RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_07_16_06_San_Ramon_Project_Change_Order_Outlet_StructureCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
~LES JONES, INTERIM DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ~
JULY 16, 2013
VALUE ENGINEERED CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
OUTLET STRUCTURE -SAN RAMON PROJECT
(SUPPORTS 2013 CITY COUNCIL GOAL #2: SAN
RAMON CANYON PROJECT)
CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER
Project Manager: Ron Dragoo, Senior Engineer~
RECOMMENDATION
Review and approve the revised design of the outlet structure and authorize the Interim
Director of Public Works to execute Change Order Number 4 to the San Ramon
Canyon Stormwater Flood Reduction Project with L. H. Woods and Sons, Inc.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City Council authorized the first value engineered change order for an engineered
pipe substitution with L. H. Woods and Sons, Inc. at their May 21, 2013 meeting. A
special City Council Meeting was held on July 2, 2013 to fully explain the reasons and
process behind the value engineered change order to substitute the specified Permalok
with a welded steel pipe. At that meeting, Staff informed Council that they intended to
present another value engineered opportunity that will benefit the project. That
opportunity is for an alternative outlet structure constructed into the bluff at beach.
The outlet structure designed by Harris & Associates calls for two x 36-inch diameter CIDH
piles 8-feet apart, to be bored 30-feet into the rock at the base of the bluff on the beach. The
concrete for the piles would be poured in place to achieve an elevation of 45-feet above sea
level -each pile would have an overall length of over 60-feet. These piles must be
constructed as close to the bluff face as possible after the bluff has been carved out to create
a vertical face at the two pile locations. The top of each of the CIDH piles is held back against
the bluff using 4 post-tensioned tie backs anchored into the bluff. The slant-drain tunnel
transmitting runoff from the bluff top to the beach would exit the bluff between the two CIDH
6-1
piles about 20-feet above sea level. The concrete headwall associated with the outlet
structure is constructed by forming and structurally attaching it to the piles after the tunnel
sleeve is completed.
The boring of the 36-inch x 30-foot deep foundations into bedrock on the beach requires a
large machine, whose only access is along the beach from Royal Palms, more than % mile
away.
The design of the outlet structure was part of the original design of the project that the City
Council approved March 5, 2013.
The alternative design proposed by LH. Woods and their subcontractor, Drilltech is to install
a cast in place headwall, which is constructed from high strength shotcrete, installed in panel
sections from the top. Each section is anchored into the bluff using soil-nails, which are
embedded into the bluff in lengths varying from 10-feet to 60-feet long. There are a total of
38 soil nails associated with the cast in place headwall, which provide slightly more stability to
the bluffth·an the CIDH piles. Afterthe soil nails are installed, a 12-inch thick headwall and
joining wing-walls are installed using shotcrete, which, in addition to providing structural
integrity, is also textured (or carved) and colored to match the surrounding bluff.
Shotcrete is a widely used process where a specially designed concrete mix, which has a low
water-content, is shot out of a hose onto a sloped or vertical surface. The receiving surface
generally has two or three layers of steel (rebar) attached to it with specific spacing to ensure
that the rebar will remain in the designed location after the concrete is applied. In this case
the shotcrete will be applied in a 4" thick layer, followed later by a 12" layer, effectively
creating a 16" thick concrete wall. The concrete mix design is such that the concrete will
remain stuck in place after being shot, without slumping. This eliminates the need for an
outside form and allows the shotcrete to be sculptured for a natural appearance, before it
sets. Stain is then applied to provide a color similar to the adjacent bluff. Drilltech, LH Woods
sub-contractor who will be performing the work, is highly skilled on this construction
technique and has recently completed the retaining walls on the 405 Freeway through the
Sepulveda Pass.
Soil nails are solid steel bars that are inserted into 6-inch diameter holes drilled 19-60 feet
into the bluff face, the remaining space is then filled with grout. The heads of the soil nails are
incorporated into the rebar and these steel reinforced shotcrete walls create a monolithic
retaining wall.
