HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS 13-04; Parker Residence; Minor Subdivision (MS) (3)I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
San Diego 6280 Riverdale Street
618.280.4321 San Diego, CA 82120
Indio 83-740 Citrus Avenue
760.775.5983 Suite G
Indio, CA 92201-3438
Riverside 1130 Palmyrita Avenue
851.885.8711 Suite 330-A
Riverside, CA 92607
Toll Free
877.216.4321 www.scst.com
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION R~CE/\!J
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE /.f.A cO
3215 MAEZEL LANE 11R 2 2 201.
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA C!/y 0 J
PREPARED FOR:
MR. JOBE PARKER
PLANN1~g~Rt.saAo
IVJSION
2038 CORTE DEL NOGAL, SUITE 100
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92011
PREPARED BY:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC.
6280 RIVERDALE STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120
Providing Professional Engineering Services Since 1959
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
February 27, 2013
Mr. Jobe Parker
2038 Corte Del Nogal, Suite 100
Carlsbad, California 92011
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
3215 MAEZEL LANE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Parker:
San Diego 6280 Riverdale Street
619.280.4321 San Diego, CA 92120
Indio 83-740 Citrus Avenue
760.775.5983 Suite G
Indio, CA 92201-3438
Riverside 1130 Palmyrita Avenue
951.965.8711 Suite 330-A
Riverside, CA 92507
Toll Free
877.215.4321 www.scst.com
SCS&T No. 1311014
Report No.1
This letter transmits Southern California Soil & Testing Inc.'s (SCS& T} report describing the
geotechnical investigation performed for the design and construction of a single-family
residential building located on Parcel 2 at 3215 Maezel Lane in the city of Carlsbad, California.
This investigation was conducted in general conformance with the scope of work presented in
SCS& T's proposal dated February 11, 2013. If you have any questions concerning this report,
or need additional information, please call us at (619) 280-4321.
Respectfully Submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
Ga . Fountain, GE 2752
Vice President, Principal Geotechnical Engineer
RNB:GBF:aw
(4) Addressee
(1) Addressee via e-mail jparker@pravacsi.com
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... i
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... l
1.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................. 1
1. 2.1 Field Exploration .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................ I
1.2.3 Analysis and Report .............................................................................................................. ]
SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 2
2.1 SITEDESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 2
2.3 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETER ........................................................................................................ 2
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 3
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING ................................................................................................. 3
4.1.1 Site Preparation .................................................................................................................... 3
4.1. 2 Earthwork ............................................................................................................................. 3
4.1. 3 Site Excavation Characteristics ............................................................................................ 4
4.1.4 Imported Soil ......................................................................................................................... 4
4.I.5 Surface Drainage .................................................................................................................. 4
4.1.6 Grading Plan Review ............................................................................................................ 4
4.2 FOUNDATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 4
4.2.1 Shallow Spread Footings ...................................................................................................... 4
4.2.2 Resistance to Lateral Loads .................................................................................................. 5
4.2.3 Settlement Characteristics .................................................................................................... 5
4.2.4 Foundation Plan Review ....................................................................................................... 5
4.2.5 Foundation Excavation Observations ................................................................................... 5
4.3 SLABS-ON-GRADE .......................................................................................................................... 5
4. 3.1 Interior Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ........................................................................................ 5
4.3.2 Exterior Slabs-on-Grade ....................................................................................................... 6
4.4 INFILTRATION RATE ....................................................................................................................... 6
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DURING CONSTRUCTION ............................................. 7
CLOSURE ........................................................................................................................................... 7
ATTACHMENTS
FIGURES
Figure 1 -Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 -Subsurface Investigation Map
APPENDICES
Appendix I-Logs of Exploratory Test Borings
Appendix II-Laboratory Testing
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation Southern California Soil and
Testing, Inc. (SCS&T), performed for the planned design and construction of a single-family
residential building located on Parcel 2 at 3215 Maezel Lane in the City of Carlsbad, California.
