Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2501 GATEWAY RD; ; CBC2017-0115; Permit
of Ciu ty sbad Commercial Permit Print Date: 05/09/2019 Permit No: CBC2017-0115 Job Address: 2501 Gateway Rd Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Work Class: Tenantimprovement Status: Closed - Finaled Parcel No: 2132601100 Lot #: Applied: 03/13/2017 Valuation: $42,000.00 Reference #: Issued: 07/05/2017 Occupancy Group: Construction Type: Permit Finaled: # Dwelling Units: Bathrooms: Inspector: PBurn Bedrooms: Orig. Plan Check #: Final Plan Check #: . Inspection: 5/9/2019 7:32:00AM Project Title: Description: VIASAT: SITE LIGHTING AND CREATING PARKING & PATHS, TRASH ENCLOSURES AROUND BLDG I2&13, CAFE, AND P-i Applicant: Owner: ARATI RANGASWAMY VIASAT INC - 2508 GATEWAY 349 Inverness Dr S Joann Salas 858-793-4777 Englewood, CO 80112-5882 760-476-2200 BUILDING PERMIT FEE $2000+ $54.80 BUILDING PLAN CHECK FEE (BLDG) $48.36 ELECTRICAL BLDG COMMERCIAL NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL $43.00 MANUAL BUILDING PERMIT FEE $500.00 MECHANICAL BLDG COMMERCIAL NEW/ADDITION/REMODEL $45.00 5B1473 BUILDING STANDARDS FEE $2.00 STRONG MOTION-COMMERCIAL $11.76 Total Fees: $704.92 Total Payments To Date: $704.92 Balance Due: $0.00 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exaction." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code 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 you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitation has previously otherwise expired. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 1 760-602-2700 1 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov ITHE APPROVALS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE: 1LANNING IJENGINEERING UrBUILDING DFIRE 0 HEALTH DHAZMATIAPCD I k Building Permit Application cTCity f Plan Check No3CaO 11-. 01 Est. Value %4 o 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 Cdisbad Ph: 760-602-2719 Fax: 760-602-8558 Plan Ck. Deposit Date email: building@carlsbadca.gov www.carlsbadca.gov JOB ADDRESS au or lC(i -4 XF SUITE#/SPACE#/UNIT# I APN - CT/PROJECT # LOT # PHASE C J 7 TENANT BUSINESS NAME CONSTR. TYPE 0CC. GROUP DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Include Square Feet of Affected Area(s) _i_1j(44(_, 417e_ /C,llJL- + A-MO M'=oWr- pkin 4 5 Li9 kn C.IVIL (A'Dce*p - tA M1AJD '9YL 1 -tLE EXISTING USE PROPOSED USE GARAGE (SF) PATIOS (SF) DECKS (SF) I FIREPLACE AIR CONDITIONING IFIRE SPRINKLERS YES#. N0IJ YES DNa U I YES [J NOf APPLICANT NAME AV CA Primary Contact PROPERTY OWNER NAME v ADDRESS Ublbo si cze ADDRESS,S l, CA-Mi&-O CITY STATE ZIP q,iJ tp CITY ZIP : STATE 011,001 __________________________ PHONE PHONE FAX EMAIL EMAIL DESIGN PR ON OAL A' CONTRACTOR BUS. NAME ADRJSS - I O 9 9..___________ ADDRESS CITY STATE CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX - PHONE FAX EMAIL EMAIL STATE LIC. C STATE LiC.# CLASS CITY BUS. LiC.# (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair anystructure, 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 LawfChapter 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 exemption. 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)). ®(D (®YO®1 Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of pe4ur,' one of the following declarations: [J 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. U] 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 workers' compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Co. Policy No. Expiration Date This section need not be completed if the permit is for one hundred dollars ($100) or less. [] 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. CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE []AGENT DATE ®2O(!)OG>®@() (O®) I h rebyaflirrn that lam exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: 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). [J 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). I am exempt under Section _____________Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1.1 personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. (:jYes [:]No 2.1 (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name address! phone! contractors' license number): 4.1 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 !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! type of work): .PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE Th AGENT DATE FC TE THIS SECTION FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ONLY 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? Yes No Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? Yes No Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? Yes 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. r.1Jjk.l.LIllILENDING. I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work this permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (i) Civil Code). Lenders Name Lenders Address - FAPPLICANT CERTIFICATION I emtify that l have lead the application and state thatthe above Infonnation Is correct and thatthe InformatIon on the plans is accurate. I agree to complywith all Clilyordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representative of the City 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 CFfl' IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'O' deep and demolition orcdnstiuction 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 pemlitis not commenced within lflo days from the date ofsuch permit orifthe building or work authorized by such permit is suspended orabandoned at any time after the work iscommenced bra period of 180 days (Section 1 06A Uniform Building Code). ,.gAPPUCANT'S SIGNATURE SkPc-'JL DATE O io (4,, LTA C STOP: THIS SECTION NOT REQUIRED FOR BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. Complete the following ONLY if a Certificate of Occupancy will be requested at final inspection. CE RTI FICATE OF OCCUPANCY (C .. O nly)1I Fax (760) 602-8560, Email building©carlsbadca.gov or Mail the completed form to City of Carlsbad, Building Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. r0#: (Office Use Only) CONTACT NAME OCCUPANT NAME ADDRESS BUILDING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP Carlsbad CA PHONE FAX EMAIL OCCUPANT'S BUS. UC. No. DELIVERY OPTIONS PICK UP: CONTACT (Listed above) OCCUPANT (Listed above) CONTRACTOR (On P. 1) MAIL TO: CONTACT (Listed above) OCCUPANT (Listed above) ASSOCIATED CB CONTRACTOR (On . NO CHANGE IN USE/ NO CONSTRUCTION MAIL! FAX TO OTHER: CHANGE OF USE / NO CONSTRUCTION ,.gAPPLICANT'S SIGNATURE . DATE Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 03/13/2017 Owner: VIASAT INC -2508 GATEWAY Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 07/05/2017 Subdivision: Status; Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 10/09/2018 Address: 2501 Gateway Rd Carlsbad, CA 92009-1742 IVR Number: 2480 Scheduled Xctual Date Start Date Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete 0112412018 0112412018 BLDG-31 046726-2018 Partial Pass Andy Krogh Reinspection Incomplete Underground/Condu it - Wiring Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency 01/2912018 01129/2018 BLDG-31 047080.2018 Underground/Condu it - Wiring Checklist Item As noted on plans Partial Pass Andy Krogh COMMENTS Yes Reinspection Incomplete Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency As noted on plans Yes 02/01/2018 02101/2018 BLDG-31 047496-2018 Partial Pass Paul Bumette Reinspection Incomplete Underground/Condu It - Wiring Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency As noted on plans Yes 02/08/2018 02/08/2018 BLDG-31 048286-2018 Partial Pass Andy Krogh Reinspection Incomplete Underground/Condu It - Wiring Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency As noted on plans Yes 02/15/2018 02/15/2018 BLDG-31 048970-2018 Cancelled Paul Bumette Reinspection Complete Underground/Condu It - Wiring - Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency As noted on plans Yes 04110/2018 04/10/2018 BLDG-31 054434.2018 Partial Pass Andy Krogh Reinspection Incomplete Underground/Condu it - Wiring Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency As noted on plans Yes May 09, 2019 Page 3of3 Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 03/13/2017 Owner: VIASAT INC -2508 GATEWAY Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 07/05/2017 Subdivision: Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 10/09/2018 Address: 2501 Gateway Rd • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1742 IVR Number: 2480 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete Date Start Date 0810912017 08109/2017 BLDG-24 031288-2017 Cancelled Paul Bumette Reinspection Complete Rough/Topout Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 08114/2017 08114/2017 BLDG-34 Rough 031593.2017 Partial Pass Andy Krogh Reinspection Incomplete - Electrical - Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Partial underground as noted on plans Yes 08/1512017 0811612017 BLDG-31 031719-2017 Partial Pass Paul Bumette Reinspection Incomplete Underground/Condu it . Wiring Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 08118/2017 08118/2017 BLDG-31 032128.2017 Cancelled Paul Bumette Reinspection Complete Underground/Condu It . Wiring Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency. No 08/24/2017 08/24/2017 BLDG-34 Rough 032660.2017 Partial Pass Paul Bumette Reinspection Incomplete Electrical Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Partial underground as noted on plans Yes 08/30/2017 08130/2017 BLDG-31 033216.2017 Partial Pass Paul Burnette Reinspection Incomplete Underground/Condu It. Wiring Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency - No 0910712017 09/0712017 BLDG-31 033826-2017 Partial Pass Paul Bumette Reinspection Incomplete Underground/Condu It - Wiring Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 BLDG-11 040201.2017 Partial Pass Paul Bumette Reinspection Incomplete Foundation/FtglPier s (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No May 09, 2019 Page 2 o 3 Permit Type: BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 03/13/2017 Owner: VIASAT INC -2508 GATEWAY Work Class: Tenant Improvement Issue Date: 07/05/2017 Subdivision: Status: Closed - Finaled Expiration Date: 10/09/2018 Address: . 2501 Gateway Rd Carlsbad, CA 92009-1742 IVR Number: 2480 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Reinspection Complete Date Start Date 0510912019 BLDG-Final 091439.2019 Passed Andy Krogh Complete Inspection Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Plumbing Final Yes BLDG-Structural Final No BLDG-Electrical Final Yes 07/11/2017 07/11/2017 BLDG-31 028369-2017 Cancelled Paul Bumette Reinspection Complete Underground!Condu it - Wiring Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 0711812017 07118/2017 BLDG-31 029002-2017 Partial Pass Paul Bumette Reinspection Incomplete UndergroundlCOndu it - Wiring Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 07/2012017 07/20/2017 BLDG-11 029423-2017 Partial Pass Paul Bumette Reinspection Incomplete Foundatlon/Ftg!Pier S (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 07/25/2017 07/25/2017 BLDG-31 029648-2017 Partial Pass Paul Bumette Reinspection Incomplete UndergroundlCondu It - Wiring Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed • BLDG-Building Deficiency No 07/27/2017 07/27/2017 BLDG-31 029870.2017 Partial Pass Paul Bumette Reinspection Incomplete Underground/Condu it - Wiring Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 07/31/2017 05/01/2019 BLDG-21 030053.2017 Cancelled Paul Bumette • - Reinspection Complete Underground/Underf loor Plumbing Checklist Item COMMENTS • Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency • No BLDG-31 030148-2017 Cancelled Paul Bumette Reinspection Complete Underground/Condu it - Wiring Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency • No May 09,2019 Page lof3 EsGil Corporation In Partners/lzp wit/i çovernment for Bui(iing Safety DATE: 4/28/17 0 APPLICANT U JURIS. JURISDICTION: Carlsbad U PLAN REVIEWER U FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: CBC2017-0115 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 2508 Gateway Rd. PROJECT NAME: Architectural, Structural and Electrical Exterior Landscape Improvements The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. Eli The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. LII The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at EsGil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. LII The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. 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. EsGil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone #: Date contacted: (by: ) Email: Mail Telephone Fax In Person 111111 REMARKS: By: Chuck Mendenhall Enclosures: EsGil Corporation 0 GA 0 EJ 0 MB 0 PC 4/24/17 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 Repetitive Fee Repeats. * Based on hourly rate Other Hourly 2 Hrs.@* E60111 F.. Comments: NIA.In addition to the fDO NOTPA V— THIS /S NOTAN/NVOICEJ VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE • JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: C2017-0115 PREPARED BY: Chuck Mendenhall DATE: 3/27/17 BUILDING ADDRESS: 2508 Gateway Rd BUILDING OCCUPANCY: U BUILDING PORTION AREA (Sq. Ft.) Valuation Multiplier Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) Misc Ext Struct Varies Hrly Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code Icb IBY Ordinance I Bid,Pó'it Fee.bVOrdinJncé [ piarchk:Feeb,ordinaike Fl Type of Review: '0 Complete Review .0 Structural On I $200.00 is due hour I Sheet I of I macvalue.doc + 0 EsGil Corporation In (Partnership with government for Bui(ting Safety DATE: 03/27/2017 UPPLICANT URIS. JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad U PLAN REVIEWER U FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: cbc2017-0115 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 2508 Gateway Rd. PROJECT NAME: ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURAL AND ELECTRICAL SITE WORK FOR "ViaSat" The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at EsGil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. LIII The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. 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. EsGil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Arati Rangaswamy Telephone #: 858-793-4777 ,.Date co,tacted3rl5 (byTC.)_ Email: aratir@sca-sd.com tMaiI /Telephone Fax In Person LII REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela - Enclosures: EsGil Corporation 0 GA 0 EJ 0 MB 0 PC 03/14/2017 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 City of Carlsbad cbc2017-01 15 03/27/2017 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST TENANT IMPROVEMENTS PLAN CHECK NO.: cbc2017-0115 JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad OCCUPANCY: NA USE: Landscape Structures and shades ITYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: ACTUAL AREA: ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: STORIES: 1 HEIGHT: SPRINKLERS?: REMARKS: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: 03/13/2017 DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED: 03/27/2017 OCCUPANT LOAD: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 03/14/2017 PLAN REVIEWER: Sergio Azuela FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the California version of the International 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 Department. You may 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 2016 CBC, which adopts the 2015 IBC. 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. 105.4 of the 2015 International 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. City of Carlsbad cbc2017-0115 03/27/2017 GENERAL Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit FOUR new complete sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (THREE 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 TWO 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. 2. Provide a complete lists of the all structures included in the scope of work and show it in the 'SCOPE OF WORK section provided on the cover sheet of plans. Sec. 107.2. 3. Provide a construction "COST ESTIMATE". 4. Revise the calculations provided to show compliance with the 2016 CBC, instead of 2012 IBC. 5. Provide structural design calculations for the "Light Pole" foundation and anchor bolts. 6. 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, the soils expansive characteristics and bearing capacity conform to the soils report." 7. Revise the plans to show the size and spacing for the stirrups on detail 13/S3.0. 6. The plans shall indicate that special inspection will be provided for the following work. (CBC Chapter 17 and Section 107.2) a) Field Welding. Welding inspection should be provided in accordance with Section 1705.2. 0 ADDITIONAL City of Carlsbad cbc2017-01 15 03/21/2017 8. See attached list for electrical corrections. To speed up the review process, please 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: I U Yes U 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 Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEW 2011 NEC (2013 CEC) JURISDICTION: Carlsbad DATE: 03/27/2016 PLAN REVIEW NUMBER: CBC20I7-0115 PLAN REVIEWER: Morteza Beheshti Please provide structure disconnect and ground electrode system for the bridge lighting structure. ENERGY CONSERVATION (213 CALIFORNIA BUILDING ENERGY STANDARDS) ENERGY (2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING ENERGY STANDARDS) 1. Energy compliance forms are okay. Note: If you have any questions regarding this Electrical and Energy plan review list please contact Mortza Beheshti at (858) 560-1468. To speed the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where the corrected items have been addressed on the plans. City of Carlsbad cbc2017-01 15 03/27/2017 [DO NOT PAY— THIS IS NOTAN INVOICE] VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: cbc2017-0115 PREPARED BY: Sergio Azuela . DATE: 03/27/2017 BUILDING ADDRESS: 2508 Gateway Rd. BUILDING OCCUPANCY: BUILDING PORTION AREA (Sq. Ft.) Valuation Multiplier Reg. Mod: VALUE ($) Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code I I #N/A Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance I #N/AI Plan Check Fee by Ordinance I #N/AI Type of Review: E Complete Review El Structural Only J Repetitive Fee Repeats E Other E Hourly EsGil Fee Hr. @ * I #N/AI Comments: In addition to the above fee, an additional fee of $ is due ( hour@ $ /hr.) for the CalGreen review. Sheet of macvalue.doc + ... ... . ....• . WISEMAN ROHY STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS STRU.CTURAL..CALCULATIONS FOR ;vias.at Site Structures .. ... Carlsbad, CA March 9,2017 . WR Job #15-079.10 V CBC20I7-0115 ..: 2501 GATEWAY RD VIASAT: SITE LIGHTING AND CREATING PARKING & PATHS. TRASH ENCLOSURES AROUND BLDG 12&13, CAFE. AND P-1 YY l b Mira Mesa Blvd. Suite 200 TEL. (858)536-5166 WRENGINEERS. 2132612300 3/22/2017 CBC20I 7-0115 LI TABLE OF CONTENTS ViaSat Site Structures Analysis and Designs Design Criteria 1-7 Site Structures A-F 8 -56 Countertop Design 57-76 Bridge Design 77-82 t E WSEMAN±tOUY 1UCTLJRAL ENGIN E ERS WISEMAN + ROHY Structural Engineers PROJECT: VioSol Site Structures Design Loads == LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA JOB NO: 15-079.09 Date: 1/31/2017 Shade Structure- Covered Material Deck Beams Girdem Skmr Wind 1 lrilil} TPO Roof 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5/8 Dens-board 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 - 800S162-43 @24" OC - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5/8" Dens-board 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 lx Reclaimed wood 3.0 1 3.0 1 3.0 1 3.0 1 3.0 Misc, M&E 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1.0 total 10.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 Live Load: 20 PSF (Reducible) Shade Structure- Roman Canopy Material Rp-nmc CrrIr,z Skmi,- Wrr1 11^134 Roman Shade Cloth 1.0 1.0 I 1.0 J 1.0 Misc 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 10101 LU 2.0 LU 2.0 3 Live Load 0 PSF (Reducible) I Shade Structure- Louvred Canopy ... . ... 'Material Beams Girders Seismic Wind Uolift Dosso XTR 2x6@ 6" OC 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 Misc . I 0.4 0.4 0.4 - 2 AS WISEMAN + ROHY Structural Engineers PROJECT: VioSat Site Structure I == Design Loads LOCATiON: Carlsbad, CX L JOB NO: 16-079.09 Date: 1/31/2017 Exterior Wall: Mnferinl w€;rth+ 5/8" Gyp Board - 2.5 8" Mil. Studs (18 Go) @ 16" 1.4- 1/2' Plywood 1.5 lx Reclaimed Wood 3.0 Misc 1.6 rotqt 10.0 psf 3 .. . .......... dasso.XTR LUMBER & PANELS .XTR Lumber decking boards come pre-grooved x x x I Matched System for ease of Installation X . X X .XTR LUMBER 2X6 .XTR LUMBER 1X8 •. .. . .. .. . NOMINAL 1-1/2" X 6' NOMINAL 3/4" X 6' XTR-LUM40-152 XTR-LUM20-205 XTR Panels Use the panels as is, or cut thm into •. the sizes you need in either 3/4" or 1-9/16" thlcknc'55P5 by 73-1/4" long G• .XTR PANELS - 3/4" THICK 4'X 6' .XTR PANELS - 1-9/16" THICK 4'X 6' 4 XTR.FAN-20 '2' XTR'PAN-40 I1 10 Please visit dassoXTR.corn/productsflurni.er to learn more. 6 LEh dasso.XTR DECKING DESIGN BENEFITS Tropical Hardwood Installation VS dasso.XTR Bamboo classoXtR's patented manufacturing technology gives us unique installation . advantages over traditional hardwood decking. Need S/4x6 boards for Installation of blind fastening X - X X system IeedFacescrewlngfor16boards - Random Length boards require on site pre-layout . X X Pre Grooving dekbriards forBhnd System X On-site Biscuit cutting for Blind Systems X X Comparison Chart iioo ) 1050 730 590 410 700 I(SIM3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kgrn3 kg/m3 25,400 12.700 i 14,200 7,500 i :1,420 Io 3,820 3.060 780 750 350 . 1,124 Hiph High Low n ...... ........$................ .. . on'y) . ............... 5 1/31/2017 Design Maps Sumrn.ry Report Design Maps Summary Report. 61 User—Specified Input Report Title ViaSat Site Structures Tue January 31, 2017 18:26:54 UTC uiIding Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard - (which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008) Site Coordinates 33.127940N, 117.2645 70W Site Soil Classification Site Class D - "Stiff Soil" Risk Category I/U/Ill Ss = 1.052g SM$ 1.136 g S = 0.757g S1 = 0.407 g S = 0.649 g S01 = 0.433 g For information on how the SS and SI values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum hoilzo.ntal response, please return to the application and select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference. document. ... . .. . M.CEA Response Specrum.• .. . . ••. Design Response Spectrum . . . •. ... ADS— OX4 Q.1G . •e.00 i I i t ; i i ••. ....a.ao. 0.00 0.4 p.0 O.CO 0.00 1.00 1.20 1.40 IGO 1.00 2.00. •Q 0.20 0.40. 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.00 1.00 ZOO Period. T (sec) . . . Period, I (sec) L:)r PGA,,, T., C, and C, values, please view the detailed reDort. Although this information is 2 product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or Implied, as to the accuracy of the data contained therein. This tool Is not a substitute for technical subject-motter knowledge. 1/1 Total Level: Height: Rigid Flexible 50f1 Diaphragm Spans: I 75ft • > lOOft Roof 12 ft 0.303 0.454 0.530 0.606 5th Floor - - - - - 4th Floor - - - - - 3rd Floor - - - - - 2nd Floor - • - - - - Anchorage Force for Walls at Flexible & Rigid Diaphragms (ASCE 7-10 Eq 12.11-1) xW (LRFD) XWa (LRFO) xW, (LRFD) xW, (LRFD) xW (LRFD) [isRUC I SEISMIC BASE SHEAR I PROJECT: ViaSat Site Structures - 6 I PerASCE7-10 11.4 LOCATION: Carlsbad I TURAL NGlNEERS (2015 IBC12016CBC!ASCE7-10) v3.0 I JOB NO: 15-079.09 1131/2017 10:32:171 2012 IBC SEISMIC EQUATIONS Base Shear: Occupancy Category = 2012 IBC Table 1604.5 (ijilLor iv) Importance Factor 013) = 1.00 ASCE 7-10 Table 1.5-2 Site Class = D (From Soils Engineer or 'D` II not known) Tt = 8 sec ASCE 7-10 Figure 22-12 Ss= 1.052 g - 51= 0.407 g R = 1.25 ASCE 7-10 Table 12.2-1 Maximum Height = 12 feet Number of Stories 1 for Cs: for other: F5 1.08 1.08 ASCE 7-010 Table 11.4-1 Fv= 1.59 • ASCE 7-l0 Table ll.4-2 = 1.135 1.135 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-1 SMI = 0.648 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-2 5DS= 0.757 0.757 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-3 Sol = 0.432 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-4 Short Period Seismic Design Category D ASCE 7-10 Table 11.6-1 I Sec Period Seismic Design Category Q ASCE 7-10 Table 11.6-2 C.= 14 C= .0.020 x= 0.75 T. = 0.13 Sec ASCE 7-10 Eq 12.8-7 Ta = - Sec ASCE 7-10 Eq 12.8-8 o Dieets: Regular and 5 Stories rnEIx? (ASCE Section 12.8.1.3 for reduced Ss) Osteet Mornont Frame 0 concrete Moment Frame Qfcceritricalty Braced Steel Frame ®AIl Other Structural Systems Notes: Ordinary Cantilever Cols Use Category: D ASCE 7-10 Table 12.8-2 USE T.0.13 sec Vu = 0.606 xW (basic) . Eq 12.8-2 Vu = 2.682 x W (Used) Eq 12.8-3 & 5 Vu = - x W (Not Used) Eq 12.8-4 & 5 Vu = x W (for S1 >= 0.6g only) Eq 12.8-6 . Vu= 0.606 x W (LRFD) . .... . V=V/t4=o4325 xW (ASD) Structural WaJi. Out-Of-Plane and Anchorage Forces: ...... •• . ••. . Qyt-of-Plane Wall Forces (ASCE 7-10 Sect 12.11.1) Fpu 0.303 xW,(LRFD) F p=Fpull.4= 0.216 XW(ASD) 7.8.5 C) 7.8.2 .... The proposed buildings can be supported on .a shallow foundation system founded in the compacted fill. Foundations for the structure may consist of continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings. Continuous footin!s should be at least 12 inches wide and extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 2 feet and should also extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Figure 10 presents a wall/column footing dimension detail depicting the depth to lowest adjacent grade. 7.8.3 Continuous footings should be reinforced with four No. S steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, two near the top and two near the bottom. Steel reinforcement for the spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer. In addition, footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of slopes. 7 7.8.4 The recommended allowable, bearing capacity for foundations with minimum dimensions described herein is 2,500 pounds per square foot psf) and 4,000 psf for foundations bearing in compacted fill and formational materials, respectively. The allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by an additional 500 1f for each addiiional foot of depth and width, to a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psi and 6,000 psf for foundations bearing in compacted fill and formational materials, respectively. The values presented herein are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third when - .considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. .-We estimate the total settlements due to footing loads in compacted fill to be about inch and 1 inch based on a 5-foot-square footing and a 10-foot-square footing, respectively. We- estimate the total settlements due to footing loads in formational materials to be about ½ inch and l inch based on a 4-foot-square footing and an 8--foot-square footing. respectively. Differential settlements based on the foundations loads should be 14, inch in 40 feet. in addition, the buildings should be designed for the potential settlement due to fill oading as shown on Figure 6, Estimated Settlements Map. Isolated footings, if present, should have the minimum embedment depth and width recommended for conventional foundations. The use of isolated footings, which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and support structural elements connected to the building, are not recommended. Where. this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated fQPtingS.siOuldbe con.1)cd w rh.ku,iWing foundation system with grade beams. Project No. 01928-52-01 19 - May 23. 2016 Revised July 5. 2016 8 I ) Site Structures AF WtSEMAP4±ROHY ENG IM-FE IS 4). N4 130 ,7 Ijv— N25 ••. V%IK #fJ5 x Wiseman + Rohy Structural SK-1 Feb 1, 2017 at 9:22 AM Shade Structure A,F.r3d ViaSat Site Structure A&F 15-079.09 19 1 iG' Cr 18 19 )(,= Wiseman + Rohy Structural SK-1 MS ViaSat Site Structure- B,C Feb 1, 201 Tat 9:22AM - 15-079.09 Shade Structure B.C.r3d Wiseman +Rohy Structural Engineer . __.-_..........-.. MS ViaSat Site Structure- D 1 Feb 1, 2017 at 9:22 AM 15-079.09 Shade Structure D.r3d <—.. Wiseman 1- Rohy Structural SK-1 MS ViaSat Site Structure- E Feb 1, 2017 at 9:23 AM 15-079.09 Shade Structure E.r3d 21 WISEMAN + ROHY 14 STRUCTURAL ENGJHEER BY / DATE 2/i/r PROJECT V5c1SMT SHEET OF ( .:7 JOBNO 507 o CL4!JT CrJL ell - - .H ... . 144 ( -XG - - - Aic ) * 7155fl 'A -- rK \' A ...: .. . . ...o............. ........... . . • . • . . . 'C- OJc L.0 p . J?c2 - •• : Lc. -, - P0 .:; ,.:.... -•..i .......... - V. k j o - -se- = i ' rr 3 e /ii ox .................. .x•..........-r--------------- . .. . . 0 ' .. 35 .... • .. . .... .. ..:..............::..••..: . .. f . ...... . .:. .. •:•• ........-.........i..• 4.. .......... ..-.. ....... ........................ -------- '.:.;L. U 1 • • . •: . .....••. • •. . . . .. .. . • .• RIM BasePlate VI.5 'Nowak-Meulmster & Associates ViSat Site Structures ...• Cant Col Baseplate- Pipe 4 X-STRG I... :" Detailed Design Results 2/ .1/1 10:43 15 CRITERIA: Analysis kaintain Strain Compatibility Use i.in. effective plate area for axial only compression load on plate. Design Use LRFD 2nd to check plate bending Max concrete bearing per AISC J9. Anchor Shear Values Only. Anchcr Tension Values Only. INPUT DATA: Column Column Size .............................}SS4.000xO.25O Dim: TW Depth (in) 0.233 4.00 Base Plate Plate Ev (ksi) .......................36.000 N (Parallel to Web) (in) ................10.000 S (Perpendicular to Web) (in) ...........10.000 Plate Thickness (in) .....................o.mo Anchor Anchor Size .............................3/AU Anchor Area (in02,)0.442 Anchor Material ..........................A307-60 Anchor Modulus (ksj) .................?9.QOO.00 Anchor Strength Fu (ksi) ............... 60.00 oting F0 orjn4 strength f'c (kni) ............. 3.00 ............... Concrete Modulus (ksj) ............... Dimension (Parallel to. web) (ft) ............. 4.00 Dimension (Perpendicular to b) (ft).... .. Psign Load . Building Code: - None - Load combination: 0.75DL + 1.25E Axial (kip) .............................•. 0.83 V (kip) ................................. 0.88 Mx (kip-±t),............ ........................9.25 RESULTS: . Analysis Thar(in) ......................................... Resultant Angle (D) Plate enciing Max bending moment from anchor/s l in tension m [N-0.80d]/2.0(jv .................................. fl L8-0.80b)/2.0 (in ................................. Controlling effective width to resist moment (in) Controlling plate bending moment (kip-ft) ........... PhiMn = (0.9xNn) (kip-ft) ........................... ..Mu/PhiMn ............................................ Thickness Required (in) .............................. Thickness controlled by cantilever action. Anchor.. X(in) Y(in} V()!ip ) T(kip 0.2.2 ............7 .20 \: .1 Page 1 0.00 3.400 3.400 3. '100 1.29 0.88 0.705 ii ?n) Y(in) 1 -3.500 3.500 2 3.500 3.500 3 -3.500 -3.500 4 3.500 -3,500 R.?r. BazeP1ate V1.5 Nowak- uiester & /sociates \iaSat Site Structures Cant Col Baseplate- Pipe 4 X-STRG . . .........Detailed Design Results 2/ 1/17 10:43 16 2 3.50 3.50 0.22 0.00 3 -3.50 -3.50 0.22 7.20 4 3.50 -3.50 0.22 0.00 Bearing Elf Area of Support A2 (in2} ........................400.00 Plate Area Al fin A2}100.00 Sqrt(A2/A1) ..........................................2.00 Capacity Bearing Stress (ksi) ....................3.06 Actual Bearing Stress tksil .......................0.99 DIAGRAN: 17 www.hilti.us Profis Anchor 2.5.2' Company: Wiseman and Rohy Page: 1 Specifier: MS Project: viaSat Site Structures Address: Sub-Project I Pos. No.: 15-079.09 Phone I Fax: I Date: 21112017 Specifiers comments: Pipe 4 X-STRG F linput data Aft Anchor type and diameter: Hex Head ASTM F 1554 SR. 36314 Effective embedment depth: h 8.000 in. Material: . ASTM F 1554 Proof- Design method AC! 318-11/ C!!' Stand-off installation: e, = 0.000 in. (no stand-off); L = 0.625 in. Anchor plate: L, x Ix t a 10.000 in. x 10.000 In. x 0.625 in.; (Recommended plate thickness: not calculated) Profile: Round HSS. Steel pipe (AISC); (1 x W x T) = 4.500 in. ,c 4.500 in. x 0.237 in. Base material: cracked concrete, 3000. f' = 3000 psi; h a 12.000 in. Reinforcement: tension: condition B. shear: condition B; edge reinforcement none or < No. 4bar Seismic loads (cat C. 0, E. or F) Tension load: yes (D.3.3.4.3 (d)) Shear load: yes (D.3.3.5.3 (c)) Goomery [in.) 4. Lwiding Ikip. ftklpj InfRit data and rra.,fls Inasi be ciredajd mr a5reernc,ril rrkir Ilia, axial intj candilbna and fri pI8$ftJjljIy! PlOFIS Mrhcr, (c) 2003.2005 huh AO. FL-t1404 Ochnan Irtr . il S recjisldred Trademark of 11kG A3, Schaar www.hilti.us Profis Anchor 2.5.2 . :" Company: Wiseman and Rohy Page: 2 Specifier: MS . Proiect ViaSal Site Structures .(.::4 . .Address: Sub-Praject I Pos. No.: 15079.09 Phone I Fax I Date: 2/1/2017 -Mail. 2 Proof I Utilization (Governing Cases) Design values [kip] Utilization Loading Proof Load Capacity p. Ijt L%J Status i'nsion Pullout 6.981' TO 857- OK - Shear Concrete edge failure In direction x+ 0.880 11.712 48 8 OK Loading Utilization %3 Status ombined teTón anti shear loads . 0.è'47 0.075 1.0 77 _OK 3 Warnings Please consider all details and hints/warnings given in the detailed reporti Fastening meets the design criteria! 4 Remarks; Your Cooperation, Duties Any and all information and data contained in the Software concern solely the use of Hilti products and are based on the principles, formulas and security regulations in accordnce with Hilti's technical directions and operating, mounting and assembly instructions, etc.. that must be strictly complied with by the user. All figures contained therein are average figures. and therefore use-specific tests are to be conducted prior to using the relevant Hilti product. The results 01 the calculations carried out by means of the Software are based essentially on the data you put in. Therefore, you bear the sole respànsibili(y for the absence of errors, the completeness and the relevance of the data to be put in by you. Moreover. you bear solo responsibility for having the results of the calculation checked and cleared by an expert, particularly with regard to compliance with applicable norms and permits, prior to using them for your specific facility. The Software serves only as an aid to interpret flDm1S and permits without any guarantee as to the absence of errors, the correctness and the relevance of the results or (......) . suitability for a specific application. . •. You must take all necessary and reasonable Steps to prevent or limit damage caused by the Software. in particular, you must arrange for the regular backup ot programs and data and, If applicable, carry out the updates of the Software offered by Hilti on a regular basis. If you do not use the AutoUpdate function of the Software, you must ensure that you are using the current and thus up-to-date version of the Software in each case by carrying out manual updates via the Hilti Website. Hilti will nt be liatie for consequences. such as the recovery of lost or ....damaged data or programs, artung from a culpablebreach of duly you. . .. • . b,uI dals wand les%ft must be thCckd Is, msjrsernni wars 11* 05u0,5 cidawts and for tduseirty' PROFIS A,uchr (c) QO3-2DO9 Hilti AG. Ft.-9494 Sussari HIll isa :ejislwsd T:comor at I5ll AG. 5ciaOn 18 i .."........ITII 111.1 T#514.6in 7.5 ft •...... . .. .#5@13.83 in 4; '44 . . Company : Nowak & Wiseman. February 1, 2017 . Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- Pipe 4 X-STRG Checked By:_____ Sketch 3.333 ft Details BIX ----- A .--==-. 4; 44 ---•• - 0@1 . Di •-• 75 ft Bottom Rebar Plan A • .. B in C lc? ...-•------------- Is - .- ............-- mD C Footing Elevation 4 .5 in X Dir. Steel: 1.91 in (min)(7 #5) .......... . .......... .. - - :•........