The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit Field Test & Inspection Report 2000-12-27 " ., )"- , ;.~, ~ ,:~.{... ~,~ -" - KEATING ENGINEERING L L C lBB WEST B ST - BLDG P ~---- --- SPRIN;fIELD. OR 97477 VOICE (541) 726-9995 F~ ____(~~1I-2_C:9~ email keatlngeng@msncom December 27,2000 Greg Lennox 7295 Elderberry Springfield, OR 97478 Re CMU wall construction The City of Springfield has asked us to resolve the foundation problems that their inspector noted, WIth respect to Improperly assembled block at the garage corners. We visited the site and tried to ascertain the amount of rem forcing and bond courses m the block work, and It appears that there IS no bond course at the top of the wall, or any that could be sounded out in the lower portIOns of the wall eIther The code does not require reinforcing, except for stack bond, and the inspector VIews the unbonded corners as "stack" bond (where blocks are not overlapped) To resolve tlus, I have prepared an "alternate Matenals" submittal for the City of Springfield, WhICh IS attached TIns desIgn SubstItutes the slab as a reinforcmg element for the foundatIOn, and Inserts concrete into the unreinforced cells If you have any questIOns, please feel free to call ~egards, ~ Stephen G. Keating FE .\. ) '. :.;.,,: J. ,---;.,'"~~ KEATING ENGINEERING L L C lBB WEST B ST - BLDG P SPRI~ELD, OR 97477 VOICE (541) 726-9995 FAX (541) 726-9996 ;mad k,;crt:;,;gin~i@msn-com December 27, 2000 City of Springfield Development Services 225 FIfth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Re: 7295 Elderberry, Springfield The CIty of Spnngfield Bmldmg DiVISIOn has asked us to resolve the foundation problems that their mspector noted, with respect to improperly assembled block at the garage comers We VISIted the SIte and tned to ascertam the amount ofremforcing and bond courses in the block work, and it appears that there is no bond course at the top of the wall, or any that could be sounded out m the lov. er portions of the wall eIther. The code does not reqmre remforcmg m tlus case, except for stack bond, but the inspector has VIewed the unbonded corners as "stack" bond Tlus would ordmanly require a 10 ga K-web at 16" 0 c horizontally. Smce this cannot be mserted, some other means of reinforcing is required. The following is subrrutted as an "alternate matenals and systems application" ill accordance WIth the one and two farmly dwelling speCIalty code' Please refer to the attached deSIgn sketches for remforcement detaIls. The design proposal IS based on the following eqUIvalency. 1. SUItabIlIty: Tlus design substItutes the slab as a remforcmg element for the foundatIon wall, and mserts concrete into the unremforced cells 2 Quality. Does not require exterior cells to be broken open and the consequent loss of firush quality 3 Strength. SubstItutes strength of slab, \",Ith one adjacent #4 bar m heu of weaker requlfed (2) 10 ga Wlfes 4. EffectIveness Reinforces wall agamst settlement stress by providing a top chord to a grade beam assembly, and proVIdes grater remforcing to entlre wall assembly WIth respect to transverse dIsplacement 5. Fire reSIstance. Not applicable 6. Durability: Does not require extenor cells to be broken open and the consequent loss of finish qualIty and weather resistance 7. DImensional stabIlity. Improved 8. Safety, Improved 9. Sanitation' Looks much more sanitary than what's there Based on the above, we request approval of this alternate system If you have any questIons, please feel free to call ~~ Stephen G Keating PE cc. Two Feathers Contractmg 3 r~~~.