BWFE2019-0228 Limited Geotechnical Evaluation - RevisedI t Mrs. Lisa Swenson
62 Ellenwood Avenue
Los Gatos, California 95030I
RECEIVED
NO\/ 1 g 20tg
IT.IIERWEST
CONSULTING GROUP
Limited Geotechnica! Evaluations
Geogrid Reinforcement Slopes Steeper than 2:1,
Gabion Rockfall Wa!! Dimension Expansion and
Additional Rockfa!! Analysis
Proposed Single Family Residence
77-2LO Loma Vista
The La Quinta Resort
La Quinta, Riverside County, California REVIEWED
JAN 0 Z Z0Z0
INTERWEST
CONSULTING GROUP
February 4,2OL9
RFCE
NTv 08
/yrD
20t9
Dasr6/rr,{/uoH3;fl.m,Rlr,gr
O 2019 Earth Systems Pacific
Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited
without the express written consent of Earth Systems Pacific.
File No.:301681-001
Doc. No.: 79-O2-7OL&&*t a Ye/$
Ea rth Systems
79-SLLCountryClubDrive,SuiteB I BermudaDunes,CAg22O3 | Ph:760.345.1588 lwww.earthsystems.com
February 4,2OL9 File No.: 301681-001
Doc No.: L9-O2-70L
Mrs. Lisa Swenson
62 Ellenwood Avenue
Los Gatos, California 95030
Attention: Mrs. Lisa Swenson
Project:Proposed Swenson Residence
77-2LO Loma Vista
The La Quinta Resort
La Quinta, Riverside County, California
Subject:Limited Geotechnical Evaluations
Geogrid Reinforcement Slopes Steeper than 2:1,
Gabion Rockfall Wall Dimension Expansion and Additional Rockfall Analysis
Earth Systems Pacific [Earth Systems] is pleased to submit this limited geotechnical evaluation
report for the project located at77-2t0 Loma Vista, La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The
intent of this report is to supplement existing geotechnical reports previously prepared for the
site by providing further geotechnical evaluation of site slopes, additiona! gabion rockfall barrier
evaluation, and additiona! rockfall evaluation.
From the project soils report, previously anticipated slope heights were not to exceed 15 to 20
feet in height and compacted fill soil slopes were to be finished at a 2:1 inclination or flatter (Earth
Systems, 2OL3, Geotechnical Report). This report studies compacted fill soi! slopes having
inclinations steeper than 2:L and with slope heights exceeding20 feet. Our analysis for slope
stability uses geogrid reinforcement to provide additional strength to the steeper than 2:L slope.
To accommodate additional clear distance along the access road, the design team inquired of
Earth Systems on the possibility of reducing the gabion basket rockfall wall thickness documented
in a past Earth Systems report (Earth Systems, 2018). This report includes a section on revising
dimensions of the gabion basket rockfall wall to better accommodate site constraints.
The design team also noted a portion of the access road having width dimensions tapering to a
width that would cause the gabion rockfall wall to encroach onto required horizontal clear path
of travel and property line. This report provides additional rockfall analysis at the desired tapered
location to evaluate any reduced recommendations, which may allow the design team to
incorporate a rockfall mitigation improvement within the limited boundary.
Unless requested in writing, the Client is responsible to distribute the report to the appropriate
governing agency and other members of the design team. Please review the Limitations of this
report as it is vital to the understanding of this report.
Background
February 4,2OL9 2 File No.: 301681-002
Doc. No.: 19-02-7OL
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services. Please contact our office if
there are any questions or comments concerning this report or its recommendations.
Respectfu I !y su bm itted,
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
ony Colarossi
Project Engineer
PE 60302
GER(aclcs/klplmr
Distribution: 4lMrs. Lisa Swenson
UThe Altum Group, Mr. James Bazua (iames.bazua@thealtumgroup.coml
1/BER
INo 60302
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
February 4,2OL9
Section 1
L.L
Section 2
2.L
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Section 3
3.L
Section 4
4.L
Section 5
5.1
Section 6
6.1
6.2
6.3
File No.: 301681-OO2
Doc. No.: 19-02-70L
TABTE OF CONTENTS
Page
1ntfOdUCtiOn............................................. ............. .............1
Site Description
Discussion Of Slope Stability Analysis For Slopes Steeper Than 2iL..............
Stability Conditions
Soil and Rock Engineering Properties Discussion and Loading Assumptions...
Soil SIope Factor of Safety and Drainage Condition Assumptions
Geogrid Engineering Properties.
Minimum Geogrid Anchorage Length
Slope Analysis Results
Further Discussion Of Gabion Basket Rockfall Wall
Reevaluation of Wall Dimensions ....
0
3
4
4
5
7
7
8
9
TL
Discussion Of Additional Rockfall Analysis ............o....................................12
Additional Rockfal! Analysis Run and Results....L2
COnC|USiOnS...............................................o................................................13
Conclusions
LL
13
L4
L4
18
19
20
2L
Allowable Wall Dimensions for Gabion Basket Filled Rockfall Walls
Rockfall Mitigation Measure for Narrow Taper Area
LimitatiOhS..................................................................................r..............Section 7
REFERENCES
ATTACHMENTS
Typical Geogrid Cross Section (1 page)
Slope Analysis Plan Views (2 Pages)
Slide18 Cross Sections (11 Pages)
Slope Drainage System (1 Page)
Tensar Triax Spec Sheet (2 Pages)
Tensar Uxmse Spec Sheet (6 Pages)
Rockfall Profile (1 Page)
Tensar Structural Geogrid Strength Properties (7 Pages)
Rockfall lnput/Output (4 Pages)
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
February 4,2OL9 File No.: 301681-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
Limited Geotechnical Evaluations
Geogrid Reinforcement Slopes Steeper than 2:1,
Gabion Rockfall Wall Dimension Expansion and Additional Rockfall Analysis
Proposed Single Family Residence
77-2LO Loma Vista
The La Quinta Resort
La Quinta, Riverside County, California
Section 1
lntroduction
This report has been prepared for the proposed Swenson residence, which is located 77-2L0
Loma Vista, La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Three geotechnical related items of interest
are included in this report:
1. SIopes having a slope face inclination steeper than 2(H):1(V),
2. Expand allowable dimension criteria for the proposed gabion basket rockfall wall, and
3. Perform additional rockfall analysis near a small portion of the proposed gabion basket
rockfall wall.
Slopes with Slope Face lnclination Steeperthan 2:1: Earth S ystems received information from the
Altum Group that the use of some rock cladding retaining walls is desired to be replaced with
slopes steeper than 2:1. The Altum Group provided Earth Systems three concept plans (Altum,
L2/21/2018, Llt6l2o19, and Ll29/2019) that show areas of past rock cladded retaining walls
replaced with slopes having inclinations steeper than 2:1. After additional slope analysis and
design decisions, concept plan t2/2L/2018 was decided to be no longer used and was replaced
with concept plans dated L/t6/2O19 and Ll29l2ot9. Figures L and 2 show locations of past use
of wall areas replaced with steeper than 2:1 slope areas and slope stability cross sections used
for analysis and recommendations found in this report. For a full version of these concept plans,
see Appendix A.
Figure 1 Steeper than 2:1 Slopes near Access Road (dated L/29/2OL9\
1
'r
tt t
v
'r*
t
ta t
1
\
a
\
A1'
t-,
ellotr-.El
t /L /ttl
a-'
I
L-
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
\
,/>
-tft -Iltr'rr'
t
\
I
ki
\
\
I
I
IE ,/
\,1\I
\\\\\\
gr\
\\\\/,E\
/\\I
jr.''g
60oJt'-
t#rs-'
$wlrlSorl rttroSl.cl
\
\
'\
@ eo..pEr.tr I
\
c lro5
t/t3ltE
February 4,2019 File No.: 301681-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
Figure 2 Steeper than 2:1 Slope near PoolArea (dated I/t6/20t91
Exoa nd Allowable Dimension of Gabion Basket Rockfall Wall:Earth Systems produced a report
on April 24, 20L8, which provides rockfall wall dimensions for rockfall protection along the
western portion of the access road, see page 3 of that report (Earth Systems, 2018). This report
provides an expansion of the tabled data to include a reduced thickness of the wall by increasing
the infill material's unit weight. Please see Section 3 of this report for additional wall dimensions.
Additional Rockfall Analvsis at Taperins Location of the Access Roadwav: The project soils report's
Plate A-3 (Earth Systems, 2013) shows extents of proposed rockfal! hazard areas. Near the
northeast end of the minimum 7-foot-high wall (gabion basket wall), the access road's width
begins to taper, see Figure 3. Earth Systems was tasked with performing additional rockfall
analysis run at this location to see if the gabion wa!! could be eliminated or reduction in rockfall
mitigation could be achieved. Rockfal! analysis was performed using Colorado Rock-Fall
Simulation Program Version 4 and the design team provided grading and concept plans.
2
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
Irltll
I
\
February 4,2OL9 File No.: 301681-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-701
Figure 3 Taper Area along Access Road
ln summary, this report contains the following:
general type of construction proposed.
compaction specifications for geogrid reinforced soil slopes.
rock, and geogrid input.
basket walls.
1.1 Site Description
The site is unchanged from previous description. For existing site descriptions, please review the
reference section of this report for project reports from Earth Systems (2013 and 2016).
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
3
,. !
- ., t ayaroll
; 11* te^c
:it inF w*at
r
..P
/
/
//
/
,
x i-t
\\
-(
\\
is EvaluationAnalvsNew Rockfall
L -- trrrr,tu,
8fi,h1
II
.L
,
I
I
W
L
/
/
aper Are
!7
I
aas l,r.r. r( lr}Olr,C,rr, 1D 5
-OB Af'lr}trro.l fi ltf Ctl-1ruO
g6p rfof tI tS [t.Df,Ettr\
UffttO /}S A ' 16x.t- ltID
Ifd,_ilAlaN ftla Or. Tt Fal6.
<tiO}le R.Il
" vd cl(il t)o(tarl'
d of Rockfa
t
'En
a
I
,.{
ffid_\
February 4,20L9 File No.: 30L581-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
Section 2
Discussion Of Slope Stability Analysis For Slopes Steeper Than 2:1
2.L Stability Conditions
Stabilitv Conditiot s: Earth Systems reviewed the rough grading plans and concept plans showing
retaining wall replacement with engineered fil! slopes, see previous Figures 1 and 2. Four cross
sections were produced: Section Al-AL', A2-A2', B-B', and C-C'.
Section AL-A1': Existin g slopes ranged between 29 and 33 degrees from the horizontal. The
height of this cross section is approximately 19 feet without a wall and 15 feet with a wall; the
length is approximately 22.5 feet. Although the concept drawing shows contours of flatter than
1.5:1 slopes, Earth Systems performed a slope stability analysis for a finished 1.5:1 slope because
the concept plan states 1.5:L slopes. The initial analysis of the proposed slope (no geogrid
mitigation) determined the static load condition has a Factor of Safety (FS) of approximately 1.0
as shown in Appendix A, "section Al,-AL' Static No Geogrid". This is less than the code mandated
1.5 FS. Therefore, additional support of the slope is needed.
Section A2-A2': Existing slopes ranged between 27 and 45 degrees from the horizontal. The
height of this cross section is approximately 25 feet without a wall and 19 feet with a 6-foot
retaining wal! and length of approximately 28.5 feet. Like Section A1-A1', the concept drawing
shows contours of flatter than 1.5:1 slopes; however, Earth Systems performed a slope stability
analysis for a finished 1.5:1 slope because the concept plan states possible 1.5:1 slopes. The initial
analysis (no geogrid mitigation) determined the static load condition has a Factor of Safety (FS)
of approximately 1.4 as shown in Appendix A, "section A2-A2'static No Geogrid" . This is less than
the code mandated L.5 FS. Therefore, additional support of the slope is needed.
Section B-B': Existing slope inclinations range between 12 and 30 degrees from the horizontal.
The top of the existing slope has an approximate elevation of 79 feet. Since the finish pad grade
is approximately 87 feet, the top of the slope was first analyzed at the proposed pad grade but
was then lowered to an elevation of 83 utilizing a retaining wall between the slope and the pool.
The total height of the slope is currently approximately 27 feet, which does not require a bench
per Chapter J of the 20L6 CBC. Earth Systems performed a slope stability analysis for the finished
1.5:1 slope with height of 27 feet and having engineered fill and benching. The analysis
determined the static load condition had a FS of approximately 1.0 as shown in Appendix A,
"Section B-B' Static No Geogrid". This is less than the code mandated 1.5 FS. Therefore, additional
support of the slope is needed.
Section C-C': Existin g slope inclinations range between 18 and 20 degrees from the horizontal.
The existing height of the modified portion of this slope is approximately 6 feet and the horizontal
distance is approximately 17 feet. The top of the existing slope has an approximate elevation of
81 feet. Since the finish pad grade is approximately 87, the top of the slope will be raised about
7 feet. The design elected to use a retaining wal! to drop the top of slope to an elevation of 84.
Very little soils exist in this area and the surface of the slope is mostly bedrock. Based on toe and
top of slope elevations provided on the exhibit (The Altum Group, LlL6/2OL9\, the slope
inclination is approximately 1.9:1.
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
4
February 4,2OL9 File No.: 301681-001
Doc. No.: L9-0L-7OL
Existing bedrock depths were estimated using cross sections L, 2, 6, 7, and 8 found in a past
project soils report (Earth Systems,2OL6, RetainingWall with Rock Cladding). The profile of the
benching plays a critical part on the slope stability Factor of Safety (FS). lt should be noted, the
project soils report (Earth Systems,2OL3, Section 5.1.2) indicates for 2:1 slopes: "Fills placed on
natural slopes steeper than 5:L should be keyed and benched into firm natural sround (See Plate
A-5)". Earth Systems analysis for geogrid reinforced slopes assumes all benches are found in
competent bedrock having the bedrock engineering properties provided for the type of slope
analysis being performed, see Table 1 below. During construction, the actual design of the
benching will be based on observations by the geotechnical engineer or geologist or their
representative during grading. lf adverse conditions exist, the geotechnical engineer of record
should reanalyze the slope (as needed) and may determine additional mitigation measures are
necessary.
Earth Systems performed static and seismic slope stability analysis. Standard of care procedures
or methods were utilized in the analysis. Soil property values varied depending on the analysis
performed. Ultimate shear values were used for static analysis and peak (corrected when
applicable) values were used for seismic and temporary construction. Pore water pressure (Ru)
has been assumed to be zero (Ru = 0) for the life of the geogrid reinforced slope. Therefore,
proper drainage improvements are required and shown on Plate A-6 found in the project soils
report and Appendix A of this report. For the slope analysis, we used the Janbu and Bishop
Simplified Methods provided in the software called Slidel8 (Rocscience), which provided the
results for static and seismic modeling, see Appendix A.
2.2 Soil and Rock Engineering Properties Discussion and Loading Assumptions
Engineered fill and bedrock strength parameters are presented in Table 1 below. Soi! used as
compacted engineered fill should have at Ieast these minimum properties such that at least the
minimum factor of safety is achieved. Over-excavation requirements for geogrid reinforced soil
slope analysis requires the benching be taken down to competent bedrock having shear values
at or greater than that listed in the project soils report's Section 3.7.3 for bedrock "not along a
jointing pattern". lf during grading observations by the geologist or geotechnical engineer or their
representative find adverse jointing in the bedrock, then the geotechnical engineer of record
shall reassess the slope stability analysis and recommendations. Ultimate cohesion values shown
in Table L are factored. Earth Systems recommends cohesion strengths used in slope analysis are
factored (reduced) by 3 to account for variability and limitations of Direct Shear testing. Soil
material used for engineered fil! shall be, in general, free draining material and have an Expansive
lndex designation of "Very Low".
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
5
Soil
Description
Unit
Weight
(pcfl
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction
Angle (Q)
Test
Condition Drained/Undrained
Engineered Fill t25 0 30 U !tim ate Drained
Engineered Fill L25 0 32 Peak Dra in ed
Bedrock L6L 80 35 Ultimate Drained
Bedrock 161 150 4L Peak Drained
February 4,2OL9 6 File No.: 301681-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
Ana sis
Table 1
Soil and Rock Shear Strength Parameters Used for Slope Stabil
Table l above does not show undrained shear strengths because the project mitigation measures
for benching include drainage improvements and free-draining soil assumptions. Earth Systems
reports (201,3) estimates groundwater tables will be below the estimated slip circles and in-situ
moisture contents were considered moist to damp. However, current site conditions allow for
infiltration of storm flows into the subgrade; therefore, slope soils could be inundated.