•... Z Dir. Steel: .72 in2 (min)(3 #5) . . ..... . .... ..... Top Rebar Plan Geometry, Materials and Criteria. . Length :7.5 ft •• . eX :0 in Gross Allow. Bearing • :3500 psf Steel fy :60 ksi Width :3 ft eZ :0 in . Concrete Weight :150 pcf Minimum Steel :.0018 Thickness :24 in pX :10 in . . Concrete fc :3 ksi Maximum Steel .0075 .Height :0 in pZ :10 in • Design Code : ACI 318.02 - Footing Top Bar Cover :2.5 in . Overturning Safety Factor :1.5 Phi for Flexure :0.9 Footing Bottom Bar Cover :3.5 in • Coefficient of Friction :0.3 Phi for Shear :0.75 Pedestal Longitudinal Bar Cover :1.5 in Passive Resistance of Soil :0 k Phi for Bearing :0.65 RISAFoot Version 2.0 [Z:\Projects\15\15-079.09 ViaSat Site StructuresCalcsRisa Footing\Cant Column FoOdW 1'ipe4 X-STF ..... 20 Company : Nowak & Wiseman February 1 2017 Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- Pipe 4 X-STR Checked By:_____ Loads P (Ic) Vx (Ic) Vz (k) ________ Mx (k-fl) Mz (k-ft) Overburden (psf) DL jr--- Ti I E 110 EL .7 ___ +Vx ~.+Vz O&M ism +Mx +Mz A D D C DC A D Soil Bearing . ... Descrption .çories and Factors - . . Gross Max Bear (psf) Max/Allowable Ratio I LC #1 Service .6DL+.875EL 13500 2205.8(A) _ - LJc1?1ry 3500 1226.57 L..._ ........ Lc#3 Service _11DL+1L_ 3500 455.494(A) 1 - .13 D; DEMC .6DL+.875EL 1.IDL+.875EL QA: 2205.8 psf QA: 1226.57 psf QB: 2205.8 psf QB: 1226.57 psf QC opsf QC: opsf QD: 0 psf QD: 0 psf NAZ:-1 in NAZ:-1 in .NAX:8.921 in NAX:29.411 In •• ....•. ••.. ...• ... DIM C :.. IDL+ILL . .. ... .. ... .. . ..... ....•........ .. ... QA: 455.494 psf •• •• . . . QB: 455.494 psf •....• . ... . ...............• . . .. .. QC: 455.494 psf .•. . .................. ... . . .... . QD: 455.494 psf .. NAZ: -1 in NAX:-1 in Footing Flexure Design (Bottom Bars) CatJesand Factors • u-XJ_ZDir AJn 2 MtL-KZJK-tL &PkJs_(in2) jLC#iStreng I.9DL+ç_ 6.832L .079 LC #2Stren9th I_35DL+1 25EL - 10.249 113 6.367 07 L 9.11 ....J_.1 J 2.406 '026 1 Note: Overburden and footing self weight are included in the DL load case. Footing Flexure Design (Top Bars) . Categories and Factors Mu-XX (k-ft)ZDfr AsMZZ (k-ft)XDir As (in 2 ) $VV+oVER FISW+IOVER _.000925926 _9.71145e-6I 1.804 .01 RISAFoot Version 2.0 LZ:IProjects11515-079.09 ViaSat Site Structures\Calcs\Risa FootingCant Column FoMkp Pipe 4 X-STF 21 Company : Nowak & Wiseman February 1, 2017 Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- Pipe 4 X-STRG . Checked By:_____ Foodnq Shear Check .. Two Way (Punching) Vc: NA One Way (X Dir. Cut) Vc 79.611 k One Way (Z Dir. Cut) Vc: 199.029 k Punching X Dir. Cut Z Dir. Cut Description Categories and Factors Vuk)VuFVc Vuk) Vu/øVc Vu(k) Vu/rVc IL#1Streg .9DL+1.25EL .E NA ...LNA......2.031 34 L .I .0 .03 LC#2Stren th jpiL,j I.__!1&......T1...___ _3.046 Lo1 .02 L 0• iL.C#3_Strength I 2DL+1 6LL NA NA 2.707 1045 006 0 Note: Overburden and footing self weight are included in the DL load case. - Overturning check (Service) Categories and j-XX_(k-ft Mo-ZZ(k-ft) Ms-ZZ (k-ft)• .!!P2n_. _Factors _ OSF-XX OSF-ZZ LC #1 Service I .6DL+.875EL 1 .172 23.231 j 7.769 1 9293 35.164 1.1961 LC 92 Service IIDL+875Et - ' 315 42.591 7.826 L. 17 036 35,164 :2.177 LC#3Service IDL+ILL .286 38.719 i .115 1 15.488 f136.164 135.164 I Mo-XX: Governing Overturning Moment about AD or BC Ms-XX: Governing Stablizing Moment about AD or BC OSF-XX: Ratio of Ms-XX to Mo-XX Sliding check (Service) _. Description Categories and Factors Va-XX(k) Vr-XX (l)Va.ZZck) Vr-ZZ(k) _ • i LC#lService ___6DL+875EL .612 1_845 0 L..1 1. 845 3O12 NA #2 Service !iiP?L 612 _3382 - ____ 0 5522 NA -3382 ....:'1LC#3Senhicej1DL+ILL 0 J 3.075 0 3.07S J NA NAI Va-XX: Applied Lateral Force to Cause Sliding Along XX Axis Vr-XX: Resisting Lateral Force Against 61i0ing Along XX Axis... -$R-AX-Ratio. of \/iXX.to Va-XX .. . . . •. ..... RISAFoot Version 2.0 [Z:\Projects\15\15079.09 ViaSat Site Structures\CalcsRisa FootingCant Column Fo&l. Pipe 4 X-STF 22 Company Designer MS Job Number 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- Pipe 4 X-STRG Checked By: Sketch Ai X -* M-m- M... Df- 4C 4.5 ft #5@23.5 in z ('4 Footing Elevation RSAFoot Version 2.0 iZ:\Projects1515-079.O9 ViaSat Site Structures\CaIcsRisa FootingCant Column Foftqp Pipe 4 X-STF 23 Company : Now àk & Wiseman February 1, 2017 Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- Pipe 4 X.STRG Checked By:_____ _ome fry, Materials and Criteria Length :4.5 ft eX :0 in Gross Allow. Bearing :3500 psf Steel fy :60 ksi Width :4.5 ft eZ :0 in Concrete Weight :150pcf Minimum Steel :.0018 Thickness :12 in pX :10 In Concrete ft :3 ksi Maximum Steel :.0075 - Height :0 in pZ :10 in Design Code :ACI 318-02 Footing Top Bar Cover :2.5 in Overturning Safety Factor :1.5 . Phi for Flexure :0.9 Footing Bottom Bar Cover :3.5 in Coefficient of Friction :0.3 Phi for Shear :0.75 Pedestal Longitudinal Bar Cover :1.5 in Passive Resistance of Soil :0 k Phi for Bearing :0.65 : Loads P (Ic) Vx (Ic) Vz (k) Mx (k-ft) -ft) Overburden (psf) .1.1 DL L......................L..._...............1 J:___.L.Ji0...._J EL [.. I .7 i.............J.. .................L_____ Viggo Soil Bearing Description Categories and Factors Gross Allow.(psf) Max Bearing (psf) Max/Allowable Ratio .6DL+.875EL . 1.IDL+.875EL ... . .. QA: 1504.26 psf .. QA: 836.293 psf . . QB: 1504.26 pf . . QB 836.293 psf ... QC: opsf . .QC: opsf . .. .... QD: 0 psf . QD: 0 psf .. .. . ... . NAZ:-1 in . . NAZ:-1 in . . . . NAX13378in NAX 44 ItS in IDL+ILL .. . .... .. . ... .. ...... ... ... ... . QA: 310.549 pet . ... ... ....... .. QB: 310.549 psf . . ... . ...... QC: 310.549 psf .. . . . .. . . . QD 310.549 psf . . .. .. . . . ........ NAZ:-lin . ..... .. . ..... . ..... .. .. ... .... NAX -1 in RISAFoot Version 2.0 FZ:\Projects\15\l 5-079.09 ViaSat Site Structures\Calcs\Risa Footing\Cant Column Fo6thW Pipe 4 X-STF 24 Company : Nowak & Wiseman February 1, 2017 Designer : MS Job Number: 15-019.09 Cant Cot Footing- Pipe 4 X-STRG Checked By;_____ Footing Flexure Design (Bottom Bars) .. Description Categories and Factors Mu-XX (k-ft) Z Dir As (in') Mu-ZZ(k-ft) X Dir AsQn. IC #1 Strength .9DL+1.25EL .057 ....2.114 7.767 .212 #2 Strength 3 171 086 _LC -I 7.262 198 I ç Strength I2DL+ISLL - 2.818 j077 ____ 2.818 F 077 Note: Overburden and footing self weight are included in the DL load case. Footing Flexure Design (Top Bars .. Description Categories and Factors Mu-XX_(k-ft ZDir As (in Mu-ZZ (k-if) X DirAs (i +idV,E•W...............................- 0 .0 J.... 6_J . 048 1 Footing Shear Check -. Two Way (Punching) Vc: 130.498 k One Way (X Dir. Cut) Vc 48.432 k One Way (Z Dir. Cut) Vc: 48.432 k Punching X Dir. Cut Z Dir. Cut Description Categories and Factors Vu(k) VWVc Vu(k) Vu/Vc Vu(k) VuløVc LC~1Streng9DL+125EL 566 058 1.448 - 'Th4 5.5 I I1 Strei LC #2 nqtED.35DL+1.26EL___________ _.. L._. 7.695 _.079 ? 2.112.O6 _5.043 1.139 LC#3Streng.hI_1.2DL+1.6jL _ 68 _1 _.0 j .053 1 Note: Overburden and footing self weight are included in the DL toad case. Overturning Check (Service) Description Categories and Factors Mo-XX(k-ft)__Ms-XX (k-ft)MoZZ (k-ft) Ms-ZZ )OSF-XX OSF-ZZ IC #1 Service I .6DL+.875EL _.103 18.593 7.191 _j 8.593 i8334]_1.195 çservtce_i11DL+85EL - 189 1 15753 7277 1 15 753 3 6 324 216 LC #3 Service IDL+ILL .172 14.321 .172 I 14.321 83.324 83.324 I Mo-XX: Governing Overturning Moment about AD or BC . . Ms-XX: Governing Stablizing Moment about AD or BC OSF-XX: Ratio of Ms-XX to Mo-XX SlicIjg Check ServiceJ Description Categories and Factors Va-XX(k) Va:ZZ (k) -. LC #1 Service I .6DL+.875E1 fTh12 1 1.132 0 1.132 1.848 NA LC #2 Service IIDL+875E1 612 2075 0 2 075 3388 1 NA j I LC#3Serv..f1DL+1LL 0J1.887 1011.881 tWAINA J Va-XX: Applied Lateral Force to Cause Sliding Along XX Axis Vr-XX: Resisting Lateral Force Against Sliding ALong XXAcis . ... .... .SR-XX: Ratio Qf Vr-XX to Y?-XX. . .. . . .. .. .. ... ..... RISAFoot Version 2.0 jZ:Projects15\15-079.09 ViaSat Site StructuresCalcsRisa Footing\Cant Column FoMW pipe 4 X-STF fWSEMAN + ROHY : 26 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS • . .. • • BY DATE ______ PROJECT T5rkucnAAE OF JOB No. -- .77 ••: ...........:• .• . .. :H: F-c2'c 3o3d',i' iO f:• 4 -cd 0000 It Li - g1E AU Soc = 0 . ..•. J ..........::..: . • .... ::::::'-...V................ :.:: •• .•. • If 2 .... .... .j . ••• cc( OJ?cG z - i2Q. I.,35O+•L;t;-c*5 : • .. : , 5€ &, --- -- -- -- 1E FL, 0k - - —. .. -- - -. — - -- - .- - VCj.; 15G'(uc 20? ±i;4 ccP 2(37 = .....•jz.. :.....3...........i ..........H.. . ------ 'J ----- -- - __ o2,fl M v1.1 Ji • o"( — - -.-.--..--...-........... ..... /312 .:g. •. .. . .. ... • ... .•. . RAM J3ase?late Vl.5 Nowak-reulmester & Associates ViaSat Site Structures . . Cant Col Daseplate- HSSGX6 ......... Deca2..i Design S.1Jt 2/ 1/17 10:46 27 CRITERIA: Analysis Maintain Strain Compatibility Use mm. effective plate area for axial only compression load on plate. Design Use LRFD 2nd to check plate bending Max concrete bearina per AISC JS. Anchor Shear Values Only. Anchor Tension Values Only. INPUT DATA: Column Column Sire.............................HS56X6X1/4 Dim: BfTop TfTop BfBot TfBot Depth (in) 6.00 0.233 6.00 0.233 0.233 6.00 Base Plate Plate Fy (ksi) ........................36.000 N (iaraliol to web) tin) ................2.000 B (Perpendicular to Web) (in) ...........12.000 Plate Thickness (in) ....................1.000 Anchor Anchor Size.............................. 3/411 Anchor Area (in2' ......................0.442 Anchor Material ..........................A307 -6Q Anchor Modulus(ksj) ................. .... 9000.00 Anchor Strength Fu(ksi) .............•• 60.00 OOting J . Footing Stxength ftc Rail 3.00 Concrete Modulus {ksj) ............... 3.22.02 Dimension (Parallel to web) (ft) ............ .4.00 Dimension (Perpendicular to web) (ft).., . . .4,00 Design Load ..... . Building Code: - None - Load combination: 0.75DL + 1.25E Ax1al (kip) ......................................0.97 Vx (kip) ............................... 1.55 Mx)up-it ....20.62 RESULTS: . 41alysis YBar......................................... 3.22 Resultant Angle ................................. !1.ate Bending Max bending moment from anchor/s ill in tension m IN-0.95d)12.0 (in) .................................3.150 n (B-O.95b3/2.0 (i ).................................3.150 Controlling effective width to resist moment (in) ... 3.150 .Contrciling plate-bending moment (kip- ft) ...........1.77 Phi!1n = (0.9x5n} Jr ........................2.13 . . . MU/Phi4p ............................................0.83 Thickness Required (in) ..............................0.912 Thickness . ontro1led by cantilever action. Anchor X(iri) Y(in) V(kip ) TRip I 4.5.0 ..........0.49 ...........12.87" Page 1 R4 BasePlctte VL 28 Nowak-Meuijnc-ster & Associates . . . iaSet Site Structures •.. . ... . Detailed Design Results Cant Col Baseplate- }!SS6z6 2/ 1/17 10:46 2 4.50 4.50 0.49 0.00 3 -4.50 -4.50 0. 4R 12.87 4 4.50 -4.50 0.49 0.00 Bearing Eff Area of Support 12 Cir2 ........................576.00 Plate Area A]. (i2} .................................144.00 Sart(A2/A1) ...........................................2.00 Capacity Bearing Stress (ks.) .....................3.06 Actual Bearing. Stress (ksil ........................1.38 DIAGRAM: p .•_•.. •.. X 7? . - 1 -4.500 4.500 I - 2 4.500 4.500 3 -4 .500 -4.500 4.:5.00 .•. \ •.......• \. . • •..• L 12.00 X 12.00 X 1.00 tj .ncprols . .. :• •. •/ Page 2 II29 www.hllti.us . Profis Anchor 2.5.2 . Company: Wisernan and Rohy Page: 1 Specifier: MS Project: ViaSat Site Structures Address: . Sub-Project I Poe. No.: 15-079.09 Phone I Fax: Date: 2/1/2017 E-Mail: Specifier's comments: HSS 6x5 o.i+ I Input data Anchor type and diameter: Hex Head ASTM F 1554 GR. 35 314 AM ________________________________ Effective embedment depth: h,,, = 10.000 in. Material: ASTM F 1554 Proof: Design method AC] 318-11 / C1P Stand-ofF installation: CL, = 0.000 in. (no stand-of I); t = 0.625 in. Anchor plate: Ir, x it x I = 12.000 in. x 12.000 in. x 0.625 in.; (Recommended plate thickness: not calculated) Profile: Square HSS (AtSC): (Lx W x T) = 6.000 in. x 6.000 in. x 0.250 in. Base material: cracked concrete, 3000, = 3000 psi; h 14.000 in. Reinforcement: tension: condition B, shear: condition B: edge reinforcement: none or < No. 4 bar Seismic loads (cat. C. 0. E. or F) Tension load: yes (D.3.3.4.3 (d)) Sheer load: yes (0.3.3.5.3 (C)) Geometry [in,] & Loading [kip, ft.kipl .2 I.' .... . ........ VY 'aL WWI dale and ro,idte nwat be cPeciccd for 55'ae.nwlu With the oxislinC cndlhions and Cs plarb5t,4 PROFIS AiWiioi (c) 2003-21'09 H5i AG. V L-949 5chann hliC C a iejewred ii ciemaric oh Hiti AG. !'than 30 Profis Anchor 2.5.2 Company: Wiseman and Rohy Page: 2 Speifiec MS Project: ViaSat Site Structures Address: Sub-Project! Pos. No.: 15-079.09 Phone I Fax: Date: 21112017 E-Mail: 2 Load case/Resulting anchor forces Load case: Design loads F k—' Anchor reactions J Tension force: (+Tension, -Compression) Anchor Tensio Shear force Shear force x Shear force y 1 12:580 0.500 0.500 0.000 2 0.000 0.500 0.500 0.000 ,..., Tension ion 3 12.580 0.500 0.500 0.000 4 0.000 0.500 0.500 0.000 max. concrete compressive strain: 0.40 [%o) max. concrete compressive stress: 1752 [psi) resulting tension force in (x1y)(-4.50010.0D0): 25.160 (kip) ,.._,, resulting compression force In (Iy)(5.I7l!0.0D0): 26.140 [kip] U 1 3 Tension load Load k, (hip) Capacity .N,[kip) - Utilization = N.^ Status Steel Strength 12.530 14.529 87 OK Pullout Strength 12.580 8.240 ', - not recommended Concrete Breakout Strength" 25.160 28.371 89 OK Concrete Side-Face Blowout, direction N/A N/A N/A N/A anchor having the highest loading anchor group (ach.ors intensiDn) .• . . 3.1 Steel Strength . . (sf1 ra n A 1.1a ACI 318-11 Eq. (02) N N Ad 318-11 Table 0.4.1.1 . .. .. .• . .•. .. . Pau 'I Variables .. .. . . (in.2) f1, (psi) . . . .... i . 3...... .. . .. Calculations . ... . . . . ... N (kip) .... . . . .... 19.372 . Results N (hip) lkiil N. [kip] - 19.372 . 0750 . 14.529. •.. . . • 12.580 •••• 3.2 Pullout Strength .. •:. •. NON = l4:, 145 ACI 318-11 Eq. (0-13) . . . . N, = 8A,f . ACI 3IS-11 Eq. (D-14) •• ACI 318-11 Table 0.4.1.1 Variables Fin.2) ). .f EIl 1.000 •.. .0.65. S..... • .1.0.00 3000 -. -Calculations • . . . • . ... . .• Nelkipi Results . Na,, ip]N (kipi N [kip] 15.696 . •.. . .0.700 0.750 . 1.000 8.20 if F60 EnM data and tsutS ,nvsf b4 Chucked loi a saauu th cia axWing condilibm and tar pausbdily? PROPIS Ar-inr (C) 2023•2039 lea AG. FL9454 Schaan HiIl in a rnginleod Trndenalk of 11Jli AG. &hnari 31 . www.hlti.us Profis Anchor 2.5.2 Company: Wiseman and Rohy Page: 3 Specifier: MS Project: ViaSat Site Structures • Address: Sub-Project I Pos. No.: 15-079.09 • Phone I Fax: Date; 2/112017 E-Mail: 3.3 Concrete Breakout Strength NN AC1318-11 Eq. (D-4) Awo 4. NaN ACI31S-11 Table P.4.1.1 A. see ACt 318-11. Part D.5.2.1, Fig. RD.5.2.1(b) A =94 ACt 318-11 Eq. (D-5) (+ ei) 1.0 ACt 318-11 Eq. (0-8) 3h 0.7+ 0.3 (f) S 1.0 ACI 318.11 Eq. (0-10) =iM(.'..c!)41.o ACt 318-11 Eq. (D-12) Na = ic 14, ACt 318-11 Eq. (0-6) Variables h [in.) 5C'N [in.] (in.) camp (in.) _______ 10.000 0.000 0.000 19.500 1.000 ;._(in.) lt f (psi] - 24 1.000 3000 Calculations A, [in.2] A+ (in."] Woo N ff0_900.00 1.005 q'ec2iJ 1.60 N WCO.N 1.000 1.000 N [hip] 4r5997 . Results 14,14 N (kip] N [hip) •. .54.04.0 .. . .• . P.70 • tODD . •••• • '. 1 thie DOW roauts inisot beci,ecw er e,naigth the esIr.j ccnftis and fat 08uS1biiy! iaROF)S Anat (Ct 22O5 +fili AG, FI.-945 Siiai HIi a r ftweJ 1renarIc o KHti AG. 5thnn 32 w.hilti.us Profis Anchor 2.5.2 Company: Wiseman and Rohy Page: 4 Specifier: MS Project ViaSat Site Structures Address: Sub-Project I Pos. No.: 15-079.09 Phone I Fax: Date: 21112017 E-Mail: 4 Shear load Load V [kip] Capacity A& [kip] UtIzaJ3v = VJ4>V0 Status Steel Strength' 0.500 7$5 7 OK Steel failure (with lever arm)' N/A N/A N/A N/A Piyout Strength' 2.000 98.353 3 OK Concrete edge failure in direction x+' 2.000 16.867 12 OK anchor having the highest loading "anchor group (relevant anchors) 4.1 Steel Strength V. = n 0.6 A, 6 ACI 318-11 Eq. (D.20) AC1318-ll Table D.4.1.1 Variables n tin .21 'NI Ipsil 1 0.33 58000 Calculations V,. [kip) Results V.a, P'PI 4 V [kip) V. tkipl 11.623 ONO— 7.555 0.500 4.2 Pryout Strength .Vq kp N] ACt 318-11 Eq. (0-41) > V 2 V. ACt 318-11 Table D4.1.1. A see ACl316-11, Part D.5.2.1,Fig.RD.5.2.1(b) = 9 h . . . . . •ACI 318-11 Eq. (D-5) .. S... ( .72 e s 1.0 . Cl 318-11 Eq. (D-8) +.. . WUJN =o7+o3(f?ga)10 ACI31811 Eq. (DID) .•%;lcp.N MAx(i.i 2t)1.O . . .. .........A0131811 Eq. (D-12) = k hj ACt 318-11 Eq. (D-6) Variables kj, h..i tin.) eolh Em.) ew.1, [in.) 2 10.000 0.006 0 19.500 WeN c [in.] k tPsl1 1.000 24 ...........1000 3000 Calculations A (in. A Ii.2] %J>u.N '10N N, [kip, 1521.00 90600 - i.Øo 1.000 1.000 1.000 41.569 Results V(kip) ipJ V,,(kip] 140.5 .....0.700 . .1.OPO 1.000 98.353 2.000 (.. bi4 dote are ostdIs bust he d>coked loi oueemesit with the oxisth.g conditiuns and for ptsibt1io1 PROfI5 Anther C ) 2CC3-2O9 Nil>> AG. FL-9454 SChOli:> >41>>> is o regisitced Tr tOneit of 141hi AG. Sthasn - 3j . www.hlittus Profis Anchor 2.5.2 Company: Wiseman and Rohy Page: 5 Specifier: MS Project: VSat Site Structures Address: Sub-Project I Pos. No.: 15-079.09 Phone I Fax: I Date: 2/1/2017 E-Mail: 4.3 Concrete edge failure in direction x+ v ACI 318-11 Eq. (D-31) Aveo ACI 318-11 Table D.4.1.1 All,, see ACI 316-I1, Part D.6.2.1, Fig. RD.8.2.1(b). A = 4.5 c ACI 318-11 Eq. (0-32) IjtQc.v = ) 1.0 ACI 318-11 Eq. (0-36) \ 3c 1/ 0.7-0.3fr_)s1.0 ACI 3118-I'll Eq. (0-38) 551. Yh.v = it 1.0 ACI 318-11 Eq. (0.39) h. V, z9Ifc ACI 318-11 Eq. (0-34) Variables C., (lii.) cg (.n.3 e2., (in.) Ii, lin.] - 13.000 19.500 0.000 - 1.000 14.000 l (psi] (in.]_ d iin.1 (, 0.750 3000 1.000 Calculations A 2 (in.2) A.1 fin.2) W.,.V V, (kp) . •• '700 760.50 1.000 1.000 1.180 23.106 Results ; ) V..; (kip) , V (kip) V [kipj 24.098 o:00 1.000 - 16.867 2.000 .. 5 Combined tension and shear loads Utilization av (%j Status 0 119 1 00 nojeernfflT -: ••. I . -6 Warnings •• . . Load re-distributions on the anchors due to elastic deformations of the anchor plate are not considered. The anchor plate is assumed to be . . . . .. sufficiently stiff, in order not to be deformed when subjected to the loading! Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing conditions and for plausibility! Condition A applies when supplementary reinforcement is used. The 0 factor is increased for non-steel Design Strengths except Pullout Strength and Pryoul strength. Condition B applies when supplementary reinforcement is not used and for Pullout Strength and Piyout Strength. Refer to your local standard. Chocking the transfer of loads into the base material and the shear resistance are required in accordance with ACI 318 or the relevant - standardi . • ...An anchor design approach For structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F is given In ACI 316-11 Appendix D. Part (a) that requires the governing design strength of an anchor or group of anchors be limited by ductile sleet failure. If this is NOT the - ••. • case, the connection design (tension) shall satisfy the provisions of Part 0.3.3.4.3 (b). Per; 0.3.3.4.3(c), or Part D.3.3.4.3 (d). The ........connection design (shear) shall satisfy the provisions of Part D.3.3.5.3 (a). Part 0.3.3.5.3(b). or Part D.3.3.5.3 (c). Part 0.3.3.4.3 (b) I part 0.3.3.5.3 (a) requires that the attachment the anchors are connecting to the structure be designed 10 undergo ductile yielding at a load level corresponding to anchor forces no greeter than the controlling design strength. Pert 0.3.3.4.3 (c)J part 0.3.3.5.3(b) •• •• waives the ductility requirements and requires that the anchors shall be designed for the maximum tension / shear that can be transmitted to .. the anchors-by a non-yielding attachment. Part 0.3.3.4.3 (d) I part 0.3.3.5.3(c) waives the ductility requirements and requires the design strength of the anchors to equal or exceed the maximum tension / shear obtained from design load combinations that include E, with E ...........inc(Oaed by no. Fastening does not meet the design criteria! £t1121 di.a 22d r('21t18 281 be ch2nk2it t,, aJroenio.1 9t2t Iia existing C ithtk#is mid 'or cbu2lbfliyf 'nor-is An,ho (c ?.tO3-2UC H2ii AG. FL.e49 5c1132n i-iPJ is a ejera Tia5ena'k of His ac. Schasn .•..i•'• . _ 34 w.hiItI.us . Profis Anchor 2.5.2 Company: Wiseman and Rohy Page: 6 Specifier: MS Project: ViaSat Site Structures Address: Sub-Project I Poe. No.: 15-079.09 Phone I Fax: . Date: 2/112017 E-Mail: 7 Installation data Anchor plate, steel: - . Anchor type and diameter: Hex Head ASTM F 1554 GR. 353/4 Profile: Square HSS (AISC); 6.000 x 6.000 x 0.250 in. Installation torque: 0.000 tt.kip Hole diameter in the fixture: d,= 0.813 in. Hole diameter, in the base material: - in. Plate thickness (input): 0.625 In. . Hole depth in the base material: 10.000 in. Recommended plate thickness: not calculated Minimum thickness of the base material: 12.000 in. Cleaning: Nq cieaning of the drilled hole is required Coordinates Anchor In. Anchor xy C.,, c.X C, C 1 .4.500 -4.500 19.500 28.500 19.500 28.500 2 4.500 -4.500 28.500 19.500 19.500 28.500 3 -4.500 4.500 15.500 28.500 28.500 19.500 4 4.500 4.500 28.500 19.500 28.500 19.500 input dais t.ud rc,,u,, nua: be :hien tcr ti,,i,tw,in dais axiisdnij cevif"ilknir. &,CI inr 1,IeuIb5y! PROne Aiith C O33-2OC9 Hsili AG. F .5494 Scriuei Hii . u regstired TIeden,k ul Hit AG. S,e,,n 35 Company : Nowak & Wiseman . . February 1, 2017 Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- HSS6x6 Checked By:_____ Sketch 7.5 ft in r13.5 in Z C ic'l In -- C _________________________ 11.75.n. ........ •.•... ............................................... 7.5ft . Bottom Rebar Plan .• . ... • A • B ..: H 1-1-7#5@13.83 in.. Ln 77: - - - - - #15 67 in 7.5ft .. ......••• .• .• ......... .. .X Dir. Steel: 1.87 in2 (min)(7 #5) . ••• . Z Dir Steel 1.09 in (m1n)(4 #5) Top Rebar Plan 1. UIi UU0=000 U...., Footing Elevation RISAFoot Version 2.0 [Z:Projects\1515-079.09 ViaSat Site StructuresCalcsRisa Footing\Cant Column Fo.1-lSS6xS. Coi F. . 36 :• Company : Nowak & Wiseman February 1, 2017 Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- HSS6x6 Checked By:_____ Geometry, Materials and Criteria Length :7.5 ft eX :0 in Gross Allow. Bearing :3500 psf Steel fy :60 ksi Width :4.5 ft eZ :0 in Concrete Weight :150 pcf Minimum Steel :.0018 Thickness :24 in pX :12 in Concretefc :3 ksi Maximum Steel :.0075 Height :0 in pZ :12 in Design Code :ACI 318.02 Footing Top Bar Cover :2.5 in Overturning Safety Factor :1.5 Phi for Flexure :0.9 Footing Bottom Bar Cover :3.5 in Coefficient of Friction :0.3 Phi for Shear :0.75 Pedestal Longitudinal Bar Cover :1.5 in PassiveResistance of Soil :0k Phi for Bearing :0.65 Loads P(k) Vx(k)Vz(k) __.!-!)... Mz(k-ft) Overburden jEs DL L..........1.._. .___ ............ __...... ___ ...... ____L..110 LL .6 - j . . . ...— EL 156 ' - — 16 5 +Vz ()t+Mx '+Mz +Ovr 9 A M+P r+_Ail~ - 11101M L_,P" A D DC DC AD Soil Bearing . Description Categories and _Factors Gross A1Iow.(ps Max Bearing (psfl Max/Allowable Ratio LC #1yJ j...SDL+.875EL L...........O0 .2316.44(A .662 LC #2 Service _1.IDL+.875EL 3500 . LC #3 Service IDL+ILL 3500 463.037 (A) .132 :: :: SDL+ 875EL 1.1 DL+ B7SEL QA: 2316.44 psf QA: 1212.89 psf . . . •. . QB: 2316.44 psf QB: 1212.89 psf . . . .QC: opsf -. QC: opsf ...... .... .. QD: 0 psf . OD: 0 psf . . ." .. ..NAZ:-1 in . NAZ:-1 In ...... . .. . NAX:12.4561n . . NAX:43.6121n ....... :.......... PIMC IDLFILL .QA: 463.037 psf . .... .. ..... . QB: 463.037 psf .. ... ... .. ... ... . ....... ... QC: 463.037 psf . ......... . ..... . . .. . . QD 463 037 psf NAZ I in NAX I in . .) RISAFoot Version 2.0 [Z:\Projects\15\15-079.09 ViaSat Site Structures\Calcs\Risa FootingCant Column Fo59 2lSS6x6- Cot 37 Company : Nowak & Wiseman February 1, 2017 Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Cot Footing- H886x6 Checked By: ......... Footing Flexure Desijjn (Bottom Bars) .Description Caterres and Factors ZD!r As (in 2 )Mu-ZZ(k-ft)X ..___M?- Dir As(in2 ) fTc_#1Strength I !4.........105 .........196 LC#2Strength _1.35DL+1.25EL .158 .1 14.286 16.177I .178 1 LC #3 9trengthL1.2DL+1.61L.......______ 13.37L.._______•14L_6.463 Note: Overburden and footing self weight are included in the DL load case. Footing Flexure Design (Top Bars) Description Categories and Factors Mu-XX(k-ft Z .Dir As (in 2 ) Mu-ZZ(k-ftXDir As(in2j .ISW+IOVER .049 L± ,22 ..002 __4.!.I _Footinq Shear Check Two Way (Punching) Vc: 569.443 k One Way (X Dir. Cut) Vc 119.417 k One Way (Z Dir. Cut) Vc: 199.029 k Punching X Dir. Out Z Dir. Cut Description _Categories and Factors Vuk) Vu/Vc Vu(k)Y)_Vu/'c IC#1Strength 1 9DL+1.25EL 13.071 - .03112.8271 .032 1.362 -.0j LC #2 Strength 1.35DL+1.25EL 16.64 .039 4.241 .047 .87 1 .006 - LLC#3Strength 1 2DL+1 GIL tl4 944 035' 397 044 286 002' Note: Overburden and footing self weight are included in the DL toad case. Overturning Check (Service) . Description Categories and Factors Mo-XX .Mo-ZZ ft _M(k-ft)OSF-XX OSF-ZZ LC #I Service I SDL+ 875EL ' - 248 1 _3j9 17.3 16 20.436 1376141118 J LC#2 Service - 1.IDL+.875EL ..454 _62.442 .L17.44137.465 1t37.614 1 2.148 1 .1 LC#3Serv..ce IDL+1LL I .413_ 59.016 .248 3.40943... 1143.068 . Mo-XX: Governing Overturning Moment about AD or BC Ms-XX: Governing Stablizing Moment about AD. or BC OSF-XX: Ratio of Ms-XX to Mo-XX Sliding Check (Service) Description Categories and Factors Va-XX (k) .....V9L(k)..........L-zz (k) Vr-ZZ (k) SR-XXSR-ZZ LC #1 Service .60L+.875E1 1.365 2.705 0 1 2.705 11.982 . NA F LC #2 Service I 1.IDL+.875EL 1 1.365 L 4.959 0 1 4.959 13.633 1 NA L 0 i 4.688 0 4.688INA INA Va-XX: Applied Lateral Force to Cause Sliding Along XX Axis . Vr-XX: Resisting Lateral Force Against .Sliding Along XX A is .. SR-XX: Ratio of Vr-XX to Va-XX .. . ..... .. RlSAFoot Version 2.0 [Z:\Projects15\15-079.09 ViaSat Site Structures\CalcslRisa FootingCant Column Fog }1SS6x6- Coi x I . c'l I ii In in Z= ............. - ........ C Footing Elevation .67 in 38 • Company : Nowak & Wiseman February 1, 2017 Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- HSS6x6 Checked By:_____ Sketch 2.5 ft Al B cm RISAFoot Version 2.0 [Z:\Projects\15\15-079.09 ViaSat Site Structures\Calcs\Risa FootingCant Column Fo6th *7SS6x6.rft) 39 Company : Nowak & Wiseman . February 1, 2017 Designer : MS - Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- HSS6x6 Checked By: - - Geometry, Materials and Criteria - Length :6 ft eX :0 in Gross Allow. Bearing :3500 psf Steel fy :60 ksi Width :6 ft eZ :0 in Concrete Weight :150pcf Minimum Steel .0018 Thickness :15 in pX :12 in Concrete fc :3 ksi Maximum Steel :.0075 Height :0 in pZ :12 in Design Code :ACI 318-02 Footing Top Bar Cover :2.5 in Overturning Safety Factor :1.5 Phi for Flexure :0.9 Footing Bottom Bar Cover :3.5 in Coefficient of Friction :0.3 Phi for Shear :0.75 Pedestal Longitudinal Bar Cover :1.5 in Passive Resistance of Soil :0 k Phi for Bearing :0.65 Loads Lk) Vx (k) Vz (k) Mx (k-fL) Mz (k-ft) Overburden DL E1.3 .- T 110 LL 1 .6 _______ EL - - 156 ___ __ 165 +Vz +Mx '+Mz ,.Over Ml EAM us M1 A D D C DC AD Soil Bearing ..Description . Catejpries and Fact _ Gross Allow.(psf Max Bearing p_Max/Al1owable Ratio FLC#1Service . .6DL+.875EL I3500 10j)...........7_J J:c#25vice...................3500 82 (A) .2351 LC #3 Service 1 iDL+IILL .-.. 3500 1 347.222 (A) I .099j _ _ .6DL+.875EL .. 1.IDL+.875EL .. .. ... . . .. .... QA: 1073.57 psf •. - QA: 823.25 psf .- --. .---- ..- QB: 1073.57 psf. -. QB: 823.25 psf . . .. .....-. . QC: 0 psf . . QC: 0 psf . . -.- QD: Opsf -. QD: opsf - ... . - NAZ:-1 in .. - NAZ-1 In .... .- . ...... .- NAX:26.603 in . .NAX.63602. in -. -.. . . .• . Dl'i C IDL+1 LL QA: 347,222 psf - .. --. . ... .-. .-.. -.. . QB: 347.222 psf . ... . .... ... . . . .. .. QC 347.222 psf QD: 347.222.psf -•.. .-. .. ....- .. -. . .. . ...... - - NAZ:-1 in NAX:-1 in -- ... -.•. -.-- :- -. . .... RISAFoot Version 2.0 IZ:\Projects\15t15-079.09 ViaSat Site StructuresCalcsRisa Footing\Cant Column FoftW 21SS6x6.rftl 40 Company : Nowak & Wiseman February 1, 2017 Designer : MS . . Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- HSS6x6 Checked By: Footing Flexure Design (Bottom Bars) .. . Descri2tion Categories .and Factors ....(k-ft)Z Dir As (in2)Mu-ZZk-ft .X Dir As (in2) LC #1 Strength .9DL+1.25EL 5.578 .111 T 17.708 _.354 _____- 1671 I LC #2 Strength _I_3SDL+1_25EL 8.367 17.695 Lc3Strength 1 12DL+I6LL I 7.938 158T 7.938 1581 Note: Overburden and footing self weight are included in the DL load case. Footing Flexure DesigjJTop Bars) _peription Mu-XX (k-ft)ZifAs(n2 ) Mu-Z(-ft)X Dir As (in2 ).. SW+OVER L ISW+IOVER .. ............. I....4989e-16.83172e-1315.578 .102 Footing Shear Check Two Way (Punching) Vc: 227.336 k One Way (X Dir. Cut) Vc 88.238 k One Way (Z Dir. Cut) Vc: 88.238 k Punching X Dir. Cut Z Dir. Cut Description Categories and Factors Vu(k) Vu/øVc Vu(k Vu/ øVc y Vc LC #1 Strength 10.573 L2 ...J.798Lo42J 9.141 1 .138 Lc#2strength I 1.35DL+1.25EL .085 4.198 4.Q3....L_ 1.2DL+1.6LL 13.659 .0813.982 .06 L....3.982 .06 1 Note: Overburden and footing self weight are included in the DL load case. Overturning check (Service) Description Cajories and Factors .M -X(-), -2JJ) Lkft)Ms-ZZ(k-ft) QSF-XX OSF-ZZ J LC #1 Service J.6DL+.875EL .198 2iL..............16.342 21.618 109.182lt323 LC #2 11.IDL+.875EL 1 .363 139.633 i&7 39.633j109.182i2.40Lj • :. 35j IDL+ILL 33 . •. ..33 L.._37.83 1114.636414.6361 Mo-XX: Governing Overturning Moment about AD or BC . .• Ms-XX: Governing Stablizing Moment about AD or BC . OSF-XX: Rao of Ms-XX to Mo-XX Sliding Check Service . . Description Categories and Factors Va-XX (k) Vr-XX (k) _Z k) Vr-ZZ (k) SR-XX SR-ZZ —CF"' LC#1 Service L.DL+ 875EL 1.365 2142 — 2 142 11 .569 NA LC #2 Service 1 1.IDL+.875EL 1.365 I 3.927 1 0 1 3.927 1 2.877 1 NA L C#3 Service i1DL+1LL .... .1_....i._,4.75 _.4. 0 1 _3.75 _NA NA Va-XX: Applied Lateral Force to Cause Sliding Along XX Axis Vr XX Resisting Lateral Force Against Sliding Along XX Axis SR-XX Ratio of VrXX to Va XX RISAFoot Version 2.0 [Z:Projects15\15-079.09 ViaSat Site Structures\CalcsRisa FootingCant Column Fo6ftp1SS6x6.rftJ . . . . . ... . • . •• . . 1 . . :..LrN ..:.. 2,1 c.:. . . L.. I . . . . F . . I.. :..:;.::::.:: i:::::.::::.. •::..:. 1:: :. L.::.:. th .."-J. LW- - ................... rev ... . I .. CS .. : : • : •.• • : F • : _;. \9 :•. .: •. - . . .• 41r if s ... . ::• i.: L 11 :.;.....:... ............... . ..... X3E1 - -: •-10 . 0KL33H5 -.---- - .. - - -- J91?7 )// .2.517 / c • / 1'3 0' .. ..: ..... I .. , IVY 5r * -- - - ---------- (-ç7Lfr -;---:•--'---- Y" 7zf/?'e :W ,Il =..>'b' 4 — -- - - - -- - — - -- ... . ...... ... •..... . • .. ... : :. . . . . :••• . . . S • . . . • a1 oço-o) VI I .••4• Se-I =H°j . t.:=: tj :zsx.c.,• .J — ?23 Jic27i LM(O& J/yt 31Y Ag 1k•• :::I. S133Ni9NflVIflDflis AHOU: + NVWIM www.hilti.us Profis Anchor 2.5.2 Company: Wiseman and Rohy Page: 1 Specifier: MS Project: ViaSat Site Structures Address: Sub-Project 1 Pos. No.: 15-079.09 Phone I Fax: I Date: 216/2017 E-Mail: Specifie?s comments: Pipe 5 X.STRG llnput data Anchor type and diameter. Hex Head ASTM F 1554 GR. 363/4 Effective embedment depth: h = 8.000 in. Material: ASTM F 1554 Proof: Design method ACt 318-111 CIP Stand-off installation: eb = 0.000 in. (no stand-oft); I = 0.625 in. Anchor plate: 1, x IF x I = 11.000 in. x 11.000 in. c 0.625 in.; (Recommended plate thickness: not calculated) Profile: Round HSS, Steel pipe (AJSC): (L x W x T) = 5.560 in. x 5.560 in. x 0.258 in. Base material: cracked concrete, 3000. (,=3000 psi; h = 12.000 in. Reinforcement tension: condition B, shear, condition B: edge reinforcement: none or < No. 4 bar Seismic loads (cat. C. D. E, or F) Tension load: yes (D.3.3,4.3 (d)) Shear load; yes (D.33.53.(c)) Geometry lin.1 & Lodng (kip, ft,kip] iupl cIre e,id results n,a'. be ehe-.t.ed r l t+c.,egi1wi5'. the exi5i5 c nakns sur Fu, iey' POFS ;p.Z c ) 2003•2009 Nthi A. FL-2194 SrftIa'I Iifli lie reg'seree 1deieirk 014it AG. Schi 43 . . - www.iitti.us . .. Profis Anchor 2.5.2 Company: Wiseman and Rohy Page: 2 Specifier MS Project: ViaSat Site Structures Address: . Sub-Project I Pos. No.: 15-079.09 Phone I Fax: Date: 2/612017 E-Mail: 2 Proof I Utilization (Governing Cases) Design Values (kip] Utilization Loading Proof Load CapacityOu I __ Status Tension PulloutStrengtk T99 8.240 ___________85/- ____________OK Shear Concrete edge failure in direction xi 1.250 11.712 -lit OK Loading OV __ Utilization ,Jr/o]Status Combined tension and shear 1 0.841 0.107 'I 79 OK 3 Warnings Please consider all details and hints/warnings given in the detailed report! Fastening meets the design criteria 4 Remarks; Your Cooperation Duties - Any and all information and data contained in the Software concern solely the use of Huh products and are based on the principles. formulas and security regulations in accordance with I-iiltFs technical directions and operating, mounting and assembly instructions, etc., that must be strictly complied with by-the user. All figures contained therein are average figures. and therefore use-specific tests are to be conducted prior to using the relevant H.ti product. The results of the calculations carried Out by means of the Software are based essentially on the data you put In. Therefore, you bear the sole responsibility for the absence of errors, the completeness and the relevance of the data to be put in by you. Moreover you bear sole responsibility for having the results of the calculation checked and cleared by an expert, particularly with regard to compliance with applicable norms and permits, prior to using them for your specific facility. The Software serves only as an aid to interpret norms and permits without any guarantee as to the absence of errors, the correctness and the relevance of the results or suitability for a specific application. You must take at necessary and reasonable steps to prevent or limit damage caused by the Software. In particular, you must arrange for • .. ... the regular backup OF programs and data and, if applicable, carry out (he updates of the Software offered by Flilti on a regular basis. If you do • • • • . . not use the AutoUpdate function of the Software, you must ensure that you are using the current and thus up-to-date version of the Software in each case by carrying out rianuar updates via the Huh Website i-ulti will not be liable for consequences such as the recovery or lost or ..........damaged .date.or programs. arising frorn a cWpabie breach pf duly by you. (:.) •..• . . • •• inpji .jjra c,rc rcc.3a MUS'IbO checkad f,.- arcement dih th&cWrjrq cend1ik,n izr.d for plousbihy! FlOFiS Airchc, (c) 2053-2009 Ke AG, FL-94tM Scaeeu. Hii 1,c risic;ed Tradomwit tit isir AG. Scher. 44 PJM Base'-.,late V1.5 . .... : . Nowak-Neulmester & Associates . Viasat Site Structures Detailed Design Results it Col Baseolate- ?ioo 5 X-STRG . 2/ 3/17 11:23 CRITERIA: Analysis :aintain Strain Compatibility Use mm. effective plate area for axial only compression load on plate. Design Use LP.FD 2nd to check plate bondi!g Max concrete bearing per MSC J9. Anchor Shear values Only. Anchor Tension Values Only. INPUT DATA: Column Column Size ... . ......................... Hss5.5OoxO.37 Dim: TW Depth (in) 0.349 5.50 Base ?late Plate Fy (ksi) .......................36.000 N (Parallel to Web:: (In:' ................11.000 (Perpendicular to web) (in) ...........11.000 Plate Thicke .........................0.750 .nchor Anchor Size ............................. 3/4" Anchor Area (in2) ......................0.442 Anchor materiaJ. .......................... A307-60 Anchor Modulus (ksii) .................29000.00 Anchor strength Fu (ksi) ............. 60.00 ... Footing . ( Foozin Strength f'c (ksi) ............ .. 3.00 . Concrete Modulus (kel) ............... • 3]22.02 L:iz.ension (Parallel to web) (ft) .......... 4.00 Dimension (?erpendicular to-web) (ft)..... . ••. •. 4.00 Qesign Toad . .. uild±no Code: - None - .. . " Load combination: 0.75DL + 1 .25E Axial (kip' .............................. .. 0.97 Vc (kip) ................................1.25 th (kip-t).,......................... 10.50 RESULTS: 'Analysis YBar (in) .........................................317 Resultant Angle O1 0.00 Plate Bending Max bonding moment from anchor/s 1 in tension m (N-0.8od]/2.0 (in) ..................................3.300 .n [B-0.80b)/2.0 (in' .................................3.300 •••••••••••.. Controlling effective width to resist moment (in) ... 3.300 ...........Controll±ng plate bending moment (kip-ft) ...........1.08 .PhiMn = {0.9xMn) (kip-ft ...........................1.25 Mu/PhiM ............................................ 