STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, PLC · structural engineering concepts, plc Miller, of O'Donnell &...

1

0

February 25, 2014

Mr. Butch Stoneman

Technical Foundations, Inc.

P.O. Box 50282

Richmond, VA 23250

SUBJECT: UVA Student Housing – 1000 West Main – Probe Hole Results

Dear Mr. Stoneman:

We forgot to include the Probe Hole results in yesterday’s letter detailing the pile load tests and subsequent

recommendations. Please find the summaries on page 2 of P-1 through P-5 that were drilled on February 6th.

The probe hole information provided us with valuable information on how far a 16” auger could be advanced into the

soft weathered rock. Probe Holes P-1, P-2 and P-3 hit refusal at depths of 78’, 55’ & 60’ respectively. Holes P-4 & P-5

were terminated at depths of approximately 80’. Let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely yours,

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, PLC

Jonathan H. Smith, P.E. Project Manager

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, PLC P .O. Box 1 74 6 | Mid l o th i an , VA 23 11 3 | Phon e 8 04 . 56 1 . 0 98 1 | Fax 8 04 . 56 1 . 18 19 | ww w. seconce p t s p l c . c om

Depth Time Description Depth Time Description

0-5' 2:56 Red brown dirt, gravel 0-5' 12:14 Red and brown dirt/gravel

5-10' Dark brown dirt and sand, gravel 5-10' Red and brown moist dirt/gravel

10-15' Dry light brown dirt and sand 10-15' Dry-moist dark brown dirt

15-20' Dry light brown dirt and sand 15-20' Dry-moist dark brown dirt

20-25' Dry light brown dirt and sand weathered small rocks 20-25' Dry light brown dirt/small rocks

25-30' Dry light brown dirt and sand 25-30' Dry light brown dirt/small rocks

30-35' Dry light brown dirt and sand 30-35' Dry light brown dirt/small rocks

35-40' Dry light brown dirt and sand 35-40' 12:22 Dry light brown dirt and sand/weathered rock

40-45' 3:07 Dry light brown dirt and sand 40-45' 12:24 Dry light brown dirt and sand/weathered rock

45-50' Dry light brown dirt and sand 45-50' 12:26 Dry light brown dirt and sand/weathered rock

50-55' 3:17 Dry light brown dirt and sand, larger more weathered rock 50-55' Dry light brown dirt and sand/weathered rock

55-60' 3:20 Dry light brown dirt and sand, larger more weathered rock 55-60' 12:34 Dry darker brown dirt, weathered rock

60-65' 3:22 Dry light brown dirt and sand, larger more weathered rock 60-65' 12:37 Dry brown dirt, weathered rock

65-70' Dry light brown dirt, weathered rock 65-70' Dry brown dirt/sand, weathered rock

70-75' 3:30 Dry light brown/light grey dirt, weathered rock 70-75' Dry brown dirt/light grey dirt, weathered rock

75-80' 3:33 78' Refusal 77-78' 2 minutes 75-80' 12:53 78' - Dry brown /light grey dirt, weathered rock

Depth Time Description Depth Time Description

0-5' 2:05 Red dirt, gravel 0-5' 10:05 Dry light brown dirt and sand/gravel

5-10' Dark brown dirt, gravel 5-10' Dry light brown dirt and sand/gravel

10-15' Redish brown dirt 10-15' 10:08 Dry light brown dirt and sand/gravel

15-20' Light brown dirt and sand 15-20' Dry light brown dirt and sand/gravel/ small rocks

20-25' Light brown dirt and sand 20-25' Dry light brown dirt and sand/gravel/ small rocks

25-30' Light brown dirt and sand, weathered rock 25-30' 10:18 Dry light brown dirt and sand/gravel/ small rocks

30-35' 2:12 Dry light brown dirt, weathered rock 30-35' 10:20 Dry light brown dirt and sand/gravel/ small rocks

35-40' 2:14 Dry light brown dirt, weathered rock 35-40' 10:22 Dry darker dirt and sand/small rocks

40-45' 2:17 Dry light brown dirt, weathered rock 40-45' 10:24 Dry darker dirt and sand/ weathered rock

45-50' Dry light brown dirt, weathered rock 45-50' 10:26 Dry darker dirt and sand/ weathered rock

50-55' 2:28-2:31 Dry light brown dirt, weathered rock 50-55' Dry darker dirt and sand/ weathered rock

55-60' 55' - Auger Refusal 54-55' 3 minutes 55-60' 10:41 Dry light grey dirt and sand/ weathered rock

60-65' 10:44 Dry light grey dirt and sand/ weathered rock

65-70' 10:46 Dry grey dirt and sand/ partial weathered rock

70-75' 11:10 Dry brown dirt and sand, weathered rock

Depth Time Description 75-80' 11:13 82' - Dry brown dirt and sand, weathered rock

0-5' 1:17 Dry Brown dirt

5-10' Dry dark brown dirt

10-15' Moist redish brown dirt

15-20' Dry light brown dirt and sand, small rocks

20-25' 1:21 Dry light brown dirt and sand, small rocks

25-30' Dry light brown dirt and sand, small rocks

30-35' 1:24 Dry light brown dirt and sand, small weathered rocks

35-40' 1:26 Dry light brown dirt and sand, small weathered rocks

40-45' 1:30 Dry light brown dirt and sand, weathered rock

45-50' Dry light brown dirt and sand,large weathered rocks

50-55' Dry darker brown dirt and sand, weathered rock

55-60' 60' Refusal 59-60' 3 minutes, light brown weathered rock

UVA CA Ventures- Probe Pile P-1 Summary





2

1

0

February 24, 2014

Mr. Butch Stoneman

Technical Foundations, Inc.

P.O. Box 50282

Richmond, VA 23250

SUBJECT: UVA Student Housing – 1000 West Main – Auger Cast Pile Load Tests

Dear Mr. Stoneman:

We have reviewed the data from the load tests performed on TP-1 and TP-2. TP-1 was installed on February 7th

to a

depth of 50 feet below existing grade. The testing began on February 17th but was not completed until February 19

th due

to a malfunctioning jack that had to be corrected. TP-2 was installed on February 10th

to a depth of 46 feet below

existing grade. The testing of TP-2 occurred on February 20th. The depths for the test piles were determined from

information collected during the drilling of probe holes P-1 through P-3. We wanted TP-1 to extend into dense

weathered rock in order to get the pile capacity by skin friction and end bearing. For TP-2 we wanted to test the skin

friction values so we terminated the pile in Soft Weathered Rock. The load tests were performed in general accordance

with ASTM D1143 and the piles were loaded to a maximum compressive load of 271.875 tons (543.75 kips). TP-1 was

able to hold the maximum load with acceptable deflections which can be seen on the graph summarizing the load test

data on page 3. TP-2 was loaded to the same maximum load but at deflections greater than 2”. A portion of the data

has been omitted from the graph on page 4 since it wasn’t relevant in determining the ultimate compressive capacity of

the pile.

TP-1

Typically the ultimate capacity of auger cast piles is equal to the load at which the measured settlement equals PL/AE +

(0.15+0.008D), where D is the diameter of the pile. This is called the Davisson Offset method. For D=16” the equation

reduces to PL/AE + 0.278”. The PL/AE term represents the elastic deflection of the pile. The measured deflections for

TP-1 never exceeded the elastic deflection of the pile so we did not plot the Davisson Offset line on the graph on page

3. It is our opinion that TP-1 has an ultimate compressive capacity of more than 270 tons (540 kips). Using a factor a

safety of 2.0 gives an allowable compressive capacity of 135 tons (270 kips). We attempted to back calculate the skin

friction and end bearing values based on the results of the load test while adjusting for the portion of the pile above EL.

474 (proposed top of production pile elevation). The results yielded a higher end bearing value than what is general

recommended by GEC-8. Although we believe these higher values can be supported by the load test it is our opinion

that these higher values should not be consistently counted on for production piles.

TP-2

The measured deflections for TP-2 exceeded the Davisson Offset threshold at just over 150 tons (300 kips). Due to the

amount of pile settlement that occurred we believe that the pile achieved its capacity through skin friction and not from

end bearing. It is our opinion that the ultimate compressive capacity of TP-2 is approximately 150 tons (300 kips).

Using a factor of safety of 2.0 gives an allowable compressive capacity of 75 tons (150 kips). We back calculated the

skin friction values based on the results while taking into consideration the portion of the pile above EL. 474.

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, PLC P .O. Box 1 74 6 | Mid l o th i an , VA 23 11 3 | Phon e 8 04 . 56 1 . 0 98 1 | Fax 8 04 . 56 1 . 18 19 | ww w. seconce p t s p l c . c om

2

Compressive Capacity

Based on the variability of the soft weathered rock we feel that it would be prudent to limit the allowable compressive

capacity to 100 tons. While higher capacities can be achieved it would require that all piles be extended to “refusal”

which may lead to piles with varying depths even for those in the same pile cap. Using an allowable compressive

capacity of 100 tons will make it easier to specify a consistent pile length for each portion of the site. We believe that

using 16” diameter auger cast piles with an allowable capacity of 100 tons will result in a 20-25% reduction in the

overall number of piles compared to the number of 75-ton allowable piles shown on Sheet S2.00a (Design Development

Set 2/7/14). This should result in significant savings for the owner. The pile lengths will vary across the site due to the

differing depths to and thickness of the soft weathered rock and dense weathered rock layers. The piles will generally

range in depth from 35’-40’ when installed from EL. 474. We also want to point out that no probe holes or test piles

were done on the upper (West) portion of the site. A minimum of one test pile should be performed on this portion of

the site to verify the results. This can be done while production piles are being installed on the portion of the site which

was the subject of the probe hole and test pile program.

Uplift Capacity

The uplift capacity of the piles is a result of skin friction. Based on our calculations we believe that the 16” diameter

auger cast piles will provide an allowable uplift capacity of at least 75 tons at the same pile lengths necessary to achieve

the 100 ton allowable compressive capacities.

Lateral Capacity

The lateral capacity of TP-1 and TP-2 were not tested. Performing a lateral load test at these piles would provide little

benefit since the test would be performed at or near existing grades. The proposed production piles would be at or near

EL. 474. Based on our experience with projects having similar soil conditions it is our opinion that allowable lateral

capacities of 3.5-4 tons (7-8 kips) is reasonable for 16” diameter auger cast piles that utilize a steel reinforcing cage for

the top 10’-15’ of each pile. Slightly higher lateral capacities may be able to be accomplished but would likely require

heavier reinforcing steel cages. Once O’Donnel & Naccarato has determined the quantity and placement of the piles

they can then provide the lateral load to be used for the final pile design. Some piles may not need to provide lateral

capacities which would reduce the reinforcing steel requirements of those piles to a single center bar.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely yours,

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, PLC

Jonathan H. Smith, P.E. Project Manager

FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.

Engineering Stability Since 1881

6181 Rockfish Gap Turnpike Crozet, Virginia 22932-3330 I USA T 434.823.5154 I F 434.823.4764

HQ: 3015 DUMBARTON ROAD RICHMOND, VA 23228 USA T 804.264.2701 F 804.264.1202 www.fandr.com

VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA • EASTERN EUROPE

A Minority-Owned Business

F&R Project No. 71R-3010 January 23, 2014 Campus Acquisitions Holdings, LLC 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 4900 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Attention: Mr. Steve Bus Subject: Addendum No. 2 to report of Report of Geotechnical Study University of Virginia Student Housing Charlottesville, Virginia Dear Mr. Bus: This letter is issued as Addendum No. 2 to F&R’s Report of Geotechnical Study for the project stated

above dated November 26, 2013, to provide recommendations regarding the mat foundation

system, as an alternative to the deep foundation system as recommended in F&R’s geotechnical

report. Unless noted otherwise herein, the recommendations given in F&R’s original geotechnical

report are still considered applicable.

Bearing pressure information was provided in an email and telephone correspondence with Michael

Miller, of O'Donnell & Naccarato structural engineering, including the electronically provided “Max

Soil Bearing Pressure Plan” dated 1/15/14. In addition to the subsurface data collected by F&R, we

have reviewed the borings logs developed from a previous exploration of the project site in a report

by Gooch Engineering entitled “Geotechnical Services – Holsinger Sqaure”, dated June 26, 2000. It

should be understood that the analysis provided herein is based on the assumption that the boring

data on the Gooch Engineering boring logs is accurate and was obtained with general adherence to

the industry standards. The Gooch exploration consisted of eleven test borings drilled to depths

ranging from 30 feet to 36 feet below the ground surface, and we have designated these borings as

GB-1 through B-11. The location and surface elevation of each Gooch boring was obtained from the

above mentioned report and should be considered approximate with respect to this addendum.

Based on the bearing pressures provided and the anticipated finished floor level at El 477, we have

calculated settlement estimates at each boring location shown on the attached Boring Location

Plan. The estimated settlements range from approximately 0.5 inches up to 3.8 inches; refer to the

table provided below.

Campus Acquisitions Holdings, LLC UVA Student Housing – Charlottesville, VA 71R-3010 2 January 23, 2014

Boring

No.

Estimated

Settlement

(inches)

Boring

No.

Estimated

Settlement

(inches)

B-1 0.5 GB-1 0.7

B-2 0.7 GB-2 0.7

B-3 0.8 GB-3 1

B-4 0.8 GB-4 0.8

B-5 0.6 GB-5 1

B-6 3.8 GB-6 1

B-7 3 GB-7 3

B-8 1 GB-8 1

B-9 1 GB-9 1

B-10 1.8 GB-10 2.1

B-11 0.9 GB-11 0.7

B-12 0.8

We understand that for the mat foundation to be feasible, settlements should be limited to 1 inch

or less. Based on the above settlement estimates, some degree of ground improvement will be

required for the areas of the site where the anticipated settlements are greater than 1 inch, in

order to proceed with the mat foundation option. The approximate limits of the area where ground

improvement would be needed is indicated on the Boring Location Plan; portions of the site that

fall outside the identified “limits of ground improvement” should not require improvement. Design

and implementation of ground improvement options should be discussed with a specialty

contractor (i.e. Technical Foundations, Hayward-Baker, Subsurface Construction).

We understand, based on our email and telephone correspondence, Pressure Grouting is being

considered as a method of ground improvement for this site. Though this option may improve the

subsurface materials as needed to achieve the required settlement tolerances, we understand that

it is difficult to design a site specific grouting plan because the degree of soil improvement is not

easily quantified without performing some post injection testing (i.e. Dilatometer or Cone

Penetration Testing). Therefore, the amount of grout injections and grout volumes may be difficult

to estimate for a cost benefit analysis prior to construction.

Alternatively, based on our discussions with specialty contractors, we understand that the desired

settlement control can be accomplished with more predictable results by using compacted stone

columns such as “Vibro Piers”. Vibro-Piers consist of a network of compacted stone columns that

are developed from the bottom-up and can extend up to 50 feet below the ground surface. This

network of stone columns along with the soil profile creates a stiffer composite material to provide

FR

OEH

LIN

G &

R

OB

ER

TS

ON

, IN

C

Eng

inee

rin

g S

tab

ility

Sin

ce 1

88

1

618

1 R

ock

fish

Gap

Tu

rnp

ike,

Cro

zet,

VA

22

93

2

T 4

34

.82

3.5

15

4 |

F 4

34

.82

3.4

76

4

Drawing No.

1

Bo

rin

g Lo

cati

on

Pla

n

Clie

nt:

Cam

pu

s A

cqu

isit

ion

s H

old

ings

, LLC

Pro

ject

: Un

ive

rsit

y o

f V

irgi

nia

Stu

den

t H

ou

sin

g

F&R

Pro

ject

No

.: 7

1R

301

0

Dat

e:

Jan

uar

y, 2

014

Sc

ale

: 1

” =

40’

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

B-11

B-12

GB-11

GB-7

GB-9

GB-8

GB-6

GB-5

GB-4

GB-1

GB-2

= Recommended Limits of Ground Improvement

GB-3

GB-10

B-10

400

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

510915

24

34

41

50/5

50/5

50/5

50/3

50/2

50/2

50/1

B-1761512

16

21

15

19

22

50/6

50/5

50/5

50/1

B-2

891012

8

14

26

13

51

51

38

42

50/5

50/3

B-37546

7

9

13

14

25

50/6

50/5

50/3

50/3

50/1

B-4

SUBSURFACE PROFILEProfile Name: 1

Elev

atio

n (f

t)

Plot Based on Elevation

City/State: Charlottesville, VirginiaProject: UVA Student HousingClient: Campus Acquisitions Holdings, LLC

Froehling & Robertson, Inc.

Project No: 71R3010

R

ELEV

_LAN

DSC

APE_

8.5X

11 7

1R-3

010.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

11/

22/1

3

BQuirk

Line

BQuirk

Callout

Anticipated Finished Floor Level at El 477

400

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

30332250/6

61

50/4

50/5

50/4

50/1

50/1

50/1

50/5

50/1

50/4

50/4

50/1

B-5

4454

16

6

6

9

25

18

25

49

31

50/5

B-6 3366

9

13

7

9

33

46

50/5

50/1

50/4

B-7

4559

16

17

25

27

34

50/4

50/5

50/2

B-8


Elev

atio

n (f

t)




Project No: 71R3010

R

ELEV

_LAN

DSC

APE_

8.5X

11 7

1R-3

010.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

11/

22/1

3

BQuirk

Line

BQuirk

Callout


400

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

13434

55

55

50/5

50/3

50/6

50/3

50/2

50/1

50/1

50/1

B-10

127917

53

50/6

50/6

50/6

50/4

50/1

B-11

2181919

34

24

42

56

51

50

50/6

50/5

50/4

50/4

50/6

50/5

B-12

36914

20

48

43

50/5

50/5

50/4

50/2

50/2

50/6

50/1

50/1

50/2

B-9


Elev

atio

n (f

t)




Project No: 71R3010

R

ELEV

_LAN

DSC

APE_

8.5X

11 7

1R-3

010.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

11/

22/1

3

BQuirk

Line

BQuirk

Callout


430

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

14

9

13

17

22

53

50/4

GB-1

9

8

12

11

33

44

60

GB-1015

28

79

100

60

62/3

GB-11

14

12

22

25

34

18

24

GB-2

17

16

12

14

28

20

17

GB-3

12

64

33

22

100

46/2

GB-4

7

9

16

10

31

45

GB-5

6

11

12

16

35

33

GB-6

5

9

10

14

12

13

GB-7

5

10

50

100

100

100

GB-8

3

67

81

100

100/3

100/3

GB-9

SUBSURFACE PROFILEProfile Name: Gooch

Elev

atio

n (f

t)


Project No: 71R3010


Client: Campus Acquisitions Holdings, LLCProject: UVA Student HousingCity/State: Charlottesville, VA

R

ELEV

_LAN

DSC

APE_

11X1

7 U

VA S

TUD

ENT

HO

USI

NG

.GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

1/2

3/14

BQuirk

Line

BQuirk

Callout


FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.

Engineering Stability Since 1881

6181 Rockfish Gap Turnpike Crozet, Virginia 22932-3330 I USA T 434.823.5154 I F 434.823.4764

HQ: 3015 DUMBARTON ROAD RICHMOND, VA 23228 USA T 804.264.2701 F 804.264.1202 www.fandr.com

VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA • EASTERN EUROPE

A Minority-Owned Business

F&R Project No. 71R-3010 November 11, 2014 Campus Acquisitions Holdings, LLC 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 4900 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Attention: Mr. Ryan Boody Subject: Addendum No. 3 to report of Report of Geotechnical Study University of Virginia Student Housing Charlottesville, Virginia Dear Mr. Boody: This letter is issued as Addendum No. 3 to F&R’s Report of Geotechnical Study for the project

indicated above dated November 26, 2013, to provide updated recommendations regarding the

project’s foundation system, for we understand the building has been redesigned since our last

addendum. Unless noted otherwise herein, the recommendations given in F&R’s original

geotechnical report are still considered applicable.

The latest grading and building information was provided in an email correspondence with Mr.

Mark Miller, RA, including the electronically provided floor plans and building elevations by

emArchitecture, dated 10/30/14. Preliminary loading information was also provided in an email by

James W. Behler, PE, SECB, of O'Donnell & Naccarato, on 11/4/14. Column loads for western and

eastern portions of the proposed building will be up to 400 kips and 600 kips, respectively. We

understand that in order to reduce the amount of shoring needed for the project, the western

portion of the building will no longer consist of a basement, but rather provide at-grade parking at

El 498.75. The eastern portion will still consist of two levels of below grade parking with the P1

level at El 479.

We do not recommend the implementation of a mat foundation system due to the newly proposed

tiered configuration of the building. A deep foundation system consisting of auger cast piles with a

120 ton allowable compression capacity is still considered feasible, but we anticipate piles would be

required throughout the entire building footprint due to differential settlement concerns.

However, based on the loads and grading plan provided, we note the proposed structure may also

be supported by a shallow foundation system bearing on a combination of firm residual soils and

improved subgrades (stone columns).

Campus Acquisitions Holdings, LLC UVA Student Housing – Charlottesville, VA 71R-3010 2 November 11, 2014

We recommend that shallow foundations be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure not to

exceed 5,000 pounds per square feet (psf). To reduce the possibility of localized shear failures,

column and wall footings should be a minimum of 3 feet and 2 feet wide, respectively. We

recommend that all exterior footings be placed a minimum of 2 feet below finished exterior grades,

which should also be adequate to protect exterior footings against the effects of frost.

Settlement estimates using the provided preliminary loading information indicate that some degree

of ground improvement will be required for the areas of the site where the anticipated settlements

are greater than 1 inch, in order to proceed with the spread footings. The approximate limits of the

area where ground improvement would be needed below foundations is outlined on the Boring

Location Plan; portions of the site that fall outside the identified “limits of ground improvement”

should not require improvement.

Based on the subsurface data, the proposed lowest floor levels, and the structural loads, we

recommend that the ground improvement consist of stone columns. Stone columns are typically

constructed in groups under the wall and column footings to create a stiffer composite material and

control settlements to tolerable levels. Stone columns are proprietary systems which are designed

and constructed by specialty contractors using specialized drilling and tamping equipment. Due to

the relatively high groundwater levels recorded at the site, we recommend stone columns be

installed by bottom feed methods. Stone columns can also be installed using open hole drilling

techniques, but this method is generally not practical for sites with high groundwater levels. The

size, depth, and spacing of the stone columns is part of the design by the specialty contractor,

however, it is typical that the columns extend to depths of 10 to 30 feet below the bottom of

footing (depths of up to 50 feet are possible). Once the stone columns are installed, conventional

shallow foundations, as described above, can then be constructed.

Because the stone columns achieve much of their benefit by increasing the lateral confinement

within the surrounding soil matrix, excavations around stone columns after they are constructed

can be problematic. The stone column designer should provide more specific restrictions with

respect to excavating near the columns. This should be considered by the construction team when

planning the sequencing of the various aspects of the project such as the basement, underground

utilities, etc. In particular, we have found that in many cases where the structure has a partial

basement, that a second mobilization is required for the installation of either the deep foundation

option (i.e. auger cast piles or the stone columns) within the western portion of the building which

will be at grade. We do not recommend installation of either system prior to excavation and

construction the proposed north-south trending basement wall because of undermining

considerations.

FR

OEH

LIN

G &

R

OB

ER

TS

ON

, IN

C

Eng

inee

rin

g S

tab

ility

Sin

ce 1

88

1

618

1 R

ock

fish

Gap

Tu

rnp

ike,

Cro

zet,

VA

22

93

2

T 4

34

.82

3.5

15

4 |

F 4

34

.82

3.4

76

4

Drawing No.

1

Bo

rin

g Lo

cati

on

Pla

n

Clie

nt:

Cam

pu

s A

cqu

isit

ion

s H

old

ings

, LLC

Pro

ject

: Un

ive

rsit

y o

f V

irgi

nia

Stu

den

t H

ou

sin

g

F&R

Pro

ject

No

.: 7

1R

301

0

Dat

e:

No

vem

ber

, 20

14

Scal

e:

1”

= 4

0’

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

B-11

B-12

GB-11

GB-7

GB-9

GB-8

GB-6

GB-5

GB-4

GB-1

GB-2

= Recommended Limits of Ground Improvement

GB-3

GB-10

B-10

400

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

510915

24

34

41

50/5

50/5

50/5

50/3

50/2

50/2

50/1

B-1761512

16

21

15

19

22

50/6

50/5

50/5

50/1

B-2

891012

8

14

26

13

51

51

38

42

50/5

50/3

B-37546

7

9

13

14

25

50/6

50/5

50/3

50/3

50/1

B-4


Elev

atio

n (f

t)




Project No: 71R3010

R

ELEV

_LAN

DSC

APE_

8.5X

11 7

1R-3

010.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

11/

22/1

3

BQuirk

Line

BQuirk

Callout

Anticipated Finished Floor Level at El 498.75

400

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

30332250/6

61

50/4

50/5

50/4

50/1

50/1

50/1

50/5

50/1

50/4

50/4

50/1

B-5

4454

16

6

6

9

25

18

25

49

31

50/5

B-6 3366

9

13

7

9

33

46

50/5

50/1

50/4

B-7

4559

16

17

25

27

34

50/4

50/5

50/2

B-8


Elev

atio

n (f

t)




Project No: 71R3010

R

ELEV

_LAN

DSC

APE_

8.5X

11 7

1R-3

010.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

11/

22/1

3

BQuirk

Line

BQuirk

Callout


400

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

13434

55

55

50/5

50/3

50/6

50/3

50/2

50/1

50/1

50/1

B-10

127917

53

50/6

50/6

50/6

50/4

50/1

B-11

2181919

34

24

42

56

51

50

50/6

50/5

50/4

50/4

50/6

50/5

B-12

36914

20

48

43

50/5

50/5

50/4

50/2

50/2

50/6

50/1

50/1

50/2

B-9


Elev

atio

n (f

t)




Project No: 71R3010

R

ELEV

_LAN

DSC

APE_

8.5X

11 7

1R-3

010.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

11/

22/1

3

BQuirk

Line

BQuirk

Callout


430

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

14

9

13

17

22

53

50/4

GB-1

9

8

12

11

33

44

60

GB-1015

28

79

100

60

62/3

GB-11

14

12

22

25

34

18

24

GB-2

17

16

12

14

28

20

17

GB-3

12

64

33

22

100

46/2

GB-4

7

9

16

10

31

45

GB-5

6

11

12

16

35

33

GB-6

5

9

10

14

12

13

GB-7

5

10

50

100

100

100

GB-8

3

67

81

100

100/3

100/3

GB-9

SUBSURFACE PROFILEProfile Name: Gooch

Elev

atio

n (f

t)


Project No: 71R3010


Client: Campus Acquisitions Holdings, LLCProject: UVA Student HousingCity/State: Charlottesville, VA

R

ELEV

_LAN

DSC

APE_

11X1

7 U

VA S

TUD

ENT

HO

USI

NG

.GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

1/2

3/14

BQuirk

Line

BQuirk

Callout


STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, PLC · structural engineering concepts, plc Miller, of O'Donnell &...

Documents

Transcript of STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, PLC · structural engineering concepts, plc Miller, of O'Donnell &...