Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 81-10; CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER; FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION; 1983-06-14I loe79A SAN DIEGO,SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL ENGINE ERiNG&ENGEERlNGGEOLOGY ma ENG. * S - ., I June '14; 1983 - - JUN 241983 I - - I - 4__.._s•i_______ I Carlsbad Research Center Job No SD1196-00 733'0 Engineer Road S LogNo: - SD3-2662- ' San Diego, California 92111. ' Attention Mr.-Michael Dunigan SUBJECT: FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION S Carlsbad 'Research Center, Phase I • ' Building D,E, F & G Lot Numbers 20, 2i, 22,. 23 and 24 - I . Carlsbad, California ' - • Gentlemen: - S. • ' I This report presents the results of our Foundation Investigation for Carlsbad Research Center, Phase I,Bui1dings-D, E, F and G. I Our investigation was performed to provide geotechnical recom- mendations for the design of cdimercii building foundations and retaining walls.- For our investigation, weutil'ized an untitled 30-scale Building I Location Plan and the. "Carlsbad Tract 81-10' -50-scale grading I plans, both by Rick Engineering I.. SCOPE OF SERVICES -' The scope of services provided for the Foundation Investi-'- - gation includes - A. Review of in-house' plans and reports pertinent to the - project (See Appendix A), I SUBSIDIARY OF IRVINE CONSULTING GROUP INC 4891 MERCURY STREET -. SAN DIEGO, CA 92111 • (714) 268-8266 I .: .. Carlsbad Research Center Job No: SD1196-00 June 14, 1983 . . Log No: SD3-2662 Page Twc 1• .:. Subsurface exploration consisting of 8 bucket auger I borings to a maximum depth- of 25 feet; I . Logging and sampling of exploratory borings to obtain samples for laboratory testing; . fill bedrock Laboratory testingo-f representative and samples obtained during the field exploration,; • . E. Soil engineering analyses of field and laboratory data 1 which provides the bases for our engineering consid- erations, conclusiàns and recommendations; . - . F. Preparation of this. report, inciuding maps and other I . .. graphics, the sum of which presents our findings, conclusions and recommendations. I I . . •.• I .; .•.-.... • . .1 • . . . .. I .... ...... I I ..•-. .. Carlsbad Research Center Job No: SD1196-00. June 14, 1983 Log No: SD3-2662 Page Three II. SITE DESCRIPTION . The subject lots are located just north of Palomar Airport and west of El CaminoReal. The subject lots are presently. flat pad graded as Lots 20 through 24. The original topo- graphy was relatively gentle slopes with minor drainage swales. The location of the property and approximate boundaries are shown on the Location Map,. Figure 1. Access to the site is from El Camino Real, then proceeding west on Carlsbad Research Center roads The subject lots have been rough graded by conventional grading. Lots 22 and 23 have cut/fill transitions and Lots 20, 21 and 24 are all fill. . I Carlsbad Research Center Job No: SD1196-00 June 14, 1983 Log No: SD3-26,62 Page Four Ill. PROPOSED. DEVELOPMENT • • The proposed development consists four, of single-story tilt-up concrete office-commercial/industrial buildings with adjacent parking areas I • We have assumed that column loads will range from 60 to 75 kips and that wall loads will range from about 1.5 to I 2.0 kips per linear foot (all dead load plus live load). I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 I I, I I I I. I I . I I. I I I•.. I . I I .1 Carlsbad Research Center . Job No: SD1196-00 June 14, 1983 Log No:. SD3-2662 Page Five IV. FIELD EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling eight borings to a maximum depth of 25 feet. The approximate locations .f the borings are shown on the Plot Plan, Plate 1. The eight borings were drilled with a 24-inch diameter bucket auger. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B, Figures. B-2 through B-9. Drilling of the. eight borings was conducted under the super- vision of an Engineering Geologist. The borings were logged . and sampled for laboratory testing. Ring samples. were ob- tained by driving a 2 6251nch diameter ring lined sampling spoon into the soil with a 3400 pound Kelly bar. The blow count for one.-foot of penetration has been indicatedon the accompanying Logs of Borings. Further description of sampling procedures has been included in Appendix B. . . i I I Carlsbad Research Center Job No: SD1196-00 June14, 1983 • • -; Log No SD32662 Page Six V. LAORATORY TESTING- Samples -representative. of the earth materials excavated during -our field .èxploratipn were returned to the laboratory for testing. The testing program consisted ofMoisture- Density determinations, Atterberg Limits, Maximum Density I - determinations,ExpaflSidfl Tests, Direct Shear Tests, Consoli- dation Tests, and Sulfate Analyses, of ring and bulk samples. I 4 The soil tests performed on selected ring samples and bulk I samples are indicated on the Logs of Borings, Figures B-2 through -,B-9. Descriptionofal1thelab9ratOrY tests I performed are presented in Appendix C and specific laboratory test results are presented in Figures C-1 through C-6 I I 1 • S - • I S S • - 5- '5. .•-. i... -. - I I': S • I I I 5-S Carlsbad Research Center Job No: SD1196-00 June 14,, 1983 Log No.: SD3-2662 Page Seven - Vi. ENGINEERING .CONSJVERATIONS A. General Description of Soils/Bedrock - The Logs of Borings in Appendix B. indicate that the predominant material at the subject site consists of Point Loma Formation bedrock with or without an over- lay of compacted fill consisting of silty.to sandy Clay. . Point Loma Formation The Point Loma Formation bedrock underlying the site is predominantly a silt-stone. Intact bedrock is generally moist and stiff to very stiff. The bedrock is weathered and fractured at the fill- bedrock contact. Fill Soils . At all boring locations except Number 5, compacted fill overlies the Point Loma Formation bedrock. The fill is somewhat variable but typically classi- fied-as a compacted silty to sandy clay. B. Structural Loads The preliminary structural loads are relatively moderate loads-and can be supported by compacted fill. C. Cut/Fill Transitions . Transition from cut to fill soils occur in the -area of Building E. To provide a uniform bearing condition it will be necessary tooverexcavate the upper surface of the bedrock and replace it. with compacted fill. I I Carlsbad Research Center Job No: SD1196-00 June 14, 1983 Log No: SD3-2662 Page Eight I H D. Expansive Soil Results of expansion tests indicate that the fill could cause heaving/cracking of concrete walks, drive-. I ways, floor slabs, etc. Recommendations to mitigate • expansion forces are presented in this report. 1 I •.. • 'I I I •• 'H ' I I I ' '• • H I I F • • I • • I • ••••: • • ••••' •• 5?' Carlsbad Research Center Job No.: SD1196-00 June 14, 1983 Log No: SD3-2662 'Page Nine Vii. CONCLUSIONS AWV.RECO.MMENVATIOWS A. General - The proposed construction is feasible from geotechnical' aspects. Conventional spread and wailfootings can support the structural dead and live loads.. Two con- straints on the proposed construction are: 1 Non-uniform bearing conditions at Building E (Lot 23) consisting of both fill and bedrock. 2.. Results of expansion tests indicate that the typical. soil has a high expansion potential., B. Recommended Type of Foundation The recommended type of foundation to support dead and live loads is spread footings, either square or contin- uous. However, due to the difference in material type, shear strength, and compressibility between the fill and' the bedrock, it is recommended-that all footings ,for a given structure be founded in compacted fill. Remedial Grading For the ,non-uniform bearing condition at Building E' (Lot' 23), it is recommended that remedial grading be performed to'remove the upper surface of the bedrock and replace it with compacted fill. The depth of over- excavation should be a minimum of 5 feet beneath the, bottom of the deepest footing. The lateral extent,of remedial grading should be 10 feet beyond all sides of' ,the structure. The Plot Plan, Plate 1 shows the i. S. Carlsbad Research Center Job No: 'SD1196-00 June 14, 1983 . . Log No: SD3-2662 - '• Page Ten :J. . . •• . . approximate limits of the,proposed overexcavation. Field observations during grading will be necessary to determine the extent of bedrock overexcavation to meet :1 the specified depth. D. Foundation and Slab Recommendations 0 To mitigate expansion forces, recommendations for I . column, slab and exterior concrete are as follows: C I .• .. 1. Foundations . a. Columns . . ,I •- . Columns may be supported on spread footings, a minimum of 18-inches below floor slab sub- grade. . Reinforcement should be: based on • structural.loading. . • • 'I . , • b.. Walls • I . . . Exterior and interior footings 'should be con- tinuous and. founded 18-inches below lowest, adjaàent subgrade. Reinforcement in exterior I . and interior footings should consist of a mini- mum.of four No. 4 reinforcing bars, placed two I . . . the top. and two at the bottom. -I 2., Floor Slabs Floor slabs should be a minimum of 5-inches thick, ..I . reinforced with Number 3 bars (both directions) at 18-inches on' center located at mid-height of the I . •. . slab Slabs and footings should be doweled to-, gether with No. 3 dowels at 36-inches-on center.. 