Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS 16-06; CARLSBAD VILLAGE LOFTS; TEMPORARY SHORING DESIGN SUBMITTAL; 2019-10-01SHORING DESIGN GROUPr-R-E_C_OR-D--COPY October 1, 2019 Mr. Mark Elliott Elliott Drilling Services, Inc. 1342 Barham Drive San Marcos, CA 92078 Re: Subject: Carlsbad Village Lofts Carlsbad, California Temporary Shoring Design Submittal Dear Mr. Elliott: I kfil/•f31 J nitia I Office (760) 722-1400 Fax (760) 722-1404 JOB #19-122 Revision 2 Upon your request, please find the revised temporary shoring design calculations for the above referenced project. Should you have any additional questions or comments regarding this matter, please advise. Sincerely, SHORING DESIGN GROUP, Roy P. Reed, P.E. Project Engineer E Encl: Design Calculations 7755 Via Francesco #1 I San Diego, CA 92129 J phone (760) 586-8121 Emai I: rreed@shoringdesigngroup.com - ' - - SHORING DESIGN GROUP Temporary Shoring Design Calculations Table of Contents: Carlsbad Village Lofts Carlsbad, California October 1, 2019 SDG Project# 19-122 Section Shoring Plans : .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Load Development: .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Soldier Beam #1, 55 (H=5'): ............................................................................................................................. 3 Soldier Beam #2-7 (H =16'): .............................................................................................................................. 4 Soldier Beam #8-12, 40 (H=13', Max.): ............................................................................................................ 5 Soldier Beam #13-22, 38-39 (H=12'): ............................................................................................................... 6 Soldier Beam #23-37 (H=lO', with Slope Surcharge): ...................................................................................... 7 Soldier Beam #41 (H=14'): ............................................................................................................................... 8 Soldier Beam #42-46 (H=18'): .......................................................................................................................... 9 Soldier Beam #47-53 (H =1 5'): .............................................................................................................. _. ......... 10 Soldier Beam #54 (H=9'): ............................................................................................................................... 11 Temporary Handrail Design : .......................................................................................................................... 12 Lagging Design : .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Soldier Beam Schedule: ................................................................................................................................. 14 Geotechnical Report : ..................................................................................................................................... 15 7755 Vi a Francesco #1 I San Diego , CA 92129 I phone (760) 586-8121 Ema i I: rreed@shori ngdesigngroup. com Section 1 I DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I JW, THE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THE TEMPORARY SHORING OF THIS PROJECT (SHEm 10-17), AND THAT I HAVE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN OF TEMPORARY SHORING AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6703 OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE, AND THAT THE DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STANDARDS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DOES NOT RELIEVE ME, AS ENGINEER OF WORK, MY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROJECT DESIGN. SHORING D 7755 VIA F:;IGN GROUP ~~N DIEGO, c:c::;~9 UNIT 1 NJW.E: ROY P. REED . (760)586-8121 SIG """"' '1<b ' -,------------'-··-' --Q ' -,--.. --. .. ---.-r,:.--:c-=---,:----' _I TEMPORARY 1-1 SL -4· . 5 ---=-----,oo,e0~ ""' ' \ '1 / > <OrnIBe ~, ' '• -----' . \ ~-m=, i ' --~-J_______ \ \\ ,' ' .\. . . --------' ' \ .. --,~--···' __ . .,.... .,.· " "' • -·-:-c··------\ \ ,,--✓-­\ . ----~~-,, -. -------, .x-· ' . . -·-.,, "'. ----------' __ ,,-- ' , . ~ . . . ,r'.. ' .... " ---' / ' co \. ?-· -~ ·r . -~ -.~ -· . ., .. "' --~--__,,_,-: \- , ' ~.. . ... ,. • ~---<-< " ' . ' "' --.. ' ,, ' \ ' I • • . . -cs -' ,, \J> r '-_ ~-r ., -'. "' ' •-~ C ;;;:, i ~ ----'\ 1 7 ~~ .J " ' .. ,. \ \d " ' .,--. • ,G ' • J ~ i; I \ ~ ,:"' A -. . ' .. . I , • \.,.. •8 =eo~ / ' • C'> "'° ""'"'"' •. •• \ "' ../ THERS, TYPICAL) --0 31 , \ _ ' C "' --;_Y 1. \ \~ \' \\ ' \ . j < , ' , -0 I -• • , -' '\ ' •,:; \ ,. \ \ ~ \I \ \ \ ~ \ \ rti'--\ • I ' I ~ f I \ t --l;~ !j-;:-•. --.j--I j \ \;, RIGHT-OF-WAY \ \ \ .. ' I \ ,, \·.,, ' I • E \ I \ I - \ I d ' I f \ I TEMPORARY SHORING, TYP. \ (SEE SHEET SH13 FOR PROFILE) \ ' . \~ __ .,.::.-- \ \ a ! ---:: -I 1' :====-PROPOSED LEVEL B PARKING ==cil===~=..;;,~===;,d! -r f ~ <I ,-.. . ' <--;-j.. PROPOSED LEVEL 1 PARKING .. \ '\ ~ I ' \ ,_ lit .0. - (f 'F ,fj G (l \ \ \. \ ~- -·-·-=eo~• " \ . • --,~es•m ,::~•~. m. \ • '· ' = ---• • "'"'~'"' • ' ~-. i 1 \ .-. ·•= ~. . ' . '~" . . ' . ~------i 1~-,r--i7 ~' ' ' \ \ @ • ' ; ' • '·' • \ / ". .. ,. . ' . / ·""" ,, ' . ,. ,,/ -_,,,. . ri . -l -,. , /. --. ' . ' \ . _,.,-,,/ ____ -..----' --0 ' • ' . / / . --· -' ' AS·_, ✓--~ ' 0 • • > • • -_.,,,-,,-" ,✓•• eooee= ,,;;, , h •-. • • , ' \ , < -o / -• --.rh • e \ •• " . ' . _,,. ---\ ---. ,q,. ~ \ \ TEMPORARY SHORING, TYP. (SEE SHEET SH12 FOR PROFILE) -"'..-' i ,/" .. re •.. " · \ · . \ • ---__ ,, . ·-.._Y,t -.. • ' .. \ 'A4,,-_,.,, 1,,o:'11 ~ _.-•• S ' '-'C, /J<b •., ' • ~ < • , \ \ ·, ' " o , V •• • • •<' ' ' l ' ), .A2_.,,// 1£ \)':),,,/ /,0 f, -._,,i,e, •,., ,,, . • • ·" •V" 0 0\~~ _,,..-· ,r, . -,,__Ir,,.·.... • ' \ r , ,. ✓-" ·-~r • • ' ' \ ✓--\ r,, ----.... v' \ < ,,/•• fa ••--s • C "•., > ---> ,_ < ,• " .. . -···· ' · SOIL DESIGN D \ ~ •-"• / +0r' roccow,~ '"'' M>rn'" •• "" _..-' ee='"•K~ .,.:::.\s ~C-•MTIO~ = -/~ ....____ , --.. -o-/_,_.,,,-,,_.,,,-,, -✓- ' ''""'""~ ""'" '" ,~ ' ->•'--~ ~ . ,,;,-- :::':°''" ~\::::·~~,~ ""TI"'~"' I •• ...__ . . . _ _,,,,~ ~·~· ~" "'" . . --. CARLSBAD C VILLAGE DRIVE E APARTMENTS \ ,-,,, / ____ _.,.,,--- \' .. , '\ '\ \ \ \ ' \ \ RIGHT-OF-WAY I \ >,:Q - .¢ 1 IB'7 2 \~ \~ \~ \\ 0 ----,:::? ~ \ \ PREPARED•B/LIFORNIA ~,-,,, DATED JANUAR~TE, INC. ". '"" _.,,,-,, I ' ~, "'"'" ·~"""" \ ,.,,,.,,---- ~ ' I \ / EXISTING MOTEL 6 EXISTING MOTEL ~ \ / \ DESIGN CRITERIA I A. PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE = 300PSF/FT (4,500PSF MAX) B. ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE = 21PSF/FT (CANTILEVERED, LEVEL) C. ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE = 42PSF / FT (CANTILEVERED WITH SLOPE) D. TRAFFIC LIVE LOAD = 100PSF (UNIFORM UPPER 15') DESIGN BUILD PLANS: I I r----.' / "--\ EXISTING MOTEL 6 \ ---~1/ SHORING DESIGN GROUP e 7755 VIA FRANCESCO #1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 ~ Know what's below. Call before you dig. DIG ALERT!! TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE DIG ALL EXISTING UTILITIES MAY NOT BE SHOWN ON THESE PLANS DIG ALERT & GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE & POTHOLE (AS NEEDED), ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE SHORING WALL CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH TRENCH/EXCAVATION PERMIT NO ___________ _ LEGEND T.O. W. = TOP OF SOLDIER BEJW. WALL B.O. W. = BOTTOM OF SOLDIER BEJW. WALL BY OTHERS = WORK OUTSIDE SHORING SCOPE (P) = PROPOSED (E) = EXISTING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENT SYMBOL TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEJW. I TEMPORARY TIMBER LAGGING SOLDIER BEJW. COUNT © DETAIL/SECTION CALLOUTS ~ 3x12 DF#2 TIMBER LAGGING 4x12 DF#2 TIMBER LAGGING SURVEY MONITORING POINT -$- "AS BUil T" RCE ___ _ EXP. REVIEWED BY, INSPECTOR DATE DATE ,I!.: . -:.~, f\/~\ Q::-·-~_,/ BENCH MARK: ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHEETS I f----+---+---------------+--t---t---+---i ~ LANO DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 1 7 f----+---+---------------+--t---+---+---1 ' I.: .-,1,ng -5'. ~,1 I.:"<::>'' t>,...,,_ ~t •"'::: E c,:. ... ,. ~, C :ft ''l ~~ := ;-~l ,~-.,:. C: p \1. .~, ..... , ,., ~•., ,,•..r ~, l..r -">--<'-~~ ROY P. REED R.c.E. 80503 SCALE: 1· = 20"-0" 10/1/2019 EXP. l·ll -2021 DATE DESCRIPTION· LOCATION. CLSB-122 SET 2.5~ DISK IN NORTH CURB OF C~RLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE 0.1 Ml WEST Qf_ HIGHLAND 0RIY£ OPPOSITf PALM TR££ IN CITY WRARY PARKING LOT. MONUMENT IS IN TH£ NORTH SID£ CURB OF CARLSBAD VILL~GE QR/VE, 0.1 Ml. Wf'ST OF HIGHLAND DRIVE AND 111 f_T. ~ST OF THE EAST £XIT TO CITY LIBRARY. RECORD FROM: -'R"'O"'S-,'1'"-72'-'7:.,_1 ___________ _ ELEVATION: 127.190' M.S.L DA TlJij: N.G. V.D 29 DAT£ INlllAL DAT£ INITIAL DAT£ INITIAL ENGINEER Of WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION OlHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR: CARLSBAD VILLAGE LOFTS GR 2014-0026 APPROVED, OVERAil, PLAN VIEW JASON S. GELOERT EXP1RES Q~/3_0/,Q PROJECT NO. MS16-06 DATE II DRA"'1NG NO. 515-5B I I I I 5 SPACES @ 8"-0" O.C. = 40'-0" -5'-0" • 5'-0" -7'-4" ~ 4 SPACES @ 7'-0" 0.C. • 28"·0" 8"·0" 8"·0" 8'-0" -5'·0" -5'-0" • 5'-0" · 5'-0" -8"-6" -8'-6" --8"-6" 8'-9" ~ 5'-1" 70.00' SURVEY MONITORING POINT (TYPICAL) T.0.W. • 69.00' ~ i -I ~ I \.. ' B.0. W. • 64.00' 14 13 T.O. W. • 69.00' I "H" 60.00' I I'-~'-J '-i'= I'"° I - I V°3\,_ : ~: "----~--:-:•-r .. -:- l'J ) 1 8.0.W . .! 1 1 1 I 1 1 B.0.W.=' 1 SB#l I I 53.00' I I I I I I 53.00' I I I I I I I I I I I I 50,00' 1 I I I I I "D" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40,00' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I L.: J l' J l' J ..J...__ l:'J l' J NOTES: 58#2 58#3 58#4 58#5 58#6 1. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET 16 FOR SHORING ATTRIBUTES. 2. POTHOLE/FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION. 3. TEMPORARY SHORING IN THESE PLANS HAS BEEN ALIGNED WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTING & PROPOSED FEATURES, AS PROVIDED. ACTUAL FIELD LOCATION OF THE SHORING WALL SHALL BE ESTABLISHED USING ACCURATE HORIZONTAL CONTROL & COORDINATED TO FOLLOW THE PLANNED LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. REPORT ANY VARIATIONS TO THE SHORING ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK . ------------ ........__ ..... ------ ..... -----------------------------------.i...____ --------------- ..... ..... --------------- ..... ..... 0 ~ ~ FINISH GRADE TYP. (ESTABLISH PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION) , I= - '. -;?~ ~-0,W.• I I I 56.oo· I T 1· I I I I I T T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12 .. I I I I I I I I I I L J l' J LJ I I I I 58#8 58#9 58#10 L' J 58#7 4'-0" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LJ 58#11 T.O.W. • 69.00' I s.o.w .• l I I I I 57.00' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L J L.: J 58#13 58#12 11 ll l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l_lj 58#14 PROFILE -LOOKING WEST NEWLY INSTALLED 18" STORM DRAIN SCALE: 1" = 8' \ 0 ~ ~ I "H" T 111 jl "D" I I I I I I J J 58#15 0 ~ ~ B.0.W.= I I 57.00' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L'J 58#16 / 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ,,,, ,,,, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L' J 58#17 / 10 (E) GRADE - T.0.W. • 69.00' C =I=- I I B.O.W.• I I I ) 57.00' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L' J L J 58#18 58#19 / ,,,, ,./ , I I I I I I I 0 ~ ~ c',=' ': ~I= ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L'J "' 0~ z..., "' :,: a:,~ ~ ~ -T.O.W. = 69.00' -8.0. w. • 57.00' TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM (SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE) LEGEND: I I L'J 58#20 58#21 T.0.W. = TOP OF WALL B.0. W. = BOTTOM OF WALL ,./ ------ ,./ ------ ,./ ,./ ,./ 70.00' 60.00' 50.00' 40,00' DESIGNATES 3x12 PRESSURE TREATED LAGGING DESIGNATES 4x12 PRESSURE TREATED LAGGING ------~-;-:-_,, -------,,,, ,,,, NEWLY INSTALLED ------ ,./ 0 SURVEY MONITORING POINT BEHIND BEAM AT "H"/2 ~ ·------------------------' ------ NEW CURB (SEE CIVIL) PRIVATE DRIVEWAY~ 18" STORM DRAIN ,_/ ,./ ,./ -----'' ---T-~ 0 T i @ ------------~ •-_ .,/',./ 2 • 1 12'-0" 0 "H"/2 ,~-5~15 __ 0 _\ © ,-SH~6 ~@---♦ --;-~~ )jJ!?: ~ <")~ SH16 ' Ej§z ~~~ @ _@ '"" 3fil'f I o I < I --i 1,- ♦ T -r~..--? TEMPORARY 1 • 1 SLOPE (BY OTHERS, TYPICAL) DESIGN BUILD PLANS: ', ,I!.~ . ":.~, ' I: ·\\,ng & ~\I ,.: <::/-' ~ .. \,· -:..1 , .... ::: E ~ ... , S~ ~ ~ ';:l U § ~ ~I ,~ ~, ,,, ,., "-'•, ,,,J ~, ,v -"">-<"- b , 1 SH15 ~ ---L.... @ -, ~ k ♦ --=-\:!1/ '.. 13 II ~-i -, /~~-----, 4-3 @( -, !L.,._ ~ -2--1 2 c "' i:;::;;;; .; I SH16 ~ I -PROPOSED TEMPORARY l J SHORING (TYPICAL) '-I I -(~)..! "-..::t'_/ 7 1 SH15 PROPOSED LEVEL B PARKING T , b SH16 ,. T -' h ----~/ ... -' ._l r -j _ T -r SHORING DESIGN GROUP "AS BUILT" e RCE ____ EXP. RE'1Ev.t:D BY: DATE 7755 VIA FRANCESCO #1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 INSPECTOR OATE SCALE: 1" = 8'-0" BENCH MARK: ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHEETS I l------+---+---------------1----!----+-----1 L!.!_J LANO OEVELOP"1ENT ENGINEERING 1 7 t----+--+-------------+---;t-----;--+-----l ~~ 10/1/1019 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. J-31·2011 DATE DESCRIPTION: CLSB-122 SET 2.5" DISK IN NORTH CURB OF CARLSBAD v1LLAGE DRIVf. 0. 1 Ml. 'r't£SL_Qf_ HIGHLAND DR/Vf OPPOSITE E_ALM_ !B_ff_J!!_ CITY _LIBRARY PARKIN(; LQ[ LOCATION MONUMENT IS IN TH£ NORTH SIDE CURB OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVf! 0.1 Ml. l\£ST OF HIGHLAND DRIV(_~ND_ 11_1 FT. ~ST OF THE EAST EXIT TO CITY LIBRARY. RECORD FROM, ~R",O'cSc...lcc7:c-27:..:l-:-::-,----------- EL£VATION. 127.190' M S.L OAllJM: N.G. V.D. 29 TEMPORARY SHORING Pl.ANS FO!lc CARLSBAD VILLAGE LOFTS PLAN & ELEVATIONS f-----!--+-----------------lf----+--+----1---1 GR 2014-0026 .-----+--+----------------,-,----+--+----1---1 :=I A=;P=;Pc;Rc;o=VE;;o=, ===========J=As=o=N=s.=GE=L=oc;E=RTc=;I DATE j INITIAL ENGINEER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION Q.Tl'I!!i:INE~ER~ PE 63912 EXPIRES D9/30/20 DATE INITIAL DAT! INITIAL g:D s;~: ___ [ OTHER APPROV41. OTY APPROVAL RVW'O 8Y: ---- PROJECT NO. MS16-06 OAT[ l DRA"1NG NO. 515-5B I I I 70.00' b0.00' 50.00' 40.00' NOTES: 1. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET lb FOR SHORING ATTRIBUTES. 3'·b" -b'·b" -b'·b" ~ 8 SPACES @ 8'-0" 0.C. • b4'·0" 9'·0" --8'·0" 8'·9" --8'-0" -8'-0" ~ C, c'; 9 0 AB 8 A7 7 AS b A4 5 4 A2 "' LU c'; (E) GRADE 2._5.. i1! T.0.W. • b9.00' ~ ~ a'.) ' ~ -~-T'C 4 -T -F :::X+:; Tow .. 7oo·-4 -c;--. --1--~ -7 -1'5._T.O.W.•b7.00' 8.0.W. • 57.00' -I "H" ~ .-t . -1 t-..f -.-1 4-t =="'i :---..... t .---=1--. ,-.. ~ t--~ .t t. ..,,_ -~ I I I I I I 8.0.W.•I I I I I I I I I I I o.v.w.• 1 -----"~ ,., ~ -1-B.O.W. • 57.00' I I I I I I 57.00' I I I I I I I I I I 57.00' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "D" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L' J L'J L' J L' J LJ L''.I J_ 1:.-'J L J LJ SB#23 SB#24 SB#25 SB#2b SB#27 SB#28 SB#29 SB#30 SB#22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L''.I L''.I LJ SB#31 SB#l2 SB#33 10.v.n,= • I l 51.00· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L''.I LJ SB#34 SB#JS I I I I I I I I I I I I L' J SB#3b I I I I I I I I I TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM I I (SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE) I I l.c'..I SB#37 LEGEND: T.0. W. • TOP OF WALL 8.0. W. • BOTTOM OF WALL T.0.B. • TOP OF BEAM 70.00' b0.00' 50.00' 40.00' 2. POTHOLE/FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION. DESIGNATES 3x12 PRESSURE TREATED LAGGING 3. TEMPORARY SHORING IN THESE PLANS HAS BEEN ALIGNED WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTING & PROPOSED FEATURES, AS PROVIDED. ACTUAL FIELD LOCATION OF THE SHORING WALL SHALL BE ESTABLISHED USING ACCURATE HORIZONTAL CONTROL & COORDINATED TO FOLLOW THE PLANNED LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. REPORT ANY VARIATIONS TO THE SHORING ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. ~ NEWLY INSTALLED 18" STORM DRAIN 0 ~~ <"\<"' i,i .... ,~. ~~ ® ~-0 'I- ---r--- PROPERTY LINE -- AB PROPOSED DRAINAGE (SEE CIVIL DWG., TYP.) 1 -• 4 PROFILE -LOOKING WEST SCALE: 1" • 8' PRIVATE DRIVEWAY _ _j 12'·0" •A7 18'·0" --". = ---\-- NEW PARKING ----, (E) ELECTRICAL CONDUIT (E) CURB & SIDEWALK I I --7 • • r ~ l M ~ SURVEY MONITORING POINT BEHIND BEAM AT "H"/2 .,~~•"-~1 • .. TEMPORARY 1.5H-1V SLOPE (BY OTHERS, TYPICAL) a ~,- " I f-. 1 5 c.,~';}", :'>© ----~-"H"/L -,!--~ --:.~L/:t, 9'-9"± -'4 0 ~4"' _sH1: @ _ _ __ -@-@ _ ~-s~s ---•~__!_ -®---_ -;;-@ " /_ .... ' ' c;") -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ----....:::; ' I ' ' I ............ ' ~ ---------.;,.-4-----,,------- l. DESIGN BUILD PLANS: ,I!.~ -:.~, ' I: •\\ing S -:.\1 1.: ,/' 1>.,..';,· -:., , .... -E c,. ... , I~ 2 '.1:.. ~l \~~ ~ H ,~ s, .... , ,., "'-'•1 ,,,~ ~, ,v -">-<"- ~ ~ . --....-.!... · PROPOSED TEMPORARY --....__ SHORING (TYPICAL) •..._ ~--= ...... --<.. ,,,--~\ -· ~ • .1 \~_/ 7 SCALE: 1". 8'-0" R~~ R.C.E. B0503 10/1/2019 EXP. J-31-2021 DATE 1 SH15 PROPOSED LEVEL B PARKING BENCH MARK: DESCRIPTION· LOCATlON: CLSS-122 SET 2 5• DISK IN NORTH CURB OF CAR15BAD 111LLAG£' DRl\,'f:,__()_J_MI. ~ST OF HIGHLAND DRIV£ OPPOSITf. PALM TR££ _ftJ CITY MBRARY PARKING__J,QT. MONUMENT IS IN TH[ NORTH SID£ CURB OF CARL$8~D 'vfLLAGf DRIV£, 0. 1 Ml. ~ST OF HIGHLAND D_RIV£ AND 111 FT. Wf'ST OF TH£ £AST EXIT TO CITY LIBRARY. ~~~:~:.OM. _R::,;':;:.-:,~:;~:,-~7~1M:C.c:S.-:-L. _________ _ DA TUM: N.G. V.D. 29 I I :®/ SHORING DESIGN GROUP e 7755 VIA FRANCESCO #1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (7b0)58b·8121 "AS BUILT" RCE ___ _ EXP. DATE RE\1EWED BY, INSPECTOR DATE ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHEETS I 1----+---+--------------+--t----t---t---l ~ LANO DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 1 7 1----+---+--------------+--t----t---+---l DATE INITIAL ENGINEER Of WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR CARLSBAD VILLAGE LOFTS PLAN & ELEVATIONS GR 2014-0026 APPROVED, JASON S. GELDERT GIT( ENGINEER PE 63912 EXPIRES 09/30/20 OWN BY I OATt INITIAL DATE INITIAL CHKD BY: __ _ OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL RVWO BY: __ PROJECT NO. MS16-06 DATE 11 ORA"1NG NO. 515-5B I I I c, AH ~ 4 SPACES @ 8"-0" 0.C. • 32"-0" --T-0-' -7'.4·· -7'-0-' 3'-T 3'-1" 3'·7' 3'-10·· T-o· -T-3·· -6"·0" --•· 6·-o-· -6·-o··-~--- AF C, C, z C, ~ Al 'A£ C, z 8"·0" e-T-o·· 8'-0" ~ 8'-0"' ~ SURVEY MONITORING POINT (TYPICAL) AG 1------6'-2" --i 3 (E) GRADE "' ~ .; "' "' 10.00· "' 0 J. '-'-'l" .J T,... .. , -. = 71.00' ~ _!_ _..,.. ..,.. ' T.O.W. "'72,00' 2 T.0. W. • 71.00' 10.00· "' T.O.W. • 67.00" -~ ·w 60.00' --= t--. - B.0.W. • 57.00' -I - 50.00' 40.00' I -... -I I I I 1 ~11 I I I I I SH15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i.!'J I I L .J le.I 58#41 I I 58#37 58#38 58#39 58#40 - 1s.o.w.f I I I I 53.00' I I I I I I I I I I "'D" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i.:.J I I ~ J ..l L..J NOTES: 58#42 58#43 58#44 1. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET 16 FOR SHORING ATTRIBUTES. 2. POTHOLE/FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION. J -J_ =I r ----· ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 58#47 58#48 I I I I L...J L...J 58#45 58#46 ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LJ 58#49 -II-........; I I /.,,.... : -B.O.W. • 67.00" ~.,, I ~@11 I SH15 I I I I I I I 11 I I I I l.'.J I I I I 58#55 I I I I I I I l.'.J I I I 58#54 I I I I I I TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM (SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE) 58#50 58#51 58#52 58#53 LEGEND: T.O.W. • TOP OF WALL 8.0. W. • BOTTOM OF WALL 60.00' 50.00' 40.00' DESIGNATES 3x12 PRESSURE TREATED LAGGING 3. TEMPORARY SHORING IN THESE PLANS HAS BEEN ALIGNED WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTING & PROPOSED FEATURES, AS PROVIDED. ACTUAL FIELD LOCATION OF THE SHORING WALL SHALL BE ESTABLISHED USING ACCURATE HORIZONTAL CONTROL & COORDINATED TO FOLLOW THE PLANNED LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. REPORT ANY VARIATIONS TO THE SHORING ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. PROFILE -LOOKING NORTH DESIGNATES 4x12 PRESSURE TREATED LAGGING ------- '<' EXISTING CURB & SIDEWALK GRAND AVENUE SURVEY MONITORING POINT - BEHIND BEAM AT ""H"'/2 ,- SCALE: 1·· • 8" 1 - 1-, I -1- @ .[ TEMPORARY 1 · 1 SLOPE (BY OTHERS, TYPICAL) -,---r--RIGHT-OF-WAY I --~1 -- NEW SIDEWALK 6 SH15 7.1-T }2 ~~ ~-s T 0 ----~----- PROPERTY LINE & CURB (SEE CIVIL) -z=-,, 1 J.. --..!_ TEMPORARY • I -· -(j 1.5H-1V SLOPE (BY • ♦ \ I I _ ' OTHERS, TYPICAL) 11"-6 1 ' , I -& ~ "--I -,¥1>-c 3 -o1.w,o ,.... ~~1<✓, SH16 --\_:,:I\ I I :-=i: PROPOSED DRAINAGE ~;,t 41 • ~-_ ,-@ ;ii:: (SEE CIVIL DWG., TYP.) '-" ~ _ I ./ ,;:J_ SH 6 1 PROPOSED DRAINAGE (SEE CIVIL DWG., TYP.) fa{/ r ~ ~ I L........ ::,.: I -I --I I ~ o 'c!..?, --I ~ 1 I ,_, I ' -'--~ I Al -> I r--1 -'-~~, 7 -......... , --- :::-.. ... ....,.,_.~""'-:--..~,, "~- '~ -\t ~ ~ ~ Q >e•eo-n.,e "~" -, ---' o , I -• ~ I (BY OTHERS. TYPICAL) ~ ~ 7 ._ ~ r :-=i: I I I ::,.: NEW PARKING .._ _ 5 _ (.:.., L PROPOSED LEVEL 8 PARKING 11. SHORING DESIGN GROUP "AS BUil T" ~ I , , 0,.. I DESIGN BUILD PLANS: ,I!.~. ~~, ' I: . \\, ng & -:.11 ,: ,/' "''"t;,: ~· •""' -E "" .... ,. ~1 ?° <::.. i~ \~ ~ ~ ~, ,~ s, ,,, ,., '-'•• ••'--' "':.:J, ,v -">--<"'- ,'½"7') ',. ~~ #~1·•8-0· ~~ 10/1/2019 ROY P. REED R.c.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-1011 DATE BENCH MARK: DESCRIPTION: LOCAllON: CLSB 122 5£1 2.5· DISK IN NORTH CURB OF CARLSBAD 'ALLAG(__DRIV£ 0. 1 IJI. l'.£ST OF H_IQt!iA_ND DRIVf. OPPOS/Tf PALM TRff IN CIIT LIBRARY PARKING LOT. MONUMENT IS IN THE NORTH SIDE CURB OF CARLSBAD 'ALLAG£ DRIVE~ 0.1 Ml ~ST or HIGHLAND DR/Vf. AND 111 FT. lt£ST OF THE £AST EXIT TO CITY LIBRARY. RECORD FROM. ~R~O~S~1~7~27~1 ___________ _ ELEVATION: 127.190' M.S.L. DATUM: N.G. V.D. 29 /, e RCE ___ _ EXP. DATE REVIEWED BY: 7755 VIA FRANCESCO #1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 INSPECTOR DATE ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHEETS I l------l------l----------------,1----t---t-----t-----------j ~ LANO DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 1 7 ~---l---...J..-------------,f--+---+---+-----1 TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR: CARLSBAD VILLAGE LOFTS PLAN & ELEVATIONS APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT I I I I GR 2014-0026 I I I CITY ENGINEE~2 EXPIRES D9/30/20 DA_T[ __ _ OA1E INITIAL ENGINEER Of WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION oATE INITIAL o"rr INITIAL I g;:0 s;y: ___ I PROJECT NO. II DRA'NING No.1 OTHERAPPROVAL CITYAPPROVAL ~V'NO_~L~ MS16-06 515-5B 70.00' 60.00' 50.00· 40.00' ~ ~ 70.00' 60.00' 50.00' 40.00' ~ ~ I PL PROPERTY LINE I ..; 4·.r ---12'-o· !-12'-o· -.---- ·w ! NEW CURB & GUTTER ,-L --+--_.-- q i 70.00' 60.00' --f--L NEWLY INSTALLED 1 B· STORM DRAIN .. D .. L TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM (SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE) 50.00· 40.00' NOTES: 1. POTHOLE/FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING & PROPOSED UTILITIES PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION. 2. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET 16 FOR VARIABLES "H" & "D". BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION SHORING SECTION ALONG PRIVATE DRIVEWAY N.T.S. PL PROPERTY LINE ! 'J 11'·6", 5'-0"± ---: r "H" t __'t:::.::' "D" L ! NEW SIDEWALK & i CURB (SEE CIVIL) ' _L__ 1--t ~-- i 1--BUILDING WALL & FOUNDATION BY SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT (TYP.) TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM (SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE) 70.00' 60.00' 50.00' 40.00' NOTES: 1. POTHOLE /FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING & PROPOSED UTILITIES PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION. 2. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET 16 FOR VARIABLES "H' & "D·. SHORING SECTION ALONG GRAND AVENUE N.T.S. DESIGN BUILD PL"-NS: II!.~ ~~, I-·\\ingS -I ,,: ,:/-' .,,,..,_ -~•, 1; -E ''o, ~, l1 .2 ~ ·d I~~ f ~J ,~ s, ,,, ,., ~•,, ,,,,,,, "'½J, ,v -"'>-<'"-~~ 101112019 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3-31-2021 DATE 70.00' BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION T "H" 3'·3" -6'-6" PL j PROPERTY LINE 1B·-o· 12'·0" ~ 12'·0" NEW PARKING i i ~ _f _ ---------L--~ -,., TEMPORARY 1.5H-1V i 70.00' 60.00' ----~ SLOPE (2'·0" MAX. J i 60.00' "D" 50.00' l 40.00' I-TEMPORARY SOLDIER BEAM (SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE) 50.00' 40.00' NOTES: 1. POTHOLE/FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING & PROPOSED UTILITIES PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION. 2. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET 16 FOR VARIABLES "H" & "D". /2\ ~ BENCH MARK: DESCR\PllON· CLSB-122 SET 2.5" DISK IN NORTH CURB OF CARLSBAD \IILLAG£ Df?ll(L__Ql_MI. Kf"ST OF HIGHLAND DRIV£ OPPOSJT[ PALM TR££ IN CITY b_lBRARY PARKING LQT. LOCATION: MONUMEN! IS LN THE_ NORTH SIDE CURB OF CARLSBAQ_ \IILLAG£ DRIVEL O, 1 Ml. lo\£'ST OF HIGHLAND DRIVE: AND 11 I FT. WfST OF_ TH£_ EAST EXIT TO CITY LIBRARY. RECORD FROM: ..:Re,O"'S-'1'-'7ec27:..:1 ___________ _ El.£VATION. 127.190' MS.L. DATUM: N.G.V.D. 29 SHORING SECTION ALONG PRIVATE DRIVEWAY N.T.S. SHORING DESIGN GROUP "AS BUILT" • RCE ____ EXP. REVIEWED BY: DATE 7755 VIA FRANCESCO #1 SAN DIEGO, C• 92129, (760)586-8121 INSPECTOR DATE ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHEETS I f---+---+--------------1----1--+---+----I l_!U LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 1 7 TEMPORARY SHORING PI.ANS FOR CARLSBAD VILLAGE LOFTS SHORING CROSS SECTIONS GR 2014-0026 APPROVED, JASON S. GELDERT ,--------,-----,-+---------------t----t--+---t---l !C1TY ENGINEER PE 63912 EXPIRES 09/'lQ/~ DATE DATE I IN!TlAL (NGINEER Of" WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE INITI.4.L DATE INITIAL OTHER APPROVAL CHY APPROVAL PROJECT NO. MS16-06 II DRAWING NO. 515-5B I I SAFETY CABLE RAILING, PER CAL-OHSA REQUIREMENTS (TYP., AROUND ENTIRE SHORED PERIMETER, SEE 4/SH16) -r 42" (MIN.) "H" BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION 11 , rr=1 1::-::::i I I ll lEI_ II l~I l l ~I • -,·1-111-11 . 8.0. w., SEE ELEVATIONS ::I I:: "D" n:i: ~1 J TIMBER LAGGING (BACK-LAG WHERE SPECIFIED, SEE ELEVATION FOR SIZE) 2,500 PSI CONCRETE SHAFT BACKFILL (8.0. W TO PILE TIP) SOLDIER BEAM (SEE SCHEDULE FOR SIZE) NOTES: 1. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING & PROPOSED STRUCTURES PRIOR TO SHORING INSTALLATION. 2. SEE SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE ON SHEET 16 FOR SOLDIER BEAM ATTRIBUTES. TEMPORARY CANTILEVERED SOLDIER BEAM (TYP.) SH15 TIMBER - LAGGING LOG CABIN CORNER L3xlx1 /4 WITH 1 /2"x]" LAG SCREWS 12" 0.C. (BOTH LEGS) SOLDIER BEAM D LOG CABIN CORNER DETAIL SH15 N.T.S. N.T.S. 5'-0" (MAX.) ll ,.,-1.' 1::::11 L DRILL SHAFT (SEE BEAM 11 · SECTIONS FOR BACKFILL I= MATERIAL) ,. DESIGN BUILD PLANS: ,t!..~. ~~, ' I: \\\Ing sf' ~·, •.: <::;' "'1;,-~· .,, ::, E e;,, .... ,.,. ~, 0 if, .... . ~~ == ;-~~ "~,.,:. C) p ,.1, ,"' "-'•, ,,,~ ~\ ,v -">-<'"- SOLDIER BEAM SH15 DRILL SHAFT (SEE BEAM SECTIONS FOR BACKFILL MATERIAL) SOLDIER BEAM -( I \ 4 SH15 ', F.P. 1.5" (MIN.) BEARING SEE ELEVATION FOR SPACING FILL VOIDS BEHIND LAGGING WITH LEAN CONCRETE TIMBER LAGGING (SEE ELEVATIONS) DRILL SHAFT (SEE BEAM SECTIONS FOR BACKFILL MATERIAL) 20d COMMON NAIL FOR LAGGING INSTALLATION (TYP., AS REQ:D) NOTE: RECESS DRILL SHAFTS ALONG PROPERTY LINES (AS MAY BE REQUIRED). SOLDIER BEAM PLAN DETAIL (TYPICAL) N.T.S. SEE ELEVATION FOR SPACING FILL VOIDS BEHIND LAGGING WITH LEAN CONCRETE // SOLDIER BEAM PLAN DETAIL (AS REQUIRED) ACCESS HOLE (AS REQUIRED) ◄ N.T.S. WIDE FLANGE BEAM ► F.P.(TYP) / 45 20d COMMON NAIL FOR LAGGING INSTALLATION (TYP., AS REQ:D) \ )1.S" (MIN.) / BEARING TIMBER LAGGING (SEE ELEVATIONS) TIMBER LAGGING (SEE ELEVATION) TIMBER LAGGING (SEE ELEVATION) -~1 ~1, ~-.. - ~~-·'rn-, T TIMBER LAGGING I C TT'I (SEE ELEVATION) lll~ -20d COMMON NAIL FOR LAGGING INSTALLATION (4 PER BOARD) 3 ) TIMBER LAGGING DIAGONAL SUPPORT DETAIL SH15 N.T.S. 20d COMMON NAIL FOR LAGGING INSTALLATION (4 PER BOARD) SOLDIER BEAM TIMBER LAGGING (SEE ELEVATION) 5 ) TIMBER LAGGING DIAGONAL SUPPORT DETAIL (AS REQ'D) SH15 N.T.S. 1.5" (MIN.) DRILL SHAFT (SEE BEAM SECTIONS FOR BACKFILL MATERIAL) TIMBER LAGGING (SEE ELEVATION) W OUTSIDE CORNER DETAIL ,s7 N.T.S. ~ NOTES: 1. REFER TO AWS Dl .1 PREQUALIFIED WELD DETAIL FOR SPECIFICATIONS. "AS BUil T" 7 SH15 2. NO CHEMICAL TESTING REQUIRED FOR TEMPORARY WELD APPLICATION. FULL PENETRATION SPLICE DETAIL (AS REQUIRED) N.T.S. BENCH MARK: DESCRIPTION: CLSB-122 SET 2.5· DISK IN NORTH CURB OF CARLS{JAD \.ltLLAGE' DRIVE 0.1 Ml. ~ST OF HIGHLAND DRIV( OPPOSITF PALM TR££ IN QTY L/BRARY_PARKING L_9T. LOCATION MONUM£NJ I~ IN_ TH£ NORTH_ SJQ£ CURB OF CARLSBAD \lfLLAGE QR/~ 0.1 Ml. ~ST OF SHORING DESIGN GROUP • RCE ____ EXP. DATE REVIEWED BY: 7755 VIA FRANCESCO #1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 INSPECTOR OATE ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHEETS I ll----l-1--l-1----------41--r-r--+1------l1 ~ LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 17 I-· --+---+---------------t---t-· --r-· --t-------1-ITEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR CARLSBAD VILLAGE LOFTS SHORING DETAIIS GR 2014-0026 1----1--+-----------------+----+--+---l-----l I APPROVED, JASON s. GELDERT I ~~ 10/1/2019 HIGHLAND __ D8!._Vf !,ND 111 FT. ~ST OF TH£ £AST EXIT TO CITY LIBRARY. RECORD FROM: ~R~O""SC-'-'17~2~71 ___________ _ ELEVATION: 127.190' M.S.L. DAlUM: ~ DATE [ INITIAL ENGINEER Of WORK EXPIRES 09/30/20 OA1£ OAT£ I INITIAL REVISION DESCRIPTION DA"JE I INITIAL PROJECT NO. ]I DRAMNG NO. MS16-06 515-5B ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. J-31-2021 DATE OlH[R APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL I I I -- TIMBER 2" (MIN.) __ LAGGING BEARING @ SOLDIER BEAM _ ~ 1.5"(MIN.) BEARING LOG CABIN CORNER l3x3x1/4 WITH 1/2"x3" LAG SCREWS 12" O.C. (BOTH LEGS) DRILL SHAFT (SEE BEAM SECTIONS FOR BACKFILL MATERIAL) LOG CABIN CORNER DETAIL -- N.T.S. DRILL SHAFT (SEE BEAM SECTIONS FOR BACKFILL MATERIAL) TIMBER LAGGING (SEE ELEVATIONS) lS(MIN.) BEARING 3 LAGGING OFFSET DETAIL SH16 N.T.S. DESIGN BUILD PLANS: ,I!.~' ~~, ' I: ·\\,ng .s: ~,, ,-<::>~' I'.,.,__-, ,;~ E t~, l~ ?' ~~~ H ~ g ~I ,~ ~, .... , ,.,, "'-'•• ,,,..r ~, ,v -"'>--<'"- TIMBER LAGGING j~' (SEE ELEVATION) Tl / =: / I -1-~ SOLDIER BE:Mj · . -=11 _ .. · J ill ill 2" (MIN.) BEARING DRILL SHAFT (SEE BEAM SECTIONS FOR BACKFILL MATERIAL) W_ INSIDE CORNER DETAIL ~ N.T.S. 2·· L3x3x3/8 ANGLE IRON ATOP EACH SOLDIER BEAM MEMBER {-r 3/8-inch 0 WIRE ROPE ALONG ENTIRE SHORING PERIMETER (TYP.) SOLDIER BEAM, TYP. (SEE SCHEDULE) X 21· -r1 l 21· r-10 j 44'" 1 ► ~ EACH BEAM DRILL SHAFT (SEE BEAM SECTIONS FOR BACKFILL MATERIAL) 4 CAL-OSHA GUARDRAIL DETAIL SH16 N.T.S. BENCH MARK: DESCRIPTION· CLSB-122 SET 2.5· DISK IN NORTH CURB OF CAf!LSBAD "1LLAGE DR/V[ 0. 1 Ml. ~ST Qf_ HIGHLAND DRIii[ OPPOSITF p_ALM TRff IN C/ff UBf?ARY PARKING LO[. LOCATION MONUMENT IS IN THE NORTH SIDE CURB OF C~RL¥3AD l,fLLAGE DRIV[, 0. 1 Ml. ~ST OF ~~ 10/1/1019 ROY P. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. l·ll -1011 DATE HIGHLAND DRIVf_NJ{)__11_J____£.I_~ST OF TH[ EAST EXIT TO CITY LIBRARY. RECORD FROt.t. ~R~0c,5_1~7,,_27~1 ___________ _ [LE\IATlON: 127.190' M.S.L DATUM: N.G V.0. 