Response to Construction Submittals No. 8 As of 19-Jul-2010 3:12 PM CT Vitruvian Infrastructure Phase 1C Park 4010 Marsh Lane Addison, Texas 75001 Project Number: 1308C Status: Outstanding Overdue Product Classification Category 03300 - Soil Nail Wall Attachment(s) 40139 - 10.05.17 - Tramittal Letter - OO(1).pdf Notes Description Lake Wall Shop Drawings Certification Section: 3 - Concrete Int. Tracking #: Submitted by: Jennifer Haynes Issue Date: 19-May-2010 9:42 AM CT Est. Delivery Date: 19-May-2010 Actual Date Received: Sent To: Eric Little (First Recipient) Requested By: 2-Jun-2010 9:33 AM CT Copy to: Oscar Orduno Nick Jacob Wade Geistweidt Bruce Dunne Clay Barnett History (Chronological Order) Type Routed Memo Soil Nail Shop Drawings for review and approval. Attached Files (none) Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Eric Little Date Sent: 19-May-2010 10:35 AM CT To: Bruce Dunne Requested By: 2-Jun-2010 9:33 AM CT Copy to: Victor Lissiak III Nick Jacob Jennifer Haynes Wade Geistweidt Clay Barnett Type Routed Memo Clay, From what I understand from Bruce, the town in taking the lead on reviewing the soil nailing submittals. Attached Files (none) Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Eric Little Date Sent: 25-May-2010 9:29 AM CT To: Clay Barnett Requested By: 2-Jun-2010 9:33 AM CT Copy to: Nancy Straub Cline Nick Jacob Jennifer Haynes Wade Geistweidt Bruce Dunne Type Routed Memo Both Kleinfelder and NDM have reviewed this submittal. Their comments are as follows. Please review and post your comments: A. Noel W. Janacek, PE Consulting Engineer - Kleinfelder We have reviewed the Olden submittal dated May 17, 2010 and have the following recommendations: 1. The submittal states that the design is based on Geotel Engineering, Inc.'s report no. E08-130 dated March 6, 2008. A subsequent report E10-129 dated April 22, 2010 should be reviewed by Olden to verify their design is still valid. 2. Test results from the load testing described in the submittal should be observed and reviewed on behalf of the Town of Addison by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer registered in the State of Texas. 3. No wall drainage is shown in the submittal. Olden should confirm that hydrostatic pressures were used in design, or adequate drainage should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure from building up behind the wall. We assume that the CM team will evaluate the geometry of the walls relative to the project plans. As long as Olden has checked item 1 above, nail installation can proceed up to but not including shotcrete. The other two items need to be addressed prior to shotcreteing. B. Brian J. LaFoy, P.E. Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, Inc. My main concern is that I do not see any recommendations in the geotechnical report regarding soil nails so I am unclear as to how the wall was designed without that information (such as friction values for the soil against pullout, etc). Did Olden assume values? On what basis? Also, there is only one value for lateral pressures to use in the geotechnical report presumeably for the orginally intended cantilever walls on piers. I would interpret that value for use under yielding conditions with that type of wall. However, the soil-nailed wall in my opinion is a rigid wall which usually constitutes higher lateral pressures than that for yielding. Finally, it appears the intent of both walls would penetrate the shale, so I assume that end bearing in the wall is not an issue, but again, that is not specifically addressed in the geotechnical report. In short, I do not follow the communication trail between Olden and the Geotech so I have questions as to the basis for the shop drawings. I have no concerns with the general methodology though. Attached Files (none) Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Eric Little Date Sent: 25-Jun-2010 11:27 AM CT To: Bruce Dunne Requested By: 2-Jun-2010 9:33 AM CT Copy to: Brad Rusk Victor Lissiak III Brian LaFoy Nick Jacob Jennifer Haynes Wade Geistweidt Clay Barnett Type Routed Memo Here is a copy of the E10-129 report referred to by Kleinfelder. Attached Files Vit Park - Geotel - Global Slope.pdf Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Eric Little Date Sent: 25-Jun-2010 12:28 PM CT To: Bruce Dunne Requested By: 2-Jun-2010 9:33 AM CT Copy to: Junior Rojas Brian LaFoy Nick Jacob Jennifer Haynes Wade Geistweidt Type Routed Memo See the attached revised submittal from Olden. Attached Files 40173 - 10 06 28 - REVISED SHOP DRAWINGS - OO.pdf Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Eric Little Date Sent: 28-Jun-2010 10:54 AM CT To: Bruce Dunne Requested By: 2-Jun-2010 9:33 AM CT Copy to: Joel Massey Victor Lissiak III Brian LaFoy Nick Jacob Jennifer Haynes Wade Geistweidt Clay Barnett Type Routed Memo Per our meeting yesterday - this submittal will remain open until the test reports are completed. Meanwhile, NDM offers the following comments on the revised submittal: "I have comments on the resubmitted soil nail shop drawings in addition to the ones I had in the meeting yesterday: There was a note added based on my original comments that the minimum bonded length for the nails will be 15 feet and the minimum unbonded length will be three feet. That is not what the sections show so there is inconsistencies between the two. Brian J. LaFoy, P.E. Vice President" Attached Files (none) Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Eric Little Date Sent: 2-Jul-2010 12:11 PM CT To: Jennifer Haynes Requested By: 2-Jun-2010 9:33 AM CT Copy to: (none) Type Routed Memo Please reply to the following observations that were made of the soil nail testing today: "Based on my observations during my site visit today, I also have the following comments: 1. It is my understanding that the structural wall designs are required to perform for a 75 year design life. Further, the wall reinforcing in the original plans is all epoxy coated. In the soil-nailed walls, none of the reinforcing, including the mesh and embed plates, is epoxy coated except for the dywidag bars and dowel bars at the joints. You might ask the design engineer to confirm that this complies with a 75 year design life. 2. The revised shop drawings indicate that soil strength parameters are based on the geotechnical report. However, the geotechnical reports that we have seen do not indicate any values for allowable pullout resistance. What is the basis for the value shown in the shop drawings? Am I missing any addenda for the geotechnical report that might have that? I have two reports and neither indicate soil strength data. 3. The testing NDM observed today appeared to be in general conformance with the standards cited in the shop drawings and met the required test loads. I would recommend having all test data be submitted to UDR for review. Brian J. LaFoy, P.E. Vice President Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, Inc. " Attached Files (none) Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Eric Little Date Sent: 2-Jul-2010 2:04 PM CT To: Jennifer Haynes Requested By: 2-Jun-2010 9:33 AM CT Copy to: Brian LaFoy Nick Jacob Wade Geistweidt Clay Barnett Type Routed Memo See attached response letter. Attached Files 40173 - 10 07 08 - COINC Responses to Brian laFoy Comments _ OO (2).pdf Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Jennifer Haynes Date Sent: 8-Jul-2010 1:00 PM CT To: Eric Little Requested By: 2-Jun-2010 9:33 AM CT Copy to: Oscar Orduno Joel Massey Nick Jacob Wade Geistweidt Clay Barnett Type Routed Memo Response to Kleinfelder's comments: 1. We have reviewed the subsequent report dated April 22, 2010 and the design as submitted is still valid. The only exception is that the allowable pullout resistance will be reduced to 600 psf and the DTL for soil nail verification testing will be 14.1 kips with a bond length of 15 feet. 2. The test results will be forwarded to the Town of Addison upon completion. 3. The hydrostatic pressures were accounted for in the design. Attached Files (none) Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Jennifer Haynes Date Sent: 9-Jul-2010 9:09 AM CT To: Eric Little Requested By: 2-Jun-2010 9:33 AM CT Copy to: Joel Massey Nick Jacob Wade Geistweidt Clay Barnett Type Routed Memo Please comment if you still have issues. Otherwise, I will close this submittal. Thanks, Attached Files (none) Submittal Type: 12 - Other Sent By: Eric Little Date Sent: 19-Jul-2010 3:12 PM CT To: Clay Barnett Requested By: 2-Jun-2010 9:33 AM CT Copy to: Brad Rusk Brian LaFoy Nick Jacob Jennifer Haynes Wade Geistweidt 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 ⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮਍潃祰楲桧⁴挨
㤱㤹㈭㄰ⰰ匠獹整慭整ⱳ䤠据‮楖睥琠敨唠敳⁲杁敲浥湥⁴格瑴㩰⼯睷⹷牰橯捥浴瑡獥挮浯倯潲敪瑣慭整⽳潃敲唯敳䅲牧敥敭瑮汁⹬獡㹰†潦⁲敬慧敲瑳楲瑣潩獮愠摮琠牥獭漠⁦獵⁥灡汰捩扡敬琠桴獩猠瑩⹥ഠ唊敳漠⁦桴獩猠瑩⁥楳湧晩敩⁳潹牵愠牧敥敭瑮琠桴⁥整浲⁳景甠敳猠数楣楦摥椠桴⁥獕牥䄠牧敥敭瑮‮਍牐橯捥浴瑡獥ⴠ吠敨䌠灡瑩污倠潲 敪瑣䴠湡条浥湥⁴潓瑦慷敲㰠瑨灴⼺眯睷瀮潲敪瑣慭整⹳潣㹭†਍਍ഠഊ