1'' S I 0 •, 7/ Carlsbad. Research'.Center. Job No: SD1196-00 June 14, 1983 : . Log No: SD3-2662.. I' Page Eleven 1 Slabs should be underlain by 4-inches of rounded I : gravel or clean sand and a 6-mil visqueen moisture barrier, plus a minimum of 1-inch of clean sand betweenthe slab and visqueen I . . 3.. Pre-Soaking-Beneath Slabs Slab subgrade soils should be soaked to at least 5 percent above optimum moisture content to a depth of 24-inches below slab subgrade prior to placement of concrete. The moisture penetration: I , should be verified by the Soils Engineer. Presaturatiôn'°of footing excavations, is not a requirement but they should not be allowed to dry out prior to the placement of concrete. Moisture maintenance by spray applied membrane or sprinkling may be necessary. . I . . . 4. Exterior Flatwork • Provided some differential movement can be tolerated, exterior slabs on grade (i.e. patios, walkways) I . may be limited to 3.5-inches 'in thickness and should be reinforced with 6x6-6/6 wire mesh A SI • S ' • •. four-inch granular base should be provided below the slabs. Although presoaking is not a require- ment, moisture content of optimum or above should be maintained prior to placement of concrete. I • S , • , Slabs should be appropriately jointed for crack control I I' I' •• 'S ' S. • ' •'.' S I . . .. . I .Carlsbad Research Center . Job No: SD1196-00. June 14, 1983 . Log No: SD3-2662 Page Twelve I • Allowable Bearing Pressures.for Footings I The recommended allowable bearing pressure for spread footings is 20.00 pounds per square foot • provided the footings are at least. 2 feet wide with a minimum of 18-inches embedment. The allow- able bearing pressure may be.increased one-third for short term wind or seismic loading. As .I mentioned, it is recommended that this bearing . . value' be used only for those structures to be entirely supported by fill. where the minimum depth of fill is 5 feet below the deepest footing I . Expected Settlement . . .. .. Settlement under the maximum column loads will be less 'than 0.5-inch. Differential settlement between: wall and column loads will be on the order ii of 0.25-inch. I 7. . Lateral Load Resistance . . . . Lateral loads against buildings. may. be resisted I - - by friction between the bottom of footings and the supporting soils. An allowable fiction co- I . . . . efficient of 0.35 is recommended. Alternatively, I . an allowable lateral bearing .pressure equal to an . equivalent fluid.pressure of-300 pounds per square . foot per foot of depth to .à maximum of 1.,500 . - pounds per square foot-may be üse1d, provided' the . . I . . footings are poured tight againstundisturbed soils. I I I .,...-. ' . '3 I Carlsbad Research . Center Job No: SD1196-00 . June 14, 1983 . Log No: SD3-.2662. Page Thirteen - - - - . - Retaining Walls . I . Retaining walls should be designed to. resist lateral loads caused by.adjacent surcharge loads. . .1 Walls free to rotate.and retaining level backfill consisting of the on-site soils, should be designed I . . . for an equivalent fluid pressure of 50 pounds per cubic foot. If select non-expansive backfill is utilized the fluid pressure may be reduced to 30 pounds per cubic foot. Walls which will be sub- jected to surcharge loads should, be designed for - an additional, active 'pressure. I . drainage Adequate should be provided, behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface water infiltration. Type Cement for Construction The results of sulfate tests indicate that Type II cement may be used for all concrete in contact with subgrade soils. Backfill All trench and/or wall backfill should be compacted t0. at least 90. percent relative compaction and tested by the Soils Engineer. I - Footing Observation . All footing excavations should be observed by the . Soils Engineer prior to placing reinforcing steel and concrete. . . . . . I I I , .. .. .: •. . Carlsbad Research Center. Job No: SD1196-00 June 14, 1983 Log No: SD3-2662 Page Fourteen E1j ects In areas to 'be paved, subgrade soils should be excavated so as toprovide for the recommended' depth of pavement sections. The following pavements are recommended: Passenger Car Parking 3-inches of asphaltic (T. 1. = 4.0). concrete on 7-inches of rock base (Type II). Truck Loading and 4-inches of asphaltic -Driveways . concrete on 11-inches (T.I. = 5.5) ' ' of rock base (Type II). F. 'Summary The information in this report' has been based on a limited number ,of excavations, laboratory ,testing, engineering evaluations, etc. The purpose of this report was to develop foundation recommendations. 19 The findings herein should. be 'considered subject to review pending completion o'f foundation plans. Updated foundation plans should be forwarded when availablec for review and comment. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If. there are any questions concerning our report, 'please contact' this office. ' Very truly yours, SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 14t' William,T. Altmeyer, R.C.E. 929QJ - Principal Engineer KWS :WTA:tm' Enclosures: Figure 1, Location Map, Appendices Plot Plan, Plate 1 ' Distribution: (6) Submitted '0 - /5 (5) Conwell-Marsháll & Associates 0' 2000 4000 - I _____._________] - • Scale In Feet -. - - ,.• - I - LOCATON MAP JOB NO SD .1196--00 DATE JUN iae 1FIGURE -: - SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. .1 I APPENDIX A 'I .. :. .. REFERENCES • 0 . . 0 • "Preliminary Soil and Geologic Investigation, Carlsbad ResearchCenter, Carlsbad, California," prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, dated April 27, 1981; "Additional Studies, Carlsbad Research Center, Phase I, Carlsbad, California," prepared by Woodward-Clyde Con- .I sultants, dated. August 17, 1981; 0 "Addendum to Additional Studies, Carlsbad Research Center, Phase I, Carlsbad, California," prepared by Woodward-Clyde I . Consultants, dated September 3, 1981, . "As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Rough Grading Completed, Carlsbad Research Center, Phase I, Carlsbad Tract No. I 81-10," prepared by San Diego Soils Engineering, dated April 21, 1982. 0 0 I I :• 0 I I I I I I 0 APPENDIX B . SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I, .. I The subsurface exploration consisted of 8 borings drilled to a maximum depth of 2.5 feet. Logs of Borings are presented herein as Figures B-2 through B-9. An explanation of Logs of Borings I terminology is presented in' Figure B-i. 1 California sampler resistance blow counts were obtained by driving a, 2.625-inch I.D. sampler with a 3,400 pound hammer dropping through a 12-inch free fall. The blows per foot recorded on the Logs ofBorings represent the number of blows that were required to drive the sampler 12-inches. '. . I Boring log notationfor the California sampler is indicated below: California Sampler I I I I /7' 'I GRAIN SIZES PRIMARY DIVISIONS GROUP SECONDARY DIVISIONS SYMBC)L GRAVELS CLEAN GW Well graded gravels gravel-svnd flualuit:. little 0' no GRAVELS fines GP Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or in cc o I - MORE THAN HALF (LEss 1HAN o OF COARSE 5% FINES) no fines. GRAvEL. GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-sill mixtures, non-plastic fines U) FRACTION IS O ILl " 0 z w LARGER THAN WITH Z N Sol. NO. 4 SIEVE FINES GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. t. X iia SANDS CLEAN SW SANDS Well graded sands, gravelly lands little or no fines. US 4 MORE THAN HALF (LESS THAN 5% FINES) SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands. little or no fires -a W Of COARSE FRACTION IS SANDS SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. SMALLER THAN WITH NO. 4 SIEVE FINES SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic tines. U)W. 161.1 SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inoroanic silts and very fine sands, rock Ilour, Silty Of clayey tine sands or claye'y sills with slight plasticity. - 0 4A o - LIQUID LIMIT IS ci. Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly Li) 4 > clays. sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. LU to LESS THAN 01 Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. z 41A 0 0 -' 11- 4 SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic SlITS, micaceous or diatomaceou fine sandy or Silty Soils, elastic silts CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity. fat clays. w uj LIQUID LIMIT IS z < GREATER THAN 50%OH ___ Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic Silts, HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 200 40 10 4 3/4 3ii, 12 SAND , GRAVEL SILTS AND CLAYS COBBLES BOULDERS FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE I FINE I COARSE RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY Number of blows of 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 inch 0 D. (13/8 inch 1.0.) split spoon (ASTM 0-1586. 4Lkconf,ned compressive strength in tons/sq. ft. as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the standard penetration test (ASTM D-1586), pocket penetrometer, tor vane. or visual observation. KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487) IJO I SD1196—OO B NO.: - i JUNE. 1983 ATE: FIGURE: I . B—i SAN OIF(lfl SOIl S FNlNFFRlNG. INC. 43 I I I I I 111 I 'I I I 'I SANDS.GRAVELS AND NON-PLASTIC SILTS BLOWS/FOOT t VERY LOOSE 0 - 4 LOOSE 4 -10 MEDIUM DENSE 10 -30 DENSE 30-50 VERY DENSE OVER 50 CLAYS AND PLASTIC SILTS STRENGTH BLOWS/FOOT t VERY SOFT 0 - 1/4 0 - 2 SOFT 1/4 -1,'2 2-4 FIRM V-1 4-8 STIFF 1-2 8 -16 VERY STIFF 2 - 4 16 -32 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 I I II] I I ' I DATE OBSERVED 5/24/83 METHOD OF DRILLING: 24' Bucket Auger Grade LOCATION: Plot Plan LOGGED BY: __K .GROUND ELEVATION: _Pad _See g ILl - BORING NO. w OIL z SOIL TEST o . DESCRIPTION 0 - - - - FILL: Brown with green grey mottled, • CLAY, moist, compact • ATTERBERG - P/i - - 7.5 115 EXPANSION SULFATE - - - - WEATHEREDBEDROCK/COLLUVIUM: Brown - 1clayey S ILT, moist, firm B - - - - BEDROCK: Point Loma Formation; Olive SILTSTONE, moist, stiff, fractured and blocky 6 12.1 114 6'Verystiff 10- - -:•4.. •_•%. -. - __ _ TOTAL DEPTH 12' No Water 15- ' No Caving .' ,. •';_• •- •., 20- 25- 30- - 35- -- • •• .• JOB NO: - LOG OF BORING B-2 SDl196-0 IJ /9 DATE OBSERVED: 5/25/83 METHOD OF DRILLING: _24'Bucket'Auger LOGGED BY:_ GROUND ELEVATION: Pad Grade LOCATION: See Plot Plan a w Ui BORING NO. _2 4 4 co - ..Z >. SOIL TEST II. 0 1-2 0W ' o DESCRIPTION 0—a uj 0 , FILL: Olive-brown silty CLAY,' moist i. - compact, brown topsoil clay mixed in - CONSOLIDATION — - P/2 9.4 119 DIRECT SHEAR 5 ' ATTERBERG EXPANSIO SULFATE P/2 7.9 116 CONSOLIDATION >< 10 WEATHERED BEDROCK/ COLLUVIUM.: Light-- red-brown silty SAND, dry-moist, mediu dense 15- — 6 >< 6.8 114 BEDROCK: Point Ia Formation'I Light- - green SILTSTONE, moist, stiff with - orange staining, blocky 20- -' TOTAL DEPTh 2O • No Water No Caving 25- 30- 35- PJOBN0 sD1196-00' — ' LOG OF BORING 5-3 , 1'I I uI r'l ut U I DATE OBSERVED: 5/25/83 METHOD OF DRILLING: _24' Bucket Auger LOGGED BY: K . GROUND ELEVATION: Pad Grade LOCATION: See Plot Plan W a - CL BORING NO. SOIL TEST O DESCRIPTION 0 Z Us -0— - - FILL: Mottled brown silty CLAY, moist, - compact EATHERED BEDROCK/COLLtJVIUM: Brown 5 silty CLAY, moist firm EDROK: Point Loma Formation; Olive 10, Lnd brown SILTSTONE, moist, stiff, 10- locky-fractured ... . . 4 10' Less weathered, very stiff OTAI.DEPTH13' lowater 1 To Caving 20- 25- 30- 35. 40- JOBNO:11g6ç - LOG OF BORING 13-4 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I ' I L1UCUJ JIL.* C! 1,ICCFUU, 11W. DATE OBSERVED: 5/25/83 METHOD OF DRILLING: _24" Bucket Auger LOGGED BY: GROUND ELEVAT,ON.Pad Grade LOCATION: See Plot Plan 1-0 ILl - LU BORING NO. U. - - U. U. -. CO . 1-2 < 0 I,_z w 0 >. SOIL TEST IL to 0 0 o) DESCRIPTION o 0 FILL: Mottled green-purple to brown-. grey silty CLAY, moist, compact 2 4.8 122 DIRECT SHEAR 10 ATHERED BEDROQ(/COLLtJVIt Dàrk brown CLAY, moist, firm - 7 - 10.1 113 BEDROCK Point Loma Formation; Olive with orange stains, SILTSTONE, moist, stiff to very stiff, blocky 15- TOTAL DEPTH 17' No Water 20- No Caving 25- 30- 36- 40-1 JOB NO: - - - LOG OF BORING B-5 I I I .1 1 I I I I I I I I OAR UUCiJ O%JII. mCnII. IrI%i. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — C!) DEPTH (FEET) WI 1.1 I I I I-i• I I I I-i I I I I i i i i I i i I I I I T IT) z i i i i CLASSIFICATION m 0 • BLOWS/FOOT w 0 (1) UNDISTURBED m SAMPLE 0' • N BULK SAMPLE 0 - MOISTURE Ln -. CONTENT (%) 0 tj C z U IN PLACE DRY 0. DENSITY (PCF) m m ZZ q to 000.txj go• — P'Pt '<o CD0 - '<'-3 0 - Z Fl- 0'•• CD In OLi m H CO F-•0 ' - F— 3 CO 03 O . - cno rtW CD L73 0 0 '- 0 O- 0 (t -0j 0 o o - Z co n m : 'S N.5- L74 II CD C) C) r a)-• — z C) — o .: •• . OD _i-. I-hO -1 0 > F Z : .Ln G) • COP) - I-C CD i-no CD 0 -: i-t tn ij • 0 ••. - CD - .•. 0 CD p . •' 0 Fl F-' -- , CD 0 C) PV CD 5.rr 1•1 - 0 0 • - 00; . :0 H 0 •. - • 0. I I I I .1 I :1 I I I.. 1. 'I I I. .1• I I DATE OBSERVED: 5/25/83 METHOD OF DRILLING: _2411 Bucket Auger LOGGED BY:_K.S. GROUND ELEVATION: Pad Grade LOCATION: See Plot Plan I- g w W IL cc > CL BORING NO. _6 _ U. SOIL TEST I- ø - 0 -0 IL z lit DESCRIPTION 0 —o -- FILL: Dark brown slightly sandy CLAY, - moist-wet, compact, mottled - ATTERBERG - - - P - 8.8 116 EXPANSION - SULFATE - P/1 - 7.0 120 CONSOLIDATION 5E - DIRECT SHEAR - WEATHERED BEDROCK/COLLUVIUM: Brown - silty fine sandy CLAY, dry to moist, - I firm BEDROCK Point Loma Fo.rmatioi, Olive- 10- green dlayey SILTSTONE, moist, stitf, blocky TOTAL DEPTH 12' No Water 15- No Caving 20- 25- 30- - 36- 40- JOB NO.: 5D1196-00 LOG OF BORING 1!1G B-7 I UIUU VIL tlUINtI1INU1 DATE OBSERVED: 5/25/83 - METHOD OF DRILLING: 24"BucketAuger LOGGED BY: K.S.GROUND ELEVATION: Pad Grade LOCATION: _See Plot Plan I- a W >U. BORING NO. _ SOIL TEST X . LL - DESCRIPTION o - __ - - - - - FILL: Dark green and.brown silty CLAY, moist,. compact, mottled @3' Dark red sandy CLAY, few cobbles 5- WEATHERED BEDROCK/COLLUVIUM Brown • .- - :aliche 4 10.5' Green-brown silty CLAY, moist,, • - firm to stiff 15- IEDROK: Point Loma Formation; Olive- grey, green , claye.y.-SILTSTONE,. moist, . •J. ;tiff to very stiff, with orange stain- ing. 20- - - - • •. - '•- 25- . •-. 30 • S 35 . . , . ' . ' JOB NO.. 5D1196 oo FT - • LOG OF BORING IFIGURE: B-B ' :• IJIU%# 2s I I.. I I. I I I I , I I . I I 1, I I , I DATE OBSERVED: 5'5'83 METHOD OF DRILLING: _24" Bucket Auger LOGGED BY: KGROUND ELEVATION: Pad Grade LOCATION: See Plot Plan 1: 0 ,_ 3 w W; >-U. 0 _ BORING NO. _8 U. U J U. 0 .. SOIL TEST CO i— z be —I — Oz j co CL DESCRIPTION -o_ — — — FILL: Brown-dark. green. mottled CLAY, - noist, comoact Ilu CONSOLIDATION P/i zz 9.1 112 DIRECT SHEAR Brown organic clay fill lenses MAXIMUM DENSITY 10- '.:4 : 1 15- - — - - - - 10.6 108 EDROCK: Point Loma Formation; Dark 1ive clayey SILTSTONE, moist, stiff - .'. .,.. • 20- . ..._..!.. 22' Blocky-very stiff 25- - - - - - - OTAL DEPTH 25' :o Water 0 Caving 135 40- JOB NO.: LOG OF BORING B-9 SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I I I I APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING I Index Tests . . I Moisture content and dry density determinations were made for most ring samples. Results of moisture-density deter- minations are shown on the Logs of Borings, included in Appendix 'A of this report Results of Atterbérg Limits, consisting of both liquid I .limit and plastic limit analyses, for the silty clay/clayey silt are plotted on the Plasticity Chart in Figure C-l. Atterberg Limits were performed in accordance with ASTM: I. D 423-72. Consolidation Tests . Consolidation tests were performed on bedrock ring samples. I ..Water was added to the apparatus at the load indicated on the consolidation curves. The consolidation, test results I are presented on Figures C-2 and C-3. I C. Direct Shear Tests Direct shear strength tests were performed on selected I . relatively undisturbed ring samples. To simulate field , conditions, the samples we're tested under a normal load I . approximately equal to the in situ effective normal load. The test results are presented on Figures C-4. and C-5 and performed in accordance with ASTM:' D -3080-72.. I I •'.. .: ,,, . . ,7. I / I D Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content The maximum dry density/optimum moisture content relation- ship was determined for typical samples of the on-site soils. The laboratory standard used was ASTM: D 1557-78. The 1 test results are summarized on Table 1, Figure C-6. I E. Expansion Expansion tests were performed on representative samples of I - the on-site soils remolded and tested under a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot in accordance with the Uniform I Building Code Standard-No. 29-2. The test results are summarized on Table 2, Figure C-6.- F.. - Sulfate Tests .- Sulfate test results are summarized in Table 3, Figure C-7. I I - I I I I I - PLASTICITY CHART 60 50 * 40 'LI 0 z I- >.30 0 I- U) 20 -I 0. 10 . 4 0 0 ATTERBERG LIMITS JOB NO.; DATE: FIGURE: SD1196-OO I JUNE, 1983 c-i ~ SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. CH CL El 7/ MH . OH ML :O 0 10 -- LIQUID LIMIT (%)• UNIFIED SAMPLE NATURAL LIQUID PLAS_ PASSING LIQUIDITY SYMBOL BORING WATER CL- (FEET) Cs)• (5) FICATION (5% (5) SYMBOL -. 1, . 2 . 7.5. 3&. . . 78 . . CL .0 2 3 9.4 37 .28 69 CL 6 .. 2 8.8 39 31-. 61 7080 90 10 C? . CL I I I ,.. I I . I : I I ,. 1 I'. I I. 1 I I.. 1' I. 4000 3000 0. I I- 0 z Ui 2000 a) 0 z Ui - I 1000 - c0 iooU --2000 3000 4000 5000 . 6000 NORMAL LOAD (PSF) 4000 3000 U. 0• A. I cc 0 z Ui 2000 a) 0 1 ic I 0 1000 00 1000 2000 3000 4000 . 5000 6000 NORMAL LOAD (PSF) JOB NO.: sD1196-001 SHEARING STRENGTH TEST 1FIGURE: c-4 SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. NO. (FEET) (PSF) FRICTION, BORING DEPTH COHESION, ANGLE OF SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 2 3 oo - , p4' .., .. ,., .: Jek BORING NO. DEPTH (FEET) COHESION, - CPSF). ANGLE OFI FRICTION. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION . . - . 4 4 350 ,. ..' .. ,_( 4000 3000 0') CL x I- 0 z Ui IX 2000 a cc z Ui I a,. looc 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 buOo NORMAL LOAD (PSF) 4000 3000 U. Go L I I- 0 z Ui cc 200C a) 0 z Ec I a) 1000 - 00,. NORMAL LOAD (PSF) JOBNO. SD1].S96-0OI 0 SHEARING STRENGTH. flGU1 C-5 TEST j SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. BORING NO. DEPTH (FEET) COHESION. (PSF) ANGLE OF FRICTION,0 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 24° 6 6 1200 ____ .- -•" -. . BORING NO. DEPTH (FEET) COHESION. - (PSF) ANGLE OF FRICTION0 I SAMPLE DESCRIPTION . 0 0 .• - - -. -: - - •. .- P :.- -- - • -- :- -. -. 0_ '0- 1000 2000 - 3000 4000 • 5000 eo I: I. I $ I TABLE 2 RESULTS OF EXPANSION TESTS TEST EXPANSION EXPANSION LOCATION INDEX, POTENTIAL B-i @ 2' 78 Medium B-2 @ 3' 115 High B-6 @ 2' 83 Medium I . .1.•' I: I Job No: 5D1196-00 i •• Date: • June., 1983 Figure: C-.6 TEST MAXIMUM MOISTURE LOCATION DRY DENSITY CONTENT (%) B-5 @ 3' 112.5 16.5 B-8 61 122.2 10.2. TABLE 1 •• •• 4-. MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT OPTIMUM TABLE 3 RESULTS OF SULFATE TESTS 33. Job No: 5D1196-00 Date:- June, 1983 Figure: C-7 1 I . I TEST . % SOLUBLE LOCATION SULFATE B-i @ .2' .0202% B-2 @3' .0230% B-6 @ 2' .0222% I • S.. APPENDIX I STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page GENERAL ...........................1 DEFINITION OF TERMS ................1 I .3. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES ................5 4. SITE PREPARATION...................... I s. 6. SITE PROTECTION .....................6 EXCAVATIONS .....................8 6.1 UNSUITABLE MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2 CUT SLOPES ..................8 6.3. PAD AREAS ....................9 1 .7. COMPACTED FILL ......................9 7.1 PLACEMENT ...................10 I 7.2 MOISTURE .......................11 7.3 FILL MATERIAL . . . . .......... 12 I . . 7.4 FILL SLOPES .....................14. 7.5 OFF-SITE FILL ..................16 I DRAINAGE ..... .... ................16 STAKING ...........• ..........17 SLOPE MAINTENANCE ......................17 I . 10.1 LANDSCAPE PLANTS ........... . . .17 10.2 IRRIGATION. S ......17 I 10.3 MAINTENANCE ...................18 104 REPAIRS .....................18 I ii. TRENCH BACKFILL . . . . . . 19 12. STATUS OF GRADING ...................20 I. . :. I .. I :3 STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS GENERAL - 1.1 The guidelines contained herein and the standard 'details attached hereto represent this firm's stan- dard recommendations for gtadinq and other-associated operations on construction projects. These guide-- lines should be considered a portion of the project specifications. 1.2 All plates attached hereto shall be considered as part of these guidelines. 1.3 The Contractor should not vary from these guidelines without prior recommendation by the Geotechnical Con- sultant and the approval of the Client or his auth- orized represen€ative. Recommendation by the Geo- technical Consultant and/or Client should not be considered to preclude requirements for approval by the controlling agency prior to the execution of any changes. - 1.4 These Standard Grading Guidelines and Standard De- tails may be modified and/or superseded by' recommen- dations contained in the text of the preliminary géotechnical report and/or subsequent reports. 1.5 If disputes arise out of the interpretation of thes grading guidelines or standard details,, the Geotech- nical Consultant shall provide the governing inter- pretation. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 0 •. 2.1 ALLUVIUM - unconsolidated detrital deposits resulting from flow of water, including sediments deposited in river beds, canyons, flood plains, lakes, fans at the foot of slopes and' estuaries,. 2.2 AS-GRADED (AS-BUILT) - the surface and subsurface con- ditions at completion of grading. 2.3 BACKCUT - a temporary construction slope at the rear -' of earth retaining structures such as buttresses, 'shear keys, stabilization, fills or retaining walls. -2.4 BACKDRAIN - generally a pipe and gravel or similar drainage system placed behind,earth retaining struc- tures such as buttresses, stabilization fills and • • retaining walls.; • 0 • 35 I I I .1 H J I I I: Page. Two 2.5 BEDROCK - a more or less solid, relatively undis- turbed rock in place either at the surface or be- neath superficial,deposits.of soil. 2.6 BENCH - a relatively level, step and near vertical rise excavated into sloping ground on which fill 'is to be placed. I 2..7 BORROW (mpbrt) - any fill material hauled to the project site from -off-site areas. .2.8 BUTTRESS FILL - a fill mass, the configuration of I which is designed by engineering calculations to retain slope conditions containing adverse geologic I . . features. A buttress is generally specified by min- imum key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A buttress normally contains a backdrainage system. I 2.9 CIVIL ENGINEER - the Registered Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying,and verifying as-graded I . topographic conditions. 2.10 CLIENT - the Developer or his authorized representa- tive who is chiefly in charge of the project. He shall have the responsibility of reviewing the find- ings and recommendations made by the Geotechnical Consultant and shall authorize the Contractor and/or I : other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. 2.11 COLLJVIUM - generally loose deposits usually found I . near the base of slopes' and brought there chiefly by gravity through slow continuous downhill creep... (also, I see Slope Wash). . 2.12 COMPACTION - is the densification of a fill by mech- . anical 'means. I . 2.13 CONTRACTOR - a person or company under contract or otherwise retained by the Client to perform demoli- tion, grading and other site, improvements. 2.14 DEBRIS - all products of clearing, grubbing, demoli- tion, contaminated soil material unsuitable for reuse as compacted fill and/or any other material so desig- nated by .the .Geotechnical Consultant. I . 2.15 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST - a Geologist holding a valid certificate of registration in the specialty. of Engineering Geology. . I - . .. .. . ... I . .. .,. .. . '.' . . 1 * Page Three 2.16 ENGINEERED FILL - a fill of which the -Geotechnical Consultant or his representative, during grading, has made sufficient tests to enable him to conclude I that the fill has been placed in substantial com- pliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant and the governing agency requirements. I 2.17 EROSION - the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water and/or ice. I 2.18 EXCAVATION - the mechanical removal of earth materials. 2.19 EXISTING GRADE - the ground surface configuration prior to grading. 2.20 FILL - any deposits of soil, rock, soil-rock blends or other similar materials placed by man. 2.21 FINISH GRADE - the ground surface configurationat which time the surface elevations conform to the I approved plan. 2.22 GEOFABRIC - any engineering, textile utilized in geo- technical applications including subgrade stabiliza- tion and filtering. .2.23 GEOLOGIST - a representative of the Geotechnical Con- I sultant educated and trained in the field of geology. .2.24 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT - the Geotechnical Engineering I and Engineering Geology consulting firm retained to • provide technical services for the project. For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the I Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the • Soil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering • Geologist and those performed by persons employed by I and responsible to the Geotechnical Consultants. 2.25 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER - a licensed Civil Engineer who applies scientific methods, engineering principles and I professional experience to the acquisition, interpre- tation and use of knowledge of materials of the earth's crust for the evaluation of engineering problems. Geo- I technical Engineering encompasses many of the engi- neering aspects of soil mechanics, rock mechanics, geology, geophysics, hydrology and related sciences. I ' 2.26 'excavation, GRADING - any operation consisting of filling or combinations thereof and associated opera- I 2.27 LANDSLIDE DEBRIS'- material, generally porous and of - low density, produced from instability of natural or I man-made slopes. . • 2.28 MAXIMUM DENSITY - standard laboratory test for maximum I .. dry uriitweiht. Unless otherwise specified, the maximum dry unit weiqht.s}a1l he determined in..accor- 37 I . Page Four I 2.29 OPTIMUM MOISTURE - test moisture content at the maximum density. I 2.30 RELATIVE COMPACTION the degree of compaction as a percentage) of dry unit weight of .(expressed a material as compared to the maximum dry unit weight. I Of the material. 2.31 ROUGH GRADE - the ground surface configuration at which . time the '...urf ace elevations approximately conform to I the approved plan. 2.32 SITE - the particular parcel of land where....grading -, is being performed. 2.33 SHEAR KEY - similar to buttress, however, it is gen- I erally constructed by excavating a slot within a natural slope in order to stabilize the upper p&- tion of the slope without grading encroaching into I the lower portion of the slope. 2.34 SLOPE - 'is. an inclined grbund surface the steepness of which is generally specified as a ratio of hori- I . zontal: vertical (e.g., 2:1). . . I . '2.35 SLOPE WASH - soil and/or rock material that has been transported down a slope by mass.wasting assisted by - . runoff water not confined by channels (also -see Colluvium). I 2.36 SOIL - naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt, clay, etc. or combinations thereof. I 2.37 SOIL ENGINEER - licensed Civil Engineer experienced in soil mechanics (also see Geotechnical Engineer). 2.38 STABILIZATION FILL - a fill mass, the configuration of which is typically related to slope height and is specified by the standards of practice for enhancing I .the stability of locally adverse conditions. A sta- bilization fill is normally specified by minimum key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A fill may or may not have a bãckdrainage I stabilization system specified.. . . I' . 