Skanska Shimmick Herzog
Phone: 951.368.6402Milpitas, CA 95035
1436 California Circle
PROJECT:
JOB NO:CONTRACT NO:
98005
VTA Berryessa Extension ProjectC700
31 63 29 - 1.05A
TO:
FROM:
TITLE: The Crossings Pre-Cast Wall CIDH
Thomas W. SuttonSkanska Shimmick Herzog RECOMMENDED CONTACT:
DESCRIPTION/REMARKS STATUSRECEIVED SENT RETURNEDREVISION
NO.
SUBMITTAL
SUBMITTAL NO:
John Engstrom
The Crossings Pre-Cast Wall CIDH Pile OPN7/14/20157/14/20150
REMARKS:
f_sb_01_usac_01_ws_098005
Received July 14, 2015 PDCC P0728-C700-316329-1.05A.R0
SVBX - Berryessa Extension
SUBMITTAL REVIEW
Submittal Title: Document Control
Spec Section & P a r a g r a p h # (i.e, 01 31 01-1.04B): Sub No.:
Discipline: Rev No.:
□ For EOR Approval □ For VTA Approval □ For VTA Information Only □ For Third Party
Description of Item Submitted
(Type size, model #, etc)
Type of Submittal( Shop
dwg, samples, matls)
Spec Parameter & Section #
(General Req, Contract, Performance Spec, Tech Spec)
Drawing Sheet #
Submittal Prepared By: Date Submitted: Requested Response Date:
Subcontractor/Supplier, If Applicable:
Deviation: No( ) Yes( ) See Notes Substitution: No( ) Yes( ) See Attached Information
Deviation/Substitution Notes (attach additional pages if necessary):
YES NO N/A
Submittal Reviewer's Checklist
1. Are specification and contract drawing references correct and included? (If not change or add them) □ □ □
2. Are the submittal date & requested return date included? (ASAP is not acceptable) □ □ □
3. Have you reviewed the specification section which requires this submittal? □ □ □
4. Do all materials submitted meet the applicable specification(s)? □ □ □
5. Are any deviations or substitutions clearly defined in the submittal notes above? □ □ □
6. Have all resubmittal comments been addressed? □ □ □
7. If required, does the submittal have a PE stamp from a Professional Engineer? □ □ □
8. Has the subcontractor/supplier signed and dated the submittal? □ □ □
9. Have you spot checked dimensions, unit weights, quantities, size, etcB with Plans? □ □ □
10. If required, are samples the correct quantity, size, type, and are labeled correctly? □ □ □
11. Is the presentation satisfactory (pages numbered, bound, tabs, spelling/grammar, etc.)? □ □ □
12. Is the correct number of legible copies being submitted? □ □ □
SSH Coordina
(PRINT NAME)
Signature:
Expected Rev
tor:
Date:
iew Hours:
Issue Cost Code:______________________________________
□ Civil □ Structures □ Utililities □ Stations □ Landscape □ Geotech □ Traffic □ Guideway □ Track□ Systems □ Electrical
The Crossings Pre-Cast Wall CIDH Pile
31 63 29 Drilled Concrete Piers and Shafts 31 63 29-005
00
COM, SCVWD
Precast Concrete Wall Panel Drawings/Calcs Drawings/CalcsProposed CIDH Locations (Optimal Location)Mstr. Spec. 31 63 29 Drilled Concrete Piers/ShaSCVWD/VTA/SSHJV Email Correspondance
SpecificationCorrespondance
As-BuiltMaster Specification 31 63 29 pgs. 3-11 of 34
pgs. 14-24 of 34pgs. 25-34 of 34
pgs. 12-13 of 34
Renato Carlos 07/13/15 07/14/15
Old Castle Precast, Inc.
The attached proposed CIDH Locations show an optimal spacing between the CIDH piles and SCVWD easement. Due to designrestrictions, the precast panel is limited to a 20 center to center spacing of the CIDH pile; a greater span will require an intermediate pilewhich would be placed directly above the SCVWD 42" waterline or require a spread footing along the length of the precast wall.
✔
✔ ✔
✔ ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Renato Carlos
1
Approval
Renato Carlos
APPROVAL ACTION (This Section to be completed by EOR)
Discipline Reviewed:
Initial Reviewer & Date: Hours Used Reviewing:
Final Reviewer & Title: Date: Review Code:
Engineer Review Code: ( ANN-Exceptions Noted, No Re-submittal Required), (ANR-Exceptions Noted, Re-submittal Required),
(FRO-For Record Only), (NET-No Exceptions Taken), (RRR-Rejected, Revised & Resubmit)
EOR Comments:
APPROVAL ACTION (This Section to be completed by EOR)
Discipline Reviewed:
Initial Reviewer & Title: Date: Hours Used Reviewing:
Final Reviewer & Title: Date: Review Code:
Engineer Review Code: ( ANN-Exceptions Noted, No Re-submittal Required), (ANR-Exceptions Noted, Re-submittal Required),
(FRO-For Record Only), (NET-No Exceptions Taken), (RRR-Rejected, Revised & Resubmit)
EOR Comments:
APPROVAL ACTION (This Section to be completed by EOR)
Discipline Reviewed:
Initial Reviewer & Title: Date: Hours Used Reviewing:
Final Reviewer & Title: Date: Review Code:
Engineer Review Code: ( ANN-Exceptions Noted, No Re-submittal Required), (ANR-Exceptions Noted, Re-submittal Required),
(FRO-For Record Only), (NET-No Exceptions Taken), (RRR-Rejected, Revised & Resubmit)
EOR Comments:
Reviewer & Title:
Design Coordinator :
Initial Reviewer &
Final Reviewer & Title:
Reviewer & Title:
Design Coordinator :
Initial Reviewer &
Final Reviewer & Title:
Reviewer & Title:
Design Coordinator :
1
Oldcastle Precast Page 2 of
PROJECT Crossing at Montague Apartments By : R Strand
PRODUCT 9.0' H (max) Concrete Wall Date : 5/18/2015
TRACT # Checked :
Wall Design Parameters Date :
MATERIALS:
CONCRETE : f'c = 2500 psi , 28 days compressive strength
REINFORCEMENT : ASTM A-615 or ASTM A-706, Grade 60
STEEL: ASTM A582, fy = 50,000 psi
SPECIFICATIONS:
2013 CBC: California Building Code
ACI-318-11: American Concrete Institute
ASCE 7-10: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
LOADS: DESIGN LOAD FACTORS:
Wind Load: 110mph Kz: 0.57 Table 29.3-1 Dead Load: 1.2
Exposure : B Kzt: 1 Sec. 26.8.1 Wind Load: 1.6
Kd: 0.85 Table 26.6-1 Lateral Earth Load: 1.6
Gust Effect Factor G: 0.85 Seismic Load: 1.0
Force Coeff Ct: 1.3 Figure 29.4-1 through 29.5-3
qz = .00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I: 15.01 psf
Zip Code Ss: 1.62 ap: 1.0
Lat: 37.410378 Fa: 1.00 Rp: 2.5
Long: -121.8941 Sds = .67*Fa*Ss: 1.09 Ip: 1.0
Seismic Design Cat: D
Lateral Load Diagram for Soundwalls
Wind/Seismic
Load
Horz Pressure from wt of
soil
Soil Parameters
Bearing Capacity: 0 psf
Active Pressure: 0 pcf
Increases at Passive Pressure: 200 pcf
0. kcf/ft Skin Friction: 250 psf
Soil Depth: 0.00 ft max.
Wind:F=qz*G*Ct: 16.58 psf Strength Design
Seismic: Fp=.4*Sds*I*Ww: 21.53 psf 4" wall Strength Design
Panel Dimension
t= 0.33 ft
Wall Height Retained Ht h= 9.00 ft
9 ft 0 ft s= 20.00 ft
4"
9'-
0"
max
2
Page 3 of
PROJECT Crossing at Montague Apartments By : R.Strand
PRODUCT 9.0' H (max) Concrete Wall Date : 5/18/2015
TRACT Checked :
Wall Panel Design Date :
Non Retaining
LATERAL LOADS:
Wind Load: 16.58 psf
Seismic Load 21.53 psf Governs Wind: Ww= 1.0W
Seismic: We= 1.0E
Panel Length: 20.0 ft
Panel Height: 9.0 ft
Retained Soil Height: 0.0 ft
Wall Thickness: 4.00 in
Pier Spacing = 17.20 ft Seismic Governs MOMENT: Mu = w*l2/8 = 0.80 K-ft
Wu = 0.02 ksf WALL SHEAR: Vu = w*(l/2-d) = 0.18 Kips
Concrete Shear Strength fVc = 2.04 Kips > Vu OK
REINFORCEMENT DESIGN
b = 12 in
d = 2 in ρmax = 0.0302
fy = 60,000 psi ρmin = 0.0033
f'c = 2,500 psi ρ = As/bd 0.0039
Mu = 0.80 K-ft a = As*fy/(.85*f'c*b) = 0.38
As = 0.09 sq. in. Φ = 0.90
c = a/β1 = 0.44
β1 = 0.85
check Φ
εt = .003*(d-c)/c = 0.0105
Φ = 0.483+(83.3*εt) = 0.9
As Supplied 0.16 sq. in.
===> USE : 1 , # 4 Bar Approx. Spacing 15.00 in. o/c
ΦMn =Φ*As*fy(d-a/2)/12= 1.30 K-ft
SHRINKAGE REINFORCEMENT
As = 0.0018bt = 0.09 in
As Supplied 0.11 sq. in.
===> USE : 1 , # 3 Bar Approx. Spacing 15.28 in. o/c
Wall
Heig
ht
Reta
ined H
eig
ht
3
Oldcastle Precast Page 4 of
PROJECT Crossing at Montague Apartments By : R.Strand
PRODUCT 9.0' H (max) Concrete Wall Date : 5/18/2015
TRACT Checked :
Pilaster Design Date :
LATERAL LOADS:
Wind Load: 16.58 psf
Seismic Load 21.53 psf Governs Wind: Ww= 1.0W
Seismic: We= 1.0E
Panel Length: 20.0 ft
Panel Height: 9.0 ft
DESIGN PILASTER
Pilaster Spacing = 20.00 ft MOMENT : Mu = wl^2/2 19.79 K-ft
w = 0.49 k/ft PILASTER SHEAR : Vu = w*(l-d) = 4.40 Kips
Concrete Shear Strength fVc = 16.32 Kips > Vu OK
PILASTER REINFORCEMENT
b = 16 in Pw= h=
d = 12 in ρmax = 0.0302 4399 lbs. 4.50 ft
fy = 60,000 psi ρmin = 0.0033
f'c = 2,500 psi ρ = As/bd 0.0020 Shear at Pilaster Base
Mu = 19.79 K-ft a = As*fy/(.85*f'c*b) = 0.66 Wind:
As = 0.38 sq. in. Φ = 0.90 Seismic: 4399 lbs.
===> USE : 2- # 4 Each Face c = a/β1 = 0.78
As Supplied 0.40 sq. in. β1 = 0.85
check Φ
εt = .003*(d-c)/c = 0.0431
Φ = 0.483+(83.3*εt) = 0.9
ΦMn =Φ*As*fy(d-a/2)/12= 21.00 K-ft
SHEAR REINFORCEMENT
1/2fVc = 16320 lbs. > Vu, NO SHEAR REINFORCEMENT REQUIRED
IF SHEAR REINF. IS REQ'D. USE: * 3 TIES @ 6.00 IN OC
f (Vc + Vs ) = 27586 lbs. > Vu, O.K.
=====> USE #3 TIES @ 18 IN. O.C.
4
Old
castl
e P
recast
Pag
e 5
of
PR
OJ
EC
TC
ross
ing a
t M
onta
gue
Ap
artm
ents
By :
R.S
tran
d
PR
OD
UC
T9
.0' H
(m
ax)
Concr
ete
Wal
lD
ate
:5
/18
/20
15
TR
AC
TC
hec
ked
:
D
ate
:
Post
Des
ign:
Pen
etra
tion
into
pila
ster
The
heig
ht o
f the
pos
t pro
trudi
ng o
ut o
f the
gro
und
and
into
the
pila
ster
Is d
icta
ted
by th
e st
reng
th o
f the
pila
ster
to re
sist
pun
chin
g sh
ear.
Firs
t, de
term
ine
the
pila
ster
s re
sist
ance
to p
unch
ing
shea
r bas
ed o
nth
e s
teel section s
ele
cte
d. T
he top 2
½”
of
the p
ost bears
again
st th
e
conc
rete
.
The
punc
hing
she
ar s
treng
th is
: .75
Vc=.
75*(
4)*(
fc^.
5)*b
o*d
d =
(pila
ster
thic
knes
s-a)
/2-1
.25
bo =
2*(
2.5+
d)+2
*(bf
+d)
h =
Pw*h
(Pw
)/.75
Vc
h =
min
. of 2
'
Seco
nd, d
eter
min
e ho
w ta
ll th
e po
st m
ust b
e su
ch th
at th
e fa
ctor
ed fo
rce
forc
e fro
m th
e to
p of
the
post
is le
ss th
an th
e co
ncre
te s
treng
th.
Plas
tic d
esig
n sh
all b
e us
ed in
det
erm
inin
g st
eel p
ost s
ize.
fc
=2
50
0 p
si
fy=
50
,00
0p
si
Wal
l
Hei
ght
Shap
e
Use
d
Fla
nge
Wid
th"a
" d
im"b
" d
im"b
o"
.75
Vc
Pw
Mu
Ben
din
g
Str
ess
Des
ign "
h"
post
Use
"h"
post
h (
Pw
)
Pil
aste
r
Thic
knes
sd
(ft)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(lb
s)(l
bs)
(k-f
t)(p
si)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(in)
(in)
9.0
'W
6x1
56
.00
6.2
53
.88
23
.50
57
28
43
99
19
.79
21
98
93
.46
3.4
64
.50
12
.01
.62
5
h-post
h
Pw
Pt
ba
212"
2.5+d
a
bf+d
5
Oldcastle Precast Page 6 of
PROJECT Crossing at Montague Apartments By : R.Strand
PRODUCT 9.0' H (max) Concrete Wall Date : 5/17/2015
TRACT Checked :
Pier Design Date :
PIER "EFFECTIVE BEAM DIMENSIONS"
PIER DIAMETER, Dp = 16 IN.
REBAR DIAMETER, Rd = 0.625 IN.
NUMBER OF REBAR = 2
Z = DISTANCE TO CL OF REBAR FROM CL OF PIER = 4.3125 IN.
Y = VERTICAL DIST. FROM CL OF REBAR TO HORIZONTAL CL = 3.0489375 IN.
X = DISTANCE FROM CL REBAR TO PIER OUTSIDE DIAMETER = 3.6875 IN.
d = BEAM EFFECTIVE DEPTH = Y + Dp/2 = 11.0489375 IN.
b = BEAM EFFECTIVE WIDTH = 2Y + 1.414X = 11.312 IN.
6
Oldcastle Precast Page 7 of
PROJECT Crossing at Montague Apartments By : R.Strand
PRODUCT 9.0' H (max) Concrete Wall Date : 5/18/2015
TRACT Checked :
16" Dia. Pier Design Date :
Calculation to determine the depth of pier per CBC equation
in sect. 1807.3.2.1of the 2013 CBC. (Non-constrained formula):
Note that you must guess at "d" on line 1a. of the calc.
below until it agrees with the answer on line 1.
1. d = (A/2) * ( 1 + [ 1 + (4.36h/A)]^.5 ) 9.69 ft
d = guess at depth of embedment in earth 9.70ft
2 Passive pressure acting on # pier dia.(pd) 2.0
3 A = 2.34 * P / (S1 * b) 5.984
4 P = applied lateral force in pounds 4399lbs.
at base of pilaster
5 S1 = Allow lateral soil bearing pressure per 647 psf
table 29-B.
6 Pd = diameter of round pier in feet. 1.33ft
7 h = distance above ground that lateral load 5.50ft (neglet top 1' soil)
P is applied to the pier.
8 d/3 = one third the guess at depth of embedment 3.23 ft
9 Lateral bearing per foot of depth (Pp) = 200psf/ft
Point of zero shear
Xo = (P/(0.5*Pp*Pd*pd))^0.5 4.07ft
Max. moment @ point zero shear
Mmax = P*h 24195lbs-ft
Max Shear
Vmax = P 4399lbs.
7
Oldcastle Precast Page 8 of
PROJECT Crossing at Montague Apartments By : R.Strand
PRODUCT 9.0' H (max) Concrete Wall Date : 5/18/2015
CLIENT 0 Checked :
16" Dia. Pier Design Date :
APPLIED LOADS
M (DL) = 0.0 KIP-FT.
M (LL) = 0.0 KIP-FT.
M(E) = 24.2 KIP-FT.
Mu = 24.2 KIP-FT.
V (DL) = 0.0 KIPS
V (LL) = 0.0 KIPS
V (E) = 4.4 KIPS
Vu = 4.4 KIPS
BENDING ANALYSIS
Concrete Shear Strength fVc = 10.61 Kips > Vu OK
b = 11.31 in. ρmax = 0.0302
d = 11.04 in. ρmin = 0.0033
fy = 60,000 psi ρ = As/bd 0.0041
f'c = 2,500 psi a = As*fy/(.85*f'c*b) = 1.29
Mu = 24.19 ft-kips Φ = 0.90
As = 0.52 sq. in. c = a/β1 = 1.52
β1 = 0.85
===> USE : 1- # 7 Each Face
As Supplied 0.60 sq. in.
check Φ
εt = .003*(d-c)/c = 0.0189
Φ = 0.483+(83.3*εt) = 0.90
ΦMn =Φ*As*fy(d-a/2)/12= 28.07 K-ft
8
Future Columns
10'-6"
2'-6"
3'-6"
5'-9" 20' 20'
9'
See Note #1
Note #1:
Future column needs to be exactly where existing column
is to match with existing precast wall panel. Requested
6-ft. clearance from centerline of pipe cannot be held.
Column will encroach approximately 1'-3".
Future Pre-Cast Panels
49'
Datum 53.00 ft
Existing Precast Panel
SCVWD
42" Waterline
Inv. 38.27
9
3
4
"
11'-7"
Pile Tip
42.65
Typ.
26'-4"
SCVWD
Requested Clearance
2'-7" 3'-2"
Existing Column
Elevation View
Page 1 of 2
3'-2" 20'
3'-3"
Pre-Cast Wall Construction at The Crossings at Montague
Station 12+54.87
42"SCVWD
Waterline
SCVWD
Requested Clearance
Future
16" dia. x 10'-9" CIDH
2,500 psi
2'-7" 3'-2" 10' 10' 20'
Plan View
Page 2 of 2
20' 3'-3"
2'-1
3
4
"
3'-10
3
4
"
3'-10
3
4
"
2'-1
3
4
"
Pre-Cast Wall Construction at The Crossings at Montague
Station 12+54.87
P a r t 7
Skanska Shimmick Herzog
t% J;* it Vcni vt c *-.i L»j UMITYlM
Master Specifications Revision 0 Approval Seal
n il< iy/ /. /jr Project Engineer Registered D A T E Civil Engineer
Specifications:
0 3 01 08 - Concrete Restoration 0 3 15 13 - Waterstops 0 3 40 00 - Precast Concrete 0 3 82 13 - Concrete Core Drilling 31 09 00 - Geotechnical Instrument & Monitoring of Earthwork 3 I 23 19 - Dewatering 31 40 00 - Shoring and Underpinning 31 50 00 - Excavation Support and Protect ion 31 62 00 - Driven Piles 3 1 63 29 - Drilled Concrete Piers and Shaf t s
/ / & ' / v A ff&Y . \ m if o'j / ODEONM.IJ \Vi,v
u
j i g I I mi ! ! : \ L \ No> C0S1895 J Mil \ j A Exp.12-31 - \ ? j f h V V \ / • & ; /
''v.. > < — Op
S a n t a C l a r a Valley T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A u t h o r i t y
• NO EXCEPTIONS TAKEN (NET) M A K E C O R R E C T I O N S N O T E D ( M C N ) A M E N D AND R E S U B M I T (A/R)
Any action shown above is subject to tlie terms of (lie contract and does not relieve the Contractor of any of its obligations
under the contract, including design and detailing.
C o n t r a c t No. :
Bv
DB11002K
Date: 8/14/13
IFY- L tiM IN' I'ERMAI ION AL tttrcj-'Pwr-s | pk r̂-iv̂ ro | iCGlwiMv;:
Design Unit Approval
For Construction (Only documents on attached index statused MCN or NET)
• fii\*-/thiL fl/rtk EmileJilwan Date BART Project Manager
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
July 17, 2013 31 63 29 - 1 Contract C700
Drilled Concrete Piers and Shafts Rev. 0
SECTION 31 63 29
DRILLED CONCRETE PIERS AND SHAFTS
The provisions of BART Facilities Standards, Standard Specifications, Release R2.1, dated October
2009, Section 31 63 29, Drilled Concrete Piers and Shafts, shall apply to the Work, except as
modified herein.
PART 1 - GENERAL
Add Article 1.02 as follows:
1.02 RELATED SECTIONS
A. Section 01 33 23, Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples.
B. Section 01 45 00, Quality Control.
C. Section 03 05 15, Portland Cement Concrete.
D. Section 03 20 00, Concrete Reinforcing.
E. Section 05 05 22, Metal Welding.
Renumber Article 1.02, “Measurement and Payment” to Article 1.03, “Measurement and Payment”
as follows:
1.03 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
Delete Articles 1.03A, 1.03B, and 1.03C and substitute therefor the following:
Separate measurement or payment will not be made for Work required under this Technical
Specifications Section. All costs in connection with the Work specified in this Technical
Specifications Section will be considered to be included with the related item of Work in the Price
Schedule or incidental to the Work.
Renumber Article 1.03, “Definitions” to Article 1.04, “Definitions”.
Renumber Article 1.04, “References” to Article 1.05, “References”.
1.04 REFERENCES
Delete Articles 1.04A through 1.04C and substitute therefor Articles 1.05A through 1.05C as
follows:
A. Association of Drilled Shaft Contractors (ADSC):
1. "Standards and Specifications for the Foundation Drilling Industry"
DRILLED CONCRETE PIERS AND SHAFTS
Contract C700 31 63 29 - 2 July 17, 2013
Rev. 0 Drilled Concrete Piers and Shafts
B. American Concrete Institute (ACI):
1. ACI 336.1 Specification for the Construction of Drilled Piers
C. ASTM International (ASTM):
1. ASTM D1143/D1143M Standard Test Methods for Deep Foundations Under
Static Axial Compressive Load
2. ASTM D3689 Standard Test Methods for Deep Foundations Under
Static Axial Tensile Load
3. ASTM D3966 Standard Test Methods for Deep Foundations Under
Lateral Load
Renumber Article 1.05, “Submittals” to Article 1.06, “Submittals”.
1.05 SUBMITTALS
F. Delete the words “Standards and Specifications” and substitute therefor the words
“Standards and Specifications for the Foundation Drilling Industry”.
Renumber Article 1.06, “Quality Assurance” to Article 1.07, “Quality Assurance”.
1.06 QUALITY ASSURANCE
D. Inspection of Shaft Excavations:
1. Delete the word “Engineer” and substitute therefor the words “independent testing
laboratory”.
2. Delete the word “Engineer” and substitute therefor the words “independent testing
laboratory”.
Add Articles 1.07E and 1.07F as follows:
E. Sampling, Testing and Inspection:
1. The Contractor’s approved independent testing laboratory shall perform sampling,
testing, and inspections in accordance with the provisions herein and Section 01 45 00
- Quality Control.
2. Cooperate with and notify the VTA at least 48 hours in advance of sampling, tests
and inspections, being performed by the independent testing laboratory. The VTA
may elect to observe these procedures. Provide samples and facilities for inspection
to the VTA without extra charge if requested.
3. The independent testing laboratory shall collect samples of materials for testing in
accordance with the provisions outlined herein and as directed by the VTA.
DRILLED CONCRETE PIERS AND SHAFTS
July 17, 2013 31 63 29 - 3 Contract C700
Drilled Concrete Piers and Shafts Rev. 0
F. Qualifications of the independent testing laboratory: Refer to Section 01 45 00 - Quality
Control.
Renumber Article 1.07, “Sequencing and Scheduling” to Article 1.08, “Sequencing and Scheduling”.
1.07 SEQUENCING AND SCHEDULING
A. Delete the word “Engineer” and substitute therefor the word “VTA”.
PART 2 – PRODUCTS
2.01 MATERIALS
In Article 2.01B, delete the words “Contract Drawings” and substitute therefor with the words
“Construction Drawings”.
PART 3 - EXECUTION
3.01 METHOD TEST SHAFTS
B. Delete the word “Engineer” and substitute therefor the word “VTA”.
C. Delete the word “Engineer” and substitute therefor the word “VTA”.
D. Delete the word “Engineer” and substitute therefor the word “VTA”.
3.03 EXCAVATION
A. General:
2. Delete the word “Engineer” and substitute therefor the word “VTA”.
B. Ground Water Control:
2. Delete the word “Engineer” and substitute therefor the word “VTA”.
C. Delete the word “Engineer” and substitute therefor the word “independent testing
laboratory”.
END OF SECTION 31 63 29
RELEASE - R2.1 SECTION 31 63 29 BART FACILITIES STANDARDS Issued: 10/01/2009 PAGE 1 OF 7 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
SECTION 31 63 29
DRILLED CONCRETE PIERS AND SHAFTS PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SECTION INCLUDES
A. Method Test Shaft B. Load Test C. Excavation D. Installation of Concrete Reinforcement E. Concrete Placement F. Withdrawal of Temporary Steel Casing G. Field Quality Control
1.02 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
A. General: Measurement and payment for drilled shaft foundations will be either by the lump-sum method or by the unit-price method as determined by the listing of the bid item for drilled shaft foundations indicated in the Bid Schedule of the Bid Form.
B. Lump Sum: If the Bid Schedule indicates a lump sum for drilled shaft foundations, the
lump-sum method of measurement and payment will be in accordance with Section 01 20 00 - Price and Payment Procedures, Article 1.03, and will include reinforcing steel.
C. Unit Price: If the Bid Schedule indicates a unit price for drilled shaft foundations, the unit-
price method of measurement and payment will be as follows:
1. Measurement:
a. Concrete for drilled shaft foundations, of each diameter, including test shaft foundations, will be measured for payment by the linear foot of shaft depth, measured from the cut-off line to the bottom of the shaft.
b. Reinforcing steel will be measured separately for payment as specified in
Section 03 20 00 - Concrete Reinforcing. c. Drilling of shafts (excavation), including drilling of method test shafts, will be
measured for payment as individual units (each), per each shaft drilled and accepted.
d. Load testing of drilled shaft foundations, both compressive load tests and lateral
load tests, will be measured for payment per each load test performed.
DRILLED CONCRETE PIERS AND SHAFTS
RELEASE - R2.1 SECTION 31 63 29 BART FACILITIES STANDARDS Issued: 10/01/2009 PAGE 2 OF 7 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
e. Groundwater control, exploratory drilling, support of excavation for shaft foundations, and steel casing, whether withdrawn or left in place, will not be measured separately for payment; and all costs in connection therewith will be considered incidental to and included with the construction of drilled shaft foundations.
2. Payment: Drilled shaft foundations will be paid for at the indicated Contract unit
prices for the computed quantities as determined by the measurement method specified in Article 1.02.C.1.
1.03 DEFINITIONS
A. The words and terms used in these Specifications conform with the definitions given in ACI 336.1.
B. The terms "drilled shaft" and "cast in drilled hole (CIDH) piles" are used interchangeably.
1.04 REFERENCES
A. ADSC: Association of Drilled Shaft Contractors:
1. "Standards and Specifications for the Foundation Drilling Industry"
B. American Concrete Institute (ACI):
1. ACI 336.1 Reference Specification for the Construction of Drilled Piers
C. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
1. ASTM D1143 Method of Testing Piles Under Static Axial Compressive Load 2. ASTM D3689 Method of Testing Individual Piles Under Static Axial Tensile
Load 3. ASTM D3966 Method of Testing Piles Under Lateral Loads
1.05 SUBMITTALS
A. General: Refer to Section 01 33 00 - Submittal Procedures, and Section 01 33 23 - Shop Drawings, Product Data, and Samples, for submittal requirements and procedures.
B. Concrete Reinforcement: Provide submittals in accordance with the requirements of Section
03 20 00 - Concrete Reinforcing. C. Qualifications of Welders and Welding Procedures: Provide submittals in accordance with
requirements of Section 03 20 00 - Concrete Reinforcing, for reinforcing steel, and with requirements of Section 05 05 22 - Metal Welding, for casing steel.
D. Portland Cement Concrete: Provide submittals in accordance with the requirements of Section 03 05 15 - Portland Cement Concrete. Include submittal for tremie concrete equipment and placement method.
DRILLED CONCRETE PIERS AND SHAFTS
RELEASE - R2.1 SECTION 31 63 29 BART FACILITIES STANDARDS Issued: 10/01/2009 PAGE 3 OF 7 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
E. Drilling Equipment: Submit description of equipment including but not limited to power rating, torque, downward thrust, and type and size of drilling tools to be used.
F. Records and Reports: Submit daily reports and shaft record reports or logs as required by
ADSC's "Standards and Specifications," using ADSC formats for forms. 1.06 QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. Construction Standards: Drilled shaft foundations shall be constructed in accordance with applicable requirements of ACI 336.1 and ADSC's "Standards and Specifications for the Foundation Drilling Industry."
B. Design Criteria:
1. Drilled shaft foundations shall consist of monolithically cast-in-place concrete piles of
the sizes indicated.
2. Shaft foundations shall be straight cylindrical shaft type as indicated. 3. Shaft foundations shall extend from the indicated concrete cutoff elevation to the
indicated tip elevation.
C. Tolerances:
1. Maximum variation of the center of any shaft foundation from the required location: 3 inches, measured at the ground surface.
2. Bottom Diameter: minus zero, plus 6 inches, measured in any direction.
3. Maximum variation from plumb: 1:40.
4. Maximum bottom level tolerance: plus or minus 2 inches.
D. Inspection of Shaft Excavations: 1. The Contractor shall provide equipment for checking the dimensions and alignment of
each shaft excavation. Dimensions and alignment shall be determined jointly by the Contractor and the Engineer. Final shaft depths shall be measured with an appropriate weighted tape measure or other approved method after final cleaning.
2. A minimum of 50 percent of the base of each shaft shall have less than 1/2 inch of
sediment at the time of placement of concrete. Maximum depth of sediment or debris at any place on the base of the shaft shall not exceed 1-1/2 inches. Shaft cleanliness will be determined by the Engineer by visual inspection.
1.07 SEQUENCING AND SCHEDULING
A. Unless otherwise permitted by the Engineer, the Contractor shall schedule drilling or excavating, installation of reinforcing steel, and concrete placement so that each excavated shaft is poured the same day that the drilling is performed.
DRILLED CONCRETE PIERS AND SHAFTS
RELEASE - R2.1 SECTION 31 63 29 BART FACILITIES STANDARDS Issued: 10/01/2009 PAGE 4 OF 7 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
B. Do not permit vibration or excessive wheel loads within the immediate vicinity of any shaft excavation until placement of concrete is complete. Maintain excavation stability at all times.
PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 MATERIALS
A. Concrete Reinforcement: Conform with applicable requirements of Section 03 20 00 - Concrete Reinforcing, of grades and sizes indicated.
B. Concrete: Conform with applicable requirements of Section 03 30 00 - Cast-in-Place
Concrete, and Section 03 05 15 - Portland Cement Concrete. Provide class of concrete indicated on the Contract Drawings. Where class of concrete is not indicated, provide Class 3000 concrete.
1. Prepare separate mix designs for each class of concrete. 2. Slump for concrete: Slump shall be 5 inches plus or minus 1 inch for dry shafts
without temporary casing, and 7 inches plus or minus 1 inch for dry shafts with temporary casing.
C. Steel Casing:
1. Where earth wall of drilled shaft is unstable or has a tendency to slough, crumble, or
fall away, provide temporary steel casing to stabilize the shaft wall. 2. Inside diameter of the casing shall be the full diameter of the drilled shaft foundation
as indicated, plus or minus 1/2 inch. 3. Steel casing shall have adequate strength to withstand the pressure of concrete
placement without distortion. 4. Inside surfaces of steel casing shall be smooth and coated to facilitate easy lifting and
removal during placement of concrete. 2.02 EXCAVATING AND DRILLING EQUIPMENT
A. Excavating and drilling equipment shall have adequate capacity, including power, torque, and down thrust to excavate a hole of the maximum diameter and to a depth of 20 percent beyond the depth indicated. Excavation and overreaming tools shall be of adequate design, size, and strength to perform the work indicated.
B. When the material encountered cannot be drilled using conventional earth augers or
overreaming tools, special drilling equipment shall be provided, including rock core barrels, rock tools, air tools, and other equipment as necessary to construct the shaft excavation to the size and depth indicated.
PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 METHOD TEST SHAFTS
DRILLED CONCRETE PIERS AND SHAFTS
RELEASE - R2.1 SECTION 31 63 29 BART FACILITIES STANDARDS Issued: 10/01/2009 PAGE 5 OF 7 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
A. The Contractor shall demonstrate the adequacy of the methods and equipment to be
employed for excavating shafts by successfully constructing method test shafts. A minimum of three test shafts shall be constructed. The method test shafts shall include drilling, reinforcing steel, thread bars, and concrete placement.
B. Method test shafts shall be positioned away from the drilled shafts in the location indicated
or where approved by the Engineer in writing. Method test shafts shall be drilled to the maximum depth of any drilled shaft indicated.
C. Failure to demonstrate the adequacy of methods and equipment shall be sufficient reason for
the Engineer to require alterations in equipment and methods by the Contractor to eliminate unsatisfactory results.
D. Once approval has been given to construct drilled shafts, no change will be permitted in the
methods or equipment used to construct the satisfactory method test shaft without the written approval of the Engineer.
3.02 LOAD TESTS
A. Requirements:
1. The Contractor shall perform compression load tests, tension load tests, and lateral load tests as required to determine whether or not the shafts can carry and withstand the imposed loads. Tests shall be performed on the method test shafts. Except for shafts required for testing, additional shaft construction will not be permitted until the load tests are completed.
2. The Contractor shall provide all equipment and apparatus as required to conduct the
tests. 3. The Contractor shall install, remove, relocate, and reinstall weights and components as
necessary to perform and complete the tests. 4. Tests can be conducted as soon as practicable after the concrete in each drilled shaft
has attained the specified 28-day compressive strength, but not until at least 10 days have elapsed after placing the concrete.
B. Compression Load Tests: Tests shall be performed in accordance with ASTM D1143.
Method of load test shall follow "Quick Load Test Method for Individual Piles" as specified in ASTM D1143, Section 5.6. The maximum test load shall be at least twice the design load as prescribed by the Engineer. Apply the load in increments equal to 10 percent of the maximum test load, with a constant time interval between increments of 5 minutes. Maintain the maximum test load for not less than 15 minutes, unless the shaft has failed as determined by the Engineer. Remove the test load in increments equal to 25 percent of the maximum test load, with a constant time interval between increments of 5 minutes.
C. Tension Load Tests: Tests shall be performed in accordance with ASTM D3689. Method
of load test shall follow "Quick Load Test Method for Individual Piles" as specified in ASTM D3689, Section 7.7. The maximum test load shall be at least twice the design load as prescribed by the Engineer. Apply the load in increments equal to 10 percent of the
DRILLED CONCRETE PIERS AND SHAFTS
RELEASE - R2.1 SECTION 31 63 29 BART FACILITIES STANDARDS Issued: 10/01/2009 PAGE 6 OF 7 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
maximum test load, with a constant time interval between increments of 5 minutes. Maintain the maximum test load for not less than 15 minutes, unless the shaft has failed as determined by the Engineer. Remove the test load in increments equal to 25 percent of the maximum test load, with a constant time interval between increments of 5 minutes.
D. Lateral Load Tests: Tests shall be performed in accordance with ASTM D3966. Method of
load test shall follow "Standard Loading Procedures" as specified in ASTM D3966, Section 6.1.
3.03 EXCAVATION
A. General:
1. Excavate for shaft foundations by drilling or by other methods, as approved by method test shafts, to advance the excavation to the required bottom elevation. Avoid over excavation. Excavation shall be performed through whatever materials are encountered to the dimensions, depths, and tolerances indicated. Bottoms of excavations shall be level and flat.
2. When required by the Engineer, drill and core an exploratory hole, approximately 3 to
4 inches in diameter, to a depth of 15 feet below the excavation invert and backfill with grout.
3. Protect excavated walls with temporary steel casing as necessary to prevent cave-ins,
displacement of the surrounding earth, water incursion, injury to personnel, and damage from construction operations. Maintain indicated neat lines of excavation for cased areas.
4. Make bottom surfaces level within the tolerances specified herein. Remove loose
material, debris, and muck with cleaning buckets.
B. Ground Water Control:
1. Notify the Engineer immediately when ground water is encountered. 2. Suitable steel casings shall be furnished and placed when necessary to control water.
Drilling mud or chemical stabilizers shall not be used unless permitted by the Engineer.
C. Inspection: After completion of excavation and prior to placement of reinforcing steel, the
condition of the excavation will be inspected by the Engineer. Use clean-out buckets or air-lifts to remove any sloughage or other loose material from the shaft prior to placing reinforcing steel and concrete. An accumulation of soil or rock in the bottom of the excavation will not be permitted.
3.04 INSTALLATION OF CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT
A. Where it is not practicable to deliver the cage assembly to the jobsite as a complete unit ready for installation, make the remaining connections or splices, as indicated on the approved Shop Drawings, at-grade prior to lowering the assembly into the hole.
DRILLED CONCRETE PIERS AND SHAFTS
RELEASE - R2.1 SECTION 31 63 29 BART FACILITIES STANDARDS Issued: 10/01/2009 PAGE 7 OF 7 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
B. Lower reinforcing steel into the hole in such a manner as to prevent damage to the walls, and place and tie or clip symmetrically about the axis of the shaft. Use centering devices, securely attached to the cage, to clear the shaft walls and to maintain the cage in place throughout the concrete placement.
3.05 CONCRETE PLACEMENT
A. Place concrete in dry excavations whenever practicable. Use all practicable means to obtain a dry excavation before and during concrete placement.
3.06 WITHDRAWAL OF TEMPORARY STEEL CASING
A. Where temporary steel casings are used to support the excavation walls, withdraw the casing as the concrete is being placed, unless otherwise indicated or unless the Engineer requires that the casing be permanently grouted in place. Remove the steel casing in such a manner so that the lower edge of the steel liner will always remain a minimum of 5 feet below the surface of the concrete as placed to prevent water from entering the casing from the bottom. Vibrate concrete during withdrawal of the steel casing.
3.07 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL
A. Inspections and Tests: The Contractor shall perform inspections and tests of concrete as specified in Section 03 05 15 - Portland Cement Concrete.
B. Records and Reports: Keep a record, on an approved form, for each drilled shaft foundation
installed. Record on the form the location, dimensions, elevations of top and bottom, depth of stratum penetration, condition of bottom of excavation, concrete placement data, a continuous record of actual concrete volume placed versus theoretical volume, and any other data called for on the approved report form or pertinent to the foundation.
END OF SECTION 31 63 29
1
Carlos, Renato
From: Dave Hook <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 5:24 PM
To: Metzger, Chris; John Morris, VTA; McKiernan, Sean; Carlos, Renato
Cc: Sue Tippets; Samuel Yung; Daniels, Allison; Noriega, Rene
Subject: RE: The Crossings at Montague Pre-Cast Wall
Chris, thanks.
SCVWD is struggling here, although we are as committed as ever to helping VTA succeed. SCVWD has gone a long way
and made many compromises to keep this BART Extension Project moving and allow the critical path relocation of our
pipes, etc.
VTA had originally agreed to install a gate for SCVWD here. SCVWD very reluctantly agreed to accept a wall without a
gate.
This wall was removed for construction some time ago, but the VTA's contractor clearly did not spend any time on this
for many months (over a year is my first guess).
Today we find out the easement expires in 31 days.
This is an area with a number of parallel pipelines that are very close together. Although SCVWD does hope that no
maintenance or excavation is needed for a long time, we do need to be able to do it someday. We find out that the
proposed configuration includes drilled piers that are within our 12' trench envelope (needed to install shoring in the
future), which will block shoring installation in the area. This makes it either very difficult or impossible to install shoring
in this area without first removal of the drilled piers, and we're still waiting to find out how hard that might be and
whether doing so would damage either the SCVWD pipe or adjacent pipelines.
So far, we have not seen a proposal that assuages our concerns.
One idea would be for VTA and SSH to come up with a physical option that would be easy to remove and replace and
that would not prevent installation of shoring. This might not look the same as the current pre-cast wall. This would
address both Points 1 and 2, although it would require going back to the Crossings.
Another would be to move the drilled piers back to 12' perpendicular (6' on each side from pipe centerline) and pre-
install sheet piles or another shoring system acceptable to SCVWD now. This would require re-design of the wall as well
structurally.
Another option is for VTA to accept full responsibility for the costs and potential damages of removal of the piers and
protection of the pipelines in the area, along with impacts on shoring cost, etc. One way that SCVWD would clearly
accept would be revised easement language.
Right now, we need to see more creative options that do not involve SCVWD just leaving it at "well, this is in the future,
and it may not happen for a long time or ever".
We are open to meeting and talking about this, as long as we discuss real options that address our issues and concerns
as noted here.
David E. Hook, PE
2
Senior Engineer, CPRU
408-624-2040 cell
________________________________________
From: Metzger, Chris [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 2:24 PM
To: Dave Hook
Cc: Daniels, Allison; Noriega, Rene
Subject: RE: The Crossings at Montague Pre-Cast Wall
Dave, a couple of points here. We did not ever discuss with the owner anything other than putting their wall back
where it was. We currently have not resolved with the owner any of our issues and are not in a positive negotiating
situation with them.
Our easement runs out in 31 days. (7/31/15) We need to get the wall re-installed by then. My understanding is the
panels are ready, we just need to figure out the foundation.
I Have not looked at the plans, but could the foundations form part of the shoring for removal/replacement option?
(shore up to either side)?
I know Bijal is out this week. I am out next week. There will be stiff penalties/problems created if we are not off the
Crossing property by the end of the month.
While I appreciate the long term concerns, we must also balance those what-ifs with the short term realities of impacts
to the public $ (that's yours and mine) that would result from lack of decisions/actions at this time....so help and
creativity are appreciated on this one at this time.
I will spool Rene up (he knows most of this already) so he can try to push the baton forward next week while I'm out.
Thanks all - we can do this, right???
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hook [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 2:02 PM
To: Metzger, Chris
Cc: Yung, Samuel
Subject: RE: The Crossings at Montague Pre-Cast Wall
Chris, glad you enjoyed the show last week. It's always good to have people listening.
Thanks for working with legal/real estate. yes, this would need to be addressed in the easement language. Like the
Central Pipeline, we would need to see the language and concur.
We are working with Sean on Point 1, and still waiting for an answer to our question of how big of a deal would it be to
remove the piers before we install shoring.
David E. Hook, PE
3
Senior Engineer, CPRU
408-624-2040 cell
________________________________
From: Metzger, Chris [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 3:03 PM
To: Dave Hook
Subject: RE: The Crossings at Montague Pre-Cast Wall
Dave,
I'll work with our legal/real estate folks. I'm assuming this will be resolved similar to issues with the 66" line. Of course
there will have to be some limitations related to expectations that any work would be done in a reasonable manner to
control overall costs - to SCVWD and VTA. The potential is great for the pipeline to outlive the wall in this location...so
risk needs to be put in proper context.
I presume the design is progressing to get to the point of technical (structural) approval and not slowing down for item
2??
Chris
p.s. listened to you a bit (last Monday?) on your evening show...good stuff
From: Dave Hook [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 10:51 AM
To: McKiernan, Sean; Carlos, Renato; Yung, Samuel; Morris, John
Cc: Sue Tippets; Metzger, Chris
Subject: RE: The Crossings at Montague Pre-Cast Wall
Sean,
Point taken on 1. We are not at all excited about a spread footing either.
Please advise us regarding what it would take in terms of equipment and effort to remove the drilled piers before we
install sheet piling for the future shoring, when needed. This is needed for us to get an idea about what the future
implications are to SCVWD. Given that there are a lot of parallel nearby pipelines, this is not a minor issue.
Point 2 will need to be resolved before we are OK with anything here.
Thanks,
David E. Hook, PE
Senior Engineer
CPRU
408 624-2040 cell
From: McKiernan, Sean [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 10:36 AM
To: Dave Hook; Carlos, Renato; Samuel Yung; John Morris, VTA
Cc: Sue Tippets; Metzger, Chris
Subject: RE: The Crossings at Montague Pre-Cast Wall
4
Good morning Dave.
In response to your two options below:
1. You provide an installation with a pier to pier distance of 31', centered on the pipe. That will work for us,
although it's not clear to us if you can really do that from a technical perspective.
RESPONSE: It is possible to span the 31ft, but creates a bigger issue for maintenance/repair on the line because we
would have to construct a CIP Spread Footing to support the wall for the entire length of the zone over the pipe. This
creates the same issue on a larger scale for reinstallation of the wall should any maintenance/repair need to be done in
the future on the line.
2. VTA provides clear, documented evidence of taking complete responsibility for paying for removal and
reinstallation of the pre-cast wall and drilled piers, along with taking responsibility for coordination with the property
owner.
RESPONSE: Chris Metzger (cc'd on this email) will be the point of contact for resolving item #2.
The current design with the wall centered over the water line is the best possible option taking into account all of these
variables. Both, Renato and I, are available for any questions on the design and installation plan. Thank you for
providing this topic attention.
Sean McKiernan, P.E.
Skanska/Shimmick/Herzog JV
1001 Montague Court
Milpitas, CA 95035
5
C: (510) 460-8302
O: (408) 678-0152
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hook [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:57 PM
To: Carlos, Renato; Samuel Yung; John Morris, VTA
Cc: McKiernan, Sean; Sue Tippets
Subject: RE: The Crossings at Montague Pre-Cast Wall
Renato,
thanks for your hard work on this.
My apologies - I just realized how substantial the skew angle was on The Crossing wall vs. our pipe is.
Unfortunately, that has a substantial impact on the distance needed from pier to pier to miss our 12' trench envelope
(centered on the pipe) for a shored future excavation. Looking at the dimensions on your latest figure, that means we
would need 31' from center to center to provide a 12' trench envelope.
6
20', even centered on the pipe as we previously requested, would still leave the piers well within the area the piles
would have to go. If we leave it at that, or anything close to that, we would have to remove the piers before installing
shoring (sheetpiles).
So, I'm seeing two options here.
1. You provide an installation with a pier to pier distance of 31', centered on the pipe. That will work for us, although it's
not clear to us if you can really do that from a technical perspective.
2. VTA provides clear, documented evidence of taking complete responsibility for paying for removal and reinstallation
of the pre-cast wall and drilled piers, along with taking responsibility for coordination with the property owner.
We do not anticipate this needing to occur very often.
However, with piers within the trench (shoring) envelope, removal of the piers becomes a fairly big deal, and is a fairly
large change from the conditions facing SCVWD before the relocation of our pipe.
7
We may need to discuss this after you and John Morris think further.
Thanks,
David E. Hook, PE
Senior Engineer, CPRU
408-624-2040 cell
________________________________
From: Carlos, Renato [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:03 PM
To: Dave Hook; Samuel Yung
Cc: McKiernan, Sean; Sue Tippets
Subject: RE: The Crossings at Montague Pre-Cast Wall
Dave,
Attached is a revised package that is hopefully what you are looking for with the placement of the encroaching CIDH
pile.
I will follow up on Item #1 once I get more information/updates.
8
Thank you,
Renato
From: Dave Hook [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:56 AM
To: Carlos, Renato; Samuel Yung
Cc: McKiernan, Sean; Sue Tippets
Subject: RE: The Crossings at Montague Pre-Cast Wall
Carlos,
SCVWD has two issues here.
1. As you noted, VTA (and other VTA agents) need to resolve VTA responsibility for future removal.
2. The drilled piers need to be centered across the pipe - i.e., 10'0" from pipe centerline to pier centerline on both
sides. Offset as proposed is not acceptable to SCVWD, due to impacts to future maintenance and/or replacement. While
we recognize the desire to match the existing wall segments, that is not a sufficient reason for SCVWD to accept that.
Thanks,
David E. Hook, PE
Senior Engineer
CPRU
9
408 624-2040 cell
From: Carlos, Renato [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:24 AM
To: Samuel Yung; Dave Hook
Cc: McKiernan, Sean
Subject: The Crossings at Montague Pre-Cast Wall
Sam,
Following up with what we spoke about earlier, I have attached a drawing and other pertinent references regarding the
construction of the proposed Sound Wall. Please review the drawings in reference to the requested SCVWD easement
and the encroachment of the CIDH pile. As we discussed, I will follow up with the following information:
1. Responsible party for handling of the sound wall panel for future removal.
2. Structural integrity of the CIDH pile for future excavation.
Please contact me if you have any further questions or concerns. 510-459-7842
Thank you,
Renato Carlos
Skanska-Shimmick-Herzog JV
10
SOE Engineer
Office: (408)678-0156
Moblie: (510)459-7842
This message, including any attachments hereto, may contain privileged or confidential information and is sent solely for
the attention and use of the intended addressee(s). If you are not an intended addressee, you may neither use this
message nor copy or deliver it to anyone. In such case, you should immediately destroy this message and kindly notify
the sender by reply email.
Thank you.