0.8 10 Thickness Required (in' ..............................0.697 Thickns s controtld by cantilever action. Anchors ... Anchor X(in) Y(in) V(kip ) T(kip .1 .........4.0.0 45 Page 1 RAM BasePlate V1.5 : 46 Iowac-I!eu1rrester & Associates . ViaSat Site Structures . . . Detailed Design Results Cant Cc]. Baselate- Pipe 5 X-STRG 2/ 3/17 11:23 2 4.bo 4.00 0.31 0.00 S -4.QO -4.00 0.3] 7.21 4 4.00 -4.00 0.31 0.00 Bearing EU Area of Support A2 (4nA2) ........................484.00 Plate Ares Al (ir.2} .................................121.00 SqrtA2/A1) ..........................................2.00 Capacity Bearing Stress (ksi) ....................3.06 Actual Bearing Stress (ksi) .......................0.88 X(inj ''in) I 1 -4.000 4.000 2 4.000 4.000 I 1 23 -4 .000 -4.000 4 4 .0004:Q Page 2 47 Company : Nowak & Wisemarj February 3, 2017 Designer : MS : Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- Pipe 5 X-STRG Checked By:_____ Sketch . 1.792 ft 44 TpyAp%y4Jr Details B ..__....__i.. -. E—' i f-I• #5©23.51n Z. 04 . ...I - ----_.! Ln Ln A •. . .....•. ..•....• Footing Elevation __________ #5c235in. • •• .•. . . . .... . • •. •• .• ...•••. • ••.• RSAFoot Version 2.0 (Z:\Projects\1 515-079.09 ViaSat Site StructuresCaIcs\Risa Footing\Cant Column FoMW Pipe 5 X-STF 48 Company : Nowak & Wiseman •.. February 3, 2017 Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- Pipe 5 X-STRG Checked By:_____ Geometry, MateriaLs and Criteria Length :4.5 ft eX :0 in Gross Allow. Bearing :3500 psf Steel fy :60 ksi Width :4.5 ft eZ :0 in Concrete Weight :l5opcf Minimum Steel .0018 Thickness :15 in pX :11 in Concrete ft :3 ksi Maximum Steel .0075 Height :0 in pZ :11 in Design Code :ACI 318-02 Footing Top Bar Cover :2.5 in Overturning Safety Factor :1.5 Phi for Flexure :0.9 Footing Bottom Bar Cover :3.5 in Coefficient of Friction :0.3 Phi for Shear :0.75 Pedestal Longitudinal Bar Cover :1.5 in Passive Resistance of Soil :0 k Phi for Bearing :0.65 Loads P (k)- Vx (k) -Vz(k) Mx (k-fl) Mz(k-ft Overburden (ps DL ...L ........... ._J_i10........_....] EL 8.4 +Vz (+Mx +Mz . +Over A 0 0 C D C A D Soil searing Description Cate ories and Factors Gross Allow.(psf) Max Bearing(psf)Max/Allowable Ratio ..........LC 91 Service .6DL+.875EL J_.°° L.i4L()........ .......... .... .1 #2 Service I 1.1DL+.8L_3600 991-553 (A _.283 iLC#3Service _IDL+ILL • _3500 _357.133tAJ (_.1021 DC _ .6DL+.875EL . 1.IDL+.876EL ••.. . ... ... QA: 2114.17 psf . QA: 991.553 psf • .. QB 2114.17 psf QB 991.653 psf. QC: 0 psf •... QC: 0 psf .• ...... . . QD: 0 psf . QD: 0 psf . • . • .. .. . NAZ;-1 in •.. NAZ:-1 in . ...... . •.•. NAX:10.946 in .• . NA)(:.42.7891n . . . .. DI B •.i. D_'_C . IDL+ILL ... ...... ... ............. . ....... ......... QA: 357.133 psf j... ... . • • .. . ....... . QB: 357.133 psf •. •• . ...... ... •• .. . QC 357.133 psf QD: 357.133 psf • . . . . . •... . •... ....... . NAZ: -Iin •.. •..• .....•..• .• .....• .. .. ......•• NA):1in.. .. .. .•.•... . :... RtSAFoot Version 2.0 (Z:Projects\1515-079.09 ViaSat Site Structures\CalcsRisa FootingCant Column FoNSp Pipe 5 X-STF 49 . •. Company : Nowak & Wisernan February 3, 2017 Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- Pipe 5 X-STRG Checked By:_____ Footinq Flexure Desiqn (Bottom Bars _Dscription Categories and Factors Mu-XXk-ft Z Dir AS(ir 2 Mu-ZZJc-ft)XDir As (in2 ) LC#1 Strength l.9DL+l.25EL . 2.322 L. i1.... .1..... 7LC#2Strength _1.35DL+1.25EL 3.482 J_.069 .._ 8.217 .165 - EEc #3 Strength t 20L+16LL 1 3095 062 3.095 1 _062 Note: Overburden and footing self weight are included in the DL load case. Footing Flexure Design Uop Bars Description Cate gories and Factors Mu (k-ft) Z Dir As (.L....Mu-ZZ (k.-ft) X Dir As .(in 2 ) • _I ISW+IOVER 0 0 2.149 i .039 Footing Shear Check Two Way (Punching) Vc: 217.531 k One Way (X Dir. Cut) Vc 66.119 k One Way (Z Dir. Cut) Vc: 66.179 k Punching X Dir. Cut Z Dir. Cut Description Categories and Factors _yj••• ..... VuIVcVujk_Vu/c LC#1Sgth_ .9DL+1.2SEL 6.509 _ __.04 1.2431.025I 6.006 IA2JJ LC #2 Strength i 1.35DLi1.25EL I 1 8.485 1 .052 1.864 .038 4.735 1 .095 LC #3 Strength 1 I 3DL±j_L 7213044 C657 033 I 1.657 _0.3 Note: Overburden and footing self weight are included in the DL load case. Overturning Check Sen,icej Des criptionCagorlesan.d Factors . -?X..(:ft) oZZ (k4t) MsZZ(kLOSF-XXOSFZZ LC#1 Service 6DL+ 875EL 125 I 9.888 8.669 9.888 179242 1 1.164' I LC #3 Service 1 IDL+IILL .208 I 16.48 i .208 16.48 • Mo-XX: Governing Overturning Moment about AD or BC Ms-XX: Governing Stablizing Moment about AD or BC OSF-XX: Ratio of Ms-XX to Mo-XX Slid/na Check (Service Categories and Factors Va-XX (k) Vr-XX(k) Va-ZZ (k) Vr-ZZ(kl....SR-XX SR-ZZ I LC#1 Service1 .6DL+.875EL .875 1.302 j Q . 1.302 1.488 NA I LC #2 Service IDL+ 875EL 875 2387r 0 iii 1-2 727 NA ILC#3ServiceDL+iLL H ...2.17 T 0 2.17 I NA NA Va-XX: Applied Lateral Force to Cause Sliding Along XX Axis . Vr-XX: Resisting Lateral Force Against .SJijpg Alopg XX Axis •.. .SR-X:.RatiQ ofVr-X( tc.Va.-XX . .. . ... ..... . ..... ..•. RISAFoot Version 2.0 R:\Projects15\15-079.09 ViaSat Site Structures\Calcs\Risa FootingCant Column Fo8th Vipe 5 X-STF 50 Company : Nowak & Wisem.an... .. February 3, 2017 Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- Pipe 5 X-STRG Checked By:_____ Sketch Ax............... 2.042 ft . AF- 11.•• B Ln 44 S ft A B -....................- ..... In, 1T *5@24in z C' '-I c Footing Elevation RISAFoot Version 2.0 [Z:\ProJects\15\15079.09ViaSat Site Structures\CaIcsRisa Footing\Cant Column Fo@Wgp Pipe 5 X-STF 51 Company : Nowak & Wiseman February 3, 2017 Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- Pipe 5 X-STRG Checked By: Geometry Materials and Criteria . Length :5 ft eX :0 in Gross Allow. Bearing :4000 psf Steel fy :60 ksl Width :4-ft eZ :0 in Concrete Weight :150 pcf Minimum Steel :.0018 Thickness :18 In pX :11 in Concretefc :3 ksi Maximum Steel .0075 Height 0 in pZ :11 in Design Code :ACI 318-02 Footing Top Bar Cover :2.5 in Overturning Safety Factor :1.5 Phi for Flexure :0.9 Footing Bottom Bar Cover : 3.5 in Coefficient-of Friction :0.3 Phi for Shear Pedestal Longitudinal Bar Cover :1.5 in Passive Resistance of Soil :0 k Phi for Bearing :0.65 Loads P (k) Vx (k) Vz (k) Mx(k-ft) Mz(k-ft) Overburden (PO- DL 1.3 i 110 EL Li i -- +Vx ~.+Vz (+Mx +Mz +Over NEI M, AD DC DC AD Soil Bearing Description -.Categories and Factors Gross pw(p Max Bearing j .._. Max/Allowable Ratio IC #1 Service .6DL+75EL 4000 1 3631.12jAJ 1.. LC#2Service _1.IDL+.87E1 4000 ________ 1155.02(A) _.289 LC #3 Service IDL+ILL ._'_..... 49OJ . 395.378 (A) .099 p :ri: :: . .SDL+.875EL . 1.IDL+.875EL ...• ......... ".. •. -QA: 3631.12 psf ..QA: 1155.02psf . . .. . QB: 3631.12 p#... . QB: 1155.02pSf ...... . ..• . • . .•• . QC: 0 psf ••. QC: 0 psf QD: opsf . QD: opsf • ..... ....... ••.. NAZ:-1 in . NAZ:-1 in •• ..... .. . .• . NAX6.272 in NA)c;36.i48 in ..• .•. PON C •.•. IDL+ILL .. .. ... . .. ... . ... ..... ..... ......QA: 395.378 psf •••• ....... ......• .......•• ..• .. . . .... QB: 395.378 psf •. .. ........ ....•• ..... . .. .. .. QC: 395.378 psf •... •...... . ••. ..• ... . .. . . QD: 395.37$ psf ".. •. .. • . .... .. NAZ: -lin ••. •.• . .. •.. .. MAX.. 1 in RISAFoot Version 2.0 [Z:\Projects\1515-079.09 ViaSat Site Slruátures\Calcs\Risa Fooling\Cant Column Foftp 5 X-STF 52 Company : Nowak & Wiseman . February 3, 2017 Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- Pipe 5 X-STRG Checked By:_____ Footing Flexure Design (Bottom B) Description Categories and Factors Mu-XX (k-ft 2 Dir As (in2)!u-72 (k-ft)X Dir As (in2 ) LC #1 S2th.9DL4I.25EL ______- .........2.967 ............047 I 9.113 Strength JI.35DL+1.25E.--....L....._.....45 LLc#2 L....0? ........1 8.01 . ...........126 LC#3 Strength Ji.2DL+t6LL 3.955 ] .062 I 2.819 .0441 Note: Overburden and footing self weight are included in the DL load case. Footing Flexure Design (Toj, Bars) Description Categories and Factors Mu-XX (k-ft ZDir As ..in2Lu-Zk-ft XDir As(in2 ) SW+OVER 1 ISW+IOVER 0 1_________0 1.991 .029 1 Footing Shear Check -. Two Way (Punching) Vc: 313.164 k One Way X Dir. Cut) Vc 74.6 k One Way (2 Dir. Cut) Vc: 93.25 k Punching X Dir. Cut Z Dir. Cut Description Categoriesand Factors Vu(kVu/:VcVuk)Vu/Vc_y(k Vu/Øtfc [LC #1Strength i .9DL+1.25EL .7.117 L.. .03 .072 1 I I LC#2Stren9th I_35DL+1_25EL 8_9351 _038 1.835 - 033 1 2.825 04 LC#3Strenjjth 12DL+I6LL LJ'399 '032 1 1.631029 853 _1. _012j Note: Overburden and footing self weight are included in the DL load case. Overturning Check (Service) Description ._Categories and Factors Mo-XX(k-ft)Ms-XX(k-ft Mo-ZZ(k-ftMs-ZZ(W ,OSF-XX9F-ZZ • LLC_#1Service _9.6 .6DL+.875EL 1.139 18.773 . _86.55111.09T] LC #2 Service 11.IDL+.875EL 1 .254 22 8.866 1 17.6 1186.651 :1.985 LC#3Service 1 IDL+ILL .231 20 .185 16 j86.551 Mo-XX: Governing Overturning Moment about Al) or BC .. Ms-XX: Governing Stablizing Moment about AD or BC • ... OSF-XX: Ratio of Ms-XX to Mo-XX Sliding check Service Descri!ionCategories and FactorsVa -XX (k)Vr-XX(k)jR) Vr-ZZj) SR-XXSR-ZZ LC#lService I .6DL+.875EL .876 t423 L_.0 _1.423 1J&_1 NA.... LC #2 Service 1.IDL+.875EL _2.609 0 .875 2.609 12.982 1 .jLC#3Service 1IDL+ILL 0J2.372_...0 _2.372 NA NA NA Va-XX; Applied Lateral Force to Cause Sliding Along XX Axis Vr-XX: Resisting Lateral Force Against Sliding Along XX Axis •.• ... SR XX Ratio of Vr-XX to Va-XX RISAFoot Version 2.0 [Z:Projects\15\15-079.O9 ViaSat Site Structures\CalcsRisa FootingiCant Column FoffihWTipe 5 X-STF 53 Company : Nowak & Wiseman February 3. 2017 Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- Pipe 5 X-STRG Checked By:_____ Sketch 4.542 ft I MJ1 44 10 ft Details r. Dr'. 10 ft Bottom Rebar Plan, Ln :—----ir Z L=—.tn 11 D C I 41 114 Footing Elevation .L #5c14.5 in c '1 -- . ................ . .... ............... -- .... -- 44 5©18.83 In 5@29 in ........ X Dir. Steel 1.9 in (min)(7 #5) Z Dir. Steel: .46 1n2 (min)(2 #5) Top Rebar Plan Geometry, Materials and Criteria Length :lo ft ex :0 in . Gross Allow. Bearing, . :4000 psf Steel fy :60 ksi Width :3 ft eZ :0 in '. Concrete Weight :160 pcf Minimum Steel :.0018 Thickness :18 in pX :11 in ' Concrete ft :3 ksi Maximum Steel :.0076 Height :0 in pZ :11 In Design Code :AC! 318.02 Footing lop Bar Cover :2.5 in . Overturning Safety Factor :1.5 . Phi for Flexure :0.9 Footing Bottom Bar Cover :3.5 in . Coefficient of Friction :0.3 Phi for Shear :0.75 .. Pedestal LongiudinaI Bar cover : 1.5,i, Passive Resistance, of Soil :0 k Phi for Bearing . :0.65 RISAFoot Version 2.0 IZ:\ProJects\1515-079.09 ViaSat Site StructureslCalcsRisa FootingCant Column FoMW Pipe 5 X-STF 54 Company : Nowak & Wiseman February 3, 2017 Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- Pipe 5 X-STRG Checked By:_____ Loads P (k Vx (k) Vz (k Mx (k-ft Mz (k-fl) Overburden (psU DL F -....-• ........................................•.. .......... 110 EL ;j-— - - +Vx +Vz +Mx '+Mz AD DC DC AD Soil Bearing DescriptionCategories and Factors GrosswMaxBearing (psfMax/AUowable Ratio I ....c_ff1Service 1 .6DL4:, 7SEL LC#2Service 1.IDL+.875EL 4000 i 1019.08_(A)L... ....1.L_J ..........1..........................1031.34(A) _.258 [LC#3Service IDL+ILL 4000 r 2 (LJ....994 I B A B C D, C .6DL+.875EL 1.IDL+.875EL QA: 2070.08 psf QA: 1031.34 psf QB: 2070.08 psf QB: 1031.34 psf QC: 0psf QC: 0psf QD: 0 psf 00: 0 psf NAZ: -lin NAZ: -lin . .NAX7.831 in . NAX:28.817 in .... ........ I DL+1 LL QA 375.252 psf QB: 375.252 psf .... . ... ......... . .. ..... . . QC: 375.252 psf •... . . ...... .• . ..... ......... OD: 375.252. psf . .......... ... . .... .. NAZ:-1 in NAX:-lin Footing Flexure Design (Bottom Bars) - Description CategoriesandFactors Mu-jk-ft)ZDir As(in2 ) Mu-ZZ (k-f)_ X Dir As (in 2 ) L6c..L Strength .9D1+j.25EL .10.449 ..164 _7.731 1..121 I _1.35DL+1.25EL LC#2Strength 15.674 1 .247 6.663 .104 I_LC#3Strength _I_2DL+1 LL _13_932 - 219 2.443 038 Note: Overburden and footing self, weight are included in the P1.. load case. Footing Flexure Design (Top Bars) Description Categories and Factors M -XX (k-fl) Z Dir As (in2 ) Mu-ZZ(k- X Dir As (in2 ) _1sw+1óR .fW5E ......1.817f.027 (• ? RISAFoot Version 2.0 Z:\Projects\15\15-079.09 ViaSat Site StruciuresCalcsRisa FootingCant Column Foth. Pipe 5 X-STF 55 Company : Nowak & Wiseman . February 3, 2017 . Designer : MS Job Number: 15-079.09 Cant Col Footing- Pipe 5 X-STRG Checked By:_____ Footing Shear Check -. Two Way (Punching) Vc: NA One Way (X Dir. Cut) Vc 55.95 k One Way (Z Dir. Cut) Vc: 186.5 k Punching X Dir. Cut Z Dir. Cut Categoriesand Factors k) Vc/u VWsYc LC #1 Strength .9DL+1.25EL NA NA 3.404 .081 T .. .036 i !LC#2 Strength 1.3SDL+1.25E1.. ..NA NA5.105 .122 i4 0 LC #3 Strength' 1.2DL+1.6LL 1 NA .NA 1 4.538 .108 .007 Eo Note: Overburden and footing self weight are included in the DL load case. Overturning Check (Service) Description _Categories and Factors _() .J S ZZ LC #1 Service I .6DL+.875EL .277 34.06 j 8.746 1 10.215 122.7951 .168T LC #2 Service 1.IDL+.875EL I .508 62.425 8.815 18.728 122.795 2.125 #3 Service IDL+1tL __-_ 66.76 .139 17.925J2z.795 Mo-XX: Governing Overturning Moment about AD or BC Ms-XX: Governing Stablizing Moment about AD or BC OSF-XX: Ratio of Ms-XX to Mo-XX Slidinçheck (Service) _. -. Description CaLtegories and Factors- Va-XX(k)Vr-XX(k)Va-U (k)Vr-ZZ (k) -XXSR-ZZ .• LC#1SeMcej.6DL+.875EL ._....L LJ 6.......0 ..L.&016 12.316 1 NA \. I LC#2Service I 1.IDL+.875EL _.875 _3.715 0 1 3.715 _4.246 _NA 'i..ITôiervice r—•--•---•......-....1 0 0 3.377 N&LA.... Va-XX: Applied Lateral Force to Cause Sliding Along XX Axis Vr-XX: Resisting Lateral Force Agéit Sliding Nong XX Axis • Ratio ofVr-XXtoVa-.cX .. ... ... .. RISAFoot Version 2.0 Z:1Projectsl1 5115-079.09 ViaSat Site Structures\Calcs\Risa FootinglCant Column Fovtkff ripe 5 X-STF o-I MN or • . : : AD ON UThS JLS 2JZ JVP b3(OUd 31v SIJ 1j )OI :: •: :1:..' . ::. •..: : . .: : :. .: • • : V 11j.: 23 : •. .• : II J1flDfl1S . • . : :..: :.. AHO+NVMSIM 57 WSEMAN±RO.HY _TUCTUIAL ENGI NEERS Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engi SK-2 OM Counter Element Mar 9, 2017 at 5:33 PM Counter Elementr3d Company : Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers Mar 9. 2017 59 Designer : DM 5:31 PM IRISA Job Number : Checked By: Model Name Counter Element Hot Rolled Steel Section Sets Label p_Tve DesjgnUst Material Desan Rul... iFF4°Coh.tmnHss4xoi5oCoJurnn,I pjpe flA53Gr9 Typical 1 2.76 I 4.91 1 4.91 1 9.82 1 3 6x6 Beam _HSS6x6x4 lCounter 13... HSS2.5x2.. TI: 5.24 r 28.6 Hot Rolled Steel Prqperties Des!qn Size and Code Check Parameters Label _Max Depthilni .Min, .Dcib1ln1 Max Wldthiin)._4(nWidthtinl - Max Bending Chk Max..near Chk Tycal Joint Coordinates and Temperatures Joint Bounjy Conditions RtSA-3D Version 15.0.2 I\...\...\:.........CaIcs\RiSA\Counter Elernent.r3dl Page 1 /..... '.. •7 Company Wiseman + Rohy StruciLsat Engineers Mar 9. 2017 60 Designer : DM .. • • 5:31 PM Job Number : Checked By Model Name : Counter Element Member pJjy Data Hot Rolled Steel Design Parameters Basic Load Cases Joint Loads and Enforced Displacements Joint Label -- LIP %4 Direction —......... No Data to Print Member Point Loads ....... Label —•. Magdelk.k4l1 Lotionj.% I No Data to Print... Member Distributed Loads (BLC 1: Dead) Memoer LCD! Lflrecl M7 i V RISA-3D Version 15.0.2 [\...\...L. .......\...Calcs\RISACounterElemertt.r3d] . Page 2 Company : Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers Mar 9, 2017 61 Designer DM 5:31 PM C Job Number : Checked By. JJ Model Name : Counter Element Load Combinations / Joint Reactions . . Joint Detlections LC Joint Label • ..L L1_L.LJTE_ Yin Z rini •aton z Rotation EradL )!311 N3 .072 .072 0 1 0 0 .-1.208e-( i5 .. NS 0 1 0! 0 0 0!..P.... RSA-3D Version 15.0.2 [\....\...l...\......... .CaIcs\RISACounter Elemenl.r3d) Page 3 Company : Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers Mar 9. 2017 62 Designer : DM 5:31 PM Job Number : Checked By._ -IIIRISA Mode' Name : Counter eement ...Joint Deflections (Continued) RISA-3D Version 15.0.2 [\......\. ..\.. .' .......\Calcs\RISA\Counter Element.r3d] Page 4 Company : Wiseman + Rohy Structural bineers Mar 9, 2017 63 -Ih Designer : DM . 5.3, PM RISA Job Number. : . . Checked By_ Modal Name : Counter Semen'. _. Joint Deflections (Continued) Member Section Forces RISA-313 Version 15.0.2 [\.\...\...\.......\.. .Calcs\RlSA\Counter Elernent.r3d] - Page 5 . - Company Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers Mar 9, 2017 64 . Designer OM 5:31 PM .. ... A Job Number : Checked By Model Name : Counter Element Member Section Forces (Continued) i'mhr I nhpl S A~Amifkl u RhaarrUl , ShFk1 T,,9,rfrJ% , , 33 .-----.- gg MI 3!0 0 11 0 -.098 0 -.789 0q F3?J 35 5 0 -.486 0 -.098 0. 0 37 2 0 .2431 0 .. .098 i 0 -.592 Off6 27 9 39 4 i 0 -.243 1 0 .098 0 -.592 r r Mra 41 1 1 1 M9 g. KV 1 0 1 .031 0 .075 0 0 43 3 0 0 0 .075 0 -.05 ___ 45. 5 0 1 -.031 0 .075 . 0 0 47 2 0 .015 i 0 -.075 1 0 1 -.037 I 49 !j P) 4 1 0 -.015 0 i -.075 1 0 -.037 LAL 03 4iif 51 2 Ml 1 J .462 .002 1 0 0 0 .77 53 1 3 .46 1 .002 1 0 i 0 0 .769 *W IN 55 . 5i .458 .002 0 .0 0 .767 REMO R. 57 2 0 .428 0 1 0 0 .717 i - 0 .59 .. - .42 _0_ 0 . 0 - .293 nN- mm 2 • M3 1 1 I 905 F 006 1 0 0 0 939 35 1 61 631 131 .903 .006 0 I 0 1 0 J937i 1651 • 5 .901 1.0061 0 0 0 .934 1 21 0 1.8441 0 1 0 0 11.091M.. 671 1 69 I 1 4 I 0 1 .836 i 0 1 0 1 0 1 .25 10 IN 71 2 1 M5 1 1 1 .462 I .002 I 0 0 1 0 1 .77 I k73i 131 .46 .0021 0 0 0 1.7691 75I 1 51 .458 t .0021 0 0 1 0 .7671 1 MI 77! _____ ____ ___ 1 i 1 21 0 .428 0 0 I 0 1.7171 1811 M USA OnEIRMON' W. 79' .421 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 1.2931 . 8112L M7 1 (1 I 41R I I nIq A fl n I RISA-3D Version 15.0.2 [\...\...\...\...\...\...\CaICsRtSA\Counter Elenient.r3c!] Page 6 Company : Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers Mar 9, 2017 65 . Designer : CM 5:31 PM I' C A Job Number : Checked B Model Name : Counter Element Member Section Forces (Continued) . RISA-3D Version 15.0.2 [\...\...1...\... ......\CalcsRlSA\CounterElement.r3d] Page 7 Company Wisernan fRohy Structural Engineers Mar 9,2017 66 Designer : OM 5:31 PM ..: Job Number : Checked I.RISA B Model Name : Counter Bement Member Section Forces (Continue RISA-3D Version 15.0.2 [\...\...\...\..... .1.. .\Calcs\RlSACounter Etement.r3d] Page 8 Company Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers MarS. 2017 67 Pesigner : OM 5:31 PM Job Number : Checked 6y_ .111RISA Model Name : Counter Element - Member Section Forces(cqtinued.) RISA-3D Version 15.0.2 [\.....\... \...\...\...\Ca1cs\RISACounterEtemenL.r3d) Page 9 Company Wiseman +Roby Structural Engineers Mar9. 2017 68 Designer : DM 5:31 PM ISA Job Number Checked 8y._ Model Name : Counter Element Member Section Forces (Continued) 261 r 61 M3 1 .679 .003 -.046 .022 .045i .704 1 033 263 3 .677 .003 -.045 .022 .022 .702 265 ____ 5 i .675 .003 -.u44 .022 0 .701 ff M.M. 267c 1 2 0 .633 1 -.024 1 0 .031 .817 1. $WJ ' i!' J4o 2691 __ 4 0 .627 -.02 0 .009 .187 271 6 M5 1 -.046 1 .347 •00 .022 .045 .577 WE 273 1, 3 .345 i .001 1 -.045 .022 .022 •576 275 5 1 .344 .001 1 -.044 .022 f 0 .576 277 2 1 0 .321 -.024 0 .031 .538 I Irk MY I'M 279 4 0 .315 -.02 0 i .009 .22 !7 crtJ WnT/ RISA-30 Version 15.0.2 [\...\:..\...\...........Calcs\RISA\Counter Eiement.r3d] Page 10 IIIRISA Company : Wseman + Rohy StructuraJ Engineers Mar 9, 2017 69 Pe5i1er : DM .... 5:31 PM JobNumber : CheckedB Model Name : Counter Element Member Section Forces (Con tin ue) Member Section Deflections RSA-3D Version 15.0.2 [\...\.... .)..........CaIcsRISA\Counter Element.r3d] Page 11 Company Wiseman + RDhY Structurat Engineers Mr 9, 2017 70 Designer : DM 5:31 PM Job Number : Checked By Model Name Counter 6ernent Member Section Deflections (Continued) RISA-3D Version 15.0.2 [.........\...\...\...\CaIcs\RSA\CounterEIement.r3dJ Page 12 Company : Wiseman + Rofly Structw:al .Eflglneefs Mar 9, 2017 71 Designer : DM 5:31 PM D C A Job Number : Checked By:_ Model Name : Counter Element Member Section DeflectionsLContinued RISA-30 Version 15.0.2 ....\...L\CaIcs\RISACounter Eernont.r3d] Page 13 Company Wiseman +Rohy Structural Engineers Mar 9, 2017 72 . . Designer : DM . . ..... 5:31 PM .....IIIRISA Job Number : Checked By._ Model Name : Counter Element Member Section DefleotionsJctinueØ RISA-3D Version 15.0.2 [\...\...\...\... .......\Calcs\RISA\CounterEtement.3d] Page 14 Company Wlsernan + Rohy Structural Engineers Mar 9. 2017 73 Designer : CM 5:31 PM C Job Number : Checked By. Model Name : Counter Element Member Section Deflections continuedj 1<I5A-LJ version 15.0.2 t\...\...\...\.......\...\CaIcs\RSA\CounterElement.r3d] Page 15 Company Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers Mar 9, 2017 74 Designer : DM 5:31 PM Job Number : Checked By. JI.sA Model Name : Counter Element Member Section Deflections (Continuo RISA-3D Version 15.0.2 [\...\...\.............Calcs\RlSACounter Elernent.r3d] Page 16 Company : Wiseman Rohy Structurvil Engineers Mar9, 2017 75 Designer. : DM 5:31 PM C J Job Number : Checked B_ Model Name : Counter Element Member Section Deflections (Continue LC Member Label Sec .jLlinl z FinL x Rotate Iradi (nWi Ratio (n) Liz RaiJo Member AISC 14th(Qr1O):LRFD Steel Code Checks I ( K4pmhr Shnt tI( 1 i'uFffl Shir I Ir. I #rFff 1 flrnhIPnrfk1 ^hvPntrki ,1i4ra, nih.1n h r,n 1 1 1 Ml PIPE 1.5X' .632 2 0 1 .000 1 0 1 30.882 11 31.5 1.441 .441 1.001 IHI-lb 842 ta Nf?1b 3 1 1 - M3 PIPE 1.5X[ .778 0 _.001 11 0 30.882 31.5 IN .441 1.44 1011-11-1b 02 ZUREK 5 1 1 11 M5 IPIPE 1.5X1 .632 11 .000 i 0 30.882 31.5 1 1 .441 .4 1 11.001_l1-11-11b 7 1 M7 IHSS2.5x2.5.. .129 3.25 .040 0 51.783 88.65 6• 13 6. 1 1.1361H1jb F q J I M9 HSS2.5x2.5.. .008 3.25 w .015 1 0 v 1 51.783 88.65 6.113 1 6.113 1.1361H1-lb JR 1 2 Ml PIPE 1.5X1 .542 0 1 .000 1 0 30.882 1 31.5 1 1.441 1.441 11.001 Hi-lb gtp 13 1 2 1 M3 PIPE 1.5X_.667 0 .001 0 1 1 30.882 i 31.5 1.441 1 1•441 11.002 11 '-11-lb IS 15 2 MS PIPE 1.5X1 .542 0 .000 0 1 30.882 31.5 11.441 11.441 11.001IHI-1bJ Hi 1 2 M7 !HSS2.a5.. .111 i 3.25 .034 1 0 1y151.783 88.65 I 6.113 1 6.113 !1.13611-11_1bl 19 I 2 1 M9 1HS52.5x2.5.4 Mr,.007 1 3.25 1 .013 0 1 v151.783 88.65 6.113 I 6.113 0.13611-11-lbl I21 1 3 Ml iPIPE 1.5X1 .568 0 1 .004 0 1 130.8821 31.5 11.441 1.441 1.02H1-1b BONN 123 1 3 M3 PIPE 1.5X1_.706 0 1 .007 I 0 1 30.882 31.5 1.44 1 11.441 1.0281H1-lbj ONE I ME 25 1 3 I M5 IPIPE 1.5X1 .568 1 0 .004 1 0 1 130.8821 31.5 11.441 11.441 j1.021H1-1bl 27 I 3 1 M7 NSS2.5x2.5....114 1 3.25 1 .034 I 0 v151.7831 88.65 F 6.113 i 6.113 L1.136IHl11)i ffil NINE WIN 29 1 3 1 M9 HSS2.5xZ5.J .010 I 3.25 .0131 0 15t783i 88.65 6.113 I 6.113 11.1iH1-1b! OEM 1 31 1 4 1 Ml IPIPE 1.5X1 .543 1 0 I .023 I 0 I 130.862 1 31.5 1.441 1 1.441 111.fH11b1 WI 33 4 1 M3 'PIPE 15X 667 0 023 0 130882' 315 1.441 1.441 10021ii1-1bl l 7 4i 1 I Ma 35 4 1 MS 1PIPE 1.5X1 .543 I 0 1 .023 1 0 130.8921 31.5 11.441 1 1.441 tOOl JHI-IbI OR 37 1 4 i Mi 'HSS25x2.5 111 i 325 034 0 '' 517831 8865 6.113 1 6.113 11361H1 lb1 oF91St8865 1 39 I 4 J M9 11-ISS2mgp.5x2.5..i .007 1 3.25 1 .013 1 0 y151.783 1 88.65 1 6.113 I 6.113 it136IH1_lbi 41 1 5 1 M IPIPE 1.5X1 .433 1 0 1 .004 1 0 I 130.882 1. 31.5 1 1.441 11.441 ll.0251H1-lbl RISA-313 Version 15.0.2 ....... \Calcs\RISA\CounterElement.r3dJ . Page 17 Company : Wiseman +Rohy Structural Engineers Mar 9, 2017 76 Designer DM . . 5:31 PM j% Job Number Checked By. Model Name : Counter Element MemberAlSC l4th(360-1OJ: LRFD Steel Code Checks (Continued) Material Takeoff . .. ... . .. .. ... . ... . . .. .... RISA-3D Version 15.0.2 [\...\...\...\..........\Cacs\RISA\CounterEernent.r3dJ Page 18 ri E WSEMAN4-ROHY TRUCiURAL ENGINEERS DY Loads: BLC 2, Live Wiseman + Rohy Structural SK- I MS Bridge Beam Mar 9, 2017 at 5:26 PM 15-079.09 Brrdge Beam Design.r2d Company : Wiseman +Rohy Structural Engineers . Mar9. 2017 79 .111RISA Designer : MS •.. 5:26 PM Job Number : 15-079.09 . Checked By.__ Model Name : Bridge Beam (1 Hot Rolled Steel Section Sets Label Shapejype Design List Maierial Des ion Ru... Al1n21 l(90,270 ... LLQJ0. ii .Si I W8x3I I Beam I Wide Range i A992 Typical 1 9.13 1 37.1 110 Hot Rolled Steel Properties Design Size and Code Check Parameters _..L9L.........Max DejnJ..........M ethI1.....,....M!diI...........Mn... ChLffiax Shear Chk ri . Joint Coordinates and Temperatures I Label xjnj •J.ii Ni 0 0 0 W. Joint Boundary Conditions I I NI Reaction I Reaction Member Primary Data Label Rotade...Seclion/ShaoeType Des iiUst Material pRules Ml _Ni _N2_I 9OLSIIBeami _IA992_ITypicaLj Hot Rolled Steel Design Parameters Label Shaoe LenqthrfLl_Lb-autfftl_thn j..icomp tq... Ku.tK-in Cb Functi... SIiI8.5i...._.._I Joint Loads and Enforced Displacements Joint Label LD.M Direction mtudeF(li.k (injad, l . . . .. No Data to Print RISA-2D Version 16.0.0 [\...\...\...\ ... ......\CaIcs\RISA\Bridge Beam Desiga.r2d] Page 1 Company : Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers Mar 9, 2017 80 Designer : MS 5:28 PM R J Number : 15•079.09 Checked By ISi% Model Name : Bridge Beam Member Point Leads (B LC 2: Live) Member Label Direction Magnibde(b,k-fL] Locaticnit.%1 I1 MI - 200 - - - 925__J Member Distributed Loads Member Label Direction .......Start .Mannhl.. End v1aanitudelbfft.Jfl Start Location[fl.%I End Localion[ft.%1 _____ _____________ No Data to Print ... Basic Load Cases Load Combinations, R1SA-2D Version 16.0.0 [\..\...\...\......\.. .\Calcs\RlSA\Bridge Beam Design.r2d] Page 2 Company : Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers Designer : MS J Job Number : 15-079.09 . FJPL Model Name : Budge Beam Joint Reactions Mar 9. 2017 81 5:28 PM Checked Sy. .infrit I thp1 Y I1h1 V Ohl MZ lk-ffl T i . 3 1 1 1 Totals: . 0 . 804.645 Olt ! 5 2 NI a 50 4.848 0 WZ 'J o3 iLI 'w 7 2 Totals: 0 10119,695 15 9 14 1 NI 0 . 21.373 1 0 R ?114f1 49-121711, M MINE, IMF. wg 1A!2ir1c óW II 14 _____ Totals: 0 574.746 ROME,Lco Z&W 13 15 Ni 0 100 0 xv, MR Aso - 15 15 i Totals: 0 200 17 1 16 NI______ - 0 387.373 0 M. cJ 'WJ7fP £7a 19 16 Totals: 0 i 774.746 NINE, am (: Joint Deflections Member Section Forces • IC Member Label Sec Aalflb1 Shea,flbl Moentlk-IQ MI 4 RISA-21D Version 16.0.0 [\...\...\...\......\...\Calcs\RISA\Bridge Beam Design.r2d] Page 3 Company : Wiseman i-Rohy Structural Engineers Mar 9, 2017 82 Designer : MS 5:28 PM A Job Number : 15-079.09 . Checked Model Name : Budge Beam .C) Member Section Deflections 1 ( MAmhr I ah1 Ran k rini v fin] (n) L/v Ratio 1 0 NC 3. 3 I 0 1 -.107 1 2083.642 MASON 5 5 0 0 NC ORRIS OR AM —W cMrA ' 7 ! 2 0 -.112 1987.877 ?1!! 2o 9 0 -.112 1987.877 f#4 t5 fi 19JL Member AISC14th(360-1O): LRFD Steel Code Checks LC Member Shana UC Max Locifti Shear tiC Locrftl nhiPnc ... ohiPntf...thrMnl... Cb Eon Material Takeoff RISA-2D Version 16.0.0 [\...\...\...\...\...\.. .Catcs\RlSA\Bridge Beam Design.r2d) Page 4 1 Per ASCE 7-10 11.4 I LOCATION: Carlsbad 6 I A RUcTuRAi.EN EERS SEISMIC BASE SHEAR I PROJECT: ViaSat Site Structures (2015 IBC/ 2016 CRC IASCE 7-10) v 3.0 I JOB NO: 15-079.09 1/31/2017 10:32:17 n) 12 IBC SEISMIC EQUATI Base Sh. 0cc0pancy Category = ii 2012 IBC Tablèi 604.5 (i,ii,iii.or iv) Importance Factor (IE) = 1.00 ASCE 7-10 Table 1.5-2 Site Class = 0 (From Soils Engineer or 'D if not known) TL = 8 sec ASCE 7-10 Figure 22-12 Ss 1.052 g - S1 0.407 g o 0 Meets: Regular and 5 Stories max? (ASCE Section 12.8.1.3 for reduced Ss 0 Steel Moment Frame Concrete Moment Frame Eccentrically Braced Steel Frame ®AJI Other Structural Systems Ui R = 1.25 ASCE 7-10 Table 12.2-I Maximum Height = 12 feet Number of Stories = 1 for Cs: for other: Fa = 1.08 1.08 ASCE 7-010 Table 11.4-1 F= 1.59 ASCE 7-10 Table 11.4-2 SM 1.135 1.135 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-1 SMI = 0.648 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-2 Sos = 0.757 0.757 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-3 SD, = 0.432 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-4 Short Period Seismic Design Category = D ASCE 7-10 Table 11.6-1 I Sec Period Seismic Design Category = 0 ASCE 7-10 Table 11.6-2 Cu = 1.4 Cr = 0.020 x= 0.75 To = 0.13 Sec ASCE 7-10 Eq 12.8-7 Ta = - Sec ASCE 7-10 Eq 12.8-8 Notes: Ordinary Cantilever Cots 4% '9Q( ,4 Use Category: D ASCE 7-10 Table 12.8-2 USE To = 0.13 sec Vu = 0.606 x W (basic) Eq 12.8- Vu = 2.682 x W (Used) Eq 12.8-3 & Vu = - x W (Not Used) Eq 12.8-4 & Vu = - x W (for S1 >= 0.6g only) Eq 12.8-I Vu= %X (LRFD) V = V / 1.4= t0.4325 JxW (ASD) Structural Wall Out-Of-Plane and Anchorage Forces: Out-of-Plane Wall Forces (ASCE 7-10 Sect 12.11.1) F= 0.303 x W,, (LRFD) F = / 1.4= 0.216 x W (Asp) Anchorage Force for Walls at Flexible & Rigid Diaphragms (ASCE 7-10 Eq 12.11-1) Total I Flexible Diaphragm Spans: I Height: Rigid 50 ft 75 ft J > 100 ft I L Level: - Roof 12 ft I 0.303 . 0.530 0.606 I x W9 (LRFD) 5th Floor - - I _ - xwp (LRFD) 4th Floor - I - - - - x W (LRFD) 3rd Floor - I - - - - w (LRFD) 2nd Floor - - - xW (LRFD) iJ!7 two/ I5 Total Level: Height: Rigid Flexible 50ft Diaphragm Spans: 1 75ft 1 >100 ft Roof 12 ft 0.303 0.454 0.530 0.606 5th Floor - - - - - 4th Floor - - - - - 3rd Floor - - - - - 2nd Floor - - - - () x W (LRFD) x W (LRFD) x W (LRFD) xW9 (LRFD) xW, (LRFD) I ,WISEMAN±ROHY I SEISMIC BASE SHEAR PROJECT: ViaSat Site Structures Per AS 7-10 11.4 LOCATION: Carlsbad STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS I (2015 IBC/2016 CBCIASCE 7.10) v3.0 1 JOB NO: 15-079.10 4/5/2017 13:53:42 SEISMIC EQ Base Shear: .Do1G C 8 C, --------------- DDSAIOSHPD? 9 Meets: Regular and 5 Stones max? (ASCE Section 12.8.1.3 for reduced Ss) Occupancy Category = ii 2012 IBC Table 1604.5 (i,ii,iii,or iv) Importance Factor (IE) = 1.00 ASCE 7-10 Table 1.5-2 Site Class = 0 (From Soils Engineer or '0 if not known) TL = 8 sec ASCE 7-10 Figure 22-12 S5 1.052 g - S1 = 0.407 g R = 1.25 ASCE 7-10 Table 12.2-1 Maximum Height = 12 feet Number of Stories = 1 for Cs: for other: Qsteei Moment Frame o Concrete Moment Frame 0 Eccentrically Braced Steel Frame ®All Other Structural Systems Ordinary Cant Fa = 1.08 F= 1.59 SMS= 1.135 S 1 = 0.648 S0 0.757 S01 = 0.432 Short Period Seismic Design Category = I Sec Period Seismic Design Category = 1.08 ASCE 7-010 Table 11.4-1 ASCE 7-10 Table 11.4-2 1.135 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-1 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-2 0.757 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-3 ASCE 7-10 Eq 11.4-4 0 ASCE 7-10 Table 11.6-1 0 ASCE 7-10 Table 11.6-2 Use Category: D 0 C= 1.4 CT= 0.020 x= 0.75 ASCE 7-10 Table 12.8-2 Ta = 0.13 Sec ASCE 7-10 Eq 12.8-7 T3 = -. Sec ASCE 7-10 Eq 12.88 USE Ta = 0.13 sec Vu = 0.606 x W (basic) Eq 12.8-2 Vu = 2.682 x W (Used) Eq 12.8-3 & 5 Vu = - x W (Not Used) Eq 12.8-4 & 5 Vu = - x W (for Si >= 0.6g only) Eq 12.8-6 Vu 06xW (LRFD) V = V, / 1.4 0.4325 7X W (ASD) I Structural Wall Out-Of-Plane and Anchorage Forces: Out-of-Plane Wall Forces (ASCE 7-10 Sect 12.11.1) F= 0.303 x W (LRFD) F = FPu / 1.4 = 0.216 x W,, (ASD) Anchorage Force for Walls at Flexible & Rigid Diaphragms (ASCE 7-10 Eq 12.11-1) Wind Forces: (ASCE 7-10 Section 29.5) Exposure = C lC = 1.00 K,= 0.85 V= 110 G= 0.85 Light Head: Pole: Base: Kd = 0.85 Table 26.6-1 0.95 Table 26.6-1 0.95 Table 26.6-1 q5= 0.00256KK5 KdV2 q5= 22.35 psf 24.98 psf 24.98 psf Cr = 1.81 Fig. 29.5-1 F= q1GC1A, F = 34.32 psf (LRFD) Wind Load = 20.59 psf (ASD) Area = 1.00 ft, Force = 20.6 lb (ASD) Height = 12.0 ft Moment = 247.1 ft-lb (ASD) 1.18 Fig. 29.5-1 0.50 Fig. 29.5-1 25.01 psf (LRFD) 15.00 psf (ASD) 16.00 psf (LRFD) 9.60 psf (ASD) 4.75 ft' 71.3 lb (ASD) 7.3 ft 516.7 ft-lb (ASD) 5.00 ft 48.0 lb (ASD) 1.3 ft 60.0 ft-lb (ASD) LX-czWr Ro t--C- Fo rric [ WISEMAN+ROHY Structural Engineers PROJECT: ViaSat Site == FLAG POLE FOOTING DESIGN FOR WIND ON LIGHT POLE == LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA June 2015-2012 I13C/2013CBC JOB NO: 15-079.10 4/10/2017 14:04 Concrete Flag-Pole Footing for Light Pole - per IBC 2012 Section 1807.3.2 and ASCE 7-10 Chapter 29 USE: 24 inch diameter x 1'-4" deep drilled pier with 8 #5 (v) bars minimum (design by hand for actual moment) Height to Head = 12 ft (from ground) Area of head = 1.00 ft Least Dimension of Head = 0.63 ft Round or Square Pole? R (R / 5) Pole Size (diameter or side)= 6 in diameter Concrete Base Height = 2.50 ft (from ground) Base Diameter = 2.00 ft Bar Size = 5 Allowable Lateral Bearing = 300 psI (double / increase manually if allowed) Total Moment= 823.9 ft-lb (ASD) Total Force = 139.9 lb (ASD) Avg Height to Load = 5.89 ft-lb (ASD) Constrained? N (V/N) Trial Depth = 1.27 ft (iterate until matches below) Iterated Depth = 3.59 ft Minimum Reinforcing = 2.26 in (0.50 percent) Use 8 #5 bars C,) acLoL( Lt- POL- E For- tiJ( WISEMAN+ROHY Structural Engineers PROJECT: ViaSat Site == FLAG POLE FOOTING DESIGN FOR WIND ON LIGHT POLE == LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA June 2015-2012 IBC / 2013 CBC JOB NO: 15-079.10 4/10/2017 14:04 Concrete Flag-Pole Footing for Light Pole - per IBC 2012 Section 1807.3.2 and ASCE 7-10 Chapter 29 USE: 24 inch diameter x 1'-4" deep drilled pier with 8 #5 (v) bars minimum (design by hand for actual moment) Height to Head = 25 ft (from ground) Area of head= 1.00 ft2 Least Dimension of Head = 0.63 ft Round or Square Pole? R (R / 5) Pole Size (diameter or side)= 6 in diameter Concrete Base Height = 2.50 ft (from ground) Base Diameter= 2.00 ft Bar Size = S Allowable Lateral Bearing = 300 pSf (double / increase manually if allowed) Total Moment = 2230.8 ft-lb(ASD) Total Force = 185.1 lb (ASD) Avg Height to Load = 12.05 ft-lb (ASD) Constrained? N (V / N) Trial Depth = 1.27 ft (iterate until matches below) Iterated Depth = 5.66 ft Minimum Reinforcing :c 2.26 in' (050 percent) Use 8 #5 bars Wind Forces: (ASCE 7-10 Section 29.5) Exposure= C K= 1.00 K= 0.95 V= 110 G= 0.85 Light Head: Pole: Base: Kd = 0.85 Table 26.6-1 0.95 Table 26.6-1 0.95 Table 26.6-1 = 0.00256 K K Kd V2 = 24.89 psf 27.82 psI 27.82 psI Cf= 2.00 Fig. 29.5-1 0.70 Fig. 29.5-1 0.50 Fig. 29.5-1 F= q1GCfAf F= 42.31 psf(LRFD) 16.55 psf(LRFD) 16.00 psf(LRFD) Wind Load= 25.39 psf(ASD) 9.93 psI (ASD) 9.60 psI (ASD) Area= 1.00 ft, 11.25 ft' 5.00 ft, Force = 25.4 lb (ASD) 111.7 lb (ASD) 48.0 lb (ASD) Height= 25.0 ft 13.8 ft 1.3 ft Moment = 634.7 ft-lb (ASD) 1536.1 ft-lb (ASD) 60.0 ft-lb (ASD) louis poulsen POLE ROUND STRAIGHT Design: Louis Poulsen NS Finish: Brushed aluminum. Black, graphite grey, grey, natural painted aluminum or white, powder coated. Material: Aluminum. Mounting: Base cover dimension: 14"-diameter. Base plate: Mounted to a concrete base with 4 anchor bolts on a bolt circle of 8.0" diameter. Installation: Refer to mounting instruction download for installation details. Weight: Mm: 25 lbs. Max: 35 lbs. PRODUCT OVERVIEW Finish SR AW BLK GRE <GRAPH 1iion io FT Finish BR ALU HT BLK GREY NAT PAINT ALU GRAPH Features NOT APPLICABLE GFI A136 IN fA LImmaivIA LIWT/NG Notes FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS INTENDED USE— Round straight aluminum general purpose pole for up to 30 foot mounting heights. CONSTRUCTION -Shaft One-piece extruded 6063-16 aluminum alloy withT6 temper Circumferential satin-brushed finish. Roundstrafght tube Is unifOrm In cross-section down length of shaftwithno taper. Anchor base Cast from A356 aluminum alloy and heat treated to 16 temper. Base plate and shaft are circumIerentlally welded top and bottom.The anchorbase is provided with slotted holes. Handhole: Handhole is located 18" above base (poles have either 2" a 4° or 3" a 5 handhole). Cover and attachment hardware furnished. Hardware: Stainless steel Top cap: Removable top cap provided with drill-mount poles. Bolt covers: A356 bolt covers included with anchor base unless otherwise specified. Spun aluminum base cover available as an option. Finish: Must specify finish. Grounding: Provision located inside handholedm. Grounding hardware is not included (provided by others). Anchor bolts: Fabricated from carbon steel bar with minimum-yield strength of 55,000 psi. Upper portion of anchor bolt Is galvanized per ASTM A-1 53. Each anchor bolt is furnished with two hex nuts and two flat washers. WARRANTY - 1-year limited warranty. Complete warranty terms located at www.acuitybranduom/CustomerResource/Terms and conditions.aspx Note: Actual performance may differ as a result of end-user environment and application. Specifications subject to change without notice. Type Anchor Base Poles RSA ROUND STRAIGHT ALUMINUM Lead times wig vary depending on options selected. Consult with your sales representative. Example: RSA 16 4-5C DM19 BA RSA Nominal lixture Nominalshaft base Wes—'nsunVngheight. *e/waHthickneu P8outtting' Options______________ Flitth" Standard colors RSA 8 --- 30feet (Seebackpage.) Tenon mounting Shipped Installed (Seebackpage.) PT Opentop L/AB lessanchorbolts 008 Dark bronze 120 2-318" O.D. (2" tIPS) FBC Full base cover OWN White T25 2-7/8" 0.0. (2-1/2" tIPS) VD Vibration damper DID. Black 130 3-1/2°O.D. (3" tIPS)2 TP Tamperproof 0MB Medium bronze T35 4"O.D. (34fl" tIPS)2 H1-18A Horizontal arm bracket (1 DNA Natural aluminum Drill mounting fixture).' BA Brushed aluminum DM19 1 at 90" FDLxx Festoon outlet less electrical' Classic colors DM28 2 a 180" CPL12xx 1/2" coupling1 DSS Sandstone DM28PI 2 at 180" with one side plugged PL34sor 3/4" coupling' DGC tharwalgray DM29 2at90° CPL1xx rcoupnng' DTG Tennis green DM32 3 at 120" NPL12xx 1/2" threaded nipple' DBR Bright red DM39 3 at 90" NPt.34xx 3/4° threaded nipple1 DSB Reel blue DM49 4 at 90" NPL1xx 1° threaded nipple' Class 1 architectural anodized CSX/DSX/AERIS°'JOMERO' flrlllmounting' EflHax Extra handhole" ABL Black M19AS r1at90 MAEX Match exlstiing' ADB Dark bronze D42BAS 2 at 180° USPOM United States point of AIM Natural 0M29A5 2at90" manufacture DM32AS 3 at 120° DM39AS 3 at 90" DM49AS 4at90° AERIS' Suspend drill mountingv DMxxASL OMERO'"Susnend drill m000lingv4 OMxxMRT_. NOTES HAN DHOLE ORIENTATION IMPORTANT INSTALLATION NOTES: When ordering tenon mounting and drill mounting (or S. 5pedlr location and orientation when ordering option. - Do not erect poles without having fixtures installed. thi same pole, follow this example- IlM28fl20.The For lstY: Specify the height tn feet above base ofpole. C - Factory-suppted templates must bo used when combination Includes required extra handhole. £ormp1e5ft=Sond lOft =20 setting anchor balm lithicals tighting will not 13O and 135 tenons available on5"and6" shafts only. Fat2nd Specify orientation fromhandhole(A,C,O)FFT7 accept claim for Incorrect anchorage placement due The drilling template to be used (era particular Refer to the han hole Orientation diagram on this page. D B to failure to use factory template. luminatre depends on the lumln,tre that Is used. Refer 6. flodwntal arm is 18"x2-3/8"OD. tenon standard. If pains are stored outside, all protective wrapping totheledtnlcal Data Section ofthe Outdoor Binder for 7. Cusuonoftummidrll mount Includes extra handhole. Z!]