HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Carlsbad Research Center Lot 74; Soils Report; 1992-04-27-
-
-
-
.-
-
FOUNDATIONINVESTIGATION
PROPOSEDCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT
L~T~~OFMAP~~~~~,CARLSBADRESEARCHCENTER
CARLSBAD,CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
S.M.A.C.
26820 HOBIE CIRCLE, SUITE B
MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 92562
PREPARED By:
KG INCORPORATED
9240 TRADE PLACE, SUITE 100
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92 I26
APRIL 27, 1992
JOB NO. 05-8829-001-00-00
LOG NO. 2-1145
a KG - '"iizcolporatd
-
-
April 27, I992
S.M.A.C.
26820 Hobie Circle, Suite B
Murrieta, California 92652
Attention: Mr. Robert Berry
Job No.05-8829-001-00-00
Log No. 2-l 145
SUBJECT: FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
Proposed Commercial Development Lot74ofMapl1811 Carlsbad Research Center Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
As requested, we have completed our foundation investigation for the proposed 20,000
square foot building Planned for Lot 74, of Map 11811, at the Carlsbad Research Center.
Our findings and recommendations are presented herein. In our opinion, the primary site
condition which is likely to impact the proposed development is the presence of near
surface expansive soils. Recommendations regarding this and other site conditions
impacting the proposed development are provided in the attached report.
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,
Dwight R. Haggard E.G. 1178 Vice President (Operations) San Diego Region
ADE/HW/DRH/pb/gof
-
Geotechnical Services, Construction Inspection and Testing
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............. . . . . . . . I
1.1 Authorixation ........... . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Scope of Services .......... . . . . . . . I
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................... 2
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION.. ........................................................... 2
- 4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Field Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Laboratory Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 FiII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Santiago Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Point Loma Formation . . . . . .
5.5 Santiago Peak Volcanics . . . . . . . . - 5.6 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.0 SEISMICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 6.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Earthquake Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 6.2.2 Ground Accelerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Seismically Induced Settlement and Liquefaction . 6.2.3 Other Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .
7.1 General .......................... 7.2 Grading and Earthwork .............. - 7.2.1 General .....................
7.2.2 Site Preparation ...............
7.2.3 Fill Compaction ..............
7.2.4 Trench Backfill ...............
7.3 Slope Stability ...................... 7.4 Site Drainage ...................... 7.5 Foundation Recommendations .........
7.5.1 General .....................
7.5.2 Foundations on Non-expansive Cap
7.5.3 Post-Tensioned Slabs ...........
7.5.4 Moisture Conditioned Building Pad
7.5.5 Settlement ................... 7.5.6 Lateral Load Resistance ........ 7.5.7 Slabs-On-Grade .............. 7.5.8 Foundation Observation ........
7.6 Earth Retaining Structure 7.7 Reactive Soils ...................... 7.8 Pavement ......................... 7.9 Review of Plans .................... 7.10 Geotechnical Observation .............
8.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION .........
. .
.
. . .
. .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .
. . .
. .
. .
. .
. . . .
.
. . . .
. .
. .
.
. .
.
. . .
. . . .
. . .
. .
.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .
.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
.
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
. .
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .
.
. . .
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
.
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. . .
.
.
. .
.
.
. . .
. . .
. .
. .
.
.
. . .
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
.
.
. . .
. .
.
. . .
.
. . .
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
. . .
. .
.
. . .
.
. . .
. .
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
2
3
3 3 4
4 4 . 4
5
5 5 . . 5 5 . . 6 6 7
8
8 9 . 9
. 9
. 10 11 11 11 12 . 12
. I2
13 13 . 13 14
14 15
16 17 17
18
18
ATTACHMENTS
Figures
1 - 2
3 4
Appendices
A
B C
- D
Table 1
Plate 1
Location Map Regional Fault Map
Retaining Wall Backdrain Detail - Crushed Rock Alternative
Retaining Wall Backdrain Detail - Composite Drain Alternative
References Field Exploration Laboratory Testing Program Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects
Seismicity of Major Faults
Geotechnical Map
FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
LOT 74 of Map 11811, CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our Foundation Investigation performed for the proposed
commercial development on Lot 74, of Map 11811, Carlsbad Research Center. The purpose
of this investigation was to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site with
respect to the proposed development, and to provide recommendations for site preparation,
as well as, geotechnical design parameters for the proposed project. The location of the
subject site is shown on the Location Map provided on Figure 1.
1.1 Authorization
This investigation was conducted in accordance with the authorization of Mr. Robert
Berry of S.M.A.C. The scope of services performed was consistent with our Proposal
Number SDP2-6037, dated January 24, 1992.
1.2 Scooe of Services
Our scope of services for this investigation included the following:
a) Review of the referenced geotechnical reports and literature pertinent to the
project area (Appendix A).
b) Drilling, logging, and sampling of 4 eight-inch diameter hollow stem auger
borings, to a maximum depth of 41 feet.
c) Laboratory testing of selected samples to evaluate the pertinent engineering
characteristics of the site soils .
d) Evaluation of the groundshaking potential resulting from seismic events
occurring on significant faults in the area.
e) Engineering analysis to evaluate and provide recommendations regarding the
settlement potential of the soils, and other geotechnical concerns.
ADAPED FRON U.S.&S. 7.5’ 5ANLusev -LE (1975)
- LOCATION MAP - LOT 74
JOE NO.: DATE: FIOURE:
- 05-8829-001-00-00 APmL 1992 1
ICG Incorporated
-
-
-
-
-
-~
-
S.M.A.C.
April 27, 1992
Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00
Log No. 2- 1145 Page 2
f) Preparation of this geotechnical report including:
i. Development of geotechnical criteria for earthwork on the site, site
preparation, soil compaction criteria, and remedial grading.
ii. Recommendations for appropriate foundation systems and
geotechnical criteria for design of foundations, slabs, and retaining
walls.
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that the proposed development will consist of a one to two story,
concrete tilt-up structure with slab-on-grade. The anticipated design column loads are
assumed to be less than 100 kips and wall loads less than 5 kips per linear foot. In addition,
asphaltic concrete paved parking areas and access driveways are planed. The site has been
previously rough graded by our company, formerly, San Diego Geotechnical Consultants Inc.,
(Reference 2), therefore only a minor amount of grading is assumed necessary.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site was previously graded as Lot 74 of Map 11811, Carlsbad Research Center,
Reference 2. The site consists of an approximately level lot located on the westerly corner
of Van Allen Way. Site drainage is provided by sheet flow toward the west. Review of the
previous geotechnical reports indicates that the site is entirely underlain by compacted fill and
the building pad is underlain by 20 to 30 feet of fill.