The purpose of our work is to provide conclusions and recommendations regarding the
geotechnical aspects of the project.
Three exploratory borings were drilled to depths of between about 17 feet and 20 feet below the
existing ground surface with a truck mounted drill rig equipped with a hollow stem auger. The
driller encountered auger refusal in test boring B-3 at a depth of 17 feet. Selected samples from
the borings were tested to evaluate pertinent classification and engineering properties and to
assist in the development of geotechnical conclusions and recommendations. Additionally, 1
infiltration rate test was performed in the vicinity of the planned residential structure.
Materials encountered in the test borings consisted of fill and old paralic deposits. The fill is
comprised of loose clayey sand. The old paralic deposits are comprised of very dense silty
sandstone. No groundwater was encountered in our test borings.
The main geotechnical consideration affecting the planned structures is the presence of loose,
potentially compressible fill. This material will need to be excavated and replaced as compacted
fill. The planned single-family residence can be supported on shallow spread footings with
bottom levels in compacted fill. The foundation recommendations herein may need to be
updated once final foundation plans are developed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~~~----~~· --
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation Southern California Soil and
Testing, Inc. (SCS&T), performed for the planned design and construction of a single-family
residential building located on Parcel 2 at 3215 Maezel Lane in the City of Carlsbad, California.
The purpose of our work is to provide conclusions and recommendations regarding the
geotechnical aspects of the project. Figure 1 shows the project site location.
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK
1.2.1 Field Exploration
Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling 3 exploratory borings to depths of between 17
feet and 20 feet below the existing ground surface. Figure 2 shows the test boring locations.
Auger refusal was encountered in test boring 8-3 at a depth of 17 feet. An SCS& T geologist
logged the test borings and obtained samples for examination and laboratory testing. The
logs of the test borings are in Appendix I. Soils are classified according to the Unified Soil
Classification System illustrated on Figure 1-1.
Additionally SCS& T's geologist performed 1 infiltration rate test. Figure 2 presents the
approximate location of the infiltration rate test.
1.2.2 Laboratory Testing
The laboratory program consisted of tests for:
• Grain size distribution;
• Corrosivity;
• Direct shear.
The results of the laboratory tests, and brief explanations of test procedures, are in Appendix
II.
1.2.3 Analysis and Report
The results of the field and laboratory tests were evaluated to develop conclusions and
recommendations regarding:
1. Subsurface conditions;
2. Site preparation;
3. Criteria for seismic design in accordance with California Building Code procedures;
4. Appropriate alternatives for foundation support along with geotechnical engineering criteria
for design of the foundations;
5. Resistance to lateral loads;
6. Estimated foundation settlements;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Jobe Parker
3215 Maeze/ Lane -Single Family Residence
Carlsbad, California
7. Support for concrete slabs-on-grade;
8. Infiltration rates.
2. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
February 27, 2013
SCS&T No. 1311014-1
Page2
The subject site is located in a residential neighborhood in the City of Carlsbad, California. The
site is bounded by residential properties on the north, east and south. Parcel 1 of 3215 Maezel
bounds the site on the west. The existing site is a dirt lot which is used for storage. Ascending
cut slopes are located along the south and east property lines with a total elevation difference of
about 6 feet over a span of about 15 feet. Small descending slopes are located along the north
and northwest property lines with a total elevation difference 8 feet over 15 feet. Vegetation
consists of typical residential landscaping.
2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Materials encountered in the test borings consisted of fill and old paralic deposits. The fill is
comprised of loose clayey sand. The old paralic deposits are comprised of very dense silty
sandstone.
Groundwater was not encountered in the test borings. The permanent groundwater level is
expected to be below a depth that will influence planned construction. However, groundwater
levels can fluctuate seasonally, and can rise significantly following periods of precipitation. In
addition, groundwater can be perched on top of the old paralic as a result of rainfall and irrigation.
