HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3929 Lot 148 Limited Geotechnical Investigation
t .H.E. Soils Co.
"hone: (909) 678-9669 FAX: (909) 678-9769
11705 Central Street, Suite A. Wildomar, CA 92595
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E-mail: thesoilsco@aol.com
May 21, 2001
RECEIVED
JUN 6 ZOOI
CITY OF TE
ENGINEERING D
EIVED
JUN 6 2001
Mr. Brian Erdelyi
26921 Grace Lane
Hemet, California 92543
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT:
LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Single Family Residence - Meadow View Development
Lot 148, Tract No. 3929
Del Rey Road
Temecula, Riverside COWlty, California
Work Order No. 277101.00
Dear Mr. Erdelyi:
In accordance with your request, we have performed a limited geotechnical investigation for the
proposed single-family residence at the above referenced site. The purpose of our investigation was
to evaluate the engineering parameters of the on-site soils and provide design parameters including
allowable bearing values. A 40-scale topographic Site Plan was provided for our investigation and
was utilized as our Limited Geotechnical Map, Plate 1.
INTRODUCTION
ProDOsed Development
The proposed development calls for the construction of a one-story single-family residence with
associated driveway and landscaped area.
Site Description
The subject site consists of a vacant Wldeveloped parcel that is located in a large parcel residential
development (Meadow View area) in the City of Temecula in southwest Riverside COWlty,
California The site is bordered on all sides by existing large parcel residential lots and on the
northwest by Del Rey Road. The geographical relationships of the site and surroWlding area are
shown on our Site Location Map, Figure 1.
Topographically, the subject site consists of moderately sloping terrain, which slopes to the
northwest toward Del Rey Road with natural gradients of approximately 13 to 20%. Vegetation
consists predominately of a low thick growth of annual weeds and grasses.
T.H.E. Soils Company
w.o. NO. 27710 1.00
\
~<S' <'0
. '"
~~
'"'"6'1::]
:> 'c2 !\
I::] I <I
.. \
." "'.,
" .
~. ~-'
.' :/'"
/v ,\
/' "\.,~ PLATE 1
T .H.E. Soils Co.
Phone: (9ll91678-9669 FAX: (9091 678-9769
31705 Ccntr.J1 Strect, Suite A . Wildomar, CA 92595
ISl
'?
ISl
:<:\~ ~ /~J: . ."-
>""~~~.t.\:__: ";'~-:":.'
t",,,,"",+,+e-,~,..,::.., 7;,
f ") .'+,"', <9~
.i~ "''''>~'.. J>,
'+",'," "
\~se Ranch'h. '-:''', / ~
\" Californ~''-., _ " ~
~~-, Ai(port ......'''--" :
." ......','--" ,..
.~~"'-.~ ,
". ~~, .
ADAPTED FROM A U.S.G.S. 7. MINUTE QUADRANGLE MAP-
MURRIETA, CA., 1953 (PHOTOREVISED 1979)
o
.
1000
2000
SCALE; FT.
3000
4000
SITE LOCATION MAP
w.o. #
277101.00
Date:
MAY 2001
Figure: 1
2-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Brian Erdelyi
May 21,2001
Page 2
SITE INVESTIGATION
Back2round Research and Literature Review
Several published reports and geologic maps were reviewed for the purpose of preparing this report.
A complete list of the publications and geologic maps reviewed for this investigation is presented in
Appendix A.
Field Investil!:ation
Subsurface exploration, field recormaissance, and mapping of the site were conducted on May 2,
2001. A total of 2 exploratory trenches were advanced utilizing a Case No. 590L extenda-hoe
equipped with an l8-inch bucket. Exploratory trench T-l was advanced to the maximum depth
explored of8.0-ft below the groWld surface (bgs).
Information collected during our field mapping is presented on our exploratory trenches. Our field
geologist, who prepared field logs and obtained in-place and bulk soil samples for laboratory
testing, supervised excavation of the borings. Copies of our exploratory trench logs are presented
in Appendix B.
Laboratorv Testinl!: Prolmlm
Representative bulk and in-situ samples of soils encoWltered during our subsurface exploration
were obtained for laboratory testing. Laboratory testing to determine the engineering parameters of
representative soils included maximum density/optimum moisture, sieve analysis, direct shear
testing, expansion index, and soluble sulfate content.
Laboratory testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM, Caltrans, and Uniform Building Code
(UBe) test specifications, where applicable. The results of our laboratory tests are presented in
Appendix C of this report.
GEOLOGY & SEISMICITY
Geolotrlc Settinl!:
The site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southem California. The
Peninsular Ranges, which extend southward from the Los Angeles Basin through Baja California,
are characterized by Mesozoic age intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic, metasedimentary and
sedimentary rock. The Peninsular Ranges have a general northwest-trending structural grain that
includes such geologic features as faults, bedding and foliation trends, and geologic contacts.
.RE. Soils Company
W.o. NO. 277101.00
.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
M..r. Bri:m Erdelyi
May 21, 2001
Page 3
Seismicitv
The site is located in a region of generally high seisrnicity, as is all of southern California During
its design life, the site is expected to experience strong groWld motions from earthquakes on
regional and/or local causative faults. The subject site is not located within a State of California
Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No active faults are known to traverse the site. The closest
known active fault is the Elsinore Fault Zone (Glen Ivy) located about 3.3-kilometers to the
southwest (ICBO, 1998).
Significant changes to site-specific seismic criteria were made in the 1997 UBC, Chapter 16. The
formulas, which calculate the site-seismic coefficients (C. and Cv), incorporate several detailed site
factors including the distance from the closest active fault to the site (Maps of Near-Source Zones,
published by International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1998), the type of fault based
on slip rate per year (ICBO, 1998, and 1997 UBC Table 16-0), seisrnic zone in which the site is
located (1997 UBC Figure 16-2 and Table 16-1), and the type of soil or rock beneath the site (1997
UBC Table 16-J and Section 1636). From these site characteristics, one can determine the near-
source factors for acceleration (N.) and velocity (Nv) from 1997 UBC Tables 16-S and 16-T,
respectively. The seismic coefficients are then determined by multiplying the coefficient of
acceleration (C.) determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-Q by the near-source factor of acceleration
(N.) and multiplying the coefficient of velocity (Cv), from 1997 UBC Table 16-R, by the near-
source factor of velocity (Nv). The preceding formula results in seismic coefficients, which are
much more specific to each site than the 1994 UBC method. This formula is intended to provide
values that will be used to properly design the structure, eliminating Wlder or over designing.