~ -LJi.!! ~ _=~o =-- .a;;!~ PROJECT GREG LENNOX GARAGE WALL REiNFORCING I C '& Z:.I: \ JOB 00-108 DATE 12-27-00 ~ ~~;- "o~~tn.r~'; ( t.r';-~~.- D ovJ~ ll=-V / G.eJ.h GAoJ ~~) i L.."""'" / II \ F~Ub:I ~ ~ p _ L-r/ -= J ~ ,2. t'\ ~i '. t-IL-t.. ~I~ ~A--'=~. Co0~ ~;4-" , ~I -:- I- · Lb~a' * " /-~\ r- l ,I_h[ ., " . I I I .. 11- ,(:~--" - . -, -L ~ -....... ~~ ~fo1luL --~~ ".. ~ (.r-1\J ~h :if ~ Do~ <? ~ II 8. c- , '1< ~\t1~ O~ ~ e.r~ ~ ~crn~c, q...i) L i /I I~ ~ ~ U..JWI.Jt:e~ Ge'\M \ . . L+ f ~ t ~., " L-~ -i' '~1 \;~,' - feU!. @ t::Dc,e =* t ~ P f"" o. c... 0~~ . %1(M.J1,J ~ft:3..l'~ l~ Olfv ~ . "" FlU... e~ ~ lJ ml CO~~ - I ~ (..~,~ -Piu.. I .- I :....r / ~ '1/ "- ~ /' r " " . l'<~~. f.... (D~) \".. Psi (Pat- C"") U>~'q: f/e" II 2;;)0 PC,I f1r~ :) ~O ~'?\ ~~ ~l,IM ~J~~L, ~ (PO ~~l ( o.~ (,0 ~I,J~) ~ ;jg rI ~~ ~ ~'1V' &j?ou1- fZ'61,J~Ue'" ~( Flu.. Au.. ~ftPt1 c.euh (;=i-IQ)~ eMU lJAlL ~f~H)~M8-J'\- ~r; ~I-\-r ~ ?4~At-~\~ Keating Engln~FiInif.t~6 West B Street BUlldtflg P - Spnngfield, Oregon 97477 - P(541 )726-9995 - F (541 )726-9996 - emall keallnoeno@msn com EXPIRES 6->>'" L '\ \ 0 y ~o ~ .,'~. ~. PROJECT GREG LENNOX ~ARAGE WALL REiNFORCING ~- -~ JOB 00-108 DATE 12-27-00 ~I { 4 -~ :. ---r--r/ , L------------- - - --- ---- I 1 -: ~ --t'J.-'-------- ------l-~I ./'r- I I - .., - .- . . . .; ~ I 't' I Ie "'\ 1/ Jti ... t I , 4 Co~. ~\. \ J I lIt : ~ -4- i' ~ ~0~O~e-? I ~ '. t co~ I I I I L I I '-} ~ I I - - \ i l -tt.~---\ I I ~ : I " I 1 JZ-8u~}!-L€ ~ $U11 I I \ ~ 4& g. ~I," 0.(..' I : \. , . '''--T __4__--- ., I ~ --- -- ------ ~ 1 ---"" - - --. ---- - -~ - - - ~ -.. - - - - - - --- - -- "L)~'E70~ ~~ -1 Uul2vo}.Jt)eO U1~ ~ \". G-WF- 1..J L.J ~ c:>U{;"'jQ ~Olv Mo~MI3-'l O~~OI-1Dl2O c-o~.,.)ee. - ~1~Kl~ -4 ~~ t:;trt4 wr-r/ 'T1" U,..J~~De!:> uol4iE~ f-6\~UA:t ~ ~.....",~ fJLo->'1" w~ DF fYrltPrU 7A 2-1 \A-C rLl\i-f e ~ _. - EXPIRES 6-30-1>\ . tJo C7~ Keating Englneenng LLC _ 188 West B Street BUilding P - Spnngfleld, Oregon 97477 - P(541 )726-9995 - F (541 )726-9996 - emall )ceatlnoenacEbmsn com " t ;41 ""'--, . - -- KEATING ENGINEERING L L C 166 WEST B ST - BLDG P SPRINGFIaD, OR 97477 -VOICE (541) 726-9995 FAX (541) 726-9996 -~mall keatlngeng@msn com December 1, 2000 ~'") &~ l~~'f t I E \ Date: IV / :' r No. of Pages d r ~ To: l~~ \) Company: ,( : \,' /~<' '-. ~ \ r- \.... !\. "./1 I' '\" ~ \'1. Ir-~ Fax #: ~ -.::::> 91' ~ t4 I "1 '-~ ' F-rom: STEPHEN G KEATING PE ~ -1 KEATING ENGINEERING ~ Fax # 541-726-9996 /; Phone # 541-726-9995 Greg Lennox 7295 Elderberry Springfield, OR 97478 Re: Retaining wall construction Dear Greg: After visitmg the site and re-running some of the retaining wall engineering, making our observations, reviewing your construction photos, and the work provided by Geomax Engineers, we can conclude that the eMU retaining wall at the rear of the structure is sufficient for the conditions, as described in the attached sketch, with the followmg provisIOns: 1 No additional backfill Will be mstalled against the present foundation wall. A deck will be constructed at the floor line extending over the slopes now existmg. 2 The soil WIll be profiled to allow for surface dramage of water. No waterproofing membrane was deSigned or mstalled for the eMU walls, and leaks due to ground water are now unavoidable, If leaks are to be eliminated completely (which is not necessary for continued use of the house) the walls must be excavated on the exterior sides and a waterproofing membrane installed. If you choose to do tills we WIll provide information on how to do thIs most effectively at that time. Otherwise, the surface Will need to be profiled so that the surface water Will be directed away from the excavation area and around the house. This will eliminate most of the water If it is done properly. There IS an extremely Important provIsion to all of thIS. Modem houses are sealed up so tightly that there are lots of moisture related problems due to condensation, especially within wall caVIties. If water is being admitted into the sub-areas of the house, the unavoidable water vapor will enter the interior air, and condense somewhere within the wall or ceiling cavities, unless It is vented to the exierior (which is rarely ever IS, except sometimes at bathrooms). To help prevent this, The sub area must be covered With a tight fitting vapor barrier, With edges overlapped and taped, and the upper edges lapped up the foundation walls and taped to the walls. This should keep the interior moisture levels to a minimum and future decay ("dryrot" from excessive mOIsture) to a mlmmum. 3. The floor diaphragm is necessary to support the top reactions of the retaining wall. We have detailed the floor to accept these loads, and included a sketch of this. , -,.'-' t : 1 ...v_-0\J..l \ ,~~ /1..' In addition to the above, there are some framing problems whIch we would like you to address with the inspector, and consult with us as necessary: 1. The wan studs In the garage have been broken at the floor line, which does not meet code, and IS not as strong as it needs to be. \\1 e recommend cutting the intermed1ate plate at each stud location and splicing the studs together. It would be possIble to provIde an engineered solution for tlus wluch used fewer, shorter studs, but the cost of the engineering would be better spent by SImply adding new full- height studs beSIde the eXIsting ones and haVIng a strong assembly. 2. The opening in the floor assembly which permits passage of the lower floor stairs is not framed adequately, and should be revised by the addItion of more 2x trimmers for the full floor thickness, and hangers for the tji's. There also needs to be an 18" x 18" x 8" deep pier at the comer of the stairs (at the support) to account for the floor loads framing down here. 3 The garage portal frame is not constructed according to code speCIfied minimums, and needs to be re-done, or engineenng provided to analyze the support that can be aclueved from the front entry wall, and designing that to substitute for t.~e portal frame To deal WIth these items, and others that the mspector may IdentIfy, please call me after the foundation mspection and we VI'ill address them all at once. If you have any questions, please feel free to caIl Regards, PE EXPiRES 6-3()' L\ c..v '. ~;. c.o~ I ~ ,.., c.7-/ 0(- 7f111~ n.o 12-- '2.-0 - () b -' oi r u"", f ) LV'"'" 'JS- 1;~";-.."-- - :: - --- ~ ~ -~~ PROJECT LENNOX FOUNDATION J. SHEET ~ ,04" '; " \J" (u j .,..v."" JOB 00-107 DATE12-01-00 AW 7.,. 'f. \2- ( HIL.U? JO ~1,(J 1D 6- -1J\ ~ '\\nt1EP1rPlJD \PlMM~';o wl~ / 1\'.7ll')p~...)11 LillO or ~ ~~~t?'-4 / (ADO It "jl r Ii ~., 1-0--"- PI f% ~ :Vff,,-r ( P~I";~ (1""~ {b~ 1 --~If- _\_,._-~ - , ~, I.~ lr;-1 ' r--1-, , 1,,--- f; ,1./ I'~ .I I - -----.. ----- \ " , I j , I / , / I I I 1 ~ '\!c..~ . ~, "', (\tl)(~)i~ - ~14w~ I -A;DD ~\J. of r;t.-tt.~....l0 ~ 'I ?1"\P'7UiJ~ c~~ b ~ ~~ ft/(...l..... DI'1~i-Y7/oj {.l VJO~~ IO( Of fiOor rprn I ~ ~ J ~,j trOG ~ It :f:; - - V'11 ._ 4t'PR~ 1_" ~'~.,... ~n , ~:-: ~:^'~"''"~~1' v'0...', : J: -. -: 3t: \ c.C \ .- - . - ~~ . . -. 1 r -'....' ~.... J J . \ ,.. / I \ l./ ..... ~""'J' _ ,r .._,,- . (~..;.....~ ;;:0- -..:....,\.. / '7~.~.J.. fi \S.,/ .~ bU\\Jv\~G VI OD \t: I CL\ll \JWS EXPIRES 6-3(). C,\ Keating Englneenng LLC. 188 West B Street BUilding p. Spnngfield, Oregon 97477 - P{541 )726-9995 - F (541)726-9996 - emall keatmoenaca>msn com Keating Engineering LLC Title: GREG LENNOX HOUSE - 7295 ELDERBI Job # 00-107 188 West B Street _ Building P Dsgnr: S KEATING Date: 309PM, 1 DEC 00 DescnptlOO: EVALUATION OF CMU RETAINING WALL TO Springfield, Oregon 974n ALLOW FOR MODIFIED CONSTRUCTION (541) 726-9995 fax (541) 726-9996 Scope: EVALUATE RETAINING WALL FOR #4 REBAR WWW: KEATlNGENGINEERlNG.Cm SPACED 32" 0 C WITH FOOTING AS EVIDENT RC'Y" 510:)00 P l' U... K'W.060410f1 V"St.Z 22J..-1999 w0.32 Square Footing Design Clge' \<) \~3-9Q ENEP.CI\l.C ' ',.,'.00., 08 1l1~'Cf< t,W"c"It~\"t'CII" .! _--.0...,..........,.... ~ ",.,:,~":::::.r:~~-;.~ji.;::~ :'-~..~-:-..::.:.];.:.:,:'::-::-:~ ~ ,-- FOOTING UNDER STAIRS AT LOWER LEVEL I 1 f[ 1'-I'~~ <JlI ~~1 ~. · g"h. ~tll-',~,;~ ~7%" "",<'~ Description , ,.., ~ .... r >> :"'U:::U0-1 Calculations are designed to ACI 318-95 and 1997 USC Requirements l General Infonnation Dead Load live Load Short Term Load SeISmic Zone Overburden Weight Concrete Weight LL & ST Loads Combrne Load Durabon Factor Column Dimension ! Reinforcing o 500 k 2 000 k o 000 k 3 o 000 psf 14500 pcf Footing DimenSion Thickness # ot Bars Bar SIZe Rebar Cover fc Fy 1000 3 50 rn Allowable son Beanng ~",,,,,~,,,:,,-,,.,,,,,,,'::__,,,,~,_'~'''.''_'_',:..'::1_'4niJ.:.'~~r,,1,"'1.-.1 l ----..............-- ..- l Rebar Requirement Actual Rebar "d" depth used 200IFy k, Req'd by AnalystS Mln Reint % to Req'd Summary -..., ._~- 4 500 In o 0033 o 0003 1n2 00014 % k, to USE per toot ot Width Total As Req'd MIn Allow % Rernf 1 50ft square x 8 Oln thick WIth 2- #4 bars Max. Static Soli Pressure 1,207 78 pst Allow Static Soli Pressure 1,500 00 psf Vu Actual One-Way Vn"Phl Allow One-Way Max Short Term Sod Pressure Allow Short Term Sod Pressure . 1 ,207 78 psf 1,500 00 pst Vu Actual Two-Way Vn"Phl Allow Two-Way Alternate Rebar Selections 1 # 4's 1 # 5'5 1 # 7's 1 # 8's Mu Actual Mn · Phl Capacity o 36 k-ft 5 02 k-ft 1 500 ft 800 In 2 4 3.250 2,500 0 pSI 60,000 0 pSI 1,500_00 psf o 07~ 102 01131n2 00014 Footing OK 831 psi 85 00 pSI 24 54 pSI 17000 pSI 1 # 6's 1 # 9's # 10's -,~ 8.0~'Xl5' M~<on()l wi #4 6' :p , Lateral Restramt 1 49 S9 # 8 WOOS' Masonry wEMl@ 32 ' I 8 CXXXJS' Masonry wI #4J@"Q'4' i , V A :OSOUJ ~1~11 'I' .~//i W':;-';% i' < /-j;'fIJ,z, 1 {Yg/( z;/ 0"Y,?, ~';~ ~J.(i ~fi:; Wdj ~r; ~/'f.~(~;; ~~! :y:/" ~:; ,~ii1:;tJ~ t';"/r//:P;'"' }jf~ f~il& ~~ '-:1"10:/; ~i/~1~ rr{?t%~~ :;~~/<~~~: }*~;4~~ /4:-:40- 1/; fa/--; .0'~-~~ f~ ~f'1;li ;t{t.,~~ t~;!1f~ ~ !j;.~ I/"~ 0'$l'i ~k{~ ~fff. :11 ~ itt/i~~- ~..'/-'~.i ;f!i~:~~ ~#'~~ ~~fW~!f. ~ Ff; 12%'$ ;"'-~A ~.4 A A 42 '-u I I 6'-0' 4'-0' ... ~ ~ ~ :....1-;.. 1. 3' I I , I " .' + ,'-0' I ~>.-;" ~ ...'" I '~ 3' , i , - -. ! Ji' ::',::, ',;' ..."'~: C' ..~~ , .-, '. I'" ~18m @7oe #4@l8.m ,'-3' ,'-5' jC ~ ~ I @Heel 2'-8' ..alI1 ~ Keating Engineering LLC Title: GREG LENNOX HOUSE - 7295 ELDERBI Job # 00-107 188 West B Street _ Building P Dsgnr: S KEATING Date: 345PM, 1 DEC 00 Description: ~VALUATION Or CMU RETAINING WPJ...l TO Springfield, Oregon 97477 ALLOW FOR MODIFIED CONSTRUCTION (541) 726-9995 fax (541) 726-9996 Scope: EVALUATE RETAINING WALL FOR #4 REBAR WWW: KEATINGENGINEERlNG.Cm SPACED 32" 0 C WITH FOOTING AS EVIDENT ~~;!~~1:;'~~~513 22 J.. 1999 ",..32 Restrained Retaining Wall Design e"<tl.oo-10el<~"'ClHrn'~~~:"tl""'> /' k/; v',.. ,S" .-, r, : I ,. "'." r;:;;t t ~ .I ..-.-_of" , ,. . ~'W-i,~~ I :t~,,,, ,t~ Description l-critena ,;ft ~.....-.-."b.. Retained Height = 4 00 ft Wall height above soli 200 ft Total Wall Height 6 00 ft Top Support Height = 600 ft Slope Behind Wall = 4.20 1 Height of son over Toe = 1225 in Soli Densrty = 11000 pet ; Soil Data ~-,;:.-~;.,,-.-,;:_'.-:MW~, .--.1 Allow son Beanng .. 1,600 0 pst EqUivalent FlUid Pressure Method Heel Actrve Pressure = Toe Active Pressure = P8SSlIIe Pressure = Water helght over heel = FoobngllSoil Fncbon = Soil height to ignore for paSSIVe pressure Wind on Stem 10 0 pst i Surcharge Loads _ .. ._.. . , , _ , II _.. . --- - --___.~..l,\II,_!._-I~;.,.......1Il Surcharge Over Heel = 0 0 pst >>>NOT Used To ReSIst Sliding & Overturn Surcharge Over Toe = 00 pst NOT Used for Sliding & Overturning : ~ial Load A_PP1~to Ste~ Axtal Dead Load 300 0 100 Axtal live Load = 650 0 100 Axtal Load Eccerrtncrty = ODin i Design Summary .... .. ., .... .,._ ___,__~,__..___._JW,,,.,4..J, _ j Total Beanng Load = 2,2751bs .. resultant ece = 1 57 In 450 450 350.0 00 ft 0300 = oOOIfl , Uniform Lateral Load Applied to Stem --..- --- = o 0 ~'ft 000 ft 000 ft = i ~son'1 Stem Construction Thickness = 800 In frn = Wall Welght = 78.0 pet Fs Stem IS FIXED to top of footing Block Type = Medium Weight Solid Grouted 5011 Pressure @ Toe = 603 pst OK Soli Pressure @ Heel = 1,104 psf OK Allowable = 1 ,600 pst son Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe = 895 pst ACI Factored @ Heel = 1,640 pst Footing Shear @ Toe = 86 psi OK Foobng Shear@ Heel = 62 psi OK Allowable = 85 0 pSI Reaction at Top = 49.6 Ibs Reaction at Bottom = 509 5 Jbs Sliding Stability Ratio 2 74 OK Sliding Cales Lateral Slldlng Force = 5095 Ibs less 100% PaSSIVe Force =. 7147 lbs less 100% FnctJon Force =. 