2.39 SUBDRAIN - generally a pipe and gravel or similar drainage system placed beneath a.f ill in -the align- ment of canyons or former drainage channels. I . 2.40 SLOUGH - loose, noncompacted fill material generated during grading operations. . . 2.41 TAILINGS - nonengineered fill which accumulates-on I or adjacent to equipment haul-roads. I 2.42 TERRACE - relatively level step constructed in the face of a graded slope surface for drainage control D. - ' . 1 Page Five 2.43 TOPSOIL - the presumably fertile upper zone of soil I which is usually darker in color and loose. - 2.44 WINDROW - a string of large rock buried within en- gineered fill in accordance with guidelines set forth I by the Geotechnical Consultant. 3. ' OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES 3.1 The Geotechnical Consultant should provide observa- tion and testing services and should make evalua- tions in order to advise the Client on geotechnical- matters. The Geotechnical Consultant should report his findings and recommendations to the Client or his authorized representative. I - 3.2 - -should The Client be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project.' He or his authorized rep- resentative has the responsibility of reviewing the 'findings and rè¼ommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have I : authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his authorized representative I 'accessible should remain on-site or should remain reasonably to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. I 3.3 contractor be -The should responsible for the safety of the project and'satisfactory completion of all grading and other associated operations on construc- tion projects, including, but not limited,to, earth work in accordance with the project plans, 'specifi- cations and -controlling agency requirements. During grading, the Contractor or his authorized represen- tative should remain on-site. Overnight and on days off, the Contractor should remain accessible. I 4. SITE PREPARATION - 4.1 The Client, prior to any site preparation or grading, 'I should arrange and attend a meeting among the Grading Contractor, the Design Engineer, the Geotechnical Con- I sultant, representatives of the 'appropriate governing authorities as well as any other concerned parties. All parties should be given at least 48 hours notice. 4.2 Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of - I '- vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, roots of trees and otherwise deleterious natural mater- ials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grub- bing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas. 39 I .... Page Six I 4.3 Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities (in- I : cluding underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tun- nels, etc.). and other man-made surface and sub- surface improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper cap- ping and/or rerouting pipelines at the project per- imeter ana ôutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consul- tant at the time of demolition. 4.4 Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned I the to be removed or demolished should be protected by Contractor from damage or injury. 4.5 Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or I . . demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed off-site. Clearing, grub- bing and demolition operations should be performed I . under the observation of the Geotechnical. Consultant. 4.6 The Client-or Contractor should obtain the required I . approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and/or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate ap- provals should be obtained prior to proc.eeding with I . grading operations. S . 5. . SITE PROTECTION . I 5.1 Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the Contractor,, Un- I .. less other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the I . requirements for site protection until such time as the entire project is complete as identified by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Client and the regu- lating -agencies. 5.2 The Contractor should be responsible for the stability I .of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the Geotechnical Consultant pertaining to temporary exca- vations (e.g., backcuts) are made in consideration of • stability of the completed project and, therefore, I should not be considered to preclude the responsi- . . bilities of the Contractor. Recommendations by the. Geotechnical Consultant should not be considered to preclude more restrictive requirements by the regu- I . lating agencies. S. .1 •• . . ..• . .. : • • I Page Seven I 5.3 Precautions should be taken during the performance I ,of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provi- sions should be made during the rainy season to ade- quately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps shOuld be pt on hand to continually remove water I during periods of rainfall. 5.4 During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting should I . be kept reasonably accessible to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated. Where necessary dur- ing periods of rainfall, the Contractor should install I checkdams, desilting basins, rip-rap, sand bags or other devices or methods necessary to control erosion and provide safe conditions. I 5.5. During periods of rainfall, the Geotechnical Consultant should be kept informed by the Contractor as to the nature of remedial or preventative work being performed I .(e.g.,pumpi-ng, placement of sandbags or plastic sheet- ing, other labor, dozing, etc.). I . 5.6 Following periods of rainfall, the' Contractor should contact the Geotechñical Consultant and arrange a walk- over of the site in order to visually assess rain re- lated damage. The Geotechnical Consultant may also recommend excavations and. testing in order.to aid in his assessments. At the request of the Geotechnical Consultant, the Contractor shall make excavations in order,to evaluate the extent of rain related-damage. 5.7 Rain-related damage should be considered to include, but may .not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress and other adverse condi- tions identified by the Geotechnical Consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as Unsuitable Materials and should be subject to overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grad- ing as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 5.8 Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot; should be overexcavated to unaffected, compe- tent material. Where less than 1.0 foot in depth, un- suitable materials may be processed in-place to achieve near-optimum moisture conditions, then, thoroughly re- cornoacted in accordance with the applicable specifica- tions. If the desired results are 'not achieved, the' affected materials should be overexcavated, then re- placed in accordance with the applicable specifications. 1l Page Eight 5.9 In slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot, they should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grad- ing by moisture conditioning in-place, followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applic- able gradig guidelines herein may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the slope,repair recommendations herein. As field conditions dictate, other slope repair procedures may be recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. EXCAVATIONS 6.1 UNSUITABLE MATERIALS 6.1.1 Materials which.are unsuitable should be exca- vated under observation and recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. Unsuitable mater- ials include, but may not be limited to, dry, loose, soft., wet, organic compressible natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock and nonengineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials. - 6.1.2 Material identified by the Geotechnical Consul- tant as unsatisfactory due to it's moisture conditions should be overexcavated, watered or dried, as needed, and thoroughly blended to a uniform near optimum moisture condition (as per guidelines reference 7. 2. 1) prior to placement as compacted fill. 6.2 CUT SLOPES 6.2.1 Unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant and approved by the regulating agen- cies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). 6.2.2 If excavations for cut dopes expose loose, co- hesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, overexcavation and replace- ment of the unsuitable materials with a compacted stabilization fill should be accomplished as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Unless otherwise specified by the Geotechncial Consultant, stabilization fill construction should conform to the requirements of the Stan- dard Details. - . cLc I I I I' 'I I I I . I I I 'I I I ) 77 Page Nine 6.2.3 The Geotechnical Consultant should review cut slopes during excavation. The Geotechnical - Consultant should be notified by the contractor prior to beginning slope excavations. 6.2.4 If, during the course ofgrading, adverse or potentially adverse geotechnical conditions are encountered which were not anticipated in the preliminary report, the Geotechnical Consultant should explore, analyze and make recommenda- tions to treat these problems. - 6.2.5 When cut slopes are made in the direction of the prevailing drainage, a non-erodible diver- sion swale (brow, ditch) should be provided at the top-of-cut. 6.3.1 All lot pad areas, including side yard terraces, above stabilization'fills or buttresses should be overexcavated to provide for a minimum of 3 feet (refer to Standard Details) of compacted fill over the entire pad area. Pad areas with both fill and cut materials exposed and pad areas -containing both very shallow' (less than 3 feet) and deeper fill should be overexcavated 'to provide for a uniform compacted fill blanket .with a minimum of 3 feet in thickness (refer to Standard Details). Cut areas exposing signi- ficantly varying material types should also be overexcavated to provide for at least a 3-foot thick compacted fill blanket. Geotechnical conditions may require greater depth of-over-excavation. The actual depth should be de- lineated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 6.3.2 For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accom- plished utilizing a berm and/or an appropriate, pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away from the top-of-slopes of 2 percent or greater. is recommended. COMPACTED FILL All fill materials should be compacted as specified below or by other methods specifically recommended by the Geotech- nical Consultant. Unless otherwise specified, the minimum degree of compaction (relative compaction) should be 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. I I 6.3 PAD AREAS •,•. --•-.-.••.. ,•..-.•-- I Page Ten I .• 7.1 PLACEMENT 7.1.1 Prior to placement of compacted fill, the Con- I I .nical tractor should request a review by the Geotech- Consultant of the exposed ground surface. Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed ground surface should then be scarified (six inches mini- mum), watered or dried as needed, thoroughly bfénded to achieve near optimum moisture condi- tions, then thoroughly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density. The re- view by the Geotechnical Consultant--should not be considered to preclude requirement of inspec- tion and approval by the governing agency. 7.1.2 Compacted fill should be placed in thin hori- I . zontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum moisture condi- tions then thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory I . maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished I . I . . . grades 7.1.3 are achieved. The Contractor should have suitable and, suffi- cient mechanical compaction equipment and water- ing apparatus on the jab site to handle the amount of fill being placed in consideration of moisture retention properties of the mater- ials. If necessary, excavation equipment should be "shut down" temporarily in order to permit proper compaction of fills. Earth moving equip- ment should only -be considered a supplement and not substituted for conventional compaction equipment. I . 7.1.4 When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal: I • . vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to pro- vide at least six-foot wide benches and a mini- I the mum of four feet of vertical bench height within firm natural ground, firm bedrock or engi- neered compacted fill. No compacted fill should I . be placed in an area subsequent to keying and benching until the area has been reviewed by • . the Geotechnical. Consultant. Material generated by the benching operation should be moved suf- ficiently away from the bench area to allow for •: - the recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to placement of fill. Typical keying and benching details have been included within the accompanying Standard Details. I . Page Eleven 7.1.5 Within a single fill area where grading proce- dures dictate two or more separate fills, tem- porary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope, benching should be conducted in the same man-. ner as above described. At least a 3-foot U vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved compacted fig-11-prior to placement of additional fill.. I . Benching should proceed in at least 3-foot • vertical increments until the desired finished . grades are achieved. I 7.1.6 Fill should be tested for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should con- form to ASTM Method of Test D 1556-64, D 2922-78 and/or D 2937-71. Tests should be provided for about every two vertical feet or 1,000 cubic I yards of fill placed. Actual test interval may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grad- I . ing recommendations should be removed or other- wise handled as recommended by the Geotechnical - . Consultant. - I . 7.1.7 The the Geotechnical Contractor should assist Consultant and/or his representative by digging pits for removal determinations and/or for I test testing compacted fill. 7.1.8 As recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant, I . the Contractor should "shut down" or remove grading equipment from an area being tested. 7.1.9 The Geotechnical Consultant should maintain a I . plan with estimated locations of field tests. Unless the client provides for actual surveying of test locations, the estimated locations by .. I the Geotechnical Consultant should only be con- sidered rough estimates and should not be uti- lized for the purpose of preparing cross sec- tions showing test locations or in any case for the purpose of after-the-fact evaluating of the sequence of fill placement-. I 7.2 MOISTURE 7. 2.1 For-field testing purposes, '"near Optimum" mois- I . ture will vary with material.type and other factors including compaction procedure. "Near . optimum" may be: specifically recommended in I . . . Preliminary Investigation Reports and/or-)may be.evaluated during grading. I Page Twelve I 7.2.2 Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other qradinq delay, the exposed surface or previously com- pacted fill should be processed by scarifica- tion, watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to near-optimum moisture conditions, then recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of.-laboratory maximum dry density. Where wet or other dry or other unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater. than one foot, the unsuitable materials should be overexcavated. 7.2.3 Following a period of flooding, rainfall or overwatering by other means, no additional fill should be placed until damage assess- ments have been made and remedial grading performed as described under Section 5.6 herein. FILL MATERIAL 7.3.1 Excavated on-site materials which are.accept- able to the Geotechnical Consultant may be utilized, as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. 7.3.2 Where import materials, are required for use.. on-site, the Geotechnical Consultant should be notified at least 72 hours in advance of im- porting, in order to sample and test materials from proposed borrow sites. No import mater- ials should be delivered for use on-site with- out prior sampling and testing by Qeotechnical Consultant. 7.3.3 Where oversized rock or similar irr1educible ma- terial is generated during grading, it is rec- ommended, where practical, to waste such mater- ial off-site or on-site in areas designated as "nonstructural rock disposal areas". Rock placed in disposal areas should be placed with sufficient fines to fill voids. The rock should be compacted in lifts to an unyielding condi- tion. The disposal area should be covered with at least three feet of compacted fill which is free of .oversized material. The upper three feet should be placed in accordance with the guidelines for compacted fill herein. I I M, I I I I I I 7.3 I I I I I I I I Page Thirteen 7.3.4 Rocks 12 inches in maximum dimension and smal- ler may be utilized within the compacted fill, provided they are placed in such a manner that nesting of the rock is avoided. Fill should be placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the 3/4-inch sieve size. The 12-inch and 40 percent recommendations herein may vary as field conditions dictate. 73.5 During the course of grading operations, rocks or similar irreducible materials greater than 12 inches maximum dimension (oversized material), may be generated. These rocks should not be placed within the compacted fill unless placed as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.3.6 Where rocks or similar irreducible materials of greater than 12 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill, special handling in accord- ance with the accompanying Standard Details is recommended. Rocks greater than four feet should .be broken down or disposed off-site. Rocks up to four feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper 10. feet of any fill, and should .not be closer than 20 feet to any slope face. These recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate. Where practical, over- sized material should not be placed below areas where structures or deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean, overexcavated or unyielding com- pacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so that successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane. 7.3.7 It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate and as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant ,at the time of placement. 