The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutB2000-1569 - MiscImo 2,006 dice, 67 FILE COPY LAW Crandall LAWGIBB Group Member I REPORT OF REVISED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Newport Beach, California September 10, 1999 Project 70131-9-0330.0002 LAW LAWGIBB Group Member September 10, 1999 Mr. Leif N. Thompson, AIA Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive, Suite 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Report of Revised Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Parking Structure Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Newport Beach, California Hoag Project No. 1253.08 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 Dear Mr. Thompson: We are pleased to submit this report presenting the results of our revised geotechni.cal investigation for the proposed parking structure at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, California. This report supercedes our original report for the project'. Our investigation was conducted in general accordance with our revised proposal dated August 6, 1999, as authorized by you on August 11, 1999. This revised geotechnical investigation incorporates the information from our original ,eotechnical report and addresses the changes to the proposed parking structure since the submittal of our original report. The scope of our investigation was planned based on communications with you, Mr. William Taylor of Taylor & Associates, the project architects, and Mr. Ed Gharibans of Taylor & Gaines, the project structural engineers. Mr. Gharibans also advised us of the structural features of the proposed development. The results of our investigation and design recommendations are presented in this report. Please note that you or your representative should submit copies of this report to the appropriate governmental agencies for their review and approval prior to obtaining a building permit. Report of Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed East Addition and Parking Structure, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian; Newport Beach, California; dated August 11, 1997 (Our Job No. 70131-7-0254). Law/Crandall, A Division of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles. CA 90040-1554 323-889-5300 • Fax 323-721-6700 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnicat Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, LAW/CRANDALL Carl Kim Senior Engineer G:\Enggeo199-prof \90330\9033 0 rpO l . DOC/CK: ck (1 copy submitted) cc: (5) Taylor & Associates, Architects Attn: Mr. William Taylor Marshall Lew, Ph.D. Corporate Consultant Vice President (I) Taylor & Gaines, Structural Engineers Attn: Mr. Ed Gharibans Q%UfEsS/04,4� g.R9sALI e W No.522 Exp 3-31-03 VF�lECI4\` C) OF CAte- 2 REPORT OF REVISED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Newport Beach, California Law/Crandall Los Angeles, California September 10,1999 Project 70131-9-0330.0002 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330 0002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY 1.0 SCOPE 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS 3 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS 3 4.2 LABORATORY TESTS 3 5.0 SOIL CONDITIONS 3 6.0 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMICALLY -INDUCED SETTLEMENT 4 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5 7.1 GENERAL 5 7.2 FOUNDATIONS 5 7.3 UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS 7 7.4 EXCAVATION AND SLOPES 7 7.5 SHORING 8 7.6 WALLS BELOW GRADE 13 7.7 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT 14 7.8 PAVING 15 7.9 GRADING 16 8.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 18 FIGURE 1: PLOT PLAN APPENDIX A: FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS APPENDIX B: SOIL CORROSIVITY STUDY Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330,0002 SUMMARY We have completed our revised geotechnical investigation for the proposed parking structure to be constructed within the existing Hoag Hospital campus in Newport Beach, California. The development will consist of a six -level parking structure consisting of four above -grade levels, one below -grade level, and one level that transitions from above -grade at the eastern side to below grade at the western side. Excavations as deep as 35 feet deep will be required for the development. Some hardscaped and landscaped plaza areas are also planned. Our current study was based on the subsurface explorations and laboratory testing performed for the original geotechnical investigation, which explored the site of the proposed parking structure jointly with the site of a proposed hospital addition (East Addition). For our original investigation, we explored the soil conditions beneath the parking structure site by drilling three 40-foot-deep borings and one 40'%-foot-deep boring. Fill soils were encountered in Boring 1 (21/4 feet thick) and Boring 4 (5 feet thick). The natural soils beneath the site are terrace deposits consisting primarily of silty sand, sand, clayey sand, and clay with lesser deposits of silt. The natural soils are generally dense or stiff throughout the depths explored. Groundwater was not encountered within the depths explored. However, the water level was measured at a depth of 49 feet below the existing grade at a boring at the proposed East Addition site, which corresponds to Elevation +29 feet mean sea level (MSL). The natural soils at and below the lowest floor level of the proposed parking structure, which range from approximately Elevation +58 feet MSL to +64 feet MSL, are generally stiff and dense. Accordingly, the development may be supported on spread footings established in the undisturbed stiff and dense natural soils. The floor slabs of the lowest floor level may be supported on grade. No significant difficulties due to the soil conditions are anticipated in excavating. Conventional earthmoving equipment may be used. Where the necessary space is available for sloped excavation, temporary unsurcharged embankments may be sloped back without shoring. Shoring should be used where sloped excavations are not possible. iii Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 1.0 SCOPE This report presents the results of our revised geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed parking structure to be constructed at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian campus in Newport Beach, California. We did not perform subsurface explorations for the current study. The current study was based on the subsurface explorations and laboratory testing performed for our original geotechnical investigation', which explored the site of the proposed parking structure jointly with the site of a proposed hospital addition (East Addition). The location of the proposed parking structure relative to the adjacent existing structures and streets, and the locations of exploratory borings performed for our original investigation are shown in Figure 1, Plot Plan. The current study was authorized to update our original report of geotechnical investigation to address the changes to the proposed parking structure. Our original investigation was authorized to determine the static physical characteristics of the soils at the site of the proposed development, and to provide recommendations for foundation design, shoring, walls below grade, floor slab support, and grading. More specifically, the scope of the investigation included the following: • A field exploration program to determine the nature and stratigraphy of the subsurface soils and groundwater levels and to obtain undisturbed and bulk samples for laboratory observation and testing. • Laboratory testing of the soils for evaluation of the static physical soil properties. • Engineering evaluation of the geotechnical data to determine the design recommendations for the proposed development. • A corrosion study to determine the corrosive characteristics of the on -site soils and to develop recommendations for mitigation measures. Report of Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed East Addition and Parking Structure, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian; Newport Beach, California; dated August 11, 1997 (Our Job No. 70131-7-0254). Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnicallnvestigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 The assessment of general site environmental conditions for the presence of contaminants in the soils and groundwater of the site was beyond the scope of this investigation. Our recommendations are based on the results of our field explorations, laboratory tests, and appropriate engineering analyses. The results of the field explorations and laboratory tests are presented in Appendix A. The results of the corrosion study by M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc., Consulting Corrosion Engineers, are presented in Appendix B. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. This report has been prepared for the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian and their design consultants to be used solely in the design of proposed parking structure. The report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information for purpose of other parties or other uses. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION A six -level parking structure consisting of four above -grade levels, one below -grade level, and one level that transitions from above -grade at the eastern side to below grade at the western side is proposed. The location of the proposed parking structure relative to the adjacent existing structures and streets is shown in Figure 1, Plot Plan. The lowest floor level will range from about Elevation+58 MSL to +64 MSL. Excavations as deep as 35 feet below the existing grade will be required to accommodate anticipated spread footing depths of up to eight feet below the lowest floor level. Anticipated dead -plus -live column loads range from 180 kips to 1,550 kips. Some hardscaped and landscaped plaza areas are also planned. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS The site of the proposed parking structure is occupied by an existing building (conference center) that is to be removed. The existing ground surface at the site is relatively level and approximately 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 at Elevation +77 MSL. An existing embankment located along the northeast sides of the proposed parking structure slopes down approximately to Elevation +45 at the northeast corner. Part of the parking structure will extend down the slope embankment to the north. 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS The soil conditions beneath the site were explored by drilling four borings to depths of 40 to 401/2 feet below the existing grade at the locations shown in Figure I. To supplement the data obtained from our borings, and to obtain data for the liquefaction study, standard penetration tests (SPTs) were performed in one of the borings. Details of the explorations and the logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A. 4.2 LABORATORY TESTS Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in the classification of the soils and to determine the pertinent engineering properties of the foundation soils. The following tests were performed: • Moisture content and dry density determinations. • Direct shear. • Consolidation. • Sieve analysis. • Corrosion study Details of the laboratory testing program and test results are presented in Appendix A. The results of corrosion study are presented in Appendix B. 5.0 SOIL CONDITIONS Fill soils, 21/2 and 5 feet thick, were encountered in Boring 1 and Boring 4, respectively. The fill, which consists of silty sand, is not uniformly well compacted and contains some debris. Deeper and/or poorer quality fill may exist between boring locations. However, the existing fill will be removed by the planned excavations. 3 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 The natural soils beneath the site of the proposed development consist of silty sand, sand, clayey sand, and clay with lesser deposits of silt. The silty sand, sand, and clayey sand deposits throughout the depths explored are dense; the clay and silt deposits are stiff Water was measured at Elevation +29 feet MSL (49 feet below the existing grade) at a boring performed for the East Addition site, which is immediately south of the proposed parking structure site. Based on the corrosion study performed for the site by M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc., Consulting Corrosion Engineers, the on -site soils are classified as severely corrosive to ferrous metals and non -deleterious to portland cement concrete. 6.0 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMICALLY -INDUCED SETTLEMENT Liquefaction potential is greatest where the groundwater level is shallow, and loose, fine sands occur within a depth of about 50 feet or less. Liquefaction potential decreases as grain size and clay and gravel content increase. As ground acceleration and shaking duration increase during an earthquake, liquefaction potential increases. Groundwater is not expected to be present in significant quantities above Elevation +29 feet (49 feet below existing grade). The natural soils beneath the site consist primarily of dense silty sand, sand and clayey sand, and stiff clay and silt. In addition, based on the results of the standard penetration tests (SPTs), the granular soils underlying the site are dense with relative densities in excess of 80% and soils with such characteristics have a low liquefaction potential. Therefore, liquefaction will not have any adverse effects on the proposed development. Seismic settlement is often caused by loose to medium -dense granular soils densified during ground shaking. Dry and partially saturated soils as well as saturated granular soils are subject to seismically -induced settlement. Generally, differential settlements induced by ground failures such as liquefaction, flow slides, and surface ruptures would be much more severe than those caused by densification alone. The dense granular soils encountered in our borings are not in the loose to medium -dense category. Based on the relatively uniform soil conditions at the site, any seismic settlement would be uniform across the building area. We have estimated the seismic settlement at 4 Hoag .Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 the site to be less than '/ inch. Therefore, the potential for seismically -induced settlement to adversely impact the planned structures is low. 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 GENERAL The natural soils at and below the planned excavation levels are dense and stiff, and the proposed parking structure may be supported on spread footings established in the dense and stiff natural soils exposed at the bottom of the planned excavations. Individual footings, or a combination of individual and combined or continuous footings may be used. The lowest floor slabs of the structures may be supported on grade. Excavations as deep as 35 feet below the existing grade will be required to accommodate anticipated spread footing depths of up to eight feet below the lowest floor level. 7.2 FOUNDATIONS Bearing Values Spread footings carried at least 1 foot into the stiff and dense natural soils, and at least 3 feet below the lowest adjacent floor level, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot. A one-third increase in the bearing value may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. Since the recommended bearing value is a net value, the weight of concrete in the footings may be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot and the weight of soil backfill over the footings may be neglected when determining the downward load on the footings. Footings for minor structures (including low retaining walls, free-standing walls, and elevator pit walls) established in properly compacted fill and/or undisturbed natural soils, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot. Footings should extend at least 1 Y feet below the adjacent final grade or floor level. 5 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 Settlement The settlement of the proposed parking structure, supported on spread footings in the manner recommended is expected to be on the order of 1% inches or Tess. At least half of the total settlement is anticipated to occur during construction (shortly after dead loads are imposed). Based on our review of the proposed foundation plan dated July 20, 1999, differential settlements are anticipated to be on the order of/. inch. Lateral Loads Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction against the footings and the floor slabs, and by the passive resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.5 may be used between the floor slabs, spread footings, and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of the undisturbed natural soils or properly compacted fill against footings may be assumed to be 300 pounds per cubic foot. A one- third increase in the passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. The passive resistance of the soils and the frictional resistance between the floor slabs, footings, and the supporting soils may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. Foundation Observation To verify the presence of satisfactory soils at design elevations, all footing excavations should be observed by personnel of our firm. Footings should be deepened as necessary to reach satisfactory supporting soils. Where footing excavations are deeper than 4 feet, the sides of the excavations should be sloped back or shored for safety. Backfill around and over footings and utility trench backfill within the building area should be mechanically compacted; flooding should not be permitted. Inspection of the foundation excavations may also be required by the appropriate reviewing governmental agencies. The contractor should be familiar with the inspection requirements of the reviewing agencies. 6 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 7.3 UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS September 10. 