The advantages of the alternative design are as follows:
• Beach access is not required for the heavy boring rig
• The entire structure is constructed against the bluff face, eliminating any gap between
the structure and the bluff
• The headwall is constructed in 5-sections, so the maximum amount of unsupported
bluff face is only 20% of the vertical height as opposed to the full height for the CIDH
piles
• The installation is more predictable and faster
• The completed structure blends into the surrounding and is far more appealing and
responds to the request by the Coastal Commission Staff to make the outlet
design less.obtrusive
6-2
• The stability of the bluff is improved over the existing design
• It saves the project money
The contractor has provided the City with all of the costs associated with changing from
the CIDH pile design to the proposed cast in place headwall and soil nail design, which
shows a potential saving of $230,000.00. City staff has reviewed the numbers and
verified that they are an accurate representation of the potential savings, however
negotiations are still in progress so the exact amount is not known at the time this report
was written. Staff will advise the City Council of the exact savings to the City at the
June 16, 2013 City Council meeting. The California Public Contract Code Section 7101
states:
"The state or any other public entity in any public works contract awarded to the lowest bidder, may
provide for the payment of extra compensation to the contractor for the cost reduction changes in the
plans and specifications for the project made pursuant to a proposal submitted by the contractor. The
extra compensation to the contractor shall be 50 percent of the net savings in construction costs as
determined by the public entity. For projects under the supervision of the Department of Transportation or
local or regional transportation entities, the extra compensation to the contractor shall be 60 percent of the
net savings, if the cost reduction changes significantly reduce or avoid traffic congestion during
construction of the project, in the opinion of the public entity. The contractor may not be required to
perform the changes contained in an eligible change proposal submitted in compliance with the provisions
of the contract unless the proposal was accepted by the public entity."
Proposals of this type submitted by contractors are typically referred to as value
engineered proposals. If the proposal is accepted by the City, the Public Contract Code
requires that the savings initiated by the contractor must be shared on a 50:50 basis
between the City and the contractor. Therefore the potential savings offered to the City
for this design change is $115,000.00.
The proposed design change has been extensively reviewed by Ninyo and Moore, the
Geotechnical consultants of record for the project and has been accepted by Harris and
Associates, the design engineer. The normal Submittal process will be followed, which will
require the review and acceptance of the method statements and all materials to be used
in the construction process for the outlet structure. In addition, tests will be conducted on
test soil nails during the initial phases of the work and if necessary, modifications to the
design will be made.
Because the City Council approved the original project design, including the design of
the outlet structure, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised design.
The City Council's approval of the revised design would be based on the advantages of
the new design, which are set forth above, and the review and approval of the revised
design by the project's geotechnical consultants, Ninyo and Moore, and by the project
design engineer, Harris and Associates. Therefore, Staff recommends the acceptance
of the Value Engineering proposal for the alternative outlet structure design, which
represents a potential saving of $115,000 to the project and requests the City Council
authorize the Interim Director of Public Works to execute the Change Order to the San
Ramon Stormwater Floodwater Reduction Project to formalize the change.
CONCLUSIONS
Adopting staff's recommendations will authorize the Interim Director of Public Works to
6-3
execute the attached Contract Change Order, changing the contract requirements to
allow for the alternative outlet structure design.
FISCAL IMPACT
Adopting staff's recommendation could reduce the overall cost of construction by
approximately $115,000.
Attachments: A)
B)
Contract Change Order
Acceptance of Revised Design by Harris & Associates and
Ninyo & Moore (Geotechnical Consultants)
6-4
Project:
CITYOF~\J
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Palos Verdes, CA 90275
San Ramon Canyon Storm Drain System Project
Rancho
Change Order # 4
Attention: Mike Ireland
L.H. Woods & Sons, Inc.
2115 La Mirada Drive
CA 92801
Vista,
Description I Quantity Unit Price Amount
Value Engineering to construct the alternative design outlet structure as proposed by LH Woods and approved
by Ninyo & Moore and Harris & Associates. The cost saving is shared at a 50:50 ratio with the contractor. All -50% I 230,000.00 I LS -115,000.00
expenses are included in the net saving. Note: This CO is subject to final approval of the submittals by Harris
& Associates and acceptance by the City Council.