29 From To Beam Beam 1 1 2 7 8 12 13 23 38 40 41 42 47 54 55 22 37 39 40 41 46 53 54 55 Beam Qty 1 6 5 10 15 2 SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE Shored T~ Beam Height Cleyth Section W 12 X 26 W 24 X 84 W 21 X 50 H ft 5.0 16.0 13.0 W 18 X 50 12.0 W 18 X 50 10.0 W 18 X 50 12.0 W 21 X 50 13.0 W 24 X 62 1-4.0 W Hx 104 18.0 W 24 X 76 W 16 X 36 W 12 X 26 15.0 9.0 5.0 D ft 10.0 19.0 17.0 16.0 18.0 16.0 17.0 16.0 20.0 18.0 14.0 10.0 DRILL SHAFT (SEE BEAM TIMBER LAGGING (SEE ELEVATION) ,:_ _ _...,,,. 2" (MIN.I BEARING --- Total Drill Depth H+D ft 15.0 35.0 30.0 28.0 28 .0 28.0 30.0 30.0 38.0 33.0 23.0 15.0 ,- Toe Diameter Dshaft in 24 30 30 24 24 24 30 30 36 30 24 24 SHIM (AS REQ:D) 5 OUTSIDE CORNER DETAIL (SOLDIER BEAMS #24 & 53) SH16 N. T.S. SHORING DESIGN GROUP "AS BUILT" e RCE ____ EXP. REV1E\'.£O BY, 7755 VIA FRANCESCO #1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 INSPECTOR DATE DATE ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD ISHEETSI t===jt===t=========================:1====t===t====t==j ~ LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 1 7 OAT[ I INITIAL ENGINEER Of WOftK REVISION DESCRIPTION DATr I INITIAL OTHER APPROVAL DATE I INITIAL CITY APPROVAL TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR CARLSBAD VILLAGE LOFTS SHORING DETAl!S & SCHEDULE GR 2014-0026 APPROVED: JASON S. GELOERT QTY ENGlNEER PE ~'lJ<-_m>!RE~.lO/ZP DATE OWN BY I CHKD BY, __ _ RVWO B.r, __ PROJECT NO. MS16-06 ]I DRAV.,NG NO. 515-5B . I I ■ I I -I I GENERAL NOTES 1. CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND CALCULATIONS CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. 2. TEMPORARY SHORING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS (CAL-OSHA). 3. HEAVY CONSTRUCTION LOADS SUCH AS CRANES, CONCRETE TRUCKS OR OTHER LOAD SURCHARGES NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE .. DESIGN CRITERIA", WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS & FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS. NOTIFY THE SHORING & SOILS ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 4. ALL TEMPORARY SHORING ELEMENTS DEPICTED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM SERVICE LIFE OF ONE (1) YEAR. AT THE END OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, THE EXISTING OR NEW STRUCTURES SHALL NOT RELY ON THE TEMPORARY SHORING FOR SUPPORT IN ANYWAY. 5. AN UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT MUST BE OBTAINED 2 DAYS BEFORE COMMENCING ANY EXCAVATION. 6. THE OWNER OR THE REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE ACTING AS THE OWNER"S AGENT SHALL EMPLOY ONE OR MORE APPROVED AGENCIES TO PERFORM INSPECTIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION. 7. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL INSPECTION SERVICES, TESTING & NOTIFICATIONS. 8. ALL PERMITS SHALL BE PROCURED AND PAID FOR BY THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 1. 2. ). 4. ALL MONITORING PROVIDED IN THESE PLANS HEREIN, SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. TEMPORARY SHORING IN THESE PLANS HAS BEEN ALIGNED WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTING & PROPOSED FEATURES, AS PROVIDED. ACTUAL FIELD LOCATION OF THE SHORING WALL SHALL BE ESTABLISHED USING ACCURATE HORIZONTAL CONTROL & COORDINATED TO FOLLOW THE PLANNED LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. REPORT ANY VARIATIONS TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR OWNER SHALL LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION AND THE INSTALLATION OF SHORING. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE PROPOSED SHORING DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE MEANS TO PREVENT SURFACE WATER FROM ENTERING THE EXCAVATION OVER THE TOP OF SHORING BULKHEAD. INSTALLATION OF SHORING AND EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER CONTINUOUS OBSERVATION AND APPROVAL OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION. ALTERNATIVE SHAPES, MATERIAL AND DETAILS CANNOT BE USED UNLESS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE SHORING ENGINEER. IT SHALL BE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR0S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, TO VERIFY CONDITIONS AT THE JOB SITE AND TO CROSS-CHECK DETAILS AND DIMENSIONS WITHIN THE SHORING PLANS WITH RELATED REQUIREMENTS ON THE ARCHITECTURAL, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND ALL OTHER PERTINENT DRAWINGS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. ALL GRADING & EXCAVATIONS PERFORMED FOR THE PROPOSED TEMPORARY SHORING AND/OR PROPOSED STRUCTURE, IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SERVICES PROVIDED HEREIN. GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUCTING SITE EARTHWORK IN CONFORMANCE WITH GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS. SHORING INSTALLATION PROCEDURE FIELD SURVEY DRILL HOLES & SHORING ALIGNMENT ACCORDING TO WALL DIMENSIONS & DATA SHOWN OR AS APPROVED BY THE SHORING ENGINEER. FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATION OF THE ADJACENT (EXISTING) WALL FOOTING & DETERMINE APPROPRIATE SHORING OFFSETS. DRILL VERTICAL SHAFTS TO THE EMBEDMENT DEPTH AND DIAMETERS SHOWN. ALLOWABLE PLACEMENT TOLERANCE SHALL BE 2" IN OR Z--OUT OR AS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE SHORING ENGINEER. INSTALL SOLDIER BEAMS ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN IN PLAN. IF NECESSARY, CASING OR OTHER METHODS SHALL BE USED TO PREVENT LOSS OF GROUND OR COLLAPSE OF THE HOLE. S. START EXCAVATION AFTER CONCRETE HAS CURED FOR A MINIMUM OF ()) THREE DAYS. 6. INSTALL LAGGING BETWEEN INSTALLED SOLDIER BEAMS IN LIFTS NO GREATER THAN 4·.o·· OR AS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 7. BACKFILL ALL VOIDS BEHIND LAGGING WITH LEAN CONCRETE AS SPECIFIED IN THE DETAILS HEREIN. 8. REPEAT STEPS 7-8 UNTIL BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION IS REACHED. 9. ALL EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE LAGGED AND BACKFIUED BY THE END OF EACH WORKDAY. NO EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE LEFT EXPOSED OR WITHOUT BACKFILL. DESIGN BUILD PLANS: ,t!..~. ~~, ,,: ~,\\1ng s.,,.,._ ~·, .1,: ~ t;,0 ';.I, .. ,_E "' ...... ~1 ? ~ ~~ llil'-:::: :, xz \~•.,: r, ~J MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS STRUCTURAL STEEL 1. STRUCTURAL STEEL (WIDE FLANGES) SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS ASTM A-572 OR ASTM A-992 (GRADE 50). 2. MISCELLANEOUS STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A-36, ASTM A-572 (GRADE 50) OR ASTM A-992. 3. TRENCH PLATES (LAGGING) SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS FO ASTM A-36. STRUCTURAL & LEAN CONCRETE A. STRUCTURAL CONCRETE: 1. STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (DRILL SHAFT TOE BACKFILL) SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 2,SDOPSI AT 28-DAYS. 2. CONCRETE MIX SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2016CBC & ACl 336 TO MEET THE FOLLOWING: A. MAXIMUM 1-INCH HARDROCK CONCRETE CONFORMING TO ASTM C-33. B. TYPE II NEAT PORTLAND CEMENT CONFORMING TO ASTM C-150. C. SLUMP FOR WET HOLE 6'·-s·· & 4°'·6·· DRY HOLES. B. LEAN CONCRETE (SLURRY) 1. LEAN SAND SLURRY MIX SHALL CONTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.5 SACKS TYPE II CEMENT PER CUBIC YARD. TIMBER 1. TIMBER LAGGING SHALL BE ROUGH SAWN DOUGLAS FIR LARCH NO. 2 OR BETTER . 2. TIMBER LAGGING SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWPA Ul USE CATEGORY 4A. WELDING 1. ELECTRIC ARC WELDING PERFORMED BY QUALIFIED WELDERS USING E70XX ELECTRODES OR CONTIUOUS WIRE FEED. 2. SPECIAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED FOR ALL FIELD WELDING. EPOXY PAINT (AS REQUIRED) 1. EPOXY COATING: SOLDIER BEAMS SHALL BE 2-COATS BITUMASTIC COAL-TAR EPOXY, APPLIED FOR A TOTAL DRY FILM THICKNESS OF 16 MILLS. ALL STEEL SURFACES SHALL BE BLAST WITH SSPC-SP 10 (NEAR WHITE) BEFORE COATING IS APPLIED. MONITORING 1. MONITORING SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AT THE TOP OF SOLDIER BEAMS SELECTED BY THE ONSITE GEOTECHNCIAL REPRESENTATIVE AND AT INTERVALS ALONG THE WALL AS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE. 2. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM A PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS & VIDEO OF THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS. 3. MAXIMUM THEORETICAL SOLDIER BEAM DEFLECTION IS 1-INCH. IF THE TOTAL CUMULATIVE HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL MOVEMENT (FROM START OF CONSTRUCTION) EXCEEDS THIS LIMIT, ALL EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE SUSPENDED AND INVESTIGATED BY THE SHORING ENGINEER FOR FURTHER ACTIONS (AS NECESSARY). BENCH MARK: D£SCRIPllON· CLSB-122 SET 2.5· DISK IN NORTH CURB OF CAfiL.,_SBAD VILLAGE DRIVE. 0.1 All. K£"ST OF HIGHLAND DRIVE OPPO$/T[_ PALM TREE IN CITY UBRAR'(___pARK/NG LQT. LOCATION IIIONUMEN T IS IN THE NOR TH SIDE _gJRB OF CAf!LSfMQ_VJg_AGE DRIVE, 0.1 Ml l'i£ST OF ,l, ,~, '\.'1, ,,•J ~\ ,v -"">-<-~~ 1011/2019 HIGHLAND DRIVE AND 111 FT. WEST OF TH[ [AST [XIT TO CITY LIBRARY. RECORD FROM: ~RO~S~17~2~77~-----------ELfVATION. 127.190' M.S.L. DATUM: N.G V.0. 29 ROYP. REED R.C.E. 80503 EXP. 3·31-2021 OATE STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION 1. Verify use of required design mix 2. Inspection of concrete placement for proper application techniques. 3. Material verification of structural steel a. For structural steel, identification markings to conform to AISC 360. b. Manufacturer's report 4. Inspection of welding a. Multipass fillet welds 5. Material identification of timber a. Identification of preservative VERIFICATION AND INSPECTION ITEMS (OTHER) 6. Observe drilling operations and maintain complete and accurate records for each element. 7. Verify placement locations and plumbness, confirm element diameters, lengths, embedment into bedrock (if applicable). Record concrete and grout values. 8. Verify excavations are extended to the proper depth. CONTINOUS PERIODIC X X X --X X -- --X X -- X X MONITORING SCHEDULE FREQUENCY LOCATIONS SHORING PROGRESS WEEKLY PER PLAN EXCAVATION < H MONTHLY PER PLAN EXCAVATION • H I A. MONITORING POINTS SHALL BE LOCATED AT PILE TOPS AND AT A DISTANCE OF H/2 DIRECTLY BEHIND AS SHOWN PER PLAN. B. MONITORING FREQUENCY MAY BE ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD. CBC REFERENCE 1904.2.2 2303. 1.8.1 C. SURVEY POINTS, DURATION & FREQUENCY ARE THE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR ADDITIONAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS, AS MAY BE REQUIRED. SHORING DESIGN GROUP "AS BUILT" e RCE ____ EXP. REVIEWED BY: 7755 VIA FRANCESCO #1 SAN DIEGO, CA 92129, (760)586-8121 INSPECTOR DATE DATE ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHEETS I t===:1===:1========================jt===t===t===::t===j L!2_J LANO DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 1 7 TEMPORARY SHORING PLANS FOR CARLSBAD VILLAGE LOFTS NOTES & INSPECTIONS 1---,,---+---------------.J---,l---+--+----l GR 2014-0026 ;"A='P'=P~R~OVE~o=, =========J=As=o=N=s=.G=EL=cD=Ecc::RTc==: DAlE I INITIAL ENGINEER Of" WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION cm ENG1NEER PE 6J911__ EXPIRES 09_D/Jllo ~ WN BY _flR._:Jl DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL HKO BY: __ _ OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL VWD BY: --=- PROJECT NO. MS16-06 DAlE II ORA WING NO. 515-58 Section 2 Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 15 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G Actual field conditions and soil type designations must be verified by a "competent person" while excavations exist, according to Cal-OSHA regulations. In addition, the above sloping recommendations do not allow for surcharge loading at the top of slopes by vehicular traffic, equipment or materials. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be maintained from the top of all unshored slopes. 5.7 Temporary Shoring 5.7.1 General Due to the proposed depth of the potential basement/parking level excavations, it 1s anticipated that the majority of shored excavations would consist of cantilevered soldier piles, with continuous timber lagging. The shoring contractor should be experienced in the design and construction of similar shoring systems and demonstrate proven competence on projects of similar size and magnitude. The shoring designer and contractor shall anticipate encountering local layers of relatively cohesionless and un-cemented materials that may be subject to sloughing and caving. In addition, groundwater, debris, gravels, and/or cobble material may be locally encountered. 5.7.2 Lateral Earth Pressures We anticipate that a temporary shoring system would likely be used where sufficient setbacks for sloping excavations are not available. Braced or unbraced shoring may be designed using the same active and at-rest soil pressures recommended herein for pennanent \\Esc_server\projects\l 0-1 2371 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 2 Page 16 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G walls, but the values may each be reduced by 30 percent. In addition to the recommended earth pressures, the upper 15 feet of shoring adjacent to streets or other traffic areas shall be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot (psf) that results from an assumed 300-psf surcharge behind the shoring due to typical street or other traffic. For traffic that remains more than 10 feet away from shoring, surcharge loading may be neglected. Although the actual deflections of the shoring should be determined by the shoring engineer, shoring designed as stated is anticipated to deflect less than one inch at the top of the shored embankment. These deflections should be within tolerable limits for adjacent improvements such as buried pipes and conduits, or sidewalks and streets, provided these improvements are in generally good structural condition. Friction tieback anchors and/or a greater active design pressure could be used to reduce the amount of deflection at the face of the shoring. CTE should review the final shoring calculations and drawings in order to identify potential conflicts with the recommendations contained herein. In addition, observation by this office will be required during shoring installation activities. Monitoring of settlement and horizontal movement of the shoring system and adjacent improvements should occur on a weekly basis during construction in order to confirm that actual movements are within tolerable limits. The number and location of monitoring points \\Esc _ server\projects\ I 0-1 237 1 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments l 044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 5 .10 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures 3 Page 24 CTE Job No.: 10-123710 Lateral loads acting against retaining walls may be resisted by friction between the footings and the supporting compacted fill soil and/or Old Paralic Deposits or passive pressure acting against structures. If frictional resistance is used, an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.30 (total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction multiplied by the dead load) is recommended for concrete cast directly against compacted fill. A design passive resistance value of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a maximum value of 1,500 pounds per square foot) may be used. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance. Retaining walls should not be underlain by Undocumented Fill as defined by a 1: 1 plane extending downward from the foundation bottom outer edges. If proposed, retaining walls up to approximately ten feet high and backfilled using granular soils may be designed using the equivalent fluid weights given below. TABLE 5.10 EQUN ALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS (pounds per cubic foot) SLOPE BACKFILL WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL 2: l (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) CANTILEVER WALL 30 48 (YIELDING) RESTRAINED WALL 60 75 30x0.70 = 21 pcf (Temporary) \\Esc _server\projectsl I 0-12371 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Renee, Roy, Calm Kenny "Renee Powell"; rreed@shoringdesigngroup.com "Jay Lynch " CVL Shoring Plan Review Letter Tuesday, October 01 , 2019 2:41 :50 PM Ltr Plan Review -Shoring 10-1-19.pdf Plea se see the attached shoring plan review letter which also addresses the City comments Roy forwarded earlier. Roy, for the 1.5:1 condition, fluid pressure is 60 pd (then apply the 30 percent re duction). If you back calc again and come to a lower pressure, we may be able to justify it, but we wou ld need to review the calcs to write a formal approval letter (otherwise I don't think City wil l accept a lower value than we give). Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Colm ~ C~c Colm J. Kenny, PE Senior Engineer 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 I Ph (760) 7 46-4955 I Fax (760) 7 46-9806 Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. Inspection • Testing • Geotechnical • Environmental & Construction Engineering • Civil Engineering • Surveying www.cte-inc.net 4 5 Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. Inspection I Testing I Geotechnical I Environmental & Construction Engineering I Civil Engineering I Surveying October I, 2019 Wermers Properties Attn: Austin Wermers 5080 Shoreham Place, Suite 105 San Diego California 92122 (858) 623-4958 Subject: Shoring Plan Review Proposed Carlsbad Village Lofts CTE Job No. I0-14798G Via Emai I: Austin W@wennerscompanies.com I 044 Carlsbad Village Drive (APNs: 203-320-3200, -3900, & -4700) Carlsbad, California References: At end of document Mr. Wermers: As requested, Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. (CTE) has reviewed the referenced shoring plans for conformance with our recommendations in the referenced geotechnical documents. Based on our review, the plans appear to be in substantial conformance with our recommendations and no exceptions were noted. Please note that the active and at-rest soil pressures for permanent walls recommended in CTE's referenced report (CTE, 20 I 6) are considered still applicable and appropriate to the project conditions, as well as the 30 percent reduction in values for temporary walls and traffic surcharge described in Section 5.7.2 on that report. Additionally, an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcfmay be used for wall backfill (permanent or temporary) for minor backfill slopes constructed at a 1.5: 1 (H:V) ratio. This letter is subject to the same limitations as previous CTE geotechnical documents issued for the subject project. CTE's conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If conditions different from those described in the reports are encountered during construction, this office should be notified and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided. 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115 I Escondido, CA 92026 I Ph (760) 746-4955 I Fax (760) 746-9806 I www.cte-inc.net 6 Shoring Plan Review Page 2 Proposed Carlsbad Village Lofts I 044 Carlsbad Village Drive (APNs: 203-320-3200, -3900, & -4700) Carlsbad, California October I, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-14798G The opportunity to be of service on this project is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. Dan T. Math, GE# 2665 Vice President, Principal Colm J. Kenny, RCE #84406 Senior Engineer CJK/JFL/DTM Jay F. Lynch, CEG #1890 Principal Engineering Geologist \\Esc_server\projccts\l 0-14000 to 10-14999 Projects\! 0-14798G\Ltr_P\an Revie\\ -Shoring 10-1-19.doc Shoring Plan Review Page 3 Proposed Carlsbad Village Lofts 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive (APNs: 203-320-3200, -3900, & -4700) Carlsbad, California October 1 2019 CTE Job No. 10-14798G References: Precise Grading Plans for Carlsbad Village Lofts (Sheets 1-17) (Includes Grading Plans Sheets 1-9 & Shoring Plans, Sheets 10-17) Sheets 1-9 Prepared by SB&O, Inc., Sheets I 0-17 Prepared by Shoring Design Group Plans Dated August 16, 2019 Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations and Grading Plan Review Proposed Carlsbad Village Lofts I 044 Carlsbad Village Drive (APNs: 203-320-3200, -3900, & -4700) Carlsbad, California CTE Job No. 10-14798G, dated February 28, 2019 Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Dive Carlsbad, California CTE Job No. 10-12371G, dated January 27, 2016 \\Esc_serverlprojectsl l 0-14000 to I 0-14999 Projects\! 0-14 798G\Ltr _Plan Review -Shoring I 0-1-19.doc Section 3 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "I, 55" Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_7 _of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties Pile:= "Concrete Embed" H := 5-ft = Soldier beam retained height X := 0 Hs := 0-ft ---> = Height of retained slope (As applicable) y := 0 xt := 8-ft = Tributary width of soldier beam dia := 24-in = Soldier beam shaft diameter de':= dia = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade dt := 2-H = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess) w_table := "n/a" = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table ASTM A992 (Grade 50) Shoring Design Section IO I I I I I E := 29000 -ksi Fy := 50-ksi 5 >- ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) 0 - D + H + L Lateral Embedment Safety Factor -5 -- FSd := 1.30 -10 I I I I -40 -20 0 20 40 Cantilever H = 5', bm 1, 55.xmcdz Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa := 21-pcf Pp := 300 -pcf P max := 4500 • psf a':= 0-in Pps := Pp -a' ct>:= 30-deg -I be := 0.08-deg -cj>-de' qa := 0-psf fs := 600 • psf "Is:= 120-pcf = Active earth pressure = Passive earth pressure Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_S_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle below subgrade = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soi I unit weight Bouyant Soi I Properties (As applicable) 1w := 62 .4-pcf Pp' := Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pp •(1s -1w) otherwise "is Pa' := Pa if w_table = "n/a" Pa ·(1 s -1w) otherwise "is Cantilever H = 5', bm 1, 55.xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp'= 300-pcf Pa'= 21-pcf Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full := 100 -psf Partial := 0-psf Hpar := 0-ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet__9_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Ps (y) := Ful I + Partial if O -ft :,:; y :,:; Hpar Full if Hpar <y S H Uniform surcharge profile per depth o • psf otherwise Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading Pr := 0-kip e := 0-in Pr-e Me:= -- xt Ph := 0-lb zh := 0-ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh " = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP := 0-pcf Es := EFP-H Eq(y) := Es Es ---y if ys H H 0-psf otherwise Cantilever H = 5', bm 1, 55.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesg Loading q := 0-ksf x, := 0-ft x2 := x1 + 0-ft z' := 0 -ft K := 0.50 01 (y) '" a tan [ xy 1 J Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_j_Q_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non-yielding) &(y) a (y) := e1 (y) + -2- K = 0.75 (Semi-rigid) K = 0.50 (Flexible) Pb(y) := 0-psf if 0-ft $ y $ z' 2-q-K •7T-l ·(&(y -z')-sin(&(y -z'))·COS(2·0'.(y -z'))) if z'<y $H 0-psf otherwise Maximum Boussinesg Pressure f:!.y := 5-ft Given d -Pb(t!.y) = 0 -psf dl:!.y Pb(Find(t!.y)) = 0-psf H J Pb (y) dy = 0 · kif 0 Cantilever H = 5', bm 1, 55.xmcdz Lateral Surcharge Loading 5.----------------------, 4 20 40 60 80 100 Pressure (psf) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng : RPR Sheet__11_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) z := 6-ft D := dt PA(H ) = 105-psf a_ratio-PA(H) = 63-psf O =0.4 ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces [ J -PE(H+D-z) -PE(H +D -z) PJ(H + D) · z -~E(z,D) H+D-z mE(z, D) f 2 + (PE(H + D -z) + mE(z , D) ·Y) dy + PE(y) dy ... 0 H+O f H+O f H J H+D J H+D J H Ph + PE(y) dy + PA (y) dy + Ps(y) dy + Pb(y) dy + Eq(y) dy + - H O O O O xt Summation of Moments PJ(H +D)· z -~ mE(z,D) ------6-----+ (PE(H + D -z) + mE{z, D) ·Y)·(Z -y) dy ... 0 + r +D-, PE(y)-(H + D -y) dy + r +O PE(y)-(H + D -y) dy + r PA (y)-(H + D -y) dy +Me ... H+O H 0 + f H+D Ps(y)-(H + D -y) dy + J H Eq(y) •(H + D -y) dy + JH+D Pb (y) •(H + D -y) dy + Ph •(H + D -zh) o o o xt (: )aF ind (,, D) Z >O z = 2 ft D = 7.2 ft Cantilever H = 5', bm 1, 55.xmcdz =O =O Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soldier Beam Pressure 0,.------..-------~-----~~ 5 -lx !03 0 2x 103 Pressure (psf) Shear/ft width o.------~------------~ -2 -1 0 Shear (ki f) Cantilever H = 5', bm 1, 55.xmcdz Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet----11_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Soil Pressures PA(H) = 105 -psf Po(H + D) = -2149.1-psf PE(H + D) = -1226.5 -psf PK (H + D) = 3649.1-psf PJ(H + D) = 2189.5-psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pi le) E: := a +-H E: +-V(a) while E: > 0 a +-a + 0.10-ft E: +-V(a) return a E: = 8.3 ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) ,~ r V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 27.7-kip-ft Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheetj]__of __ Date: July 9, 2019 n := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1 b.cr := 1.33 Fy -b.cr Fb := -- 0 = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax Flexural Yielding, Lb < Zr= 8.4-in3 z ·=--r . Fb Beam == "WI2 x 26" Lr Fb = 39.8-ksi 2 A = 7.7-in bf = 6.5 -in K:= I Lu:= H if Pile= "Concrete Embed" d = 12.2-in ~ = 0.2-in Axial Stresses tf = 0.4-in r x = 5.2-in Fy >..:=- Fe Zx = 37.2-in 3 i:: otherwise Ix = 204-in 4 2 TI -E Fe :=--- Fer := = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 (0.877-Fe) otherwise F cr·A Pc := -- 0 = Allowable concentric force -AISC E.3-1 = Allowable bending moment -AISC F. 2-1 Interaction := [~ + ~ -( Mmax]ll if ~ :2: 0.20 Pc 9 Ma ~ Pc = A I SC H 1 -1 a & H 1 -1 b (~ + Mmax] otherwise 2-Pc Ma Interaction = 0.22 Cantilever H = 5', bm 1, 55.xmcdz Ma = 123.4-kip -ft Mmax = 27.7-kip -ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Global Stability Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: July 9, 2019 = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Oh := Ceil(D , ft)+ 2-ft Slidding Forces : J H+Dh Fs:= V(H + O) + Pn(x) dx 02 Resisting Forces: Overturning Moments: Fs = 2.6-klf FR = -5.7-klf M0 :=JH (Dh +H -y)-PA(y)dy + r (Dh +H -y)-Ps(y)dy + r (Dh +H -y)-Pb(y)dy + r (Dh +H -y)-1 o O O 0 + r +O PE(y) dy-(Dh -~) + r +Dh Pn(y) dy-H + D:-o, +Me +-:: ·(Dh + H -zh) H 02 Resisting Moments 02 MR '" J (H +Dh -y)·Pn(y)dy H+O Factor of Safety: Slidding ,, i{FSd < :: , "Ok", "No Goode lnc,mc Dh" J ( MR Overturning := if FSd :,; - Mo Cantilever H = 5', bm 1, 55.xmcdz , "Ok" , "No Goode Increase Dh" J M0 = 10.2 -kip MR = -24.8-kip Slidding = "Ok" IFRI = 2.25 Fs Overturning = "Ok" Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet__j_§_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 qa = 0-psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600 -psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr = 0-kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := n -dia if Pile= "Concrete Embed" [ 2 · ( bf + d )] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Axial Resistance Q (y) := p'-fs -y + d . 2 TI· ,a -qa 4 if Pile= "Concrete Embed" (brd -qa) otherwise Dv := e: ~ 0-ft while T >O e: ~ e: + 0.10-ft T ~ Pr -Q (e:) return e: Selected Toe Depth Otoe := if(Dh ~ Dv , Dh , Dv) Maximum Deflection D L' := H + -4 xt JL' .6. := -· y-M'(y) dy E·lx O Cantilever H = 5', bm 1, 55.xmcdz = Effective length about pile rotation .6. = 0.08-in Dv = Oft Dh = 10ft Dtoe = !O ft Shori ng Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam = "W1 2 x 26" H = 5 ft Otoe = !Oft H + Otoe = 15 ft dia = 24 -in .6. = 0.08 · in Cantilever H = 5', bm 1, 55.xmcdz Sb_No = "I , 55" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng : RPR Sheet_1§_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Section 4 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "2-7" Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_jL_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties Pile := "Concrete Embed" H := 16-ft X := 0 Hs := 0-ft ---> y := 0 xt := 8-ft dia := 30-in de':= dia dt := 2-H w_table := "n/a" ASTM A992 (Grade 50) E := 29000 · ksi Fy := 50-ksi ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) = Soldier beam retained he ight = Height of retained slope (As applicable) = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth {Initial Guess) = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table ,,-._ q:::: '-' -5 0... ll) 20 0 Shoring Design Section -I I D+H +L 0 Lateral Embedment Safety Factor _ 20 .... FSd := 1.30 I -100 0 Cantilever H = 16', bm 2-7.xmcdz I - - - I 100 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa := 21-pcf Pp := 300 · pcf P max := 4500 • psf a':= 0-in <P := 30-deg -] be := 0.08-deg -<j)-de' qa := 0-psf fs := 600 • psf 1s := 120 -pcf = Active earth pressure = Passive earth pressure Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet__.!§__of __ Date: July 9, 2019 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle below subgrade = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soil unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable) 1w := 62.4-pcf Pp' := Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pp ( -. 1s -1w) otherwise 1s Pa' := Pa if w_t able = "n/a" Pa --(1s -1w) otherwise 1s Cantilever H = 16', bm 2-7.xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Appl icable) Pp' = 300 · pcf Pa'= 21-pcf Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full := 0-psf Partia I := I 00 -psf Hpar := 15-ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Ps(y):= Full +Partial if 0-ft :s:y :s:Hpar Full if Hpar <y :s:H Uniform surcharge profile per depth O • psf otherwise Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading Pr := 0-kip e := 0-in Pr-e Me := -- xt Ph := 0-lb zh := 0-ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Appl icable) EFP := 0-pcf Es := EFP-H Eq(y) := Es Es --·Y if y :,; H H o -psf otherwise Cantilever H = 16', bm 2-7.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92 129 Boussinesq Loading q := 0-ksf x, := 0-ft x2 := x1 + 0-ft z' := 0-ft K := 0.50 e1 (y) ,~ atan ( xy 1 J Ii (y) := e2 (y) -e1 (y) Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: July 9, 2019 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non -yielding) li (y) a(y) := e1 (y) + -2- K = 0. 75 (Semi-rigid) K = 0.50 (Flexible) Pb(y) := 0-psf if 0-ft ::;y ::;z' 2-q•K·rr-1-(li(y -z') -sin(li(y -z'))-cos(2·a (y -z'))) if z' < y ::; H o -psf otherwise Max i mum Boussi nesq Pressure ,6,y := 5-ft Given d -Pb (,6,y) = 0-psf db,,y Pb(Find(,6,y)) = 0-psf H J Pb(y)dy =0 -klf 0 Cantilever H = 16', bm 2-7.xmcdz Lateral Surcharge Loading 15 10 5 o..__ ________________ __, 0 20 40 60 80 I 00 Pressure (psf) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet1..1._of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) z := 6-ft D := dt PA(H) = 336-psf a_ratio-PA(H) = 268.8-psf 0 = I .I ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces PJ(H +D)-(z --PE(H +D -z)J I-~::~:,) H+o-, mE(z ,D) I 2 + (PE(H +D -z)+mE(z,D)•y)dy + PE(y)dy ... 0 H+O IH+O f H J H+D f H+D f H Ph + PE(y) dy + PA (y) dy + Ps(y) dy + Pb(y) dy + Eq(y) dy + - H O O O O xt Summation of Moments PJ(H +D)· z -~ mE(z, D) ------6-----+ (PE(H + D -z) + mE(z, D) ·Y)·(Z -y) dy ... 0 + r +o-, PE(yHH +D -y)dy + r +O PE(y)-(H +D -y)dy + r PA(y)-(H +D -y)dy +Me ... H+O H 0 + f H+D Ps(y)-(H + D -y) dy + J H Eq(y) ·(H + D -y) dy + f H+D Pb(y) ·(H + D -y) dy + Ph ·(H + D -zh) O O O xt (: )=Find(z , D) Z>O z = 7.1 ft D = 17.1 ft Cantilever H = 16', bm 2-7.xmcdz =O =O Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soldier Beam Pressure 0.