>> Leave comment << Response to Construction Submittals No. 16 As of 10-Aug-2010 4:10 PM CT Vitruvian Infrastructure Phase 1C Park 4010 Marsh Lane Addison, Texas 75001 Project Number: 1308C Status: Outstanding Overdue Product Classification Category 02860 - SCREENING DEVICE Attachment(s) Screenwallwithretaining wall Notes Description Masonry Screenwall/Retaining Wall Design Certification Section: 2 - Sitework Int. Tracking #: Submitted by: Jennifer Haynes Issue Date: 13-Jul-2010 4:09 PM CT Est. Delivery Date: 13-Jul-2010 Actual Date Received: Sent To: Eric Little (First Recipient) Requested By: 27-Jul-2010 4:04 PM CT Copy to: Joel Massey Nick Jacob Clay Barnett History (Chronological Order) Type Routed Memo VIII: Please review as soon as possible. Attached Files (none) Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Eric Little Date Sent: 19-Jul-2010 3:11 PM CT To: Victor Lissiak III Requested By: 27-Jul-2010 4:04 PM CT Copy to: Joel Massey Nick Jacob Wade Geistweidt Bruce Dunne Deiadra Burns Clay Barnett Type Routed Memo Eric, The screenwall design was removed from Viewtech's responsibility. This submittal should be forwarded to the screenwall design engineer for their review. Attached Files (none) Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Victor Lissiak III Date Sent: 19-Jul-2010 3:50 PM CT To: Eric Little Requested By: 27-Jul-2010 4:04 PM CT Copy to: Joel Massey Wade Geistweidt Bruce Dunne Deiadra Burns Clay Barnett Type Routed Memo Per Clay, please review. Attached Files (none) Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Eric Little Date Sent: 22-Jul-2010 11:15 AM CT To: Brian LaFoy Requested By: 27-Jul-2010 4:04 PM CT Copy to: Wade Geistweidt Type Routed Memo Please review and comment. Attached Files Vit Park - Screen Wall Submittal - With Comments By NDM.pdf Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Eric Little Date Sent: 27-Jul-2010 4:04 PM CT To: Wade Geistweidt Requested By: 28-Jul-2010 4:04 PM CT Copy to: Brad Rusk Brian LaFoy Nick Jacob Jennifer Haynes Type Routed Memo Upon reviewing the masonry screenwall/retaining wall design submittal, Kleinfelder has the following comments: 1. The geometry and materials of the "gravel pocket" along the base of the footing should be further defined/specified (i.e. TXDOT, NTCOG, ASTM, etc.) 2. What lateral earth pressures were used during the design? Are there any surcharge loads present, and if so, were they accounted for in the design? 3. Kleinfelder performed an un-related geotechnical study at the site that indicated the presence of expansive clays. What uplift pressures were used during design of the drilled shafts? Typically, for drilled shafts in expansive clays, the design for soil uplift pressures should be modeled using 1,000 psf acting over the entire shaft perimeter of the over the upper 10 feet of the shaft. 4. For drilled shafts in expansive clays, void boxes are often necessary to avoid structure damage due to soil movements. Was the use of void boxes considered during the design? 5. What is the drilled shaft frequency along the length of the wall? Please note that Kleinfelder reviewed the materials and geotechnical aspects of this submittal only and did not perform an independent design check. Our review does not relieve the wall designer of responsibility for the adequacy of the wall design." Noel W. Janacek, P.E. Douglas S. Land, E.I.T. Attached Files (none) Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Noel Janacek Date Sent: 29-Jul-2010 5:52 PM CT To: Jennifer Haynes Requested By: 27-Jul-2010 4:04 PM CT Copy to: Brad Rusk Eric Little Brian LaFoy Noel Janacek Nick Jacob Jennifer Haynes Wade Geistweidt Clay Barnett Type Routed Memo Response to all comments. Attached Files vit149.tif Vitruvian Park.doc Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Jennifer Haynes Date Sent: 6-Aug-2010 4:56 PM CT To: Eric Little Requested By: 27-Jul-2010 4:04 PM CT Copy to: Nick Jacob Wade Geistweidt Clay Barnett Type Routed Memo Brian - please review the attached re-submittal on the screen wall. Wade - Please forward to your office for their review. Thanks, Attached Files (none) Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Eric Little Date Sent: 9-Aug-2010 8:40 AM CT To: Brian LaFoy Requested By: 27-Jul-2010 4:04 PM CT Copy to: Brad Rusk Nick Jacob Jennifer Haynes Wade Geistweidt Clay Barnett Type Routed Memo 1. Both Geotel reports recommend 110 pcf as the equivalent fluid pressure for design of retaining walls. The designer should confirm that their design based on 100pcf will work with the recommended 110pcf. 2. The revised sheet does not appear to provide a clear depiction or dimensions of the gravel pocket based on the area the arrow is indicating. Please clearly detail this feature of the wall. Attached Files (none) Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Noel Janacek Date Sent: 10-Aug-2010 4:10 PM CT To: Jennifer Haynes Requested By: 27-Jul-2010 4:04 PM CT Copy to: Brad Rusk Eric Little Brian LaFoy Nick Jacob Wade Geistweidt Clay Barnett Final Action No final action to display. Comments .................................................................................. Copyright (c) 1999-2010, Systemates, Inc. View the User Agreement for legal restrictions and terms of use applicable to this site. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the terms of use specified in the User Agreement. Projectmates - The Capital Project Management Software