1999 The site coefficient, S, for the project site can be determined as established in the Earthquake Regulations under Section 1628 of the Uniform Building Code, 1994 edition, or Section 1629 of the UBC, 1997 edition. Based on a review of the local soil and geologic conditions, the site can be classified as Soil Profile S2, as specified in the 1994 code, or Soil Profile Type Sc, as specified in the 1997 code. The site is located within UBC Seismic Zone 4. The nearest fault to the site classified as active is the Newport -Inglewood fault, which has been determined to be a Type B seismic source by the California Division of Mines and Geology. According to Map M-33 in the 1998 publication from the International Conference of Building Officials entitled "Maps of Known Active Fault Near -Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," the project site is located within 2 kilometers of the Newport -Inglewood fault. At this distance for a seismic source type B, the near source factors, Na and Nv., are to be taken as 1.3 and 1.6, respectively, based on Tables 16-S and 16-T of the 1997 UBC. 7.4 EXCAVATION AND SLOPES Excavations as deep as 35 feet below the existing grade will be required for the proposed parking structure. Where the necessary space is available, temporary unsurcharged embankments may be sloped back at 1:1 without shoring. Adjacent to any existing structure, the bottom of any unshored excavation should be restricted so as not to extend below a plane drawn at 1'V2:1 (horizontal to vertical) downward from the foundations of existing structure. Where space is not available, shoring will be required. Data for design of shoring are presented in Section 7.5. The excavations should be observed by personnel of our firm so that any necessary modifications based on variations in the soil conditions encountered can be made. All applicable safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA regulations, should be met. Where sloped embankments are used, the tops of the slopes should be barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads within 7 feet of the tops of the slopes. A greater setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and cranes; we should be advised of such heavy vehicle loadings so that specific setback requirements can be established. If 7 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, /999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are suggested along the tops of the slopes where necessary to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. 7.5 SHORING General Where there is not sufficient space for sloped embankments, shoring will be required. One method of shoring would consist of steel soldier piles placed in drilled holes, backfilled with concrete, and tied back with earth anchors. Some difficulty may be encountered in the drilling of the soldier piles and the anchors because of caving in the sandy deposits. Special techniques and measures may be necessary in some areas to permit the proper installation of the soldier piles and/or tie- back anchors. In addition, if there is not sufficient space to install the tie -back anchors to the desired lengths on any side of the excavation, the soldier piles of the shoring system may be internally braced. The following information on the design and installation of the shoring is as complete as possible at this time. We can furnish any additional required data as the design progresses. Also, we suggest that our firm review the final shoring plans and specifications prior to bidding or negotiating with a shoring contractor. Lateral Pressures For excavation heights of 15 feet or less, cantilevered shoring may be used. For design of cantilevered shoring, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be used. It may be assumed that the retained soils with a level surface behind the cantilevered shoring will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 30 pounds per cubic foot. For heights of shoring greater than 15 feet, the use of braced or tied -back shoring is recommended. For the design of tied -back or braced shoring, we recommend the use of a trapezoidal distribution of earth pressure. The recommended pressure distribution, for the case where the grade is level 8 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 behind the shoring, is illustrated in the following diagram with the maximum pressure equal to 22H in pounds per square foot, where H is the height of the shoring in feet. H=HEIGHT O6H SHORING IN FT. The above recommended lateral earth pressures assume a level backfill. If the backfill is sloped at 1:1, 1 L:1, or 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), the pressures presented above should be multiplied by 2.0, 1.65, and 1.5, respectively. We can review specific backfill cases if desired. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 feet of shoring adjacent to the streets and vehicular traffic areas should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the shoring due to normal street traffic. Additional surcharge pressures imposed by concrete trucks and other heavier traffic may be taken as 200 pounds per square foot imposed against the upper 10 feet of the shoring. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the shoring, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. Design of Soldier Piles For the design of soldier piles spaced at least two diameters on centers, the allowable lateral bearing value (passive value) of the soils below the level of excavation may be assumed to be 600 pounds per square foot per foot of depth at the excavated surface, up to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per square foot. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed soils. The concrete placed in the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 soldier pile excavations may be a lean -mix concrete. However, the concrete used in that portion of the soldier pile which is below the planned excavated level should be of sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding soils. The frictional resistance between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be used in resisting the downward component of the anchor load. The coefficient of friction between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be taken as 0.4. (This value is based on the assumption that uniform full bearing will be developed between the steel soldier beam and the lean -mix concrete and between the lean -mix concrete and the retained earth.) In addition, provided that the portion of the soldier piles below the excavated level is backfilled with structural concrete, the soldier piles below the excavated level may be used to resist downward loads. For resisting the downward loads, the frictional resistance between the concrete soldier piles and the soils below the excavated level may be taken equal to 300 pounds per square foot. Lagging Continuous lagging will be required between the soldier piles within the Tess cohesive soils, such as silty sand, sand, and clayey sand. If the clear spacing between the soldier piles does not exceed 4 feet, it may be possible to omit lagging within the cohesive soils. We recommend that the exposed soils be observed by personnel of our firm to determine the areas where lagging may be omitted. The unlagged soils should be sprayed with an asphaltic emulsion or equivalent to keep the soils from drying. Depending on the length of exposure, the soils may still dry and crack, posing a hazard for personnel working at the base of the shoring. In such an event, it may be necessary to re -spray the soils or apply wire mesh or chain link fencing to the face of the shoring to prevent chunks of soil from falling. The soldier piles and anchors should be designed for the full anticipated lateral pressure. However, the pressure on the lagging will be less due to arching in the soils. We recommend that the lagging be designed for the recommended earth pressure but limited to a maximum value of 400 pounds per square foot. 10 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 Anchor Design Tie -back friction anchors may be used to resist lateral loads. For design purposes, it may be assumed that the active wedge adjacent to the shoring is defined by a plane drawn at 35 degrees with the vertical through the bottom of the excavation. The anchors should extend at least 15 feet beyond the potential active wedge and to a greater length if necessary to develop the desired capacities. The capacities of anchors should be determined by testing of the initial anchors as outlined in the section below on Anchor Testing. For design purposes, we estimate that drilled friction anchors will develop an average friction value of 500 pounds per square foot. Only the frictional resistance developed beyond the active wedge would be effective in resisting lateral loads. If the anchors are spaced at least 6 feet on centers, no reduction in the capacity of the anchors need be considered due to group action. Anchor Installation The anchors may be installed at angles of 15 to 40 degrees below the horizontal. Caving of the anchor holes should be anticipated and provisions made to minimize such caving. The anchors should be filled with concrete placed by pumping from the tip out, and the concrete should extend from the tip of the anchor to the active wedge. To minimize chances of caving, we suggest that the portion of the anchor shaft within the active wedge be backfilled with sand before testing the anchor. This portion of the shaft should be filled tightly and flush with the face of the excavation. The sand backfill may contain a small amount of cement to allow the sand to be placed by pumping. Anchor Testing Our representative should select at least two of the initial anchors for 24-hour 200% tests, and at least five additional anchors for quick 200% tests. The purpose of the 200% tests is to verify the friction value assumed in design. The anchors should be tested to develop twice the assumed friction value. Where satisfactory tests are not achieved on the initial anchors, the anchor diameter and/or length should be increased until satisfactory test results are obtained. 11 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10. 1999 Law./C'randall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 The total deflection during the 24-hour 200% tests should not exceed 12 inches during loading; the anchor deflection should not exceed 0.75 inch during the 24-hour period, measured after the 200% test load is applied. If the anchor movement after the 200% load has been applied for 12 hours is Tess than 0.5 inch, and the movement over the previous 4 hours has been less than 0.1 inch, the test may be terminated. For the quick 200% tests, the 200% test load should be maintained for 30 minutes. The total deflection of the anchor during the 200% quick test should not exceed 12 inches; the deflection after the 200% test load has been applied should not exceed 0.25 inch during the 30-minute period. Where satisfactory tests are not achieved on the initial anchors, the anchor diameter and/or length should be increased until satisfactory test results are obtained. All of the production anchors should be pretested to at least 150% of the design load; the total deflection during the tests should not exceed 12 inches. The rate of creep under the 150% test should not exceed 0.1 inch over a 15-minute period for the anchor to be approved for the design loading. After a satisfactory test, each production anchor should be locked -off at the design load. The locked -off load should be verified by rechecking the Toad in the anchor. If the locked -off load varies by more than 10% from the design load, the load should be reset until the anchor is locked - off within 10% of the design load. The installation of the anchors and the testing of the completed anchors should be observed by our firm. Internal Bracing Raker bracing may be used to internally brace the soldier piles. If used, raker bracing could be supported laterally by temporary concrete footings (deadmen) or by the permanent interior footings. For design of such temporary footings, poured with the bearing surface normal to the rakers inclined at 45 to 60 degrees with the vertical, a bearing value of 3,000 pounds per square 12 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-033a0002 foot may be used, provided the shallowest point of the footing is at least 1 foot below the lowest adjacent grade. To reduce the movement of the shoring, the rakers should be tightly wedged against the footings and/or shoring system. Deflection It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored embankment. It should be realized, however, that some deflection will occur. We estimate that this deflection could be on the order of I inch at the top of the shored embankment. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to minimize settlement of the existing utilities within or adjacent to the site. If desired to reduce the deflection of the shoring, a greater active pressure could be used in the shoring design. Also, shoring braced by internal rakers will significantly reduce the shoring deflection. Monitoring Some means of monitoring the performance of the shoring system is recommended. The monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral and vertical locations of the tops of all the soldier piles. We will be pleased to discuss this further with the design consultants and the contractor when the design of the shoring system has been finalized. 7.6 WALLS BELOW GRADE Lateral Pressures For design of cantilevered retaining walls below grade where the surface of the backfill is level, it may be assumed that the soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot. The basement walls should be designed to resist a trapezoidal distribution of lateral earth pressure. The lateral earth pressure on the permanent basement walls will be similar to that recommended for design of temporary shoring except that the maximum lateral pressure will be 24H in pounds per square foot, where H is the height of the basement wall in feet. 13 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 feet of walls adjacent to streets and vehicular traffic areas should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot, acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the walls due to normal traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the walls, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. Furthermore, adjacent to any existing structures, the basement walls should be designed for the appropriate lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the foundations of the structures unless the foundations are underpinned. The lateral surcharge pressures imposed by the adjacent foundations could be computed when the locations, sizes, and loads of these foundations are known. Backfill Any required soil backfill should be mechanically compacted, in layers not more than 8 inches thick, to at least 90% of the maximum density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-91 method of compaction. The backfill should be sufficiently impermeable when compacted to restrict the inflow of surface water. Some settlement of the deep backfill should be allowed for in planning sidewalks and utility connections. Drainage System If the backfill is placed and compacted as recommended and good surface drainage is provided, infiltration of water into the backfill should be small. However, we suggest that building walls below grade be waterproofed or at least dampproofed. We also recommend that a perimeter drain be installed at the base of building walls below grade. The perimeter drain may consist of a 4-inch- diameter perforated pipe placed with the perforations down and surrounded by at least 4 inches of filter gravel. Non -building retaining walls should also be provided with a drain or weep holes. 7.7 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT If the subgrade is prepared as recommended in Section 7.9, the floor slabs may be supported on grade. Construction activities and exposure to the environment may cause deterioration of the prepared subgrade. Therefore. we recommend that our field representative observe the condition of the final subgrade soils immediately prior to slab -on -grade construction and, if necessary, 14 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 perform further density and moisture content tests to determine the suitability of the final prepared subgrade. Care should be taken not to allow clayey soils to dry out and crack before pouring the floor slabs. The lowest floor slab of the parking structure will be used for parking and should not be sensitive to capillary moisture. 7.8 PAVING We have performed R-value testing on several soil samples obtained throughout the hospital campus during a previous survey of pavement condition. The results indicated that the on -site soils generally have an R-value between 20 to 30. The asphalt and portland cement concrete pavement throughout the hospital campus appeared to have performed relatively well to date. Accordingly, an R-value of 20 was assumed in computing the paving sections. Asphalt Concrete Paving If the subgrade is prepared as recommended in Section 7.9, the following asphalt paving sections may be used: Assumed Traffic Index Asphalt Paving (inches) Base Course (inches) 4 (automobile parking) 3 4 5'/ (driveways subject to light trucks) 3 10 Careful inspection is recommended to verify that the recommended thicknesses, or greater, are achieved and that proper construction procedures are followed. The recommended paving sections were established using the Orange County flexible pavement design method for a subgrade consisting of on -site soils. We could provide paving thicknesses for other Traffic Index values if desired. The base course should meet the specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base as defined in Section 26 of the most current State of California, Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications. Alternatively, the base course should meet the specifications for untreated base as defined in Section 15 Hoag .Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10. 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330_ 0002 200-2 of the most current Standard Specification for Public Works Construction (Green Book). The base course should be compacted to at least 95%. The asphalt concrete materials and construction should conform to Sections 203-6 and 302-5, respectively, of the Green Book. Portland Cement Concrete Paving If the subgrade is prepared as recommended in Section 7.9 and a portland cement concrete (PCC) with a compressive strength of at least 3,000 pounds per square inch, the following sections may be used: Assumed Traffic Index PCC Paving (inches) 4 (automobile parking) 7 51/4 (driveways subject to light trucks) 7'/ The portland cement concrete materials and construction should conform to Sections 203-6 and 302-6, respectively of the Green Book. 7.9 GRADING Site Preparation To provide support for shallow spread footings of minor structures and for floor slabs on grade, all the existing fill and disturbed natural soils should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. Where excavations are deeper than about 4 feet, the sides of the excavations should be sloped back or shored for safety. Recommendations for sloping of excavations and shoring were presented in preceding sections. After the site is cleared, the exposed soils should be carefully observed for the removal of all unsuitable deposits. Next, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to near -optimum moisture content, and rolled with heavy compaction equipment. The upper 6 inches of the exposed soils should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation DI557-91 method of compaction. 16 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 After compacting the exposed soils, all required fill should be placed in loose lifts not more than 8 inches thick and compacted to at least 90%. The moisture content of the on -site soils at the time of compaction should vary no more than 2% below or above optimum moisture content. The moisture content of on -site clayey soils should be brought to about 4% above optimum at the time of compaction. Material for Fill The on -site soils, less any debris or organic matter, may be used in required fills. Any required import material should consist of relatively non -expansive soils with an Expansion Index of less than 35. The imported materials should contain sufficient fines (binder material) so as to be relatively impermeable and result in a stable subgrade when compacted. All proposed import materials should be approved by our personnel prior to being placed at the site. Field Observation The reworking of the upper soils and the compaction of all required fill should be observed and tested during placement by a representative of our firm. This representative should perform at least the following duties: • Observe the clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable materials. • Observe the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill and in areas where excavation has resulted in the desired finished subgrade. The representative should also observe proofrolling and delineation of areas requiring overexcavation. • Evaluate the suitability of on -site and import soils for fill placement; collect and submit soil samples for required or recommended laboratory testing where necessary. • Observe the fill and backfill for uniformity during placement. • Test backfill for field density and compaction to determine the percentage of compaction achieved during backfill placement. • Observe and probe foundation materials to confirm that suitable bearing materials are present at the design foundation depths. 17 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10, 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 The governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project should be notified prior to commencement of grading so that the necessary grading permits can be obtained and arrangements can be made for required inspection(s). The contractor should be familiar with the inspection requirements of the reviewing agencies. 8.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the described project information and on our interpretation of the data collected during the subsurface exploration. We have made our recommendations based on experience with similar subsurface conditions under similar loading conditions. The recommendations apply to the specific project discussed in this report; therefore, any change in the proposed development configurations, loads, locations, or the site grades should be provided to us so we may review our conclusions and recommendations and make any necessary modifications. The recommendations provided in this report are also based on the assumption that the necessary geotechnical observations and testing during construction will be performed by representatives of our firm. The field observation services are considered a continuation of the geotechnical investigation and essential to determine that the actual soil conditions are as anticipated. This also provides for a procedure whereby the client can be advised of unanticipated or changed conditions that would require modifications of our original recommendations. In addition, the presence of our representative at the site provides the client with an independent professional opinion regarding the geotechnically-related construction procedures. If another firm is retained for the geotechnical observation services, our professional responsibility and liability would be limited to the extent that we would not be the geotechnical engineer of record. s 18 Tr VO a7: 7Z nr FIGURE k 901CIN3ddY f` a .Nit APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10. 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS FIELD EXPLORATIONS The soil conditions beneath the site were explored during our original investigation (our Job No. 70131-5-0254) by drilling four borings at the locations shown in Figure 1. The borings were drilled to depths of 40 to 401/4 feet below the existing grade using 18-inch-diameter bucket -type or 8-inch-diameter hollow -stem auger -type drilling equipment. Caving and raveling of the boring walls did not occur during the drilling; casing or drilling mud was not used to extend the borings to the depths drilled. The soils encountered were logged by our Feld technician, and undisturbed and bulk samples were obtained for laboratory inspection and testing. The logs of the borings are presented in Figures A-1.1 through A-1.4; the depths at which the undisturbed samples were obtained are indicated to the left of the boring logs. The energy required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches is indicated on the logs. In addition, to obtain information for the liquefaction study, standard penetration tests (SPTs) were performed in one of the borings; the results of the tests are indicated on the logs. The soils are classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described in Figure A-2. LABORATORY TESTS The field moisture content and dry density of the soils encountered were determined by performing tests on the undisturbed samples. The results of the tests are shown to the left of the boring logs. Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples to determine the strength of the soils. The tests were performed at field moisture content and after soaking to near -saturated moisture content and at various surcharge pressures. The yield -point values determined from the direct shear tests are presented in Figure A-3, Direct Shear Test Data. A-1 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Revised Geotechnical Investigation September 10. 1999 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0002 Confined consolidation tests were performed on five undisturbed samples. Water was added to one of the samples during the test to illustrate the effect of moisture on the compressibility. To simulate the effect of the planned excavation, three of the samples were loaded, unloaded, and subsequently reloaded. The results of the tests are presented in Figures A-4.1 through A-4.3, Consolidation Test Data. To determine the particle size distribution of the soils and to aid in classifying the soils, mechanical analysis was performed on one sample. The results of the mechanical analyses are presented in Figure A-5, Particle Size Distribution. A-2 0 U 2 H LL 1- 0 ❑ 0 0 N O 0 n m 0 only at the specific boring location and at the date indicated. conditions at other locations and times. ELEVATION (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (% of dry wt.) DRY DENSITY (Ibs./cu. ft.) "N" VALUE STD.PEN.TEST BLOW COUNT" (blows/ft.) SAMPLE TYPE BORING 1 DATE DRILLED: June 3 and 4, 1997 EQUIPMENT USED: 18" - Diameter Bucket ELEVATION: 77 * * 3" Asphalt Paving - 4" Base Course 75 _ SM FILL - SILTY SAND - fine, some debris, light brown ENCOUNTERED A 3/4"-DIAMETER ELECTRIC LINE AT A DEPTH OF 2' 6.6 109 2 • SM • SILTY SAND - fine to medium, light brown 70 — 9.2 108 --- 3 Thin layers of Clayey Sand - 11.3 117 4 _ SC CLAYEY SAND - fine to medium, reddish brown 65 — 10 23.1 103 3 /; CL SILTY CLAY -light brownish grey • SM SILTY SAND - fine, light grey 15 1 1 .3 104 3 1 2 60 — 7.0 99 4• •,.'`:. SP SAND - fine, lenses of Silty Sand, light brown 20 wn hereon applies ve of subsurface 55 — - 7.9 5.5 105 103 4 5 f y .•• .= : • `•• * Number of blows required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches for depths of: 0' to 25' using a 1600 pound hammer falling 12 inches; Below 25' using an 800 pound hammer falling 12 inches. ** Elevations refer to datum of topographic map dated 25 October 1993 by David A. Boyle Engineering. Note; The log of subsurface conditions sho It is not warranted to be representati 50 — 7.0 108 10• L..:.. - - ML SANDY SILT - light grey and light brown 30 16.7 107 9 45 — - 6.9 97 14 1-. gP SAND - fine, light brown 40 - 35 40 7.8 93 14 ■ `._• • • '" - NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. END OF BORING AT 40'. LOG OF BORING n LAW/CRANDALL /�'\ FIGURE A-1.1 n 2 U m V 2 C� r m N 1- JOB 70131.70254,0001 z 0 Q4 a., O O w �o SAMPLE TYPE BORING 2 DATE DRILLED: June 3, 1997 EQUIPMENT USED: 18" - Diameter Bucket ELEVAT ON: 77 75 — 70 — 65 — 60 — 5.9 117 2 5.0 115 10 24.9 102 15 - 20 55 — j- 25 50 — 45 — 40 — 30 35 40 24.4 101 26.4 6.7 5.7 7.2 3.4 8.6 98 96 106 102 105 107 22.6 106 5 3 2 3 3 4 5 10 14 12 SM SC CL ML SP 4.5 i 104 10 fr CL SM 3" Asphalt Paving - 6" Base Course SILTY SAND - fine, brown Some medium Sand CLAYEY SAND - fine to medium, reddish brown SILTY CLAY - light brownish grey CLAYEY SILT - light grey and light brown SAND - fine, light brown Few Gravel SILTY CLAY - light brownish grey SILTY SAND - fine to medium, light greyish brown NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. END OF BORING AT 40'. LOG OF BORING LAW/CRANDALL !i\ FIGURE A-1.2 0 2 U is; eE U 0 . LL HATE 6/2311997 70131.70254.0001 0 m m 0 c ra -o a) m a c h m m U c o o 75 — 70 — 65 — 5 10 P N c o o 15 d V U U m _c 60— Q o A c m >. - 20 c T 0 vi 0 a' 55 — a4 2 m 0 = o n v - 25 3.1 110 _c 0 O 50 — N c c O O O e 30 U 0 im 45- c N � 0 - 35 12.7 111 cn L -- H 40— 0 z 1- 40 1— wW =F >w _ a.. Zp cn 46 18.5 109 23 66 86 55 SAMPLE TYPE BORING 3 DATE DRILLED: June 6, 1997 EQUIPMENT USED: 8" - Diameter Hollow Stem Auger ELEVATION: 77 SM SP CL CL SP 77 3" Asphalt Paving - 5" Base Course SILTY SAND - fine, brown Some Clay SAND - fine, light brown Thin layers of Clayey Sand SILTY CLAY - light brownish grey Number of blows required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. SANDY SILT - light brown SAND - fine, light greyish brown Fine to medium SILTY CLAY - Thin layers of Clayey Sand, light brownish grey SAND - fine, light brown (CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING FIGURE) LOG OF BORING LAW/CRANDALL Lam\ FIGURE A-1.3a 0 2 U (i w o m cc cc U H LL N m m_ M (0 W a 70254.0001 JOB 70131 L C C o N U C E a tr. 0 -0 U C o 'O C o CO o m -0 U U a U N N L a o N N • C 0 0_ C E IF O 0 N U N 0 c. U a • y • a h - wt w— BORING 3 (Continued) DATE DRILLED: June 6, 1997 EQUIPMENT USED: S" - Diameter Hollow Stem Auger ELEVATION: 77 END OF BORING AT 401/2'. NOTE: Water not encountered. LOG OF BORING LAW/CRANDALL A\ FIGURE A-1.3b 0 0 U co C 70131.70254.0091 DATE 6/23/1997 CO O 75 — 70 — 65 — 60 — 55 — 50 — 45 — 40 — CL w�- 0 5 — >_ * CO CC 3 ti .: D W Z --7.�` _jI— Ow H? ZJ QZ ON rn7: aa >w 0 Oo vi - a o 20 oa ?1- m- 8.8 98 6.5 117 3 10 12.8 107 15 20 5 24.8 101 2 SAMPLE TYPE BORING 4 DATE DRILLED: June 3, 1997 EQUIPMENT USED: 18" - Diameter Bucket ELEVATION: 76 SM SC CL 8.8 102 21.1 103 2 .. SM • 5 4.2 103 7 25 7.6 98 - 30 8.1 96 9 4.3 97 9 35 9.7 92 40 5.0 94 SP 3" Asphalt Paving - 8" Base Course FILL - SILTY SAND - fine, some pieces of concrete, light brown CLAYEY SAND - fine to medium, lenses of Silty Sand, yellowish brown Thin layers of fine Sand SILTY CLAY - thin layers of Clayey Silt, light brownish grey SILTY SAND - fine, light brown Light greyish brown SAND - fine, light brown Number of blows required to drive the Crandall sampler 12 inches for depths of: 0' to 25' using a 1600 pound hammer falling 12 inches; Below 25' using an 800 pound hammer falling 12 inches. NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving. 12 END OF BORING AT 40'. LOG OF BORING LAW/CRANDALL A\ FIGURE A-1.4 MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES CLEAN GRAVELS 00e0 %Al GW 00 ton,GRAVELS Well grafted gravels. gravel -sans mixtures. sloe or no lines (More Alan 50% al terse fraction is (Utile or no lineal • c $apaQNp' GP • . •. Pcony graaea gravels or gravel -sans matures, lime or no fines COARSE LARGER man Vt sieve size) GRAVELS WffH FINES 1)1 GM Silty gravels. gravel -sans -sot mixtures GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% (Appreaable amount of tines) o'% ret �� ' GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -day matures of material is LARGER man the No.200 CLEAN SANDS SW Well graaeo sanas. gravelly sands. lime or no fines sieve sae) SANDS (More than 50% of coarse fraction is (Little or no lines) SP Poony graaeo sands or gravely sands. Dale or no tines SMALLER Iran me No.4 sieve size) SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands- sand -silt matures (Appreaable amount of fines) ill SC Clayey sands, sans -clay mixtures ML Inorganic sits and very line sands. rock flour, spry or clayey fine sands or clayey sits witn slight plasbcay FINE SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid limit LESS than 50) CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays. sandy clays, silty Clays, lean clays GRAINED SOILS a OL Organic silts and organic silty Gays of low plasticity (More Ivan 50" 11111li of material is is n Man the No.200 : .. . Inorganic slits. micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts sieve sae) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid lima GREATER man 501 6 a �4 CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, tat Clays OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts WPM HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and otner highly organic sods A pr1l INDARY CI ASSIFICATION5; Stills possessing characteristics of IWo groups are designated by combinations of group symbols. PARTICLE SIZE LIMITS SAND GRAVEL SILT OR CLAY Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse COBBLES BOULDERS No. 200 No. 40 No 10 No 4 3/4 in. 3 in. )12 in.) U. 5. STANDARD S IE V E SIZE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM REFERENCE. The Untried Soil Classification System. Corps of Engineers. U.S. Artny Technical Memorandum No. 3-357, Vol, 1, March. 1953. (Revised April. 1960) LAW / C R A N D A L L FIGURE A-2 0 0 �^ U w 0 CO 0 DATE 6123197 JOB 70131.70254.0001 SURCHARGE PRESSURE in Pounds per Square Foot 100 200 300 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot 2000 3000 5000 2@3\ 0 \ 0 4@6 \ 1@21t \• 1 2©24 llt • 3@12 4C18 vv I \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ 4 BORING NUMBER & DEPTH (FT) SAMPLE 44426 0\ 2@3 0 \ \ • 1 \ @21 •4@18 • 3@12 VALUES IN USED 2@24 \ \ ANALYSES \ \ KEY • Samples tested at field moisture content Samples tested after soaking to a moisture content near saturation Natural soils DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA 0 LAW/CRANDALL -a\ FIGURE A - 3 0 0 _ U W O CO re 0 4 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 co CO O 0 0.01 = Z 0.02IX W ^ I^ vI W 2 0.03 0 ZN Z `° 0.04 r Q 0 J 0 Z 0.05 O 0.06 0.4 0.5 0.6 LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2.0 3,0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -----+ ' Boring SAND , 4 at 34' \ Boring 2 at 27' SAND L .— 1 ` ti_ ----• � 0.07 NOTE: Samples tested at field moisture content CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA LAW/CRANDALL ATh FIGURE A - 4 SIEVE ANALYSIS U.S. Std. Sieve Openings U.S.Standard Sieve Numbers HYDROMETER ANALYSIS inn 1-1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 IT PASSING BY WEIGHT v CO CO V COCD 1 O 0 0 O O 0 i o O o 0 O O 0 RETAINED BYWEIGHT Z 30 Lu 0 CC 20 Boring3at29Yito30W 70 Z U d 10 SAND 80 CC LU 1 90 0 r.... .. N N h to to O IO 0 0 0 0 0 CO IS CO r m m Q N O O O o O O O O O r 0 Cri- O. T O PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS N o O 0 O 100 GRAVEL SAND Coarse Fine Coarse Medium I Fine SILT OR CLAY PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION LAW/CRANDALL %/ FIGURE A-5 APPENDIX B SOIL CORROSIVITY STUDY (BY M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.) M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 June 25, 1997 LAW/CRANDALL, INC. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles, California 90040-1554 Attention: Mr. Mike Shahabi 1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard Claremont, California 91711-3897 Phone 909-626-0967 FAX 909-621-1419 E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM Re: Soil Corrosivity Study Hoag Hospital Parking Structure, Fast Addition Newport Beach, California Your #70131-7-0254, MJS&A #97185 INTRODUCTION Laboratory tests have been completed on five soil samples we selected from your boring logs for the referenced parking structure project. Also included is soil corrosivity test data from this site that we tested in 1995 for Hoag Hospital. The purpose of these tests was to determine if the soils may have deleterious effects on underground utilities, hydraulic elevator cylinders, and concrete foundations. The scope of this study is limited to a determination of soil corrosivity and general corrosion control recommendations for materials likely to be used for construction. If the architects and/or engineers desire more specific information, designs, specifications, or review of design, we will be happy to work with them as a separate phase of this project. TEST PROCEDURES The electrical resistivity of each sample was measured in a soil box per ASTM G57 in its as - received condition and again after saturation with distilled water. Resistivities are at about their lowest value when the soil is saturated. The pH of the saturated samples was measured. A 5:1 water:soil extract from each sample was chemically analyzed for the major anions and cations. Test results are shown on Table 1, CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS • FAILURE ANALYSIS • EXPERT WITNESS • CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS LAW/CRANDALL June 25, 1997 MJS&A #97185 Page 2 SOIL CORROSIVITY A major factor in determining soil corrosivity is electrical resistivity. The electrical resistivity of a soil is a measure of its resistance to the flow of electrical current. Corrosion of buried metal is an electrochemical process in which the amount of metal loss due to corrosion is directly proportional to the flow of electrical current (DC) from the metal into the soil. Corrosion currents, following Ohm's Law, are inversely proportional to soil resistivity. Lower electrical resistivities result from higher moisture and chemical contents and indicate corrosive soil. A correlation between electrical resistivity and corrosivity toward ferrous metals is: Soil Resistivity in ohm -centimeters Corrosivity Category over 10,000 mildly corrosive 2,000 to 10,000 moderately corrosive 1,000 to 2,000 corrosive below 1,000 severely corrosive Other soil characteristics that may influence corrosivity towards metals are pH, chemical content, soil types, aeration, anaerobic conditions, and site drainage. Electrical resistivities were in moderately to severely