__ most be removed Immediately upon delivery to Dnhllngleniplates. 8. Must add original order number prevent finish damage. Insert "1"or"2" tod&gnate fixture slzee.g. 9. 0119A5T2. Use when mill certifications are required. A - IJthonla Lighting isnot responsible for the lorinda- 10. Finials must be specified. Additional colors avagable; see enihajaa. Handhole tlon desIgn. comlaidxotnmuor Architectural Colors brochure (Farm No. 7943). - OUTDOOR POLE-RSA 7 Catalog Number RSA Round Straight Aluminum Poles TECHNICAL INFORMATION EPA (ft2) with 1.3 gust Catalog Numbe Nominalmount ht.(ft) PoleShaftSize (InxftL WaHThkk(ln) 80 mph 90 mph 100 mph MaL weight (Ibs L Bolt Circle (in) __________ Bolt Size lin.x L ln.xin. Approximate ship fibs.) BSA 84C 8 4x8 0.125 11.2 8.6 6.8 125 6-1/2-8-1/4 314x18x3 22 R5A84-SC It 4-1/2x8 0.125 14.6 11.3 9.1 175 7-118-8-318 3/4x18x3 30 R5A84-56 8 4-1/2x8 0.188 21.8 17 13.7 225 7-1/8-8-3/8 3I4x18x3 38 RSA 104( 10 4x10 0.125 8.2 6.1 4.7 100 6-1/2-8-1/4 3/4x18x3 26 BSA 1O4-5C 10 4-1/2x10 0.125 - 10.6 8.1 6.5 133 7-1/8-8-3/8 3/4x18x3 34 NSA 104-56 10 4-1)2 a 10 0.188 16.3 12.6 10.1 175 7-1/8-8-3/8 3/4x18x3 43 NSA105C 10 5x10 0.125 13.6 10.6 8.5 150 7-1/2-9-1/2 3/4x18x3 36 RSA 124C 12 4x12 0.125 6 43 3.2 110 1 6-1/2-8-1/4 3/4x18x3 30 NSA 124-SC 12 4-1/2x12 0.125 8.1 6 4.8 80 7-1/8-8-3/8 3/4x 18x3 38 85A124-56 12 4-1/2 x 12 0.188 12.7 9.7 7.7 185 7-1/8-8-3/8 3/4x18x3 50 BSA 125C 12 5x12 0.125 10.3 8 63 150 7-1/2-9-112 3/4x18x3 36 BSA 12SE 12 Sail 0.156 13.2 103 8.2 200 7-1)2-9-1)2 3/4x18x3 44 BSA 1256 12 Sail 0.188 16.2 12.6 10.1 225 7-1/2-9-1/2 3/4x18x3 53 RSA 144C 14 4x14 0.125 4.1 2.8 1.9 75 6-1/2-8-1/4 3/4x18x3 35 RSA 144-SC 14 4-1/2 a 14 0.125 5.8 42 33 60 7-1/8-8-3/8 3/4x 18x3 39 RSA 144-SG 14 4-1/2x14 0.188 9.7 73 5.8 190 7-1/8-8-3/8 3/4x18x3 56 SA14SC 14 5x14 0.125 7.8 6 4.7 100 7-1/2-9-1/2 3/4x18x3 42 RSA14SE 14 504 0.156 103 8 63 125 7-1/2-9-1)2 3/4x18x3 47 RSA 14SG 14 5x14 0.188 12.8 9.9 7.9 150 7-1/2-9-1)2 3/4x18x3 56 BSA 164C 16 406 0.125 2.8 1.6 1 150 6-1/2-8-1/2 3/4x18x3 38 BSA 164-SC 16 4-1/2x16 OilS 33 22 1.6 100 7-1/8-8-3/8 3/4x18x3 46 85A164-56 16 4-112x16 0.188 73 53 43 155 7-1/8-8-3/8 3/4x18x3 62 BSA 16SC 16 5x16 0.125 5.9 44 3.4 175 7-1/2-9-1/2 3/4x18x3 46 lSA165E 16 5x16 0.156 8 6.1 All 190 7-1/2-9-1/2 3/4x18x3 53 BSA 165G 16 506 0.188 10.1 7.8 6.1 200 7-1/2-9-1/2 3/4x18x3 60 NSA 16 6E 16 6 x16 0.156 13.6 10.6 8.4 225 8-3/4-10-1/4 3/4x30x3 53 BSA 166G 16 6x16 0.188 16.8 13 10.4 245 8-3/4-10-1/4 3/4x30x3 78 BSA 185G 18 5x18 0.188 8 6.8 4.7 225 7-1)2-9-1/2 3/4a18x3 68 hSA18-SC 18 5x18 0.125 43 3.1 2.4 150 7-1/2-9-1)2 3/4x 18x3 48 kSA18$E 18 5x18 0.156 6.1 4.6 33 175 74/241/2 3/4x18x3 58 - RSA 184-50 18 4-1/2s 18 0.188 5.7 4 3.1 123 7-1/8-8-3/8 3/4x18x3 68 - 85A1866 18 6x18 0.188 13.9 10.7 85 225 8-3/4-10-1/4 3/4x30x3 86 85A204-SG 20 4-1/2x20 0.188 43 2.9 2.1 95 7-1/8-8-3/8 3/4x18x3 74 RSA ZOSC 20 5x20 0.125 3 2.1 13 150 - 7-1/2-9-1/2 3/4a1Bx3 54 5A205E 20 5x20 0.156 4.7 3.4 2.6 150 7-1/241/2 3/4x18a3 68 RSA 2OSG 20 5x20 0.188 6.4 4.8 3.6 150 7-1/2-9-112 3/4x18x3 82 BSA 2O6E 20 6e20 0.156 93 7.1 53 175 8-3/4-10-1/4 3/0300 95 RSA 2O6G 20 6x20 0.188 11.8 9.1 7.1 200 8-3/4-10-1/4 3/4x30x3 110 85A254-50 25 4-1/2x25 0.188 13 - - 100 7-1/8-8-3/8 3/4x18x3 89 BSA 2.561 25 6x25 0.156 52 3.8 2.8 150 8-3/4-10-1/4 3/4x30x3 108 RSA 2S6G 25 6x25 0.188 7.1 5.3 4 150 8-3/4-10-1/4 3/4x30x3 128 BSA 3066 30 6x30 0.188 35 2.4 1.6 200 8-3/4-10-1/4 3/4x30x3 146 POLE DATA Shaft base size Bait circle Bolt projection Base square Template description Anchorbolt description 6-1/2'-8-1/4' 3-1/4" 8-3/4" ABTEMPLATE PJ50057 A818-0 4-177 7"-8-3/8" 3-1/4" 8-1/2" ABTEMPLATEPJ5004O *818-0 • 7-1/2"-9-1/2" 3-1/4" 9-1/4" ABT(MPLATEPJS00SS AB18-0 8-314"-10-11,V', 3-1/2" 10-1/4" ABTEMPLATEPJ50059 AB30-0 IMPORTANT: - - mna g theriaUghling reserves the fight to change matedalorduign, without pdornatke.ina continuing effort upgrade its products. VA £/YIIDNL4 £157/1TING POLE-NSA An'McultyBrandsComparry OUTDOOR: One Lithonia Way Conyers, GA 30012 Phone: 770-922-9000 www.11thonla.com 01994-2016 Acuity Brands lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. Rev. 09/21/16 Specifications EPA: 1.01 it, (O9m') Length: 33" (51aoi) Width: 13" U3OGII) Height: 7-1/2" (19.004 T ': Weight 27 lbs (max): (128) D-Series Size I LED Area Luminaire (a **. s9fhat-clit9s RIBUY 9 bythlscalmbaãsonnt 04, Capable Luminaire This item is an A+ capable luminaire, which has been designed and tested to provide consistent color appearance and system-level interoperability. All configurations of this luminaire meet the Acuity Brands' specification for chromatic consistency This luminaire is A+ Certified when ordered with DTLe controls marked by a DTL DLL equipped luminaires meet the A+ specification for luminaire to photocontrol interoperabilityl This luminaire is part of an A+ Certified solution for ROAM2 or XPointTM Wireless control networks, providing out-of-the-box control compatibility with simple commissioning, when ordered with drivers and control options marked by a hidibaEk97Ujd' To learn more about A+, visit www.acuitybrands.com/aplus. See ordering tree for details. A+ Certified Solutions for ROAM require the order of one ROAM node per luminaire. Sold Separately: Link to Roam; Link to DTL DLL tö?.t1IJk,7git!Ikupi, EXAMPLE: DSX1 LED 60C 1000 40K T3M MVOLT SPA DDBXD DSX1L!D DSX1 LED I Forward optics I 530 530 mA 30K 3000K I uS Type ishort 155 Type Vshort I MVOLT' I Shipped Included 30C 30 LEDs (oneengine) I 700 700 mA I 40K 4000K I 125 Type H short T5M TypeV medium 120' I SPA Square pole mounting I 40C 40 LEDs (two engines) I 1000 i000 mA I 50K 5000K I 12M Type limedium TSW T,pevwlde I 2081 I RPA Round pole mounting I 60C 60 LEDs (two engines) (1A) I AMBPC Amber T35 Type lishort BLC Backlight I 2404 WBA Wall bracket Rotatedoptks' phosphor I converted' I UM Typelli medium contioi" SPUMBA Square pole universal mounting adaptor 60C 6OLEDs(twoengines) T4M Type lVmediirm LCCO ttftCOIltel 347' I RPUMBA Round pole univerimouiitingadaptor ' cutoff"' TFTM Forward throw I 4801 i Shipped medium RCCO Right corner I cutoff"' I I KMA8 DDBXDU Mast arm mowningtmcketathptor 15V5 TypeVveryshort J (spedIr finish) ' Shipped installed I PIRH1Fc3V Bi-leed, mcoWambientsensot 15-30'mount- Shipped Installed I DDBXD Dark bronze rin Inghdghtambiuntsensorenabledat1ft" I HS House-side shield" I DBIXD Black FEES Fewirereceiadeody(nocrgrtio)"' 8130 BWevel Mtched dimming, 30%""' I WTB Utilty terminal block" I DNAXD Natural aluminum Bdswhtheddlmming,5096"' I SF Slnaleftise(120,277, I DWHXD White MIS 0-IOV dimming extend out back of housing for external control (noconlm!s)'° -1 PNMTDD3 rarinightdimtiuidawn" , I DDBTXD Textuinddark bronm OCR Dimmable and controllable via ROAM* (no controls) ' PNMT5D3 Part rttdIm5 his " I DF Double fuse (202 240, I DBI.BXD Taw red Wadi a OS Dualswitthlng"'" PN1dT6D3 Part night, d1m6hs" i is I 11 Tenured natural FIR 81! Lu rion/ambien ensor, 8-15'mo inting height ambient sensor enabledat 51c " PNMI7D3 hit night; dim 7hrs R90 aluminum Right roratedoptl&' I PIRH 8-lewtmotion/amblentsensoc 15-3untingirelghtambientsensorenabledat5k" FAD Field adjrstableourput i BS DWHGXD Textured white gird spikes PIR1FC3V 8i-lwel,motion/ambientsensor,8-15'mountinghlght, ambient sensor enabled atlfc" I I £/T#ICNIA One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 800.279.8041 • wjw.lithonia.com FA DSXt -LEO Rev. 02417/17 £II'1TI// 2011-2017 Acuity Brands lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. Page 1 of 7 92d 1 H 1czJ) h - --- (oo TV Li z -------4--- 1vo1 NM C) i1 H Qbi-S,S t l."I I I I .0N901 _______________ 10. ON13iHS Aa SI33NI9N31VlflL)flLS AHOd1NYW3SIM UI.4 - i t I p WISEMAN + ROHY STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS -4-----------------?------ O BY I44 DATE ________ PROJECT - ' SHEET NO. ________ OF I JOB NO. -- I—OU vEc? RVi 14T-= I 8' 'c 2.1 Up - cs. x 3A4 - 3LJ A~ - - * - - --•-----,-•---------- 1 - - U- H --•- ..- •"j- --1 -t 100% 80% Al u mi n u m Fixed Louver TITAN DESIGN The Titan Design fixed louver fencing and gates are manufactured in Ametco's Willoughby, Ohio plant. Titan Design is manufactured from /2" x 2" extruded aluminum tubes on 450 angle to provide either 100% or 80% direct visual screening. The clean lines and choice of color allow the Titan Design to harmonize with any surrounding. PHOENIX DESIGN The Phoenix Design fixed louver fencing and gates allow 100% or 80% direct visual screening. Phoenix design is manufactured from a /" x 4" patented aluminum extrusion in Ametco's Willoughby, Ohio plant. The 100% direct visual screening weight is 3.00 lbs. per square foot and the 80% direct visual screening weight is 2.50 lbs. per square foot. After fabrication Phoenix design is powder coated to one of 15 standard colors for maintenance free lasting beauty. 100% 80% 31 44 2.83 PHOENIX ® Phoenito Aluminum Characteristics The Phoenix Design allows 80% or 100% direct visual screening. Specify: The Phoenix Design is the strongest of Ametco's fixed louver fencing and gates. Manufactured from 6063 extruded aluminum louvers, the Phoenix Design can have post centers of 8 foot and still maintain its outstanding strength. AMETCO PHOENIX DESIGN USED HORIZONTALLY AS PICTURED The powder coated aluminum extrusions are maintenance free. The choice of color allows the Phoenix Design fencing and gates to fit perfectly into modern architectural and security applications. The Phoenix Aluminum design weight is 4 lbs. per square foot l id '6" Max Visit our Web Site www.ametco.com Patent No. US D535,760 S for Master SDec • CAD Drawings • Photo IIry - - I ni etco 4326 Hamann Parkway Phone (440)951-4300 P.O. Box 1210 Fax (440) 951-2542 Willoughby, Ohio 44096 Toll Free 800-362-1360 Web Site www.ametco.com E-Mail ametco@ametco.com WISEMAN+ROHY Structural Engineers PROJECT: Via Sat == Pole Embedment Footing Design == LOCATION: Carlsbad, Ca Per 2013 CBC 1807.3 JOB NO: Date: 3/21/2017 14 l- O" -r-4 LL- £?/ PoSy, QL(1-0'i Input Data Constrained Footing (V or N) Lateral Force Height of Pole Diameterof-P&Q Th. Lateral Soil Bearing Isolated Pole Factor P= H= B= S=1 F= N 1.09 k 9.0 ft 2.0 ft 0.30 ksf/ft F- (CBC 1806.3.4) Trial Depth 0=1 5.oft I Analysis 51=FS at Depth=D/3 Nonconstrained 53=FS at Depth D D=.5A{1 + [1 + (4.36H/A)]} A=2.34P/(S1B) Use 2 ft x 4.5 ftdeep footing w/ 646 (V) & #4 ties @ gin. o.c. Constrained D=(4.25PH/S3B) 1st Trial Si= 1.0 ksf/ft D=4.24ft D=2.64ft S3= 3.0 ksf/ft A= 1.28 ft 2nd Trial S= 0.9 ksf/ft D= 4.44 ft D= 3.02 ft S3= 2.3 ksf/ft A= 1.39 ft 3rd Trial Si= 0.91 ksf/ft D= 4.49 ft D= 3.19 ft 53= 2.1 ksf/ft A= 1.41 ft 4th Trial S1= 0.90 ksf/ft D= 4.51 ft D= 3.25 ft 53= 2.0 ksf/ft A= 1.42 ft 5th Trial Si= 0.90 ksf/ft D= 4.51 ft D= 3.26 ft 53= 2.0 ksf/ft A= 1.42 ft Reinforcing Longitudinal Bar Size=I. #6 I #Reqd= 6 As Reqd 2.26 sq. in A, p,,=2.65 sq. in Transverse Bar Size= #4 I SReq'd= 9.0 in WISEMAN+ROHY Structural Engineers PROJECT: Via Sat == Pole Embedment Footing Design == LOCATION: Carlsbad, Ca Per 2013 CBC 1807.3 JOB NO: Date: 3/31/2017 15 _OMT/rL(. '..)( P.c'S € Input Data Constrained Footing (V or N) Lateral Force Height of Pole Diameter of Pole Lateral Soil Bearing Isolated Pole Factor P= B= F= N 1.22 k H=4.0 ft 2.0 ft S=_0.30 ksf/ft 2 (CBC 1806.3.4) Trial Depth D=J 5.0 ft I Use 2 ft x 3.88 ft deep footing w/ 646 (V) & #4 ties @ 91n. o.c. Analysis 51=FS at Depth=D/3 Nonconstrained Constrained S3=FS at Depth D D=.5A{1 + [1 + (4.36H/A)]'} D=(4.25PH/S3B)1 A=2.34P/(S1B) 1st Trial S= 1.0 ksf/ft D= 3.31 ft D= 1.86 ft 53= 3.0 ksf/ft A= 1.43 ft 2nd Trial Sj= 0.8 ksf/ft D= 3.73 ft D= 2.24 ft S3= 2.1 ksf/ft A= 1.72 ft 3rd Trial S1= 0.79 ksf/ft D= 3.86 ft D= 2.47 ft 53= 1.7 ksf/ft A= 1.81 ft 4th Trial S1= 0.78 ksf/ft D= 3.88 ft 0= 2.55 ft S3= 1.6 ksf/ft A= 1.83 ft 5th Trial S= 0.78 ksf/ft D= 3.89 ft D= 2.58 ft S3= 1.6 ksf/ft A= 1.83 ft Reinforcing Longitudinal BarSize=I .#6 I #Req'd= 6 As Req d 2.26 sq. in As prov 2.65 sq. in Transverse Bar Sized # 4 I S Req'd= 9.0 in 16 17 Column: Ml Shape: HSS6x6x4, Material: A500 Gr.46 Length: 18 ft I Joint: NI A lb J Joint: N3 LC I: Wind Deflection Code Check: 0.178 (bending) Report Based On 97 Sections 766.08 at 0 ft fa ksi lb 8.679 at 0 ft fc 11111& ksi 6894.72 at 0 ft M lb-ft ft iv ksi -8.679 at 0 ft D . in -.973 at 18 ft AISC 14th(360-10): LRFD Code Check Direct Analysis Method Max Bending Check 0.178 Max Shear Check 0.012 Location 0 ft Location 0 ft Equation HI-lb Max Defl Ratio L1222 Bending Flange Compact Bending Web Compact Compression Flange Non-Slender Compression Web Non-Slender Out Plane In Plane Fy 46 ksi Lb 18 ft 18 ft phi*Pnc 122068.89 lb KL/r 92.456 92.456 phi*Pnt 216936 lb phi*Mn 38640 lb-ft L Comp Flange 18 ft phi*Vn 61361.407 lb Tau I —b Cb 3.125 Column: AISC 14th(360-10): LRFD Code Check Direct Analysis Method Max Bending Check 0.425 Max Shear Check 0.030 Location Oft Location 0 ft Equation HI-lb Max Defi Ratio L193 Bending Flange Compact Compression Flange Non-Slender Bending Web Compact Compression Web Non-Slender Out Plane In Plane Fy 46 ksi Lb 18 ft 18 ft phi*Pnc 122068.89 lb KL/r 92.456 92.456 phi*Pnt 216936 lb phi*Mn 38640 lb-ft L Comp Flange 18 ft phi*Vn 61361 .407 lb Tau-b I Cb 3.125 ..,oiumn; Mi Shape: HSS6x6x4 Material: A500 Gr.46 Length: 18 ft I Joint: NI A lb J Joint: N3 LC 2: Wind (LRFD) Code Check: 0.425 (bending) Report Based On 97 Sections 1824 at 0 ft fa ksi 20.663at0ft 16416 atOft fc ksi M lb-f t ft ksi PV D in -20.663 at 0 ft -2.316 at 18 ft lb 18 WISEMANi-ROHY Structural Engineers PROJECT: Via Sat == Pole Embedment Footing Design == LOCATION: Carlsbad, Ca Per 2013 CBC 1807.3 JOB NO: Date: 3/21/2017 19 Input Data Constrained Footing (Y or N) N Lateral Force P= 0.50 k Height of Pole H= 4.0 ft Diameter of Pole B= 1.5 ft Lateral Soil Bearing S= 0.30 ksf/ft Isolated Pole Factor F= 2 (CBC 1806.3.4) Trial Depth D=I 2.0 ft I Analysis Use 1.5 ft x 3.07 ft deep footing w/ 546 (V) & #4 ties @ 9in. o.c. 51=FS at Depth=D/3 Nonconstrained Constrained 53=FS at Depth 0 D=.5A{1 +(1 + (4.36H/A)]1 } D=(4.25PH/S3B) A=2.34P/(S1B) 1st Trial S1= 0.4 ksf/ft D= 4.05 ft D= 2.17 ft S3= 1.2 ksf/ft A= 1.95 ft 2nd Trial S1= 0.6 ksf/ft D= 3.10 ft 0= 2.13 ft S3= 1.3 ksf/ft A= 1.29 ft 3rd Trial S1= 0.61 ksf/ft D= 3.08 ft 0= 2.12 ft S3= 1.3 ksf/ft A= 1.27 ft 4th Trial S1= 0.61 ksf/ft D= 3.07 ft D= 2.11 ft 53= 1.3 ksf/ft A= 1.27 ft 5th Trial S= 0.61 ksf/ft D= 3.07 ft D= 2.11 ft S3= 1.3 ksf/ft A= 1.27 ft Reinforcing Longitudinal Bar size=I #6 I #Req'd= 3 AsReqd 1.27 sq. in As prcv= 1.33sq.in Transverse Bar Size= l #4 1 S Req'd= 9.0 in - .--------------t - .-.- -- -.-#.-------- I - - ----4- - . - -- - ---- >a 17 -- ___ 4------ -i + ---" d - -. __ -"------.. - ---- ..----.- H------ !ON8Or 10 'ON As - --- L_I IIIHS, - L. Y .3 • i.v5\D3 od.3iva 1 $ il33NIEN] 1VflI)flLS AHOU + NVW3SIM a c) I -•v r f 'I 'I 'I ; -1 (/) c-- 117 tv I- .? • Li —( ç.'O (.J - • - 0 •• - - -.- - o p 1p 1k m -n sk :p IWO IT .• ,I -f ____ - ri i , I 311. Ira - I rn C-1 • - - /_' - t - p • 7 — • ii I • (J'I H CI. I -- -4 - -. 4 • —-•I•- .- - • WISEMANI-ROHY Structural Engineers PROJECT: ViaSat Site Structures == Pole Embedment Footing Design == LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA Per 2013 CBC 1807.3 JOB NO: 15-079.10 Date: 3/30/2017 22 c)L.- itLeT FD A -o i'-) Input Data Constrained Footing (V or N) -- N Lateral Force P= 0.58 k Height of Pole H= 7.0 ft Diameter of Pole B= 1.5 ft Lateral Soil Bearing S= 0.30 ksf/ft Isolated Pole Factor F= 2 (CBC 1806.3.4) Trial Depth D=I 4.oft I Analysis Use 1.5 ft x 3.71 ft deep footing w/ 546 (V) & #3 ties @ 9in. o.c. 51=FS at Depth=D/3 Nonconstrained Constrained 53=FS at Depth D D=.5A{1 + [1 + (4.36H/A)]11 } D=(4.25PH/S3B) A=2.34P/(S1B) 1st Trial S1= 0.8 ksf/ft D= 3.56 ft D= 2.19 ft 53= 2.4 ksf/ft A= 1.13 ft 2nd Trial S1= 0.8 ksf/ft D= 3.68 ft D= 2.49 ft S3= 1.9 ksf/ft A= 1.20 ft 3rd Trial S= 0.75 ksf/ft D= 3.71 ft D= 2.62 ft S3= 1.7 ksf/ft A= 1.21 ft 4th Trial S= 0.74 ksf/ft D= 3.71 ft D= 2.66 ft 53= 1.6 ksf/ft A= 1.22 ft 5th Trial S= 0.74 ksf/ft D= 3.72 ft D= 2.67 ft S3= 1.6 ksf/ft A= 1.22 ft Reinforcing Longitudinal Bar Size= I # 6 I # Req'd= 3 AsReqd 1.27 sq. in Asp, 1.33 sq. in Transverse Bar Size= I U 3 I S Reqd= 9.0 in ®Darstellung Schnitt Einbau BetonkOrper sectional dra wing assemb/yth concrete !errohr far Elekln*abel ØFm'atcce*cabh, 12 Platto.tclag IL. 34 Kieanthicht '2'-O" pyaveI-saxIiw, Tragnthicht base a Erdrolch gwev,d Bewelinemamatte 0188A 11.88 cirlm): inidaece.'ntstee/n,esh Veibuncteteich Md 1 -23 an Vocbundbetelch &W-2 - 40 cm BQ Darstellung Grundriss Einbau Betonkorper demonstration honzontalprojection built-in pail /n concrete a L4 Lo Ansicht side view Einbauteil Untersicht built-in pail bottom view Einbauteil 300000 mm entwässert built-in part drained Fi,4autoI Xtt.X0 Ilmn mitwammi No II rd Ii E,nbaucacI Aitikelcy. F5 15mm 76.lmmj..pa)mm 815mm 8tMl6 I kombinierbar mit folgendem Adapter No. A8 fur TypE 6x6 m (B6) the 6di8e des Betonkbrpers zu diesem Elnbauteil wird entsprechendder benOligtenWmbebstungdurch MDT voescNagen. sL'eofbreceta(ñAIt- usedisird Iosdsarenaccv,vnendcilfr,'MDT. MDT-tex Membranes & Structures IV I Enwmomng bewehrtesFundamern J tit-ainage thlova1fc,sdatina N. Linbautmi Schnitt - Kiappadapter mit Einbauteil sectional dravdng-cwnbuiation iwthbuill-rnjrn# O Kombination combination Kieppadapter lielerbare Abdeckplatte available coverplate SimCm.2I 24 MDT-tex® www.mdt-tex.com Membranes & Structures 11' /SSLfoc Structural Analysis Supportloads MDT - Umbrella Typ E Tye of umbrella: TYP E 6x6 [rn] Windspeed: 8 [Bft1 18,20 [m/s] upper value of range 65,52 [km/h] Manufacturer MDT Sonnenschutzsysteme AG Rheinblickstrasse 6 CH - 8274 Tagerwilen Tel: 0041-71-666 8282 Structural Analysis: Büro für Leichtbàii - Tritthardt lngenièüre Westendstr. 3 78315 Radolfzell - Germany Tel.: 0049-(0)7732-940891-0 Fax: -19 29/05/2009 1/2 6.1 SuDDortloads support loads for umbrella type E 6,00m x 6,00m windspeed 8 Beaufort upper value of range [ml EG [kg] [KN] deadload umbrellasurface: 34,8 0.25 8,7 Z.O 0,087 For the analysis the deadload of the membrane isO,25kg per m2 [kg] [KN] deadload umbrella: 62,5 0,625 N 'I" TorAL IP° x (1 MDT-tex® 25 www.mdt-tex.com Membranes & Structures bordeilength a= 6,00 [m] Traufhähe c= 5,10 (m] height open h0ff0 = 5.10 [m] free mastlength L= 1,08 [m] drivedistance from ground K= diameter closed umbrella D= masttubediameter R= height closed hgoschlossen= 0,76 [m] 0,50 [m] 0,08 [m] 6,81 [m] Nz Vx Vy Mt Mx My [1(N) [KNI [1(N) [KNmJ (KNmJ (KNm) -6,11 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 000f 0,70 0,31 0,00 0,00 -0,01 -4,94 1,94 I 0,24 0,00 0,00 -0,01 -4,05 -0,18 0,35 0,00 0,00 -0,01 -6,22 0,71 J 0,85 OQQ 0,00 0,00 -2,70 k I Nx Vx My wind- wind- direction angle X-direction 0° X-direction 0° X-direction +5° X-direction -5° X-direction 0° = support load in Z-direction = support load in X-direction (direction of the wind) = support moment LC I 2 3 4 5 \11, 15 7qfr 2 building leeside wind horizontal wind 50 underneati wind 5° above closed umbrella 2/2 II x Open State I. 0 •1 büro für Ieichtbau lightweight design 26 Tritthardt lngenieure design + engineering Tel.: +4940)7732-94089..00 Fax: -19 A. Swrnortloads for Dimensioning of Foundation closed State Typ E diameter: 5,0 [m] Vel. 8 (BftTOPMJ 18,2 (m/s] 65,5 [km/h] Al Supportloads (actio-forces on the foundation - p05. Fz leads to pressure on ground) Standard mast with length = 2,6 [m] Hight in open state: 3,2 [m] Hight in closed state: 4,3 [m] My Fz Fx Fy Mz Mx. LC [KNJ [KN] [KN] [KNm] (KNmJ [KNm1 1 0,22 0,20 0,00 0,00 0,00 -1,78 openState - WindXhorizontal 2 0,89 0,16 0,00 0,00 0,00 -1,42 open State - Wind X inclined +5° 3 -0,19 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 -2,34 open State - Wind X inclined -5 4 -3,07 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 open State, Wind X and Building on lee 5 0,30 0,40 0,00 0,00 0,00 -1,14 closed State # FORCES WITHOUT ANY LOAD-SECURITY-FACTOR! # All horizontal forces and moments meant to any direction due to wind from all directions! # Deadload of Framework and Membrane is considered. 26,0 (kg] # Overall membrane-surface in open state 17,9 (m'J 15/08/2008 1/2 büro für Ieichtbau lightweight design 27 Tritthardt Ingenleure design + engineering Tel.: +49-(0)7732-940890 Fax: -19 A.2 Supportloads with custom mastlength (additional 0,3 or 0,5 m) additional length 0,3 Em] new total mastlength: 2,9 [m] New hight in open state: 3,5 [m] new hight in closed state: 4,6 [m] Fz [KNI Fx [KNI Fy [KNI Mz [KNm] Mx [KNmJ My [KNmJ 0,22 0,20 0,00 0,00 0,00 -1,84 0,89 0,16 0,00 0,00 0,00 -1,47 -0,19 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 -2,42 -3,07 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,30 0,40 0,00 0,00 0,00 -1,26 additional length: 0,5 [rn] new total mastlength: 3,1 [m] New hight in open state: 3,7 [m] new hight in closed stte: 4,8 [m] LC I 2 3 4 5 LC I Fz [KNI Fx (KNI Fy [KNI Mz [KNm] Mx [KNm1 My (KNm 0,223d0,20 0,00 0,00 0,00 -1,88 2 0,89 0,16 0,00 0,00 0,00 -1,50 3 -0,19 40,25 0100 0,00 0,00 -2,47 4 -3,07410 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 5 0.30 0.40 0_00 0.00 000 -134 15/08/2008 2/2 Company : Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers March 30, 2017 Designer Job Number: Umbrella Footing Checked By:_____ Sketch 1.5 ft AX 44 LI. - I 12]..n tnt r_L cl - z '-4 Dt tc [1 AI 4 ft Details -1--- BAX I ri in z I IIcsi in C 4 ft X Dir. Steel: 3.11 in (8,#6) Footing Elevation Z Dir. Steel: 3.11 in (8 #6) Bottom Rebar Plan Geometry. Materials and Criteria Length :4 ft eX :0 in Gross Allow. Bearing :3325 psf Steel fy :60 ksi Width :4 ft eZ :0 in Concrete Weight :145 pcf Minimum Steel :.0018 Thickness :36 in pX :12 in Concretef'c :3 ksi. Maximum Steel :.0075 Height :12 in pZ :12 in Design Code :ACI 318-02 Footing Top Bar Cover :3 in Overturning Safety Factor :1.5 Phi for Flexure :0.9 Footing Bottom Bar Cover :3 in Coefficient of Friction :0.3 Phi for Shear :0.75 Pedestal Longitudinal Bar Cover :1.5 in Passive Resistance of Soil :0 k Phi for Bearing :0.65 Loads P (k) Vx (k) Vz (k) Mx (k-ft) Mz (k-ft) Overburden (psf) DL I .16 I I I I I 100 WL I I .08 I I I 4.58 I .L +p +..+Vz r+Mx i+Mz +Over - F 1 r.. iiiii AD DC DC AD RISAFoot Version 2.0 [Untitled.rft] Page 1 29 Company : Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers March 30, 2017 Designer Job Number: Umbrella Footing Checked By:_____ Soil Bearing Description Categories and Factors ASCE 2.4.1-1 1 IDL 3325 547.812 (A) .165 ASCE 2.4.1-2 1 IDL+ILL 3325 547.812 (A) .165 ASCE 2.4.1-3a IDL+IWL 3325 1 1007.19 (A) .303 ASCE 2.4.1-3b IDL+.7EL 3325 547.812 (A) .165 ASCE 2.4.1-3c i DL+.75LL+.75WL 3325 892.344 (A) .268 ASCE 2.4.1-3d IDL+.75LL+.7EL 3325 547.812 (A) .165 ASCE 2.4.1-4 .6DL+IWL 3325 820.49 (A) .247 ASCE 2.4.1-5 1 .6DL+.7EL 3325 328.687 (A) .099 Gross Allow.(psf) Max Bearing (psf) Max/Allowable Ratio A B D C 1131- CIA: 547.812 psf QB: 547.812 psf QC: 547.812 psf QD: 547.812 psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:-1 in A B D C I DL+.75LL+.7EL QA: 547.812 psf QB: 547.812 psf QC: 547.812 psf QD: 547.812 psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:-1 in A B D C IDL+ILL QA: 547.812 psf QB: 547.812 psf QC: 547.812 psf QD: 547.812 psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:-1 in .6DL+1 WL QA: 820.49 psf QB: 820.49 psf QC: 0psf QD: 0psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:38.458 in A B DL I DL+IWL QA: 1007.19 psf QB: 1007.19 psf QC: 88.437 psf QD: 88.437 psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:52.62 in A B D C .6DL+.7EL QA: 328.687 psf QB: 328.687 psf QC: 328.687 psf QD: 328.687 psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:-1 in A B D C I DL+.7EL QA: 547.812 psf QB: 547.812 psf QC: 547.812 psf QD: 547.812 psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:-1 in A B Ic IDL+.75LL+.75WL QA: 892.344 psf QB: 892.344 psf QC: 203.281 psf QD: 203.281 psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:62.161 in Footing Flexure Design (Bottom Bars) Description Categories and Factors Mu-XX (k-ft) Z Dir As (in 2 )Mu-ZZ (k-ft) X Dir As Footing Shear Check Two Way (Punching) Vc: NA One Way (X Dir. Cut) Vc 171.547 k One Way (Z Dir. Cut) Vc: 171.547 k Punching X Dir. Cut Z Dir. Cut Description Categories and Factors Vu(k) Vu/.ØVc Vu(k) Vu/Vc Vu(k) Vu/,Vc Concrete Bearing Check (Vertical Loads Only) Bearing Bc: 734.4 k Description Categories and Factors Bearing Bu (k) Bearing Bu/ØBc RISAFoot Version 2.0 [Untitled.rft] Page 2 30 Company : Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers March 30, 2017 Designer Job Number: Umbrella Footing Checked By:_____ Overturning Check (Service) Description Categories and Factors Mo-XX (k-ft) Ms-XX (k-ft) Mo-ZZ (k-ft) Ms-ZZ (k-ft) OSF-XX OSF-ZZ ASCE 2.4.1-1 IDL 0 17.53 0 17.53 NA NA ASCE 2.4.1-2 _IDL+ILL 0 17.53 0 17.53 NA NA ASCE 2.4.1-3a _IDL+IWL 0 17.53 4.9 17.53 NA 3.578 ASCE 2.4.1-3b _IDL+.7EL 0 17.53 0 17.53 NA NA ASCE 2.4.1-3c [_IDL+.75LL+.75wL 0 17.53 3.675 17.53 NA 4.77 ASCE 2.4.1-3d _IDL+.75LL+.7EL 0 17.53 0 17.53 NA NA ASCE 2.4.1-4 .6DL+IWL 0 10.518 4.9 10.518 NA 12.147 ASCE 2.4.1-5 .6DL+.7EL 0 10.518 0 10.518-1 NA I NA Mo-XX: Governing Overturning Moment about AD or BC Ms-X)(: Governing Stablizing Moment about AD or BC OSF-XX: Ratio of Ms-XX to Mo-XX Sliding Check (Service) Description Categories and Factors Va-XX (k) Vr-XX (k) Va-ZZ (k) Vr-ZZ (k) SR-XX SR-ZZ ASCE 2.4.1-1 IDL - 0 2.629 0 2.629 W NA NA ASCE 2.4.1-2 IDL+ILL 0 2.629 0 2.629 NA NA ASCE 2.4.1-3a :IDL+IwL .08 2.629 0 2.629 32.869 NA ASCE 2.4.1-3b _IDL+.7EL 0 2.629 0 2.629 NA NA ASCE 2.4.1-3c _IDL+.75LL+.75WL .06 2.629 0 2.629 43.825 NA ASCE 2.4.1-3d IDL+.75LL+.7EL 0 2.629 0 2.629 1 NA NA ASCE 2.4.1-4 .6DL+IWL .08 1.578 0 1.578 119.721 ENA ASCE 2.4.1-5 1 .6DL+.7EL 0 1.578 0 1.578 1 NA NA Va-XX: Applied Lateral Force to Cause Sliding Along XX Axis Vr-XX: Resisting Lateral Force Against Sliding Along XX Axis SR-XX: Ratio of Vr-XX to Va-XX RISAFoot Version 2.0 [Untitled.rft] Page 3 0 in z 0 in C 3 ft r. (N 31 Company : Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers March 30, 2017 Designer Job Number: Umbrella Footing Checked By:_____ Sketch 1 f I -0 j . 44 12].n 41 44 (N z rl Dt - D 3 ft X 10 2 Footing Elevation X Dir. Steel: 1.56 in (4,#6) Z Dir. Steel: 1.56 in2 (4 #6) Bottom Rebar Plan Geometry, Materials and Criteria Length :3 ft eX :0 in Gross Allow. Bearing :3325 psf Steel fy :60 ksi Width :3 ft eZ :0 in Concrete Weight :145 pcf Minimum Steel :.0018 Thickness :24 in pX :12 in Concrete ft :3 ksi Maximum Steel :.0075 Height :12 in pZ :12 in Design Code :ACI 318-02 Footing Top Bar Cover :3 in Overturning Safety Factor :1.5 Phi for Flexure :0.9 Footing Bottom Bar Cover :3 in Coefficient of Friction :0.3 Phi for Shear :0.75 Pedestal Longitudinal Bar Cover :1.5 in Passive Resistance of Soil :0 k Phi for Bearing :0.65 Loads Vz (k) Mx (k-ft) Mz (k-ft) Overburden I I 100 I I 1.822 I r+Mx +M z +Over DC DC A D P(k) Vx DL .06 WL +Vx AD RISAFoot Version 2.0 [C:\Usersdmaestas\Desktop\Small Umbrella.rft] Page 1 32 Company : Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers March 30, 2017 Designer Job Number: Umbrella Footing Checked By:_____ Soil Bearing Description Categories and Factors Gross Allow.(osf) Max Bearing (psf) Max/Allowable Ratio ASCE 2.4.1-1 1 IDL 3325 - 401.667 (A) .121 ASCE 2.4.1-2 IDL+ILL 3325 401.667 (A) .121 ASCE 2.4.1-3a IDL+IWL 3325 871.956 (A) .262 ASCE 2.4.1-3b IDL+.7EL 3325 401.667 (A) .121 ASCE 2.4.1-3c I DL+.75LL+.75WL 3325 750.333 (A) .226 ASCE 2.4.1-3d IDL+.75LL+.7EL 3325 401.667 (A) .121 ASCE 2.4.1-4 .6DL+IWL 3325 900.093 (A) .271 ASCE 2.4.1-5 .6DL+.7EL 3325 241 (Al [ .072 A B D C I DL QA: 401.667 psf QB: 401.667 psf QC: 401.667 psf QD: 401.667 psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:-1 in A B D C IDL+.75LL+.7EL QA: 401.667 psf QB: 401.667 psf QC: 401.667 psf QD: 401.667 psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:-1 in A B D C IDL+ILL QA: 401.667 psf QB: 401.667 psf QC: 401.667 psf QD: 401.667 psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:-1 in .6DL+1 WL QA: 900.093 psf QB: 900.093 psf QC: 0psf QD: 0psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:19.278 in A B DF Ic I DL+IWL QA: 871.956 psf QB: 871.956 psf QC: 0 psf QD: 0psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:33.167 in A B D C .6DL+.7EL QA: 241 psf QB: 241 psf QC: 241 psf QD: 241 psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:-1 in A B D C I DL+.7EL QA: 401.667 psf QB: 401.667 psf QC: 401.667 psf QD: 401.667 psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:-1 in A B D! I DL+.75LL+.75WL QA: 750.333 psf QB: 750.333 psf QC: 53 psf QD: 53 psf NAZ:-1 in NAX:38.736 in Footing Flexure Design (Bottom Bars) Description Categories and Factors Mu-XX (k-ft) Z Dir As (in 2) Mu-ZZ (k-ft) X Dir As (in 2 ) Footing Shear Check Two Way (Punching) Vc: NA One Way (X Dir. Cut) Vc 81.337 k One Way (Z Dir. Cut) Vc: 81.337 k Punching X Dir. Cut Z Dir. Cut Description Categories and Factors Vu(k) Vu/jzsVc Vu(k) Vu/Vc Vu(k) Vu/ØVc Concrete Bearing Check (Vertical Loads Only) Bearing Bc: 734.4 k Description Categories and Factors Bearing Bu (k) Bearing Bu/ØBc RlSAFoot Version 2.0 [C:\Users\dmaestas\Desktop\Small Umbrella.rft] Page 2 33 Company : Wiseman + Rohy Structural Engineers March 30, 2017 Designer Job Number: Umbrella Footing Checked By:_____ Overturning Check (Service) Description Categories and Factors Mo-XX (k-ft) Ms-XX (k-ft) Mo-ZZ (k-ft) Ms-ZZ (k-ft) OSF-XX OSF-ZZ ASCE 2.4.1-1 IDL 0 1 5.422 0 5.422 - NA NA ASCE 2.4.1-2 IDL+ILL 0 j 5.422 0 5.422 NA NA ASCE 2.4.1-3a IDL+IWL 0 5.422 2.092 5.422 NA 2.592 ASCE2.4.1-3b :I DL+.7EL 0 5.422 0 5.422 NA NA ASCE2.4.1-3c _IDL+.75LL+.75WL 0 5.422 1.569 5.422 NA 3.456 ASCE2.4.1-3d _IDL+.75LL+.7EL 0 5.422 0 5.422 NA NA ASCE2.4.1-4 .6DL+IWL [_0 3.253 2.092 3.253 NA 1.555 ASCE2.4.1-5 .6DL+.7EL 0 3.253 1 0 3.253 NA J_NA Mo-XX: Governing Overturning Moment about AD or BC Ms-XX: Governing Stablizing Moment about AD or BC OSF-XX: Ratio of Ms-XX to Mo-XX Sliding Check (Service) Description Categories and Factors Va-XX (k) Vr-XX (k) Va-ZZ (k) Vr-ZZ (k SR-XX SR-ZZ ASCE 2.4.1-1 1 0 - 1.084 - 0 1 1.084 NA NA ASCE 2.4.1-2 IDL+ILL 0 1.084 0 1_1.084 NA NA ASCE 2.4.1-3a IDL+IWL .09 1.084 0 1.084 12.05 NA ASCE 2.4.1-3b :1DL+7EL 0 1 1.084 0 1.084 NA NA ASCE 2.4.1-3c _IDL+.75LL+.75WL .068 1.084 0 1.084 16.067 NA ASCE 2.4.1-3d _IDL+.75LL+.7EL 0 1.084 0 1.084 NA NA ASCE 2.4.1-4 .6DL+IWL .09 .651 0 - .651 7.23 NA ASCE 2.4.1-5 .6DL+.7EL 0 .651 0 .651 NA NA Va-XX: Applied Lateral Force to Cause Sliding Along XX Axis Vr-XX: Resisting Lateral Force Against Sliding Along XX Axis SR-XX: Ratio of Vr-XX to Va-XX RlSAFoot Version 2.0 [C:\Users\dmaestas\Desktop\Small Umbrella.rft] Page 3 SECTION 'B' SECTION 'A' RENSON SQ. COLUMN NOTE: TRELLIS, TYPE, FINISH AND OPTIONS PER CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE, LC-2.01 RENSON BLADES! LOUVERS, TYP. RENSON BEAM WITH LOUVER TRACK RELLIS FOOTING: EINFORCING (NOT HOWN) AND FOOTING .ESIGN PER STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. PlAN VIEW AXON VIEW COLUMN BASE PLATE Ts J C 0 0 PREFABRICATED SHADE STRUCTURE SCALE: 1/4"= fl!flA.LF W —t 0 0 (4 ab Oiduciet Iteowipet unsicrnr"rieIw'russe Eingegn.Fitmraerusse (if I RMASA"kwivacuafion ci' I Description: eau+ Camargue NEW I Date: 23101/2014 IFormat: A6 = RENSON Creating healthy spaces N.V. RENSON S..np,oteetlon-S*rRmm S.A. IS I Flandans FieldS - K .acncSl,5at48 - 08790 Wane0em Tel: 058-62 8900- Fax: 058.02 0509- Dimensions In mm I Sheet: 1/1 I Ns*aa-Aag Is eitydN.V. RENSON SunproteMowSums 5*. and may not be coidol or aloes to 1118db ridlloid laulim pemidan. r an I, 41 fL 0 _ -I-i Vt •- --- "5_I - -- -. -- . ---- 1•.• I H f —V23•t CL -'I - - X. L rt t I I I +' . j1 q_• • 'I If H 4 it I' N - - - k • I -- -L- r4 'I LA "19 - -- A çc(i:: Irl L to LA - op Qf if C 4• I April 5, 2017 Sergio Azuela Esgil Corporation 9320 Chesapeake Drive #208 San Diego, CA 92123 WISEMAN+ROHY STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS JAMES M. W1SEMAN, S.E. PRINCIPAL STEVEN D. ROHY, S.E. PRINCIPAL BRANDON J. DEEMS, S.E. ASSOCIATE PRINCIPAL DAVID E. MAESTAS, P.E. ASSOCIATE RE: Architectural and Structural and Electrical Site Work for "ViaSat" Plan Check Responses PC# CBC2017-0115 The following are responses to the structural plan check comments dated March 27, 2017. These responses are submitted along with a revised set of complete structural drawings and a revised supplemental calculation packet. Building Department Structural Comments The calculations have been updated to show compliance to the 2016 CBC. This did not change any of the design loads for this project. See supplemental calculation pages 1-2. See supplemental calculation pages 3-9 for the light pole foundation calculation. These notes have been applied to sheet SS-200. Stirrup size and spacing has been included in plan sheet SS-200. See inspection table for welding on sheet SS-100 which already references section 1705.2 of the CBC. Additional Chanaes to Plans Details l/SS-300, 6/SS-300, 1/SS-400, 6/SS-400,11/SS-400, and 16/SS-400 have been added. See supplemental calculation pages 10-36 for supporting calculations. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, WISEMAN + ROHY Structural Engineers A;4 Lwar, Michael Sims, PE 9915 MIRA MESA BLVD., SUITE 200- SAN DIEGO, CA 92131 • TEL 858 536 5166 • FAX 858 536 5163 • WWW.WRENGINEERS.COM EsGil Corporation In PartnersAip wit/i government for Bui(d'ing Safety DATE: 03127/2017 0 APPLICANT O JURIS. JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad 0 PLAN REVIEWER O FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: cbc2017-0115 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 2508 Gateway Rd. PROJECT NAME: ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURAL AND ELECTRICAL SITE WORK FOR "ViaSat" F-1 The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes. El The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. [=1 The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. * The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at EsGil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. fl The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. El The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: El EsGil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. EsGil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Arati Rangaswamy Telephone #: 858-793-4777 Date contacted: (by: ) Email: aratir@sca-sd.com Mail Telephone Fax In Person El REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: EsGil Corporation 0 GA 0 EJ Z MB 0 PC 03/14/2017 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 02123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 City of Carlsbad cbc2017-0115 03/27/2017 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST TENANT IMPROVEMENTS PLAN CHECK NO.: cbc2017-0115 JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad OCCUPANCY: NA USE: Landscape Structures and shades TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: ACTUAL AREA: ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: STORIES: 1 HEIGHT: SPRINKLERS?: REMARKS: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: 03/13/2017 DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED: 03/27/2017 FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): OCCUPANT LOAD: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 03/14/2017 PLAN REVIEWER: Sergio Azuela This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the California version of the International 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 Department. You may 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 2016 CBC, which adopts the 2015 IBC. 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. 105.4 of the 2015 International 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. City of Carlsbad cbc2017-0115 03/27/2017 . GENERAL 1. Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit FOUR new complete sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (THREE sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 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. Bring TWO 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. 2. Provide a complete lists of the all structures included in the scope of work and show it in the "SCOPE OF WORK section provided on the cover sheet of plans. Sec. 107.2. 3. Provide a construction "COST ESTIMATE". 4. Revise the calculations provided to show compliance with the 2016 CBC, instead of 2012 IBC. 5. Provide structural design calculations for the "Light Pole" foundation and anchor bolts. 6. 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, the soils expansive characteristics and bearing capacity conform to the soils report." 7. Revise the plans to show the size and spacing for the stirrups on detail 13/S3.0. 6. The plans shall indicate that special inspection will be provided for the following work. (CBC Chapter 17 and Section 107.2) a) Field Welding. Welding inspection should be provided in accordance with Section 1705.2. . ADDITIONAL City of Carlsbad cbc2017-0115 03/27/2017 8. See attached list for electrical corrections To speed up the review process, please 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: 0 Yes 0 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 Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEW 2011 NEC(2013 C E C ) JURISDICTION: Carlsbad DATE: 03/27/2016 PLAN REVIEW NUMBER: CBC2017-0115 PLAN REVIEWER: Morteza Beheshti 1. Please provide structure disconnect and ground electrode system for the bridge lighting structure. ENERGY CONSERVATION (2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING ENERGY STANDARDS) ENERGY (2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING ENERGY STANDARDS) 1. Energy compliance forms are okay. Note: If you have any questions regarding this Electrical and Energy plan review list please contact Morteza Beheshti at (858) 560-1468. To speed the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where the corrected items have been addressed on the plans. W ISEMAN+ROHY .- STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS STRUCTURAL SUPPLEMENTARY CALCULATIONS FOR ViaSat Site Structures Carlsbad, CA April 10, 2017 W+R Job #15-079.10 SN Exp.rn 1-4 9915 Mira Mesa Blvd. Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 TEL. (858) 536-5166 WRENGINEERS.COM FAX. (858) 536-5163 VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. PREPARED FOR VIASAT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CBC20I7-01 15 2501 GATEWAY RD VIASAT: SITE LIGHTING AND CREATING PARKING & PATHS. TRASH ENCLOSURES AROUND BLDG 12&13. CAFE, AND P-I 2132612300 3/22/2017 CBC20I 7-0115 MAY 23, 2016 REVISED JULY 5, 2016, PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL . .ENVIRONMENT:A.L • M A I E R I. A L. S Project No. G1928-52-01 May 23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 ViaSat 6155 El Camino Real Carlsbad, California 92009 Attention: Mr. Ryan Hatch Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION VIASAT - BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Hatch: In accordance with your request and our proposal (LG- 15358) dated September 28, 2015, we herein submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the subject site. The accompanying report presents the results of our study and conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of proposed development of the site. The site is considered suitable for development provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Should you have questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED /L Kelli AJameas' / hawn Foy Weedon koF ,4 RCE 79438 GE 2714 5161 A. (M(Y') -( No. 2714 kAJ:SFW:AS OF CAI. (2/del) Addressee (3/del) Smith Consulting Architects Attention: Ms. Arati Rangaswamy 6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, CaliFornia 92121-2974 0 Telephone 858.558.6900 U Fax 858.558.6159 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...................................................................................................................... i PREVIOUS SITE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... ........................ 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................. ..................................................2 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .............................................................................................2 4.1 Previously Placed Fill (Qpcf) .....................................................................................................3 4.2 Santiago Formation (Ts) ............. ... ........................ .. ........... . ....................................................... 3 GROUNDWATER ...............................................................................................................................3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ......................................................................................................................3 6.1 Faulting and Seismicity ..............................................................................................................3 6.2 Liquefaction ................................................................................................................................. 5 6.3 Tsunamis and Seiches ................................. ................................................................................6 6.4 Landslides...................................................................................................................................6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 7 7.1 General........................................................................................................................................7 7.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics ...........................................................................................7 7.3 Seismic Design Criteria..............................................................................................................9 7.4 Grading ......................................................................................................................... . ........... 10 7.5 Settlement Due to Fill Loads ..................................................................................................... 12 7.6 Temporary Excavations, Shoring, and Tiebacks......................................................................13 7.7 Soil Nail Wall ...........................................................................................................................17 7.8 Conventional Shallow Foundations ........................................................................................... 18 7.9 Drilled Pier Recommendations.................................................................................................21 7.10 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade ......................................................................................................... 22 7.11 Mat Foundation Recommendations ............................ . ............................................................. 23 7.12 Concrete Flatwork ....................................................................................................................24 7.13 Retaining Walls ........................................................................................................................25 7.14 Lateral Loading .......................................................................................................................... 27 7.15 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations* ................................................................................ 27 7.16 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection ..................................................................................... 30 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Geologic Map (map pocket) Figure 3, Geologic Cross-Sections A-A' and B-B' (map pocket) Figure 4, Geologic Cross-Sections C-C' and D-D' (map pocket) Figure 5, Fill Thickness Figure 6, Estimated Post-Construction Settlement Figure 7, Lateral Active Pressures for Temporary Shoring Figure 8, Soldier Pile Passive Pressure Distribution Figure 9, Recommended Effective Zone for Tieback Anchors Figure 10, Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail Figure 11, Allowable End Bearing - Drilled Piers Figure 12, Typical Retaining Wall Drain Detail APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Figures A-i - A-12, Logs of Exploratory Borings San Diego County, Department of Environmental Health, Geotechnical Boring Construction Permit APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results Table B-II, Summary of Laboratory Resistance Value (R-Value) Test Results Table BIII, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results Table B-IV, Summary of Laboratory Triaxial Shear Test Results Table B-V, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results Table B-VI, Summary of Laboratory Potential of Hydrogen (pH) and Resistivity Test Results Table B-Vu, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Sulfate Test Results Table B-VIII, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Chloride Content Test Results Table B-DC, Summary of Hand Penetrometer Test Results Figures B-I - B-7, Consolidation Curves Figures B-8 and B-9, Triaxial Shear Strength Test Results APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS LIST OF REFERENCES GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of our geotechnical study for Lots 1-9 located in the Bressi Ranch Corporate Center in Carlsbad, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of this report is to provide information regarding the geologic conditions underlying the site and to provide foundation - and retaining wall design recommendations. The scope of the study included a review of: Report - Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Lots 2, 3, and 4, Proposed HCP Bressi Ranch Development, Northwest Corner of Town Garden Road and Alicante Road, Carlsbad, California, prepared by NOVA Services, Inc., dated June 17, 2015 (Project No. 2015291). Geotechnical Update Study, Bressi Ranch Industrial Planning Area 2, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated April 12, 2011 (Project No. 971009-065). Addendum to the As-Graded Reports of Mass Grading Concerning the Completion of Settlement Monitoring, Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-5, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated October 11, 2004 (Project No. 971009-014). The scope of this investigation also included a review of readily available published and unpublished geologic literature (see List of References), a field investigation, laboratory testing to characterize physical properties of the soil, engineering analyses, and preparation of this report. We performed the field investigation during the period of April 4 through April 7, 2016. The study consisted of drilling 12 small-diameter borings at the approximate locations indicated on the Geologic Map, Figure 2. We located the borings in the field using a measuring tape and/or existing reference points; therefore, actual locations may deviate slightly. Appendix A presents the logs of the exploratory borings and other details of the field investigation. We performed laboratory tests on selected soil samples obtained during the field investigation to evaluate pertinent physical and chemical properties for engineering analyses and to assist in providing recommendations for site grading and foundation design criteria. Appendix B presents the details of the laboratory tests and a summary of the test results. 2. PREVIOUS SITE DEVELOPMENT The project is located in Bressi Ranch Corporate Center located east of El Camino Real, south of Gateway Road, west of Alicante Road and north of Town Garden Road in Carlsbad, California (see Project No. G 1928-52-01 - I - May 23. 2016 I Revised July 5, 2016 Vicinity Map, Figure 1). According to the referenced reports prepared by Leighton and Associates (2004 and 2011), the mass grading operations for the site were performed between June 2003 and January 2004, resulting in three sheet-graded pads. Leighton and Associates performed testing and observation services during the mass grading operations. The mass grading of the site included removal of undocumented fill, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, landslide deposits, and weathered formational material, prior to placing new fill. Canyon subdrain systems were installed in the previous drainages. Stability fill keys were constructed for the slopes located to the south. Fills of up to approximately 90 feet were placed, and cuts of up to approximately 15 feet were made during the mass grading operations. 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property consists of a previously sheet-graded pad located south of Gateway Road, west of Alicante Road, north of Town Garden Road and east of El Camino Real in the Bressi Ranch area of Carlsbad, California. The subject lots are Lots 2 through 9 of the Bressi Ranch Corporate Center. The property is currently vacant with landscaping around the perimeter of the property and is accessed from an opening in the landscape area at the southwest portion of the property from Town Garden Road. The property slopes gently to existing desilting basins with elevations ranging from approximately 290 feet to 320 feet above mean sea level (MSL). We understand the proposed development includes the construction of 6 commercial buildings (Buildings 12 through 17), a café, conference room and 3 parking structures (P1 through P3) with accommodating underground utilities, landscape and improvements. The locations and descriptions of the site and proposed improvements are based on a site reconnaissance, a review of the referenced report, and our understanding of project development. If project details vary significantly from those described herein, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to review and revise this report. 4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS During our field investigation, we encountered one surficial material (consisting of previously placed compacted fill) overlying one geologic formation (consisting of the Santiago Formation). The surficial material and the geologic unit are described herein. The estimated surface and subsurface relationship between the units is depicted on the Geologic Map (Figure 2), and on the Geologic Cross-Sections A-A' through D-D' (Figures 3 and 4). Project No. G1928-52-01 - 2 - May 23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 4.1 Previously Placed Fill (Qpcf) Previously placed fill exists at grade across the majority of the project site. The fill is associated with the original grading of the site and was observed by Leighton and Associates in 2003 and 2004. The fill consists of silty to clayey sand and sandy silt and clay. The fill was likely derived from previously existing surficial soil and excavations into the Santiago Formation. The fill possesses a "very low" to "high" expansion potential (expansion index of 130 or less). We opine that the previously placed fill is considered suitable for additional fill for structural loads; however, remedial grading of the upper portion of the fill will be required as discussed herein. 4.2 Santiago Formation (Ts) The Eocene-aged Santiago Formation is exposed at grade along the northern edge of the site in portions of proposed Buildings 12, 13 and 17, a small area in the southern portion of Lot 14, and in the eastern portion of the site in the area of proposed Building 16 and the P-2 Parking Structure. The Santiago Formation was encountered in our borings below the previously placed fill across the remainder of the site. The Santiago formation consists primarily of interbedded, yellowish to grayish brown, dense to very dense silty sandstone and hard claystone and siltstone. Due to the presence of cemented zones (concretions), difficulty in excavation within the formational materials should be expected. The Santiago Formation is suitable for the support of proposed structures. 5. GROUNDWATER• We encountered seepage just above the Santiago Formation in our Borings B-2 and B-3 at approximately 55 and 49.5 feet below existing grade, respectively. We do not expect groundwater to adversely impact the development of the property. Canyon subdrains were previously constructed throughout the project site, as shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 2. It is not uncommon for groundwater or seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed. Groundwater elevations are dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, among other factors, and vary as a result. Proper surface drainage will be important to future performance of the project. 6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 6.1 Faulting and Seismicity Based on a review of geologic literature and experience with the soil and geologic conditions in the general area, it is our opinion that known active or potentially active faults are not located at the site. An active fault is defined by the California Geological Survey (CGS) as a fault showing evidence for activity 'within the last 11,000 years. The site is not located within State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. May 23, 2016 Project No. G1928-52.01 . 3 Revised July 5. 2016 According to Leighton and Associates (2011), minor inactive faulting was encountered during the mass grading operations for Bressi Ranch, but these minor faults were not mapped. These are near vertical normal inter-formational faults and common in the Santiago Formation. According to the computer program EZ-FRISK (Version 7.65), 9 known active faults are located within a search radius of 50 miles from the property. We used the 2008 USGS fault database that provides several models and combinations of fault data to evaluate the fault information. Based on this database, the nearest known active fault is the Newport-Inglewood (offshore) and Rose Canyon Faults, located approximately 7 miles west of the site and is the dominant source of potential ground motion. Earthquakes that might occur on these fault zones or other faults within the southern California and northern Baja California area are potential generators of significant ground motion at the site. The estimated deterministic maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration for the Newport-Inglewood Fault are 7.5 and 0.34g, respectively. Table 6.1.1 lists the estimated maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration for the most dominant faults in relationship to the site location. We calculated peak ground acceleration (PGA) using Boore- Atkinson (2008) NGA USGS2008, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS, and Chiou-Youngs (2007) NGA USGS2008 acceleration-attenuation relationships. TABLE 6.1.1 DETERMINISTIC SPECTRA SITE PARAMETERS Fault Name Distance from Site (miles) Maximum Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) Peak Ground Acceleration Boore- Atkinson 2008 (g) Campbell- Bozorgnia 2008 (g) Chiou- Youngs 2007 (g) Newport-Inglewood 7 7.5 0.30 0.26 0.34 Rose Canyon 7 6.9 0.26 0.25 0.28 Elsinore 21 7.9 0.21 0.14 0.19 Coronado Bank 23 7.4 0.18 0.12 0.14 Palos Verdes Connected 23 7.7 0.20 0.13 0.17 Palos Verdes 39 7.3 0.12 0.08 0.08 Earthquake Valley 40 6.8 0.09 0.06 0.05 San Joaquin Hills 40 7.1 0.11 0.09 0.08 San Jacinto 46 7.9 0.13 0.09 0.11 We used the computer program EZ-FRISK to perform a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. The computer program EZ-FRISK operates under the assumption that the occurrence rate of earthquakes on each mappable Quaternary fault is proportional to the faults slip rate. The program accounts for fault rupture length as a function of earthquake magnitude, and site acceleration estimates are made Project No. G1928-52-01 -4- May 23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 using the earthquake magnitude and distance from the site to the rupture zone. The program also accounts for uncertainty in each of following: (1) earthquake magnitude, (2) rupture length for a given magnitude, (3) location of. the rupture zone, (4) maximum possible magnitude of a given earthquake, and (5) acceleration at the site from a given earthquake along each fault. By calculating the expected accelerations from considered earthquake sources, the program calculates the total average annual expected number of occurrences of site acceleration greater than a specified value. We utilized acceleration-attenuation relationships suggested by Boore-Atkinson (2008) NGA USGS, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS, and Chiou-Youngs (2007) NGA USGS2008 in the analysis. Table 6.1.2 presents the site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard parameters including acceleration-attenuation relationships and the probability of exceedence. TABLE 6.1.2 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD PARAMETERS Probability of Exceedence Peak Ground Acceleration Boore-Atkinson, 2008 (g) Campbell-Bozorgnia, 2008 (g) Chiou-Youngs, 2007 (g) 2% in a 50 Year Period 0.47 0.34 0.39 5% in a 50 Year Period 0.35 0.25 . 0.28 10% in a 50 Year Period 0.27 0.19 0.21 While listing peak accelerations is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault activity in a region, other considerations are important in seismic design, including the frequency and duration of motion and the soil conditions underlying the site. Seismic design of the structures should be evaluated in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) guidelines currently adopted by the County of San Diego. 6.2 Liquefaction Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, onsite soil is cohesionlessor silt/clay with low plasticity, groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface, and soil relative densities are less than about 70 percent. If the four of the previous criteria are met, a seismic event could result in a rapid pore-water pressure increase from the earthquake-generated ground accelerations. Seismically induced settlement may occur whether the potential for liquefaction exists or not. The potential for liquefaction and seismically induced settlement occurring within the site soil is considered to be very low due to the dense nature of the compacted placed fill and the lack of a permanent groundwater table within 50 feet of the ground surface. 5 . . May23,2016 Project No. G1928-52-01 Revised July 5, 2016 6.3 Tsunamis and Seiches A tsunami is a series of long period waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of large volumes of water. Causes of tsunamis include underwater earthquakes, volcanic eruptions,. or offshore slope failures. The site is approximately 3.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean with finish grades over 280 feet above MSL. Therefore, we consider the risk associated with tsunamis to be negligible. Seiches are standing wave oscillations of an enclosed water body after the original driving force has dissipated. Driving forces are typically caused by seismic ground shaking. The potential of seiches to occur is considered to be very low due to the absence of a nearby inland body of water. 6.4 Landslides Based on the examination of aerial photographs and review of published geologic maps compiled by Kennedy and Tan (2008), it is our opinion that landslides are not present at the property or at a location that could impact the subject site. According to Leighton and Associates (2011), several ancient landslides were encountered during the mass grading of the site, and the landslide deposits were completely removed to competent formational material. Buttresses were also installed to increase the factor of safety for slope stability to at least 1.5 in accordance with the City of Carlsbad. ¼. Project No. G1928-52-01 . - 6 - May 23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General 7.1.1 We did not encounter soil orgeologic conditions during the site investigation that in our opinion would preclude the development of the property as presently planned, provided the recommendations .of this report are followed. 7.1.2 Our field investigation indicates the site is underlain by previously placed compacted fill and dense to very dense Santiago Formation (Ts) which underlies the previously placed fill or exposed in some areas of the site. The previously placed fill and the Santiago Formation are considered suitable for the support of additional compacted fill and structures. 7.1.3 We encountered minor seepage in-Borings B-2 and B-3 at approximately 55 and 49.5 feet below existing grade, respectively. We do not expect groundwater will be encountered during the construction of the proposed development. However, seepage could be encountered during drilling operations if deep foundations are planned and constructed. 7.1.4 The upper portions of the existing fill should be removed and replaced prior to the construction of the planned improvements. In addition, building pads that expose formational materials should be over-excavated below the planned grades and replaced as properly compacted fill to help mitigate the potential for differential settlement. 7.1.5 With the exception of possible moderate to strong seismic shaking and hydroconsolidation, no significant geologic hazards were observed or are known to exist on the site that would adversely affect the proposed project. 7.1.6 Based on our review of the project plans, we opine the planned development can be constructed in accordance with our recommendations provided herein. We do not expect the planned development will destabilize or result in settlement of adjacent properties. 7.1.7 Surface settlement monuments and additional canyon subdrains will not be required on this project. . 7.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics 7.2.1 Observations and laboratory test results indicate that the prevailing soil conditions within the upper approximately 3 feet of finish grade is considered to be "expansive" (expansion index [Elf of greater than 20) as defined by 2013 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. Table 7.2.1 presents soil classifications based on the expansion index. 7 - May23,2016 Project No. G1928-52-01 -7- Revised July 5, 2016 Results of the El laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B and indicate that the soil possesses "medium" to "high" expansion potentials (El of 51 to 130). TABLE 7.2.1 EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX Expansion Index (El) Expansion Classification 2010 CBC Expansion Classification 0-20 Very Low Non-Expansive 21-50 Low Expansive Very High 51-90 Medium 91 -130 High Greater Than 130 7.2.2 We performed laboratory tests on samples of the site materials to evaluate the percentage of water-soluble sulfate content. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate content tests are presented in Appendix B and indicate that the on-site materials at the locations tested possess "Moderate" (Si) to "Severe" (S2) sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2013 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318-08 Sections 4.2 and 4.3. Table 7.2.2 presents a summary of concrete requirements set forth by 2013 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration. TABLE 7.2.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS Water-Soluble Maximum Minimum Sulfate Exposure Sulfate Cement Water to Exposure Class Percent Type Cement Ratio Compressive by Weight by Weight Strength (psi) Not Applicable SO 0.00-0.10 -- -- 2,500 Moderate SI 0.10-0.20 II 0.50 4,000 Severe S2 0.20-2.00 V 0.45 4,500 Very Severe S3 > 2.00 V+Pozzolan - 0.45 4,500 orSlag Project No. G1928-52-01 -8- May 23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 ) 72.3 We tested samples for potential of hydrogen (pH) and resistivity laboratory tests to aid in evaluating the corrosion potential to subsurface metal structures. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. 7.2.4 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned. 7.3 Seismic Design Criteria 7.3.1 We used the computer program U.S. Seismic' Design Maps, provided by the USGS to evaluate the seismic design criteria. Table 7.3.1 summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2013 California Building Code (CBC; Based .on the 2012 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-10), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. The building structures and improvements should be designed using a Site Class D. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2013 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10. The values presented in Table 7.3.1 are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER). TABLE 7.3.1 2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value 2013 CBC Reference Site Class D ' Table 1613.5.2 Fill Thickness, T (feet) T>20 -- Spectral Response - Class B (short), Ss 1.054 g Figure 1613.3.1(1) Spectral Response - Class B (1 sec), Si 0.408 g Figure 1613.3.1(2) Site Coefficient, Fa 1.078 Table 16 13 Site Coefficient, F 1.592 Table 1613.3.3(2) Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration (short), S 4s 1.137 g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-37) Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SMI 0.650 g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-38) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SOS 0.758 g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-39) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SDI 0.433 g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-40) Project No. G1928-52-01 -9- May 23,2016 Revised July 5, 2016 I 7.3.2 Table 7.3.2 presents additional seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-10 for the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG). TABLE 7.3.2 2013 CBC SITE ACCELERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value ASCE 7-10 Reference Site Class D Mapped MCEo Peak Ground 0.406 g Figure 22-7 Acceleration, PGA Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.094 Table 11.8-1 Site Class Modified MCEcj 0.444 g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 7.3.3 Conformance to the criteria in Tables 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. 7.4 Grading 7.4.1 Grading should be performed as discussed herein and in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading Specifications presented in Appendix C. Where the recommendations of this section conflict with Appendix C, the recommendations of this section take precedence. 7.4.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the owner or developer, city inspector, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time. 7.4.3 Site preparation should begin with removing existing improvements and deleterious material and vegetation. The depth of removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soil to be used as fill are relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition of the existing utilities and associated structures should be exported from the site and not used as fill unless approved by Geocon Incorporated. - 10 May23,2016 Project No. G1928.52-0I _10- Revised July 5, 2016 7.4.4 Existing underground improvements within the proposed building areas should be removed during grading operations and the resulting excavations properly backfilled in accordance with the procedures described herein. 7.4.5 Earthwork should be observed and fill tested for proper compaction by Geocon incorporated. 7.4.6 The upper two feet of the existing fill should be removed, moisture conditioned as necessary, and properly compacted prior to receiving additional fill or structures. We should evaluate in the field, if deeper removals are required due to the presence of dry, soft or loose soil. This remedial grading should extend laterally at least 2 feet beyond the perimeter of the pavement areas, where possible. 7.4.7 If the planned structures will be founded on a shallow foundation system, the formational materials encountered within the upper 5 feet of proposed finish grade should be undercut and the resulting excavations should be backfilled with properly compacted fill. The undercut can be limited to the upper 2 feet if the structures will be supported on a drilled pier system. The undercut should extend laterally at least 10 feet beyond the limits of the structures. The undercut portion should slope towards the deeper fill areas. 7.4.8 Excavated, on-site soil generally free of deleterious debris can be placed as fill and compacted in layers to the design finish grade elevations. Fill and backfill soil should be placed in horizontal loose layers approximately 6 to 8 inches thick, moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557. The upper 12 inches of soil beneath pavement areas should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content shortly before paving operations. 7.4.9 import fill, if necessary, should consist of granular materials with a "very low" to "low" expansion potential (El less than 50) free of deleterious material or cobbles larger than 6 inches and should be compacted as recommended herein. Geocon Incorporated should be notified of the import soil source and should perform laboratory testing of import soil prior to its arrival at the site to evaluate its suitability as fill material. 7.4.10 Excavation of the existing materials should generally be possible with moderate to heavy effort using conventional, heavy-duty equipment during grading and trenching operations. Heavy effort should be expected with possible refusal in localized areas for excavations Project No. G 1928-52-01 May 23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 into strongly cemented Santiago Formation (concretionary beds or lenses). Oversize material may be generated which would require special handling or exportation from the site. Rock breaking equipment may be required where cemented material is encountered during the construction operations. 7.4.11 Subsurface conditions observed may be extrapolated to reflect general soil and geologic conditions; however, variations in subsurface conditions between exploratory borings should be expected. 