4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
4.1 Field Exoloration
The field exploration for this investigation was performed on March 10, 1992. The
investigation consisted of site reconnaissance, and subsurface exploration by our
geotechnical staff.
__
-.
-
S.M.A.C. April 27, 1992 Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00 Log No. 2-l 145 Page 3
The subsurface exploration consisted of four E-inch diameter, hollow stem auger
borings, drilled witha truck-mounted continuous flight auger. Relatively undisturbed
samples were taken using a standard split spoon sampler and a modified California
sampler. Bulk samples of representative soils were also collected. The borings were
excavated to a maximum depth of 41 feet. The borings were logged and then
backfilled. Lines delineating the change between soil types on the boring logs,
Appendix B, were determined from interpolation betweens sample locations and are
therefore approximations. Transitions may be abrupt or gradational. Logs of the
borings are included in Appendix B.
The approximate boring locations were mapped in the field and are shown on the
grading plan (Plate I). Locations were estimated by pacing; survey accuracy should
not be assumed.
4.2 Laboratorv Testing
Representative samples of the on-site soils, encountered during the field exploration,
were submitted to our laboratory for testing. Tests were performed in accordance
with the test methods of ASTM, UBC, and/or other accepted standards. Results and
descriptions of the laboratory tests performed are included in Appendix C.
5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
5.1 General
The site is underlain by approximately twenty to thirty feet of compacted fill which
was placed over bedrock of the Santiago Formation, Santiago Peak Volcanics or Point
Loma Formation. The fill was placed during mass grading for the Carlsbad Research
Center. Description of the units are described below.
-
-
-
-
-
-
r-
-
-
-
-
,-
S.M.A.C. April 27, 1992
Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00
Log No. 2-1145
Page 4
Site preparation and placement of compacted fill at the subject site is documented in
our As-Graded Geotechnical Report (Reference 2, Appendix A). The fill appears to
have been derived primarily from cuts in the Point Loma Formation and consists of
light olive to gray, moist, stiff, silty clay.
The fill is considered suitable for foundation bearing support, but is critically
expansive. Likewise, mitigation recommendations are considered necessary.
5.3 Bntiaeo Formation
The Eocene age Santiago Formation underlies the fill in approximately one-third of
the site, near the southern property boundary. The Santiago Formation, as observed
in our borings, is a massive to thick-bedded silty to clayey sandstone.
5.4 Point Loma Formation
The Cretaceous age Point Loma Formation underlies the fill in approximately one-
third of the site, near the northern property boundary. As encountered, the Point
Loma Formation consisted mainly of highly plastic siltstone with minor amounts of
fine sand.
5.5 Santiaao Peak Volcanics
The Jurassic age Santiago Peak Volcanics as reported, reference 2, unconformably
underlie the Santiago Formation near the western boundary of the site. The Santiago
Peak Volcanics are mildly metamorphosed volcanic, or metavolcanic rocks.
Regionally the Santiago Peak Volcanics vary from basalt to rhyolite but on-site they
are predominantly andesite.
-.
_-
-
-
-
-
S.M.A.C. April 27, 1992
Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00
Log No. 2-l 145 Page 5
5.6 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in any of our borings. During periods of heavy
rain or drought, the water table may rise or fall, respectively. It should be recognized
that excess irrigation on the project site or on adjacent sites can cause a perched
groundwater condition to develop at some future date. This typically occurs at
underlying contacts with less permeable materials, such as the interface that exists
between the fill and the underlying bedrock. Because the prediction of the location
of such conditions is not possible, related problems are typically mitigated if and when
they occur.
6.0 SEISMICITY
6.1 General
The site is considered to be a seismically active area, as can all of southern California.
There are, however, no known active faults either on or adjacent to the project site.
Figure 2 shows the known active faults and major earthquake epicenters in the region
and their geographic relationship to the site. Because these active faults are at a
substantial distance, the seismic risk at this site is considered to be low to moderate
in comparison to many parts of southern California.
Most seismic hazards at the site are a consequence of ground shaking caused by events
on distant, active faults. The hazard level is sufficient to place the area in seismic risk
zone 3 as defined in the Uniform Building Code. In addition to the information on
Figure 2, Table 1 lists the active faults within 63 miles (100 kilometers) of the site and
the maximum probable earthquakes on those faults.
6.2 Earthauake Effecb
6.2.1 Surface Fault Ruoture
In our opinion, the risk of surface rupture at the project site is low as, no
known active faults or potentially active faults cross the site.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TABLE 1
SEISMICITY FOR MAJOR FAULTS WITHIN 100 KILOMETERS OF SITE
Maximum Credible Maximum Probable
Earthauake’ Earthauake’
Peak Peak Bedrock Bedrock FAULT DISTANCE ML2 Acceleration’ ML’ Accelerations
Rose Canyon 9 miles WSW 7.0 0.37g 6.4 0.3og Coronado Banks 22 miles SW 7.0 0.19s 6.5 0.14g San Clemente 56 miles SW 7.5 0.08g 7.3 0.07g Elsinore 22 miles NE 7.5 0.26g 7.0 0.19g
San Jacinto 45 miles SW 7.5 0.12g 7.5 0.12g San Andreas 66 miles NNE 7.5 0.06g 7.5 0.06g Newport/Inglewood 44 miles NW 7.0 0.09s 6.5 0.06G
1 The maximum credible earthquake is the largest earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the presently known tectonic framework. The maximum probable earthquake is the largest earthquake event which has an 80% probability of not being exceeded in 100 years.
2 Values are local magnitudes, taken from Jennings (1975). and Greensfelder (1974).
3 From Seed and Idriss (1982).
4 Values are local magnitudes, generally taken from Seismic Safety Study for City of San Diego (1974).
5 Potentially active fault.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1
REGIONAL FAULT MAP
06 NO.: DATE: FIGURE:
05-8829-001-00-00 APRIL 1992 2
ICG Incorporate
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
S.M.A.C. April 27, 1992 Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00
Log No. 2-l 145
Page 6
6.2.2 Ground Accelerations
In our opinion, based on the information now available, the most significant
event likely to affect this project would be an earthquake on the Rose Canyon
fault. Recent work on the Rose Canyon fault zone has indicated that strands
within the zone are active (Appendix A, reference 6). A single trace has been
shown to offset topsoil in one location, and appears to have created
topographic features common in active faulting (offset drainages, pressure
ridges, enclosed depressions and fault scarps). The age of the most recent
movement, the fault’s recurrence interval (expected period between major
earthquake events), and the relationship between the active trace and other
faults within the fault zone have not yet been established.
It should be noted that the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG)
could establish Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones along the fault at any
time. Upgrading the San Diego area from seismic zone 3 to seismic zone 4
would likely follow designation of Special Studies Zones by the State of
California.