2.3 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETER
A geologic hazard likely to affect the project is groundshaking as a result of movement along an
active fault zone in the vicinity of the subject site. The site coefficients and adjusted maximum
considered earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters in accordance with the 2010
California Building Code based on the 2009 International Building Code are presented below:
Site Coordinates: Latitude 33.165°
Longitude -117.331 o
Site Class: D
Site Coefficient Fa= 1.0
Site Coefficient Fv = 1.5
Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods S5 = 1.253
Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period S1 = 0.473
SMs=FaSs = 1.253
SM1=FvS1 = 0.722
Sos=2/3* SMs = 0.835
So1=2/3* SM1 = 0.482
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Jobe Parl<er
3215 Maezel Lane -Single Family Residence
Carlsbad, California
3. CONCLUSIONS
February 27, 2013
SCS&T No. 1311014-1
Page3
The main geotechnical consideration affecting the planned structure is the presence of loose,
potentially compressible fill. This material will need to be excavated and replaced as compacted
fill. The planned single-family residence can be supported on shallow spread footings with bottom
levels in compacted fill. The foundation recommendations herein may need to be updated once
final foundation plans are developed.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING
4.1.1 Site Preparation
Site preparation should begin with the removal of vegetation and debris. The fill below the
planned structure should be excavated in its entirety. Additionally, the paralic deposits within 1
foot of the planned footing bottom excavation should be excavated. Horizontally, the
excavation should extend at least five feet outside perimeter footing lines and planned
hardscape improvements or up to existing improvements, whichever is less.
A SCS& T representative should observe conditions exposed in the bottom of the excavation
to determine if additional removal is required.
4.1.2 Earthwork
Excavated materials except for soil containing roots, organic debris and rock greater than 3
inches, can be used as compacted fill. Where new fill will be placed, the material exposed in
the bottom of the excavation should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned
and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Excavated materials, except for soil
containing roots and organic debris, can be used as compacted fill. Fill should be placed in 6-
to 8-inch thick loose lifts, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and
compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. The maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content for the evaluation of relative compaction should be determined in
accordance with ASTM 0 1557.
Utility trench backfill within 3 feet of the structure and beneath pavements and hardscape
should be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. The upper 12 inches of
subgrade beneath slabs and paved areas should be compacted to at least 95% relative
compaction. Site preparation should begin with the removal of the existing improvements,
vegetation and debris in the areas to receive new structures.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Jobe Parker
3215 Maezel Lane-Single Family Residence
Carlsbad, California
4.1.3 Site Excavation Characteristics
February 27, 2013
SCS&T No. 1311014-1
Page4
It is anticipated that excavation can be achieved with conventional earthwork equipment in
good working order. Auger refusal was encountered in test borings B-3 at a depth of 17 feet
below the existing ground surface. It should be noted that cemented zones may be
encountered within the old paralic deposits during excavation.
4.1.4 Imported Soil
Imported fill should consist of predominately granular soil free of organic material and rocks
greater than 2 inches in maximum dimension. Imported soil should have an Expansion Index
of 20 or less and should be inspected and, if appropriate, tested by SCS& T prior to transport
to the site.
4.1.5 Surface Drainage
Final surface grades around the building should be designed to collect and direct surface
water away from the structure and toward appropriate drainage facilities. The ground around
the structures should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the structure
without ponding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent to the structure slope
away at a gradient of at least 2%. Densely vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired
should have a minimum gradient of at least 5% within the first 5 feet from the structure. Roof
gutters with downspouts that discharge directly into a closed drainage system are
recommended on structures.
Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the
life of the proposed structures. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to
sustain landscape growth. Should excessive irrigation, impaired drainage, or unusually high
rainfall occur, saturated zones of perched groundwater can develop.
4.1.6 Grading Plan Review
The grading plans should be submitted to SCS& T for review to ascertain whether the intent of
the recommendations contained in this report have been implemented, and that no revised
recommendations are necessary due to changes in the development scheme.