7.5 Settlement Due to Fill Loads 7.5.1 Fill soil, even though properly compacted, may experience significant settlement over The lifetime of the improvements that it supports. The ultimate settlement potential of the fill' is a function of the soil classification, placement relative compaction, and subsequent increases in the soil moisture content. 7.5.2 Due to the variable fill thickness, a potential for differential settlement across the proposed buildings exists, and special foundation design criteria, as discussed hereinafter, will be necessary. Based on measured settlement of similar fill depths on this and other sites and the time period since the fill was placed, we estimate that maximum settlement of the compacted fill will be approximately 0.25 percent of the fill thickness for the 2003/2004 compacted fills and 0.4 percent for the proposed compacted fills. Figure 5 presents the approximate fill thickness and Figure 6 presents the estimated fill settlement in the areas of the proposed buildings and improvements. The estimated fill settlement in Figure 6 does not include the estimated settlement' due to the foundation loads. 7.5.3 The proposed buildings will be underlain by a maximum thickness of compacted fill on the order of 75 feet. The settlement of compacted fill is expected to continue over a relatively extended time period resulting from both gravity loading and hydrocompression upon wetting from rainfall and/or 'landscape 'irrigation. 7.5.4 Table 7.5 presents the estimated total and differential fill thickness and settlements of the building pads using an estimated settlement of 0.25 percent for the 2003/2004 existing'fihl soils and 0.4 percent for the proposed compacted fill. We assumed that cut portion of the transition pads would be undercut at least 5 feet and replaced with properly compacted fill. These settlement magnitudes should be considered in the design of the foundation system and adjacent flatwork that connects to the buildings. Project No. 01928-52-01 -12- May'23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 TABLE 7.5 EXPECTED DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT OF FILL SOIL Maximum Maximum Estimated Estimated Depth of Fill Fill Total Differential Estimated Building No. Beneath Differential Settlement Settlement Angular Structure (feet) (inches) (inches) Distortion (feet) 12 52 33 1.8 1.2 1/1100 (Western Portion) 12 32 25 1 0.8 1/2100 (Central Portion) 12 14 (EasternPortion) 11.5 0.5 0.4 1/3600 13 19 19 0.6 0.6 1/1600 14 53 47 1.8 1.5 1/1250 15 61 39 2 1.2 1/1775 16 46 45.5 1.4 1.4 1/420 17 51 51 1.5 1.5 1/900 P1 67 57 2 1.7 1/575 P2 42 42 1.3 1.3 1/840 P3 75 40 2.3 1.2 1/1300 Café 61 38 2.1 1.3 1/1000 7.5.5 Highly reinforced shallow foundation systems and slabs-on-grade may be used for support of the buildings; however, the shallow foundation systems would not eliminate the potential for cosmetic distress related to differential settlement of the underlying fill. Some cosmetic distress should be expected over the life of the structure as a result of long-term differential settlement. The building owner, tenants, and future owners should be made aware that cosmetic distress, including separation of caulking at wall joints, small, non- structural wall panel •cracks, and separation of concrete flatwork, is likely to occur. Recommendations for deep foundations can be provided to evaluate the comparative risks and costs upon request. 7.6 Temporary Excavations, Shoring, and Tiebacks 7.6.1 The recommendations included herein are provided for stable excavations. It is the responsibility of the contractor to provide a safe excavation during the construction of the proposed project. May 23, 2016 Project No. G1928-52-01 -13- Revised July 5, 2016 7.6.2 Temporary excavations should be made in conformance with OSHA requirements. The previously placed fill should be considered a Type B soil and the Santiago Formation should be considered a Type A soil (Type B soil if seepage or groundwater is encountered) in accordance with OSHA requirements. In general, special shoring requirements may not be necessary if temporary excations will be less than 4- feet in height. Temporary excavations greater than 4 feet in height, however, should be sloped back at an appropriate inclination. These excavations should not be allowed to become saturated or to dry out. Surcharge loads should not be permitted to a distance equal to the height of the excavation from the top of the excavation. The top of the excavation should be a minimum of 15 feet from the edge of existing improvements. Excavations steeper than those recommended or closer than 15 feet from an existing surface improvement should be shored in accordance with applicable OSHA codes and regulations. 7.6.3 The design of temporary shoring is governed by soil and groundwater conditions, and by the depth and width of the excavated area. Continuous support of the excavation face can be provided by a system of soldier piles/wood lagging or sheet piles. Excavations exceeding 15 feet may require soil nails, tieback anchors, or internal bracing to provide additional wall restraint. 7.6.4 Excavations may be supported by soldier pile/lagging and temporary tieback anchors. The design of temporary shoring is governed by soil and groundwater conditions and by the depth and width of the excavated area. Excavations exceeding 15 feet may require soil nails, tieback anchors, or internal bracing to provide additional wall restraint. 7.6.5 In general, ground conditions are moderately suited for soldier pile and tieback anchor wall construction techniques. However, cemented material may be encountered in the Santiago Formation that would cause difficult drilling operations. Additionally, if loose or cohesionless sands are encountered, some raveling and instability may result along the unsupported portions of excavations. 7.6.6 Temporary shoring with a level backfill should be designed using a lateral pressure .envelope acting on the back of the shoring and applying a pressure equal to 25H, 16H, and 20H, for a triangular, rectangular, or trapezoidal distribution, respectively, where H is the height of the shoring in feet (resulting pressure in pounds per square foot) as shown in Figure 7. These pressures assume a shoring height of up to about 25 feet and we should be contacted if deeper excavations are planned. Triangular distribution should be used for cantilevered shoring and, the trapezoidal and rectangular distribution should be used for multi-braced systems such as tieback anchors and rakers. The project shoring engineer should determine the applicable soil distribution for the design of the temporary shoring May 23, 2016 Project No. G1928-52-0-1 -14- Revised July 5 2016 system. Additional lateral earth pressure due to the surcharging effects from construction equipment, sloping backfill, planned stockpiles, adjacent structures and/or traffic loads should be considered, where appropriate, during design of the shoring system. 7.6.7 Passive soil pressure resistance for embedded portions of soldier piles can be based upon an equivalent passive soil fluid weight of 350D + 500 where D is the depth of embedment, in feet (resulting in pounds per square foot), as shown on Figure 8. The passive resistance can be assumed to act over a width of three pile diameters. Typically, soldier piles are embedded a minimum of 0.5 times the maximum height of the excavation (this depth is to include footing excavations) if tieback anchors are not employed. The project structural engineer should determine the actual embedment depth. 7.6.8 Drilled shafts for the soldier piles should be observed by Geocon Incorporated prior to the placement of steel reinforcement to check that the exposed soil conditions are similar to those expected and that footing excavations have been extended to the appropriate bearing strata, and design depths. If unexpected soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required 7.6.9 Lateral movement of shoring is associated with vertical ground settlement outside of the excavation. Therefore, it is essential that the soldier pile and tieback system allow very limited amounts of lateral displacement. Earth pressures acting on a lagging wall can cause movement of the shoring toward the excavation and result in ground subsidence outside of the excavation. Consequently, horizontal movements of the shoring wall should be accurately monitored and recorded during excavation and anchor construction. 7.6.10 Survey points should be established at the top of the pile on at least 20 percent of the soldier piles. An additional point located at an intermediate point between the top of the pile and the base of the excavation should be monitored on at least 20 percent of the piles if tieback anchors will be used. These points should be monitored on a weekly basis during excavation work and on a monthly basis thereafter until the permanent support system is constructed. 7.6.11 The project civil engineer should provide the approximate location, depth, and pipe type of the underground utilities adjacent to the site to the shoring engineer to help select the appropriate shoring type and design. The shoring system should be designed to limit horizontal and vertical soldier pile movement to a maximum of 1 inch and Y2 inch, respectively. The amount of horizontal deflection can be assumed to be essentially zero 15 May23.2016 Project No. G1928-52-01 - Revised July 5, 2016 along the Active Zone and Effective Zone boundary. The magnitude of movement for intermediate depths and distances from the shoring wall can be linearly interpolated. 7.6.12 Tieback anchors employed in shoring should be designed such that anchors fully penetrate the Active Zone behind the shoring. The Active Zone can be considered the wedge of soil from the face of the shoring to a plane extending upward from the base of the excavation at a 29-degree angle from vertical, as shown on Figure 9. Normally, tieback anchors are contractor-designed and installed, and there are numerous anchor construction methods available. Relatively non-shrinkage grout should be used for the construction of the tieback anchors. 7.6.13 Experience has shown that the use of pressure grouting during formation of the bonded portion of the anchor will increase the soil-grout bond stress. A pressure grouting tube should be installed during the construction of the tieback. Post grouting should be performed if adequate capacity cannot be obtained by other construction methods. 7.6.14 Anchor capacity is a function of construction method, depth of anchor, batter, diameter of the bonded section, and the length of the bonded section. Anchor capacity should be evaluated using the strength parameters shown in Table 7.6. TABLE 7.6 SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR TEMPORARY SHORING Description Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (degrees) Compacted Fill (Qcf) or 400 29 Previously Placed _Fill _(Qpcf) Santiago Formation (Is) . 500 1 34 7.6.15 Grout should only be placed in the tieback anchor's bonded section prior to testing or the unbonded sections should be protected such that the planned loads are distributed only in the effective zone. Tieback anchors should be proof-tested to at least 130 percent of the anchor's design working load. Following a successful proof test, the tieback anchors should be locked off at 80 to 100 percent of the allowable working load. Tieback anchor test failure criteria should be established in project plans and specifications. The tieback anchor test failure criteria should be based upon a maximum allowable displacement at 130 percent of the anchor's working load (anchor creep) and a maximum residual displacement within the anchor following stressing. Tieback anchor stressing should only be conducted after sufficient hydration has occurred within the grout. Tieback anchors that Project No. G1928-52-ol -16- May 23. 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 fail to meet project specified test criteria should be replaced, post-grouted or additional anchors should be constructed. 7.6.16 Lagging for soldier pile walls should keep pace with excavation and tieback anchor construction. The excavation should not be advanced deeper than three feet below the -. bottom of lagging. These unlagged gaps of up to three feet should only be allowed to stand for short periods of time in order to decrease the probability of soil instability and should never be unsupported overnight. Backfilling should be conducted when necessary between the back of lagging and excavation sidewalls to reduce sloughing in this zone and all voids should be filled by the end of each day. Further, the excavation should not be advanced further than four feet. below a row of tiebacks prior to those tiebacks being proof tested and locked off. 7.6.17 If tieback anchors are employed, an accurate survey of existing utilities and other underground structures adjacent to the shoring wall should be conducted. The survey should include both locations and depths of existing utilities. Locations of anchors should be adjusted as necessary during the design and construction process to accommodate the existing and proposed utilities. 7.6.18 if a raker system is employed, the rakers should not be inclined steeper than 1:1 (horizontal :vertical) to provide an excavation to the raker foundation system with an inclination less than 1:1. A shallow or deep foundation system can be used for the raker system. We should be contacted to. provide recommendations for a raker system, if planned. 7.7 Soil Nail Wall 7.7.1 As an alternative to temporary shoring, a soil nail wall can be used. Soil nail walls consist of installing closely spaced steel bars (nails) into a slope or excavation in a top-down construction sequence. Following installation •of a horizontal row of nails drains, waterproofing, and wall reinforcing steel are placed and shotcrete applied to create a final wall. 7.7.2 The soil nail wall should be designed by an engineer familiar with the design of soil nail walls. 7.7.3 In general, ground conditions are moderately suited for soil nail construction techniques. However, gravel and cobble could be encountered within the existing materials that could be difficult to drill. In addition, loose soil or relatively clean sand may be encountered 17 May23.2016 Project No. G1928-52-01 - - Revised July 5. 2016 within the materials that may result in some raveling or instability of the unsupported excavation. 7.7.4 A wall drain system should be incorporated into the design of the soil nail wall. Corrosion protection should be provided for the nails if the wall will be a permanent structure. 7.7.5 Testing of the soil nails should be performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Federal Highway Administration or similar guidelines. At least two verification tests should be performed to confirm design assumptions for each soil/rock type encountered. Verification tests nails should be sacrificial and should not be used to support the proposed wall. The bond length should be adjusted to allow for pullout testing of the verification nails to evaluate the ultimate bond stress. A minimum- of 5 percent of the production nails should also be proof tested. Geocon Incorporated should perform observation of soil nail installation and soil nail testing during the construction operations. 7.7.6 In addition to verification and proof testing, at least two pullout tests should be performed at the discretion of the soil engineer to check the geotechnical design parameters. During testing, the nail should be loaded incrementally until failure of the soil-grout bond or until the stress imposed on the nail reaches 80 percent of the bar yield strength. The bonded length should be confirmed prior to testing. 7.7.7 Table 7.7 presents the soil strength parameters to incorporate in the design of the soil nail walls. TABLE 7.7 SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR SOIL NAIL WALLS Description Cohesion Friction Angle Compacted Fill (Qcf) or 400 29 Previously Placed _Fill _(Qpcf) Santiago Formation (Ts) 1 500 34 7.8 Conventional Shallow Foundations 7.8.1 The following foundation recommendations herein are based on the assumption that the prevailing soils within 4 feet of finish grade will possess a "very low" to "high" expansion potential (expansion index [El] of 130 or less) and that buildings will be placed on compacted fill and Santiago Formation. 18 Jv1ay23,2016 Project No. G1928-52-01 -18- Revised July 5. 2016 7.8.2 The proposed buildings can be supported on a shallow foundation system founded in the - compacted fill. Foundations for the structure may consist of continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide and extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 2 feet and should also extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Figure 10 presents a wall/column footing dimension detail depicting the depth to lowest adjacent grade. 7.8.3 Continuous footings should be reinforced with four Na. 5 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, two near the top and two near the bottom. Steel reinforcement for the spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer. In addition, footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of slopes. 7.8.4 The recommended allowable bearing capacity for foundations with minimum dimensions described herein is 2,500 pounds per. square foot (psf) and 4,000 psf for foundations bearing in compacted fill and formational materials, respectively. The allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by an additional 500 psf for each additional foot of depth and width, to a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psf and 6,000 psf for foundations bearing in compacted fill and formational materials, respectively. The values presented herein are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 7.8.5 We estimate the total settlements due to footing loads in compacted fill to be about 1/2 inch and 1 inch based on a 5-foot-square footing and a 10-foot-square footing, respectively. We estimate the total settlements due to footing loads in formational materials to be about V2 inch and 1 inch based on a 4-foot-square footing and an 8-foot-square footing, respectively. Differential settlements based on the foundations loads should be Y2 inch in 40 feet. in addition, the buildings should be designed for the potential settlement due to fill loading as shown on Figure 6, Estimated Settlements Map. 7.8.6 Isolated footings, if present, should have the minimum embedment depth and width recommended for conventional foundations. The use of isolated footings, which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and support structural elements connected to the building, are not recommended. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the building foundation system with grade beams. Project No. G1928-52-01 -19- May 23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 7.8.7 Consideration should be given to using interior stiffening beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in width, to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur. 7.8.8 Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer (a representative of Geocon Incorporated) prior to the placement of reinforcing steel to check that the exposed soil conditions are similar to those expected and that they have been extended to the appropriate bearing strata. If unexpected soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required. 7.8.9 Special subgrade :Pre5atmti0n is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisturized to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement. 7.8.10 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur. For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. When located next to a descending 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) fill slope or steeper, the foundations should be extended to a depth where the minimum horizontal distance is equal to H/3 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of the fill slope to the base of the fill soil) with a minimum of 7 feet but need not exceed 40 feet. The horizontal distance is measured from the outer, deepest edge of the footing to the face of the slope. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings would be the use of a post-tensioned slab and foundation system or increased footing and slab reinforcement. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill slope geometry have been determined. Although other improvements, which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete flatwork or masonry walls, may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however, to incorporate design measures that would permit some lateral soil movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific recommendations. - 20 - May23,2016 Project No. G1928-52-0I -20- Revised July 5, 2016 7.8.11 The foundation and concrete slab-on-grade recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only. The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural requirements of the concrete slabs for supporting expected loads. 7.8.12 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer. 7.8.13 Foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon Incorporated) prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to observe that the exposed soil conditions are consistent with those. expected and have been extended to appropriate bearing strata. If expected soil conditions are encountered,, foundation modifications may be required. 7.9 Drilled Pier Recommendations 7.9.1 Drilled piers can be used to transfer load to the formational materials and reduce differential settlement within a building. 7.9.2 Piers can be designed to develop support by end bearing within the formational materials and skin friction within the formational materials and portions of the fill soil. Calculated allowable end bearing axial pile capacities for 2-foot, 2.5-foot, 3-foot, and 4-foot diameter drilled piers based on depth of embedment into the Santiago Formation are presented on Figure 11. An allowable skin friction resistance of 500 psf can be used for the portion of the drilled pier embedded in the fill and Santiago Formation. These allowable values possess a factor of safety of at least 2 and 2.5 for skin friction and end bearing, respectively. We 'estimate the settlement of the drilled piers will be approximately V2 inch. 7.9.3 The diameter of the piers should be a minimum of 2 feet. The design length of the drilled piers should be determined by the designer based on the elevation of the pile cap or grade• beam, the required capacity obtained from Figure 11, the Geologic Map, and Geologic Cross-Sections presented herein. It is difficult to evaluate the exact length of the proposed drilled piers due to the variable thickness of the existing fill; therefore, some variation should be expected during drilling operations. 7.9.4 The , piers should be embedded into the formational materials at least 5 feet and at a sufficient depth to develop the required capacity. The drilled piers should be constructed with a minimum length of 10 feet. Piers should be spaced at least three-pile diameters, center-to-center. If they are spaced closer than this, the efficiency of the group will be less than 100 percent. 21 May23,2016 Project No. G1928-52-01 -21- Revised July 5.. 2016 7.9.5 Because a significant portion of the pier capacity will be developed by end bearing, the bottom of the borehole should be cleaned of all loose cuttings prior to the placement of steel and concrete. Experience indicates that backspinning the auger does not remove loose material and a flat cleanout plate or hand cleaning is necessary. Concrete should be placed within the pier excavation as soon as possible after the auger/èleariout plate is withdrawn to reduce the potential for discontinuities or caving. Pier sidewall instability may randomly occur if loose or cohesionless soil is encountered. We expect localized seepage may be encountered during the drilling operations and casing may be required to maintain the integrity of the pier excavation, particularly if seepage or sidewall instability is encountered. The fill and the formational materials contain gravel, cobble and some boulders. The formational materials may possess very dense and cemented zones, and difficult drilling conditions during excavations for the piers should be anticipated. The drilled piers should be designed to avoid the existing canyon subdrain, if possible, and sewer utilities located beneath the planned structures. 7.9.6 In general, ground conditions are moderately suited for drilled pier construction techniques. However, gravel, cobble, and oversized material may be encountered in the formational materials that could be difficult to drill. Additionally, if cohesionless sands are encountered, some raveling may result along the unsupported portions of excavations. Seepage, if encountered during the drilling operations, may cause caving. 7.10 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade 7.10.1 The following foundation recommendations herein are based on the assumption that the prevailing soils within 4 feet of finish grade will possess a "very low" to "high" expansion potential (expansion index [El] of 130 or less) and that buildings will be placed on compacted fill and Santiago Formation. 7.10.2 Concrete floor slabs should possess a thickness of at least 5 inches and reinforced with No. 4 steel reinforcing bars at 18 inches on center in both horizontal directions. The concrete slab-on-grade recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only. The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural requirements of the concrete slab for supporting equipment and storage loads. A thicker concrete slab may be required for heavier loading conditions. To reduce the effects of differential settlement of the foundation system, thickened slabs and/or an increase in steel reinforcement can provide a. benefit to reduce concrete cracking. 7.10.3 Slabs that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture- sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should Project No. G1928-52-01 -22 - May 23, 2016 Revised July 5. 2016 be consistent with tije guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute's (ACT) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACT 302.2R-06). In addition, the membrane should be installed in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations and ASTM requirements and installed in a manner that prevents puncture. The vapor retarder used should be specified by the project architect or developer based on the type of floor covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity controlled environment.. 7.10.4 The bedding sand thickness should be determined by the project foundation engineer, architect, and/or developer. It is common to have 3 to 4 inches of sand for in the southern California region. However, we should be contacted to provide recommendations if the bedding sand is thicker than 6 inches. The foundation design engineer should provide appropriate concrete mix design criteria and curing measures to-assure proper curing of the slab by reducing the potential for rapid moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab curl. We suggest that the foundation design engineer present the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the foundation. plans. It is critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the recommendations presented on the foundation plans. 7.10.5 Concrete slabs should be provided with adequate construction joints and/or expansion joints to control unsightly shrinkage cracking. The design of joints should consider criteria of the American Concrete Institute when establishing crack-control spacing. Additional steel reinforcing, concrete admixtures and/or closer crack control joint spacing should be considered where concrete-exposed concrete finished floors are planned. 7.10.6 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or soil with varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur. 7.11 Mat Foundation Recommendations 7.11 .1 A reinforced concrete mat slab foundation may be used to help mitigate settlements of the underlying soil. A mat foundation consists of a thick rigid concrete mat that allows the 23 May 23..2016 Project No. G1928-52-01 -23- Revised July 5, 2016 entire footprint of the structure to carry building loads. In addition, the, mat can tolerate significantly greater differential movements such as those associated with very large loads. 7.11.2 The modulus of subgrade reaction for design of the mat can range from 125 to 175 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for the Santiago Formation. The modulus of subgrade reaction can range from 75 to 125 pci for the compacted fill. These values should be modified using standard equation for foundation geometry, as determined by the structural engineer. 7.11.3 We expect the mat foundation would have total and differential settlements are estimated to be 1 inch based on a mat foundation pressure of 1,000 psf under static foundation loads. 7.12 Concrete Flatwork 7.12.1 Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein; Slab panels should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and, when in excess of 8 feet square, should be reinforced with 4 x 4 - W4.01W4.0 (4 x 4 - 4/4) welded wire mesh or No. 4 reinforcing bars spaced at least 18 inches center-to-center in both directions to reduce the potential for cracking. In addition, concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American Concrete institute (ACT) should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control spacing. Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the grading section prior to concrete placement. Subgrade soil should be properly compacted and the moisture content of subgrade soil should be checked prior to placing concrete. 7.12.2 Even with the incorporation of the recommendations within this report, the exterior concrete flatwork has a likelihood of experiencing some uplift due to expansive soil beneath grade; therefore, the steel reinforcement should overlap continuously in flatwork to reduce the potential for vertical offsets within flatwork. Additionally, flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs, where possible, to reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the flatwork. 7.12.3 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the exterior slab should be dowelled into the structure's foundation stemwall. This recommendation is intended to reduce the potential for differential elevations that-could result from differential settlement or minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project structural engineer. Project No. G1928-52-01 -24- May 23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 7.12.4 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs and foundations as a result of differential movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations and slabs-on-grade will still crack. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil supporting' characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Literature provided by the Portland Concrete Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (AC!) present recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction. 7.13 Retaining Walls 7.13.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pci). Where the backfill will be inclined at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), we recommend an active soil pressure of 55 pcf. Soil with an expansion index (El) of greater than 90 should not be used as backfill material behind retaining walls. 7.13.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.00114 (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top (at-rest condition), an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf should be added to the active soil pressure for walls 8 feet or less. For walls greater than 8 feet tall, an additional uniform pressure of 13H psf should be applied to the wall starting at 8 feet from the base of the wall. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of fill soil should be added. 7.13.3 Drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) should not be used where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The recommendations herein assume a properly compacted granular (El of 50 or less) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. Figure 12 presents a typical retaining wall drainage detail. If conditions different than those described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. 7.13.4 The structural engineer should determine the seismic design category for the project in accordance with Section 1613 of the CBC. If the project possesses a seismic design category of D, E. or F, retaining walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill should be Project No. G1928-52-Ol -25 - May 23, 2016 Revised July 5 2016 designed with seismic lateral pressure in accordance with Section 18.3.5.12 of the 2013 CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained height where H is the height of the wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds per square foot (psf) exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. A seismic load of 21H should be used for design. We used the peak ground acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM, of 0.44g calculated from ASCE7-10 Section 11.8.3 and applied a pseudo-static coefficient of 0.3. 7.13.5 The retaining walls may be designed using either the active and restrained (at-rest) loading condition or the active and seismic loading condition as suggested by the structural engineer. Typically, it appears the design of the restrained condition for retaining wall loading may be adequate for the seismic design of the retaining walls. However, the active earth pressure combined with the seismic design load should be reviewed and also considered in the design of the retaining walls. 7.13.6 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of 1 foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, - retaining wall foundations should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. 7.13.7 The recommendations presented herein are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 20 feet. In the event that walls higher than 20 feet or other types of walls (such as mechanically stabilized earth [MSE] walls, soil nail walls, or soldier pile walls) are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 7.13.8 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when back-filled and loading is applied. The amount of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and loads acting on the wall. The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined by the structural engineer. 7.13.9 Soil contemplated foruse as retaining wall backfill, including import materials, should be identified in the field prior to backfill. At that time, Geocon Incorporated should obtain samples for, laboratory testing to evaluate its suitability. Modified lateral earth pressures may be necessary if the backfill soil does not meet the required expansion index or shear strength. City or regional standard wall designs, if used, are based on a specific active Project No: 01928-52-01 -26- May 23. 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 lateral earth pressure and/or soil friction angle. In this regard, on-site soil to be used as backfill may or may not meet the values for standard wall designs. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to assess the suitability of the on-site soil for use as wall backfill if standard wall designs will be used. 7.14 Lateral Loading 7.14.1 To resist lateral loads, a passive pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be used for the design of footings or shear keys. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance. 7.14.2 If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 should be used for design. The friction coefficient may be reduced depending on the vapor barrier or waterproofing material used for construction in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. 