HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 72-34; RANCHO LA CUESTA; GEOLOGIC GRADING REPORT; 1976-10-26•
•
••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FINAL ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC
GRADING REPORT
Tract 72-34, Lots 2-15 inclusive, (Unit 1).,
In the City of Carlsbad., California
for
Newport Shores Bui Iders
October 26, 1976
Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.
Irvine, Ca lifomia
EIIII'EERINf:i
C!r 1:l-3~
~xll/g/fs If" g
(J-H-fJ-e /I ~ cl
•
•
•
•
PAciFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
17921 SKY PARK CI RCLE (SI,JITE G) I RVINE, CALIF. 92707
TELEPHONE: (714) 557·9450
Newport Shore Builders
-P.O. Box A
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attention:
Subject:
Gentlemen:'
Mr. Mike Jager
Final Engineering Geologic Grading Report:
Tract 72-34, Lots 2-15 inclusive (Unit 1),
in the City of Carlsbad, ~alifornia
L.A. COUNTY OFFICE
1402 W. 240th Street
Harbor City, Ca. 90710
(213) 325-7272 or T75·6771
VENTURACOUN~YO~F~E
Post Offlce-Box 75
Thousand Oaks, Ca. 91360
-(213) 889-9919
(805) 495.6513
Octob~r_ 26, 1-976
Work Order 100236A
This final geologic report for the subject trod is submitted in accordance with the
• requirements of the City of Carlsbad. Geologic data are plotted on the plan included
with the companion ProjeCt Grading Report.
•
•
•
•
•
•
A buttress fiJI was required for support of the rear (east) of Lots 15 and 16. Based on
our inspection of geologic conditions of the site, the subject lots are satisfactory for the
intended use from a geolqgic point of view.
Respectfu II y subm i tted,
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC •.
Dist: (10) Addressee
REl:RPK/vll
Reviewed by:
-\_/~
ice President Jfi:J
•
•
•
'.
•
•
•
PACIFIC SOILS' ENGINEERING, INC.
17921 SKY PARK CIRCLE (SUITE G) IRVINE, CALIF. 92707
TELEPHONE: (714) 557-9450
Newport Shores Builders
P.O. Box A
Huntingfon Beach, CA 92648
Attention:
Su~ject:
Reference:
Gentlemen:
Mr. Mike Jager
Project Soil Engineering Grading Report;
, Tract 72-34., Lots 2-15 inclusive, (Unit
1), in the City of Carlsbad, Caiifornia
Preliminary Soil Engineering and Engineering
Geologic Report and Engineering Geologic
and Soil Engineering Review of Grading Plan
for Tract No. 72-34, dated July 5, 1974
by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (W.O. 100236)
L.A. COUNTY OFFICE
1402' W. 249th Street
Harbor City; Ca. 90710
(213) 325-7272, or 775-6771
VENTI:IRA COUNTY OF,FICE,
Post Qffke ,BoX 75
Thousand Oak~"C,!l. 91360
(213) 889-99'19
(BO.5J 495-1?513'
O<::tober >,26,1976
Work Order 100236A
This report presents soil engineering data and test results pertaining to the placement of
compacted earth fill on the subject property. Foundation criteria are also included in
this report for the subject' residential lots 2-15 inclusive.,
All fills, cuts or processing of original ground' under the purview of this report have been
completed under our: inspection or accepted by this firm, and are in compliance with • F.H.A. criteria' and the Grading Code of the City of Carlsbad, California. All work
under our purview was accomplished in accordance with the "Earthwork Spedficationsll, -.
. • contained in the above-referenced investigation report.
, Completed work has bee~ reviewed and is considered suitable for the construction now
planned.. AU slopes are considered grossly and surficially stahle and will remain so
. under :nonnal conditions.
•
®,
.'
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
. '
, "'6ctober26/'·l~7 ~
. Work Order i 00236A
:,'--PaQe. 2 .
~-:----.-----~.---------------_.-~"-. ....:--" . :.---~'-.-.
Compaction test I"esults are',presented in Table :1-, and approximate lotations of tests are .: . -,.. . . . !?~17 .
shown on the,enclosed grading plan (2 sheets). Also shown on the plan ar~ locations of:
'" .--..
