HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 13-05; STATE STREET TOWNHOMES; PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAAL INVESTIGATION; DWG 484-2, DWG 484-2A; 2005-12-07a
ON RO NY
December 7, 2005
To:
Attention:
SRM Development, LLC
104 South Division Street
Spokane, Washington 99202
Mr. David L. Guthrie
Project No. 041742-001
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Redevelopment of 2531, 2541,
and 2551 State Street, Carlsbad, California
In accordance with your request and authorization, we have prepared a preliminary geotechnical
investigation report for the proposed residential redevelopment located at 2531, 2541, and 2551
State Street, Carlsbad, California. Based on the results of our study, it is our professional opinion
that the development of the site is geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations
provided herein are incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed improvements.
The accompanying report presents a summary of the existing conditions of the site, the results of
our field investigation and laboratory testing, and provides geotechnical conclusions and
recommendations relative to the proposed site development.
Respectfully submitted,
;J/L{).
William D. Olson, RCE 4528
Senior Project Engineer
Distribution: ( 6) Addressee
Michael R. Stewart, CEG 1349
Principal Geologist/Vice President
3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 8205 Ill! San Diego, CA 92123-4425
858.292.8030 Ill! Fax 858.292.0771 m www.leightongeo.com
' J
'\ )
041742-001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 SITE LOCATION .......................................................................................................... 1
1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 3
2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ............................................. .4
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDillONS ................................................................. 5
3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................................................................................................... 5
3.2 SITE GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 5
3.2.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill ................................................................................ 5
3.2.2 Terrace Deposits ............................................................................................... 5
3.2.3 Santiago Formation ........................................................................................... 6
3.3 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE ................................................................................................. 6
3.4 GROUND WATER ........................................................................................................ 6
3.5 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS OF ONSITE SOILS ............................................................. 6
3.5.1 Expansion Potential .......................................................................................... 6
3.5.2 Soil Corrosivity ................................................................................................. 7
3.5.3 Excavation Characteristics ................................................................................. 7
4.0 FAUL TING AND SEISMICITY ......................................................................................... 8
4.1 FAULTING ................................................................................................................. 8
4.2 SEISMICITY ............................................................................................................... 8
4.2.1 Shallow Ground Rupture ................................................................................. 10
4.2.2 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement ............................................................... 10
4.2.3 Tsunamis and Seiches ..................................................................................... 10
5.0 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 11
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 12
6.1 EARTHWORK ............................................................................................................ 12
6.1.1 Site Preparation .............................................................................................. 12
6.1.2 Excavations and Oversize Material ................................................................... 12
6.1.3 Removal and Recompaction ............................................................................ 12
6.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction ........................................................................ 13
6.1.5 Expansive Soils and Selective Grading .............................................................. 13
6.2 SHORING OF EXCAVATIONS ......................................................................................... 13
6.3 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND EROSION ................................................................................ 15
6.4 FOUNDATION AND SLAB CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 15
6.4.1 Foundation Design .......................................................................................... 15
6.4.2 Floor Slabs ..................................................................................................... 15
041742-001
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
6.4.3 Settlement ..................................................................................................... 16
6.4.4 Lateral Resistance and Retaining Wall Design Pressures ..................................... 16
6.5 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN ....................................................................................... 17
6.6 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND PLAN REVIEWS ........................................................... 18
7.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................ 20
TABLES
TABLE 1 -SEISMIC PARAMETERS FOR ACTIVE FAULTS -PAGE 9
TABLE 2 -STATIC EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT-PAGE 16
TABLE 3 -PREUMINARY PAVEMENT SECTIONS -PAGE 18
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 -SITE LOCATION -PAGE 2
FIGURE 2 BORING LOCATION MAP -REAR OF TEXT
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A -REFERENCES
APPENDIX B -BORING LOGS
APPENDIX C -SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
APPENDIX D -SEISMIC ANALYSIS
APPENDIX E -GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
ii
....
Q
:::s -a C. C ~ o· :::s
\ j
)
\ J
041742-001
1.0 INTRODUCT10N
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation for the
proposed State Street redevelopment (the subject site) located at 2531, 2541, and 2551
State Street in Carlsbad, California (Figure I). The purpose of our investigation was to
evaluate the geotechnical conditions at the site and provide conclusions and
recommendations relative to the proposed development. Our scope of services included the
following:
• Review of published and unpublished geotechnical reports, maps and aerial
photographs (Appendix A).
• Site reconnaissance.
• Coordination with Underground Services Alert (USA) to locate potential underground
utilities on site.
• Obtaining a County of San Diego, Department of Health, Boring Pennit
• Excavation, logging and sampling of two exploratory borings. The boring logs are
presented in Appendix B.
• Laboratory testing of representative soil san1ples obtained from the subsurface
exploration program. Results of these tests are presented in Appendix C.
• Preparation of this repoti presenting our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical
recommendations with respect to the proposed design, site grading and general
construction considerations.
1.2 Site Location
The subject site is located on the west side of State Street in dovmtown Carlsbad,
California. Presently, portions of the site are occupied by large two-story office buildings
and paved parking areas. Current topography of the site is relatively flat with an existing
surface elevation of roughly 35 mean sea level (msl).
-1-
)
NO.Rtt:t
BASE MAP: 2003 Digital Edition Thomas Guide. San Diego County
SRM Development
2531, 2541 and 2551 State Street
Carlsbad, California
SITE
LOCATION
MAP
NOT TO SCALE
Project No.
041742-001
Date
December 2005 Figure No. 1
\ )
\
)
\
'
)
~)
)
)
1.3
041742-001
Proposed Development
It is our understanding that the proposed redevelopment of the site will to consist of a
four-to five-story residential building with up to two levels of underground parking.
However, it should be noted that preliminary foundation designs or structural loads were
not available for the preparation of this report. For the purposes of this report, we have
asswned the proposed above ground structures will be constructed of structural steel and
below grade structures ,v:ill consist of reinforced concrete. Associated improvements are
anticipated to including shoring, underground utilities, landscaping, hardscaping, and may
include some retaining wall structures. Additional geotechnical analysis may be needed
once preliminary foundation designs or structural loads are known.
-3-
--------------------------------------------
2.0 -Subsurface
Exploration & Lab Testing
\ )
)
\ )
-\
)
)
\ I
)
-' )
\ )
\
)
)
041742-001
2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our subsurface exploration consisted of the excavation of two (2) exploratory borings. The
approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Boring Location Map, Figure 2. The
purpose of these excavations was to evaluate the physical characteristics of the onsite soils
pertinent to the proposed improvements. The borings allmved evaluation of the soils encountered
within proposed excavation area, beneath the proposed subsurface structures, and provided
representative samples for laboratory testing. Prior to drilling the exploratory excavations,
Underground Service Alert was contacted to coordinate location and identification of nearby
underground utilities. It should also be noted that no indications (odors, staining, etc.) of
hydrocarbon impacted soils were observed during drilling.
The exploratory excavations were logged by a representative from our firm. Representative bulk
and undisturbed samples were obtained at frequent intervals for laboratory testing, logs of the
borings are presented in Appendix B. Subsequent to logging and sampling, the current borings
were backfilled with bentonite grout per County of San Diego, Department of Environmental
Health requirements.
Laboratory testing \Vas performed on representative samples to evaluate the moisture, density,
shear strength, and geochemical ( corrosion) characteristics of the subsurface soils. A discussion
of the laboratory tests perfonned and a summary of the laboratory test results are presented in
Appendix C. In-situ moisture and density test results are provided on the boring logs
(Appendix B).
-4-
3.0 -Summary of
Geotechnical Conditions
3.1
3.2
'i
041742-001
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDffiONS
Regional Geology
The site is located within the coastal subprovince of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic
Province, near the western edge of the southern California batholith. The topography at the
edge of the batholith changes from the rugged landforms developed on the batholith to the
more subdued landfonns, which typify the softer sedimentary formations of the coastal plain.
Specifically, the site is underlain by Quaternary Terrace Deposits and Tertiary Santiago
Formation.
Site Geology
Based on subsurface exploration, aerial photographic analysis, and review of pertinent
geologic literature and maps, the geologic units underlying the site include undocumented
fill, Terrace Deposits, and the Santiago Formation. The approximate areal distribution of
these units is depicted on the Boring Location Map, Figure 2. A brief description of the
geologic units encountered on the site is presented below.
3.2.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill
Undocumented artificial fill soils were found to be on the order of three to four feet
thick. Where encountered, these soils consisted of light brown to brown damp to
moist, soft to medium dense, sandy clay to clayey sand. As encountered in our
borings, the fill soils were found to be generally loose and relatively dry near the
surface. Fills are not considered to be suitable for support of structures or additional
fill. Existing fills not removed by planned excavations should be removed to
competent formational material and may be reused as fill provided the soil is free of
deleterious materials.
3.2.2 Terrace Deposits
The Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits is present at grade, or just below the fill
soils, on the majority of the site. As encountered during our field investigation,
this unit consists of light brown to brown, damp to moist, medium dense to very
dense, silty sands and clayey sands. These soils are suitable for reuse as structural
fill provided they are free of rock fragments larger than 8 inches in maximum
dimension.
3.3
3.4
)
3.5
041742-001
3.2.3 Santiago Formation
The Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation was identified at depth across the site
underlying Te1wce Deposits. Based on the exploratory borings on the site, these
materials generally consist of very dense, poorly indurated, light brown to very light
brown, silty sandstones, and silty claystones.
Geologic Structure
Based on the results of our current investigation, literature review, and our professional
experience on nearby sites, the Terrace Deposits is generally massive to indistinctly
bedded and is flat-lying to slightly dipping (less than 5 degrees) to the west. The Santiago
Fonnation is thinly bedded to massive and slightly dipping (less than 5 degrees) to the
west.
Ground Water
Ground water was encountered during the subsurface exploration of the site at depth of 16
feet below the ground surface (bgs) in Boring, B-1 located on the north end of the site,
and at a depth of 21 feet bgs in Boring, B-2 located on the south end of the site.
Engineering Characteristics of Onsite Soils
Based on the results of our current geotechnical investigation, laboratory testing of
representative onsite soils, and our professional experience on adjacent sites with similar
soils, the engineering characteristics of the onsite soils are discussed below.
3.5.1 Expansion Potential
Based on previous laboratory testing at similar sites, the onsite Terrace Deposits is
anticipated to be in the very low to low expansion range. The underlying Santiago
Formation may contain soil with a moderate to very high expansion potential.
Geotechnical observations and/or laboratory testing of the excavation materials
are recommended to determine the actual expansion potential of soils on the site.
3.5.2 Soil Corrosivity
The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) defines corrosion as"
a deterioration of a substance or its properties because of a reaction with its
-6-
041742-001
environment". From a geotechnical viewpoint, the "environment" is the prevailing
foundation soils and the "substances" are reinforced concrete foundations or
various types of metallic buried elements such as piles, pipes, etc. that are in
contact with or \Vithin close vicinity of the soil. In general soil environments that
are detrimental to concrete have high concentrations of soluble sulfates and/or pH
": values ofless than 5.5. Table 19A-4 of the 1997 UBC provides specific guidelines
for the concrete mix-design when the soluble sulfate content of the soil exceeds
0.1 percent by weight or 1000 parts per million (ppm). The minimum amount of
chloride ions in the soil environment that are corrosive to steel, either in the form
of reinforcement protected by concrete cover, or plain steel substructures such as
'\ steel pipes or piles is 500 ppm per California Test 532.
The results of our laboratory tests on representative formational soils from the site
indicated a soluble sulfate content of less than 0.06 percent and a pH of 8 to 8.22
) which suggests that the concrete should be designed minimally in accordance with
the negligible category of Table 19A-A-4 of the 200 l CBC. The test results also
indicate a chloride content of 639 to 1,897 ppm, which is considered a positive to
severe potential for chloride attack and a minimum resistivity value ranging from
1,021 to 1,821 ohm-cm indicating a corrosive degree of corrosivity. The test
results are provided in Appendix C. A corrosion engineer should be contacted to
1 provide measures to mitigate corrosion, if needed.
' )
3.5.3 Excavation Characteristics
It is anticipated the onsite soils can be excavated with conventional heavy-duty
construction equipment. Localized cemented zones, if encountered, may require
heavy ripping or breaking. If oversize material (larger than 8 inches in maximum
dimensions) is generated, it should be placed in non-structural areas or hauled off
site. Beds of gravels and cobbley sands should be anticipated within the surficial
units and underlying formation.
-7-
~1 l1 ji ti! !l I 1'
I'
1:l_
I
I
4.0 -Faulting & Seismicity
i I
( '
\ )
)
)
''\
)
4.1
4.2
041742-001
4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
Faulting
Our discussion of faulting on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation
and state policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults.
By definition of the California Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault which
has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The State
Geologist has defined a potentially active fault as any fault considered to have been active
during Quaternary time (last 1,6000,000 years) but that has not been proven to be active or
inactive. Tius definition is used in delineating Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones as mandated by
the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 and as revised in 1997 (Hart,
1997). The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development does not occur
across the traces of active faults. Based on our review of the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones,
the site is not located \\'ithin a Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone as created by the Alquist-Priolo
Act (Hart, 1997) and recently modified. In addition, the site is not located within the City of
San Diego Special Study Zone, which was inacted as an amendment to the 1991 Unifonn
Building Code.
Our review of available geologic literature (Appendix A) indicates that there are no
known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest active
regional fault is the offshore segment of the Newport-Inglewood (offshore) fault located
approximately 3.7 miles west of the site.
Seismicity
The site can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of Southern
California. Table 1 (below) identifies potential seismic events that could be produced by
the maximum moment magnitude earthquake. A maximum moment magnitude
earthquake is the maximum expectable earthquake given the known tectonic framework.
Site-specific seismic parameters included in Table 1 are the distances to the causative
faults, earthquake magnitudes, and expected ground accelerations. I11e ground motion
was calculated using the computer software EQFAULT (Blake, 2000) and the attenuation
relationship by Boore (1997) for a soil site profile.
-8-
\
I
)
)
)
)
041742-001
Table 1
Seismic Parameters for Active Faults
Distance Maximum Peak One Standard
Potential Credible Horizontal Deviation of Peak
Causative from Fault Earthquake Ground Horizontal Ground to Site Fault (Miles/km) (Moment Ac eel era ti on Acceleration
Magnitude) (g) (g)
Newport-3.7/5.9 7.1 0.41 0.28 Inglewood
Rose 4.7/7.6 7.2 0.38 0.26 Canyon
Coronado 20.6/33.1 7.6 0.18 0.12 Bank
Elsinore -24.9/40.1 7.1 0.12 0.08 Julian
As indicated in Table 1, the Newport-Inglewood (offshore) Fault is the 'active' fault
considered having the most significant effect at the site from a design standpoint. A
maximum credible earthquake of moment magnitude M7.2 on the fault could produce an
estimated peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.41g at the site (0.28g at one standard
deviation confidence interval). The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered to be a Type B
seismic source according to the California Building Code (CBSC, 2001) and the
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG, 2002).
From a probabilistic standpoint, the design ground motion is defined as the ground
motion having a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. This ground motion is
referred to as the maximum probable ground motion (CBSC, 2001). Based on review of
statewide mapping at the California Geological Survey website
(v.r\V\v.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html), the maximum probable ground
motion at the site is postulated to be 0.31 g. Site-specific analysis should be performed if
this value is utilized in structural design.
The effoct of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the California Building
Code or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers
Association of California. The site is located within Seismic Zone 4. The soil profile type
-9-
' )
041742-001
for the site is considered Type Sc (CBSC, 2001 ). Site coefficients Na of 1.0 and Nv of 1.1
are considered appropriate based on proximity to seismic sources.
Secondary effects that can be associated with severe ground shaking following a
relatively large earthquake include shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction and dynamic
settlement, seiches and tsunamis. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are
discussed in the following sections.
4.2.1 Shallow Ground Rupture
Ground mpture because of active faulting is not likely to occur on site due to the
absence of known active faults. Cracking due to shaking from distant seismic
events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site
in Southern California.
4.2.2 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory
motion due to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose,
saturated, granular soils are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic settlement.
Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer,
thereby causing the soil to behave as a viscous liquid. This effect may be
manifested by excessive settlements and sand boils at the ground surface.
Based on our exploration and evaluation, the on-site soils are not considered
liquefiable due to their relatively dense condition and absence of a shallow ground
water condition. Considering planned grading and foundation design measures,
dynamic settlement potential is also considered negligible.
4.2.3 Tsunamis and Seiches
Based on the distance between the site and large, open bodies of water, and the
elevation of the site (i.e., estimated at 35 feet msl) with respect to sea level, the
possibility of seiches and/or tsunamis is considered to be negligible.
-10-Leighton
(11
0
0 0 :I ~
C:
UI s·
:I UI
)
',
)
' )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
041742-001
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation of the site, it is our professional opinion
that the proposed redevelopment is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the
following conclusions and recommendations are implemented during the design and construction
of the project. The following is a summary of the significant geotechnical factors that may affect
redevelopment of the site.
•
•
Based on laboratory testing and visual classification, the onsite fill and upper fonnational
soils generally possess a very low to low expansion potential. However, soils generated from
claystone, if encountered on the site, will have higher expansion potential and should not be
reused as fill, if encountered.
The existing onsite soils, excluding soil generated from the claystone, appear to be suitable
material for reuse as compacted fill provided they are relatively free of organic material,
debris, and rock fragments larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension.
• Based on our experience with similar soils, soils present on the site are expected to have a
negligible potential for sulfate attack on concrete. The onsite soils are also considered to
have a moderate to severe potential for corrosion to buried uncoated metal conduits.
Laboratory testing should be perfonned on the onsite soils to verify the corrosivity
characteristics.
• Based on the results of our exploration, we anticipate that the onsite materials should be
generally rippable with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. However, localized
dense well indurated sandstone and conglomerate lenses should be expected within the
underlying Terrace Deposits and Santiago Fom1ation.
• Active or potentially active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of
the site.
• The peak horizontal ground acceleration on the site due to the maximum moment magnitude
event is postulated to be 0.41 g.
-11-
,'l! ;-1 !I
''11
:Ii ,,11
,il!I l ?,, p
11 ;:'.I
n:
~I
]I
!i
11
j11 I
6.0 -Recommendations
\
I
\ I
041742-001
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Earthwork
We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, excavation, and
backfill. We recommend that earthwork on the site be perfonned in accordance with the
fo1lowing recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for
Rough Grading included in Appendix E. In case of conflict, the following
recommendations shall supersede those in Appendix E.
6.1.1 Site Preparation
Prior to grading, all areas to receive structural fill or engineered structures should
be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, including any existing debris
and undocumented or loose fill soils, and stripped of vegetation. Removed
vegetation and debris should be properly disposed off site. All areas to receive fill
and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6
inches, brought to near-optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least
90 percent relative compaction (based on American Standard of Testing and
Materials [ASTM] Test Method D1557).
6.1.2 Excavations and Oversize Material
Excavations of the onsite materials may generally be accomplished with
conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. However, local heavy ripping or
breaking may be required if cemented formational material is encountered.
Excavation for utilities may also be diflicult in some areas.
Artificial fill soils present on site may cave during trenching operations. In
accorda11ce with OSHA requirements, excavations deeper than 5 feet should be
sloped or shored in accordance with Section 6.2.
6.1.3 Removal and Recompaction
Undocumented fill soils, if encountered beneath any proposed improvements and
not removed by the planned grading, should be excavated down to competent
formational material and replaced with compacted fill. The thickness of these
unsuitable soils may vary across the site and may be locally deeper in certain
areas.
-12-
\
I
6.2
041742-001
Where shoring is planned, the design height should consider the planned removal
depths, if encountered.
6.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction
The onsite soils are generally suitable for reuse as compacted fill provided they
are free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches in
maximum dimension. The onsite soils typically possesses a moisture content
below optimum and may require moisture conditioning prior to use as compacted
fill. All fill soils should be brought to above-optimum moisture conditions and
compacted in unifonn lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on
laboratory standard ASTM Test Method D1557-91, 95 percent for wall backfill
soils or if used for structural purposes (such as to support a footing, wall, etc.).
The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will
depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should
be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness.
Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with
the current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practice, and
the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading presented
in Appendix E.
6.1.S Expansive Soils and Selective Grading
We anticipate that excavations at the site will encounter material having a low to
medium potential for expansion. Expansion testing should be performed on the
finish grade soils to verify their expansion potential. If highly expansive soils are
present within 5 feet of finish grade, selective grading or special foundation and
slab considerations will be required.
Shoring of Excavations
Based on our present understanding of the project, excavations on the order of IO to 20
feet deep may be performed. Accordingly, and because of the limited space, temporary
shoring of vertical excavations will be required. We recommend that excavations be
retained either by a cantilever shoring system deriving passive support from cast-in-place
soldier piles (i.e. lagging-shoring system) or a restrained tie-back and pile system. Based
on our experience with similar projects, if lateral movement of the shoring system on the
order of 1 to 2 inches cannot be tolerated, we recommend the utilization of a restrained
tie-back and pile system. Shoring of excavations of this size is typically performed by
-13-
041742-001
specialty contractors with knowledge of the San Diego County area soil conditions.
Lateral earth pressures for design of shoring are presented below:
Cantilever Shorinu. Svstem
Active pressure= 35H (psf), triangular distribution
Passive Pressure= 350h (psf)
H = wall height (active case) or h = embedment (passive case)
Multi-Braced Shoring System
Active Pressure = 25H (psf), rectangular distribution
Passive Pressure= 350h (psf)
H = wall height (active case) or h = embedment (passive case)
General
All shoring systems should consider adjacent surcharging loads. The design
wall height should consider loss of passive support associated with footing
excavation.
For design of tie-backs, we recommend a concrete-soil bond stress of 600 psf
of the concrete-soil interface area for straight shaft anchors. This value shoul,d
be considered only behind the 40 degree line (measured from the vertical) up
from the base of the excavation. This portion should also be used for
calculating resisting forces. Tie-back anchors should be individually proof-
tested to 150 percent of design capacity. Further details and design criteria for
tie-backs can be provided as appropriate. Since design of retaining systems is
sensitive to surcharge pressures behind the excavation, we recommend that this
office be consulted if unusual load conditions are anticipated. Care should be
exercised when excavating into the on-site soils since caving or sloughing of
these materials is possible. Field testing of tie-backs and observation of soldier
pile excavations should be performed during construction.
Settlement monitoring of adjacent sidewalks and adjacent structures should be
considered to evaluate the performance of the shoring. Shoring of the
excavation is the responsibility of the contractor. Extreme caution should be
used to minimize damage to existing pavement, utilities, and/or structures
caused by settlement or reduction of lateral support.
-14-Leighton
' )
6.3
6.4
041742-001
Surface Drainage and Erosion
Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. The proposed structure should have an
appropriate drainage system to collect roof runoff. Positive surface drainage should be
provided to direct surface water away from the structure toward the street or suitable
drainage facilities. Planters should be designed with provisions for drainage to the storm
drain system. Ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to the structure.
Foundation and Slab Considerations
Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations
and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils
encountered within 5 feet of pad grade have a very low to low potential for expansion. If
medium to highly expansive soils are encountered and selective grading cannot be
accomplished, additional foundation design may be necessary.
6.4.1
6.4.2
Foundation Design
The proposed structures may be supported by conventional continuous or
isolated spread footings. Footings should extend a minimum of 24 inches
beneath the lowest adjacent soil grade. At these depths, footings may be
designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per
square foot (psf) if founded on undisturbed native soil. The allowable pressure
may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as
wind or seismic forces. The minimum recommended width of footings is 18
inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for square or round footings.
Continuous footings should be designed in accordance with the structural
engineer requirements and have a minimum reinforcement of four No. 5
reinforcing bars (two top and two bottom). Reinforcement of isolated footings
should be per the structural engineer's design.
Floor Slabs
The slab-on-grade garage floor slab should be at least 6 inches thick and be
reinforced with No. 3 rebars 18 inches on center, each way (minimum), placed
at mid-height in the slab. We emphasize that this is the responsibility of the
contractor to ensure that the slab reinforcement is placed at slab midheight.
Slabs should also have crack joints at spacings designed by the structural
engineer. Columns should be structurally isolated from slabs. To reduce
moisture migration up through all floor slabs, we recommend installing a 10-
-15-
6.4.3
6.4.4
\ )
041742-001
mil plastic sheeting moisture barrier on 2-inches of clean sand, which is in turn
overlain by an additional 2 inches of clean sand.
Settlement
The recommended allowable-bearing capacity is based on a maximum total and
differential settlement of I inch and 314 of an inch, respectively. Since
settlements are a function of footing size and contact bearing pressures, some
differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns or walls
where a large differential loading condition exists. However for most cases,
differential settlements are considered unlikely to exceed Yz of an inch. With
increased footing depth/width ratios, differential settlement should be less.
Lateral Resistance and Retaining Wall Design Pressures
The proposed retaining walls should be designed for the lateral soil pressures
exerted on them, the magnitude of which depends primarily on the type of soil
used as backfill and the amount of deformation the wall can yield under the
lateral load. If a retaining wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear
strength of the soil, it can be designed for the 'active' pressure condition.
Walls that are under restrained conditions and cannot yield under the applied
load (e.g., basement walls) should be designed for the 'at-rest' pressure
condition. If a wall tends to move towards the soils, the resulting resistance
developed by the soil is the 'passive' resistance.
For design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values for level or
sloping backfill are recommended for walls backfilled with onsite soils of very
low to medium (EI < 50) expansion potential or undisturbed in-place materials.
Table 2
Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf)
Conditions Level 2:1 Slope
Active 35 55
At-Rest 55 75
Passive 350 (Maximum of 3 kst) 150 (sloping down)
If conditions other than those covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent
fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual case basis by the
geoteclmical engineer. A surcharge load for a restrained or unrestrained wall
resulting from automobile traffic may be assumed to be equivalent to a uniform
-16-
041742-001
lateral pressure of 75 psf which is in addition to the equivalent fluid pressure
given above. For other uniform surcharge loads, a uniform pressure equal to
0.35q should be applied to the wall (where q is the surcharge pressure in psf).
The wall pressures assume walls are backfilled with free draining materials and
water is not allowed to accumulate behind walls. A typical drainage design is
attached. Wall backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least
90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Dl557). We recommend
compaction effort be increased to 95 percent where backfill will support
building foundations of distress sensitive appurtenant improvements. WalJ
footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design
recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations.
Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be
obtained from the passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding
resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil
interface. These values may be increased by one-third when considering loads
of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The total resistance may be
taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistance provided the passive
portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance.
The account for potential redistribution of forces during a seismic event,
basement walls should also be checked considering an additional seismic
pressure distribution equal to 20H psf applied as an inverted triangle, where H
equals the overall retained height in feet. If conditions other than those covered
herein are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided
on an individual case basis by the geotechnical engineer.
We recommend drainage for retaining walls be provided in accordance with
Appendix E of this report. Surcharge loading from adjacent structures should
also be taken into account during wall design.
6.5 Flexible Pavement Design
The preliminary pavement design sections (i.e., on-site pavements, if any) have been
provided on Table 3 based on an assumed R-value of at least 15. Final pavement design
should be evaluated based on R-value tests perfonned on representative subgrade soils
upon completion of grading. Alternative pavement design sections may be provided once
the appropriate traffic index is selected by the project architect or civil engineer. It should
be noted that the City of Carlsbad pavement requirement presented on the Structural
Section of Streets and Alleys, GS-17, will govern for all off-site street pavement
(Carlsbad, 1996).
-17-
\ )
i
I
6.6
041742-001
Table 3
Preliminary Pavement Sections
Pavement Traffic Index R-Value of 15 Loading (20-Year Pavement Sections Condition Life)
Auto Parking 4.0 3 inches AC over
Areas 6 inches Class 2 base
Auto Driveways 5.0 3 inches AC over
8 inches Class 2 base
For areas subject to unusually heavy truck loading (i.e., trash trucks, delivery trucks, etc.),
we recommend a full depth section of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) 8 inches thick
\vith appropriate steel reinforcement and crack-control joints as designed by the project
structural engineer.
All pavement section materials should conform to and be placed in accordance with the
latest revision of the Greenbook and Caltrans guidelines and standard specifications. Prior
to placing the AC pavement section, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils and all
aggregate base should have relative compaction of at least 95 percent (based on ASTM
Test Method D1557).
If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, we recommend some
measure of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming
saturated. It is recommended that the concrete curb separating the landscaping area from
the pavement extend below the aggregate base to help seal the ends of the sections where
heavy landscape watering may have access to the aggregate base. Concrete swales should
be designed in roadway or parking areas subject to concentrated surface runoff.
Construction Observation and Plan Reviews
The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information
and subsurface conditions disclosed by widely spaced borings. The interpolated
subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction. Construction
observation of all onsite excavations and field density testing of all compacted fill should
be perfo1111ed by a representative of this office so that construction is in accordance with
the recommendations of this report. We recommend that where possible excavation
exposures be geologically mapped by the geotechnical consultant during grading for the
presence of potentially adverse geologic conditions.
-18-
\ )
)
041742-001
Final project drawings should be reviewed by Leighton prior to mobilization for
construction to see that the recommendations provided in this report are incorporated in
the project plans.
-19-
\ I
\,
I
\ )
\ J
)
041742-001
7.0 LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were
obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests. Such
information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing
geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying
climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore,
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only
if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and
construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative
for the site.
-20-
)
', I )
' )
' )
'\ )
)
\ )
)
\ )
)
\ )
i /
" \ )
\ I )
'1
j
\,
)
\ )
\
1
\
\
\
\ 11111 DD
1
\
L--
\ Parking
~
\----
'r---
L--
\
L--"'
\
\
\
I
\
I
\
\
I
I
\
\
I
I
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
LEGEND
B-2 ,,.. Approximate location of exploratory boring
TD=48' '!117 with total depth indicated
GW=21' Depth to groundwater at the time of drilling
BORING
LOCATION MAP
SRM Development
2531, 2541 and 2551 State Street
Carlsbad, California
B-1 ~
TD=61S
GW=16'
Parking
Parking
B-2
TD=48'
GW=21'
Project No.
Scale
Engr./GeoL
Drafted By
Date
Executive Suites
... ;. A ,. ...
*"' A •'• ,. ,. ...... " ,. " ;, ,. ,. ',.,. A A ;.
Executive ,. ,. Suites ,.
125411
,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. .. ,. ..
A ,. ,. ,. ,. ... ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,.
" A. .,,~
h A ... ,. ,. ,. ,.
,-h A ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,.
Executive ,. ... ...
Suites A A ,. ",. ,. ,. .. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. A
j2ss1 j " ",. ,. ,. ,.
A"-h ,. ",. ,. ,. ,.
,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ",. ,. ,. ,.
",. .,
" ,. ,.
041742-001
Notto scale
WDO/MRS
KAM
December 2005
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
t, l. f:..1GH10N t~HGUP COMPAt~Y
NORTH
~ ~ m
~ ~ '!\
Figure No. 2
Appendix A -References j
)
\
I
)
)
\,
j
041321-001
APPENDIX A
References
Blake, 2000, EQFAULT, Version 3.0.
California Building and Safety Commission (CBSC), 2001, California Building Code.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 2002, Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zone, Preliminary Review Map, Point Loma 7 .5-minute
Quadrangle, San Diego County, California: Scale 1 :24,000, Released for preliminary
review on November 1, 2002, To be superceded on May 1, 2003.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2004, California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps,
November 2004.
Carlsbad, City of, 1996, Standards for Design and Construction of Public Works Improvements in
the City of Carlsbad, California, Project No. 05332-12-01, dated April 20, 1993,
revised December 10, 1996.
CDMG, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent
Portions of Nevada, February 1998.
----, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open-
File Report, 96-08.
Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning with Index to Special Study Zones Maps: Department of Conservation, Division of
Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, with Locations and
Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions: California Division of Mines and Geology, California
Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, Scale 1 :750,000.
Kennedy, M.P., 1975,' Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California: California
Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 200, 38p.
A-1
> "C "C CD
::I
C. x·
OJ
OJ 0 .,
:i"
(Q
t8 Ill
\ I
\ /
)
\ }
)
)
)
\
)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY
Sheet 1 of
Project KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHICS Project No.
Type of Rig Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter Drive Weight
Elevation Top of Elevation Location
0 ~ o,rf!. ui-:-DESCRIPTION C: Ill -~-0 Q) z UIO 'iii .. ~ U)U, =-.C: OI "C Cl) ~o c .... :i""' l'CI • 111 Q) a.OJ ... s:: -o o.o ::, a. ()LL CIIO U) Q) 0, >a, Cl) a, f.J -CQ. ·---"' G)u. cu. ., E -... Os:: ma> ·a:; iii (!) ->, ~o Logged By <( l'CI a. ... "' C 0 rn ......
Sampled By IN ~
0 Asphaltic concrete
~~-;...-i .. Portland cement concrete !".4•,;: ... -i·
1
Drop_ .. _
J!! Ill Q) I-....
0
Q) g;
I-
~ CL Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy clay; ·
<1ltv clav lean clav -•i-~ CH '111n --OL '-----5 ML Inorganic silt; clayey silt with low plasticity
I I MH Inorganic silt; diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils; elastic silt
~ ~ ML-C1 Clayey silt to silty clay
i. • Ill ' .&• _ .. GW Well-graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little.or no fines
1ovu, GP Poorly graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines
0 (\o o 10 lo' (~.' GM
ol
~ ~ u\., Clayey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixture ..... SW Well-graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines ·.o··_··.
SP Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines ..... SM Silty sand; poorly graded sand-silt mixture .....
15 ·.· · ...
~-SC
~ Bedrock
• 7 -Ground water encountered at time of drilling
-
B-1 Bulk Sample
20-Core Sample C-1 -
G-1 ~ Grab Sample
-
R-1 Modified California Sampler (3" O.D., 2.5 I.D.)
-
SH-I Shelby Tube Sampler (3" O.D.) -S-1 Standard Penetration Test SPT (Sampler (2" O.D., 1.4" I.D.)
25-
-
-
-
-
30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
"
s SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATIERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
\ )
' 1 }
i
)
)
\ )
•,,
I J
\
)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 8-1
Date -------"8--'-2-'-'5=---.;;...05-'------Sheet 1 of 3
Project --------------'S'--R_M_/S:..ct_at'--e_S=--t_re_e_t __________ _ Project No.
Type of Rig
140 pound hammer
Drilling Co. West Hazmat Drilling
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight
Elevation Top of Elevation 35' Location 2531 State Street
>, 0 a,'?ft. ui-:-DESCRIPTION C VI .... ....
~ .... CJ (I) z 11)0 "iii ... lt)rJ) :5 .... .c C'I 'C (I) ~o c .... ::J .... Ill• ma, c.(I) .... C: -() c.o ::J Q. i:)LL Cl>C.J 11)(1) () . >Cl> (1)(1) f...1 .... cc. ·---"' a,LL CLL .::i E mlii Oc: (!) .... >, "6::i Logged By DLN w <C m D. ... :eo
00 C () rn-Sampled By DLN
35 0 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afu})
@O': Silty CLAY: Brown, moist, soft
041742-001
Hollow-Stem Auger
Drop 30"
1/) .... VI (I)
I-.... 0 (I)
C. >,
I-
SM UATERNARYTERRACEDEPOSITS t --
30 5
25 10
20 15
15 20
10 25
. . .. . .. . . . .. . : •. ·.·. .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . :: .. ·: .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. : .... . .. . .. .. . . . . .. .. . ... .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . .. ... . . .. .. . . . . . .. . .. :; .. ·: .. . .. .. . . .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . ..... . . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. ·. .. . .. : .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . · . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . ...
..... ... •, ·.· · .. .
50/6" 111.3 12.2
2 41 14.8
3 58 IO 1.2 13.4
4 26
t: 4': Silty SAND: Brown, moist, very dense
@ IO': Silty coarse SAND with clay: Brown, damp, medium dense
@ 12': Silty SAND: Light brown, damp
@ 15': Silty SAND: Dark brown, moist, dense
@ 16': Ground water encountered
@20': Silty coarse SAND: Light brown, wet, medium dense
@ 21 ': Silty SAND: Light brown, wet, medium dense
5 50/6"
SANllAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
12.9 CL @ 25': Sandy CLA YSTONE: Light brown, wet, dense
SM @28': Silty fine SANDSTONE: Light brown, very wet
HC
: :-.. ·. :-: .. .. 5 30--'~---"---+---..L.L.---'L.--..,_ _ __,_ _ __,_ _____________________ ..l-__ ----l
SAMPLE TYPES:
S SPLIT SPOON
R RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
T TUBE SAMPLE
G GRAB SAMPLE
SH SHELBY TUBE
TYPE OF TESTS:
OS DIRECT SHEAR
MD MAXIMUM DENSITY
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
El EXPANSION INDEX
RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
!
)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 8-1
Date 8-25-05 Sheet 2 of 3
Project SRM/State Street Project No. 041742-001
Drilling Co. West Hazmat Drilling Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 QOUnd hammer Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Elevation 35' Location 2531 State Street
N S
Ill
Cl)
'O .a E <
0 z
Cl)
ii E RI en
~ "in c .... Cl) CJ cc.
>, ...
C
Cl)~
... J .a C: Ill Cl) ·--0 C: :ii: 0 0
ui-:-
IIICI) I'll • -o (.) . _en ·o:::i en-
DESCRIPTION
Logged By DLN
Sampled By _____ D_L_N _____ _
Ill -Ill ~ .... 0
Cl)
C. >, I-
5 J0---1~_.~_.~:~:.~.+-~-+~~-,-+-~-+-~--+~~1--~-+-S-A_N_l_lA~GO~F-O-RMA~-T-IO-N--(1C~o-n~tin-u-ed~O~(T~s-~c--~~~~~~--1~~~~
-..... ~·· :::··:· ..... -• ..... . . ·.·· .....
-:·· .·.· ....... ..... -·· ... . . . ... .
-·.-. ·· ..
-:·. :·:·,:·.:
-~·· .·.·.: .... . . .. .
-5 40-:·.: ::.·.:
-··: .... :-:··:. ..... -· .... . .. .. .
.. . .. -·.· .··.·:.
-10 45-:·· .......... . .... .. . .. ..... -· ...
-=·· .-.::·:-..... .. ..
-... ··::.
_··: ·.·-:-:··:· .. ..
-15 50-. : · ·::. :· .. :.·.
-.: ·:··:: ...
• • • t
-· .... .
-·: :·· ~: ... .. .. .. . .. ...
-20 55-·:· :·-:-:··:: ...... . ..... . . .. -~ ..... . ,: :··/·:· -..... . . . . .. .. . -.. . _ :: : ·-:~ · .. : .. ·.·· ...
6 90 SM @30': Silty SANDSTONE: Light brown, moist, very dense
7 50/6" 119.7 10.4 @ 35': Silty SANDSTONE: Light brown, moist, very dense
@ 40': Silty SANDSTONE: Light brown, moist, very dense
8 80
@ 45': Silty SANDSTONE: Light brown, moist, very dense
9 68 122.3 9.2
@ 50': Silty SANDSTONE: Light brown, moist, dense
10 53
@ 55': Silty SANDSTONE: Trace of clay, light brown, moist, dense
11 68 120.2 12.9
-25 60~'--~---'-~~-+-~~.J-L~~'--~-'-~-'-~---'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--'--~~-t
SAMPLE TYPES;
S SPLIT SPOON
R RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
T TUBE SAMPLE
G GRAB SAMPLE
SH SHELBY TUBE
TYPE OF TESTS:
DS DIRECT SHEAR
MD MAXIMUM DENSITY
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
El EXPANSION INDEX
RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
\ I
\ I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 8-1
Date 8-25-05 Sheet 3
Pr~ect~~~~~~~~~~-S~R~M'-"--'/S~ta~t~e~S~tr~e~e~t~~~~~~~~~~ Project No.
Type of Rig Drilling Co. West Hazmat Drilling
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pound hammer
Elevation Top of Elevation 35' Location 2531 State Street
>, 0 a,~ Iii-:-DESCRIPTION s:: VI ..... ....
~ ..... 0 Q) z VIO 'in ... ~ I/IV, s-.s:: Cl 'O Q) ~o s:: .... :::, ..... "' . nl Q) c.CI> Cl>U .... C: -o o..o :::, 0.. QI.I-1/1 Q) o. > Q) Q) Cl) ~...J ..... cc. ·--_v, a,LL CLL .:, E in~ Oc: C) ..... >, 'o::i Logged By DLN w <C "' Q. ... ::a;o
V, C 0 v,-
Sampled By DLN
IN s
-25 60 IL 68
of 3
041742-001
Hollow-Stem Auger
Drop 30"
VI .... VI Q) I--0
Cl)
~ I-
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (fsa~
-@ 60': Silty SANDSTONE: Trace of clay, lig-t brown, moist, dense
-Total Depth "" 61. 5 Feet
-Ground water encountered at 16 feet at time of drilling
Backfilled with bentonite grout on 8/25/04
-
-30 65-
-
-
-
-
-35 70-
-
-
-
-
-40 75-
-
-
-
-
-45 80-
-
-
-
-
-50 85-
-
-
-
-
-55 90
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
"
s SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MO MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
1
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Date ____ 8_-2_;_5_-0_5 ___ _ Sheet 1 of 2
Project ___________ S~Rc...:..:..:cM~/S~t=a~te~S~t~re~e~t __________ _ Project No.
Type of Rig
140 pound hammer
Drilling Co. West Hazmat Drilling
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight
Elevation Top of Elevation 37' Location
C: 0 +:I .... :5 .... cu Cl) o_CII >Cl) CllCII CIIIL o11.
w
0
35
5
30
. != .s:: en o.o
~...J
C)
...... . . . . ... : .. ·. :-:··:.
111 Cl) ,::, .a +:I -<(
ci >, Cl)-;fl. .... .... z ~g ·en ... -
Cl) c: .... .a~ Cl)(.) C. i:)LL cc. I/ICII ·-""' E -... Oc: IDCll >, :l:O cu fl. ... en 0 (.)
117.1 11.9
Iii-:-I/IV, co . -(.) (.) . _en ·o::; w-
SM
2531 State Street
DESCRIPTION
Logged By DLN
Sampled By DLN
AR"llFICIAL FILL (Afu)
@2': Silty CLAY: Dark brown, moist, soft
@ 5': Silty CLAY: Dark brown, moist, stiff
UATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS t
8': Silty SAND: Dark brown, moist, loose
041742-001
Hollow-Stem Auger
Drop 30"
~ 111
Cl) I-.... 0
Cl)
Q. >, I-
10 SP @ IO': Fine to medium SAND: Brown, moist, medium dense
2 26 5.2
25
15 ..... SM @ 15': Silty SAND: Dark brown, very moist, dense ...... ·.· . ... .-. .-::.·. DS
20 ... : .. 3 51 ll8.8 7.6 .. . .. . .. ·.·· ... ... · .. ·. ·.: .... . . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . . . · ...
20 . : -:-:-:··:. @20': Sandy CLAY: Dark gray-brown, moist, hard
4 50/6" CL @21': Silty SAND: Light brown, wet, dense
15
@ 24': Silty CLAY: Dark gray-brown, moist, dense
25 ----------------------------SANTIAGO FORMATION .. ... 5 5014" 118.4 9.4 SM @ 25': Silty SANDSTONE: Light brown, wet, very dense : .. ·.:-: .....
to ..... . . .... ·.· ... :.:: ... ·.·. @28': Gravel CONGLOMERATE: Light gray, moist, dense .... .. . .. . . . . . . .
30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
"
s SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 8-2
Sheet 2 of 2
Praject ~~~~~~~~~~-S~R=--=-M~/S~t=at~e~S~t~re~e~t~~~~~~~~~~ Project No.
Type of Rig
140 pound hammer
Drilling Co. West Hazmat Drilling
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight
Elevation Top of Elevation 37' Location 2531 State Street
c:i >,
Q)* ui'"':' DESCRIPTION C: II) -....
.2 .... .:? Q) z ;g "iii ... -VIU, =-.c: Cl "C Q) c: .... .ac co • -Q) Q.(I) (I)(.) -(.) co Q) (1)(1) a.o .a Q. cU-ca. II) Q) (.) .
~u.. ~...J ·---"' cu.. :;::s E iiiai oc: (!) ->, 'i5:::j Logged By DLN iii < co ll. ... :EO
"' C 0 u,-
Sampled By DLN
N i:
30 .... SANTIAGO FORMATION (Continued} .. ·.·· · .. ... @ 30': Silty SANDSTONE: Light brown, moist, dense
--: ... ·.:.:··:· 6 62 SM
5 -·· ... . . . .. ·.· · ... -..... . : .. ·::· .. -..... . . . .. . . . ...
35-·: -:-:-:··:· @35': Silty SANDSTONE: Light brown, moist, very dense 7 50/6" 129.1 8.2 -I SC @ 36': Silty clayey SANDSTONE: Light gray, wet, dense
0 -I .
-~ 40
. ..... 8 50/6" SM @40': Silty SANDSTONE: Light brown, moist, very dense ..... . . .• ... -·: .. ·-:-:-.. ..
-5 -· .... . . . .. . . .. ... -..... >-@ 43': Silty SANDSTONE: Dark gray, moist, dense .. · .. ·.-:· .. -·· ... -·: ·-·· . ...
45 :I 9 I 50/6" 113.6 10.1 CL @45': Sandy CLA YSTONE: Dark brown, wet, hard
-10 -
-Total Depth= 48 Feet
50-Ground water encountered at 21 feet at time of drilling Backfilled with bentonite grout on 8/25/05
-...
-15 --
--
-._
55--
-
-20 --
-
-
60
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
s SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATIERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
041742-001
Hollow-Stem Auger
Drop 30"
II) .... II)
Q)
I-.... 0
(I)
Q. >,
I-
ti
Appendix C -Lab Testing
Procedures & Test Results
.1
041742-002
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with Caltrans Test Method CT422.
The results are presented below:
Sample Location Chloride Content, ppm Chloride Attack Potential*
B-1 @2'-5' 639 Positive
B-2@8'-11' 1,897 Severe
*per City of San Diego Program Guidelines for Design Consultant, 1992.
Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples which were
soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during
testing. After transfer of the sample to the shear box and reloading of the sample, the pore pressures
set up in the sample (due to the transfer) were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately
1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples were tested under various normal loads
utilizing a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of less
0.05 inches per minute. The test results are presented on the attached figures.
Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM Test Method D2216) and dry
density determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed ring samples obtained from the
test borings and/or trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring and/or trench logs.
Where applicable, only the moisture content was determined from disturbed samples.
Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general
accordance with Caltrans Test Method CT643 for Steel or CT532 for concrete and standard
geochemical methods. The results are presented in the table below:
Sample Sample Description pH Minimum Resistivity
Location (ohms-cm)
B-1@ 5'-10' CL, Sandy Clay 8.33 1,821
B-2@ 8'-11' Silty SAND (SM) 8.00 1,012
C-1
I I
)
'\
)
041742-002
APPENDIX C (Continued)
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were detennined by standard
geochemical methods (Caltrans Test Method CT417). The test results are presented in the table
below:
Sample Location Sample Description Sulfate Potential Degree of
Content(%) Sulfate Attack*
B-1 @2'-5' Sandy CLAY (CL) 0.06 Negligible
B-3@8'-11' Silty SAND (SC) 0.045 Negligible
* Based on the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code, Table No. 19-A-4, prepared by the
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO, 1997).
Hydro-consolidation Tests: Hydro-consolidation tests were perfonned on selected relatively
undisturbed ring samples. Samples were placed in a consolidometer and a load approximately equal
to the in-situ overburden pressure was applied. Water was then added to the sample and the percent
hydro-consolidation for the load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical
compression to the original I-inch height. The percent hydro-consolidation is presented on the
attached figure.
C-2
4000 '-=' U) Q. -U)
U)
Cl) 3000 ,_ -Cl) ,_
Cll Cl) .c Cl) 2000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Vertical Stress (psf)
Boring Location B-2 Deformation Rate 0.05 in/min
Sample Depth (feet} 15'
Sample Description Brown Silty Sand (SM)
Average Strength Parameters
Peak Friction Angle, $'peak (deg) 47
Cohesion, c'peak (psf) 900
(@.0.2 in. Friction Angle, 4>'@o.z" (deg) 47
Cohesion, c'@oz" (psf) 800
DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY
Relaxed
Project No.
Project Name
Friction Angle, lj)',eiaxed (deg)
Cohesion, c',e1axed (psf)
041742-001
SRM/State Street
46
350
\
I
\
J
\,
J
\ )
~ fl/I Leighton and Associates, Inc.
Project Name: SRM I STATE STREET
Project No.: 041742-001
Boring No.: _8_-1 __
Sample No.: 8-1-5.0
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546)
Tested By: ~f_ Date: 9/27/2005
Checked By: Date:----~
Sample Type: IN SITU
Depth (ft.) 5.0-6.5
Sample Description: SM: BROWN SILTY SAND
;
Initial Dry Density (pcf): 111.3 Final Dry Density (pcf): 111.6
Initial Moisture (%): 12.2 Final Moisture (%) : 17.6
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.5149
Initial Dial Reading: 0.0000 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Diameter(in): 2.416 Initial Saturation(%) 63.8
Apparent Load Swell(+) Corrected Pressure (p) Final Reading Thickness Compliance Settlement (-) Void Ratio Deformation (ksf) (in) % of Sample (in) (%) Thickness (%)
b.2? 0;001?
.
·. 0.9988 0.00 -0.12 0.5131 -0.12 "' ;' ;. ..
0.54· >:, . · .. ;(l.OOi4 . 0.9976 0.00 -0.24 0.5112 -0.24
H20 0,.0027 0.9973 0.00 -0.27 0.5108 -0.27
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =I -0.03
0.5200
0.5100
0.100
I void Ratio -Log Pressure Curve I
' .. -....... ~
~ ..... ' l Inundate with }-v-...
water
Log Pressure (ksf)
I I
·-I---
1.000
Rev. 08-04
COLLAPSE-SWELL 8-1
~
'O Cl)
>[ ::I-·
II) >< '<c 1/1 I
iii' "' Cl)
iii' 3 o·
)
)
\ )
)
)
'\, )
\
)
'\
'
'\ J
',,
J
'\
' /
)
)
', I
\ I
-CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
SRM I State Street
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
)
)
' )
\ )
\ )
' )
)
Outl
***********************
* * * E Q F A u L T * * * * version 3.00 * * * ***********************
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 041742-001
JOB NAME: SRM I State Street
CALCULATION NAME: Run# 1
DATE: 11-09-2005
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: c:\Program Files\EQFAULTl\CGSFLTE.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1745
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3700
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 6) Boore et al. (1997) Horiz. -vs= 400 m/s
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: cd_2drp
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell ssR: Campbell SHR:
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: C:\Program Files\EQFAULTl\CGSFLTE.DAT
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 0.0
Page 1
\
)
\ )
\ )
)
\ )
\ !
Page 1
outl
EQFAULT SUMMARY
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
I !ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE 1-------------------------------ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK jEST. SITE
FAULT NAME I mi (km) !EARTHQUAKE! SITE !INTENSITY I I MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC.
================================l==============l==========l==========I========= NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 3.7( 5.9)1 7.1 I 0.407 I X
ROSE CANYON I 4.7( 7.6)1 7.2 I 0.382 I x
CORONADO BANK I 20.6( 33.l)I 7.6 I 0.176 I VIII
ELSINORE (TEMECULA) I 24.4( 39.2)1 6.8 I 0.101 I VII
ELSINORE (JULIAN) I 24.9( 40.l)I 7.1 I 0.117 I VII
ELSINORE (GLEN IVY) I 32.4( 52.l)I 6.8 I 0.081 I VII
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS I 32.9( 53.0)1 6.6 I 0.088 I VII
PALOS VERDES I 33.8( 54.4)1 7.3 I 0.103 I VII
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I 43.8( 70.5)1 7.1 I 0.076 I VII
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I 45.1( 72.6)1 6.7 I 0.073 I VII
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 45.6( 73.4)1 6.5 I 0.053 I VI
SAN JACINTO-ANZA I 46.8( 75.3)1 7.2 I 0.076 I VII
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 47.0( 75.7)1 6.9 I 0.064 I VI
WHITTIER I 49.4( 79.5)1 6.8 I 0.059 I VI
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK I 53.6( 86.2)1 6.6 I 0.050 I VI
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO I 58.7( 94.5)1 6.7 I 0.049 I VI
PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST I 59.4( 95.6)1 7.1 I 0.073 I VII
ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN) I 60.1( 96.7)1 6.8 I 0.051 I VI
SAN ANDREAS -San Bernardino M-11 65.2( 105.0)1 7.5 I 0.069 I VI SAN ANDREAS -whole M-la I 65.2( 105.0)1 8.0 I 0.089 I VII
SAN ANDREAS -SB-Coach. M-lb-2 I 65.2( 105.0)I 7.7 l 0.076 I VII
SAN ANDREAS -SB-Coach. M-2b I 65.2( 105.0)1 7.7 I 0.076 I VII
SAN JOSE I 66.2( 106.6)1 6.4 I 0.046 I VI
SAN JACINTO -BORREGO I 68.0( 109.5)1 6.6 I 0.041 I V
CUCAMONGA I 68.8( 110.8)1 6.9 I 0.058 I VI
SIERRA MADRE I 69.0( 111.0)I 7.2 I 0.068 I VI
PINTO MOUNTAIN I 71.5( 115.l)I 7.2 I 0.054 I VI
SAN ANDREAS -Coachella M-lc-5 I 73.3( 118.0)I 7.2 I 0.053 I VI
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I 73.4( 118.2)1 7.2 I 0.065 I VI
UPPER ELYSIAN PARK BLIND THRUST I 74.8( 120.4)1 6.4 I 0.042 I VI
CLEGHORN I 76.2( 122.7)1 6.5 I 0.036 I v
RAYMOND I 77.1( 124.l)I 6.5 I 0.043 I VI
Page 2
' j
i
\ )
)
)
' j
~
)
outl
BURNT MTN. I 77.2( 124.3)1 6.5 0.035 V
SAN ANDREAS -1857 Rupture M-2a I 77.4( 124.6)1 7.8 0.070 VI
SAN ANDREAS -Cho-Maj M-lb-1 I 77.4( 124.6)1 7.8 0.070 VI
SAN ANDREAS -Mojave M-lc-3 I 77.4( 124.6)1 7.4 0.057 VI
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT I 78.2( 125.9)1 6.5 0.043 VI
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 79.2( 127.4)1 6.7 0.047 VI
VERDUGO I 80.2( 129.0)I 6.9 0.052 VI
EUREKA PEAK I 80.5( 129.6)1 6.4 0.033 V
-----------------------------DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS -----------------------------
Page 2
I !ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
I APPROXIMATE 1-------------------------------
ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK !EST. SITE
FAULT NAME I mi (km) jEARTHQUAKEI SITE !INTENSITY
I I MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC.
================================!============== ========== ==========!========= HOLLYWOOD I 82.1( 132.1) 6.4 0.039 V
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) I 84.7( 136.3) 6.6 0.035 V
SANTA MONICA I 86.2( 138.7) 6.6 0.042 VI
LANDERS I 87.3( 140.5) 7.3 0.049 VI
HELENDALE -S. LOCKHARDT I 87.6( 140.9) 7.3 0.049 VI
ELMORE RANCH I 88.2( 142.0) 6.6 0.034 V
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)! 89.3( 143.7) 6.6 0.033 V
MALIBU COAST I 89.5( 144.1) 6.7 0.043 VI
LAGUNA SALADA I 91.5( 147.2) 7.0 0.040 V
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 91.9( 147.9) 7.5 0.053 VI
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I 93.1( 149.9) 6.7 0.041 V
NORTHRIDGE (E. oak Ridge) I 93.2( 150.0) 7.0 0.049 VI
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 94.7( 152.4)1 6.7 0.034 V
ANACAPA-DUME I 94.9( 152.7)! 7.5 0.062 VI
SAN GABRIEL I 94.9( 152.8)1 7.2 0.044 VI
EMERSON So. -COPPER MTN. I 96.4( 155.l)j 7.0 0.039 V
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 96.9( 156.0)I 6.4 I 0.028 I V ******************************************************************************* ' .1 -END OF SEARCH-57 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 3.7 MILES (5.9 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4072 g
Page 3
out2
***********************
* t,
t, E Q F A u L T * t, -1,
* Version 3.00 -!:
* * ***********************
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 041742-001
JOB NAME: SRM I State Street
CALCULATION NAME: Run# 1
DATE: 11-09-2005
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: c:\Program Files\EQFAULTl\CGSFLTE.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1745
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3700
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 6) Boore et al. (1997) Horiz. -Vs= 400 m/s
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): s Number of sigmas: 1.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: cd_2drp
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR:
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: c:\Program Files\EQFAULTl\CGSFLTE.DAT
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 0.0
Page 1
~ Page 1
Out2
EQFAULT SUMMARY
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
I !ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
I APPROXIMATE 1-------------------------------
ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK !EST. SITE
FAULT NAME I mi (km) IEARTHQUAKEI SITE !INTENSITY
I I MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC.
================================1==============1==========1==========1=========
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 3.7( 5.9)1 7.1 I 0.685 I XI
ROSE CANYON I 4.7( 7.6)1 7.2 I 0.643 I X
CORONADO BANK I 20.6( 33.l)I 7.6 I 0.295 I IX
ELSINORE (TEMECULA) I 24.4( 39.2)1 6.8 I 0.170 I VIII
ELSINORE (JULIAN) I 24.9( 40.l)I 7.1 I 0.196 I VIII
ELSINORE (GLEN IVY) I 32.4( 52.l)I 6.8 I 0.137 I VIII
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS I 32.9( 53.0)I 6.6 I 0.148 I VIII
PALOS VERDES I 33.8( 54.4)1 7.3 I 0.172 I VIII
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I 43.8( 70.5)1 7.1 0.127 I VIII
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I 45.1( 72.6)1 6.7 0.122 I VII
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 45.6( 73.4)1 6.5 0.090 I VII
SAN JACINTO-ANZA I 46.8( 75.3)1 7.2 0.127 I VIII
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 47.0( 75.7)1 6.9 0.108 I VII
WHITTIER I 49.4( 79.5)1 6.8 0.099 I VII
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK I 53.6( 86.2)1 6.6 0.084 I VII
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO I 58.7( 94.5)1 6.7 0.082 I VII
PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST I 59.4( 95.6)1 7.1 0.122 I VII
ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN) I 60.1( 96.7)1 6.8 0.085 I VII
SAN ANDREAS -San Bernardino M-11 65.2( 105.0)I 7.5 0.115 I VII
SAN ANDREAS -whole M-la I 65.2( 105.0)I 8.0 0.150 I VIII
SAN ANDREAS -SB-Coach. M-lb-2 I 65.2( 105.0)I 7.7 0.128 I VIII
SAN ANDREAS -SB-Coach. M-2b I 65.2( 105.0)I 7.7 0.128 I VIII
SAN JOSE I 66.2( 106.6)1 6.4 0.078 I VII
SAN JACINTO -BORREGO I 68.0( 109.5)1 6.6 0.069 I VI
CUCAMONGA I 68.8( 110.8)1 6.9 0.098 I VII
SIERRA MADRE I 69.0( 111.0)I 7.2 0.115 I VII
PINTO MOUNTAIN I 71.5( 115.l)I 7.2 0.092 I VII
SAN ANDREAS -Coachella M-lc-5 I 73.3( 118.0)I 7.2 0.090 I VII
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I 73.4( 118.2)1 7.2 0.109 I VII
UPPER ELYSIAN PARK BLIND THRUST I 74.8( 120.4)1 6.4 0.071 I VI
CLEGHORN I 76.2( 122.7)1 6.5 0.060 I VI
RAYMOND I 77.1( 124.l)I 6.5 0.073 I VII
Page 2
\ I
out2
BURNT MTN. I 77.2( 124.3)1 6.5 0.060 VI
SAN ANDREAS -1857 Rupture M-2a I 77.4( 124.6)1 7.8 0.118 VII
SAN ANDREAS -cho-Moj M-lb-1 I 77.4( 124.6)1 7.8 0.118 VII
SAN ANDREAS -Mojave M-lc-3 I 77.4( 124.6)1 7.4 0.096 VII CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT I 78.2( 125.9)1 6.5 0.072 VI
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 79.2( 127.4)1 6.7 0.079 VII
VERDUGO I 80.2( 129.0)I 6.9 0.087 VII
EUREKA PEAK I 80.5( 129.6)1 6.4 0.055 VI
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 2
!ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
APPROXIMATE 1-------------------------------ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK IEST. SITE
FAULT NAME I mi (km) !EARTHQUAKE! SITE !INTENSITY
I I MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC. ================================l==============l==========l==========I========= HOLLYWOOD I 82.1( 132.l)I 6.4 I 0.066 I VI
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) I 84.7( 136.3)1 6.6 I 0.059 I VI
SANTA MONICA I 86.2( 138.7)1 6.6 I 0.070 I VI
LANDERS I 87.3( 140.5)1 7.3 I 0.083 I VII
HELENDALE -S. LOCKHARDT I 87.6( 140.9)1 7.3 I 0.083 I VII
ELMORE RANCH I 88.2( 142.0)1 6.6 I 0.057 I VI
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)! 89.3( 143.7)1 6.6 I 0.056 I VI
MALIBU COAST I 89.5( 144.l)I 6.7 I 0.072 I VI
LAGUNA SALADA I 91.5( 147.2)1 7.0 I 0.068 I VI
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSj 91.9( 147.9)1 7.5 I 0.088 I VII
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I 93.1( 149.9)1 6.7 I 0.070 I VI
NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge) I 93.2( 150.0)1 7.0 I 0.082 I VII
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 94.7( 152.4)1 6.7 I 0.057 I VI
ANACAPA-DUME I 94.9( 152.7)1 7.5 I 0.105 I VII
SAN GABRIEL I 94.9( 152.8)1 7.2 I 0.074 I VII
EMERSON so. -COPPER MTN. I 96.4( 155.l)I 7.0 I 0.065 I VI
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 96.9( 156.0)1 6.4 I 0.047 I VI
*******************************************************************************
-END OF SEARCH-57 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 3.7 MILES (5.9 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.6850 g
Page 3
Appendix E -General
Earthwork & Grading Specs .
For Rough Grading \ '
'\
/
Leighton and Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADINGSPECIFICA TIO NS
Page 1 of 6
LEIGHTON AND AS SOCIA TES, INC.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICA TIONSFOR ROUGH GRADING
1.0 General
3030.1094
1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and
earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical
report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the
geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the
earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result
in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall
employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The
Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical
report( s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions,
and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work
plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel
to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe,
map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design
assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the
interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall infonn
the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed
conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be
geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground
after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial
removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioningand processing of the
subgrade and fill materials and perfonn relative compaction testing of fill to detennine the
attained level of compaction. 'J'he Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to
the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERALEARTHWORKANDGRADINGSPECIFICATIONS
Page 2 of 6
2.0
3030.1094
1.3 The Earihwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified,
experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of
ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill.
The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these
Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a
work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of
work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to
commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical
Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in
advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and
accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware
of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and
agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved
geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition,
inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in
a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant
shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until
the conditions are rectified.
Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious
material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to
the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on
specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic
materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter.
Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the
affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper
evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline,
diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered
to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids
onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment,
and shall not be allowed.
)
)
~I
Leighton and Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHVVORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 3 of 6
2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the
Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing
ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section.
Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or
clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that
would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3
2.4
Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the
approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy,
organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to
competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal
to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details
for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and
at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as
otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping
flatter than 5: 1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade
for the fill.
2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and
processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations
recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable
to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical
Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for
determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
3.0 Fill Material
3030.1094
3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to
placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high
expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical
Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3 .2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location,
materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical
Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not
occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified
fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within
2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.
'\
)
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page4 of 6
3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall
meet the requirements of Section 3. l. The potential import source shall be given to the
Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that
its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests perfonned.
4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
3030.1094
4.1 Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The
Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading
procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly
and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed,
as necessary to attain a relatively unifom1 moisture content at or slightly over optimum.
Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in
accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method
D1557-91).
4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly
spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(ASTM Test Method D 1557-91 ). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently
achieve the specified level of compaction with unifonn ity.
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above,
compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot
rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing
satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of
grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of
maximum density per ASTM Test Method D 1557-9 l.
4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill
soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests
shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction
test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be
selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to
inadequate compaction ( such as close to slope faces and at the fi II/bedrock benches).
Leighton and Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPEOFICATIONS
PageS of 6
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in
vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a
guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope
face and/or each IO feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill
construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical
Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these
minimum standards are not met.
4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate
elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate
with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the
Geotechnical Consultant can detennine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a
minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than
5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.
5 .0 Subdrain Installation
6.0
3030.1094
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the
grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional
subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions
encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for
line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the
Contractor for these surveys.
Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans
are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical
Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut
slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the
slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERALEARTHWORKAND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page6 of 6
7.0 Trench Backfills
3030.1094
7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench
excavations.
7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material
shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1
foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and
densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from I foot above the top of the
conduit to the surface.
7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least
one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed 111 the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the
Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative
compaction by his alternativeequipmentand method.
FILL SLOPE
PROJECTED PLANE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM
TOE OF SLOPE TO
APPROVED GROUND
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
----.--
CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE
PROJECTED PLANE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM
FROM TOE OF SLOPE
TO APPROVED GROUND
-----
2' MIN .
KEY
DEPTH
15' MIN .• 1
LOWEST
BENCH
(KEY)
KEYING AND BENCHING
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
"'CUT FACE SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED PRIOR
TO FILL PLACEMENT
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
FOR SUBDRAINS SEE
STANDARD DETAIL C
BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPE'S
ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5: 1.
MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET
ANO MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS A
LEIGHTON ANO ASSOCIATES
* OVERSIZE ROCK JS LARGER THAN
8 INCHES IN LARGEST DIMENSION.
FINISH GRADE
* EXCAVATE A TRENCH IN THE COMPACTED
FILL DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY ALL THE
ROCK. GRANULAR MATERIAL TO BE
DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY
FLOODING OR JETTING.
DETAIL
* BACKFILL WITH GRANULAR SOIL JETTED
OR FLOODED IN PLACE TO FILL ALL THE
VOIDS.
* DO NOT BURY ROCK WITHIN 10 FEET OF
FINISH GRADE.
* WINDROW OF BURIED ROCK SHALL BE
PARALLEL TO THE FINISHED SLOPE.
JETTED OR FLOODED
GRANULAR MATERIAL
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
OVERSIZE
ROCK DISPOSAL
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS B
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
BENCHING
SUBDRAIN
TRENCH
SEE DETAIL BELOW
FILTER FABRIC
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)"
COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL
BE MINIMUM 6" DIAMETER
SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED
PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL D
FOR PIPE SPECIFICATIONS
SUBDRAIN DETAIL
DESIGN FINISH
GRADE -----------------------------------------1 O' MIN FILTER FABRIC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -BACKFIL.l (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
-_-:-_ -:-:-:-::;:;::::~~ ACT[o-r,-.. i,_,_as_::::::::-_ :__ • EQUIVALENT)
_A :-:;.::::::::::::::-• ' : • .. • . .° 0
•: • • .° 0
0 ° • • , • .---CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE ~ --------• .' • ••
0
• ' • .' .' : ' • .'
0
, :
0 OR #2 ROCK (9FT"3/FT) WRAPPED
I
I ' ' . IN FILTER FABRIC
1--_20· MIN. 5' MIN. I PERFORATED
• " 6" 0 MIN. PIPE NON PERFORATED 6" 0 MIN.
DETAIL Of CANYON SUBPRAIN OUTLET
CANYON SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS C
LEIGHTON ANO ASSOCIATES
OUTLET PIPES
4" 0 NONPERFORA TED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX O.C. VERTICALLY
---------------------------_--:;.:=:=:=:=:=:=:= :=:=:=:=:=: =: =:=:=:=: =:=:= :=:=:=:=:= .i':
--------_ :-: :-:-:-:-:C~M~ ~~TE~--FIL"--'.:.::-~
_-:=:::_::_::_::_::_::_: =-=~=-==-=~=:~-2 % _ !-1_'~ ~-:_: ::::::::: :=:=:=:=:=:=-<f:· ----------~
::::=::::::::::::::::::::2% -MIN.-:::::::::::::::::::::::-:_:::?:
C I· KEY WIDTH
AS NOTED ON GRADING PLANS
KEY DEPTH (15' MIN.) 12" MIN. OVERLAP
FROM THE TOP HOG
RING TIED EVERY (2' MIN.)
6 FEET
CAL TRANS CLASS II
PERMEABLE OR #2
ROCK (3 Fr.3/FT)
WRAPPED IN FILTER
FABRIC
15' MIN.
TRENCH
LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD
BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
SUITABLE OUTLET
T-CONNECTION
FOR COLLECTOR
PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE
'-----4" MIN.
FILTER FABRIC
ENVELOPE (MIRAFI
140 OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
BEDDING
SUBORAIN TRENCH DETAIL
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION -subdroin collector pipe shall be installed with perforation down or,
unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant. Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated
pipe. The subdrain pipe shall hove at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation
shall be 1/4" to 1/2" if drill holes are used. All subdroin pipes shall have o gradient of at
least 2% towards the outlet.
SUBDRAIN PIPE -Subdroin pipe shall be ASTM D2751, SOR 23.5 or ASTM 01527, Schedule 40, or
ASTM D3034, SOR 23.5, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe.
All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench no wide than twice the subdroin pipe. Pipe shall be in
soil of SE >/=30 jetted or flooded in place except for the outside 5 feet which shall be native
soil backfill.
BUTTRESS OR
REPLACEMENT FILL
SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS 0
LEIGH TON ANO ASSOCIATES
RETAINING WALL
WALL WATERPROOFING~
PER ARCHITECT'S
SPECIFICATIONS
FINISH GRADE
----------------------------------
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-coM PAC TEO~: Fl LL--:-:-:-:-:-:-:
-------------
SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION
BASED ON ASTM 01557
:::::_-:::::: :::::::::::::::::-·
~~:;·;:;::,;,:::::,::=y~ '.-:-:-:-:-·
, .. OVERLAP I=:=:=:=:=:=:=·· FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
• o. :-:-:-:-:---(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED I° 0 o O • 0 1 ~-::~:::~ EQUIVALENT) ..
• • 0 0 -:-:-:-:• I~~· :IN .... , $.---3/4" TO 1-1/2" CLEAN GRAVEL
I· . ~l-=-=-=-
0 • • • ~ :::::::: ~4" (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED
t O ,-:-z-PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
• o0
0 : :::::::~ EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
0 -:-:-:-:-ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED I O O • O I:=:=:=:=: MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT
~~ 0 :::::::~ TO SUITABLE OUTLET
3" MIN.
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MA TERI AL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
NOTE: UPON REVIEW BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSUL TANT,
COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR
J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL. INSTALLATION SHOULD BE
PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS.
RETAINING WALL
DRAINAGE DETAIL
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS E
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES