HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 2017-0001; PRITCHARD RESIDENCE; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION & FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS; 2016-12-23ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
W"CAL Crft. STRUMM & N4fl&CT1A& CO&SWmS
F R&S€N11& £ COWOfR1KIN
TT Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069• (760) 839-7302. Fax: (760) 480-7477 www.designgroupca.com
GEO TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION & FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE TO BE LOCATED AT
5098 SHORE DRIVE,
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
EDG Project No. 165692-1
December 23rd, 2016
RE C TTq 'T;V77 D
AUG 10 2017
LAND DEViLOPMENT
ENGINEERING
PREPARED FOR:
Robert and Cathy Pritchard
do Brian Church Architecture
Attn: George Hideg
330 S. Cedros Avenue
Solana Beach, CA 92075
' GE 2590
I E.
C 65122
I
I ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
OR W. STR1W& a CIa1tC1URLCO,fSLLTNITS
FOR a1t 4 c MCLA CONSTWTOR
2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069. (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 www.designgroupca.com
Date: December 23d, 2016
To: Robert and Cathy Pritchard
do Brian Church Architecture
Attn: George Hideg
330 S. Cedros Avenue
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Re:
Residence to be located at 5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California.
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation and Report
In accordance with your request and our signed proposal we have performed a limited subsurface
investigation of the subject site for the proposed new residence.
The findings of the investigation, earthwork recommendations and foundation design parameters are
presented in this report. In general, it is our opinion that the proposed construction, as described
herein, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and
generally accepted construction practices are followed.
If you have any questions regarding the following report please do not hesitate to contact our office.
P
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
El
I
I
Erin E. Rist Steven Norris
RCE 65122 GE 2590
Id
I
I
I Table of Contents
1.0 SCOPE .1
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 1
3.0
FIELD INVESTIGATION .......................................................................................................................1
4.0 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................1
5.0 6.0
GROUND WATER. ....... . ...... ................................................................................................................2
LIQUEFACTION ..................................................................................................................................3
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................3
7.1
GENERAL .......................................................................................................................................3
7.2 EARTHWORK .................................................................................................................................3
7.3 FOUNDATIONS ..............................................................................................................................5
7.4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE........................................................................................................7
7.5 RETAINING WALLS.......................................................................................................................10
7.6 SURFACE DRAINAGE....................................................................................................................13
8.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ...............................................................................13
9.0 MISCELLANEOUS.............................................................................................................................14
I, FIGURES
SiteVicinity Map ..........................................................................................................................Figure No. 1
SiteLocation Map ........................................................................................................................Figure No. 2
I Location of Exploratory Test Borings ...........................................................................................Figure No. 3
Boring Logs 1 - 2...............................................................................................................Boring Logs No. 1-2
I APPENDICES
References....................................................................................................................................Appendix A
I General Earthwork and Grading Specifications ............................................................................Appendix B
LaboratoryTesting ......................................................................................................................Appendix C
RetainingWall Drainage Detail ...................................................................................................Appendix D
I
p
I
Ii
I
I
I
1.0 SCOPE
This report gives our recommendations for the proposed new residence to be located at 5098 Shore
Drive, Carlsbad, California. (See Figure No. 1, "Site Vicinity Map", and Figure No. 2, "Site Location Map").
The scope of our work conducted onsite to date has included a visual reconnaissance of the property
and surrounding areas, review of geologic maps, a limited subsurface investigation of the subject
property, preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations.
I 1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located at 5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California. For the purposes of this report
I it is assumed the property faces west. The property is bordered to the east and south by similarly
developed homes and to the north and west by Shore Drive.
The general topography of the site area consists of coastal foothill terrain. The topography of the
property consists of a generally flat building pad. The lot generally slopes descending from east to west.
At the time of this report the lot is developed with a single family one-story residence and general
landscape and flatwork improvements. Based upon our review of the preliminary site plan, we
understand the development will consist of the demolition of the existing structure and the construction
of a new single family multi-story structure with a partial footprint basement.
2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our field investigation of the property consisted of a site reconnaissance, site field measurements,
observation of existing conditions on-site and on adjacent sites and a limited subsurface investigation of
soil conditions. Our subsurface investigation consisted of visual observation of two exploratory borings
in the general areas of proposed construction, logging of soil types encountered and sampling of soils
for laboratory testing. The locations of our test borings are given in Figure No. 3, "Site Plan and
Approximate Location of Borings".
3.0 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Based upon our subsurface investigation of the property the site soil profiles and soil types are
described as follows:
I
I Pritchard Residence
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California
Page No. 1
Job No. 165692-1
I
I
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECH NICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
I
I
I
I
1
Ie
I
I
I
3.1 Topsoil/Fill/Weathered:
' Topsoil/fill, unsuitable materials were encountered to a depth of approximately 5-8 feet below
adjacent grade in our borings. Topsoil materials consist of brown to reddish brown, moist, medium
dense, silty sands. In general, these materials are not considered suitable for the support of
structures and structural improvements in their present state. Unsuitable soil materials classify as
SW-SM according to the Unified Soil Classification System, and based on visual observation, are
considered to possess low potential for expansion.
3.2 Sandstone:
Sandstone was found to underlie the fill/weathered profiles material within our boring excavations.
This layer consists of dense, light brown to brown, moist, silty sandstone. These materials are
considered suitable for the support of structures and structural improvements, provided the
recommendations of this report are followed. Sandstone materials classify as SM-SW according to
I the Unified Soil Classification System, and based on visual observation and our experience, possess a
low potential for expansion.
4.0 GROUND WATER
I Static ground water was not encountered during our limited subsurface investigation. Groundwater is
not anticipated to pose significant constraint to construction, however based upon our experience,
I
perched groundwater conditions can develop where no such condition previously existed. Perched
groundwater conditions can develop over time and can have a significant impact, especially at
basements. In consideration of the habitable basement space proposed we recommend a waterproof
I membrane beneath any basement concrete slab on grade floors. Waterproofing membranes shall be
specifically detailed by waterproofing consultant. If groundwater conditions are encountered during site
excavations, a slab underdrain system may be required. Trenches below basement should be detailed
I with perimeter and trench cut-off walls keyed into competent sandstone.
Where infiltration facilities are proposed in proximity of the residence, infiltration facilities shall
I maintain a minimum horizontal offset of 10 feet from any building slabs that are not detailed with
waterproof membranes or be lined with an impermeable membrane. Infiltration facilities shall maintain
, a minimum offset from any top of slope. This distance will be based on specific site conditions and
reviewed on a case by case basis. Proper surface drainage and irrigation practices will play a significant
role in the future performance of the project. Please note in the "Concrete Slab on Grade" section of this
I report for specific recommendations regarding water to cement ratio for moisture sensitive areas. The
I Pritchard Residence Page No. 2
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California Job No. 165692-1
I
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
I
I
Page No. 3
Job No. 165692-1
Pritchard Residence
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECH NICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
project architect and/or waterproofing consultant shall specifically address waterproofing details.
5.0 LIQUEFACTION
It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a
major earthquake along any of the faults in the Southern California region. However, the seismic risk at
this site is not significantly greater than that of the surrounding developed area.
Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes.
Research and historical data indicate that loose, granular soils underlain by a near-surface ground water
table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty clays and clays is not adversely
affected by vibratory motion. Because of the dense nature of the soils materials underlying the site and
the lack of near surface water, the potential for liquefaction or seismically-induced dynamic settlement
at the site is considered low. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most
recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers
Association of California.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 GENERAL
In general, it is our opinion the proposed new residence, as discussed and described herein, is feasible
from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and all applicable codes
are followed. We anticipate the basement excavations proposed will extend through topsoil, fill and
weathered profiles to competent sandstone. We anticipate a removal and recompaction below the
non-basement area, including slab-on-grade floors and the columns for the new upper level. We
anticipate the bottom of footings will extend to competent sandstone or recompacted fill; and the new
slab on grade will be placed on compacted backfill. Based upon review of proposed cuts we anticipate
shoring, along the eastern and southern property line, at a minimum will be necessary.
6.2 EARTHWORK
We anticipate in general grading will consist of the excavation and backfill associated with the basement
and first floor footings. Where grading is conducted it should be done in accordance with the
recommendations below as well as Appendix B of this report and the standards of city and state
I
I
I
I
I
[1
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I agencies, as applicable.
6.2.a. Site Preparation
Prior to any grading, the areas of proposed improvements should be cleared of surface and subsurface
I debris (including organic topsoil, vegetative and construction debris). Removed debris should be
properly disposed of off-site prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes resulting from the
removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements which extend below the undercut depths
I noted, should be filled and compacted.
I 6.2.b. Removals
Topsoil, weathered and fill profiles found to mantle the site, approximately upper 5-8 feet in the area
I investigated, are not suitable for the structural support of buildings or structural improvements in their
present state. In the areas of new basement, we anticipate in general these materials will be removed as
part of the basement foundation excavations. Where the new residence extends beyond the basement,
I existing unsuitable profiles should be removed and recompacted.
Excavated fill materials are suitable for reuse as fill material during grading provided they are cleaned of
debris and oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter (oversized material is not anticipated to be
of significant concern) and free of contamination.
6.2.c. Transitions
We anticipate all foundations will be extended to competent sandstone and recompacted fill material.
All settlement sensitive improvements should be constructed on uniformly supported improvements. In
I consideration of the transition across basement retaining wall backfill, we recommend the upper 3 feet
be compacted to 95% minimum relative compaction. Where this condition cannot be met it should be
I brought to the attention of Engineering Design Group for alternative detailing.
6.2.d. Fills
Any placed fills should be brought to approximately +2% of optimum moisture content and
re-compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction and 95 percent in upper three feet (based on
1 ASTM D1557). Compacted fills should be cleaned of loose debris and oversize material in excess of 6
inches in diameter, brought to near optimum moisture content, and re-compacted as described above.
Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 6-8 inches in thickness. Import of soil material is
Pritchard Residence Page No. 4
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California Job No. 165692-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
I
not anticipated, however if import material is required, soils should have a very low potential for
expansion (El<20), free of debris and organic matter. Prior to importing soils, they should be visually
observed, sampled and tested at the borrow pit area to evaluate soil suitability as fill.
6.2.e. Slopes
Where new slopes are constructed permanent slopes may be cut to a face ratio of 2:1 (horizontal to
vertical). Permanent fill slopes shall be placed at a maximum 2:1 slope face ratio. All temporary cut
slopes shall be excavated in accordance with OSHA requirements and shall not undermine adjacent
property or structures without proper shoring of excavation and/or structures. Subsequent to grading,
planting or other acceptable cover should be provided to increase the stability of slopes, especially
during the rainy season (October thru April). Contractor shall take all necessary precautions, including
shoring, to protect improvements at the street and at adjacent properties during anticipated
excavations. All shoring lagging shall extend to the bottom of the excavation.
6.3 FOUNDATIONS
The following design parameters may be utilized for new foundations founded on competent sandstone
or recompacted material.
6.3.a. Footings bearing uniformly on competent sandstone or recompacted material may be designed
utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf. Where footings extend below a depth
of 5 feet below existing grade an additional 500 psf may be added to the above bearing capacity
for each additional foot of depth to a maximum bearing capacity of 3,000 psf.
6.3.b. 2013 CBC Seismic Design Parameters
Site Class D
Spectral Response Coefficients
SMS (g) 1.210
SM1 (g) 0.699
I
P Li
Pritchard Residence
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 5
Job No. 165692-1
SDS (g) 0.807
Soi (g) 0.466
6.3.c. Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other short
duration loadings.
6.3.d. The parameters in the table below should be used as a minimum for designing new footing
width and depth below lowest adjacent grade into sandstone and recompacted material.
Footing depths are to be confirmed in the field by a representative of Engineering Design Group
prior to the placement of form boards, steel and removal of excavation equipment.
No. of Floors
Supported
Minimum Footing Width *Minimum Footing Depth Below
Lowest Adjacent Grade
1 15 inches 18 inches
2 15 inches 18 inches
3 18 inches 24 inches
6.3.e. All footings founded into competent material should be reinforced with a minimum of two #4
bars at the top and two #4 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). For footings over 30
inches in depth, additional reinforcement, and possibly a stemwall system will be necessary, and
should be reviewed by project structural engineer prior to construction.
I 6.3.f. All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing the above given bearing values and
footing depths, and be reinforced with a minimum of #4 bars at 12 inches o.c. in each direction
(3 inches above the ground). Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width and depth I of 24 inches.
I 6.3.g. For footings adjacent to slopes a minimum of 10 feet horizontal setback in competent material
should be maintained. A setback measurement should be taken at the horizontal distance
from the bottom of the footing to slope daylight. Where this condition cannot be met it
I should be brought to the attention of the Engineering Design Group for review.
I Pritchard Residence
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California
Page No. 6
Job No. 165692-1
I
1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECH NICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
ii
I
I
6.3.1. All excavations should be performed in general accordance with the contents of this report,
applicable codes, OSHA requirements and applicable city and/or county standards.
6.3.i. All foundation subgrade soils and footings shall be pre-moistened to 2% over optimum to a
1 minimum of 18 inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete.
6.4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE
- We anticipate all new concrete slab-on-grade floors should be placed on competent sandstone or
recompacted fill. Where new slabs are proposed we recommend the following as the minimum design
i
parameters.
6.4.a. Concrete slabs on grade of the residence should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches and
I should be reinforced with #4 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the midpoint of the slab.
6.4.a.i Slump: Between 3 and 4 inches maximum
I 6.4.a.ii Aggregate Size: 3/4 - 1 inch
6.4.a.iii Moisture Sensitive Areas: (i.e. floors, below grade walls) Maximum Water to
Cement Ratio - 0.45 maximum (per ACt 318) Compressive Strength 4,500 psi
minimum (No special inspection required for water to cement ratio purposes,
unless otherwise specified by the structural engineer). This recommendation is
intended to achieve a low permeability concrete.
I 6.4.a.iv Moisture retarding additive: in concrete at concrete slab on grade floors and
moisture sensitive area.
$
1
R Pritchard Residence
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California
Page No. 7
Job No. 165692-1
I
1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
I
I 6.4.a.v Corrosion Potential: Based upon laboratory testing conducted as part of the
field investigation onsite soils indicate exposure categories SO and Cl according
I to ACI 318 standards. The project structural engineer to note increased concrete
protection requirements, as applicable. Where onsite improvements propose
the use of reclaimed water, onsite soils are to be considered moderately to
I highly corrosive to buried metals. Precautions should be taken to protect all
buried metals. As EDG is not an expert in corrosion protection all corrosion
recommendations shall be provided by the corrosion consultant.
6.4.a.vi Non-Moisture Sensitive Areas: Compressive Strength = 2,500 psi minimum. In
I moisture sensitive areas, the slab concrete should have a minimum water to
cement (w/c) ratio of 0.45, generally resulting in a compressive strength of
I approximately 4,500 psi (No special inspection required for water to cement
ratio purposes, unless otherwise specified by the structural engineer) as
determined by the w/c ratio.
6.4.b. In moisture sensitive areas, the slab concrete should have a minimum water to cement (w/c)
ratio of 0.45, generally resulting in a compressive strength of approximately 4,500 psi (No
I special inspection required for water to cement ratio purposes, unless otherwise specified by
the structural engineer) as determined by the w/c ratio. This recommendation is intended to
— achieve a low permeability concrete.
6.4.c. In areas of level slab on grade floors we recommend a one-inch layer of coarse sand material,
I Sand Equivalent (S.E.) greater than 50 and washed clean of fine materials, should be placed
beneath the slab in moisture sensitive areas, above the vapor barrier. There shall be not greater
I
than an 1/2 inch difference across the sand layer.
6.4.d. In subterranean areas (i.e. basement areas) we recommend a waterproof membrane. In
I non-basement moisture sensitive areas, a vapor barrier layer (15 mil) should be placed below
the upper one inch of sand. The vapor barrier shall meet the following minimum requirements:
I 6.4.d.i Permeance of less than 0.01 perm (grains/(ft' hr in/Hg)] as tested in accordance
with ASTM E 1745 Section 7.1.
6.4.d.ii Strength per ASTM 1745 Class A.
I
Pritchard Residence Page No. $
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California Job No. 165692-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS I
1
Li
I 6.4.d.iii The vapor barrier should extend down the interior edge of the footing excavation
a minimum of 6 inches. The vapor barrier should lap a minimum of 8 inches,
I sealed along all laps with the manufacturer's recommended adhesive. Beneath
the vapor barrier a uniform layer of 3 inches of pea gravel is recommended
under the slab in order to more uniformly support the slab, help distribute loads
I to the soils beneath the slab, and act as a capillary break.
I 6.4.e. The project waterproofing consultant should provide all waterproofing, slab underdrain, slab
sealers and various other details, specifications and recommendations (i.e Moiststop and
Linkseal) at areas of potential moisture intrusion (i.e. slab penetrations). Engineering Design
I Group accepts no responsibility for design or quality control of waterproofing elements of the
building.
I 6.4.f. Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of concrete that
takes place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing. The control joints should be
well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by the designer.
6.4.g. All required fills used to support slabs, should be placed in accordance with the grading section
I of this report and the attached Appendix B, and compacted to 90 percent Modified Proctor
Density, ASTM D-1557, and as described in the Earthwork section of this report.
6.4.h. All subgrade soils to receive concrete slabs and flatwork are to be pre-soaked to 2 percent over
optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches.
I 6.4. i. Exterior concrete flatwork, due to the nature of concrete hydration and minor subgrade soil
I movement, are subject to normal minor concrete cracking. To minimize expected concrete
cracking, the following may be implemented:
I 6.4.i.i Concrete may be poured with a 10-inch deep thickened edge. Flatwork adjacent
to top of a slope should be constructed with an outside footing to attain a
minimum of 7 feet distance to daylight.
I 6.4.i.ii Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches.
I 6.4.i.iii Concrete should be poured during "cool" (40 - 65 degrees) weather if possible. If
concrete is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding additive should be included
in the mix, and the slump kept to a minimum.
1
I
Pritchard Residence Page No. 9
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California Job No. 165692-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS I
I
[1
I
I Pritchard Residence
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California
Page No. 10
Job No. 165692-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
6.4.i.iv Concrete subgrade should be pre-soaked prior to the pouring of concrete. The
level of pre-soaking should be a minimum of 2% over optimum moisture to a
depth of 18 inches.
6.4.i.v Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints creating concrete sections no
larger than 225 square feet. For sidewalks, the maximum run between joints
should not exceed 5 feet. For rectangular shapes of concrete, the ratio of length
to width should generally not exceed 0.6 (i.e., 5 ft. long by 3 ft. wide). Joints
should be cut at expected points of concrete shrinkage (such as male corners),
with diagonal reinforcement placed in accordance with industry standards.
6.4.i.vi Isolation joints should be installed at exterior concrete where exterior concrete is
poured adjacent to existing foundations.
6.4.i.vii Drainage adjacent to concrete flatwork should direct water away from the
improvement. Concrete subgrade should be sloped and directed to the collective
drainage system, such that water is not trapped below the flatwork.
6.4.i.viii The recommendations set forth herein are intended to reduce cosmetic nuisance
I cracking. The project concrete contractor is ultimately responsible for concrete
quality and performance, and should pursue a cost-benefit analysis of these
recommendations, and other options available in the industry, prior to the
I pouring of concrete.
6.5 RETAINING WALLS
New retaining walls up to 15 feet may be designed and constructed in accordance with the following
recommendations and minimum design parameters.
6.5.a. Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the allowable bearing criteria
given in the "Foundations" section of this report, and should maintain minimum footing depths
outlined in "Foundations" section of this report. It is anticipated that all retaining wall footings
will be placed on sandstone material. Where cut-fill transitions may occur footings may be
deepened to competent material and alternative detailing may be provided by the Engineering
Design Group on a case by case basis.
I
I
I
I
I
I
[]
I
I
I
I
I
Li
I
I ' Pritchard Residence
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California
Page No. 11
Job No. 165692-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
6.5.b. In moisture sensitive areas (i.e. interior living space where vapor emission is a concern), in our
experience poured in place concrete provides a surface with higher performance-reparability of
below grade waterproofing systems. The owner should consider the cost-benefit of utilizing
cast in place building retaining walls in lieu of masonry as part of the overall construction of the
residence. Waterproofing at any basement floors is recommended in areas of moisture sensitive
floor finishes.
6.5.c. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid
pressure of 40 pcf. This assumes that granular, free draining material with very low potential
for expansion (E.l. <20) will be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level.
Where soil with potential for expansion is not low (E.l. >50) a new active fluid pressure will be
provided by the project soils engineer. Backfill materials should be considered prior to the
design of the retaining walls to ensure accurate detailing. We anticipate onsite material will be
utilized as retaining wall backfill. For sloping backfill, the following parameters may be utilized:
I Backfill Sloping Condition 2:1 Slope
I Active Fluid Pressure 65 pcf
*Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition to the above values.
6.5.d. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement, they should be designed for a
uniform at-rest soil pressure of 65 psf.
6.5.e. Retaining walls shall be designed for additional lateral forces due to earthquake, where required
by code, utilizing the following design parameters.
6.5.e.i Yielding Walls = PE= (3/8) kAE (y) H2 - applied at a distance of 0.6 times the height (H) of
the wall above the base
6.5.e.ii Horizontal ground acceleration value kH = 0.25g.
6.5.e.iii Where non-yielding retaining walls are proposed, the specific conditions should be
brought to the attention of Engineering Design Group for alternative design values.
6.5.e.iv The unit weight of 120 pcf for the onsite soils may be utilized.
I
I
I
I
1
I
LI
I
I
I
I
I
I
[I
6.5.e.v The above design parameters assume unsaturated conditions. Retaining wall designs
for sites with a hydrostatic pressure influence (i.e groundwater within depth of
retaining wall or waterfront conditions) will require special design considerations and
should be brought to the attention of Engineering Design Group.
6.5.f. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pcf. This value
assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures extends horizontally 2.5 times the
height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil. Where the horizontal distance of the available
passive pressure wedge is less than 2.5 times the height of the soil, the passive pressure value
must be reduced by the percent reduction in available horizontal length.
6.5.g. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 between the soil and concrete footings may be utilized to resist
lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above.
6.5.h. All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic pressure, and be
designed in accordance with the minimum standards contained in the "Retaining Wall Drainage
Detail", Appendix D. The waterproofing elements shown on our details are minimums, and are
intended to be supplemented by the waterproofing consultant and/or architect. The
recommendations should be reviewed in consideration of proposed finishes and usage,
especially at basement levels, performance expectations and budget. If deemed necessary by
the project owner, based on the above analysis, and waterproofing systems can be upgraded to
include slab under drains and enhanced waterproofing elements.
6.5.1. Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the "Earthwork"
I section of this report. Backfill shall consist of soil with a very low expansion potential,
granular, free draining material.
6.5.j. Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction. If this cannot be
accomplished, the compactive effort should be included as a surcharge load when designing the
wall.
6.5.k. We make the following recommendations with respect to the shoring detailing.
6.5.k.i All shoring lagging shall extend to the bottom of the excavation.
6.5.k.ii All voids behind the shoring shall be filled with slurry.
6.5.k.iii Seams in the lagging shall be sealed so as not to allow the piping of granular material.
I
I Pritchard Residence
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California
Page No. 12
Job No. 165692-1
[1
I
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
I
F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[j
[1
I
I
6.6 DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
I Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will play a critical role on the future
performance of the dwelling and improvements. Where underdrain/backdrains systems are
incorporated into the project plans, the consistent maintenance of these drain systems will be essential.
I All backdrain and underdrains systems should be detailed with cleanouts, recommended every 30 linear
feet minimum and at all junctions. Backdrains and underdrain discharge points shall be clearly identified
on plans and in the field to prevent obstruction. Consistent maintenance on an annual basis should be
I adhered.
I Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond against or adjacent to foundation walls, or
tops of slopes. The ground surface surrounding proposed improvements should be relatively impervious
in nature, and slope to drain away from the structure in all directions, with a minimum slope of 2% for a
I horizontal distance of 7 feet (where possible). Area drains or surface swales should then be provided to
accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. Any french drains, backdrains and/or slab
I underdrains shall not be tied to surface area drain systems. Roof gutters and downspouts shall be
installed on the new and existing structures and tightlined to the area drain system. All drains should
be kept clean and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Area drains should be kept free of
debris to allow for proper drainage.
Over watering can adversely affect site improvements and cause perched groundwater conditions.
I Irrigation should be limited to only the amount necessary to sustain plant life. Low flow irrigation
devices as well as automatic rain shut-off devices should be installed to reduce over watering. Irrigation
I practices and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems are an important component to the
performance of onsite improvements.
I During periods of heavy rain, the performance of all drainage systems should be inspected. Problems
such as gullying or ponding should be corrected as soon as possible. Any leakage from sources such as
water lines should also be repaired as soon as possible. In addition, irrigation of planter areas, lawns, or
I other vegetation, located adjacent to the foundation or exterior flat work improvements, should be
strictly controlled or avoided.
7.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by the
investigation and our general experience in the project area. Interpolated subsurface conditions should
I be verified in the field during construction. The following items shall be conducted prior/during
I Pritchard Residence
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California
Page No. 13
Job No. 165692-1
I
I
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
I
I construction by a representative of Engineering Design Group in order to verify compliance with the
geotechnical and civil engineering recommendations provided herein, as applicable. The project
I structural and geotechnical engineers may upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during the
development of the proposed improvement(s).
I 7.1 Review of final approved grading and structural plans prior to the start of work for
compliance with geotechnical recommendations.
7.2 Attendance of a pre-grade/construction meeting prior to the start of work.
1 7.3 Observation of subgrade, excavation bottoms.
7.4 Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and utility trenches.
I 7.5 Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement and removal of excavation
equipment.
7.6 Field observation of any "field change" condition involving soils.
1 7.7 Walk through of final drainage detailing prior to final approval.
The project soils engineer may at their discretion deepen footings or locally recommend additional steel I reinforcement to upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during site observations. Engineering
Design Group shall, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, issue in writing that the above
I inspections have been conducted by a representative of their firm, and the design considerations of the
project soils report have been met. The field inspection protocol specified herein is considered the
minimum necessary for Engineering Design Group to have exercised "due diligence' in the soils
I engineering design aspect of this building. Engineering Design Group assumes no liability for structures
constructed utilizing this report not meeting this protocol.
I Before commencement of grading the Engineering Design Group will require a separate contract for
quality control observation and testing. Engineering Design Group requires a minimum of 48 hours'
notice to mobilize onsite for field observation and testing.
8.0 MISCELLANEOUS
It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of cracks and minor
I signs of cosmetic distress. The flexible nature of wood and steel structures allows them to respond to
movements resulting from minor unavoidable settlement of fill or natural soils, the swelling of clay soils,
I or the motions induced from seismic activity. All of the above can induce movement that frequently
results in cosmetic cracking of brittle wall surfaces, such as stucco or interior plaster or interior brittle
slab finishes.
I
I Pritchard Residence Page No. 14
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California Job No. 165692-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECH NICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS I
I
I
I Data for this report was derived from surface observations at the site, knowledge of local conditions,
and a visual observation of the soils exposed in the exploratory borings. The recommendations in this
I report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site and nearby
sites. We believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for anticipating the
behavior of the proposed structure; however, our recommendations are professional opinions and
1 cannot control nature, nor can they assure the soils profiles beneath or adjacent to those observed.
Therefore, no warranties of the accuracy of these recommendations, beyond the limits of the obtained
I data, is herein expressed or implied. This report is based on the investigation at the described site and
on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein. If either of these conditions is changed, the
results would also most likely change.
Man-made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In
addition, changes in requirements due to state of the art knowledge and/or legislation are rapidly
occurring. As a result, the findings of this report may become invalid due to these changes.
Therefore, this report for the specific site, is subject to review and not considered valid after a period of
one year, or if conditions as stated above are altered.
It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information in this report be
incorporated into the plans and/or specifications and construction of the project. It is advisable that a
contractor familiar with construction details typically used to deal with the local subsoil and seismic
conditions be retained to build the structure.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate
to contact us. We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue with the
development of the project.
I
I
I
I
I
I Pritchard Residence
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California
Page No. 15
Job No. 165692-1
I
I
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
I
I
I
I
[1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
FIGURES I
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
ENG[NEERING
DESIGN GROUP
GEOTC'. CIV C & TCUCTL&&I CCT&(TC
fCP Vt; r LOT IAC P. ruup)qhI.&L C[)'SII'tJCIICil
2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 - (760) 839-7302- Fax: (760) 480-7477 - www.designgroupca.com
Project: Pritchard Residence
Address: 5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California
EDG Project No: 165692-1
FIGURE 1
Vicinity Map
ENGINEERING
IM DESIGN GROUP
GFOCL. AL CIVL A 1W1LRAL CrrjA'AT, A L IL Ar IX L A CAU A' AL'AL LL'A. UC flLA
• • :.1'l r_•1',rituI Fc.(1• -;ri Marcos, ( iIiIrirpu ,1()r .(l' I •t'1) .t/,
P F,.A0
LO
TV
W.
10
qP
C.
- '7' '.â•
wv
*
:. .'; F
>I J
Project: Pritchard Residence FIGURE 2 Address: 5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California
EDG Project No: 165692-1 Site Map
ENGINEERING on DESIGN GROUP
GfOPCi- CAL CIV F A ItLICTIROL CFSF'I*TSTF
i P iLfl II PSI IA L & CPU UI it 'AL CC'S: i "tiC I 1L4
2121 Manuel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 (760) 839-7302 Fax: (760) 480-7477 www.designgroupca.com
Project: Pritchard Residence FIGURE 3
Address: 5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California Site Plan and Approximate Location of Borings EDG Project No: 165692-1
PROJECT NAME PRITCHARD RESIDENCE LOG OF BORING No. IL
SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT NUMBER 165692-1
LOCATION APPROX. 25' N. OF SOUTHERNMOST PROPERTY CORNER.
DATE
DRILLED 12-12-2016 DRILLING METHOD
AND TYPE OF RIG TRIPOD RIG TOTAL DEPTH
DRILLED (feet) 19.5
LOGGED BY ER/AB BACKFILLED/CONVERTED TO WELL ON(date) APPROX SURFACE 41 SAME DAY I ELEVATION (feet)
DIAMETER 6w GROUNDWATER I FIRST COMPLETION
OF BORING LEVEL (feet BGS) NA NONE NONE
TYPE OF SPT TYPE OF WEIGHT (Ibs) DROP (in.)
SAMPLER(S) cAiJFORNIA SAFElY I HAMMER 140 30
Q)
Lj.J 1 Q. -j LiJ 0. * *0- q
W wz
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND NOTES ww
•
2
.
•
.
- 10 .
4
15
4
- 20
/ BULK
B1-1
B1 —2
B1-3
131 —4
____
3,3,2
6,10,
5
7,7,
13
5
16
13
20
:.
TOPSOIL/FILL/WEATHERED
HAND AUGER TO 2 FT.
LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, DARK BROWN TO BROWN, SILTY'
SAND WITH SMALL ROOTS.
LOOSE, MOIST, DARK BROWN TO BROWN, SILTY SANDS, WITH ROOTS.
MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, DARK BROWN TO BROWN, SILTY' SANDS.
MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, BROWN, SILTY' SANDS.
MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, BROWN TO REDDISH BROWN, SILTY SANDS.
SANDSTONE
DENSE, MOIST, BROWN TO REDDISH BROWN, SLIGHTLY SILTY
SANDSTONE
DENSE, MOIST, LIGHT BROWN TO REDDISH BROWN, SLIGHTLY SILTY
SANDSTONE
DENSE, MOIST REDDISH BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY
SANDSTONE
MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN, SLIGHTLY SILTY
SANDSTONE
MEDIUM DENSE MOIST BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN, SLIGHTLY SILTY
SANDSTONE
/
/
/
:
/
-
131-5
81-6
B1-7
B1-8
Bi
-
9
____
13,15
16
17,18,
20
13,20
17
8,11,
12
1112,
16
____
31
38
37
23
28
____
/
-
I
/
I
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
ADDITIONAL NOTES / COMMENTS:
2121 MONTIEL ROAD
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
(760) 839-7302
FAX (760) 480-7477
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NAME PRITCHARD RESIDENCE LOG OF BORING No. B-2
SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT NUMBER 165692-1
LOCATION APPROX. 25' N. OF SOUTHERNMOST PROPERTY CORNER.
DATE
DRILLED 12-12-2016 DRILLING METHOD
AND TYPE OF RIG TRIPOD RIG TOTAL DEPTH
DRILLED (feet) 16.5
LOGGED BY ER/AB BACKFILLED/CONVERTED TO WELL ON(date) APPROX SURFACE 41.5 SAME DAY I ELEVATION (feet)
DIAMETER 6 GROUNDWATER I FIRST COMPLETION
OF BORING LEVEL (feet BGS) I NONE NONE
TYPE OF 21 SPT TYPE OF WEIGHT (Ibs) DROP (in.)
SAMPLER(S) E] CALIFORNIA SAFETY HAMMER 140 30
U-1
0..
ww
0.. * MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND NOTES So 0
/ TOPSOIL/FILL/WEATHERED
DRILLED TO 7 FT.
/
/ BULK LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, DARK BROWN TO BROWN, SILTY • / SAND WITH SMALL ROOTS.
5./
/
/
132-1 '' 10 18 MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, BROWN, SLIGHTLY SILTY SANDS. /
. SANDSTONE :
/ 132-2 91' 25
:;.
10 MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, BROWN TO REDDISH BROWN SILTY SANDS
A -3 B2 11 112p 27 MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, BROWN TO REDDISH BROWN, SLIGHTLY SILTY
15 SANDSTONE
7
/ BULK MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST LIGHT BROWN TO REDDISH BROWN SLIGHTLY / SILTY SANDSTONE
15 I 132-4 9,11, 22 MEDIUM DENSE MOIST REDDISH BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN SLIGHTLY
11 SILTY SANDSTONE
- 20
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
ADDITIONAL NOTES / COMMENTS:
2121 MONTIEL ROAD
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
(760) 839-7302
FAX (760) 480-7477
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I APPENDIX A
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
REFERENCES
Brian Church Architecture, Plans for Pritchard Residence, Dated 09/12/16.
California Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Rupture Zones in California, Special
Publication 42, Revised 1990.
4. Day, Robert W. 1999. Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering Design and Construction. McGraw Hill.
Greensfelder, R.W., 1974 Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California Division of Mines
and Geology, Map Sheet 23.
Kennedy, Michael P. and Tan Siang S., Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California.
Plate 2, Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, San Diego County California.
Dated 1996.
Kennedy, Michael P. and Tan Siang S., Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30'X60' Quadrangle, California. Dated
2002.
Lee, L.J., 1977, Potential foundation problems associated with earthquakes in San Diego, in Abbott, P.L. and
Victoria, J.K., eds. Geologic Hazards in San Diego, Earthquakes, Landslides, and Floods: San Diego Society of
Natural History John Porter Dexter Memorial Publication.
Newmark sliding block analysis, Report 5, Miscellaneous Paper, S 71-17, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vickburg, Mississippi."
Ploessel, M.R. and Slossan, i.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes: California
Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9, P. 195-199.
State of California, Fault Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1975.
State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1977.
Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) Seismology Committee, Macroseminar
Presentation on Seismically Induced Earth Pressure, June 8, 2006.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Shoreline Movement Data
Report, Portuguese Point to Mexican Border, dated December
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Coastal Cliff Sediments,
San Diego Region (CCSTWS 87-2), dated June.
Van Dorn, W.G., 1979 Theoretical aspects of tsunamis along the San Diego coastline, in Abbott, P.L. and Elliott,
W.J., Earthquakes and Other Perils: Geological Society of America field trip guidebook.
Various Aerial Photographs.
I
El
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX B
I
I
El]
I
I
I
rl
I
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
1.0 General Intent
These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for grading and
earthwork to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These general earthwork
and grading specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report
and shall be superseded by the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict.
Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new
recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the
geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these
specifications, as well as the geotechnical report and approved grading plans.
2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testing
Prior to commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the
purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the
recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility
of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at
least 24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading
operations should be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The
contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to
I accomplish the work in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances,
recommendations in the geotechnical report and the approved grading plans not withstanding the
testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant If, in the opinion of the consultant,
unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction,
I adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical
report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend
that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
I Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction shouls be performed in
general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test
method ASTM D1557.
3.0 Preparations of Areas to be Filled
1 3.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots and all other deleterious material
should be removed or properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, design
engineer, governing agencies and the geotechnical consultant.
I The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals depending
on specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (by volume) of the fill material
I should consist of these materials and nesting of these materials should not be allowed.
3.2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant
to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches.
I Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the
following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of
large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free
of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction.
FJ
P
I
I
I
I
1
I
3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable
ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the
condition, should be overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining quantities of materials overexcavated,
a licensed land surveyor I civil engineer should be utilized.
3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried back,
blended and I or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum.
3.5 Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed,
screened of deleterious material and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a
minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise recommended by the
geotechnical consultant.
3.6 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal
to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench should be a
minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent material as evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant. Other benches should be excavated into competent material as
evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched
or otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas
and toe-of-fill benches, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill
placement.
Fill Material
4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to
placement. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed
as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve
satisfactory fill material.
4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension of greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unless the
location, materials and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical
consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material
does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted
or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish
grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet
horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail.
4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material should meet
the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given to allow the geotechnical
consultant to observe (and test, if necessary) the proposed import materials.
Fill Placement and Compaction
5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously evaluated to
receive fill, in near-horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each
layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of material and
moisture throughout.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0
I
I
I
I
I
I 5.0
I
I
Li]
fl H
5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried-back, blended and/or mixed, as
necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum.
5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture-conditioned and
I mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to no less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(unless otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve
the specified degree and uniformity of compaction.
1 5.4 Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished in addition to normal
compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3
I to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the
completion of grading, the relative compaction of fill out to the slope face would be at least
90 percent.
I 5.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of compaction of the
fill soils should be performed at the consultant's discretion based on file dconditions
encountered. In general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in
I vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils. In addition to, on slope faces,
as a guideline approximately one test should be taken for every 5,000 square feet of slope
face and /or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope.
6.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be installed in areas previously evaluated for suitability
by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the
plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified unless
recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant however, may recommend changes
I in subdrain line or grade depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains should be surveyed
by a licensed land surveyor! civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time shall
be allowed for the survey, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains.
1 7.0 Excavation
I Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant
(as necessary) during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation,
overexcavation and refilling of cut areas and/or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e. stability fills or
slope buttresses) may be recommended.
I
8.0 Quantity Determination
For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or determining
the limits of overexcavation, a licensed land surveyor I civil engineer should be utilized.
I
I
I
I
SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
2' 1 15' MIN.
MIN. LOWEST
KEY BENCH
DEPTH (KEY)
EXISTING GROUND
SURFACE
-
FINISHED CUT PAD
(u. IEl V4 i I
(
PAD OVEREXCAVATIOP4 DEPTH
IW/ AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE
RECOMMENDED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
BENCH BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD
CONDITIONS -ENCOU.NTEREO.
.-COMPETENT BEDROCK OR
, MATERIAL AS EVALUATED I
( BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT -
FINISHED SLOPE FACE
PROJECT 1 TO I LINE
FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO
OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY
OVERBURDEN OR
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
NOTE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based
on exposed subsurface conditions
------------------------- 1ta(t
MIN :--:--:-2S MIN E1E:-
I KEY WIDTH
AS NOTED ON GRADING PLANS
is, MIN.
6' MIN.
OVE RN LL A
3/4-11/2
CLEAN GRAVEL
(3ft?/ft.
4'0 NON-PERFORATED
PIPE
FILTER FABRIC
ENVELOPE (MIRAFI
140N OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)*
SUBDRAIN 1
49 MIN.
BEDDING
RENCH DETAIL
SEE T-CONNECTION
DETAIL
6 MIN.
(COVER
PERFORATED
PIPE
OUTLET PIPES
-4* 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE.
100 MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY.
80' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY-. BACK CUT
1:1 OR FLATTER
BENCH
SEE SUBORAIN TRENCH
DETAIL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KEY
DEPTH
STABILITY FILL I BUTTRESS DETAIL
L
LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD
BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
SUITABLE OUTLET
* IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC
MAY BE DELETED
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size % Passing
1" 100
3/4" 90-100
3/8' 40-100
No. 4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
No. 30 5-15
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
Sand Equivalent >75
PERFOREATED 10' MIN.
PIP L.. _( EACH SIDE
NON-PERFORATED
CAP
I OUTLET PIPE
T-CONNECTION DETAIL
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
NOTES:
For buttress dimensions, see geotechnical report/plans. Actual dimensions of buttress and subdraifl
may be chanced by the geotechniCal consultant based on field conditions.
SUBDRAIN lNSTALLATION-Subdrain pipe should be Installed with perforations down as depicted.
At locations recommended by the geotechnical consultant, nonperforated pipe should be Installed
SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdraln type should be Acrylon true Butadlefle Styrene (A.B.SJ, Polyvinyl Chloride
(PVC) or approved equivalent. class 125,SOR 32.5 should be used for maximum till depths of 35 feet.
Class 200, SOR 21 should be used for maximum flit depth' of 100 feet.
n
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS
FILL SLOPE PROJECT 1 TO I LINE
FROM TOE OF SLOPE
TO COMPETENT MATERIAL
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
BENCH
2' MN.H_i5' MIN. KEY LOWEST
DEPTH BENCH
(KEY)
- QMPACTEDI-
FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE
EXISTING ----
GROUND SURFACEN\
-
- -:--...--
BENCH
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE 20 - LOWEST MATERIAL - MIN. BENCH KEY (KEY) DEPTH
I U-
CUT SLOPE
(TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT)
EXISTING /V
GROUND
SURFACE
-CUT SLOPE
CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE / /y" (TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
m--REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
PROJECT I TO 1 MATERIAL
LINE FROM TOE
OF SLOPE TO
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
ENCH
f k-ic MIN.---
2' MIN LOWEST I
BENCH ICE? DEPTH
NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on
actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may
also be altered based on field conditions encountered.
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
I FINISH GRADE
I SLOPE FACE
I
11
----------------- --------------
N=R:Z:: OVERSIZE WINDROW
GRANULAR SOIL (S.E.a30) TO BE
DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY FLOODING
DETAIL
I
I
- - - - -
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 8 inches should not be used within 10 feet
vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever Is greater),
and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces.
Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in fills.
Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by th
geotechnical consultant.
Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above detaih
Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered
vertically (as depicted).
Rock should be placed in excavated trenches. Granular soil (S.E. greater than or equal
to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath
rocks.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
F~
Ll
APPENDIX C H
7-7
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LNGINEERING
n, DESIGN GROUP
GEOIECHUICAL. CIVIL, STRUCTURAL U RUCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
FOR RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION
2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069• (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 'www.designgroupca.com
I
LABORATORY RESULTS
Method Cal-Trans
Analyte Result Reporting
Limit
Units Dilution Method
SULFATE 151.2 n/a ppm 1 CT 417
CHLORIDE 14.9 n/a ppm 1 CT 422
p.H. 7.22 n/a pH units 1 CT 643
RESISTIVITY 6250 n/a ohms.cm 1 CT 643
ND=None detected - us/cm = micro Siemens per centimeter - ppm-parts per million
(10,000ppm=1% by weight)
I Pritchard Residence
5098 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California
Job No. 165692-1
I
I
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D I
LF-7
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CLWCORa.IU -. RET WALL PER
PLAN & DETAILS
H)VRO7IIE WATER-
STOPS AT COLD-
£4N75 PER MFR
INSTALLATION
INSTRUCTIONS
SLAB &VAPOR -
BARRIER PER
PLAN &
DETAILS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lip ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
2121 MON11EL ROAD PHONE: (760) 839-7302
SAN MARCOS. CALJFORNiA 92069 FAX: (760) 480-7477
MINIMUM RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFING & DRAINAGE DETAIL
(Nor 10 SCALE)
THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS THE MINIMUM WALL DRAINAGE
AND WATERPROOFING APPLICAI7al 70 SATISFY THE STRUCTURAL
DESIGN INTENT OF THE RETAINING WALL. THE ARCHITECT OR
DESIGNER OF RECORD FOR THE PRMCT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE
al FOR THE DE AND SPECIFICATION OF THE W47ERPR0Q1NG JX MIN
SLOPE
ASSEMBLY
10 FOAM UV PROTECTION BOARD PER
MANUFACTURER'S spEancAnoN
WATERPROOFING INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURER'S SPECInwroys &
EXTEND BEHIND BAQ(ER BOARD.
BACKORAIN, INSTALLED PER
3 MANUFACTURER'S wannays
OR WATERPROOFING,
2 ANY PENETRATIONS OF WA7ERPRO7NG
SHALL BE BROUGHT 10 THE ATtENTION
--in
OF THE WATERPROOFING
CONSULTANT/MANUFACTURER IN
ADVANCE AND SEALED PER
MANUFACTURERS spionCARONS,
TERMINATION BAR PER
MANUFACTURER'S 9'EC4FICA liONS
FILTER FABRIC WI 6" MIN LAP ® 3/4" DRAWL (1 SF / PT)
4" DIA PERFORATED DRAIN LINE (Sal 40 OR
EQUIV.) PERFORATIONS ORIENTED DOV#d IX () MINIMUM GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET -
EXACT PIPE LOCATiON 70 BE DETERMINED BY ir CONSTRAINTS
()4" TALL CONCRETE CANT 0 P70 / WALL
CONNECTION (UNDER WATERPROOFING) . OPE
70 BACK EDGE OF FOOTING.
COMPACTED BACKFiLL BOX MIN RaAITW
COMPACTION IN ALL OTHER AREAS U.O.N.
*
6" MAX LIFTS ONLY LIGHTWEIGHT
HAND-OPERA TED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE USED
WTHIN BACK FACE OF WALL
C' ROUGHNESS OF WALL SHALL COMPLY NTH
WATERPROOFING MANUFACTURER'S
'EaF7CAT7ONa