Factors specific to the subject site are as follows:
The site is approximately 3.3-kilometers from the Elsinore fault (Glen Ivy) zone (ICBO,
1998).
The Elsinore fault (Glen Ivy) is reported as a Type B fault (ICBO, 1998; and 1997 UBC
Table 16-0) in the vicinity of the subject site.
The site is within Seisrnic Zone 4 (1997 UBC Figure 16-2, Table 16-1).
The near source acceleration (N.) and velocity (Nv) with respect to the subject site are 1.2
and 1.45, respectively (1997 UBC Tables 16-S and 16-T).
The soil profile for the site is SD (1997 UBC Table 16-1).
The site seisrnic coefficients of acceleration (C.) and velocity (Cv) are O.44N. and O.64Nv,
respectively (1997 UBC Tables 16-Q and 16-R).
.H.E. Soils Company
W.o. NO. 277101.00
4.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Brian Erdelyi
May 21,2001
Page 4
Based on the above values, the coefficient of acceleration (Ca) is 0.53 and a coefficient of
velocity (Cv) is 0.93 for the subject site.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDmONS
General
Locally, dense sedimentary bedrock units of the Pauba formation to the maximum depth explored
of lO.O-ft bgs Wlderlie the subject site. Minor amoWlts of colluvial soils (1 to 2-ft) were observed
within our exploratory trenches.
Colluvial Soils
Colluvial soils were observed mantling the sedimentary bedrock throughout the subject site and
varied in thickness from 1 (T-l) to 2-ft (T-2). This unit can be described as a dark yellow brown to
gray brown silty sand (Unified Soils Classification - SM) that is fine to coarse grained, loose and
dry with numerous fine roots and pin point pores.
Pauba Formation
Sedimentary bedrock materials of the late Pleistocene age Pauba formation Wlderlie the entire
subject site. The sedimentary unit generally consists, for the most part, of dark brown to yellow
brown silty sands (SM) to the total depth explored of lO-ft bgs. The sedimentary bedrock units can
generally be described as fine to coarse grained, trace of gravel, well graded, medium dense to
dense, with numerous pin point pores in the upper 1 to 5-ft.
Groundwater
GroWldwater was not encoWltered to the maximum depth explored of lO.O-ft bgs within
exploratory trench T-2. Historic high groWldwater is anticipated to be in excess of lOO-ft below the
groWld surface at the subject site (Rancho California Water District, 1984).
Excavation Characteristics
The sedimentary bedrock materials are anticipated to be excavated with moderate ease utilizing
conventional grading equipment in proper working condition.
SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS
Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is the loss of soil strength due to increased pore water pressures caused by a
significant ground shaking (seisrnic) event. Liquefaction typically consists of the re-arrangement of
.H.E. Soils Company
w.o. NO. 277101.00
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Brian Erdelyi
May 21, 2001
Page 5
the soil particles into a denser condition resulting, in this case, in localized areas of settlement, sand
boils, and flow failures. Areas Wlderlain by loose to medium dense cohesionless soils, where
groWldwater is within 30 to 40 feet of the surface, are particularly susceptible when subject to
groWld accelerations such as those due to earthquake motion. The liquefaction potential is
generally considered greatest in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands, with a mean grain size
(050) in the range of 0.075 to O.2mm.
The subject site is Wlderlain by medium dense to dense sedimentary bedrock units that are overlain
by minor amoWlts of colluvial soils (generally 1 to 2-ft). GroWldwater is anticipated to be in excess
of 100-ft at the subject site (Rancho California Water District, 1984). The loose colluvial soils are
anticipated to be removed during rough grading operations (see Recommendations). Based upon
the above information, the liquefaction potential is anticipated to be very low.
Secondarv Hazards
Due to the absence of known faulting on the subject site, the absence of a large body of water in
the vicinity of the site, the presence of sedimentary bedrock materials, and the proposed grading
recommendations; the potential for secondary seisrnic hazards, including groWld rupture, seiches,
and seisrnically induced soil settlement, are considered unlikely.
RECOMMENDATIONS
General Earthwork
Recommendations for site development and design are presented in the following sections of this
report. The recommendations presented herein are preliminary and should be confirmed during
construction.
Prior to the commencement of site development, the site should be cleared of any vegetation and
existing buildings and associated concrete fOWldations, electric lines, etc., which should be hauled
off-site. The client, prior to any site preparation, should arrange and attend a meeting among the
grading contractor, the design engineer, the soils engineer and/or geologist, a representative of the
appropriate governing authorities as well as any other concerned parties. All parties should be given
at least 48 hours' notice. Earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the Standard
Earthwork and Grading Specifications provided in Appendix D, except where specified in this
report.
Site Preparation
Prior to grading the proposed pad area should be cleared of any trash or debris and stripped of
vegetation, which should be removed from the site and properly disposed of. Vegetation, trash or
debris should not be incorporated into any fill areas.
.H.E. Soils Company
W.o. NO. 277101.00
(p
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Brian Erdelyi
May 21, 2001
Page 6
The existence of colluvial soils within the vicinity of the proposed fill slope keyway will require
removal of the n= surface soils a minimum of 5-ft bgs. The removals should extend into medium
dense sedimentary bedrock materials that are free of voids and roots. Due to the anticipated
presence of a cut-to-fill transition within the building pad, the cut portion of the proposed building
pad will require overexcavation of the near surface materials a minimum of 3.0-ft below the design
grade. Overexcavation should extend a minimum distance of 5-ft beyond the building lines and
limits of fill. The soils engineer and/or geologist should verify the depth of removals in the field.
However, in areas that do not yield competent material and/or areas containing large trees with deep
root systems, basements, and/or septic systems, deeper removals may be necessary.
A keyway should be established a minimum of I-ft into competent material along the toe of the
proposed fill slope and is anticipated to extend a minimum of 6-ft bgs. The keyway should be tilted
a minimum of 2 percent into the slope, and proper benching (see Appendix D) should be
maintained into medium dense to dense sedimentary bedrock materials at all times during grading
operations. All colluvial soils should be removed during benching operations and can be utilized as
fill materials.
Prior to placement of fill materials, the exposed earth materials should be scarified a minimum of
12-inches bgs, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a minimum of 90-percent of the
maximum dry density (as determined by ASTM D-1557).
Expansion Index Testin2
Expansion index testing was performed on a representative on-site soil sample collected during our
investigation. The results, which are listed in Appendix C, indicate that the expansion testing
indicated an expansion index of 8 or a very low expansion potential. Expansion testing should also
be performed on imported soils prior to their approval as structural fill material.
Sulfate Content
Based on our sulfate content testing, it is anticipated that, from a corrosivity standpoint, Type II
Portland Cement can be used for construction. Laboratory analysis results indicated that parts-per-
rnillion (ppm) soluble sulfates were non-detected (NO), which equates to a negligible sulfate
exposure (Table 19-A-4, 1997 UBC). Sulfate content testing should be conducted within the
building pads at the completion of grading and on imported soils prior to their approval as structural
fill material.
Lateral Load Resistance
The following parameters should be considered for lateral loads against permanent structures
founded on fill materials compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Soil engineering
parameters for imported soil may vary.
.H.E. Soils Company
W.o. NO. 277101.00
"1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Brian Erde1yi
May 21, 2001
Page 7
EQuivalent Fluid Pressure for Level Backfill
Active: 35 pcf
Passive: 466 pcf
Coefficient of friction (concrete on soil): 0.35
If passive earth pressure and friction are combined to provide required resistance to lateral forces,
the value of the passive pressure should be reduced to two thirds of the above recommendations.
These values may be increased by one third when considering short-term loads such as wind or
seisrnic forces.
Allowable Safe Bearin!!: Capacitv
An allowable safe bearing capacity of 1,600 poWlds per square foot (pst) may be used for design of
continuous footings that maintain a minimum width of 12-inches and a minimum depth of at least
12-inches below the lowest adjacent grade and fOWlded a minimum of 12-inches into compacted
fill materials. The bearing value may be increased by 10% for each additional foot of depth and/or
width to a maximum of 2,400 psf. The bearing value may be increased by one-third for seisrnic or
other temporary loads.
Total differential settlements Wlder static loads of footings supported on compacted fill materials
and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed about 1/2 to 3/4 of 1 inch
for 40-ft. These settlements are expected to occur primarily during construction. Soil engineering
parameters for imported soil may vary.
Foundation System Desil!:ll
Where the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed structures may bear on continuous and
isolated footings. For one-story houses the footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches,
and be placed at least 12-inches below the lowest final adjacent grade. For two-story houses the
footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches and placed at least 18-inches below the lowest
final adjacent grade. As a minimum, all footings should have one No.4 reinforcing bar placed at
the top and bottom of the footing.
Concrete slabs, in moisture sensitive areas, should be Wlderlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a
minimum of six rnil polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed. A 2-inch layer of clean sand
should be placed above the moisture barrier. The 2-inches of clean sand is recommended to protect
the visqueen moisture barrier and aid in the curing of the concrete.
The structural engineer should design footings in accordance with the anticipated loads, the soil
parameters given, and the existing soil conditions.
.H.E. Soils Company
W.o. NO. 277101.00
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Brian Erdelyi
May 21, 2001
Page 8
Utility Trench Backfill
Utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry
density determined in laboratory testing by the ASTM D 1557 test method. It is our opinion that
utility trench backfill consisting of on-site or approved sandy soils can best be placed by mechanical
compaction to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density. All trench excavations
should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA standards as a minimum.
Surface Drainaee
Surface drainage should be directed away from fOWldations of buildings or appurtenant structures.
All drainage should be directed toward streets or approved permanent drainage devices. Where
landscaping and planters are proposed adjacent to fOWldations, subsurface drains should be
provided to prevent ponding or saturation of fOWldations by landscape irrigation water.
Construction Monitorine
Continuous observation and testing Wlder the direction of qualified soils engineers and/or
engineering geologists is essential to verify compliance with the recommendations of this report
and to confirm that the geotechnical conditions fOWld are consistent with this investigation.
Construction monitoring should be conducted by a qualified engineering geologist/soil engineer at
the following stages of construction:
. During grading.
. During excavation of footings for fOWldations.
. During utility trench backfill operations.
. When any Wlusual conditions are encoWltered during grading.
Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, Wlder
similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists practicing in this or
similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and
professional advice included in this report.
The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of the
entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between test locations.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a
properly can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works
of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards
may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.
.H.E. Soils Company
W.o. NO. 277101.00
<\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Brian Erdelyi
May 21,2001
Page 9
Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside
our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions a..-:l
identified.
Very truly yours,
T.R.E. Soils Company
o P. F~~
P ect GeologIst
hn . einhart, RCE 23464
Registration Expires 12/31/01
~~~
~arrison
Project Manager
JPF/JTR/JRH:jek
ACCOMPANYING MAPS. ILLUSTRATIONS. AND APPENDICES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map (2,000-scale)
Plate 1- Limited Geotechnical Map (40-scale)
APPENDIX A - References
APPENDIX B - Exploratory Trench Logs
APPENDIX C - Laboratory Test Results
APPENDIX D - Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
.H.E. Soils Company
W.o. NO. 277101.00
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
References
T.H.E. Soils Company
W.O. NO. 277101.00
\\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
Coduto, Don, P., 1994, "Fo:.mdation Design Principles and Practice", Prentice Hall, pages 637-655;
California Division of Mines & Geology, 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California", Special Publication 117;
California Division of Mines & Geology, 1996, "Probabilistic Seisrnic Hazard Assessment for the
State of California", DMG Open File Report 96-08, USGS Open File Report 96-706;
Department of Water Resources, August 1971, "Water Wells and Springs in the Westem Part of the
Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Riverside and San Diego CoWlties, California", Bulletin
No. 91-20;
Hart, E.W. and Bryant, William, A., 1997 (revised), "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California",
California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42;
Houston, S. 1., 1992, "Partial Wetting Collapse Predictions", Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Expansive Soils, VoL!, pages 302-306;
International Conference of Building Officials (lCBO), February 1998, "Maps of Known Active
Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada to be Used with 1997
Uniform Building Code" prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines
and Geology;
International Conference ofBuilding Officials, 1997, "Uniform Building Code";
Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology,
Geologic Data Map No.1;
Kennedy, Michael P., 1977, "Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in
Southern Riverside COWlty, California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report
131;
Ploessel, M.R, Slosson, J.E., September, 1974, Repeatable High GroWld Accelerations from
Earthquakes, California Geology;
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Expansive Soils, Volume I, "FoWldations on
Hydro-collapsible Soils, Pages 256-261;
Rancho California Water District, March 1984, "Water Resources Master Plan";
Rodgers, Thomas H., 1965 (fifth printing 1985), Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet",
California Division of Mines & Geology, Scale: 1 :250,000.