682 Sibs Added Force Req'd = 0 0 Ibs OK . for 1 5 1 Stablrrty = 0 0 100 OK I Footing Design Results III 1.1'.IL.._L.L_.I. \, U I_j~ _\I'.II:"'_I'__~.. .J. 1I~_.t OO~I"1 ...9.I.l::..:..lLI,l.'Aeel Factored Pressure = 895 1,640 pst Mu' . Upward = 790 (l ft-#- Mu' , Downward = 287 237 ft-# Mu' DesIgn = 503 237 ft.:f. Actual i-Way Shear 851 617 psi Allow 1-Way Shear = 85,00 8500 psi Lateral Load Height to Top Height to Bottom :0~JOG I fc = 2,500 MIn As % Toe Width Heel Width T etal Footing Wiclth Footing ThIckness Key W,clth Key Depth Key DIStance from Toe Cover @ Top = 300 In I Footing Strengths &_D_~l1lE!flsi~ns ...._,_,_J:.....I..\~ .."':'1llIlIRII" pSI Fy = 60,000 pSI = 00014 = 1.25 ft = 142 2.61 12 00 In C.OO m o 00 In o 00 ft @ Btm,= 3 00 In .1 \ Adjacent Footing -=-.oad Adjacent Foobng Load Footng Width Eccentncrty Wall to Ftg CL Dlst Foobng Type Base Above/Below Sod at Back ot Wall = 1 ,500 pSI 24,000 psi Short Term Factor = EqulV Solid ThIck = n Ratio (EslEm) = No SpeClallnspectJon Mmax Between Top & Base Stem OK 284ft # 4 32 00 In Center 3811n @ Top Support Stem OK 6 00 ft # 4 32 00 In Center 3811n = = = 0683 101 8 ft-# 414.0 ft-# 20 00 In Not req'd, Mu < S. Fr Not req'd, Mu < S . Fr No key defined = = = = ~ __~--k. = 00100 o 00 ft o 00 In o 00 ft LIne Load Oestgn height Rebar Size Rebar SpaCing Rebar Placed at Rebar Depth 'd' Design Data fb/FB + fa/Fa = 0 000 Moment Actua 0 0 ft-# MomenL..Allowable 414_0 ft-#- Shear Force @ thiS height = 00 Ibs Shear~ ...Actual = 0 00 psi Shear ..Allowable 19 36 pSI Rebar Lap Required = 20 00 In Rebar embedment into foofing = Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings: Toe #4@1800ln -or- Heel #4@ 18 00 In -or- Key: No key defined -or- :0 = = OOft j 1.000 7 600 In 25 778 @ Base ot Wall Stem OK o 00 ft # 4 32 00 In Edge 5 25 In 0396 2745 ft-# 692 3 ft-# 307 0 Ibs 5.22 pSI 1936psl 6 ODin !ley 510300 U:;:u K'I,. .0&0" t06 Ver ~ 1 ~ 22 JCUt 1999 ""11\32 t<.) ~9t3-99 ENE.~AlC Restrained Retaining Wall Design ., tI C" U' 0 ,- .....U.,,) ( Trtle: GREG LENNOX HOUSE.. 7295 ELDERBI Job #I 00-107 Dsgnr: S KEf.. TING Date: 345PM, 1 DEe 00 Oescripbon: EVALUATION Or CMU RETAINING WAll TO ALLOW FOR MODIFIED CONSTRUCTION EVALUATE RETAINING WALL FOR #4 REBAR SPACED 32" 0 C WITH FOOTING AS EVIDENT Page 2 c kcW-10& k~~lox .c...C",Ic~\"'\lo"" ~'jJ(;" ,.:", ,,-_-~zt._-"""\""~ .rt'. II" ~' n... ~In' ~~ti~ "l .~~ ~~ _A._I">. _ Keating Engineering LLC 188 West B Street - Buildmg P Springfield, Oregon 974n (541) 726-9995 fax (541) 726-9996 Scope: WWW: KEATlNGENGINEERING.Cm Description I Summary of Forces on Footing: Slab is NOT providing sliding, stem is FIXED at footing . I; ..,., , ,..__._,_.~........._, ._ .__~......."".."...._.., "......,,,'"..., '_h.._'."."'. .......,...._........_........ ......."__,........,.."".,..... ...,_,_. ...,~.........,.,,,..,....,.,.. ._..,_..,._'"..,...,~".~".."",..,,,..,.. _......'''"...,li Forces acting on footing for sliding & soil pressure.... Sliding Forces Stem Shear @ Top of Foobng = Heel ActJve Pressure = Sliding Force = -307 0 Ibs -202 5 Load & Moment Summary For Footing: For Soil Pressure Cales Moment @ Top of Foobng Ap.,hed from Stem = ..2745 ft-# 509.5 Ibs Surcharge Over Heel AxIal Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Stem Weight = Ibs 950 0 Ibs 140 4 Ibs Ibs 468 0 Ibs ft 158ft o 63 ft ft 1 58 ft fl-# 1,504 2fl-# 877ft-# fl-# 7410fl-# Soil Over Heel Foobng Weight Total Vertical Fol'l Net Moment User For SOil Pressure Calculabons -296.9 ft-# =