4.2 FOUNDATIONS
4.2.1 Shallow Spread Footings
Shallow spread footings with bottom levels in compacted fill can be used to support the
settlement sensitive improvements. The footings should extend to a minimum depth of 18
inches below lowest adjacent finish pad grade. A minimum width of 12 inches is
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Jobe Parker
3215 Maezel Lane-Single Family Residence
Carlsbad, California
Febroary 27, 2013
SCS&T No. 1311014-1
PageS
recommended for continuous footings for single story structures. Isolated footings and
retaining wall footing should be at least 24 inches wide. A bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds
per square foot (psf) can be used for footing in competent old paralic deposits. This value can
be increased by Yi when considering the total of all loads, including wind or seismic forces.
Footings located adjacent to slopes should be extended to a depth such that a minimum
distance of 7 feet exists between the outside bottom footing edge and the face of slopes.
4.2.2 Resistance to Lateral Loads
Lateral loads will be resisted by friction between the bottoms of footings and passive pressure
on the faces of footings and other structural elements below grade. A friction factor of 0.30
can be used. Passive pressure can be computed using a lateral pressure value of 300 psf per
foot of depth below the ground surface. The upper 1 foot of soil should not be relied on for
passive support unless the ground is covered with pavements or slabs. The passive pressure
can be increased by Yi when considering the total of all loads, including wind or seismic
forces.
4.2.3 Settlement Characteristics
Total footing settlements are estimated to be less than 1 inch. Differential settlements
between adjacent footings, are estimated to be less than Y:z and between the middle and ends
of continuous footings, inch. Settlements should occur rapidly, and should be completed
shortly after structural loads are applied.
4.2.4 Foundation Plan Review
The foundation plans should be submitted to SCS& T for review to ascertain that the intent of
the recommendations in this report has been implemented and that revised recommendations
are not necessary as a result of changes after this report was completed.
4.2.5 Foundation Excavation Observations
It is recommended that the foundation excavations be approved by a representative from
SCS& T prior to forming or placing reinforcing steel.
4.3 SLABS-ON-GRADE
4.3.1 Interior Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
Concrete slabs-on-grade should have a thickness of at least 5 inches and be reinforced with
at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on-center each way. Slab reinforcement
should be placed approximately at mid-height of the slab.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Jobe Parker
3215 Maezel Lane -Single Family Residence
Carlsbad, California
February 27, 2013
SCS&T No. 1311014-1
Page6
Slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a 4-inch thick blanket of clean, poorly graded, coarse
sand or crushed rock. A moisture vapor retarder/barrier should be placed beneath slabs
where floor coverings will be installed. Typically, plastic is used as a vapor retardant. If plastic
is used, a minimum 10-mil is recommended. The plastic should comply with ASTM E 1745.
Plastic installation should comply with ASTM E 1643.
Current construction practice typically includes placement of a two-inch thick sand cushion
between the bottom of the concrete slab and the moisture vapor retarder/barrier. This cushion
can provide some protection to the vapor retarder/barrier during construction, and may assist
in reducing the potential for edge curling in the slab during curing. However, the sand layer
also provides a source of moisture vapor to the underside of the slab that can increase the
time required to reduce moisture vapor emissions to limits acceptable for the type of floor
covering placed on top of the slab. The floor covering manufacturer should be contacted to
determine the volume of moisture vapor allowable and any treatment needed to reduce
moisture vapor emissions to acceptable limits for the particular type of floor covering installed.
4.3.2 Exterior Slabs-on-Grade
The upper 2 feet of soil below exterior concrete slabs-on-grade should have an Expansion
Index of 20 or less. Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade should have a minimum thickness of 4
inches; reinforced with at least No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center each way. Slabs should be
provided with weakened plane joints. Joints should be placed in accordance with the
American Concrete Institute Guidelines. The landscape architect should be consulted in
selecting the final joint patterns.