Recommendations in Earth Systems report (2013) and this report require drainage facilities
within the slope embankments, see Figure 3 in this report or Plate A-6 (Earth Systems, 2013).
Therefore, the embankment fills should not experience a pore pressure buildup within proposed
embankment. Direct shear testing utilized saturated samples under drained conditions.
Load Assumptions: Pro,ject plans show an approximate 2O-foot-wide access road built apon a
sloped embankment. Earth Systems assumes typical vehicles will be light vehicles. Slopes
subjected to traffic loads should include a uniform surcharge load equivalent of 250 psf for auto
and 450 psf for truck traffic located at least 3 feet from the top of slope edge. Closer loads will
impart greater pressures on the slope. Per the 2OL6 California Building Code, for pedestrian yards
and terraces, a 100 psf surcharge is required.
Seismic Loadine: Seismic coefficients input in Slidel8 were determined for a pseudostatic
analysis. Earth Systems determined seismic coefficients from procedures provided by DMG
Special Publication LL7, Guideline for Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California
(pp 78). Earth Systems estimated the maximum horizontal acceleration PGArvr is 0.559 and the
Earthquake Magnitude is 8.2. The maximum horizontal acceleration is determined using site
coordinates and the use of an OSHPD and Structural Engineers Association of California web site
https://seismicmaps.ore/. A ma gnitude earthquake is obtained from a seismic hazards study that
was performed for this project by Earth Systems (Earth Systems, 20L3,20L6). Using Figure 1.b
from Specia! Publication 117 (pp 30), the factor related to the seismicity of the site is 0.51. From
the equation (Equation 11.1) to determine seismic coefficient (K.q) yields 0.3 for the horizontal
direction and the vertical is % the horizontal direction or 0.1.
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
Load Condition Section
Observed
Pressure Load
(psf)
Seismic
Coefficients
Roadways A-A,250
Construction Al!450
Seism ic All 0.3H and 0.1V
Yards and Terraces B-B' f C-C'100
February 4,2OL9 File No.: 30168L-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-70L
Table 2
Loading Assumption
2.3 Soil Slope Factor of Safety and Drainage Condition Assumptions
Static and Seismic FOS: From page 55 of DMG Special Publication LL7 (Guidelines for Analyzing
and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California): "Historically, the most commonly required factors
of safety in southern California have been 1.5 or static long-term slope stability and L.25 for static
short-term (during construction) stability." These factors are probably more than adequate based
on current methods for analyzing slope stability; however, other uncertainties like soil strength,
groundwater conditions, imperfect nature of models, and the ability of the analyst to find the
critical failure surface geometry indicates a need for the historical use of these FSs. A Factor of
Safety (FS) of 1.5 is required for Riverside County (2000) for static conditions and 1.1 for
psuedostatic (seismic) conditions. Therefore, Earth Systems selects the use of these FS for static
(1.5) and seismic (1.1) for slope stability.
Earth Systems uses the Development of Screening Analysis Procedure detailed in DMG SP117 on
page 78. The procedure is implemented by entering a horizontal seismic coefficient (k) into a
conventional slope stability calculation. The seismic coefficient represents the fraction of the
weight of the sliding mass that is applied as an equivalent horizontal force acting through the
centroid of the mass.
For this slope stability analysis, assumptions for Factor of Safety are shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Factor of Usa
2.4 Geogrid Engineering Properties
Tensar lnternational Corporation, who manufactures fabrics such as geogrids and provides
design assistance, provided preliminary assistance for this report. Our analysis used uniaxial
geogrid for Sierra Scape Systems from Tensar. Tensar's product specification sheet indicates
three Structural Geogrids are recommended for embankment slopes. All three have an allowable
tensile strength greater than 1,100 pounds per foot (lb/ft) using selected reduction factors based
7
Analysis Condition FOS
Static 1.5
Seismic 1.1
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
February 4,20L9 File No.: 301681-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
on discussions with the manufacturer, see Table 4. Table 4's allowable tensile strength is based
on using the reduction factors stated on the sheets from Tensar, see Appendix A.
Factors to be used to determine the allowable tensile strength shall include three reduction
factors: L) Reduction Factor for lnstallation Dama ge,2l Reduction Factor for creep, 3) Reduction
Factor for degradation (Koerner, 2OL2l. The allowable tensile strengths and reduction factor
usage is shown in Table 4:
Table 4
Geogrid Tensile Strengths and Reduction Factors for Slo e Reinforcement
*Reduction Factor for lnstallation Damage.
**Reduction Factor for creep.
* * * Red uction Factor for chem ica l/biologica I degradation.**** Using Tensar minimum reduction factors: RFro*-L.L (based on maximum particle size of L% inch),
RFcn - 2.60, and RFceo = L.0. See Appendix A for Tensar Documents.
Minimum geogrid length is 8 feet, see Figure 4. Geogrid length should be considered the location between
the slope face and vertical bedrock cut plane.
2.5 Minimum Geogrid Anchorage Length
With the mobilization of all, or part, of the geogrid reinforcement's strength comes an equal and
opposite requirement that the soil behind the slip zone resists pullout. The situation is one
whereby an anchorage problem can be envisioned (Koener, Third Edition). The anchorage
location should be considered the vertical bedrock cut in the bench (typica! location of slip plane).
Earth Systems performed calculations to determine anchorage length of the geogrid located
behind the slope failure circle. Table 5 shows the results of this analysis:
8
*uired Ancho Le
Table 5
hs Beyond Slip Plane (Vertical Bedrock Bench
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
Product
Specification
Per Tensar
Ultimate Tensile
Strength (lb/ft)
Allowable
Tensile
Strength
(lbs/ft)
RFro*RFcn**RFcgo*t'
UXl1OOMSE Tult=TattXR FroXR FcnXRFceo 1454**:r.*1.1to 1.5 2.0 to 3.0 1.0 to L.5
UX14OOMSE Tult=TarrxRFroXRFcnXRFceo 1759* 'r. * *1.1to 1.5 2.0 to 3.0 1.0 to 1.5
UXl5OOMSE Tult=TalXRFroXRFcnXRFceo 2961* * * *1.1to L.5 2.0 to 3.0 1.0 to 1.5
Cross Section Loading Type
Condition
Slope
Height
(ft)
'l*At Top of Slope
(ft)
'r**61 Bottom of Slope
(ft)
AL-Al',Static 15 5.0 3.0
AL-A1'Seism ic L5 4.0 3.0
A2-A2'Static 19 5.0 3.0
A2-A2'Seism ic 19 4.0 3.0
B-B,Static 27 5.0 3.0
B-8,Seism ic 27 4.0 3.0
c-c'Static 10 5.0 3.0
c-c'Seism ic L0 4.0 3.0
February 4,20L9 File No.: 301681-00L
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
*For the static load condition, a FS of 1.5 was used to determine the required length and for the seismic condition,
a FS of l..L was used.
**Required anchorage length at the top of slope, see Figure 4, page 14. Or, anchor geogrid to bedrock vertical.
***Minimum anchorage length is 3 feet, see Figure 4. Or, anchor geogrid to bedrock vertical.**** lntermediate anchorage lengths between the top and bottom should be interpolated based on the location of
the intermediate geogrid location between the top and bottom.
*****The total length of geogrid (geogrid + anchorage length) will be dependent on the bedrock profile and the
location of the geogrid layer.
2.6 Slope Analysis Results
For the slope analysis, we used the Janbu and Bishop Simplified Methods in software called
Slide2018 (Rocscience), which provided the results for static and seismic modeling, see Appendix
A. Shear parameters used in the static and seismic case were estimated from project soils and
rock tested from past project reports (Earth Systems, 2OL3, Geotechnical Report) and (Earth
Systems,2OL6, Geotechnical Engineering Plan Review) as presented within.
Groundwater tables are well below the assumed slip circles. The design of these geogrid slopes
assumes pore water buildup pressures do not exist for the life of the slope. Drainage
improvements shall be provided as shown in Figure 4, and Appendix A "Fill Over Natural Slope".
Section 2.1 indicates proposed slopes having gradients steeper than 2:L have FS for static and
seismic loading condition less than the desired 1.5 and 1.1, respectively. Additional slope stability
analysis was performed using geogrid reinforced soil slopes for slopes steeper than 2:L and at
specific locations shown in Figures L and 2. As shown in Appendix A, Sections Al-AL', A2-A2' , B-
B', and C-C' using geogrid systems show static FOS at or greater than 1.5. However, additional
slope stability analysis using loading for the seismic condition governed the use of geogrid and
benching profile requirements. lt should be noted that benching profiles have an effect on the
slope's FS; therefore, any changes in the assumed profiles (initial bench 10 feet wide and
additional benches 5 feet wide) should be reevaluated by Earth Systems. The analysis revealed
the length of geogrid should meet at the vertical bedrock bench and either be anchored to the
vertical bedrock using anchor bolts tied to horizontal bars or have a minimum length of geogrid
(see Table 5) shall extend and run along the vertical and horizontal rock bench the stated distance
as shown in Table 5, also see Figure 4 (and Appendix A "Geogrid Cross Section") for anchorage
length locations. lf the anchor into bedrock option is selected, anchors shall be secured into
competent bedrock as defined in the soi!/rock engineering properties, see Section 2.1, Table 1.
In addition, adverse bedrock slip planes that are observed during construction could require
additional slope analysis with possible changes in recommendations.
Several sections were run but four are provided for this report. ln general, and only for 1.5:L
slopes, geogrid vertical spacing of 2 foot should be utilized for slopes having heights less 19 feet
and slopes with heights between 20 and 27 feet should use geogrid vertical spacing of 1 foot.
Graphs of the analysis are presented in Appendix A. A summary of the analysis results are as
follows:
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
9
February 4,2OL9 10
Table 6
Reinforced Stab Results
File No.: 301681-001
Doc. No.: 19-01-7OI
A1.A1,Static To Bedrock Yes 2.O 2.L
A1-At'Seismic To Bedrock Yes 2.O L.4
A2-A2'Static To Bedrock Yes 2.O 1.5
A2-A2'Seism ic To Bedrock Yes 2.0 L.L
B-B'Static To Bedrock Yes 1.0 L.9
B-B,Seism ic To Bedrock Yes 1.0 L.4
c-c'Static To Bedrock Yes 3.0 1.5
c-c'Seismic To Bedrock Yes 3.0 t.2
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
Cross
Section
Loading Type
Condition
Grid Length
(ft)
Additional
Anchorage
See Table 5
Grid Vertical
Spacing
(ft)
Factor of
Safety
February 4,2OL9 LL File No.: 301681-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
Section 3
Further Discussion Of Gabion Basket Rockfall Wall
3.1 Reevaluation of Wall Dimensions
The design team has requested Earth Systems study reducing the thickness of the gabion basket
rockfall wal! due to site constraints. Based on past reports (Earth Systems,}OLS\, a gabion wall
was selected as the rockfall mitigation measure. As stated in the 2018 report, research involving
full-scale field testing (Peila et al. 2000) has been conducted on thick structural walls to quantify
their capacity, to understand their performance, and to develop a design methodology. Research
has shown that kinetic energy from a rockfall impact is dissipated through slip along the internal
layers within the zone of impact and by the development of localized cratering of the wall face.
Peila demonstrated that a rock block colliding with energy approaching 5,000 kJ (1,850 ft-tons)
can be safely stopped by a reinforced embankment with a unit weight per meter of length that
is twice the weight of the block without the overall stability of the thick wall being compromised.
A review of the soi! report's rockfall analysis indicates the following assumed inputs for the
estimate of wall size:
L. Maximum size of rock falling is a 4ft round by 5 feet long cylinder.
2. The density of the rock is estimated at 161.4 pcf.
3. The maximum kinetic energy approaches 79,176 ft-lb (40 ft-tons or 107 kJ),
which is less than the 5,000 kJ used in the Peila research.
Using a cylindrical formula (V = nr2h) for the volume of the rock and the density of the rock, Earth
System estimates the weight of the rock is approximately 10,200 lbs. Based on the criteria set
from Piela's research, the projects kinetic energy is less than 1,850 ft-tons and the unit weight of
the wall per meter should be approximately 20,4OO lbs/meter length of wall. Section 5.2 presents
our wall dimension recommendations.
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
February 4,20L9 L2 File No.: 301681-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
Section 4
Discussion Of Additional Rockfall Analysis
4.1 Additional Rockfall Analysis Run and Results
Previously indicated in Section 2.L and location identified in Figure 3 of this report, Earth Systems
performed additional rockfall analysis to study the outcome of an assumed rockfall path heading
for the northeast end of the gabion wall. Earth Systems performed rock fall analysis using
Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (Version 4.0). One new path was selected to run into the
end of the northeast side of the gabion wall were the taper is located, see Figure 3. The results
indicated the assumed boulder having a cylindrical shape with dimensions of 4 feet diameter and
5 feet long will roll past the location of the proposed wall, however with a lesser bounce height.
Colorado Rockfall S imulation Prosram Results: Results of the isolated run are summarized in
Table 7 below. The table shows results for proposed site plan grades. Column L in the table shows
the software run, which can be identified on Figure 3 of this report. Column 2 shows the analysis
point, which is a specific location on the slope geometry that the program provides output data
such as energies, velocity, etc, see lnput/Output document in Appendix A. Columns 3, 4 and 5
provide the assumed rock diameter, energy and bounce height, respectively. The final column is
titled "Rollout Distance" beyond the analysis point. lt should be noted that the total rollout
distance was not tabulated (the gabion basket wall should stop the design rolling rock), but if this
information becomes critical, this information can be determined. Section 6.3 presents
recommended mitigation measures for this area of rockfall protection.
Table 7
New Rockfall Analysis Run
*--Shape of boulder has been set as cylindrical having a S-foot length
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
CRISP Version 4.0 Analysis Point and Runout Distances
Run Section Analysis Point
Boulder
Diameter*
(ft1
Energy
(ft-lbs.)
Bounce
Height
(ft)
Rollout
Distance
(ftt
Northeast 7 ft
Wall (see Fie 3)
PLlTaper (X=
168 Output)4
99,000
(lncrease
Observed )
3 >20
February 4,2OL9 13 File No.: 301681,-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
Section 5
Conclusions
5.1 Conclusions
The following is a summary of our conclusions and professiona! opinions based on the data
obtained from a review of selected technical literature and the evaluations.
General:
provided the recommendations in this report are followed in the design and construction of
this project.
Geotechniqal Constraints and Mitigation:
recommendations provided in the project geotechnica! (soils) report, referenced in this
report, remain applicable to the proposed project. Updated and supplemental
recommendations are provided below and supersede the referenced geotechnical report
recommendations as applicable.
meeting the minimum required factors of safety.
extended past the vertical bedrock bench, see Figure 4 (Appendix A "Geogrid Cross Section")
and Table 5.
the locations discussed within, see Figures 1 and 2.
gabion wall (see Figure 3 for location).
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
February 4,2OL9 1.4 File No.: 30168L-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
Section 5
Site Development
6.1 Geogrid Reinforced Soil Slope Development - Grading
A representative of Earth Systems should observe site clearing, grading, and the benching profile
before placing fill. Local variations in soil and rock conditions may warrant increasing the
dimensions of the bench and deeper excavations.
Clearing and Grubbins for Slapes Steeper than 2:L: At the start of sl ope grading, existing
vegetation, undocumented fill, colluvium, construction debris, foundations, structures, trash,
and underground utilities should be removed from the proposed slope benching areas. After
removals, benchingof exposed bedrock is required as per Figure4. Onsite soil with deleterious
material may be reused if the deleterious material can be removed. Oversize material (see
Engineered Fill for Geogrid Layers for maximum particle size) or oversize can also be considered
oversized (or rock fill) when more than 30% of the material (by weight) is larger than %-inch in
size).
Slope Backfill Using Geogrid Supports: Because the proposed slopes exceed a gradient steeper
than 2(H):1(V), additional support of the steeper slopes is required. The design team has elected
to use geogrid as the additional support. Earth Systems recommends the use of uniaxial grid
along the slope and biaxial geogrid under roadways found to be combined with slopes steeper
than 2:L, see Figure 4 below. The uniaxial grid is specified in Table 4. The biaxial geogrid under
roadways shall be Tensar's TX 150 (see Appendix A specification sheet) or equal or as approved
by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. The lowest bench (toe of slope) shall be located a
minimum of 2 foot into competent bedrock (material meeting the requirements shown in Table
1 for bedrock requirements) or as directed by the engineer/geologist during grading. lt is
preferred to have the bench sloped slightly (1 to 2 percent) into the slope as shown in Figure 4
below. Deeper over-excavation may be recommended if the required benching material is not
achieved. The initial bench shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of L0 feet. The exposed
bedrock should be benched as per Figure 4, or per the direction of the project engineer or
geologist.
Figure 4 Typical Steeper than 2:1, but less than 1.5:1 Slope Construction Using Geogrid where lndicated. Also see Appendix A attachment.
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
rtt
Mhimum bottom
P roposed Roadway
IIpk.l, r I foot r.ll 6'
Iypkrl, rbpc I lo 2!( doumwerr
Mlnlnum tenjth: !let
Hdtoft
Prlmry thlrrhl Gcqrld
or Pad
BLrbl no.6f,.V ceqrld (IX 160 o( tqu.tl, Ro.dmy Aa Only
Vcrlk l Sp.(a = I foot. lt.rl 8.lor A3tra3.ta or Co{xr.t.
Sedrocl or m.tcrLl mec{lrf proilct rpc.lk.llort :nd thc
lolr report.
length per rcpon, rce lcclloo 1.6 lrble 6
top.rrhorte erlenlioo
.mho lo b.dro.l lrroo b/tl o.
(r tos loorTypk 0
borxh b.(ldr.ln,.t
amho.a8a qlcnrbn
hftg{h F rcport, aa
9.d1dl 2.6 rrbb 5, bt
w.pgllatrid up th.llta
rnd ovcr tha brrrh.
bclwccn tO.nd 19 tcet.nd .Y.ry t
bot vrrtkel rgrchl tor iloe€ 20 to
,, h.r h h.altt.l
ll dacrtiad ,ra.arry bV th€ coolraclo., re<ond:ry
unlrrlrl 3co3rid rnry ba ul{d to .lde ln ronrpr<tbo ll
prlnrry gU rp<l.ra b > I fool.
Propor.d
foe of
Sbpe
(wrlr(.l Seo$ld $.(lq h avry 1
ket h tlope hclfttr br3 th.n t0
mrcl alcrr3bn lce3th pc, raro.t, tc
Lctlon 2.6 l.bh t, bV w..pglia lru up thcl.(. xrd oryar th. b.fih .
dcrcrmlncd h the lLld by th" cn:lncrr/fobCltt
r.(ornmard.d by E,fhccr/Gaologlrt duft{ .oo3tnxtlon.{' mln. dlamclrr rfild perlootcd 91/( pip.. pcrl.r.tbar dqm, l!(
mlnlnun gndhot toapFoy(d dcrlgn tcd orrtLt.
trccdr.hlq 3'ercl, mlnlmurn 5 <u.fUlhcrr bot. Uli.p (otnpldcly wth
Min f Acr f.brk lrEtr.
j7-
February 4,2OL9 15 File No.: 30168L-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-70L
Eneineered Fill for Use with G eogrid: Th e native soil (SM, SP-SM, SW-SM, SW, and SP) is suitable
for use as engineered fill between the geogrids, provided it is free of significant organic or
deleterious matter and oversize material. The native soil and any import should be placed in
maximum S-inch lifts (loose) and compacted to at least 93 percent relative compaction
(ASTM D 1557) near its optimum moisture content. Within pavement areas, the upper 12 inches
of subgrade should be compacted to a at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557).
Compaction should be verified bytesting. Particle diameters largerthan L%inches in greatest
dimension should be removed from backfill material used within geogrids. All backfill shall have
an expansion potential designation of "very low" to "low".
lmported fill soils (if needed) should be very low in expansion potential granular soils meeting
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) classifications of SM, SP-SM, or SW-SM with a
maximum rock size of L%inches and 5 to 35-percent passing the No. 200 sieve (unless otherwise
approved by the geotechnical engineer). The geotechnical engineer should evaluate the import
fill soils before hauling to the site.
A program of compaction testing, including frequency and method of test, should be developed
by the project geotechnical engineer at the time of grading. Acceptable methods of test may
include Nuclear methods such as those outlined in ASTM D 6938 (Standard Test Methods for ln-
Place Density and Water Content of Soil and Soil-Aggregate by Nuclear Methods), alternative
methods may include methods outlined in ASTM D 1556 (Standard Test Method for Density and
Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the Sand-Cone Method) or correlated hand probing.
Geogrid Slopes: Fall I ayers shall be placed in 8" loose thickness and compacted to at least 93%
relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) prior to the placement of subsequent lifts. Fill shall be
brought to the level of the toe of slope after the initial bench has been approved. The first and
subsequent layers of uniaxial geogrid shall be placed at the toe of slope and extend to the vertical
layer of bedrock, see Figure 4 or as approved by the engineer or geologist or their representative
during grading. Additional length of geogrid for minimum anchorage length requirements as
determined by Tables 5 and 6 shall extend along the vertical/horizontal bedrock (back of bench)
or the contractor may anchor the geogrid to the bedrock using various methods such as rock
bolts. Anchor strength shall meet the ultimate tensile strength of the geogrid per Iength of the
slope and per the geogrid manufacturers recommendations. Anchorage methods selected by the
contractor, if elected, shall be approved by the geotechnical engineer and the manufacturer of
the geogrid.
After the initial geogrid has been placed at the toe of slope and anchorage lengths have been
met, the sequence of backfill and additional geogrid placement should follow as noted below:
Place an S-inch loose layer of engineered backfill over the initial geogrid at the toe of
slope. Moisture condition to near optimum moisture and compact to at least 93o/o
relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Wrap the geogrid at the slope face as shown in
Figure 4 and 5. Place an additional fill layer and moisture condition and compact until a
total 12-inch layer of engineered fill is achieved. See Figure 5 for aide in compacting soils
near the face of slopes.
a
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
February 4,2Ot9 16 File No.: 30L681-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
b. Place another layer of geogrid on the approved engineered fill layer. Lengths of geogrid
shall meet or exceed Table 5 anchorage lengths or be anchored to the bedrock as
described earlier. See Figure 5 below for compacting near slope faces. Place and compact
fill over the geogrid as per ltem a above.
c Additional engineered fill and geogrid layers should proceed as indicated above until
finish grade of the slope is achieved or the completion of uniaxial geogrid use or
succeeding biaxia! geogrid use is completed.
Handline of Geotextiles : Geogrid shall arrive at the project site packaged in rolls per the
manufacturer's specifications. Each roll shall be packaged individually in a suitable sheath, wrapper
or container to protect from ultraviolet light and moisture damage during normal storage and
handling. Once the roll is opened and the geogrid is placed in its final position, it must be
backfilled in a timely manner. Unused portions of rolls or samples of rolls must be rerolled and
suitably protected from ultraviolet light (Koerner, 20L21 unless allowed by the manufacture,
which shall be provided in writing and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer of record.
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
February 4,20L9 L7 File No.: 301681-001
Doc. No.: 19-01,-7OL
Figure 5 Aide in Compacting Near Face of Slope Layers, Not to Scale.
Brrce
board l Form
t. Set form on complcted lift.
a o o o
9 o a o D o
Tril Gcorxtilc
llcbricl
2. Unroll th. O.ot.xtilc tnd P$ltlon !o lhe t
3t -ft.-widc 'ttil' drrpor oy.r thc torm.
a oI'a 1'Q o o
a 3. Pbcr b.ctfill to rbrrt hdl ol thc
tolel lit h.ight.
0 BDcttill o
o
Windrow
q 0 I Metc e wlndrow to 3lightly Itc.lo,
then lull lift hrlghl rgrln* thr form.o o o c
e ?o
o o 3. Plrc th. gcottxtilo 'tril' ovcr thc
wlndrorv rnd loct lnto Pbcc with
b*ffill.a o 0 a9otoo o
0 o 9 0'e o o 0. Cornplctc brtlilling lor plonncd
lift thhlnccc,q o e!o o o
o o'?o o 7. Rotot thr f,orm rnd rcpott lho
t.quatlot.a o a
$
o 9.
a a o o
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
-
o
o
I
o'.' 9.", 'o.' .
-
u
o o
0
February 4,2OL9 18 File No.: 301681-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
Surficial Slope Failures: All slopes will be exposed to weathering, resulting in decomposition of
surficial earth materials, thus potentially reducing shear strength properties of the surficial soils.
ln addition, these slopes become increasingly susceptible to rodent burrowing.
As these slopes deteriorate, they can be expected to become susceptible to surficial instability
such as soil slumps, erosion, soil creep, and debris flows. Development areas immediately
adjacent to ascending or descending slopes should address future surficial sloughing of soil
material. Such measures may include catchment areas or walls, ditches, soil planting, facing, or
other techniques to contain soil material. An erosion control mat as the final slope facing layer
can be used.
Slope Maintenance: Site soils are hi ghly susceptible to erosion. Unprotected slopes with exposed
native soils at the surface should be expected to require repair after heavy nuisance or storm
runoff occurs due to significant erosion. Maintenance inspections should be done after a
significant rainfall event and on a time-based criteria (annually or less) to evaluate distress such
as erosion, slope condition, rodent infestation burrows, etc. Inspections should be recorded and
photographs taken to document current conditions. The repair procedure should outline a plan
for fixing and maintaining surficial slope failures, erosional areas, gullies, animal burrows, etc. Fill
should be placed and compacted as recommended in the project soils report (20L3). These
repairs should be performed in a prompt manner after their occurrence. Design slope
inclinations should be maintained, and a maintenance program should include identifying areas
where slopes begin to steepen. Due to the highly erodible site soils, slope faces should be
protected with facing or densely spaced vegetation to reduce the erosion potential.
6.2 Allowable Wall Dimensions for Gabion Basket Filled Rockfall Walls
As discussed earlier, the design team inquired the reduction in the thickness of the gabion rockfall
wall to accommodate additional clear distance for the access road. Table 8 provides wall
dimensions using differing rock infill overall densities. Wall dimensions provided in a previous
report (Earth Systems,2OLS\ provided gabion wall dimensions based on typical unit weights of
gabion backfill material using larger rock or concrete type chunks; however, piled and poorly
graded larger rock has greater void space and lesser overall density but is easier to place and
construct gabion baskets. Different unit weight densities of 110 pcf may require smaller aperture
openings in the gabion basket or the inclusion of filter fabric to prevent spillage of the smaller
basket infill into the void space area. Additionally, if the placement of the selected gabion basket
backfill can not achieve the unit weight required, additional material like concrete or sand slurry
pumped into the filled basket void space may be required to increase the density.
Density of infil! for gabion rockfall walls have a direct impact on the ability of the wall to withstand
the estimated impact of the ro!!ing rock. The required dimension of a Gabion wall should be
selected from one of four options presented below for varying wall sizes and heights as well as
density of infill:
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
February 4,20L9 19 File No.: 301681-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
Table 8
Gabion Basket Wal! Dimensions
lnclination of
lmpact Face
(H:v)
Density of
Wall Infill
(pcf)
Minimum
Void Ratio
for Wall lnfill
Thickness at
Top of Wal!
(r)
(ft)
Thickness at
Base of Wall
(Bl
(ft)
Height of
Wall
(Hl
(ft1
Near Vertical 95 o.7 4 8.0 8.0 8.0
Near Vertical 110 0.50 7.5 7.5 7.5
Near Vertical 110 0. s0 8.0 8.0 7.0
Near Vertical L27 0.30 7.O 7.O 7.O
The specifications for the gabion basket wall should provide a concrete base a minimum of 4
inches thick (3,250 psi compression strength) for corrosion protection. The coarse aggregate used
to fill the baskets should have the following requirements:
L. Minimum specific gravity of 2.6.
2. Minimum unit weight of 95, LL0, or L27 pcl depending on wall size, or approved by the
geotechnical engineer of record.
3. The gradation of the gabion basket infill should be consistent with the gabion basket
aperture (opening size). Rock should be selected such that the rock particles do not "fall
out" of the basket.
4. The backside of the Gabion wall should be a minimum of 6 inches laterally away from any
fence or screen wall or connected to the fence or screen wall.
5. Gabion baskets should be tied per the manufacture's recommendations.
Gabion walls are considered relatively maintenance free; however, as with any rockfall barrier,
cleaning of fallen rock from the back side of the wall periodically will be required to maintain
effectiveness. Periodic checks by the homeowner or their representative should be made to
assure rocks are not accumulating or stacking over 1 foot in height and depth behind the wall.
Large impacts may require straightening of the baskets. As well, if geofabric or wire mesh is used,
it should also be observed for corrosion deterioration due to exposure to sunlight and the
elements.
The geotechnical engineer should test and review the anticipated gabion aggregate infill for unit
weight requirements of the proposed wal!. Geotextiles or wire mesh may be required to keep
the fines particles within the gabion basket depending on the selected infill. Additional
information on gabion specifications are available at gabion suppliers such as "Blue Stone
Supply". Geotextiles in direct sunlight may need UV protection based on manufactures
recom mendations.
6.3 Rockfall Mitigation Measure for Narrow Taper Area
As indicated in Section 4, our additional rockfall analysis indicated rocks will roll pass the
proposed access road and taper area shown in Figure 3. Table 7 shows the rock bounce has
decreased to 3 feet, but the energy has increased to 99,000 ft-lbs, which is still lower than the
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
February 4,20L9 20 File No.: 301681-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
ultimate energy of 1,850 ft-tons (>>99,000 ft-lbs) per the Peila study (see Section 3.1 "Expansion
of Wall Dimension". However, the reduction in width caused by the taper (from 7 to assumed 2
feet) does not allow the gabion basket wall to attain the necessary density or stability of 2 times
the weight of the estimated rolling rock impacting the wal!. Therefore, a gabion basket rockfall
wall is not recommended at a location that is less than 7 feet in thickness. Based on the new
rockfall analysis at the tapered location, see Figure 3, a rockfall barrier (Portland cement concrete
type wall) should be constructed to withstand an impact load of 99,000 ft-lbs and be at least 1
foot taller than the estimated rock bounce height of 3 feet, which would be a 4-foot-tall rockfall
wall. Wall types are described in more detai! in the project soils report (2013). Actual design of
the retention systems should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant for conformance to the
given criteria. Heights presented are based upon current site grades. Changing grades will affect
retention systems heights.
Section 7
Limitations
It is intended that this limited geotechnical report be utilized with our Geotechnical Engineering
Reports (Earth Systems) unless stated in this report. All conclusions, recommendations, and
limitations cited in the referenced Geotechnical Report remain valid and apply to this report.
-o0o-
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
February 4,2OL9 27 File No.: 301681-001
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
REFERENCES
Division of Mines and Geology (DMG), 2002, Recommended Procedures for lmplementation of
DMG Special Publication LL7 Guidelines For Analyzing and Mitigation Landslide Hazards
in California, June 2002, ASCE Los Angles Section Geotechnical Group, Document
Published by the Southern California Earthquake Center, 132 pages, Digital, Online.
Earth Systems Southwest, 2013, Geotechnical Engineering Report, Swenson Residence, 77-2LO
Loma Vista, The La Quinta Resort, La Quinta, Riverside County, California, dated March
26,2OL3, File No.: 12124-OL, Doc No.: L3-03-737.
Earth Systems Southwest,2013, Grading Plan Review, Swenson Residence,TT-2L0 Loma Vista,
The La Quinta Resort, La Quinta, Riverside County, California, dated October 23,20t3, File
No.: 12124-OL, Doc No.: 13-10-730.
Earth Systems Southwest, 2OL4, lnfiltration Testing for Stormwater Retention Feasibility,
Proposed Residence, TT-210 Loma Vista, La Quinta, Riverside County, California, dated
February LL,2OL4, File No.: 12124-OL, Doc No.: L4-02-7O8.
Earth Systems Southwest, 2015, Plan Review and Response to City Review Comment lncluding
Retaining Wall Evaluation and Grouted Anchor General Specifications, Swenson
Residence,TT-2L0 Loma Vista, La Quinta, Riverside County, California, dated May 7,2OL5,
File No.: L2L24-0L, Doc No.: 15-05-706.
Earth Systems Southwest, 20L5, Geotechnical Engineering Plan Review, Retaining Wall with Rock
Cladding, Swenson Residence,TT-210 Loma Vista, La Quinta, Riverside County, California,
dated July 13, 2OL6, File No.: L2L24-01, Doc No.: 16-07-708.
Earth Systems Southwest, 2OL6, Geotechnical Engineering Report Update, Proposed Single
Family Residence,TT-2L0 Loma Vista, The La Quinta Resort, La Quinta, Riverside County,
California, dated July 26,20L6, File No.: L2L24-0L, Doc No.: 16-07-7L3.
Earth Systems Southwest, 2OL6, Retaining Wall Evaluation and Grouted Anchor Generat
Specifications Supplemental Report for Easterly Knob Vertical Cut, Swenson Residence,
77-2LO Loma Vista, The La Quinta Resort, La Quinta, Riverside County, California, dated
December 2L,2OL6, File No.: L2L24-0L, Doc No.: 16-12-7LO.
Earth Systems Pacific, 2OL8, Limited Geotechnical Evaluation Gabion Rockfall Wall, Proposed
Single Family ResidenceTT-2LO Loma Vista, The La Quinta Resort, La Quinta, Riverside
County, California, File No.: 301581-001, Doc No.: L8-04-7LL, dated April 24,20L8.
Koerner M. Robert, L994, Design with Geosynthetics, 3'd Edition, Volum e L,783 Pages.
Koerner M. Robert,2OL2, Design with Geosynthetics,6th Edition, Volume 1,508 Pages.
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
February 4,2OL9 22 File No.: 301681-00L
Doc. No.: 19-0L-7OL
Rocscience lnc, 2OL8, SLIDE - An lnteractive Slope Stability Program, Version 2018 8.020, Build
Date: Dec 12 2018 L2:07:28, Copyright L998-20L8 Rocscience lnc.
Structural Engineers Association of California and OSHPD, 20L8, Web Site,
htlBs ;1/seism icm a ps. org/, date Ja n ua ry Lt,2OL9
Tensar lnternational, 2OO9, Tensar Uniaxial Geogrids Soil !nteraction Characteristics Soil-Geogrid
lnteraction ln Pullout, dated February,2OO9,41 pages.
Tensar lnternational, 2OO9, Tensar Uniaxial Geogrids Soil lnteraction Characteristics Soil-Geogrid
lnteraction in Direct Sliding, dated February,2OO9,4 pages.
Tensar, 2O1O, Explanation of Scale Effect Correction Factor (a), Memo, 2 pages, dated
LO/281201,0.
Tensar, 2OL6, Tensar Structural Geogrid Strength Properties: Private Projects ,75-year Design Life,
dated September 2016, 7 pages.
The Altum Group,20L6, Rough Grading lmprovement Plans, Swenson Residence at the Enclave
Mountain Estates, Received on November 1L, 20L6, Unsigned Plans, 4 sheets.
The Altum Group,20L8, Concept Soil Slope Plan with 1.5:1 lnclinations, CLL05 Swenson, dated
L2/2L/L8, 1 Sheet, Unsigned.
The Altum Group,2OL9, Concept Soil Slope Plan with Steep Slope lnclinations Near Pool, C1105
Swenson, dated LlL6/2OL9, L Sheet, Unsigned.
The Altum Group ,2OL9, Concept Soil Slope Plan with Steep Slope !nclinations Near Access Road,
C1105 Swenson, dated Ll29l2ot9, L Sheet, Unsigned.
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
ATTACHMENTS
Typical Geogrid Cross Section (1 page)
Slope Analysis Plan Views (2 Pages)
Slide18 Cross Sections (11 Pages)
Slope Drainage System (1 Page)
Tensar Triax Spec Sheet (2 Pages)
Tensar Uxmse Spec Sheet (6 Pages)
Rockfall Profile (1 Page)
Tensar Structural Geogrid Strength Properties (7 Pages)
Rockfall lnput/Output (4 Pages)
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
Geogrid Cross Section
Biaxial Roadway Geogrid (TX 160 or Equal!, RoadwayArea Only
Veritca I Space = 1 Foot. Sta rt Below Aggregate or Concrete Base
Bedrock or material meeting project specifications and the
soils report.
Typical, +3 footTail 6" Vertical
Minimum Length =Efeet
Primary Uniaxial Geogrid (typical|
(Veritcalgeogrid spacing is evry 3
fuet for slope hefhts less than 10
fuet and 2 feetfor slopes heights
between 10 and 19 feet and arery 1
foot vertir:a I spacing for slopes 20 to
27 fuet in height.!zft
z Hor10ftmi
Pro posed Roadway
or Pad
Typical, shpe 1 to 296 downward
Minimum top anchorage extension
length per report, see Section 2.6Table 6 .
pical, anchor to bedrock (1100 lb/ft) orv
ft
meet extension length per report, see
Section 2.6 Table 5, by wrapping grid up the
face and over the bench .
determined in the field by the engineer/geohgist
(2 to 5 foot Typka I!
itiona I bench ba ckdrain, as
recommended by Engineer/Geologist during construction.
4" min. diameter rigid prforated PVC pipg perferations dorn, 1%
minim wn gradient to a pproved designated outlet.
Free draining gravel, minimum 5 cu.ft/linear foot. Wra p completely with
Mira Filter Fabric 140N.
lf deemed necessary bythe contractor, secondary
uniaxial geogrid may be used to a irle in compaction if
prima ry grid spacing is > 1 foot.
Proposed
Toe of
Slope
Minimum bottom
anchorage extensbn
length per report, see
Section 2.6 Ta ble 5, by
wrapping grid up t he face
and over the bench.
t
\'-.)
>-
\l
-/----a';a
I i',
\\
,,1
/r
li
-l--'X
,tI ,a,
I
.l -r'^"--;l
-J
:_..-\i\
l\r\[r
ll \\\r
\....
\..
./
IS'IHER6
19cf,no,^l lN
FAE RAq(FALU-@.
WaULD ,/-Lo\l
GADION WAL
@r$vElnrop-fiE A/ERS
--]
'rq=i
\L
"[i-\ il\
\'!=l
\
\
\-
\-
ll\
r.:.*-
?--t,(r \\
('^ J
'Yr--y'
:1?
v'
-'T /, ..-
i.'
.\. \.{i:
I
'./,. t.
i'
I ,\
//
I
-L
,.nc
i-)(-
!{
6Fr Ht€rS{ t&dX.r
2rr. HtoH utl.l.
RFIAIU IIC WALL
I
I
I
vrr\t,i
I
\
\
)4
\
rI,
\\ i{il
I!li
llii
t\
ii
I
ll
il
il
t\
r{,\\)\\il
lili
'', i\,,i,,\
\/h //i\\\tit;
2',
\--..-+-
---.*--
*v
/;
,,t7
/;__
I'i
I
\r
I\\
I
+
7.i;
.,('l/:!
'-)->a'
-:z:.
-t
_.{_-
lr
(--
1
oTw
e;"
,,1.
-=<-:
q,-\
4
.oIY/
EE
IwAY
t\
./''
/1,
LJ_,\
r\
\.r
To
FUR'IFIER
atD lrws
//
/..
1',
..\ \..-
-.-\.r.
-/---
EII/t
I
/--
\.r\\
I
/f,/
I
I
.fll
I
I
)
I
I
L--..r -
\--
Il.
t
.t/
\ '.t.
I
I
\
\,i
I
I
I
I{
(
t)
-..-.----\
i
\ti
ii
\l
lr
\
.).\i
I
t
lt,
t\
rlri /
/:
.A
U
*r:
'::----'z-- -'- - ------
\,]---
t\
U
)t
,'r-
).)
\
.'\
fuJ
m
_J- -1-
.r-
I
'r/
,
L
I
/ '.
i
\- '\
I
I
t
!
!
I
I
)-
ooo
\,,
\
\
I
I
..-----fiil--- ':--.
f
I
i
s-
r-b,
:!.,t ,"'11"-'
-:=- =-s-:-:-11.1-
v,
/.,
,/
.)
otr
..2"-
/
I
h
Eollru
h
tA
a:P
,./
',. ri:\. L'l
i,:lrr:1"
i ,.'..!
I \"
]'-r\
:+--
il
iilii;,.t,r
iiil
-z--
t"--
U2rro
6rtr
zov,ZrD
a
(Fn<9s[>
7
,\
I
I
i\I
N
;l
l-l(4i
rY1T-l
H)
\-./- _./
))
\
I
\
I
:)
I
I
l?'
I
I
\-J-:=t-
-J-a
I
I
I
I
I
Ij Ial
E
l
\
I
I
I,tl
-1
\z-- '-
.---I
lt.,/,
_-..t-.
ii
i
I-l
i
i-l
I
,\
rl_.
i1
,1
I
I.I
I
I
I
I
I\l
I
)j'!i
t,
Ell\iw-./)'
-' j- - lt-<--..1-.J,?
/r
-_=i \
i\
i\:lll
/.1
tt:
v
t,,
I
I\. I'rl'li
"
1,
li;
\ lli
l/r\iiii
lii
tijl
lil1!iiil
itliitil
F,
,{ir\r
\. ".a
'rr. \\
,.i
-J.r-,,
,l
, i,r
\-,,}
I '\,iiri\
'f
ir
l',
ll
i*)
.i
.tl
t./tl
I tl
tllrt I
i\
l\
il\
I
l
t't ,.::-<,-\!.r .- i
)l'
--\----i-
ta\Y
----- //
\--'-
Ill
\
I
I
-\-
==-<-
-!: .
- -\eA-/
't
:\-
/;:..
ril i
\i
ri
t;I'rl
i
I
\
I
(!
l/
*O:r:
l"
{
I
f
I {
!!
1
/,t
(
Ji i I
ll
r/
I'ii
//'
_/.
*;t
,. l,l !
t a,JL-{:-.*
\-
\
t-?--
I
I
-t
li
,.
\\
I
i
I,t
l
\
IL
-;'1
+,
l
!:!
I
)
I'r
l
)
l
\
t'"lh
F.
1.0
Cohesion Ru(psf)
Phi Allow Water
(decl Sliding Surface
F
0
0
n
0
1
1
t_
I
2
2
Z
2
J
3
3
3
4,
4,
4
4
5
eJ
5
5
6
act
.0
.3
q
.8
.0
.3
.5
.8
.0
.3
.5
.8
.0
?
.5
.8
.0
?
.5
.8
.0
.3
.5
.8
.O+
Safety
MaterialName
or
15.0
8.0
Color Unit Weight
{lbs/ft:ll Strength Type
Engineered Fil (Ultimate)I L25 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30 None 0
Bedrock (Ultimate)161 Mohr-Coulomb 80 35 None 0
Artificial Fill I L20 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30 None 0
No None 0Reinforced Concrete 150 lnfinite strength
o_@
o_(o
o_$
o(\l-
o
r
250.00 lbs/ft2
Section A1-A1'
Static Load Proposed Conditions
No Geogrid
I
r rJl-]Tr]T 1T rr-T--r rr r- rl r-TTl n l- frr- r r r r l- -l f---60 -50 40 -30 -20 -10 -r--T-- r T]T-T r1T-=r--T
90 100 110 120 130 140
22.5
SUDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program
Prolxt
Analysis Description
Drawn 8y 1:155l*o &mpnyTCCSCIENC
t
2lLl20l9, B:15:22 AMDate File Name Existing and Proposed.slmd
t-t
tr
a
0.)
Ht
orr
Fr]
pr
rro
B
Or (Jt (Jr (Jl (, A A A A (! (, (, (r) N) N) N) N) P P H P O O O O
O @ (, (, O @ (, Crr O @ (, (, O @ (n (, O @ (, (, O @ (, U) O+
6)oooqa.
o-
lhctlt,ofz
o,:
o
r)o
o
-Tonan
-0:ln
a
ooo
J(o'x
o-'
{
to
a)
o
o.+
oo-
.ll
o
6o
Dt
E.
6!)
o:,
zo
tr,.e=
EtsB;.3-
o
CL
=o9.o
=Evt
N)(o
6. s.oo
cLoo,0e
=f
(D
o,EE il
vo
l-oq'il_8df+6o)t+
.l1
o
atoo
=.o
=o,
of
zof
(D
:otoil
GIo
Poo
vr
=.t
SEoilgQo Po
PtsPo
6l3
UT
trr tD{.9EE
=op
=
Ptsoo
ulb
N
l.Jl"tl
ts(,rb
N)
f\)o
(o
99
!4
N)N)
=
T
$o
ar+o!ar)
€
6)(Do(O
=.o-
h.
3o-
Eai
_T
d-
:?
@
s5
N\
bd
s
G\
\
d
E-
P
R
E
atrIrn
I
=
=o
or)
oa
6-Eoa
(Uq
!
o(cI
d
3
$ssg
=3.1.A.YIr, F -8B;Gl cL ti3oi'i
Y
l
l'l
I
l
1
I
Ior-o
,]
N-..1c, I
ll
l
I
l\)o
I
oo
I@o
Iso
o
No
so
o)o
v
e.a
o
o(D
o-
(1o
=r)
d(+
(D
4.l:
c.
OJ
=
@oo-
aoo-
C
3or+(D
m
=ts.
=o(D
oo-
f]
C
3o,t+o
3
o,
o
=.g
zq,
3o
I t'lg
o
tsuto
tsNo
POlP
ts
N)
LN
ca3
Ct .+
*FI9 fi'
=
5If
d(D
.+
ofoa.+=
o
=T(1oC
6-
3o
o
=aI(1oc
6-
3E
o51I(1oc
o
3o
1
o
=oa
:t
€tto
o ooo o
11o
=o9.o3
EIA
(,1)o C^J
Ln
(r)o $=
zo
g>gofr{
z.o
=(D
zofo
zo
=o
zo
=(D
HS
HE
o o o o uttr
N)(JrIoo
o
U'
N)
1
a
I
tr n
t.4
r
r
o
r il,t::
250.00 lbs/ft2
Safety Factor
0
0
U
0
I
I
I
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
A.t
4
5
5
5
5
6
0
3
5
8
0
3
q
I
0
3
5
8
0
3
5
I
0
3
5
I
0
3
q
6
O+
22.5
.0
8.0
5.0
10.0
Material
Dependent Adhesion (psf)Friction
Angle (deg!
Shear
Strength
Model
Force Orientation Anchorage Strip Coverage
l%.l
Tensile Strength
(lbs/ft}Support Name Color Type Force Application
GeoTextile Active (Method A)No 0 29 Linear Parallelto
Reinforcement None 100 1100Geogrid
Section A1-A1'
Seismic Conditions
With Geogrid
T
70 -60
lllrrrrlrrrrIr-50 -40
MaterialName Color Unit Weight
(lbs/ft31 Strength Type Cohesion
{psf}
Phi
(des)
Allow
Sliding
Water
Surface Ru
Engineered Fill (Peak)tr I25 Mohr-Coulomb 0 32 None 0
Bedrock (Peak)tr 161 Mohr-Coulomb 150 4T None 0
Artificial Fill 120 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30 None 0
Reinforced Concrete tr 150 lnfinite strength No None 0
15.0
-30 -20 -10 100
SLIDE - An Interactive SIope Stability Program
Ptojfft
Analysis hxiption
Dnwn By L:144l*o Compny
21t120L9,8:15:22 AMDate File Name Seismic w Geogrid.slmd
TCCSCIENC
a
rT-1=rT-TT]_-T r _T rery,r l
L.4
Safety Eactor
0
0
0
tt
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
q
5
5
6
0
3
5
8
0
3
q
I
0
3
q
a
0
3
5
8
0
3
5
d
U
3
5
I
0+
Color Unit Weight
(lbs/ft3)Strength Type Cohesion
(psf)
Phi
(deel
Allow
Sliding
Water
Surface RuMaterialName
30 None 0Engineered Fill (Ultimate)t25 Mohr-Coulomb 0
Bedrock (Ultimate)767 Mohr-Coulomb 80 35 None 0
Artificial Fill L20 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30 None 0
Air 0.0001 No strength None 0
No None 0Concrete Wall 150 lnfinite strength
240.00 I
I
-30 -20 -10 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Section A2-A2'
Static Load wit
No Geogrid
T
h Proposed Conditio,ls
I
19.0
SUDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program
Pnjxt
Analysis Exiption
bmpnyDnwn 8y 1:151l*o
File Name Existing and Proposed.slmd
TOCSCIENC
t
21L120L9,8:15:22 AMDate
tr
E
I
@
apl
H)
orr
Frl
pr
odo
B
o) (, (n (' LN A E A A (, (]) UJ UJ N) N N) N) F H H H O O O O
o @ (n (, o @ (, (, o @ (n (, o @ (n (, o @ ur (, o @ (n (, o+-Ton
mn
-0:ln
a
Hi,NbHIo
s
s
E
:i
oA
-F.
E.
ulb
6)oo6)
=.o-
tg
!,Eofzo,
3o
a)g
o
-{
!to
6)oo)
lD'x
o-
NJ
N)ots\o
99
(,tiN)
=
EG
N
Put
Io
1
G
t
(1
o
o
'+Joo-
tto
6o
D!tg
6o,
o3
zo
B=
EFCLA,Dql
=-
CLto
9.o
=E
UI
o
r)of
a)
oto
€i
P:a
@oqao(1x
e
3
OJ*g
m
=q9.
=oo
oo-
=C
=3
o)
o
3
0,
o
g
z
0,
3o
tr (1g
oIf.J(o
8rEflCLOo3g9
E
J
(D
o,-EE il P(,o
c
=1Ef .+
FF.!, E
IoooP
POlP
FIN'(,
7o
:i o,q' E-
8e_f+6o
=r+
!to
..too
=.o
=!r
o
=
rj
f
rD
o:,
oa
f
zo
'+(D
=oa
o=
r-)oc
o
3g
o=Ir)o
L
6-
3g
t^
o3
c,ll,
-{
!to
zo
f
(D
f.,)to
o,
GIo
@o o !ltJl
r)o
o
9.o
=
u,(,$=lJoo
tn
=.E
tsPoil
0lIo
zo
3p
;*g
zo
f
(D
zofo
zo,o
zo
fo *r
o o o o 7tr
"\B\o
N)
I
Nl
a
o,nr)
=+-=6)oo(cI
=.o-
a
3o-
B
N\
\
d
E--
P
sI\
a
0rn
I
)
=o
(Uo
o
(n
6-Eo
(n
o,q
!
d(oil
3
s
E-t
PPoo
ol:
l==trroq.3e;,gll
=
s$g
=3. 1,\Y[.1I--8B;q CLY
='r) D-o N--J
CL
-atdro
=
Y
a
l
(o_o
I
o
o
G)o
Ao
(rlo
O)o
!o
@o
oo
o
ts(o
b
N)(,Ioo-
@
N)
I
I
>-
!
taa
a
J
-
(-^)o
r Safety Factor
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
t_. 0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
6. 0+
1.1
fuT:;I
o
I (
Section A2-A2'
Seismic Condition
With Geogrid
2s0 00
28.5
1 I
19.0
l
Support Name Color Type Force Application Material
Dependent Adhesion (psf)Friction
Angle (deg)
Shear
Strength
Model l%l
Tensile Strength
(lbs/ft1
GeoGrid r GeoTextile Active (Method A)No 0 29 Linear Parallelto
Reinforcement None 100 1100
40 1 40 s0 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 1
SUDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program
O kription
TCCSCIENC 8y 1:136 bmpny
2lLl20L9, B:15:22 AM File Name A2- A2' Seismic with Geogrid.slmd
MaterialName Color Unit Weight
(lbs/ft31 Strength Type Cohesion
(psf)
Phi
(deel
Allow
Sliding
Water
Surface Ru
Engineered Fill (Peak)L25 Mohr-Coulomb 0 32 None 0
Bedrock (Peak)I 161 Mohr-Coulomb 150 4T None 0
Air 0.0001 No strength None 0
Concrete Wall tr 150 lnfinite strength No None 0
Force Orientation Anchorage
l t_
ffiTti.-ir-ffir.Tlr---rTffla.T:rrr-rffi-rr',1iT rrff.rffir-._--T-r_-,r.-__rr-_r r r r J r r r r lrr r r J I r I I It I i I I r r r r It I r I Jr I r I
Projrt
l*o
Date
o Section B-B'
Static Loading
No Geogrid
100.00 lbs/ft2 100.00 lbs/ft2
1
27.0
l L
ry--TT--1 r]--l-.--- I-r1T-r-rrrrr]". r1T T-r T-T-90 -80 70 -60 -50 40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
MaterialName Color Unit Weight
(lbs/ft:t)Strength Type Cohesion
(psf)
Phi
(deel
Allow
Sliding
Water
Surface Ru
Engineered Fill (ultimate)I 125 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30 None 0
Bedrock (Ultimate)161 Mohr-Coulomb 80 35 None 0
afL L20 Mohr-Coulomb 27 35 None 0
Concrete L45 lnfinite strength Yes None 0
PoolWater 62.4 Mohr-Coulomb 0 0 None 0
SUDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program
o
TOCSCIENC 8y 1:154 @mpny
2lLl20L9, B:15:22 AM File Name Section B-B'Static Load No Geogrid 4ft Ret Wall Ver4.slmd
0.9
Safety Factor
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
t-. 5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
s.8
6. 0+
@
\tl
tr
Projxt
Analysis Eription
l*o
Date
1.6
r
Safety Factor
0.
U.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
Z.
Z.
.)
3.
?
?
?
4.
4.
4.
4.
q
5
q
q
6.
0
3
5
I
0
3
5
8
0
3
5
I
0
3
tr
I
0
3
5
I
0
3
5
8
0+
F
3.4
40.5
100 00 lbs/ft2
Support Name Color Type Force Application Material
Dependent Adhesion (psf|Friction
Angle (deg)
Shear
Strength
Model
Force Orientation Anchorage Strip Coverage
lYol
Tensile Strength
(lbs/ft)
Geogrid GeoTextile Active (Method A)No 0 29 Linear Parallelto
Reinforcement Slope Face 100 r100
Section B-B'
Static Load
With Geogrid
100 00 lbs/ft2
)t I L
rrl,rr tl I trrlrrrt ltrr r Jt tlr Jrrr I Jr tlrJrrt r rrrrlrrrrJrrrrltt
I
20-1 -1 00 -80 -60 -20 0 60 80 100
MaterialName Color Unit Weight
(!bs/ft3)Strength Type Cohesion
(psf)
Phi
(deel
Allow
Sliding
Water
Surface Ru
Engineered Fill (ultimate)125 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30 None 0
Bedrock (Ultimate)L6L Mohr-Coulomb 80 35 None 0
af1 L20 Mohr-Coulomb 21 35 None 0
Concrete t45 lnfinite strength Yes None 0
PoolWater 62.4 Mohr-Coulomb 0 0 None 0
SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program
Prcjrt
Analysis kription
Drawn By l:L7lY @mpnyTCCSCIENC
o
8.020 2lLl20L9, B:15:22 AMDate File Name Section B-B' Static Load 4ft Ret Wall Ver4.slmd
tr
I
@
I
I
-
-
/
-
1.1
Section B-B'
Seismic Load
With Geogrid
MaterialName
Safety Eactor
U
U
U
0
l_
t_
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
q
6
U
3
tr
I
0
3
5
I
0
3
5
U
0
3
5
I
U
3
5
I
0
3
5
B
0+
Color Unit Weight
(lbs/ft3)
Cohesion
(psfl
Pha
(deel
Allow
Sliding
Water
Surface Ru
Engineered Fill (Peak)L25 Mohr-Coulomb 25 3s None 0 \
Bedrock (Peak)161 Mohr-Coulomb 150 4l None 0
t20 Mohr-Coulomb 21 35 None 0
3.4ConcreteL45lnfinite strength Yes None 0
25 ft minPoolWater62.4 Mohr-Coulomb 0 0 None 0
o
r
1.0
40.5
100.00 lbs/ft2
Support Name Color Type Force Application Material
Dependent Adhesion (psf)Friction
Angle (deg)
Shear
Stren4h
Model
Force Orientation Anchorage Strip Coverage
lY"l
Tensite Strength
(lbs/ft)
Geogrid T GeoTextile Active (Method A)No 0 29 Linear Parallel to
Reinforcement 100Slope Face 1100
u:;
100 00 lbs/ft2
-/i-
|T r-r rT-r-r-rlT-n T ffi-l-rrTT I 1- rlTr r rffi TI._rJ 1T lT T r1T-T-lTr r]T]TTl.]TT r]T-90 -80 -70 €0 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 110
SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program
Prcject
Analysis fuxiption
l**l*'**Dnwn By 1:154TOCSCIENC
o
2lLl20L9, B:15:22 AM lnu
ruame Section B-B' Seismic Load 4ft Ret Wall Ver4.slmdDate
Strength Type
tr
af1
@
__T__-
-
I
1.5
\
Ru
Phi Allow Water
(deel Sliding Surface
Cohesion
(psf)MaterialName Color Unit Weight
(lbsfiBl Strength Type
Engineered Fill (Ultimate)I L25 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30 None 0
3.0Bedrock (Ultimate)151 Mohr-Coulomb 80 35 None 0
Concrete L45 lnfinite strength Yes None 0
lt.0
9.0
F-
Support Name Color Type Force Application Material
Dependent Adhesion (psf)Friction
Angle (deg)
Shear
Strength
Model
Force Orientation Anchorage Strip Coverage
lT"l
Tensile Strength
(lbs/ft)
Geogrid Active (Method A)No 0 29 Linear Parallelto
Reinforcement Slope Face 100 1100GeoTextile
Section C-C'
Static Loading
1.9:1 Slope 100.00 lbs/ft2
{
l T I
-80
1
-60
I I
-40
I I I
-20
-I I
0
I I
20
I I
40
rrlr I I
80 -f
r I f I
20
T
-'t00 60 100 1
Swenson Slope Analysis
t furription
TOCSCIENC Drawn By 1:180 bnpny
Section C-C' 1.9to1 Slope Static With Geogrid.slmd
Safety Factor
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0)",
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
tr2
5.5
5.8
6. O+100 00 lbs/ft2
-I
I
at
Ptoj{t
l**
lrire
uameDate
fuT:;
o
r
-
Section C-C'
Seismic Loading
1.9:1 Slope
100.00 lbs/f2 100.00 lbs/ft2
rrrlrrrlllrr,lrr
-100 -80
, l r r r r l r r r r l r r r r l r r r r l r r r r J r r I I-60 -40 -20 0
rrrrl'rrrl r rrrl,rrr Jrrrrl,20 40 60
.l_---r-l..ffi
80
I rJrrrr[rfTrlrTrrlt
100 120 140
L.2
3.0
17.0l*------lI
Support Name Color Type Force Application Material
Dependent Adhesion (psf)Friction
Angle (deg)
Shear
Strength
Model
Force Orientation Anchorage Strip Covenge
|Y.l
Tensile Strength
(lbs/ft)
Geogrid I GeoTextile Active (Method A)No 0 29 Linear Parallelto
Reinforcement Slope Face 100 1100
Material Name Color Unit Weight
(lbs/ft31 Strength Type Cohesion
(psfl
Phi
(dee)
Water
Surface Ru
Engineered Fill (Peak)L25 Mohr-Coulomb 25 34 None 0
Bedrock (Peak)tr 161 Mohr-Coulomb 150 4L None 0
Concrete T t45 lnfinite strength None 0
Proj*t
Swenson Slope Analysis
a
TCCSCIENC Dnwn By t:LB4 bmpny
Date Section C-C' Existing with 1.5_1 Slope and Fill with Seismic.slmd
Safety Factor
0
0
0
tt
1
1
1
1
2)
a
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
.0
.3
.5
.B
.0
?
tr
.8
.0
.3
q
.8
.0
q
.8
.0
i
tr
.8
n
?
.5
O+
r-I T
@
E
Analysis ksciption
l**
lriu
uame
Fill Over Natural Slope
Proposed Swenson Residence
77-2LO Loma Vista
La Quinta, Riverside County, California
@ Earth Systems
Fill Slope
Additional beoch backdrains, as
recommended bv Ensineeri
Geologist durinE conitruction.
Free Draining Crravel,
Compacted fill mlmmum 5 cu.ft"rlinear ft.
4n min. dia. solid, rigid
PVC outlet prpg qpaaed
recommended bv
Engineer/Creolofist
as
Natural slope
Toe of Slope
Rock
Keyway back drain
Note: A prefabricated panel drainage svstem (Adrranedee. Miradrain etc.)
mdy bc zubstitrfed for the sdve[ lpipe 'system. frvided it is
ins[alled in accordance wi6 the mintfacturedi ieoommendations
l0'min.
Subrain Notes:
1. Solid Pipe Outlets should be provided every 100' laterally.
2. Filter material may also consist of clean, free-draining gravel wrapped in
filter fabric (Mirifi 140 N or equivalent.
3. Backdrain pipe should have 8 uniformly spaced perforations per foot placed
with 90 degree offsets on underside of pipe. Outlet pipes should be non-
perforated.
2'min.
t':..'{
Compacted Fill
7/2t/2o7s File No.:301681-001
Der
bs-1.03 for edge drains
4'min. dia.
PVC
2%to low
IIIIIIIII
Tensar technical note
TN PR Triax TX 160/08.01 .10
Performance-related Product
Specification
Tensar TX 160 geogrid
General
1. The geogrid is manufactured in accordance with a management system which
complies with the requirements of BS EN ISO 9001 :2008.
2. The geogrid is manufactured from a punched polypropylene sheet, which is then
oriented in three equilateral directions so that the resulting ribs of the triangular
apertures have a high degree of molecular orientation which continues through the
mass of the integral node.
3. The properties contributing to the performance of a mechanically stabilised layer are:
INTERNATIONAL
Tensar TriAx Geogrid
Notes
1. Load transfer capability determined in accordance with GRI-GG2 and GRI-GGl and expressed as a percentage of ultimate tensile strength.
2. ln-plane torsional rigidity measured in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Methodology for measurement of Torsional Rigidity,
(Kinney, T.C. Aperture stability Modulus ref 3, 3.1 .2000).
3. Stiffness, (secant modulus), is determined in a test conducted in any in-plane direction and which records the maximum and minimum values
when tested in accordance with ISO 1031 9:1 996
4. Resistancetolossof loadcapacity whensubjectedtochemicallyaggressiveenvironmentsinaccordancewithtestingtoENl2g60aspartof a
durability assessment in accordance with ISO'l 3434:1 999 7 .3
5. Resistance to loss of load capacity when subjected to ultra-violet light and weathering in accordance with testing to EN12224 as part of a
durability assessment in accordance with 1SO13434:1 999 7.2
5. Resistance to loss of radial stiffness when subjected to the effects of installation from a graded engineering fill. The procedure is in accordance
with BS 8006:1995 and the radial stiffness is derived as in Note 3.
7. All geometrical and durability values are quoted as typical.
8. Declared as the ratio between the minimum and maximum value on a sample at the 95olo confidence limit.
9. Declared at 95olo confidence limit.
10. Declared at mean ,t standard deviation
Tensar
ITIIITII!
Geometrical Longitudinal Diagonal Transverse General
Rib pitch (mm)
tt/id-rib depth (mm)
lVlid-rib width (mm)
Nodal thickness (mm)
Rib shape
Aperture shape
40 40
1.8
1.1
5
3
3.1
rectangular
triangular
Mechanical
Junction efficiency (%1 rt's1
Aperture stability (N.mm/deg @ 500 N.mmltz'sr
lsotropic stiffness ratio (3'8)
Mean radial secant modulus at low strain (kN/m @ 0.5olo
strain){:'t ol
90
390
>0,75
455+ 50
Durability
Resistance of chemical degradation(a)
Resistance to weatheri ngtsr
Resistance to oxidation
Resistance to installation damage(6)
960/o
98o/o
90o/o
>87o/o
Tensar lnternational Limited
Tel: +44 (0) 1254 262431
Fax: +44 (0) 1254 266867
E-mail: sales@tensar.co.uk
www.ten sa r- i nternatio na l.co m
UK Head Office
Cunningham Court
Shadsworth Business Park
Blackburn
BBl 2QX
United Kingdom Errs 66.&itso r,anr'?fitt
o052&3
,so 900r ?@E
Technical Note 111 TN PR Triax TX 1 60/08.01 .10
IIIIIIIII
Tensar technical note
TN PR Triax TX 170/08.01 .10
Performance-related Product
Specification
Tensar TX 17O geogrid
General
1. The geogrid is manufactured in accordance with a management system which
complies with the requirements of BS EN ISO 9001 :2008.
2. The geogrid is manufactured from a punched polypropylene sheet, which is then
oriented in three equilateral directions so that the resulting ribs of the triangular
apertures have a high degree of molecular orientation which continues through the
mass of the integral node.
3. The properties contributing to the performance of a mechanically stabilised layer are
INTERNATIONAL
Tensar TriAx Geogrid
Notes
1. LoadtransfercapabilitydeterminedinaccordancewithGR|-GG2andGRI-GGl andexpressedasapercentageof ultimatetensilestrength.
2. ln-plane torsional rigidity measured in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Methodology for measurement of Torsional Rigidity,
(Kinney, T.C. Aperture stability Modulus ref 3, 3.1.2000).
3. Stiffness, (secant modulus), is determined in a test conducted in any in-plane direction and which records the maximum and minrmum values
when tested in accordancewith ISO 10319:1996
4. Resistance to loss of load capacity when subjected to chemically aggressive environments in accordance with testing to EN 1 2960 as part of a
durability assessment in accordance with 1SO13434: 1999 7 .3
5. Resistance to loss of load capacity when subjected to ultra-violet light and weathering in accordance with testing to EN12224 as part of a
durability assessment in accordance with 1SO13434:1999 7 .2
6. Resistance to loss of radial stiffness when subjected to the effects of installation from a graded engineering fill. fhe procedure is in accordance
with BS 8006:1995 and the radial stiffness rs derived as rn Note 3.
7. All geometrical and durability values are quoted as typical.
8. Declared as the ratio beWveen the minimum and maximum value on a sample at the 95olo confidence limit.
9. Declared at 95olo confidence limit.
10. Declared at mean * standard deviation
Tensar
II!!IIIII
Geometrical Longitudinal Diagonal Transverse General
Rib pitch (mm)
Mid-rib depth (mm)
Ir/id-rib width (mm)
Nodal thickness (mm)
Rib shape
Aperture shape
40 40
2.3
1.2
1
1
8
3
4.1
rectangular
triangular
Mechanical
Junction efficiency (%; tt'sr
Aperture stability (N.mm/deg @ 500 N,mmltz'sr
lsotropic stiffness ratio (3'8)
Mean radial secant modulus at low strain (kN/m @ 0.5olo
strain){:'tor
90
610
>0.75
555r- 50
Durability
Resistance of chemical degradation(a)
Resistance to weatheringtsr
Resistance to oxidation
Resistance to installation damage(6)
960/o
98o/o
90o/o
>87o/o
Tensar lnternational Limited
Tel: +44 (0) 1254 262431
Fax: +44 (0) 1254 266867
E-mail: sales@tensar.co.uk
www.tensa r- i nternatio na l.co m
UK Head Office
Cunningham Court
Shadsworth Business Park
Blackburn
BB1 2QX
United Kingdom € rs 86.63,sor{fw ma o 05288
,so o@, ?ooE
Technical Note 1t1 TN PR Triax TX 1 70108.01 .1 0
Tensar
Tensar lnternational Corporation
2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 500
Alpharetta, Georgia 30009-2247
Phone: 800-TENSAR-1
rr \yy,. le n s o rc orp. c o m
Product Specification
Tensar Structural Geogrid
UX1 lOOMSE
UX1 4OOMSE
UX1 sOOMSE
UXl oOOMSE
UX1 TOOMSE
Structural
Structu ral
Structu ral
Structural
Structural
Geogrid
Geogrid
Geogrid
Geogrid
Geogrid
Tensar lnternational Corporation warrants that at the time of delivery the geogrid
furnished hereunder shall conform to the specification stated herein. Any other
warranty including merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, are hereby
excluded. lf the geogrid does not meet the specifications on this page and Tensar
is notified prior to installation, Tensar will replace the geogrid at no cost to the
customer.
This product specification supersedes all prior specifications for the product described
above and is not applicable to any products shipped prior to February 1,2013,
I
I
Tensar
Tensar lnternational Corporation
2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 500
Alpharetta, Georgia 30009-2247
Phone: 800-TENSAR-1
y)y)yt . te nsarcorp. com
Product Specification - Structural Geogrid UX1 100MSE
Tensot lntemotionol Coryarution reseves the ght to chonge its product specifrcotions ot ony time. lt is the rcsponsibility of the specifiet ond putchoser to
ensurc thot ptoduct specifications used for design ond procurcment putposes ore current ond consistent with the products used in eoch instonce.
Product Type:
Polymer:
Load Transfer Mechanism :
Recommended Appl ications:
Product Properties
lndex Properties
lntegrally Formed Structural Geogrid
High Density Polyethylene
Positive Mechanical lnterlock
MESA System (Segmental Block Walls), SierraScape System (Welded Wire Walls)
Units MD Valuesl
. Tensile Strength @SYo Strain2
. Ultimate Tensile Strength2
. Junction Strength3
. Flexural Stiffnessa
Durability
kN/m (lb/ft)
kN/m (lb/ft)
kN/m (lb/ft)
mg-cm
27 (1,850)
58 (3,970)
54 (3,690)
500,000
. Resistance to Long Term Degradations
. Resistance to UV Degradation6
Load Capacity
o/o
%
100
95
. Maximum Allowable Strength for 1 Z}-year Design LifeT
Recommended Allowable Strength Reduction FactorsT
kN/m (lb/ft)21.2 (1,450)
. Minimum Reduction Factor for lnstallation Damage (RFro)B
. Reduction Factor for Creep for 120-year Design Life (RFcn) e
. Minimum Reduction Factor for Durability (RFo)
Tensar lnternational Corporation warrants that at the time of delivery the geogrid
furnished hereunder shall conform to the specification stated herein. Any other
warranty including merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, are hereby
excluded. lf the geogrid does not meet the specifications on this page and Tensar
is notified prior to installation, Tensar will replace the geogrid at no cost to the
customer.
1.05
2.60
1.00
This product specification supersedes all prior specifications for the product described
above and is not applicable to any products shipped prior to February 1 ,2013.
Dimensions and Delivery
The struc{ural geogrid shall be delivered to the jobsite in roll form with each roll individually identified and nominally measuring 1.33
meters (4.36 feet) in width and 76.2 meters (250.0 feet) in length. A typical truckload quantity is 432 rolls.
Notos:
1. Unless indicated otherwise, values shown are minimum average rollvalues delermined in accordance with ASTM D4759-02. Brief descriptions
of test procedures are given in the following notes.
2. True resistance to elongation when initially subjecled to a load measured via ASTM D6637-10 Method A without deforming test materials under
load before measuring such resistance or employing "secant' or "offset' tangent methods of measurement so as to overstate tensile properties.
3. Load transfer capability determined in accordance with ASTM D7737-11.
4. Resistance to bending force determined in accordance with ASTM D7748-12, using one meter (minimum) long specimen.
5. Resistance to loss of load capacity or struclural integrity when subjected to chemically aggressive environments in accrrdance with EPA 9090
immersion testing.
6. Resistance to loss of load capacity or structural integrity when subjected to 500 hours of ultraviolet light and aggressive weathering in
accordance with ASTM D4355-05.
7. Reduc{ion factors are used to calculate the geogrid strength available for resisting force in long-term load bearing applications. Allowable
Strength (Td@) is determined by reducing the ultimate tensile strength (T,r) by reduction factors for installation damage (RFro), creep (RFcR) and
chemical/biological durability (RFo = RFco.RFBD) per GRI-GG4-05 [T"6* = 1,,,436,o.RFcn.RFo)l Recommended minimum reduction faclors are
based on producl-specific testing. Project specifications, standard public agency specifications and/or design code requirements may require
higher reduction fac{ors. Design of the structure in which the geogrid is used, including the seleclion of appropriate reduclion factors and design
life, is the responsibility of the outside licensed professional engineer providing the sealed drawings for the project.
8. Minimum value is based on lnstallation Oamage Testing in Sand, Silt, and Clay soils. Coarser soils require increased RFro values.
9. Reduction Factor for Creep determined for 12o-year design lire and in-soil temperature of 20"C using standard extrapolation techniques to creep
rupture data obtained following the test procedure in ASTM D5262-04. Actual design life of the completed structure may differ.
Tensar
Tensar I nternational Corporation
2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 500
Alpharetta, Georgia 30009-2247
Phone: 8O0-TENSAR-1
ttrl,ru. te nsorcorp. c om
Product Specification - Structural Geogrid UX1400MSE
Tensot lnternotionol Cotqrotion reseves the dght to chonge its ptodud specifrcotions ot ony time. lt is the rcsponsibility of the speciliet ond purchoset to
ensure thot ptoduct specificotions used for design ond prccurcment purposes ote cuffent ond consistent with the producls used in eoch instonce.
Product Type:
Polymer:
Load Transfer Mechanism :
Recommended App! ications:
Product Properties
Index Properties
lntegrally Formed Structura! Geogrid
High Density Polyethylene
Positive Mechanical lnterlock
MESA System (Segmental Block Walls), ARES System (Panel Walls),
SierraScape System (Welded Wire Walls)
Units MD Valuesl
. Tensile Strength @5% Strain2
. Ultimate Tensile Strength2
. Junction Strength3
. Flexural Stiffnessa
Durability
kN/m (lb/ft)
kN/m (lb/ft)
kN/m (lb/ft)
mg-cm
31 (2,130)
70 (4,800)
66 (4,520)
730,000
. Resistance to Long Term Degradations
. Resistance to UV Degradationo
Load Capacity
%
%
100
95
. Maximum Allowable Strength for 12}-year Design LifeT
Recommended Allowabte Strength Reduction FactorsT
kN/m (lb/ft)25.6 (1,760)
. Minimum Reduction Factor for lnstallation Damage (RFro)B
. Reduction Factor for Creep for 120-year Design Life (RFcn) e
. Minimum Reduction Factor for Durability (RFo)
Tensar lnternational Corporation warrants that at the time of delivery the geogrid
furnished hereunder shall conform to the specification stated herein Any other
warranty including merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, are hereby
excluded. lf the geogrid does not meet the specifications on this page and Tensar
is notified prior to installation, Tensar will replace the geogrid at no cost to the
customer.
1.05
2.60
1.00
This product specification supersedes all prior specifications for the product described
above and is not applicable to any products shipped prior to February 1,2013.
Dimensions and Delivery
The slruclural geogrid shall be delivered to the jobsite in roll form with each roll individually identified and nominally measuring 1.33
meters (4.36 feet) in width and 76.2 meters (250.0 feet) in length. A typical truckload quantity is 432 rolls.
Notes:
'1. Unless indicated otherwise, values shown are minimum average roll values determined in accordance with ASTM D4759-02. Brief descriptions
of test procedures are given in the following notes.
2. True resistance to elongation when initially subjected to a load measured via ASTM D6637-10 Method A without deforming test materials under
load before measuring such resistance or employing "secant" or "offset" tangent methods of measurement so as to overstate tensile properties.
3. Load transfer capability determined in accordance with ASTM 07737-1'1.
4. Resistance to bending force determined in accordance with ASTM D7748-12, using one meter (minimum) long specimen.
5. Resislance to loss of load capacity or structural integrity when subjecled to chemically aggressive environments in accordance with EPA 9090
immersion testing.
6. Resistance to loss of load capacity or slructural integrity when subjected to 500 hours of ultraviolet light and aggressive weathering in
accordance with ASTM D4355-05.
7. Reduction factors are used to calculate the geogrid strength available for resisting force in long-term load bearing applications. Allowable
Strength (T.n ) is determined by reducing the ultimate tensile strength (Tud by reduclion faclors for installation damage (RF|D), creep (RFCR) and
chemical/biological durability (RFo = RFco RFBo) per GRI-GG4-05 [arr* = T,rr/(RFro.RFcn.RFo)]. Recommended minimum reduction factors are
based on product-specific testing. Project specifications, standard public agency specifications and/or design code requirements may require
higher reduction factors. Design of the structure in which the geogrid is used, including the seleclion of appropriale reduclion fac{ors and design
life, is the responsibility ofthe outside licensed professional engineer providing the sealed drawings for the project.
8. Minimum value is based on lnstallation Damage Testing in Sand, Silt, and Clay soils. Coarser soils require increased RFro values.
9. Reduction Factor for Creep determined for 12o-year design life and in-soil temperature of 20'C using standard extrapolation techniques
to creep rupture data obtained following the test procedure in ASTM D5262-04. Actual design life ofthe completed slructure may differ.
Tensar
Tensar I nternational Corporation
2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 500
Alpharetta, Georgia 30009-2247
Phone: 800-TENSAR-1
v|i)w.tensarcorp.com
Product Specification - Structural Geogrid UX1500MSE
Tensor lntemotionol CoryDrotion rcseryes the dght to chonge its produd specificotions ot ony time. lt is the responsibility of the specifier ond purchoset to
ensute thot ptoduct specificotions used for design ond procurcment purposes ore current ond consktent with the prcduds used in eoch instonce.
Product Type:
Polymer:
Load Transfer Mechanism :
Recommended Appl ications:
Product Properties
lndex Properties
lntegrally Formed Structural Geogrid
High Density Polyethylene
Positive Mechanical lnterlock
MESA System (Segmental Block Walls), ARES System (Panel Walls),
SierraScape System (Welded Wire Walls)
Units MD Valuesl
. Tensile Strength @5% Strain2
. Ultimate Tensile Strength2
. Junction Strength3
. Flexural Stiffnessa
Durability
kN/m (lb/ft)
kN/m (lb/ft)
kN/m (lb/ft)
mg-cm
52 (3,560)
114 (7,810)
105 (7,200)
5,100,000
. Resistance to Long Term Degradations
. Resistance to UV Degradation6
Load Capacity
%
%
100
95
. Maximum Allowable Strength ior 120-year Design LifeT
Recommended Allowable Strength Reduction FactorsT
kN/m (lb/ft)41.8 (2,860)
. Minimum Reduction Factor for lnstallation Damage (RFro)8
. Reduction Factor for Creep for 120-year Design Life (RFcn) e
. Minimum Reduction Factor for Durability (RFp)
Tensar lnternational Corporation warrants that at the time of delivery the geogrid
furnished hereunder shall conform to the specification stated herein. Any other
warranty including merchantabilrty and fitness for a particular purpose, are hereby
excluded. lf the geogrid does not meet the specifications on this page and Tensar
is notified prior to installation, Tensar will replace the geogrid at no cost to the
customer.
1.05
2.60
1.00
This product specification supersedes all prior specifications for the product described
above and is not applicable to any products shipped prior to February 1,2013.
Dimensions and Delivery
The structural geogrid shall be delivered to the jobsite in roll form with each roll individually identilied and nominally measuring 1.33
meters (4.36 feet) in width and 6'1.0 meters (200.0 feet) in length. A typical truckload quantity is 324 rolls.
Notes:
1. Unless indicated otherwise, values shown are minimum average roll values determined in accordance with ASTM D4759-02. Brief descriptions
of test procedures are given in the following notes.
2. True resislance to elongation when initially subjected to a load measured via ASTM D6637-10 Method A without deforming test materials under
load before measuring such resistance or employing "secant" or "offset" tangent methods of measurement so as to overstate tensile properties.
3. Load transfer capability determined in accordance with ASTM 07737-'l'1.
4. Resistance to bending force determined in accordance with ASTM D7748-12, using one meter (minimum) long specimen.
5. Resislance to loss of load capacity or structural integrity when subjecled to chemically aggressive environments in ac@rda nce with EPA 9090
immersion testing.
6. Resistance to loss of load capacity or structural integrity when subjected to 500 hours of ultraviolet light and aggressive weathering in
accordance with ASTM D4355-05.
7. Reduction factors are used to c€lculale the geogrid strength available for resisting force in long-lerm load bearing applications. Allowable
Strength (T"rr*) is determined by reducing lhe ultimate tensile strength (Td by reduction faclors for inslallation damage (RFro), creep (RFCR) and
chemical/biological durability (RFo = RFcD.RFBo) per GRI-GG4-05 [r"rr* = T,rr/(RFro.RFcn.RFo)]. Recommended minimum reduction factors are
based on product-specific testing. Project specifications, standard public agency specifications and/or design code requirements may require
higher reduction factors. Design ofthe structure in which the geogrid is used, including the selection of appropriate reduction factors and design
life, is the responsibility ofthe outside licensed professional engineer providing the sealed drawings for the project.
8. Minimum value is based on lnstallation Damage Testing in Sand, Silt, and Clay soils. Coarser soils require increased RFro values.
9. Reduction Factor for Creep determined for 12o-year design life and in-soil temperature of 20"C using standard extrapolation techniques
to creep rupture data obtained following the test procedure in ASTM D5262-04. Actual design life ofthe completed structure may differ.
fbnsar
Tensar I nternational Corporation
2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 500
Alpharetta, Georgia 30009-2247
Phone: 800-TENSAR-1
tylty.tensarcorp.com
Product Specification - Structural Geogrid UX1600MSE
Tensot lntemotionol Cotpototion rcseves the right to chonge its ptodud specilicotions ot qny time. lt k the responsbitity of the specifier ond putchoset to
ensure thot ptoduct specificotions used for design ond procurement putposes ate cuffent ond consistent with the prcducts used in eoch instonce.
Product Type:
Polymer:
Load Transfer Mechanism :
Recommended Applications:
Product Properties
lndex Properties
lntegrally Formed Structural Geogrid
High Density Polyethylene
Positive Mechanical lnterlock
MESA System (Segmental Block Walls), ARES System (Panel Walls),
SierraScape System (Welded Wire Walls)
Units MD Valuesl
. Tensile Strength @5% Strain2
. Ultimate Tensile Strength2
. Junction Strength3
. Flexural Stiffnessa
Durability
kN/m (lb/ft)
kN/m (lb/ft)
kN/m (lb/ft)
mg-cm
58 (3,980)
144 (9,870)
135 (9,250)
6,000,000
. Resistance to Long Term Degradations
. Resistance to UV Degradation6
Load Capacity
%
o/o
100
95
. Maximum Allowable Strength for 120-year Design LifeT
Recommended Allowable Strength Reduction FactorsT
kN/m (lb/ft)52.7 (3,620)
. Minimum Reduction Factor for lnstallation Damage (RFro)8
. Reduction Factor for Creep for 12O-year Design Life (RFcn) e
. Minimum Reduction Factor for Durability (RFo)
Tensar lnternational Corporation warrants that at the time of delivery the geogrid
furnished hereunder shall conform to the specification stated herein Any other
warranty including merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, are hereby
excluded. lf the geogrid does not meet the specifications on this page and Tensar
is notified prior to installation, Tensar will replace the geogrid at no cost to the
customer.
1.05
2.60
1.00
This product specification supersedes all prior specifications for the product described
above and is not applicable to any products shipped prior to February 1,2013.
Dimensions and Delivery
The structural geogrid shall be delivered to the ,obsite in roll form with each roll individually identified and nominally measuring 1.33
meters (4.36 feet) in width and 61.0 meters (200.0 feet) in length. A typical truckload quantity is 216 rolls.
Notes:
1. Unless indicated olherwise, yalues shown are minimum average roll values determined in accordance with ASTM D4759-02. Brief descriptions
of test procedures are given in lhe following noles.
2. True resistance to elongation when initially subjected to a load measured via ASTM D6637-'10 Method A without deforming test materials under
load before measuring such resistance or employing "secant" or "offset" tangent methods of measurement so as to overstate tensile properties.
3. Load transfer capability determined in accordance with ASTM07737-11.
4. Resistance to bending force determined in accordance with ASTM D7748-12, using one meter (minimum) long specimen.
5. Resistance to loss of load capacity or structural integrity when subjected to chemically aggressive environments in accordance with EPA 9090
immersion testing.
6. Resistance to loss of load capacity or structural integrity when subjected to 500 hours of ultraviolet light and aggressive weathering in
accordance with ASTM D4355-05.
7. Reduclion factors are used to calculate the geogrid strength available for resisling force in long-term load bearing applications. Allowable
Strength (T"||*) is determined by reducing the ultimate tensile skength (Tuft) by reduction factors for installation damage (RFro), creep (RFoR) and
chemical/biological durability (RFo = RFCD.RFBD) per GRI-GG4-05 [Td6* = 1,,,4qp,o.RFcn.RFo)]. Recommended minimum reduction faclors are
based on product-specific testing. Project specifications, standard public agency specilications and/or design code requirements may require
higher reduction faclors. Design of the structure in which the geogrid is used, including the selection of appropriate reduclion faclors and design
life, is the responsibility of the outside licensed professional engineer providing the sealed drawings for the projecl.
8. Minimum value is based on lnstallation Damage Testing in Sand, Silt, and Clay soils. Coarser soils require increased RF|D values.
L Reduction Factor for Creep determined for 12o-year design life and in-soil temperature of 20"C using standard extrapolation techniques
to creep rupture data obtained following the test procedure in ASTM 05262-04. Actual design life ofthe completed structure may differ.
Tensar
Tensar lnternational Corporation
2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 500
Alpharetta, Georgia 30009-2247
Phone: 800-TENSAR-1
v)ruru. te n s a rc o rp. c o m
Product Specification - Structural Geogrid UX1700MSE
Tensot lntenotionol CorqDrction rcsetvq the right to chonge its ptoduct specificotions ot ony time. lt k the rcsponsibility of the specifiet ond putchoset to
ensure thot product speciftcotions used fot design ond Nocurement putposes ore cuffent ond consktent with the prcducts used in eoch instonce.
Product Type:
Polymer:
Load Transfer Mechanism :
Recom mended Appl ications:
Product Properties
lndex Properties
lntegrally Formed Structural Geogrid
High Density Polyethylene
Positive Mechanical lnterlock
MESA System (Segmental Block Walls), ARES System (Panel Walls),
SierraScape System (Welded Wire Walls)
Units MD Valuesl
. Tensile Strength @5% Strain2
. Ultimate Tensile Strength2
. Junction Strength3
. Flexural Stiffnessa
Durability
kN/m (lb/ft)
kN/m (lb/ft)
kN/m (lb/ft)
mg-cm
75 (5,140)
175 (11,990)
160 (10,970)
9,075,000
. Resistance to Long Term Degradations
. Resistance to UV Degradationo
Load Gapacity
o/o
%
100
95
. Maximum Allowable Strength for 120-year Design LifeT
Recommended Allowabte Strength Reduction FactorsT
kN/m (lb/ft)64.1 (4,390)
. Minimum Reduction Factor for lnstallation Damage (RFro)8
. Reduction Factor for Creep for 120-year Design Life (RFcn) e
. Minimum Reduction Factor for Durability (RFo)
Tensar lnternational Corporation warrants that at the time of delivery the geogrid
furnished hereunder shall conform to lhe specification stated herein. Any other
warranty including merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, are hereby
excluded. lf the geogrid does not meet the specifications on this page and Tensar
is notified prior to installation, Tensar will replace the geogrid at no cost to the
customer.
1.05
2.60
1.00
This product specification supersedes all prior specifications for the product described
above and is not applicable to any products shipped prior to February 1,2013.
Notes:
1. Unless indicated otherwise, values shown are minimum average roll values determined in accordance with ASTM 04759-02. Brief descriptions
of test procedures are given in the following notes.
2. True resistance to elongation when initially subjected to a load measured via ASTM D6637-'10 Method A without deforming test materials under
load before measuring such resistance or employing "secant" or "offset" tangent methods of measuremenl so as to overstate tensile properties.
3. Load lransfer capability determined in accordance with ASTM D7737-11.
4. Resistance to bending force determined in accordance with ASTM D7748-'12, using one meter (minimum) long specimen.
5. Resistance to loss of load capacity or structural inlegrily when subjected to chemically aggressive environments in accordance wilh EPA 9090
immersion lesting.
6. Resistance to loss of load capacily or structural integrity when subjected to 500 hours of ultraviolet light and aggressive weathering in
accordance with ASTM 04355-05.
7. Reduction factors are used lo calculate the geogrid strength available for resisting force in long-term load bearing applications. Allowable
Strength (Tdq) is delermined by reducing the ultimate tensile strength (T,r) by reduction factors for installation damage (RFlo), creep (RF66) and
chemical/biological durability (RFo = RFco.RFBD) per GRl6G4-05 [T"1* = T,,t4pF,o.RFcn RFo)]. Recpmmended minimum reduction faclors are
based on product-specific testing. Prcject specifications, standard public agency specifications and/or design code requirements may require
higher reduction factors. Design of the structure in which the geogrid is used, including the selection of appropriate reduction faclors and design
life, is the responsibility of the outside licensed professional engineer providing the sealed drawings for the project.
8. Minimum value is based on lnstallation Damage Testing in Sand, Silt, and Clay soils. Coarser soils require increased RFD values.
9. Reduction Fac{or for Creep determined for 12o-year design life and in-soil temperature of 20'C using standard extrapolation techniques
to creep rupture data obtained following the test procedure in ASTM D5262-04. Ac{ual design life ofthe completed structure may differ.
Dimensions and Delivery
The struclural geogrid shall be delivered to the jobsite in roll form with each roll individually identilied and nominally measuring 1.33
meters (4.36 feet) in width and 61.0 meters (200.0 feet) in length. A typical truckload quantity is 144 rolls.
Toox+ro:
!
-Io
=it
CRSP Input FiIe -C: \Users\tony. col-arossi\A Reports\Swenson\Rockfa1l
Analysis \WingThickness . dat
Input File Specifj-cati-ons
Uni-ts of Measure: U. S.
Total Number of Cell-s: B
Analysj-s Poi-nt 1 X-Coordinate: 165
Analysis Poi-nt 2 X-Coordinate: 168
Analysis Poj-nt 3 X-Coordinate: 187
f nit.ial Y-Top Starting Zone Coordinate:
Initial Y-Base Starting Zone Coordinate:
195
165
Remarks:
Cel-1 Data
Cel-I No.
End Y
S.R. Tang. C. Norm. C. Begin X Begin Y End X
1
165
2
115
3
100
4
B5
5
6
7
B
3
3
3
3
3
.65 .L2 0 195
165
115
100
18
B4
107
135
.65 .72 1B
.65 .L2 B4
.65 .!2 101
1
1
1
.65
.9
o
q
72
B
B
8
135
168
187
220
B5
65
67
5B
168
lBl
220
250
65
67
58
58
CRSP Simulation Specifications: Used with C:\Users\tony.colarossi\A
Report s \ Swenson\Rockf al I Analys i s \WingThicknes s . dat
Total Number of Rocks Simul-ated:
Starting Velocit.y j-n X-Directj-on:
Starting Velocity in Y-Directi-on:
Starting Cell- Number: 1
Ending Cel1 Number: B
Rock Density: L6I.4 lblft^3
Rock Shape: Cyl j-ndrj-caI
Diameter: 4 ft
Length: 5 ft
100
1 ftlsec
-1 ftlsec
CRSP Analysis Point 1 Data C:\Users\tony.colarossi\A
Reports\Swenson\Rockfall- Analysis\WingThickness . dat
Analysis Point 1: X : 165, Y
Total Rocks Passing Analysis
61
Point z 4l
Cumul-ative Probability
Bounce Ht . ( ft )
Velocity (ft / sec )Energy ( ft-lb)
502
J Seo
90%
95%
98%
10.37
t3 .28
15.89
]-1.46
t9 .22
2691 5
401 98
53230
6069s
6901 2
0.06
t0 .29
t9 .49
25 .02
37 .22
Velocit.y (fL / sec )
( fr-lb )
Bounce Height (ft)Kinetic Energy
Maximum: 1B .64
Average: 10.37
Minimum: 3.35
Std. Dev. : 4.3
Maximum:
Average :
G. Mean:
Std. Dev.
2 .9 Maximum:
.39 Average:
.06 Std. Dev.
: 15.15
78555
2697 5
: 20412
Remarks:
CRSP Analysis Point 2 Data C:\Users\tony.col-arossi\A
Reports\Swenson\Rockfall Analysis\WingThickness . dat
Analysis Point 2: X : 168 (Wing Wall Location), Y
Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 40
65
Cumulatj-ve Probability
Bounce Ht . ( ft )
Velocity (ft / sec )Energy (ft-lb)
50?
152
90%
95U
98%
10.56
14.01
11 .12
18.98
2t .08
2BO1 B
45010
60239
69382
1 9644
0. 14
6 .02
11.31
14 .49
18.05
Velocity (fL/sec)
( fr-Ib )
Bounce Height (ft)Kinetic Energy
Maximum:
Average :
Minimum:
Std. Dev
22 .38
10.56
t .25
5 .72
Maximum:
Average:
G. Mean:
Std. Dev.
3.33
.49 Average:
.14 Std. Dev
: 8.71
Maxi-mum:
2801 B
25077
99031
Remarks:
CRSP Analysis Point 3 Data C:\Users\tony.colarossi\A
Reports \Swenson\Rockf al-l- Anal-ysis \WingThicknes s . dat
Analysis Point 3: X: 7B'7, Y: 61
Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 31
Cumulative
Bounce Ht.
Probability
(fr )
Velocity (fL/sec)Energy (ft-Ib)
502
152
902
95%
98%
15.21
18.3
21 .03
22 .61
24.51
56565
7 5925
93337
103791
77552 4
0.04
5. 35
!0 .72
t2 .98
t6 .2
Veloclty (tL/sec)
( fr-1b )
Bounce Height (ft)Kinetic Energy
Maximum:
Average:
Minimum:
Std. Dev. :
24.59 Maximum : .9'7 Maximum:
Average: . 15 Average:
Std. Dev.: 28612
Std. Dev. : 1.86
72 65 95
s656s1
5
tr
.2
4
27
G. Mean:
.49
.04
Remarks:
CRSP Data Collected at End of Each Ce11 C:\Users\tony.col-arossi\A
Reports\Swenson\Rockfal1 Analysis \Wingfhickness . dat
VelocJ-ty Units : ft / sec Bounce Height Units: ft
Cel-I # Max. Vel-.
Bounce Ht.
36
35
31
31
22
25
24
27
Avg. Vel. S.D. Vel-. Max. Bounce Ht. Avg.
6
4
4
3
3
1
0
0
1
6
6
6
5
4
3
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
20
t9
15
72
11
15
71
15
0To
10 To
20 To
30 To
40 To
50 To
60 To
10 To
B0 To
90 To
100 To
110 To
720 To
130 To
140 To
150 To
160 To
LlO To
180 To
190 To
200 To
270 To
220 To
230 To
240 To
10 fr
20 fr
30 fr
40 fr
50 fr
60 fr
10 fr
B0 fr
90 fr
100 fr
110 ft.
720
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
.71
.03
.16
.12
.49
.25
.02
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
CRSP Rocks Stopped Data C:\Users\tony.colarossi\A
Reports\Swenson\Rockfal-l- Analysis\WingThickness . dat
X Interval
frfrfrfrfrfr
ft
ftfrfrfrfr
ftfr
Rocks Stopped
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
74
L6
t2
5
4
6
6
2
3
0
0
0
0
1
Tensar.Tensar Structural Geogrid Strength Properties
Private Projects, 75-year Design Life
Ultimate Tensile
Long Term Design Strength (LTDS)3
Creep Reduced Strentth and lnstallation Oamage Factors:
Bxl2oot LH8OO,ux1100 ux1400 ux1500 ux1600 ux1700 ux1800 ux1900
rb/ft kN/m lb/fi kN/m lb/lt kN/m tb/ft kN/m rb/ft kN/m rb/ft kN/m tb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m
Ultimate Stength (T"rr), ASfn,l Oeegl 7970 28.8 2600 38.0 1970 58.0 4800 70.0 7810 114.0 9870 144.O 11990 L]5.0 14390 210.0 15760 230.0
RF..""p (Stress Rupture)4.2 2.90 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.77 2.44
Creep Reduced Strength 469 6.9 897 13.1 1550 22.7 1880 27.3 3050 44.5 3850 56.3 4680 68.4 5310 77.5 64S9 94.3
RFdurabtttty 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OO 1.00 1.00 1.00
RFinstaration da.a3e (Sand, Silt & Clay)1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.0s 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
RF,n.t"il"ron d"."s. (3/4" minus angular aggregate)1.11 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08
RFinrtrrr"tion a"-"s" (1.5" minus angular aggregate)t.t4 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
8X1200 LH8OO ux1100 ux1400 ux1500 ux1600 ux1700 ux1800 ux1900
lblft kN/m rb/ft kN/m tb/fr kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/fr kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m
ln Sand, Silt & Clay 447 5.5 854 t2.s 7477 2t.6 1745 26.O 2905 42.4 3572 53.5 4/-61 65.1 5057 73.8 515 1 89.8
ln 3/4" minus angular aggregate 423 6.2 830 t2.7 1436 2t.o t736 25.3 282s 4t.2 3570 s2.7 4337 63.3 4977 77.8 5981 87.3
ln 1.5" minus angular aggregate 4Lt 5.0 815 11.9 1410 20.6 1705 24.9 2773 40.5 3505 51.1 4258 62.7 4827 70.4 5872 85.7
Notes:
1. Strength in cross-machine direction
2. Values shown are Minimum Average Roll Values per ASTM D6637.
3. LTDS = T16/ (RF.,""p X RFinstalationdamagex RFaurauitity)
4. UX1800 and UX1900 is only available in HS style. UX1800HS and UX1900HS should not be specified for use in mechanically connected system (ie MESA, ARES, SIERRASCAPE)
5. UX1100 through UX1700 are available in HS and MSE styles. MSEgeogrids should be specified for use in mechanically connected system
Updated: September 2016
Tensar.Tensar Structural Geogrid StrenSth Properties
Public Projects, 75-year Design Life
Ultimate Tensile
Long Term Design Stren6h (LTDS)3
Reduced and lnstallation Factors:
BX12oO'LH8OO,ux1100 ux1400 ux1500 ux1600 ux1700 ux1800 ux1900
tb/fr kN/m lblft kN/m tb/ft kN/m tblft kN/m tblft kN/m tblft kN/m tblft kN/m tb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m
Ultimate Stength (Turr), aSfU OeO:l 1970 28.8 2500 38.0 3970 58.0 4800 70.0 7810 114.0 9870 744.0 1 1990 175.0 14390 210.0 15760 230.0
RF.,""p (Stress Rupture)4.2 2.90 2.55 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.7L 2.44
Creep Reduced Strength 459 5.9 897 13.1 155 1 22.7 1875 27.3 3051 44.5 3855 56.3 4684 68.4 5310 77.5 5459 94.3
RFauralilitv 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
RFinstaration damage (3/4" minus angular aggregate)1.11 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
RF,nrrrr.uon drrrg" (1.5" minus angular aggregate)r.25 1.25 t.25 7.25 t.25 1.25 t.25 7.25 7.25
8X1200 LH8OO ux1100 ux1400 ux1500 ux1600 ux1700 ux1800 ux1900
tb/ft kN/m rb/ft kN/m tblfr kN/m tb/ft kN/m tb/ft kN/m lblft kN/m tblft kN/m tb/ft kN/m tb/ft kN/m
ln 3/4" minus angular aggregate 384 5.6 747 10.8 L282 78.7 1550 22.6 2527 36.8 3186 46.5 387 1 56.5 4388 54.0 5338 77.9
ln 1.5" minus angular aggregate 341 5.0 652 9.5 L728 15.5 7364 19.9 2279 32.4 2804 40.9 3406 49.7 3862 56.4 4697 68.6
Notes:
1. Strength in cross-machine direction
2. Values shown are Minimum Average Roll Values per ASTM 06637.
3. LTDS = Trx / (RF.,*p X RFinstalation damage x RFaurauitity)
4. UX1800 and UX1900 is only available in HS style. UX1800HS and UX1900HS should not be specified for use in mechanically connected system (ie MESA, ARES, SIERRASCAPE)
5. UX1100 through UX1700 are available in HS and MSE styles. MSEgeogrids should be specified for use in mechanically connected system
Updated: September 2015
Tensar.Tensar Structural Geogrid Strength Properties
Public Projects, 100-year Design Life
Ultimate Tensile
Long Term Design Strength (LTDS!3
Reduced and lnstallation Factors:
BX12oO'LH8OO,ux1100 ux1400 ux1500 ux1600 ux1700 ux1800 ux1900
tb/ft kN/m tblft kN/m tb/fl kN/m tb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m tb/ft kN/m lblft kN/m rblft kN/m tb/ft kN/m
Ultimate Stength (T,rt), nSffr4 OSe:l 1970 28.8 2600 38.0 3970 58.0 4800 70.0 7810 114.0 9870 lM.O 11990 175.0 14390 210.0 15760 230.0
RF.,"", (Stress Rupture)4.3 2.94 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.73 2.46
Creep Reduced Strength 458 6.7 884 L2.9 1539 22.5 1860 27.t 3027 44.2 3426 55.8 4647 57.8 527t 76.9 5406 93.5
RFaurautitv 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
RFrnstaratondamage (3/4" minus angular aggregate)1.11 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
RFinrt"r"hnd...s. (1.5" minus angular aggregate)1..25 1.25 L.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 t.25 1.25 t.25
8X1200 LHSOO ux1100 ux1400 ux1500 ux1500 ux1700 ux1800 ux1900
tb/ft kN/m rb/ft kN/m tb/ft kN/m rblft kN/m tb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m tb/ft kN/m tb/ft kN/m
ln 3/4" minus angular aggregate 375 5.5 737 lo.7 7277 18.5 15 38 22.4 2502 36.5 3762 46.r 3841 s5.1 4356 53.6 5295 77.3
ln 1.5" minus angular aggregate 333 4.9 643 9.4 11 19 16.3 1353 19.7 2202 32.7 2782 40.6 3380 49.3 3833 55.9 4659 68.0
Notes:
1. Strength in cross-machine direction
2. Values shown are Minimum Average Roll Values per ASTM D6637.
3. LTDS = Tr1, / (RF.,*, x RFin*ailation damage x RFarraoirity)
4. UX1800 and UX1900 is only available in HS style. UX1800HS and UX1900HS should not be specified for use in mechanically connected system (ie MESA, ARES, SIERRASCAPE)
5. UX1100 through UX1700 are available in HS and MSE styles. MSEgeogrids should be specified for use in mechanically connected system
Updated: September 2015
Tensar Structural Geogrid Strength Properties
Temporary Projects, 3yr Design Life
Tensar
!NTERNATIONAL
Ultimate Tensile
Temporery Applicetions - Long Term Design Strength (ffOS)'
FS Uncertainties6 =
and Installation Dama Factors:
1.0
Limited
BXt200r'LH8oo''uxt t00a uxr400 uxr500 uxt600 uxr 700 uxtEoor'
rb/ft kNim tb/ti kN/m lb/rl rb/n kN/mkN/m lb/ft kNim tb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m
Ultimate Srength Oult). ASTM D6637{t.970 28.8 2.600 38.0 4.800 70.0 7.8 t0 I t4.0 9.870 t44.0 I t.990 r75.0 t4.390 2r 0.0
Rfcreep (Stress Rupturc)3,56 2.5
58.0J970
2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33
Creeo Limited Streneth 550 8.t t.or0 t5.2 t.700 24.9 2.060 30.0 3.350 48.9 4240 6r.8 5.t50 751 6.t 80 90. I
Private Public Pnvate Public Private Public hivate Public Private Public Privare Public Privatc Public
RFdurabilitv r.00 r. r0 t.00 t. t0 t.00 l. r0 I 00 t. r0 r.00 t. t0 t.00 t. r0 t.00 r. r0
1.05RFinsullation damage (Sand, Silt & Clayl
RFinstallation damage (3/4" Aggregate, Sand Dmar = 20mm. D50 < 0.7mm)
RFinstallation damage (I-l/2"- Aggregate, Grave[ Dmar = I02mm. D50 < 30mm,
t.05
r.il
i.i4
r.il
t.25
05
08
l0
l.l0
1.25
ic
r.l0t.00
t.t0
t.is-
1.05
1.08
r. t0
t.05
t.ot
-f-r*o-
Lr0-rri r.08
r. t0
l.t0-i-.zi-
I
I
05
08 t. t0
t.25
r.05
r.08
t. t0
t.t0
t.2s--
t.05
r08
t.t0
t.t0
t.25
BXt20or'LH800l uxt t00r uxr400 uxr500 uxr600 uxr700 uxt 800r
tb/tt kN/m tb/ft kN/m tb/fi kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/tl kN/m tblft kN/m rb/ft kN/m
ln Sand. Silt & Clay 520 7.?990 14.5 t.620 23.7 r.960 28.6 3.t90 46.6 4.040 58.9 4.900 7t.5 5.890 85.8
ln 3/4' minus ansular assregate i00 7.3 960 t4.I t.570 23.t r.910 27.8 3.t00 45.3 3.930 s7.2 4.770 69.5 5.720 83.4
ln I - l 12' minus angular aggregate 480 7.1 950 r3.8 r.550 22.6 t.870 27.3 3.050 44.5 3.850 56.2 4.680 68.3 5.620 8r.9
NOTES:
NR = No( Rccomnqded fo. this .pplic.tion.
l. Strangh rcponcd b in croat rn&hinr ditlctid!.
2. Lrxt@ throuSh t xl70o !r!.v.ihblc in HS .td MSE styl6 0.c. UXI{ooHS, LxlamMSE! ac.) MsE S.ogrit ,hould bc ip.ciri.d in MESA, ARES & STERRASCAPE syst.ms.
3. LXl800 i! only rvtilrblc ir HS stylc. UXISoOHS should nol bc.p.cificd for use ir SIERR SCAPE T.mpor.ry Wrll Sy$cm3.
4. Vlluci showr rr! Minimum Avff.g. Roll Vdu6. ASTM tx637{l producca oquivd.nt r6ult! to GN€G|. .rd ASTM D1595 (nodificd) wlEn t .rint Tcr!.r ceogrids.
5. LTDS pct FIIwA-NHrco-O43 = Tull / (RFci!.p x RFinst lhtior drm!8. x RFdu6bilig x Fsunc.nrinlics) fo. Fsunccrrrinti.r = t.0. RFcr.rp b.scd on 3yr d6ign lifc.
6. AASIfTO rccommcn& Fs'rnccnrintics -l.5 fo. wall..
Long Term Design Strength (LTDS) :
Revised: November 9. 2009 (Supercedes all previous versions)
ffi
kN/m
kN/m
ffi Tensar Structural Geogrid Strength Properties
NTPEP Projects, 3yr Design LifeTensar
iNT E RilAi rOl.lp
Ultimate Tensile Strength, Creep Limited Strength and Installation Damage Factors:
Long Term Design Strength (LTDS)4
Fsuncertaintiess' :
gxrz00'UXI4OOHS UXI5OOHS UXI6OOHS uxl700HS
lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m
In Sand Dmax:20mm, D50 < 0.7mm 450 6.6 I.670 24.4 2,770 40.4 3,500 51. I 4.450 64.9
ln Gravel Dmax: l02mm, D50 < 30mm 400 5.9 1.500 21.8 2,440 35.6 3,080 44.9 3.910 57.t
NOTES:
NR = Not Recornmended for this application.
l. Stength reported is in cross machine direction. Use for secondary reinforcement ONLY. Not applicable as primary reinforcement.
2. UXl400 rhrough UX 1700 are available in HS and MSE styles (i,e. UX l400HS, UX I400MSE, etc.) MSE geogrids should b€ specified in MESA, ARES & SIERRASCAPE Systems.
3. Values sho$n ar€ Minimum Average Roll Values. ASTM D6637-01 produces equivalent results to GRI-GGI, ard ASTM D4595 (modilied) when testing Tensar Geogrids.
4. LTDS per FHWA-NHI-00-043 = Tult / (RFcreep x RFinstallation damage x Rldumbility x FSucertainties), for Fsuncertainties = 1.0. RFcae€p based on 3yr design life.
5. AASHTO recornmends Fsuncertainties :1.5 for walls.
Long Term Design Strength (LTDS) =
7,,,
RF r*RF ,rRF oF S un,,,,
BXl200t'uxl4002 ux r500 uxl600 uxl700
lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m rb/ft kN/m
Ultimate Strength (Tulr), ASTM D6$7}1,970 288 4.800 70.0 7.810 l14.0 9,870 144.0 I1.990 175.0
Rfbreep (Stress Rupture)3.s6 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.23
Creep Lrmrted Strength 550 8.1 2.060 30.0 3,350 48.9 4.240 6 t.8 5.380 78.5
RFdurabrlrty l.l0 Lt0 l. l0 Lt0 l. l0
RFinstallation damage (Sand Dma,x:20mm, D50 < 0.7mm)l.l I t.t2 l.l0 Ll0 l. l0
KFlnstallatlon oamage (uravel Dmax: luzmm, u)u < JUmm)t.25 L25 1.25 t.25 t.z5
August 20,2010
1.0
ffi Tensar Structural Geogrid Strength Properties
NTPEP Projects, 75yr Design LifeTensar
INTiRI,JATIONAI
Ultimate Tensile Strength, Creep Limited Strength and Installation Damage Factors:
Long Term Design Strength (LTDS)4
Fsuncertaintiess' :r.0
NOTES:
NR = Not Recommended for this applicarion.
l. Strength reported is in cross machine direction. Use for secondary rcinforcem€nt ONLY. Not applicable as primary reinforcement.
2. UX 1400 through UXl700 arc available in HS and MSE styles (i.e. UX l400HS, UX I400MSE, etc.) MSE geogrids should be specified in MESA, ARES & SIERRASCAPE Sysiems.
3. Values shown are Minimum Average Roll Values. ASTM D6637-01 produces equivalent results to GRI-GGI, and ASTM D4595 (modified) when testing Tensar Geog ds.
4. LTDS per FHWA-NHI-oGo43 = Tult / (RFcreep x RFinstallation damage x RFdurability x Fsuncertainties), for Fsuncertainties : 1.0.
5. AASHTO recor nends Fsuncenainties =1.5 for walls.
Long Term Design Strength &f DS) =
7,,,
RF,*RF ,ORF 'F
5,,,,,,
gxt2oot'uxt400'uxl500 uxr600 ux 1700
lb/ft kN/m rb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m
Ultimate Strength (Tult), ASTM OOOIt''1,970 28.8 4.800 70.0 7,810 l14.0 9.870 144.0 11,990 175.0
Rfcreep (Stress Rupture)2.59 2.59 2.59 2.63
Creep Lrmrted Strength 550 8.1 1.850 27.0 3,|JZO 44.0 3.8r0 55.6 4.560 66.5
RFdurability l.l0 I.l0 l.l0 l.l0 l.l0
RFinstallation damage (Sand Dmax:20mm, D50 < 0.7mm)l.ll t.t2 r.l0 l.l0 r.l0
Rlrnstallatron damage (Uravel Dma.x: l02mm, D50 < JUmm)t.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 t.25
]EETA]oIO UEalrrfIIS ux l500HS UXI6OOHS uxl700HS
rb/fl kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m
450 21.9 2,500 36.4 3,1 50 46.0 3.770 55.0In Sand Dma.x:20mm. D50 < 0.7mm
In Gravel Dmax: l02mm. D50 < 30mm 400 19.6 2,200 32.0 2.770 40.4 3,320 48.4
@r@EI]q
August 20,2O1O
3.56
Tensar Structural Geogrid Strength Properties
NTPEP Projects, 100yr Design LifeTensar
Long Term Design Strength (Lf Dil =
ffi
Ultimate Tensile Strength, Creep Limited Strength and Installation Damage Factors:
Long Term Design Strength llfOSlo
Fsuncertaintiess' : 1.0
BXI UXI4OOHS UX IsOOHS UXI6OOHS UX I TOOHS
lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m
In Sand Dmax:20mm. D50 < 0.7mm 450 6.6 II 1.4e0 21.7 2,460 36.0 3.120 45.5 3.710 54. I
In Gravel Dmax: l02mm, D50 < 30mm 400 5.e I I r.330 194 2.170 31.6 2.740 40.0 3.270 47.6
NOTES:
NR: Not Recommended for lhis application.
L Strength reported is in cross machine direction. Use for secondary reinforcement ONLY. Not applicable as prirnary rcinforcement.
2. UX 1400 tbrough UX I ?00 are available in HS ard MSE styles (i.e. UX1400HS, UX [400MSE, etc.) MSE geogrids should be specified in MESA, ARES & SIERRASCAPE Systems.
3. Values shown are Minimum Average Roll Vatues. ASTM D6637-01 produces equivalent rcsults to GRFGG l, and ASTM D1595 (modified) when testing Tensar Ceogids.
4. LTDS pcr FHWA-NHI-00{43 = Tult / (RFcreep x Rfinstallatio[ damage x RFdurability x Fsuncertainties), for Fsuncert inties = 1.0.
5. AASHTO recommends Fsunc€rtainties = 1.5 for walls.
7,,,
RFr*RF ,oRF oF 5,,,,,,
gxt2oor uxr+00'uxl500 uxl600 uxl700
rb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m tb/ft kN/m lb/ft kN/m lbift kN/m
Ultimate Strength (Tult), ASTM D66373'1,970 28.8 4.800 70.0 7,8 l0 l14.0 9,870 t44.0 r 1,990 175.0
Rfcreep (Stress Rupture)3.56 2.62 2.62 2.62 2.67
Creep Limited Strength 550 8.1 1.830 26.7 2.980 43.5 3.770 55.0 4.490 65.5
RFdurability l.l0 Ll0 l.l0 l.l0 l. l0
RFinstallation damage (Sand Dmax = 20mm, D50 < 0.7mm)l.l I t.t2 l. l0 l.l0 l. l0
Ktlnstauatlon darnage (uravel Dmax: luzmm, IJ)u < JUmm)t.z5 t.25 1.25 1.25 t.25
August 20,2010
NT F RUAT IO}.IAI