HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 83-16; Santa Fe Ridge Unit 1 Lots 1-85; Soils Report; 1984-07-31-
EBERHART 8 STONE, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
2211 E. WINSTON ROAD.~SUITE F . ANAHEIM, CA 92606 0 (714) 991 -0163
6353 EL CAMINO REAL. SUITE~C 0 CARLSEAD. CA 92006 0 (714) 436-9416
MASS GRADING GEOTECMNJCAL REPORT
LOTS 1 - 85,UNlT 1,
C-T 83-h TRACT CT-16/LCDP 83-l
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
W.O. 1309 July 31, 1984
DAN R. EBERHART, CEG
GERALD L. STONE, RCE
Prepared For:
Dividend Development Corporation
3950 Ingram Street, #13-1304
San Diego, California 92109
Dividend
~~ TABLE OF CONTENTS
W.O. 1309
TEXT
REPORT ON GRADING
Site
Site
Soil
Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
Setting
Surficial Units
Bedrock Unit
Ground Water
Faulting
Landsliding
Seismic Statement
Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Page 2
Ground Preparation
Canyon Subdrains
Fill Placement
Lot Capping
Cut Slopes
Fill Slopes
Stabilized Slopes
Slope Subdrains
Testing......................................................Page 4
Field
Laboratory
OPI~NIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Page 5
Ground Water, Faulting, and Landsliding
Seismic Statement
Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5
Natural Ground
Slope Stability
Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~.......~........~....~~.~... Page 5
Bearing Value
Expansive Soil Guidelines
Foundations Adjacent a Top-of-Slope
Site Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~..~..~..... Page 6
Foundation Excavations
Slab Subgrade
Trench Backfill
Wall Backfill
Pavement Areas
Slope Maintenance
Pad Drainage Maintenance
Summary............,...,,............,..............,..,..,.....Page 8
EBERHART L STONE, INC.
Dividend
T’ABLE OF CONTENTS
W.O. 1309
APPENDIX
References ................................................. ..Pag e A-l
Summary of Field Density Test Results ....................... .Table I
Summary of Laboratory Test Results .......................... .Tables II and II I
Approximate Maximum Depth of Fill ........................... .Table IV
Guidelines for Residential Foundations Based on
Soil Expansion ........................................... Table V
Grading Plans (pocket enclosures) ............................ .Plates 1 and 2
EBERHART P STONE. INC.
Dividend W.O. 1309
-l-
REPORT ON GRADING
Presented herein is a review of the testing and observations provided by
this firm during mass grading of the subject site. Grading was accomplished
for the purpose of creating building pads for the proposed single-family
residences. Opinions and recommendations relative to development of the site
are also presented.
SITE GEOLOGY
Periodic geologic observations during mass grading were made to compare
anticipated and as-graded geologic conditions. The as-graded site geology was
mapped during grading and is shown on the enclosed Grading Plans, Plates
1 and 2.
Setting
The site is located on the western flanks of the Peninsular Range Province.
Prior to grading, topography consisted of a north-south trending valley with
gently rolling hills to the east and west. Surface drainage was controlled by
topography to the south toward Ranch0 Santa Fe Road.
Surficial Units
Topsoil: Residual topsoil mantled the bedrock and ranged from 1 foot to 2 feet
in thickness. This soil was typically dry and ‘low in density and consisted of
a brown silty to clayey sand. Topsoil was removed by overexcavation or benching
to expose competent bedrock in areas to receive fill and where exposed at cut
grade.
Alluvium (Qal) : Recent alluvium occupied the valley bottoms and tributary swales
of the site. This material consisted of brown to gray-brown fine silty to clayey
sand. This soil was typically moist to very moist and low in density. Alluvium
was removed by benching and overexcavation to expose competent bedrock in areas
to receive fill and where exposed at cut grade.
Bedrock Unit
Delmar Formation (Tdm) : The gently rolling hills east and west of the canyon
bottom are underlain by marine sediments of Eocene age. These deposits wn-
sist of a fine to medium grained sandstone, with minor silty sandstone, and
siltstonelclaystone interbeds. The sandstone is gray to light brown, dry to damp,
dense to very dense, locally friable, and moderately indurated. Siltstone/claystone
interbeds are gray to green in color, moist to very moist, moderately hard to
hard, and massive.
Geologic structure within the Delmar Formation is typically poorly developed
and locally cross-bedded. Well-developed continuous planar features are gener-
ally lacking.
EBERHART P STONE, INC.
Dividend -2- W.O. 1309
Locally, bedding is undulatory, with near-horizontal to shallow dips to the
north and south. High-angle joint patterns are common within the sandstone,
trending northwest and northeast.
Ground Water
Ground water was not observed within the subject tract during the mass
grading. Minor seepage was win canyon cleanouts near the alluvium/
bedrock contact.
Faulting
Minor faulting was observed adjacent Lot 1 and Rancho Sante Fe Road on the
south end of the subject tract. Bedrock exposed within the cut slope below
Lot 1 appeared fractured and sheared. No active or potentially active faults
were observed on or adjacent the subject tract during grading.
Landsliding
Landsliding was not observed within the subject tract.
Seismic Statement
A detailed discussion of seismicity was presented in the preliminary geotechnical
report and remains valid.
SITE GRADING
Mass grading under the purview of this report was accomplished by Signs and
Pinnick Contractors during the period of June 7, and July 23, 1984.
Ground Preparation
Areas which were graded were first cleared of significant deleterious material,
including trees, surface vegetation, and miscellaneous debris.
Topsoil, alluvium, artificial fill, and otherwise unsuitable materials, were over-
excavated to expose competent bedrock. Removal depths varied from about
2 feet to 20 feet.
Prior to receiving fill, the exposed ground surface was scarified to a depth of
about 12 inches, moisture+onditioned as needed, and compacted to 90% or more
of the laboratory maximum density.
Canyon Subdrains
Subdrains were placed in canyon areas, as shown on the accompanying Grading
Plans, and consisted of 6-inch and E-inch diameter P.V.C. perforated pipes
embedded in 3/4” rock wrapped in filter fabric. About the last 30 feet of the
lower end of the subdrains consisted of E-inch diameter P.V.C. non-perforated
pipe embedded in compacted fill. The subdrain was tied into the storm drain
system in Camino Alvaro just northwest of Corte Pedro.
EBERHART P STONE, INC.
Dividend -3- W.O. 1309
Fill Placement
Following preparation of the exposed ,ground surface, as described above, fill
was placed in loose lifts restricted to about six inches in thickness. Each lift
was moisture-conditioned as needed to obtain near-optimum conditions, then
compacted to 90% or more of the laboratory maximum density. Compaction was
accomplished by utiliring a sheepsfoot roller and by rolling with heavy rubber-
tired earthmoving equipment. Each lift was treated in a like manner until the
desired rough grades were achieved. Fill placed onsite consisted of overexcavated
material considered suitable for reuse as compacted fill and material generated
from nearby cut areas.
Prior to the placement of fill on surfaces inclined steeper than about 5:l
(horizontal to vertical), horizontal keys and near-vertical benches were excavated
into adjacent competent bedrock.
Approximate maximum depths of fill on a lot-by-lot basis are indicated in Table IV.
Lot Cappinq
Where a cut/fill transition existed within proposed building areas, the cut portions
of these areas were overexcavated about three feet and replaced with compacted
fill. This lot capping was accomplished on Lots 5-10, 14, 23, 30-32, 40, 47, 48,
64, 81 and 85.
Where a cut pad existed above a stability fill, the upper three feet were removed
and replaced with a compacted fill blanket, This lot capping was accomplished on Lots 1 and 2.
Cut Slopes
Cut slopes were constructed at a 2 :l (horizontal to vertical) slope ratio to a
maximum height of about 35i feet.
Fill Slopes
Keys for fill slopes were constructed, where necessary, in accordance with the
recommendations of the referenced reports.
Fill slopes were constructed at a 2 :l (horizontal to vertical) slope ratio to a
maximum height of about 22_+ feet. The slopes were backrolled with a sheeps-
foot roller at regular intervals during slope construction. During grading, the
slopes were overbuilt about 2 feet to 3 feet and were subsequently cut back to
the compacted core.
Stabilized Slopes
A stabilized fill, with a key 15 feet wide by 2 feet deep, was constructedon the
slope adjacent Lots 1 and 2. This slope was stabilized due to locally adversely
oriented planar features and intensely fractured rock that was present within
the cut slope.
EBERHART & STONE INC.
Dividend
Slope Subdrains
-4- W.O. 1309
Subdrains were placed in the stabilized slope adjacent Lots 1 and 2. Drains
consisted of 4-inch diameter P.C.V. perforated pipe embedded in 3/4” rock and
wrapped with filter fabric. Subdrains were placed near the heel of the key.
Subdrain outlets from the heel to the slope face consisted of 4-inch diameter
P.V.C. non-perforated pipe embedded in compacted fill. Subdrain outlets were
spaced at about loo-foot horizontal intervals.
SOIL TESTING
Field
During the course of mass grading, field density tests were taken to determine
compliance with the recommended standards. These tests were taken in accordance
with ASTM standards for the sand cone and drive cylinder methods of density
testing (ASTM D1556 and D2937, respectively). Results of the field density testing
are presented in Table I.
During fill placement, field density tests were taken at the rate of about two
feet in vertical height or about each 1000 cubic yards. Periodic near-surface
density tests were also taken upon achievement of rough pad and slope grades.
Approximate locations of the field density.tests are shown on the accompanying
Grading Plans, prepared by Hunsaker and Associates, Inc. For comparison of
field density tests to laboratory standards, visual and tactile identifications were
made of the materials tested.
Laboratory
Presented below are brief descriptions of laboratory tests performed on samples
obtained during mass grading. Results of the laboratory testing are presented
in Tables II and Ill.
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture: For materials considered representative of
the major soil types placed as compacted fill, maximum density and optimum
moisture content determinations were made in accordance with ASTM D1557-70.
Potential Expansion: Determinations of potential soil expansion were made on
a lot-by-lot basis in accordance with ASCE Expansion Index Test (UBC Standard
29-2).
Sulfate Content: Determinations of soluble sulfate content were made on a
lot-by-lot basisin accordance with California Method of Test No. 417A.
EBERHART B STONE, INC.
Dividend -5- W.O. 1309
I
OPINIONS AND RECOMM,ENDATIONS
Recommendations in this report are opinions based upon this firm’s testing
and observations performed during mass grading, previous geotechnical studies,
and professional judgment. Opinions and recommendations are applicable to the
grading performed and development proposed under the purview of this report,
and should be incorporated into project design and construction practice.
GEOLOGY
Ground Water, Faulting, and Landsliding
No adverse effects from ground water, faulting, or landsliding~are anticipated.
Seismic Statement
No active faults are present at the subject site; therefore, ground rupture is
,not anticipated. Because of the proximity of the site to active faults in the
Southern California area, moderate ground shaking could occur during an earth-
quake. Liquefaction is not anticipated.
Proposed structures should be designed to resist seismic forces in accordance
with criteria contained in the 1982 Uniform Building Code for seismic zone 4.
GRADING
The geotechnical aspects of mass grading under the purview of this report are
in compliance with this firm’s recommendations, the provisions for excavation and
grading set forth by the City of Carlsbad, and the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70. The subject site, as-graded, is considered suitable for the proposed
development.
Natural Ground
Both cut and prepared natural ground are considered suitable for support of the
compacted fill and the proposed structures.
Slope Stability
Cut and fill slopes, as-graded, are considered stable.
FOUNDATIONS
The following recommendations have been developed for the proposed one- and/or
two story single-famil,y residences. Wood-framed, slab-on-grade construction is
proposed, and is anticipated to yield light structural loading.
Based upon the proposed construction and the anticipated light structural loading,
post-construction settlement should be within generally accepted tolerable limits.
EBERHART P STONE, INC.
Dividend -6- W.O. 1309
Foundations for’ an individual structure should be embedded within the same
bearing material, such as entirely within bedrock or entirely within compacted
fill.
Based on soluble sulfate content of the onsite materials, Type II or Type V cement
should be utilized in concrete for foundations.
Bearing Value
For design purposes, an allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot,
based on an embedment of 12 inches into compacted fill or bedrock, may be used
for continuous footings or square pad foundations. This value is for dead load
plus live load conditions and may be increased by one-third in consideration of
wind or seismic loadings of short duration.
In designing to resist horizontal soil loadings, a lateral bearing resistance of 200
pounds per square foot, per foot of embedment, and a friction factor of 0.3 may
be utilized for foundations embedded in compacted till or bedrock.
Expansive Soil Guidelines
The potential expansion of the near-surface materials at rough grade on the subject
lots ranges from Very Low to Low. Guidelines for residential foundations, based
on soil expansion, are presented on a lot-by-lot basis in Table V.
Foundations Adjacent a Top-of-Slope
The bottom outer edge of foundations adjacent a top-of-slope should be set
back from the slope surface a horizontal distance of one-half the slope height
under consideration. The horizontal distance should not be less than five feet
and may be limited to ten feet.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
Should future property owners desire to construct additional structures, such as
pools, walls, patios, etc., the plans for such improvements should be provided to
the geotechnical consultant for review and comment.
Prior to the commencement of additional grading and/or site development, including
subgrade preparation of areas to be paved, backfilling of trenches and walls, etc.,
the geotechnical consultant should be notified two working days in advance in
order to schedule testing and observations as needed.
Foundation Excavations
Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior
to the placement of forms, reinforcement, and concrete, so that foundation bearing
materials may be compared with those upon which the guidelines in Table V are
based. Excavations should ‘be level, sq.uare, and free of loose material and debris
prior to the placement of concrete.
EBERHART L STONE, INC.
Divdend
Slab Subgrade
-7- W.O. 1309
Though presaturation of slab subgrade is not a requirement for Very Low and
Low expansion potentials, optimum moisture conditions should -be maintained or
reestablished just prior to the placement of slab concrete.
Trench Backfill
Trench backfill consisting of onsite materials should be placed in horizontal lifts
and mechanically’ compacted to 90% of the laboratory maximum density.
For shallow trenches below slab areas, an alternative to backfilling with onsite
materials would be to jet, in place, imported granular material having a sand
equivalent of 30 or more.
Wall Backfill
Materials to be placed as wall backfill should be tested by the geotechnical con-
sultant so that the soil characteristics of those materials may be compared with
those upon which retaining wall design parameters have been based.
Wall backfill should ‘be placed in horizontal lifts and mechanically compacted to 90%
of the laboratory maximum density. The use of heavy compaction equipment adracent
a retaining wall may produce strains greater than those normally associated with the
development of active earth pressures, and/or lateral soil loading exceeding design
parameters, resulting i’n excessive wall movement. Therefore, caution should be used
during wall backfill placement and compaction.
Pavement Areas
Subgrade materials in areas to be paved should be observed, sampled and tested
for R-value by the geotechnical consultant so that pavement section alternatives
may be developed. Traffic indices, as determined by the governing agency, should
be provided to the geotechnical consultant.
Prior to the placement of disintegrated granite, aggregate base, or asphaltic concrete
pavement, the exposed subgrade surface should be scarified, moisture-conditioned as
needed to obtain near-optimum conditions, and recompacted in place. Isolated
over-excavations may also be required, as field conditions dictate, to eliminate any
dry, wet, loose, or soft areas that may exist at the time of subgrade preparation.
Slope Maintenance
Vegetation planted on slopes should be native to the area, deep rooting and
drought resistant. A landscape architect should be consulted for recommendations
on types of plants and planting configuration.
Surflcial slope instability can be mitigated by minimizing moisture variations near
the slope surface. Overwatering of slope surfaces, alteration of drainage patterns
and slope configurations, obstruction of drainage devices, and burrowing rodents
can be detrimental to slope stability. Provisions should be made to interrupt
automatic timing devices of irrigation systems during rainy seasons.
EEERHART P STONE. INC.
Dividend
Pad Orainaqe Maintenance
-0- W.O. 1309
Roof and pad drainage should be collected and directed away from proposed
structures. As-graded drainage patterns and devices should be maintained to
provide positive drainage. Alteration and/or obstruction of these may cause
foundation distress.
SUMMARY
Testing and observations were provided, and opinions and recommendations were
developed, in accordance with generally accepted engineering and geologic
principles and practices. No warranty is expressed nor implied.
The presence of the geotechnical consultant at the site was to provide the
developer with a continuing source of professional advice, opinions, and recom-
mendations based upon testing and observations of the grading contractor’s
work, and did not include superintending nor supervision.
This report is subject to review by the controlling governmental body.
Respectfully submitted,
Project Geologist
President President
CEC 965 CEC 965
and
RJF:DRE:CLS:cas
EBERHART P STONE, INC.
Vice President
RCE 32233
Dividend
ERERHART P STONE, INC.
W.O. 1309
APPENDIX
Dividend
A-l I ,’
REFERENCES
K.O. 1309
Completion of Rough Grading, Model Lots l-5, Unit 1, C.T. 83-16, Carlsbad,
California, by Eberhart & Stone, Inc., dated July 13, 1984 (W.O. 1309).
Rough Grading Plan Review, Santa Fe Ridge, CT 83-16/LCDP 63-1, Carlsbad,
California, by Eberhart & Stone, Inc., dated February 10, 1984 (W.O. 1309).
Geotechnical Investigation, Santa Fe Ridge, CT 83-9, Carlsbad, California, by
Eberhart 6 Stone, Inc., dated October 7, 1983 (W.O. 1265).
EBERHART P STONE, INC.
1 ,
._
Dividend TABLE I W.O. 1309
SUMMARY OF Fl.ELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
rEST
UO. NOTE
225
226
227
229
230
232
I I MOISTURE DRY DEN
VATION % pcf DATE LOCATION UNIT 1 ELE
06-07-89 Lot 11 137 13 105
06-07-84 Lot 14 143 14 109
06-07-84 1 Camino Alvaro I 135 I 14 1 107
06;07-84
06-07-84
06-07-84
Lot 13
Lot12 .
Lot 82~
144 14 108
146 12 .105
105 14 106
234 06-08-84 Lot 14 145
235 06-08-84 Sombrosa 150
236 06-08-84 Lot 12 140 237 06-08-84 Sombrosa 153 238 06-08-84 Camino Alvaro 143
239 06-08-84 Lot 84 153
240 06-08-84 Camino Alvaro 129
241 06-08-84 Lot 20 121
242 06-08-84. Lqt 11 125
243 06-08-84 Lot 8 132
244 06-08-84 Lot 10 137
245 06-08-84 Camino Alvaro 120 247 06-08-84 Sombrosa 156
248 06-08-84 Lot 17 135 249 06-08-84 Lot 83 155
250 06-11-84 Lot 84
251 06-11-84 Lot 15
252 06-l l-84 Lot’ 83
253 06-11-84 Lot 10
254 06-11-84 Lot 82
256 06-11-84 Lot 18
257 06-l l-84 Sombrosa
-258 06-l l-84 Lot 18
258 r 06-11-84 Lot 18
259 06-11-84 Lot 9
260 06-11-84 Lot 22
261 06-l l-84 Lot 37
262 06-l l-84 Lot 34
157
140
158
142
160
127
149
129
129
144
113
111.
~1 13
263 06-12-84 Lot 38 109
14
13
12
11
12
12
13
14
14
13
12
12
12
13
13
14
13
13
13
14
12
11
9
11
14
13
11
12
13
110
109
108
105
102
106
113
111
106
111
109
111
107
106
111
105
106
105
109
108
107
104
103
107
110
109
104
105
102
REL.COMP. I SOIL
%~
90
93
91
92
91
91
94
94
92
91
91
91
97
95
C
A
: I C C
91
95
I
: 93 C
95 ’ C
94 D
91 95 t
91
91 t
91 A 96 D
96 E
91 C
91 D
89 ‘A
91 94 :
93 C 92 B
93 B
91 I B
/ I / /
._
Dividend TABLE I W.O. 1309
SUMMARY OF FLELD ‘DENSITY TEST RESULTS
TEST MOISTURE DRY DEN. REL.COMP. SOIL
NO. NOTE DATE LOCATION UNIT 1 ELEVATION % pcf %, TYPE
264 06-12-84 Lot 35 110 13 102 91 265 06-12-84 Lot 33 109 14 102 91 :
266 06-12-84 Via Pepita 111~ 12 107 94 D
267 06-12-84 Lot 37 113 14 102 91 0
268 06- 12-84 Lot 36 ‘~ 112 14 ,103 90 ,D
269 06-12-84 Lot 21. 121 14 101 90 B
270 06-12-84 Lot 36 114 13 104 92 B
271 06-12-84 Lot 22 113 14 102 91 B
272 06-12-84 Lot 38 115 13 102 91 B
273 06-12-84 Lot 34 114 14 111 95 C
274 06-12-84 Lot 36 114 - 14 105 92 D
275 06-12-84 Lot 22 116 14 102 91 B
276 06-12-84 Lot 36 116 14 105 93 B
277 06-12-84 Lot 38 117 14 103 92 B
278 06-12-84 Lot 37 118 13 103 90 D
279 06-12-84 Lot 33 117 15 103 92 B
280 06-12-84 Lot 50 141 14 104 91 D
281 06-12-84 147 Lot 47 13 104 92 282 06-12-84 Lot 45 146 13 105 91 ’ :
283 06-13-84 Via Pepita 119 14 102 91 B
284 06-13-84 Lot 35 120 15 103 92 B
285 06-13-84 Camino Alvaro 122 15 105 94 E
286 06- 13-84~ Lot 39 121 12 103 90 D
287 06-13-84 Via Pepita 123 14 103 90 D
288 06- 13-84 Lot 37 123 17 102 91 289 06-13-84 Lot 33 122 13 105 91 :
290 06-13-84 Lot 19 129 13 104 91 D
291 06-13;84 Camino Alvaro 124 14 102 91 292 06-13-84 Lot 30 124 14 104 90 .:
‘293 06-l 3-84 Lot 36 126 13 103 92 B
294 06- 13-84 Lot 20 130 13 101 90 B
295 06-13-84 Lot 38 127 13. 102 91 B
296 06- 13-84 Lot 35 126 13 ‘101 90 B
297 06-13-84 Lot 21 126. 14 102 91 B
298 06-13-84 Lot 39 128 13 102 299 06-13-84 Lot 36 127 15 102 z: Fl 300 06-13-84 Camino Alvaro 127 14 102 91 B
Dividend
TEST
NO. NOTE DATE ==I== 301 06-13-84
302 06-l 3-84
LOCATION UNIT 1
Lot 33
Lot 20
ELEVATION
IOISTURI IRY DEN REL.COMP. SOIL
% pcf % TYPE
128 11 104
131 14 102
303 06-14-84 Camino Alvaro 132 13 102
304 06-14-84 Lot34 . 129 14 10.3
305 06-14-84 Lot 37 129 14 104
306 06-14-84 Lot 22 133 14 102 307 06-14-84 Via PePita 132 15 105 308. 06-14-84 Lot 38 130 11 107
309 06-14-84 Lot 19 135 15 106 310 06-l 4-84 Lot 35 134 13 103 311 .~ 06-14-84 Lot 39 134 13 105
312 06-14-84 Lot 37 135 12 104
313 06-14--84 Lot 22 137 15 103
314 06-14-84 Camino Alvaro 138 14 101
315 06-14-84 Lot 36 136 14 106
316 06-14-84 Lot 30 138 13 103
317 06-14-84 Lot 36 132 16 101
318 06-14-84 Lot 36 133 15 105
319 06-14-84 Lot 37 135 13 103
320 06-l 4-84 Lot 35 135 13 102
321 06-14-84 Lot 20 139 13 103
322 06-l 5-84 Lot 21 141 14 104
323 06-15-84 Lot 33 138 14 103 324 06-15-84 Lot 36 138 14 104 325 06-15-84 Lot’ 39 138 14 105
326 06-15-84 Lot 20 142 11 106
327 06-15-84 Lot 36 139 15 105
328 06-15-84 Camino Alvaro 143 16 105
329 06-15-84 Lot 34 143 13 105
330 06-15-84 Lot 20 145 16 101
331 06-l 5-84 Lot 18 147 15 103 332 06-15-84 Camino Alvaro 144 13 102
333 06-15-84 Lot 21 144 14 101
334 06-15-84 Lot 6 148 14 102 335 06-15-84 Lot 17 144 17 102 336 06-15-84 Lot 7 146 17 105
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FLELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
I
W.O. 1309
91
91
91
92
92
91
93
94
94
92
92
92
92
90
91
92
90
93
92
91
90
92
92
92
93
93
93
93
91
90
92
91
90
91
91
94
D
0
B
B
B
B
B
D
B
B
D
0
0
B
A
B
0
B
B
0
D
B
B
B
B
D
B
:
E
B
I3
E
I3 E
E
Dividend TABLE I W.O. 1309
SUMMARY OF FI~ELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
TEST MOISTURE DRY DEN. REL.COMP. SOIL
NO. NOTE DATE LOCATION UNIT 1 ELEVATION 0 Dcf %~ TYPE
337 06-15-84 Lot 8 147 12 104 91 D
338 06-15-84 Camino Alvaro 149 15 103 92 339 06-15-84 Lot 22 142 11 104 91 D”
340 06-15-84 Lot 16 150 14 104 92 B
341 06-18-84 Lot 38 135 12 97 86 0
342 06-18-84 Lot 37 136 14 98 87 B
341 r 06-18-84 Lot 38 135 14 103 92 0
342. r 06-18-84 Lot 37 136 14 103 92 8
343 06-18-84 Lot 38 137 15 103 92
344 06- 18-84 Lot 37 138 15 103 92 :
345 06-18-84 Lot 37 140 13 106 94 0
346 06-18-84 Lot 39 140 12 104 92 0
347 06- 1 E- 84 Lot 34 142 11 111 99 B
348 06-l 8-84 Lot 36 142 15 107 95 B
349 06-18-84 Lot 38 142 14 102 91 0
350 06-18-84 Lot 37 143 14 102 91 0
351 06-18-84 Lot 39 143 15 102 91
352 06-18-84 Lot 36 144 15 103 92 :
353 06-18-84 Lot 38 144 15 105 93 B
354 06-18-84 Lot 36 145 14 103 92 0
355 06-19-84 Lot 73 183 14 104 92
356 06-19-84 Lot 74 183 14 106 91 :
357 06-19-84 Lot 19 154 13 103 90 D
358 06-19-84 Lot 18 153 14 103 92
359 06-19-84 Lot 16 149 12 104 90 :
360 06-19-84 Lot 9 150 14 104 92 6
361 06-19-84 Lot 11 152 15 105 93 B
362 06-19-84 Lot 15 156 14 102 91 8~
363 06-19-84 Lot 18 155 12 104 91 D
364 06-19-84 Cainino Alvaro . 156 13 102 91 0
365 06-19-84 Camino Alvaro 155 16 103 92 B
366 06-19-84 Lot 16 159 14 101 90 B
367 06-19-84 Lot 17 157 16 104 92 8
368 06-19-84 La 30 146 12 104 91 D
369 06-19-84 Lot 19 157 13 102 91 8
370 06-19-84 Lot 8 153 13 102 91 8 \
Dividend TABLE I W.O. 1309
SUMMARY OF FI,ELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
TEST
NO. NOTE
371
372 06-l 9-84
373 06-19-84
375 06'19-84
376 06-19-84
377 06-19-84
378 06-19-84
379 06-19-84
Lot 12 158 11 101 90 0
Lot 17 166 11 107 94 .D Lot 20 157 13 104 92 0
Lot 14 164 12 106 91 'A Lot25 . 161 15 104 92 0 Lot 29 160 14 102 91 0
Lot 26 163 14 105 93 0
Lot 28 163 13 102 91 0
380 06-20-84 Lot 25 164 14 103
381 06-20-84 Lot 27 164 13 103
382 06-20-84 Lot 28 165 15 104
383 06-20-84 Lot 24 167 13 104
384 06-20-84 Lot 45 148 14 106
385 06-20-84 Lot 49 143 14 102
386 06-20-84 Lot 50 139 13 103
387 06-20-84 Lot 50 141 15 104
388 06-20-84 Lot 48 140 14 106
389 06-20-84 Lot 50 144 15 103
390 06-20-84 Lot 49 ,143 14 104
391 06-20-84 Lot 50 147 14 106
392 06-20-84 Lot 48 145 16 104
393 06-20-84 Lot 47 148 15 102
394 06-20-84 Lot 49 148 16 105
395 06-20-84 Lot 50 151 12 103
396 06-20-84 Lot 47 150 14 102
397 06-20-84 Lot 15 167 15 101
398 06-20-84 Lot 31 150 13 103
399 06-20-84 Lot 32 149 15 102
go0 06-20-84 Lot 30 151 14 102
401 06-20-84 Lot 30 153 14 102
402 06-21-84 Lot 11 161 11
403 06-21-84 Lot 9 158 14
404 06-21-84 Sombrosa 162 13
405 06-21-84 Lot 83 164 14
406 06-21-84 Lot 84 162 15
407 06-21-84 Lot 65 178 13
105
103
103
101 102
DATE
'06-19-84
LOCATION UNIT 1 ELEVATIO
MOISTUR DRY DEN
% pcf
I REL.COMP. SOIL
% 1 TYPE
92
90 E
92 0
91
91 !I
91 90 D"
92 91 E
92 91 ~-._ E
91
92 ;
91 0
90
90 E
91 90 B"
92 0
91 91 ii!4
91 0
92
90
90 D
2 iz
97 C
Dividend
I /
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FLELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
/
W.O. 1309
TEST
NO. NOTE
408
409
410
411
412
DATE
06-;l-84
06-21-84
06-21-84
06-21-84
06-21-84
Lot 67
Lot 6
Lot 75
Lot 74
181 11 108 95
183 14 103 90
153 17 103 92
183 16 102 91
184 13 102 91
416 06-22-E) Lot 75 185 13 105 91
417 06-22-84 Lot 73 187 14 103 92
418 06-22-84 Lot 74 186 15 105 93 419 06-22-84 Lot 75 188 13 109 94 420 06-22-84 Lot 82 ~167 15 111 99 421 06-22-84. Lot 83 168 17 107 96 422 06-22-84 Lot 74 188 14 112 96
423 06-22-84 Lot 1 120 14 107 95 424 06-22-84 La 2 120 14 104 92 425 06-22-84 Lot 1 122 15 103 92
426 06-22-84 Lot 2 123 14 110 94 427 06-22-84 Lot 24 169 13 103 92 428 06-22-84 Lot 23 173 13 104 91
429 06-22-84 Lot 24 172 13 109 93 430 06-22-84 Lot 27 169 16 109 97 431 06-22-84 Lot 25 170 15 107 95
432 06-22-84 LE.-t 25 173 14 106 91
433 06-22-84 Lot 24 174 12 107 94
434 06-22-84 Lot 23 175 15 101 90
435 06-25-84 Lot 31 152, 13 104 92 436 06-25-84 Lot 30 153 15 105 93 437 06-25-84 Lot 30 156 14 102 91 438 06-25-84 Lot 29 161 16 102 91 439 06-25-84 Lot 27 167 14 106 91 440 06-25-84 Lot 27 169 13 103 92
441 06-25-84 Lot 26 165 13 103 92 442 06-25-84 Lot 26 169 14 106 94 443 06-25-84 Lot 26 171 15 107 95
444 06-25-84 Lot 25 1~77 13 104 90 445 06-25-84 Lot 24 177 15 104 92 446 06-25-84 Lot 1 127 14 102 91
LOCATION UNIT 1
Lot 75
SLEVATIOI
IOISTURI )RY DE) REL.COMP SOIL
% pcf %~ TYPE
D
D
B
” 0
B
A
0
B
A
E
E
0
B
0
C
IFi
C
0
:
D
B
B
0
0
E
A
B
B
0
B
A
0
0
TEST
NO. NOTI
447 06-25-84 Lot 2 125
448 06-25-84 Lot 1 129
449 06-25-84 Lot 2 127
450 451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
464
466
06-26-84 Lot 1 131
06-26-84 Lot 2 131
06-26-84 Lot 7 154
06-26-84 Lot 10 160
06-26-84 Lot 13 163
06-26-84 Lot 8 160
06-26-84 Lot 11 164
06-26-84 Lot 12 165
06-26~84 Lot 1 134
06-26-84 Lot 2 134
06-26-84 Ld 14 168
06-26-84 Lot 13 170
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
482
483
486
487
489
490 491 492
s
s
S
s
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
DATE LOCATION UNIT 1 ELEVATIOI
06-27-84 Lot 84
06-27-84 Lot 40
06-27-84 Lot 50
06-27-84 Lot 48
06-27-84 Lot 46
06-27-84 Lot 83
06-27-84 Lot 38
06-27-84 Lot 37
06-27-84 Lot 36
06-27-84 Lot 85
06-27-84 Lot 83
06-27-84 Lot 83
06-27-84 Lot 85
174
144
147
150
153
176
136
132
140
178
180.
182
184
06-28-84 Lot 71 186
06-28-84 Lot 67 184
06-28-84 Lot 65 188
06-28-84 Lot 75 179
06-28-84 Lot 64 161 06-28-84 Lot 64 165
06-28-84 Lot 6 155
1 ,
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
IOISTUR
%
14
13
15
14
13
17
14
15
15
15
14
13
14
13
15
12
15
13
14. 13
12
13
15
13
13
15
12
13
13
13
11
14
14 14 11 --
)RY DE! REL.COMP SOIL
pcf %. TYPE
102 91 B
106 91 A
104 92 B
112 96
107 92
102 91
102 91
103 92
104 93
106 91
106 94
103 92
102 91
105 91
108 96
2
E
B
0
:
0
0
:
0
107 91
107 95
103 92
108 93
103 90 104 92
103 92
109 97 107 91
111 95
108 96, 107 91 107 91
C
0
::
D
B
0
:
C
:
C
105
104
107
106
106 104 109
91 A 92 0 91 C. 91 A
94 0
;23 :
W.O. 1309
Dividend
TEST
NO. NOTE
493
494
495 S
496 S
497 S
DATE
06-is-84
06-28-84
06-28-84
06-28-84
06-28-84
Lot 25
Lot 27
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 2
172 14 106
167 13 105
130 14 106
127 15 105
131 12 108
501 S 06-29-84 Lot 6 153 13 102 502 S 06-29-84 Lot 6 151 13 108
503 06-29-84 Lot 5 137 12 108
504 06-29-84 Lot 5 139 13 102
505 06-29-84 Lot 5 141 14 104
506 06-29-84 Lot 5 144 15 102
511 07-02-84 Sombrosa 160 16 104
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521 s
522
523
524 S
526
527
528
529
530
531
532 533 534 s
07-03-84 Lot 50 151
07-03-84 Lot 49 151
07-03-84 Lot 48 ~150
07-03-84 Lot 47 150.
07-03-84 Lot 79 183
07-03-84 Lot 80 179
07-03-84 Lot 81 176
07-03-84 Lot 82 171
07-03-84 Lot 5 134
07-03-84 Lot 5 141
07-09-84 Camino Alvaro 159,
07-09-84 Camino Alvaro 158
07-09-84 Lot 35 138
07-09-84 Lot 5 135
07-09-84 Lot 2 135
07-09-84 Lot 1 134
07-09-84 Lot 40 145
07-09-84 Lot 39 144
07-09-84 Lot 38 144
07-09-84 Lot 37 145 07-09-84 Lot 36 145 07-09-84 Lot 50 145
15
14
13
13
12
12
14
13
13
12
14
13
15
15
13
12
14
13
12
13
:t --
105
106
104
109
103
104
103 103
103
103
104
107
103
113
105
111
105
105
107.
106 105 112
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FLELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
W.O. 1309
LOCATION UNIT 1 ZLEVATIOI
LOISTUR 3RY DEh REL.COMP SOIL
% pcf %. TYPE
91
91
91
93
92
91
95
93
91
92
91
93
93
91
92
94
92
91
92
90
92
92
92
92 92
97
93
95
93
93
92
94
%
A
A
A
” B
C
E
A
B
6
B
E
0 A
B
A
B
D
B
D
0
0
0
A
6
D
0
D
B
6 A
: D
Dividend
TEST
NO. NOTE
535
539
535
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
S
sr
S
S
S
s
S
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
569
570
571
572
DATE
07-k&84
07-09-84
07-09-84
LOCATION UNIT 1 ILEVATIOI
Lot 50
Lot 14
Lot 50
147
171
147
IOISTURI >RY DEt REL.COMP
% pcf ,%.
.12 98 87
12 105 91
13 107 95
07-10-84 Lot 15 173 13 102 91 07-10-84 Lot 18 168 13 106 91 07-10-84 Lot 20 155 14 109 93 07-10-84 Lot 22 158 13 104 92 07-10-84 Lot 33 146 13 107 91 07-10-84 Camino Alvaro 121 16 106 95 07-10-84 Camino Alvaro 135 '14 106 91 07-10-84 Lot 13 170 13 112 96
07-10-84 Lot 12 167 13 109 93
07-10-84 Lot 11 167 12 108 93 07-10-84 Lot 10 166 14 109 94
07-10-84 Lot 9 164 13 103 92
07-10-84 Lot 8 162 14 113 97 07-10-84 Lot 7 158 13 107 92 07-10-84 Lot 6 155. 13 113 97
07-10-84 Lot 75 186 13 106 91 07-10-84 Lot 64 165 13 104 92
07-11-84 Lot 23
07-11-84 Lot 24
07-11-84 Lot 25
07-11-84 Lot 26
07-11-84 Lot 27 07-11-84 Lot 28
07-11-84 Lot 29
07-11-84 Lot 30 07-11-84 Lot 31
07-11-84 Lot 32
07-11-84 Lot 64
177
177
175
173
169
::i.
156
152~
149
.166
12
12
12
11
13
11
12
12
13
12
13
12
13 11
13
113
106
108
109
103
104
111
110
105
109
104
07-12-84 Lot 77
07-12-84 Lot 80
07-12-84 Lot 82
07-12-84 Lot 84
192
1,86 179 184
106
103 108 107
97
91
92
94
91
92
95
94
91
93
92
91
92 93 91
I /
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FLELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
W.O. 1309
SOIL
TYPE
!z
,B
!z
C
c"
!i
:
::
:
A
:
0
:
iTr
:
C
i
C
0
A
:: C
Dividend TABLE I W.O. 1309
TEST
NO. NOTE
575
576
577
DATE
07-;2-84
07-12-84
07-12-84
Lot 15 158 11 105 91
Lot 16 165 13 108 92 Lot 17 162 11 109 94
578 07- 13-84 Lot 18 158 11 105 91 579 07-l 3-84 Lot19 155 13 112 96 580 07-13-84 Lot 20 152 12 113 97 581 07-13-84 Lot 21 149 12 110 94 582 07-13-84 Lot 22 144 12 104 90 583 07-l 3-84 Lot 34 144 14 106 91 584 07-13-84 Lot 33 144 12 102 91 585 07-13-84 Camino Alvaro 162 12 106 91 586 07-13-84 Camino Alvaro 157 14 108 92
585 a
586 a
587
588
589
590
591
593
594
595
596
07-16-84 Lot 18 160 12 111 95 07- 16-84 Lot 20 154 14 106 91 07-16-84 Lot 22 147 13 105 91 07-16-84 Lot 27 171 16 108 96 07-16-84 Lot 29 162, 14 114 97
07-16-84 Lot 31 ,154.. 13 107 91 07-16-84 Lot 32 147 13 107 91
07-16-84 Lot 42 196 12 105 91
07-16-84 Lot 75 190 12 110 94 07-16-84 Lot 74 189 11 111 95
07-16-84 Lot 73 188 12 108 93
601 07-18-84 Lot 79 185.
602 07-18-84 Lot 80 181
603 07-18-84 Via Pepita 147 604 07-18-84 Via Pepita 145 605 07-18-84 Via Pepita 140
11
12
13
11
13
12
12
11
12
11
13 --
105
103
103
105
104
606 07- 19-84 Lot 81 178
607 07-19-84 Lot 82 174 608 07-19-84 Lat 83 169 609 07-19-84 Lot 84 168 610 07-19-84 Lot 85 171 611 07-19-84 Camino Cat0 172
108~
106
113
105
105
110
91
92
92
91
92
92
91
97
91
90
94
SUMMARY OF FLELD DENSITY TEST‘ RESULTS
LOCATION UNIT 1 ELEVATION
IOISTUR
%
)RY DEh REL.COMP SOIL
pcf %~ TYPE
A
A
c
A
C
C
i
A
:
C
: A
:
-. C
c ,.
t
:
A
0
:
0
: c
A
:
Dividend TABLE I
TEST
r10. NOTE
i12
i13
i16
i17
DATE
17-i9-84
17-19-84
17-19-84
)7-19-84
LOCATION UNIT 1
Jamino Cat0
Zamino Cat0
Sorte Celeste
Zorte Celeste
;28 17-23-84 iombrosa,
i29 17-23-84 iombrosa
i76
i77
t7-27-84
17-27-84,
-ot 81
mot 82
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
NOTES : a. = test number inadvel
used more than one
r = retest
s = slope test
ZLEVATIOI
158
146
161
163
173
165
178
172
!ntly
IOISTURI
%
,I4
14
14
11
11
12
13
13
,RY DEN REL.COMP,
pcf %.
102 91
109 ,93
102 91
105 91
107
109
113
109
92
94
97
93
W.O. 1309
SOIL
TYPE
:
0
‘A
2
C
C
Divdend
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
MAXIMUM
SOIL DRY DENSITY
TYPE SOIL DESCRIPTION (USCS) (pcf)
A Silty sand, medium, dark brown (SM) 116.0
0 Silty sand, fine. light yellow-brown (SM) 112.5
C Clayey sand, fine to medium,
orange-brown (SC) 117.0
D Silty sand, very fine to fine, brown (SM) 114.0
E Clayey silt, light green, with some
fine sand (ML) 112.0
W.O. 1309
OPT IMUM
MOISTURE
(%I
12.5
14.5
12.5
11.0
16.0
EBERHART L: STONE. INC.
Dividend W.O. 1309
LOT
NO.
l- 2
3- 4
5
6- 9
10-12
13-14
15-17
18-22
23-27
28-32
33-35
36-39
40
41-46
47-50
51-55
5658
59-62
63-64
65- 69
70-72
73-75
76-77
78
79-80
81-82
83-85
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY‘TEST RESULTS
SOLUBLE EXPANSION
SULFATE (%I INDEX
0.14 37
0.08 50
0.46 42
0.16 31
--- 15
0.02 7
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.03
---
---
---
---
0.02
---
---
---
---
---
3
17
17
0
16
38
24
3
5
4
0
1
1
35
3
26
4
2
12
8
1
POTENTIAL
EXPANSION
Low
Low
LOW
LOW
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
LOW
Very Low
LOW
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
ERERHART L STONE, INC.
Divdend W.O. 1309
TABLE IV
LOT
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM DEPTH OF FILL
APPROX. MAX.
DEPTH OF FILL
(feet)
14
15
cut
LOT
NO.
33
34
35
cut 36
3 37
20 38
28 39
32 40
22 41
34 42
32 43
29 44
31 45
28 46
32 47
31 48
33 49
29 50
32 51
32 52
33 53
32 54
25 55
23 56
23 57
24 58
25 59
23 60
25 61
22 62
15 63
11 64
APPROX. MAX.
DEPTH OF FILL
(feet 1
37
37
36
32
32
31
25
10
EBERHART R STONE, INC.
Dividend
LOT
NO.
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
TABLE IV (cont.) ,
,j APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM DEPTH OF FILL
APPROX. MAX.
DEPTH OF FILL
(feet)
cut
cut
cut
cut
cut
cut
cut
cut
7
8
LOT
y&
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
w
85
W.O. 1309
APPROX. MAX.
DEPTH OF FlLL
(feet)
10
cut
cut
3
3
3
14
22
29
10
ERERHART P STONE, INC.
I /
Divdend TABLE V W.O. ~1369 ,
r.lllnEl IklEC El30 oEElnENTI,%I EnIlhlnarlnklc PdCEn n*, CA,, E”D*.IC,n*I
LOT
IO - 35,
41 - 64,
10 - 72,
16 - 85
““IYLL,I.LI I V.. I.-u,“-.. . .r.L I -“I..#-, ,“I._ YrsIILY “I. .?“I. I nrryy,v,.
POTENTIAL FOOTINGS SLABS
EXPANSION
(UBC 29-2) EMBEDMENT REINFORCEMENT THICK. REINFORCEMENT PRESAT. BASE
1 STORY 2 STORY COURSE
Very Low
(O-20)
12” perimeter 18” perimeter 12” Interior 18” Interior
I - 9,
36 - 40.
55 - 69,
73 - 75
Low
(21-50)
12” perimeter 18” Perimeter 2 No. 4 bars: 12” interior 18” interior 1 top, 1 bottom
Medium
(51-90)
18” perimeter 18” perimeter 2 No. 4 bars: 4” net 6”x6”, #6x#6 120% of 4” 12” interior 18” interior 1 top, 1 bottom W.W.F. optimum
or moisture -
No. 3 bars 8 24”
O.C. each way
High 24” perimeter 24” perimeter 4 No. 4 bars: 4” net 6”x6”, #6x#6 120% of 4” (91-130) 2” interior 18” interior 2 top, 2 bottom W.W.F. optimum
or or moisture - -
2 No. 6 bars: No. 3 bars @ 18”
1 top, 1 bottom O.C. each way
Very High 24” perimeter 24” perimeter 4 No. 5 bars: 6” net No. 4 bars @ 18” 120% of 6” (7130) 2” interior 18” interior 2 top, 2 bottom O.C. each way optimum
or Or moisture - -
2 No. 8 bars: No. 3 bars @ 12”
1 top, 1 bottom O.C. each way
Notes on the following page are considered part of this table.
Dividend NOTES TO TABLE V W.O. 1309
1) These guidelines are based on site soil expansion and should not preclude more restrictive structural
or agency requirements. As an alternative to conventionally reinforced concrete foundations, post-
tensioned structural slab systems, designed by a structural engineer, may be utilised.
Footing embedments should be measured below lowest adjacent grade. At the time of concrete placement,
footing excavations should be moist and free of desiccation cracks. 2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
81
9)
10)
. .
A reinforced concrete grade beam should be constructed across garage entrances, with similar depth
and reinforcement as adjacent perimeter footings.
For soil with a potential expansion greater than “Low”, interior isolated spread footings and/or partial
length footings are not recommended.
Where presaturation is recommended beneath interior slabs, the recommended moisture should penetrate
to the depth of the perimeter footings. The moisture content should be tested by the geotechnical
consultant 24 hours prior to the placement of concrete. Though presaturation of slab subgrade is not
a requirement for Very Low and Low expansion potentials, optimum moisture conditions should be maintained
or reestablished just prior to the placement of slab concrete,
Below proposed slabs-on-grade in areas to be tiled orcarpeted, a visqueen-type moisture barrier should
be placed at grade and be overlain by one inch of protective sand cover. This moisture barrier should
be heavily overlapped or sealed at splices,
Where a base course is recommended beneath interior slabs; it should consist of pea gravel, clean sand,
or other granular material acceptable to the geotechnical consultant. The above moisture barrier/sand
cover requirement may be included as part of the recommended base course thickness.
Slab reinforcement should be supported at mibslab height.
Garage slabs should be placed separate from footings, Garage slab reinforcement may be omitted if slab
cracking can be tolerated, provided that the slabs are saw cut or jointed for crack control.
For soil with a potential expansion greater than “Low”, slabs should be free-floated or structurally tied
to perimeter footings. Structural ties could be provided by the placement of No. 3 bars @ 24” O.C.,
bent from perimeter footings about three feet into the slab.