A 1-inch maximum size aggregate mix is recommended for concrete for exterior slabs. A
water/cement ratio of less than 0.45 also is recommended, to decrease the potential for
shrinkage cracks. The corrosion potential of on-site soils with respect to reinforced concrete
will need to be taken into account in concrete mix design. Coarse and fine aggregate in
concrete should conform to the "Greenbook" Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction.
4.41NFILTRATION RATE
An SCS& T geologist performed 1 infiltration rate test at the location shown on Figure 2. SCS& T's
geologist observed old paralic deposits consisting of very dense silty sandstone within the area of
the planned structure. SCS& T geologist observed an infiltration rate of about Y. inch per hour.
The infiltration test results reflect the condition in the ground, as they existed at the time SCS& T
performed the test. The project designer should apply an appropriate factor-of-safety to the
measured infiltration rate.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Jobe Parker
3215 Maezel Lane-Single Family Residence
Carlsbad, California
February 27, 2013
SCS&T No. 1311014-1
Page 7
5. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DURING CONSTRUCTION
The geotechnical engineer should review project plans and specifications prior to bidding and
construction to check that the intent of the recommendations in this report has been incorporated.
Observations and tests should be performed during construction. If the conditions encountered
during construction differ from those anticipated based on the subsurface exploration program,
the presence of the geotechnical engineer during construction will enable an evaluation of the
exposed conditions and modifications of the recommendations in this report or development of
additional recommendations in a timely manner.
6. CLOSURE
SCS& T should be advised of any changes in the project scope so that the recommendations
contained in this report can be evaluated with respect to the revised plans. Changes in
recommendations will be verified in writing. The findings in this report are valid as of the date of
this report. Changes in the condition of the site can, however, occur with the passage of time,
whether they are due to natural processes or work on this or adjacent areas. In addition, changes
in the standards of practice and government regulations can occur. Thus, the findings in this
report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. This report should not
be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the
conclusions and recommendations to site conditions at that time.
In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions
and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those
encountered at the boring locations, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations are
based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data,
interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for interpretations by others of
the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation
only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in
connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or
other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTH
SITE VICINITY MAP
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL & TESTING, INC. 3215 MAEZEL LANE
Carlsbad, California
Date : 2/2013 Figure:
By: RB 1 Job No.: 1311014-1
Scale: Not To Scale
-------------------SCS& T LEGEND
Approximate Location of Test Boring 1-1+ Approximate Location of Infiltration Test NORTH
1\J
j DEcK
883SF I
3215 MAEZEL LN ,
11 c6" c ..... CD
.....---'2662 SF
GARAGE
1,170 SF
)
/
/
Q,.._ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
a_sOIL & TESTING, INC.
P 0 ELEV 7'5
10,602 SF
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION MAP
3215 MAEZEL LANE
Carlsbad, California
Date:
By:
Job No.:
Scale:
2/2013
RB
1311014-1
Not To Scale
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX I
FIELD INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX I
Three exploratory test borings were drilled using a truck mounted drill rig equipped with a hollow
stem auger at the locations indicated on Figure 2 on February 18, 2013. The fieldwork was
performed under the observation of a SCS& T geologist who also logged the borings and test pit
and obtained samples of the materials encountered. Disturbed samples were obtained from drill
cuttings and during test pit excavation. Relative undisturbed samples were obtained with a 2.5-
inch inner diameter sampler driven with a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of
blows required to advance the samplers the final 12 inches of an 18-inch drive (or less) are
noted on the boring log as "PENETRATION (blows/ft. of drive)".
The test boring logs are presented on Figures 1-2 through 1-4. Soils are classified in accordance
with the Unified Soil Classification System illustrated on Figure 1-1.
I
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART I
SOIL DESCRIPTION GKUUt-' TYPICAL NAMES SYMBOL
I. COARSE GRAINED, more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size. I
GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines More than half of
coarse fraction is GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel sand mixtures, little or no fines. larger than No. 4
sieve size but GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures. smaller than 3". (Appreciable amount of
I
I
fines) GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand, clay mixtures.