corrosive categories with as -received moisture and at saturation. Soil pH values varied from 6.5 to 7.5. This range is slightly acidic to mildly alkaline and does not particularly enhance corrosivity. The chemical content of the samples was low. _ Tests were not made for sulfide or negative oxidation-reduction (redox) potentials because they would not exist in these aerated samples. This soil is classified as severely corrosive to ferrous metals. CORROSION CONTROL The life of buried materials depends on thickness, strength, loads, construction details, soil moisture, etc., in addition to soil corrosivity, and is, therefore, difficult to predict. Of more practical value are corrosion control methods that will increase the life of materials that would be subject to significant corrosion. LAW/CRANDALL June 25, 1997 MJS&A #97185 Page 3 Steel Pipe Abrasive blast underground steel utilities and apply a high quality dielectric coating such as extruded polyethylene, a tape coating system, hot applied coal tar enamel, or fusion bonded epoxy. Bond underground steel pipe with rubber gasketed, mechanical, grooved end, or other nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Electrical continuity is necessary for corrosion monitoring and cathodic protection. Electrically insulate each buried steel pipeline from dissimilar metals, cement -mortar coated and concrete encased steel, and above ground steel pipe to prevent dissimilar metal corrosion cells and to facilitate the application of cathodic protection. Apply cathodic protection to steel piping as per NACE International RP-0169-92. As an alternative to dielectric coating and cathodic protection, apply a 3/4 inch cement mortar coating or encase in cement -slurry or concrete 3 inches thick, using any type of cement. Hydraulic Elevator Coat hydraulic elevator cylinders as described above. Electrically insulate each cylinder from building metals by installing dielectric material between the piston platen and car, insulating the bolts, and installing an insulated joint in the oil line. Apply cathodic protection to hydraulic cylinders as per NACE International RP-0169-92. As an alternative to electrical insulation and cathodic protection, place each cylinder in a plastic casing with a plastic watertight seal at the bottom. The elevator oil line should be placed above ground if possible but, if underground, should be protected as described above for steel utilities. Iron Pipe Encase ductile iron water piping in 8 mil thick low -density polyethylene or 4 mil thick high - density, cross -laminated polyethylene plastic tubes or wraps per AWWA Standard C105 or coat with a high quality dielectric coating such as polyurethane or coal tar epoxy. As an alternative, encase iron piping with cement slurry or concrete at least 3 inches thick surrounding the pipe, using any type of cement- Bond all nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Electrically insulate underground iron pipe from dissimilar metals and above ground iron pipe with insulated joints. Encase cast iron drain lines in 8 mil thick low -density polyethylene or 4 mil thick high -density, cross -laminated polyethylene plastic tubes or wraps per AWWA Standard C105. As an alternative, encase iron piping with cement slurry or concrete at least 3 inches thick surrounding the pipe, using any type of cement. Electrically insulate underground iron pipe from dissimilar metals and above ground iron pipe with insulated joints. LAW/CRANDALL MJS&A #97185 June 25, 1997 Page 4 Copper Tube Bare copper tubing for cold water should be bedded and backfilled in the silty sand at least 2 inches thick surrounding the copper. Hot water tubing may be subject to a higher corrosion rate. The best corrosion control measure would be to place the hot copper tubing above ground. If buried, encase in plastic pipe to prevent soil contact or apply cathodic protection. Plastic and Vitrified Clay Pipe No special precautions are required for plastic and vitrified clay piping placed underground from a corrosion viewpoint. Protect any iron valves and fittings with a double polyethylene wrap per AWWA C 105 or as described below for bare steel appurtenances. Where concrete thrust blocks are to be placed against iron, use a single polyethylene wrap to prevent concrete/iron contact and to eliminate the slipperiness of a double wrap. All Pipe On all pipe, coat bare steel appurtenances such as bolts, joint hamesses, or flexible couplings with a coal tar or elastomer based mastic, coal tar epoxy, moldable sealant, wax tape, or equivalent after assembly. Where metallic pipelines penetrate concrete structures such as building floors or walls, use plastic sleeves, rubber seals, or other dielectric material to prevent pipe contact with the concrete and reinforcing steel. Concrete Any type of cement and standard concrete cover over reinforcing steel may be used for concrete structures and pipe in contact with these soils. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully Submitted, M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. G?tI P fp_ James T. Keegan Enc: Table 1 z.\docs-97\97185-doe Reviewed by, ad l2; -4- Paul R. Smith, P.E. M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard Claremont, California 91711-3897 Phone 909-626-0967 FAX 909-621-1419 E-mail SCHIFFCORRcAOL.COM Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples Page 1 of 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California Your #70131-7-0254, MJS&A #97185 June 20, 1997 Sample TO B-2 B-3 B-5 B-7 B-7 @9.5' @3.5' @2'-7' @2.5' @14'-15.5' Soil Type silty silty silty clay sand sand sand clay Resistivity Units as -received ohm -cm 800 6,400 7,600 6,300 775 saturated ohm -cm 720 3,650 4,800 4,400 740 pH 6.5 7.0 6.7 6.5 6.6 Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.15 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Ca2+ mg/kg 16 ND ND ND 32 magnesium Mgt+ mg kg ND ND ND ND 10 sodium Nal+ mg/kg 86 104 77 96 116 Anions carbonate C032- mg/kg ND ND ND ND ND bicarbonate HC031- mg/kg 73 122 85 85 183 chloride CI1 mg/kg 60 43 39 57 57 sulfate S042- mg/kg 79 63 41 56 137 Other Tests sulfide S2- qual na na na na na Redox my na na na na na ammonium NH41+ mg/kg na na na na na nitrate N031 mg/kg na na na na na Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil -to -water extract. mg/kg — milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND = not detected na = not analyzed docs97\97185.xls CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS • FAILURE ANALYSIS • EXPERT WITNESS • CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard Claremont, California 91711.3897 Phone 909-626-0967 FAX 909-621-1419 E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples Page 2 of 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California Your #70131-7-0254, MJS&A #97185 June 20,1997 Sample ID HAI, 4' Soil Type silty sand Resistivity Units as -received ohm -cm 4,100 saturated ohm -cm 3,300 PH 7.5 Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0.15 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Cat+ mg/kg 60 magnesium Mgt mg kg ND sodium Na" mg/kg 83 Anions carbonate C032" mg/kg ND bicarbonate HC031- mg/kg 195 chloride Cl" mg/kg 28 sulfate S042" mg/kg 124 Other Tests sulfide Redox ammonium nitrate S2- qual my NH41 mg/kg mg/kg NO3" na na na na Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil -to -water extract. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND = not detected na = not analyzed dow97\97185.xIs CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS • FAILURE ANALYSIS • EXPERT WITNESS • CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS Hoag Hospital Parking Structure Hoag Memorial Hospital Drawings and Calculations Temporary Shoring Newport Beach, CA Cefali & Associates Job No. 99297 December 17, 1999 December 17, 1999 Cefali & Associates, Inc. Sheet No. 2 Consulting Structural Engineers Document No. 297ci01.DOC Item Sheet No. Title Table of Contents 2 Geotechnical Data 3 Material Specifications 5 Shoring Bulkheads • North • South • East • West Lagging December 17, 1999 Cafali & Associates, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Geotechnical Parameters: Sheet No. 3 Document No. 297ci01.DOC 1 References 1.1 Geotechnical Investigation Reports: 1.1.1 September 10, 1999- Geotechnical Report— Geotechnical Recommendations Law Crandall #70131-9-0330-0002 1.2 Approval Letters 1.2.1 N/A 2 Site Conditions 2.1 Surface The site is generally flat with the site sloping down to adjacent streets on the north and east _ 2.2 Subsurface The site is characterized by a thin layer / up to 5' in thickness of fill overlying terrace deposits of silty sand, sand and clay. 3 Recommendations 3.1 Shoring and Foundation Criteria 3.1.1 General * Four foot maximum cuts, above that 1:1 slopes up to 35 feet. * No traffic surcharge within 7' of top of slopes. * Adjacent footings surcharge below a 1.5:1 from edge. -# Lagging pressure 25 h with 400 psf maximum * Traffic surcharge within 10': Reg. Auto 100 psf x 10' Concrete trucks 2000 psf x 10' * Coefficient of friction 0.4 * No groundwater to 40 feet below grade * Soldier pile toe 300 psf. 3.1.2 Braced Excavations Bearing 3 ksf 3.1.3 Tied -back 22H Trapezoid (0.2H, 0.6H, 0.2H) Active wedge 35 degrees from vertical, 15' m Tie friction 500 psf allowable for estimate Slope surcharge factor 1:1 2.0 1.5:1 1.65 2:1 1.50 3.1.3.1 Testing City of Los Angeles standard: First 2-200% 24hr. These plans have been reviewed for conformance with the recommendations of our report(s). Date Law j Crandall c1LS101)C.E.No. _S....... — December 17, 1999 Cefaii & Associates, Inc. Sheet No. 4 Consulting Structural Engineers Thereafter 5-200% 3.1.4 Raker Braced 22H Trapezoid 3.1.5 Cantilever Excavations up to 15' height 30 pcf 3.2 Pile Foundations 3.2.1 Passive pressure 600 pcf for isolated pile condition Document No. 297c101.DOC December 17, 1999 Steel Structural Steel Structural pipe Tie -back Strand tendons "Cie -back Rod tendons Concrete: Soldier pile toes Tie -back anchor grout Tie -back concrete Slurry Timber: Timber lagging Miscellaneous Concrete expansion anchors: Cefali & Associates, Inc. Sheet No. 5 Consulting Structural Engineers Specifications: ASTM A-572 Gr 50 ASTM A-53 Gr B ASTM A-416 ASTM A-722 Document No. 297c101.DOC 2000 psi. 5.5 gals water/1 sack cement 2,500 psi at 28 days (1800 psi @ stressing) 1 4 sack cement/yard3 DF#2 & #3 w/ preservative ITW Ramset/Red Head Anchors LARR # 2748 CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 SHEET NO. 4 JOB NO DATE SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. "Nig II. ii 7i44-4i0°,i1i.1itrtt,- -154a23d•: •iL-‘loi-ei..;a: .I1I) eL.i msl•l iTalil-il allmliaospa1 ai-l1neu14 la4Milt ij in! el 1..,.. 1 1 :t .4 1.11ri., - "."------•-•W'r--.----=.•-----'''---- --Snil ir 1;gt ‘ i I im-"n-‘111r rarallrb,--- ' _c_r_==.- Alla -e. __,.. it •••remmi ant' •""----------•-"'" _._ ___ ._. .._.. 111Tra oN "o a) O D E 2 N O at C G �1 Ell H 0 �m °1nnc m 3 v c a c °o."a o o 0— o 0 CA c 'amEca -ds "o c a.N 0. C-- E y o 'CI 01 El a m C CO ID El m 'n W N CO 0 n N 6L nN N 0. "C •� ` 0.-am c m.0 E E E E m N 0 Fy 2 13 0) ma) y N m E E E w ,t ' ,t .m 1a amoc°?aE �'k �oo o ca GC O OJ arr. O'?mV UUCC CC to .N-. J N J a N V �a N m m m m NW c o CD d�� m m m m m£ E E E m m = a a t�4 a ... a s v❑ a 0 0 a is E . o o p 0 U E a < to. C N O• 0 NCO >i 3 3 X X N N N N N cc Ill II o an m N CD a)N -aU 0 c0 a)0 U C a N N C W 4) E W* E m a a V 2 .Cr 2 w 0 0 co E N 01 2 N C 0. •d N N N L 1A O m H- 2 N al O r N r S 0 Design Criteria x P d m v co) =ca di C 0 J dia m p N a N` O m= cn c d El m W 0.0 ta JN a) G N a m ro 0 eC 0o. ce co o ` m o o n u n E ao o M n _ m Ea > > o ko u N w CD R N m 0 2 N N N II II !I. m m a o o ta r7 a C V fn 0 a C U o N N m P. L X X . agmNcamao,0v z 3 v N EL c =_a _ 0a O �.. mN D)... m.0 N 0 m o 1T El m N a w C. 4- w.mom.0 C yO r. O=>-On IIII DO !I. co o x Y 3�� v m c c o m. -o v` "o a m m o 0 a N� "0 0= a '-' m O O 0 din y m o L1. I I, t a`0 E 0 (aa3 ° p e �c p � a N .a a N .y O. m >. �.c t w El m m o m O o o. a• OI m NE 0 0 {Upacaam 0f P: al co m m El m == x m El m cm 'm 2 m m 'm d II. di dal -a aw9'OO CJJ I-JJ = .Q ? N m N n m d.. N un 3 fA a3 o J m 4.CO �' as O J J lQ t 00 a 2 ' 0 J N a).0 V0 c.)1L 2L .cLJaa ado = C O 17 CIF J a r N CO N N in N N IN T Material Specifications and Code Requirements Y:199 Projects IMisc1992971Calculalions15 foot.mcd Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations%Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Full cantilever analysis.mcd(R) Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Section selector.mcd(R) rn rn 3. Results le V x O N b O N a a a 0 c O O 12 O Y e 00 0 Shear Diagram uired Beam Embedment: Reauired Steel Beam Size: uired Section Modulus: 2 0 m 0 2 9 C as u eet 9 m O co II II 70.4 0 a F m 00 r+, II E a Maximum pressure in front of pile N Y:199 Projects\Misc\992971Calculations15 foot.mcd .P to a W o to tm 1- _ Active Surcharge Pressures (above subgrade) 0 0 (u) 'Nag (u) 91daQ (U) yidaa 0 0 E T6tltit—z400 a Cu) Endue m o. Traffic loading (plt) Total Earth loading Traffic Surcharge Y:\99 Projects\Misc\992971Calculations\5 tootmcd b { 0 To 0. 7\ of 1 Design Summary This program solves for the required depth of embedment and shears and moments for a cantilever pile to satisfy static equilibrium. Design Criteria ea \aco / ,c.0 _ « « « 7§k_ ]ƒ>!])§k) / x ® )I\/ \k /\)) A ` ^ =00r20;y§0®®5fQ ƒ / m 0 -- (#ar§5±{-$ 7_00 2 / !a]}6=2=0;=0=- _ ■\ % 0. } \ ƒ6}§kt0. W i0 - )f r u!!!_e=ems! •_# k « # CO / ¥ ) /000J=2±Z\22 02\ x 003 ( - § / % j 2 el CA VI Material Specifications and Code Requirements 0 Cis { u Y:199 Projects1Misc1992971Calculationsl7 foamed It a U 0 g V �Ur 2 c/ V E d `o d m N G 0 0 FT4 ul col v U 48. O 0 L 7 O 0 3 d 0 m cel N (41 coO o U 9 9 C C 0 0 tit aS U U U U •v m m m (n %n N U U 6. ti W w N N cG E El 3. Results O N 0 N M S u W N VI Loading/ay (kilt) E Pressure Diagram aired Beam Embedment: re Required Steel Beam Size: uired Section Modulus: a Or_ ml 0 8 O LL beam = "W12 x 30" P max = 4129.psf Maximum pressure in front of pile N Y:k99 ProjectslMisc1992971Calculations1.7 foot.mcd m Q 0 to co r O �x Active Surcharge Pressures (above subgrade) CO ti on O8) ¶ E S 0 0 "'1 7 0 O and c 0 O N m qiclact V eji 0 O V q 2i r- Load per bay (ph) Total Earth loading Line load surcharge Y:99 Projects\Mis099297\Calculations\7 fool.mcd L3 U E a Co Design Summary This program solves for the required depth of embedment and shears and moments for a cantilever pile to satisfy static equilibrium. Q Reference:Z: \ Standard CatculationslDivision 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Units.mcd(R) 2 Design Criteria m m a i m m C a m wct 03 .c 0- oaos o a03 aE 'aOMr C maac •m. 'm c aaQ ° a'6 s^a 0 O .0. m m p y 0 d�Za CO d o��y w {O 10 Ea we C••K Y p•am N a d z a@ m EDc a° E E E E w"0mmi`°oEg0gg,gg c m E,t,E,tc c c c m e ,•, a o 0 0 0 tv 0 m:. a m ° m m 'm '0 'W 'N m C: V- t W 'm m E E E E c o- -Tim as to m ,,E E E E In a.. as<a }'o•O'50000 a o Q N N RR X x N N N N N J 0 �k ar d0 a0r 0 a x -0 O a EEmE - ..... a ? m G m `o c m v o,H c m a :? y=y m m aU a N`� CL 0 Ct 0 Q: a m 0 m a L N O O 00 C �" C CO �� O • m 0! 03 V o. E p 11 O O2 rill M cO N �' CO m m m y m m VI 11 II II m O m .0., II_ rn A a C U 'ra'N V 7 O W 6 03 W 3 d-, 3 m L X X E�'a�m oa a c m a 9 c q. �'�4m�Iro60 WommamA N m a W P. y d o m o O'> > 03 O O 11. ` N o .. Y a wtn E �cm �EaaLv'c �: m o a o Cg a2•av ac a� o o= o gi y m 4.. a 11 u u m mL° mo o m om- m E a m rn ,� a, b >am'`m-i.? LL•, cW To U o Ti c O a a d wE $ aom m a m$ to en m co m m �aa CO m-- X m m m m m m co • 2 a lI. L m aai, -aa W•Oa 0SJ J I-JJ = _'0 "p ID 1 co c m O 0 •° a r~ m 3 m o 1 0 a a c all Om U J J CO X O O 1, J 4 aA- ea- m r a V .J N m G ]aUU Ci IL Mc aaa x c O _ c � I- -1 a N N N N P7 cV N 7 11 N Material Specifications and Code Requirements Y:199 Projects\Misc1992971Calculations19 foot.mcd Reference:ZAStandard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\FuII cantilever analysis.mcd(R) IEI 3 0 Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations%Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Section selector.mcd(R) CO N e 00 a 0 65 00 sl 'G a er d Sin NI e 03 0 ti Q H; r Moment Diagram ulred Beam Embedment: CK uired Steel Beam Size: uired Section Modulus: beam = "W16 x 45" 0 IX a m to 0 0 LL C_ "G m € > oq om O 0 II ..aTat m2 . Ct R Maximum pressure in front of pile N Y:\99 Projects\Misc\992971Calculations\9 foot.mcd Active Surcharge Pressures (above subgrade) 0 0 n (ki) 41daa (.0 4idoa (u)gid3Q e ON 0 T 0 0 n (a) y1dau a Load per bay (ph) Total Earth loading Line load surcharge Y:\99 Projects\Misc\992971Calculations19 toot.mcd 11 foot.mcd CL 00 00 )/ Design Summary This program solves for the required depth of embedment and shears and moments for a cantilever pile to satisfy static equilibrium. Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines MUnits.mcd(R) 2 Design Criteria go co Q±0tr) )CNNNN CI- • • CL -as �_{[§ ƒ /0 CL < « « .aB \§];\]{=z § ] .§ rr&.2`.` ` ae C0 _ ==co,4«;§! 2! _ . . ��\\n \m a0)\ ^• §a|; 5§ 2f2Q / - \ ] 2kEiE:-7\e7« 0 \ a"]I7225855§i; _ |\ ( o } /> ca tttJ$$a}i Eo$CIuA83_2lA!6 \ _ _® q ; A/3 } /000 cc 0 aO.o_ \ c ( § 0 \ \ ® ± »a4 cc) Tr 3 Material Specifications and Code Requirements 143 lar 441 \ \ u 444 Y:199 Projects\Misc\99297\Calculations\11 foot.mcd ro U E r W 0. CO Of 0 NyCO ry 0 0 .-x Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Full cantilever analysis.mcd(R) 3. Results Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Section selector.mcd(R) 00 CO __yz'N el 0 O en VI 00 00 w O a b N et II E d m 0 as r Q in C vl N 0 C C 1 C o C C b O II X CO uired Beam Embedment: a uired Steel Beam Size: D rn N J N 0 CC 0 ui CC 0 a_ 0 0 0 0 m 0 W 10 5 C co cO C co 0 N 4 h N II 0 a p max = 5897.6=psf Maximum pressure in front of pile N Y:k99 Projects\M sc199297\Calculations\11 foot.mcd r r Active Surcharge Pressures (above subgrade) 0 0 0 4 a V T 1 0 C N h{) 4=ha �8) q)dwa M1 m NNE all MENNIMIIIIMEN NM O (8) 4+doa 0 0 V 0 7 0 h b r 0 Y:199 Projects1Misc1992971Calcutations111 fool.mcd 11 k il / \ 2 / " ) j us \o \ o \ / ) �/ k ƒ /\ CO N o k o k S mo in 2. 0 E o. 2 kk §] io Design Criteria | @¥.zzxz.z«e& �il;f«;;-5I-»&1; © > !` - E■1,==.q2,%ate , % ]f(§§]ƒ§] \ k 2 s 223E=E-�nmm§) 0 } § >L0t®0°j2)ao - _ ■® j2(a,§tt#§_2k2] \ \ E— rEx00 a_2—A2f \ < =2 f - i t \23 )\000 zZZ\228zz - , ( — 3 § q # § ± C el 0 ¥ Is ces §■} �Sal � en en - 2;2a ) _ `k§` ; \ \ \ \ Material Specifications and Code Requirements Y:199 Projects1Misc\992971Calculations113 foot.mcd Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Full cantilever analysis.mcd(R) Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Section selector.mcd(R) El El 3. Results T O T N 0 N '0 CT N O 0 N N 01 n O1 en i 1 n b a O OI uired Beam Embedment: 0 uired Steel Beam Size: uired Section Modulus: M = 306^1t•k Maximum pressure in front of pile Y:199 Projects\Misc199297\Calculations113 foot.mcd E 0 0 4) 0) 0 P O N R \u) gldaa (ll) yidaa CO 0 n■■ ■■■■■■■_ ■■■■n■■n■■■: ■■■■■■■■■■■n_ • ■■A■ ■: N M h R m P O nci 0 0 V 0 .1. 0 N b odaa 00 P O N 00 CO Traffic loading (plf) Line load surcharge Traffic Surcharge Y:199 Projects\Misc199297\Calculations113 foot.mcd Cefall & Associates, Inc. 15 foot.mcd Consulting Structural Engineers 1 Design Summary This program solves for the required depth of embedment and shears and moments for a cantilever pile to satisfy static equilibrium. 2 Design Criteria Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations\Division. 02-Sitework\Subroutines \Units.mcd(R) 2.1 Variables bshaft Pile shaft width (ft) C Passive pressure minus active pressure (pot) Co Temporary Stress Increase factor Ca Pile embedment multiplication factor F Pile yield strength (psi) 1-� Excavation depth (ft) hL depth to line load surcharge resultant (ft) hp depth to point load surcharge resultant (ft) hs Depth of traffic surcharge loading (ft) 1.1 .. L2 Influence limits of point load on single pile (ft) Pe Lateral load due to active earth pressure (ft) PP Lateral load due to point surcharge (Ibs) Ps Traffic Surcharge pressure (psf) Ps Lateral load due to traffic surcharge (Ibs) P„parade Lateral earth load due to subgrade pressures 2.2 Configuration H:=15 ft bshall :=25-ft s:=8 ft 2.3 Loads 2.31 Soil Parameters wa:=30pcf w:=606pcf 2.3.2 Surcharge Parameters Traffic p s := 100 psf h s := l0-ft Line Load Point Load q L 0 kif Qp:=0kip yl:=4ft xL:=3 ft xp:=3 ft Y 2 :=-4 ft 2.4 Material Specifications and Code Requirements CD:=1.0 CE:=1.1 Fy:=36ksi step :=6in ql op $ step wa wP ws XL Xp z za Zb za zr H d Line Load surcharge (plf) Point Load surcharge (Ibs) Pile spacing (ft) calculating step increment (In) Active pressure (pcf) Passive pressure (pcf) traffic surcharge pressure (psf) distance from bulkhead to line load surcharge (ft) distance from bulkhead to point load surcharge (ft) distance from top of pile to pile tip Dimension from subgrade to point of zero soil reaction Dimension from subgrade to paint of zero shear Dimension from pile tip to point of max. soil reaction Dimension from resultant of lateral loads to pt. of zero earth pressure Zb Xp aP , Pu Pa I I 1t +FF—w`. C / Fsubprade hP L Istoial zr POMT OF ZERO \SHEAR (FIXITY) C C1 bshaft Y:199 Projects\Mist\992971Calculatlons115 foot.mcd 1 3. Results 0 3.23 6.45 9.68 12.91 16.13 19.36 22.59 25.81 29.04 1 32.22326, 84 -16.81 /21 2 .2J Loa ing/bay (k/ft) Pressure Diagram Cefali & Associates, Inc. 15 foot.mcd Consulting Structural Engineers ❑a Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines \Full cantilever analysis.mcd(R) 9 Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Section selector.mcd(R) 0 3.23 6.45 9.68 12.91 16.13 19.36 22.59 25, 81 29.04 31'V1i.38 61 L6-4J.U-L.U4 -1293 319 19.3 Shear (k) Shear Diagram 3.23 6,45 9.68 12,91 16.13 19.36 22.59 25.81 29.04 32.27E 9.! -31.18 1U .33 2.Th 88 'Lc Moment (ft k) Moment Diagram 4 Resultant Overturning Force (Ptotati Required Section Modulus: Required Steel Beam Size: Required Beam Embedment: and Moment (M): Ptotal =35.4°k M=410aft•k Sx=206.8o1n3 beam ="?" WZI MO D=19ft Maximum pressure in front of pile p max = 6840.8°psf Y:\99 Projects IMiso\99297\Calculations\15 foot.mcd 2 Active Surcharge Pressures (above subgrade) t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 14 15 MIME MEM nun mom rim NEN Non ammi Traffic loading (pit) Traffic Surcharge 00 2 3 4 5 6 a 7 a Y 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 MEM 1111 MEME 1111 MI= ■ I II II III I Surcharge (plf) Line load surcharge Cefali & Associates, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers 0 Surcharge (p f) Point Load Surcharge Per Bay 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 1 14 15 Load per bay (plr) Total Earth loading 15 foot.mcd Y:\99 Projects\Misc199297ICalculations115 foot.mcd 3 12/15/99 Hoag Hospital Cafali & Associates, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers 1. Design Summary This program solves for the shear and moment along the length of an anchored soldier pile. Q Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines \Units.mcd(R) POINT LOAD SURCHARGE PRESSURE (O p) Pp T Ae WALL PLAN 2. Design Criteria 2.1 Variables bshaft CD Fy fcneff fsoiwpite tie hand H ho n Ps Qp LINE LOAD SURCHARGE FRESSURE (q, ) EARTH PRESSURE 1 Pile shaft diameter (ft) Temporary stress increase factor Pile yield strength (psi) Coefficient of friction soil/pile Skin friction soil/pile (psf) Tieback bond strength (psf) Pile height (ft) Traffic surcharge depth (ft) Number of anchors Traffic surcharge pressure (psf) Point Load surcharge (Ibs) 2.2 Configuration H:=21 ft b shaft :=2 ft Tie inclination = 20 2.3 Loads 2.3.1 qL Footing surcharge (Ibs/ft) s Pile spacing (ft) step Calc. intervals Tieinciination Tieback angle (degrees) w Active pressure (pcf) passive pressure (pcf) Initial passive pressure (psf) Influence limits of point load surcharge on pile (ft) Horizontal dist. to q. (ft) Horizontal dist. to Qp (ft) Active trapezoidal pressure distribution coefficient Wp wpn Yi ..Y2 YL Yp A s:=8ft ps:=100psf n := 1 step :=6 in Soil Parameters w:=22pcf w:=600pcf w po :=0 psf 2.4 Material Specifications and Code Requirements C D :=1.0 F := 36 ksi :=.2 1.5 21 ft.mcd ho:=10ft qL:=0plf yL:=15ft Qp:=Okip yp:=4ft y1:=-4ft y2:=4ft f coeff 0.4 fsoilpile =400 psf f tiebond 500 psf Y:199 1 26 12/15/99 Haag Hospital 2.5 Analysis Define restraint reactions Ra:=62 kip Rb := 0 kip a:=7.6 ft b :=0 ft Cefali & Associates, Inc. 21 ft.mcd Consulting Structural Engineers diama:=16in diam b := 0 in Rc:=0 kip Rd:=0kip c :=9 ft d:=11ft diam c := 0 in diam d := 0 in 0 Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines \Tieback equations.mcd(R) Estimate restraint magnitude -(kips) R1=60"kip Shear Diagram c Max moments (kip-ft) M pos = 740ft•k M neg = 79.104°fthk a a O Passive earth resistance Re=8"kip Shear (kips) 3. Results Moment subgrade = "OK" Determine Beam Size: Design moment: M = 79"ft•kip 0 Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines \Section seiector.mcd(R) S x = 40"in3 Determine Pile Embedment: Required embedment due to vertical tieback loads: to lateral loads (Re): Dtie =O"ft beam = "W14 x 30" Tieback Loads:(kiosl Ta = 66"kip _ Tb = O "kip Tc =0"kip Td = O "kip down tot = 0"kip Required embedment due Re = 8.1 <kip D Iat = 3.7"ft Momen (kip-ft) D=3.7"ft Bonded Lengths: (ft) Tieback: La = 32 ft A row: 3 — 0- 6 `Y 5 T t,1147y Lb =0 ft B row: Lc=oft C row: Ld =oft D row: Y:199 2 12/15/99 Hoag Hospital Cefali & Associates, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers 1, Design Summary This program solves for the shear and moment along the length of an anchored soldier pile. 0 Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Units.mcd(R) O POINT LOAD SURCHARGE PRESSURE (O p) +-WALL PLAN 2. Design Criteria 2.1 Variables bshaft Co Fy fcoeff fsnillpiie ftie band H ha n Ps Qp LINE LOAD SURCHARGE PRESSURE (qL) PL 1 EARTH PRESSURE G PE tTlT inclination _- fccif ?CH ELEVATION bah ft Pile shaft diameter (ft) Temporary stress increase factor Pile yield strength (psi) Coefficient of friction soil/pile Skin friction soil/pile (psf) Tieback bond strength (psf) Pile height (ft) Traffic surcharge depth (ft) Number of anchors Traffic surcharge pressure (psf) Point Load surcharge (Ibs) 2.2 Configuration H:=23ft bshaft :=2ft Tie inclination :=20 2.3 Loads 2.3.1 qL s step Tieindination w Wp Wpo Yi .. Y2 YL Yp x s:=8ft ps:=100psf n:=1 step:=6 in Soil Parameters w :=22 pcf w p :=600 pcf w po :=0 psf 23 ft.mcd Footing surcharge (Ibs/ft) Pile spacing (ft) Calc. intervals Tieback angle (degrees) Active pressure (pcf) passive pressure (pcf) Initial passive pressure (psf) Influence limits of point load surcharge on pile (ft) Horizontal dist. to qL (ft) Horizontal dist. to Qp (ft) Active trapezoidal pressure distribution coefficient ho:=10ft qL:=Oplf yL:=15ft Qp:=0kip yp:=4ft y1:=_4ft Y2:=4ft 1:=.2 fcoeff`0.4 fsoitpile :=400 psf f tiebond = 500 psf 2.4 Material Specifications and Code Requirements CD:=1.0 FY:=36ksi 12/15/99 Ha&g Hospital 2.5 Analysis Define restraint reactions Ra := 80 kip Rb:=0 kip a:=9.0 ft b :=0 ft Cefali & Associates, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers diam a:=16in diam b := 0 in Rc:=0 kip Rd:=O kip c:=9ft d:=11ft diam a := 0 in diam d := 0 in Q Reference:Z: I Standard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\ Subroutines \Tieback equations.mcd(R) Estimate restraint magnitude (kips) R1 = 70"kip -c 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 Shear Diagram Su J 0 Max moments (kip-ft) M pos = 123 ^ft-k • M neg = 126.826 °ft•k 10 15 20 Passive earth resistance Re = 2 kip 25 Shear (kips) 3. Results Moment subgrade = "OK" Determine Beam Size: Moment Diagram Momen (kip-ft) Design moment: M = 127oft•kip ❑� Reference:Z:IStandard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines \Section selector.mcd(R) Sx=64.1an3 beam = "W16 x 40" Determine Pile Embedment: Required embedment due down tot = 0 °kip to vertical tieback loads: Y:\99 Dtie=041 Required embedment due to lateral loads (Re): Re = 2.5 °kip D1nt=2°ft D,2°ft Tieback Loads:(kips) Bonded Lengths: (ft) Tieback: Ta=85°kip La=41ft A row: 4- m•6Pie •s7RJ D Tb = 0=kip Lb =Oft B row: Tc = 0 skip Lc =oft C row: Td = 0=kip Ld = 0 ft D row: 2 zit 23 ft.mcd 12/15/99 Cafali & Associates, Inc. Hoag Hospital Ccnsulting Structural Engineers 1. Design Summary This program solves for the shear and moment along the length of an anchored soldier pile. Reference:ZaStandard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Units.mcd(R) 0 POINT LOAD SURCHARGE PRESSURE (0p) P LAN 2. Design Criteria 2.1 Variables bshaft CD Fy tcoeff tsoillpile ftie hoed H ho n Ps Qp LINE LOAD SURCHARGE PRESSURE (qL) Ad Yp 0 EARTH PRESSURE E TIE inclination ELEVATION \H YL hdiSfL r`A to Pile shaft diameter (ft) Temporary stress increase factor Pile yield strength (psi) Coefficient of friction soil/pile Skin friction soil/pile (psf) Tieback bond strength (psf) Pile height (ft) Traffic surcharge depth (ft) Number of anchors Traffic surcharge pressure (psf) Point Load surcharge (Ibs) 2.2 Configuration 13:=25ft bshaft =2ft Tie inclination = 20 2.3 Loads 2.3.1 Soil Parameters wp wpo Y1 ..Y2 YL Yp A. s:=3ft ps:=100psf n:=1 step:=6in w:=22pcf wp:=600pcf wpo:=0psf X:=.2 2.4 Material Specifications and Code Requirements CD:=1.0 Fy:=36ksi ,Y:\99 1 qL Footing surcharge (Ibs/ft) s Pile spacing (ft) step Calc. intervals T1einclination Tieback angle (degrees) w Active pressure (pcf) passive pressure (pcf) Initial passive pressure (psf) Influence limits of point load surcharge on pile (ft) Horizontal dist. to qL (ft) Horizontal dist. to Qp (ft) Active trapezoidal pressure distribution coefficient 25,ft.mcd ho:=10 ft qL:=O plf yL:=15 ft QP:=0kip yp:=4ft y1:=-4ft y2:=4ft fcoeff:=0.4 fsoilpile :=4o0 psf ftieboncl =500 psf 12/15/99 Cafaii & Associates, Inc. s loag Hospital Consulting Structural Engineers 2.5 Analysis Define restraint reactions Ra:=84kip a:=9.Oft diama:=16in Rc:=Okip c:=9ft Rb:=Okip b:=0ft diamb:=0in Rd:=0kip d:=11ft diem :=0 in diamd:=0 in 0 Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines \Tieback equations.mcd(R) Estimate restraint magnitude (kips) RI=82akip s_ 0 Shear Diagram Shear (kips) Max moments (kip-ft) M pos= 126aft-k M neg = 129.933 4k 0 Passive earth resistance Re = 12akip Moment Diagram Momen (kip-ft) 3. Results Moment subgrade = "OK" Determine Beam Size: Design moment: M = 130aft-kip Reference:Z:\Standard Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines \Section selectorsncd(R) Sx=65.6ain3 beam = "W16 x 45" Determine Pile Embedment Required embedment due to vertical tieback loads: down tot = O skip Dtie =Daft Required embedment due Re = i2aki to lateral loads (Re): p Dlat=4.5aft D=4.5aft Tieback Loads:(kips) Bonded Lengths: (ft) Tieback: Ta = 89akip La = 43 ft A row: 4 — `iterrtt/ Tb = 0 akip Lb =Oft B row: Tc = 0 akip Lc = 0 ft C row: 25 ft.mcd Td=Oakip Ld=Oft D row: Y:199 2 Cecember 17, 1999 Lagging Design -97 UBC -8 foot spacing 25H or 400p.s.f. max. d1 1. Cefaii & Associates, Inc. Sheet No. 1 Consulting Structural Engineers Document No. 297ci01.DOC Loading w = 25 (H), 400 psf max =w(S-2')/2 Mi„a(=R1[a+R,+(2xw)] Lagging Specifications Lagging is rough -cut Douglas Fir Larch Fb=FbXCoXCb,xCrXCFXCI Fb = 525 psi (DF # 3) Fb = 900 psi (DF # 2) Co = 1.25 Cb, = 1.1 (4x) Cb, = 1.2 (3x) CF = 1.1 (4x) CF = 1.0 (3x) q = 0.85 3" net D.F. #3 1 Consider Upper 6 feet Slag =12 in x (2.75 in)2/ 6 = 15.13 in2 w= 25 pcf ( 6')= 150 psf = 150 psf x 6'/2 = 450 #/' M = 450 #P [8"/12"/' + 450 #P + (2 x 150 psf)] = 975.0 #'/' fb=975.9#'Px 127 15.1 in3=774.8 psi Fti=FbX CDXCf,XCrXCFXCi Fti = 525 psi x 1.25 x 1.2 x 1.15 x 1.0 x 0.85 = 769.8 psi = 774.8 psi 0.5% low, OK 3" D.F. #3 net OK for use in the upper 6 feet 3x D.F. #2 2 Consider Upper 10 feet w = 25 pcf (10') = 250 psf = 250 psf x 6'/2 = 750 #/' M = 750 #P [8"/12"/' + 750 #I' (2 x 250 psf)] = 1625.0#'/' fb = 1625.0#'1' x 12"P + 15.1 in3 = 1291 psi Fb=900psi x1.25x1.2x1.15x1.0x0.85=1319.6psi > 1291 psi 3" D.F. #2 net OK for use in the upper 10 feet OK December 17, 1999 4xD.F.#3 Cafaii & Associates, Inc. Sheet No. 7 Consulting Structural Engineers 3 Consider Upper 10 feet Snot= 12 in x (3.75 in)2/6=28.12 in3 w = 25 pcf (10') = 250 psf = 250 psf x 6'/2 = 750 #/' M = 750 #/' [8"/12"/' + 750 #P _ (2 x 250 psf)] = 1628-0 #'I' fb=1628.0#'Px 12"P=28.1 in3=695.0 psi Fb= 525 psix 1.25 x 1.1 x1.15x1.1 x 0.85 = 776.2 psi> 695.0 psi 4" D.F. #3 net OK for use in the upper 12 feet Document No. 297c101.DOC OK 4x D.F. #2 4 Consider Balance of excavation w = 400 psf = 400 psf x 6'/2 = 1200 #/' M = 1200 #/' [8"/12"P + 1200 #/' (2 x 400 psf)] = 2600.0 #'/' fb = 2600.0 psi x 12"P 28.1 in3 = 1110 psi Fb = 900 psi x 1.25 x 1.1x 1.15 x 1.1 x 0.85 = 1330.6 psi > 1110 psi OK 4" D.F. #2 net OK for use in the balance of the excavation CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 PROJECT ` I o#a 4405K- -- SHEET NO. JOB NO cifi z DESIGNER PC- DATE CLIENT SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. 5oz-pce.rz 0 Lrbt' 7o1z5(o J wopo -re s7 To UT/L7t6 wtac.fre No r 170 11-POCl ?vsrste.) qsr/enl `iIZ �-� = 165i .05t1%) Pe ✓' SIM MR SS N ____)1 I( ZN tYP out iLt o The Z" x 168' = 1 b 6 I( 2. coN5 ten LPG.» 1e&3G 2.4 (4 �UkFCIC= tacit A aP';ale} FT' J 7:4 t (l is 161723 CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 PROJECT CLIENT SHEET NO. JOB NO DATE DESIGNER SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. Sot. D t t 1Z 13 64104 Tortt ? ofO eorv7* TOtizsf r3 2E51sfy Lr?6al0 S Con>>!DEcZ- r Wit:•• 2 Sir 2,6 c3's" [Z£51-> • bw te,r[zlcTioAi /AVv zaeg « jDA o (t f rr 94 c tat\ 7 5 x (6 � t (1 �a LONi 1 p 6 TZ -( ` 2 {rt i' n '\S ou r Z s'.� 6g0,Y -46. Sw c 2 ��100 �, �� )��AfG S psf kiti g 4 P zoasia4 iN o-rg-a)fhPjN fit 2 z- 6"r3/0If 4 It'. 167723 "CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 PROJECT CLIENT SHEET NO. JOB NO GATE DESIGNER SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. .5 CL(7l e.?L 5tot :1(N1 TAfLz!o,) earler 2.1?1..4 tot,)Zb1�/SS ` it/6 'ronsior- - NcSWQ. 'sill >i -6td 6kT4 Sx -=�o a <0.41F13 B= d4o r i C7frf,� G3 7t= MO a, kS (ss (l3L1) ;> In ` T ZUkw(2l-4Mal) alto4+ Po(0 ) 187723 CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 PROJECT ` l 0,6,c, 4090ITA`- SHEET NO.. JOB NO c{q DESIGNER VC -DATE l CLIENT SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO RE REPRODUCED. - a4D e a rz 3 A rno^ ter:40,Q - 20opo res7 710 otiGI e 6✓bC.Ere_ muL2 /1 b r ?o !fr' pOGf erOf 1aAi Pe (t5o%) riot Sx6c7 T,w= 168“ lee Iit- cols /oesc 1— Cfnc ("3 ^x_ 3(3-Is•sa .� SuVFcATlti.P' or';ti{WFr -rt k (ZP} % k 11-�rJ G g0 0 1.7723 CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 PROJECT SHEET NO. JOB NO DATE CLIENT DESIGNER SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. 5o pt>;it. 5 61104 Tare ion) eorV'( ?04t-510n) aLn'Ste r t�j CONO; DE(Z. zvtI PCrt re,•, :.. = 2.51 r Z 6 fie 2.0 gEsl� c(t: ISw FjzIGT o1V `QPV - deore c/Ors) 94 c 'C"CAN75°x (bPkt (lgla CON31O5ft trr U `2 f7: k P� z\s ` ' 2 SI' 6t0,� -46 Sw T.2 ��/ov (`95) -` 1 .� �6-5 _ ��i 0," 1 ` � M'l4Y IZI � g 4 p fogs-0A) /N ef'P)^ 0 = 168 -13 -Ti =78 5Z�` /45s z 5 �I/y Y <TP 16 4 P . 167723 CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 SHEET NO. JOB NO GATE SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. 5oL.t�L� 6 if, Alm 1 2t.Ioh) t,J t 612 Z t Z. � � Iti _7 o ' Ito,+"/I ft 16 4 r it ES t B r T x 4— ,(5. 0 B-co c74A- GS A _ LT 2 ZOkat?2.I-4A1g3 440 4+ OAD (0?-4) 167723 CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 PRC ECT ¢IO nv (-f05? 171A CLIENT DESIGNER sHEEr NO a JOB NO `flq TL DATE G.-2"%-00 SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TD BE REPRODUCED. c1T�( o& getAsP fr '3e+GH ?crA coRtz ellorl$ [A• r30 ZA, 4 see 5500,� �►�. 90 4-A. 4 5 A .. 6O 6A. SO LeaEND -DOn?t 3o - gK LrrrtsttS -A.A. 2 DoMst orwiRat rarvD tNIs vAetsisaiNes op rlf(xrr?" gF c= "Nook,' ;Hers eG- S "to cc-5 Fogs. A OSCAL 41> exnAn JAI 1Ot) oe oa4ArnLF.U6n Ptc.tt D st6M- S A- s o - see 55a0L t'of . tnororrotlaa6 MoTTS, AA. Sep AzTo4c4e a SI-lgG.T5 cG-OO9 Faa CAtrCoe_ 4T/oN 69 Fi x, t y to A. S0E NtovSFactur4S/1MONr bg..446 `I el. 3 or,. te4serr Scoot it A. 5%t '55 oo t tt X^isPEc?1o+s1SJ MON rTo21No " 4 I0 tZ ... see. u it(ncfOR '(Efly*a ?i or✓npvrai' 4+(s 3 oN "5500t. 13 -Mt gr_ etue.o PottDO & cs ro oT Prto Tic Hi D AGYkW'ST cot. 5tors '*IE 5Cf_EUf /S PRi5IFNT 6 NLy 'LD Prague M 750010 . 01J -roe strut/05 , 14772 CFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752-1812 a FAX (818) 752-1819 PROJECT t4°A6 1-105rit CLEW DESIGNER SHEET NO cc-3 JOS NO 0.61 Zq� DATE 5-Z6-oo SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. ern( OP N.B colztRECPOSS GONE 14.A. SSE 5.H.5T$_*,,Z5,'524130F THE CALLS Fa A Fot. - 2t£S(6N of Telt ea.?:PerrdR �(e �s l.I 2- 2. 4 2/57.91. 4 41/3o1 tr-of- @S@EV. , PI Art Ano 5 ec lloNC AT Trails Leet AT) OW. } t5 A, 11ffiC5&r AM*. cos feet Plt.t'S AND "HEY Arts toiceartswT I: cortvr. 4,1 T)er7 ptLes5 s par/4 s o 5 H. W -5 ..FOR- Afl ANRLYS[S_ 14 dc. 5Ggtursi b '3OtCc. (APDCNFJU$4 l� A• tF -tt4 rzt 15 INK PctsPatanrce )-r wov`Q ONL,Lt :am 56s$V56c Tt-a. CWLGS SIPt&+Fk' -LC, rwef+t-re41 .. 14g /013 -n-(e 5GN(dDUL-e t5 ofTJN MAOIS Wit vNrOro AAA c'eT(-I cast led art ta-es. 1 E, A- "NE IZ b :o P r rt Ps 1?S 15 'S 1•f mt.0 N D S TMi t e+4tD01,. E. 0,4 Ssa0 Z. t9 A. TNa CAALcs; oN'st-keer 3t 5ka°s p(.Mani r?-1A .atA G.-t tst_S foe M tirc 4 c5 PM ES h‘ ;( -e t - 5T6 A11 CItfoi> 5(--dfi'TS W-6, 3 en- Ar-riSmrir�Oin-T o i~ this pa— E. 20IA fl( 9oitSS AOPttJOQWt VA. sea All meNED. s$4t`er n&A, is uOz 2o►4t Okitta fl wit w)w Apt A parr. To 'Ct-#m 4gfJ9 yaL Norn Tts/Mg:rtaC, tP.n PPINb n Pit -SS fl4m'r AAAY Ttat+aTec,. OC 'N& re 51,A3- 5Cg ANcWott Tt5t)N6 PtLoct jA-S" move TO GAi SFI. boa/ 107773 CEFALI & ASSOCIATES;. INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 PROJECT $40PI4 Imo, pit tail si-EErNO eC-- 4 ,roe ND ka2-9 CUM' DESIGNER DATE G'26-oo SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. 0 kti off N74. Z3 to k co f ge %c r 6 tzar, Ole- =5 E E "„*TPU&TUdzit+C- o6SPSt/MVlo&J" o'1 cSoo1 Z4A- ssE. AorzPeA4e s14aeTs Lc)-Q 42..1. i-6 A. -T1-4E us E Or-' s • ctlOad USG (Bob.�.Z ocio04._ca I /WodeEger. -Frits SG9CTYo+t) is Poll "�+.3 ct ibn1 of I.: JosT5 arc poi -es PS toc-u NS LSMIT& GiP 11O THE. GArtTN _u Tc-tas6 AA eNA6 tg aez6 Sol -Ora R. " P/c.E5" to age- /Bow , Artnepep spin rS w-zz,23 pat Mon 1Nflrcft$17oni% 76 q- 5Et R$cJi512 s M/ SC(O/ \. Mott cIAQ oe 7 on1 SatC(-llf1Ksd , 167723 CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 PRD,EcT 1-} KoSP►i- CLIENT DESIGNER 5FaET NO. 1 JOB NO Ciek 217 DATE 5—Z%' SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. t I I P l X 1TW U 001 F4 f4 4161 antNTH Ptt, to 304 ®$12s. TA) licA301A 'hit int:, P it . ' L.." 4Jx$ps 1E-o (zoo ell P =. Shgy 142— 3vllc t 30.4Z1 a. 0-51 C c 3 /. C = boa Pct -s - S -10 pat )Zap fagio roc X 2-5 ‘{- 7, a 8 4 4+ pop riCy 5054 z3 t7„a CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PROJECT \-\0P& Ro* PA'T Pcv SHEER NDtlla- Zn JOB NO `-1-C CLIENT DESIGNER DATE S. 'Z c -1X) (618) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. XIt'{ cos") It PT_ ofs..: ZErso 9 1464A. T T. .31 Z$v-- 1 Z A si.z3 Z.At5 4 Q 4Tof HdAR- G= 510pr.S 6.62) -Go sloft .5) z, (,4ZS b dzl + 0 841 = •;,4€ I ',VT of F(YITY» 9 =304e 1?� , v.g(`‘ -31.2-3" µix e 50.1z.4 xa.so'a 3f0 o.SI« 1n-49 3443 3(, z31f x zzo 6$.11 O. oo 3Z • � — M AV 1rtoM 0 VVT ®7723 CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752-1812 PROJECT �0 4 O Sp( SI-EET NO. JOBS CLENT DESIGNER DATE 5 -26 -DO FAX (818) 752-1819 SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO RE REPRODUCED. • "1I xre-( torvli 3i-2S tt z� Tl (* V -� ai 2034 Z 3 = co,ol(1q-�.� - I 4 F.,i E dy : 1�.5 t"f $bsz c3v8z�- 86, 4 tV16t . z 9�, ' 0.511-(tit"- Iqstt) - i. 8as OZ Dom -To 63 pa=Ft €c110 Du a Zb. ? (J Q1s 4. B11 itEl DUI' z0 i ,, �,(3J 6)t &j i) et Poo- To 6'z4 .F- s (3t6) )' B 114 6ES ' ( 5a,12.107.2 (5 E'_z., 3 93=() "w = z(5t.73'43 _ i.'13k/44Z 667-Z _ 14 45 5, 515 . _ FS 167723 CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PROJECT tko1/46 ikkW lAL SHEET NO. W-4 Joe No CO 217 17 CLIENT OESIGPER DATE 5 `40 —O (818) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 SIGNATURE IS VAUD ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. ire' ?c;i.ir coNir pRacy ors) coo)_Ir tPe, 4 ,-tP2 -' ic,-5.4(la l) = L051178 PL - t 4, 4415,5t5 + 6 gets-2o3) l4Z"s 141 swing 4 )z 4ta,911 t 24,ao(a) 117440,511 046 1 I-OO OK. 167723 CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ` (816) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 PRD,ECT '30M:7 NeloW t TP" L. SHEET NO. w - s JOB ND 1a791 CLENT DESIGNER DATE S-'2(or 0t SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. cofiaemorks ; Cois(t Gstzinc_. PiL e. l.Wi6tr16 k St 27. ( 2-3) z 506 F t-1 2 F = ti..3e° x, %oa(st) 141446 I ►46611n04. dLx1p1y 60-44 .f.,t i 4psu at R ; 4(sos ba--4' 167723 W -6 5/26/00 Cefali & Associates, Inc. CC H =23 feet.mcd Hoag .Hospital Consulting Structural Engineers 1. Design Summary This program solves for the shear and moment along the length of an anchored soldier pile. 0 Reference:Z:\Standard-Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Units.mcd(R) 2. Design Criteria 2.1 Variables bshaft Co Fy fcoeff fsoil/pile hie bond H hp n Ps Op Pile shaft diameter (ft) Temporary stress increase factor Pile yield strength (ksi) Coefficient of friction soil/pile Skin friction soil/pile (psf) Tieback bond strength (psf) Pile height (ft) Uniform surcharge depth (ft) Number of anchors Uniform surcharge pressure (psf) Point Load surcharge (Ibs) PLAN qE Footing surcharge (Ibs/ft) s Pile spacing (ft) step Cale. intervals Tielnclination Tieback angle (degrees) w Active pressure (pcf) wp passive pressure (pcf) wpo Initial passive pressure (psf) yi .. y2 Influence limits of point load surcharge on pile (ft) YL Horizontal dist. to (ft) Yp Horizontal dist. to Qp (ft) l Active trapezoidal pressure distribution coefficient POINT _OAC L:NE LOAD UNITORM SURCHARGE SURCHARGE SURCHARGE PRESSURE (Op: PRESSURE (GL) PRESSURE (ps Yp L Y u.nawn.,.1 L p EARTH PRPSEUURF 1 PE TIE inclination j ELEVATION +p c s-ofL 2.2 Configuration H := 23ft bshaft := 2ft s := 8ft Tieinclinadon := 20 n:=1 psi 100psf ho:= 10ft qL:=Oplf yL:= 15ft step:=6in Qp:=0kip yp:=4ft yi:=-4ft y2:=4ft 2.3 Loads 2.3.1 Soil Parameters w := 22pcf wp := 600pcf wpo := Opsf X:=.2 Cod( = 0.4 2.4 Material Specifications and Code Requirements fsoilpile = 400psf ftiebond 500psf CD:= 1.0 Fr := 36ksi �:11999 1 frost} 5/26/00 - Cefali & Associates, Inc. CC H =23 feet.mcd Hoag Hospital Consulting Structural Engineers 2.5 Analysis Define restraint reactions Ra:=71kip a:=8ft diama:=l6in Re:=58kip c:=9ft diamo:=16in Rb Okip b := 0ft diamb := 16in Rd := Okip d := l lft diamd := 16in Q Reference:Z:\Standard-Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Tieback equations.mcd(R) Estimate restraint magnitude (kips) Rl = 70 kip 0 5 10 15 20 25_ 1 Shear Diagram 3. Results 1 Shear (kips) Determine Beam Size' 2 Max moments (kip-ft) Mpos = 104 ft-k Moog = 94.929 ft-k 0 5 0 n Passive earth resistance Re=llkip Momentsubgzde = "OK" 15 20 Moment Diagram 25_4 2 0 2 Momen (kip-ft) Design moment: M = 104ft-kip 0 Reference:Z:\Standard-Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Section selector.mcd(R) Sx=52.3in3 beam ="W16x36" Determine Pile Embedment: Required embedment due downtot = 0 kip to vertical tieback loads: Dtic = 0 ft Required embedment due to lateral loads (Re): Re = 11.5 kip Tieback Loads:(kips) Bonded Lengths: (ft) Tieback: Ta = 76 kip La = 36 ft A row: Tb = 0 kip Lb = 0 ft B row: Tc=62kip Lc=29ft C row: Td = 0 kip Ld = 0 ft D row: Z:11999 2 D1at=4.4ft ID = 4.4ft 4 CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752.1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 PROJECT POPG 1Of SHEET NO. (N- $ Joe No IC 29 7 CLEM' DESIGNER DATE S -Z (o-DO SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO HE REPRODUCED. 167723 CANTILEVER SHORING DESIGN Cefali & Associates, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Ph. (818) 752-1812 Fax. (818) 752-1819 engineering©cefali. cam 1 of 9 Cefali & Associates, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Table of Contents: Part I - General A. Summary 3 B. References 3 C. Definitions 3 D. System Description 3 E. Quality Assurance 3 Part II - Products A. Materials 3 B. Mixes 3 Part III - Calculations A. Initialize Variables 4 B. Determine Lateral Earth Loads 4 C. Determine Traffic Surcharge Loads 4 D. Determine Surcharge Lateral Load Influences 5 1. Determine Line Surcharge Lateral Loading 5 2. Determine Point Surcharge Lateral Loading 6 E. Determine The Required Embedment of the Pile 7 F. Determine Max Design Moment and Required Pile Size 8 Part IV - Conclusion 8 Z:\Standard-Calculations\Division 02- 2 of 9 Sitework\Cantilever FuIl.MCD welt? Cantilever FuII.MCD Cefali & Associates, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Part I - General w -II Cantilever FuII.MCD A. Summary: This program solves for the required depth of embedment for a cantilever pile to satisfy static equilibrium. B. References: • ASD 9th Edition • NAV FAC Method of Surcharge Analysis Q Reference:Z:\Standard-Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Units.mcd(R) C. Definitions Variables H Excavation depth (ft) h Depth of surcharge loading from top of excavation (ft) S Pile spacing (ft) W Pile shaft width (ft) Pa Active pressure (pcf) Pp Passive pressure (pcf) Ps Traffic Surcharge pressure (psf) Q Line Load surcharge (plf) Qp Point Load surcharge (lbs) step calculating step increment (in) dist distance from pile tip to line load surcharge (ft) dist2 distance from pile tip to point load surcharge (ft) L1 .. L2 Influence limits of point load on single pile (ft) Cd Temporary Stress Increase factor Fy Pile Yield strength (psi) Ce Pile embedment multiplication factor D. System Description The system that is begin designed by the following calculation is for a cantilevered shoring system consisting of steel soldier piles at a specified o.c. spacing (S) that is acted upon by normal lateral earth forces as well asany prescribed surcharge loadings that may occur. Commonly, timber lagging is utilized to retain the soil between the piles. E. Quality Assurance: • Structural observation may be required for the pile placements. • Continuous inspection by the soil engineer's representative • Field welding will require continuous inspection Part II - Products A. Materials: • ASTM A36 Steel B. Mixes: • Slurry mixes shall consist of 1 1/2 sack slurry Z:\Standard-Calculations\Division 02- 3 of 9 Sitework\Cantilever FuII.MCD Part III - Calculations A. Initialize Variables: H:=16ft wa:=30pcf s:=8.ft wp := 600pcf bshaft := 2.5•ft step := 6in ha := 10.ft pa := 0psf lb xL:=3ft qt =0 ft xp = 3ft Qp := 0kip yi:=4ft Y2:=-4ft Cd := 1.0 Fy := 36ksi CE=1.0 Cefali & Associates, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Cantilever FuII.MCD bl d u z c zc i1 Pa F, Zr turd HP --Ps,barade ECM OF ZEPO `,SHEA? (FIXI'Y) c B. Determine Lateral Earth Loads: Adjusted passive pressure to account for active pressure C:=wp —Wa C = 570 pcf Active pressure resultants: wa Hz-s Za Pa 2 Psubgrade :_ (wa bsht'H)' 2 Pa = 30.72 kip psubgade = 0.505 kip C. Determine Traffic Surcharge Loads (if applicable): Traffic Surcharge pressure resultant: Ps := ps'hs's Ps = 0 kip Z:\Standard-Calculations\Division 02- 4 of 9 Sitework\Cantilever FuII.MCD °she`, Pressure diagram dimensions: wa H C Za:= za= 0.84ft P := H"wp' bshaft + Za C'bshaft p = 25200 plf IN-13 Cefali & Associates, Inc. Cantilever FuII.MCD Consulting Structural Engineers D. Determine Surcharge Lateral Load Influences: Define step increment and pressure diagram parameters step zl := step•l 1. Determine line surcharge lateral loading: XL m:=— H m = 0.2 Lateral force (Ibs) ,r4 z .2 J H .16+(HJJ )21z Oft Lateral force multiplied by depth Lateral pressure (Ibs/ft per foot spacing) dz if m < .4 126-m2 — z dz otherwise m' + \H/2J2 Oft L Oft dz if m < .4 Z2 1.26-m2.�( ) H dz otherwise I m2+ z)12 Oft Determine location of resultant surcharge force --measured from top of excavation (ft) IAI ZI = — A Z H 6.3 ft step Determine resultant lateral surcharge force --(lbs/ft spacing) qL PQ1 := H •AI PL := Pq H •s step PL=0kip Z:\Standard-Calculations\Division 02- 5 of 9 Sitework\Cantilever FuII.MCD 0 8 24 32_ I pli .2 `H) 2 if m < .4 [.16 r l + H I2J Z 1.26•m2•� H otherwise [m2 (H)212 Surcharge pressure diagram -O.s 0 05 (IL Plt H Pressure (lbs/ft per ft spacing) but- 14 Cefali & Associates, Inc. Cantilever FuII.MCD Consulting Structural Engineers 2. Determine point surcharge lateral loading Lateral force (Ibs) "; 2 28.r HJ xp m :_ — H m 0.2 Lateral force multiplied by depth Lateral pressure (Ibsfft per foot spacing) dz if m < .4 IA1:= L.16+z 3 KH/2� Oft .7{ z 1.77-m2- — H/ dz otherwise \2 Lm2 + \Hz� Oft 3 rzl- "Oft (z)3lJ H2 L.16+ 28- - 1K23 H1JJ dz if m <.4 I77-m2- (�) H2 dz otherwise Lm2+\Hl Oft Determine location of resultant footing surcharge force --measured from top of excavation (ft) I Al Zp1:= A Zp H =6.6ft step 2 3 Determine lateral pressures induced by point load surcharge. (pst) Yi ah = cos 1.l (atan( Y NE ] 2 dy oh = 5.17ft _ xp/ Y2 Qp p2i := avroh— H2 Determine resultant lateral footing surcharge force --(lbs/ft spacing) Qp PsI := H2 Total lateral force: :=ah•Ps1 Pp:=P H Pp=Okip step Z:\Standard-Calculations\Division 02- 6 of 9 Sitework\Cantilever FuII.MCD 5 0 5 —1 cvI (ZI\2 .28 J\,H Lr l 13 .16+I HI2J `r ZJ 2 1.77.mZ•l rI (1H/ Lm2 + \ H/2J3 if m<.4 otherwise Determine variation in pressure laterally along bulkhead n =y1.•Y2 max = 0 psf QP max := max(ovJ • — H2 B(n) .= cos 1.1..(atan( -1111.max Pressure variation laterally —0.5 0 B n) Pressure 0.5 1 10 15 Cefali & Associates, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers w-t5 Cantilever FuII.MCD Maximum Peak Pressure Total Lateral Surcharge Per Bay 20- -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 Qp (ivy — H2 Pressure (psf) E. Determine the required embedments of the pile: Total Resultant Overturning force: Ptotal := Pa + Ps + Psubgrade + PL + Pp 10 15 20 -1 Ptoal = 31.23 kip - 0.5 0 0.5 1 P21 Surcharge (plt) Distance from resultant overturning reaction (Ra) to the point of zero pressure. i / l Ps, `H — s + za + Pa fl + za/ + Psubg ode 23 as 2+ r PI;rH — Z H + zal + Pp-rH — Zp H + za step step Zr Ptotal Coefficients for the fourth order polynomial used to solve for the required depth of pile embedment. Ptotal Ptotal 6-Ptotal-zr'P + 4'Ptotal 72 := 8 • Zl :— 6 (2 zr C bshaft + p) ZO C'bshaft'ft2 ft3'(C.bshae)2 ft4'(C'bshaft)2 Z3:= C'bshaft'ft zr=6.1ft Z3 = 17.7 72 = 175.3 ZI = 3924.97 ZO = 16067.481 Z:\Standard-Calculations\Division 02- 7 Of 9 Sitework\Cantilever FuIl.MCD 2 Cefali & Associates, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Solve polynomial: Determine depth: r—Zoe —Z1 —Z2 polyroots(Z) _ Z3 1 —18.1 — 7.4+ I.8i — 7.4 — 1.8i 15.2 D := 1.0.(polyroots(Z)•ft + za) D = d := D3,a Determine locations of peak lateral soil pressure acting on embedded pile shaft: : 1 —17.3 — 6.6 + 1.8i — 6.6 — 1.81 16.1 tN-16 Cantilever FuII.MCD Depth of ft :mbedment: L4d —z C�L� H•wp+d•C L, bshaft'P3La_2'Protal = a P3 = a Pz = bshaft-(P3 + P2) Pmax C-(L•4 — 1-') Pmax = 6458 psf H•w Pup .= p + d•C pt p = 18768.8 psf 0 Reference:Z:\Standard-Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Fu1l cantilever analysis.mcd(R) F. Determine Max Design Moment and Required Pile Size' Find depth from below "a" to point of zero shear: do := 2 Ptotal Gbshaft Determine overturning force moment arm: Determine maximum design moment: 5 di:=do+Zr do=6.6ft zr=6.1ft di = 12.7ft M := Ptotal Required Section Modulus: Required Beam Size: Sx .66.FyCd M d = 16.09ft d dl— u M=327.8ftkip 3 Sx bshaft section := — diam :— in3 ft Sx = 165.6in3 beam :_ Worksheet (section diam Cd) beam = 18.86 Part IV - Conclusion: The following design results have been determined by the preceding calculations: H=16ft s=8ft d=16.1ft beam = 18.86 bshaft = 2.5 ft D=17ft Z:\Standard-Calculations\Division 02- 8 of 9 Sitework\Cantilever FuIl.MCD 0 0 N. I 0 N M el N O t� OC P 0 N en N O C..^0 N0 N N N N N N N N N en enM1 ('1 O— N M Q N 10 N m 0 0 N M Q 01 (O I+ m 0' 0 N N N O 00 tr. 0 I• w a O— N M N N N N N M M M M 0— N M y vl 0 I.- 00 CO O— N t 0 N 0 0 .0 MI r O1 N N N N N N N N N (11 1'1 M Pressure Diagram Cr- Z:Standard-Calculations\Division 02- Cefali & Associates, Inc. 5/26/00 Consulting Structural Engineers This program solves for the required depth of embedment for a cantilever pile to satisfy static equilibrium. Variables H Excavation depth (ft) h Depth of surcharge loading from top of excavation (ft) S Pile spacing (ft) W Pile shaft width (ft) Pa Active pressure (pcf) Pp Passive pressure (pcf) Ps Traffic Surcharge pressure (psf) Q Line Load surcharge (plf) Qp Point Load surcharge (Ibs) step calculating step increment (in) dist distance from pile tip to line load surcharge (ft) dist2 distance from pile tip to point load surcharge (ft) L1 .. L2 Influence limits of point load on single pile (ft) Cd Temporary Stress Increase factor Fy Pile Yield strength (psi) Ce Pile embedment multiplication factor Adjusted passive pressure to account for active pressure C Pp - Pa C=I Pressure diagram dimensions: Pa-H a:=— C a=p Active pressure resultant: Surcharge pressure resultant: Pa•H2-S a F 1 := F3 := (Pa. W IT) • - F2 := Ps-h. S 2 2 Fl=r F3=1 F2=I Compute Line Load influence Define step increment and pressure diagram parameters H dist I:=O..— step H m = 3.3 ft zr step-1 Determine surcharge lateral loading Lateral force (Ibs) p:=H.Pp W + a•C•W p=r Lateral force multiplied by depth Lateral pressure (Ibs/ft per foot spacing) 1 Cantilever equations.MCD w-11 :- 'Oft r7{ Oft Z04) / \ 1z L.16+I - dz if m < .4 1At z 1.26•m2•I/— H dz otherwise Lm2 + (H)2] 2 Cefali & Associates, Inc. 5/26/00 Consulting Structural Engineers dz if m<.4 Oft .7t 26m2[(z)2 — H dz otherwise Oft Determine location of resultant surcharge force --measured from top of excavation (ft) IA Zt At Z H =I step Determine resultant lateral surcharge force --(Ibs/ft spacing) Pqt:=H-A/ F4:=Pq H•S step Determine point surcharge lateral loading Lateral force (Ibs) At:= '7{ 'Oft m :_ 2 F4=g dist2 H m=3.3ff pti m < •4 otherwise Lateral force multiplied by depth Lateral pressure (Ibs/ft per foot spacing) 28-I/— IZ\2 `H) dz if m < .4 \\ 11 L.16+(132J 1.77-m2.( z H dz otherwise 2 Lm2+.—`213 H Oft ,•21 — -Oft '.y -oft (z)3 H2 .28• 2 3 L.16+(H) dz if m<.4 z 3 1.77•m2- H2 - dz otherwise [m2 + \H/2.13 6Vj .28\H/ I/z\2 11 L 1G+ (H�0 z 1.77•m2• rm2 \ H/ 2J3 if m<.4 otherwise 2 Cantilever equations.MCD Cefali & Associates, Inc. 5/26/00 Consulting Structural Engineers Determine location of resultant footing surcharge force --measured from top of excavation (ft) 1A1 Zpi := A ZpH = a step Determine lateral pressures induced by point load surcharge. (psf) TM r / / \1 2 ah := cos -1.I.I atanl y J IJ� dY oh = r L ` \dist2 J L2 p2i :-- avt ah QP H Determine resultant lateral footing surcharge force --(Ibsfft spacing) PSI Qp • Ai H2 Total lateral force: F5 :, P step F5=. := ah-Psi Total Resultant Overturning force: Y Ra F1+F2+F3+F4+F5 Ra=t Distance from resultant overturning reaction (Ra) to the point of zero pressure. Determine variation in pressure laterally along bulkhead ❑:=LI..L2 max := max(cv)- QP H2 max = max B(n) cost 1.1.I atan(dis[2))]] max F2•IH-h+aI+FI-(+al+F3-2—as+rF4rH-ZH +a1+F5•rH-ZpH +a `\ 2 J \ 3 l/ 3 l J I\ Ra step step ' J —r Coefficients for the fourth order polynomial used to solve for the required depth of pile embedment. P Ra Ra 6•Ra-yp + 4-Ra2 Y3 Y2:= 8• Y1 := 6. •(2 y-C W + p) YO :- C.W.ft C W ft2 ft3 (C W)2 fta (C W)2 Y3-, Y2=1 Y1=Y1 YO=Y0 3 Cantilever equations.MCD I Cefali & Associates, Inc. 5/26/00 Consulting Structural Engineers Solve polynomial: f—Y0 —Y1 Y :_ —Y2 polyroots(Y) .1 Y3 1 Find depth from below "a" to point of zero shear: Ra l.5 do:=12•CWJ do=r Determine overturning force moment arm: di:=de+y di = Determine depth: D := 1.1.(polyroots(Y)•ft + a) D = d := D3,0'CE Depth of embedment: d=� Determine maximum design moment: do) M:=Ra- dt-- 3 M=, Required Section Modulus: Required Beam Size: Sx M .66.Fy.Cd Sx section :_ — in3 Sx = a in3 beam := diam := — ft I _ Worksheet section diam Cd) beam = . 4 Cantilever equations.MCD MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS COVERED AT THE 1996 WINTER TRAINING MEETINGS This memorandum will summarize some of the pertinent questions that were raised during the instruction of the 1996 Trenching and Shoring Class. It seemed appropriate that this information be included in the Trenching and Shoring Manual to ensure uniformity and to enhance what was presented at the training sessions. 