-tests -taken -in adjacent areas. These test results will be submitted fn future grading reports,
_ . __ ~~ these areas are completed, or_ have been submitted in previous reports. _-: .. ".,-,'
--
"-
laboratory Standard: ASTM: O' 1 {557-70T
----------~----------............... -'
Opt. Moi_s~ .. M~x •. Dry Density % Swelf*
S-oi-I-Iype (%) (lbs./cu.ft.) 650psf ASCE
o -.C layey Sand 12.5 118.0 0.1 NO
E -Clayey Sand 13.5 115.5 NO 8
F -Clayey Sand 15.0 113.0 0.0 NO
G -Sand 15.0 108.5 NO NO
H -Clayey Sand 15.5 111.5 NO 4
I -Sand 13.0 117.0 NO NO
J -Clayey Sand 13.0 116.5 NO NO
K -Silty Sand 16.0 106.0 NO NO
* -Swell tests were remolded in a one-inch high ring to 90 percent relative compaction
utilizing material at optimum moisture for samples to be surcharged at 650 psf. Samples
were inundated for 24-hours and then amount of swell was recorded. ASCE denotes in
accordance with ASCE Expansion Index Test. NO denotes not determined.
1.. Prior to the placement of compactedfiff, the exposed natural surface was scarified,
2.
watered as necessary and compacted in-place, suitable to receive fiff. Where
necessary, alluvial materials in canyon sware bottoms were removed to either in-
place bedrock, or competent natural soils.
FHf consisting of the above soils types was then placed in thin' lifts,-watered-as-, ~_
necessary and compacted in-place to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory
standard uti f.izing tractor-drawn sheepsfoot type roH~~ and heavy earth movinS
equipment. Each fill was treated in a like manner.
PACIFIC SOILS ENClINlV<E'5RINCI, INC •
.'
•
•
•
•
•
. 'Ott6ber 261916 ;"'"i: , ; ,
-,._" , ,'--. ,~ ::
Work Order 1 00236A
-Page 3
·3. Fill placed on slope gradients steeper 'than 5-horizontal to l-'vertical Was keyed
and benched into bedrock. The upper soils were stripped and/or benc.hed out on the
shallowe~ slopes in such a manner i'hat all.compaded fill is in contact with Intact
. bedrock or c~)mpetent so! Is •
4. All removals and excavating for canyon cleanouts, and proc'essing in preparing fill
___ areas were inspect;;d and approved oy this firm's, representative prior to placement of
any fill.
5. Compaction· tests were taken for each one to two feet of fill placed. The maximum
vertical depth of filt" placed is on the order of 32 feet on Lot 9.
6. Based upon preliminary investigation and geologic inspection during grading, a .
15-foot base width compacted buttress fill was recommended and.constructed for·;-
support of the. proposed cut slope a~ the rear (east) of Lots 15'and 16~ The location
and approxi~ate limits of this buttress Hil is shown on the enclosed plans';
I •
7. The cut portion of transitional lots were over-exeavated to a depth of 30-inches
", and replaced as a compacted fill to provide uniform bearing conditions. This. was
i accomplished on Lots 15, and 16,' as indicated with a lie' on the enclosed plqn. r ···~·:~·~~~Fi!Lsiopeswere backrolled as they were brought to grade at·~pp;"~im~~ fo~~foot I ./ intervals. At the completion of fill placement, the slope was unl'formly compacted
l
.5
by track-rolling and finished by cutting and trimming back to the compacted .core.
Slope tests were made after completion of trimming • .All slopedel1sification has
• \
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
.'
•
•
•
•
j.
I
I I
~ I i
i ! I i • . 1
f 1 ~ ! i ,
• 1 I
t
October 26, 1976
Work Order 100236A
Page-4 _
9.,
*
**
***
10.
been completed and the slopes an~ considered stable under normal conditions.
Materials encountered in cut and utilized for compacted fill ranged from non to
slightly expansive ,in t')I(::'iture.
A lot-by-Iot evaluation of +he soil conditions were conducted, with the'subject
residential lots being considered to be very low to low in expansion p-;:;!'ential,
according to Table 29-C of the 1973 Uniform Bvilding Code. Results of these
expansion tests area as follows:
Lot No.'s.
2 -11
12-15
Soil Type "*
" I
Expansion
Index**,
ND
211
Potential
Expansion***
Low
Low
(% Sandt Silt, Cla¥L
68 19 13
66 17 17
Per tabulation (page 2) compaction test soil types, upper three feet
As determined in accordance with ASCE Expansion Potential Method; NO -not detennined
Per Table 29-C of the 1973 Unifonn Building Code
Design criteria for foundation and slabs-on-grade for the subject lots, are included
in Items 10 and ,11 of this report.
The following criteria should be used in foundation design for the residential lots.
a) The recommended bearing value for both the interior and exterior footings is
1500 Ibs ./sq • ft. having a minimum embedment depth of 12-inches and having
a minimum width of 12-inches •
b) A lateral bearing value of 300 Ibs./sq .• ft. per foot of depth of a maxim~m of
1500 Ibs ./sq .ft. may be utilized. A latetal sliding coefficient of 0.40 may
be used in design •
PACIF~C SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
---~ .
e·
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Octobet26, 1976
Work Order 100236A
Page 5
The above values may be increased one-third for short duration loads such
as se£smic and wind loads.
.11. Footing and slab-oil-grade reinforcement criterid
A summary of foundation requirements is presented on Plate A.
-~ "'... .
a) Compacted fill iots~_i.,+~~ are_ cons i dered \fo 'be's Ii ghtJr, l')~ ;;~ ~:!,~i:i"
expansive (low) in nature and therefore the following criteria should be used
for design:
1) Exterior footings for two-story structures shall have a minimum embedment
of 18-inches below grade.
Interior footings for two-story structures and all footings for a sing le-
story structuresshall have a minimum embedment of 12-inches below
grade. "Spread.or isolated footings may be used.
All continuous footii1gsQb~_r.ejxlf.QJ:c:.ad_wjth two No.4' bars,
one placed in the bottom of the footing and one in the top.
2) All slabs-on-grade in living areas shall be reinforced with a minimum
of six-inch by six-inch, No. 10 by No. 10 welded wire mesh £!:.
eguivalent positioned at mid-height of the slabs; 12 by 12, W2.-8by c
W2.8 welded wire mesh is considered equivalent reinforcement.
3) A minimum of lO-mil polyvinyl membrane is reqvired under all slabs-'~/
on-grade in living areas. This membrane shall be covered by a minimum
of one-inch of sand to aid in.curing of the concrete.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
(j)
.'
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
October 26, 1976
Work Order l00236A
Page·6--
--.,
-,
4) Slab subgrade for living areas and garage areas shall be ~oistened to
at least optimum moisture, to a depth of 12-inches,' prier to placing
concrete.
_ 5) No special treatment of the garage areas is required, except that the'
garage slab should have a positive separation from the stem wa II.
-----------.--,_._-
12. Utility trench backfill should be accomplished in cH:::c:ordance with the prevailing
crit~ria of ,the City of Carlsbad.
Respectfully submitted,
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Revi'ewed by:
~ t -J{ptikrL~
REX P. KETTER, Vice President
Dist: (l 0) Addressee
AJJ:RPK/vll
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
~
I
I
I t ! I ,
t ,
j'
1 t _. ---,
l ~ I
.J
i
f
I
f
(
f I
f
t
f
t'
t
I
• ' -• , -~.!'" ~.' ", I, • ,.', :,,~-, .' -,
, -,-, ';'-;'." , ". ~, .";,'--
.'.~-: , ,~, \' , " , •. ,i". -.':-) ..
---'--
October 26,-1976
. ~,. -Work Order 100236 .' T ABL EI ,'-:
,
~--.---.... -.~ ,"-----~ .. -----------':.-p----~ . --, -, -\ -' .,' .. :,~' ',;
'Date of Test Test' .. , '. Elev. N\oisture Diy Density Relative Soil
• --~~.~ --Test No. Location (feet) (%) (lbs/cu .ft) C;:pme·% -Type'
" .. ___ -......... -:----:-... ,0,-_._-_". __ .... __ ! __ .'~'
, .9/2/76 111 -, Manzanita-74.0 13.0 112.1 95.0 SC D
9/3/7.6 113* II 80._0 J6.3 109.0 92.0 SC D
114 Lot 11 83.0 12.4 109.4 93.0 SC ,-0 • 117 Lot 12 77.0 14.3 -113:-5 96.0--SC -:'0 -
9(8(76 1-00 -, ---Lor2 90.0 17.0 107.0 -,_.------,9-1.-0--·~D-
161 Lot 11 86.0 12.4 112.3 95.0 0
162 Lot 11 89.0 10.5 114.0 97.0 0
166 Lot 2 93.0 14.3 109.4 93.0 0
• 9/9/76 167 Lot 12 80.0 13.0 110.3 93.0 ·0
9/15/76 225 Lot 3 97.0 15.6 113.2 97.0 E
226 Tule Court 100.0 14.9 109.4 94.0 E
9/16/76 241 Lot 2 95.0 14.9 108.0 96.0 F·
242 Lot 3 100.0 16.2 105.7 94~0 F .' 243 Lot 4 97.0 . 17.6 104.0 92.0 F
244-Tule Court 98.0 14~3 105.1 93.0 F
245 Lot 11 92.0 17.0 109.2 97.0 SC F
246 Lot 10 90.0 11.7 110.0 93.0 SC D
247 Lot 9 90.0 14.3 112.4 95.0 SC D
• 248 Lot 13 83.0 13.0 108.0 92.0 SC 0
249 Lot 13 82.0 13.6 111.0 94.0 SC 0
" 9/17/76 260 Lot, 5 100.0 16.9 106.7 94.0 F
261 Lot 4 100.0 13.7 112.0 94.0 D
262 Lot 10 93.0 13.4 107.8 92.0 E
263. Lot 9 96.0 16.3 108.6 96.0 SC F • 264-Lot 5 103.0 17.4 104.6 . 93.0 SC F
265 Lot 8 99.0 13.6 113.5 97.0 SC E
266 Lot 8 99.0 13.2 112.9 96.0 SC 0
267 Lot 12 83.0 13.6 109.5 93.0 ·0
268 Lot 14 85.0 14.3 111.3 94.0 0
• 269 Lot 13 86.0 13.0 107.0 91.0 0
-9/18/76 285 Lot 5 106.0 13.6 -110~6 ~. ---' .. --94.0 0
286 Lot 8 102.0 13.3 106.4 91.0 E
-----------28T----Lot 9 -99.0 l3.6 -105;3 -93.0 -F-
288 Lot 11 95.0 15.6 102.0 90.0 F
Ie 289 Lot 12 86.0 14.3 '. 104.7 93 .• 0 F
I 290 Lot 14 88.0 13.0 103.5 92.0 F
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
®-
, .f •
. '
f -i
f ~ ---~ , ~ I
f i ~ ,
I ,
I
, j
, I
e-
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
October_26, 1976
Work Ordar 100236-A
9/20/76
9/21/76
9/2S176
9/28/76
9/29/76
301
302--
303
304
305
30£
311
312
313 --3-65
396
397
404·
408
413
9/30/76 423
424
427
428
429
430
10/1/76 437
438
440
441
442
443
10/2/76 447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
10/5/76 473
474
475
476
477
478
479
Lot 10 96.0
Lot" 10-----99.:0-----
Lot 3 103.0 -
Lot 6 111.0
lot 7 111.0
Lot 14 91.0
Lot 13 88.0
Lot 14 93.0
Lot 15 93.0
Lot 15 96.0
Lot 15 98.0
Lot 15 100 .. 0
Lot 15 105.0
Lot 15 102.0
lot 15 122.0
Lot 12 88.0
Lot 12 90.0
Lot 13 91.0
Lot 13 93.0
lot 14 96.0
Lot 14 98.0
Lot 13 95.0
Lot 14 100.0
Lot 11 98.0
Lot 11 101.0
Lot 10 102.0
Lot 9 102.0
Lot 11 103.0
Lot 11 105.0
Lot 10-104.0
Lot 10 106.0
Lot 9 105.0
Lot 9 108.0
Lot 2 98.0
Lot 2 100.0 __ _
Lot 3103.0
Lot 15 108.0
Lot 11 lOS.0
Lot 10 108.0
Lot 10 110.0
Lot 9 11 0.0
Lot 8 11 0.0
Lot 8 11 0.0
13.0
13.0
12.4
13.6
15.6
11.1
15.6
11.7
13.0
17.0' _
10;5
-13~0
13.6
14.9
17.6
15.6
17.0
14.3
15.6
14.3
16.3
19.8
12.4
14.3
16.3
19.0
14.9
14.3
17.0
17.6
15.6
16.3
14.9
15.6
19.0
14.3
17.6
14.9
15.6
13.0
18.3
17.0
14.9
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
108.5 92.0 st
112.-) 95.0 SC
108 .. 3 92.:0 SC
111.0 94.0
113.4 96.0
106.5 90.0
112.4 94.0
106.5 90.0
109.0 92.0
-99.1 91 .. 0
106.;3 91.0
111.3 94.0
102.8 93.0
_ 99-,,2 9-1.0 SC
103.2 91$0
97.5 90.0
104.0 96.0
}'02.0 94.0 SC
102.5 94.0 SC
101.0 93.0
99.2 91.0
102.1 94.0 SC
100.5 93.0 SC
103.6 95.0 SC
100.0 92.0 SC
96.8 90 .. 0 SC
101.7 94.0 SC
103.0 95.-0
100.2 92.0
107.0 95.0
102.8 91.0
105.5 93.0
106.3 94.0
104.6 96.0
99 .. 5 ________ 9-2 .. 0
100.8 93.0
100.0 92 .. 0
105.3 93 .. 0
102.6 91.0
107 .0 95 •. 0-
103.4 92.0
104.0 92.0
105.8 94.0
o
o
D o
o o
o
o
" !: ,
ef) ':. .. '. ::-. -,':. -" , ,.:: .~,~ '. . ." .;~ ~ " -' :-'.,. ~ ..