.H.E. Soils Company
W.O. NO. 277101.00
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
Exploratory Trench Logs
.H.E. Soils Company
W.O. NO. 277101.00
,1>
lOGGED BY: JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE NO. S90l EXTENDAHOE WI DATE OBSERVED:05l02l01
18" BUCKET
ELEVATION: 1132 LOCATION: SEEGEOTECHN~AL
~
~p ~ w wl: >'"
m~ ~ "'IE ~~ rEST PIT NO. 1
~ - ~ h~ h w~ SOIL TEST
~w DESCRIPTION
~ ~ a: ~z
z ~ zw
U ~ m -a
V_ COLLUVIUM MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE,
l I '" FINE SILlY SAND (SM): YELLOW BROWN, DR'.', peORL Y GRADED, FINE GRAINED, NUMEROUS DIRECT SHEAR, SIEVE ANALYSIS,
I FINE ROOTS EXPANSION INOES. SOLUBLE SULFATE
I~ I CON'lENT
I- -^ PAUBA FORMATION
"- $IL TV SAND (8M): DARK BROWN. MOIST. FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, WELL GRADED,
,
1- ~ROU~INTPORES - - - -
AT 5' PORES BECOMING LESS NUMEROUS, MATERIAL BECOMING INCREASINGLY DENSE
I: TOTAL DEPTH" 8.0
NO GROUNDWATER
NO CAVING
-
I:
-
1-
-
I~
-
I:
l-
I:
l-
I-
I-
~
I-
I-
I-
It;.
I
I;
IJO B NO:277101.00 lOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE: T-1 \tIt
I
OGGED BY: JPF-O~--~El-;~; OF EXCAVATION: CASE NO. 590L l:XTENDAHOE WI
18" DUCKET
ELEVATION: 1140
I
140
I JOB NO:277101.00
I
~ wOO
Q. c:~
Bill
~ ""
i 28
~!O:
~K
"'~
~z
li~
COLLUVIUM
TEST PIT NO. 2
DESCRIPTION
SlL lY SAND (8M): DARK C'..r~ y CROWN. f!N~ TO C':lARSE GRAIN~D, DRY, NUMEROUS PIN
POINT PORES AND FINE ROOTS
PAUBA FORMATION
SAND (SM): YELLOW BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, WELL GRADED,
DENSE, MINOR PORES IN TOP 1', BECOMING DENSER WITH DEPTH, WEAKLY CEMENTED
AT S' PORES BECOMING LESS NUMEROUS, MATERIAL BECOMING INCREASINGLY DENSE
AT 8' BECOMING MOIST
TOTAL DEPTH = 10.0'
NO GROUNDWATER
LOG OF TEST PIT
DATE OBSERVED:05l02!01
----,
LOCATION: SEEGEOTECKN~AL
",^P
FIGURE: T-2
saL TEST
\-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results
.H.E. Soils Company
W.O. NO. 277101.00
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LABORATORY TESTING
A. Classification
Soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System.
Classification was supplemented by index tests, such as particle size analysis and
moisture content.
B. Expansion Index
An expansion Index test was performed on a representative sample of the on-site soils
remolded and tested Wlder a surcharge of 144Ib/fi, in accordance with Uniform Building
Code Standard No. 29-2. The test results are presented on Figure C-l, Table I.
C. Maximum Densitv/Optimum Moisture Content
A maximum density/optimum moisture content relationship was determined for a typical
sample of the on-site soils. The laboratory standard used was ASTM 1557-Method A.
The test results are summarized on Figure C-l, Table II, and presented graphically on
Figure C-2.
D. Particle Size Determination
A particle size determination, consisting of mechanical analyses (sieve), was performed
on a representative sample of the on-site soils in accordance with ASTM D 422-63. Test
results are displayed graphically on Figure C-3.
E. Direct Shear
A direct shear strength test was performed on a representative sample of the on-site
Wldisturbed soils. To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the samples were
saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which permitted the samples to
absorb moisture while preventing volume change. GeoSoils, Inc. of Carlsbad, California
performed testing. Test results are graphically displayed on Figure C-4.
F. Sulfate Content
Sulfate content tests were performed on representative samples of the on-site soils. The
laboratory standard used was California 417 A. The test results are presented on Figure
C-l, Table III.
.H.E. Soils Company
W.o. NO. 277101.00
\'\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE I
EXPANSION INDEX
-- . .-. -
TEST LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL
T-I@Oto4-ft 8 Very Low
TABLE II
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OYfIMUM MOISTURE RELATIONSHIP
ASTM D 1557
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE
TEST LOCATION (pet) (%)
T-I @Oto4-ft 127.1 10.2
TABLEm
SULFATE CONTENT
TEST LOCATION SULFATE CONTENT
T-l @ 0-4' ND (non-detected)
Figure C-l
.H.E. Soils Company
W.O. NO. 277101.00
\~
4
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
135
...
0
Q. 125
.
:J"l
+'
00
c
IIJ
."
120
:J"l
L
0
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM
MOISTURE
130
\.
"
"
\.
I\.
\.
\.
, .... I\.