7.3.8 Material that is considered unsuitable by the -Geotechnical Consultant should not be utilized in the compacted fill. L7 Page Fourteen 73.9 During grading operations, placing and mixing the materials from the cut and/or borrow areas may result in soil mixtures which possess unique physical properties. Testing may be required of samples obtained directly from the fill areas in order to verify conformance with the specifications. Processing of these ad- dtional samples may take two or more working days. The Contractor may elect to move the operation to other areas within the project, or may continue placing compacted fill pending laboratory and field test results.-Should he elect the second alternative, fill placed is done so at the Contractor's risk. 7.3.10 Any fill placed in areas not previously re- viewed and evaluated by the Geotechnical Con- sultant, and/or in other areas, without prior notification to the Geotechnical Consultant may require removal and recompaction at the Con- tractor's expense. Determination of overex- cavations should be made upon review of field conditions by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.4 FILL SLOPES 7.4;l Unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant and approved by the regulating agen- cies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). 7.4.2 Except. as specifically recommended otherwise or as otherwise provided for in these grading guidelines (Reference 7.4.3), compacted -fill slopes should be overbuilt and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the de- sired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of the Geotechnical Consul- tant. The degree of overbuilding shall be in- creased until the desired compacted slope sur- face -condition is achieved. Care should be taken by the Contractor to provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface. 7.4..-.3 Although no construction procedure produces a slope free from risk of future movement, over- filling and cutting back Of slope to a compacted inner core is, given no other constraints, the most desirable procedure. Other constraints, however, must often be considered. These con- • straints may include property line situations, 4ff I Page Fifteen I / access, the critical nature of the development I . and cost. Where such constraints are identi- fiéd, slope face compaction may be attempted by conventional construction procedures includ- ing backrolling techniques upon specific recom- mendation by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a second best alternative for slopes of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter, slope con- struction may be attempted as outlined herein. Fill placement should proceed -in thin lifts, i.e., I six to eight inch loose thickness) Each lift should be moisture conditioned and thoroughly compacted. The desired moisture condition should be maintained and/or re-established, I where necessary, during the period between successive lifts. Selected lifts should be tested to ascertain that desired compaction is I . being achieved. Care should be taken to ex- tend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally I to the desired finished slope surf ace or more as needed to ultimately establish desired grades. Grade during construction should not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may. I . be helpful to elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope. Slough resulting from the place- ment of individual lifts should not be allowed • - to drift down over previous lifts. At intervals not exceeding four feet in vertical slope heiqht or the capability of available equipment, which- I ever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly backrolled utilizing a conventional sheepsfoot- type roller. Care should be taken to maintain the desired moisture conditions and/or re- U . establishing same as needed prior to backrolling. Upon achieving final grade, the slopes should again be moisture conditioned and thoroughly I . backrolled. The use of a side-boom roller will • probably be necessary and vibratory methods are strongly recommended. Without delay, so as to I avoid (if possible) further moisture conditioning, the slopes should then be grid-rolled to achieve a relatively smooth surface and uniformly com- pact condition. . . In order to monitor slope construction proce- dures, moisture 'and density tests will be taken at regular intervals. Failure to achieve the desired results will likely result in a recom- mendation by the Geotechnical Consultant, to I 1 . U.. . . . . . i . • . Page Sixteen I • overéxcavate the slope surfaces followed by reconstruction of the slopes utilizing over- filling and cutting back procedures .and/or further attempt at the conventional back- rolling approach. Other recommendaitons may also be provided which would be commensurate with field conditions. I . '7.4.4 Wlré placement of fill above a natural slope or above a cut slope is proposed, the fill slope configuration as presented in the Ac- companying Standard Details should be adopted. 7.4.5 For pad areas above fill slopes, positive, drain- . age should be established away from the top- I . . . of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing. a berm and pad gradients of at least 2 percent in soil areas. I 7.5 OFF-SITE FILL 7.5.1 Off-site fill should be treated in the same I manner as recommended in these specifications - for site preparation,, excavation, drains, com- paction, etc. . 7.5.2 Off-site canyon fill 'should be placed in prep- aration for future additional fill, as shown I • ' in the accompanying Standard Details. 7.5.3 Off-site fill subdrains temporarily terminated (up canyon) should be surveyed for future re- I . location and connection. I 8. .DRAINAGE . • 8.1 Canyon subdrain systems specified by the Geotechnical , ConsUltant should be installed in accordance with the I Standard Details. 8.2 Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabi1izations.or sidehill masses,, should be installed I . in accordance with the specifications of the accompany- ing Standard Details. I 8.3 Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of structures to suitable dis- posal areas via non-erodible devices (i.e., gutters, I . downspouts, concrete swales). 8.4 For drainage over soil areas immediately away from structures, (i.e., within four feet) a minimum of 4 percent I gradient should.be maintained. Pad. drainage of at • . least 2 percent should be maintained over soil areas. I . Pad drainage may be reduced to at least 1 percent -for • •• . • . I .'... .. .4 Page Seventeen I,.. projects where no slopes exist, either natural or man- made, of greater than 10 feet in height and where no slopes are planned, either natural or man-made, steeper than 2:1 (horizotal:vertica1 slope ratio). 8.5 Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grad- ing should be maintained throughout the life of the project. Property owners should be made aware that I . altering cainage patterns can be detrimental to slope stability and foundation prformance I 9 STAKING 9.1. In all fill areas, the fill should be compacted prior I '. to the placement of the stakes. This particularly is important on fill slopes. Slope stakes should' not be • placed until the slope is thoroughly compacted (back- - rolled). If stakes must be placed prior to the com- I pletion of compaction procedures, it must be recognized. that they will be removed and/or 'demolished at such -time as compaction procedures resume. 9.2 In order to allow for remedial grading operations, 'which could include overexcavations or slope stabili- zation, appropriate staking offsets should be provided. I . For finished slope and stabilization backcüt areas, we recommend at least 'a 10-foot setback from proposed toes and tops-of-cut. : 10. SLOPE MAINTENANCE 10.1 LANDSCAPE PLANTS In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope I • - ' . planting should be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope planting should consist of deep-rooting vegetation requiring little watering. Plants native to the southern California area and plants relative ,to I ' native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi-arid and arid areas ma', also be appro- priate. A Landscape Architect would be the best party I ' • to consult regarding actual types of plants and plant- - • ing configuration. ' I '10.2 IRRIGATION 10.2.1 Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into I - • - slope faces. 10.2.2 'Slope irrigation should be minimized. • If 'auto- I matic timing devices are utilized on irrigation ' systems, provisions should be made for inter- • ' rupting normal irrigation during periods 'of rainfall. ' I' ' I ' Page Eighteen I •' S . 10.2.3 Though not a requirement, consideration should I . be given to the installation of near-surface moisture monitoring control devices. Such de- vices can aid in the maintenance of relatively uniform and reasonably constant moisture conditions. 10.2.4 Property owners should be made aware.that over- I . .. ' wé'ing of slopes is detrimental to slope stability. 10.3 MAINTENANCE 10.3.1 Periodic inspections of landscaped slope areas should be planned and appropriate measures should be taken to control weeds and enhance growth of the landscape plants. Some areas may require occasional replanting and/or reseeding. 