HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 14-13; HIRSCHKOFF RESIDENCE; GEOTECHNICAL REPORT; 2014-08-25C"17i7
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
(OIOCA CP1II. lUCJIA CUtTVIb
S PIESiffITIML & OSPIA. 1FJC II
. .. .
III I . I
I
.
1 ,
AUG 07 2015
2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos. California 92069 (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760)
.. ENGINEERING
Date: August 25, 2014
To: Joel Hirschkoff
1483 Coral Way
San Marcos, CA 92078
Re: Proposed new Hirschkoff Residence to be located at Jefferson Street, APN 155-180-28, Carlsbad,
California
Subject: Addendum No. 1 - Geotechnical Report
Ref: CDP 14-13, CDP 14-14
Limited Geotechnical Investigation & Report, prepared for Hirschkoff Residence, prepared by
Engineering Design Group, dated June 19, 2013, redlined by City of Carlsbad.
Preliminary Grading plan, prepared by Sampo Engineering, dated 4-30-14.
Redline Comments from City of Carlsbad on Copy of Ref. No. 1.
In accordance with the comments from the City of Carlsbad we have provided the following addendum to our
geotechnical report for new Hirschkoff Residence.
Addendum to 7.2.5 Slopes
Areas of existing steep and oversteepened slopes front the west portion of the building pad. Based upon our onsite
observation and measurements of recent topography oversteepened slopes on the order of 1.5:1 and localized areas
on the order of 1:1 and steeper than 1:1 exist along the rear slope. Beyond the toe of the existing rear (west) slope
there is a relatively flat bench before the topography descends again to the lagoon edge below.
Areas of oversteepened slopes are anticipated to retreat over time. It is very difficult to predict the future and the
magnitude of hillside edge retreat that may occur in one year, during one storm event or over the 75-year assumed
economic lifetimeof the new construction. The rate of hillside retreat over a particular interval of time (day, year,
decade, etc.) may vary from very little to several tenths of a foot. However, severe erosion is generally episodic in
nature and is dependent on the intensity of storms and combined high tides (or humans' detrimental actions). It is
probable that several feet of hillside edge retreat could occur at one time or over a short period of time. However, it
is also likely that there will be periods in the future when erosion along the coast and hillside edge is rather insignificant
and undetectable. Erosion is a naturally-occurring process that is affected by human actions and with time the hillside
edge will retreat landward. In general the role of seismic shaking plays in bluff retreat is dependent on bluff conditions
at the moment of shaking. During a seismic event localized slope instability and localized failure should be anticipated.
HIRSCHKOFF RESIDENCE
155-180-28, Jefferson Street, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 1
Job No. 135198-1
Additional Recommendations - Erosion and Surface Drainage
Based on our review of the current preliminary grading plan the proposed new residence will generally be set back on
the order of 10-20 feet from the grade break from the building pad to the top of the steep descending slope. The
preliminary grading plan identifies site storm water components consisting of areas of bioretention, permeable payers,
planters and general landscape areas. We make the following recommendations in consideration of onsite stormwater
details:
We note that the ground surface surrounding the proposed new structure is not impervious but detailed with
planters and permeable payers. In consideration of the subterranean living space directly adjacent to areas
detailed with pervious areas a waterproofing membrane beneath the slab on grade floors is recommended. Slab
underdrains may be necessary as recommended by the waterproofing consultant, architect or if groundwater
conditions occur.
Special attention should be paid to the building waterproof systems, as the building waterproofing will play a
critical role in the performance of the proposed structure. As a general reminder retaining wall backdrains shall
not be tied to surface area drains.
Caisson foundations should be anticipated to be deepened on the order of 10 feet, specifically determined by the
structural engineer, along the rear of the residence in consideration of proposed conditions.
The ground surface shall slope away from the subject residence at a minimum of 2% for 5 feet, including pervious
payers and planters.
0 5. All isolated planters shall be detailed with storm drains tied to the private storm drain system.
Runoff should not be allowed to flow over the top of slope. Earthen berms / swales should be detailed along the
top of slope to accommodate runoff into the proposed private storm drain.
Irrigation of the landscape areas on the property should be curtailed on the rear slope below the grade break
(approximate elevation of 61). Irrigation of the building pad should be limited to the minimum amount required
to establish vegetation and sustain plant life and should be composed of drip irrigation.
We understand vegetation may require thinning for the purposes of fire suppression. All work done as part of the
thinning of slope vegetation shall not be done with heavy equipment beyond the steep slope grade break line.
The face of the slope consists of very loose, dry sands. Pedestrian traffic on the steep slope face should in general
not be allowed since pedestrian and animal traffic increases erosion. For the purposes of thinning for fire
suppression, anticipated to happen maximum once annually, limited foot traffic can be accommodated. In general
foot traffic should be limited to 1-2 people at a time and spread out along the slope face. Areas of thinning should
not include the removal of vegetation root systems and the disturbance of the soil. Walking along the areas of
oversteepened slope, steeperthan 1.5:1, concentrated on the west portion of the rearslope, is highly discouraged.
It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information in this report be incorporated
into the plans and/or specifications and construction of the project. It is advisable that a contractor familiar with
HIRSCHKOFF RESIDENCE Page No. 2
155-180-28, Jefferson Street, California Job No. 135198-1 . ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
construction details typically used to deal with the local subsoil and seismic conditions, be retained to build the
structure.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us.
We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue with the development of the project.
Respectfully Submitted,
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
LU I1 (fYAN
GE 2590 to
C.
Steven Norris
California GE #2590
Erin E. Rist
California RCE #65122
HIRSCHKOFF RESIDENCE
155-180-28, Jefferson Street, California . ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 3
Job No. 135198-1
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP . CtP41
U IL IIIA.L 1 I4LRCII LO 1111
2121 Montiel Road San Marcos California 92069 60) 839Jj Fax (760) 480-7477 www.designgroupca.com
LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION
NEW HIRSCHKOFF RESIDENCE TO BE LOCATED AT
JEFFERSON STREET (APN 155-180-28),
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
EDG Project No. 135198-1
June 19, 2013
PREPARED FOR:
Joel Hirschkoff
1483 Coral Way
San Marcos, CA 92078
ENGINEERING
E DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHKAL CAVIL. CTRUC100AIA AMAHITECIURAL C0000LIAHI5
FOR RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL COOSIROCOOU
2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 (760) 839-7302 Fax:, (760) 480-7477 www.designgroupca.com
Date: June 19, 2013
To: Joel Hirschkoff
1483 Coral Way
San Marcos, CA 92078
Re: Proposed New Residence to be located at Jefferson Street (APN 155-180-28), Carlsbad, California
Subject: Limited Geotechnical Investigation & Report
In accordance with your request and our Work Authorization and Agreement, we have prepared this geotechnical
report for the proposed new residence development.
The findings of the investigation, earthwork recommendations and foundation design parameters are presented in this
report. In general it is our opinion the proposed construction, as described herein, is feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and generally accepted construction practices are followed.
If you have any questions regarding the following report please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
)
Erin E. Rist
California RCE #65122
OFESSIO*
4,
No. r.5i22
Exp. 09/30/2013
OF C 01
Steven Norris
California GE#2590
S
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ISCOPE ......................................................................................1
2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................I
3 FIELD INVESTIGATION..........................................................................1
4 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS .........................................................................1
5 GROUND WATER ......... ..................................................................... 2
6 LIQUEFACTION................................................................................2
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................2
7.1 GENERAL.................................................................................2
7.2 EARTHWORK.............................................................................3
7.3 FOUNDATIONS ............................................................................ 4
7.4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE................................................................7
7.5 RETAINING WALLS.........................................................................8
7.6 SURFACE DRAINAGE......................................................................10
8 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING.....................................................10
S 9 MISCELLANEOUS ............................................................................. 11
FIGURES
Site Vicinity Map ......................................................................... Figure No. 1
Site Location Map ........................................................................ Figure No. 2
Approximate Location of Borings ........................................................... Figure No. 3
BoringLogs..........................................................................Boring Logs 1-2
APPENDICES
References..............................................................................Appendix A
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications................................................Appendix B
Laboratory Testing Procedures.............................................................Appendix C
Retaining Wall Drainage Detail ..............................................................Appendix D
fl
1 SCOPE
This report gives our recommendations for the proposed new residence to be located at Jefferson Street (APN 155-
180-28), Carlsbad, Encinitas, California. (See Figure No. 1, "Site Vicinity Map, and Figure No. 2, Site Location Map).
The scope of our work conducted onsite to date has included a visual reconnaissance of the property and surrounding
areas, a limited subsurface investigation of the subject property, review of reports by others and preparation of this
report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations.
2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
For the purposes of this report the property is assumed to face south. The subject property is irregularly shaped
lot located at Jefferson Street (APN 155-180-28), Carlsbad, California. The property is bordered to the west by
single family residence, to the east by a descending slope to the Interstate 5 freeway, to the north and northwest
by bluff terrain features and to the south by Jefferson Drive. The general topography of the site area consists of
coastal foothill terrain. The site consists of a grade flat building pad flanked to the west and north by bluff terrain
and the lagoon below.
Based upon our conversations with the project owner we understand the development will consist of a new single
family residence constructed within the approximate limits of the existing building pad. At the time of this report a
specific site plan and elevations were not available for our review.
3 FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our field investigation of the property consisted of a site reconnaissance, site field measurements, observation of
existing conditions on-site and on adjacent sites, and a limited subsurface investigation of soil conditions. Our
subsurface investigation consisted of visual observation of two small diameter borings, in the general areas of proposed
construction, logging of soil types encountered, and sampling of soils for laboratory testing. The locations of our small
diameter borings are given in Figure No. 3, "Boring Location Map".
4 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Based upon our subsurface investigation of the property the site soil profiles and soil types are described in general
as follows:
Fill/Topsoil/Weathered:
Fill, topsoil and weathered soil profiles consisting of slightly silty sands. These profiles extend to depths
between approximately 1-6/8 feet below adjacent grade. The materials consist of reddish brown, dry to
slightly moist, loose to medium dense, silty sands. Topsoil, fill materials are not considered suitable for the
support of structures in their present state. Slightly silty sands classify as SW-SM according to the Unified
Classification System, and based on visual observation generally possess potentials for expansion in the low
range.
Hirschkoff Residence Page No. 1
Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 135198-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Sandstone:
Sandstone materials were found to underlie the topsoil and weathered material within our boring
excavations. These materials consisted of reddish brown to grey, moist, dense to very dense, slightly silty to
silty sandstone. Sandstone materials are considered suitable for the support of structures and structural
improvements, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Sandstone materials classify
as SW-ML according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation and our experience
possess potentials for expansion in the low to medium range.
5 GROUNDWATER
Ground water was not encountered as part of our subsurface investigation. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a
significant concern to the project provided the recommendations of this report are followed. However, in our
experience groundwater conditions can develop where no such condition previously existed. If groundwater
conditions are encountered during site excavations, slab underdrain systems may be required.
Proper surface drainage and irrigation practices will play a significant role in the future performance of the project.
Please note in the "Concrete Slab on Grade" section of this report for specific recommendations regarding water to
cement ratio for moisture sensitive areas should be adhered. The project architect and/or waterproofing
consultant shall specifically address waterproofing details. . 6 LIQUEFACTION
It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major
earthquake along any of the faults in the Southern California region. However, the seismic risk at this site is not
significantly greater than that of the surrounding developed area.
Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and
historical data indicate that loose, granular soils underlain by a near-surface ground water table are most
susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by vibratory
motion. Because of the dense nature of the soil materials underlying the site and the lack of near surface water,
the potential for liquefaction or seismically-induced dynamic settlement at the site is considered low. The
effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and
current design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California.
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 GENERAL
At the time of this report a proposed site plan and building elevations were not available for our review. In general
it is our opinion the proposed construction, as described herein, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint,
provided the recommendations of this report are followed.
Hirschkoff Residence Page No. 2
Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 135198-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTEC1-INICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Our review of past reports and attached topographic figures seem to indicate the site has been graded since the
preparation of the original preliminary geotechnical report (Ref. 4, Appendix A). Based upon our visual observation
of site-conditions it also appears the very steep topography identified in the original report presently extends
further east then indicated in the figures of the report. We recommend prior to finalization of foundation design
the current site topography be re-shot.
7.2 EARTHWORK
During our subsurface investigation we encountered undocumented fills and weathered profiles to approximately
1-6 feet below existing grade. Depending on the final configuration of the building footprint limited removal of
weathered and undocumented fill profiles and recompaction of fill materials can be anticipated in the area of new
building foundations. Where grading does occur it should be conducted in accordance with the recommendations
below as well as Appendix B of this report, as applicable.
7.2.1 Site Preparation
Prior to any grading, the areas of proposed improvement should be cleared of surface and subsurface
debris (including organic topsoil and vegetative debris). Removed debris should be properly disposed of
off-site prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes resulting from the removal of debris,
existing structures, or other improvements which extend below the undercut depths noted, should be
filled and compacted using onsite material or an import material with a very low potential for expansion.
7.2.2 Removals
Fill and weathered profiles found to mantle the site in our Boring excavations, upper approximately 1-6
feet as observed in the field, are not suitable for the structural support of buildings or structural
improvements in their present state. We recommend a removal and recompaction in the areas of
proposed slab on grade floors. In general grading should consist of the removal of unsuitable soil and
scarification of subgrade to a minimum depth of 12 inches and the re-compaction of fill materials to 90
percent minimum relative compaction. In the area of driveways the upper 18 inches below adjacent
grade shall be removed, scarification of subgrade and fill soils, and recompacted, as described herein and
determined in the field by a representative of Engineering Design Group. Excavated fill materials are
suitable for re-use as fill material during grading provided they are cleaned of debris and oversize material
in excess of 6 inches in diameter (oversized material is not anticipated to be of significant concern) and are
free of contamination.
7.2.3 Transitions
To limit transitional movement all fill soils shall be recompacted to 90% relative compaction. Removals
and undercuts may be necessary and should extend a minimum of 5 feet (or to a distance at least equal to
depth of fill removals, whichever is greater) beyond the footprint of the proposed structures and
settlement sensitive improvements. Where this condition cannot be met it should be reviewed by the
Engineering Design Group on a case by case basis. Removal depths should be visually verified by a
representative of our firm prior to the placement of fill.
7.2.4 Fills
Hirschkoff Residence Page No. 3
Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 135198-1
* -
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECNNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
W All fill in the area of removal and recompaction should be brought to +2% of optimum moisture content and
re-compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557). Excavated sandy materials
are suitable for re-use as fill material during fill operations, provided they are cleaned of debris and oversize
material in excess of 6 inches in diameter (oversized material is not anticipated to be of significant concern)
and are free of contamination.
Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 6-8 inches in thickness. lithe import of soil is planned,
soils should have a low potential for expansion (Ek50), free of debris and organic matter. Prior to importing
soils should be visually observed, sampled and tested at the borrow pit area to evaluate soilsuitability as fill.
Where new foundations extend across a retaining wall backfill wedge, footings shall be deepened through fill
to competent sandstone or backfillshall be compactd to 95% relative compaction, as described above.
Where new fills are placed with the upper hoot of the public right of way compaction shall be per the City's
requirements.
7.2.5 Slopes
Permanent slopes may be cut to a face ratio of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Permanent fill slopes shall be
placed at a maximum 2:1 slope face ratio. All temporary cut slopes shall be excavated in accordance with
OSHA requirements and shall not undermine adjacent property or structures without proper shoring.
Subsequent to grading, planting or other acceptable cover should be provided to increase the stability of,
slopes, especially during the rainy season (October thru April).
7.3 FOUNDATIONS
The final configuration of proposed building footprint and site foundations were not available for our review at the
time of this report. Depending on the final configuratioh and the as-built site topography deep foundations may
be necessary. The following design parameters may be utilized for new foundations founded on competent
.
,
material. -.
- -
7.3.1 Footings bearing in competent sandstone material or compacted fill material may be designed
utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf.
7.3.2 - Seismic Design Parameters
Site Class . D
Spectral Response Coefficients
S (g) 1.300
M1 (g) 0.739
DS (g) 0.866
(g) ------------0.493 -
Hirschkoff Residence
Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECI-INICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
- Page No. 4-
Job No. 135198-1
- •1
I.. .... . .... 4.
'
4 .
£
7.3.3 . Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other-short duration -
loadings.
: -
7.3.4 Shallow Foundations
S •• .. .-'-- ..
7.3.4.1 The parameters in the table below should be used as a minimum for designing new ihallow
- foundations Footing depths to be confirmed in the field by a representative of Engineering Design
Group prior to the placement of form boards, steel and removal of excavation equipment. .
5t•
No. of Floors Minimum Footing Width .*Minimum Footing Depth
Supported Below Lowest Adjacent Grade`
1 15 inches 18. inches
2 15 inches. 181nches
3 18 inches 24 inches
.4
. . .,.
7.3.4.2 All footings founded into competent sandstone or recompacted fill should be reinforced with a
minimum of two #4 bars at the top and two #4 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). For
- footings over 30 inches in depth, additional reinforcement, and possibly a stemwall system will be
necessary, and should be reviewed by project structural engineer prior to construction.
7.3.4.3 All isolated spread footingi should be designed utilizing the above given bearing values and footing
depths, and be reinforced with a minimum of #4 bars at 12 inches o.c. in each direction (3 inches
above the ground). Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width and depth of 24 inches.
• 7.3.5 Deep Foundations:
7.3.5.1 Caissons should extend -a minimum of 7 feet into competent competent materials beyond the point
of fixity, (anticipated to be a maximum of app'bximatély 1 ft. below competent contact.). Skiri
friction values provided herein are to be used only for that portion of the caisson which lies below
the point of fixity. Caisson embedment into competent material should be verified by a ,
representative of this office prior to placing reinforcement or concrete.
7.3;5.2 Caissons should be designed based on an allàwable skin friction value of 400 psf -.adhesion
(neglecting caisson wight) for that portion of caissoi lying below the point of fixity, to a maximum
- bearing capacity of 45 kip per caisson (see note 1). Designs with proposed vertical bearing jreater '.
than 45 kip (omitting caisson wt.) shall be reviewed on a case by case basis. With skin friction design
(only), the bottom of caisson excavation shall be cleaned utilizing driller cleaning bucket. Cleanliness
of caisson excavations are to be inspected prior to placement of steel. •. .
. 7.3.5.3 For the purposes of lateral design, a passive pressure of 300 psf and coefficient of fiction of 0.33 may
be utililed for grade beam systems embedded in competent materials. .
7.3.5.4 Caissons shall not be out of plumb by more than 2% of their total length. -. . .
.4 7.'3.5.5 Caissons excavations should be cleaned of all loose soil debris subsequent to excavation and prior to
Hirschkoff Residence • , . . . . . Page No. S
Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California , '. Job No. 135198-1
.4
-. .- ,... .-.
ENGINEERING DESIGN- GROUP . .
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
S . '' . , . S •
the placement of reinforcing steel. The contractor should utilize a clean out bucket to reove loose
debris in the bottom of the excavations. Caissons excavations should then be visually observed by -
our representative in order to verify depth of embedment and cleanliness of the excavation bottom.
7.3.5.6 Caissons should be designed with a minimUm diameter of 16 inches and be reinforced in accordance
with the recommendations of the structural engineer.
7.3.5.7 Piers may be designed with an arching effect of three (3) pier diameters total.
7.3.5.8 Caissons may be designed using a passive earth pressure, of equivalent fluid weight, of 300 pounds
per cubic foot for below point of fixity.
7.3.5.9 Summary of design values:
.-.
Minimum Diameter 16 inches
Minimum Embedment 7 feet below point of fixity
Lateral Load See Above
Allowable Skin Friction 400 psf
Adhesion
Allowable Passive 300 psI
Pressure
Maximum Caisson 10 feet
Spacing
Point of ciitv 1 ft below contact with romnetent
Imaterial
7.3.6 For footings adjacent to slopes a minimum horizontal setback of 12 feet in competent sandstone
material or properly compacted fill should be maintained. In addition a 1.5:1 setback projected from
the base of the bluff feature to the footing shall be maintained. Setba'ck measurements should be
taken as the distance from the bottom of the footing to slope daylight. Where this condition can not
be met it should be brought to the attention of the Engineering Design Group for review.
7.3.7 All excavations should be performed in general accordance with the contents of this report,
applicable codes, OSHA requirements and applicable city and/or county standards.
7.3.8 All foundation subgrade soils and footings shall be pre-moistened to 2% over optimum to a
minimum of 18 inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete.
Hirschkoff Residence . Page No. 6
Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 135198-1
- . ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECI-INICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
0 7.4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE
All new concrete slab on grade floors should use the following as the minimum design parameters.
7.4.1 Concrete slabs on grade of the building and driveway should have a minimum thickness of 5
inches and should be reinforced with #4 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the midpoint of the slab.
Slump: Between 3 and 4 inches maximum
Aggregate Size: 3/4 - 1 inch
Non-Moisture Sensitive Areas: Compressive Strength = 2,500 psi minimum.
Moisture Sensitive Areas and Deep Foundation: Water to cement Ratio -0.45 maximum
Compressive Strength z 4,500 psi minimum (No special inspection required for water to
cement ratio purposes, unless otherwise specified by the structural engineer)
Moisture retarding additive in concrete at concrete slab on grade floors and moisture
sensitive areas.
7.4.2 In moisture sensitive areas, the slab concrete should have a minimum water to cement (w/c)
ratio of 0.45, generally resulting in a compressive strength of approximately 4,500 psi (No special
inspection required for water to cement ratio purposes, unless otherwise specified by the
structural engineer) as determined by the w/c ratio. This recommendation is intended to achieve
a low permeability concrete.
7.4.3 All required fills used to support slabs, should be placed in accordance with the grading section of
this report and the attached Appendix B, and compacted to 90 percent Modified Proctor Density,
ASTM D-1557, and as described in the Earthwork section of this report.
7.4.4 A one inch layer of coarse sand material, Sand Equivalent (S.E.) greater than 50 and washed clean
of fine materials, should be placed beneath the slab in moisture sensitive areas, above the vapor
barrier. There shall be not greater than a 1/2 inch difference across the sand layer.
7.4.5 In moisture sensitive areas, a vapor barrier layer (15 mil) should be placed below the upper one
inch of sand. The vapor barrier shall meet the following minimum requirements:
Permeance of less than 0.01 perm [grains/(ft' hr in/Hg)] as tested in accordance with ASTM
E 1745 Section 7.1.
Strength per ASTM 1745 Class A.
The vapor barrier should extend down the interior edge of the footing excavation a
minimum of 6 inches. The vapor barrier should lap a minimum of 8 inches, sealed along all
laps with the manufacturer's recommended adhesive. Beneath the vapor barrier a uniform
layer of 3 inches of pea gravel is recommended under the slab in order to more uniformly
support the slab, help distribute loads to the soils beneath the slab, and act as a capillary
break.
7.4.6 Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of concrete that
takes place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing. The control joints should be
well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by the designer.
7.4.7 All subgrade soils to receive concrete flatwork are to be pre-soaked to 2 percent over optimum
Hirschkoff Residence Page No. 7
Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 135198-1
is ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
\
5 moisture content to a depth of 18 inches.
7.4.8 Exterior concrete flatwork and driveway slabs, due to the nature of concrete hydration and
minor subgrade soil movement, are subject to normal minor concrete cracking. To minimize
expected concrete cracking, the following may be implemented:
Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches.
Concrete should be poured during "cool" (40 - 65 degrees) weather if possible. If concrete
is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding additive should be included in the mix, and the
slump kept to a minimum. -
Concrete subgrade should be pre-soaked prior to the pouring of concrete. The level of pre-
soaking should be a minimum of 2% over optimum moisture to a depth of 18 inches.
Concrete may be poured with a 10 inch deep thickened edge. Flatwork adjacent to top of a
slope should be constructed with a outside footing to attain a minimum of 7 feet distance
to daylight.
Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints or sawcuts (1 inch deep) creating
concrete sections no larger than 225 square feet. For sidewalks, the maximum run
between joints should not exceed 5 feet. For rectangular shapes of concrete, the ratio of
length to width should generally not exceed 0.6 (i.e., 5 ft. long by 3 ft. wide). Joints should
be cut at expected points of concrete shrinkage (such as male corners), with diagonal
reinforcement placed in accordance with industry standards.
Isolation joints should be installed at exterior concrete where
Drainage adjacent to concrete flatwork should direct water away from the improvement.
Concrete subgrade should be sloped and directed to the collective drainage system, such
that water is not trapped below the flatwork.
The recommendations set forth herein are intended to reduce cosmetic nuisance cracking.
S The project concrete contractor is ultimately responsible for concrete quality and
performance, and should pursue a cost-benefit analysis of these recommendations, and
other options available in the industry, prior to the pouring of concrete.
7.5 RETAINING WALLS
Building retaining walls are not anticipated for the proposed construction. Site retaining walls up to 6 feet may be
designed and constructed in accordance with the following recommendations and minimum design parameters:
7.5.1 Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the allowable bearing criteria given in
the "Foundations section of this report, and should maintain minimum footing depths outlined in
"Foundations" section of this report. It is anticipated that all retaining wall footings will be placed on
competent sandstone material. Where cut-fill transitions may occur footings may be deepened to
competent material and alternative detailing may be provided by the Engineering Design Group on a
case by case basis.
7.5.2 In moisture sensitive areas (i.e. interior living space where vapor emission is a concern), we
recommend any building retaining walls be designed as poured in place concrete in lieu of masonry.
Hirschkoff Residence
Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California
0 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 8
Job No. 135198-1
4. V... ..
7.5.3 Unrestrained antilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid pressure of
35 pf.. This assumes that granular, free draining material with low potential for expansion (E.I. <50)
will be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. Where soil with potential for
expansion is not low (E.l. >50) a new active fluid pressure will be provided by the project soils'
engineer. Backfill materials should be considered prior to the design of the retaining walls to ensure
accurate detailing. We anticipate onsite material will be utilized as retaining wall backfill.' For sloping
backfill, the following parameters may be utilizd:
Backfil/Sloping Condition 2:1 Slope 15:19ope:
Active- Fluid Presure 50 pcf. 65 pcf
V.
Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition to the above values.
V '. .• 4
7.5.4 If the tops of retaiiing walls are restrained from movement, they should be designed for an unifrm
at-rest soil pressure of 65 psf.
V 7.5.5 V Retaining walls shall be designed for additional lateral forces due to earthquake, where required by
code, utilizinj the following design parameters.,
V
-
- . - V - •V• •V - V
Yielding Walls = E= (3/8) kAE (y) H2 - applied at a distance of 0.6 times the height (H) of the wall
V
.
-
above the base
-
V Horizontal ground acceleration value kH = 0.25g.'
Where non yielding retaining walls are proposed the specific conditions should be brought to
V V
V -
V
- the attention of Engineering Design Group fOr alternative design values.
The above design parameters assume unsaturated conditions. Retaining wall designs for sites V
S
.
V with a hydrostatic pressure influence (i.e groundwater within depth of retaining wall or
waterfront conditions) will require special design considerations and should be brought to the
V V V
V
V attention of Engineering Design Group. V
V V
V
V 7.5.6 Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf. This value "
assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures, extends horizontally 2.5 times the V
height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil Where the horizontal distance of the available
V passive pressure wedge is less than 2.5 times the heightof the soil, the passive pressure value must -
be reduced by the percent reduction in available horizontal length. V V V
V
V
7.5.7
V
V V V • V,
V
•
A coefficient Of friction* Of 0.33 betweeh the soil and concrete fOotings may be utilized to resist lateral V
Ioads in addition to the passive earth pressures above 4
V V
7.5.8
- V -, V• V. •V .VV 4 4 V
Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction. If this cannot be accomplished,
the compactive effort should be included as a surcharge load when designing the wall
7.5.9 All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic pressure, and be V
V
designed in accordance with the minimum standards contained in the Retaining Wall Drainage
4 V Detail, Appendix D. The waterproofing elemints shown n our details are minimums, and are
V
- - . intended to be supplemented by the waterproofing consultant and/or architect. The
. recommendations should be reviewed in consideration of prposed finishes and usage, especially at
V Hirschkoff Residence V •V•
V
V Page No. 9,
Jefferson Street, carlsbad,california V V - Job No. 135198V1
V ;.- -, V. -ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNiCAL. CIVIL, .STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS V
V
V V •V*V 4• V
basement levels, performance expectations and budget. If deemed necessary by the project owner,
based on the above analysis, and waterproofing systems can be upgraded to include slab under
drains and enhanced waterproofing elements.
7.5.10 Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the Earthwork section of
this report. Backfill shall consist of soil with a very low expansion potential, granular, free draining
material.
7.6 SURFACE DRAINAGE
Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will play a critical role on the future performance of
the dwelling and improvements. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond against or adjacent to
foundation walls, or tops of slopes. The ground surface surrounding proposed improvements should be relatively
impervious in nature, and slope to drain away from the structure in all directions, with a minimum slope of 2% for
a horizontal distance of 7 feet (where possible). Area drains or surface swales should then be provided to
accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. Any french drains, backdrains and/or slab underdrains shall
not be tied to surface area drain systems. Roof gutters and downspouts shall be installed on the new and existing
structures and tightlined to the area drain system. All drains should be kept clean and unclogged, including gutters
and downspouts. Area drains should be kept free of debris to allow for proper drainage.
Over watering can adversely affect site improvements and cause perched groundwater conditions. Irrigation
should be limited to only the amount necessary to sustain plant life. Low flow irrigation devices as well as
automatic rain shut-off devices should be installed to reduce over watering. Irrigation practices and maintenance
of irrigation and drainage systems are.an important component to the performance of onsite improvements.
40 During periods of heavy rain, the performance of all drainage systems should be inspected. Problems such as
gullying or ponding should be corrected as soon as possible. Any leakage from sources such as water lines should
also be repaired as soon as possible. In addition, irrigation of planter areas, lawns, or other vegetation, located
adjacent to the foundation or exterior flat work improvements, should be strictly controlled or avoided.
8 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by our investigation of
the project area. Interpolated subsurface conditions should be verified in the field during construction. The
following items shall be conducted prior/during construction by a representative of Engineering Design Group in
order to verify compliance with the geotechnical and civil engineering recommendations provided herein, as
applicable. The project structural and geotechnical engineers may upgrade any condition as deemed necessary
during the development of the proposed improvement(s).
8.1 Review of final approved grading and structural plans prior to the start of work for compliance with
geotechnical recommendations.
8.2 Attendance of a pre-grade/construction meeting prior to the start of work.
8.3 Observation of subgrade, excavation bottoms.
8.4 Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and utility trenches.
8.5 Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement and removal of excavation equipment.
8.6 Field observation of any field change" condition involving soils.
Hirschkoff Residence
Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California
0 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 10
Job No. 135198-1
0 8.7 Walk through of final drainage detailing prior to final approval.
The project soils engineer may at their discretion deepen footings or locally recommend additional steel
reinforcement to upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during site observations. Engineering Design Group
shall, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, issue in writing that the above inspections have been
conducted by a representative of their firm, and the design considerations of the project soils report have been
-met. The field inspection protocol specified herein is considered the minimum necessary for Engineering Design
Group to have exercised "due diligence" in the soils engineering design aspect of this building. Engineering Design
Group assumes no liability for structures constructed utilizing this report not meeting this protocol:
Before commencement of grading the Engineering Design Group will require a separate contract for quality control
observation and testing. Engineering Design Group requires a minimum of 48 hours notice to mobilize onsite for
field observation and testing.
9 MISCELLANEOUS
It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of cracks and minor signs of
cosmetic distress. The flexible nature of wood and steel structures allows them to respond to movements resulting
from minor unavoidable settlement of fill or natural soils, the swelling of clay soils, or the motions induced from
seismic activity. All of the above can induce movement thatfrequently results in cosmetic cracking of brittle wall
surfaces, such as stucco or interior plaster or interior brittle slab finishes.
Data for this report was derived from surface observations at the site, knowledge of local conditions, and a visual
observation of the soils exposed in the exploratory borings. The recommendations in this report are based on our
experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site and neighboring sites. We believe that this
information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for anticipating the behavior of the proposed structure;
however, our recommendations are professional opinions and cannot control nature, nor can they assure the soils
profiles beneath or adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no warranties of the accuracy of these
recommendations, beyond the limits of the obtained data, is herein expressed or implied. This report is based on
the investigation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein. If either of
these conditions is changed, the results would also most likely change.
Man-made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In addition, changes
in requirements due to state of the art knowledge and/or legislation, are rapidly occurring. As a result, the findings
of this report may become invalid due to these changes. Therefore, this report for the specific site, is subject to
review and not considered valid after a period of one year, or if conditions as stated above are altered.
It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information in this report be
incorporated into the plans and/or specifications and construction of the project. It is advisable that a contractor
familiar with construction details typically used to deal with the local subsoil and seismic conditions, be retained to
build the structure.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact
us. We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue with the development of the project.
Hirschkoff Residence Page No. 11
Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 135198-1
0 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
FIGURES
0
ll%P -1 •j' r' A;4: r'' r s.• 'Z'
f•4. - I
ekw M('.J. T 4 • .• - ..-
\:
i'_.
00.
-44
u1U5rU) c LvisVi -
\I
i
- "•-. : ' - - \ —HiLad Me
- - .
T\-• 'b j • •ON .- •. •. a'. • U
% ,•- - I
_4 ,
i--' - . .- ,I •
-.• --\. V --'A" - •' s Jç • • -. • - . .
-i'•_ \ '
- \ :
(6 JLIL(cnrl - C (I b Li COOB', 4
• \ • - - - .-• - -f-' It
\-\ \ ''•It sbau - l • - . I ) •
dp
ik
47o s
:
4•4 - ••.' , • • -
'
T
- r- : C
'_"
Sterea orlh
; X\&
- • b - T - 4 - ' . • • ,. \• ,,
,-
-'
,#I_•_ 4(3 4fr/*\ \'r
3oe rwr. Ca1sDja jjOo .JZ
Ar ? • -. - 'k:-çr r•'•"-' -.\
i2
ct. 4 0.1
ion # I ~" '", .2~r;lt r : * %~ - " Site Locat*
7.r dt
'
- M .'4s ii I •-_\zii -
- S I
-
.-:-1. - .•.. t - ...i k.rr '14r ,ijIdJ ': ..-• r
4
I
I
PROJECT NAME HIRSCHKOFF RESIDENCE LOG OF BORING No.
PROJECT NUMBER 135198-1
LOCATION 1 2772 OLYMPIA LANE, CARSLBAD, CALIFORNIA SHEET 1 OF 2
ATE
RILLED JUNE 5, 2013 DRILLING METHOD
AND TYPE OF RIG TRIPOD RIG
TOTAL DEPTH
DRILLED (feet) 11.5'
BACKF1LLED/CONVERTED TO WELL ON(date) APPROX SURFACE N/A LOGGED BY ERIN RIST BACKFILLED W/ CUTTINGS 6-5-13 ELEVATION (feet)
DIAMETER 6 —INCH GROUNDWATER N/A ' FIRST COMPLETION
OF BORING LEVEL (feet BGS) NONE NONE
TYPE OF (Z SPT TYPE OF SAFETY WEIGHT (Ibs) DROP (in.)
SAMPLER(S) [] CALIFORNIA HAMMER 140 30
offi *
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND NOTES
TOPSOIL
Reddish brown, dry, loose, topsoil, slightly silty sands, with gravel and
• /a 2,1,1 2 .;.. '..:.. cobbles.
5,13,
50 63 • .:
5 0 s
On cobble, pushing rock, fragments of rock at tip. Ught brown very dry,
slightly silty sands, with cobbles.
.5.
•
•
20,32,
34 66
.. .. Tan, dense, slightly silty with calcium deposits at 8'
.:•. SANDSTONE -
I 10 •
,40, 83 .: :. Brown, tan to grey, dense, slightly moist, silty sandstone.
5050
for, 5n
100 I Grey, very dense, fine silty sandstone.
END OF DRILLING AT 11.5' (REFUSAL)
NO GROUNDWATER. NO CAVING.
BACKFILLED W1H CUTTINGS.
15
20 .
0
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
0 ADDONAL NOTES / COMMENTS:
32' EAST ALONG BLDG PAD FROM WOOD FENCE, 10' DOWN FROM BLDG PAD. 2121 MaNTlE!.
SAN HAWN. CL 92069
(760) 839-7302
FAX (760) 480-7477 0 0
4
PROJECT NAME I HIRSCHKOFF RESIDENCE LOG OF BORING No. 2-2
SHEET 2 OF 2
PROJECT NUMBER 135198-1
LOCATION 12772 OLYMPIA LANE, CARSLBAD, CALIFORNIA
ATE DRILLING METHOD TOTAL DEPTH
RILLED JUNE 5, 2013 AND TYPE OF RIG TRIPOD RIG DRILLED (feet)
BACKFILLED/CONVERTED TO WELL ON(date) APPROX SURFACE N/A LOGGED BY ERIN RIST BACKFILLED W/ CUTTINGS 6-5-13 ELEVATION (feet)
DIAMETER 6—INCH GROUNDWATER N/A
I FIRST COMPLETION
OF BORING LEVEL(feet BGS) NONE NONE
TYPE OF SPT TYPE OF WEIGHT (Ibs) DROP (in.)
SAMPLER(S) . CALIFORNIA SAFETY
I HAMMER 140 30
'Uj u,
0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND NOTES 90
- 15,26,
• 50 76 :. SANDSTONE
• I for 5" Reddish brown to tan, dry, very dense, slightly silty sandstone weathered
in upper 12", with cobbles.
5 . END OF DRILLING AT 4.0' (DRILLING REFUSAL)
NO GROUNDWATER. NO CAVING.
. BACKFILLED WITH CUTTINGS.
10
15
20
- - -
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
ADDITIONAL NOTES / COMMENTS:
38' SOUTH OF B-11; 22.5' WEST OF CHAIN LINK; 34' EAST OF WOOD FENCE; ROAD 21M MONM
si MAR003. CA gg 30' FROM BOTTOM VERTICAL CUT AT ENTRY; 64' NORTH FROM JACARANDA;
(760) 839-1802 61.5' NORTH FROM EUCALYPTUS.
FAX (760) 480-7477
I
I
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
California Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Rupture Zones in California,
Special Publication 42, Revised 1990.
Day, Robert W. "Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering Design and Construction." 1999. McGraw Hill.
Engineering Design Group, unpublished in house data.
Earth and Environmental Engineering Inc., "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single Family
Residence, Carlsbad, California." Dated March 13, 1997.
Franklin, A.G. and Chang, F.K. 1977, "Permanent displacements of Earth embankments by
Newmark sliding block analysis, Report 5, Miscellaneous Paper, S 71-17, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vickburg, Mississippi."
Greensfelder, R.W., 1974 Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California Division of
Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23.
Kennedy, Michael P. And Siang S. Tan, Geology of the Oceanside, San Luis Rey, San Marcos, 7.5'
Quadrangles, San Diego County, California. Division of Mines and Geology, dated 1996.
Lee, L.J., 1977, Potential foundation problems associated with earthquakes in San Diego, in Abbott, P.L.
and Victoria, J.K., eds. Geologic Hazards in San Diego, Earthquakes, Landslides, and Floods: San Diego
Society of Natural History John Porter Dexter Memorial Publication.
Ploessel, M.R. and Slossan, J.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes: California
Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9, P. 195-199
State of California, Fault Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1975.
State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1977.
Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) Seismology Committee, Macroseminar
Presentation on Seismically Induced Earth Pressure, June 8, 2006.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Shoreline
Movement Data Report, Portuguese Point to Mexican Border, dated December
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Coastal Cliff
Sediments, San Diego Region (CCSTWS 87-2), dated June.
U.S.G.S. website.
Van Dorn, W.G., 1979 Theoretical aspects of tsunamis along the San-Diego coastline, in Abbott, P.L. and
Elliott, W.J., Earthquakes and Other Perils: Geological Society of America field trip guidebook.
Various Aerial Photographs
APPENDIX B
S
fl
KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS
r-j FILL SLOPE PROJECT I TO I LINE
FROM TOE OF SLOPE
TO COMPETENT MATERIAL
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
BENCH
-2S_PAIN. - - -
2' MIN.-15' PAIN.
KEY I LOWEST
DEPTH BENCH
(KEY)
FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE
EXISTING -
GROUND SURFACEN\
- - - - - -
BENCH
15'-Mft4-..j .-.REMOVE
2 LOWEST MI N. BENCH MATERIAL
S UNSUITABLE 0
KEY (KEY) DEPTH
CUT SLOPE
(TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT)
EXISTING GROUND
/7
GROUND SURFACE
CUT SLOPE
CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE (TO 13 EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT)
PROJECT 1 TO 1
LINE FROM TOE
OF SLOPE TO
COMPETENT
MATERIAL -
ENCH
—REMOVE UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
[I
t k—is' MIN.-
2' PAIN LOWEST I
KEY DEPTH
NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on
actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may
also be altered based on field conditions encountered.
SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
EXISTING GROUND
SURFACE
FINISHED SLOPE FACE INISHED CUT PAD PROJECT I TO I LINE
FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO
-
OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY -------------
OVERBURDEN
.-:-cC 0 UP AC TE
NO ULLE R
10 OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH
RECOMPACTION MAY BE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
BENCH BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD
2' 115' PAIN.
PAIN. LOWEST KEY BENCH DEPTH (KEY)
..—COMPETENT BEDROCK OR
,- MATERIAL AS EVALUATED j
( BY THE GEOTECHPIICAL '
CONSULTANT -
NOTE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based
on exposed subsurface conditions
S
0
a, MIN. I
OVERLAP I
3/4-1-1/2'
CLEAN GRAVEL
: (3tt/ft. MIN.)'- /
4& Ø / NON-PERFORATED I.
PIPE
-
FILTER FABRIC -
ENVELOPE (MIRAFI
140N OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT) *
SEE T-CONNECTION
DETAIL
all MIN.
COVER
fPERFORATED
PIPE
4' MIN.
BEDDING
5% MIN.
STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL
OUTLET PIPES -40 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE.
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY--,, BACK CUT 1:1 OR FLATTER
BENCH
SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH
DETAIL
LOWEST SUBORAIN SHOULD
BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
SUITABLE OUTLET
KEY
DEPTH
2 '
MIN. 1. 11S1
I KEY WIDTH
IA-3 NOTED ON.4RAOIP4G PLANS
15' MIN.
10 • MIN.
/ PERFORATED EACH SIDE PIPE
CAP
NON-PERFORATED
OUTLET PIPE
T-CONNECTION DETAIL
* IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4'-11/2 GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC
MAY BE DELETED
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTR.ANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size_ Passing
1' 100
3/4' 90-100
3/8 40-100
No. 4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
No. 30 5-15
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
[1
SUBDRAIN NCH DETAIL Sand Equivalent >75
NOTES:
For buttress dimensions, see geotechnical report/plans. Actual dimensions of buttress and eubdraifl
may be changed by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION_Subdralfl pipe should be Installed with perforations down as depicted-
At locations recommended by the geotochnical consultant. nonperforated pipe should be installed
SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdraln type should be Acrylon trile Butadlefle Styrene (A.B.SJ, Polyvinyl Chloride
(PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125,SOR 32.5 should be used for maximum till depths of 35 feet.
Claus 200, SDR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet.
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS
1]
- EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
OMPACTED Ft
BENCHING
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
SUBDRAIN
TRENCH
SEE BELOW
SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAILS
FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE So MIN. OVERLAP
6a MIN. OVERLAP (MIRAFI 140i OR APPROVED
el MIN. COVER
GRAVEL
WOOL MIN.) 4' MIN. BEDDING
of MIN. I
GRAVEL (911.311t. MIN.)
- 8'.d MIN. -
PERFORATED
PIPE
*IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4-1-1/2 GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC
MAY BE DELETED
DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size % Passing
1" 100
3/4" 90-100
3/8' 40-100
No. 4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
No. 30 5-15
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
Sand Equivaierit>75
DESIGN FINISH
GRADE SUBDRAIN
TRENCH
SEE ABOVE
---------------
15' MIN. ' 5M IN. ...______--PERFORATED
NONPERFORATED 8 0 MIN.
I
Subdraln should be constructed only on competent material as evaluated by the geotechnicai
consultant.
SUBORAIN INSTALLATION Subdraln pipe should be installed with perforations down as depicted.
At locations recommended by the Qeotechnlcal consultant, nenperforated pipe should be Installed.
SUBDRAIN TYPE—Subdraln type should be Acrylonitrlle Butadiene Styrene (A.8.S.). Polyvinyl
Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125, SOR 32.5 should be used for maximum
fill depths of 33 feet. Class 200,SOR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet.
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
FINISH GRADE
SLOPE FACE
-----------------
-------------
OVERSIZE WINDROW
GRANULAR SOIL (3.E.30) TO BE
NS$FIED IN PLACE BY FLOODING
DETAIL
11
[I
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 8 inches should not be used within 10 feet
vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever Is greater),
and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces.
Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in fills.
Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by the
geotechnical consultant.
Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above details
Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered
vertically (as depicted).
Rock should be placed in excavated trenches. Granular soil (S.E. greater than or equal
to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath
rocks.
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES.
Moisture and Density Tests: Moisture content. and dry density determinations were
performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings and/or
trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring and/or trench
logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from "undisturbed"
or disturbed samples. . .. . .. . . .
Classification Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size
analysis by wet sieving from U. S. Standard brass screens (AS.TM D422-65). Hydrometer analyses were performed where appreciable quantities of fi:nes were
encountered. The data was evaluated in determining the classification of the
materials. The-grain-size distribution curves are presented in the test data
and the Unified Soil Classification is presented in both the test data and the
boring and/or trench logs.
Atterberg Limits: The Atterberg Limits, were determined in accordance with ASTM
04318-84 for engineering classification of the fine-grained materials.
Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were performed on selected remolded
and/or undisturbed samples which were soaked for a minimum, of 24 hours under a
surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. After transfer of
the sample to the shear box, and reloading the sample, pore pressures set up in
the sample due to the tran.sfer were allowed to dissipate for a period of
approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples were
tested under various normal loads, a different specimen being used for each. . normal load.. The samples were s.heared in: a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of 0.05 inch per minute. After
a travel of 0.300 inch of the direct shear machine,, the motor was stopped and
the sample was allowed to "relax" for approximately 15 minutes. The "relaxed"
and "peak" shear values were recorded. It is anticipated that, in a majority
of samples tested, the 15 minutes relaxing of the sample is sufficient to allow
dissipation of pore pressures set up in the samples due to application of
shearing force. The relaxed values are therefore judged to be good estimation
of effective strength parameters. The test results were plotted on the "Direct
Shear Summary".
For residual direct shear test, the samples were sheared, as described in the
preceding paragraph, with the rate of shearing of 0.001 inch per minute.. The
upper portion of the specimen was pulled, back to the original position and the
shearing process was repeatd until no further decrease in shear strength was
observed with continued shearing (at least three times resheared). There are
two methods to obtain the shear values: (a) the shearing process was repeated
for each normal load applied and the shear value for each normal load was
recorded. One or more than one specimen can be used in this method; (b) only
one specimen was. needed, and a very high normal load. (approximately 9000 psf)
was applied from the beginning of the shearing process. After the equilibrium
state was reached (after "relaxed"), the shear value for that normal load was
recorded. The normal loads were then reduced gradually without shearing the
sample (.the motor was stopped). The shear values were recorded for different
normal loads after they were reduced and the-sample was "relaxed".
3040 689
Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of
typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM 01557-78 (five layers).
The results of these tests are presented in the test data.
Expansion index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was
evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 29-2. Specimens are
molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture
content and approximately 50 percent saturation: or approximately 90 percent
relative compaction. The prepared .1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are
loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until
volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in
the test data.
Consolidation Tests: Consolidation tests were. performed On selected, relatively
undisturbed samples recovered from the sampler. Samples were placed in a consolidometer and loads were applied in geometric progression. The percent
consolidation for each. load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the amount of
vertical compression to the original 1-inch height. The consolidation pressure
curves are presented in the test data. Where applicable, time-rates of consolidation were also recorded. A plot of these rates can be used to estimate
time of consolidation.
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were
determined by the California Materials Method No. 417.
"R"-Value: The resistance "R"-value was determined by the California Materials
Method No. 301 for base, subbase, and basement soils. Three samples were . prepared and exudation pressure and R"-value determined on each one. The
graphically determined "Re-value at exudation pressure of 300 psi is reported.
Triaxial Compression Tests: Triaxial compression tests were performed on
selected remolded and/or undisturbed samples according to ASTM 2166-85
(unconfined) and ASTM 2850-87 (confined).
3040 689
APPENDIX D
S
S
0
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
2121 MON11EL ROAD PHONE: (760) 839-7302
SAN MARCOS, CAUFORNLA 92069 FAX: (760) 480-7477
3$ MIN
SLOPE
Hff1Th1Ut'1 WATEOOFIN(4
SPECIFICATIONS (NOT TO SCALE)
Uv PROTECTION BOARD PER O FOAM 1 HANLFACTURERS SPECIFICATION
(3
GRACE PROCOR FLUID-APPLIED
WATERPROOFING INSTALLED PER Lu HANLPACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS
4 EXTEND SEIIND CEt1ENTITOLJS
BACKER BOARD.
3 GRACE I4YDRODLJCT 220
INSTALLED PER tIANLFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS OVER
FLUID-APPLIED UJA it: ROCcfr4t.4
TERMINATION BAR PER Lu
MANUFACTURER'S z
SPECIFICATIONS
(3 FILTER FABRIC WI 6" MIN LAP
() 3/4" GRAVEL (I SF I PT)
7 4" DIA PERFORATED DRAIN LINE (SC4 40 OR
EQUIV.) PEORATIONS ORIENTED DOUN 11%
H/N/HUH GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET -
EXACT PIPE LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED
BY SITE CONSTRAINTS
0 4" TALL CONCRETE CANT 6 FTG / WALL
CONNECTION (UNDER WATEROCffING)
SLOPE TO BACK EDGE OF FOOTING.
CONG OR O.fti—
RET WALL PER
PLAN 4 DETAILS
1-IYDROTITE WATER-
STOPS AT COLD-
JOINTS PER HFR
INSTALLATION
INSTRUCTIONS
S
SLAB 4 VAPOR
SAIER PER
PLAN 4
DETAILS
®COMPACTED BACKFILL 90% MIN RELATIVE
COMPACTION IN ALL OTI-/ER AREAS U.O1'L
6" HAX LIFTS. ONLY LIG4TUEIG)4T
I-4AND -OPERATED EQUIPMENT SIALL BE USED
WI TI-/IN 3 FEET OF TAE BACK FACE OF WALL.
APPENDIX A
S
0
S APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
California Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Rupture Zones in California,
Special Publication 42, Revised 1990.
Day, Robert W. "Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering Design and Construction." 1999. McGraw Hill.
Engineering Design Group, unpublished in house data.
Earth and Environmental Engineering Inc., "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single Family
Residence, Carlsbad, California." Dated March 13, 1997.
Franklin, A.G. and Chang, F.K. 1977, "Permanent displacements of Earth embankments by
Newmark sliding block analysis, Report 5, Miscellaneous Paper, S 71-17, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vickburg, Mississippi."
Greensfelder, R.W., 1974 Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California Division of
Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23.
Kennedy, Michael P. And Siang S. Tan, Geology of the Oceanside, San Luis Rey, San Marcos, 7.5'
is Quadrangles, San Diego County, California. Division of Mines and Geology, dated 1996.
Lee, L.J., 1977, Potential foundation problems associated with earthquakes in San Diego, in Abbott, P.L.
and Victoria, J.K., eds. Geologic Hazards in San Diego, Earthquakes, Landslides, and Floods: San Diego
Society of Natural History John Porter Dexter Memorial Publication.
Ploessel, M.R. and Slossan, J.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes: California
Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9, P. 195-199
State of California, Fault Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1975.
State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1977.
Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) Seismology Committee, Macroseminar
Presentation on Seismically Induced Earth Pressure, June 8, 2006.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Shoreline
Movement Data Report, Portuguese Point to Mexican Border, dated December
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Coastal Cliff
Sediments, San Diego Region (CCSTWS 87-2), dated June.
U.S.G.S. website.
Van Dorn, W.G., 1979 Theoretical aspects of tsunamis along the San Diego coastline, in Abbott, P.L. and
Elliott, Wi., Earthquakes and Other Perils: Geological Society of America field trip guidebook.
0 19. Various Aerial Photographs
APPENDIX B
0
KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS
FILL SLOPE PROJECT 1 TO I LINE
FROM TOE OF SLOPE
TO COMPETENT MATERIAL
GROUND SURFACE-... ( EXISTING
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
BENCH
42S MtN.:-
2' MIN.I-15' MINr-j
KEY LOWEST I DEPTH BENCH
(KEY)
FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE
EXISTING
GROUND SURF~
-CSENCH
2* LOWEST MATERIAL MIN. BENCH KEY (KEY) DEPTH
CUT SLOPE
(TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT)
EXISTING GROUND
7/ SURFACE—..
CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE
PROJECT I TO 1
LINE FROM TOE
OF SLOPE TO
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
7/ CUT SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT)
—REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
BENCH
_-_-.- t
' 2' MIN. LOWEST I
KEY DEPTH BENCH (KEY)
NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on
actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may
also be altered based on Held conditions encountered.
SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
[1
EXISTING GROUND
SURFACE
-.
FINISHED
-.-- •/_•____
CUT PAD
PAD OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH
/AI AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE
RECOMMENDED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
BENCH BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD
CONDITIONS--ENCOU.NIERED.
FINISHED SLOPE FACE
PROJECT 1 TO I LINE
FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO
OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY
OVERBURDEN OR
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
2 MIN. I —COMPETEN? BEDROCK OR
MUd. LOWEST MATERIAL AS EVALUATED KEY BENCH ( BY THE GEOTECHNICAL DEPTH (KEY)
. CONSULTANT
NOTE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based
on exposed subsurface conditions
lie
6'MIN. /
OVERLAP / 3/40- 1-1/2'
CLEAN GRAVEL
(3ftiIft. MINJ......_
4•ø
NON-PERFORATED I.
PIPE..,
- -Ti
- -
FILTER FABRIC -
ENVELOPE (MIRAFI
140N OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)*
SEE 1-CONNECTION
DETAIL
6' MIN.
COVER
1ERFORATED
PIPE
4' MIN.
BEDDING
% MIN.
STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL
OUTLET PIPES -4' 0 NONPER FORAYED PIPE.
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY..
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY-.., ---BACK CUT 1:1 OR FLATTER
BENCH
SEE SUBORAIN TRENCH
DETAIL
LOWEST SUBORAIN SHOULD
BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
SUITABLE OUTLET
rA
KEY
DEPTH
I
MIN.
MIN.
I KEY WIDTH
AS NOTED ON GRADING PLANS
15' MIN.
/_ 10' MIN. 7 PERFORATED EACH SIDE PIPE
CAP
NON-PERFORATED
OUTLET PIPE
T-CONNECTION DETAIL
* IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4'-11/2' GRAVEL. FILTER FABRIC
MAY BE DELETED
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTR.ANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size Passing
1" 100
90-100
3/8 40-100
No. 4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
No. 30 S-IS
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
LI
SUBDRA ENCH DETAIL Sand Equivalent >75
NOTES:
For buttress dimensions, see geotechnical report/plans. Actual dimensions of buttress and subdraifl
may be chanced by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions.
SUEDRAIN lNSTALLATlON-Subdrafl pipe should be Installed with perforations down as depicted.
At locations recommended by the geotechnical consultant. nonperforated pipe should be Instilled
SUBORAIN TYPE-5ubdra1n type should be Acrylon trile Butadiene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride
(PVC) or approved equivalent. ca 125,SOR 32.5 should be used for maximum fill depths of 35 feet.
Class 200, SDR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet.
SUBDRAIN
TRENCH
SEE ABOVE
DESIGN FINISH
GRADE .
NONPERFORATED GO 91 MIN.
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size % Passing
V. 100
3/41 90-100
3/8U 40-100
No. 4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
No. 30 5-15
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
Sand Equivalent >75
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS
- EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
MPACTED FIL
BENCHING
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
S UB 0 R A IN
TRENCH
SEE BELOW
SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAILS
GO MIN. OVERLAP
FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
,-6
7
MIN. OVERLAP
'AR ~ COVER P~
RAVEL
4' MIN. BEDDING
3/48-1-112' CLEAN
GRAVEL (911.3/tt. MIN.)
-Go 0 MIN. -
PERFORATED
PIPE
DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL
*IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC
MAY BE DELETED
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTR.ANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
Subdrain should be constructed only on competent material as evaluated by the geotochnlcal
Consultant.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrain pipe should be Installed with perforations down as depicted.
At locations recommended by the geotechnical consultant, nonperforated pipe should be Installed.
1 SUBDRAIN TYPE—Subdraln type should be Acrylonitrlle Butadiene Styrene (A.8.S.). Polyvinyl
I Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125, SOR 32.5 should be used for maximum
L fill depths of 33 feet. Class 200, SDR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet.
ROCK DISPOSAL-DETAIL
PINI8H GRADE
.4
a..
OVERSIZE WINDROW
. GRANULAR SOIL (3.E 3O) TO BE -_
OENSIFIED IN PLACE BY FLOODING
DETAIL
/ -
- --
- -
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW ,
Rock with maximum dimensions grëàter than 8 inches should not be used within 10 feet
vertically of finish grade (or, 2 feet below depthOf lowest utility whichever Is greater).
and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces.
Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet 'should not be utilized in fills.
Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by the
geotechnical consultant.
Maximum size and spacing of windrows' should be in accordance with the above details
Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered
vertically (as dOicted). -•
Rock should be placed in excavated.trenChes. Granular soil (S.E. greater thanor equal
to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath
rocks. -
4 .4 - • . •
APPENDIX C
fl
LABORATORY TESTING -PROCEDURES
Moisture and Density Tests: Moisture content. and dry density determinations were
performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings and/or
trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring and/or trench
logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from "undisturbed"
or disturbed samples.
. .. . .. . . .
Classification Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size
analysis by wet sieving from U. S. Standard brass screens (ASTM 0422-65).
Hydrometer analyses were performed where appreciable quantities of fines were
encountered. The data was evaluated in determining the classification -of the
materials. The-grain-size distribution curves are presented in the test data
and the Unified Soil Classification is presented in both the test data and the
boring and/or trench logs.
Atterberq Limits: The Atterberg Limits were determined in accordance with ASTM
04318-84 for engineering classification of the fine-grained materials.
Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were performed on selected remolded
and/or undisturbed samples which were soaked for a minimum, of 24 hours. under a
surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. After transfer of
the sample to the shear box, and reloading the sample, pore pressures set up in
the sample due to the transfer were allowed to dissipate for a period of
approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples were
tested under various normal loads, a different specimen being used for each. . normal load. The samples were sheared in a motor-driven, strain- controlled,
direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of 0.05 inch per minute. After
a travel of 0.300 inch of the direct shear machine, the motor was stopped and
the sample was allowed to "relax" for approximately 15 minutes. The "relaxed"
and "peak" shear values were recorded. It is anticipated that, in a majority
of samples tested, the 15 minutes relaxing of the sample is sufficient to allow
dissipation of pore pressures set up in the samples due to application of
shearing force. The relaxed values are therefore judged to be a good estimation.
of effective strength parameters. The test results were plotted on the "Direct
Shear Summary".
For residual direct shear test, the samples were sheared, as described in the
preceding paragraph, with the rate of shearing of 0.001 inch per minute.. The
upper portion of the specimen was pulled, back to the original position and the
shearing process was repeatd until no further decrease in shear strength was
observed with continued shearing (at least three times resheared). There are
two methods to obtain the shear values: (a) the shearing process was repeated
for each normal load applied and the shear value for each normal load was
recorded. One or more than one specimen can be used in this method; (b) only
one specimen was, needed, and a very high normal load. (approximately 9000 psf)
was applied from the beginning of the shearing process. After the equilibrium
state was reached (after "relaxed"), the shear value for that normal load was
recorded. The normal loads were then reduced gradually without shearing the
sample (the motor was stopped). The shear values were recorded for different
normal loads after they were reduced and the-sample was "relaxed".
S
3040 689
Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of
typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM 01557-78 (five layers).
The results of these tests are presented In the test data.
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was
evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 29-2. Specimens are
molded under a given conipactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture
content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent
relative compaction. The prepared .1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are
loaded to an equivalent.144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until
volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the test data.
Consolidation Tests: Consolidation tests were. performed On selected, relatively
undisturbed samples recovered from the sampler. Samples were placed in a consolidometer and. loads were applied in geometric progression. The percent
consolidation for each. load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the amount of
vertical compression to the original 1-inch height. The consolidation pressure
curves are presented in the test data. Where applicable, time-rates of consolidation were also recorded. A plot of theserates can be used to estimate
time of consolidation.
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were
determined by the California Materials Method No. 417.
"R"-Value: The resistance "R"-value was determined by the California Materials
Method No. 301 for base, subbase, and basement soils Three samples were S prepared and exudation pressure and "R"-value determined on each one. The
graphically determined "R."-value at exudation pressure of 300 psi is reported.
Triaxial Comøression Tests: Triaxial compression tests were performed on
selected remolded and/or undisturbed samples according to ASTM 2166-85
(unconfined) and ASTM 2850-87 (confined).
0
APPENDIX D
S
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
2121 MON11EL ROAD PHONE: (760) 839-7302
SAN MARCOS, CAUFORNiA 92069 FAX: (760) 480-7477
t1ffsIII1IJ1 WATEOOF!N
SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS (NOT TO SCALE)
FOAM UV PROTECTION BOARD PER 1 MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION
eL
:zO
cRACE PROCOR FLUID-APPLIED 2 WATERPROOFING INSTALLED PER E lu 43 MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS -J
W. I EXTEND BEHIND CEt-IENTITOUS
SACKER BOARD.
GRACE I4YDR0DUCT 220 - 3 INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS OVER
FLUID-APPLIED U/4TEROCfIP4
TERMINATION BAR PER Lu
MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS
() FILTER FABRIC WI 6" t-1fr4 LAP
314" GRAVEL (l.SFIFT)
7 4" DIA PERFORATED DRAIN LINE (5C14 40 OR
EQUIV.) PERFORATIONS ORIENTED DOLLN IS
t1INIt1Ut1 GRADIENT TO SUITABLE CUTLET -
EXACT PIPE LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED
BY SITE CONSTRAINTS
O 4" TALL CONCRETE CANT 19 FTG / WALL 8 CCVNECTION (UNDER WATERPROCfI)
SLOPE TO BACK EDGE OF FOOTI.
()COMPACTED BACKFILL 90% MIN RELATIVE
' C.C1PACTION IN ALL OTHER AREAS U.OJ
6" MAX LIFTS. ONLY LIGJ47UEIGI4T
HAND-OPERATED EQUIPMENT SHALL SE USED
UJITI-IIN .3 FEET OF THE SACK FACE OF LLL4LL.
CCI'JC OR Ct'IU—
RET WALL PER
PLAN 4 DETAILS
I-IYDROTITE WATER-
STOPS AT COLD-
JOINTS PER MFR
INSTALLATION
INSTRUCTIONS
SLAB 4 VAPOR
BARRIER PER
PLAN 4
DETAILS