Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutB2005-1423 - Misc (3)Hv Dr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BLVD P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3275 Project Address: 1 Hoag Dr. Scope of work: Soil Nailed retaining wall Valuation: $ 4,400,000 Plan Check No.: 1107-2005 Date: June 9, 2006 Occupancy Classification: U2 Type of Construction: V-N Expiration Date: 41STRecheck: June 26, 2006 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. 1. Approval is required from: • Building Department • Planning Department • Public Works Department • Fire Department 1. All Sheets of the final set of drawings shall be stamped, wet signed & dated by the design professionals. Provide structural calculations for cantilevered retaining wall details 4/S6A & 8S7. Consider surcharge due to vehicular traffic on the A.0 pavement. Revise soil nail wall calculations & details for added loads. 41STRecheck: Correction still not resolved. Provide complete calculations for the cantilevered retaining walls. Include surcharge 250 PSFper Table 16-A ofCBC 2001. Revise accordingly. 4. Return this plan correction list with your corrected plans. Provide a correction response sheet, in order to expedite your recheck. Cloud all changes for re -submittal. Please note that all rechecks shall be charged additional hourly plan check fee. Ali Naji, P.E. anaji@city.newport-beach.ca.us 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 T: 949.644.3292 F: 949.723.3534 1/1 06/26/06 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BLVD P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3275 Project Address: 1 Hoag Dr. Date: June 9, 2005 Scope of work: Soil Nailed retaining wall Occupancy Classification: U2 Valuation: $ 4,400,000 Type of Construction: V-N Plan Check No.: 1107-2005 Expiration Date: 0c805110PifARTMENT 41ST eck: Aitil's4F,PYPPflBEACH.CA Ijj ,44, L O�qr�T'THpE,SEpI -PLANS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED 42N�I epl eTIgaM$N1 *PIMAvwu toN OE OR INCONSIS gp Qy LAS AND POLICIES Of THE CITY OF NEWPORT 43R ^f @T rCO { ilq�{n igNG AND uar SE PLANS A 1.a N ALL PLANS AND POLICES. THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RESEWWES NG JHE RIGHT TO Plan Check Engineer: Ali Naj[, P. E. Phone: 949 644-3 -REWIRE ANY PERMITTEE TO REVISE THE BURDINr STRUCTURE OR IMPROVE, ( ) i AUTHORIZED BY THESE PLANS, BEFORE DURING OR afTER fONSTQUC_ TION. IF NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE � ORDINANCES PLANS - • Make the following corrections to the plans. OF THE CITY DF NEWPORT BEACH • Return this correction sheet and check prints withAMIliWiecloplummetit DEPARTMENT 1. Approval is required from: Pueuc WORKS • Building Department FIRE ---- GRADING _.._....�.-- • Planning Department PLANNIN --- -_._.____._ �,... — y . • Public Works Department eY. • Fire Department SIGNATURE All Sheets of the final set of drawings shall be stamped, wet signed & dated by the design professional. -I1sTRecheck: Correction still not resolved. #21.1°Recheck: Correction still not resolved. 43N°Recheck: Correction still not resolved. The geoteclmical engineer of record shall review grading & structural plans, stamp & sign grading and structural drawings for compliance with the geo-technical report's recommendation. 41sTRecheck: Copied signature is not permitted. Original signature is required. 1#2N3Recheck: Correction still not resolved. #311-DRecheck: Correction still not resolved. OAT', Ali Naji, P.E. 1/3 01/24/06 Plan check engineer (949) 644-3292 anaji@city.newport-beach.ca.us The civil engineer of record shall review structural drawings for compliance with civil plan, stamp & sign elevation sheets. #1sTRecheck: Original signature is required. 42NDRecheck: Correction still not resolved. 43RDRecheck: Correction still not resolved. Drawings, specifications and construction procedures shall be reviewed, stamped & signed by the corrosion engineer for compliance with their report dated February 11, 2005. 41sTRecheck: Correction still not resolved. Sheet SI of 12 shall be stamped & wet signed by the corrosion engineer. '2NDRecheck: Correction still not resolved. 43RDRecheck: Correction still not resolved, 6. Fill out the attached Hazardous Material^ Questietmaire & t,,e A i.. Quality Pe miit Checklist. Provide enlarged & detailed parking area drawings. Specify regular & accessible parking stalls per table 11B-6 of CBC 2001. Provide accessible stall details & signage per section 1129B of CBC 2001. #1sTRecheck: Correction still not -resolved. Please provide complete set of stalls. Use table 11B 6 for the requited -muff -her ofeteeessible stalls. Specify the number f Van accessible stalls. Provide enlarged dctails fer each one or set of stalls. Identify signagc & cross reference details. Show path of travel, ramps and curb cuts. Specify slope & cross slop, of the path of travelto-the main entrance to building's'. Please note that detectable warnings may be required per sections 1127B.8 & 1133B.8.5 of CBC 2001. The above is just guide lines to what is required on drawings. Complete plan check will be done once drawings are resubmitted. 42N°Recheck: Correction still not resolved. Please specify the total number of parking stalls on plans. One of the parking stalls is missing a loading area. Accessible path of travel is still not properly detailed. See above for complete requirements. 43R°Recheck: Correction still not resolved. Missing information was red lined on a set of plans. Clarify locations & details the detectable warnings as discussed above. Please use approved product of Armor -Tile. 8. T ist tl.e g erdrui dosigii 9. detail e e deferred s..bm:tt..l en the title sheet -I4sTRechcck: Correction still net -resolved. Guard rail is required at the top of the -# Deekeek. e.ra.imum a sewed e .. 6ct.. c ..b ,....hall be less than 4" clew.. / Rcvieie accordi gl A_ include .let it en-p1,...s File a Request for Alternate Material or Method of Construction for the use of Soil Nailed retaining wall. Please file the request separately at the building department counter. 41sTRecheck: Please include a copy of the approved modification as part of plans. '2NDRecheck: Correction still not resolved. CST i) This is a permanent structure. Revise accordingly. Ali Naji, P.E. Plan check engineer (949) 644-3292 anaji@city.newport-beach.ca.us 2/3 01/24/06 11. Provide complete structural calculations for facing -design. More corrections may follow -41 Re .heel c,,, .. eetipn,, csted bolo,.. 1'I De. ' h t t 'f t' ♦ if ♦ \7 c nr 'th a minimum strength of 1500 psi to protect concrete from sulfato attach, per corrosion engineer report's requirements. i3J. D.,.: ,.:1 ,.:1 „ ....4ee4;..« .. 1:..t..A ..« A......,:ngs h,,..tie... o f dielectric ,,i e atng o f o of the listed material.. Revise spec:Acation to inelude «F et:1'«tb., ote„r sto.., thnormo d e n .. -#IRecheck: Corrosion engineer's review, stamp & signature is required on soil nail specifications as listed on plans. Return this plan correction list with your corrected plans. All marks on plans are made v 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. 93RDRecheck: Pay additional plan check fee of2X$98 = $ 196. �-.elh ADDITIONAL CORRECTIONS 15. Please provide an original copy of the standard ferns of agreement between the owner and thc design/builder, exhibit J, fe address mitigation measures number 110, 111 & 112. 16. Rcvisc detail 2b/S6 to -specify stud head diameter. 17. Revise Shotcrete wall sto aser_ s specified in detail3/S6 & thc general note on top of the sheet. 18. Check flexural resistance for thc tcmpora thee per M1iwnt mein, Verff, tr,at the factor of safety is adequate. -42"Rc, week, Vcri f that ta,, r e f ,.r t, ..taegttutc.. 19. Verify facing punching shear resistance for temporary & permanent facings. Verify factor of safety is adequate. Provide calculations for punching shear failure of bearing -+''Recheck:ue .zt of sh, r il, atea id --as uscdd i calculation& Verify that the factor of safety is adequate. Provide calculations -for -headed -stud tensile capacity. '#3RbRecheck: Some of the resubmitted plans are p rinted i n very 1 ight font and t he other sheets are smudged and when scanned to be part of the public records will be illegible. Please reprint plans and provide sharp & clear copies. Ali Naji, P.E. 3/3 01/24/06 Plan check engineer (949) 644-3292 anaji@city.newport-beach.ca.us CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST Date Received: April 29, 2005 Date of Report: February 25, 2005 Consultant: Lowney Associates, Inc. Site Add1css: Hoag Hospital Newport Beach, California Date completed: May 9, 2005 Plan Check No: 1107-2005 Our Job No: 148D-156 Title of Report: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center, Hoag Hospital Lower Campus, Newport Beach, California Other Documents Reviewed: 1. Engineering Calculations, Temporary Soil nailed Retaining Wall by PB&A, dated April 26, 2005 Purpose of Report: Geotechnical recommendations for the construction of a retaining wall and a parking lot Project Information/Background: Y/N Review of Existing City Files Y/N Reference to Site(s) by Street Address Y/N Reference to Grading/Foundation Plans by Date Y/N Subsurface Investigation Y/N Aerial Photograph Geologic Hazards: Hazard Discussion Adverse Geologic Structure Y/N/NA Bluff Retreat Y/N/NA Debris/Mud Flow Y/N/NA Differential Settlement Y/N/NA Erosion Y/N/NA Expansive Soils Y/N/NA Faulting Y/N/NA Fractured Bedrock Y/N/NA Groundwater Y/N/NA Landslide Y/N/NA Liquefaction Y/N/NA Settlement/Collapsible Soils Y/N/NA Slump Y/N/NA Soil/Rock Creep Y/N/NA Sulfate Rich Soils Y/N/NA Supporting Analysis/Data Recommendations for Y/N/NA Slope Stability Calculations Y/N/NA Foundations Y/N/NA Shear Strength Values Y/N/NA Retaining Walls Y/N/NA Other Laboratory Data Y/N/NA Foundation Setbacks Y/N/NA Seismicity Y/N/NA Slabs Y/N/NA Boring/Trench Logs Y/N/NA Flatwork Y/N/NA Liquefaction Study Y/N/NA Grading Y/N/NA Calculations Supporting Recommendations Y/N/NA Pools/Spas Y/N/NA Geologic Map and Cross Sections Y/N/NA Slope/Bluff Setbacks , Y/N/NA Drainage Plan Y/N/NA Adequacy for Intended use Y/N/NA Not Adversely Impacting Adjoining Sites REPORT APPROVED. REPORT APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS BELOW. X PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE REPORT, ATTEND TO TEE ITEMS BELOW: 1. Page 21. Dewatering. . Hydrauger drains are subject to future clogging even with a maintenance program. Soil nail walls shall consider full hydrostatic pressure in design. . Please evaluate effect of dewatering on adjacent site facilities. . Please provide a water quality management plan for the site. 2. Page 24, Para. 3: Cross Sections A through C indicate 20 to 30 —foot high SP, SP-SM layer on the slope. Considering the negligible cohesion of these materials, please verify that the proposed temporary slopes have an adequate factor of safety against relatively shallow failures. Please submit your slope stability computations with the response. 3. Pages 24 and 25, Section on Retaining Wall and Figure 18: • Please evaluate the global stability of the wall. • The lateral earth pressures recommended for seismic conditions appear to be too low. Please provide computations for review. Please correct the last para. of Page 24 to present the correct figure number. 4. General (Recommendations on Retaining Walls): • Please indicate the locations of any adjacent structures near the proposed retaining wall. Verify that the proposed construction including dewatering and/or lowering of the perched water table would not have negative impact on any adjacent structures. Also indicate whether a suitable monitoring system is required. • The drawings indicate that the soil nailed wall is permanent. Computations by PB&A indicate it is temporary. Please review the computations for conformance with soils report. 5. Page 36, Section on Parking Lots: Based on the elevations of the parking lots provided in the report, it appears that a portion of the pavement could be founded on material classified as MH. Such material could have an R value substantially lower than 30 assumed in the report. Please address. 6. Document 1 (Engineering Calculations): • Provided summary sheets for computations are not clear. Please provide computation sheets clearly indicating the input parameters (including design accelerations for the dynamic loading) and the output of the program. 7. General: (a) Please address the impact of the proposed construction on adjacent properties. (b) Please show proposed construction excavations on the cross sections. X Please review and comment upon the geotechnical aspects of the grading plan and the foundation plan and verify that the plans are in conformance with the geotechnical recommendations of the referenced report. Please include a copy of the plans with your response. Limitations of Review: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance previous consultant's work, nor is meant as an acceptance of liability for final design or construction recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only. BY: Gamini Weeratunga, G.E. 2403 BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. BY: Ken Bagahi, Ph. BAGAHI EN G.E. ER G, INC. El BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC. GEOTECHNICS & FOUNDATIONS 18017 SKY PARK CIRCLE DRIVE, SUITE I IRVINE, CA 92614 TEL (949) 252-8292 • FAX (949) 252-8293 January 26, 2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Bouleward Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attention: Mr. Faisal Jurdi SUBJECT: CONDITION OF APPROVAL PERMENENT SOIL NAIL WALL 1 Hoag Drive Newport Beach, CA Plan Check No. 1107-2005 Dear Mr. Jurdi: Project No. 148D-156-00 At your request we have reviewed the applicant's documents for a permanent Soilnail wall at the subject site and offer the following additional requirements for such a wall system: 1. Since the Soilnail wall is not designed to withstand the hydrostatic fluid pressure, it is essential that the drainage control devises are properly maintained for the design life of the stricture. 2. Steel anchor plate shall be frilly embedded within the shotcrete facing. 3. As shotcrete facing will deteriorate with time, it shall be properly maintained. 4. Due to corrosive nature of on -site soils, following measures shall be taken as a minimum to mitigate against corrosion of soil nails: • Minimum grout cover of 1.5 inches, using centralizers. • The nails should be double -encapsulated for corrosion protection. Very truly yours, f/�oyeESS*, e BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC. «/t4 A Ken H. Bagahi, PhD, Principal KHB\rk Distnbution: (2) addressee Let-148D-156-00.doc `St: 410 a , No 108 rn 08 ;tit E:p 9.30 41, Nj>4,CTECht iC(47 \OFCAtt4. TRC Customer -Focused Solutions February 2, 2006 Faisal Jurdi Deputy Building Official Building Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Plan Check 1107-2005 Condition of Approval — Permanent Soil Nail Wall Dear Mr. Jurdi suotNQ o'R EtJF Fig 0 6 1006 enpofff Ep�N Gw O GAUFOFt A Confirming our conversation on January 31, 2006, below are my responses to the Condition of Approval for the permanent soil nail retaining wall provided by Mr. Ken Bagahi in his letter to you dated January 26, 2006. Condition of Approval: 1. Since the soil nail wall is not designed to withstand the hydrostatic fluid pressure, it is essential that the drainage control devices are properly maintained for the design life of the structure. Compliance: The design incorporates several features to assure liquids drain from behind the wall and do not impose a hydrostatic load on the retaining wall. The design includes redundant systems for the collection of water behind the wall. A system of horizontal drains is installed in the water bearing zone. These drains are drilled 40 feet into the terrace deposit and are 12-feet center -to -center along the entire length of the wall. A separate system of drains is installed immediately behind the wall consisting of Mirafi Geocomposite drainage strips. These drainage strips are installed for nearly the full height of the wall every 6-feet horizontally. Water collected by these systems is combined near the bottom of the wall by a horizontal Miradry quick drain. Collected water exits from behind the wall through a series of pipes installed every 12 feet along the bottom of the wall and connected to the main drain located on the outside of the wall. Cleanouts are provided on the main drain for maintenance. More important, however, each piped exit point from the wall is provided with an overflow through the wall located 6 inches above grade and a riser to grade from the main drain. This provides positive exit points should a drain become blocked as well as visual confirmation of system operation. Please refer to Sheet 23 of 28 of the precise grading plans that shows the details of the drains at the bottom of the wall and Sheets S6 and S7 of the structural plans that show the collection system behind the wall. Condition of Approval: 2. Steel anchor plate shall be fully embedded within the shotcrete facing. Compliance: Please refer to Sheet S6 of the structural drawings which shows the details of the anchor plate. The anchor plate is installed after the initial reinforced shotcrete layer is placed. The initial shotcrete layer has a minimum thickness of 4 inches. Following installation if the 21 Technology Drive • Irvine, California 92618 Telephone 949-727-9336 • Fax 949-727-7399 G 4-Faisal Jurdi ' City of Newport Beach Building Department February 2, 2006 anchor plate, it is covered with a second reinforced shotcrete layer with a minimum thickness of 6 inches. The design therefore requires the anchor plate be fully embedded. Condition of Approval: 3. As shotcrete facing will deteriorate with time, it shall be properly maintained. Compliance: Maintenance of the soil nail wall will be carried out by Hoag Hospital as needed. As you are aware, Hoag's investment in facilities at its upper and lower campus is significant. Hoag has a full-time maintenance organization consisting of Hoag employees and specialty contractors to keep its facilities and systems operating properly. Further, Hoag also places a high priority on the aesthetics of its installations and facilities. The soil nail wall after construction will be included in its maintenance program for regular inspection and maintenance as needed. Condition of Approval: 4. Due to the corrosive nature of on -site soils, following measures shall be taken as a minimum to mitigate against corrosion of soil nails: • Minimum grout cover of 1.5 inches, using centralizers. • The nails should be double -encapsulated for corrosion protection. Compliance: Please refer to Sheet S6 of the structural plans which show the soil nail will be placed in a 7-inch diameter drilled hole using centralizers at 10 feet center -to -center, or a minimum of two centralizers. The soil nails per Sheet S1 of the structural plans are specified as double corrosion protected rods (cement grout encapsulated in high density polyethylene corrugated tubing). The outside diameter of the soil nail is approximately 2 inches. This will provide a grout cover of approximately 2.5 inches. We consider that the design as noted above complies with the condition of approval. If you have any further questions or require additional information, please let me know. You can contact me at 949-727-7394. Sincere dow ames C Jtft(ani TRC Project Manager C: David Hamedany Peri Muretta Page 2 TRC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF RESPONSE Date Response Received: / (— (0 - Date Review Completed: f /-- (P 0 j Plan Check No.: 1(0 7- Z.d p Job Address: / /AA Cr fi V_ Items requiring action: 1-ca..R ' z 1- 7- a g-- (t Mo charges jgvf- Cwokper) Stif2of zZ s1os-' BY Ken Bagahi, PhD., G.E. 1 Bagahi Engineering Inc. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHOD Date Received: November 10, 2005 Date of Document: October 28, 2005 Consultant: Lowney Associates, Inc. Site Address: Hoag Hospital Newport Beach, California Date completed: November 15, 2005 Plan Check No: 1107-2005 Our Job No: 148D-156 Title of Document: Earth Retention System, Permanent Soil Nailed Wall System, Hoag Hospital, Newport Beach, CA, dated June 27, 2005 (Revised October 28, 2005) by PB & A Assoc Other Documents Reviewed: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center, Hoag Hospital Lower Campus, Newport Beach, California Purpose of Document: Design computations for the construction of a permanent soil nail wall X PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST, ATTEND TO THE ITEMS BELOW: Our review indicated that from a geotechnical standpoint, the proposed soil nail wall can be substituted for the retaining wall as a permanent retaining structure, provided that the following is addressed. • Provide supporting data or computations for the bond stress used in the design. Additional Comments (no response required): Note to City Staff: Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E/G.E.) have signed the final dated construction plans, per City Code, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. Limitations of Review: Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance previous consultant's work, nor is meant as an acceptance of liability for final design or construction recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only. Gamini Weeratunga, G.E. 2403 Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., G BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. BAGAHI ENGINE, INC. ._ re .._ ate' — tel: as _iSI AIM MSS >1111111111 ate• a a M— aaaSE IN arm r— a r� 111rr111S aS+rIIS r MN a el amt a wee -e► a ._ - NB a w Structural Engineering To: GEORGE BURROUGH From: PIROOZ BARAR Date: December 5,;005 Subject: Plan Review Comments MEMORANDUM Job No.: 050091 Job Name: Hoag Hospital - Change to Height of Wall Company CONDON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES Address: 9303 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE SUITED City: SAN DIEGO State: CA Zip: 92123 We have received plan review comments from City of Newport Beach Building Department with regards to our submittal of the Permanent Soil Nailed Wall from the geotechnical standpoint at the subject project Prepared by Mr. Gamini Weeratunga and Ken Bagahi of Bagahi Engineering Inc. dated November 10, 2005. We are responding to the comment that pertain to the bond stress (Pull out Strength) that we have assumed in the design of our system. Response - The assumed pullout strength in a soil nailed wall system is not strictly a geotechnical parameter as it not only depends, obviously on the strength and characteristics of the soil, it also is dependant on the methods of drilling and grouting of the soil nail. In this case we have "based" our assumption on the information provided in the soil report, however we have relied on our past experience and familiarity with the drilling and grouting procedures employed by the shoring contractor for the project, CJA. In addition these values are tested in the field according to a testing program that is in compliance with FHWA standards. �^ In our telephone conversation with Mr. Ken Bagahi on 12/01/05 we discussed the above issues. Mr. Bagahi indicated that the Soilnail Testnails are to be tested to 133% of their design load. We have modified our sheet SH-01 and we are resubmitting the PDF file of this drawing. Should you have any questions and/or Comments please do not hesitate to call us at 415 259-0191. Pirooz Barer, S.E. PB&A Inc cc. All 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: pba®pbandainc.com -Web: www.pbandainc.com CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF RESPONSE Date Response Received: j — 7 % - 4 Date Review Completed: 1— Z `Pre ,6 Plan Check No.: /%a 7_ 2avj{ Job Address: / o /1 Cr Items requiring action: 1. £ iar6Ca ro 51(T l C J-,�Mf' Seers l az-u 28 .2-, ieu4 S, c-,J o Fr.# M P 3If t 6rc j . CA,{l�os, ,l Er( 6r: To si .cerri odd sTAri f ,4¢0✓ /lc p.as BY Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., G. Bagahi Engineering Rev nastcr.dcc El BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC. GEOTECHNICS & FOUNDATIONS 18017 SKY PARK CIRCLE DRIVE, SUITE J IRVINE, CA 92614 TEL (949) 252-8292 • FAX (949) 252-8293 January 26, 2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Bouleward Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attention: Mr. Faisal Jurdi SUBJECT: CONDITION OF APPROVAL PERMENENT SOIL NAIL WALL 1 Hoag Drive Newport Beach, CA Plan Check No. 1107-2005 Dear Mr. Jurdi: Project No. 148D-156-00 At your request we have reviewed the applicant's documents for a permanent Soilnail wall at the subject site and offer the following additional requirements for such a wall system: 1. Since the Soilnail wall is not designed to withstand the hydrostatic fluid pressure, it is essential that the drainage control devises are properly maintained for the design life of the structure. 2. Steel anchor plate shall be frilly embedded within the shotcrete facing. 3. As shotcrete facing will deteriorate with time, it shall be properly maintained. 4. Due to corrosive nature of on -site soils, following measures shall be taken as a minimum to mitigate against corrosion of soil nails: • Minimum grout cover of 1.5 inches, using centralizers. • The nails should be double -encapsulated for corrosion protection. Very truly yours, o�VFESSf�\; BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC.; '4414,2440 4VN MY/ �,r . \c rn rye Ken H. Bagahi, PhD , G.E. /108 rn •�.� �CTEChS\ %It- \FOF CALI Principal KHB\rk Distribution: (2) addressee Let-148D-156-00.doc NO 108 Exp 9-30 BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC. 18017 Sky Park Circle, Suite J Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 252-8292 . Fax: (949) 252-8293 TRANSMITTAL To: City of Newport Beach Date: / f - 2- f r- .o Attention: Permit Technician Job No.: Subject: Fees for Services I)//t 2) S 3) TAP . >5d frc/rA r 200_ 1-a� lit CSC P/C#: 11 a - z� a� W (vita /its R.-4' ,p t.� ru- er 6_a� Address: / mAt- Of . 5- j_M M 6 7 - (%Ote k ps, •d�� �y / n 6") s u,t v/c y ,0-..4c OF; / Er / LA r s ✓_ (i-eat`r--h {a _S r, f (// - / 2__ o S Corr ) [ ] Under Separate Cover [ ] Via Submitted Herewith: [X] Attached [] For: [ ] Your Approval [X] Your Use Remarks: IransmItrly [ ] Your Comments [] To: Attention: NI4 Subject: PIC#: Address: BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC. 18017 Sky Park Circle, Suite J Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 252-8292 . Fax: (949) 252-8293 TRANSMITTAL City of Newport Beach Date: it L 7— a S Permit Technician Job No.: Nnrn 7 87� fre/0 M 13 p,rJ,l NAM 3 h-reac for Services 1 9 Submitted Herewith: For: Remarks: JC-,:-95j, o. 6! MM # 7, 8 7, (ID 7— 0 [X] Attached [] [ J Your Approval [X] Your Use ra.,—dl /3 CI% C rcle-- [ ] Under Separate Cover []Via [ ] Your Comments [] 400 Z) 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA (949) 644-3275 Project Address: a Jao,e-6. 2s ✓'& P.c. ' r6y" 6 1 cr j $J B w Ptsetr €Eit p-C1+92 . Plan Check No.: (I C 7 — 2 o o 5 Date: 9/261 ur— Plllan Check Engineer: IL e7-4 t=34-&F4-tt Phone: 041) kC L—$` -R 2- to P_POe-a .5)A-r2o : yc t t-y t 51, 2.-� O S Eat 'a -en Jde5 PI TrbL_. C /+1 LC Alta • Make the following corrections to the plans. ca Eie R-{' ?�'^'"O6 " ' 'tea • Return this correction sheet and check prints with corrected Water Quality Management Plan. • Submit a response sheet indicating how each correction was resolved. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) CORRECTION CHECKLIST 1. Include in the Water Quality Management Plan Report the information where indicated in the "NO" column on the following checklist. WQMP REQUIREMENT Requirement Satisfied? YES NO N/A Title Page Name of project Site address (or addresses) / Owner/Developer name Owner/Developer address & telephone number Consulting/Engineering firm that prepared WQMP f Consulting/Engineering firm address & phone number ✓ / /bate WQMP was prepared/revised ✓ Owner's Certification A signed certification statement, in which the project owner acknowledges and accepts the provisions of the WQMP, follows the title page. •! Table of Contents A Table of Contents, including a list of all figures and attachments is Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Correction List -15 included. ✓ Section I, Permit Numbers and Conditions of Approval ✓ Lists the Discretionary Permits(s). Lists, verbatim, the Water Quality Conditions, including condition requiring preparation of WQMP, if applicable. Final Resolution of Approval, Conditional Use Permit, etc. is included as an attachment to the WQMP. Section II, Project Description For all Projects: Does the project description completely and accurately describe where facilities will be located, what activities will be conducted and where on the site, what kinds of materials and products will be used, how and where materials will be received and stored, and what kinds of wastes will be generated? Describes all paved areas, including the type of parking areas. Describes all landscaped areas. Describes ownership of all portions of project and site. Will any infrastructure transfer to public agencies (City, County, Caltrans, etc.)? 3l.& ill a homeowner or property owners association be formed? Will the association be involved in long term maintenance? AZ 1 Identifies the potential stormwater or urban runoff pollutants reasonably expected to be associated with the project. For Commercial and Industrial Projects: Provides Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code which best describes the facilities operations? / o Describes the type of use (or uses) for each building or tenant space. �/ o Does project include food preparation, cooking, and eating areas (specify location and type of area). o Describes delivery areas and loading docks (specify location and design and if below grade and types of materials expected to be stored). ✓ o Describes outdoor materials storage areas (describe and depict locations(s), specify type(s) of materials expected to be stored). / ✓� o Describes activities that will be routinely conducted outdoors. o Describes any activities associated with equipment or vehicle maintenance and repair, including washing or cleaning. Indicates number of service bays or number of fueling islands/fuel pumps, if applicable. ./ ` Residential Projects , / o Range of lot and home sizes o Describes all community facilities such as, laundry, car wash, swimming pools, jacii77i parks, open spaces, tot lots, etc. Section III, Site Description Describes project area and surrounding planning areas in sufficient 2 /too A-d4 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Correction List detaillo allow project location to be plotted on a base map. V rvides site address and site size to nearest tenth acre. dentifies the zoning or land use designation. V ntifies soil types and the quantity and percentage of pervious and impervious surface for pre -project and project conditions. Describes pre -project site drainage and how it ties into drainage of surrounding or adjacent areas and describes how , planned project drainage and how it will tie into drainage of surrounded or adjacent areas. Identifies the watershed in which the project is located and the : kno d wnstream receiving waters own water quality impairments as included in the 303(d) list —applicable Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) ✓<Jl ydrologic conditions of concern, if any. / -V tyMentifies known environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBSs) within the vicinity and rtaT '✓ 2 7.7,Frre.0 theirlproximit to the prsjeot. # • i--oe,eri av P & Section IV, Best Management Practices dudes narrative describing how site design concepts were considered and incorporated into project plans. ,✓ Lists and describes all Routine Source Control BMPs (Non-structural and Structural). Aescribes the implementation frequency and identifies the entity or Party responsible for implementation of each Non -Structural BMP. If applicable Routine Source Control BMPs were not included, was a reasonable explanation provided? Lists and describes appropriate Treatment Control BMPs and identifies the design basis (SQDF or SQDV) for the Treatment Control BMPs. ✓ Se on V, Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility of BMPs Identifies the entity (or entities) responsible for the long-term inspection and maintenance of all structural source control BMPs and all Treatment Control BMPs, including name, title, company, ddress, and phone number. ..- itr'a4ZMi+-r i orl eP `rss-s L. 2 se-ai= mod' Describes the minimum frequency for inspection and maintenance to ensure the effectiveness of each structural source control BMP and each Treatment Control BMP. / �/ If ownership of the Treatment Control BMPs will be transferred to a public agency does the WQMP include an attachment indicating the public agency's intent to accept the Treatment Control BMPs as designed? / n/ Is an appropriate mechanism for the long-term operation and maintenance, includingfunding in / V place? Section VI, Location Map and Plot Plan Has an 11" b 17" plot plan been included? v/ Do all figures, maps, plot plans, etc. have a legend, including a North arrow and scale? / V 3 /tic PC p120 vibe Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Correction List / Are all facilities labeled for the intended function? ✓ /- Are all areas of outdoor activity labeled? / ✓ Are all structural BMPs indicated? '/ Is drainage flow information, including general surface flow lines, concrete or other surface ditches or channels, as well as storm drain facilities such as catch basins and underground storm drain pipes depicted? Depicts where and how on -site drainage ties into the off -site drainage system. ` )/ Section VII, Educational Materials For Routine Non-structural BMPs Ni (Education for Property Owners, Tenants, and Occupants) and N12 (Employee Training), does the WQMP describe the concepts that will be addressed by the education and training? Is a list of educational materials that will be used provided? Are copies of the educational materials included in an Attachment to the WQMP? 7 12. Implement the WQMP best management practices into the precise grading plan, landscape and irrigation plan and architectural design drawings. 4/ 3. Implement the following routine structural BMP's. •5r^ORN A" -IN sysi 'D�g`�N BC eel:" tog- f't A1-02 nt.. Srok G ARL�frS. • JESIth" Bco.u3rl�r -[ 4sH h120S • eFFt cle�'r ( afi-I c,Ar/ oN S-I s1'e. S • PeoTett SlAP&S . ITtf_« tD � areas +>E Co ply with the following applicable routine structural Best Management Practices: Filtration — Surface runoff shall be directed to landscaped areas wherever practicable. At A- S2. Wash Water Controls for Food Preparation Areas — Food establishments (per State Health & Safety Code 27520) shall have either contained areas, sinks, each with sanitary sewer connections for disposal of wash waters containing kitchen and food wastes. If located outside, the contained areas, sinks shall also be structurally covered to prevent entry of storm water. Trash Container (dumpster) areas — Trash container (dumpster) areas to have drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the area(s), and: /fl-.- A. For trash container areas associated with fuel dispensing, vehicle repair/maintenance, and industry, such areas are to be roofed over or drained to a water quality inlet (see S 16), engineered infiltration/filtration system, or equally effective alternative. fly- B. For trash container areas associated with restaurants and warehouse/grocery operations such areas are to be screened or walled to prevent off -site transport of trash. RA- S4. Self-contained areas are required for washing/steam cleaning, wet material processing, and maintenance activities. 4' S5. Outdoor Storage — Where a plan of development contemplates or building plans incorporate outdoor containers for oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, wastes, and other chemicals, these shall 4 /-E 4-- Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Correction List be protected by secondary containment structures (not double wall containers). For outdoor vehicle and equipment salvage yards, and outdoor recycling the entire storage area shall drain through water quality inlets. %`i A- S6. Motor Fuel Concrete Dispensing Areas - Areas used for fuel dispensing, shall be paved with concrete (no use of asphalt). Concrete surfacing to extend 61/4" from the corner of each fuel dispenser in any direction. This distance may be reduced to OR the maximum length that the fuel dispensing hose and nozzle assembly may be operated in any direction plus one (1) foot. In addition, the fuel dispensing area shall be graded and constructed so as to prevent drainage flow either through or from the fuel dispensing area. S7. Motor Fuel Dispensing Area Canopy - All motor fuel concrete dispensing areas are to have a canopy structure for weather protection, extending over the motor fuel concrete fuel dispensing area as defined in No. 6. S8. Motor Fuel Concrete Dispensing Area Interruptible Drainage - The concrete motor fuel dispensing area will be graded and constructed so as to drain to an underground clarifier/sump/tank equipped with a shut-off valve that can stop the further draining of storm water or spilled material there from into the street or storm drain system. Spills will be immediately cleaned up according to Spill Contingency Plan. Energy Dissipaters - Energy dissipaters are to be installed at the outlets of new storm / drains, which enter unlined channels, in accordance with applicable agency specifications. �./ S 10. Catch Basin Stenciling - Phase "No Dumping - Drains to Ocean" or equally effective phrase to be stenciled on catch basins to alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into storm water. S 11. Diversion of Loading Dock Drainage - Below grade loading docks for grocery stores and warehouse/distribution centers of fresh food items will drain through water quality inlets or to an engineered infiltration system; or an equally effective alternative. Water Quality Inlets - Water Quality Inlets designed to remove free phase liquid petroleum compounds, grease, floatable debris, and settleable solids can be used in the following applications: S3, S5, S11. WQMPCorList_I0-03 5 r— freievei2 These plans have been reviewed and are found to be in sibs Ria n'�y'� do b CITY OF NEWPO rt�adt i gommendedforpradiocodesaermitissuatedC ncofe BUILDING DEPAIeTM nettby h..! applicable G ✓ departmen{s and agencies. that r, oe 3si afo sand 3300 NEWPORT B al... n ist_A - dt y 7s 1ST anC+'I.:{. 11 eetRia f 1' 0^; ffn ailfPtps'SfOthe P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPOR' ${ At 4 ' o t ?' t mr eu� ng c n..fsu:tion (949) 644 327J r U r apes i1 ` t City and ir3 consants ramundai! , roc , .vtr: Project Address: 1 ' 4 Plan Check No.:— /J. Plan Check Engineer: /— Thr; Ian; 16, `C?, • Make the following corrections to the plans. • Return this correction sheet and check prints with corr • Indicate how each correction was resolved. eb� GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN C c". Lj SUR EY CORRECTIONS t+ Provide a site survey, stamped and signed by a State Licensed Land Surveyor or_authQflz-ed Ciyil Engineer (License Number below 33.966). Surveyor or engineer shall permanently �� monument property corners or offsets before starting grading. Provide note on plan. 4 • v X Show north point and scale. l .) Show location and description of all corner monuments. CShow and identify all property lines. Dimension length and specify bearing. Show driveway, curb and gutter, and all existing site improvements (structures, walls, planters, stairs, etc.). Identify all finish surface materials. PLAN REVIEW vai cf t ,cse d. k codes d. s Of Provide a legend for all symbols used. Locate all trees in public -right-of-way facing or within 20 feet of the subject property; power poles; utility boxes; etc. Show center line of street and dimension width or %2 width. Provide an on -site bench mark with elevation of 100.00 at one of the front propey cornneers. For sites within the special flood hazard area and sites on the islands, on Ote peninsula West Newport Beach use the actual bench mark elevation as determined by Orange County Vertical Datum (NGVD29 or NAVD88). Gradin rainage Plan Chcck a :l Provide relative elevations at the following locations: All property corners. Around existing structure(s) at corners, including corners at jogs of exterior walls. At interior finish floor elevations. At bottom of all site walls. Indicate wall height. At bottom of elevated planters. Indicate planter height. At maximum spacing of 25' along the length and width of the property on all sides of an existing structure. Elevation contours for sloping sites every one foot elevation change. Three elevations (min.) equally spaced in the side yard of adjacent properties. Three elevations along the flow line in gutter and alley adjacent to site. GRADING CORRECTIONS Registered civil engineer or licensed architect to stamp and sign the approval plans indicating license number. Write a note on foundation plan "surveyor to file a corner record or record of survey with the office of county surveyor. Evidence of filing shall be submitted to building inspector prior to oundation inspection." Provide property address on grading plan. Show vicinity map indicating site location. t% Show name, address, and telephone number of: owner, plan preparer, and geotechnical engineer (if applicable). fe_et- Show north arrow, plan scale, and legend. Identify ALL property lines. Clearly identify the scope of work. Distinguish between existing hardscape and landscape and new/proposed hardscape and landscape improvements. Show locations of all existing buildings, structures, pools, fences, retaining walls, etc. Show grade elevation on both sides of wall and specify top of wall elevation. 9! Show accurate contours (or spot elevations) indicating the topography of the existing ground. Show locations of all existing slopes on and adjacent to the property. 1 Except where it is not feasible due to natural topography, top of structure footings at habitable space to be above the street gutter flow line elevation by 12" plus 2% the distance from the nearest footing to the gutter. 2 Grading/Drainage Plan Check 1/(1. Clearly show elevation of adjacent properties and the distance from property lines to adjacent structures. di. Minimum gradients for drainage: RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS: Paved 0.5% Not paved 2% COMMERCIAL STANDARDS: Concrete Concrete gutter in paved area A.C., landscape areas 0.5% 0.2% 1.0% h{ Show finish grades by spot elevations to indicate proper drainage in all areas. Use arrows to indicate direction of drainage. 11/ Provide a drainage swale at side yard. Draw a section through swale. j! Provide a drainage design that prevents entrance of drainage water from the street/alley onto property. Show top of drain elevations and drain invert elevations. ow slope of drain lines (1% min.). Design the drainage system to retain concentrated and surface sheet flow water from dry - weather run off and minor rain events within the site. Sheet flow through lawn area or 15'. French drain in crushed rock bed wrapped with filter cloth is acceptable. Locate French dr n in the front yard away from foundations. f 1 v �* t.j ti 10- (Alternate: Provide hydrology calculations and design retention system retain { of rain over 24 hr.) Sided- z3 3" French drain perforation 0 bottom. Crushed Rock niter Cloth Lap 6" 0 lop Z8 4" Concrete or 6" Topsoil 18" H— 12" ---1 Perforated drain/trench detail 3 Grading/Drainage Plan Check Provide a trench drain at bottom of driveway as shown in detail "E". (Exception: When driveway is less than 10' long, trench drain is not required). DIMENSIONS DETERMINED 0Y ORATE FRAME DIMENSIONS, USE FRAME AS A FORM CRUSHED ROCK w/FA.rER mom GRATE 6' MN. NICE PEDSTRIAN SAFE FRAME & ORATE 3/8' SLOT OPENING EAST JOROAN IRON NORKS OR EOUAL (800)874-4100 4 REBAR OP & 00TT017 FILL THIS PORTION YA1H CRUSHED ROCK AFTER POURING GRATE SUPPORT CURB a- Dig a 24" wide X 18' deep trench b- Place filter Both in the trench extending 12 vertical on each side. c- FRI bottom 8' of the trench with crushed rock. d- Form and pour perimeter concrete curb. e- Fill the rest of the trench with crushed rock to 4' from top of trench. BOTTOMLESS TRENCH DRAIN IIIII IIIIIIIII� IIIII IIItH • PLAN VIEW Provide specifications for drain lines. Specify diameter (3" min) and type of material. The following drain line materials may be used: 1. ABS, SDR 35 2. ABS, SCHEDULE 40 3. PVC, SDR 35 4. PVC, Schedule 40 5. ADS 3000 with PE glued joints Y21. The minimum distance acceptable between finish grade and bottom of treated sill plate shall be as follows: 1111s1L7=11 I+( Concrete: 3" 3" Exterior ncrete Slab lope @ 1% Sill Plate/Earth Separation 4 Grading/Drainage Plan Check ,2,27 a) For non-residential projects and multi -dwelling projects, submit summary of all drainage devices and onsite parking and drainage improvements. b) Specify yardage of cut and fill. 0. Obtain a private drainage easement to drain water over adjacent land not owned by the rmittee. Easement must be recorded with the County Recorder's Office. Pit)3r�. Design drainage to insure water does not drain over the top edge of any slopes. Provide a berm at top of slope. Draw a section through berm. Berm to be 12" high and slopes towards the pad @ /1 1 4 Show top and toe of all slopes and indicate slope ratio. 1 Maximum 2, List the pertinent "Grading Notes" (indicated on attached sheet) on plans. €,8 Where grading is proposed on adjacent property not owned by the permittee, a separate permit is required for that portion under the adjacent address. Show locations and details of subdrain system(s) and outlet for retaining walls on grading plan when subdrain is required by soils report. Provide erosion and siltation control plans. 5�- a) Provide a section showing required grading cut and proximity to property line. b) Depth of excavation for grading exceeds the distance from the edge of excavation to the 2-9 ov, property line. Provide shoring design and specify shoring on the plan. g2. Provide building or structure setbacks from top and bottom of slope as outlined in UBC Section 7,• 1806.5 and Figure 18-I-1. Provide two copies of soils and foundation investigation report by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Soils report shall address the potential of seismically induced liquefaction and recommend mitigation method. List soils report recommendations on Grading plan. Fill out a separate permit application for: a) fence b) patio cover/trellis c) detached structures fie • Grading/Drainage Plan Check Construction with basement or excavation near the property line c) The distance from edge of excavation to the property line is less than the depth of excavation. Shoring is required. Provide a shoring plan and calculation prepared by a registered civil engineer. Sheet piles are not permitted for shoring due to potential damage to adjacent properties. Show all buildings and masonry walls on adjacent property within a distance equal to the depth of the proposed excavation. d) Provide cross -sections at various locations to show excavation details. e) cavations and shoring shall be made entirely within the project site. A Cal -OSHA permit is required for excavations deeper than 5' and for shoring and/or underpinning. Contractor to provide a copy of OSHA permit. .115 1 ,Bottom of excavation is below water table. Submit a dewatering plan prepared by the / geotechnical engineer. i» Provide additional geotechnical information necessary for dewatering system design, soils report to include the following: • Borings to extend a minimum of 20 ft. below bottom of proposed excavation. • Provide sieve analysis and permeability value for each soil formation layer to a depth of 20 ft. below bottom of excavation. i) Write a note on the shoring drawing, "Shoring engineer to provide monitoring of shoring and improvements on adjacent properties and submit results with a report to the Building Inspector on a daily basis during excavation and shoring and weekly basis thereafter. Where dewatering is required, monitoring shall continue until dewatering is stopped. Geotechnical engineer to stamp and sign the shoring plan and dewatering plan, certifying that the design is in compliance with his recommendation. k) Write a note on drawing: "Geotechnical engineer shall provide continuous inspections during shoring and excavation operations and during removal of shoring." 1) Provide a description of the process for installing shoring, construction of basement walls, and removal of shoring. m) Write note on the drawings: "Contractor shall notify adjacent property owners by certified mail 10 days prior to starting the shoring or excavation work." n) If slot -cutting method of excavation is to be used, provide a drawing showing the location and sequence of slot cuts. Slot cut to be 36" away from the property line or provide shoring for the top 3 ft. to prevent sloughing. o) Non -cantilevered retaining walls must be shored until the bracing element(s) is in place. Provide a design for wall shoring. Write a note on grading plan: "Continuous inspection by a City -licensed deputy inspector is required during shoring, excavation and removal of shoring." P) 6 Grading/Drainagc Plan Check • em Corrections: Provide the following information on dewatering drawings: a) Well or well point locations b) Pipe system layout (including valve locations) c) Primary power source. If a generator is used for primary power supply, write a note on drawings stating maximum noise level from proposed generator not to exceed 50 dba on adjoining property. d) Back-up power supply (if any) . e) Location of desanding tank. 1) Location of property lines and excavation limits. g) Depth of wells or well points (reference to sea level or other datum). h) Diameter of borehole. i) The type of filter media used around wells or well points. Provide sieve analysis graph. j) Size of wellscreen openings (slots) and location of screened portion of well or well point. k) Soil permeability 1) Discharge termination point m) Water meter to measure flow n) Anticipated draw -down elevation o) Depth of deepest excavation Method of well removal and abandonment If a well point system is used, provide noise calculation using ARI method to verify noise level oin pump not to exceed 50 dba at adjacent property. 44 I( 0( 4j3 Provide evidence of approval from State Regional Water Quality Control Board for disposal of ground water. blic Works approval is required for discharge into storm drain or public way. Water Quality Corrections: If area of construction site is one or more acres, obtain a general construction NPDES Storm water permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Tel. (909) 782-4130. �( lQ4., This project falls into category checked below. Prepare a Water Quality gement Plan �I %` (WQMP) consistent with the model WQMP. (Attached) — yy, Grading/Drainage Plan Check • PRIORITY PROJECTS O Residential development of 10 units or more. la-- Commercial and industrial development greater than 100,000 sq. ft. including parking areas. ❑ Automotive repair shop. O Restaurant where the land area of development is 5,000 sq. ft. or more including parking area. ❑ Hillside development on 10,000 sq. ft. or more which is located on areas with known erosive soil condition or where natural slope is 25% or more. ❑ Impervious surface of 2,500 sq. ft. or more located within or directly adjacent to (within 200 It.) or discharging directly to receiving water within environmentally sensitive areas (bay, canyon, galley, etc.). Vi Parking lot area of 5,000 sq. ft. or more or with 15 or more parking spaces. NON PRIORITY PROJECTS O Require issuance of non-residential plumbing permit. 45. Sec attached Water Quality Management Plan Correction List. 46. Sec drawings for additional corrections. ADDITIONAL CORRECTIONS fonns\drainpc 11-15-04 8 Aer it . . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL RESPONSE Date Received: August 4, 2005 Date completed: August 09, 2005 Date of Response: 4 /Z, 2005 Plan Check No: 1107-2005 Date of Prior Review: May 9, 2005 Our Job No: 148D-156 Consultant: Lowney Associates, Inc Site Address: Hoag Hospital Newport Beach, California Previous Reports: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center, Hoag Hospital Lower Campus, Newport Beach, California Geotechnical Response is: k Responsive to checklist comments. Grading/Foundation Plans changed as a result of response. X A�D[TIONAL INPUT IS REQUIRED. . Response 1: Although the soil wall may not be a stiff element, hydrostatic pressure can still build up behind the wall face due to its relative impermeability, if not provided with a drain system. The consideration of buoyant weight in the analysis does not account for the additional pressure on the wall i/ d/Vj facing due to hydrostatic pressure. Please consider the provision of a suitable drain system behind the wall d face. Gamini Weeratunga, G.E. 2403 BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. Ken Bagahi, Ph.D., G. BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC. BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT B APPROVAL Of THESE PLANS DOES NOT CON AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT ANY BUILDING I TENT WITH. THE ORDINANCES, PLANS MD POLIC BEACH, THIS APPROVAL DOES NOT GU T T jTPIAA$k�INpL HK Ec RESPECTS, IN COMPLIANCE WITH CIT ikHZWIWPiIRb N W.M November 7Pt *3J D POLICES THE CITY OF NEWPORT REACH PESELVES THE RIGHT TO REb17IRE"ANY PERMITTEE TO REVISE THE BUILDING STRUCTURE OR IMPROVE- MENT AUTHORIZED BY THESE PLANS. BEFORE. DURING OR AFTER CONSTAIIC- JION, If ECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCES. PLANS A1,0 POLICIES Mr. David U> NEWPORT BEACH Hoag Memoiliklaboss&Avgawiterian Project Manager — Facilities -Design and Conduction One Hoag DOIMGTMENT SIGNA TURF Newport BekttStICOMBs92663 TRAFFIC FIRE GRADING i�,..:� Transiuitta R l PLANNING ing 'Mamma} T'Y"utPrc b tetian (Hoag) Lower GampusF - eve opment er. Responses to Citknf N. ewpnrt Rearh Comments on August 3 2005 Plan Resubmittal on$ ,T� w/ l I aj - 2cb45 Dear Mr. Hamedany: TRC Solutions, Inc. (TRC), as Hoag's Design/Builder for the Lower Campus Site Development Project (Hoag Project # 125690), is pleased to provide this letter in response to comments received from the City of Newport Beach (City) on Hoag's resubmittal of design plans on August 3, 2005. We have incorporated responses to several comments provided by Hoag with the responses prepared by TRC such that all comments are addressed in this document. For the reviewers' convenience, following is a list of the comments received from the various City Departments and the page of this letter where the responses to those comments can be found: Comments from Responses Building Department — Review Comments Building Department — Grading/Drainage Plan Check Building Department — Water Quality Management Plan Check Building Department — Geotechnical Review Comments Fire Department — Review Comments Public Works Department — Review Comments Traffic Department — Review Comments Planning Department — Review Comments P. 1 P. 8 P. 9 P. 14 P. 15 P. 15 P. 20 P. 21 The responses are organized by the Department providing the comment. The text of the applicable comment is shown, followed by the response. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1. Approval is required from: • Building Department • Planning Department • Public Works Department • Fire Department Page 1 of 22 21 Technology Drive • Irvine, California 92618 Telephone 949-727-9336 • Fax 949-727-7399 Response: The drawings have been submitted to all required City departments for their review and approval, including those listed above. Approval by all City departments will be obtained prior to final permit issuance. 2. All sheets of the final set of drawings shall be stamped, wet -signed and dated by the design professional. Response: Upon approval of the design package by all required City departments, the final set of drawings as approved will be stamped, wet -signed and dated by the design professional prior to permit issuance. 3. The geotechnical engineer of record shall review grading and structural plans, stamp and sign grading and structural drawings for compliance with the geotechnical report's recommendation. Original signature is required. Response: The geotechnical engineer of record has reviewed the grading and structural plans for conformance with the recommendations in the geotechnical report. Upon approval of the design package by all required City departments, the final set of grading and structural drawings as approved will be stamped, wet -signed and dated by the geotechnical engineer of record prior to permit issuance. 4. The civil engineer of record shall review structural drawings for compliance with civil plan, stamp and sign elevations sheets. Original signature is required. Response: The civil engineer of record has reviewed the structural drawings for compliance with civil layout and elevation plans. Upon approval of the design package by all required City departments, the final set of structural drawings as approved will be stamped, wet - signed and dated by the geotechnical engineer of record prior to permit issuance. 5. Drawings, specifications and construction procedures shall be reviewed, stamped and signed by the corrosion engineer for compliance with their report dated February 11, 2005. Sheet S I of 12 shall be stamped and wet -signed by the corrosion engineer. Page 2 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions Response: The corrosion engineer has reviewed the drawings, specifications and construction procedures for compliance with the recommendations in his report of February 11, 2005. Attachment A provides a letter from M. J. Schiff & Associates with the results of the design review by John French, the corrosion engineer. Revisions have been made to the design drawings to address each of the comments. Upon approval of the design package by all required City departments, the final set of drawings as approved will be stamped, wet -signed and dated by the corrosion engineer prior to permit issuance. 7. Provide enlarged and detailed parking area drawings. Specify regular and accessible parking stalls per table 11 B-6 of CBC 2001. Provide accessible stall details and signage per section 1129B of CBC 2001. Please provide complete set of compliance details. Specify the total number of regular parking and accessible parking stalls. Use table 11B-6 for the required number of accessible stalls. Specify the number of van -accessible stalls. Provide enlarged details for each one or set of stalls. Identify signage and cross-reference details. Show path of travel, ramps and curb cuts. Specify slope and cross slope of the path of travel to the main entrance to building(s). Please note that detectable warnings may be required per sections 1127B.8 and 1133B.8.5 of CBC 2001. The above is just guidelines to what is required on drawings. Complete plan check will be done once drawings are resubmitted. Response: As discussed and agreed in our meeting with City reviewers on October 6, 2005, Sheets 6 and 7 include all controlling project dimensions and details. Additional handicapped and van -accessible stalls have been provided with a tabulation showing compliance with the applicable City table on Sheet 7 of the precise grading plans. Slopes and ramps are shown on Sheets 14 through 16 of the precise grading plans for items that will be constructed as part of this project. Please note that construction of the Child Care Center buildings and installations inside of the project limits shown on the plans are part of a . . separate design and permit (plan check 1108-2005) for that facility and are not part of the grading project (plan check 1107-2005). 8. List the guardrail design and details as a deferred submittal on the title sheet. Guardrail is required at the top of the retaining wall. Clarify the same on drawings. Response: A permanent cable railing is specified for the top of the retaining wall. Please refer to Sheet S6 of the structural design which has been revised to specify the cable railing shall comply with Caltrans Standard B11-47 with posts at 10 feet on center maximum. Please refer to Attachment F, which includes a copy of this standard. We request this be approved as part of this submittal. Page 3 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions 9. File a Request for Alternate Material or Method of Construction for the use of Soil Nailed retaining wall. Please file the request separately at the building department counter. Please include a copy of the approved modification as part of plans. Response: The Request for Alternate Material or Method of Construction for the use of the Soil Nailed Retaining Wall was filed on June 2, 2005. We requested a copy of the approved Modification but City staff reported they were unable to locate the document, As such, on November 7, 2005 we resubmitted the Request for Altemate Material or Method of Construction and are including as Attachment B a copy of the document submitted. We will follow up with City Staff and provide the approved Modification at the earliest possible time. 11. Provide complete structural calculations for facing design. More corrections may follow once the above is provided. Response: The structural engineer has revised the calculations for the design of the facing of the shotcrete wall to provide additional detail as requested. Please refer to pages 39 through 46 of the revised Engineering Calculations package dated October 20, 2005 provided with the structural design drawings. 13. Revise soil nail corrosion protection, as listed on drawings, to add the application of dielectric coating of one of the listed materials. Revise specification to include reinforcement bars protection as listed in the corrosion engineer report. Corrosion engineer's review, stamp and signature is required on soil nail specifications as listed on plans. Response: The design for the soil nails provides for double corrosion protection of the reinforcement bars. The reinforcement bar is encapsulated in a corrugated HDPE plastic sheath and a cement grout annulus. This composite soil nail is then surrounded by cement grout in the drilled hole. This protection is superior to any coating. This design has been reviewed by the corrosion engineer. Attachment A provides the letter from the corrosion engineer, John French, providing his recommendations. The design drawings have been revised to incorporate these recommendations. As noted under our response to Comment 5 above, the corrosion engineer will sign the approved final drawings confirming conformance with his recommendations. Page 4 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions 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 they 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. Response: Comments found on plans include the following: • Sheet 5 — Existing Sub -Surface Obstruction Exhibit — Show interior finish floor elevations (Item 11 C of checklist). Response: Comment was responded to in our initial comment response submittal dated August 2, 2005. Based upon the reviewer's checkmark and initials next to this item on the checklist and the reviewer's comment that "Items 18 and 31 pending, 9/22/05," we consider this comment has been satisfied. • Sheet 10 — Survey Verification Plan — Show corner monuments (Item 3 of checklist). Response: Comment was responded to in our initial comment response submittal dated August 2, 2005. Based upon the reviewer's checkmark and initials next to this item on the checklist and the reviewer's comment that "Items 18 and 31 pending, 9/22/05," we consider this comment has been satisfied. • Sheet 10 — Survey Verification Plan — Show center line of PCH and width (Item 9 of checklist). Response: Comment was responded to in our initial comment response submittal dated August 2, 2005. Based upon the reviewer's checkmark and initials next to this item on the checklist and the reviewer's comment that "Items 18 and 31 pending, 9/22/05," we consider this comment has been satisfied. Page 5 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions • Sheet 10 — Survey Verification Plan — Stamp by surveyor (Item 1 of checklist). Response: Comment was responded to in our initial comment response submittal dated August 2, 2005. Based upon the reviewer's checkmark and initials next to this item on the checklist and the reviewer's comment that "Items 18 and 31 pending, 9/22/05," we consider this comment has been satisfied. • Sheet 15 — Precise Grading Plan — Write a note on foundation plan, "Surveyor to file a comer record or record of survey with the office of County Surveyor. Evidence of filing shall be submitted to building inspector prior to foundation inspection" (Item 2 of checklist). Response: The scope of the Lower Campus site development does not include building construction. The new Child Care Center buildings are the subject of a separate permit application (plan check 1108-2005). This comment is not considered applicable to this permit application. • Sheet 15 — Precise Grading Plan — Provide specification for drain lines, OK if it is in storm drain plan. Response: Please refer to Sheets 23 and 24 of the Precise Grading Plans which show the specifications for the drain lines. 15. Please provide an original copy of the standard form of agreement between the owner and the design/builder, exhibit J, to address mitigation measures numbers 110, 111 and 112. Response: Please refer to Attachment C, which includes a copy of Exhibit J to the standard form of agreement between owner (Hoag) and the design/builder (TRC), which has been initialed by both parties. This exhibit requires compliance by the design/builder with mitigation measures including measures 110, 111 and 112. Please note that there are only two originally signed copies of this document. One original is retained by Hoag in its contract file and the other is retained by TRC in its contract file. Hoag wilt, if necessary, provide certification that this is an exact copy of the original. Page 6 of 22 TRC Customer -focused Solutions 16. Please detail 2b/S6 to specify stud head diameter. Response: Please refer to Sheet S6 of the structural design drawings, Detail 2b, which has been revised to specify the stud head diameter. 17. Revise shotcrete wall thickness to match as specified in detail 3/S6 and the general note on top of the sheet. Response: Please refer to Sheet S6 of the structural design drawings, Detail 3, which has been revised to be consistent with the note at the top of the sheet. 18. Check flexural resistance for the temporary and the permanent facing. Verify that the factor of safety is adequate. Response: The structural engineer has provided the following in response to this comment. The punching shear as related to the flexural resistance of the shotcrete wall has been calculated as follows: • Computed nail head strength as related to flexure for the permanent wall is 107.80 kips. Please refer to page 42 of the revised engineering calculations package. • Computed nail head strength as related to flexure for the temporary wall is 88.29 kips. Please refer to page 45 of the revised engineering calculations package. Please note that the punching shear used in the calculations for the soil nail wall was 75 kips, which in turn has produced an overall global factor of safety of 1.5. Hence, in both cases of permanent and temporary wall the factor of safety is adequate. 19. Verify facing punching shear resistance for temporary and permanent facings. Verify factor of safety is adequate. Provide calculations for punching shear failure of bearing - plate connection and headed -stud connection. Response: The structural engineer has provided the following in response to this comment. The assumed punching shear used in the program "Winslope" for the design of the soil nail wall was 75 kips. The punching shear for both the temporary and permanent case has been calculated and can be found in pages 39 through 46 of the revised engineering calculations package with the following results: Page 7 of 22 TRC Customer -focused Solutions • Maximum punching shear for the permanent wall is 115.8 kips. Please refer to page 43 of the revised engineering calculations package. • Maximum punching shear for the temporary wall is 42.7 kips. Please refer to page 46 of the revised engineering calculations package. Please note that one typical section of the wall for the temporary case has been analyzed with punching shear equal to 38 kips and the factor of safety equals 1.4, which is greater than 1.35 for the temporary case. See pages 37 through 38 for the results of this typical temporary case. Please see page 40 of the revised engineering calculations package for the bearing plate calculations. 20. Provide calculations for headed -stud tensile capacity. Response: Please see page 44 of the revised engineering calculations package for the headed -stud tensile capacity calculations. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN CHECK 18. Design the drainage system to retain concentrated and surface sheet flow water from dry - weather run off and minor rain events within the site. Sheet flow through lawn area or 15'. French drain in crushed rock bed wrapped with filter cloth is acceptable. Locate French drain in the front yard away from foundations. Provide Water Quality Management Plan. Response: During our meeting with City staff on October 6, 2005, Hoag reviewed options in the drainage design for installation of systems mentioned in the above comment. For reasons explained below, Hoag has included in the project design systems that will collect and treat all on -site runoff (dry and wet weather) prior to discharge to the existing off -site storm drains by passing through one of three FloGard Hydrodynamic Separators. Each of these devices captures and contains dry weather and minor rain event flow, arrommodates settling of solids, blocks the passage of floating materials and captures oil and grease. Please refer to Sheets 20 through 24 of the precise grading plans for the installation locations selected for these devices. Information on the installation and operation of these devices can be found under Tab 7 of the WQMP. Periodic Page 8 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions maintenance is accomplished by pumping the collected sediment, oils and floating materials and disposing of them at an off -site facility as defined in the WQMP. On -site detention and infiltration is not a viable treatment option due to the fact that the site has a high ground water table and extremely low soil permeability. The geotechnical engineer has evaluated the permeability of the site soils after grading (Siltstone bedrock unit) as less than 10-7 cm/sec. Attachment D provides page 10 of the response to City comments dated August 2, 2005 which includes this evaluation. Please also refer to page 21 of the Geotechnical Report that recommends greatly restricting the amount of surface water infiltrating the soil unit near foundations and pavement due to the expansive nature of the formation. For these reasons, Hoag has chosen to install the FloGard devices. 31. a.) Provide a section showing required grading cut and proximity to property line. b.) Depth of excavation for grading exceeds the distance from the edge of excavation to the property line. Provide shoring design and specify shoring on the plan. Response: Please refer to the sections of the wall on Sheets 17 and S-6. As discussed in our October 6, 2005 meeting with City staff, the proposed soil nail wall is constructed from the top down in a series of 5-foot horizontal excavations that do not remain open for more than a few days. There is no back -cut and the existing ground behind the proposed wall is not disturbed. For this method of construction no shoring is required as the soil nail wall is in effect a permanent shoring system. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN CHECK 1. Provide date that WQMP was prepared/revised. Response: A copy of the WQMP dated July 15, 2005 is included with this submittal. This plan has been revised to respond to the City review comments as appropriate. 2. Describe all landscaped areas. Response: Please refer to Tab 4 in the WQMP for a description of the landscaping on the general plan showing the landscaping to be installed as part of this project. Page 9 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused solutions 3. Will any infrastructure transfer to public agencies (City, County, Caltrans, etc.)? Response: All construction for the proposed project will be on Hoag property with the exception of the F1oGard Hydrodynamic Separator located in the Southwest corner of the project. Refer to Sheet 22 of 28 under Tab 3 of the WQMP for the location of this device. This installation will require an encroachment permit from Caltrans as the device is located within the Caltrans Right -of -Way. Hoag does not, however, envision transfer of this infrastructure to Caltrans. Rather, an agreement with Caltrans will be entered into giving Hoag access to the device for the purpose of the required maintenance. 4. Will a homeowners' or property owners' association be formed? Response: As mentioned above, essentially all construction will be on property owned by Hoag and therefore the formation of a homeowners' or property owners' association is not applicable to this project. 5. Provide Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code which best describes the facilities operations. Response: Please refer to Section VI, page viii of the WQMP which shows the SIC codes for the facility as 8951 — Skilled Nursing Care Facility and 9351 — Child Day Care. 6. Provide site address and site size to nearest tenth acre. Response: Please refer to Section VI, page viii of the WQMP, which shows the site address as One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California, 92663 and the area of the lower campus as 20.4 acres. 7. Identify the zoning or land use designation. Response: Please refer to Section VI, page viii of the WQMP which shows the zoning and land use designation as PC38 — Hospital Planned Community. Page 10of22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions 8. Identify soil types and the quantity and percentage of pervious and impervious surface for pre -project and project conditions. Response: Soil types found in the project area are: • Fill and Topsoil • MH — Clayey Silt • SM — Sands with Silts • SP — Sand • Siltstone The project area shown on the drawings for the lower campus site development project is a total area of 8.06 acres. At the present time (pre -project), approximately 52 percent of this area is pervious and 48 percent is impervious. Upon completion of the project, approximately 49 percent will be pervious and 51 percent will be impervious. Please note that all drainage systems including the F1oGard Hydrodynamic Separators proposed to be added as part of this project are sized based upon the conservative assumption the site may ultimately be developed in accordance with the City's standard for Commercial Zoning which has a runoff coefficient of 90% equating to about 95% impervious and 5% pervious. 9. Identify the watershed in which the project is located and the applicable Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and hydrologic conditions of concern, if any. Response: Please refer to Section VI, page vi of the WQMP, which provides a discussion of the project watershed and TMDLs. The watershed map is included under Tab 7. 10. Identify known Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBSs) within the vicinity and their proximity to the project. (Location is not stated). Response: Please refer to Section VI, page vi of the WQMP, which provides a discussion of the ESAs which is Newport Bay. Newport Bay, which is located approximately 0.25 miles from the project, is also the closest ASBS. A vicinity map is included in the WQMP behind Tab 1. Page 11 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions 11. Include narrative describing how site design concepts were considered and incorporated into project plans. Response: During the design process, a variety of water quality management systems and structures were considered. Ultimately, ground -infiltration -type facilities were excluded due to low soil permeability (estimated to be less than 10-7 cm/sec) and risk to structures and pavement base due to the expansive nature of the soils. Retention and detention facilities were also excluded for similar reasons as well as space limitations and the risk to the public (vectors) that standing water represents. A variety of structural measures were considered including filters, and inlet debris traps, but these too were excluded due to the inconsistent effectiveness and maintenance needs. The proposed project water quality management plan and the project design includes a comprehensive solution that addresses the current development needs as well as providing treatment of urban runoff from previously completed constructed areas of the site and reserve capacity for future development. All on -site runoff (dry and wet weather) is collected and treated prior to discharge to the existing off -site storm drains by passing through one of three FloGard Dual -Vortex Hydrodynamic Separators. Each of these devices captures and contains dry weather flow, accommodates settling of solids, blocks the passage of floating materials and captures oil and grease. Please refer to Sheet 22 of 28 under Tab 3 of the WQMP for the location of these devices and Tab 7 which includes copies of the manufacture's product information. Periodic maintenance is accomplished by pumping the collected sediment, oils and floating materials and disposing of them at an off -site facility as defined in the WQMP. 12. Describe the implementation frequency and identify the identity or Party responsible for implementation of each non-structural BMP. Response: Please refer to the WQMP, Tab 6, which provides a list of the non-structural BMPs and shows the person responsible for implementation and the implementation frequency. 13. Identify the entity (or entities) responsible for the long-term inspection and maintenance of all structural source control BMPs and all Treatment Control BMPs, including name, title, company, address, and phone number. Information from the Landscape Architect was not provided (handwritten comment). Page 12 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solufions Response: Please refer to the WQMP, Tab 5, which provides a list of the structural BMPs and shows the person responsible for implementation (including the landscape architect) and the implementation frequency. Also please refer to Section IX, which discusses the inspection and monitoring program for the storm water BMPs that will be installed as part of the site development project. 14. Describe the minimum frequency for inspection and maintenance to ensure the effectiveness of each structural source control BMP and each Treatment Control BMP. Response: Please refer to Section IX of the WQMP, which describes the minimum frequency of inspection for the FloGard Separators. Details of the recommended periodic maintenance can be found in Tab 7 of the WQMP. 15. Is an appropriate mechanism for the long-term operation and maintenance, including funding, in place? Response: Hoag Hospital Engineering Department is responsible for the long-term operation and maintenance of all upper and lower campus facilities. Hoag engineering supplements their own staff with specialty contractors as needed to maintain the considerable installations and buildings required for hospital operations. Funding for maintenance is from Hoag hospital operations. Hoag is a not -for -profit self -funded operation that generates sufficient cash flow for hospital operations including maintenance of its facilities. 16. Label all facilities for their intended functions. Response: Please refer to design Sheets 20 through 24 provided in the WQMP Tab 3 that show the existing installations and new installations planned as part of the site development project. 17. Implement the following routine structural BMPs: storm drain system, design and construct outdoor material storage areas, design and construct trash areas, efficient irrigation systems, protect slopes, hillside landscape. Page 13 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions Response: Please refer to the WQMP Section VII, which lists both the structural and non-structural BMPs that Hoag has included in the project. Tab 8 in the WQMP also provides details of BMPs that will be implemented during the project. Hoag considers implementation of the BMP' provided in the WQMP will result in the appropriate level of protection of water quality. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW 1. Handwritten comment on page 18 of August 2, 2005 response to comments letter requested justification for increase of 33 percent in the friction angle for temporary transient loading for conventional retaining wall design. Response: Ken Bagahi (Commenter) and Ali Bastani (Geotechnical Engineer) agreed in a conversation that as a conventional retaining wall is not being constructed as part of the project this comment was not applicable to the project review and did not require additional action. 2. Handwritten comment on page 19 of August 2, 2005 response to comments letter questioned the computation on page 17 of the calculations that used an acceleration of 0.21g when the acceleration used on the previous page was different value. Response: Please note that in both cases the Design Basis Earthquake peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA) of 0.42g and horizontal inertia coefficient ratio (Kh/PHGA) of 0.5 have been used. Therefore, as indicated in the analysis, Kh is 0.21g in both cases. 3. Handwritten comment on page 19 of August 2, 2005 response to comments letter noted the Plaxis computation is based upon a Young's Modulus of 2 x 106 psf for the Terrace soils and asked for supporting documentation for this assumed Modulus. Response: Please refer to Attachment E which provides the calculation of Young's Modulus. Page 14 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions 4. Handwritten comment on page 19 of August 2, 2005 response to comments letter noted the computed Factor of Safety is not identified with a slip surface and asked if there were any slip surfaces through the soil nail wall with a lower Factor of Safety. Response: Please refer to the revised engineering calculations package for the Permanent Soilnailed Retaining Wall. PB&A (structural designers) have presented the Factor of Safety (FS) for the critical surfaces going through the soil nail wall in the calculation sheets, which show a FS of 1.5 or greater for the static condition. Plaxis is the finite element analysis program that PB&A have used to demonstrate the global stability. This procedure indicates the FS on the most critical slip surface. Therefore, if the critical surface does not pass through the soil nail, it means that the FS is greater in that area. NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. Turnaround at lower parking area at Cogen building shall have a minimum diameter of 80 feet and include fire lane markings on plan. Response: The lower Cogeneration Plant parking area has been reconfigured to eliminate the cul-de- sack turn -a -round and replace it with a parking lot fire lane meeting City requirements. This lay -out was reviewed with Fire Department staff prior to incorporation into the plans and it is our understanding this design is acceptable. Please refer to Sheet 14 of the precise grading plans which shows layout information and Sheet 7 which shows fire lane signage and curb marking requirements. 2. Provide sign detail, post installation detail, and curb marking details on plan (attached). Response: Please refer to Sheet 7 of the Precise Grading Plans which includes the requested sign detail, post installation detail and curb marking details. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. The development is private work. Therefore, delete all City seals and "City of Newport Beach" references from all plan sheets. Page 15 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions Response: As requested. all City seals and references to the City of Newport Beach that could be misinterpreted as indicating that the project is a public project have been removed. The development is private work and the references to the City that remain on the drawings are those that require construction in accordance with a specific City of Newport Beach standard. 2. Fully dimension all plan sheets, including widths, lengths, depths, etc. Response: Site lay -out dimensions are provided on Sheet 6 and it is our intent to refer the contractor and inspectors to this sheet for all dimensions. Construction in the field will be controlled by digital data correlated to the plans (as is the current industry standard). Additional reference dimensions are provided on individual sheets. As discussed in our meeting on October 6, 2005, we wish to avoid having a dimension appear in more than one place in the plan set to reduce the risk of errors. 3. Where is the v-ditch Detail-18 shown on Sheet 19? Response: Please refer to Sheet 19 which now includes the v-ditch detail. 4. Construct water main extension to Superior Avenue to complete the loop system. It would [be] cost-effective to complete this work during Caltrans' Coast Highway reconstruction project in Fall 2005 when the roadway is "opened." Response: As discussed during our meeting on October 6, 2005, Hoag is in the process of undertaking a Campus -wide infrastructure study to determine infrastructure improvements required for buildout under its Master Plan. Extension of this water line is not currently planned to be completed as part of this project. However, the implementation of the proposed project will not preclude the future ability to extend the water line. 5. Fully detail each of the proposed water main connections, per City Standards. Response: The fire hydrant extension to the cul-de-sac and to the Northeast corner of the Child Care Center is specified on Sheet 26 of the precise grading plans. As we discussed in our meeting on October 6, 2005, additional water main connections and lines serving the Page 16 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions Child Care Center are to be sized, permitted and installed under a separate permit (plan check 1108-2005) issued for that facility. Lines are shown for reference on this plan for the purpose of coordinating construction with the facilities proposed under this permit 6. Confirm the adequacy of a 4-inch PVC sanitary sewer lateral serving the Child Care Center. Response: The sewer service size has been increased to 6" to provide maximum future capacity. As above, size verification and continuation of this service will be provided by a separate permit (plan check 1108-2005) for the Child Care Center. 7. What is/are the gradient(s) of the proposed Child Care Center sewer laterals? Include the invert elevations on the Plans. Response: Invert elevations have been added to Sheet 27 of the precise grading plans. Gradients for the Child Care Center are included with the Child Care Center design being permitted on a separate application (plan check 1108-2005). 8. A sanitary sewer cleanout is required for that portion of the lateral before it is embedded below the Child Care Center. The proposed cleanout location shown on Sheet 27 is not connected to any sewer lateral. Response: Please refer to Sheet 27 of the precise grading plans which has been corrected in response to this comment. 9. Replace storm drain "XX.XX INV" with actual elevations. Response: Please refer to Sheet 24 of the precise grading plans which has been corrected in response to this comment. 10. A stormceptor or equivalent runoff clarification device shall be installed for the onsite storm drain system where the private storm drain connects to the public system. A filter is not acceptable. Page 17 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions Response: Hoag has included in the project design systems that will collect and treat all on -site runoff (dry and wet weather) prior to discharge to the existing off -site storm drains by passing through one of three FloGard Hydrodynamic Separators. Each of these devices captures and contains dry weather and minor rain event flow, accommodates settling of solids, blocks the passage of floating materials and captures oil and grease. Please refer to Sheets 20 through 24 of the precise grading plans for the locations. Information on the installation and operation of these devices can be found under Tab 7 of the WQMP. Periodic maintenance is accomplished by pumping the collected sediment, oils and floating materials and disposing of them at an off -site facility as defined in the WQMP. 11. Rattle plates shall be placed at on -site locations prior to vehicles entering the public right-of-way. Response: Rattle plates are proposed where vehicles transition from un-paved to paved surfaces. Please refer to Sheet 20 of the precise grading plans which shows the installation of these devices. 12. Advise where "All work activities within the Coast Highway right-of-way require an approved Caltrans encroachment permit" is shown on the plans. Response: Please refer to Sheet 24 of the precise grading plans, which shows the installation of a FloGard Hydrodynamic Separator near the North boundary of the Caltrans right-of-way at the intersection of Newport Blvd and PCH. An encroachment permit will be required from Caltrans before this structure can be installed to allow the structure itself and the construction activity in the right-of-way. A note has been added to Sheet 24 stating this requirement in accordance with the comment. 13. Where are double backflow preventer assemblies shown the plans? Response: None are proposed under this grading permit. If required for the fire systems for future buildings, they will be installed under future permits. 14. Sheet 26: Add two new 6-inch (FE X MJ) valves as shown on plan. Response: Please refer to Sheet 26 of the precise grading plans for the addition of these valves. Page 18 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions 15. Sheet 26: What is the purpose of Note 100? Response: This was intended to indicate a stub -out for the Child Care Center fire service which is part of a separate permit (plan check 1108-2005). Sheet 26 of the precise grading plans has been corrected to clarify this. 16. Sheet 27: Revise Notes Nos. 120 and 121 from 4-inch to 6-inch. Response: Please refer to Sheet 27 of the precise grading plans that has been revised in accordance with this comment. 17. Sheet 27: Revise Note 122 to reference City of Newport Beach STD-406-L. Response: Please refer to Sheet 27 of the precise grading plans that has been revised in accordance with this comment. 18. The following comments were found marked on the plans reviewed by the Public Works Department: • Sheet 6 — Horizontal Control Plan — Additional roadway configuration comments and corrections may be necessary once Hoag Hospital provides the traffic study regarding the internal roadway system. Response: As noted in our previous response to this issue (August 2, 2005), the proposed project will not increase traffic generation and therefore no additional roadway configuration and corrections are necessary. However, Hoag is currently working with its traffic consultant and with City staff to evaluate campus -wide internal circulation. As part of the Supplemental EIR being prepared for the Hoag PC Text amendment, site access needs will be evaluated. • Sheet 7 — Traffic Control Plan — Put note S-16 (install red curb) on the curbs shown in the main parking lot. Response: Please refer to Sheet 7 of the Precise Grading Plans which has been revised to include note S-16 as applicable. Page 19 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions • Sheet 16 — Precise Grading Plan — Minimum distance between wheel chair ramps is 9 feet. Response: Please see Sheet 16 of the Precise Grading Plans which has been revised. The sidewalk and path of travel is shown on the Child Care Center design plans (plan check 1108-2005). These grading plans only include the cul-de-sac and curb and gutter. • Sheet 16 — Precise Grading Plan — Need curb and gutter in turn -around of the cul- de-sac. Response: Sheet 16 of the Precise Grading Plans has been revised to clarify that a curb and gutter are to be installed. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT 1. Sheet 6: Surface parking area shows a 9-foot dimension that does not make sense. It should be shifted to dimension the parking space. Response: Please refer to Sheet 6 of the precise grading plans that has been corrected in accordance with this comment. 2. Sheet 6: The roadway labeled Interior Private Roadway shows a jog in the road. What is this jog? Response: This is an existing curb pop -out passing around a gas extraction well. Refer to Sheet 15 of the precise grading plans for more information. No change is proposed under this project. 3. Sheet 6: Curb ramps are missing. See mark-up plan set. Response: Please refer to Sheets 15 and 16 of the precise grading plans which have been revised to correctly show the curb ramps. Page 20 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions 4. Sheet 6: Additional roadway configuration and corrections may be necessary once Hoag Hospital provides the traffic study regarding the internal circulation system. Response: As noted in our previous response to this issue (August 2, 2005), the proposed project will not increase traffic generation and therefore no additional roadway configuration and corrections are necessary. However, Hoag is currently working with its traffic consultant and with City staff to evaluate campus -wide intemal circulation. As part of the Supplemental EIR being prepared for the Hoag PC Text amendment, site access needs will be evaluated. 5. Sheet 7: Widen sidewalks and planter areas to eliminate wheel stops. A maximum 2.5-foot overhang is permitted. Response: Curb stops have been eliminated on Sheets 6, 7, 15 and 16 of the precise grading plans. Sidewalks at Child Care Center are part of a separate permit (plan check 1108-2005) and are not detailed in this plan set. 6. Sheet 7: The entry drive to the Child Care Center shall have red curb. Response: Please refer to Sheet 7 of the precise grading plans that has been revised in accordance with this comment. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Provide the signature page(s) of the "Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Design/Builder." Response: Please refer to Attachment C which includes a copy of the signature page of the standard form of agreement between owner (Hoag) and the design/builder (TRC) and Exhibit J to the standard form of agreement that have been signed or initialed by both parties. Please note that there are only two originally signed copies of these documents. One original is retained by Hoag in its contract file and the other is retained by TRC in its contract file. Hoag will, if necessary, provide certification that this is an exact copy of the original. Page 21 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions 2. Coastal Commission Approval Required. Response: The California Coastal Commission has approved the project subject to eight permit conditions which require that additional information be submitted. Hoag expects to furnish the additional information during the next several weeks and expects the permit will be issued shortly thereafter. A copy of the Coastal Development Permit will be provided to the City, as required, immediately upon receipt by Hoag 3. Provide documentation showing the disposal location for all cut material (Mitigation Measure No. 100). Response: Hoag and TRC are working to identify the disposal location for the excavated soils from the site. As soon as agreements are finalized with the receiving site(s), documentation will be furnished to the City that the site(s) comply with the requirements of Mitigation Measure No. 100. Sincerely es C. Julian enior Project Manager cc: Peri Muretta (Hoag Hospital) City of Newport Beach Comments: Building Department comments, August 25, 2005 Building Department Grading/Drainage Plan Check, September 22, 2005 Building Department Water Quality Management Plan Correction List, September 26, 2005 Building Department comments, October 6, 2005 meeting, handwritten Fire Department comments, August 31, 2005 Public Works Department comments, September 16, 2005 Traffic Department comments, September 15, 2005 Planning Department comments Attachments: Attachment A, Corrosion Design Drawing Review from M.J. Schiff Attachment B, Altercate Material or Method of Construction Request Attachment C, Initialed Design -Builder Agreement Attachment D, Geotechnical Engineer's Permeability Evaluation Attachment E, Calculation of Young's Modulus Attachment F, Reference Standards Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), July 15, 2005 Page 22 of 22 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Newport Beach Comments 1 1 1 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BLVD P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3275 Project Address: 1 Hoag Dr. Scope of work: Soil Nailed retaining wall Valuation: $ 4,400,000 Plan Check No.: 1107-2005 Plan Check Engineer: Ali Naji, P. E. Date: June 9, 2005 Occupancy Classification: U2 Type of Construction: V-N Expiration Date: Oct 25TH 2005 41sTRecheck: August 24, 2005 Phone: (949) 644-3292 • Make the following corrections to the plans. • Return this correction sheet and check prints with corrected plans. 1. Approval is required from: • Building Department • Planning Department • Public Works Department • Fire Department 2. All Sheets of the final set of drawings shall be stamped, wet signed & dated by the design professional. 41fTRecheck: Correction still not resolved. 3. The geotechnical engineer of record shall review grading & structural plans, stamp & sign grading and structural drawings for compliance with the geo-technical report's recommendation. 41sTRecheck: Copied signature is not permitted Original signature is required. Ali Naji, P.E. Plan check engineer (949) 644-3292 anaji@city.newport-beach.ca.us V3 08/25/05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 4. The civil engineer of record shall review structural drawings for compliance with civil plan, stamp & sign elevation sheets. 41sTRecheck: Original signature is required. 5. Drawings, specifications and construction procedures shall be reviewed, stamped & signed by the corrosion engineer for compliance with their report dated February 11, 2005. 91sTRecheck: Correction still not resolved. Sheet S1 of 12 shall be GG stamped & wet signed by the corrosion engineer. 6. :11 out the attached Hazar-cls ,. Tatar.,. Q„ectionnake P, the A i.. /amity Permit Checklist. 7. Provide enlarged & detailed parking area drawings. Specify regular & accessible parking stalls per table 11B-6 of CBC 2001. Provide accessible stall details & signage per section 1129B of CBC 2001. s#1sTRecheck: Correction still not resolved. Please provide complete set of compliance details. Sped the total number of regular parking & accessible parking stalls. Use table 11B-6 for the requited number of accessible stalls. Sped the number of Van accessible stalls. Provide enlarged details for each one or set of stalls. Ident signage & cross reference details. Show path of travel, ramps and curb cuts. Specify slope & cross slop, of the path of travel to the main entrance to building's'. Please note that detectable warnings may be required per sections 1127B.8 & 1133B.8.5 of CBC 2001. The above is just guide lines to what is required on drawings. Complete plan check will be done once drawings are resubmitted. 8. List the guardrail design & details as a deferred submittal on the title sheet. 191sTRecheck: Correction still not resolved. Guard rail is required at the topof theretaining wall. Clarify the same of drawings. 9. File a Request for Alternate Material or Method of Construction for the use of Soil Nailed retaining wall. Please file the request separately at the building department counter. 31sTRecheck: Please include a copy of the approved modification as part of plans. 10. C1_rifywhy ,,.boleti... 1:st3 the evil .ailed ret :an as to po_a.y Thin errnnnent sn=aetuze Ae'yise acc„r'1i.,gly y..,..a�. acxrrri-uy��armc.c�uaacau��.u.ra�vr.�� u.br� 11. Provide complete structural calculations for facing design. More corrections may follow once the above is provided. 41sTRecheck: See corrections listed below.l Ali Naji, P.E. Plan cheek engineer (949) 644-3292 anaji@eity.newport-beach.ca.us 08/25/05 D e\ i. ♦ t ci fc.,ti on to 5p f., ♦ype \T__cement with- min mum strength of 1500 psi to protect concrete from sulfate attach, per corrosion engineer report's requirements. 13. Revise soil nail corrosion protection, as listed on drawings, to add the application of dielectric coating of one of the listed materials. Revise specification to include reinforcement bars protection as listed in the corrosion engineer report. 4tTRecheck: Corrosion engineer's review, stamp & signature is required on soil nail specifications as listed on plans. 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. ADDITIONAL CORRECTIONS 15. Please provide an original copy of the standard form of agreement between the owner and the design/builder, exhibit J, to address mitigation measures number 110, 111 & 112. 16. Revise detail 2b/S6 to specify stud head diameter. 17. Revise Shotcrete wall thickness to match as specified in detail3/S6 & the general note on top of the sheet. 18. Check flexural resistance for the temporary & the permanent facing. Verify that the factor of safety is adequate. 19. Verify facing punching shear resistance for temporary & permanent facings. Verify factor of safety is adequate. Provide calculations for punching shear failure of bearing -plate connection and headed -stud connection. 20. Provide calculations for headed -stud tensile capacify.. Ali Naji, P.E. 3/3 08/25/05 Plan check engineer - (949) 644-3292 anaji@city.newport-beach.ca.us 1 r 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA (949) 644-3275 Project Address: 1 Plan Check No.: Plan Check Engineer: /`—e'' a �j- �/ 44 • • Make the following corrections to the plans. • Return this correction sheet and check prints with co • Indicate how each correction was resolved. GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN C SNevr SURYEY CORRECTIONS Ge-ei Date: Phone: 217, 7, LSZ -- & 2y 2 Provide a site survey, stamped and signed by a State Licensed Land Surveyor or authorized Ciyyil Engineer (License Number below 33.966), Surveyor or engineer shall permanently monument property comers or offsets before starting grading. Provide note on plan. V. Show north point and scale. Show location and description of all comer monuments. :Show and identify all property lines. Dimension length and specify bearing. Show driveway, wand gutter, and all existing site improvements (structures, walls, planters, saatis, etc.). Identify all finish surface materials. e Provide a legend for all symbols used. t Locate all trees in public -right-of-way facing or within 20 feet of the subject property; power poles; utility boxes; etc. Show center line of street and dimension width or %z width. Provide an on -site bench mark with elevation of 100.00 at one of the front property comers. For sites within the special flood hazard area and sites on the islanrk, on the peninsula and in West Newport Beach use the actual bench mark elevation as determined by Orange County Vertical Datum (NGVD29 or NAVD88). Grading(Hrainage Han Check Provide relative elevations at the following locations: All property corners. Around existing structure(s) at comers, ineluding corners at jogs of exterior wails. At interior finish floor elevations. At bottom of all site walls. Indicate wall height. At bottom of elevated planters. Indicate planter height. At maximum spacing of 25' along the length and width of the property on all sides of an existing structure. Elevation contours for sloping sites every one foot elevation change. Three elevations (niin.) equally spaced in the side yard of adjacent properties. Three elevations along the flow line in gutter and alley adjacent to site. GRADING CORRECTIONS Registered civil engineer or licensed architect to stamp and sign the approval plans indicating license number. Write a note on foundation plan "surveyor to file a corner record or record of survey with the office of county surveyor. Evidence of filing shall be submitted to building inspector prior to foundation inspection." Provide property address on grading plan. Show vicinity map indirating site location. Show name, address, and telephone number of owner, plan preparer, and geotechnical engineer (if applicable). Show north arrow, plan Ai. , and to end Identify ALL property lines. Clearly identify the scope of work. Distinguish between existing hardscape and landscape and new/proposed hardscape and landscape improvements. Show locations of all existing buildings, structures, pools, fences, retaining walls, etc. Show grade elevation on both sides of wall and specify top of wall elevation. Pr. Show accurate contours (or spot elevations) indicating the topography of the existing ground. Show locations of all existing slopes on and adjacent to the property. Except where it is not feasible due to natural topography, top of structure footings at habitable space to be above the street gutter flow line elevation by 12" plus 2% the distance from the nearest footing to the gutter. 1 1 1 6 1 Grading/Drainage Plan Check a�. Clearly show elevation of adjacent properties and the distance from property lines to adjacent structures. Y1. Minimum gradients for drainage: RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS: Paved 0.5% Not paved 2% COMMERCIAL STANDARDS: Concrete Concrete gutter in paved area A.C., landscape areas 0.5% 0.2% 1.0% tic Show finish grades by spot elevations to indicate proper drainage in all areas. Use arrows to indicate direction of drainage. 1 Provide a drainage swale at side yard. Draw a section through swale. 1,5 Provide a drainage design that prevents entrance of drainage water from the street/alley onto property. Show top of drain elevations and drain invert elevations. Show slope of drain lines (1% min.). Design the drainage system to retain concentrated and surface sheet flow water from dry - weather run off and minor rain events within the site. Sheet flow through lawn area or 15'. French drain in crushed rock bed wrapped with filter cloth is acce table, Locate French dr in the front yard away from foundations. rfi-6 -. /1/7 (Alternate: Provide hydrology calculations and design retention system /retain' Y'' of rain over 24 hr.) 1 —P ce-k- ri t-v1 1 1 1 1 1 3- French rain parfarotlon 0 bottom. Crushed Rock Flter Cioih Lop 6" 0 lop r 4" Concrete or.6Topsoil 12"_—I Perforated drain/trench detail ��rr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1v 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 Grading/Drainage Plan Check Provide a trench drain at bottom of driveway as shown in detail "E". (Exception: When driveway is less than 10' long, trench drain is not required). DOETISIOMS oETw wee 8Y CRATE FRAME DIMENSIONS. USE FRAME AS A FYr1M CRUSHED ROCK W/RL1ER CLOTH ELEVATION o- Dig a 24" wide X 18 deep trench b- Place Filter cloth in the trench extending 12' vertical on each side. c- Fit bottom 8' of (he trench with crushed rode. d- Form and pour perimeter concrete curh. e- Fill the rest of the trench with crushed rock to 4' from top of trench. GRATE 6" MN. 'ICE PElSWRUN SAFE FRAME k GRAIL 0/9" SLOT QPENNO. EAST AORDAN RCN wawa OR EQUAL 000)874-4100 14 ROAR h7 & 8OTTOU Ft. 1HR PORTION IM111 CRu91E0 ROO( AFTER POSNe GRATE SUPPORT CURB BOTTOMI.FSS TRENCH DRAIN IIIIIIIIIIijii' I IIlllim • PLAN VIEW Provide specifications for drain lines. Specify diameter (3" min) and type of material. The following drain line materials may be used: 1. ABS, SDR 35 2. ABS, SCHEDULE 40 3. PVC, SDR 35 4. PVC, Schedule 40 5. ADS 3000 with PE glued joints 7v21. The minimum distance acceptable between finish grade and bottom of treated sill plate shall be as follows'. Sill Plate/Earth Separation 2% °% Inra � �1 ° awllllslll— nl�ll- Soi1.6" 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Grading/Drainage Plan Check a) For non-residential projects and multi -dwelling projects, submit summary of all drainage devices and onsite parking and drainage improvements. b) Specify yardage of cut and filL Obtain a private drainage easement to drain water over adjacent land not owned by the rmittee. Fasement must be recorded with the County Recorder's Office. Design drainage to insure water does not drain over the top edge of any slopes. Provide a berm at top of slope. Draw a section through berm. Berm to be 12" high and slopes towards the pad @ - 1 4 Show top and toe of all slopes and indicate slope ratio. 1 Maximum 2 List the pertinent "Grading Notes" (indicated on attached sheet) on plans. Where grading is proposed on adjacent property not owned by the pernittee, a separate permit is required for that portion under the adjacent address. Show locations and details of subdrain system(s) and outlet for retaining walls on grading plan when subdrain is required by soils report. Provide erosion and siltation control plans. S skul 11pi2$' a) Provide a section showing required grading cut and proximity to property line. b) Depth of excavation for grading exceeds the distance from the edge of excavation to the 9 iv\ property line. Provide shoring design and specify shoring on the plan. 52. Provide building or structure setbacks from top and bottom of slope as outlined in UBC Section 1806.5 and Figure 18-I-I. y3• Provide two copies of soils and foundation investigation report by a licensed geotecbnical engineer. f Soils report shall address the potential of seismically induced liquefaction and recommend mitigation method. l/iffJ List soils report recommendations on Grading plan. Fill out a separate permit application for: a) fence b) patio cover/trellis c) detached structures 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /Drainage Plan Check struction with basement or excavation near the property line a) The distance from edge of excavation to the property line is less than the depth of excavation. Shoring is required. Provide a shoring plan and calculation prepared by a registered civil engineer. Sheet piles are not permitted for shoring due to potential damage to adjacent properties. c) Show all buildings and masonry walls on adjacent property within a distance equal to the depth of the proposed excavation. d) Provide cross -sections at various locations to show excavation details. e) cavations and shoring shall be made entirely within the project site. A Cal -OSHA permit is required for excavations deeper than 5' and for shoring and/or underpinning. Contractor to provide a copy of OSHA permit. figBottom of excavation is below water table. Submit a dewatering plan prepared by the geotechnical engineer. Provide additional geotechnical information necessary for dewatering system design, soils report to include the following: • Borings to extend a minimum of 20 ft. below bottom of proposed excavation. • Provide sieve analysis and permeability value for each soil formation layer to a depth of 20 ft. below bottom of excavation. i) Write a note on the shoring drawing, "Shoring engineer to provide monitoring of shoring and improvements on adjacent properties and submit results with a report to the Building Inspector on a daily basis during excavation and shoring and weekly basis thereafter. Where dewatering is required, monitoring shall continue until dewatering is stopped. Geotechnical engineer to stamp and sign the shoring plan and dewatering plan, certifying that the design is in compliance with hisrecommendation. k) Write a note on drawing: "Geotechnical engineer shall provide continuous inspections during shoring and excavation operations and during removal of shoring." 1) Provide a description of the process for installing shoring, construction of basement walls, and removal of shoring.. m) Write note on the drawings: "Contractor shall notify adjacent property owners by certified mail 10 days prior to starting the shoring or excavation work." n) If slot -cutting method of excavation is to be i sdd provide a drawing showing the location and sequence of slot cuts. Slot cut to be 36" away from the property line or provide shoring for the top 3 ft. to prevent sloughing. o) Non -cantilevered retaining walls must be shored until the bracing element(s) is in place. Provide a design for wall shoring. p) Write a note on grading plan: "Continuous inspection by a City -licensed deputy inspector is required during shoring, excavation and removal of shoring." 6 Grading/Drainage Plan Check 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1ba 1 '. De wa rin_ S stem Corrections: Provide the following information on dewatering drawings: a) Well or well point locations b) Pipe system layout (including valve Iocations) c) Primary power source. If a generator is used for primary power supply, write a note on drawings stating maximum noise level from proposed generator not to exceed 50 dba on adjo ining pro perty. (1) Back-up power supply (if any) e) Location of desanding tank. I) Location of property lines and excavation limits. g) Depth of wells or well points (reference to sea level or other datum). h) 'Diameter of borehole. i) The type of filter media used around wells or well points. Provide sieve analysis graph. j) Size of wellscreen openings (slots) and location of screened portion of well or well point. k) Soil permeability 1) Discharge termination point m) Water meter to measure flow n) Anticipated draw -down elevation o) Depth of deepest excavation Method of well removal and abandonment If a well point system is used, provide noise calculation using ARI method to verify noise level m pump not to exceed 50 dba at adjacent property. blic Works approval is required for discharge into storm drain or public way. Provide evidence of approval from State Regional Water Quality Control Board for disposal of ground water. Water Quality Corrections: If area of construction site is-oneor more acres, obtain a general construction NPDES Storm ater permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. TeL (909) 782-4130. This project falls into category checked below. Prepare a Water Quality gement Plan (WQMP) consistent with the model WQMP. (Attached) Grading/Drainage Plan Check 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PRIORITY PROJECTS ❑ Residential development of 10 units or more. W.—Commercial and industrial development greater than 100,000 sq. ft. including parking areas. ❑ Automotive repair shop. ❑ Restaurant where the land area of development is 5,000 sq. ft. or more including parking area. ❑ Hillside development on 10,000 sq. ft. or more which is located an areas with known erosive soil condition or where natural slope is 25% or more. ❑ Impervious surface of 2,500 sq. ft. or more located within or directly adjacent to (within 200 ft.) or discharging directly to receiving water within environmentally sensitive areas (bay, canyon, gulley, etc.). Parking lot area of 5,000 sq. f . or more or with 15 or more parking spaces.. NON PRIORITY PROJECTS ❑ Require issuance of non-residential plumbing permit. 45. See attached Water Quality Management Plan Correction List. 46. See drawings for additional corrections. ADDITIONAL CORRECTIONS ramnAdrninpc i I-15-04 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA (949) 644-3275 Project Address: c JdaA-R. ti'jg Fa& 134>41 6 1 W eve W ?Ma.. gErfropi..„,eil.cboz9 Plan Check No.: (I n 7 — 2- o o 5 Date: 912 b I fa Plan Check Engineer; I4 . er.4 a 4-6 A-I'i3C Phone: (..q 4j ) f-- *'a-S �- 1�enQ -+ &rn-Q,D : J (.tLy IS; 2.dO pberb_G„ Jt pi "-rec. ait/i..i C *'t'3 • Make the following corrections to the plans. C E rrt Rj /2 ?ra ' Ki } i Ar'O • Return this correction sheet and check prints with corrected Water Quality Management Plan. • Submit a response sheet indicating how each correction was resolved. WATER QUALITYMANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) CORRECTION CHECKLIST 1. Include in the Water Quality Management Plan Report the information where indicated in the "NO" column on the following checklist. WQMP REQUIREMENT Requirement Satisfied? YES NO N/A Title Page Name of project Site address (or addresses) Owner/Developer name Owner/Developer address & telephone number Consulting/Engineering firm that prepared WQMP f Consulting/Engineering fine address & phone number A.,/ Date WQMP was prepared/revised Owner's Certification A signed certification statement, in which the project owner acknowledges and accepts the provisions of the WQMP, follows the title page. Table of Contents A Table of Contents, including a list of all figures and attachments is L' '. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Correction List included. ✓ , Section I, Permit Numbers and Conditions of Approval ✓ Lists the Discretionary Permits(s). Lists, verbatim, the Water Quality Conditions, including condition requiring preparation of WQMP, if applicable. Final Resolution of Approval, Conditional Use Permit, etc. is included as an attachment to the WQMP. Section II, Project Description For all Projects: Does the project description completely and accurately describe where facilities will be located, what activities will be conducted and where on the site, what kinds of materials and products will be used, how and where materials will be received and stored, and what kinds of wastes will be generated? - Describes all paved areas, including the type of parking areas. sit Describes all landscaped areas. Describes ownership of all portions of project and site. o Will any infrastructure transfer to public agencies (City, County, Caitrans, etc.)? o Will a homeowner or property owners association be formed? o Will the association be involved in long term maintenance? / V / is j ✓ Identifies the potential stormwater or urban runoff pollutants reasonably expected to be associated with the project. For Commercial and Industrial Projects: o Provides Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code which best describes the facilities operations'? o Describes the type of use (or uses) for each building or tenant space. s/ o Does project include food preparation, cooking, and eating areas (specify location and type of area). o Describes delivery areas and loading docks (specify location and design and .if below grade and types of materials expected to be stored). o Describes outdoor materials storage areas (describe and depict locations(s), specify type(s) of materials expected to be stored). ✓� o Describes activities that will be routinely conducted outdoors. o Describes any activities associated with equipment or vehicle maintenance and repair, including washing or cleaning. Indicates number of service bays or number of fueling islands/fuel pumps, if applicable. f Residential Projects ise o Range of lot and home sizes o Describes all community facilities such as, laundry, car wash, swimming pools, jacuzzi, parks, open spaces, tot lots, etc. Section III, Site Description Describes project area and surrounding planning areas in sufficient 1 1 1 1 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Correction List detail to allow project location to be plotted on a base map. V Provides site address and site size to nearest tenth acre. Identifies the zoning or land use designation. Identifies soil types and the quantity and percentage of pervious and impervious surface for pre -project and project conditions. Describes pre -project site drainage and how it ties into drainage of surrounding or adjacent areas and describes how planned project drainage and how it will tie into drainage of surrounded or adjacent areas. Identifies the watershed in which the project is located and the : o downstream receiving waters o known water quality impairments as included in the 303(d) list o applicable Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) o hydrologic conditions of concern, if any. / / ✓/ V Identifies known environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBSs) withinththe vicinity and r'r+'r• / A 2 Tn3z.c9-. their foximity to the project # Lt. ca-re ors is Section IV, Best Management Practices Includes narrative describing how site design concepts were considered and incorporated into project plans. Lists and describes all Routine Source Control BMPs (Non-structural / and Structural). Describes the implementation frequency and identifies the entity or Party responsible for implementation of each Non -Structural BMP. If applicable Routine Source Control BMPs were not included, was a reasonable explanation provided? Lists and describes appropriate Treatment Control BMPs and identifies the design basis (SQDF or SQDV) for the Treatment Control BMPs. v Section V, Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility of BMPs Identifies the entity (or entities) responsible for the long-term inspection and maintenance of all structural source control BMPs and all Treatment Control BMPs, including name, title, company, address, and phone number. .*. .T-rnFoRMA Tt ON &P 'tri-5 Laa'"n V/ Se/a-ate kcal ' Describes the minimum frequency for inspection and maintenance to / �/ ensure the effectiveness of each structural source control BMP and each Treatment Control BMP. If ownership of the Treatment Control BMPs will be transferred to a public agency does the WQMP include an attachment indicating the public agency's intent to accept the Treatment Control BMPs as designed? / n/ Is an appropriate mechanism for the long-term operation and maintenance, including funding, in place? Section VI, Location Map and Plot Plan Has an 11" by IT' plot plan been included? V Do all figures, maps, plot plans, etc. have a legend, including a North arrow and scale? r7- IS vcr 'lea wt EFD. i 1 1 i r 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Correction List Are all facilities labeled for the intended function? ✓ Are all areas of outdoor activity labeled? % °✓ Are all structural BMPs indicated? Is drainage flow information, including general surface flow lines, concrete or other surface ditches or channels, as well as storm drain facilities such as catch basins and underground storm drain pipes depicted? Depicts where and how on -site drainage ties into the off -site drainage system. Section VH, Educational Materials For Routine Non-structural BMPs Ni (Education for Property Owners, Tenants, and Occupants) and N12 (Employee Training), does the WQMP describe the concepts that will be addressed by the education and training? Is a list of educational materials that will be used - provided? Are copies of the educational materials included in an Attachment to the WQMP? 12. Implement the WQMP best management practices into the precise grading plan, landscape and irrigation plan and architectural design drawings. %/3. Implement the following routine structural BMP's. ' Sr ° RAt P'"„ S ys 7c4 ua� rf A-re/a/at &rn¢n-4e A'Rt +3 . e 3eSl.iN c cat.. 3n 4+-er -[was 9 ids (2-AI (n/rrt oN s-i Seera • p trrecT Sc»V61 17-14-4.S,Do Les-ra_s 2 Comply with the following applicable routine structural Best Management Practices: S 1 Filtration - Surface runoff shall be directed to landscaped areas wherever practicable. /g[ A- S2. Wash Water Controls for Food Preparation Areas - Food establishments (per State Health & Safety Code 27520) shall have either contained areas, sinks, each with sanitary sewer connections for disposal of wash waters containing kitchen and food wastes. If located outside, the contained areas, sinks shall also be structurally covered to prevent entry of storm water. SW PPr; ..2 &a l (aN S QONdnee. . ET clear Trash Container (dumpster) areas - Trash container (dumpster) areas to have drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the area(s), and: 1Y1,A. For trash container areas associated with fuel dispensing, vehicle repair/maintenance, and industry, such areas are to be roofed over or drained to a water quality inlet (see S 16), engineered infiltration/filtration system, or equally effective alternative. INA1-- B. For trash container areas associated with restaurants and warehouse/grocery operations such areas are to be screened or walled to prevent off -site transport of trash. !i/3- S4. Self-contained areas are required for washing/steam cleaning, wet material processing, and maintenance activities. /`b A- S5. Outdoor Storage - Where a plan of development contemplates or building plans incorporate outdoor containers for oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, wastes, and other chemicals; these shall 1 1 be 9-- 7-4A- '.ty 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Correction List be protected by secondary containment structures (not double wall containers). For outdoor vehicle and equipment salvage yards, and outdoor recycling the entire storage area shall drain through water quality inlets. NA-- S6. Motor Fuel Concrete Dispensing Areas — Areas used for fuel dispensing, shall be paved with concrete (no use of asphalt). Concrete surfacing to extend 6 %" from the comer of each fuel dispenser in any direction. This distance may be reduced to OR the maximum length that the fuel dispensing hose and nozzle assembly may be operated in any direction plus one (1) foot. In addition, the fuel dispensing area shall be graded and constructed so as to prevent drainage flow either through or from the fuel dispensing area. S7. Motor Fuel Dispensing Area Canopy — All motor fuel concrete dispensing areas are to have a canopy structure for weather protection, extending over the motor fuel concrete fuel dispensing area as defined in No. 6. SS. Motor Fuel Concrete Dispensing Area Interruptible Drainage — The concrete motor fuel dispensing area will be graded and constructed so as to drain to an underground clarifier/sump/tank equipped with a shut-off valve that can stop the further draining of storm water or spilled material there from into the street or storm drain system. Spills will be immediately cleaned up according to Spill Contingency Plan. Energy Dissipaters — Energy dissipaters are to be installed at the outlets of new storm drains, which enter unlined channels, in accordance with applicable agency specifications. / .✓ S 10. Catch Basin Stenciling — Phase "No Dumping — Drains to Ocean" or eqi wpy effective phrase to be stenciled on catch basins to alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into storm water. SI 1. Diversion of Loading Dock Drainage — Below grade loading docks for grocery stores and warehouse/distribution centers of fresh food items will drain through water quality inlets or to an engineered infiltration system; or an equally effective alternative. Water Quality Inlets — Water Quality Inlets designed to remove free phase liquid petroleum compounds, grease, floatable debris, and settleable solids can be used in the following applications:. S3, S5, S11_ WQMPCorrList_I 0-03 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p f!;a. ,C E 3. Pages 24 and 25, Section on Retaining Wall and Figure 18: • Please evaluate the global stability of the wall. • The lateral earth pressures recommended for seismic conditions appear to be too low. Please provide computations for review. Please correct the last paragraph of Page 24 to present the correct figure number. Response: • Please refer to the structural calculations included with this submittal, which include the results of a Finite Element "Plaxis" analysis. • The earthquake -induced lateral earth pressure for conventional cantilever walls is calculated based on the Mononobe-Okabe method as presented in the attached • (Attachment 8) spread sheet print out. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.42g with a Kb to PGA ratio of 0.5 and friction angle of 32 degrees were utilized in the analysis. The f • • ` 3 `" • • " u ` ansient load's _ The last paragraph of page 24 of the soil eport should refer to Figure 18 instead of 17. However, a conventional retai ng wall is not considered for the proposed improvements. General (Recommendations on Retaining Walls): it 'ft"'"'t • Please indicate the locations of any adjacent structures ne 4the proposed retaining wall. Verify that the proposed construction including dewatering and/or lowering of the perched water table would not have negative impact on any adjacent structures. Also indicate whether a suitable monitoring system is required. • The drawings indicate that the soil nailed wall is permanent. Computations by PB&A indicate it is temporary. Please review the computations for conformance with soils report. Response: • Please refer to our response to the second item of the comment no. 1 for the dewatering impact on adjacent structures. Nine monitoring points are recommended at the top of the soil nail wall by the wall designer. We recommend adding five more monitoring points at the top of the retained slope and/or Sunset View Park walkway. Other monitoring measures may be considered by the contractor if deemed necessary. • Please refer to similar comment from the Building Department; this was an inadvertent error on the original submittal. The soil nail retaining wall is designed as a permanent structure and this has been corrected for this submittal. The computations provided are for a permanent wall and are in conformance with the so report Page 18 of 29 TRc Customer -Focused Solutions i 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . Page 36, Section on Parking Lots: Based on the elevations of the parking lots provided in the report, it appears that a portion of the pavement could be founded on material classified as MI-1. Such material could have an R value substantially lower than 30 assumed in the report. Please address. Response: We concur with the reviewer's observation. A recent R-value test on the MH material indicates a value of 17. The R-value test result is attached (Attachment 9). However, the recommended pavement sections were designed conservatively with the anticipation of a lower R-value and will still satisfy the Caltrans design requirements based on the measured R-value. ocument I (Engineering Calculations): • Provided summary sheets for computations are not clear. Please provide computation sheets clearly indicating the input parameters (including design accele ations for the dynamic loading) and the output of the program. 1. Cm.f. ladi 0.2t q,. 1o. /7 Response: ? ' 1 n2nr ot The engineering calculations package has been revised to resp d to this and other • • comments includingindicating the input parameters and output of the program. General: a) Please address the impact of the proposed construction on adjacent properties. b) Please show proposed construction excavations on the cross sections. Response: a) Please refer to our response to the second item of the comment no. I. b) Please see the attached revised cross sections, Attachments 10 through 14. ,7 Please review and comment upon the geotechnical aspects of the grading plan and the / foundation plan and verify that the plans are in conformance with the geotechnical recommendations of the referenced report. Please include a copy of the plans with your response. Response: Plans have been reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Please refer to Sheet 1 of 28 o the Precise Grading Plans for the geotechnical engineer's statement. asRfawl«)'�"' M• zx ro tit ine irrhi .s . a e 1 of'i9� Sic¢ — Sit 0t;11.j L...tera to kW FS 7 Cu er-F So1W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lateral Earth Pressures: Dynamic Active PTIISSU a (Pry) Summary of Variou Conditions PARAMETERS e e Required to. Be Read for Design 'NOTE: AASHTO seismic design for highway Midges 1983 recommends: Whitman and Liao (1955 recommend for M=7 For Do • lacement to less than in Use kv or 0.1 5 0.05 for gravity and anchordownward.edsheet pile & zemsUse the conservative results. , respectively. Assume the vertical acceleration upward. a,?k,, g. a, k(9 Degrees ncl ease the Siren th for 0 norms Event? Dynamic Fimlon Angle (ATANI1. 33'TANW)I: P.r = 0.5'Kk (yi (1-kA•111 F. = 0.54(KnEKA) WO SH 1970, Ke: 110114))'H = 7. Inclination o Back of Wall to Soil Interface from Vertical 0 F 05(K Ka(y11 kd)H 05'0491120'(1-0)PH 294 lanar Slip u ace Inc ination Angle rom Horizontal test): u.marg.. -u=. Restrained Water Kwo A 0AH form Base): u. merge •,'u. Restrained Water u• ergo., -u, Restrained Water ATTACT 8 Pug 31 05 04:34p Newport Bach Fire Department Fire Prevention Division 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644-3106 Plan Check Correction Sheet PLAN CHECK NO.: 1107-2005-1 CONTRACTOR: PROJECT: Hoag Hospital PROJECT LOCATION: 1 Hoag Dr. DATE: 8/12/05 Corrections: AT Lsirt,151(2- p.2 1. Turnaround at Cogen building shall have a minimum diameter of 80 feet and include fire lane markings on plan. Provide sign detail, post installation detail, and curb marking details on plan. (attached) 1 1 1 r w 1 1 1 1 1 1 '. 1 1 Rug 31 05 04:35p Designation Process p-3 Newport Beach Fire Department Fire Prevention — Identification of Fire Lanes Page2of6 Requests for fire lane designation may come from property owners or a member of the Newport Beach Fire Department. A request from property owners shall be made in writing to the Newport Beach Traffic Affairs Committee and the Newport Beach Fire Department, Fire Prevention Division. A scaled plot plan of the property where fire lane designation is desired shall accompany the request, and the plot plan shall have proposed tire lanes denoted in red. The Fire Prevention Division in conjunction with the Traffic Affairs Committee will schedule a hearing to determine the appropriateness of the fire lane request. When approved, the property owner must provide signs and paint the curb or street to City standards. In all cases, an entrance sign shall be provided. Sign and Curb Marking Options Option A All vehicle entrances shall be posted and area's designated as Fire Lanes painted as shown on diagrams 1 and 2. All curbing outlining vehicle access areas shall be painted RED. See reference below. WHITE lettering shall be a minimum of 3" high, reading: "FIRE LANE - NO PARKING" and shall be placed every 30' or portion thereof, on top of designated curbing. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s) to provide, maintain, and place "NO PARKING" signs, markings, striping, white lettering on red pained curbing only in locations where the fire department has designated fire access lanes. Paint Red 6" minimum Rolled Curb (Diagram 1) Building Paint Red Standard Curb Paint Red Building H 8" minimum No Curb Aug 31 05 04:35p - p•4 NOTICE NO PARKING IN RED ZONES VIOLATING VEHICLES WILL BE CITED OR TOWED M.C. 12.40.190 F CVC 22500.1 N.B.P.D. 644-3717 (Diagram 2) Newport Beach Fire Department Fire Prevention — Identification of Fire Lanes Page 3of6 Entrance Sign to Property with Fire Lanes 1. The sign must be approved by the Fire Department and/or City Traffic Engineer and must be a minimum of 18" x 24". 2. Lettering shall be RED on WHITE background, no smaller than 2" in height. 3. The words "Fire Lane" shall be WHITE on RED background, no smaller than 4" in height. 4. The sign shall be securely mounted facing the direction of travel and clearly visible to vehicular traffic entering parking area. 5. Signs shall be of durable material and construction. 6. Arrows may be required to designate the Fire Lane. Police Phone Number Rugg 31 05 04:35p p.5 Option B dard Fire Lane signs shall be posted immediately adjacent to designated Fire Lane are adjoi ' > signs shall be painted red as shown on. diagrams 3 and 4. Signs are requ within 20' of each end of curbed areas and spaced a maximum each fire lane. Ot signs may be required as specified by the Fire Preventio Signs are to face onco '.. vehicular traffic. Some cases may require ....le lanes or posted areas shall be =•inted RED. Newport Beach Fire Department Fire Prevention — Identification of Fire Lanes Page 4 of 6 island curt 20' 100' /. _......... s<d 100' parking � parking Structure Requiring Access Stores, Shops, Offices, etc. Sign Placement on Building 00' 100' All curbs 00' apart thereafter along 'vision. See diagram below. face. All curbs adjoining fire g-- Post with Sign = Red Curb 9 20' I:>l Fire Lane Sign (12' x 18') > Gutter Flow Line B A (Diagram 3) Wall Post Installation A Height of the sign: 7' in sidewalk or pedestrian areas, 5' in all other areas. B Distance from front of curb: 18" with standard curb, 24" with rolled curb, to center of post. C Depth of sign base: 24" minimum embedment. NOTE: Signs may be mounted to existing posts or on a building that is no more than 24" from curb or edge of road surface. 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT September 16, 2005 FROM: Fong T Develo•'ve Services Engineer (949) 644-3324 SUBJECT: PLAN CHECK CORRECTIONS FOR 1505 E. OCEAN BOULEVARD (PLAN CHECK NO. 1107-2005) HOAG PARKING LOT AND RETAINING WALLS Note: In order to expedite the plan check process, it is recommended that the Applicant responds to the below corrections either hereon or through an attachment. Return this Correction Sheet with the next plan check submittal. Corrections: 1. The development is private work. Therefore, delete all City seals and "City of Newport Beach" references from all plan sheets. 2. Fully Dimension all plan sheets, including widths, lengths, depths, etc. 3. Where is the v-ditch Detail-18 shown on sheet 19? ___p 4. Construct water main extension to Superior Avenue to complete the loop system. It would cost cost effective to complete this work during Caltrans' Coast Highway reconstruction project in Fall 2005 when the roadway is "opened". 5. Fully detail each of the proposed water main connections, per City Standards. 6. Confirm the adequacy of a 4-inch PVC sanitary sewer lateral serving the Child Care Center. 7. What is/are the gradient(s) of the proposed Child Care Center sewer laterals? Include the invert elevations on the Plans. 8. A sanitary sewer cleanout is required for that portion of the lateral before it is embedded below the Child Care Center. The proposed cleanout location shown on sheet 27 is not connected to any sewer lateral. 9. Replace storm drain "XX.XX INV" with actual elevations. 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10. A stormceptor or equivalent runoff clarification device shall be installed for the on - site storm drain system where the private storm drain connects to the public system. A filter is not acceptable. 11. Rattle plates shall be placed at on -site locations prior to vehicles enter the public right-of-way. 12. Advise where "All work activities within the Coast Highway right-of-way require an approved Caltrans encroachment permit" is shown on the plans. 13. Where are double.backflow preventer assemblies shown the plans? 14. Sheet 26: Add 2 new 6-INCH (FE X MJ) valves as shown on plan. 15. Sheet 26: What is the purpose of Note 100? 16. Sheet 27: Revise Notes 120 & 121 from 4" TO 6". 17. Sheet 27: Revise Note 122 to include City of Newport Beach STD-406-L. Oka OP N9 USG MBNOPWL HOSPITAL EaksTTN'-DRIP,,g. Arasllr I_-:e 1 i BUILDING • i 2 V FLAMING ' 4 PUBLIC WORKS'.. • 10 —1 7 CO 1, SheetG. Provide a haydmaadated OK CM Plans Wed to Pubic Wake - For T Sht6. Surface parkingarea chews a 9 fox' dminzkr that does not make Tense It shade be shied tadmers'em tiePad'xtr The roadway labdedfnnda Private - Roadwayshews aiagm the mad What is Guth names menmong. See mark up plan Addeond toedway cmfiQLsaan and mnedufsmay be necessary- once Hoag; Ha�.al provides the trofystudy tegadng UK -Ilee1al circulation system. Shi? Widen vdewaks'and piSitaaeas - '- to etminata wheal step* kmakimuma overhang ispeweed - .. 103n5' Ie41v B9L15t2005 foot dimension *hilted to. DKEELY The entry dive to the Chad Cam Canter mcpug- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Plan Check Corrections Hoag — Lower Campus Site Development Plan Check No. 1107-2005 Planner: Gregg Ramirez (949-644-3219) 1. Provide the signature page(s) of the "standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Design/Builder. 2. Coastal Commission Approval Required. 3. Provide documentation showing the disposal location for all cut. material. (Mitigation Measure No. 100). Attachment A Corrosion Design Drawing Review from M.J. Schiff M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 431 W. Baseline Road Claremont, CA 91711 October 12, 2005 LOWNEY ASSOCIATES 251 East Imperial Highway, Suite 470 Fullerton, CA 92835-1063 Attention: Mr. Ali Bastani, Ph.D., P.E., G.E. Phone: (909) 626-09671 Fax: (909) 626-3316 E-mail: mjsa@mjschiff.com http://www.mjschiff.com Re: Design Drawing Review Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall And Parking Lot Newport Beach, California Your # 1651-26, MJS&A #05-1436HQ INTRODUCTION We have completed our review of the design drawings for the subject project in accordance with our proposed scope of services submitted to Lowney Associates on October 3, 2005. In that work scope we proposed review of the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Lower Campus drawings with respect to recommendations made regarding piping materials, soil nails, and concrete as discussed in the MJS&A soil analysis report dated February 11, 2005. Project specifications are understood to be included on the design drawings reviewed. This report provides our conclusions as to if the design for the piping materials, soil nails, and concrete conform with the outlined recommendations of the February 11, 2005 MJS&A report with respect to corrosion control. Laboratory tests from the MJS&A soil report contained three soil samples provided for the referenced project. The purpose testing on those soil samples was to determine if the soils might have deleterious effects on underground utility piping, concrete structures, and retaining wall. We assumed in that analysis that the samples provided were 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. CORROSION CONTROL DISCUSSION Generally, our review shows that corrosion control recommendations of the aforementioned soil report were not fully incorporated into the design drawings. Some of the specific areas where recommendations were not incorporated in the 63-drawing design package are listed below, though CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS • FAILURE ANALYSIS • EXPERT WITNESS • CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS LOWNEY ASSOCIATES October 12, 2005 MJS&A #05-1436HQ Page 2 a more thorough review and incorporation the corrosion control recommendations will be required by the discipline designers for each specific structure or underground facility. For all concrete flatwork, consider providing concrete mix design as outlined in the discussion of soil nails below. Failure to do so could result in aesthetics problems and ultimately safety issues associated with prematurely deteriorating exposed concrete work. Corrosion Protection Requirements: Sheet 2 of 28, under "Corrosion Protection Requirements" contains a note which states, "The Contractor and all subcontractors shall review and take appropriate measures to comply with the soil corrosivity study by M.J. Schiff & Associates dated February 1 1, 2005." Since implementation of the report recommendations required requires reasoned engineering design decisions, include only appropriate portions the report in contract bid documents that give clear direction as to which recommended alternative is to be implemented by the contractor. Sheet 2 of 28, under "Corrosion Protection Requirements" contains a note which states, "Prior to ordering any construction material, the contractor shall submit a corrosion protection measures memorandum detailing its proposed materials, installation procedure and proposed corrosion protection measures to TRC for review and approval by its corrosion specialist. This process, submittal, review, compliance and all appropriate protection measure shall be considered incidental the cost of the materials in the contract and not subject to additional compensation." Consider elimination of this note as it may lead to ambiguities in the construction process. Instead, consider implementation of corrosion control recommendations in accordance with the examples listed below. Soil Nails: Sheet SI of 12 contains a note 1 Shotcrete, which states "Shotcrete shall be produced by a wet mix process w/ Type V cement achieving a minimum compressive strength of 2000 psi in 7 days and 4500 psi in 28 days. Subsequent excavation steps shall not be commenced until the facing has attained at least 1000 psi strength in the area of the proposed cut." Include provisions in this note for a minimum 0.45 water/cement ratio. For all areas of the shotcrete which may contain encased ferrous or other metal, provide protective concrete mix to protect against chloride content of 1,800 ppm in the soil. Such measures should take into account the desired service life, the concrete cover, and corrosion inhibitor and/or silica fume admixture. Sheet S l of 12 contains a note 1 under Grout for Soil nails that states, "Soil nail grout shall be a mixture of Type V cement grout and water and conform to the provisions in "bonding or grouting" of the Caltrains standard specifications. Soil nail grout shall be either a mixture of 4.5-5 gallons of water per 94 sack of cement or a mixture of sand, cement and water containing not less than 864 lb of cement per cubic yard." Include provisions in this note for all areas of the shotcrete which may contain encased ferrous or other metal, protective concrete mix to protect against chloride content of 1,800 ppm in the soil. Such measures should take into account the desired service life, the concrete cover, and corrosion inhibitor and/or silica fume admixture. LOWNEY ASSOCIATES MJS&A #05-1436HQ Inigation System: October 12, 2005 Page 3 Sheet LS5 of 14, Detail D shows direct buried copper/brass piping and fittings. Include provisions to encase 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. Alternately, prevent soil contact, or install a factory coating minimum 100-mil thick such as "Aqua Shield" or similar products. Sheet LS5 of 14, Detail C shows direct buried copper/brass piping and fittings. Include provisions similar to those outlined above for buried copper. Sheet LS5 of 14, Detail B shows direct buried copper/brass piping and fittings. Include provisions similar to those outlined above for buried copper. Sheet LS5 of 14, Detail A shows a concrete pad with unknown mix design. Include provisions similar to those outlined above for concrete. SCE Structure Details and Specifications: Sheet E2 Detail UGS 500.1 shows a concrete slab boxes with unknown mix design. Include provisions similar to those outlined above for concrete. Sheet E2 Detail UGS 530.1 shows a concrete slab boxes with unknown mix design. Include provisions similar to those outlined above for concrete. Sheet E9 Note V 2a indicates a concrete mix design not suitable for the installation. include provisions similar to those outlined above for concrete. CLOSURE The scope of this review was only to review the design drawings with respect to their conformance with previously submitted corrosion control recommendations. The above recommended revisions to the drawings are presented only in order to give an indication of the breath and type of design revisions recommended in order to provide protection against the uniquely severe corrosion environment known to exist at the Hoag site based on soil analysis results and past experience. The above recommendations do not constitute complete and specific design revisions and it is suggested that those revisions be made by the various facilities designers, who have detailed knowledge regarding the materials of construction and the extent of their use. We trust the above information provides sufficiently detailed information to allow for revision of the design drawings for corrosion prevention. If more specific information, design details, specifications, or review of design are desired, please advise and we will be pleased to provide services in a separate phase of this project. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LOWNEY ASSOCIATES October 12. 2005 MJS&A #05-1436HQ Page 4 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. �. Ij A OCIATES, INC. ohn W. French, P. E. Chief Engineer Attachment B Alternate Material or Method of Construction Request 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH feR07 tT w BUILDING DEPARTMENT ilea — 3300 Newport Boulevard, P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 CASE NO.: ❑ REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION TO PROVISIONS I- ! FOR STAFF USE ONLY OF TITLE 15 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH Plan Check # # of Stones MUNICIPAL CODE Occupancy Classification (See Reverse for Basis for Approval) (Fee $186) Use of Building # of Units XREQUEST FOR ALTERNATE MATERIAL Project Sttatustu OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION Construction Type (See Reverse for Basis for Approval) ((Fee $186) Verified by • REQUEST FROM DISABLED No. of items FOR EXEMPTION ACCESS DUE TO PHYSICAL OR LEGAL Fee due CONSTRAINT (Fee $827) (Ratification by the Board of Appeals will be required.) For above requests, complete Sections I, 2 & 3 below by printing in ink or typing. DISTRIBUTION. • Owner ■ .. _........ Plan Check • Petitioner ■ ............Inspector • Fire ❑ ............Other 71 JOB ADDRESS ll ,}gyp SITE ADDRESS:'Tid1 Lfav� �/ Petitioner TAC . _'LAZE 1- Ql T Address 1 T ' *'Nt LZY.q% Owner � VISE cos, Zip924p1E Address G�fA4E i14e VS �� `T Zip a�.gfpt' Daytime Phone (Q4Q 7 �a/� Daytime Phone e49 144 - 44c, L J2b V IQ thaktiEVAittf (2 'REQUEST: Submitplans if necessary to illustrate request Additional sheets or data may be attached. �1LL�Lt s nt1L L L�1414_ '' alper i.roflcJ tt�sTKC (Zs.4 4,11Nrcl 1,0.4-1..i.._- �-rA Vre CJ ¢- j2s S ATt3c Ri l PE a j 3 yUSTIFICATION/FINDINGS OF EQUIVALENCY. CODE SECTIONS: 'JUSTIFICATION/FINDINGS DA IT w -t 4l r nTj vD Y 1- Gy - re) _ 3 ,._LZ�Q r Petitioner' Q �t \f Signature Position ' .. Date II' %'C FOR STAFF USE ONLY _ DEPARTMENT ACTION: In accordance with: • 105 UAC (Alternate materials • 106 UAC (UBC Modification) & methods) • Concurrence from the Fire Marshal is required. ❑ Approved • Disapproved ■ Written Comments Attached By Date • Request (DOES) (DOES NOT) lessen any fire protection requirements. • Request (DOES) (DOES NOT) lessen the structural integrity The Request is ❑ Granted ❑ Denied (See reverse for • Granted (Ratification required) appeal information) Conditions of Approval: Signature Position Date Print Name APPFAI OF DEPARTMENT ACTION TO THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS (See Reverse) (Signature, statement of owner or applicant, statement of reasons for appeal and filing fees are required.) 1 CASHIER VALIDATION (Receipt No.) FonnaVegmodif 10/8/2005 Attachment C Design -Builder Agreement This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. OWNER Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive, P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, CA 92658-6100 By: et Pete Foulke ecutive Vice President RECR SIGNATUR DESIGN/BUILDER !sobs By: Date 5 gsn .Trigg D.te Vice P esident, FD & C RECOMMEND a FO.1•ITURE By: chael C. Parris, P.E. Director of Construction, FD & C RECOMMENDED FOR SIGNATURE APP B ^/d— D f Date David ameda Project Mana.er, FD & C S T !i OR Date I/lo/c5 ephe .w, sq. Date onstruction Policy and Claims Specialist, FD & C 60/05 Tiaee `' AvAr`d 0.-gtv.43ori '\ e36z.\Ct% IRS Employer Identification Number: Design -Builder Agreement Part 1 (Rev 8.31.04) Page 24 of 24 1/10/2005 611398.01/SD H4081-001 /1-10-05/tbciaw HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Design/Builder THIS DOCUMENT HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES; CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOURAGED WITH RESPECT TO ITS USE, COMPLETION OR MODIFICATION. This document comprises two separate Agreements: Pad 1 Agreement and Part 2 Agreement. EXHIBIT J SUPPLEMENTAL GENERAL CONDITIONS 2005 EDITION This AGREEMENT is made as of the day of in the year Two Thousand Five. BETWEEN the Owner: and the Design/Builder. For the following Project: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive, P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Federal Express Address: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Facilities Design & Construction 361 Hospital Road, Suite 229 Newport Beach, California 92663 TRC Solutions, Inc. 21 Technology Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Hoag Project Number TBD-195 Lower Campus Retaining Wall Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive, P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, CA 92658-6100 OWNER CONTRACTOR nitials Initials HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN LOWER CAMPUS RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF SUPPLEMENTAL GENERAL CONDITIONS April 15, 2005 1. Mitigation Measure # 1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall document to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that grading and development of the site shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and with plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. These plans shall incorporate the recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist, subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built' grading plans shall be furnished to the Building Department by the Project Sponsor. 2. Mitigation Measure # 2: Prior 10 the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit documentation to the City of Newport Beach Building Department confirming that all cut slopes shall be monitored for potential instabilities by the project geotechnical engineer during all site grading and construction activities and strictly monitor the slopes in accordance with the documentation. 3. Mitigation Measure # 9: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that a construction erosion control plan is submitted to and approved by the City of Newport Beach that is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and includes procedures to minimize potential impacts of silt, debris, dust and other water pollutants. These procedures may include: - The replanting of exposed slopes within 30 days alter grading or as required by the City Engineer. - The use of sandbags to slow the velocity of or divert stormflows. The limiting of grading to the non -rainy season. The Project Sponsor shall strictly adhere to the approved construction erosion control plan and compliance shall be monitored on an ongoing basis by the Newport Beach Building Department.' 4. Mitigation Measure # 10: Prior to the issuance of grading permits the Project Sponsor shall submit a landscape plan which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering. This plan shall be reviewed by the Department of Parks, Beaches and Recreation and approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The Project Sponsor shall install landscaping in strict compliance with the approved plan. 5. Mitigation Measure # 14: Prior to the completion of final building construction plans for each phase of Lower Campus development, the Project Sponsor shall submit an application to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for an NPDES permit it a construction dewatering or subdrain program is determined necessary by the Building Department based on the design and elevation of the foundation structures. Also, if dewatering is required by RWOCB. the Project Sponsor shall also conduct ground water sampling and analysis, and submit it to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region. The results of this testing will assist in determining the specifications for the NPDES permit. The Project Sponsor shall strictly comply with all conditions of any NPDES Permit 6. Mitigation Measure # 49: In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous materials are handled and disposed in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), standards established by the California Department of Health Services, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. 7. Mitigation Measure If 53: A site safety plan shall be developed that addresses the risks associated with exposures to methane and hydrogen sulfide. Each individual taking part in the sampling and monitoring program shall receive training on the potential hazards and on proper personal protective equipment This training shall be at least at the level required by CFR 2910.120. 8. Mitigation Measure # 55: Continuous monitoring for methane and hydrogen sulfide shall be conducted during the disturbance of the soils and during any construction activities that may result in an increase in the seepage of the gases. The Project Sponsor shall maintain a continuous monitor in the immediate vicinity of the excavation, and a personal monitor, with an alarm, shall be worn by each worker with a potential for exposure. 9. Mitigation Measure if 62: A study of the concentration of potential hazardous constituents shall be conducted prior to initiation of the project to characterize the wastewater and any risks it may pose to human health prior to development. A stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of hazardous constituents from the site. The Hospital shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall comply with all the provisions of the permit, including, but not limited to, the development of the SW PPP, the development and implementation of Best Management Practices, implementation of erosion control measures, the monitoring program requirements, and post construction monitoring of the system. 10. Mitigation Measure # 74: During construction, Project Sponsor shall ensure that an explosimeter is used to monitor methane levels and percentage range. Additionally, construction contractors shall be required to have a health and safety plan that includes procedures for worker/site safety for methane. If dangerous levels of methane are discovered, construction in the 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vicinity shall stop, the City of Newport Beach Fire Department shall be notified and appropriate procedures followed in order to contain the methane to acceptable and safe levels. 11. Mitigation Measure # 82: Before the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department, City of Newport Beach, demonstrating compliance with all applicable District Rules, including Rule 402, Public Nuisance, and Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. 12. Mitigation Measure # 100: The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all cut material is disposed of at either an environmentally cleared development site or a certified landfill. Also, all material exported off site shall be disposed of at an environmentally certified development cleared landfill with adequate capacity. 13. Mitigation Measure # 101: In conjunction with the application for a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall submit a construction phasing and traffic control plan or each phase of development. This plan would identity the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and truck movement in and out o1 the local street system (1.e., flagmen, signage, etc.). This plan shall consider the scheduling operations affecting traffic during off-peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 14. Mitigation Measure # 102: The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform with Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such routes shall be included in the above construction traffic plan. 15. Mitigation Measure # 103: The Project Sponsor shall provide advance written notice of temporary traffic disruptions to affected areas, businesses and the public. This notice shall be provided at least two weeks prior to disruptions. 16. Mitigation Measure If 104: The Project Sponsor shall ensure that construction activities requiring more than 16 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour, such as excavation and concrete pours, shall be limited between June 1 and September 1 to avoid traffic conflicts with beach and tourist traffic. At all other times, such activities shall be limited to 25 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour unless otherwise approved by the City traffic engineer. Haul operations will be monitored by the Public Works Department and additional restrictions may be applied if traffic congestion problems arise. 17. Mitigation Measure # 105: The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all trucks used for hauling material shall be covered to minimize material loss during transit. 18. Mitigation Measure # 106: Project Sponsor shall ensure that all project related grading shall ge performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance which contains procedures and requirements relative to dust control, erosion and siltation control, noise, and other grading related activities. 19. Mitigation Measure 0 107: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require watering during the morning and evening prior to or after earth moving operations. To further reduce dust generation, grading should not occur when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (MPH), and soil binders on SCAQMD approved chemical stabilizers should be spread on construction sites or unpaved areas. Additional measures to control fugitive dust include street sweeping of roads used by construction vehicles, reduction of speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, suspension of operations during first and second stage smog alerts, and wheel washing before construction vehicles leave the site. 20. Mitigation Measure # 110: The Project Sponsor shall ensure that low emission mobile and stationary equipment is utilized during construction, and low sulfur fuel is utilized in stationary equipment, when available. Evidence of this fact shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of any grading or building permit. 21. Mitigation Measure # 111: The Project Sponsor shall ensure that all internal combustion engines associated with construction activities shall be fitted with properly maintained mufflers and kept in proper tune. 22. Mitigation Measure # 112: The Project Sponsor shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. 1 Attachment D Geotechnical Engineer's Permeability Evaluation h) Provide additional geotechnical information necessary for dewatering system designs, soils report to include the following: • Borings to extend a minimum of 20 ft below bottom of proposed excavation. • Provide sieve analysis and permeability value for each soil formation layer to a depth of 20 ft. below bottom of excavation. Response Three borings and four Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) were performed as a part of our geotechnical investigation. The borings and three of the CPTs had a penetration depth of 50 feet below the existing grade (bgs), which corresponds to elevation of -8 to -15 feet below the mean sea level (MSL). The proposed grading will result in an elevation between 13 to 21 feet MSL. Therefore, our borings and CPTs penetrated the ground in the order of 21 to 36 feet below the proposed grade. The boring and CPT logs are provided in the geotechnical report by Lowney (2005). We have attached copies of the sieve analysis tests for the subsurface material at the site performed by Lowney Associates (Attachments 1 and 2), and LeRoy Crandell (Attachments 3 and 4). As indicated in our report (Lowney, 2005) and experienced during construction of Cogeneration Facility, a perched groundwater table exists within the upper terrace deposit over the siltstone and a deeper groundwater level exists at approximate sea level. Siltstone behaves as a barrier for the perched groundwater. The proposed construction will encounter the perched groundwater table and will be above the lower groundwater table. Based on the attached sieve analysis, we estimate the permeability of the lower silty sand portion of the terrace deposit to vary between 10-3 to 0.16 centimeters per second (cm/sec) and the siltstone to have a permeability on the order of 1040 to 10-7 cm/sec based on the material gradation. j) Geotechnical engineer to stamp and sign the shoring plan and dewatering plan, certifying that the design is in compliance with his recommendations. Response Please refer to sheet S 1 of the structural design drawings where the geotechnical engineer has signed certifying that the design is in conformance with his recommendations. Page 10 of 29 TRC Customer -Focused Solutions Attachment E Calculation of Young's Modulus PB&A, INC. ShearWave.mcd 12/10/2005 FOR: Condon Johnson JOB: Hoag Hospital JOB NO.: 050091 DESCRIPTION: Young's Modulus calculation REFERENCE: N/A LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA DATE: 10/21/05 as _ For: Structural EngGadded ineering nama. ,w,a.puandahlc.mm --,paac.cem ccord ng o ie eport o. 1 - 6 re urinary eoo nica n esiigation" prepared for Hoag Hospital from Lowney Associates dated February 25, 2005, the shear wave velocity can be estimated from Figure 14 as follows: Granular Terrace Deposits: Fine Grained Terrace Deposits: Bedrock: ft Vs1:= 540 sec Vs := 720 ft sec ft Vs3:= 800.— sec From the following equation, Shear Modulus: G = p2xVs = yxVs2/g Young's Modulus: Es = Gx2x(1+µ) = 2xyxVs2x(1+µ)/g So the Young's Modulus of each layer can be computed: Granular Terrace Deposits: µ 1= 0.3 y t := 120 pcf 2(1+µ1) Est := 2.yi-Vsi g Fine Grained Terrace Deposits: • 0.3 Est := 2-y2- Vs Bedrock: µ3=0.33 73:= 100.pcf 2 (1 + µ3) Es3 := 213 Vs3 g Est = 2827719.98psf Est = 4189214.79 psf Es3 = 5291220.96psf CONOON-JOHNSON i ITS1tITIES. E11. CONTRACTORS ANC ENGINEERS PAGE := 01 Units Conversion: kip := 1000.1bf l-lbf 01 2 ksi := 1000.psi psf := 1-Ibf-ft2 pcf := 1-Ibf-ft 3 g=32.17ftsec2 in which µ is the known Poisson Ratio. (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainacom Attachment F Reference Standards 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 co O moTh at 5 —�► 2 C/. '5—,_/�14D T3A" '4 Tot 2 "5 E '4 TO 3 //4'g' o. ti o A E U ipp__6w/2 Typical Masonry cons/ruction 2. Cement mortar cap. ryp. Layout line Typ. TYPE A WALL 1 11 III �I 0 11 BE uII° : NIE 111 "4 Tot 2 W Design limits for slope or surcharge..7ypico/. — Masonry construction rive Design H 3- 4' 4'-0' 4= 8' 5- 4' . 6=0' A W 3=2' 3' S' 3'-/O' 42' 4'-6' A A '40/6 '40/6 '4016 '50/6 A 40/6 40/6 '50/6 Footing conc. 2.9 Cu. ft / LE 3.2 3.4 3.7 4.0 Paint. Lbs./LF 8.5 8.9 //.6 12.8 /5.0 '4 Tot. 2 H = 6'-0" max. 2' surcharge 001111d or/ 'R4 Tot 2 W H = 4'-8 max. TYPE B WALL Type Design H k - 4' B W 2-8' 8 A 8 4-o' 4-8' S,-4• 3-0' 3-4' 3=6' 6'- on 4-0' '4416 '44/6 '41/6 '5e16 B '40/6 e48/6 e5616 B DO '44/6 ..41/6 `4e/6 e441/6 '58/6 Fooling cox. Cu. Ft./L.F. 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.6 Rein( Lbs. /L.F. 9. / 9.6 11.8 /2.9 /5.4 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION — SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER PROJONTCOOPERAT IVE EVE LGATED BY THE COMMITTEE 1984 MASONRY RETAINING WALL STANDARD PLAN 618-0 SHEET 1 OF 2 USE WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION r a a an on r r s on a on n a no a s ■.i .n in 2003 p•eye holism ."'non -peen ad*J. ad 'edmed Ades Peon I 7{n lurnacix .,M e$'min. //^���__ ,,,�//// 2- N.'cabx clamp, .adsp/eolls/*Pl\ odhstmenl llypl Pee end 7.n.....animmi"I aim .. i ini7 rai.m. aim mili — a ts _ es cwleiPa.xn il 11 E Onrrbe_ u �. u B 4 G'mae 7p4o/ mut span rya mxrmMUM wise RETAINING WALL IWRmuI Gutter) EXISTING EXISTING SECTION A -A Wm.d41. hen RETAINING WALL IW/IA Gulley) EXISTING (karmic SECTION B-B ELEVATION E Shop arc gull., o' Perron *Weepier. !Faint xaman 0/ Puller /o eloa n.albl4n el railing Pon. Pme /IA S/d NEW CONSTRUCTION SECTION C-C 1 Walk cable 1000'max. Pipe P 5a Oaw floe line /0-0"me,. 4Lo' Typ. mxrmadinx span Typical end .pan RETAINING WALL (Willi Gulley) NEW CONSTRUCTION Eye boll or eye e d //Caddied sleeve 2Mmp or 'unbuckle ` ( ll4. pee cable ALTERNATIVE CABLE CONNECTION e4 Pro 0=9"lo,/pocket POST POCKET ALTERNATIVE DEAD ENO ANCHORAGE Mist cap a be a driven Id /lye) ti NOTES t_,a, _ ,_ JULY 1 1954 L Maximum ei.ance b aeen turnbuckles shop be 200.±. 2 lmmn.eaM turnbuckles to 04 paced in adjacent spans. 3. Cable 5MW/ nal he splicer between intermediate Mnndrkbs and Ind pasts. 4 Alt ROOM. cam — haedwn a be pa4fnire . 5 Posts to be v.,i /. 6 AIpnmenl of MOMs In posh avp very to [Seem a slop nl,ap aI retaining wll. T The Conxo/Mr spat! ver/ry ell depmbnl amnlioni in The Nos Me/we '0 Mp MniaaMf my malerIa. 9 Al/a plin deafly ma be OnmOnd by Me Ceding -ter ass oppwol by las Enclose' 9. tme poor an00 0s bane boviseo/ay end bussed diepwI4 M balk O4.Nrns of Tlnvof not /s exee0d /000 AO. Pen Is to b. [Mired In fop of .at II. cnt end hva•eanm � ein�eectionkalis c m/ae a champion x /z PIONS thimbles at oat cable /raps STANDARD DRAWING .•xs-9-ST can"' 1/84 _.. gut Nov eP e a a+eaw nil .•r Mai Ane soma SI IN MOM Role al CALIFORNIA IVYINGT N TIAMWUlial Mae STRUCTURES -DESIGN CU len NU CABLE RAILING .- .--�-•-hrrrrankerilBII-47 k J.M. TURNER ENGINEERING, INC • CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING HOAG HOSPITAL NEWPORT BEACH, CA SHORING DESIGN CALCULATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED EXCAVATION TO A MAXIMUM DEPTH OF 20' LYN / MAR COMPANY 16213 S. Illinois Ave. Paramount, CA 90723 Excavation shoring design for the above referenced manhole installation. Soil parameters are based on the geotechnical report produced by Lowney Associates, Report No. 1651-26A, Boring log BLB-5. Active Pressure parameters are as follows; Unit Weight of Soil = 120 pcf, Internal Angle of Friction = 32 degrees. A surcharge of 200 psf from existing grade to the bottom of the excavation was added to account for traffic and/or construction equipment adjacent to the excavation, DATE: 05/05/2008 REV: 07/08/08, 07/29/08 BY: AJV SHEET NO: 1 of 2 JOB NO: 10815-1 ,Slain Office: 1335 North Dutton Avenue • Santa Rosa, CA 95401 • Ph: (707) 528-4503 Fax: (707) 528-4505 So. Cal Officer 1468 Rainbow Crest Road • Rainbow, CA 92028 • Ph: (760) 731-9361 Fax. (866) 238-1867 J.M. TURNER ENGINEERING, INC 1335 NORTH DUTTON AVENUE SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 PI#: (707) 52-4503 FAM : (707) 52&A505 suaECT Lyn / Mar Company Hoag Hospital Project SHEET NO OF eY A.J.V. DATE Shoring Design Calculations CHKO BY+ oAT Check Shields, Maximum Depth of 20' - Max. Depth of Top Shield (ft): = 12 Max. Depth of Bottom Shield f,:= 20 (11): Active Pressure: Unit Weight of Sofi (pot): y := 120 Internal Angle of Friction (deg): ¢ := 32 Ka = tan j j 45 — z�.deg2 Ka = 0.307 Surcharge: Surcharge used to account for traffic and/or construction egoiment adjacent to excavation. Soil Pa2 Surcharge (psf): Ps = 200 0 to 20' Maximum Active Pressure at Top Shield (psfl- Pal _ Ka •y H2 Pa1 = 737 Maximum Active Pressure atHottom Shield Pat:= Ka 1-12 Pa2 = 737 besign Pressure for Top Shield: Total Pressure (psi): Ptt := Pat + Ps Pt1 = 937 Design Pressure for Bottom Shield: Surcharge Ps • Use Shoring ield with a Minimum Rating of 937 psf, Total Pressure (pet): P12 Pa2 + Ps P12 = 937 Use Shoring Shield, with a Minimum Rating of 940 psf. 20' NOTES 1) TABULATED DATA FOR EQUIPMENT TO BE USED SHALL BE PROMDED AT THE JOBSITE.. 2) MANUFACTURERS TABULATED DATA APPUES EXCEPT AS NOTED HERE. ]) DIFFERENT SHIELD LENGTHS AND DEPTHS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED INSTALLATION OF DVS06 DUAL VORTEX HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR PROMOED PSF RATINGS ARE MAINTAINED.. INTERCEPTING (E) 36" RCP 4) PROVIDE ACCESS AND BARRICADING PER OSHA REQUIREMENTS awe HOAG HOSPITAL NEWPORT DEACH, CA MANHOLE EXCAVATION PLAN CONTRACT iP 1870-HOG-10-500C4 1' STEEL PLACES \111J �- AT ENDS (TYP) N� I -BEAM UTUTY SUPPORT 8'x18' SHORING SHIELDS (TYP) PLAN VIEW 8" SCH80 PPE SPREADER (TYP) n n O 11 II --i:8' X 16' SHIELD MIN 940 PSF II SECTION CONC, WALL 1" STEEL PLATES AT ENDS (TYP) CUT / REPLACE AND RECONNECT EX. PIPE A OPTIONAL 1:1 SLOPE PROPOSED 8' 0 MANHOLE A GO Z2V MIN MUM DEWATER 2"0 PVC WATER 3' DEEP 4.0 PVC GAS 3' DEEP SEE SETBACK / TABLE 8) 9) 10) 5) CNTRACTGR TO VERIFY THAT REWIRED CLEARANCES ARE OBTAINED.. B) CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTIUTES AND/OR PIPES, PRIOR TO COMMENCING EXCAVATION, IN ORDER TO EUMINATE ANY CONFLICTS WM SHORING SYSTEM 7) SHORING MUST BE PROPERLY INSTALLED PRIOR TO ENTERING EXCAVATION. WORKERS MUST ENTER, EXIT AND WORK IN SHORED AREAS ONLY. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO INSTALL SHORING IN ACCORDANCE NTH THIS PLAN. 1I11 VOID BETWEEN SHIELD AND EXCAVARN UNE WITH SOIL OR BEDDND MATERIAL. MIS PLAN 15 DESIGNED FOR WORKER PROTECTION ONLY. LAYOUT 15 PER CONTRACT DRAWINGS, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THAT MERE IS SUFFICIENT CLEARANCE 4 WORKING SPACE 11) MIS PLAN 15 IN ACCORDANCE WM 0SHA 15411 (0(4) OPTION (4) DESIGN BY A REGISTERED GAL ENGINEER. 12) CONTRACTOR SHALL HAW A COMPETENT PERSON AT THE SITE WHERE MIS PLAN IS IN USE. HE SHALL BE RESPNSBLE MAKING SURE THAT ALL ELEMENTS OF MIS PLAN ARE ADHERED TO AND SHALL NOTIFY ME ENGINEER IF CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED ARE DIFFERENT MAN ANTICIPATED AND SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. IF CONDITIONS ARE DIFFERENT, THIS PLAN MUST BE MODIFIED TO COVER THOSE CONDITIONS OR A NEW PLAN SHALL BE USED. spat C WALL /' RILE FOOUUNDATION OPTIONAL 1:1 SLOPE (E) 38" RCP CUT/REMOVE AND RECONNECT 6' SCH80 PIPE SPREADER (TYP) I -BEAM UTILITY SUPPORT n SECTION © 1 SEQUENCE OF SHORING INSTALLATION 1) EXCAVATE TO DEPTHS AND WIDTHS REWIRED TO INSTALL SI EW SHORING. 2) MOBILIZE AND STAGE 40 TON CRANE. 3) PICK AND SET 10x16 SHIELD 4) PICK, SET AND PIN 8x16 SHIELD TO 10x16 SHIELD. 5) JOIN SEA 4x8 TRENCH PLATES (x4). 8) PICK AND SET J01NE0 448 PLATES VERTICALLY IN EACH OPEN ENDED CORNER OF SHIELD. 7) PICK AND SET 8x12 PLATES (2EA) HON120NTAU.Y N TABS JOINED TO 8x16 SHIELD ABOVE BUT NOT RESTING N (E) RCP. 8) SECURE PLATES TO SHIELDS 9) INSTALL 4x12 TIMBERS UNDER AND UP TO (E) RCP PER PUN. 10) ALL VOID BETWEEN SHIELD AND EXCAVATOR PER PLAN • NOTE - SEQUENCE MAT VARY WE TO EXISTING AND / OR UNru.n tu4 51E CONDITIONS, NM WORKER SAFETY BEING FIST PIb0 T? DURING MO AFTER NISTALLA11N. COMPETENT PERSON TO BE ON SITE AT A11 TIMES. SEE SETBACK /- TABLE SPOIL / PILE OPTIONAL 1:1 SLOPE 4'0 PC GAS 2"0 PC WATER SHORING SHIELD 4: TIMBER LAGGING MINIMUM DEWATER SURCHARGE TABLE X - SETBACK K-RNL H5 20-44 TRAFFIC SPOIL PILE EXCAVATOR DUMP TRUCK 3 CY LOADER 5 CY LOADER CRANE TO 30 TON CONCRETE TRUCK 0 4' B' 16' r tT SCALE: 1/B" a P-O" BY 07/06/06 N0 07/22/08 AV O7/29/04 AV SCALE,8,"I OA 05 wescooRai DEEMING NO: TRC Customer -Focused Solutions HOAG HOSPITAL - LOWER CAMPUS PROJECT 1107-2005 RESPONSE TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMENTS ON PLANS SUBMITTED 5/16/2006. Responses include the following: 1. Public Works Department — Revisions completed 2. Building Department — Revisions completed, additional calculation and memorandum sheets are attached 3. Public Works Department — No comments 4. Fire Department — No Comments WY OF NewpoRT mat buten DEPARTMEW APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EXPRESS OR WIMP AWITH THE UTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT ANY BUILDING IN VIOLATION OF OR INCONSISTENT APPROVAL DOES NOT GUARANTEE EE AND THAT THESSEELICIES OF TPtANS ARE, IN NEWPORT THIS N REVISE f WITH CITy DING, MDSONING �ASITETHE CITY ONEWPORTRT BEACH RESERVES RIGHT TO REQUIRE ERMITTETO BEFORE, DURING OR FTER CONSTRUCTION,HE BUILDING STRUCTURE OR IMPROVEMENT NECESSARY TO AUTHORIZEDBY TPLANS H TTHA ORDINANCES, PLANS AND POLICIES OF THE CRY OF TIEWPORT BEACH. PERNITTEE'SACIOVN IDGUERT, RADING PLANNIN( sr. OVAL 1 DATE • WICNATURe • i TRC21 Technology Drive East Irvine, California 92618 • HOAG HOSPITAL — LOWER CAMPUS PROJECT Response to City of Newport Beach comments on plans submitted 5/16/2006 Date: 06/19/2006 -TOP • a - n 8.6 9. 4 X nivrIP t SitEwr CH1L! 1 NOE 1727;t 16 77. FC 1 cth _1 P PROPOSE» GAS WE N 217422'6' E ,6049352.5 16.40 th 0.2?, SOW ) 15.71 TRC.;; ).. 15.21 BOW ,.._. PAcR`Cl{K. SitEET 16 of 28 THIS PLAN IS FOR GEOMEMic LAYOUT ONLY. 1 III$ • - ATbW-LINE—&--UTIti TRENCH- BASE TW =D.3b— H U ; FL = 40.36 N = 2174432.61 E = 6049857.92 _ ]i _ p ia fl / ,'S1 -SRAIN ss NOTE: WALL PROFILE WLL BE INSERTED FROM PB©A SCALE: HORIZ. t' - 20' VERT. 1' a 4' NE — OF THE WA4,-. STA: 15+92.98 T `- I }- or r CUSTOMER -FOCUSED SOLUTIONS PREPARED BY EXPIRE DATE: 12-31-06 PCF 527R7 ?ACM Pt '5 ter lb of tf • atm-rim @ cps t *L4_ to bt. -trrnNLt. SEC ittspo►.» L lb Lornrr+USTS 14trnor Pdmjrn, Vb * P. L h31 Comrnt io.2 FINISHED GRADE FROM PROPO° ED GRADING TRIM/REGRADE BEHIND WALL l GRADE BREAK TW TOP OF WALL tb 0 28 c ADPROPOSED HACK DRAIN LOCATION SEG ttwenosL Tb Gornrnt r+Lr►+oeM.rDuvet .. Yb tK to1r3tb' Con,tnttsT ►4b.3 $ et PROPOSED FINISH a. AT TOE OF WALL'. tin 4kti 8r$e 5i o s z s g Xis as as Fn.-it Pt SN2tr 18of et P•OP• n. Rnrmu pF ETfINING WALL (PROP. FINISHED GRADE MIN. 18") LEM*t uue ?Atli M. S14FeET 16 o{ 28 rM V CMCPI 1 JVIns 17 NOT TO SCALE 19 RETAINING WALL BROW DITCH (18NOT TO SCALE 9. 0" YARTIAi.. S14eel iq e6 2a J:I131050000-AAAA1050090-Hoag Hospita11050094-NewAlignment Calcs106-13-06-Supplementa116over&lntlex 6/13/2006 11:58 AM SM. son w-- a— alaa Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS Permanent Soilnailed Retaining Wall Hoag Hospital Newport Beach, CA. FOR; ,CONDOM - JOHNSON Sr A*$SCIATEJ. INC. CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS 'S2,7 Job No. 50094 April 25, 2006 Rev 1. April 28, 2006 Rev 2. June 13, 2006 124 Greenfield Avenue, CA. 94960. TEL. 415-259-0191 FAX. 415-259-0194 e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com PIROOZ BARAR & ASSOCIATES Index Page:1 6/13(200611:59 AM Mese - Mee MI e MO Mee Me e OM Me- e eel{ Mine — _- lstIe(A1II. ire. Pirooz Barar & Associates CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS Structural Engineering JOB NO.: 50094 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA CONDON • JOHNSON Date: Page: I Rev. 1 Rev. 2 19-Apr-06 28-Apr-06 13-Jun-06 CONTENTS PAGE 0) INDEX I) Design of 11.5 ft. SoilNailed Wall w/ 2 Rows of Nails (Section 1) 1 thru 5 II) Design of 18.0 ft. SoilNailed Wall w/ 3 Rows of Nails (Section 2) 6 thru 10 11I) Design of 23.0 ft. SoilNailed Wall w/ 4 Rows of Nails (Section 3) 11 thru 15 IV) Design of 24.0 ft. SoilNailed Wall w/ 4 Rows of Nails (Section 4) 16 thru 20 V) Design of 29.5 ft. SoilNailed Wall w/ 5 Rows of Nails (Section 5) 21 thru 25 VI) Design of 32.0 ft. SoilNailed Wall w/ 6 Rows of Nails (Section 6) 26 thru 34 VII) Design of 31.5 ft. SoilNailed Wall w/ 6 Rows of Nails (Section 7) 35 thru 43 Vlll) Design of 31.5 ft. SoilNailed Wall w/ 6 Rows of Nails (Section 8) 44 thru 52 IX) Design of 31.5 ft. SoilNailed Wall w/ 6 Rows of Nails (Section 9) 53 thru 61 X) Design of 29.0 ft. SoilNailed Wall w/ 6 Rows of Nails (Section 10) 62 thin 70 XI) Design of 27.0 ft. SollNailed Wall w/ 6 Rows of Nails (Section 11) 71 thru 79 XII) Design of 26.5 ft. SoilNailed Wall wl 6 Rows of Nails (Section 12) 80 thru 84 XIII) Punch Shear Calculation 85 thru 89 XIV) PLAXIS Global Stability Analysis For Section 6(Temporary Condition) 90 thru 101 XV) Young's Modulus Calculation 102 XVI) Slope Stability Calculation 103 thru 112 `:VII) PLAXIS Global £lability Analysis For Section 6(Pormanent Condition) 113 Oyu 122 XVIII) Stability of Retaining Wall Calculation 123 thru 124 APPENDIX A) SOIL -REPORT B) Winslope Analysis Procedure C) Geometry and Soil Profile of The Sections 124 greenneid Ave, San Anselmo CA 94960 P4415)259-0191, F:(415)259.0194 pba@pbandainccom PB&A, INC. RetWallStability.mcd:1/2 12:03 PM:6/13/2006 FOR: Condon -Johnson JOB: Hoag Hospital JOB NO.: 050094 DESCRIPTION: Soil Nail Wall REFERENCE: CALTRAN'S TRENCHING AND SHORING MANUAL LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA DATE : 06-08-06 For Retaining Wall height H<4.0 ft: HI := 4.0.ft l := 12.in WI:=4.0ft Yconc := 1501pcf Ysoil 120.pcf Ka 0.3 := 0.4 Overturninq(Point 01 Driving Moment (Height of Retaining Wall) (Thickness of Retaining Wall) (Length of Retaining Wall Footing) (Unit Weight of Concrete) (Unit Weight of Soil) (Active Pressure Coefficient) (Friction Coeffcient) t Mic1 := Yconc'(Hl + t1).t1. 2 .lft Mlpressure ' Z •Ka'Ysoil MIei = 0.37kip.ft Mlpressure= 0.67kip, ft Mldriving = 1.05 kip.ft Mldiving Mid1pressure Resisting Moment WI MIsod?soil W1 Hl 2 111 MIsoil= 3.84kip•ft MIresistingMlsoil + M1c2 FSIo;= Mlresisting Mldtiving Sliding Driving Force Flpressure'— 1-Ka'Ysoii.H1•Hl itt Flpressurc=0.29kip Resisting Force FT -friction := µ '[Yconc'[(Hi + t 0't l + 1A11.111 + YsoiP l' l Lft Flfriction= 1.31kip FS1 := Flfriction FS1 = 4.54 s Flpressure s 1 1 W1 M1c2:= Yconc W1 tl 2 lft M1c,= 1.2kip•ft MI resisting = 5.04 kip • ft FSIo = 4.81 Firooz Barg & Associates Structural EnOnecs '-,_ . CONDON • JOHNSON itlt0II11t. IIt. CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS 0 PAGE := 123 Units Conversion: kip := 1000 Ibf kvs„IA:= 1.lbf.in— 2 ksi 1000•psi psf := 1 lbf ft 2 pcf := 1 lbf ft3 1 +tl)•lft \3 • Wc2 0 LENGTH OF 'SETA NING WALL _E02TII IL (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com PB&A, INC. RetWallStability.mcd:2/2 12:03 PM:6/13/2006 For Retaining Wall height 4.0 ft<H<7.5 ft: 112 := 7.5.ft (Height of Retaining Wall) t2 := 12•in (Thickness of Retaining Wall) W2 := 6.0•ft (Length of Retaining Wall Footing) "(cone 150 pcf (Unit Weight of Concrete) rsoil := 120•pcf (Unit Weight of Soil) K 0.3 (Active Pressure Coefficient) Overturninq(Point 01 Driving Moment M2c2 icone'(H2 + t2).t2. 2 .1ft M2pressure := 2'Ka'Tsoil'H2'H23'H2 + t2•1ft M2c2 = 0.64kipol M2pressure = 3.54 kip. ft M2driving := M2c2 + M2pressure M2driving — 4.18kip. ft Resisting Moment W2 M2soil TsoiFW2'H2Ti lft M2soil = 16.2kip ft M2c W2 = Tconc W2 t2 2 lft M2c2 = 2.7kip-ft M2resisting := M2soil + M2c2 M2resisting = 18.916p'ft FS2: M2resisting FS2 = 4.52 s M2driving s Sliding Driving Force F2pressure = 2'Ka'Tsoil'H2 Hylft F2pressure= 1.O1kip Resisting Force F2friction:= µ'Pconc'RH2 + t2)12 4 W2121 + Tsoil'H2'W21•1ft F2 friction = 3.03 kip "friction FS2_ `pressure FS2s = 2.99 t'AGE = 124 (7)415.259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com _- __ aL r— — _ __ s — — --- Ma — Salla �— aleall —a s Y a Illalas' •ter — — W a OM _—_ IS — NMI a 'ea tam ma ow MI MP W es Structural Engineering To: GEORGE BURROUGH From: PIROOZ BARAR Date: June 13, 2006 Subject: Response to Comments www.pbandainc.com MEMORANDUM 2athAnniversary Job No.: 050094 Job Name: Hoag Hospital - SN Wall Realignment Company CONDON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES Address: 9303 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE SUITE B City: SAN DIEGO State: CA Zip: 92123 We have received additional plan review comments (request for clarifications) under two separate covers as follows; • E-mail from Ms. Juliet Su of TRC dated June 9, 2006 containing an e-mail from Mr. Ali Bastani of TRC /Lowney dated June 7, 2006. These the comments in Mr. Ali Bastani's e-mail revolve essentially around the same comments that we had responded to in our memorandum dated June 7, 2006. • E-mail from Mr. Tom Dean of TRC dated June 9, 2006 containing comments from Mr. Ali Naji of the Building Department of the City of New Port Beach. • Response to Mr. Bastani's Comments; (Please refer to our memorandum dated June 7, 2006.) Comment No. 1; PB&A needs to justify why additional soil nails are not required (at the corner of the • interface of the (N) Soilnail Wall and the (E) Soldier Beam Wall). Background; The conventional design for soil nailed walls (Our in-house program "Winslope" included) is basically based on a two-dimensional section of the wall, which is analyzed, similar to a slope -stability analysis, for limit equilibrium. This analysis obviously does not take into account boundary conditions and has proved to yield reasonable results over the years. • In our opinion a two-dimensional analysis of a section of a soilnail wall, in certain ways, is conservative as it does not take into account the frictional resistance that would be mobilized on the "sides" of a hypothetical slice, that is under consideration. Conversely, a short segment of a U-shaped soilnail wall, when designed by conventional methods would not have proper factors of safety. In summary, in our experience soil nail walls (design of over 2.5 million ft of soil nail wall over the past 23 years) with bends and walls at 90° corners exhibit stability and stiffness and do not require additional nails. Comment No. 2; Response to Comment No. 2; Will be subject to more discussion when the details become available. We have provided plan view of the joint between the (N) Soilnailed wall and the (E) soldier beam and tieback wall (see Plan View 4/S7). The exact detail and/or condition of the shotcrete facing of the part of the (E) soldier beam and tieback wall that is behind the (E) crib wall is not know at this time. A note has been added to verify in the field the condition of the (E) shotcrete facing of the wall. Comment No. 3; Response to Comment No. 3; Need to provide details regarding the design of the upper cantilever wall, connection of the cantilever wall and the soil nail wall, and their interaction. Please see attached calculations. The design of the cantilever wall includes adequate F.O.S. through friction for sliding. In addition we have provided dowels for continuity. See 4/S6A & S7. 124 GREENFIELD AVE. • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 • TEL: 415-259-0191 FAX: 415-259-0194 email: pba@pbandalnc.com -Web: www.pbandainc.com Job ID: 050094 .b Name: Hoag Hospital - SN Wall Realignment Subject: Response to Comments www.pbandainc.com Date: June 13, 2006 PAGE 2 • Response to Mr. Mr. Ali Naii's Comments; Comment No. l; Revised plan and Calculations submittal. Will be complied with. Comment No.2 ; Detail 2/S6A size of Nuts and Washers; The size of the nuts and the washers are compatible with the specified size of the bars and are per manufacturer's specifications. Comment No.3 ; Calculations for the Cantilever Wall; Please see response to comments #2 above. Also please see already submitted calcs for surcharge loading of the soil nailed wall (Page 62, 66, 71, 75 and 80. Comment No.4; Revised plan and Calculations submittal. Will be complied with. Should you have any questions and/or Comments please do not hesitate to call us at 415 259-0191. Pirooz Barar, S.E. or-Syi PB&A Inc. cc. James C. Juliani / TRC Fax: 949 727-7399 • 124 GREENFIELD AVE. • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 • TEL: 415-259-0191 • FAX: 415-259-0194 email: pba@pbandainc.com -Web: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TRC L Mr. Jim Juliani TRC SOLUTIONS 21 Technology Drive Irvine, California 92618 Dear Mr. Juliani: RE: FLAN REV EVV hese plans have been re_,s viewed and are found to be in saa. •/yip p!iance with the applicable grading codes adopted by Cary of wport Beach. App>ovel is recommended for permit issuance ending approval by all applicable City departments and agencies. permittee shal ensure that ail pars, specifications and truction conducted her-BOW!l r r ha l compiy;n all respects to the able codes and ordinances and by commencing construction nder„ agrees to retesos and indemnify City and it's consultants nd against any code violations in the completed work. suance or granting ct a permit based on approval of these s shall not allow or approve any violation of the applicable codes r,onances. No permit presumed to give authority to violate oar 651-26B16'c ell ',isions of such codes or ordinance shall he valid, BAGAHI ' DINE RRN INC. GLOBAL STABILITY SOILGN HOAG HOSPITAL LOWER CAM NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORN Please attached find a copy of our global stability analyses for the subject project per the City of Newport Beach request. We utilized Gstable7 v.2 with STEDwin 3.0 software package for the stability analysis. We understand that the stability of the improved soils by soil nails have been addressed by Pirooz Barar & Associates as presented in their report revised on April 28, 2006 under job number 50094. Therefore, the attached analyses address the global stability of the soil nail walls behind the improved areas. To perform a critical failure surface search behind the proposed soil nails, two method of circular search and block search were utilized. The strength of the proposed soil nails were increased to force the critical circular failure surface behind the soil nails and a set of blocks were defined behind the soil nails for the block search method. Bishop and Janbu methods were utilized for circular and wedge analysis, respectively, to obtain the critical failure surface for each section. The critical failure surfaces were analyzed by Spencer method for the final factors of safety. The analysis indicated that the circular mode of failure would provide a lower factor of safety. The Gstable7 analyses were reanalyzed by Slope/W v.5.11 with a circular stability searches for three of the sections to evaluate the adequacy of the final safety factor by a separate software package using the Spencer method. Results of the stability analyses are summarized in the attached table. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us and we will be glad to discuss them with you. Very truly yours, Dar?-2.0 o� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS DOES NOT CONSATUTE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED AUTHORIZATION 70 CONSTRUCT ANY BUILDING IN VIOLATION OF OR INCONSISTENT WITH IN ORDINANCES PAN APOLI�JSOTE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH THISAPPROVAL RDNIGUARANTEE THATHESE CO COMPLIANCE WITH C IT , CH BE AND Dry Nay ORDINANCES, PLANS AND IN ALL POLICIES. GHT TO ANY PERM-HEE T REVISE THE BUILDING STRUCTURE OR IMPROVEMENT AAUTHORIIZED RE BY THESE PLANS BEFORE. DURING OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION IF NECESSARY 70 COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCES, PLANS AND POLICIES OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. PERMITTEE'S ACI(NOWLEDGMENT: • FN, P:\Project\1651-26 (TRC-Hoag Hospital)\Engineering\ Soil Nail Check 2006 iSIGNATURE) PUELIC - lette®OMTUR WORKS AT GENE RAL SERVICES ERE .RADIN PLANNMG IM.P 251 E. Imperial Hwy, #470 Fullgyton,.CA 92835 APPROVAL TO ISSUE Main: 714.441.3090 Fax: 714. OATS-�� E-mail: mail@lowney.com htt0://www.lownev.com TRC LOWREY S. Ali Bastani, PhD, PE, GE Associate, Area Manager CH/SAB: Ig Copies: Addressee (4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hoag Hospital Soil Nail Wall (1651-26B) Factor of Safety calculation for Rev 1. 4/28/2006 PB&A Design GSTABL7 v.2 Global Slope Stability Analyses Section and Condition Station Location Circular failure (Spencer) Block Failure (Spencer} Section 1, Perm Static 4+13.00 1.66 1.96 Section 1, Perm Pseudo -Static 1.33 1.51 Section 2, Perm Static 4+78 00 1.93 2.06 Section 2, Perm Pseudo -Static 1.57 1.70 Section 3, Perm Static 5+25.00 1.78 1.93 Section 3, Perm Pseudo -Static 1.51 1.67 Section 4, Perm Static 7+02.50 1.74 1.85 Section 4, Perm Pseudo -Static 1.47 1.62 Section 5, Perm Static 9+00.00 1.71 2.09 Section 5, Perm Pseudo -Static 1.44 1.62 Section 6, Temp Static 9+00.00 1.49 1.58 Section 6, Perm Static 1.68 (1.571 1.85 Section 6, Perm Pseudo -Static 1.40 1.66 Section 7, Temp Static 11+28.90 1.53 1.85 Section 7, Perm Static 1.67 (1.561 2.00 Section 7, Perm Pseudo -Static 1.39 1.57 Section 8, Temp Static 11+71.40 1.53 1.83 Section 8, Perm Static 1.77 2.28 Section 8, Perm Pseudo -Static 1.45 1.45 Section 9, Temp Static 12+86.55 1.56 1.73 Section 9, Perm Static 1.69 (1.59*) 1.81 Section 9, Perm Pseudo -Static 1.42 1.73 Section 10, Temp Static 13+03.40 1.50 1.53 Section 10, Perm Static 1.66 1.66 Section 10, Perm Pseudo -Static 1.58 1.58 Section 11, Temp Static 13+95.90 1.48 1.47 Section 11, Perm Static 2.05 1.95 Section 11, Perm Pseudo -Static 1.86 1.77 Section 12, Perm Static 14+04.40 1.71 1.85 Section 12, Perm Pseudo -Static 1.69 1.79 Notes: * Re -analyzed using Slope/W Perm=Permanent; Temp = Temporary 1 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 1, Perm Static, Circ Global, SP 0.(SLOPE\IPCS.PLT Run By: TRC Lowney 77192006 2:30PM 200 150 100 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmins1.66 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2) Sul Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pies. Desc. Type Unit WI. Unit5M. Intercept Anent Surface( No. (POI (Da0 (p.0 (deg) No SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 W1 BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 052 Load Value Z_. GSTABL 200 150 100 1 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 1, Perm Static, Block Global, SP F\GSTABLIIPBSDLT Run By: TRC Lamey 7/16/2006 1147PM 50, 0 Soil Sail Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pier Desc. Type Unit V31. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface No. (pc0 (pa0 (P0 Meg) No. SPSM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 051 MH 2 100.0 1000 400.0 /85 W1 BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 W2 Load Value it 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.96 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2) GSTABL7, 200 150 100 50 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 1, Perm EQ, Circular Global, SP C.MSLOPEI1PCOS.PLT Run By:TRC Loxney 7(19/2006 224PM Sail Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Fnction Plez, Load Value Desc. Type Unit W. Unit Wt. Inlercept Angle Surface No, (15ci) (Pc0 (WO (deg) No FpnzE 0 210 g� SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 1330 39.7 W1 MR 2 1000 1000 532,0 21.5 WI BR 3 100.0 1000 698.0 29.5 W2 0 GSTABL7 200 150 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABLT v.2 FSmin=t33 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 1, Perm EQ, Block Global, SP F:GSTABLIIPBOS.PLT Run By: TRC Loymey 7ne2006 11 45PM f T Soil Sal Total Salurated Cohesion Fdcnon P102. Cesc, Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt Intercept Angle Surface No. (pc0 (WI (oa0 (deg) No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 133.0 39.7 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 W1 BR 3 100.0 1000 8980 295 W2 0 GSWAHL? Load Value Hera Eqk 0.2100e 1 50 100 150 200 250 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.51 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0.2) 300 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 200 150 100 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 2, Perm Static, Circ Global, SP C1SLOPECPOS.PLT Run By. TRC Lovmey 7I192006 1:49PM 0 GSTABL7 200 Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Load Value C Dose. Type Unit Wl. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface) No. (Pc0 (pc0 IpsO (deg) no. SPSM 1 /20.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 W1 �' —, MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 611 I BR 3 100.0 100.0 5250 23.0 612 I —L 50 100 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 Fsmn=1.93 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) 250 300 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 2, Perm Static, Block Global, SP 150 F- 100 r- f 1GSTABL2PB5.PLT Run By: SRC Lowney 71162006 1099PM Soil Sal Total Saturated cohesion Friction Piez. Load Value Dena Type Unit WI. I (i1N1. Intercept Angle S1,19,, - No. Ipc9 (p0 Ipsl) (day) No I; SPSM 1 1200 120.0 400.0000 32.5 W1 MH 2 100.0 100.0 16.5 611 1 BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 21.0 MRJ to- 50., 0 0 GSTABL7n _ L 50 100 150 200 250 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmmnt2.06 Factor d Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2) .1 300 200 150 100 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 2, Penn EQ, Circ Global, SP CSLOPEI2PCOSPLT Run By:TRCLoaney 7/192006 156PM 50L 0 0 OSTAHL7 200 150 100 50 5011 Sok TOW Saturated Cohesion Fribon Piez. oesc. Type Unit WI. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface No. (p10 OAS IPs) (deg) No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 133.0 39.7 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 5320 215 WI BR 3 1000 /00.0 6980 29.5 W2 Load Vnalue L. HolizEW 0.210 g< 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmino1.57 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 2, Perm EQ, Block Global, SP F 1GSTABL(2P000.PLT Run By; TRC Loxney 7/16/2006 10:42PM Soil Sal Total Saturated Cohesion Frithon Raz. ) Dew Type Unit Wt. Un1IW0. Intercept Angle Sudacel No. (pc0 (pcll (ps0 (deg) No. SPSM 1 120.0 120.0 133.0 39.7 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 698.0 29.5 W2 0_ 1 0 50 OSTABL7 Load Hodz E0k Vale 0.210g< L 1_ I 100 150 200 250 300 CSTABLT v.2 FSminn1.70 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers( Method (0-2) 200 150 100 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 3, Perm Static, Circ Global, SP CSSLOPBSPCSPLT Run By TRC Lowrey 7/19/2006 2.01PM Shc Soil Total Saturated COSesi00 Fncton Pier. i Load Value Dew. Typo Unit WA. Unit NA. Intercept Angle Surface'.trth No. (pcO (pof) (WI Idee) No. L= SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 12.0 WI 14 MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 612 GSTABL7 200 150 100 50 0 50 100 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.76 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 3, Perm Static, Block Global, SP F WSTABL\3PBS.PLT Run By: TRC Lo wley 7/16/2006 10'.I7PM Sal Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pier. Dew. Type Un1 Wt. Unit WI. Intercept AyN Sunlace No. (pc0 (pci) (pa0 (det) No, SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 320 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 230 W2 Load Valor 0 GSTABL7 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.93 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2) 200 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 3, Perm EQ, Circ Global, SP C\SLOPE\ZPCOS.PLT Run By: TRC Lowney 7/19/2006 208PM Sal Sod Total Saturated Cohesion Fticdon Piez. ' Desa Type Unit NA. WA W1. Intercept Angle Surface No. (Pan (Pu) 6¢Q (deg) No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 133.0 39.7 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 6980 29.5 W2 150 — 100 — 50 —_ 200 Load Value 11 oia 11 (kw HonzEnk 0.210go I 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.51 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 3, Perm EQ, Block Global, SP F.\GSTABLa3PBCS.PLT Run By'. TRC Lov.ey 7/160006 10.20PM Sal Soil Total Satiated Cohesion Faction Rei Desc No. Unit i) UnitWI.IrR(pnl) (doAngl) s No ce No. 1x0 (200 1330 (3e7 WI SP-SM 2 120.0 120.0 532.0 21.5 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 WI 6 BR 3 100.0 100.0 98.0 29.5 W2 150 — 100 5C— 0 Load Value IA lu Honz Eek 0.210 go F 0 GSTABL7 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.67 Factor 01 Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spence( s) Method (0-2) 200 150 100 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 4, Perm Static, Circ Global, SP C:SLOPENPCS.PLT Run By: TROLonney 7/19R006 2:13PM -r Soil Soil ToW Satiate Cohesion Fnctan Ritz. Deco. Type Una W. Unit W. Intercept Angle Surface No. (pc0 (pc6 (1s0 (deg) No. SP-SM 1 120.0 1200 100.0 32.0 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 WI BR 3 1000 100.0 525.0 230 W2� Load VeWe fr 0 _—___ ___l__ _L_L_____—_ 0 50 100 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.74 Factor Of Safety is Calculated By GLE (Spencers( Method (0-21 GSTABL7 250 300 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 4, Perm Static, Block Global, SP RIGSTPBLWPBS.PLT Run By TRC Lowey 7/160006 940PM 200 SPA soil Total Salraled Cohesion Fdcoon Prez, Ir Load Value Ileac. Type Una Wt. UMW. IMercepl Ngk Surface) Li 1.11 No. (pc0 (prn 1po0 (deg) No I( f, SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 W1 l r MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 W1 BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 Wt 150 1- 0 0 50 GSTA8L7, L / 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.85 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) 200 150 100 50 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 4, Perm EQ, Circular Global, SP C ISLOPENPOO6.PLT Run By: TRC Lovwiey 7/19/2006 2:17PM Soil Soil Total Ling t. Cohesion Fdcdon Piez. Dem. Type Unit SM. Unit 0M. Intercept Angle Surface Na. (p=n (Psn wNo. SP-SM 1 120.0120. 120.0 133.0 ]9.79,] WI MH 2 1000 100.0 522.0 21.5 WI Hptl=E9k 0.210g- BR 3 100.0 100.0 698.0 29.5 W2 0 GSTABL7 200 Load Value L2 LI 50 100 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1A7 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (spencers) Method (0-2) 250 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 4, Perm EQ, Block Global, SP F\GSTABLAPBOS.PLT Run By: TRC Lowney 7/152006 957PM 150 k 50 L Soil Sal Total Saturated Cohesion Fncton Rez. Oeac Type Unit NA. Unit Ya. Intercept Angle Surface No. (wi (pc9 (pa0 (dam No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 1330 39.7 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 5220 21.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 898.0 29.5 W2 Load Value Honz Eqk 0210 gc 0 _1 1 0 50 100 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.62 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2) GSTARL7/ 300 250 300 200 150 100 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 5, Perm Static, Circ Global, SP C: .SLOPEOSPCS.PLT Run By: IRO Loymey 5192006 2:36PM Sol Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piet 1 Los Value 1 Dem. Type LINOS UniYN. Intercept Angle Surface - No, IPS (poll (pot) (deg) Na. i L1 SP-SM 1 120.0 120,0 100.0 32.0 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 WI , i. c' J 0R 3 100,0 100.0 525.0 23.0 W1 e GSTABL7 200 150 100 3 1 L 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.71 Factor Of Safety is Calculated By GU (spencers) Method (0-21 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 5, Perm Static, Block Global, SP CASLOPEISPBS,PtT Run By. Utarnama 7/132006 11:320,10 T 4— Sod Sal Total Saturated Cohesion Fncson Pier. Load Value Cesc. Type unit mt. 1Mit S Intercept Angle surface 1.1 No. (PS (Poll IPSO Ide9) No t= SPSM 1 1200 120.0 100.0 32.0 WI 1' MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 WI L e,n RR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 W2 50.- 0 50 100 150 GSTABL7 v,2 FSmin=209 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer sl Method (0-2) GSTABL7, 200 250 200 150 100 50 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 5, EQ, Circular Global, SP C:ISLOPE\5PC05.PLT Run Sy TRC LOMney 7/19(2006 246PM Sal 5a) Total Saturated Cohesion Fnc6cn Pies Gesc. Type UMVu. Unit 9M. Intercept Angle Surface No. (pc0 (pc0 (PM (deg) No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 133.0 39.7 WI NH 2 1000 100.0 532.0 21.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100 0 8980 29.5 992 0 GSTABL7 200 Load Value t1 Holz Eqk 0.210 g< 50 100 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.44 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 5, EQ, Block Global, SP G (SLOPELSPB05 PLT Run By: Usemame 7/132006 11 31AM rSoil Sal Total Sa9nled Cohesion Factor) Fez. Load Value Nesc. Type Unit WWI. Una NI. Intercept ANN 5W(ace 1-z No. (Pal (egg (psi (deg) Na 6i. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 131.0 39.s WI f" MM 2 1M.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 WI L5 r-, BR 3 100.0 100.0 698.0 29.5 W2 I Hedz Eqk 0210 g< 150 F 100 F- 50 0 50 100 150 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.62 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Mauled (0-2) GSTABL7 200 250 7 250 300 300 200 150 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 6, Temp Static, Circ Global, SP C\SLOPEKTCS.PLT Run By'. TRC Lowrey 7/192006 3:211iM SRI Soil Total Saturated Conevon Friction Prez. Oesc. Type Una Wt Unit W. Intercept NqM Surface SP-SM M1 120.0 120.0 100.0 (deg)3WI MH 2 100.0 100A 400.0 165 WI BR 3 1000 100.0 5250 23.0 Wt 100 - 50 s1L 0 Load Value 1. 0 GSTABL7 200 150 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmIn=1.49 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spence(s) Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nat Wall Section 6, Temp Static, Block Global, SP C\SLOPErSTBSPLT Run By. Usememe 7/132006 3:2PM 100 H 50. L F T Sul 3M Total Saturated Macron Friction Prat. Lid Value Dea d. Type Unafl. Un0 Na. Intercept Angle-! Surface No. ((PO(pc0 yMl 0e9 1 He. SPSM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 12.0 WI MH 2 1000 100.0 400.0 165 WI BR 3 1000 1000 525.0 210 W2 0 -- 0 50 GSTABL7, 1 _L J 1 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmIn=1.58 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-21 OM M = MN M M - _ MN S I N MI OM NM M = - I 4 Hoag Hospital Soil Nail Wall (1651-26B) Section 6, (STA: 9+00.00), Permanent Static, Global Circular • • • •• • • •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • !• !• •• •• •• •• •• °• • ••• •!• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••• •• • •• • •• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • •• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •••• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••••••••••••••••••••!•••••••••• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• • •! !• !• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••• ••_ •_ • •• •• •• •• •• ! • • !• • • •! •• • • •• • • •• •• • .•• • • • ..........•. �.570•••• •,•,•,•••••,• • •.•.•• •irn •:•. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••••••• ••••••••••••• •••••••••••• •••• • • •• • •• •• • • • • • • •!•• •• •• • • • •• •• .. •• •! •• •• •• •• • •! •• •• •• • •• • • 200 150 100 S0 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 6, Perm EQ, Circular Global, SP CISLOPEl6PCOS.PLT Run By: TRC Loaney 7/192006 3:27PM Soil Sol Total Satiated Cohesion Flidlon Flea Ileac. Type Unit Wt. Unt WL Intercept Angle Surface No. (P<0 (nc0 68.0 fde0) No. 3PS12 1 120.0 120.0 133,0 39.7 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 W1 BR 3 100.0 100.0 5900 29.5 W2 Load Value Ll 311 is UT 111 na Eqk 0110 1F 0 GSTABL70 200 150 100 50 100 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.40 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) 250 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 6, Perm EQ, Block Global, SP CVSLOPE1SPSQSPLT Run By Usemanie 7/1320013 04PM 300 3a1 Soil Total Sandaled Cohesion FMlon Plez. Dew. Type Ue. nit . U . InPc0 (KO trpo � Surface SPSM 1 120.0 120.0 1310 39.7 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 698.0 20.5 WI 50.- 0 Load Value Sie ti IJ l� 8in R Epk 0.2109< 0 50 GSTA 9 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.66 Factor Of Safety 1a Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) 100 250 300 200 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 7, Temp Static, Circ Global, SP C15LOPEI7TCS.PLT Run By: TRC Lowrey 2r19/200e 3:33PM Sal Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Desa. Type Unit Wt Unit VA Intercept Angle Surface No. {Pon WO (PO (deg) No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 W1 MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 W1 BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 NR 150 — 100 — 50 0 0 GSTABLT 200 150 100 50 L_ 50 100 150 200 GSTABLT v.2 FSmin=1.53 Factor Of Safely Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) Load value L, wIr 14 15. 11, 17 250 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 7, Temp Static, Block Global, SP CSSLDPEI7TBS.PLT Run By: Us me 7/13/2006 3:52PM 300 Sal Sol Total Saturated Cohesion Fodlon Piez. Desc. Type Um Wt. Unit VA. IMeroept Angle Surface No. (pcn (pcn (y0 (deg) No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 W1 BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 W2 0 0 TARL7 • Load (A Lt Vale NIA ,z C_............ 3 T 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.85 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) 200 150 100 50 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 7, Perm Static, Circ Global, SP C:1SLOPEVPCSDLT Run By: 'MC Lownay 111920136 3:39PM Sall Sail Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piet. peat. Type Wit Wt Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface No. (pcp (IN1 (pan (deal No. 8P-SM 1 120.0 1200 100.0 320 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 18.5 WI BR 3 100.0 1000 523.0 23.0 W2 0 GSTAHL74110 200 150 100 0 0 Load Vale 3 in X in _L- 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmine1.67 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (spencers) Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 7, Perm Static, Block Global, SP C 65LOPE17PBB.PLT Run By: Usareme 11132000 1:54PM Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Flee. Type UnillM. USI Wt. In1eruM MOI Surface No. (per (0c0 (pan (dp1 No. SPSM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 18.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 W2 0 GSTABL70 10- 0 1- 5▪ 0 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=2.00 Factor Of Safety Is Calkulated By GLE (Spencer s) Method (0-2) 250 300 200 150 100 50 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 7, Perm EQ, Circular Global, SP C 45LOPE\7P005.PLT Run By: TRC Tommy 7/19/2006 349PM Sul Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Tilden Plez. Desc. Tye Unit W. ure KL Inler«Pi Male Surface No. (pc0 (pcl) (Pa0 (dell No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 133.0 39.7 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 Wt BR 3 100.0 100.0 698.0 29.5 W2 Load Value Ls 0 i L HoarEgk 0.210g< 0 GSTA8L7• 200 100 50 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.39 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 7, Perm EQ, Block Global, SP C15LOPEVPBOS.PLT Run By: Usemame )fl32Wfi 15sPM Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pies. Load Value Desc. Type Un6 WC Un6 et Intercept Angle Surface fz No. Mc° (KO (pe0 Meg) No. SP-MA 1 120.0 120.0 133.0 39.7 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 WI L e L, BR 3 100.0 100.0 698.0 29.5 W2 is kA Noriz Erik 0.2100< 5U 100 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.57 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) GStABA, 250 300 a• _ NM — _ INN GIN _ NIB — _ MI MINI _ as aB — _ S 114 Hoag Hospital Soil Nail Wall (1651-26B) Section 7, (STA: 11+28.90), Permanent Static, Global Circular • • • •• • • •• •• • • •• •• •• • • •• •• •• •• • • •• •• •• •• •• • • • •• •• •• •• ••• •• •• •• • •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••• ••• ••• ••• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••• ••• ••••••••••• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••• ••• ••• ••• •••••••••••••• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •••••••••••••• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •1.559'••.•.• •••••.•.•.•.•.•••.•.•.•. ••••••••••• •••• ••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••••• •• •• •• •• •• ••• •• •••••••••• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• • •• •• •• •• •• •• • •• •• •• •• • •• •• • 200 150 100 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 8, Temp Static, Ciro Global, SP C 65LOPE\TCS.PtT Run By. TRC Lawney 7/19/2006 353PM Sod Sail Total Saturated Cohesion Fiction Plez. Oast Type UnYVa. Unit IM. IMercep ...vie Surface Mo. (PO (KO Ipsfl Wee) No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 13.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 5250 23.0 W2 3� Load Value 11 1. Li Sin Sic 6 le Cul 0 GSTABL 7 200 150 100 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABLT v.2 FSmin•1.53 Factor Of Safely Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 8, Temp Static, Block Global, SP C\SLOPEIATBSPLT Run By: Usemame 7/13:2006 3:59PM Sul Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Fdceon Plea. Deco. Type Unite*. 11ntl`M. IMrrep Angle Surface No. (pcp (p21 (pc) (deal No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 10.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 002 Load Value 3Ric L 0 GSTABL 50 100 150 200 GSTABLT v.2 FSmino1.83 Factor Of Safely Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) 250 300 200 150 100 50 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 8, Perm Static, Circ Global, SP C ISLOPE58PCS.PLT Run By TRC Loeney 7/1912005 359PM Soil Soi Total Saturated Cohesion F,icton Pies. Desc. Type Unit WI. Unit WL Intercept Angle Surface No, (pc0 (PHI (pa0 (deg) No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 Wi MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 155 001 BR 3 100.0 100,0 525.0 23.0 002 0 GSTABL7• 200 150 100 50 100 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmM=1.77 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers( Method (0-2) 250 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 8, Perm Static, Block Global, SP C LSLOFE10PBS.PLT Run By: Uaaname 7/13/2005 2:22PM 300 Soil Sal Total Saturated Cohesion Fdden PIe2, Dena. Type Unit WC Una Wt. Intercept Angle Surface No. (pc¶ (pery (ps0 (deg) No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 1/111 BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 W2 50_- 0 Load value L2 5.111 IA Ain 15 Id 2 3 0 GSTABL7 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=2.28 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) 200 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 8, Perm EQ, Circular global, SP C'.'.SLOPENSPCOS.PLT Run By: TRC Loney 7/19/2008 4:04PM Soil Sal Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Paz. Oax. Type Unit N! Unit W1. Intercept Angle Su,Mce No. (pc0 Ipn0 (PLR M009) No. SP-SM 0 120.0 120.0 133.0 39.7 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 698.0 29.5 W2 150 - 100 - 50 0 0 GSTABLT• 150 100 Load Value au, In WXxEM. 0210 tic 50 100 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmIn•1.45 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) 250 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nall Wall Section 8, Perm EQ, Block Global, SP CISLOPESPBOS.PLT Pon By: Usemaryre 7/1872008 3:11PM Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Faction Paz. Oesc Type Unit WL UNIWL Intercept MBe Surface No. (p:O Iron (ps0 (dia) No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 133.0 39.7 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 696.0 29.5 W2 50.- 0 0 GSTABLT Load LI L Ham Eck Value 0,2100< 50 100 150 200 GSTABLT v.2 FSmins1.45 Factor Or Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) 250 300 200 150 100 50 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 9, Temp Static, Circ Global, SP CISLOPE\OTCS.PLT Run By: TRC Lowney 7/13/2006 406PM Shc 5a1 Total Saturated Cohesion Fdcaun leer. Dear- Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface No. (pcf) (Kg (pal) (deg) No. SPSM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 W2 Load Value I LI L4 In Ain La ohm 2 0 GSTABL7� 200 150 100 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.56 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 9, Temp Static, Block Global, SP C:SLOPE\9TBS.PLT Run By: USW Mina 7/13122008 3:31PM Soll Sail Total S)piV& Cohesion Mole urea. Desc. TyoUPON. U(ply Intercept Mule Solace No.120, (20(w0 (32,0 NoW. SPSM 1 100.0 120.0 00.0 16.5 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 WI 010 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 W2 • Load Value IJir 119 hi k in 2 0 GSTABL73 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.73 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) 200 150 100 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 9, Perm Static, Circ Global, SP C SSLOPEtSPCS PST Run Sy TRC Lovmey 11192004 423PM Shc Sod Total Saturated Cohesion Frcton Oesc. Type Unit Vt. Unll W. Intercept Angle 5 No. (pclt (pct (p04 (ag1 SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32,0 MH 2 100.0 100.0 400,0 16.5 BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 Load Value Li to L3 t a 16 14 0 GSTABL7 200 50 100 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.69 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2) 250 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 9, Penn Static, Block Global, SP C \SLOPE -WPM PLT Run By: Burman 7113R006 4:12PM 300 oscl Soil Total upset. Cohesion t Angle ha. Oeac. oe UMW. U(pci) Intercept (WWI S oca No. (20120(PS (S2.0 No. SMH 2 120.0 120.00100.0 32.WI MH 2 100.0 1000 525.0 16.50 W2 BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 230 Wl Load LA Value o in 150 — 100 — 3 50.- 0 0 GSTABL 1 l 100 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.81 Factor Of Safety 1s Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) 250 300 200 150 100 50 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 9, Perm EQ, Circular Global, SP C:ISLOPEl9PCOS.PLT Run By. TRC Looney 7n92006 4:31PM I r I Boil Sail Total Saturated Cohesion Eviction Piez. Desc. Type Unit Wt. US Wt Intercept Arglo Surface No. (pcp (pc11 t,s0 (deg) No. SPSM 1 120.0 120.0 133.0 39.7 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 W1 BR 3 100.0 100.0 698.0 29.5 W2 0 GSTABL70 200 150 100 50 0 Load value u 1, eth 12 is EOk 0110g< 50 100 150 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmine1.42 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spence; s) Method (0-2) 200 250 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 9, Perm EQ, Block Global, SP CASLOPEl9PBOS➢LT Run By: Unemame 7I132006 4:19PM 300 0 GSTAB Sul Total SaWrated Cohesion Fri Dees. Type Um Wt.. U,18 Wt. IMercepo Angle Supra No. (PH) (x0 (p%0 (deg) No. SPSM 1 120.0 120.0 133.0 39.7 W MH 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 BR 3 100.0 100.0 698.0 29.5 50 100 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.73 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer s) Method (0-2) 250 300 NM N — _ — M N — — — _ — MO NM N N M Hoag Hospital Soil Nail Wall (1651-26B) Section 9, (STA: 12+86.55), Permanent Static, Global Circular • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •••• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••••••. •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• • • •• • ••••••••••••••••• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••••••• • ••••••••••••••••• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• • • •• • •• ••• • •• •• ••• ••••••••••,•••• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• •• • • • •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •. •• •• •• •• - . ••• •.• • ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •••••• •• 1 593 ••• . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• •• • •.• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• .•• . •. •• •� •• •� •• •� •• • •••• •• •• •� •• • •• •••••••••• •• •• • fusion; t 1 iosits osits 200 150 100 50 0 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 10, Temp Static, Ciro Global, SP C1SLOPE110TCS.PLT Run By': TRC Looney 7119/2006 439PM a3 sail Total Saturated Cohesion Ration Piex, Oesc. Type Unit WL UM NA Intercept Male Surface No. (PM (a0 (pa) (deo) Na. SPSM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 12.0 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 000.0 10.5 W1 BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 W2 GSTABL7• 200 150 100 2 3 I 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.50 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 10, Temp Static, Block Global,SP CASLOPE110TBSPLT Run By: Usemame 7/142003 4:13PM DecoSall Total Saturated Wt. Coercion Mole Plea. Oesc, No, UMll) Unit Intercept Angle Surface No. (20l20(NO (32WI SMH 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 WI BR 2 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 330 W2 50. 0 z 7 2 3 0 GSTABL7, 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.53 Factor Or Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) 200 150 100 50 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 10, Perm Static, Circ Global, SP CISLOPE110PCSPLT Run By: TRC Lanny 7/19/2006 4:49PM -i— Sail Sul Total Saturated Cohesion Eddies Pin. Dose. Type UNo Wt. (von InterceptWt. Inte,t Arne Surface (PO(v No. (pon I(dap) Na. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 100.00. 0 32.0 W1 MH 2 100.0 100.0 000.0 10.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 S25.0 no 222 Load fi u La Value ar nd s„ Bu 0 GSTABL7 150 100 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.66 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Na'I Wall Section 10, Perm Static, Block Global,SP CASLOPE110PBS.PLT Run By Unmans, 7/14/2006 {15PM Soil Soil TotalSaturated Cohesion Piet Oesc. Type U(W Unity Intercept Angle Surface c No. (Wcf) (KV ne0 (deg) No. SP 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 25.0 23.0 WI S BR 3 100.0 100.0 250 23.0 002 GSTA$L 3 1— J- 50 100 150 200 250 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.66 Facto Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2) 300 200 150 100 50 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 10, Perm EQ, Circular Global, SP C:ISLOREIILPCOS.PLT Run 0r TRC Lowrey 711912006 4 5BPM Sol Scil Total Saturated Cohesion FM6an Pies. Desc. Type Wit 1M. Unit W. Intercept Mgln Surtace No. (Pep Inn) lose (dew) No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 133.0 39] WI MH 2 1000 100.0 532.0 21.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 608.0 29.5 W2 3 Load Value 1750 nal Li lr. Hertz E6k 0.210 g< 0 GSTA8L70 200 150 100 0 0 GSTA 2 3 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.58 Factor Of Steely S Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0.2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 10, Perm EQ, Block Global, SP CASLOPE110PB0S.PLT Run Br Uxmame 7/190006 4:17PM Soll Sol Totes Saturated Cohesion F Desc. Type Unit WI. Unit WL Intercept Angle Na. 0,0 (xp lose flog) BPSM 1 120.0 120.0 133.0 39.7 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 BR 3 100.0 100.0 696.0 29.5 0 u 3 50 100 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.58 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method 10-2) 250 300 200 150 100 50 e Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 11, Temp Static, Circ Global, SP C:ISLOPEIIITCS.PLT Run By: TUC Lov.ey 7119/2006 5:02PM Sod Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piet, Oesc. Type Unit Wk. Unit WL Intercept Angle Surface No. (pc0 (p00 (PA (dos) No. 3PSM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 WI BR 3 100,0 100.0 525.0 23.0 W2 0 50 GS7AEL77 200 150 100 0 Load Value u H3. MI n. L3 gin u L' 100 3 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmM=1.43 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0.2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 11, Temp Static, Block Global,SP C'0SLOPe11TBS.PLT Run By: (kemane 7/1/R005 4:19PM Sal 5w1 Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Plez. Oesc. Type Unit W. Unit Wl. Intercept Angle Surface No. (pc0 (pelt (pst) (deg) No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 WI 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 WI 3 100. 100.0 525.0 23.0 W2 G57A817111 Load V LI Non Li Sgal Lg 0,o 17 I 1 1 50 100 150 200 250 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmine1.47 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2) 300 200 150 100 0 200 150 100 50 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 11, Perm Static, Circ Global, SP C ISLOPEII IPCS.PST Run By: TRC Lowery 1/19l2006 5:OSPM SOg Sod Taal Saturated Cohesion Plvtion Piso. Oesu Type Unit WI Unrt Wl. lamest Angle Surface No. (pcfl (Ron Iwo (deg) No. SPSM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 W2 j 0 Load u 1250 en Sin in 3 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABLT v.2 FSmim205 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers( Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 11, Perm Static, Block Global,SP C1SLOPFIIPBS.PLT Rurally Humane 7/14/2005 4221.16 Sod Sal Totel Saturated Cohesion Patton Phu. oeec Type Uat WI. LFi1 W1. Intercept Angle Surfer No. tpc0 (w0 Iwo Ides) No. SPSM 1 1200 120.0 1000 32.0 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 16.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 W2 0 GSTASL7 40 3 2 3 I _II —L 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSminel.95 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) 200 150 100 50 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 11, Perm EQ, Circular Global, SP C]SLOPEIIPC0S.PLT Run By: TRC Lomey 7/192006 518PM r Total SaA sled Cohesion Fnclwn Piez. Load Dees. Type Unt Wl. Unit WE Intercept Angle Surface No. (PM 07M1 (Put (deg) No. 11 SPSM 1 120.0 120.0 133.0 39.7 W1 MN 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 698.0 29.5 W2 15 l HaeEgk 0.2109' GSTABL7 41) 200 50 100 150 200 250 300 CSTABL7 v.2 FSnlins1.86 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 11, Penn EQ, Block Global, SP C\SLOPE\11PBO5PLT Run By:Usemame 7/142006 030PM Sail Soil Total Saturated Cohesion P6cbon Piez. Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unita*. Intercept Attie Surface No. fzc0 (pc11 (MI flog) No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 133.0 39.7 061 MN 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 698.0 29.5 W2 150 100 3 0 GSTA8L7: Load Value u I.1 V Mintz Eyk 0.210 g• 150 GSTABLT v.2 FSmine1.77 Factor Of Safely Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2) 100 200 250 300 200 150 100 50 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 12, Perm Statie, Circ Global, SP C(51OPE112PCSPLT Run By: TRC Lowey 7/192000 5 27PM Sol Soil Told Saturated Cohesion Friction Rez. peso. Type Unit VA UM 44t. Intorceq Angle Surface No. (pc5 (pce (psi) (deo) No. SP-SM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 10.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 W2 0 0 Load 14 i Value tlin s., 2_........y 2 3 GSTABL70 200 150 100 B 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmil=1.71 Factor G1 Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 12, Perm Static, Block Global,SP C ASLOPEII2PBS.PLT Run By: Usemame 7/142008 4:50PM Soil Sol Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Rez. Dose. Type Unit Wt. UneVA Intercept Angle 5wlace No. (x0 (PO (Ps0 (deg) No. SPSM 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 WI MN 2 100.0 100.0 400.0 10.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 525.0 23.0 W2 3 0 GSTABL7) 50 100 150 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.85 Factor 01 Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2) 250 300 200 150 100 50 0 Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 12, Perm EQ, Circular Global, SP C\SLOPEH2PCOS.PLT Run Ely TRG Lavney 7119(2006 534PM esc Type TOUT Saturated CMeNonept Angle Pier. Oex, oU(d) Unit Intercept NN) Surface No.(20120. 33. (deg) WI SP-SM1 120.0 100.0 532.0 39.7 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 WI BR 3 100.0100.0 698.0 29.5 W2 Load Value LI Yin L2 V Aiu IA 4.41 14 !IL 13 4111 nz Eqk 0.210 gz LI 2 3 0 GSTABL7 200 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.69 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2) Hoag Hospital, Soil Nail Wall Section 12, Perm EQ, Block Global, SP CVSLOPE\12PaoS.FLT Run By'. Use,name 7n4r2005 5:04PM I ) I I Sod Sal Total Saturated Cohesion Fac1on Pies. Dame. Type Una VA. Unit WL IMercept Angle Surface No. IRII (Po) MOO (deg) No. SPSM 1 120.0 120.0 133.0 39.7 WI MH 2 100.0 100.0 532.0 21.5 WI BR 3 100.0 100.0 698.0 29.5 902 150 — 100 50 0 Load Value LI 13100 12 R e. gin Hoaz Egk 02109z 2 3 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.79 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencers) Method (0-2) GSTABC7 TIIC Customer -focused Solutions November 20, 2006 Project No. 25148202 Mr. Ali Naji City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Transmittal Hoag Hospital Soil Nail Wall Revised Civil and Structural Drawings Permit Number B2005-1423 Plan Check No. 1107-2005 Dear Mr. Naji: Hoag Hospital Engineering Staff has reduced the scope of work associated with the construction of the soil nail wall and as a result TRC has prepared revised civil and structural drawings for submission to your office. Scope of work reduction includes the following: • Elimination of the Outpatient Building West Parking Structure. This structure has been replaced with a paved parking lot resulting in grading and drainage revisions. • Elimination of the traffic bridge from the existing upper parking lot to the Outpatient Building West Parking Structure. This change requires minor revisions to the cantilever wall that will be built on the soil nail wall. • Elimination of the Outpatient Building Basement. This change resulted in reduction of the overall height of the adjacent soil nail wall including a reduction in the number of rows of soil nails. • Minor revisions to designed drainage on the west end of the project, to suit field conditions. • Minor revision of soil nail spacing (additional nails placed) to address areas in the soil nail wall where field measurements of test nails did not meet design assumptions. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at 949-283- 6276. Sincerely, iMkt— Tom Deen TRC Field Engineer cc: Jim. Julian, TRC Bob Grabski, Hoag Hospital TS AM ISO One a R a a w SUS v wr SIMMS St w Y On 1111 a w w — w Structural Engineering To: James Julian' From: PIROOZ BARAR Date: October 23, 2006 Subject: Water Seepage .0 Hnda: M. 4m Job No.: 050096 Job Name: Hoag Hospital - Insp. TRC Company TRC Solutions Address: 21 Technology Drive City: Irvine State: CA. Zip: 92618 Reports from the field via our representative and also photographs we have received indicate that in several areas ground water is seeping through the initial face of the shotcrete and also through a few of the tips of soil nails. Further, it has been noted that water is Flowing from underneath the shotcrete and in certain area there is standing water at the bottom, in front of the wall. In other instances the water has washed away the shotcrete and the welded wire fabric has been exposed. This condition has raised concerns on the part of the Hospital and the inspector representing the City of Newport Beach. We are writing this memorandum to address these concerns and provide suggested ways to mitigate the long term affect of the water seepage. Backzround: As we have stated previously soil nailing is essentially a soil improvement method and the main structural components of a Soil Nailed Wall are the Soil Nails assisting the inherent strength of the soil to provide global stability for the wall. The shotcrete facing is basically a serviceability component of the wall and as such the integrity and the durability of the shotcrete facing needs to be maintained. The wall as it stands with only the first layer of shotcrete is considered a "work — in — progress" , and once the second layer of shotcrete is applied, the front of the wall is backfilled to final grade and the drainage system is in place, the water will seek the path of least resistance which is the Miradrain and drainage system. There is still a possibility the water will seep through the second layer of shotcrete and cause discoloration. In order to minimize as much as possible that affect we propose that the following steps shall be taken: 1- At areas where water is seeping through the shotcrete — a. In these areas product "Xypex" in liquid form is to be applied. This product is a crystalline water proofing agent that clogs the voids in the shotcrete and prevents Bow of the water. After the Xypex has been applied and the flow of the water has been stopped, a test panel of 4`X 4' needs to be applied in this typical area in two locations. One 3" diameter core is to be taken per each test panel and examined for any voids in the shotcrete, their size and possible connectivity. The cores are to be graded according to the procedures contained in ACI 506.2R on a 1 to 5 basis. b. It is advisable to have "Xypex" as an additive to the shotcrete Mix for these test panels and for the areas where water is already seeping through the initial face of the shotcrete. 2- At areas where water is seeping through nail heads - a. Remove existing plate, nuts and washer. Note: Should there be two nails with leaking water directly adjacent to each other the procedure as described below cannot be done simultaneously for both nails. 124 GREENFIELD AVE. • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 • TEL: 415-259-0191 • FAX: 415-259-0194 email: pba@pbandainc.com -Web: www.pbandainc.com 4 Job ID: 050096 Job Name: Hoag Hospital - Insp. TRC Subject: Water Seepage - Page 2 Date: October 23, 2006 b. Remove material from exposed surface of the tip of the soil nail and paint the exposed part of the soil nail with a bituminous paint . c. Fill the cavity with a "Water -Plug" and replace the plate, washer nut and studs with galvanized or epoxy coated equivalent hardware with same specs as indicated on plans.. d. Apply the second coat of shotcrete as specified per plan. e. Same as Item 1-b. 3- At areas of the bottom of wall where shotcrete has washed away and WWF is exposed: a. Clean the areas of the exposed WWF and apply shotcrete to patch the exposed areas. b. It is suggested that the shotcrete of the second layer, at the bottom 12' of the wall, would contain additive "Xypex" for the entire length of the wall. 4- The backfill in front of the wall: a. It is suggested that a positive drainage system is to be installed in front of the wall below the backfill with the approval of the Civil Engineer so that the water in front of the wall will be positively drained. I will be attending the Construction meting on October 25, 2006 to personally respond to any further comments that may be brought up. Should you have any questions and/or Comments please do not hesitate to call us at 415 259-0191. Pirooz Barar,S.E. PB&A Inc. cc. Steve Williams / George BurrougbJCONDON - JOIINSON ASSOC. INC. Renganathan Vaikunthan, P.E. / PB&A,Inc Fax: Tom Been/ T RC 124 GREENFIELD AVE. • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 • TEL: 415-259-0191 • FAX: 415-259-0194 email: pba@pbandainc.com -Web: www.pbandainc.com J:ID1050000-AAAA1050090-Hoag Hospita11050097-Phase2-Rev-BOWfCaIcs110-19-06-SUBM1Cover&Index 10/27/2006 2:35 PM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a a a O. MIN a "IS_asae ••••• NM IM IM MMPEO,� Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS Permanent Soilnailed Retaining Wall (Revision of B.o.Wall and cantilever at top) Hoag Hospital Newport Beach, CA. FOR; CONDON - JOHNSON & As$ICCl1JEI. INC. CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS i":..Snc `ar Job No. 50097 October 27,2006 124 Greenfield Avenue, CA. 94960. TEL. 415-259-0191 FAX. 415-259-0194 e-mail: pba©pbandainc.com PIROOZ ISARAR & ASSOCIATES Index Page: 1 10/27/2006 2: 35 PM Sama— — _ — - �^ - CONDON • JOHNSON a-- ---__ & 1IIICIATEt. INC. Pirooz Barar & Associates A - CONTRACTORS ANC) ENGINEERS Structural Engineering JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA Date: Page: 27-Oct-06 CONTENTS PAGE 0) INDEX-- 00) INTRODUCTION Section -I : Soilnailed wall analysis with revised bottom of wall. 1) Design of 29.5 ft. SoilNailed Wall wl 5 Rows of Nails (Section 5) 1 thru 5 II) Design of 32.0 ft. SoilNailed Wall w/ 6 Rows of Nails (Section 6) 6 thru 10 III) Design of 31.5 ft. SoilNailed Wall w/ 6 Rows of Nails (Section 7) 11 thru 15 IV) Design of 31.5 ft. SoilNailed Wall w/ 6 Rows of Nails (Section 8) 16 thru 20 b) Design of 31.5 ft. SoilNailed Wall w/ 6 Rows of Nails (Section 9) 21 thru 25 VI) Design of 29.0 ft. SoilNailed Wail wt 6 Rows of Nails (Section 10) 26 thru 30 VII) Design of 27.0 ft. SoilNailed Wall wl 6 Rows of Nails (Section 11) 31 thru 35 VIII Design of 27.0 ft. SoilNailed Wall w/ 6 Rows of Nails (Section 11) 36 thru 39 Section-2: Ananlosis of cantilever walt at the top of soilnailed wall VIII) Seismic analysis for cantilever wall 41 thru 48 IX) PLAXIS Analysis of cantilevr retaining wall 49 thru 60 124 greenfield Ave, San Anselmo.CA 94960 P:(415)259-0191, F.)415)459-0194 pba®pbandai nc. com PIROOZ BARAR & ASSOCIATES intro Page:1 11/7/2006 2:36 PM a MS ama St IS S -- ——IS aaa -- _ Sr= -- --- Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA INTRODUCTION CONDON-JOHNSON & iilsis11TI1. III. CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS Date: Page: Section-1 : Soilnailed wall analysis with revised bottom of wall. 12-Oct-06 a. Following revisions have been made to the original design calculations (Schedule 6 thru Schedule 11) * Bottom of wall has been raised as shown on the elevation. * Cantilever wall at top of the soilnailed wall has been eliminated from Stat 13+23.80 to Stat 14+32.00 h. * * * In addition to the above revision, for Sch 6 and Schedule 7 following issues were incorporated pullout strength of the soil has been reduced to 90 % of the original assumed value 4th and 5th rows of soil nail spacing has been reduced 1st, 2nd and 3rd rows of soilnails have been designed with 6" dia. Drilled hole(AS Built) in lieu of 8" dia. Specified in the approv. Plans. C. For Schedule 5 (10+58.60 to 11+00) design following issues were incorporated. * pullout strength of the soil has been reduced to 90 % of the original assumed value * 4th and 5th rows of soil nail spacing has been reduced Section-2 : Ananlysis of cantilever wall at the top of soilnalled wall Horizotal seismic coefficient of 0.5 and vertical seismic coefficient of 0.1 were used in the calculation of FOS for retaining wall. And also PLAXIS (see pages 49-60) analysis has also been provided. Approximate location of the section is 14+30. 124 greenfield Ave, San Anselmo,CA 94960 P:(415)259-0191, F1415)259.0194 pba@pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering Calculations CONDON • JOHNSON 8 IIIt IlAl t, 111. CONTRACt049 AND ENOINEER9 Ilnput and Output for W inslope Analysis El. T.O.W.= Excavation Profile: +45.5'+/- X Y 0.0 16.4 0.0 45.5 4.0 45.5 49.0 65.0 100.0 65.0 El. B.O.W.= +16.4'+/- 19-Oct-06 JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: El. T.O.SL.= +65.0'+l- 1 At 0,21g Perm Soil Strata Profile Soil Profile X Y Y Oct) Granular Terrace Deposits 0.0 29.0 120 100.0 29.0 Clayey Silt/ Weathered BR 0.0 24.0 100 100.0 Siltstone/ Claystone 0.0 100.0 24.0 -10.0 -10.0 100 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 Section Static& (ST 5 SoilNailed Pseudo Static A. 1€±.90.)0)i Phereatic Water Surface X Y 0.00 18.50 3.00 20.00 6.00 23.00 8.00 25.00 12.00 28.00 16.00 30.00 24.00 34.00 100.00 34.00 Wall. Ana ys 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering CONDON • JOHNSON & iillililt!. I11. CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS L Soil Properties JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 2 Static Dynamic Soil Prop C(PSF) 1p° µ (PSF) C(PSF) cp° µ (PSF) GTO 100 32 1125 133 39.7 1125 WBR 400 16.5 1125 532 21.5 1125 SJC 525 23 1350 698 29.5 1350 r1 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 i P1 OLE A-' CA'ER 4 ip D RY / t DEL^TIC ll_z ' o3L a-rn viA -ER ----"J i �', SUR`rC` —er F., /' —?J =1— -- - _ C,L _.,rER 1 // ',—!JL "Eire I 1 „CLJNNDH'.Y _ 1 LJ WECC'_ SC))L 15.vE1 l 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarartpbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 webslte: www_pbandainc.com 1 1 r 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering CONDON • JOHNSON & ttltt111t1. ltt. CONTRACTORS ANO ENGINEERS Nail Geometry & Properties JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 3 L Row # Y(ft) L(ft) d(in) S(ft) 9(deg) As(in"2) Fy(ksi) Punch(kips) 1(Bottom) 19.4 35.0 6.0 4.3 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 2 25.5 40.0 6.0 4.3 15.0 1.00 75.0 45.0 3 31.5 45.0 _ 6.0 5.0 15.0 1.00 75.0 45.0 4 36.6 48.0 6.0 5.0 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 5 (top) 42.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barer & Associates Structural Engineering JOB CONDON - JOHNSON 6 A t 11 t 111 t I. lit, DESCRIPTION: TION: H5Hoag oag Hospital CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS LOCATION: Newport, CA Results from Static Analysis Intermediate Data: Wedge # Sat. Wt. Bo. Wt. Drywt (Ibs) 1 92825.3 83992.6 92825.3 2 51850.0 51599.1 51850.0 Avg Soil Prop C(PSF) Is(PSF) (p° _Un_der Wedge 1 424.4 1242,3 22.2 Under Wedge 2 100.0 1125.0 31.9 On Vert Plane 100.0 1125.0 32.0 Detailed forces in the nails: Date; Page: 19-Oct-06 4 Row # X-int Y-int. Wedge-int.F-left -' (Ibs) F-right (Ibs) F-yield IfbM F-Control (kips) Governing Factor 1 4.0 18.3 1.0 53735.5 65484.6 58500.0 53735.5 punchshear 2 12.1 22.3 1.0 69449.4 58325.2 75000.0 58325.2 pullout 3 20.0 26.1 1.0 81640.7 48543.6 75000.0 48543.6 pullout 4 26.8 29.4 1.0 94016.0 35807.0 58500.0 35807.0 pullout 5 32.1 33.4 2.0 103775.0 26047.7 58500.0 26047.7 pullout F.O.S = 1.50 (Permanent -Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -_ & 1IIItllllt. 1111. Pirooz Barar & Associates CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS Structural Engineering CONDON•JOHNSON Results from Dynamic Analysis Intermediate Data: Wedge # Sat. Wt. Bo. Wt. Drywt (Ibs) 1 117968.0 105114.0 117968.0 2 69766.9 69463.7 69766.9 Avg Soil Prop C(PSF) p (psr) fp° Under Wedge 1 564.3 1242.3 28.4 Under Wedge 2 133.0 1125.0 39.6 On Vert Plane 133.0 1125.0 39.7 Detailed forces in the nails: JOB NO.: 50097 DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 5 Row # X-int. Y-int. Wedge-int. F-left (Ibs) F-right (Ibs) F-yield (Ibs) F-Control (kips) Governing Factor 1 4.5 18.2 1 54827.8 64392.4 58500.0 54827.8 punchshear 2 13.6 21.9 1 72762.6 55012.1 75000.0 55012.1 pullout 3 22.5 25.5 1 86222.1 43962.2 75000.0 43962.2 pullout 4 30.1 28.5 1 100145 29678.3 58500.0 29678.3 pullout 5 37.3 32.0 2 113301 16522.5 58500.0 16522.5 pullout F.O.S.= 1.34 (Permanent -Pseudo Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering Calculations:) CONDON • JOHNSON _/- & ISIIi III EI. I11. ilkCONTRACTORS AGO ENGINEERS Input and Output for Winslope Analysis Excavation Profile: X Y 0.0 15.8 0.0 45.5 4.0 45.5 49.0 65.0 100.0 65.0 El. T.O.W.= +45.5'+/- El. B.O.W.= +15,8'+/- V JOB NO.: FOR: DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: X 4 e_n...-ne El. T.O.SL = +65.0'+/- 50097 CondonJohnson Hoag Hospital Newport, CA 0.21 g Section 6 SoilNailed Wall Perm StaticsIPseudo Static Ana (stat 11+15.OQ) lys s r s Soil Profile Granular Terrace Deposits Clayey Silt/ Weathered BR Siltstone/ Claystone tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 )il Strata Profile X Y Y (Po) 0.0 29.0 120 100.0 29.0 0.0 16.0 100 100.0 16.0 0.0 -10.0 100 100.0 -10.0 Phereatic Water Surface x Y 0.0 15.8 3.0 20.0 6.0 23.0 8.0 25.0 12.0 28.0 16.0 30.0 24.0 34.0 30.0 34.0 35.5 34.0 100.0 34.0 124 Greenfield Ave. San Anselmo, CA 94960 email: pbarar@pbandainc.com website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — — _ — — - Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering CONDON • JOHNSON a ItIlIlIltI. -- CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS Soil Properties JOB NO.: 50097 FOR; Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: 19-Oct-06 Page: 7 L_ Static Dynamic Soil Prop C(PSF) 48° ,u (PSF) C(PSF) (p° ,u,(PSF) GTD 100 32 1125 133 39.7 1125 WBR 400 16.5 1125 532 21.5 1125 SIC 525 23 1350 698 29.5 1350 BOIJNDRY I2 tupsS - -- ra P ?EAU ----- --------------- ;,_ , ----- t ---- /2 V ER 2 1 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 51 A - " (13•T A VE:R. 2 124 Greenfield Ave. San Anselmo, CA 94960 email: pbarar@pbandainc.com website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering _ CONDON • JOHNSON IIIIIIIIII. Ili. a CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS Nail Geometry & Properties JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: 19-Oct-06 Page: 8 Row # 1 2 3 4 5 6 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 Y(ft) Lift) d(in) S(ft) e(deg) As(inA2) Fy(ksi) Punch(kips) 18.8 35.0 8.0 4.5 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 21.8 40.0 8.0 4.25 15.0 1.00 75.0 45.0 25.5 45.0 8.0 4.25 15.0 1.00 75.0 45.0 31.4 48.0 6.0 4.5 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 36.6 48.0 6.0 4.5 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 41.8 48.0 6.0 4.5 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 r r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering CONDON • JOHNSON 'IL_ 1 1{tAt111 Ei. 11 {. CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS Results from Static Analysis Intermediate Data: I Wedge # Sat. Wt. Bo. Wt. Dry 'NMI (Ibs 1 104330.0 97111.1 104330.0 2 60079.5 59782.1 60079.5 Avg Soil Prop C(PSF) p (PSF) Pp Under Wedge 1 370.0 1128.1 18.4 Under Wedge 2 100.0 1125.0 31.9 On Vert Plane 100.0 1125.0 32.0 Detailed forces in the nails: JOB NO.: 50097 DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 9 Row # X-int. Y-int. Wedge-int. F-left (Ibs) F-right (Ibs) F-yield (Ibs) F-Control (kips) Governing Factor 1 4.2 17.7 1 55134.2 83727.9 58500.0 55134.2 punchshear 2 8.2 19.5 1 65099.5 82528.7 75000.0 65099.5 punchshear 3 13.4 21.9 1 77767.2 77170.3 75000.0 75000.0 yield 4 21.6 25.6 1 84523.4 45299.6 58500.0 45299.6 pullout 5 28.8 28.9 1 97697.8 32125.2 58500.0 32125.2 pullout 6 34.4 32.5 2 107878.0 21945.1 58500.0 21945.1 pullout F.O.S.= 1.57 (Permanent -Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email; pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 =-- '-- . CONDON • JONNSON ---- i IIIIIItlFl, Ill. Pirooz Barar & Associates CONTRACTORS ANO ENGINEERS Structural Engineering Results from Dynamic Analysis Intermediate Data: Wedge # Sat. Wt. Bo. Wt. Drywt (Ibs) 1 157878.0 137452.0 157878.0 2 99147.6 96793.1 99147.6 Avg Soil Prop C(PSF) 4(PSF) (p" Under Wedge 1 535.4 1129.6 21.7 Under Wedge 2 167.1 1125.0 37.7 On Vert Plane 169.7 1125.0 38.3 Detailed forces in the nails: JOB NO.: 50097 DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 10 Row # X-int. Y-int. Wedge-int. F-left (Ibs) F-right (Ibs) F-yield (Ibs) F-Control (kips) Governing Factor 1 6.0 17.2 1 59651.2 79211.0 58500.0 58500.0 yield 2 11.9 18.6 1 74058.1 73570.0 75000.0 73570.0 pullout 3 19.4 20.3 1 92372.1 62565.5 75000.0 62565.5 pullout 4 31.2 23.0 1 102139.0 27683.5 58500.0 27683.5 pullout 5 41.6 25.4 1 121186.0 8637.0 58500.0 8637.0 pullout 6 0.0 0.0 0 107878.0 21945.1 58500.0 0.0 pullout F.O.S: 1.35 (Permanent -Pseudo Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering Calculations CONDON • JOHNSON & A1111i11111. IIA. CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS Input and Output for Winslope Analysis Excavation Profile: X Y 0.0 14.5 0.0 45.0 4.0 45.0 49.0 64.0 100.0 64.0 El. T.O.W.= El. B.O.W.= +14.5'+/- JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: El. T.O.SL = 19-Oct-06 11 Y 0.21g _X Soil Strata Profile Soil Profile X Y y (pcf) Granular Terrace Deposits 0.0 28.0 120 100.0 28.0 Clayey Silt/ Weathered BR 0.0 16.0 100 100.0 16.0 S i Itstonel Claystone 0.0 -10.0 100 100.0 -10.0 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 Section i7 Soilwailed :Wall Perm Static&Pseudo Static ............. ........................ ................................... Analys s4Stat I'I+60 00) Phereatic Water Surface x Y 0.0 14.5 3.0 20.0 6.0 23.0 8.0 25.0 12.0 28.0 16.0 30.0 24.0 34.0 100.0 34.0 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering CONDON • JOHNSON 3r II1/1i/II1. Ift. CONTRACTORS AN3 ENGINEERS Soil Properties JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: 19-Oct-06 Page: 12 Static Dynamic Soil Prop C(PSF) 9° µ (PSF) C(PSF) 9° µ (PSF) GTO 100 32 1125 133 39.7 1125 WBR 400 16.5 1125 532 21.5 1125 S/C 525 23 1350 698 29.5 1350 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 i \ E1 r \\" EHREA' ILA" Sl r!r A"` / 1, 821JTAR" 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering CONDON • JOHNSON b IlilililFl. Ilt. CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS Nail Geometry & Properties JOS NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 13 Row# Y(ft) L(ft) d(in) S(ft) 9(deg) As(in"2) Fy(ksi) Punch(kips) 1 17.5 35.0 8.0 4.5 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 _ 2 21.8 40.0 8.0 4.3 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 3 26.2 45.0 8.0 4.3 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 4 31.4 48.0 6.0 4.5 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 5 36.6 48.0 6.0 4.5 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 6 41.5 48.0 6.0 4.5 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 / '- FAILOR=/ T dnlL 124 Greenfield Ave, email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates structural Engineering JOB NO.: 50097 CONOON • JOHNSON DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital & II1E1. 111. I la CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: Results from Static Analysis Intermediate Data: Wedge ifSat. Wt. no. Wt. Dry wt (Ibs1 1 104542.0 95274.8 104542,0 2 59206.7 58653.1 59206.7 Avg Soli Prop C(PSF) P (PSF) tp' Under Wedge 1 385.4 1147.7 18.7 Under Wedge 2 100.0 1125.0 31.8 On Vert Plane 100.0 1125.0 32.0 Detailed forces in the nails: 19-Oct-06 14 Row # X•int. Y-int. Wedge-int. F-left (Ibs) F-right (Ibs) F-yield (Ibs) F-Control (kips) Governing Factor 1 4.1 16.4 1 54997.0 86232.1 58500.0 54997.0 punchshear 2 9.9 19.1 1 69159.5 78468.7 58500.0 58500.0 yield 3 16.0 21.9 1 83988.4 69674.7 58500.0 58500.0 yield 4 23.1 26.2 1 87237.4 42585.6 58500.0 42585.6 pullout 5 30.2 28.5 1 100234.0 29589.5 58500.0 29589.5 pullout 6 34.6 32.2 2 108386.0 21436.7 58500.0 21436.7 pullout F.O.S.= 1.50 (Permanent -Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbararaepbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 r r 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering CONDON - JOHNSON JOB NO.: Hoag & 11111 111 t 1 . fly DESCRIPTION: Hoag 097 Hospital CONTRACTORS ANC ENGINEERS LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: Results from Dynamic Analysis Intermediate Data: Wedge # Sat. Wt. Bo. Wt. Dry wt IIbs1 1 158171.0 134952.0 158171.0_ 2 98413,2 95363.6 98413.2 Avg Soil Prop C(PSF) )(Psr) ip' Under Wedge 1 557.2 1159.1 22.8 Under Wedge 2 169.3 1125.0 37.5 On Vert Plane 172.2 1125.0 38.2 Detailed forces in the nails: 19-Oct-06 15 Row # X-int. Y-int. Wedge-int. F-left (lbs) F-right (Ibs) F-yield (lbs) F-Control (kips) Governing Factor 1 6.0 15.9 1 59704.2 81524.9 58500.0 58500.0 yield 2 14.4 17.9 1 80112.8 67515.4 58500.0 58500.0 yield 3 23.2 20.0 1 101665.0 51998.4 58500.0 51998.4 pullout 4 33.6 22.4 1 106387.0 23436.2 58500.0 23436.2 pullout 5 42.8 25.1 2 123268.0 6555.1 58500.0 6555.1 pullout 6 0.0 0.0 0 108386.0 21436.7 58500.0 0.0 pullout F.O.S = 1.31 (Permanent -Pseudo Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - = =- T`.rita CONDON • JOHNSON JOB NO.: -- -- ' i Iltlillffl. 11t. FOR: Pirooz Barar & Associates a`a CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS DESCRIPTION: Structural Engineering ---- - - -- -- -- LOCATION: 1Ct1%8i�t1S Input and Output for Winslope Analysis Excavation Profile: X Y 0.0 12.0 0.0 44.0 4.0 44.0 49.0 60.0 100.0 60.0 Date: Page: El. T.O.SL.= 19-Oct-06 16 50097 Condon -Johnson Hoag Hospital Newport, CA Sotto ;8 Sc Nailed WO Perm Stati06FAPS0010 Stet s Ana[ysls (STA 12+50. ©0) Soil Strata Profile Soil Profile X Y y (pet) Granular Terrace Deposits 0.0 28.0 120 100.0 28.0 Clayey Silt/ Weathered BR 0.0 16.0 100 100.0 16.0 Siltstone/ Claystone 0.0 -10.0 100 100.0 -10.0 tel: (415) 259.0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 Phereatic Water Surface x Y 0.0 13.5 3.0 17.0 6.0 20.0 8.0 22.0 12.0 26.0 16.0 28.0 24.0 32.0 30.0 33.0 35.5 34.0 100.0 34.0 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering L CONDON•JOHNSON - 1111/11111. IIt. A CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS Soil Properties JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 17 Static Dynamic Soil Prop C(PSF) V 4 (PSF) C(PSF) 1p° fi (PSF) GTD 100 32 1250 133 39.7 1250 WBR 400 16.5 1250 532 21.5 1250 sic 525 23 1500 698 29.5 1500 r‘ tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 '-. 7 I E 1 1 1 -t ILA7ER --_ 11 /j — iZF AC7 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering 1 Ir 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CONOON •JOHNSON - i 1I11I11HIMEI. t1 A CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS Nail Geometry & Properties JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 18 Row # Y(ft) L(ft) d(in) Sift) 0(deg) As(inA2) Fy(ksi) Punch(kips) 1 15.0 35.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 2 21.0 40.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 1.00 75.0 45.0 3 25.1 40.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 1.00 75.0 45.0 4 30.1 45.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 1.00 75.0 45.0 5 35.1 48.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 6 40.0 48.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering �-. _ CONDON • JOHNSON & 1111111111. Ili. CONTRACTORS AND ENGtNEEBS Results from Static Analysis Intermediate Data: Wedge # Sat. Wt. Bo. Wt. Dry wt (Ibs) 1 106325.0 91710.4 106325.0 2 58322.3 56675.5 58322.3 Avg Soil Prop C(PSF) µ(PSF) N^ Under Wedge 1 434.7 1319.4 18.4 Under Wedge 2 114.3 1250.0 30.6 On Vert Plane 117.4 1250.0 31.2 Detailed forces in the nails: JOB NO.: 50097 DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 19 Row # X-int. Y-int. I Wedge-int. F-left (Ibs) F-right (Ibs) F-yield (lbs) F-Control (kips) Governing Factor 4.2 13.9 1 58590.4 96365.3 58500.0 58500.0 yield 2 12.5 17.6 1 78976.1 81572.4 75000.0 75000.0 yield 3 18.2 20.2 1 94454.1 57800.0 75000.0 57800.0 pullout 4 25.2 23.3 1 113330.0 49480.0 75000.0 49480.0 pullout 5 32.1 26.5 2 131989.0 38674.3 58500.0 38674.3 pullout 6 35.8 30.4 2 142066.0 28597.5 58500.0 28597.5 pullout F,O.S = 1.52 (Permanent -Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 -= - 4-, CONOON•JOHNSON & 1{IltllJ(I, I1f, Pirooz Barar & Associates CONTRACTORS min ENGINEERS Structural Engineering Results from Static Analysis Intermediate Data: Wedge # Sat. Wt. Bo. Wt. Dry wt (Ihs) 1 106325.0 91710.4 106325.0 2 58322.3 58675.5 58322.3 Avg Soil Prop C(PSF) p)pSF) (p" Under Wedge 1 434.7 1319.4 18.4 Under Wedge 2 114.3 1250.0 30.6 On Vert Plane 117.4 1250.0 31.2 Detailed forces in the nails: JOB NO.: 50097 DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 19 Row# X-int. Y-int. Wedge-int. F-left (Ibs) F-right (Its) F-yield (Ibs) F-Control (kips) Governing Factor 1 4.2 13.9 1 58590.4 96365.3 58500.0 58.5 yield 2 12.5 17.6 1 78976.1 81572.4 75000.0 75.0 yield 3 18.2 20.2 1 94454.1 57800.0 75000.0 57.8 pullout 4 25.2 23.3 1 113330.0 49480.0 75000.0 49.5 pullout 5 32.1 26.5 2 131989.0 38674.3 58500.0 38.7 pullout 6 35.8 30.4 2 142066.0 28597.5 58500.0 28.6 pullout F.O.S.= 1.52 (Permanent -Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - _- _=__�_"-"- '-- ,CONDON•JOHNSON _ 8 itt1111ff1. I11. Pirooz Barar & Associates aJ CONTRACTORS ANO ENGINEERS Structural Engineering Results from Dynamic Analysis Intermediate Data: Wedge # Sat. Wt. Bo. Wt. Drywt llbsl 1 175701.0 146380.0 175701.0 2 64466.3 62750.0 64466.3 Avg Soil Prop C(PSF) II(PSF) l#° Under Wedge 1 578.1 1319.4 23.8 Under Wedge 2 152.0 1250.0 38.2 On Vert Plane 152.2 1250.0 39.0 Detailed forces in the nails: JOB NO.: 50097 DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 20 Row # X-int. Y-int. Wedge-int. F-left (Ibs) F-right (Ibs) F-yield (Ibs) F-Control (kips) Governing Factor 1 5.3 13.6 1 62179.8 92776.0 58500.0 58.5 yield 2 15.8 16.8 1 87949.5 72599.1 75000.0 72.6 pullout 3 23.1 18.9 1 107515.0 44738.8 75000.0 44.7 pullout 4 31.9 21.6 1 131376.0 31433.6 75000.0 31.4 pullout 5 40.7 24.2 1 155237.0 15426.7 58500.0 15.4 pullout 6 0.0 0.0 0 142066.0 28597.5 58500.0 0.0 pullout F.O.S.= 1.30 (Permanent -Pseudo Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 iMm NEM Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering Catatltatiot1S JOB NO.: CONDON•JOHNSON FOR: i Ir IIIllrU, III. CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS DESCRIPTION: --- LOCATION: Input and Output for Winslope Analysis Excavation Profile: X Y 0.0 12.0 0.0 44.0 4.0 44.0 49.0 60.0 100.0 60.0 Date: Page: El. T.O.SL: +60.0'+/- El. T.O.W.= +d4.0'+l-� El. B.O.W.= +12.0'+/- 19-Oct-06 21 50097 Condon -Johnson Hoag Hospital Newport, CA Se00t: 9 So;i1Nailed IflfaII Statc&Pseudo Static Analysis {$TA,!12+70 a0) Soil Strata Profile Soil Profile X Y y (pcf) Granular Terrace Deposits 0.0 29.0 120 100.0 29.0 Clayey Silt/ Weathered BR 0.0 20.0 100 100.0 20.0 Siltstone/ Claystone 0.0 -10.0 100 100.0 -10.0 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 Phereatic Water Surface x Y 0.0 13.5 3.0 17.0 6.0 20.0 8.0 22.0 12.0 26.0 16.0 28.0 24.0 32.0 30.0 33.0 35.5 34.0 100.0 34.0 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering JOB NO.: 50097 `__ CONOON • JOHNSOM Vi. 6 Allltl AFF FOR: Condon -Johnson , tit. �' ` CONTRACTORS ANO ENGINEERS DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: Soil Properties 19-Oct-06 22 Static Dynamic Soil Prop C(PSF) rp° /lam C(PSF) ry° N- (P GTD 100 32 1250 133 39.7 1250 WBR 400 16.5 1250 532 21.5 1250 S/C 525 23 1500 698 29.5 1500 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 269-0194 e f ' E J SU' ,TRr E.4 nr_ 1 Iwa�R 1• >,.. rr—z ��'? SU4='ACE �� �.Rz R L1 r , / OII LAYER p.i� �s0i -AY_EN I bJL DR'' i 124 Greenfield Ave. San Anselmo, CA 94960 email: pharar@pbandainc.com website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EL_" -_ CONDOM • JOHNSON -- =---- k1111t11Tfl, Itt. Pirooz Barar & Associates CONTRACTORS ANO ENGINEERS Structural Engineering Nail Geometry & Properties JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 23 Row Y(ft) L(ft) d(in) S(ft) 8(deg) As(inA2) Fy(ksi) Punch(kips) 1 15.0 30.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 1.00 75.0 45.0 2 20.0 35.0 8.0 4.5 15.0 1.00 75.0 45.0 3 25.1 35.0 8.0 4.5 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 4 30.1 40.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 5 35.1 40.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 6 40.3 40.0 8.0 5.0 20.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 r 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering CONDOM • JOHNSON JOB NO.: & 1111111111. 111. DESCRIPTION: CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS LOCATION: Results from Static Analysis Intermediate Data: Wedge # Sat. Wt. Bo. Wt. Dry wt (Ibs' 1 105685.0 91070.4 105685.0 2 58282.3 56635.5 58282.3 Avg Soil Prop C(PSF) FL(PSF) 1p° Under Wedge 1 469.4 1388.9 20.2 Under Wedge 2 123.2 1250.0 30.2 On Vert Plane 128.3 1250.0 30.7 Detailed forces in the nails: Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 24 60097 Hoag Hospital Newport, CA Row# X-int. Y-int. Wedge-int. F-Ieft (Ibs) F-right (Ibs) F-yield (Ibs) F-Control (kips) Governing Factor 1 4.2 13.9 1 58590.4 80657.3 75000.0 58.6 punchshear 2 11.1 170 1 81241.2 73714.6 75000.0 73.7 pullout 3 18.2 20.2 1 94454.1 50184.2 58500.0 50.2 pullout 4 252 23.3 1 113330.0 36901.4 58500.0 36.9 pullout 5 32.1 26.5 2 131989.0 17730.3 58500.0 17.7 pullout 6 33.6 28.0 2 138493.0 11226.8 58500.0 11.2 pullout F.O.S.= 1.50 (Permanent -Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandalnc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _= _- ___=_==_ -f. �s 11 Pirooz Barer & Associates a= Structural Engineering JOB CONOON • JOHNSON & f t l t t 11l t t. I N i. DESCRIPTION: H5oag oag Hospital CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: fl Results from Dynamic Analysis Intermediate Data: Wedge # Sat. Wt. Bo. Wt. Dry wt (Ibs 1 138848.0 116914.0 138848.0 2 78831.5 76686.2 78831.5 Avg Soil Prop C(PSF) # (PSF) to Under Wedge 1 624.2 1388.9 26.0 Under Wedge 2 163.9 1250.0 37.8 On Vert Plane 167.1 1250.0 38.4 Detailed forces in the nails: 19-Oct-06 25 Row # X-int. Y-int. Wedge-int. F-left (lbs) F-right (lbs) F-yield (Ibs) F-Control (kips) Governing 1 Factor 1 4.8 13.7 1 60538.3 78709.5 75000.0 60.5 punchshear 2 12.7 16.6 1 86435.4 68520.3 75000.0 68.5 pullout 3 20.9 19.5 1 102533.0 42105.3 58500.0 42.1 pullout 4 28.8 22.4 1 123123.0 27108.1 58500.0 27.1 pullout 5 36.8 25.2 1 144704.0 5015.8 58500.0 5.0 pullout 6 0.0 0.0 0 138493.0 11226.8 58500.0 11.2 pullout F.O.S.= 1.31 (Permanent -Pseudo Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax; (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Aye. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 JOB NO.: 50097 _ - CONOON • JOHNSON FOR: Condon-Johnson Kip( iiliillff{. lit. Pirooz Barar & Associates �J CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital Structural Engineering -- - --- LOCATION: Newport, CA iCaCc ilatiz�ns;`.:. Input and Output for Winslope Analysis Excavation Profile: X Y 0.0 12.0 0.0 44.0 4.0 44.0 49.0 60.0 100.0 60.0 Date: 19-Oct-06 Page: El. T.O.SL.= +60.0'+/- El. T.O.W.= +44.0'+/- El. B.O.W. +12.01+1- 26 Sec�Eoir'9 p g�ijNailedl�lall' Perm Static&Rsewdo Sta• tic Analysis (STA 13+0Q D0) Soil Strata Profile Soil Profile X Y I Y (pcf) Granular Terrace Deposits 0.0 29.0 120 100.0 29.0 Clayey Silt/ Weathered BR 0.0 23.0 100 100.0 23.0 Siltstonel Claystone 0.0 -10.0 100 100.0 -10.0 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 Phereatic Water Surface x Y 0.0 13.5 3.0 17.0 6.0 20.0 8.0 22.0 12.0 26.0 16.0 28.0 24.0 32.0 30.0 33.0 35.5 34.0 100.0 34.0 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering CONDON•JOHNSON 8 II Ill, 111, CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS Soil Properties Soil Prop GTD WBR SIC ri tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 27 Static Dynamic C(PSF) qr° µ (PSF) C(PSF) 9° µ (PSF) 100 32 1250 133 39.7 1250 400 16.5 1250 532 21.5 1250 525 23 1500 698 29.5 1500 -SC LAYER RO.. DR/ ( >,1 1 1 1 _ z4. 124 Greenfield Ave. San Anselmo, CA 94960 '------------1--- r;hl lN'.DP.1 J 'ER 7j email: pbarar@pbandainc.com website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering CONDON • JOHNSON _st a iiiii Ilt. CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS Nail Geometry & Properties JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 28 Row # Y(ft) L(ft) d(in) S(ft) 9(deg) As(iri"2) Fy(ksi) Punch(kips) 1 15.0 25.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 0.713 75.0 45.0 2 20.0 30.0 8.0 4.5 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 3 _ 25.1 35.0 8.0 4.5 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 4 30.1 35.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 5 35.1 40.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 6 40.3 40.0 8.0 5.0 20.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 4 /S -1,---- 1 , 2 1 '' t / g_ - 1 t -. 1 / = xi 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 min "-_ 1-. _ CONDON • JOHNSON - - -'-- p III l ill If1. INC. Pirooz Barar & Associates - CONIRACIORS AND ENGINEERS Structural Engineering Results from Static Analysis Intermediate Data: Wedge # Sat. Wt. Bo. Wt. Dry wt (Ibsl 1 105685.0 91070.4 _ _ 105685.0 2 58282.3 56635.5 58282.3 Avg Soil Prop C(PSF) p(PSF) c° Under Wedge 1 495.5 1441.0 21.5 Under Wedge 2 123.2 1250.0 30.2 On Vert Plane 128.3 1250.0 30.7 Detailed forces in the nails: JOB NO.: 50097 DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 29 Row # X-int. Y-Int. Wedge-int. F-left Os F-right (Ibs) F-yield (Ibs) F-Control (kips) Governing Factor 4.2 13.9 1 58590.4 64949.4 58500.0 58.5 yield 2 11.1 17.0 1 81241.2 58006.6 58500,0 58.0 pullout 3 18.2 20.2 1 100097.0 50610.8 58500.0 50.6 pullout 4 25.2 23.3 1 113330.0 27262.5 58500.0 27.3 pullout 5 32.1 26.5 2 131989.0 17730.3 58500.0 17.7 pullout 6 33,6 28.0 2 138493.0 11226.8 58500.0 11.2 pullout F.O.S.= 1.50 (Permanent -Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 mm• mom Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering J _CONOON•JOHN80N & 1111illill. 111. COKTAACTORS AND ENGINEERS Results from Dynamic Analysis Intermediate Data; Wedge # Sat. Wt. Bo. Wt. Drywt- fibs) 1 134553.0 113643.0 134563.0 2 764122 74320.5 76412.2 Avg Soil Prop C(PSF) 12 (PSF) )p° Under Wedge 1 658.8 1441.0 27.6 Under Wedge 2 163.9 1250.0 37.8 On Vert Plane 167.5 1250.0 38.4 Detailed forces in the nails: JOB NO.: 50097 DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date; 19-Oct-06 Page: 30 Row # X-int. Y-int. Wedge int. 9-left (1bs) F-right (Ibs) Field (Ibs) F-Control (kips) Governing Factor 1 4.7 13.7 1 60313.2 63226.6 58500.0 58.5 yield 2 12.6 16.6 1 85835.1 53412.6 58500.0 53.4 pullout 3 20.6 19.6 1 107619.0 43088.2 58500.0 43.1 pullout 4 28.4 22.5 1 123026.0 17566.3 58500.0 17.6 pullout 5 36.3 25.4 1 143260.0 6460.2 58500.0 6.5 pullout 6 0.0 0.0 0 138493.0 11226.8 68500.0 11.2 pullout F.O.S.= 1.31 {Permanent -Pseudo Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax; (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Sauctural Engineering talnuia�ions ``1 CONDON • JOHNSON & I111t11If I, 11t. CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS 'Input and Output for Winslope Analysis Excavation Profile: X Y 0.0 12.0 0.0 44.0 4.0 44.0 49.0 60.0 100.0 60.0 Perm Soil Strata Profile -� Soil Profile X y T (pcf) Granular Terrace Deposits 0.0 36.0 120 100.0 36.0 Clayey Silt/ Weathered BR 0.0 26.0 100 100.0 26.0 Siltstone/ Claystone 0.0 -10.0 100 100.0 -10.0 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 El. T.O.W.= +43.0'+!- EL B.O.W. V t x JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 31 0.21g Section 11 SQilNailed WalI Static&Pseudo Staid Analysis; {STA T'13+4Q.:0Q) Phereatic Water Surface x Y 0.0 12.0 4.0 20.0 6.0 23.0 8.0 25.0 12.0 28.0 16.0 30.0 24.0 34.0 100.0 34.0 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar 8pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering — — CONDON -JOHNSON i lillilllll. 111. CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS Soil Properties JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 32 Static Dynamic Soil Prop C(PSF) rp° µ (PSF) C(PSF) tp° µ (PSF) GTD 100 32 1250 133 39.7 1250 WBR 400 16.5 1250 532 21.5 1250 SIC 525 23 1500 698 29.5 1500 NAIL S r4 A-1 CJ 111 1 'WE0CE 1 �Rl I,I'hi"! P.PCE c'Di _ LAY-R i i I ii I EO INDRY ` ` DRREATiC / i 0 1, % �nr 4, Et r� r-3 ` �- i-_- -j WATER --- -- --1 •WA to �--- -�- /1/ _`L)0>001- --tf - CD i / SO _ LAY-R // isoi0 LAYER 2 . CUND R" H, tel: (415) 259-0191 124 Greenfield Ave. fax: (415) 259-0194 San Anselmo, CA 94960 WED CI 2 j SOIL LAYER 3J email: pbarar@pbandainc.com website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --_ ! - CONDON • JOHNEON JOB NO.: 50097 Mitt. FOR: Condon -Johnson Pirooz Barar & Associates �'• ( CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital Structural Engineenng - - - LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: Nail Geometry & Properties 19-Oct-06 33 Row # I Y(ft) L(ft) d(in) S(ft) 8(deg) I As(in^2) Fy(ksi) Punch(kips) 1 15.4 30.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 2 20.0 35.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 3 24.5 35.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 0.78 75.0 45.0 4 29.1 40.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 1.00 75.0 45.0 5 33.5 40.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 1.00 75.0 45.0 6 39.0 40.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 1.00 75.0 45.0 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbararr@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 AMP minor . inunnr JOB NO.: 50097 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barer & Associates Sauctural Engineering - - CONDON • JOHNSON DESCRIPTION: i 1IIIC111E1, I1E. CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS LOCATION: Date: Page: Results from Static Analysis Intermediate Data; Wedge # Sat. Wt. Bo. Wt. Drywt (Ibs) 1 125194.0 105360.0 125194.0 2 44735.4 44506.7 44735.4 Avg Soil Prop C(PSF) 4(PSF) rp" Under Wedge 1 491.1 1432.3 21.3 Under Wedge 2 150.0 1250.0 29.6 On Vert Plane 155.9 1250.0 29.4 Detailed forces in the nails: 19-Oct-06 34 Hoag Hospital Newport, CA Row # X-int. Y-int. Wedge-int. F-left (Ibs) F-right (Ibs) F-yield (Ibs) F-Control (kips) Goveming Factor 1 4.6 14.2 1 59877.4 79370.4 58500.0 58500.0 yield 2 10.8 17.1 1 80005.6 74950.2 58500.0 58500.0 yield 3 16.8 20.0 1 99696.2 55259.5 58500.0 55259.5 pullout 4 23.0 22.9 1 113553.0 50839.3 75000.0 50839.3 pull out 5 28.9 25.7 1 123905.0 31586.2 75000.0 31586.2 pull out 6 36.3 29.3 1 143453.0 6266.6 75000.0 6266.6 pull out F.O.S.= 1.56 (Permanent -Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 0 A..a..a:a...a J rd 124 Greenfield Ave. San Anselmo, CA 94960 CONDON • JOHNSON i II11111111. 11C. rnNTpsr Tn o INn FNSINFFOQ email: pbarar@pbandainc.com website: www.pbandainc.com JOB NO.: 50097 DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital 1 1 1 --------- !i 11111111t1. Ili. Pirooz Barer & Associates atal CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS Structural Engineering. -- Results from Dynamic Analysis Intermediate Data: Wedge # Sat. Wt. Bo. Wt. Drywt fibs) 1 149426.0 124995.0 149426.0 2 52975.5 52713.2 52975.5 Avg Soil Prop C(PSF) li (PSO 9" Under Wedge 1 653.0 1432.3 27.4 Under Wedge 2 199.5 1250.0 37.0 On Vert Plane 201.8 1250.0 37.1 Detailed forces in the nails: LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 35 Row # X-int. Y-int. Wedge-int. F-left (Ibs) F-right (Ibs) F-yield (Ibs) F-Control (kips) Goveming Factor 1 5.0 14.1 1 61206.1 78041.7 58500.0 58500.0 yield 2 11.7 16.9 1 83132.0 71823.8 58500.0 58500.0 yield 3 18.3 19.6 1 104581.0 50374.6 58500.0 50374.6 pull out 4 25.1 22.4 1 120236.0 44156.6 75000.0 44156.6 pull out 5 31.5 25.1 1 132307.0 23184.1 75000.0 23184.1 pull out 6 0.0 0.0 0 143453.0 6266.6 75000.0 0.0 pull out F.O.S.= 1.37 (Permanent -Pseudo Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering Calculations Input and Output for Winsiope Analysis Excavation Profile: L x r_ 0.0 10.0 0.0 43.0 4.0 43.0 49.0 60.0 100.0 60.0 _ CONDON • JOHNSON ` a 11111111111 Et. lir. CONTRACTORS ANS ENGINEERS EL T.O.W.= JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 36 Soil Strata Profile Soil Profile x Y y (pcf) Granular Terrace Deposits 0.0 36.0 120 100.0 36.0 Clayey Silt/ Weathered BR 0.0 26.0 100 100.0 26.0 Siltstone! Claystone 0.0 -10.0 100 100.0 -10.0 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 SOO onl 11 SoiilNailed Temporary Static Ana (Stet. 13+30.00) Phereatic Water Surface x Y 0.0 16.5 3.0 20.0 6.0 23.0 8.0 25.0 12.0 16.0 24.0 28.0 30.0 34.0 100.0 34.0 Wail lysis! 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering /- _ CONDON • JOHNSON & IIIUMIIUEf, 111. AA CONTRACTORS ANO ENGINEERS Soil Properties JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: 19-Oct-06 Page: 37 Static Dynamic Soil Prop C(PSF) rp° µ (PSF) C(PSF) rp° µ (PSF) GTO 100 32 1250 133 39.7 1250 WBR 400 16.5 1250 532 21.5 1250 SIC 525 23 1500 698 29.5 1500 777 lei tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 t t t t Yvl I if` r r 1 _i 4, E,: <:FF:.= All-- 7 7 sj 124 Greenfield Ave, email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering �- - . CONDON • JOHNSON & 11I1tlltti. It. A CONTRACTORS AND EPOINEERS Nail Geometry & Properties JOB NO.: 50097 FOR: Condon -Johnson DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 38 Row Y(ft) L(ft) d(in) S(ft) 9(deg) As(inA2) Fy(ksi) Punch(kips) 1 12.5 25.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 0.78 75.0 35.0 2 15.4 30.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 0,78 75.0 35.0 _ 3 20.0 35.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 0.78 75.0 35.0 4 24.5 35.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 0.78 75.0 35.0 5 29.1 40.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 1.00 75.0 35.0 6 33.5 40.0 8.0 5.0 15.0 1.00 75.0 35.0 7 39.0 40.0 B.0 5.0 15.0 1.00 75.0 35.0 tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates Structural Engineering -- CONDON•JOHNSON J_ d I111{Ilftl. I11. AA CONTRACTORS ANO ENGtPEERS Results from Static Analysis Intermediate Data: Wedge # Sat. Wt. Go. Wt. Drywt fibs! 1 142819.0 120408.0 142819.0 2 29168.2 29168.2 29168.2 Avg Soil Prop C(PSF) A (PSF) tp° Under Wedge 1 480.0 1410.0 20.7 Under Wedge 2 112.0 1250.0 31-5 On Vert Plane 112.6 1250.0 31.4 Detailed forces in the nails: JOB NO.: 50097 DESCRIPTION: Hoag Hospital LOCATION: Newport, CA Date: Page: 19-Oct-06 39 Row # X-int. Y-int. Wedge-int. F-left (Ibs) F-right (Ibs) F-yield (Ms) F-Control (kips) Governing Factor 1 3.1 11.7 1 44982.4 68557.5 58500.0 44982.4 punchshear 2 6.6 13.6 1 56561.9 72685.9 58500.0 56561,9 punchshear 3 12.3 16.7 1 74929.5 70026.3 58500.0 58500.0 yield 4 17.8 19.7 1 92897.7 52058.0 58500.0 52058.0 pull out 5 23.4 22.8 1 104994.0 49398.5 75000.0 49398.5 pull out 6 28.9 25.8 1 113661.0 31829.5 75000.0 31829.5 pull out 7 35.6 29.5 1 131496.0 8223.6 75000.0 8223.6 pull out F.O.S.= 1.50 (Temporary -Static) tel: (415) 259-0191 fax: (415) 259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave. email: pbarar@pbandainc.com San Anselmo, CA 94960 website: www.pbandainc.com 1 PB&A, INC. RetWall-4ft.mcd:119 2:38 PM:10/27)2006 FOR: Condon Johnson Pirooz Bara & Associates JOB: Hoag Hospital Structural Enrcers JOB NO.: 050097 DESCRIPTION: Seismic ananlysis of cantilever wall (top of soilnail wall) H=4 ft. REFERENCE: CALTRAN'S TRENCHING AND SHORING MANUAL LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA DATE : 10-27-2006 Seismic lateral earth pressure kh a Horizontal component of earthquake acceleration kh := 0.5 9 kv := I Vertical component of earthquake acceleration kv:= 0.10 9 k W Sand o'= fnc:ien anel< bet cap wall .Lod :,and tat (b) 4V L IIIIIIL r(I. IIC. CON/KAMTM ANO ENGINEERS PAGE := 41 Units Conversion: kip := 1000Jbf fsi := 1•Ibfin2 ksi := 1000-psi psf := 1•Ibf.ft 2 pef := l-lbf•ft3 ACIIVE FORCE ON A RETAINING WALL WITH EARTHOUAKE FORCES Define soil parameters Define parameters for retaining wall e:=32deg y := 120.pef 6 := 15 deg H := 4.0-ft Wall height := 0-deg backslaps angle 0 := 0-deg batter of retaining wall (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail. pba@pbandainc. cam PB&A, INC. RetWall-4ft.mcd:2/9 2:38 PM:10/27/2006 Mononobe -Okabe equations 91 ;= atan Kat ._ kh 1 - kv) 180 p ` deg pl'3.141 (cos(i) —0 — p))2 2 sin(6¢) sin(—a—p)`0.512 (cos(©)) cos(3)-co +-e+p) L1+icos(S+e++p) cos(e—a), Ka1=1.05 Maximum value of "Pae." exerted by any wedge t)ac ±.7.g2.(1 kval Pae = 0.91 kid Z ft Horizontal componenet of the resultant force Ph := Pae cos(5) Location of the line of action of the resultant force - 0.3 1 Pa := 2KdyH2 H\ + (Pay 3 0.6H Pae z = 2.06ft PAGE = 42 The resultant pressure acts at an angle S with the wall. (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave., San Anselmo, CA a -mail: pba@pbandainccom PB&A, INC. RetWall-4ft.mcd:3/9 2:38 PM:10/27/2006 For Retaining Wall height H<4.0 ft: 111 := 4.0-ft (Height of Retaining Wall) t - 12 in (Thickness of Retaining Wall) W :- 5.5•ft (Length of Retaining Wall Footing) Yconc := 150 pcf (Unit Weight of Concrete) Ysoil := 120.pcf (Unit Weight of Soil) Ka := 0.3 (Active Pressure Coefficient) 3.0 (Passive Pressure Coefficient) kp :- - µ := 0.4 (Friction Coeffcient) ys := 250.psf (Traffic Surcharge) dicey := 1.5 ft (depth of key Overturninq(Point O) Driving Moment Mitt := Yconc'(111 CNGIV ]r a -,NI } _ 2 _1R "IpressurePae.cos(5)•(z+t)-1ft �H Mldsureharge := Rs Ka 111.� +)" l•ft 2 Mldriving Mlcl+`Mlpressure t'M Idsurcharee Mid = 0.37 kip-ft Mlpressure = 2•G9kip. ft Mldsureharge _ 0.9kip-ft Mldriving = 3.96kip•ft PAGE = 43 (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc. com PB&A, INC. RetWall-4ft.mcd:4/9 2.38 PM:10/27/2006 Resisting Moment Mlso MI WI =(1—kv)Ysoil'WI.HI. 2 •1ft WI — Ift Yconc W 2 Mtrsurcharge (I — kv)gs. W Wl — lft 2 Mlresisting -= MIsoil+ Mloa + 1t l rsurcharge FSIO-I, = Mlresisting Mldriving Sliding Driving Force Flpressure '= (Pad c (S qs Ka l' F Mlsoil = 6.53kip•ft !v11c2 = 2.27kip•ft bilrsurchargc _ 3.4ktp.ft Mlresisting = 12.21 kipft FS I OT = 3.08 Flpressure= 1.93kip Resisting Force I'Ifriction:= p•[Yconc'[(Ii1+t)•t+ Wig Ysoil'H W +gsWi].1ft F 1 Friction = 2.24 kip I 2 Flkey :=2.Kp.Ysoifdkey 1 ft Flresisting Flfriction+ Flkey Fl resisting FSISL:= pressure FSISI — 1.37 PAGE = 44 (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com PB&A, INC. RetWall-7.5ft.mcd:1 /9 2:39 PM:10/27/2006 zrE FOR: Condon -Johnson PiroozBarer &Associates JOB: Hoag Hospital strurnual Engnec's JOB NO.: 050097 DESCRIPTION: Seismic ananlysis of cantilever wall (top of soilnail wall) H=7.0 ft. CONDON •JOHNSON & IIt$r IITFI. INt. REFERENCE: CALTRAN'S TRENCHING AND SHORING MANUAL CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEER, LOCATION: Newport Beach, CA DATE : 10-27-2006 Seismic lateral earth pressure kh := I Horizontal component of earthquake acceleration kh := 0.5 9 k := I Vertical component of earthquake acceleration k� := 0.10 9 Sand a"= (ncuu) omglc boa Jcn .rjR unJ 'nJ q k,.W kn W tin 4Y PAGE := 45 Units Conversion: kip := 1000.1bf as' := 1Jbf-in 2 ksi:= I000•psi psf := I•Ibf-ft 2 pcf := 1•Ibf-ft 3 ACEIVE FORCE oN A RETAINING WALL WITH EARTHQLAKE FORCES Define soil parameters Define parameters for retaining wall := 32-deg y := I20-pcf & := 15-deg H := 7.0. ft Wall height a := 0-deg backslope angle 0 := 0-deg batter of retaining wall (1)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave., San Ansetmo, CA a -marl: pba@pbandainc.com PB&A, INC. RetWall-7.5ft.mcd:2/9 2:39 PM:10/27/2006 Mononobe -Okabe equations 131 ._ atan kh 1-k. 180 Nei pl deg 3.141 (cos(-0 — p))2 PAGE = 46 (cos(B))2.cos(p)coo +e+p).�1+ sin(5 ).sin(+-a-p)`0.5 LLL \cos(5 + 0 + p).cos(e — a) Kai =1.05 Maximum value of "Pae" exerted by any wedge Pae := z'Y'H2'( l - kc)'Kal Horizontal componenet of the resultant force Ph := Pae cos(5) Location of the line of action of the resultant force z K :- 11.3 1 2 Pa:=-2'Kay•H` Pae 2 Pac = 2.78 j,P The resultant pressure acts at an ft angle 8 with the wall. z=3.61ft (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba©pbandainccom PB&A, INC. RetWail-7.5ft.mcd:3/9 2:39 PM:10/2712006 For Retaining Wall height 4.0< H < 7.0 ft: HI :— 7.0.ft (Height of Retaining Wall) t := 12 in (Thickness of Retaining Wall) WI := 9.0. ft (Length of Retaining Wall Footing) )(cone 150.pcf (Unit Weight of Concrete) /soil := 120.pcf (Unit Weight of Soil) Ka := 0.3 (Active Pressure Coefficient) k_N- 3.0 (Passive Pressure Coefficient) ' := 0.4 (Friction Coeffcient) qs:= 250-psf (Traffic Surcharge) dkey :— 2.5• ft (depth of key) Overturninq(Point0) Driving Moment M1c1 := )(conc'(111 +-t).t. t •lft 2 MI pressure = Pae'cos(S)-(z+ipIft \tldsurcharge'= gs'Ka'H1' \2 1 Mldriving Mid + Ml pressure +Mldsurcharge Mid = 0.6kip. ft Mlpressure = 12.39kip. ft M1dsurcharge = 2.36kip-ft M'driving= 15.36kip. ft PAGE = 47 (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com PBSA, INC. RetWall-7.5ft.mcd:4/9 2:39 PM:10/27/2006 Resisting Moment WI Nilson (1—kv)Ysoii-WI'Hi 2 IR Nilsoil = 30.62kip-ft WI I•u lft MIc2=6.07kip-ft MIc2:=Yconc'W 2 WI Mtrsurcharge :_ (I —kv4gs Wl 2 lit Mtrsurcharge = 9.11kip'ft Mlresisting' Ml soil+MIc2+Mtrsurcharge Mlresisting-45-8lkip. ft FSIG-1. resisting FSIOT = 2.98 Mldriving Sliding Driving Force Flpressure := (Pae cos(6) +gs'6a 1.HFl= 4.53kip I.1. ft pressure Resisting Force Flfriction:= µ• Ycond[(H1+t).t+ WI'El +Ysoil.Hi.WI +qs WI].1ft Flfriction 4.94kip 1 2 Flke:= Z.k y p.Ysoil'dkey 'l'ft Ftresistiag' Flfriction +Flkey F 1resistine FS1SE Fl pressure FSISf = 1.34 PAGE = 48 (T)415-259-0191 (F)415-259-0194 124 Greenfield Ave., San Anselmo, CA e-mail: pba@pbandainc.com 0) 2' co 2 ,T1T1-- ' .11 •[-(-i' 'Tr H-1 ' PI "—I ! Fr "711-I' '7 - _ . .-.; .3. . . .. . 0 03 _J 0— • ro 0 co 0 0 Th:M= 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MM SIM MM. Ma MIS •Nm wpm/ Pirooz Barar & Associates 5trucrural E ainec'ng INPUT PARAMETERS FOR PLAXIS Soil Profile CONDON • JOHNSON S ABIACIAIE1, IIt. JOB NO.: FOR: DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: 50097 Condon -Johnson Hoag Hospital Newport Beach, CA Page: 50 Material Unsaturated Unit Weight Saturated Unit Weight Poisson Ratio Reference Young's Modulus Cohension Friction Angle (Pcf) (pcf) - (psf) (psf) (degree) Granular Terrace Deposit 100 120 0.3 8400000 100 32 ClayeySiltlWeathered Bedrock 80 100 0.3 12600000 400 16.5 Bedrock 100 100 0.33 15900000 525 23 Shotcrete Wall Name Normal Stiffness EA Flexuaral Rigidity El Weight Poisson Ratio (lb/ft) (Ib'ft //ft) (Iblftift) - 4" Shotcrete Wall 1.44E+08 1.20E+07 150 0.2 Soil Nail (Extension On y) Name Normal Stiffness EA (Iblft) Soil Nail (8" Hole with #8 bar) 5.03E+06 Soil Nail (8" Hole with #9 bar) 6.45E+06 • I he soilaail is #8 bar in the 8" diameter grouted hole @4.5 ft QC.: Cross Section Area of#8 bar: nrcabars:= 0.7$-in2 Areal, us: Fs Spac lb LiA=5026666.67— fr 1 _ a MO l a N s e s r Si Mil MIN i r NM r MINI NMI PLAXIS VS -----------.----- - - - - -100.00 -50.00 o.od 50.00 100.00 150.00 100.00 - 50.00 0.00 -50.00 1 -1 -100.00 foie-/ Win?. in Version 8.2.8.746 mly Total displacements (Utot) Extreme Utot 28.49*10-3 ft Project description Project name Step Hoag Hospital Date User name Hoag Hospital 43 10/12/06 PB&A, Inc. Page = 51 [' L0'3ft] A : -2.000 B : 0.000 C : 2.000 D : 4.000 E : 6.000 F : 8.000 G : 10.000 H : 12.000 (: 14.000 16.000 K : 18.000 L : 20.000 M : 22.000 N : 24.000 0 : 26.000 P : 28.000 Q : 30.000 e a all M INS w■ r/ S I S r— NINO MI INS I V INN PLAXIS V8___ _ I -125.00 -100.00 -75.00 -50.DD -25.00 0.00 • 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00 150.00 75.00 - 50.00 25.00 0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 1 iiiileisli r.,i Version 8.2.8.746 I [ LLB_ LL-=yL.L _i—__._ _. _ .-111 it aL Project description Ir_ Global Factor of Safety = 1.50 Hoag Hospital Project name Step I Date User name Hoag Hospital 143 10/12/06 PB&A, Inc. Page = 52i Il —,1_I MINI s Sill MIS INN r MN MS i_ I r. .i _ all s r r N PLAXIS 8.0 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 L [[ [ [[ 1,1 [ [ [ 45.00 H 90.00 35.00 30.001 25.00 20.00 15,00 PLAXIS Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses Version 8.2.8.746 Project description Project name it i iii iii I[ [[ it Max Horizontal Displacement = 0.022 ft = 0.27" Step Hoag Hospital 43 Hoag Hospital Date User name 10/12/06 PB&A, Inc. Page = 53 [*10-aft] 0.000 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 Si I w *1 le r SI SS i1 OS M MS IS s!- M IS MI PLAXIS 8.0 45.00 42.50 40.00 - 37.50 35.00 - 32.50 30.00 - 27.50 25.00 22.50 - 20.00 - 17.50 - 1 � -2.50 0.00 2.50 5.00 7.50 10.00 12.50 15.00 1 17.50 20.00 22.50 25.00 27.50 30.00 32.50 35.00 37.50 40.00 4 11 II 111J; 11111111 L1L. 111 I 1 I Liu 11111 I Id a 111 111L I ll II :111 111I II II II'I LLL_1LLLI11 PLAXIS Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses Version 8.2.8.746 Project description Project name Axial Force of Top Nail = 4.15 kip/ft X 5' spacing = 20.8 kip (64.9 kip Calculated from Winslope on Page 34) Step Hoag Hospital 43 Hoag Hospital Date User name 10/12/06 Page = 54 1111 1 li 1 1 II I I II I'II 11 11 III.,' I I111 I" IL PB&A, Inc. r r s Mr M r IMP +O III s a r IS s Is N OS PLAXIS 8.0 90.00 37.50- 35.00 - - 71 32.50 30.00 27.50 25.00 22,50 -1 TJ 20.00 1- 17.50 15.00 12.50 -2,50 0.00 2.50 5.00 7.50 10.00 12.50 15,00 17.50 20.00 22.50 25.00 27.50 30.00 32.50 35,00 37.50 90.00 4 1L' lilil ii,.II Iltl—Ll II 1 IIII IIII Lill IIII IIII I'll I IIII I I I" I r I n Ll1�L I a L l II LI I lLL LL1 I_LI L 1 ul 11_I 1 1 1 Project description Axial Force of 2nd Nail = 4.42 kip/ft X 5' spacing = 22.1 kip (61.3 kip Calculated from Winslope on Page 34) Hoag Hospital Project name Step Date User name finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses Hoag Hospital 43 I 10/12/06 PB&A, Inc. . Version 8.2.8.746 PLAXIS Page = 55 so is so IS as 1-_ 11111 A_- ON s a 11111 s e PLAXIS 8.0 -2.50 0.00 2.50 5.00 7.50 10.00 12,50 15.00 17.50Ir 20.00 22.50 25.00 27.50 30.00 32.50 35.00 37.50 40.00 4 �II 1 It I1 IIII, III 1 1 I1' 1111 .III HI! ',Li 111 1 1 1 J1J i 11L1.111 III III 1 II II III ILI d1 ' 1 IIII IIII Page = 56 37.50 -- 35.00 32.50 30.00 27.50 - 25.00 22.50 20.00 17.50 - 15.00 12.50 - 10.00 PLAXIS Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses Version 8.2.8.746 Axial Force of 3rd Nail = 4.77 kip/ft X 5' spacing = 23.9 kip (57.8 kip Calculated from Winslope on Page 34) Project description Project name Step Hoag Hospital 43 Hoag Hospital Date User name 10/12/06 PB&A, Inc. S aIIINI MI a INS all M f a ■■r r s r TIM Si M S r PLAXIS 8.0 r 32.50 I 30.00 C 27.50 25.00 -1 22.50 20.00 J 17.50 15.00= 12.50 10.00 7.50 -2.50 0.00 2.50 5.00 7.50 10.00 12,50 15.00 - 17.50 20.00 22.50 25.00 27.50 30.00 32.50 35.00 L 1 'III 1 •AIL-LL11L Page = 57 1 .ILL' l Ll t LI L 1l ' L, LL Ll'� I I 1 I I I I l 1111-L1LLLl1 LLl'_L. 11 1 i i l I l Mill I' I II 1 I l I 11l_l� ,Project description Axial Force of 4th Nail = 3.25 kip/ft X 5' spacing = 16.3 kip (56.1 kip Calculated from Winslope on Page 34) Hoag Hospital Project name Step I Date User name Finite Element Cod c For Soil and Rock Analyses Hoag Hospital 43 10/12/06 PLAXIS PB&A, Inc. Version 8.2.8.746 PLAXIS 8.0 27.50J 25.00 22.50 20.00 17.50 15.00 12.50 10.00 -2.50 0.00 2.50 5.00 2.50 10.00 12.50 0 15.00 17.50 20.00 22.50 25.00 27s0 30.00 32.50 35.00 ii Hi HI lII Ia I i�1�,1 li��il il�, i u I�iv 'Li' 11! i !L. 1u'1L lii �i iu �i � ii I Hill I Page = 58 PLAXIS Finite FlementCod Version 8.2.8.796 r Soil and Rock Analyses Project description Project name Axial Force of 5th Nail = 3.14 kip/ft X 5' spacing = 15.7 kip (51.9 kip Calculated from Winslope on Page 34) Hoag Hospital step ' Date User name Hoag Hospital 43 10/12/06 PB&A, Inc. n NS MN MIN NM, all sA rill 1115 VS MIN ■S — MO MN MEM SI 1111, PLAXIS 8.0 29.00 2200 1 20.00 18.00 — 19,00 12.00 10.00 800- 6.00 4.00 2.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 ' 12.00 14.00 16.00 10.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 Page = 59 II 'III I1]] 111III11 Illl IJ1IILi u11 Illl!' I. _LI11111 1111 '1 III1 Illl IIIIIIIL..LLIIIII IIII i, 11111, l IIL'Il1 PLAXIS Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses Version 8.2.8.746 Axial Force of 6th Nail = 5.02 kip/ft X 5' spacing = 25.1 kip (47.7 kip Calculated from Winslope on Page 34) 1 Project description Project name Step Hoag Hospital 43 Hoag Hospital Date User name 10/12/06 PB&A, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pirooz Barar & Associates St'uctvai E,e1u ermc INPUT PARAMETERS FOR PLAXIS Soil Profile BONBON-JOHNSON 8 AtIICIAIt6, INC. JOB Na: FOR: DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: 50097 Condon -Johnson Hoag Hospital Newport Beach, CA Page: 50 Material Unsaturated Unit Weight Saturated Unit Weight Poisson Ratio Reference Young's Modulus Cohension Friction Angle (pcf) (Pcf) - (Psf) (psf) (degree) Granular Terrace Deposit 100 120 0.3 8400000 100 32 ClayeySiltlWeathered Bedrock 80 100 0.3 12600000 400 16.5 Bedrock 100 100 0.33 15900000 525 23 Shotcrete Wall Name Normal Stiffness EA Flexuaral Rigidity El Weight Poisson Ratio (lb/ft) (Ib*ft /ft) (Ib/ftlft) - 4" Shotcrete Wall _ 1.44E+08 1.20E+07 150 0.2 Soil Nail (Extension On y) Name Normal Stiffness EA (Ib/ft) Soil Nail (8" Hole with #8 bar) 5.03E+06 Soil Nail (8" Hole with #9 bar) 6.45E+06 fhc +nilna❑ is #8 bar in the 8" diameter grouted hole @4.5 ft O.C.: A oss Section Area of#8 bar: nreabars:- 0.78In2 reab nt-h' Fs EA502C6fi6.67— rSpac 1 11ol-zoos -vli6IES OF TEE. CITY OE N ti E THAT THESE PLANS ARE, AND IONING ORDINANCES. RVES THE RIGHT TO REQUI -, OR IMPROVEMENT AUTHORI cTRUCTION, fF NECESSARY T 1]E5 OF THE CITY OF NEWPOR • (SIGNATUR PRELIMINARY itg TECHNICAL [N`'VFETIGATION OF RETAINING WALL, PARKING LOT AND CHILD CARE PREPARED FOR: HBSPITAL Hoag Hospital Newport Beach, California ThEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services A TRC Company LOWNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/ Geolechnicai/Engineering Services 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 Dennis Jensen,•.• ,CEG 1034 S. Ali Bastani, PhD, PE, GE 2458 Senior efologist Associate, Area Manager QpOFESa^/p <-1 AU OqS Fo A- p'� of NEYYPORT aunt suttee (DEPARTMENT G 'RO(AL AF'' HESE PLANS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED Rc.�< �' 2A I•N' 0 CONSTRUCT ANY BUILDING IN VIOLATION OF OR INCONSISTENT O•r,. NCES,PLANS, ANDPOLN.AES OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH THIS NOT GUARANTEE THAT THESE PLANS ARE, IN ALL RESPECTS. iN ^cbrEJ�RT BEABUILDING,HEµRVEES THE RIGHTD ZONING O REQUIPLANS AND PC RE ANY IS'ES iC ILDING STRUCTURE OR IMPROVEMENT AUTHORIZED BY THESE S RING OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION, IF NECESSARY TO COMPLY MTh THE CES, PLANS AND POLICIES OF 111E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. PERMITTEE'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT: • ,h C. Bar utter, PE, /GE` 2 Seni rincipal Engineer Quality Assurance Reviewer DEPARTMENT SIGNATURE PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL SERVICES FIRE GRADING Mountain View Oakland Fullerton E,—�f;$WPRamon (SIGNATURE) DATE cold Las Vegas- --- n cin Fav• 714441&i091 gCr: 251 East Imperial Highway, Suite 470 Fullerton, �A 92035 Tel: 714i' 1 3n E-mail: mail@lowney.com 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 Summary of Results 12 3.4 Differential Compaction 12 3.5 Lateral Spreading 12 LO WE i rSOCIA ES Page i Envionmenfal / Gaolednicai / Engineenng 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 UMICAMONES Page ii Environmental / GeoIechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 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 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 LOW EY'4A�.)000IA S 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 LOWNEYASSOCIAI ES Environmental / Geotectmical / Engineering Services Page iv 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, 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: ♦ 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. ♦ 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. LOINFE ASSO IA1ES Page 1 Environmental / Geotechnical / 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. L WNEI AMOC TFS Page 2 Environmental / Gealechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 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. Monterey/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 EirsscuAIFs Page 3 Environmental / Geolechnical / 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 Table 1. Summary of Net Allowable Bearing Capacities Reference Subgrade Type Embed.` (ft) Width* (ft) gall* (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 Embed.: Minimum embedment, Width: Minimum Width, Qaii: Allowable Bearing Capacity for dead plus live loads. 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. LOINFE Aa CIA W Page 4 1651-26 Environmental l Geotecnnical/ Engineering Services la a se a is SIN int N a r a e a Me a r On NW SIM Environmenial / Geotechnical / Engineering Services Table 3. Summary of Corrosion Tests Chemical Analysis in mg/kg (ppm) of Dry soil Soil Resistivity Redox Total Acidity Boring & Soil Type 0-cm = r p t) "a A ++ ^ Depth (ft) y v Z I in m z z As Rec. Sat. Kleinfelder (2002b) B1@1-5' Silty Sand 1500 550 7.5 569 114 990 107 695 2,859 NA NA 9.9 2.0 --- 82@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) 82@10' Clayey Slltstone 290 7.3 --- --- --- --- 1639 444 --- --- --- --- -- K82@30' Silty Sand 260 7.9 --- --- --- --- 763 54 --- --- --- --- -- LCI(1996) 8303.5-5' Silty Sand/Clay 440 190 4.0 1,050 323 2,505 ND 3,286 4,576 Pos. +20 NA NA >320 83@8.5-10' Clay 420 240 6.8 1,283 421 762 879 2,219 2,629 Pos. -49 NA NA NA 83@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) 82@40.5' Claystone 1,300 690 4.6 80 24 253 244 283 400 None +290 --- --- - B3@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 --- --- --- LO NEYA x_ CIATES 1651-26 Page 5 1 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 Tmax (Pcf) Opt. Mc(%) 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 Bl@0 4' 103 22 LCA (1991) Siltstone B6@5-10' 80 36 Siltstone B9@1-5' 82 35 LCA (1990) Sandy Silt B2@0-3' 122 12 Geosoil (1978) Fine Sandy Silt 127.5 9.0 TP2@4 Silty Sand TP7@5 109 15.5 Clayey Silt TP11@5' 111 18 Fine Sand TP12@5-10' 123.5 9 taw.: 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 136@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 t OWIVEYASSOCIATES Page 6 1 Environmental / Geoterhnical / 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 LV VICFAMOCIAlES 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 fat -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). LOMPEYA30CCIATES 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 Tess 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 LOWNEYAS,AlES Page 9 Envirownenlal / 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 LV1.1NEYAS. CIA Es 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 (amaJg)(avo/a'„o)rd where amax is the peak horizontal acceleration at the ground surface generated by an earthquake, g is the acceleration of gravity, a„o and a'„o 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. 41VWPEiAsEx ctA w Page 11 Environmental / Geotechnical / 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 "freer" 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. LOWNEYASSCCIA1 Page 12 Environmental / Geotechnical / 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 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% 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(http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/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). LOWFEYASSOCk ES Page 13 1651-26 Environmental / Gootechnical / Engineering Services 1 1 1 1 1 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 So soil profiles (600 fps Vs<1200 fps) per 2001 CBC definition in Table 16A-1 for the upper 100 feet of bedrock. Therefore, the So (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 (http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/Pshamap/ashamain.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 SD (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. WVIIPEYIASSEX EA ES Page 14 Environmental 1 Geatechnical ! 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) Faults that are capable of producing large A magnitude events and that have a high rate of seismic activity. M > 7.0 SR z 5 M?7.0 SR<5 B All faults other than Types A and C. M < 7.0 SR > 2 M>-6.5 SR<2 Faults that are not capable of producing C 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 when 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) *Newport -Inglewood (LA Basin) _ _ B <_2 San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust B 4 Newport -Inglewood (Offshore) B 8 Palos Verdes B 18 *Nearest Type B fault 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-)) SD 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. Environmental/ Geolecnnical / Engineering Services LVWti It A. SOCIA1 W Page 15 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 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. 1 Environmental / Geotedinical / Engineering Services LOWNEYASSOCtA W 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 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 VejSevere 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 less 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 WiNtallASSOCIATES Page 17 Environmental / Gectechnical / 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. L ONPE 'AS OCA1 W 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 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. L WEVASSOCIATFS 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 LOWNEYASSOCIAMS Page 20 Environmental l 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%0 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. L PEIATJ.X IAiW Page 21 Environmental / Geotedmical / Engineering Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining WallrParking 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 Tong -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 161V1fPE i ASSOCIA 1 W 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 less than approximately '/a -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. 41VWIEIr sscx .A s Page 23 Environrnenlal / Geotechnical / Engineer ng 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 11/4H: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 wail. 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 (a/H) is smaller than 0.04, a factor of safety of 2.5 should be applied to 41Y NP i PSScCATES Page 24 Environmental / Geotectmical / 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, 1/2-inch to 3/4-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). VVf ItttEiAMOCIA ES Page 25 Environmental / Geofectnicaf f 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. ~ I'TJOC Al LS Page 26 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Senrkes 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 Toads 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 21/2 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 2'/2 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 1/2-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. LOWPE i'PSS .JOv11 W Page 27 Environmental / Geolechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 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 L O NEYAS OCIAI W Page 28 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 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 load 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 load 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 LOW EiPSSOCIAILS Page 29 Environmental / Geatechnical / 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 Tess 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 "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. LowicrAsscancrEs Page 30 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 Environmental / Geolechnical 1 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 LOWIK .triS.7.JCV11Es Page 31 1651-26 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 critical surface for a horizontal earthquake coefficient of 0.21 (V PHGA 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 FSaI FS,' (KH= 0.21g) Meld (9) Permanent Displacement". (inches) 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 pseudosta is factor of safety with the earthquake coefficient o 0.21. ` Pseudostatic safety factor for the static 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 constructionand 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 (ft) 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. LOWI1EY'PS9 2v-1I W Page 32 Environmental / Geotechnical / 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. Flash 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 1s` 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. . 41VWVEY' i OCIA W Page 33 Environmental / GeoteMnical / Engmeonng Services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Walt, 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. LOVVNEYA9GOCIA1F,S 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. LO PEiP CCIAIEs Page 35 Environmental / Geotecfnical / Engineering services 1651-26 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, Parking Lot, and Childcare Center 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 (Inches) 3.5 Aggregate Baserock* (Inches) 7.0 Total Thickness (Inches) 10.5 Automobile Parking _ 4.0 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 LOWNE '1AsSCCIAi W Page 36 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 LOWNEYAsscomEs Page 37 Environmental I Geotechn cal / 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, J.D., and Rathje, E.M. (1998), Earthquake -Induced Displacements of Solid - Waste Landfills, J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmentat 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. 41VMIPEYASSctA1 W Page 38 Environmental / Genteel -mica( / 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 Backcut, 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. 089034.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, L WFEI/-SS...X IA1ES 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.. 4OWEE 'JAS OCIA W Page 40 Environmental / Geotechnical / 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. LOWNEWSSOCAIES Page 41 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1651-26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LOWNEYASSOCIATES aNiXk] iEXT;XoNsr eAktl TOPOt map printedon 02T1//0t from tariforrma.tpo'' and "Newport BeachiPg" 117°57.000W 117°56.000' W WGS84 117°55.0001W 117°57. 00 0' W 117,56.000' W .5 I NILE .9.=..s1C00 FEU 9 we ono PATERS Noted Elm TOPOI 02001 Kthoistkleastophic Hato (wenr.toporam) WGS84 117°55.000' W Wi;iMrirari .11a afl[Cdp]iU, '37.000 VICINITY MAP HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL Newport Beach, California Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services FIGURE 1 1651-26 10 t So • N 1 + 0 o w n Z 0 0 0 0 P_ar 0 ft'SLa Z E 48000 + + + Swi.•.. 1 � ���� �L JQLJ,�W-- `- _.. "orttgar.....j/Virt.:-........__ „.„ + + + + + + -LCA + , 8-3 E 48200 - E 48400 E 48600 E 48800 E 49000 LEGEND KB-1 0— Approximate location LCI 8-3 ® — Approximate location LCA B-6 ® - Approximate location LCA BORING-2 LCA ®5 Approximate location SASW-D - Approximate location CPT-4 LB-3 - Ea - Cross section Approximate location Approximate locotion Approximate location of bucket of bucket of bucket auger boring auger boring auger/rotary E 49200 by Kleinfelder (2002) by Law/Crandall Inc. (1996) wash boring by LeRoy Crandall Assoc. (1991) of bucket auger boring by LeRoy Crandall Assoc. (1990) of bucket auger boring by LeRoy Crandall Assoc. (1987) of center of Surface Wave Soundings, this investigation of Cone Penetration Test (CPT) locotions, this investigation of hollow —stem auger borings and monitoring wells, this investigation location, this investigation t E 49400 E 49600 E 49800 Site plan provided by Hoag Hospitol. + E 50000 + + E 50200 0 o 0 Z 0 0 n Z 0 v z 0 0 0 n Z 0 0 oo n z 0 200 Scale feet FIELD INVESTIGATION PLAN HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING W Newport Beach, California ALL eV L,O1/NEYASSOOATES FIGURE 2 Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services 1651-26 a 1 KB-11 r-LCA B-1 70 60 50- 40- 30- 20- 10- 0 ML 4 CL (FILL) SP-SM SP '—?— CPT-1 SM -7- MH r i LCA B-2 LB-11- SILTSTONE 2 _ ?— CPT-2 -10- 100 200 300 400 1 500 500 S LEGEND KB-1: Bucket auger boring by Kleinfelder (2002) LCA B-4: Bucket auger boring by LeRoy Crandall & Associates (1991) CPT-4: Cone Penetration Test, this investigation LB-3: Hollow —stem boring, this investigation 700 800 I 900 LCA B-3 LCA B-4 (FILL) SP-SM 1991 Grade - 70 Present Sidewalk - 60 Grade — — — — — -? Present - 50 Parking LB-3 Lot Grade CPT-3 _}_,_ � SP LB-2 SM MH SILTSTONE — Reported water level in borings and wells 1000 a - Reported seepage SM, MH,- Unified Soil Classification Symbols etc. (See boring logs, Appendix A) 1100 Vertical Scale O 10 Scale feet Horizontal Scale O 100 Scale feet 120C 1300 1 40 + 30 - 20 - 10 I 0 0 1500 --10 PROFILE 1-1' HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL Newport Beach, California LONTINEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services FIGURE 3 1651-26 1651-26-3.dwg CI N 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 ? I(FILu 7 COGENERATION FACILITY UTILITY — LINES hi —UPPER PARKING LOT CPT-1 SP ? SM MH —20 — SI LTSTON E I I 60 A C C I) 22() �► SIDEWALK -el —100 CONDOMINIUM BUILDING - 80 WALL ? ? SP-SM SP SM ? MH 7 — 60 — 40 — 20 — —20 —40 — — —40 e (u) uol;enala 30 fee CROSS SECTION A -A' HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL Newport Beach, CA 1651-26-7Tip 2/22/2005 1,26714 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/Geotechnicol/Engineering Services Figure 4 1651-26 8 a 100 — 80 — 60 — F 40 — 0 Y m + LOWER PARKING LOT w 20 — 0 20 —20 — —40 — LCA B6 (FILL) 1 r CPT-2 LCA (Pro ected B-2 95' West) (Projected 95' East) he ---UPPER PARKING LOT LB-1 (Pro ec ed 90' East) COGENERATION FACILITY UTILITY LINES —100 — 80 CONDOMINIUM I SIDEWALK_H/ BUILDING WALL —r-----=60 SP-SM SP 0 SP----"� ----------------- 4 r — -� SM 2 MF1 - —------ S I LTSTON E 20 SM — — — — — — — — 20 1 1 1 0 340 360 380 --20 --40 e Scale 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. L.O INEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services Figure 5 1651-26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C 100 - 80-'- 60 - 40 LOWER PARKING 20 — LOT 0 -20 — -40 — LCA B-7 (Projected 15' West) 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. COGENERATION FACILITY UTILITY LB-2 LINES (Projected 30' East) UPPER PARKING LOT SM MH SILTSTONE LCA 5-3 (Projected 50' East) 240 SP-SM SP 7 SM 7 MH 7 hi —SIDEWALK C' — 100 — 80 r- 60 — 40 20 I 0 r — -20 - -40 CONDOMINIUM BUILDING WALL (4) uonenal3 0 CROSS SECTION C-C' HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL Newport Beach, CA LOVVNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services ti Figure 6 O F 1651-26 D 100 — 80- 60— 40— ro u.l 20- 0 BUILDING LCA Boring -2 (Projected 59' West) T (FILL) 7 MH SM CPT-3 (Projected 40' East) !LB-3 (Projected 170' West) UPPER PARKING LOT SILTSTONE I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I { I 80 1 0 0 f."s(;i ,:':-;C! .%. i 2 40 -20- -40- 7 COGENERTAION FACILITY —UTILITY LINES 7 LCA B 4 L+SIDEWALK-►. SP-SM SP SM MH —100 CONDOMINIUM — 80 • — 60 — 40 — 20 0 --20 --40 a BUILDING WALL (i}) UO fl2Aa13 Scale CROSS SECTION D-D' HOAG HOSPITAL RETAINING WALL Newport Beach, CA 1651-26-74wQ 2/23/2005 1129 AR 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 Figure 7 g Environmental/Seotechnical/Engineering Services 1651-26 100 E E 80-- 60- 40- 20 ACCESS ROAD—' CHILD CARE CENTER PARKING LOT LCA 8-3 (PROJECTED 210' West) FILL ACCESS ROAD SILTSTONE P SM LCA 8-1 (PROJECTED 125' West) MH CPT-4 (Projected 15' West) LCA 8-5 (Projected 115' West) COGENERTATION FACILITY UT LITY LINES PARKING LOT SIDEWALK SM SP SM -20— t„ a SPA. 169=[6-Sdro • 3 Pot CROSS SECTION E-E' 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 Figure 8 Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services 1651-26 a R as a is a se so is as SPT or Equivalent SPT Dry Unit Weight N-Values (bpf) Yd (PO 0 20 40 60 80 100 60 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 0 5 0 -5 -10 -15 I I III 1 t,j 0 - o 'o O ti 0 +0 lnsitu Moisture Content, LL, PL (%) Degree of Saturation, Sr (%) 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 60 „t ,tr ❑ rr, 0 ti _ o o o I 0 I I 1 111 ❑ t 0 + ❑ ) t1 ,Ir =o I rir ❑ I11 III 0 +0 0 Fines Content (%) 80 100 Legend: 0 t LB-1 LB-2 LB-3 PL LL TRC/HOAG Project No.: 1651-26 LOWNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/GeotechnIcal/EnglneerIng Service, Subsurface Characterization Index Soil Properties versus Depth Borings LB-1 through LB-3 Figure 9 Dote: August 2003 N I e NO V__ r MID ___ INN NMI R M MI MN MN 0 10 - 20 E CI 8CL 30 - 40 - NOTE:O — (q,,,Jro and CRR plots are truncated at 300 and 0.8, respectively. "Ah Is liquefaction -Induced settlement and does not Include earthquake - induced settlement of unsaturated soils. 0 FR (%) 15 10 5 0 Ir11 11 I1r 111 II 5- 10 T 15 Qt (tst) 150 ie Ircien its CRR7,5 Ah' (in) 300 0 1 2 3 4 0 150 3000.6 0.4 0.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 II II I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 II II II II SILTiSILTSTdNE (MH, LL>75 - 0 - 10 - 20 - 30 - 40 - 50 TRC/HOAG j Project No.: 1651-26 LO INEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnlcal/Engineering Service; Integrated CPT Method for Estimating Subsurface Stratification at CPT-1 Figure 10 CPT-1.xls, CPT-1.grt Date: February 2005 SS I NM M i• N MS NM al S i• E i• SS MB NS SIN Mil SS 0 — 10 - 40 - — NOTE:O (q6u)ca and CRR plots are truncated at 300 and 0.8, respectively. dh is Ilquefaction-induced settlement and does not Include earthquake - induced settlement of unsaturated soils. FR (%) Qt (tsi is 0 150 300_ _ 0.4 0.2 _ _ _ _ 0 5 -- 10 15 A 1 2 q�y e II II 1 II I II II 11 II 11 II II II 11 II II II I E Is 81 1 iI 211,1 (gctN)c8 CRRTA ph. (in) - 0 - 10 - 20 - 30 - 40 - 50 TRC/HOAG Project No.: 1651-26 LOWNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Service: Integrated CPT Method for Estimating Subsurface Stratification at CPT-2 Figure 11 CPT-2xls, CPT-2 grf Date'. February 2005 i I NIB INS r MN NW In — INN _ ON N M M _ MO MI ION 0 10 — 20 - E 30 — 40 — NOTE:O — (k,taca and CRR plots are truncated at 300 and 0.8, respectively. * ah is liquefaction -induced settlement and does not include earthquake - induced settlement of unsaturated soils. FR (%) Qt (tst) 10 (gc,NJCs CRR75 Alf (In) 15 10 5 0 150 300 0 1 2 3 4 0 150 3000.6 0.4 0.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 r1 _ 1 1 — 1 5 10 15 11 II"I'll"1'I o iquefi-bl ILT-SILTStONE (MH, LL>75) — 0 — 10 — 20 — 30 — 40 — 50 TRC/HOAG I Prof No.: 1651-26 LOWNEYASSOCIATES • Environmental /Geotechnlcal /Engineering Service! Integrated CPT Method for Estimating Subsurface Stratification at CPT-3 Figure 12 CPT.3.xls, CPT-3.gd Date: February 2005 se s as NE la is w a— a vs w us a a Ile as a a FR (%) Qt () 15 10 5 0 150 3000 0 - 0 10 - 20 - O. 0 30 - 40 - NOTE:O — (4t0cs 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. rrl riirr,rrr I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I le 1 2 3 (gc,Nh, CRR7J Oh' (in) 4 0 150 3000.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 1111 '11' I'I '1"' 11 I 0 t I r 1 1 °a �1 rdp t�Y 1 `9 - ° Nonliquefiable SILTiSILTSTOiNE MH LL.75 I 1 11 1 I Plerchgd G 1 1 1 • 1 1 0: tale 1 1 1 1 I. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - 0 - 10 - 20 - 30 - 40 - 50 TRC/HOAG I Project No.: 1651-26 LOWNEVASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Service; Integrated CPT Method for Estimating Subsurface Stratification at CPT-4 Figure 13 CPT-4.xls, CPT-A.gd Date. February 2005 Mill EMI I N r I M OM I Oa M— I MO M NM M— M Vtxls im 8 a z e 0 0 0 Elevation (ft) e � 0 8 8 , , I f , I , 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 , 1 1 I , , oS`>1+ y — .... _ _ _ __ - - - I _ 0 - . - V -40- o . �-• i 1 0 eauepaaax310 Xauenbaid /enuuy 0 S $ o o 0 0 La d . ?me w d .- IIII+ 1 1111 111 i III \I III 1 II11 IIIII I III I 1 1 11 111111 1111 111111 1111 11 1 1 1 1 I J11I1 I_1_ 1111 1 1 1 11 11111 1 1 11111 I 1 11111 I 1 11111 I 1 I I1 1 1 I 1 1111 1 1 1111 I 1 1 111111 1 "I 1-111 I- I - I - 111111 1 1 111111 1 I Il11ll 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 l n I-f IIII 1 1 11? l 1 1 1 IIIII 1 1 IIII 1 1 1 I Illlll 1 IIIII I IIIII 1 IIIII I 1111 I_I1 111111 1111 1 1 11111 1111 III 1 1 1 I O O O a o 0) I I 1111 1 I I 1 t1--tlttl�trt I 1 IIII11 I I 1 1 1 1 IIII CO a> CA 0 I I I I O Y y I i - 0 t I I Q 0 I _ N 1 1 I N. is Z co y I I _ 'y -R W 1 I I 1 _ 4 Q� 1 1 I i 1 _ 'i na W_ILI I _I_ _ 03 c Q I I 1 - us O 1 Ca II I « e F 1 1 1 I - Lo cc 1I I I O N I I Iistwo 1 1 1 1 I C III - �0 Vw) 3 III 1 - �e zQg 1-Hu YI-1-I-- oe F 11111 1 I a 88C'0 Q ▪ a a a Q Y 1 0) 0 01 I I _ o a C Illlll g t it u i(1 N Illlll I1 1111 1111 I TIIIIIT 1 TI Illlll 11 I 1 1 1 I IIIII 1 1 I 1111 IIIII 11I1I I I a OC g a a 0 0 c s 0 O O O (smelt) d?IV 'Polled willed aferand N O 0 O ZPA-ARP.xb 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 00 O 0 N 0 O O aouepeeax3 {o Xouenbaaj /enuuy LO O F O 0 0 O O O 0 O O 1 11111111 1 1 111111 1 IIII 1 1 1 1 111111 11-H 11 1 t 111111 111111 1 111111 Illill l 111 1i1Ir1 7 -IT1 111111 I I 11 1 1 1 1 I IIII 1 1 I I It I-1 III 11 1 1 41111_ - 1111 1 1 I 1 T -I - 11111 n0 1111 11 1 IIII 1 1 ' I III .1,11 I 1- III I II T1 1 I 1111 11111 11111 111111 14 1 IIII 11\ I I I III H IIII I 1111 1 1 1 1 111111 I I 11111 I I T = =1 = = = _ = I= = = Seismic Sources (Sorted by Distance): O 0 0 Newport -Inglewood (LA Basin) ❑ 0 -0 San Joaquin Hills O O 0 Newport -Inglewood (Offshore) A A A Palos Verdes x x x Puente Hills k Elsinore -Glen Ivy >x Cucamanga {1.— 9.—+t0 San Andreas -Southern All Other Sources Total Seismic Hazard I I I I I 111111\ I III I\I 111 II I I 1111 I I 1\ 1+11 -I -- 1111 1 111111 11111 1 1 111111 1 111111 II1111 I 11111 1 I I 111111 1 1 iH11-1- 1-1 1\IIII 1 11 AI 1 1 1 WIN 1 1 III111‘1 1 I I I I I I I 1111 1 11 111 1 1 IIIII I I 111111 1 111111 IIIII I I I 111111 1 I IIIIII I III I I 11111 _ III I 1111 1 ITI 1 7- 111111 III I I -1 1 1 II I I I11 1‘� 11 11 I I 1 1-I III 11 IIIII I IT1 li 111111 1 1 1 41-I - 1111 1 IIIIII I 41 �1 1 O" 111 H \IllflIl 111H I N11111 111'411 1 T I \I O ev'111 \I\ I� 11111 1- 111 11 I I\ I I III I I 1111 11 I_ IIIII 1 1 I11111 1 1 I ITI I- III T1 t - II I 1 1 III I I IIII l I l I 111111 I JIIll11 _IIIII IIIIII I 11111 I I I I U LT F 1111 I-1 I--111-41 11 1 1 1 IIIIII I I 1lil l l l 111111 I IJ 1 _ 111111 I IIIII I T I ITI I -I T- (IIIIII I -I 1 - 11111 I IIIIII I I IIII 11111 IHH-I 1 -I1+1 1111I 11111 11111I (IIIIII ITT -17-11TIITI-I IIIII I 111111 I I IIIII11 III 1! r-I - 111111 II I I I 111111 111111 - (IIIIII i111111 I 11111 1 1 IHIt 11111 i l 11 +I 1 111111 111111 111111 1 1 '7IIIT11- IIIIII I I IIIIII 1 1 11111111 f1i11 I 1 11 1 +I IIII , i) 11111 1 (IIIIII (IIIIII - \ - 1111111 1 III 1 1 1 +IIH {- 1111 14k1H I I 1 111111 111111 11tt1Y r rim (IIIIII 114111 I I 11111 1 1111 11 1 I HIH H 1 - 111111 1 11111 I 1 IIIII I I Illill l I El T -- 111111 l 1 Illill I f O O O O 0 O (saeax) ddd `pouad turned aBeJOAV 0 N 0 O 0 u pc �� c m conirldutorSadigh (PGA).xl Date: February 2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 0 m fV 0 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 6000 5000 a 4000 P. 3000 c 2000 rn 1000 0 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Granular Terrace Deposits •- --• 1 - Average (4= 32°, C=400 psf) Rec. for Design 0= 32°, C=100 psf) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ - i oo °" Ike - 1 1 q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 Fine Grained Terrace Deposits : Average (4= 27.5°, C=325 psf) : Rec. for Design (4= 16.5° C=400 psf) 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 0 - �- sJ - �A J Ai J J J - _ - ...Ir.- J 1 1 1 1 J J J _ J - J J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ♦ ♦ • ■ is *- LCA (1987) LCA (1990) LC1t96)) LCI (1996) ICeeinfelder(2002) Lowney Siltstone/Claystone 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r - Average (43= 28.5°, C=1175 psf) - Rec. for Design (4= 23° C=525 psf) 1 1 1 1 - ❑ - p• _, -- - ❑ ❑J �J J --- o J Q O 06` 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Norma! Stress (psf) Note: Same symbol types indicate the same reference report. SoUd symbols present the soaked samples and open symbols present the samples tested with in field moisture content. HoagJNewport Beach I Project No.: 1651-26 LOWNEYASSOCIATES Summary of Direct Shear Test Results Hoag Hospital, Newport Beach 1 EnNronmentai/Geotechnlcal/Eneineeri g Serces Figure 17 "lam t i H b Pp Base Lateral Earth Pressures (Drained Condition/Flat Backfili): P = Pa + Pq = 35H, + 0.30q (Cantilever Walls) P = Po + Pq = 60H, + 0.50q (Restrained Walls) Pp = Min (250H2, 2500) Fe = 10 H,' for 475-ARP (Cantilever Walls) Fe = 52 H,2 for 475-ARP (Restrained Walls) µ = 0.30 NOTES: q (Surcharge) 1 1 1 "mar F I 0.6 H, H, Lateral Earth Pressures (Drained Condition/2H:1V Backfill): P = Pa + Pq = 57H, + 0.30q (Cantilever Walls) P = Po + Pq = 98H, + 0.50q (Restrained Walis) Pp = Min (250H2, 2500) Fe = 30 H,' for 475-ARP (Cantilever Walls) = 0.30 All values of height (H) in feel (ft), pressure (P) and surcharge (q) in pounds per square feet (psf) and force (F) in pounds (lb) are for unit width of walls. Pp, Pa, andtal Pise sm cpassi e, active, and at -rest earth pressures, respectively; Fe is the Pq is the incremental surcharge earth pressure; and u is the allowable friction coefficient, applied to dead normal (buoyant) loads. F. 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 (AM) is smaller than 0.04. The passive pressure might not be used if soil is subjected to scour. Neglect the upper 1ft 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 Project Na me: 112C/HOAG Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram for Retaining Walis Project No.: 1651-26 Date: February 2005 Figure 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 California 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 logs 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 logs in this appendix. LOWNEYASSOCINES Page A-1 Environmental / Geotechnical / Engineering Services 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PRIMARY DIVISIONS STYOPE LEGEND SECONDARY DIVISIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN HALF OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVELS MORE THAN HALF OF COARSE FRACTION [s LARGER 4 SITE NO. 4 SIEVE CLEAN GRAVELS (Less than 5% Fines) GW • 111. Well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines GP IS poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines GRAVEL WITH FINES GM o 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 5% Fines) SW 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 Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN HALF DF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN Na 200 SIEVE SIZE SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT 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 Inorganic clays of law to medium plasticity, gravelly days, sandy days, silty clays, lean clays OL — Organic silts and organic silty days of low plasticity SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS GREATER THAN S0 % MH jiInorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts CH 1 Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OH I Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts ;M HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT A ; , „ Peat and other highly organic soils DEFINITION OF TERMS U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 200 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) SPLIT SPOON, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) GRAIN SIZES HMODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER (brass ring lined) V AT TIME OF DRILLING SAND AND GRAVEL BLOWS/FOOT* VERY LOOSE 0-4 LOOSE 4-10 MEDIUM DENSE 10-30 DENSE 30-50 VERY DENSE OVER 50 RELATIVE DENSITY SAMPLERS NO RECOVERY MEASURED FOLLOWING DRILLING GROUND WATER aDIRECT 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 LOY/NEYASSOC ATES 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 40 • 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. z 0 <I- ww w 43.5 43.0- 42.3-` 35.5- C 30.5- 24.5- 13.5- u N ti DEPTH I N 0 N O N 0 (FT) z w J J N This log is a part of a report by Lowrey Associates. and should not be used as a stand-alone document This desorption applies may to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The desaipton Presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS SURFACE ELEVATION: 44 FT. (+/_) SOIL TYPE PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.) SAMPLER MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE Unhained Shear Strength (kart 0 Pocket Penetrometer o TOrvan¢ • umconfinedcamvression U-U T,iaxial Compression 1 0 2.0 3.0 40 11.1_6-INCHES ASPHALT CONCRETE ASPHALT 32 11 36 6 50 n,, X H — ` / (X� � 3 10 49 102 113 70 73.6 11-INCHES CRUSHED MISCELLANEOUS BASE - CMB ' SAND (SP) medium dense, slightly moist, brownish orange, fine grained, poorly graded - SP .. ' SANDY SILT (ML) plasticity, Fe staining stiff, moist, gray to brown, low - - ML SAND (SP) medium dense, moist, gray, mottled orange, fine grained, Fe staining, poorly graded - — SP iweathered, # 1 SILTSTONE (MH) olive to brown, moderately high plasticity, friable, medium stiff, some - subangular weathered siltstone clasts, trace shell fragments, near horizontal fabric = — becomes hard becomes less weathered - Continued Next Page MH GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS: V: PURCHED GROUND WATER MEASURED AT 9.8 FEET ON 1/26/05 1: DEEP GROUND WATER TABLE MEASURED AT 41.2 FEET ON 1/26/05 .00 1 LOWNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnlcal/Engineering Services LB -I 1651-26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 U rt 5 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. W ELEVATION o (FT) This log is a part of a report by Loamey Associates, and should not be used as a stand-alone document. This description applies orey to the location of the etqMralon at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may carter at other locations and may PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.) SAMPLER MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE Vndrairhed Shear Strength (k=n 2 change at the location with time. The description presented is a siy be grtim of I co actual conditions encountered. Transitions between sag types may be gent. ay- J W a. (~ 0 Pocket Penetrometer Q Torvane WLL 0 -I p N MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS m • Unconfined compesson u-U Triaxial Compression 10 20 30 4.0 SILTSTONE (MH) olive to brown, moderately weathered, high plasticity, friable, medium stiff, weathered siltstone clasts, trace shell some - 16subangular ItiI fragments, near horizontal fabric - 33 ,��,n,, 32 74 _ I1 / 1 40 r . % 4 becomes hard _ MH 21 X `/ _ 45• — • becomes very stiff 43 d 44 73 50 • N �/ • BOTTOM OF BORING AT 51.5 FEET - PERCHED GW AT 9.8 FEET (1/26/05) - DEEP GWT AT 41.2 FEET (1/26/05) PLACED MONITORING WELLS ENCASED WITH - 55 BENTONITE & SAND LAYERS — 60 — GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS: 4: PURCHED GROUND WATER MEASURED AT 9.8 FEET ON 1/26/05 t: DEEP GROUND WATER TABLE MEASURED AT 41.2 FEET ON 1/26/05 J 1 LOWNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services LB-1 1651-26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 a u. to -64 0i, a' a 0i i 1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION NO: LB-2 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 r^ wL la 36.5 36 0- 35.5 28.5 22.5 6.5- 2 F^ 0L SOIL LEGEND 2' e as / r 50.5P § \ 0 q a(/ r •ir \ 3 g gKr / ` 2 §g. 0 ! || , - / \. , ©Le to a [` y PENETRATION %m PERCENT Undrained Shear Strength (ksf) O Pocket penetrometer a,Tavane • uncon edcompesson ♦ u 1.0 Ttiaxial Compression 3.0 4.0 1111L6-INCHES ASPHALT CONCRETE ASPHAL- 9 49 21 44 12 Z5 N X— — H _ X 51 44 71 73 93.7 ° INCHES CRUSHED MISCELLANEOUS BASE CMB :: ' . -6 SILTY SAND (SM) loose to medium dense, moist, yellowish brown, fine grained, poorly graded - ; SM - 10— CLAYEY SILT (MH) hard, moist, dark brown, high plasticity - — MH 15 20 25• 30 i le_ 40, / SILTSTONE (MH) olive to brown, moderately weathered, high plasticity, friable, hard, near horizontal - fabric 1 1 _ i - 4 interbedded with sub -horizontal 1/4-inch thick sand lenses, very stiff — Continued Next Page MH GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS: t I' 1 LOWNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services LB-2 1651-26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 rc 0 0 0 0- 0- 1U 5 I 1 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. SOIL LEGEND This log is a part ofa report by Lowney Associates, and should not be set as a stand-alone document TNs desolation applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may tiller at other locations and may PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 11 PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE Undrained Shear Strength (ksU z change at the location with time The desaiiseon presented is a simplification of w Z 0 Pocket Penetrometer 0 I actual conditions encountered. Transient between sod ypes may be gradual. a_ et i to ct I— >u' a. LL illy F -, a_ f W U z IT Oo. O Tmvane tu MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS y h z 0 • Unconfined Compression 6.5- A u U Toaxial Compression to 20 30 40 30 SILTSTONE (MH) olive to brown, moderately — weathered, high plasticity, friable, hard, near horizontal - fabric 48 42 74 35 40 i — becomes very stiff some subangular weathered sandstone clasts, hard MH 14 50-3 M I� 43 74 45 o some white calcium carbonate nodules, interbedded - with 1/2-inch thick sand lenses, very stiff - 15 X IA /7 �� - becomes hard 50 - — Th 52 41 75 -15.0- ' ,1 BOTTOM OF BORING AT 51.5 FEET - BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS _ 55- - 60- - GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS: 1 LOWNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services LB-2 1651-26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION NO: LB-3 Sheet 1 of 2 LL `c o U 5 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. i DEPTH > (FT) SOIL LEGEND vg nP 3 c ➢ ggmm. m age E Z7 @lag a rm" o g4m ms�R m ) in 214 z z gY Me; z k & v Bmg BMY-RI l T.— 73 gez�8 0) H em w PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.) SAMPLER MOISTURE CONTENT(%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE UrM2ired Shear Strength (ksfl O Pocket Penetrometer 0 a - >Ili forvane w y • Unconfined Compression U-U Triaxial Compression 41.0 1 o 20 ao 40 40.5- 0 6-INCHES ASPHALT CONCRETE ASPI-IAL- 8-INCHES CRUSHED MISCELLANEOUS BASE - CMB 397_ SAND (SP), medium dense to dense, moist, yellowish brown, fine to medium grained, Fe staining, poorly - graded - sP 39 [[]] n 17 87 Q _ - _ 33.0 % CLAYEY SAND (SC) medium dense, slightly moist, gray to brown, fine grained, poorly graded - 103 _ SC 5 28.0 CLAYEY SILT (MH) very stiff, moist, dark grey to , brown, high plasticity - 15— — 25 y 34 72 MH 20— — 13 / 20.0 SILTSTONE (MH) olive to brown, moderately weathered, high plasticity, friable, very stiff, near - 11.0- 25 30 \ hodzontal fabric, some shell fragments with horizontal alignment - becomes hard — - — MH 45 ,��,n,, I, / 1 55 67 Continued Next Page GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS: V: PURCHED GROUND WATER MEASURED AT 7.2 FEET ON 1/26/05 ` _: DEEP GROUND WATER TABLE MEASURED AT 50.0 FEET ON 1/26/05 1 LOWNE1'ASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnlcal/Engineering Services LB-3 1651-26 1 f 1 1 1 r 1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION NO: LB-3 Cont'd Sheet 2 of 2 r- a a o i 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. This log is a part of a report by Luey Associates. d should not be used as a and staawalone document. This description applies only to Me location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS(FT.) SAMPLER MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSITY (PCP) PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE Undrained Shear Strength (km') z z change at this location with lime. The description presented is a simplification of w O packet Penetrometer 0 actual conditions encountered. Transitions between sal types may be gradual. a ^ r F 1- ^Z Q. -J A Tarvane > IL w o m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AN D REMARKS • Unconfined Compression A U U Tdaxial Compression 11.0 10 2.0 3.0 4.0 30 SILTSTONE (MH) olive to brown, moderately weathered, high plasticity, friable, very stiff, near 13 si 1 IV horizontal fabric, some shell fragments with horizontal alignment = 35 et - becomes hard 53 / �,,n,,7 1 46 72 40 strong H2S odor 21 X 4 MH — 4 _ 45 / — 65 77n 44 74 4 4 /1 /, 50 `X/ - 21 h -10.5- 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 - BENTONITE & SAND 55— - i - _ 60— — GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS: V : PURCHED GROUND WATER MEASURED AT 7.2 FEET ON 1/26/05 1: DEEP GROUND WATER TABLE MEASURED AT 50.0 FEET ON 1/26/05 44 1 LO1'/NEYASSOCIAI LS Environmental/Geotechnlcal/Engineering Services LB-3 1651-26 GREGG DRILLING AND TESTING, INC, GREGG IN SITU, INC. ENVIRONMEN FAL AM) (IEOTECI INIC Al, INVESTIGATION SERVICES January 25, 2005 Lowney Attn: AliBastani 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. Bastani: The following report presents the results of GREGG IN STRJ's Cone Penetration Test investigation for the above referenced site. The following testing sentices were perforrned: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Cone Penetration Tests (CPTU) Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPD) Seismic Cone Penetration Tests (SCPTU) Resistivity Cone Penetration Tests (RCPTU) UVIF Cone Penetration Tests (UVIFCPTU) Groundwater Sampling (GWS) Soil Sampling (SS) Vapor Sampling (VS) Vane Shear Testing (VST) SPT Energy Calibration (SPTE) El DED00000 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 Savela Operations Manager 2726 Wsiptit As e • Signal Hill, California 90755 • (562) 427-6899 • FAX (562) 427-3314 Onink OFFICE& SI 7" INIPP.; ILI F • S kt;FRAN,*1:;+"( • S.\j1 LAKE CCTV 'lb MST, •24 • *: '01'‘ FR • ST eFitt IN, ?it , 11 cv 'STA WW" ttre=drillin.' COM IMP MID al Mil Oil IND la NIP Ile s MI MIS s MI IND 11111 MI a Arafai s GREGG DRILLING AND TESTING, INC. GREGG IN SITU, INC. ENVIRONMENIAl, AND GU/TECHNICAL INVESTRIATION SERVICES Cone Penetration Test Sounding Summary -Table 1- C.P1 Sounding Identification 1 Date Termination DepthDepth (Feet) of Groundwater Samples (ft) Depth of Soil Samples (ft) Depth of Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (ft) CPT-01 1/24/05 50 - 50,0 C -02 1/24/05 50 CPT-03 1/24/05 24 - - - CPT-04 1/24/05 50 - - - 2726 Walnut Ave • Signal 11111, California 90755 * (562) 4274899 FAX (562) 427..3314 OTHER OFFICES- ,S9 IERV It E • SAN Ph AN41 • s,u,T L crty • lit totri ANO CVER • t‘EST KRUM NI r .AI %, it INT WM‘tt,/ 5.501111104 OM, 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1 '1 1 .1 1 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 Toad cell Tip Toad cell Figure CPT Push rod connector Soil seal Electric cable for signal transmission Water Seal Friction load cell Inclinometer Qx Water Seal Soil seal Pore Pressure Transducer (uQ) 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 f 1 1 1 1 Cone Penetration Test Data & Interpretation Soil behavior type and stratigraphic interpretation is based on relationships between cone bearing (qc), sleeve friction (j), and pore water pressure (u2). The friction ratio (Rf) is a calculated parameter defined by 100/1gc and is used to infer soil behavior type. Generally: Cohesive soils (clays) • High friction ratio (Rl) due to small cone bearing ((lc) • Generate large excess pore water pressures (u2) Cohesionless soils (sands) • Low friction ratio (Ri) 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 Toad 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 ye, 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. 1000 1 110 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 Friction Rift (%), Rf ZONE Qt/N SBT 1 2 Sensitive, fine grained 2 1 garlic 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 Gravel sand to sand 11 l Very stiff fine grained' 12 2 Sand to clayey sand* 7 8 Figure SST 'over consolidated or cemented GREGG DRILLING AND TESTING. INC. GREGG IN SITU, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL ANC) CEO1tCi[N IC A1. INVESTIGATION Sot viCEs 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bibliography Campanella, R.G. and I. Weemees, 'Development and Use of An Electrical Resistivity Cone for 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 for Correlating Large Penetration Test (LPT) to Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Blow Counts', 55th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Proceedings ,2002. DeGroot, D.J. and A.J. Lutenegger, 'Reliability of Sal 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. Kurtursl, P.J. and D.J. Woeller, 'Electric cone Penetrometer Development and Field Results From the Canadian Arctic', Penetration Testing 1988ISOPT, Orlando, Volume 2 pp 823-830. Marchetti S., P. Monaco, G. Totani, M, Calabrese. The Flat Dilalometer Test (DMT) in Soil Investigations', Report of the ISSMGE Technical Committee, IN SITU 2001 Intt. Conf, On in Situ Measurement of soil Properties, Bali, Indonesia. Mayne, P.W., 'NHI (2002) Manual on Subsurface Investigations: Geotechnicai Site Characterization', available through MM.cagatech.edu)-geosysifaculty/Mayne/papersfindex,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 Velocity', 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', Geotechnical Site Characterization, Robertson & Mayne (editors), 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 939 4 pp 35-47. Roberslon, P.K.,'Soil Classification using the Cone Penetialien Test', Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, 1990 pp. 151-158. Woeller, D,J., P.K. Robertson, T.J. Boyd and Dave Thomas, 'Detection of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Contaminants Using the UVIF-CPT', 53i0 Canadian Geotechnical Conference Montreal, QC October pp. 733-739, 2000. Zemo, D.A„ T.A, Delfino, J.D. Gallinatti, V.A. Baker and L.R, Hilpert,'Feld Comparison of Analytical Results from Disaete-Depth Groundwater Samplers' BAT EnviroProbe and QED HydroPunch, Sixth national Outdoor Action Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada Proceedings. 1992, pp 299-312. Copies of ASTM Standards are available through www.astm,org 2726 Walnut A •F.e .i,J\fl P.'rtra • Signal Hilt, California 90755 a 062) 427-6899 • FAX SAN FRA>1S s.;7 I 1Mi'r1.1'+lip rc.N•vAN +t':vR lziti? w Y dt akin, a Ttt i2)-127-3314 __ ■r _ 4 s a s ■r w d Iw r 4 s 1111 s 1100 r 0 0.0 -5.0 - 10.0 -15.0 — �l -20.0 -- r L -25.0 0 - 30.0 - 35.0 -40.0 - -45.0 - 50.0 Max. Depth: 50.03 Cr)f Depth Inc.: 0.154 C f t) LOWNEY Site: HOAG HOSPITAL PET WALL Engineer: A.BASTANI Location:CPT-01 Date: 01: 24: 05 10: 05 qt (tsf) 300 0.0 fs <ts+) 5.0 Pf (%) SPT N<60) 0 100 1 ll Hand Auger SBT 2 Linda -Fined Silty Sand.Santl Sand Silty Sand.Santl Sandy Slit 5ilt Sandy Silt Silty Santl.Sana Santly Silt Silt Santry Silt S St nt a dy Silt Sitt Clayey Silt St1t Clayey Silt silt SBT: Solt Behavior Type <Rober/son 1990) r s I■ a IWO all Si S 11111 1110.i e IMO i f rr MIN n s a a, 0.0 -5.0 LOWNEY Site: HORS HOSPITRL PET -RLL Engi neer:A.BPSTANI Location:CPT-01 Date: 01: 24: 05 10:05 qt (tsf) 0 300 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hand uger -20.0 I- L -30.0 -35.0 -40.0 -45.0 -*--_ -50.0 a i Max. Depth: 50.02 (* ) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) fs (tsf) U (psi) 5.0 0 300 I 1 Hand Ruder PI (%) SBT if Undefined Silty Sano,Sana Sand Silty Sand -Sand Sandy Silt Silt Sandy Silt Silty SandiSand Sandy Silt St It Sandy Silt S antdy Silt Silt Clayey Silt Si tt Clayey Silt Silt l ilI SBT: Sot1 Behavior Type <Robe(T son 1990) n J a 111111 la la IS a a Os 11111 N NMI i S iir ■S NB 22 0 LOWNEY Site:HOAG HOSPITAL PET WALL Engt neer: R.BASTANI Location: CPT-02 Date:01:24:05 09:05 qt (tsf) 300 0.0 Max. Depth: 50.03 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (1t) fs (ts+) Rf (%) 5.0 0 10 _Illlllflif _1111 1111 Hand uger Hand agar SPT N(60) 0 100 SBT Undef tned Sandy St It Silty SandSand Sandy Silt Silty Sand -Sand Sand Silty Sand -Sand Sandy Stl. i`^yey Silt a dy Silt Slit Clayey Silt Stlt Clayey Silt Silt Sandy Silt Stlt Clayey Silt Silt IIIII SBT: Sot Behavior Type (Robertson 1990) a s a I MO MI NM SIN MI SI MI MI a N MI NM *III Is a SHE 0.0 -5.0 - 35.0 -40.0 - 45.0 -50.0 0 LO 1'NE A Stte: HOPS HOSPITAL PET WALL Engineer: A.BASTANI Location: CPT-02 Date:01:24:05 09:05 qt (tsf) Hand Auger 300 0.0 r Max. Depth: 50.03 (rt) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (4t) 5.0 fs (ts+) Hand uger U (psi) Pf (%) SBT 0 300 0 10 ■ 12 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [11'1'II�i Hand Auger ; Hand Auger undertned r Sandy Silt Stlry Sand,Sand Sandy 5tlt Stley Sana,Sand Sand Skiy Sand,Sand Sandy st1< pyey Silt ay Silt Sid( Clayey 511< Silt agog Stlt silt Sandy Stit Clayey Silt 5tl< SBT: Got Behavt or Type (Robertson 1990) w an is is a at a is a s— s air it _ a s NO Lr 0.0 -5.0 - 10.0 -15.0 w v -20.0 r Q tL-25.0 -30.0 -35.0 - 40.0 - 45.0 LOWNEY qt (Tsf) 300 0.0 11 1 1 I 1 I I 1 Hand Fl uger - 50.0 1 Max. Depth: 24.11 <ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) Site:HOAG HOSPITAL PET WALL Engineer: A.BASTANI Location: CPT-03 fs (Tsf) Pf (Z) 5.0 0 10 I ! I I Hand uger 1[11 '[,III Hand Auger r r Date:01:24:05 08:05 SPT N(60) SBT 0 100 12 Undestned Sand St I t y Sand.Sand Sandy Silt '- siity sanasand Sandy St It LI1t a. ey silt Si Et Sandy stlt svlt Sandy silt St It rava4lsvSard SBT: Soil Behavior Type <Robertson 1990) SI IS s ar a MO NMI aS a S a a MN MI .r Si IS MI MP 022 Saes LOW\EY Site: HOAG HOSPITAL PET WALL Engineer: R.BASTANI Location:CPT-03 Date: 0L:24:05 08:05 0 0.0 -5.0 L qt (is+) fs Cts+) 300 0.0 1 1 1 1 Hand Ruger - 10.0 — - 15.0 t• r r r -20.0 1 -25.0 -30.0 - 35.0 — -40.0 -- -45.0 -50.0 1 i i r Max. Depth: 24.11 <ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) 5.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HandAuger U (psi) 300 Illl11 Rf (> ) 0 10 .1 11 I1111 Hand Auger SBT SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Pooertson 1990) S+ a MP sr ell OM— MI a a s me IS as a s a s a RAW amai 0 0.0 L L -5.0 - 10.0 - 15.0 v -20.0- - 30.0 — - 35.0 -40.0 LOWNEY Site: HOAG HOSPITAL PET WALL Engineer: A.BASTANI Location:CPT-04 Date: 01:24:05 11:40 qt (tsf) Hand Auger 300 0.0 1 - 45.0 — - 50.0 Max. Depth: 50.03 CLt) Depth Int.: 0,164 GI) fs (tsf) 5.0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hand Auger Pf (>) 10 11111111 Hand 'Auger I SPT N(60) 0 100 SST • NINO Undefined Clay Sandy Stlt Silty Sandisanc Sens.tty et Fines Clayey Slit Silt Organic Sod Clay Organic Sot' Clay Silty Clay Clayey Silt Silty clay Clay Silty Clay Clay Silty Clay Clayey Silt Silty Clay Clay thy Clay Clay SOT: Soil Behavior Type CRobertson 1990) IS al IS MN la MO M INN Ma MI SI la SIR M I S a MS s LOWYFY Site: HOAR HOSPITAL PET WALL Engineer:A.9ASTANI Location:CPT-04 Date:01:24:05 11:40 qt Ctsf) 0.0 -5.0 - 10.0 - 15.0 w v-20.C- 0 r Q - 25.0 - 30.0 -35.0 -40.0 -45.0 -50.0 flax. Depth: 50.03 (ft) Depth Inc.: 0.164 (ft) 300 fs (Tsf) 0.0 5.0 _I fill I I I Hand Auger U (psi) O 300 .111111111. :Hand Auger IL( pf (`7..) 0 10 .IIIIII III Hand 'Auger SST 12 Undefined Clay Sandy Silo Silty Sand'Sand SensiSilt Sensitive Clayey Sill Silt Organic Soil Clay Organic soli Clay Silty Clay Clayey S." Silty Clay Clay Silty Clay Clay Silly Clay Clayey Silt silty Clay Clay Silty Clay Clay SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson 1990) SW n .. O a0 r •I C• n CO Q ▪ i LN 41ei m0 M g 5 41 W C J 3 1- W C: J Q F FI -I b0 oy I Z Q. O .. Q C O 0 a▪ l re 4.) •wo 0 to J 1 s N0 00 UI O+nn One •o. a NQOa -noo in Q.In N�Q. v..... • • 0 a a '.00 .4 i•' C. n Cadge p ••L ''CX r v m'. £D u.0 C107 DISSIPATION RECORD Y O N 0 0 O N 0 0 0 .1 0 0 aanssaad aaod Y 0 N Y 0 .t Y 0 o 0 0 0 1 TIME (sec) 1 GEMW:57b17 Igeophysical services a division ofBlachhawk 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 OVERVIEW OF THE SURFACE WAVE METHODS 2 3 FIELD PROCEDURES 5 4 DATA REDUCTION AND MODELING 5 INTERPRETATION AND RESULTS 10 6 CONCLUSIONS 16 7 REFERENCES - 17 8 CERTIFICATION 18 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 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 FIGURE 5 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 5141rep.doc 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 I). 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, $w (f), represents the phase differences between the two receivers as the wave train propagates past them. It ranges from -n to n in a wrapped form and must be unwrapped through an interactive process called masking. Phase jumps are specified, near -field data (wavelengths longer than three times the distance from the source to first receiver), and low -coherence data are removed. The experimental dispersion curve is calculated from the unwrapped phase angle and the distance between receivers by: VR = f * d2/(4$/360°), where VR is Rayleigh wave phase velocity, f is frequency, d2 is the distance between receivers, and Acii 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 5141 rep.doc 2 MEP MIMI INN MI MS nig INS Ile MO IS INN a MR IS IS hal Nil AIN MINI Dynamic signal analyzer with disk drive Vertical dynamic source: forward configuration / / reverse configuration moo 000 0 0 0 0 0 000000 d1 -for d2 d1 - rev NOTE: MODIFIED FROM JOH, 1997. �/q�� FIGURE 1 GL``1 I s`10/Z BASIC CONFIGURATION OF SASW °e efwt"e.aaean.w aea,«e.. MEASUREMENTS Projectk 5141 HOAG HOSPITAL Date: Feb 1, 2005 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Drawn By: A MARTIN Approved By: PREPARED FOR As C:Igvprgects:51411anln Nr LOWNEY ASSOCIATES 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 thep-f spectrum. n 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. 5141rep.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 20-1b sledgehammers were used as energy sources for the SASW soundings along Arrays A to C. A truck -mounted accelerated 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 Geometrics 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. 5141 rep.doc 5 z 0 0 TO- z n z 0- 0 n z 0 0 PSI( E 48000 z I 1 t E 48200 E 48400 E 48600 I E 48800 E 49000 E 49200 E 49400 E 49600 + t E 49800 E 50000 E 50200 0 0 - m r- z 0 o -a r- z 0 0 0 n z 0 o to - z LEGEND A • - Approximote center of SASW array Approximote location of microtremor array • — Approximate locotion of proposed exploratory borings and monitoring wells • — Approximote location of proposed cone penetration tests (CPT5) NOTE: BASE MAP PROVIDED LOWNEY ASSOCIATES 0 100 200 390 (feet) APPROXIMATE SCALE GE10h&thn itMelia* GasSinews FIGURE — 2 SITE MAP Project 1 5141 Dote Jon 31,2005 Developed by A MARTIN Drown by T RODRIGUEZ Approved by File Z:\sut\5ut-ldwq HOAG HOSPITAL NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR LOWNEY ASSOCIATES es me a me me a No am me smi on Hewlett Packard HP35670A Dynamic Signal Analyzer Accelerated Weight Drop Bulldozer Energy Source Oyo GeoSpace GS1 1Hz Geophone GEW2isaon adi ern etBledAash Qo&ervken Project Ot 5141 Date: Jan 31, 2005 Drawn By: A MARTIN Approved By: File C:gaproJectst51411ewW3.cdr Various Hammer Energy Sources FIGURE 3 TYPICAL SASW EQUIPMENT 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: Vr = Vs [(2(I-v))/(I-2v)]o5 . 5141 rep.doc 8 N _ NM I O -_- M I= M N O® M M I N E 0 0 .0067 FREQUENCY (HZ) 12.5 25 Auera!adReMI Spectral Ratio 0.0 ❑ INTERPRETED DISPERSION CURVE ARRAY D GE0Vkzbn ds,44 s°aaf.mMi. or»S.M<a FIGURE 4 EXAMPLE SLANT STACK F-P TRANSFORM OF REFRACTION MICROTREMOR DATA Project # 5141 Date: Feb 1, 2005 Drawn By: A MARTIN Approved By: File CyryproJecte\51411ow\f4.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 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 5141rep.doc 10 Wavelength (XR), m E r a m 0 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 Surface Wave Velocity (VR), ft/s 500 1000 1500 r i i r I r r r • 1j 1 r_ 0 Experimental SASW Data Experimental Microtremor Data Theoretical Dispersion Curve 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 0 r r r I 1 1 1 1 1.}-l1 r I I i i I 1 I i i r 0 20 0 80 — 50 g'(a<) ya6uaIaneM — 100 O (D - s — 150 x — - 200 — ' 1 i i i I I I t 1 I i i i 1 I 1 1 ill I 1 1 1 1- 250 100 200 300 400 500 600 Shear Wave Velocity (V S), m/s Vs Profile from SASW and Microtremor Array GEWysi©n • .di.. a . u••••e era.wH.•aaes,t.;,.• Project # 5141 Date: Jan 28, 2005 Drawn By: A MARTIN Approved By: PREPARED FOR rae aywroioctsls+anoom5.wr LOWNEY ASSOCIATES FIGURE 5 VELOCITY MODEL FOR SASW AND REFRACTION MICROTREMOR ARRAY A HOAG HOSPITAL NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Wavelength (1R), m 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 20 E a 40 a1 O 60 80 Surface Wave Velocity (VR), ft/s 500 1000 1500 1 1 1 1 r 1 i 1 1 1 I 1_ Experimental SASW Data Experimental Microtremor Data Q Theoretical Dispersion Curve 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1( 1 r I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1( 1 y'(a<) Lp6U8IGABM 50 100 O CD - -o — 150 A, — 200 — 250 I 1 1 1 - 100 200 300 400 500 600 Shear Wave Velocity (Vs), m/s Vs Profile from SASW and Microtremor Array GE®Visian .ro,1u.:o a man . .rat«r n..4 c wrv.4.e FIGURE 6 VELOCITY MODEL FOR SASW AND REFRACTION MICROTREMOR ARRAY B Project# 5141 Date Jan 28, 2005 Drawn By: A MARTIN Approved By: Fie C \gvprojects15141Iow1f6 cdr HOAG HOSPITAL NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR LOWNEY ASSOCIATES Wavelength (AR), m 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 Surface Wave Velocity (VR), ft/s 500 1000 1500 I I I I -1 Experimental SASW Data Experimental Microtremor Data Q Theoretical Dispersion Curve 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 O _I 1 1 1 I 1 1 l IIIIITEI I l I 1501 1 1 1' I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 0 20 E a 40 N 0 60 80 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I — 50 — 100 u'(a") 416u9;OABM - v m a S 150 — 200 — 250 I I I 1 100 200 300 400 500 600 Shear Wave Velocity (V S), m/s Vs Profile from SASW and Microtremor Array GECflYsiarx •avoid', tSloa **.k oeas.,wJ H Project # 5141 Date: Jan 28, 2005 Drawn By: A MARTIN Approved By: PREPARED FOR Fk c1grprryeccs51411ow\rrcm LOWNEY ASSOCIATES FIGURE 7 VELOCITY MODEL FOR SASW AND REFRACTION MICROTREMOR ARRAY C HOAG HOSPITAL NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 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 5141rep.doc 14 i 1 1 1 1 1 Wavelength (XR), m E 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 20 a 40 1 0 60 80 Surface Wave Velocity (VR), ff/s 500 1000 1500 I I I I 1 I Experimental SASW Data Experimental Microtremor Data 0 Theoretical Dispersion Curve 1 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 (Vs), ft/s 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 0 1 11 I LI IIITI I 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I — 50 g'(ax) ya6ualeneM — 100 0 0 a — 150 — 200 — 250 I 1 l 100 200 300 400 500 600 Shear Wave Velocity (V s), m/s Vs Profile from SASW and Microtremor Array GE(W ththn 1«ewa al .Maria. • 4404:4 er21n.4a.r400 wo-s.,vieer Project N 5141 Date: Jan 28, 2005 Drawn By: A MARTIN Approved By: File Cgvprojectsr514lIo f8.cdr FIGURE 8 VELOCITY MODEL FOR SASW AND REFRACTION MICROTREMOR ARRAY D 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). 5141 rep.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 1: 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, 5th 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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. Antony J. Martin California Registered Geophysicist GP989 GEOVision Geophysical Services 2/2/05 Date 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. 5141 rep.doc 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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. L *NPE ' S,MCV-11FS Page B-1 Environmental / Geotechnlcal / Engineering Services 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 re LL 0 a. 0 5 i 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 x 60 m 55 ce zs0 LL z 45 w ¢ 40 w 0. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 1 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/6 3 I I I ICI I I I' 1 I 1 l� fit U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 6 610 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 2 �If HYDROMETER 'NNT\ 100 10 i 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL coarse fine coarse SAND medium fine SILT OR CLAY Specimen Identification • m • LB-1 LB-2 10.0 15.0 Classification SILT (ML), with sand SILTSTONE (BR) LL PL PI Cc Cu LB-3 30.0 SILTSTONE (BR) Specimen Identification D100 D60 030 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay • LB-1 10.0 4.75 0.0 26.4 73.6 m LB-2 15.0 2 0.014 0.002 0.0 6.3 • LB-3 30.0 2 0.023 0.003 0.0 LOWNEYASSOCIATES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services 8.9 50.3 43.4 53.5 37.6 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 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 1 z 0 w 0 0 PLASTICITY INDEX (%) N W a 01 07 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 CH • • CL — MH oa OH CL-ML OL OR 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT (%) Symbol Boring No. Depth (ft.) Natural Water Content (off) Liquid W Limit (%) Plastic Limit (%) PlasticityPassing Index (%) No. 200 Sieve Unified Soil Classification Description • LB-1 20.0 1 82 39 43 SILTSTONE (BR) m LB-2 25.0 80 36 44 SILTSTONE (BR) • LB-3 20.0 77 37 40 CLAYEY SILT (MH) PLASTICITY CHART AND DATA LOV/NEVA Environmental/Geotech"niiccaal//EEngineedn�g t CCXIATE( Services 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 4000 3500 3000 H 2500 110 2000 it 1500 y 1000 500 0 11111 1111 1111 r1 , , , , , r 1111-1111 1111 1111 1 1 1 , - - • • Peak Strength 0 0 Ultimate Strength e - . . 1, 1, 1 till , I 1, 1 1, 1 1111 1 1 1 1,, 1 1 r , 1 1, 1111 mg- 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 0. ar (psf): 2077 _ a„ (psf): 1365— ar (Ps0 692 f„ 1,,,1,1,1,I,111, 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Displacement (in) 0.25 Boring No. L -1 Dry Density (pcf): 101.5 Sample No. 1 Moisture Content (%) Depth (ft) 6.0 Before Test: 3.4 Description Silty Sand ISM) After Test: 26.7 Peak Strength Friction Angle (deg.) 34 Cohesion (psf) 97 Ultimate Strength Friction Angle (deg.) Cohesion (psf) 28 Direct Shear TP-1 Sample sxk TRC/HOAG Project No.. 1651-26 LOWNEYASSOCIATES DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 1 Environmental/Geotechnical/Englneering Services 1 r 1 1 1 1 4000 3500 3000 u) O. 2500 0) e 2000 0, 1500 y 1000 500 0 1 1 111 III III III 1-11- ill III 111 I 1 I- =_-LO - • • • Peak Strength ' 0 0 Ultimate Strength ,- _ 'I 1 1 1 1111 1111 1111 11 1 1 1111 11 1 1 1111 1111 1 1 1 1- 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Vertical Stress (psf) Test Method: ASTM D3080-90 Rate of Shear (in/min): 0.001 Type of Specimen: Undisturbed Shear Stress (ps I 3000 2000 1000 0 0 a„ (psf?: 1390 i t I 1 1 1 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) 36 Before Test: 31.8 Description Siltstone (PA HI 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 B xis TRC/HOAG ;Project No. 1625-26 LOWNEYASSOCIATES DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Envirormentd/Geotechnical/Engineering Services 1 (0) Q. 4000 3500 3000 2500 e 2000 1500 1000 500 0 r r 1 ill T I I I r 1 r I ! r r- (, r I' r 1 I r r r- - - r• • • Peak Strength t0 O 0 Ultimate Strength ���_ e-- - - -- ' - - -- 0 ..-- -1111 ' 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111_ 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Vertical Stress (psf) Test Method: •ASTM D3080-90 Rate of Shear (in/min): 0.001 Type of Specimen: Undisturbed Shear Stress (pst 3000 2000 1000 0 rrrlrlilrr rlrlrl111 (psf): 1390 Irirliiilrrrlrir 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Displacement (in) Boring No. LB-3 Dry Density (pcf): 72.4 Sample No. 3 Moisture Content (%) Depth (ft) 16.0 Before Test: 34.0 Description Clayey Silt (Mill After Test: 56.0 Peak Strength Friction Angle (deg.) 22 Cohesion (psf) 310 Ultimate Strength Friction Angle (deg.) 2 .5 Cohesion (psf) 55 Drat Shear TP-1 Sample Bxls TRC/ROAG I Project No.. 1651-26 LOWNEYASSOCIATES DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Environmental/Geotechnical/Englneering Services 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Gedechnical Testily Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Test Procedure: ASTM D 4767 Project Name: Project No.: Boring No.: Sample No.: Depth(ft): Sample Type: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall 1651-26 LB-1 9 45 2.5* O.D. Rings Tested by: KK Input Data by: AP Reviewed by: AP Date: 2/7105 Date: 2/14/05 Date: 2/14/05 Sample Description: Dark Grayish Brown Shale Diameter (in) Height (in) 2.415 5.863 2.415 5.863 BEFORE CONSOLIDATION 2.415 Avg.= 5.863 Avg. = 2.415 5.863 AFTER CONSOLIDATION Area (ina) 4.581 4.569 Moisture Content (%) 44.15 FINAL 48.27 Wet Weight (gms) 14.96 955.07 Dry Weight (gms) 11.15 708.69 Container Weight (gms) 2.52 198.23 Density and Saturation Wet Weight (gms) 738.22 Container Weight (gms) 0.00 Wet Density (pcf) 104.7 Dry Density (pcf) 72.6 Initial Void Ratio 1.319 % Saturation 90.4 Back Pressure Saturation B Value (%) _ Specific Gravity = 95 Change in Fit. of the Specimen (in)= 2.70 0 Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) = Back Pressure(psi) = Eff. Consol. Stress (psi) _ Change in Ht. of Specimen (in) = 46.9 40.0 6.9 0.006 Initial Burette Ht.(cm)= Final Burette Ht.(cm)= Final Height (in)= Final Volume (cu.in) = 50.8 49.7 5.857 26.789 Shear Rate of Deformation (in/min)= Time to 50% primary Consolidation = Failure Criteria: Condition at which maximum deviator stress occurs 0.0040 At Failure Deviator Stress (ksf) = min. Eff. Minor Principal stress (ksf) = Eff. Major Principal stress (ksf) = Axial Strain (°/%) = 6.97 0.98 7.95 4.27 1 1 1 1 i1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geotechncal 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 IrtputData•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) 2.448 2.448 2.448 Avg. = 2.448 Avg. = 5.691 5.691 5.691 5.691 BEFORE CONSOLIDATION AFTER CONSOLIDATION Area (in2) 4.707 4.708 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 0.00 105.0 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 Rate of Deformation (in/min)= Time to 50% primary Consolidation Failure Criteria: At Failure 0.0040 Deviator Stress (ksf) = 4.85 = min. Eff. Minor Principal stress (ksf) = 1.30 Eff. Major Principal stress (ksf) = 6.14 stress occurs Axial Strain (%) = 2.20 Condition at which maximum deviator 1- i 1 i 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geotedintal 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(ft): 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 (in') 4.796 4.687 Moisture Content (%) Wet Weight (gms) Dry Weight (gms) Container Weight (gms) 44.15 14.96 11.15 2.52 FINAL 4827 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 Eff. 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geoteeinical 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.: g 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 (Psi) Load O Axial Deformation (in) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (S1-S3) (ken Axial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (ken Shear Stress q' (S1-53)2 (kst) Normal Stress P' (S1'463')/2 (ken 46.9 0 0.000 40.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 46.9 58 0.010 422 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 0.080 442 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 3.41 029 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 • • • 1 • !• • 1 • • • • • • • r AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Gemecf,ica 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: 53.9 psi Back Pressure : 40.0 psi Consolidation Pressure : 13.9 psi Initial Sample Height: 5.691 in initial Area of Sample: 4.707 sq. in. Final Sample Ht? (L): 5.685 in Final Sample Area (A)` 4.708 sq. in. • After Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) Load Q5s) Axial Deformation (in) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (61-33) (kst) Axial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (ksf) Shear Stress q' (61-S3)/2 (kst) Normal Stress P. (S1'+633/2 (kst) <0 t0 (0 (0 CO 43 t0 f0 t0 <0 t0 t0 t0 f0 t0 0 0.000 40.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 74 0.010 44.2 2.26 0.18 0.60 1.13 2.53 99 0.020 46.0 3.02 0.35 0.86 1.51 2 65 123 0.030 46.9 3.74 0.53 0.99 1.87 2.88 137 0.040 47.2 4.16 0.70 1.04 2.08 3.05 144 0.050 47.2 4.37 0.88 1.04 2.18 3.15 150 0.060 47.1 4.54 1.06 1.02 2.27 3.25 152 0.070 46.8 4.59 123 0.98 2.30 3.32 155 0.080 46.5 4.67 1.41 0.94 2.34 3.40 158 0.090 46.1 4.76 1.58 0.88 2.38 3.50 160 0.100 45.7 4.81 1.76 0.82 2.40 3.58 162 0.125 44.9 4.85 2.20 0.71 2.42 3.72 160 0.150 44.4 4.76 2.64 0.63 2.38 3.75 158 0.175 44.0 4.68 3.08 0.58 2.34 3.77 155 0.200 43.2 4.57 3.52 0.46 2.29 3.83 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. GmtechNc4 Testify 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: 67.8 psi Back Pressure : 40.0 psi Consolidation Pressure : 27-8 psi Initial Sample Height: 5.588 in Initial Area of Sample: 4.796 sq. in. Final Sample HL" (L): 5.564 e1 Final Sample Area (A)": 4.687 sq. in. *After Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) Load (Ibs) Axial Deformation (in) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (S1-S3) (ksf) Axial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (ksf) Shear Stress ui (S1-63)/2 (ksf) Normal Stress P. (614-931/2 (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 2.64 428 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 DEVIATOR STRESS (ksf) 1 00 - 4.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 . r ' • . . 5.00 !' i.'' . 4.00 '4' c, 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 „ I e 0.00 5.00 10.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) 15.00 3.00 N W 0. a w 2.00 0 1'00 0 Z W Z 0.00 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 es 1 0 0 Project Name: Project No.: Boring No.: Sample No.: Depth (ft): i eo 1 2 3 4 5 6 NORMAL STRESS, P (kst) 7 40. i -40 20° 8 • MEI 9 10 15.00 Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings 1651.26 Sample Description: Dark Grayish Brown Shale LB-1 Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 72.6 9 Initial Moisture Content (%): 44.1 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 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 (ksf) O a N W P e C O O O C 6.0 x 7.0 to o y 5.0 ¢ FO4.0 -'=a Lig .., a tu 3.0 .t. 0 2.0 l '' 1.0 , o I 0.0 1.0 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 0.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) III 5.00 AXIAL. 10.00 STRAIN (Percent) 15.00 LEGEND: CONFINING PRESSURES= 0 1.0 KSF ❑ 2.0 KSF Ls 4.0 KSF a SHEAR STRESS (ksf) N W A fT r r r r r r i r rr St r `r r reit .. . t i 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 NORMAL STRESS (ksf) STRENGTH PARAMETERS: TOTAL STRESS' Cs195 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 Bong 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. Geolechnical Tasting Laboratory t AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. '. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Geotedtcal Testing Laboratory CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Test Procedure: ASTM D 4767 Project Name: Project No.: Boring No.: Sample No.: Depth(ft): Sample Type: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall 1651-26 LB-2 2 10 2.5' O.D. Rings Tested by: KK Input Data by: AP Reviewed by: AP Sample Description: Dark Gray Clay Date: 2/7/05 Date: 2/14/05 Date: 2/14/05 Diameter (in) Height (in) 2.415 5.750 2.415 2.415 Avg. = 5.750 5.750 Avg. = FORE CONSOLIDATION 2.415 5.750 AFTER CONSOLIDATION Area (ins) 4.581 4.585 Moisture Content (%) 50.70 FINAL 58.34 Wet Weight (gms) 18.61 908.44 Dry Weight (gms) 13.20 644.40 Container Weight (gms) 2.53 191.80 Density and Saturation Wet Weight (gms) 738.22 Container Weight (gms) 0.00 Wet Density (pct) 106.8 Dry Density (pcf) 70.9 Initial Void Ratio 1.378 % Saturation 99.3 Back Pressure Saturation B Value (%) = Specific Gravity = 95 Change in Ht. of the Specimen (in)= 2.70 0 Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) = Back Pressure(psi) = Eff. Canso'. Stress (psi) = Change in Ht. of Specimen (in) = 43.5 40.0 3.5 0.000 Initial Burette Ht.(cm)= Final Burette Ht.(cm)= Final Height (in)= Final Volume (cu.in) = 45.9 46.3 5.750 26.363 Shear Rate of Deformation (in/min)= Time to 50% primary Consolidation = Failure Criteria: Condition at which maximum deviator stress occurs At Failure 0.0040 Deviator Stress (ksf) = min. Eff. Minor Principal stress (ksf) = Eff. Major Principal stress (ksf) _ Axial Strain (%) = 4.30 0.45 4.75 3.48 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Gaoler -holed Tesunq 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(tt): 10 Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Flings 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 HE of the Specimen (in)= 0 Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) = 46.9 Initial Burette Ht.(cm)= 55.4 Back Pressure(psi) = 40.0 Final Burette Ht.(cm)= 55.6 Eff. Consol. Stress (psi) = 6.9 Final Height (in)= 5.613 Change in Ht. of Specimen (in) = 0.0020 Final Volume (cu.in) = 26.375 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) = 3.44 Principal stress (ksf) = 1.14 Principal stress (ksf) = 4.58 Condition at which maximum deviator (%) = 4.90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geatetlmkal Tes ng 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) Height (in) 2.498 2.498 2.498 Avg. = 2.498 Avg. = 5.373 5.373 5.373 5.373 BEFORE CONSOLIDATION AFTER CONSOLIDATION Area (in2) 4.901 4.867 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 70.9 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 Rate of Deformation (in/min)= Time to 50% primary Consolidation Failure Criteria: At Failure 0.0040 Deviator Stress (ksf) = 4.38 = min. Eff. Minor Principal stress (ksf) = 2.29 Eff. Major Principal stress (ksf) = 6.67 stress occurs Axial Strain (%) = 14.90 Condition at which maximum deviator 1 1 1 1 1 1 i1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geotech icel Teetip 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: 43.5 psi Back Pressure: 40.0 psi Consolidation Pressure : 3.5 psi Initial Sample Height 5.750 in Initial Area of Sample: 4.581 sq. in. Final Sample HL' (L): 5.750 in Final Sample Area (A)': 4.585 sq. in. After Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) Load (lbs) 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'+331/2 (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 42.3 297 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geatectvkal CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Cell No. 1 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Cell Pressure: 46.9 psi Project No: 1651-26 Back Pressure: 40.0 psi Boring No.: LB-2 Consolidation Pressure : 6.9 psi Depth(ft): 10 Initial Sample Height 5.615 in Sample No.: 2 Initial Area of Sample: 4.691 sq. in. Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Final Sample HI' (L): 5.613 in Sample Description: Dark Gray Clay Final Sample Area (A)': 4.695 sq. in. • After Consolidation Cell Pressure (Psi) Load Ohs) Axial Deformation (in) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (S1-53) (ksf) Axial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (kst) Shear Stress o' (S1-53)12 (kst) 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 42.4 122 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 0030 43.8 2.44 0.53 0.55 122 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 3.24 125 0.46 1.62 2.15 46.9 108 0.080 42.8 3.27 1.43 0.40 1.63 2.22 1 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 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. 1 i 1 Geotechnical Testing Labotatory 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: 53.9 psi Back Pressure : 40.0 psi Consolidation Pressure : 13.9 psi Initial Sample Height 5.373 in Initial Area of Sample: 4.901 sq. In. Final Sample Ht.' (L): 5.370 in Final Sample Area (A)': 4.867 sq. in. • After Consolidation Cell Pressure (Psi) Load Ohs) Axial Deformation (in) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (S1-53) (ks1) Axial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (kst) Shear Stress q' (S1-S3)/2 (keg Normal Stress P. (S1493')/2 (ks 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 45.2 1.83 0,19 0.75 0.92 2.17 53.9 82 0.020 46.5 2.42 0.37 0.94 1.21 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 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 e 0.00 5.00 10.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) 15.00 4.00 . 3.00 Ul w n. a W 2.00 a a. <• 0.00 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- 0 1 erigine TA ors wed 1 2 3 4 5 6 NORMAL STRESS, P (ksf) 7 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. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory 1 1 1 r 1 t 1 1 1 10.0 9.0 8.0 x 7.0 ol 14 6.0 DEVIATOR STR 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.00 5.00 10.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) 15.00 4.0 c- tu cr 3.0 3 N N W 2.0 cc cc t.0 0 0. 2 W Z 0.0 x U 1.0 0.00 5.00 10.00 AXIAL STRAIN ( Percent) 15.00 LEGEND: CONFINING PRESSURES= 0 0.5KSF 0 1.0 KSF A2.0 KSF SHEAR STRESS (kst) 5 4 3 2 1 0 O. i r i wet toe- ee wet tso • • • • 1 . I 1 ., . \ 1 . ti 1 t; 0 2 3 4 5 6 NORMAL STRESS (ksf) 7 8 9 10 STRENGTH PARAMETERS: TOTAL STRESS: C41.9 ksf $ = 18.5° EFFECTIVE STRESS: C =0.9 ksf ?pi. 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 (pct): 70.9 Sample No.: 2 Initial Moisture Content (%): 50.7 Depth (ft): 10 Etf. 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. Geotecnnical Testing laboratory 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geo(ec nicai 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) = 63.5 Initial Burette Ht.(cm)= 45.7 Back Pressure(psi) = 60.0 Final Burette Ht.(cm)= 46.9 Eff. Consol. Stress (psi) = 3.5 Final Height (in)= 6.000 Change in Ht. of Specimen (in) = 0.000 Final Volume (cu.in) = 27.557 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 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Gee/technical 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 (ini) 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 (pcf) 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 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geotecimkal TWIN tsbo•aatoty 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 Borirg 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 (in2) 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 (pet) 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 Stress (ksf) = 18.51 = min. Eff. Minor Principal stress (ksf) = 6.42 Eff. Major Principal stress (ksf) = 24.94 stress occurs Axial Strain ('/a) = 11.88 Condition at which maximum deviator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Geotechnical Tesfirg Liberator/ CONSOLIDATED UNDRAiNED TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT Cell No. 1 Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Project No: 165t-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 63.5 psi 60.0 psi 3.5 psi 6.000 in 4.581 sq. in. 6.000 In 4.593 sq. in. Cell Pressure (PO Load (Ibs) Axial Deformation (in) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (51-53) (ksf) Mal Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (ksf) Shear Stress q' (S1-S3)12 (ksf) Normal Stress p' (S11f53')P2 (ksf) In N 41 N u7 to in N N �(? �11 Ul Ln. Le? tp 41 In 0 0.000 60.0 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 23 0.010 60.6 0.72 0.17 0.09 0.36 0.78 42 0.020 59.7 1.31 0.33 -0.04 0.66 120 48 0.030 59.4 1.50 0.50 -0.09 0.75 1.34 52 0.040 59.3 1.62 0.67 -0.10 0.81 1.41 55 0.050 59.0 1.71 0.83 -0.14 0.86 1.50 59 0.060 58.8 1.83 1.00 -0.17 0.92 1.59 63 0.070 58.6 1.95 1.17 -020 0.98 1.68 67 0.080 58.4 2.07 1.33 -0.23 1.04 1.77 71 0.090 58.2 2.19 1.50 -0.26 1.10 1.86 75 0.100 57.9 2.31 1.67 -0.30 1.16 1.96 86 0.125 57.4 2.64 2.08 -0.37 1.32 2.20 95 0.150 56.7 2.90 2.50 -0.48 1.45 2.43 106 0.175 56.0 3.23 2.92 -0.58 1.61 2.69 117 0.200 55 3 3.55 3.33 -0.68 1.77 2.95 127 0 225 54.7 3.83 3.75 -0.76 1.92 3.18 138 0.250 54.0 4.15 4.17 -0.86 2.07 3.44 150 0.275 53.3 4.49 4.58 -0.96 2.24 3.71 162 0.300 52.5 4.83 5.00 -1.08 2.41 4.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. Gec ethnical 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 Deplh(ft): 5 Sample No.: 1 Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Sample Description: Strong Brown Clayey Sand Cell Pressure: 66.9 psi Bade Pressure : 60.0 psi Consolidation Pressure : 6.9 psi Initial Sample Height: 5.739 in Initial Area of Sample: 4.788 sq. in. Final Sample Ht.' (L): 5.736 in Final Sample Area (A)': 4.775 sq. in. After Consolidation Cell Pressure (psi) Load Ohs) Axial Deformation (in) Back Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (S1-S3) (ksf) Atrial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change (ksf) Shear Stress q' (SI-S3)/2 (ksf) Normal Stress p' (S1'tS3')/2 (kg) 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 5.23 -1.94 4.60 7.54 1 1 AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. 1 1 • 1 IS 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 Georechnical 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. Rugs Sample Description: Strong Brown Clayey Sand Cell Pressure: 73.9 psi Back Pressure : 60.0 psi Consolidation Pressure : 13.9 psi Initial Sample Height 5.478 in Initial Area of Sample: 5.015 sq. in. Final Sample Ht.' (L): 5.473 in Final Sample Area (A)` 4.997 sq. in. • After Consolidation Cell Pressure (Psi) Load Ohs) Axial Deformation (in1 Bade Pressure 0 Deviator Stress (51•S3) (lest) Axial Strain (%) Pore Pressure Change ( 1 Shear Stress q' (S1-S3)2 (ksf) Normal Stress p (S1'+S3')/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 0.09 023 0.59 2.36 73.9 83 0.010 61.8 2.39 0.18 026 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 4.32 724 73.9 350 0.075 51.5 9.95 1.37 -122 4.97 820 i 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 0.250 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 t 20.00 15,00 at at W Q aa)i 10.00 CC 0 a w G 5,00 0.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) 15.00 0.00 al 0, ¢-1.00 n. 2 -2.00 cc a. Z -3.00 w O Z S -4.00 0 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) LEGEND: CONFINING PRESSURES= 0 0.5 KSF ❑ 1.0 KSF SHEAR STRESS, q (ks1) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 A 2.0 KSF 31' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NORMAL STRESS, P (ksf) 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 II 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 20.0 -,15.0 as us cc 0.0 0.00 5.00 10 00 15.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) AA 1.0 Y w 0.0 CC W N cc •1.0 a. cc su 3 -2.0 w 0 -3.0 2 w O a-4.0 0 5.0 0.00 5.00 10.00 AXIAL STRAIN (Percent) 15.00 LEGEND: CONFINING PRESSURES= 0 0.5 KSF ID 1.0 KSF a2.0 KSF SHEAR STRESS (ksf 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 I .as r ate I I r 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: ksf 4 = 54° EFFECTIVE STRESS' C'-0.2 ksf $r = 36° Project Name: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wail Sample Type: 2.5" O.D. Rings Project No.: Sample Description: Strong Brown Clayey Sand Boring No.: LB-3 Dry Unit Weight (pot): 87.2 Sample No.: 1 Initial Moisture Content (%): 17.3 Depth (ft): 5 Eff. Confining Pressure (kst): 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 MULTI -STAGE CU TRIAXIAL TEST WITH PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT ASTM D 4767 AP ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC. Geotectinical Testing Laboratory M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 Phone: (909) 626-09671 Fax: (909) 626-3316 I 431 W. Baseline Road laremont CA 91711 E-mail:E mjsa@mjschiff.com httpflwww.mjschiff.com IFebruary 11, 2005 I LOWNEY ASSOCIATES 251 Fast Imperial Highway, Suite 470 Fullerton, CA 92835-1063 1 Attention: Mr. Ali Bastani Re: Soil Corrosivity Study Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall Hoag Hospital Drive Newport Beach, California Your # 1651-26, MJS&A #05-109HQ 1 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 reconunendations 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 ANO DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS 1 1 i 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. r LOWNEY ASSOCIATES February 11, 2005 Page 3 MJS&A #05-0109HQ CORROSION CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS The life of buried materials depends on thickness, strength, Enacts, 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 LOWNEY ASSOCIATES February 11, 2005 MJS&A 1405-0109HQ 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: I. 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 1105-0I09HQ 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, Reviewed by, M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. Adrineh Avedisian Enc: Table 1 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@mjschrffcom Claremont, CA 91711 website: mjschiffcom Sample ID Table 1- Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples Lowney Associates Hoag Hospital Retain. Wall Your 01651-26, MJS&A #0S-0I09HQ 3-Feb-O5 LB-2 LB-3 LB-3 @ 20' @ 25' @ 10-20' CL Bedrock SP / CL Resistivity Units as -received ohm -cm 4,100 3,600 2,200 saturated ohm -cm 390 410 980 pH 7.4 7.3 7.2 Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 2.15 1.71 0.46 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Ca" mg/kg 1,563 593 64 magnesium Me mg/kg 457 455 49 sodium Nal. mg/kg 1,584 1,015 343 Anions carbonate CO,' mg/kg ND NI) ND bicarbonate HCO31 mg/kg 1,590 238 58 chloride Clr- mg/kg 1,774 1,355 160 sulfate S042- mg/kg 5,206 3,317 800 Other Tests ammonium NH41' mg/kg 71.2 86.9 0.5 nitrate NO3r' mg/kg ND ND ND sulfide SZ qual Positive Positive Positive Redox mV 54 98 39 - /a....o�'`..,, 'C �'"T,i=: r"tn.1. ",... ail:;ar .r"�'�r�..,'TT. ,.'�..o faryK=iPi'Y,r `S:a.-w6m:-... �a'rati.s_ �t*�i'�.�'-L.'.[r -v_?:�'". 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 I of 1 �M MS MN M M I r M I E I NM I MO N MI M w OM Cross S'ec.'hon a -tee ' citut.1 — �) Ihh: 1►r Talporsry Cur �xis'fln.� 'pev'E.^2a irttii 100 150 • 200 250 M NM NS e M _ r M N M _ M — — MI E S N Cross Section a-'B (RUa _ I) Re.so ..ozsicsAv.tis‘.). cizttke\x‘sy‘kkt-vo .• t s .�} •psi "'� s°' S•gt'4e� �, i•'��yi'''�s�,�;', fit+ • •'_�'�+'q�gszt''••, 's, ••s1 SSSS �j�tS�'y't.•t•.; t��'yiZi t�isls��� ��SS'�'�' { S�•tSt}i i• it 1' sssst'si'�;Ss}��t�rs ss• �s•'� �• ss ss � ���� �•is�4�� }kA \tpti issiy� ki s: ss !'fit ss' i s stss \\,;kk)lfIttsv4'tee \silty'? E NE ME EN E MEI a a MS MI 111111 M EN— EMI N M MIN O Cross 5e-c-±ton a-8(R.uA. Z') INN IIIIII N M= E NM ME E S N NM MI MI 1 Cross Sec.:lon 5-51 CRUM-2) Reaatt- 100 50 -50 0 50 tssitts • '�ttgt+i�+tt+. s+s i� i ••sgstttS} Batt %s s':• •tts .t'tyt. t s•,•, •tt ZtS A5A � �.���3t��tt''•�ti���tttttlyttttttt'k,'.ts� t •'�ii 1 s .zi, ti �► Ott :sts is is. .. t•ittit4.��'�'�•yii,�'��itt• sts;l��i'l��si tz•�}s1� ttt+°t�'ss� t� t t.'ttss�.�,;i�;i''t+•tstt�ik'fts it iytsFiF �s�.'t�t`t'�•i�:•���ts��;� istt '��� sise�'.1 �►tt•�'�'�'''��" i��:}�� �, 11ts;4 tt � s1 �} t{c,'tt} ,, Ott ' •ts *ail, N} ttt '1 1tt4 is '� is � ���tttity 1�,'��i '�',<ts; �� t# to tak:alegitivo •• • ttt S�t.'45y�SS.�1lt 100 150 200 250 MN = = a - ME M M GOoss Se. Chan 13-L3CRur4 t 1/4 Fh : (\% Tim renal Cat 4.0, , a. dtvisten /drainy. System N 1 la I I I M N MN I N MN 1 _ — — — — _ MI M = — r — S cross Sex. -Fiber 100 r 50 -50 0 o -to' CRu t1- 3) Ran-aAt 50 •t=SS' SS{ .s=tt�st�+� �� � =t�btla s .:=1tt tit=i=t� tt�`��t��t .:'t si t s 4t sit•'}. is%S t 4i •tt'; i,;t =; •t s :tt 'i', �!• •t •sst4 •t tiftW4V4:4c11/4\c7" tt=•s;'t=._=tit}=• v _:= t11 3 tl==t tSlys •: =1• s s SS Ss1�S'• Sli•==• NSW' • 100 150 200 Sp-SM 250 ma s s no r s on s s s Si no s s s as s s s Cross secTlon v °- (Remn - 3) I Yq I+ : 11T-re,..00raN c cfr LtJ d Minag c. sy stern. 0 50 100 150 200 250 MN I N r N N MO all MR MI N 1 MIMI MIN INN e Cross sec-fr'n 100 50 '7_'D (Rent -3) Rasu It S .� � 1� t �ttTst�•�� 4•t;'�,� k tip tt� • , •s•S�Z �� s tSS�St•`�'�,St...tow:km S�t'�s S.`'�' tq'1. s s 1•SS t'== S : S%i:=�Si'''�_; Zy,`;'+4•i''4'Z{SSS 1,t=4= t�'Z�S tt\ 6iNktItt „NA\ 1 1 1 ._, PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Watt, X-Sec. B B' Date: 02-18-2005 SnailWin 3.18 File: BB-3 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.78 52.0 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe LEGEND: PS= 34.8 Rips FY= 41.3 Hsi H= 21.0 ft Sh= 4.5 ft Su= 4.8 ft f GAM PHI COH SIG 1 120f0 d32 fa 8.0 2 100.0 23 400 8.0 3 100.0 23 525 8.0 Bound.C2) Soil Water Scale = 10 ft ilUF1 Surcharge N 1 M 1 G__- I a--_-- in 11111 File: BB-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: 12:27:03 * Project Identification - Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. B-8' WALL GEOMETRY Vertical wall Height Wall Batter 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. 21.0 ft 0.0 degree Angle Length (peg) (Feet) 24.0 50.0 -5.5 20.0 0.0 25.0 30.0 10.0 0.0 50.0 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 SOIL PARAMETERS Unit Friction Cohesion Soil Weight Angle Intercept Layer (Pcf) (Degree) (Psf) 1 2 120.0 16.5 3 100.0 23.0 * Bond Stress 100.0 400.0 525.0 used. 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 6.0 300,0 3.0 300.0 0.0 6.0 3.0 also depends on BSF Factor in Option #5 when enabled. File: BB-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 MN e M-- a MI a a M a E- M I_ M 1 OM File: 88-3 MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) Toe 1.815 42.0 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,) SAFETYM FACTOR NODE 2 1.802 44.0 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE PLANE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 31,6 15.5 46.5 44.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41.250 Ksi (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) NODE 3 1.787 46.0 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 30.9 16.1 45.7 46.1 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.) 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 (Y eld Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Y eld 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 5 1.782 50.0 35.0 42.8 47,5 22.2 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.) Page - 3 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 6 1.782 52.0 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE PNE ANGLELALLENGTH ANGLEE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 21.4 11.2 41.4 55.4 1 - 41.250 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE BEHWALLND TOENE LLE ANGLELENGTH (ft) (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 DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (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 (Y eld Stress 2 - 41.250 Ks (Y eld Stress 3 - 41.250 Ks (Yield Stress 4 - 41.250 Ks' (Yield Stress MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR controls.) controls.) controls.) controls.) DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE BEHIND PLANE PLANE WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (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 A<deeg) LENGTH NODEIO 1.838 60.0 18.4 12.6 36.8 60.0 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.) a s ■a -- so a a a am a a Ea se a um as is a * For Factor of Safety - 1.0 * * Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * * 9.755 Kips/level * ******************************************************************** PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. B-B' Date: 02-18-2005 SnailWin 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.83 52.8 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe H= 21.8 ft Files BB-3-eq LEGEND: Crit.Ac= 0.47g Hoz. RH= 0.21g Urt.PKH= 8.80g PS- 45.2 Kips FY= 54.9 Hsi She 4.5 ft Su= 4-8 ft GAM. PHI COO SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 120.8 48 133 18.7 2 108.8 22 532 18.7 3 188.8 29 698 18.7 Soil Bound.<2) ' Water Scale = 18 ft ED Surcharge M I - M _ a a n I MI - M a M i 1 File: BB-3-eq 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: 12:27:25 *************************************************** Project Identification - Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. 8-8' 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 - 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 WATER SURFACE The Water Table is defined by three coordinate points. X(1)-Coord - 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 11111 NM MN a NM i- ■■s s a s r- e 1-- s File: BB-3-eq MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) Toe 1.851 51.1 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 2- 3- 4- MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 2 1.848 51.2 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 9.1 25.9 UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 55.2 44,7 47.410 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 39.370 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 48.315 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) LOWERRLAFAILURE UPPERRLAFAILURE NN ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 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) LOWERRLAFAILURE UPPERRLAFAILURE NN ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 3 1.846 51.3 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 Ks1 (Pullout controls...) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 4 1.843 51.4 LOWERLFAILURE UPPERRLAFAILURE PN ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 9.0 26.0 55.0 44.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 46.968 Ksi 2 - 38.967 Ksi 3 - 48.189 Ksi 4 - 54.860 Ksi MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) (Pullout controls...) (Pullout controls,..) (Pullout controls...) (Yield Stress controls.) LOWERR FAILURE UPPERR�FAILURE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (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 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE ANGLE�LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 6 1.838 51.6 9.0 26.1 54.9 44.9 Reinf. Stress at Level I - 46.674 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 38.699 Ks1 <Pullout controls...) 3 - 48.106 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 54.860 Ksf (Yield Stress controls.) MINIML%I SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 7 1.836 51.7 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 Ks1 (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 ANGLE�LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PNE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 8.9 26.2 54.8 44.9 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 46 2 - 38 3 - 48. 4 - 54 MINIMIil DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) NODE 9 1.831 51.9 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 3ft - 4- MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) NODE10 1.828 52.0 Reinf. Stress at Level .380 Ksi (Pullout controls...) .431 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 023 Ksi (Pullout controls...) .860 Ks1 (Yield Stress controls.) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PNE ANGLELA LENGTH (deg) (ft) 8.9 26.3 54.7 44.9 46.234 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 38,298 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 47,982 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPERR FAILURE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 8.9 26.3 54.7 44.9 1 - 46.087 Ks (Pullout controls...) 2 - 38,164 Ks (Pullout controls...) 3 - 47.941 Ks (Pullout controls...) 4 - 54.860 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) N - _ BS _!- r M - N I -_ MI M For Factor of Safety - 1.0 Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * 9.727 Kips/level * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ************************************* PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. 8-8' Date: 82-18-2805 SnailVin 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.63 124.0 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe H= 21.0 ft File_ BR-3-eg2 LEGEND: Crit.Ac= 0.41g Hoz. XH= 8.21g Urt.PI(H= 8.808 PS= 45.2 Mips PY= 54.9 Msi Sh= 4.5 ft Su= 4.8 (t GAM PHI CON SIC pcf deg psf psi 1 120.8 40 133 18.7 2 180.8 22 532 10.7 3 188.0 29 698 10.7 Sail Bound.C2) Water Scale = 10 ft 'U1It Surcharge - M= N N_- MI M M r- N I- -- NM File: 8B-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 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 - 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 Layer 1 2 3 Unit Weight (Pcf) 120.0 100.0 100.0 SOIL PARAMETERS Friction Cohesion Angle Intercept (Degree) (Psf) 39.5 532.0 29.4 698.3 Bond* Stress (Psi) 10.7 10.7 10.7 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. Page - 1 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)-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 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 - ■_ - I _ W I _ _ _i _ _ a _ IS a _ _ _ _ File: BB-3-eq2 MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) Toe 1.669 104.0 LOWER FAILURE UPPERLAFAILURE PLANPN ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 0.0 31.2 31.4 85.3 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 14.484 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 12.861 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 19.917 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 43.471 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE AN(deg) LENGTHGLE (ft) NOCE 2 1.655 108.0 0.0 32.4 30.4 87.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 11.447 Ksi 2 - 10.161 Ksi 3 - 19.917 Ksi 4 - 43.471 Ksi MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 3 1.642 112.0 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) (Pullout controls...) (Pullout controls...) (Pullout controls...) (Pullout controls...) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0.0 33.6 29.5 90.1 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 • 8.491 Ksi (Pullout 2 - 7.532 Ksi (Pullout 3 - 19.917 Ksi (Pullout 4 - 43.471 Ksi (Pullout MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) controls...) controls...) controls...) controls...) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 4 1.633 116.0 0.0 34.8 28.7 92.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 5.611 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 4.972 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 19.917 Ks1 (Pullout controls...) 4 - 43,471 Ks1 (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE ANGLE�LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLAN 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 DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 6 1.626 124.0 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 DBEHINDE LOWER WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 7 1.633 128.0 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 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 8 1.676 132.0 0,0 39.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 - 0.000 Ks' 3 - 19.917 Ks (Pullout controls...) 4 - 43.471 Ks (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 9 1.678 136.0 UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 25.7 DISTANCE LOWER WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) 3.7 68.1 30.5 102.5 UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 78.9 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 - 17.116 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 34.285 Ks1 (Pullout controls...) 4 - 51.453 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE10 1.682 140.0 Reinf. Stress at Level LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 3.6 70.1 29.7 80.6 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 - 16.618 Ks1 (Pullout controls...) 3 - 33.940 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 51.262 Ksi (Pullout controls...) SE On S—— M— r r M I_ r — r N M all MN ******************************************************************** * 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 PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. C-C' L Date: 02-18-200S SnailUin 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.61 47.0 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe H- 24.0 ft Pile: CC-3 LEGEND: PS= 34.0 Kips FY= 41.3 Ksi Sh= 4.5 ft So= 4.0 ft GAM PHI COU SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 120.0 32 100 6.0 2 100.0 17 400 8.0 3 100.0 23 S2S 8.0 Soil Bound.(2) Water Scale = 10 ft En Surcharge 1 M M W-- N MI MO i 1 M V M N I MB E MI I File: CC-3 *************************************************** * 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 Wall Batter 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. 24.0 dittq 0.Angle Length (Deg) (Fe2.et)45.0 0.0 160.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 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 - 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 Page - 1 Unit Friction Cohesion Bond* Coordinates of Boundary Soil Weight Angle Intercept Stress XS1 YS1 XS2 Y52 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 7.0 300.0 7.0 3 100.0 23.0 525.0 8.0 0.0 -2.0 300.0 -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)-Coordinate - 10.00 ft X(3)-Coordinate - 100.00 ft Y(3)-Coordinate - 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 la__ MI N i _ ! WIN lin S Mil s I M M Mil MIN File: CC-3 MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) Toe 1.616 46.0 LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 24,9 10.1 UPPERRLAFAAILURE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 46.2 53.2 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 UPPER FAILURE E ANGLE�LENGTH ANGLE�LENGTH (deg) (ft) (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 SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BENIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWERRLAFAILURE UPPERRLFAILURE NANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 3 1.615 48.0 24.0 10.5 45.0 54.3 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41.250 Ksi (Y eld 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 (Y eld 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 ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 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 SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE ANGLELALENGTH ANGLE�LENGTH (deg) (ft) (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 Ks1 (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 41.250 Ks1 (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWERRLAFAILURE UPPERRLAFAILURE NN ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 6 1.625 51.0 22.7 11.1 43.3 56.0 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41.250 Ksi 2 - 41,250 Ksi 3 - 41.250 Ksi 4 - 41.250 Ksi 5 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) (Yield Stress controls,) (Yield Stress controls.) (Yield Stress controls.) (Yield Stress controls.) Page - 4 _ r 1 NM a a a— IS NS MB a En N MI M EN_ - File: CC-3 Page - 5 File: CC-3 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 1.630 52.0 22.3 11.2 42,7 56.6 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.) 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 1.635 53.0 21.9 11.4 42.2 57.2 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 1.641 54.0 21.6 11.6 41.6 57.8 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.) 5 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 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.) Page 6 ****************************************** For Factor of Safety - 1.0 Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: 12.960 Kips/level ************************************************ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROJECT TIRE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. C-C t Date: 82-18-2085 SnailVin 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.75 47.8 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe File: CC-3—eq LEGEND: Crit.Ac= 0.42g Hoz. NH= 0.21g Urt.P101= 0.00g PS= 45.2 Rips FY= 54.9 Est Sh= 4.5 ft Su= 4.8 ft GAM PHI COO SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 120.8 40 133 10.7 2 100.0 22 532 18.7 3 100.0 29 698 18.7 Soil Bound.(2) _ Water Scale = 18 ft Surcharge 1 a am so as an an as a ma is ea 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' Vertical Wall Height Wall Batter 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. WALL GEOMETRY 24.0 ft 0.0 degree - Angle Length (Deg) (Feet) 24.0 0.0 160.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 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 - 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 2 100.0 21.5 3 100.0 29.4 133.0 532.0 698.2 Bond* Stress (Psi) 10.7 10,7 10.7 Page - 1 Coordinates of Boundary XS1 YS1 X52 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)-Coord nate - 10.00 ft X(3)-Coord nate - 100.00 ft Y(3)-Coord nate - 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 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 - 2 GNI 11111111 Ell WIN ell MI SIB MR MIR 1111111 N M M s r N- r File: CC-3-eq MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR Toe 1.786 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) 46.1 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 2- 3- 4- 5- MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR LOWERRLFAILURE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 10.5 23.4 54.860 Ks' (Yield 54.860 Ks (Yield 48.118 Ks' (Pullo 54.860 Ks (Yield 54.860 Ks (Yield DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE BEHIND PLANE WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 2 1.784 46.2 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 2- 3- 4- 5- MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) NODE 3 1.782 46,3 Reinf. Stress at Level UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) Page - 3 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) 59.0 44.8 NODE 4 1.780 46.4 10.4 23.6 58.9 44.9 Stress controls.) Stress controls.) ut controls...) Stress controls.) Stress controls.) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 10.5 23.5 59.0 44.8 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 47.983 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) LOWERRLAFAILURE UPPERRLFAILURE NANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 10.4 23.5 58.9 44.8 1 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 47.848 Ksi (Pullout controls..,) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) Reinf. Stress at Level 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.) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 5 1.796 46.5 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 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 54.860 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHD WALL (ft) LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE PANGLE�NGTH ANGLENE �LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 6 1,794 46.6 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 (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 54,860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) Page - OM i MI i I MIN ! Ili N ON ON i 111111 WER a Ilia INS MINI File: CC-3-eq MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE NgE g(ft)H (deg) 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 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 53,197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) NODE 8 1.761 46.8 LOWERRLAFAILURE UPPERRLAFAILURE NN ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 0.0 23.4 61.3 48.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 54.860 Ksi 2 - 50,112 Ksi 3 - 40.765 Ksi 4 - 31.418 Ksi 5 - 53.197 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) (Pullout controls...) (Pullout controls...) (Pullout controls...) (Pullout controls...) MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 9 1.758 46.9 Reinf. Stress at Level UPPERRLAFAAILURE 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 PLANE 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 * ******************************************************************** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROJECT TIRE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. C-C' Date: 02-18-2805 SnailYin 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.40 184.8 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe 24.8 ft File: CC-3-eg2 LEGEND: Crit.Ac= 0.30g Hoz. KH= 0.21g Urt.PKH= 0.00g IT ./ PS= 45.2 Rips FY= 54.9 Esi Sh= 4Sft Su= ' 4.8 ft GAM FIII coo SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 120.0 40 133 18.7 2 100.0 22 532 10.7 V 3 180.0 29 698 10.7 Soil Bound.(2) Water Scale = 10 ft DT Surcharge a M r IND _ a A IS r a I w MS w a MI MINI Mt S 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 - 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 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 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. Page - 1 File: CC-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)-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 - IS NO -/__ a a M IS a a SIB INI111 SIN S M r File: CC-3-eq2 Page - 3 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 WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) Toe 1.415 84.0 0.0 33.6 40.2 66.0 NODE 4 1.402 96.0 0.0 38.4 36.5 71.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 20.582 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 16.207 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 7.478 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 11.833 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 4.186 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 29.643 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 6.088 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 53.197 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 MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE FACTOR WALL TOE ) ANGLE LENGTH ANGLEGLLENGTH SAFETYTWALL TOE ANGLE�LENGTH ANGLE�LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 2 1.404 88.0 0.0 35.2 38.9 67.9 NODE 5 1.403 100.0 0.0 40.0 35.4 73.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 16.098 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 12.094 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 3.333 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 8.090 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 0.383 Ks (Pullout controls...) 4 - 29.643 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 6.088 Ks (Pullout controls...) 5 - 53.197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 29.643 Ks (Pullout controls...) 5 - 53.197 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 1.403 92.0 0.0 36.8 37.7 69.8 NODE 6 1.398 104.0 0.0 41.6 34.4 75.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 11.732 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 8.088 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 3 - 6.088 Ksi (Pullout controls.,,) 2 - 0.000 Ksi 4 - 29.643 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 6.088 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 53.197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 29.643 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 53.197 Ksi (Pullout controls...) l s NW a s r all alla— N al We s WO lala r 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 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 1.401 108.0 0.0 43.2 33.4 77.6 1.417 120.0 0.0 48.0 30.6 83.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 - 0.000 Ksi 2 - 0.000 Ksi 3 - 6.088 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 6.088 Kst (Pullout controls...) 4 - 29.643 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 29.643 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 53.197 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 Ksf (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 Kst (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' acg Date: 02-18-2005 Snai1Uin 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.69 51.8 ft Behind Ja11 Crest At Wall Toe Scale = 10 ft File: DD-3 LEGEND: PS= 34.0 Kips PY= 41.3 Ksi Sh= 4.5 ft So= 4.8 ft GAM PHI COI SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 128.8 32 108 8.0 2 100.0 17 400 8.0 3 100.0 23 525 8.0 Soil Bound.(2) Water EH Surcharge Sall ■■r _ sus s 8111 w a 1111$ S s• s• r ! M NM _ ! r File: DD-3 * • 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. 0.0 WALL GEOMETRY Vertical Wall Height - 23.0 ft Wall Batter 0.0 degree Angle Length (Deg) (Feet) First Slope from Wailcrest. 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 - 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, Band & Yield Stress are used. SOIL PARAMETERS Unit Friction Cohesion Soil Weight Angle Intercept Layer (Pcf) (Degree) (Psf) 1 120.0 32.0 2 100.0 16.5 3 100.0 23.0 100.0 400.0 525.0 Bond* Stress (Psi) 8.0 8.0 8.0 Page - 1 Coordinates of Boundary XS1 YS1 X52 Y52 (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 300.0 8.0 0.0 -6.0 300.0 -6.0 * Bond Stress also depends on BSF Factor in Option #5 when enabled. File: DD-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 M .. a- all _ r N rNO a all r Mill M s tart a� File: DD-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: DO-3 Page - 4 MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALLTOEANGLE LENGTH) (ft)ANGLE LENGTH(ft)FACTOR WALLTOE (deg) LENGTH(t)(deg) LENGTH( 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.) 3 - 41.250 Ks1 (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 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 1.693 52.0 28.6 17.8 43.0 49.8 NODE 5 1.704 55.0 27.3 18.6 41.4 51.4 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 (Y eld Stress controls.) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 41,250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 Ks1 (Y eld 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 (Y eld Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 41.250 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 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 Ks1 (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 41.250 Ks1 (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 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 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) lila MI n s 1111111 MI a I a s rr r r I a INS SIM a File: DD•3 Page - 5 File: DO-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 (deg) LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH()FACTOR WALLTOE ANGLE LENGTH (deg)NLENGTH( 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 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 41.250 Ks (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 41,250 Ks' (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 41.250 Ks (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.) 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 * * Maximus 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 Nall Crest At Wall Ise Scale = 10 ft File: DD-3-es LEGEND: Crit.Ac= 0.48g Hoz. RH= 0.21g Urt.PKH= 0.00g PS= 45.2 Rips FY= 54.9 Rsi Sh= 4.5 ft So= 4.0 ft GAN 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.t2) Water a310 Surcharge la r- A a r- a WM SI MI n MI IS A M r N r File: DD-3-eq *************************************************** * CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * * ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER * DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS * Office of Roadway Geotechnical Engineering * Date: 02-18-2005 Time: 11:51:58 * *************************************************** 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 - 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. 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 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-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)-Coord nate - 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 - - 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 - 2 SI a MS i a N MIN r a A 111111 MN MIN MN MS SIN 11111 File: DD-3-eq MINIMUM FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) Toe 1.812 50.1 LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 12.0 20.5 51.8 48.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield 2 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield 3 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield 5 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) NODE 2 1.810 50.2 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) Stress controls.) Stress controls.) Stress controls.) Stress controls.) Stress controls.) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 11.9 20.5 51.8 48.7 1 - 54.860 Ks1 (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 54.860 Ksi (Y eld Stress controls.) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Y'eld Stress controls.) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 3 1,809 50.3 Reinf. Stress at Level LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 11.9 20.6 51.7 48,7 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 Ks1 (Yield Stress controls.) Page - 3 File: DD-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 4 1.807 50.4 11.9 20.6 51.7 48.8 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 3- 5- MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) 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.) LOWERRLFFAAILURE UPPERRLAFAILURE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (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 PLANE 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 I - 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 - 4 r111011 IMP Ma Ma M a r r s MI W S a-' IS =II W File: DD-3-eq Page - 5 File: O0-3-eq Page - MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE (deg) LENGTH (deg)) LENGTH FACTOR WA(ft)OE (deg) LENGTH (deg) LENGTH NODE 7 NODE10 1.802 50.7 11.8 20.7 51.5 48.9 1.816 51.0 22.6 22.1 48.0 45.7 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 2 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 3 - 54,860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 4 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress 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 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 DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (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.) ******************************************************************** * For Factor of Safety - 1.0 * * Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * * 14.953 Kips/level * ******************************************************************** PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. D-D' Date: 82-18-2885 SnailWin 3.18 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.44 188.8 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe H= 23.8 ft File: DD-3--eq2 LEGEND: Crit.Ac= 8.31g Hoz. RH= 8.21g Urt.PKH= 8.88: 2 3 PS= 45.2 Kips FY= 54.9 Xsi Sh= 4.5 deft S�= 4.8 ft GAM PHI pcf deg 128.0 40 100.8 22 180.0 29 COB SSpIG psf 133 10.7 532 10.7 698 18.7 Soil Bound.(2) `r Water Scale = 18 ft Surcharge la ma is a um a_ an ■w la a Elm a ma r so a as a 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. 0-0' WALL GEOMETRY Vertical Wall Height - 23,0 ft Wall Batter 0.0 degree Angie 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 UnittFriction Cohesion Bond* Coordinates of Boundary Layer (Pcf)t (Degree) Intercept (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 - 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 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 - 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 IS O I M- s_ 11111 ■ID UM N MINI M a 1 M a la a File: DD-3-eq2 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR Toe 1.439 Reinf DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) 104.0 LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0.0 41.6 Stress at Level 1 - 2.431 Ksi 2 - 0.000 Ksi 3 - 15.815 Ksi 4 - 39.369 Ksi 5 - 54.860 Ksi MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 34.3 75.5 (Pullout controls...) (Pullout controls...) (Pullout controls...) (Yield Stress controls.) DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE BEHIND PLANE PLANE WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) NODE 2 1.436 108.0 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 3 1.438 112.0 0.0 43.2 33.3 77.5 1 - 0.000 Ks 2 - 0.000 Ks 3 - 15.815 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 39.369 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE PANGLE�NGTH ANGLNE E�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 PLANE AN(deg) GLE LENGTH UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (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 Ks1 (Pullout controls...) 4 - 39.369 Ks1 (Pullout controls...) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR NODE 5 1.446 120.0 DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWERRLAFAILURE UPPERRLFAILURE NANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (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 Ks1 (Pullout 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 PNE ANGLE LENGTH (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 Ks1 (Pullout controls...) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) Page - a a -_ M__ I__ MINI INC M_ M_ E OM OM File: DD-3-eq2 Page - 5 File: DD-3-eq2 Page - 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 Ksi 3 - 15.815 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 15.815 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 = 39.369 Ksi (Pullout controls,..) 4 - 39.369 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress 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 8 1.465 132.0 0.0 52.8 28.2 89.9 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksl 2 - 0.000 Ksi 3 - 15.815 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 39.369 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 54.860 Ksl (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 Ks' 3 = 15.815 Ks' (Pullout controls...) 4 - 39.369 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 54.860 Ksi (Yield Stress controls.) ******************************************************************** * For Factor of Safety - 1.0 * Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * 0.000 Kips/level * ******************************************************************** I' PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. E-E' Li015_1(1 Date: 02-18-2005 SnaillWin 3.10 Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.54 52-0 ft Behind Wall Crest At Wall Toe H= 28.8 ft File_ EE-3 LEGEND: 34.0 Kips FY= 41.3 Ksi. Sh= 4-5 ft Su= 4.0 ft GAM PHI CON SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 120.0 32 100 8.02 100-0 1? 400 8.0 3 180.8 23 525 8.0- Soil Bound.<2) Water Scale = 10 ft IEC Surcharge me a so r ma at a a as a so am a as r r r a ea 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 Wall Batter 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. 28.0 ft 0.0 degree th (DDeegg) (Feet) 0.0 30.0 6.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 0.0 165.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 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 - 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 Bond* Coordinates of Boundary Soil Weight Angle Intercept Stress XS1 YS1 XS2 Y52 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 18.0 300.0 18.0 3 100,0 23.0 525.0 8.0 0.0 14.0 300.0 14.0 * Bond Stress also depends on BSF Factor 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 IS OM Mil MR r r SIB III, 11111 IS as me r r r r ma vs 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 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 22,623 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 21.905 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 19.840 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 19.828 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 17.067 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 17.751 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 15.674 Ks1 (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) NGLL) ENGTH ANGLE LENGTH NODE 3 1.558 32.0 37.6 32.3 52,9 10.6 NODE 61.545 44,0 21.9 23.7 43.2 30.2 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 27.856 Ks (Pullout controls...) 2 - 25.133 Ks (Pullout controls...) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 12.236 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 22.411 Ks (Pullout controls...) 2 - 8.361 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 19.688 Ks (Pullout controls...) 3 - 4.709 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 16.965 Ks (Pullout controls...) 4 - 6.412 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 8.115 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 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 Ksi (Pullout controls..,) 4 - 21.953 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 17.472 Ks' (Pullout controls...) 5 - 18.475 Ks1 (Pullout controls...) 4 - 15.984 Ks (Pullout controls...) 5 - 14.496 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) INS SS SW s SS N S SIN SS r SS S SS s_ MS Ell _ r File: EE-3 Page - 5 File: EE-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 deg) LENGTH(ft)ANGLE (deg) LENGTH(ft)FACTOR WA(ft)OE (deg) LENGTH (deg) LENGTH NODE 7 NODE10 1.537 48.0 28.1 38.1 39.7 18.7 1.584 60.0 25.2 46.4 36.3 22.3 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 13.382 Ksi (Pullout controls...) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 8.177 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 13.071 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 8,734 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 12.761 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 9.291 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 12.451 Ksf (Pullout controls...) 4 - 9.849 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 = 12,141 Ksf (Pullout controls...) 5 - 10.406 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) NOOE 8 1.536 52.0 19.3 27.5 39.2 33.6 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 4.282 Ks' (Pullout controls...) 2 - 1.217 Ks (Pullout controls...) 3 - 0.669 Ks (Pullout controls...) 4 - 3.382 Ks (Pullout controls...) 5 - 6.095 Ks (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 1.559 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...) ******************************************************************** * For Factor of Safety - 1.0 * Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * 9.033 Kfps/level **************************************************************** * PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. E-E' Date: 82-18-2085 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= 8.39g Hoz. RH= 8.21g Urt.PICH= 0.00g 45.2 Rips 4 FY= 54.9 Rsi Sh= 4.5 ft Su= 4.8 ft GAM PHI COB 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 :ED Surcharge i _ r - r - e s-- U111111 a a r a s a I File: EE-3-eq Project Identi Vertical Wall Wall Batter *************************************************** * 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 * ***************************#*********************** fication - Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. E-E' WALL GEOMETRY Height 28.0 ft 0.0 degree Angle Length 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) 0.0 6.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (Feet) 30.0 25.0 15.0 165.0 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 - 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 Soil Weight Angle Intercept Layer (Po l (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 X51 YS1 X52 YS2 (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 * Bond 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)-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 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 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 - r1 I r r M SI r I! a M S-- I r M_ r NODE 3 1.385 51.3 16.4 21.4 38.2 39.1 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 8.878 Ks' (Pullout controls...) 2 - 5.098 Ks (Pullout controls...) 3 - 1.317 Ks (Pullout controls..,) 4 - 0.000 Ks' 5 - 4.794 Ks (Pullout controls...) File: EE-3-eq Page - 3 File: EE-3-eq Page - 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 Ksl (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 Ksf (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 Ks' (Pullout controls...) Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 8.637 Ks' (Pullout controls...) 3 - 1.412 Ks (Pullout controls.,,) 2 - 4.882 Ks (Pullout controls...) 4 - 0.000 Ks 3 - 1.128 Ks (Pullout controls...) 5 - 4,825 Ks' (Pullout controls...) 4 - 0.000 Kst 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) NODE 6 1.384 51.6 16.3 21.5 38.0 39.3 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 8.516 Ks (Pullout controls...) 2 - 4.774 Ks (Pullout controls...) 3 - 1.033 Ks (Pullout controls...) 4 - 0.000 Ksi 5 - 4.701 Ksi (Pullout controls...) MI R MI s M r N M I r 11101 a N M M IS V a File: EE-3-eq Page - 5 File: EE-3-eq Page - 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 1,383 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 TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 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 WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 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...) * For Factor of Safety - 1.0 * Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: * 0.000 Kips/level ******************************************************************** PROJECT TITLE: Hoag Hospital Retaining Wall, X-Sec. E-E' Date: 02-18-2005 SnailWin 3.18 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. KU= 0.21g Urt.PRU= 0.00g 45.2 Kips PY= 54.9 Ksi Sh= 4.5 ft Su= 4.0 ft AM GPHI CON SIG pcf deg psf psi 1 120.0 40 133 10.7- 2 100.8 22 532 10.7 3 100.0 29 698 10.7- Soil Bound.C2) ' r Water Scale = 10 ft DE Surcharge a s- a 1111■ S ■1111 Mr a s .11111 11111 - NM MS en NMI File: EE-3-eq2 *************************************************** * CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION * ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER * DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS * Office of Roadway Geotechnical Engineering * * Date: 02-18-2005 Time: 12:54:58 * *************************************************** 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 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 - 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 Factored Punching shear, OPTION #1 Bond & Yield Stress are used. SOIL PARAMETERS Unit Friction Cohesion Soil Weight Angle Intercept Layer (Pct) (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 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 * Bond Stress also depends on BSF Factor in Option #5 when enabled. Page - 1 File: EE-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)-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 60.0 to 100.0 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 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 - OM i a NIP NMI ON IND all 111111 NS i a IIIIII IIIIII M a JIM File: EE-3-eq2 MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) Toe 1.391 64.0 22.2 55.3 47.5 18.9 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 2.707 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 2 - 4.814 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 3 - 6.921 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 9.029 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 11.136 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 2 1.364 68.0 21.1 51.0 42.0 27,5 Reinf. Stress at Level 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...) MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PNE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 3 1.358 72.0 20.1 53.7 40.5 28.4 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 - 3 File: EE-3-eq2 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE A(NdegGLE) LENGTH NODE 4 1.363 76.0 19.2 56.3 39. Refnf. Stress at Level 1 - 2- 3- 5- MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) NODE 5 1.373 80.0 Reinf. Stress at Level MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR 0.000 Ksi 0.000 Ksi 0.618 K51 4.301 Ksi 7.984 Ksi UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 0 29.3 (Pullout controls...) (Pullout controls...) (Pullout controls...) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 51.4 UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 30.0 37.0 0.000 Ksi 1.924 Ksl (Pullout controls...) 3 - 4.609 Ksi (Pullout controls..,) 4 - 7.295 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 9.980 Ksi (Pullout controls...) DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWERRLAFAILURE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE 6 1.381 84.0 20.1 53.7 28. Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 - 0.000 Ksi 3 - 2.718 Ksi 4 - 5.876 Ksi 5 - 9.034 Ksi UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 8 38.3 (Pullout controls....) (Pullout controls...) (Pullout controls,..) Page - es a a s ow am me a mu t a as a a a to on se r File: EE-3-eq2 MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 7 1.396 88.0 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 2- 3- 4- 5- LOWERRLAFAAILURE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 19.3 55.9 MINIMUM DISTANCE SAFETY BEHIND FACTOR WALL TOE (ft) NODE 8 1.415 92.0 0.000 Ksi 0.000 Ksi 0.911 Ksi 4.521 Ksi 8.131 Ksi UPPER FAILURE ANGLE�LENGTH (deg) (ft) 27.7 39.8 (Pullout controls...) (Pullout controls...) (Pullout controls...) LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE P�LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft) 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 SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) NODE 9 1.438 96.0 Reinf. Stress at Level LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 17.8 60.5 25.7 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 - 0.000 Ksi 3 - 0.000 Ksi 4 - 1.982 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 6.438 Ksi (Pullout controls...) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) 42.6 Page - 5 File: EE-3-eq2 Page - MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BEHIND WALL TOE (ft) LOWER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) UPPER FAILURE PLANE ANGLE LENGTH (deg) (ft) NODE10 1.461 100.0 20.3 106.6 89.9 0.0 Reinf. Stress at Level 1 - 0.000 Ksi 2 - 0.000 Ksi 3 - 3.028 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 4 - 6.108 Ksi (Pullout controls...) 5 - 9.189 Ksi (Pullout controls...) *************************************************************** For Factor of Safety - 1.0 Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force: 0.000 Kips/level ********************************************************************