1. Is the use of the `flagpole' method acceptable? Generally the flagpole method refers to an analysis procedure shown in the Uniform Building Code, Section 1806.7.2.1 ('94 UBC), Section 2907 ('91 UBC). Discussion with ICBO (International Conference of Building Officials) the publishers of the Uniform Building Code revealed that this method was incorporated into their code at the request of the outdoor advertising industry. The official implied that it would not prudent to use this method as an analysis tool for excavation type work. It is important that if the UBC method is chosen, that it be used consistently with the tables published with that method. The following chart shows a comparison of unfactored embedment depth between three methods of analysis for a soldier pile wall for both a 72 psf and 100 psf surcharge load. The three methods represented here are the following: •Uniform Building Code, Section 1806.7.2.1 ('94 UBC), Section 2907 ('91 UBC). •AASHTO method of analysis for temporary flexible cantilevered walls with discrete vertical wall elements. •Sheet pile analysis for soldier pile walls. The soil properties for this example are as follows: H = 8' y = 120 pcf 4 = 300 b = 1' round pile. TRENCHING AND SHORING MEMO 4 (07/96) H-4-1 CALIFORNIA TRENCHING AND SHORING MANUAL W z3 Surcharge = 72 psf H AASHTO UBC Sheet Pile 6 7.95 16.70 10.52 8 10.08 21.30 13.43 10 12.20 25.80 16.32 12 14.12 29.80 18.95 14 16.06 33.80 21.61 16 18.03 39.80 24.30 18 20.02 48.00 27.02 20 22.02 58.00 29.75 22 24.04 68.60 32.51 24 26.07 80.00 35.27 Surcharge = 100 pst H AASHTO UBC Sheet Pile 6 9.58 17.90 11.17 8 11.11 22.50 14.12 10 12.79 27.00 17.10 12 14.66 30.90 19.60 14 16.56 34.90 22.21 16 18.49 42.00 24.85 18 20.44 50.00 27.53 20 22.41 60.00 30.22 22 24.40 70.00 32.94 24 26.41 82.00 35.68 Embedment (ft) Compare Depth Requirements 80 00 60.00 40.00 20-00 0 00 C O W N Wall height(ft) -- -usc Sheet Pile AASHTO Compare Depth Requirements r too 00 80.00 E m E W 60.00 40.00 _ - zo.o0 000 co co Q N Wall Height (ft) UBC - - - Sheet Pile AASHTO As can be seen from the charts, the UBC method appears very conservative. If a designer chooses to use pressures other than those from the charts listed within the code, then the accuracy of using this method diminishes. 2. May an existing footing be used to increase the passive pressure? Existing footings may be used to increase the passive resistance on the embedment depth of soldier or sheet piles. To determine the amount of aid it may offer, several methods can be used to determine the amount of lateral pressure the footing applies to piles. Two of these methods are: TRENCHING AND SHORING MEMO 4 (07/96) H-4-2 CEFALI 3 ASSOCIATES,INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 CLENT PROJECT k(oA6 SHEET NO. b -Z4 JOB NO 61471.2 DATE 'S--2f -a?� DESIGNER SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. w>;s-r FsWQ I -tau . TTL16 M2to-11-1 -TO PILES ("Leo 5PF1ci.JG q l .. 4.4I < e- o I o!✓ L-A“ tN 6 117723 CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PROJECT Hogs &{os7. SHEET NO. 31 Joy R424-• CLIENT DESIGNER DATE I2- -get (818) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. Tt E- T3ACIc. 1304,14 tnc, n r•4 iz��zs'as s7Ixqyu Pu_E Z31 25 2G_ is 45-5 loz6. 4, 4 t'I 104 St- Wr4=3S 36 40 LII .37L 6G 14c`tS 445 444 1'f1- 7 - 16450 s' 1,330R r_ 0.5 T/Z 1` a = 0.3 61'1 1-1 =231 2 s S1-0u ei1'0u 2.6 & = 41-6 N 167)13 5/15/i)o Hoag Hospital Consulting Structural Engineers Job No., ggzql Cefali & Associates, Inc. Sheet No. a‘. 1 1. Design Summary This program solves for the shear and moment along the length of an anchored soldier pile. Reference:Z:/Standard-Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Units.mcd(R) 2. Design Criteria 2.1 bshaft CD Fy fcoeff (soil/pile ftie bond H ho n Ps Qp Variables Pile shaft diameter (ft) Temporary stress increase factor Pile yield strength (ksi) Coefficient of friction soil/pile Skin friction soil/pile (psf) Tieback bond strength (psf) Pile height (ft) Uniform surcharge depth (ft) Number of anchors Uniform surcharge pressure (psf) Point Load surcharge (Ibs) PLAN qL Footing surcharge (Ibs/ft) s Pile spacing (ft) step Calc. intervals Tieindination Tieback angle (degrees) w Active pressure (pcf) wp passive pressure (pcf) wpo Initial passive pressure (psf) yi _. y2 Influence limits of point load surcharge on pile (ft) YL Horizontal dist. to qE (ft) Yp Horizontal dist. to Qp (ft) X Active trapezoidal pressure distribution coefficient POINT LOAD LINE LOAD UNIFORM S'LRCHARCE SURCHARGE SURCHARGE PRESSURE (op) PRESSURE (c`) PRESSURE (p) 2.2 Configuration H := 28ft bshaft : 2ft s := 8ft Tieinclinabon = 20 rt 1 ps:= 100psf hn:= loft qL:=0pif yL:=15ft step:=6in Qp:=0kip yp:-4ft y1:=-4ft y2:=4ft 2.3 Loads 2.3.1 Soil Parameters w := 22pcf wp:= 600pcf wPo:= 0psf := .2 fcoetT= 0.4 2.4 Material Specifications and Code Requirements fsoilpilc 400psf ftiebond = 500psf CD := 1.0 Fy := 36ksi Z:11999 Projects\Misc\992971Calculations\May Revisiorls\H =28 feet.mcd 5/15/00 Cefali & Associates, Inc. Sheet No. 31• 1 Hoag Hospital Consulting Structural Engineers Job No. 9rt&9R 2.5 Analysis Define restraint reactions Ra:=105kip a:-10.0ft diama:=l6in Rc:=Okip c:=Oft diame Din Rb := 0kip b := Oft diamb := Oin Rd :- Okip d ;=11ft diamd := 16in Q+ Reference:Z:/Standard-Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Tieback equations.mcd(R) Estimate restraint magnitude (kips) R1 = 101 kip a v Shear Diagram a 10 20 30-2 -1 0 1 Shear (kips) 3. Results Determine Beam Size: 2 Max moments (kip-ft) Mpos = 210 ft•k Maeg = 174.173 ft-k 0 Passive earth resistance Re = 13 kip Momentsungrade = "OK" Design moment: M = 210 &kip Reference:Z:/Standard-Calculations\Division 02-Sitework\Subroutines\Section selector.mcd(R) Sx = 106 in3 beam = ?" VJ t $ A 60 Determine Pile Embedment: Required embedment due downtht = 0 kip Required embedment due Re = 13.4 kip to vertical tieback loads: to lateral loads (Re): 0 10 Moment Diagram 20 3010 -5 0 5 0 Momen (kip-ft) Dtie=oft Tieback Loads:(kips) Bonded Lengths: (ft) Tieback: Ta=l12kip La=53ft Arow: Tb = 0 kip Lb =Oft B row: Tc = 0 kip Lc = 0 ft C row: Td = 0 kip Ld = 0 ft D row: J DIat=4.7ft D=4.7ft Z:\1999 Projects\Mist\99297\Calculations\May RevisioRs\H =28 feet.mcd Elevator Pit CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 PROJECT rl0/AA 14osf(tA`' SHEET NO 37- JDB ND 1129�} DATE I2-4-zo-'4% CLENT PC - DESIGNER SIGNATURE IS VAUD ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. 167723 CEFALI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (818) 752-1812 • FAX (818) 752-1819 PROJECT F-towb Ho . CLIENT DESIGNER SHEET NO. •33 JOB NO 4c Z -1- DATE IZ-70-9`I SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINT. A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. EL€iset rag, Ftr co Nit cozo%rZ- tssAca /nu% `(1b1(i(j a IOO' It 01(4 sry PIPE /;l . ttzxtzr34ff„ r4- 14t ..- 'STR�1T� �� Lo^xto"��igl, Vic,- o.6ett')+0.4(-' - ��}I •Ls 1 { s 6�k5vg� a 4 3w• CF. 1, t0"ToTRL *PIP bit Tense— L 1-1 i.F LLV 5P Me ea & coMN 167723 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 926D8-8915 UILDING DEPARTMENT - PLAN CHECK REPORT Project Address: I NOA& 17 - Plan Check No.: 12g0-2000 Plan Check Engineer: '1'& U E. F Phone: 949 - (n 44-3Z76 Applicant to indicate in column at right where the correction was made on the plans. Date: Correction Location on Plans 0 or A — pi 0 AcTr- PFKM IT (mat pAaT o p Tttr- ?moo KJ tut- c.TP.Jr T. C3L,D&. pt=R..M IT) A u a P't i t c F 12A--r t=' 12 t_ of- p t= rLM 1 Ap pi-1 C..4Znn3 . P IEC.T a,DPPrSS SHALL IRE SpFC1FIC-0 CIA‘ ie- c-.1trt <T oP De_a.L.J1n3C,<. <otL - 1:7421 Si-tPttl SE t.J 1 STA-NIPe p - s1,t &It= D L ( -14E ll_tr eN 3St=r> kE i4.in1Ctz a. (Set', StJ&R•\ �fLtr.11 17�&L1tnl{-. t c A-tr SNAR T t-t t— t 1 r- ni c r D t— N\r i N F' F (e_ . tL_ CnSt.it3rFa 'NA( 1 12CY(c t.,1 A,r.10 6 - a.ppain .ern atHo► 1&De--- Of A [Al i J!, p n 6::. -_,\Jet24t eof1/45 oiehi/4.riLe ¶o pcR ar gbtt t2tFie, leT. n 1 l- E d, 1 nS - 2 S N A II t2 F c_r) *q trt F (7 rn F PrS 1..t- 12.-G S e_t~ C2 v i 2e 17 Tp t 0 p r- I- ski . -T.H151-T njo r v(nll i_ L1 Al)ve 1.iiAir t<lu-s el, II nrrti l t,d'!-t&rd pp Lt&JG Fore sca_pLFQ til 0 ptLr=S s't. Tic= - I r� A_toc t-[eag.s vr41�Y CV th � aF r in rim 'FA Tr( ccoal u' M Ttil sT2Qr -( -C.- &t Sr=G12t1n.11 $-tiir_ N ��g M 1-(-rt_ p aE t c='9 S �{ r- T rdr2 n�o2c qw L) t' 4 �19.12P T 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 UILDING DEPARTMENT - PLAN CHECK REPORT Project Address: I 1-tcs P12-1 V e Date: Plan Check No.: Plan Check Engineer: Phone: 1.49- 4,44 3278 Applicant to indicate in column at rieht where the correction was made on the plans. N Correction Location. on Plans 5ott. EN65o *HMI THAT sal Vie R. u.as ceor0 »e'ao eD TKt O e a M •$ MICA tr.! r !F'( WI-+r.raF pc> NIT op p1XtT-t ,S- 4ti2uc"f. L�n1<,2 AHAII \J 5 p-f T)-L4 'd „ 1 N D► r ATF D et Q c‘ r-1 r- F i 44_002 OF O9F-14ir5 Is -ir-t-L Mrr.9 1- M r3 e p rdl.a-r LE P3 e T R 1 rN Po�a� o� }=>xSTi peNDING p.PPeov#t. of MOO IpLc.a-tits es) So11 c1.5G1r.See2 A1-tfl-Il spez_iFY A Nt©4,54TnP raSC p2eA.2AM rnR- Al! l Ati1Tl.r-va GJnI�(71L CL pl�� _ Mr)KtITr6(&Isir' pre to AM e-1-fArll rt3r -0 l c Fri 11 oi..S I rJ r; —a) 'How opTaJ Tke Sl-toPr Kic, pel F^1�1 C-=S 'To F SIIt2.vc—Yc= ram b) Mft-K Al l _ntA3APNI F tc5Fh1T St Fat€ .STt'L�]r`(vt2A-_ Frn11NeFr2 st r.17Y eN NJ po2.-j ac=a.c ►--( i-er--- �r=Quip c�O To 2,c-- ,J/ TIFlr�p 1?�rn�pi4( 51-I c� r21 lJ / I s P Rn i tic - Fp s r a S t rJ o TF T 1 t A--( 'Sn L PFc_roMMPA--(vjeJ sHAll (?e pA-(27 o -Y a= c T Q He 7 o 2-fa- I.i l n 1 cos STPCir:(11Qz.A-L- r=r-\e 1rJet- sRMt cArlro1ATF Nt R )1 p >~ F_ CT in r.1 cD <. i4 KS T , l_IR 1LC 12-F 0 4r51 D(EP- &SOTi I r-tR-T Enl_ LLML,illSttA-U 1 rlc 2e THE pi M -ta- tactON! F2or-4 Sir (aA-DE TO Po)IJT r71= F LADING pppevAt F M•pIFKA7wN P�-�RSC Spa A-TTPrc rtell sHGE-T Fog_ Mot c-t'r22, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Project Address: Plan Check No: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 UILDING DEPARTMENT - PLAN CHECK REPORT N oA iy DQ-I'4 Date: Plan Check Engineer: 'Co v SE F Phone: q 49 — 6044--\27S Applicant to indicate in column at right where the correction was made on the plans. • Correction Location on Plans nni. u AL zt , I nlaR [2 sH A-1( yr W r( 1(:\ 1 4.,4- S�g_ucT r1A X . Ol=-_F l-1= s ` k ah aF L-Dt r 0 pQR otL a F MoQsplC t4 Tt-t f-I L E S 1 C La= LaS -Tr( t}r, •T(-f c_ /b It el I.J A-t3t t= pI 1 spe IFP INS Sdt_- r2t=pig:T. 1,_4114 bflawa tMI DEEIec2Tinnl SMAII - E SPEG.I Flea ski soli- QeppX-1) 0MAx S L 1..F mrS p l pl-iN T R A4 A-L I 1= I el f-) p r Itit itp SH AU r3c- pe_42-Fa2 Mtrap k .7 NQre-9 ron1TinklebiJS TIN\SpI�( tine' cif r2 cs ISTF12Rp pE pv7i iy,1S17i c-fort,c, 4p8r ( o r pt # 7H A--t A-R rx_ pc-rt \ T nS S aC= c_- C V (2--S '.rf a l l 1'a•)7____LZI; ra t S^(e� R-e 2 /6,pp12o✓cry R -( ( (T-Ir ,R, I_ Ki ->l pei a vapA4Fi T-A1 rni=TI-top "F `TF--STI1/414:. of 5 Ar -CF2- 2oo'la To: Si LOAD 1S (r1.1ryt04? 11'n r"Mp( ( 14/ SrRt.. r71 pc)21 Ap nJ D A-t (ev 9 (3a NI I rJ if'Il T�S1 r?t=O.)\Q-�Q) 1.5 1v►, / (P Ai Ll S a•-t o L 1 1-to t.S L r l �rF v p pn C(d r.l / r 14 I.l F (n t2_ I S p (I o '(c : c ct 0 A-U A-(n Sl nl (L "1= ei Are -FA &12o•1tt1p .--l--v. p(T-) IS TAI-R„i -1') -r1-t'e Bc Ito r-A of a e\LA-tot? p I . r Sold 1E12_ pit -..:, -THA-1 PAO F non-( Pr-C IPe i) Per, tickkViLL. ever? de 21P NIA-7 J2 �i1pn TI-_ 13fc t ,a-ntr.No2- • pI,�A-S( (_IA-Z4plc • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach ? A frtl c-t-1 U 0 ep -t►'a2 frt (?-' C31242 CTlids CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 UILDING DEPARTMENT - PLAN CHECK REPORT D ate: -ro J s F Phone: a42,= 4A-32-78 Project Address: Hoftr Plan Check No.:Plan Check Engineer: Applicant to indicate in column at right where the correction was made on the plans. SoL-.f71� Correction Location on Plans _ F 2tl.(i De ``r ✓ 1 P LEA- P PR -G.10 E A-D O CTION 41_ c, Al cs, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach �oR(Lc�"t1�� n 1 rc kl S� s G PcTTPrc-k-iCO S RC en -FOR- M e LAW LAWGIBB Group Member June 12, 2000 Mr. James Easley Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive, Suite 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Addendum to Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Parking Structure Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Newport Beach, California Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0003 Dear Mr. Easley: RECEIVED JUN 1 3 2000 TAYLOR & ASSOC. ARCHITECTS In response to a request from Mr. Yousef Babar of the City of Newport Beach, this letter provides supplemental shoring recommendations for the proposed parking structure at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian. We provided geotechnical recommendations for the project in a report dated September 10, 1999 (Our Project No. 70131-9-0330.0002). The supplemental recommendations presented herein were previously submitted as part of our responses to plan check comments from Mr. Babar on the December 21, 1999 excavation shoring plans prepared by Cefali & Associates, Inc, the shoring engineer. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. Supplemental Shoring Recommendations Measures to Reduce Caving During Soldier Pile Installation (if necessary) Although caving did not occur during the drilling of our 18-inch-diameter bucket auger borings at the project site, measures to reduce caving, such as reducing the speed of the drill rig and injecting pile locations with water, may be required if severe caving is observed. Precautions, such as using sufficiently large diameter holes and vibrating the concrete during placement, may be taken to prevent the presence of voids in the concrete backfill around the steel H piles for soldier piles. Law/Crandall, A. Division of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc, 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 323-889-5300 • Fax 323-721-6700 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Addendum to Geotechnical Report June 12, 2000 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0003 Point of Fixity The point of fixity or point of zero shear varies with the height of shoring and is determined by the shoring engineer in his analysis. The point of fixity is clearly indicated on the shoring calculations prepared by the shoring engineer. The"`d" shown in Sheet SS002 of the shoring drawings is the embedment depth below the bottom of excavation. Passive pressures may be assumed to be developed through the full depth of embedment. Monitoring Program of Soldier Piles As stated in the shoring plans prepared by the shoring engineer, all shoring piles shall be surveyed weekly for line and grade. Any 1-inch movement shall be analyzed by Law/Crandall and data promptly submitted to Cefali & Associates and the Building Department of the City of Newport Beach. Any 2-inch movement shall be cause for remedial shoring to prevent additional movement prior to further construction. After a 3-week period with total movement of less than 1/2 inch, shoring piles may be surveyed monthly thereafter. Allowable Deflection of Soldier Piles The allowable deflection is a structural issue addressed by the structural engineer. In our opinion, the maximum allowable deflection of 1 inch selected by the structural engineer is appropriate. Cantilevered Shoring Greater than 15 feet in Height Cantilevered shoring may be used for excavation depths greater than 15 feet. Our recommendation of using braced or tied -back shoring for heights greater than 15 feet is based on general economic considerations, because cantilevered shoring often becomes progressively economically inefficient for excavation depths greater than 15 feet. Allowable Tie -back Anchor Inclination Based on our discussions with Cefali & Associates, existing utilities and other right-of-way constraints limit the allowable inclination of some tie -back anchors to 10 degrees below horizontal. The 10-degree inclination does not require any changes in our recommendations. Because all anchors will be either performance or proof -tested, in our opinion, a tie -back inclination of 10 degrees below horizontal is acceptable. 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Addendum to Geotechnical Report Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0003 Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter. Please bind of our report. Sincerely, LAW/CRANDALL A DIVISION OF LAW ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Carl C. Kim Senior Engineer Project Manager G: I Enggeo',99-prof 190330-03190 (2 copies submitted) Kick cc: (2) Taylor & Associates, Architects Attn: Mr. Mick Cunningham (1) Cefali & Associates Attn: Mr. David Cefali Perry A. Malji Senior Vice P esident June 12, 2000 his letter to the front 3 LAW LAWGIBB Group Member` RECEIVED MAY 3 0 2000 TAYLOR & ASSOC. ARCHITECTS May 26, 2000 Mr. James Easley Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive, Suite 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Responses to Shoring Plan Check Report by the City of Newport Beach Proposed Parking Structure Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Newport Beach, California Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0003 Dear Mr. Easley: In this letter, we provide our responses to plan check comments from the City of Newport Beach (the City) on the December 21, 1999 excavation shoring plans prepared by Cefali & Associates, Inc. for the proposed parking structure at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian. We provided geotechnical recommendations for the project in a report dated September 10, 1999 (Our Project No. 70131-9-0330.0002). The plan check comments are attached for your reference. Prior to finalizing, we have discussed our responses with Mr. Yousef Barar of the City on May 25, 2000. Our responses to comments pertaining to geotechnical issues are presented below. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. Comment No. 3A: Soil report shall be wet stamped and signed by the licensed engineer (soil engineer). Response A wet stamped and signed copy is enclosed in the package sent to Mr. Mick Cunningham of Taylor & Associates, Architects. Law/Crandall. A Division of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 323-885-5300 • Fax 323-721-6700 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Responses to Shoring Plan fleck Report May 26, 2000 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0003 Comment No. SA: Soil engineer shall review and approve shoring drawing for general conformance to recommendations of soil report. Response We have reviewed the revised shoring plans for general conformance with the recommendations provided in our geotechnical report. A set of plans documenting our review for general conformance with our recommendations will be submitted under separate cover. Comment No. 6A: Soil engineer shall recommend measures required to insure that no caving & sloughing will occur when drilling for soldier piles & tie -back anchors. Verb that soil engineer's recommendation match structural engineering drawing submitted. Response Although caving did not occur during the drilling of our 18-inch-diameter bucket auger borings at the project site, measures to reduce caving, such as reducing the speed of the drill rig and injecting pile locations with water, may be required if severe caving is observed. Precautions, such as using sufficiently large diameter holes and vibrating the concrete during placement, may be taken to prevent the presence of voids in the concrete backfill around the steel H piles for soldier piles. Comment No. 7A: Soil engineer shall specify where point of fixity is. Structural engineer shall verify that "d" indicated on Sheet SS002 of drawing is the minimum embedment length required below point of fixity. Response The point of fixity or point of zero shear varies with the height of shoring. The "d" shown in Sheet SS002 is the embedment depth below the bottom of excavation. Passive pressures may be assumed to be developed through the full depth of embedment. 