Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 02-13; FARBER; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2000-12-22'-:-~~ENGINEERINt9 .. DESIGN GROUP GEOT!CHHICAl CMt, S11!UClURAI & ARCHIT!CTUIIAl CONSULTANTS fOR RESIDENTIAl & COMMERCIAl CONSTRUCTION :2 8& -'f. D-7 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California-92069· (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (76Q) 480-7477· E-mail: ENGDG@aol.com GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS' FOR PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, TO BE LOCATED AT 1100 LAS'FLORES DRIVE, CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Project No. 002486-1 December 22, 2000 or PREPARED FOR: Curtis Farber c/o FARBER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 140 Marine View Avenue,'#220 Solana Beach, CA 92075 TABLE OF CONTENTS· SCOPE .............................................. , ..... , ... , . .. t SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 FIELD INVESTIGATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS ............................................... 2 GROUND WATER .................................................... 2' LIQUEFACTION ....................................................... 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. 4 GENERAL ..................................................... 4 EARTHWORK ......................................... '......... 4 FOUNDATIONS ................................... '. . . • . . . . . . . . .. 6 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE ............................. : ..... a RETAINING WALLS ............................................. 9 SURFACE DRAINAGE .......................................... 11 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ................... " . . . • .. 11 MIS'CELLANEOUS ..................................... , .... ; . . . . . . . .. 12 ATTACHMENTS. Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. Figure No.1 Site Location Map .......................................... ,.. Figure No.2 Site Plan/Location of Exploratory Test Pits ......................... Figure No.3 Logs of Exploratory Test Pits ................................. Fig.ures No. 4-5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Appendix A . General Earthwork and Grading Specifications ...................... Appendix B Testing Procedures .................................. , ......... Appendix C .. , . " . p.' • .. " " - SCOPE This reJaort gives the results of our geotechnical investig,ation for the property located at the end of Las Flores Drive in the City of Carlsbad, California. (See. Figure No'. 1, "Site Vicinity, Map", and Figure No.2, "Site Location Ma~'). The scope of our work, conducted-an-site to date, has included a visual reconnaissance of the property and neighboring properties, a limited subsurface investigation of the property, field analY$is and preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of an generally irreg.ularly shaped lot located north of Las Flores Drive, in the City of Carlsbad, California. The site is bordered to the north by a custom developed residence, to the east by the Interstate 5 freeway, to the west by a descending slope onto neighboring,driveway and Jefferson Street, and to the south by Las .. , ,. Flores Drive. The overall topography of the site area consists of gentle hillside coastar terrain. The subject site consists of adevelopedlot with an existing one story single family home. Based on our conversations with the project architect, and our review of the preliminary site plan, it is anticipated that the proposed new improvements will consist of the following; >-Design and construction of eleven new multi-family units. Design and construction of subterranean garages. FIELD INVESTIGATION Our field investigation of the property, conducted December 18, 2000-, consistedc of a site reconnaissance, site field measurements, observation of existing: conditions on-site and on adjacent sites" and a limited subsurface investigatiol'1 of soil conditions. Our subsurface investigation consisted of visual observation of two exploratory test pits,. log.ging. of soil types encountered, and sampling of soils for laboratory testing. The locations of·the test pits are given in Figure No.3, "Site Plan/Location of Exploratory Test Pits". Log,S of the exploratory Test Pit excavations are presented in Figures No. 4-5, "Test Pit Excavations". FARBER DEVELOPMENT 1100 LAS FLORES DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSUL TAmS Job No. 002486 Pag~ 1 ".:. SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Materials consisting of topsoil and weathered slightly silty sandy fill mater-ial-underlain by sandstone, was encountered during our subsurface investigation of the site: Soil types within our test pit excavations are described, as follows: Topsoil/Fill : Topsoil/fill materials extended to depths ranging between 35-36 inches below adjacent grade. Toposil/fill materials consist of dark brown, moist, medium dense, slightly silty sand with small rootlets. Topsoil/fill materials are not considered suitable for the support of structures,- . but may be used as compacted fill during grading. Slightly silty sand materials classify as SW-SM according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation and our experience, posse~s expansion potentials in the low range. Sandstone Sandstone material was found to underlie the fill material within our the test pit excavations. Sandstone materials consisted of brown to rust brown, slightly moist, dense, sandstone. Sandstone mater-ials are considered suitable for the support of structures a'nd structural improvements, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Sandstone materials classify as SW according. to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation arid our experience, possess expansion potentials:in the low rang,e. For detailed logs of soil types encol,mtered in our test pit excavations, as wen as. a depiction of our test pit locations, please see Fig.ure No.3, "Site Plan/Location of Exploratory Test Pits", and Figures No. 4-5, "Test Pits Excavations". GROUND WATER Ground water was not encountered during our subsurface investigation of the site. Ground water is not anticipated to be a-significant concern to the project provided the recommendations of this report are followed. FARBER DEVELOPMENT 1100 LAs. FLORES DRIVE, CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL. STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Job No. 002486 Page 2 ' .1" .. '. " , , .', LIQUEFACTION It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking. in the event of a major earthquake along any of the faults-in the Southern California region. However, the seismic risk at this site is not significantly greater than·that of the surrounding: developed area. . Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion-due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose, granular s.oils underlain by a. near-surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty days and clays is not adv.ersely affected by vibratory motion. Because of the dense nature of the soil materials underlying the site and the lack of near surface water, the potential for liquefaction or seismicaUy-induced dynamic settlement at the· site is considered low. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by-adhering. to the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Cod'e and current design-parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. FARBER DEVELOPMENT 1100 LAS FLORES, DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL. CML. STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Job No. 002486 . Page 3 " , :"." ::." '.-. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMM'ENDATIONS GENERAL In general, it is our opinion that the proposed construction, as described herein, is feasible from a g;eotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations of this, report and generally accepted-construction practices are followed. The following recommendations should be'considered as minimum design parameters, and shall be incorporated within the project plans and utilized during construction, as applicable. EARTHWORK YVhere slab on grade flooring systems are pr~posed fo.r the n~w impmve}:t:'Jents, fil!· materi.aJ, found to mantle the site will require removal and re-compaction during grading witbin the areas of improvement. Based on our investigation, as a minimum required removals should extend through fill profiles, anticipated to be approximately 3 feet deep, 'and to, a minimum distance of 5 feet outside the footprint of the proposed structure (where possiqle}. Based upon our understanding of the propos,ed subterranean garages, it is. a r:Jticipated that garage floors will be founded into competent formational mater.ial. Where any cut/fill transitions occur entire building pad should be undercut to create a uniform compacted-fill pad. Special structural consideration should b'e made for foundations-that may span ir:Jto· retaining wall backfill wedges, especially in the area of sUbterranea'n g:arage walls. Such conditions should be reviewed by our office prior to construction. Where removals: can not be made as described above, the non conforming condition should be brought to the attention of the Engineering Design Group in writing so modified recommendations may, be provided. In order to confirm soil conditions observed during the fietd investig:ation, all undercuts should be observed by Engineering Design Group prior to recompaction of any fill' soils. 1. Site Preparation Prior to any grading, areas of proposed improvement should be cleared of surface and subsurf~C~ organic debris (including topsoil). Removed FARBER DEVELOPMENT 1100 LAS FLORES DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL. STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Job No. 002486 Page 4 " ,,' '" ,', .... " , '-' /',' i ' . .... .. , .. ;. ,'. ..:.::... debris should-be properly disposed of off-site prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes resulting: from the removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements which extend below the undercut depths noted, should be filled and compacted using on-site material or a- non-expansive import material. 2. Removals Fill soils found to mantle'the site in our exploratory test pits (Le., upper approximately 3 feet), are not suitable for the structural support· of buildings or improvements in their present state, and will require removal and re-compaction in areas of proposed slab on grade floors or other settlement sensitive locations. In g,eneral, grading should consist of the excavation of a keyway at the' base of any proposed fill' stopes, keyway cambered into 'slope to a minimum depth of 18-inches into' competent form~tional soil profiles, scarification of keyway bottom, benching" and re- "compaction of fill materials to 90 percent 're~ative compaction per ASTM 1557-91 (See Appendix 8· for grading detailing). Excavated fill materials are suitable for re-use as fill material during, grading, provided they are cleaned of debris and oversize material in eX,cess of 6 inches' in diameter (oversized material is not anticipated to be of significant concern) and. are free of contamination. Improvements should be' constructed on uniform building pad. Where a cut/fill transition occurs, the building pad should be undercut to a minimum of 3· feet, to a distance of 5 feet outside building perimeter, where possible. Removals and undercuts should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the footprint of the proposed structures and settlement sensitive improvements. Where this condition cannot be met it should be reviewed by the EngJneering Design Group on a case by case basis., Removal depths should be visu'ally verified by a representative of our firm prior to the placement of fill. 3. Fills Areas to receive fill and/or structural improvements should be scarified to FARBER DEVELOPMENT 1100 LAS FLORES DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL'& ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Job No. 002486 Page 5 a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and re-compacted to at least 90 percent rel-ative compaction (based on ASTM 01557-91). Compacted fills shouldbe cleaned of loose debris, oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter, brought to near optimum moisture content, and re-compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (based on ASTM [).1557-91) Surficial-, loose or soft soils exposed or encountered during grading (such as any undocumented, or loose fill materials) should be removed to competent formational material and properly compacted prior t6 additional fill placement. Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. If the import of soil is planned, soils should be non-expansive and free of debris-and org_anic matter. Prior to-importing-, soils should. be visually observed, sampled and tested at the borrow pit area to evaluate soil suitability as fill. FOUNDATIONS We anticipate that the proposed foundation system for the structures will slab on grade and perimeter footing foundation system. 1. Footings bearing in competent formational materials or compacted fill may be designed utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf. 3. Seismic Design Parameters: Seismic Zone Factor -.; .. 4 Soil Profile Type -'-Sd (Table 16-J) - Near Source 15-km Distance Rose Canyon (Distance to Closest Active Fault) Seismic Source Type D .. (Table 16-U) --:-' . ..... . FARBER DEVELOPMENT 1100 LAS FLORES DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL. STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS -----.---.. : - .. , Job No. 002486 Page 6 .. - . , " -', . :~ . -- 4. Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other short duration loadings. The following parameters sFlould-be used asa-minimum, fordesigning, footing, width and depth below lowest adjacent grade: No~ of Floors Minimum Footing. Width "'Minimum Footing, Depth Supported Below Lowe,st Adjacel7lt Grade 1 15 inches 18 inches 2 15 inches 18incnes, 3 18 inches 24 inches' , 5. All footings should be reinforced, with a minimum of two #4 bars at the top and two 6. #4 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). For footings over. 30 inches in depth, additional reinforcement, and possibly a stem'wall system will. be necessary. -, '_ This detail should be reviewed on a case by case basis by our office prior to construction. All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing. the above given bearing, ' values and footing depths, and be reinforced with a minimum' of #4 bars at 1-2 inches o.c. in each direction (3 inches above the ground). Isolated spread footing,S should have a minimum width of 24 inches. 7. Forfootings adjacent to slopes, a minimum 15 feet horizontal s~tback in formational material or properly compacted fill should be maintained. A setback measurement should be taken at the horizontal distance from'the bottom of the footing-to slope daylight. Where this· condition can not be met it should be brougMt to,the attention- of the Engineering Design Group for review . 8. 7. All excavations should be performed in g.eneral accordance'with the conteRts of this report, applicable codes, OSHA requirements and applicable city andJor county standards . All foundation subgrade soils and footings shall be pre-moistened a minimum of 18 inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete. FARBER DEVELOPMENT Job No. 002486 Page 7 1100 LAS FLORES DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL. STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS >- ,., f • ~ . " _'.0 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE _Concr~te sl'abs on grade should, use the following as the minimum d~sig.n parameters: 1. Concrete slabs on grade of the building' slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches· (5 inches at garage and driveway locations )-and should-be· reinforced with #4 bars at 24 inches o.c. placed at the midpoint of th~ slab. All concrete shall be poured per the following: • Slump: Between 3-and 4 inches maximum' • Aggregate Size: 3/4 -1 inch • Air Content: 5· to 8 percent • Moisture retarding· additive in concrete at. moisture sensitive areas. • Water to cement Ratio· -0..5 maximum . 2. All required fills used to support slabs, should be' placed i~ accordat'lce with the grading section of this report and the attached Appendix S, and· compacted to' 90 percent Modified Proctor Density, ASTM D-1567. 3. 4. 5. 6 A uniform layer of 4 inches of clean sand is recommended under the slab in order to more uniformly support the slab, help distribute loads to the soil$ beneath the slab, and act as a capillary break. In addition, a visqueeh layer (to mil) should be placed mid-height in the sand bed to act as a vapor retarder. Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cra'cking of concrete that takes place when undergoing-its natural shrinkag.e during curing .. The control joints should be well located to direct unayoidable slab cracking to are~sthat are desirable by the designer. All subgrade soils to receive concrete ·f1atwork are to be pre-soa.ked to. 2 percent over optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches· .. Brittle floor finishes placed directly on slab on grade noors may crack if concrete is not adequately cured-prior to installing the finish or if there is minor slab movement. To minimize potential damage to movement sensitive flooring. we recommend the use of slip sheeting techniques (linoleum type) which allows for foundation .and slab FARBER DEVELOPMENT Job No. 002486 . Page 8 1100 LAS FLORES DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL. STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS . ...:. .-' .. ' 7. e- movement without transmitting this movement to-the floor finishes. Exterior concrete fJatwork and-driveway slabs, due to the nature of concrete hydration and minorsubgrade soil movement, are subject to -normal minor concrete cracking. To· minimize expected concrete cracking, the following-may be implemented: • • .. • • • • Concrete slump should not exceed-4 inches. Concrete should be poured during-"cool" (40 -65 degrees) weather if possible. If concrete is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding. additive should be included in the mix, and the slump kept to-a minimum. Concrete subgrade should be pre-soaked prior to the pouring of concrete~ The level of pre-soaking sh'ould be-a minimum of 2% over optimum moisture to a depth of 18 inches. Concrete may be pouted with-a 10 inch deep thickened ed-g·e. Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints'or-sawcuts (1 inch deep) creating concrete sections n~ larg.er. than 225 square feet. Fo.r sidewa'lks, the maximum run between jOints should not exceeo Sfeet. For rectangular shapes of concrete, the ratio of length to width should generally not exceed 0.6 (Le., 5 ft. long by 3 ft. wide). Joints should be cut at expected-points of concrete shrinkag.e (such as male corners), with diagonal reiRforcement placed in accordance with industry standards. Drainage adjacent to concrete flatwork should-direct water away from the improvement. Concrete subgrade should be-sl'oped and-directed to the collective drainage system, such thatwateris-not trapped below the flatwork. The recommendations set forth herein are intended-to reduce cosmetic nuisance cracking. The project concrete contractor is·ultimately responsible for concrete quality and performance, and should pursue a-cost-benefit analysis of these recommendations, and other options 8vailabfe in the industry, prior to the pouring of concrete. RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls are not anticipated for construction of the additions; but retaining walls up to 6 feet may be designed and constructed in accordance with the .following- recommendations and minimum design parameters: 1 . Retaining wall footings shoyld be desjgned in accordance with the allowable bearing FARBER DEVELOPMENT 1100 LAS FLORES DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Job No. 002486 Page 9 ·' criteria g.iven in the "Foundations" section of this report, and should ma'intain minimum footing depths outlined in "Foundation" section of this report. 2. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using. aM active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pet. This assumes that granular, free draining. material will be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. For 3'- 4. \ sloping' backfill, the following parameters may be utilized: Condition Active 2:1 Slope 50 1.5~1 Slope 65 Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition to. the above values. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement, they should be designed for an additional uniform soil· pressure of 7XH psf, where H is· the height of the wall in feet. . . .. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fJ'uid pressure of 300 pcf. This value assumes that the soil being utilized to resist p~ssive pressures,' extends horizontally 2.5 times the height of the passive pressure wedge of the' soil. Where the horizontal distance of the available passive pressurewedge is less-than 2.5 times the height of the soil, the passive pressure value must be reduced by the percent reduction in available horizontal length. 5. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 between the soil and concrete footings may be utilized to resist lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures,above. 6. Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction .. Ifthis·cannot be accomplished, the compactive effort should be included as. a surcharge load when designing the wall. 7. All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic pressure, and be designed in accordance· with the minimum standards. contained . in the "Retaining Wall Drainage Detail", Appendix B. Surface area drains and other drainage systems should not be tied: to retaining wall back drain systems. 8. Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the "Earthwork" section of this report. Backfill shall consist of a-non-expansive FARBER DEVELOPMENT Job No. 002486 Page 10 1100 LAS FLORES DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ENGINEERlNG DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL. STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS ., : .... ',:', , ; .. '~." t - '- granular, free draining material. SURFACE DRAINAGE Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will play 8-criticat roleon the future performance of the dwelling and improvements. Under no. circumstances should water be allowed to pond against or adjacent to foundation walls, or tops of slopes·. The ground surface surrounding proposed improvements should be relative~y impervious in nature, and slope to drain away from the structure in all directions, with.8-l11in!mum.slope of 2% for a horizontal distance of 7 feet (where possible).. Area drains or surface swal'es should then be provided to accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. Roof .. gutters and downspouts shall be installed on the new and existing· structures and tig,htlined to the area drain system. All drains should be kept clean and unclogged, includiflg gutters and downspouts. Area drains should be kept free-of debris to allow for proper drainag.e: ... During periods ofh~avy rain, the performance of all drainag,e systems should be inspected. Problems such as gullying or ponding should be corrected as soon as,_ possibte. Any leakage from sources such as water lines should also be-repaired as-soon as possible. In addition, irrigation of planter areas, lawns, or other veg,etation, located adjacent to,the foundation or exterior flat work improvements, should be stricUy controlled or avoided. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions,disclosed by our investigation of the proJect area. Interpolated subsurface' conditions shoutct-be verified in the field during construction. The following; items shall be conducted prior/during- construction by a representative of Engineering Design Group-in-ordertoverify compliance with the geotechnical and civil engineering recommendations provided herein, as applicable. The project structural; and geotechnical-engineers may upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during the development of the proposed improvement(s). 1. Attendance of a pre-construction meeting-prior to the start of work 2. Review offinal approved structural plans prior to the start of work, .for compliance with geotechnical recommendations. 3. Observation of keyway bottom prior to scarification. FARBER DEVELOPMENT 1100 LAS FLORES DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL. STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Job No. 002486 Page 11 • ,', ~ .. " ,,' :-. warranties of the accuracy of these recommendations, beyond the lirnitsof the obtained' data, is herein expressed or impl'ied. This report is based on the investigation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein. 'If either of .. - these conditions is changed, the results would also-most likely change. Man-made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In addition, changes in requirements due to-state' of the art knowledge and/or legislation, are rapidly occurring. As a result, the findings of this report may become invalid due to these changes. Therefore, this report for the spectfic site, is subjecHo review af1d not considered valid after a-period of one year, or if conditions,as.sta-ted above are altered. It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the iriformation rn this report be incorporated into the plans and/or specifications Clnd construction of the project. It is advisable that a contractor familiar with construction detaUs typically used to deal with the local subsoil and seismic conditions, be retained to build the structure'. If you have any questions'regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do, not hesitate to contact u~. We hope the report provides you wit,h necessary infC?r::mation . to continue with the development of the project. Sincerely, , --.. ,:/ Steven Norris" .. ' ', .. , ,./ California RCE #47672 FARBER DEVELOPMENT 1100 LAS FLORES DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ~~"';~ i~::. ~':~:;T~ E~:i;. :.:; .. \,;3 v, .... ~ ..... ~ v;U ,\. /_ ... ~ •. ",; \~"';"~./l." .. ~ ... ~.=' .. <: ...... ? ~ •. " ';!." ...... r.\\~~ .. ~·.:' ~~ ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL. STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Job No. 002486 . Page 13 i I' '1. i.....: ,'. : -. .... I.. ! .. I.' ., ::.! 'PROJECT NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER 002486-1 :nd FARBER DEVELOPMENT 1100 LAS FLORES DRIVE, CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAl, CIVIL. STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 810 W. Los Valleellos Blvd .. SUite A. San Marcos. CA 92069 Phone: (760)752·7010 Fax: (760)752·7092 FIGURE 1 ,', , ", '": .. ' '~ "'; PROJECT NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER 002486-1 e· SI·TE LOCATION MAP FARBER DEVELOPMENT 1100 LAS FLORES DRIVE, CITY OF CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL. STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS e lOW. Los Vallecdos Blvd .. SUlle A. San Marcos. CA 92069 Phone: (760)752-7010 Fax: (760)752-7092 FIGURE • w .. ~ . . -,- t':-.. ' i . L SITE PLAN -LOCATION" OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS PROJECT NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER 002486-1 ---------- .-......--, ... #1 -APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TeST PITS FARBER DEVELOPMENT 1100 LAS FLORES DRIVE, CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAl, CIVIL. STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 810 W. Los VaUl!C1lcs BIwI .. sun. A, San Mal1:os.CA 92069 Phone: (760}752-7010 Fax: (760}752.7092 FIGURE 3·· ,-wi- i ' .. -f· . .;·· .. ··-\.' .. ·;·::<-,·::·::·.~·:,:::·: ~-.~'.'.-.-.-~.: ........ -.. -:. '.' .-~ .. ::-.. -.... _ ... .: .. _ ...... :-.. .. ~:.' .~.-: -. '--' .. :._' PROJECT NAME: FARBER -LAS FLORES DEELOPMENT LOGGED BY: EER TEST PIT NO; 1 PRc;lJECT NO: 002486 DATUM: EXISTING GRADE = 0.0' FIGURE: 4 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES .. EQUIPMENT: HAND DUG ELEVATION: SEE MAP DATE LOGGED: 12/18/00 DESCRIPTION: SEE MAP UCSC SAMPLES OTHER . . . . . SOIL TYPE GEO.ATT. ,~i i TOPSOIL/FILL 1 0-35" Dark brown, moist, medium dense, slighlly silly sand with small SW-SM roollets. 2 SANDSTONE 35~40" Rust brown to brown, moist, dense slightly silly sandstone. SW-SM e GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION: SURFACE SLOPE: 0% +-TREND: N/A .. , SILT SAUD, 0 \ CLAY I , , CONTAcr • -. FRACTURE SEEPAGE POCKE TS OF GRAVEL -, ROOTlET , . , lJUIK SAM''LE CEMUIfEO ZONE 1 G) ROOTlET -(8)' UEDDING IC)' CONTACT , J)' JOINT · \ , (F)' FRACrURE , (CS) .. ClAY SEAM 2 \ UC -IJNCOUFU-.lEO COMPRESSION (TSF) " : EI • EXPANSIOIIIIIDE' -, · .' -II 3 \.' '" ':.i!) .. ,' -.:j/ ... ' .' ..... '. ~ " .\' .---"'"' . _ .. --.. , · 4 · ! 5 , . 6 . : 7 I -TOTAL DEPTH = 40" I NO GROUNDWATE'R : : ,. ~-' ... -.f: .. :.::::.-:. ...... :: -:.::-::'._' :.: ...... ":::"-' . ' .. -.': r: ..-r '. -.' -... _ .... -:.: ... _ ..... -... !IIII -. .-.: .-..... -," .' PROJECT NAME: FARBER -LAS FLORES OEELOPMENT . LOGGED BY: EER TEST PIT NO: L ! PROJECT NO: 002486 DATUM: EXISTING GRADE = 0.0' FIGURE: S ENGINEERING PROPERTIES I EQUIPMENT: HANO DUG ELEVATION: SEE MAP ... DATE LQGGED: 12/18100 . DESCRIPTION: SEE MAP UCSC SAMPLES OTHER -.. " . '. .' SOIL TYPE GEO.ATT. ! , .... " -01 TOPSOIL/FILL 1 0-34" Dark brown, dry, medium dense, slightly silty sand with small rootlets. SW-SM SANDSTONE 2 34-38" Rust brown to brown, slighlly moist, dense slighlly silly sandstone. SW-SM • GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION: SURFACE SLOPE: 0% +-TREND: N/A , .. 51! T SA.m 0 CLAY \' -. -COUTACT . FRACTURE " -SeEPAGE . --POCKETS of GRAVEL -\ .-ftOOflET -. . -nUlKSAMPlE CeMEtlTEO ZOUE .... .CD . -, ROOtlET 1 .'.\ : . '.' (U)· Uf::ODIW} (C)· COlllACl . (J)l:I JOirlT -(f) = fRACTURE -. rCS)' CLAY SEAM . -{ uc. UUCOUFIUEO COMPRESSION CTSF, 2 EI = EXPANSIOU umex .' .. --.. ( . . ---- 3 L\ '.--" "{Jl"' . .. e " -' .. ~--" . .' ,/ - 4 . - 5 - 6 - 7 . ,.e:FAI:-8EfXfH·oiIt-30u NO GRQUNDWATER .. APPEND·IX -A- .' ~ ·; .' .- . -.... APPENDfXA REFERENCES 1. California Department of Conservation, DMsion of Mines and Geology, Fault-Rupture Zones-in California, Special. Publication 42, Revised 1990. 2. Greensfelder, A.W., 1974, Maximum Credible, Rock Acceleration from -Earthquakes, in California: California Division' of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23-. . . - 3. Hart, Michael, June 17, 1994, Geologic Investigption, 7505 Hillside Drive, La Jolla, CA, 4. 5. 6. 7 . File No: 153,.94. ---- Engineering Design Group, Unpublished-In-House, Data. Ploessel, M.A., and Siosson, ·J.E., 1974, Repeatable. High Grou~d-Acceleration from Earthquakes: California Geology, Vol. 27-, No.9, P. 195-199t State of California, Fault Map of California, Map· No: 1, Dated 1975. State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map· No: 2; Oat~d-1977. ," ", .", " j. i-f. ': ..... ~ :: '-- :: .. APPENDIX -8- ~.' '.' ': '. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND· GRADING SPECIEICATI.QNS r-1.0 General Intent '- ~. . ". ; .... .. :: a.:. : ... These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendatio.ns for grading: and earthwork to· be utilized in conjunctio.n with the approved grading p.lans. These . general earthwork and grading specifications area ,part. of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and-shall be superseded by the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the' case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of g.radinge may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these specifications, as wen as. the geotechnical r.~.p0rt a!.!~ approved gr~~!ng _pl_~ns. 2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testing Prior to the commencement of grading', a qualified-geotecnnical consultant snol;lld be' employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures-and testing. the fills for' , conformance with the recommendations of the' geotechnical: re~ort and-these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contracter to. assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and cAanges'i at least 24 hour-so in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordihgJy. No grading: operations should be performed without the knowledge of the geotect:mical censultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical censultant is aware of all grading operations. It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicabl~' grading; codes and agency ordinances" recommendations in'the geotechnical report, a'Ad:the apl=>Foved grading plans not withstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant. If, in the opinion-of the consultan~, unsatisfactory conditions, sucM as unsuitable soil, poor moisture conditien, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc .• are resulting. in a quality of work less than recommended-in the geetecAnical report and the speCifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work arid recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions; are rectified·. . Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction should be performed in general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test method ASTM 01557 . -1- :'. ',: 3.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 3.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush. vegetation, roots and all'other deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in, a method acceptable to the owner. design engineer, g.ovei"ning. agencies a'od the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the e~ent of'these removals depending on specific site conditions. In g.ener-al. no· mor~ than 1 percent (by volume) of the fill material should consist of thest; materials arid nesting, of these materials should not be allowed. 3.2 Processing: The existifl9. g.r:.o.und which has been -,-.evaluated-" by the geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill. shol;Jtd be scarified to a minimum' depth of. 6 inches. Existing ground which is not sa-tisfa'ctory should be over-excavated as· sJl)ecified in th~ following: ~ection. Scarification .... ,. should continue until the' soils are-b'r6ke'n~ down and free of large clay lu'mps or clods and. until the working; surface is reasonably uniform. flat, and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, org~nic-rich, spongy, higNy fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a· depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition', should be overexcavated down to- competent ground, as evaluated by the geotechnical con~ulta.nt, For purposes. of determining quantities of materials overexcavated', a: licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should· be utilized:. 3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be waterecf, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 3.5 Recompaction: Overexcavated-and processed soils, which ha've bee'ri properly mixed, screened of deleterious mater-ial, and. moisture-conditioned should be- recompacted to a· minimum relative compaction of 90 percent·or as otherWise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. -2- ',J.' I:' ," . " :". ,', .... .:.: " ~ 3.6 Benching: VVhere fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical}. the ground should be stepped. or benched·. The lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, at 'least 2 feet into competent material as evaluated· by tAe geotecAoicai consultant. Other benches. should be excavated into competent mater-ial as evaluated. by the' geotechnical consultant. Ground sloping, flatter than 5·: 1 shou/d-be benched, or otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnicar consultant. 3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to' receive fill, including. processed areas,; . removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches., should ,be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. 4.0 Fill Material 4.1 General: Material to' be placed as fm ~hou/d qe suffiti.ently f~ee o·f org.anic matter and other deleteriol..Js. substances, and should be evalu·ated by the geotechn,ical consultant prior too-placemer-l·t. SoJls of poor' gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics sFlould be placed. as· recommeAded: by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with-other soils, to achieve satisfactory fill material. 4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, ,shOUld not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are' specificalfy recommended by the geotechnical-constJltant. Oversize disposal operations should be such-that nesting, of oversize-material does oot occur, and· such that . the oversize material is. completely 'surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grad'e, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet horizontally of slope faces, in a.ccordance with the attached detail. -3- ;.', I' . ,.4." , , , 4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading-, the import material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be' gJven to allow the geotechnical consultant to observe (and test, if necessary) the proposed import materials. 5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 5.1 Fill lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas' prepared and previously evaluated to receive fill, in near-horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of material and moisture throughout. .. 5.2 Moisture Conditioning.: Fill soils should 'be watered, dried-back, biel1ded, and/or mixed, ,as necessary to attain a uniform moisture' content n'ear optimum. 5.3 Compaction of Fill.:. After each layer has. been evegly spread, moisture- conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to: not less than 90.. percent of maximum dry density (unless otherwise' specified-). Compaction " equipment should be adequately sized and be' either specitica:Hy designed, for soil compaction or of proven reliability,' to· efficiently aChieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction. 5.4 FiJI Slopes: Compacting. of slopes should be accompliShed, in addition to norma~ compacting, procedures·, by backrolling of slop.es, with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3: to 4 feet in fiJI" elevation g.ain, or by other methods producing' satisfactory results. At the completion of grading" the'relative' compaction of the till out to the slope face would be at least 90'percent. -4. : ·' .:: . !.O, "."- .: : ' . . ' .. .... i .. ; ~:. : --:.. ...... I 6.0 7 .. 0 5.5 Compaction Testing.: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of compaction of the fill soils should be p.erformed at the consultant'$ discretion based on field conditions encountered. In general, the tests should be' taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in vertical rise andlor 1,000 cubic yards of compacted-fill soils. In addition, on slope faces, as a guideline approximately one test should, be taken· for each 5',000· square feet of slope face and/or.each 10 feet of vertical height of slope.- Subdrain Instanation Subdrain systems, if recommended, sMould be installed in areas· previously evaluated . for suitability by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to· the' approximate alig.nment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials. should not be changed or modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant The consultant, however, may recommend cnangesin subdrain line' or g:rade depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains shoUld be .surveyed by a licensed lan-(j surveyor/civil engineer for line and· grade a·fter insta:llation. Sufficient time shall be allowed for the survey:, prior to' commencement of filling. over 'the subdrains. Excavation Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a· repres~ntative of the geotechnical consultant (as necessary) during grading. If directed by the g.eotechnical consultant, further excavation, overexcavation, and-refilling of cut areas andlof remedial grading of cut slopes (Le·., stability fills or slope buttresses} may be recommended. 8.0 Quantity Determination For purpos.es of determining. quantities of materials excavated during: g.rading andlor determining the limits of overexcavation, a· licensed land surveyor/dvil engineer should be utilized. ·5· .. - - -:.1' MINIMUM RE~INI'NG WALL & DRAINAGE W~ER:PROOFING. DETAIL T FINAL WATERPROOFING SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS TO. BE PROVIDED BY PROJECT ARCHITECT I .1 i !. .. r 1 TOP OF RETAINING WALL • <0 z :E ..: . :1:0 -,., ,., '0:: -0 i £ND MIRADRAIN (top).,..... ---- I T T r '( RETAINING WALL I.IIRADRAIN MEloCBRANE INSTALLED PER MANUfACTURES SPEClF1CA 110NS OVER t.lAS11C WA TERPROOFING -HLM 5000 OR EQUIVALENT MASTiC TO BE A?PUED TO TOP OF WALL ~ __ -MAsnc TYPE WATER PROOFING (HLM 5000 OR-EQUIV) INSTALLED PER" MANUfACTURES -. SPEClflCA nONS eSc PROTECTED WITH BACKER BOARD (ABOVE MIRAORAIN) MASTIC NOT TO 8E EXPOSED TO SUNUGHT S'l'STEM SOil BACKFlLL. COMPACTED TO 907- RELATIVE COMPACTION . PER REF'ERENCE #1 / ~ PROPOSED SLOPE. 8ACKcur \......PER OSHA STANDARDS OR .PER AL TERN A T1VE SLOPING PLAN. OR PER' APPROVED SHORING PLAN '----..-r--FILTER FABRIC ENYnOPE (1.CIRAFl 1 4~ ~ APPROVED EOUIVALEN'j) 12-t.lIN. LAP ---7"-----3/4--1 1/2-CLEAN . GRAVEL 'r-+-.o...+----r.------4-X4-(4Sd) CONCRETE CANT o fOOllNG/WALL CONNEC110N (UNDER WATER PROOFlNG) L-...:::i:!!IIII!!!!~,.r.-:~:::-;-:-------4-(t.lIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 4-0. bR' EO.) WITH PERFORATIONS ORIENTED DO'M-I AS . DEPICTED MIN. 27- GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET. - '------END MIRADRAIN (bottom) '----COMPETENT BEDROCK OR FlLL t.lATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT .... --------------------------------...,....----'~'-:.. PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME i.;.~ PROJECT ADDRESS .. -----...,;..;......;:.:.;:...-._-------1 DRAWN BY: SCAlE: 1-=1'-0" ENGINEERI'NG DESIGN GROUP 810 WEST LOS VA.LLEcrros BLVb~ SUITE "A" SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 (760) 752-7010 FAX (760) 752-7092 . DETAIL/FIGURE . NUMBER DATE : ......... ~~----...., ,. :-: 1-• L:. L t: r-: , '-- : .. :. . .. .. ' .. ~:.: '-'- NOTES: I .S e +1 No surchlrge loads within .his area for lewl backfill design. Filte., Material, 1" IilIX. crushed agg~te, 4 cu. ft. per 4" dil. drain or 1 cu. tt. per ft. of open head joints. 4" dia. drain with 1/4" galv. wire-mesh screen 8'· 0" on centers. or one row horizontally of open head joints. -,' I Line of undisturbed natural soil ---..J .. _ TYPICAL SECTION Mortar Of ca:t·in·placa concrltl 9" .12" block wall· Finished· ground line .5 1/4" = . ~==----Vertical reinf. Top of footing 2" x 4" (nominal) key CAP DETAil KEY· DETAIL 1.. All masonry rltaining walls shall be constructed with caP. key and drainage dltails as shown hereon. . 2. 4" diamlter drain may be formed by placing a block on it's side • THE RETAINING WALL I:···L-~ ____ --L==-__ ~"-=-_ ..... ~ ___ ........ ..;.. I. I I· I I 1 '" ". • DESIGN CONDITIONS: Walls Ir, to be used for dI. 100ding conditions shown for .£eh tyPI Will. Design H shall not bl .xclld.d. Footing Itty is requir.d .xcept as shown oth.rwise or wh.n found unntetsnry by the Engin .. r. Splcial footing design is required whlre foundation material is uncapabl. of supporting' tal pressure listed. in table. DESIGN DATA: Reinforced. Concrete: Fc • 1200 psi Fs • 20.000 psi Reinforced Masonry: F'c .. 3000 psi n :z 10 F'm • SOO psi Fm· 200 psi Fs ... 20.000 psi n:a 50 Earth .. 120 pet and Equivalent Fluid 1'ressure • 36 pst per foot of height. Walls shown for 1 %: 1 unlimited sipping surcharge ara design.d in accor~i!n~1 with _ Ranklin.'s formula for unlimitad sloping surcharge with a ~ • 33' 42: -... . . . - REINFORCEMENT: Int.rm.di~tl-grad •• n~~d -g~~d~: ~r ~il s'uel dejor~~tioil shall' . --" conform. to ASTM A615, AS1S, AS17. Bars shall lap-40 diamet.rs; whera spliced. unless otherwise shown on the -plans. : .. - Bends shall conform to thl Manual. of Standard Practica, A.C.I. Backin9 for hooks is four diameters. All bar embedm.nts ara clear dIstances to outsida of bar. Spacing for parallel bars is cant.r to clnt.r of bars. . MASONRY: All reinforced masonry retaining walls shall b. constructed of regular or light weight standard units conforming. to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction." JOINT'S: V.rtical control joinu· shill be pllCld It 32 foot intervals maximum. Joinu shill.be designed to !I:Sist she .. and other Ilural forces while permitting 10ngiNdll mOY1ment. V,rtiCli axpln:ion joinu shall b. placad It 96 toot inter- vals maximum. CONCRETE: Footing concrete shall be 5S0-C-32S0, using B aggregate when placing conditions permit. BACKFILL: No backfill material shall be plac.d against masonry retaining walls until grout has relched design strength or until grout has cured for a minimum of 28 days. Compaction of backfill material by jening or ponding with water will not be plrmitted. each lay.r of backfill shall be moistened as directed by the engineer and thoroughly tamped, rolled or O'th.~ise compacted until the relativ. compaction is not less thin 90%. FENCING: Safety fencing shill bl installed It the top of the wall as required by thl agency. . _ .. "e INSPECTIONS: C,II for inspections as follows: A. . Wh.n the footing has b •• n formid. with the st •• I ti.d securely in final position, and is riady for the cpncr.t. to b, placed. B. Where cleanout holes are not provided·: (1) After the blocks hiVe been laid up to a height of 4', or full h.ightfor walls up to '5~, with steel in placa but before the grout is poured. and ••.•• (2) Atterthe first lift is properly grout.d, the blocks hava b .. n laid up tp the top of the Will with ·the suel tied securely in plac. but before the upper lift is grout.d. Where cleanout holes ara providad: After the blocks have been laid up· to the top of _ dI •. wall, with the steel .tied. securely in place, but before grou ting. C. Aft.r grouting is complat. and after roc~ or rubble wall drains are in place bu~ bitore earth backfill is placed. __ '_."" . .: ___ .. , -. .1..:'-. .'.-0:.: .... _. '. . ." _ .. -' . O~··· 'Final inspection when all wotk hal been· completed~. CONCRETE GR()'UT AND MORTAR· MI*ES: Concreti grout shall attain a minimum comp~ive strength of 2~OOO psi in 28 days. and mortar shall attain 1,800· psi· in· 28 days. All ce/ls shall b. filled with grout. Rod or vibrate grout within 10 minutes of pouring to iosure consolidatio". Bring grout to· a point 2" from the, top of masonry units when grouting of second lift is to be: continued at another time. MORTAR KEY: To insure proper bonding b.tween the footing and· the first cpurse of block, a mortar key, shall beform.d by embedding a flit 2 X 4 flush With and ~t the top of the freshly poured- footing. Tha 2 X 4 should b~ .. removed after th.concrete has started to harden (approximately 1 hour). A mortar key may be omitted if the first. course of bloc~ is set into the fresh, concrete when the footing is poured, 'and a good bond is obtained •. WAll DRAINS: Wall drains shall be provided in accordance with Standard Drawing C·S. SOIL: All footings shill extend at least 12 inches into undisturbed natural soil or approved compacted fill. Soil should be dampen.d prior to placing concrete' in-footings; THE ENGINEERlNG DnIGN'GROUP :;':'; RETAINING WALL DETAIL 1f .................................... JL~IOI~N~~~ ................ I~.~~:~;. ............ ~I .. ,~~~~~l.-N.~ ............ . ·' . . ' ., : . I .. ,. L :." .. :~ .'. i:: ~. 1 112 : 1 sloping backfill or 250 pst. live load surcharge mort~!'._cap 2" I )C e a;,. iD M :c -# 4 total 2 TYPICAL SECTION over 3' . 8" NOTES 1. See Standard Drawings C·7 and C·S for additional notlS and details. 2. Fill all block cells with grout. PLAN H-5'·4" Hz 3'· 8" Horizontal reint. n.ot shown 1 112 : 1 sloping backfill or 250 pst. live load surcharge TYPICAL SECTION 3' . 8" max. ELEVATION DIMENSIONS AND REINFORCING STEEL , H (max) S'·4'· 3'·8" T (min) 0'· 10" I 0'· 10" .' W (min) 5' ·0" r 3'·9" (A) bars #4" 16" : _C~ . bars # 6 • 16" # 4. 16" - max. tOI 700 550 'press, (pit) THE ENGINEERING DESIGN. GROUP " -~ .. :. :: . ,,' ~ ~ :-: " ,- . i, i'" '- ,', 0::" :: '. , , !::. ::-. S I'," t I L SI FINISHED SLOPE FACE PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO OUTSIDE EOGE OF KEY OVERBURDEN OR UNSUITABLE , MATERIAL HILL STABILITY FILL ETAIL FINIS'H€D CUT PAC I\V/,lIl:(IP-lIl/ I ( COMPETENT BECR'OCK O:R MATERIAL AS EVALU~TED BY THE G-EOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE: Subdrain details and key wid,th recomm·endatio'ns to bee provided based- on exposed sub-surface conditions . , _ ,': j J .. \ :. :.". '. "--- CANYO·N SU·B·OR·A~N ~----EXlaTINe GROUND SURJrACI _ IWIt/lI AI·LS SUBDRAIN TRENCH REMOVE UNSU·IT A8LE' MA·TERIAL :. SEE BELO.W SUB:DR'AIN TRENCH DETAILS ~ 3/4--,:,/2-CLEAN GRAVEL (ift.3Ift. MIN.) .-MIN. BEODING + '----e-.~ MIN. ---./ PERFORATED PIPE DETAIL OF CANYON SUB'D:RAIN TERMINAL OESIGN FINISH GRAOE 15' MIN. NONPERFORATEO e-" MIN. S.UBDRAIN . . . . .' .1-4-----PERFORATED e-Jd MIN. PIPE . -.: -:-'::-.:. '~.--.-.. :. .- * IF CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEAS·Lf . MATERIAL IS USED· IN PLACE OF 3/.--1-112-GRAVEL, F1LTERFAS'RII MAY BE D-ELETED' SPECrFICATIONS FOR eALTAANS, CLASS· 2' PERMEA8·I:.E MA TERrAL u·s. Sta'ndard Sieve S.ize 1" 3/4" 3/8" No. 4 No. 8 No·.' 30 No. 50 No. 200 ~ Pass·ina 100 90-100 40-100' 2'5-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 O-J Sand Equlvalent>75 Subdrain should be constructed only on competent material as evaluated· by the geotechnical conaultant.· . SU8DRAIN INSTALLATION Subdraln pipe should be Installed with perforations down as depleted. At location. recommended by the geotechnical consultant, nonperlorated pipe should be InataUed. SU8DAAIN TYPE-S'ubdraln type should be Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (A. B.S.), .polyvlnyl Chloride (PVC) or approved eQuivalent. Class 125, SOA 32.5· sho.uld, be uaed for ,m."hnum fill depth. of 35 feet. CI ... 200, SOR 21 ahould b. u •• d for m."lmum fill depth. of 100 f.et. ,. -: ..... • ,- ! " i " J ," :. "." L • :..:... .' '. ' .... - j ... ~' .. '- STA ITY FILL I BUTTRE [}ETAI'L FILTER' FABRIC ENveLOPE (MIRAFI 1 "ON ,OR APPROVED EQUIV ALENT) * O,UT-LET PIPES-.. -9S NONPeRFO'RATEO· PIPE. 100' MAX. O.C. HO·RIZONTALLY. 30' MAX. o.c. VERTICALLY SEE T-CONNECTION o'eTAIL S" MiNT .. -S!S PERFORATED PIPE 4-MIN. BEDDING , SUB RAIN TRENCH DETAIL S,EE SUBORAIN TRENCH DETAIL LOWES·r SIJ-BORAIN SHOULC B,E SITUA TEl)' A S· L.,O-W AS- POS-S'I,BLE TO AL.1.0.w SUITABLE OUTLET-- PER FORAT'EO- PIPE . ' -'" ',"'.",-' '''(£;' :' CAP . NO'N-PERFO'R'ATEO' : O'UTL.ET PIPE T-CO,N-NECTION D·ETAIl,. * IF CAL TRANS CL.ASS ~ PERMEABLE MATERI,AL, IS. usee IN PLAce OF 3/4--1-1/2-GRAVEL, F·ILTER FABRIC MA Y BE DELETeD SPECIFICATIONS F·OR· CAL,TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MA TERrAL U'. S. Stan'dard Sfeve Siz'e : Passing 1" lOa' 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 No. 4 25'-40 No. 8 18-31 Na. 30 5-15 No. 500-7 No. 200 0-3- Sand Equivalent>75 .~', NOTES: ',', , i···· I ' For buttresa dlmenalons, see geotechnical report/plans. Ac,tua' dimenai'ons of buttr'ess and aubdrain m.~ be changed by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions. SU80RAIN INSTALLATION-Subdraln pipe should be Installed with perforation,. dow·n a. depleted. At location. recommended by the geotechnical consultant. nonpedorated pipe should be Installed SUBORAIN TYPe-Subdraln type .hould be Acrylon trlle Butadiene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Cia •• 125, SOR 32.5 .hould b .• u •• d for maximum fill dep,tha of ~5 fe.t. Cia •• 200, SDR 21 .hould be u.ed for maximum fill deptha of 1-00' f.et. ," _ .. • L --, ::- -0 la" ;:. , - i -i: . ,-~ --. '.' ". '. '.' ", , -,'-'- EX-IS-TING GROUND SURFACE EV AND B·ENCHING· PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE --- L--,.S'MIH:-l 2' I· LO-WEST I MIN. BEHCH O~~fH (KEY) CUT SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL --.....;;:=---REMOVE UNSUITABLE, MATERIAL - PLACEMENT) / /> EXISTING / / GROUND / / SURFACE~// ~ --. • 4 ••••• ~ :::. _ • _ --::: f11 CUT SLOPE / / Zl~? _. . -/ b \\\~ / -CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED- PRIOR TO, FIl.l. PROJECT 1 TO-1 LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT MATERIAL ;t'~I':------REMOVE UNSUITABLE 'MATERJAL PLACEMENT) I , • . :' ROCK DISPOSAL 0 IL PIHUSH ~.ADe GRANULAR SOIL (S.E.~ 30)-TO BE OENSIFJED-IN PLACE BY FLOOO'HG-::::S<::::";::::':: 'O'ETAfL ----------------'-------------------------------- ----------------' ------------------------------ 'TYPICAL PRO·FIL'E ALONG WINDROW t) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than e inches should-not be.-used-within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility wh-ichever is greater). and 15, feet ho'rizontal1y of slope faces. 2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greate,r than 4 feet should not be utilized in' 'fills. i granular so-il, and fill placement should be observed by the; 3) Rock placement. flooding of geotechnical 'consultant. - 4) Maximum size and spacing Width of windrow should, not exceed 4 feet. Wind,rows should verti'caIJy (as depicted). of windrows should be in accordance with the above details be sta_gg ered 5) 'Rock should be placed, in excavated· trenches. GranularsoiJ (S.E. grea'ter tha-n· or equ·aJ to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids ~round and b'eneath rocks • ~ ~ e ~. . . . . .... . ' .' 0"': -:.: . . ~ e e APPENDIX-C- • • . " I." .. ' ,~ ... .. ' ii LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES Direct Shear Test Direct shear tests are performed on remolded and/or relatively undisturbed samples which are soaked for a. fTlinimum of 24 hours prior to testing~ After transferring the saniple to the shearbox, and reloading, pore pressures are allowed to dissipated for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to appJicatiqn of $hearing. force .. The samples are sheared: in a-motOr'": driven,'strairi contro'IIed, direct-shear testing apparatus. After a travel of approximatel~ 1/4 inch, the motor is stopped and the sample is allowed-to "r~lax" for approximately 15· minutes. Where . applicable, tne "relaxed" and "peak" shear values are recorded. It is, antiCipated-that, in a majority --. ... of sa~ple~ Je~ted:. th~.1 ~ minutes, relaxing of the_'sampte_ is swffid.ent. to-allow dissipation. of pore' pressures set up due to application of the shearing force. The relaxed values are therefore judged to be good estimations of effective strength parameters·. Expansion Index T.ests: The expansion potential' of representative samples,is.evaluate.d by the Expansion Index Test, U.S.C. Standard No, 29-2. Specimens are molded under a 'givef.l compactive energy to-approximate~~ the optimum moisture conter;tt and-apprOximately 50 percer:lt saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-incM·diameter specimeAs are' Io.aded-to· an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water for 24 hours or until volumetric eqUilibrium is reached. Classification Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical' gtain-size ar:lalysis, by wet sieving from U.S. Standard brass screens, (ASTM D422-65-)~ Hydrometer ana~yses were' performed where appreciable quantities of fines were encountered. The data-~as evaluated in determining. the classification of the materials. The grain-size distributiolJ cu!"e~·are· pres~nted- , in the test data and the Unified' Soil'Classification is presented, in both the test" datci::-andthe boring logs.