Original Contract Value
Total Value of all Previous Change Orders
Total Revised Contract Sum Prior to this Change Order
Value of this Change Order
New Contract Sum
Change in Contract Days
Revised Contract Completion Date Excluding Non-Change Order Delays
Accepted: LH Woods & Sons
By
Date:-----------
Authorized: Rancho Palos Verdes
By
Date:------------
Total
By
-115,000.00
15,140,000.00
-292,466.40
14,847,533.60
-115,000.00
14, 732,533.60
0
4/6/2014
Construction Manager
Date: ___________ ~
~
Q)
0
::J"'
3
CD
::J ..+
)>
6
-
5
Attachment B
N&M MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 11, 2013
TO: Alan Braatvedt
FROM: Daniel Chu and Jim Barton
PROJECT! San Ramon Storm Drain (Ninyo & Moore Project No. 208342002)
R.E: DTDS Submittal #006, Revision #01 -Outlet Structure Soil Nail Wall Design
Proposal, Response to Review Comments1 LHW Submittal No. 62, Project #
010909 -San Ramon Canyon Storm Orain Project, City of Palos Verdes, dated
June 28, 2013
Ninyo & Moore, 2013, San Ramon -Outlet Structure Conference Call, dated July
8.
DTDS Submittal #006, Revision #02 -Outlet Structure Soil Nall Wall Design
Proposal, Response to Review Comments, LHW Submittal No. 62.2, Prqject #
010909 -San Ramon Canyon Storm Drain Project, City of Pal.as Verdes, dated
July 9, 2013 ·
We have reviewed the responses to our review of Submittal No. 62.0 by Drill Tech. Based on
our review, the contractor has adequately addressed the geotechnical issues for the design of
the soil nail wall outlet structure.
Re.,ponse 10 Submittal No 62 0 doc
6-6
July9, 2013
DTDS Job No. 1310
Michael· Ireland
Project Manager
L.:a. Woods & Sons, Inc.
475 Washington Blvd.
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
RE: DTDS Submittal #,006, Revision #02 -Outlet,Stru:cture Soil Nail Wall D~ig1fProposal
Response to Review Comments
LRW Submittal No.62;2
Project# 010909 -San Ramon Canyon Storm Drain Project
City of Rancho '.P·alos Verdes
Mr. Ireland,
In response to the concems expressed by Ninyo & Moore (N&M) during our confe.rence call held on July8, 2013, attached
are revised calculations and construction drawings for the proposed soil nail wall at the outlet structure.
Drill Tech has reevaluated the existing slope condition based on our slope geometry used in the initial design and Ute soil
parameters proviQ.ed in the geotechnical report and came up with an existing glob11l slope stability factor ofsafetyof1;019.
The proposed soil nail shoring system improves the global slope stability factor of safety to l .085, for a net improvement of
.066. The originally designed CIDH pile and tieback system improved.the global slope stabi1ityfactor of safety by .OSS
based on the slope geometry generated by N&M. In conclu,sion, the soil nlril wall system p:roVides an equivalent
improvement to th~ global slope stapility factor of safety as originally designed, See revised calculatibns attached.
Additionally, the soil nail testingprocedures .have been amended to mc1udetwo (2)test n~lsmstaUed at a ~0' tmibed1llel:lt
depth. One test nail will be tested for ultimate strength with a 1 O' bonded length and the second test nail will be
verification tested with a 19' bonded length. Please seethe revised notes, details, and test schedules in the attached
drawings.
I hope that these calculations and drawings adequately address N&M's concerns •. If you have any questions otrequil:e any
further information.don't hesitate to contact.me.
Sincerely,
Drill Tech Drilling & Shoring, Inc.
Derek McDonald, P .E.
2200 Wymore Way-Antioch, CA 94509.;8548 -(925) 978-2060 -Fax: (925) 978-2063
22223 Forest Boundary Road-Corona, CA 928834956-(951)277~9700-Fax: (951)277-9701
6-7
San Ramon Canyon Storm Drain Project City of Rancho Palos Verdes
c:\users1,derek.mcdonald.drillteeh\desktop\1310 san ramon canyon storm drain\value englneerfng\ve#01 -outtet strucb:ire\rO\sliuclural calculations\slop slablftty analys!s.pl2 Run By: Derek McDonald 71912013 oi
~o . . . .
# FS Soil Soi1 T¢tal Saturated COhesiOn Friction pore Pressure f'iet.
a 1Jl19 oesc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt Intercept .Angle Pressure Co115tant Sut:face
b 1.019 No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf} No.
c 1.019 Qols 1 105;0 110;0 Aniso AniSO o.oo 0;0 o
d 1.019
180 H e 1.os1
f 1,061
g t.061
h 1.064
I 1.077
150
120 6,-
'1
90 f-r
60
30 1,
1
~ f ! i !
d
lf 1 i
6
----~ -<:>---1!..--o---~J!__,_o 1 1
I
0'--~~--'~~~-'-~~~-'-~~~-'-~~~-'-~~~-'-~~~'--~~--'~~~--'-~~~-'
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
GSTABL7v,2 FSmln=1.019
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The ·srmplifled Janbu Method
6
-
8
yon
yon
C:slop stability analysis.OUT Page l
*** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current \rersion 2.005, Sept. 2006 **
{All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited) .
* * * * * * *** * ••.••• ***** ** ** ** ** * ******* •.• :** * * **.***** ****" **** *** *** ** ** ** * * * ******* * SLOPE STABILITY .ANALYSIS SYST$'f.i
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of slices.
(Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price 'l'ype Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, soil Nail, Tieback,
Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, CUrve.d Phi Envelope,
Anisotropic Soil, Fiber'-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water
su:rfac.es, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and A:PPlied Forces.
* ** * ****** ** ** ******* * ** .. * ** **** ***.********* ....... ,,. **** ..... .., *** *:*"'**** ** ******* ** * * Analysis Run Date: 7/9/2013
Time of Run: 04: 38.PM
Run By: Derek McDonald
Input Data Filename: C:\O'sers\derek.mcdonald.DRILLTECH\Desktop\1310 sa.n Rlimon qan
storm Drain\Value Engineering\VE#01 -outlet Structure\Ro\struct:ural calculations\slop
Output Filename: C:\O'sers\derek.mcdonald.DRlLLTECI{\Desktop\1310 San Ramon Can
Storm Prain\Value Engineering\VE#Ol -outlet Structure\RO\structural calculations\slop
Unit System: . English
yon
Plot.ted Output Filename: C:\O'sers\derek.mcdonald.DRJ:LLTECH\Desktop\1310 Sart Ramon Can
storm Drain\Value .Engineering\VE#Ol -Outlet Structure\RO\structural calculations\slop
PROBLEM OESCRlPT.ION: San Ramon canyon Storm Drain Project .
BOUNDARY COORDlNA'l'.ES
10 Top B.oundaries
10 Total Boundaries
City of Rancho .Palos Verdes
Boundary :x;-Left Y-Left
No. (ft) {ft)
l O.QO 6.00
X-Right
(f.t)
32.00
s6.oo
S!hOO
82.00
93,00
Y-Right
(ft)
12.00
38.00
54.00
86.00
94.00
soil T;ype
Below Bnd
l
2 32.00 12.00
3 56.00 38.00
4 59.00 54 •. 00
s 82.00 86.00
6 83. 00 94. 00
7 138.00 137.00
8 163. 0-0 138 •. oo
9 238.00 138.46
10 262.00 139.0.0
Default Y-Origin = O.OO(ft)
Default X-Plus value= o.OO(ft)
Default Y-P.lus value = o. oo (ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
l Type{s) of soil
Soil Total saturated Cohesion
Type unit Wt. unit Wt. Intercept
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf.}
l 105.0 110.0 360.0
~ISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS
· 1 s()il type (s)
138.00
163.00
238.00
262.00
289.00
Friction
Mgle
(deg)
38.0
Soil .Type l Is Anis.otropic
1-iumber of Direction Ranges specified = 3
137.00
138.00
138,46
139.00
141.00
Pore
Pressure
Pa.ram.
o.oo
Pressure
Constant
('psf) o.o
Direction counterclockwise Cohesion Fr;i.ction
Angle
(deg)
38.00
17.00
38.00
~ange Direction Limit Intercept
No. (deg} (psf)
l 5.0 360.00
2 12.0 o.oo
3 90. 0 360. 00
ANISOTROPIC SOIL NOTES;
l
l
i
1
l
l
l
l
l
Pie2.
surface
No,
0
(1) An input value of 0.01 for c and/or Phi will cause Aniso
c and/or Phi to be ignored in that range.