'" October 26, 1976
Work Order 100236-A
e'
10/6/16 480 Lot 10 ' 112.0 14.9 102.,3 94.0 SC G
481 TUle Court· 110.0 11.7 113.4 96.0 SC
• 482 . Lot 2 ,103.0 13.6 106.0 91.0 SC I
483 Lot 3 105.0 14.3 ',106 4 91.0 SC I , .
484-Lot 3 107.0 13.0 99.2 91.0 SC G
485 Lot 4 103.0 14.9 108.4 93.0 SC I
486'" Lot 4 106.0 12.4 112.6 96.0 SC . I
487 Lot 5 108.0 -14.3 110.5 94.0 SC I • 488 Lot 5 110.0 11.7 106.8 91Jt_SG . I
. --~~----. -'-fd/9j76--.---516-· --~-----~-----Lot 4 109.0 16.3 . 105.2 93.0 SC F
517 Lot 4 112.0 14.-9 . 1'03.0 91.0 SC F
518 Lot 5 112.0 14.3 106.4 94 .. 0 SC . F
519 lot 5 114.0 . 15.6 104.5 92.0 SC F • 520 Lot 6 113.0 15.6 102.7 90.0 SC F
521 Lot 6 115.0 17.0 107.0 95.0 F
522 Lot 7 114.0 14.9 110.0 97.0 F
523 Lot 7 116.0 14.9 108.3. 95.0 F
10/11/16 533 Lot'8 113.0 15.6 104.0 92.0 F
• 534 Lot 8 116.0 13.6 110.2 94.0 I
535 Lot 7 118.0 11.7 106.3 91.0 I
536 Lot 7 120.0 13.0 108.0 92.0 I
537 Lot 9 113.0 13.0 111.5 95.0 I
538 Lot 9 116.0 11.1 110.6 95.0 . I
539 Lot 9 119.0 12.4 107.3 92.0 -I • 10/12/76 545 Lot 9 121.0 14.9 109.1 94.0 J
546 Lot 4 114.0 16.3 102.8 91.0 F
547 Lot 4 116.0 15.6 104.0 92.0 F
548 Lot .5 117.0 14.3 103.6 92.0 F
• 549 Lot 5 119.0 13.6 107.0 95.0 F
550 Lot 8 119.0 13.6 109.0 93.0 J I 551 Lot 8 121-.0 14.9 108.2 92.0 I
552 Lot 7 . 122.0 10.5 108.2 92.·0 I
553 Lot 7 124.0 14.3 106.0 91.0 I
554 Lot 6 118.0 13.0 110.3 94.0 I • 555 : .. .Lot 6 121.0 ___ . 12.4 . 107.0_ _._..:.9J .. 0 I
10/13/16 564-Lot 8 123.0 15.6 105.4 90.0 J
.., 565 Lot 6 123.0 __ ._ ._ 13.0 109.0 93.0 J
I 566 Lot 7 128.0 14.9 107.3 92,,0 J
I. 568 lot 7 132.0 9.0 110.2 94.0 J J
569 Lot 7 130.0 11.7 108.3 93.;0' . J
570 Lot 6 i36.0 13.0 107.5 92.0 -J
1
1
• I PACIFIC SOILS ENraINEE~'UNG, INC.
•
•
•
•
•
-", . ,.~
, .' •••• :. ~. .-t--=:" ,~.--' " ,:~' " . , " ".z,. • -, . ; '"'
Qctober-26~~ -1976 -.-:Z7:~~_--. :: ~_-~"':'~~~-;;::~-~"----...:~-::::-~;-::--------. ----._. -
·W~rk Orqer' Hf023O::A~-. -:.-----~----.. --' -'
10/20/76 636-s Lot 12 9-8.0 10a5
637-s . Lot 14-' 111.0 . 9.9
638-s Lot 11 104,0 -11.1
639-5 Lot 2 110.0 13.0
640-s Lot 7 130.0 12.4
641··i·~ . Lot 2 -1 05.0·--.. -.-12.4
642·~-:· Lot 3 109.0 9.9 643 .. ..,. "Lot 4 "118.0 11.7
106.3 91.0
109.0 93.0
110.1 94.0
107.0 91.0
109.-3 93.0
lll.2 95.0
113.0 96.0
109.5 94.0
644--tor5 12i .. -5 1-0.-5-1-1-0...-6-. ----.95 .'(L--SC
* s
SC
645 Lot 6 125.0 13.0 107.4
646 Lot 7 1.25.7 11.1 108.0
-647 Lot 8 125.0 10.5 108.6
648 Lot 12 92.4 13.0 109.2
649 Lot 13 96.6 11.7 107.0
650 Lot 14 102.6 13.6 110.3
651 Lot 15 104.0 14.3 106.5
652 Lot 11 110.2 _ 12.4 109.7
653 Lot 10 113.7 12.4 111.0
654 Lot 9 122.5 11. 1 108.5
Test in natura I ground
Slope Test" .
Indicates test by sand cone method: remaining tests by drive tube
92.0
92.0
93.0
93.0
91.0
94.0
91.0
94.0
95.0
93.0
Areas failing to meet minimum compaction standard were -reworked and retested. Only
passing tests are shown in the above table. -
PACIFIC SClILS ENGINEERING, INC.
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
I
I
I
I
I
I
! I
I II __ L _-----_11
I ~ r Ii II I II I II I
II I
I
I ,
I r
I
I
•
........
e·
•
•
•
•
•
•
. -,;.
•
•
,
i.
October 26, 1976
Work Order lO0236A
lot No.
2
3
. _-...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
TABLE II
Approxi mate
Depth (feet)
14
13
--. -~-----~ -~ ----_ ..
21
21
15
16
26
32
24
20
15
13
18
11
--. ~ ----, -----~-
PACIFIC SClILS ENGINEERING. INC.
_.
. --.-.
I
I I
I
I
t I .
I !
• .. . . . . , ',+ • . -.. . . . ., . .. . . -.
-fOOTING .FOOTiNG . .
.. . .
-.'-~-------. --Depth __ -----:-Re.i.n£~-_:.-. __ SLab ___ _ t-.1oJst. __ Y~Rth Rei!1 f• Slab Moist ---Lot E;d. Into Ext. into Reinf. Reg 't. Lot Ex1'. Int. Ext. Int. '-Relra:~----'Req'T'
• 2 A A .D -D G J ' 1
3 A A D D 'G ,J
~ 4 A A D D G J t-1
A A D D G J
. .....,J
5 I
6 A A D D G J .
-I
e-7 A A D D G J 1
··s 'A A D D G J
9 A A D D G J -10 A A D D G J : .,
• 11 A A D D' G J " --G ,
]2 A A D D J fl --. -II . _. _ . ----.. I' -1"3--A--'-A---:---D----D--. ._-G_ .L...
. -" 14 A A D D G J
15 A A D D G J j,: »_.
tl • t! -
" " !'
I ,
;1 , • -,
i I
--
• . LEGEND , .... '.
A-1211; B -18u; C ..; 2411 below lowest adjacent grade
D-One (1) No. 4 rebar at top and one (1) at bottom
• E-Two {2} No.4 rebars at top and two (2) at bottom
F-One (l) No. 5 reber at top and one (1) at bottom
Go:-Six (6) inch by six (6) inch -No~ 10 by No. 10 welded, wire mesh, or equivalent.
H-S.ix (6) inch by six (6) inch -No.6 by No.6 welded wire mesh, or equivalent.
1-No. ' rebers, -inches on center both ways. ~
• J-A moisture content of optimum moisture required to a depth of 12-inches below slab subgrade
K-Pre~turation of-slab subgrade required to 105 percent of optimum moisture to· a depth of 12"inch~
below slab subgrade. : --_... ----~---,? . . -.':
L -Slab subgrode moisture to be verified by the soil engineer I prior to placement of visqueen and
reinforcement. -
X -NO SPE'C1Al REQUIREMENT
,-. j
,-
Note: 1) Exterior footings for 2-story structures must hove a minimum embedm'enf of 18-inche§
betow grade. I
2) Exterior footings for 3-story structures must have a minimum embedment of 24-inches ..
below grade; interiors, 18-inches below grade.
-, I ' PLATE IIA" .
... --~~ ~ ~ ..... , .. ,,-', ........ "-~---~ . _.-.' • ~~ ".>0' >