, ~
,
.. ~
'\.
\ \.
~
"
"
'\
'\
'\.
I"
I'\.
"-
,
ZAV for
Sp. G. =
2.65
115
110
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
20 22.5
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-91 Method A, Modified
Oversize correction applied to final results
Elev/
Depth
0-4
Classification
USCS AASHTO
Nat.
Moist.
% > % <
No . 4 No . 200
Sp.G.
LL
PI
SM
9.1 %
2.6S
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dr~ densit~ = 127.1 pcf
Optimum moisture = 10.2 %
DARK GREY
SILTY SAND
Remarks:
Project No.: 277101.00
Project: ERDELYI
Location: T-1
Date: 5-04-2001
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE
.- ~~. -. .'-.-- '. '- ~ ,
Fig. No. C-2 \0"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I T.H.E. SOilS CO.
I
100
90
80
70
a::
W 60
Z
u::
!z 50
W
()
a::
W40
a.
30
20
10
% COBBLES
SIEVE
SIZE
3/4 in.
1/2 in.
3/8 in.
#4
#10
#30
#50
#100
#200
Particle Size Distribution Report
~
"
~ "C:!
... N:L
II: Ii
II: I:
-I:
.. (no specification provided)
~
rTI
II:
II:
100
PERCENT
FINER
65.2
58.4
55.6
52.5
46.4
33.5
23.0
12.1
5.5
Sample No.: T-I
Location:
,~ ~ ~
... ~ g 5:
: I:
I:
I:
: f\1: :
, ,
, , ,
, , ,
'N:
% GRAVEL
SPEC.'
PERCENT
I
o
0;
I:
I:
, I:
I:
,
(;0....
i'I",
Ii
Ii
Ii
Ii
10
PASS?
(X=NO)
a ~ ~
~
:1
, ,
, , 11
, :1
, :1 ,
Iii 1'-.1.1: ,
, ,
II: \
:
:\"
'\.
~ :
1
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND
47.0
Source of Sample:
1000
PL=
085=
030= 0.468
CU= It3.28
USCS= 8M
1000
I CO.", ~a'"
Project: T-1@04
Pro'ect No: 277101.00
8 ~ 8
0; " ~
0.1
Soil Description
Atterbera limits
LL=
% SILT
Coefficients
060= 14.2
015= 0.184
Cc= 0.12
Classification
AASHTO=
Remarks
0.01
0.001
% CLAY
5.5
PI=
050= 3.12
010= 0.125
Date: 5-7-01
Elev.lDepth: 0-4
Plate C-3
1P
~
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SE'Nr 3\': GEOSOILS, HlC.;
7GOg3i0915;
MNI."i4-01 13:45j
PAGE' 3
"~~__.'.I>..'S'Il'r.
---
3.Oeo
2,500
2,000
l
'"
b
'"
w
I!: 1.500
'"
lr
~
I
'"
'/''/'
1,000 .
500
~
~
//
'/
o
soo
1.000
2.500
';000
1.500
2,000
NORMAL PReSSURE, Plf
Sample
. 177101
177101
DepthJEI.
0.0
0.0
Primary/Residual Shear
Primary Shear
Residual Sheer
t. Me%.
114A 10.2
114.4 10.2
k",ple Type
Remolded
Remolded
c
161
197
.
30
30
Note: Sample IMUndated priOr to lesUng
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Project: T.H.E Solis Co.
Number. 2498-A-SC
Date: May 2001 Figure: C-4
. GeoSoils, Inc.
5741 Palmer Way
~ ~lIL Carfabad, CA 92008
"V'"\:IFr Telephone: (760) 438-3155
Fax: (760) 931-0915
'2^
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.H.E. Soils Company
APPENDIX D
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
W.O. NO. 277101.00
~~
I
I
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
TIt"", ,!,ecilicatjorn pr=rt T.H.E. Soils Company, standard recommcrulatiorn for grading and earthwork.
I
No c:eviatioo from these specifications should be pmnitted unless speciticaUy superseded in the geotechnical rq>ort of the projed. or by written oonummication signed by the
Soils Consultant. Evaluations perfonned by the Soils Consultant during the course of grading may iesuh in subsequent recommendations whid! could super.>ede these
speci1iCltions or the reconunendations of the geotedmical report.
t.O GENERAL
I
1.1
I
1.2
I
1.3
1.4
I
I
I.S
I
1.6
I
1.7
SITE PREP AHA TION
A final rqJort shall be issued by the Soils Crosuhant attesting to the Contrador's conformance with these specifications.
I
2.0
The Soils Consultant is the Owner's or Developer's representative on the project. For the purpose Qfthese specifications. observations by the Soils
Coosuftant include observations by the Soils Engineer, Soils Engineer, Engineering Geologist., and other.> employed by and responsible to the Soils
Consultant.
All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork perfonned on the project shall be conducted and directed by the Contractor under the allOW1Ulce or
supervblon of1he Soils Consuhant.
The Contractor should be responsible for the safay of the projed. and satisfactory compldion of all grading. During gradin!J.. the Centrador shall
ranain acoessible.
Prior to the commencement of grading. the Soils Consuhant shall be employed for the purpose of providing field. laboratory, and office services for
conformance with the recommendations of the geotedmical report and these specifications. It will be nece;sary that the Soils Consultant provide
adequate testing and observations so that he may provide an opinion as to dttermine that the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the
responsibility of the Contradorto assist the Soils Coosuhant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his
penonnelaocordingly.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the Centrador to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with
applicable grading codes., agency ordinances.. these specifications. and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Soils Consuhant
Wlsatisfactory conditions, such as questionable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate oompadion. advef'Se weather, etc., are resulting in a quality
of work less than required in these specifications. the Soils Consuhant will be empowaed to reject the work and reconunend that construdion be
stopped until the oonditions are redified.
It is the Contradot's responsibility to pro\ide safe access to the Soils Consultant for testing and/or grading observation purposes. This may require
the excavation of test pits and/or the relocation of grading equipmmt..
2.1
I
2.2
I
2.3
I
I
2.4
2.5
I
All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off.site. This removal shall be observed by the Soils Consuhant and concluded prior to
fill placement.
Soil,. alluvium, or bedrock materials ddemtined by the Soils Consuhant as being unsuitable for placement in compaded fills shall be removed from
the site or used in open areas as deterntined by the Soils Consultant Any material inoorporated as a part of a compacted fill must be approved by
the Soils Consultant priorto fill placement.
After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced andJor bladed by the Contrador until it is Wliform and free trom
ruts, hollows, hununocks. or other Wle\'en features which may prevent Wlifonn compaction.
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moistun; mixed as required, and compad.ed as specified. lfthe scarified zone is
greatf2" than twelve inches in dqrth, the excess shall be nmoved and placed in lifts not to exceed six inches or less.
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be observed, tested, and approved by the Soils Consuhant.
Any undergrOlUld strudures or cavities such as cesspools, cisterns. mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks. wells, pipe lines. or others are to be removed
or treated in a mannt2" presaibed by the Soils Consuhant.
In cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluvium or Wlweathered bedrock materials, in order to provide Wliform bearing
conditions. the bedrock portion of the lot e~alding a minimum of 5 feet outside of building lines shall be o\'erexca\'atoo a minimum of 3 fat and
replaced with compacted fill. Greater overexcavation could be required as determined by Soils Consultant. T~pical dd-ails are attadled.
I
3.1
3.0 CO:\IPACTED FILLS
I
I
Material to be placed as fill shan be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and shall be approved by the Soils Consuttant. Soils of
poor gradation, expansion, or strength d1.araderistics shan be placed in areas designated by Soils Consultant or shall be mixed with other soils to
s~'e as satisfactory fill material, as direc100 by the Soils Consultant.
1P
I
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Pege 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
4.0 em SLOPES
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Rock fragments less than six i"1ches in diamaa- may be utilized in the fill, provided:
They are nol placed or nested in concentrated pockets.
There i:; a sufficimt amount of arproved soil to surround the rocks.
The distribution of rocks is supervised by the Soils Consultant.
Rocks greater than twelve inches in diameter shall be takm otf.sit.e, or placed in aco:miance with the recommendations of the Soils Consultant in
areas de>ignated as suitable for rock. disposal. (Atypical daail for Rod. Disposal is attadJ.ed.)
Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered Wlsuitable shall nol be used in the compacted fill.
Rqlresartative samples of materials to be utilized as compaa.ed fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Consuhant to ddmnine their
physical properties. If any mataial other than that previously tested is mc:ountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be
conducted by the Soils Consultant before being approved as fill material.
Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness
to obtain a Wliformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and oompaded on a horizontal plane, Wlless otherwise approved by the Soils Consultant.
If the moisture content or relative compaction varies from that required by the Soils Consultant, the Contrador shall revvork the fill until it is
approved by the Soils Consuhant
Eadllayer shall be compaded to at least 90 percmt of the maximum density in compliance with the testing mdhod specified by the controlling
governmental agency or ASTM lS57-70, whidleverapplies.
If oompad.ion to a lesser percmtage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soil condition,
the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan and/or appropriate refermce made to the area
in the geot.edmical report.
All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil. colluvium., alluvium,. or creep material, into sOWld bedrock or frrrn material where the slope
receiving fill exceeds a ratio offive horizontal to one vertical or in accordance with the recomnu.fldations of the Soils Consultant.
The key for side hill fiUs shall be a minimum width of 15 fed. within bedrock. or fino materials, Wlless otherwise specified in the geotedmical report.
(S.., daail attached)
Subdrainage devices shall be construded in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling govemmmtal agency, or with the recommendations of
the Soils Consultant. (fypical Canyon Subdrain daails are attached.)
The contrador will be required to oltain a minimum relative compadion of at least 90 percmt out to the fmish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses,
and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either over building the slope and cutting back to the compaded core, or by direct compadion of the
slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure, which produces the required compadion approved by the Soils Consultant.
All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other m<ihods specified in !he Soils report.
FiU-over-cut slopes shalt be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or fmn materials, and the transition shall be
strippecl of all soil prior to placing fill. (See attadted detail.)
The Soils Consuhant shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals exceeding five fed.
If any conditions not. anticipated in the geotedmical rqJort such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confmed strata of a potentially adverse
nature. unfavorably mdined bedding. joints or fault planes encoWltered during grading. these conditions shall be analyzed by the Soils ConsultanL
and reconunendations shall be made to mitigate these problems. (Typical daails for stabilization of a portion of a cut slope are attached.)
Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at
the top of the slope.
Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report" no cut slopes shall be excavated higj1er or steeper than that allowed by the ordinano:s of
controlling governmental agencies.
Drainag..: taraces shall be constructoo in complianc.: with th..: ordinances of controlling govemmmtal agmcie:s. or with the recommmdations of th~
Soils Consuhant.
~
I
~dard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page 3
I
I
5.1
TRENCH IIACKFlLLS
Trendt excavation shall be inspeded prior to strudure placemart for compd.ent bottom.
5.0
I
5.2
5.3
I
S.4
I
S.S
S.6
I
Trmdl excav.,tions for vtility pipes shatl be backfilled under the supervision of the Soils Consuhnnt.
After the utility pipe has be.;n laid, the space WIder and around the pipe shall be backfilled with clem sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at
least one fool over the top of the pipe. The taIld backfill shall be Wlifonnly jetted into place be1erethc oontrolled backfill is placed ova-the sand
The on-site materials, or ether soils approved by the Soils Consultant, shan be wat.eced and mixed, as n~ry. prior to placemtnt in lifts over the
sand backfill.
The controlled backfill shall be compadedto at least. 90 percmt ofihemaximum laboratory density, as determined by the ASTM 01557.70 or the
controlling goverrunental agency.
Field density t.e:sts and inspection of the backfill procedures shall be made by the Soils Consuhant during backfilling to see that proper moisture
cootcnt and unifonn compaction is being maintained The ccntraci.or shall provide test holes and exploratOl}' pits as required by the Soils Consultant
to enable sampling and testing.
I
6.1
6.0 GRADING CONTROL
Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Consultant during the progress of grading.