7.14.3 The passive and frictional resistant loads can be combined for design purposes. The lateral passive pressures may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 7.15 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations 7.15.1 We calculated the flexible pavement sections in general conformance with the Caltrans Method of Flexible Pavement Design (Highway Design Manual, Section 608.4) using an estimated Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, and 7.0 for parking stalls, driveways, medium truck traffic areas, and heavy truck traffic areas, respectively. The project civil engineer and owner should review the pavement designations to determine appropriate locations for pavement thickness. The final pavement sections for the parking lot should be based on the R-Value of the subgrade soil encountered at final subgrade elevation. Based on our laboratory test results, we have assumed an R-Value of 8 and 78 for the subgrade soil and base materials, respectively, for the purposes of this preliminary analysis. Table 7.15.1 presents the preliminary flexible pavement sections. Project No. G1928-52-01 -27- May 23, 206 Revised July 5, 2016 TABLE 7.15.1 PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION Assumed Assumed Asphalt Class 2 Location Traffic Subgrade Concrete Aggregate Index R-Value (inches) Base (inches) Parking stalls for automobiles 5.0 8 4.0 7 and light-duty vehicles Driveways for automobiles 5.5 8 4.0 9 and -duty _light _vehicles Medium truck traffic areas 6.0 8 4.0 11 Driveways for heavy truck traffic 7.0 8 4.0 15 7.15.2 Prior to placing base materials, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil should be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557. Similarly, the base material should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory Hveem density in accordance with ASTM D 2726. 7.15.3 Base materials should conform to Section 26-1.028 of the Standard Specifications for The State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) with a %-inch maximum size aggregate. The asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbolç). 7.15.4 The base thickness can be reduced if a reinforcement geogrid is used during the installation of the pavement. Geocon should be contact for additional recommendations, if required. 7.15.5 A rigid Portland Cement concrete (PCC) pavement section should be placed in driveway entrance aprons, trash bin loading/storage areas and loading dock areas. The concrete pad for trash truck areas should be large enough such that the truck wheels will be positioned on the concrete during loading. We calculated the rigid pavement section in general conformance with the procedure recommended by the American Concrete Institute report ACT 330R-08 Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots using the parameters presented in Table 7.15.2. Project No. G 1928-52-01 -28- May 23. 206 Revised July 5. 2016 TABLE 7.15.2 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS Design Parameter Design Value Modulus of subgrade reaction, k 50 pci Modulus of rupture for concrete, MR 500 psi Traffic Category, TC A and C Average daily truck traffic, ADTT 10 and 100 7.15.6 Based on the criteria presented herein, the FCC pavement sections should have a minimum thickness as presented in Table 7.15.3. TABLE 7.15.3 RIGID PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS. Location Portland Cement Concrete (inches) Automobile Parking Areas (TC=A) 6.0 Heavy Truck and Fire Lane Areas (TCC) 7.5 7.15.7 The FCC pavement should be placed over subgrade soil that is compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. This pavement section is based on a minimum concrete compressive strength of approximately 3,000 psi (pounds per square inch). j. 7.15.8 A thickened edge or integral curb should be constructed on the outside of concrete slabs subjected to wheel loads. The thickened edge should be 1.2 times the slab thickness or a minimum thickness of 2 inches, whichever results in a thicker edge, and taper back to the recommended slab thickness 4 feet behind the face of the slab (e.g., a 7.5-inch-thick slab would have a 9.5-inch-thick edge). Reinforcing steel will not be necessary within the concrete for geotechnical purposes with the possible exception of dowels at construction joints as discused herein. 7.15.9 To control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, crack-control joints (weakened plane joints) should be included in the design of the concrete pavement slab. Crack-control joints should not exceed 30 times the slab thickness with a maximum spacing of 15 feet for slabs 6 inches and thicker and should be sealed with an appropriate sealant to prevent the migration of water through the control joint to the subgrade materials. The depth of the crack-control joints should be determined by the referenced Project No. G1928-52-01 -29- May 23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 ACI report. The depth of the crack-control joints should be at least ¼ of the slab thickness when using a conventional saw, or at least 1 inch when using early-entry saws on slabs 9 inches or less in thickness, as determined by the referenced ACI report discussed in the pavement section herein. Cuts at least 'h inch wide are required for sealed joints, and a 3/s-inch-wide cut is commonly recommended. A narrow joint width of 1/10 to 1/8 inch wide is common for unsealed joints. 7.15.10 To provide load transfer between adjacent pavement slab sections, a butt-type construction joint should be constructed. The butt-type joint should be thickened by at least 20 percent at the edge and taper back at least 4 feet from the face of the slab. As an alternative to the butt-type construction joint, dowelling can be used between construction joints for pavements of 7 inches or thicker. As discussed in the referenced ACI guide, dowels should consist of smooth, 1-inch-diameter reinforcing steel 14 inches long embedded a minimum of 6 inches into the slab on either side of the construction joint. Dowels should be located at the midpoint of the slab, spaced at 12 inches on center and lubricated to allow joint movement while still transferring loads. In addition, tie bars should be installed at the as recommended in Section 3.8.3 of the referenced ACI guide. The structural engineer should provide other alternative recommendations for load transfer. 7.15.11 Concrete curb/gutter should be placed on soil subgrade compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Cross-gutters should be placed on subgrade soil compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Base materials should not be placed below the curb/gutter, cross-gutters, or sidewalk so water is not able to migrate from the adjacent parkways to the pavement sections. Where flatwork is located directly adjacent to the curb/gutter, the concrete flatwork should be structurally. connected to the curbs to help reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the flatwork. 7.16 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection 7.16.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2013 CBC 1804.3 or other applicable standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure. Project No. G1928-52-01 -30 - May 23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 7.16.2 In the case of basement walls or building walls retaining landscaping areas, a water- proofing system should be used on the wall and joints, and a Miradrain drainage panel (or similar) should be placed over the waterproofing. The project architect or civil engineer should provide detailed specifications on the plans for all waterproofing and drainage. 7.16.3 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked periodically for leaks for early detection of water infiltration and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for a prolonged period of time. 7.16.4 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. Area drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures or impervious above-grade planter boxes can be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material should be considered. 7.16.5 If detention basins, bioswales, retention basins, water infiltration, low impact development (LID), or storm water management devices are being considered, Geocon Incorporated should be notified to provide recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of possible impacts and design. Distress may be caused to planned improvements and properties located hydrologically downstream. The distress depends on the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, soil permeability, and other factors. Downstream properties may be subjected to seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater, movement of foundations and slabs, or other impacts as a result of water infiltration. We have not performed a hydrogeology study at the site; however, some of the onsite materials are not considered conducive to water infiltration devices due to the dense nature of the compacted fill and the existing geologic conditions: 7.16.6 If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to these devices. Factors such as the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water management features are not properly designed and constructed. We have not performed a hydrogeological study at the site. If infiltration of storm water runoff occurs, downstream properties may be subjected to seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater, movement of foundations and slabs, or other undesirable impacts as a result of water infiltration. Project No. G1928-52-01 -31 - May 23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 7.16.7 Underground utilities should not be placed across infiltration systems. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the ingress and egress portions of utility trench crossing the infiltration systems should be provided with cut-off walls to prevent water from entering the utility trenches and impacting down gradient improvements. 7.16.8 The degree of soil compaction or in-situ density has a significant impact on soil permeability. Based on our experience and other studies we performed, we have found that an increase in compaction results in a decrease in soil permeability. We recommend that additional permeability testing be performed throughout the limits of each infiltration system to establish the soil hydraulic conductivity trend after completion of grading and construction of site improvements. 7.16.9 The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Services, possesses general information regarding the existing soil conditions for areas within the United States. The USDA website also provides the Hydrologic Soil Group. Table 7.16.1 presents the descriptions of the hydrologic soil groups. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, B/D, or CID), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. TABLE 7.16.1 HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP DEFINITIONS Soil Group Soil Group Definition Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. A These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist B chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils D that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious, material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. 7.16.10 The property is covered with man-made, fill and should be classified as Hydrologic Soil Group D. Based on the USDA website, the soils underlying the fill are classified as Project No. G1928-52-01 -32 - May 23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 Hydrologic Soil Group D. Natural Resources Conservation Services possess general information regarding the existing soil conditions for areas within the United States. In addition, the USDA website also provides an estimated saturated hydraulic conductivity for the existing soil. Table 7.16.2 presents the information from the USDA websité. TABLE 7.16.2 USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY - HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP Mapf Unit Approximate Hydrologic ksAT of Most Map Unit Name Symbol Percentage Soil Group Limiting Layer of Property (inches/hour) Altamont clay, AtC 28.5 D 0.06 to 0.20 5 to_9_ percent _slopes Altamont clay, AtE 18.3 D 0.06 to 0.20 15 to_30_ percent _slopes Altamont clay, AtE2 40.9 D 0.06 to 0.20 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded - Gaviota fine sandy loam, .A~sE 1.8 D 1.98 to 5.95 9 to 30 percent slopes Las fibres loamy fine sand, LeC 10.4 D 0.0 to 0.06 2 to 9_ percent _slopes - May23,2016 Project No. G1928-52-ol -33 - Revised July 5, 2016 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS Recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated. 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 architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result 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. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide. continuity• of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Project No. G1928-52-01 May 23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 THE GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE FOR DISPLAY WAS PROVIDED BY GCOGLE EARTH, SUBJECT TO A LICENSING AGREEMENT. THE INFRMAT ON IS F0 ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY; IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR CLIENTS USE OR RELIANCE Al,D SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED BY CLIENT. CLIENT SHALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS GEOCON FROM ANY LIABILITY INCURE 0 AS A RESULT OF SUCH USE OR RELIANCE BY CUEW. NO SCALE VICINITY MAP GEOCON INCORPORATED QW) GEOTECHNICALU ENVIRONMENTAL. MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGC, CALFORNIA 92121- 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 358 558-o159 AS! RA DSKJGTYPD VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORN A I REVI u-iu I SED 07- - 05- i 20161 PROJECT NO. G1928 -52-01 1 FIG. I 0 P$otad:07i0512016 1:12PM I ByJONP.ThAN WIUCINS I Flo oo:Y:PR0JECTS%G192$42.01 aSaD LG1-52.O1 VMI'JIMap.dwg 0. 80.160' 240 320' SCALE I' 60' GEOCON LEGEND Qpcf......J.MfS.YPI.P..J., CPU. - BlZ__AppRox LOCAIlCIROF BORING ....BPRROX. EVAflOROTThEBEOFPIU.(b.F.pj) LOCATION OF MBaVNSU3DRAIN A _ROX EEVA RIN(I.FI) P.PRRO WGENCGI000NTIeT ___ ROIL LOCATOR OF OSELOGIC GIOSSSECTIGN GEOLOGIC MAP VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GOAl! DAIS P5-23-INtl GEOCON 1 8 G1928-52.ol GEOIEOIN1CAI ENVICONMENTAI• MATERIAlS RfiIENG-MCRINGGGAPBa SI! SHEET I OF ----- 4/ 1 11 1 1 ----'---- •j i;i /j. / 10 1000 000 1 1100 If '- _-€- r gr PF -g- - 13 I 1 .-- ° -- - - I T= It io ôo ' A - - I- / , A / - - - - - \'I fl __\ II '- ---T -If F 7 1t 1 ll ftg — - - , /l;I :_ 77 I ' ( .'- - I ,., - !I '1; p1 ia 'p i - '1 2B ii - - I I • ; L; -•- I , - *' ih1/. I - '7 11/ - * \ , -'304.00,' Oil ii ,CM3 rpq / 1 ? Wg T , : / h ' liWill --. ,D3 / 'q - I'f /P J:' ,/i I •;: -- •--;-----.i:L_.. /--. ?I-• IJI ••CJ! _I W, 7 .- - , ,W..J • 4/ 7/ A Qpct Vill 'p14 f4 / 1 L / I I 7,A ' ' i / .•Pg / '1 I / I4i /J/'I \ 1/;' •A;'..-_ 1•, 11 .I I - •. 1P • 1,' 1 iii ---,._• •. ,. I IAN 17 I 'I il IJ , NORTH - A' rm —320 -J (0 z -280 2 Lu -240 - . - DISTANCE (FEET) GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A' - SCALE: V = 40 (Vert. = I1oriz.) 200 040 680 720 760 800 825 B' 350 320 -j U, z 280 2 240 -200 OJ32PIM 281 i_S - ---- - - ——-— _r tj -- 240 g Elm 0 40 80 120 180 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 460 520 560 600 640 880 7,5 705 flflfl 0J DISTANCE (FEET) GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B' SCALE: 140(VerLrHoriz) GEOCON LEGEND 8-121 ,_ S.., --- 88L0CATI0N op GEOLOGE00NTACT GEOLOGIC CROSS - SECTIONS VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 05.U,tO CYEOCON - e V -40 I5000P0kaTCT. "'° G1928- 52-01 080IEOIN1CN • ENV5JMENTA1• — NODAaNJNO.jjODSNN SHEET I OF 1 280 240 t; — __ ::E9pc(gj;j JThi1 -320 36 . -290 2 -J -240 ZEMEEEEq 200 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 .600 640 660 720 760 790 DISTANCE (FEET) . . . GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION C-C' - SCALE: V = 40' ('led. = Horiz4 - N82°W D' Tmo ER 280 240 M. 280 240 320 360 400 ' 440 480 536 560570 0 40 60 120 160 200 DISTANCE (FEET) GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION D-D' SCALE: V = 40' (Vert. = HoriZ.) 360 -320 (0 36 z 280 2 -240 -200 GEOCON LEGEND Qpcf_.._lU.YR90ffD,U.. B.121 JJPDX. LOCATION I. BORINU .._..AX.ICCATI0N0FGE0.OGICc56TAzT GEOLOGIC CROSS - SECTIONS VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA BOMB DATE 05-23 M1141 GEOCON 1' 0 BEVRI6007.05.2016 -' al.COHPOkarC:; G1928 -52-01 RG*ON G6OIRO4N1CAI • ENVIRONMENTAl • MACElMS AORNBOSN.MAEMBRICAE920I.2CA SKEET I . OF 1 \ ____----1 • 'I /1 • ' I 1'uj2 ' i l /ill 0 \. \ " .. I — T ijlj 131 it ii uL L, I J"• — —. r5Ili ;ic: qjç 4i/Ii ;f;j - • 41.ili:ii.ii(1; .;,Ii// ..\ - jjf II' E/I I 1I I •' ' hly ill I i&'i/.Ji7IbJ Jt. • .•;,k":.I I •i I k:i4' /L JM Ijf\:!/j . 1/' £i .r!EI I I FT=302.O 1 I ' Li--V —_...,._ ,•:- ---L. I,' rr- / - Ii ITh 0. 80 - 160 240' 320' SCALE 7'-.. 80' GEOCON LEGEND Qaf_ Ts _.AOX. LOATchhOFEESTUhGSIJfDR,4N _.__IOX. LCCAflONGECGIC CONTACT -75- _flMMEDTU.ThlONlEN5ONUhGNIDPHEPOSEO7FIf FILL THICKNESS VIASAT BRESSI RANCH SAN DIEGO, CAUFORNIA 00111 5A75 OS-.00IO GEOCON 80 NtOkpOkatfl POD11CTNO G1928-52-01 0001EOINICAL• ENSIOONMENTAIO MATERIAlS a%on.,ONv!.s.ncacAIInc2OI-27n SHEET I OF I \! I 'I __T\ \ / I 11 I iIIp 10 — •—' I I MIA - ''' 'IiT I .'IiI : .-- -•'- PF=3 ip - _I_,__— — ./.4i-;..q$i,-/. - •'.i --- - ji -I I I -- )%• Ifl :I;JI1I/K I/I p9 1' hy1 , - ,•.I - I!, '-••- _1-1 I -a .•_, , ": -- / I • •• c L ,// l -;J•' L-'r/k i'v t // ./)I Il/i ji - 28 -J'ai . I 'I:i —• - • - , r , / -• i'j1l I 4l,l II,! IIIfi zlg - (' --- '•:;'\— j. — — - —e I;' 1r-_IV•1i P,aI ( / .15:1 0' 80' 160' 240' 320' SCALE I'- 80 GEOCON LEGEND —2.--- _MATE NT(d) CEM _FSFMATEETOThL.1TflEV.ENT(Ir) ESTIMATED POST CONSTRUCTION SETTLEMENT VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA DAlE D5.-2Sl6 GEOCON I 80 ?ttOHPOh.lO FDJECt.1 01928-52-01 P151.1 OEOIEOIN1CAI .INV15ONM5HTA1• M51155115 V aw0n oacatnnm SHEET 1 OF = - - 0.2 SOLDIER PILE OR WALL SYSTEM — —25 H psf : .- 16 H psi . - -20 H psi H (Fr) — : \ - 0.6 H(ft.) - : OR OR EXCAVATION — - - - BOTTOM - \ — >- 0.2H(ft.) __________ - (A) ____ - (B) (C) - . (A)......TRIANGULAR DISTRIBUTION — (B)......RECTANGULAR DISTRIBUTION — (C) ...... TRAPEZOIDAL DISTRIBUTION -. NO SCALE LATERAL ACTIVE PRESSURES FOR TEMPORARY SHORING GEOCON INCORPORATED 1' GEOTECHNICAL. ENVIRONMENTAL. MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 -2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 AS / RA DSK/GTYPD PIottedO7lO5l2O16 1:16PM I ByJONATHAN WILKINS I FIle Localion:Y:J VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I R LPI UUIU EVISED 07-05-)20161 PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 I FIG. L l ROJECTSG1928-52.01 VlaSatlDETPJLSiLaterel Athee Pressuree Per Veitil Fxvetin tLAPFIIF1rndwr H(ft) EXCAVATION BOTTOM \ \ 500 psf F 350D psf D(ft) / -I 500+350D psf k- N- GROUTED SOLDIER PILE NO SCALE SOLDIER PILE PASSIVE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION GEOCON INCORPORATED O'DI/ GEOTECHNICAL. ENVIRONMENTAL. MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE- SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159- AS / RA DSKIGTVPD VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I DATE 05-23-2016 I REVISED 07-05-20161 PROJECT NO. G1928 -52-01 1 FIG. 8 I Plotted07I0512016 1:15PM I By:JONATHAN WILKINS I File I.ocallon:Y:1PR0J5CTS1G1928.52-01 ViaSaliDETAiLSiGrouted Soldier Pile Passive Pressure (RGSPPOS).dwg / ESTIMATED 1 MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT\\ EXISTING GROUND SURFACE SOLDIER PILE / I —...ESTIMATED 1/2" MAXIMUM I VERTICAL MOVEMENT T I I I ACTIVE / ZONE / 1 TIEBACK ANCHOR / 29 I I / I I I / I / / / I I / I I EFFECTIVE ZONE NOTE: NO ESTIMATED MOVEMENT AT EFFECTIVE ZONE NO SCALE I RECOMMENDED EFFECTIVE ZONE FOR TIEBACK ANCHORS I GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL IN ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 AS / RA QSK/GTYPD Plotted:0710512016 1:14PM I ByJONAThAN WILKINS IF VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA - - V W PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 I REVISED 07-05-20161 FIG.9 I 110 LIInnY4PROiCTSIc1192R.524I1 VIoS OS1AILSWfforh,o 2..no Pn Thhok Anr,rn IP7TAS d CONCRETE SLAB [>< .:::.:• SAND AND VAPOR PAD GRADE RETARDER IN I .: ACCORDANCE WITH ACI I o ' u.4........::..: I_. \a. I \ : : : 00 WIDTH CONCRETE SLAB .. I , SAND AND VAPOR RETAROERIN—' I I ACCORDANCE WITH ACI I a 8 IL 4 .... . .4 0 _ 14 4. -.4..... FOOTING WIDTH* *SEE REPORT FOR FOUNDATION WIDTH AND DEPTH RECOMMENDATION NO SCALE I WALL / COLUMN FOOTING DIMENSION DETAIL . I GEOCON . () INCORPORATED 1' GEOTECHNICAL. ENVIRONMENTAL. MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 FAX 858 558-6159 AS! RA DSK/GTYPD VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 05-23-2016 REVISED 07-05 - 2016 PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 1 FIG. 10 Plofle&0710512016 1:19PM I ByJONAThAN WiLKINS I File LocalIon:Y:PROJECTSiG1928-52-01 VlaSaRDETAlLSiWall.Coiumn Fooling Dimension oeiall'(COLFOOT2).dwg Allowable End Bearing Capacity, Kips 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 • 2-Foot Dia. 10 - —+— 2.5-Foot Dia. \ \%_ —a-- 3-Foot Dia. --o-4-Foot Dia. 20 30_______ cc 40 zo - Cu 4- = E Cu 50 60 70 GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTEcHNICAL MNSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE, - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 KJ/KJ • ALLOWABLE END BEARING - DRILLED PIERS VIASAT - BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 7-5-2016 PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 IHG. 11 CONCRETE BROWDITCH GROUND SURFACE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPERLY - COMPACTED / - - - " BACKFILL "".....TEMPORARY BACKCUT ATER PROOFING WPER PER OSHA ARCHITECT 213H "-MIRAFI14ON FILTER FABRIC - (OR EQUIVALENT) OPEN GRADED ? MAX. AGGREGATE GROUND SURFACE FDOTING 4" DI& PERFORATED SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO I APPROVED OUTLET 12" CONCRETE BROWDITCH GROUND SURFACE RETAINING WALL .. WATER PROOFING I - PER ARCHITECT I DRAINAGE PANEL (MIRADRAIN 6000 I OR EQUIVALENT) 213H - 3/4' CRUSHED ROCK - (1 CU.FTJFT.) VA 4/ FILTER FABRIC PROPOSED - ENVELOPE I MIRAFII4ONOR tj - EQUIVALENT FOOTING7 _ 4 DIA. SCHEDULE 40 __________ PERFORATED PVC PIPE OR TOTAL DRAIN EXTENDED TO APPROVED OUTLET NOTE: DRAIN SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY SLOPED TO GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING CONCRETE GROUND SURFACE BROWDITCH RETAINING - 1 WALL s WATER PROOFING - PER ARCHITECT 213 H - DRAINAGE PANEL (MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT) 4 DIA, SCHEDULE 40 PROPOSED PERFORATED PVC PIPE - OR TOTAL DRAIN EXTENDED TO T FOOTINGl APPROVED OUTLET NO SCALE I I . TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL I GEOCON . INCORPORATED <OIT)-- GEOTECHNICALU ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 ASI RA DSK/GTYPD VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 05-23-2016 REVISED 07-05- 20161 PROJECT NO. G1928-52 - 01 FIG. 12 Plotted:0710512016 1:17PM I BF.JONATHAN WILKINS I File LonaIton:Y:lPROJECTSilG1928-52-01 VIaS ID LS'tTypical Retaining Wail Drainage Detail (RWD07A).dwg APPENDIX APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION We performed the field investigation during the period of April 4 through 7, 2016. Our subsurface exploration consisted of drilling 12 small-diameter exploratory borings to a maximum depth of approximately 66.5 feet using a truck-mounted drill rig with a 6- to 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 2. Boring logs, and an explanation of the geologic units encountered are presented on Figures A-I through A-12. We located the borings in the field using existing reference points; therefore, actual locations may deviate slightly. We obtained soil samples during our subsurface exploration in the borings using either a California sampler or a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. Both samplers are composed of steel and are driven to obtain relatively undisturbed samples. The California sampler has an inside diameter of 2.5 inches and an outside diameter of 3 inches. Up to 18 rings are placed inside the sampler that is 2.4 inches in diameter and 1 inch in height. The SPT sampler has an inside diameter of 1.5 inches and an outside diameter of 2 inches. We obtained ring samples at appropriate intervals in moisture-tight containers and transported to the laboratory for testing. The type of sample is noted on the exploratory boring logs. The samplers were driven 12 inches and 18 inches for California sampler and SPT sampler, respectively. The sampler is connected to A rods and driven into the bottom of the excavation using a 140-pound hammer with a 30-inch drop. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches the sampler is driven. The penetration resistances shown on the boring logs are shown in terms of blows per foot. The values indicated on the boring logs are the sum of the last 12 inches of the sampler. If the sampler was not driven for 12 inches, an approximate value is calculated in term of blows per foot or the final 6-inch interval is reported. These values are not to be taken as N-values as adjustments have not been applied. We estimated elevations shown on the boring logs from a topographic map. Each excavation was backfilled as noted on the boring logs. The soil encountered in the borings were visually examined, classified, and logged in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D 2488). The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions observed and the depth at which samples were obtained. The County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health issued a Monitoring Well and Boring Construction and Deconstruction Permit for the exploratory excavations, and the Permit is shown after the figures in this appendix. May 212016 Project No. G1928-52-01 Revised July 5, 2016 PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 DEPTH FEET SA NO. >- 8 z MPLE if:! < 0 SOIL ASS CL Cr BORING ELEV. (MSL.)317' DATE COMPLETED 04-04-2016 EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L RODRIGUEZ IZ! C0 It W 20 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Bl-1 SC/CL PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpcf) Medium dense, moist, olive brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND to Sandy - 2 CLAY . : .4. BI-2 :: -Few to little chunks of silty sand 22 ., :8: 10 All B1-3 . -Becomes wet trace shell fragments 18 107.4 18.7 :•: (pp. 4.5+tsf) 12 14 16- BI-4 -Few to little layers/chunks of yellowish to grayish fine sand and gray silt 21 ::• 18 20 - BI-5 (pp. 4.5+tsf) 23 98.8 30.7 22- 24 - ./.•3. - BI-6 :,7: CL Stiff, wet, dark olive brown, Sandy CLAY; trace to few chunks silt and sand 34 26 / - 28 30 BI-7 (p.p.4.5+tsf) - 27 99.2 24.7 34_ _ • - Figure A-I, . . Log of Boring B I, Page lof2 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL Ii ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS IM DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE • ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GE000N PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 >- BORING BI z W - w.. DEPTH IN SAMPLE < SOIL 0_ P z 1E U) . FEET NO. ELEV. (MSL.)317' DATE COMPLETED 04-04-2016 . I- CO O 0 20 EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L RODRIGUEZ °- IX - 0 . -.. - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION . BI-8 - 39 - 36 - -.•• .:.: - -38- 40 B1-9 : ML Hard, moist, grayish to yellowish brown, Sandy SILT; little to some chunks 46 104.6 15.3 - ::- clay and sand - - 42 - : : (p.p. 4.5+tsf) - 44 - - BI-10 4 - SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) 84/9" - 46 :•••:: Very dense, damp, gray to yellowish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE; weakly - - - :•'••:: cemented; laminated with magnesium - - 48 ••• . - 50 - BI-Il :• - - 85/9" BORING TERMINATED AT 50.75 FEET No groundwater encountered • Back-filled with 10.0 ft3 bentonite grout slurry Figure A-I, Log of Boring B I, Page 2of2 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE •.. CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GE000N PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 DEPTH IN FEET SA NO. 0 MPLE > 0< 0 IX SOIL CLASS BORING B2 ELEV. (MSL.)308 DATE COMPLETED 04-05-2016 EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L RODRIGUEZ z O I-Z 0 )cr - W aR MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -. - B2-1 — SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpcf) Medium dense, damp, yellowish to grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium - 2 - SAND; trace gravel; trace organics - - - B2-2 :!.E:1: -Becomes wet, trace to little layers/chunks dark olive brown, sandy clay -. 25 - 122.9 12.6 6 - 8 - -. 10 B2-3 CL Stiff, moist, dark olive brown, Sandy CLAY; trace gravel 29 -12- ..(.. - 14 B2-4 :I :i SM/ML Medium dense, damp, gray, Silty, fine SAND to Sandy SILT; trace shell 33 - 119.1 6.4 16 - I fragments (pp. 4.0 tsf) 18 20 B2-5 SM Medium dense, moist, yellowish to grayish brown, Silty, fine SAND; trace 30 121.0 11.0 shell fragments 22 24 f: . - B2-6 ::..f...::1:: 41 26 28 30 B2-7 :.:J:: -Trace gravel 44 109.6 16.5 (pp. 4.5+1st) 32 34 . Figure A-2, Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 2 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 19 DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE • . ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GE000N PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 BORING B2 DEPTH >- 8 < SOIL o.. IN FEET SA NO. 0 MPLE 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)308' DATE COMPLETED 04-05-2016 cr EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L RODRIGUEZ 0. 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION B2-8 - Sc Medium dense; moist, yellowish to grayish brown, Clayey, fine SAND 40 36 . '38- 1401 B2-9 i:-" SM - Medium dense, moist, yellowish to grayish brown, Silty, fine SAND 39 110.3 12.1 - ' (pp. 4.5+tsf) 42 :.I.EEijIE: 44 132-10 -Becomes damp 49 - 46 - - -48- - - 50 - 132-11 :iI :1 ? ' -Becomes very dense, wet; fine content decreases; little to some shell 85/11" 114.2 17.4 fragments; trace clay - - 52 ::E:..I. (p.p.4.5+tsf) - 54 . :......:. - ' ' -Slight seepage . SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) 72 56 - B2-12 Very dense, wet, grayish to yellowish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE; • :•'•:: weakly cemented 58 60 B2-13 :: :j: 5 BORING TERMINATED AT 61.5 FEET Slight seepage encountered it 55 feet Backfilled with 12.1 ft' bentonite grout slurry Figure A-2, Log of Boring B 2, Page 2 of 2 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL El ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST.. I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE •.. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GE000N PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 DEPTH FT 1 >- w < SOIL 0 Lu BORINGB3 . . ELEV. (MSL.)296 DATE COMPLETED 04-07-2016 EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KUNA o w. °-IX - - w. _____ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - B3-1 :j9 - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpcf Medium dense, damp, yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND - 2 - 4 NI 133-2 SM-SC Medium dense, moist, mottled yellowish brown and white; mixed with gray 31 112.6 15.2 6 :...;f. Sandy CLAY 8 10 133-3 :: (p.p.4.5+tsf) 24 113.8 15.0 12- - 14- :1 B3-4 Sc Medium dense, moist, dark brown, Clayey, tineSAND 16 - - 18 . -27 20 B3-5 CL Stiff, moist, dark, brown, Silty CLAY 22 -30 1 24 1 .t. B3-6 ,/. — — — -SC-SM Medium dense, wet, dark brown mixed with gray, Clayey SAND and 22 112.0 15.4 26 - yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND, mottled yellowish brown and white (p.p. 4.5+tsf) - ---------------- 1 28 1 I . B3-7 -- CL Stiff, wet, dark- brown, Silty CLAY -25 32 .34. Figure A-3, Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 2- SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 19 DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 10 ... CHUNK SAMPLE S 3E ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GE000N PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 BORING Uj - DEPTH >- 8 < SOIL ca Cr IN F SAMPLE CLASS ELEV. (MSL)296 DATE COMPLETED 04-07-2016 - EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KUNA 0. 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 53-8 j- - -Becomes dark grayish-brown 28 105.3 21.9 - 36 - - -38- - - 40 - 133-9 -Same . - 25 104.7 20.9 - - - - 42 - p" - -44 A - - 13340 -Same 35 - 46 - (p.p.4.otsf) - 48- - - - -Slight seepage - ML SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) . - 70 - 50 - 133-11 - - Very st1ff, moist, interbedded layers of brown, yellowish brown and gray, - - 52 - SILTSTONE with gypsum crystals. - -Perched groundwater at 49.5 feet - 54 • 133-12 I : SM Very dense, moist, gray, Silty, fine SANDSTONE t 87/11" 56 - _______ — _______ ________________________________________________________________ BORING TERMINATED AT 56 FEET Slight seepage encountered at 49.5 feet Backfilled with 11 ft3 bentonite grout slurry Figure A-3, Log of Boring B 3, Page 2 of 2 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL Ii ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE •.. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 Ir BORING . z - Lu DEPTH >- < SOIL . I-Z CG IX IN SA NO. 0 LE 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)294' DATE COMPLETED 04-06-2016 0 FEET EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KUNA . 0 0 0 - - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION B4-1 .:919: - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpct) : Dense, damp, yellowish brown, Silty,. fine SAND; some dark brown, sandy 2 clay chunks; mottled yellowish gray 4 134-2 .1.k•1. -Becomes moist 35 102.8 12.2 6 ::.y.k:1:: 4.5+1sf) -8' 10 B4-3 SM Medium dense, moist, mottled olive-brown, yellow and gray, Silty, fine 20 107.7 12.7 • SAND 12 (p.p.4.5+tsf) - - -14' - 1344 ':I':' :'i - SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) 60 16 - Very dense, moist, gray mottled with yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND 18 20 - 1345 -Becomes dark yellowish brown - 52 BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-4, - - - Log of Boring B'4, Page 1 of I 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL [...STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS 19 DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE i.... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GE000N PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 DEPTH IN FEET SAMPLE NO. 8 ..j :i Of ! < 0 0 SOIL CLASS . BORING B5 . ELEV. (MSL)318 DATE COMPLETED 0404-2016 . EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L RODRIGUEZ oQI_. Z LL U) I- w w - ._ U) . a 20 w 2-9 i... Z U) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 - B5-11 - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpct) - - .:L1:. Medium dense, damp to moist, light yellowish to grayish brown, Sflt)% fine to - - 2 - medium SAND; trace chunks of gray silt - - B5-2 33 6 8 10 B5-3 ;j 27 116.1 17.5 - 12 A. ::..[::.:: -14 B5-4 ---- — — — — CL/SC — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Stiff, moist, olive brown, Sandy CLAY to Clayey, fine to medium SAND — — — — 21 - — — — -- 116.4 — — — - 13.5 16 Y. (p.p.4.5+tsf) -18- 20 B5-5 SM Medium dense, moist, light yellowish to grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium 34. - :. SAND 22 24 B5-6 -Becomes coarser grained; trace to few chunks of olive brown sandy clay - 27 121.3 10.4 26 . .. (p.p. 4.5+tsf) 28- 30 55-7 ::f.4: -Trace gravel-sized rock fragments - 41 32 _ • . ::j..f:1:: - Figure A-5, . Log of Boring B 5, Page 1 of 2 0 SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL LI ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 5 ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 19 DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE I ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GE000N PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 BORING B5 DEPTH SAMPLE > < SOIL Qoi— IZ( CI)'' LIJ IN FEET ELEV. (MSL.)318' DATE COMPLETED 04-04-2016 EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L RODRIGUEZ °- _____ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - - 135-8 (p.p. 4.5+tsf) 41 106.9 19.3 36 -38- - - 40 B5-9 — CL - Stiff, moist, yellowish to grayish brown, Sandy CLAY; trace rockfragments',24 trace to few chunks of silt; trace wood debris - 42 - B5-10 (p.p. 4.5+tsf 23 105.1 20.5 46 48 50 85-11 :.:>:. -Trace wood debris - 30 52 54 .:•. 