10.3.2 Terrace drains and downdrains should be period- I ically inspected and maintained free of debris. Damage to drainage improvements should be re- paired immediately. I ' . 10.3.3 Property. owners should be made aware that bur- rowing animals can be detrimental to slope sta- bility, A preventative program should be esta- blished to control, burrowing animals.' 10.3.4 As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting I . should be readily available, or kept, on hand, to protect all slope areas 'from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall... This measure is strongly recommended, beginning with I . the period of time prior to landscape planting. I . 10.4 REPAIRS 10.4.1 If slope failures occur, the Geotechnical Con- sultant should be contacted for a field review of site conditions and development of recommen- dations for evaluation and repair. I . . 10.4.2 If slope failures occur as a result of exposure to periods of heavy rainfall, the failure area and currently unaffected areas should be covered with' plastic sheeting -to protect against addi- tional saturation. 10.4.3 In the accompanying Standard Details, appro ' priate repair, procedures are illustrated for - superficial slope failures (i.e., occuring typi- cally within the outer one foot 'to three feet.* of a slope.face). . , S Page Nineteen I 11. TRENCH BACKFILL 11.1 Utility trench backfill should, -unless otherwise recommended, be cornpadted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction should be a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density.. 11.2 As an alternative, granular material (sand equivalent greater than 30) may be thoroughly jetted in-place. Jetting should only be considered to apply, to trenches no greater than two feet in width and four-feet in depth. Following jetting operations, trench backfill should be thoroughly mechanically compacted and/or wheel- rolled from the surface. 11.3 Backfill of exterior and interior trenches extending below a 1:1 projection from the outer edge of founda- tions should be mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90 percent, of the laboratory maximum density. 11.4 Within slab areas, but outside the influence of fouri- dations, trenches up to one foot wide and two feet deep may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by jet- ting, flooding or by mechanical means. If on-site materials are utilized, they should be wheel-rolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review of backfill operations during construction. 11.5 If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, the Contractor may elect the-'utiliza- tion of light weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean, granular., material, which should be thoroughly jetted in-place above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical com- pact-ion procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review by the GeotechniOal Consultant at the time of construction. 11.6 In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be con- sidered subject to review by the Geotechnical Consultant. 11.7 Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not recom- mended in slope areas unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mitigate the potential build-up of seepage' forces.' 53 I . Page Twenty 12. STATUS OF GRADING . I . Prior to proceeding with any grading operation, the Geotech- nical Consultant should be notified at least two working days in advande in orderto schedule the necessary observation I . and testing services. I . ..........12.1 Prior to anysignificant expansion or cut back in the grading operation, the GeotechnicalConsultant should be provided with adequate notice (i.e., bwo days) in order to make appropriate adjustments in observation I . . and testing services. . .. ., 12.2 Following completion of grading operations and/or be- . tween phases of ,a grading operation, the Geotechnical .I Consultant should be provided with at least two working days notice in advance of commencement of additional grading operations. I ' . I .. .: I. I.. . , . . 1 . . .. • . .. . '64' CANYON SUBDRAIN N opd Grad, \ N / 'ec.4nic4/ cons -1i-- -r' .Arn,/ -needed c4: Vgr?)ca/ qç;;w 6/tn. __C44)lor 5u1,drqi,, b.fts iw&dwn Dozer Trench I Min AilSer,./ -gC?,c I, Backhoe Trench -, A. a F'ffI1J7rv-. *.s •. ,1• •.••'•.' ..aI Geofabric Alternative La A A 46 '4 S ,.I "c* P'k, '4 $ep.r ,'len Geofabric Alternative I L_ñomjrn,/4' / om oh,mlol be 4'.w,.a d4aej4p., 4 ".nu,. 4, fV,5 'or Soo, Cf ru41 of /000 fl 0rg0en'ei-. sheSd be 4-41ele lo PVC or s'ms/a. .si,ivi, esis s4.1W be c.,pma . 'pc 4.&ieV 4e 8r##,#4rm4i pecsd 4 pSf#SPEl#O1$ per- ,4S p/iced at 00 VIM'SPdd affl',Dt. 61./ £ofooi' fl4,v/d be - //e, s,./er,v/ 5i#.'/d be c,,: CIvS5 Z Pe.sb/g /4Q/erw/. ~- 4ppre'prAi/e gr*isS 4v/d 6e proa',.,'ed 'ovdrorn.c; -,4r i*e de.4bric 4h'er,w/ve a,,S ,C f% o# ge.4:. p-ps be *'èd 1* c spe, fooI F., rvi,s S 5oo, ,000, .I,d ,Sco.,Ct s grU isi ',a.d S#pe, ec?lve,1,, 54v/d bC STANDARD DETAIL NO. 1 FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE w)i'r Slope or flr#Via flm/4d dv,vye 5aA/S 44d dim'n d.'w141 lot' - Ile 2,1' key a 1h '7 IOJ 7',,, des), /64 4.a,,,n./ or-4X f4,c FILL OVER CUT SLOPE I H If \_ 4d'S1w/ skser ____ cot / i" OYFc,/4,, vnd cv#i#y Awwi 1. ywde /5 C*l.fl(d, /674' n'.'. 1G// wsV4 owy he reS'ced r /%6 mM. X,i #a cads 34.60me yqc Gil jwaW Ape less -#Mdrot ft 4f4/. 1// 2 4d,ip,,, Q rmm.eIed 6y jedèc.4ica/ / frP bv&/cdnvu, 4r , I STANDARD DETAIL No-2 I I I I I I STABILIZATION FILL I 844cw,' /:f,,,a, Vil 187,,p ,iIi '; ge,'c Ver,o/ IA Ff14 $skd,a,,, £yS/SPI, IIC ,4ød,,mndzf Ô/ 54ir./ C1C45VM.$/. BUTTRESS FILL Ca led l6pc Z'/ a*Ei#fll4 I ISM. A1d/4 \ " ap I 4 4s I • (2) 1dore ,qe./.ji p/"es .v 8..c4: L/e,4g./ Xie 61)k./ (') 4 £t4 (5) "a &kd,n s/em ,e# .1 I I I ii 5'Ms? flgd4, / / - If av,rE,//,,,q aiS c#rnJ IS /641 I4)1 uS PSQ'VCQd D /t". X'i "a ae ii I// w,d14 &e /es '4s,, 4411 ,'he 'l/ 4e4/ re,nqrnrny. Z- .4 1,4' Ah,,AS 6', s.4// 4ep.viacd 'b.vm g4,b,/,a4,S,e 4,d 4lv//re5s ///j. 74a M#&pe.s nay be jewiger to rec.n#i,.vded óy Ms - Iv der',.I wid,'4 ,I key. Is deq,gd de,S4 4 4y1 6! 04 w dep'4 o/' &s, w.A 4e/1 "ii€i. oMerwiss ,"e.'Iisd, P4: ' STANDARD DETAIL NO. 3 $v1,: Supv 3D/,.a wiafr.2j gos : ,/1o, /or mvz 'wwrAv,..0, 43A z4 BUTTRESS BACKDRAIN SYSTEM I I I 1 I TfiV s ,da 5ee de/.S beApej 8/aak,v/ Fyi/a 3E/ mug. I I I I I I I I I I I .. —Z% Conventional Backdraln C,h' Ch. g1 Geofrabic Alternative ,' — I • ' I- —JS4. • ivsmPi?d/ QA" ypaed POGk, p fr.'fv'd/ .4 40 /v' 0, - 6Yc/0,0 56..0 bt 4X or 14 6, OS4/ pvi .4vW Ac 's'i 04 Co.,,,*irc./ed p'P( s4.'k' ,4mt ,'r A.,'Mvci1 90 TIeI' s rndspj,fg oEpp. OS47'.,.e s.,/d i.' fo#.MegeAk, q//rmn4c. Me 4,c4dri, D' ".y At fro viSed a' /e. p' ,ol# sse4 f#de .1 *',¼') .,Md is .v'ded ,I laud 'S. 4 sS/M 7 -4Iesc4 .S/€/ 1k AlawAO'At a, v,.#.,43. (i'69 a,.' #yfer&'se sed/.? sr t,.qv ars.,pd STANDARD DETAIL NO. 4 FUTURE CANYON FILL View Along Canyon C,rrd,S11NSOtt - 7/ /,.•.\ S . "Ole q 05F it 'S S. vVa'uø) fv,4rc /,'rn/aI jrne wed A" View of Canyon Sidewall ifo I I I i? zrnedred ,'l,/ S.. ///// \ / //'.S/'// \ 000 ~. , i Iv e a41 - 4t4.# I I I I I STANDARD DETAIL NO. 5 P L I I I I I '71 L~ I-: TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION : Cut Lot - 0 • I .I/uv,4n, *,eq,4e ____ £ngrns'€d sell/ . &,c4 I 6rn4 H.". 'W eo i* mm. -40fi. qøo' 1eC0M0AVa424 Cut-Fifi Lot - I 'ic, s4rIcfrde ,e.2fPe> -i 14m, I < ' O#r*/3 I . .7 A.S s4 mi.'. 5caYn'€4/lO4 in S • . //or,oupu'lP/ #dII'l14.. 4*.VIt remvd 74 lirs, ,./v,i,/yrgv.,d j #dev/'4e1 s,Me JeSee4A/edv/. Silec'~ /,.,,s, s4ons m.y pvfy,,c di..r I V4,'4C4YQ//O4. - lie ,fr/e,i,/ lax4o ve oS,o,, ..s4ovk' 6e ~4.t ,,vilmtt 4 7%e e.4lclr&74r 34u sWity '1 rn Wvp, m I #44 v,_I ,'m4/ f4i ell.. . rn Nower y ewA &$M Pf dai'v1S. 4dIW,//.pt./ Sivkøj n?i,f 16e Pe,ves 4 Q#'#4 )4f ew4.. t7V4ti%€V4,'/O4 5. • . S • . •• 0 STANDARD- DFXAILNO 6 ROCK DISPOSAL - 7Vfç 49dbA5 £ Of iOifr •••- . - 2o,9. T Vtr I 1€%:fli"°fl• r Windrow Section - 2o4n'.'in,I %.PcT - - -- r 41 14.r.y4/1 iwcS4 emyiemsmf (..y. by wI./r/4j). Windrow Profile ''r6cc. dvrrnc Sr (& 3o) J.4dsW ic 1t,44PSy4/y ,e/0d' /0 ,,/v.,, 4PPSV$dpftk. _______........... ,e.4 g4scs/d 4 4L p4c'.' i4d /0 *oaf. Ah/es: /- flo//owrn, p/vce*../ S fr1 Is'D# drnj dj,',rni4 sS.r'v4 o#,d Q.S / CL'.4d /'#/ s4ga4' 6e i4.riiI// e.*t,.*c#.d 'hiw We s6,04cc. z- r d 4ovke ,' flr4red 4,fwVW /4c '1b.n 00e rn ''-4 We rft,4t'c PusPem s/S éy 7'Ae 5m44rsIsj OVJ!I.P#/Ie5. STANDARD DETA........NO.. 7 dvbr,; 5up. 5-p, rymr- low #r Wow /a,Jaø / -4 /4' ma. 40/40 P#ct5w1' Cé 1/fr' mm. I I U MINOR SLOPE REPAIR I'•,4 ,, 14T4,, 2 6', bI/a44 a-,rn,s/.,e sar4c /o ___ A - - - SM.,p der's /ump hies s.,4c c 4rrD%I.4. Ci1V4,4 Ay I A. C/qs.Z I 'm4 Conventional Drain I I I I 0 • CJGt•fII Vl GI, no"f. ôSk/ - AIM 40 vr6./ed p#c i' 5o' #ø74 søiy. P/is /eve/ oif Q4W,. •/0 A'/ié,' /2/' QPA4: U//Cf/24 'WI,,. mm. L___ Piece p', 0441.1ch d Pw,'m €i7ø flrai e - 1",wmw1md&44. A'd (lb-rn "4ri#'sas*is *. 44ee1 glow 4)s rwdewo 4%. n..,- o6,icikd e - Geofabric Alternative - P/ace p,e # 24e,rni/Ied #, I I I I I I /d*id c/.,Z /V'w.Sè v/0/, 444: Ce,. 'ill 4P*#) /#i(S 'Drain Guard" Pipe ,m,øi or *'ii4r p4ed C, ,'.4i .d 'f #"c/ Wwe. or 14 STANDARD DETAIL NO. 8]: LOT DRAINAGE Yard drrns 1% • • • ((S. ' .• 11 \ iiVers 0n1dswnj1 i'.vt; I ••• • \ ;%;;; •1% zx No/es: .• &/e OP'€QJ 54.,/d Ie a, Dirc/4i 4k1y 1m 6v'/d,,,, di'wvvjc 4v/cif 4c 2- 4r • 1% "'" • STANDARD DETAIL NO. 9 j