The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About; Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Lot 8; Soils Report; 1987-01-15SAN DIEGO GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. SOIL ENGINEERING 8 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY January 15, 1987 - - - - - - -- Job No. 05-6807-001-00-00 slog No. 7-1014 Kaiser Electronics 2701 Orchard Park Way San Jose, California 95134 Attention: Mr. John Balkwill SUBJECT: GECTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Commercial Development Lot 8, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California Gentlemen: As requested, we have completed our Geotechnical Investigation for the site of the proposed commercial project. Presented herein are our findings and recommendations. If you have any questions after reviewing our report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your convenience. .This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, SAN DIEGO GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Chief Engineer AFB/pb Distribution: (6) Addressee ENGINEERING OEPT. LIBRARY City of Carl&ad 2075 Las Palmas Drive CarlsbaQ CA 92009-4859 .- - 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 - 8.0 TABLE OF CON'MNTS INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1 3.1 Authorization ......................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Services ..................................... 2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....................................... 3 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................... 3 SITE INVESTIGATION ......................................... 3 4.1 Field Investigation ................................... 3 4.2 Laboratory Testing Program ............................ 4 SUBSURFACE CONDITLCNS ...................................... 4 5 .l General .............................................. 4 5.2 Santiago Formation .................................... 5 5.3 Fill .................................................. 5 5.4 Groundwater ........................................... 5 SEISMICITY ................................ . ................ 6 6.1 Regional Seismicity ................................... 6 6.2 Earthquake Effects .................................... 6 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. ...7 7.1 General Discussion .................................... 7 7.2 Grading and Earthwork ................................. 7 7.2.1 General ........................................ 7 '. 7.2.2 Geotechnical Observation .................... ...7 7.2.3 Site Preparation ............................... 8 7.2.4 Compacted Fill ................................. 8 7.2.5 Trench Backfill ................................ 9 7.3 Settlement Considerations ............................. 9 7.4 Surface and Subgrade Drainage ...................... ...9 7.5 Foundation and Slab Recommendations..................1 0 7.5.1 General ....................................... 10 7.5.2 Foundations ................................... 10 7.5.3 Slabs ......................................... 11 7.5.4 Foundation Observation........................1 2 7.5.5 Lateral Load Resistance.......................1 3 7.6 Soil Sulfate Content Implications....................1 3 7.7 Pavement Subgrade .................................... 13 7.8 Review of Plans ...................................... 14 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION .............................. 15 i ,, .;. ,. ..- -- - - - - - - - - - - Figures _- 1 2 3 Appendices A B C D ATTACHMENTS Location Map Plot Plan Regional Fault Map References Boring Logs, Figures B-l through B-4 Laboratory Data, Figures C-l through C-4 Standard Earthwork and Grading Recommendations -- - - - - - - - - - - - .- .- GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CARLSBAD OARS BUSINESS CENTER, LOT 8 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 1 .O INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Investigation performed for the proposed 48,000 square foot single story commercial building to be located on Lot 8 of the Carlsbad Oaks Business Park in Carlsbad, California. Our investigation was performed in December 1986. In November 1986, San Diego Soils Engineering completed the As-graded Geotechnical Report for the Carlsbad Oaks Business Center. Information from the As-Graded Report was used in this Geotechnical Investigation. The location of the site is shown on the Location Map, Figure 1. The purpose of this investigation was to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the building site, and to provide recommendations for site preparation, and for geotechnical design criteria for the proposed construction. 1.1 Authorization This investigation was conducted in accordance with the authorization of Kaiser Electronics of San Jose, California. The scope of work conducted was consistent with our Proposal Number 6-4426, dated November 21, 1986. ..‘L ‘: -.--.. -. ,...~ ~- - i’ L - - - .- - - .- ..- - - -.. - - .- ~. o-00 ADAPTED FROM u.s.G.s. 7.61 SAN Luls REY AND ENCINITAS Q’UADRANGLES (1075) LOCATION MAP )B NO.: DATE: FIGURE: 05-6807-001-00-00 JANUARY 1987 ~~~~~~~ 1 - L - Kaiser Electronics January 15, 1987 1.2 Scope of Services - - - - - - Job No. 05-6807-001-00-00 Log No. 7-1014 Page 2 Our scope of services for this investigation included the following: 1.2.1 Review of existtng geologic reports pertinent to the project area (Appendix A); 1.2.2 Subsurface exploration utilizing a truck-mounted 8 inch hollow stem auger. The subsurface exploration program included the collection of both relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples for laboratory testing; 1.2.3 Evaluation of laboratory and field test data gathered during the exploration program; 1.2.4 Evaluation of groundshaking potential resulting from seismic events occurring on significant faults in the area: 1.2.5 Development of site preparation recommendations; 1.2.6 Recommendations for an appropriate foundation system for the proposed structure, development of geotechnical criteria for foundation design, and development of pavement section recommendations for proposed parking areas and driving lanes. - .,‘~.i :: : ;:.:, - .- - Kaiser Electronics January 15, 1987 Job No. 05-6807-001-00-00 Log No. 7-1014 Page 3 - - - - - - - - - 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .'i'he proposed development consists of a one-story concrete tilt-up building with surrounding parking areas. No detailed foundation or structural plans are available at this time. We understand that proposed finish grading should not raise the existing pad elevation substantially. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION As mentioned earlier, the subject site was graded as Lot 8 of Carlsbad Oaks Business Center, utilizing observation and testing of San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. The site consists of an approximately level lot (elevation 348 feet) bounded by Loker Avenue West on the south, a canyon on the north, and Lots 7 and 9 to the west and east, respec- tively. The lot drains by sheet flow to the northwest. The site is presently void of any significant vegetation, and no surface or subsurface improvements are known to exist. The lot configuration along with the proposed building location are depicted on the Plot Plan, Figure 2. 4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION 4.1 Field Investigation A field investigation was performed on December 15, 1986, and consisted of a site reconnaissance by our geotechnical personnel and the drilling of three exploration borings. The exploration borings were located in the vicinity of the proposed structure to obtain a generalized cross section of the subsurface conditions at this location. The locations were &--... .,.,. _I I~--~ ., - 5 L - - - - - - - .- - Kaiser Electronics January 15, 1987 Job No. 05-6807-001-00-00 Log No. 7-1014 Page 4 determined in the field by pacing and use of a Brunton compass. Further accuracy of boring locations is not implied. Eight-inch diameter borings were drilled using a continuous flight auger to depths of approx- imately 21 feet below existing grade. Samples were obtained using a standard Split Spoon Sampler, a 2.5- inch I.D. Modified California Sampler, and bulk methods. Logs describing the subsurface conditions encountered are in Appendix B. Approximate locations of exploration borings are shown on the Plot Plan, Figure 2. 4.2 Laboratory Testing Program Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to determine their pertinent engineering properties. Tests were performed in accordance with test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) or other accepted standards. A brief description of the various test methods used and the test results are provided in Appendix C. 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5.1 General The materials at the site consist predominantly of Santiago Formation bedrock, and a small wedge of compacted fill in the northeast corner of the site. - - I .._ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EXPLANATION + 0-3 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF T.D. 2l.o’BORlNG ++ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CUT/FILL LINE LOT a BOUNDRY PLOT PLAN-PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING-CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 16 NO.: DATE: IFlGllFIF. - - -. 05-6807-001-00-00 I JANUARY 1987 2 - I _- - - Kaiser Electronics January 15, 1987 Job No. 05-6807-001-00-00 Log No. 7-1014 Page 5 - - - - - - .- - ..~ 5.2 Santiago Formation The Santiago Formation underlying the site is predominantely orange-brown, moist, stiff to very stiff, sandy siltstone, and gray to brown, moist, hard, silty sandstone. The bedrock is exposed over most of the site except in the far northeast corner where it is underlain with up to approximately five feet of compacted fill. Results of the evaluation of the engineering properties of the bedrock are presented in Appendix C. Generally, the material is considered suitable to support structural loads. The bedrock has a medium expansion potential as determined by laboratory testing. The results are summarized in Table C-l. 5.3 Fill Due to the small amount, and the remote location of the fill on the site, no classification or laboratory testing was performed on the material. The fill was placed during the mass-grading of the Carlsbad Oaks Business Center, and is believed to be capable of supporting structural loads. However, the fill is outside the limits of the proposed structure. 5.4 Groundwater Groundwater or caving was not encountered in any of the exploratory borings. However, heavy irrigation or surface drainage conditions may change the groundwater conditions of the site. - - - - - 6.2 Earthquake Effects Kaiser Electronics January 15, 1987 Job No. 05-6807-001-00-00 Log No. 7-1014 Page 6 6.0 SEISMICITY 6.1 Regional Seismicity The site can be considered to be in a seismically active area, as can all of Southern California. There are, however, no known active faults on or adjacent to the site. The relationship of the site with respect to known faults in the area is shown on the Regional Fault Map, Figure 3. Due to the distance from active faults, seismic risk is considered low, as compared to other areas of southern California. Faults near the project are listed in Table II along with the estimated peak bedrock accelerations that could be expected on site. .