------..--------.-------r------, 10 20 -4x 103 -2x 103 0 Pressure (psf) Shear/ft width 2x 103 o,.--------r-------r---------. 10 -IO -5 0 5 Shear (klf) Cantilever H = 16', bm 2-7.xmcdz Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet-1..£_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Soil Pressures PA(H) = 336-psf Po(H + D) = -4500-psf PE(H + D) = -333 1.2-psf PK (H + D) = 4500 -psf PJ(H + D) = 3600-psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pi le) e: := a ~ H e:~V(a) while e: > o a~ a + 0.10 -ft e:~V(a) return a e: = 23.2 ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) c= r V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 394.2-kip-ft Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_n__of __ Date: July 9, 2019 n := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1 b.a := 1.33 Fy -b.a Fb := --n = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax z ·=--r . Fb Flexural Yielding , Lb < Zr = J 18.8-in 3 Beam = "W24 x 84" A = 24.7-in 2 d = 24.1-in ~ = 0.5-in Axial Stresses bf = 9-in tf = 0.8-in r x = 9.8-in Fy >-:=- Fe Lr K := I Zx = 224 -in 3 Ix = 2370-in 4 Fb = 39.8 -ksi Lu := H if Pile = "Concrete Embed" c otherwise 2 TI ·E Fe :=--- Fer := ( >-. ) K-Lu ff; 0.658 -Fy if --~ 4.7 1 · - rx Fy = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 (0.877 -Fe) otherwise F cr·A Pc:= --n = Allowable concentric force -AISC E.3-1 = Allowable bending moment -AISC F. 2-1 Interaction:= [~ + ~-[Mmax]~ if ~;:: 0.20 Pc 9 Ma ~ Pc = AISC H1-1a & H1-1b (~ + MmaxJ otherwise 2 -Pc Ma Interaction = 0.53 Cantilever H = 16', bm 2-7.xmcdz Ma = 743.3-kip-ft Mmax = 394.2-kip -ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Global Stability = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Oh:= Ceil(O , ft)+ I -ft Slidding Forces: J H+Dh Fs:= V(H + O) + Pn(x) dx Oz Resisting Forces: Overturning Moments: Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Fs = 11.7 -klf FR = -17.8-klf M0 := r (Dh +H -y)•PA(y)dy + r (Dh+H-y)•Ps(y)dy+ r (Dh+H -y)·Pb(y)dy + r (Dh +H -y).I o O O 0 I H+O ( 0 ) JH+Dh H + Oh -02 Ph + PE(y)dy• Oh -3 + Pn(y)dy-3 +Me +--(Oh +H -zh) xt H Oz Resisting Moments Oz MR := J (H + Oh -y) ·Pn(y) dy H+O Factor of Safety: Slidding := {Fsd < :: , "Ok" , "No Good: lnc,ease Oh"] [ MR Overturning := if FSd ~ - Mo Cantilever H = 16', bm 2-7.xmcdz , "Ok" , "No Good: lnc,ease Oh" J Slidding = "Ok" M0 = 119.6 -kip MR = -172.9-kip ~=1.52 Fs Overturning = "Ok" Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet1..§_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 qa = 0-psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600 -psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr =0 -kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := n -dia if Pile= "Concrete Embed" [ 2 · ( bf + d )] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Axial Resistance Q (y) := p'-fs -y + d . 2 TI· Ia -qa 4 if Pile= "Concrete Embed" (brd -qa) otherwise Dv := e: ~ 0-ft T~Q(e:) while T > 0 e: ~ e: + 0.10 -ft T ~ Pr -Q (e:) return e: Selected Toe Depth Otoe := if( Oh :?: Dv , Oh , Dv) Maximum Deflection D L' := H + -4 xt JL' ~ := -· y-M'(y) dy E·lx o Cantilever H = 16', bm 2-7.xmcdz = Effective length about pile rotation ~ = 0.88-in Dv = 0 ft Oh = 19ft Otoe = 19 ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam = "W24 x 84" H = 16ft Dtoe = 19ft H + Dtoe = 3 5 ft dia = 30 -in .6. = 0.88. in Cantilever H = 16', bm 2-7.xmcdz Sb_No = "2-7" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Section 5 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "8-12, 40" Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_12__of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties Pile := "Concrete Embed" H := 13-ft X := 0 Hs := 0-ft ···> y := 0 xt := 8-ft dia := 30-in de':= dia dt := 2-H w_table := "n/a" ASTM A992 (Grade 50) E := 29000-ksi Fy := 50-ksi ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) D+H +L Lateral Embedment Safety Factor FSd := 1.30 Cantilever H = 13', bm 8-12, 40 _R1 .xmcdz = Soldier beam retained height = Height of retained slope (As applicable) = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth {Initial Guess) = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table Shoring Design Section I I I 10 ..... - 0 - -10 -- -20 -- I I -100 0 100 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa := 21-pcf Pp := 300 · pcf P max := 4500 • psf a':= 0-in Pps := Pp -a' <!> := 30-deg -1 be := 0.08 -deg •<!>•de' qa := 0-psf fs := 600 • psf "Is:= 120-pcf = Active earth pressure = Passive earth pressure Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: August 20 , 2019 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle below subgrade = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable so ldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soil unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable) 1w := 62.4-pcf Pp' := Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pp ( -. "I s -1w) otherwise "is Pa' := Pa if w_table = "n/a" Pa ( -. "Is -1w) otherwise "is Cantilever H = 13', bm 8-1 2, 40 R1.xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp' = 300 · pcf Pa'= 21-pcf Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full := 100 -psf Partial := 0 -psf Hpar := 0-ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet__gg_of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Ps(y):= Full +Partial if 0-ft :,;y :,;Hpar Full if Hpar <y :,;H Uniform surcharge profile per depth 0 • psf otherwise Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading Pr:= 0-kip e := 0-in Pr -e Me:= -- xt Ph := 0-lb zh := 0-ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP := 0-pcf Es := EFP -H Eq(y) := Es Es --·Y if y :,; H H 0-psf otherwise Cantilever H = 13', bm 8-12, 40 R1.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesg Loading q := 0-ksf x, := 0-ft x2 := x1 + 0-ft z' := 0-ft K := 0.50 e1 (y) ,= atan( xy1 ] Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_lQ_of __ Date: August 20, 2019 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non-yielding) o(y) O'.(y) := e, (y) + -2- K = 0. 75 (Semi-rigid) K = 0.50 (Flexible) Pb (y) := 0 -psf if O · ft :.::; y :.::; z' 2-q-K-TI-1-(o(y -z') -sin(o(y -z')) ·COS(2·0'.(y -z'))) if z' < y :.::; H 0 -psf otherwise Maximum Boussinesg Pressure t).y := 5-ft Given d -Pb (t).y) = 0-psf dt).y Pb(Find(t).y)) = 0-psf H f Pb(y)dy =O-klf 0 Cantilever H = 13', bm 8-12, 40 _R1.xmcdz Lateral Surcharge Loading 10 5 oL--------------====I 0 20 40 60 80 I 00 Pressure (psf) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheetl.1._of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) Z:=6-ft D:= dt PA(H) = 273-psf a_ratio-PA (H) = 204.8-psf 0 = 0.9 ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces + JH+O PE (y) dy + J H PA (y) dy + r +DPs (y) dy + r•D Pb (y) dy + r Eq(y) dy + Ph H O O O O xt Summation of Moments mE(z, D) PJ(H +D)· z -~ ------6-----+ (PE(H + D -z) + mE(z, D) ·Y)·(Z -y) dy ... 0 + r +D-z PE(y)•(H +O -y)dy + r •O P,(y).(H +O -y)dy + r PA(Y)·(H +O-y)dy +Me ... H+O H 0 + r•D Ps(y)•(H +D -y)dy + r Eq(y)•(H +D -y)dy +JH+D Pb (y)-(H +D -y)dy + Ph ·(H +D -zh) o o o xt (: J= Find (z, O) Cantilever H = 13', bm 8-12, 40 R1 .xmcdz Z >O z = 5.5 ft D = 14.5 ft =O = 0 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 ..c ..... 0.. Q) Cl 0 10 -2x 103 0 10 -6 -4 Cantilever H = 13', bm 8-12, 40 _R1 .xmcdz Soldier Beam Pressure 0 2x 103 Pressure (psf) Shear/ft width -2 0 2 4 Shear (kif) Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_R_of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Soil Pressures PA(H) = 273-psf Po(H + D) = -4352.3 -psf PE(H + D) = -3059.5 -psf PK (H + D) = 4500 -psf PJ(H + D) = 3375-psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pi le) e: := a ~ H e: ~ V(a) while e: > o a~ a+ 0.10 -ft e: ~ V(a) return a e: = 19.3ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) ,~ r V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 241.6-kip-ft Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheetll___of __ Date: August 20, 2019 n := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC El & Fl ~a := 1.33 Fy -~a Fb := --n = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax z ·=--r . Fb Flexural Yielding, Lb < Zr = 72.8 -in3 Beam = "W2 l x 50" A = 14.7-in 2 d =20.8-in ~ = 0.4-in Axial Stresses bf = 6.5-in tf =0.5-in r x = 8.2-in Fy >-:=- Fe Lr K:= 1 Zx = I1 0 -in 3 Ix = 984 -in 4 Fb = 39.8-ksi Lu := H if Pile = "Concrete Embed" c otherwise 2 TI ·E Fe :=--- Fer := ( >,. ) K-Lu [{; 0.658 -Fy if --:::; 4.7 1 · - rx Fy = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 (0.877 -Fe) otherwise Fcr ·A PC := -- 0 = Allowable concentric force -AISC E. 3-1 Ma ·= Z -Fb . X = Allowable bending moment -AISC F.2-1 Interaction := [~ + ~ •( MmaxJll if ~ :2: 0.20 Pc 9 Ma ~ Pc (~ + MmaxJ otherwise 2-Pc Ma Cantilever H = 13', bm 8-12, 40 R1 .xmcdz = A I SC H 1 -1 a & H 1-1 b Interaction = 0.66 Ma = 365 -kip -ft Mmax = 241.6-kip -ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Global Stability = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Oh := Ceil(O , ft)+ 2-ft Slidding Forces: J H+Dh Fs := V(H + O) + Pn(x) dx 02 Resisting Forces: Overturning Moments: Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_l.1_of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Fs = 8.6-klf FR = -15.4-klf H H H H M0 ,= f (Dh +H -y)•PA(y)dy + J (Dh +H -y)-Ps(y)dy + J (Dh +H -y)•Pb(y)dy + J (Dh +H -y)-1 o O O 0 JH+O ( 0 ) JH+Dh H + Oh -02 Ph + PE(y) dy-Oh -3 + Pn(y) dy -3 +Me + --(Oh + H -zh) xt H 0 2 Resisting Moments 02 MR ,= J (H +Dh -y)•Pn(y)dy H+O Factor of Safety: Slidding ,= i{Fsd s :: , "Ok", "No Good, lnccease Dh" J ( MR Overturning := if FSd s - Mo Cantilever H = 13', bm 8-12, 40 R1 .xmcdz , "Ok" , "No Good, lnccease Dh"] M0 = 75.8 -kip MR = -127-kip Slidding = "Ok" ~ = 1.79 Fs Overturning = "Ok" Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: August 20, 2019 qa = O•psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600•psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr =O•kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := TI ·dia if Pile= "Concrete Embed" [2 •(bf + d)] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Axial Resistance Q(y) := p'.fs •y + d. 2 TI· Ia •qa 4 if Pile = "Concrete Embed" (brd•qa) otherwise Dv := c ~ O•ft while T > 0 c ~ c + 0.10 .ft T ~ Pr -Q (c) return c Selected Toe Depth Dtoe := if( Dh ~ Dv , Dh , Dv) Maximum Deflection D L' := H + -4 xt JL' ~ := -. y•M'(y) dy E·lx o Cantilever H = 13', brn 8-12, 40 R1 .xrncdz = Effective length about pi le rotation ~ = 0.87 •in Dv = 0 ft Dh = 17 ft Dtoe = 17ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam = "W21 x 50" H = 13ft Otoe = 17ft H +Otoe = 30 ft dia = 30-in ~=0.87-in Cantilever H = 13', bm 8-12, 40 _R1 .xmcdz Sb_No = "8-12, 40" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheetl§___of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Section 6 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR SheetlZ_of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "13-22, 38-39" Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties Pile := "Concrete Embed" H := 12-ft X := 0 HS:= 0-ft ---> y := 0 xt := 8-ft dia := 24-in de':= dia dt := 2 -H w_table := "n/a" ASTM A992 (Grade 50) E := 29000 · ksi Fy := 50 -ksi ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) D+H+L Lateral Embedment Safety Factor FSd := 1.3 0 Cantilever H = 12', bm 13-22, 38-39 R1 .xmcdz = Soldier beam retained height = Height of retained slope (As applicable) = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess) = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table Shoring Design Section I I 10 - 0 -10 - -20 - I -100 0 I - - - - I 100 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa := 21-pcf Pp := 300 · pcf P max := 4500 • psf u':= 0 -in Pps := Pp -u' cp := 30-deg -I be:= 0.08 -deg •cp-de' qa := 0 -psf fs := 600 -psf 's := 120-pcf = Active earth pressure = Passive earth pressure Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: August 20, 2019 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle below subgrade = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soi I unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable) 'w := 62.4 -pcf Pp' := Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pp •(,s -1w) otherwise 1s Pa' := Pa if w_table = "n/a" Pa •(,s -'w) otherwise 's Cantilever H = 12', bm 13-22, 38-39 _R1 .xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp' = 300 -pcf Pa'= 21-pcf Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full := 100 -psf Partial := 0-psf Hpar := 0-ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam he ight = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng : RPR Sheet~of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Ps(y):= Full +Partial if 0 -ft ~y ~Hpar Full if Hpar < y ~ H Uniform surcharge profile per depth 0 • psf otherwise Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading Pr:= 0-kip e := 0 -in Pr -e Me := -- xt Ph := 0 -lb zh := 0-ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP := 0-pcf Es := EFP ·H Eq(y) := Es Es --·Y if y ~ H H 0-psf otherwise Cantilever H = 12', bm 13-22 , 38-39 R1 .xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesq Loading q := 0-ksf x, := 0 -ft x2 := x1 + 0-ft z' := 0-ft K := 0.50 e1 (y) ,~ atan( xy1 J Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_1Q_of __ Date: August 20, 2019 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non-yielding) &(y) o.(y) := e, (y) + -2- K = o. 75 (Semi-rigid) K = 0.50 (Flexible) Pb(y) := 0-psf if 0-ft $ y $ z' 2·q·K·1r -1-(&(y -z') -sin(&(y -z')) •cos(2·o.(y -z'))) if z' < y $ H 0 • psf otherwise Lateral Surcharge Loading Maximum Boussinesq Pressure l::!..y := 5-ft Given d -Pb(l::!..y) = 0-psf dl::!..y Pb(Find(l::!..y)) = 0 -psf H f Pb (y)dy =0-klf 0 Cantilever H = 12', bm 13-22, 38-39 _R1 .xmcdz 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 Pressure (psf) 100 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng : RPR Sheet_i!_of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) z := 6-ft D := dt PA(H) = 25 1.8-psf a_ratio -PA (H) = 163.7-psf 0 = 0.8ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces [ ] -PE(H+D-z) -PE(H +D-z) PJ(H + D) · z -~E(z,D) H+D-z mE(z, D) I 2 + (PE(H +D -z)+mE(z ,D)•y)dy + PE(y)dy ... 0 H+O JH+O JH f H+D f H+D f H Ph + PE (y) dy + PA (y) dy + Ps (y) dy + Pb (y) dy + Eq (y) dy + - H o O O O xt Summation of Moments [ -PE(H +D -z)] 2 mE(z , D) PJ(H + D) · z -I mE(z ,D) ------6-----+ (PE(H + D -z) + mE(z , D) ·Y)·(Z -y) dy ... 0 + r +D-z PE(y)•(H +D -y)dy + r +O PE(y)•(H +D -y)dy + r PA(Y)·(H +D -y)dy +Me ... H+O H 0 + f H+D Ps (y) · ( H + D -y) dy + f H Eq (y) · ( H + D -y) dy + f H+D Pb (y) · ( H + D -y) dy + Ph · ( H + D -zh) o o o xt (:):Find(z ,D) Cantilever H = 12', bm 13-22, 38-39 R1 .xmcdz Z >O z = 5.4 ft D = 14.3ft =O =O Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 0 2 10 '-' Soldier Beam Pressure Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet-1l__of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Soil Pressures PA(H) = 251.8-psf Po(H + D) = -4303-psf z. PE(H + D) = -2633.3-psf Q) Q -lxl03 0 2x J03 Pressure (psf) Shear/ft width o~--~---~---~---~---~ 2 10 .__, -6 -4 Cantilever H = 12', bm 13-22, 38-39 R1 .xmcdz -2 0 2 4 Shear (kif) PK (H + D) = 4500-psf PJ(H + D) = 2925-psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pi le) c := a~ H c ~ V(a) while c > 0 a~ a + 0.10 -ft c ~ V(a) return a c = 18.2 ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) '" r V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 203.3 -kip -ft Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: August 20, 2019 n := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1 ~CT := 1.33 Fy -~cr Fb := --n = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax Flexural Yielding, Lb < Zr = 61.3 -in3 Beam = "Wl 8 x 50" A = 14.7-in 2 d = I 8-in ~ = 0.4 -in Axial Stresses bf = 7.5-in tf = 0.6-in rx = 7.4-in Fy >-.:=- Fe z ·=--r . Fb Lr K := I Z =IOI -in 3 X I = 800 -in 4 X Fb = 39.8 -ksi Lu := H if Pile= "Concrete Embed" c: otherwise 2 TI -E Fe :=--- Fer:= K-Lu ff; if --S:4.7 1· - rx Fy = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 ( 0.877 • Fe) otherwise F cr ·A Pc :=-·--n = Allowable concentric force -AISC E.3-1 = Allowable bending moment -AISC F .2-1 Interaction := [ Pr 8 ( Mmax Jll Pr Pc + 9. Ma ~ if Pc z 0.20 (~ + MmaxJ otherwise 2-Pc Ma Cantilever H = 12', bm 13-22, 38-39 R1 .xmcdz = AISC H1-1a & H1-1b Interaction = 0.6 1 Ma = 335.2 -kip -ft Mmax = 203.3-kip -ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Global Stability FSd = 1.3 = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Oh := Ceil(O , ft)+ I •ft Slidding Forces: J H+Dh Fs :=V(H +O)+ Pn(x)dx 02 Resisting Forces: Overturning Moments: Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Fs = 7.6-klf FR = -I 1.3 -klf M0 :=JH (Dh +H -y)·PA(y)dy + r (Dh +H -y)•Ps(y)dy + r (Dh +H -y)•Pb(y)dy + r (Dh +H -y).I o O O 0 JH+O ( 0) JH+Dh H + Oh -02 Ph + PE(y) dy· Oh -3 + Pn(y) dy· 3 +Me + --(Oh + H -zh) xt H o2 Resisting Moments 02 MR ,~ J (H + Oh -y) ·Pn(y) dy H+O Factor of Safety: Slidding ,~ i{Fsd < :: , "Ok" , "No Goode lnc,easc Dh" J ( MR Overturning := if FSd ~ - Mo Cantilever H = 12', bm 13-22, 38-39 R1 .xmcdz , "Ok" , "No Goode lnccm, Dh"] M0 = 62.8-kip MR = -89.9-kip Slidding = "Ok" Overturning = "Ok" Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: August 20 , 20 19 qa = 0-psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600-psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr =O-kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := 1r -dia if Pile= "Concrete Embed" [2 -(bf + d)] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Axial Resistance Q (y) := p'-fs -y + d. 2 'TT· Ia -qa 4 if Pile = "Concrete Embed" (bf·d-qa) otherwise Dv := E ~ 0-ft while T >O E ~ E + 0.JQ .ft T~Pr -Q(E) return E Selected Toe Depth Otoe := if( Dh ;?: Dv , Dh , Dv) Maximum Deflection D L' := H + - 4 xt JL' .6. := -· y-M'(y) dy E·lx o Cantilever H = 12', bm 13-22, 38-39 R1 .xmcdz = Effective length about pi le rotation .6. = 0.79-in Dv = 0 ft Dh = 16ft Otoe= 16 ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam = "Wl8 x 50" H = 12 ft Otoe = 16ft H + Otoe = 28 ft dia = 24-in ~ = 0.79-in Cantilever H = 12', bm 13-22, 38-39 R1 .xmcdz Sb_No = "1 3-22, 38-39" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_±§__of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Section 7 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "23-37" Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_£of __ Date: October 1, 2019 Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties Pile := "Concrete Embed" H := JO -ft X:= 1.5 Hs:= 2-ft ---> y := I xt := 8 -ft dia := 24-in de':= dia dt := 2-H w_table := "n/a" ASTM A992 (Grade 50) E := 29000 · ksi Fy := 50 -ksi ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) D + H + L Lateral Embedment Safety Factor FSd := 1.30 Cantilever H = 1 O', bm 23-37 with Slope_R2.xmcdz = Soldier beam retained height = Height of retained slope (As applicable) = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess) = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table Shoring Design Section I I I 10 -- 0 - -10 -- -20 I I -50 0 50 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa:= 60-pcf-(70%) Pp := 300 · pcf P max := 4500 • psf a':= 0-in Pps := Pp -a' <I>:= 30 -deg -] be := 0.08-deg •<l>•de' qa := 0-psf fs := 600-psf l s := 120 -pcf = Active earth pressure with slope surcharge (Reduced for temporary application) = Passive earth pressure Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: October 1, 2019 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle below subgrade = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soil unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable) l w := 62.4 -pcf Pp' := Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pp •(1s -l w) otherwise l s Pa' := Pa if w_table = "n/a" Pa •(1s -l w) otherwise l s Cantilever H = 1 O', bm 23-37 with Slope_R2 .xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp' = 300 · pcf Pa'= 42-pcf Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full := 100 -psf Partial := 0-psf Hpar := 0-ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_ft_of __ Date: October 1, 2019 Ps(y):= Full +Partial if 0 -ft ~y ~Hpar Full if Hpar <y ~H Uniform surcharge profile per depth O • psf otherwise Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading Pr := 0-kip e := 0-in Pr -e Me := -- xt Ph := 0-lb zh := 0-ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP := 0-pcf Es := EFP-H Eq(y) := Es Es --·Y if y ~ H H 0 -psf otherwise Cantilever H = 1 O', bm 23-37 with Slope_R2.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesq Loading q := 0-ksf x, := 0-ft x2 := x1 + 0-ft z' := 0-ft K := 0.50 e1 (y) a ata{ x; J Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: October 1, 2019 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non -yielding) li(y) a(y) := e1 (y) + -2- K = 0. 75 (Semi-rigid) K = 0.50 (Flexible) Pb(y) := 0-psf if 0-ft ~ y ~ z' 2-q•K ·TI-1-(li(y -z') -sin(li(y -z'))·COS(2·0'.(y -z'))) if z'<y ~H o • psf otherwise Maximum Boussinesq Pressure bi.y := 5-ft Given d -Pb (bi.y) = 0-psf dbi.y Pb ( Find (bi.y)) = 0-psf H f Pb(y)dy =0 -klf 0 Cantilever H = 1 O', bm 23-37 with Slope_R2.xmcdz Lateral Surcharge Loading 10 5 0---------------------~ 0 20 40 60 80 I 00 Pressure (psf) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng : RPR Sheet~of __ Date: October 1, 2019 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) z := 6-ft D := dt PA(H) = 420.4-psf a_ratio-PA (H) = 252.3 -psf 0 = 1.4 ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces J -PE(H+D-z) ( -PE ( H + D -z) PJ(H + D) · z -~E(z,D) H+D-z mE(z , D) I 2 + (PE(H + D -z) + mE(z , D) ·Y) dy + PE(y) dy ... 0 H+O + JH+O PE (y) dy + f H PA (y) dy + J"+D Ps (y) dy + J"+D Pb (y) dy + J" Eq (y) dy + Ph H O O O O xt Summation of Moments ] 2 -PE(H+D-z) ( -PE(H +D -z) PJ(H +D)· z ------~ mE(z , D) ___ ____;_ __ 6-----'--+ (PE(H + D -z) + mE(z , D) ·Y)·(Z -y) dy ... 0 + r +D-z PE(y)-(H + 0 -y) dy + r +O PE(y)-(H + 0 -y) dy + r PA (y)-(H + 0 -y) dy + Me .. H+O H 0 + JH+D Ps(y) •(H + D -y) dy + JH Eq(y) ·(H + D -y) dy + JH+D Pb(y)-(H + D -y) dy + Ph ·(H + D -zh) O O o xt (: )=Find (z , 0) Cantilever H = 1 O', bm 23-37 with Slope_R2.xmcdz Z >O z = 6.3 ft D = 16.4 ft =O =O Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soldier Beam Pressure 0.------...-------.-------r----~--~ Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng : RPR Sheet~of __ Date: October 1, 2019 Soil Pressures PA(H) = 420.4 -psf Po(H + D) = -4500-psf t PE(H + D) = -2447.7 -psf 11) 0 -2x 103 -lx l03 0 2x 103 Pressure (psf) Shear/ft width 0.--------,,--------.-------r---~---~ -6 -4 Cantilever H = 10', bm 23-37 with Slope_R2.xmcdz -2 Shear (kif) 0 2 4 PK (H + D) = 4500-psf PJ(H + D) = 2700-psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pi le} E: := a~ H E: ~ V(a) while E: > 0 a~ a + 0.10 -ft E: ~ V(a) return a E:=17.S ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) ,0 r V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 238.1-kip -ft Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: October 1, 2019 n := t.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC El & Fl ~(J' := 1.33 Fy·~O' Fb := --n = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax z ·=--r . Fb Flexural Yielding, Lb < Zr = 71.7-in3 Beam = "W1 8 x 50" A = 14.7 -in 2 d = 18-in ~ = 0.4 -in Axial Stresses bf = 7.5-in ¼ = 0.6-in rx = 7.4 -in Fy >-:=- Fe Lr K := I Zx = IOI •in 3 Ix = 800-in 4 Fb = 39.8-ksi Lu := H if Pile = "Concrete Embed" e: otherwise 2 7T · E Fe :=--- Fer := = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 (0.877 -Fe) otherwise F cr ·A PC := -- 0 = Allowable concentr.ic force -AISC E.3-1 = Allowable bending moment -AISC F.2-1 Interaction := [~ + ~ •( MmaxJll if ~ 2 0.20 Pc 9 Ma ~ Pc (~ + Mmax J otherwise 2-Pc Ma Cantilever H = 1 O', bm 23-37 with Slope_R2 .xmcdz = AISC Hl-la & Hl-lb Interaction = 0.7 1 Ma = 335.2 -kip -ft Mmax = 238.1-kip -ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Global Stability = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Dh := Ceil(D , ft)+ I -ft Slidding Forces : J H+Dh Fs :=V(H +O)+ Pn(x)dx 02 Resisting Forces: Overturning Moments: Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng : RPR Sheet~of __ Date: October 1, 2019 Fs = 8.3-klf FR = -11.9-klf H H H H M0 := f (Dh +H -y)•PA (y)dy + f (Dh +H -y)•Ps(y)dy + f (Dh +H -y)•Pb(y)dy + f (Dh +H -y)·E o O O 0 I H+O ( 0) JH+Dh H + Dh -02 Ph + PE(y) dy• Dh -3 + Pn(Y) dy· 3 +Me + -·(Dh + H -zh) xt H 02 Resisting Moments 02 MR := J ( H + Oh -y) · P n (y) dy H+O Factor of Safety: Slidding := i{Fsd $ :~ , "Ok" , "No Good: Enccoaso Oh " J ( MR Overturning := if FSd :;; - Mo Cantilever H = 1 O', bm 23-37 with Slope_R2 .xmcdz , "Ok" , "No Good: Enccoaso Dh"] Slidding = "Ok" M0 = 77.3 -kip MR = -105.9-kip M= 1.44 Fs Overturning = "Ok" Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_i§__of __ Date: October 1, 2019 qa = 0-psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600-psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr =O-kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := TI -dia if Pile= "Concrete Embed" [2 ·(bf + d)] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Axial Resistance Q(y) := p'-fs-y + d. 2 TI · Ia -qa 4 if Pile = "Concrete Embed" (bf·d-qa) otherwise Dv := e ~ 0-ft while T > 0 e ~ e + 0.10 -ft T ~ Pr -Q (e) return e Selected Toe Depth Otoe := if( Oh ~ Dv , Oh , Dv) Maximum Deflection D L' := H + -4 xt JL' .6. := -· y-M'(y) dy E·lx o Cantilever H = 1 O', bm 23-37 with Slope_R2 .xmcdz = Effective length about pile rotation .6. = 0.72-in Dv = 0 ft Dh = 18 ft Otoe = 18ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam = "WI 8 x 50" H = 10ft Otoe = 18ft H +Otoe = 28 ft dia = 24 -in ~ = 0.72-in Cantilever H = 10', bm 23-37 with Slope_R2.xmcdz Sb_No = "23-37" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: October 1, 2019 Section 8 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet__QI__of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "41 " Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties Pile := "Concrete Embed" H := 14-ft = Soldier beam retained height X := 0 Hs := 0-ft ---> = Height of retained slope (As applicable) y := 0 xt := 8-ft = Tributary width of soldier beam dia := 30-in = Soldier beam shaft diameter de':= dia = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade dt := 2 -H = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth {Initial Guess) w_table := "n/a" = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table ASTM A992 (Grade 50) Shoring Design Section I I I E := 29000 · ksi 10 ~ - Fy := 50 -ksi ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) 0 - D+H+L -10 '-- Lateral Embedment Safety Factor -20 I-- FSd := 1.30 I I -100 0 100 Cantilever H = 14', bm 41 _R1 .xmcdz Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa := 21-pcf Pp := 300 -pcf Pmax := 4500 -psf u':= 0-in Pps := Pp -u ' cp := 30-deg -I be := 0.08-deg -cp -de' qa := 0-psf fs := 600-psf , s := 120 · pcf = Active earth pressure = Passive earth pressure Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_fili_of __ Date: August 20, 2019 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle below subgrade = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soi I unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable) 'w := 62.4 -pcf Pp' := Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pp •(,s -'w) otherwise 's Pa' := Pa if w_table = "n/a" Pa --(,s -'w) otherwise 's Cantilever H = 14', bm 41_R1.xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp' = 300 · pcf Pa'= 21-pcf Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full := 100 -psf Partia I := o -psf Hpar := 0-ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Ps(y) := Full + Partial if 0 -ft ~ y ~ Hpar Full if Hpar <y ~H Uniform surcharge profile per depth 0 • psf otherwise Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading Pr := 0-kip e := 0-in Pr-e Me := -- xt Ph := 0-lb zh := 0 -ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pant load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP := 0-pcf Es := EFP -H Eq (y) := Es Es --·Y if y ~ H H 0 -psf otherwise Cantilever H = 14', bm 41_R1.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Max imum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesg Loading q := 0-ksf x, := 0-ft x2 := x1 + 0-ft z' := 0-ft K := 0.50 e1 (y) ,= atan( xy, J Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_§_Q_of __ Date: August 20, 2019 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non-yielding) o(y) o.(y) := e, (y) + -2- K = 0. 75 (Semi-rigid) K = 0.50 (Flexible) Pb(y) := 0-psf if 0-ft s y s z' 2-q•K·1r-1-(o(y -z') -sin(o(y -z'))-cos(2·o.(y -z'))) if z' < y s H 0 • psf otherwise Maximum Boussinesg Pressure f:).y := 5-ft Given d -Pb{f:).y) = 0-psf df:).y Pb(Find(f:).y)) = 0-psf H f Pb(y)dy =0-klf 0 Cantilever H = 14', bm 41_R1 .xmcdz Lateral Surcharge Loading 10 5 ol--------------~==e=d 0 20 40 60 80 I 00 Pressure (psf) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet.§l__ot __ Date: August 20, 2019 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) z := 6 -ft D := dt a_ratio-PA (H) = 249.9-psf 0 = I ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces PJ(H + D) ·[Z--PE(H + D -z)] I-~;~,~:z) H+D-z mE(z,D) I 2 + (PE (H + D -z) + mE(z , D) ·Y) dy + PE(y) dy ... 0 H+O IH+O I H J H+D f H+D f H Ph + PE(y) dy + PA (y) dy + Ps(y) dy + Pb(y) dy + Eq(y) dy + - H O O O O xt Summation of Moments PJ(H +D)· Z -l mE(z, D) ------6----~ + (PE(H + D -z) + mE(z, D) ·Y)·(Z -y) dy ... 0 + r •D-z PE(yj.(H +D -y)dy + r •D PE(Y)·(H +D -y)dy + r PA(y)•(H +D -y)dy +Me ... H+O H 0 + f H+D Ps(y) •(H + D -y) dy + f H Eq(y) ·(H + D -y) dy + f H+D Pb(y) •(H + D -y) dy + Ph ·(H + D -zh) O o O xt (:) = Find(z , D) Z >O Z = 5.6 ft D = 14.7 ft Cantilever H = 14', bm 41 _R1 .xmcdz =O =O Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soldier Beam Pressure o,~------------------~ 10 -4x 103 -2x 103 0 Pressure (psf) Shear/ft width 2x 103 o,----------r------~--------, 10 -10 -5 0 5 Shear (ki f) Cantilever H = 14', bm 41_R1 .xmcdz Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng : RPR SheetR of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Soil Pressures PA(H) = 294-psf Po(H + D) = -4416.6-psf PE(H + D) = -3504.2-psf PK (H + D) = 4500-psf PJ(H + D) = 3825 -psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pi le) E: := a ~ H E: ~ V(a) while E: > 0 a ~ a + 0.10 -ft i::~V(a) return a E: = 20.3 ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) ,~ r V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 284.2-kip -ft Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: August 20, 2019 n := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1 b.cr := 1.33 Fy -b.cr Fb := -- 0 = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax Flexural Yielding, Lb < Zr = 85.6-in3 z ·=--r . Fb Beam = "W24 x 62" Lr Fb = 39.8 -ksi 2 A = 18.2-in bf = 7-in K:= I Lu := H if Pile= "Concrete Embed" d =23.7-in tw = 0.4-in Axial Stresses tf = 0.6-in rx = 9.2-in Fy \:=- Fe Zx =153-in 3 c otherwise Ix = I 550 -in 4 2 TI -E Fe :=--- Fer := = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 (0.877-Fe) otherwise Fer ·A = Allowable concentric force -AISC E. 3-1 Pc := -- 0 Ma := Zx ·Fb = Allowable bending moment -AISC F.2-1 Interaction := [::+ ¾t::x J] if ;:, 020 = A I SC H 1 -1 a & H 1-1 b Ma = 507.7-kip -ft (~ + MmaxJ otherwise 2 -Pc Ma Interaction = 0.56 Mmax = 284.2 -kip -ft Cantilever H = 14', bm 41_R1.xmcdz Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Global Stability = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Oh:= Ceil(O ,ft) + I-ft Slidding Forces: J H+Dh Fs := V(H + O) + Pn(x) dx 02 Resisting Forces: Overturning Moments: Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet.§±__of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Fs = I0.I ·kif FR = -13.9-klf H H H H M0 :=J (Oh +H -y)•PA(y)dy + f (Oh +H -y)-Ps(y)dy + f (Oh +H -y)-Pb(y)dy + f (Oh +H -y)•E o O O 0 JH+O ( OJ JH+Dh H + Oh -Oz Ph + PE(y)dy• Oh -3 + Pn(y)dy· 3 +Me +-·(Oh +H -zh) xt H o2 Resist ing Moments 02 MR '" J (H +Dh -y)•Pn(y) dy H+O Factor of Safety: Slidding ,, i{Fsd < :: , "Ok" , "No Goode Increase Oh" J Overturning ,, {Fsd < :: , "Ok", "No Goode Increase Oh"] Cantilever H = 14', bm 41_R1 .xmcdz M0 = 84.2-kip MR = -1 I l.6·kip Slidding = "Ok" ~ = 1.37 Fs Overturning = "Ok" IMRI = 1.33 Mo Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: August 20, 2019 qa = 0-psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600-psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr =0-kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := -rr -dia if Pile= "Concrete Embed" [ 2 · ( bf + d )] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Ax ial Resistance Q (y) := p'-fs -y + d . 2 -rr · Ia -qa 4 if Pile= "Concrete Embed" (brd•qa) otherwise Dv := i:: ~ 0-ft while T > 0 i:: ~ i:: + 0.10 -ft T ~ Pr -Q (E) return i:: Selected Toe Depth Otoe := if( Dh ~ Dv , Dh , Dv) Maximum Deflection D L' := H + - 4 xt JL' ti.:= -· y-M'(y) dy E·lx 0 Cantilever H = 14', bm 41_R1.xmcdz = Effective length about pi le rotation ti.= 0.73 • in Dv = 0 ft Dh = 16ft Dtoe = 16ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam = "W24 x 62" H = 14 ft Otoe = 16ft H +Otoe = 30 ft dia = 30 -in ~=0.73-in Cantilever H = 14', bm 41_R1.xmcdz Sb_No = "41" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Section 9 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng : RPR Sheet__§l__of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "42-46" Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties Pile:= "Concrete Embed" H := 18-ft = Soldier beam retained height X := 0 Hs := 0-ft ---> = Height of retained slope (As applicable) y := 0 xt := 7-ft = Tributary width of soldier beam dia := 36-in = Soldier beam shaft diameter de':= dia = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade dt := 2-H = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess) w_table := "n/a" = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table ASTM A992 (Grade 50) Shoring Design Section I 7 7 E := 29000 · ksi 20 ~ - Fy := 50-ksi 0 - ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) D+H+L Lateral Embedment Safety Factor -20 ~ - FSd := 1.30 I I -100 0 100 Cantilever H = 18', bm 42-46_R1 .xmcdz Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa := 21-pcf Pp := 300 · pcf Pmax := 4500 -psf a':= 0-in Pps := Pp -a' cp := 30-deg -I be := 0.08 -deg •<!>•de' qa := 0-psf fs := 600 • psf 1s := 120-pcf = Active earth pressure = Passive earth pressure Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: August 20, 2019 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle below subgrade = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soil unit weight Bouyant Soi I Properties (As applicable) 1w := 62.4-pcf Pp' := Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pa' := Pa if w_table = "n/a" Pa •(1s -1w) otherwise 1s Cantilever H = 18', bm 42-46_R1 .xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp'= 300 -pcf Pa'= 21-pcf Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full := 0-psf Partial := I 00 -psf Hpar := 15 -ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet__§_g_ot __ Date: August 20, 2019 Ps(y):= Full +Partial if 0-ft $y $Hpar Full if Hpar < y $ H Uniform surcharge profile per depth 0 -psf otherwise Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading Pr := 0 -kip e := 0-in Pr-e Me:= -- xt Ph := 0-lb zh := 0-ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pant load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP := 0•pcf Es:= EFP ·H Eq (y) := Es Es --·Y if y $ H H 0-psf otherwise Cantilever H = 18', bm 42-46 _R 1.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng : RPR Sheet_lQ_of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Boussinesg Loading q := 0-ksf x, := 0-ft x2 := x1 + 0-ft z' := 0-ft K := 0.50 e1 (y) '" atan ( xy 1 J Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non-yielding) 8(y) a (y) := e, (y) + -2- K = 0. 75 (Semi -rigid) K = 0.50 (Flexible) Pb(y) := 0-psf if 0-ft ~y ~z' 2-q -K-n-1-(8(y -z')-sin(8(y -z'))·COS(2·a (y -z'))) if z'<y ~H o • psf otherwise Lateral Surcharge Loading Maximum Boussinesg Pressure 6.y := 5-ft Given d -Pb(b..y) = 0-psf db..y Pb(Find(b..y)) = 0-psf H I Pb(y) dy = 0-klf 0 Cantilever H = 18', bm 42-46_R1 .xmcdz 15 £ '-' I 0 -5 0. Q) 0 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 Pressure (psf) 100 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet..1..l_of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) z := 6-ft D := dt PA(H) = 378 -psf a_ratio-PA (H) = 378 -psf 0 = 1.3 ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces [ ] -PE(H+D-z) -PE(H +D -z) PJ(H + D) · z -~E(z,D) H+D-z mE(z,D) I 2 + (PE(H + D -z) + mE(z , D) ·Y) dy + PE(y) dy ... 0 H+O IH+O I H J H+D J H+D J H Ph + PE(y) dy + PA (y) dy + Ps(y) dy + Pb{y) dy + Eq(y) dy + - H O O O O xt Summation of Moments PJ(H +D)-z -~ mE(z, D) ------6-----+ (PE(H + D -z) + mE(z, D) ·Y)·(Z -y) dy ... 0 + r +D-z PE(Y)·(H +D -y)dy + r +O PE(Y)·(H +D -y)dy + r PA(y)•(H +D -y)dy +Me ... H+O H 0 + f H+D Ps(y) •(H + D -y) dy + f H Eq(y) •(H + D -y) dy + f H+D Pb(y) •(H + D -y) dy + Ph •(H + D -zh) O o o xt (: )=find (z , D) Z >O z = 7.1 ft D =17.2 ft Cantilever H = 18', bm 42-46_R1 .xmcdz =O =O Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soldier Beam Pressure o,.--------r------r------,-------.---, 10 20 -4x 103 -2x 103 0 Pressure (psf) Shear/ft width 2x 103 4x l03 0.-------,-----,--------.-------r----~ 10 20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 Shear (kif) Cantilever H = 18', bm 42-46_R1.xmcdz Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_ll_of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Soil Pressures PA (H) = 378-psf Po(H + D) = -4500-psf PE(H + D) = -4122 -psf PK(H + D) = 4500-psf PJ(H + D) = 4500-psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pile) c := a+-H c+-V(a) while c > 0 a+-a + 0.10 -ft c +-V(a) return a c = 25.2 ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) '" f V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 438.2-kip -ft Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet..:u_of __ Date: August 20, 2019 0 := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1 ~CT := 1.33 Fy -~cr Fb := -- 0 = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax Flexural Yielding, Lb < Zr = 132-in3 z ·=--r. Fb Beam = "W24 x 104" Lr Fb = 39.8 -ksi A = 30.6-in 2 d = 24.1-in ~ = 0.5-in Axial Stresses Fer := bf = 12.8-in tf = 0.8-in rx =I0.l •in Fy >--:=- Fe K := I Zx = 289-in 3 Ix = 3100 -in 4 Lu := H if Pile= "Concrete Embed" c: otherwise 2 n . E Fe:=--- = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 (0.877 -Fe) otherwise F cr ·A Pc :=-- 0 Interaction := = Allowable concentric force -AISC E.3-1 = Allowable bending moment -AISC F.2-1 [:> ¾t;:x J] if :> 020 = AISC H1 -1a & H1-1b (~ + MmaxJ otherwise 2-Pc Ma Interaction = 0.46 Cantilever H = 18', bm 42-46 _R 1.xmcdz Ma = 959-kip -ft Mmax = 438.2-kip-ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Global Stability = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Oh := Ceil(O , ft)+ 2-ft Slidding Forces: J H+Dh Fs := V(H + 0) + Pn(x) dx 02 Resisting Forces : Overturning Moments: Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheetl±__of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Fs = I4.I -klf FR = -25.7 -klf M0 := J" (Dh + H -y) PA(y) dy + r (Dh + H -y)•Ps(y) dy + r (Dh + H -y)-Pb (y) dy + r (Dh + H -y)·I o O O 0 JH+O 0) J H+Dh H + Oh -02 Ph + PE(y)dy-(oh -3 + Pn(y)dy-3 +Me +-·(Oh +H -zh) xt H 0 2 Resisting Moments 02 MR c= f (H + Dh -y) •Pn(Y) dy H+O Factor of Safety: Slidding c= i{Fsd $ :: , "Ok" , "No Good, lno,o,,o Dh " J Overturning c= {Fsd < :: , "Ok" , "No Good, loo,o,,o Oh"] Cantilever H = 18', bm 42-46_R1 .xmcdz Slidding = "Ok" M0 = 150.9-kip MR = -255.9 -kip ~=1.82 Fs Overturning = "Ok" Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: August 20, 2019 qa = 0-psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600 -psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr = 0-kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := -rr -dia if Pile= "Concrete Embed" [ 2 · ( bf + d )] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Axial Resistance Q (y) := p'-fs-y + d. 2 Tr· Ia -qa 4 if Pile = "Concrete Embed" (bf·d-qa) otherwise Dv := E: ~ 0-ft while T > o E: ~ E: + 0.10 -ft T~Pr-Q(i::) return i:: Selected Toe Depth Otoe := if(Dh ~ Dv , Dh , Dv) Maximum Deflection D L' := H + - 4 xt fl' ii:=-. y-M'(y) dy E·lx O Cantilever H = 18', bm 42-46_R1 .xmcdz = Effective length about pi le rotation ii= 0.9 -in Dv = 0 ft Dh =20 ft Otoe = 20 ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam = "W24 x 104" H = 18ft Otoe = 20ft H + Otoe = 3 8 ft dia =36-in ~ = 0.9 -in Cantilever H = 18', bm 42-46_R1 .xmcdz Sb_No = "42-46" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_l§_of __ Date: August 20, 2019 Section 10 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR SheetlZ___of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "47-53" Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties Pile := "Concrete Embed" H := I5-ft X := 0 HS := 0-ft ---> y := 0 xt := 8-ft dia := 30-in de':= dia dt :=2-H w_table := "n/a" ASTM A992 (Grade 50) E := 29000 · ksi Fy := 50 -ksi ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) D + H + L Lateral Embedment Safety Factor FSd := 1.30 Cantilever H = 15', bm 47-53.xmcdz = Soldier beam retained height = Height of retained slope (As applicable) = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth {Initial Guess) = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table 20 10 2 0 ,.__,, ..c ...... 0.. Q) Cl -10 -20 -30 Shoring Design Section I I - - - I -100 0 I - - - - I 100 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa := 21-pcf Pp := 300 · pcf P max := 4500 • psf er':= 0-in Pps := Pp -er' cp := 30 -deg -] be := 0.08-deg -cp -de' qa := 0-psf fs := 600 • psf 1s := 120 -pcf = Active earth pressure = Passive earth pressure Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_l§___ot __ Date: July 9, 2019 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable) = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle below subgrade = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soil unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable) 1w := 62.4-pcf Pp' := Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pp ( -. 1s -1w) otherwise 1s Pa':= Pa if w_table = "n/a" Pa •(1s -1w) otherwise 1 s Cantilever H = 15', bm 47-53.xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp' = 300 · pcf Pa'=21 -pcf Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full := 0-psf Partial := 100-psf Hpar := 15 -ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_zg_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Ps(y):= Full+Partial if 0-ft ~y ~Hpar Full if Hpar < y ~ H Uniform surcharge profile per depth o • psf otherwise Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading Pr := 0-kip e := 0-in Pr -e Me := -- xt Ph := 0-lb zh := 0-ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP := 0-pcf Es := EFP -H Eq(y) := Es Es --·Y if y ~ H H o • psf otherwise Cantilever H = 15', bm 47-53.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesg Loading q := 0-ksf x, := 0-ft x2 := x1 + 0-ft z' := 0-ft K := 0.50 e1 (y) := atan ( xy, J Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_§Q_ot __ Date: July 9, 2019 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wal I to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1 .00 (Rigid non-yielding) ci (y) a (y) := e, (y) + -2- K = 0. 75 (Semi -rigid} K = 0.50 (Flexible) Pb(y):= 0-psf if 0-ft ~y ~z· 2 · q · K · TI -1 · ( ci ( y -z') -sin ( ci ( y -z') ) · cos ( 2 · O. ( y -z') } } if z' < y ~ H 0 • psf otherwise Maximum Boussinesg Pressure b.y := 5-ft Given d -Pb(b.y} = 0-psf db.y Pb(Find(b.y)) = 0-psf H J Pb(y)dy =0-klf 0 Cantilever H = 15', bm 47-53.xmcdz Lateral Surcharge Loading 15-------------------~ 10 5 oL----------------~== 0 20 40 60 80 100 Pressure (psf) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng : RPR Sheetjli_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) z := 6-ft D := dt PA ( H) = 3 I 5 · psf a_ratio-PA(H) = 236.2-psf 0 = I.I ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces ( J -PE(H+D-z) -PE(H +D -z) PJ(H + D) · z -~E(z,D) H+D-z mE(z, D) I 2 + (PE(H + D -z) + mE(z, D) ·y) dy + PE(y) dy ... 0 H+O IH+O I H J H+D J H+D J H Ph + PE (y) dy + PA (y) dy + Ps (y) dy + Pb (y) dy + Eq (y) dy + - H O O O O xt Summation of Moments ( -PE(H + D -z)J 2 PJ(H +D)· z -I mE(z,D) mE(z,D) ------6-----+ (PE(H + D -z) + mE(z, D) ·Y)·(Z -y) dy ... 0 + r +D-, PE(Y) ·(H + D -y) dy + r +O PE(Y) ·(H + D -y) dy + r PA (y)-(H + D -y) dy +Me ... H+O H 0 + f H+D Ps(y)-(H + D -y) dy + J H Eq(y)-(H + D -y) dy + J H+D Pb(y)-(H + D -y) dy + Ph ·(H + D -zh) o O O xt [: )-Find(,, D) Z >O z = 6.8 ft D = 16.7 ft Cantilever H = 15', bm 47-53.xmcdz =O =O Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soldier Beam Pressure o,r--------~---------r-----~ 10 20 -2x 103 0 2x 103 Pressure (psf) Shear/ft width o,r----------r-------r-------_, 10 20 -10 -5 0 5 Shear (kif) Cantilever H = 15', bm 47-53.xmcdz Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet.Jif_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Soil Pressures Po(H + D) = -4500-psf PE(H + D) = -3 138.8-psf PK (H + D) = 4500 -psf PJ(H + D) = 3375 -psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pile) E := a+--H c+--V(a) while c > 0 a +--a + 0.I0 ·ft E +--V(a) return a E = 22.1 ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) ,~ r V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = 344.2 -kip -ft Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet___§l___of __ Date: July 9, 2019 n := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC E1 & F1 !::!..a-:= I .33 Fy-6.o- Fb := --n = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus : Mmax z ·=--r . Fb Flexural Yielding, Lb < Zr = 103.7-in3 Beam = "W24 x 76" A = 22.4 -in 2 d = 23.9-in ~ = 0.4-in Axial Stresses bf = 9-in tf = 0.7-in rx = 9.7-in Fy >-:=- Fe Lr K := I Zx = 200 -in 3 Ix = 2I00-in 4 Fb = 39.8-ksi Lu := H if Pile = "Concrete Embed" € otherwise 2 'TT • E Fe :=--- Fer := ( >.. ) K-Lu ff; 0.658 -Fy if --:,; 4.7 1 · - rx Fy = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 (0.877 -Fe) otherwise Fcr ·A Pc:= --n = Allowable concentric force -AISC E.3-1 Ma ·= Z -Fb . X = Allowable bending moment -AISC F. 2-1 Interaction:= [~ + ~ •( MmaxJ~ if ~ ~ 0.20 Pc 9 Ma ~ Pc = A I SC H 1-1 a & H 1 -1 b (~ + Mmax J otherwise 2-Pc Ma Interaction = 0.52 Cantilever H = 15', bm 47-53.xmcdz Ma = 663 .7 -kip -ft Mmax = 344.2-kip -ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Global Stability FSd = 1.3 = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Oh := Ceil(O , ft)+ I -ft Slidding Forces: J H+Dh Fs := V(H + O) + Pn(x) dx 02 Resisting Forces : Overturning Moments: Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng : RPR SheetJM.__of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Fs = 10.8-klf FR = -14.7-klf H H H H M0 :=J (Oh +H -y)-PA(y)dy + f (Dh +H -y)-Ps(y)dy + f (Dh +H -y)-Pb(y)dy + f (Dh +H -y)-E o O O 0 I H+O ( 0) JH+Dh H + Oh -02 Ph + PE(y) dy-Oh -3 + Pn(Y) dy-3 +Me + --(Dh + H -zh) xt H 02 Resisting Moments 02 MR•= J (H + Dh -y) ·Pn(y) dy H+O Factor of Safety: Slidding •= i{Fsd < :: , "Ok" , "No Good, lncre,s, Dh" J [ MR Overturning := if FSd ~ - Mo Cantilever H = 15', bm 47-53.xmcdz , "Ok" , "No Good, Increase Dh" J Slidding = "Ok" M0 = 104 -kip MR = -136.5 -kip ~=1.36 Fs Overturning = "Ok" Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheetj!§_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 qa = 0-psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600-psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr =O-kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := 1r-dia if Pile= "Concrete Embed" [ 2 · ( bf + d )] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Axial Resistance Q(y) := p'-fs -y + d. 2 7T· Ia -qa 4 if Pile = "Concrete Embed" (brd-qa) otherwise Dv := e ~ 0 • ft while T >O e ~ e + 0.10 -ft T ~ Pr -Q (e) return e Selected Toe Depth Otoe := if(Dh ~ Dv , Dh , Dv) Maximum Deflection D L' := H + -4 xt JL' ~ := -. y-M'(y) dy E·lx o Cantilever H = 15', bm 47-53.xmcdz = Effective length about pi le rotation ~=0.77-in Dv = 0 ft Oh = 18ft Otoe = 18 ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam = "W24 x 76" H = 15ft Otoe = 18 ft H + Otoe = 33 ft dia = 30-in .6.=0.77-in Cantilever H = 15', bm 47-53.xmcdz Sb_No = "47-53" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet__§_§_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Section 11 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Cantileverd Soldier Beam Design Sb_No := "54" Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_fil__of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Soldier Beam Attributes & Properties Pile := "Concrete Embed" H := 9-ft = Soldier beam retained height X := 0 Hs := 0-ft ---> = Height of retained slope (As applicable) y := 0 xt := 8-ft = Tributary width of soldier beam dia := 24-in = Soldier beam shaft diameter de':= dia = Effective soldier beam diameter below subgrade dt := 2-H = Assumed soldier beam embedment depth (Initial Guess) w_table := "n/a" = Depth below top of wall to design ground water table ASTM A992 (Grade 50) Shoring Design Section I I I E := 29000 -ksi 10 -- Fy := 50 -ksi ASCE 7.2.4.1 (2) 0 - Later a I Embedment Safety Factor -IO -- FSd := 1.30 I I -50 0 50 Cantilever H = 9', bm 54.xmcdz Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soil Parameters Pa := 21-pcf Pp := 300 -pcf P max := 4500-psf a':= 0-in Pps := Pp -a' <j>:= 30-deg -I be := 0.08-deg •<J>•de' qa := 0-psf fs := 600 -psf 1 s := 120-pcf = Active earth pressure = Passive earth pressure Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng : RPR Sheet___§_§_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 = Maximum passive earth pressure ("n/a" = not applicable} = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Passive pressure offset at subgrade = Internal soil friction angle below subgrade = Effective soldier beam width below subgrade = Soldier beam arching ratio = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure_ = Allowable soldier skin friction = Soi I unit weight Bouyant Soil Properties (As applicable} 1w := 62.4 -pcf Pp' := Pp if w_table = "n/a" Pp •(1s -1 w) otherwise 1 s Pa' := Pa if w_table = "n/a" Pa ·(1s -1w) otherwise 1s Cantilever H = 9', bm 54.xmcdz = Unit weight of water Submereged Pressures (As Applicable) Pp' = 300 -pcf Pa'= 21-pcf Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lateral Live Load Surcharge Uniform Loading Full := 100 -psf Partial := 0-psf Hpar := 0 -ft = Uniform loading full soldier beam height = Uniform loading partial soldier beam height = Height of partial uniform surcharge loading Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_fill__of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Ps(y):= Full +Partial if 0-ft ~y ~Hpar Full if Hpar <y ~H Uniform surcharge profile per depth O -psf otherwise Eccentric/Conncentric Axial & Lateral Point Loading Pr := 0-kip e := 0-in Pr-e Me:= -- xt Ph := 0-lb zh := 0-ft = Applied axial load per beam = Eccentricity of applied compressive load = Eccentric bending moment = lateral pont load at depth "zh" = Distance to lateral point load from top of wall Seismic Lateral Load (Monobe-Okobe, Not Applicable) EFP := 0-pcf Es := EFP -H Eq(y) := Es Es --·Y if y ~ H H 0-psf otherwise Cantilever H = 9', bm 54.xmcdz = Seismic force equivalent fluid pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure = Maximum seismic force pressure Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Boussinesg Loading q := 0-ksf x, := 0-ft Xz := x1 + 0-ft z' := 0-ft K := 0.50 01 (y) ,~ atan ( xy 1 J o (y) := e2 (y) -e1 (y) Boussinesq Equation = Strip load bearing intensity Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet_QQ_of __ Date: July 9, 2019 = Distance from bulkhead to closest edge of strip load = Distance from bulkhead to furthest edge of strip load = Distance below top of wall to strip load surcharge = Coefficient for flexural yeilding of members K = 1.00 (Rigid non-yielding) o(y) o:(y) := e, (y) + -2- K = 0. 75 (Semi-rigid) K = 0.50 (Flexible) Pb(y) := 0 -psf if 0-ft :,; y :,; z' 2-q•K·TI-1-(o(y -z') -sin(o(y -z')) ·COS(2·0'.(y -z'))) if z' < y :,; H 0 • psf otherwise Maximum Boussinesg Pressure b..y := 5-ft Given d -Pb(b..y) = 0-psf db..y Pb(Find(b..y)) = 0-psf H f Pb(y)dy =0-klf 0 Cantilever H = 9', bm 54.xmcdz Lateral Surcharge Loading 8 6 2 o~----------------~ 0 20 40 60 80 I 00 Pressure (psf) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Resolve Forces Acting on Beam (Assume trial values) z :=6-ft D :=dt PA(H) = 189-psf a_ratio-PA(H) = 11 3.4-psf 0 = 0.6 ft Given Summation of Lateral Forces ] -PE(H+D-z) [ -PE(H +D -z) PJ(H +D)· z ------~E(z,D) H+D-z mE(z,D) f ------2-----+ (PE(H + D -z) + mE(z, D) ·Y) dy + PE(y) dy ... 0 H+O + JH+O PE(y) dy + r PA(y) dy + r +D Ps(y) dy + r +D Pb(y) dy + r Eq(y) dy + :~ H o O O O t Summation of Moments [ -PE(H + D -z)]2 -PE(H+D-z) PJ(H +D)· z -~ mE(z ,D) ------6-----+ (PE(H + D -z) + mE(z , D) ·Y)·(Z -y) dy ... 0 + r +D-z PE(yHH +O -y)dy + r +O PE(y).(H +O -y)dy + r PA(y)·(H +O-y)dy +Me ... H+O H O + f H+D Ps(y) •(H + D -y) dy + J H Eq(y) •(H + D -y) dy + J H+D Pb(y) •(H + D -y) dy + Ph •(H + D -zh) o o o xt (: )=Find(z , O) Z >O z = 3.8ft D = 11.5 ft Cantilever H = 9', bm 54.xmcdz =O =O Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Soldier Beam Pressure 0.-------,-------r------r-----,-----, 10 -2x 103 -Ix 103 0 Ix I 03 2x 103 Pressure (psf) Shear/ft width o.---------r-------.----------, ,S 10 0... (I) 0 -4 -2 0 2 Shear (kif) Cantilever H = 9', bm 54.xmcdz Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Soil Pressures PA(H) = 189-psf Po(H + D) = -3437-psf PE(H + D) = -1948.8 -psf PK (H + D) = 4500-psf PJ (H + D) = 2700-psf Distance to zero shear (From top of Pi le) e: := a ~ H e:~V(a) while e: > 0 a~ a + 0.10 -ft E ~ V(a) return a E = 14.1 ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Determine Minimum Pile Size M(y) c= r V(y) dy + Me 0 AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th Edition Mmax = I04.2 -kip -ft Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: July 9, 2019 n := 1.67 = Allowable strength reduction factor AISC El & Fl .6.cr := 1.3 3 Fy-.6.cr Fb := --n = Steel overstress for temporary loading = Allowable bending stress Required Section Modulus: Mmax z ·=--r . Fb Flexural Yielding, Lb < Zr = 31.4-in3 Beam = "Wl6 x 36" A= I0.6-in 2 d = I5.9-in ~ = 0.3-in Axial Stresses bf = 7-in tr = 0.4 -in rx = 6.5-in Fy >..:=- Fe Lr K := I Zx = 64-in 3 lx =448-in 4 Fb = 39.8-ksi Lu := H if Pile = "Concrete Embed" e otherwise 2 Tr . E Fe :=--- ( Kr~u r Fer := ( >.. ) K-Lu ll 0.658 -Fy if --$ 4.7 1 · - rx Fy = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 (0.877 -Fe) otherwise Fcr ·A Pc := --n = Allowable concentric force -AISC E.3-1 = Allowable bending moment -AISC F.2-1 [ Pr 8 ( Mmax]~ Pr Interaction := -+ -• --if -~ 0.20 Pc 9 Ma Pc = A I SC H 1 -1 a & H 1-1 b (~ + Mmax ] otherwise 2-Pc Ma Interaction = 0.49 Cantilever H = 9', bm 54.xmcdz Ma = 2I2.4 -kip -ft Mmax = I 04.2 -kip -ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Global Stability Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet~of __ Date: July 9, 2019 = Minimum embedment depth factor of safety Embedment depth increase for min. FS Oh:= Ceil(O ,ft) + I -ft Slidding Forces: J H+Dh Fs := V(H + O) + Pn(x) dx 02 Resisting Forces: Overturning Moments: Fs = 5-klf FR = -7.7-klf H JH JH JH M0 := J ( Oh + H -y) ·PA ( y) dy + ( Oh + H -y) · Ps ( y) dy + ( Oh + H -y) · Pb ( y) dy + ( Oh + H -y) · E o O O 0 Resisting Moments 102 MR:= (H + Oh -y) ·Pn(Y) dy H+O Factor of Safety: [ MR Overturning := if FSd ~ - Mo Cantilever H = 9', bm 54.xmcdz , "Ok" , "No Goode '""ease Dh"] Slidding = "Ok" M0 = 32.4-kip MR = -47.7-kip ~=1.54 Fs Overturning = "Ok" Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Vertical Embedment Depth Axial Resistance Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet2Lof __ Date: July 9, 2019 qa = 0-psf = Allowable soldier beam tip end bearing pressure fs = 600 -psf = Allowable soldier skin friction Pr =O-kip = Applied axial load per beam p' := 1t-dia if Pile= "Concrete Embed" [2-(bf + d)] otherwise = Applied axial load per beam Allowable Axial Resistance Q(y) := p'-fs-y + d. 2 7t· Ia -qa 4 if Pile = "Concrete Embed" (bf·d-qa) otherwise Dv := e: ~ 0-ft while T > 0 E ~ E + 0.10 -ft T ~ Pr -Q (e:) return e: Selected Toe Depth Otoe := if( Dh ~ Dv , Oh , Dv) Maximum Deflection D L' := H + -4 xt JL' ti.:=-. y-M'(y) dy E·lx o Cantilever H = 9', bm 54.xmcdz = Effective length about pile rotation ti. = 0.42 • in Dv = 0 ft Dh = 13 ft Otoe = 13 ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco #1 San Diego, CA 92129 Design Summary: Beam = "WI6 x 36" H = 9ft Otoe = 13 ft H + Otoe = 22 ft dia = 24-in ~=0.42-in Cantilever H = 9', bm 54.xmcdz Sb_No = "54" = Soldier beam retained height = Minimum soldier beam embedment = Total length of soldier beam = Tributary width of soldier beam = Soldier beam shaft diameter = Maximum soldier beam deflection Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng : RPR Sheet~of __ Date: July 9, 2019 Section 12 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Handrail Design Handrail Design in Accordance with 2016 CBC & Cal-OSHA Requirements A concentrated load applied in any direction at the top handrail, CBC I 607. 7 Carlsbad Village Lofts Engr: RPR Date: 7/9/19 Sheet: 97 of --- H := 44 -in = Maximum handrail height -CAUOSHA Title 8, Section 1620 P := 200 -lb = Handrail concentrated load -CBC 1607.7.1 .1 Load Conditions Concentrated load shall be checked against both x-x & y-y geometric axis in addition to minor axis principle direction (Least radius of gyration) p = 200 lb Minimum concentrated load applied at an direction at top of member -CBC 1607. 7.1 .1 M := P. H --> Maximum design bending moment M = 8.8-in -kip Angle Iron Properties Member := "L2 x 2 x 3/8" Fy := 36 -ksi b := 2-in 3 t := --in 8 S2 := 0.227 -in3 Ix := 0.476 -in4 12 := 0.203 -in4 E := 29000 · ksi rx := 0.591 -in J := 0.0658 -in 4 A := 1.36-in2 Handrail Design.xmcd Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Geometric Bending -AISC F10 ---> Cb := 1 cantilever Leg Local Buckling -AISC F10.3 Local Stability: AISC Table 84.1 b -= 5.33 t 0.54 -{E = 15.33 ✓ Fy Leg := { f ::; 0.54-~, "Compact", "Non-compact") Unstiffened Leg = "Compact" Lateral Torsional Buckling -AISC F10.2 Carlsbad Village Lofts Engr: RPR Date: 7/9/19 Sheet: 98 of --- = Yield moment about minor principle axis My = 10 -in -kip Lu := H = Laterally unbraced length of member Elastic Lateral-Torsional Buckling Moment. AISC F10.2 125 (066-Eb4 -t-c,) [ Lu -t -1] 1 + 0.78 --- Lu 2 b2 Me:= min 1.2s-( o.ss-E-b 4 -1-c,) -[ Lu -t + ,] 1 + 0.78- Lu 2 b2 Governing limit state = Limiting tension or compression toe Lateral torsional restrain at point of max moment A/SC F!0.2(ii) M = 8.8-in -kip Mc = 15 -in -kip Bending = "Ok" Handrail Design.xmcd Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Principle Axis Bending -AISC F10 Yielding Limit State -AISC F10.1 = Yield moment about minor principle axis My = 8.2-in -kip Lu = 44 -in = Laterally unbraced length of member Lateral Torsional Buckling ---> Cb = 1 cantilever 2 2 0.46-E -b -t ·Cb = Elastic Lateral-Torsional Buckling Moment -AISC F10-5 Lu ( 0.17-Me ) Mc := 0.92 ----•Me if Me ~ My My M = 8.8 -in -kip min[[1.92 -1.17I~}M,, 1.S·M,] otherwise Mc = 12.3-in -kip Flexure = "Ok" Shearing Stresses -AISC G4 e := b ---> Maximum eccentricity P-e•t P f :=--+- v J b·t = Maximum shearing stress (Directional eccentricity included) fv = 2.55 -ksi ---> Ok Carlsbad Village Lofts Engr: RPR Date: 7/9/19 Sheet: 99 of --- Handrail Design.xmcd Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Concentric Compression The effects of eccentricity are addressed according to A/SC £5 effective slendern ess ratios K := 1.2 ---> Effective length factor K-Lu --= 89 .34 Leg = "Compact" rx 0.75 -Lu K -Lu Slenderness := 72 + ---if --~ 80 rx rx 1.25 -Lu 32 +---otherwise 2 TI -E Fe :=------ 2 (Slenderness) Fy >-.:=- Fe Carlsbad Village Lofts Engr: RPR Date: 7/9/19 Sheet 100 of __ _ Fer:= 0.658>-•Fy if Slenderness ~ 4.71 -/E ✓Fy = Nominal compressive stress -AISC E.3-2 & E3-3 0.877 -Fe otherwise = Concentric compressive strength -AISC E.3-1 Pc = 21490 -lb Compression = "Ok" Concentric Tension Rupture strength & block shear negligible ... 2001b tension load checked agains yield T := Fy -A = Concentric tensile strength -AISC D2 T = 49 -kip Tension = "Ok" Handrail Design.xmcd Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Angle Iron Connection Weld Properties Weld := "Fillet" F exx := 70 • ksi = Electrode classification Carlsbad Village Lofts Engr: RPR Date: 7/9/19 Sheet: 1 01 of --- o := 2.00 = Fillet weld safety factor loaded in plane, AISC J2.4 4 t := --in = Weld thickness (2) longitudinal welds w 16 /2 te := -•tw = Fillet weld effective throat 2 Lw := 4. in = Length of weld along angle member Lw C :=- 2 Weld bending stress P·Lw·C M -c fb := ---+-- 1 Fa := 0.60·Fexx 0 = Weld group moment of inertia = Centroid of weld group = Applied bending stress = Allowable weld stress AISC J2.4 Weld := if(fb ::::; Fa , "Ok", "No Good") Fa = 21 -ksi AISC J2.2b min_weld = 0.19-in max_weld = 0.31 -in fb = 5.8 -ksi Weld = "Ok" USE: ASTM A36, Grade 36 -L2 x 2 x 3/8" Angle Welded 4" along soldier beam with 3/8" diameter wire rope. Handrail Design .xmcd Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Service Conditions -Deflection Carlsbad Village Lofts Engr: RPR Date: 7/9/19 Sheet: 102 of --- Hmin := 39 · in = Minimum deflected height of guardrail system under applied load P-Lu 3 ~ := ----,------,- 3-E -min ( lz , Ix) = Maximum member deflection under concentrated point load ~ = 0.96-in dH := ✓ Lu 2 -~ 2 = Vertical height of deflected member Deflection := if( Hmin ~ dH , "Ok" , "No Good") dH = 43.99 -in Deflection = "Ok" Handrail Design.xmcd Section 13 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lagging Geometry Lagging = "3x 12, DF#2" L := 8-ft b := I -ft shaft := 24-in S := L -shaft S = 6 ft Soil Parameters <J>:= 30-deg C := 100 -psf 1:= 125-pcf ka := tan(45 -deg -ir 2 -rr -S area := --8 Timber Lagging Design = Soldier beam center to center space = Lagging width = Min. drill shaft backfill diameter = Lagging clear span = Internal soil friction angle = Soi I cohesion (Conservative) = Soi I unit weight = Active earth pressure coefficient = Silo cross sectional area (See figure) Lagging soil wedge functions W(z) := area -1-z = Columnar silo vertical surcharge pressure fs(z) := ka -1-tan(<t>) -z + c = Soil column side friction w := 0-psf = Additional wedge surcharge pressure Surcharge := I 00 • psf = Lateral surcharge pressure Timber Lagging Design_3x12.xmcdz D Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet 10:bf __ Date: 7/9/2019 w dz z Soil Wedge Geometry ka = 0.33 2 area = 14.1 ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Maximum Lagging Design Pressure Summing forces vertically fl ?T ·S Fv(z) := W(z) + w -area --• fs(z) dz 2 0 Summing forces horizontally ka -1 -S . ~ Fv(z) -ka P(z) := ---c-y ka +Surcharge + --- 2 area Given , inital guess : z := 3 -ft Taking partial derivative with respect to z: d -P(z) = 0 D := Find (z) 1 ·S -4 ·C ------= 3.6ft ( 4 ·1 •ka -tan ( cp)) Maximum design pressure Pmax := P(D) Pmax = 202.6-psf Sectional Properties Lagging= "3xl2, DF#2" d = 3-in Sm := dz D=3.6ft = Maximum lagging pressure = Lagging thickness = Section modulus (Rough Sawn) = Lagging cross sectional area (Rough Sawn) Timber Lagging Design_3x12.xmcdz 6x ]03 4x J03 Pmax Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet 104of __ Date: 7/9/2019 Depth to critical tension crack & maximum lagging design pressure Soil Pressure 2 4 6 Lagging Length (ft) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Allowable Stress Design Maximum lagging stresses Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet...1.Q.5_of __ Date: 7/9/2019 Shear & Moment Diagrams Mmax := M(0.5-L) = Maximum bending moment Vmax := V(0.5 -shaft) = Maximum shear force Mmax = 11 65.1-ft-lbf V max = 405 .3 lbf Mmax fb := -- Sm 3 vmax fv := ---- 2 A ' ' 0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ', ... _____ _ -2x 104'----.....