SANDS CLEAN SANDS sw Well graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines. More than half of I
coarse fraction is SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. smaller than No.
4 sieve size. SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty mixtures. I
I sc Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures.
II. FINE GRAINED, more than 50% of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.
SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt or clayey-silt-
(Liquid Limit less sand mixtures with slight plasticity. I
than 50) CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,
silty clays, lean clays.
OL Organic silts and organic silty clays or low plasticity. I
SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,
(Liquid Limit elastic silts.
greater than 50) CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
I
I OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity.
Ill. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils.
I FIELD SAMPLE SYMBOLS LABORATORY TEST SYMBOLS
IZ!-Bulk Sample AL -Atterberg Limits
CAL -Modified California penetration test sampler CON -Consolidation
CK -Undisturbed chunk sample COR -Corrosivity Test
MS -Maximum Size of Particle -Sulfate I
~~ -Chloride -Water seepage at time of excavation or as indicated -pH and Resistivity
SPT -Standard penetration test sampler OS -Direct Shear
ST -Shelby Tube El -Expansion Index I
I '\1 -Water level at time of excavation or as indicated MAX -Maximum Density
RV -RValue
SA -Sieve Analysis
UC -Unconfined Compression & SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 3215 MAEZEL LANE
SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: RB JDate: 2/27/2013
Job Number: 1311014-1 I Figure: 1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NUMBER B-1
Date Excavated: 2/18/2013 Logged by: RNB
Equipment: Hollow Stem Auger Project Manager: GBF
Surface Elevation (ft): N/A Depth to Water (ft): N/A
SAMPLES
0 Q) g w z > en a:l 0 ·;::
J: ~ -c (.) 0:: ~ -1-en SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ::J ..J 0 a. ::J 1-::J ~ w 1-en a:l w -.. 0 i5 z II) § z w
::J 0.. :c '-""
sc FILL: Brown, moist, loose, CLAYEY SAND. ~ - 2
~
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: Reddish brown, moist, very dense,
- 4 SILTY SANDSTONE. I CAL 5015"
1-6 ~\ 1-
1-8 1--
-10 ... becomes humid and light reddish brown. CAL 50/6"
-12
-14
... becomes light brown to tan. CAL 50/4"
-16
-18
SPT 50/6"
-20 BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET.
~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 3215 MAEZEL LANE
SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: RB Date:
Job Number: 1311014-1 Figure:
en 1-c en
~ u w 5 1-!:!..... g >-w 0::
0:: 0 ::J 1-~ 1-z en 0::
0 ::J 0
::2: >-a:l 0:: ~ 0
COR
DS
2/27/2013
1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NUMBER B-2
Date Excavated: 2/18/2013 Logged by: RNB
Equipment: Hollow Stem Auger Project Manager: GBF
Surface Elevation (ft): N/A Depth to Water (ft): N/A
SAMPLES
0 Q) -z ~ w >
(/) al 0 ·c:
J: ~ "0 u 0::: ~ -1-(/) SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS :::> ....J 0 a.. :::> 1-:::> a::: = w I-(/) al w --0 0 1/) z ~ z w 0 :::> c.. e
sc FILL: Brown, moist, loose, CLAYEY SAND.
IX f-2
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: Reddish brown, moist, very dense, r-
f-4 SILTY SANDSTONE.
1\ I CAL 77
I-6 ~\
f-8 t--
I-10 ... becomes humid. CAL 50/6" t--
I-12 1\/
I-14 1/\ ... becomes light brown to tan. CAL 50/2" f--
f-16
1-18
CAL 50/6"
1... 20
BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET.