6.2
I
6.3
I
6.4
I
In gmmd.. dcnsitytcti should be made at intervals not exceeding two fed. offill heiFJd. or every SOO cubic yards offill placed. This criteria will
vary dqJcnding on soil <XJIlditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verifY thai. the
required oompadion is being adlieved.
Dmsity tests should also be made on the native surface material to receive fill. as required by the Soils Consultant.
All clean~ut,. processed gro\U1d to received fill. key excavations, subdrains. and rock disposals should be inspected and approved by the Soils
Consultant prioc to placing any fill. h shall be the Contrad.or's responsibility to notify the Soils Consuhant whm such areas will be ready for
inspection.
7.1
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
7.0
I
7.2
I
7.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
Erosion control measures,. whm necessary, shall be provided by the Contrad.or during grading and prior to the complaion and construction of
pennanmt drainage controls.
Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Soils Consuhant, no further filling or excavating. including that necessary for
footing; fO\U1dations.. large tree wells., retaining walls. or ((her features shan be performed without. the approval of the Soils Consultant.
Care shall be takm by the Conlrad..or during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terrac:es, intercq:ltor swales, or other devic:es of
pennanmt nature on or adjacent to the property.
'VfJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SIDE HILL
CUT PAD DETAIL
-
NATURAL...... ~ ~
GROUND :>--
~
~
-
--
.....
"
"
"
./
OVER EXCAVATE
"
./
FINISHED CUT PAD
SUSDRAIN AND KEY WIDTH REQUIRSMENTS
DETERMINED SASED ON EXPOSED SUSSURFACE
CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERSURDEN
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
1
I
I
I
I
ROCK
DISPOSAL DETAIL
FINISH GRADE
-----------------
--------------------
-----------------
_-:-:-:-:::_ ~:--:-=-:--;---------:~-:::_:-:::COMP ACTED :....-----..:
---------< 10 MIN. -------~ F --:...-:...---...:
----------=~----------- ILL
_-_-::::::~~~~~Ilfji~~~~~~iiiiiii~iiil~c
. 7-~:1===~=~=~~fi~=~=~n=~~~~~~=~=ll~~=~;~:-
--10' MIN.;-- ----------------- -1:------:-...1:-----
_-_-_-_-..::.,_..:.2"_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_4' MIN. ::...t..:::.-=15' MIN -*---.:--:-
-----:-:r....,.--------------- -.,..-- .-..,---
-------:...v~~-----------------'--------~--
::=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=t=~:j:~3=3==:====E====== _ ~==:=:3==:=:=:=:::~-:-:----
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-c_-_-_-_-_-.:_-L-_-_-_-.:_-_-__:...-_-_-_-_ ...J - - - - ---
------7----------------------
~--------7"------------:...---------:...-_-_-_-__:...-_-_-__: --
.::--.::.::;.;>----:..:-----------...: OVERS IZE..- - --
WINDROW!
SLOPE
FACE
GRANULAR SOIL'
. To fHT voids,
densified by
flooding
PROFILE
ALONG WINDROW
1-"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
-I
J
l
I
1
I
J
TRANSITION LOT DETAILS
CUT-FILL LOT
NATURAL'GROUND
t_
--
--
- ..-
..-
-
--
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR J
r-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY __..J
f THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
CUT LOT
NATLJRAi GROUND
. 1-
--
--
-
-
---
-
--
--
-
-
_ -.- REMOVE
_ - - ..........UNSUITABLE _____ _-
_- - MATERIAL _
.. - ~-~-
:::-=-:-:-=-=-:-=-:::::-=--:...-----------:...---:...:,..-..?::" ----------------T-----------------------:...-
;-:-::- - - --:=--- '/' V\ /^
.. COMP ACTED :...-_-:...- ~_-_-_ \.
---=..::-C.J~;.:~~1 ' OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
......
......
.-
--
.-
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR ./
r-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY --.J
f THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
NOTE:
Deeoer overexcavation and recomoaction shall be performed
if de!ermined "0 be necesscry by the geotec!o"iccl consultant.
-v'b
----~=~*==~===~======~--~
------~-------~
------,--------
----------------
--=-::::=-=-=-=-=-t-=-=-=---w---- -
. ---------------------"1----------_-./::
KEY I': _ _-::::-:-=-=-=-=-=-:::-=-=-=-7-::::::------ -
.IDE~TH-L -,;--------:.2% --=f-----R
.. '-+-=L ;.r ..:j
t---~ -'2'" .,-.,----------------:.3
--_-_---- ,0 MI!::.-.-----:..r.
I EouIP''':Ni~~. ~~~I~ y 15 r~T ' i
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
121 MIN.
I
I
I
'I
I
I ·
I ·
I ·
I
I ·
I
OUTLET PIPES
4" ,D I'Ionperforated Pipe,
100' Max. O.c. Horizontally,
30' Max. a.c. Vertically
OR L 15' I
o ET AI L I~~MIN'->I..[
~_. ------
~-:-::E=~!~~~lt-T-;,Lt BL:;'
- -------.c: -,0" MIN
--------------- BACK "UT .
-------- ~
_-=-===~~~~- -'~ I: I OR FLA TTER
-- BENCHING
SLOPE BUTTRESS
REPLACEMENT FILL
SUBDRAIN
SEE ALTERNATES A & E
AL TERNA TE A
6" MIN. OVE?LA.?
POSITlVE SEAL ~
SHOULD aE V
PAOVtDEO ~
AT Tl1E JOiNT # ~.
, .
S't MrN "'" ' . ..
'__1..;:, r ...
'.
OUTLET .....-:;~
PiPE"'"""""".....;
TEMPORARY
I FILL LEVEL
-::'::'-:.11:== RECOMPACTEO FILL
_':::--==:~/'LJ. = =:
...~~.:: 0 ~IN. SELECT aEOOING
- - - .=..L BACKFILL
"J) 11.:''1. NONPETlFORA TED
PIPE
I~"MIN.
GRAV=L OR
( APPROVeO
". ~!:lurJ AL5NT
'?
MIRA;I 1410 FIL TE::t
FABRIC OR APPRovED
EQUIVALENT
DETAil A-A'
AL TERNA TE B
NOTES:
FILTER MATERIAL:
Filter material shall be
Closs 2 permeable material
per State of California
Standard Specifications,
or approved alternate.
