HomeMy WebLinkAboutG2003-0125 - SoilsMitoo
k9 KLEINFELDER
An employee owned company
May 20, 2003
Project No. 16901
Mr. Jim Easley
Project Manager
Hoag Memorial Hospital
361 Hospital Road, Suite 229
Newport Beach, California 92663
Plp
Subject: Geology Review of Geotechnical Investigation Documents
Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Easley:
As requested by you, this letter indicates the geologic review of our geotechnical investigation design reports
for the subject project. Mr. K. Douglas Cook, R.G., C.E.G., a senior engineering geologist of Kleinfelder,
reviewed the following documents and generally concurs with the conclusions and recommendations presented
in the referenced documents.
Report of Geotechnical Investigation, proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower Facilities, West of
Existing Parking Lot, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California,
dated August 15, 2002.
Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Addendum to Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed
Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport
Beach, California, dated December 19, 2002. (previously reviewed and signed by Mr. Cook)
Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation — Sculpted Gunite/Soil Nail Slope, Proposed Cut Slope Between City
park Site and Proposed Cogen Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport
Beach, California, dated February 12, 2003.
Response to Plan Check Comments — Geotechnical Review, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling
Tower Facilities, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California, dated May 19, 2003.
We trust that this report satisfies your current needs. If you have any questions regarding this report or require
additional information, please contact this office. We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service.
Respectively submitted,
KLEINFELDER, INC.
K. Douglas Cook, R.G., CE
Senior Engineering Geologist
1690I /DBA3 L 105
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
CsiVAa
engineering g
Geologist
OF CA\-/
Justin J. Kempton., P.E., G.E
Manager, Geotechnical Engineering
May 20, 2003
ki KLEINFELDER
An employee owned company
May 20, 2003
Project No. 16901
Mr: Jim Easley
Project Manager
Hoag Memorial Hospital
361 Hospital Road, Suite 229
Newport Beach, California 92663
Subject: Geology Review of Geotechnical Investigation Documents
Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Easley:
As requested by you, this letter indicates the geologic review of our geotechnical investigation design reports
for the subject project. Mr. K. Douglas Cook, R.G., C.E.G., a senior engineering geologist of Kleinfelder,
reviewed the following documents and generally concurs with the conclusions and recommendations presented
in the referenced documents.
Report of Geotechnical Investigation, proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower Facilities, West of
Existing Parking Lot, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport Beach, California,
dated August 15, 2002.
Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Addendum to Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed
Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport
Beach, California, dated December 19, 2002. (previously reviewed and signed by Mr. Cook)
Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation — Sculpted Gunite/Soil Nail Slope, Proposed Cut Slope Between City
park Site and Proposed Cogen Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport
Beach, California, dated February 12, 2003.
Response to Plan Check Comments — Geotechnical Review, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling
Tower Facilities, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California, dated May 19, 2003.
We trust that this report satisfies your current needs. If you have any questions regarding this report or require
additional information, please contact this office. We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service.
Respectively submitted,
KLEINFELDER, INC.
K. Douglas Cook, R.G., CEG
Senior Engineering Geologist
16901 /DBA3 L 105
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, tne.
KLEINFELDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
GE
'5 C
•22 s
4r' EXP. 12t03�1
No.EG1391
* Certified *
<o. Engineering
Geologist
1/F
OF
c AoF
a�
Justin J. Kempton., P.E., G.E
Manager, Geotechnical Engineering
May 20, 2003
kg KLEENFELDER
An employee owned company
May 19, 2003
Project No. 23546/003
Mr. Jim Easley
Project Manager
Hoag Memorial Hospital
361 Hospital Road, Suite 229
Newport Beach, California 92663
Subject: Response to Plan Check Comments — Geotechnical Review
Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower Facilities
West of Existing Lower Campus Parking Lot
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
One Hoag Drive
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Easley:
This letter presents our response to review comments by the City of Newport Beach reviewer dated May
5, 2003 (A copy is attached). The following reports as referenced below were reviewed by the City's
geotechnical reviewer:
• Report of Geotechnical Investigation, proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower
Facilities, West of Existing Parking Lot, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive,
Newport beach, California, dated. August 15, 2002.
• Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation, Proposed Cut Slope Between City Park Site and
Proposed Cogen Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport
beach, California, dated December 18, 2002.
•
Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Addendum to Geotechnical Investigation Report,
Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian,
One Hoag Drive, Newport beach, California, dated December 19, 2002.
Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation — Sculpted Gunite/Soil Nail Slope, Proposed Cut Slope
Between City park Site and Proposed Cogen Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian,
One Hoag Drive, Newport beach, California, dated February 12, 2003.
Please note that the recommendations included in our December 18, 2002 letter were incorporated into
our December 19, 2002 report and subsequently updated in our February 12, 2003 letter. Therefore, the
December 18, 2002 letter is not required to be part of the construction documents.
The review comment letter is attached. Our responses to each comment are presented below.
23546-003/DBA3L104 1 May 19, 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfclder, Inc
KLEINFELDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
5
Response to Comment 1 — Liquefaction:
The seismic design for the project is based on a 10 percent probability of exceedence in 100 years event
resulting in a Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of 0.55g as presented in Appendix C of our report.
As discussed on Page 16 of Appendix C of our August 15, 2002 report, the subject site is not located in a
State mapped liquefaction hazard zone.
As requested, we reviewed the blow count data of the terrace deposits and performed additional
liquefaction evaluation of the onsite terrace deposits. During our field investigation, we encountered
groundwater in our borings at approximately 34 to 41 feet below top of slope. We understand that the
toe of the existing slope at the site originally consisted of swampland. Accordingly we have estimated
the historic groundwater level at the site to be near or above the toe of slope level. In our analysis, we
have assumed the current groundwater level of 34 feet below top of slope to control. Using a blow count
of 24 (correlated between Borings KB-1 and B-3) conservatively for the terrace deposits, liquefaction
potential of the terrace deposits was evaluated to be very low. We have attached our calculation output
as part of this response letter (Plate 1)
Response to Comments 2 — Expansive Soils:
Expansion index testing was performed on the siltstone/claystone samples at the site supporting the
proposed slabs on grade. The testing indicated an expansion index of 82, which describes a material with
a medium expansion potential according to CBC Table 189-I-B. An Atterberg Limits test was also
performed on a representative sample of the siltstone/claystone. The results of the test indicate a
Plasticity Index of 32. As indicated in our original geotechnical report, we recommend the slab be
designed for a medium expansion potential which includes recommendations to place 21/2 feet of
relatively "non -expansive" fill below slabs of grade. The floor slab should be designed by a structural
engineer.
In order to provide a recommended effective plasticity index for use in floor slab design, plasticity index
testing was performed on representative samples of the soils underlying the proposed slab -on -grade. The
following parameters were used to determine effective plasticity index as outlined in the CBC.
Typical Soil Layers
Weight Factor, F
Depth, D
Plasticity Index (PI)
FxDxPI
0 to 2V2 feet
3
21/2
0
0
21/2 to 5 feet
3
21/2
32
240
5 to 10 feet
2
5
32
320
10 to 15 feet
1
5
32
160
FxD = 30
720
Weighted PI = 720/30 = 24
Co = 1.0
Cs = 1.0
Effective Weighted PI = 24
Based on the results of the laboratory testing and procedures described in CBC Section 1815.4.2, an
effective plasticity index of 24 may he utilized in the design.
Response to Comment 3 — Subdrains:
As discussed in Comment 1 above, the area near the toe of the slope at the subject site used to be
swampland. Groundwater was encountered in our borings at approximately elevations 31 to 33. As
23546-003/DBA3L104 2 May 19, 2003
eri itt 2003 KleinfelderInc.
K tII IF�LDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
discussed on Page 18 of our report, higher level of soil moisture were observed in the collected samples
to an elevation of approximately 40, indicating that the groundwater could potentially rise to that
elevation. In order to provide added conservatism, we have recommended a design water level elevation
of approximately 43. A subdrain system currently exists at the site, near the toe of the existing slope. We
understand that this system is to remain and will be modified around the proposed buildings during
construction which should result in the groundwater levels to remain at or near their current elevations.
Response to Comment 4 and 8 — Walls Below Grade:
The retained height is being supported by a permanent soldier pile wall with tie -back anchors. The
design of the soldier piles and length of tie -back anchors is based upon a circular slip surface with a
factor of safety of 1.5. The tip of the tie -back anchors are required to extend beyond this surface. It is our
opinion that given the wall stability as a soldier pile permanent shoring, deep seated failure is also
controlled (calculations attached, Plates 2.1 through 2.3).
Response to Comment 5 — Seismic Earth Pressure:
Based on our analysis, it is our opinion that an additional pressure of 20H pounds per square foot for
seismic consideration is suitable for seismic design of the retaining walls when added to the
recommended static active pressure. In our report, we recommended a static active earth pressure of 35
pounds per square foot per foot of wall height. Based on our analyses, the calculated static active earth
pressure is calculated at 25 pounds per square foot per foot of wall height. By performing a Mononome-
Okabe analysis to evaluate the seismic earth pressure, a calculated result on the order of 23H pounds per
square foot is obtained. A combination of the static and seismic earth pressures is presented on Plate 3
attached. Based on this diagram, it is apparent that the combined recommended pressure is substantially
larger than the combined calculated pressure. It is our professional opinion that the seismic earth
pressure of 20H pounds per square foot as recommended in our report for a level backfill is a suitable
value for the design of proposed retaining walls at the subject site.
Response to Comment 6 —Hydrostatic Pressure:
The recommended hydrostatic pressure is an additional value over and above the recommended active
pressure. This value has been derived from a calculated active pressure of 25 pounds per square foot and
a hydrostatic pressure of 62.4 pounds per cubic foot for a total combined pressure of 87.4 pounds per
cubic foot. Given our active pressure recommendation of 35 pounds per cubic foot, and assuming a
combined pressure. of 90 pounds per cubic foot, the difference between 90 and 35 is the recommended
55 pounds per cubic foot.
Response to Comment 7 — Temporary Slopes:
The strength parameters used in the temporary slope stability calculation was derived from shear testing
performed on the Pleistocene age sandy terrace deposits encountered in our borings. It is our opinion
that the strength parameters obtained from our testing are representative of the sandy terrace deposits
soils at the site.
Response to Comment 9 — Report Signature:
The report has been reviewed by Mr. K. Douglas Cook, a Registered Certified Engineering Geologist. A
separate leiter documenting the review will be issued.
Response to Comment 10 — Soil Nails:
The bond stress of 1,152 pounds per square foot used in the computation is a conservative estimate of
bond stress derived from typical bond stress values for various soil types as discussed in the
23546-003/DBA3L104 3 May 19, 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ISSMFE) publication TC-17.
Based on the guidelines provided in this publication, it is our opinion that the soil nail, length
recommendations for the proposed slope are satisfactory. We have also evaluated the soil nail bond
stress using an alternate method incorporating the overburden stresses on the soil nails and the soil
strength parameters (Plate 4). Using an average bond stress of 316 pounds per square foot based on
overburden stress calculation, the proposed slope is still evaluated to be stable as designed. It is our
opinion that the soil nail anchor recommendations provided in our report remain applicable.
The computation required to increase the factor of safety to 1.5 is governed by the static condition as
indicated Page 2 of our February 12, 2003 letter. The pseudo static condition (FS=1.1) is satisfied
without the use of soil nails. The complete stability calculation for the static condition, indicating the
additional force required for a factor of safety of 1.5 is attached to this letter.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide continuing services on this project. Please feel free to call us
should you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
KLEINFELDER, INC.
Armen GaprelIan, PE` n \ / * / 4ustin J. Kempton, PE, GE
Project Engineer �y� crw d`'\ Manager, Geotechnical Engineering
Copies submitted (4)
cc: City of Newport Beach (2)
Ms. Peri Muretta (1)
Mr. Gary Simmons — Taylor and Associates (1)
Mr. Sandro Pincini — Taylor and Gaines (1)
Mr. David Cefali — Cefali and Associates (1)
Mr. David Boyle — David A. Boyle Engineering (1)
23546-003/DBA31.104 4 May 19, 2003
6E11 01'3 3 Kleitfilict5SeVista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
llb;by-' Id3 Ny:3b
FROM- T-316 P02/08
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST
Date Received: April 28, 2003
Date of Report: August 15, 2002
Consultant: Kleinfelder, Inc.
Additional Documents Reviewed:
Date completed: May,5, 2.00
Plan Check No: 0931-2003 c i
Our Job No:
1. Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation, Proposed Cut 'Slope Bef
City Park Site and Proposed Cogen Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital'`
Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California, dated December 18, 2002
2. Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Addendum to Geotechnical
Investigation Report, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling
Tower, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach,
California, dated December 19, 2002
3. Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation- Scuplted Gunite/Soil Nail
Slope, Proposed Cut Slope Between City Park Site and Proposed Cogen
Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach,
California, dated February 12, 2003
Site Address: One Hoag Drive
Newport Beach, California
Title of Report: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower, Hoag
Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California, dated August 15, 2002
Purpose of Report: Geotechnical recommendations for the Construction of Support Facility Building of the
Hospital and Stability of an Adjacent Slope
YIN
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Project Project Information/Background:
Review of Existing City Files
Reference to Site(s) by Street Address
Reference to Grading/Foundation Plans by Date
Subsurface Investigation
Aerial Photograph
Geologic Hazards:
Hazard
Adverse Geologic Structure
Bluff Retreat
Debris/Mud Flow
Differential Settlement
Erosion
Expansive Soils
Faulting
Fractured Bedrock
Groundwater
Landslide
Liquefaction
Settlement/Collapsible Soils
Slump
Discussion
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
YJN/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
i /NN/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
5-09-'03 09:37 FROM-
Soil/Rock Creep
Sulfate Rich Soils
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
T-31b Fn/Obu-q t
Supporting Analysis/Data Recommendations for
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Slope Stability Calculations
Shear Strength Values
Other Laboratory Data
Seismicity
Boring/Trench Logs
Liquefaction Study
Calculations Supporting Reconunendations
Geologic Map and Cross Sections
Drainage Plan
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Foundations
Retaining Walls
Foundation Setbacks
Slabs
Flatwork
Grading
Pools/Spas
Slope/Bluff Setbacks
Adequacy for Intended use
Not Adversely Impacting
Adjoining Sites
REPORT APPROVED.
REPORT APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS BELOW.
X PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE REPORT, ATTEND TO THE ITEMS BELOW:
1. Page 12, Section on Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement: Appendix C discusses the magnitudes of site
PGAs under various seismic events, Please state the design acceleration used at the site for seismic hazard
analysis.
The report indicates that the liquefaction potential of Terrace Deposits is low. However, since the blow
counts obtained in Terrace Deposits are not from SPTs, it is difficult to verify the validity of this
conclusion. Comparison of Bucket Auger counts from KB-1 and Drive Sampler counts from B-3 indicates
that some of the deep Terrace deposits (encountered in KB-2 at an elevation of 30 feet) could have Drive
Sampler counts of about 36 which corresponds to an SPT count of about 24. Considering the high ground
accelerations anticipated at the site under design seismic conditions, such materials could be potentially
liquefiable. Please review the blow count data and verify the conclusions made. Provide supporting
calculations, including the justification of the (blow count) conversion factors used.
2. Page 16, Section on Slab on Grade: The report indicates that claystone anticipated at slab subgrade
elevations consists of medium expansive materiaL Even though, the report recommends replacing the
native materials with non -expansive material to a depth. of 30 inches, the underlying native material could
still impact the floor slabs. Please provide slab recommendations per current UBC guidelines.
3. Page 18, Section on Subdrains: The report recommends using a groundwater elevation of 43 feet, if no
subdrains were to be installed. What is the basis of this? Does this correspond to a historically high water
level observed at this location? Please address.
4. Page 20, Section on Walls Below Grade: The proposed project will result in retention of relatively
cohesionless material up to 55 feet in height Please verify that the retained soil and the structures are not
impacted by a deep-seated slope failure occurring below the wall footings and daylighting through the
building floor slabs.
5. Page 21, Section on Seismically -induced Wall Pressures: Seismically induced wall pressures appear to
be low, considering the relatively high site accelerations anticipated under design conditions. Please
provide supporting calculations.
,05-09-'03 09:37 FROM- T-316 PO4/08 U-496
6. Page 23, Table on Fluid Pressures: Please state the reason for using 55 pct for nyarostancpressure.
7. Page 24, Section on Tempora.rSlope Stability Analysis; Please verify whether the 240 psf cohesion
used for stability analysis is reasonable, in view of relatively thick SP layers encountered in borings (and
shown on cross sections) and the caving observed in borings.
8. Page 28, Section on Tiebacks: Please verify whether the tieback lengths recommended are adequate, it
the stability of the slope were to be considered as discussed in Comment 4 above.
9. Report: Report to be. co -signed by a CEG , addressing the influence of any adverse geologic conditions on
the proposed construction.
10. Supplemental teotechnical Consultation- Scuplted Cunite%Soii Nail Slope ...., dated Febr uary 12,
2003: The bond stress of 1152 psf used in the computations appears to be too high, considering the
shallow overburden of the soil nails and the low cohesion of the materials. Please provide supporting
calculations including the interface frictions and POS used.
Please provide stability computations performed to obtain 257 lb force required to increase the FOS to 1.5.
Please verify that pseudostatic FOS is greater than 1.1.
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.
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 grading, foundation/construction and landscaping 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 reports) 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.
cceptanc 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, ENC.
BY:
Ken Batabi, Ph.D., G.
BAGAHI ENGINEERIl7G,1NC.
Liquefaction Potential Analysis Based on SPT values and/or equivalent SPT values
K. (Siva) Sivathasan
Developed by:
Rod length
Correction
Factor (CR)
;;;---
oda
Borehole Oia.
Correction
Factor (Cs)
Energy Ratio
Correction
Fedor (CE)
L000Drno
{$§3:2
I!#=
Effective
overburden
pressure (pst)
§!;;§§
Total
overburden
pressure (psf)
82§Wi
Total
unit
weight (poi)
000000
NNNNNN
\ 2
;;
f)\
.r
■!
!�
Depth to
mid point
of the layer (ft)
.{\
0®®..0,
;®z
!§$
2w.A;,
o\
a:2A=
[$i
��,���
E{
gg
\09
Settlement
(in)
NA Removed ard Repws - O.OU
NA ABOVEGW 0.00
NA ABOVE GW 0.00
NA ABOVE GW. 0.00
1.47 NO LIQUEFACTION 0.00
NA COHESIVE SOIL 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Twa r L..ueannnn Iminnna ReMlement 0n1. 0.0
\
Factor of
Safety
(FS)
Earthquake
Mag. Sading
Factor RM
\§§§§
!!
g
Induced
Cyclic Stress
Ratio (CSR)
!nn§§!
,_
|
15!! 9
Blow Count
I Corrected for
Fines(Ndaon
!0.11 /amu-
00;;.m
!i�§R
S§
DE
gA--
-um
tm
.42
0,
}
n§
au
Mz
? 4 7E /
KLEINFELDER
PROJECT / a Gl elr;l PROJECT NO. /C96
SUBJECT a!"/��'/ c,'�� /a v— BY DATE 67702.—
ccn`oi ` Pc( REVIEWED BY DATE
Oa
A
P •
11
A\
A
ci
SHEET_L OF 3
s
M-4
a ty,
KLEINFELDER SHEET 2-OF 7
PROJECT PROJECT NO.
SUBJECT BY DATE
REVIEWED BY DATF
5SI44 (i) Ly I7.
a. ^ q •
sol
i • . • 110 :Titft0}
.xer7fM ar
sca`e.
l:20
01 .47r 2
InKLEINFELDER
SHEET 3 OF 3
PROJECT Ofr' cz c )0e2 F PROJECT NO. /6 %6 (
/CroSUBJECT �A Cj4"n 7s(r/nr� T,,,BY 4o DAT
ghdrtc‘ (VC . REVIEWED BY DATE
-Car/• 4-/3
r/.2aco0/
GG1e C - „ra
0=?S
%/e £6r4
pew Av /`aC 7.z ',ate # ,p Z2-s-S-
Ac va wedie. 4r-
p ram _ 45-
C -1 Amick-4,1 _ ,24o tCS/x/el la«. 33 = /6S..co
FS = 2 / 32 �/ le eo,-e 4' 612oo_1
S m
q) /a x < < Coop./
J f./ebo H : sooP.r,�=.A/
CT-:. g3o pay, ,
t _ 2 /t'et _ 3oopp
u
/4 v tioof.r
Sco (Q
,; 20
M-4
Di 4 rc 2
k9 KLEIN FELDER
SHEET / OF__
PROJECT i{o 7 /v ev/ PROJECT NO. ne3s"96
SUBJECT M _cc ee i&I BY G DATF V//1/eI
REVIEWED BY DATE
r
H
2
fb
rb
M-4
P� hn- 3
111 KLEINFELDER SHEET_OF_
PROJECT �nJ (`frnac�7 We,Si PROJECT NO. ,�'3Sy6
SUBJECT KPvra ed ot % h1,i J fide BY AI DATF 7/ /o ?
REVIEWED BY DATE
t"ri'cEat- be it4Ace.,
, P%fVlr�
Drew
1e21 42 003
Qec ac
/A1
�a f CN ur)c d ilreae eci , v< ehe r
11
BUY!' ievv e wt ( ; e�4E ��
2"
G _ C f /,
v 3 gve,ave ove. ,.,ilea.
C_ loot 36c.„ 3/
= 3 I G A 3, l i
It
1 2
/00 V
3/
y= /20 % r�
330i0.%(per %..a;()
.o s pj:tics .x 23o I49 /if (1ls'/6i
cc//Li
re(�v:red �iB. l-or = /,.>
l -per l=e_e 41/Alo s re/),rf
M4
P/ A
r
N
O
co
O
N
I I to
O
(JANBU, FOS =
42
C
2 �
rn
(tool) sixv—x
O
O
4'
XSTABL File: JUSTIN1 5-19-** 11:30
******************************************
* XSTABL
*
* Slope Stability Analysis
* using the
* Method of Slices
*
* Copyright (C) 1992 — 95
Interactive Software Designs, Inc.
Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
*
All Rights Reserved
*
Ver. 5.105 95 — 1437
******************************************
Problem Description : Hoeg West
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
3 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
2
3
x-left y-left x-right y-right
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 29.0 31.0
29.0 31.0 50.0 31.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
1 Soil unit(s)
specified
Soil Unit Weight Cohesion
Unit Moist Sat. Intercept
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf)
1 120.0 120.0 100.0
REINFORCED SLOPE ANALYSIS
Soil Unit
Below Segment
Friction Pore Pressure
Angle Parameter Constant
(deg) Ru (psf)
31.00 .000
Water
Surface
No.
.0 0
The analysis will be performed to determine the critical
surface that requires the largest amount of reinforcing
force to satisfy:
Minimum (required) FOS =
Resultant at Elevation =
1.500
25.50 feet
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced•
along the ground surface between x = .0 ft
and x = 20.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x =
and x =
29.0 ft
50.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft
5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface.
ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS :
The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined
within the angular range defined by :
Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees
Upper angular limit :_ (slope angle - 5.0) degrees
************************************************************************
-- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48)
************************************************************************
Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice.
This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self
weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such
cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value.
************************************************************************
USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD
* * * *
*
The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined
are displayed below - the most critical first
Failure surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 20.00 20.00
2 24.91 20.94
3 29.22 23.48
4 32.43 27.31
5 33.80 31.00
******************************************************************
** Maximum Required Reinforcement Force = 2.5736E+02 (lb) **
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.500 (for above reinforcement) **
******************************************************************
Failure surface No. 2 specified by 5 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 20.00 20.00
2 23.96 23.05
3 27.54 26.54
4 30.69 30.42
5 31.06 31.00
******************************************************************
** Maximum Required Reinforcement Force =-1.7437E+02 (lb) **
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.500 (for above reinforcement) **
******************************************************************
Failure surface No. 3 specified by 4 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 20.00 20.00
2 24.22 22.68
3 27.46 26.49
4 29.38 31.00
******************************************************************
** Maximum Required Reinforcement Force =-2.2173E+02 (lb) **
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.500 (for above reinforcement) **
******************************************************************
Failure surface No. 4 specified by 6 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 13.33 20.00
2 18.29 19.37
3 23.17 20.46
4 27.39 23.15
5 30.44 27.11
6 31.69 31.00
******************************************************************
** Maximum Required Reinforcement Force =-3.3733E+02 (lb) **
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.500 (for above reinforcement) **
******************************************************************
Failure surface No. 5 specified by 5 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 20.00 20.00
2 23.72 23.34
3 27.15 26.98
4
5
30.25 30.90
30.31 31.00
** Maximum Required Reinforcement Force =-5.5500E+02 (lb), **
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.500 (for above reinforcement) **
******************************************************************
Failure surface No. 6 specified by 6 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 20.00 20.00
2 24.90 20.99
3 29.51 22.92
4 33.65 25.72
5 37.17 29.28
6 38.30 31.00
******************************************************************
** Maximum Required Reinforcement Force =-6.0864E+02 (lb)
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.500 (for above reinforcement)
***********************************4.*************************
Failure surface No. 7 specified by 6 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 20.00 20.00
2 24.66 21.81
3 29.21 23.89
4 33.63 26.23
5 37.91 28.81
6 41.09 31.00
******************************************************************
** Maximum Required Reinforcement Force =-1.0560E+03 (lb) **
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.500 (for above reinforcement) **
******************************************************************
Failure surface No. 8 specified by 7 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 13.33 20.00
2 18.25 19.09
3 23.24 19.45
4 27.97 21.06
5 32.14 23.82
6 35.48 27.54
7 37.25 31.00
******************************************************************
** Maximum Required Reinforcement Force =-1.3046E+03 (lb) **
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.500 (for above reinforcement) **
******************************************************************
Failure surface No. 9 specified by 7 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 17.78 20.00
2 22.72 19.25
3 27.64 20.15
4 31.99 22.61
5 35.30 26.36
6 37.20 30.99
7 37.20 31.00
******************************************************************
** Maximum Required Reinforcement Force =-1.3611E+03 (lb) **
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.500 (for above reinforcement) **
******************************************************************
Failure surface No.10 specified by 6 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 20.00 20.00
2 24.98 20.42
3 29.76 21.88
4 34.13 24.33
5 37.87 27.64
6 40.34 31.00
******************************************************************
** Maximum Required Reinforcement Force =-1.6679E+03 (lb) **
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.500 (for above reinforcement) **
******************************************************************
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : Hoeg West
REINFORCING FORCES calculated for minimum FOS = 1.500 and
reinforcing force resultant at elevation = 25.50 feet
Reinforcing Correction Initial Terminal Available
Force Factor x-coord x-coord Strength
(lb) (ft) (ft) (lb)
1. 257. 1.065 20.00 33.80 5.047E+03
2. -174. 1.021 20.00 31.06 1.592E+03
3. -222. 1.044 20.00 29.38 1.314E+03
4. -337. 1.076 13.33 31.69 4.067E+03
5. -555. 1.014 20.00 30.31 7.690E+02
6. -609. 1.047 20.00 38.30 6.194E+03
7. -1056. 1.016 20.00 41.09 5.540E+03
8. -1305. 1.071 13.33 37.25 7.217E+03
9. -1361. 1.074 17.78 37.20 7.199E+03
10. -1668. 1.053 20.00 40.34 7.070E+03
* * * END OF FILE *
* *
rrcc47 c c5W GC:ck& hti (1 ` 1�T Gcti EX C-Crkted.
H, ? 'e.- c v / Lte4.cc.ty) l,t.: t I l - it O ti
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BLVD.
P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA
• (949) 644-3275
Project Address: l`i a '40R 6r Py'j
Plan Check No.: 02. 3 1- 2-0 0 3 Date: 1— Z .- C 7
Plan Check Engineer: r4 1. , i C' 4 Phone: y- y — 9_9 Z _ g L 7
• Make the following corrections to the plans.
• Return this correction sheet and check prints with corrected plans.
• Indicate how each correction was resolved.
GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN CHECK
PLANS MUST CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
y
Provide a site survey, stamped and signed by a State Licensed Land Surveyor or authorized
Civil Engineer (License Number below 33,966). Surveyor or engineer shall monument
property corners before starting grading, either with permanent monuments or temporarily
with 3 ft. long 'A" $ metal rod driven into the ground to near flush and marked with paint.
tt Show job address.
Show vicinity map indicating site location.
,4 Show name, address, and telephone number of: owner, plan preparer, and geotechnical
engineer (if applicable).
fr' Registered civil engineer or licensed architect to stamp and sign the approval plans indicating
license number.
6. Show north arrow, plan scale, and legend.
Identify ALL property lines.
8 . 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.
(irading/Drainage Plan Check
21<
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.
11( Clearly show elevation of adjacent properties and the distance from property lines to adjacent
structures.
/}' 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%
Show finish grades by spot elevations to indicate proper drainage in all areas. Use arrows to
indicate direction of drainage.
ye Provide a drainage swale at side yard
Draw a section through swale.
15. Provide a drainage design that prevents entrance of drainage water from the street/alley onto
property.
17.
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'
min. French drain in crushed
rock bed wrapped with filter
cloth is acceptable. Locate
French drain in the front yard
away from foundations.
3- French drain
perforation 0 bottom.
Crushed Rock
Filter Claih
Lop 6" @ lop
-6
s j-arc 1- COS S
S
4" Gonad e or 6" Topsoil nO
et l)
► oApio:
Nfeiediatomi
o,.., ma'ifiALIdizez et:
►-12'--i
18
try
2
brading/Drainage Plan Check
Provide a trench drain at bottom of driveway as shown in detail "E". (Exception: When
.7 driveway is less than 10' long, trench drain is not required).
DIMENSIONS DETERMINED BY
GRATE FRAME DIMENSIONS.
USE FRAME AS A FORM
±u.
CRUSHED ROCK
w/FILTER CLOTH
a-
-
c—
d—
A3'
24"
ELEVATION
GR ATE
0" MIN. NDE PEOSTRIAN SAFE
FRAME h GRATE 3/6" SLOT
OPENING. EAST JORDAN IRON
WORKS OR EQUAL (800)874-4100
TO RE84
TOPBOTTOM
FILL THIS PORTION M+Td CRUSHED
ROCK AFTER POURING GRATE
SUPPORT CURB
Dig o 24" wide X 18" deeptrench
Place filler cloth in the trench extending 12" vertical on each side.
Fill bottom 8" of the trench with crushed rock.
Farm and pour perimeter concrete curb.
Fill the rest of the trench with crushed rock to 4" from top of trench.
DETAIL "E"
BOTTOMLESS TRENCH DRAIN
11111 IIIIIIIII'U
111111111.41111111
PLAN VIEW
Provide specifications for drain lines. Specify diameter (3" min) and Type of material
following drain line materials may be used:
A
1. ABS, SDR 35
2. ABS, SCHEDULE 40
3. PVC, SDR 35 e -
4. PVC, Schedule 40
5. ADS 3000 with PE glued joints
511-403
The
171. The minimum distance acceptable N(etween finish grade and bottom of treated sill plate shall
be as follows:
'1 E-tl''t'.-0 -}- D_I
III I'aL l l � jet '6
Alt, Di
o t
• o ,
6 •
Exterior
Concrete Slab
-Slope a t%
I o.
Concrete: 3"
111-145
4111
3
Grading/Drainage Plan Check
) Submit summary of all drainage devices and onsite parking and drainage
provements.
pecify yardage of cut and fill.
t
m) P-eiy-41 A—cp
Obtain a private drainage easement to drain water over adjacent land not owned by
ermittee. Easement must be recorded with the County Recorder's Office.
Design drainage to insure water does not drain over the top edge of any slopes. 16 •
Provide a berm at top of slope. Draw a section through berm. Berm to be 12"
l
4
Show top and toe of all slopes and indicate slope ratio. 1 Maximum
high and slopes towards the pad @
Put the pertinent "Grading Notes" i ova K beet) on plans.
r
y Where grading is proposed on adjacent property rot owned by the permittee, a separate
permit is required for that portion under the adjacent address.
plan when subdrain is required by soils report + ,j <; ;
i t kt,
732.
Show locations and details of subdrain system(s) and outlet for retaining walls on grading
—,
Provide erosion and siltation control plans.
Provide building or structure setbacks from top and bottom of slope as
Section 1806.5 and Figure 18-I-1.
Provide two copies of soils and foundation investigation report by a licensed
engineer.
VI)Icsr
11
outlined in UBC
_,i (-4 e , d
geotecniucals
Soils report shall address the potential of seismically induced liquefaction and recommend
mitigation method.
List soils report recommendations on foundation plan. } I (I k�}
735. Fill out a separate permit application for:
a) fence
b) patio cover/trellis
c) detached structures
ti �if
Grading/Drainage Plan Check
Cons tr ion with basement or excavation near the property line
The distance from edge of excavation to the property line is less than the depth o
excavation. Shoring is required. Provide a shoring plan and calculation prepared by a
registered civil engineer.
b) 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.
�l Excavations 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.
g) Bottom of excavation is below water table. Submit a dewatering plan prepared by the
geotechnical engineer.
h) 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.
i • Provide sieve analysis and permeability value for each soil formation layer to a depth of
7 20 ft. below bottom of excavation.
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 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.
_) Write a note on drawing: "Geotechnical engineer shall provide continuous inspections
/during shoring and excavation operations and during removal of shoring."
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."
5
Grading/Drainage Plan Check
37. See drawings for additional corrections.
34. Dewatering System Corrections:
C Al. 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.
f) 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
p) Method of well removal and abandonment
A2. If a well point system is used, provide noise calculation using ARI method to verify
noise level from pump not to exceed 50 dba at adjacent property.
A3. Public Works approval is required for discharge into storm drain or public way.
A4. Provide evidence of approval from State Regional Water Quality Control Board for
disposal of ground water.
Water Quality Corrections:
a) If area of construction site is five or more acres, obtain a general construction NPDES
Stone water perrnit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Tel. (909) 782-
4130.
b) Industrial/commercial construction sites. which result in disturbance of one or more
acres, and residential construction sites that result in the disturbance of five or more
acres, must develop a water quality management plan (WQMP) and "Best Management
Practices (BMP)" to control erosion and siltation and contaminated runoff from the
construction site. Submit a copy for review.
6
tjrading/Drainage Plan Check
Comply with the following applicable routine structural Best Management Practices:
S 1. Filtration — Surface runoff shall be directed to landscaped areas wherever
practicable.
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.
S3. Trash Container (dumpster) areas — Trash container (dumpster) areas to have
drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the area(s), and:
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 S16), engineered infiltration/filtration system. or
equally effective alternative.
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.
S4. Self-contained areas are required for washing/steam cleaning, wet material
processing, and maintenance activities.
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 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.
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 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
S 7. 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.
Grading/Drainage Plan Check
S9. 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 l 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.
S 12. 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.
ADDITIONAL CORRECTIONS
formssdrainpc Feb-2003
8
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST
Date Received: April 28, 2003
Date of Report: August 15, 2002
Consultant: Kleinfelder, Inc.
Additional Documents Reviewed:
Date completed: May 5, 2003
Plan Check No: 0931-2003
Our Job No:
1. Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation, Proposed Cut Slope Between
City Park Site and Proposed Cogen Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital
Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California, dated December 18, 2002
2. Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Addendum to Geotechnical
Investigation Report, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling
Tower, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach,
California, dated December 19, 2002
3. Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation- Scuplted Gunite/Soil Nail
Slope, Proposed Cut Slope Between City Park Site and Proposed Cogen
Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach,
California, dated February 12, 2003
Site Address: One Hoag Drive
Newport Beach, California
Title of Report: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower, Hoag
Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California, dated August 15, 2002
Purpose of Report: Geotechnical recommendations for the Construction of Support Facility Building of the
Hospital and Stability of an Adjacent Slope
Project InformationBackground:
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Review of Existing City Files
Reference to Site(s) by Street Address
Reference to Grading/Foundation Plans by Date
Subsurface Investigation
Aerial Photograph
Geologic Hazards:
Hazard
Adverse Geologic Structure
Bluff Retreat
Debris/Mud Flow
Differential Settlement
Erosion
Expansive Soils
Faulting
Fractured Bedrock
Groundwater
Landslide
Liquefaction
Settlement/Collapsible Soils
Slump
Discussion
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
` Soil/Rock Creep
Sulfate Rich Soils
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Supporting Analysis/Data Recommendations for
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Slope Stability Calculations
Shear Strength Values
Other Laboratory Data
Seismicity
Boring/Trench Logs
Liquefaction Study
Calculations Supporting Recommendations
Geologic Map and Cross Sections
Drainage Plan
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Y/N/NA
Foundations
Retaining Walls
Foundation Setbacks
Slabs
Flatwork
Grading
Pools/Spas
Slope/Bluff Setbacks
Adequacy for Intended use
Not Adversely Impacting
Adjoining Sites
REPORT APPROVED.
REPORT APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS BELOW.
X PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE REPORT, ATTEND TO THE ITEMS BELOW:
1. Page 12, Section on Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement: Appendix C discusses the magnitudes of site
PGAs under various seismic events. Please state the design acceleration used at the site for seismic hazard
analysis.
The report indicates that the Liquefaction potential of Terrace Deposits is low. However, since the blow
counts obtained in Terrace Deposits are not from SPTs, it is difficult to verify the validity of this
conclusion. Comparison of Bucket Auger counts from KB-1 and Drive Sampler counts from B-3 indicates
that some of the deep Terrace deposits (encountered in KB-2 at an elevation of 30 feet) could have Drive
Sampler counts of about 36 which corresponds to an SPT count of about 24. Considering the high ground
accelerations anticipated at the site under design seismic conditions, such materials could be potentially
liquefiable. Please review the blow count data and verify the conclusions made. Provide supporting
calculations, including the justification of the (blow count) conversion factors used.
2. Page 16, Section on Slab on Grade: The report indicates that claystone anticipated at slab subgrade
elevations consists of medium expansive material. Even though, the report recommends replacing the
native materials with non -expansive material to a depth of 30 inches, the underlying native material could
still impact the floor slabs. Please provide slab recommendations per current UBC guidelines.
3. Page 18, Section on Subdrains: The report recommends using a groundwater elevation of 43 feet, if no
subdrains were to be installed. What is the basis of this? Does this correspond to a historically high water
level observed at this location? Please address.
4. Page 20, Section on Walls Below Grade: The proposed project will result in retention of relatively
cohesionless material up to 55 feet in height. Please verify that the retained soil and the structures are not
impacted by a deep-seated slope failure occurring below the wall footings and daylighting through the
building floor slabs.
5. Page 21, Section on Seismically -induced Wall Pressures: Seismically induced wall pressures appear to
be low, considering the relatively high site accelerations anticipated under design conditions. Please
provide supporting calculations.
6. Page 23, Table on Fluid Pressures: Please state the reason for using 55 pcf for hydrostaticpressure.
7. Page 24, Section on Temporary Slope Stability Analysis: Please verify whether the 240 psf cohesion
used for stability analysis is reasonable, in view of relatively thick SP layers encountered in borings (and
shown on cross sections) and the caving observed in borings.
8. Page 28, Section on Tiebacks: Please verify whether the tieback lengths recommended are adequate, it
the stability of the slope were to be considered as discussed in Comment 4 above.
9. Report: Report to be co -signed by a CEG , addressing the influence of any adverse geologic conditions on
the proposed construction.
10. Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation- Scupited Gunite/Soil Nail Slope ...., dated February 121
2003: The bond stress of 1152 psf used in the computations appears to be too high, considering the
shallow overburden of the soil nails and the low cohesion of the materials. Please provide supporting
calculations including the interface frictions and FOS used.
Please provide stability computations performed to obtain 257 lb force required to increase the FOS to 1.5.
Please verify that pseudostatic FOS is greater than 1.1.
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.
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 grading, foundation/construction and landscaping 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 of 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 gee-technicalconsultant of record or the project designers or engineers.
Opinions presented in this review are for City's use only.
BY:
Gamin Weeratunga, G.E. 2403
BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC.
Ken Bagabi, Ph.D., G
BAGABI ENG1NEE' t , IN
Ff 0 A G MEMORIAL HOSP IT AL PR ESBY T ER IA N
NOAG4
HOSPITAL
One Hoag Drive PO Box 6100
Newport Beach CA 92658-6100
949/645-8600
www.hoaghospital.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 16, 2003
TO:
FROM: Jim Easley, Hoag Hospital
RE:
Faisal Jurdi, Building Department
Gregg Ramirez, Planning Department
en31-Xca
Plan Check No. 0931-2003 — Third Plan Check Submittal
Hoag Hospital has reviewed comments on the civil and landscape plans for the Lower
Campus Central Plant (Cogen Building) that were initially submitted for review on April
9, 2003, and submitted for second plan check on May 21, 2003. It is our understanding
that the following Departments have approved the plans for the Lower Campus Central
Plant: Public Works (including Utilities and Traffic Engineering) Department, General
Services Department and Fire Department. Responses to comments from the Building
Department and the Planning Department on the second plan check submittal are
provided below.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
M
Comment: Geotechnical Engineer to review revisions to the grading plans for
conformance with the intent of the geotechnical reports and stamp the plans.
Response: Please refer to the enclosed Civil Plans which have been stamped by
the Geotechnical Engineer.
Comment: Put the pertinent "Grading Notes" from Kleinfelder on plans.
Response: Please refer to the letter (p. 2) from Kleinfelder dated June 10, 2003
(enclosed), and the enclosed Civil Plans.
A NOT -FOR -PROFIT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ACCREDITED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE. ORGANIZATIONS
0 V HA
Pm.n 1, t1r1+
Faisal Jurdi
Gregg Ramirez
June 16, 2003
4 Comment: Show locations and details of subdrain system(s) and outlet for
retaining walls on grading plans when subdrain is required by soils report.
Response: Please refer Sheet P-1.2 (enclosed).
lt/
Comment: Provide building or structure setbacks from top and bottom of slope as
outlined in UBC Section 1806.5 and Figure 18-I-1.
Response: Please refer to the letter (p. 2) from Kleinfelder dated June 10, 2003
(enclosed), and the enclosed Sheet C-6 of the Civil Plans (which was also
provided in the previous plan check submittal).
5. Comment: List soils report recommendations on foundationdplan.
Response: Refer to Sheet S-2.1, enclosed. $/w^ + }
Comment: Provide additional information in geotechnical report related to
previous Comments 4 and 8.
Response: Please refer to letter (p. 2) from Kleinfelder, dated June 10, 2003
(enclosed).
Comment: Provide additional information in geotechnical report related to
previous Comment 5.
Response: Please refer to letter (p. 2) from Kleinfelder, dated June 10, 2003
(enclosed).
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Comment: Provide a letter from the archaeological/paleontological consultant
stating that they have been retained for this project.
Response: A letter from SWCA, the project archaeological/paleontological firm,
is enclosed.
2. Comment: Provide a copy of the Coastal Development Permit for the project.
Response: A copy of the Coastal Development Permit is enclosed.
Page 2
Faisal Jurdi
Gregg Ramirez
June 16, 2003
3. Comment: Comply with Mitigation Measure No. 118 as soon as plans are
approved by OSHPD.
Response: Once City staff has completed its review of the project plans, the
Planning Department can prepare the letter required for compliance with
Mitigation Measure # 118. This letter will be forwarded by Hoag Hospital to the
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.
We have not received signed mitigation measures from any of the departments, except
the Fire Department. Since the plans have been approved by some of the departments,
and the comments of the Planning Department and Building Department, including those
related to the mitigation measures, have been answered, we are assuming that City staff
has approved all of the mitigation measures.
If you have any questions on documentation submitted with this letter in support of the
third plan check for the Lower Campus Central Plant (Cogen Building) civil and
landscape plans, please call me as soon as possible. Hoag Hospital is anxious to
commence work on this project.
C: David Boyle, David A. Boyle Engineering
Peri Muretta, Hoag Consultant
Neal Rinella, Taylor and Associates
Gary Simmons, Taylor and Associates
Enclosures:
1. Building and Planning Departments comment plan sets from initial
and second plan check submittal.
2. Two sets of revised Civil Plans
3. Two sets of Sheets S-0.1, S-2.1, P-1.2, P-2.1 and P-4.2
4. Two copies of letter from Kleinfelder (dated June 10, 2003)
5. Copy of letter from SWCA
6. Copy of Coastal Development Permit
Page 3
O't3 (- 2oo3
r‘,
I9 KLEINFELDER
An employee owned company
June 10, 2003
Project No. 23546/003
Mr. Jim Easley
Project Manager
Hoag Memorial Hospital
361 Hospital Road, Suite 229
Newport Beach, California 92663
Subject: Additional Response to Plan Check Comments — Geotechnical Review
Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower Facilities
West of Existing Lower Campus Parking Lot
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
One Hoag Drive
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Easley.
This letter presents our response to further review comments by the City of Newport Beach
reviewer dated May 29, 2003 (A copy is attached). The following reports listed below were
reviewed by the City's geotechnical reviewer and are considered to be the geotechnical
documents for the subject project:
• Report of Geotechnical Investigation, proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower
Facilities. West of Existing Parking Lot, Floag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag
Drive, Newport beach, California, dated August 15, 2002.
• Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Addendum to Geotechnical Investigation Report,
Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian,
One Hoag Drive, Newport beach, California, dated December 19, 2002.
• Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation — Sculpted Gunite/Soil Nail Slope, Proposed Cut
Slope Between City park Site and Proposed Cogen Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital
Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport beach, California, dated February 12, 2003.
• Response to Plan Check Comments — Geotechnical Review, Proposed Cogeneration Building
and Cooling Tower Facilities, West of Existing Parking Lot, Hoag Memorial Hospital
Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport beach, California, dated May 19, 2003.
The review comment letter dated May 29, 2003 is attached. Our responses to each comment are
presented below.
1. Plan Review:
Item No.3 from the City of Newport Beach Plan Check No. 0931-2003 dated May 23, 2003
requests the Geotechnical Engineer to review revisions to grading plans for conformance with the
geotechnical report. We understand the current plans are to be delivered to our office for review
and signature. It is our intent to complete our review within 1 working day following receipt of
the plans.
23546-003/DBA3L123 Page I of 3 June I0, 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
2. Grading Notes:
Review Item No. 5, Plan Check Item No. 27 requests grading notes be provided on the plans. We
have prepared a letter dated June 9, 2003 that summarizes our earthwork recommendations. We
understand the letter will be attached to the project plans. This letter may also be reproduced onto
a full size drawing sheet and be incorporated as part of the project plans.
3. Building Setback:
Review of Item No.5, Plan Check Item No.31 requests a discussion of the building setback from
adjacent existing slopes and that the proposed cogeneration building and cooling tower facilities
should be designed in accordance with Section 1806.5 and Figure 18-1-1 of the California
Building Code (CBC). The proposed buildings are to be constructed in a cut into the existing
slope face. The cut is to be supported by a permanent soldier pile and tie -back wall system
designed for static and pseudo -static stability. The slope above the proposed wall will be
supported against surficial instability by the use of guniting methods as discussed in our report
dated February 12, 2003.
4. Response to Comment 4 and 8 From Review of Geotechnical Response dated May 29, 2003
— Walls Below Grade:
The retained height is being supported by a permanent soldier pile wall with tie -back anchors.
The design of the soldier piles and length of tie -back anchors is based upon a circular slip surface
with a factor of safety of 1.5. As requested in the supplemental comments, we have performed
additional global stability analysis of the shoring excavation, allowing slip surfaces to daylight
within the excavation bottom. The calculations are attached as Plates 1 and 2. The minimum
anchor lengths recommended in the geotechnical investigation report are shown on the plates
indicating adequate tie -back lengths for stability.
We reviewed the tie -back lengths on the shoring drawings. Due to property line encroachments
constraints, the tie -back have been limited in length at pile locations 20 through 23 Based on our
evaluation (inclusive of our past analyses and supplemental calculations attached on Plate 3), the
lengths shown on the shoring plans prepared by Cefali and Associates dated February 11, 2003,
are satisfactory with a factor of safety for stability of at least 1.5.
5. Response to Comment 5 From Review of Geotechnical Response dated May 29, 2003 —
Seismic Earth Pressure:
As requested in the supplemental comments, we have included our seismic earth pressure
calculations that are based on the Mononome-Okabe analysis method of evaluating seismic earth
pressure. As shown, we have used a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.55g for a seismic even
with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years as indicated in our geotechnical
investigation report. As recommended in publications by S.L. Kramer and AASHTO Seismic
Guide, our analysis used a horizontal pseudo -static coefficient value equal to half the PGA,
incorporating normalization of the acceleration as well as the behavior of the retained soil as a
mass. Following our attached analysis on Plate 4, and based on the discussion and combined
pressure diagram presented in our May 19, 2003 response letter, it is our opinion that the
additional seismic pressure of 20H pounds per square foot recommended for a level backfill is
considered suitable for the seismic design of the proposed retaining walls.
23546-003/DBA3LI23 Page 2 of 3 June 10, 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
We appreciate the opportunity to provide continuing services on this project. Please feel free to
call us should you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
KLEINFELDER, IN
Armen Gas elian, P
Project Engineer
Justin J. Rem s'o , PE, GE
Manager, Geotechnical Engineering
Attachments: Plates 1.1 through 2 2 — Global Stability - Shoring System
Plate 3 — Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure Calculation
Copies submitted (4)
cc: City of Newport Beach (2)
Ms. Peri Muretta (1)
Mr. Gary Simmons — Taylor and Associates (1)
Mr. Sandro Pincini — Taylor and Gaines (1)
Mr. David Cefali — Cefali and Associates (1)
Mr. David Boyle — David A. Boyle Engineering (1)
• 23546-003/DBA3L123 Page 3 of 3 June 10, 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfclder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
1-3Z.I'IOg u-oat
talc C12 C1J CO. JL L'I1V11-
le 1 eti.>
RECEIVED
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 2 200243
P.O.Box 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 FACILITIES DESIGN
$ CONSTRUCTION
Building Department
GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN CHECK OF REVISIONS
• Make the following corrections to the plans.
• Return this correction sheet and check prints with corrected plans.
• Indicate how each correction was resolved
iloker fir Plan Check # 1 (
Project Address
A i
Checked by ( ' .^ /) A 7 . #/bate S — 2.3 -i''3 Phone No,. " 2 S ). -r\ 2 -1
PLANS MUST CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
,1< Registered civil engineer or licensed architect to stamp and sign plans indicating
license number.
Clearly identify the scope of revisions.
Geotechnical Engineer to review revisions to the grading plans for conformance
with the intent of the geotechnical reports and stamp the plans.
See drawings for additional corrections.
C'. r�hA A .c1+ Alt 1Te 7 (yi ' /
/. r� ( t_
5s
`i (v„1,iV'/ / �` .
, 7V 4-- +'
Itnilcr: City N8/Pian chock.dnc
'UU-cen OJ WO.JL L'1RR1-
I-arc ri'OJUU U-uJ6
TOP OF
SLOPE
FACE OF
Apr STRUCTURE
FACE OF
FOOTING
TOE OF H/3 BUT NEED NOT H
SLOPE EXCEED 40FT.
roll (12 192 mm) MAX.
H,"2 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FT (4572 mm) MAX.
FIGURE 18-I.1—SETBACK DIMENSIONS
�7.
VJ'JYJY- YlJ UU. JL 1'1rill
l
! JIL 11UY/YJ U UJL
CITY OFNEWPORTBEACH
REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL RESPONSE
Date Received: May 22, 2003
Date of Response: May 19, 2003
Date of Prior Review: May 5, 2003
Consultant: Kleinfelder, Inc, Job No: 23546/003
Date completed: May 29, 2003
Plan Check No: 0931-2003
Our Job No:125D -156
Site Address: One Hoag Drive
Newport Beach, California
Previous Reports: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower, Hoag
Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California
Geotechnical Response is:
n
Responsive to checklist continents.
Grading/Foundation Plans changed as a result of response.
X PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE REPORT, ATTEND TO THE ITEMS BELOW:
Response to Comment 4 and 8: The response indicates a failure surface passing through the toe of the
excavation. Considering the relatively large height of soil retained and the shallow embedment depth of the
soldier piles, such a surface may not be the most critical. Please evaluate the FOS of a failure circle passing
below the bottom of soldier piles, using a search for the critical surface. Please verify the adequacy of the
length of the tie -back anchors, based on the critical surface.
Response to Comment 5: The response does not include the supporting calculations, requested in the
comment. The original comment indicated that the recommended seismic earth pressure appears to be too
low for the site accelerations anticipated at the site. Please provide supporting calculations for the
recommended seismic earth pressure, clearly indicating the design accelerations used. The pressure
distribution recommended for tied -back walls appears to be based on the empirical earth pressure distributions
typically used for such walls. Please indicate assumptions made in determining the dynamic pressure (on
tied -back walls) in combination with this static pressure.
BY:
Gamini Weeratunga, G.E. 2403
BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC.
BY:
Ken Bagahi, Ph
BAGAHI EN
INC.
Z..e V`Y— VO VO. UO
Ramirez, Gregg
f nun-
r
LA
w-.
1-S!L Ili/11 U-bSZ
IFlIe125 I'±.S • 34 • oa
From:
Sent:
' To:
Subject:
Hi Peri,
Ramirez, Gregg
Monday, June 02, 2003 10:59 AM
'Pmuretta@aol.com'
Hoag Cogeneration Project
RECEIVED
JUN 2 200.Z3
FACILITIES DESIGN
& CONSTRUCTION
Here are the items the Planning Department needs in order to sign off for the cogeneration project.
1. A letter from the arco/paleo consultant stating that they have been retained for this project.
2. A copy of the Coastal Development Permit copied in the grading plans.
3. Planning can not sign off on the plans until all other departments have singed off on all mitigation measures and the
plans.
Also please comply with mitigation measure no. 118 as soon as plans are approved by OSHPO.
Thank You
Gregg B. Ramirez
Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
(949)644-3219
1
0
0
- N
O
o
O O 0 0
0 CO to 'Cr
r
(}aaO) SIX`d—x
O
O
(T
4)
+
0
0
N
0
4
XSTABL File: HGCGN1 6-04-** 10:44
******************************************
* XSTABL *
* *
* Slope Stability Analysis *
* using the *
* Method of Slices *
* *
* Copyright (C) 1992 — 95 *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. *
* *
* All Rights Reserved *
* *
* Ver. 5.105 95 — 1437 *
******************************************
Problem Description : hoag resp cogen global by AG
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
4 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
2
3
4
60.0
60.1
60.2
x-left
(ft)
y-left
(ft)
.0 20.0
20.0
23.0
74.0
x-right y-right
(ft) (ft)
60.0 20.0
60.1 23.0
60.2 74.0
150.0 74.0
1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left
No. (ft)
1 61.1
y-left
(ft)
23.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
2 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight Cohesion
Unit Moist Sat. Intercept
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf)
1 120.0 120.0 1000.0
2 120.0 120.0 240.0
x-right y-right
(ft) (ft)
150.0 23.0
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
1
2
2
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
Friction Pore Pressure
Angle Parameter Constant
(deg) Ru (psf)
34.00 .000
33.00 .000
Water
Surface
No.
.0 0
.0 0
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
5000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
100 Surfaces initiate from each of 50 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 20.0 ft
and x = 58.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 80.0 ft
and x = 140.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft
* * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * *
6.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface.
ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS :
The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined
within the angular range defined by :
Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees
Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees
*
************************************************************************
-- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48)
Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice.
This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self
weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such
cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value.
USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
* * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD
The most critical circular failure surface
is specified by 18 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 37.06 20.00
2 42.99 19.10
3 48.99 18.80
4 54.98 19.11
5 60.91 20.03
6 66.72 21.53
7 72.34 23.62
8 77.73 26.26
9 82.82 29.43
10 87.57 33.11
11 91.92 37.24
12 95.83 41.79
13 99.26 46.71
14 102.18 51.95
15 104.56 57.46
16 106.36 63.18
17 107.58 69.06
18 108.09 74.00
**** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.610 ****
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : hoag resp cogen global by AG
FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting
(BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb)
1. 1.610
2. 1.637
3. 1.639
4. 1.639
5. 1.642
6. 1.647
7. 1.648
8. 1.650
9. 1.657
10. 1.659
48.92
50.91
49.32
47.85
50.77
41.32
47.19
50.94
42.88
44.69
78.17
79.47
78.22
79.73
81.01
77.23
80.59
77.14
77.10
78.71
59.36
60.30
59.66
61.32
61.79
60.30
62.36
58.29
60.18
61.32
* * * END OF FILE *
*
37.06
40.94
36.29
33.96
40.94
22.33
32.41
39.39
23.88
26.98
*
108.09
110.89
108.80
108.83
112.09
101.46
109.15
109.07
102.90
105.78
1.136E+07'
1.192E+07'
1.180E+07,
1.214E+07
1.237E+07
1.129E+07'
1.251E+07
1.151E+07
1.164E+07
1.217E+07
6-05-** 15:29
to
0
a)
U
1-
L
z
cn
a)
0 a)
< 0
A N
N o
a
Jo o
o Li-
—Cr)
C
m
• z
O <
U
R
�J W
m -
L
J
0
0 —
s L!)
—
0
co
—
O O O O
O 10 c co
Opal) sixv—x
0
N
O
4
XSTABL File: HGCGNS1 6-05-** 15:29
******************************************
* XSTABL *
* *
* Slope Stability Analysis *
* using the *
* Method of Slices *
* *
* Copyright (C) 1992 — 95 *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. *
* *
* All Rights Reserved *
* *
* Ver. 5.105 95 — 1437 *
******************************************
Problem Description : hoag resp cogen global S by AG
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
4 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
2
3
4
x-left
(ft)
.0
60.0
60.1
60.2
y-left
(ft)
20.0
20.0
23.0
74.0
x-right
(ft)
60.0
60.1
60.2
150.0
1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
x-left
(ft)
61.1
y-left
(ft)
23.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
2 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil
Unit
No.
Unit
Moist
(pcf)
1 120.0
2 120.0
Weight
Sat.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
1000.0
240.0
y-right
(ft)
20.0
23.0
74.0
74.0
x-right y-right
(ft) (ft)
150.0 23.0
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
1
2
2
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
Friction Pore Pressure Water
Angle Parameter Constant Surface
(deg) Ru (psf) No.
34.00 .000 .0 0
33.00 .000 .0 0
A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient
of .150 has been assigned
A vertical earthquake loading coefficient
of .150 has been assigned
A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS
Trial failure surface specified by
the following 18 coordinate points :
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 37.06 20.00
2 42.99 19.10
3 48.99 18.80
4 54.98 19.11
5 60.91 20.03
6 66.72 21.53
7 72.34 23.62
8 77.73 26.26
9 82.82 29.43
10 87.57 33.11
11 91.92 37.24
12 95.83 41.79
13 99.26 46.71
14 102.18 51.95
15 104.56 57.46
16 106.36 63.18
17 107.58 69.06
18 108.09 74.00
***************************************************
SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Simplified Janbu
***************************************************
****************************************
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION
****************************************
Slice x-base y-base height width alpha beta weight
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (lb)
1 40.03 19.55 .45 5.93 -8.63 .00 320.
2 45.99 18.95 1.05 6.00 -2.86 .00 756.
3 51.99 18.95 1.05 5.99 2.96 .00 751.
4 57.49 19.50 .50 5.02 8.82 .00 302.
5 60.05 19.90 1.60 .10 8.82 88.09 19.
6 60.15 19.91 28.59 .10 8.82 89.89 343.
7 60.56 19.97 54.03 .71 8.82 .00 4603.
8 61.00 20.05 53.95 .19 14.48 .00 1230.
9 63.91 20.80 53.20 5.62 14.48 .00 35875.
10 68.70 22.27 51.74 3.95 20.40 .00 24540.
11 71.51 23.31 50.69 1.67 20.40 .00 10141.
12 75.04 24.94 49.06 5.39 26.10 .00 31732.
13 80.28 27.85 46.15 5.09 31.91 .00 28191.
14 85.19 31.27 42.73 4.75 37.77 .00 24356.
15 89.74 35.17 38.83 4.35 43.51 .00 20267.
16 93.88 39.51 34.49 3.91 49.33 .00 16180.
17 97.54 44.25 29.75 3.43 55.12 .00 12245.
18
19
20
21
22
100.72
103 .37
105.46
106.97
107.83
49.33 24.67 2.92 60.87
54.70 19.30 2.38 66.64
60.32 13.68 1.80 72.53
66.12 7.88 1.22 78.28
71.53 2.47 .51 84.11
. 00
.00
.00
. 00
. 00
8644.
5511.
2955.
1154.
151.
*******************************************s****************************
-- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48)
************************************************************************
Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice.
This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self
weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such
cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value.
************************************************************************
USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero
SLICE INFORMATION ... continued :
Slice Sigma c-value phi U-base
(psf) (psf) (lb)
U-top Q-top Delta
(lb) (lb)
1 199.7 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
2 156.5 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
3 58.5 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
4 -80.0 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
5 22.8 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
6 2644.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
7 5025.0 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
8 4737.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
9 4495.9 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
10 4039.6 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
11 4187.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
12 3815.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
13 3360.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
14 2892.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
15 2422.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
16 1951.0 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
17 1488.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
18 1044.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
19 628.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
20 251.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
21 -60.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
22 -275.7 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
For the single specified surface,
Corrected JANBU factor of safety = 1.206 (Fo factor = 1.077)
Resisting Shear Strength = 156.37E+03 lb
N
0
cn
Ls
a_
0
N
00
M
Q
>-
• v
CO
O U
a
L L
O
3 `')
o a
U
L
U
O
U
O
tn.
C) E
0
O O
= f
•
O
O O O O
O co to •
✓
U
o
r
(1Gel) sixv-x
O
N
0
0
-
_ o
to
O
O
N
O
4'
XSTABL File:
HGCT1 6-04-** 11:37
******************************************
* XSTABL *
* *
* Slope Stability Analysis *
* using the *
* Method of Slices *
* *
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 95 *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. *
* *
* All Rights Reserved *
* *
* Ver. 5.105 95 - 1437 *
******************************************
Problem Description : Hoag cooling tower global by AG
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
5 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
2
3
4
5
x-left
(ft)
.0
60.0
60.1
60.2
87.0
y-left
(ft)
20.0
20.0
34.0
51.0
67.0
x-right
(ft)
60.0
60.1
60.2
87.0
150.0
1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
x-left
(ft)
y-left
(ft)
.0 15.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
2 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil
Unit
No.
Unit
Moist
(pcf)
Weight
Sat.
(pcf)
1 120.0 120.0
2 120.0 120.0
Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
240.0
1000.0
x-right
(ft)
150.0
Friction
Angle
(deg)
33.00
34.00
y-right
(ft)
20.0
34.0
51.0
67.0
63.0
y-right
(ft)
15.0
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
1
1
1
1
Soil Unit
Below Segment
2
Pore Pressure
Parameter Constant
Ru (psf)
.000 .0
.000 .0
Water
Surface
No.
0
0
BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
UPPER limiting boundary of 3 segments:
Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 58.8 20.0 58.9 15.5
2 58.9 15.5 59.8 15.5
3 59.8 15.5 59.9 20.0
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
5000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
100 Surfaces initiate from each of 50 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 20.0 ft
and x = 50.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x =
and x
75.0 ft
140.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft
* * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * *
5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface.
* *
ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS :
The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined
within the angular range defined by :
Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees
Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
* * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * *
The most critical circular failure surface
is specified by 22 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 31.63 20.00
2 36.28 18.15
3 41.07 16.73
4 45.98 15.75
5 50.95 15.23
6 55.95 15.17
7 60.93 15.57
8 65.86 16.43
9 70.69 17.73
10 75.37 19.47
11 79.88 21.63
12 84.17 24.20
13 88.21 27.15
14 91.96 30.45
15 95.39 34.09
16 98.47 38.03
17 101.18 42.23
18 103.49 46.67
19 105.38 51.29
20 106.84 56.08
21 107.86 60.97
22 108.39 65.64
**** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.572 ****
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : Hoag cooling tower global by AG
FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting
(BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb)
1. 1.572 54.11 69.58 54.44 31.63 108.39
2. 1.584 55.00 68.13 52.98 32.86 107.88
3. 1.597 55.20 69.31 54.14 32.86 109.18
4. 1.621 56.43 67.31 52.33 34.08 108.68
5. 1.624 55.98 70.23 55.04 33.47 110.80
6. 1.626 54.82 67.60 52.69 32.24 107.44
7. 1.642 53.08 69.86 55.03 29.80 107.91
8. 1.642 53.25 67.08 52.33 30.41 105.55
9. 1.650 55.81 72.95 57.95 32.24 113.20
10. 1.652 54.65 65.53 50.75 32.24 105.34
* * * END OF FILE * * *
. 389E+06
.163E+06'
.521E+06
. 332E+06
. 938E+06
.348E+06
.889E+06
.248E+06
.846E+06
.003E+06
1-
U
0
-
0
-
I I I I
O 0 0 O0
O
(@Gel) SIXd-x
0
0
4.
XSTABL File: HGCTSI 6-05-** 15:35
******************************************
* XSTABL *
* *
* Slope Stability Analysis *
* using the *
* Method of Slices *
* *
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 95 *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. *
* *
* All Rights Reserved *
* *
* Ver. 5.105 95 - 1437 *
******************************************
Problem Description : Hoag cooling tower global S by AG
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
5 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 .0 20.0 60.0 20.0 1
2 60.0 20.0 60.1 34.0 1
3 60.1 34.0 60.2 51.0 1
4 60.2 51.0 87.0 67.0 1
5 87.0 67.0 150.0 63.0 1
1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 .0 15.0 150.0 15.0 2
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
2 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water
Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No.
1 120.0 120.0 240.0 33.00 .000 .0 0
2 120.0 120.0 1000.0 34.00 .000 .0 0
A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient
of .150 has been assigned
A vertical earthquake loading coefficient
of .150 has been assigned
BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
UPPER limiting boundary of 3 segments:
Segment x-left y-left x-right
No. (ft) (ft) (ft)
y-right
(ft)
1 58.8 20.0 58.9 15.5
2 58.9 15.5 59.8 15.5
3 59.8 15.5 59.9 20.0
A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS
Trial failure surface specified by
the following 22 coordinate points :
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 31.63 20.00
2 36.28 18.15
3 41.07 16.73
4 45.98 15.75
5 50.95 15.23
6 55.95 15.17
7 60.93 15.57
8 65.86 16.43
9 70.69 17.73
10 75.37 19.47
11 79.88 21.63
12 84.17 24.20
13 88.21 27.15
14 91.96 30.45
15 95.39 34.09
16 98.47 38.03
17 101.18 42.23
18 103.49 46.67
19 105.38 51.29
20 106.84 56.08
21 107.86 60.97
22 108.39 65.64
SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Simplified Janbu
***************************************************
****************************************
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION
****************************************
Slice x-base y-base height width alpha beta weight
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (lb)
1 33.95 19.08 .92 4.65 -21.70 .00 516.
2 38.67 17.44 2.56 4.79 -16.51 .00 1471.
3 43.53 16.24 3.76 4.91 -11.29 .00 2215.
4 48.47 15.49 4.51 4.97 -5.97 .00 2690.
5 53.45 15.20 4.80 5.00 -.69 .00 2880.
6 57.97 15.33 4.67 4.05 4.59 .00 2268.
7 60.05 15.50 11.50 .10 4.59 89.59 138.
8 60.15 15.51 26.99 .10 4.59 89.66 324.
9 60.57 15.54 35.68 .73 4.59 30.84 3125.
10 63.40 16.00 36.91 4.93 9.90 30.84 21834.
11 68.28 17.08 38.74 4.83 15.06 30.84 22454.
12 73.03 18.60 40.06 4.68 20.39 30.84 22498.
13 77.63 20.55 40.85 4.51 25.59 30.84 22110.
14 82.02 22.91 41.11 4.29 30.92 30.84 21166.
15 85.58 25.23 40.92 2.83 36.14 30.84 13897.
16 87.60 26.71 40.25 1.21 36.14 -3.63 5845.
17 90.08 28.80 38.00 3.75 41.35 -3.63 17102.
18 93.68 32.27 34.31 3.43 46.70 -3.63 14120.
19 96.93 36.06 30.31 3.08 51.98 -3.63 11202.
20 99.82 40.13 26.06 2.71 57.17 -3.63 8473.
21 102.33 44.45 21.58 2.31 62.51 -3.63 5981.
22 104.43 48.98 16.91 1.89 67.75 -3.63 3836.
23 106.11 53.69 12.10 1.46 73.05 -3.63 2120.
24 107.35 58.53 7.18 1.02 78.22 -3.63 879.
25 108.13 63.31 2.35 .53 83.53 -3.63 150.
SLICE INFORMATION ... continued :
Slice Sigma c-value phi U-base U-top Q-top Delta
(psf) (psf) (lb) (lb) (lb)
1 245.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. O. .00
2 402.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
3 489.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
4 517.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
5 496.0 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
6 436.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
7 1100.2 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
8 2605.7 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
9 3449.6 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
10 3362.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
11 3335.7 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
12 3254.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
13 3131.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
14 2961.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
15 2762.0 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
16 2715.0 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
17 2381.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
18 1967.6 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00,
19 1564.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
20 1177.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
21 805.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
22 465.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
23 160.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00,
24 -91.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
25 -275.0 240.0 33.00 0.. 0. 0. .00
For the single specified surface,
Corrected JANBU factor of safety =
1.139 (Fo factor = 1.083'„
Resisting Shear Strength = 122.70E+03 lb
inKLEIN FELDER
SHEET OF
PROJECT PROJECT NO.
SUBJECT BY DATE
REVIEWED BY DATE
c
'Cr) i7
V. l
i
t
M-4
PI_ Aic 3
O
—
O
— N
O O O O O
O a0 c0 d N
(198J) SIXV—J.
O
O
O
a)
a)
4-
oo
X
X
O
c0
0
O
4.
XSTABL File: HGSHCR1 6-10-** 17:26
******************************************
* XSTABL *
* *
* Slope Stability Analysis *
* using the *
* Method of Slices *
* *
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 95 *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. *
* *
* All Rights Reserved *
* *
* Ver. 5.105 95 - 1437 *
******************************************
Problem Description : Hoag corner shoring 240 33 by AG
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
5 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 .0 14.0 35.0 14.0 2
2 35.0 14.0 35.1 18.0 2
3 35.1 18.0 35.2 64.0 1
4 35.2 64.0 43.0 72.0 1
5 43.0 72.0 150.0 72.0 1
1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 35.1 18.0 150.0 18.0 2
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
2 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water
Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No.
1 120.0 120.0 240.0 33.00 .000 .0 0
2 120.0 120.0 1000.0 34.00 .000 .0 0
A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS
Trial failure surface is CIRCULAR, with a radius of 70.46 feet
Center at x = 27.00 ; y = 84.00 ; Seg. Length = 2.00 feet
The CIRCULAR failure surface was estimated by
the following 47 coordinate points :
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 35.00 14.00
2 36.98 14.26
3 38.96 14.57
4 40.93 14.93
5 42.88 15.36
6 44.82 15.84
7 46.75 16.37
8 48.66 16.96
9 50.56 17.60
10 52.43 18.29
11 54.29 19.04
12 56.12 19.84
13 57.93 20.70
14 59.71 21.60
15 61.47 22.55
16 63.20 23.56
17 64.90 24.61
18 66.57 25.71
19 68.21 26.85
20 69.82 28.05
21 71.39 29.28
22 72.92 30.57
23 74.42 31.89
24 75.88 33.26
25 77.30 34.67
26 78.68 36.11
27 80.02 37.60
28 81.31 39.12
29 82.57 40.68
30 83.77 42.28
31 84.93 43.91
32 86.05 45.57
33 87.12 47.26
34 88.14 48.98
35 89.10 50.73
36 90.02 52.50
37 90.89 54.31
38 91.71 56.13
39 92.47 57.98
40 93.19 59.85
41 93.85 61.74
42 94.45 63.64
43 95.00 65.57
44 95.50 67.50
45 95.94 69.45
46 96.32 71.42
47 96.42 72.00
***************************************************
SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Simplified Bishop
***************************************************
****************************************
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION
****************************************
Slice x-base y-base height width alpha beta weight
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (lb)
1 35.05 14.01 1.99 .10 7.33 88.57 24.
2 35.15 14.02 26.98 .10 7.33 89.88 324.
3 36.09 14.14 50.77 1.78 7.33 45.73 10867.
4 37.97 14.41 52.43 1.98 8.96 45.73 12430.
5 39.94 14.75 54.11 1.97 10.59 45.73 12766.
6 41.90 15.15 55.73 1.95 12.21 45.73 13072.
7 42.94 15.37 56.57 .12 13.84 45.73 815.
8 43.91 15.61 56.39 1.82 13.84 .00 12328.
9 45.79 16.10 55.90 1.93 15.47 .00 12930.
10 47.71 16.66 55.34 1.91 17.09 .00 12694.
11 49.61 17.28 54.72 1.89 18.72 .00 12439.
12 51.10 17.80 54.20 1.08 20.34 .00 7041.
13 52.03 18.15 53.85 .79 20.34 .00 5123.
14 53.36 18.67 53.33 1.85 21.97 .00 11870.
15 55.20 19.44 52.56 1.83 23.60 .00 11559.
16 57.02 20.27 51.73 1.81 25.22 .00 11232.
17 58.82 21.15 50.85 1.78 26.85 .00 10889.
18 60.59 22.08 49.92 1.76 28.48 .00 10532.
19 62.33 23.05 48.95 1.73 30.10 .00 10163.
20 64.05 24.08 47.92 1.70 31.73 .00 9782.
21 65.74 25.16 46.84 1.67 33.36 .00 9390.
22 67.39 26.28 45.72 1.64 34.98 .00 8990.
23 69.01 27.45 44.55 1.61 36.61 .00 8583.
24 70.60 28.67 43.33 1.57 38.24 .00 8169.
25 72.15 29.92 42.08 1.54 39.86 .00 7751.
26 73.67 31.23 40.77 1.50 41.49 .00 7330.
27 75.15 32.57 39.43 1.46 43.12 .00 6907.
28 76.59 33.96 38.04 1.42 44.74 .00 6484.
29 77.99 35.39 36.61 1.38 46.37 .00 6063.
30 79.35 36.86 35.14 1.34 48.00 .00 5644.
31 80.67 38.36 33.64 1.30 49.62 .00 5230.
32 81.94 39.90 32.10 1.25 51.25 .00 4822.
33 83.17 41.48 30.52 1.21 52.87 .00 4421.
34 84.35 43.09 28.91 1.16 54.50 .00 4029.
35 85.49 44.74 27.26 1.11 56.13 .00 3647.
36 86.58 46.41 25.59 1.07 57.75 .00 3277.
37 87.63 48.12 23.88 1.02 59.38 .00 2919.
38 88.62 49.85 22.15 .97 61.01 .00 2576.
39 89.56 51.62 20.38 .92 62.63 .00 2249.
40 90.46 53.41 18.59 .87 64.26 .00 1938.
41 91.30 55.22 16.78 .82 65.89 .00 1645.
42 92.09 57.06 14.94 .76 67.51 .00 1372.
43 92.83 58.91 13.09 .71 69.14 .00 1118.
44 93.52 60.79 11.21 .66 70.77 .00 886.
45 94.15 62.69 9.31 .60 72.39 .00 676.
46 94.73 64.60 7.40 .55 74.02 .00 489.
47 95.25 66.53 5.47 .50 75.65 .00 325.
48 95.72 68.48 3.52 .44 77.27 .00 186.
49 96.13 70.44 1.56 .39 78.90 .00 72.
50 96.37 71.71 .29 .10 80.53 .00 3.
SLICE INFORMATION ... continued :
Slice Sigma c-value phi U-base U-top Q-top Delta
(psf) (psf) (lb) (lb) (lb)
1 147.0 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
2 2984.8 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
3 5686.9 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
4 5787.4 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
5 5887.5 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
6 5977.0 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
7 5979.1 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
8 5959.9 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
9 5818.8 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
10 5672.4 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
11 5522.3 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
12 5383.8 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
13 5534.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
14 5411.7 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
15 5264.2 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
16 5113.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
17 4959.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
18 4802.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
19 4642.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
20 4479.9 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
21 4314.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
22 4147.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
23 3977.7 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
24 3806.2 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
25 3633.0 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
26 3458.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
27 3282.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
28 3105.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
29 2927.9 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
30 2749.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
31 2571.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
32 2393.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
33 2215.6 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
34 2038.6 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
35 1862.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
36 1688.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
37 1516.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
38 1346.0 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
39 1178.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
40 1014.9 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
41 854.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
42 699.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
43 549.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
44 404.7 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
45 267.2 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
46 137.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
47 16.6 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
48 -94.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
49 -193.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
50 -255.2 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
For the single specified surface,
Simplified BISHOP factor of safety = 1.533
Resisting Moment = 156.01E+05 ft-lb
WARNING - This method is valid only if the
failure surface approximates a circle
O
N
(0a91) SIXd-1k
0
-
0
-
0
- co N
_ o
0
O
0
X
Q
I
X
XSTABL File: HGSHCR4 6-10-** 13:41
******************************************
* XSTABL
*
* Slope Stability Analysis
* using the
* Method of Slices
*
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 95
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc.
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
*
* All Rights Reserved
*
* Ver. 5.105 95 - 1437 *
******************************************
Problem Description : Hoag corner shoring 240 33 by AG S
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
5 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
2
3
4
5
x-left
(ft)
.0
35.0
35.1
35.2
43.0
y-left
(ft)
14.0
14.0
18.0
64.0
72.0
x-right
(ft)
35.0
35.1
35.2
43.0
150.0
1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
x-left
(ft)
35.1
y-left
(ft)
18.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
2 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight Cohesion
Unit Moist Sat. Intercept
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf)
1 120.0 120.0 240.0
2 120.0 120.0 1000.0
y-right
(ft)
14.0
18.0
64.0
72.0
72.0
x-right y-right
(ft) (ft)
150.0 18.0
Friction
Angle
(deg)
33.00
34.00
Soil Unit
Below Segment
2
2
1
1
1
Soil Unit
Below Segment
2
Pore Pressure
Parameter Constant
Ru (psf)
.000
.000
Water
Surface
No.
.0 0
.0 0
A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient
of .150 has been assigned
A vertical earthquake loading coefficient
of .150 has been assigned
A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS
Trial failure surface specified by
the following 19 coordinate points :
Point x-surf y-surf
No (ft) (ft)
1 17.45 14.00
2 23.42 13.44
3 29.42 13.45
4 35.39 14.03
5 41.28 15.18
6 47.04 16.88
7 52.61 19.11
8 57.94 21.87
9 62.98 25.12
10 67.70 28.83
11 72.04 32.97
12 75.96 37.51
13 79.44 42.39
14 82.44 47.59
15 84.94 53.05
16 86.90 58.72
17 88.32 64.55
18 89.17 70.49
19 89.25 72.00
***************************************************
SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Simplified Janbu
***************************************************
****************************************
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION
****************************************
Slice x-base y-base height width alpha beta weight
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (lb)
1 20.44 13.72 .28 5.97 -5.36 .00 201.
2 26.42 13.44 .56 6.00 .10 .00 400.
3 32.21 13.72 .28 5.58 5.55 .00 187.
4 35.05 14.00 2.00 .10 5.55 88.57 24.
5 35.15 14.01 26.99 .10 5.55 89.88 324.
6 35.29 14.02 50.08 .19 5.55 45.73 1142.
7 38.33 14.60 52.61 5.89 11.05 45.73 37185.
8 42.14 15.43 55.68 1.72 16.44 45.73 11493.
9 45.02 16.28 55.72 4.04 16.44 .00 27011.
10 48.44 17.44 54.56 2.80 21.82 .00 18316.
11 51.22 18.56 53.44 2.77 21.82 .00 17781.
12 55.28 20.49 51.51 5.33 27.38 .00 32946.
13 60.46 23.50 48.50 5.04 32.82 .00 29336.
14 65.34 26.97 45.03 4.72 38.17 .00 25502.
15 69.87 30.90 41.10 4.34 43.65 .00 21405.
16 74.00 35.24 36.76 3.92 49.19 .00 17292.
17 77.70 39.95 32.05 3.48 54.51 .00 13384.
18 80.94 44.99 27.01 3.00 60.02 .00 9724.
19 83.69 50.32 21.68 2.50 65.40 .00 6504.
20 85.92 55.88 16.12 1.96 70.93 .00 3790.
21 87.61 61.64 10.36 1.42 76.31 .00 1766.
22 88.74 67.52 4.48 .85 81.86 .00 457.
23 89.21 71.24 .76 .08 86.97 .00 7.
************************************************************************
-- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48)
************************************************************************
Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice.
This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self
weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such
cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value.
************************************************************************
USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero
SLICE INFORMATION ... continued :
Slice Sigma c-value phi U-base U-top Q-top Delta
(psf) (psf) (lb) (lb) (lb)
1 121.1 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
2 55.0 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
3 -56.7 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
4 109.2 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
5 2514.6 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
6 4736.2 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
7 4632.0 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
8 4579.4 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
9 4582.2 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
10 4172.6 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
11 4335.9 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
12 3934.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
13 3478.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
14 3016.6 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
15 2545.6 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
16 2073.9 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
17 1618.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
18 1172.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
19 755.9 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
20 372.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
21 46.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
22 -208.7 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
23 -332.9 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
For the single specified surface,
Corrected JANBU factor of safety = 1.179 (Fo factor = 1.076)
Resisting Shear Strength = 178.36E+03 lb
0
- N
0
o
a)
a)
'r-
COO N_
X
_ Q
I
X
- o
cO
1 1 1 I I
O 0 0 0 0
O CO (O d' N
r
099}) SIXV-X
O
0
0
N
O
4
Segment
No.
Slope Stability Analysis
using the
Method of Slices
Copyright (C) 1992 - 95
Interactive Software Designs,
Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
All Rights Reserved
XSTABL File: HGSHCR3 6-10-** 13:39
******************************************
X S TAB L
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Inc.
* Ver. 5.105 95 - 1437
******************************************
Problem Description : Hoag corner shoring 240 33 by AG
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
5 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
2
3
4
5
x-left y-left x-right y-right
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
.0 14.0 35.0 14.0
35.0 14.0 35.1 18.0
35.1 18.0 35.2 64.0
35.2 64.0 43.0 72.0
43.0 72.0 150.0 72.0
1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
x-left y-left x-right y-right
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 35.1 18.0 150.0 18.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
2 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil
Unit
No.
Unit
Moist
(pcf)
Weight
Sat.
(pcf)
1 120.0 120.0
2 120.0 120.0
Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
240.0
1000.0
Soil Unit
Below Segment
2
2
1
1
1
Soil Unit
Below Segment
2
Friction Pore Pressure
Angle Parameter Constant
(deg) Ru (psf)
33.00
34.00
.000 .0
.000 .0
Water
Surface
No.
0
0
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
5000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
100 Surfaces initiate from each of 50 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 15.0 ft
and x = 30.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 75.0 ft
and x = 100.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft
* * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL
6.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface.
ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS :
The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined
within the angular range defined by :
Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees
Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees
************************************************************************
-- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48)
************************************************************************
Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice.
This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self
weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such
cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value.
************************************************************************
USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
* * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * *
The most critical circular failure surface
is specified by 19 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 17.45 14.00
2 23.42 13.44
3 29.42 13.45
4 35.39 14.03
5 41.28 15.18
6 47.04 16.88
7 52.61 19.11
8 57.94 21.87
9 62.98 25.12
10 67.70 28.83
11 72.04 32.97
12 75.96 37.51
13 79.44 42.39
14 82.44 47.59
15 84.94 53.05
16 86.90 58.72
17 88.32 64.55
18 89.17 70.49
19 89.25 72.00
**** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.609 ****
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : Hoag corner shoring 240 33 by AG
FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting
(BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb)
1. 1.609 26.31 76.53 63.16 17.45 89.25 1.394E+07
2. 1.611 25.78 77.02 63.74 16.22 89.26 1.412E+07
3. 1.614 26.73 75.73 62.34 18.06 88.92 1.374E+07
4. 1.614 25.53 75.87 62.76 15.00 88.10 1.384E+07
5. 1.616 25.38 76.99 63.84 15.00 88.95 1.418E+07
6. 1.621 25.69 78.08 64.82 15.92 90.16 1.456E+07
7. 1.621 26.39 76.60 63.33 16.84 89.48 1.415E+07
8. 1.622 25.23 78.68 65.49 15.00 90.32 1.476E+07
9. 1.624 26.33 78.04 64.70 17.14 90.68 1.461E+07
10. 1.624 25.50 78.25 65.05 15.31 90.19 1.466E+07
* * * END OF FILE * * *
1 CI. }
Lateral Earth Pressures (Yielding Walls)
Soil Parameters:
Cohesion (psf):
Friction Angle (deg):
Unit Weight (pcf):
1. Static Rankine Active Earth Pressure
^E
o m
m c
a) —
c 0
ztn
a E
a
1
Cl YN
O 2o
2 0
2.
a 0.
9
U LT_
O O
u m 0
a
c c
c d N
N 7
U N co
y t-
o a
m r t
• W W
2
_c a a
W O O
4 > >_
>
Q W W
2. Static Rankine Passive Earth Pressure
N O
O
Y
0
0
m
it i
m
2E
u E A
0 ToE
TOC o
0 - w
a 0
Nsc
a E m
0.,a . m
0
of m d 0
Iall o
O
a a 0
0
O 'O C ,lp' .., CC CC
c •c C II C C
o O O iV ¢ 0 CD
LL lL o
0 0 2 Y C C
O 0 w .. c d d
a E m m 0 7
a U N a7
C c m I O a a
c
a) a1 E 0j g L L
U • >> ca
S W N
00 0 E O_ R II it '- y an d
U a a s 0. co ill >>
E .c _cm a c u
o r -C W
y`CO CO ....
m al W co W E E>CD> CO COa
r Q
o Q Q £ ) 00
W c c
Q c c
O 0 CD 0 0 N
to
> > > c E > >
to T . a7
N Q V0 0 II II >, Pr v
❑. W W ri d 3 m O W W
II
0
^ O
rn•r.
d
d
00 U
Q
CD rid TO
U a1
Q>
0 CD
> >
.0 .@
CD CD
2 a2i
mO.
0
c
a7
0
w
CO
in
I0
o
De• N
0
0
CL
>
1
E.,
a) N j
W d 0
?a
d t
r W m
illco > 0
Q la
Q U 0.0 W U
Ta To
(00N
It9 KLEINFELDER
An employee owned company
June 9, 2003
Project No. 23546/003
Mr. Jim Easley
Project Manager
Hoag Memorial Hospital
361 Hospital Road, Suite 229
Newport Beach, California 92663
Subject: Civil Plan Grading Notes
Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower Facilities
West of Existing Lower Campus Parking Lot
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
One Hoag Drive
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Easley:
As requested by you, this letter provides the earthwork recommendations for the subject project
that were published in our geotechnical report and supplemental letters listed in the Reference
section of this letter. We understand the following notes will be used as an attachment to the
project civil plans and are an expert from our geotechnical report dated August 15, 2002.
EARTHWORK
General
All site preparation and earthwork operations should be performed in accordance with applicable
codes, safety regulations and other local, state or federal specifications. All references to
maximum unit weights are established in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method
D1557-91.
Site Preparation
All surficial vegetation; deleterious, organic, inert and oversized materials (greater than 6-inches
in maximum dimension); and demolition debris should be stripped from the site and exported or
stockpiled away from the proposed building pad areas. Areas proposed to receive fill should be
stripped of all loose or soft earth materials and any undocumented fill materials until a firm
unyielding subgrade is exposed as evaluated by the geotechnical engineer.
Prior to placement of compacted fills, the excavation bottom should be observed and approved
by the project geotechnical engineer. After approval, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth
of at least 8 inches, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content
and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry unit weight.
- 23546-003/DBA3L122 Page I of4 June 9, 2003
Copyright 2003 Klein£elder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
Engineered Fill
We anticipate that most of the on -site soils may be reusable as engineered fill after any
vegetation, construction debris and deleterious material is removed from the site. The onsite
claystone/siltstone soils have a medium expansion potential and should not be used beneath floor
slabs or behind walls. Fill should have no particles greater than 4 inches in diameter, be placed
in lifts no greater than 8 inches thick (loose measurements), and should be compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent of the soil's maximum dry unit weight. Import materials, if required,
should have a liquid limit of 25 or less, a plasticity index of 12 or less and should be uniformly
graded with 10 to 40 percent of the particles passing the No. 200 sieve and no particles greater
than 4 inches in dimension. Proposed import materials should be reviewed by the geotechnical
engineer prior to its use onsite. All earthwork operations should be observed and tested by a
representative of this office. The on site siltstone and claystone materials tested to have
relatively high moisture contents. Reuse of this material as engineered fill as well as other soils
near the groundwater elevation may likely require significant drying prior to reuse.
Excavation Characteristics
The borings advanced at the site were advanced using a hollow -stem auger and bucket auger
truck -mounted drill rigs. Drilling effort was moderate through the existing fill, terrace deposits,
and bedrock. The degree of difficulty in drilling was greater at depths due to the presence of
coarse gravels and bedrock. Caving of soils occurred in the bucket auger excavations near the
groundwater elevation in the terrace deposits. Conventional construction and earth moving
equipment should be capable of performing the excavations for the shallow foundations
proposed for site development. Recommendations for sloped and shored excavations are
presented in Sections 4.7 and 4.8 of our August 15, 2002 geotechnical report.
Pipe Bedding and Trench Backfill
Utility trenches may either be backfilled with engineered fill soils or 1-sack cement slurry.
Recommendations for both cases are presented below.
Where utility conducts are backfilled with soils, pipe bedding and pipe zone material for utility
trenches should consist of sand or similar granular material having a minimum sand equivalent
value of 30. The sand should be placed in a zone that extends a minimum of 6-inches below and
12-inches above the pipe for the full trench width. The bedding/pipezone material should be
compacted to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer's on -site representative or to a
minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry unit weight. Trench backfill above pipe bedding
may consist of approved, on -site or import soils placed in lifts no greater than 8-inches loose
thickness and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry unit weight. Jetting of pipe bedding
or trench backfill materials is not recommended and should only be allowed under conditions
approved by the geotechnical engineer of record. Care needs to be exercised by the contractor to
protect buried utilities from damage by equipment when placing and compacting fill above
buried utilities.
Soil back fill is not recommended where the utility trench excavation is in claystone bedrock or
below groundwater.
Where the utility trench excavation is in the claystone bedrock or below groundwater, we
recommended that the backfill consist of 1-sack cement slurry to at least the soil/bedrock
contact, the groundwater level, and to a sufficient height above the utilities to protect the pipe
from damage due to heavy compaction equipment loading. If heavy compaction equipment is to
be used to place engineered fill over slurry backfill, we recommend that the slurry cover extend
23546-003/DBA3L122 Page 2 of4 June 9, 2003
Coppyyrigght2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KI-EINFELDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91 765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
at least 3 feet over the top of the utility. Slurry may extend to within 12 inches below bottom of
pavements.
The contractor should be responsible for the means and methods of placing the soil backfill and
slurry backfill and should be responsible for protection and any damages to the buried utilities
during compaction of fill over the utilities.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide continuing services on this project. Please feel free to
call us should you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
KLEINFELDER, INC.
Armen Gaprelian, PE
Project Engineer
9P0F ESSIQL � ..
t4,,0 Nt. GA PA? �! `.
a No. 61053 m
Exp. 12-31-Oy m
* *
cIV\L �\P,
(6��CFCALRG,
23546-003/DBA3L122 Page 3 of 4
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 9176S-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
ROFESSZAT4
'�J. KFMA,.
� No.2385
Exp• 92t v
syvOrEc0\`'a�P
Irn
pe
AOF CALF
Justin J. Kempton, PE, GE
Manager, Geotechnical Engineering
June 9, 2003
REFERENCES
Report of Geotechnical Investigation, proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower
Facilities, West of Existing Parking Lot, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag
Drive, Newport beach, California, dated August 15, 2002.
Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Addendum to Geotechnical Investigation Report,
Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower, Hoag Memorial Hospital
Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport beach, California, dated December 19, 2002.
Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation — Sculpted Gunite/Soil Nail Slope, Proposed Cut Slope
Between City park Site and Proposed Cogen Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital
Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport beach, California, dated February 12, 2003.
Response to Plan Check Comments — Geotechnical Review, Proposed Cogeneration Building
and Cooling Tower Facilities, West of Existing Parking Lot, Hoag Memorial Hospital
Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport beach, California, dated May 19, 2003.
23546-003/DBA3L122 Page 4 of 4 June 9, 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
1`i KLEINFELDER
An employee owned company
June 10, 2003
Project No. 23546/003
Mr. Jim Easley
Project Manager
Hoag Memorial Hospital
361 Hospital Road, Suite 229
Newport Beach, California 92663
Subject: Additional Response to Plan Check Comments — Geotechnical Review
Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower Facilities
West of Existing Lower Campus Parking Lot
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
One Hoag Drive
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Easley:
This letter presents our response to further review comments by the City of Newport Beach
reviewer dated May 29, 2003 (A copy is attached). The following reports listed below were
reviewed by the City's geotechnical reviewer and are considered to be the geotechnical
documents for the subject project:
• Report of Geotechnical Investigation, proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower
Facilities, West of Existing Parking Lot, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, One Hoag
Drive, Newport beach, California, dated August 15, 2002.
• Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Addendum to Geotechnical Investigation Report,
Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian,
One Hoag Drive, Newport beach, California, dated December 19, 2002.
• Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation — Sculpted Gunite/Soil Nail Slope, Proposed Cut
Slope Between City park Site and Proposed Cogen Building, Hoag Memorial Hospital
Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport beach, California, dated February 12, 2003.
• Response to Plan Check Comments — Geotechnical Review, Proposed Cogeneration Building
and Cooling Tower Facilities, West of Existing Parking Lot, Hoag Memorial Hospital
Presbyterian, One Hoag Drive, Newport beach, California, dated May 19, 2003.
The review comment letter dated May 29, 2003 is attached. Our responses to each comment are
presented below.
1. Plan Review:
Item No.3 from the City of Newport Beach Plan Check No. 0931-2003 dated May 23, 2003
requests the Geotechnical Engineer to review revisions to grading plans for conformance with the
geotechnical report. We understand the current plans are to be delivered to our office for review
and signature. It is our intent to complete our review within 1 working day following receipt of
the plans.
23546-003/DBA3L123 Page 1 of 3 June 10, 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
2. Grading Notes:
Review Item No. 5, Plan Check Item No. 27 requests grading notes be provided on the plans. We
have prepared a letter dated June 9, 2003 that summarizes our earthwork recommendations. We
understand the letter will be attached to the project plans. This letter may also be reproduced onto
a full size drawing sheet and be incorporated as part of the project plans.
3. Building Setback:
Review of Item No.5, Plan Check Item No.31 requests a discussion of the building setback from
adjacent existing slopes and that the proposed cogeneration building and cooling tower facilities
should be designed in accordance with Section 1806.5 and Figure 18-I-1 of the California
Building Code (CBC). The proposed buildings are to be constructed in a cut into the existing
slope face. The cut is to be supported by a permanent soldier pile and tie -back wall system
designed for static and pseudo -static stability. The slope above the proposed wall will be
supported against surficial instability by the use of guniting methods as discussed in our report
dated February 12, 2003.
4. Response to Comment 4 and 8 From Review of Geotechnical Response dated May 29, 2003
— Walls Below Grade:
The retained height is being supported by a permanent soldier pile wall with tie -back anchors.
The design of the soldier piles and length of tie -back anchors is based upon a circular slip surface
with a factor of safety of 1.5. As requested in the supplemental comments, we have performed
additional global stability analysis of the shoring excavation, allowing slip surfaces to daylight
within the excavation bottom. The calculations are attached as Plates 1 and 2. The minimum
anchor lengths recommended in the geotechnical investigation report are shown on the plates
indicating adequate tie -back lengths for stability.
We reviewed the tie -back lengths on the shoring drawings. Due to property line encroachments
constraints, the tie -back have been limited in length at pile locations 20 through 23. Based on our
evaluation (inclusive of our past analyses and supplemental calculations attached on Plate 3), the
lengths shown on the shoring plans prepared by Cefali and Associates dated February 11, 2003,
are satisfactory with a factor of safety for stability of at least 1.5.
5. Response to Comment 5 From Review of Geotechnical Response dated May 29, 2003 —
Seismic Earth Pressure:
As requested in the supplemental comments, we have included our seismic earth pressure
calculations that are based on the Mononome-Okabe analysis method of evaluating seismic earth
pressure. As shown, we have used a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.55g for a seismic evert
with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years as indicated in our geotechnical
investigation report. As recommended in publications by S.L. Kramer and AASHTO Seismic
Guide, our analysis used a horizontal pseudo -static coefficient value equal to half the PGA,
incorporating normalization of the acceleration as well as the behavior of the retained soil as a
mass. Following our attached analysis on Plate 4, and based on the discussion and combined
pressure diagram presented in our May 19, 2003 response letter, it is our opinion that the
additional seismic pressure of 2011 pounds per square foot recommended for a level backfill is
considered suitable for the seismic design of the proposed retaining walls.
23546-003/DBA3L123 Page 2 of 3 June 10, 2003
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
We appreciate the opportunity to provide continuing services on this project. Please feel free to
call us should you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
KLEINFELDER, IN
Armen Gapr-lian, P
Project Engineer
stin J. Kemptbn, PE, GE
Manager, Geotechnical Engineering
Attachments: Plates 1.1 through 2.2 — Global Stability - Shoring System
Plate 3 — Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure Calculation
Copies submitted (4)
cc: City of Newport Beach (2)
Ms. Peri Muretta (1)
Mr. Gary Simmons — Taylor and Associates (1)
Mr. Sandro Pincini — Taylor and Gaines (1)
Mr. David Cefali — Cefali and Associates (1)
Mr. David Boyle — David A. Boyle Engineering (1)
23546-003/DBA3L123 Page 3 of 3
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (9(19) 396-1324 fax
June 10, 2003
1-3IL rec/Wo u-osL
VU 141Y Uo UU. JL L'nVLI—
re 125-2l,tS • J 6 . o 1
RECEIVED
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 2 200243
P.O.Box 1768, NEW -PORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 FACILITIES DESIGN
& CONSTRUCTION
Building Department
GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN CHECK OF REVISIONS
• Make the following corrections to the plans.
• Return this correction sheet and check prints with corrected plans.
• Indicate how each correction was resolved
Project Address
I,f}- fir Plan Check # 0 / 3 (� 2-< `` 3
7n,
Checked by r -. ^' 25/1 Mbate S — 2.3 C'9 Phone No) 2 C 2.
PLANS MUST CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
11c Registered civil engineer or licensed architect to stamp and sign plans indicating
license number.
x Clearly identify the scope of revisions.
�.1 Geotechnical Engineer to review revisions to the grading plans for conformance
with the intent of the geotechnicai reports and stamp the plans.
See drawings for additional corrections.
�— / Aet( I-T� " A7/ z `1 . 3
3 (
Boiler: City NB,Plan chcck.doc
cJ.
0.-J3* OVrsTTt'
WO OU . JL l.'11U1-
1 -orL Itla/YJJ u-uol
///A'//
TOP OF
SLOPE
fFACE OF
STRUCTURE
TOE OF H/3 BUT NEED NOT
SLOPE EXCEED 40FT.
calf (12 192 mm) MAX.
H/2 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FT. (4572 mm) MAX.
FACE OF
FOOTING
// A\\Y//
FIGURE 111-I.1—SETBACK DIMENSIONS
P. It
Yl'J 1
Cal UU. JL 1'ISA
1 OIL 1 O—t/ pJ U UO L.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL RESPONSE
Date Received: May 22, 2003
Date of Response: May 19, 2003
Date of Prior Review: May 5, 2003
Consultant: Kleinfelder, Inc, Job No: 23546/003
Site Address: One Hoag Drive
Newport Beach, California
Date completed: May 29, 2003
Plan Check No: 0931-2003
Our Job No:125D -156
Previous Reports: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower, Hoag
Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, California
Geotechnical Response is:
X
Responsive to checklist comments.
Grading/Foundation Plans changed as a result of response.
X PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE REPORT, ATTEND TO THE ITEMS BELOW:
Response to Comment 4 and 8: The response indicates a failure surface passing through the toe of the
excavation. Considering the relatively large height of soil retained and the shallow embedment depth of the
soldier piles, such a surface may not be the most critical. Please evaluate the FOS of a failure circle passing
below the bottom of soldier piles, using a search for the critical surface. Please verify the adequacy of the
length of the tie -back anchors, based on the critical surface.
Response to Comment 5: The response does not include the supporting calculations, requested in the
comment. The original comment indicated that the recommended seismic earth pressure appears to be too
]ow for the site accelerations anticipated at the site. Please provide supporting calculations for the
recommended seismic earth pressure, clearly indicating the design accelerations used. The pressure
distribution recommended for tied -back walls appears to be based on the empirical earth pressure distributions
typically used for such walls. Please indicate assumptions made in determining the dynamic pressure (on
tied -back walls) in combination with this static pressure.
BY:
Gamini Weeratunga, G.E. 2403
BAGAHI ENGINEERING, INC.
BY:
Ken Bagahi, Ph
BAGAH1 EN
INC.
u.izu-s- uo uo. vo rnvn-
. N '1 _' I ' — V LIVIM--
Ramirez, Gregg
1-31L ren/bi U-b3L
�File 125s•.J • 36,_•Do
From: Ramirez, Gregg
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 10:59 AM
' To: 'Pmuretta@aol.com'
Subject: Hoag Cogeneration Project
RECEIVED
JUN 2 20QX3
FACILITIES DESIGN
& CONSTRUCTION
Hi Peri,
, Here are the items the Planning Department needs in order to sign off for the cogeneration project.
1. A letter from the arco/paleo consultant stating that they have been retained for this project.
2. A copy of the Coastal Development Permit copied in the grading plans.
3. Planning can not sign off on the plans until all other departments have singed off on all mitigation measures and the
plans.
Also please comply with mitigation measure no. 118 as soon as plans are approved by OSHPD.
Thank You
Gregg B. Ramirez
Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
(949) 644-3219
i
a
0
x
2
U
O O
O co
r
(feel) SIXd—x
0
— (o
0
0
- o
O
0
co
o
O
N
O
4.
XSTABL File: HGCGN1 6-04-** 10:44
******************************************
* XSTABL *
* *
* Slope Stability Analysis *
* using the *
* Method of Slices *
* *
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 95 *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. *
* *
* All Rights Reserved *
* *
* Ver. 5.105 95 - 1437 *
******************************************
Problem Description : hoag resp cogen global by AG
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
4 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
2
3
4
x-left
(ft)
.0
60.0
60.1
60.2
y-left
(ft)
20.0
20.0
23.0
74.0
x-right
(ft)
60.0
60.1
60.2
150.0
1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
x-left
(ft)
61.1
y-left
(ft)
23.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
2 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil
Unit
No.
Unit
Moist
(pcf)
1 120.0
2 120.0
Weight Cohesion
Sat. Intercept
(pcf) (psf)
120.0 1000.0
120.0 240.0
y-right
(ft)
20.0
23.0
74.0
74.0
x-right y-right
(ft) (ft)
150.0 23.0
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
1
2
2
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
Friction Pore Pressure
Angle Parameter Constant
(deg) Ru (psf)
34.00 .000
33.00 .000
Water
Surface
No.
.0 0
.0 0
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
5000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
100 Surfaces initiate from each of 50 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 20.0 ft
and x = 58.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 80.0 ft
and x = 140.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft
* * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL
* * * * *
6.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface.
ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS :
The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined
within the angular range defined by :
Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees
Upper angular limit :_ (slope angle - 5.0) degrees
************************************************************************
-- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48)
************************************************************************
Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice.
This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self
weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such
cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value.
************************************************************************
USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * *
The most critical circular failure surface
is specified by 18 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 37.06 20.00
2 42.99 19.10
3 48.99 18.80
4 54.98 19.11
5 60.91 20.03
6 66.72 21.53
7 72.34 23.62
8 77.73 26.26
9 82.82 29.43
10 87.57 33.11
11 91.92 37.24
12 95.83 41.79
13 99.26 46.71
14 102.18 51.95
15 104.56 57.46
16 106.36 63.18
17 107.58 69.06
18 108.09 74.00
**** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.610 ****
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : hoag resp cogen global by AG
FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting
(BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb)
1. 1.610 48.92 78.17 59.36 37.06 108.09 1.136E+07'
2. 1.637 50.91 79.47 60.30 40.94 110.89 1.192E+07
3. 1.639 49.32 78.22 59.66 36.29 108.80 1.180E+07,
4. 1.639 47.85 79.73 61.32 33.96 108.83 1.214E+07
5. 1.642 50.77 81.01 61.79 40.94 112.09 1.237E+07
6. 1.647 41.32 77.23 60.30 22.33 101.46 1.129E+07'
7. 1.648 47.19 80.59 62.36 32.41 109.15 1.251E+07
8. 1.650 50.94 77.14 58.29 39.39 109.07 1.151E+07
9. 1.657 42.88 77.10 60.18 23.88 102.90 1.164E+07
10. 1.659 44.69 78.71 61.32 26.98 105.78 1.217E+07'
* * * END OF FILE * * *
6-05-** 15:29
(0
0
r
I I
4)
U
a
9-
L
4)
0 4)
<
> N
L
0
a
.o 0
O
a1
D
4) C13
a-) Z
O
U
Q
to
u_
a) p„
a
O —
_c (n
O
— to
0
-
(lea}) SIXd—}
0 0
0
eta
XSTABL File:
HGCGNS1 6-05-** 15:29
******************************************
* XSTABL
*
* Slope Stability Analysis
* using the
* Method of Slices
*
* Copyright (C) 1992 — 95
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc.
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
*
* All Rights Reserved
*
* Ver. 5.105 95 — 1437 *
******************************************
Problem Description : hoag resp cogen global S by AG
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
4 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 .0 20.0 60.0 20.0
2 60.0 20.0 60.1 23.0
3 60.1 23.0 60.2 74.0
4 60.2 74.0 150.0 74.0
1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left
No. (ft)
1 61.1
y-left
(ft)
23.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
2 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight Cohesion
Unit Moist Sat. Intercept
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf)
1 120.0 120.0 1000.0
2 120.0 120.0 240.0
x-right y-right
(ft) (ft)
150.0 23.0
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
1
2
2
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
Friction Pore Pressure Water
Angle Parameter Constant Surface
(deg) Ru (psf) No.
34.00 .000 .0 0
33.00 .000 .0 0
A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient
of .150 has been assigned
A vertical earthquake loading coefficient
of .150 has been assigned
A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS
Trial failure surface specified by
the following 18 coordinate points :
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 37.06 20.00
2 42.99 19.10
3 48.99 18.80
4 54.98 19.11
5 60.91 20.03
6 66.72 21.53
7 72.34 23.62
8 77.73 26.26
9 82.82 29.43
10 87.57 33.11
11 91.92 37.24
12 95.83 41.79
13 99.26 46.71
14 102.18 51.95
15 104.56 57.46
16 106.36 63.18
17 107.58 69.06
18 108.09 74.00
***************************************************
SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Simplified Janbu
***************************************************
****************************************
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION
****************************************
Slice x-base y-base height width alpha beta weight
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (lb)
1 40.03 19.55 .45 5.93 -8.63 .00 320.
2 45.99 18.95 1.05 6.00 -2.86 .00 756.
3 51.99 18.95 1.05 5.99 2.96 .00 751.
4 57.49 19.50 .50 5.02 8.82 .00 302.
5 60.05 19.90 1.60 .10 8.82 88.09 19.
6 60.15 19.91 28.59 .10 8.82 89.89 343.
7 60.56 19.97 54.03 .71 8.82 .00 4603.
8 61.00 20.05 53.95 .19 14.48 .00 1230.
9 63.91 20.80 53.20 5.62 14.48 .00 35875.
10 68.70 22.27 51.74 3.95 20.40 .00 24540.
11 71.51 23.31 50.69 1.67 20.40 .00 10141.
12 75.04 24.94 49.06 5.39 26.10 .00 31732.
13 80.28 27.85 46.15 5.09 31.91 .00 28191.
14 85.19 31.27 42.73 4.75 37.77 .00 24356.
15 89.74 35.17 38.83 4.35 43.51 .00 20267.
16 93.88 39.51 34.49 3.91 49.33 .00 16180.
17 97.54 44.25 29.75 3.43 55.12 .00 12245.
18 100.72 49.33 24.67 2.92 60.87 .00 8644.
19 103.37 54.70 19.30 2.38 66.64 .00 5511.
20 105.46 60.32 13.68 1.80 72.53 .00 2955.
21 106.97 66.12 7.88 1.22 78.28 .00 1154.
22 107.83 71.53 2.47 .51 84.11 .00 151.
*********,+**************************************************************
-- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48)
************************************************************************
Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice.
This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self
weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such
cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value.
************************************************************************
USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero
SLICE INFORMATION ... continued :
Slice Sigma c-value phi U-base U-top Q-top Delta
(psf) (psf) (lb) (1b) (lb)
1 199.7 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
2 156.5 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
3 58.5 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
4 -80.0 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
5 22.8 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
6 2644.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
7 5025.0 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
8 4737.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
9 4495.9 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
10 4039.6 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
11 4187.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
12 3815.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
13 3360.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
14 2892.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
15 2422.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
16 1951.0 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
17 1488.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
18 1044.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
19 628.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
20 251.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
21 -60.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
22 -275.7 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
For the single specified surface,
Corrected JANBU factor of safety = 1.206 (Fo factor = 1.077)
Resisting Shear Strength = 156.37E+03 lb
N
tf)
11
N
0
Ii
0
O
O
0
0
O co
St
0
(O
(}eel) SIXV—A
O
N
O
— N
O
— O
r's
_ N
O
O
Q)
•
,r
XSTABL File:
HGCT1 6-04-** 11:37
******************************************
XSTABL
Slope Stability Analysis
using the
Method of Slices
Copyright (C) 1992 - 95
Interactive Software Designs, Inc.
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
*
* All Rights Reserved
*
* Ver. 5.105 95 - 1437 *
******************************************
Problem Description : Hoag cooling tower global by AG
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
5 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
2
3
4
5
x-left
(ft)
.0
60.0
60.1
60.2
87.0
y-left
(ft)
20.0
20.0
34.0
51.0
67.0
x-right
(ft)
60.0
60.1
60.2
87.0
150.0
1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
x-left y-left
(ft) (ft)
.0 15.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
2 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil
Unit
No.
Unit Weight
Moist Sat.
(pcf) (pcf)
Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
1 120.0 120.0 240.0
2 120.0 120.0 1000.0
y-right
(ft)
20.0
34.0
51.0
67.0
63.0
x-right y-right
(ft) (ft)
150.0 15.0
Friction
Angle
(deg)
33.00
34.00
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
1
1
1
1
Soil Unit
Below Segment
2
Pore Pressure
Parameter Constant
Ru (psf)
.000
.000
Water
Surface
No.
.0 0
.0 0
BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
UPPER limiting boundary of 3 segments:
Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 58.8 20.0 58.9 15.5
2 58.9 15.5 59.8 15.5
3 59.8 15.5 59.9 20.0
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
5000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
100 Surfaces initiate from each of 50 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 20.0 ft
and x = 50.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 75.0 ft
and x = 140.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft
* * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL* * * * *
5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface.
ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS :
The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined
within the angular range defined by :
Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees
Upper angular limit :_ (slope angle - 5.0) degrees
Factors of safety have been calculated by the
SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD
The most critical circular failure surface
is specified by 22 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1
2
3
31.63
36.28
41.07
20.00
18.15
16.73
4 45.98 15.75
5 50.95 15.23
6 55.95 15.17
7 60.93 15.57
8 65.86 16.43
9 70.69 17.73
10 75.37 19.47
11 79.88 21.63
12 84.17 24.20
13 88.21 27.15
14 91.96 30.45
15 95.39 34.09
16 98.47 38.03
17 101.18 42.23
18 103.49 46.67
19 105.38 51.29
20 106.84 56.08
21 107.86 60.97
22 108.39 65.64
**** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.572 ****
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : Hoag cooling tower global by AG
FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting
(BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb)
1. 1.572 54.11 69.58 54.44 31.63 108.39
2. 1.584 55.00 68.13 52.98 32.86 107.88
3. 1.597 55.20 69.31 54.14 32.86 109.18
4. 1.621 56.43 67.31 52.33 34.08 108.68
5. 1.624 55.98 70.23 55.04 33.47 110.80
6. 1.626 54.82 67.60 52.69 32.24 107.44
7. 1.642 53.08 69.86 55.03 29.80 107.91
8. 1.642 53.25 67.08 52.33 30.41 105.55
9. 1.650 55.81 72.95 57.95 32.24 113.20
10. 1.652 54.65 65.53 50.75 32.24 105.34
* * * END OF FILE * * *
. 389E+06
.163E+06'
. 521E+06,
.332E+06
.938E+06
.348E+06'
. 889E+06
. 248E+06,
. 846E+06
.003E+06
rn
re)
I I
a)
0
D
L.
L.
F
Q U
m
0-
N
N L
O
a 9-
-o
o EDLL O
a)
3
° z
rna
c
p
O W
U
J
M I10_
O
2 (n
N
H
U
0
0
O
— N
O
— O
a)
a)
co N
X
Q
i
X
_ o
up
_ o
v
09a}) SIX'd—J.
O
O
XSTABL File:
HGCTS1 6-05-** 15:35
******************************************
* XSTABL *
* *
* Slope Stability Analysis *
* using the *
* Method of Slices *
* *
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 95 *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. *
* *
* All Rights Reserved *
* *
* Ver. 5.105 95 - 1437 *
******************************************
Problem Description : Hoag cooling tower global S by AG
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
5 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
2
3
4
5
x-left
(ft)
.0
60.0
60.1
60.2
87.0
y-left
(ft)
20.0
20.0
34.0
51.0
67.0
x-right
(ft)
60.0
60.1
60.2
87.0
150.0
1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left y-left
No. (ft) (ft)
1 .0 15.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
2 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil
Unit
No.
Unit Weight
Moist Sat.
(pcf) (pcf)
1 120.0 120.0
2 120.0 120.0
Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
240.0
1000.0
y-right
(ft)
20.0
34.0
51.0
67.0
63.0
x-right y-right
(ft) (ft)
150.0 15.0
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
1
1
1
1
Soil Unit
Below Segment
2
Friction Pore Pressure
Angle. Parameter Constant
(deg) Ru (psf)
33.00 .000 .0
34.00 .000 .0
Water
Surface
No.
0
0
A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient
of .150 has been assigned
A vertical earthquake loading coefficient
of .150 has been assigned
BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
UPPER limiting boundary of 3 segments:
Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 58.8 20.0 58.9 15.5
2 58.9 15.5 59.8 15.5
3 59.8 15.5 59.9 20.0
A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS
Trial failure surface specified by
the following 22 coordinate points :
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 31.63 20.00
2 36.28 18.15
3 41.07 16.73
4 45.98 15.75
5 50.95 15.23
6 55.95 15.17
7 60.93 15.57
8 65.86 16.43
9 70.69 17.73
10 75.37 19.47
11 79.88 21.63
12 84.17 24.20
13 88.21 27.15
14 91.96 30.45
15 95.39 34.09
16 98.47 38.03
17 101.18 42.23
18 103.49 46.67
19 105.38 51.29
20 106.84 56.08
21 107.86 60.97
22 108.39 65.64
************************************************,ter
SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Simplified Janbu
***************************************************
****************************************
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION
****************************************
Slice x-base y-base height width alpha beta weight
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (lb)
1 33.95 19.08 .92 4.65 -21.70 .00 516.
2 38.67 17.44 2.56 4.79 -16.51 .00 1471.
3 43.53 16.24 3.76 4.91 -11.29 .00 2215.
4 48.47 15.49 4.51 4.97 -5.97 .00 2690.
5 53.45 15.20 4.80 5.00 -.69 .00 2880.
6 57.97 15.33 4.67 4.05 4.59 .00 2268.
7 60.05 15.50 11.50 .10 4.59 89.59 138.
8 60.15 15.51 26.99 .10 4.59 89.66 324.
9 60.57 15.54 35.68 .73 4.59 30.84 3125.
10 63.40 16.00 36.91 4.93 9.90 30.84 21834.
11 68.28 17.08 38.74 4.83 15.06 30.84 22454.
12 73.03 18.60 40.06 4.68 20.39 30.84 22498.
13 77.63 20.55 40.85 4.51 25.59 30.84 22110.
14 82.02 22.91 41.11 4.29 30.92 30.84 21166.
15 85.58 25.23 40.92 2.83 36.14 30.84 13897.
16 87.60 26.71 40.25 1.21 36.14 -3.63 5845.
17 90.08 28.80 38.00 3.75 41.35 -3.63 17102.
18 93.68 32.27 34.31 3.43 46.70 -3.63 14120.
19 96.93 36.06 30.31 3.08 51.98 -3.63 11202.
20 99.82 40.13 26.06 2.71 57.17 -3.63 8473.
21 102.33 44.45 21.58 2.31 62.51 -3.63 5981.
22 104.43 48.98 16.91 1.89 67.75 -3.63 3836.
23 106.11 53.69 12.10 1.46 73.05 -3.63 2120.
24 107.35 58.53 7.18 1.02 78.22 -3.63 879.
25 108.13 63.31 2.35 .53 83.53 -3.63 150.
SLICE INFORMATION ... continued
Slice Sigma c-value phi U-base U-top Q-top Delta
(psf) (psf) (lb) (lb) (lb)
1 245.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
2 402.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
3 489.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
4 517.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
5 496.0 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
6 436.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
7 1100.2 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
8 2605.7 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
9 3449.6 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
10 3362.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
11 3335.7 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
12 3254.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
13 3131.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
14 2961.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
15 2762.0 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
16 2715.0 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
17 2381.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
18 1967.6 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00,
19 1564.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
20 1177.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
21 805.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
22 465.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
23 160.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00,
24 -91.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
25 -275.0 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
For the single specified surface,
Corrected JANBU factor of safety = 1.139 (Fo factor = 1.083
Resisting Shear Strength = 122.70E+03 lb
KLEINFELDER
SHEET_ OF
PROJECT PROJECT NO.
SUBJECT BY DATE
REVIEWED BY DATE
O. l .
OTh
v r 7
ale
II
tl
M-4
PLOT 3
c
•
a
0
*
0
0
- c0
0
-
0
-
I I 1 1 1
o O O O O
o oo co d NI
@aal) SIXd—X
0
0
N
0
AA
XSTABL File: HGSHCR1 6-10-** 17:26
******************************************
* XSTABL *
* *
* Slope Stability Analysis *
* using the *
* Method of Slices *
* *
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 95 *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. *
* *
* All Rights Reserved *
* *
* Ver. 5.105 95 - 1437 *
******************************************
Problem Description : Hoag corner shoring 240 33 by AG
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
5 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 .0 14.0 35.0 14.0
2 35.0 14.0 35.1 18.0
3 35.1 18.0 35.2 64.0
4 35.2 64.0 43.0 72.0
5 43.0 72.0 150.0 72.0
1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
x-left
(ft)
35.1
y-left
(ft)
18.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
2 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight Cohesion
Unit Moist Sat. Intercept
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf)
1 120.0 120.0 240.0
2 120.0 120.0 1000.0
x-right y-right
(ft) (ft)
150.0 18.0
2
2
1
1
1
Soil Unit
Below Segment
2
Friction Pore Pressure
Angle Parameter Constant
(deg) Ru (psf)
33.00 .000
34.00 .000
Water
Surface
No.
.0 0
.0 0
A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS
Trial failure surface is CIRCULAR, with a radius of 70.46 feet
Center at x = 27.00 ; y = 84.00 ; Seg. Length
The CIRCULAR failure surface was estimated by
the following 47 coordinate points :
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 35.00 14.00
2 36.98 14.26
3 38.96 14.57
4 40.93 14.93
5 42.88 15.36
6 44.82 15.84
7 46.75 16.37
8 48.66 16.96
9 50.56 17.60
10 52.43 18.29
11 54.29 19.04
12 56.12 19.84
13 57.93 20.70
14 59.71 21.60
15 61.47 22.55
16 63.20 23.56
17 64.90 24.61
18 66.57 25.71
19 68.21 26.85
20 69.82 28.05
21 71.39 29.28
22 72.92 30.57
23 74.42 31.89
24 75.88 33.26
25 77.30 34.67
26 78.68 36.11
27 80.02 37.60
28 81.31 39.12
29 82.57 40.68
30 83.77 42.28
31 84.93 43.91
32 86.05 45.57
33 87.12 47.26
34 88.14 48.98
35 89.10 50.73
36 90.02 52.50
37 90.89 54.31
38 91.71 56.13
39 92.47 57.98
40 93.19 59.85
41 93.85 61.74
42 94.45 63.64
43 95.00 65.57
44 95.50 67.50
45 95.94 69.45
46 96.32 71.42
47 96.42 72.00
***************************************************
SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Simplified Bishop
***************************************************
2.00 feet
****************************************
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION
****************************************
Slice x-base y-base height width alpha beta weight
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (lb)
1 35.05 14.01 1.99 .10 7.33 88.57 24.
2 35.15 14.02 26.98 .10 7.33 89.88 324.
3 36.09 14.14 50.77 1.78 7.33 45.73 10867.
4 37.97 14.41 52.43 1.98 8.96 45.73 12430.
5 39.94 14.75 54.11 1.97 10.59 45.73 12766.
6 41.90 15.15 55.73 1.95 12.21 45.73 13072.
7 42.94 15.37 56.57 .12 13.84 45.73 815.
8 43.91 15.61 56.39 1.82 13.84 .00 12328.
9 45.79 16.10 55.90 1.93 15.47 .00 12930.
10 47.71 16.66 55.34 1.91 17.09 .00 12694.
11 49.61 17.28 54.72 1.89 18.72 .00 12439.
12 51.10 17.80 54.20 1.08 20.34 .00 7041.
13 52.03 18.15 53.85 .79 20.34 .00 5123.
14 53.36 18.67 53.33 1.85 21.97 .00 11870.
15 55.20 19.44 52.56 1.83 23.60 .00 11559.
16 57.02 20.27 51.73 1.81 25.22 .00 11232.
17 58.82 21.15 50.85 1.78 26.85 .00 10889.
18 60.59 22.08 49.92 1.76 28.48 .00 10532.
19 62.33 23.05 48.95 1.73 30.10 .00 10163.
20 64.05 24.08 47.92 1.70 31.73 .00 9782.
21 65.74 25.16 46.84 1.67 33.36 .00 9390.
22 67.39 26.28 45.72 1.64 34.98 .00 8990.
23 69.01 27.45 44.55 1.61 36.61 .00 8583.
24 70.60 28.67 43.33 1.57 38.24 .00 8169.
25 72.15 29.92 42.08 1.54 39.86 .00 7751.
26 73.67 31.23 40.77 1.50 41.49 .00 7330.
27 75.15 32.57 39.43 1.46 43.12 .00 6907.
28 76.59 33.96 38.04 1.42 44.74 .00 6484.
29 77.99 35.39 36.61 1.38 46.37 .00 6063.
30 79.35 36.86 35.14 1.34 48.00 .00 5644.
31 80.67 38.36 33.64 1.30 49.62 .00 5230.
32 81.94 39.90 32.10 1.25 51.25 .00 4822.
33 83.17 41.48 30.52 1.21 52.87 .00 4421.
34 84.35 43.09 28.91 1.16 54.50 .00 4029.
35 85.49 44.74 27.26 1.11 56.13 .00 3647.
36 86.58 46.41 25.59 1.07 57.75 .00 3277.
37 87.63 48.12 23.88 1.02 59.38 .00 2919.
38 88.62 49.85 22.15 .97 61.01 .00 2576.
39 89.56 51.62 20.38 .92 62.63 .00 2249.
40 90.46 53.41 18.59 .87 64.26 .00 1938.
41 91.30 55.22 16.78 .82 65.89 .00 1645.
42 92.09 57.06 14.94 .76 67.51 .00 1372.
43 92.83 58.91 13.09 .71 69.14 .00 1118.
44 93.52 60.79 11.21 .66 70.77 .00 886.
45 94.15 62.69 9.31 .60 72.39 .00 676.
46 94.73 64.60 7.40 .55 74.02 .00 489.
47 95.25 66.53 5.47 .50 75.65 .00 325.
48 95.72 68.48 3.52 .44 77.27 .00 186.
49 96.13 70.44 1.56 .39 78.90 .00 72.
50 96.37 71.71 .29 .10 80.53 .00 3.
SLICE INFORMATION ... continued :
Slice Sigma c-value phi U-base U-top Q-top Delta
(psf) (psf) (lb) (lb) (lb)
1 147.0 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
2 2984.8 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
3 5686.9 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
4 5787.4 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
5 5887.5 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
6 5977.0 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
7 5979.1 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
8 5959.9 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
9 5818.8 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
10 5672.4 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
11 5522.3 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
12 5383.8 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
13 5534.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
14 5411.7 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
15 5264.2 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
16 5113.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
17 4959.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
18 4802.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
19 4642.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
20 4479.9 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
21 4314.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
22 4147.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
23 3977.7 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
24 3806.2 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
25 3633.0 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
26 3458.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
27 3282.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
28 3105.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
29 2927.9 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
30 2749.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
31 2571.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
32 2393.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
33 2215.6 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
34 2038.6 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
35 1862.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
36 1688.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
37 1516.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
38 1346.0 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
39 1178.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
40 1014.9 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
41 854.8 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
42 699.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
43 549.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
44 404.7 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
45 267.2 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
46 137.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
47 16.6 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
48 -94.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
49 -193.1 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
50 -255.2 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
For the single specified surface,
Simplified BISHOP factor of safety =
1.533
Resisting Moment = 156.01E+05 ft-lb
WARNING - This method is valid only if the
failure surface approximates a circle
rn
M
0
cc
cn
0
0
O
O
cp
r
I
N
0
Li
a_
0
C/)
m
o
Q D
>--
-0 Z
re)
O V
71. a)
N o
O
�4
C L
0
-c
N 0
• lit
(1) •L
c o
O
o N
O
O) E
0
O O
0
- N
0
— O
(1)
a)
4-
- co in
X
_ Q
X
_ o
c0
O 0 0 0 0
O CO c0 'cl- N
(t ei) SIXd—x
0
O
N
O
XSTABL File:
HGSHCR4 6-10-** 13:41
******************************************
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
XSTABL
Slope Stability Analysis
using the
Method of Slices
Copyright (C) 1992 - 95
Interactive Software Designs, Inc.
Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
All Rights Reserved
Ver. 5.105 95 - 1437 *
******************************************
Problem Description : Hoag corner shoring 240 33 by AG S
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
5 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
2
3
4
5
x-left
(ft)
y-left
(ft)
x-right y-right
(ft) (ft)
.0 14.0 35.0 14.0
35.0 14.0 35.1 18.0
35.1 18.0 35.2 64.0
35.2 64.0 43.0 72.0
43.0 72.0 150.0 72.0
1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left y-left
No. (ft) (ft)
1 35.1 18.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
2 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight
Unit Moist Sat.
No. (pcf) (pcf)
1 120.0 120.0
2 120.0 120.0
Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
240.0
1000.0
x-right
(ft)
150.0
y-right
(ft)
18.0
Soil Unit
Below Segment
2
2
1
1
1
Soil Unit
Below Segment
2
Friction Pore Pressure
Angle Parameter Constant
(deg) Ru (psf)
33.00
34.00
.000
.000
Water
Surface
No.
.0 0
.0 0
A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient
of .150 has been assigned
A vertical earthquake loading coefficient
of .150 has been assigned
A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS
Trial failure surface specified by
the following 19 coordinate points :
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 17.45 14.00
2 23.42 13.44
3 29.42 13.45
4 35.39 14.03
5 41.28 15.18
6 47.04 16.88
7 52.61 19.11
8 57.94 21.87
9 62.98 25.12
10 67.70 28.83
11 72.04 32.97
12 75.96 37.51
13 79.44 42.39
14 82.44 47.59
15 84.94 53.05
16 86.90 58.72
17 88.32 64.55
18 89.17 70.49
19 89.25 72.00
***************************************************
SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Simplified Janbu
***************************************************
****************************************
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION
****************************************
Slice x-base y-base height width alpha beta weight
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (lb)
1 20.44 13.72 .28 5.97 -5.36 .00 201.
2 26.42 13.44 .56 6.00 .10 .00 400.
3 32.21 13.72 .28 5.58 5.55 .00 187.
4 35.05 14.00 2.00 .10 5.55 88.57 24.
5 35.15 14.01 26.99 .10 5.55 89.88 324.
6 35.29 14.02 50.08 .19 5.55 45.73 1142.
7 38.33 14.60 52.61 5.89 11.05 45.73 37185.
8 42.14 15.43 55.68 1.72 16.44 45.73 11493.
9 45.02 16.28 55.72 4.04 16.44 .00 27011.
10 48.44 17.44 54.56 2.80 21.82 .00 18316.
11 51.22 18.56 53.44 2.77 21.82 .00 17781.
12 55.28 20.49 51.51 5.33 27.38 .00 32946.
13 60.46 23.50 48.50 5.04 32.82 .00 29336.
14 65.34 26.97 45.03 4.72 38.17 .00 25502.
15 69.87 30.90 41.10 4.34 43.65 .00 21405.
16 74.00 35.24 36.76 3.92 49.19 .00 17292.
17 77.70 39.95 32.05 3.48 54.51 .00 13384.
18 80.94 44.99 27.01 3.00 60.02 .00 9724.
19 83.69 50.32 21.68 2.50 65.40 .00 6504.
20 85.92 55.88 16.12 1.96 70.93 .00 3790.
21 87.61 61.64 10.36 1.42 76.31 .00 1766.
22 88.74 67.52 4.48 .85 81.86 .00 457.
23 89.21 71.24 .76 .08 86.97 .00 7.
************************************************************************
WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48)
************************************************************************
Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice.
This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self
weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such
cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value.
************************************************************************
USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero
SLICE INFORMATION ... continued :
Slice Sigma c-value phi U-base U-top Q-top Delta
(psf) (psf) (lb) (lb) (lb)
1 121.1 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
2 55.0 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
3 -56.7 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
4 109.2 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
5 2514.6 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
6 4736.2 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
7 4632.0 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
8 4579.4 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
9 4582.2 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
10 4172.6 1000.0 34.00 0. 0. 0. .00
11 4335.9 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
12 3934.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
13 3478.3 240,0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
14 3016.6 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
15 2545.6 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
16 2073.9 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
17 1618.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
18 1172.4 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
19 755.9 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
20 372.5 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
21 46.3 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
22 -208.7 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
23 -332.9 240.0 33.00 0. 0. 0. .00
For the single specified surface,
Corrected JANBU factor of safety = 1.179 (Fo factor = 1.076)
Resisting Shear Strength = 178.36E+03 lb
0
0
0
-
O
o
_ o
0
_ O
N
1 1 I
O Opp
O O
U O (0
0eal) sixv—x
O
O
O
XSTABL File: HGSHCR3 6-10-** 13:39
******************************************
* X S TAB L *
* *
* Slope Stability Analysis *
* using the *
* Method of Slices *
* *
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 95 *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. *
* *
* All Rights Reserved *
*
*
* Ver 5.105 95 - 1437 *
******************************************
Problem Description : Hoag corner shoring 240 33 by AG
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
5 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 .0 14.0 35.0 14.0 2
2 35.0 14.0 35.1 18.0 2
3 35.1 18.0 35.2 64.0 1
4 35.2 64.0 43.0 72.0 1
5 43.0 72.0 150.0 72.0 1
1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 35.1 18.0 150.0 18.0 2
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
2 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water
Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No.
1 120.0 120.0 240.0 33.00 .000 .0 0
2 120.0 120.0 1000.0 34.00 .000 .0 0
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
5000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
100 Surfaces initiate from each of 50 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 15.0 ft
and x = 30.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 75.0 ft
and x = 100.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft
* * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * *
6.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface.
ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS :
The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined
within the angular range defined by :
Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees
Upper angular limit :_ (slope angle - 5.0) degrees
************************************************************************
-- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48)
************************************************************************
Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice.
This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self
weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such
cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value.
************************************************************************
USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * *
The most critical circular failure surface
is specified by 19 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 17.45 14.00
2 23.42 13.44
3 29.42 13.45
4 35.39 14.03
5 41.28 15.18
6 47.04 16.88
7 52.61 19.11
8 57.94 21.87
9 62.98 25.12
10 67.70 28.83
11 72.04 32.97
12 75.96 37.51
13 79.44 42.39
14 82.44 47.59
15 84.94 53.05
16 86.90 58.72
17 88.32 64.55
18 89.17 70.49
19 89.25 72.00
**** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.609 ****
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : Hoag corner shoring 240 33 by AG
FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting
(BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb)
1. 1.609 26.31 76.53 63.16 17.45 89.25 1.394E+07
2. 1.611 25.78 77.02 63.74 16.22 89.26 1.412E+07
3. 1.614 26.73 75.73 62.34 18.06 88.92 1.374E+07
4. 1.614 25.53 75.87 62.76 15.00 88.10 1.384E+07
5. 1.616 25.38 76.99 63.84 15.00 88.95 1.418E+07
6. 1.621 25.69 78.08 64.82 15.92 90.16 1.456E+07
7. 1.621 26.39 76.60 63.33 16.84 89.48 1.415E+07
8. 1.622 25.23 78.68 65.49 15.00 90.32 1.476E+07
9. 1.624 26.33 78.04 64.70 17.14 90.68 1.461E+07
10. 1.624 25.50 78.25 65.05 15.31 90.19 1.466E+07
* * * END OF FILE * * *
•a
Lateral Earth Pressures (Yielding Walls)
Soil Parameters:
Cohesion (psf):
m
0i
ct
c
°
U
tar
Unit Weight (pcf):
1. Static Rankine Active Earth Pressure
h
I^ E
O
TO c
0 L
c m
= a
a E
Z
cn
Y
o m 2
IN/1 f0/1
as
v v_
7 7
LL U.
O O
II m m
.-
Y c c
c E E
0 7 7
U N (0
`c d m
0 a a`
m r .c
ro
7 W W
a > >
a .0 t
¢ ¢
w m m
> CO
¢ w w
2. Static Rankine Passive Earth Pressure
m
I^ E
O N
�o c
L
c m
=
E
°) 0.
co 2 m
N N
d m
a. a
v v
7 7
LL LL
O O
N E g
II. a! :?
E E
m 2 m
0 0 0
0 a a
N L L
yCO 03
W W
a>>
i
N
N
n
1
¢ II II H
o r'w m
'c a a)r
Vo ^ O W to
E co
m
¢¢ a -a> 00
cou
w c c E c ¢ c c
m m c0 2 U N m
2. >> >. Y m >>
u
d w w 0 0 30 0 W W
III
d
Eco
m
c
m
c m
0m a
�E
w Z
H INn
a a
o v
7
LL LL
O 0
E �
c c
m m
in in
N 2
a0-
r .c
03 CO
w W
> >
d
°
U
m
Z
m
0
To
a
LL
0
w
cc
(00
>
in
• 1-
CO
0
0
d
0
O
P,.r.4
.1r
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O.Box 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
Building Department
GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN CHECK OF REVISIONS
• Make the following corrections to the plans.
.' Return this correction sheet and check prints with corrected plans.
• Indicate how each correction was resolved Project Address / .fir Plan Check # 0 / 31 /
3
Sr23—el PhoneNo7 —2C2 —7z7 2-
Checked by /lG» 4A 5-14"1"bate
PLANS MUST CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
K
4
Registered civil engineer or licensed architect to stamp and sign plans indicating
license number.
Clearly identify the scope of revisions.
Geotechnical Engineer to review revisions to the grading plans for conformance
with the intent of the geotechnical reports and stamp the plans.
See drawings for additional corrections.
a' 2 / 3 / 3 tt/Ts ilocsi ��
2 7 1� r6 , ��('--3tt— ( Jo svR�^
MS
Boiler: City NB/Plan check.doc
: CHAP. 18, Urv. ;
FlGURE 18-b1
TOP OF
SLOPE
fFACE OF
STRUCTURE
TOE OF
SLOPE
H/2 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FT. (4572 mm) MAX.
FIGURE 18-I-1-SETBACK DIMENSIONS
1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
FACE OF
FOOTING
HIS BUT NEED NOT
EXCEED 40 FT.
(12 192 mm) MAX.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL RESPONSE
Date Received: May 22, 2003
Date of Response: May 19, 2003
Date of Prior Review: May 5, 2003
Consultant: Kleinfelder, Inc, Job No: 23546/003
Site Address: One Hoag Drive
Newport Beach, California
Date completed: May 29, 2003
Plan Check No: 0931-2003
Our Job No:125D -156
Previous Reports: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Cogeneration Building and Cooling Tower, Hoag
Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach, Califomia
Geotechnical Response is:
Responsive to checklist comments.
Grading/Foundation Plans changed as a result of response.
X PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE REPORT, ATTEND TO THE ITEMS BELOW:
Response to Comment 4 and 8: The response indicates a failure surface passing through the toe of the
excavation. Considering the relatively large height of soil retained and the shallow embedment depth of the
soldier piles, such a surface may not be the most critical. Please evaluate the FOS of a failure circle passing
below the bottom of soldier piles, using a search for the critical surface. Please verify the adequacy of the
length of the tie -back anchors, based on the critical surface.
Response to Comment 5: The response does not include the supporting calculations, requested in the
comment. The original comment indicated that the recommended seismic earth pressure appears to be too
low for the site accelerations anticipated at the site. Please provide supporting calculations for the
recommended seismic earth pressure, clearly indicating the design accelerations used. The pressure
distribution recommended for tied -back walls appears to be based on the empirical earth pressure distributions
typically used for such walls. Please indicate assumptions made in determining the dynamic pressure (on
tied -back walls) in combination with this static pressure.
BY.
Gamini Weeratunga, G.E. 2403
BAGAI-II ENGINEERING, INC.
Ken Bagahi, P
BAGAHI EN
N0A1
HOSPITAL
One Hoag Drive PO Box 6100
Newport Beach CA 92658-6100
949/645-8600
www.hoaghospital.org
DATE: May 21, 2003
TO:
MEMORANDUM
Dick Hoffstadt, Public Works Department
Faisal Jurdi, Building Department
David Keely, Traffic Engineering
Kim Lerch, Fire Department
Marcy Lomeli, General Services
Gregg Ramirez, Planning Department
FROM: Jim Easley -fiCri:
Hoag Hospi ai 1
RE: Plan Check No. 0931-2003
Hoag Hospital has reviewed the City comments on the civil and landscape plans for the
Lower Campus Central Plant (Cogen Building) that were submitted for review on April
9, 2003. We have revised the plans in accordance with City comments, and have
enclosed revised plans, as well as the comments from City staff on the initial plan
submittal. In order to facilitate the review of the re -submittal of the Central Plant plans,
we have summarized the comments, and provided responses to the issues identified by
the various departments.
BULDING DEPARTMENT
Comment: Make revisions to the grading/drainage plans to respond to the requests for
additional information from pages 1-4 of the City's form.
Response: The questions written on the plans were already responded to, and the
requests for additional information had already been provided, within the initial plan set
submittal, although this information may have appeared on a separate sheet from that
which contained the question/request for information. Therefore, there were no revisions
to make. Information is provided in green pencil on the City's plan check set to assist in
directing the reviewer to the location within the plan set where the requested information
is provided or the question is answered.
A NOT -FOR -PROFIT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ACCREDITED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS
• V HA
— ve.<
Manao�XmAM1
City Staff
May 21, 2003
Comment: Make revisions to the plans related to the construction with a basement or
excavation near the property line from pages 5 of the City's form.
Response: As stated in the memorandum that was provided to all departments and
accompanied the initial plan check submittal on April 9, 2003, the Central Plant project is
being reviewed by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD).
Shoring, including building excavation, is being reviewed by OSHPD, not the City of
Newport Beach. Therefore, the requests to submit shoring plans (Item "a") and to
provide notes on the plans related to City inspection of the shoring (Item "p") are not
applicable. For your information, the requested notes on the shoring plans (Item "i", Item
k" and Item "I") have already been provided on Sheet SS-0.0. Item "j" requests that the
geotechnical engineer stamp the shoring plans. With respect to this request, the
requirements of OSPHD will be followed. Finally, Item "f' requests a copy of the OSHA
permit. Since OSHPD is reviewing the shoring plans, as a courtesy, this item can be
provided to City if needed.
Comment: Make revisions requested on the Geotechnical Report Review Checklist.
Response: Please see the attached letter from Kleinfelder, Inc. responding to the issues
addressed in the Geotechnical Report Review Checklist.
Comment: Refer to comments on the mitigation measures (attached to the Geotechnical
Report Review Checklist).
Response: For the most part, the hand-written comments from the Building Department
on the mitigation measures do not request additional information and identify issues
related to the mitigation measures. In general, the handwritten comments just summarize
the requirements of the mitigation measures. The only question raised relates to
Mitigation Measures #6-#8. The comment requested information on the specific
measures being taken to address corrosivity. These measures were addressed in the
geotechnical report from Kleinfelder (dated December 19, 2002) that was previously
provided to the Building Department. Additionally, the following mitigation measures
will be implemented (as identified in the specification sections 15510 and the Mechanical
and Plumbing plans):
1. All concrete in contact with soil will be Type V cement;
2. Soldier piles will be painted with Bitumastic cover with the toes in structural
concrete and the tops in slurry. Tie back anchors will have a double -corrosion
protection system per Post -Tension Institute guidelines; and,
3. All buried piping and connections will be non-metallic and consist of plastic
(PVC or HDPE) or fiberglass (RFP) pipes.
Page 2
City Staff
May 21, 2003
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Comment: On May 1, representatives of Hoag Hospital met with Kim Lerch to review
the Fire Department's comments on the civil and landscape plans for the Central Plant.
At that meeting, Hoag agreed to the Fire Department's request to move the Fire
Department Connection Post Indicator Valve approximately 180' west to a location
approximately 130' south of the Edison yard component of the project.
Response: Refer to revised Sheet # C-2 which shows the relocated equipment.
Comment: All mitigation measures were signed. Mitigation measure #91 contained a
note requiring that a site plan for the construction phase with turnaround shall be
approved prior to combustibles being brought on site.
Response: Refer to Sheet # C-2, which shows the lower tier of the parking lot and
identifies the turnaround. Also refer to Sheet # C-7, which shows the upper tier of the
parking lot and identifies the turnaround. These turnarounds will remain accessible
during construction and will not be impacted by construction staging activities.
Comment: Provide note on plan (Sheet MG 2.10): "Vent pipes shall not be less than 18"
above adjacent grade."
Response: Louis Pandolfi of GeoScience Analytical, Inc., had a conversation with Kim
Lerch regarding the request that vent pipes be 18" above the adjacent grade. According
to Louis Pandolfi, based on that conversation, Kim Lerch approved vent pipes to be 12"
above the adjacent grade (as shown on Sheet MG 2.10, Detail 12).
Comment: Provide note on plan: " `Methane Gas' shall be printed in 2" letters on
ventilation pipe near termination point and at 5-foot intervals along remainder of pipe."
Response: Note # 1 on Sheet MG2.10 has been revised, and a copy of the sheet is
enclosed.
GENERAL SERVICES
Comment: All proposed trees must not be of a species that will mature to a height that
exceeds grade of the existing and future Sunset View Park.
Response: Hoag is currently working with the Planning Department on issues related to
its zoning, including landscape criteria; therefore, we are unable to respond to this issue
at this time. We suggest that since this was the only issue with the landscape plans, that
Page 3
City Staff
May 21, 2003
the plans be approved, with a requirement that prior to the installation of landscaping in
this specific area, the issue be resolved with the City.
Comment: Is applicant going to clean v-ditch drainage system?
Response: The v-ditch drainage system will be subject to regular maintenance by Hoag
Hospital.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The Planning Department had no comments on the Central Plant plans. Signatures on the
mitigation sheets need to be provided.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Comment: Mitigation measure compliance from documentation provided in binder with
plan submittal on April 9.
Response: None of the mitigation measures that were submitted to the Public Works
Department were provided with the City comments. Since they were submitted with the
plans, it is assumed that they were approved as part of the Public Works Department's
review of the plans; however, the mitigation sheets need to be signed.
Comment: Sheet C-2 and C-3 — Fire hydrants are required every 300 feet along this
water main. A 12" line valve should be at every other fire hydrant tee.
Response: Refer to revised Sheet # C-2 and Sheet # C-3 which included the requested
information.
Comment: Sheet C-2 — The following are required for Detail A: 6" FE X MJ RW gate
valve, 12" FE X MJ FR gate valve, 12" blind flange with thrust block, 12" X 6" FE tee
and delete Note 41 from detail.
Response: Refer to Sheet # C-2, which has been revised to reflect the requested
information.
Comment: Sheet C-2 — The following are required for Detail B: 12" X 4" MJ X FE tee
with thrust block, 4" FE X MJ RW gate valve, 4" PVC C-900 class 140, 4" X 3" FE
reducer in vault with a 3" meter.
Response: Refer to Sheet # C-2, which has been revised to reflect the requested
information.
Page 4
City Staff
May 21, 2003
Comment: Sheet C-3 — Need to install a 45 DEG ductile iron MJ fitting at Sta. 9+39.24
and Sta. 10+91.32.
Response: Refer to Sheet # C-3, which has been revised to reflect the requested
information.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Comment: Condition of Approval # 101 should be added to the traffic binder.
Response: The documentation in support of Mitigation Measure #101 is contained in the
Traffic Engineering copy of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan binder. The sign -off sheet
has been added to the binder, and the binder is being resubmitted. Signatures remain to
be provided on all of the mitigation measures.
Comment: Sheet A-1: The parking layout and fire lane at the Upper Terrace Parking
area are inconsistent with Sheet C-7 of the Civil set. Do parking stalls on the Upper
Terrace Parking area have wheel stops or curbs?
Response: Sheet # A-1 shows the existing Lower Campus Upper Terrace Parking Lot's
new striping as part of the Central Plant. Sheet # C-7 shows the existing parking lot with
underground construction (trenching). There is no conflict between these two sheets.
Please refer to Traffic Engineering's initial plan check confluent set which has been
annotated with comments in green pencil to clarify this point. The parking stalls on the
upper terrace parking area have curbs.
Comment: According to the Hoag Hospital Master Plan, there are plans for an access
road to Superior Avenue via the Superior Parking Lot entrance. With the addition of the
Cogen Building, this would appear to be eliminated. What are the plans for the Superior
Avenue access road'?
Response: Refer to Sheet # A-1 of Traffic Engineering's initial plan check comments.
This sheet shows the ability to maintain access to a Superior Avenue connection. Hoag
will be reviewing the option to install the connecting road as a separate project sometime
in the future as the lower campus development necessitates the need.
A contractor has been hired to commence work on the Central Plant, and Hoag would
like to commence work in accordance with the resubmitted plans on June 13, 2003;
therefore, we would like to obtain the grading permit by June 13, 2003. Please call me as
soon as possible if there are any remaining questions on the resubmitted plans, so we can
immediate get them answered for you.
Page 5
City Staff
May 21, 2003
C: David Boyle, David A. Boyle Engineering
Peri Muretta, Hoag Consultant
Bill Rabben, Rabben Herman Design
Neal Rinella, Taylor and Associates
Gary Simmons, Taylor and Associates
Enclosures: Six sets of revised civil and landscape plans
City staff comment plan sets from initial submittal (Building, Fire,
General Services, Public Works and Traffic)
Revised Sheet MG2.10 (Methane Gas Protection System)
Letter from Kleinfelder on geotechnical issues
Building Department Mitigation Monitoring Plan Binders (2)
Traffic Engineering Mitigation Monitoring Plan Binder
Page 6
A/STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate, Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302
(562) 590-5071
Page 1 of 3
Date: June 2, 2003
Permit No: 5-02-325
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
On December 10, 2002, the California Coastal Commission granted to Hoag Memorial
Hospital Presbyterian Coastal Development Permit 5-02-325, subject to the attached
Standard and Special Conditions, for development consisting of: construction of a
23,657 square foot, two story, 45 feet high Cogeneration Building, 5,194 square
foot, concrete cooling tower yard with four cooling towers surrounded by
concrete walls with a maximum height of 32 feet, and a 1,200 square foot
concrete pad area for enclosure of Southern California Edison compatible
equipment, and other related miscellaneous development. More specifically
described in the application file in the Commission offices.
The development is within the coastal zone in Orange County at One Hoag Drive,
Newport Beach.
Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission on June 2, 2003.
PETER DOUGLAS
Executive Director
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
By:
Title
Coastal Program An4jyst
The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this permit and agrees to abide by
all terms and conditions thereof.
The undersigned permittee acknowledges that Government Code Section 818.4 which
states in pertinent part, that: "A public entity is not liable for injury caused by the
issuance ... of any permit ..." applies to the issuance of this permit.
IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE
PERMIT WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE
COMMISSION OFFICE. 14 CAL. ADMIN. CODE SECTION 13158(a).
O.//P10 3
Date Signature of Permittee
Please sign and return one copy of this form to the Commission office at the above
address.
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
No. 5-02-325
Page 2 of 3
STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and
development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the
permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and
acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office.
2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years
from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development
shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of
time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration
date.
3. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be
resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission.
4. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided
assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and
conditions of the permit.
Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall
be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind
all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and
conditions.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Conformance of Design and Construction Plans to Geotechnical Information
A. All final design and construction plans, including grading, foundations, site plans,
elevation plans, and drainage plans, shall be consistent with all
recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by
Kleinfelder, Inc., and dated August 15, 2002. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF
THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit, for the
Executive Director's review and approval, evidence that the appropriate licensed
professional has reviewed and approved all final design and construction plans
and certified that each of those final plans is consistent with all of the
recommendations specified in the above -referenced geologic evaluation
approved by the California Coastal Commission for the project site.
B. The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the approved
final plans. Any proposed changes to the approved final plans shall be reported
to the Executive Director. No changes to the approved final plans shall occur
without a Commission amendment to this coastal development permit unless the
Executive Director determines that no amendment is required
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
No. 5-02-325
Page 3 of 3
2. Drainage and Run -Off Control Plan
A. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the
applicants shall submit, for review and approval of the Executive Director, a
drainage and runoff control plan showing roof drainage and runoff from all
impervious areas directed to dry wells or vegetated/landscaped areas.
Vegetated landscaped areas shall only consist of native plants or non-native
drought tolerant plants which are non-invasive.
B. The permittees shall undertake development in accordance with the approved
final plan. Any proposed changes to the approved final plan shall be reported to
the Executive Director. No changes to the approved final plan shall occur without
a Commission amendment to this coastal development permit unless the
Executive Director determines that no amendment is required.
3. Location of Debris Disposal Site
The applicant shall dispose of all demolition and construction debris resulting from the
proposed project at an appropriate location outside the coastal zone. If the disposal site
is located within the coastal zone, a coastal development permit or an amendment to
this permit shall be required before disposal can take place.
Document2 Printed on June 2, 2003 my/Im (G/Permit 2003) Hoag Hospital
f
HOAG®
HOSPITAL
One Hoag Drive PO Box 6100
Newport Beach CA 92658-6100
949/645-8600
www.hoaghospital.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 16, 2003
TO:
FROM: Jim Easley, Hoag Hospital
RE:
Faisal Jurdi, Building Department
Gregg Ramirez, Planning Department
N31-No3
Plan Check No. 0931-2003 — Third Plan Check Submittal
Hoag Hospital has reviewed comments on the civil and landscape plans for the Lower
Campus Central Plant (Cogen Building) that were initially submitted for review on April
9, 2003, and submitted for second plan check on May 21, 2003. It is our understanding
that the following Departments have approved the plans for the Lower Campus Central
Plant: Public Works (including Utilities and Traffic Engineering) Department, General
Services Department and Fire Department. Responses to comments from the Building
Department and the Planning Department on the second plan check submittal are
provided below.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1. Comment: Geotechnical Engineer to review revisions to the grading plans for
conformance with the intent of the geotechnical reports and stamp the plans.
Response: Please refer to the enclosed Civil Plans which have been stamped by
the Geotechnical Engineer.
2. Comment: Put the pertinent "Grading Notes" from Kleinfelder on plans.
Response: Please refer to the letter (p. 2) from Kleinfelder dated June 10, 2003
(enclosed), and the enclosed Civil Plans.
A NOT -FOR -PROFIT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ACCREDITED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS
OVHA
uuwln Impend
Faisal Jurdi
Gregg Ramirez
June 16, 2003
3. Comment: Show locations and details of subdrain system(s) and outlet for
retaining walls on grading plans when subdrain is required by soils report.
Response: Please refer Sheet P-1.2 (enclosed).
4. Comment: Provide building or structure setbacks from top and bottom of slope as
outlined in UBC Section 1806.5 and Figure 18-I-1.
Response: Please refer to the letter (p. 2) from Kleinfelder dated June 10, 2003
(enclosed), and the enclosed Sheet C-6 of the Civil Plans (which was also
provided in the previous plan check submittal).
5. Comment: List soils report recommendations on foundation plan.
Response: Refer to Sheet S-2.1, enclosed.
6. Comment: Provide additional information in geotechnical report related to
previous Comments 4 and 8.
Response: Please refer to letter (p. 2) from Kleinfelder, dated June 10, 2003
(enclosed).
7. Comment: Provide additional information in geotechnical report related to
previous Comment 5.
Response: Please refer to letter (p. 2) from Kleinfelder, dated June 10, 2003
(enclosed).
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Comment: Provide a letter from the archaeological/paleontological consultant
stating that they have been retained for this project.
Response: A letter from SWCA, the project archaeological/paleontological firm,
is enclosed.
2. Comment: Provide a copy of the Coastal Development Permit for the project.
Response: A copy of the Coastal Development Permit is enclosed.
Page 2
Faisal Jurdi
Gregg Ramirez
June 16, 2003
3. Comment: Comply with Mitigation Measure No. 118 as soon as plans are
approved by OSHPD.
Response: Once City staff has completed its review of the project plans, the
Planning Department can prepare the letter required for compliance with
Mitigation Measure # 118. This letter will be forwarded by Hoag Hospital to the
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.
We have not received signed mitigation measures from any of the departments, except
the Fire Department. Since the plans have been approved by some of the departments,
and the comments of the Planning Department and Building Department, including those
related to the mitigation measures, have been answered, we are assuming that City staff
has approved all of the mitigation measures.
If you have any questions on documentation submitted with this letter in support of the
third plan check for the Lower Campus Central Plant (Cogen Building) civil and
landscape plans, please call me as soon as possible. Hoag Hospital is anxious to
commence work on this project.
C: David Boyle, David A. Boyle Engineering
Peri Muretta, Hoag Consultant
Neal Rinella, Taylor and Associates
Gary Simmons, Taylor and Associates
Enclosures:
1. Building and Planning Departments comment plan sets from initial
and second plan check submittal.
2. Two sets of revised Civil Plans
3. Two sets of Sheets S-0.1, S-2.1, P-1.2, P-2.1 and P-4.2
4. Two copies of letter from Kleinfelder (dated June 10, 2003)
5. Copy of letter from SWCA
6. Copy of Coastal Development Permit
Page 3
/- 4t.0L e i . o F /✓ t_ri 1 9 � M s (i& 2 R.o- (r) :
30
ri
4;7
(p-4_t 3 6 =✓�ow J
/` rs i^^t ¶t Z
'
Z
: cj - sf - c,-4,-A, (L)
cti
55- 4,0
5_4:e g x ) 7 I eci_7