2 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Responses to Shoring Plan Check Report May 26. 2000 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0003 Comment No. 8A: Soil engineer shall specify a monitoring program for all cantilevered soldier piles. Monitoring program shall include the following: a) how often the shoring piles are required to be surveyed, b) maximum allowable movement before structural engineer & City of Newport Beach are required to be notified & remedial shoring is provided. Please note that the soil engineer's recommendations shall be part of the structural drawings. Response All shoring piles shall be surveyed weekly for line and grade. Any 1-inch movement shall be analyzed by Law/Crandall and data promptly submitted to Cefali & Associates and the Building Department of the City of Newport Beach. Any 2-inch movement shall be cause for remedial shoring to prevent additional movement prior to further construction. After a 3-week period with total movement of less than % inch, shoring piles may be surveyed monthly thereafter. Comment No. 9B Structural engineer shall verify that maximum deflection of soldier piles is less than the allowable limits specified in soil report. (The maximum allowable defection shall be specified in soil report) Response The allowable deflection is a structural issue addressed by the structural engineer. In our opinion, the maximum allowable deflection of 1 inch selected by the structural engineer is appropriate. Comment No. 16A: Soil report requires tie -back anchors for heights of shoring greater than 15 feet. However, soldier pile schedule includes soldier pile 22 (H=16 ). Response Cantilevered shoring may be used for excavation depths greater than 15 feet. Our recommendation of using braced or tied -back shoring for heights greater than 15 feet is based on general economic considerations, because cantilevered shoring often becomes progressively economically inefficient for excavation depths greater than 15 feet. 3 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian —Responses to Shoring Plan Check Report May 26, 2000 Law/Crandall Project 70131-9-0330.0003 Comment No. 20A: Soil report requires tie -back anchors to be installed @ angles of 15 to 40 degrees below horizontal. However, soldier pile schedule includes tie back anchors @ 10 degrees below horizontal (please provide revised calculation or soil report). Response Based on our discussions with Cefali & Associates, existing utilities and other right-of-way constraints limit the allowable inclination of some tie -back anchors to 10 degrees below horizontal. The 10-degree inclination does not require any changes in our recommendations. Because all anchors will be either performance or proof -tested, in our opinion, a tie -back inclination of 10 degrees below horizontal is acceptable. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter. Please bind this letter to the front of our report. Sincerely, LAW/CRANDALL A DIVISION OF LAW ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Carl C. Kim Senior Engineer Project Manager PpFESSi0 C. jlF2 NO. G58046 D(pt_1� J/ G:IEnggen199-prof 190330-0 oc/CKck (2 copies submitted) Marshall Lew, Ph.D. Corporate Consultant Vice President Enclosure: Shoring Plan Check Report from the City of Newport Beach cc: {<9 out1 \ l w No.522 ccExp 3-31-03 rri � rlrCH �rCaC s' �F` OF CAL',: (2) Taylor & Associates, Architects Attn: Mr. Mick Cunningham (With Additional Enclosure: Wet Stamped and Signed Law/Crandall Report) Cefali & Associates Attn: Mr. David Cefali 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 UILDING DEPARTMENT - PLAN CHECK REPORT Project Address: I 4-loAA- 17aIV tr Date: Plan Check No.: 12.10 2060 Plan Check Engineer: Y, tI S E. P Phone: 94-ct - (a 44.-32.7/B Applicant to indicate in column at right where the$orrrecti was made on the plans. No. Correction Location on Plans I A- ZA 3A• AA 5A ZPA• -f� r-t F72fL-A 2 Y S Ho 2 i ra !-, SJi.41 t g.F p A 17-1 or A •s • p Ja ATr- pP -MiT (nnT pAlaT eLp Tttr_ po.rLtc. t U rZ-uc_T_ aLDA.. pee -rsI nT) ' u a T-4 IT 1e p F 12A.Tr- tat of . pc l Ap FLI r_Prt1t a . FaC Tyr T arpp9 r-Ss SH,4t 1 t.E Al2FCIplea op.\ tc SHc--at ap- D2.a.I.Jtn,c-,c, -Sott 2 p©g4 SitPt- t tS E Le I sTA-I-1pe 1T 4 - l l N (7 Cam'( - C LI r r n1 S''= t7 rrJSIn.St�1 IZ . (Sett- eMGR mikin fL1CA-trs. �NAll 6t= '- T ETA-r-4.p o ' L st c,i\ ep 9-,*-.( Tt-tt- I tr eN1SrrID f3rs1t;.1Ft .12._. tl_ t= n5Gu3t='>=2.. i-fAl I 12.CY1 t1/41 ,44.10 a.pPR-n✓e tHo&IOft- 0rAtA11NJr_ pate -___Ni F 12 to C ©ns ICJ tZT----I A. r t e F To t R etc; a ntL a-r�ptz.T. 4o1L. E fti 1 Ft=rL SHAII t2_-coMrttrnip NI A-Sts2GS aGLR cJ 12e17 Tn- I Sop.= T8A-T r'ja revtnle- s'_ S1 mac)/ 4.1n1r; LJtt_c J i /5rr rl 2 i-& = nl OP I I I nlr Fat 401 piF' p1L r S srr, Tt_�-13,grg_ A. NIryt/rie.s visgI? TR!r-r e,t5 I1 nt(-Iyt=t-=2's 2Frm-AmCj.1Pifncn1 t-'lfTc t- ST ��r.T Fnl€tt\><t tZl�r ot.dl.t�r�— zSM1T7t-0 K 4 srm--r- A--[-C4C_.t-tc zp s ±t T ro2 (\In/est= f'—P•POEG'rtom) S 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - P.O. SOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 UILDING DEPARTMENT - PLAN CHECK REPORT Project Address: 1 1-toP21 V e Plan Check No.: Plan Check Engineer: T0t1 SE F Phone: `.41-1- 044 327. Applicant to indicate in column at rizht where the correction was made on the plans. Date: No. Correction. Location on Plans -7A-• A. yn 1 L r IS re. tNN1 11,_ LFkl-ll asp r !pi Li kicafaE pOtr\IT inp F1YtTY IS S"rt2uCT- p,J( 2 Sh{ALI V r O l F "( 'I >• -' --r 'd „ I,i P ► P AT ' S N c= a7 _ i 6401,2- °F D-P P- 4►NLc. tS TI-titset lr\7 t' M r a p F a n1"r LE ni C T N 2-cR 9 I= C) 13 1 n1.4 Po EDP F—vg-C t l,dt j .gp (-°n. eo tl Gb1_GLill 2. A PtA-It spe.-' F•••( A- _ 1-e i e (MP n a i Kt ra Pao t. tZ A t'_t F' - A I( r A-r.1Tl l-cr-AiE soL-rt (2-- plL c Mr)..1tTri21rJr pr&r),og Ate e---fr#41I IAjr kUpc= "p-N E C 11 0lei I n1(l. ct) -kcii I.1 7Et St-Foal,Ux:-, pit =S `f'o p.p_i= 12-0 t\ 1 rzr n r3--. SUr2./c—Yr= I b) M A-1 Al L_nt..lARI F r-,toVc= m e toVf stc ja 2C STr7LIE -(,_.1t2 L.—nIeSINt;et2 4r ri7y of n1 C 1.41 po r21 Sr=A_c H P F ,Prgt i _1� O To r2,c suer(IFti—p p,^MtirptA•t - 4 -4-c r2 l tit / t S par./ID-EC,- PLrA-sa' 3oTr Tt-tA-1 COIL. Pp1c_.rz P F r pi IM I'''l t= 1\-sD_1--(lp nJ S H l-ll ece-- pA-p 7 e) r T1--1 r S T (7 J c 7- 'O p p,-1•.,1 l n 1 Cc S °lA STfizle_21012_A-L. rnlet, SI-tA-ll e_.M-lr()vac 1n1cnCg_ sit _ per1 cJTtetn1 OF <.00,k1-T1l__.tn-VGR--O NE---- plt-A-sc ndoTt= 7ro efrT cL. CALL-r'tR(2- t—Ntfo' i sHM( t4ettipe. rt-1r7IMta_h1SJgn1 F. Ito ,-4 Sty RLcP I -DE Td P° Ind T (Or F"-"( At Pt--RSa San A -TT -crtco SHEET Fog Mom 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92688-8915 UILDING DEPARTMENT - PLAN CHECK REPORT Project Address: I N OA Ct De -IV F_ Date: Plan Check No.: Plan Check Engineer: `fvv SE F Phone: 9 41-Co44-3278 Applicant to indicate in column at right where the correction was made on the plans. No. Correction Location on Plans `I 6 . 1 o A. 11A. 12/4. 134 S iaZu c7 0 (a A L . n4 u.1 a_s(2 s H A-11 ve i2_, F'( TttPT t Y- • Ot Fts= C'jton] enr- �L-ott=2 et t_� c 1c-, L= caS lr(pared •Trt A- Itat.J A -all-- t-(''111S spaC-IFIo 1i1 C. (it l_ rZ.ep rL.T. lee..• 5HAI1 P. a SPEGIFIEO IA1 SeiLQLLbC.T) 5 p'+ CIF-1 m rJ r n prr. T R A_`( A -I I F I 1 n 14rt P IrJ 4, s�N All ric- pc-Faa r+.11z0 Li NJn--9 c p.5 LIAIt1aUS T NI S pe C(( P111/4.1 c^r (Jr—Cm1STEMRP pc—pIJT-( IA_ Sp(.-•cIor? s. Spr-rtF-I oni plA-t rh1#1 aR rat pc,7-I` T-,\I 5P' I= L`CO2-C, SI-La 11 P V fL� /a,--it=racz 0 4 "..ppl2o✓c0 r3-( r (T-( -' ns�)o.l prig IF I• t- ft L t-I . V Gp t e-( Tf-t A i M i= T F-t o " lx T ST I rJ Ca a F p Pro)Chtorz 5 #FTFv 2ee))14, TcS7 1eA-q 1S tt_n ramp( -I Srtc aLpoe--1 .L.I/ Per-t: � cM r & D A-T (ot,j • (3^ M t r IL Tt .3 Tr5"i tt oea„,11n-�0) /1FA.g.11 SH4t_1 1-k 61s.1 SLr-r€vEp pnp?ian1 F A -tot Nnt2S 15 pQo Tc c -rt. p A-&A-ln1S7 er-,rt 0_23SlOK3. 1 cf.,4. .(S 21 F Y -I14 A-? M I' 1. P F p-r 1--( S N c9 i., o f (p. THE. prep Aorniki) t=i_ v. p(T) IS TAK_e,.r Tn -1-1-1S e-,aTtro nF OlrNA--toU pI-f . IS4. So i_ Di 2_ SG.I-1F.p1/411it: tzi P<_t_� In1c1,1r-1 < rPPTAtn7 l.oL.L7 t1Ea- Ptl Es TI-(A-( A-121= ntnl s.-z5pi=c(Ftt=12 AS /A•t.1 Tit F V 1? 4 PIP kyr, 9-__,t121 I l Pe, 11 rr ISA-c rc-tJC.Ho 2 • P I,, PrSt= (A A-21 -'f . 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 7 fr `t A•C -t a 0 s H. Iro2 0 tC (2- t_.cD122L cc c9 DV S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9268-8915 UILDING DEPARTMENT - PLAN CHECK REPORT Project Address: t I-ioA&. Dlz I ve Date: Plan Check No.: Plan Check Engineer: id 0 5 E F Phone: `t44(-6,44 -7C? 7 Applicant to inchoate in column at ritht where the correction was made on the plans. No. Correction Location on Plans 140A. 114. ISA lath 2e4k . S en 1 i. a pain -( a-t Rti t 12 c= S T v_ 8 A.r t. - /irtlt ring S Fr!_'2 14t=1! F-(tS aF Sr( nO.IKiC-, &12eATr12 TH Pr n1 "[HA -ram\ IS paeT. iltAltt 6ol-0.1=P 7t1_t= 'r.F-(rpi1lr- T n1G1...&iD e---.e, SoLOlef-lZ pi1.F 72 (N- lCo' ) AaLp1R plt_r S12t Tic 51-AF7 r't"J , TIP - 1.2 -Pre lc-- At-n\r rt012- QFe-lC tit 1...642) -rcC"( I pA-n ( p ILF; I, 7 7/SS O° es "9c 1 11R- D. to %) H A -IL tt r A -1 2S . P I2 0 V 1 D p MI o1 13P 'F S1r17--A ,JnS F-n1 A-.11 Tle- BAGV- A-t' toP S SriA-U Be SPer c1(=1E-p (7 F) ptl_E tk10 21 @ 2-/sszot ) f:2o\I I.Oe C.-A-lr-e1LA`rhatil r,(? ptLa &. c p t -To 31 `.Q rtfrlr H Ackt pttt e f724'/If7FL7, C91 E r'oTr T+*A-T 1"K\-Fn T NLlr Mac= D 0 NI Sr 1--tE I1 ova pn 1Jo-( MPrTr H r PAX S p l2A J 1 C) e D) C'G^1 L_ t2-f pm 2T tz-o 1 1 ge c, T F_ - P PrC Jc--- sl c_t-k P-S Tc S t= T ►�I' S TA -II t= 2 fez ‘ 1= 5 ,,Lay �F 15o To 4- RJR t aLi Ho e_vaeord Tori I-ttvAl eva2. t..tot .c,t-2-__. piLt= SctitrDvle. Inter c_I De' S Tie". 13A-C$. Pen1rF4aP la 1nt e I.bvi I-{o21?oN-TM LPLCi- PRe" 1C'e . - iLFVIsCsn ce Mr_cnA:Ttnr.� a> 9. can Li PEp^PT Z l tt • TIC -)3A.c (L AE 1.1 c _Ha e- (A- r t 1 t istfr n v.5 .A- 12. e*se ® 49113 Tt >r I3 A• c, K- a i e. l Ut - c 1-t o dl e Nita- ;2_ se...kier>oun rx1r.L Li Des 0_ °4.1/. _ _I--RA-r!cc P Le A -Sr Pi2oJ l) E A-D DI Tram A.t . [SA __, As 2P4 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach h c G PcTT/rc-k O -hie al- Fe) (z .►.'lore-e coR ee CI t o ►,* CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 926D8-8915 UILDING DEPARTMENT - PLAN CHECK REPORT Project Address: 1 }}oA6- b-1Ve Date: Plan Check No.: Plan Check Engineer: Ydt) S S F Phone: 9dq _4°44-32,7� Applicant to indicate in column at right where the correction was made on the plans. No. Correction 22-A l 1kEL!L RR-OTAT1nr`1 puC Trn g it LcAO A pptLe -co •r;i1-ptr—jz p L�-ems p%Ic r_Kole s) 2-3A 24A r 3e 1twit ?_ o[,Lc= 2Yh7i ati1 Fop t I s foirTor\ of c ,JTt l r_ VEC,c!-1-) S A-c-, Lt F ,L Pt- -r1 E` BPS LIL A - Hop 5 P r=cRui p T= n St-1 it it\\ct'fl- ,oaf 1=orNitilss AI"(p,S4 pc, fa T-t= se ta-Fatzr� { US rs -C-tPt St-1A-t4 (jc= PA -(at ac Tl to 1,141 A( FCRO\I t PE tip, . 19A a A- LC.-0L14 t3LPr, SFF1r LA-1 _ ,4PPQaVAI.L ZrFA. S per-1 p pt br.S Tt-e,4-7( " Tc D s Tetz-LA-4_ st icctD n5oT etc,- �Tn� e pit 4 r� STD ` vipr�lt~ST HntJlf7 r\1WT se L lJtTHips xcAV,4-CcP A p Efl art* StIASt [t l 10112tT 3 r--c-s-p©n1,es T6 ;PI=.GTIoNS. Location on Plans 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PC. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 'GILDING DEPARTMENT - PLAN CHECK REPORT Project Address: 1 r-IoAt. 174ty Date: Plan Check No.: I2'10_2000 Plan Check Engineer: 1'A 11 ‘ E F Phone: 94.9 - Co 44-327$ Applicant to indicate in column at rieht where therictr(Witiii was made on the plans. No Correction Location on Plans IA. ZA 3A. AA • A -rat-tp„c.is. 2`-r SHo,..tnao, SH&I I ra,F PAerr or A .s. pw 0 Ajitr- pr=r2..rluT Cunt pA aT r,.R TRr- ppi.o g..l.eir- - TRJ, T. eL.DS pc:--- tT) SU Ssu—r Sr-'tC.L2 A -Tr_ Iai or pr- 2MI { . Ap L-1 c _A ._b3 . p SGr T _A-ppl7 r=ss < H41 1 I_PE 4pFc_'peo ord tSj cmHCaT Op 172AI.,SINC,S oul 2 ..._Fa c 7 Sail. II t3E 1..J i STA-MFie O lr n5 = r7 Ltz -f Th L_I r 1 rr.l Sr- D FJ61n1 C1 la, _ (Sot L. akl&R •\ SHe 1 n1 l> r7p_,44.1 r n1 r. 4.. cAk.I r c, S1•-1A11 6`= L, T -.T -r- tp p 1_ st.rkic17 cS-1 TI-ts'- l 1r eNCSr=D t— n\r-.teJ�'%(2_. —1L_ -- r3G-11•.\ etn.a Nal IZsVi_t.i _I ,430 4.pJ Pain 5Hoe_jnD€_. 0e A.laljnJr, pne N 12Art CON-5 R" 0 O._ r--1 A. /.. )1 G -re, t 't err- g n Li_ ►' -ram Po r2.T . CGA. yoil_ E.A1/41r,1ki t=e__ SHAIi 12t=conet MFNIC tsw A-SI..I 2-G S t? rC2 0 12l7 Tn 1 id sup .Cl: 714A.T ►`jd r,4.vIr.3r., 5j. S1 Ur t,.11nl 4JLt L ear d r' F-te i c Imo! n) pp t L. tnfr pn2 Se)l_p1FP pit es s. fl . K A.n1l 1-vas \lrgt'Prf k-tA--( A. 4it . NI ("-% 1 1.1 Cr t-= 2'c firmM 1t lon7 ,dpA rdj+Tc.t-t e-T ter_-( Ildl tSt21h1e, n9ft-t.Vr, Cog t-411-1= (D - -1E * e-rsrr- A-ttAL-Hc=v S pi Fart N'1a12er. r_...09 •P cGT10 n7 c, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 UILDING DEPARTMENT - PLAN CHECK REPORT Project Address: 1 Reit r; P 12-I Y e Plan Check No.: Date: Plan Check Engineer: Tou SE- F Phone: 9.49. 4.44 3278 Applicant to indicate in column at rieht where the correction was made on the plans. No. Correction Location on Plans -7,a.. a en , I n1Z. ►n1 r2 A-R .e--,,pr l l=Y LJ E-faraF po 1 n1 T e!)_r F LK , -N. is . s'T t2 u CT. r.. n 1 c-, rz. s All N./Fr71F. ( THAT •d„ ,nSDLI-ATE'o oAi <Rr's1 4sna2 _ez-.F aciLwiocs, 4S Then.--- ruNj. 1ti13Ept a.1-r LE n1L TH 2-Fail1¢I=c) ra 1,-,14 po } ^l't of FrV1T-( SOrl Gr.IUINAP eJ2 ShtA-ll S/-)! IFT a vi to r.l ci ng tkl i (Dab 7 ra A 1-1 F el a A.1 ( t frklit L-r=ve gap , c..o22. soL4::)1e (2pit__. _ m r9 KA cin2_1ar p2.etrogg Ar-A t1-tA21 r&r 1Jpc,= NE Fe I101.3 I rJr, a\ Ha4 0p1arJ Tke Sr-fnrPrniG pit RC -in 4pR r7r/01grn 1-3:r Sv2vC-'Yr-o b) M%c Al LLM2ARIF r1OVF e iT s Foroc �T2.i r Ili rza l_ !KIP st, r cry y o F elti poes( 1 ,e A-cr-{ A-2r Pc--Q,V10(=an To tier ijnf %Ftc p ter=1,nbrprAC_ 4' S l-1 a t2-t 101 i s p 2n ✓ I P E C) - p 1_ r- ,a. s e i s Tr T t-t A-i c, A l_ fJ rer 2 p e•arit•-••1r=-N.SDA-l.lOnl c,H,fitI f3e pa-9"7 op= Tl-lt sTR ticT. o0A-lle»S °IA STrtie The At. r1.1rn 1,.Segg-4HA-(1 c -1a 1►A: - rt A- X p >6 F l l= r--1f l ci_r 1 'F r- t3 T1 t___L-, ve r s) S LDIF(L p_ - ptrp- n1oTr, lr A-T L. L- KiATtj SK MI I r lc tti1 pa THE r71M c=z AJSlan/ Fizz> r•c St.5 C3 lra12-.4D E To Po !pi T EDP-- F kr-. T`( t r71--EPtSc sae ATTi-c.rfeo sHBR1 Fog. rlorc 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PO. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 UILDING DEPARTMENT - PLAN CHECK REPORT Project Address: 1 NosyDate: Plan Check No.: Plan Check Engineer: 'iot1 SE 1= Phone: q 44_co44_V7$ Applicant to indicate in column at right where the correction was made on the plans. No. Correction IaA. 11,4.. 12A. 134 ) 44. t ra4. Location on Plans AL n 6, KLE E t2 e H A I 1 v c= 2-1 Pi Tt-h ITT M A x Q r- Lt= c m1 c sv Lra 2 pi l_r S 14 LI= SS "1ri gn1 'Tt--t c. N(I at.J A-ISCE I lAt—ts spsc4t D 1.6,1 SOIL. rzt arz_.7 ____(Ttx ANn y,444.r31C c' is TInr.1 S11 Alt P,F. SpGCI Flap nu setLR.a.poc.y) rap LF Y p k A-1.1 T HF A--( A-i j pi 1 D IA\ .P t 1 r., SH AI( 't= (' t2Fn0 nett fl 1 \ n1 17 cr- i2 r 4.63T l id U n til 7 pi S p i= Cr' tin.) c r. p p1—p1)T'-( IatSpc:ctn2.S. Apr r1F-t on1 plA -THA4 kR roc=pGM< -c� Cc_io2S SFi'at1 r'>i= tS-tc=rzc=D 4 A_ppcZo✓Cn ram-' c lTY gel1= nlcy,t pn¢.-( fie Pec H vfr-tF-( TN- A1 Ma-rl-top np ide F & ri-tot 5 AFTr2 o&7, Trs7 LCA-1 1S - pt l 12 r 04111,p I (-1 cw-tk c. P i pr512_7( r'rMMt nSDA-T(Ov.9- (3n 1-.Ihj fit= Teri tea) <<FsHo1.1 rtrn4 sl_c= FD pnaton o p A- td r L. F p o `j L= c `taL= p vs 21FY T14A-T p pit--j ' F SNnpt IC, ( (L THE A&.F A A-(z nt1 A (= o—v. p (T•) -to -f1-ts Tiro NI rF E1c\(a,-'Con pIff Set Die P_ pile Intc to nRc. CFpTA.tn") {k� (_A-.! Tlc 1 V t? 4.• p l p - to -J IP�G2 r 1 # f3 TI hF aA-c1_ A-ar.t-th 2 • As, t r t A-ti F-F . 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach ert1A f G o saEST p"C30-- Ste) Cole/2Eace h/S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 UILDING DEPARTMENT - PLAN CHECK REPORT Project Address: 1 HoAc, palvF Date: Plan Check No.: Plan Check Engineer tc t) 5 E F Phone: 4`f--lo4.4 —' 2,7, Applicant to indicate in column at right where the correction was made on the plans. No. Correction Location on Plans 149A. 1714. ' 1 L a =prig- 1' F2- 6R CI t2 c=S Tt c A-r C f3 Atn1t dr,t2.S FraR 14r=I(-4-ftS ©p- S!-(ar2 IcC, e_. 12CATel2 TH SO T 1-tf-l`1 1 5 ree-r_ Hnyl rVM 4nL..n1ap ptLr= Srl-(fih1lr- Tn1Gl_LiDe=e% SOLcl`j2 77 1711.E (R - ICo1 ) AaLpt p PII r Si2_r= 1-11= 511A-F( "Lt 1 Tt- aPrr- A Sc rto1Z- P -t- dl C_n �C ap, T T 154. 141A ZIA . SS 7_01 e _Ark CS . p P AVID r—.i _� R11 1-el t3 P R r "Ci -A S El S Fn YL r.l l Tl� r !L r4nit f{np c C --A (I far Spc=t (P1r'D olr% 21 €. Z/s zo 1 ) M1n1 r2-e t11Rc, O O Zm I-to.A.1 vCl2 SpLDI� PtLc SCt4EDt..)1e S nl r L_t 1 D IE S Tie R/K l; 4A.r.t r I -Qv P C, fa (in EFfr vJ I-. r\Rr2-mp ett-1 Lpl 6if�S� • PRnv(De _ 2F c A -le tA-Tvr -• Cm(_ o c po n 7r fiC-eA t nlcHoe_ rRir1r1/2-101J A 6A.<En0 Sr_Hep u rt3e.tvuDe4 TLF -SF-r "iac ta. PIF_l�Sr- P(2 oUI.p€-DfItoniA-1 .C.AIC A AS 12F12L11R-€D. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach -s a kTTPfc-- t 1D 5RCi=T F°R Ma e coR eCIto10S Project Address: Plan Check No.: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Phone: 9dq _er44 3a7, Applicant to indicate in column at right where the correction was made on the plans. P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 UILDING DEPARTMENT - PLAN CHECK REPORT i Hooter DR-IlrS Date: Plan Check Engineer: tc c S F No. Correction 22-A 23A 24A l Nr-LK_ t-OT_ATlnr DUI Tn errar(eue —LJcAD Apztte Ta L P1t J_P S (Fri -rce - R r isAs.t.1 rt nS) Foi? ► b-ST IIfirTtoi. rDF C 4JJ l s A-s Ltrt.L A-ii rI E R A.c A rJ r (-t n rz S CItC_I►..\ SI{L4-1.1 IN\C-L tio-F ALI Fn2Mt lA$C ANA ( z2uATtoi.\S Feta TH.= In3-1-E" C-4Mpu fea pRc�7- p-y°�M IJSe=n It.I ' MCS. (°sav s sHA-It (3- sf-rz c� F -CI tG CQ13 tTTA-t - pt9oJ t C� � 1 A. 7 A LntJ LA-7Fn rA-rt Ti I J=- \e 1= re_ So1-1 t o C-- p t .L L S S I-1 Au 13C B prc p-D_ etk 1 r D loran n5S plan./ Lpr D CAP' el al f3 L or m r= F tr t,4-t ,4. p pp in vl4- 2 64A; er vis1-h ---€� t�T �.Hn J t n n\ o T yet= 'Tnc ip l i t=0 4 K AVt -1-7-t\IPM OT c ktnoln f\wwy gr= STD p W 1TH IN Lc F- E-T e,l I:?« -A V vor-C c p A P E A - SCE t2.1=_ MA -pits ap pCi4-n1 p )et.) Tyr MAR-K►=P-up t * s, LIS rT t h-ram v I- vj )24 R r3 r es anJceS T6 gc r`IoNS- Location on Plans 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach