Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutX2006-0120 - MiscH S br IbicattLi a -aooco ealee w IS Mr— MN — _— Son aS aS r s SS MI aastaas. MSS at — a — s _S� =_a _ — ON are SW — •11115W— SW — m — m w ell Structural Engineering To: James Juliani From: PIROOZ BARAR Date: January 24, 2007 Subject: Response to Comments www.pbancfatinc.com Job No.: 050098 Job Name: Hoag Hospital - E-Wall Retrofit Company TRC Solutions Address: 21 Technology Drive City: Irvine State: CA. Zip: 92618 i We have received the first Plan Review comment prepared by Mr. Ali Naji, City of Newport Beach, dated January 23, 2007 for "Remedial work for Soldier Beam Wall", Hoag Hospital, Newport Beach, CA., plan and calculations dated December 5, 2006. Comment: Revised plans show different pile depth of embedment than what is used in original analysis. Revise accordingly. Response: Depth of embedment per existing tie -back "As Built" plans is 6'-0" below Elev. 11.5' (called out as B.O. Footing on As Built drawings). Depth of embedment in PB&A calculations assumes 8.5 ft. below Finish Grade (Elev. 14.0') to bottom of soldier pile. At the completion of the project, the finished grade will be Elev. 14.0 and the existing soldier piles bottom (Elev. 5.5) will be 8.5' below finished grade. Finish Grading will be completed under TRC Permit Number B2005-1423. Should you have any questions and/or Comments please do not hesitate to call us being brought out 415 259- 0191. Pirooz Barar, S.E. r&orb-7, PB&A Inc. 124 GREENFIELD AVE. • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 • TEL: 415-259-0191 • FAX: 415.259-0194 email: pba©pbandainc.com -Web: www.pbandainc.com LOYINEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Eng.neeung Se,vices ennis lensen,R Senior G Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center Hoag Hospital Lower Campus Newport Beach, California Report No. 1651-26 has been prepared for: Hoag Hospital Newport Beach, California February 25, 2005 S. Ali Bastani, PhD, PE, GE 2458 Associate, Area Manager aidisas C. BarrkButler, PE, GE 2276 Senior Principal Engineer Quality Assurance Reviewer Mountain View Oakland Fullerton San Ramon Fairfield Las Vegas 251 East Imperil Highway, Suite 470 Fullerton, CA 92835 Tel: 714.441.3090 Fax: 714.441.3091 E-mail: mail@lowney.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Description 1 1.2 Scope of Services 2 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3 2.1 Background Review 3 2.1.1 Subsurface Profile Along the proposed Retaining Wall 3 2.1.2 Shear Strength 3 2.1.3 Bearing Capacity 3 Table 1. Summary of Net Allowable Bearing Capacities 4 2.1.4 Expansion Potential 4 Table 2. Summary of Expansion Index 4 2.1.5 Corrosion 4 Table 3. Summary of Corrosion Tests 5 2.1.6 Compaction Criteria 6 Table 4. Summary of Compaction Tests 6 2.1.7 Pavement Design Parameter 6 Table 5. Summary of R-values 6 2.2 Exploration Program 6 2.3 Geologic Setting 7 2.3.1 Surface Conditions 7 2.3.2 Subsurface Conditions 8 2.4 Ground Water 9 3.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 10 3.1 Fault Rupture Hazard 10 3.2 Ground Shaking 10 3.3 Liquefaction 10 3.3.1 General Background 10 3.3.2 Subsurface Conditions Encountered 11 3.3.3 Methods of Analysis and Results 11 3.3.4 Summiary of Results 12 3.4 Differential Compaction 12 3.5 Lateral Spreading 12 LOWNEYASS . Ai W Page I Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 3.6 Flooding 13 4.0 SEISMICITY 13 4.1 CBC Site Coefficient 14 Table 6. Seismic Source Definitions 15 Table 7. Approximate Distance to Seismic Sources 15 Table 8. 1997 UBC Site Categorization and Site Coefficients 15 5.0 CORROSION EVALUATION 16 Table 9. Results of Corrosivity Testing 16 Table 10. Relationship between Soil Resistivity and Soil Corrosivity 16 Table 11. Relationship between Sulfate Concentration and Sulfate Exposure 17 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS 17 6.1 Conclusions 17 6.2 Final Geotechnical Design Review and Observation 18 7.0 EARTHWORK 18 7.1 Excavation Characteristics 18 7.2 Subgrade Preparation 19 7.3 Material for Fill 19 7.4 Compaction 19 7.5 Wet Weather Conditions 20 7.6 Trench Backfill 20 7.7 Dewatering 20 7.8 Surface Drainage 21 7.9 Landscaping Considerations 21 7.10 Erosion Control 22 7.11 Construction Observation 22 8.0 FOUNDATIONS 22 8.1 Footings 22 8.2 Lateral Loads 23 9.0 RETAINING STRUCTURE 23 9.1 Conventional Retaining Wall 24 Table 12. Properties of Soils Used in Slope Stability Analysis 24 9.1.1 Drainage 25 9.1.2 Backfill 25 9.1.3 Foundation 25 LOWNEYASSCCIA1 Q Page li Environmental! Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 9.2 Soldier Piles and Tie Back System 26 9.2.1 Design of Solider Pile Supported Shoring 26 9.2.2 Surcharge Loads on Shoring 27 9.2.3 Group Action/Pile Spacing 27 9.2.4 Lagging and Sheeting 27 9.2.5 Tie -Back Anchors 28 9.2.6 Internal Bracing 30 9.2.7 Lateral Deflection and Settlements 30 9.3 Soil Nail Wall System 30 9.3.1 SNAILWin Analysis 31 Table 13. Summary of Soil Nail Properties 31 Table 14. Results of Stability Analysis 32 Table 15. Summary of Soil Nail Configuration 32 9.3.2 Existing Utilities 33 9.3.3 Verification Testing 33 9.3.4 Excavate Neat Face 33 9.3.5 Drill Nail Hole 33 9.3.6 Install and Grout Nail 34 9.3.7 Place Wall Drainage 34 9.3.8 Place Wall Reinforcements and Plates with Headed Studs 34 9.3.9 Construct Shotcrete Facing 34 9.3.10 Repeat Process to the Final Excavation Grade 35 9.3.11 Tie Behind -Wall Drains into Footing Drain 35 9.4 Monitoring 35 10.0 PAVEMENTS 36 10.1 Asphalt Concrete 36 Table 16. Recommended Asphalt Concrete Pavement Design Alternatives 36 10.2 Pavement Cutoff 36 10.3 Asphalt Concrete, Aggregate Base and Subgrade 37 10.4 Exterior Concrete Flatwork 37 10.5 Exterior Sidewalks 37 11.0 LIMITATIONS 37 12.0 REFERENCES 38 12.1 Literature 38 LOMMI'IAS ..X 1AiES Page iii Environmental/ Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center FIGURE 1 — VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 — FIELD INVESTIGATION PLAN FIGURE 3 — PROFILE 1-1' FIGURE 4 — CROSS SECTION A -A' FIGURE 5 — CROSS SECTION B-B' FIGURE 6 — CROSS SECTION C-C' FIGURE 7 — CROSS SECTION D-D' FIGURE 8 — CROSS SECTION E-E' FIGURE 9 — SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION INDEX SOIL PROPERTIES VERSUS DEPTH BORINGS LB-1 THROUGH LB-3 FIGURE 10 — INTEGRATED CPT METHOD FOR ESTIMATING SUBSURFACE STRATIFICATION AT CPT-1 FIGURE 11 — INTEGRATED CPT METHOD FOR ESTIMATING SUBSURFACE STRATIFICATION AT CPT-2 FIGURE 12 — INTEGRATED CPT METHOD FOR ESTIMATING SUBSURFACE STRATIFICATION AT CPT-3 FIGURE 13 — INTEGRATED CPT METHOD FOR ESTIMATING SUBSURFACE STRATIFICATION AT CPT-4 FIGURE 14 — SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILES FIGURE 15 — TOTAL HAZARD HORIZONTAL ZPA FOR THE SOIL SITE FIGURE 16 — CONTRIBUTION OF MAJOR SOURCES TO TOTAL SEISMIC HAZARD FOR SADIGH et al., 1997 (SOIL) ATTENUATION RELATIONSHIP FOR PGA FIGURE 17 — SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS FIGURE 18 — LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM FOR RETAINING WALLS APPENDIX A — APPENDIX B — APPENDIX C APPENDIX D FIELD INVESTIGATION LABORATORY PROGRAM — TEMPORARY SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS — SOIL NAIL ANALYSIS LOWNEYkx.CCIAIES Page iv Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Walt, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RETAINING WALL, PARKING LOT, AND CHILDCARE CENTER HOAG HOSPITAL LOWER CAMPUS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION In this report we present the results of our geotechnical investigation for the Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center to be located on the Hoag Hospital Lower Campus in Newport Beach, California. The location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for design of the proposed development. 1.1 Project Description The proposed development is bounded by the City of Newport Beach Sunset View Park and apartment complexes to the north, Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to the south, Hoag's Cancer Center and Conference Center to the east and Hoag's Cogeneration facility to the west as shown in Figure 2. The area consists of a lower on -grade parking area with approximate elevations of 13 to 19 feet above mean sea level (MSL), an upper on -grade parking area with approximate elevation of 36 to 45 feet, a natural slope connecting the lower and upper parking areas, the existing Childcare Center, and a 19- to 30-foot high 2H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) slope between the upper parking level and the city park walkway. Several chilled water pipelines and high voltage electricity lines run along the upper slope. These utilities will be connecting the Cogeneration facility to the existing buildings and are expected to be supported in place, if needed, during the construction. As presently planned, the project consists of lowering the upper parking area to the lower parking area level, construction of a retaining wall to support and retain the upper slope and the proposed cut, and creation of a pad for relocation of the Childcare Center. The proposed extended parking lot will have an approximate elevation of 22 MSL along the proposed retaining wall. Three options will be provided for the subject retaining wall system. These options include: V Conventional Retaining Wall: This option will require a set back for a descending temporary slope from the toe of the upper slope. The construction will start from the wall foundation towards its top. The retaining wall will be backfilled after construction of the wall. V Soldier Pile and Tie Back System: This system will provide additional space since the setback will not be required. This system was utilized during construction of the Cogeneration facility. L WNEiaX,V1Ibb Pagel Environmental / Geatectmical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center ♦ Soil Nail System: This option will also provide additional space. The soil nails will be placed during the excavation of the slope from top to the bottom. This alternative will generate a similar useable area as the soldier pile and tie back system. We understand that this project will not be under jurisdiction of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). 1.2 Scope of Services Our scope of services was presented in detail in our agreement with you signed on January 10, 2005. To accomplish this work, we provided the following services' ♦ Assessment of existing information at the site. Several studies were performed by Geosoils, Inc. (Geosoils), Leroy Crandall and Associates (LCA), Law Crandall, Inc. (LCI), and Kleinfelder for development of the area and other structures in its vicinity as listed in the references. ♦ Exploration of subsurface conditions by drilling three borings to 50 feet below the existing grade (bgs), retrieving soil samples for observation and laboratory testing, and performing 4 Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) to 50 feet bgs or refusal at the upper parking area. ♦ Evaluation of subsurface soils by performing four Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASWs) at the city park and the upper parking level. Three tests were performed along the city park walkway since drilling was not acceptable in that area. These tests were compared with the one sounding at the upper parking area. ♦ Evaluation of the physical and engineering properties of the subsurface soils by visually classifying the samples and performing various laboratory tests on selected samples. ♦ Engineering analysis to evaluate site earthwork, retaining wall options, Childcare Center foundation and pavements. ♦ Preparation of this report to summarize our findings and to present our conclusions and recommendations. We understand that a surficial methane gas reservoir exists at the site, which is closest to the ground surface along PCH. Methane gas mitigation measures were not included as part of this study. These measures will be addressed by GeoScience Analytical, Inc. who will provide their services directly to Hoag Hospital. LONNE A SOCIA W Page 2 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 Background Review As a part of this study we obtained the available geotechnical documents and reports for previous developments in the vicinity of the site. The majority of these documents were provided to us by Hoag; the Geosoil report (1978) regarding the development of the apartments was obtained from the City of Newport Beach. These documents were reviewed and our findings were summarized as follows: 2.1.1 Subsurface Profile Along the proposed Retaining Wall Several field investigations were performed by Geosoil (1978), LCA (1987), LCA (1990),. LCA (1991), Kleinfelder (2002), and Kleinfelder (2003) in vicinity of the proposed wall alignment. These investigations included several test pits by Geosoils and number of borings by others. Locations of the previous borings utilized in our evaluation are shown in Figure 2. Two major subsurface units were identified as a part of these investigations as follows: Ouaternary Terrace Deposits: This unit consists primarily of sand and silty sand overlying silty and clayey deposits. The granular soils were classified as moderately dense to dense and the fine grained soils were considered stiff. Monterev/Capistrano Formation: This unit underlies the terrace deposits and has been identified as the Miocene age Monterey Formation by LCA (1987), LCA (1990) and LCA (1991), and more recently as Pliocene age Capistrano Formation by Kleinfelder (2002). This unit generally consists of stiff to very stiff claystone and siltstone. 2.1.2 Shear Strength Many direct shear tests were performed as a part of previous investigations. LCA (1987), LCA (1990), LCA (1991), and LCI (1996) separated their tests by unit type (overburden soils and siltstone). Tests were run at field moisture contents and at increased moisture contents. LCA and LCI reports recommended design friction angles and cohesions based on the composite plots of the direct shear tests for different units and soil types. Shearing rates were not disclosed in those reports. Kleinfelder (2002 and 2003) tests were presented by soil type and were saturated prior to testing. A rate of shearing of 0.02 inch/min was reported for Kleinfelder tests. Shear strength tests are discussed in more details and summarized in Section 9.1. 2.1.3 Bearing Capacity A summary of the allowable bearing capacities for spread footings recommended by previous geotechnical consultants is presented in Table 1. An allowable bearing capacity of 6000 psf has been consistently recommended for design of the existing structures at the lower campus area. A one-third increase in the bearing value was also recommended for wind or seismic loads (LCA, 1987 and Kleinfelder, 2002). L WFEiASS CV-11ES Page 3 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 1 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 1. Summary of Net Allowable Bearing Capacities Reference Subgrade Type Embed." (ft) Width* (ft) Q,tt` (ksf) Kleinfelder (2002) Terrace 2 total, 1 in native 2 6 2ksf sand cement over BR* 2 2 6 LCI (1996) Sand or Claystone 2 total, 1 in BR --- 8 LCA (1991) Firm natural soils or BR 2 --- 6 LCA (1990) Compacted Fill, Undisturbed Native Soils or BR 2 LCA (1987) Sand or Claystone 2 -- 6 BR: Bedrock. 2.1.4 Expansion Potential Table 2 presents the measured Expansion Indexes (EI) at the site. Based on these data, the existing bedrock was classified as moderately expansive. Kleifelder (2002a) also presented a Liquid Limit (LL) and a Plastic Limit (PL) of 85 and 53, respectively, for on -site Clayey Siltstone at their Boring B-2. Table 2. Summary of Expansion Index Reference Soil Type Location EI Kleinfelder (2002) Clayey Siltstone KB2@40' 82 LCI (1996) LCA (1991) Siltstone B6@5-10' 65 Siltstone B9@1-5' 72 LCA (1990) Silty Sand B1@0-3' 4 LCA (1988) Claystone B1@1' 71 2.1.5 Corrosion Previous corrosion test results by LCA (1987), LCI (1996), and Kleinfelder (2002) are tabulated in Table 3. Soil pH values varied from extremely acidic (2.4) to slightly alkaline (8.1). The soil was classified as severely corrosive to ferrous metals, aggressive to copper, and deleterious to concrete. LOWPEIA. SOCA ES Page 4 1 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 IMO INN - I MN INN I MIN MIN - M-- N NM M MI w NMI Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services Table 3. Summary of Corrosion Tests Chemical Analysis in mg/kg (ppm) of Dry Soil, Except Wherever Noted Soil Resistivity pH (m5/cm) CI' Redox (mv*) Total Acidity Depth (& Soil Type 0-cm 1° 2 = H vl T. v Z 2 As Rec.* Sat.' Kleinfelder (2002b) Bi@1-5' Silty Sand 1500 550 7.5 569 114 990 107 695 2,859 NA NA 9.9 2.0 --- B2@3-5' Clayey Sand 470 320 5.8 1,856 365 1,175 95 1,535 6,189 Pos. -8.8 41.1 2.0 --- B4@7-7.5' Claystone 1,100 280 4.6 1,816 678 1,380 ND 865 8,743 Pos. -9.5 150.4 2.0 --- B7@4-5' Sandy Silt 8,800 2,700 8.1 44 7 108 171 85 111 NA NA 1.2 1.3 --- Kleinfelder (2002a) B2@10' Clayey Siltstone 290 7.3 --- --- --- --- 1639 444 --- --- --- --- --- KB2@30' Silty Sand 260 7.9 --- --- --- --- 763 54 --- --- --- --- --- LCI(1996) 133@3.5-5' Silty Sand/Clay 440 190 4.0 1,050 323 2,505 ND 3,286 4,576 Pos. +20 NA NA >320 B3@8.5-10' Clay 420 240 6.8 1,283 421 762 879 2,219 2,629 Pos. -49 NA NA NA 133@18.5-20' Clay 590 340 7.1 802 379 367 1,135 1,067 1,848 Pos. -96 NA NA NA 134@3.5-5' Clay 360 210 4.8 766 297 1,845 ND 1,801 4,421 Pos. -99 212.8 98.5 >320 Utility T.@3' Clay 120 92 2.4 1,599 1,354 6,444 ND 7,813 12,060 Pos. +28 NA NA >320 LCA (1987) 62@40.5' Claystone 1,300 690 4.6 80 24 253 244 283 400 None +290 --- --- --- 83@7.5' Claystone 1,600 420 6.3 800 48 138 366 1345 600 Trace +90 --- --- --- B4@7.5' Sand 4,800 4,500 8.1 40 Trace 23 122 71 95 None +240 --- --- --- B4@10.5' Sand 3,700 2,400 7.7 40 Trace 34 122 71 105 None +250 --- --- --- ote: As Rec.: As received, Sat.: Saturated, mv: millivolts. L WNEYA..7.Jl.JCIA ES 1651-26 Page 5 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 1 2.1.6 Compaction Criteria Laboratory compaction tests by other consultants show that the on -site bedrock has a low maximum dry density and a high optimum moisture content. The rest of onsite soils fall within the expected range as tabulated in Table 4. Table 4. Summary of Compaction Tests Reference Soil Type Location Y rax (pcf) Opt. Me (070) LCI (1997) Silty Sand On -Site 115-121 10-12 Clayey Sand On -Site 125 12 Silty Clay On -Site 105 21 LCI (1996) Sand, Clay, Silty Sand 131@0-4' 103 22 LCA (1991) Siltstone 86@5-10' 80 36 Siltstone 89@1-5' 82 35 LCA (1990) Sandy Silt 62@0-3' 122 12 Geosoil (1978) Fine Sandy Silt TP2@4' 127.5 9.0 Silty Sand TP7@5 109 15.5 Clayey Silt TP11@5' 111 18 Fine Sand TP12@5-10' 123.5 9 trivia,: Maximum Dry Density (pounds per cubic feet), Opt. Mc: Optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557. 2.1.7 Pavement Design Parameter Previously measured R-values by LCA (1987), LCA (1990) and Kleinfelder (2002) are tabulated in Table 5. No R-value was reported for the on -site bedrock. Table 5. Summary of R-values Reference Soil Type Location R-Value Kleinfelder (2002) Sand with Silt HA5@1-21 55 LCA (1990) Silty Sand --- 72 LCA (1987) Clayey Sand 86@0-2' 57 2.2 Exploration Program Subsurface exploration was performed on January 24, 2005, using a conventional, truck -mounted hollow stem auger drilling equipment and a 20-ton truck for Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) to investigate, sample, and log subsurface soils. Three exploratory borings (LB-1 through LB-3) were drilled to a depth of 50 feet. Borings were permitted and backfilled in accordance with Orange County Health Agency guidelines under permit numbers 05-01-22 and 05-01-23. Borings were marked prior to excavation and Underground Service Alert was notified (USA ticket no. A191540). Representative Modified California ring and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samples of the surface soils were obtained for soil classifications and follow up laboratory tests. Four CPTs were also performed at the site. Three of the CPTs (CPT-1, CPT-2, and CPT-4) penetrated the ground to a depth of 50 feet bgs and CPT-3 met refusal at an approximate depth of 23.5 feet bgs. Our borings and CPTs were located along the a MAINS tiS.7.Jl.N-1i W Page 6 Environmental / Geoleclnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center proposed wall location at the upper parking area and generally close to the toe of the upper slope. Boring LB-2 was placed within the future Childcare Center footprint. To reduce disturbance to the northern neighbors (condominiums), a nondestructive testing program was adopted to correlate the subsurface material at the city park walkway to encountered material at the upper parking level. This investigation consisted of three shear wave velocity and surface wave velocity profiles performed along the city park walkway and one profile at the upper parking lot utilizing Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) and Microtremor methods. The profiles were produced by Geovision, Inc. The approximate locations of the borings, CPTs and nondestructive tests are shown on the Field Investigation Plan, Figure 2. Logs of our borings, CPT results and shear wave velocity profiles are included in Appendix A. Our laboratory tests are discussed in Appendix B. 2.3 Geologic Setting The site is located on the southwestern edge of the Newport Mesa. The Mesa is one of several topographic high areas along the coastline that are associated with the Newport -Inglewood deformation zone. The Newport -Inglewood zone is one of several active northwest -trending strike -slip fault zones in southern California. The site is approximately 2000 feet from the Pacific Ocean shoreline and a similar distance from the northwestern end of Newport Bay. The uplifted mesas along the Newport -Inglewood zone are separated by lowland gaps cut by rivers that flow southward from the Orange County coastal plain. One of the largest of these is the Santa Ana River gap that extends from the western edge of the Newport Mesa, approximately a mile west of the site, to the Huntington Beach Mesa, three miles further to the west. The Orange County coastal plain lies at the southern end of the Los Angeles depositional basin. The basin has subsided and accumulated sediments eroded from the mountains to the north and east over the past several million years. In the central portion of the basin, northwest from the side, sediments are as thick as 15,000 feet, overlying crystalline rock basement. Sediments within the basin have been compressed and cemented to varying degrees to form bedrock units. Bedrock units ranging in age from Early Miocene to Pliocene are exposed in uplifted areas around the basin, including the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains to the north, the San Joaquin Hills to the east, and the mesas and hills along the Newport - Inglewood zone. In lowland areas north of the mesas and in the intervening river gaps, Tertiary bedrock units are overlain by several hundred feet of Quaternary -age (Pleistocene and Holocene -age) alluvial deposits. 2.3.1 Surface Conditions As a part of our site exploration, we also performed a brief surface reconnaissance. The site consists of two paved areas. Elevations of the lower paved area varies between 13 to 19 feet above sea level. This area is currently occupied by construction trailers and surface parking lots. The Childcare Center and Cogeneration facility bond this area at its east and west sides, respectively. The upper paved area is generally LOWNEYASSOCLIIES Page 7 Environmental / Geotechnical! Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center utilized for surface parking. A vegetated slope exists between these two areas. The slope height varies from 20 to 25 feet with a maximum gradient of 2H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). Two subdrains exist at the toe of this slope. The site is bordered by the City of Newport Beach Park and a condominium complex at its northern boundary. A 2H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) slope exists between the upper paved area and the city park. The slope height ranges between 18 to 28 feet. The slope is currently landscaped and covered by an erosion control mesh system. The area of development is bounded by PCH at its southern limit. 2.3.2 Subsurface Conditions Geologic mapping and borings for previous developments in the vicinity, and subsurface exploration conducted for the present investigation, have provided information about geologic units and soils in the immediate site area. In general, the mesa, on which the site is located, is underlain by surficial soils overlying Quaternary - age marine terrace deposits. The terrace deposits consist of interbedded medium dense to dense fine-grained sands and silty sands and medium stiff to stiff silts and clays. Surficial soils and terrace deposits, which were previously exposed in bluffs along Pacific Coast Highway at the southern boundary of the site, have been removed by grading to form the two existing parking pad levels. This grading has resulted in bedrock being present beneath a thin layer of artificial fill at the lower pad area. The contact between the bedrock and terrace deposits is now located in the lower portion of the south -facing slopes into which the planned retaining wall will be cut. The terrace deposits are located above a relatively flat -lying erosional surface at the top of Tertiary bedrock. Bedrock consists of a siltstone/claystone that is described in borings as medium stiff to hard clayey silt. The bedrock is interfingered by thin layers of sand in some areas that apparently allow migration of gas from the underlying natural gas reservoir. A geotechnical profile along the proposed retaining wall, summarizing subsurface layers, is presented in Figure 3. Five cross -sections, A -A' to E-E' shown on Figures 3 through 8, also illustrate subsurface soil and geologic conditions across the site. The location of these cross -sections is shown on the Field Investigation Plan (Figure 2). The cross -sections were used to evaluate critical areas for slope stability analyses. A graphical summary of the exploratory boring field data (i.e., soil penetration resistance) and laboratory test data (i.e., soil classification and index property) of selected soil specimens versus depth is provided on Figure 9. This soil profile specifically includes side by side plots of the following data versus depth: ♦ Soil penetration resistance (SPT and equivalent SPT N-values); ♦ Atterberg Limits; ♦ Degree of saturation; and ♦ Particle size characteristics, namely percent of fine-grained soils (passing No. 200 sieve). LOWPEYASSCCIAIES Page 8 Environmental / Geolechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center The typical subsurface soil profile consists of: Surficial Unit: Terrace deposits are generally horizontally bedded and consist of layers of silty sands, clean, fine-grained sand with lesser amounts of sandy silt and clay, and rare gravelly sands. Some coarser -grained beds contain shell fragments. The deposits are described as yellow -brown to orange and are non -cemented or weakly cemented. These deposits are easily eroded as evidenced by gullies cut into the existing slopes. Bedrock Unit: The bedrock beneath the site is a thickly -bedded siltstone/claystone that has been assigned to the Miocene -age Monterey Formation by early investigations at the site, and to the Pliocene -age Capistrano Formation by more recent work at the site (Kleinfelder, 2002). The bedrock material ranges from olive brown to dark gray and generally includes abundant microfossils that appear as white specks in the rock. Based on descriptions from borings, the rock ranges from soft and plastic to moderately hard. Regionally, the bedrock is described as moderately deformed. Observations at the site (Law/Crandall, 1991, and Leighton, 1996) indicate moderate folding with dips ranging from less than 10 degrees, mainly to the northeast, at the western end of the site, to 30 degrees to the southwest through the central portion of the site. Tight folding and fracturing was observed at several locations, including the eastern end of the planned wall alignment. A number of faults have been mapped or inferred in the bedrock across the site. 2.4 Ground Water Early investigations in the site vicinity (Geosoils, 1978) reported ground water seepage from the base of the previously -existing bluffs. The source of this water was apparently a perched zone in the terrace deposits above the bedrock contact. Subsequent development of the area has included subdrains at the base of slopes to allow this water to drain. Borings for more recent investigations have encountered ground water near the base of the terrace deposits, indicating that the perched water is still present. Water supply aquifers in the site area are located within thick, unconsolidated sand and gravel layers that lie beneath the inland portion of the Orange County plain. No useable quantities of water are known to be present within the bedrock that underlies the site. However, the site's proximity to the coast and saturated zones reported in the low -permeability siltstone/claystone near sea level (Crandall, 1987) suggest a permanent ground water table approximately 20 feet below the planned finished pad. For this investigation, two zoned monitoring wells were constructed in Borings LB-1 and LB-3. To evaluate the upper perched ground water, shallow completions at the base of the terrace deposits were screened from 14 to 25 feet bgs and from 5 to 25 feet bgs at Borings LB-1 and LB-3, respectively. To evaluate the lower ground water table, a perforated pipe was placed at a depth of 45 to 50 feet bgs at both locations. Perched ground water level was measured at approximate elevations of 33.7 and 33.8 feet MSL at Borings LB-1 and LB-3, respectively, on January 26, 2005. Ground water level in the bedrock unit was measured at elevations of 2.3 and -9 feet MSL at Borings L W i/SScCIAIbs Page 9 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center LB-1 and LB-3, respectively, on the same day. Fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to variations in rainfall, underground drainage patterns, and other factors not evident at the time our measurements were made. 3.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS A brief qualitative evaluation of geologic hazards was made during this investigation. Our comments concerning these hazards are presented below. 3.1 Fault Rupture Hazard The development area is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (known formerly as a Special Studies Zone). However, the site does lie within the broad Newport -Inglewood deformation zone that includes traces of the active Newport -Inglewood fault. The project area and its vicinity has been subject of several fault studies by GeoSoils (1978), Guptill and Heath (1981), Armstrong and Egli (1989), Guptill, et al. (1989), LCA (1989 and 1991), Merill Wright (1993), Leighton and Associates (1996) and Law Crandall (1996). Based on these investigations, numerous fractures and shears are present in the bedrock, as expected in this tectonic environment. Some of these features appear to be faults that offset the contact between terrace deposits and bedrock. However, all investigators have concluded that earth materials younger than 11,000 year old are not offset. Therefore, the faults were not considered active under the State of California Alquist-Priolo act. Based on our recent conversations with Hoag's staff, we understand that a potentially active fault trace has been mapped at the west side of the Cogeneration facility by Kleinfelder. Kleinfelder's final construction report has not been published at this time. 3.2 Ground Shaking Strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe earthquakes in the general region. This is common to virtually all developments in Southern California. The "Seismicity" section that follows summarizes potential levels of ground shaking at the site. 3.3 Liquefaction 3.3.1 General Background The site is not located within the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction for this area (CDMG, 1998 - Newport Beach Quadrangle). However, because of subsurface conditions identified at the site, we have evaluated the possibility of liquefaction. Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as imposed by earthquakes. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose to moderately dense, saturated granular soils with poor drainage, such as silty sands or sands and gravels capped by or containing seams of impermeable sediment. When seismic ground shaking occurs, the soil is subjected to cyclic shear stresses that can cause increased hydrostatic pressure that induces liquefaction. Liquefaction can 4OWNE■A SOCI'1IES Page 10 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center cause softening, and large cyclic deformations can result. In loose granular soils, softening can also be accompanied by a loss of shear strength that may lead to large shear deformations or even flow failure under moderate to high shear stresses, such as beneath a foundation or sloping ground (NCEER/NSF, 1998). Loose granular soil can also settle (compact) during liquefaction and as pore pressures dissipate following an earthquake. Very limited field data is available on this subject; however, in some cases, settlement on the order of 2 to 3 percent of the thickness of the liquefied zone has been measured. 3.3.2 Subsurface Conditions Encountered The sands and silty sands encountered in the previous and current explorations were generally medium dense to dense within the terrace deposits. This unit is underlain by a highly plastic clayey silt and siltstone (MH) unit. A perched ground water table exists above the fine grained material within the terrace deposits. Since the CPT results are more consistent and reliable, they were used to evaluate the liquefaction potential of the saturated part of the terrace deposits. 3.3.3 Methods of Analysis and Results Our liquefaction analyses followed the methods presented by the 1998 NCEER Workshops (Youd, et al., 2001) in accordance with guidelines set forth in CDMG Special Publication 117 (CDMG, 1997). The NCEER methods for SPT and CPT analyses update simplified procedures presented by Seed and Idriss (1971). The analysis method compares the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) with the earthquake -induced cyclic stress ratio (CSR) at different depths due to the estimated earthquake ground motions. The relationship for CSR is presented as follows: CSR = 0.65 (amax/g)(avo/6 vo)rd where amax is the peak horizontal acceleration at the ground surface generated by an earthquake, g is the acceleration of gravity, 6vo and a'vo are total and effective overburden stresses, respectively, and rd is a stress reduction coefficient. CRR is a function of the soil density and grain characteristics. The factor of safety (FS against liquefaction is expressed as the ratio of the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) to the cyclic stress ratio (CSR). If the FS is less than 1.0, the soil is considered to be liquefiable during seismic shaking. FS = CRR/CSR We evaluated the liquefaction potential of the saturated granular strata encountered using Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) with 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years based on 2001 California Building Code (CBC) definition. Our CPT tip pressures were corrected for overburden and fines content. The CPT method utilizes the soil behavior type index (Ic) and the exponential factor "n" applied to the Normalized Cone Resistance "Q" to evaluate how likely a layer is to contain significant plastic fines and have a low liquefaction potential. 41Vf IPEYASSOCA W Page 11 Environmental / Geelechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center Cyclic Resistance Ratios (CRR) were calculated using normalized CPT tip pressures corrected to clean sand values and the CPT clean sand base curve presented in the NCEER method. The CRRs were then corrected for the design ground water level and magnitude scaling factors. The factor of safety against liquefaction is the ratio of the CRR to the CSR (cyclic stress ratio) or seismic demand on a soil layer based on the Seed and Idriss (1971) equation. Estimates of volumetric change and settlement were determined by the Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) method. As discussed in the SCEC report, differential movement for level ground, deep soil sites, will be on the order of half the total estimated settlement. The results of our analyses are presented in Figures 10 through 13. Our analyses indicate that the undisturbed terrace deposits have a low liquefaction potential for the DBE event. However, an area behind the existing Cancer Center crib wall is potentially liquefiable as shown by CPT-4 in Figure 13, resulting in about 1 inch of total settlement. This area was potentially disturbed during the construction of the crib wall and other construction activities. Post -liquefaction volumetric strains and settlements were estimated using Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) using the corrected CPT tip resistance for clean sand. We recommend to remove and recompact the granular material within the vicinity of CPT-4 during the construction of the proposed retaining wall to eliminate liquefaction potential and its subsequent issue. 3.3.4 Summary of Results To summarize the results of our liquefaction analyses, some sand and silt layers encountered in the upper 8 to 11 feet of CPT-4, are theoretically liquefiable for the Design Basis Earthquake event. Theoretical total liquefaction -induced settlements are estimated to be on the order of 1 inch. We believe that this is an isolated area and the liquefaction potential of the rest of the site is considered to be low. 3.4 Differential Compaction If near -surface soils vary in composition both vertically and laterally, strong earthquake shaking can cause non -uniform compaction of soil strata, resulting in movement of the near -surface soils. Because the subsurface soils encountered at the site are generally uniform terrace deposits underlain by bedrock and do not appear to change in thickness or consistency abruptly over short distances, we judge the probability of significant differential compaction at the proposed retaining wall area and Childcare Center to be low. 3.5 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat -lying alluvial material toward an open or "free" face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavation. In soils this movement is generally due to failure along a weak plane, and may often be associated with liquefaction. As cracks develop within the weakened material, blocks of soil displace laterally towards the open face. Cracking and lateral movement may gradually propagate away from the face as blocks continue to break free. Generally, failure in this mode is analytically unpredictable, since it is difficult to determine where the first tension crack will occur. iiL/ NNEW S IA W Page 12 Environmental / Geotechnical f Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital - Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center The probability of lateral spreading occurring at the site during a seismic event is low due to the low liquefaction potential. 3.6 Flooding Flooding may be caused by intensive rainfall, tsunami or seiche, or dam or levee breaks. The terms tsunami and seiche describe ocean tidal waves and similar waves in closed bodies of water. Intensive Rainfall: As shown on the September 15, 1989 revised on February 18, 2004 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "Flood Insurance Rate Map" (FIRM, Map No. 06059C0381H) for Orange County, this site is within Zone X, described as "Areas of 0.20/0 annual chance flood; areas of 10/0 annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood." Tsunami: The site is close to the Pacific Ocean. Hence, the lower portion of the site has a moderate potential for inundation due to a 500 year tsunami. Dam Break or Seiches: The site is not located downslope of any large bodies of water that would adversely affect the site in an event of earthquake -induced failure or seiches. 4.0 SEISMICITY The site is located in the highly seismically active region of Southern California. The Newport -Inglewood (LA Basin) and San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault systems are located approximately 2 km (1 miles) southwest of the site and approximately 4 km (2.5 miles) under the site, respectively. An active trace of Newport -Inglewood deformation zone may be located to the west of the Cogeneration facility and at the west side of the present project area. The Cucamonga Thrust Fault is the closest CBC 2001 Class A fault to the site, approximately 58 km (36 miles) to the north. Strong ground shaking from future earthquakes on these and other regional faults should be expected during the design lifetime of the proposed improvements. U.S. Geological Survey website (httn://wwwneic.cr.usos.gov/Weis/epic/epic.html) was also used to search for historical earthquakes that may have affected this site. The 1933 Long Beach Earthquake, with a moment magnitude of 6.3 and an approximate epicentral distance of 3 km (1.9 miles) to the southeast, was the largest historical event to affect the site. That earthquake may have produced a peak ground acceleration in a range of 0.35g to 0.45g at this site. A Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) was performed, utilizing FRISKSP (Blake, 1998) to evaluate the likelihood of various future ground motion levels at the site as reflected in peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA). This approach takes into account the geological slip rate of all active faults within 100 km (62.5 miles) of the site and the site -specific response characteristics. The PSHA results are based on PHGA which corresponds to the anticipated response at a free field (i.e., ground motions are not influenced by the presence of a structure, topographic features, or ground failure). LOWEEYASSCCIAIES Page 13 Environmental / Geotetlmical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center The site coordinates, used in our analysis, are N33.6220° and W117.9316° as shown on Figure 1. The analysis is based on plans that show the proposed development will be placed over the soft bedrock of Monterey Formation. In addition, four shear wave velocity measurements were performed at the site utilizing SASW method. Shear wave velocity profiles are presented in Figure 14. The average shear wave velocities for the upper 100 feet of subsurface material were 741, 762, 786, and 908 feet per second (fps) for profiles A, B, C, and D respectively. The average shear wave velocities correspondingly increase to 931, 1042, 1001, and 1073 fps for the upper 100 feet below the elevation of the final pad at 22 feet MSL. Based on the measured shear wave velocities, the soil profile falls within Sp soil profiles (600 fps Vs<1200 fps) per 2001 CBC definition in Table 16A-3 for the upper 100 feet of bedrock. Therefore, the Sp (Stiff Soil) soil profile is considered in our analyses. Attenuation relationships by Abrahamson and Silva (1997); Soil Sites, Sadigh et al. (1997); Deep Soil Sites, and Bozorgnia et al. (1999); Pleistocene Soil Sites were utilized in the analyses. The average of these attenuation relationship results is utilized in the rest of our analyses. These attenuation relationships are based on mean peak horizontal accelerations. The results of the PSHA seismic hazard curves, expressed in terms of the zero -period acceleration (ZPA), which is equivalent to the PHGA, for the attenuation relationships are shown on Figure 15. The acceleration is plotted versus mean number of events per year that results in the ZPA being exceeded (annual frequency of exceedance) and the average return period (ARP), which is the inverse of the annual frequency of exceedance. The average seismic hazard curve shown on Figure 15 was utilized to estimate the PHGA corresponding to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (475-year ARP event) and 10 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years (949-year ARP event). The PHGA for the 475-year ARP and 949-year ARP events are 0.36g and 0.48g, respectively. The calculated ZPA for a probability of 10 percent in 50 years reasonably matches the obtained value of 0.42g from the California Geological Survey website (htto://www.consrv.ca.ciov/CGS/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html). The total seismic hazard and contribution of the primary faults affecting the site, shown on Figure 16, is based on Sadigh's attenuation relationship. Figure 16 shows the contribution of seismic sources for the PHGA. This figure indicates that the Newport -Inglewood (LA Basin) and San Joaquin Blind Thrust Fault systems contribute the most to the seismic hazard of the site at this period. 4.1 CBC Site Coefficient Based on our borings and shear wave velocity profiles the site is underlain by Si, (stiff soils) soil type. The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) issued maps locating "Active Fault Near -Source Zones" to be used with the 2001 CBC ("Maps of Known Active Fault Near -Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," CDMG/ICBO February 1998). Faults are classified as either "A," "B," or "C" as shown below. Only faults classified as "A" or "B" are mapped since faults classified as "C" do not increase the near -source factor. g.OWFEY' ti.A7. CIA ES Page 14 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 1 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 6. Seismic Source Definitions Seismic Source Type Seismic Source Description Seismic Source Definition* Maximum Moment Magnitude, M Slip Rate, SR (mm/yr) A Faults that are capable of producing large magnitude events and that have a high rate of seismic activity. M >- 7.0 SR z 5 B All faults other than Types A and C. M>_7.0 M < 7.0 M6.5 SR<5 SR > 2 SR<2 C Faults that are not capable of producing large magnitude earthquakes and that have a relatively low rate of seismic activity. M < 6.5 SR < 2 *Note: Both maximum moment magnitude and slip rate conditions must be satisfied concurrently determining seismic source type. The following table lists Type A and Type B faults within 25 kilometers of the site: Table 7. Approximate Distance to Seismic Sources Fault Seismic Source Type Distance (kilometers) <2 *Newport -Inglewood (LA Basin) B San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust B 4 Newport -Inglewood (Offshore) B 8 Palos Verdes B 18 *Nearest Type B fault when Based on this information, the site may be characterized for design based on Chapter 16 of the 2001 CBC using the information in Table 8 below. Table 8. 1997 UBC Site Categorization and Site Coefficients Categorization/Coefficient Design Value Soil Profile Type (Table 16-J) So Seismic Zone (Figure 16-2) 4 Seismic Zone Factor (Table 16A-I) 0.4 Seismic Source Name Newport Inglewood Seismic Source Type (Table 16A-U) B Distance to Seismic Source (kilometers) <2 *Near Source Factor Na (Table 16A-S) 1.30 Near Source Factor N„ (Table 16A-T) 1.60 Seismic Coefficient Ca (Table 16A-Q) 0.57 Seismic Coefficient C„ (Table 16A-R) 1.02 *Note: For Seismic Zone 4, the near -source factor Na used to determine Ca need not exceed 1.1 for structures complying with all the conditions within UBC Section 1629.4.2. LOliVNEYASSOCR JbS Page 15 1 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 1 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Environmental! Geotechnical / Engineering Services 5.0 CORROSION EVALUATION To evaluate the corrosion potential of the subsurface soils at the site, we submitted 3 representative soil samples collected during our subsurface investigation to an analytical laboratory for pH, soluble sulfate and chloride content testing. The results of these tests are provided in Appendix B and are summarized below in Table 9. Table 9. Results of Corrosivity Testing Sample No. Depth (feet) Chloride (mg/kg) Sulfate (mg/kg) pH Resistivity (ohm -cm) Estimated Corrosivity Based on Resistivity Estimated Corrosivity Based on Sulfates LB-2/4 20 1,774 5,206 7.4 390 Very Severe Sever LB-3/5 25 1,355 3,317 7.3 410 Very Severe Sever LB-3/2-4 10-20 160 800 7.2 980 (Very) Severe Negligible Note: mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Many factors can affect the corrosion potential of soil including soil moisture content, resistivity, permeability and pH, as well as chloride and sulfate concentration. In general, soil resistivity, which is a measure of how easily electrical current flows through soils, is the most influential factor. Based on the findings of studies presented in ASTM STP 1013 titled "Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion" (February, 1989), the approximate relationship between soil resistivity and soil corrosiveness was developed as shown in Table 10 below. Table 10. Relationship between Soil Resistivity and Soil Corrosivity Soil Resistivity (ohm -cm) Classification of Soil Corrosiveness 0 to 900 Very Severe Corrosion 900 to 2,300 Severely Corrosive 2,300 to 5,000 Moderately Corrosive 5,000 to 10,000 Mildly Corrosive 10,000 to >100,000 Very Mildly Corrosive Chloride and sulfate ion concentrations, and pH appear to play secondary roles in affecting corrosion potential. High chloride levels tend to reduce soil resistivity and break down otherwise protective surface deposits, which can result in corrosion of buried metallic improvements or reinforced concrete structures. Sulfate ions in the soil can lower the soil resistivity and can be highly aggressive to Portland cement concrete by combining chemically with certain constituents of the concrete, principally tricalcium aluminate. This reaction is accompanied by expansion and eventual disruption of the concrete matrix. A potentially high sulfate content could also cause corrosion of the reinforcing steel in concrete. The 2001 CBC Table No. 19-A-4 provides requirements for concrete exposed to sulfate -containing solutions as summarized in Table 11. LOWNEYASSOCIA1ES Page 16 1651-26 1 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 11. Relationship between Sulfate Concentration and Sulfate Exposure (2001 CBC Table No. 19-A-4) Water -Soluble Sulfate (SO4) in soil, ppm Sulfate Exposure 0 to 1,000 Negligible 1,000 to 2,000 Moderate' 2,000 to 20,000 Severe over 20,000 Very Severe seawater Acidity is an important factor of soil corrosivity. The lower the pH (the more acidic the environment), the higher will the soil corrosivity with respect to buried metallic structures. As soil pH increases above 7 (the neutral value), the soil is increasingly more alkaline and Tess corrosive to buried steel structures due to protective surface films which form on steel in high pH environments. A pH between 5 and 8.5 is generally considered relatively passive from a corrosion standpoint. As shown in Table 9, soil resistivity results range from 390 to 980 ohm -centimeters. In our opinion, based on the laboratory resistivity results shown in Table 9 and the resistivity correlations presented in Table 10, it appears that the corrosion potential to buried metallic improvements may be characterized as very severely corrosive. Based on our previous experience and Table No. 19-A-4 of the CBC, in our opinion, sulfate exposure to Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) may also be considered severe for the native subsurface materials sampled. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 Conclusions From a geotechnical engineering viewpoint the proposed development may be constructed as planned, provided design and construction is performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. The primary geologic and geotechnical concerns at the site are: ♦ The proposed retaining structure will extend below the perched ground water table at the boundary of terrace deposits and bedrock. Therefore, a dewatering system will be required during construction and prior to installation of the retaining structure. A permanent drainage system should collect the water behind the retaining structure and direct it to the existing drainage system after its completion; ♦ The on -site siltstone has a moderate to very high expansion potential. Therefore, this material is not suitable as a backfill behind the retaining wall. Special provisions should be considered for slabs -on -grade and rigid flat works. ♦ Permanent tie backs of a soldier pile and tie back wall system will likely extend into adjacent properties. We also anticipate very wet condition during L1V NFEYAS7. CIF\ I ES Page 17 1 Environmental / Geotetnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital - Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center construction of the soldier piles within the terrace deposits below the perched ground water. Specialty contractor should consider these issues in their drilling procedures. Permanent lagging will be required for the face of this option. ♦ Subsurface materials are severely corrosive at this site. Therefore, mitigation measures should be applied for protection of the permanent retaining structure and its components. ♦ Natural gases are present at the site and mitigation measures are required during the earthwork and the construction of the proposed developments. We understand that these mitigation measures will be provided by others. We should review these recommendations for compatibility with our recommendations. ♦ The project site has a high potential for earthquake -induced strong ground motions during its life time. The primary geotechnical concerns are the perched ground water and very severely corrosive nature of the native soils. To reduce the potential for damage to the planned structures, we recommend implementing adequate dewatering systems and corrosion protection measures. Detailed recommendations are presented in the following sections of this report. 6.2 Final Geotechnical Design Review and Observation Our preliminary geotechnical investigation is based on limited information regarding site development and on limited data on subsurface conditions. Subsurface conditions may vary considerably from those predicted by the preliminary widely -spaced, relatively small diameter borings. In order to confirm that subsurface conditions are as characterized in this report and our recommendations have been properly implemented, we recommend that Lowney Associates be retained to 1) review the final construction plans and specifications, 2) verify our assumptions, analyses and recommendations, and 3) observe the earthwork, foundation installation and retaining wall construction. For the above reasons our geotechnical recommendations are contingent upon our firm providing geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. 7.0 EARTHWORK 7.1 Excavation Characteristics Based on the present plans, the upper parking area and the intermediate slope between the two parking areas will be excavated to an approximate elevation of 19 to 22 feet. The material will include the terrace deposit and bedrock type material. Hollow -stem auger borings and CPTs were performed as part of this investigation. Shear wave velocity measurements (Figure 14) also indicate soft deposits with shear wave velocities less than 900 fps within the range of the proposed excavations. Several other hollow -stem and bucket auger borings were advanced as a part of previous investigations by LCA (1991), LCI (1996), and Kleinfelder (2002). In general, the drilling effort was reported to be moderate through the existing units. LOWNEVASSCCIA1 ES Page 18 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center The degree of difficulty is expected to increase by further penetration into the bedrock unit. Caving and running of granular units of the terrace deposits is expected near the perched ground water level. However, based on observation of the pervious constructions at the site, conventional construction and earth moving equipment should be capable of performing the proposed excavations. 7.2 Subgrade Preparation After the site has been properly cleared, stripped and necessary excavations have been made, exposed surface soils in those areas to receive fill or pavements should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the recommendations for fill presented in the "Compaction" section. The finished compacted subgrade should be firm and non -yielding under the weight of compaction equipment. 7.3 Material for Fill All on -site soils below the stripped layer having an organic content of less than 3 percent by weight are suitable for use as fill at the site. In general, fill material should not contain rocks or lumps larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension, with no more than 15 percent larger than 21/2 inches. Imported fill material should be inorganic and non -expansive with a Plasticity Index of 15 or less Imported fill should have sufficient binder to prevent caving of the foundation and utility trenches. Proposed imported fill should be approved by a member of our staff at least four days prior to delivery to the site. Compliance testing for aggregate base may take up to 10 days to complete. We understand that it is desired to use some strippings that are unsuitable as planting topsoil for engineered fill. We recommend, therefore, that strippings be thoroughly mixed/blended by disking with on -site or import soils to achieve an organic content of less than 3 percent by weight and be used in the deeper fill areas below pavements. The mixture should be observed and approved by our engineer prior to use as fill. Depending on the quality of the mixing operation, it may be appropriate to perform laboratory testing on a few samples to check that the mixture meets the organic content requirement. Consideration should also be given to the environmental characteristics as well as the corrosion potential of imported fill. Laboratory testing, including pH, soluble sulfates, chlorides, and resistivity will provide information regarding corrosion potential. Import soils should not be more corrosive than the native materials. 7.4 Compaction All fill, as well as scarified surface soils in those areas to receive fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Designation D1557, latest edition. Fill should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in uncompacted thickness at a moisture content near the at least 2 percent over laboratory optimum. Each successive lift should be firm and non -yielding under the weight of construction equipment. U)Vilt Yvrn s Page 19 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center In pavement areas, the upper 6 inches of subgrade and full depth of aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557, latest edition). Aggregate base and all import soils should be compacted at a moisture content near the laboratory optimum. 7.5 Wet Weather Conditions Earthwork contractors should be made aware of the moisture sensitivity of silty soils and potential compaction difficulties. If construction is undertaken during wet weather conditions, the surficial soils may become saturated, soft and unworkable. Subgrade stabilization techniques might include the use of engineering fabrics and/or crushed rock or chemical treatment. Therefore, we recommend that consideration be given to construction during summer months. 7.6 Trench Backfill Bedding and pipe embedment materials to be used around underground utility pipes should be well graded sand or gravel conforming to the pipe manufacturer's recommendations and should be placed and compacted in accordance with project specifications, local requirements or governing jurisdiction. General fill to be used above pipe embedment materials should be placed and compacted in accordance with local requirements or the recommendations contained in this section, whichever is more stringent. On -site soils may be used as general fill above pipe embedment materials provided they meet the requirements of the "Material for Fill" section of this report. General fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness and should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM 01557, latest edition) by mechanical means only. Water jetting of trench backfill should not be allowed. The upper 6 inches of general fill in all pavement areas subject to wheel loads should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. 7.7 Dewatering As previously discussed, measured perched ground water elevations are above the planned excavation depths; therefore, temporary and permanent dewatering will be necessary during and after construction. Dewatering for construction should be the responsibility of the contractor. The selection of equipment and methods of dewatering should be left up to the contractor and they should be aware that modifications to the dewatering system, such as adding well points, may be required during construction depending on the conditions encountered. We recommend hiring a specialty dewatering subcontractor to be responsible for designing and implementing the dewatering system for the final alternative. During construction and post -construction permanent dewatering for all retaining structure alternatives will be required. The conventional retaining wall option may be dewatered by installation of a cutoff drainage trench during the excavation of the required temporary (setback) slope. The cutoff trench should be extended a minimum of 2 feet beyond the height limits of the measured perched ground water. This system should consist of a 6-inch minimum diameter perforated pipe placed near the base of the trench. The pipe should be bedded and backfilled with 3/4-inch crushed LOWNEi'S9OCLA S Page 20 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Parking Lot, and Childcare Center rock provided the crushed rock and pipe are enclosed in filter fabric, such as TCMirafi 140N or equivalent. The subdrain outlet should be connected to a free -draining outlet. The other retaining structure alternatives, soldier pile and tieback system or soil nails, may be dewatered by horizontal hydro auger drains. The hydro augers may be placed with a 30 to 45 degree angle from the face of the wall to intercept the perched water along the length of the retaining structure. We suggest over lapping the hydro augers for a minimum of 10 feet in vicinity of the wall face. Special considerations may be required prior to discharge of ground water from dewatering activities depending on the environmental impacts at the site or at nearby locations. These requirements may include storage and testing under permit prior to discharge. Impacted ground water may require discharge at an offsite facility. 7.8 Surface Drainage Positive surface water drainage gradients (2% minimum) should be provided adjacent to the structures to direct surface water away from foundations and slabs towards suitable discharge facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed on or adjacent to structures, slabs -on -grade, or pavements. Roof runoff should be directed away from foundation and slabs -on -grade. 7.9 Landscaping Considerations As the bedrock unit is moderately expansive, we recommend greatly restricting the amount of surface water infiltrating this formation near structures and pavement areas. This may be accomplished by: ♦ Selecting landscaping that requires little or no watering, especially within 3 feet of structures, slabs -on -grade, or pavements, ♦ Using low precipitation sprinkler heads, ♦ Regulating the amount of water distributed to lawn or planter areas by installing timers on the sprinkler system, ♦ Providing surface grades to drain rainfall or landscape watering to appropriate collection systems and away from structures, slabs -on -grade, or pavements, ♦ Preventing water from draining toward or ponding near building foundations, slabs -on -grade, or pavements, and ♦ Avoiding open planting areas within 3 feet of the building perimeter. We recommend that the landscape architect incorporate these items into the landscaping plans, and that we review the plans before construction. LOW 1({-kA OCI bb Page 21 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 7.10 Erosion Control As with any development, exposed cut and fill slopes require periodic maintenance due to minor sloughing and erosion as well as protection if grading during the winter. To minimize this potential for erosion, we recommend that permanent erosion control measures be placed on all slopes. The establishment of permanent erosion control measures is beneficial for long-term aesthetics, reduces erosion by slowing runoff velocities, enhances infiltration and transpiration, traps sediment and other particles and protects soil from raindrop impact. We recommend, at a minimum, that all slopes be hydro -seeded. For the proposed 2:1 fill slopes, we recommend more aggressive permanent erosion control measures be implemented to minimize surface runoff velocities and erosion. These measures may include permanent erosion control blankets or mats (i.e. North American Green's SC250 Permanent Turf Reinforcement Mat, or approved equivalent) used in combination with hydro -seeding. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) should be prepared with the grading plans to fulfill the requirements of the State of California's General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity (General Permit). Federal Regulations for controlling pollutants in storm water run-off discharges, as described in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 122, 123, 124. Lowney Associates can provide the SWPPP preparation and monitoring services during the winter months. We recommend that you forward your final grading plan to us so that erosion control measures may be reviewed and more specific recommendations may be provided if needed. 7.11 Construction Observation All grading and earthwork should be performed under the observation of our representative to check that the site is properly prepared, that selected fill materials are satisfactory, and that placement and compaction of fills is performed in accordance with our recommendations and the project specifications. Sufficient notification to us prior to earthwork is essential. The project plans and specifications should incorporate all recommendations contained in this report. 8.0 FOUNDATIONS Recommendations provided in this section may be applied for the proposed Childcare Center and the proposed retaining wall. 8.1 Footings The proposed temporary Childcare Center will be supported on conventional continuous and/or isolated spread footings. The Childcare Center will consist of prefabricated units, which will be shipped to the site. Foundations of these structures will be poured prior to the shipment. The proposed units will be elevated from the ground surface. The Childcare Center pad is expected to be at an approximate elevation of 21 feet bgs. Therefore, the proposed footings will be bearing on bedrock. All footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches and should extend at least L W E A SOC IA I b Page 22 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 24 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade. Lowest adjacent finished grade may be taken as the finished exterior grade, excluding landscape topsoil. Because of the moderate expansion potential of the near -surface soils, this relatively deeper footing is recommended to place bearing surfaces below the zone of significant moisture fluctuation in order to reduce the effects of heave or shrinkage. Footings constructed in accordance with the above recommendations would be capable of supporting maximum allowable bearing pressures of 6000 pounds per square foot (psf) for combined dead and live loads. The bearing capacity may be increased by one-third for temporary transient loading conditions, such as wind or seismic loads including wind or seismic. These maximum allowable bearing pressures are net values; the weight of the footing may be neglected for design purposes. All footings located adjacent to utility trenches should have their bearing surfaces below an imaginary 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the trench to the footing. All continuous footings should be reinforced with top and bottom steel to provide structural continuity and to help span local irregularities. Footing excavations should be kept moist by regular sprinkling with water to prevent desiccation. It is essential that we observe all footing excavations before reinforcing steel is placed. No structural loads were available for our review at the time of our investigation. Therefore, we assumed that these structures are lightly loaded. Therefore, we estimate that total footing settlement should be Tess than approximately 1/2-inch, with post -construction differential movement of approximately 1/4-inch. We should be retained to review the final foundation plans and structural loads to verify the above settlement estimates and the corresponding bearing capacity. 8.2 Lateral Loads Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the footings and the supporting subgrade. A maximum allowable coefficient of friction of 0.3 may be used for design. In addition, lateral resistance may be provided by passive pressure acting against foundations poured neat against competent soil. We recommend that an allowable passive pressure based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) be used in design. The base coefficient of friction may be increased by one-third for transient loading conditions, such as wind or seismic, assuming that passive earth pressures are not included in the lateral resistance computation. 9.0 RETAINING STRUCTURE Three alternatives will be provided in this section. These alternatives include the conventional retaining wall, the soldier pile and tie back system and soil nail. The Contractor will be responsible for site safety and the means and methods of construction, including retaining structures. Retaining structures must be designed by a licensed California Civil or Structural Engineer. Prior to construction, we recommend that the contractor forward his plan for the support system to the structural engineer and geotechnical engineer for preconstruction review. LV AI IEIAO,V\IES Page 23 Environmental / Geotecinioal / Engineering Services 1651-26 1 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9.1 Conventional Retaining Wall This option will require a temporary slope from the toe of the existing 2H:1V (Horizontal: vertical) at the upper parking pad to the design elevation of the final pad. Therefore, the retaining wall will be placed away from the Cogeneration utilities along the existing slope. Shear strength parameters used for the slope stability analyses were obtained from our laboratory test results on the fill and bedrock materials and review of other laboratory tests performed by LCA (1987), LCA (1990), LCA (1991), LCI (1996), Kleinfelder (2002) and the present study. The shear strength test results were re- evaluated and were separated based on the type of material. Figure 17 presents all of the shear tests presented by the mentioned references. Based on this evaluation, a set of shear strength parameters is suggested for the analyses as shown in Table 12. Static stability of temporary slope and parametric analyses were performed for the cross sections B-B' and D-D'. Table 12. Properties of Soils Used in Slope Stability Analysis Material Unit Weight (pcf) Friction Angle (degrees) Cohesion (psf) Granular Terrace Deposits 120 32 100 Clayey Silt/Weathered BR 100 16.5 400 Bedrock (BR) 100 23 525 Based on the utilized soil properties shown in Table 12 and the perched ground water level obtained from our site investigation, safety factors for 1H:1V and 1V/4H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) temporary slopes were obtained for both cross sections. Shallow instability of granular terrace deposits is expected if the perched ground water seeps through the face of the slope. We recommend a 11/4H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) temporary slope from the toe of the upper slope downward. This gradient may be used for long span excavations. For slot cut (<100 feet long) excavations, a 1H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) temporary slope may be used. In both cases, the perched ground water should be intercepted and directed away from the slope face. The subdrain system may be used later as a back up drainage system. Results of the slope stability analysis are included in Appendix C of this report. Conventional retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral pressures with equivalent fluid pressures as illustrated on Figure 18 for walls free to rotate (freestanding walls) and restrained (basement, pit, and tunnel walls) conditions. These pressures assume a level surface and a 2H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) slope behind the wall for a distance greater than the wall height, select granular backfill, and a positive drainage system behind the wall. Active pressures are mobilized through the backfill movements and equivalent wall movement; therefore, if limited soil movement behind the walls is desired, the restrained pressures should be considered. Lateral loads can be resisted by an allowable passive soil pressure as outlined on Figure 17. In addition, a friction coefficient between the concrete and compacted fill can be used in combination with half of the passive pressures to resist lateral loads. If wall rotation (o/H) is smaller than 0.04, a factor of safety of 2.5 should be applied to LOWNEYASSCCIA I hb Page 24 1 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center the passive pressures. The upper one foot of passive resistance should be neglected unless the soil is confined by pavement or slab. The coefficient of friction should be applied to net dead normal loads only. Base coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be used to estimate the base lateral resistance. Retaining wall backfill and subdrain should be constructed based on the details provided in the following sections. Adequate drainage of backfill should be provided in accordance with City of Newport Beach and County of Orange requirements. Hydrostatic pressure should be released with adequate drainage behind the wall as explained in Section 9.1.1. Heavy construction loads, such as those resulting from stockpiles and heavy machinery, should be kept a minimum distance of 10 feet or retaining wall height, whichever is greater, from the retaining wall unless these surcharges are considered in the design of the retaining walls. 9.1.1 Drainage Adequate drainage may be provided by a subdrain system behind the walls. This system should consist of a 4-inch minimum diameter perforated pipe placed near the base of the wall (perforations placed downward). The pipe should be bedded and backfilled with Class 2 Permeable Material per Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition. The permeable backfill should extend at least 2 feet out from the wall and to within 2 feet of outside finished grade. Alternatively, 1-inch to 4-inch crushed rock may be used in place of the Class 2 Permeable Material provided the crushed rock and pipe are enclosed in filter fabric, such as TCMirafi 140N or equivalent. The upper 2 feet of wall backfill should consist of relatively impervious compacted on -site clayey soil. The subdrain outlet should be connected to a free -draining outlet or sump. Miradrain, Geotech Drainage Panels, or Enkadrain drainage matting may be used for wall drainage as an alternative to the Class 2 Permeable Material or drain rock backfill. The drainage panel should be connected to the perforated pipe at the base of the wall. 9.1.2 Backfill Due to the medium expansion property of the onsite silts and bedrock materials, they are not suitable for use as backfill for retaining walls. However, the granular portion of terrace deposits may be used for retaining wall backfill. Backfill placed behind the walls should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction using light compaction equipment. If heavy compaction equipment is used, the walls should be temporarily braced. 9.1.3 Foundation Retaining walls may be supported on a continuous spread footing designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the "Footings" section (Section 8.1) of this report. Lateral load resistance for the walls may be developed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the "Lateral Loads" section (Section 8.2). LL WFE I r1JSOCR I ES Page 25 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 9.2 Soldier Piles and Tie Back System This alternative has been applied at the site for construction of the Cogeneration facility and other structures. This option is considered to provide a larger buildable pad area by construction of the retaining structure at the vicinity of the toe of the upper slope and south of the Cogeneration utility conduits. Due to the proximity of this option to the utility lines and their low tolerance to deflection, loading requirements based on the at -rest condition are recommended. We also understand that the dewatering was a major complication during the previous constructions. It is the contractor's responsibility to follow all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements during the construction. 9.2.1 Design of Solider Pile Supported Shoring Freestanding cantilevered soldier piles may be utilized to support shoring where the shored height does not exceed 15 feet, and the expected lateral earth movements and settlements are considered acceptable. Resistance of piles to lateral loads can be provided by the lateral passive resistance of earth and the bending capacity of the pile shaft. For a level shored grade and a 2H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) retained slope condition, freestanding shoring may be designed using equivalent fluid pressures of 60 pcf and 98 pcf, respectively. Due to the proximity of this option to the Cogeneration utility lines and their low tolerance to deflection, loading requirements based on the at -rest condition are recommended. For braced or tied back shoring, we recommend the use of a rectangular earth pressure distribution. Where the surface of the backfill is level, a maximum lateral earth pressure of 36H psf should be used in design, where H is the height of the retained earth in feet. For a 2H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) sloping backfill condition, a maximum pressure of 55H psf should be used in design. The allowable lateral capacity of soldier piles spaced at least 21/2 diameters apart on centers, bearing against the on -site soils may be taken as equivalent to that of a fluid weighing 600 pcf to a maximum bearing of 6,000 psf due to the soil arching effects. The passive reaction may be considered as starting one foot below the ground surface. To develop the full lateral value, provisions shall be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed materials. The concrete placed in the 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 shall be of sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding materials. A coefficient of friction between the soldier piles and the retained earth of 0.4 may be used in resisting the downward component of the anchor load. The portion of the soldier piles below the excavated level may be used to resist downward loads. A friction value of 300 psf may be used for the portion of the soldier pile below the excavated level. WffPiY ssccIA Es Page 26 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 9.2.2 Surcharge Loads on Shoring Additional lateral pressure(s) on shoring due to surcharge loads applied to the shored earth, such as by foundations of adjacent structures, traffic or equipment loads should be considered. The geotechnical consultant should be consulted to analyze these surcharge loads when their location and magnitude are known. Guidelines are presented herein to assist the designer in initial preliminary designs. Where traffic, light construction equipment, or supplies will be located on the shored earth within a distance from the top of wall equal to its height, an areal surcharge equivalent to an additional three feet of backfill may be utilized to calculate the additional pressure on the wall. Heavy trucks or equipment, or shoring located adjacent to existing buildings should be specifically analyzed by the geotechnical consultant. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, shoring adjacent to streets shall be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf, which is a result of an assumed 300 psf surcharge behind the shoring due to normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the shoring, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. The design of the shoring should include any surcharge imposed by the footings of any adjacent structure. Adjacent existing structures that cannot tolerate more than 1/2- inch lateral or vertical movement should not be supported by cantilevered shoring. 9.2.3 Group Action/Pile Spacing The minimum recommended soldier pile spacing is 21/z pile diameters on centers. Where the spacing is no closer than two pile diameters, no reduction for group action for vertical loading will be required. Where the pile spacing is no closer than 21 pile diameters, no reduction for group action will be required for lateral loads applied perpendicular to the line of soldier piles under consideration. Where the lateral load is applied parallel to a line of piles spaced no closer than 8 pile diameters, no reduction for group action will be required. 9.2.4 Lagging and Sheeting Lagging and sheeting should be designed to support the pressures recommended herein for shoring. However, where lagging and sheeting is relatively flexible when compared to wales or soldier beams, the design pressure need not exceed a value of 400 psf due to soils arching. The lagging or sheeting should be sized so as not to be overstressed and so that the maximum deflection does not exceed 1-inch. The shored excavations should be lagged. Where used with soldier piles, the lagging should be fastened to the front face (excavated side) of the soldier piles or wedged against the front flanges inside the soldier pile beams. Lagging should be installed in a manner to minimize loss of ground, and voids between lagging and excavation should be filled or grouted as the lagging is installed. Since this will be a permanent structure, timber lagging is not recommended. LOWNEYASSOCIAIES Page 27 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center In addition, ground subsidence and deflections can be caused by other factors, such as voids created behind the shoring system by over -excavation, soil sloughing, erosion of sand or silt layers due to perched water, etc. All voids behind the shoring system should be filled by grouting to minimize potential problems as soon as feasible during installation of the shoring system. 9.2.5 Tie -Back Anchors General Tied -back friction anchors may be used to resist lateral loads. The excavation for the proposed retaining wall may be assumed to have a sloping backfill with a slope of 2H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical). For design purposes, it may be assumed that the active wedge adjacent to the shoring is defined by a plan drawn at 35 degrees with the vertical through the bottom of the excavation. It is recommended that the anchors extend at least 35 feet beyond the potential active wedge. For preliminary design of the anchored length of the tiebacks embedded in the native material, an allowable frictional resistance of 50Ha psf with a maximum of 1000 psf may be used, where Ha is the depth of overburden at the midpoint of the anchored portion of the tiebacks. Only the friction resistance developed beyond the active wedge plus 1/5 of the shored height (H/5) 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 will be required due to group action. The capacities of the anchors should be evaluated by testing. High frictional resistance may be achieved through placement of the cement grout under pressure. Anchor Installation Installation of the tie -back anchors should be conducted by an experienced contractor. Difficulties in installation of the anchors are anticipated due to the granular nature of the terrace deposits and presence of ground water. Caving of the drilled anchors should be anticipated and provisions, such as utilizing hollow -stem augers, should be considered. The installation methods should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer -of -record prior to construction. The anchors shall be installed at angles of 15 to 40 degrees below the horizontal. The anchors should be filled with structural concrete placed by pumping from the tip out, and the concrete should extend from the tip of the anchor to the active wedge. The portion of the anchor shaft within the assumed active wedge should not be filled with concrete prior to testing the anchor and will likely need to be cased during testing. The portion of the anchor within the active wedge should be free to move during testing. The active wedge portion of the anchor should be filled with structural concrete after testing. A double corrosion protection system is required for permanent anchors. Tieback anchors should be installed at the angle of declination and alignment indicated in the approved shoring plans with a tolerance of ±3 degrees at the bearing plate. The contractor should provide all equipment and instrumentation necessary for the inspector to verify placement of concrete within the anchor zone. The grout pump should be equipped with a pressure gauge capable of measuring pressures of at least 1000 kPa. The quantity of grout and the grout pressure should be recorded by the g.I IANE ■ /-y. SOLI AI E,7 Page 28 Environmental ! Geatechni al / Engineering Services 1651-26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center contractor for each anchor. Tiebacks spaced closer than 21/2 diameters center -to - center should not be drilled and placed on the same day. Additional requirements for testing of tie -back anchors are provided below. Testing. The allowable design capacities of all tiebacks should be verified by a program of proof tests and performance tests. The contractor should provide all equipment and instrumentation necessary for the inspector to verify the adequacy of the tiebacks. A dial gauge capable of measuring displacements to 0.01 inch precision should be used to measure tieback anchor movement. A hydraulic jack and pump should be used to apply the test load. The jack and calibrated pressure gauge should be used to measure the applied load. The test load should be applied incrementally and be raised or lowered from one increment to another immediately after anchor movement is recorded unless noted otherwise herein. At least 10 tiebacks or a minimum of 3 percent of all tiebacks, whichever is greater, should be performance tested to 200 percent of design load for 24 hours by the following procedure. In addition, we recommend that the remaining tie -backs be proof tested. The purpose of the test is to evaluate the friction value used in design. The anchor should be tested to develop twice the assumed friction. Where satisfactory tests are not achieved, the anchor diameter and /or length should be revised until a satisfactory test is achieved. Additional anchors may also be required. A nominal alignment load not exceeding 10 percent of design load should be applied and axial elongation with respect to a fixed reference independent of the shoring established. The axial Toad should be applied in increments of 25 percent of the design load. Each incremental load should be maintained for a period of 1 minute with the axial elongation measured at the beginning and end of this period, and the Toad released to the alignment load and the axial elongation should be measured following each successive maximum. Upon reaching 200 percent of design load, the load should be maintained for a period of 24 hours. After the 200 percent load is applied, the anchor deflection should not exceed 1/2 inch after 24 hours. The total axial elongation from the initial alignment load application to the conclusion of the test should not exceed 4 inches. If movement exceeds 1/2 inch after 24 hours, the tieback may be rejected or the load may be reduced starting with 150 percent of design load or lower and maintained for additional 15-minute increments at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer until a load resulting in a movement of less than 0.10 inch during a 15-minute interval is determined. Once the geotechnical engineer has evaluated the sustainable load, the down -rated design load should be taken as the sustainable load divided by 2.0. If anchor movement after the 200 percent load is applied for 24 hours is less than 1/2 inch and the movement over the past 4 hours is less than 0.1 inch, the test may be terminated. Upon completion of the test period, the load should be incrementally reduced while taking measurements. All remaining anchors should be proof tested to 200 percent of design load for 30 minutes. The axial load should be applied in increments of 25 percent of design load. Upon reaching 200 percent of design load, the load should be maintained for a period WWPEV SSwJClAS Page 29 Environmental! Geolechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center of 30 minutes. The axial elongation from the time of application of the 200 percent load to the conclusion of the 30 minutes should not exceed 0.2 inch. Total axial elongation from the initial alignment load application to the conclusion of the test should not exceed 6 inches. If movement exceeds 0.1 inch after 15 minutes, the tieback may be rejected or the load may be reduced and maintained for additional 15 minute increments at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer until a load resulting in a movement of less than 0.1 inch during 15-minute interval is evaluated. Once the geotechnical engineer has evaluated the sustainable load, the down -rated design load should be taken as the sustainable load divided by 2.0. If the deflection measurements are acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, the tieback anchor should be locked -off at no less than 110 percent of rated design load. The anchor may be completely unloaded prior to lock off. After transferring the load and prior to removing the jack, a lift-off reading should be made. The lift-off should be reset and the lift-off measurement repeated until a satisfactory reading is obtained. The installation of the permanent tie -back anchors and the testing of the completed anchors should be observed by the geotechnical engineer of record. 9.2.6 Internal Bracing Rakers may be required to internally brace the shoring system. The rakers should be supported laterally by temporary concrete foundations or deadmen or by the permanent interior footings. An allowable bearing value of 4,000 psf may be used for design of raker bracing deadmen that are poured with the bearing surface perpendicular to rakers inclined at 45 degrees. The top of the deadmen footings should extend at least one foot below grade. 9.2.7 Lateral Deflection and Settlements The grade adjacent to shoring is subject to some lateral movement toward the excavation and settlement. It is very difficult to predict the amount of deflection of a shored embankment. We anticipate that deflection of the top of a freestanding cantilever shored condition could be on the order of 1 inch for a 10 feet high shored excavation. To reduce the amount of deflection, a higher design pressure could be used. The maximum settlement could be up to 1.5 times the maximum lateral deflection. In general, where soldier pile shoring is braced or tied and installed by good construction techniques, the maximum ground settlement and the maximum lateral movement adjacent to the shoring should not exceed 0.45 percent of the height of shored excavation. 9.3 Soil Nail Wall System The basic concept of soil nailing is the reinforcement and strengthening of the site soils by installing closely spaced, grouted -in -place steel bars, commonly referred to as 1 "soil nails," into an excavation face as it proceeds from the top down. The result is a reinforced mass of earth that is itself stable and able to retain the earth behind it. The soil nails are passive inclusions in that they are not pre -stressed upon installation. The nails develop load as the ground deforms during and after construction. LO WEirwAWAI ES Page 30 Environmental / Geolechnical / Engineerkig Services 1651-26 1 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Environmental / Geotecrinlcal / Engineering Services Therefore, some degree of wall movement is necessary for the nails to fully mobilize their design capacities and support capabilities and support capabilities. Based on our experience in similar soil conditions, deflections are not expected to exceed one inch. The mechanisms in which the nails improve stability are by increasing the normal force and, consequently, the frictional shearing resistance along slip surfaces in soils, and by reducing the driving force along the slip surfaces through the contributions of the nails. A structural facing will be required for a permanent soil nail stabilization system to facilitate load transfer. Results of our analysis, the general construction sequence for a soil nail wall using typical soil nail installation and shotcrete facing application methods are provided in the following sections. 9.3.1 SNAILWin Analysis Our design calculations for the retaining wall with permanent soil nail support are contained in Appendix D. The purpose of this section is to provide an overview and summary of the calculations and the basis of our design approach. Based on the soil characterizations and the wall locations, geometry, and loading conditions, a total of 4 typical design sections are selected for analyses using the available Caltrans design software SNAILWin Version 5.01. The design sections are cross sections B-B', C-C', D-D' and E-E' as shown on Figures 5 through 8. The soil nail wall is assumed to be approximately 2.5 feet downslope of the outside edge of the Cogeneration utility bank at cross sections B-B' through D-D'. The soil nail wall is expected to extend from the top of slope to an elevation of 22 MSL at its toe. The soil nail wall is expected at the southern edge of the existing doctor's parking lot at cross section E-E'. This part of the wall will be extended downward to an elevation of 12 feet MSL. Presented soil shear strengths in Table 12 are utilized in this analysis. Table 13 summarizes the assumed properties for the soil nails and their interaction with the surrounding soils. The shear strength of soils and other materials are increased by one third for seismic loadings. Table 13. Summary of Soil Nail Properties Punching Strength Tendon Yielding Strength Tendon Diameter Grout Diameter Inclination Angle Bound Stress Horizontal Spacing 34 kips 75 ksi 1 inch 6 inches 18.4° 8 psi 4.5 feet For each design section, SNAILWin was used to conduct a series of limiting equilibrium analyses. The analysis performed by SNAILWin is based on a bi-linear wedge analysis for failure planes exiting at toe of wall and tri-linear for failure planes developing below and beyond the wall toe. It is fully balanced force equilibrium equation with only soil interslice forces included, based on a mobilized friction angle and cohesion. The program steps through a series of failure surfaces, calculating the safety factors for the different modes of failure. The critical failure surface is identified for the mode that produces the lowest factor of safety. The nail length, location and spacing are varied to provide appropriate design factors of safety. First the static factor of safety was calculated. The pseudostatic factor of safety was also calculated by searching the L IPE ASSOCATS Page 31 1651-26 1 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 critical surface for a horizontal earthquake coefficient of 0.21 ('hPHGA for DBE) as set forth in the 1996 FHWA Manual for Design and Construction of Soil Nail Walls. Then, the pseudostatic safety factor was evaluated using the same earthquake coefficient and the yield acceleration was determined. Finally, the earthquake -induced displacements were evaluated using Makdisi and Seed (1978) and Bray and Rathje (1998) procedures. The results of the analyses are summarized in Table 14. Table 14. Results of Stability Analysis Condition Static Pseudostatic and Deformation FS.t FSs1 (KH= 0.21g) ;lime (g) Permanent �** Displacement (inches) Search' Specified Surface** Cross-section B-B' 1.78 1.63 1.83 0.47 <1 Cross-section C-C' 1.61 1.40 1.75 0.42 <1 Cross-section D-D' 1.69 1.44 1.80 0.48 <1 Cross-section E-E' 1.54 1.36 1.33 0.39 1 - Search for pseudostatic factor of safety with the earthquake coefficient of 0.21. Pseudostatic safety factor for the s atic failure surface and the earthquake coefficient of 0.21. "' Permanent displacements are determined for DBE (PHGA=0.42g) event using Makdisi and Seed (1978) and Bray and Rathje (1998) procedures. The calculated factors of safety are consistent with the requirements of the 1996 FHWA Manual for Design and Construction of Soil Nail Walls. Majority of the proposed soil nail wall has an average height of 20 to 25 feet and a 2H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) backfill slope as shown on cross sections B-B' through C-C'. The wall height increases to about 28 feet in the area of the future parking structure and Medical Outpatient Building due to the lower pad elevation of 12 feet bgs. However, the backfill will be flat in this area due to the existing on -grade doctor's parking lots. The properties of the soil nails and their preliminary configuration are summarized in Table 15 based on our understanding of the project. The slope stability analyses are included in Appendix D. We should review the final construction and grading plans to evaluate applicability of our recommendations, provide input for the corner areas of the soil nail wall where the grade tapers off and provide modifications, if required. Table 15. Summary of Soil Nail Configuration Wall Height (ftt) Backfill Slope Number of Rows Length of Nails from Top to Bottom Rows 20-22 2:1 4 45/40/35/30 23-25 2:1 5 50/45/40/35/30 28 Flat 5 35/30/25/20/15 * Soil nail has a vertical spacing of 4 feet with top row 4 feet below top of the wall. The final configuration of the soil nails, external stability, nail head connection design, and facing design should be designed by cooperation of a specialty contractor. LOWNEYASSCCAIES Page 32 1 Environmental / Geotectmical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 9.3.2 Existing Utilities Utilities should be located by the general contractor prior to installation of soil nails. 9.3.3 Verification Testing The contractor installs twenty verification test nails along the height of the proposed wall using the personnel, equipment, and methods that will be used in the installation of production soil nails. The verification nails are normally tested to 200% of the design load using load and time increments presented in the specifications. The contractor does not begin installation of production nails until verifications nails have been installed and successfully tested. 9.3.4 Excavate Neat Face Mass excavation is usually accomplished with conventional earth moving equipment. To minimize ground disturbance behind the planned back of wall line, a backhoe, or hydraulic excavator is generally used for final cleaning of the neat soil face. Face stability problems may occur in the first lift if loose soils or fill are encountered near the face. A soil berm placed against the face during soil nail installation generally reduces the amount of sloughing and overbreaking of the neat face. Hash coats (2" thick) of shotcrete or slot -cutting methods of construction can also be used to mitigate these face instability issues during placement of the shotcrete facing. However, laid back slopes are sometimes required for less competent soils in the 1st lift of excavation. In order to provide the required vertical steel and drain board overlap between lifts, a lap trench is excavated below the bottom of lift elevation and backfilled loosely. The reinforcing steel and drain board overlap lengths can then be stabbed into the lap trench and covered prior to shotcrete placement. It is important to ensure that all surface water is controlled, and directed away from the soil nail wall, during the construction process. Collector trenches and site grading have been successfully used to control surface water in the past. 9.3.5 Drill Nail Hole Layout of the soil nails should be provided during the design -build contract. If a soil berm is required to buttress the neat face during drilling soil nail field layouts should be adjusted to account for the thickness of the soil berm and the nail inclination. The nail holes are generally drilled using uncased methods in competent materials (rotary or rotary percussive techniques using air flush, and dry augers) and cased methods in less stable soils (single tube and duplex rotary systems with air or water flush, and hollow stem augers). Alternatively, hollow bar systems have been successfully used in caving soils. The typical nail inclinations are generally on the order of 15 degrees below horizontal to facilitate grouting, but inclinations can be modified to avoid utility conflicts. All drill holes should be checked for excessive sloughing prior to placement of nail tendons or grout. The contractor's drilling methods during the installation of production nails should generally conform to those used in the installation of the verification soil nails. LOWNEYASSOCIA I ES Page 33 Environmental / Geaetlmical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 9.3.6 Install and Grout Nail Plastic centralizers, sized and placed as shown on the plans and specs, are commonly used to center the nail in a drill hole. For hollow stem auger nail installation, a stiff grout has been used to center the nail if the centralizers are not effective. According to industry standards, grouting is usually done under gravity or low pressure from the bottom of the hole upwards through a tremie pipe that is extracted at a rate that allows the tip to remain at least 5 feet within the grout column at all times. Past experiences suggest that the capacity of non-tremie grouted nails can be as low as 70 to 80 percent of the capacity of tremie grouted nails. The contractor's production soil nail installation and grouting methods should generally conform to those used in the construction of the verification soil nails. A double corrosion protection system is recommended for permanent soil nails. Generally, 5 percent of the production soil nails are proof tested in accordance with the specifications. 9.3.7 Place Wall Drainage Geocomposite drainage board strips are typically used for behind -the -wall drainage. The drainage board is generally secured to the neat face - filter placed against the slope and protective plastic facing outward - with nails or rebar stabbed into the soil face such that shotcrete will not be allowed to infiltrate the filter fabric -soil interface. 9.3.8 Place Wall Reinforcements and Plates with Headed Studs The structural facing reinforcing steel should be placed per the plans and specs. The structural steel is generally stabilized in position, and kept off of the neat face, by using rebar, stabbed into the soil, or spacers tied to the reinforcing steel. The soil nails will be connected to the temporary facing by a bearing plate, a beveled washer, and a hardened nut. Prior to shotcrete placement the reinforcing steel, geocomposite drain board, and soil nail hardware should be inspected to insure acceptable placement, adequate corrosion protection, adequate lap lengths, and that all components are secured rigidly in place to prevent movement during shotcrete application. 9.3.9 Construct Shotcrete Facing To reduce the potential for the inclusion of impurities in the facing, the neat face should be cleared of all loose material prior to placement of shotcrete. After the steel and neat face has been inspected and the lap trench has been backfilled to a 45- degree downward angle, the shotcrete facing may be applied. To avoid disturbance of properly placed, stable shotcrete, a cutting tool should be used to remove any sloughing or unstable shotcrete. The project specs should provide the recommended types and frequency of testing for verification and production shotcrete test panels. LV IMEY'JA X OAIW Page 34 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 9.3.10 Repeat Process to the Final Excavation Grade After the shotcrete facing and soil nail grout has reached at least 50 percent of its design strength, proof testing of soil nails can occur. Then the sequence of excavation, installation of soil nails and drainage system, and placement of structural reinforcement and shotcrete facing is repeated until the final excavation grade is achieved per the plans and specs. 9.3.11 Tie Behind -Wall Drains into Footing Drain The wall drainage system is typically connected to a footing or perimeter drainage system via a 2" diameter schedule 40 pipe installed at a downward angle near the bottom of the wall. The pipe connection to the drainage board strips should be approved by the engineer and verified in the field. 9.4 Monitoring In conjunction with the retaining structure construction, as previously discussed, a monitoring program should be set up and carried out by the contractor to determine the effects of the construction on adjacent buildings and other improvements such as streets, sidewalks, utilities and parking areas. The permanent retaining system should be monitored and surveyed periodically to evaluate its performance. As a minimum, we recommend horizontal and vertical surveying of reference points on the retaining structure and on adjacent streets and buildings, in addition to an initial crack survey. We also recommend that all supported and/or sensitive utilities be located and monitored by the contractor. Reference points should be set up and read prior to the start of construction activities. Points should also be set on the retaining structure as soon as initial installations are made. In addition, inclinometers could be installed by the contractor at critical locations for a more detailed monitoring of retaining structure deflections. Lowney Associates can provide inclinometer materials and has the equipment and software to read and analyze the data quickly. Surveys should be made at least once a week, and more frequently during critical construction activities, or if significant deflections are noted. We recommend surveying to be conducted on a monthly basis for the first 6 months after completion of construction, every other month for the next 6 months, quarterly for the second year, and semi-annually for the next three years. We recommend the surveys be conducted on monuments established by a registered civil engineer or land surveyor. The data should be provided to the system designer and the geotechnical engineer -of -record for review. If unsatisfactory results are obtained, additional monitoring may be requested and mitigation measures may need to be installed. To reduce the risks of potential lateral deformations that exceed design requirements, additional factors of safety should be included in design. For example, the design load condition could be increased and/or the soil resistance could be decreased by an additional factors of safety. WINGII'1AS9 OLIVES Page 35 Environmental / GeotechniwU Engineering Services 1651-26 1 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.0 PAVEMENTS 10.1 Asphalt Concrete Because surface soils may vary across the site at the proposed excavation bottom, we judged an R-value of 30 to be applicable for design. We recommend that R-value tests be performed at the final pad level after completion of the site grading to confirm the adopted value. Using estimated traffic indices for various pavement - loading requirements,we developed the following recommended pavement sections based on Procedure 608 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, presented in Table 15. Table 16. Recommended Asphalt Concrete Pavement Design Alternatives Pavement Components Design R-Value = 30 General Traffic Condition Design Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete (InchesL 3.5 Aggregate Baserock* finches) Total Thickness (Inches) Automobile Parking 4.0 7.0 10.5 4.5 3.5 8.0 11.5 Automobile Parking Channel 5.0 3.5 9.0 12.5 5.5 3.5 10.0 13.5 Truck Access & Parking Areas 6.0 3.5 11.0 14.5 6.5 4.0 12.0 16.0 *Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base; minimum R-value equal to 78. The traffic indices used in our pavement design are considered reasonable values for the proposed development and should provide a pavement life of approximately 20 years with a normal amount of flexible pavement maintenance Because the native bedrock at the site is highly expansive, some increased maintenance and reduction in pavement life can be expected. The traffic parameters used for design were selected based on engineering judgment and not on information furnished to us such as an equivalent wheel load analysis or a traffic study. 10.2 Pavement Cutoff Because the native bedrock at the site is highly expansive, surface water infiltration beneath pavements could significantly reduce the pavement design life. While the amount of reduction in pavement life is difficult to quantify, in our opinion, the normal design life of 20 years may be reduced to less than 10 years. Therefore, long-term maintenance greater than normal may be required. To limit the need for additional long-term maintenance, it would be beneficial to protect at -grade pavements from landscape water infiltration by means of a concrete cut-off wall, deepened curbs, redwood header, "Deep -Root Moisture Barrier," or equivalent. However, if reduced pavement life and greater than normal pavement maintenance are acceptable, the cutoff barrier may be eliminated. If desired to install LOVIREYASSOCIAJ hS Page 36 1 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center pavement cutoff barriers, they should be considered where pavement areas lie downslope of any landscape areas that are to be sprinklered or irrigated, and should extend to a depth of at least 4 inches below the base rock layer. 10.3 Asphalt Concrete, Aggregate Base and Subgrade Asphalt concrete and aggregate base should conform to and be placed in accordance with the requirements of Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition, except that ASTM Test Designation D1557 should be used to determine the relative compaction of the aggregate base. Pavement subgrade should be prepared and compacted as described in the "Earthwork" section of this report. 10.4 Exterior Concrete Flatwork We recommend that exterior concrete flatwork be supported on at least 18 inches of non -expansive fill. Exterior concrete sidewalks should be at least 4 inches thick and underlain by at least 4 inches of Class 2 aggregate base compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557, latest edition. The 4 inches of aggregate base may be considered part of the non -expansive fill requirement. If sidewalks are subject to wheel loads, their design should be separately addressed. 10.5 Exterior Sidewalks We recommend that exterior concrete sidewalks be at least 4 inches thick and underlain by at least 4 inches of Class 2 aggregate base and 14 inches of non - expansive fill compacted to a minimum of 95 and 90 percent relative compaction, respectively, in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557, latest edition. If sidewalks are subject to wheel loads, their design should be separately addressed. 11.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the sole use of Hoag Hospital, specifically for design of the Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center in Newport, California. The opinions presented in this report have been formulated in accordance with accepted geotechnical engineering practices that exist in the Southern California at the time this report was written. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made or should be inferred. The opinions, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the information obtained from our investigation, which includes data from widely separated discreet locations, visual observations from our site reconnaissance, and review of other geotechnical data provided to us, along with local experience and engineering judgment. The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that soil and geologic conditions at or between borings do not deviate substantially from those encountered or extrapolated from the information collected during our investigation. We are not responsible for the data presented by others. We should be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the final plans and specifications for conformance with our recommendations. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that we will be retained to provide LOWleASSOCIAIES Page 37 Environmental / Geotechnicai / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center observation and testing services during construction to confirm that conditions are similar to that assumed for design and to form an opinion as to whether the work has been performed in accordance with the project plans and specifications. If we are not retained for these services, Lowney Associates cannot assume any responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during or after construction as a result of misuse or misinterpretation of Lowney Associates' report by others. Furthermore, Lowney Associates will cease to be the Geotechnical-Engineer-of-Record if we are not retained for these services and/or at the time another consultant is retained for follow up service to this report. The opinions presented in this report are valid as of the present date for the property evaluated. Changes in the condition of the property will likely occur with the passage of time due to natural processes and/or the works of man. In addition, changes in applicable standards of practice can occur as a result of legislation and/or the broadening of knowledge. Furthermore, geotechnical issues may arise that were not apparent at the time of our investigation. Accordingly, the opinions presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years, nor should it be used, or is it applicable, for any other properties. 12.0 REFERENCES 12.1 Literature Abrahamson, N. A. and Silva, W. J., 1997, Empirical Response Spectral Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes: in Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1. Blake, T.F., 2000, FRISKSP for Windows, Version 4.0 - A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectra: Digitized California Faults, PC Version. Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell, K.W., and Niazi, M., 1999, Vertical Ground Motion: Characteristics, Relationships with Horizontal Component, and Building -Code Implication: Proceedings to the SMIP99 Seminar on Utilization of Strong - Motion Data, September 15, 1999, Oakland, pp. 23-49. Bray, ].D., and Rathje, E.M. (1998), Earthquake -Induced Displacements of Solid - Waste Landfills, J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 3, pp. 242-253. California Division of Mines and Geology (1997), "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117, March. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Seismic Hazard Zones, Newport Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California. Geosoil, Inc., 1978, Preliminary Soils and Geological Investigation, Tentative Tract 8336 and Adjacent Parkside, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, Prepared for Versailles Associates, Project No. 513-OC, dated April 25, 1978. LOINFEIVASSCCRIESPage 38 environmental/ Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Parking Lot, and Childcare Center Guptill, P., Armstrong, C., and Egli, M., 1989, Structural Features of West Newport Mesa, Engineering Geology along Coastal Orange County, Association of Engineering Geologists, Southern California Section, Field Trip Book, pp. 31-44. Guptill, P., and Heath, E.G., 1981, surface Faulting Along the Newport Inglewood Zone of Deformation, California Geology, pp. 142-148. Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M., 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, 32 (1): 173-188. Kleinfelder, Inc., 2003, Supplemental Recommendation -Utility Trench 8ackcut, Upper Parking Lot, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower Facilities, West of Existing Lower Campus Parking Lot, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California, Project No. 23546/003, dated June 12, 2003. Kleinfelder, Inc., 2002a, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower Facilities West of Existing Parking Lot, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California, Project No. 16901, dated August 15, 2002. Kleinfelder, Inc., 2002b, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Addendum to Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California, Project No. 23447/001, dated December 19, 2002. Law/Crandall, 1997, Final Report of Geotechnical Inspection Services, Lower Campus Parking Lot, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, 301 Newport Beach, California, Law/Crandall Project No. 70131-5-0689.0002, dated January 21, 1997. Law/Crandall, 1996, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Parking Lot and Future Building Development, Western Portion of the Lower Campus, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California, Law/Crandall Project No. 70131-5-0689.001, dated January 23, 1996. Leighton Associate, 1996, Summary of Fault Investigation, Lower Campus, Hoag Hospital, Leighton Project No. 1950076-001, dated October 21, 1996. Law/Crandall, 1996, Review of Fault Information, Lower Campus, For the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Campus, 301 Newport Beach, Newport Beach, California, Project #70131-5-0689.0001, dated November 15, 1996. LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1991, Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for Preparation of Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Campus, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, Consultants Report, LCA Project No. O89034.AEO, dated May 20, 1991. LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1990, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Employee Child Care Center, 4050 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, LOIAMEYASSCCIATES Page 39 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center California, for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Consultants Report, LCA Project No. O89083.AEB, dated April 20, 1990. LeRoy Crandall & Associates, 1989, Geologic Seismic Evaluation, Existing Hoag Campus, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyertian, dated May 25, 1989. LeRoy Crandall & Associates, 1988, Use of Onsite Claystone in Compacted Fills and Supplemental Recommendations Regarding Floor Slab Support, Proposed for Hoag Cancer Center, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, Project # AE-87147, dated May 24, 1988. LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1987, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Hoag Cancer Center, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, For the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, LCA Project No. AE-87-147, dated May 26, 1987. Makdisi, F.I., and Seed, H.B. (1978), Simplified Procedure for Estimating Dam and Embankment Earthquake -Induced Deformations, J. of Geotechnical Engrg, ASCE, Vol. 104, No.7, pp. 849-867. Martin, G.R., and Lew, M. (1999), "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California," Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, March. Sadigh, K., Chang, C. Y., Egan, J. A., Makdisi, F., and Youngs, R. R., 1997, Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Ground Motion Data: Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 180-190. Seed, H.B. and I.M. Idriss, 1971, A Simplified Procedure for Evaluation soil Liquefaction Potential: JSMFC, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM 9, pp. 1249 - 1274. Seed, H.B. and I.M. Idriss, 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, March. State of California Department of Transportation, 1990, Highway Design Manual, Fifth Edition, July 1, 1990. Townley, S.D. and M.W. Allen, 1939, Descriptive Catalog of Earthquakes of the Pacific Coast of the United States, 1769 to 1928: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 1247-1255. California Building Code, 2001, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, Vol. 2. Wright, M.E., 1993, Fault Investigation, Mitigation 67, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Lower Campus Project, Newport Beach, California: Consultant Project No. 1132, December 17, 1993.. LOWNEYAMOVVES Page 40 Environmental / Geolechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center Youd, T.L. and C.T. Garris, 1995, Liquefaction -Induced Ground -Surface Disruption: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 11, pp. 805 - 809. Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., et al (2001), "Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils," ASCE Jounal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 127, No. 10, October, 2001. Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M., et al, 1997, Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Technical Report NCEER - 97-0022, January 5, 6, 1996. L t'rEI/ SSOCAIEs Page 41 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 TOPOI map printed on 02/17/05 from "California.tpo" and "Newport Beach.tpg" 117°57.000' W 117°56.000' W WG584117°55.000' W 33'39.000' N 33°38.000' N 33°37.000' N 33°36.000' N 117°57.000' W 117°56.000' W 2_ ; IMISF OBIT Mt 0 MG 19311 MOTE Printed from TOPOI 62001 Netrod Osgapluc NoNuyp (wwwtopomatl WGSO4117°55.000' W 33°39,000' N 33°38.000' N 33°37.000' N 33°36.000' N VICINITY MAP HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL Newport Beach, California i 1631-26-14wp 2/17/2003 1t17 PM yT O J u 5 a LOV/NEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services FIGURE 1 1651-26 0 0 t n z 0 0 nr 0 + n z 0 0 17 t E 48000 z LEGEND KB-1 - Approximate LCI 8-3 - Approximate LCA B-6 ® - Approximate LCA BORING-2 • — Approximate LCA 5 * - Approximate SASW-D E4-3 - •- CPT-4 B — Approximate location LB-3 • — Approximate + + + A+ + + + -ECA + B-3 t t t t t t E 48200 E 48400 E 48600 E 48800 E 49000 E 49200 location of bucket auger boring by Kleinfelder (2002) location of bucket auger boring by Law/Crandall Inc. (1996) location of bucket auger/rotary wash boring by LeRoy Crandall Assoc. (1991) location of bucket auger boring by LeRoy Crandall Assoc. (1990) location of bucket auger boring by LeRoy Crandall Assoc. (1987) Approximate location of center of Surface Wave Soundings, this investigation of Cone Penetration Test (CPT) locations, this investigation location of hollow —stem auger borings and monitoring wells, this investigation Cross section location, this investigation E 49400 + E' E 4 600 E 4 800 Site plan provided by Hoog Hospital. E 50000 E 50200 O O co z o - 0 z 0 0 n z 0 O O n z 0 0 0 - z a 200 Scale feet 1651-26-2Aag FIELD INVESTIGATION PLAN HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL Newport Beach, California LOVINEYASSOCIAT=S Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services FIGURE 2 1651-26 a 0 70-----_n 60— — — 50 401 _a KB-11 FLCA B-1 ML rCL `?- (FILL) SP-SM SP CPT-1 30- 20- 10- 0 -10 SM MH -?- LCA B-2 LCA B-3 LB-11- SILTSTONE CPT-2 (FILL) SP-SM SP CPT-3 LB-2 SM MH SILTSTONE LCA B-4 1991 Grade LB-3 70 Present Sidewalk — 60 Grade Present — 50 Parking Lot Grade 100 200 300 LEGEND KB-1: LCA CPT-4: 400 500 i00 Bucket auger boring by Kleinfelder (2002) Bucket auger boring by LeRoy Crandall & Associates (1991) Cone Penetration Test, this investigation LB-3: Hollow —stem boring, this investigation 700 800 900 1000 — Reported water level in borings and wells o — Reported seepage SM, MH,— Unified Soil Classification Symbols etc. (See boring logs, Appendix A) 1100 Vertical Scale a to Scale feet Horizontal Scale 0 too Scole feet 120C 1300 1 0 40 — 30 — 20 — 10 I 0 1500 0 PROFILE 1-1' HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL Newport Beach, California LOWNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services 1651-26-34wq 2/22/2005 1: FIGURE 3 1651-26 0 Elevation (ft) A A' 100 — 80 — 60 — 40 — 20 — 0 LCI LCA 8-3 B-5 (PROJECTED (Projected 18' EAST) 10' East) LOWER PARKING LOT ? (FILL) - 20 — ? COGENERATION FACILITY UTILITY — LINES CPT-1 SUPPER PARKING LOT SP ? SM MH SILTSTONE —100 CONDOMINIUM BUILDING 80 WALL s SIDEWALK Ai. ? 7 2 ? SP-SM SP SM MH ? ? — 60 — 40 — 20 I I I I I I I I II I I I I I 1 0 "r,, ,i. �!:. 140 1. (.f 180 11, 0 220 240 _.' b i S 0 x (' a "i 340 --20 - 40 — — -40 (;J) uonenal3 CROSS SECTION A -A' HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL Newport Beach, CA Note: 1. Symbols and boring designations are as shown on Figures 2 and 3. 2. The lower slope subdrains are not shown. 3. Pavement section is not shown. LOVNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services Figure 4 1651-26 Elevation (ft) 100 - 80 — 60 — 40 — 20 — LCA B6 CPT-2 LCA (Pro ected B-2 95' West) (Projected COGENERATION 95' East) LB-1 FACILITY UTILITY (Projec ed LINES 90' East) UPPER PARKING LOT I1—SIDEWALK SP-SM } SP -100 — 80 CONDOMINIUM BUILDING WALL 60 _= 40 SM LOWER PARKING LOT ► - ------- _____ _y_----------- (FILL) 0 1 1 20 40 - 20 — - 40 — I I NO 160 SM SP --� SI LTSTO N E 220 —2 — 20 I I I I 1 0 300 32; 340 - -20 --40 0 (I}) uoljenal3 00 Scale fat r a CROSS SECTION B-B' HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL Newport Beach, CA Note: 1. Symbols and boring designations are as shown on Figures 2 and 3. 2. The lower slope subdrains are not shown. 3. Pavement section is not shown. LOWNEYASSOCIATES I Figure 5 Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services 1651-26 a Elevation (ft) 100 — — 100 80 — 60 — 40 — LOWER PARKING'~ 20 — LOT LCA B-7 (Projected 15' West) COGENERATION FACILITY UTILITY LB-2 LINES (Pro ected 30' East) UPPER PARKING LOT - 20 — I SM 7 MH SILTSTONE LCA B-3 (Projected 50' East) SP-SM SP 7 SM 7 MH 7 Fo—SIDEWALK — 80 — 60 — 40 140 20 — -20 - 40 — — -40 CONDOMINIUM BUILDING WALL (uu) uoilena13 0 30 Sea. CROSS SECTION C-C' HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL Newport Beach, CA Note: 1. Symbols and boring designations are as shown on Figures 2 and 3. 2. The lower slope subdrains are not shown. 3. Pavement section is not shown. LOVINEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geatechnical/Engineering Services Figure 6 1651-26 Elevation (ft) D D' 100- 80- 60— 40 — 20- 0 BUILDING LCA Boring -2 (Pro ected 58' West) (FILL) 2 MH SILTSTONE CPT-3 (Projected 40' East) ILB-3 (Pro ected 170' West) UPPER PARKING LOT SM 7 COGENERTAION FACILITY — UTILITY LINES 7 LCA B-4 [NI-SIDEWALK-is- SP-SM SP SM MH — 80 — 60 200 2.20 - 20- - 40— — 40 I 0 340 360 20 --20 - -40 a —100 CONDOMINIUM ' BUILDING WALL (4) uopenal3 30 Seale feet CROSS SECTION D-D' HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL Newport Beach, CA s 2/23/2005 1129 Note: 1. Symbols and boring designations are as shown on Figures 2 and 3. 2. The lower slope subdrains are not shown. 3. Pavement section is not shown. LO YNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services Figure 7 1651-26 E 100- 80-- 60- 40- 20 ACCESS 4— ROAD LCA B-3 (PROJECTED CHILD CARE 210' West) CENTER PARKING LOT I FILL 20 4) -20- -40- ACCESS ROAD SILTSTONE 200 220 24 LCA B-1 (PROJECTED 125' West) T P SM LCA CPT-4 B-5 (Projected (Projected 15' West) 115' West) COGENERTATION FACILITY UT LITY LINES } PARKING LOT — Ja—SIDEWALK* SM SP SM 440 o� Sca feat CROSS SECTION E-E' HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL Newport Beach, CA 2117/PO115 z Note: 1. Symbols and boring designations are as shown on Figures 2 and 3. 2. The lower slope subdrains are not shown. 3. Pavement section is not shown. LO INEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnicol/Engineering Services Figure 8 F 1651-26 111111 N = I I I M — _ _ — NE I BM O MB 1 — 1 40 35 30 25 20 • 15 O lad y • 10 W 5 0 5 - 10 - 15 SPT or Equivalent SPT Dry Unit Weight Insitu Moisture Degree of Fines Content N-Values (bpt) Yd (pct) Content, LL, PL (%) Saturation, Sr (%) (%) 0 20 40 60 80 100 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 60 80 100 III III O III III 0 + 0 -o a ti 0 0 +❑ +❑ III O III ath O ❑+ 0 Ot 0 rrr O a I III O O + ❑ rll - - O III III III O + r t I 0 Legend: O LB-1 + LB-2 ❑ LB-3 ( PL 1 LL TRC/HOAG Project No.: 1651-26 LOWNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Service; Subsurface Characterization Index Soil Properties versus Depth Borings LB-1 through LB-3 Figure 9 Date: August 2003 INS IMMI MN I — — N = = MI I N — — — MN I FR (%) Qt (tst) 15 10 5 0 150 300 0 1 0 — 0 10 — 5 20 — t' -� `, w w Q - Q 30 — 10 40 — 50 — NOTE: (4N)cs and CRR plots are truncated at 300 and 0.6, respectively. ' Ah is liquefaction -induced settlement and does not include earthquake - induced settlement of unsaturated soils. 15 1 1 (gc1Jcs CRR75 Ah* (in) 2 3 4 0 150 3000.6 0.4 0.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 I I I I )'ir I I Ill 1 i III 11 I I Sands: clean Sand to silly Sand e I I I • I• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PrcIIed1G*VT' Lique ab� i I 1' I 1'• e. L. 1 1 I I Nor,' 1 •� I I •sa 1 I II SILVSILT$TdNE (MH, LL>75) — 0 — 10 — 20 — 30 — 40 — 50 TRC/HOAG I Project No.: 1651-26 LOWNE1'ASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnlcol/Engineering Services Integrated CPT Method for Estimating Subsurface Stratification at CPT-1 Figure 10 CPT-1 Ale CPT-t.grt Date: February 2005 INN NM INN INNI MN NM MN INNI MN N 1111110 N NM ON EN INIII I N I I 0 10 — 20 — E w S. Q - Q 30 — 40 — FR (%) Qt (tsf) 15 10 5 0 150 300 0 1 0 5 10 50 — 15 NOTE: (q lN)cs and CRR plots are truncated at 300 and 0.8, respectively. Oh is liquefaction -induced settlement and does not include earthquake - induced settlement of unsaturated soils. III 1 r I 1 I le (qen,)cs CRR7.5 Ah' (in) 2 3 4 0 150 3000.6 0.4 0 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 1rlr Gravelly Sand to dense Sand Irlrrrll Sands: clean Sand to silty " Ir,lr1l'I II II II II II II II II - 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PercbedlGw 1 1 LI 1 Liquef:..le 1 1 1 — 10 1 N�.�Ilquefkabo I 1 I SILT SILT TONE ( H, LIL>75 — 20 — 30 — 40 — 50 TRC/HOAG I Project No.: 1651-26 LOWNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnicol/Englneering Services Integrated CPT Method for Estimating Subsurface Stratification at CPT-2 Figure 11 CPT-2.xls, CPT-2.grf Date'. February 2005 MIN EN 1= NEI En NMI EMI INN 1E1 NEI 11111 11111 MN en MIN MN NIB 111111 MB 1 0 10 — 20 — - w O - o 30 — 40 — NOTE: — (qme)ce and CRR plots are truncated at 300 and 0.8, respectively. Ali is liquefaction -induced settlement and does not include earthquake - induced settlement of unsaturated soils. FR (%) Qt (tst) 15 10 5 0 150 300 0 0 5 10 11 I I I I 15 I (gc1,)cs CRR7_5 Oh` (in) 1 2 3 4 0 150 3000.6 0.4 0.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 ''''i1111IiJ'rfr1l 11111 0 N 0 Sands: clean Sand to silty Sand I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I II I I 11 11 11 11 11 II II II 11 11 II 11 II I yl I 1101 1 al p INl o I_ I.1 �I U 4. 1 I m1 w le, I F I g1!I W la N,N, U O es jJo PQrched3Wv I I I L quefia quefigb e ILT-5ILTStONE (MH, LL>75) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 — 0 — 10 — 20 — 30 — 40 50 TRC/HOAG Project No.: 1651-26 LOWNEYASSOCIATES Environmentol/Geotechniccl /Engineering Service: Integrated CPT Method for Estimating Subsurface Stratification at CPT-3 Figure 12 CPT-3.xls, CPT-3.grf Date'. February 200 IMM M ME — I MN = N MI = NM MI OM N MN ME NM M I= 0 10 — 20 — E ter'.. �. •£+ w Q - Q 30 — 40 — NOTE: — (gom)cs and CRR plots are truncated at 300 and 0.8, respectively. *Oh is liquefaction -induced settlement and does not include earthquake - induced settlement of unsaturated soils. FR (%) Q1(tst) � Nodes CRRZ5 (in) 15 10 5 0 150 300 0 1 2 3 4 0 150 3000.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 10 — 15 1111r11i i i r i 1 r1r r i II r i 1 i II r r 1 r I Gayelly Sand to dense Sand Sands. clean Sand to silty Send I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 11 I1 11 NI , U O r 1 I I I I i 1 1 Plerchgd G I 1 ❑ I I 1 10030 ISPD11 I � , , 1-tile ° 1 Nonliquefiable • s "SILT jSILT4Tc NE MHi LL75 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 0 — 10 — 20 — 30 — 40 — 50 TRC/HOAG Project No.: 1651-26 LOWNEVASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnlcol/Engineering Service: Integrated CPT Method for Estimating Subsurface Stratification at CPT-4 Figure 13 CPT-4.xls, CPT-4.grf Date: February 2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 50 0 -50 z 0 -100 -150 -200 -250 0 Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (fps) 500 1000 1500 2000 1 I 1 1 1 I I Profile: O - I' —4 r I —� - 411— Is ill i i i t i i i i r i t 0 152.4 304.8 457.2 Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s) 609.6 xoag/Newport Beach Project No.: 1651-26 LOV/NEYASSOCIATES ErnNormenlal/Geolecnrnca/EngursrIng Service( Shear Wave Velocity Profiles Hoag Hospital, Newport Beach Figure 14 Figure 14.grf Date: January, 2005 MIMI NM MINI a I= I= UM INS NMI =I NMI MIN MN MEI OM MI NM In I / 0 000 ___ 1 _____ 1 _ ___ ___ ___ 1 1000 __ _ _ _____ t ____ I _____ I 10% in 100 yrs1 (949 yrs-ARP'l 0. 10% iif_5(Eyii (43rirARPI I Ts_ Ct I w — 0 100 E fY tn 10 ct 1 ZPA-ARP.xls 7 5 H — — 4 5 O. 0001 1 - 0 1 - c -0.001 co 13 T — 4 — + 4- - -0 — —0 — 'eat — — -0 — —0 0 401 Cr Attenuation Relationships: w 5... Sadigh et al., 1997 (Deep Soil) Ll... Bozorgnia et at. 1999 (PS) 7a Abrahamson & Silva., 1997 (Soil) 3 7l — O./ C AVERAGE C i cT 111111111111111110 111116 1 111111111 11111 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Zero -Period Acceleration, ZPA (g) 1 ct TRC/HOAG Project No.: 1651-26 LOWNEVASSOC AI ES Envfronmental /CodechnicaliEngineeong Sen4c€1 Total Hazard Horizontal ZPA for the Soil Site Hoag Hospital, Newport Beach Figure 15 Figure 15 grf Date February 2005 M MN 1_ M N N_ I)♦ OM N NM N NM M IMO 0 1000000 100000 to cc 10000 a 0 0.. woo G1 • 100 4) a1 i d • 10 1 0.2 1-- -r-- L I 1 - 7 - -1- - 7 7 __ 1 1 --+- - I- -+ I I i 0 contrbutor-Sadigh (PGA) xls 02 ZPA (g) 0.4 0.6 Seismic Sources (Sorted by Distance): O Newport -Inglewood (LA Basin) ❑ ❑ San Joaquin Hills - 0.8 1E-006 O Newport -Inglewood (Offshore) 1 _ _ = = A d a Palos Verdes -a - k- - - - 1 _ x x )( Puente Hills _ r - - r - - - ; - * A k Elsinore -Glen Ivy - L I I 1_ * ) * Cucamonga R _ R - _ _ - III O 0-0 San Andreas -Southern - L 7 T _ - _ I 1 All Other Sources 1- - + 1 - Total Seismic Hazard 04 0.6 08 1E-005 u 0.0001 -kt0i 0.001 u O' i 0.01 j _ _ Q 0.1 1 TRC/HOAG I Project No.: 1651-26 Contribution of Major Sources to Total Seismic Hazard For Sadigh et al., 1997 (Soil) Attenuation IIMNEVASSOCIATES gr„ricnr ar,r /GOotechDcal/Ertginaerng Setvictta Relationship for PGA Figure 16 Figure 10.gr1 Date: February 2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CJ 0 CO 0 ft Figure 17.grf Shear Stress (pst) 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Granular Terrace Deposits Averageec.fr (gyp= 32°, 32°,0 psf) Rec. for Design = 40 C=100 psf) �� AL.v.„. hr =I * 0G v `•"7 -� a Fine Grained Terrace Deposits „ : Average ($= 27.5°, C=325 psf) Rec. for Design (4= 16.5° C=400 psf) t r 1 1 r r 1 r 1 1 r _ _ a _ _ •. - ' ' r r r r I r 1 1 i r r i t i l ♦ ♦ A • • * LCA (1987) LCA (1990) LCA(19 LCI (1996) Kleinfelder (2002) Lowney Siltstone/Clayystone r r 1 i 1 1 ill I i ill Average (4= 28.5°, C=1175 psf) Rec. for Design (4= 23°, C=525 psf) r-I r r ❑ ❑� L1 • �� A A u • • A ♦r f r f r r r r LL r r i r r i 1 i 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Normal Stress (psf) Note: Same symbol types indicate the same reference report. Solid symbols present the soaked samples and open symbols present the samples tested with in field moisture content. Hoag/Newport Beach Project No.: 1651-26 LOWNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Service; 5000 6000 Summary of Direct Shear Test Results Hoag Hospital, Newport Beach Figure 17 Date: February 2005 nit H2 Pp Base Friction Lateral Earth Pressures (Drained Condition/Flat Backfill): P = Pa + Pq = 35H, + 0.30q (Cantilever Walls) P = Po + Pq = 60H, + 0.50q (Restrained Walls) Pp = Min (250H2, 2500) Fe = 10 H,2 for 475-ARP (Cantilever Walls) Fe = 52 H,2 for 475-ARP (Restrained Walls) = 0.30 NOTES: q (Surcharge) 1 1 mar Fe 0.6 H, v H, Lateral Earth Pressures (Drained Condition/2H:1 V Backfill): P = Pa + Pq = 57H, + 0.30q (Cantilever Walls) P = Po + Pq = 98H, + 0.50q (Restrained Walls) Pp = Min (250H2, 2500) Fe = 30 H,2 for 475-ARP (Cantilever Walls) = 0.30 All values of height (H) in feet (ft), pressure (P) and surcharge (q) in pounds per square feet (psf) and force (F) in pounds (lb) are for unit width of walls. Ppr Pa, and Pp areseismipassive, assi e, active, and at -rest earth pressures, respectively; Fe is the inPq is the incremental surcharge earth pressure; and u is the allowable friction coefficient, applied to dead normal (buoyant) loads. Fe is in addition to the active and at -rest pressures, Pa and Po. For passive pressure use a factor of safety of 2.5 if wall rotation (a/H) is smaller than 0.04. The passive pressure might not be used if soil is subjected to scour. Neglect the upper tft for passive pressure unless the surface is contained by pavement or a slab. Equivalent Ground Accelerations, 0.42g and Mononobe-Okabe methodology, given by Whitman and Christian (1990), were used to calculate F for the 475-ARP design events. The earthquake load (F ) may be distributed as an inverted triangle and rectangular along the cantilever and restrained wall heights, respectively. LOWNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services Protect Name: 11C/HOAG Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram for Retaining Walls Project No.: 1651-26 Date: February2005 Figure 18 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program based three 50-foot borings, four Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) and four shear wave velocity soundings. Three 8-inch-diameter exploratory borings were drilled on January 24, 2005, to a maximum depth of 50 feet using truck -mounted hollow -stem auger drilling equipment. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the Field Investigation Plan, Figure 2. The soils encountered were continuously logged in the field by our representative and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488). The logs of the borings, as well as a key to the classification of the soil, are included as part of this appendix. The borings were approximately located relative to existing site boundaries and reference points. Elevations of the borings were estimated by interpolation from plan contours. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. Representative soil samples were obtained from the borings at selected depths. All samples were returned to our laboratory for evaluation and appropriate testing. Penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by dropping a 140-pound hammer 30 inches utilizing an automatic hammer. Modified Califomia 2.5-inch I.D. samples and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 2-inch O.D. samples were obtained by driving the samplers 18 inches and recording the number of hammer blows for each 6 inches of penetration. Unless otherwise indicated, the blows per foot recorded on the boring logs represent the accumulated number of blows required to drive the samplers the last two 6-inch increments. When using the SPT sampler, the last two 6-inch increments is the uncorrected Standard Penetration Test measured blow count. The various samplers are denoted at the appropriate depth on the boring logs and symbolized as shown on Figure A-1. The attached boring Togs and related information depict subsurface conditions at the locations indicated and on the date designated on the logs. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these boring locations. The passage of time may result in altered subsurface conditions due to environmental changes. in addition, any stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types and the transition may be gradual. Four CPTs and four surface wave soundings (SASWs) were also performed by Gregg In -Situ, Inc. and Geovision, Inc., respectively. Methodologies and results are provided in the subcontractor reports following the boring Togs in this appendix. LO NEi 1IAICJ • Page A-1 Environmental / Gealeclmical / Engineering Services 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PRIMARY DIVISIONS SOIL LEGEND SECONDARY DIVISIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN HALF OF MATERIAL 15 LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVELS MORE THAN HALF aFCOARSE R THAN N IS LARGER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE CLEAN GRAVELS (Less than 5% Fines) GW S* E_\ Well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines GP a Q^ Poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines GRAVEL WITH FINES GM o Siltygravels,gravel-sand-silt mixtures, plastic fines GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines SANDS MORE THAN HALF CLEAN SANDS (Less than S% Fines) SW 'S:. Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines OF COARSE FRACTION Is SMALLER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, sand -silt -mixtures, non -plastic fines SC ,,r /1 i Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN HALF OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID UNIT IS LESS THAN 50 % ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity CL ,f % / Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly days, sandy - clays, silty clays, lean clays OL 'Tr. Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT Is GREATER THAN so % MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous Fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts CH Jjj, Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays g Y 9 OH IZert Organic days of medium to high plasticity, organic silts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT , L, Peat and other highly organic soils 200 DEFINITION OF TERMS U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 40 10 CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 4 3/4" 3" 12" SILTS AND CLAY SAND GRAVEL COBBLES BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE TERZAGHI (N-values) M SPLIT SPOON, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) GRAIN SIZES MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER (brass ring lined) SAMPLERS O NO RECOVERY Y AT TIME OF DRILLING MEASURED FOLLOWING DRILLING GROUND WATER SAND AND GRAVEL BLOWS/FOOT* VERY LOOSE LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE 0-4 4-10 10-30 30-50 OVER 50 RELATIVE DENSITY ElDIRECT PUSH (GeoProbe) SILTS AND CLAYS STRENGTH+ BLOWS/FOOT• VERY SOFT 0-1/4 0-2 SOFT 1/4-1/2 2-4 MEDIUM STIFF 1/2-1 4-8 STIFF 1-2 8-16 VERY STIFF 2-4 16-32 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 CONSISTENCY * Applicable only for Standard Penetration Tests (ASTM D-1586). + Unconfined compressive strength in tons/sq.ft. as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the standard penetration test (ASTM D-1586), pocket penetrometer, torvane, or visual observation. KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487) 1 LOVINEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services FIGURE A-1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / , SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION NO: LB-1 Sheet 1 of 2 DRILL RIG: CME-75 BORING TYPE: 8-INCH HOLLOW STEM LOGGED BY: ADC START DATE: 1-24-05 FINISH DATE: 1-24-05 PROJECT NO: 1651-26 PROJECT: HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL LOCATION: NEWPORT BEACH, CA COMPLETION DEPTH 51.5 FT. 2 0 17. _ j t w 43.5 43.0- 42.3- 35.5- M 30.5 24.5 S § u i o 13.5- F -F. W LL 0 0 2 w o h This log is a part of a report by Lowney Associates, and should not be sed as a stand-alone document This description applies only to he ocaton of tie exploration at he time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The description presented is a simpli cation of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual, MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS SURFACE ELEVATION: 44 FT. (+/-) to o. h PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWSIFT.) SAMPLER MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) PERCENT PASSING N0. 200 SIEVE Unrdrained Shear Strength (ksf) Pocket Penetrometer Q To.vane • unconfined Compression A U-U Tnaxial Compression 10 20 30 40 6-INCHES ASPHALT CONCRETE ASPHAL 32 11 36 6 50 3 10 49 102 113 70 73.6 11-INCHES CRUSHED MISCELLANEOUS BASE - CMS SAND (SP) medium dense, slightly moist, brownish orange, fine grained, poorly graded - - SP - 10-: - .. SANDY SILT (ML) stiff, moist, gray to brown, low plasticity, Fe staining - - .. ML - 15-":;.. SAND (SP) medium dense, moist, gray, mottled orange, fine grained, Fe staining, poorly graded — - SP 20 25 30 �1 ilit / / SILTSTONE (MH) olive to brown, moderately weathered, high plasticity, friable, medium stiff, subangular weathered siltstone clasts, trace shell fragments, near horizontal fabric becomes hard becomes less weathered some — - — — MH Continued Next Page GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS: 5 4: PURCHED GROUND WATER MEASURED AT 9.8 FEET ON 1/26/05 N. 3E: DEEP GROUND WATER TABLE MEASURED AT 41.2 FEET ON 1/26/05 i LOUNEYASSOCIATES LB-1 Environmental/Geotechnlcal/Engineering Services 1651-26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r • SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION NO: LB-1 Cont'd sheet 2 of 2 DRILL RIG: CME-75 PROJECT NO: 1651-26 BORING TYPE: 8-INCH HOLLOW STEM PROJECT: HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL LOGGED BY: ADC LOCATION: NEWPORT BEACH, CA START DATE: 1-24-05 FINISH DATE: 1-24-05 COMPLETION DEPTH. 51.5 FT: SOIL LEGEND This log is a part of a report by Lowney Associates, and should not be used as a standalone document This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at othee location and may PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.) SAMPLER MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) PERCENT PASSING NO.200 SIEVE Undrained Shear Strength (ksf) 2 O charge at this location with time. The description presented h e simplification of aural conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. w a. 0 pocket Penetrometer a Torvane > w_ w MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS n Unconfined Compression A U-U Maxie' Compression 13.5 30 10 20 30 40 SILTSTONE (MH) olive to brown, moderately weathered, high plasticity, friable, medium stiff, some - subangular weathered siltstone clasts, trace shell 16 35 fragments, near horizontal fabric - 33 a 32 74 40 1 I— becomes hard 21 X I . MH 441 45 �' — 50 �/ becomes very stiff 43 H [[]] 44 73 4' — 17 X -8.0- 1 _ BOTTOM OF BORING AT 51.5 FEET PERCHED PERCHED GW AT 9.8 FEET (1(26/05) - DEEP GWT AT 41.2 FEET (1/26/05) - PLACED MONITORING WELLS ENCASED WITH - BENTONITE & SAND LAYERS 55— — 60— — GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS: 2: PURCHED GROUND WATER MEASURED AT 9.8 FEET ON 1/26/05 l Y : DEEP GROUND WATER TABLE MEASURED AT 41.2 FEET ON 1/26/05 LOVINEYASSOCIATES LB-1 Envkonmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services 1651-26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e• SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION NO: LB-2 sheet 1 of 2 DRILL RIG: CME-75 PROJECT NO: 1651-26 BORING TYPE: 8-INCH HOLLOW STEM PROJECT: HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL LOGGED BY: ADC LOCATION: NEWPORT BEACH, CA START DATE: 1-24-05 FINISH DATE: 1-24-05 COMPLETION DEPTH. 51.5 FT. _ SOIL LEGEND ` § \}\ \m 2 m q r ) . j j /$( \ § `!E / �' ] «!E! ƒ x /\i , /\B -2 soLrepE PENETRATION RESISTANCE SAMPLER MOISTURE % PERCENT PASSING Undrained Shear Strength (ksf) 2 0 pocket Penetrometer 0 2 y Qt yLL W0 QTorvane w ¢ 0 Unconfined Compression Ii4i Triaxial Compression 36.5 0 1 0 20 3.0 40 36.0- 6-INCHES ASPHALT CONCRETE ASPHALT 35.5 ' CRUSHED MISCELLANEOUS BASE CMB _ _ ,6-INCHES SILTY SAND (SM) loose to medium dense, moist, yellowish brown, fine grained, poorly graded _ sm 28.5 5 ;' t 9 CLAYEY SILT (MH) hard, moist, dark brown, high - plasticity - 10— — 49 51 71 - - MH 22.5 41 SILTSTONE (MH) olive to brown, moderately 15 si • weathered, high plasticity, friable, hard, near horizontal — fabric 21 Z 937 �1 - / 44 LL]] n 44 73 4 MH 4 - r 25 interbedded with sub -horizontal 1/4-inch thick sand lenses, very stiff - - 12 X 9 1 4 6.5- 302\ — Continued Next Page GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS: 5 N. LOVINEYASSOCIATES LB-2 Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services 1651-26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION NO: LB-2 Cont'd sheet 2 of 2 DRILL RIG: CME-75 PROJECT NO: 1651-26 BORING TYPE: 8-INCH HOLLOW STEM PROJECT: HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL LOGGED BY: ADC LOCATION: NEWPORT BEACH, CA START DATE: 1-24-05 FINISH DATE: 1-24-05 COMPLETION DEPTH. 51.5 FT. r.ou I &Law rULLCR I UPI n ELEVATION 0 0 (FT) SOIL LEGEND This log is a pan of a report by Lowney Associates, and should not be sett as a stand-alone document. Tills description applies only to the hcation dale exploration at the time of ddang. Subsurface conditions may rifler at other location and may change at mis location with time. The description presented is a simpi cation of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. m Q. PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWSIFT.) SAMPLER MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE Undrained Shear Strength (Matt 0 Pocket Penetrometer a (= a Tarvane o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS co • Unconfined Compression A U-u Triaxial Compression 3010 20 30 40 SILTSTONE (MH) olive to brown, moderately weathered, high plasticity, friable, hard, near horizontal = fabric 4S 42 74 4 1 35 becomes very stiff 14 X 4 - 4'1 / J some subangular weathered sandstone clasts, hard 50-3 N 43 74 4 MH L77 4 - 45 94 some white calcium carbonate nodules, interbedded — with 1/2-inch thick sand lenses, very stiff - 15 Z 50 -\ 4, —7 becomes hard - J 52 ,��,n,, I, / 1 41 75 BOTTOM OF BORING AT 51.5 FEET - BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS - 55- - 60- - GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS: t LOWNEYASSOCIATES LB-2 Environmental/Geotechnlcal/Englneering Services 1651-26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION NO: LB-3 Sheet 1 of 2 DRILL RIG: CME-75 BORING TYPE: 8-INCH HOLLOW STEM LOGGED BY: ADC START DATE: 1-24-05 FINISH DATE: 1-24-05 PROJECT NO: 1651-26 PROJECT: HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL LOCATION: NEWPORT BEACH, CA COMPLETION DEPTH. 51.5 FT. z 0 �� tit at 41.0 40.5- 39.7- S 33.0 28.0 20.0 a i e u i pl- a 11.0- D DEPTH o CO PJ 0 tf Q to 0 (FT) 2 w w co This log is a part of a report by Los ney Associates, and should not be used as a standalone document. This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other location and may charge at this location with time The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions ercwrdered. Transitions between sal types may be gradual. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS SURFACE ELEVATION: 41 FT. (+/-) a w PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWSIFT.) re tp a '• MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE Undrained Shear Strength (ksf) Pocket Penetrometer n Q Taana Unconfined Compression A U-U Triaxial Compression 10 20 30 40 6-INCHES ASPHALT CONCRETE 4SPHAL1 39 15 25 13 as H X 8 X 17 34 ss 87 72 67 :/t 8-INCHES CRUSHED MISCELLANEOUS BASE - CMS SAND (SP) medium dense to dense, moist, yellowish brown, fine to medium grained, Fe staining, poorly - graded - SP fy f1 �• CLAYEY SAND (SC) medium dense, slightly moist, gray to brown, fine grained, poorly graded - SC CLAYEY SILT (MH) very stiff, moist, dark grey to brown, high plasticity - — - — MH SILTSTONE (MH) olive to brown, moderately weathered, high plasticity, friable, very stiff, near - horizontal fabric, some shell fragments with horizontal alignment - becomes hard _ _ — Continued Next Page MH GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS: 3 SL: PURCHED GROUND WATER MEASURED AT 7.2 FEET ON 1/26/05 s, 1: DEEP GROUND WATER TABLE MEASURED AT 50.0 FEET ON 1/26/05 or LOWNEYASSOCIATES LB-3 Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Seances 1651-26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION NO: LB-3 Cont'd sheet 2 of 2 DRILL RIG: CME-75 PROJECT NO: 1651-26 BORING TYPE: 8-INCH HOLLOW STEM PROJECT: HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL LOGGED BY: ADC LOCATION: NEWPORT BEACH, CA START DATE: 1-24-05 FINISH DATE: 1-24-05 COMPLETION DEPTH 51.5 FT. CELEVATION in O (FT) II L__.__ SOIL LEGEND This log is a pad of a report by Lowney Associates, -id should not be sad as a stand-alone document. This descrption applies only to ttie location of the exploration at the time of ailing. Subsurface conditions may differ at other location and may PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.) SAMPLER MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE Undrained Shear Strength (kst) change at this location with time The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between sal types may be gradual. ,a a 0 Pocket Penetrometer Q Torvane aLL MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS y • Unconfined Compression U-U Trianial Compression 30 10 20 30 4.0 SILTSTONE (MH) olive to brown, moderately lif weathered, high plasticity, friable, very stiff, near horizontal fabric, some shell fragments with horizontal 13 91.1 ort alignment 354.,,,,,becomes ao /4 hard strong H2S odor — 53 21 H X 46 72 45 MH / — 65 8 44 74 I 50 1 / — - / 21 �/ ] jj BOTTOM OF BORING AT 51.5 FEET - PERCHED GW AT 7.2 FEET (1/26/05) - DEEP GWT AT 50 FEET (1/26/05) PLACED MONITORING WELLS ENCASED WITH - 55— BENTONITE & SAND — 60— — i GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS: t V : PURCH ED GROUND WATER MEASURED AT 7.2 FEET ON 1/26/05 T: DEEP GROUND WATER TABLE MEASURED AT 50.0 FEET ON 1/26/05 It LOVINEVASSOCIATES LB-3 Environmental/Geotechnlcal/Engineering Services 1651-26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GREGG DRILLING AND TESTING, INC GREGG IN SITU, INC: ONMFNTAI AND C'EOTECHNICAl. INVISTIGAT ON SERVICES January 25, 2005 Lowney Attn: All Bastani 251 E. Imperial Hwy, Suite 470 Fullerton, California 92835 Subject: CPT Site Investigation Hoag Hosiptal Retaining Wall Newport Beach, California GREGG Project Number: 05-016SH Dear Mr, Boston": The following report presents the results of GREGG IN SITU's Cone Penetration Test investigation for the above referenced site. The following testing services were perform 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Cone Penetration Tests Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests Seismic Cone Penetration Tests Resistivity Cone Penetration Tests UVIF Cone Penetration Tests Groundwater Sampling Soil Sampling Vapor Sampling Vane Shear Testing SPT Energy Calibration (CPTU) (PPD) (SCPTU) (RCPPU) (UVIFCPTu) (GWS) (5S) (VS) (VST) 0 0 ❑ A list of reference papers providing additional background on the specific tests conducted is provided In the bibliography following the text of the report; If you would like a copy of any of these publications or should you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (562)'427-6899. Sincerely, GREGG IN SITU, Inc. Brian Say Operations Manager 2726 Wyk tt Ave . S`egaal Hilt, California 90755 • (562) 427.68S OTIWR OFNICTS: S' 3LMMER ILLE.SAfl E'R > f[F:'rt«SALT 1_ART ern-• WAIST; IN* VAN('{Jl t'y1E+,•WE3TIEER1 IN oU.Ai'ta'S FAX (562) 427-3314 1 = I I I_ MN i• MN= M a M w MI GREGG DRILLING AND TESTING, INC. GREGG IN SITU, INC. Rio/IRON MENTAI. AND DEC)TCCIIN ICAI. INVESTIGATION SERVICES Cone Penetration Test Sounding Summary -Table 1- CPT Sounding Identification Date Termination Depth (Feet) Depth of Groundwater Samples (ft) Depth of Soil Samples (ft) Depth of Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (ft) - CPT-01 1124/05 50 - - 50.0 CPT-02 1/24/05 50 - - - CPT-03 1/24/05 24 - - Ciri-04 1/24/05 50 - - - t) Wallin) Ave • signal Hill, California 9/1755 • (562) 427-6899 • PASS (562) 427-3314 2.1ERVITI..E.SANERA:RISC'',i•S.ALT LAAT, i1TY•Wt9LSTflN• V.3.,ti4.OUVER•%VEST.main &N1 www.vemtdrdlmaeon Cone Penetration Testing Procedure (CPT) Gregg In Situ, Inc. carries out all Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) using an integrated electronic cone system, Figure CPT. The soundings were conducted using a 20 ton capacity cone with a tip area of 15 cm2 and a friction sleeve area of 225 cm2. The cone is designed with an equal end area friction sleeve and a tip end area ratio of 0.85. The cone takes measurements of cone bearing (q,), sleeve friction (fs) and dynamic pore water pressure (u2) at 5-cm intervals during penetration to provide a nearly continuous hydrogeologic log. CPT data reduction and interpretation is performed in real time facilitating on - site decision making. The above mentioned parameters are stored on disk for further analysis and reference. All CPT soundings are performed in accordance with revised (2002) ASTM standards (D 5778-95). The cone also contains a porous filter element located directly behind the cone tip (u2), Figure CPT. It consists of porous plastic and is 5.0mm thick. The filter element is used to obtain dynamic pore pressure as the cone is advanced as well as Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT's) during appropriate pauses in penetration. It should be noted that prior to penetration, the element is fully saturated with silicon oil under vacuum pressure to ensure accurate and fast dissipation. Geophones (VS& Vp) Friction Sleeve Tip load cell Tip load cell Figure CPT Push rod connector Soil seal Electric cable for signal transmission Water Seal Friction load cell Inclinometer Ox8ty) Water Seal Soil seal Pore Pressure Transducer (u2) Filter Cone Tip (qc) When the soundings are complete, the test holes are grouted using a Gregg In Situ support rig. The grouting procedure consists of pushing a hollow CPT rod with a "knock out" plug to the termination depth of the test hole. Grout is then pumped under pressure as the tremie pipe is pulled from the hole. Disruption or further contamination to the site is therefore minimized. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cone Penetration Test Data & Interpretation Soil behavior type and stratigraphic interpretation is based on relationships between cone bearing (qr), sleeve friction (A), and pore water pressure (u2). The friction ratio (RA is a calculated parameter defined by 100flq, and is used to infer soil behavior type. Generally: Cohesive soils (clays) • High friction ratio (Rf) due to small cone bearing (qc) • Generate large excess pore water pressures (u2) Cohesionless soils (sands) • Low friction ratio (Rf) due to large cone bearing (qc) • Generate very little excess pore water pressures (u2) A complete set of baseline readings are taken prior to and at the completion of each sounding to determine temperature shifts and any zero load offsets. Corrections for temperature shifts and zero load offsets can be extremely important, especially when the recorded loads are relatively small. In sandy soils, however, these corrections are generally negligible. The cone penetration test data collected from your site is presented in graphical form in Appendix CPT. The data includes CPT logs of measured soil parameters, computer calculations of interpreted soil behavior types (SBT), and additional geotechnical parameters. A summary of locations and depths is available in Table 1. Note that all penetration depths referenced in the data are with respect to the existing ground surface. Soil interpretation for this project was conducted using recent correlations developed by Robertson et al, 1990, Figure SBT. Note that it is not always possible to clearly identify a soil type based solely on q,, f, and u2. In these situations, experience, judgment, and an assessment of the pore pressure dissipation data should be used to infer the soil behavior type. 2 3 4 5 8 Friction Ralio (%), R1 ZONE QUN SBT 1 2 Sensitive, fine grained 2 1 Organic materials 3 1 Clay 4 1.5 Silty clay to clay 5 2 Clayey silt to silty clay 6 2.5 Sandy silt to clayey silt 7 3 Silty sand to sandy silt 8 4 ',,Sand to silty sand 9 5 Sand 10 6 Gravely sand to sand 11 1 ' Very stiff fine grained' 12 2 ?-=;:Sand to clayey sand" 7 8 Figure SBT *over consolidated or cemented 1 Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT) Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT's) conducted at various intervals measured hydrostatic water pressures and determined the approximate depth of the ground water table. A PPDT is conducted when the cone is halted at specific intervals determined by the field representative. The variation of the penetration pore pressure (u) with time is measured behind the tip of the cone and recorded by a computer system. Pore pressure dissipation data can be interpreted to provide estimates of: • Equilibrium piezometric pressure • Phreatic Surface • In situ horizontal coefficient of consolidation (ch) • In situ horizontal coefficient of permability (kh) In order to correctly interpret the equilibrium piezometric pressure and/or he phreatic surface, the pore pressure must be monitored until such time as there is no variation in pore pressure with time, Figure PPDT. This time is commonly referred to as two, the point at which 100% of the excess pore pressure has dissipated. A complete reference on pore pressure dissipation tests is presented by Robertson et al. 1991. A summary of the pore pressure dissipation tests is summarized in Table 1. Pore pressure dissipation data is presented in graphical form in Appendix PPDT. Pore Pressure (u) measured here D.nrc - L) pti cf Gore rrw:-,,. D:wr: in 11ve.e. - Head of Watar L MIA Ilejv ..,.......r.. raw 2 f. 1 A...... a v. how We ter Table 0alcu alur Dwater = Dco where Hwaler = Ile (depth units) U soul Corrvcrsior Factors 1psi = U. /1:4rr = 2.51 Lc) (watcr} l tsf - 0.958 bar - 13.9 psi 1m-3.29feet Figure PPDT GREGG DRILLING AND TESTING, INC. GREGG IN SITU, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GF-OECr&NICAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES Bibliography Campanella, R.G. and I. Weemees, 'Development and Use of An Electrical Resistivity Cone tor Groundwater Contamination Studies", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5,1990 pp. 557-567. Daniel, C.R., J.A. Howie and A. Sy, 'A Method tor` Correlating Large Penetration Test (LPT) to Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Blow Counts', 55th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Proceedings 2002. DeGrooL D.J. and A.J. Lutenegger, 'Reliability of Soil Gas Sampling and Characterization Techniques'; International Site Characterization Conference - Atlanta, 1998, Greig, J.w., R.G. Campanella and P.K. Robertson, 'Comparison of Field Vane Results With other In -Situ Test Results', International Symposium, on Laboratory and Field Vane Shear Strength Testing, ASTM, Tampa, FL, Proceedings,1987. Kurturst, P.J. and D.J. Woeller, 'Electric cone Penetrometer - Development and Field Results From tho Canadian Arctic', Penetration Testing 1988,ISOPT, Orlando, Volume 2 pp 823-830. Marchetti S., P. Monaco, G. Talon, M. Calabrese, 'The Flat Dilatometer Test (DMT) In Sal Investigations', Report of the ISSMGE Technical Committee, IN SITU 2001 Intl. Conf. On In Situ Measurement of soil Properties, Ball, Indonesia. Mayne, P.W.,'NHI (2002) Manual on Subsurface Investigations: Geotechnical Site Characterization', available through www.ce.aatech.edul-tfeosys/FaculNlMavnelpaperslndex.html, Section 5.3, pp. 107-112. Robertson, P.K., R.G. Campanella, D. Gillespie and A. Rice, 'Seismic CPT to Measure In -Situ Shear Wave Vek Journal of Geotechnical Engineering:ASCE, Vol,112, No. 8, 1986 pp.791=803. Robertson, P.K.. T. Lunne and J.J.M. Powell, 'Geo-Environmental Application of Penetration Testing , Geot Site Characterization, Robertson & Mayne (editors),1998 Batkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 939 4 pp Robersson, P.K., "So11-Cfassifrcation using the Cone Penetration Test', Canadian GeotechnicS Journal, Vol: 27, 1990 pp,151-158: Woeilor, 0,J., P.K. Robertson, T;J: Boyd and Dave Thomas, "Detection of Poyaromatie Hydrocarbon Contaminants Using the UVIF-CPT', 5.3a Canadian Geotechnical Conference Montreal, QC October pp. 733-739, 2000 Zeno, D.A., TA, Detfino, J.D. Gallinatti, VA Baker and L,R: Hilpert, 'Field Comparison of Analytical Results from Discrete -Depth Groundwater Samplers' BAT EnvlroProbe and QED HydroPunch, Sixth national Outdoor Action Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada Proceedings,1992, pp 299-312. Copies of ASTM Standards are available through wNrw,astrn.org 272 California 90755 • (5621427-6899 • FAX (562) 427.3314 •SAITt AKE?nil • TPA. .T<,\.%atk`%n:''P..R .kti''.'3T'OFR1 I ::VY,+.U(`alsrA .Owar FY iRine..a,u� MO EN NIB 1M1 NEI 111111 1E11 NEI M 1 0 0.0 LOWNEY Site: HOAG HOSPITAL PET WRLL Engineer: A.BASTRNI Location:CPT-01 Date: 01: 24:05 10: 05 qt (tsf) 300 0.0 Hand Auger I I Max. Depth: 50.03 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) fs (tsf) 5.0 1 1 1 1 �I M I Hand Auger P f (`Z ) SPT N(60) SBT 0 1 1 1 100 0 1p fUndefined Silty sand sand 1 I Sand 1 Silty Sand/Sand Sandy Silt 1 Silt Sandy Silt Silty Sand/Sand 1 Sandy Silt Sit 1 ,'Sandy Salt Santdy silt 'Silt Clayey Silt 1 Silt 1 ! Clayey Silt Silt ammo mamma 64,1,10 111111 SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson 1990) INN M LOW\EY Site:HOAG HOSPITAL RET WALL Engineer: A.BASTANI Locat ion: CPT-01 Dat e: 01 : 24: 05 10: 05 O 0.0 -5.0 CL -25.0 0 -50.0 qt (tsf) 300 0. C Hand Auger 50.03 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) fs (tsf) U (psi) 0 300 1111 1111 Hand Auger Rf (%) 0 10 SST 0 I undefined {I Silty Sand/Sand i Sand Silty Sand/Sand !Sandy Silt 1 Silt Sandy Silt Silty Sand.Sand !sandy Silt Silt i Sandy Silt gg 1 Sandy SL1t it Silt 1 Clayey Silt iClayey Silt SST: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson 1990) INN M N=— I N 1 M M_ M M I M= N M M ■ LOWNEY Site:HOAG HOSPITAL PET WALL Engineer: A.BASTANI Location: CPT-02 Date:01:24:05 09:05 0.0 -5.0 - 10.0 - 15.0 qt (tsf) 0 300 0.0 HandAuger ✓ Yn LL -25.0 - O - 35.0 _..._ - 50.0 [ ! ! t flax. Depth: 50.03 (ft) Depth. Inc.: 0.164 (f t ) fs (tsf) 5.0 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Hand Auger Pf (%) 10 1 11!I111 Hand Huger SPT N(60) 0 100 SBT jUndelined Sandy Sill j Silty Sand/Sand 11 Sandy Silt 'Silty Sand/Sand 1 Sand Silty Sand/Sand 1 Sandy Slit j Ct ayey Sttt a dy Silt 1 Si1t 1 Clayey Silt !Silt I Clayey Salt Sandy Silt Clayey Silt Silt SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson 1990) I N I— I M-- —— I I a— —= M= LOWNEY Site: HOAG HOSPITAL PET WALL Engineer:A.BASTANI Location: CPT-02 Date: 01:24:05 OS:05 qt (tsf) 0 0.0 I I 11 I I I HandAuger -5.0 - 10.0 - 15.0 300 a a) -25.0 _ 0 - 35.0 -- - 50.0 l I 1 Max. Depth: 50.03 (40 Depth Inc.: 0.164 ( f t ) fs (tsic ) 0.0 5.0 _ I I I[ 1 I I I Hand Auger U (psi) Rf (`>) 300 0 10 �IIII.IIII Hand Auger SST undefined j Sandy Silt I Silty Sand,Sand Sandy Silt 'Silty Sand,Sand Silty Sand,Sand .'Sandy Silt 1 Clayey Silt Sit Sandy Stlt 1 Silt I Clayey Silt Clayey Silt Clayey Silt SOT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson 19S0) E SIMI Mil NM I .� LOWNEY Site:HOAG HOSPITAL PET WRLL Engineer: A.BASTANI Locat ion:CPT-03 Oat e:01:24:05 08:05 qt (tsf) 0 0.0 1 1 1 1 I I I I -5.0 Hand Auger 300 0.0 - 10.0 - 30.0 -40.0 - 45.0 -50.0 Max. Depth: 24. 1 1 CH) t) Depth Inc.: 0.164 Cot) fs (tsf) 5.0 11 1 1 1 1 1_ Hand Auger Pf (`%) 0 10 II IIII Hand 'Auger SPT N(60) 0 100 SBT 3 12 SIMMS WM= KO Nelectille i Undetlned Sand ISLL<y Sand/Sand Sandy Si" San�yy Silt < Silty Sand,Sand l Sandy Silt Clayey Silt Silt San tly Silt Silt }Sandy Silt 11111'11111 SST: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson 1920) MN NW NM I N EN —— N MN M— SO N N— N INN I WIEGG LOWNEY Site: HOAG HOSPITRL PET WALL Engineer: A.BASTANI Location: CPT-03 Date: 01:24:05 02:05 qt Ctsf) O 0.0 I I I ! I -5.0 - 10.0 Hand Auger 300 0.0 -15.0 _ v - -20.0 _,.. L a N -30.0 - 40.0 - 50.0 I I Max. Depth: 24.11 (4 ) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (4 t) fs (tsf) 5.0 I I 1 I I I Hand Auger I I I 1 4 I I I I U (psi) 0 300 II11 1111 Hand Auger 1 I 1 1 I I Rf (%) 10 0 SBT Undenned Sand I Silty Sand,Sand ISandy Silt 1 aayey $ It it yy Sand/Sand I Sandy Silt 1 Silt Clayey Sit 1 Silt Sandy Silt i Silt .IISandy Silt it craveylly` sand L I 11 1 1 1 1 nim-llllll SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson 1990) I a— _-- -- NE SE I N N NM I_— M 1 ©W\ FY Sit e: HOAG HOSPITAL PET I.IALL Engi neer: f.BASTANI Location: CPT-04 Date:01:24:05 11:40 qt (tsf) 0 0.0 1 1 1 1 I f F -5.0 - 10.0 Hand Auger 300 0.0 - 15.0 - Y ✓ -20.0- - 30.0 - -35.0 - - 45.0 - - 50.0 1 1 1 1 Max. Depth: 50.03 Cf ) Depth inc.: 0.164 Cft) fs (tsf) Pf CZ.) 5.0 0 10 Hand Auger 1111 I 1 I 1 Hand Auge SPT N(60) 0 100 SBT Undefined 1 1 'Clay 1 Sandy Silt I Silty Sand,Sand 1 Sensitive et Fines .IClayey Silt 1 Silt 1 Crganic Soil 1 Clay jOrganic Sall Clay f Silty Clay II Clayey Silt 1 Silty Clay I Clay I Silty Clay {nay I Silty Clay i!Clayey Silt j Silty Clay clay j Silty Clay 1 1 I Clay 1 • 1.11111! SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Pater tson 1990) i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I 0.0 -5.0 - 10.0 LOWNEY Site: HOAG HOSPITAL PET WALL Engineer:A.BASTANI Locati on: CPT-04 Date: 01:24:05 11:40 qt (tsf) 0 300 1 1 1 1 I I I I Hand Auger -25.0 — G - 35.0 -- - 40.0 -- - 45.0 — -50.0 1 1 1 1 1 Max. Depth: 50.03 (4t) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (4t) fs Ctsf) 0.0 U (psi) 5.0 0 300 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hand Auger I I 1 111 1 i 1 Hand Auger Rf (`Z) 0 10 1!1 Hand Auger I I r+-1 I I 1 SBT 12 clay I Sandy 5[It {Silty sana,Sana i Sensi'tiv'et Fines 1 Clayey Silt Silt I Organic Soil Clay I Organic Sail 11 Clay '111 Silty Clay 1 1 Clayey Silt Silty Clay t 1 clay SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson 1990) NM M - _ I - - N = O - i 1AJrXNY Site:HOAG HOSPITAL RET WALL Engineer:A.BASTANI Location:CPT-01 Date:01:24:05 10:05 PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION RECORD 200.0 N 100.0 L • 0.0 0 -100.O 0.OK 1.OK TIME (sec) 2.OK 3.OK File: 016CO1.PPC Depth (n): 15.25 (ft): 50.03 Duration : 2005.0s U-nin: 16.42 1995.0s U-nax: 303.95 5.0s GEcW»thn geophysical services a division of Blackhawk GeoServices REPORT SURFACE WAVE MEASUREMENTS Hoag Hospital Newport Beach, California GEOVision Project No. 5141 Prepared for Lowney Associates 251 East Imperial Highway, Suite 470 Fullerton, California 92835 Prepared by GEOVision Geophysical Services Division of Blackhawk GeoServices 1151 Pomona Rd, Unit P Corona, CA 92882 (951) 549-1234 February 2, 2005 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 OVERVIEW OF THE SURFACE WAVE METHODS 2 1 3 FIELD PROCEDURES 5 1 4 DATA REDUCTION AND MODELING 8 5 INTERPRETATION AND RESULTS 10 1 6 CONCLUSIONS 16 7 REFERENCES 17 1 8 CERTIFICATION 18 1 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 VELOCITY MODEL FOR SURFACE WAVE ARRAY A 10 TABLE 2 VELOCITY MODEL FOR SURFACE WAVE ARRAY B 10 TABLE 3 VELOCITY MODEL FOR SURFACE WAVE ARRAY C 10 TABLE 4 VELOCITY MODEL FOR SURFACE WAVE ARRAY D 14 1 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 BASIC CONFIGURATION OF SASW MEASUREMENTS 3 FIGURE 2 SITE LOCATION MAP 6 FIGURE 3 TYPICAL SASW EQUIPMENT 7 ' FIGURE 4 EXAMPLE SLANT STACK F-P TRANSFORM OF REFRACTION MICROTREMOR DATA 9 FIGURES VELOCITY MODEL FOR SASW AND REFRACTION MICROTREMOR ARRAY A 11 FIGURE 6 VELOCITY MODEL FOR SASW AND REFRACTION MICROTREMOR ARRAY B 12 ' FIGURE 7 VELOCITY MODEL FOR SASW AND REFRACTION MICROTREMOR ARRAY C 13 FIGURE 8 VELOCITY MODEL FOR SASW AND REFRACTION MICROTREMOR ARRAY D 15 1 1 1 5141rep.doc 1 1 INTRODUCTION In -situ seismic measurements using the Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) and refraction microtremor methods were made at Hoag Hospital, Newport Beach, California on January 18, 2005. The purpose of this investigation was to provide shear wave velocity profiles to a depth of 30 meters (m) at four locations on the site. At many sites the SASW technique with the utilization of portable energy sources, such as hammers and weight drops, is sufficient to obtain a 30m/100ft S-wave velocity sounding. At sites with high ambient noise levels and/or very soft soils, these energy sources may not be sufficient to image to 30m and a larger energy source such as a bulldozer is necessary. Alternatively, passive surface wave techniques such as the refraction microtremor method of Louie, 2001 can be used to extend depth of investigation at sites that have adequate noise levels. This report contains the results of the SASW and microtremor measurements conducted along four arrays at the site. An overview of the SASW and microtremor methods is given in Section 2. Field and data reduction procedures are discussed in Sections 3 and 4, respectively. Interpretation and results are presented in Section 5. Section 6 presents our conclusions. References and our professional certification are presented in Sections 7 and 8, respectively. 5141rep.doc 2 OVERVIEW OF THE SURFACE WAVE METHODS Spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) testing is an in -situ seismic method for determining shear wave velocity (Vs) profiles [Stokoe et al., 1994; Stokoe et al., 1989]. It is non-invasive and non-destructive, with all testing performed on the ground surface at strain levels in the soil in the elastic range (< 0.001%). The basis of the SASW method is the dispersive characteristic of Rayleigh waves when propagating in a layered medium. The phase velocity, VR, depends primarily on the material properties (Vs, mass density, and Poisson's ratio or compression wave velocity) over a depth of approximately one wavelength. Waves of different wavelengths, X, (or frequencies, f) sample different depths. As a result of the variance in the shear stiffness of the layers, waves with different wavelengths travel at different phase velocities; hence, dispersion. A surface wave dispersion curve, or dispersion curve for short, is the variation of VR with X or f. SASW testing consists of collecting surface wave phase data in the field, generating the dispersion curve, and then using iterative modeling to back -calculate the shear stiffness profile. A detailed description of the SASW field procedure is given in Joh [1997]. A vertical dynamic load is used to generate horizontally -propagating Rayleigh waves (Figure 1). The ground motions are monitored by two vertical receivers and recorded by the data acquisition system capable of performing both time and frequency -domain calculations. Theoretical as well as practical considerations, such as attenuation, necessitate the use of several receiver spacings to generate the dispersion curve over the wavelength range required to evaluate the stiffness profile. To minimize phase shifts due to differences in receiver coupling and subsurface variability, the source location is reversed. After the time -domain motions from the two receivers are converted to frequency -domain records using the Fast Fourier Transform, the cross power spectrum and coherence are calculated. The phase of the cross power spectrum, 4H, (f), represents the phase differences between the two receivers as the wave train propagates past them. It ranges from -it to It in a wrapped form and must be unwrapped through an interactive process called masking. Phase jumps are specified, near -field data (wavelengths longer than three times the distance from the source to first receiver), and low -coherence data are removed. The experimental dispersion curve is calculated from the unwrapped phase angle and the distance between receivers by: VR=f * d2/(0$/360°), where VR is Rayleigh wave phase velocity, f is frequency, d2 is the distance between receivers, and A4 is the phase difference in degrees. WinSASW, a program developed at the University of Texas at Austin, is used to reduce and interpret the dispersion curve. Through iterative forward modeling, a Vs profile is found whose theoretical dispersion curve is a close fit to the field data. The final model profile is assumed to represent actual site conditions. Several options exist for forward modeling: a formulation that takes into account only fundamental -mode Rayleigh wave 5141rep.doc 2 = n I I = I I M MI I = MI — N l UM Dynamic signal analyzer with disk drive Vertical dynamic source: forward configuration / reverse configuration d1 -for d2 d1 - rev NOTE: MODIFIED FROM JOH, 1997. GETWisbn a d,wnw M ✓4faeNRaxN OnServi ar FIGURE 1 BASIC CONFIGURATION OF SASW MEASUREMENTS Project # 5141 Date: Feb 1, 2005 Drawn By: A MARTIN Approved By: File c:Wvwelecrels1411ow 1.cdr LOWNEY ASSOCIATES HOAG HOSPITAL NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR motion (called the 2-D solution), and one that includes all stress waves and incorporates receiver geometry (3-D solution) [Roesset et al., 1991]. The theoretical model used to interpret the dispersion assumes horizontally layered, laterally invariant, homogeneous -isotropic material. Although these conditions are seldom strictly met at a site, the results of SASW testing provide a good "global" estimate of the material properties along the array. The results may be more representative of the site than a borehole "point" estimate. Based on our experience at other sites, the shear wave velocity models determined by SASW testing are within 20% of the velocities that would be determined by other seismic methods [Brown, 1998]. The average velocities, however, are much more accurate than this, often to better than 10%, because they are much less sensitive to the layering in the model. The refraction microtremor technique is a passive surface wave technique developed by Dr. John Louie at University of Nevada, Reno. A detailed description of this technique can be found in Louie, 2001. The refraction microtremor method differs from the more established array microtremor technique in that it uses a linear receiver array rather than a triangular or circular array. Unlike the SASW method, which uses an active energy source (i.e. hammer), the microtremor technique records background noise emanating from ocean wave activity, wind noise, traffic, industrial activity, construction, etc. Refraction microtremor field procedures consist of laying out a linear array of 24, 4.5 to 8Hz geophones and recording 10, or more, 15 to 60 second noise records. These noise records are reduced using the software package SeisOpt® ReMiTM v2.0 by OptimTM Software and Data Services. This package is used to generate and combine the slowness (p) — frequency (f) transform of the noise records. The surface wave dispersion curve is picked at the lower envelope of the surface wave energy identified in the p-f spectrum. The refraction microtremor and SASW techniques compliment one another as outlined below: • SASW technique images the shallow velocity structure which cannot be imaged by the microtremor technique and is needed for an accurate Vs30/V s100' estimate. • Microtremor techniques work best in noisy environments where SASW depth investigation may be limited. • In a noisy environment the microtremor technique will usually extend the depth of an SASW sounding. • The degree of fit in the overlapping portion of the dispersion curves from the two techniques provides a level of confidence in the results. 5141 rep.doc 4 3 FIELD PROCEDURES SASW and refraction microtremor data were collected along four arrays (Arrays A to D) at the site as shown in Figure 2. Rock hammers, 31b hammers and 12- and 20-lb sledgehammers were used as energy sources for the SASW soundings along Arrays A to C. A truck-mountedaccelerated weight drop was also used for the SASW sounding along Array D. This source was not used for Arrays A to C because of limited site access. Data from the transient impacts (hammers) were averaged 10 to 20 times to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Surface waves were monitored by two Oyo Geospace 1 Hz and/or 4.5 Hz geophones and recorded by an HP 35670A dynamic signal analyzer. Photographs of typical SASW equipment are presented in Figure 3. The SASW data were collected along Arrays A to C with base receiver spacings of 2, 4, 6 and 8m. These receiver spacings generally provided adequate overlap of dispersion data over a wavelength range of 1.5 to 12m. Data could not be obtained at larger receiver spacings due to the soft soils, high ambient noise levels and because the weight drop could not be used at these locations. The SASW data were collected along Array D with base receiver spacings of 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16 and 30m. These receiver spacings generally provided adequate overlap of dispersion data over a wavelength range of 1.5 to 40m. Generally, the high frequency (short wavelength) surface waves were measured across the short spacings and the low frequency (long wavelength) surface waves were measured with the large receiver spacings. The dispersion data averaged across longer distances are often smoother as the affects of localized heterogeneities are averaged. For each receiver spacing, reversed source locations were occupied with a common centerline, where possible. At each SASW sounding location, refraction microtremor measurements were made along a linear array of 24, 4.5Hz geophones with a 5 or 6m (16 or 20ft) geophone spacing. At each location a Geometries Geode, 24 bit, 24-channel seismic recording system was used to record twenty 30s noise records using a 2ms sample rate. Data were stored on a laptop computer for later processing. 5141rep.doc 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CO_ rz - 0 0 to- 0 0 0 0 0- r, 2 kn °3- z E 48000 E 48200 E 48400 E 48600 E 48800 mailS arsi """“linianta , •••0 . ea tiir;rfe E 49000 LEGEND A • - Approximote center of SASW orray Approximate location of microtremor array - Approximate location of proposed exploratory borings and monitoring wells — Approximote locotion of proposed cone penetrotion tests (CPTs) NOTE: BASE MAP PROVIDED LOWNEY ASSOCIATES E 49200 E 49400 E 49600 E 49800 E 50000 E 50200 0 0 co 2 0 to 2 r, 2 0 0 ry 2 8 - CO 2 0 100 200 390 (Int) APPROXIMATE SCALE G thbn fitel !engem of aisSatle FIGURE - 2 SITE MAP Project # 5141 Dote Jon 31,2005 Developed by A MARTIN Drawn by T RODRIGUEZ Approved by File Z:\5141\5141-1.dwg HOAG HOSPITAL NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR LOWNEY ASSOCIATES I I N N NM MN NM N N N NM N— MN M NE EN I Hewlett Packard HP35670A Dynamic Signal Analyzer Accelerated Weight Drop Bulldozer Energy Source Oyo GeoSpace GS1 1Hz Geophone Various Hammer Energy Sources GEWelela FIGURE 3 TYPICAL SASW EQUIPMENT Project # 5141 Date: Jan 31, 2005 Drawn By: A MARTIN Approved By: Ale C:oyprc(ede151411owAf3.cdr HOAG HOSPITAL NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR LOWNEY ASSOCIATES 4 DATA REDUCTION AND MODELING The SASW data was reduced using WinSASW and the following steps: • Input forward and reverse -direction phase spectrum and coherence for a receiver spacing • Enter receiver spacing, geometry and wavelength restrictions (max. wavelength = 2 times the receiver spacing) • Mask phase data (either the forward and reverse directions individually or the average) • Generate dispersion curve • Repeat for all receiver spacings and merge all dispersion curves The microtremor data was reduced using the OptimTM Software and Data Services SeisOpt® ReMiTM v2.0 data analysis package. Data reduction steps included the following: • Conversion of SEG-2 format field files to SEG-Y format. • Data preprocessing which includes trace -equalization gaining and DC offset removal. • Erasing geometry from the file header. • Computing the velocity spectrum of each record by p-f transformation. • Combining the individual p-f transforms into one image. • Picking and saving the velocity spectrum image. As an example, the combined slant stack f-p transform of the multiple noise records and picked dispersion curve for Array D is presented in Figure 4. The dispersion curves for the four arrays were output as an ASCII files and reformatted into the WINSASW format for modeling. The surface wave dispersion curves from the SASW data and microtremor data were combined and an iterative forward modeling process was used to generate S-wave velocity models for the sounding. During this process an initial velocity model was generated based on general characteristics of the dispersion curve. The theoretical dispersion curve was then generated using the 2-D modeling algorithm (fundamental mode Rayleigh wave dispersion module) and compared to the field dispersion curve. Adjustments are then made to the thickness and velocities of each layer and the process repeated until an acceptable fit to the field data is obtained. Constant mass density values of 1.8 to 2.1 g/cc were used in the profile for subsurface soils. Within the normal range encountered in geotechnical engineering, variation in mass density has a negligible effect on surface wave dispersion. For modeling the compression wave velocity, Vp, was estimated using a Poisson's ratio, v, of 0.33 and the relationship: Vp = Vs L(2(1-v))/(1-2v)]os 5141rep.doc 8 1 N MI M- i MB r I= M= 1 N N I FREQUENCY (HZ) 00 12.5 ❑ INTERPRETED DISPERSION CURVE 25 �- �'j� �J" FIGURE 4 GE ASlibn EXAMPLE SLANT STACK F-P TRANSFORM OF :Sa'&:tL.a.xa�+.. REFRACTION MICROTREMOR DATA Project # 5141 Date: Feb 1, 2005 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Drawn By: A MARTIN Approved By: FIB CAgvpraecie151411osW4.cdr LOWNEY ASSOCIATES HOAG HOSPITAL PREPARED FOR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 INTERPRETATION AND RESULTS The fit of the theoretical dispersion curve to the experimental data collected at the site and the modeled Vs profile for Arrays A to C are presented in Figures 5 to 7, respectively. The resolution decreases gradually with depth, because of loss of sensitivity of the dispersion curve to changes in Vs at greater depth. The Vs profiles used to match the field data for Arrays A to C are provided in tabular form as Tables 1 to 3, respectively. Table 1 Velocity Model for Surface Wave Array A Approx. Elevation to Top of Layer Depth to Top of Layer Layer Thickness S-Wave Velocity m ft m ft m ft m/s ft/s 19.1 62.7 0 0.0 1 3.3 145 476 18.1 59.4 1 3.3 2.5 8.2 165 541 15.6 51.2 3.5 11.5 7 23.0 220 722 8.6 28.3 10.5 34.4 19 62.3 245 804 -10.4 -34.1 29.5 96.8 47 154.2 355 1165 -57.4 -188.3 76.5 251.0 >3.5 >11.5 475 1558 Table 2 Velocity Model for Surface Wave Array B Approx. Elevation to Top of Layer Depth to Top of Layer Layer Thickness S-Wave Velocity m ft m ft m ft m/s ft/s 19.7 64.6 0 0.0 1 3.3 170 558 18.7 61.3 1 3.3 1.35 4.4 145 476 17.3 56.9 2.35 7.7 5.15 16.9 260 853 12.2 40.0 7.5 24.6 20 65.6 230 755 -7.8 -25.6 27.5 90.2 45 147.6 350 1148 -52.8 -173.3 72.5 237.9 >7.5 >24.6 500 1640 Table 3 Velocity Model for Surface Wave Array C Approx. Elevation to Top of Layer Depth to Top of Layer Layer Thickness S-Wave Velocity m ft m ft m ft m/s ft/s 18.3 60 0 0.0 1 3.3 145 476 17.3 56.7 1 3.3 3 9.8 195 640 14.3 46.9 4 13.1 9 29.5 265 869 5.3 17.3 13 42.7 16 52.5 242 794 -10.7 -35.1 29 95.1 45 147.6 355 1165 -55.7 -182.8 74 242.8 >6 >19.7 500 1640 1 5141 rep.doc 10 1 i1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Wavelength (AR), m 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 20 E a40 a) 0 60 80 0 Surface Wave Velocity (VR), ft/s 500 1000 1500 1 r i 0 Experimental SASW Data Experimental Microtremor Data Theoretical Dispersion Curve clo O0o - I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 Surface Wave Velocity (V R), m/s Comparison of Field Experimental Data and Theoretical Dispersion Curve from SASW and Microtremor Array Shear Wave Velocity (V S), ft/s 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 1111111rr11lrr11111111111111i111111rlirir0 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 l i 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 — - 100 tl `(the) yt6ualanee - 0 w - 0 — - 150 — 200 l ll 1 l l 1- 250 100 200 300 400 500 600 Shear Wave Velocity (V S), m/s Vs Profile from SASW and Microtremor Array GEM stan •d w.r�.r,..,,r<.. a a�ekPon oteioatp•an cvrusn:k« FIGURE 5 VELOCITY MODEL FOR SASW AND REFRACTION MICROTREMOR ARRAY A Project# 5141 Date: Jan 28, 2005 Drawn By: A MARTIN Approved By: File C':gvprolects151411oM15.cdr HOAG HOSPITAL NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR LOWNEY ASSOCIATES Wavelength (AR), m E a a3 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 20 60 80 0 Surface Wave Velocity (VR), ft/s 500 1000 1500 1 1 0 Experimental SASW Data Experimental Microtremor Data Theoretical Dispersion Curve I I 1 a© O� I 9t71 I 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 Surface Wave Velocity (V R), m/s Comparison of Field Experimental Data and Theoretical Dispersion Curve from SASW and Microtremor Array Shear Wave Velocity (V S), ft/s 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 I I I I I I I 1 1 1—.41 1 1 1 1 1 1 l i l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 100 200 300 400 500 Shear Wave Velocity (V S), m/s Vs Profile from SASW and Microtremor Array 0 — 50 — - 100 — 200 — - 250 1 I 1 600 g'(ae) yt6ualaneM GE(Wist©n a d,euirn a/1kc<kAnaF Oee&+rita FIGURE 6 VELOCITY MODEL FOR SASW AND REFRACTION MICROTREMOR ARRAY B Project # 5141 Date: Jan 28, 2005 Drawn By: A MARTIN Approved By: File Clgvprojects‘.51411awlf&cdr HOAG HOSPITAL NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR LOWNEY ASSOCIATES Wavelength (XR), m E a d 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 20 80 0 Surface Wave Velocity (V R), ff/s 500 1000 1500 1 1 I l 1 1 1 1 0 Experimental SASW Data Experimental Mia-otremor Data Theoretical Dispersion Curve • O 0 i I 1 ob 1 I 1 1 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 200 400 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 Surface Wave Velocity (V R), m/s Comparison of Field Experimental Data and Theoretical Dispersion Curve from SASW and Microtremor Array Shear Wave Velocity (V s), ft/s 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 I I 1 1 1 1 1 l •}i—! I Il 1 I I I I l I 1 I l I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 ri 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l l 100 200 300 400 500 Shear Wave Velocity (V s), m/s Vs Profile from SASW and Microtremor Array 'I 1 1 — 50 g `(ae) 1.4j6ualaneM — - 100 - O rD — - 150 t - 200 250 600 GEW'kii n et+vabvlwlaarvtav MYY4n a(iei o W bnrk CeeEioaoa FIGURE 7 VELOCITY MODEL FOR SASW AND REFRACTION MICROTREMOR ARRAY C Project # 5141 Date: Jan 28, 2005 Drawn By: A MARTIN Approved By: File C1evprgedst5141lowW.cdr HOAG HOSPITAL NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR LOWNEY ASSOCIATES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 All of these arrays are located on the bluff overlooking the current parking lot and have very similar models. The SASW dispersion data can be quite variable at small wavelengths. This is typically a function of lateral heterogeneity in subsurface soils. The velocities of the small - wavelength surface waves are measured across short distances, whereas the velocities of the longer wavelength surface waves are measured over greater distances. The dispersion data averaged across longer distances are often smoother as the affects of localized heterogeneities are averaged. The surface wave phase velocities from the microtremor measurements are in very good agreement with those from the SASW sounding in the region of overlap. The estimated depth of investigation of the combined SASW-microtremor soundings are over 50m (164ft). The shear wave velocity models for Arrays A to C (Tables 1 to 3) show that soils in the upper 2.4 to 4m (8 to 15 ft) have S-wave velocity ranging from 145 to 195m/s (476 to 640 ft/s). Below this zone, S-wave velocity is between 220 m/s (722 ft/s) and 265 m/s (869 ft/s) to depths of about 27.5 to 29.5m (90 to 97ft). S-wave velocity then increases to about 350 m/s (1,148 ft/s) and may increase to about 500 m/s (1,640 ft/s) at depths between 72.5 to 76.5m (238 to 251 ft). Average shear wave velocity to a depth of 30m, Vs30, is 226, 232 and 240 m/s (741, 762 and 786 ft/s) for Arrays A to C, respectively. The fit of the theoretical dispersion curve to the experimental data collected at the site and the modeled Vs profile for Array D, located in the parking lot at an elevation of about 8m (26ft) lower than that for Arrays A to C, is presented in Figure 8. The Vs profile used to match the field data for Array D is provided in tabular form as Table 4. Table 4 Velocity Model for Surface Wave Array D Approx. Elevation to Top of Layer Depth to Top of Layer Layer Thickness S-Wave Velocity m ft m ft m ft m/s ft/s 11.1 36.5 0 0.0 1 3.3 185 607 10.1 33.2 1 3.3 2.5 8.2 190 623 7.6 25.0 3.5 11.5 2 6.6 230 755 5.6 18.5 5.5 18.0 2 6.6 240 787 3.6 11.9 7.5 24.6 12 39.4 280 919 -8.4 -27.5 19.5 64.0 47 154.2 350 1148 -55.4 -181.7 66.5 218.2 >13.5 >44.3 500 1640 The surface wave phase velocities from the microtremor measurements are in very good agreement with those from the SASW sounding in the region of overlap. The estimated depth of investigation of the combined SASW-microtremor sounding is over 50m (164ft). The shear wave velocity model for Array D (Table 4) show that soils in the upper 3.5m (12 ft) have S-wave velocity ranging from about 185 to 190m/s (607 to 623 ft/s). Below this zone, S- wave velocity is between 230 m/s (755 ft/s) and 280 m/s (919 ft/s) to a depth of about 19.5m (64ft). S-wave velocity then increases to about 350 m/s (1,148 ft/s) and may increase to about 500 m/s (1,640 ft/s) at a depth of about 66.5m (218 ft). Average shear wave velocity to a depth of 30m, Vs30, is 277 m/s (908 ft/s) for Array D. 1 5141 rep.doc 14 Wavelength (XR), m 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 0 Surface Wave Velocity (VR), ft/s 500 1000 1500 200 0 E a 0 a1 0 80 1 1 1 1 Experimental SASW Data Experimental Microtremor Data 0 Theoretical Dispersion Curve 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 100 200 300 400 500 Surface Wave Velocity (V R), m/s Comparison of Field Experimental Data and Theoretical Dispersion Curve from SASW and Microtremor Array Shear Wave Velocity (V S), ft/s 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 i 1 1 l 1 1 1 l l 1i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 l I 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 0 — - 50 — - 100 — 200 i i i i I i 1 i i 1 t i i i 1 i i i i I i i 1 i i- 250 100 200 300 400 500 600 Shear Wave Velocity (V s), m/s Vs Profile from SASW and Microtremor Array g'(a') y16ualeneM GP ECOtsion • tet f n eta likOHrmirb FIGURE 8 VELOCITY MODEL FOR SASW AND REFRACTION MICROTREMOR ARRAY D Project # 5141 Date: Jan 28, 2005 Drawn By: A MARTIN Approved By: File C:lgvprojectsl5141 byAfe cdr HOAG HOSPITAL NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR LOWNEY ASSOCIATES 6 CONCLUSIONS Spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) and refraction microtremor measurements were made along four (4) arrays (Arrays A to D) at Hoag Hospital, Newport Beach, California to characterize shear -wave velocity of the upper 30m (100ft), or more. The location of the surface wave sounding arrays is presented in Figure 2. Three of the soundings (Arrays A to C) were conducted on top of a bluff adjacent to a condominium complex and the remaining sounding (Array D) was conducted in a parking lot at the base of the bluff. The shear wave velocity profiles determined by these methods are presented in this report as Figure 5 to 8 and Tables 1 to 4. In each of the soundings, shear -wave velocity is less that 195m/s (640 ft/s) in the upper 2.4 to 4m (8 to 13 ft). S-wave velocity then ranges from 220 to 280 m/s (722 to 919 ft/s) to an approximate elevation of -7.8 to -10.7 m (-25.6 to -35.1 ft) above sea level below which velocity increases to about 350 m/s (1,148 ft/s). Shear wave velocity may again increase to about 500 m/s (1,640 ft/s) below an elevation of -52.8 to -57.4m (-173 to-188ft). 5141rep.doc 16 7 REFERENCES Brown, L.T., 1998, "Comparison of Vs profiles from SASW and borehole measurements at strong motion sites in Southern California", Master's thesis, University of Texas at Austin. BSSC, 1994, NEHRP Recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings, part I: Provisions, Building Seismic Safety Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C. Imai, T., Fumoto, H., and Yokota, K., 1976, "P- and S-Wave Velocities in Subsurface Layers of Ground in Japan", Oyo Corporation Technical Note N-14. International Committee of Building Officials 2000 International Building Code, ICC, Hauppauge, NY, Section 1615.1.1 Joh, S.H., 1997, "Advances in interpretation and analysis techniques for spectral -analysis -of - surface -waves (SASW) measurements", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Louie, J.N., 2001, "Faster, Better: Shear -Wave Velocity to 100 Meters Depth from Refraction Microtremor Arrays", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 91, no. 2, p. 347-364. Roesset, J.M., Chang, D.W. and Stokoe, K.H., II, 1991, "Comparison of 2-D and 3-D Models for Analysis of Surface Wave Tests," Proceedings, 5`s International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Karlsruhe, Germany. Rix, G.J., 1988, "Experimental study of factors affecting the spectral -analysis -of surface -waves method", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Stokoe, K.H., II, Wright, S.G., Bay, J.A. and Roesset, J.M., 1994, "Characterization of Geotechnical Sites by SASW Method," ISSMFE Technical Committee 10 for XIII ICSMFE, Geophysical Characteristics of Sites A.A. Balkema Publishers/Rotterdam & Brookfield, Netherlands, pp. 146. Stokoe, K.H.,II, Rix, G.L. and S. Nazarian, 1989, "In situ seismic testing with surface waves" Proceedings, Twelfth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 330-334. 5141 rep.doc 17 1 1 8 CERTIFICATION 1 All geophysical data, analysis, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations in this document have been prepared under the supervision of and reviewed by a GEO Vision California Registered Geophysicist. sp GEo ' \��P �FFFAfy tiy4: �c,�/%�ti/�!' 91, 2/2/05 1 Antony J. Martin ;` * o Date California Registered Geophysicist GP989 � GEOVision Geophysical Services 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 This geophysical investigation was conducted under the supervision of a California Registered Geophysicist using industry standard methods and equipment. A high degree of professionalism was maintained during all aspects of the project from the field investigation and data acquisition, through data processing interpretation and reporting. All original field data files, field notes and observations, and other pertinent information are maintained in the project files and are available for the client to review for a period of at least one year. A registered geophysicist's certification of interpreted geophysical conditions comprises a declaration of his/her professional judgment. It does not constitute a warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, nor does it relieve any other party of its responsibility to abide by contract documents, applicable codes, standards, regulations or ordinances. 1 111 5141rep.doc - 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c a� Q Q 1 1 1` 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY PROGRAM The laboratory testing program was directed toward a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the physical and mechanical properties of the soils underlying the site and to aid in verifying soil classification. Moisture Content: The natural water content was determined (ASTM D2216) on all ring samples of the materials recovered from the borings. These water contents are recorded on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. Dry Densities: In place dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on ring samples to measure the unit weight of the subsurface soils. Results of these tests are shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. Plasticity Index: Plasticity Index determinations (ASTM D4318) were performed on three samples of the subsurface soils to measure the range of water contents over which these materials exhibit plasticity. The Plasticity Index was used to classify the soil in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and to evaluate the soil expansion potential. Direct Shear: Direct shear tests (ASTM D3080) were performed on three undisturbed samples to evaluate the strength characteristics of the subsurface soil. The tests were performed at a constant rate of strain and failure was taken as peak and ultimate shear stresses. Sieve and Hydrometer Analyses: Gradation and washed sieve analyses (ASTM D422 and D2217) were performed on three samples of the subsurface soils to aid in soil classification. Results of these tests are included in this appendix. LOtftiiIAIES Page B-1 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 CC 111 -J CC 2 0 i 0 0 5 i U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 4 2 1 1 /2 3 6 10 16 30 50 6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 8 14 20 40 100 ?- 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 w 60 m 55 ce 50 45 z LL 45 w rc-2 40 w LL 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 f 1 100 200 HYDROMETER 1• 100 COBBLES 10 GRAVEL coarse Specimen Identification • m • LB-1 LB-2 10.0 15.0 LB-3 30.0 Specimen Identification • m • t LB-1 10.0 LB-2 15.0 LB-3 30.0 D100 4.75 2 2 fine 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS coarse SAND medium Classification SILT (ML), with sand SILTSTONE (BR) SILTSTONE (BR) D60 0.014 0.023 LO NE,A55ocI TES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services D30 0.002 0.003 fine D10 0.01 SILT OR CLAY LL %Gravel 0.0 0.0 0.0 PL %Sand 26.4 6.3 8.9 PI %Silt Cc 0.001 Cu %Clay 73.6 50.3 43.4 53.5 37.6 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL Location: NEWPORT BEACH, CA Project No.: 1651-26 4' J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 w u. 2 0 O. O. 0 ( N PLASTICITY INDEX (%) N W A (.71 O) O as O O O O O CH • • CL MH OR OH CL-ML OL OR CI 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT (%) 2 u'i Boring No. D (ft.) th Natural Water Content (%) Liquid Limit (%) Plastic Limit (%) Plasticity Index (%) Passing No. 200 Sieve Unified Soil Classification Description • LB-1 20.0 82 39 43 SILTSTONE (BR) m LB-2 25.0 80 36 44 SILTSTONE (BR) ♦ LB-3 20.0 77 37 40 CLAYEY SILT (MN) PLASTICITY CHART AND DATA LOWNEYA Environmental/Geotec/h-nnlccaal//En�gln�eerin/g-S�ervicees SSOCI ATES Project: HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL Location: NEWPORT BEACH, CA Project No.: 1651-26 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4000 3500 3000 y Q. r 2500 0 e1 2000 w ) re 1500 v 1000 500 0 _ i r t r r t t t rill 1 1 1 1 rill 1 1 1 1 I I I r rill mil t r t i l l_ - - • • • Peak O 0 0 Ultimate Strength T Strength lR - bAli eI i i i iris 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 reel I l t i 1 1 1 1 rill 1I I r l r r l l 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Vertical Stress (psf) Test Method: ASTM D3080-90 Rate of Shear (in/min): 0.02 Type of Specimen: Undisturbed Shear Stress (psf) 3000 2000 1000 a„ (psf): 2077 _ av (psf): 1385_ ar, (psf): 692 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Displacement (in) Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) Description LB-1 1 6.0 Silty Sand (SM) Dry Density (pcf): Moisture Content (%) Before Test: After Test: 101.5 3.4 26.7 Peak Strength Friction Angle (deg.) 34 Cohesion (psf) 97 Ultimate Strength Friction Angle (deg.) 29 Cohesion (psf) 28 Direct Shear TP-1 Sample 6.xls TRCIHOAG Project No.. 1651-26 LOWNE1'ASSOCIATES DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 1 Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services Direct Shear LB-1-6.grf Date' Feb. 2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Shear Strength (pst) 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 t r t I t 1 it I t l III r r r I r r 1 I 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1_ - rip • • Peak Strength 1 0 0 Ultimate Strength 1 - l _ / / / 9 / / _ `1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t l l t t t t t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1' 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Vertical Stress (pst) Test Method: ASTM D3080-90 Rate of Shear (in/min): 0.001 Type of Specimen: Undisturbed Shear Stress (pst) 3000 2000 1000 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 av (psf): 4155 0 milli ii 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Displacement (in) Boring No. LB-1 Dry Density (pcf): 74.2 Sample No. 7 Moisture Content (%) Depth (ft) Before Test: 31.8 Description Siltstone (MH) After Test: 56.2 Peak Strength Friction Angle (deg.) 23 Cohesion (psf) 525 Ultimate Strength Friction Angle (deg.) 20 Cohesion (psf) 425 Direct Shear TP-1 Sample 6 xls TRC/HOAG I Project No.. 1625-26 L ' EYASSOCIATES DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 1 Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services Direct Shear Le-1-36.grf Date: Feb. 2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4000 3500 3000 4 2500 l) i 2000 y efa 1500 m ti 1000 500 0 _ t t t I t l t I t 1 1 I 11 1 t l l I t I I t I t 1 1 1 t t r_ - - - - r• • • Peak Strength &O 0 0 Ultimate Strength) A' ttt / 1111 1111 tttt 1111 1111 1111 tttt 1111 - .... 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Vertical Stress (psfl Test Method: ASTM D3080-90 Rate of Shear (in/min): 0.001 Type of Specimen: Undisturbed Shear Stress (psf) 3000 2000 1000 Itrrltttltttl (psf): 4155 — (psf): 2077 s (psf): 1390 0 I lt1 l I t 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Displacement (in) Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) Description LB-3 3 16.0 Clayey Silt (MH) Dry Density (pcf): Moisture Content (%) Before Test: After Test: 72.4 34.0 56.0 Peak Strength Friction Angle (deg.) 22 Cohesion (psf) 310 Ultimate Strength Friction Angle (deg.) Cohesion (psf) 22.5 55 Direct Shear TP-1 Sample 6 xls TRC/HOAG Project No.. 1651-26 LOW'NEVASSOC ATES DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 1 Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services Direct Shear LB-3-16.grf Date: Feb 2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geoteclmkel Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Test Procedure: ASTM D 4767 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Tested by: KK Date: 2/7/05 Project No.: 1651-26 Input Data by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Boring No.: LB-1 Reviewed by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Sample No.: 9 Sample Description: Dark Grayish Brown Shale Depth(ft): 45 Sample Type: 2.5' O.D. Rings Diameter (in) Height (in) 2.415 2.415 2.415 Avg. = 2.415 Avg. = 5.863 5.863 5.863 5.863 BEFORE CONSOLIDATION AFTER CONSOLIDATION Area (in2) 4.581 4.569 Moisture Content (%) Wet Weight (gms) Dry Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) 44.15 14.96 11.15 2.52 FINAL 48.27 955.07 708.69 198.23 Density and Saturation Wet Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) Initial Void Ratio % Saturation 738.22 0.00 104.7 72.6 1.319 90.4 Specific Gravity .= 2.70 Back Pressure Saturation B Value (%) = 95 Change in Ht. of the Specimen (in)= 0 Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) = 46.9 Initial Burette Ht.(cm)= 50.8 Back Pressure(psi) = 40.0 Final Burette Ht.(cm)= 49.7 Eff. Consol. Stress (psi) = 6.9 Final Height (in)= 5.857 Change in Ht. of Specimen (in) = 0.006 Final Volume (cu.in) = 26.789 Shear Rate of Deformation (in/min)= Time to 50% primary Consolidation Failure Criteria: At Failure 0.0040 Deviator Stress (ksf) = 6.97 = min. Eff. Minor Principal stress (ksf) = 0.98 Eff. Major Principal stress (ksf) = 7.95 stress occurs Axial Strain (%) = 4.27 Condition at which maximum deviator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Test Procedure: ASTM D 4767 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Tested by: KK Date: 2/8/05 Project No.: 1651-26 Input Data by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Boring No.: LB-1 Reviewed by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Sample No.: 9 Sample Description: Dark Grayish Brown Shale Depth(ft): 45 Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Diameter (in) 2.448 2.448 2.448 Avg. = 2.448 Height (in) 5.691 5.691 5.691 Avg. = 5.691 BEFORE CONSOLIDATION AFTER CONSOLIDATION Area (In2) 4.707 4.708 Moisture Content (%) 44.15 FINAL 48.27 Wet Weight (gms) Dry Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) 14.96 11.15 2.52 955.07 708.69 198.23 Density and Saturation Wet Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) Initial Void Ratio % Saturation 738.22 0.00 105.0 72.8 1.313 90.8 Specific Gravity = 2.70 Back Pressure Saturation B Value (%) = 95 Change in Ht. of the Specimen (in)= 0 Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) = 53.9 Initial Burette Ht.(cm)= 54.8 Back Pressure(psi) = 40.0 Final Burette Ht.(cm)= 54.5 Eff. Consol. Stress (psi) = 13.9 Final Height (in)= 5.685 Change in Ht. of Specimen (in) = 0.0060 Final Volume (cu.in) = 26.771 Shear At Failure Rate of Deformation (in/min)= 0.0040 Deviator Stress (ksf) = 4.85 Time to 50% primary Consolidation = min. Eff. Minor Principal stress (ksf) = 1.30 Failure Criteria: Eff. Major Principal stress (ksf) = 6.14 Condition at which maximum deviator stress occurs Axial Strain (%) = 2.20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geotetnical Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Test Procedure: ASTM D 4767 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Tested by: KK Date: 2/9/05 Project No.: 1651-26 Input Data by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Boring No.: LB-1 Reviewed by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Sample No.: 9 Sample Description: Dark Grayish Brown Shale Depth(tt): 45 Sample Type: 2.5' O.D. Rings Diameter (In) Height (in) 2.471 2.471 2.471 Avg. = 2.471 Avg. = 5.588 5.588 5.588 5.588 BEFORE CONSOLIDATION AFTER CONSOLIDATION Area (in2) 4.796 4.687 Moisture Content (%) Wet Weight (gms) Dry Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) 44.15 14.96 11.15 2.52 FINAL 48.27 955.07 708.69 198.23 Density and Saturation Wet Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) Initial Void Ratio % Saturation 738.22 0.00 104.9 72.8 1.314 90.7 Specific Gravity = 2.70 Back Pressure Saturation B Value (%) = 95 Change in Ht. of the Specimen (in)= 0 Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) = 67.8 Initial Burette Ht.(cm)= 57.4 Back Pressure(psi) = 40.0 Final Burette Ht.(cm)= 45.6 Elf. Consol. Stress (psi) = 27.8 Final Height (in)= 5.564 Change in Ht. of Specimen (in) = 0.0240 Final Volume (cu.in) = 26.752 Shear Rate of Deformation (in/min)= Time to 50% primary Consolidation Failure Criteria: At Failure 0.0040 Deviator Stress (ksf) = 7.13 = min. Eff. Minor Principal stress (ksf) = 3.47 Eff. Major Principal stress (ksf) = 10.60 stress occurs Axial Strain (%) = 15.28 Condition at which maximum deviator 1- 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GootectWcal Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Cell No. 1 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Project No: 1651-26 Boring No.: LB-1 Depth(ft): 45 Sample No.: 9 Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Sample Description: Dark Grayish Brown Shale Cell Pressure: 46.9 psi Back Pressure : 40.0 psi Consolidation Pressure : 6.9 psi Initial Sample Height: 5.863 in Initial Area of Sample: 4.581 sq. in. Final Sample Ht.' (L): 5.857 in Final Sample Area (A)': 4.569 sq. in. After Consolidation Cell Pressure (1s0 Load () Axial Deformation (in) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (S1-S3) (kae Axial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (ksf) Shear Stress q' (S1-83)2 (kst) Normal Stress p' (S1'+S3')2 (ksf1 46.9 0 0.000 40.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 46.9 58 0.010 42.2 1.82 0.17 0.32 0.91 1.59 46.9 78 0.020 43.1 2.45 0.34 0.45 1.22 1.77 46.9 94 0.030 43.7 2.95 0.51 0.53 1.47 1.93 46.9 104 0.040 44.0 3.26 0.68 0.58 1.63 2.05 46.9 111 0.050 44.1 3.47 0.85 0.59 1.73 2.14 46.9 121 0.060 44.2 3.77 1.02 0.60 1.89 2.28 46.9 132 0.070 44.2 4.11 1.20 0.60 2.06 2.44 46.9 138 0.080 44.2 4.29 1.37 0.60 2.14 2.53 46.9 146 0.090 44.1 4.53 1.54 0.59 2.27 2.67 46.9 155 0.100 44.0 4.80 1.71 0.58 2.40 2.82 46.9 179 0.125 43.6 5.52 2.13 0.52 2.76 3.24 46.9 190 0.150 43.3 5.83 2.56 0.48 2.92 3.44 46.9 201 0.175 42.8 6.15 2.99 0.40 3.07 3.66 46.9 214 0.200 42.0 6.51 3.41 0.29 3.26 3.96 46.9 228 0.225 41.1 6.91 3.84 0.16 3.45 4.29 46.9 231 0.250 40.1 6.97 4.27 0.01 3.48 4.46 46.9 214 0.275 38.6 6.43 4.70 -0.20 3.21 4.41 r 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Geo echnicel Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Cell No. 1 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Cell Pressure: 53.9 psi Project No: 1651-26 Back Pressure : 40.0 psi Boring No.: LB-1 Consolidation Pressure : 13.9 psi Depth(ft): 45 Initial Sample Height: 5.691 in Sample No.: 9 Initial Area of Sample: 4.707 sq. in. Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Final Sample Ht.' (L): 5.685 in Sample Description: Dark Grayish Brown Shale Final Sample Area (A)': 4.708 sq. in. ' After Consolidation Cell Pressure (Psn Load (Ibs) Axial Deformation (in) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (S1-63) (ksf) Axial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (ksf) Shear Stress q' (S1-S3)/2 (kst) Normal Stress p' (S1'+S3y2 (ksf) 53.9 0 0.000 40.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 53.9 74 0.010 44.2 2.26 0.18 0.60 1.13 2.53 53.9 99 0.020 46.0 3.02 0.35 0.86 1.51 2.65 53.9 123 0.030 48.9 3.74 0.53 0.99 1.87 2.88 53.9 137 0.040 47.2 4.16 0.70 1.04 2.08 3.05 53.9 144 0.050 47.2 4.37 0.88 1.04 2.18 3.15 53.9 150 0.060 47.1 4.54 1.06 1.02 2.27 3.25 53.9 152 0.070 46.8 4.59 1.23 0.98 2.30 3.32 53.9 155 0.080 46.5 4.67 1.41 0.94 2.34 3.40 53.9 158 0.090 46.1 4.76 1.58 0.88 2.38 3.50 53.9 160 0.100 45.7 4.81 1.76 0.82 2.40 3.58 53.9 162 0.125 44.9 4.85 2.20 0.71 2.42 3.72 53.9 160 0.150 44.4 4.76 2.64 0.63 2.38 3.75 53.9 158 0.175 44.0 4.68 3.08 0.58 2.34 3.77 53.9 155 0.200 43.2 4.57 3.52 0.46 2.29 3.83 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Geotechmcal Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Cell No. 1 Project Name: Project No: Boring No.: Depth(k): Sample No.: Sample Type: Sample Description: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Cell Pressure: 1651-26 Back Pressure: LB-1 Consolidation Pressure : 45 Initial Sample Height: 9 Initial Area of Sample: 2.5" O.D. Rings Final Sample Ht' (L): Final Sample Area (A)': After Consolidation Dark Grayish Brown Shale 67.8 psi 40.0 psi 27.8 psi 5.588 In 4.796 sq. in. 5.564 in 4.687 sq. in. Cell Pressure (psi) Load (Ibs) Axial Deformation (in) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (S1-S3) (kef) Axial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (ksf) Shear Stress q' (S1-33)/2 (ksf) Normal Stress p' (S1'+S3')/2 (ksf) 67.8 0 0.000 40.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 67.8 83 0.010 52.5 2.53 0.18 1.80 1.27 3.47 67.8 114 0.020 54.9 3.50 0.36 2.15 1.75 3.61 67.8 136 0.030 56.6 4.17 0.54 2.39 2.08 3.70 67.8 145 0.040 57.0 4.43 0.72 2.45 2.21 3.77 67.8 151 0.050 57.1 4.59 0.90 2.46 2.29 3.84 67.8 164 0.060 57.2 4.98 1.08 2.48 2.49 4.02 67.8 165 0.070 57.1 5.01 1.26 2.46 2.50 4.04 67.8 167 0.080 57.0 5.06 1.44 2.45 2.53 4.09 67.8 171 0.090 56.9 5.15 1.62 2.43 2.58 4.15 67.8 172 0.100 56.7 5.18 1.80 2.40 2.59 4.19 67.8 176 0.125 56.4 5.29 2.25 2.36 2.64 4.28 67.8 178 0.150 56.1 5.33 2.70 2.32 2.66 4.35 67.8 183 0.175 55.7 5.43 3.15 2.26 2.72 4.46 67.8 188 0.200 55.4 5.57 3.59 2.22 2.79 4.57 67.8 191 0.250 54.7 5.62 4.49 2.12 2.81 4.69 67.8 199 0.300 54.1 5.79 5.39 2.03 2.89 4.87 67.8 202 0.350 53.1 5.83 6.29 1.89 2.91 5.03 67.8 211 0.400 52.5 6.02 7.19 1.80 3.01 5.21 67.8 221 0.450 51.8 6.24 8.09 1.70 3.12 5.43 67.8 228 0.500 50.9 6.37 8.99 1.57 3.18 5.62 67.8 238 0.550 49.9 6.58 9.88 1.43 3.29 5.87 67.8 241 0.600 48.9 6.60 10.78 1.28 3.30 6.02 67.8 250 0.650 47.8 6.78 11.68 1.12 3.39 6.27 67.8 259 0.700 46.5 6.94 12.58 0.94 3.47 6.54 67.8 262 0.750 45.4 6.96 13.48 0.78 3.48 6.71 67.8 270 0.800 44.6 7.09 14.38 0.66 3.54 6.89 67.8 274 0.850 43.7 7.13 15.28 0.53 3.56 7.04 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DEVIATOR STRESS (ksf) 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) 15.00 4.00 3.00 co W rc w 2.00 o 1.00 a z w z 0.00 a x 0 -1.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) LEGEND: CONFINING PRESSURES= 0 1.0 KSF ❑ 2.0 KSF A 4.0 KSF SHEAR STRESS, q (ksf) 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 Project Name: Project No.: Boring No.: Sample No.: Depth (ft): 1 i 2 3 4 5 6 NORMAL STRESS, P (kst) 7 NMI 0.11 • Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Sample Type: 1651-26 Sample Description: LB-1 Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 9 Initial Moisture Content (%): 45 Eff. Confining Pressure (ksf): i� 20° 8 ore 9 i00 10 15.00 2.5" O.D. Rings Dark Grayish Brown Shale 72.6 44.1 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 MULTI -STAGE CU TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT ASTM D 4767 AP ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.0 ' 9.0 CHANGE IN PORE WATER PRESSURE (kV) O N co L ) O O O G C • • 8.0 B 7.0 to 6.0 • In ix 5.0 el ce w 3.0 G 2.0 •, 1.0 jl 0 a 0.0 ,.,, 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 0.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) 5.00 10.00 15.00 AXIAL. STRAIN (Percent) LEGEND: CONFINING PRESSURES= 0 1.0 KSF ❑ 2.0 KSF A4.0 KSF c SHEAR STRESS (kst) N W A N i i i I I I so- / ' 0. I ``\ • • I • t i• V 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NORMAL STRESS (Icsf) STRENGTH PARAMETERS: TOTAL STRESS: C=0.95 ksf $ = 21° EFFECTIVE STRESS' C'-1.15 ksf 4' = 21 ° Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Project No.: 1651-26 Sample Description: Dark Grayish Brown Shale Boring No.: LB-1 Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 72.6 Sample No.: 9 Initial Moisture Content (%): 44.1 Depth (ft): 45 Eff. Confining Pressure (ksf): 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 MULTI -STAGE CU TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT ASTM D 4767 AP ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Test Procedure: ASTM D 4767 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Tested by: KK Date: 2/7/05 Project No.: 1651-26 Input Data by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Boring No.: LB-2 Reviewed by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Sample No.: 2 Sample Description: Dark Gray Clay Depth(ft): 10 Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Diameter (In) Height (in) 2.415 2.415 2.415 Avg. = 2.415 Avg. = 5.750 5.750 5.750 5.750 BEFORE CONSOLIDATION AFTER CONSOLIDATION Area (in') 4.581 4.585 Moisture Content (%) Wet Weight (gms) Dry Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) 50.70 18.61 13.20 2.53 FINAL 58.34 908.44 644.40 191.80 Density and Saturation Wet Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) Initial Void Ratio to Saturation 738.22 0.00 106.8 70.9 1.378 99.3 Specific Gravity = 2.70 Back Pressure Saturation B Value (%) = 95 Change in Ht. of the Specimen (in)= 0 Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) = 43.5 Initial Burette Ht.(cm)= 45.9 Back Pressure(psi) = 40.0 Final Burette Ht.(cm)= 46.3 Eff. Consol. Stress (psi) = 3.5 Final Height (in)= 5.750 Change in Ht. of Specimen (in) = 0.000 Final Volume (cu.in) = 26.363 Shear Rate of Deformation (in/min)= Time to 50% primary Consolidation Failure Criteria: At Failure 0.0040 Deviator Stress (ksf) = 4.30 = min. Eff. Minor Principal stress (ksf) = 0.45 Eff. Major Principal stress (ksf) = 4.75 stress occurs Axial Strain (%) = 3.48 Condition at which maximum deviator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geo echnical Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Test Procedure: ASTM D 4767 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Tested by: KK Date: 2/8/05 Project No.: 1651-26 Input Data by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Boring No.: LB-2 Reviewed by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Sample No.: 2 Sample Description: Dark Gray Clay Depth(ft): 10 Sample Type: 2.5° O.D. Rings Diameter (in) Height (in) 2.444 2.444 2.444 Avg. = 2.444 Avg. = 5.615 5.615 5.615 5.615 BEFORE CONSOLIDATION AFTER CONSOLIDATION Area (in2) 4.691 4.695 Moisture Content (%) Wet Weight (gms) Dry Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) 50.70 18.61 13.20 2.53 FINAL 58.34 908.44 644.40 191.80 Density and Saturation Wet Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) Initial Void Ratio % Saturation 738.22 0.00 106.8 70.8 1.378 99.3 Specific Gravity = 2.70 Back Pressure Saturation B Value (%) = 95 Change in Ht. of the Specimen (in)= 0 Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) = Back Pressure(psi) = Eff. Consol. Stress (psi) = 46.9 Initial Burette Ht.(cm)= 55.4 40.0 Final Burette Ht.(cm)= 55.6 6.9 Final Height (in)= 5.613 = 0.0020 Final Volume (cu.in) = 26.375 Change in Ht. of Specimen (in) Shear Rate of Deformation (in/min)= Time to 50% primary Consolidation Failure Criteria: At Failure 0.0040 Deviator Stress (ksf) = 3.44 = min. Eff. Minor Principal stress (ksf) = 1.14 Eff. Major Principal stress (ksf) = 4.58 stress occurs Axial Strain (%) = 4.90 Condition at which maximum deviator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. GeotecMkal Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Test Procedure: ASTM D 4767 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Tested by: KK Date: 2/9/05 Project No.: 1651-26 Input Data by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Boring No.: LB-2 Reviewed by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Sample No.: 2 Sample Description: Dark Gray Clay Depth(ft): 10 Sample Type: 2.5' O.D. Rings Diameter (in) 2.498 2.498 2.498 Avg. = 2.498 Height (in) 5.373 5.373 5.373 Avg. = 5.373 BEFORE CONSOLIDATION AFTER CONSOLIDATION Area (in2) 4.901 4.867 Moisture Content (%) 50.70 FINAL 58.34 Wet Weight (gms) Dry Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) 18.61 13.20 2.53 908.44 644.40 191.80 Density and Saturation Wet Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) Initial Vold Ratio % Saturation 738.22 0.00 106.8 70.9 1.377 99.4 Specific Gravity = 2.70 Back Pressure Saturation B Value (%) = 95 Change in Ht. of the Specimen (in)= 0 Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) = 53.9 Initial Burette Ht.(cm)= 56.4 Back Pressure(psi) = 40.0 Final Burette Ht.(cm)= 53.2 Eff. Consol. Stress (psi) = 13.9 Final Height (in)= 5.370 Change in Ht. of Specimen (in) = 0.0030 Final Volume (cu.in) = 26.387 Shear At Failure Rate of Deformation (in/min)= 0.0040 Deviator Stress (ksf) = 4.38 Time to 50% primary Consolidation = min. Eff. Minor Principal stress (ksf) = 2.29 Failure Criteria: Eff. Major Principal stress (ksf) = 6.67 Condition at which maximum deviator stress occurs Axial Strain (%) = 14.90 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Cell No. 1 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Project No: 1651-26 Boring No.: LB-2 Depth(ft): 10 Sample No.: 2 Sample Type: 2.5- O.D. Rings Sample Description: Dark Gray Clay Cell Pressure: Back Pressure : Consolidation Pressure : Initial Sample Height: Initial Area of Sample: Final Sample Ht.' (L): Final Sample Area (A)': ' After Consolidation 43.5 psi 40.0 psi 3.5 psi 5.750 in 4.581 sq. in. 5.750 in 4.585 sq. in. Cell Pressure (psi) Load (Ibs) Axial Deformation (in) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (S1-S3) (ksf) Axial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (ksf) Shear Stress q' (S1-S3)/2 (ksf) Normal Stress p' (S1'+53')/2 (ksf) 43.5 0 0.000 40.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 43.5 38 0.010 42.2 1.19 0.17 0.32 0.60 0.78 43.5 51 0.020 42.6 1.60 0.35 0.37 0.80 0.93 43.5 61 0.030 42.7 1.91 0.52 0.39 0.95 1.07 43.5 70 0.040 42.8 2.18 0.70 0.40 1.09 1.19 43.5 74 0.050 42.7 2.30 0.87 0.39 1.15 1.27 43.5 79 0.060 42.6 2.46 1.04 0.37 1.23 1.36 43.5 86 0.070 42.5 2.67 1.22 0.36 1.33 1.48 43.5 91 0.080 42.4 2.82 1.39 0.35 1.41 1.57 43.5 96 0.090 42.3 2.97 1.57 0.33 1.48 1.66 43.5 102 0.100 42.2 3.15 1.74 0.32 1.57 1.76 43.5 113 0.125 41.9 3.47 2.17 0.27 1.74 1.97 43.5 124 0.150 41.6 3.79 2.61 0.23 1.90 2.17 43.5 133 0.175 41.1 4.05 3.04 0.16 2.03 2.37 43.5 142 0.200 40.4 4.30 3.48 0.06 2.15 2.60 43.5 139 0.225 39.1 4.19 3.91 -0.13 2.10 2.73 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Geotechnical Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Cell No. 1 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Project No: 1651-26 Boring No.: LB-2 Depth(ft): 10 Sample No.: 2 Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Sample Description: Dark Gray Clay Cell Pressure: 46.9 psi Back Pressure : 40.0 psi Consolidation Pressure : 6.9 psi Initial Sample Height: 5.615 in Initial Area of Sample: 4.691 sq. in. Final Sample Ht.' (L): 5.613 in Final Sample Area (A)': 4.695 sq. in. Atter Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) Load (Ibs) Axial Deformation (In) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (S1-S3) (kst) Axial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (ksf) Shear Stress q' (S1-S3)/2 (ksf) Normal Stress p' (S1'+S3')/2 (ksf) 46.9 0 0.000 40.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 46.9 40 0.010 42.4 1.22 0.18 0 35 0.61 1.26 46.9 64 0.020 43.3 1.96 0.36 0.48 0.98 1.50 46.9 80 0.030 43.8 2.44 0 53 0.55 1.22 1.67 46.9 92 0.040 44.1 2.80 0.71 0.59 1.40 1.80 46.9 99 0.050 44.0 3.01 0.89 0.58 1.50 1.92 46.9 103 0.060 43.7 3.13 1.07 0.53 1.56 2.02 46.9 107 0.070 43.2 3.24 1.25 0.46 1.62 2.15 46.9 108 0.080 42.8 3.27 1.43 0.40 1.63 2.22 46.9 110 0.090 42.4 3.32 1.60 0.35 1.66 2.31 46.9 110 0.100 42.1 3.31 1.78 0.30 1.66 2.35 46.9 110 0.125 41.5 3.30 2.23 0.22 1.65 2.43 46.9 113 0.150 41.0 3.37 2.67 0.14 1.69 2.54 46.9 114 0.175 40.6 3.39 3.12 0.09 1.69 2.60 46.9 114 0.200 40.2 3.37 3.56 0.03 1.69 2.65 46.9 115 0.225 39.8 3.39 4.01 -0.03 1.69 2.72 46.9 116 0.250 39.3 3.40 4.45 -0.10 1.70 2.79 46.9 118 0.275 39.0 3.44 4.90 -0.14 1.72 2.86 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Geotechnical Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Cell No. 1 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Project No: 1651-26 Boring No.: LB-2 Depth(ft): 10 Sample No.: 2 Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Sample Description: Dark Gray Clay Cell Pressure: Back Pressure : Consolidation Pressure : Initial Sample Height: Initial Area of Sample: Final Sample He (L): Final Sample Area (A)': After Consolidation 53.9 psi 40.0 psi 13.9 psi 5.373 in 4.901 sq. in. 5.370 in 4.867 sq. in. Cell Pressure (psi) Load (Ibs) Axial Deformation (in) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (S1-S3) (ksf) Axial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (ksf) Shear Stress q' (S1-S3)/2 (lust) Normal Stress p' (S1'+S3')/2 (ksf) 53.9 0 0.000 40.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 53.9 47 0.005 43.9 1.39 0.09 0.56 0.69 2.13 53.9 62 0.010 452 1.83 0.19 0.75 0.92 2.17 53.9 82 0.020 46.5 2.42 0.37 0.94 121 2.27 53.9 93 0.030 46.6 2.74 0.56 0.95 1.37 2.42 53.9 101 0.050 452 2.96 0.93 0.75 1.48 2.73 53.9 104 0.060 44.6 3.04 1.12 0.66 1.52 2.86 53 9 114 0.075 44.1 3.33 1.40 0.59 1.66 3.07 53.9 120 0.100 43.6 3.48 1.86 0.52 1.74 3.23 53.9 126 0.150 43.2 3.62 2.79 0.46 1.81 3.35 53.9 130 0.200 42.7 3.70 3.72 0.39 1.85 3.46 53.9 135 0.250 42.3 3.81 4.66 0.33 1.90 3.57 53.9 138 0.300 41.8 3.85 5.59 0.26 1.93 3.67 53.9 145 0.350 41.1 4.01 6.52 0.16 2.01 3.85 53.9 149 0.400 41.1 4.08 7.45 0.16 2.04 3.88 53.9 150 0.450 40.8 4.07 8.38 0.12 2.03 3.92 53.9 155 0.500 40.2 4.16 9.31 0.03 2.08 4.05 53.9 160 0.550 39.8 4.25 10.24 -0.03 2.12 4.15 53.9 162 0.600 39.5 4.26 11.17 -0.07 2.13 4.20 53.9 166 0.650 39.2 4.32 12.10 -0.12 2.16 4.28 53.9 169 0.700 38.8 4.35 13.04 -0.17 2.17 4.35 53.9 172 0.750 38.4 4.38 13.97 -0.23 2.19 4.42 53.9 174 0.800 38.0 4.38 14.90 -0.29 2.19 4.48 1 DEVIATOR STRESS (ksf) 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) 15.00 4.00 g 3.00 N cc a cc w 2.00 w O 1.00 a Z w 0 a oA0 x U -1.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) LEGEND: CONFINING PRESSURES= 0 0.5 KSF 0 1.0 KSF A 2.0 KSF SHEAR STRESS, q (ksf) 5 4 3 2 1 0 15_ 4- 0 l 1 de.4- son 2 3 4 5 6 NORMAL STRESS, P (ksf) 7 sea 8 9 10 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Project No.: 1651-26 Sample Description: Dark Gray Clay Boring No.: LB-2 Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 70.9 Sample No.: 2 Initial Moisture Content (%): 50.7 Depth (ft): 10 Eff. Confining Pressure (ksf): 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 15.00 MULTI -STAGE CU TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT ASTM D 4767 AP ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC. Geotechnioal Testing Laboratory 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.0 . 9.0 CHANGE IN PORE WATER PRESSURE (kst) 9 N W C O O O O C • 8.0 • ~• 49 7.0 co 6.0 W 1- 5.0 CO rc 4.0 G w 3.0 4116"1. 2.0 .��. 1.0 0.0 t.0 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) LEGEND: CONFINING PRESSURES= 0 0.5 KSF ❑ 1.0 KSF 412.0 KSF c SHEAR STRESS (ksf) N W A C i i i 00 i i i i i� i - • r r r r t ' r r t e r • .. .t •t 1 t r V 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NORMAL STRESS (list) STRENGTH PARAMETERS: TOTAL STRESS' C=0 9 ksf 41= 18.5° EFFECTIVE STRESS: C'3.9 ksf $' =17° Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Project No.: Sample Description: Dark Gray Clay Boring No.: LB-2 Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 70.9 Sample No.: 2 Initial Moisture Content (%): 50.7 Depth (ft): 10 Eff. Confining Pressure (ksf): 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 MULTI -STAGE CU TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT ASTM D 4767 AP ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC. Geotechnicat Testing Laboratory 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Test Procedure: ASTM D 4767 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Tested by: KK Date: 2/7/05 Project No.: 1651-26 Input Data by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Boring No.: LB-3 Reviewed by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Sample No.: 1 Sample Description: Strong Brown Clayey Sand Depth(ft): 5 Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Diameter (in) Height (in) 2.415 2.415 2.415 Avg. = 2.415 Avg. = 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 BEFORE CONSOLIDATION AFTER CONSOLIDATION Area (in2) 4.581 4.593 Moisture Content (%) Wet Weight (gms) Dry Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) 17.34 8.97 8.02 2.54 FINAL 25.21 1054.53 881.62 195.67 Density and Saturation Wet Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) Initial Void Ratio % Saturation 738.22 0.00 102.3 87.2 0.932 50.2 Specific Gravity = 2.70 Back Pressure Saturation B Value (%) = 95 Change in Ht. of the Specimen (in)= 0 Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) = Back Pressure(psi) = Eff. Consol. Stress (psi) = 63.5 Initial Burette Ht.(cm)= 45.7 60.0 Final Burette Ht.(cm)= 46.9 3.5 Final Height (in)= 6.000 0.000 Final Volume (cu.in) = 27.557 Change in Ht. of Specimen (in) = Shear Rate of Deformation (in/min)= Time to 50% primary Consolidation Failure Criteria: At Failure 0.0040 Deviator Stress (ksf) = 4.83 = min. Eff. Minor Principal stress (ksf) = 1.58 Eff. Major Principal stress (ksf) = 6.41 stress occurs Axial Strain (%) = 5.00 Condition at which maximum deviator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. GeotediNcal Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Test Procedure: ASTM D 4767 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Tested by: KK Date: 2/8/05 Project No.: 1651-26 Input Data by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Boring No.: LB-3 Reviewed by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Sample No.: 1 Sample Description: Strong Brown Clayey Sand Depth(ft): 5 Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Diameter (in) Height (in) 2.469 2.469 2.469 Avg. = 2.469 Avg. = 5.739 5.739 5.739 5.739 BEFORE CONSOLIDATION AFTER CONSOLIDATION Area (ln2) 4.788 4.775 Moisture Content (%) Wet Weight (gms) Dry Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) 17.34 8.97 8.02 2.54 FINAL 25.21 1054.53 881.62 195.67 Density and Saturation Wet Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) Wet Density (pci) Dry Density (pcf) Initial Void Ratio % Saturation 738.22 0.00 102.4 87.2 0.931 50.2 Specific Gravity = 2.70 Back Pressure Saturation B Value (%) = 95 Change in Ht. of the Specimen (in)= 0 Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) = 66.9 Initial Burette Ht.(cm)= 58.3 Back Pressure(psi) = 60.0 Final Burette Ht.(cm)= 56.9 Eff. Consol. Stress (psi) = 6.9 Final Height (in)= 5.736 Change in Ht. of Specimen (in) = 0.0030 Final Volume (cu.in) = 27.472 Shear Rate of Deformation (in/min)= Time to 50% primary Consolidation Failure Criteria: At Failure 0.0040 Deviator Stress (ksf) = 9.20 = min. Eff. Minor Principal stress (ksf) = 2.94 Eff. Major Principal stress (ksf) = 12.14 stress occurs Axial Strain (%) = 5.23 Condition at which maximum deviator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Test Procedure: ASTM D 4767 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Tested by: KK Date: 2/9/05 Project No.: 1651-26 Input Data by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Boring No.: LB-3 Reviewed by: AP Date: 2/14/05 Sample No.: 1 Sample Description: Strong Brown Clayey Sand Depth(ft): 5 Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Diameter (in) Height (in) 2.527 2.527 2.527 Avg. = 2.527 Avg. = 5.478 5.478 5.478 5.478 BEFORE CONSOLIDATION AFTER CONSOLIDATION Area (ins) 5.015 4.997 Moisture Content (%) Wet Weight (gms) Dry Weight (gms) Container Weight gms) 17.34 8.97 8.02 2.54 FINAL 25.21 1054.53 881.62 195.67 Density and Saturation Wet Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) Initial Void Ratio % Saturation 738.22 0.00 102.4 87.2 0.931 50.3 Specific Gravity = 2.70 Back Pressure Saturation B Value (%) = 95 Change in Ht. of the Specimen (in)= 0 Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) = 73.9 Initial Burette Ht.(cm)= 57.4 Back Pressure(psi) = 60.0 Final Burette Ht.(cm)= 55.3 Eff. Consol. Stress (psi) = 13.9 Final Height (in)= 5.473 Change in Ht. of Specimen (in) = 0.0050 Final Volume (cu.in) = 27.386 Shear Rate of Deformation (in/min)= Time to 50% primary Consolidation Failure Criteria: At Failure 0.0040 Deviator = min. Eff. Minor Eff. Major stress occurs Axial Strain Stress (ksf) = 18.51 Principal stress (ksf) = 6.42 Principal stress (ksf) = 24.94 Condition at which maximum deviator (%) = 11.88 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Gegtechnicat Testing Laboratciy CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Cell No. 1 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Project No: 1651-26 Boring No.: LB-3 Depth(ft): 5 Sample No.: 1 Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Sample Description: Strong Brown Clayey Sand Cell Pressure: 63.5 psi Back Pressure : 60.0 psi Consolidation Pressure : 3.5 psi Initial Sample Height: 6.000 in Initial Area of Sample: 4.581 sq. in. Final Sample Ht.' (L): 6.000 in Final Sample Area (A)': 4.593 sq. in. • After Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) Load (Ibe) Axial Detonation (m) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (S1.63) (kst) Axial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (ksf) Shear Stress q' (S1-S3)/2 (kst) Normal Stress p' (S1'+63')/2 (kst) 63.5 0 0.000 60.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 63.5 23 0.010 60.6 0.72 0.17 0.09 0.36 0.78 63.5 42 0.020 59.7 1.31 0.33 -0.04 0.66 120 63.5 48 0.030 59.4 1.50 0.50 -0.09 0.75 1.34 63.5 52 0.040 59.3 1.62 0.67 -0.10 0.81 1.41 63.5 55 0.050 59.0 1.71 0.83 -0.14 0.86 1.50 63.5 59 0.060 58.8 1.83 1.00 -0.17 0.92 1.59 63.5 63 0.070 58.6 1.95 1.17 -0.20 0.98 1.68 63.5 67 0.080 58.4 2.07 1.33 -0.23 1.04 1.77 63.5 71 0.090 58.2 2.19 1.50 -0.26 1.10 1.86 63.5 75 0.100 57.9 2.31 1.67 -0.30 1.16 1.96 63.5 86 0.125 57.4 2.64 2.08 -0.37 1.32 2.20 63.5 95 0.150 56.7 2.90 2.50 -0.48 1.45 2.43 63.5 106 0.175 56.0 3.23 2.92 -0.58 1.61 2.69 63.5 117 0.200 55.3 3.55 3.33 -0.68 1.77 2.95 63.5 127 0.225 54.7 3.83 3.75 -0.76 1.92 3.18 63.5 138 0.250 54.0 4.15 4.17 -0.86 2.07 3.44 63.5 150 0.275 53.3 4.49 4.58 -0.96 2.24 3.71 63.5 162 0.300 52.5 4.83 5.00 -1.08 2.41 4.00 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Geotechnical Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Cell No. 1 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Project No: 1651-26 Boring No.: LB-3 Depth(ft): 5 Sample No.: 1 Sample Type: 2.5" 0.D. Rings Sample Description: Strong Brown Clayey Sand Cell Pressure: Back Pressure: Consolidation Pressure : Initial Sample Height: Initial Area of Sample: Final Sample HL* (L): Final Sample Area (A)': ' After Consolidation 66.9 psi 60.0 psi 6.9 psi 5.739 in 4.788 sq. in. 5.736 in 4.775 sq. in. Cell Pressure (psi) Load (Ibs) Axial Deformation (in) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (S1-33) (ksf) Axial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (ksf) Shear Stress q' (S1-S3)/2 (kst) Normal Stress p' (S1'+63')/2 (ksf) 66.9 0 0.000 60.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 66.9 38 0.010 61.0 1.14 0.17 0.14 0.57 1.42 66.9 66 0.020 60.3 1.98 0.35 0.04 0.99 1.94 66.9 101 0.030 59.3 3.03 0.52 -0.10 1.51 2.61 66.9 123 0.040 58.5 3.68 0.70 -0.22 1.84 3.05 66.9 140 0.050 57.8 4.18 0.87 -0.32 2.09 3.40 66.9 160 0.060 56.7 4.77 1.05 -0.48 2.39 3.86 66.9 169 0.070 56.3 5.03 1.22 -0.53 2.52 4.04 66.9 175 0.080 55.9 5.20 1.39 -0.59 2.60 4.19 66.9 183 0.090 55.4 5.43 1.57 -0.66 2.72 4.37 66.9 190 0.100 54.9 5.63 1.74 -0.73 2.81 4.54 66.9 209 0.125 53.7 6.16 2.18 -0.91 3.08 4.98 66.9 225 0.150 52.6 6.61 2.62 -1.07 3.30 5.36 66.9 244 0.175 51.4 7.13 3.05 -1.24 3.57 5.80 66.9 259 0.200 50.5 7.54 3.49 -1.37 3.77 6.13 66.9 273 0.225 49.6 7.91 3.92 -1.50 3.95 6.45 66.9 290 0.250 48.6 8.36 4.36 -1.64 4.18 6.82 66.9 306 0.275 47.6 8.78 4.79 -1.79 4.39 7.17 66.9 322 0.300 46.5 9.20 523 -1.94 4.60 7.54 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Geotecbnical Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Cell No. 1 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Project No: 1651-26 Boring No.: LB-3 Depth(ft): 5 Sample No.: 1 Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Sample Description: Strong Brown Clayey Sand Cell Pressure: Back Pressure : Consolidation Pressure : Initial Sample Height Initial Area of Sample: Final Sample Ht.` (L): Final Sample Area (A)`: `After Consolidation 73.9 psi 60.0 psi 13.9 psi 5.478 in 5.015 sq. in. 5.473 in 4.997 sq. in. Cell Pressure (psi) Load (lbs) Axial Deformation (in) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (S1-53) (ksf) Axial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (ksf) Shear Stress q' (81•53)/2 (ksf) Normal Stress p' (S1'+83)/2 (ksf) 73.9 0 0.000 60.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 73.9 41 0.005 61.6 1.18 0.09 0.23 0.59 2.36 73.9 83 0.010 61.8 2.39 0.18 0.26 1.19 2.94 73.9 124 0.020 60.8 3.56 0.37 0.12 1.78 3.67 73.9 166 0.030 58.2 4.76 0.55 -0.26 2.38 4.64 73.9 267 0.050 55.5 7.62 0.91 -0.65 3.81 6.46 73.9 303 0.060 53.6 8.64 1.10 -0.92 4.32 7.24 73.9 350 0.075 51.5 9.95 1.37 -1.22 4.97 8.20 73.9 412 0.100 48.3 11.66 1.83 -1.68 5.83 9.51 73.9 459 0.150 45.4 12.87 2.74 -2.10 6.43 10.54 73.9 508 0.200 42.4 14.11 3.65 -2.53 7.05 11.59 73.9 546 0250 40.1 15.02 4.57 -2.87 7.51 12.38 73.9 579 0.300 38.0 15.77 5.48 -3.17 7.89 13.06 73.9 612 0.350 36.1 16.51 6.40 -3.44 8.25 13.70 73.9 636 0.400 34.5 16.99 7.31 -3.67 8.49 14.17 73.9 660 0.450 33.1 17.46 8.22 -3.87 8.73 14.60 73.9 681 0.500 31.8 17.83 9.14 -4.06 8.92 14.98 73.9 701 0.550 31.1 18.17 10.05 -4.16 9.09 15.25 73.9 717 0.600 30.2 18.40 10.96 -4.29 9.20 15.49 73.9 729 0.650 29.3 18.51 11.88 -4.42 9.26 15.68 73.9 735 0.700 28.5 18.47 12.79 -4.54 9.24 15.77 73.9 739 0.750 27.5 18.38 13.70 -4.68 9.19 15.87 73.9 741 0.800 27.5 18 23 14.62 -4.68 9.12 15.80 73.9 745 0.850 27.1 18.14 15.53 -4.74 9.07 15.81 1 20.00 15.00 1A 0, to W th 10.00 CC 0 Q w 5.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) 15.00 1.00 e 0.00 m cc N -1.00 0. cc 3 -2.00 0 O z -3.00 w is z i -4.00 U -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) LEGEND: CONFINING PRESSURES= 0 0.5 KSF ❑ 1.0 KSF A 2.0 KSF SHEAR STRESS, q (kat) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 31` 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NORMAL STRESS, P (ksf) 15.00 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Project No.: 1651-26 Sample Description: Strong Brown Clayey Sand Boring No.: LB-3 Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 87.2 Sample No.: 1 Initial Moisture Content (%): 17.3 Depth (ft): 5 Eff. Confining Pressure (ksf): 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 MULTI -STAGE CU TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT ASTM D 4767 AP ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I on n 4 o Ls TRESS i D TER PR > c • •tt • �.� pm 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) LEGEND: CONFINING PRESSURES= 0 0.5 KSF ❑ 1.0 KSF 462.0 KSF 15 ■■■■■■■■■ri .■■■■■.■:■.■■■■_ pa II ... ....... .....■aa■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■ >TRESS (ks 4 CO CO _.....■.......■....... ■ ■■■�%►s■O��i;■\■■■■■■■■■� ■►auu �■■■■■►\■■■■it.■■■■■■■■ ■■■ s. . torialli tit" R1111 1 II 1 11 16 r 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NORMAL. STRESS (ksf) STRENGTH PARAMETERS: TOTAL STRESS' C-0 2 ksf 41= 54° EFFECTIVE STRESS: C'=0.2 ksf V = 36° Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Project No.: Sample Description: Strong Brown Clayey Sand Boring No.: LB-3 Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 87.2 Sample No.: 1 Initial Moisture Content (%): 17.3 Depth (ft): 5 Elf. Confining Pressure (ksf): 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 MULTI -STAGE CU TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT ASTM D 4767 AP ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory 1 M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 431 W. Baseline Road Claremont, CA 91711 February 11, 2005 LOWNEY ASSOCIATES 251 East Imperial Highway, Suite 470 Fullerton, CA 92835-1063 Attention: Mr. Ali Bastani Phone: (909) 626-09671 Fax: (909) 626-3316 E-mail: mjsagmjschiff com http:llwww. m jsch iff.com Re: Soil Corrosivity Study Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Hoag Hospital Drive Newport Beach, California Your # 1651-26, MJS&A #05-109HQ INTRODUCTION Laboratory tests have been completed on three soil samples provided for the referenced project. The purpose of these tests was to determine if the soils might have deleterious effects on underground utility piping, concrete structures, and retaining wall. We assume that the samples provided are representative of the most corrosive soils at the site. The proposed project is construction of a retaining wall and a new children's center. The water table is 50 feet deep. 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. Our recommendations do not constitute, and are not meant as a substitute for, design documents for the purpose of 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 soluble salts commonly found in soils and for ammonium and nitrate. Sulfide and oxidation-reduction (redox) potential were determined on all three samples. Test results are shown in Table 1. CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS • FAILURE ANALYSIS • EXPERT WITNESS • CORROSMTY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LOWNEY ASSOCIATES February 11, 2005 MJS&A #05-0109HQ 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 soluble salt 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, soluble salt content, soil types, aeration, anaerobic conditions, and site drainage. Electrical resistivities were in the moderately corrosive category with as -received moisture. When saturated, the resistivities were in the severely corrosive category. The resistivities dropped considerably with added moisture because the samples were dry as -received. The wide variations in soil resistivity can create concentration type corrosion cells that increase corrosion rates above what would be expected from the chemical characteristics alone. Soil pH values varied from 7.2 to 7.4. This range is neutral to mildly alkaline. The soluble salt content was very high in the samples LB-2 and LB-3 and moderate in the sample LB-3 at 10-20' deep. Chloride levels measured were elevated and particularly corrosive to ferrous metals, and in the higher concentrations chloride can overcome the corrosion inhibiting effect of concrete on reinforcing steel. Sulfate was in a range where sulfate resistant cement must be used. The ammonium concentration was high enough to be deleterious to copper. Sulfide, which is aggressive to copper and ferrous metals, was found to be present in a qualitative test performed on all three samples. The positive redox potential indicates oxidizing conditions in which anaerobic, sulfide -producing bacteria are inactive. This soil is classified as severely corrosive to ferrous metals, aggressive to copper, and severe for sulfate attack on concrete. LOWNEY ASSOCIATES February 11, 2005 MJS&A #05-0109HQ Page 3 CORROSION CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS 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. Steel Pipe Abrasive blast underground steel piping and apply a dielectric coating such as polyurethane, extruded polyethylene, a tape coating system, hot applied coal tar enamel, or fusion bonded epoxy intended for underground use. 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 and metals with dissimilar coatings (cement -mortar vs. dielectric), 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 Standard RP-0169-02. Steel Tie Back Rods Abrasive blast steel tie -back rods and apply a dielectric coating such as polyurethane, extruded polyethylene, a tape coating system, hot applied coal tar enamel, or fusion bonded epoxy intended for underground use. Electrically insulate steel tie -back rods from dissimilar metals and metals with dissimilar coatings (cement -mortar vs. dielectric) to facilitate the application of cathodic protection. Apply cathodic protection to steel tie back rods as per NACE International Standard RP-0169- 02. Iron Pipe Pressurized Pipe: Encase pressurized cast and ductile iron piping per AWWA Standard C105 or coat with epoxy or polyurethane intended for underground use. Note: the thin factory -applied asphaltic coating applied to ductile iron pipe for transportation and aesthetic purposes does not constitute a corrosion control coating. Electrically insulate underground iron pipe from dissimilar metals and from above ground iron pipe with insulating joints per NACE International Standard RP-0286-02. Bond all nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Apply cathodic protection to cast and ductile iron piping as per NACE International Standard RP-0169-02. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r LOWNEY ASSOCIATES February 11, 2005 MJS&A #05-010911Q Page 4 Non -Pressurized Pipe (Select one of the following alternatives for protection): 1. Polyethylene encase cast- and ductile -iron piping per AWWA Standard C105. Electrically insulate underground pipe from dissimilar metals and from above ground iron pipe with insulating joints per NACE International Standard RP-0286-02. Protect all non -cast iron and non -ductile iron fittings and valves with wax tape per AWWA Standard C217-99 after assembly. 2. Concrete encase all buried portions of metallic piping so that there is a minimum of 3-inches of concrete cover provided over and around surfaces of pipe, fittings, and valves. 3. Apply cathodic protection to cast and ductile iron piping as per NACE International Standard RP-0169-02. Copper Tubing Buried copper tubing shall be protected by: 1. Encasing the copper in two layers of 10-mil thick polyethylene sleeves taking care not to damage the polyethylene. Protect wrapped copper tubing by applying cathodic protection per NACE International Standard RP-0169-02. Any damaged polyethylene shall be repaired by wrapping it in 20-mil thick pipe wrapping tape. The amount of cathodic protection current needed can be minimized by coating the tubing. 2. Prevent soil contact. Soil contact may be prevented by placing the tubing above ground. 3. Install a factory coated copper pipe with a minimum of 100-mil thickness such as "Aqua Shield" or similar products. Polyethylene coating protects against elements that corrode copper and prevents contamination between copper and sleeving. However, it must be continuous with no cuts or defects if installed underground. Plastic and Vitrified Clay Pipe No special precautions are required for plastic and vitrified clay piping placed underground from a corrosion viewpoint. Protect all fittings and valves with wax tape per AWWA Standard C217-99 or epoxy. All Pipe On all pipes, appurtenances, and fittings not protected by cathodic protection, coat bare metal such as valves, bolts, flange joints, joint harnesses, and flexible couplings with wax tape per AWWA Standard C217-99 after assembly. Where metallic pipelines penetrate concrete structures such as building floors, vault walls, and thrust blocks use plastic sleeves, rubber seals, or other dielectric material to prevent pipe contact with the concrete and reinforcing steel. Concrete Protect concrete structures and pipe from sulfate attack in soil with a severe sulfate concentration, 0.2 to 2.0 percent. Use Type V cement, a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.45, and minimum strength of 4500 psi per applicable code, such as 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 19-A-4 or American Concrete Institute (ACI-318) Table 4.3.1. LOWNEY ASSOCIATES February 11, 2005 MJS&A #05-0109HQ Page 5 Protect steel and iron embedded in concrete structures and pipe from chloride attack. This applies to such items as reinforcing steel and anchor bolts but not post -tensioning strands and anchors. The protection could be one or a combination of the following: 1. Coat Embedded Metal - A coating for embedded steel and iron could be an epoxy coating applied to the metal. Purple fusion bonded epoxy (FBE) (ASTM A 934) intended for prefabricated reinforcing steel reinforcing steel is suitable. The green flexible FBE (ASTM A 775) is not recommended. 2. Waterproof Concrete - Waterproofing for concrete could be a gravel capillary break under the concrete, a waterproof membrane, and/or a liquid applied waterproof barrier coating. 3. Protective Concrete - A concrete mix designed to protect embedded steel and iron that would be based on the following parameters 1) a chloride content of 1,800 ppm in the soil, 2) the desired service life, and 3) concrete cover. A protective concrete mix may include a corrosion inhibitor admixture and/or silica fume admixture. 4. Cathodic Protection - Cathodic protection is most practical for pipelines and must be designed for each application. Post Tensioning Strands and Anchors Protect post -tensioning strands and anchors against corrosion in an aggressive environment per the Post -Tensioning Institute Guide Specification for unbonded Single Strand Tendons. This should include the use of polyethylene encased anchors. CLOSURE Our services have been performed with the usual thoroughness and competence of the engineering profession. No other warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, is included or intended. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully Submitted, M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. Adrineh Avedisian Enc: Table 1 Reviewed by, M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc. Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 Phone: (909) 626-0967 Fax: (909) 626-3316 431 W. Baseline Road E-mail lab®mjschiff com Claremont, 04 91711 website: mjschijlcom Sample ID Resistivity as -received saturated PH Electrical Conductivity Table 1- Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples Units ohm -cm ohm -cm mS/cm Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Cal+ mg/kg magnesium Mgt+ mg/kg sodium Na' + mg/kg Anions carbonate CO32- mg/kg bicarbonate HCO31- mg/kg chloride C1'- mg/kg sulfate S042- mg/kg Other Tests ammonium nitrate sulfide Redox N1441+ mg/kg NO31" mg/kg S2" qual mV Lowney Associates Hoag Hospital Retain. Wall Your #1651-26, MJS&A #05-0109HQ 3-Feb-05 LB-2 @ 20' CL LB-3 @ 25' Bedrock 4,100 3,600 390 410 7.4 LB-3 @ 10-20' SP / CL 2,200 980 7.3 7.2 2.15 1.71 0.46 1,563 457 1,584 ND 1,590 1,774 5,206 71.2 ND Positive 54 593 455 1,015 ND 238 1,355 3,317 86.9 ND Positive 98 64 49 343 ND 58 160 800 0.5 ND Positive 39 0 YT.._�04;a.'00.251_0rttr ..t `tiY`YlttlayJ.Ti_i Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on 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 Page 1 of 1 1 1 1 1 U ' x c 0) Q 1 Q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 s a w — M — 1 MEI M ttttt>• _ MI MI M On SI a 1111 Cross sat on $-3' (aor. -1) 1k': IV �rt.irorary Cur Oxistl 'PeAtked Gu3 100 50 _504 0 50 1e asSfAtestesnsess A ttitte.„0ens: seffs. 4"; . 0. #:••••!: le. tee.: :or sett :t. telitiesol 11 I:1 I ;#103/4.;:::::: r:::::ii: r1;114$ . et": 111-74; el :::;.#14,•::: I. .11: i:::::::::„.il :El ...: .1.111 1. 1.43.: . ..::: ed ::::::... i ;II .4.4#0. •::: : ..741:1L11::: sitio#::01i Sill • $.1-4 ' . ire isi .4 'It } 0.....% $: : r ir 1 ktiolstott .:::::/oststwtriolt :#42,0114 4 • ♦♦ --- I• AIt 100 150 15 200 9 10 11 2 250 a N I NM = MN MS MI MI I MIN N ® NM In MN Gross Section 5- 'Si (Runt - 1) Rea° tt lk ;�kts•1 s ,.s. i'� ss�'= i s. .e."*M.S% gte WAysAt VkAtattiikk" �►'sss`i• �°�i ssss:� 's \\ijeth S �11/4 s'islss�+� s ss�;'41 i st ��,?4, � ��� ss ass ss tia \1041 • Sk 114%\ ;S • 200 250 NM N NM I Cross S'ecri'tbn a-B' (R,,„ _ Z' 1 4: t \T Teary -sty Cut i'erc hed Guy is P✓sh4 back by deoaeA .• 100 50 _50. 0 50 16 rI13%v • S1♦I1 Qs••0,1•'•'••1.1 g4 4,00,00-14•1 .•iI 40 .Sisi�t•o�1.o�♦I+� ✓p0.ort4 . to III *r+• tto � 4✓1. •104.14 s.11 �.• , , s. ••♦re •1$1♦sf n0041. • •••4*••*$••6o'��✓io toss• • •i+ � 6• 111 11 I1II IIII♦✓11.1.11 /1I �i♦�•IIIIv �♦�111�•ID : ♦��•••�I�'•iy.1✓iii i+I••i✓ii�1 ��+••I�•1� WA • . ISt I+�i111♦ SW /14000.1.44 +ice+ •[r' 'St•.y, - _ �.._.__ 100 150 16 v 24 25 I9 .1 • 200 16 250 MI N— N MN EN a 1 N MI NB NM N NM MN MN N I N Cross Se.G-tk4 8-6' CRun! -z ) Ream I 11111 r NM 1111 — _ E NM INI1 MN 1 N I 1 NM NM I CRAM -33 Cat nor „siege. G'regs SeC.4ton -E a� l % W : I r ttw.porary 4.0 de-ans-ttan'll cir;i 100 — 50 -504 0 50 15 N. �4110.044 6.6d •, 7i �r�6y• 6,•.'.i,• •,.,. . d.••i•,�, r ' d•• •. latfrtessynno ••�,.nee .;. • maytv1444.1 100 150 15 z •' 200 12 250 MI n N MN MI MN MINI MN IMO MIN INN NMI a Cross stdtoet o-a' 100 50 -50 0 50 CRuN-3) Ra4..1F 4001114 1.1110iltilt,,, 100 150 200 250 s a Ma E 1 En n N____—___ M 1 Cross Se -icon t7. -7 (kw%-3) I Yq a : ! vr I e„tOrary Cut w a dMinor Si sten. 100 50 1,2 -504 0 50 16 .' 00I•t,:114:44G✓✓O •s• •.''•.'sue ::S::s•lt:1:;4t,4•A401.1,7;re(1:1*::.:es:*iE:;;:r!c:;• s.,'i'si.•.��♦.I ..'4s.:.4t s:t•:os.s.:s1: t1$s4::0n001.00i.4.r14401010..6,l0;t40l1.s0si:.t40t 1:-$,4407.: p ',4••1♦ . ss0i�.04 4 :r•,♦.,Gs�f soist 444 3/4 100 150 15 200 22 0 11 2 250 M N—= N N— I OM I E— I— —__ IS= Cross S€a10A 'tom-D I (R0N-3) ROZsQtt' 100 50 50 AA \VAIN1/4,S15.% St"),:z., .solt 6,‘ ‘N Vik,\*. . fig s "AirCI �:. :% \ PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. B-B' Date: 02-18-2005 SnailWin 3.18 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.78 52.0 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe H= 21.0 ft File: BB-3 LEGEND: PS= 34.0 Mips FY= 41.3 Hsi Sh= 4.5 ft Sv= 4.0 ft GGpAAcM PHI COH SIGif esf 1 120.0 d32 180 8.8 2 180.0 17 400 8.0 3 108.8 23 525 8.0 Soil Bound.(2) _ Water Scale = 10 ft IlIR! Surcharge = In = r I I = = 1 IMO = = OM M MI File: BB-3 * • CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * * ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER * DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS * Office of Roadway Geotechnical Engineering * * Date: 02-18-2005 Time: 12:27:03 * *************************************************** Project Identification - Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall. X-Sec. B-B' WALL GEOMETRY Vertical Wall Height - 21.0 ft Wall Batter = 0.0 degree Angle Length (Deg) (Feet) First Slope from Wallcrest. - 24.0 50.0 Second Slope from 1st slope. - -5.5 20.0 Third Slope from 2nd slope. = 0.0 25.0 Fourth Slope from 3rd slope. = 30.0 10.0 Fifth Slope from 3rd slope. - 0.0 50.0 Sixth Slope from 3rd slope. - 0.0 0.0 Seventh Slope Angle. = 0.0 SLOPE BELOW THE WALL There is NO SLOPE BELOW THE TOE of the wall SURCHARGE THE SURCHARGES IMPOSED ON THE SYSTEM ARE: Begin Surcharge -Distance from toe = End Surcharge - Distance from toe - Loading Intensity - Becin = Loading Intensity - Enc - 105.0 ft 205.0 ft 1000.0 psf/ft 1000.0 psf/ft OPTION #1 Factored Punching shear, Bond & Yield Stress are used. SOIL PARAMETERS Unit Friction Cohesion Soil Weight Angle Intercept Layer (Pcf) (Degree) (Psf) 1 120.0 32.0 100.0 2 100.0 16.5 400.0 3 100.0 23.0 525.0 Bond* Stress (Psi) 8.0 8.0 8.0 Page - 1 Coordinates of Boundary XS1 YS1 X52 YS2 (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 300.0 6.0 0.0 3.0 300.0 3.0 * Bond Stress also depends on BSF Factor in Option #5 when enabled. File: 88-3 WATER SURFACE The Water Table is defined by three coordinate points. X(1)-Coordinate - 0.00 ft Y(1)-Coordinate - 0.00 ft X(2)-Coordinate - 5.00 ft Y(2)-Coordinate - 10.00 ft X(3)-Coordinate - 100.00 ft Y(3)-Coordinate - 12.00 ft SEARCH LIMIT The Search Limit is from 40.0 to 60.0 ft You have chosen NOT TO LIMIT the search of failure planes to specific nodes. REINFORCEMENT PARAMETERS Number of Reinforcement Levels Horizontal Spacing Yield Stress of Reinforcement Diameter of Grouted Hole Punching Shear = 4 - 4.5 ft = 41.3 ksi - 6.0 in - 34.0 kips Page - 2 (Varying Reinforcement Parameters) Vertical Bar Level Length Inclination Spacing Diameter Bond Stress (ft) (degrees) (ft) (in) Factor 1 45.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 2 40.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 3 35.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 4 30.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 11 all 1 MI I_-__-__ 1 En 1 1 MI M File: BB-3 MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) Toe 1.815 42.0 LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 32.2 14.9 UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 47.2 43.3 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE BEHIND PLANE WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 2 1.802 44.0 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 31.6 15.5 46.5 44.8 1 = 41.250 Ksi 2 = 41.250 Ksi 3 - 41.250 Ksi 4 = 41.250 Ksi DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) (Yield Stress controls.) (Yield Stress controls.) (Yield Stress controls.) (Yield Stress controls.) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 3 1.787 46.0 30.9 16.1 45.7 46.1 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 4 1.783 48.0 36.9 48.0 52.1 15.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 5 1.782 50.0 Reinf. Stress at Level LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 35.0 42.8 47.5 22.2 1 = 41 2 - 41 3 - 41 .250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) .250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) .250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) Page - 3 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE PE ANGLELALENGTH ANGLENE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 6 1.782 52.0 21.4 11.2 41.4 55.4 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41.250 Ks' (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 4 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 7 1.788 54.0 20.6 11.5 40.2 56.5 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 8 1.798 56.0 19.8 11.9 39.0 57.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 41.250 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE ANGLE�LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 9 1.814 58.0 19.1 12.3 37.9 58.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE10 1.838 60.0 18.4 12.6 36.8 60.0 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41.250 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ks' (Y eld Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 Ks (Y eld Stress controls.) 4 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 11111 IMO INN MI MO MINI =I MO I= =I INN MN MN INN MINI INN I ******************************************************************** * For Factor of Safety - 1.0 * Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * 9.755 Kips/level ******************************************************************** PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall. X-Sec. B-8' Date: 02-18-2805 SnailWlin 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.83 52.0 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe H= 21.0 ft Scale = 10 ft File: BB-3—eq LEGEND: Crit.Ac= 0.47g Hoa. RH= 0.21g Urt.PRH= 8.80g PS= F9= Sh= Su= GAM PHI pcf deg 1 128.0 48 2 100.0 22 3 108.0 29 45.2 Kips 54.9 Xsi Soil Bound.(2) `J al Surcharge 4.5 ft 4.8 ft COO SIG psf psi 133 10.7 532 10.7 698 10.7 Water MI M I OM I - I I N I MI N MN N N NM I File: BB-3-eq Page - 1 * • CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER * DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS * Office of Roadway Geotechnical Engineering * Date: 02-18-2005 Time: 12:27:25 * *************************************************** Project Identification - Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. 8-B. WALL GEOMETRY Vertical Wall Height - 21.0 ft Wall Batter 0.0 degree Angle Length (Feet) 50.0 20.0 25.0 10.0 50.0 0.0 First Slope from Wallcrest. Second Slope from 1st slope. Third Slope from 2nd slope. Fourth Slope from 3rd slope. Fifth Slope from 3rd slope. Sixth Slope from 3rd slope. Seventh Slope Angle. (Deg) 24.0 -5.5 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SLOPE BELOW THE WALL There is NO SLOPE BELOW THE TOE of the wall SURCHARGE THE SURCHARGES IMPOSED ON THE SYSTEM ARE: Begin Surcharge - Distance from toe = 105.0 ft End Surcharge - Distance from toe - 205.0 ft Loading Intensity - Begin - 1000.0 psf/ft Loading Intensity - End - 1000.0 psf/ft OPTION #1 Factored Punching shear, Bond & Yield Stress are used. SOIL PARAMETERS Unit Friction Cohesion Bond* Coordinates of Boundary Soil Weight Angle Intercept Stress XS1 YS1 XS2 YS2 Layer (Pcf) (Degree) (Psf) (Psi) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 120.0 39.7 133.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 100.0 21.5 532.0 10.7 0.0 6.0 300.0 6.0 3 100.0 29.4 698.3 10.7 0.0 3.0 300.0 3.0 * Bond Stress also depends on BSF Factor in Option #5 when enabled. File: BB-3-eq Page - 2 EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient - 0.21 (a/g) Vertical Earthquake Coefficient - 0.00 WATER SURFACE The Water Table is defined by three coordinate points. X(1)-Coordinate - 0.00 ft Y(1)-Coordinate = 0.00 ft X(2)-Coordinate - 5.00 ft Y(2)-Coordinate = 10.00 ft X(3)-Coordinate - 100.00 ft Y(3)-Coordinate - 12.00 ft SEARCH LIMIT The Search Limit is from 51.0 to 52.0 ft You have chosen NOT TO LIMIT the search of failure planes to specific nodes. REINFORCEMENT PARAMETERS Number of Reinforcement Levels = 4 Horizontal Spacing - 4.5 ft Yield Stress of Reinforcement - 54.9 ksi Diameter of Grouted Hole - 6.0 in Punching Shear - 45.2 kips (Varying Reinforcement Parameters) Vertical Bar Level Length Inclination Spacing Diameter Bond Stress (ft) (degrees) (ft) (in) Factor 1 45.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 2 40.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 3 35.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 4 30.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 N V 1 I- -_ I N an N__ N Me I En En MB File: BB-3-eq MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) Toe 1.851 51.1 LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 9.1 25.9 UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) 55.2 44.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 47.410 Ks' (Pullout controls...) 2 = 39.370 Ks (Pullout controls...) 3 - 48.315 Ks (Pullout controls...) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE (NdegE) LENGTH UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 2 1.848 51.2 9.1 25.9 55.1 44.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 47.263 Ksi (Pullout controls,..) 2 = 39.236 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 48.273 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 3 1.846 51.3 LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 9.0 26.0 55.1 44.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 47.116 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 39.102 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 48.231 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 4 1.843 51.4 LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 9.0 26.0 55.0 44.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 46.968 Ks' (Pullout controls...) 2 - 38.967 Ks (Pullout controls...) 3 - 48.189 Ks (Pullout controls...) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLAN ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 5 1.840 51.5 9.0 26.1 54.9 44.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 46.821 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 38.833 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 48.148 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Page - 3 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 6 1.838 51.6 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE AN(deg) GLE LENGTH UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (ft) 9.0 26.1 54.9 44.9 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 46.674 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 38.699 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 48.106 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 7 1.836 51.7 LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 9.0 26.2 54.8 44.9 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 46.527 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 38.565 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 48.065 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 8 1.833 51.8 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 8.9 26.2 54.8 44.9 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 46.380 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 38.431 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 48.023 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 9 1.831 51.9 LOWER FAILURE PLANE AN(deg) GLE L(ft)H UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) 8.9 26.3 54.7 44.9 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 46.234 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 38.298 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 47.982 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NOOE10 1.828 52.0 8.9 26.3 54.7 44.9 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 46.087 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 38.164 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 47.941 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) I OM = M = = OM I M M - _ _ I - I - - = * For Factor of Safety = 1.0 * * Maxis= Average Reinforcement Working Force: * * 9.727 Kips/level * 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ... PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. B-B' Date: 02-18-2005 Snaililin 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.63 124.0 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe 21.0 ft !� File: BB-3-eq2 LEGEND: Crit.Ac= 0.41g Hoz. I(H= 0.21g Urt.PMH= 0.084 PS= 45.2 Hips FY= 54.9 Msi Sh= 4.5 ft/ Su= 4.8 ft GAM PHI COH SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 120.0 40 133 18.7 2 100.0 22 532 10.7 3 108.0 29 698 10.7 Soil Bound.(2) Scale = 10 ft In Surcharge Water 1 = N NM r 1 I EN MO 1 NM MN MO N EN EN I N - a File: BB-3-eq2 *************************************************** * CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER * DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS * Office of Roadway Geotechnical Engineering * * Date: 02-18-2005 Time: 12:50:41 * *************************************************** Project Identification - Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. B-B' WALL GEOMETRY Vertical Wall Height = 21.0 ft Wall Batter 0.0 degree Angle (Deg) First Slope from Wallcrest. - 24.0 Second Slope from 1st slope. _ -5.5 Third Slope from 2nd slope. - 0.0 Fourth Slope from 3rd slope. = 30.0 Fifth Slope from 3rd slope. = 0.0 Sixth Slope from 3rd slope. - 0.0 Seventh Slope Angle. = 0.0 ength (Feet) 50.0 20.0 25.0 10.0 50.0 0.0 SLOPE BELOW THE WALL There is NO SLOPE BELOW THE TOE of the wall SURCHARGE THE SURCHARGES IMPOSED ON THE SYSTEM ARE: Begin Surcharge -Distance from toe = End Surcharge - Distance from toe = Loading Intensity - Begin Loading Intensity - End 105.0 ft 205.0 ft 1000.0 psf/ft 1000.0 psf/ft OPTION #1 Factored Punching shear, Bond & Yield Stress are used. SOIL PARAMETERS Unit Friction Cohesion Soil Weight Angle Intercept Layer (Pcf) (Degree) (Psf) 1 120.0 39.7 133.0 2 100.0 21.5 532.0 3 100.0 29.4 698.3 Bond* Stress (Psi) 10.7 10.7 10.7 Page - 1 Coordinates of Boundary XS1 YS1 XS2 YS2 (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 300.0 6.0 0.0 3.0 300.0 3.0 * Bond Stress also depends on BSF Factor in Option #5 when enabled. File: BB-3-eq2 EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient = 0.21 (a/g) Vertical Earthquake Coefficient - 0.00 WATER SURFACE The Water Table is defined by three coordinate points. X(1)-Coordinate = 0,00 ft Y(1)-Coord'nate - 0.00 ft X(2)-Coordinate = 5.00 ft Y(2)-Coord nate - 10.00 ft X(3)-Coordinate = 100.00 ft Y(3)-Coordinate = 12.00 ft SEARCH LINIT The Search Limit is from 100.0 to 140.0 ft You have chosen NOT TO LIMIT the search of failure planes to specific nodes. REINFORCEMENT PARAMETERS Number of Reinforcement Levels Horizontal Spacing Yield Stress of Reinforcement Diameter of Grouted Hole Punching Shear - 4 - 4.5 ft = 54.9 ksi = 6.0 in = 45.2 kips (Varying Reinforcement Parameters) Vertical Bar Level Length Inclination Spacing Diameter Bond Stress (ft) (degrees) (ft) (in) Factor .1 45.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 2 40.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 3 35.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 4 30.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 Page - MINI MINI IIIIIII MIN NMI nil MI MIN =II IMO MINI Mil MI Mill NMI I File: BB-3-eq2 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) Toe 1.669 104.0 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 14 2 = 12 3 - 19. 4 = 43. MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DIST BEHINDE WALL TOE (ft) NODE 2 1.655 108.0 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0.0 31.2 31.4 85.3 .484 Ks' (Pullout controls...) .861 Ks (Pullout controls...) 917 Ks (Pullout controls...) 471 Ks (Pullout controls...) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPERRLAFAAILURE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0.0 32.4 30.4 87.7 1 = 11.447 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 10.161 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 19.917 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 43.471 Ksi (Pullout controls...) DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 3 1.642 112.0 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0.0 33.6 29.5 90.1 1 = 8.491 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 7.532 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 19.917 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 43.471 Ksi (Pullout controls...) DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 4 1.633 116.0 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0.0 34.8 28.7 92.6 1 - 5.611 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 4.972 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 19.917 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 43.471 Ksi (Pullout controls...) DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPERRLAFAAILURE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 5 1.628 120.0 0.0 36.0 27.9 95.0 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 2.805 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 2.478 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 19.917 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Page - 3 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 6 1.626 124.0 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWERRLAFAILURE UPPERRLAFAILURE NN ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 0.0 37.2 27.1 97.5 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 0.071 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 0.047 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 19.917 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 43.471 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 7 1.633 128.0 DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE BEHIND PLANE WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0.0 38.4 26.4 100.0 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 - 0.000 Ksi 3 - 19.917 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 43.471 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 8 1.676 132.0 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0.0 39.6 25.7 102.5 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 - 0.000 Ks' 3 = 19.917 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 43.471 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 9 1.678 136.0 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 3.7 68.1 30.5 78.9 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 0.000 Ksi 2 = 17.116 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 34.285 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 51.453 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE ANGLE�E LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE10 1.682 140.0 3.6 70.1 29.7 80.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 0.000 Ksi 2 - 16.618 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 33.940 Ksi (Pullout controls.,.) 4 = 51.262 Ksi (Pullout controls...) M I— MN M N MN M MN MN M 1 N E MI MI M all I * For Factor of Safety - 1.0 * • Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * * 0.000 Kips/level * ******************************************************************** PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. C-C' Date: 02-18-2005 SnailWin 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.61 47.0 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe N- 24.0 ft Pile: CC-3 LEGEND: PS= 34.0 Hips FY= 41.3 Xsi Sh= 4.5 ft Su= 4.0 ft GAM PHI CON SIG pef deg psf psi 1 120.0 32 100 8.0 2 100.0 17 400 8.0 3 100.0 23 525 8.0 Soil Bound.(2) - Water Scale = 10 ft lg Surcharge ES N N 11111 N MN NM EN X N NE - - - NM 1 M I File: CC-3 Page - 1 **********************■**************************** * CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * * ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER * * DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS * * Office of Roadway Geotechnical Engineering * * Date: 02-18-2005 Time: 13:01:01 * *************************************************** Project Identification - Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. C-C' WALL GEOMETRY Vertical Wall Height = 24.0 ft Wall Batter = 0.0 degree Angle Length (Deg) (Feet) First Slope from Wallcrest. - 24.5 45.0 Second Slope from 1st slope. - 0.0 160.0 Third Slope from 2nd slope. = 0.0 0.0 Fourth Slope from 3rd slope. = 0.0 0.0 Fifth Slope from 3rd slope. - 0.0 0.0 Sixth Slope from 3rd slope. = 0.0 0.0 Seventh Slope Angle. - 0.0 SLOPE BELOW THE WALL There is NO SLOPE BELOW THE TOE of the wall SURCHARGE THE SURCHARGES IMPOSED ON THE SYSTEM ARE: Begin Surcharge -Distance from toe - End Surcharge ; Distance from toe - Loading Intensity - Begin = Loading Intensity - End 100.0 ft 200.0 ft 1000.0 psf/ft 1000.0 psf/ft OPTION #1 Factored Punching shear, Bond & Yield Stress are used. SOIL PARAMETERS Unit Friction Cohesion Soil Weight Angle Intercept Layer (Pcf) (Degree) (Psf) 1 120.0 32.0 100.0 2 100.0 16.5 400.0 3 100.0 23.0 525.0 Bond* Coordinates of Boundary Stress XS1 YS1 XS2 YS2 (Psi) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 300.0 -2.0 300.0 0.0 7.0 -2.0 * Bond Stress also depends on BSF Factor in Option #5 when enabled. File: CC-3 WATER SURFACE The Water Table is defined by three coordinate points. X(1)-Coordinate - 0.00 ft Y(1)-Coordinate - 0.00 ft X(2)-Coordinate = 5.00 ft Y(2)-Coord nate - 10.00 ft X(3)-Coordinate = 100.00 ft Y(3)-Coord nate - 12.00 ft SEARCH LIMIT The Search Limit is from 45.0 to 55.0 ft You have chosen NOT TO LIMIT the search of failure planes to specific nodes. REINFORCEMENT PARAMETERS Number of Reinforcement Levels Horizontal Spacing Yield Stress of Reinforcement Diameter of Grouted Hole Punching Shear = 5 = 4.5 ft = 41.3 ksi = 6.0 in = 34.0 kips Page - 2 (Varying Reinforcement Parameters) Vertical Bar Level Length Inclination Spacing Diameter Bond Stress (ft) (degrees) (ft) (in) Factor 1 50.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 2 45.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 3 40.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 4 35.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 5 30.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 M I - 1 _ - 1 - - a = 1 11111 SO I 11111 I M File: CC-3 SAFETYM FACTOR Toe 1.616 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 46.0 24.9 10.1 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 2= 3- 4- 5= MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 46.2 53.2 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 41.250 Ks' (Yield Stress controls.) 41.250 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 2 1.615 47.0 24.4 10.3 45.6 53.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 3 1.615 48.0 24.0 10.5 45.0 54.3 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) Page - 3 File: CC-3 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE AN(deg) GLE LENGTH NODE 4 1.617 49.0 23.5 10.7 44.4 54.9 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 5 1.621 50.0 23.1 10.9 43.8 55.4 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 6 1.625 51.0 22.7 11.1 43.3 56.0 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 41.250 Ks' (Yield Stress controls.) 4 = 41.250 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) Page - 4 MI NMI MP 11111 NE NEI INN MN In NMI 1E1 File: CC-3 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 7 1.630 52.0 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 22.3 11.2 42.7 56.6 1 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 8 1.635 53.0 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE PANGLE LENGTH LA ANGLELENGTH(deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 21.9 11.4 42.2 57.2 1 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 9 1.641 54.0 Reinf. Stress at Level LOWER FAILURE ANGLELALE ENGTH (deg) (ft) 21.6 11.6 41.6 UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 57.8 1 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 = 41.250 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) 3 = 41.250 Ksi (Y'eld Stress controls.) 4 = 41.250 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) 5 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) Page - 5 File: CC-3 Page - 6 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE10 1.648 55.0 21.2 11.8 41.1 58.4 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) * 12.960 Kips/level * ******************************************************************** * For Factor of Safety - 1.0 * * Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. C-C' Date: 02-18-2005 Snalli�lfl 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.75 47.0 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe Scale = 10 ft File: CC-3-eq LEGEND: Crit.Ac= 0.42g Hoz. 1A1= 0.21g Urt.PRH= 0.00g PS= 45.2 Rips F9= 54.9 Hsi Sh= 4.5 ft Su= 4.0 ft GAM PHI COH SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 120.0 40 133 10.7 2 100.0 22 532 10.7 3 100.0 29 698 10.7 Sail Bound.(2) - Water Ell Surcharge I I M M I _ NM N MN N N = = = _ - I I M = = I File: CC-3-eq *************************************************** * CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER * DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS * Office of Roadway Geotechnical Engineering * Date: 02-18-2005 Time: 12:43:33 *************************************************** Project Identification - Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. C-C' WALL GEOMETRY Vertical Wall Height = 24.0 ft Wall Batter = 0.0 degree Length Angle (Deg) (Feet) First Slope from Wallcrest. - 24.5 45.0 Second Slope from 1st slope. 0.0 160.0 Third Slope from 2nd slope. 0.0 0.0 Fourth Slope from 3rd slope. 0.0 0.0 Fifth Slope from 3rd slope. 0.0 0.0 Sixth Slope from 3rd slope. 0.0 0.0 Seventh Slope Angle. 0.0 SLOPE BELOW THE WALL There is N0 SLOPE BELOW THE TOE of the wall SURCHARGE THE SURCHARGES IMPOSED ON THE SYSTEM ARE: Begin Surcharge -Distance from toe = 100.0 ft End Surcharge - Distance from toe = 200.0 ft Loading Intensity - Begin - 1000.0 psf/ft Loading Intensity - End - 1000.0 psf/ft OPTION #1 Factored Punching shear, Bond & Yield Stress are used. SOIL PARAMETERS Unit Friction Cohesion Soil Weight Angle Intercept Layer (Pcf) (Degree) (Psf) 1 120.0 39.7 133.0 2 100.0 21.5 532.0 3 100.0 29.4 698.2 Bond* Stress (Psi) 10.7 10,7 10.7 Page - 1 Coordinates of Boundary XS1 YS1 XS2 YS2 (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 300.0 7.0 0.0 -2.0 300.0 -2.0 * Bond Stress also depends on BSF Factor in Option #5 when enabled. File: CC-3-eq EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient = 0.21 (a/g) Vertical Earthquake Coefficient - 0.00 WATER SURFACE The Water Table is defined by three coordinate points. X(1)-Coordinate = 0.00 ft Y(1)-Coordinate - 0.00 ft X(2)-Coordinate = 5.00 ft Y(2)-Coordinate = 10.00 ft X(3)-Coordinate - 100.00 ft Y(3)-Coordinate = 12.00 ft SEARCH LIMIT The Search Limit is from 46.0 to 47.0 ft You have chosen NOT TO LIMIT the search of failure planes to specific nodes. REINFORCEMENT PARAMETERS Number of Reinforcement Levels Horizontal Spacing Yield Stress of Reinforcement Diameter of Grouted Hole Punching Shear - 5 - 4.5 ft - 54.9 ksl - 6.0 in = 45.2 kips (Varying Reinforcement Parameters) Vertical Bar Level Length Inclination Spacing Diameter Bond Stress (ft) (degrees) (ft) (in) Factor 1 50.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 2 45.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 3 40.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 4 35.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 5 30.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 Page - 2 M M I N N al M - MN M _ - - N - - - N _ I File: CC-3-eq MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) Toe 1.786 46.1 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 2- 3- 4- 5- MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 2 1.784 46.2 Reinf. Stress at Level NODE 3 1 = 54.860 Ksi 2 = 54.860 Ksi 3 = 47.983 Ksi 4 = 54.860 Ksi 5 = 54.860 Ksi SAFETIMUM Y OBEHINDISTE FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 10.5 23.4 59.0 44.8 54.860 Ksi 54.860 Ksi 48.118 Ksi 54.860 Ksi 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) (Yield Stress controls.) (Pullout controls...) (Yield Stress controls.) (Yield Stress controls.) LOWERRLFAILURE UPPERRLFAILURE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) Page - 3 File: CC-3-eq MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 4 1.780 46.4 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 10.4 23.6 58.9 44.9 1 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 47.713 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 10.5 23.5 59.0 44.8 NODE 5 1.796 46.5 24.6 20.5 50.7 44.1 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 54.860 Ksi (Y'eld Stress controls.) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) (Yield Stress controls.) (Yield Stress controls.) (Pullout controls...) (Yield Stress controls.) (Yield Stress controls.) LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE PLANE PLANE (deg) LENGTH (deg) LENGTH 1.782 46.3 10.4 23.5 58.9 44.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 54.860 Ksi 2 - 54.860 Ksi 3 = 47.848 Ksi 4 = 54.860 Ksi 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) (Yield Stress controls.) (Pullout controls...) (Yield Stress controls.) (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 6 1.794 46.6 24.6 20.5 50.7 44.1 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 54.860 Ks' (Yield. Stress controls.) 2 - 54.860 Ks' (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 54.860 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) Page - l M N MI - r 1 OM M N M MIN NM NMI 11111 = File: CC-3-eq MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 7 1.764 46.7 0.0 23.4 61.3 48.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 50.272 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 40.914 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 31.556 Ks' (Pullout controls...) 5 - 53.197 Ks (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 8 1.761 46.8 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0.0 23.4 61.3 48.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 50.112 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 40.765 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 31.418 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 53.197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 9 1.758 46.9 Reinf. Stress at Level LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0.0 23.5 61.2 48.7 1 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 = 49.953 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 40.617 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 31.281 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 53.197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Page - 5 File: CC-3-eq Page - 6 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PNE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE10 1.755 47.0 0.0 23.5 61.2 48.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 = 49.794 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 40.469 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 31.144 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 53.197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) ******************************************************************** * For Factor of Safety - 1.0 • Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * 16.033 Kips/level ******************************************************************** PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. C-C' Date: 02-18-2085 SnailWin 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.40 104.0 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe H- 24.0 ft File: CC-3-eq2 LEGEND: Crit.Ac= 0.30g Hoz. RH= 0.21g Urt.PRHa 0.00g PS= 45.2 Rips FY= 54.9 1st Shy 4.5 ft Su= 4.0 ft GAM PHI CON SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 120.0 40 133 10.7 2 180.0 22 532 10.7 3 100.0 29 698 10.7 Soil Bound.(2) ` Water Scale = 10 ft Ell Surcharge M a M M 1 MI UM= MO M--_ N= M MN E M File: CC-3-eq2 *************************************************** * CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER * DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS * Office of Roadway Geotechnical Engineering * Date: 02-18-2005 Time: 12:48:08 * *************************************************** Project Identification - Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. C-C' WALL GEOMETRY Vertical Wall Height - 24.0 ft Wall Batter 0.0 degree Angle Length (Deg) (Feet) First Slope from Wallcrest. = 24.5 45.0 Second Slope from 1st slope. - 0.0 160.0 Third Slope from 2nd slope. = 0.0 0.0 Fourth Slope from 3rd slope. - 0.0 0.0 Fifth Slope from 3rd slope. - 0.0 0.0 Sixth Slope from 3rd slope. = 0.0 0.0 Seventh Slope Angle. = 0.0 SLOPE BELOW THE WALL There is NO SLOPE BELOW THE TOE of the wall SURCHARGE THE SURCHARGES IMPOSED ON THE SYSTEM ARE: Begin Surcharge -Distance from toe = 100.0 ft End Surcharge - Distance from toe - 200.0 ft Loading Intensity - Begin - 1000.0 psf/ft Loading Intensity - End - 1000.0 psf/ft OPTION #1 Factored Punching shear, Bond & Yield Stress are used. SOIL PARAMETERS Unit Friction Cohesion Soil Weight Angle Intercept Layer (Pcf) (Degree) (Psf) 1 120.0 2 100.0 3 100.0 39.7 21.5 29.4 133.0 532.0 698.2 Bond* Stress (Psi) 10.7 10.7 10.7 Page - 1 Coordinates of Boundary XS1 YS1 XS2 YS2 (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 300.0 7.0 0.0 -2.0 300.0 -2.0 * Bond Stress also depends on BSF Factor in Option #5 when enabled. File: CC-3-eq2 EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient = 0.21 (alg) Vertical Earthquake Coefficient = 0.00 WATER SURFACE The Water Table is defined by three coordinate points. X(1)-Coordinate - 0.00 ft Y(1)-Coordinate - 0.00 ft X(2)-Coordinate - 5.00 ft Y(2)-Coordinate = 10.00 ft X(3)-Coordinate - 100.00 ft Y(3)-Coordinate - 12.00 ft SEARCH LIMIT The Search Limit is from 80.0 to 120.0 ft You have chosen NOT TO LIMIT the search of failure planes to specific nodes. REINFORCEMENT PARAMETERS Number of Reinforcement Levels Horizontal Spacing Yield Stress of Reinforcement Diameter of Grouted Hole Punching Shear = 5 = 4.5 ft = 54.9 ksi = 6.0 in - 45.2 kips (Varying Reinforcement Parameters) Vertical Bar Level Length Inclination Spacing Diameter Bond Stress (ft) (degrees) (ft) (in) Factor 1 50.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 2 45.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 3 40.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 4 35.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 5 30.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 Page - = M NM = MN I MN I M M NM e M I 1 a NMI =I File: CC-3-eq2 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR Toe 1.415 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMIVI SAFETY FACTOR NODE 2 1.404 88.0 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) 84.0 1= 2= 3- 4= 5= LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE ANGLE�LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0.0 33.6 40.2 66.0 20.582 Ks' (Pullout controls...) 16.207 Ks (Pullout controls...) 11.833 Ks (Pullout controls...) 29.643 Ks (Pullout controls...) 53.197 Ks (Pullout controls...) DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE BEHIND PLANE PLANE WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 0.0 35.2 38.9 67.9 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 16.098 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 12.094 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 8.090 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 29.643 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 53.197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 3 1.403 92.0 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE ANGLE�E LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0.0 36.8 37.7 69.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 11.732 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 8.088 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 6.088 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 29.643 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 53.197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Page - 3 File: CC-3-eq2 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE ANGLE�LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE ANGLE�LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 4 1.402 96.0 0.0 38.4 36.5 71.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 7.478 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 4.186 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 6.088 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 29.643 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 53.197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 5 1.403 100.0 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE ANGLE�LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0.0 40.0 35.4 73.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 3.333 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 0.383 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 6.088 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 29.643 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 53.197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PNE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 6 1.398 104.0 0.0 41.6 34.4 75.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 = 0.000 Ksi 3 - 6.088 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 29.643 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 53.197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Page - a a a M File: CC-3-eq2 Page - 5 File: CC-3-eq2 Page - MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WA(ft)OE (deg) LENGTH(ANGLE LENGTH(FACTOR WA(ft)OE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) LENGTH( NODE 7 1.401 108.0 0.0 43.2 33.4 77.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 0.000 Ksi 2 = 0.000 Ksi 3 = 6.088 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 29.643 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 53.197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 8 1.405 112.0 0.0 44.8 32.4 79.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 0.000 Ksi 2 - 0.000 Ksi 3 - 6.088 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 29.643 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 53.197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 9 1.411 116.0 0.0 46.4 31.5 81.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 = 0.000 Ksi 3 - 6.088 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 29.643 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 53.197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) NODE10 1.417 120.0 0.0 48.0 30.6 83.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 0.000 Ksi 2 = 0.000 Ksi 3 = 6.088 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 29.643 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 53.197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) * For Factor of Safety - 1.0 * Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * 0.000 Kips/level ******************************************************************** PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. D-D' Date: 02-18-2005 SnailWlin 3.18 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.69 51.0 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe He 23.0 ft File: DD-3 LEGEND: PS= 34.0 Mips FY= 41.3 Ns/ Sh= 4.5 ft Su= 4.0 ft GAM PHI CON SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 120.0 32 100 8.0 2 100.0 1? 400 8.0 3 100.0 23 525 8.0 Soil Bound.(2) - Water Scale = 18 ft aifil Surcharge INN NMI MIMI NMI NMI IIIIII MIN NM NMI File: DD-3 *******************************************AAAAAAAk * CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * * ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER * * DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS * * Office of Roadway Geotechnical Engineering * Date: 02-18-2005 Time: 11:51:39 *************************************************** Project Identification - Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. D-D' WALL GEOMETRY Vertical Wall Height - 23.0 ft Wall Batter - 0.0 degree A(nglLength Deg) (Feet) First Slope from Wallcrest. = 24.5 47.0 Second Slope from 1st slope. = 0.0 160.0 Third Slope from 2nd slope. = 0.0 0.0 Fourth Slope from 3rd slope. = 0.0 0.0 Fifth Slope from 3rd slope. - 0.0 0.0 Sixth Slope from 3rd slope. = 0.0 0.0 Seventh Slope Angle. - 0.0 SLOPE BELOW THE WALL There is NO SLOPE BELOW THE TOE of the wall SURCHARGE THE SURCHARGES IMPOSED ON THE SYSTEM ARE: Begin Surcharge -Distance from toe = 100.0 ft End Surcharge - Distance from toe = 200.0 ft Loading Intensity - Begin - 1000.0 psf/ft Loading Intensity - End = 1000.0 psf/ft OPTION #1 Factored Punching shear, Bond & Yield Stress are used. Page - 1 SOIL PARAMETERS Unit Friction Cohesion Bond* Coordinates of Boundary Soil Weight Angle Intercept Stress XS1 YS1 XS2 YS2 Layer (Pcf) (Degree) (Psf) (Psi) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 120.0 32.0 100.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 100.0 16.5 400.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 300.0 8.0 3 100.0 23.0 525.0 8.0 0.0 -6.0 300.0 -6.0 * Bond Stress also depends on BSF Factor in Option #5 when enabled. File: DO-3 WATER SURFACE The Water Table is defined by three coordinate points. X(1)-Coordinate - 0.00 ft Y(1)-Coordinate = 0.00 ft X(2)-Coordinate - 5.00 ft Y(2)-Coordinate = 10.00 ft X(3)-Coordinate - 100.00 ft Y(3)-Coordinate - 12.00 ft SEARCH LIMIT The Search Limit is from 50.0 to 60.0 ft You have chosen NOT TO LIMIT the search of failure planes to specific nodes. REINFORCEMENT PARAMETERS Number of Reinforcement Levels Horizontal Spacing Yield Stress of Reinforcement Diameter of Grouted Hole Punching Shear = 5 = 4.5 ft = 41.3 ksi = 6.0 in = 34.0 kips Page - 2 (Varying Reinforcement Parameters) Vertical Bar Level Length Inclination Spacing Diameter Bond Stress (ft) (degrees) (ft) (in) Factor 1 50.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 2 45.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 3 40.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 4 35.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 5 30.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 1 In N N 1 I N N a a M OM M NM N MN NS 1 File: DD-3 Page - 3 File: DD-3 Page - 4 MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) Toe 1.691 51.0 29.0 17.5 43.6 49.3 NODE 4 1.700 54.0 27.7 18.3 42.0 50.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 41.250 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 = 41.250 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ks' (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 41.250 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) FACTOR WALL(ft) TOE ALLtTOE ANNGLE GLE LENGTH ANGLLE E LENGTH t) NODE 2 1.693 52.0 28.6 17.8 43.0 49.8 NODE 5 1.704 55.0 27.3 18.6 41.4 51.4 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 41.250 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 KS' (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 41.250 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) FACTOR WALL TOE AN) GLE LENGTH A) NGLE LENGTH NODE 3 1.696 53.0 28.1 18.0 42.5 50.3 NODE 6 1.710 56.0 26.8 18.8 40.9 51.9 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 = 41.250 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) 5 = 41.250 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) NM S E M SIN -_-_-_-- N E_ MN N_ 1 File: DD-3 Page - 5 File: DD-3 Page - 6 MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WA(ft)OE ANGLE (deg) LENGTH AN(deg) GLE LENGTH FACTOR WA(ft)OE AN(deg) GLE LENGTH AN(deg) GLE LENGTH NODE 7 NODE10 1.717 57.0 26.4 19.1 40.4 52.4 1.740 60.0 25.3 19.9 39.0 54.0 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 8 1.724 58.0 26.0 19.4 39.9 53.0 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 9 1.731 59.0 25.6 19.6 39.5 53.5 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) ******************************************************************** * For Factor of Safety - 1.0 * Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * 10.541 Kips/level ******************************************************************** PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. D-D' Date: 02-18-2005 SnailWin 3.18 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.80 50.7 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe H= 23.0 ft File: DD-3—eq LEGEND: Crit.Ac= 0.48g Hoz. RH= 0.21g Urt.PRH= 0.00g PS= 45.2 Rips FY= 54.9 Hsi Sh= 4.5 ft Su= 4.0 ft GAM PHI COH SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 128.0 40 133 10.7 2 100.0 22 532 10.7 3 100.0 29 698 10.7 Soil Baund.(2) — Water Scale = 10 ft "� Surcharge mu w u_ ma um me me me me me_ me EN I File: DD-3-eq Page - 1 * • CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * * ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER * DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS * Office of Roadway Geotechnical Engineering * Date: 02-18-2005 Time: 11:51:58 * *************************************************** Project Identification - Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. D-D' WALL GEOMETRY Vertical Wall Height - 23.0 ft Wall Batter = 0.0 degree Angle Length (Deg) (Feet) First Slope from Wallcrest. - 24.5 47.0 Second Slope from 1st slope. = 0.0 160.0 Third Slope from 2nd slope. = 0.0 0.0 Fourth Slope from 3rd slope. - 0,0 0.0 Fifth Slope from 3rd slope. = 0.0 0.0 Sixth Slope from 3rd slope. = 0.0 0.0 Seventh Slope Angle. = 0.0 SLOPE BELOW THE WALL There is NO SLOPE BELOW THE TOE of the wall SURCHARGE THE SURCHARGES IMPOSED ON THE SYSTEM ARE: Begin Surcharge -Distance from toe - 100.0 ft End Surcharge - Distance from toe - 200.0 ft Loading Intensity - Begin = 1000.0 psf/ft Loading Intensity - End = 1000.0 psf/ft OPTION #1 Factored Punching shear, Bond & Yield Stress are used. SOIL PARAMETERS Unit Friction Cohesion Soil Weight Angle Intercept Layer (Pcf) (Degree) (Psf) 1 120.0 39.7 2 100.0 21.5 3 100.0 29.4 Bond* Coordinates of Boundary Stress XS1 YS1 XS2 YS2 (Psi) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 133.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 532.0 10.7 0.0 8.0 300.0 8.0 698.2 10.7 0.0 -6.0 300.0 -6.0 * Bond Stress also depends on BSF Factor in Option #5 when enabled. File: DD-3-eq EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient - 0.21 (a/g) Vertical Earthquake Coefficient - 0.00 WATER SURFACE The Water Table is defined by three coordinate points. X(1)-Coordinate - 0.00 ft Y(1)-Coordinate = 0.00 ft X(2)-Coordinate = 5.00 ft Y(2)-Coordinate - 10.00 ft X(3)-Coordinate = 100.00 ft Y(3)-Coordinate = 12.00 ft SEARCH LIMIT The Search Limit is from 50.0 to 51.0 ft You have chosen NOT TO LIMIT the search of failure planes to specific nodes. REINFORCEMENT PARAMETERS Number of Reinforcement Levels Horizontal Spacing Yield Stress of Reinforcement Diameter of Grouted Hole Punching Shear = 5 - 4.5 ft = 54.9 ksi - 6.0 in - 45.2 kips (Varying Reinforcement Parameters) Vertical Bar Level Length Inclination Spacing Diameter Bond Stress (ft) (degrees) (ft) (in) Factor 1 50.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 2 45.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 3 40.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 4 35.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 5 30.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 Page - i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11 File: DD-3-eq MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) Toe 1.812 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) Page - 3 File: DO-3-eq MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 50.1 12.0 20.5 51.8 48.6 NODE 4 1.807 50.4 11.9 20.6 51.7 48.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 1 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWERRLAFAILURE UPPERRLFFAAILURE NANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 2 1.810 50.2 11.9 20.5 51.8 48.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 54,860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WA(ft)OE ANGLEdeLENGTH ANGLE LENGTH NODE 3 1.809 50.3 Reinf. Stress at Level 11.9 20.6 51.7 48.7 1 - 54.860 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 54.860 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 54.860 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 54.860 Kst (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PNE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 5 1.805 50.5 11.9 20.6 51.6 48.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PNE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 6 1.804 50.6 11.9 20.7 51.6 48.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 54.860 Ksi (Meld Stress controls.) 2 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 54.860 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 54.860 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) Page - 4 I= I E N I NM I I_ N N O-- I I M File: DD-3-eq MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 7 1.802 50.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 2 - 3 = 4= 5= LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 11.8 20.7 51.5 48.9 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 8 1.820 50.8 22.7 22.0 48.1 45.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 9 1.818 50.9 22.7 22.1 48.1 45.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) Page - 5 File: DD-3-eq Page - MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE10 1.816 51.0 22.6 22.1 48.0 45.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 = 54.860 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) 3 = 54.860 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) 4 = 54.860 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) * For Factor of Safety - 1.0 * * Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * * 14.953 Kips/level * ******************************************************************** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROJECT TIME: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. D-D' HiHix Date: 02-18-2005 SnailWin 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.44 108.0 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe H= 23.0 ft File: DD-3—eg2 LEGEND: Crit.Ac= 0.31g Hoz. HH= 0.21g Urt.PHH= 0.00g PS= 45.2 Hips FY= 54.9 Xsi Sh= 4.5 ft Su= 4.0 ft GAM PHI COH SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 120.0 40 133 10.7 2 180.0 22 532 10.7 3 100.0 29 698 10.7 Soil Bound.(2) 1 Water Scale = 10 ft ED Surcharge I1 M M MI MI MI a N N--= MINI MN N 1 MI I MIMI N File: DD-3-eq2 Page - 1 * ▪ CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER * DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS * Office of Roadway Geotechnical Engineering * * Date: 02-18-2005 Time: 12:51:53 *************************************************** Project Identification - Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. D-D' WALL GEOMETRY Vertical Wall Height - 23.0 ft Wall Batter - 0.0 degree Angle Length (Deg) (Feet) First Slope from Wallcrest. 24.5 47.0 Second Slope from 1st slope. 0.0 160.0 Third Slope from 2nd slope. 0.0 0.0 Fourth Slope from 3rd slope. 0.0 0.0 Fifth Slope from 3rd slope. 0.0 0.0 Sixth Slope from 3rd slope. - 0.0 0.0 Seventh Slope Angle. 0.0 SLOPE BELOW THE WALL There is NO SLOPE BELOW THE TOE of the wall SURCHARGE THE SURCHARGES IMPOSED ON THE SYSTEM ARE: Begin Surcharge - Distance from toe - 100.0 ft End Surcharge - Distance from toe = 200.0 ft Loading Intensity - Begin = 1000.0 psf/ft Loading Intensity - End - 1000.0 psf/ft OPTION #1 Factored Punching shear. Bond & Yield Stress are used. SOIL PARAMETERS UnittgFriction Cohesion Bond* Coordinates of Boundary Layer (Pcf)t (Degree)neIntercept (Psi)s (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 120.0 39.7 133.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 100.0 21.5 532.0 10.7 0.0 8.0 300.0 8.0 3 100.0 29.4 698.2 10.7 0.0 -6.0 300.0 -6.0 * Bond Stress also depends on BSF Factor in Option #5 when enabled. File: DD-3-eq2 Page - EARTHUUAKE ACCELERATION Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient - 0.21 (a/g) Vertical Earthquake Coefficient = 0.00 WATER SURFACE The Water Table is defined by three coordinate points. X(1)-Coordinate - 0.00 ft Y(1)-Coordinate - 0.00 ft X(2)-Coordinate - 5.00 ft Y(2)-Coordinate = 10.00 ft X(3)-Coordinate - 100.00 ft Y(3)-Coordinate = 12.00 ft SEARCH LIMIT The Search Limit is from 100.0 to 140.0 ft You have chosen NOT TO LIMIT the search of failure planes to specific nodes. REINFORCEMENT PARAMETERS Number of Reinforcement Levels = 5 Horizontal Spacing = 4.5 ft Yield Stress of Reinforcement - 54.9 ksi Diameter of Grouted Hole = 6.0 in Punching Shear = 45.2 kips (Varying Reinforcement Parameters) Vertical Bar Level Length Inclination Spacing Diameter Bond Stress (ft) (degrees) (ft) (in) Factor 1 50.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 2 45.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 3 40.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 4 35.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 5 30.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 IIIIII I M M MI M M I NM M OM N V M SI N OM M M File: DD-3-eq2 MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) Toe 1.439 104.0 LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0.0 41.6 UPPERRLAFAAILURE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 34.3 75.5 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 2.431 Ks' (Pullout controls...) 2 = 0.000 Ks 3 = 15.815 Ks' (Pullout controls...) 4 - 39.369 Ks (Pullout controls...) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 2 1.436 108.0 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWERRLAFAAILURE UPPERRLAFAILURE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 0.0 43.2 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 = 0.000 Ksi 3 = 15.815 Ksi 4 = 39.369 Ksi 5 = 54.860 Ksi MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 3 1.438 112.0 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) 33.3 77.5 (Pullout controls...) (Pullout controls...) (Yield Stress controls.) LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE PLANE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 0.0 44.8 32.3 79.5 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 = 0.000 Ksi 3 = 15.815 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 39.369 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) Page - 3 File: DD-3-eq2 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE ANGLELA LENGTHANGLELA LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 4 1.442 116.0 0.0 46.4 31.4 81.5 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 - 0.000 Ksi 3 - 15.815 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 39.369 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 5 1.446 120.0 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0.0 48.0 30.5 83.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 = 0.000 Ksi 3 - 15.815 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 39.369 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 6 1.452 124.0 0.0 49.6 29.7 85.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 0.000 Ksi 2 = 0.000 Ksi 3 = 15.815 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 39.369 Ks (Pullout controls...) 5 - 54.860 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) Page - NODE 8 1.465 132.0 File: DD-3-eq2 Page - 5 File: DO-3-eq2 MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 7 NODE10 1.458 128.0 0.0 51.2 29.0 87.8 1.480 140.0 0.0 56.0 26.8 94.1 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 0.000 Ksi Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 = 0.000 Ksi 2 - 0.000 Ks' 3 = 15.815 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 15.815 Ks (Pullout controls...) 4 = 39.369 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 39.369 Ks (Pullout controls...) 5 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 = 54.860 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH * For Factor of Safety - 1.0 * (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) * Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * * 0.000 Kips/level * ******************************************************************** Page- 0.0 52.8 28.2 89.9 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 - 0.000 Ksi 3 - 15.815 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 39.369 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 9 1.472 136.0 0.0 54.4 27.5 92.0 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 0.000 Ksi 2 = 0.000 Ksi 3 = 15.815 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 39.369 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. E-E' Date: 02-18-2005 SnailWin 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.54 52.0 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe H- 28.0 ft File: EE-3 LEGEND: 34.0 Mips FY= 41.3 Hsi Sh= 4.5 ft Su= 4.0 ft GAM PHI COH SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 120.0 32 100 8.02 100.0 17 400 8.8 3 100.0 23 525 8.0 Soil Bound.(2) Water Scale = 10 ft ED Surcharge N-- O--- MO I I I NM MN N N= a= I File: EE-3 Page - 1 *************************************************** * CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER * * DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS * Office of Roadway Geotechnical Engineering * Date: 02-18-2005 Time: 11:52:21 * *************************************************** Project Identification - Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. E-E' WALL GEOMETRY Vertical Wall Height - 28.0 ft Wall Batter - 0.0 degree Angle Length (Deg) (Feet) First Slope from Wallcrest. - 0.0 30.0 Second Slope from 1st slope. = 6.0 25.0 Third Slope from 2nd slope. = 25.0 15.0 Fourth Slope from 3rd slope. - 0.0 165.0 Fifth Slope from 3rd slope. = 0.0 0.0 Sixth Slope from 3rd slope. = 0.0 0.0 Seventh Slope Angle. - 0.0 SLOPE BELOW THE WALL There is NO SLOPE BELOW THE TOE of the wall SURCHARGE THE SURCHARGES IMPOSED ON THE SYSTEM ARE: Begin Surcharge -Distance from toe = End Surcharge - Distance from toe = Loading Intensity - Begin = Loading Intensity - End 134.0 ft 234.0 ft 1000.0 psf/ft 1000.0 psf/ft OPTION #1 Factored Punching shear, Bond & Yield Stress are used. SOIL PARAMETERS Unit Friction Cohesion Soil Weight Angle Intercept Layer (Pcf) (Degree) (Psf) 1 120.0 32.0 100.0 2 100.0 16.5 400.0 3 100.0 23.0 525.0 * Bond Stress also depends on BSF F Bond* Coordinates of Boundary Stress XS1 YS1 XS2 YS2 (Psi) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 18.0 300.0 18.0 8.0 0.0 14.0 300.0 14.0 actor in Option #5 when enabled. File: EE-3 WATER SURFACE The Water Table is defined by three coordinate points. X(1)-Coordinate = 0.00 ft Y(1)-Coordinate - 0.00 ft X(2)-Coordinate = 5.00 ft Y(2)-Coordinate = 10.00 ft X(3)-Coordinate = 100.00 ft Y(3)-Coordinate = 12.00 ft SEARCH LIMIT The Search Limit is from 20.0 to 60.0 ft You have chosen NOT TO LIMIT the search of failure planes to specific nodes. REINFORCEMENT PARAMETERS Number of Reinforcement Levels Horizontal Spacing Yield Stress of Reinforcement Diameter of Grouted Hole Punching Shear = 5 - 4.5 ft - 41.3 ksi - 6.0 in - 34.0 kips Page - 2 (Varying Reinforcement Parameters) Vertical Bar Level Length Inclination Spacing Diameter Bond Stress (ft) (degrees) (ft) (in) Factor 1 35.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 2 30.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 3 25.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 4 20.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 5 15.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 MN I M - - _ MI = _ - _ MI E = a File: EE-3 Page 3 File: EE-3 Page - 4 MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) Toe 1.602 24.0 37.9 18.2 60.3 19.3 NODE 4 1.547 36.0 34.8 35.1 50.0 11.2 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 36.336 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 29.480 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 23.982 Ks' (Pullout controls...) 3 = 22.623 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 21.905 Ks (Pullout controls...) 4 - 19.840 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 19.828 Ks (Pullout controls...) 5 - 17.067 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 17.751 Ks (Pullout controls...) 5 - 15.674 Ks (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 2 1.581 28.0 41.2 29.8 56.3 10.1 NODE 5 1.543 40.0 32.4 37.9 47.5 11.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 32.385 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 28.908 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 20.447 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 25.430 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 18.960 Ks' (Pullout controls...) 4 - 21.953 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 17.472 Ks (Pullout controls...) 5 - 18.475 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 15.984 Ks (Pullout controls...) 5 - 14.496 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 3 1.558 32.0 37.6 32.3 52.9 10.6 NODE 6 1.545 44.0 21.9 23.7 43.2 30.2 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 27.856 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 25.133 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 12.236 Ks' (Pullout controls...) 3 - 22.411 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 8.361 Ks (Pullout controls...) 4 - 19.688 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 4.709 Ks (Pullout controls...) 5 = 16.965 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 6.412 Ks (Pullout controls...) 5 = 8.115 Ksi (Pullout controls...) IMO N MI a I M NMI I 11111 NM 1111 - N - - r 1 IMI1 E File: EE-3 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 7 1.537 48.0 28.1 38.1 39.7 18.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 2= 3 - 4 - 5 • MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) NODE 8 1.536 52.0 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR 13.382 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 13.071 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 12.761 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 12.451 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 12.141 Ksi (Pullout controls...) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 19.3 27.5 39.2 33.6 1 = 4.282 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 1.217 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 0.669 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 3.382 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 6.095 Ksi (Pullout controls...) DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 9 1.559 56.0 15.5 23.2 36.6 41.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 2.922 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 0.444 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 0.000 Ksi 4 - 0.000 Ksi 5 = 2.753 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Page 5 File: EE-3 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE NE ANGLELANE LENGTH ANGLE�LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE10 1.584 60.0 25.2 46.4 36.3 22.3 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 8.177 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 8.734 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 9.291 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 9.849 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 10.406 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Page - 6 ******************************************************************** * For Factor of Safety = 1.0 * Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * 9.033 Kips/level _ _: PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining all, X-Sec. E-E' Date: 02-18-2005 SnailWin 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.38 52.0 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe H- 28.0 ft File: EE-3-eq LEGEND: Crit.Ac= 0.39g Hoz. NH= 0.21g Urt.PIOI= 0.00g S= 45.2 Hips PY= 54.9 Xsi Sh= 4.5 ft Su= 4.0 ft GAM PHI COO SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 120.0 40 133 10.7- 2 100.0 22 532 10.7 3 100.0 29 698 10.7_j Soil Bound.<2) - Water Scale = 10 ft bap Surcharge M NM I M M - I - M = E M I N - _ I NM N File: EE-3-eq *************************************************** * CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * * ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER * * DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS * * Office of Roadway Geotechnical Engineering * * Date: 02-18-2005 Time: 11:52:42 * *************************************************** Project Identification - Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. E-E' WALL GEOMETRY Vertical Wall Height - 28.0 ft Wall Batter = 0.0 degree Angle Length (Deg) (Feet) First Slope from Wallcrest. = 0,0 30.0 Second Slope from 1st slope. = 6.0 25.0 Third Slope from 2nd slope. = 25.0 15.0 Fourth Slope from 3rd slope. = 0.0 165.0 Fifth Slope from 3rd slope. - 0.0 0.0 Sixth Slope from 3rd slope. - 0.0 0.0 Seventh Slope Angle. - 0.0 SLOPE BELOW THE WALL There is NO SLOPE BELOW THE TOE of the wall SURCHARGE THE SURCHARGES IMPOSED ON THE SYSTEM ARE: Begin Surcharge - Distance from toe - End Surcharge - Distance from toe - Loading Intensity - Begin - Loading Intensity - End - 134.0 ft 234.0 ft 1000.0 psf/ft 1000.0 psf/ft OPTION #1 Factored Punching shear, Bond & Yield Stress are used. SOIL PARAMETERS Unit Friction Cohesion Layer Weight (Degree)AnIntercept( 1 120.0 39.7 133.0 2 100.0 21.5 532.0 3 100.0 29.4 698.2 Bond* Stress (Psi) 10.7 10.7 10.7 Page - 1 Coordinates of Boundary XS1 YS1 XS2 Y52 (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 300.0 18.0 0.0 14.0 300.0 14.0 * Band Stress also depends on BSF Factor in Option #5 when enabled. File: EE-3-eq EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient = 0.21 (a/g) Vertical Earthquake Coefficient = 0.00 WATER SURFACE The Water Table is defined by three coordinate points. X(1)-Coordinate = 0.00 ft Y(1)-Coordinate = 0.00 ft X(2)-Coordinate = 5.00 ft Y(2)-Coord nate = 10.00 ft X(3)-Coordinate - 100.00 ft Y(3)-Coordinate = 12.00 ft SEARCH LIMIT The Search Limit is from 51.0 to 52.0 ft You have chosen NOT TO LIMIT the search of failure planes to specific nodes. REINFORCEMENT PARAMETERS Number of Reinforcement Levels Horizontal Spacing Yield Stress of Reinforcement Diameter of Grouted Hole Punching Shear = 5 = 4.5 ft - 54.9 ksi = 6.O in = 45.2 kips (Varying Reinforcement Parameters) Vertical Bar Level Length Inclination Spacing Diameter Bond Stress (ft) (degrees) (ft) (in) Factor 1 35.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 2 30.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 3 25.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 4 20.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 5 15.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 Page - MI lin MI MI MI IMO NEI INN la = INN SIMI NM I NODE 3 File: EE-3-eq Page - 3 File: EE-3-eq Page - 4 MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) Toe 1.387 51.1 16.5 21.3 38.3 39.0 NODE 4 1.385 51.4 16.4 21.4 38.1 39.2 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 9.121 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 5.314 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 8.757 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 1.508 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 4.990 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 0.000 Ksi 3 - 1.222 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 4.856 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 0.000 Ksi 5 - 4.763 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 2 1.386 51.2 16.4 21.4 38.2 39.1 NODE 5 1.384 51.5 16.4 21.5 38.1 39.3 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 8.999 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 5.206 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 8.637 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 1.412 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 4.882 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 0.000 Ksi 3 = 1.128 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 4.825 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 0.000 Ksi 5 - 4.732 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1.385 51.3 16.4 21.4 38.2 39.1 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 8.878 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 5.098 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 1.317 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 0.000 Ksi 5 - 4.794 Ksi (Pullout controls...) NODE 6 1.384 51.6 16.3 21.5 38.0 39.3 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 8.516 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 4.774 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 1.033 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 0.000 Ksi 5 - 4.701 Ksi (Pullout controls...) a ea am a a au so a a a al me is la au au ea a- i File: EE-3-eq MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL (ft)TOE (deg) LENGTH ANGLE (deg) LENGTHfFACTOR WALL (ft)TOE ANGLE (deg) LENGTH ANGLE (deg) LENGTH(ft) NODE 7 NODE10 1.383 51.7 16.3 21.5 38.0 39.4 1.382 52.0 16.2 21.7 37.9 39.5 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 8.395 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 8.035 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 4.667 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 4.345 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 0.938 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 0.655 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 0.000 Ksi 4 = 0.000 Ksi 5 - 4.670 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 4.579 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL(ft)OE (deg) TANGLE LENGTH AN(deg) GLE L(ft)H NODE 8 1.383 51.8 16.3 21.6 37.9 39.4 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 8.275 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 4.559 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 0.844 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 0.000 Ksi 5 = 4.640 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WA(ft)OE A(ddOg)LL(ft)H (deg) GLE L(ft)M NODE 9 1.382 51.9 16.3 21.6 37.9 39.5 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 8.155 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 = 4.452 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 0.749 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 0.000 Ksi 5 = 4.609 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Page - 5 File: EE-3-eq Page - ******************************************************************** * For Factor of Safety = 1.0 * * Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * 0.000 Kips/level ******************************************************************** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. E-E' Date: 02-18-2005 SnailWin 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.36 72.0 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe H= 28.0 ft File: EE-3-eg2 LEGEND: Crit.Ac= 0.39g Hoz. EH= 0.21g Urt.PRH= 0.00g PS= 45.2 Kips FY= 54.9 Kai 7Sh= 4.5 ft Su= 4.0 ft CAM PHI COH SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 120.0 40 133 10.7 2 100.0 22 532 10.7 3 100.0 29 698 10.7 Soil Bound.(2) Water Scale = 10 ft {Tlff Surcharge 1 M M - - N M MN N - M I a 1 NM NM MN N I M I File: EE-3-eq2 Page - 1 ******-********************************************* * CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION * ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER * * DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS * Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient = 0.21 (a/g) * Office of Roadway Geotechnical Engineering * Vertical Earthquake Coefficient = 0.00 * Date: 02-18-2005 Time: 12:54:58 *************************************************** Project Identification - Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. E-E' WALL GEOMETRY Vertical Wall Height - 28.0 ft Wall Batter = 0.0 degree Angle Length (Deg) (Feet) First Slope from Wallcrest. - 0.0 30.0 SEARCH LIMIT Second Slope from 1st slope. = 6.0 25.0 Third Slope from 2nd slope. = 25.0 15.0 Fourth Slope from 3rd slope. = 0.0 165.0 The Search Limit is from 60.0 to 100.0 ft Fifth Slope from 3rd slope. - 0.0 0.0 You have chosen NOT TO LIMIT the search of failure planes Siveh Slope from 3rd slope. = 0.0 0.0 Seventh Slope Angle. = 0.0 to specific nodes. SLOPE BELOW THE WALL There is NO SLOPE BELOW THE TOE of the wall SURCHARGE THE SURCHARGES IMPOSED ON THE SYSTEM ARE: Begin Surcharge - Distance from toe - 134.0 ft End Surcharge - Distance from toe = 234.0 ft Loading Intensity - Begin - 1000.0 psf/ft Loading Intensity - End = 1000.0 psf/ft OPTION #1 Factored Punching shear, Bond & Yield Stress are used. SOIL PARAMETERS Unit Friction Cohesion Bond* Coordinates of Boundary Soil Weight Angle Intercept Stress XS1 YS1 XS2 YS2 Layer (Pcf) (Degree) (Psf) (Psi) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 120.0 39.7 133.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 100.0 21.5 532.0 10.7 0.0 18.0 300.0 18.0 3 100.0 29.4 698.2 10.7 0.0 14.0 300.0 14.0 * Bond Stress also depends on BSF Factor in Option #5 when enabled. File: EE-3-eq2 Page - WATER SURFACE The Water Table is defined by three coordinate points. X(1)-Coordinate - 0.00 ft Y(1)-Coordinate = 0.00 ft X(2)-Coordinate = 5.00 ft Y(2)-Coordinate = 10.00 ft X(3)-Coordinate - 100.00 ft Y(3)-Coordinate = 12.00 ft REINFORCEMENT PARAMETERS Number of Reinforcement Levels a 5 Horizontal Spacing = 4.5 ft Yield Stress of Reinforcement = 54.9 ksi Diameter of Grouted Hole = 6.0 in Punching Shear = 45.2 kips (Varying Reinforcement Parameters) Vertical Bar Level Length Inclination Spacing Diameter Bond Stress (ft) (degrees) (ft) (in) Factor 1 35.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 2 30.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 3 25.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 4 20.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 5 15.0 18.4 4.0 1.00 1.00 ally NM N NM �..I M a a I a a a MI INN File: EE-3-eq2 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR Toe Reinf 1.391 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) 64.0 Stress at Level 1 - 2 2 - 4. 3 = 6. 4 - 9. 5 = 11. MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 2 1.364 68.0 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE PLANE PLANE LENGTH ANGLEE ANGLELENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 22.2 55.3 47.5 18.9 .707 Ksi (Pullout 814 Ksi (Pullout 921 Ksi (Pullout 029 Ksi (Pullout 136 Ksi (Pullout LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) controls...) controls...) controls...) controls...) controls...) UPPER FAILURE PLANE degE LENGTH ( 9) 21.1 51.0 42.0 27,5 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 - 2.049 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 4.709 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 7.369 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 10.030 Ksi (Pullout controls...) DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 3 1.358 72.0 Reinf. Stress at Level LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE PLANE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 20.1 53.7 40.5 28.4 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 = 0.000 Ksi 3 = 2.718 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 5.876 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 9.034 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Page - 3 File: EE-3-eq2 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 4 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 1.363 76.0 19.2 56.3 39.0 29,3 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 0.000 Ksi 2 - 0.000 Ksi 4 - 4.301 Ksi si (Pullout cut ontrols...) 5 - 7.984 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE PPE ANGLEgA ANGLELENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 5 1.373 80.0 21.1 51.4 30.0 37.0 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 = 1.924 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 = 4.609 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 7.295 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 9.980 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE Pg�LENGTH ANGLEgA PE ANGLELENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 6 1.381 84.0 20.1 53.7 28.8 38.3 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 = 0.000 Ksi 3 = 2.718 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 5.876 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 9.034 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Page - File: EE-3-eq2 Page - 5 File: EE-3-eq2 MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 7 1.396 88.0 19.3 55.9 27.7 39.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ks 2 = 0.000 Ks 3 = 0.911 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 4.521 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 8.131 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 8 1.415 92.0 18.5 58.2 26.7 41.2 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 - 0.000 Ksi 3 - 0.000 Ksi 4 = 3.224 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 7.266 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 9 1.438 96.0 17.8 60.5 25.7 42.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 = 0.000 Ksi 3 = 0.000 Ksi 4 = 1.982 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 6.438 Ksi (Pullout controls...) NODE10 1.461 100.0 20.3 106.6 89.9 0.0 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 = 0.000 Ks' 3 = 3.028 Ks (Pullout controls...) 4 - 6.108 Ks (Pullout controls...) 5 - 9.189 Ks (Pullout controls...) Page - xxxxxxxxxxxxxwwwxxwwxw******************************************* * For Factor of Safety = 1.0 * Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * * 0.000 Kips/level ******************************************************************** LOWNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnlcai/Engineering Services Fullerton 251 E. Imperial Hwy, Suite 470 CA 92835-1063 T: 714.441.3090 F: 714.441.3091 Fairfield 2850 Cordelia Road, Suite 140 CA 94534 T: 707.423.2523 F: 714.441.3091 Mountain View 405 Clyde Avenue CA 94043-2209 T: 650.967.2365 F: 650.967.2785 Oakland 129 Filbert Street CA 94607-2531 T: 510.267.1970 F: 510.267.1972 Sacramento 9912 Business Park Drive, Suite 130 CA 95827 T: 916.782.1151 F: 916.782.1569 San Ramon 2258 Camino Ramon CA 94583-1353 T: 925.275.2550 F: 925.275.2555 Las Vegas 8395 W. Sunset Road, Suite 190 Las Vegas, NV 89113 T: 702.257.1872 F: 702.307.4222 http://www.lowney.com A TRC Company J:D1070000-AAM005009S-Hoag Hospital - E-Wall Retrofit1Calcs101-10-07-Rev-Calc\Cover&Index 1/16/200711:31 AM S. ran Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering CITY OF NEWPC:PT ;PEACH WADING DE"^. RTMENT APPPOVAI. CF THE" 'l '_DOES NOf CD L T scD P''R 'NPR TO AUK TCl TG Obi FDLT ANY oJIC cl )I - WITH 11 r 1RF11 FIv ST PLso.P.NC PC ICIE° CT ` " S'nf ".S APPROIA DOES r. T uJ 'EF,TEE THAT T'EP= F .. TF.S CH 'OF FL APD Zp II THE r I , Ur A NPOR1 EEi h .ESERVES THE :C I (DOD' s- 10 REVDE THE BIJILDI 0 STP':,TU'- ^R INrrT cl EL 1E _ 9EbOPE DURING OR AFTER CONS RUCTIONc�rcF-zs,-a 4C:' lriE ORDINANCE$. PLANS AND POLICIES OF THE CITY OF KEWPGRT BEACH. PERMITTEE'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT. ioR, long ENGINEERIN wONT E GRIT IPlG LAFINING L/M/P APPRObALTO ISSUE Retrofit for (E)soldier beamDAwatl Hoag Hospital Newport Beach, CA. FOR: TRC 8 Job No. 50098 December 01, 2006 Rev.01: 01/12/2007 124 Greenfield Avenue, CA. 94960. TEL. 415-259-0191 FAX. 415-259-0194 e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com PIROOZ BARAR & ASSOCIATES mar in Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering JOB NO.: 50098 FOR: TRC DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA Index Page:1 1/12/20074:44 PM Date: 12Jan-07 Page: i CONTENTS PAGE 0) INDEX I) Calculations for tieback loads (Static Case) 1 thru 3 11) Calculations for tieback loads (Seismic Case) 4 thru 6 III) Calculations for UBL,BL and test loads 7 thru 8 IV) Design of bearing plate & Punching shear check 9 thru 10 V) Design of rebars for waler 11 VI) Hand Calculation for Static Case 12 thru 14 124 greenfield Ave, San Anselmo,CA 94960 P:(415)259-0191, F:(415)259-0194 pba@pbandalnc.com Depth(ft) 0 -5 -10 -15 - 20 - 25 30 35 40 L 45 Water pressure 0 Case 1-H=29.0 ft-3 ties -Static Gr. Water table +/- 34.0' Passive pressure (Kp=5,0) 1 ksf 1 Regular Normal surcharge (100 psf) Active pressure ( 36H) 01 Water pressure <ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltechsoftware.com Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Date: 1/11/2007 File Name: J:\D\070000-AAAA1070000-Current1050098-Hoag Hospital - E-Wall Retrofit\Calcs\11-31 Wall Height=29.0 Pile Diameter=2.5 Pile Spacing=6.0 Wall Type: 2. Soldier Pile, Drilled PILE LENGTH: Min. Embedment=8.55, Min. Pile Length=37.55 MOMENT IN PILE: Max. Moment=130.90 per Pile Spacing=6.0 at Depth=27.97 VERTICAL BEARING CAPACITY: Vertical Loading=78.1, Resistance=186.0, Vertical Factor of Safety=2.38 PILE SELECTION: Request Min. Section Modulus = 66.1 in3/feet, Fy= 36 ksi = 248 MPa, Fb/Fy=0.66 W14X61 has Section Modulus = 92.2. It is greater than Min. Requirements! BRACE FORCE: Strut, Tieback, Plate Anchor, and Deadman No. & Type Depth 1. Tieback 5.0 2. Tieback 15.0 3. Tieback 23.0 Angle Space 15.0 6.0 15.0 6.0 15.0 6.0 Total F. 97.4* 84.1 120.2 Horiz. F. 94.0 81.3 116.1 Vert. F. 25.2 21.8 31.1 1st tieback spacing based on 3'-0", so bond length is reduced to 38.7/2=19.5 ft. L_free 16.9 11.7 7.6 Fixed Length 38.7 26.8 38.3 * Top Brace increased by 15% (DM7.2-103) UNITS: Width,Diameter,Spacing,Length,Depth,and Height - ft; Force - kip; Bond Strength and Pressure - ksf DRIVING PRESSURES (ACTIVE, WATER, & SURCHARGE): No. Z1 P1 Z2 P2 1 0.0 1.04 29.0 1.04 2 0.0 0.10 29.0 0.10 3 6.0 0.00 100.0 5.87 PASSIVE PRESSURES. No. 1 Z1 29.0 2 29.0 P1 0.00 0.00 Z2 P2 100.0 17.04 100.0 4.43 Active Press. 36H= 36x29 = 1.04 ksf Slope 0.000 0.000 0.062 <----_iWater Press. Slope 0.240 E- 0.062� Reg. Normal Surcharge = 0.1 ksf, - Passive Press: Water Press. ACTIVE SPACING: No. 1 2 PASSIVE SPACING: No. Z depth Spacing 0.00 6.00 29.00 2.50 Z depth Spacing 1 29.00 5.00 UNITS: Width,Spacing,Diameter,Length,and Depth - ft; Force - kip; Moment - kip-ft Friction,Bearing,and Pressure - ksf; Pres. Slope - kip/ft3; Deflection - in 02 Depth(ft) F0 5 10 15 - 20 - 25 - 30 35 40 45 Depth(ft) 70 5 r 10 15 20 25 30 - 35 40 L 45 Case 1-H=29.0 ft-3 ties -Static Tieback Loads 97.4` kip_, 84.1 kip__ 120.2 kip._ 0 1 ksf I I Pressure Diagram Max. Shear=66.76 kip 03 At top level, two tiebacks are installed between each beam Therefore Des Load=97.4/2 =49 kips ' Top Brace increased by 15% (DM7.2-103) 66.76 kip Shear Diagram 0 Max. Moment=130.90 kip-ft 130.90 kip-ft I I Moment Diagram PRESSURE, SHEAR, AND MOMENT DIAGRAMS Based on pile spacing: 6.0 feet or meter Date: 1/11/2007 File Name: J:1D1070000-AAAA1070000-Currentl050098-Hoag Hospital - E-Wall RetrofitlCalcs111-30-06-PressureDia\Case-1-H=29.0ft-3 ties.sh8 <ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltechsoftware.com Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Depth(ft) r° 5 10 - 15 - 20 - 25 - 30 35 40 Case 1-H=29.0 ft-3 ties -Dynamic Gr. Water table +/- 34.0' Water pressure Passive pressure (Kp=5.0) 1 3 0 1ksf I I 45 <ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.clviltechsoftware.com Regular Normal surcharge (100 psf) 04 Seismic loading (20H) Active pressure ( 36H) Water pressure Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Date: 1/11/2007 File Name: J:1D1070000-AAAA1070000-Currentl050098-Hoag Hospital - E-Wall Retrofit\Calcs111-3 Wall Height=29.0 Pile Diameter=2.5 Pile Spacing=6.0 Wall Type: 2. Soldier Pile, Drilled PILE LENGTH: Min. Embedment=8.59, Min. Pile Length=37.59 MOMENT IN PILE: Max. Moment=133.23 per Pile Spacing=6.0 at Depth=27.95 VERTICAL BEARING CAPACITY: Vertical Loading=92.8, Resistance=186.3, Vertical Factor of Safety=2.01 PILE SELECTION: Request Min. Section Modulus = 67.3 in3/feet, Fy= 36 ksi = 248 MPa, Fb/Fy=0.66 W14X61 has Section Modulus = 92.2. It is greater than Min. Requirements! BRACE FORCE: Strut, Tieback, Plate Anchor, and Deadman No. & Type Depth Angle Space Total F. Horiz. F. Vert. F. L_free Fixed Length 1. Tieback 5.0 15.0 6.0 135.9* 131.3 35.2 16.9 54.1 2. Tieback 15.0 15.0 6.0 96.3 93.0 24.9 11.7 30.7 3. Tieback 23.0 15.0 6.0 126.5 122.1 32.7 7.6 40.3 * Top Brace increased by 15% (DM7.2-103) UNITS: Width,Diameter,Spacing,Length,Depth,and Height - ft; Force - kip; Bond Strength and Pressure - ksf DRIVING PRESSURES (ACTIVE, WATER, & SURCHARGE): No. Z1 P1 Z2 P2 1 0.0 1.04 29.0 1.04 2 0.0 0.10 29.0 0.10 3 6.0 0.00 100.0 5.87 4 0.0 0.58 29.0 0.00 -0.020 PASSIVE PRESSURES: No. Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope 1 29.0 2 29.0 Slope 0.00 0.000�� Active Press. 36H= 36x29 = 1.04 ksf Reg. Normal Surcharge = 0.1 ksf 0.062��yyater Press: 0.00 100.0 17.04 0.240< 0.00 100.0 4.43 0.062E�WaterPress. Sets. Loading 20H=. 20x29. = 0.58ksf Passive Press. ACTIVE SPACING: No. 1 2 PASSIVE SPACING: No. 1 Z depth Spacing 0.00 6.00 29.00 2.50 Z depth Spacing 29.00 5.00 UNITS: Width,Spacing,Diameter,Length,and Depth - ft; Force - kip; Moment - kip-ft Friction,Bearing,and Pressure - ksf; Pres. Slope - kiplft3; Deflection - in 05 Depth(ft) -0 -5 - 10 15 20 25 30 35 - 40 L 45 Depth(ft) -0 - 5 - 10 - 15 20 25 30 C35 k40 L 45 Case 1-H=29.0 ft-3 ties -Dynamic Tieback Loads 135.9`kip 96.3 kip_ 126.5 kip,, 0 1 ksf I I Pressure Diagram I At top level, two tiebacks are installed between each beam Therefore Des Load=135.9/2 =68 kips 06 "Top Brace increased by 15% (DM7.2-103) Max. Shear=68.94 kip 68.94 kip 0 J Shear Diagram Max. Moment=133.23 kip-ft 133.23 kip-ft Moment Diagram 0 PRESSURE, SHEAR, AND MOMENT DIAGRAMS Based on pile spacing: 6.0 feet or meter a: 1/11/2007 File Name: J:ID1070000-AAAA1070000-Current1050098-Hoag Hospital - E-Wall RetrofitlCalcs11130.06-PressureDialCase-1-H=29.0ft-3 ties-Seismic.sh <ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltechsoftware.com Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 PBBA,INC. calcs-UBL-BL.mcd 12/1/2006 FOR: TRC JOB: Hoag Hospital JOB NO.: 050098 DESCRIPTION: Calcs for UBL and BL LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA DATE: 12/01/06 - Shucural Engineering MN ANSCO.40,CAS14.30 ww.ppeneainc.mm Pbeapterdenc.mm Dimensions: H := 29.0•ft (Height of pile above grade) al := 5.0•ft a2 := 15.0•ft a3 := 23.O.ft T1 := 49.kip T2 := 84.kip T3 := 120-kip (1st level Tieback from (E) Gr.) (2nd level Tieback from (E) Gr.) (3rd level Tieback from (E) Gr.) (1st level Tieback design Toad) (2nd level Tieback design load) (3rd level Tieback design Toad) Unbonded Length NOTE : see page 03: static case- for design load; UBL1 (H-al-S&tan(15.deg)) sin (30deg) + Sft sin (75.deg) cos (15.deg) UBL2 :=(H-a2-5.ft.tan(15.deg)).sin (30.deg) + 5.ft sin(75.deg) cos(15•deg) sin(30.deg) 5.ft UBL3 := (H - a3 - 5. ft. tan(15. deg)) + Bonded Length Pull := 2000.0.psf 1 BL1 := Tl DB.7c•Pu11.0.8 1 BL2 := T2 DB/Pull 1 BL3 :- T3 DB•a•Pull sin(75•deg) cos(15.deg) UBL I = 16.91 ft UBL2 = 11.73ft UBL3 = 7.59ft PAGE := 07 Units Conversion: kip := 1000.1bf psi := 1•lbf•in 2 ksi := 1000-psi psf := 1-lbf.ft 2 pef := 1 Ibf.ft 3 NA := 0 DB := 6 in (Properties of the Tieback Bonding) BLI=19.5ft BL2 = 26.74ft BL3 = 38.2ft Minimum Bond length used is 25 ft. top level tieback pullout strength is reduced to 80%- due to the fact that tiebacks are spaced closer (31-0") (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Evergreen Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com PB&A, INC. calcs-UBL-BLmcd 12/1/2006 Test Load: Tf = 1.5 ( test load factor ) T1•Tf= 73.5kip T2-Tf= 126kip T3•Tf= 180kip PAGE =8 (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Evergreen Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-marl: pba@pbandainc.com PB&A, INC. Punching.mcd:1/2 4:11 PM:12/1/2006 a a 1st z_n_ r. Ern =-'--_ nseHne FOR: TRC Eno ;fM JOB: Hoag Hospital JOB NO.: 050098 DESCRIPTION: Design of bearing plate and checking punching shear LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA DATE: 12/01/06 Input Parameters: fc := 4500-psi 36ksi T := 126.5kip Design of bearing plate (COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF SHOTCRETE) (YIELD STRENGTH OF PLATE) (MAX. TIEBACK DESIGN LOAD) Calculate required plate area: L bp:- 0.35 fc Lbp = 8.96in Choose Lbp := 12•in (BEARING PLATE LENGTH) Calculate required plate thickness: ffT Y L 2 by fp = 878.47psi dnut 1.5' in Lbp - dnut m: 2 Required thickness: tbp := 2m- fp fY Actual bearing pressure Diameter of washer DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF WASHER TO EDGE OF PLATE tbp = 1.64in Choose tbp := 1.75•in (BEARING PLATE THICKNESS) USE: 1-3/4" x 12" x 1'-0" PLATE PAGE := 9 (T)415-259-0191 (9415-259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com PB&A, INC. Punching.mcd:2/2 4:11 PM:12/1/2006 PUNCHING SHEAR VERIFICATION he := Sin De = he + Lbp De = 20in he = Sin kip f VF := 0.9.2 -- --'rz-Dc'hc ft2 psi Rreq = 1.7•T PAGE = 10 Effective depth of conical surface Effective diameter of conical failure surface at the center VF = 421.49kip Rr.eq = 215.05kip O.K. (T)415-259-0191(F)415-259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com PB&A, INC. rebar-calcs.mcd 12/1/2006 FOR: TRC JOB: Hoag Hospital JOB NO.: 050098 DESCRIPTION: Design of waler bars LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA DATE: 12/01/06 DESIGN OF WALER BARS P Material Parameter: fc' := 4.5•ksi (Filling concrete ultimate compressive stress) fy= 60.ksi (Steel reinf. yielding stress) Shape Parameter: b := 24.in d := (16-2) in 6:=0.9 Tieback design load span of the supports Moment at the wall per linear foot Ultimate Moment per linear foot 0.85 fc' fy p = 0.01099 As := p•b d 2Mu 0.85.4 b.d2.fel) As = 3.6914in2 P := 126.5.kip L:=6ft Structural Englneerng 124 ORIINFICLO AVENUE ....&.PEandalnc.eOnl Paadapbandalnc.wm PAGE 11 maximum design at tieback occurs at bottol level at Seismic case M := 0.175.P.L M = 132.82kip.ft Mu := 1.6.M Mu = 212.52kip•ft For waler bars, select : 5- # 8 bars (As = 3.9 in?) (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Evergreen Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba©pbandainc.com PB&A, INC. tieback loads.mcd 1/12/2007 FOR: TRC JOB: Hoag Hospital JOB NO.: 050098 DESCRIPTION: Calculations for Tieback Loads LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA DATE: 01/12/07 CALCULATIONS FOR TIEBACK LOADS TYPICAL OiAGRAM FOR 2N0 I EVEL TIEBACK PASS! VE PRESSLRE WATER PRESSURE Required Dimensions: H := 29•ft Hw:=6ft s =6•ft al := 5•ft a2 := 15•ft a3 := 23•ft 1 TR,RUTARY AREA OF TIEBACK Et z Structural Engineering 124 OtrEllf !MD naive WIN m;(+blab a 1a51 ue0es awerabandainc.com raar Pba®obaM.Nc.cnm ACTIVE PRESSURE (36H) ,RECTANGULAR PRESSURE FR. TRAFFIC SJRCHARCE (iOOPSF) I TIEBACK CARRIES THE FORCE EXERTED IBY THESE PRESSURES. (Height of the beam) (Height of water table fr. T.O.W.) (40 ft. - 34 ft.) (Horizontal spacing of the beam) (Elev. of 1st level tieback from T.O.W) (Elev. of 2nd level tieback from T.O.W) (Elev. of 3rd level tieback from T.O.W) (a2 - al) dl := al + 2 d2 ;_ (a2 - al) + (a3 - a2) 2 2 d3 :_ (a3 2 a2)+ (H - a3) hwl =d1-Hw hw2 := a2 - Hw hw3 = a3 - Hw Hw" PAGE := 12 ATER PRESSURE d1 = 10 R (Tributary Height of 1st level tieback) d2 = 9 ft (Tributary Height of 2nd level tieback) d3 = 10ft (Tributary Height of 3rd level tieback) hwl = 4ft hw2=9ft hw3 = 17 ft (Effective height of water table for 1st level tieback) (Effective height of water table for 2nd level tieback) (Effective height of water table for 3rd level tieback) (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Evergreen Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com PB&A, INC. tieback loads.mcd 1/12/2007 1st Level Tieback: Active Pressure, 36H Traffic Surcharge Water Pressure Total Horizontal Load Load on 1st tieback 15% increased load Pal := 36. H.psf 11 Pt1 := 100.psf Pal = 1044psf Pw1 := 62.4.pcf I•hwl.(hwl•s) 2 Pw1 = 3kip PAGE = 13 P1 :_ (Pal.dl•s)+(Ptl dl.$)+Pw1 P1 = 71.64kip Tl P1 cos(15.deg) T1 = 74.16kip T1 := TI +(TI•0.15) T1 = 85.29kip Load from Shoring 8 Program T := 97.4•kip 2nd Level Tieback: Active Pressure, 36H Traffic Surcharge Water Pressure Total Horizontal Load Load on 1st tieback Load from Shoring 8 Program Pa2 = 36 ft•psf Pt2 = 100.psf Pw2 = 62.4.pcf•hw2 Pa2 = 1044psf Pw2 = 561.6psf P2 := (Pa2+Pt2+Pw2) (d2 s) P2 = 92.1kip T2 :_ P2 cos(15.deg) T := 84.1•kip T2 = 95.35kip (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Evergreen Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com PB&A, INC. tieback loads.mcd 1/12/2007 PAGE = 14 3rd Level Tieback: Active Pressure,36H Traffic Surcharge Water Pressure Total Horizontal Load Load on 1st tieback Load from Shoring 8 Program Pa3 := 36- $ • psf Pt3 := 100-psf Pw3 := 62.4.pcf-hw3 Pa3 = 1044psf Pw3 = 1060.8psf P3 := (Pa3 + Pt3 + Pw3). (d3 - s) P3 = 132.29kip P3 T3 :_ cos(15.deg) T := 120.2•kip T3 = 136.95kip The hand calculation results (approximate method) for tieback forces are only 15% differ from Shoring8 calculation results. (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Evergreen Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba©pbandainc.com 1 II, Dim Eton wan ,., wo,E�. .a .e`.r:.°EE.s n zoo-0"_ woo. Max ^`^—` N Post i0 be W a Eye bolts In '/"9 WEE drl lea roles. PeenTurnbuckles Bolt -peen end ®fov and l 2 lm 0 feels Silt tOrnbueemee 0 iUmDUck le with damps per end Pipe NPS \^`— a en l dr ivm nt Typ l/" 0 DE (srzw c Ew0116E9 "• ''. TOP WI cable.,,_ \1 May 1, 2006 ends of Bolts adjustment TYP / IV. Std reek/ p2D5triS ^1 wv� DATEmwso / ` a/ \> OrilleU holes � I Metal dIanp • "w,.", )E `r u,°v:°ae,= alli • '�1Eo W2R[enaro rot LA9twn',W/wv.HnT / A y. '�j Place NPS 1l/ Place iEuea rods Top of call Typ �� .mvm �.e>v]Si m� �mvm v� Gutter FL� ;tv FCC--_y iay.nenm xvm� 1O'-a' Max l0,_0" Max 5•_0" N 0 2 to Typ end spun Typ Intermediate Typ intermediate Typ end span Span Span EXISTING WALL (WITHOUT GUTTER) RETAINING WALL (WITH GUTTER) RETAINING WALL (WITH GUTTER) iTANDARD P NI Existing Existing New construction ELEVATION NOTES: m 03 i. Maximum distance between turnbuckles shall be 200'-0"1. 2. Intermediate turnbuckles to De pieced in adjacent spans. %Existin cabc gutter. Remove and replace Huff lcien+ alengtD of gutter to !low io nstallotion Ot rail nq post. In1 11 3. Cable shall not be spliced between intermediate turnbuckles and end poste. Eye DON ore end trim tl sleeve clam y¢/ D¢ P 4. All (x•6}s, cable, and hardware to be gal vcni2ed. a4 turnbuckle l/�. 0 Caly cable 5. Poste to de vertical. r I. Z h��P �1l/2" ± 6. Alignment of holes in pasta may vary to Conform to slope of `. fop of retainmg wall.if 01 V +$ALTERNATIVE CABLE CONNECTION i. The Contractor shall verify au dependent dimensions in the field��I;•befor¢ ordering or rabrmmmq any maternal.e. 8Min ANMnative eetai is may ce suDm ttea by tDe contractor for by the Engineer. 8" - Min be braced horizontally and trussed diagonally Vapproval 9. Line pasta shall in both directions vt intervals not to exceed 1000'. SECTION A -A SECTION B-B SECTION C-C 10. Post Dockets to be centered in top of vain. Existing washer crimped stop Existing New construction a/p' 0 Hole 0 ca lv cable 11. Typical end spans, braced In bath directions, shall be constructed at changes in line where the angle of deflection Is 15' or more. (-Mortar e. 12. Provide thimbles at all Cable !dope. 4 y 11" z-wa sleeve CI Y."! LF1 r 'S• 4"x5"x 9•d 5" 0 x 9" past packet STATE OFTA Pipe PS 2 Std Past DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NSPORTATION CABLE RAILING POST POCKET ALTERNATIVE DEAD END ANCHORAGE NO SCALE B11-47 a liana ala —� — — a — -- vNM w -- as NW la A a...." a a — _ aaa OM •ram - Oa a lama. —� NM 'a Si a MI NM ON w MI Structural Engineering To: James C. Juliani From: PIROOZ BARAR Date: January 15, 2007 Subject: Response to Comemnts aWJN A.pbanilainc. c m.� MEMORANDUM � Y '• krci* c =3 lath Anniversa Job No.: 050098 Job Name: Hoag Hospital - E-Wall Retrofit Company T RC Address: 21 Technology Drive City: Irvine State: CA. Zip: 92618 We have received the comments prepared by Mr. Ali Naji, City of Newport Beach dated January 04, 2007 regarding our submittal of plan and calculations , "Remedial work for Soldier Beam Wall', Hoag Hospital ,Newport Beach, dated December 5,2006. We are addressing the comments in the order they have been presented: 1. Approval is required from: Will be complied with.. 2. Revise Site Plan; Plan on 01/S 02 has been revised to include all necessary information. Drawing sheet "S 1" has been revised to clarify the Scope of the work and Drawings Index. 3. Cable Railing Detail; Handrail detail is included in the plans; See Detail 5/S 03. 4. New 3X lagging and Miradrain: New 3X lagging is required if (E) shotcrete lagging is absent or ineffective as mentioned in the note 1 under "Construction procedure for New tiebacks and shotcrete lagging". Please see revised Section 1/S 03. S. Miradrain connections to Storm drain: Has been revised and it needs to be coordinated with Civil Plans. Please refer Civil Plans 6. ' Existing Soldier Pile Spacing And Embedment-. The plan has been revised; See Elevation 2/S 02. 7. Typical Hand calculations: Please see the revised calculation report. 8. Pull capacity per soil report recommendation: Maximum pullout strength of 1000psf is to be used per Soil report; This value is for gravity grouted tiebacks; Further the Soil report mentioned that " High frictional resistance may be achieved through placement of the cement grout under pressure"; The tiebacks for this project will be pressure grouted and tested in the field to verify the assumed pull out strength. 9. Incorrect value for Pullout strength was used in the design analysis on page 01; The pullout strength was corrected as shown on Page 07 of calculation. 10. • The design analysis was based on the tieback spacing of 6'-O" o.c . (same as Existing beam spacing.); At top level, tiebacks are spaced at 3'-0" o.c. Therefore the design load for each tieback is half. There is a note shown on sheet 03 of calculation. 124 GREENFIELD AVE. • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 • TEL: 415-259-0191 • FAX: 415-259-0194 email: pba@pbandainc.com -Web: www.pbandainc.com Job ID: 050098 ,lob Name: Hoag Hospital - E-Wall Retrofit Subject: Response to Comments w 4n4 pbandainc.aorta°? Date: January 15, 2007 PAGE 2 • Clarification of Static and dynamic analysis : The analysis was performed for both cases. Design load derived from Static analysis is shown on the plans as Design loads (DL_stat) ; However the design loads from Seismic analysis (DL_seis)are higher than DL_stat. These loads are short in duration and all the tiebacks are proof tested to 150% DL_stat which is higher than DL_seis. Therefore DL_seis is not shown as design load on the plans. 11. not applicable to PB&A. 12. not applicable to PB&A. 13. not applicable to PB&A. 14. complied with the comment. Should you have any questions and/or Comments please do not hesitate to call us being brought out 415 259- 0191. Pirooz Barar, S.E. PB&A Inc. cc. Steve Williams / George Burrough/CONDON - JOHNSON ASSOC. INC. Renganathan Vaikunthan, P.E. / PB&A,Inc Fax: Tom Deen/ T RC Ali Bastani, PhD, GE / Lowney Associates I A TRC Company Fax: 714 441-3091 124 GREENFIELD AVE. • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 • TEL: 415-259-0191 • FAX: 415-259.0194 email: pbalapbandalnc.com -Web: www.pbandainc,com C:10\050090-Hoag Hospitan050098-Remed-E Sold beams1Calcs 11.00-061Cover&Index.xls 12/1/2006 4:14 PM NIEEMPE MEIN SS ME MO ME. 'MEI MI Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering Tat .at..o ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS Retrofit for (E) soldier beam wall Hoag Hospital Newport Beach, CA. \,OFESS/Q; \PoQZ 9484t 9 No. SE 2502 hethissa- FOR: TRC ga BAR % ee—Sy2.--7 Job No. 50098 December 01, 2006 ca L c 0-L/47// 5 //,//7 124 Greenfield Avenue, CA. 94960. TEL. 415-259-0191 FAX. 415-259-0194 e-mail: pba@pbandalnc.com PIROOZ BARAR & ASSOCIATES Index Page:1 12/1/2006 4:14 PM allallb � �� a __ -I= Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering JOB NO.: 50098 FOR: TRC DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA Date: 1-Dec-06 Page: i CONTENTS PAGE 0) INDEX I) Calculations for tieback loads (Static Case) 1 thru 3 II) Calculations for tieback loads (Seismic Case) 4 thru 6 111) Calculations for UBL,BL and test loads 7 thru 8 IV) Design of bearing plate & Punching shear check 9 thru 10 V) Design of rebars for waler 11 124 greenfield Ave, San Anselmo,CA 94960 P:(415)259.0191, F:(415)259.0194 pba@pbandainc.com 01 Depth(ft) 0 5 10 15 20 25 - 30 - 35 Water pressure - 40 0 Case 1-H=29.0 ft-3 ties -Static 1 ksf Gr. Water table /- 34.0' 1 Regular Nor ms& surcharge (100 psf) i€ensure (38H) Water pressure - 45 <ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltechsoftware.com Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Date: 11/30/2006 File Name: Wall Height=29.0 Pile Diameter=2.5 Pile Spacing=6.0 Wall Type: 2. Soldier Pile, Drilled PILE LENGTH: Min. Embedment=8.55, Min. Pile Length=37.55 MOMENT IN PILE: Max. Moment=130.90 per Pile Spacing=6.0 at Depth=27.97 VERTICAL BEARING CAPACITY: Vertical Loading=78.1, Resistance=186.0, Vertical Factor of Safety=2.38 PILE SELECTION: Request Min. Section Modulus = 66.1 in3/pile, Fy= 36 ksi = 248 MPa, Fb/Fy=0.66 W14X61 has Section Modulus = 92.2. It is greater than Min. Requirements! BRACE FORCE: Strut, Tieback, Plate Anchor, and Deadman No. & Type Depth Angle Total F. Horiz. F. Vert. F. L_free Fixed Length 1. Tieback 5.0 15.0 97.4* 94.0 25.2 16.9 62.0 2. Tieback 15.0 15.0 84.1 81.3 21.8 11.7 53.6 3. Tieback 23.0 15.0 120.2 116.1 31.1 7.6 76.5 * Top Brace increased by 15% (DM7.2-103) UNITS: Width/Diameter/Spacing/Length/Depth/Height - ft, Force - kip, Bond Strength/Pressure - ksf ACTIVE SPACING: Z depth Spacing 1 0.00 6.00 2 29.00 2.50 PASSIVE SPACING: Z depth Spacing 1 29.00 5.00 DRIVING PRESSURES (ACTIVE, WATER, & SURCHARGE): No. Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope 1 0.0 1.04 29.0 1.04 0.000 2 0.0 0.10 29.0 0.10 0.000 3 6.0 0.00 37.6 5.87 0.062 02 PASSIVE PRESSURES: No. Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope 1 29.00 0.00 37.55 17.04 0.2400 2 29.00 0.00 37.55 4.43 0.0624 UNITS: Width/Spacing/Diameter/Length/Depth - ft, Force - kip, Moment - kip-ft, UNITS: Friction/Bearing/Pressure - ksf, Pres. Slope - kip/ft3, Deflection - in Case 1-H=29.0 ft-3 ties -Static 03 Depth(ft) - 0 - 5 - 10 - 15 - 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 - 40 - 45 Depth(ft) 0 -5 - 10 15 - 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 - 40 - 45 97.4* kip___ 84.1 kip- 120.2 kip_, 0 1 ksf Pressure Diagram Max. Shear=66.76 kip At top level, two tiebacks are installed between each beam Therefore Der Load=97Al2 =49 kips ' Top Brace increased by 15% (DM7.2-103) Max. Moment=130.90 kip-ft 66.76 kip Shear Diagram 0 130.90 kip-ft Moment Diagram PRESSURE, SHEAR, AND MOMENT DIAGRAMS Based on pile spacing: 6.0 feet or meter 11/30/2006 Flle Name: L:1D1050000-AAAA1050090-Hoag Hospita11050098-Hoag Hospital - E-Wall Retrofit1Calcs111-30-06-PressureDialCase-1-H=29.0ft-3 ties <ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltechsoftware.com Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Case 1-H=29.0 ft-3 ties -Dynamic Regular Normal surcharge 04 (100 psi} Depth(ft) - 0 - 5 -10 - 15 - 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 Water pressure Gr. Water table +/- 34.0' Peaslve pressun (.0) - 40 0 1 ksf 1 - 45 Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 Date: 11/30/2006 File Name: Seismic loading ( 2 Active pressure (38H) <ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltechsoftware.com Wall Height=29.0 Pile Diameter=2.5 Pile Spacing=6.0 Wall Type: 2. Soldier Pile, Drilled PILE LENGTH: Min. Embedment=8.59, Min. Pile Length=37.59 MOMENT IN PILE: Max. Moment=133.23 per Pile Spacing=6.0 at Depth=27.95 VERTICAL BEARING CAPACITY: Vertical Loading=92.8, Resistance=186.3, Vertical Factor of Safety=2.01 PILE SELECTION: Request Min. Section Modulus = 67.3 in3/pile, Fy= 36 ksi = 248 MPa, Fb/Fy=0.66 W14X61 has Section Modulus = 92.2. It is greater than Min. Requirements! BRACE FORCE: Strut, Tieback, Plate Anchor, and Deadman No. & Type Depth Angle Total F. Horiz. F. 1. Tieback 5.0 15.0 135.9* 131.3 2. Tieback 15.0 15.0 96.3 93.0 3. Tieback 23.0 15.0 126.5 122.1 * Top Brace increased by 15% (DM7.2-103) UNITS: Width/Diameter/Spacing/Length/Depth/Height ACTIVE SPACING: Z depth Vert. F. 35.2 24.9 32.7 L_free 16.9 11.7 7.6 Fixed Length 86.5 61.3 80.5 ft, Force - kip, Bond Strength/Pressure - ksf Spacing 1 0.00 2 29.00 PASSIVE SPACING: 1 Z depth 29.00 DRIVING PRESSURES (ACTIVE, WATER, & SURCHARGE): No. Z1 P1 Z2 6.00 2.50 Spacing 5.00 P2 Slope 1 0.0 1.04 29.0 2 0.0 0.10 29.0 1.04 0.000 0.10 0.000 3 6.0 0.00 37.6 5.87 0.062 4 0.0 0.58 29.0 0.00 -0.020 05 PASSIVE PRESSURES: No. Z1 P1 Z2 P2 Slope 1 29.00 0.00 37.59 17.04 0.2400 2 29.00 0.00 37.59 4.43 0.0624 UNITS: Width/Spacing/Diameter/Length/Depth - ft, Force - kip, Moment - kip-ft, UNITS: Friction/Bearing/Pressure - ksf, Pres. Slope - kip/ft3, Deflection - in Case 1-H=29.0 ft-3 ties -Dynamic 06 Depth(ft) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 - 45 Depth(ft) -0 5 - 10 - 15 - 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 - 40 45 135.9` kip_ 96.3 kip._, 126.5 kip 0 1 ksf Pressure Diagram At top level., two tiebacks are installed between each beam Therefore Ilea Load■135.8Y2 =68 kips ' Top Brace increased by 15% (DM7.2-103) Max. Shear=68.94 kip 68.94 kip Shear Diagram 0 Max. Moment=133.23 kip-ft 133.23 kip-ft Moment Diagram 0 PRESSURE, SHEAR, AND MOMENT DIAGRAMS Based on pile spacing: 6.0 feet or meter 0l2006 File Name: L:1D1050000-AAAA1050090-Hoag Hospita11050098-Hoag Hospital - E-Wall RetrofitlCalcs111.30-06-PressureDia\Case-1-H=29.0ft-3 ties-Seh <ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltechsoftware.com Licensed to 4324324234 3424343 PB&A, INC. calcs-UBL-BL.mcd 12/1/2006 FOR: TRC JOB: Hoag Hospital JOB NO.: 050098 DESCRIPTION: Calcs for UBL and BL LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA DATE: 12/01/06 Structural Enyhwring m (ml l>ial vrop» aaa.aaaaaacoaa Oneoa..daiaa.ma inc. Dimensions: H := 29.04t al:=5.0ft a2 := 15.O•ft a3:=23.0ft TI := 49-kip T2 84-kip T3 := 120-kip (Height of pile above grade) (1st level Tieback from (E) Gr.) (2nd level Tieback from (E) Gr.) (3rd level Tieback from (E) Gr.) (1st level Tieback design load) (2nd level Tieback design load) (3rd level Tieback design load) Unbonded Length NOTE : see page 03: static case- for design loadg UBL1 :_ (H — al — 5ft. tan(15- deg)) sin(311deg) + 5•ft sin(75•deg) cos(15•deg) UBL2 := (H—a2-5-ft•tan(15•deg)) sin(30deg) + Sft sin (75.deg) cos(15.deg) UBL3 := (H — a3 — 5•ft•tan(15•deg))• sin (30deg) + 5ft sin (75.deg) cos(15.deg) Bonded Length Pull := 2000.0•psf 1 BL1 := Ti DB•n-Pull.0.8 1 BL2 := T2 DB. n•Pull BL3 T3 1 D nPull DB := 6• in BL1 = 19.5ft BL2 = 26.74ft BL3 = 38.2 ft UBLI = 16.91ft UBL2 = 11.73 ft UBL3 = 7.59ft PAGE := 07 Units Conversion: kip := 1000 1bf psi := 1•Ibf•in ksi := 1000•psi psf := 1 Ibf-fi 2 pcf = 1Jbf•ft3 NA =0 (Properties of the Tieback Bonding) Minimum Bond length used is 25 ft. top level tieback pullout strength is reduced to 80%- due to the fact that tiebacks are spaced closer (31-0") (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Evergreen Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com PB&A, INC. calcs-UBL-BL.mcd 12/1/2006 Test Load: Tf:= 1.5 ( test load factor ) T1.Tf= 73.5kip T2•Tf= 126kip T3.Tf= 180kip PAGE = 8 (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Evergreen Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com PB&A, INC. Punching.mcd:1/2 4:11 PM:12/1/2006 PB&Ainc. strinturei zmu..nro FOR: TRC JOB: Hoag Hospital Oh.®;,:na an JOB NO.: 050098 DESCRIPTION: Design of bearing plate and checking punching shear LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA DATE: 12/01/06 Input Parameters: fc 4500•psi f3, := 36ksi T 126.5kip Design of bearing plate (COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF SHOTCRETE) (YIELD STRENGTH OF PLATE) (MAX. TIEBACK DESIGN LOAD) Calculate required plate area: L by :— 0.35• fc Lbp = 8.96 in Choose Lbp := 12•in (BEARING PLATE LENGTH) Calculate required plate thickness fy :- L 2 by T fp = 878.47psi Actual bearing pressure dnut := 1.5-in Lbp — dnut m: 2 Required thickness: fy tbp := 2•tn. 11 fY tbp = 1.64in Choose tbp := 1.75.in Diameter of washer DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF WASHER TO EDGE OF PLATE (BEARING PLATE THICKNESS) USE: 1-3/4" x 12" x 1'-0" PLATE PAGE := 9 (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com P88A, INC. Punching.mcd:2/2 4:11 PM:12/1/2006 PUNCHING SHEAR VERIFICATION he := 8in De := he + Lbp De = 20 in he = Sin f VF := 0.9.2 kip o ft2 psi Rreq := 1.7•T PAGE = 10 Effective depth of conical surface Effective diameter of conical failure surface at the center VF = 421.49kip Rreq = 215.05 kip Rreq < VF O.K. (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com PB&A, INC. rebar-calcs.mcd 12/1/2006 FOR: TRC JOB: Hoag Hospital JOB NO.: 050098 DESCRIPTION: Design of waler bars LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA DATE: 12/01 /06 DESIGN OF WALER BARS P Material Parameter: fc' := 4.5•ksi fy := 60-ksi Shape Parameter: (Filling concrete ultimate compressive stress) (Steel reinf. yielding stress) b:=24•in d:=(16-2)-in := 0.9 Tieback design load span of the supports Moment at the wall per linear foot Ultimate Moment per linear foot 0.85-fc' fy p = 0.01099 As := p•b•d 2Ma 1 1 �1 � 0.85.O•b-d2.fc') As = 3.6914 in2 P 126.5-kip L:=6•ft Structural Engineering GlEDIFICLO rti VE NUC on) a�w� Njml Verne4 mv.owmaem.ocm we®oeureene.com PAGE := 11 maximum design at tieback occurs at bottom level at Seismic case M := 0.175 P- L M = 132.82 kip ft M..:= 1.6•M For waler bars, select : 5- # 8 bars (As = 3.9 in 2) Mu = 212.52kip•ft (1)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Evergreen Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com AC T W IL I TafBEAO nuHORizT; mli t'ARTMENT WITH THE� cnoRTaA t°�T��a.� 2aoRTBLVD, P C O ,' 1'i68; NEwPb ll BEACH, CA'92658-8915 E� ' P oRo i (94��644-3275 PERMITTEF'T FL/NO,:LILL': 'IT DPEica *PA1 1' -v7__ 4�:3 C. Project Address: 1 Hoag Dr. —Date: January 4, 2007 Scope of work: Tie back wall to existing soldier beam wall. Occupancy Classification: U2 Valuation: $ 120,000 Plan Check No.: 2842-2006 Type of Construction: V-N Expiration Date: June 9Ta 2007 41sTRecheck: January 23, 2007 Plan Check Engineer: Ali Naji, P. E. Phone: (949) 644-3292 • Make the following corrections to the plans. • Return this correction sheet and check prints with corrected plans. Approval is required from: • Building Department • Planning Department 2. Revise site plan to provide an enlarged and & fully dimensioncd area of work drawn to scale. Clarify if top & bottom grade elevations arc existing or new elevations. Provide Include sheet index on the title sheet and list all drawings. 3. Section 1/S3 references missing sheet 19 for cable railing detail. Provide mi.,..ing detail, specify height & clarify attachment to cap beam. Provide calculations to justify. 4 Cla_if ' the ne •. 3x lagging oho.. n on detail 1/83. Clarify how laggings will be installed if this- isting wall Same thing applies to the Mir dmi s .stem 5. Clarify the Miradrain system connections to storm drains on plan. 7. Provide typical hand calculations for each case of brace force. Clarify the input & the out put of the program used in calculations. 41sTRecheck: Revised plans show different pile depth of embedment than what is used in original analysis. Revise accordingly. &. Verify pull capacity as listed on sheet 7 is correct per the soil report recommendation. AhNaji, P.E. 1/2 01/23/07 Plan check engineer (949) 644-3292 anaj i®city.newport-beach. ca. us 9. Clarify fixed lengths as listed on sheet 1 are Beater than bonded length on sheet 7. 10. l&Tlevel tieback de..ign load used in calculations is less than what is , hown on sheet 3. in design of the tie backs. 11. The geotechnical engineer of record shall review grading & structural plans, stamp & sign grading and structural drawings for compliance with tho goo technical report's reeetranienElatiem 12. The civil engineer of record shall review structural drawings f r compliance with civil plan, stamp & sign elevation sheets. 13. Drawings, specifications and construction procedures shall be reviewed, stamped & signed by the corrosion engineer for compliance with their report. 14. Return this plan correction list with your corrected plans. All marks on plans are made part of these observations and recommendations and shall be addressed as if the were written. Provide a correction response sheet, in order to expedite your recheck. Cloud all changes for re -submittal. Please note that all rechecks beyond the 2ND, shall be charged additional hourly plan check fee. Ali Naji, P.E. 2/2 01/23/07 Plan check engineer (949) 644-3292 anaji@city.newport-beach.ca.us