56 58 -60- B5-12 SC SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) - - Very dense, damp, yellowish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SANDSTONE; - 62 - weakly cemented; trace magnesium - 64- - 135-13 Ji M/MI. Very dens; damp, Silty, fine SANDSTONE to Sandy SILTSTONE; 87/11" 66 -:: moderately cemented; micaceous BORING TERMThATED AT 66.5 FEET No groundwater encountered Backfilled with 13.1 ft' bentonite grout slurry Figure A-5, Log of Boring B 5, Page 2 of 2 SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE' ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GE000N PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 Ir BORING D LLI EPTH SLE < SOIL 0- I- Z (I) . Z LL I- FEET 0 ELEV. (MSL.)310IN CLASS ' DATE COMPLETED 04-05-2016 Ix EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L RODRIGUEZ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 - B6-1 - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpcf) - .j•• . Medium dense, damp; light yellowish brown to olive brown, Silty, fine to 2 - medium SAND; trace clay 4 - B6-2 :•.j:• 34 6 8 10 B6-3 /' CL Stiff, moist, olive dark brown, Sandy CLAY 22 108.6 18.7 (pp. 4.5+tsf) - - 12 - SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) - - ::j. Very dense, damp, yellowish to grayish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE; - 14 - :• ::E: weakly cemented - 86-4 - ___________________ 81/11" ______ 16 BORING TERMINATED AT 16 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-6, Log of Boring B 6, Page 1 of I SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL [•...STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 99 DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GE000N PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 BORING . DEPTH < SOIL oI_. I- z Cl) Z IN SAMPLE NO. .j ELEV. (MSL.)302' DATE COMPLETED 04-06-2016 U) i... FEET EQUIPMENT MARLM-5 BY: B. KUNA 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 0 - 137-1 - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpcf) Medium dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND; some small chunks - - 2 - of green mottled white and yellowish brown siltstone, - 4 137-2 :r.:i (p.p.4.5+tsf . 27 106.6 8.8 - 8 SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) 10 - 137-3 Dense, moist, very light yellowish gray, Silty, fine SAND 45 12 14 137-4 ..I::i .35 -16 BORING TERMINATED AT 16.5 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-7, Log of Boring B 7, Page 1 of I 0 SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 Of BORING >- Wt DEPTH < SOIL 2oi-. I-Z. 1I) Of IN SALE CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)291' DATE COMPLETED 04-07-2016 FEET Uj Co W It 20 EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KUNA a. jr MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - B8-1 ?- - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpf) ,K- Mediunf dense, damp, yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND mixed with brown - 2 and gray CLAY . . B82 (pp. 4.5+tso 33 106.0 11.3 :. 10 B8-3 4, -Becomes moist, increase in clay content 28 12- :4 -14- B8-4 CL Medium dense, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY . 30 B8-5 CL-SM Medium dense, moist, dark brown and gray, Sandy, CLAY with gray Silty 32 110.0 17.4 SAND 22 (p.p. 4.5+tsf) 24 - B8-6 . . -Gravel-size cemented material disturbed sample - 50/3" 26 - -• - 28 - - CL-SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) 19 30 - B8-7 - - Stiff, moist, brownish-yellow and orange, Silty CLAY interbedded with gray - 32 - Silty, fine SAND; crystals of gypsum .34 Figure A-8, . G192842-01.GPJ Log of Boring B 8, Page 1 of 2 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GE000N PROJECT NO. G.1928-52-01 Ix BORING B8 z - Lu DEPTH >- < SOIL . o: I-Z Ø IN SAMPLE NO. .j 0 CLASS . ELEV. (MSL.)291' DATE COMPLETED 04-07-2016 . <<CI) FEET Ix EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KUNA MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - B8-8 - SM Dense, damp, brown, orange, gray and yellowish bro, Silty SAND 46 -36- .•... _ - __ BORING TERMINATED AT 36.5 FEET No groundwater encountered Backfilled with 7.2 ft3 bentonite grout slurry Figure A-8, Log of Boring B 8, Page 2 of 2 SAMPLE SYMBOLS U ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 11... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 BORING B9 . Lu DEPTH >- < SOIL <<Cl) ) Cr FEET SAMPLE NO. ...j CLASS . ELEV. (MSL)303' DATE COMPLETED 04-05-2016 CO . Cr W o EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L RODRIGUEZ UJ Ix 20 Cr Cr - O C) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 89-1 SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpf) Medium dense, moist, yellowish to grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium 2 SAND; little chunks olive brown clay - • . B9-2 SM/ML Medium dense, moist, yellowish to grayish brown, Silty, fine SAND-to Sandy 32 103.8 19.0 1 6 1 SILT . (p4.5+tsfl - 10 - B9-3 id :.ç..::: - SANTIAGO FORMATION (Is) 86/il" - - :••J•:: Very dense, damp, light grayish to yellowish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE; weakly cemented - - 12 - - 14 - - - B9-4 :I.F . • - 52 - 16 - - BORING TERMINATED AT 16.5 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-9, Log of Boring B 9, Page 1 of I SAMPLE SYMBOLS D... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL Ii ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE - ... CHUNK SAMPLE - ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 BORING BIO 2 e. DEPTH >- 1-91 < SOIL w. IN FEET SAMPLE NO. CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)304 DATE COMPLETED 04.05-2016 0 • EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L RODRIGUEZ °- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 0 - B 10-I :f9: - SM/ML PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpf) -. - ...•1...I... Medium dense, damp, grayish to yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND to Sandy - 2 - :F SILT - 4 BI0-2 :I.:]: -Partially disturbed sample 32 111.0 15.7 - 6 (pp. 4.5+lsl) -8- 10 - • BIO-3 — SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) 72 :••J•:: Very dense, damp, light grayish brown, to yellowish brown, Silty, fine - 12 SANDSTONE; weakly cemented - 14 BI04 :: 70 16 _ . BORING TERMINATED AT 16.5 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-b, Log of. Boring B 10, Page 1 of I • SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) • ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE • . ... CHUNK SAMPLE • ...WATER TABLE ORSEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GE000N PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 DEPTH FEET SA NO. 0 LEIN >- < 0 SOIL CLASS BORING BII ELEV. (MSL.)304 DATE COMPLETED 04-06-2016 EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KUNA oo,.. I-Z U)IX :. w. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 0 - B11-1 jT - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpf) - Medium dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND; mottled white and - - - 2 - :::: yellowish brown - - BI I-2 (pp. 4.5tsf) 24 105.5 19.7 6 -8- 0 1 BI 1-3 / SM-CL Mixed with dark brown CLAY 35 114.9 12.1 - (p.p. 4.5+ts1 12 - - 14- B11-4 -- 35 16 • I:] SM Dense, yellowish brown, moist, Silty, fine to medium SAND :i:.j (p.p. 4.5+ts1 . 18 4-1 - :.:.L 20 • BI 1-5 Sc . -------------------------------------------------------- Dediuirn dense, moist, dark brown and olive-brown, Clayey to Silty, fine 22 1147 10.4 :- SAND 22 (p.p.4.5+tsf) - / -24- - . B11-6 :y/: 28 26- • 28 - i 30 :. -. - - - - B11-7 SM Stiff, moist, dark brown to olive brown, Sandy CLAY mixed with light 31 110.3 14.7 ----------------------------------- grayish to yellowish brown Silty SAND - 32 34 Figure A-1 1, Log.of Boring B II, Page 1 of 2 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL U ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE • ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GE000N PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 BORING BII — DEPTH < SOIL 0 <<(1) Z U.E5— ZU FEET SAMPLE NO. j CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)304 DATE COMPLETED 04.06-2016 :i 0 . EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KUNA °- ____ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1311-8 7:T. — (p.p.4.5+tsf) .33 36 38 • BLI-9 74 -. EC L Becomes i - 3 106.2 19.9 Bil-lO (p.p.4.5+tsf) 42 44 CL SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) . 50 46 - - Hard, moist, gray and brown, laminated CLAYSTONE 48 - - 50 BORING TERMINATED AT 50 FEET No groundwater encountered Backfilled with 9.8 ft' bentonite grout slurry Figure A-1 1, Log of Boring B II, Page 2 of 2 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE •.. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED-TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 cr BORING DEPTH >- 8 < SOIL I-Z U.Ir FEET SALE ELEV. (MSL.)305 DATE COMPLETED 04-06-2016 :i 0 - EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY:B. KUNA 0. MATERIAL! DESCRIPTION • • B 12-1 j:i: - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACE FILL (Qpf) Medium dense, damp, yellowish-brown Silty, fine SAND with chunks of 2 ::J.V olive-brown Sandy CLAY CL Very stiff, damp, dark brown to olive brown, fine Sandy CLAY • (p.p.4.5+tsf) B12-2 ../.. 38 120.3 8.7 B12-3 :1 :] SM Becomes medium dense, moist, dark yellowish-brown, Silty fine SAND, 28 mottled orange and light grayish-brown -12- 14 B12-4 CL-SM, Becomes stiff, moist, olive-brown CLAY interbedded with light 22 111.4 14.3 - 16 - grayish-brown, Silty SAND, mottled orange - - (p.p.4.5+tsf) :.'f.4: - SM SANTIAGO FORMAI'ION (Ts) - 18 - ::j.- •1: Very dense, damp, gray, Silty, fine SAND, mottled yellow 20 B12-5 ::.::: . 76 BORING TERMINATED AT 21 FEET - No groundwater encountered Figure A-12, Log of Boring B 12, Page 1. of I 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE •.. CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PERMIT # LMWP-002206 A.P.N. # 213-260-02, -03, - 06.09 C cc EST# NONE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAND AND WATER QUALITY DIVISION MONITORING WELL PROGRAM GEOTECHNICAL BORING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT SITE NAME: TOWN GARDEN AND ALICANTE PROPERTY SITE ADDRESS: PARCELS AT TOWN GARDEN RD. AND ALICANTE RD., CARLSBAD, CA 92009 PERMIT FOR: 6 GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS PERMIT APPROVAL DATE: 03/17/2016 PERMIT EXPIRES ON: 07/15/2016 RESPONSIBLE PARTY: SMITH CONSULTING ARCH ITECTS-ARATI RANGASWAMY PERMIT CONDITIONS: All borings must be sealed from the bottom of the boring to the ground surface with an approved sealing material as specified in California Well Standards Bulletin 74-90, Part III, Section 19.D. Drill cuttings are not an acceptable fill material. 2: All borings must be properly destroyed within 24 hours of drilling. Placement of any sealing material at a depth greater than 30 feet must be done using the tremie method. This work is not connected to any known unauthorized release of hazardous substances. Any contamination found in the course of drilling and sampling must be reported to DEH. All water and soil resulting from the activities covered by this permit must be managed, stored and disposed of as specified in the SAM Manual in Section 5, II, 0-4. (http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/deh/lwg/sam/manual guidelines.html) In addition, drill cuttings must be properly handled and disposed in compliance with the Stormwater Best Management Practices of the local jurisdiction. Within 60 days of completing work, submit a well/boring construction report, including all well and/or boring logs and laboratory data to the Well Permit Desk. This report must include all items required by the SAM Manual, Section 5, Pages 6 & 7. This office must be given 48-hour notice of any drilling activity on this site and advanced notification of drilling cancellation. Please contact the Well Permit Desk at (858) 505-6688. Veronica Tavizon I_i I I • APPROVED BY: "' DATE:03/17/21 VERONICA TAVIZON APPENDIX APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING A laboratory test program is designed for each project to evaluate the physical and mechanical properties of the materials encountered at the site. We performed the laboratory tests in accordance with the current versions of the generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) or otber suggested procedures. We tested selected soil samples for their maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, resistance value (R-Value), shear strength, expansion index, pH and resistivity, water- soluble sulfate characteristics, water-soluble chloride ion •content, unconfined compressive, strength, consolidation characteristics and triaxial shear strength. The results of our laboratory tests are presented on Tables B-I through B-IX and Figures B-I through B-9. In addition, the in-place, dry density and moisture content results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. / TABLE B-I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM DI557 Sample No. Maximum Optimum (Geologic Unit) Description Dry Density Moisture Content (pci) (% dry wt.) BI-1 Olive brown, Clayey fine to coarse.SAND 123.4 12.0 B6-I Light yellowish brown to olive brown, Silty fine to 122.3 1.1.9 medium SAND; trace clay Bil-lO Olive brown, Silty CLAY 119.7 12.7 TABLE B-Il SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESISTANCE VALUE (R-VALUE) TEST RESULTS ASTM D 2844 Sample No. . R-Value B5-1 . 8 I May 23,2016 Project No. G1928-52-01 -B-1 . Revised July 5, 2016 TABLE B-Ill SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D 3080 Sample No. Dry Density (pci) Moisture Content (%) Peak [Ultimate'] Cohesion (psi) Peak [Ultimate'] Angle of Shear Resistance (degrees) _____________ Initial _____________ Final 132-2 122.9 12.6 15.6 1,600 [1,200] 35 [34] B2-5 121.0 11.0 14.2 600 [300] 37 [37] B4-3 107.7 12.7 20.5 - 500 [490] 26 [24] 135-3 116.1 17.5 18.6 1,200 [1,380] 29'[23] 'Ultimate at end of test at 0.2 inch deflection TABLE B-IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TRIAXIAL SHEAR TEST RESULTS CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED ASTM D 4767 Total Stress Sample No. Initial Dry Density (pci) Initial Moisture Content (%) Young's Modulus, Unit Cohesion Angle of (psi) Shear Resistance E, (ksf) (degrees) 133-4 115.0 15.2 3,000 16 2,025 B8-4 106.6 17.1 3,200 18 1,780 TABLE B-V SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829 Pad Nos. Sample No. Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pci) Expansion index Expansion Classification 2013 CBC Soil Expansion Classification Before Test After Test 15 1 11I-1 11.5 25.9 103.61 86 1 Medium I Expansive 13 B6-1 10.8 24.6 105.0 73 Medium Expansive 12 B12-1 11.7 27.6 101.4 95 High Expansive Project No. G192852-01 - B-2 - May 23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 TABLE B-VI SUMMARY OF LABORATORY POTENTIAL. OF HYDROGEN (PH) AND RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 643 Sample No. pH Minimum Resistivity . (ohm-centimeters) BI-I 7.8 410 136-1 8.0 . 530 TABLE B-Vu SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST 417 Sample No. Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Sulfate Severity Sulfate Class BI-I 0.344 Severe S2 136-1, 0.138 Moderate Si B12-1 0.104 Moderate SI TABLE B-VIII SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE CHLORIDE ION TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. T 291 Sample No. Chloride Ion Content (%) BI-1 . 0.075 B6-1 0.065 B3 May 23,2016 Project No. G1928-52-OI - - - . Revised July 5. 2016 TABLE B-IX SUMMARY OF HAND PENETROMETER TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1558 Sample No. Depth (feet) Geologic Unit Hand Penetrometer Reading, Unconfined Compression Strength (tsl) Estimated Undrained Shear Strength (ksf) B1-3 10 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 BI-5 20 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B1-7 30 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 BI-9 40 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B2-4 15 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B2-7 30 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 132-9 40 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B2-11 50 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B3-3 10 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 133-6 25 Qpcf 4.5 . 4.5 B3-8 35 Qpcf 3.0 3.0 B3-9 40 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B3-10 45 Qpcf 4.0 4.0 B4-2 5 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B4-3 10 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B5-4 15 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B5-6 25 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B5-8 35 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B5-10 45 Qpcf 4.0 4.0 B6-3 10 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B7-2 5 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B8-2 5 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B8-5 20 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B9-2 5 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B10-2 5 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B11-2 5 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B1I-3 10 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 BII-4 15 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 BII-6 25 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B11-7 30 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 BII-9 40 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 1112-2 5 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 B12-4 15 Qpcf 4.5 4.5 Project No. G1928-52-01 - B-4 - May 23, 2016 Revised July 5, 2016 PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 SAMPLE NO. B3-2 ITT -S, 10 12 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) CONSOLIDATION CURVE VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 1928-52.O1.GPJ Figure B-i GE000N Initial Dry Density (pcf) 112.6 Initial Water Content (%) 15.2 Initial Saturation (%) 85 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 0.5 PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 SAMPLE NO. B3-8 -6 —4 - ----- - ----- . _-- z Q I- 1 Of 10 12 0.1 1 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 105.3 Initial Water Content (%) 21.9 CONSOLIDATION CURVE VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 31928-52-01.GPJ Figure B-2 GEOCON Initial Saturation (%) 100+ Sample Saturated at (ksf) 2.0 PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 SAMPLENO. B4-2 -6 -4 -2 -- zi 2_— -- w (L 8 10 ------. 12 ____ ____ 0.1 10 lu0 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 102.8 Initial Saturation 52.6 Initial Water Content (%) 12.2 CONSOLIDATION CURVE VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA (%) Sample Saturated at (ksf) .5 P28-52-01.GPJ Figure B-3 GE.00ON PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 SAMPLE NO. B5-4 -6 -4 - z 0 C—-------- i *i LU EL 10 12 ____ ____ 0.1 1 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Saturation (%) 84.2 - - Sample Saturated at (ksf) 2.0 CONSOLIDATION CURVE VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA G1928-52.O1.GPJ Figure B. GE000N Initial Dry Density (pcf) 116.4 Initial Wate r Content 13.5 (%) PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 SAMPLE NO. B8-2 —6 - -- cn z 4- a. C .-.__----- • e -- 10 12 ___ 0.1 -100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 106.0 Initial Saturation (%) 53.2 Initial Water Content (%) 11.3 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 1.0 CONSOLIDATION CURVE VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 8-52.O1.GPJ Figure B-5 GE000N PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 SAMPLE NO. B11-2 -6 -4 -2 c —..-------- - z 0 Lu Lu 2 ic 12 ______ - - - - - - - _______ - - - - - ______. - - - - - - 0.1 1 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (kst) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 105.5 Initial Water Content (%) 19.7 CONSOLIDATION CURVE VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 1928-52-01.GPJ Figure B-6 GEOCON Initial Saturation (%) 91.4 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 1.0 PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 SAMPLE NO. B11-5 -6 -4 -2 _ _-- 2 zi e ic. 12 ____ ____ ____ 0.1 1 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 114.7 Initial Water Content (%) 10.4 CONSOLIDATION CURVE VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 28.52-01.GPJ Figure B-7 GEOCON nitial Saturation I (%) 62.2 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 2.0 MOHRS CIRCLES 13.0 Failure Photo I I. 1; .____ 12.0 11.0 . 10.0 8.0 E7.0 9.0 CA 6.0 / 5.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Normal Stress (ksf) STRESS-STRAIN 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 ___________________________ I I• 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Strain. % Test Results 4, degrees 18.2 IC, psf 3200 Sample Description Sample Number . 138-4 Sample Depth (feet) 15 Material Description Mottled White and Olive SILT Initial Conditions at Start of Stage Samp e ID (psf), minor principal stress 2000 4000 8000 Height (inch) 4.820 4.741 4.592 Diameter (inch) . 2.423 2.443 2.461 Moisture Content (%) 17.1 17.1 17.1 Dry Density (pcf) 106.6 106.6 106.6 Saturation (%) . .. 79•5 79.5 79.5 Shear Test Conditions Strain Rate (%/min) 0.2925 0.2867 0.2969 Major Principal Stress at Failure (psf) 12520 16630 24100 Strain at failure (%) 2.49 4.10 13.27. Deviator Stress and Fail (psf) 10530 12630 16110 Geocon Incorporated ('6960 Flanders Drive San Diego, California 92121 GEOCON Telephone: (858) 558-6900 CONSULTANTS. INC. Fax: (858) 558-6159 Triaxial Shear Strength - UU Test (staged) Project: ViaSat Location: Number: G1928-52-01 Figure: B-8 Failure Photo MOHR'S CIRCLES 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 80 . 6.0 5.0 FA 4.0 7.0 ..0 3.0 '.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Normal Stress (ksf) STRESS-STRAIN 16000 14000 10000 8000. SODO 4000 2000 110 12 114 16 Strain, % Test Results , degrees . 15.8 C, psf 3000 Sample Description Sample Number 1334 Sample Depth (feet) 15 Material Description. Dark brown and yellowish brown Sandy lean CLAY Initial Conditions at Start of Stage Sample ID (ps, minor principal stress 2000 4000 8000 Height (inch) . 4.820 4.776 4.710 Diameter (inch) 2.417 2.428 2.434 Moisture Content (%) 15.2 15.2 15.2 Dry Density (pcf) . 115.0 115.0 115.0 Saturation (%) 88.1 88.1 88.1 Shear Test Conditions Strain Rate (%/min) 0.2915 0.2858 0.2996 Major Principal Stress at Failure (psf) 11300 14020 21540 Strain at failure (%) 1.66 2.06 15.07 Deviator Stress and Fail (psf) . 9300 10030 13550 Geocon Incorporated . TriaxialShearStrength -UUTest(staged) OR)6960 Flanders Drive Project: ViaSat San Diego, California 92121 Location: GEOCON Telephone: (858) 558-6900 Number: G1928-52-01 CONSULTANTS. INC. Fax:(858)558-6159 Figure: _. APPENDIX APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION VIASAT - BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL 1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon. The recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. 1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly. 1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, and/or adverse weather result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specificatibns, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contracior to have grading performed. 2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work. 2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography. 2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. G1 rev. 07/2015 2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced, in the practice of geotechnical .engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications. 2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading. 2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply. 3. MATERIALS 3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below. 3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than % inch in size. 3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches. 3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than 3h inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity. 3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills. 3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 GI rev. 07/2015 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the .suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations. 3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant. 3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear sttength,, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil. 3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition. 4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO. BE FILLED 4.1 . Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding I V2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials. 4.2 Asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by Geocon and the property owner. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document. GI rev. 07/2015 4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used: 4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration. TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL Finish Grade' Original Ground 1 , Finish Slope Surface Remove All Unsuitable Material As Recommended By Slope To Be Such That I Consultant Sloughing Or Sliding Does Not Occur Varies "B" See Note 1 See Note 2 No Scale DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into. the natural slope. (2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as. approved by the Consultant. 4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6 of these specifications. . GI rev. 07/2015 5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT 5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel • wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content. 5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3. 6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL 6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications. 6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as-determined by ASTM D 1557. 6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified. 6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified. 6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill. GI rev. 07/2015 6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. 6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice. 6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper. 6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement. 62.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment. 6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant. 01 rev. 07/2015 6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. - The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow. 6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant. 6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section' 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water. 6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill. 6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection GI rev. 07/2015 variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two. 6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to observe that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading. 6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills. 6.3.6 To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement. 6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the Consultant. 7. SUBDRAINS 7.1 The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seepage. The use of canyon subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in excess of 500 feet or extensions of existing offsite subdrains should use 8-inch-diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500 feet in length should use-6-inch-diameter pipes. GI rev. 07/2015 TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL NAiURPL0D ALLIMUU AND -- DOU.IMUM - -- ::--- '. BEDROCK, SEE DETAL BELOW N0120 FINAL W OF ppEAyoUll.Er SHALL BENON.PEORATSD. rMPERFOPATED 9 CUBIC FEET I FWT OF OPEN NOTES: 1......84NCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 80 PVC PERFORATED PIPE FOR FILLS IN EXCESS OF-100.FEET IN DEPTH OR PIPE LENGTH OF LONGER THAN 500 FEET. 2......64NCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PVCPERFORATED PIPE FOR FILLS LESS THAN '100-FEET IN DEPTH OR A PIPE LENGTH SHORTER THAN 500 FEET. NO SCALE 7.2 Slope drains within stability fill keyways should use 4-inch-diameter (or lager) pipes. GI rev. 07/2015 TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL TMIIL ruN 8EEITE2 FORAL4flOM4L MATERLAL L..CCAVATE BADKCUT AN 1:1 INcLiNATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 2.....BASEOFSTABILflYFILLTO BE3 FEErINIOFORMA11OPIAL MA EIEAL,BWPINIIAMtIIMUMS% gllo&OPE. B.-ATABILITY FlU. TO BE COMPOSED OF PROPEY CC0ACTED GRANULAR SOIL 4.....CHIMNEY DRAINS To BE APPROVED. PREFABRICATED CHIMNEY DRAIN PZSS.S (MIRACRAIN 0200N OR EQIJWALENT) SPACED APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET CENTER TO CENTER AND 4 FEET WIDE. CLOSER SPACING MAYBE REQUIRED F SEEPAGEIS ENCOUNTERED. 5.....FLTERMATERIALTO BE 3"M. OPEN-GRADED CRUSHED ROCK ENCLOSED IN APPROVED FLIER FABRIC (MIRAFI 14ONC). B.....COLLECTOR PIPE TO BE 4.INEN MINIMUM DIAMETER. PERFORATED. THICK-WALLED PCSCIIEDIJLE 400R EQUIVALENT, AND SLOPED TO DRAIN AT I PERCENT MNREJMTO APPROVED OUTLET. NO SCALE 7.3 The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scale grading plans. -I- 7.4 Rock fill or soil-rock fill areas may require subdrains along their down-slope perimeters to mitigate the potential for buildup of water from construction or landscape irrigation. The subdrains should be at least 6-inch-diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric. Rock fill drains should be constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains. GI rev. 07/2015 7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during future development should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non-perforated/ perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of the pipe. TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL NO SCALE SIDE VIEW CIff.OFF.VLL ruIN.rryp, SJDSUBORADPE r MIN. (TYP NO SCALE - 7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent headwall structure. GI rev. 07/2015 TYPICAL HEADWALL DETAIL FRONT VIEW J 4 11r j NO SCALE SIDE ) NOTE HEADWALL SHOULD OUTLET AT TOE OF Flu. SLOPE NO SCALE OR INTO CONTROLLED SURFACE DRAINAGE 7.7 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer should survey the drain locations and prepare an 'as-built" map showing the drain locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading operations. Subdrains that will be extended on adjacent projects after grading can be placed on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of the drains. GI rev. 07/2015 8. OBSERVATION AND TESTING 8.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner's representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of. soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted. 8.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved. 8.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied. 8.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading. 8.5 We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications. 8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate: 8.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills: 8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method. GI rev. 07/2015 8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). 8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-A gregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop. 8.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion Index Teat. 9. PROTECTION OF WORK 9.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures. 9.2 After completion. of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant. 10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS 10.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions. 10.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. GI rev. 07/2015 LIST OF REFERENCES 2013 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, based on the 2012 International Building Code, prepared by California Building Standards Commission, dated July, 2013. ACI 318-11, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, prepared by the American Concrete Institute, dated August, 2011. ACI 330-08, Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots, prepared by the American Concrete Institute, dated June 2008. Anderson, J. G., T. K. Rockwell, and D. C. Agnew, Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region: Earthquake Spectra, 1989, v. 5, no. 2, P. 299-333. ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Second Printing, April 6, 2011. Boore, D. M., and G. M Atkinson (2008), Ground-Motion Prediction for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PG V, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods Between 0.01 and 10.0 5, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp. 99-138, February 2008. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open File Report 96-08, 1996. California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, University of Southern California (2009). Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California, County of San Diego, Point Loma Triangle, Scale 1:24,000, dated June 1. Campbell, K. W., and Y. Bozorgnia, NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Preprint of version submitted for publication in the NGA Special Volume of Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, Issue 1, pages 139-171, February 2008. Chiou, Brian S. J., and Robert R. Youngs, A NGA Mode/for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, preprint for article to be published in NGA Special Edition for Earthquake Spectra, Spring 2008. County of San Diego, San Diego County Multi Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan, San Diego, California Final Draft, July, 2010. Jennings, C. W., 1994, California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Geologic Data Map Series Map No. 6. Kennedy, M. P., and S. S. Tan, 2008, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30 'x60' Quadrangle, California, USGS Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 2, Scale 1:100,000. Legg, M. R., J. C. Borrero, and C. E. Synolakis (2002), Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities, 2002 NEHRP Professional Fellowship Report, dated January. May 23, 2016 Project No. G1928-52-01 Revised July 5. 2016 LIST OF REFERENCES (Concluded) Leighton and Associates, Inc (2004).. Addendum to the As-Graded Reports of Mass Grading Concerning the Completion of Settlement Monitoring, Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-5, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, dated October 11 (Project No. 971009-014). Leighton and Associates, Inc. (2011). Geotechnical Update Study, Bressi Ranch Industrial Planning Area 2, Carlsbad, California, dated April 12 (Project No. 971009-065). NOVA Services, Inc. (2015), Report - Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Lots 2, 3, and 4, Proposed HCP Bressi Ranch Development, Northwest Corner of Town Garden Road and Alicante Road, Carlsbad, California, dated June 17 (Project No. 2015291). Risk Engineering, EZ-FRISK, 2012. Unpublished Geotechnical Reports and Information, Geocon Incorporated. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil. Survey, httD://websoilsurvev.nrcs.usda.ov/app/WebSoilSurvev.aspx. ) USGS computer program, Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response Spectra, http://earthpuake.uss.gov/research/hazmaps/design/. May 23, 2016 Project No. G1928-52-0I Revised July 5. 2016