- - - .- - - Based on available information, the most significant event for the intended development is, in our opinion, a 7.0 Magnitude earthquake located on the Elsinore Fault Zone. The anticipated accelerations produced at the site by such an event would exceed those events which might occur on other known active faults. A magnitude 7.0 earthquake on Elsinore Fault Zone could produce a peak ground acceleration of 0.2Og at the sub,ject site with the duration of strong shaking exceeding 30 seconds. Peak accelerations are not, however, representative of the accelerations for which structures are actually designed. Design of structures should be in compliance with the requirements of the governing jursidictions and standard practices of the Structural Engineers Association of California. - : i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- .,_ - - - - - - - - - .- .- - - - - - - - FAULT Elsinore San Jacinto Coronado Banks San Clemente Rose Canyon4 San Andreas Newport/ Ingla?ocd TABLE II SEISMICITY FOR MAJOR FAULTS MAXIMUM ESTIMATED DISTANCE PROBABLE PEAK BEDROCK REPEATABLEHIGH FROM SITE FARTHQLJAKX' ACCELERATION2 BEDROCK ACCELERATIONS3 22 Miles 7.0 0.20 g 0.20 g 45 Miles 7.5 0.12 g 0.12 g 21 Miles 6.0 0.12 g 0.08 g 56 Miles 6.0 0.04 g 0.04 g 7 Miles 6.0 0.32 g 0.22 g 66 Miles 8.0 0.09 g 0.09 g 40 Miles 6.5 0.06 g .0.06 g 1. Seismic Safety Study, City of San Diego (June 1983) & Bonilla (1970) 2. Seed and Idriss (1983) 3. Ploessel & Slosson (1974) 4. Potentially Active c I- .- - - - - .,, - - - - - ~~~:,. L ‘:, i ::,,~,,:,, :. ~,.. .i:~, / ~~~:,. i.. ;~, Z,.~ Z,.~ ;,,,::~~~~~ai,.~~,~.,;;, G&&ral ‘Dis.&s ., :, _,‘. (,. ::; :~ “, ,.~~ .,,~ ., Ge,&mal Dis,iuss i’&,,.., :‘~~,:~~,,~~--j~~,-:,~~~.;;:,,:,- “, 'Provided that _,::,:.: ,‘y:- :~*; ., ,:.,,:;: .; the~&etim& 'Provided that t report ,are full conditions were would preclude the ,S major constraint ide expansive soil* Recommendations,,for include,moisijure &A soils beneath s : _ ,, ., ;~~ _, :>;‘,Y, ,i.~ ;);:;I ,,$, .:.>.*y*,qa “:Y~qj$ ~,:~ : .,; ,,: ..;; ;:i:,:, ~.: ,‘, y” _ ~;All earthwork,:~a~~~~~~~~d~n~,,:.for. sit&. ; ‘:, ‘should : ,. ‘.K’~,> ,,,,) y;. ~:,;., ~. “...i, .;, - ~~::; ,, ~. : ,b:‘Bcc’~mpsi.ls~~i-in:,.ac~~~~~~ce ,; t,~ i,.~;~:&* y with;~&&~~:‘?)r ‘,, ,“‘.. v:. \_ *.,, ‘r!. ., ,;J: ~,: ‘~ atta&+i St’a~~~rd~.‘Eart~work”and~, G&& $& < ,.. mendations presented ,in the following p A ara ,;,“,;,& ,$,; : hi ,A ,~ ,; 1 @&phs’~:;;, :: .$“I ‘, ,’ ,~I , will supersede ~those:lin the 'a'ttached Standard, ,: $:,-~" 1 :$;:f.~, ,,Earthwork and GradLn&:-Bkcommendatio .,l'. "<, ', * iw';': ~, ,~' ) ,~ ,*: ._, _..p ..Tr,: .,$',V. ,.,., s, :. :5*.y;r:: ;~~,~:~,.~&~l ,,~ ,, ,~~ 7 . 2 . 2 i, G&j ; ,&r;;i&i~;: Obs'~~~~~~~~~~,~.,':, f ;;. : ";:; : :,;I ,~, ': :~j ,. ,:~,, ,: ', :, ,, ::: 3 ^ _ /L. --., ~i,,',,,i.,~..,':.) ,, ,i _ January 15, 1987 .- ,-. .,- .- : ,,, our foundation investigation and,to determines 'f: ;,:;; ;;<y. ~~ that grading proceeds in general':accordance with,'. ~, ;., : the recommendations contained herein. .'; ,,.',$.; ,,:;, : .y.; J ,,,,,i, 7.2.3 Site Preparation ',,,' ~, The site should be cleared of existing weedsand " grasses. ~Prior.to placing fill and in areas, to ,:A. receive a pavement section, the exposed,subgrade ,~ :\.. soils should be scarified'to a depth of 6 to 8- a i; ~7' inches, brought to near optimum moisture ~~" ~. TV conditions,~ and compacted to at least 90 pert&t (. ~relative compaction., ,...,~, 7.2.4 Compacted Fili-~ ~~ ', ,,./ .',, ., .,: ,~,, :: : ,~ ,:;: ,'..'.-.. ,.; ~,.~ ~. ., ,, : j,,'.~Y :Y.>.,.":~: .: ( : :;:I~! i;;. '~" './;:f ,, " Fill placed : & & sit;,' &,& be comp&&&-;~t~~~' a, 'I;;' '~ :;;:.~ minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. -based': ; on ASTM Laboratory Test Designation D 1557. Fill placed within 24-inches of finish subgrade should be placed at approximately 4 percent over optimum moisture, content. Fill 'should be ,; ;eE~,,,:,,~ ,:' compacted by mechanical means in uniform lifts !'i,~"'~ of 6 to 8-inches inthickness. Rock fragments" ;,,~?:,,, ,, ;~,, ,~ ,, ~greater,than 6-inches in maximum dimension :::: : ., ., :: should not,'be placed.within the compacted fill. :,:' 'i ,. '. ,/,' Grading should be per.formed in'a&ordan~e'tiitli :' : '~I" the Grading, Ordinanhesof governing agencies:; ~1 Kaiser Electronics ,.Job No. 05-6807-O01~-~OO-OO"-~~ : ~', January 15, 1987 Logs, No. 7-101 4 ',,$ij <" ,. ~. ,, ', '.:,, Page :9 -;;; ,,,, ;y;: ,,~:',,,,, A.' 8'~ ~,: ,;. ._ ,. ,;.,, ,. ,,. ,. ,., *y'& ~,~~ ,y; ; ,, ,..,~~ ,~~ 7.2.5 Trench Backfill :., ,;~ *, ,,~I; :, ,:: ,' ', ,.,s; ,'.. ~, ,. i ,j,~:.~~~.~, ., ':: ,, 1~ ~," Utility trench backfill should be cornpact,elt::~by'.',~~: :.:. ,,', mechanical means to a minimum. of ,90 percent:~!of ,;!;$ l::ic the laboratory:,~maximum density. ,T ,: ^,. ,/,::, i:--..,y:<,; ~$.I: ), ,;::::~, , ._i:,//~;:i ;,!?>., ',. ,, ;_ II :,.;;,,,f : .'!" Settlement Consider&ions ,~ ,,,, 3.~ :;c,,;~,:., --,K,':,~,'. ,,,,, :,,_ :+ I, ) ,. , ,, i, 7.3 The anticipated total and/or differential settlements for the proposed structures may be considered to be within tolerable limits provided that the recom- mendations, in this report are followed. In general, total settlementsare estimated to be less than 1 inch,: _' with differential settlements less than 0.50 inches : across the structure. These estimates are based.on our experience wi.th~~typical.foundation ~loads associated with structures such,as 'those proposed. It is recommended that we perform a'review of the actual ,I:' foundation plans 'and.,.-loading cond~itions. , . ,I '.I .A>,~ ,- .I, :. ;.~ ', '. z; :~.,;:l;:l;~~~~~~;?~~,I ',, -" : I, ;,:~ I:;~~:::":~~~~~.~ri;;:: i '~, ,.,:,, ;',, ': ,:~ Surface and Sub&&e ~Draiu&,e‘,,, I,.. ,:- ~,, ,: ,' ~:,: .,. ,,:_:: ,,,, :'; &;-&y~; 'j:; ;- i,:,~ ,y;,;;,,; ,,,; :, ~~,I, : " c ,, I .,,, ,, ‘,.,& ,,,:: ;: _.,, ,:,i. ~~~:',, ,: 5" ;J~>,,;:>:;; .: ,' ,I;-; ,,,, .,,..,, ",,,~;.,+,.y ~':,,'y ::,:: t;::> The p&ormance of f,&&‘t-io~s is~ hi.&;; ‘d~p&je~>:“u&n ‘, maintaining adequate surface drainage both during'~and, ., after construction. The ground surface around ; " structures should be graded's0 :that water will be ~," I;, Y ,:,' carried quickly away from the building without" ,,>~;:::.~ "' : ;_ ,a :,,~ ,,' ponding. The minimum,gradient wi.th<n ten feet of~:.th& ,', building will depend upo$f.surface~~landscaping. r In'! 1's general, paved or lawn a&as: should have a minL&um'::' ~i gradient of 2 percent, while~,heavily landscaped.ar& should have a mi.nimum.gradient of 5 percent. Roof ~~ ';, drainsshould be carried~'acrossz~all backfiLled areas.,? -: i I_ ‘,.?J A;:;; : ,‘;,.;~‘, x ~,, ,, “,,: ,~. ~,,~, ,,, T’,,‘ .:: ,,_ i’..‘, ,, .~ ~, .,~~ ‘,.: ‘~1 ” ‘: ‘,~ _, Kaiser Electronics January 15,,1987 Job No. 05-6807:OOl-00-~00 .',' ., Log No. 7-1014 Page 10 7.5 - .- - - - - ., ~: and.discharged at leasttenfeet away from'struc- tures. Planters should',be constructed so that, moisture is not allowed ~to seep,into'the foundation areas or 7.5.1 ~.,, .,I ,' .' ', ,; , 1 ,,:'r ,, ~,,.,. .j& beneath slabs and'pavements; I :. '~', I' ,. .,:~, ,,,,, '.~~. ~' ..,' ,,I Foundation and Slabs Recommendations ,j'. " '. .' :, ,; General ,: : Our investigation vindicates that the existing. soils exhibit.a medium expansion potential. The 1' following recom&endations are provided ~for. the .' design of footings,~and slabs based on thesoils 1~ ~:. ,~~, presently on&ite.~ ': ,_ :y :~ ., ': .I /~, Our recommendationsare. considered to be generally.consistent:with the standards of ,,'. ,: practice.'; They;are:based on both analytica~i : (' 'I ,~. methods and:zempirical methods .derived Ifrom ,,,;~:Y .,.: I ,. experience with similar'.,geotechnical conditions. Reinforcement'recommendations are considered the minimum necessary for the likely soil conditions and are notintended tom supersede the design of the Structural Engineer dr criteria of,~governing agencL@i;-.. ~., ,. .~I :, ,i~;:,',::l~: .:.f:,,' T' ,:,I; :, #:T,',,:: ;., : :.':: ','~ ,;L:~ :;..'f:k ~:' ,', ,~, ,i ,' .;I;, : ~._',,., 'y,,: ,,:, 'q,: ,,~', ',c: ,,,: I :,.+: :.,, _, ~. ,,i ,, ,,, ~~~., ,.. I ., i. ,,,. ,C'>~ ,,,. :. '. ':. ,: ,‘.i;' : ,_ Pi ,~:, ,:, a,' ,,d.,,:/ ,ji,j_ :, '_ ,~.~,?:~:~... .,~ x',,;.;.:,~ ;‘-;,.:.;,,~' r.,,; ,,,, ~" Fo'~nd&~o;s~:;~ :_:: : i,~',; +y;::~ ,~j: :;'-;; ; ~ :, * .,G/, 'S_. ',. .,", .~ ,;: : ,: : ;c", ~, ,I', .r:' 'X,; -:-;1 ;,.;z,l:-: " : : ::5; . ,,,,,.i .,,' (in ., ~,~.. ,, ~,:,, :: ,:,,,: ::;! A:.*;,; i ,; ., ,';:1',';!, ;: ',~ ,:,- ,,,, ',~ Ye.. '$. ,.^',&,,:I,:. ,, Cf$'. ~, ,,;:: ,i y<',',~':; ,.~; ,j~, ,: .,,, The results of exp&s.ion *testing are .&mm&i&d '~':'.:, ~..,$ in Table I., The:recommended ~type of foundation is conventional:spread footings, either square ,,,' or continuous.'- ~::No foo'tings should straddle'~a'~;~~ 8' ,), ,~', cut/fill interface? '_' ~~._ .,, .'~ .;. ,, All ~'foot ings for: a given$~,~; & ,:$ ): .:.; y,,,-j .,.,, i,>. ?'~ . .." ;__ .,,. :, ,,:,.:. ~. : " ,I: "{ .:L) ";:~y,,Jr:,; :,q ., ,~ ;,; 'L,“ -!; ,),~~ .., ~~, .._ ; ,, '.;;. .: L ~;,~ ,.';'; :~~,, i,., ,: ~,,. ,.,,: ~C~ _, ..,,,, ,:,y;~ ::. y i",' ". ., ,L' .,.!:; . ~,: ;,.,z,, .' ::": ,::~I .:,, Z.,~, _ ;:, ., ,~~i ,I ', ', ,,,:, '. ,.,. .,. ,T ::. ~‘_ ~' ,l,;, .,~ .,- .- - - - ,- .- .- Kaiser Electronics January 15, 1987 Job No. 05-6807-001-00-00 ,-,, ,;.; ': .,,, I~::. ,, ::';;.: ,+ ., ;",",,N;; 7-1014~ ~.t’,.,, ;l:,:i:~:.~ ~, ,. ,,.?,,. <,?.*“,.!,;,,, ;,:, _ s .,~ $:” ‘, :p (Y’) ‘~ ,, ,~,, ‘bui’~‘~i~~.~~‘~h~~lh,:~,~,b,e~‘:~’founded ‘either eneireiy ‘fin ~I. .’ ,. .,bedrock orentirely. in compacted fill. ~?,, ,, ,.~ ,. (1 ~':y,:.'>, ;~ ,j, " Foundations':may$e'designed for a maximum ~. allowable bearing cap,acity of 6,000 pounds per square foot. In the,event that the pad eleva- tion is raised,by the placement of compacted fill, an allowable'bearing pressure of2.500 : ~';r, ., ~, .~, :' 'pounds :per':squarej(foot "should be mused. ~'A;-,!-, "' ' :' ,",, ,~' "one-'third increase "forshort-term' wind 0;. "'. ', seismicloads'imay be,used. Footings should,be at least, 12Linches wide. Exterior .footings ~,: should extenda minimum of 18-inches below .~ lowest adjacent: finish grade., Interior footngs ,~ need only extend,a minimum of 12-inches:below :, ',',:, ~: ~, z at least one.,r&iberfour.,bar placed.both',at, the top,,and bottom:-_ofi:the:'footing.' If ,the, stzructure#I.~ ',, .i.s to be supported-,~on~,isol,ated spread footings, ~, :I -a moisture;cut~off!wall should be poured around :",~the perimeter ofl'the building to 'a depth,"of~ i; '-~' 24-inches ,~~'~l'ow,:-lowes~:j,adjacent,~ finish~ s,ubgrade;~, ,~~, ,. : ,,,,, ./ :>;'~~;~.:~:~~ ,,,,, ,: pi ,, r j", 2:;. ,. , -L ,.";.:;;~j~:t,,,~,; .+ ;- ~~,,,~ ,I ~ ,(, ,, ;,..:.'~' ~: '<~ <~, : ; .- ;,,~~ ij.!.x / ,T:*'":,,;jr- ,..,, z.; ::?.:, ',,;i:> .-;~ : ;, .:~, ,., ~,~+iu'.~~i~ ; .&,,' hs ,;;,;;;. -,y:;',~,,i':': ~ ;.+ ;~I:; ;":,'i;.;,-.l'.l:,,: '.,' !,', ,, :, 7 . 5 . 3 ., Slab in ~' :,:l,i'~~~~i:~-,~~~~:"':~~,y~~~~~~~:~~~.~~~ ,~.:; .' ~: ::p .~L ~,T>:, : ,,:,, ~, '. :"i', :;,.* ;i ,&, ~:'~~~:.,'.,-:i.:;.~~ >;',I '++-'j?;:'%? ., ,, ,; l~i::.:~ _ ,I ,., ," .,~ ,:~,,.~, ,., '.j- ,.l.,, (, ,i ,,,,, ,~ .x ~7 '-: : .:s, ) ,: :~;, ~~ ,,' ;" ,'!.' ,'~,. ,,, ,,,_, ,:y,, :: f ,.,' /,, Slabs ~should'be'design'ed, by a Structurai~g+'.;, :". ~ I Engineer for'anticipated'use'and loading.%ased on a modulus of s$bgra,de,reaction of 250 skips per .cubic- foot for ,on,site' compacted f'l,l;,,;:j,,,~ i:~ soils. The .~,~,~lowing~:general recommendations.; ~, _ ,', .', ,: a;e' ~p$&d& ,:a$':ja: g&& '~. ‘;>,,:', / ,~:> ; /~,~;~:,~~<.:s,~ btsed.:&: ihe;,: ~exp~~sion ; ':; .-, ., ~.,.~ ~~z.1;: ~, 'potential of,;. on-:s i te'~; so~i Is . ,,,. .-;:,:,t. ,,, ,(_~ ::': ,. : '.:, ,.;~, .i. :y' ,; ,,,,,' ,: ,, !',y ,',' ., ,:, ,: ,: i, : :: ,.,, '~:;L;.:;:'. s ., :,: : ,z:,, ; : 1~ ::.,.;;,;i.:, .,, x ..?;:i: ~,. ,,, ,.~ ,,..,,,,, '.:~:,,~ " ,,', CT. ':, ~~ ,. ,,, I.,,:, ~, ,,, _' ;, ,.~ _~ . v,;_j ,: 'I _._, - ,- .- - - - - -, A : ~, ,;~’ ~‘$,~, : ‘..‘,, ~._,,, :‘:.,,,i,;;,: i :::~. ,- ,;,, j ,;~:,i:,, _:~~ :: ..,. ~: ,: ,,~ ‘, ,,s;:.,’ ,:; ._ ‘. ,, ,I (’ I)~~ ,, ,,..Y,“~ ,. ~,. Kaiser Electrotiics ,‘:‘; ,~ ~’ : :‘!*iz ‘::‘:I :’ ” ‘I,;,:‘, Job No., 05-6807-001 -~Oo-oo‘.~:'. January 15, ,1987 : ,' .' ': ,,::;:,:~- ;,::: :~,;.~~,::~:I,.:~::,, :'. :~ Log, No. 7~- 101 4 ;l,~ " ', ~:.:,:;I_, ,, : ,,, -., : '., ~I _( ;y : ~;'.p:".: I i, ;* ;'; ,,:, . u,,+ : ,: ,-:;;c ,;,;,;;& i': >~-,I ;:,>, ;,. ',__j ,; ,,. ;<, :g;;, .,~,i, ,.,,. ,:',:;::i;;,,;:,~;,,~~~~~~~~~~~;i:.,:,.,i,,,:,:~,~:~~::, Paiy ),2~,,~ '. ._- ':;: ;-~',-.l:i::'~;:-:;;~ ,, l',".' 1' : " 'W3 1. ,: i.::.: ;::~~~~~:'i;i'~~~.~~.~,;~~,~,~~“,~~ ,, :.i .,-, .; ',~~: :,~,~~,~~~,~~,,~~,~.,r~.-r.~~~~~~~ ,%+:p:-,: 5,~ ;.. ~ 1 r -;* ~_ :, ,-rb,~ :,.,, _, y*$-:;Qc:~ :t"~~~~:~-. I' ; :. _,, ,,,:; -$I ,:; ,, li,,.~I;,;;;g; ; :, :~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~ r,, .!,, ;.:,,'~ ,~, s,;.:r: ;.**.?;,A, ., ~' ::;2: ',,~' .,: .: ~:^., ; ,i ,($$& '~ ,i,, ~".~ y; y;!.$ “~g:;,;: ,;~ : 'r: ,'. ,,c *,;~~~~.i; ., 7,;,:::..,,,' 1 ,,~,. I .: ;lig , ,~ > ,,,:i :&;y: > ~::>tjg"i;,:: l':::c":, ,: : '~ 'y;J ',' ,,::: :*:i- e:.,: ~: ~:i.g:,~. c,;;, ";: :':,~ ., :,, :,,.I, :' '/ ';; ii ,cz;$L,f$;i;!;; ,Y,' ':';:,y~ 7::. ,:: ; : :: ~,, ',' .~. T,;' ,.,, ;;; '-.:$ ,'-l'~~r::,l::I::-;:lI~~~~~;;~:~~,:~~~~, ,: ~,+p:- slabs,'$hoGld~:.be~~ of 5-:i&h;'.&tu;l thi,&fie& :~ &~,~nL:.~~,,, ;. 7.5.4'~ ..,, : 'forced with': at, ‘ieast 6x6 JiO-'10 welded :tiire%sh '," located .at,midheight. Slabs should be underlain ,, ., by: 'a capiliary;;,break~, consisting of at,:,least,,;,~.. :~:%' A-inches ,of,'crushedaggregate or washed\sand,,: """'- ;,;.:",b If' a moistur~~~,membrane:"is used,;it .shou~ld :be~'i:l;:, ::;':;:': .,: I':,, ;$,'.- overlain with':at least 2 inches of sand: ,toI ':,;;~;: j:'i"'~ decrease' the '~l~ikelihood of concrete curing ::'?", ';":,~,' problems. '1. ', ~ ,,',,.:,; ": :, ,,. . ,, ~,, ,, .,‘I;, ,:: .~ ‘{ .I’,~ ,, ,,,_ :. ;i,,.;~,~,,. ‘~“,:: Slab subgrade :'soiis z:should be 'moisture' ~,~K:: "~.:',.:;: ,~I, conditiondd to, at, least t 5 .perc&nt above~~‘o’~~tirnurn~1, ‘1: :’ moistures content t,o::a~,, depth of 18iinchesbelow -I::]i;:; sl’ab subgrade ;pil,&+:::tb, p&&&t of conci&&; I. ,.‘$:j$::) The moisture "c&t&t :should Abe ,determined; by," the,?', Soils Engineer 'prior &placing visqueen;: ~. ~: ", ~, ),, 'L.,, ~~,, ,.,_I, ,, ,, ,. ,~ .,, c, ,' !.j:~~, .A;; Foundation Observation “‘: ,_ ;,,,~_,k;‘., i!; ,,.I.~ ,~~,. ,~ -, :“:.:.:,:,,c .,,,,, i,,-,,,~ .,. / ,; .,.,; ” /, ::~.,.j ‘. ,s’,i;‘, ,’ :y ,~qq,. :,.,I’~, :: ,,,;; .,, ;,;a ,+$“‘;.p$ in,_ ,, _i All fouhdgtibn~~xcavations l.ishould~i be:,observed:,;,b~:~~~~~~, .,, / ,: _ ,‘~ ,;~ L the’ soiis ~&,,gi~~~~~~p,&> tb the’ ‘pi~~~men(-<of ,<<i; ,,,::,“y’~’ forms;' Ireinfo'rcement,'~or concrete, ,.,',, ,,*. :',, ;:, for (;.;;,!:;,,ii :,, ~',', ,j'::., determination of conformance with,the~.intentof : the recommendations herein. ,A11 excavations::', :. should'~,be ',trLmmed ,&at, level and square..;, A11 ',,,L loose- or unsuitablel,material 7should be~'r&oded ~~~:~~:,~~~ ;.., :i’, priory to" the placementof concrete. ', -,:-1:.~~~~.~~~::-,:: : Y,.!~,:;,, : i ,:~ ,~, ,,,, +i&", '-:: ; : ,. ,,, ,>, ,~ 'b:; &+ ;'!_; f :, ~! : .. Y':,,,,; : &,, :,,> +".;,' ~':,+"; > ," /. ~. *';A ,)i., ;.;:*;,:", ,~~;-~^;.‘,<,:, ,,1,. ,, ,.,C'? ,: :, ,/,'~ -s$<.,~ .:;: ~. , .: ,.,, :-,-"~,.:-,,,~~~,:~~-II' ,;,J::;;', Materi.als':from-footing ,excavations should not bei-','~ spread' 'in ~‘s~ab-on~'grade'~ areas unless ‘,/c. '. t ,' ,, ',,. ', compacted. .,,, Presaturation should be verified i::, .'!:c~;~: prior to the, placement, of concrete. ~, ~\y, ,,.,, ., ~. ,,, ” ‘,, :i ,,.,,, :;1’::;,. ;, ! :, ‘,I,, ‘p :‘ .,,>.; .,, ,:; ‘., : . ^ -....,_. “~. .,_..,. ,... ^..., ~._, .,., . - - ,., ,."> ,I ,, ,: ,. I, .,,' .' ,..,, : .;* ,, ~., ~. ,(,_.~ ,. .,. ,~"~ ;,.;I: ..I ., ,,_. i,:’ ,;: ; :I,~?,:,:; +: ;:~. _‘: ,,,, ,..I S$.: ‘:,:!; (.. ,, .., ~~ ,.,. ,. /‘, ,I. ‘,‘. ;,: ,!- i ,;‘p j :*,+y, ., I, : Driveway&' &j::,&& &&g' ', i: ,: ,: ~,;:,:, j ;-,~ (T. I : - ',.5 ;'5 ) ;::~:,,::~!;: ,;;j:: ;& ,,:-::,.;:~ ,,,,;~.,~,: _ ~ ,, ,,.;~,I$~, ;:?i; *:,;,;:v+,: ' ~-. _ i:, ,; .,, ,:,r &;', ;; ;, 'il;: ,/? L,' /i,:~; :~&,:~P ,{.' .,"i:;: .: ,: :.q~,~.^-;~.~!, j': .i., :~~~.;~~,y,; r:,>y .a?%,::!::, . '" ,. ~', : '_ ~, 7. a,,,, ,‘ : ,,,., ~,.~. in : '~;,; )~,:: ,( z '9, I .d ,.: : ~:'~&~~~L,~4 ,,,,, : : ~::;" .-I ,:"':*!; ;;, ~~ "I ,,,,, ~::!. ~,.., I I:~, ,,. ,., .:-, ., ,,._. ~, : y ,., ~.-%!h.,;~;j~ $y;'.";j ;~y:;:~..;,, ;F, '~. ~1 ':$'.y". .,;~~'~,.*rr*~<,,",, .:~. ;~,,r- ,::'.~,"'::-. : in .:~ _ .',:~.;: :: -,':;:;& ,,~i;!f;~~,~~,~~,,~:,: ;-:+ .,,_ ;> ,: ~~:;;',,,,: ',,I:, - ,, 3:: ,' .: .':* :: h ;.;~~"il,-j.".~~~;;.:.~:,.::.,,~~ ~~I_ :: ,~iii c.:, :"+~'.'L" ': - ';:", ,,,:;;; :, ‘,;i‘;':;j..;,,"~s;,,: ,, .':, ,-i,!',,:) ,". ,,. ,, j ', "-,' ', ,::~,_',:,~:~~~~~~;1: ,7: ', r.: , ,g<,. ": ,. ':T'~ ',~,, '^',I,.,'~,,:'l";L'I,' : :,<: ,.., '<,, :,.;p ::.. >: .,,. . ,;.!',, Kaiser Electronics ‘:’ :““, ‘,‘J~,’ :, 1,“’ ,,"Y,,',. ,,,, Lb& ,~,,, ‘,- ‘,,, .. I) .,, ‘,,. ~:;,:~,::,~,:.~:‘.:,, i’ N;;L ~os-~oi-ob”i,i,bo’-oo January 15, 1987, ,', ., ',:,) -Log No. :~7-,1014 "' :i,~,,,":, ';'. ',,,:',: :; ,-Page 1 3 ~,, ;:, 1: ,~, .' asp ,,;:, ::: ,_, .,~,,: .~.,~,, (, .,,I, 7.5.5 Lateral Load Resistance,.' ,~ Resistance to lateral,,loads may be.providedjby a,, ,. passive pressure ~against the vertical faces: ~f~~~'$ the foundations or 'walls and.by the frictional ': 'res~istance between;:concrete and soil. Pas'sive .' ,' pressure for on-site,bedrock may,be considered to be 350 pounds persquare foot per foot. A :~,: coefficient of,friction for soil to concrete.may be assumed to be~0.45. When combining ..,~ frictional and passive:resistance, the later'~ should be~,reduced, by one third., ; I ,~~:~, ,,, )~ 8, ,, .<,,:,, ;I 'i '5 ;~, ~~,~ ,,.,, <' ~,;,'f ::.,:; ,li j, :"' ~.,. .~',,' '~ ;~ '~ : : :c I -.! ~_ $,;,;, ':: ,, ,.>.,_;: ,.,<: .,' ,:. 7.6 Soil Sulfate Content Implications .' I,, ,~, ,',,..' The results of sulfate testing,,indicate that either~ Type I or II cement,may be,..utilized for concrete in contact with the subgrade~soil.. The sulfate,test:,'~'~.' results are'given in,Table.,C-2.',,'. r.: ;,z,' <., ::.i.. ,' : ,,.@,;., ~ ': ",r:i;~ ,,,, ;~:.; _, !I,:',,, :, ',, .:, ;, ,;: : .i ~&$;:& r'; 7.7 Pavement Subgrade :,,. ~. " ,,_:: : :, .,.,~,,~,:;'::,~y ,,-, ~!'.:.;:,~ !,,,, ',i.j ,,, ~:' ~-1 : ;i .)'. / +& -9; ., >;,I ', <';.'.>'- :, :~ i ;:,;,r;+,"‘y<,l~, ,';: : ,,,. "L : ,, “ ;,,:. .I ., ,, .~,'. ,~ :~~~~,:~::i'~I', ,,. The following preliminary pavement sections are ':','~~Y recommended based on an R&alue of 18. ; - -. ~,, /, ; ~~:,, ,;,:i'.-,,.,-..::",. ..a ,~,,d :, ,s.':, ',C ,;;~-,~,, ,', +,g~y ~"'2:;:;; j y Liggc;, ~&icl~~:j~~~~~;,, 1; ,; ,!;;~;;~;,y;;;:' ; :' ,... $,;:< ,, ,~::, ,~~.;, ,, ::':' '&$"iii5~ ,~,. ,, j.b',./ .';:,+":,,,t! ,~,,,~,~ ;+:j!;,:; '. ~. ., ', ~* .' : ,' (T , 1 ; ,,;::- 4. 0 ) ,li!~ :~"; ;.;,$>+ '.':;;;t; ':;I : ~~~,~,~,,-~~~~~-:;',.~ i~,~:';--,'~~,~~~~.'~-:~~~~~~~~~~~~ . . ,,~:~~~~,:~~~~~..:~::. j .:', :, ,?J ,,+; :,' : Kli~ ',<., ::z; :~':",,:ii~~~~~~~::~~.~ 2. ,::~;,,;~~~: ::<~y;"' ,'C i ,: .,, e';.; ;.:, ~,, ,,'$.:,. ,,,_(, ,::,; I',~~ ,_ ~c;r ..i, ';~~i;*~~~~ ,,:,,? ',, :,",;i:.ir< <; I ~' ~3&h& of .;;,p~~i~~ic '&&&: pl&ed i~.~,";:~~;~;~,~, : two lifts'over ,,:@' ;, ,..~, _, ", : .: ,5~inches ofluritreated Class 11 ,’ r aggregate base;: ',~ 11, ,I'~:::..i~ :,,'",,, /,,~,, Kaiser Electroni.cs,. January 15, 1987 _ ,, ,, -Job No.:05-6807-001-00-00 Log No. 7-1014 ~Page 14 '~2 ,,, ‘L ‘.,~ ~:.,,’ 3-inches of as$h&ltic.coticrete Placed,im -~, : two lif&tiver :;,~ lo-inches :of untreted Class,11 aggregate babe,:' ~.'I,: ~,', ',. ., i .,i:,,. '., ~.', .i "~ I,,( ~, I,,, z. 31.: We recommend'that the upper 8,to 12-inche&of pavement subgrade soils should be~scarified and moistened to'near optimum conditions and compacted to 90 percent or more~,of maximum, density. .~ _. ‘: : ,‘~,I: “,~ i( ~,1;-; :,,z,::s:,,y .:,, ,~ ,,_ : : :/, >.: ,~I j::,: ,:, ‘! ! ‘~ ,I I:,:,., ~,, ..,, ,-~.y;;:. ‘,,, : ‘,. ,:’ ,; ” ,~.;:, .,,, ,. Specifications for~aggregate Classy II base may " be selected from Section,~ZOO-2'of the "Standard. Specifications for Public Works Construction" and should have an R-value of 78 or more. We recommend that ~you,require the Contractor. 'or : supplier,,to assure-con'formance~with: s$eci-l :' :,; ,,~' '~., ficatibn.;i ,.~ ~~ '%',,. ', In:,,additioti, .we 1,redommend th+;',,',:1,, ', ; ',, t'esti& be: per:form&i;‘p&! ,to p'lacing~ base ?j:> ,~ *, materials. It should be,noted that t&tin&may', require 5 to 7, days. ,;~.We:,recommend that all~?,~ ':~~.' aggregate base be ~c'ompacted to 95,percetit,of the;', maximuti laborator$,density. Asphalt conc&k ~':, type and .~class ,,should,',b'& as required by the '~, .",,~ project sp,ecificat,,i,on,s,.~ +. project sp,ecificat,,i,on,s,.~ +. ,,: ,,: ,~ ,. ,~ ,. _", T<,,,~,, _", T<,,,~,, ~, ,: ::: ", ~, ,: ::: ", ,,:, ::',;I:, ,,:, ::',;I:, ," ,..: ,: _, ," ,..: ,: _, :, ,: i. .( .( .., ,~ .., ,~ 7.8 Review of plans ':'.I'~ ',,, :,'~~':; ';+-';~ ,' ~~,'~.' 7.8 Review of plans ,:'.I'~ ',,, ::'~~ ':; 'I:'~:,~ ~",.-';~ ,' ~~,'~.' .~ ,, \',.. i' : : .~ ,, \',.. i' : : '.': > ';:;' ,:- ,:- '. '. ‘~",,~- 'CT, ,,~ ,'.' : ‘~",,~- 'CT, ,,~ ,'.' : ,:,:~I~ ,:,:~I~ ,. ,. ,,& '.:,.. ,,~/% ,,& '.:,.. ,,~/% AS foundation and grading,plans are completed. AS foundation and grading,plans are completed. they,- should be forwarded,to t$Sbils Engineer for review should be forwarded,to t$Sbils Engineer for review ,, ,. for conformance with the,i,in<&nt of ;;-ations.<.:,;' vi .,~;::::ti;,..,"~-,:~: +..ir!i .c " ~, ::;4:: : :.:.-;:,:-q:~~i-,.,,.~"':i~-:j 2' ; -*;+ ::i .3,. .2'; ~~r:,‘::.,:,~:,~ :i',~..+~.":r;,i:: ":,xy;,.:~, ., : ~, Y.& ,. .._ .p; .~I, ,;, ,,~,,-.,,~ ;), ~:. -~';r':~~,~~~~,~~ :,:,,,;,~ ,s:. ,-. .) ~/, :: .~ ~,_;~_ ,,:. ;',;/ 2 '-*+:r:.: ,~ra.~~~~,,:i:';;!(i:, .,..,, '~ ., _ ;,,,; ,i!.;ztTfF;;; ,,-~~~p"y?":::;: is j .: :,"~ :i2:_: .()~, ~,; .,, ‘;,:.&: ,: :~:~ ,~,; ,:: 7.'. (y;:; ,.Eij,; ~::cb :,;- .' ,, CLAW :;: ::,.,~ ,, ,, !,,~,.~..., C,, / ,~.,, ..;.-,:,;,,+ :, .~'I ',' ~', ,,~: ,., :&4.,'C>, .._, '(i 1 ~,I ~',, ,~, : ,_. :. ~",;irr. I' '~ ,,: ,' '! " ,: s?~'!, ;: ":., ,,, ,, ~~, ; jr,, , ~<.. ., ,. i, ,~ ,‘,:,:.;‘~,(‘;;;:.~ ,_,, ;: ; ,.. ,,~. ,,, ~, 1 ,,., ,.,. ,’ ~‘. ~,: ~: ~y,.I’::*,.;, ~. Kaiser Electronics ,y, ,~ January 15, 1987 ,' “,~ ‘,I ;, “,&,b ~i-j:;,:O’j+j{ ": 1: :i:i,'~ " :Log ,No.‘, 7-1014 ,Y .,:.; ‘: 8 . ,, .:‘; : skill ‘ordinarily~ ‘exerciseb,.‘:,,‘under simil,ar :circumst~nces:.:‘l.by’,~-:‘:,~ reputable~‘Soils Engineers, and Geologist’~racticing in::this 1~:: ,, or similar localities. ‘, No ,other warranty,: express’ed”or),::;, ::” :, implied,. is’ msde’,as : tom. the”conciusions and”professionai:~.:‘, ‘~, advice included !n : this’,~‘r’eport,.-,;~~~~: ,:- ,;-~;t,~!, ‘~ ,~ ,;,,;,,:; “.: ‘; :I, .. .J’;: A,,‘:~ ,.,,~ ,,’ ” ,,,F,, ,~~.I ,: ,,,,,~~T’:,, ~: .,.~) ,~ ,.~_ _ 1: .$&;;:~ 1~. > .;~ ‘;, ~, ‘j, nade are believed represe&ative~::,of the entire ‘project; YE. ., ~, however, soils and geol’og$~c,~conditions~ can vary signific’antly. between,~borings. ‘, ‘Y.~” ;:;:i,,,:; ‘,.‘;.’ ,,, ,,~. .;,: ,y’ ‘, i_ ..,/ ;;~$,~~~~,.:~~~, .,, required, or ~alternate’:d&igns: recommended. ~., ~,, ,~ i /, . . ., : . . ,. ,~ .,: ,,,‘~ ::: ,‘l~ ,~ :;. This report ,~is issued wlth,:~,~the:~understanding,,that it S.s,‘the~~ ‘) responsibi~lity of the’ owner.:~or’ of his representa~tive,:::~to ,: ensure that the .informationand’ recommendations contained )~ ~,‘, herein are, b,r&gh;:.‘t&t& &ten&~ of the ‘.ar&i&~‘& j-’ ,:.; ,;:- en;ineer’, f~;::th’e::pro;S;~‘~t” ;;;ici:i’~cor~pdrated.,,Lnt,o _., ..~, ( $ :,,_: I::,.i ‘: & pl+s ,;;y, ,:‘,;~:,,, and the necessary ,steps yare.$aken to ~see’ that the con’tractor ‘, .: ., and subcontractors carry’ outs such,;,,recomme’ndations~ fin the;~ Fi,%lA : ‘~, ,,, . ; ,: r’.% ,r<,,:.:,‘y-: ?“’ ‘Y” :.$pqz”,s:~ ‘;?j: ‘,.‘I ,I, -;,.; ,,_;:;, ;;,,: ‘~ ,::~ ,-~~,~;~~~;‘:::,,:,,,~~ ,, ‘-;,‘y :<i.~;~: y.?j(:,~ ;,, :., i 2 ! :. .:,,,+; i;‘,“& The findings of this~‘repor,t * are,::~val,id’:as~ of ~, the present!:& ~~, :. J ,,I,,;. &;.:!, :-: date. ,,,, However, ,changes :i,~~~che~,:condit,i,onsi:of, ,a:proper~~~~~,a?~,,.~ ,j.. :,: ‘i::;,, -occur: withy ,-he pass’&$ &+,$ ~&&,er they ‘be due ~+-jt;;;; ;,::::“:;‘, ‘: natural. processes or the ,&orks;;of man: on this or, adj-a,c&t~‘, $,:l( ‘~ ~,,’ . ,,. - ~,,‘. LC. 1. - - - -, -, ;, 1 ,, - ;:,“i, ,>.,~ :._;:, i,!;; :t;,pp;j;; Kaiser Electionics :~’ ~~, ,:1/i :‘;1~~~‘,;~~:,,,.I:!11~~,~,,.,;,:,,~;:*;,~,~~, 3 January 1 5 ,, ~1 987 ::,, ~'i~ ::,;i:, : .;-);:$ ,:' " :_:~~~~,~~:~~~~~~~~~~:, :F+"~~,,~Lo )j; ; g:$;, properties.,' ~' : ,I; .- ,~,‘,“t-“‘ii”,l, ,..:r~ ‘Z ;, ,a‘bd~~~~n.~,~~~~~~~~~~s~in;~appl~ ", 2: :.:",;:;?; ~.,~,T.h ;,, appropriate standard,? ,,.rnay~~~occur,,.,: s,wheth&r they results from:~ " legislation or the broadening::$iknowledge. Accordingly ,::: ;,",~~ the findings of this~ report ,rnay,be-invalidated wholly, or;!_;,~ "; :~' partially by,:changes':'outsi,de;,ou~~~~~~t~~ol. ! Th~refore;,~~~~!??! '.,:::, _ ii,,,! report is~ subj ect'z t'o~~~,~evie;w,,,an'd~~,?~idGld,“not be relied.: &JOn;:"~ ',;:" '~, ,>:, I: ~:> ,,,.,__,. :;+p;. ~:,c~;, ~afteir ~a period'-~qf ;three' years.:r~;~~~~~;:,'i 1,~': 'i* Staff Engineer ::,vi~, Gray. C.E.G""~ 7A' . -“a Date: '..6-3 +P.~.ccInl noi *iT -” ,rhnnv Pf Relfakt. Chief Engineer " RMPJTCGJAFBJpb ; reviewed - - ,- .~y.:/: ,,,, I;> ~< ,‘.‘, ,, “. ,. ‘~ .~ ,, ., ,. _ ‘=,‘,, ,.., “‘,,, ~:,‘,, ~~,j’ .:j ‘;- ,‘! ., .f$: a: :; +:~,,I &&DG,,yA ,,;~ :: : References I,: ~, :, _l~ ~I,;,., : “~.r :,,, ,. ~. ;;,, :,,, ,a,~ ,, ,, .+ 1,: ,I,.’ ,., ~, ,, .;~ :- ,u :~.., 1. 2. -~ 3. .- _: !, ,:.,‘.- ,‘.! .‘. ,, *,,: ,,3z~:“,,. I,, .+;c; ,.,, ‘,y‘~,;, I. References San Diego Soils Engineering, Inc., November 17, 1986, “As-Graded, Geotechnical Report, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center, Carlsbad Tract 74-21, Lots l-22, Carlsbad, California,” Job No. 30012-10. San Diego Soils Engineering, Inc., November 11, 1985. “Additional Borings, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center, CT74-21 Carlsbad California,” Job No. 30012-00. Woodwar~d-Clyde Consultants, November 12, 1981, “Soil and Geologic Investigation for the Proposed Carlsbad Oaks Business Center. CT74-21, Carlsbad California”. i - - - .- - - .- - .- .~ :, ,” - ,,...A ..~ ~~ ,,,” , .$-,,; APPENDIX B ,Boring Logs i ‘,, ,, ., ” ::, ,; ,: ‘,,,‘, “! ,;,~, ,;: .‘., ,, ,~ :, ~‘i .; : ~,. ~’ >” ” i, _, .~ ,,‘, - ‘,,I,,. “, : .- - .,. - - - - - - ~~- - ,- - - - - DEFINITION OF TERMS PRIMARY DIVISIONS 1 SYMBOLS I SECONDARY DIVISIONS I I d GRAVELS CLEAN ‘“.I ” “,“,“,‘,T;tiN (,“p,^;~;’ n- JKO ZWO I(Y c,.*cc Well graded gravels. gravel-sand mlxturw. llttle or no b’ GW fines. i .A.. LN ‘a: : . Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixturea. ltttle or $ 2 *- COARSE “1 rv8.L”) . . . .a: GP no flm& -x4 FRACTtON IS nn..,e. ~~ Silty gravels. gravel-sand-silt mixture& non-plartlc fines. iS GC ;Feyy grWd8. gravel-sand-clay f”iXtUre& pbtlC SW Well graded sands. gravelly eands. llttle w no flma. ’ . SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sanda. little or no fines z;z -I ;h FRACTION IS Silty sands. sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fkw. 22 SMALLER THAN WITH FlNES NO. 4 SIEVE Clayey aandl). aand-clay mixtures. plastic flnea. tanlo alIt and var fine sand8 rock flour. 8llt o sy fine rrande or c with slight plaatlc ty. r urn qlastlcity. graveIll SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS LESS THAN 50% SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS QREATER THAN 60% or diatomaceous fine raridy HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS F-J I Pt Peat and o:her highly organic solls. GRAIN SIZES iLTS AND CLAYS SAND I GRAVEL FINE 1 MEDIUM 1 COARSE 1 FINE 1 COARSE COBBLES BOULDERS 200 40 10 4 314’ 3’ 12’ U.S. STANDARD SERIES .SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINQS .e QROUND WATER LEVEL OR QROUND WATER SEEPAGE. ill LOCATION OF SAMPLE TAKEN USING A STANDARD SPLtT TUBE SAMPLER, g-INCH O.D.. l-3/B-INCH I.D. DRIVEN WlTH”A 140,POUND HAMMER FALLING 30-INCHES. LOCATION OF SAMPLE TAKEN. USING A’ MODIFIED C’ALIFORNIA SAMPLER, 3-l/S-INCH O.D.. WITH 2-l/2-INCH-$D. L,lNER RINGS, DRIVEN USING THE WEIQHT OF KELLY BAR (LARGE DlAM++ER BORINQS) OR USING A 140 POUND HAMMER FALLING 30-INCHES (SMALL DIAMETER BORING): LOCATION OF SAMPLE TAKEN USINQ A 3-INCH O.D. THIN-WALLED TUBE SAMPLER (SHELBY TUBE) HYDRAULICALLY PUSHED. w LOCATION OF BULK SAMPLE TAKEN FROM AUGER CUTTtfIQB. KEY TO LOGS - UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487) 08 NO.: 05-8807-001-00-00 DATE: FIGURE: JANUARY 1987 B-l - ,“. ,- - - - - - - -. - - .- .~ .- - -- MTE OBSERVED: 12-15-86 METHOD 0~ DRILLIN& 8" ltollow Stem cuber .OGGED By: SXB GROUND ELEVATION: 384’ LOCATK)N: See Plot Plan BORING NO. L!m SOIL TEST DESCRIPTION BEDROCK Santiago Formation: --- Orange SM brown silty SANDSTONE, slightly moist, 50 / 10.5 118.9 dense 6- Orange brown to grey white sandy SILT- STONE, moist. dense IO 29 Light brown to grey white silty very -94 fine SANDSTONE, moist, medium dense :.., 2. ,.;,, ~. IS- 51 ,,: ,". ~,, ,. ,. ;, ,., !o- ML 83 Orange brown/grey green clayey SILT- STOKE, slightly moist, hard 16- TOTAL DEPTH: 21' No Groundwater ~,~,~~ No Caving ,~. ,, ',_(:::',,,i. ~:~ . lo- '~ :,.,:: sj " ,. : ;' ,-; : '~ ,, ,6- o- OBNO~:.- _--- _-. -- _- 1 I *ll r\c l¶~~)l)rlll IFtelmE. ----~~-~~~~-~~,-~o-~~ , L”” VT P”“,,“” . ----.-- - - .- ,, ,,,. :,,:I” .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - DATE OBSERVED: 12-15-86 METHOD OF DRILLINO: 8” Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED SYISNR GROUND ELEVATION: 384C LOCATION: See Plot Plan Fg:i Y ti 5 0 2 2!j I wg g BORING NO. A?.- t 5 y" 2 g .z 2% b: $$ SOIL TEST ; 3 z< % 5s SC ,o go 5 a3 ay 2 ma 2 22 DESCRtPTlON -0 .O BEDROCK Santiago Formation: Orange .,~__~ --.- brown sandy SILTSTONE, moist, very !+L 27 stiff ~, ', .:,~ ., ~, 6- @ 5' trace of CLAY Orange brown silty SANDSTONE, slightly IO- 3.1 moist, dense 40 Orange brown sandy SILTSTONE, moist, IS- very stiff PTL 26 Grey white silty fine SANDSTONE, moist SM dense !O- 47 IS- TOTAL DEPTH: 21' No Groundwater No caving :, .,,J.,', o- ,.. ,;:-'-;‘ :: ,~;..::, :; '~,: . .' .~: .~k. ; ,' : ;t: '. _" ,,:,, ,; ,: .(,, -&' : ,. *I S- j ,;;~,.,~ ~',' .:I~ ,,.': ;: :: T,~, '.,, ~,~, 1 x:,1; . . .,,: ,~:.k : o- DBNO.,-- _-_- -- ~~ -- 1 I net ne Or3e)lLI~ IFlalla~ -- -~--“~-~~~~~~~,~o~~~o , L”” “I~ P”I7ll.U I- ---.--: B-3 - . - - - - - - - -- .~- - - - - .- - - -..-. .,~ ,.,~ ,,,._ ‘:, IATE OBSERVED: 12-15-86 METHOD OF DR,,JL,N& 8” Hollow Stem Auger .OGGED By: SNn GROUND ELEVATION: w++ LOCATION: See Plot Plan iJ F g :: Y $3 zyj ii 5 0 a" on g g 2 DC w- BORING NO. 3 k l-2 2 E z g iriz OD -0: 2; SOIL TEST !I 3: 2 pJ 2 p,’ dg 0 2%: OESCRIPTION ,O d~al3 ID BEDROCK Santiago Formation: Orange -- !-?L blown sandySILTSTONE, moist. hard 49 S- ~ 22 @ 5' very stiff Grey white sandy SILTSTONE/silty SANDSTONE, moist; hard to very dense o- ML Grey green clayey SILTSTONE, moist, 90 hard TOTAL DEPTH: 21' No Groundwater' S- No Caving .'~':' ~, ~:,, -., ,. ~~~~~,:;~~,, :; ye .: '., ::. ., .',, ., J- ," ,, '. .;&!,I~, :' ., ',.,, 'CT' ',I ,. I- /, ,' '. d:,: *.:I .f; ,., J-) " N”~05-8807-00 l-00-00 1 LOG OF BORING ~FIQUR” B-4 ,’ - APPENDIX C Laboratory Data - :.:, .’ .,. . ...:. i;.: : ..~, ‘( ., ,,:I,(: : ! .’ ;j :,,, ,. .F$ ,, :<: I! ” ,’ ‘,I, ,“, ,.I: ;i; ,,,/ ,,,,,. : ,, 7 L .~, _ ,,, ” .) L.. 1. 2. '4. Expansion Tests .- .- Laboratory, Data Laboratory, Data’ ‘, ‘, :’ :’ ; ., ; ., ,, : ,, : 1’ 1’ ,,‘. ,.,, ~_ ,,‘. ,.,, ~_ ,,,, ,,,, ,..‘,: ,..‘,: ,.,I‘ .’ ,.,I‘ .’ Classification Classification ,‘a’~ >.: :.,, ,‘a’~ >.: :.,, I’ I’ :7; .; ,, ,i, :7; .; ,, ,i, ,,,,, 7’~~ : ,,,,, 7’~~ : ,.,, / ,.,, / ‘:: ‘:: ,, ,,,7 ,.I, .,, ,, ,,,7 ,.I, .,, Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples and classification in accordance with ASTM D 2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Boring Logs. Particle-Size Analysis Particle-Size Analysis were performed on selected representative samples in accordance with ASTM D 422. The ,, results are shown on Figures C-2 and C-3. Atterberg Limits The liquid 1'imit. plastic limitand plas~ticity index'of ":' '~ selected representative samples were determined in accordance with ASTM D 4318. The results are presented on Figures C-2 and C-3. ., ,~. ,,.,.: ,. ',.i, ,:, Expansion tests were performed on representative samples which were visually determined to contain a sufficient percentage of clay to be detrimentally expansive. Tests were performed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) No. 29-2. Samples were remolded and surcharged to 144 psf prior to saturation. The test results are summarixed on the attached Table C-l. - - - ,- .- - - -. 5. 6. 7. : .‘,, ” .., ::i. ” ,‘:,: .,4’ .: ~. Laboratory Data (Continued) ./ ~,,! ,, ,: ,: ::,/;. ,i’,,;;;;, ;~. ,.. ,. :‘. ‘,, .: ~ ,‘~;, ,‘; ,.: ..~ :i Direct Shear Tests Consolidated, drained direct shear.tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 3080. Tests were performed using relatively undisturbed samples from the linerrings of a 2.5 inch I.D. Modified California Sampler, and tested in a saturated condition using normal iosds of 1 ksf, 2 ksf, and 4 ksf. The result of the shear test is presented on Figure c-4. In-Situ Moisture/Density The in-situ moisture content and dry unit weight of'selec~ted samples were determined usfng relatively undisturbed samples from the liner rings of a 2.5 inch Modified California Sampler. The dry unit weight and moisture contents are shown on the attached Boring Logs, in Appendix B. R-Value (Resistance Value) tests were performed on selected samples in accordance with 'ASTM D 2844. R-Value tests are a means to evaluate the supportive characteristics of subgrade soil for pavement section design. The results of the R-value testing are presented in Table C-3. .,~., ,,:., I . j,,’ ;. ,” .- i ., .*‘.i.: TABLE .C-~l ~,&A,. RESULTS OF EXPANSION TESTS' ,. : ,’ ..,, : TV Test Expansion Location Index Expansion Potential B-l @ 1' B-2 @ 1' B-3 @ 1' 8'; 62 ; Medium Medium Medium TABLE C-2 RESULTS OF SULFATE TEST I Test Location X Soluble Sulfate Mg/k I B2 @ 2' 109 B3 @ 2' 92.3 - .- TABLE C-3 RESULTS OF R-VALUE TESTS Test Location R-Value B3 @l Bl @ 1 ,~ : - .- Job No. 6807-001-00-00 ,, .z, 1,~ ;.’ Dat&"'january 1987 - .~, ,,,‘. - ,, ,., ., - .,. ,. - ;~ ,:;..!I: ,.Y~, AL,_/., ‘#’ Figure. & I”: ,, ., ,, ,.,,. ., ,,‘~,~ ., ,.,/’ i.,’ I’m ,,.“,,, ,,:: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : .~- I QRAVEL SAND COARSE 1 MEDIUM I SILT CLAY FINE SIEVE SIZES-U.S. STANDARD 314” 112” 114” 4 10 20 40 100 200 . 100 1DO 80 80 80 so 70 z 00 60 8 z :: : 2 -I 50 60 4 % E 6 I I I z 40 SO 30 20 IIIII I I I 20 I I I I 10 ‘. IIIII I I I I I I 10 O- 711111110 &i 1010 l:o 03 .dl .Obl PARTICLE SIZE-MILLMETERS BORING NO. DEPTH (FEET) SYMBOL LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX 1 6.0 0 49.0 23.6 9 CLASSIFICATION CL .; , ,.+ :~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~1 :~~.i : pi ,~. I _ I DRAVEL SAND COARSE 1 I SILT CLAY MEDIUM FINE SIEVE SIZES-U.S. STANDARD 3/4” 112” 114m 4 10 20 40 100 200 100 100 80 SO 80 80 70 70 a a0 60 : :, i? 2 2 -I so so -( 2 ;n i 40 : 40 0 z 50 SO 20 20 O- 10.0 1.0 0.1 .dl 0 .OOl PARtlCLE SIZE-MILLMETERS SORINQ NO. DEPTH (FEET) SYMBOL LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX CLASSIFICATION 2 10.0 0 40.6 10.4 CL ,- ,- - - .- - ..- - - .- 3000 E 2 z z E 2000 02 u z p: : 1000 3000 is 5 2 i! E 2000 u) 0 I 2 : ) ‘~ 8 moo. OO 1000 2000 3000 4000 6 00 0000 NORMAL LOAO (PSR 03 NO,’ D5-6807-001-00-00 SHEARING STRENGTH TEST F’QUR~-q - my I, : ! ,APPKNDIX’ D Standard Earthwork and Grading Recommendations - _. - - - “, ,‘, ,i,~ ‘., ‘: i,,: ,~ i,. ,,::, ,;~: ~’ ‘, ~,,! :,!‘:><,:.i ::; ,.I .y,; ;,e.. ,,,/ :.. ,. .,:,,I :,, : .~ ,. :~. ‘I ,L ,’ I>~,~: ,,,‘I. .~, . .,, ” ~, ‘., - - .- .- - .- .- .- .- 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 0. 9. 10. -11. 12. STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS -- TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL ........... DEFINITION OF TERMS ..... OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES ... SITE PREPARATION ...... SITE PROTECTION ....... EXCAVATIONS ......... 6.1 UNSUITABLE MATERIALS . 6.2 CUT SLOPES ...... 6.3 PAD AREAS ....... COMPACTED FILL ....... 1.1 PLACEMENT ..... '. i 7.2 MOISTURE' ....... 7.3 FILL MATERIAL .... 7.4 FILL SLOPES ...... 7.5 OFF-SITE FILL ..... DRAINAGE .......... STAKING ........... SLOPE MAINTENANCE ..... 10.1 LANDSCAPE PLANTS ... 10.2 IRRIGATION ...... 10.3 MAINTENANCE ..... 10.4 REPAIRS ....... TRENCH BACKFILL ...... STATUS OF GRADING . i ..... ;ic' ,; : .** ., Page . . ~. . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . : . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . 7 .......... 9 .......... 9 ..... ;. .... 9 .......... 10 'q ': .......... 10 .......... 11 ........... 13 ., .......... 13 .......... 15 .. .......... d7 . .......... 18 .......... 18 .l-, .......... 19 .......... 19 .......... 19 .......... 20 .......... 20 ........... 20 .......... 22 :- -,,. cI.~“IIIIDI.Iyx.i~~.--.-~. , -__ ._._-_,._. - l__.l-..,,-, -,,_ .,.. STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS .~, .i~ ., ,,i,:, ~. ,,: 1. GENERAL -- 1.1 The guidelines contained herein and the standard details attached hereto represent this firm's standard recommendations for grading and other associated - operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be considered a portion of.the project specifi- cations. ,v,, 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 Consultant and the approval of the Client or his authorised representative. Recommendation by the Geotechnical 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 Details may be modified and/or superseded by recommendations contained in the text of the preliminary geotechnical report and/or subsequent reports. 1.5 If disputes arise out of the.interpretation of these grading guidelines or standard details, the Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the governing interpretation. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 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. AS-GRADED (AS-BUILT) -- The surface and subsurface conditions at completion of grading. BACKCUT -- A temporary.construction.slope at the rear of earth retaining structures such as buttresses, shear keys, stabilizatio~~,;fills or retaining walls. .I( BACKDRAIN -- Generally a pipe and gravel or similar drainage system placed behind earth retaining structures such buttresses, stabilization fills, and retaining walls. BEDROCK -- A more or less solid, relatively undisturbed rock in place either at the surface or beneath superficial deposits of soil. ,,,.> (,ij i;. .?;., ,,c, “,~ ;< & ,., :,, L - /~_ 2.6 2.7 - 2.0 - 2.9 - 2.10 - 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 BENCH -- A relatively level step and near vertical rise excavated into sloping ground on which fill is to be placed. BORROW (Import) -- Any fill material hauled to the project site from off-site areas. BUTTRESS FILL -- A fill mass, the configuration of which is designed by engineering calculations to retain slope conditions containing adverse geologic features. A buttress is generally specified by minimum key width and depth and by maximum backcut‘angle. A buttress normally contains a backdrainage system. CIVIL ENGINEER -- The Registered Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topographic conditions. CLIENT -- The Developer or his authorised represen- tative who is chiefly in charge.of the project. He shall have the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations made by the Geotechnical Consultant and shall authorise the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. COLLUVIUM -- Generally loose deposits usually found near the base of slopes and brought there chiefly by aravitv throuah slow continuous downhill creep (also see Slope Wash). ification of a fill by ::i, COMPACTION -- Is the dens mechanical means. company under contract or Client to perform demoli-, tion, grading and other site improvements. CONTRACTOR -- A person or otherwise retained by the DEBRIS -- All products of clearing, grubbing, demoli- tion, contaminated ,soil material unsuitable for reuse as compacted fill and/or zany other material so designated by the Geoteciniical Consultant. ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST -- A Geologist holding a valid certificate of registration in the specialty of Engineering Geology. ENGINEERED FILL -- A fill of which the Geotechnical Consultant or his representative, during grading, has ..’ ~,,/, .‘, ,,_,. - ,’ :.:I’, 1” ,, - - A - .- - - ..- .~. - Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 3 (, i: ,. :::..,:::. ~G,, ‘., made sufficient tests to enable him to conclude that the fill has been placed in substantial compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant and the governing agency requirements. 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 - - 2.25 - - - - 2.26 GRADING -- Any operation consisting of excavation, EROSION -- The wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water, and/or ice. EXCAVATION -- The mechanical removal of earth materials. EXISTING GRADE -- The ground surface configuration prior to grading. FILL -- Any deposits of soil, rock, soil-rock blends or other similar materials placed by man. FINISH GRADE -- The ground surface configuration at which time the surface elevations conform to the approved plan. GEOFABRIC -- Any engineering textile utilised in geotechnical applications including subgrade stabilization and filtering. GEOLOGIST -- A representative of the Geotechnical Consultant educated and trained in the field of geology. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT -- The Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology consulting ~firm retained to'provide technical services for the project. For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the Soil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering Geologist and those performed by persons employed by and responsible to the Geotechnical Consultants. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER -- A licensed Civil Engineer who applies scientific methods , engineering principles and professional experience to the acquisition, interpre- tation and use of knowled,ge of materials of the earth's crust for the evaluation of engineering problems. Geotechnical Engineering encompasses many of the engineering aspects of soil mechanics, rock mechanics, geology, geophysics, hydrology and related sciences. I, ,, ::;,;,.: ,‘, ‘. y:.. 2 ,,, :, (~ , Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects 2.'27 - - 2.28 .- 2.29 2.30 - - .~. -_ - 2.31 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.38 Page 4 fillin,g or combinations thereof and associated operations. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS -- Material, generally porous and of low density, produced from instability of natural of man-made slopes. MAXIMUM DENSITY -- Standard laboratory test for maximum dry unit weight. Unless otherwise specified, the maximum dry unit weight shall be determined in accordance with ASTM Method of Test D 1557-78. OPTIMUM MOISTURE -- Test moisture content at the maximum density. RELATIVE COMPACTION -- The degree of compaction (expressed as a percentagel'of dry unit weight of a material as compared to the maximum dry unit weight of the material. ROUGH GRADE -- The ground surface configuration at which time the surface elevations approximately conform to the approved plan. SITE --- The particular parcel of land where grading is being performed. SHEAR KEY -- Similar to buttress, however, it is generally constructed by excavating a slot within a natural slope in order to stabilize the upper portion of the slope without grading encroaching into the lower portion of the slope. SLOPE -- Is an inclined ground surface the steepness of which is generally specified~as a ratio of horizontal: vertical (e.g., 2:l). 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). SOIL -- Naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt, clay, etc., or combinatiog,$ thereof. -;. SOIL ENGINEER -- Licensed'Civil Engineer experienced in soil mechanics (also see Geotechnical Engineer). STABILIZATXON FILL -- A fill mass, the configuration of which is typically related to slope height and is ‘,, .:* :.: Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 5 - .- - - - 2.39 2.40 2.41 2.42 2.43 2.44 specified by the standards of practice for enhancing the stability of locally adverse conditions. A stabilization fill is normally specified by minimum key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A stabilization fill may or may not have a backdrainage system specified. SUBDRAIN -- Generally a pipe and gravel or similar drainage system placed beneath a fill in the alignment of canyons or former drainage channels. SLOUGH -- Loose, noncompacted fill material generated during grading operations. TAILINGS -- Nonengineered fill which accumulates on or adjacent to equipment haul-roads. " L TERRACE -- Relatively level step constructed in the face of graded slope surface for drainage control and maintenance purposes. TOPSOIL -- The presumably fertile upper zone of soil which is usually darker in color and loose. WINDROW' -- A string of large rock buried within engineered fill in accordance with guidelines set forth by the Geotechnical Consultant. 3. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES : 3.1 The Geotechnical Consultant should provide observation and testing services and should make evaluations 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. 3.2 The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractort.and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. ,. i’.- .’ z-w-- ---_ ~__ - - - - - - - - - - - - .- I, ,.z*: i : ,,;,::A Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 6 :'_ '~ : .b; ~.: x,': “., : y;;=& ‘: .A:+,:,,~ ‘~, ,:;:, ‘ii’,<>, I I%* “:‘v,y (,” ‘U$:., / r~ ,;,” ,y;, 3.3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading and other associated operations on construction projects, including but not limited to, earthwork in accordance with the project plans, specifications‘and controlling agency requirements. During grading, the Contractor or his authorized representative should remain on-site. Overnight and'on days off, the Contractor should remain accessible. 4. SITE PREPARATION ,~ 4.1 The Client, prior to any site preparation or grading, should arrange and attend a meeting among the Grading Contractor, the Daesign Engineer, the Geotechnical Consultant, representatives of the appropriate governing authorities as well as any other concerned parties. All parties should be given at least 48 hours notice. ,.: .; i ,‘$ y> ,y,;: ,:’ 4.2 Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, roots of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas. 4.3 Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities (including . underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fiel.ds, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.) and other man-made surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper capping and/or re-routing pipe- lines at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant at the time of demolition. 4.4 Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be protected by the Contractor from damage orz;injury. ,* 4.5 Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or' demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be performed under the observation of the Geotechnical Consultant. ,.,;v .’ ~,, ,,~ ,~ I,. - - - - - .~~ - - 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 7 4.6 The Client or Contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and/or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations. 5. SITE PROTECTION Protection of the site during the period -of grading should be the responsibility of the Contractor. Unless 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 requirements for site protection until such time as the entire project is complete as identified by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Client and the regulating agencies. The Contractor should be responsible for the stability 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, should not be considered to preclude the respon- sibilities of the Contractor. Recommendations by the Geotechnical Consultant should not be considered to preclude more restrictive requirements by the regulating agencies. Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding , ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting should be kept reasonably accessi.ble to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated. Where necessary during periods of rainfall, the Contractor should install checkdams, desilting basins, riprap, sand bags or other devices or methods necessary to control erosion and provide safe conditions. '.. ..;. . ,> :$'.k, , ..’ .,,, i “.j ;~j:,’ ,,, :, ‘fT^ ,, ,~‘i ,: ‘, ; ; ;,x~,,:j, r&T ,: : ,;-J~Q,;~ .: r* i,..i,:. ., .,.~+:; ,_ “, + ‘i,, .,,./~,., .- L - - - .- .- - Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 Page 8 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 (e.g., pumping, placement of sandbags or plastic.sheetinq, other labor, dozing, etc.). Following periods of rainfall, 'the Contractor should contact the Geotechnical Consultant and arrange a walk-over of the site in order to visually assess rain related 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. Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, satura- tion, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions identified by the Geotechnical Consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as Unsuitable Materials and should be subject to over- excavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of qreater'than l.O-foot, should be overexcavated to unaffected, competent material. Where less than l.O-foot in depth, unsuitable materials may be processed in-place to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly recompacted in accordance with the appli- cable specifications. If the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials should be over- excavated, then replaced in accordance with the applicable specifications. In slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than l.O-foot, they should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of l.O-foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture conditioning in-place, followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading 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 3” .,.+ ” ,, .’ ‘_ ., ,:, .- - .- .- .- - - - Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 9 recommendations herein. As field conditions dictate, other slope repair procedures may be recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 6. EXCAVATIONS 6.1 UNSUITABLE MATERIALS - 6.1.1 6.1.2 Materials which,are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. Unsuitable materials 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. Material identified by the Geotechnical Consultant as unsatisfactory due to its 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 agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:l (horizontal:vertical). 6.2.2 If excavations for cut slopes expose loose, cohesionless, significantly fractured or other- wise unsuitable material, overexcavation and replacement of the unsuitable materials with a compacted stabilization fill should be accomplished as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Unless otherwise specified by the Geotechnical,Consultant, stabilization fill construction should conform to the requirements of the Standard Detpils. 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 of grading, adverse or potentially adverse qeotechnical conditions are - - - .- - Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 10 ." ., /,. ,, ,,~ *-;,;:j.,,~ '. :* gj$ encountered which were not anticipated in the preliminary report, the Geotechnical Consultant should explore, analyze and make recommendations to treat these problems. 6.2.5 When cut slopes are made in the direction of the prevailing drainage, a non-erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided at the top-of-cut. - - - 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 accomplished utilizinq 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. 7. COMPACTED FILL 6.3 PAD AREAS 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 siqnifi- cantly 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 delineated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. All fill materials should be compacted as specified below or by other methods specifically.recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Unles$ otherwise specified, the minimum degree of compaction (relative compaction) should be 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. 7.1 PLACEMENT 7.1.1 Prior to placement of compacted fill, the Contractor should request a review by the ,.,,. s., .,,‘;;‘g, :j;i.: .,- - - .- - - - - Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 11 ,: ., Geotechnical Consultant of the exposed ground surface. Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed ground surface should then be scarified (6-inches minimum), watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density. The review by the Geotechnical Consultant should not be considered. to preclude requirement of inspection and approval by the governing agency. 7.1'.2 7.1.3 7.1.4 Compacted fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding a-inches in loose thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be- watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum moisture conditions then thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. The Contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and watering apparatus onthe job site to handle the amount of fill being placed in consideration of moisture retention properties of the materials. 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. When placing fill in horiaontal,lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5:l (horizontal: vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least 6-foot wide benches and a minimum of 4-feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural ground, firm bedrock or engineered compacted- fill. No compacted fill should be placed in:& 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 sufficiently away from the bench area to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal ,~ .: ‘. ,~ ‘:-;I;, Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 12 - 7.1.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.1.6 7.1.7 7.1.8 7.1.9 bench prior to placement of fill. Typical keying and benching details have been included within the accompanying Standard Details. Within a single fill area where grading proce- dures dictate two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjace.nt to a false slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a 3-foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least 3-foot vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved. 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 yards of fill,placed. Actual test interval may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading recom- mendations should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor should assist the Geotechnical Consultant and/or his representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. As recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Contractor should "shut down" or remove grading equipment from an area being tested. The Geotechnical Consultant should maintain a plan with estimated locations of field tests. Unless the client provides for actual surveying of test locations, the estimated locations by the Geotechnical Cqnsultant should only be considered rough estimates and should not be utilized for the purpose of preparing cross sections showing test locations or in any case for the purpose of after-the-fact evaluating of the sequence of fill placement. ‘.‘, ,:, ,,.c ,. Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects --, .~ 7.2 MOISTURE .- 7.2.1 - - - - - 7.2.3 Page 13 For field testing purposes, "near optimum" moisture will vary with material type and other factors including compaction procedure. "Near optimum" may be specifically recommended in Preliminary Investigation Reports and/or may be evaluated during grading. Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading delay, the exposed surface or previously compacted fill should be processed by scarification, 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. Following a period of flooding, rainfall or overwatering by other means, no additional fill should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading performed as described under Section 5.6 herein. 7.3 FILL MATERIAL 7.3.1 Excavated on-site materials which are acceptable 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 importing, in order to sample and test materials from proposed borrow sites. No import materials should be delivered for use on-site without prior sampling and testing by Geotechnical Consultant. 7.3.3 Where oversized rock or similar irreducible material is generated during grading, it is recommended, where practical, to waste such material off-site or on-site in areas -’ - - .- - - ,- ,- - - - - Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 14 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 condition. The disposal area should be covered with at least three feet of compacted fil.1 which isfree of oversized material. The upper three feet should be placed in accordance with the guidelines for compacted fill herein. 7.3.4 Rocks 12 inches in maximum dimension and smaller 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. 7.3.5 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 accordance 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 OOd$a vary as locations of improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized 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 compacted fill or firm natural ,:.., ,.' : ,,,~:. .T .- .~ - ,- - - - ..- - .- - - ,- - - .- - I,j Ai,, ,,.‘::‘,” Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 15 7.3.7 7.3.8 7.3.9 7.3.10 ground surface. Select native or imported granular soil (S.E.. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroqhly flooded over and around all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so that sucessive strata of oversized material are not in.the same vertical plane. 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. Material that is considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Consultant should not be utilized in the compacted fill. 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 additional 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,placinq compacted fill pending laboratory and field test results. Should he elect the second alternative, fill placed is done so at the Contractor's risk. Any, fill placed in areas not previously reviewed and evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant, and/or in other areas, without prior notification to the Geotechnical Consultant~may require removal and recompaction at the Contractor's expense. Determination of overexcavations should be made upon review of field conditions by the Geotechnical Consultant. -.,n", ,. 7.4 FILL'SLOPES 7.4.1 Unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:l (horizontal to vertical). ;’ - - - - .- - - - .- .- - Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 16 7.4.2 Except as specifically recommended otherwise or as otherwise provided for in these grading guidelines (Reference 7.4.31, 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 desired results are not,achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of the Geotechnical Consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted slope surface 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, overfilling 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 constraints may include property line situations, access, the critical nature of the development and cost. Where such constraints are identified, slope face compaction may be attempted by conventional~ construction procedures including backrolling techniques upon specific recommendation .by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a second best alternative for slopes of 2:l (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, slope construction may be attempted as outlined herein. Fill placement should proceed in thin lifts, i.e., 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, where necessary, during the period between successive lifts. Selected lifts should be tested to ascertain that desired compactionis being achieved. Care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately establish desired grades. Grade during - - .- - .- - - - .- - - - - - Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 17 7.4.4 7.4.5 construction should not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful to elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope. Slough resulting from the placement of individual lifts should not be allowed to drift down over previous lifts. At intervals not exceeding four feet in vertical slope height or the capability of available equipment, whichever 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-establishing same as needed prior to backrolling. Upon achieving final grade, the slopes should again be moisture conditioned and thoroughly backrolled. The use of a side-boom roller will probably be necessary and vibratory methods are strongly recommended. Without delay, so as to avoid (if possible) further moisture conditioning, the slopes should then be grid-rolled to achieve a relatively smooth surface and uniformly compact conditon. In order to monitor slope construction procedures, moisture and density tests will be taken at regular intervals. Failure to achieve the desired results will likely result in a recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant to overexcavate the slope surfaces followed by reconstruction of the slopes utilizing overfilling and cutting back procedures -and/or further attempt at the conventional backrolling approach. Other recommendations may also be provided which would be commensurate with field conditions. Where placement of fill above a natural slope or above a cut slope is proposed, the fill slope configuration as presented in the accompanying Standard Details should be adopted. For pad areas abovel.fill slopes, positive drainage should be&stablished away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and pad gradients of at least 2 percent in soil areas. - I’ L - - - - .- Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 18 7.5 - OFF-SITE FILL 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.5.3 8. DRAINAGE, Off-site fill should be treated in the same manner as recommended in these specifications for site preparation, excavation, drains, compaction, etc. Off-site canyon fill should be placed in preparation for future additional fill, as shown in the accompanying Standard Details. Off-site fill subdrains temporarily terminated (up canyon) should be surveyed for future relocation and connection. 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Canyon subdrain systems specified by the Geotechnical . . Consultant should be installed in accordance with the Standard Details. Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilizations or sidehill masses, should be installed in accordance with the specifications of the accompanying Standard Details. Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of structures to suitable disposal areas.via non-erodible devices (i:e., gutters, downspouts, concrete swales). For drainage over soil areas immediately away from structures (i.e., within four feet), a minimum of 4 percent grad~ient should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent should be maintained over soil areas. Pad drainage may be reduced to at least 1 percent for projects where no slopes exist, either natural or man-made, of greater than lo-feet in height and where no slopes are planned, either natural or man-made, steeper than 2:l (horizontal to vertical slope ratio). .' . .*:.m. Drainage patterns establlshed at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the project. Property owners should be made aware that altering drainage patterns can be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance. - 9. STAKING 9.1 In all fill areas, the fill should be compacted prior to the placement of the skates. This particularly is I - - - - - - - - - - Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 19 ~ important on fill slopes. Slope stakes should not be placed until the slope is thoroughly compacted (backrolled). If stakes must be placed prior to the completion 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 stabilization, appropriate staking offsets should be provided. For finished slope and stabilization backcut areas, we recommend at least a lo-foot setback from proposed toes and tops-of-cut. 10. SLOPE MAINTENANCE 10.1 LANDSCAPE PLANTS In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope 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 native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi-arid and arid areas may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect would be the test party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration. 10.2 IRRIGATION ,';:,: 10.2.1 Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope" : .,, faces, not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces. 10.2.2 Slope irrigationshould be minimized. If, ,' automatic timing devices are utilized on irrigation systems, provisions should.be made for interrupting normal irrigation during periods of rainfall. 10.2.3 Though not a reqir&ement, consideration should be given to the installation of near-surface moisture monitoring control devices. Such devices can aid in the maintenance of relatively uniform and reasonably constant moisture conditions. 10.2.4 Property owners should be made aware that overwatering of slopes is detrimental to slope stability. ” i., “~ ,,(, ~,, . “, ,. .:,, ‘.’ .f:! ., ,,, .,,, -: ‘., ~, :.: ./..: .- - .- - - .- ..- - .- Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects 10.3 MAINTENANCE 10.3.1 10.3.2 10.3.3 10.3.4 Page 206. - t' - 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. Terrace drains and downdrains should be periodically inspected and maintained free of debris. Damage to drainage improvements should be repaired immediately. Property owners should be made aware that burrowing animals can be detrimental to slope stability. A preventative program should be established to control burrowing animals. As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting. : 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 the period of time prior to landscape planting. lo,4 REPAIRS 10.4.1 10.4.2 10.4.3 If slope failures ocCur, the Geotechnical - Consultant should be contacted for a field review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair. If slope failures occur as a result of exposhre to periods of heavy rainfall, the failure area and currently unaffected: areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to protect against additional saturation. In the accompanying Standard Details, appropriate repair procedures are illustrated for superficial slope failures (i.e., occurring typically within the outer one foot to three feet of a slope fqce). 11. TRENCH BACKFILL A” 11.1 Utility trench backfill should, unless otherwise ' recommended, be compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction should :', ,. ,,: * - t I L_ - ‘~ , ~. -- - .- - - Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 21 ., ! ., li.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 be a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. 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. Backfill of exterior and interior trenches extending below a 1:l projection from the outer edge of foundations should be mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and two feet deep may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by jetting, 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. If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity.to a buried conduit, the Contractor may elect the utilization 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 compaction procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate , upon review by the Geotechnical Consultant at the time of construction. 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 considered subject to review by the Geotechnical Consultant. Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope areas unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mitigate the potential build-up of seepage forces. :,: I~ ~: : ,,J .,&:,, : -* t - - -- - - - - .~- - .~~ .- 16’ MINIMUM 4’ DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACKDRAIN 4’ DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER PLAN PROVIDE BACK DRAIN PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BS REQUIRED FOR BLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER (GENERALLY 112 SLOPE HEIGHT. 16’ MINIMUM) ,,~ : -tF:‘ ~’ m* . . . .,,, TYPICAL STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL OB NO.: DATE: FIGURE: 05-6807-001-00-00 JANUARY 1987 1 L.~ -I: ! .- . ,- .- - - .- - - .~ - - - - - - -- L . ,: 16’ MINIMUM 4. DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACXORAIN 4. DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER PLAN BENCHING . PROVIDE BACKDRAIN PER SACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-BLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH.’ KEY-DIMENSION PER SOIL8 ENGINEER TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL OB NO.: DATE: FIGURE: 05-6807-001-00-00 JANUARY 1987 2 - c - I - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NATURAL QROUNO PROPOSED GRAOINQ COMPACTED FILL PROVIDE BACKDRAIN PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REOUIREO FOR BACK ‘SLOPES IN EXCESS OF BASE WIDTH =W= DETERMINED 40 FEET HIGH. LOCA- BY SOILS ENGINEER TIONS OF BACKORAINS AND OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR EN- GINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. TYPICAL SHEAR KEY DETAIL OS NO.: DATE: FIGURE: 05-6807-001-00-00 JANUARY 1937 3 i ,,.. ,.:,,L~,’ ,..~ /---OVEREXCiVATE . FINAL LIMIT OF DAYLIGHT / EXCA VA’ TION -5 20’ MAXIMUM FINIBH PAD OVEREXCAVAT 8’ AN0 REPLA ‘WITH COMPACTED - - - SOUND BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHINQ OVERBUROEfi (CREEP-PRONE) ,.. ,: PROVIDE BACKDRAIN PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL. LOCATION OF BACKDRAIN AN0 OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ,: ENQINEERING QEOLOGIST OURINQ QRAOING vi .,. EQUIPMENT WIDTH (MINIMUM 16’) ‘: ‘:’ :;,:: ,.‘Z>, ; ‘>~~.%‘,.I ,!:.,I 2’ ” ,,,* .._. &~i< ‘I, T,, ::$*.gy:,; : ,, ; I’ .; ,,,,; ‘-“‘; ‘*%,~.~:.$y~ ,~ ~~~~,~,~&. ,s:~:,: ,.:, :$S ‘~~~:.~~;;;i11 ,:,,, ~ss.: “’ :,;~::.“:,g ~:;- :, ,..;;. ;?;~ .~‘;; ,,,, :z.z* ‘,-)... ,_~ pi,.,: ‘y:q~,;,; Q’i ,;;,,:+ :,;: ,y ;,,; * :i’; ;..$a .,., :-~ ,< ~, ,:.xX. .,, &&; I ,.,, ,,. ,“A$ :~,,., ~,I:‘~“~~j$ ~.‘,;K;‘;;, ,:,,; ~I”- ‘. DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL OB NO.: DATE: FIGURE: 05-6807-001-00-00 JANUARY 1987 4 ,,’ ,,,, i,I ,%.~ : , -- - - .- - - - .~ - * . BENCHING FlLL,,OVER NATURAL ,.’ SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL -10’ MIN. (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE) . ,, ; ,,: : BENCHING FILL OVER CUT SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL BENCHING FOR COMPACTED FILL DETAIL OB NO.: DATE: FIGURE: 05-8807-001-00-00 JANUARY 1987 6 .,.,,, .v, ‘-! \ ,, I, : ; -::.;g, .:!‘~c%%; ,;;:,,., .” ,>‘,. ! ,,./ ‘-3: J,,),,l: c - - - -. ,~- - .~,,. - - - .- ,-. .~ -~ - FINISH SURFACE SLOPE’ 3 FT3 MINIMUM PER LINEAL FOOT 3 FT3 MINIMUM PER LINEAL FOOT APPROVED FILTER ROCK* APPROVED FILTER ROCK* L 4. MINIMUM DIAMETER SOLID OUTLET PIPE SPACED PER SOIL 4* MINIMUM APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE** (PERFORATIONS DOWN1 MINIMUM 2% QRAOIENT TO OUTLET LBENCH lNCLlNE0 TOWARD DRAIN TYPICAL BENCHINQ’ ENGINEER REQUIRE- MENTS DURING GRAOINQ DETAIL A-A -TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL ,A 12’ MINIMUM COVER .-. 4’ MINIMUM DIAMETER APPROVED SOLID OUTLET PIPE ., ~,,,U../ ,. s 12’ MINIMUM- *FiLTER ROCK TO MEET FOLLOWINQ SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL: SIEVE PERCENTAGE PASSINQ -.‘%.. **APPROVED PIPE TYPE: ~-~ 22: 1. 314’ SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE’ 3/S’ (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. NO.4 MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI. NO.30 NO.60 NO.200 TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL 100 90-100 40-100 26-40 S-16 o-7 ,.‘,, o-3 08 NO.: OATE: FIGURE: 05-8807-001-00-00 JANUARY 1987 6 : ,., ? i, .i^ ‘, I: : j,;f;.&iy ‘A.., ::*,, ,ipzp$< ,? ,,,,, vi;, <. j: 1, .i!’ ,. ,M, ‘<S’, ,’ ,,y ,$:,I’ /‘~ :,’ I,:; ;,!, ,.,1 ,! ,>,,, ; .- ‘.’ ~,/i ~. i ..:, ,@& - - - ,- .- -~ - - - .- FINISH SURFACE SLOPE MINIMUM 3 FT3 PER LINEAL FOOT OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE* TAPE AND SEAL AT CONTACT COMPACTED FILL r SUPAC S-P FABRIC OR APPROVED EOUAL 4’ MINIMUM DIAMETER SOLID OUTLET PIPE BPACEO PER BOIL ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS 4’ MINIMUM APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS DOWN) MINIMUM 2% QRAOIENT TO OUTLET BENCH INCLINED BENCHING TOWARD DRAIN ,:i L.il .(, ‘,i: ~,, :: ~,.~ ,,,‘~ ~. / ~, : ,’ ,j: ~. ~:;.;‘,,,:. 1,~ ,j DE~~JI~~~~~A’ :. ;T:~!.: r TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL ,i r- MINIMUM 4= DIAMETER APPROVED BOLIO OUTLET PIPE ,. :,,:,: <:!, *NOTE: AQQREGATE TO MEET FOLLOWltdG ‘~ ” SPECIFICAT!ONS OR APPROVED EOUAL: ~,’ j::.” BIEVE BIZE PERCENTAGE PASSlidG ,.y .: l 1,2* 100 ‘: 1” s-40 3/4” o-17 3/S’ o-7 NO. 200 o-3 ,,. i: BACKDRAIN DETAIL (GE~FABFW~ OB NO.: DATE: FIGURE: 7 06 8807 001 00 00 - - -- JANUARY 1987 ,:. ,. ‘,. 1, ,,, ; ,.,+:,c; ,i ,“ ..l,i’:.; V%_. 1. .’ ,, .* ~,;‘,~:; .,‘,~, L ‘2.f ..” I ,,- ! _ - - - - - - - - - -. TYPICAL 8URFACE OF FIRM EARTH. MATERIAL ,~’ .L INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN SEE DETAIL BELOW DETAIL,~ :; ,i, r, ,i~ ,::y ‘, MINIMUM 9 FT3PER LINEAR F06T )F APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL APPROVED PIPE TO BE BCHEDLi&ik :ILTER MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWINQ POLY-VINYL-CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR iPEClFlCATlON OR APPROVED EQUAL: APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 psi llEVE SIZE’ PERCENTAGE’ PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE 1’ 100 FOLLOWING CRITERIA. BUBJECT TO FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL 314’ 90-100 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITION3 3/S’ 40-100, ‘, ENCOUNTERED DURING QRADINQ ~, NO.4 26-40 LENGTH’ OF RUN PIPE DIAMETER NO.30 6-16 ::, ,., .,:;*‘I’ : UPPER 600’ “‘v’ 4’ ,, ,: NO.50 o-7 NEXT 1000’ s* NO.200 o-3 > 1600’ 8’ ‘, TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL OB NO.: DATE: FIGURE: 05-8807-001-00-00 JANUARY 1987 8 = ; ,a,..,. ,.&$ ., ,,~~ ‘,I .I ,., / ,i,!:*.::- ~~ ,;,,. g ,, ‘fi:,’ : ,,,’ ;; <;;!i z,, ,,:J;,Ti; - ..- - - .~ CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS --p--p- TYPICAL BENCHINQ REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL ” INCLINE TOWARD DRAiN SEE DETAILB BELOW ,.:> .,., TRENCH DETAIL 6’ MINIMUM OVERLAP .m---- OPTIONAL V-DITCH DETAIL MINIMUM 6 FT3 PER LINEAL /FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL SUPAC 6-P FABRIC SUPAC S-P FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL MINIMUM 0 FT3 PER LINEAL’FOOT ,OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL DRAIN MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING ADD MINIMUM i’ DIAMETER SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL: APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE WHEN QRADIENT I6 SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAQE PA66lNG LESS THAN 2% 1112* 66-100 ,., : .,‘!‘i., :j : ::;I 1. 6-40 ,’ APPROVED PIPE ,TO’-BE .I “.: : 3/4’ O-17 ~&ii> _:, 6CHEDULE 40 POLY-VINYL- 316. o-7 CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM 1. NO.200 o-3 CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 psi. ,~ GEOFABRIC SUBDRAIN tnra .I,-. . IVY R”.Z Inrrc. 05-8807-001-00-00 t’““’ Ic,n,,sc. I~ IV”“IGi JANUARY 1 Q87 9 .I- ,;. I, -, . . .: ,,,‘. .,,<,,:;.‘y,;. : ‘..:d.,‘; ,;::.; ., ‘, .,~, ,.. .~~, ,,, ,~$f,: ,;:y;qi, 8%. ? _.,, _, ;I ; .:i;;<~, - L i- ~ - - - - .- - .- - - ,- - ..- I ., _,:,,a ..,. ,,;,,;: ~.~,.~,r-:~.-. ..,’ ,,:; .y,, i ” ,,:.;,,.::: ~, _, : ~.,, L ‘.. :. FlNiL”NiiURAL SLOPE :,. :,. -LIMITS OF FINAL EXCAVATION WIDTH VARIES COMPETENT EARTH MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCH tiOWNSLOPE KEY DEPTH ~~‘1. PROVIDE. BACKDRAIN AS REQUIRED PER RECOM- MENDATION6 OF SOIL6 ENGINEER DURINQ QRADINQ .~~~,I ., ._ ~^. .,,:. j I%., :s, .:.,. “.:, (, .,‘.. ‘, ;& ,+,, rt;+ :~;+J$$ ,‘., ~, ,., 1 WHERE NATURAL SLOPE QRADIENT IS 6:l OR LESS, BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY. HOWEVER, FILL IS NOT TO BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUIT- ABLE MATERIAL. FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL ,GROUND DETAIL IOE NO.: DATE: FIGURE: 05-8807-001-00-00 JANUARY 1087 10 I I I / I I I I I /‘I i I i , I 1% I REMOVE ALL TOPZIOIL. COLLUVIUM . . AND CREEP MATERIAL FROM TRANSITION CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON QRADINQ PLAN BEDROCK OR.APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL . *NOTE: CUT SLOPE PORTION SHALL BE MADE PRIOR TO PL‘ACEMENT OF FILL FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT SLOPE DiiTAlL~,~ .~ I~:~,.:‘~-, :~:‘:~” IOB NO.:--~ 05-8807-001-00~00 DATE: JANUARY 10th FIQURB: 11 5 I r :- .- ,- - -. - - ,~ .- ..- .- - GENERAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ~: CUT, L,Oi ,. --ORIGINAL GROUND WEATHERED BEDROCK,,) \OVEREXCAVATE AND UNWEATHERED BEDROCK REGRADE ,, : ,, ~,,:, ..F’. : ,‘T. ,,:i: : : CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION) .‘, COMPACTED FILL TOPSOIL. /COLLUVIUM AND WEATHERED /’ BEDROCK 0’ OVEREXCAVATE AND REGRADE UNWEATHERED BEDROCK TRANSITION LOT DETAIL DB NO.: DATE: FIGURE: 05-88 07-001-00-00 JANUARY 1987 12 - - - _- - .- - FINISHED GRADE r, CLEAR AREA FOR SLOPE FACE S’ OIKBELOW DEPTH OF DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH (WHICHEVER QREATER) TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (EDGE VIEW) QRANULAR SOIL FLOODED TO FILL VOIDS w--i \ :lZONTALLY PLACE’D HOR COMPACTION FILL PROFILE VIEW - - ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL JOB NO.: DATE: FIGURE: 05-6807-001-00-00 JANUARY 1987 13 .,,