__ __ __._ __ ___..___ _ ___. 0 2 4 6 8 Lagging Length (ft) NOS Allowable Stress & Adjustment Factors Fb = 900 psi = Allowable flexural stress_NDS Table 4A Fv := 180-psi = Allowable shear stress_NDS Table 4A c0 := I.I = Load duration factor_NDS Figure B1, Appendix B = Repetative member factor _NOS 4. 3. 9 = Flat-use factor = Size factor = Temprature factor_NDS Table 2.3.3 = Incising factor = Beam stability factor (Flat) Maximum Design Stress = Wet service factor fb = 924.4 psi 0.85 otherwise fv = 18.4 psi Timber Lagging Design_3x12.xmcdz Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Un it 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Tabulated Stresses Bending Stress Bending := if(fb :<,; Fb', "Ok" , "No Good") Fb' = I 366 psi fb = 924-psi Bending = "Ok" Shear Stress Shear := if(fv :<,; Fv', "Ok" , "No Good") Fv' = 198 psi fv = 18.4 psi Shear = "Ok" Timber Lagging Design_3x12.xmcdz Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng : RPR Sheet 106of __ Date: 7/9/2019 = Tabulated bending stress_NDS Table 4.3.1 = Tabulated shear stress_NDS Table 4.3.1 Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Lagging Geometry Lagging = "4x 12, DF#2" L := 9-ft b := 1-ft shaft := 24 · in S := L -shaft s = 7ft Soil Parameters <j> := 30 -deg C := 100-psf 1 := I25-pcf ka := tan( 45-deg -: r 2 -rr ·S area := -- 8 Lagging soi I wedge functions Timber Lagging Design = Soldier beam center to center space = Lagging width = Min . drill shaft backfill diameter = Lagging clear span = Internal soil friction angle = Soi I cohesion (Conservative) = Soil unit weight = Active earth pressure coefficient = Silo cross sectional area (See figure) W(z) := area -1 -z = Columnar silo vertical surcharge pressure fs(z) := ka -1 -tan(<j>) .z + c = Soil column side friction w := 0-psf = Additional wedge surcharge pressure Surcharge := l 00 -psf = Lateral surcharge pressure Timber Lagging Design_ 4x12.xmcdz D Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet 107 of __ Date: 7/9/2019 z w dz Soil Wedge Geometry ka = 0.33 2 area = 19.2 ft Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Maximum Lagging Design Pressure Summing forces vertically fl 7T ·S Fv(z) := W(z) + w-area --• fs(z) dz 2 0 Summing forces horizontally ka-1-S . ~ Fv(z) -ka P(z) := ---C·y ka +Surcharge + --- 2 area Given , inital guess: z := 3 -ft Taking partial derivative with respect to z: d -P(z) = 0 D := Find (z) 1·S -4-c ------= 4.9 ft (4·1-ka -tan(<1>)) Maximum design pressure Pmax := P(D) Pmax = 243.9-psf Sectional Properties Lagging = "4x 12, DF#2" d = 4-in Sm := dz D = 4.9ft = Maximum lagging pressure = Lagging thickness = Section modulus (Rough Sawn) C "' 0.. .._,, Q) ~ ;:I "' "' Q) ~ 0-., ·o VJ = Lagging cross sectional area (Rough Sawn) Timber Lagging Design_ 4x12.xmcdz 6x 103 4x !03 0 Pmax Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet 108 of __ Date: 7/9/2019 Depth to critical tension crack & maximum lagging design pressure Soil Pressure 2 4 6 8 Lagging Length (ft) Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Allowable Stress Design Maximum lagging stresses Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet 109 of __ Date: 7/9/2019 Shear & Moment Diagrams Mmax := M(0.5-L) = Maximum bending moment Vmax := V(0.5-shaft) = Maximum shear force Mmax = 18 14.2-ft-lbf V max = 569.2 lbf Mmax fb := -- Sm 3 Vmax fv := ---- 2 A 2x!04 ------ 0------......... -,-, ,-,----------'I ' -2x 1 0 4'--------"'--------'-----'-----_-.....____, 0 2 4 6 8 Lagging Length (ft) NOS Allowable Stress & Adjustment Factors Fb = 900 psi Fv := 180-psi c0 := I.I Cr :=1.1 5 C-·= I I . 0.85 otherwise Timber Lagging Design_ 4x12.xmcdz = Allowable flexural stress_NDS Table 4A = Allowable shear stress_NDS Table 4A = Load duration factor _NOS Figure B1 , Appendix B = Repetative member factor _NOS 4. 3. 9 = Flat-use factor = Size factor = Temprature factor_NDS Table 2.3.3 = Incising factor = Beam stability factor (Flat) Maximum Design Stress = Wet service factor fb = 774.1 psi fv = 19 psi Shoring Design Group 7755 Via Francesco Unit 1 San Diego, CA 92129 Tabulated Stresses Bending Stress Bending := if(fb :,; Fb', "Ok", "No Good") Fb' = 1378 psi fb = 774-psi Bending = "Ok" Shear Stress Shear := if(fv :,; Fv', "Ok" , "No Good") Fv' = 198 psi fv = 19 psi Shear = "Ok" Timber Lagging Design_ 4x12.xmcdz Carlsbad Village Lofts Eng: RPR Sheet.1._!Q_of __ Date: 7/9/2019 = Tabulated bending stress_NDS Table 4.3.1 = Tabulated shear stress_NDS Table 4.3 .1 Section 14 Shoring Design Group Carlsbad Village Lofts Soldier Beam Schedule 10/1/19 Revision 2 Shored Toe Total Toe From To Beam Beam Height Depth Drill Diameter Beam Beam Qty Section Depth H D H+D Dshaft _ _J ___ -~---------ft _ ft ft in -r -- 1 1 1 W12x26 5.0 10.0 15.0 24 2 7 6 W 24 X 84 16 .0 19.0 35.0 30 8 12 5 W 21 X 50 13 .0 17 .0 30.0 30 13 22 10 W 18 X 50 12.0 16.0 28.0 24 23 37 15 W 18 X 50 10.0 18.0 28.0 24 38 39 2 W 18 X 50 12 .0 16 .0 28 .0 24 40 40 1 W 21 X 50 13.0 17 .0 30 .0 30 41 41 1 W 24 X 62 14 .0 16 .0 30 .0 30 42 46 5 W 24 X 104 18 .0 20 .0 38.0 36 47 53 7 W 24 X 76 15 .0 18 .0 33 .0 30 54 54 1 W 16 X 36 9.0 14 .0 23 .0 24 55 55 1 W 12 X 26 5.0 10 .0 15 .0 24 11 Section 15 \ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. Inspection I Testing I Geotechnical I Environmental & Construction Engineering I Civil Engineering I Surveying February 28, 2019 Wermers Properties Attn: Austin Wermers 5080 Shoreham Place, Suite I 05 San Diego California 92122 (858) 623-4958 CTE Job No. 10-14798G Via Email: AustinW@wermerscompanies.com Subject: Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations and Grading Plan Review Proposed Carlsbad Village Lofts Mr. Wermers: 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive (APNs: 203-320-3200, -3900, & -4700) Carlsbad, California Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. (CTE) has reviewed the referenced and attached geotechnical investigation report for the Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments with regard to utilization as preliminary recommendations for the proposed project at the subject site. Based on the review, recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical investigation report can be used for preliminary design . As required and requested, update recommendations for various proposed improvements are presented herein. Recommendations in the referenced report not specifically modified or provided herein remain applicable for use during project design and construction. However, CTE reserves the right to further modify recommendations and/or provide additional recommendations based on the actual conditions encountered at the site during earthworks and construction. 1.0 UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 Pervious Pavers The following geotechnical recommendations for the installation of the proposed pervious pavers are provided for the subject site. The recommendations are based on an assumed "R"-Value of the subgrade materials to underlie to pervious pavers and anticipated traffic conditions within the proposed driveway. The assumed "R"-Value is presented in Appendix C, Laboratory Results, of the referenced report. As shown in Tables 1.1, the aggregate base section thicknesses are based on an assumed design "R"-Value of 40 or greater and Traffic Index (Tl) of 5.0 1441 Montiel Road , Suite 115 I Escondido, CA 92026 I Ph (760) 746-4955 I Fax (760) 746-9806 I www.cte-inc.net Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations and Grading Plan Review Page 2 Proposed Carlsbad Village Lofts I 044 Carlsbad Village Drive (APNs: 203-320-3200, -3900, & -4700) Carlsbad, California February 28, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-14798G Recommendations provided herein are based on the assumption that the upper foot of compacted fill subgrade and overlying aggregate base materials are properly compacted to a minimum 95% relative compaction at a minimum of two percent above optimum moisture content (as per ASTM D 1557). Beneath proposed pavement areas, loose or otherwise unsuitable soils are to be removed to the depth of competent native material as recommended in Section 5.2 of the referenced report. TABLE 1.1 RECOMMENDED PERVIOUS PA VERS OR PCC PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESSES Traffic Area Assumed Tested Pervious Pavers Traffic Subgrade Index "R"-Value Pervious Permeable Paver Aggregate Thickness Base (rNCHES) Auto Drive Areas (Driveway) 5.0 40+ 3.0 8.0 Including Infrequent (minimum) Emergency Vehicles 1.2 Percolation Testing Percolation testing was completed during the initial geotechnical investigation in December of 2015. Section 3 .3 , Percolation Testing of the referenced report describes general test methods and provides Percolation Test Results. The following evaluation was performed in general accordance with Appendix C of the Model BMP Design Manual for the San Diego Region "Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements", dated January 2018. 1 .2.1 Percolation Test Methods The percolation tests were perfonned in general accordance with methods approved by the San Diego Region BMP Design Manual with a presoak period of approximately 20 to 21 hours. Percolation test results and calculated infiltration rates are presented below in Table 1.2. 1.2.2 Calculated Infiltrated Rate As per the San Diego Region BMP design documents (2018) infiltration rates are to be evaluated using the Porchet Method. San Diego BMP design documents utilized the Porchet Method through guidance of the County of Riverside (2011 ). The intent of calculating the infiltration rate is to take into account bias inherent in percolation test \\ESC_SERVER\Projects\ JO-14798G\Rpt_Update Geo & Plan Re,.doc Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations and Grading Plan Review Page 3 Proposed Carlsbad Village Lofts 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive (APNs: 203-320-3200, -3900, & -4700) Carlsbad, California February 28, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-14798G borehole sidewall infiltration that would not occur at a basin bottom where such sidewalls are not present. The infiltration rate (11) is derived by the equation: 11 = ~H nr2 60 = ~H 60 r ~t(nr2 +2nrHavg) ~t(r+2Havg) Where: 11 = tested infiltration rate, inches/hour ~H = change in head over the time interval, inches ~t = time interval, minutes * r = effective radius of test hole Havg = average head over the time interval, inches Given the measured percolation rates, the calculated infiltration rates are presented with and without a Factor of Safety applied in Table 1.2 below. The civil engineer of record should determine an appropriate factor of safety to be applied via completion of Worksheet D.5-1 of Appendix County of San Diego "Best Management Practice Design Manual", Appendix D or other approved methods. CTE does not recommend using a factor of safety of less than 2.0. Field Data and Worksheet I-8 are included as attachments. TABLE 1.2 RESULTS OF PERCOLATION TESTING WITH FACTOR OF SAFETY APPLIED Test Depth Soil Type* Percolation Infiltration Infiltration Rate Test Rate with FOS of2 Location Rate (inches (inches per Appli ed (inches per hour) hour) per hour) (inches) Case P-1 23.625 III Qop 3.500 5.895 2.947 P-2 19.625 1lI Qudf 0.500 0.421 0.211 P-3 27.25 III Qudf 2.500 3.636 1.818 P-4 24.5625 Ill Qop 1.625 1.576 0.788 P-5 27.25 Ill Qop 0.625 0.122 0.061 P-6 59 III Qop 5.250 0.139 0.070 \\ESC _ SERVER\Projecis\ I 0-I 4798G\Rpt_ Update Geo & Plan Re, .doc Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations and Grading Plan Review Page 4 Proposed Carlsbad Village Lofts 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive (APNs: 203-320-3200, -3900, & -4700) Carlsbad, California February 28, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-14 798G 1.3 Seismic Design Criteria The seismic ground motion values listed in the Table 5.9 of the referenced geotechnical report were derived in accordance with the ASCE 7-10 Standard and 2013 CBC. If seismic ground motion values in accordance with ASCE 7-10 Standard and 2016 CBC are required, the values presented in the aforementioned Table 5.9 are applicable. 2.0 GRADING PLAN REVIEW As requested, Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. (CTE) has reviewed the referenced grading plans for the subject project. The object of our review was to identify potential conflicts with the recommendations of our referenced geotechnical report. It is our conclusion that the reviewed plans are in substantial conformance with recommendations presented m our referenced soils report, and the proposed development is suitable for the subject site. 3.0 LIMITATIONS This letter is subject to the same limitations as previous CTE geotechnical documents issued for the subject project. CTE's conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If conditions different from those described in the reports are encountered during construction, this office should be notified and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided. \\ESC _ SERVER\Projectsl IO-l 4798G\Rpt_ Update Geo & Plan Re, .doc Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations and Grading Plan Review Page 5 Proposed Carlsbad Village Lofts 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive (APNs: 203-320-3200, -3900, & -4700) Carlsbad, California February 28, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-14798G The opportunity to be of service on this project is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. Dan T. Math, GE# 2665 Vice President, Principal Matthew Martinez Staff Geologist MDM/JFL/DTM :nri Attachments: Jay F. Lynch, CEG #1890 Principal Engineering Geologist Appendix I: Field Data/Percolation to Infiltration Calculations (2 Sheets Total) Appendix IJ : Worksheets 1-8 (4 Sheets Total) Appendix III: Preliminary Geotechnical Report, dated January 27, 2016 References: Grading Plan Sheets I through 7, City of Carlsbad Project No. MS 16-06, Drawing 515-SA Carlsbad Village Lofts I 044 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California Prepared by SB&O Engineering, \\ESC _SERVER\Projects\ I 0-14 7980\Rpt_ Update Geo & Plan Re, .doc Project: Carlsbad Village Lofts Project No.: 10-14798G Tables P-1 Percolation Field Data and Calculated Rates P-1 Total Depth: 23.625 inches Test Water Water Incremental Percolation Percolation Time Interval Test Refill Level Level Water Level Initial/Start End/Final Change Rate Rate Time (minutes) Depth /Inches Depth /Inches Depth /Inches (inches) inches/minute inches/hour 8:55:00 Initial None 23 .63 initial - 9:25:00 30 24.25 23.63 26.50 2.88 0.096 5.750 9:55:00 30 12.0625 24.25 26.00 1.75 0.058 3.500 10:25:00 30 23.9375 12 .06 25.63 13.56 0.452 27.125 10:55:00 30 23.8125 23.94 25.50 1.56 0.052 3.125 11:25:00 30 23.3125 23.81 25.25 1.44 0.048 2.875 11:55:00 30 23.5 23.31 25.19 1.88 0.063 3.750 12:25:00 30 23.5625 23.50 25 .25 1.75 0.058 3.500 12:55:00 30 12 23.56 25.31 1.75 0.058 3.500 P-2 Total Depth: 19.625 inches Test Water Water Incremental Percolation Percolation Time Interval Test Refill Level Level Water Level Time Initial/Start End/Final Change Rate Rate (minutes) Depth /Inches Depth /Inches Depth /Inches (inches) inches/minute inches/hour 8:50:00 Initial None 19.63 initial - 9:20:00 30 19.625 19.63 19.88 0.250 0.008 0.500 9:50:00 30 19.4375 19.63 19.63 0.000 0.000 0.000 10:20:00 30 19.375 19.44 19.75 0.313 0.010 0.625 10:50:00 30 19.125 19.38 19.63 0.250 0.008 0.500 11:20:00 30 19.0625 19.13 19.38 0.250 0.008 0.500 11:50:00 30 19.25 19.06 19.25 0.188 0.006 0.375 12:20:00 30 19.125 19.25 19.56 0.313 0.010 0.625 12:50:00 30 NO 19.13 19.38 0.250 0.008 0.500 P-3 Total Depth: 27 .25 inches Test Water Water Incremental Percolation Percolation Time Interval Test Refill Level Level Water Level Initial/Start End/Final Change Rate Rate Time (minutes) Depth /Inches Depth /Inches Depth /Inches (inches) inches/minute inches/hour 8:45:00 Initial None 27.56 initial - 9:15:00 30 27.75 27.56 29.19 1.63 0.054 3.250 9:45:00 30 27.625 27.75 29.00 1.25 0.042 2.500 10:15:00 30 27.75 27.63 28.88 1.25 0.042 2.500 10:45:00 30 27.1875 27.75 29.00 1.25 0.042 2.500 11:15:00 30 26.0625 27.19 28.38 1.19 0.040 2.375 11:45:00 30 27.0625 26.06 28.31 2.25 0.075 4.500 12:15:00 30 26.9375 27.06 28.44 1.38 0.046 2.750 12:45:00 30 NO 26.94 28.19 1.25 0.042 2.500 P-4 Total Depth: 24.5625 inches Test Water Water Incremental Percolation Percolation Time Interval Test Refill Level Level Water Level Initial/Start End/Final Change Rate Rate Time (minutes) Depth /Inches Depth /Inches Depth /Inches (inches) inches/minute inches/hour 8:40:00 Initial None 24.56 initial - 9:10:00 30 24.125 24.56 26 .38 1.81 0.060 3.625 9:40:00 30 23.9375 24.13 25.31 1.19 0.040 2.375 10:10:00 30 24.1875 23.94 25 .00 1.06 0.035 2.125 10:40:00 30 24.3125 24.19 25.06 0.88 0.029 1.750 11:10:00 30 23.75 24.31 25.31 1.00 0.033 2.000 11:40:00 30 23.4375 23.75 24.63 0.88 0.029 1.750 12:10:00 30 24.125 23.44 24.38 0.94 0.031 1.875 12:40:00 30 NO 24.13 24.94 0.81 0.027 1.625 P-5 Total Depth: 27 .25 inches Test Water Water Incremental Percolation Percolation Time Interval Test Refill Level Level Water Level Time Initial/Start End/Final Change Rate Rate (minutes) Depth /Inches Depth /Inches Depth /Inches (inches) inches/minute inches/hour 8:35:00 Initial None 19.13 initial - 9:05:00 30 19.1875 19.13 19.69 0.56 0.019 1.125 9:35:00 30 18.6875 19.19 19.69 a.so 0.017 1.000 10:05:00 30 18.6875 18.69 19.19 a.so 0.017 1.000 10:35:00 30 18.875 18.69 19.13 0.44 0.015 0.875 11:05 :00 30 18.8125 18.88 19.38 a.so 0.017 1.000 11:35:00 30 18.75 18.81 19.25 0.44 0.015 0.875 12:05:00 30 18.875 18.75 19.13 0.38 0.013 0.750 12:35:00 30 NO 18.88 19.19 0.31 0.010 0.625 P-6 Total Depth: 59 inches Test Water Water Incremental Percolation Percolation Time Interval Test Refill Level Level Water Level Initial/Start End/Final Change Rate Rate Time (minutes) Depth /Inches Depth /Inches Depth /Inches (inches) inches/minute inches/hour 9:00:00 Initial None 22.56 initial - 9:30:00 30 20.25 22.56 28.19 5.63 0.188 11.250 10:00:00 30 20.1875 20.25 24.63 4.38 0.146 8.750 10:30:00 30 20.4375 20.19 23.81 3.63 0.121 7.250 11:00:00 30 20.875 20.44 23 .50 3.06 0.102 6.125 11:30:00 30 21 20.88 23 .63 2.75 0.092 5.500 12:00:00 30 20.8125 21.00 23.69 2.69 0.090 5.375 12:30:00 30 20.9375 20.81 23.63 2.81 0.094 5.625 13:00:00 30 NO 20.94 23.56 2.63 0.088 5.250 Worksheet 1-8 : Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Worksheet 1-8 Part 1 -Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No 1 Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. X Provide basis: The NRCS soils across the site are all Type B soils with medium surface runoff. The site soils are consistent with the NRCS mapped soil types based on site explorations and percolation testing. Two soi l types were present in the area of the proposed development, Quaternary Undocumented Fill and Old Paralic Deposits. Four percolation tests were completed within the Old Paralic Deposits. The calculated infiltration rates (with an applied factor of safety of2) ranged from approximately to 0.070 to 2.947 inches per hour. Twp percolation tests were completed within the Quaternary Undocumented Fill. The calculated infiltration rates (with an applied factor of safety of 2) ranged from approximately to 0.211 to 1.81 8 inches per hour. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. 2 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. X Provide basis: Lining the sides of the BMP's with impermeable geofabric liner is recommended to reduce lateral migration of infiltrate. The lining should extend to the maximum depth of utility trenches and foundation excavations within 100 feet of the proposed basin. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. C-11 Worksheet 1-8 Page 2 of 4 Criteria Screening Question 3 Can inftltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Yes No X Provide basis: Based on site explorations and knowledge of the site area, groundwater is anticipated to be deeper than at least 10 feet below the bottom of the planned basin bottoms. Infiltration at the site is not anticipated to increase the risk of groundwater contamination. According to Geotracker online (a State of California on line resource for listings of regulated contaminated sites), there are no open LUST cases in the site area that could impact the site. The proposed development is not industrial and capture of surface waters is not anticipated to increase the risk of groundwater contamination. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. 4 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as change of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. X Provide basis: Infiltration at the site is not anticipated to cause potential water balance issues and not anticipated to change the seasonality of ephemeral streams. There are no ephemeral streams in the site area. Site discharge is not anticipated to be contaminated or affect surface waters. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. Part 1 Result"' If all answers to rows 1 -4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design. Proceed to Part 2 No Full *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by City Engineer to substantiate findings. C-12 - Worksheet 1-8 Page 3 of 4 Part 2 -Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question 5 D o soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Yes X No Provide basis: According to Appendix C the lower limit of partial infiltration is 0.05 inches/hour. The average of the rates determined by testing exceed this amount, therefore partial infiltration is possible. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 6 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the fac tors presented in Appendix C.2. X Provide basis: Provided the basins are constructed in the areas with adequate set back from proposed structural improvements, risk of geotechnical hazards will not be significantly increased. Lining the sides of the BMP's with impermeable geofabric liner is recommended to reduce lateral migration of infiltrate. The lining should extend to the maximum depth of utility trenches and foundation excavations within I 00 feet of the proposed basin. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. C-13 Worksheet 1-8 Page 4 of 4 Criteria Screening Question Yes No 7 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. X Provide basis: Based on site explorations and knowledge of the site area, groundwater is anticipated to be deeper than at least IO feet below the bottom of the planned basin bottoms. Infiltration at the site is not anticipated to increase the risk of groundwater contamination. According to Geotracker online (a State of California on line resource for listings ofregulated contaminated sites), there are no open LUST cases in the site area that could impact the site. The proposed development is not industrial and capture of surface waters is not anticipated to increase the risk of groundwater contamination. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 8 Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. X Provide basis: Infiltration at the site is not anticipated to cause potential water balance issues and not anticipated to change the seasonality of ephemeral streams. There are no ephemeral streams in the site area. Site discharge is not anticipated to be contaminated or affect surface waters. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicabili ty and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. If all answers from row 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. Part 2 The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. Result* If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. Partial *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment cons1denng the definition of MEP 1n the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by City Engineer to substantiate findings C-14 Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. Inspection I Testing I Geotechnical I Environmental & Construction Engineering I Civil Engineering I Surveying GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE APARTMENTS 1044 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: MR. EV AN GERBER 703 16TH STREET, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 Prepared by: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 1441 MONTIEL ROAD, SUITE 115 ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92026 CTE JOB NO.: 10-123710 January 27, 2016 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115 I Escondido, CA 92026 I Ph (760) 746-4955 I Fax (760) 746-9806 I www.cte-inc.net TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Services .......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 2 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................ 2 3 .1 Field Investigation ........................................................................................................ 2 3.2 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................ 3 3.3 Percolation Testing ....................................................................................................... 3 4.0 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 4 4.1 General Setting ............................................................................................................. 4 4.2 Geologic Conditions ..................................................................................................... 5 4.2.1 Quaternary Undocumented Fill (unmapped) ................................................. 5 4.2.2 Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits (Qop) ......................................................... 5 4.3 Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................................... 5 4.4 Geologic Hazards .......................................................................................................... 6 4.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture .................................................................................... 6 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting .......................................................................... 7 4.4.3 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation .......................................... 7 4.4.4 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation ................................................................... 8 4.4.5 Landsliding .................................................................................................... 8 4.4.6 Compressible and Expansive Soils ................................................................ 8 4.4.7 Corrosive Soils ............................................................................................... 9 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 10 5.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 10 5.2 Site Preparation ........................................................................................................... 11 5.3 Site Excavation ........................................................................................................... 12 5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction .................................................................................. 13 5.5 Fill Materials ............................................................................................................... 13 5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes ................................................................................. 14 5.7 Temporary Shoring ..................................................................................................... 15 5. 7.1 General ......................................................................................................... 15 5. 7 .2 Lateral Earth Pressures ................................................................................ 15 5. 7 .3 Design of Soldier Beams ............................................................................. 1 7 5.7.4 Lagging ........................................................................................................ 17 5.7.5 Anchor Design ............................................................................................. 18 5.7 .6 Friction Anchor Installation ......................................................................... 18 5.7.7 Friction Anchor Testing ............................................................................... 19 5.8 Foundations and Slab Recommendations ................................................................... 19 5.8.1 Foundations .................................................................................................. 20 5.8.2 Foundation Settlement ................................................................................. 21 5.8.3 Foundation Setback ...................................................................................... 21 5.8.4 Interior Concrete Slabs ................................................................................ 21 5.9 Seismic Design Criteria .............................................................................................. 23 5.10 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures .................................................................... 24 5 .11 Exterior Flatwork ...................................................................................................... 26 5 .12 Pavements ................................................................................................................. 26 5 .13 Drainage .................................................................................................................... 28 5.14 Slopes ........................................................................................................................ 28 5.15 Plan Review .............................................................................................................. 29 5 .16 Construction Observation ......................................................................................... 29 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 30 FIGURES FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE4 APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIXB APPENDIXC APPENDIXD SITE LOCATION MAP GEOLOGIC/ EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP CONCEPTUAL RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE REFERENCES FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS LOGS LABO RA TORY METHODS AND RESULTS STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Geotechnical Investigation Page 1 Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 Introduction This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation, performed by Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. (CTE), and provides preliminary conclusions and recommendations for the proposed improvements at the subject site located in Carlsbad, California. This investigation was performed in general accordance with the terms ofCTE proposal G-3242, dated December 2, 2015. CTE understands that the proposed site improvements are to consist of an apartment structure up to four-stories in above grade height over a single level of below grade or subterranean parking, with associated utilities, landscaping, and other ancillary improvements. Preliminary recommendations for excavations, temporary construction shoring, fill placement, and foundation design for the proposed improvements are presented in this report. Additionally, percolation test results are provided. Reviewed references are provided in Appendix A. 1.2 Scope of Services The scope of services provided included: • Review of readily available geologic and geotechnical reports. • Coordination of utility mark-out and location. • Excavation of exploratory borings and soil sampling utilizing a truck-mounted drill rig. • Laboratory testing of selected soil samples. • Percolation testing in general accordance with the County of San Diego procedure. • Description of site geology and evaluation of potential geologic hazards. • Engineering and geologic analysis. • Preparation of this geotechnical investigation report. \\Esc _ server\projects\ I 0-1 2371 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 2 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located at 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1 ). The site is bounded by Grand Avenue to the north, an existing Motel 6 facility to the west, Carlsbad Village Drive to the south and the Interstate 5 off ramp to the east. The project area generally descends gradually to the southwest with approximate elevations ranging from approximately 77 feet ms! (above mean sea level) in the northeastern portion of the site to approximately 70 feet msl in the southwestern portion of the site. 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 Field Investigation CTE performed the field investigation on December 24, 2015. The field work consisted of site reconnaissance, and excavation of four borings and six percolation test holes. The borings were advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 18.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Bulk samples were collected from the cuttings, and relatively undisturbed samples were collected by driving Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Modified California (CAL) samplers. The Borings were advanced with a CME-75 truck-mounted drill rig equipped with eight-inch-diameter, hollow-stem augers. Additionally, six test holes were excavated to approximately three feet bgs for the purpose of percolation testing. The approximate location of the exploratory soil borings and percolation test holes are shown on attached Figure 2. The soils were logged in the field by a CTE Geologist and were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System . The field descriptions have been modified, \\Esc _serverlprojectsl I 0-1 23 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 3 CTE Job No.: 10-123710 where appropriate, to reflect laboratory test results. Boring logs, including descriptions of the soils encountered, are included in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the borings are presented on Figure 2. 3.2 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples for classification purposes, and to evaluate physical properties and engineering characteristics. Laboratory tests included: In-Place Moisture and Density, Resistance "R"-Value, Expansion Index (El), Gradation, Direct Shear, and Chemical Characteristics. Test descriptions and laboratory test results for the selected soils are included in Appendix C. 3.3 Percolation Testing As requested, six percolation tests were performed in specified areas of the site in general accordance with the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (SD DEH) procedures. The percolation test holes were excavated with a truck-mounted drill rig on December 24, 2015 to a depth of approximately three feet below existing grade. The percolation tests were performed in accordance with SD DEH Case III method, which corresponds to an intermediate percolating soil. The approximate percolation test locations are presented on Figure 2. The percolation test results are presented in the table below. \\Esc _server\projects\ I 0-123 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 TABLE 3.3 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS TEST DESIGNATION CASE GEOLOGIC UNIT P-1 III Qop P-2 III Qudf P-3 III Qudf P-4 III Qop P-5 III Qop P-6 III Qop 4.0GEOLOGY 4.1 General Setting Page 4 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G PERCOLATION RA TE (minutes/inch) 17 120 24 37 69 I I Carlsbad is located within the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province that is characterized by northwest-trending mountain ranges, intervening valleys, and predominantly northwest trending regional faults. The greater San Diego Region can be further subdivided into the coastal plain area, a central mountain-valley area and the eastern mountain valley area. The project site is located within the coastal plain area that is characterized by Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary sedimentary deposits that on lap an eroded basement surface consisting of Jurassic and Cretaceous crystalline rocks. I\Esc _server\projectsl I 0-123 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 4.2 Geologic Conditions Page 5 CTE Job No.: 10-123710 Based on the regional geologic map prepared by Kennedy and Tan (2005), the near surface geologic unit underlying the site consists of Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6-7. Based on the recent explorations, Undocumented Fill was observed overlying the Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits. Descriptions of the geologic and soil units encountered are presented below. 4.2.1 Quaternary Undocumented Fill (unmapped) Where observed, the Quaternary Undocumented Fill generally consists ofloose to medium dense, dark brown, fine grained silty sand. This unit was found to extend to a maximum explored depth of approximately two feet bgs during the investigation, however, localized deeper fills may be encountered during grading and construction. 4.2.2 Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits (Oop) Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits were found to be the underlying geologic unit at the site. Where observed, these materials generally consist of dense to very dense, moist, reddish brown to olive brown silty fine grained sand. 4.3 Groundwater Conditions During the recent investigation, groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory borings, which were advanced to a maximum explored depth of approximately 18.5 feet bgs. According to the State of California Department of Resources Control Board (Geotracker) highest documented historical groundwater levels to the south and west of the subject site have been as shallow as approximately I 0.5 feet bgs. This indicates that there is a potential for relatively shallow ground water in the site I\Esc _serverlprojectsl I 0-1 23 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 6 CTE Job No.: 10-123710 vicinity, which could seasonally impact deeper site excavations and the subterranean parking area construction. Proper site drainage is to be designed, installed, and maintained as per the recommendations of the project civil engineer of record. In addition, it is recommended that the subterranean improvements be adequately waterproofed in order to mitigate the potential effects of site groundwater. 4.4 Geologic Hazards Geologic hazards that were considered to have potential impacts to site development were evaluated based on field observations, literature review, and laboratory test results. It appears that the geologic hazards at the site are primarily limited to those caused by shaking from earthquake-generated ground motions. The following paragraphs discuss the geologic hazards considered and their potential risk to the site. 4.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture Based on the site reconnaissance and review of referenced literature, the site is not within a State of California-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Studies Zone or Local Special Studies Zone and no known active fault traces underlie, or project toward, the site. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, a fault is active if it displays evidence of activity in the last 11 ,000 years (Hart and Bryant, revised 2007). Therefore, the potential for surface rupture from displacement or fault movement beneath the proposed improvements is considered to be low. \\Esc _server\projects\ I 0-123 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting Page 7 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G The California Geological Survey (CGS) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) broadly group faults as "Class A" or "Class B" (Cao, 2003; Frankel et al., 2002). Class A faults are generally identified based upon relatively well-defined paleoseismic activity, and a fault-slip rate of more than 5 millimeters per year (mm/yr). In contrast, Class B faults have comparatively less defined paleoseismic activity and are considered to have a fault-slip rate less than 5 mm/yr. The nearest known Class B fault is the Newport-Inglewood Fault, which is approximately 8.6 kilometers west of the site (Blake, T.F ., 2000). The nearest known Class A fault is the Temecula segment of the Elsinore Fault, which is located approximately 38.5 kilometers east of the site. The site could be subjected to significant shaking in the event of a major earthquake on any of the faults noted above or other faults in the southern California or northern Baja California area. 4.4.3 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sands or silts lose their physical strengths during earthquake-induced shaking and behave like a liquid. This is due to loss of point-to-point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water. Liquefaction potential varies with water level, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and probable intensity and duration of ground shaking. Seismic settlement can occur with or without liquefaction; it results from densification of loose soils. \\Esc _server\projects\ I 0-123 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27 , 2016 Page 8 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G The site is underlain at shallow depths by dense to very dense Old Paralic Deposits. In addition, loose surficial soils within proposed improvement areas are to be overexcavated and compacted as engineered fill. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction or significant seismic settlement at the site is considered to be low. 4.4.4 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation According to State of California Emergency Management Agency mapping, the site is not located within a tsunami inundation zone based on distance from the coastline and elevation above sea level. Damage resulting from oscillatory waves (seiches) is considered unlikely due to the absence of nearby confined bodies of water. 4.4.5 Landsliding According to mapping by Tan ( 1995), the site is considered only "Marginally Susceptible" to landsliding and no landslides are mapped in the site area. In addition, landslides or similar associated features were not observed during the recent field exploration. Therefore, landsliding is not considered to be a significant geologic hazard at the site. 4.4.6 Compressible and Expansive Soils Undocumented Fill Soils are considered to be potentially compressible. Therefore, these soils should be overexcavated, processed, and placed as a properly compacted fill as recommended herein, where/if near grade improvements are proposed. However, due to the proposed level of subterranean parking, most of these materials are anticipated to be removed during construction. Based on the field data, site observations, and laboratory \\Esc _ server\projects\ I 0-12371 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 9 CTE Job No.: 10-123710 results, the underlying Old Paralic Deposits are not considered to be subject to significant compressibility under the proposed loads. Based on observation and laboratory test results, soils at the site are generally anticipated to exhibit Very Low expansion potential (Expansion Index of20 or less). Therefore, expansive soils are not anticipated to present significant adverse impacts to site development. Additional evaluation of near-surface soils can and should be performed based on field observations during grading activities. 4.4. 7 Corrosive Soils Chemical testing was performed to evaluate the potential effects that site soils may have on concrete foundations and various types of buried metallic utilities. Soil environments detrimental to concrete generally have elevated levels of soluble sulfates and/or pH levels less than 5.5. According to American Concrete Institute (ACI) Table 318 4.3.1, specific guidelines have been provided for concrete where concentrations of soluble sulfate (SO4) in soil exceed 0.1 percent by weight. These guidelines include low water: cement ratios, increased compressive strength, and specific cement type requirements. Based on the results of the Sulfate and pH testing performed, on site soils are anticipated to generally have a negligible corrosion potential to Portland cement concrete improvements. \\Esc _server\projects\ I 0-123 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Page 10 Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G A minimum resistivity value less than approximately 5,000 ohm-cm, and/or soluble chloride levels in excess of 200 ppm generally indicate a corrosive environment to buried metallic utilities and untreated conduits. Based on the obtained resistivity value of 3,550 ohm-cm and soluble chloride level of 36.6 ppm, onsite soils are anticipated to have a moderate corrosion potential for buried uncoated/unprotected metallic conduits. Based on these results, at a minimum, the use of buried plastic piping or conduits would appear logical and beneficial, where feasible. The results of the chemical tests performed are presented in the attached Appendix C. However, CTE does not practice corrosion engineering. Therefore, a corrosion engineer or other qualified consultant could be contacted if site specific corrosivity issues are of concern. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General CTE concludes that the proposed improvements at the site are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Recommendations for the proposed earthwork and improvements are included in the following sections and Appendix D. However, recommendations in the text of this report supersede those presented in Appendix D should variations exist. These recommendations should either be evaluated as appropriate and/or updated during or following rough grading at the site. \\Esc _ server\projects\ I 0-1 2371 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 5.2 Site Preparation Page 11 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of any existing building materials or improvements that are not to remain. Objectionable materials, such as construction debris and vegetation, not suitable for structural backfill should be properly disposed of offsite. In the proposed building area, it is anticipated that unsuitable undocumented fill materials will be removed during excavation to construct the proposed subterranean parking level, and that suitable native formational materials will be present for adequate support of the structure at the proposed foundation levels. Depending on the conditions encountered, it may be necessary to proof roll or scarify, moisture condition, and properly compact the proposed building slab on grade area just prior to placement of concrete or slab underlayments. In the proposed shallow or near-grade improvement areas, if/where proposed, existing soils should be excavated to a minimum depth of 18 inches below the bottom of proposed foundations or surface improvements such as pavements or flatwork, or to the depth of suitable native material whichever is greater. Overexcavation should extend at least three feet laterally beyond the limits of the proposed structural improvements, where feasible. Following any recommended overexcavations, exposed subgrades should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and properly compacted, as described below, prior to receiving compacted fill. Depending on the conditions encountered, it may be necessary to proof roll or scarify, moisture condition, and properly compact the proposed building slab on grade area just prior to placement of concrete or slab underlayments. \\Esc_server\projects\ I 0-1 2371 G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 12 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G Existing below-ground utilities should be redirected around the proposed structure. Existing utilities at an elevation to extend through the proposed footings should be sleeved and caulked to minimize the potential for moisture migration below the building slabs. Abandoned pipes exposed by grading should be removed to the limits of construction and then securely capped or filled with minimum two-sack cement/sand slurry to help prevent moisture from migrating beneath foundation and slab soils. A CTE representative should observe the exposed bottom of excavations prior to placement of compacted fill or improvements. If localized areas ofloose or unsuitable materials are encountered at the base of the recommended excavations or overexcavations, deeper removals to the depth of competent soil may be necessary. 5.3 Site Excavation Generally, excavation of site materials may be accomplished with heavy-duty construction equipment under normal conditions. However, the Old Paralic Deposits may become increasingly difficult to excavate with depth. Materials also appear to be, at least locally, very granular and could be very sensitive to caving and/or erosion, and may not effectively remain standing vertical, even at shallow or minor heights. As indicated in Section 4.3, seasonal groundwater may be encountered in deeper excavations. \\Esc _ server\projects\ I 0-1 2371 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction Page 13 CTE Job No.: 10-123710 Granular fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of90 percent at a moisture content of at least two percent above optimum, as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The optimum lift thickness for fill soil will depend on the type of compaction equipment used. Generally, backfill should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness. Fill placement and compaction should be conducted in conformance with local ordinances. 5.5 Fill Materials Properly moisture-conditioned very low to low expansion potential soils derived from the on-site excavations are considered suitable for reuse on the site as compacted fill. If used, these materials should be screened of organics and materials generally greater than three inches in maximum dimension. Irreducible materials greater than three inches in maximum dimension should generally not be used in shallow fills (within three feet of proposed grades). In utility trenches, adequate bedding should surround pipes. Imported fill beneath structures, flatwork, and pavements should have an Expansion Index of20 or less (ASTM D 4829). Imported fill soils for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer before being imported to the site. Retaining wall backfill located within a 45-degree wedge extending up from the heel of the wall should consist of soil having an Expansion Index of 20 or less (ASTM D 4829) with less than 30 \\Esc_server\projects\ I 0-12371 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 20 I 6 Page 14 CTE Job No.: 10-123710 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The upper 12 to 18 inches of wall backfill could consist oflower permeability soils, in order to reduce surface water infiltration behind walls. The project structural engineer and/or architect should detail proper wall backdrains, including gravel drain zones, fills , filter fabric, and perforated drain pipes. However, a conceptual wall backdrain detail, which may or may not be suitable for use at the site, is provided as Figure 4. 5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes The following recommended slopes should be relatively stable against deep-seated failure, but may experience localized sloughing. On-site soils are considered Type B and Type C soils with recommended slope ratios as set forth in Table 5.6. However, due to the at least locally granular and erodible nature of the onsite soils, maximum 1.5: I temporary slopes are anticipated to be more reliable, and vertical excavations may not remain standing, even as shallow or minor heights. TABLE5 .6 RECOMMENDED TEMPORARY SLOPE RATIOS SOIL TYPE SLOPE RATIO MAXIMUM HEIGHT (H orizontal: vertical) B (Old Paralic Deposits) 1: I (OR FLATTER) 10 Feet C (Undocumented Fill) 1.5:1 (OR FLATTER) 10 Feet \\Esc_server\projects\ I 0-1237 1 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 15 CTE Job No.: 10-123710 Actual field conditions and soil type designations must be verified by a "competent person" while excavations exist, according to Cal-OSHA regulations. In addition, the above sloping recommendations do not allow for surcharge loading at the top of slopes by vehicular traffic, equipment or materials. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be maintained from the top of all unshored slopes. 5.7 Temporary Shoring 5. 7.1 General Due to the proposed depth of the potential basement/parking level excavations, it 1s anticipated that the majority of shored excavations would consist of cantilevered soldier piles, with continuous timber lagging. The shoring contractor should be experienced in the design and construction of similar shoring systems and demonstrate proven competence on projects of similar size and magnitude. The shoring designer and contractor shall anticipate encountering local layers of relatively cohesionless and un-cemented materials that may be subject to sloughing and caving. In addition, groundwater, debris, gravels, and/or cobble material may be locally encountered. 5. 7 .2 Lateral Earth Pressures We anticipate that a temporary shoring system would likely be used where sufficient setbacks for sloping excavations are not available. Braced or unbraced shoring may be designed using the same active and at-rest soil pressures recommended herein for permanent \\Esc_server\projects\ I 0-12371 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 16 CTE Job No.: 10-123710 walls, but the values may each be reduced by 30 percent. In addition to the recommended earth pressures, the upper 15 feet of shoring adjacent to streets or other traffic areas shall be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot (psf) that results from an assumed 300-psf surcharge behind the shoring due to typical street or other traffic. For traffic that remains more than 10 feet away from shoring, surcharge loading may be neglected. Although the actual deflections of the shoring should be determined by the shoring engineer, shoring designed as stated is anticipated to deflect less than one inch at the top of the shored embankment. These deflections should be within tolerable limits for adjacent improvements such as buried pipes and conduits, or sidewalks and streets, provided these improvements are in generally good structural condition. Friction tieback anchors and/or a greater active design pressure could be used to reduce the amount of deflection at the face of the shoring. CTE should review the final shoring calculations and drawings in order to identify potential conflicts with the recommendations contained herein. In addition, observation by this office will be required during shoring installation activities. Monitoring of settlement and horizontal movement of the shoring system and adjacent improvements should occur on a weekly basis during construction in order to confirm that actual movements are within tolerable limits. The number and location of monitoring points \\Esc _server\projects\l 0-123 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27 , 2016 Page 17 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G shall be indicated on the shoring plans; CTE will review such locations and the proposed monitoring schedule once prepared and provided by the shoring contractor. 5.7.3 Design of Soldier Beams For conventional soldier beam and lagging shoring systems, soldier beams, spaced at least three diameters on center, may be designed using an allowable passive pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth, up to a maximum of 4,500 psf, for the portion of the soldier beam embedded in competent underlying materials below the proposed excavation depths. Provisions should be made to assure firm contact between the beam and the surrounding soils. Concrete placed in soldier beams below the proposed excavation should have adequate strength to transfer the imposed pressures. A lean concrete mix may be used in the soldier pile above the base of the proposed excavation. Soldier beam installations should be observed by CTE. Localized to widespread caving of onsite soils should be anticipated, especially if drilling/installing below the water table. 5.7.4 Lagging Continuous timber or pre-cast concrete lagging between soldier beams is recommended. Lagging should be designed for the recommended earth pressures but be limited to a maximum pressure of 450 psf due to arching in the soils. Voids created behind lagging by sloughing oflocally cohesionless soil layers shall be grouted or slurry filled, as necessary, as construction progresses. In addition, generally the upper two to four feet oflagging shall be grouted or slurry-filled to assist in diverting surface water from migrating behind the shoring \\Esc _ server\projects\ I 0-12371 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 18 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G walls. Localized to widespread caving of onsite soils could be anticipated, especially if lagging is being installed below the previous/recent water table elevations. 5.7.5 Anchor Design Cantilever shoring is anticipated to be adequate for the subject site/development. However, anchor design recommendations are provide should their use become necessary. For design purposes, it may be estimated that drilled friction anchors will develop an average friction of 2,000 psf for the portion of the anchor extending beyond the active wedge and embedded in the effective zone. However, additional capacities may be developed based on the installation technique. Friction anchors should extend a minimum of 15 feet beyond the active wedge. However, greater depths may be required to develop the desired capacities. The active wedge is defined by a 1.4: 1 (horizontal: vertical) plane extended up and away from the bottom of the shored embankment. Localized to widespread caving of onsite soils could be anticipated. 5.7.6 Friction Anchor Installation Friction anchors may generally be installed at angles of 15 through 40 degrees below horizontal. Anchors should be filled from the tip outward to the approximate plane where the active wedge begins. The portion of anchor in the active wedge should not be filled with concrete. Localized to widespread caving of cohesion less soils may occur during tieback drilling and the contractor should have adequate means for mitigation. \\Esc _server\projects\ 10-12371 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 5.7.7 Friction Anchor Testing Page 19 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G To verify the friction value used in design, all of the anchors should be load tested to at least 133% of the design load and in accordance with the Post Tensioning Institute (PTI). Performance testing shall also be performed as per PTI recommendations. Our firm should continuously observe the installation of the anchors and all load testing. The shoring contractor should supply information on the hydraulic jacks verifying that they have been recently calibrated before their use. It is likely that the governing authority will require that temporary construction shoring tieback anchors extending into the public right-of-way be disengaged or removed following construction of the proposed improvements. Disengaging temporary shoring tieback anchors should have no adverse effects on proposed or existing improvements, provided proposed improvements are designed in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report. In addition, the geotechnical consultant shall observe the disengaging of tieback anchors in order to provide the necessary certification at the completion of the project. 5.8 Foundations and Slab Recommendations The following recommendations are for preliminary design purposes only. These recommendations should be reviewed after completion of earthwork to document that conditions exposed are as anticipated and that the recommended structure design parameters are appropriate. I\Esc _server\projects\ I 0-1 237 1 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 5.8.1 Foundations Page 20 CTE Job No.: 10-1237 lG Continuous and isolated spread footings are anticipated to be suitable for use at this site. As indicated, it is anticipated that the proposed structure footings will be founded at depth due to the proposed level of subterranean parking. As such, proposed foundations are anticipated to bear entirely in medium dense to dense native formation materials as recommended herein. Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on an allowable bearing value of 4,500 pounds per square foot for footings founded in competent formational materials located a minimum eight feet below the lowest adjacent exterior subgrade elevation. Continuous footings should be at least 24 inches wide; isolated footings should be at least 36 inches in least dimension. The above bearing values may also be increased by one third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. A 140-pci uncorrected sub grade modulus of reaction is considered suitable for elastic design of foundations embedded as indicated herein. Subgrade materials should generally be maintained at above-optimum moisture content until placement of foundation concrete. Minimum reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of four No. 5 reinforcing bars; two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom or as per the project structural engineer. The structural engineer should design isolated footing reinforcement. Footing \\Esc _server\projects\ I 0-123 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 21 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G excavations should generally be maintained above optimum moisture content until concrete placement. 