Class 2 grading as fallows:
Fill blanket, back cut, key width and
key depth are subject to field change,
per report/plans.
Key heel sub crain, blanket drain, or
vertical drain may be required at the
discretion of the geotechnical consultant.
SUBDRAIN INST ALLA TION - Subdrain
pipe shall be installed with perforations
cawn or, at locations designated by
the geotechnical consultant, shall be
nonperforated pipe.
SUBDRAIN TYPE - Subdrain type shall
be ASTM 02751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1527,
Schedule 40 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene
(ABS) or ASTM 03034 SOR 23.5 or ASTM
01785, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic
In"""" ....:_..... ....... ~......r..."'arl onlli,,~lan+
PERCENT PASSING
SIEVE SIZE
100
90-100
40-100
25 -40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
I"
3/4"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No. 30
No. 50
No. 200
1;0..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
BENCHING DETA!lS
~
/-~-_-:...-----------------..:
-4=~==~~~~~~~=~=~==~
---------------------
-----------------~~----
__-=~========j:.~~===~~i=:_~=:;:;~
_-_--_-_-__ ___-_--=-_-_-:.:-~___- -- --- -- -- -- -f~'
PROJECTED PLANE ---=-=-=-=-=-::::-::::;:;-~1---:~~ /8'^'
I to I maximum from toe -------------7-?--------;...-~- '(,,--
of slope to cpproved ground _-~-=-=~:;:::_:=-;=--=:=- \ I
__-.:.:-_-...;:0__-_-_-_-... ! /. REMOVE.
~ ---2.-.;::::.-------.,:=...'""...:-- UNSUITABLE
---..?---...:------./:---- "1A-;::RIAL
__ ...:_=~t?i~==~;MIN.~~ " 1-.
/I, -;L:---------- BENCH
. - ....:;.;-~_-_-_-_-...:__-_-...:_ BENCH HEIGHT
- _-:::-=-:::Z%MIN.::::-=-=- (typical) VARIES
------=,;;;,----
T ^".... /.~
2' MIN. I IS' MIN. I
KEY t'LOWEST BENCH "1
DEPTH (KEY)
Fill SLOPE
NATURAL
GROUND \
^'
_-= COMPACTED :-=-=-:;;=-::-
Fill OVER CUT SLOPE ---------lFILL.:---:;:::-..=::----~
--=-::::-=-=-::::-=-::':;..-~_-:::::-=::::-- ..?':
--=:~=:~-==--~-~------~~-::-
_-___-....::.--::-=_-_-___~-~-_ I
--..,..----------- "
REMOVE. NATURALz~-=-=-=-::?=_S ,,,,( ~
U~;~~TR~~tE '\ GROUN~ '\.- - ~----:-:..=---;:-----~r. 4' MIN: I BiNCH
_ - __-.;;...-=-_-_-_-_ BEN.cH-"i HEIGl;iT
_ \- - ~::--:2%MIN.-:::: (typlca!)1 VARIES
_- - 1
-- ......-_......-~~ 15IMIN.~
.... - LOWEST BENCH
/"
....
CUT
FACE
To be constructed prior
to fill placement
....
....
NOTES:
LOWEST BENCH: Depth and width subject to field change
based CCI consultant's inspection.
S;.;~aRAI~JAGE:. E:,k ':::.;.,. mer be required at the
jiscret.an or the geotecnnical consultant.
1P
I
I
-I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
[I
I
1
1
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
~"~ NATURAL GROUND
. REMOVE
_-_ UNSUITABLE
~~-~-- -----....::----- --/-- M^TERIAL
~-~----------------------------- -- ~ -
-l::"-"'~:::::::::~COM'ACi,,,-ii~';-:::;::;::::;:-:~~ _ /
/ --.......----~-----:------:--:. -- .:--.:----.:----.:---7~-
BENCH ING J . ---..:-",---:::.. -:--=_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-.:_-.:_-_=-=.:~--:.:;c-----
- E-=-===-=~~=-=-;::~=-==-==-::-~=--~~ '
--,----------------LC-~
-_-_O>,.-~-------------:...--------- /' _-_
~---- ----------- --
~~~r"" ~-------------~
,-_-_"':::-_-s::_~'_'_ SUBDRAIN TRENCH
. ' SEE AL TERNA TES A&B
SUBDRAIN Perforated Pipe Surrounded With
ALTERNATE A: Filter Material
FILTER MATERIAL
3
9 ft. 1ft.
FILTER MATERIAL:
Filter materiel shall be
CIC1S 2 permeable material
per State of California
Standard Specifications,
or approved alternate.
Class 2 grading os (ollows:
SIEVE SIZE
PERCENT PASSING
+ COVER
6" MIN. --------- ,~
..... .~.' /"",.
:'.". ::: :.... s
'. .." ".
I"
3/4"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No. 30
No. SO
No. 200
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
BEDDING
NOTE:
In addition to the wrapped
grovel, outlet portion of the
subdrain should be' equipped
with Q minimum of 10 feet
long perforated pipe con-
nected to Q nonperforated pipe
having Q minimum of 5 feet in
length inside the wrapped
grove I.
. SUBDRAIN INST ALLA TION - Subdrain pipe sholl be installed with perforations down or,
at locations designated by the geotechnical consultant, shall be nonperforated pipe.
. SUBORAIN TYPE - Subdrain type shall be ASTM 02751, SOR 23.5 or ASTM 01527, Schedule 40 '?'
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) or ASTM 03034 SOR 23.5 or ASTM 01785, Schedule 40
Polyvinal Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe or approved equivalanl
.
4" MIN.
Alternate A-2
AI!ernate A-1
PERFORATED PIPE
6" OMIN.
SUBDRAIN 1 1/2" Gravel Wrapped
AL TERNA TE B: in Filter Fabric
II-
MIR:'FI 140 FILTER
FABRIC OR
APPROVED
EQUIV ALENT
I Y2" MIN. GRA VEL OR
APPROVED EQUWALENT
3
9 ft. 1ft.
B-2