, we recorded the number of blows needed to drive the sampler 6, 12, and 18 inches. The number of blows needed to drive the final 12 inches is shown on the attached logs under "blows per ft." Bulk samples are indicated on the boring logs with shading, whereas SPT samples are indicated with vertical lines, and ring samples with horizontal lines. Boring locations were established in the field by pacing and by estimation using the plans provided. The locations shown should not be considered more accurate than is implied by the method of measurement used. The lines designating the interface between soil units on the test pit logs are determined by interpolation and are therefore approximations. The transition between the materials may be abrupt or gradual. Further, soil conditions at locations between the borings may be substantially different from those at the specific locations explored. It should be recognized that the passage of time can result in changes in the soil conditions reported in our logs. Geotechnics Inco iporated LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 1 Logged by MAF Date: 7/16/95 Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Hollow Stem Flight Auger Elevation: 267 i=-.,.: w w u::-LI. ..J ..J u "#-w 0:: C. C. w w ::E ::E e:.. !:!::. w 0: C. <( <( ~ :::, DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS :i: (/J (/) (/) I- I-a: w ~ in (/) 0. > ..J z 0 w 0 5: :::, w ::E 0 ..J 0 al 0 m FILL: Matrix consists of a clayey sand (SC), fine to medium grained, 1 low plasticity, red brown, dry to moist, dense to very dense. ~ Contains approximately 40% rock fragments to 6 inches in diameter. Gradation i~~ 2 i;~1 Rock is angular, mildly metamorphosed. pH & Resistivity 11 50 ~ Sulfate Content 3 (6") II Expansion ir-· !~: 4 1~·~ ~ ......... ........... .... ..... ......... . ......... . ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Clayey sand with gravel and cobble t_o 6 inches (SC), low plasticity, 'ITlt1T 42 red brown, dry to moist, dense to very dense. 6 7 8 SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS {Js(;!): Mildly metamorphosed rock, 9 white and red brown, medium plasticity, very hard. Moderately weathered. 10 86 11 (10") 12 Total Depth= 11 Feet No Groundwater 13 No Caving Backfilled 7/16/96 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 PROJECT NO. 0273-004-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-1 \ LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 2 Logged by MAF Date: 7/16/95 Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Hollow Stem Flight Auger Elevation: 263 i=" i-: w w re-LL. .J ..J ~ w C. (.) 0 a:: C. w ~ ~ ~ w !:!:. w a:: C. ~ ~ ~ ::, DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS :c I/) Cl) I/) I- I-3: w X: U) Cl) C. > ..J z 5 w 0 c2 ::, w 0 .J :E Ill 0 Ill C FILL: Matrix consists of a clayey sand (SC), fine to medium grained, 1 low plasticity, brown, moist, dense to very dense. -;i!i.t§; Contains approximately 20% rock to 4 inches in diameter. 2 t~~ Rock is angular, mildly metamorphosed. }l!i. 48 i?!i~\ "ll;,;, l~~i 3 ,¼; it l··.19.'l~ !r{.\i "li'.·f ;~ 4 . ~ 5 71 119 11 Unit Weight Moisture 6 7 8 9 Refusal at 8 Feet No Groundwater 10 No Caving Backfilled 7 /16/96 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 PROJECT NO. 0273-004-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-2 LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 3 ( ' Logged by MAF Date: 7/16/95 Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Hollow Stem Flight Auger Elevation: 263 I i-: w l i=" w u::-! u. ..J ..J ~ w 0:: 0. 0. u w w w ~ ~ e:. 0::: !:.. 0. <( <( ~ ::, DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS i= "' V, "' I-I s: w ls:: iii V, l 0. 0 > ..J z 0 w cii: ::, w C .J :ii: co Q Ill C l FILL: Matrix consists of a clayey sand (SC), fine to medium grained, ! I 1 low plasticity, yellow brown, dry to moist, dense to very dense. l I ~ Contains considerable cobble size rock fragments to 5 inch diameter. Expansion 2 Direct Shear ' 51 ( 3 ......... ......... • .... u, . ......... ............................................................................................................................................................. Silty sand (SM) with considerable gravel and cobble, fine to medium J 4 ~ grained, low plasticity, red brown, very dense. l j 5 I 51 SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS (Jsp}: Mildly metamorphosed rock, I I 6 white and red brown, medium plasticity, very hard. i Moderately weathered. i 7 ( i 8 I ij 9 ( ' 1 ' 10 Refusal@ 9 Feet I No Groundwater I ( ' No Caving 11 \ Backfilled 7 /16/96 1 12 ' ' ' ( 13 i f 14 ! ' 15 l 16 17 18 19 20 I PROJECT NO. 0273-004-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: 8-3 I • Logged by MAF Method of Drilling: i=' ,-: w w u:::-u. -I -I (.) w a: a. a. w w :: :: e:.. !:!;. a. c:i: c:i: ~ :c C/) C/) C/) I-;1: w :.:: in a. > -I z w 0 ii:: :::, w C -I C Cl C Cl 2 42 3 4 5 43 6 7 ',f!. w 0:: :::, I-Cl) 0 :iE LOG .OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 4 Date: 8 Inch Hollow Stem Flight Auger Elevation: DESCRIPTION FILL: Matrix consists of a clayey sand (SC), fine to medium grained, low plasticity, light brown, dry to moist, dense to very dense. Mottled with green, red, yellow, and white claystone fragments. Contains considerable cobble size rock fragments to 4 inch diameter. 8 .•••••••• •••••·••· •••••••••••• ••••••••• ••••••••• ...................................................................................... ,u,,, ................................................................ . Sandy clay (CL), medium plasticity, olive brown, moist, very hard. Contains some gravel size, angular, metamorphic rock fragements. 9 10 74 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 PROJECT NO. 0273-004-00 Total Depth = 11. Feet No Groundwater No Caving Backfilled 7/16/96 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED 7/16/95 261 LAB TESTS R-Value Gradation Hydrometer Atterberg Limits FIGURE: B-4 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING Selected representative samples of soils encountered were tested using test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials, or other generally accepted standards. A brief description of the tests performed follows: Classification: Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classification was supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples and clas- sification in accordance with ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Boring Logs. Particle Size Analysis: Particle size analyses were performed in accordance with ASTM D422. The grain size distribution was used to determine presumptive strength parameters used to develop foundation design criteria. The results are given in Figures C-1 and C-2. In-Situ Moisture/Density: The in-place moisture content and dry unit weight of selected samples were determined using relatively undisturbed samples from the liner rings of the 2½ inch diameter Modified California samples. The dry unit weight and moisture content are shown on the Boring Logs. Atterberg Limits: ASTM D4318-84 was used to determine the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of a selected fine-grained sample. The results are summarized in Figure C-2. Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected soils was characterized by using the test method ASTM D 4829. Figure C-3 provides the results of the tests. Sulfate Content To assess their potential for reactivity with concrete, a representative sample was tested for content of water-soluble sulfate minerals using CAL TRANS method 417 (Part I). The results are given in Figure C-3. pH and Resistivity: To assess their potential for reactivity with metal pipe, a representative sample was tested for pH and resistivity, using CAL TRANS method 643. The results are given in Figure C-3. Direct Shear Test The shear strength of the soil was assessed through a direct shear test on a remolded sample performed in accordance with ASTM D3080. The results are summarized in Figure C-4. R-Value: An R-Value test was performed on representative pavement area materials in accordance with ASTM D 2844-89. The results are given in the text. Geotechnics Incoiporated U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 100 -1-11..::. F'-. ..,, ... ,J/U ,,. .. ffO ,,.,o ttvU ft',JU ttlUU ttLUU 11yu1v11111;1.c1 90 " " !Ill 80 "' 'Ill! ..... -§, 70 Q) !',.I'.. 'm ~ 60 ,Q I'-.... i'--m. ... Q) .S 50 LL "' 1ll... ... ..... C: ~ 40 ... Q) r-, i,.._ " :--..... a. 30 "1 ~ -....... ' 20 -----.... . 11:11 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 Grain Size in Millimeters 0.01 0.001 COARSE I FINE COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND GRAVEL SAND CLAY SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SC ATTERBERG LIMITS EXPLORATION NUMBER: 81 LIQUID LIMIT: SAMPLE LOCATION: 1' -4' DESCRIPTION: CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: Geotechnics SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. 0273-004-00 Incorporated The Iris Group, CRC Lot 108 Document No. 6-0449 Hamann Construction FIGURE C-1 100 90 80 .... .c: 70 Cl 'iii :?: >-60 ..0 ... 11) ·= 50 LL. .... C: ~ 40 ... Q) D. 30 20 10 -0 100 1-IIL. ...,,..,. - ~ COARSE I GRAVEL SAMPLE EXPLORATION NUMBER: SAMPLE LOCATION: ...,,v ,,. .. - 10 FINE B4 2' -3½' U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes ff'Q ff'IV ff.JU ff.JU ff"IVU ff'LVV -------...... '~ -,, ~ '1l 1--... "'-"-.... "!ill ' j'-.... 1 G . s· ' M·11· 0 ·1 ram 1ze m , ,meters COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE SAND UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: CL DESCRIPTION: SANDY LEAN CLAY Geotechnics SOIL CLASSIFICATION Incorporated The Iris Group, CRC Lot 108 Hamann Construction I IY'-flVlllll;.\"-'1 'ml r-----m ~ lllr-,. 0.01 SILT AND CLAY ""' .. r--..,,. r--. :-........ "'I; '----r--,....._ ... A TTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID LIMIT: 43 PLASTIC LIMIT: 19 PLASTICITY INDEX: 24 0.001 Project No. 0273-004-00 Document No. 6-0449 FIGURE C-2 pH & RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 2844) SAMPLE I pH I RESISTIVITY [OHM-CM] 81 @ 1· -4' I 6.5 I 1300 SULFATE TEST RESULTS (CAL TRANS 417) SAMPLE I SULFATE CONTENT I I 81 @ 1' -4' I 400 -800 P.P.M. EXPANSION TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 4829) SAMPLE I EXPANSION INDEX 81 @ 1' -4' 0 83@ 1' -3' 23 I UBC TABLE NO. 29-C, CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION 0-20 21-50 51-90 91-130 Above 130 Geotechnics Incorporated Very low Low Medium High Verv hiah Laboratory Test Results The Iris Group, CRC Lof 108 Hamann Construction Project No. 0273-004-00 Document No. 6-0449 Figure C-3 ~ .... 3000 .'. -, -.... -~-~ ··-~---·~~~~ .:.~--~---·--·---~;~~;~~-:: ••• " ••• -.-•• -.--~-l i ~ 2500 I i ;----~ -=---· .. ····~-j~-----·-·--+· l i __ . ___ ._: i : E!:. ! / ' • I ~ ~ DD CJD 1:::1 DO ODD D 0'1] El ti D GJ ODD D El[;] 0 ; t/J 2000 I I n/i-111--+·-·--·---.~.. I ! : ! _ _; I I "' ! I D El •i : ! ! ; ' ; : w : 6 • I , , · · : r 1 I 0:: 1500 ! . [J~--· , ----·,·-· ' :-·---·--,·--·--·--·-; --· _ _'._ .. _ l I t; I Cl • i ! i I ; l I ! II o:: 1 ooo ~. -8 .~ --.••• •·• ~••-••-~-• •~·• •• •••·•·•·• • • • •-•••---~ <( j ,.. ' I , • ! I • I W O • i ! 1 1 · ! · , : ~ 500 i···-·-·: •• 1: I -------·-·-· --·· i I ·-r,' j , I ! • ' ! I ' : I O •. --·-· I '--·--··-t----·-' -I I : I 0.0 2.0 4.0 ! 6.0 8.0 10.0 STRAIN[%] 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 ~· -------------··-------------------------· --- ~------------·----·-··---·----------------- ..... LL en a. .... en en w c::: I-en c::: <( w :c en 4000 -----··--·--------------, -----i I : ! ! ! ' I i j ' ! I 3500 J __ I I ! I I I 3000 2500 2000 i I I ' I I i I : l ; • PEAK SHEAR: oULTIMATE SHEAR:; ' i ! i ! ! ! i.' 1· i 1 I : I n; I ! ! : ! : ---,----------------4--------'----' 0 ! ' i I i ! : I : -;----+----------------l....---!1,--- 1 : ! I I 1500 +---i I : ' -'----~, ---------··i------,,'---- 1 I l ! : I : ! i : : i 1000 ,--'---~'------·-'----..!...:---l-il --....!4--i i i j ! I i ' ' I : ! i l I i 500 +1--- 1 ----'-! __ I . ! I i l I i ! I i I I ' : I 0 .,___ __ -------.·-·--,------''------4- 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] ' I I I I i I ! ' 3000 3500 i 7 I ----~ 4000 I I I i I I I I I I ' i ! '---------------------------------·-··-------- FRICTION ANGLE: COHESION: DRY DENSITY: MOISTURE CONTENT: .....__ Geotechnics Incorporated PEAK 32 DEGREES 680 PSF 110.3 PCF 15,6 % ULTIMATE 33 DEGREES 590 PSF SAMPLE: 83@ 1' -3' Consolidated, Drained DIRECT SHEAR TEST RES UL TS The Iris Group, CRC Lot 108 Hamann Construction Project No. 0278-001-01 Document No. 6-0462 FIGURE C-4 I I I I I i I I I I i I : i I I I i I I I I ' I I l I SCALE: 1"-100' ~~-1 -...._ Geotechnics Incorporated PROPOSED BUILDING SITE PLAN The Iris Group, CRC Lot 108 Hamann Construction / l" I LEGEND: ,. u.l :J ~ ~ ~ i ~ U- ~ -$8-4 Approximate Location of Boring -o--Transition from shallow to deep fill Project No. 0273-004-00 Document No. 6-0449 FIGURE 2 CB050567 1675 FARADAY AV CBAD MOD POSTCARD-1800SF STORAGE MEZZANINE Tl INDUST I ot#: KEN LOFRANO 7/;;;q /o~ ~~ -fv a-,½) 3--~a: fXk ()1l . 3/ l I fos ~~IL C-LrY1 (j-/?~¥C&J q(l S-[uf pl"Q. \ own~ -&56--1 '--F.J/2..,e -ARE \.J)) :). -SQ...T::> c_o, Ff'efel\~ o4 -::,~C:.. c..a,\CS . 0 frc. (l .ee.-d +~<-/WP 11/llti{O'S Jw,,,GG P{0 UC>~ ~ ) Ct_ ( \ ?[ ~ BUILO;NG . M~ . PLANNING ""3-3-0S:::: ENGINEERING /-2,-8;:QS:: FIRE APPRIFORM r HEAi. TH DEPT ------HAZMAT / AIR QUAL -------OTHER SEWER DISTR TO FROM . APPLICANT APPLICANT _________ SCHOOL FORM CFDFORM ----+-----p E & M WORKSHEET ____ _,,_-. ____ BLDG FEES COMPLET .. ---l----1---•P,l.ANCORR GCORR ---+,+-t.~....+.~~~_.!;:!.S•GIL CORR ---'Z:,,/,="I-J.LTIRE CORR \ ~FJIL~t:.t/!Jfa -, NI ~//qT ~ ~ ~ £ f?t,,_o_ 1)¥-(611 Ir~ /4 ~ ~ ~ : 1J--;sr-<5~ tn -;J f;/~~ o.-f fdJ UI OJ /fJU0