5.8.2 Foundation Settlement The maximum total static settlement is expected to be on the order of one inch and the maximum differential static settlement is expected to be on the order of ½ inch over a distance of approximately 40 feet. Due to the absence of a shallow groundwater table and the dense to very dense nature of underlying materials, dynamic settlement is not expected to adversely affect the proposed improvements. 5.8.3 Foundation Setback Footings for structures should be designed such that the horizontal distance from the face of adjacent slopes to the outer edge of the footing is at least IO feet. In addition, footings should bear beneath a 1: l plane extended up from the nearest bottom edge of adjacent trenches and/or excavations. Deepening of affected footings may be a suitable means of attaining the prescribed setbacks. 5.8.4 Interior Concrete Slabs The proposed subterranean parking level slab on grade should be a minimum of five inches in thickness and reinforced with minimum #4 reinforcing bars placed on maximum 18-inch centers, each way, at above mid-slab height, but with proper cover. A 120-pci subgrade modulus of reaction 1s considered suitable for elastic design of \\Esc _ server\projects\ I 0-123 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 22 CTE Job No.: 10-123710 minimally embedded improvements such as concrete slabs-on-grade. Subgrade materials should generally be maintained at above-optimum moisture content until placement of slab underlayment and concrete. It is our expenence that the subterranean parking level slab on grade would not be considered a moisture-sensitive application. However, due to the potential for groundwater, this slab on grade could be considered a moisture-sensitive application. Therefore, the project architect and owner should evalu ate and determine the nature and extent of water proofing and moisture protection at the below grade level. In moisture-sensitive floor areas, if present, a suitable vapor retarder of at least 15-mil thickness (with all laps or penetrations sealed or taped) overlying a four-inch layer of consolidated crushed aggregate or CalTrans Class 2 aggregate base should be installed, as per the 2013 CBC/Green Building Code. This recommended protection is generally considered typical in the industry. If proposed floor areas or coverings are considered especially sensitive to moisture emissions, additional recommendations from a specialty consultant could be obtained. CTE is not an expert at preventing moisture penetration through slabs. A qualified architect or other experienced professional should be contacted if moisture penetration is a more significant concern. \\Esc _ server\projects\ I 0-12371 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 5.9 Seismic Design Criteria Page 23 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G The seismic ground motion values listed in the table below were derived in accordance with the ASCE 7-10 Standard and 2013 CBC. This was accomplished by establishing the Site Class based on the soil properties at the site, and then calculating the site coefficients and parameters using the United States Geological Survey Seismic Design Maps application using the site coordinates of 33.1633 degrees latitude and -117.3433 degrees longitude. These values are intended for the design of structures to resist the effects of earthquake ground motions. TABLE5.9 SEISMIC GROUND MOTION VALVES PARAMETER VALUE CBC REFERENCE (2013) Site Class D ASCE 7, Chapter 20 Mapped Spectral Response 1.143 Figure 1613.3.1 (1) Acceleration Parameter, Ss Mapped Spectral Response 0.438 Figure 1613.3.1 (2) Acceleration Parameter, S1 Seismic Coefficient, F. 1.043 Table 1613.3.3 (1) Seismic Coefficient, Fv 1.562 Table 1613.3.3 (2) MCE Spectral Response 1.192 Section 1613.3.3 Acceleration Parameter, SMs MCE Spectral Response 0.685 Section 1613.3.3 Acceleration Parameter, SM 1 Design Spectral Response 0.795 Section 1613.3.4 Acceleration, Parameter Sos Design Spectral Response 0.456 Section 1613.3.4 Acceleration, Parameter S01 Peak Ground Acceleration PGAM 0.473 ASCE 7, Section 11.8.3 \\Esc _ server\projects\ 10-12371 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 5 .1 0 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures Page 24 CTE Job No.: 10-123710 Lateral loads acting against retaining walls may be resisted by friction between the footings and the supporting compacted fill soil and/or Old Paralic Deposits or passive pressure acting against structures. If frictional resistance is used, an allowable coefficient of friction of0.30 (total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction multiplied by the dead load) is recommended for concrete cast directly against compacted fill. A design passive resistance value of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a maximum value of 1,500 pounds per square foot) may be used. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance. Retaining walls should not be underlain by Undocumented Fill as defined by a 1: 1 plane extending downward from the foundation bottom outer edges. If proposed, retaining walls up to approximately ten feet high and backfilled using granular soi ls may be designed using the equivalent fluid weights given below. TABLE 5.10 EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS (pounds per cubic foot) SLOPE BACKFILL WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL 2:1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) CANTILEVER WALL 30 48 (YIELDING) RESTRAINED WALL 60 75 \\Esc _ server\projects\l 0-123 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Page 25 Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 CTE Job No.: 10-123710 Lateral pressures on cantilever retaining walls (yielding walls) due to earthquake motions may be calculated based on work by Seed and Whitman (1970). The total lateral thrust against a properly drained and backfilled cantilever retaining wall above the groundwater level can be expressed as: For non-yielding ( or "restrained") walls, the total lateral thrust may be similarly calculated based on work by Wood (1973): Where PA = Static Active Thrust ( determined using Table 5 .9) PK= Static Restrained Wall Thrust (determined using Table 5.9) L\P AE = Dynamic Active Thrust Increment = (3 /8) kh yH2 L\PKE = Dynamic Restrained Thrust Increment = kh yH2 kh = * 1/2 Peak Ground Acceleration = 1/2 (PGAM) H = Total Height of the Wall y = Total Unit Weight of Soil ::::: 135 pounds per cubic foot * A 1/2 reduction factor is anticipated to be acceptable based on the assumption that the walls are not overly sensitive to some movement during the design seismic event, but this should be confirmed or determined by the project structural engineer ( see SEAOC, 2013). The increment of dynamic thrust in both cases should be distributed triangularly with a line of action located at H/3 above the bottom of the wall (SEAOC, 2013). These values assume non-expansive backfill and free-draining conditions. Measures should be taken to prevent moisture buildup behind all retaining walls. Drainage measures should include free- draining backfill materials and sloped, perforated drains. These drains should discharge to an appropriate off-site location. A general or conceptual detail for Retaining Wall Drainage, which may or may not be appropriate for the subject site based on the review of the project structural \\Esc _ server\projects\ 10-1 23 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 26 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G engineer and architect, is attached as Figure 4. Waterproofing should be as specified by the project architect or the waterproofing specialty consultant. 5 .11 Exterior Flatwork To reduce the potential for cracking in exterior flatwork for non-traffic areas caused by minor movement of subgrade soils and typical concrete shrinkage, it is recommended that such flatwork measure a minimum 4.5 inches thick and be installed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the project architect. Additionally, it is recommended that flatwork be installed with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars on maximum 18-inch centers, each way, at above mid-height of slab but with proper concrete cover, or other reinforcement per the project consultants. Doweling of flatwork joints at critical pathways or similar could also be beneficial in resisting minor subgrade movements. All subgrades should be prepared according to the earthwork recommendations previously given before placing concrete. Positive drainage should be established and maintained next to all flatwork. Subgrade materials shall be maintained at, or be elevated to, above optimum moisture content prior to concrete placement. 5 .12 Pavements If proposed at near grade elevations, pavement sections provided are based on an preliminary Resistance "R" -Value results, estimated traffic indices, and the assumption that the upper foot of compacted fill subgrade and overlying aggregate base materials are properly compacted to a minimum 95 % relative compaction at a minimum of two percent above optimum moisture content \\Esc _server\projects\ I 0-1 23 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Vi11age Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 27 CTE Job No.: 10-123710 (as per ASTM D 1557). Beneath proposed pavement areas, loose or otherwise unsuitable soils are to be removed to the depth of competent native material as recommended in Section 5.2. TABLE 5.12 RECOMMENDED AC OR PCC PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESSES Traffic Area Assumed Preliminary Asphalt Pavements Portland Cement Traffic Index Subgrade AC CalTrans Class II or Concrete "R"-Value Thickness Crushed Miscellaneous Pavements On (INCHES) Aggregate Base Subgrade Thickness (INCHES) (INCHES) Auto Parking 5.0 40+ 3.0 4.0 6.0 and Light Drive Areas Moderate to 6.0 40+ 3.0 7.0 7.0 Heavy Drive Areas Asphalt paved areas should be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with , for example, the recommendations of the Asphalt Institute, or other widely recognized authority. Concrete paved areas should be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the American Concrete Institute or other widely recognized authority, particularly with regard to thickened edges, joints, and drai nage. The Standard Specifications for Public Works construction ("Greenbook") or Caltrans Standard Specifications may be referenced for pavement materials specifications. \\Esc _server\projects\ I 0-123 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 5 .13 Drainage Page 28 CTE Job No.: 10-123710 Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from improvements by means of appropriate erosion-reducing devices, and positive drainage should be established around proposed improvements. Positive drainage should be directed away from improvements and slope areas at a minimum gradient of two percent for a distance of at least five feet. However, the project civil engineer should evaluate the on-site drainage and make necessary provisions to keep surface water from affecting the site. Generally, CTE recommends against allowing water to infiltrate building pads or adjacent to slopes and improvements. However, it is understood that some agencies are encouraging the use of storm- water cleansing devices. Therefore, if storm water cleansing devices must be used, it is generally recommended that they be underlain by an impervious barrier and that the infiltrate be collected via subsurface piping and discharged off site. If infiltration must occur, water should infiltrate as far away from structural improvements as feasible. Additionally, any reconstructed slopes descending from infiltration basins should be equipped with subdrains to collect and discharge accumulated subsurface water (Appendix D contains general or typical details for internal fill slope drainage). 5.14 Slopes Based on observed conditions and anticipated soil strength characteristics, cut and fill slopes, if proposed at the site, should be constructed at ratios of 2: 1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. These fill slope inclinations should exhibit factors of safety greater than 1.5. \\Esc _server\projects\ I 0-123 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 29 CTE Job No.: 10-123710 Although properly constructed slopes on this site should be grossly stable, the soils will be somewhat erodible. Therefore, runoff water should not be permitted to drain over the edges of slopes unless that water is confined to properly designed and constructed drainage facilities. Erosion-resistant vegetation should be maintained on the face of all slopes. Typically, soils along the top portion of a fill slope face will creep laterally. CTE recommends against building distress- sensitive hardscape improvements within five feet of slope crests. 5.15 Plan Review CTE should be authorized to review the project grading, shoring, and foundation plans, prior to commencement of earthwork to identify potential conflicts with the intent of the geotechnical recommendations. 5 .16 Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions observed in the explorations performed. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Foundation recommendations may be revised upon completion of grading and as-built laboratory test results. \\Esc _ server\projects\ I 0-1 2371 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 30 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption that CTE will provide the observation and testing services for the project. All earthwork should be observed and tested to verify that grading activities have been performed according to the recommendations contained within this report. CTE should evaluate all footing trenches before reinforcing steel placement. 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have been conducted according to current engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by reputable geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. 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 oftime, 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. \\Esc _serverlprojectsl I 0-1 23 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Village Drive Apartments 1044 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California January 27, 2016 Page 31 CTE Job No.: 10-12371G CTE's conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, this office should be notified and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided. The opportunity to be of service on this project is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. Dan T. Math, GE #2665 Principal Engineer Aaron J. Beeby, CEG #2603 Project Geologist AJB/GFR/DTM:nri Jay F. Lynch, CEG #1890 Principal Engineering Geologist \\Esc _server\projects\ I 0-123 71 G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc ~ f ~ l>.,_ ~ .._, Oc:Hn Palms. 8NCh Rft0ft -;.1,, OURT \ ,, "NOaA PH.<SE .... Day, Mon- StJNC Pool C..-tsb•d High School -a c,.,1c..Vt ........ 'I>'""' Elenwnta 5"'o ~··"'"' Vall.,-""" Middl•. Sdlocl ~ Pelur, Cove Bed & ,~ ,., ~\,, c.ts .... \ .... ~~ --~---------"-""'-'""'-~ ~ Brffkfast , , 1. .,. C~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~'C 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 SITE INDEX MAP PROPOSED CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE 1044 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARI.':lBAD, CALIFORNIA SCALE: AS SHOWN CTE JOB NO.: 10-12371G DATE: 1/16 FIGURE: 1 / ~ 0 1> -~ 0 .71.3 ,,.,,../ (' ~~ . . .f ' ~~ .,,,,.✓-- c;., l)l" t,, [ I , J - 0 0 \ > JJJJJJ -0--. r 7 L :JJ..::::: :=l"'I [:IJ □JTI- -$--r L T::::: J'"~:JJI ---:-:IT :JJI 0 00 -. -. -:r -J T'.:: :a 21 _r ::::n:rr -'II. PROPOSED BUILDING 57 "l"7i: 5.F. □□□ 20' z:: I ~~. 5 / / / 0 k------1 ~ .;, / ,,. ._J ,._ / / 10' 20' I Cl~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~'C 1441 Montiel Rd SIB 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 GEOLOGIC/BORING LOCATION IIAP SCA~;~60' DATE: PROPOSED CARISBAD VILLAGE DRIVE APARTMENTS l/lB 10« CARISBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CTE JOB NO.: FIGURE: CARISBAD, CAUFORNIA 10-12371G 2 ~~ '\\ ' '\. '·. .... ' ", ' I.' 'I. ,_ \ "'-<.. ~ ~ \ \ ' ~- \ .\ " \ \ \\ I \ \ ' . ,1-'\." \ ·\\ \"' \ \\ \.~~~ .. l "" \ \ ' \ \ \ \\ ", \ \ '' \ \ ,, I \ '-\ \ I \~ \ \ " ' ' ' ' "'b- \ ' \ \ \ \~ ' \ \ ~--~'i:.._;.,, / -~r,, -- -. ---•1 -- \... ·~. ~ ,1,\ \ -\l "r.,-,rd,. NOTES: FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CAIJFORNIA, 2010, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGIC DATA MAP SERIES MAP NO. 6; EPICENTERS OF AND AREAS DAMAGED BY M25 CAIJFORNIA EARTHQUAKES, 1800-1999 ADAPTED AFTER TOPPOZADA, BRANUM, PETERSEN, HALI.STORM, CRAMER, AND REICHLE, 2000, CDMG MAP SHEET 49 REFERENCE FOR ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION; MODIFIED WITH CISN AND USGS SEISMIC MAPS 7]77]7 M --········?.-M -•1-· -········?-- --······? ~ ---I, ___J '---' 12 0 6 12 ~~ .-! --inch = 12 m i. M - M M ~ ---J 0 0 .:--:."M ~ • -0 0 -1 '.•·_c,.,-~.~ .#!rf ""1.. ~ _,.r-\ ~~"'I,.~ • .....:. ~ ,,-"'-\ : ) ·,~ -4?,iV;~.\ -~ = I ~--0 • 0 0 ,., ---__ ,I ~ ~ -----~~ ··----~ -~-,-----~-~ --• -·---· ---- b , ,-/ Y-,1.rff~ '\~:::.~" ~~. '-~--"t\~c'.~ ... A ,~ ~r ':~~ --:~ ·-J ,---......,_ M E Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 • ~~ .... _ .'\ ·•.. ·•••, I \' ...... •, "•, .. /1. ----~ ........ . 0 .M ·.. ~ ··-:'\. \ ~-'\ ~--. -~~--·:\ ~,,_,-~_ ·--~~---. * ·-... __ (J.,, ·--~ -~ I •.~_, ~ · .. E \ j; '1 11' :! R - J RETAINING WAL FINISH GRADE WALL FOOTING 12" TO 18" OF LOWER PERMEABILITY NATIVE MATERIAL COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION CT~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~c: 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido. CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-49-55 CTEJOH NO: 10-1237 lG RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL SCALE: NO SCALE DATE: Fl ,URE: 01/16 4 APPENDIX A REFERENCES REFERENCES 1. American Society for Civil Engineers, 2010, "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures," ASCE/SEI 7-10. 2. ASTM, 2002, "Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort," Volume 04.08 3. Blake, T.F., 2000, "EQFAULT," Version 3.00b, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software. 4. California Building Code, 2013, "California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2," California Building Standards Commission, published by ICBO, June. 5. California Division of Mines and Geology, CD 2000-003 "Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region," compiled by Martin and Ross. 6. California Emergency Management Agency/California Geological Survey, "Tsunami Inundation Maps for Emergency Planning. 7. County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Land and Water Quality Division, 2010, Design Manual for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems dated March 22 updated November 25, 2013. 8. Frankel, A.D., Petersen, M.D., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Leyendecker, E.V., Wesson, R. L., Hannsen, S.C., Cramer, C.H., Perkins, D.M., Rukstales,K.S.,2002, Documentation for the 2002 update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2002-420, 39p 9. Hart, Earl W., Revised 2007, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist Priolo, Special Studies Zones Act of 1972," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. 10. Jennings, Charles W., 1994, "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas" with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions. 11 . Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2008, "Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California", California Geological Survey, Map No. 2, Plate 1 of 2. 12. Reichle, M ., Bodin, P., and Brune, J., 1985, The June 1985 San Diego Bay Earthquake swarm (abs.]: EOS, v. 66, no. 46, p.952. 13 . SEAOC, Blue Book-Seismic Design Recommendations, "Seismically Induced Lateral Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures and Basement Walls," Article 09.10.010, October 2013. 14. Seed, H.B., and R.V. Whitman, 1970, "Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads," in Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth-Retaining Structures, pp. 103-147, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. 15. Simons, R.S., 1979, Instrumental Seismicity of the San Diego area, 1934-1978, in Abbott, P.L. and Elliott, W.J., eds., Earthquakes and other perils, San Diego region: San Diego Association of Geologists, prepared for Geological Society of America field trip, November 1979, p.101-105. 16. Tan, S. S., and Giffen, D. G., 1995, "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California: Oceanside and San Luis Rey Quadrangles, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35", California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 95-04, State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California. 17. Wood, J.H. 1973, Earthquake-Induced Soil Pressures on Structures, Report EERL 73-05. Pasadena: California Institute of Technology. APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOGS Construction Test ing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 DEFINITION OF TERMS PRIMARY DIVISIONS GRAVELS MORE THAN HALF OF COARSE FRACTION IS LARGER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE SANDS MORE THAN HALF OF COARSE FRACTION IS SMALLER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE CLEAN GRAVELS < 5% FINES GRAVELS WITH FINES CLEAN SANDS < 5% FINES SIL TS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS LESS THAN 50 SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS GREATER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OF NO FINES SIL TY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES, ON-PLASTIC FINES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES WELL GRADED SANDS, GRA YELL Y SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRA YELL Y SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SIL TY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FINES INORGANJC SILTS, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAYEY LL TS INORGANJC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDfUM PLASTICITY, GRA YELL Y SANDY SIL TS OR LEAN CLAYS ORGANJC SIL TS AND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DlATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SIL TY SOILS ELASTIC SIL TS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HJGH PLASTICITY, ORGANJC SLL TY CLAYS PEAT AND OTHER HJGHL Y ORGANJC SOILS GRAIN SIZES BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILTS AND CLAYS COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE 12" 3" 3/4" 4 JO 40 200 CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ADDITIONAL TESTS (OTHER THAN TEST PIT AND BORING LOG COLUMN HEADINGS) MAX-Maximum Dry Density GS-Grain Size Distribution SE-Sand Equivalent EI-Expansion Index CHM-Sul fate and Chloride Content , pH, Resistivity COR -Corrosivity SD-Sample Disturbed PM-Permeability SG-Specific Gravity HA-Hydrometer Analysis AL-Atterberg Limits RV-R-Value CN-Consolidation CP-Collapse Potenti al HC-Hydrocollapse REM-Remolded PP-Pocket Penetrometer WA-Wash Analysis DS-Direct Shear UC-Unconfined Compression MD-Moisture/Density M-Moisture SC-Swell Compression 01-Organic Impurities FIGURE: BLJ I C PROJECT: I" CTE JOB NO: II LOGGEDBY: 0 0 E:'::: "' 3: ..2 C!l C u -5 ~ -t ~ 0 C: ~ ., 0 c "' c ·o 0 ~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 DRILLER: SHEET: of DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DA TE: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION: 0 ..D E ;,-,. OJ) BORING LEGEND 0 Laboratory Tests C/J ....l rzi u c..i :E c.. C/J e ::i Cl DESCRIPTION >-0--+--+--+--t---+--+--t-----t-------------------------+--------~ [~ -~ C =~ ~ -- [-s- -- [--~- -- [--·- 10--[--i -- [ --[I ... - [ >-15- ... - [ >-- ... - ,--r~ -~ - --- .-25- -- I - ~ Block or Chunk Sample Bulk Sample Standard Penetration Test Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler (Cal Sampler) Thin Walled Army Corp. of Engineers Sample Groundwater Table -,--·-------------------------------------------------------------------------- "\......,_ Soil Type or Classification Change -?--?--?--?--?--?--?- \__ F~rmation ~hange r(A~proximat~ boundari~s queried ;?)l "SM" Quotes are placed around classifications where the soils exist in situ as bedrock FIGURE: I BL2 I ~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. C CT~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 C PROJECT: CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE APTS DRILLER: BAJA EXPLORATION SHEET: I of I CTE JOB NO: 10-12371 G DRILL METHOD: HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILLING DA TE: 12/24/2015 LOGGED BY: MM SAMPLE METHOD: BULK, RING, AND SPT ELEVATION: -74' D 0) C 0 u 0. 0) .e ..D E ~ E 0. 0 ~ OJ) BORING: B-1 ., "' >, le.., >, 0 Laboratory Tests "' C/) f--·.;; C/) ....J ~ "' C: ~ C/) u C: -;,; "' ::, c..i :.c [ ..<: 0) ~ 0 "' c.. ::!: .:: 0. "' ::, 0 0 c 'i3 C/) e 0 cc co 0 ~ ::i 0 DESCRIPTION [ ... o SM Aspalt: 0-4" ... -QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL: Loose to medium dense dark brown siltv fine grained SAND. ... -"SM" QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: [ Medium dense, slightly moist, light brownish orange, silty fine SAND. ,--EI, CHM [ ... - -5 I 47 ... -20 [ -26 ... - ,-- [ --------... -"SP" Dense, slightly moist, olive brown to orange, fine SAND minimal silt. -I !t-... [ 7 17 GS ,--23 ... ... - [ ... ---------Very dense, slightly moist, light tan to white, silty fi ne grained "SM" SAND. -- [ ... IS-[ 44 ... -5015" [ ... --------------------------------------------------------------"ML/SM" Verv dense, slightly moist, olive brown, silty fin e SAND to ... -[ sandy SILT with coarse gravel and interbedded light tan silty 5015" fi ne SAND. GS [ ... - ,-2(1-Total Depth: 18.5'. [ ... -Backfilled with bentonite chips and cuttings. Resurfaced with black dyed concrete . ... - [ ,-- ... - [ -2s- I B-1 [ [ PROJECT: CTEJOB NO: LOGGED BY: [ ~ 4) f:::., [ l [ 1-0 ... - [-- .... - c:s: c: ~ ... - [ ... - 1-l(t· [ .... - ... - [ .... - I-- [ 1-J 5- ... [ I-- I-- [ .... - 1-2(,- [ ... - I-- [ ... - ... - [ ~2s- 4) 0.. E "' (/J -"' = Ill 4) C. ~ C: 4) :> 'i: Cl - ~ ;!: 0 cii 6 6 8 28 / 44 _ 50/2" ~ 17 50/6" CJ~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 CARLSBAD V[LLAGE DRfVE APTS 10-12371 G MM C 0 u 5 ..0 E OR[LLER: OR[LL METHOD: SAMPLE METHOD: BAJA EXPLORATION HOLLOW STEM AUGER BULK, RJNG, AND SPT SHEET: 1 DRILLING DA TE: ELEVATION: of 1 12/24/2015 -77' 0 e bl) :>, 0 'in (/J ..l BORING: B-2 Laboratory Tests C: e 4) E Cl "' c 'i3 Cl ~ r;,i -~ u ..c C. r;,i e ::i 0 DESCRIPTION SM Aspalt: 0-4" QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL: Loose to medium dense dark brown siltv fine 11rained SAND. "SM" QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: Medium dense, slightly moist, light brownish orange, silty fine SAND . --------"SM/SP" Medium dense, dry to slightly moist, reddish brown, silty fine grained SAND with trace silt. ~,SM-;, ----Very dense, slightly 1noist, olive brown to reddish brown, sil ty fine grained SAND, oxidized. "MUSM" Becomes olive grey to brown. Very dense, slightly moist, ofive grey, sandy SILT to siTty---------- SAND. Total depth: 16'. Backfilled with bentonite chips with cuttings. Resurfaced with black dyed concrete. MD,DS GS I B-2 [ [ PROJECT: CTE JOB NO: LOGGED BY: " ci " E o. C) ~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746--4955 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE APTS 10-12371 G MM C 0 u 3 .n ~ E oJ) DRlLLER: BAJA EXPLORATION DRILL METHOD: HOLLOW STEM AUGER SAMPLE METHOD: BULK, RlNG, AND SPT SHEET: I DRILLING DATE: ELEVATION: of I 12/24/20 IS -77' "' >-. VJ f-0 e >-. 0 ·v=; VJ ...J ~ BORING: B-3 Laboratory Tests [ -o -- [-- -- c:5= ---I [--- .. - [ .. - IS 24 30 C: " 2 Cl "' c ·o Cl ::;E VJ -~ cj ..c: 0. VJ e ::i 0 DESCRIPTION SM Aspalt: 0-4" QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL: Loose to medium dense. dark brown siltv fine !:!:rained SAND. "SM" QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: Medium dense, slightly moist, light brownish orange, silty fine SAND. Becomes very dense, light reddish brown B~~ows.ruu-k redd~b~row.n. ______________________________ _ ,_ 1 fr-.. "SM/SP" Medium dense, slightly moist, dark reddish brown, silty fine 6 SAND, slightly less silt. [ .. -~--~~--------------------------------~ .. - [ .. - ,-- [ .. 1 s- -- [ .. - -- [ -- -2(,- [ -- -- -- ,__ - [~2 S- Total depth 11.5'. Backfilled with bentonite chips and cuttings. Resurfaced with black dyed concrete. GS I B-3 ~------------Cl~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 C PROJECT: CTE JOB NO: [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ LOGGED BY: ... - .-5- "" - -- -- -- -1 (t- -- -- -- ... - ... IS- -- ... - ... - ... - -2(1- -- -- -- -- -25- 0) 0. 0) E o. "' >. VJ !- "' - -I 5 6 7 II 20 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE APTS 10-12371 G DRILLER: BAJA EXPLORATION DRILL METHOD: HOLLOW STEM AUGER MM SAMPLE METHOD: BULK, RJNG, AND SPT C 0 u -e ..0 ;? E 0 >. Oil 0 0 ·.; ~ VJ ...l C: e czi u 0) 3 u ;:: Cl "' 0. c ·o VJ e Cl ::E =i CJ BORING: B-4 DESCRIPTION SM Aspalt: 0-4" QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL: Loose to medium dense dark brown siltv fine ITTained SAND. "SM" QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: SHEET: I DRILLING DA TE: ELEVATION: of I 12/24/201 5 -76' Laboratory Tests Medium dense, slightly moist, light brownish orange, silty fine SAND. ---------"SP" Medium dense, slightly moist, light brownish orange, poorly graded fine grained SAND with trace silt. --------"SP/SM" Dense to very dense, slightly moist, olive grey to light brown, si lty fine grained SAND/ Poorly graded SAND with si lt. 29 MD, DS Total Depth: 11.5'. Backfilled with bentonite chips and cuttings. Resurfaced with black dyed concrete . I B-4 APPENDIXC LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS APPENDIXC LABO RA TORY METHODS AND RESULTS Laboratory Testing Program Laboratory tests were perfonned on representative soil samples to detect their relative engineering properties. Tests were performed following test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various test methods used. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples according to ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Logs in Appendix B. In-Place Moisture and Density To detennine the moisture and density of in-place site soils, a representative sample was tested for the moisture and density at time of sampling. Expansion Index Expansion testing was performed on selected samples of the matrix of the on-site soils according to ASTMD4829. Particle-Size Analysis Particle-size analyses were performed on selected representative samples according to ASTM D 422. Direct Shear Direct shear tests were performed on either samples direct from the field or on samples recompacted to a specific density. Direct shear testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D 3080. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. Resistance "R" Value The resistance "R"-value was measured by the California Test. 301. The graphically determined "R" value at an exudation pressure of 300 pounds per square inch is the value used for pavement section calculation. Chemical Analysis Soil materials were collected with sterile sampling equipment and tested for Sulfate and Chloride content, pH, Corrosivity, and Resistivity. LOCATION B-1 LOCATION B-2 B-4 LOCATION P-3 LOCATION B-1 LOCATION B-1 LOCATION B-1 LOCATION B-1 LABORATORY SUMMARY Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 EXPANSION INDEX TEST ASTM D 4829 DEPTH (feet) EXPANSION INDEX 0-5 2 IN-PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY DEPTH % MOISTURE (feet) 10 9.2 10 4.1 RESISTANCE "R"-VALUE CAL TEST 301 DEPTH R-VALUE (feet) 0-3 60 SULFATE DEPTH RESULTS (feet) ppm 0-5 214.2 CHLORIDE DEPTH RESULTS (feet) ppm 0-5 36.6 p.H. DEPTH RESULTS (feet) 0-5 7.3 RESISTIVITY CALIFORNIA TEST 424 DEPTH RESULTS (feet) ohms-cm 0-5 3,550 EXPANSION POTENTIAL VERY LOW DRY D ENSITY 126.6 111.4 CTE JOB NO. I0-12371G U. 5. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE lfl :;!: "' co 0 0 N ~ co~ <O 0 00 0 0 0 ~ (") ~ (") 'St ~N (") 'St lO ~ N 100 --------y -,_ --~ 90 \ \ • -\ 80 ~i--\ --r--NI-r---... t 70 -i---\ I.__ \ "\ ~ 60 '\ (!) '~\ z in IJ) < 50 a. ~ I-z \\ w u Ct'. 40 w \~, a. 30 \ r..... • 20 " ', • 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE (mm) PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS CT~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. Sample Designation Sample Depth (feet) Symbol Liquid Limit (o/e) Plasticity Index Classification B-1 10 • --SM/SP ~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 11"5, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 B-1 18.5 ■ --SM CTE JOB NUMBER: I0-12371G FIGURE: C-1 U. 5. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE l[) ~ ~ £:::I ~ 0 0 N ~ (X)~ coo 00 0 0 0 ~ ("") ~ v ~N Mv I.() ~ N 100 -------... -------... t-r-, r-, ~\ 90 ~ ~ 80 \ • ~ 70 \\ ~ 60 (!) \ \ z in "' < 50 a. \\ I-z w u 0:: 40 w \ a. r-.. 30 ~ I\ I i\ • 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE (mm) PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS CT~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. Sample Designation Sample Depth (feet) Symbol Liquid Limit(%) Plasticity Index Classification 8 -2 15 • --SM ~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115. Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 8-3 10 ■ --SM CTE JOB NUMBER: I0-1 2371G FIGURE: C-2 PRECONSOLIDATION SHEARING DATA 0.033 5000 " .... 0.034 ,,, 4000 r;:--0.035 IJ) ~ " 'in .e j Q) (/) 3000 ~ I " 0.036 (/) C \ w -ix: J / i,,o""' I-z (/) ~ 0.037 ix: 2000 , ,~r ~-.. <( I-w (/) J: ./., 0.038 (/) ~~ j 1000 . V ~ / 0.039 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.040 0.1 1 10 100 __ 1000psfl STRAIN(%) TIME (minutes) VERTICAL --3000psf STRESS _ 5000psf FAILURE ENVELOPE 5000 4000 ,, r;:- IJ) .e (/) (/) 3000 w ix: It I-(/) (!) z ii: 2000 <( w J: (/) I ► 1000 dr=0.1200 mm./min I ~ 0 CT~c 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 VERTICAL STRESS (psf) SHEAR STRENGTH TEST-ASTMD3080 Job Name: Carlsbad Villas;e Drive Aeartments Initial Dry Density (pct): 126.6 Project Number: I 0-12371 G Sample Date: 12/23/2015 Initial Moisture(%): 9.2 Lab Number: 2592 1 Test Date: 1/12/2016 Final Moisture (%): 19.1 Sample Location: 8-2 @ 10.0' Tested by: RJP Cohesion: 930 psf Sample Description: Moderate Brown Silt~ Sand Angle Of Friction: 29.1 PRECONSOLIDATION SHEARING DATA 0.022 5000 0.023 ~ 4000 Ill.. :;::-0.024 fJ) ~ U) ' .:: ~ --CII 1/) 3000 .s:: • 1/) I c.) 0.025 C: w ~ a:: I-~ -z 1/) J ~ ~ 0.026 a:: 2000 I'\ <( ,v I-w 1/) J: // 0.027 1/) ~ ,,,. ii-.,-. 1000 // .._,,_ • 0.028 ~ 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.029 0.1 1 10 100 I __ 1000ps;I STRAIN(%) TIME (minutes) VERTICAL --3000 psf STRESS _ 5000 psf FAILURE ENVELOPE 5000 4000 ,a :;::- fJ) .:: 1/) 1/) 3000 w a:: I-I I 1/) (!) z ix: 2000 <( w J: 1/) I~ 1000 d,""0.1200 mm./min I ~ 0 CT~c 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 VERTICAL STRESS (psf) SHEAR STRENGTH TEST -ASTMD3080 Job Name: Carlsbad Village Drive Aeartments Initial Dry Density (pct): Project Number: I 0-1 237 1 G Sample Date: 12/23/2015 Initial Moisture(%): Lab Number: 2592 1 Test Date: 1/12/201 6 Final Moisture(%): #DIV/0! Sample Location: 8-4 @ 10.0' Tested by: RJP Cohes ion: 660 psf Sample Description: Dark Brown Coarse Sand Angle Of Fri ction: 3 1.0 APPENDIXD STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Appendix D Page D-1 Standard Specifications for Grading Section 1 -General Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. presents the following standard recommendations for grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be considered a portion of the project specifications. Recommendations contained in the body of the previously presented soils report shall supersede the recommendations and or requirements as specified herein. The project geotechnical consultant shall interpret disputes arising out of interpretation of the recommendations contained in the soils report or specifications contained herein. Section 2 -Responsibilities of Project Personnel The geotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services sufficient to general conformance with project specifications and standard grading practices. The geotechnical consultant should report any deviations to the client or his authorized representative. The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perfonn work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. The Contractor is responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading and other associated operations on construction projects, including, but not limited to, earth work in accordance with the project plans, specifications and controlling agency requirements. Section 3 -Preconstruction Meeting A preconstruction site meeting should be arranged by the owner and/or client and should include the grading contractor, design engineer, geotechnical consultant, owner's representative and representatives of the appropriate governing authorities. Section 4 -Site Preparation The client or contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and/or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 1 of 26 Appendix D Page D-2 Standard Specifications for Grading Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, root of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas. Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.) and other man-made surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper capping and/or rerouting pipelines at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of demolition. Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be protected by the contractor from damage or injury. Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. Section 5 -Site Protection Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the contractor. Unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the requirements for site protection until such time as the entire project is complete as identified by the geotechnical consultant, the client and the regulating agencies. Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions should be made· during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions as determined by the geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable materials and should be subject to overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 2 of 26 Appendix D Page D-3 Standard Specifications for Grading The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations ( e.g., backcuts) are made in consideration of stability of the completed project and, therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude requirements that are more restrictive by the regulating agencies. The contractor should provide during periods of extensive rainfall plastic sheeting to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated and unstable. When deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant or governing agencies the contractor shall install checkdams, desilting basins, sand bags or other drainage control measures. In relatively level areas and/or slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot; they should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture conditioning in-place, fo llowed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair recommendations herein. If field conditions dictate, the geotechnical consultant may recommend other slope repair procedures. Section 6 -Excavations 6.1 Unsuitable Materials Materials that are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock and nonengineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials. Material identified by the geotechnical consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture conditions should be overexcavated; moisture conditioned as needed, to a unifonn at or above optimum moisture condition before placement as compacted fill. If during the course of grading adverse geotechnical conditions are exposed which were not anticipated in the preliminary soi l report as determined by the geotechnical consultant additional exploration, analysis, and treatment of these problems may be recommended. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 3 of 26 Appendix D Page D-4 Standard Specifications for Grading 6.2 Cut Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal: vertical). The geotechnical consultant should observe cut slope excavation and if these excavations expose loose cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, the materials should be overexcavated and replaced with a compacted stabilization fill. If encountered specific cross section details should be obtained from the Geotechnical Consultant. When extensive cut slopes are excavated or these cut slopes are made in the direction of the prevailing drainage, a non-erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided at the top of the slope. 6.3 Pad Areas All lot pad areas, including side yard terrace containing both cut and fill materials, transitions, located less than 3 feet deep should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and replaced with a uniform compacted fill blanket of 3 feet. Actual depth of overexcavation may vary and should be delineated by the geotechnical consultant during grading, especially where deep or drastic transitions are present. For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm drainage swale and/or an appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away from the top-of-slopes of 2 percent or greater is recommended. Section 7 -Compacted Fill All fill materials should have fill quality, placement, conditioning and compaction as specified below or as approved by the geotechnical consultant. 7.1 Fill Material Quality Excavated on-site or import materials which are acceptable to the geotechnical consultant may be utilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. All import materials anticipated for use on-site should be sampled tested and approved prior to and placement is in conformance with the requirements outlined. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 4 of 26 Appendix D Page D-5 Standard Specifications for Grading Rocks 12 inches in maximum and smaller may be utilized within compacted fill provided sufficient fill material is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock to effectively fill rock voids. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the 3/4-inch sieve. The geotechnical consultant may vary those requirements as field conditions dictate. Where rocks greater than 12 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill , special handling in accordance with the recommendations below. Rocks greater than four feet should be broken down or disposed off-site. 7.2 Placement of Fill Prior to placement of fill material, the geotechnical consultant should observe and approve the area to receive fill. After observation and approval, the exposed ground surface should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches. The scarified material should be conditioned (i.e. moisture added or air dried by continued discing) to achieve a moisture content at or slightly above optimum moisture conditions and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density or as otherwise recommended in the soils report or by appropriate government agencies. Compacted fill should then be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be moisture conditioned as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve a consistent moisture content at or slightly above optimum and thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. The contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and watering apparatus on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed m consideration of moisture retention properties of the materials and weather conditions. When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal: vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least six-foot wide benches and a minimum of four feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural ground, firm bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area after keying and benching until the geotechnical consultant has reviewed the area. Material generated by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away from STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 5 of 26 Appendix D Page D-6 Standard Specifications for Grading the bench area to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to placement of fill. Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a 3-foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least 3-foot vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved. Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading delay, the exposed surface or previously compacted fill should be processed by scarification, moisture conditioning as needed to at or slightly above optimum moisture content, thoroughly blended and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Where unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one foot, the unsuitable materials should be over-excavated. Following a period of flooding, rainfall or overwatering by other means, no additional fill should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading perfonned as described herein. Rocks 12 inch in maximum dimension and smaller may be utilized in the compacted fill provided the fill is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. No oversize material should be used within 3 feet of finished pad grade and within 1 foot of other compacted fill areas. Rocks 12 inches up to four feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper 10 feet of any fill and should not be closer than 15 feet to any slope face. These recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures or deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean, overexcavated or unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so those successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane. It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate and as recommended by the geotechnical consultant at the time of placement. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 6 of 26 Appendix D Page D-7 Standard Specifications for Grading The contractor should assist the geotechnical consultant and/or his representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. The contractor should provide this work at no additional cost to the owner or contractor's client. Fill should be tested by the geotechnical consultant for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should conform to ASTM Method of Test D 1556-00, D 2922-04. Tests should be conducted at a minimum of approximately two vertical feet or approximately 1,000 to 2,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading recommendations should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 7.3 Fill Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, pennanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal: vertical). Except as specifically recommended in these grading guidelines compacted fill slopes should be over-built two to five feet and cut back to grade, exposing the firm , compacted fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of the geotechnical consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted slope surface condition is achieved. Care should be taken by the contractor to provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface. At the discretion of the geotechnical consultant, slope face compaction may be attempted by conventional construction procedures including backrolling. The procedure must create a firmly compacted material throughout the entire depth of the slope face to the surface of the previously compacted firm fill intercore. During grading operations, care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately established desired grades. Grade during construction should not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful to elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope. Slough resulting from the placement of individual lifts should not be allowed to drift down over previous lifts. At intervals not STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 7 of 26 Appendix D Page D-8 Standard Specifications for Grading exceeding four feet in vertical slope height or the capability of available equipment, whichever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly dozer track.rolled. For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished using a berm and pad gradient of at least two percent. Section 8 -Trench Backfill Utility and/or other excavation of trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction should be a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and two feet deep may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding or by mechanical means. If on-site materials are utilized, they should be wheel-rolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review of backfill operations during construction. If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment m close proximity to a buried conduit, the contractor may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean, granular material, which should be thoroughly jetted in-place above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review of the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction. In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the geotechnical consultant. Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope areas. Section 9 -Drainage Where deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant, canyon subdrain systems should be installed in accordance with CTE's recommendations during grading. Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilization or sidehill masses, should be installed in accordance with the specifications. STANDARD SPECIF ICATIONS OF GRADING Page 8 of 26 Appendix D Page D-9 Standard Specifications for Grading Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of structures to suitable disposal areas via non-erodible devices (i.e., gutters, downspouts, and concrete swales). For drainage in extensively landscaped areas near structures, (i.e., within four feet) a minimum of 5 percent gradient away from the structure should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent should be maintained over the remainder of the site. Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the project. Property owners should be made aware that altering drainage patterns could be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance. Section 10 -Slope Maintenance 10.1 -Landscape Plants To enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting should be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope planting should consist of deep-rooting vegetation requiring little watering. Plants native to the southern California area and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi-arid and arid areas may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect should be the best party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration. 10.2 -Irrigation Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces. Slope irrigation should be minimized. If automatic timing devices are utilized on irrigation systems, provisions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during periods ofrainfall. 10.3 -Repair As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand, to protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period prior to landscape planting. If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant should be contacted for a field review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair. If slope failures occur as a result of exposure to period of heavy rainfall, the failure areas and currently unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to protect against additional saturation. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 9 of 26 Appendix D Page D-10 Standard Specifications for Grading In the accompanying Standard Details, appropriate repair procedures are illustrated for superficial slope failures (i.e., occurring typically within the outer one foot to three feet of a slope face). STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 10 of 26 FINISH CUT SLOPE ------------ BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL FILL SLOPE 10' TYPICAL SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MA TE RIAL 15' MIN . (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE) BENCHING FILL OVER CUT FINISH FILL SLOPE SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL 10' 15' MIN OR STABILITY EQUIVALENT PER SOIL ENGINEERING (INCLINED 2% MIN . INTO SLOPE) NOT TO SCALE BENCHING FOR COMPACTED FILL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 11 of 26 -- ------- TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN FILL ___ _ ------- -----_--,..;;. ....... --~ - MINIMUM DOWNSLOPE KEY DEPTH --~~~\~ -------cc~~i~W'i:,_-- -~t.-t.-- ---c,\.)\'\ ~€> ----\.)~;;;, -.,,,,.._ __________ _ --,,,,.. ,,,,.. ,,,,.. 1 O' TYPICAL BENCH // ,,,,..--WIDTH VARIES ~1 --- / 1 ,,,,.. ,,,,.. COMPETENT EARTH --/ --MATERIAL - 2% MIN --- 15' MINIMUM BASE KEY WIDTH TYPICAL BENCH HEIGHT PROVIDE BACKDRAIN AS REQUIRED PER RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOILS ENGINEER DURING GRADING WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5:1 OR LESS, BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY. FILL IS NOT TO BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL. NOT TO SCALE FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL GROUND DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 12 of 26 4' (/') ~ z 0 )> ::c 0 (/') ""CJ ""CJ m PJ (') (Cl -CD :!! ..... (') w )> 0 ::! -+, 0 I\) z 0) (/') "Tl 0 ::c G) ::c )> 0 z G) - REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM, AND CREEP MATERIAL FROM TRANSITION CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON "AS-BUILT" NATURAL - TOPOGRAP~Y _ --------------CUT SLOPE* FILL ---------- -----l'-€.-,J.O-.J€. --------~~~~~~o~;~----10\'.'so,L, _ ----7 1rr----~ -:::::..._ 14' TYPICAL I 15' MINIMUM NOT TO SCALE 10' TYPICAL BEDROCK OR APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL *NOTE: CUT SLOPE PORTION SHOULD BE MADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL _-,-------------~ -....... ' // ,'' COMPACTED FILL / '/ \\ // \ / [ SURFACE OF COMPETENT MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING \' / '' / / SEE DETAIL BELOW MINIMUM 9 FP PER LINEAR FOOT OF APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL FILTER MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL: ' / --..-. -'-/ REMOVE UNSUITABLE DETAIL 14" MINIMUM MATERIAL INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN AT 2% GRADIENT MINIMUM MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS DOWN) 6" FILTER MATERIAL BEDDING SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40 POLY-VINYL-CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 psi 1" N0.4 N0.8 NO. 30 NO. 50 NO. 200 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, SUBJECT TO FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING LENGTH OF RUN INITIAL 500' 500' TO 1500' > 1500' NOT TO SCALE PIPE DIAMETER 4" 6" 8" TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 14 of 26 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS --...... ,... ....... ' // ,'' COMPACTED FILL / '/ \\ // \ I [ SURFACE OF COMPETENT MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING \' / \' / / ---' / __ ..,_ -' / SEE DETAILS BELOW TRENCH DETAILS 6" MINIMUM OVERLAP REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN AT 2% GRADIENT MINIMUM OPTIONAL V-DITCH DETAIL MINIMUM 9 FP PER LINEAR FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL 0 24" MINIMUM MINIMUM 9 FP PER LINEAR FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40 POLY- VINYLCHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI. DRAIN MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL: PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, SUBJECT TO FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING SIEVE SIZE 1 ½" 1" ¾" ¾" NO. 200 PERCENTAGE PASSING 88-100 5-40 0-17 0-7 0-3 LENGTH OF RUN INITIAL 500' 500' TO 1500' > 1500' NOT TO SCALE GEOFABRIC SUBDRAIN STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 15 of 26 PIPE DIAMETER 4" 6" 8" FRONT VIEW CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL SUBDRAIN PIPE SIDE VIEW 24" Min. ~ 6" Min. ~ 12" Min.~ 6" Min. CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL--••--··.'!·· .. · . '• ... 6" Min . -.. -.. ► .-, ►, 6" Min. 6" Min. SOILD SUBDRAIN PIPE _. ";·.~. ";·. PE~FO~TE~ SU~DR;"-IN ~IPE ... .','· . NOT TO SCALE RECOMMENDED SUBDRAIN CUT-OFF WALL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 16 of 26 FRONT VIEW SUBDRAIN OUTLET PIPE (MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER) SIDE VIEW ALL BACKFILL SHOULD BE COMPACTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. COMPACTION EFFORT SHOULD NOT DAMAGE STRUCTURE -► !► -"► ,·h.·,'r::.,·,'t:..· ~-'~·'"°"·' . -' . b. ' • I -•' I ►. -., . ' ' ' -• ' I ► -'► -'►-, ,·r::._. ,·b.. ,·h.. 1:..,,6 ,,~., ► -'►-"'►-., ,, . h. . ' . t:.. ' ' . t:.. • ..:.. . ' ..h.. . ' .6. • ' -•· -•·-.. ► -, ► -, ►-,, ' h. . •' ' b.. . ' ' h. • .0. • ' .0. • ' ~ ' ' 24" Min. 24" Min. NOTE: HEADWALL SHOULD OUTLET AT TOE OF SLOPE OR INTO CONTROLLED SURFACE DRAINAGE DEVICE ALL DISCHARGE SHOULD BE CONTROLLED THIS DETAIL IS A MINIMUM DESIGN AND MAY BE MODIFIED DEPENDING UPON ENCOUNTERED CONDITIONS AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS NOT TO SCALE 24" Min. 12" TYPICAL SUBDRAIN OUTLET HEADWALL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 17 of 26 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACKDRAIN 4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER PLAN FILTER MATERIAL 2%MIN BENCHING H/2 AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER (GENERALLY 1/2 SLOPE HEIGHT, 15' MINIMUM) DIMENSIONS ARE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL SLOPE STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 18 of 26 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACKDRAIN 4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER PLAN FILTER MATERIAL BENCHING H/2 ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER DIMENSIONS ARE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 19 of 26 20' MAXIMUM FINAL LIMIT OF EXCAVATION OVEREXCAVATE OVERBURDEN (CREEP-PRONE) DAYLIGHT LINE FINISH PAD OVEREXCAVATE 3' AND REPLACE WITH COMPACTED FILL COMPETENT BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING LOCATION OF BACKDRAIN AND OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. MINIMUM 2% FLOW GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE LOCATION. EQUIPMENT WIDTH (MINIMUM 15') NOT TO SCALE DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 20 of 26 * PROPOSED GRADING BASE WIDTH "W" DETERMINED BY SOILS ENGINEER NATURAL GROUND COMPACTED FILL NOT TO SCALE PROVIDE BACKDRAIN , PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR BACK SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. LOCATIONS OF BACKDRAINS AND OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. MINIMUM 2% FLOW GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE LOCATION. TYPICAL SHEAR KEY DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 21 of 26 FINISH SURFACE SLOPE 3 FP MINIMUM PER LINEAR FOOT APPROVED FILTER ROCK* CONCRETE COLLAR PLACED NEAT A 2.0% MINIMUM GRADIENT A 4" MINIMUM DIAMETER SOLID OUTLET PIPE SPACED PER SOIL ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS COMPACTED FILL 4" MINIMUM APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE** (PERFORATIONS DOWN) MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT TO OUTLET DURING GRADING TYPICAL BENCH INCLINED TOWARD DRAIN **APPROVED PIPE TYPE: MINIMUM 12" COVER SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI BENCHING DETAIL A-A 12" TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED SOLID OUTLET PIPE MINIMUM *FILTER ROCK TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL: SIEVE SIZE 1" ¾" ¾" N0.4 NO. 30 NO. 50 NO. 200 PERCENTAGE PASSING 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 5-15 0-7 0-3 NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 22 of 26 FINISH SURFACE SLOPE MINIMUM 3 FP PER LINEAR FOOT OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE* TAPE AND SEAL AT COVER CONCRETE COLLAR PLACED NEAT COMPACTED FILL A 2.0% MINIMUM GRADIENT A MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER SOLID OUTLET PIPE SPACED PER SOIL ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM 12" COVER *NOTE: AGGREGATE TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL: SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 1 ½" 100 1" 5-40 ¾" 0-17 ¾" 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL A-A OMPACTE BACKFILL 12" MINIMUM NOT TO SCALE MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL 4" MINIMUM APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS DOWN) MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT TO OUTLET BENCH INCLINED TOWARD DRAIN TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED SOLID OUTLET PIPE BACKDRAIN DETAIL (GEOFRABIC) STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 23 of 26 SOIL SHALL BE PUSHED OVER ROCKS AND FLOODED INTO VOIDS. COMPACT AROUND AND OVER EACH WINDROW. l FILL SLOPE l CLEAR ZONE __/ STACK BOULDERS END TO END. DO NOT PILE UPON EACH OTHER. 10' 0 0 0 ____.::/~-------------- COMPETENT MATERIAL NOT TO SCALE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 24 of 26 ---- STAGGER ROWS STREET 10' 5' MINIMUM OR BELOW DEPTH OF DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH (WHICHEVER GREATER) FINISHED GRADE BUILDING 0 NO OVERSIZE, AREA FOR FOUNDATION, UTILITIE~~l AND SWIMMING POOL:_i 0 0 1-d 4•L--. WINDRDW ~ 0 TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (EDGE VIEW} GRANULAR SOIL FLOODED TO FILL VOIDS HORIZONTALLY PLACED COMPACTION FILL PROFILE VIEW NOT TO SCALE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 25 of 26 --- ---- GENERAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS CUT LOT -------TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM AND _ ---- -----ORIGINAL GROUND --_ ... WEATHERED BEDROCK____ S' MIN ----- 3'MIN --... --UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OVEREXCAVATE AND REGRADE CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION) COMPACTED FILL ------------- ------TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM .-,.,. ,.,. ,.,. ,.,. ...--AND WEATHERED __ BEDROCK ,.,. ~ --------------UNWEATHERED BEDROCK NOT TO SCALE TRANSITION LOT DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 26 of 26 __.-ORIGINAL .,,,,..,,--.... GROUND ----'MIN OVEREXCAVATE AND REGRADE