~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 3215 MAEZEL LANE
SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: RB Date: (: ~ """'_,_,, Job Number: 1311014-1 Figure:
(/)
1-
~ (/)
;? 0 w c. 1--~ ~ >-w 0:::
0::: 0 :::> !:: ~ 1-z (/) 0:::
0 :::> 0
:2: >-al 0::: <(
0 ....J
SA
SA
2/27/2013
1-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NUMBER B-3
Date Excavated: 2/18/2013 Logged by: RNB
Equipment: Hollow Stem Auger Project Manager: GBF
Surface Elevation (ft): N/A Depth to Water (ft): N/A
SAMPLES
a Q) € UJ z > en CD 0 ·;::
I ~ "C (.) 0::: ~ -1-en SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ::::> .....1 0 a.. ::::> 1-::::> 0::: ¢:! UJ 1-a en CD w ....
i5 z 1/) ~ z w 0
::::> a. e
sc FILL: Brown, moist, loose, CLAYEY SAND.
1-
1-2
1--OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: Reddish brown, moist, very dense,
1-4 SIL TV SANDSTONE. 1\/ CAL 50/6"
1-6
1/\
- 8 1--
-10 ... becomes humid and light reddish brown. CAL 50/6"
-12
-14
... becomes light brown to tan. CAL 50/6"
-16
SPT 50/3"
AUGER REFUSAL AT 17 FEET.
-18
-20
~c SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 3215 MAEZEL LANE
SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: RB Date:
Job Number: 1311014-1 Figure:
en 1-
'fj en
~ UJ ,3; 1-~ ~ >-UJ 0::: 0::: 0 ::::> !::: 1-1-<( z en 0::: 0 ::::> 0
~ >-CD 0::: <( a .....1
2/27/2013
1-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX II
APPENDIX II
LA BORA TORY TESTING
SUMMARY
Laboratory tests were performed to provide geotechnical parameters for engineering analyses.
The following tests were conducted:
• CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual
examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System.
• SIVE ANALYSIS: A sieve analysis was determined for two samples in accordance with
ASTM D 422. The results of these tests are presented on Figure 11-1 and Figure 11-2.
• CORROSIVITY: Corrosivity tests were performed on one sample. The pH and minimum
resistivity were determined in general accordance with California Test 643. The soluble
sulfate content was determined in accordance with California Test 417. The total
chloride ion content was determined in accordance with California Test 422. The results
of these tests are presented on Figure 11-3.
• DIRECT SHEAR: A direct shear test was performed in accordance with ASTM D 3080.
The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.003 inch per
minute. The results are presented on Figure 11-4.
Soil samples not tested are now stored in our laboratory for future reference and analysis, if
needed. Unless notified to the contrary, all samples will be disposed of 30 days from the date of
this report.
-------------------
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes
6" 3" 1-%" 3/8" #4 #8 #10 #16 #30 #40#50
1
:: b =~ -=-~1 . -l ~--
' ' j: ~ =-::. -:3 =_· ... ~-· -_r _::. ...
:> I ' ~60 ... Gl if 50 -c
Gl 40 ~ Gl a..
#100 #200
__ J__
=:. L ~ ~·· _ 1 ... ~·~ ~~··· =--, -·---~ ---.---=r __ '_ .. ----··-i ---I . -~
30
20
'-----\' ' '_o . .---lu .. ' -·~ _ __L_____t---, -~~~--~---c_~j 10 r==-----=---~-
0 :-.L~~~
1000 100 10
Grain Size in Millimeters
Cobbles Gravel
Coarse Fine
SAMPLE LOCATION UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION:
B-2 @ 1 Foot-3 Feet DESCRIPTION
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL & TESTING, INC.
Sand
Medium
sc
CLAYEY SAND
0.1 0.01
Silt or Clay
Fine
ATTERBERG LIMITS
LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTIC LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
3215 MAEZEL LANE
By: RB Date: 2/27113
Job Number: 1311014-1 Figure: 11-1
------------------
u.s. Standard Sieve Sizes
6" 3" 1-v.'' 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8#10 #16 #30 #40#50 #100 #200 ----------- -"'"-r--... . -l----=l --... l.