(2) An: input value of 0.02 for Phi will set both Phi and
C equal to zero, with no water weight in the tension crack.
(3) An: input value of o. 03 for Phi will set both Phi and
c equal to zero, with water weight in the tension ~rack.
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
stabi
stabi
stabi
6-9
Memo
To: Alan Braatvedt From:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Public Works Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Date: July a, 2013
Cc: E(izabeth Reyes, PE
--Harris & Associates
Randall Berry, PE Program Managers ------='-----Construc:tion Managers
CML Engineers
Subject Review of Submittal# 62.1 Alt Outl.et structure design calculations for the San Ramon Canyon
SD Project
~ DPJe~~ .. eReply OOrigJ.:::::~~
Comments:
Submittal No. 62.1· Alternative Outlet Structure Design: Reviewed. Plans were reviewed for
general conformance.
Thank you for the opportunity to review these submittals and, as usual, don't hesitate to call or
e-mail if you have any questions or require anything additional.
Sincerely,
Randall Berry, PE
34 Executive Park, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92614-4705 (949) 655-3900x314 FAX (949) 655-3995 irvine@harriscassoc.com
6-10
JUn.e 28, 2013
DTDS Job No. 1310
Michael Ireland
Project Manager
L.H. Woods & Sons, Inc.
475 Washington Blvd.
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Reviewed
Rej~>cted
Make C\ln:c'Ctions Noted
Revise and Resubmit
1£1
D
0
D
Checking · l conformance
~ith the and the
contract
documents. This shop drawing is not a
coniract document and, therefore does
not constitute an authorization to
deviate from . Lhe terms and CClrtditions
of the contract.
FIC'CADh'Nil WAO(lONER end C.1\St!..E
STRUC'TllRAI. ENGINEERS.
BY: M.G .. S.E. DATE:7/3/13
RE: DTDS .Submittal #006, Revision #01 -Outlet Structure Soil Nail Wall Design Proposal
Response to.Review Comments
LHW S11bmittal No.62
Project# 010909 -San Ramon Canyon Storm Drain Project
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Mr. Ireland,
Provided below is our response to the comments provided by both:Ninyc> &Moore and Harris & Associates, dated July 2,
2013.
Response to coOllllents provided by Ninyo & Moore:
1) The surface topography presented on the cross section for the sfope stability anal)'$is by brillTech is different than
th:e topography presented in the geotechn:ical report dated June 28, 2012. The topography has aslight impact to th:e
results of the slope stability factor of safety. We recommend th:at the contractor review the cross seclion D'-D;
(figure 8) of the geotechnicalreport and pl'.ovideju$titication for the changepresente<l on the$>ss section utiliied
in Drill Tech's analysis.
The surface "topography presented in theglobal slope stabili&analysis provided in ourin#ial design propo$al was~~
on the UJpographic infonnati,on provided in the CAD file of t/:te project plans. 1rrespective of this discrepanCJI with the
slope projiJes, it is Drill Tech's opinion that the 2% difference in factors ofsafet,y is negligible. A critical item that
should be noted is the fact that the largest "soil nail" in the outlet structure shoring system, the Slant Drain Tunnel
Casing, was not taken into account in either analysis.
2) Note 3 under shotcrete notes on Sheet SNl indicates a 2 in cover of concrete/shotcrete measured from the face of
th:e concrete/shotcrete to th:e face of th:e reinforcement. The thickness should be 3 inches due to the corrosion
potential ofth:e ocean environment.
Drill Tech agrees that a 3in concrete/shotcrete cover should be proVlded between the steel reinforcement and soil ft>r
corrosion purposes. However the referenced 2in clearance is consistent with the conformed project plansforthe outl.et
2200 Wymore Way-Antioch, CA 94509-8548 -(925) 978-2060 -Fax: (925) 978-2063
22223 Forest Boundary Road-Corona, CA 92883-4956-(951)277-9700-Fax: (951)277-9701
6-11
structure walls. Please 'inform if this clearance requireme;it need be applied. to all components ofthe outletstructure.
3) The design test loads during the verification testing and .proof testing of the sacrificial n,ails for tP.e allowable
pullout resistance values indicated 011 Sh~t SNl are diffc;tent. The contractor Should clarify and!Ol! justify the
specified allowable pullout resistance values of2. 72 kips/ft for the verification testing and 1.81 lqps/ft for the proof
testing.
1'h.is was a typographic error. Allowable p111lou_t resistance values have been ameniled. accord'ingly to reflect a value of
.2. 72 kip.sift.
4) 1n addition to the lo.ad test on the sacrificial soil nails, we recpnunend that the verification testing consiStsof te$ting
5% of the production soilnails to twice the design load to be performed in accordance with the procedures outlined
in FHW A-SA-96;.()69 manual. The purpose of the load test on sacrificial soil nails is to verify the assu.med
bonding stress (2.72 kips/ft) used in this design.
In general, the purpose of load testing soil. nails is to veriJY the assumetfbond stress. used in design regardless of
whether the load testing is performed on sacrijkial or produc(io.n sou nai/.s. A stai!,dar4 'indu$by practite always
implemented by Drill Tech 'm all soil nail pr<Jjed$ is to itzSfall sacrificial teSt np.~ to the equivalent 5% of the
production Mil 'Jllantity to perf<mn the required testing. Tlte main purpose/or using sacrijieialstiilnalls is to a:voidtlte
creation of a coltljo'int In tlte grout column of the production soil. naltsthateouldpose a significant eotrosi(Jn mk, as
well.as avoid any detrimental effects to the structural'integl'/.zy oftheproil!lcti(Jn soiJ. nai# as· a resultiJf~ad (estlfig. Jn
DrllJ Tech 's professwnrdopinion load testingsht'1J1ld be.perf<mned exclu,zyeiy.on sa.crijieial testlJliils andtheproposed
testing scheme should rema'in the s(lme.
Response to comments. provided byHanis & Associates:
S.heet SN3 ...,Additional Bars requit«{ at openii:l,g pel' 12/S.27.
Steel re'inforcementfor the outlet Strucmre components will remain the same as no'tedon sheet SN4 anif,Detllili!SNS
(With the exception of the omitted CI1JHpile and tiiback.systemth(lf is to be l'eplm:edbytheSoilNail S)'steinJ The
note 'incluiled on sheet SN4 has been amended to rejlectthe referenced detail an4 this note has been added to sheet
SN3.
Sheet SNS-Based,on geotechnical report lateral values (23Hsolid.outward ~and.reversed i()H for <J.ynamic,forces),
the structural wall, as detailed on sheet 83 7 of the orlgimil structural sub~ittalis ok with tiebacks as $hown onSh4'et SN3.
An additional review will be rQ<).u~ after drill tech responds to coIO.tllents on .this review .and from the geotecbnical
engineer.
Noted.
Sheet SNS • Pl~ pro~de clafification in Calcti4ttions how these test loads (actµSl anchor stre$Sil:ig and permanent anchor
load) c0mpare to the design forces used in the calculations (87 .3 kips and 78 .. 2 kips)used to calculate.the ~factors for
the slope.
The test loat,l'ing is used to confirm th'11 the assumed grout-to-ground bond stress used 'in design is fldetJ,uate. Tlte
design test load is based on a 10' gr<Juted length and the incrementa/. lo~g scheme is.therecommeniled 'increme,,tal
loading distinguished by FHWA. The referenced design forces of the soil anchors 11sedi1J tliecalculation~ tp produce
the F.S. of the slope is the acmal Stressincu"ed by the soU.nail as a result(Jftbe worstcasefailute pla.nesurflice ba$d
on the given soil parameters,, slope geometry, assumed grout-to-ground flondstrm of the.soil ancit.ot, tensile strength of
the soil anchor, and/acing str1tngth of ihe shotcrete walJ. All yalues.are known or given with the exception of the gro1.1t-
to-ground bond stress that was assumed by Drill Tech, hence the requirement o/load tesffetgto co11flmra4tJ9.uacy of the.
bond stress used in design. If the 1oadtestssatl$JY the acceptance.criteria e~lished ]Jy FHW A (Se,e SheetSNI ... Test
nan Acceptance criteria) then the assumed bond stress is sufficlenfaridJhs F.s. ,of die slope is accurate gtanted the
given soilparameters are· accurate.
Drill Tech hopes you find our responses to the comments satisfactory, Please ex.tend our thanks to Hllnis & Associates,
6-12
Ninyo & Moore, and KOA for being receptive to this design change and promptly responding to our design proposal as
time is of the essence for this work Attached you will :find the revised construction drawings reflecting the changes
addressed above.
If you have any questions orrequire any further information don't hesitate to contact:me@Sl0-714-5475.
Sincerely,
Drill Tech Drilling & Shoring, Inc.
Derek McDonald. P .E.
6-13
····-···· ----·---·--'""""·--···---·--·-----··-----------·-·--------·-.. -·----
6-14
@OUltET STRUCTURE SOIL NAIL WALL -Pl.AN
!iVU':. A$,Hl'IN
HCl~ SCILNM.Wti..SY~riat5Mt~""'10KSMXf~ ot.~"IHilW.~U.$
,-1-1-I 1-~'Z'/~»lleflW..~ .. MCCPHAlJ) """ ~ lltt l.IJL"f,.~lOU llll3'0N!ElOUMIOft1.PflMXDN.Y2,'.20fJ I~.: l~JWDI
;---+-----1-------------------l~u.JCSJ ISIJICOIQllCJloC ~SttOllO.t.ll SJHECTSO!t( U? Catoii .. ~,~ --·-~~.:-!!'~...:-faic ~:-3!_1*_!_~--___ ,
SAN RAMON CANYON STORM DRAlN
C!TY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
OUTLET Sl'RUClURE SOIL NAIL WALL -PLAN
1/·f.HQt .. 1'..q<
"
"""'
SN2
6
-
1
5
I
I
NJ..KM.Stl'4 PQUiW u:t-Ul ... 21--..0· #ttll ~!Mt:
'lU-1.£4--24'4 f! Ot·1S BM"'
1-------CSf"'9(j"W.tf.--------1
~·~ ~i
Ln-u:t-lt~ItQt:J;Mt
104.0 ~ 24'~ ft.Cit 7$ QM:
'I """"-~~:-F~.~GRHlE
MM.S·ft'-4'~«WW
l-------'tA>f""'wu--------1 +
<&
d.
"' .. @OUTLET STRUCTURE SOil NAIL WALL -ELEVATION
SH SCM£: ,,s-9f0Jlf
HO~ .mt ~·l'E'f'Ai .rti ?J!\t~ Sllll>:Jl.!lll·sia(s, NG~ .... flDUtil H s.wE.. :;a~! m • .a.~. NO $ll IE KPRO.Cef Pl"1tS
-I""' 1-,,...... I"""'" illO. ~AINC:tr.:ZOl)ffM..~-O.~ ·£$~
i11;1 IM.Y2.21m IRl'liPCt«JO'COIAIEHl'SPAOW0-1.U.1.ao1s I~_; f~~
out. !~to ...---t----1-----------------------1 AfllE ». 20U
..
SAN RAMON CANYON STORM DRAIN
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
CUTLET STRUCTURE SOIL NAIL WALL -ELEVATION
LEGEND
f'OllWOir$Gl~
f'IW"~S0t.JU4.
\Olf)(:ADOllSQl.M>.\. ,,,,,,,_
"""""""' ....,..,...,.
1/4t0i''!' .; .. tj
.....
SN3
> I •
6
-
1
6
OIQ"lfllt()W~
OSOM"st.\l'Dfllff.~
ACtuu. U:r.Anat tF :IPt.UfA'r DC -.1. l!E f'CIA Ulet.tm NltR. DI(
filk.SJADCitVAnc.4~1$~ ~·wu.
tlferniwt $0 f'ff: STA 10t1$ /Ht 1~ Wf'ROJC,}.
,_,.,.,....,... ......
P!aC>llJWl$-$1\l-'lt1~41\
fW. 00005. MOf,-~ RIR·CUl'll'l. \
ososr=~~---
//
//
'"""""'""'° /~/ ~ //
.~(E)...... //·
" /
/ /'
/,/
-..::;;~ .. /·/
__ .._A/-/.
/
I ,
'J ~!' ,;.
///
,////
I //
I / 11
I I
I I
!' r I ,1
.//
/
~ ;~~"'""'"''" ~ ""' -=
@O.LlTtrT STRU£TUR£
914 .......
'" ~
-TYPICAL sE:cTION SQIL NAIL WALL
:!'fOTE;,~~r-1>tJ1oU~QJl\(T"$~~~~1rNJ.StiU.IJ)lJMDf:SAkf. &Ktr$27,S3t,S».PC1·'1Jttx·tt£PllO,(CT.~,
:~ """ ,,.,.,..,,,.,.......,.. ,._ .. ....,,
'"' lpev.201s lfflllrrL~ , .. .._... As-O~~E~lf :A:1 j.l.l.TZ~f.S. _J~10COllMCMTS.~AY:t.~S J""""'"" ... ....., ·-"" .... ............. "" ru~~ .. ~.,~~ 1~ ~~~~-.$JH£.27.20!3
---@ ,e':.~M
/' _ _.,,.-
SAN RAMON CANYON STORM DRAIN ..,,,
CITY Of RANCHO PALOS VERDES SN4 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
OUTLET SlRUCTURE SOIL NAIL WAU. -SECTION -'
6
-
1
7
1-·..--:11·· . .
~~~v:.
"
@l£Nllt!CPLJ\1t
4
1-t/t"•llCU(T'rP.)
0
@ P§RMAJ:iENI SOIL NAIL A$SEMBLY -_ SECTION ......
1•.$/4.lti:U (l"!P.) l/4•J1.lt'NO.D Snx>S
0
t 0 1_1
,,j I
[
~
"' .............
ttlflt.YA&i~
'°'"""' "'"'''"' I m Ii
....
@ SACRIFICIAL TEST NAIL ASSEMBLY -SECTION .. ....
I ..
!Dl.ML-'S5D&.T(nf",@
*'-'IO"MO\cut
sa ·QVNC:C oi:tM::$@
~
...,.,,...,....,, -·-
......... 1-11"tltO~-t---t-SllOltRElt
I flOf(; .._I I v.m.
fU~~~.-~
~
@ PERMANENT SHQTCRETE FACING DETAIL
96 Jrj()sat(
SOIL NAIL TEST scHEOULE
<!<-..,, ...
...... .... ... ·-1~l0191"$. .,,.,_ .........
'·""' 11-"'"' , ..... .... ...
1:m. ........
""" 41.eGltPS
1"4ll£EPtMU -.......
~.l
·R.rrK~-v .. ~
@ PARifAl ELEYAJIQN-DRA!NAGE
SJe MH~U @ DRAINAGE DETAILS
96 MO'st.IU
.. i l
@PERMANENT BEARING PLATE QETAILS ........ ·-r 1-I"""'"" l""" lllci.ucir.·::oslHl¥4,~ O.~ MfHlrlN.
.ltt 1-.u:r.t.~IJ 1~tD~~~·:z.201J I~~ J~'l~
~--t---_,f--------------------i~v .. .tDI;, (SIJIJCi>mUctJoU-
SAN RAMON CANYON STORM DRAIN
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS vEROES
LOS ANGELES COUNTY. CA
OUTI.£T STRUCTURE SOIL NAIL WALL -DETAILS
SN5
6
-
1
8