Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />.,' .' <br /> <br />Due to the reactions per our current analysis <br />being less than those originally designed for, <br />inner anchors are considered to be adequate. <br /> <br />Please note, this consideration is accurate <br />providing foundations and anchor shafts were <br />properly designed per the site specific soils. <br />See comments. <br /> <br />~ AnC: Actual vertical uplift load of 22.45 Kips and an <br />actual horizontal load of 24.32 Kips per our <br />analysis. Per the original reactions furnished to <br />Subterranean Engineering, Inc. by Unarco-Rohn, the <br />middle anchors were design for an uplift load of <br />22.40 kips and a horizontal load of 23.30 kips. <br /> <br />Due to the lack of information regarding the <br />existing anchor shaft, EEl cannot comment on nor <br />account for the capacity of the existing anchor <br />shaft to develop reactions per our current <br />analysis. <br /> <br />As previously outlined, the reactions per our <br />current analysis are slightly greater than those <br />originally designed for. EEl cannot comment on <br />nor account for the existing soils to develop <br />these increased reactions. We suggest these reac- <br />tions are forwarded to subterranean Engineering, <br />Inc. to review the middle anchor design to deter- <br />mine if soils are adequate. Modifications may be <br />required. ' <br /> <br />Out ~ <br /> <br />Actual vertical uplift load of 69.75 Kips and an <br />ac~ual horizontal load of 64.86 Kips per our <br />analysis. Per the, original reactions furnished to <br />Subterranean Engineering, Inc. by Dnarco-Rohn, the <br />outer anchors were design for an uplift load of <br />61.50 kips and a horizontal load of 52.10 kips.' <br /> <br />Due to the lack of information regarding the <br />existing anchor shaft, EEl cannot comment on nor <br />account for the capacity of the existing anchor <br />shaft to develop reactions per our current <br />analysis. <br /> <br />As previously outlined, the reactions per our <br />current analysis are greater than those originally <br />'-aeslgnea Tor.~-EEI~ca-nnot 'comm-ent on nor account <br />for the existing soils to develop these increased <br />reactions. We suggest these reactions are for- <br /> <br />4 <br />