\ --l
100
90 ~------~--~-.. ----~------~± ___ -_·_·· ---·+-
80 ..
'§, 70 ~ ~60 ...
Q)
·=50 LL .. c
Q) 40 l::! Q) 0..
30
1
\ -~-r---------------\
--+ --
'
--------~
-------·-· -+\-----+-----·-·-·-·-·-
f------_-__ --_· -----+·-----------··----r--------~~---+--~------\·-
. ·---r--- --=--~=-f-\ -
------~ : -, -=--= =---~=-----=---=--__ --+--+-. --~-=~-----=___----. -_I
--+---------·····--·-·
·-----------.
20 ~-..
-·--·----------· --~ ---......... . . ----
------1-----··-. . .... ·-·
I
I
.·-·-+-----·--· -· .. ·---····-----.j
I
·------------I I .. ·--~----·· f ' .0 •
100 10
Grain Size in Millimeters
Cobbles I Gravel I 1 Coarse .J Fine I Coarse
SAMPLE LOCATION J I UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION:
B-2@ 5 Feet I I DESCRIPTION
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL & TESTING, INC.
Sand
Medium I
SM
SILTY SAND
By:
Job Number:
------------------~-----___j
--__ _____1_____[______[__________[_1___-J
0.1 0.01
I Silt or Clay
Fine I
I ATTERBERG LIMITS
I LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTIC LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
3215 MAEZEL LANE
RB I Date: 2/27113
1311014-1 !Figure: 11-2
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESISTIVITY, pH, SOLUBLE SULFATE, CHLORIDE
Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines Version 1.0 (September 2003)
I sAMPLE II RE~istlvltv II
: IDENTIFICATIQN :: ~0-cml :: pH II SOLUBLE SULFATE(%) II CHLORIDE (%) I
B-1 @ 1 ft to 3 ft 2000 7 I 0.007 0.0117
ACI 318-05 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
Table 4.3.1 Reauirements for Concrete Exoosed to Sulfate-Containina Solutions
Water-Soluble Max•mum water-
Sulfate Sulfate (S04) in Soil Cementitious Materials Minimum fc, Normal-Weight and
Exposure Percentage by Cement Type Ratio, By Weight, Normal lightweight Aggregate Concrete,
Weight Aggregate psi Weight Ct
Negligible 0.00-0.10 ---
Moderate 0.10-0.20 II,IP(MS),IS(MS), P(MS), 0.50 4000 I(PM)(MS), I(SM)(MS)
Severe 0.20-2.00 v 0.45 4500
Very Severe Over 2.00 V plus pozzolan 0.45 4500
Caltrans Corrosion Criteria
Corrosive Ht:::>~:S I lVII Y( U-em) DH SOLUBLE SUU-A It: l;HLUHIUt:
Environment* <1000 <5.5 >0.2 >0.05
* Corrosive enivronment as determined by the California Department of Transportation Division of Engineering Services, Materials Engineering and
testing Services Corrosion Technology Branch, 2003;Corrosion Guidelines Version 1.0, September 2003
I&. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
3215 MAEZEL LANE
SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: RB Date: 2/27/2013
Job No.: 1311014-1 Figure: 11-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Direct Shear Test Results
5.0
4.5
---4.0
• Shear Strength at 0.2 inches of
Deformation
3.5
I;:' 3.0
Ill ~
Ill Ill I!! 2.5 -U) ... ~· ftl Cll ..c: _,
U) 2.0 ,., , ..
~
1.5 ,
,, ~,
1.0 ,., ~
0.5 ... ,' ,,
~·
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Confining Pressure (ksf)
INTERNAL COHESION
FRICTION INTERCEPT
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION ANGLE(DEG.) (PSF)
B-1 @ 5 Feet In Situ SILTY SAND
Shear Strength at 32 257
0.2 inches of Deformation
&_ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 3215 MAEZEL LANE
SOIL & TESTING By: RB I Date: 2/27/2013
Job Number: 1311014-11Figure: 11-4