We have reviewed the existing information available regarding the fault and
conclude that for the Rose Canyon fault, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake is an
appropriate maximum credible event for a 20 mile rupture length (offshore La
Jolla to Coronado Bridge).
A maximum probable event of magnitude 6.4 is hypothesized for the Rose
Canyon fault. We estimate a 6.4 magnitude event would generate a peak
bedrock acceleration within the project area of about 0.3Og.
6.2.2 Seismically Induced Settlement and Liauefaction
Because of the high relative densities of both the bedrock materials and the
compacted fill which underlies the site, the potential for liquefaction or
seismically induced settlements are considered low.
-
S.M.A.C. April 27, 1992 Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00
Log No. 2-l 145
Page 7
6.2.3 Other Hazards
Because the site is generally flat the potential for seismically induced slope
failures are considered nil. Due to the site’s elevation above sea level, hazards
such as tsunamis, or seiches are not considered hazards.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
S.M.A.C.
April 27, 1992
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 General
Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00
Log No. 2-l 145
Page 8
No geotechnical conditions were apparent during our investigation which would
preclude the site development as planned. The site condition which has the most
severely impact the development are the critically high expansion potential of the
prevailing on-site soils. The expansion potential exceeds the range in which the more
typical recommendations on southern California can be used. Special foundation
design and/or site preparation is recommended to decrease the likelihood of
foundation and slab cracking due to expansive heave.
We recommend that one of the following alternatives be employed to decrease the risk
of movement of foundations and slabs. They are given in order of increasing risk.
a. Cap the building area with imported, non-expansive soil to a depth of at least
three feet below the bottom of the footings.
b. Use a post-tensioned slab system directly on the on-site soils.
C. Moisture condition the on-site soil and use a reinforced foundation and slab.
The remainder of Section 7.0 presents our recommendations in detail. These
recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the
standard of practice in southern California. If these recommendations appear not to
cover any specific feature of the project, please contact our office for additions or
revisions to our recommendations.
- S.M.A.C.
April 27, 1992
Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00
Log No. 2-1145
Page 9
-
-
-
-
1.2 Gradina and Earthwork
7.2. I General
Grading and earthwork should be done in accordance with the “Standard
Guidelines for Grading Projects” attached to this report as Appendix D, and
with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Where special
recommendations in the body of this report conflict with the guidelines in
Appendix D, the recommendations in the report should govern.
7.2.2 Site Prwaration
i. Non-exoansive Cae: If the option of capping the building areas with
imported, non-expansive fill is chosen, the capped area should include the
area within a perimeter of five feet outside the building limits. The existing
soil in this area should be excavated to a depth of at least three feet below
footing bottoms. The excavation bottom should be observed by our personnel.
The excavation should then be brought to the design grade using uniformly
compacted lifts of imported soil. The import should consist of well graded
soil having an expansion index of 20 or less when tested in accordance with
UBC Standard No. 29-2. Proposed import material should be tested for
expansion potential by our office prior to importing.
It may also be desired to use a similar recommendation in areas of curb,
gutter, sidewalks and exterior slabs. This condition is further discussed in
Section 7.5.7.
ii. Post-Tensioned Slabs; If post-tensioned slabs are used for the structure,
then special site preparation of the building area is not considered necessary.
Normal site preparation should apply, which consists of removal of any
surface vegetation and debris, scarification of the upper 12 inches of soil,
wetting the soil to approximately optimum moisture conditions, and
compacting them to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
- S.M.A.C.
April 21, 1992
.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00 Log No. 2-1145 Page 10
iii. Moisture ConditioninK If the moisture conditioning option is chosen, the
subgrade soil within the building area (as defined in option i.) should be
brought to at least five percentage points over optimum moisture or to 125%
of optimum moisture, whichever is greater, in the upper 2 feet of design
subgrade.
iv. Other Oottonc As stated previously, the moisture conditioning
recommendation is considered to have more associated risk than the other two
portions. An alternative to moisture treating the existing soil which would
have less risk is to use lime treatment. In our opinion, this option would have
a similar risk to the imported non-expansive option. Typical lime treatment
would involve the thorough mixing of three to five percent of hydrated lime
into the existing soil. More specific recommendations can be provided upon
request.
v. Privewav and Par- Site preparation of the parking lot areas
should consist of scarification/reworking and recompaction of the upper 12
inches.
7.2.3 Fill Comoaction
All fill and backfill to be placed in association with site development should
be accomplished at slightly over optimum moisture conditions and using
equipment that is capable of producing a uniformly compacted product. The
minimum relative compaction recommended for fill is 90 percent of maximum
density based on ASTM D 1557 (modified Proctor). Sufficient observation
and testing should be performed by the geotechnical consultant so that an
opinion can be rendered as to the compaction achieved.
Representative samples of imported material and on-site soils should be tested
by the geotechnical consultant in order to evaluate the maximum density,
optimum moisture content, and where appropriate, shear strength,
consolidation soluble sulfate, and expansion characteristics of the soil.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
S.M.A.C. April 21, 1992 Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00 Log No. 2- 1145 Page 11
During grading operations, soil types other than those analyzed in the
geotechnical reports may be encountered by the contractor. The geotechnical
consultant should be notified to evaluate the suitability of these soils for use
as fill and as finish grade soils.
7.2.4 Trench Backfill
All trench backfill should be compacted by mechanical means in uniform lifts
of 8 to 12 inches. The backfill should be uniformly compacted to at least 90
percent of ASTM D 1557.
7.3 Slooe Stability
Significant slopes do not exist on the site and slope construction is not proposed.
7.4 Site Drainage
Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how well the runoff waters drain
from the site. This is true both during construction and over the entire life of the
structure. The ground surface around structures should be graded so that water flows
rapidly away from the structures without ponding. The surface gradient needed to
achieve this depends on the prevailing landscape. In general, we recommend that
pavement and lawn areas within five feet of buildings slope away at gradients of at
least two percent. Densely vegetated areas should have minimum gradients of at least
five percent away from buildings in the first five feet. Densely vegetated areas are
considered those in which the planting type and spacing is such that the flow of water
is impeded. Roof drains should be carried across all backfilled areas and discharged
at least 10 feet away from structures.
Planters should be built so that water from them will not seep into the foundation,
slab, or pavement areas. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary
to sustain landscaping plants. Should excessive irrigation, waterline breaks, or
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
S.M.A.C.
April 27, 1992
Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00 Log No. 2- 1145
Page 12
unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones or “perched” groundwater may develop
in fill soils.
7.5 Foundation Recommendation8
7.5.1 General
Expansive soils on the site create the risk of future differential movement of
foundations and interior slabs. The previously discussed recommendations
will serve to mitigate the future movements. Our recommendations are
considered generally consistent with methods typically used in southern
California. Other alternatives may be available. The foundation
recommendations herein should not be considered to preclude more restrictive
criteria of governing agencies or by the structural engineer. The design of the
foundation system should be performed by the project structural engineer,
incorporating the geotechnical parameters described in the following sections.
Movement of exterior slabs, curbs and gutters must be accepted when building
on highly expansive soils. In excess of one inch of differential movement is
possible. Reinforcement and control joints will reduce cracking associated
with such movement. If such movement are not acceptable, then a non-
expansive cap or lime treatment should be used.
7.5.2 Foundations on Non-exnansive Cm
If the building area is capped with non-expansive soils as recommended in
Section 7.2.2, the following foundation design parameters should be
applicable.
Allowable Soil Bearing:
Minimum Footing Width:
Minimum Footing Depth:
3,000 psf (allow a one-third increase for short term wind or seismic loads)
12 inches
18 inches
S.M.A.C.
April 27, 1992
Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00 Log No. 2-l 145
Page 13
-
-
-
-
7.5.3
7.5.4
Minimum Reinforcement: Two No. 4 bars at both top and bottom in
continuous footings, or design as simply supported beam capable of supporting the applied loads over a span of 5 feet, whichever
is greater
Post-Tensioned Sla&
A structurally designed, post-tensioned slab-on-grade may be used to mitigate
the effects of soil expansion. The system consists of a slab reinforced with
tendons which are tensioned after the concrete is cured, in conjunction with
conventionally reinforced stiffening beams.
Moisture Conditioned Buildinn Pad
The following design parameters are contingent upon moisture conditioning
the soils within the building areas as discussed in Section 7.2.2.
Allowable Soil Bearing: 2,500 psf (allow a one-third increase for short-term wind or seismic loads)
Minimum Footing Width:
Minimum Footing Depth:
Minimum Reinforcement:
12 inches
18 inches
two #5 bars at both top and bottom in continuous footings, or design as simply supported beam capable of supporting the applied loads over a span of 8 feet,
whichever is greater.
Column loads should not be supported on isolated pad footings, but should
bear on continuous grade beam footings tied into the continuous footings.
7.5.5 Settlement
The anticipated total and differential settlement for the proposed structure
should be within tolerable limits provided that the recommendations of this
report are followed. In general, total settlements are estimated to be less than
one inch, and differential settlement is expected to be less than 3/4-inch. It
.~
-
-
-
.-
-
--
-
a.
-,. b.
-
.-
-..
S.M.A.C. April 27, 1992
Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00 Log No. 2-1145
Page 14
is recommended that we review the actual foundation plans to evaluate the
footing configurations and loading conditions.
7.5.6 Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral loads against structures may be resisted by friction between the
bottoms of footings and supporting soil. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 is
recommended for the on-site fill soils. Alternatively, a passive pressure of
300 pcf is recommended. If friction and passive pressure are combined, the
passive pressure value should be reduced by one-third.
7.5.7 Slabs-On-Grade
Interior Slabs; Slabs should be designed by a structural engineer for the
anticipated loading based on a modulus of subgrade reaction of 250 kips/cf
for slabs on compacted non-expansive imported soils, and 125 kips/cf for
moisture conditioned native soil. In consideration of the expansive potential
of the soil, slabs on moisture conditioned subgrade should be at least six inches
in thickness and should be reinforced with at least #3 reinforcing bars on 12
inch centers in both directions. Slabs on a non-expansive soil cap should be
at ieast five inches in thickness and should be reinforced with at least #3
reinforcing bars on 18 inch centers in both directions. Crack control joints
should be provided in all slabs, spaced on 15 to 20 foot centers.
Moisture Protection for Slabs Concrete slabs resting on soil ultimately cause
the moisture content of the underlying soils to rise in the underlying soil. This
results from continued capillary rise and the ending of normal
evapotranspiration. Because normal concrete is permeable, the moisture will
eventually penetrate the slab unless some protection is provided. This may
cause mildewed carpets, lifting or discoloration of floor tile, or similar
problems.
To minimize these problems, suitable moisture protection measures should be
used. Various alternatives exist, including concrete toppings or additives and
S.M.A.C. April 27, 1992
-
-
-
__
Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00 Log No. 2-1145 Page 15
synthetic moisture-resistant membranes. Information on the product usage,
installation and warranty should be obtained from the manufacturer if these
products are used. The effectiveness of such measures can be improved by
installing a capillary break under the membrane or damp-proofed slab. If a
waterproofing membrane is installed beneath the concrete slab, at least one
inch of sand should be placed between the membrane and the slab to decrease
the likelihood of curing problems in the concrete.
c. Exterior Sla& Some movement and cracking should be expected in exterior
improvements such as slabs, sidewalks, and curbs and gutters which are place
directly over the on-site expansive soil. One inch of differential movement
is not unusual, and more is possible. Reinforcement and control joints will
reduce the cracking and movement potential. As a minimal recommendation,
slabs should be at least five inches in thickness and should be reinforced with
at least #3 (or larger) steel bars on 24 inch centers in both direction. Crack
control joints should be provided in all slabs, spaced on IO-foot (or less)
centers in both directions. Differential movement between curb and sidewalk
can be reduced by dowelling the sidewalk into the curb. The sidewalk
typically will rotate at the hinge point next to the curb.
Differential movement and cracking can be decreased if at least two feet of
non-expansive soil is placed for slab subgrade. Lime treatment of the
subgrade should also be effective.
7.5.8 Foundation Observation
All foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical consultant
prior to placement of forms, reinforcement, or concrete. The observation will
confirm that the soil conditions are as anticipated and that the intent of our
recommendations have been complied with. The excavations should be
trimmed to design dimensions and should be cleared of all loose slough.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
S.M.A.C. April 27, 1992
Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00
Log No. 2- 1145
Page 16
7.6 Earth Retaining Structures
Because of the potential for high wall pressures resulting from soil expansion, it is not
recommended that walls be backfilled with on-site expansive soils. Non-expansive
imported soil should be sued in the zone defined by a I:1 plane sloping back from the
base of the wall.
Cantilever retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive soil should be designed for
an active earth pressure approximated by an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pounds
per cubic foot. This active pressure should be used for walls free to yield at the top
at least 0.1 percent of the wall height (unrestrained). For walls restrained so that such
movement is not permitted, an equivalent fluid pressure of 65 pcf should be used,
based on at-rest soil conditions. The above pressures do not consider any sloping
backfill, surcharge loads or groundwater forces. If any of these conditions exist, they
will increase lateral pressures on walls. We should be contacted for further
recommendations in such cases.
Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction,
based on ASTM D 1557. Backfill should not be placed until walls have achieved
adequate structural strength. Heavy compaction equipment which could cause distress
to walls should not be used.
To prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure, due to infiltration of irrigation or
rainwater, we recommend the installation of drains behind all retaining walls.
Suggested drain details are shown on Figures 3 and 4.
7.7 Reactive Soil8
Laboratory testing indicates that the soil should not be detrimental to Type II cement.
Results of subsurface content tests are presented in Appendix C.
-.,
.-.
.-
_
-
RElAlNlND WALL\
COMPACTED BACKFILL-
FILTER FA0RIC LIIRAFI 140N\ OR EQUWALENT
314’ CRUSNED AQQREOATE\
12. MINIMUU-
+3iOPE 2% AWAY FROM WALL
IN-PLACE SOIL OR BEDROCK
bdINIMUU 2’ DIA. PERFORATED PIPE
:OMPACTED SO1
IN-PLACE SOIL OR BEOROCK
ERMEABLE CLAY
LY USE OlTCHr I DETAIL OF WEEP HOLES
(MAY BE USED INSTEAD OF DRAIN PIPE IF SEEPAGE OUT OF WEEPHOLE IS ACCEPTABLE) TOP OF WALL DETAIL FOR SLOPING BACKFILL
I l SUBDRAIN SHOULD HAVE A FALL OF AT LEAST 1.6%
l SUBORAIN SHOULD HAVE WEEP HOLES. A FREE QRAVITY OUTFALL OR A SUMP AN0 PUMP.
l INITALLATION OF THE DRAIN SHOULD SE OBSERVED BY THE SOILS ENOINIIEII.
l PLACE PIPE (IF USED) WlTH PERFORATIONS FACING DOWNWARQ.
NOT TO BCAL
RETAINING WALL BACKDRAIN DETAIL-CRUSHED ROCKY AL;IERNAm
JOa NO.: lOAlES (FIQUA& a. I 054829-901-09-00 I APRIL 1992 I ;I
-SLOPE 2% AWAY FROM WALL
RETAIWlNO WAC
COMPACTED BACKFILL
FABRIC FLAP
MIRAORAIN SO00 OR EQUIVALENT IN-PLACE SOIL OR BEDROCK
FAllRlC FLAP AR INIYUM 3’ DIA. PERFORATED
-
,-
-
IN-~N-;“c’K SOIL OR WEE? MOLE8
I I DETAIL OF WEEP HOLES
TOP OF WALL DETAIL FOR SLOPING BACKFILL
(MAY BE USED INSTEAD Of DRAIN PIPE IF BEEPAQE OUT OF WEEPHOLE IS ACCEPTABLE)
-~ I 0 8UBORAlN BNOULO HAVE A FALL OP AT LEA81 l-KS. I I 0 ORAINAGE MAT SWOULD BE aLUE0 OR NAILED t0 WALL. AN0 SPLICED IN AOCOROANCE WITH THE MANUPACTURER’O REooMUENOATION8.
l FABRIC SIDE OF DRAIN BOAR0 SHOULD BE PLACED AWAY FROM WALL.
l fll~Op”u^:“p 8HOULO HAVE WEEP HOLEB. A FRl?E QRAVITY OUTFALL. OR A SUMP
l ~INSTALLATION OF THE ORAIM BHOULO BE OSIIERVEO BY THE SOILS ENQINEER.
l PLACE PIPE (IF USED) WITH PERFORATIONI) FACtMa DOWNWARD.
S.M.A.C. April 27, 1992 lob No. 05-8829-001-00-00
Log No. 2-l 145 Page 17
7.8 Pavement
Testing of the existing, near-surface silty clays, which are anticipated for subgrade
soil for pavement areas indicates an R-value of less than 5. The actual R-value of the
pavement subgrade should be determined after grading is complete. Traffic was
assumed to fall into two categories: I) Light traffic areas and passenger car parking
(Traffic Index = 4.0). and 2) Access drives and truck routes (Traffic Index = 5.0).
Based on these assumptions, the recommended pavement sections are as follows:
-
PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Traffic Index
Parking Areas TI = 4.0
Asphaltic Concrete
Thickness
3 inches
Aggregate Base
Thickness
7 inches
Driving Lanes
TI = 5.0
4 inches 10 inches
-
-
The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade should be scarified, brought to
approximately optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of
ASTM D1557. Aggregate base should conform to Section 26 of the California
Department of Transportation Manual, and should be uniformly compacted to at least
95 percent relative compaction.
1.9 Review of Plans
When the grading plans and foundation plans are developed, they should be forwarded
to the geotechnical consultant for review. The recommendations of this report are
based on assumptions regarding the proposed development. Our review will confirm
these assumptions and evaluate if the intent of the recommendations of this report
have been complied with.
-
_.
S.M.A.C.
April 27, 1992
7.10 Geotechnical Observation
Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00
Log No. 2-1145
Page 18
KG Incorporated personnel should continuously observe the grading and earthwork
operations and foundation excavations for this project. Such observations are essential
to identify field conditions that differ from those anticipated by preliminary
investigations, to adjust designs to actual’field conditions, and to determine that the
grading is in general accordance with the recommendations of this report. The
recommendations contained in this report are contingent upon observation and testing
being performed by ICG Incorporated. Our personnel should perform sufficient
testing of fill during grading to support the geotechnical consultant’s professional
opinion as to compliance of the fill with compaction requirements.
8.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION
Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under
similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar
localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and
professional opinions included in this report.
The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative
of the project site; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between
borings.
As in most projects, conditions revealed by excavation may be at variance with preliminary
findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the geotechnical
consultant and additional recommendations made, if warranted.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of
his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the necessary design consultants for the project and incorporated
into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractors carry out such
recommendations in the field.
.-
-
__
-
S.M.A.C. April 27, 1992 Job No. 05-8829-001-00-00
Log No. 2-l 145
Page 19
This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the
contractor’s operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than our own personnel on the
site.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the
condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes
or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or
appropriate standards of practice may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.
Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes
outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon
after a period of three years.
Hantoro Walujono,
Senior Engiy
CORPGRAT-ED
Registration Expires: 6-30-92 Vice President (Operations1 . .
Q GC. JW
Amer D. Espili Patrick A. Thomas Project Engineer Project Geologist
- HW/ADE/DRH/pb/gof
Job No: 05-8829-001-00-00
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Log No: 2-l 145
.-
-
-
-
-
-
Job No: 05-8829-001-00-00
References
Log No: 2- I145
Page A-2
1. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975, recommended Guidelines for Determining the Maximum credible and the Maximum Probable Earthquakes: California Division of Mines and Geology Notes, Number 43.
2. San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., “As-Graded Geotechnical Report Carlsbad
Research Center, Phases III, IV and V, Carlsbad, California”, dated April 1, 1988, Job
No: 05-2863-006-00-10, Log No: 8-1117.
3. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974 Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration From Earthquakes in
California: California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 23.
4. Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California 1:750,000, California Division of Mines and
Geology.
5. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liauefaction durina Earthauakes;
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Monograph Series, 134~.
6. Lindvall, S.C., Rockwell, T.K., Lindvall, C.E., 1990, “The Seismic Hazard of San Diego Revised: New Evidence for Magnitude 6+ Holocene Earthquakes on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone”, h proceedings of Routh U.S. National Conference on earthquake engineering, Palm Springs, California (volume I): Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, p. 679-699.
-
-
-
-
..-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
Job No: 05-8829-001-00-00
APPENDIX B
FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM
CONTENTS
I. Figure B-O
2. Field Exploration Procedures
3. Figures B-2 through B-6, Logs of Borings
Log No: 2-1145
!ks
Key to Logs
B-l
.-
Job No: 05-8829-001-00-00 Log No: 2-l 145
Page B- 1
-
-
B-l.
B-2.
B-3.
B-4.
B-5.
B-6.
B-7.
B-8.
FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
Subsurface conditions were explored during the investigation by drilling 4 borings to depths ranging from 16 feet to 41 feet below the existing grade. The locations of the borings are
shown on the attached Cieotechnical Map, Plate I. Borings were drilled with an &inch
diameter hollow stem auger boring, truck-mounted continuous flight auger. The Key to Logs and Logs of Borings B- 1 to B-4 are included as Figures B-O through B-6.
Field operations were conducted in March 10, 1992 under the supervision of our Field
Geologist who logged the soils and obtained bulk, and relatively undisturbed samples for
identification and laboratory testing. The weight of the hammer, the height of drop and
numbers of blows per foot of penetration were observed and noted.
Drill holes were located in the field by pacing, working from the locations provided on a map.
Elevations were determined by interpolation between contours on the 20-scale plan.
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings as indicated on the Logs of Borings.
The borings were backfilled with drill cuttings.
Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a standard split spoon sampler or a 3-inch outside diameter California Sampler lined with brass rings each 1 inch long and with 2-l/2 inch inside diameter. The brass rings were transferred into a plastic bag and sealed in a plastic tube immediately upon extraction from the boring.
The soils were classified based on field observations and laboratory tests. The classification is in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (Figure B-O).
Stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between predominant soil
types. Minor layers of differing material types may be contained within the strata, and a
gradual transition should be expected between strata.
-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
DEFINITION OF TERMS
PRIMARY DlVlSlONS SECONDARY OWlSIONS
HIQHLY ORQANIC SOILS aaa Pt l ..,.Ilnaw--U
GRAIN SIZES
SILTS AND CLAYS SAND I GRAVEL
ma! ( Ytel”” ( CO.“SI 1 Fl”L 1 COIIsL COBBLES BOULDERS
1 a00 .O 10 . a#.- 3. li
UI 011- *samI. ama CUA” SQ”Am ama o,a*IO,
RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY
WFI 1 CO~WCTION
“I - “0 “CCOVE””
KEY TO LOGS 08 NO.: DATE: FIQURE:
05-8829-001-00-00 B-O
-
-
.,-
-
-
-
.-
)ATE OBSERVED: 3-10-92 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
AOGGEDB
I
20.1
17.7
iiT
11.6
105
11c
107
112
.EVATION:~~~' LOCATION: See Mat)
LOG OF BORING NO. B-l
Sheet 1 of 2
-
DESCRIPTION
nL: Medium brown silty CLAY,
damp to moist, firm to very stiff
.--_----_-_-__-__-----------~ Light olive brown silty CLAY, damp to C
moist, stiff, fill is from Point Loma
Formation cut
.--_-_--_-_____-__-_--------~
, Light olive brown to medium gray silty
CLAY, damp, stiff
1
.---_-_----_-__----_--------. I Medium gray to grayish black silty CLAY,
damp, stiff
1
SANTIAGOFORMATION(Tsak. Light yellowish gray silty SANDSTONE, damp, medium dense, fine to medium grained
KG INCORPORATED
SOIL TEST
Consolidation
-
.-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
~-
)ATE OBSERVED: 3-10-92 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auner
LOGGED BY:&?dl GROUND ELEVATION:= LOCATION: See Mm
;
1 k ie e
9 !!I G &k
Ew e ;” 02 k $ h zi g w” LOG OF BORING NO. B-l
ag 3 fiz 8> Sheet 2 of 2 SOIL TEST
F
i
du y 00) 5
& -J:
q 3 i
85 am
z=
‘O :I:,::,:]: 5(-J/~
8 I.@;
DeSCRIPTTON
12.5 121 SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS &Dk
6”
\
Light brown volcanic rock, very
dense
Total Depth 41’
15- No water No caving Backfilled 3-10-92
;o-
j5-
SO-
55-
lO-
15-
-
.-
,,-
-
.-
. .
.-
-
_-
-
.-
-
.-
)ATE OBSERVED: 3- 10-92 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8” Holloww Stem Awer
.OGGED BY:= GROUND ELEVATION240 LOCATION: See Mat?
LOG OF BORING NO. B-2
Sheet 1 of 1
DESCRIPTION
@ 5’ fill becomes firm
silty CLAY/elastic SILT, stiff Atterberg Limit, Direct
@ 15’ fill becomes stiff
yellowish gray silty SANDSTONE,
damp, medium dense, fine grained
IO-. ::..: : :: 31 m
l5-
17.7 108 Total Depth 31’ No water No caving Backfilled 3-10-92
I”” I.“.: KG INCORPORATED rI”“Rm: _ - -- B-
_~
.-
..~
.-
-
--
.-
-
IATE OBSERVED: 3-10-92 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auaer
~oGGEDBY:PAT GROUNDELEVATION:~~~' LOCATION: SeeMao
DESCRIPTION
SOIL TEST
STP - No sample taken
-______-_______-------------- Light olive brown silty CLAY, damp, stiff
_-_-_-___-______-_-_--------- Olive black silty CLAY, moist, stiff
~-g,3294,0~-004,0 ICG INCORPORATED d
-
-.
-
-
_-
_-
-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
)ATE OBSERVED: 3- 1 O-92 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8” Hollow Stem Auger
ED
I I
I
i : i
j :
:LEVATION:242’ LOCATION: See Mao
LOG OF BORING NO. B-3
Sheet 2 of 2
OCSCRIPTION
Total Depth 41’
No water No caving Backfilled 3-10-92
SOIL TEST
ICG INCORPORATED I
,-
-
-
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
)ATE OBSERVED: 3-10-92 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8” Hollow Stem Auner
.OGGED BY:- GROUND ELEVATION240 LOCATION: See MaD
LOG OF BORING NO. B-4
Sheet 1 of 1
DEscmIPTIoN
SOIL TEST
Expansion, Sulfate, R-Value, Max. Density
Moderate olive brown CLAYSTONE,
damp, very stiff
No water No caving Backfilled 3-10-92
15-
SO-
35-
m NO i_- ..-.: I - - -- ICG INCORPORATED
Job No: 05-8829-001-00-00
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Log No: 2- 1145
-
-
-
-
1. Sections C- 1 to C-8
2. Table C- 1
3. Table C-2
4. Table C-3
5. Table C-4
6. Figure C- 1
7. Figure C-2
8. Figure C-3
Laboratory Testing Procedures
Expansion Test Results
Sulfate Test Results
R-value Test Results
Optimum Moisture/Maximum Dry
Density Determinations
Atterberg Limits Test Result
Consolidation Test Results
Direct Shear Test Result
rft&?
c-2
c-3
c-3
c-3
c-3
-
Job No: 05-8829-001-00-00 Log No: 2-1145
Page C-2
-
.-
-
-
-
LABORATORY TESTING
Selected representative samples of soils encountered were tested using test methods of the American
Society for Testing and Materials, or other generally accepted standards. A brief description of the
tests performed follows:
C-l.
c-2.
c-3.
c-4.
c-5.
C-6.
C-l.
C-8.
aassification; Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification
System. Visual classification was supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples and classification in accordance with ASTM D2487.. The soil classifications are shown on the Boring Logs.
Exoans’o Test Expansion tests were performed using Uniform Building Code Test Method 29-2. ieyt result is provided on Table C-I.
Sulfate Content; To access their potential for reactivity with concrete, a typical sample was
tested for content of water-soluble sulfate minerals using CALTRANS method 417 (Part I).
The results are listed on Table C-2.
R-Value Tests; R-Value Testing was performed on a selected sample considered typical of
pavement subgrade. Tests were performed using California Department of Transportation
Method 301. The test result is presented on Table C-3.
&Q&ure Densitv Relatieg; The maximum density and optimum moisture content of a soil
samples was determined by ASTM D1557-78. The test result is presented in Table C-4.
Atterbern LimitslThe liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of selected samples were
determined in accordance with ASTM D 4318. The test result is shown on Figure C- 1.
Consolidation Tes& Consolidation tests were performed on samples of the material encountered during field exploration to assess their compressibility under load. Testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D 2435-80. Result is shown on Figure C-2.
Direct Shear Tests; Unconsolidated undrained and consolidated drained direct shear tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D3080. The utilized samples were undisturbed and tested in a saturated condition using normal loads of 1 ksf, 2 ksf and 4 ksf. The results of the tests are presented in the attached Figure C-3.
-
-
-
-
Job No: 05-8829-001-00-00 Log No: 2-1145
Page C-3
TABLE C-l EXPANSION TEST RESULTS
TABLE C-2 SULFATETESTRESULTS
TABLE C-3
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
TABLE C-4 MOISTURE DENSITY RELATION
-
-
-
-
-.
_-
.-
-
.-
-
-
PLASTICITY CHART
60
SO
is
c 40
z
CL
; 30
G
F z 20
i
10
7
4
0 0 10 20 30 40 60 SO 70 80 90 100
LIQUID LIMIT (%I
PLAS- UNIFIED
TICITY ‘N^o”Sf$ LIQUIDITY SOIL
INDEX &EVE INDEX CLASSI-
w (X) (%I FICATION
SYMBOL
l S-2 10 ss 26 CM-n4
ATTERBERG LIMITS
06 NO.: IDATE: IFIQURE:
-.
,..
.-
-
-
-
-
.-
.-
NORMAL LOAD (PSF)
08 NO.: os-m2B-oo+oo-oo 1 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS jF’Q”R&2
ICQ IncorFor~t~
-
-
-
-
_-
.-
-,
.-
-
_~.
,-
.-
-_
.
(I
a
ul ul
1000
/ 0
OO 1000 2000 31 .I//- 1000 2000 31
ESCRIPTION “;;!a pFEEf)ETTH) “‘&5TpN &&E,$,
EAK -+ S-2 10.0 0 4s
ESIDUAL A
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
SILTY CLAY/SILT (CH-YH)
- UNDISTURBED w
EAK -
:ESlDUAL -
‘ESCRIPTION *olf;~Q f.FEP&!j co&;\oN F*dJ$i$
B-S S.0 0 33
I I -
NORYAL LOAD (PSF)
SAMPLE DESCRI
SANDV CL*V ( UNDISTURW
g SOOOL u)
(1
f
s
% m
/
0
OO 1000 2000 S(
‘ION
.I
)B NO.:
NORMAL LOAD (PSF)
01-8629-001-00-00 1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS IFiQURE: c-a
ICQ Ineoroor~t~
Job No: 05-8828-001-00-00 Log No: 2-1145
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
--
1. Page 1 on
2. Figures D- 1 thru D- 9
APPENDIX D
STANDARD GUIDELINES
CONTENTS
Standard Guidelines for Grading Project
Typical Grading Details
\ I I I \ \ 1 / I I I / \ \ I I I
SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL PER QEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
HI2 OR 16’ MINIMUM OR AS REQUIRED FOR STABILITY PER aEOTECHNlCAL CONSULTANT
FINISH CUT SLOPE
NOTES.
1) DEPTH AND WIDTH OF LOWEST BENCH SUBJECT TO FIELD CHANGE BASED ON CONSULTANT’B INSPECTION.
2) BACKDRAIN MAY BE REQUIRED DEPENDING ON EXPOSED CONDITIONSISEEPAQE.
FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL
ii >B NO.: DATE: FIGURE: D-l
,CG lncorporare
BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE
.-~
-
-
I FINISH COMPACTED FILL SLOPE-
I SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL
-,-I:~ ,::~:‘::~“,-“-
~~~~ e\~E~c~~~~
2’ MINIMUM’ KEY DEPTH 16’ MINIMUM. OR AB REQUIRED FOR STABILITY PER QEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
BENCHING FILL OVER CUT SLOPE
I
-
-
__
_-
SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL-
NATURAL TOPOQRAPHY
FINISH COMPACTED FILL SLOPE
16’ MINIMUM. OR AS REOUIRED FOR STABILITY PER GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
LFINIBH CUT SLOPE
I NOTES: 1) DEPTH AND WIDTH OF LOWEST BENCH SUBJECT TO FIELD CHANQE BASED ON CONSULTANT’S INSPECTION.
2) BACKDRAIN MAY BE REOUIRED DEPENDINQ ON EXPOSED CONDITIONSISEEPAQE.
JOE NO.:
BENCHING DETAILS
DATE: IFIGURE: D-2 ~
ICG Incorporated
..~
_.
~~-
~-
-.
-
.-
OVEREXCAVATE AND REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL.
FINISH CUT PAD
OVEREXCAVATE 3’ AND
FINISH COMPACTED FILL REPLACE WITH
BLOPEREBTOREDTO COMPACTED FILL
NATURALTOPOGRAPHY
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED PER QEOTECHNICAL CONBULTANT
PROVIDE BACKDRAIN PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL. LOCATION OF BACKDRAIN AND OUTLETS PER GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT DURING GRADINQ
15’ MINIMUM. OR AS REQUIRED FOR STABlLlTY PER GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT. (DEPTH AND WIDTH OF LOWEST BENCH IS SUBJECT TO FIELD CHANQE BASED ON CONSULTANT’S INSPECTION.
DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL
OB NO.: IDATE: IFIGURE: _ _
.-
-
-
_-
-
-
.-
_-
.~-
FINAL NATURAL SLOPE FINAL NATURAL SLOPE
LIMITB OF FINAL EXCAVATION LIMITB OF FINAL EXCAVATION
TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON QRADINQ PLAN TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON QRADINQ PLAN
COMPETENT EARTH COMPETENT EARTH
MATERIAL MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCH HEIGHT TYPICAL BENCH HEIGHT
16’ MINIMUM BASE KEY WIDTH
“\
MINIMUM DOWNSLOPE KEY DEPTH PROVIDE BACKDRAIN AS REGUIRED PER
RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOILS ENQINEER DURINQ QRADINQ
WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT 18 S:l OR LESS, BENCHING IS NOT
NECESSARY. HOWEVER, FILL Is NOT 10 BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE
OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL.
108 NO.:
FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL GROUND DETAIL
DATE: FIQURE: b-4
IRVINE SOILS ENQINEERING. INC.
.-
-
-
-
.-
~-
,-
MINIMUM 4’ DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPES 100’MAXIMUM ON CENTER HORIZONTALLY. 30’ MAXIMUM ON CENTER VERTICALLY
BLANKET FILL 3’ MINIMUM
MINIMUM 4= DIAMETER NON- PERFORATED OUTLET PIPES 100’MAXlMUM ON CENTER HORIZONTALLY. 30’ MAXIMU ON CENTER VERTICALLY
FINISH COMPACTED FILL SLOPE
TYPICAL BENCHINQ AFTER REMOVING UNSUITABLE MATERIAL
PIPE BACKDRAINS PER BACKDRAIN
L-KEY DIMENSION PER QEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT (QENERALLY 112 SLOPE HEIGHT OR 16’ ~i~iM~t.4)
NOTES:
1) FOR TERRACED SLOPES, BACKDRAINS AND OUTLETS SHOULD BE PLANNED TO OUTLET ABOVE THE TERRACE DRAINS.
2) FILL BLANKET, BACKCUT, KEY WtoTH AND KEY DEPTH ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD CHANGE BASED ON CONSULTANT’S INSPECTIONS.
3) KEY HEEL SUBDRAIN AND BLANKET DRAIN MAY BE REQUIRED DEPENDING ON EXPOSED CONDITIONBISEEPAQE.
4) EACH SUBDRAIN SHOULD EXTEND THE ENTIRE LENQTH OF THAT
PORTION OF BACKCUT EXPOSING BEDROCK.
TYPICAL STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL
JOB NO.: DATE: IFIGURE: D -5
ICG Incorporate
-
-
-
-
-
12’ MINIMUM BEDDINQ BACK
DETAIL A-A
TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL
SELECT :FILL
-4’ MINIMUM DIAMETER NON- PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE. MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT
’ kl2. MIN.+
*FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL PER STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARD ++APPROVED PIPE TYPE:
SPECIFICATIONS. OR TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION. OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EPUIVALENT. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI. SIEVE PERCENTAQE PASSING
3% 100
3/w 00-100
NO.4
EE:
gc:y
6-15
NO:200 i-i
TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL
JOB NO.: DATE: FIGURE:
b
ICQ Incorporated
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TYPICAL
SURFACE OF
FIRM EARTH
MATERIAL
-4-J 0 \ INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN SEE DETAIL BELOW
DETAIL
----A-----
MINIMUM 4. DIAMETER APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS
MINIMUM 3 FT3PER LINEAR FOOT
OF APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL 6’ FILTER MATERIAL EEDOINQ
FILTER MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWINQ
SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL:
APPROVED PIPE TO SE SCHEDULE 40
POLY-VINYL-CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR
APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH
STRENQTH 1000 ~61
SIEVE SIZE
1’
314.
315’
NO.4
NO.30
NO.60
NO.200
PERCENTAGE
100
80-100
40-100
25-40
5-15
o-7
o-3
PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE
FOLLOWINQ CRITERIA. SUBJECT TO
FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
ENCOUNTERED DURINQ GRADING
LENGTH OF RUN PIPE DIAMETER
UPPER 600’ 4’
NEXT 1000’ 6’
> 1500’ 8’
TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
JOB NO.: IDATE: IFIGURE: ~
ICG Incoreoratc
~~_
-.
-
-
-
.-
MINIMUM 4’ DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPES 100’MAXIMUM ON CENTER HORIZONTALLY. BLANKET FILL 3’ MINIMUM 30’ MAXIMUM ON CENTER VERTICALLY
.\ .f$@
c 3’ MINIMUM KEY DEPTH
KEY DIMENSION PER QEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
NOTES:
1) WIDTH AND DEPTH OF BUTTRESS KEY AS SPECIFIED IN QEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
2) KEY HEEL SUBDRAIN AND BLANKET DRAIN MAY BE REQUIRED DEPENDINQ ON EXPOSED CONDlTlONBfSEEPAQE.
31 EACH SUSDRAIN SHOULD EXTEND THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THAT PORTION OF BACKCUT EXPOSING BEDROCK.
4) FILL BLANKET, BACKCUT. KEY DEPTH AND WIDTH ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD
CHANQE BASED ON CONSULTANT’S INSPECTION.
6) FOR TERRACED SLOPES. BACKDRAINS AND OUTLETS SHOULD BE PLANNED TO OUTLET ABOVE THE TERRACE DRAINS.
JOB NO.:
TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL
DATE:
IFIQURE: b- 8
ICQ Incorporal
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION)
COMPACTED FILL
OVEREXCAVATE
AND REQRADE
/’
UNWEATHEREv ~cvnvtin
I.
TOPSOIL. COLLUVIUM AND WEATHERED
BEDROCK REMOVED BY BENCHINQ
,
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
JOB NO.: IDATE: -- IFIOURE: h -9
I “-I
ICG Incorpora1.d