HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 83-16; Santa Fe Ridge; Soils Report; 1983-10-07EBERHART & STONE, INC. DAN R. EBERHART, CEG
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS GERALD L. STONE, RCE
221 I E. WINSTON ROAD, SUITE F . ANAHEIM. CA 92806 . ,714) 991 -0163 6353 EL CAMINO REAL. SUITE C . CARLSBAD. CA 92008 . ,714) 438.9416
CEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
SANTA FE RIDGE. C.T. - d-LO% I .
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ES- IL
W.O. 1265 October 7, 1983
Prepared for:
The Anden Group
6544 Corte Montecito
Carlsbad, California 92008
Anden W.O. 1265
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TEXT
REPORT ON INVEST~JGATION
Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
Proposed Site Development ;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
Topography
Vegetation
Drainage
Previous Land Use
Field Investigation and Subsurface Exploration.. . . . . . . Page 2
Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2
Setting
Surficial Units
Bedrock Unit
Faulting
Landsliding
Ground Water
Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3
Ground Shaking
Liquefaction
Ground Rupture
OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Geology and Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5
Ceotechnical Parameters for Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5
Shrinkage, Bulking and Subsidence
Slopes
Transition Lots
Excavation Characteristics
-~- Canyon Subdrain
EBERHART 8 STONE, INC.
Anden W.O. 1265
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TEXT
Crading..............i............................... Page 6
Observation and Testing
Clearing
Alluvial Removal
Subdrain Placement
Fill Placement
Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7
Bearing Value
Expansive Soil Guidelines
Foundations Adjacent a Top-of-Slope
Grading Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page a
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page a
APPENDIX
References.. .............................................. A-l
Description of Laboratory Tests ........................... A-2
Location Map.. ................. ..! ........................ Plate 1
Seismicity Maps.. .......................................... Plates 2a through tc
Seismic Parameters ........................................ Table I
Summary of Laboratory Test Data .......................... Table II
Unified Soil Classification.. ................................ Plate A
Log of Backhoe Trenches ................................. Plates A-l through A-4
Boring Logs.. ............................................. Plates B-l through B-6
Guidelines for Residential Foundations Based on
Soil Expansion ....................................... Table III
Standard Specifications for Grading Projects.. ............. Pages 1 through 13
EBERHART 8 STONE, INC.
Anden W.O. 1265
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX
Grading Details ........................................... Plates CD-1 through CD-6
Geologic Map (pocket enclosure). .......................... Plate 3
Geologic Cross-Sections (pocket enclosure). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plate 4
EBERHART 8 STONE. INC.
Anden -l- W.O. 1265
REPORT ON INVESTIGATION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Presented herein is a report on this firm’s Geotechnical Investigation for
Santa Fe Ridge, C.T. 83-9, Carlsbad, California.
The purpose of this investigation was to determine the nature of the earth
materials underlying the site in consideration of the proposed grading and
residential development. The scope of this investigation included the following:
Review of the published and unpublished geotechnical and
seismic data within and near the site.
Review of aerial photographs.
Review of the tentative tract map.
General site reconnaissance and geologic mapping.
Exploratory trenching and drilling.
Selective sampling.
Laboratory testing and engineering analyses.
Discussion of site seismicity.
Preparation of this report.
PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT
The tentative map indicates that the site will be developed for the construction
of 174 single-family residential structures, open space, and interior streets.
Cut-and-fill grading is proposed to create level building pads for the proposed
structures. Cut and fill slopes are proposed at a slope ratio of 2:l (horizontal
to vertical). Side slopes less than 5 feet high are proposed at 1.5:l. The
maximum heights of cut and fill slopes are 36 feet and 31 feet, respectively.
The proposed structures will be slab-on-grade, wood-framed, one- and two-
story residential dwellings, yielding light structural loading.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is an irregular-shaped parcel of land consisting of about
50 acres of undeveloped land in the city of Carlsbad, California. The site is
bounded on the south by Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, by an existing residential
development on the west, and by undeveloped land on the northern and eastern
sides of the site. The site in relation to the surrounding area is shown on the
accompanying Location Map, Plate 1.
EBERHART 8 STONE. INC.
Anden -2- W.O. 1265
Topography
Topography at the site consists of north-south trending rolling hills, with an
intervening valley and tributary side canyon swales. The site slopes gently
to the south, with maximum relief on the order of 120+ feet. Natural slopes
vary to a maximum slope ratio of 4:l.
Veqetation
Vegetation at the site may be divided into two distinct areas. The southern half
of the site is covered with a light to moderate growth of grasses and weeds,
12 inches to 18 inches high. In contrast, the northern half of the site is
covered with a thick growth of grasses, brush and weeds up to about ten feet
high. Scattered large trees parallel the canyon bottom.
Drainage
Onsite drainage is controlled by topography, directing surface runoff to
tributary swales, then south within the major canyon bottom offsite.
Previous Land Use
Based on this field investigation and a review of aerial photographs, the southern
half of the site had been dry farmed in the past.
FIELD INVESTIGATION AND SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
The subsurface geotechnical conditions were explored during July and August,
1983. Exploration consisted of excavating 12 backhoe trenches, 5 feet to 14 feet
deep, and 4 bucket-auger borings to a maximum depth of 34 feet. The
approximate locations of the trenches and borings are shown on the accompany-
ing Geologic Map, Plate 3. Visual and tactile identifications were made of the
materials encountered, and descriptions are presented on the boring logs and
logs of backhoe trench excavations. Bulk and relatively undisturbed samples
were obtained and transported to this firm’s laboratory for testing.
GEOLOGY
Sett inq
The site is located on the western flanks of the Peninsular Range Province. The site consists of an alluviated north-south trending valley, with gently
rolling hills to the east and west comprised of marine Eocene sandstone bedrock.
Surficial Units
Topsoil (no map symbol) : Residual topsoil mantles the bedrock and ranges
from one foot to two feet thick. It consists of brown to dark brown silty
sand to clayey sand, which is dry to moist, loose, desiccated, and porous.
EBERHART 8 STONE, INC.
Anden -3- W.0 1265
Alluvium (Qal) : Recent alluvium occupies the valley bottoms and tributary
swales of the site. Exploratory borings and backhoe trenches within alluviated
areas indicate that the thickness of this unit varies 5 feet to 15 feet. These
deposits consist of brown to orange-brown, fine silty sand and fine sand.
These materials were consistently dry to moist and low in density.
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
consist of fine to medium grained sandstone, with minor siltstone interbeds.
The sandstone is gray to yellow-brown, locally friable to moderately indurated,
and dense to very dense. Siltstone is gray to brown, moist, hard, and
massive.
Structure within the Delmar Formation’ is poorly developed and locally cross-
bedded. Well-developed planar features were also lacking. Locally, bedding is
undulatory, with shallow dips ranging from 5 degrees to 30 degrees toward the
southwest on the west side of the main canyon, and 10 degrees to 20 degrees
toward the north on the east side of the main canyon.
Faulting
Geologic literature and field exploration do not indicate direct evidence of
faulting within or near the site. A review of aerial photographs for the site
indicates that a fault may be present in the main canyon bottom. The estimated
location of this possible fault is-shown on the enclosed Geologic Map, Plate 3.
No indication of recent movement along this possible fault was observed in this
field investigation, nor on the aerial photographs. Movement along this possible
fault is estimated to have occurred more than 2 million years ago.
Landslidinq
Geologic literature, review of aerial photographs, and field exploration, do not
indicate the presence of landsliding at the site.
Ground Water
Heavy seepage was encountered in one backhoe trench excavation (TR-11) at
3 feet, within alluvium. Ground water was not encountered in the boring
excavations; however, localized very moist to wet areas were observed at the
alluvium/bedrock contact.
SEISMICITY
Ground Shaking
The Southern California area is seismically active. Because of the proximity
of the site to several nearby active and potentially active faults, moderate
ground shaking could occur at the site as a result of an earthquake on any
one of them. The fault zone capable of producing the strongest shaking at the
EBERHART 8 STONE, INC.
Anden -4- W.O. 1265
site is the Rose Canyon. The site in relation to the active and potentially
active faults in the region, as well as epicenters of previous earthquakes,
is presented on Plates 2b and 2c, respectively.
Ground response during a seismic event may be estimated for a particular
site on the basis of previous ground motion studies, data from previous earth-
quakes, activity of the faults influencing the site, and current state-of-the-art
understanding of seismic forces. Seismic parameters for active and potentially
active faults within a loo-km radius of the site are presented in Table I.
The probability of any site in California experiencing seismic accelerations of
varying levels during a loo-year period has been computed by Housner as
follows :
Acceleration (%g) % Probability (100 yrs)
5.0 99
10.0 98
15.0 87
20.0 63
25.0 37
30.0 19
35.0 8.7
The seismic parameters listed in Table I for the Rose Canyon fault zone
indicate bedrock beneath the site may experience repeatable accelerations of
0.189. The probability of this occurring, based on Housner’s calculations,
is 73 percent during a loo-year period.
Liquefaction
Since the factors generally considered to contribute to liquefaction are not
present at the site, the potential for liquefaction is considered nil.
Ground Rupture
Since no active faults lie within or adjacent the site, ground rupture at the
site due to fault displacement is not anticipated.
EBERHART 8 STONE. INC.
Anden -5- W.O. 1265
OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations in this report are opinions based upon this firm’s exploration,
testing, and professional judgment. Opinions and recommendations are applicable
to the proposed development of the site under the purview of this report, and
should be incorporated into project design and construction practice.
Based on this investigation, the site may be developed for future residential use,
as indicated on the tentative map, provided that the recommendations and speci-
fications presented herein are incorporated into design and construction practice.
Grading should be conducted in accordance with local codes, this firm’s standard
grading specifications, and the recommendations within this report.
GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
No adverse effects are anticipated due to ground water.
No evidence of previous landsliding was encountered, nor is it anticipated.
Cut slopes with adversely oriented planar features are not anticipated.
Ground rupture due to fault displacement is not anticipated.
Moderate ground shaking could occur at the site as a result of an earthquake.
Proposed structures should be designed to resist seismic forces in accordance
with the criteria contained in the 1982 Uniform Building Code for seismic zone 4.
CEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS FOR GRADING
Shrinkage, Bulking and Subsidence
Based on the results of laboratory testing and evaluation of the proposed grading,
shrinkage and bulking factors for each material type are estimated as follows:
Material Type Shrinkage Bulking
Topsoil 8% --
Alluvium 8%
Bedrock --
Subsidence in fill areas is anticipated to be negligible.
--
1%
Slopes
Cut and fill slopes up to 40 feet high may be constructed at a ratio of 2:l
(horizontal to vertical). Side yard slopes less than 5 feet high may be constructed
at a ratio of l.5:1.
EBERHART 8 STONE. INC.
Anden -6- W.O. 1265
The proposed cut slopes are not anticipated to expose adversely oriented
planar features. Should localized areas of adversely oriented planar features
be encountered during grading, replacement with stabilization fill will be
recommended. Details for stabilization fills are presented on Plate CD-3.
Fill slopes should be keyed into firm materials. Details for fill keys are presented
on Plate CD-4.
Transition Lots
Where a transition of cut-to-fill exists within a proposed building area, and five
feet beyond the perimeter, the cut portion should be overexcavated about three
feet and replaced with compacted fill. Details for removal of transition lots are
presented on Plate CD-5.
Excavation Characteristics
Earth materials at the site may be readily excavated by conventional heavy-duty
earthmoving equipment, with moderate ripping required in bedrock areas. Blasting
and generation of oversized materials are not anticipated.
Canyon Subdrain
A subdrain system will be required beneath proposed fills in canyon areas.
Details for canyon subdrains are presented on Plate GD-1.
GRADING
Observation and Testing
Prior to the start of grading, a meeting should be held at the site with the
developer, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical consultant
to discuss the work schedule and geotechnical aspects of the grading.
Grading, including clearing, alluvial removal and fill placement, shall be
accomplished under the full-time observation and testing of the geotechnical
consultant.
Clearing
Vegetation, trash, and other deleterious materials should be removed within
areas to be graded and wasted from the site.
Alluvial Removal
Alluvium is present within canyon bottoms and swale areas and ranges from
5 feet to 13 feet deep. Limits and depths of these materials at boring and
trench locations are indicated on the geologic map, Plate 3. These materials
are considered unsuitable in their present state for support of the proposed
compacted fill and/or structures. Therefore, overexcavation of these materials
to firm underlying bedrock will be required. Overexcavated alluvium, free
of vegetation or other deleterious materials, may be utilized as comoacted fill.
EB’ERHART 8 ‘STO:NE, l;?lC. ._L_-.
Anden -7- W.O. 1265
Prior to fill placement, overexcavated areas should be scarified to a depth of
6 inches, moisture-conditioned to near optimum, and compacted to 90% or more
of the laboratory maximum density.
Subdrain Placement
Subsequent to alluvial removal, a subdrain system should be placed in the
canyon bottoms. Details for subdrain construction are presented on Plate CD-l.
The final location of the subdrain will be determined by the geotechnical
consultant during grading.
Fill Placement
Subsequent to alluvial removal and subdrain placement, fill placement may
proceed. Fill should be placed in loose lifts restricted to about six inches
in thickness. Each lift should be moisture-conditioned as needed to obtain
near-optimum conditions, then compacted to 90% or more of the laboratory
maximum density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the
desired rough grades are achieved.
FOUNDATIONS
The following preliminary recommendations have been developed for the construc-
tion of the proposed one- and two-story single-family residences. Wood-framed,
slab-on-grade construction yielding light structural loading is anticipated.
Based on the proposed grading and anticipated light structural loading, post-
construction settlement should be within generally accepted tolerable limits.
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 cement should
be utilized in concrete for foundations.
Bearing Value
For preliminary 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 fill or bedrock.
EBERHART 8 STONE. INC.
Anden -8- W.O. 1265
Expansive Soil Guidelines
The potential expansion of the onsite soils ranges from Very Low to Low for
sandstone and Medium for alluvium and siltstone. General guidelines for
residential foundations based on soil expansion are presented in Table Ill.
Upon completion of rough pad grades, a lot-by-lot evaluation of foundation
bearing materials will be made at which time specific recommendations for
construction will be presented.
Foundatlms 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.
GRADING PLAN REVIEW
When grading plans have been prepared, they should be provided to the
geotechnical consultant for review and comment to determine their compliance
with the intentions of this report.
SUMMARY
The opinions and recommendations presented in this report are based upon site
conditions as they existed at the time of this firm’s investigation, and further
assume that exploratory trenches and borings are representative of subsurface
conditions throughout the site. Although not anticipated, materials adjacent
and/or beneath those observed may have different characteristics. This firm’s
opinions and recommendations are further based upon laboratory testing,
experience with similar projects, and professional judgment. No warranty is
expressed nor implied.
This report is subject to review by the controlling governmental body.
Respectfully submitted,
Dan R. Eberhart
President
CEC 965
RJF/DRE/GLS/bw
EBERHART P STONE. INC.
and Vice President
RCE 32233
Anden
EBERHART 8 STONE, INC.
W.O. 1265
APPENDIX
Anden
A-l
REFERENCES
W.O. 1265
Publications
Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Accelerations from Earth-
quakes in California, C.D.M.G., MS-23.
Hayes, Walter W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions,
U.S.G.S., Professional Paper 1114.
Housner, G.W., 1970, Strong Ground Motion, Earthquake Engineering, edited
by R.W. Wiegel.
Hutton, L. Katherine, Allen, Clarence R. and others, Southern California
Array for Research on Local Earthquakes and Teleseims (SCARLET),
Preliminary Epicenters for 1975 through 1980, CalTech - U.S.G.S.
Jennings, Charles W., 1975, Fault Map of California, C.D.M.G., Map No. 1.
Moran, D.E., Slosson, J.E., Stone, R.O., Yelverton, C.A., 1973 Geology
Seismicity and Environmental Impact, A.E.G., Special Publication.
Moyle, W.R. Jr., 1974, Geohydrologic Map of Southern California, U.S.G~.S.,
Water Resources Investigations 48-73 open file.
Ploesel , M. R . , and Slosson, J.E., 1974, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations
from Earthquakes, California Geology.
Real, C.R., Toppozada, T.R., and Parke, D.L., 1978, Earthquake Epicenter
Map of California, C.D.M.G., MS-39.
Rogers, T. H . , 1965, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet, C.D.M.G.
Schnabel, P.B. and Seed, H.B., 1973, Accelerations in Rock for Earthquakes
in Western United States, S.S.A., Vol. 63, No. 2.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M. and Kiefer, F.W., 1968, Characteristics of Rock
Motions During Earthquakes, E.E.R.C., 68-5.
Previous Reports
Geotechnical Investigation for the Major Roads Project, Ranch0 La Costa,
City of Carlsbad, California; including portions of Alga Road, Melrose
Avenue, Corintia Street, La Costa Avenue, Mission Estancia, and Ranch0
Santa Fe Road, by Eberhart-Axten and Associates, Inc., dated October 19,
1980 (W.O. 1140).
EBERHART 8 STONE, INC.
Anden W.O. 1265
Aerial Photos
Flown by Rick Engineering:
4-11-53 Flight #AXN-8M. 16-17-18
10-31-73 Flight #73/20, 21 and 22.
Flown by Robert J. Lung & Associates:
4-i-83 Flight #153.64, l-l and l-2
EBERHART 8 STONE, INC.
Anden W.O. 1265
A-2
DESCRIPTION OF LABORATORY TESTS
Classification
Field classifications were verified in the laboratory’ by visual and tactile identi-
flcation. Soils have been classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classifi-
cation System.
Moisture-Density
Moisture-density determinations were conducted on relatively undisturbed samples.
The results are presented in Table II and on Plates B-l through B-4.
Maximum dry density and optimum moisture were determined in accordance with
ASTM D1557-70 and are presented in Table II.
Potential Expansion
Determinations of potential soil expansion were made on representative samples
in accordance with ASCE Expansion Index Test (UBC Standard 29-2). The
results are presented in Table I I.
Sulfate Content
Determinations of soluble sulfate content were made on representative samples,
by Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc., in accordance with California Method of Test
No. 417A. The results are presented in Table II.
Direct Shear
Direct shear tests were conducted on relatively undisturbed as well as remolded
samples. The samples were tested in brass rings with 2.5-inch inside diameters.
The rate of strain used was 0.05 in. /min. The specimens were inundated
for approximately 24 hours under normal loads and during shearing. The
results are presented in Table II.
EBERHART 8 STONE, INC.
LOCATION MAP
FROM: RANCH0 SANTA FE
AND ENCINITAS, CA. 7.5’
QUADRANGLE, U.S.G.S.
SANTE FE RIDGE
EBERHART 8 STONE INC.
GEOTECHNlCAL CONSULTANTS 731 I FAsr WLNSTON ROAD.S”ITL F .ANA”LIH. CALIFORNIA99ZBO
W.O. 1265 1 DATE: 10/7/83
SITF I OCATION 1 PLATE: I
EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS
FOR SEISMICITY MAPS
FAULT MAP, PLATE : 2-b
ACTIVE AND POTENTIALLY ACTIVE FAULTS
-.*..*.”
TOTAL LENGTH OF FAULT ZONE THAT BREAKS PUATERNARY
DEPOSITS OR THAT HAS HAD SEISMIC ACTIVITY
FAULT SEGMENT WITH SURFACE RUPTURE DURING A HISTORIC
EARTHQUAKE, OR WITH ASEISMIC FAULT CREEP.
(From A.E.G. Recently Active Faults In So. Callf. Raglon Map, 1973)
EPICENTER MAP, PLATE:2-c
APPROXIMATE EPICENTER LOCATIONS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
REGION WITH ASSIGNED MAGNITUDES GREATER THAN 5.0
cl 5.0 - 5.9
0 6.0 - 6.9
n
7.0 - 7.9
0 8.0 or Greater
(From U.S.G.S. Earthquake Eplesnter Map of Colltornla,l978 8
CalTech-U.S.G.S. Prsllmlnary Epicenters for I-75 tnru 12-SD)
/ 1211 tbs WNSTON ROAD. SUITS F . ANA”LIH. CALIIORNIA oao
SEISMIC MAPS UPDATED THRU: IO-81
3 . . . . . . 1.
/’
‘.. ‘... . . . . .
‘......
g ‘..
= -I - d-
c
D
D..Qe s A.+* ‘$4> ‘.I?’
\ u
5 m
Y u
s,z*-
b
ii
\
--
100 km radius
-0 d
9
0 S
-n
c,
\ -1
%
q
q
lcILOYE,L”I
I
APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION7
I M P E R I A L I
c!!? q
cp
7 f
)
/ .-- -iI
i i
:,
( .-c, ------T
/
f
cl
q Cl u
\ \
ii t(
cl cl 0 0
Cl Cl q q o q q o Q Q q 0 q 0 G q G q N N cl cl Ql Ql q q 0 0
A 100 km radius
;J”
/--- ---7
,j
L !-+ “R!ZO
B
so &$~4
1 1 lie n,l”rll L >up / , TABLE .’ ‘W.O. ,265 ’
SEISMIC PARAMETERS
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM CREDIBLE 0TENTIA.L DISTANCE LENGTH RICHTER AGE OF EARTHQUAKE MAXIMUM PROBc,BLE EARTHOUAME
blrS.%TI”E FROM SITE OF MAGNITUDE MO.sT RECENT
FAULT TO FAULT FAULT RICHTER OF SURFACE PEAK RICHTER WOR!ZONTAL ORO”NomOC*~ PRCOOMINANT O”RAT,ON
HAONlTUDE HOR1ZONTAL
bnl0.I) ,rnlll,, HlSTOR,CAL DISPLA.CEMENT M*oNIT”OE ACCELERATION Gmrlt”, PER800 OF STRONO
INcd.2, ORO”Nomosk,
EARTHQUAKES ACCLLERATION wet. 4, mot. 3, AT SITE SnAKtNG A1 ,S.CO”d., SlTE,t..sO”dl
(Note,, ,or*at.r Iho” 5~0, INO,. I, ~ora~1; J ! PEAK REPEATABLE (Not. 5, tk.t* 6)
an Jacinto 46NE 130-2112 7.00 (1999) 1960 7.50 .ll 6.60 (1916) 7.00 .06 .06 .32 26
Anden TABLE II W.O. 1265
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA
TEST DEPTH
IN SITU IN SITU MAX. ANGLE OF
DRY MOISTURE DRY OPT. INTERNAL SOL.
DENSITY CONTENT DENS. MOIST. COHESION FRICTION EXPANSION SULF.
EXCA. (feet) uses Ipcf) (%I ( pcf) [%I c (psf) -8- (deg.) INDEX ( %I
TR-1
TR-1
TR-1
TR-1
O-6
2.0
4.5
6.5
TR-2 3.0
121.0 11.5 110 33
95 10
16
116 16
92 21
TR-3 O-8
TR-4
TR-4
l-4
4.0
SMlSP
SM
SM
--
SM
SM
SMISC
SC 104 14
TR-5 6.0 89 21
TR-5 8.0 106 10
TR-9 3.0 SM 98 19
TR-9 6.0 -- 96 8
B-l 5.0
B-l 10.0
B-l 15.0.
B-l 20.0
B-l 25.0
B-l 30.0
B-l 31-34
--
--
--
CL
118 12
113 12
112 12
115 9
117 12
108 16
111.0 16.0 90 33 7 0.0267
120.5 11.0 29 0.0126
385 28
70
Anden TABLE II W.O. 1265
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA
IN SITU IN SITU MAX. ANGLE OF
DRY MOISTURE DRY OPT. INTERNAL SOL.
TEST DEPTH DENSITY CONTENT DENS. MOIST. COHESION FRICTION EXPANSION SULF.
EXCA. (feet) uses ( pcf) (%) (pcf) 1%) c (psf) -0- (deg.1 INDEX (%I
B-2 5.0
B-2 10.0
B-2 15.0
B-2 20.0
B-3 5.0
B-3 15.0
B-4 5.0
B-4 7.0
B-4 10.0
B-4 15.0
B-4 20.0
--
--
--
--
SC
SC
SC
--
--
112 14
116 12
115 11
114 9
115 7
118 5
108 16
101 12
110 11
103 19
105 21
150 36
Unified Soil Classitic.tion
(Including Identification and Description)
-
T,pir.l Namn
I
5
d
ii ,*
,.I < * ,-‘i ; ‘. -z :‘i; c ;$” w f ;a 3 2 1 2 .5 : ’ r $
j; r ‘i
6 t - 5 8 * n 3
1 5 a . * .-
1 !: .I
jE E
,.: .f ‘j i-j : 3 !D : *i’i ;j je I- 0 r
3
: 5
4
Sib C.~d.. I”.‘l.Y”d.lill Ini,,“....
0Ay.y ~.1.&. ~r~..l-“ndch, Ink. tun.
w.II.,r.rlrd ,.“dS.’ #.Wdl, Y”d,. little 0. no liner Wide ranjr i” pin .i..l rod I”h.m”tial
l nlOY”ts of ZII I”Wmwdi.L. 1 prrtvie li..,.
Poxl~.~d.d .sml,. *n..oy ,mdr. lit,,. 0, “0 nner. P,cdomi”.“,l, one ,i*. or a rrncr of Sk, ri,k 3ornC mlemmdlatr size, mi,,in,y.
Sill, Y.dl. und.*ilt mi=ture..
Ch”., ,anch. .and<h, rni‘I”RI,
1 .:a u j: a x ss
I=
HL
l $-
,2 7;
VI CL
Oi**“ic tilt, an.3 O.,a.iC ,a,, day, 0, low y!zti.it,.
,nor,lnv lilts. “iCY.OU, 0. diaorna- CCOY, bnr randr or 111%, 1011% .h,LiC S,i.hl to mcdivn ) 5tor 10”D”C 1 22;:: 1
haaay,ic cbr, 0, bi,h phtici,,, I,,
R.n&,, idrn,i6d b, cob.. 0.30,. ,Dow, feel and ,rrp”mtl, by hbrou, ICXIUrc. Przt rnd dler hilhb owmic IOIlS. Hi& Or,anic Soils P,
, Bounds,, c,a,,idc.mm*: 5Olh Qosx,.in. ‘ , c.ml.“~tial c.8 ,.“U, ,vntobr 1 L:
PO, rumplr CW.CC. rrllw~dcd I’ad.,and nix,tlw “llh <II, Ibinder. ,1I All Il<“C .i.CI cm this chart an U.S. ,U”tid.
CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION
SP - W&d&d Penetration
R- F;R;I’,“ly Undisturbel
B- Bulk Sample
IJ-- Stabillred Groundwatel
- Groundwater Seepage
Gyoy/a r C%z;ive Bedrock
Loose Soft Soft
Medlum Dense Firm Mcdetately Hard
Dense Stiff Hard
Hard Very Hard
Moisture Condition
DV
Damp
Moist
Very Moist
Wet
B e
a
- Blow count for 6”
interval5 EBERHART 8 STONE IN6
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
1111 tK.TWlNSTON ROA.D.SUTE F.ANAWEIM.C*L,FORN,A 92806 12 - Blow c0unt for 12”
interval V.O. 1265 1 DATE: 10/7/83
i PLATF A
Anden W.O. 1265
LOG OF BACKHOE TRENCHES
Trench No.
uses
Symbol Depth (ft.) Field Description
1 SM ISP o-4.5 ALLUVIUM: Silty Sand to Sand,
fine grained, brown, slightly moist,
medium dense; roots.
SM
SM O-6.0
SP 6.0-12.0
4.5-6.0
6.0-10.0
12-O-14.0
Silty Sand, fine grained, gray-
brown, moist to very moist, loose
to slightly dense; minor porosity,
slight caving.
BEDROCK : Clayey Sandstone, firm
to medium grained, gray to orange-
brown, moist, medium dense to dense;
weathered, minor caliche.
Total Depth 10.0 feet
No ground water
Minor caving 4.5-6.0 feet
ALLUVIUM : Silty Sand, fine grained,
gray-brown, dry to slightly moist,
loose; desiccated, local roots.
Sand, fine grained, gray to orange-
brown slightly moist to moist, loose
to medium ‘dense; moderate to heavy
caving 6.0-12.0 feet, becomes wet
at 12.0 feet.
BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained.
gray, moist, medium dense to dense;
weathered, oxidized, massive.
Total depth 14.0 feet
No ground water
Caving 6.0-12.0 feet
EBERHART 8 STONE. INC. Plate A-,1
Anden
Trench No.
uses
Symbol Depth (ft.) Field Description
W.O. 1265
3 O-8.0 BEDROCK: Sandstone, very fine
grained, light gray, slightly moist,
dense to very dense; poorly developed
bedding, near- horizontal, minor iron
ozidation staining.
@ 3 feet B: Horizontal
@ 3 feet J: N5E, 84E
@ 6 feet B: N-S, 5W
Total depth 8 feet
No ground water
No caving
4 SMISC O-4.0
4.0-7.0
SP/SM O-5.0
5.0-10.0
SM O-2.0
ALLUVIUM: Silty Sand/Clayey Sand,
find grained, brown to red-brown,
dry to moist, loose to medium dense;
desiccated, abundant roots O-2 feet.
BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained,
gray, damp to moist, dense to very
dense; poorly developed near-
horizontal planar features, oxidation
staining.
Total depth 7 feet
No ground water
No caving
ALLUVIUM: Sand/Silty Sand, fine
to medium orained, brown, moist
to very moilst, medium dense;~ minor
caving 2-4 feet.
BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained,
gray to orange-brown, moist, medium
dense; massive.
Total depth 10 feet
No ground water
Minor caving 2-4 feet
ALLUVIUM: Silty Sand, fine to
medium grained, brown, dry to wet,
loose; roots.
EBERHART 8 STONE. INC. Plate A-2
Anden W.O. 1265
Trench No.
uses
Symbol Depth (ft.) Field Description
6 (cont.) SC 2.0-8.0 Clayey Sand, fine to medium grained,
orange-brown, moist to very moist,
loose to medium dense; minor caving
2-4 feet, minor seepage @ 3 feet.
8.0-9.0 BEDROCK : Sandstone, tine grained,
gray to orange- brown, moist,
dense; massive.
Total depth 9 feet
Minor seepage @ 3 feet
Minor caving 2-4 feet
SM
SC
SM
SC
O-2.5
2.5-5.0
5.0-7.0
O-2.0
2.0-6.0
6.0-10.0
ALLUVIUM: Silty Sand, fine to medium
grained, gray-brown, dry to wet,
loose.
Clayey Sand, fine grained, orange-
brown, moist, loose to medium dense.
BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained,
gray, moist, dense; massive.
Total depth 7 feet
No ground water
No caving
ALLUVIUM: Silty Sand, fine grained,
dark gray to black, dry to moist,
loose; abundant roots to 3-inch
diameter.
Clayey Sand, fine grained, medium
brown to gray-brown. moist to
wet @ 3 feet, loose to medium dense.
BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained,
gray to orange-brown, damp to
moist, dense; oxidation staining.
Total depth 10 feet
Minor seepage 2-3 feet
No caving
EBERHART 8 STONE, INC. Plate A-3
Anden W.O. 1265
Trench No.
uses
Symbol
9 SM
10
11
12
SM
SM
SP
EBERHART 8 STONE, INC.
Depth (ft.) Field Description
6.0-8.0
O-6.0 ALLUVIUM: Silty Sand, fine grained, brown to orange-brown, dry to
moist, loose to medium dense, roots
in the upper 2 feet.
BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained,
gray, damp to moist, dense to
very dense; massive, minor oxidation
staining.
Total depth 8 feet
No ground water
No caving
O-1.0
1.0-6.0
O-5.0
O-5.0
5.0-8.0
TOPSOIL: Silty Sand, fine to medium
grained, brown, dry, desiccated,
porous, roots.
BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained,
gray to orange-brown, damp to
moist, dense; massive, moderately
weathered, oxidation staining.
Total depth 6 feet
No ground water
No caving
ALLUVIUM: Silty Sand, fine grained,
gray-brown, dry, loose, roots, becomes
moist to wet at 3 feet; abundant caving
O-5 feet, seepage at 3 feet.
Total depth 5 feet
Seepage at 3 feet
Caving O-5 feet
ALLUVIUM: Sand, fine to medium
grained, brown, dry to damp, loose,
minor caving 3-5 feet.
BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained,
gray, damp, dense to very dense,
massive.
Total depth 8 feet
No ground water
No caving
Plate A-4
BORING LOG No. 6-t
W.O. 1265
cllem / Project: &siplg9 FE p?lfW Date: 49/s/ss
Locatlon: cARLSm?&; CA. s-met: / of 2
Est. Surface Elev: - / TQ 2 Total Depth: 34 ’ Rig Type:&C&5CZ~4~.zX? .% ‘,,/ r fl “O/d.
BORING LOG No. s-f !C&J
W.O. /as
Client / Project: AMH/ aivnf /FRY&E
c!!RlmD, Cf.
Date: @/a
Locatlon: Sheet:& of 2
Est. Surface Elev: Total Depth: @-’ Rlg Type: .4/!?Z7 As:‘;= 2.$ ‘.‘z s/1. , -
z IL” I c ‘;
2
?5
-
-
E a u
i al
- ; :s 22 5: SIC a..: 32
-
2 ?% z-8 Y ‘5 j5 ;i ip to
l-
-i
: -*
: f.
I.
FIELD DESCRIPTION BY: RJlr I - CL 3
0
H D
surface Condltlons:
jubsurface Condltlonr Classlficatlon, color, moisture
tightness; etc. Remarks -
‘of G
-
Notes:
..-
BORING LOG No. 6-2
client / Project: AmeN, G4v;rA FEAwm&E
s&MB I CA.
::~~
Locatlon: Sheet:Iof /
Est. Surface Elev: _ -
l- T
Total Depth: 20’ Rig Type:&Q”&?~ &‘c,;1 .
1 FIELD DESCWPTION BY: KXF 5. D : 1 i
I
i + j : T
Surface Condltlons: /g /uth grm-
2 Et
& Subsurface Conditions: Classlficatlon, color. moisture
tightness; etc. Remarks
E a ”
4 m
‘5
IG
‘I
?L
0,
-
- r
-
-
5, 112
Ii4
-
-
DY/ .a?-/, r/L’ h Ak7;; ! 67 * fi7 /fl,’ I-
~‘,rr.-~*~ ,, i . . ?>~ ..;it,,,.~‘. b! /
b
-
G <‘/,‘<P, .~ /‘-.,:
d, I
CY., j&J-y ,,., L/,< p&,&; ‘,“‘ 4 * , nc
-qYf?i’,&7’, Gr//,, ’ -2, 1 ‘~>,. v u d’ ~,I / Q’P&W+
~-,,3;...;-~ :, I~, <:-
-
-
=
-
Notes:
BORING LOG No. 8-3
Client/ Project:
W.O. /265
t 6tawzFzR/M Date: @/q/&3
Location: CA- CA. Sheet:!of 2
Est. Surface Elev: p=_4 Total Depth: Rig Type:-d/&Z- ..,!U~ z$ ‘:7/& 30’ - -
-
- FIELD DESCRIPTION BY: RTY I
s” surface Condltlons: ; i a
/ i : i 2 ; j
I
-
-
-
5 - 3.
5
-
-
-
-
e - ,’
3m’flk ’ d. yti I, , ’ &wi 1 7 I’ 1
/-P&kc! .&n /, , /A(~, ;,&7 <>I&<
/ -
-
Notes:
m,-.- A-. %J
Est. Surface Elev:
BORING LOG No. 8-3fiafi~+
FE .rnrnE
a a Sheet-&of 7
Total Depth: 2 ’ Rig Type: &XX57~L~~ 2 “h;.
E a ”
2 m
-
- FIELD DESCRIPTION BY: /gp
Surface Condltlons: t ; i 2
i I : ; I + ; :
r
Subsurface Condltlons: Classification, color, molsture tiohtness, etch Remarks I
,
-
-
b
-
-
-
- I--’
Notes:
Client / Project:
Locatlon:
Est Surface Elev:
BORING LOG No.&+
pp Sheet:Lof / ? C,~?‘ .‘:-3 _ ~- Total Depth: 20’ Rig Type:. &Q+;E,~;+- - c-9 -7;’ %~A .
E 0’ 0
3 m
5
‘06
‘01
‘la
(03
‘05
-
-
-
-
4” 0 5 45 ; -
-
e
-
FIELD DESCRIPTION BY: #F
surface Condltlons:
Subsurface Condltlons: Classlficatlon. color. moisture
tightness; etc. Remarks
I I
Notes:
Plate 8-4
BORING LOG No. a-5
w.0. /j4D
Client / Project: 7Qwct-/D srt oJ7z I% Fm!D Date: :c -/6 -‘go
Locatlon: CL?RLSL34D , Leg Sheet: / of /
\37-1 .Y Est. Surface Elev: Total Depth: .‘J ’ Rig Type:2 L’&s + fi..‘< r .g I’ 3’,&,
Notes:
BORING LOG No. e-7
w.0.. ; g
,T- , Client / Project: .-: A// ‘,&, ‘m d .--if d’ <Ps ., /T,’ “,-= --r.,‘,. _-. . .f?~,+?,, Date: /D -// 7’s’6’0
Location: CXL58//7 , CA Shset:/of 2
Est.Surface Elev: il * c r , 3.- Total Depth: ;“-si Rlg Type:- _=;/,:+gT &-.:.~ ;.,y 2&,
i
-
-
-
-
;‘,;I
-
-
-
-
-
c ,.
4
s 3 ”
4 m.
-
-
T
-
FIELD DESCRIPTION By: ‘.’ ..-- ,‘..!2 \ -
s”
-
surface Condillons:
‘j&l,y I,,- ,,‘. -.,1$&r L:^/,//;,“~~~ -1’ _. 3 A+.;*
/Js ,; I <-.. ? ir, .7 ,~->-‘-, > _* 3 , , ,
--
Notes:
BORING LOG No, 2. ~-7’
W.O. //do
Client / Project: A??Nti0 3q:/‘7;7 FL p/p/i Date: /L? - /7- .m
LocatIon: Sheet:Zof z
Est. Surface Elev:-
j’<
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 4 - r, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
E a ”
2 m
-
-
s” 0 ‘0 z (3 -
-
FIELD DESCRIPTION Bv: .Kdb- I
surface Conditions: surface Conditions:
subsurface Conditlonr Classlflcatlon. color, molsture subsurface Conditlonr Classiflcatlon. color, molsture
tightness; etc. tightnessi etc. Remarks Remarks
-e , f-71 !I ./y/J,! ,q d/P?- /Q.+-;i-’
,h&? ;<\ ,‘- ! ‘I! ‘I ‘,’ ‘i! _I- ,~i
I : - ,,-,,.J,,,’ I ,, ,-
Notes:
Anden TABLE 111
GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL FOUNDATION
W.O. 1265
BASED ON SOIL EXPANSION a
SLABS
rHlCK REINFORCEMENT PRESAT. BASE
COURSE
3TENTIAL
KPANSION
JBC 29-2)
FOOTINGS
EMBEDMENT REINFORCEMENT
1 STORY
12” perimeter
12” interior
2 STORY 3 STORY
Jery Low
:0-20)
18” perimeter
18” interior
24” perimeter
24” interior
II” nom
x X x X
SJW
‘21-50)
12” perimeter
12” interior
18” perimeter
18” interior
24” perimeter
24” interior
11” nom optimum
moisture X
2 No. 4 bars:
1 top, 1 bottom
6”x6”, #lOX#lO
Vi . W . F .
tedium
51-90)
18” perimeter
2” interior
18” perimeter
18” interior
24” perimeter
24” interior
2 No. 4 bars:
1 top, 1 bottom
I” net 6”X6”, #6X#6
W.W.F.
0; -
No. 3 bars @ 24”
O.C. each way
120% of
optimum
moisture
4”
ligh
91-1301
14” perimeter
2” interior
!4” perimeter
18” interior
!4” perimeter
!4” interior’
4 No. 4 bars:
2 top, 2 bottom
or -
2 No. 6 bars:
1 top, 1 bottom
1” net 6”X6”, #6X#6
W.W.F.
or -
No. 3 bars @ 18”
O.C. each way
120% of
optimum
moisture
4”
ery High
7130)
4” perimeter
2” interior
!4” perimeter
18” interior
!4” perimeter
!4” interior
4 No. 5 bars:
2 top, 2 bottom
or -
2 No. 8 bars:
1 top, 1 bottom
6” net No. 4 bars @ 18”
O.C. each way
or -
120% of
optimum
moisture
6”
No. 3 bars @ 12”
O.C. each way
F!otes on the followina oaoe are considered oat-t of this tnhle
Anden
11
2)
3)
41
NOTES TO TABLE Ill w.0. 1265
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.
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 “Medium”, non load bearing interior isolated spread
footings and/or partial length footings are not recommended.
5)
‘5)
7)
8)
9)
10)
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 or carpeted, 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 mid-slab 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 “Medium”, 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.
. . 7
-l-
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
GENERAL
The specifications contained herein and the standard details
attached hereto represent this firm’s minimum requirements for
grading and other associated operations on construction projects.
These specifications should be considered a portion of the pro-
ject specifications. These recommendations should not be considered
to preclude more restrictive requirements of the regulating agencies.
The contractor, prior to any site preparation or grading, should
arrange a meeting onsite among himself, the developer, the design
engineer, the geotechnical consultant, and representatives of the
appropriate governing authorities. All parties should be given
at least 48 hours notice.
The contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion
of all grading and other associated operations on construction
projects, includinq, but not limited to, all earth work in accord-
ance with the proiect plans, specifications and controlling agency
requirements.
All plates attached hereto shall be considered as part of these
specifications.
These Standard Specifications for Crading Projects may be modified
and/or superseded in part or all by recommendations contained
in the text of the preliminary geotechnical report and/or sub-
sequent reports as a result of engineering analyses and evalu-
ations of laboratory data and/or grading plan changes, or con-
ditions found during grading.
DEFlNlTlON OF TERMS
BEDROCK - a relatively solid, undisturbed or in-place rock
existing at either the ground surface or beneath surficial deposits
(old or recent allumium, collumiuml of soils. Bedrock will be
identified in the field by the engineering geologist.
COLLUVIUM - loose, incoherent deposits usually found at the toe-of-
slopes and brought there chiefly by gravity.
RECENT ALLUVIUM - unconsolidated detrital deposits resulting from
operations of modern rivers, including sediments laid down in river
beds, flood plains, lakes, fans at the foot of slopes and estuaries.
OLDER ALLUVIUM -‘sameorigin as recent alluvium, except that it is
older and has been lithified.
EBERHART 8 STONE, INC.
-2-
SLIDE DEBRIS - material (bedrock, colluvium,alluvium) produced
from instability of natural or manmade slopes, usually fractured,
porous and of low density.
DEBRIS - all products of clearing, grubbing, demolition, contamin-
ated soil material unsuitable for reuse as compacted fill.
FILL - any deposits of soil, rock, soil-rock blends or other
similar materials placed by man.
IMPORTED OR BORROW MATERIAL - any fill material hauled to
the project site from offsite areas.
ENGINEERED FILL. - a fill of which the soil engineer or his repre-
sentative during grading has made sufficient observations and taken
sufficient tests to enable him to conclude that the fill has been
placed in substantial compliance with these specifications and the
governing agency requirements.
RELATIVE COMPACTION - the degree of compaction (expressed as
a percentage) of dry unit weight of a material as compared to the
maximum dry unit weight of the material. Unless otherwise speci-
fied, the maximum dry unit weight shall be determined in accordance
with ASTM Method of Test D1557-70.
GRADING - any operation consisting of excavation, filling or
combinations thereof and associated operations.
CLIENT - The developer or his authorized representative
shall have the responsibility of reviewing recommendations made
by the geotechnical consultant and shall authorize or cause to have
authorized the contractor to perform such work as required to
comply with said recommendations.
CONTRACTOR - a person or company under contract or other-
wise retained by the client to perform demolition, grading, and
other site improvements.
TRACT ENGINEER - a licensed civil engineer experienced in sub-
division planning design and preparation of construction plans and
overall coordination of all engineering, surveying, and construction
of the project.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST - a geologist holding a valid certificate
of registration in the specialty of engineering geology.
SOIL ENGINEER - a licensed civil engineer experienced in soil
mechanics.
CEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT - the soil engineering and engineer-
ing geology consulting firm retained to provide technical services
for the project. For the purpose of these specifications, including
observations by the soil engineer, engineering geologist, and those
performed by persons employed by and responsible to the geotechnice
consultant.
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
EBERHART 6 STONE, INC.
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
-3-
SITE PREPARATION
Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of all
vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, roots
of trees and all otherwise deleterious natural materials from the
areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to
the outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas.
Demolltion should include removal of all buildings, structures,
reservoirs, utilities (including septic tank, leach field, seepage
pit, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels,etc.), and all other manmade
surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be graded.
Demolition of utilities should include proper capping or re-routing
at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in ac-
cordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and
the recommendations of the soil engineer at the time of demolition.
Trees, plants or manmade improvements not planned to be removed
or demolished should be protected~by the contractor from damage
or injury.
All deleterious material generated during clearing, grubbing and/or
demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be graded
and disposed offsite. All clearing, grubbing and demolition opera-
tions should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical
consultant.
Where applicable, the contractor should obtain approval from the
controlling authorities for the project, prior, during, and/or
after demolition, site preparation, and removals, etc. The appropri-
ate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading
operations.
SITE PROTECTION
The contractor shall be responsible for the stability of all temporary
excavations. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant
should not be considered to preclude those requirements of the
regulating agencies.
Precautions should be taken during the performance of all site
clearing earthwork, excavations and grading to protect the work site
from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface
drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy
season to adequately direct’ surface drainage from all sources away
from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided,
pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during
periods of rainfall.
During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting should be kept on hand
to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated. Where neces-
sary during periods of ra.infall, the contractor should install check-
dams, desilting basins, riprap , sandbags or other devices or methods
necessary to control erosion and provide safe conditions.
EBERHART & STONE, INC.
-4-
During periods of rainfall, the geotechnical consultant should be
kept continually informed by the contractor as to the nature of
any work being performed (e.g., pumping, placement of sandbags
or plastic sheeting, other hand labor, dozing, etc.).
Following periods of rainfall, the contractor should contact the
geotechnical consultant and arrange a walk-over of the site in order
to visually assess rain-related damage. The geotechnical consultant
may also su,ggest supplemental testing in order to complete his
assessments. At the request of the geotechnical consultant, the
contractor shall make all excavations as necessary to evaluate the
extent of rain -related damage.
Rain-related damage should be considered to include erosion, silting,
saturation, swelling, structural distress, and any other adverse
condition delineated by the soil engineer. Soil adversely affected
should be classified as unsuitable materials, referred to herein under
Section 5.1, and should be subject to overexcavation and replacement
as compacted fill or other remedial grading as directed by the soil engin-
eer.
a) Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion-
gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot., should be over-
excavated to unaffected, competent material. Where less than
1.0 foot in depth, unsuitable materials may be processed in place
to achieve near-optimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly re-
compacted in accordance with the applicable specifications. If
the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials should
be overexcavated, then replaced in accordance with the applicable
specifications.
b) In slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion-gullies
exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot:; they should be overexcavated
and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair
specifications herein. Where affected materials exist to depths
of 1.0 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grad-
ing by moisture conditioning in place followed by thorough re-
compaction in accordance with the applicable specifications may
be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all af-
fected materials should be overexcavated and replaced as com-
pacted fill in accordance with the slope repair specifications herein.
As field conditions dictate, slope repair may be recommended by
the soil engineer in accordance with the accompanying specifi-
cations for stabiliration fills.
EXCAVATIONS
a) Unsuitable Materials: Materials which are unsuitable should
be excavated under observation and recommendations of the geo-
technical consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may not
be limited to,dry, loose, soft, wet, compressible natural soils
and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock and non-engineered or
otherwise non-approved fill materials.
4.4
4.5
4.6
5.0
5.1
EBERHART & STONE, INC.
-5-
b) Material identified by the geotechnical consultant as unsatis-
factory due to its moisture conditions should be overexcavated,.
watered or dried,as needed,and thoroughly blended to a uniform
near-optimum moisture condition (as per guidelines in these
specifications) prior to placement as compacted fill.
a) Slopes: Unlesg otherwise recommended by the geotechnical
consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, perma-
nent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:l (horizontal to
vertical).
b) If excavations for cut slopes expose loose, cohesionless, sig-
nificantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, overex-
cavation and replacement of the unsuitable materials with a
compacted stabilisation fill should be accomplished as recom-
mended by the geotechnical consultant. Unless otherwise spec-
ified by the geotechnical ~consultant! stabilization fill con’struction
should conform to the requirements of Plate 3 of these specifications.
c) The engineering geologist should inspect all cut slopes at ver-
tical intervals not exceeding 10 feet ,end shall be notified by
the contractor when cut slopes are started and when the lo-
foot intervals are anticipated.
d) If, during the course of grading, adverse or potentially ad-
verse geotechnical conditions are encountered which were not
anticipated in the preliminary report, the geotechnical consultant
should investigate, analyse, and make recommendations to treat
these problems.
e) For cut slopes made in the direction of the prevailing drainage,
a non-erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided
at the top-of-cut.
a) Lot Pads: All lot pad areas, including side yard terraces, above
stabilisation fills or buttresses should be overexcavated to pro-
vide for a minimum of 3 feet (Plate 5) of compacted fill over
the entire-pad areai Geotechnical conditions may require greater
depth of overexcavation and should be delineated by the geo-
technical consultant during grading. Pad areas with both fill
and cut materials exposed and pad areas containing both very
shallow (less than 3 feet) and deeper fill should be overexca-
vated to provide for a uniform compacted fill blanket of a min-
imum of 3 feet in thickness (Plate 5). Cut areas exposing
significantly varying material types should also be overexca-
vated to provide for at least a 3-foot thick compacted fill blanket.
b) For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive
drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope.
This may be accomplished utilising a berm and/or an appro-
priate pad gradient. An overall gradient away from top-of-
slope of 2% or greater should be maintained.
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.3
EBERHART E STONE, INC.
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.2
6. 2
6.2
-6-
COMPACTED FILL
Compaction : All fill materials should be compacted as specified
below or by other methods specifically approved by the geotech-
nical consultant. Unless otherwise speclfled, the minimum degree
of compaction (relative compaction) should be 90% of the laboratory
maximum density.
a] Placement: Prior to placement of compacted fill, the contractor
should request a review by the geotechnical consultant of the
exposed ground surface. Unless otherwise recommended,
the exposed ground surface should then be scarified (6-inch
minimum), watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended
to achieve near-pptimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly
compacted to a minimum of 90% of the laboratory dry density.
The review by the geotechnical consultant should not be con-
sidered to preclude requirement of review and evaluation by the
controlling agency.
b) Compacted fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts not
exceeding eiqht inches (bulk) in thickness prior to compaction.
Each lift should be watered or dried as needed, thoroughly
blended to achieve moisture conditions within the range of
optimum moisture content and optimum moisture content plus
3% (by dry soil weight), then thorouyh!y compacted by
mechanical methods to a minimum of 90% of laboratory maximum
dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner
until the desired finished grades are achieved.
c) The contractor shall have suitable and sufficient compaction
equipment and watering apparatus on the job site to handle
the amount of fill being placed in consideration of moisture
retention properties of the materials. If necessary, excavation
equipment will be “shut down” temporarily in order to permit
proper compaction of fills.
d) When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping
steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), horizontal keys and
vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope
area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at
least five-foot wide benches and a minimum of three feet of
vertical bench height within firm natural around, firm bed:
rock or approved compacted fill. No compacted fill should be
placed in an area subsequent to keying and benching until the
area has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant.
Typical keying and benching details have been included on the
accompanying Plate 4.
e) Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate
two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes)
may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope,
EDERHART & STONE, INC.
-7-
6.2
6.2
benchingshall be conductedin the same manner as the above
described. At least a three-foot vertical bench should be
established within the firm core of adjacent approved com-
pacted fill (i.e., the material underlying the surficial loose
material) prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should
proceed in approximately 3-foot to 4-foot increments until the
desired finished grades are achieved.
f) All fill should be tested for compliance with the required rel-
ative compaction and moisture conditions as recommended.
Field density testing should conform to ASTM Method of Test
D1556, D2922 and/or D2937. Tests should be provided for
about every 2 feet or 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Fill
found not to be,in conformance with the specifications should
be removed, then replaced in accordance with the specifications.
g) The contractor shall assist the geotechnical consultant and/or
his representative in digging test pits for removal determin-
ations and/or testing as compacted fill progresses, and will
remove from test area, or shut down temporarily, the equip-
ment during “sand cone” testing.
6. 3 a) Moisture: For field testing purposes, ‘;near-optimum” moisture
should be considered to mean optimum moisture to 3% above
optimum moisture.
6.3 bl Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an
overnight, or other grading delay, the exposed surface of
previously compacted fill should be processed by scarification,
watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to near-
optimum moisture conditions, then recompacted to a minimum
of 90% of laboratory maximum dry density. Where wet or dry
or other unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than
1 foot., the unsuitable materials should be overexcavated.
6.3
6.4
6.4
--
c) Following a period of flooding, rainfall or overwatering by
other means, no additional fill should be placed until damage
assessments have been made and remedial grading performed
as described under Section 4.0 herein.
a) Fill Material: Excavated onsite materials which are acceptable
to the geotechnical consultant may be utilised as compacted.
fill, provided all trash, vegetation and other deleterious
materials are removed prior to placement.
b) Where import materials are required for use onsite, the geo-
technical consultant should be notified at least 72 hours in
advance of importing, in order to sample and test materials
from proposed borrow sites. No import materials shall be
delivered for use onsite without prior sampling and testing
by geotechnical consultant.
EBERHART & STONE, INC.
6.4
6. 4
6,4
6.4
6.4
6.4
cl
d)
e)
f)
9)
h)
-8-
Rocks 8 inches in maximum dimension and smaller may be
utilized within the compacted fill, provided they are placed
in such a manner that nesting of the rock is avoided. Fill
should be placed and thoroughly compacted to the minumum
requirement over and around all rock.
During the course of grading operations, rocks, or similar
irreducible materials greater than 12 inches maximum dimension
(oversized material), nay be generated. These rocks should
not be placed withIt! the compacted fill unless placed as rec-
ommended by the geotechnical consultant.
Where rocks or similar irreducible materials of greater than
12 inches, but less than 3 feet,of maximum dimension are
generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed
within an approved compacted fill, special handling in accor-
dance with the accompanying Plate 6 is recommended. Rocks
greater than 3 feet should be broken down or disposed offsite.
Rocks up to 3 feet maximum dimension should be placed below
the upper 13 feet of any fill and should not be closer than
15 feet to any slope face. Where practical, oversized material
should not be.placed below areas where structures or deep
utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed
in windrows on a clean, overexcavated or unyielding compacted
fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native or imported
granular soil (S.E=30 or better) should be placed and/or
thoroughly flooded over and around all windrowed rock, such
that no voids remain. Windrows of oversized material should
be stagg,ered so that successive strata of oversized material
are not II-I the same vertical plane.
Material that is considered unsuitable by the geotechnical con-
consultant should not be utilized in the compacted fill.
During grading operations, placing and mixing ;he materials
from the cut (borrow) areas may result in soil mixtures which
may possess different physical properties. Additional testing
may be required of samples obtained directly from the fill
areas in order to verify conformance with the intentions of the
recommendations of the preliminary report. Processing of
these additional samples may take two or more working days.
The contractor may elect to move theoperation to other areas
within the project, or may continue placing compacted fill,
pending laboratory test results. Should he elect this second
alternative, fill placed is done so at the contracter’s risk.
Any fill placed in areas not previously reviewed and evaluated
by the geotechnical consultant, and/or in other areas, with-
out prior notification to the geotechnical consultant of his in-
tentions of placing the compacted fill, may require removal
and recompaction at the contractor’s expense. Determination of overexcavation should be made upon review of field con-
ditions by the geotechnical consultant.
EBERHART 6 STONE, INC.
-9-
6.4 il Plan locations of field density tests (horizontal and vertical)
should only be considered approximate. The contractor shall
provide sufficient grading stakes with elevations to serve
as guidelines for test location identification.
6.5 a) Slopes: Compacted fill slopes should be limited to a slope ratio
of no steeper than 2:l (horizontal to vertical).
6.5 bl All compacted fill slopes shall be overbuilt and cttt back to
grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill inner core. The
actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions
dictate. If the. desired results are not achieved, the existing
slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the
guidelines of the oeotechnical consultant. The degree of over-
building shall be &creased until the desired compacted slope
surface condition is achieved. Careshould be taken by the
contractor to provide thorough mechanical compaction to the
outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface.
6.5 c] Beginning in the early stages of fill slope construction, the con-
tractor shall, upon the request of the geotechnical consultant,
make excavations through the overbuilt section to the proposed
finished slope surface in order for the geotechnical consultant
to test for conformance with these specifications. Care should
be taken by the contractor not to excavate beyond the proposed
finished slope surface.
6.5 d) Following the attainment of the desired slope height, the outer
surface of overbuilt slopes should be cut back to a desired
finished surface contour. Care should be taken by the con-
tractor not to excavate beyond the desired finished slope
surface.
6.5 el Where economic considerations, and /or other pertinent consider-
ations,preclude overfilling and cutting back, alternative con-
ventional construction procedures may be attempted. If other
methods, including backrollino, are adopted, it should be
recognised by all interested parties that the slopes cannot be
expected to perform as well as slopes which are overbuilt
and cut back. Unless slopes are overfilled and cut back to
grade, the outer faces of all fill slopes shall be at least back-
rolled,utilizing a sheepsfoot roller at intervals not exceeding
4 feet of vertical slope height. Vibratory methods may be
required. During construction of the fill slopes, care should
be taken to maintain near-optimum moisture conditions over the
entire slope height. Following achievement of the desired
slope height, the entire slope face may require thorough com-
paction, utilising a vibratory sheepsfoot roller. Upon completion
of the above procedures, the faces of all fill slopes should
be grid-rolled over the entire slope height with standard grid-
rolling equipment. During all above operations, near-optimum
moisture conditions should be maintained.
EBERHART 6 STONE, INC.
6.5
6.5 91
6.5 hl
6.6 a)
6.6 b)
6.6 cl
6.6 dl
7.0
7.1
STAKING
In all fill areas, the fill should be compacted prior to the placement
of the stakes. This is particularly important on fill slopes.
Slope stakes should not be placed until the slope is thoroughly
compacted (backrolled).
7.2 In order to allow for remedial grading operations, which could
include overexcavations or slope stabilisation, appropriate staking
offsets should be provided. For finished slope and stabilisation
backcut areas, we recommend at least a 15-foot setback from pro-
posed toes and tops-of-cut.
8.0 SLOPE MAINTENANCE
8.1 Landscaping : In order to enhance surficial slope stability,
slope planting should consist of deep-rooted vegetation requiring
little watering. Plants native to the Southern California area
fl
-lO-
Following slope construction in the manner described above,
if the desired uniformly compacted fill slope condition is
not achieved, overfillino and cutti,ng back, as set forth~ in’
these specifications; should.be adopted. Camp leted slopes found by
the-geotechnical consultant to be below the standards [moisture and
density) should be overexcavated a minimum of 12 feet
(horizontal) and replaced by the overfilling and cutting back
procedure described above.
Where placement of fill above a natural slope or above a
cut slope is proposed, the fill slope configuration presented
on the accompanying Plate 4, Figures 1 and 2, respectively,
should be adopted.
For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage shall be
established away from the top-of-slope. This may be ac-
complished utilising a berm and an overall pad gradient of at
least 2%.
Offsite Fill: Offsite fill, in general, should be treated in the
same manner as recommended in these specifications for site
preparation, excavation, drains, compaction, etc.
Offsite canyon fill should be placed in preparation for future
additional fill, as shown on Plates 7 and 8.
Offsite fill subdrains temporarily terminated (up canyon) should
be carefully surveyed for future relocation and connection.
Surface drainage of offsite fill areas should be planned to
be collected and discharged by convenient storm drain
devices.
EBERHART 6 STONE, INC.
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.4
8.4
-11-
and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable. Plants
native to other semi-arid and arid ~areas may also be appropriate.
A landscape architect would be the best party to consult regarding
actual types of plants and planting configuration.
a)
b)
cl
d)
a)
b)
cl
d)
a)
b)
Irrigation: Slope irrigation should be minimized. If auto-
matic timing devices are utilized on irrigation systems, pro-
visions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during
periods of rainfall.
Drip-irrigation systems may be utilized as an alternative to con-
ventional irrigation systems.
Though not a requirement, consideration should be given to the
installation of near-surface moisture monitoring control devices.
Such devices can aid in the maintenance of relatively uniform
and reasonably constant moisture conditions.
Property 0wne.rs should be made aware that overwatering of
slopes is detrimental to slope stability.
Maintenance: Periodic inspections of landscaped slope areas
should be. planned and appropriate measures, consistent with
the provisions of these Standard Specifications, should be taken
to control weeds and enhance growth of the landscape plants.
Some areas may require occasional replantiny and/or reseeding.
Terrace drains and downdrains should be periodically inspected
and maintained free of debris. Damage to drainage improve-
ments should be repaired immediately.
Property owners should be made aware that burrowing animals
can be detrimental to slope stability. A preventative program
should be established to control burrowing animals.
As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily
available, or kept on hand, to protect all slope areas from
saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This
measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period of
time prior to landscape planting and before becoming well
established.
Repairs: If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant
should be contacted for a field review of site conditions.
If slope failures occur, apparently as a result of exposure
to periods of. heavy rainfall, the failure area and currently
unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to
protect against additional rain.
EBERHART & STONE, INC.
-12-
c) Plate 9 illustrates appropriate repair procedures for super-
ficial slope failures (i.e., occurring typically within the outer
1 foot to 3 feet+ of a slope face) during grading. These failures
generally occur as a result of failure to comply with the in-
tentions of Specification Sections 8.0 and/or 9.0 herein.
DRAINAGE
Canyon subdrain systems specified by the geotechnical consultant
should be installed in accordance with the specifications on the
accompanying Plate 1.
Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilizations,
or sidehill masses, should be installed in accordance with the
specifications on the accompanying Plate 2.
8.4
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.3
All roof, pad and slbpe drainage should be directed away from
slope area structures to approved disposal areas by way of nqn-
erodible devices, (i.e., gutter, down spout, concrete swalesl.
For drainage immediately away from structures, a minimum 5%
gradient should be maintained. Overall, pad drainage of at least
2% should be maintained. Overall, pad drainage may be reduced
to at least 1% for projects where no slopes exist, either natural
or manmade, of greater than 10 feet in height and where no slopes
are planned, either natural or manmade, steeper than 2:l (hor-
izontal to vertical slope ratio). Also refer to Plate 10.
Trench Backfill: Utility trench backfill can be best placed by
mechanical comoaction. Unless otherwise specified, degree of com-
paction shall be a minimum of 90% of the laboratory maximum density.
As an alternative, where specifically approved by the soil engineer,
granular material (sand equivalent greater than 30) may be thoroughly
jetted in-place. Jetting should only be considered to apply to
trenches no greater than 2 feet in width and, 4 feet in depth.
Following jetting operations, trench backfill should be thoroughly
and mechanically compacted and/or wheelrolled from the surface.
Exterior and interior trenches extending below a 1 :l projection
from the outer edge of foundations should be mechanically com-
pacted to a minimum of 90% of the laboratory maximum density.
Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches
up to 1 foot wide and 2 feet deep may be backfilled with sand and
consolidated by jetting, flooding, or by mechanical means. If on-
site materials are utilized, they should be wheelrolled, tamped or
otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For these minor interior
trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot testing may be
elected if deemed necessary, based upon review of backfill oper-
ations during construction.
If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use com-
paction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, the con-
tractor may elect the utilisation of light weight mechanical
EBERHART & STONE, INC.
-13-
compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean,
granular material, which could be thoroughly jetted in-place above
the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures.
Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate,
upon review by the geotechnical consultant at the time of con-
struction.
STATUS OF GRADING
Prior to proceeding with any grading operation, the geotechnical
consultant should be notified at least 2 working days in advance
in order to schedule the necessary observation and testing services.
Prior to any significant expansion or cut back in the grading op-
eration, the geotechnical consultant should be provided with
adequate notice (i.e., 2 days) in order to make appropriate
adjustments in observation and testing services.
Following completion of grading operations and/or between phases
of a grading operation, the geotechnical consultant should be pro-
vided with at least 2 working days notice in advance of commence-
ment of additional grading operations.
11.0
11.1
11.2
12.0 VARIANCES FROM SPECIFICATIONS
The contractor should not vary from these specifications without
prior written recommendation by the geotechnical consultant and
the approval of the client and/or his authorized representative.
The above should not be considered to preclude requirements for
approval by the controlling agency prior to the execution of any
changes.
EBERHART & STONE, INC.
TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN
Co&i.u”,AL ANO ALLuwAL RWXWA
I -kl I
ALTERNATIVE A- PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE C
BACKHOE TRENCH DOZER V TRENCH
N/“.e cudlc .-zzT 0” .--ILP-SR +zsv*L m= FoLTr c,= P,PS w,,u al. RE.OU,RSP 7
i. F/,vAL 2&t OF F7P.C .S”O”LD B.5 IKwAZRMI72B Po*,IIvz coNNscT/o”s../oYIo da PAOI/cIILp bC7barn -T/4 0, .-PAS.
o/.+72n WT. ,wN. 0s e UNll=aR.yLV a.-tiD .J=mniwna ALTERNATIVE B RZR fear ,N LOLlldR -mu OP PIpr . k AMY c&a Daqcr.?, OF PP.‘?Fo/?A7mN SNOUIP 5.e L De OF F,LzcR .wTWAL.
GRADING DETAIL
-e- l”Cll D,A~aTvT PupcM*TLD P,R- .+xRFoal7/oM ooryd (iiL 0” PfpL w.xMr Wli7H a= c&wRAL DR4b.J & jm) I EBERHART 8 STONE INC.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 22, I E&ST WWSTON ROAD, SUITE 6. INAHEIM CALIFORNIA 9180
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
TYPICAL SUBDRAIN FOR BUTTRESS , STABILIZATION
OR SIDEHILL FILL MASSES
4f,,u, +-INCH- OIAI~~~~R, PVC OR A85 -s?-,c WTH q%v/,y”,y OF 2 “,v/FO#%yLI JPl)cro ‘49 O/Ibp7SR pLR.=zRA7/oNs *T we AN&L5 PCR l=cy)‘T OF P/Paz ,fvSTALL~D !.v&-” PeRFoR*T/avs av Bo77oq OF Pe?ez. PAOV/Ohz CAP A?- uDSnu@ PND OF PIPE. SLOF?E *T 2% m OYTLLT P,.D&. NOTES :
1. F/LTER ~,A*I.?R,AL SGcb9LD Br STATS OF CAUFORh‘/A CLASS 2 PLR~zEA~LC F,L%E,T.
2. TRINCH FOR ouT.LcT P/pLS. 7-o Bh BA.ZHF/UIO bVi’TM CO.$WACSar, OK--K SOIL.
auouL0 dL PuNNeD m O”?-.&CT ABOY TM? TLRRAcE.
GRADING DETAIL
EBERHART & STONE INC.
OE~TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
111 f LAST WNSTON ROm. WlTL F. ANAHEIM. ClUFORNll82sm
siANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
PLATE CD-2
TYPICAL STABILIZ ATION FILL
FIG. I
F&L dLrvr .?:I OR ”
.-un-sQlb- 7aG- B&we”: vam-mu 3 fe .yN.
OF-- “on/.?a.s=N. 5.4 #mt
TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL
FIG 2
GRADING DETAIL ,
EBERHART & STONE INC.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
2111 EAST WNSTON ROAD.s”lTt F.m4AHEIM, CALl~ORN,AP28ix
\
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
PLATE CD-3
TYPICAL FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE
TYPICAL FILL OVER CUT SLOPE
. .
‘. .‘cI-‘$.‘<:z
‘... 2 -.-y S.-r. ~-
78 CI.OTIC”,v,LAL /
cQNsuL7ArM
NOTES: l SLL MTL I
1. IF O~~Rsu.L.wa WD cdn-rmm - 70 GRaDA n r)DOP.TCP, ‘j,L ,y.l a **auzae 7w A2f.t &v, 1.v
he CISC Aew.u~2w, s.v.LL 7”s mu rv,mr, as aqval7v L”;S 7a4.M “UF Y-as F/U #rCM”T
RMfA/.W”‘%
GRADING DETAIL r
TYPICAL REMOVAL OF TRANSITION LOTS
XW4SITION- UNSUITABLE TO FIRM YATURAL MATERIAU -
f. TO.-soa, COLLUYI/YY, W..AT”B’RSD dcDmecx Wo OT”~‘R‘+%,SE u.~.sU,7-AbLh ,.,AIIT.S,WAW TOB.S R~+,LcXO 4.~. bWCYc0 70 .=h?,y “4T”RAL ORo”N‘Y lb APPROVED Sf G.sOT~C”N,S*L CO”suLT”NI.
GRADING DETAIL r I EBERHART I3 STONE INC.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
2211 LA51 WNSTON AOAD.S”I~E F .*N*“EIM,CI\LI~ORN,I\92~
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
PLATE :;D-~5’
TYPICAL ROCK WINDROW pm,-oraD ,49s”ao LiRAPI
TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (edge view)
PROFILE VIEW
A/
‘G~A.uUUR ,yAz%w,IL f-UC&a WD ‘ID WD
n7.?-. nrrr NUlLO I EBERHART & STONE INC. --
INSULTANTS