Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuildling Permit 11.682 Retaining Wall 0 JN F - � " a vva z w it 2 5 55= > .r J � 0��< II Z a 4 / W 0 W ( 1 N � (vv O °' °' < _ m c _ G H Q' Q I L J , A d` 0 �'�' 4. _ < o Q 0 I 0 W Z X Z LL , 1 . �' W 41 O. N .� 0 a sX141Mx , J 0 6 oc W V 3, O p z ■ a �3 w a� ` W W k. 00000 0 I 1 0 ° 8 o i . ,/) a a IL p J 0 J " tj � a a 0 w xw z 2 i- Z "1 o 5� Z r U. V Z O Z W _ F < ' ^ W ag Cl) 0 Z a g Z O Z W 1 ' 1 N 0 W W LLV W it W 00 <W V ` ..... G6 --• C Q O 0� Z W Z 00W r 3 U V ° V C/ O 0 LLLLIL O w 0Z 4 0 a 000040 0, M Nt. "'d 0 ❑ .E li --- PR! j to e CITY OF PRIOR LAKE BUILDING PERMIT, D c'd TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE U x AND UTILITY CONNECTION PERMIT if 414tvES01P I. White File 2. Fink City PERMIT NO. i / / _ sa 3 Yellow Applicant t0 (Please type or print and sign at bottom) ADDRESS S P R 'A l etifM ZONING (office use) 40 tt rioT S / 5 --. c kortf, gv s LEGAL DESCRIPTION (office use only) LOT BLOCK ADDITION PID OWNER (Name) (Phone) (Address) BUILDER 1 (Company Name) �4 _ vc --fry t, e t (Phone) Z/2 -- 6 gSr a 0 (Contact Name) . v,i .'Sj4, t (Phone) (Address) r-o .. (» '-/AF -' R �c % i, 'Re- "'A1 s z--O v/ TYPE OF WORK ❑ New Construction Deck ❑Porch ❑Re- Roofing ❑Re- Siding ['Lower Level Finish ❑ Fireplace ['Addition ❑Alteration ❑Utility Connection CODE: ❑I.R.C. I.B.C. QMisc. Type of Construction:' ` I II III IV V A B 0 Occupancy Group: A B E F H I MR S U PROJECT COST /VALUE $ ® e ., Division: 1 2 3 4 5 (excluding land) I hereby certify that I have furnished information on this application which is to the best of my knowledge true and correct. I also certify that I am the owner or authorized agent for the above- mentioned prope • and that all constru• •en will conform to all existing state and local laws and will proceed in accordance with submitted plans. I am aware that the building official can revoke th :. it for just cause. hermorerl r .y agree that the city official or a designee may enter upon the property to perform needed inspections. X ,t1� f - .5---,r-- if Signature Contractor's License No. Date Permit Valuatio i 11300a' PP Park Support Fee # $ Permit Fee $ I 70 SAC # $ Plan Check Fee $ 12-4.46 Water Meter Size 5/8 "; 1 "; $ State Surcharge $ S Pressure Reducer $ Penalty $ Sewer /Water Connection Fee # $ Plumbing Permit Fee $ Water Tower Fee # $ Mechanical Permit Fee $ Builder's Deposit $ Sewer & Water Permit Fee $ I Other $ Gas Fireplace Permit Fee $ ` TOTAL DUE $ \ 3zet 48 This li.-.ti.n:e- /, es Yo Buildmg Permit en ■ roved Paid 3 ?,O `IS lot No. 103 6/ /Or /' - Date l 8 - �� Building Official Da e This is to certify that the request in the above application and accompanying documents is in accordance with the City Zoning Ordinance and may proceed as requested. This document when signed by the City PI nner constitutes a temporary Certificate of Zoning compliance and allows construction to commence. Before occupancy, a Certificate of Occupancy must be issued. / Planning P 47tor Date Special Conditions, if any 24 hour notice for all inspections (952) 447 -9850, fax (952) 447 -4245 4646 Dakota Street Prior Lake, MN 55372 / Retaining Wall #5 Construction Observation Summary 1. 1.441i1L'e0 ` a �" 4 � s °� ' t 4 � ii d % � x � }e �' d 4N R � k ,. �}S;'*. s $P � d Retaining Wall #5 - Hic k ory Shores Development Highway 13 and 17 Street C ity of Prio Lake Hennepin County, MN Prepared for The City of Prior Lake Prepared by WSB and Associates WSB As sotiates. Inc. Septem 6, 2 011 Wall Review Date of initial construction of the geosynthetic- reinforced segmental retaining wall #5 was approximately 2006. The original wall was reviewed by Stork Materials Technology in 2009 and 2010. These recommendations and observations indicated several deficiencies with the wall. It was determined that the wall should be reconstructed. Demolition of the wail began on August 23 2011. The reconstruction of the block and geogrid portion of the wail was completed on August 26 2011. v ` - ,. �Y a "i Wyu " 3 ibw t f \ u • $ f The wail is located to the east of building pads 14 through 16 per the 2006 grading plan for the Hickory Shores project. The wall is approximately 280 to 285 feet in length. From the southern end of the wall, the front face grade slopes down along the wall to reveal an approximate maximum exposed height of 9 feet. The rear grade slopes up approximately 3 feet within 30 feet of the wail's start and is relatively level for the remaining portion of the wall. as ^mod- - .-,., +, " 4. ° . - '. - x W r a fin , �N . • fie. P Retaining Wall #5 Review - Hickory Shores Development City of Prior Lake, Hennepin County, MN WSB PROJECT NO. 01905-020 PAGE 1 Soil samples were taken from the backfill and examined by B raun Intertec was Corporation. Braun determined the friction an for the back fill to be no less than 24 °. Using the friction angle provided b y Braun the design for wall #5 completed by Mortarless Systems Engineering, Inc. The design included an harge. 1 1 . 30° gradation away from the back face of the wall and a 75 psf surc Reco for geogrid lengths and locations were prov in t he desi n. ..„„a,., , _ t.,,,,t, „.,_::,' g �' —n -_ ^^ te n kf e ''''''"fr.:;::: ' ;.'"'.7'-'''', ,-; - „--:,,, 4 ■ '"G4: ", .yam, 'A°S ,� r s,� wP 1P •• _ -. r is a : -1 Field inspections of materials were made daily by WSB R. Associates Inc. The block used for wall #5 was obs erved to be whole. Cracke bl was replaced and removed from the site b y the contractor. Geogrid and bac -face agg regate • field measurements were taken daily and met or surpassed lengths recommended in the design. = u Retaining Wall #5 Review - H ickory Shores Development City of Prior Lake, He County, MN W SB PROJECT N O . 01905 -020 PAGE 2 z va - t ' ,: - , '' „ ** °- - - . - - I i' *4:1''.1,',7,' _„4....7 ',:„.14, - t Is' 4 t e x .r )x @ 4* .i z w' ° t , . .".-4°** ' One front -face wall drain was observed toi be installed at the kink point in the wall. This was connected to the heel drain. c. , 4. x' . ,. t x , Field inspections of soils were made daily by Braun Intertec Corp, Daily compaction tests were performed at various locations. High compaction results were noted throughout the wall reconstruction which matched or surpassed those in the specifications. Retaining Wall #5 Review - Hickory Shores Development City of ike, Hennepin County, MN WSB PROJECT or La N0.0190 5 -020 PAGE 3 / / b e 1 itg y h?. a � `,. sk my +. � t3d r ���sa,� .�" K� A complete record of field measurements, testing and the des are attached in the appendix. Retaining Wall #5 Review - Hickory Shores Development City of Prior Lake, Hennepin County, MN WSB PROJECT NO. 07905 -020 PAGE 4 / ./ Appendix Retaining Wall #5 Review - Hickory Shores Development City of Prior Lake, Hennepin County, MN WSB PROJECT NO. 01905-020 f / Field Measurements and Observations by Aaron Nelson, PE 8/22 — Excavation: Approximately 16 feet to front face of wall. Geo -grid: Initial measurement 12' -0" Aggregate: 2' -0 "+ 8/23 — Geo -grid: Lower layers 10' -0" & 9' -10" Aggregate: 2' -0 "+ Block rapped for cracking, none observed. Front Face Drain Installed. 8/24 — Geo -grid: Center layers 9' -9 ", 9' -11 ", Top layer 12' -3" Aggregate: 2' -0 "+ Block rapped for cracking, none observed. 8/25 — Geo -grid: Top layers 12' -3 ", 11' -10 ", 12' -0" Aggregate: 2' -0 "+ Block rapped for cracking, none observed. Retaining Wall #5 Review - Hickory Shores Development City of Prior Lake, Hennepin County, MN WSB PROJECT NO. 01905-020 / `' F a ; , _ ` Braun lntertec Corporation Phr ne: c' r' n: fi2".?;k4 t I IC0I Ian F . , hire, A ' . U r r as FAN Wr - 1 No,minlr at. m September 2, 2011 Project BL -11 -02418 Aaron Nelson WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Ave. S., Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Re: Retaining Wall Number 5 Inspections and Tests Hickory Shore Retaining Walls Highway 13 and 170th Street Prior Lake, Minnesota -s, Dear Mr. Nelson: We have completed excavation observations and compaction testing services for Retaining Wall Number 5 of the Hickory Shore Retaining Wall project in Prior Lake. The purpose of the excavation observations was to evaluate the soils in the bottom of the excavation for support of the proposed retaining wall loads. In summary, the previously constructed wall was removed in its entirety and the subsurface soils below the wall were exposed. Hand augers and visual observations were performed on the exposed and surficial soils evaluating their suitability to support 40'4 the proposed wall loads and to evaluate the consistency of the soils compared to the soil borings. �.; Based on our observations, the soils exposed in the excavation appeared to be suitable to support the proposed 3,000 pound per square foot (psf) wall loads. Compaction testing was performed on the soil behind the wall to evaluate their density compared to the minimum specified density. Eleven compaction tests were performed on fill placed behind the wall. The compaction tests found the soils to be compacted to densities greater than the minimum specified density. If you have questions regarding this letter, please call Matt Ruble at 952.995.2224. I1411.P Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION c.„. Matthew P. Ru le, PE Principal Engineer Attachments: Daily Field Notes August 22, 2011 — August 29, 2011 Field Compaction Tests 1 -17 c: Bob Hutchins; City of Prior Lake Cameron Roberson; Mortarless Systems Engineering YY s Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 yY. / Page 1 of 1 BRAUN I NTE RTEC Daily Field Notes Project No.: BL -11 -02418 Report No.: Location: Hickory Shores Retaining Walls Date: August 22, 201 1 Personnel Classification Regular Hours Overtime Hours Josh Van Abel Sr. Engineer 1 Areas and work performed this day: Met with Jeff w/ Rosti onsite and observed partial excavation of Retaining Wall #5. Observed subgrade included approximately 30 -40 feet of Retaining Wall #5, approximately in the middle or tallest portion of the wall. Others areas were not excavated down to bottom of retaining wall yet. In exposed area, existing retaining wall, horizontal reinforcement and associated backfill was being removed down to new wall and reinforcement subgrade elevation. Along with visual observations, performed hand auger probes on excavation bottom . The bottom soils consisted of apparent native sandy lean clay and lean clay soils (glacial tills) in a rather stiff to stiff condition. Exposed soils were judged suitable for an allowable soil bearing capacity up to 3,000 psf. Approximately 8 inches of aggregate base (old base leveling pad) was left in place over the native clays below where the new wall block will be placed. The base leveling pad material appeared to meet project requirements and appeared suitable for wall support if surface compacted prior to block placement. Reviewed planned wall backfill material being excavated from behind the wall and being stockpiled for reuse. Material consisted of a combination of silty sand (SM), clayey sand (SC), sandy lean day (CL -S) and lean clay (CL). Some of the backfill contained limited amounts of organic material and wood debris. Collected samples of material for Proctor and sieve analysis testing, however, discussed with Rosti the CL -S and CL materials do not meet the wall plan specifications for wall backfill (Less than 55% passing the #200 sieve and a PI less than 15). We recommend CL -S and CL soils not be used for wall backfill unless reviewed and approved by wall design engineer. Organic or soils containing debris should not be used as retaining wall backfill. Also recommended addition of a redundant draintile system behind the wall to Rosti to improve wall subgrade drainage. Although not shown on the plans, Rosti indicated they were planning to install a "heel" drain behind the wall with outlets downslope and below the exterior grade in frost of the wall. Left a voicemail message with Aaron with WSB to discuss results. Schedule field technician for compaction testing tomorrow. Weather: M Sunny Performed By: Submitted To: M. Ruble - Braun Date: Rev. 10/06 • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page of /// DENTS „/o8 BRAUN I NTE RTEC Daily Field Notes Project No.: 134— i 1 OZ 41 Report No.: Project Name: rc... r 6kOre— Date: 0-2S -2.4 Project Manager: /lnq_ 1'.ti k L . Temp/Weather: 4 1 C7 St9 Personnel Classification Regular Hours Overtime Hours Areas and work performed this day: fPrO c.X-ar AAA..., L O* 1;\ tVaes... 4.4.44,Q �. w .t ulat *IA t,e.t._<__ s•..dct.w a t— 10-41 i t 2. t inc, -fit... Z; It s ° u-14.41 * ' e tkierit, c kWitt t t^ a..: c @L._ Performed By: Ot p Submitted To: • This is a preliminary report and is provided solely as evidence that field observations and /or testing was performed. Observations and/or conclusions and /or recommendations conveyed in the final report may vary from, and shall take precedence over, those indicated in a preliminary report . • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page of rz DPNTS Rev 11/08 B RAU N INTERTEC Daily Field Notes Project No.: _$L " 0 VAgg Report No.: Project Name: , 4 Date: 8 • 2.4 • a:Q a Project Manager: 14t ,. Temp/Weather: 4A, c tti4 t Personnel Classification Regular Hours Overtime Hours Areas and work performed this day: t A rmexp 56 { 4, Q.,, e or„Fe.$, t L h ks. ex", Ate.. e.,f t4 1 1w .tom i 3t ' r., .._. 6 t 4a to .. res ,,. r" t �} .per g?!+. _ Y €6.:e K C etc -To / $e. . ` &NA tie 4 y.,' tom, \ At2 Performed By: Submitted To: This is a preliminary report and is provided solely as evidence that field observations and /or testing was performed. Observations and /or conclusions and /or recommendations conveyed in the final report may vary from, and shall take precedence over, those indicated in a preliminary report. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page of DFNTS Rev t t/os BRAUN I N TE RTEC Daily Field Notes Project No.: RL ‘k a Zy 18 Report No.: Project Name: k-VciLt1rta Sir ore5 Date: 0 -2S Project Manager: Temp/Weather: - St21ny�z Personnel Classification Regular Hours Overtime Hours Areas and work performed this day: - . ��Y. � r _ .• Akmo`' AP-A.4s EN., -4 ., 1 1. t. i J .. " et-a.. It , / kt I i Performed By: Submitted To: This is a preliminary report and is provided solely as evidence that field observations and /or testing was performed. Observations and /or conclusions and /or recommendations conveyed in the Tinal report may vary from, and shall take precedence over, those indicated in a preliminary report • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 /1/ Page _ of DFNTS Rev 11/08 BRAUN 1 NTE RTEC Daily Field Notes Project No.: 1 d 2 W 1a Report No.: Project Name: ; e...k.-d s Date: A ► 2. $ 3 • al3ll Project Manager: I3* R.a91fs IQ. _ Temp/Weather: ► 1C4& Personnel Classification Regular 44ours Overtime Hours Areas and work performed this day: r rst r - �/ q 4 axe [ �. ,.�,,.,.d .�!.. f . Y'e '•s . :. A mej 4L2,— r 3 c ®r. Ate.— p ...1 f.J ."11 . ° Y 1 4 4 +? - r `e Maly Performed By: k �°�+• Submitted To: This is a preliminary report and is provided solely as evidence that field observations and /or testing was performed. Observations and /or condusions and/or recommendations conveyed in the final report may vary from, and shall take precedence over, those indicated in a preliminary report. Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 --"./ co o u ›. , a.) t ) s- y In ) ¢ < < < < < Q 4 0 0 v ° ,r, 4 4 ¢ ¢ 4 4 ¢ 4 ¢ a o a ❑ o ° ° ° v 0 F a . a. a . a . CO a a a a) rn o t' E .0 u 0 at - 0.) as 0) ai v 0. O0 cC A '..+.+' 0 • . V . o 0 0 N ttl ° N My k. to co U N CO N N N N N N L.> ^ . 0 3 a t _ o t O v •o Z. CL Gel CL 0. •� a U VV) a v v K d .1- r ` U N O . ° 00 00 0 0, 0, rn 0, rn V . N 0 co N N N N N N N N TO oji U C+ Its Col r. a Y b C IN V O V >, O+ -• tom• O 0 N LI 0. R` Cs O O O 0 O CT O 0e 0 U m V e} O d . to e `y V1 a) N -. N -. N -. N -. N . N . N . d r i Q a a z o > y a • . O n C� •-: O N t - r. r- .t vi a `C cd ' �V � ` R r 0' r - r r- t' 0o r N 4.; C y y a a N. rn r a, o v d rn o rn o rn rn v a y =o � �, v o 0 0 0 0 0 W d C) `_a N 0.. y C .C. A co �'Xt o l4 V c F V ,- <>0 O c-- O O ,C C1 N C 0.. m e a e d .� y 0 a) V 0 V t o a, 0 � .0 .� 0 w Y W ti ° ,. 4. W w W W O 0 cu W O O 0 0 0 •0 4-4 0 co) O CA E o 0 0 0 0 0 ') 0 N 0 7 ' , rn 4? 10 vi 11 V y y °) 0 0) .6 y Ln ' E �' a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° ° G a N A '"' N N h C 0 0 a) ° 0 = • M V V, 'i 3 ' -V, c *: _ , . O .�j TO 4- W W W W 0 0 I E 0 0 0 0 0 � 12 Mt • Q 7 ,-, t- 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 . V] N V) a CS o Z O O O O O r 0 ' C V 0. /^ a •0 O O O N C ° � E Q "'�1 0 N h .. M 00 r 3 O O O • v O Is, o ." r4 w v 4 n ° N V •40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V 0. 4)) rA b. Q = V a a a a a a a R p N ° t o •v, a) V U U U U V U 'n 'n '^ 'n `n v1 tr, tr, w s o .r G � H z i. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a • 3 .' o m T •co y 'a To' id i3 iE is i0' To .Y O. y v 0 0 0 0 C,1 0 0 0 0 0 c OA o a a a a w a w w g c c a a 0 C >, „ ,1 N .5 .S .5 5 .,9 CD .g • c 'c a C a 0 ✓ V V V V a) V a) a4 C4 c4 tY, a c4 C4 I:4 Y ° N E E~ {,0 M M V V" V' 0' 'd• V • 7 7 7 W O W W W O000 o00 O u^ LL G•.. LL W G- u. CL ° L H ?I • R t R . 1 a V ] i . a 0 N N L W d w a o a) d m o v II II II . glig C? c4 v rn 3 rn 3 v) 3 v, 3 to 3 v) 3 vt 3 rn 3 ¢ m U 0 , Z F a ta Z A 4.'3 o y N t."1 V , n , O t•- CO e N r•-) V' 0. 1 .0 t� x T y I— iii H x a > 0 O O c' • b 0) 0 • 0 v, . e « « «« O x o j; " 'n En << < < < < << 0 o o a y c° c a w N 0 u R 0 R R 0 R R R x b F a w a a c a a s CG al • 0 • 0 = v v ro .0 71-0 . 0,0 Q. 'r� " 6 4 >n U a NN NNNNNN O - 0 . a[ .o p d ° a CO x x a 0 ti CO o VI VI .1 , VI • c� v v v v v V Cy .; O's Cr rn 0 rn Cr 0 CI CT •V 0 a 0" 0 0 V pp v an .n .n 711 v, .n .n V . S a vv 0" 0• vva ii •V o N N N N N N N N 1 = g M °+ 00 N rn 00 ' A c O� O O� Q� O 01 Q` a c. O U 0) U , fl • a 01 0 V 4 Vi Q . � N . -. ,- - . N . N C4 Z 0 5 N ° L :; 0 cfi A A a � oo,0 ry— v .. o 4 rnrnrn rnrnrnrnc (1) N C y v oo a- 00 ^. 0 n W O °: o .. [. R 0 0 0 0 a. U ,1 N m c Q c m w. o m c .,.. V O •V, , c.- N N C o C O % id A id iV _ o 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 00 G U a v, .n vi M vi .n .n 'o 0 .0 0 5 0 R1 t, a c c o -O o 0 0 w o ,...4.) <4.. o o l v • c r • g = G 0 N G N ° G V p V 0 . . . . ., o0 00 00 r oo co 0o 4-, +'L• ... O O 7 O p , CAS C @ , ,,I, ° ° HI 1 !O! " ° ° u y b S N rn A O JI o Q O! c fl. V .0 N a O N b O O 0 U 0. .0 a' Q ` .o w a a a ..1 .a .a U N N .n • Ya n ti c .• t 4 y .N U U U fn U U U v v h v v v v 0 ti v c W H tx U 3 • 3 333333 g. : o y T R • 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) .0 a . A 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 _, 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 a.a.a. wd. aa,P. c5 — >' °>' c `" 5 .5 .5 .S .5 5 .5 .5 ° ' ° c °' • 0 5 0 N ,-. .. .-. .-. Y R PR- P. P to O O of N «' a a PP PP F4 ci N ° E W H [] N N N N N N Q v y y 0 an 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o p W f.% L�. {i ti. Iz. .°'. .y. H C V Ei l° �° ir" a y y N u lig 1— W C v o L u u I o .] Qt.IUUVUU F R ga .-, .N.. M -. •al- v.)-. Q O, O r-. N M V' Vl ,p VI u °' H ( .G r > ( 2 J g 2 / 2 n \/� �< =\ / 2 \ & = G - 0 I » �. CSI 2 \� % u 2) » co -6: 9 /&± f z ki2f@ x .0 § /\ / 8i %ƒj \ $ f { « 2 { o § _ = z ca F. °° \° 4 J 75 . Gf ° k} / 0 E C.) \ § •# § j \ Ate \ a 44 0 0 0 tt . k\\ \ \/ a E ail- § / , \ \ 2 i \ §j§ fr Is, _ a \ ® J » \\/ 2 �k = \ cin E ; § £ 2 a) , • \ \ u • o § 0 a \ 2 ƒ f \ ) \ §§ ° c40 _ \ o. 0 . / . // E. U ] # 0 0 3 m 050, .- 0 - al \ \\ / ..1.1 a u \ -- - - j G 2 \ ( -E. k VI f »2a , 000 k \ ; § � } LU E - _ § §§ § §_ , �� ( \ � f / \/ 0 W 2 k \ § / 11 11 11 §_ ad < gt0 u al Z 2 .... 2 % c § \ ai Concrete Masonary Association Page 1 of 12 SRWaII (Version 4) Report Project Identification Project ID : 10 -0083 Project Name : Hickory Shores Owner Client : Signature Bank Prepared By : CER Company : MORTARLESS SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, INC. Address : 325 ALLIANCE PLACE NE, ROCHESTER, MN 55906 Telephone : 507 - 254 -6110 Section : Wall 5 (Adj. Tract 2 Lots 14 -16), 8.5' exposed Project File : WALL52 -1.PRJ Vendor Data File Date and Time : 08/23/2011 10:42:07 Type of Structure : Reinforced Wall Wall Geometry Design Wall Height(ft) : 10.67 Embedment Wall Height(ft) : 1.67 Exposed Wall Design Height(ft) : 9.00 Number of Segmental Wall Units : 16 Wall Inclination(degrees) : 7.13 Grades Top Slope(degrees) : 11.30 Uniform Distributed Surcharge Live Load Surcharge(Psf) : 75.00 Dead Load Surcharge(Psf) : 0.00 file: / / /C:/ Program% 20Files /NCMA /SRWall %204.0/Report.html 8/23/2011 at Concrete Masonary Association Page 2 of 12 /oil Data Cohesion (c) Friction Unit Weight Soil Zone Description (psf) Angle(I) (i)(pcf) (degrees) Reinforced Soil Silty to fine sandy clay (CL) N/A 24.00 125.00 Retained Soil Silty to fine sandy clay (CL) NIA 24.00 125.00 Leveling Pad Soil Aggregate Base (GM) N/A 45.00 135.00 Foundation Soil Silty to fine sandy clay (CL) 100.00 24.00 125.00 Segmental Unit Data Segmental Unit Name : Classic 8 Cap Height (Inches) : 4.00 Unit Height (Hu)(Inches) : 8.00 Unit Width (Wu)(Inches) : 12.00 Unit Length (Inches) : 18.00 Setback (Inches) : 1.00 Weight (Infilled)(Ib) : 125.00 Unit Weight (Infilled)(pcf) : 125.00 Center of Gravity(Inches) : 6.00 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Type and Number Supplier Product Name Number Stratagrid 200 6 Stratagrid 350 0 Geosynthetic Properties Geosynthetic Product (Ib %ft) RFcr RFd RFid (lb /ft) Ci Cds Stratagrid 200 3600.00 1.55 1.10 1.05 2010.89 0.68 0.68 Stratagrid 350 5000.00 1.55 1.10 1.05 2792.91 0.68 0.68 file: / / /C:/ Program% 20Files /NCMA /SRWaII %204.0/Report.html 8/23/2011 .. Concrete Masonary Association Page 3 of 12 Unit -Unit Interface Properties Minimum Shear Shear Friction Angle Maximum Shear Capacity(lb/ft) Capacity (lb /ft) 585.00 I 56.00 6000.00 Geosynthetic - SRW Unit Connection Strength properties Minimum 1st Inflection Point (1b /ft) 2nd Inflection Point (lb/ft) Geosynthetic Product Conn. Connection Max Capacity Normal Load Normal Load (lb/ft) (lb/ft) Capacity (lb/ft) Connection (lb/ft) Capacity(Ib /ft) Stratagrid 200 1198.00 1000.00 1250.41 15512.96 2011.00 Stratagrid 350 955.00 1000.00 1400.23 4128.22 2793.00 Geosynthetic - SRW Unit Shear Strength properties Geosynthetic Minimum Shear Friction Maximum Product Shear Capacity Angle Shear Capacity (lb /ft) (lb /ft) Stratagrid 200 1796.20 50.43 6000.00 Stratagrid 350 1254.80 53.53 6000.00 Design Criteria For External Stability Analysis FOS Sliding : 1.50 FOS Overturning : 2.00 FOS Bearing Capacity : 3.00 Base Geosynthetic ratio(L /H) : 0.60 Reinforced Soil- Retained Soil Interface Friction Factor : 1.00 Reinforced Soil- Retained Soil Interface Friction Angle : 24.00 (degrees) file: / / /C:/ Program% 20Files /NCMA/SRWaII°%204.0/Report.html 8/23/2011 a Concrete Masonary Association Page 4 of 12 / Design Criteria For Internal Stability Analysis FOS Tensile Overstress : 1.50 FOS Pullout : 1.50 Anchorage Length (ft) : : 1.00 Wall- Retained Soil Interface Friction Factor : 1.00 Wall- Retained Soil Interface Friction Angle(degrees) : 24.00 Design Criteria For Facing Stability Analysis FOS Geosynthetic- WallConnection : 1.50 FOS Crest Toppling : 1.50 Max. Reinforcement Spacing : 2.00 Vertical Components Vertical Components of Earth Pressures Used : Yes Cofficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientation Reinforcement Soil(Static)(Ka) : 0.383 Reinforcement Soil(Static)(Kah Horizontal Component) : 0.367 Internal Modified Back Slope(Bint) : 11.300 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal(degrees) for : 44.033 Internal Stability Retained Soii(Static)(Ka) : 0.383 Retained Soil(Static)(Kah Horizontal Component) : 0.367 External Modified Back Slope(Bext) : 11.300 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal(degrees) for ; 44.033 External Stability file: / / /C:/ Program% 20Files /NCMA /SRWa1I %204.0/Report.html 8/23/2011 c oncrete Masonary Association Page 5 of 12 Result of External Stability Static Analysis Calculated Design Criteria FOS Sliding 1.62 > 1.50 FOS Overturning 4.76 > 2.00 FOS Bearing Capacity 5.57 > 3.00 Base Reinforcement Length (L)(ft) 9.00 Base Reinforcement Ratio (L /H) 0.84 > 0.60 Detailed Result of External Stability Analysis Calculated Total Horizontal Force (lb/ft) 3811.63 Total Vertical Force (lb/ft) 13873.27 Sliding Resistance (lb /ft) 6176.78 Driving Moment (lb-ft/ft) 16330.12 Resisting Moment (lb-ft/ft) 77806.60 Bearing Capacity (psf) 9167.02 Base Eccentricity (e)(ft.) 0.07 Eccentricity Ratio (e /L -2e) 0.01 Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) 1646.40 file: / / /C:/ Program% 20Files /NCMA /SRWa1I %204.0/Report.html 8/23/2011 t2oncrete Masonary Association Page 6 of 12 Results of Internal Stability Static Analysis SRW Anchor FOS FOS FOS Layer Geosynthetic Elevation Length Spacing Unit Product (ft) (ft) Length Overstress Put 50 Slide >=1.50 (ft) > =2.00 15 St 20taogrid 9.33 11.00 1.52 10.61 1.91 9.37 OK 12 St ataogrid 7.33 10.00 2.33 5.57 2.36 5.12 OK 9 Stratagrid 5.33 9.00 3.15 3.69 2.84 3.49 OK 6 Stratagrid 3.33 9.00 4.97 3.39 5.24 2.65 OK 4 Str grid 2.00 9.00 6.18 3.56 7.81 2.28 OK 2 St 20taogrld 0.67 9.00 7.39 3.10 9.14 2.01 OK Detailed Results of Internal Stability Analysis SRW Geosynthetic Elevation Length Anchor LTDS Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding Unit Product (ft) (ft) Length (lb/ft) Load capacity Force Capacity # (ft) (lb/ft) (Ib /ft) (lb/ft) (Ib /ft) 15 St attaogrid 9.33 11.00 1.52 2010.89 189.52 361.53 285.03 2669.91 12 St 2 Ogrid 7.33 10.00 2.33 2010.89 361.11 851.55 704.81 3611.44 9 Strata ogrid 5.33 9.00 3.15 2010.89 544.58 1548.32 1308.05 4569.82 6 Str2attaagnd 3.33 9.00 4.97 2010.89 593.30 3106.69 2094.74 5545.04 4 St at grid 2,00 9.00 6.18 2010.89 565.28 4412.52 2719.47 6202.90 2 Stratagrid 0.67 9.00 7.39 2010.89 648.99 5933.62 3425.32 6868.20 200 file: / / /C:/ Program% 20Files /NCMA /SRWa1I %204.0/Report.html 8/23/2011 Jncrete Masonary Association Page 7 of 12 Results of Facing Stability Static Analysis FOS SR Heel Unit Elev Geosynthetic Crest Connection # (ft) Product Toppling > =1.50 > =1.50 15 9.33 Stratagrid 2.42 6.37 12 7.33 Stratagrid 3.38 200 9 5.33 Stratagrid 2.26 200 6 3.33 Stratagrid 2.10 200 4 2.00 Stratagrid 2.22 200 2 0.67 Stratagrid 1.95 200 Results of Facing Stability Analysis(Moment & Connection) SRW Heel Connection Unit Elev Geosynthetic Product Drive Moment Resist Moment Connection Capacity # (ft) (lb-ft/ft) (lb-ft/ft) Load (Ib/ft) (lb/ft) 15 9.33 Stratagrid 200 42.84 103.66 189.52 1206.76 12 7.33 Stratagrid 200 361.11 1219.86 9 5.33 Stratagrid 200 544.58 1232.96 6 3.33 Stratagrid 200 593.30 1246.06 4 2.00 Stratagrid 200 565.28 1254.78 2 0.67 Stratagrid 200 648.99 1263.49 file: / / /C:/ Program% 20Files /NCMA /SRWa1I %204.0/Report.html 8/23/2011 .2oncrete Masonary Association Page 8 of 12 Internal Compound Stability Result SRW Fact Of °r vFr VU Or vFs vFgrid vDynF vWt vQI vQd vConn Units Safety (Ib /ft) (lb/ft) (lb/ft) (lb/ft) (Ib /ft) (lb/ft) (Ib /ft) (lb/ft) 1 1.588 10557 2562 9486 1943 0 23248 1515 0 2 1.466 9770 2891 8731 142 0 21832 1509 0 3 1.607 6916 2315 7562 2922 0 15570 1503 0 4 1.523 8504 2510 7279 76 0 19071 1497 0 5 1.676 6705 2068 6403 1961 0 15132 1570 0 6 1.518 6357 2182 5638 21 0 14443 1475 0 7 1.624 6732 1820 5268 5 0 15182 1557 0 8 1.985 5342 1548 4457 1959 0 12004 1551 0 9 1.783 5259 1849 3988 2 0 11915 1545 0 10 1.894 5063 1450 3496 110 0 11406 1539 0 11 2.598 3880 1326 2762 1969 0 8672 1532 0 12 2.329 3795 1830 2415 0 0 8531 1526 0 13 2.316 3464 1079 2019 134 0 7797 1520 0 14 2.992 946 956 743 321 0 2095 714 0 15 3.218 2445 1512 1229 0 0 5470 1507 0 16 2.925 1923 709 900 0 0 4331 1501 0 Basic Internal Compound Stability Static Result Lowest FOS : 1.466 Critical Failure Plane Location - Height of Exit at Wall Face SRW Unit : # 2 Elevation : 0.67 ft Distance to Entrance at Top Grade : 21.26 ft internal Compound Stability Geometry Factor Arc Arc Arc Arc Arc SRW Of Center Center Radius Arc Exit Arc Exit Enter Enter Units (X2) (Xc) (Yc) (R) (Y2) (X1) (Y1) 1 1.588 0.000 22.759 22.759 0.000 0.000 21.265 14.649 2 1.466 0.083 23.702 23.035 0.083 0.667 21.265 14.649 3 1.607 - 20.547 57.526 59.889 0.167 1.333 21.265 14.649 4 1.523 0.250 25.782 23.782 0.250 2.000 21.265 14.649 5 1.676 -7.655 40.895 39.054 0.333 2.667 21.265 14.649 6 1.518 -2.045 30.692 27.470 0.417 3.333 20.080 14.413 7 1.624 0.500 29.570 25.570 0.500 4.000 21.265 14.649 8 1.985 -6.072 44.870 40.750 0.583 4.667 21.265 14.649 file: / / /C:/ Program% 20Files /NCMA /SRWal1 %204.0/Report.html 8/23/2011 Concrete Masonary Association Page 9 of 12 9 1.783 -1.404 37.341 32.075 0.667 5.333 21.265 14.649 10 1.894 0.750 34.654 28.654 0.750 6.000 21.265 14.649 11 2.598 -6.262 54.967 48.819 0.833 6.667 21.265 14.649 12 2.329 -0.709 43.811 36.514 0.917 7.333 21.265 14.649 13 2.316 1.000 42.205 34.205 1.000 8.000 21.265 14.649 14 2.992 - 10.901 51.964 44.926 1.083 8.667 10.602 12.519 15 3.218 1.167 49.985 40.651 1.167 9.333 21.265 14.649 16 2.925 1.250 55.406 45.406 1.250 10.000 21.265 14.649 file: / / /C:/ Program% 2OFiles /NCMA/SRWa1I %204.0/Report.html 8/23/2011 2oncrete Masonary Association Page 10 of 12 Wall Reinforcement Layout 1.25 ft --- 14— —Ada 11,30 deb II L=11,00 ft. Stratagrid 200 L =10 00 ft Stratagrid 200 7,13 deg is Stratagrd 200 10.67 Stratagtid 200 1.67 ft Stratagcid 200 t ,,,,, , Stratagnd 200 I1. 14,.. .: 1 _. , 9.00 ft 0.50 ft Project Identification Project ID : 10 -0083 Project Name : Hickory Shores Owner Client : Signature Bank Prepared By : CER Company : MORTARLESS SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, INC. Address : 325 ALLIANCE PLACE NE, ROCHESTER, MN 55906 Telephone : 507 - 254 -6110 Section : Wall 5 (Adj. Tract 2 Lots 14 -16), 8.5' exposed Vendor Data File Project File : WALL52 -1.PRJ Date and Time : 08/23/2011 10:42:07 file: / / /C:/ Program% 20Files /NCMA /SRWaII %204.0/Report.html 8/23/2011 Concrete Masonary Association Page 12 of 12 Project Notes : Assuming 24 degree friction angle. Unit Notes : Contractor must place a minimum of 12" crushed rock behind SRW units. file: / / /C:/ Program% 20Files /NCMA /SRWa11 %204.0/Report.html 8/23/2011 Page 1 of 1 Save Clear Map ✓ C) Administrative & Political Layers • b Natural Resource Layers • Li Planning & Zoning Layers • Etil Property Layers ffl b Roads & Transportation Layers • Topography & Planimetric Layers al a Utility Layers • Aerial Imagery Layers • Street View Availability 2010 Color Aerial Photos i {{ 2008 Color Aerial Photos • 1� 2007 Color Aerial Photos • -.: 2005 Color Aerial Photos ® 2005 Color Infrared Photos • 2004 Color Aerial Photos El M 2003 Color Aerial Photos • 2003 Leaf on Color Aerial Photos • ® 2000 Aerial Photos • 1997 Aerial Photos • ass "� 1990 Aerial Photos • w 1980 Aerial Photos Cl w =i 1970 Aerial Photos • 1964 Aerial Photos Ell M 1957 Aerial Photos Refresh Map Tip: Click a map layer to view descriptive information (metadata) http: / /gis.co. scott. mn. us /ScottGIS /layers.aspx ?govUser = true &validUser = true &Layerlds = 0200,0201,0203,0202,0601,060... 9/6/2011 1 ' ATT465368 ,, .�,��.,�• � r • us n .: s ! a. �i h ,..,.,,,a4.1: ,, I .ed l ' Ket g - 3/-2A t oic?_- 440 - t q-2-4 Lou. i s #Torti - " * c , Er s oi 4K / 555/ aj-v4)) eo , 6 , p Zole/t6un / 5 // b 5 3 E. _ ,i 3 ate ,52.__ .44._ 8/1 51/. I,1„) , 3 owS. 4- Oil- ?0 Z 567 952-- q '7 — 1 oz i 6-5 / efilK onnlk-- 73,k4,,, C N 8 hoot -e. tot\- - / —C--7-c4C1------ ,i, `-, 3 g6K X55 IG-2_--Litio -2.4 Page 1 (41\ Q PRIo y �� Canary Engineering NNES° Pink - Planning BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DEPARTMENT CHECKLIST NAME OF APPLICANT COS 'C' 1 ( N 0 -tc.©" APPLICATION RECEIVED ��R l i The Building, Engineering, and Planning Departments have reviewed the building permit application for construction activity which is proposed at: 4011 110 �,-_ S . 67 LO c. 5 Accepted / Accepted With Corrections Denied i Reviewed By: _ , ;If 4.- Date: 7 / o/i / Si .4. ....,1 is Comments: <_ - .7.- N �.; . y. ' leVar qii vv ; 0 tr OF /KAY- Zota 513r 550G/4, d &EA/ / 1.. 54.641.- 4,0.0,-- Rid, AmA.,egoit.pv A76,,A., _ Pct A X44454- vc6 dr leisfet A Thfrilv "The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid." �s. �k.,. � � a Tz f r. -. wi , $ 3 4 a ca ; 5S , ,NAt ;5r^r* - TM TX R = issr¢ 'i"IRR' b'tM- "Wr•e a .k .. -' .. en' "'�' e• €,t "'$4.•-..x ,w -- tee.• - : "� n -_ .. � .4 4r; , ti U tr1 White - Building rin g 4 1A1NES °ec` � ink - Planning BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DEPARTMENT CHECKLIST NAME OF APPLICANT KC, 5 t-. i 4 APPLICATION RECEIVED `3. t The Building, Engineering, and Planning Departments have reviewed the building permit application for construction activity which is proposed at: j Accepted Accepted With Corrections ! ,f Denied w "' 4 41,t • . ' Reviewed By:y Date: -- " Comments: "The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid." 4 PRIG O A 1 'i U I a rt White - Building y,�vNES �C -aFa - E gineeri - tanning BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DEPARTMENT CHECKLIST NAME OF APPLICANT _ *1`i C`t uc APPLICATION RECEIVED �f i The Building, Engineering, and Planning Departments have reviewed the building permit application for construction activity which is proposed at: S' . e LA44,....,5 1- ii . Accepted l/ Accepted With Corrections Denied Reviewed By: 7" - Date: 7 JZr/si Comments: )3 ents: J ."- si 69 v i . S 1..:- 1..:- G. I ( c7 °- 3 , ci- _ 3t�. s , f G G,..� ` c ' °° c , 1 J ct c/. f^✓f L'� T S �'a. (A NI 4-- s � �_ J-- c�k ltt� e �,.�ee,! c,..) /rte v- Q &w.,.` „._ e ,��4._v I w 4- b� ,'ms , jt ed p. -., , . s, — 71. .. s , , - tee 11- g., c z j,, l / 3 d 34. ¢ I Hd %J s I s f �Jfs: 7` LP— ;,.)-e1'1.,.-- a . 0 v s-- ,_, a 4-- 4- k .._ tes.-42-•-•-) .d.,) 0 %. II bi, c %---s a..� dt p,--.c:...., e� c,....-. .04 ra, 1 R ` , --ei( l,1 J p t GL 4..'-1 4 *t, c_4 l s t 6 ` - � - e ro e. 0 . 1 — , a c'6,( c _(r`Q i .- .,Q,Q,y e,„ 4 ,4 K ,..,c_ S 4-c. 4a ca s^ Yz 0,, ,.,.� 'S a7 '� r^ .tip J , t/ S+i ,p fA V►s The issuance J or granting of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and I computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid." „.., .... a -;y .,..., .,F er. vYj . gam -.,. .. "''"'r,:w"'"• "a,z- , - ,. w r.,s ,.. 01 PRIp g' , rr1 White - Buildin °'-NNEso�P � ;' Engineerin mink Planning BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DEPARTMENT CHECKLIST NAME OF APPLICANT " T~ t c:+af. c uiNi APPLICATION RECEIVED 1 { The Building, Engineering, and Planning Departments have reviewed the building permit application for construction activity which is proposed at: 4o 1 l L ?O't 5r. . (...A) A L.4... 5 • Accepted v Accepted With Corrections Denied Reviewed By: - Date: - 7(a-01 Comments° es', ., C_,.., -.4 ✓ ( v►— ..(2�...S .. -rc3 vn.r- -- s b 54-..,11c0) a 4o q S2 i.� =,rte` C =1 . .4-- Pt” ....)..!..1 - �4. all . AI 1 C c ' ^ 1 - , - (.--- S , /4-4- C C 1a..,5 ..' z o 'f f rJa_ /— e•-- 44,s -- la .,) g' l +- m4 1 to (c". �-. 5 L O � l cI 6.-- T s i re s - e,-e c, p c•...1 e4ss _ 4..1 6 L--.s , ,,.--C-e.� , "The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid." 4 4 5 Page 1 of 1 Bob Hutchins From: Cameron Roberson [croberson @mortarless.net] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 9:48 AM To: Jeff Smith; Bob Hutchins; Jane Kansier; Larry Poppler Cc: Ryan Meier Subject: RE: Buttress Wall for Hickory Shores Mr. Hutchins, Mr. Poppler, and Ms. Kansier, certify that the SRW design originally submitted by Mortarless Systems Engineering, Inc. (MSE) for the Hickory Shores project in Prior Lake in 2006 is still valid providing the grading plan for the project has not changed. All specifications and standards of the design remain applicable. Respectfully, Cameron Roberson, PE President Mortarless Systems Engineering, Inc. (MSE) Cell: 507- 254 -6110 Fax: 763 -425 -0403 - 110 I Ill ism Mg INN RISE Mortarless Systems Engineering 5/5/2011 a 3 ,July 26, 2006 Project No. 06 -1218 MINIM To: GLS Industries MSE. 7200 Highway 63 N Mortarless Systems Engineering An SRW Design firm Rochester, MN 55906 -8978 Attention: Jeffery Price Subject: Segmental Retaining Wall Design and Analysis, Hickory Shores, Prior Lake, MN. In accordance with your request, Mortarless Systems Engineering (MSE) has prepared a design and analysis of the segmental retaining wall (SRW's) proposed for the Industrial Park Rehab project in Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Based upon our retaining wall analyses, it is MSE's opinion that the subject proposed SRW will be internally and externally stable provided the specific recommendations contained herein this report, and the general construction recommendations of Rockwood's Concrete Segmental Retaining Wall System specifications, are incorporated in the construction of the subject SRW's. Internal drainage systems, other than the drainage rock, are not required. However, if • conditions are exposed during the course of construction, such as seepage in the backcut, additional drainage systems may be required. MSE h. o eva 1: ed the global stability of the subject SRW's. MSE recommends that the a oject soils engine analyze the subject SRW's for global stability. . Maws APPRWED is Migue . o e ri ,fir E 41 R, 5 NGINEE Date • Signe i Enclosed: Rockwood's Concrete Segmental Retaining Wall System Wall Calculations Y - Wall Profiles rt Copy: (4) Addressee (1) Engineering Department / 7-- APPROVED U PLANNING DEPT Signed Da ----° 325 Alliance Place NE, Rochester, MN 55906 -3975 • phone 507.529.2871,fax 507.529.2879 e-mail info@mortarless.net WALL SPECIFICATIONS Rockwood Classic 8TM CONCRETE SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL SYSTEM PART 1: GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS 1.01 Work Included A. Work shall consist of furnishing and constructing a Rockwood Classic 8TM unit segmental retaining wall in accordance with these specifications to the lines and grades shown on the construction plans and drawings. Alternate wall systems will not be considered. B. Work includes preparing foundation soil, furnishing and installing leveling pad, unit drainage fill, and backfill to the lines and grades shown on the construction plans and drawings. C. Work includes furnishing and installing geogrid soil reinforcement of the type, size, location, and lengths as designated on the construction drawings. 1.02 Related Sections A. Section Site Preparation (Not applicable) B. Section - Earthwork (Not applicable) 1.03 Reference Documents A. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1. ASTM C 1372 Standard Specification for Segmental Retaining Wall Units 2. ASTM C140 Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units 3. ASTM D 422 Particle Size Analysis " 4. ASTM D 698 Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil'- Standard Effort 5. ASTM D 4318 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils 6. ASTM D 4595 Tensile Properties of Geotextiles - Wide Width Strip 7. ASTM D 5262 Unconfined Tension Creep Behavior of Geosynthetics 8. ASTM D 3034 Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe (PVC) 9. ASTM D 1248 Corrugated Plastic Pipe 10. ASTM D 1262 Freeze-Thaw Durability of Concrete Units 11. ASTM D 6638 Determining Connection Strength Between Geogrid and Segmental Unit B. Geosynthetic Research Institute (GRI) 1. GRI -GG4 Determination of Long Term Design Strength of Geogrid 2. GRI -GG5 Determination of Geogrid (soil) Pullout C. National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) 1. NCMA SRWU -2 Test Method for Determining Shear Strength of SRW 1.04 Submittals /Certification A. Prior to the start of work, the Owner shall obtain construction drawings and design calculations prepared and stamped by a Professional Engineer registered in the state of the proposed retaining wall. The Owner or Contractor should have the proposed retaining wall permitted by the appropriate governing authorities. B. Prior to start of work, the Contractor shall submit a manufacturer's certification for each of the retaining wall system components. The certification shall state that the component meets the requirements of this specification. 1.05 Quality Assurance RW Classic 8 Specs April 05 Page 1 10/2004 Rockwood Classic 8 T"' .. A. The Contractor shall be competent and experienced in the construction of reinforced segmental retaining walls. The Contractors compe and experience shall be determined by the Owner m thru demonstration of succ completed projects and/or com pletion of a nati recognized c ourse of instruction, such as the NCMA s S Retain Wall Installers Education Program. B . The D Eng sh alt be c om p etent and experienced; in the design an a of rei seg ental retaining wajl f Tl a D Engineershall. provide p roof of current professional liability y insurance with an a e ate.covera e l l mit of not i essthan $1 ,000 000:; . ,. . _ 09 o .. 9 C . The O wner or Co shall provi independen soil te a nd qu a s s ur a n c e inspe and te during ea a nd wa ll construction; operations The O w ner ' s qu assurance pr o gr am does riot relieve,the Contra of r esponsibility.,for quality contrq an wall perfor 1.06 Delivery";` Storage and Han A. ; The Contractor shall check all`materials upon delivery to"assure th the' gr co l o r , and certifcation havebeen rec B e Cntracto shall p materi fro damae to jobste cot d t i io ns a n a Wit h manuf recomm end ations. ge Da mat sh not be.in'corporate ' I nto the..work. ' ' : ail i =G PART 2: COMPONENTS 2.01 Definitions . " . , - : r. _ : , ' Block - a Rockwood Cla 8TM concrete segmental retaining well unit. Cap - a Rockwood Classic Universal Cap concrete segmental retaining;wall unit. Geogrid: -a geosynthetic material manufactured for the primary purpose. to reinforce soil:. Same as g e os ynthetic reinforcement. and s oli reinforcement. Filter Fabric — a` geosynthetic ma aterial manufactured for the primary purpose to- filter. soils m fro>water. Same as�geosyn fabric. Drainage Fill — crushed rock aggregate that is placed within and immediately behind the block. 'Same core till and drainage rock. Backfill - compacted soil that, is placed behind the blocks and drainage fill and within the reinforce s o il. volume of ahe retaining wall as; outli on the p lans. ` Sarrie`as reinfor b ac kf ill and rrf so Base Leveling Pad - aggregate', base material or concrete used as a foundati t blocks: Same as • leveling pad. Dr P _ typically , a 4 "- diameter PVC or' HDPE: pipe, that is perforated or sl t Y ' a ccept : water from the surrounding soils. Same as drain t 2.02 Blocks and C aps A. Blocks shall be Rockwood Classic 8Th concrete segmental retaining wall units. The Owner shall specify the color and face finish. B. Caps shall be Rockwood Classic Universal Cap'"' concrete segmental retaining wall units. 1012004 RW Classic 8 Specs April 05 Page 2 Rockwood Classic 8 711 C. Blocks and caps shall conform to the following requirements: 1. Block diniensions shall be: H =8, L 18" W = 12". 2. Blocks shall have a built in lug protruding 5/8" from the base of the block. 3. Cap dimensions shall be H = 4", L FRoNT = 15", LREAR = 14", W = 10.5" 4. Permissible variations in block/cap dimensions shall be per ASTM C1372. 5. The finish and appearance of blocks/caps shall be per ASTM C 1372. 6. Strength and absorption requirements shall be per ASTIVIC 1372. 7. The unit weight (weight per unit volume) of an in-filled block Shall be greater than 115 pcf. 2.04 Base Leveling Pad Material A. Base leveling pad material shall consist of compacted aggregate base or non-reinforced concrete; as shown on the construction drawings and/or determined based RCP field conditions, Aggregate base material shall meet the following gradation in accordance with ASTM D-422 Sieve Size Percent Passing 1 inch 100 , , no. 4 35 7 70 no. 200 0-15 2.05 Drainage Fill Material A Drainage fill material shall consist of crushed rock meeting the following gradation in accordance with ASTM D-422: Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inch - 100 % inch 75-100 n�. 0-25 no. 200 0 - 5 2.06 BackfiII A. Bedell' shall consist of „soil that is free of debris and deleterious material. Unless the Designer specifies otherwise and accounts for in his/her design analysis, backfill shall meet the following gradation in accordance with ASTM D-422: Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inch . 100 1 inch 50 - 100 no: 4 20.- 100 no. 40 0-75 no. 200. 0-35 B. Backfill shall have a Plasticity Index (PI) < 15 and Liquid Limit (LL) < 40 per ASTM D 4318 - - - C. The Contractor shall obtain independent laboratory test results to verify that the backfill meets the requirements of 2.06 A. and B. 2.07 Geogrid A. The geoglid, as specified in the construction plans and drawings, shall be manufactured specifically for soil reinforcement applications. 2.08 Drainage Pipe • , •r' RW Classic 8 Specs April 05 Page 3 10/2004 Rockwood Classic 81m .. A. If required, drainage pipe shall be PVC pipe manufactured in accordance with ASTM 13-30 or corrugated HDPE pipe manufactured in accordance with ASTM D-1248. Drainage pipe .shall be perforated, slotted, or' perforated as shown in the construction drawings. PART 3: EXECUTION 3.01 Excavation' A. The Contractor shall excavate to the lines and grades shown on the construction drawings The Contractor and /or Owner's representative shall Inspect the excavation and approve /disapproveits competency as a foundation:soill prior to placement of the _leveling pad Cr backfll. B. If remedial work Is required to improve the foundation soil, the Owner shall compensate the; Contractor as mutually; agreed: C. The foundation.' soil shall be compacted to a minimum of 95 % of the, maximum density ASTM D: Ifseep or evidence _of past seepage is observed in the excavation,the Contractor shall consult the Owner andcDesigiEngineer in ' order to add or modify a drainage system to future - seepage 3.02 Base Leveling Pad A. Leveling; pad material shall be placed to the lines and grades shown on the construction, drawings, to a minimum =thickness of 6 inches, extending laterally a minimum of 6 ", both in i front of and behind the block. B. Leveling pad materials shall be compacted to a minimum of 95 % of the maximum density per ASTM: D -698. C. Leveling pad shall be prepared to insure full contact to the base surface of the block. 3.03 Block Installation A. First course of units shall be placed on the leveling pad at appropriate line and grade as shown on the construction drawings. Alignment and level shall be checked in all directions. Ensure thatall units are in full contact-with the leveling pad and properly seated. B. Place the front of units' side -by -side. Do not leave' gaps between adjacent units. Layout of corners and curves shall' be in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. C. Place drainage fill within and behind blocks. Place backfill behind drainage fill in lifts no greater „_ than 6 to ;12 inches and to a minimum of 95 % of the maximum density per ASTM D -698: -After-placement of backfill,- compactdrainagefll by probing- ----------- D. Do not stack more than two courses of block prior to placing and compacting drainage fill and j backfil. 3.04 Geogrid Installation A. Geogrid shall be oriented with the highest strength axis perpendicular to the wall alignment. RW Classic 8 Specs April 05 Page 4 10/2004 Rockwood Classic 8 B. Geogridshali be placed at the type, lengths, and elevations shown on the construction drawings or as directed by the Design Engineer. C. The geogrid shalt be laid horizontally from within.2 inches of the face of the block back across . compacted backfill. Place the next course of blocks over the geogrid. The geogrid shall be pulled taut and anchored prior to placing additional drainage fill' or backfill: D. Geogridshall be continuous: throughout "their embedoientlength. Geogrid shall be placed s,de -by- Side_ or overlapped with 3" backfill between to provide 100% coverage at each designed geogrid level where possible. Geogrid shall not "b e spliced along its designed embedment length: 3.05 Backfill Placement A. Backfill shall be placed, spread and compacted in such a manner that minimizes thedevelopment of slack and installation damage irt: the geogrid. B. Backfill shall be placed and compacted in lifts not to exceed 6 inches where handcornpactior is L4.01:1; or 81to 12 inches(depending on soil type and soil processing) where heavy compaction equipment is used Lift thickness`shalt be decreased to achieve the required compaction: C. Backfill shall be compacted to 95% of the maximum density per ASTM D698. The moisture conteht of the backfill material, prior to and dunng compaction, shall be uniformly distributed throughout each Layer and shalt he within -20 %, of the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM .698. D. Only lightweight hand - operated equipment shall be allowed within 4 feet from the face of the block: E. Tracked construction equipment shall not be operated directly upon the geogrid: A minimum of 6 inches of backfll is required over the9epgriid prior to operation of tracked vehicles over the geogrid. Tracked vehicle turning should be kept to a minimum to prevent tracks from displacing the backfill and damaging the geogrid. F. Rubber tired equipment may pass over geogrid at slow speeds, Less than 10 mph. Sudden braking and sharp turning shall be avoided. G. At the end of each day's. operation, the Contractor shall slope the last lift of backfill away from the blocks and drainage•filt' "order to direct runoff away from wall face. The Contractor shall ensure surface runoff from adjacent areas does not enterthe"wall construction site. 3.06 Drainage System Installation A. Drainage systems both internal to the wall and surficial shall be determined based upon site conditions by the Contractor in consultation with the Owner and the Design Engineer. B. Within the time of construction, the Contractor must ensure that all drainage is directed away from the wall system by use of drainage males, area drains, or othe competent measures. a - within the lifetime of the wall; the Owner m ensure that all surficial drainage is directed away from - the wall system. 3.07 Cap Installation A. Caps shall be adhered to underlying blocks and caps with Super -StikTM. 3.08 As -Built Construction Tolerances A. Vertical Alignment: the top of wall shall be within 0.1' (1.2 ") from design grade. RW Classic 8 Specs April 05 Page 5 10/2004 Rockwood Classic 8 "" B. Wall Batter: within degrees of design batter, excluding a negative batter C. Horizontal alignment: the bottom of the wall (B.W.), at design B.W. grade, shall within 1 foot of design line. D Maximum horizontal gap between erected blocks shall be 1/2 inch. 3.09 Field Quality Control A. The Owner and Contractor shall engage inspection and testing services (quality control) during quality construction to ensure project specifications are met The lack of q ty control by the Owner does not relieve: the Contractor from meeting` project specifications. B. Quality control should include, but not be limited to: foundation soil inspection; verification of geotechnical design parameters; and verification that construction is in general compliance with the design drawings and project specifications (QuahtyAssurance is usually best performed by the site geotechnical engineer.) C. Only qualified and experienced technicians and engineers shall perform testing and inspection services. RW Classic 8 Specs April 05 Page 6 1W2004 • ■ WALL CALCULATIONS • • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 2 LN UO310349 • Slopes: • Front Slope (degrees) horizontal Back Slope (degrees) 12.5 Distance to Broken Back (ft) 9.0 • Equivalent Back Slope (degrees) 3.57 • • • • Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge (psf) 100 Dead Load Surcharge none Friction Cohesion Angle Unit Weight • Soil Data: Soil Description: (psf) (degrees) (pcf) • • Reinforced Soil SM N/A 30.0 120.0. • . Retained Soil ML /CL N/A 28.0 120.0 Levelling Pad Soil gravel N/A 40.0 125.0 Foundation Soil ML /CL 0.0 28.0 120.0 'Segmental Unit Name: Classic 8 • Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) 4.0 Unit Height (Hu)(in) 8.0 • . Unit Width (Wu)(in) 12.0 Unit Length (in) 18:0 Setback (in) 1.0 Weight (infilled) (lbs) 125.0 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 125.0 Center of Gravity (in) • 6.0 • . Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: • • Properties Ultimate Strength Criteria .Service State Criteria Minimum (lbs /ft) 585.0 390.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 56.0 39.0 • Maximum (lbs /ft) 6000.0 4000.0 • Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 5 SG 200 2 3 •SG 350 3 0 SG550 • • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 3 LN UO310349 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 U ltimate Strength (lbs /ft) 3 000.0 4200.0 6800.0 • Polymer Type polyester polyester polyester • • Reduction Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Creep 1.61 1.61 1.61 Durability 1.10 1.10 1.10 Installation Damage 1.05 1.05 1.05 Overall Factor of- Safety 1.50 1.50 1.50 • Allowable Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ta (lbs /ft) • 1075.53 1505.74. 2437.87 . Coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ci 0.9 0.9 0.9 • Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 • Cds 0.95 0.95 0.95 Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 . Type 3 • Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 1198.0 955.0 1085.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 3.0 24.0 30.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 2000.0 2800.0 4535.0 . ' Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 963.0 850.0 1045.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 2.0 17.0 19.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 1500.0 2100.0 3400.0 • • Geosynthetic - Segmental. Retaining Wall Unit . Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 • • Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 585.0 585.0 585.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 56.0 56.0 56.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 6000.0 6000.0 6000•.0 Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 390.0 390.0 390.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 39.0 39.0 39.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 4000.0 4000.0 4000.0 • SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 4 LN UO310349 • Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Rei Soil (Ka) 0.294 R Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.286 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 50.14 Retained Soil (Ka) 0.28 • • Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) • 0.262 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 49.97 • Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Design Criteria FOS Sliding 2.78 1.5 OK FOS Overturning 6.84 1.5 OK FOS Bearing Capacity 7.53 2.0 OK Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 14.0 9.6 OK Base Eccentricity (e)(ft) 0.01 N/A Base Eccentricity Ratio (e /L -2e) 0.0 N/A Base Reinforcement Ratio (L /H) 0.88 0.6 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses:. Calculated Values: . Total Horizontal Force (lbs /ft) 5556.6 Total Vertical Force (lbs /ft) 29035.0 Sliding Resistance (lbs /ft) 15438.2 Driving Moment (lbs- ft /ft) 34743.4 Resisting Moment (lbs- ft /ft) 237634.5 Bearing Capacity (psf) 16366.9 • Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) 2172.9 Results of Internal. Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS FOS FOS Layer Unit Type (ft) (ft) Length Over- Pullout Sliding Spacing 1 (ft) stress (ft) > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 > 1.5 < 3.0 23 1 14.67 14.0 2.59 6.7 6.7 11.83 OK 20 ' 1 12.67 14.0 4.01 3.75 9.29 8.83 OK 17 1 10.67 14.0 5.43 2.54 11:57 7.01 OK 14 1 8.67 14.0 6.85 1.92 13.86 5.8 OK 11 1 6.67 14.0 8.27 1.54 16.14 4.83 OK • 8 2 4.67 14.0 9.69 1.8 18.44 4.1 OK 5 2 2.67 14.0 11.11 1.55 20.73 3.57 OK 2 2 0.67 14.0 12.53 1.64 27.87 3.15 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria • • SRWall (ver 3.22 April .2002) Page 5 LN UO310349 Detailed Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Allowable Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding . Unit Type (ft) Strength Load Capacity Force Capacity # (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) • 23 • 1 14.67 • 1075.5 160.4 1074.3 261.1 3089.2 20 1 12.67 1075.5 286.4 2661.7 585.4 5171.1 17 1 10.67 1075.5 423.9 4904.7 1035.3 7253.0 14 1 8.67 1075.5 561.4 7778.7 1610.8 9334.9 11 1 6.67 1075.5 698.9 11284.0 2312.0 11169.7 8 2 4.67 1505.7 836.4 15420.4 3138.8 12881.0 5 2 2:67 1505.7 973.9 20187.9 4091.2 14592.2 2 2 0.67 1505.7 916.6 25544.7 5169.3 16303.5 Results of Facing Stability Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS Shear FOS Connection Unit Elev Type Over- Shear (deformation) Connection (deformation) # (ft) turning (p(mk) (peak) > 1.5 > 1.5 < 0.02 x Hu > 1.5 < 0.75 in 24 15.33 none 5.17 26.5 OK - - 23 14.67 1 2.31 12.1 OK 7.52 OK 22 14.0 none 8.37 - - - - 21 13.33 none 7.8 28.26 OK - - 20 12.67 1 6.54 9.54 OK 4.26 OK 19 12.0 none 6.61 - - - - 18 11.33 none 6.1 23.73 OK - - ' 17 10.67 1 5.47 8.08 OK 2.91 OK 16 10.0 none 5.26 - - - - 15 9.33 none 4.92 21.67 OK - - 14 8.67 1 4.54 7.38 OK 2.22 OK 13 8.0 none 4.35 - - - - .12 7.33 none . 4.08 19.33 OK - - 11 6.67 1 3.8 6.22 OK 1.79 OK 10 6.0 none 3.64 - - - - • 9 5.33 none 3.45 15.92 OK - - 8 4.67 2 3.26 5.16 OK 1.67 OK 7 4.0 none 3.16 - - - - 6 3.33 none 3.03 13.53 OK f - 5 2.67 2 2.9 4.4 OK 1.44* OK 4 2.0 none 2.82 - - - - 3 1.33 none 2.73 11.77 OK - - 2 0.67 2 2.63 3.84 OK 1.53 OK 1 0.0 none 2.56 - - - Olt - 0-,e>s f _ � O '`;. Note: * value does NOT MEET design criterion (1 occurrences) 61)2r-S?,e5sed • • • • • • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 6 LN UO310349 Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Moment. and Shear): SRW Heel Geo Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear Unit Elev Type Moment Moment Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs- ft /ft) (lbs- ft /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) +out -in (peak) (deformation) 24 15.33 none 8:1 • 41.7 26.7 708.5 457.5 .23 14.67 1 39.0 90.3 68.7 832.1 525.0 22 14.0 none . 103.1 862.9 -34.4 955.6 592.4 21 13.33 none ' 210.5 1642.4 38.2 1079.2 659.9 20 12.67 1 371.3 2428.8 126.0 1202.7 727.4 19 12.0 none 595.8 3939.3 -57.3 1326.3 794.9 18 11.33 none 894.1 5456.6 61.1 1449.8 862.4 17 10.67 1 1276.5 6981.0 194.8 1573.4 929.9 16 10.0 none 1753.1 9229.2 -80.2 1696.9 997.3 15 9.33 none 2334.0 11484.4 84.0 1820.5 1064.8 14 8.67 1 3029:6 13746.7 263.5 1944.0 1132.3 13 8.0 none 3849.9 16732.8 -103.1 2067.6 1199.8 12 7.33 none 4805.1 19600.8 106.9 2067.6 1199.8 11 6.67 1 5905.5 22468.9 332.3 2067.6 1199.8 10 6.0 none 7161.2 26054.0 -126.0 2067.6 1199.8 ' 9 5.33 none 8582.4' 29639.1 129.9 2067.6 1199.8 .8 4.67 2 10179.3 33224.2 401.0 2067.6 1199.8 7 4.0 none 11962.1 37742.8 . -149.0 2067.6 1199.8 6 3.33 none 13940.9 42261.3 152.8 2067.6 1199.8 5 2.67 2 16125.9 46780.0 469.8 2067.6 1199.8 4 2.0 none . 18527.4 52232.0 -171.9 2067.6 1199.8 3 1.33 none 21155.5 57684.1 175.7 2067.6 1199.8 • 2 0.67 2 24020.5 63136.2 538:5 2067.6 1199.8 1 0.0 none 27132.3 69521.7 0.0 2067.6 1199.8 Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Connections): SRW Heel Geo Connection Connection Connection Unit Elev Type Load Capacity Capacity # '(ft) (lbs /ft) (peak) (deformation) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) 23 14.67 1 160.4 1206.7 968.8 . 20 12.67 1 286.4 1219.8 977.6 • 17 10.67 1 423.9 1232.9 986.3 14 8.67 1 561.4 1246.0 995.0 11 6.67 1 698.9 1250.4 997.9 8 4.67 2 836.4 1400.2 1155.7 5 2.67 2 973.9 1400.2 1155.7 2 0.67 2 916.6 1400.2 1155.7 • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 7 LN UO310349 • • 9.0 ft 7.1 degree • �,► � 11, ,,�� 16.0 ft 16.33 ft ---- - - - - - -- - - SG 200 • SG 200 [_ SG 200 • SG 200. SG 200 SG 350 1.33 ft SG 350 �• ' SG 350 -0.5 ft • • 14.0 ft Project Identification: Project • Name: Hickory Shores Section: Wall #5 (SE of Bld 20 -24) Sta 2 +40 Data Sheet: • Owner: Client: GLS Industries, Inc. Prepared by:Mortarless Systems Engineering Date: July 25 2006 Time: 02:29:06 PM Data file: c: \documents and settings \miguelso.gls \my documents \acad files \minnesota \06 -1218 hickory shores, prior lake \wall • $4 -b srw calcs\stratagria classic 3 with 200 350 550.dat • • • • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 1 LIT UO310349 Licensed to: Rockwood Retaining Walls Inc 325 Alliance Place, NE Rochester, MN 55906 • • License Number: UO310349 Project Identification: • Project Name: Hickory Shores Section: Wall #5 (SE of Bldgs 20 - 24) Sta 2 +40 Data Sheet: Owner: Client: GLS Industries, Inc. Prepared by: Mortarless Systems Engineering Date: July 25 2006 Time: 02:29:.06 PM Data file: c: \documents and settings \miguelso.gls \my documents \acad files \minnesota \06 -1218 hickory shores, prior lake \wall #4 -5 srw calcs \stratagrid classic 8 with 200 350.550.dat Type of Structure: Geosynthetic- Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCMA Method A Seismic Analysis Details: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ratio 0.00 • Wall Geometry: • Design Wall Height (ft) 16.0 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 1.33 • Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 14.67 . Vertical Wall Height including Cap Unit (ft) 16.33 Exposed Wall Height including Cap Unit (ft) 15.0 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0:5 • Number of Segmental Wall Units 24 Hinge Height (ft) 8.0 Wall Inclination (degrees) 7.1 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 2 • LN UO310349 Slopes: • Front Slope (degrees) horizontal Back Slope (degrees) 12.5 Distance to Broken Back (ft) 9.0 .Equivalent Back Slope (degrees) 3.57 • • Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge (psf) 100 Dead Load Surcharge none Friction Cohesion Angle Unit Weight Soil Data: Soil Description: (psf) (degrees) (pcf) Reinforced Soil SM N/A 30.0 120.0 Retained Soil ML /CL . N/A 28.0 120.0 Levelling Pad Soil gravel N/A 40.0 125.0 'Foundation Soil ML /CL 0.0 28.0 120.0 Segmental Unit Name: Classic 8 Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) 4.0 • • Unit Height (Hu)(in) 8.0 Unit Width (Wu)(in) 12.0 Unit Length (in) 18.0 Setback (in) 1.0 Weight (infilled) (lbs) 125.0 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 125.0 Center of Gravity (in) 6.0 Segmental Unit Interface. Shear Data: • Properties Ultimate Strength Criteria Service State Criteria Minimum (lbs /ft) 585.0 390.0 Friction Angle.(degrees) 56.0 39.0 • Maximum (lbs /ft) 6000.0 4000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 5 SG 200 2 3 SG 350 3 0 SG550 SRWa1l (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 3 LN UO310349 • Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 • Ultimate Strength (lbs /ft) 3000.0 4200.0 6800.0 Polymer Type polyester polyester polyester • • Reduction Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Creep .1.61 1.61 1.61 . Durability 1.10 1.10 1.10 Installation Damage 1.05 1.05 1.05 Overall Factor of Safety 1.50. 1.50 1.50 Allowable.Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ta (lbs /ft) 1075.53 1505.74 2437:87 • • Coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3. Ci 0.9 0.9 0.9 Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Cds 0.95 0.95 0.95 Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: • Minimum (lbs /ft) 1198.0 955.0 1085.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 3.0 24.0' 30:0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 2000.0 2800.0 4535.0 Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 963.0 850.0 1045.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 2.0 17.0 19.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) • 1500.0 2100.0 3400.0 • • • Geosynthetic - Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength:' Type 1 ' Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 585.0 585.0 585.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 56.0 56.0 56.0 • Maximum (lbs /ft) 6000.0 6000.0 6000.0 • Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 390.0 390.0 390.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 39.0 39.0 39.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 4000.0 4000.0 4000.0 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 4 LN.UO310349 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.294 Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.286 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 50.14 Retained Soil (Ka) 0.28 • • Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.262 • Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 49.97 • Results of External Stability Analyses: . Calculated Design Criteria FOS Sliding 2.78 1.5 OK • FOS Overturning 6.84 1.5 OK FOS Bearing Capacity 7.53 2.0 OK Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 14.0 9.6 OK • Base Eccentricity.(e)(ft) 0.01 N/A Base Eccentricity Ratio (e /L -2e) 0.0 N/A Base Reinforcement Ratio (L /H) 0.88 0.6 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External. Stability Analyses: Calculated Values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs /ft) 5556.6 Total Vertical Force (lbs /ft) 29035.0 • Sliding Resistance (lbs /ft) 15438.2 Driving Moment (lbs- ft /ft) 34743.4 Resisting Moment (lbs- ft /ft) 237634.5 Bearing Capacity (psf) 16366.9 Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) 2172.9 • Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS FOS FOS Layer Unit Type (ft) (ft) Length Over- Pullout Sliding Spacing # (ft) stress (ft) > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 • > 1.5 < 3.0 • 23 1 14.67 14.0 2.59 6.7 6.7 11.83 OK 20 1 12.67 • 14.0 4.01 3.75 9.29 8.83 OK 17 1 10.67 14.0 5.43 2.54 11.57 7.01 OK • 14 1 8.67 14.0 6.85 1.92 13.86 5.8 • 0K • 11 1 6.67 14.0 8.27 1.54 16.14 4.83 OK 8 2 4.67 14.0 9.69 1.8 18.44 4.1 OK 5 2 2.67 14.0 11.11 1.55 20.73 3:57 . OK 2 - 2 0.67 14.0 12.53 1.64 27 3.15 OK • Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria • • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 5 LN UO310349 Detailed Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Allowable Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding Unit Type (ft) Strength Load Capacity Force Capacity # (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) . 23 1 14.67 1075.5 • 160.4 ' 1074.3 261.1 3089.2 20 • 1 12.67 1075.5 286.4 2661.7 • 585.4 5171.1 17 1 10.67 1075.5 423.9 4904.7 1035.3 7253.0 14 1 8..67 1475.,5 561,4 7778.7 1610._8 9364.9 11 1 6.67 1075.5 698.9 11284.0 2312.0 11169.7 8 2 4.67 1505.7 836.4 . 15420.4 3138.8 12881.0 ' 5 2 • 2.67 1505.7 973.9 20187 ".9 4091.2 14592.2 2 2 0.67 1505.7 916.6 25544.7 5169.3 16303.5 . Results of Facing Stability Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS Shear FOS Connection Unit Elev Type Over- Shear (deformation) Connection (deformation) • 1 (ft) turning (peak) (peak) > 1.5 > 1.5 < 0.02 x Hu > 1.5 < 0.75 in 24 15.33 none 5.17 26.5 OK - - 23 14.67 1 2.31 12.1 OK 7.52 OK 22 14.0 none 8.37 - - - - 21 13.33 none 7.8 28.26 OK - - 20 12.67 1 6.54 9.54 OK 4.26 OK 19 12.0 none 6.61 - - - - 18 11.33 none 6:1 23.73 OK - - 17 10.67 1 5.47 8.08 OK 2.91 OK 16 10.0 none 5.26 - - - - 15 9.33 none 4.92 21.67 OK - - 14 8.67 1 4.54 7.38 OK 2.22 OK 13 8.0 none 4.35 - - - - 12 7.33 none 4.08 19.33 OK - - 11 6.67 1 3.8 6.22 OK 1.79 OK . • 10 6.0 none 3.64 - - - - 9 5.33 none 3.45 15.92 OK - - 8 4.67 2 3.26 5.16 OK 1.67 OK 7 4.0 none 3.16 - - - - 6 3.33 none 3.03 13.53 OK - - 5 2.67 2 2.9 4.4 OK 1.44* OK 4 2.0 none 2.82 - - - - 3 1.33 none 2.73 11.77 OK - - 2 0.67 2 2.63 3.84 OK 1.53 OK 1 0.0 none 2.56 - - - - Note: * value does NOT MEET design criterion (1 occurrences) • • • • • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 6 LN UO310349 Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Moment and Shear): SRW Heel Geo Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear Unit Elev Type Moment Moment Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs- ft /ft) (lbs- ft /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs/ft) tout -in (peak) (deformation) • 24 15.33 none 8.1 41.7 26.7 708.5 457.5 23 14.67 1 39.0 90.3 68.7 832.1 525.0 22 14.0 none 103.1 862.9 -34.4 955.6 592.4 21 13.33 none 210.5 1642.4 38.2 1079.2 659.9 20 12.67 1 371.3 2428.8 126.0 1202.7 727.4 19 12.0 none 595.8 3939.3 -57.3 1326.3 794.9 18 11.33 none 894.1 5456.6' 61.1 1449.8 ' 862.4 17 10.67 1 1276.5 6981.0 194.8 1573.4 929.9 16 10.0 none 1753.1 9229.2 -80.2 1696.9 997.3 15 9.33 none 2334.0 11484.4 84.0 1820.5 1064.8 14 8.67 1 3029.6 13746.7 263.5 1944.0 1132.3 13 8.0 none 3849.9 16732.8 -103.1 2067.6 1199.8 12 7.33 none 4805.1 19600.8 106.9 2067.6 1199.8 11 6.67 1 5905.5 22468.9 332.3 2067.6 1199.8 10 6.0 none 7161.2 26054.0 -126.0 2067.6 1199.8 9 5.33 none 8582.4 29639.1 129.9 2067.6 1199.8 8 4.67 2 10179.3 33224.2 401.0 2067.6 1199.8 . 7 4.0 none 11962.1 37742.8 -149.0 2067.6 1199.8 6 3.33 none 13940.9 42261.3 152.8 2067.6 1199.8 5 2.67 2 16125.9 46780.0 469.8 2067.6 1199.8 4 2.0 none 18527.4 52232.0 -171.9 2067.6 1199.8 3 1.33 none 21155.5 57684.1 175.7 2067.6 1199.8 2 0.67 2 24020.5 63136.2 538.5 2067.6 1199.8 1 0.0 none 27132.3 69521.7 '0.0 2067.6 1199.8 Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Connections): SRW Heel Geo Connection Connection Connection Unit Elev Type Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs /ft) (peak) (deformation) . - (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) 23 14.67 1 160.4 1206.7 968.8 • 20 12.67 1 286.4 1219.8 977.6 17 10.67 1 ' 423.9 1232.9 986.3 14 8.67 1 561.4 1246.0 995.0 11 6.67 1 698.9 1250.4 997.9 8 4.67 2 836.4 1400.2 1155.7 5 2.67 2 973.9 1400.2 1155.7 2 0.67 2 916.6 1400.2 1155.7 • • • • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 7 LN UO310349 • 9.0 ft 7.1 degree - ITT" IVY 11111111V ITT" 16.0 ft 16.33 ft ' --- SG 200 SG 200 1 SG 200 SG 200 SG 200 SG 350 1.33 ft SG 350 SG 350 -0.5 ft 14.0 ft 6 � Project Identification: Project Name: Hickory Shores Section: Wall #5 (SE of•B1dgs 20 -24) Sta 2 +40 Data Sheet: Owner: Client: GLS Industries, Inc. Prepared by:Mortarless Systems Engineering Date: July 25 2006 Time: 02:29:06 PM Data file: c: \documents and settings \miguelso.gls \my documents \acad files \minnesota \06 -1218 hickory shores, prior lake \wall $4 -bssrw calcs\stratagrid classic 8 with 200 350 550.dat • • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 1 LW UO310349 • • Licensed to: Rockwood Retaining Walls Inc 325 Alliance Place, NE Rochester, MN 55906 • • • License Number: UO310349 • • Project Identification: Project Name: Hickory Shores Section: Wall #5 (SE of B1dgs -24) Sta 1 +10 Data Sheet: Owner: Client: GLS Industries, Inc. Prepared by: Mortarless Systems Engineering Date: July 25 2006 Time: 02:29 :06 PM Data file: c: \documents and settings \miguelso.gls \my documents \acad files \minnesota \06 -1218 hickory shores, prior lake \wall #4 -5 srw calcs \wall #4 (se of bldgs 20 -24) sta 1 +10 Type of Structure: Geosynthetic- Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCMA Method A Seismic Analysis Details: • • Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ratio 0.00 Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) 11.33 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 1.37 • Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 9.96 Vertical Wall Height including Cap Unit (ft) 11.67 Exposed Wall Height including Cap Unit (ft) 10.3 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units 17 Hinge Height (ft) 8.0 Wall Inclination (degrees) 7.1 SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 2 LN UO310349 • Slopes: • Front Slope (degrees) horizontal Back Slope (degrees) • 4.7 Infinite Back Slope Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge (psf) 100 Dead Load Surcharge none Friction Cohesion Angle Unit Weight Soil Data: Soil Description: (psf) (degrees) (pcf) Reinforced Soil SM N/A 30.0 120.0 Retained Soil ML /CL N/A 28.0 120.0 Levelling Pad Soil gravel N/A 40.,0 125.0 Foundation Soil ML /CL 0.0 28.0 120.0 Segmental Unit Name: Classic 8 Segmental Unit Data: • Cap Height (in) 4.0 Unit Height (Hu)(in) 8.0 Unit Width (Wu)(in) . 12.0 . Unit Length (in) 18.0 Setback (in) 1.0 Weight (infilled) (lbs) 125.0 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 125.0 Center of Gravity (in) 6.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Properties' Ultimate Strength Criteria Service State Criteria Minimum.(lbs /ft) 585.0 390.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 56.0 39.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 6000.0. . 4000.0. • • Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 . 6 SG 200 2 0 SG 350 3 0 SG550 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 3 LN UO310349 • Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength (Tbs /ft) 3000.0 4200.0 6800.0 Polymer Type polyester polyester polyester Reduction Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Creep • 1.61 1.61 1.61 Durability 1.10 1.10 1.10 Installation Damage 1.05 1.05 1.05 Overall Factor of Safety 1.50 1.50 1.50 • Allowable Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ta (lbs /ft) 1075.53 1505.74 2437.87 • • • Coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 • Ci 0.9 0.9 0.9 • Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Cds 0.95 0.95 0.95 • Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 1198.0 955.0 1085.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 3.0 24.0 30.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 2000.0 2800.0 4535.0 Service State Criterion: 'Minimum (lbs /ft) 963.0 850.0 1045.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 2.0 17.0 19.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 1500.0 2100.0 3400.0 • Geosynthetic - Segmental Retaining Wall Unit . • Interface Shear Strength: ,Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 585.0 585.0 585.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 56.0 56.0 56.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 6000.0 6000.0 6000.0 Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 390.0 390.0 390.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 39.0 39.0 39.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 4000.0 4000.0 4000.0 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 4 LN (10310349 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.263 Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.257 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 52.28 Retained Soil (Ka) 0.284 Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.266 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 49.68 Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Design Criteria FOS Sliding 2.82 1.5 OK FOS Overturning 7.11 1.5 OK FOS Bearing Capacity 8.08 2.0 OK Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 10.0 6.8 OK Base Eccentricity (e)(ft) 0.08 N/A Base Eccentricity Ratio (e /L -2e) 0.01 N/A Base Reinforcement Ratio (L /H) 0.88 0.6 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs /ft) 2651.5 Total Vertical Force (lbs /ft) 14064.1 Sliding Resistance (lbs /ft) 7478.0 Driving Moment (lbs- ft /ft) 11330.9 • Resisting Moment (lbs- ft /ft) 80569.3 Bearing Capacity (psf) 12295.6 Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) 1521.6 Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS FOS FOS Layer Unit Type (ft) (ft) Length Over Pullout Sliding Spacing # (ft) stress (ft) > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 > 1.5 < 3.0 17 1 10.67 10.0 2.08 17.47 5.57 18.96 OK 15 1 9.33 10.0 2.95 6.99 6.22 12.17 OK 12 1 7.33 10.0 4.24 3.61 8.06 8.05 OK 9 1 5.33 10.0 5.54 2.56 10.6 6.04 OK 6 1 3.33 10.0 6.84 1.98 13.14 4.83 OK 3 1 1.33 10.0 8.14 1.36 13.24 3.86 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria.. • SRWa11 (ver 3:22 April 2002) Page 5 LN UO310349 • Detailed Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Allowable Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding Unit Type (ft) Strength Load Capacity Force Capacity # (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) 17 '1 10.67 1075.5 61.6 • 343.0 70.0 1326.9 15 1 9.33 1075.5 154.0 957.4 194.2 2363.8 ' 12 1 7.33 1075.5 297.6 2398.2 486.9 3919.2 9 1 5.33 1075.5 420.8 4462.1 907.1 5474.6 6 1 3.33 1075.5 544.0 7149.2 1454.9 7029.9 3 1 1.33 1075.5 790.3 10459.9 2130.3 8214.6 • Results of Facing Stability Analyses: . • SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS Shear • FOS Connection Unit Elev Type Over- Shear (deformation) Connection (deformation) # (ft) • turning (peak) (peak) > 1.5 > 1.5 < 0.02 x.Su > 1.5 < 0.75 in 17 10.67 1 5.77 29.59 OK 19.53 • OK 16 10.0 none 23.08 • - - - - 15 9.33 1 17.1 18.62 OK '7.87 OK 14 8.67 none 16.32 - - - - 13 8.0 none • 13.77 29.3 OK - - 12 7.33 1 11.41 9.94 OK 4.11 OK • 11 6.67 none 10.39 - - - - 10 6.0 none 9.24 25.55 OK - - 9 5.33 1 8.16 8.7 OK ' 2.94 OK 8 4.67 none 7.55 - - - - 7 4.0 none 6.92 23.68 OK - - . 6 3.33 1 6.31 . 8.06 OK 2.3 OK 5 2.67 none 5.89 - - - - 4 2.0 none 5.47 20.14 OK - • - 3 1.33 1 5.07 6.5 OK 1.58 OK 2 0.67 none 4.79 - - - - 1 0.0 none 4.51" - - - - Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria • • Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Moment and Shear): SRW Heel Geo Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear Unit Elev Type Moment Moment Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs- ft /ft) (lbs- ft /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) +out -in (peak) (deformation) 17 10.67 1 7.2 41.7 23.9 708.5 457.5 16 10.0 none 35.0 807.3 0.0 832.1 525.0 15 9.33 1 92.4 ' 1579.9 51.3 955.6 592.4 14 8.67 none 188.5 3076.4 -37.6 1079.2 659.9 13 8.0 none 332.6 4579.9 41.1 1202.7 727.4 12 7.33 1 533.7 6090.3 133.4 1326.3 794.9 . 11 6.67 none 800.9 8324.7 -58.2 1449.8 862.4 10 6.0 none 1143.4 10566.0 61.6 1573.4 929.9 9 5.33 1 1570.3 12814.3 195.0 1696.9 997.3 • 8 4.67 none 2090.7 15786.6 -78.7 1820.5 1064.8 7 4.0 none 2713.7 18765.8 82.1 1944.0 1132.3 6 3.33 1 3448.5 21751.9 256.6 2067.6 1199.8 5 2.67 none 4304.2 25337.0 -99.2 2067.6 1199.8 4 2.0 none 5289.9 28922.1 102.6 2067.6 1199.8 3 1.33 1 6414.7 32507.2 318.2 2067.6 1199.8 2 0.67 none 7687.7 36809.3 -242.9 2067.6 1199.8 1 0.0 none 9118.1 41111.4 0.0 2067.6 1199.8 • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 6 LN UO310349 • Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Connections): SRW Heel Geo Connection Connection Connection Unit Elev Type Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs /ft) (peak) (deformation) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) 17 10.67 1 61.6 1202.4 965.9 15 9.33 1 154.0 1211.1 971.7 12 7.33 1 297.6 1224.2 980.5 9 5.33 1 420.8 1237.3 989.2 6 3.33 1 544.0 1250.4 997.9 3 1.33 1 790.3 1250.4 997.9 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 7 LN UO310349 7.1 degrees 11.67 ft 11.33 ft A SG 200 SG 200 SG 200 • SG 200 SG 200 1.37 ft SG 200 0 - r -0.5 ft � d 10.0 ft • Project Identification: Project Name: Hickory Shores Section: Wall #5 (SE of Bldgs 20 -24) Sta 1 +10 Data Sheet: Owner: Client: GLS Industries, Inc. Prepared by:Mortarless Systems Engineering Date: July 25 2006 Time: 02:29:06 PM Data file: c: \documents and settings \m.guelso.gls \my documents \acad files \minnesota \06 -1218 hickory shores, prior lake \wall - #4 -5 srw calcs \wall #4 (se of bldgs 20 -24) sta 1 +10 • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 1 LN UO310349 Licensed to: Rockwood Retaining Walls Inc 325 Alliance Place, NE Rochester, MN 55906 • License Number: UO310349 • Project Identification: Project Name: Hickory Shores Section: Wall #5 (SE of.Bldgs 20 -24) Sta 0 +63 Data Sheet: • Owner: Client: GLS Industries, Inc. Prepared by: Mortarless Systems Engineering Date: July 25 2006 Time: 02:29:06 PM Data file: c: \documents and settings \miguelso.gls \my documents \acad files \minnesota \06 -1218 hickory shores, prior lake \wall #4 -5 srw calcs \wall #4 (se of bldgs 20 -24) sta 0 +63 • • • Type of Structure: Geosynthetic- Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NUM Method A • Seismic Analysis Details: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ratio 0.00 Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) 8.67 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 1.6 Exposed Design Wall.Height (ft) 7.07 Vertical Wall Height including Cap Unit (ft) 9.0 Exposed Wall Height including Cap Unit (ft) 7.4 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units 13 Hinge Height (ft) 8.0 Wall Inclination (degrees) 7.1 • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 2 LN UO310349 • Slopes: Front Slope (degrees) horizontal Back Slope (degrees) 6.9 Infinite Back Slope • Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: Live Load Surcharge (psf) 100 Dead Load Surcharge none • Friction Cohesion Angle Unit Weight Soil Data: Soil Description: (ps (degrees) (pcf) Reinforced Soil SM . N/A 30.0 120.0 Retained Soil ML /CL N/A 28.0 120.0 Levelling Pad Soil gravel N/A 40.0 125.0 Foundation Soil ML /CL 0.0 28.0 120.0 Segmental Unit Name: Classic 8 Segmental Unit Data: Cap Height (in) 4.0 Unit Height (Hu)(in) 8.0 Unit Width (Wu)(in) 12.0 Unit Length (in) 18.0 Setback (in) 1.0 Weight (infilled) (lbs) 125.0 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 125.0 Center of Gravity (in) 6.0 • Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: • Properties Ultimate Strength Criteria • Service State Criteria Minimum (lbs/ft) 585.0 390.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 56.0 39.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 6000.0 4000.0 • • Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 5 SG 200 2 0 SG 350 3 0 SG550 • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 3 1,N UO310349 • Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength (lbs /ft) 3000.0 4200.0 6800.0 Polymer Type polyester polyester polyester • . Reduction Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Creep 1.61 1.61 1.61 . Durability 1.10 1.10 1.10 Installation Damage 1.05 1.05 1.05 Overall Factor. of Safety 1.50 • 1.50 1.50 • Allowable Strength_ Type 1 Type 2 . Type 3 Ta (lbs /ft) 1075.53 1505.74 2437.87 Coefficient of Interaction Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ci 0.9 0.9 0.9 Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Cds 0.95 0.95 0.95 • • Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 1198.0 955.0 1085.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 3.0 24.0 30.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 2000.0 2800.0 4535.0 Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 963.0 850.0 1045.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 2.0 17.0 19.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 1500.0 2100.0 3400.0 • • Geosynthetic- Segmental Retaining Wall Unit . Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 585.0 585.0 585.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 56.0 56.0 56.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 6000.0 6000.0 6000.0 Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 390.0 390.0 390.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 39.0 39.0 39.0 . Maximum (lbs /ft) 4000.0 4000.0 4000.0 • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 4 • LN UO310349 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.271 Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.264 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 51.75 Retained Soil .(Ka) 0.294 • Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.274 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 49.08 • Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Design Criteria FOS Sliding 2..64 1.5 OK FOS Overturning 6.65 1.5 OK FOS Bearing Capacity ' 8.75 2.0 OK Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 8.0 5.2 OK Base Eccentricity (e)(ft) 0.11 N/A Base Eccentricity Ratio (e /L -2e) 0.01 N/A Base.Reinforcement Ratio (L /H) 0.92 0.6 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Values: • Total Horizontal Force (lbs /ft) 1758.6 Total Vertical Force (lbs /ft) 8728.9 Sliding Resistance (lbs /ft) 4641.2 Driving Moment (lbs ft /ft)' 6006.4 Resisting Moment (lbs- ft /ft) 39956.7 • Bearing Capacity (psf) 10628.4 Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) 1214.6 Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS FOS FOS Layer Unit Type (ft) (ft) Length Over- Pullout Sliding Spacing (ft) stress (ft) > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 > 1.5 < 3.0 13 • 1 8.0 8.0 • 1.69 16.98 4.7 15.01 OK 11 1 6.67 8.0 2.58 6.79 5.42 9.69 OK 8 1 4.67 8.0 3.9 3.51 7.25 6.43 OK 5 1 2.67 8.0 5.23 2.49 9.72 4.83 OK 2 1 0.67 8.0 6.56 2.35 14.91 3.87 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 5 LN (10310349 Detailed Results of Internal Stability-Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Allowable Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding Unit Type (ft) Strength Load Capacity Force Capacity # (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) 13 1 8.0 1075.5 63.3 297.9 . 81.0 1216.2 • 11 1 6.67 1075.5 158.3 858.4 214.3 2077.6 8 1 4.67 1075.5 306.1 2220.3 s 524.0 3369.7 5 1 2.67 1075.5 432.8 4207.5 965.3 4661.8 2 1 0.67 1075.5 457.4 6821.6 1538.3 5953.9 Results of Facing Stability Analyses: . SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS Shear FOS Connection Unit Elev Type Over- Shear (deformation) Connection (deformation) . # (ft) turning (peak) (peak) > 1.5 > 1.5 < 0.02 x' Hu > 1.5 < 0.75 in 13 8.0 1 • 5.6 28.77 OK 18.99 OK 12 7.33 none 22.45 - - - - 11 6.67 1 16.63 18.11 OK 7.65 OK 10 6.0 none 15.87 - - - - 9 5.33 none 13.39 28.49 OK - - 8 4.67 1 11.1 9.67 OK 4.0 OK 7 4.0 none 10.11 - - - - 6 3.33 none 8.99 24.84 OK - - • 5 2.67 1 7.94 8.46 OK 2.86 OK 4 2.0 none 7.34 - - - - 3 1.33 none 6.72 23.02 OK - - 2 0.67 1 6.13 7.84 OK 2.73 OK 1 0.0 none 5.72 - - - - _ Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria • Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Moment and Shear): SRW Heel Geo Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear Unit Elev Type Moment Moment Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs- ft /ft) (lbs- ft /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) +out -in (peak) (deformation) 13 8.0 1 7.4 41.7 24.6 708.5 457.5 12 7.33 none 36.0 807.3 0.0 832.1 525.0 • 11 6.67 1 95.0 1579.9 52.8 955.6 592.4 10 6.0 none 193.9 3076.4 -38.7 1079.2 659.9 9 ' 5.33 none 342.1 4579.9 42.2 1202.7 727.4 8 4.67 1 548.9 6090.3 137.2 1326.3 794.9 7 4.0 none 823.7 8324.7 -59.8 1449.8 862.4 6 3.33 none 1175.9 10566.0 63.3 1573.4 929.9 5 2.67 1 1614.9 12814.4 200.5 1696.9 997.3 4 2.0 none 2150.1 15786.6 -80.9 1820.5 1064.8 3 1.33 none 2790.8 18765.7 84.4 1944.0 1132.3 2 0.67 1 3546.4 21751.9 263.9 2067.6 1199.8 • 1 0.0 none 4426.4 25337.0 0.0 2067.6 1199.8 • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 6 LN UO310349 Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Connections): SRW Heel Geo Connection Connection Connection Unit Elev Type Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs /ft) (peak) (deformation) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) 13 8.0 1 63.3 1202.4 965.9 11 6.67 1 158.3 1211.1 971.7 8 4.67 1 306.1 1224.2 980.5 5 2.67 1 432.8 1237.3 989.2 2 0.67 1 457.4 1250.4 997.9 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 7 LN UO310349 7.1 degrees 9.0 ft 8.67 ft . SG 200 • • - SG 200 • • SG 200 SG 200 1.6 ft • SG 200 . • a • • -0.5 ft f�- 8.0 ft • Project Identification: Project Name: Hickory Shores Section: . Wall #5 (SE of Bldgs 20 -24) Sta 0 +63 . Data Sheet: Owner: Client: GLS Industries, Inc. Prepared by:Mortarless Systems Engineering Date: July 25 2006 Time: 02:29:06 PM • Data file: c: \documents and settings \mguelso.gls \my documents \acad files \minnesota \06 -1218 hickory shores, prior lake \wall #4 -5 srw calcs \wall #4 (se of bldgs 20 -24) Sta 3 +60 • • I. i • SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 1 LN UO310349 • • Licensed to: Rockwood Retaining Walls Inc 325 Alliance Place, NE Rochester, MN 55906 • • • License Number: UO310349 • • Project Identification: Project Name: Hickory Shores Section: Wall #5 (SE of Bldgs 20 - 24) 1 +20 Data Sheet: Owner: Client: GLS Industries, Inc. • Prepared by: Mortarless Systems Engineering Date: July 25 2006 Time: 03 :10:37 PM Data file: c: \documents and settings \miguelso:gls \my documents \acad files \minnesota \06 -1218 hickory shores, prior lake \wall #4 -5 srw calcs \wall #5 (se of bldgs 20 -24) sta 1 +20 • Type of Structure: Geosynthetic- Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCMA Method A • Seismic Analysis Details: • Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ratio 0.00 • • Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) 9.33 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 1.17 Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 8.16 . Vertical Wall Height including Cap Unit (ft) 9.67 Exposed Wall Height including Cap Unit (ft) 8.5 • Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness (ft) 0.5 • • Number of Segmental Wall Units " 14 Hinge Height (ft) 8.0 Wall Inclination (degrees} 7.1 • i SRWa11 . (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 2 LN UO310349 Slopes: • Front Slope (degrees) horizontal • Back Slope (degrees) 7.6 Infinite Back Slope • • • Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: • Live Load Surcharge (psf) 100 Dead Load Surcharge none • • Friction • Cohesion Angle Unit Weight • Soil Data: Soil Description: (psf) (degrees) (pcf) Reinforced Soil SM N/A 30.0 . 120.0 Retained Soil ML /CL N/A 28.0 120.0 • Levelling Pad Soil gravel N/A 40.0 125.0. Foundation Soil ML /CL 0.0 28.0 120.0 . • Segmental Unit Name: Classic 8 ' • Segmental Unit Data: • • Cap Height (in) 4.0 • Unit Height (Hu)(in) 8.0 • • •Unit• Width (Wu)(in) 12.0 Unit Length (in) 18.0 Setback (in) 1.0 • • Weight (infilled) (ibs) 125.0 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 125.0 Center of Gravity (in) .6.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: • Properties Ultimate Strength Criteria Service State Criteria • Minimum (lbs /ft) 585.0 390.0 Friction Angle (degrees) .56.0 39.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 6000.0 4000.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 5 SG 200 2 0 SG 350 3 0 SG550 SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 3 LN UO310349 • • Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength (lbs /ft) 3000.0 4200.0 6800.0 Polymer Type polyester polyester polyester Reduction Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Creep 1.61 1.61 1.61 Durability 1.10 1.10 1.10 Installation Damage 1.05 1.05 1.05 Overall Factor of Safety 1.50 1.50 1.50 . • • Allowable Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ta (lbs /ft) 1075.53 1505.74 2437.87 • Coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ci 0.9 0.9 0.9 Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Cds 0.95 0.95 0.95 • • • • • Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 • Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 1198.0 955.0 1085.0 • Friction Angle (degrees) 3.0 24.0 30.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 2000.0 2800.0 4535.0 Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 963.0 850.0 1045.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 2.0 17.0 19.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 1500.0 2100.0 3400.0 • • Geosynthetic - Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: 'Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 585.0 585.0 585.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 56.0 56.0 56.0 • Maximum (lbs /ft) . 6000.0 6000.0 6000.0 Service State Criterion: .Minimum (lbs /ft) 390.0 390.0 390.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 39.0 39.0 39.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 4000.0 4000.0 4000.0 SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 4 LN UO310349 • Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.273 Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.266 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 51.57 Retained Soil (Ka) 0.297 . Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.277 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 48.88 • Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Design Criteria FOS Sliding 2.44 1.5 OK FOS Overturning 5.79 1.5 OK FOS Bearing Capacity 7.35 2.0 OK Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 8.0 5.6 OK Base Eccentricity (e)(.ft) 0.18 N/A Base Eccentricity Ratio (e /L -2e) 0.02 N/A Base Reinforcement Ratio (L /H) 0.86 0.6 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria • Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated Values: Total Horizontal Force (lbs /ft) 2048.1 Total Vertical Force (lbs/ft) 9410.3 • • Sliding Resistance (lbs /ft) 5003.6 Driving Moment (lbs- ft /ft) 7517.8 Resisting Moment (lbs- ft /ft) 43508.2 Bearing Capacity (psf) 9738.7 • Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) 1324.4 Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS FOS FOS Layer Unit Type (ft) (ft) Length Over- Pullout Sliding Spacing 1 (ft) stress (ft) > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 > 1.5 < 3.0 • 14 1 • 8.67 8.0 1.21 12.11 2.58 13.87 OK 11 1 6.67 8.0 2.54 4.81 4.82 7.92 OK 8 1 4.67 8.0 3.88 3.06 - 7.2g 5.6 OK 5 1 2.67 8.0 5.22 2.24 .9.71 4.34 OK 2 1 0.67 8.0 • 6.55 2.16 14.85 3.47 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria • • • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 5 LN UO310349 Detailed Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Allowable Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding Unit Type (ft) Strength Load Capacity Force Capacity # (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) 14 1 8.67 1075.5 • 88.8 228.7 89.2 1237.1 . 11 1 6.67 1075.5 223.7 1077.6 319.5 2529.2 8 1 4.67 1075.5 . 351.6 2552.6 682.8 3821.3 5 1 2.67 1075.5 479.4 4653.7 1179.3 5113.4 2 1 0.67 1075.5 497.2 7383.4 1808.7 6281.9 • Results of Facing Stability Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS Shear FOS Connection Unit Elev Type Over- Shear (deformation) Connection (deformation) # (ft) turning (peak) (peak) > 1.5 > 1.5 < 0.02 x Hu > 1.5 < 0.75 in 14 8.67 1 5.56 28.5 OK 13.54 OK • 13 8.0 none 22.24 - - - - 12 7.33 none 16.48 33.64 OK - - 11 6.67 1 12.06 11.25 OK 5.43 OK 10 6.0 none 11.19 - - - - 9 5.33 none 9.7 26.68 OK - - 8 . 4.67 1 8.29 9.07 OK 3.49 OK 7 4.0 none 7.69 - - - - 6 3:33 none 6.98 ' 23.89 OK - - 5 2:67 1 6.28 8.14 OK 2.59 OK 4 2.0 none 5.9 - - - - 3 1.33 none 5.48 22.39 OK - - 2 0.67 1 5.03 7.19 OK 2.51 OK • 1 0.0 none 4.74 - - - - .Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Moment and Shear): SRW Heel Geo Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear Unit Elev Type Moment Moment Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs- ft /ftj (lbs- ft /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft), tout -in (peak) (deformation) 14 8.67 1 7.5 41.7 24.9 708.5 457.5 13 8.0 none 36.3 807.3 -24.9 832.1 525.0 12 7.33 none 95.9 1579.9 28.4 955.6 592.4 11 6.67 1 195.7 2359.4 95.9 1079.2 659.9 • 10 6.0 none 345.3 3862.9 -46.2 1202.7 727.4 . 9 5.33 none .554.0 5373.3 49.7 1326.3 794.9 8 4.67 1 831.4 6890.7 159.8 1449.8 862.4 7 4.0 none 1186.9 9132.0 -67.5 1573.4 929.9 6 3.33 none 1630.1 11380.3 71.0 1696.9 .997.3 5 2.67 1 2170.3 13635.5 223.7 1820.5 1064.8 4 2.0 none 2817.0 16614.7 -88.8 1944.0 1132.3 3 1.33 none 3579.7 19600.8 92.3 2067.6 1199.8 2 0:67 1 4468.0 22468.9 . 287.7 2067.6 • 1199.8 • ' 1 0.0 none 5491.1 26054.0 0.0 2067.6 1199.8 • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 6 LN UO310349 Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Connections): SRW Heel Geo Connection Connection Connection Unit Elev Type Load Capacity Capacity (ft) (lbs /ft) (peak) (deformation) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) • 14 8.67 1 88.8 1202.4 965.9 11 6.67 1 223.7 1215.5 974:6 8 4.67 1 351.6 1228.6 983.4 5 2.67 1 479.4 1241.7 992.1 2 0.67 1 497.2 1250.4 997.9 • • • • • • • • • • • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 7 LN UO310349 7.1 degrees 9.67 ft r 9.33 ft SG 200 SG 200 SG 200 SG 200 1.17 ft • V SG 200 V - • -0.5 ft B � 8.0 ft Project Identification: • Project Name: Hickory Shores Section: Wall #5 (SE of Bldgs 20 -24) 1 +20 Data Sheet: Owner: Client: GLS Industries, Inc. Prepared by:Mortarless Systems Engineering Date: July 25 2006 Time: 03:10:37 PM Data file: c: \documents and settings \miguelso.gls \my documents \acad files \minnesota \06 -1218 hickory shores, prior lake \wall $4 - a srw calcs \wale (se of brags 20 -24) sta 1 +20 • • • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 1 LN UO310349 • • Licensed to: Rockwood Retaining Walls Inc 325 Alliance Place, NE Rochester, Mai 55906 • • License Number: UO310349 Project Identification: Project Name: Hickory Shores Section: Wall #5 (SE of Bldgs 20 -24) 2 +40 Data Sheet: Owner: Client: GLS Industries, Inc. Prepared by: Mortarless Systems Engineering Date: July 25 2006 Time: 03:10:37 PM Data file: c: \documents and settings \miguelso.gls \my documents \acad files \minnesota \06 -1218 hickory shores, prior lake \wall #4 -5 srw calcs \wall #5 (se of bldgs 20 -24) sta 2 +40 • • Type of Structure: .Geosynthetic- Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Design Methodology: NCMA Method A Seismic Analysis Details: • Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) ratio 0.00 • • Wall Geometry: Design Wall Height (ft) 7.33 Embedment Wall Height (ft) 1.33 Exposed Design Wall Height (ft) 6.0 • Vertical Wall Height including Cap Unit (ft) 7.67 Exposed Wall Height including Cap Unit (ft) 6.34 Minimum Levelling Pad Thickness 0.5 Number of Segmental Wall Units 11 • Hinge Height (ft) 7.33 Wall Inclination (degrees) 7.1 • • • SRWall (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 2 LN UO310349 • Slopes: • Front Slope (degrees) horizontal • Back Slope (degrees) 10.0 Infinite Back Slope • • Uniformly Distributed Surcharges: • Live Load Surcharge (psf) 100 • Dead Load Surcharge none Friction Cohesion Angle Unit Weight Soil Data: Soil Description: (psf) (degrees) (pcf) Reinforced Soil SM N/A 30.0 120.0 Retained Soil ML /CL N/A 28.0 120.0 Levelling Pad Soil gravel N/A 40.0 125.0 Foundation Soil ML /CL 0..0 28.0 120.0 Segmental Unit Name: Classic 8 Segmental Unit Data: • Cap Height (in) 4.0 • Unit Height (lu)(in) 8.0 • Unit Width (Wu)(in) 12.0 Unit Length (in) 18.0 Setback (in) 1.0 Weight (infilled) (lbs) 125.0 Unit Weight (infilled) (pcf) 125.0 Center of Gravity (in) 6.0 Segmental Unit Interface Shear Data: Properties Ultimate Strength Criteria Service State Criteria • Minimum (lbs /ft) 585.0 390.0 • Friction Angle (degrees) 56.0 39.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 6000.0 4000.0 • • Geosynthetic Reinforcement Types and Number: Type Number Name 1 4 SG 200 2 0 SG 350 3 0 SG550 • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 3 LN UO310349 Geosynthetics Properties: Strength and Polymer Type: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength (lbs /ft) 3000.0 4200.0 6800.0 Polymer Type polyester polyester polyester • • Reduction Factors: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 .Creep 1.61 1.61 1.61 Durability 1.10 1.10 1.10 Installation Damage 1.05 • 1.05 • 1.05 Overall Factor of Safety 1.50 1.50 1.50 Allowable Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 . Ta (lbs /ft) 1075.53 1505.74 2437.87 Coefficient of Interaction: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ci 0.9 0.9 0.9 • Coefficient of Direct Sliding: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3. Cds 0.95 0.95 0.95 • • Connection Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 1198.0 955.0 1085.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 3.0 24.0 30.0 Maximum (lbs /ft). 2000.0 2800.0 4535.0 Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 963.0 850.0 1045.0' Friction Angle (degrees) 2.0 17.0 19.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 1500.0 2100.0 3400.0 • • Geosynthetic - Segmental Retaining Wall Unit Interface Shear Strength: Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 • • Ultimate Strength Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 585.0 585.0 585.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 56.0 56.0 56.0 Maximum (lbs /ft) 6000.0 6000.0 6000.0 Service State Criterion: Minimum (lbs /ft) 390.0 390.0 390.0 Friction Angle (degrees) 39.0 39.0 39.0 Maximum (lbs/ft) 4000.0 4000.0 4000.0 . SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 4 LN UO310349 Coefficients of Earth Pressure and Failure Plane Orientations: Reinforced Soil (Ka) 0.283 Reinforced Soil (Ka horizontal component) 0.276 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 50.91 Retained Soil (Ka) 0.308 . Retained Soil (Ka horizontal component) • 0.288 Orientation of failure plane from horizontal (degrees) 48.13 Results of External Stability Analyses: Calculated • Design Criteria FOS Sliding 2.38 1.5 OK FOS Overturning 5.92 1.5 OK FOS Bearing Capacity 8.39 2.0 OK Base Reinforcement Length (L)" (ft) 7.0 4.4 OK Base Eccentricity (e)(ft) 0.16 N/A . Base Eccentricity Ratio (e /L -2e) 0.02 N/A Base Reinforcement Ratio (L /H) .0.95 0.6 OK Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of External Stability Analyses:. Calculated Values: • Total Horizontal Force (lbs /ft) 1471.4 Total Vertical Force (lbs /ft) 6591.5 Sliding Resistance (lbs /ft) • 3504.8 Driving Moment (lbs- ft /ft) • 4476.0 Resisting Moment (lbs- ft /ft) • 26503.6 . • Bearing Capacity (psf) 9053.0 Maximum Bearing Pressure (psf) 1079.3 Results of Internal Stability-Analyses: . SRW Geosyn Elev Length Anchor FOS FOS FOS Layer Unit Type (ft) (ft) Length Over- Pullout Sliding Spacing # (ft) stress (ft) > 1.0 > 1.0 > 1.5 > 1.5 < 3.0 11 1. 6.67 7.0 1.42 11.71 3.08 11.36 OK 8 1 4.67 7.0 2.79 4.65 5.17 6.65 OK 5 1 2.67 7.0 4.17 2.96 7.53 4.74 OK 2 1 0.67 7.0 5.54 2.66 12.15 3.69 OK . Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria Detailed Results of Internal Stability Analyses: SRW Geosyn Elev Allowable Tensile Pullout Sliding Sliding Unit Type (ft) . Strength ' Load Capacity Force Capacity • 1 (lbs /ft) . (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) abs/ft) (lbs /ft) 11 1 6.67 1075.5 91.8 282.8 104.6 1188.4 8 1 , 4.67 1075.5 231.4 1196.0 353.3 2348.8 5 1 2.67 1075.5 363.7 2738.2 740.3 3509.3 2 1 0.67 1075.5 404.1 4910.4 1265.6 4669.8 . • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 5 LN UO310349 Results of Facing Stability Analyses: SRW Heel Geosynthetic FOS FOS Shear FOS Connection Unit Elev Type Over- Shear (deformation) Connection (deformation) # (ft) turning (peak) (peak) > 1.5 > 1.5 < 0.02 x Hu > 1.5 < 0.75 in • 11 . 6.67 1 • 5.37 27.55 OK 13.09 OK 10 6.0 none 21.5 - - - - 9 5.33 none 15.93 32.52 OK - - 8 4.67 1 11.65 10.88 OK 5.25 OK 7 4.0 none 10.82 - - - - 6 3.33 none 9.38 25.79 OK - - ' 5 2.67 1 8.01 8.77 OK 3.38 Oft • 4 2.0 none 7.44 - - - - 3 1.33 none 6.75 23.1 OK - - 2 0.67 1 • 6.07 7.87 OK 3.07 OK 1 0.0 none 5.7 - - - - Note: calculated values MEET ALL design criteria • Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Moment and Shear): SRW Heel Geo Drive Resist Shear Shear Shear Unit Elev Type Moment Moment Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs- ft /ft) (lbs- ft /ft) (lbs /ft) (lbs /ft) (Ibs /ft) • tout -in (peak) (deformation) 11 6.67 1 7.8 41.7 25.7 708.5 457.5 10 6.0 none 37.6 807.3 -25.7 832.1 525.0 9 5.33 none 99.2 1579.9 29.4 955.6 592.4 8 4.67 1 202.5 2359.4 99.2 1079.2 659.9 7 4.0 none 357.2 3862.9 -47.8 1202.7 727.4 6 3.33 none 573.1 5373.3 51.4 1326.3 794.9 5 2.67 • 1 860.0 6890.7 165.3 1449.8 862.4 4 2.0 none 1227.8 9132.0 -69.8 1573.4 929.9 3 1.33 none 1686.2 11380.3 73.5 1696.9 997.3 2 0.67 1 2245.0 13635.5 231.4 1820.5 1064.8' 1 0.0 none 2914.0 16614.7 0.0 1944.0 1132.3 • Detailed Results of Facing Stability Analyses (Connections): SRW Heel Geo Connection Connection Connection Unit Elev Type Load Capacity Capacity # (ft) (lbs /ft) (peak) (deformation) (lbs/ft) (lbs /ft) 11 6.67 1 91.8 1202.4 965.9 8 4.67 • 1 231.4 1215,5 974.6 5 ' 2.67 1 363.7 1228.6 983.4 2 0.67 1 404.1 1241.7 992.1 • • • • • • SRWa11 (ver 3.22 April 2002) Page 6 LN UO310349 • 7.1 degrees 7:67 ft • 7.33 ft • SG 200 • • SG 200 • . SG 200 • • 1.33 ft • SG 200 • . -0.5 ft CJ 0 7.0 ft • Project Identification: • Project Name: Hickory Shores Section: Wall #5'(SE of Eldgs 20 -24). 2 +40 • Data Sheet: Owner: Client: GLS Industries, Inc. Prepared by:Mortarless Systems Engineering Date: July . 25 2006 Time:. 03:10:37 PM Data file: c: \documents and settings \miguelso.gls \my documents \acad files \minnesota \06 -1218 hickory shores, prior lake \wall #4-5 srw calcs \wall #5 (se of bldgs lU - L4) sta Lt4U • • • • • • • • to k-4 In bAM ON O CI r • CO, N co. ez o O y . N M . y t 4. b O v p N v N N a 4w O V 44) $ ai '° I 4 N CI Poi ° o ON ,04 • A Pm( 4■ ew r. PI )s ta O y N ON 4.1 CU 3 0 0 m. N r q ca 3; ON 00 O "'-' 044 'V N 00 • V y U CI y E 40 0 U ,0 0 0 , zw N . 0 k cam, 00 ' 00 00 b a 4. r NV y d' W N �ti ., . 3 vN "'.�� ° 3a 30 Hickory Shores Low Permeable Soil 411 lhwa lit Je Note: Internal drainage systems other than the draina However, if seepage is encountered in the backcut dL construction, additional drainage systems may be regt I hereby 1h• is pion, specific• . on. or _ SSI No. Date 0.0F report was prep certify • ed by me or under m direct =reject Name: 50 A• Prepared For. UF F supervision an• that 1 am a duly License. Hickory C�J 449. Professional En_'e =r under the laws of t e State Shores GLS Industries Project Location: No. 41835 -, " of Minnesota. Exp. 06 /30/08 Print Name: M u:� A. • f jot, Prior Lake, MN DfOY ^ FM B I CheckM A S 4.�M . 4 w it Drawing Description: Signature: ►�:RPI r71; /l�fgr= l' • *./0 Sheet 6 of 6 Jlt CIVIL FaF ENE Date: 07/26/2006 'c- n e # 41835 Wall Profiles Date: 07 /26/2006 Project Number. 06-1218 For more information about construction or installation please contact your local Rockwood dealer or visit www.rockwoodwalls.com �� ` Eye n . r . ' eF � S ,,,;, d e ' • • ma y r --- y 3 _, 4 lJ � , k , A Geotechn c� Evaluation Report �+ f �ry ti, �v�iYl ��1 • C t C_ P : : r 3 y� .F !'If3 -rte_- • " n Proposed Residential Development x' kat r . A 1•%'''' . ' ` Highwa 13 and t "r<.:;. 1. `: y 170th Street t f , , r y_t • • �. r Spring Lake Township, Minnesota �':`" i , g,, Ile ' Prepared for t ` r ` t i • 1I 1��tf1`�1 { }, s x F a 7f Giles Properties Ine. 4'- ; Ti w �4 • • ; ;:: °: • 3 ;V ",' ,V.'' n j ;' • • E 1f ., a C r • �7 Jf K,r rr i t' � ,. • ' l' Professional Certification • -=' 'Z ", Y Thereby that t v 0 w "`' Ce rtify plan, specification or re • , was prepared by me or report o g thatI am Y. r under my direct supervision and ,;;R ;L..:.--,,; ofe J . '' the alaiiliyai },fi rased Professional Engin unde r / . 1 p � xr 0, 0bee' .,IVlinnesota. ee a , r.,... ,i' �` 0 . a . y • ':A. Gale PE; • ;• ; P' r,5i R e gro � � 183 August l a v.;o Project LV -05-02890 Braun Intertec Corporation • • • T���` Of Description --~^~ Contents Page -�~ A. � Introduction A.1. ^ ^`—^....—..__ l A.1. Project Purpose ~~—`-- '--'--~--'---'—'— A.3. Scope `-^^^'^—^—`^--^^'^^`--^—... `~' l --�~`—^`�~^ `'^~/^^^^^-~^`—'^— l A .4. — —'' ^^"^"^ueu/uProviUed. ^^ A ``^`^'^^^^^^```^' �«ouD000uod��,m�� -- ^' -- '^ — ~'^—'--~—'---- ' - -'' l B. .~._~___.~___ ................. � • B.1. Logs ----~----^—'^'—'—~—'~—.. ' --�- ----'----'---^' 2 R2. Site --' Conditions 2 B.3. Soils B.4. 2 ~~~"^"d°u� � • 2 13.5. Laboratory Tests 3 � 3 C. Analyses and C.1. ' C.2. --~— `' - '~' — ' — ^''''--~'--^—^~'.--.__ � 3 Discussion ~---~----.~--'-'--' 3 C.3. Building 4 3' C.4. C.5. Foundation oorSlabs Design 4 5 C.7. Drainage and 8 elovv{�ad� ` �aDo 6 C.6. I � ^~`~�' Areas �uo 7 "� C.8. Utilities C.9. 8 Additional Iun:n8a�no 2eat�� 8 C.10. ( � o]d T�eaihcr._-.—.~..—... r-' - - � .--~~. C � o»tnzot»o 9 .......,,, ' , ' ,, .......''...........'..'..,... '' 9 D. Soil l�l ^—~'—~'—^''' . ' Drilling — ^ �' — v ^ — ^' — '^ — ^^''--~ — .. — ~--- '' — l0 D.2. 8o Sampling ~^�^�"u/uuouo ~_... 10 D.3. ---''—^--'—^''—'''—.—~—. Groundwater ---~---'-~----~---.lO . 10 I. General � . E.1. Basis E.2. I�evievvo[ Recommendations ^` ^��m�o—~._—. 10 Conditions E.3. -- '^ — ''^---~---'`-.—.-- � Groundwater —'''--''---''''----.11 E.4. D�� of Report '--'--~''--''^—'^''~'' __,__.~__._... '---'—~~---~---- E.5. Level of(3�� ------^'~~^—^^^~''—~` ` ll ,,,.,,__.-.~.—.~~.______._..__. '''~~—'—'-^'-~—'~—...11 — ^ — ^-~'---~~'..-..— ~ .11 Appendix Boring Location Sketch Log of Boring Sheets ST-1 to ST-8 • Descriptive Terminology • Giles Properties, Inc. Project LV -05 -02890 August 2, 2005 Page 2 A.5. Locations and Elevations The boring locations were selected by Giles Properties, Inc., and were staked by Braun Intertec referencing existing roadways and trees. The attached sketch shows the approximate boring locations. The ground surface elevations at the borings were provided by John Oliver & Associates. B. Results 13.1. Logs Log of Boring sheets indicating the depths and identifications of the various soil strata, penetration resistances, laboratory test results and groundwater observations are attached. The strata changes were inferred from the changes in the penetration test samples and auger cuttings. The depths shown as changes between the strata are only approximate. The changes are likely transitions and the depths of the • changes vary between the borings. Geologic origins presented for each stratum on the Log of Boring sheets are based on the soil types, blows per foot, and available common knowledge of the depositional history of the site. Because of the complex glacial and post- glacial depositional environments, geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain. A detailed investigation of the geologic history of the site was not performed. B.2. Site Conditions • • The site currently exists as a heavily wooded parcel with some agricultural fields adjacent to Crystal Lake and Rice Lake. The topography of the site is rolling hills: ry B.3. Soils The soils encountered by the soil borings generally consisted of 1/2 to 1 1/2 feet of clayey sand and silty sand topsoil at the surface. The exception was Boring ST -2 that was completed in a low area, encountered slopewash consisting of clayey sand and sandy silt to a depth of about 9 feet over alluvial deposits consisting of silty sand to a depth of about 14 feet. Below the topsoil, slopewash and alluvial deposits, the borings typically encountered glacial deposits consisting of poorly aded clayey sand and silty sand with some layers of sandy lean clay and lean clay to he boring termination depths. • The penetration resistances in the clay and clayey soils ranged from 1 to 25 blows per foot (BPF), indicating very soft to very stiff conditions, with the majority having consistencies of medium to rather stiff. The penetration resistances in the sand and silt soils ranged from weight of hammer to 36 BPF, indicating very loose to dense conditions, with the majority having consistencies of loose to medium dense. • • Giles Properties, Inc. Project LV -05 -02890 August 2, 2005 • Page 4 C.2. Discussion Based on the results of the borings, the site is judged to be generally suitable for the proposed construction with some soil corrections. For site development, we recommend that the topsoil and slopewash be removed from houses and oversize areas prior to fill or foundation placement. Some rather soft clays were encountered that may need to be removed, depending on final grades. We recommend the rather soft clays be further evaluated at the time of construction. The condition of the soils in the bottom of the excavations should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer or engineering assistant. When designing the site layout, it is possible that underground utilities such as storm pipes are designed to be constructed along a lot line between the houses. In these cases, houses and attached structures should not be built on or over any part of the trench backfill or near to the trench where footing stresses will be carried by the bac1d 11. The footing stresses generally extend down and away from the edge of the footings at a 45 degree angle. If it is necessary to construct utilities between lots, additional analysis and recommendations should be completed. C.3. Building Pad Preparation • C.3.a. Excavation. Initially, topsoil and slopewash should be removed from the proposed buildings and their oversize areas. The rather soft clays should be further evaluated at the time of construction. Table 1 below summarizes the anticipated depths of the unsuitable soils at the boring locations. Table 1. Recommended Excavation Depths Surface Recommended Depth Approximate Bottom Boring EIevation of Excavation Elevation 966.5 • 1 to 3* 963 1/2 to 965 1/2 953.7 9 944 1/2 ST -3 973.2 982 1/2 ST -4 982.7 1 981 1/2 ST -5 975.4 1 9741/2 � ST -6 - 987.5 1 to 4* 983 1/2 to 9861/2 • ST -7 982.7 981 ST -8 988.9 1 1/2 to 4* 985 to 9871/2 • We recommend the rather soft clays be further evaluated prior to or at the time of construction. Depending on their condition and final grades, some of these clays may be suitable for fill and building support. Giles Properties, Inc. Project LV -05 -02890 • August 2, 2005 Page 6 2,000 pounds per square foot. We recommend that strip footings be at least 16 inches wide and that column pads be at least 2 1/2 by 2 1/2 feet. This loading should provide a theoretical factor of safety of greater than 3 against localized shearing or base failure of the spread footings. - C.4.b. Footing Depths. Perimeter footings in heated building areas should be founded a minimum of 42 inches below the nearest exterior grade for frost protection. Footings in unheated building or garage areas should be founded a minimum of 60 inches below the nearest exterior grade for frost protection. (Attached garages are generally considered heated structures.) • C.4.c. Settlement. It is our opinion that total and differential settlements based on these loadings should not exceed 1 inch and 1/2 inch, respectively. In deep fill areas, settlements over 1 inch can occur. These areas may require a construction delay. • C.5. Floor Slabs C.5.a. Subgrade. After the building pad preparation has been completed, we anticipate the floor subgrade will consist primarily of silty sand to clayey sand soils or compacted fill. Baclll in footing and mechanical trenches should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. C.5.b. Vapor Barrier. Excess transmission of water vapor could cause floor dampness, certain types of floor bonding agents to separate, or mold to form under floor coverings. We recommend placing a vapor retarder or barrier below the ground supported floors. Current industry recommendations are to place the vapor retarder or barrier directly below the concrete. It is then desirable to take precautions against shrinkage and curling of the floor slab. Industry practice has been to allow burying the vapor retarder or barrier below a layer of sand to reduce curling and shrinkage of the concrete, but this practice often traps water between the slabs and the vapor retarder or barrier, causing problems after a period of months. In any case, we recommend consulting with floor covering manufacturers regarding the appropriate type, use and installation of a vapor retarder or barrier to preserve warranty assurances. To reduce shrinkage and curling processes associated with placing concrete directly on the vapor retarder or barrier, we recommend: . • using the largest possible maximum aggregate size and/or coarse aggregate, • using the lowest practical slump, • using the lowest necessary cement content to reduce top -to -bottom moisture differentials, • carefully curing the concrete, Giles Properties, Inc. • Project LV -05 -02890 August 2, 2005 Page 8 wall, the horizontal thickness of sand fill at the top of the wall must be a minimum of 4 feet. If o silty sand, clayey sand or lean clay soils are used as backfill against a synthetic wall drainage system, n-site we recommend using a lateral earth pressure of 70 psf per foot of depth for designing the wall. • C.7. Pavement Areas C.7.a. Subgrade Preparation. We recommend the vegetation, topsoil and disturbed soils be e from the pavement areas. In areas requiring engineered xcavated should be oversized at least 1 foot beyond the curb fore each foot of fill p paced below t w ae cu (1H:1V oversizing). thhe curb 1H:1V • The engineered fill placed in paved areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard density to within 3 feet of subgrade and 100 percent within the upper 3 feet. We recommend the moisture contents of the engineered fill soils be within 3 percentage points of the optimum moisture content to within 3 feet of subgrade and no greater than 1 percentage point over the soils' optimum moisture content in the upper 3 feet. C.7.b. Proofroll. Prior to placement of the pavement section, we recommend the pavement subgrade be proofrolled with a loaded tandem truck to detect unstable areas. Any unstable areas should be moisture conditioned and recompacted or subcut and replaced with a drier, compactible soil. A qualified soils engineer should observe the proofrolling process to make a fmal evaluation of the subgrade. C.7.c. Proposed Pavement Section. After the recommended preparation and depending on fmal grades, we anticipate the predominant subgrade will likely range from lean clay to silty sand. Laboratory tests to determine the Hveem stabilometer R -value were not included in our scope services. R- value for the predominant soils can range from 10 to 30. In your pavement design, we recommend the design reflects the subgrade soils that are weaker during spring thaw which are the more clayey soils. We recommend using an assumed Hveem stabilometer R - value of 15 in your pavement design. C.S. Utilities The soils at depth appear generally suitable for pipe support. We recommend a granular soil be used for backfill or bedding around the pipes. Soils from the trench excavations may be used as backfill above the pipes. In some areas of the site, we anticipate groundwater will adversely affect utility line excavation installation. Since groundwater levels fluctuate with seasonal precipitation rates, on -site observations should be made during construction. Provisions should be made to remove the water with sump pumps. pP p. • • • Giles Properties, Inc. Project LV -05 02890 • • • August 2, 2005 • Page 10 Concrete delivered to the site should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM C 94. Concrete should not be placed upon frozen soils or soils which contain frozen material. Concrete should be protected from freezing until the necessary strength is attained. Frost should not be permitted to penetrate below footings bearing on frost - susceptible soil since such freezing could heave and crack the footings and/or foundation walls. D. Procedures D.1. Drilling and Sampling We performed the penetration test borings on June 30 and July 5, 2005, with an auger drill equipped 3 l /4inch inside - diameter hollow -stem auger mounted on an off -road drill rig. Sapling for the borin s was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, "Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils." Using this method, the borehole was advanced with the hollow -stem auger to the desired test depth. A 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches was then used to drive the standard 2 -inch split - barrel sampler a total penetration of 1 1/2 feet below the tip of the hollow -stem auger. The blows for the last foot of penetration were recorded and are an index of soil strength characteristics. A representative portion of each sample was then sealed in a glass jar capped with a lid. D.2. Soil Classification Our drill crew chief visually and manually classified soils encountered in the borings in eneral accordance with ASTM D 2488, "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual ManualProcedure)." A summary of the ASTM classification system is attached. All samples were then returned to our laboratory for review of the field classifications by a geotechnical engineer. Representative samples will remain in our office for a period of 30 days to be available for your examination. D.3. Groundwater Observations Immediately after taking the final samples in the bottoms of the borings, the holes were probed through the hollow -stem auger to check for the presence of groundwater. Immediately after withdrawal of the auger, the holes were again probed and the depths to water or cave -ins were noted. The boreholes were then immediately backfilled. E. General Conditions E.I. Basis of Recommendations • The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the attached sketchpO variations occur obetwee these borings, the nature and extent of which do not become evident until additional exploration or n � ✓ ■ -- _' `. VSOSNNNI[�.,!dIHS !`����� imam vloc( I • N BdS ooc = .,( 3,v 1N3Wd013n30 1M1N301S31 0350d021d ® •oN •Dr • • • H01..3N$ NOI1V001 ON12108 1105 O •o e• SO - - 08 :ae 0,d. $0 -91-4 6f6 :AB NMV( : Iva �( O I 7. F • • ggSz . ,•Ss • g 43.1 I O 4W *a ci I J -1' = -` W y -- 1 r I 'c T1n -n 0 i \ k _ 0 , ,1 OVh / .71 1 . I\ 1 , ,.• • 1 .,.. c..../b•q7 die,0„), •:, • i• • ✓ n J T IiJ k. - - - - -- - - -� N — , • • \ .. .- 4/k)4lers\ ' I . \\ f N I p � 1 n a (^ , �" 4``� • \ \ • " 1 / Ill t --A -g../..$-..t:.2] i p, -=----.),-," ' , ,,< , ,.;, - ,? - ,,I, • • I • \ \ ‘ i__:__. _. • _______.• ----- a `� ci- �� • i. ,• ,„ ,„., • 2 S • 4 2 A ` 41 1 • • • BRAUN' LOG OF BORI - I NTE - Braun Project LV -05 -02890 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION BORING: ST -1 Proposed Residential Development LOCATION: See Attached Sketch. • Highway 13 and 170th Street Spring Lake Township, Minnesota DRILLER: DL METHOD: 3 1/4" HS A, '� DATE: 6/30/05 SCALE: x = EIev. Depth • feet feet ASTM Description of Materials 966.5 0.0 Symbol BPF ' P200 Tests or Nc (ASTM D2488 or D2487) • 965.7 0.8 CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, moist. % To.soil .1 LEAN CLAY, with SAND, brown, wet, rather soft. 963.5 3.0 (Glacial Till) , 5 SILTY SAND, fine- to medium - grained, brown, moist, f' 24 — 1.75 tsf loose. ' (Glacial Till) qp =pocket pe g trometer uncor a 960.5 6.0 2 strength, tsf. C LAYEY SAND, with a trace of fine Gravel, brown, m ium to r ,„ moist med stiff ne cri (Glacial Till) 7 16 37 0 b • o 1 °4-6" ; 8 P200 = percent °' fines by eight S `H passing the nun S 200 sieve. T i 8 • ei 4#9 " •••• • The 'xxxx' symbc in the WL colun } '+ I I indicates the a observed dry cave -in depth ail A auger withdrawa P r4e° I- • rn • 946.0 20.5 A I3 END OF BORING Benchmark: Sur. face elevations at Water not observed with 19 feet ofhoIlow hollow-stem auger in the boring l ed by t were provided by surveying crew w the ground, John Oliver & • a Water not observed to cave -in depth of 13 1/2 feet Associates. immediately after withdrawal of the auger. 0 0 Boring then backfilled. 0 0 co N O h O 0 0 0 Eii • 0 z I 0 LV -05 -02890 Braun Intertec BRAUN' ITE�TE LOG OF BOR Project LV -05 -02890 GEOTECE NICAL EVALUATION BORING: ST -3 Proposed Residential Development LOCATION: See Attached Sketch. Highway 13 and 170th Street Spring Lake Township, Minnesota DRILLER: DL METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA, Autohmr. Elev. Depth DATE 6/30/05 SCALE: ILL =- feet fee feet ASTM f et 0,0 Symbol Description of Materials (ASTMD2488 orD2487) BPF Tests or Note 972.8 0.4 SC non SILTY SAND, fine - grained, dark brown, moist. r CLAYEY SAND tracsof i' , with a trace of fine Gravel, brown, moist to wet, medium to very stiff. (Glacial Till) " 6 17 0 a �� 8 qp = 2,5 tsf 0 9 # r i d FA VI 8 16 G fa r i d 7 , td 10. qp = 3.5 tsf FA 1 trA o w FA 16 o q C ' ••.•• , ;; % `` 25 ,f 956.2. 17.0 U p • SILTY SAND, fine- to medium - grained, with a trace of fine Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense. o' (Glacial Till) 952.7 20.5 " 24 END OF BORING Ti Water not observed with 19 feet of hollow -stem auger in the ground. o • Water not observed to cave -in depth of 14 feet A immediately after withdrawal of the auger. Boring then backfilled. q 6 d • as co N O h O 0 0 .-) U M • L a LV -05 -02890 • Braun Intertec i'• RAUP1 LOG OF BOR INTERTEC Braun Project IN-05-02890 . BORING: . ST-5 GE 0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION LOCATION: See Attached Sketch. Proposed Residential Development Highway 13 and 170th Street . • Spring Lake Township, Minnesota DRILLER: DL METHOD: 31/4 HSA, Autobmr. DATE: 6/30/05 SCALE: 1" = Elev. Depth feet feet ASTM Description ofMaterials BPF MC P200 Tests or N 975.4 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D2488 or D2487) % % 974.6 0 g SM ni SILTY SAND, fine-grained, dark brown, moist. Tossoil o f w in n e- m to oi m st ed lo iu o m se -grained, with a trace of 1 . 6 1.1:L SAND, fine Gravel, brown, 971.4 4.0 ' 1 •:': POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to • ... medium-grained, with layers of Silt at about 10 and 13 ' 7i 12 10 10 SI .' feet, brown, moist, medium dense. ash) a 0 ..- I 18 0 4.) ,... • .• ..0 c4 . 4-, . . • 0 . • 1 -.o 7116 cd •• . .•-• a.) - • r 18 ...... • . ..: "• . ..:.:...:- . . V 1 14 t I . ...., ,_, . . el a, • • . c,, :::: • 1 ii 954.9 20.5 • FA END OF BORING ' • Water not observed with 19 feet of hollow-stem auger in .• 1 the ground. , .•1 F-1 , 1 Water not observed to cave-in depth of 12 1/2 feet immediately after withdrawal of the auger. al ER Boring then back:filled. 0 co ni F:," 0 0 ci z • LV-05-02890 Braun Intertec BRAUN' (1�TERTEC LOG OF BO Braun Project LV-05-02890 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION BORING: ST -7 Proposed Residential Development LOCATION: See Attached Sketch. Highway 13 and 170th Street Spring Lake Township, Minnesota DRILLER: KK/CT METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA, Autohmr. DATE: 7/5/05 SCALE: x" = Elev. Depth feet feet ASTM Description of Materials 982.7 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D2488 or D2487) BPF Tests or Note MIME SILTY SAND, fine - grained, dark brown, moist. 981.2 (Topsoil) IIII SILTY SAND, fine- to medium - grained, brown, moist, loose. 6 (Glacial Till) 1 978.7 4.0 ' V SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown to grayish brown, moist to wet, rather stiff. 9 (Glacial Till) . w 974.2 8.5 • 10 19 0 SP- OR GRADD SAND with SIL fin to ' SM me - grained, w fine GRAVEL and T, a layer e- of Clay b at about 12 LY feet, brown, mois m d ense to loose. " 14 (Glacial Oatwash) • In 11 0 0 ' P. fL ' 965.7 17.0 0 ca ML SANDY SILT, brown, wet, loose. (Glacial Till) 962.2 20.5 " 9 END OF BORING N Water not observed with 19 feet of hollow-stem auger in ri the ground. 1 Water not observed to cave -in depth of 14 1/2 feet 0 immediately after withdrawal of the auger. U Boring then backfilled. • A • 0 d c. • N O • 0 O 0 0 .- U 0 • z • 0 LV -05 -02890 Braun Tnr=rtPr . . . Descriptive Terminology • • cep Standard D 2487 - 00 Particle Size Ident(ficatio a Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes . . Boulders .............................. over 12" --L-411L--- (Unified Soil Classification System) IISTERNAAL • Cobbles ........ 7 .......... ...... ..... 3" to 12" TION ___ • Gravel Coarse ...... ...................... 3/4" to 3" • • ' • Fine .... ............................. . No. 4 to 3/ • . Soils Cfassification Sand Group Names Using Laborator Tests a . Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and • -. • Group Coarse ............................ No. 4 to N. y . Symbol Group Name b Medium ......................... .. No. 10 to t Fine ............................ No. 40 to More than 50% of Less than 5% fines t Gravels Clean Gravels C. N. 4 and 1 < C. < . 3 ° GW Well-graded gravel d o Silt ....................................... <No. 200, e '6 m C 4 and/or 1 C. 3 a ICI ..... Poorly graded gravel d below "A' II coarse fraction retained on Gravels with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH 1 ......IMMIONEEIMININ Clay .................................... . <No. 200, a) a) No. 4 sieve More than 12% fines e Fines classify as CL or CH MEEMI Clayey gravel a 9 • • on or abovc m . o lio u) c■I Sands Clean Sands C > 6 and 1 < C < 3 a 11E11 Well-graded sand h Relative Density of co c 6 , ra 50% or more of Less than 5% fines 1 Cohesioniess Soils z C.< 6 and/or 1 N C 3 0 MN Poorly graded sand h co coarse fraction o on c.) o passes Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH EIZE Silty sand t 9 h Very loose ...................... ... ...... .. 0 to 4131 No. 4 sieve More than 12%' Fines classify as CL or CH MN Cla e sand t g h Loose ............................. ... ...... .. 5 to 10 E h P1 0 ) Silts and Clays Inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" line I lirallim......______IIM Dense .............................. S11311111 Medium dense ....................... ... 31 to 50 11 to 30 ...... ... 6 "i; . Liquid limit PI < 4 or plots below "A" linet EMI Slit 41.111..11.1.1 Very dense ............................ .... over 501 co 0) ›. €o — a) less than Organic 50 Liquid limit - oven dr < 0.75 ied OL Organic clay k I m n w - ci to ci. u) Li• uid limit - not dried OL Organic silt k 1 m Consistency of Cohesive Soil C co 0 •,,, ,-- 0 c■I PI plots on or above "A" line 1113111._______CIENEmil Very soft .................. .... .............. 0 to 1 BF tin E 6 Silts and clays Inorganic 0 ( 15 z Liquid limit PI plots below "A" line KIEN Elastic sivis Soft .. ................................... ... 2 to 3 BF .L. V. 50 or more Liquid limit - oven dried OH Organic clay k 1 m p Rather soft ................. . .......... ...4 to 5 BP a Organic < 0.75 Medium ..................................... 6 to 8 BP u, Liquid limit - not dried OH Organic silt k 1 m q Rather stiff ................................ 9 to 1213 Highly Organic Soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color and organic odor man ... . .. izammin Stiff ... 13 to 16 1 ......................... a. Based on the material passing the 3 (75mm) sieve. Very stiff .................................... ...... 17 to 30 1 b. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add 'with cobbles or boulders or both` to group name. Hard ................. .. ..................... over 30 B c. c = D D C. = (D • • D„ x 0 d. If soil contains .?15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. • e. Gravels wItih 5 to 12% lines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt Drilling Notes GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay . .. - - - - - op-om poorly graded gravel with silt ._ . —• -- - - -- ' • • - Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 30" or E Gp-Gc poorly graded gravel claY hollow augers .unless noted otherwise, Jetting water was u. f. If fines classify as CL use dual symbol GC or SSM. clean out auger prior to sampling only where Indicated on logs. Ste 1. If fines are organic, add 'with organic !Ines" to group name. penetration test borings are designated by the prefix "sr' (Split 1 1. If soil contains '15°A gravel, add 'With gravel" to group name. Sands with 5 to 12% lines require dual symbols: All samples were taken with the standard 2" OD split sample SW well sand with silt , cept where noted. . sw well-graded sand with clay P-SM poorly graded sand with silt Power auger borings were advanced by 4" or 6" diameter contin SP poorly graded sand with clay flight, solid augers. Soil classifications and strata depths we If Atterberg limits to In hatched area, soil Is a CL silty clay. feed from disturbed samples augered to the surface and are, then If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or 'with graver whichever Is predominant somewhat approximate. Power auger borings are designated b If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add 'sandy" to group me. • If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add 'gravelly" to group name. prefix "B." PI 4 and plots on or above 'A" line. PI <4 or plots below 'A" line. • Hand auger borings were advanced manually with a 1"" or 30" t Pl plots on or above "A" line. eter auger and were limited to the depth from which the auger cou PI plots below "A" line. manually withdrawn. Hand auger borings are indicated by the prefb BPF: Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded In standard penetn 5600 ppi o v i ir test Th also known as "N" value. The sampler was set 6" into undistu soil below e hollow-stem auger. Driving resistances were then cou 40 for second and third 6" increments and added to get BPF. Where differed significantly, they are reported in the following form: 2/12 fo second and third 6" increments, respectively. Ail 0, sigigimi WH: WH indicates the sampler penetrated.sollunder weight of ham 30 and rods alone; driving not required. AllintM11 11111111111 WR: WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of r 20 alone; hammer weight and driving not required. 4' G\AI MH or OH Illiall TV/ indicates thin-walled (undisturbed) tube sample. 0 7 _.malanw4111161111110P7VIH or OH 4 ) 0 111111111111111 s N ta o n te d : ar A d l s l . tests were run In general accordance with applicable AS 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 • Liquid Limit (LL) . Laboratory Tests • • . Dry density, pcf OC Organic content, % Wet density, pcf S Percent of saturation, % • • Natural moisture content, % SG Specific gravity • C Cohesion, psf . Plastic limit, % 0 Angle of internal friction Liqiuid limit, % E3 RAU Plasticity index, % qu Unconfined compressive strength, psf % passing 200 sieve on • • . ______ . . .____ z .......,.._ ,___. __. ,_, ..,,._,,, LLI w en Z • k i • Eliat t i 1 Ei • 1 . r 1 H J o PROD T 9ENCHt /( C MNDDT IoNUMENT 7001 T EaEVAI7ON 975.8x6 ('NOV 28cdj) Z w En 1= J H H 0 ov 1-- r � / J EXCEPTION z w H \1t cn x ......,,, . 4 J� =u • l r a w 3 C \.- • DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF u� u STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING ¢ m ° L6 1 1 x o n n rn in N O / O O O / CO ( J L 1 Ilk 03 0 C• ! f • /( 150' 0 300' Z m • 0 ° Z Z w O Q -, C3 try � -- '""'" SCALE 1" = 300' FIGURE NO. • I • ,----"' ..,.., _,..,_-_..........________________ --,-- ----- ____ _.,.._.._..__;___ • .-- 0.,,34-- al U ,.,,,o. .._,,f , -- - c s,. 1..11 ecOr>:-- i f G ' ..,__Iiiii ) . a 1--- , -ta f E X C E. P T I 0 N / 4 e '" ..---- ---.) i ' ce ICC Lu ...- -4' „---''_•.---). \ ,-')\ - .,•- {-,, i Di Z , ,, I - i 1 / .14 .4 i • 2r.71 , -- &--!....t . iS 1 1 ,, ...,1- ---cti,_.' • Ii■ ,- — - _ , ,,-- - i i ' • --- \ -- — ____. j I / i ' ' N# r e'' ---"/ , .110 . ---,,...: ._:,....„ ------ '" -- ' 1 ''....___. , IY••• -" "*'2'2'' K , ...ZO. 1 ..-r-) ./-"' ' 6:1 <-'4-4.> 1 I , 5 ,...,,..„,„,--, „:4fr I ...y ,, I - ' — i i't • --, ' l". , CR )/ S TA Z. I A Kr t TOP OF ICZ ELEVATION/ 0 0.3 E-1 L 43 7 7 ' f '? __ _S ' • 4 MARCH .3RD, P00_5 1-- 0 1 a PEP AdIMVESO TA 0 N P i X Z • ca 0 l ' i Er.1 11 E1 __s, Nt I I— Z W 0 - 0 I-Li a • Cf) 41 1— - ,, / ip .,,,,, , , ,, NZ‘b.v.... 4,--1170,01:21,0*-.415NzN I • 111 • v , yty. - 1 ' .-.- 7 /-•• r . . - i .. ' , 24, . • 17 . 1181 r: -7 L33, 17::: - 7 "- - 1 /4,3 ', _ : , t •r o co Lo x I (., 21 </zi r — — -----2,rk. '',, I V , -.... 1 , • ' cr) _10 ;_-.-, n_ t- 0 C.;_5 Li) cc z t‘ 11---J/203 r-- z--- • T _ % - , ..7- --•.-_, _, < ,..-N, ), . 0 . 0 I I 0 \,...*.t.\ ; ,..:::> -- ■_,...\„`i 4.,-_-;.3:1-.----.------0-51A5(?51 t d-- II i 1.(r.'N. ) • a . H c4 1 I Ci) I N 1 , t-it Ill f )1— -I .,---, . ....4.^:.0-"a r-tr * 1 / / .--- ' .,-*' - I • .4 ( / /..-- 5:-..- . ," . ) .....0 , ...,.....04: kr,,,:_:.:•,_‘,.,-, 1 i 1 • 1 1 - • • G DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 1 111 • 1 RICE LAKE 1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING u_ o . 7P OF ICE' ELEV4 770N .9458 1 2 all /44 RCH JR,O ,7()P5 i lik cv o - o a) 0 Ohlit --- 945 0 YR AllMertiO rA aNR I ,... co cc --l u') ° 1 0 II 1 o > . 1 . z CO >- CO d ci 0 300' z Ci • -J I 7mm g k 1 ,T, Y 6 — - . SCALE 1" = 300' FIGURE NO. STORK® Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology Material Testing • Non - Destructive Testing Product Evaluation • Construction Materials September 30, 2009 662 Cromwell Avenue St. Paul, MN 55114 Mr. Larry Poppler, P.E. USA City of Prior Lake Telephone : (651) 645 -3601 4646 Dakota Street S.E. Telefax : (651) 659 -7348 Website : www.storktct.com Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Retaining Wall Review Hickory Shores Development Prior Lake, Minnesota Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Project #3108968 Introduction This report concerns our recent review of various retaining walls within the Hickory Shores Development in Prior Lake, Minnesota. Hickory Shores is located on the south side of Highway 13, to the west and in- between Crystal Lake and Rice Lake. We were requested by the City to review the constructed retaining walls on the development site and provide comments regarding the condition of the existing construction, and recommendations for remedial construction. Soil borings were performed behind selected retaining walls to determine the soil properties of wall backfill. We were informed that initial site grading began in June of 2006 by Ryan Contracting for Tollefson Development, Inc. The northern portion of the site (Phase 1) includes completed streets and a few houses that have been constructed. The southern portion of the site (Phase 2) is only rough graded. Utilities have not been installed in Phase 2. It is our understanding that the building pads and streets were rough graded as the retaining walls were constructed. Grade was held down in building pad and street areas to allow for the proposed construction. This included approximately a 21/2' hold down in street areas to allow for placement of a sand, aggregate base, and pavement section. The retaining walls on the site included both modular block wall and boulder wall construction. The modular block was supplied by Rockwood and constructed at the site by Roste Construction. The boulder walls are noted on the soil boring location plan. The retaining walls were constructed originally in the Summer of 2006. Wall #1 has subsequently been repaired including the installation of a drain pipe. John Oliver and Associates (JOA) was the original civil engineer for the project. Through conversations with JOA we were informed that the retaining walls were designed by another firm. We have not been provided with design drawings for the retaining walls as of this report date. It is our understanding that currently the property is in foreclosure and bank owned. Stork Twin City Testing Corporation is an operating unit of Stork Materials Technology B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, which is a member of the Stork group STO R Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology Retaining Wall Review — Hickory Shores Development Page 2 of 6 City of Prior Lake Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Project #3108968 Observations and Soil Boring Testing We reviewed the site with the City on September 15 and subsequently performed additional site reviews and soil borings on September 21 and 22, 2009. The site is surrounded by thick tree cover with Crystal Lake to the north and Rice Lake to the south of the development. The housing areas are vacant, covered only with pockets of small vegetation in portions of southern end of the site (Phase 2). The unpaved subcut street areas in Phase 2 were collecting water, with ponding occurring in low areas where heavier clay soils are present. Erosion was observed in several areas due to the lack of established vegetation and proper finished grades. In areas where more granular soils were present, washouts were observed. Tension cracks were observed at the surface behind Wall 1. Several retaining wall blocks at Wall #1 and Wall #2 were displaced over the wall most likely by vandals. Vegetation was observed growing out of the retaining walls at several locations. A tree had fallen over on Wall #3 (see attached photograph). Settlement was observed directly behind the retaining walls at several locations. Aggregate was observed filling the block cells at all block retaining wall locations. In general, one to three inches of aggregate was observed directly behind the back face of the wall. However, minimal aggregate was observed behind the back face of the wall at some locations. Drain -tile was observed extending through the retaining walls, however, at most locations the drain -tile outlet was dry while portions of the wall were wet. This may be due to portions of the drain -tile system being clogged with soil, or that the site clayey soil is preventing water from getting to the drain -tile and permeating through the block. Calcium deposits were observed on the face of Wall #4. This indicates moisture has been present for a period of time and subsequently left behind the calcium deposits when dried. We performed five soil borings on the site on September 21 and 22, 2009. The soil borings were performed with an all- terrain drill rig using a 2.5" inch diameter spilt spoon sampler being pounded continuously with a 140 pound hammer. The number of blows per 6" was recorded and soil samples were collected for soil classification purposes. The borings were located behind selected retaining walls to determine soil properties of the backfill used during retaining wall construction. The soil profile depicted by the borings showed layers of sandy lean clay, clayey sand, and lean clay with sand. Lenses of clayey sand and sand were also present within soil layers as shown on the boring Togs. Groundwater was not encountered within the bore holes at the time of drilling. Since the clay soils encountered in borings are relatively impervious or slow draining, it may take several days for groundwater in a borehole to rise to its hydrostatic level. If more accurate water level determinations are required, piezometers should be installed and the water level monitored over a period of time. STO R Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology Retaining Wall Review — Hickory Shores Development Page 3 of 6 City of Prior Lake Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Project #3108968 The density of the fill soil behind the retaining walls varied somewhat at the different soil boring locations. The fill at boring location B1 (Wall #1) was very soft as determined by the penetration values (N- value) obtained during drilling. Very soft soil layers were also encountered near the surface of borings B3 (Wall #2) and B4 (Wall #3). Soft to firm soil layers were encountered in lower portions of the fill of borings B2, B3, B4, and B5. Firm soil layers were present beneath the fill at all boring locations. This included the soil supporting the bottom of the retaining walls. The boring location plan and soil borings are attached to this report for your information. The approximate bottom of the retaining wall is noted in the remarks column on the boring Togs. Two test holes were excavated with a shovel by hand behind Wall 1 to verify geo -grid placement. Geo -grid was present at both locations, however, settlement was observed within the geo -grid soil profile. The settlement observed was approximately 4 to 5 inches. The front faces of the retaining walls revealed that geo -grid was used for wall construction. Geo -grid was typically placed every two feet of wall height, typical for retaining wall construction. Pictures were taken to document retaining wall and soil conditions and are attached to this report. It should also be noted that two retaining walls as shown on the original grading plan were not constructed at the time of our review. These retaining walls are noted on the soil boring location plan. Engineering Review and Recommendations In our opinion, the soil conditions beneath the bottom of retaining walls appeared suitable for support of the walls. Typically, walls of this size and height require a soil bearing pressure of 3000 pounds per square foot. In our opinion, the soils depicted by the borings at bottom of retaining wall elevation met or exceeded this criteria. The soil used as wall backfill was comprised mainly of sandy lean clay, clayey sand, or lean clay with sand. Sand lenses were also present within the soil profile. These soil types were most likely the native soil encountered at the site during construction. These soil types typically do not provide for good drainage due to the plastic nature of the soil. Also, due to the lenses of sand within the backfill, additional water infiltration through these sand lenses can occur causing additional lateral earth pressure to build up behind the retaining wall. The density of the backfill soil behind the retaining walls varied considerably. Very soft soils were encountered behind Wall #1 (B1) and near the surface of B3 (Wall #2) and B4 (Wall #3A). Soil compaction tests were performed at the site by Braun Intertec Corporation, during the original site grading. We were provided a copy of the soil compaction test results by the City. Thirteen (13) soil compaction tests were performed in retaining wall backfill STO R Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology Retaining Wall Review — Hickory Shores Development Page 4 of 6 City of Prior Lake Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Project #3108968 areas between August 10 and August 30, 2006. The soil compaction test results ranged from 88% to 104% of the Standard Proctor density. Two of the compaction tests for Wall #1 failed to meet the minimum compaction requirement of 95% according to the test results. The moisture content of the soil at the time of the compaction tests ranged from 9% to 17 %. Substandard and uneven compaction of retaining wall backfill may cause post construction soil settlement and issues with the geo -grid supporting system. The soil settlement can misalign the geo -grid and, as a result, variable earth pressure forces can act against the retaining walls causing alignment issues with the wall or bulging within portions of the wall. Again, excessive settlement was observed behind retaining Wall #1 and this is most likely from poor compaction during construction and water being allowed to pond behind the wall. Minor settlements behind the wall were observed at other retaining wall locations. Water ponding in street areas adjacent to retaining walls can cause additional surcharging and lateral earth pressure against the retaining wall. The ponding water also can infiltrate into sand lenses and become perched behind the wall system causing additional water pressure to build up behind the wall. The water observed ponding near Wall #1 is of immediate concern and should be addressed. Site grading should be performed to divert water away from the retaining walls or a properly constructed spill way over the wall should be constructed to aid site drainage until the development is completed. Attempts at a spill way approach were made except the contractor left the road at the original hold down elevation which was approximately 2W below surrounding grades. Improper grading caused water to pond in the street and infiltrate the wall system causing excessive hydrostatic pressure against the wall. It is our opinion that this needs to be corrected immediately or failure of Wall #1 may occur. Portions of Wall #1 may need to be reconstructed and the backfill soils behind the wall re- compacted to proper design specifications. Aggregate was observed within the block wall system as noted above and shown on the attached photographs. Typically, for walls of this length and height with clayey soil used as backfill, additional aggregate would be placed behind the walls to act as a drainage blanket. If retaining walls are reconstructed we recommend this aggregate drainage blanket should be installed up to 1' thick behind the back face of the retaining wall block with appropriate drain -tile to drain the aggregate. The boulder walls were reviewed and appeared to be in relatively good condition. Some minor pockets of erosion around the walls were observed but did not appear to affect the wall performance. Seeding should take place in areas were grasses have not been established. We would recommend additional review be performed in the Spring of 2010 to verify runoff from snow melt has not damaged these wall systems. STORK Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology Retaining Wall Review — Hickory Shores Development Page 5 of 6 City of Prior Lake Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Project #3108968 Fill should be placed and compacted behind the retaining walls in areas where settlement has taken place. Additional compaction should be performed with small plate or turtle type compaction equipment to not cause further damage to the retaining walls but aid in sealing up the surface, minimizing water infiltration behind the wall. If the southern end of the site (Phase 2) remains undeveloped, then we recommend some site grading be performed to aid surface drainage. Seeding should also be performed in non - vegetated areas to help minimize erosion. The project civil engineer should be contacted to aid with developing a corrective plan for handing site drainage with the emphasis on protecting the retaining walls while the rest of the site is undeveloped. We have listed below some of the remedial repairs that should be performed to protect and maintain the existing construction. 1. Retaining wall capping stone that has been removed should be replaced at all locations. The capping stone aids in preventing moisture from rain events directing penetrating the wall system. 2. As a safety precaution, the orange construction fence in -place in front of the retaining walls should be reconstructed in areas where the fence has been displaced. 3. The tree that has collapsed on Wall #3 should be removed carefully as to not further damage the wall. The block wall where the tree fell should be repaired. 4. Voids at the surface of the retaining wall block (Wall 3) should be fill with aggregate and capped with cohesive soil to further minimize water infiltration into the wall system. 5. The original retaining wall design plans should be obtained and reviewed to determine that wall construction has been performed per the design document. This would include the placement of the geo -grid, draintile and aggregate thickness behind the wall. 6. The retaining wall contractor should be contacted to review existing site conditions and provide additional recommendations as to maintaining the retaining walls prior to the development being completed. We recommend additional monitoring of the retaining walls be performed periodically to determine if additional corrective action or repair is needed. This monitoring should continue until, at a minimum, final site grading and street improvements are in place. STORK Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology Retaining Wall Review — Hickory Shores Development Page 6 of 6 City of Prior Lake Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Project #3108968 Remarks The soil testing and geotechnical engineering services performed by Stork Twin City Testing for this project have been conducted in a manner with the level of skill and care ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budgetary and time constraints. Our recommendations and opinions presented in this report are our professional opinions. No warranty, express or implied, is made. This repo was ,, repared by: This re ort was reviewed by: Mark Strai! t, . Steven Ruesink, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Senior Project Engineer MN Reg. No. 41658 MN Reg. No. 19431 Attachments: -Site Plan (2 pages) -Soil Boring Logs #B1 - #B5 (5 pages) • -Photo Logs (8 pages) - Symbols & Terminology on Test Boring Logs (1 page) - Field Exploration Procedures (1 page) F: \BMC \2009CME \GEO \3108968 Prior Lake Retaining Walls \Prior Lake Retaining Wall Report.doc 3 PV�0�315a OM •J!8 a�n lr1 Qif3l1 fD/ /i /V : n� LL -1 CLl9L SON 3'IW ZsRZ ^N '6 ry vo .vZ. am w. / +NS . 3.1:1 .3.1:1 +.... ., .4., +r Lro ■ NVId. N0113LdlI14N0� 71V1i3A0 0qn Welk% - a 4 i 3i ....,,,,a .M .wr .. ....pr a z ...VA M '1",r;',".. Y�y1f > 3F :- 8767 I '1 •4200.• aiL4 ma. - �� - ''f - !S \ N . [03 st/g/s oven gR p M � gLCn 't - sac Js aop3xa aar-. � me+ mY : 1� I 1 1 1 MD KY v+nrpi. $314 zar 133 VI 5301 c s � + ' c . nsn ®a ; • wnao °w n ,e awn ? 3 w +Mw .M ooz • C••••56 • C••••56 + /as : o yo A o, . • A./ AIX.31171 531 be • tar m 62 s 0Mf V3 117630 Kitt s cn i i. I v eranr.dr :NW Z �\ 3LV0 Nouero3s30 'ON - 7 vy .(w npm» ,(q w odi , a �+�wr.:f v.�.....z n.r •.n..ew.n> Irl n3s, s Mr" '3,4 w a wL AI 4.. r R SB SYJOSSV f i °gop 53 t A80)1311-1 ZGZ -90 ON 1O3POlid �(1IO w f6 t �/� � A W N G am ° / �/ ' '''O 5 11 j s 1 \_-.% z / i te a . m U 0 4./ s i �i /� / � ) s d , � �� y ♦ ( l 3 ,, , .... ipt tf 641ii 4 0,,NY:...\k i ti,,•1 1 s i .—)1,‘ I ''--- iv s ,_, ,_ IV ,s ,„.=,,,--,:rw- -- - (t l e as , %', N '' nit , . , .,,,„, ,,, , .,.. , \ 1 ,. , ,1 Y ... ” t.,,, ,.,,,,,, ,x„,,„ M 0 , ,,,,,,,,,tit ,1 p igv i y C -, _ ' i ' . , 11.1 !` ° Z ,A, - r ,,,,„„, / , ,...,,. 9 ...g• ‘ 4 11 4i I /1St' -I - IV,••\ S. CO I-) .6 TO 1:3 0,,,r,±- pv, 114d., ! I i I s "A ' \ ''..,," 3 c � ` � � \ E 2 JJ 1_� f a / ail, / Sri! ' i', L C I t _Si as 1 . t,,i;z:Lisdrak,---- ,, ,40(- it ----: -_i_ 4.•`-:•7 4. . .,„_---,.-7.7-,_-_.7:41p,--.-1,"4.4-.1 1 1,1'."'.. \,\ ' \''''ki` it \. , s ,-..‹,.,,?,. .',- -4. s `;'::, , e , ,, 4. e fu.. W 4. ‘-‘, V 1V-- 1 ,--• / i — 'of . , N v i ....„4-1„; \\ ,-.._ . - - --__.. \ - „ , \ 4. , -•:".„...: h __ _L_Lt• ,_ / \ 2 , -."-‘, .i,-.-"'---....-. ' - -.--- ' I,: "", ve to s- \\ _ , \ , ` a \ / / , z \ ' I I = 1 / S a ;` � � � o') \ : \ A . \ 1, - `_ ' 1 ., 1 11;,,:i-•&• . ,!,2 . 't Mr ,L \ a,- * f!! I ';' • " -- -■ .1• `I '..--\/ j / t T. re \ � il%� y .� � 2 / • \ \ \ � \ \. ∎__, - G f�l � 1. , .' ; JF : . � � + / t/ w a r . • � „ O � Y 7 _ -:,` - ... I 7, v ' I '-- . ' ' ‘ -'... - ii...,\ ill; tok::.....7.--......,;,/,?..% /•::::r, -A4k7\,44*\'''\:;,;,......\',7\ ‘.**,.....:::::.-(4,--11.:.‘ \` 1 �\ *� f4 , t 1 ` • 1 � — _ _--- --i� \\ (i, a \ \� 4, my l� � 2 I• . 1 ,'"x, \ i / �� / / L- % \ \ \ �\ ry ♦ ♦��3!� „ .-t • I �"t° i 1 "r � 7' � .' \ �� \ `� t \,\ \ 9 / ) / j \`� \� JfI {'fi --,!---4:1':: `!'k \ � ) i • 3s-'''',.//,, s` \ 'C \\ `•N ii t� t � ' 'L"f�fi f f r 5 f -4 i s, � k • • s. ' \ }y \ � .• : \k, \\ •\ \.) \ x ` \ 1 4 ` \%` \� ` \ 4 ' `'F �;. 21 a \`\ -64-, - fi \ \� \ \\ . 1Y "111)1 } 1 , °r\ .1••--,,, f" „�/�s'O- tlr/''�jC •�_ o � \ \ \ N. -� J r. X71 ✓ � I') 1 r ^ � ` ` ts . \Z \\ ._ ` �.-.. ` N ` --- f... _• \ �� N . J V I . " t om \ C � ` `�• -•••••'., I i� ( f _ �': 1 ��' \ \\\ \) `% /+� / 'f�rY N n ', 2 e a \ \ \ \(~`' . - 1 / 1 t • t♦ o INNIN9.10 OKI d'S 14 Z It , 00 , 0 , : O . . 0,..., aN la. ',v.,. .wo ..........H ..3..,.....9,, IOU NO11011111SNO0 TIVten0 \ im. r,) OR. go 90/910 ZAK: .111..... ...NT ANA .).0.94C0 C‘) ...Z : LAND.. tia DM • '',.". 4709-Mar.f) $109 sof cri MON t f gx cEKAH0 UV'S NM •111.0..Nr i ' ), A ....n . .i....NA.)..1.75 IOS "PLS •L.-si ..y" V M 1.I VIttrII.1 MINIUM NI. 19 lit, SIFI on; , ...r,..... - - -- .porr .. 1.......).d P.tuaan ■ VA 70 AVOIONVIN NONVAN IN 5.3 N•A • NM WAWA A ..y. ;j Na ..I.P • .. 1 , 111 P.V.S.... o......,..... ..,......,..)), .............. Wil '35S11 HODIel 03 \ • waft:ma 31 n 93/zo/Li •=z9 P:0 f.r - 0u/ 'sePrpossv ' Jenio o (Nr S3a0I-IS A. IO>1.11H ZI.Z-90, I I -- r : ....-../- -. 1.7.•V 5...-11 \SV, <,, • -, . ..,_..7 - < \ . lk..V I . , A . --\ I V\ a ° 4 7 ) ' " - N, A 'I it . . . '. , 0 X 4... n ■/ .--- ".■ 4" V r i 4 1 ''.. -6 . [ ;g11 5 i 17-< , ? $ „„ 1 1 , .-, , , v, , „e ... \ -\\•-\.;\ tg= .4. ;";,. ' ( 13, '?",----\---< 1 ",---°,-\ 1 \ r c "i - `.71 , --- ---- ‘ I -\\ \ I • l • l ..-' 0'. ,.,. (,,,-- - ...II / 1,,,\.,\. >, == 1 • . II .:- 0 .. "'i '0 ' ca o_ 04 I I_ .--, \ 1 \ C 4 I , f i:; . = , 8 ' Jg o . , 1_1 . \ A it, . :-..' .... z .. • \ (13 {-; ” \ J — Ls — ss-A.1/4-- i ip '-' --- 1... rtc.r ,' KT-,.. 7 , c i ,‘ I ' (LB 2 \ 1 \ , - \:\ 1, ‘,/// -0 1--,., <, -._,_1 % 1 k,i _i_I.:7--e rt. i - 5 c _ o 0 ..-. al 0 0 \ \ aktillii _ ' \ 4r ',. lti Orr.i,=.21,'-'-'1--- li -/ . "v.,==-' s--,- %,.:5:: ,* .• , , 1 , ti E\„.„,-,.. € . t„ -` .-i•. .-k%-. •,-, / • . \ . l' PA rri;nifip,' ILMI '' ' fi \ " CV, `, •--L--- 11,1W. i ,1 11 it ) --,..--- "4 .. ,6<f . -,4,...„__1_,_ I ,\‘` ,„..„.,-,vik •"''-'4.11 ; 41 w 2 -,Ii \ -- . 111ii ' ) F. .s,‘ \ . Or A ' • r la =-61.1" , 4,i ' r • = 0.4 i, - = 3- ' -.' ''',' 44 ,, L v - --y:-.----- ■ liar'00.1 Imir 41 , li / . t4r..7 1 .-. 4 1 ) ?''''''-'- ' ' / 1‘ \ ' I ' \ 114 SretT IWM. I /0 ::: . t ,,, 0 0,0,F,-- ,, :,....- ,. .c... .... , \ 1 0.4.1,t'6...._i___el,•„.... ; ,),7 : 1 c , ;..,.., -. ' AilEV + 'frit - VIA '/. _•‘,., -4 \ I 1. W, i li li, 4 i: ‘ ..'‘ I ‘ Vf.;-*!-,-( ' :-.• -..5.-. N - - I ,, \ \ \- ,,,,, \ 1 ,, ,n,...____--,1*,, --,:::„....5:--,..::-.1.::: `, V ;\; 1,3WCP-A $11F\AIEW- . ■ - i, ..,- „. - .1..• , 1 _<41,:z _______ ) i 'l ; \ \-- - \\ ‘,.‘ \ ,'‘‘,,-.,-,;'', POs- ‘ l' :,. \,;, ! ' An 1\•••1 lc ...... • ::. 1 ,1 c.,...->c)-. t \AL-Wirrip ) / I z., , N \\ *‘ 4 V\' , - ■ \ k I ', Oi „it ■ - r-...- -, ,-z,ii,,,/ / , \ \ \ \ + ' 14,,k.: •-... \ i 1 I 'i N '' / - ‘\ j ,tgA f PHI it ` 1 , 1 1 I .. " 1 ,L: - . - \ - \ .\ Vtti. \ . i 1 4 ! AI' ' ,/,)/ - 4 : - . e : ' ' 1 -'''. ----J, ji , f L _ . . - I •--- - - - \ \N ' • i •<‘■t• 'L., 1 liA \ - 7 0 4/7,;';1 ' \ A \ ,441 it fibiii ii.,,, , t7 1- _ - _- - ; /-3- \ `A \ ..' -i I 1 -4. /,' / - \ N , s 1, -Vitl • P • .'.-- •§, r' r Ecl As .... \ 1 , .,. \ sIVALIf ...) A \ le,-.4.i.,.-4--i,\ ,.,&-== I 01 - a 1,fx i 24 ` ----:" - 1 - 1\ v 0 ii i i--\ \\.. \,,vvt,-; -- e„,)froitiri.dirmiir:/,- 7 .• •• • t- — \ / N \ $ 11 • lifi =•.„•.: t =---' ON *••N\ N Jr • • ? -."•/,•• - . - ''s ' \*.kg"t°-' fat ittlit/P.r.:./ ,(' -%•., 1 „......\ ,,,,, \ . -,i.\....< -,,, - i , , ,, , , - , --r it i at o@ati ..v,:......-. , ; ,... ; "ro ( „4„,,,71,',."4:,.:-; ,„- ..\ - t: 2:- , =_1 — 1 ,--- vs \ i.--..,,,,,........ Are -.. 'T/ I EVP':;" `1 V" : 1 --0 \ -11-----1 I I \ : /". szt, \\ / i rfr:7-1 ( ..,i,v, , .\' ° '' V‘ s Its 4 - _..g w ___.„,.., ,,, v ,,,, \ , 1 \ , i j w, 1 , \ ,\ V -1 Im , •91 \\`..1., i ' ....F. ,1 ..\\ \ . " I( 7i— ...„.. 111. ih = , N .6 ''',F. \ l' Ii \ cb . , \ " t , \ \ '-' r -.1-...'12' cu \ tuj'.1._!■•••••••■,\ .., \ ' 4 .3' . "...I 7/4/1 .... L - 0 e X Aa.- \ IL T• • _,"-• .../ -- 1 \ ". ‘\•\ \INN •.' • "1,1.- • • ,/1/ ) % 'SP ( I ) 1 s -•••• • W \, . \ ' •-•• • • \‘‘N‘ -•;,•"--". to / / / ... ‘ \„., ,,, .,;:;\ 4..... , „. , /:',•• • / 7 s, , ‹, ---% •r ■ 1 ••••• 11,„ •.'"„st 7 — .--• x \ ., `. \ .41.:W I i / %, 2,1 \ s( ',,- ...,-.... ;- 7 - 1 :-.- - • i i / / ,' •,. It. . / -,,,,N ‘‘,\ N \ "."'---,.., ,-,, ' ' ••• \ s i; , .9 l 1 -.'•N,. 4 , „. ,,. co•,,. \ , ••;,.-, \-.4,,. _, - _____, ft .„ ., , -._, I -,..4._ --...-_,---,-,......, _ -.., trl N \ 4Y'1/ , -' 1 '• e',....K -7- ' - - - 6 '''111 i 4 . 11 1,* 'I-6h' t..... CD , \ ?, 111P ..1.' i.,' 1 ,,,, . . ,.... 1 , EWEN 4,, •,..,... r CO • • . *_106. c." i • . . -: .„ f - — . 1 ' --- a- - .• -....,•, - ...,' , .... 1 \ - Tts !"(1,1P1:.; c u %-• _v \ . \ , \\., --=.' ......---- i , 5 4:1 dill - \ N •\ s :,\, *\ 1 • ., it ,F17 \ -...4 4= ,1 `ci 14_2. /, co : z ... . \ _.---=,-- ,;',-,,il, , \ \ ,--,_ -- ,-.:",--K, .--- 1 1. 1,, Visik::,`,,•• '' 4 :" ,N+ 5 I X \ , •\:,-; , ff - - - ....,,, 9E6, \ - ..41LN-2ok, , .• 0 x .4 .:1! i -J 1- 2 ' % \\ • - •:\ . __„----/r .sgkk'---4zIMA-'ir'rv- ' 1:, i ... \ i \ 1 , ---., „ _ - \ ---, A •,...„ 0 ... IlgE-2 ‘, t '0 - .„--1/4 ',..6/ V-.4.• \ Z Ca >.. \ -,, ',, \\k \ 'A e'.1 - •": - . “‹1 07 - 1 " v ' t . „$ °Lp'gt. \ \ / , t />:. \ '"‘••••`:'''‘‘ \\,, .9 9-. ‘N \ • \- •-• ' ? 4 \ \\\ \" \ ' . \ ‘. ", • 1 / ( V' •‘ ‘‘ \\ A `‘\' :2 ; CO .V g:grm" ,, • , 'zi , \•.':‘-‘:•.k. 6 ■ I■ 0- v, -4-1 co 1 U) CO E'.. ss.;, , . ,.. , , ,F . , , r 4 o e s Project No. 3108968 LOG OF BORING NO. B1 Sheet 1 of 1 CLIENT ARCHITECT /ENGINEER City of Prior Lake SITE PROJECT Prior Lake, Minnesota Hickory Shores - Retaining Wall Review Wall 1: 8' NE of Back of Wall SAMPLES TESTS Near Future Street Sta. 15 +50 0 w 2 ' } w CI- w z ui >" ADDITIONAL D w > w 0 z w DATA/ D W REMARKS o < o 0 O > 0 2 a Et - >-L Q - -- - 1 Surface Elev.: o o m z a z � _.? on. 0 u FILL, sandy lean day with a little gravel, ∎•• :* •+; 2 1 SS 24 brown, moist, with lenses of clayey sand and : ❖:• sand '• +4 .•+•. (Fill) �� ��+. 2 2 SS 24 �•�•� t 5 3 SS 24 +iii t••••i 5 iii ii t i + + + t 2 4 SS 24 •i•i •ii V 4 •4 1 5 5 SS 24 10.0_ _ — — % %% FILL, lean clay with a little gravel and lenses 4. 4 x:11* 10 8 6 SS 24 of clayey sand, brown, moist C (Fill) C % %% �•i••i 9 7 SS 24 •iii iii •iii �••• 14.0 Approximate LEAN CLAY with SAND and a little gravel, 13 8 SS 24 bottom of wall. brown, moist, firm (CL) 15 (Glacial Till) 11 9 SS 24 18.0 End of Boring N O F-- O C7 m 2 Z Z Z 0 Q 0 O J d a co WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Stork Twin City Testing Corp. STARTED 9/21/09 FINISHED 9/21/09 0 o None 662 Cromwell Ave DRILL CO. Stork TCT DRILL RIG ATV Z — St. Paul, MN 55114 Z Telephone: 651 - 645 -3601 DRILLER T. Aldrich ASST DRILLER KZ ° Fax: 651 - 659 -7348 LOGGED BY KZ APPROVED M A S , 1 1 Project No. 3108968 LOG OF BORING NO. B2 Sheet 1 of 1 CLIENT ARCHITECT /ENGINEER City of Prior Lake SITE PROJECT Prior Lake, Minnesota Hickory Shores - Retaining Wall Review Wall 1: Near South End of Wall on Block 2, Lot 5 SAMPLES TESTS 10' East of Wall. 0 o a N w > z w m H ADDITIONAL U ,- REMARKS . CC 0 j > Z w DATA/ 1 _ ¢ m w iY F 0 Q! < a p >0 a Q 0 = > a� Surface Elev.: 0 o m i ce z - • K o n n. . 0 u .. . FILL, clayey sand with a little gravel, brown, ❖. 6 - 1 SS 24 moist ••• • I • 2. _(FiIIZ — — — '•• FILL, sandy lean clay with a little gravel and • 1 6 2 SS 24 a trace of organics, brown with some black, ' •p � • I moist •:�• • • (Fill) ��� 11 3 SS 24 •��O 5 ••• 6.0 _ — ••••• FILL, lean clay with sand and a little gravel, ".• 9 4 SS 24 brown, moist •• • •���• Approximate 8.0 (Fill) •••• bottom of wall. SANDY LEAN CLAY with a little gravel, 11 5 SS 24 brown, moist, firm (CL) j I (Glacial Till) 10 13 6 SS 24 11.5 12.0 CLAYEY SAND with a little 9 ravel, fine to !.. medium grained, brown, moist, medium dense (SC) ,(Glacial Outwash) End of Boring 0 0 N _a 1- 0 0 0 0 z z z 0 0 0 J a 0 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Stork Twin City Testing Corp. STARTED 9/21/09 FINISHED 9/21/09 o None 662 Cromwell Ave. DRILL CO. Stork TCT DRILL RIG ATV Z St. Paul, MN 55114 - z Telephone: 651 - 645 -3601 DRILLER T. Aldrich ASS'T DRILLER KZ ° Fax: 651 -659 -7348 LOGGED BY KZ APPROVED MASS e 1 Project No. 3108968 LOG OF BORING NO. B3 Sheet 1 of 1 CLIENT ARCHITECT /ENGINEER City of Prior Lake SITE PROJECT Prior Lake, Minnesota Hickory Shores - Retaining Wall Review Wall 2 - Adjacent to Future Street at Sta. 14 +25 SAMPLES TESTS 6' Southeast of Wall 0 w w 0 0 ._ .. a. J C w z w- N H ADDITIONAL o O w z w DATA/ m w - I- 0 CC REMARKS < d 0 >0 M d Q_0 u) }Ly O.J Surface Elev.: o o mzix = F- K? M oa Ou FILL, sandy lean clay with lenses of sand, �.�..I — 4 1 SS 24 with a little gravel, brown, moist .���. _ (Fill) �i�0i� i i � 7 2 SS 24 ; ��. -1 8 3 SS 24 5 — 14lk.4 8 4 SS 24 ; ..N – S Oi ��i� ��i�i t • .4 — 8 5 SS 24 4 -1 11 6 SS 24 �i N _ � ���i ■ •1 ' 8 7 SS 24 X0 0 .44 — 14 8 SS 24 ••♦ 15 -1 16.5 *i �1 20 9 SS 24 LEAN CLAY with SAND and a little gravel, � — Approximate 17.5 brown, moist, firm to hard (CL) _ '�///% _ bottom of wall. 18.0 ' -- Oil \ ,(Glacial Till) i SANDY LEAN CLAY with a little gravel, gray, moist, hard (CL) 4Glacial Till) N End of Boring a 1- 0 0 0 z z z 0 Q 0 0 J a 0) C0 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Stork Twin City Testing Corp. STARTED 9/21/09 FINISHED 9/21/09 0 o None 662 Cromwell Ave. DRILL CO. Stork TCT DRILL RIG ATV z St. Paul, MN 55114 z Telephone: 651 - 645 -3601 DRILLER T. Aldrich ASST DRILLER KZ 0 Fax: 651 - 659 -7348 LOGGED BY KZ APPROVED MASS / 1 Project No. 3108968 LOG OF BORING NO . B4 1 Sheet 1 of 1 CLIENT ARCHITECT /ENGINEER City of Prior Lake SITE PROJECT Prior Lake, Minnesota Hickory Shores - Retaining Wall Review Wall 3 - At south corner of Block 1, Lot 9. SAMPLES TESTS 6' West of Wall. 0 o w w �O N > z us I ADDITIONAL _ - — D O > z w DATA/ = Q m w S REMARKS < a 0 >p 2 w iy o - >-LL a � Surface Elev.: o w mzcc z zz o a a LL FILL, organic lean clay topsoil, black, moist � — 4 1 SS 24 1.0 _1 — iii — ( Fill) p•.� FILL, clayey sand with a little gravel and .�.���� lenses of sand and a trace of organics, ■ i _ 2 2 SS 24 brown with some black, moist ':❖ ■ •..• (Fill) ■• .�� •4 4 3 SS 24 •�� e 5 4 SS 24 FILL, sandy lean clay with a little gravel, %%% _ 10 5 SS 24 brown, moist ■• 4 ∎• ii ■ • ii i • (Fill) ■ N 10 � — 11 6 SS 24 12.0 ___ K......! FILL, sandy lean clay with a little gravel, ■ �%% — 13 7 SS 24 •��� gray, moist ■ ••4 ❖.•. 14.0 (Fill) ∎ �i SANDY LEAN CLAY with a little gravel, gray, /,% 11 8 SS 24 moist, firm (CL) % e/,/ 15 — Approximate bottom of wall. 16.0 (Glacial Till) End of Boring 0 N O _ 0 o O Z Z Z 0 Q 0 0 a 0 O a' WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Stork Twin City Testing Corp. STARTED 9/22/09 FINISHED 9/22/09 O _ None — 662 Cromwell Ave. DRILL C Stork TC T DRILL RIG ATV z — St. Paul, MN 55114 Telephone: 651 - 645 -3601 DRILLER T. Aldrich ASS'T DRILLER KZ 0 Fax: 651 - 659 -7348 LOGGED BY KZ APPROVED MAS, e ■ Project No. 3108968 LOG OF BORING NO. B5 1 Sheet 1 of 1 CLIENT ARCHITECT /ENGINEER City of Prior Lake SITE PROJECT Prior Lake, Minnesota Hickory Shores - Retaining Wall Review Wall 4 - Corner on Block 3, Lot 4 SAMPLES TESTS 8' South of Wall. 0 ct a } o_ 0 F N > Z ui � H ADDITIONAL U I - c O W Q! Z w DATA/ a I Q m w w E- - 0 0 REMARKS < 0 p >o 2 o_ o!o ru. o._1 SurfaceElev.: 0 w m D 1- zz °g WO cYu FILL, sandy lean clay with a little gravel, � ���.�� - 8 1 SS 24 ���. brown, moist, with lenses of clayey sand ...�. 4 � _ from 8' to 12' '•••'•' �����4 (Fill) P _ 8 2 SS 24 : 8 3 SS 24 ■ •iii •ii • ii i 4 4 ) 8 4 SS 24 iii •iii — t 1 ������� 6 5 SS 24 ; � _ • � •O Oi 10 A � �� 15 6 SS 24 I - ' iii 11.5 _ — — — • ii i • � � ,., FILL, sandy lean clay with a little gravel, • _ gray, moist �� I S. : _ 21 7 SS 24 13.5 ,(Fill) Li_i_i A _ PP ♦ roximate CLAYEY SAND with a little gravel, fine to bottom of wall. medium grained, brown, moist, medium ' _ 17 8 SS 24 dense (SC) 15- 16.0 ,(GlacialOutwash) End of Boring c. 0 N O _ H o 0 Z z Z 0 0 0 J a 0 m c. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Stork Twin City Testing Corp. STARTED 9/22/09 FINISHED 9/22/09 0 o None 662 Cromwell Ave. DRILL CO. Stork TCT DRILL RIG ATV Z St. Paul, MN 55114 z Telephone: 651 - 645 -3601 DRILLER T. Aldrich ASS'T DRILLER KZ J ` Fax: 651 - 659 - 7348 LOGGED BY KZ APPROVED MAS, STORI.4® Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology Wall 1 ti,-.—:': .. _ _ �: I _ - , , r c = ' 4 e"'! , _ fry e £ - to rr F y ' Wall 1 looking northwest toward corrected area. Looking south from corrected area. r j 3 a -- - a =.°?:,- ^rte+ k d w 0'✓ . '" Sri #� s n l ? 4 " jf4 •. ° .a� 4 Water ponding in road cut near corrected area. Looking northwest towards the corrected area at the top of Wall 1. Stork Twin City Testing Corporation is an operating unit of Stork Materials Technology B,V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, which is a member of the Stork Group. STOF3K® Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology Wall 1 • w , Rip rap at base of Wall 1. Water seepage between blocks. ° ' .r qtT yc t 4- Rip rap at base of Wall 1. Water seepage between blocks. Stork Twin City Testing Corporation is an operating unit of Stork Materials Technology B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, which is a member of the Stork Group. STORK® Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology Wall 1 p y A S _'_ - guy -•�r.� �=... r r i ` t t �3 • ' pis 10. � "� 41" Typical section of Wall 1. Water draining between blocks near base of Wall 1 corrected wall section. • 1 Dry drain tile near base of Wall 1. Water seepage between blocks south of drain tile. Looking south from north end of south leg of Wall 1. Stork Twin City Testing Corporation is an operating unit of Stork Materials Technology B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, which is a member of the Stork Group. STORI-5® Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology Wall 1 ts (' J � • • • • - I � ' Typical settlement at top of Wall 1 backfill. Settlement of soil and geogrid behind wall. et _ _ • • l Gap below block created by settlement. Possible tension cracks in soil backfill behind wall. Stork Twin City Testing Corporation is an operating unit of Stork Materials Technology B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, which is a member of the Stork Group. STOIRK® Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology Wall 2 P i • Y wg Wall 2 - Looking south. Wall 2 — Fallen cap blocks showing aggregate placement in wall. Stork Twin City Testing Corporation is an operating unit of Stork Materials Technology 8.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, which is a member of the Stork Group. STORK® Materials Technology Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Wall 3 r, i fs 4 J 1 7 5 ti k _ I � a 4 F _ Wall 3A — Heavy vegetation and fallen tree on retaining wall. ). * K N .' t 3 - 1/4 v 4 t i i ` i Wall 3A — Void below cap block. Stork Twin City Testing Corporation is an operating unit of Stork Materials Technology B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, which is a member of the Stork Group. STORK® Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology Wall 4 r Calcium deposits forming on the face of Wall 4. 3 ' , ` c � r y,c r?,r „ a dd s T,' ,.. ; r Water seepage present the morning of September 22, 2009 after rain overnight in Wall 4. Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Is an operating unit of Stork Materials Technology B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, which is a member of the Stork Group. STORK Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology • s yt r . _ t t , Boulder wall present south of Crystal Lake. Boulder wall present just north of Rice Lake. Stork Twin City Testing Corporation is an operating unit of Stork Materials Technology B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, which is a member of the Stork Group. K ' Materials Technology Stork Twin City Testing Corporation SYMBOLS AND TERMINOLOGY ON TEST BORING LOGS SYMBOLS Drilling and Sampling Laboratory Testing Symbol Description Symbol Description HSA 3 -1/4" I.D. hollow stem auger W Water content, % (ASTM:D2216) ** _FA 4 ", 6" or 10" diameter flight auger D Dry density, pcf HA 2 ", 4" or 6" hand auger LL Liquid limit (ASTM:D4318) ' — DC 2 -1/2 ", 4 ", 5" or 6" steel drive casing PL Plastic limit (ASTM:D4318) _RC Size A, B or N rotary casing PD Pipe drill or cleanout tube - -- Inserts in Last Column (Qu or RQD) - -- CS Continuous split barrel sampling DM Drilling mud Qu Unconfined compressive strength, psf (ASTM:D2166) JW Jetting water Pq Penetrometer reading, tsf (ASTM:D1558) SB 2" O.D. split barrel sampling Ts Torvane reading, tsf L 2 -1/2" or 3 -1/2" O.D. SB liner sample G Specific gravity (ASTM:D854) IT 2" or 3" thin walled tube sample SL Shrinkage limits (ASTM:D427) 3TP 3" thin walled tube using pitcher sampler 00 Organic content — Combustion method (ASTM:D2974) TO 2" or 3" thin walled tube suing Osterberg sampler SP Swell pressure, tsf (ASTM:D4546) W Wash sample PS Percent swell under pressure (ASTM:D4546) B Bag sample FS Free swell, % (ASTM:D4546) P Test pit sample SS Shrink swell, % (ASTM:D4546) Q BQ, NQ, or PQ wireline system pH Hydrogen ion content — Meter Method (ASTM:D4972) :X AX, BX, or NX double tube barrel SC Sulfate content, parts /million or mg /I N Standard penetration test, blows per foot CC Chloride content, parts/million, or mg /I CR Core recovery, percent C* One dimensional consolidation (ASTM:D2435) WL Water level Qc* Triaxial compression (ASTM:D2850 and D4767) ■ Water level D.S.* Direct shear (ASTM:D3080) NMR No measurement recorded, primarily due to the K* Coefficient of permeability, cm /sec (ASTM:D2434) presence of drilling or coring fluid P* Pinhole test (ASTM:D4647) DH* Double hydrometer (ASTM:D4221) MA* Particle size analysis (ASTM:D422) R Laboratory electrical resistivity, ohm -cm (ASTM:G57) E* Pressuremeter deformation modulus, tsf (ASTM:D4719) PM* Pressuremeter test (ASTM:D4719) VS* Field vane shear (ASTM:D2573) IR* Infiltrometer test (ASTM:D3385) RQD Rock quality designation, percent * Results shown on attached data sheet or graph ** ASTM designates American Society for Testing and Materials TERMINOLOGY Particle Sizes Soil Layering and Moisture Type Size Range Term Visual Observation Boulders > 12" Lamination Up to 1/4" thick stratum Cobbles 3" — 12" Varved Altemating laminations of any combination of Coarse gravel 3/4" — 3" clay, silt, fine sand, or colors Fine gravel #4 sieve — 3/4" Lenses Small pockets of different soils in a soil mass Coarse sand #4 - #10 sieve Stratified Alternating layers of varying materials or colors Medium sand #10 - #40 sieve Layer 1/4" to 12" thick stratum Fine sand #40 - #200 sieve Dry Powdery, no noticeable water Silt 100% passing #200 sieve and > 0.005 mm Moist Damp, below saturation Clay 100% passing #200 sieve and < 0.005 mm Waterbearing Pervious soil below water Wet Saturated, above liquid limit Gravel Content Standard Penetration Resistance Coarse - Grained Soils Fine- Grained Soils Cohesionless Soils Cohesive Soils % Gravel Description % Gravel Description N -Value Relative Density N -Value Consistency 2 —15 A little gravel < 5 Trace of gravel 0 — 4 Very loose 0 — 4 Very soft 16 — 49 With gravel 5 — 15 A little gravel 5 —10 Loose 5 — 8 Soft 16 — 30 With gravel 11 — 30 Medium dense 9 —15 Firm 31 — 49 Gravelly 31 — 50 Dense 16 — 30 Hard > 50 Very dense > 30 Very hard twin city testing Stork Twin City Testing Corporation is an operating united of Stork Materials Technology B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, which is a member of the Stork group STO II 14' Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Soil Sampling Soil sampling was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586 - 08. Using this procedure, a 2" O.D. split barrel sampler is driven into the soil by a 140 pound weight falling 30 ". After an initial set of 6 ", the number of blows required to drive the sampler an additional 12" is known as the penetration resistance, or N value. The N value is an index of the relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. Thin wall tube samples were obtained according to ASTM D 1587 -00 where indicated by the appropriate symbol on the boring logs. Rock core samples, if taken, were obtained by rotary drilling in accordance with ASTM D 2113 -06. Power auger borings, if performed, were done in general accordance with ASTM D 1452 -00. Soil Classification As the samples were obtained in the field, they were visually and manually classified by the crew chief in accordance with ASTM D 2488 -06. Representative portions of the samples were then returned to the laboratory for further examination and for verification of the field classification. Logs of the borings indicating the depth and identification of the various strata, the N value, the laboratory test data, water level information and pertinent information regarding the method of maintaining and advancing the drill holes are attached. The descriptive terminology and symbols used on the boring logs are also attached. twin citM testing Stork Twin City Testing Corporation is an operating united of Stork Materials Technology B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, which is a member of the Stork group STO R K° Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology Material Testing • Non - Destructive Testing Product Evaluation • Construction Materials January 25, 2010 662 Cromwell Avenue St. Paul, MN 55114 Mr. Larry Poppler, P.E. USA City of Prior Lake Telephone : (651) 645 -3601 4646 Dakota Street S.E. Telefax : (651) 659 -7348 Prior Lake, MN 55372 Website : www.storktct.com RE: Review of Retaining Wall Plans for Hickory Shores Development Prior Lake, Minnesota Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Project #3108968 Introduction This report is a follow up to our report dated September 30, 2009 titled Retaining Wall Review Hickory Shores Development. The plans were unavailable at the time of the initial retaining wall review. Please see the original letter for additional information. We were requested by the City to obtain a copy of the original segmental retaining wall design plans for the Hickory Shores Development in Prior Lake, Minnesota and determine if wall construction has been performed per the design documents. We were provided a copy of the available plans from Roste Construction on December 14, 2009 to perform our review. Engineering Review Based on our review of the available design documents and observations of the retaining walls under existing conditions, the as -built retaining walls are not consistent with the project design documents in the following areas: 1. The drainage aggregate behind the modular block is detailed on the plans and specifications as a minimum of 12" of crushed rock measured from the back of the block. This drainage aggregate would be in addition to the aggregate in the cells of the block. In general, the observed drainage aggregate was only 1" to 3" behind the modular block walls and at some locations minimal aggregate was observed behind the back face of the retaining wall block. 2. Compaction of wall backfill is Tess than the required 95% of the maximum density per ASTM D698 for Wall 1. There may be other inconsistencies in addition to the ones listed above due to the inability to verify existing construction that is below grade such as geo -grid placement and footing construction as is noted on the design drawings. The immediate concern is the retaining walls that have clay backfill (i.e. Wall #1, etc.). This is due to the lack of drainage behind the wall and the subsequent build up of lateral earth pressure behind the wall which may eventually lead to wall failure. Stork Twin City Testing Corporation is an operating unit of Stork Materials Technology B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, which is a member of the Stork group STO R K Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Materials Technology Retaining Wall Review — Hickory Shores Development Page 2 of 2 City of Prior Lake Stork Twin City Testing Corporation Project #3108968 The project specifications in Section 3.06 state that within the time of construction, the Contractor must ensure that all surficial drainage is directed away from the wall system by use of drainage swales, area drains, or other competent measures and that within the lifetime of the wall, the Owner must ensure that all surficial drainage is directed away from the wall system. Contingency should be budgeted to maintain proper site grades for drainage to protect the in -place retaining wall systems from further damage prior to site development completion. We reviewed the retaining walls under existing site conditions. Each building lot and subsequent construction adjacent to a retaining wall in the future should be reviewed on an individual basis on how the proposed construction (i.e. setbacks from retaining wall, etc.) will impact the retaining walls performance. Any additional site remediation should be observed by appropriate authority. Remarks The geotechnical engineering services performed by Stork Twin City Testing for this project have been conducted in a manner with the level of skill and care ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budgetary and time constraints. Our recommendations and opinions presented in this report are our professional opinions. No warranty, express or implied, is made. This report was prepared by: : ; : V i i'''El \ Mark Sfraight;'P: . Senior No. 41658 F: \BMC \2009CME \GEO \3108968 Prior Lake Retaining Walls \Letter Prior Lake Retaining Wall Jan 22, 2010.doc PRIOR I_AKE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND INSPECTION INSPECTION RECORD SITE ADDRESS - o or' -' S �• TYPE OF WORK Zero► ),-) (Ai co L - - 44 ' ZES USE OF BUILDING Rz E PERMIT NO. DATE DATE ISSUED K BUILDER c r ; <- 'ne.uc PHONE # ( f©Ss -%2o NOTE: THIS IS NOT A PERMIT FOR ANY OF THE INSPECTIONS BELOW THE PERMIT IS BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT INSPECTOR DATE PLACE NO CONCRETE UNTIL ABOVE HAS BEEN SIGNED 1 1 51141 P6Peo-r5 LOS I FINAL _ !MI toff/' FOR ALL INSPECTIONS (952) 447 -9850 •